# Sam Smith Q&A in the Tribune - Updated & Merged



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Sam Smith Q&A in the Tribune - Updated*

It's a pretty interesting Q and A column up now at chicagosports.com.

A couple of samples:



> *Sam, where would you guess the next Bulls All-Star is currently playing? In college, in Europe, in the NBA, or on the Bulls? --Dean Russ, Palatine, Ill.*
> 
> *I've been accused of bias on this one, but I truly believe it is Kirk Hinrich*. He is as close to untouchable as anyone the Bulls have and several coaches around the NBA have asked me about whether the Bulls would trade him. I said no. There's by far the most interest in him among the Bulls players because a point guard is so valuable. After Dwyane Wade, Chauncey Billups, Gilbert Arenas and perhaps Vince Carter, Hinrich could grab an All-Star spot if the Bulls become a better team. Though I don't see a Bulls All-Star until at least 2008 since even if they get the overall No. 1 draft pick, I don't see anyone in this draft as an All-Star for several years.


and:



> *How do you think Paxson reacts to your columns? When making your trade suggestions, what type of background research do you undertake? How do Bulls players responded to your suggestions and criticisms? --Monsoor Khadir, Ames, Iowa*
> 
> *Not always well, as he's never been in position to be offered suggestions on his job in public before and no one really likes that. But that's sports. He's taken it better of late and the fact we've known each other for 20 years and he knows so many of my mistakes makes him feel better*. Although many doubt it, I never try to come up with a trade suggestion that won't benefit both teams, makes sense to both and works according to the salary cap. Anyone can say, "Give us LeBron for Pargo and Nocioni." They've got to make sense for both sides, in personnel or economics, before I'll offer it.
> 
> As for the players, they understand better than the public and I've never had one get upset with me. They seem to enjoy the possibilities and fantasy aspect of it. Team executives and coaches generally get more upset since they feel it distracts the players. But the players understand better that it's all part of the job description. And more of my suggestions than you might think have even come from players wondering if they might go somewhere else.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Sam has a Q and A up now*

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...msmith,1,5421347.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


well thankfully they don't have marcia doing it. i don't think she really even likes the bulls!


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: Sam has a Q and A up now*



mizenkay said:


> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...msmith,1,5421347.story?coll=cs-home-headlines
> 
> 
> well thankfully they don't have marcia doing it. i don't think she really even likes the bulls!


Fixed my quotes, but dropped the link. Bad me. 

I think Marlene is auditioning to be part of the NY tabloid press, myself, although there are good writers in those papers despite the headlines.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Sam has a Q and A up now*

*They will not tolerate sloth in any form.*


i loved that.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Sam has a Q and A up now*



mizenkay said:


> *They will not tolerate sloth in any form.*
> 
> 
> i loved that.



Ha, weird, I was just about to make a joke about that myself. What'd sloth do to Pax to get him so upset?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Sam has a Q and A up now*



mizenkay said:


> *They will not tolerate sloth in any form.*


Quote of the week.

:laugh:


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

*Re: Sam has a Q and A up now*



mizenkay said:


> *They will not tolerate sloth in any form.*



:laugh: :laugh:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Sam has a Q and A up now*



mizenkay said:


> well thankfully they don't have marcia doing it. i don't think she really even likes the bulls!


Oh, I don't doubt that she likes the Bulls. I'm just not sure she knows what sport they play.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

*Re: Sam has a Q and A up now*



> This is sort of an obscure question, but I cannot recall seeing Tyson Chandler dunk a basketball with one hand in any game. Can he dunk with one hand? If so, why doesn't he ever do it in a game?



I wonder if tyson somehow heard/read this. Last night he had an impressive one handed dunk, which he never did before.


----------



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

*Re: Sam has a Q and A up now*



> Although many doubt it, I never try to come up with a trade suggestion that won't benefit both teams, makes sense to both and works according to the salary cap. Anyone can say, "Give us LeBron for Pargo and Nocioni." They've got to make sense for both sides, in personnel or economics, before I'll offer it.


I feel a follow up question is now needed for Sam. Can he now explain why he pushed so strongly for the Jalen Rose trade.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

*Re: Sam has a Q and A up now*

Poor sloth!

And did you guys notice, for that 2nd q, sam never answered "what kind of background research do you do when making your trade predictions."

LMAO


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Sam has a Q and A up now*



L.O.B said:


> I feel a follow up question is now needed for Sam. Can he now explain why he pushed so strongly for the Jalen Rose trade.


He also was the first guy to float the Brand-Chandler deal, which, combined with a lot of the info in "The Jordan Rules," has led me to suspect that he's got some contacts in the Chairman's office.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

*Re: Sam has a Q and A up now*



ScottMay said:


> He also was the first guy to float the Brand-Chandler deal, which, combined with a lot of the info in "The Jordan Rules," has led me to suspect that he's got some contacts in the Chairman's office.


I read that book over the summer and I loved it.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Sam has a Q and A up now*

the next installment is now up at the tribune.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...smith,1,3914017.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines




> *Could Ben Gordon play point? And if so, why not trade Hinrich because he has the most value? It's not like the Bulls would miss any player...except MJ. --Gerard, Tinley Park, Ill.*
> 
> _That's an interesting thought. From the conversations I have had with other general managers, I believe Hinrich does have the most value, in part because of the scarcity and great value of point guards. But I don't think Gordon is ready to play point and run a team. I've had questions about letting Chris Duhon run the team, play Gordon at shooting guard and deal Hinrich or keep Hinrich at shooting guard and Duhon at point with Gordon off the bench, which worked pretty well last season. *I think the future, if it involves all those guys, is Hinrich at point, a big guard at two, Gordon as the third guard and Duhon as a fill in and emergency fourth guard.* One of the Bulls' biggest issues this season, even though they are one of the top rebounding teams, has been size, especially in the backcourt and at the power forward positions. I believe that's what they'll look to address first in the offseason._






> *Are you concerned that the way the Bulls have treated Tim Thomas (and to a lesser extent Eddie Robinson) by paying them to sit home will hurt the team when it's trying to attract free agents this summer? Will players not want to come if they might get sent home? --Don Gehrich, Roselle, Ill.*
> 
> _Actually, I thought the Bulls treated them pretty well. They paid them and told them to take the year off. Where do you sign up for that job? This is what you have to understand about not only NBA players, but all pro athletes: They are mercenaries. I loved the line from the Seinfeld show that we are rooting for laundry. Terrell Owens now loving Dallas? Bulls fans loving Dennis Rodman after he nearly decapitated Scottie Pippen in 1991 and then was a big part of the walkout before the end of Game 4?
> 
> We all love our jobs to some degree, but if we can make more money we will usually change. So will NBA players. Nobody refuses to go anywhere because of the way someone else was treated. They look at it like an opportunity for them. Players chase money and playing time. Their agents chase money. *The Bulls have money and generally are considered to have one of the league's most generous organizations regarding the way they travel and their practice facilities. Watch the parade of players coming in here this summer. And without bands at the airport.*_


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Sam has a Q and A up now*

*L.O.B.*

is this your question?? 



> *Sam, in a previous Q&A you said how you don't pitch a trade unless it betters both teams and works under the cap. Could you then please explain why you pushed so hard for the Jalen Rose trade? --Scott Seifert, Vail, Colo.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



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

*Re: Sam has a Q and A up now*



mizenkay said:


> *L.O.B.*
> 
> is this your question??


Yep that was my question,it's cool he responded to it because I was just being a wise acre


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Sam has a Q and A up now*



> The Bulls have money and generally are considered to have one of the league's most generous organizations regarding the way they travel and their practice facilities.


I think Sam needs to get out more. 

Every team in the NBA travels by cushy private charter (in fact, most of them contract charters with the same exact same NBA subsidiary company), lots of teams have practice facilities as nice as the Berto Center, and, as hard as it is to believe, the majority of NBA arenas are newer than the United Center.

The Bulls were at the cutting edge of facilties and travel 15 years ago. Everyone's caught up.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Sam has a Q and A up now*



ScottMay said:


> Everyone's caught up.


Not true at all. More teams have caught up with the Bulls, true, but many of the teams in smaller markets lack the infrastructure and amenities the bigger teams have.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Sam Smith Q & A*

Trib Article 



> What do you think about signing Al Harrington in free agency along with drafting Arkansas' Ronnie Brewer and Brazilian big man Tiago Splitter? --Matt, Mullins, S.C.
> 
> I think the Bulls will take a hard look at Harrington because he can score some in the post at power forward, which they need. Though he is small for that position. It might work with Tyson Chandler next to him. But there remain rumors of physical problems. I think if he takes a reasonable contract, there's a good chance. If he wants too much, perhaps more than $6 million to $7 million, I think the Bulls will pass and I would as well.
> 
> ...



Interesting stuff. More at the link...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Sam Smith Q & A*

while i am still missing KC JOHNSON on the bulls beat, i am glad the tribune re-upped this feature with Sam I Am. 

meanwhile, could you imagine the knick actually pulling a tim thomas with starbury? the new york post would have a field day!


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

*..*

..


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Ask Sam has a new set of questions, and new answers, up:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...,1,632622.story?page=1&coll=cs-home-headlines

Here's one:



> *When is the last time you saw Michael Jordan? How did he react to you? Do you have any rapport with him, or is he still upset about the books?* --John Sastry, Webster Groves, Mo.
> 
> Michael hasn't always been happy with me, but he's always dealt with me professionally. After "The Jordan Rules" was published in 1991, he was upset with me, though less, I think, about what was in the book since there was nothing particularly embarrassing or harmful. He never once has spoken to me about the book or mentioned it. I'd had a good, professional relationship with him and back then, since the media traveled with the players, we spent some time together with an occasional dinner. I believe he felt I'd broken some sort of code by writing about him, though, I always told him anything that went on in basketball was fair game. I said I'd keep his family and personal life out of my writing and always did. We had some brief, not unfriendly conversations when he was with the Wizards, but always only on basketball. He always treated me, no matter how he may have felt, with respect in public situations and answered my questions as he would anyone else's. I never walked by to chat as some reporters did and as I once did when he was with the Bulls. He rarely speaks to reporters anymore and I've only seen him in passing at a few Bulls games. I always liked him and found him a man's man type who was fun to be around because of that legendary competitive nature as everything from a conversation to your favorite movie was a contest. I don't believe he thinks about me anymore. He seems to have done pretty well for himself.


But a lot of questions are on the draft, Paxson, Skiles, free agency and trades.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

this column is really chock a block.

and i think we may have another bbb.net poster reppin.

is *step* a.k.a. simon from australia? and how lame was that sam comeback? doh.

it's _barbie_ not bar-b-que.


anyway, sam is an entertaining read, if nothing else!

thanks narek, for updating.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> this column is really chock a block.
> 
> and i think we may have another bbb.net poster reppin.
> 
> ...


You're welcome. 

this is going to be weekly for a while, so we could really overload Sam with questions. I have a few I've thought of asking, but I hate including my last name since it's incredibly unusual. There's probably less than 1,000 people in the US with the name (and I'm not related to most of them!).


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

updated april 5th:

*I really wouldn't care if the Bulls made the playoffs. My main excitement comes from the upcoming draft. I would like the Bulls to get Texas' Lamarcus Aldridge with their first pick, LSU's Tyrus Thomas and Florida's Joakim Noah would be OK too, I guess, but I prefer Aldridge. And then with their second pick I would like them to get either Temple's Mardy Collins, or Washington's Brandon Roy. With those two, we see a tall guard who can play point and shooting guard, allowing a better lineup with Ben Gordon and Kirk Hinrich. They both play great defense. Roy would provide the scoring playmaker we need, and Collins is a solid point. What do you think? --Phil, Addison, Ill.*

_This question seems to summarize the feelings of many fans these days. Which is a testament to Chicago's brave "Wait 'til Next Year" hope about its sports teams. Didn't we just finish an NCAA tournament in which it was generally agreed that the quality of play has fallen so far that the so-called mid-major teams can compete almost equally with the most talented teams? That meant that the best talent isn't that good anymore; most have gone to the NBA. That will change some next season with the 19-year-old and one-year-of-college requirement to be eligible for the NBA. The draft is exciting and one of my favorite times of the season. I do several mock drafts every year. And by adding two top 15 draft picks -- if the Bulls don't trade one -- he team will improve. But the improvement mostly should come in two or three years. These players are kids not ready for the NBA. This draft doesn't have a big man ready to make an impact. Consider this: The first year the Magic had Shaq, who'd been in college three years, they were a .500 team. They got the No. 1 pick again the next season and made the trade for Penny Hardaway and won 50 games but were swept in the first round of the playoffs. Granted, the league isn't as good now as it was then, but you don't win with kids. *Which is why I believe the Bulls will be looking to make a major deal of their draft picks. Failing that, I think they'll hope to get one of the big men you mention and a guy like Roy, who'll go much higher than their second pick. And then hope one of them can be a starter.*
_


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...msmith,1,5486883.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Do you think Kirk Hinrich is cute? Seriously, I don't get the infatuation that you, Pax and Skiles have with him, so it must be his dreamy eyes! I think he's a solid NBA player, but that's it. None of his skills are above average for a PG (sans defense). His potential is limited (add 1 point to his FG%, APG and PPG to get his future peak). At best, he's a third option offensively. You say there's a lack of good PGs available. I disagree. Forget about Chris Paul and Steve Nash. I think "no-names" like Mike James and Raymond Felton are better than Kirk, and clearly neither is a cornerstone of a franchise! Keeping Kirk is OK at $6M/yr, but I fear the love-spell he cast on Pax will result in $8M-$10M/yr. I read quotes that Pax wants to build around Kirk! HUH? If he adds two superstars, that's great, but if he adds more role-players to support their "uber" role-player in Hinrich, then we're doomed for playoff mediocrity. I thought that's what Pax wanted to avoid. --Dan, Woodridge, Ill.*

_Felton is the next Jamal Crawford, dribbling six times between his legs before shooting. And Mike James never felt a shot leaving his hand was bad. No, Hinrich isn't Steve Nash, but he defends better. Perhaps he's not the perfect point guard, but he is legitimate and there aren't many. Baron Davis? Luke Ridnour? T.J. Ford? There are so many shoot-first point guards these days, and who really wants that with the likes of Sam Cassell, Mike Bibby, Steve Francis and Stephon Marbury? Hinrich is a cornerstone in the sense that he fills an important position. He's not going to be the best player on the team, but from talking to other teams and the Bulls, I know they get more inquiries about trading Hinrich than any other player on the team. And I'll let you know the next time Kirk, Scott, Pax and I are hot-tubbing._



LOL. "Love Spell"? has Dan from Woodridge ever heard of CHRIS DUHON. that's your LOVE SPELL right there!

my goodness, the hate for kirk that continues to this day just ASTOUNDS the miz. that's right, i used the third person.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Bleh, was too busy reading it before you posted it 



> is step a.k.a. simon from australia? and how lame was that sam comeback? doh.


How dare you! And no, that wasn't me, suprising enough there have been quite a few people from Aus writing in, maybe one day I'll bother, but so far I haven't.
I'm writing one now, hopefully it'll be in next weeks one.


> my goodness, the hate for kirk that continues to this day just ASTOUNDS the miz. that's right, i used the third person.


This board is doomed, it will collapse on itself anytime now! But the hate is strong in that one, I stopped reading it after this:


> I think "no-names" like Mike James and Raymond Felton are better than Kirk, and clearly neither is a cornerstone of a franchise!


Mike freakin James!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

dan from woodridge needs to step away from the crack pipe. mike james? i'm dying over here. 


and i didn't mean to "insult" you asking if you had written into sam. :angel:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Dan from Woodridge who may or may not be on drugs said:


> None of his skills are above average for a PG *(sans defense)*.


Yeah. "Sans defense". :laugh: The classic anti-Hinrich one liner.

Because who cares about defense at the point guard spot? Its only half of the game.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> *Do you think Kirk Hinrich is cute? Seriously, I don't get the infatuation that you, Pax and Skiles have with him, so it must be his dreamy eyes! I think he's a solid NBA player, but that's it. None of his skills are above average for a PG (sans defense). His potential is limited (add 1 point to his FG%, APG and PPG to get his future peak). At best, he's a third option offensively. You say there's a lack of good PGs available. I disagree. Forget about Chris Paul and Steve Nash. I think "no-names" like Mike James and Raymond Felton are better than Kirk, and clearly neither is a cornerstone of a franchise! Keeping Kirk is OK at $6M/yr, but I fear the love-spell he cast on Pax will result in $8M-$10M/yr. I read quotes that Pax wants to build around Kirk! HUH? If he adds two superstars, that's great, but if he adds more role-players to support their "uber" role-player in Hinrich, then we're doomed for playoff mediocrity. I thought that's what Pax wanted to avoid. --Dan, Woodridge, Ill.*
> 
> _Felton is the next Jamal Crawford, dribbling six times between his legs before shooting. And Mike James never felt a shot leaving his hand was bad. No, Hinrich isn't Steve Nash, but he defends better. Perhaps he's not the perfect point guard, but he is legitimate and there aren't many. Baron Davis? Luke Ridnour? T.J. Ford? There are so many shoot-first point guards these days, and who really wants that with the likes of Sam Cassell, Mike Bibby, Steve Francis and Stephon Marbury? Hinrich is a cornerstone in the sense that he fills an important position. He's not going to be the best player on the team, but from talking to other teams and the Bulls, I know they get more inquiries about trading Hinrich than any other player on the team. And I'll let you know the next time Kirk, Scott, Pax and I are hot-tubbing._
> 
> ...


Hey, I happen to know a Dan and he happens to live in Woodridge (that's not me)! Hmmm...

Also, I'm not sure why it's immediately called hate when the guy states that he thinks Kirk is a solid player. It sounds like he just doesn't value him as highly as some people (see: the miz). Whether or not he's merely solid or the kind of guy to build around is debatable, but I think calling someone a hater simply because they say a player is solid is no better than someone ripping the miz for being a "fan boy" (or girl, in this case). Both are usually cases of being too quick to judge and incorrectly assuming the worst.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

so dan is kramer? is that why you are defending him?

the question was just dripping with, oh, call it fear and loathing, or something.

dreamy blue eyes? what the **** does that have to do with anything?

so yeah, i am quick to judge. i'm flawed. what can i say.

and if that really is kramer, tell him i said that.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> so dan is kramer? is that why you are defending him?
> 
> the question was just dripping in with, oh, call it, loathing, or something.
> 
> ...


I will neither confirm nor deny the identity of said questoner.

I am only defending Woodridge Dan's right to have an opinion and pointing out the silliness of labelling him a hater for it. I would be doing it for anyone.

As far as the "dreamy blue eyes" part, I'll assume that's what people in the biz call a "joke."

Quick to judge, you are, but hey, you have as much right to do that as anyone else does. So, I guess it all evens out in the end.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> dan from woodridge needs to step away from the crack pipe. mike james? i'm dying over here.


For argument's sake:

Kirk Hinrich: 36.5 mins - 15.7 pts - 6.2 assts - 3.5 rebs - 42.5 FG% - 36.8 3pt% - 1.2 stls

Mike James: 36.6 mins - 19.4 pts - 5.8 assts - 3.2 rebs - 46.3 FG% - 42.6 3pt% - 0.9 stls


Again, this is just for argument's sake. I'm not saying Mike James is a better PG, but he's certainly no slouch, either.


***waits for the inevitable bashing as a "hater"***


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Sounds to me like he's more of a go at Ben Gordon than Kirk Hinrich. James seems much more comparable to Gordon to me.

Mike James: 36.6 mins - 19.4 pts - 5.8 assts - 3.2 rebs - 46.3 FG% - 42.6 3pt% - 0.9 stls
Ben Gordon: 30.5 mins - 16.3 pts - 2.9 assts - 2.7 rebs - 41.3 FG% - 42.7 3pt% - 0.9 stls


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

PC Load Letter said:


> For argument's sake:
> 
> Kirk Hinrich: 36.5 mins - 15.7 pts - 6.2 assts - 3.5 rebs - 42.5 FG% - 36.8 3pt% - 1.2 stls
> 
> ...


Hater. Though Mike is clearly the superior player since he has two first names in his name and had a better eFG his sophomore year in HS.

How you can love Noch so much and hate Hinrich is beyond me. Even it out man.

Other than that... what's up my man?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

I love comparing our players to a 30 year old guy having (by far) his career year, in his free agent year, playing for an awful team with complete autonomy to shoot, and with one of the top big men in the league. 

But for argument's sake:

Chauncey Billups: 37.0 mins - 19.1 pts - 8.7 assts - 3.2 rebs - 41.5 FG% - 43.5 3pt% - 0.88 stls

Mike James: 36.6 mins - 19.4 pts - 5.8 assts - 3.2 rebs - 46.3 FG% - 42.6 3pt% - 0.9 stls

Who needs an MVP candidate like Billups when you can have Mike James, right? And if James was really as good as his stats this season, he WOULD be a cornerstone of a team instead of a "no-name" player.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> I love comparing our players to a 30 year old guy having (by far) his career year, in his free agent year, playing for an awful team with complete autonomy to shoot, and with one of the top big men in the league.
> 
> But for argument's sake:
> 
> ...


There you go. Nice way of putting some perspective on the stats, Franky.

So to bring this all full circle:

Kirk Hinrich: 36.5 mins - 15.7 pts - 6.2 assts - 3.5 rebs - 42.5 FG% - 36.8 3pt% - 1.2 stls

Chauncey Billups: 37.0 mins - 19.1 pts - 8.7 assts - 3.2 rebs - 41.5 FG% - 43.5 3pt% - 0.88 stls


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

PC Load Letter said:


> For argument's sake:
> 
> Kirk Hinrich: 36.5 mins - 15.7 pts - 6.2 assts - 3.5 rebs - 42.5 FG% - 36.8 3pt% - 1.2 stls
> 
> ...



you're no hater.

mike james, like frankensteiner said, is having a career i'm telling ya'll i want to get PAID year. he's done well on the raptors. good for him. whatever. i still want kirk on this team over him or felton. 

still, the question posed by dan who may or may not be kramer struck me as being more paranoid than anything. so "hate" was perhaps a bit harsh, i admit. if dan wants mike james as the PG of the bulls then that's his perogative. 

but why people are _so upset_ at the notion of pax wanting kirk on this team and that he might "get paid" (he's not going to get 8-10 million, ok!) and pax thinking of kirk as a *foundation element as the bulls* go forward is inexplicable to me. 

que cera, cera ya know.





:biggrin:


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Hater.


He's not hating, he's baiting.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Just to add one last thing about Mike James, he's the 4th highest scoring PG in the league (behind Iverson, Arenas, and Bibby; ahead of Nash, Parker, and Billups). If someone is trying to use his stats in a comparison to Hinrich, just realize that Kirk is being evaluated against a guy having an All-Star season. So in that sense, it's really a compliment despite the underlying intentions of the comparison.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Frankensteiner said:


> Just to add one last thing about Mike James, he's the 4th highest scoring PG in the league (behind Iverson, Arenas, and Bibby; ahead of Nash, Parker, and Billups). If someone is trying to use his stats in a comparison to Hinrich, just realize that Kirk is being evaluated against a guy having an All-Star season. So in that sense, it's really a compliment despite the underlying intentions of the comparison.


Not only that, but Mike James has rounded into a pretty good player. His career high stats are certainly a product of having a green light on the Raptors to some extent, but I've thought he could be a productive starter for a couple years now. Houston always looked better when he was on the floor.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2006)

OT but more on Mike James 

http://www.nba.com/features/greenroom_060321.html?rss=true

he's thinking about that big contract and letting us know he will have earned every penny.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2006)

> Florida's Joakim Noah is hot right now. Is he a possible Bulls choice? I think not. He's got no low post offense. He reminds me of Chandler. --Ernest Tamura, Port Orchard, Wash.
> 
> Yes, he's getting a flood of attention. That's right, you don't even have to pay the 50 cents and you get writing like that. Noah's arc has curved up to the top of this draft. He's the hot guy now after the tournament and you'd assume with Florida winning he'd come to the NBA, especially with Greg Oden locking up No. 1 for 2007. My guess remains that if the Bulls have the No. 1, they'll take him, though the interesting thing about this draft is there is no true No. 1, or even 2, 3 or 4. Some teams like Adam Morrison No. 1. Others have him seven or eight. Tyrus Thomas, Noah, LaMarcus Aldridge, Morrison, *Josh McRoberts* and Rudy Gay are some of the names I've heard as possible No. 1s. Yes, Noah doesn't seem to have much offensive skill at this point. And the Bulls have had enough of teaching guys to make a shot, I'm sure. But look at it this way: The last two years their power forwards have been Antonio Davis, Michael Sweetney, Othella Harrington and Malik Allen. Any of the young big kids would be an improvement and Noah could be special with those long arms and shot blocking ability. He also seems to fit the profile of the kind of players the Bulls are seeking - hard-working, smart, team-oriented. It's hard to say whether he could develop a post game and he does need to gain some weight. It helps to have some post presence, but the Bulls seemed to figure it out when Horace Grant and Bill Cartwright and then Luc Longley and Dennis Rodman were their inside players.


Did anyone else read this question?

Sam Smith has actually heard someone mention _Josh McRoberts_ as the number one pick in the draft? I mean I like the kid, but he is definitely one Freshman I'd say should stay in school another year, at least. I'm not sure he is even a lottery pick right now, let alone a #1.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

The new ones up, full of people and things mentioned on the board lately:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...msmith,1,3979553.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

A sample:


> *I've noticed a disturbing trend with the Bulls over the last few seasons. Whatever player ends up leading the team in scoring gets traded the following year. In 2003 it was Jalen Rose. In 2004 it was Jamal Crawford and last year it was Curry. This year the Bulls leading scorer is Ben Gordon. Do you think this trend will continue? I believe that if the Bulls select a guard in this draft, it will mean that they intend to use Gordon or Duhon in a sign-and-trade. What do you think? * --Shan McElroy , Columbia, Mo.
> 
> Interesting. Nice catch. I hadn't thought about that, and in 2000-01 it was Elton Brand. And, yes, Ben may well join them. As I've said, I don't believe they're looking to deal Gordon. But he fits the profile of an expendable leading scorer because he's probably more a sixth man. It's nice to have such an instant offense player, but perhaps not when you have so many other holes. With Tyson Chandler coming off the bench again, it suggests that's where they see Chandler's future. So, the current lineup indicates they need a starting shooting guard, power forward and center. That's an awful lot of starting spots to fill, if you're unwilling to break up your team. Yes, patience is important. But as coach Scott Skiles likes to note, this is a last-place team.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

sam cleans out his mailbag for the end of the season Q&A

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...msmith,1,3258656.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


*Hey, Sam, Tyson Chandler confronted a Hawks player after another Hawks player committed a flagrant foul on Andres Nocioni. Skiles said "That's a dumb play right there, we get a flagrant foul called for us. That's where we walk away." Do you agree? Isn't this the intensity and team concept that the Bulls need? Isn't this toughness something the Bulls need to add? --Mike, Springfield, Ill.*




_ There's a difference between toughness and stupidity, especially fake toughness. No one is allowed to fight in the NBA. Sports confrontations are the actions of punks. It's Kenyon Martin-itis. Telling a guy how tough you are after a hard foul isn't the toughness you want. And then getting called for a technical foul and giving up a point for no reason is a mistake. Skiles understands this. Skiles knows toughness and how to get back at players. A well-timed elbow away from the ball when the referees aren't looking is toughness and a message. Not acting tough for the TV cameras. It's like the guy yelling, "Hold me back, hold me back" in a potential confrontation and then when someone lets him go he says, "I said hold me back."
_



:laugh:


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

I was going to email him about my Boozer idea, but this guy took it one step too far:


> Possible off-season trade, a good ol' fashioned one-for-one: Carlos Boozer for Ben Gordon. Gives the Bulls a big man to sit next to Tyson, and lets the Bulls go for the best player available with the Knicks pick, rather than going into the draft thinking, "BIG MAN, BIG MAN!!!!!!!" Boozer's had some injuries, but he seems like a hard worker, and would seemingly come into camp in the best shape of his life. We'd get the low-post scorer we need, and the Jazz could pencil in Ben and Deron in the lineup for the next 12 years. --Chris, Forest Park, Ill.


Boozer still intrigues me, and I think if push came to shove that Larry Miller would of accepted my idea, probably going over the top of Utah's GM to do so.



> You raise an interesting point and something I've always wondered about in the draft. I remember a general manager once telling me he liked Tim Hardaway but had too high a pick to take him. So he took a big guy who never did much. Teams get too caught up in going big and taking the guys who everyone thinks are the best. I say if you find a player you like and who can fill a position for you and be a good players for years, take him. Scouts say Roy could be a terrific big guard. At No. 1? Or a raw LaMarcus Aldridge, though will he be an NBA center? It's something the Bulls could do if they did like Roy as most teams do. And then go into free agency to get a big man like Mohammed or Joel Przybilla. It would be controversial and no one has ever done it. But it could be one of the possibilities the Bulls consider.


A path I like.


> What do think about Al Harrington? I heard that he's interested in signing with the Bulls this summer. Is he the type of player/big man the Bulls are looking for? Or is he more of a small forward? Looking at his rebounding numbers, it does not seem like he's a low-post threat. What are your thoughts? Thanks. --Eric, Chicago
> 
> I'm not a big fan. In the end, I think he's really a true sixth man and would be a very good one. *He's more power forward than small forward*, but not a great rebounder. He'd help the Bulls some, but at what price. I wouldn't spend too much of my salary cap room on him.


Strange, I'd say he's more small forward than power forward.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

A new Sam!

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...msmith,1,7977254.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Question relating to one of the threads on the board:



> Do you think Pax regrets signing Tyson Chandler? Now that he has been paid, I don't know if he has the work ethic and dedication it takes to get that much better, and he certainly isn't playing to his contract value now. Let's say the Bulls get a Top 3 pick guaranteeing a young athletic post player (i.e. Thomas, Aldridge, or Bargnani). With other young players more deserving of long-term commitments in the coming years, and a much deeper and more talented FA class next year, do you think Pax will be tempted to shop Tyson and his $10 mil for the next five years for an expiring contract, say to New Orleans for P.J. Brown and a future pick or to Golden State or maybe even the Knicks? What is the sentiment around the league regarding Tyson's future? Is there enough interest out there for something to happen? --Jon, Skokie, Ill.
> 
> I know it's fashionable to beat up on Chandler. But you've got to forget the money, even if the Bulls may not be able to. They have payroll flexibility, so the money isn't an issue now and I expect they'll extend Kirk Hinrich this summer. None of those three you mention now is as good as Chandler. Remember, these are inexperienced kids in an average draft. I think the Bulls will wait, perhaps pick up a big man in free agency like Joel Przybilla and then see what they have with the pick. *Despite his offensive limitations, there is interest in Chandler because he is over seven feet and plays defense. Teams have spent $10 million in a lot worse ways. The Bulls would be able to trade him easily if they wanted, but you hate to give away seven footers, even ones without a jump shot. What if he gets one? He's still a kid*.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

A new one, a new one: 
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...,4831522.story?page=1&coll=cs-bulls-headlines

It's worth it for the last question.

But I'll share this one:


[


> B]Kirk Hinrich really does a good job on Dwayne Wade but why is he recognized by the people? --Carlos, Philippines[/B]
> 
> I think it's the hair. They think he's Ron Howard. Oh, that recognized. Trust me, people in the NBA know. Kirk isn't much for publicity and talking to the media. He makes Harold Baines look like Don Rickles. OK, how about, he makes Mark Prior look like Chris Rock. Anyway, I hope you get the point here. Kirk is Jerry Sloan and John Stockton. Don't talk about me! I'll show you! I wished he wanted to and could have gone to the 2008 Olympics because the USA Basketball people were so excited about having him he certainly would have been among the top 12. But he had personal commitments. *Coaches admire Hinrich and, unfortunately, the media votes for most awards and spends too much time watching ESPN highlights. Hinrich will be the next Steve Nash.*


and 



> *Sam, I've enjoyed watching the Bulls overachieve against the Heat, but it's also been surreal to watch Tim Thomas tear it up in the Suns-Lakers series. This brings up a couple of questions. First, did Thomas really have that horrible of a work ethic that the Bulls had to send him home while still paying him the highest salary on the team? Second, if the Bulls had received the production out of Thomas that he is currently providing to the Suns, could the Bulls have gone from an overachieving team that could pull an upset or two in the playoffs to a talented group that would have been a legitimate threat to the Pistons this season (especially in light of Tyson Chandler's latest injury)? --Frank Talaga, Naperville, Ill.*
> 
> I get asked this a lot and this is one of those, "You had to be there" things. Look, the Bulls never wanted Thomas. They wanted the draft picks, and they could be great. He just came to fill out the NBA mathematics of the deal. They thought they'd take a look, but he was hurt and indifferent. It's the story of his career and why he was traded several times. It's not like he was in great demand.
> 
> ...


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Sorry for hijacking, but while reading SS answers I was wondering if we could do a Q&A with Mike McGraw. We did it a couple times and he was an interesting read, with some inside information.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

Was Magloire as bad as Smith says? He nearly averaged a double double.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

Babble-On said:


> Was Magloire as bad as Smith says? He nearly averaged a double double.


I don't think so, in the Bucks games I've watched this year he has looked alright. He is still one of the few true centers capable of a double-double left in the league, he has good post moves and is a capable defender, so I don't know where Sam gets this from, although he has said weirder things in the past...


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Interesting Sam doesn't think Harrington really improves the team and doesn't expect the Bulls to make a strong push for him. I certainly agree. I find Harrington pretty redundant considering Nocioni's excellent play, which many around here have noted.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Sam's back again! 

I loved this one:



> Hi, Sam, everyone is talking about the big free agent acquisitions, and high draft picks for the Bulls in the upcoming offseason; I am interested in hearing from you what will Bulls do with role players like Harrington, Piatkowski and Pargo. Also, if they don't bring those guys back, they will need some veteran leadership, and whom do you think would be a good fit? We lost Adrian Griffin, and he was starting for Dallas during the year. By the way, I was at Harry Carays the other day, and they, of course, had the Ryno beer, but they also had Sam Smith Oatmeal beer.* And yeah, one more question, do people ever mistake you for Stephen A. Smith*? --Mirza Mahic, River Forest, Ill.
> 
> I believe those three will be gone. With two No. 1 picks and free agent money, I can see the Bulls adding a half dozen new players and I believe they'll go for veterans in free agency. I think there'll be enough. They took a risk with Griffin to keep a roster spot open in case they could make a deal and nothing came of it. But you have to protect yourself. It's actually Samuel Smith beer from England, and the British would be the only ones to think of putting oatmeal in beer. *As for Stephen A., it's a tough time for me. I used to be the most famous S. Smith. *


Lots of free agent and trade talk today:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...1,3324192.story?page=1&coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Hey, Mr. Smith, I love reading your articles even though for the most part they are nonsensical. * --Robin, Hinsdale, Ill.

Thanks. I'm thinking of putting your first comment on my business card.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

If those are the type of questions he decided to publish, I'd hate to think what else he received. Pretty boring for me.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

Sam is jonesin' for some Kevin Garnett on the Bulls...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

new Sam Smith column posted May 17th 


*Sam. Everybody loves to talk about the stars, but I get as much entertainment out of discussing my favorite middling Bulls. Who would be your all-time Bulls scrub team? I think you have to include Granville Waiters, Ed Nealy, Kornel David, Paul Shirley, James Edwards, Rusty LaRue. -– Patrick, Chicago*

_Now there's a subject I can embrace. I'd have to lead with Sam Smith from UNLV; he made the first 4-point play in Bulls history. Always seemed to me the guy had kind of a happening name. I was more a Wallace Bryant guy than Granville for big and hulking and not doing much. Kornel David, sure, for the Michael Jordan of Hungary. If that doesn't make you smile. Shaler Halimon was maybe my favorite name. He was driving a bus when the Bulls were in Portland for the Finals in 1992. Came in the Chet Walker deal, so he was part of something. One of my favorites is Jawann Oldham from Seattle. They tell the best story about him. He was in a bar once when he was with the Bulls and the guys were playing one of those trivia machines when this question came up: "Which of these NBA centers is from the U.S: Hakeem Olajuwon, Patrick Ewing, Swen Nater and Jawann Oldham?" Jawann asked which one._


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

This confirms some suspicions:


*Sam, I have been hearing that the Bulls are talking trade with the Knicks. It looks like they would be trading Ben Gordon for "one of the Knicks' elite guards" and their next first-round draft pick. Which of the Knicks' elite guards would the Bulls be getting? And what are the Bulls thinking? -- Joe, Hinsdale*

_I saw that item in the New York Post and I think it is Isiah Thomas. Other than him, I cannot find an "elite" guard on that team. It was one of the funniest things written this week. It was in the New York Post, which is a wonderfully entertaining read (I guess the fiction helps), and does come up with some good stuff from my friend Peter Vecsey. But there's no truth to it at all. Actually, relations between the Bulls and Knicks have been so cool since the Curry fiasco that executives from both teams haven't spoken to one another this season. The Knicks would love to have Ben because he lights them up every time he plays them. I wouldn't take anyone but Channing Frye for him. The Bulls are mostly thinking the Knicks are now writing the newspaper stories._


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Everyone says the Bulls should trade for Garnett. I have a trade that no one thought of before. How about John Paxson for Garnett? Then Minnesota has somebody to run the team! -- Philip Khalily, Chicago
> 
> That's it!


:rofl:


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Sam Smith said:


> Actually, relations between the Bulls and Knicks have been so cool since the Curry fiasco that executives from both teams haven't spoken to one another this season. [/I]



If there is any truth to the rumor that Paxson and IT had a verbal agreement that AD would be released a month or so after the trade, then it's as likely that these gentlemen will be doing business with each other in the future as it is that Paxson would arrange a trade with Utah for Boozer.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sport...un01,1,5047398.story?coll=chi-sportsbulls-hed

Finally! A trade that makes sense for the Bulls. After your goofy ideas to ship off Ben Gordon for stiffs and question marks, your idea to swap for Ray Allen is the ticket. Then the Bulls could grab a guy like Joel Przybilla or Nazr Mohammed to shore up the middle.

Sean, Rock Island, Ill.

I really believe it would be a good deal for the Sonics, too, given their financial uncertainty and ability to re-sign their free agents, like Chris Wilcox, and start building with an interesting young core. I'm not sure the Bulls are interested.

What are the chances the Bulls can get Patrick O'Bryant of Bradley and Tyrus Thomas of LSU?

Dan, Normal, Ill.

I've been thinking much of the season that if they got the chance, they'd go with Thomas because of his great athletic ability and possibilities in today's game to guard all three frontcourt positions--a bigger version of Ben Wallace. As for O'Bryant, everything I'm hearing now is he'll be gone before the Bulls pick at No. 16, but he sure looks like a long-term project.

Did the Bulls play the Heat tougher than anyone else? Are they better than we think?

Dan, Carolina

The East is worse than we think. It's not so much the Bulls are advancing to great heights, but the talent has thinned out and the better teams are coming back to the pack.

With the stellar play of LeBron James, Boris Diaw and Dwyane Wade during these playoffs, plus the solid contributions of Carmelo Anthony, Chris Kaman and the Bulls' own Kirk Hinrich, how do you feel the draft class of 2003 will go down in history?

Mike Jeffries, DeKalb

It's 1984 all over again. Not the book. But it is a scary class. Especially when you add someone like Diaw, who is a shocker. James and Wade are going to be the big dogs in the East for years to come, and their battles are going to be of the epic Jordan-'Nique battles we saw for many years.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...1,1,7850719.story?coll=cs-bulls-ask-headlines

Survey says ... Brandon Roy. The results of my unscientific survey show that Bulls fans prefer the team draft the U. of Washington guard over big men LaMarcus Aldridge and Tyrus Thomas.

An unscientific survey, by the way, is usually where we make up the results. That differs from a scientific survey in which professional pollsters make up the results. Really, who are all these people answering these stupid questions? And who really believes them? I take my survey answering rules from former Tribune columnist Mike Royko, who had the best idea: Lie to the pollsters. Then we wouldn't have to see these stupid polls anymore.



But this is serious since it involves me. Not that I was doing any survey, but I'd say about two-thirds of those e-mailing since the lottery drawing preferred Roy with a sprinkling for Aldridge, Thomas, Andrea Bargnani and trading the pick.

I have long been leaning toward one of the big guys given that the Bulls are so small on the front line. But watching the playoffs and the way the rules changes with no contact above the free throw line has changed the game and opened it up for smaller players, I'm getting on board. I always saw the need for someone like Roy, though I didn't see enough of him to know if he could be a big-time shooting guard. All the pro scouts I talk to assure me he can be. And I'm not a big fan of continuing to add rookies to a team with so many young players.

Anyone who reads here knows that even though I really do like Ben Gordon and appreciate his skill, I've tried to move him for some time because he is not the ideal shooting guard, especially one who can defend and allow Kirk Hinrich to concentrate on shooting guard.

I'd still prefer a trade for a veteran, but that remains a long shot. So I'll throw in for Roy for the three-guard rotation and count on the Knicks being lousy again, get a high pick and get a big guy next year, maybe even Greg Oden or even my U. of Florida guy Joakim Noah.

Or Zydrunas Ilgauskas. It's not often teams trade in the division, and my guess would be the Bulls would be leery of the risk of his age and former health issues. The Cavs never figured out how to use him with LeBron James and an unimaginative offense. The talk is they'd like a center like Jamaal Magloire, but the Bucks might not want to trade in the division, either. The Bulls could probably get Ilgauskas for the No. 2 draft pick, though I doubt they'd do that.

Sam, I must say your trade scenarios for the Bulls are a joke. Heat, Pistons will be tough for three years. Bulls won't stand a chance until 2009. Pick Thomas, JJ Red, sign Joe Pryzb., and two guard. 2007 NY pick. You and I could coach that team to east finals. Give Deng, Gordon 2-3 more years here come the bulls! FORGET Ben is too short. That's bull. If Pax wants to do something good deal TC. He's not a game changer. --Tom Petros, Sycamore, Ill.

I think I get all the abbreviations, though I thought out there in Sycamore you guys had more time to sit down and write out a complete sentence. First of all, you never know what will happen in three years. Guys could leave in free agency, be injured. And I think the East is wide open. I think the Pistons appear to have lost their edge and will make changes in the offseason. If the Heat is in the Finals, it will give Shaquille O'Neal the excuse to take half of next season off, making it difficult to get 50 wins. If they win a title, I can see Pat Riley walking away. LeBron's running mates aren't very good. The Bulls' core now has enough experience if you add a player or two; I can see them making a serious run next season. You never want to sit and wait, and this NBA in the coming years looks like it will be as wide open as ever.

FINALLY! A trade that makes sense for the Bulls. After your goofy ideas to ship off Ben Gordon for stiffs and question marks, your idea to swap for Ray Allen is the ticket. Both first-rounders and a mid-range guy for salary reasons (i.e. Sweetney) would be a sweet deal. Then the Bulls could grab a guy like Przybilla or Nazr to shore up the middle and they'd be in good shape. --Sean, Rock Island, Ill.

The truth is I really do this because of all the kindness of strangers that I get. I really believe it would be a good deal for the 'Sonics, too, given their financial uncertainty and ability to re-sign their free agents, like Chris Wilcox, and get building with an interesting young core. Bringing back Allen, they're still nowhere near the Spurs, Dallas and the Suns, especially if Amare Stoudemire is healthy. So get something developing for when Tim Duncan and Steve Nash begin to slow in a few years. The problem I see is I'm not sure the Bulls are interested. I'm getting the feeling they'd rather keep building with what they have and add the veterans through free agency.

What are the chances the bulls get Pat O'Bryant of Bradley and Tyrus Thomas of LSU? --Dan, Normal, Ill.

I've been thinking much of the season that if they got the chance they'd go with Thomas because of his great athletic ability and possibilities in today's game to guard all three front court positions -- a bigger version of Ben Wallace. Wouldn't that be nice to have? We're still a month away and anything is possible in this draft. Because you have five or six players I've had GMs tell me they'd pick No. 1, I think there's going to be more misinformation spread this year than perhaps any other draft and the mock drafts are going to be a mess. There's been a lot of talk these days about NBA parity making it like the NFL where more teams have a chance to win. I'm getting the feeling this is going to take on that militaristic, secret-code nature of the NFL draft. As for O'Bryant, everything I'm hearing now is he'll be gone before the Bulls' pick at No. 16, but he sure looks like a long-term project to me.

Sam, I think you've got the Bulls' second pick wrong. Brandon Roy is probably the most NBA ready of the prospects in this draft and offers the complete package. He's quick, has size, plays defense and his shooting improved markedly while at UW. If he continues to improve his outside shooting, I don't see a hole in his game. He may not help the Bulls in the post but he still fills a big need for them. Drafting him would take pressure off Hinrich, allowing him to guard guys his own size. He would receive significant playing time in a three-guard rotation of Gordon, Hinrich and Roy. Could Thomas and Aldridge be the Hakeem and Sam Bowie of 2006? And if not quite on MJ's level, how high do you see Roy's ceiling and why? --Mike, Evanston, Ill.

Yes, I've long argued to get Hinrich some defensive help and get him a shooting guard, though I'd prefer a veteran. If they can't get a veteran or two, I know Roy would help. But rookies take time and I see an opening to make a jump in the East now. I'm not sure on Roy; the college game is way down from where it was. I can't say I know that much as someone who really watched Pac 10 basketball. Though everything I hear is positive and I agree he's most ready. If one of those guys is Hakeem, though, grab him. Look, Bowie had a decent career even with the injuries and was mocked more because he went before Jordan. Thomas and Aldridge both appear to be players who will make significant NBA contributions, though not right away.

Hey, Sam, what are the odds that the Bulls end up coming to their senses and realize that Aldridge and Thomas aren't going to contribute until a few years down the road and go for Roy or Gay instead? We have enough money to get a better big man via free agency rather than someone with no experience. --Neeraj Chhabra, Indiana

I think they may be getting there. Have you been sitting in on the scouting and personnel meetings?

So far you have thrown a lot of ideas out there about what the Bulls should do with their draft picks. At first, I wanted the kid from LSU, believing in his upside. But they did that already with Curry and Chandler and look how that has turned out. I think Roy would be a great pick for this team, because he gives them size at guard, more maturity and readiness, and depth or trade options with Gordon. Plus, do you really think that, even though it is probably their biggest need, that the bigs are worth the No. 2 pick? --Steven Schnakenberg, Carbondale, Penn.

Stop, enough already. But you guys better be right on Roy.

I think the trade with Portland idea would be a great for the Bulls. I would trade both first-round picks to Portland for Zach Randolph and the No. 4 pick, which the Bulls could use to get Roy. That would fill two needs. I hate the ideas of trades involving some of the Bulls young talent like Gordon or Deng. --Phil Antinori, Conway, Ariz.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Hey, do you know Scottie? I can see Portland wanting to do that to get out from under Randolph's money and attitude. You'd say if there's a coach who might get him going it could be Scott Skiles and his MSU background. But Nate McMillan is a tough guy, too, and got nowhere with Randolph and I'm guessing the Bulls don't want to take a chance on that kind of guy. They haven't under this regime. Tim Thomas is not a bad guy, perhaps just casual at times, and they wanted no part of him.

Sam, is there any chance the Bulls will try to sign Nene? I know he might not be as good as Al Harrington, but I believe he is a better fit. He is much bigger and stronger. He would give us some inside presence. How do you feel? --Morris, Hinsdale, Ill.



They've long had an interest in Nene, but I don't hear much about him anymore, which could either be a smokescreen or not a smokescreen. See how sophisticated this NBA analysis can get? My guess is they're uncertain since his knee injury last season and though he's on their list, he's moved toward the bottom.

Sam is it me, or did the Bulls play the heat tougher than anyone else? Are they better than we think? --Dan, Carolina

I think the East is worse than we think. It's not so much the Bulls are advancing to great heights, but the talent has thinned out and the better teams are coming back to the pack. I truly believe with a couple of good moves in the draft and free agency, the Bulls could compete for the East title next season. Of course, I also believe seven other teams can. You are right, though. Skiles laid out the blueprint of how to play them and no one has followed it. You have to run them. The Nets, stunningly, ended up walking the ball up and taking the ball out of Kidd's hands a lot to give to Vince Carter, which was a huge mistake, and for some reason the Pistons have also gone to a half-court game with little action. The Bulls have given them by far the best series and with a little more talent would have beaten them in Game 5 with the Heat on the ropes. And then who knows?

I've seen videos of Andrea Bargnani and read some scouting reports online of him, and he seems to be a gifted passer and jump shooter as well as a guy who can block some shots. But I understand he doesn't have a back-to-the-basket game. Is this a common critique of European players who have the bigger trapezoidal lane? If you want to get fed in the post, you are likely going to get slapped with a three-second violation if you don't get the pass as soon as you get to a spot? And if that's the case, for a guy like Bargnani, can the back to the basket game be developed at this point, or is he too old of a dog? --Charlie, Chicago

I don't watch a lot of international basketball, but that's certainly one of the reasons. The European game seems to involve more cutting and passing and the big guys seem to learn first to shoot, though Nocioni told me in Argentina they learn first to flop. I haven't seen a European guy come over with a classic post game, even someone like Sabonis who dominated there for many years. But it's becoming less and less important in the NBA the way the rules have gone too far in protecting the perimeter players and allowing too much contact in the post. And don't get me started on those ridiculous calls against post guys with so much flopping. That would be my first rule change suggestion. That's not defense. It's acting.

With free agency just around the corner, how do you think these players will fit and help the Cavs in their next playoff run? Chris Wilcox, Jamal Magloire, Speedy Claxton, Josh Smith, Royal Ivey and Ryan Gomes. --Jaime, Manila, Philippines

Ah, help for LeBron. The truth is he needs it; I feel the Cavs spent poorly last offseason. Their goal was to make the playoffs, and they did and had a nice run to the second round. But in spending on Larry Hughes, Donyell Marshall and Damon Jones, they don't seem to have much room for growth. I believe they'll make a run at Magloire because he has one year left and can man the post for now. That would enable them to trade Zydrunas Ilgauskas, which is the rumor. I don't see them having much shot at the other guys, most of whom are not free agents. Maybe Speedy with the exception, but he'll get other offers. But with LeBron, they are guaranteed to be good for a long time.

With the stellar play of Lebron James, Boris Diaw, and Dwyane Wade during these playoffs, plus the solid contributions of Carmelo Anthony, Chris Kaman, and the Bulls' own Kirk Hinrich and Chris Duhon, how do you feel the draft class of 2003 will go down in history? Sorry for the run-on sentence, but I'm from DeKalb! --Mike Jeffries, DeKalb, Ill.

Yes, we all understand. I respect your courage for even dabbling in punctuation. Yes, it's 1984 all over again. Not the book. But it is a scary class. Especially when you add someone like Diaw, who is a shocker. James and Wade are going to be the big dogs in the East for years to come and their battles, like the one game this season, are going to be of the epic Jordan-'Nique type battles we saw for many years.

The Bulls will get a great player at the No. 2 pick no matter which guy it is, but the No. 16 pick gives them the chance to get a budding star who should be available--Saer Sene of Senegal. Big, wingspan deluxe, young, and super athletic. He might grow to be the best center of his generation, or he might not. But at this pick it certainly is worth the chance. With the No. 2 pick and a free agent or two the Bulls are in a great position to take a chance on this guy. --Phil Marks, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

I agree the Bulls will get someone useable at No. 2. Hey, what's the deal, are you on vacation? I didn't think anyone really lives in those places. But I don't see them going the Senegal way. I think this management is not into development after watching the Chandler-Curry fiasco. Paxson was a broadcaster most of those years and we all remember him mumbling about trying to raise basketball kids. I'd say he stays away from projects.

Hey, Sam, I love your trade proposals and I love these Bulls, so here's a trade I've been thinking of: Why not trade Deng (I hate to trade him but has value), our second first-rounder, and maybe some cash for that fourth pick of Portland. That way we could get either LaMarcus Aldridge or Tyrus Thomas (I prefer Aldridge, whom I read would love to be a Bull) and then with the fourth pick go for Brandon Roy. So now we have a good tall guard, a promising big man, go for the veteran help in the post in free agency, and save the rest of the money to pursue Lebron James or resign our core (Kirk, Ben, Nocioni). Please could you give a Mexican Bulls fan your opinion about that? --Gustavo Plascencia, Tijuana, Mexico

This is the most mail I've gotten from Mexico since I suggested Acapulco as an NBA expansion franchise. What, you think we're happy with Minnesota? I don't see them giving up Deng unless it's in a deal for a big-time veteran like Kevin Garnett. I don't see them wanting to take on too many rookies to be in potential starting positions, but this always happens as the draft gets closer. Teams begin to fall in love with prospects and what once was a poor draft now becomes an "I've got to have that guy thing." It's the inherent flaw of the draft. You get to test these kids more than any veteran you'll ever have a chance to get. It's a job interview for them and most are on their best behavior. They rarely work out in a team concept, so you see their athletic ability and shooting talent and project it into the game, which you cannot unless they actually play in a game. They look you in the eye and tell you how hard they'll work. And you fall in love. And teams forget they are rookies. I can see it happening with the Bulls, though I believe they won't want to stock up on rookies. So they'll probably use No. 2 and hope for just some sort of role player at No. 16 for the end of the bench.

What about this, trade down off the number two pick for a lower first round and a second-round pick. Use them to draft Tiago Splitter and James Augustine with first-rounders and then pick up Dee Brown in the second. Sign Drew Gooden or Pryzbilla, as Splitter might wait a year and experiment with Luol Deng at the two. I know the Bulls rarely go for the local products but Augustine and Brown are proven and could replace Malik Allen and Jannero Pargo easily. --Anthony Quinones, Tamuning, Guam

Here's the point about this summer, which you touch on. No disrespect to them, but you figure no matter whom the Bulls add, they'll be an improvement on Othella Harrington and Malik Allen. Augustine is actually a nice fit for them, though Brown is probably too small for them because they're tired of the small guards. You from the U. of Illinois, by the way? I heard there's a regional campus in Guam. Splitter may not come for a year or two and management is too impatient for that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/chi-0606010217jun01,1,5047398.story?coll=chi-sportsbulls-hed
> It's 1984 all over again. Not the book. But it is a scary class. Especially when you add someone like Diaw, who is a shocker. James and Wade are going to be the big dogs in the East for years to come, and their battles are going to be of the epic Jordan-'Nique battles we saw for many years.


What a maroon. Doesn't he know it's going to be Hinrich, James, and Wade having those epic battles?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/askthewriter/cs-060531asksampart1,1,7850719.story?coll=cs-bulls-ask-headlines
> I think I get all the abbreviations, though I thought out there in Sycamore you guys had more time to sit down and write out a complete sentence.


Who do you think you are? Pip.. never mind


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

New answers from Sam (with a part two coming tomorrow):

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...1,7387429.story?page=1&coll=cs-home-headlines



> *Sam, you seem to lump LaMarcus Aldridge in with the big men projects, but do you really think that's the case? How do you define "project"? I think Aldridge is polished enough to give the Bulls 10-12 ppg and 6 rpg next year, and 15 and 8 by his second season. While he wouldn't be considered an above-average starter as a rookie, he would be an upgrade from what we have now, and would not be far off from being an above-average starter in the league. Aldridge has a pretty good NBA body, can step out and hit the outside shot and has some nice post moves. He seems way more prepared than most big men coming out of college these days*. --Andrew, Chicago
> 
> I can't disagree with your analysis. But "project" suggests not being quite ready. It tends to take big men longer to adjust to the NBA, and Aldridge's body hasn't filled out yet. It's got to catch up with his skills. You have the point right about this draft. There's no Tim Duncan there, but aren't these guys better than Malik Allen and Othella Harrington? Right now! And the Bulls came on strong with them. Given that these guys will improve, they should give help right away and because of size and length give the team room for growth.


And 

[


> B]The Bulls need to draft Tyrus Thomas. Period. End of story. I'm convinced he instantly upgrades the Bulls frontcourt, regardless of his youth. LaMarcus Aldridge might be good, but he disappeared in too many games last year and the last thing the Bulls need is another soft player. Brandon Roy has a complete game, fills the Bulls' need for a tall guard, and I would be happy if the Bulls landed him, but here is why Thomas is the only choice. The backcourt and offense is predicated on screens with high pick and rolls for their guards. But the Bulls have absolutely no one capable of the "roll" part. How many times did Chandler set a high screen for Hinrich, roll to the basket wide open and receive a perfect pass from Hinrich, only to have it carom off his puny hands? Opponents soon realize the big men are stiffs who pose zero offensive threat, and begin to jump the screens to double the guards. This strategy was never more evident than in the final games of the Bulls first-round playoff loss to the Heat. Heat players swarmed Hinrich, Gordon, etc. into working much harder than they had to for open shots off screens. Now with Tyrus Thomas setting the high screen and rolling, I see the Eastern Conference answer to the Nash-Stoudamire (remember last season?) combo, with Thomas sending down thunderous dunk after dunk from Hinrich's precision passes. Who cares if Thomas' outside shot needs to improve? It will. Factor in his rebounding and shot blocking on defense, I can't see how the Bulls can afford NOT to take him. --[/B]Matt C., Chicago
> 
> John Paxson, is that you? I think Paxson looks at Thomas that way as well and envisions an imposing, athletic defensive front with Thomas and Chandler and a player in Thomas who can develop more offensively. It's why I believe this pick will be so difficult. I'm higher on Thomas than some and see the athletic possibilities.


Lots more on the draft, the playoffs, etc.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Ask Sam Smith : About The Draft*

I know ya'll aren't HIGH on Smith, but some of this is pretty interesting

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...1,7387429.story?page=2&coll=cs-home-headlines



> Sam, you seem to lump LaMarcus Aldridge in with the big men projects, but do you really think that's the case? How do you define "project"? I think Aldridge is polished enough to give the Bulls 10-12 ppg and 6 rpg next year, and 15 and 8 by his second season. While he wouldn't be considered an above-average starter as a rookie, he would be an upgrade from what we have now, and would not be far off from being an above-average starter in the league. Aldridge has a pretty good NBA body, can step out and hit the outside shot and has some nice post moves. He seems way more prepared than most big men coming out of college these days. --Andrew, Chicago
> 
> I can't disagree with your analysis. But "project" suggests not being quite ready. It tends to take big men longer to adjust to the NBA, and Aldridge's body hasn't filled out yet. It's got to catch up with his skills. You have the point right about this draft. There's no Tim Duncan there, but aren't these guys better than Malik Allen and Othella Harrington? Right now! And the Bulls came on strong with them. Given that these guys will improve, they should give help right away and because of size and length give the team room for growth.





> Do you feel that Ben Gordon will take it lightly if the Bulls draft Brandon Roy and give him a chance to start over Gordon? Could a better fit be keeping Chris Duhon who is more likely to be OK with not starting and can play both guard spots? Then look for a bigger name by trading Gordon, like to New York, who has wanted him for sometime now. If so I feel the only player on the Knicks worth anything is Channing Frye. --Jason K., Peoria, Ill.
> 
> That's one of the most interesting questions about the draft. I believe Ben is a professional and team player, but I know he believes he's a starter and is coming up on a contract year. And I know he'd want to start in that circumstance. Watching the Mavs and Jason Terry suggests you can get away with a small shooting guard, though it's not the perfect way to go. If the Bulls were to draft Roy, I don't think they'd start him right away and see if he could beat out Ben. It could prove somewhat uncomfortable. As for the Knicks, I think the two teams are done dealing.





> The Bulls need to draft Tyrus Thomas. Period. End of story. I'm convinced he instantly upgrades the Bulls frontcourt, regardless of his youth. LaMarcus Aldridge might be good, but he disappeared in too many games last year and the last thing the Bulls need is another soft player. Brandon Roy has a complete game, fills the Bulls' need for a tall guard, and I would be happy if the Bulls landed him, but here is why Thomas is the only choice. The backcourt and offense is predicated on screens with high pick and rolls for their guards. But the Bulls have absolutely no one capable of the "roll" part. How many times did Chandler set a high screen for Hinrich, roll to the basket wide open and receive a perfect pass from Hinrich, only to have it carom off his puny hands? Opponents soon realize the big men are stiffs who pose zero offensive threat, and begin to jump the screens to double the guards. This strategy was never more evident than in the final games of the Bulls first-round playoff loss to the Heat. Heat players swarmed Hinrich, Gordon, etc. into working much harder than they had to for open shots off screens. Now with Tyrus Thomas setting the high screen and rolling, I see the Eastern Conference answer to the Nash-Stoudamire (remember last season?) combo, with Thomas sending down thunderous dunk after dunk from Hinrich's precision passes. Who cares if Thomas' outside shot needs to improve? It will. Factor in his rebounding and shot blocking on defense, I can't see how the Bulls can afford NOT to take him. --Matt C., Chicago
> 
> John Paxson, is that you? I think Paxson looks at Thomas that way as well and envisions an imposing, athletic defensive front with Thomas and Chandler and a player in Thomas who can develop more offensively. It's why I believe this pick will be so difficult. I'm higher on Thomas than some and see the athletic possibilities.





> The more I look at this offseason the more I'm convinced the Bulls are going to draft Brandon Roy. It's clear the Bulls need a big 2 guard and a 4 or a 5. There doesn't appear to be many options for a 2 in free agency, and a trade for one will be too costly. I do think there are better options in free agency for the 4 or 5. I know you like Joel Przybilla, but I think they need to get more athletic in the front court. The guy I like is Chris Wilcox. I originally heard that Seattle wants to re-sign him but a significant offer could put Seattle in a bind. --Jeff, Libertyville, Ill.
> 
> Not sure where the Bulls stand on Wilcox, though it's always a risk to go for a guy who had one good season and in his free-agent year. Anyone remember Eddie Robinson? I think Roy is in the mix, but I also think with the money they have that they have a shot at two big guys in free agency, maybe even Przybilla or Nazr Mohammed and someone like Drew Gooden or Nene.





> In order to justify his status as the No. 2 overall pick, a player must be his team's go-to guy and have taken them somewhere. When Joakim Noah opted out of the draft the only two players remaining in the projected Top 10 to meet these criteria are Brandon Roy and Adam Morrison. Some say Roy would fill a Bulls' need for a big defensive guard. I guess the thinking is that with a bigger guard, the Bulls could go from being the best defensive team in the NBA to the best BEST defensive team.Take the best player available: Adam Morrison. Yes, the Bulls are crowded with second-tier talent at small forward but that only means they need to trade those players. Let's not forget that the talk all year was that the Bulls lacked a go-to guy that would force the opponent into double teams. Adam Morrison is the only player in the draft who can do this. --Alec Leamus, Glenview, Ill.
> 
> And as my mother would say when I had a suggestion, "Another county heard from." She didn't usually like them. I like your analysis, even if I wouldn't go for him. To me it would mean trading Luol Deng. Perhaps if you could get a good big man for him, but I doubt it. Yes, I'd pick the best player available no matter the position if he were truly great, but there are too many questions about Morrison regarding other parts of his game. He may well be a big-time scorer and he does have an interesting attitude, but I don't see him taking over the NBA the way he did in college in a small conference. Send this back to me if he becomes the next Jordan.





> Sam, I solved the draft problem. The Bulls need an inside presence. So we take LaMarcus Aldridge with the second pick. He has a polished post game and will open up the floor for our shooters and also provide a nice contrast to Tyson's no 'O' game. The only knock on him is his softness, but I think if anyone can, Skiles will toughen him up. This is not the time to take a "sexy" pick with a high ceiling like Tyrus Thomas, and have to wait a couple years for him to develop and get a post game. Let's remember we are one big man and one big defensive guard away from making a LOT OF NOISE next year. With the 16th pick we take Ronnie Brewer. The kid can flat out play. He has great intensity and skill on 'D', and is a 6-7 guy who can play SG and even run the point if need be. In addition, he is an athletic slasher with great court vision. These are all things that the Bulls need. Projections show he will be taken around the 10th pick so we may need to trade up to get him. Would a couple of second-rounders or maybe Michael Sweetney, along with our 16th, do the trick? Probably. This should be considered if he is still available around the 10th pick. --Josh Hendon, Normal, Ill.
> 
> The Bulls might be able to get to 10 or so with Duhon, whom some teams like and is not a long-term fit for the Bulls with Hinrich there. So maybe. I'm enjoying the debate and have been impressed with the analysis of the fans. Too often fans are taken for granted about their knowledge of the game, but it's been impressive to read the different scenarios. It's why I'm including so many this week. Also because of the great variety of certain opinion. I think Skiles would love to get at Aldridge because Aldridge is considered a willing student and hard worker. I've liked Brewer because he defends even if the Bulls wonder about his shooting.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Ask Sam Smith : About The Draft*

Nice post, some interesting quotes there. I'm not from Chicago, so not familiar with that guy. Is he a sports writer for the chicago paper?


----------



## MKazz (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: Ask Sam Smith : About The Draft*

He's a writer for the Chicago Tribune that's been covering the Bulls for years. While he does occasionally have intriguing comments and worthwhile input and analysis, he's more notorious for merely speculating about absurb trades, signings, moves, etc. that make little sense and never actually come about. In this article, however, I will agree with you in that he makes some decent comments and most of what he says is in fact relevant.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Ask Sam Smith : About The Draft*



MKazz said:


> He's a writer for the Chicago Tribune that's been covering the Bulls for years. While he does occasionally have intriguing comments and worthwhile input and analysis, he's more notorious for merely speculating about absurb trades, signings, moves, etc. that make little sense and never actually come about. In this article, however, I will agree with you in that he makes some decent comments and most of what he says is in fact relevant.


I just got through reading some more of them (the link provided in the original post here) and I kinda wish he'd have at least given some answer to what it'd take to get Brandt back lol. I don't really want him back, cause you'd have to give up to much, but it would've been interesting to see what he thinks might get it done anyway.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

*Re: Ask Sam Smith : About The Draft*



DaBabyBullz said:


> I just got through reading some more of them (the link provided in the original post here) and I kinda wish he'd have at least given some answer to what it'd take to get Brandt back lol. I don't really want him back, cause you'd have to give up to much, but it would've been interesting to see what he thinks might get it done anyway.



That's simple - KOBE, GARNET, DUCNAN, LEBRON or DIRK. The Clippers wouldn't part with him for anything less.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Ask Sam Smith : About The Draft*



chifaninca said:


> That's simple - KOBE, GARNET, DUCNAN, LEBRON or DIRK. The Clippers wouldn't part with him for anything less.


OK, let me rephrase that. What WE have, combo of draft picks and players. You KNOW that if we offered enough guys and players they'd give him up.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

*Re: Ask Sam Smith : About The Draft*



DaBabyBullz said:


> OK, let me rephrase that. What WE have, combo of draft picks and players. You KNOW that if we offered enough guys and players they'd give him up.



Honestly, The Clippers are stacked. They are not in need mode anymore. Brand is an all-star, MVP consideration caliber player now. We have nothing close to that. The draft is considered weak for Big men this year. Chandler is confirmed weak. So nothing of valule there. Gordon, Hinrich Deng, Nocioni all intriguing but again, not worth creating the huge hole that would be left wihtout Brand.....amd oh yeah, he's their team leader.


he's the reason I watch Clipper games.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Ask Sam Smith : About The Draft*

Now is the time on Sprockets when we MERGE!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Ask Sam Smith : About The Draft*



jnrjr79 said:


> Now is the time on Sprockets when we MERGE!


Would you like to touch my monkey?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Ask Sam Smith : About The Draft*

Thanks, Deiter, err, I mean, Tom, but I'll pass.


Part Deux is now up...


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...msmith,1,3834699.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: Ask Sam Smith : About The Draft*



jnrjr79 said:


> Thanks, Deiter, err, I mean, Tom, but I'll pass.
> 
> 
> Part Deux is now up...
> ...


This is the best:



> *The NY post is reporting that Larry Brown had his goons contact Ben Gordon's agent to let them know that he's welcome to play for the Knicks. Do you expect the Bulls to file a complaint to the league, and if proven guilty, how would the league handle this matter? Is there any worse punishment for Brown than the one he already has: Coach of the NY Knicks*? -- Farhan Arshad , Rio Rancho, N.M.
> 
> Probably not. If you were to believe New York reporting, all the league office would be doing was filing tampering changes while the Knicks would have to expand their roster to 137. *I'm from New York so I understand the mentality even if I don't endorse it. New Yorkers believe everyone wants to be there since they cannot consider being anywhere else. Those of us like me understand you need to remain quiet and then leave and never return to maintain your sanity and perspective*.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

> Sam - I heard rumblings from the Raptors after a visit to Toronto that Chris Bosh wants out of TO if the Raptors do not draft LA. Aldridge. But the Raptors are very interested in Andrea Bargnani. I guess they have an Italian Asst. GM that is pressing Colangelo to draft Bargnani. I think Bosh could force their hand and make TO trade him to the Bulls for Chandler, Gordon, and the Knicks pick next year. This way we get Bosh, Aldridge, and the 16th pick. -- Daggwood, Austin, Texas
> 
> I've heard that as well. Bosh has been at the Finals working for NBA-TV and has been working out with Aldridge. I believe, in the end, they'll get off Bargnani and go for Aldridge or trade for a veteran like I talked about in my Monday column, Jermaine O'Neal. Extending Bosh is their No. 1 priority.


OHHHH ****!!



> Sam, why are you so high on Joel Przybilla? The guy is often injured, not good offensively, and absolutely horrible defensively. Don't let the blocks per game fool you, the guy looks like a high schooler out there risking so much position just to try and get a block. The guy doesn't learn, he just goes roaming wherever he pleases and has no regard whatsoever for team defense. So why is he your number 1 priority? -- Ryan
> 
> I never thought he would be. I have maligned the guy in the past in Milwaukee when he could barely stand up. It's sort of a lesser of evils, though he has matured and is a good shot-blocker and a better defender. I see him as a role player in a free agency that isn't very good. But the Bulls probably have to use their money this summer with the extensions they have to begin paying to their young players. Though I suppose they could hold out some by getting a guy with one year left like Grant Hill. So I've seen Przybilla more as an addition better than Malik Allen or Sweetney to go along with picking up another guy like Nazr Mohammed and whomever they might draft who is big.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Ask Sam Smith : About The Draft*



chifaninca said:


> Honestly, The Clippers are stacked. They are not in need mode anymore. Brand is an all-star, MVP consideration caliber player now. We have nothing close to that. The draft is considered weak for Big men this year. Chandler is confirmed weak. So nothing of valule there. Gordon, Hinrich Deng, Nocioni all intriguing but again, not worth creating the huge hole that would be left wihtout Brand.....amd oh yeah, he's their team leader.
> 
> 
> he's the reason I watch Clipper games.


Yeah you are probably right that they must have a pretty decent team to already be in the playoffs as far as they are. I am in no way saying I want to get Brand back, cause we'd have to give up way too much, and it just wouldn't be worth it. My point was simply that everything can be had for a price. If we gave them enough of our good young guys, and enough high draft picks (future picks included) eventually they'd see it as being worth it I'd think, though we'd be getting ripped off big time.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

New Q&A 



> the way Jason Terry played in the Finals, I'll never suggest trading Ben Gordon again. I think he's better than Terry.


Sure buddy, we believe you.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

What a *******, he didn't answer my question.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

the last ASK SAM of the season.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...msmith,1,2598704.story?coll=cs-home-headlines



*Hi, Sam, what's the deal with Eddie Basden? I read his scouting report from college, and I wondered why he wasn't drafted last year. Since he was the only rookie on the Bulls team I kept an eye on him. Sometimes he looked lost, but there were times that I could see something special in this kid. Will he be back next year? A guard with his size and quickness should not be ignored. --Michael Cunningham, DeKalb, Ill.*

_It was like a bad relationship. The first dates went OK, but it just didn't work out. He didn't fit that well with Skiles' coaching style and he is not expected to be asked to return._


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> _It was like a bad relationship. The first dates went OK, but it just didn't work out. He didn't fit that well with Skiles' coaching style and he is not expected to be asked to return._


Whaaaat?

What happened to "That's my guy. That's my guy RIGHT THERE"?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

bump - because the Ask Sam feature seems to be back at the Tribune - http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/. Send Sam a question now! :biggrin:


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

I emailed this question to Sam Smith yesterday

Are the Bulls waiting for a team with a star to break down (Celts, 
Wolves, Griz)? Or are they happy to stay the course? 

his response


> i think they'll watch, but i don't see them pulling the trigger. though i would


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Hustle said:


> I emailed this question to Sam Smith yesterday
> 
> Are the Bulls waiting for a team with a star to break down (Celts,
> Wolves, Griz)? Or are they happy to stay the course?
> ...


The Wolves in general and Garnett in particular have looked totally dispirited their last two games.

Garnett for P.J. Brown, Mike Sweetney, Andres Nocioni, Tyrus Thomas, Malik Allen, Adrian Griffin (can't be traded until 12/15), and a top-2 protected 2007 first-round pick is CBA-compliant. The Wolves would presumably waive all of the incoming players except Noce and TT.

I think the Bulls would be a prohibitive favorite to win the east for at least 2-3 years. Garnett, Deng, Wallace, Hinrich, Gordon? Whoot.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> The Wolves in general and Garnett in particular have looked totally dispirited their last two games.
> 
> Garnett for P.J. Brown, Mike Sweetney, Andres Nocioni, Tyrus Thomas, Malik Allen, Adrian Griffin (can't be traded until 12/15), and a top-2 protected 2007 first-round pick is CBA-compliant. The Wolves would presumably waive all of the incoming players except Noce and TT.
> 
> I think the Bulls would be a prohibitive favorite to win the east for at least 2-3 years. Garnett, Deng, Wallace, Hinrich, Gordon? Whoot.


I don't want to trade Tyrus Thomas for Garnett. Not, at least, until I've seen that he's going to be less than I think he will be.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I don't want to trade Tyrus Thomas for Garnett. Not, at least, until I've seen that he's going to be less than I think he will be.


You are way, way, way higher on Thomas than I am. He intrigues me, but I don't see him as a "franchise" player.

But even so, do you really think Thomas is going to approach his peak in the next 2-3 years, when Wallace will still be an elite player? I don't.

Garnett has at least another 2-3 strong years left, and if you can get him without giving up any truly essential players from the current rotation, I think you have as good a shot as any team in the league at titles over the remainder of his and Wallace's contract.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

MikeDC said:


> I don't want to trade Tyrus Thomas for Garnett. Not, at least, until I've seen that he's going to be less than I think he will be.


EXACTLY! You don't trade a 20 year old guy with the potential of Thomas for an old, over-rated guy like Garnett. Garnett is good, but at his age not worth giving up a guy who I think could be something really special. Thomas is already 1000 times as fun to watch as Garnett ever has been anyway. Of course I'm biased cause Garnett just never has appealed to me at all.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> You are way, way, way higher on Thomas than I am. He intrigues me, but I don't see him as a "franchise" player.
> 
> But even so, do you really think Thomas is going to approach his peak in the next 2-3 years, when Wallace will still be an elite player? I don't.
> 
> Garnett has at least another 2-3 strong years left, and if you can get him without giving up any truly essential players from the current rotation, I think you have as good a shot as any team in the league at titles over the remainder of his and Wallace's contract.


I don't feel like Pax should base his decisions on getting the most out of Wallace. The rest of the team won't be reaching their peaks until he's gone. 

I believe Thomas is going to be one of the best defenders and finishers in the league for a very long time. If he can turn himself into a good mid-range shooter, his offensive game could be very strong as well, he reminds me a lot of Bosh the way he can get past his man at will and draw fouls while slashing to the basket. If he can make a couple allstar games in his career, that's about how many allstar years we would be getting out of Garnett, I think Tyrus will be that good.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> EXACTLY! You don't trade a 20 year old guy with the potential of Thomas for an old, over-rated guy like Garnett. Garnett is good, but at his age not worth giving up a guy who I think could be something really special. Thomas is already 1000 times as fun to watch as Garnett ever has been anyway. *Of course I'm biased cause Garnett just never has appealed to me at all.*


Whew. I'm glad you threw in that last line. I was going to call you crazy for favoring a project 6-8 SF/PF tweener over a first-ballot Hall-of-Famer who happens to be in his prime. 

Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

I'm against trading Thomas aswell, only because I know a deal can be reached with us keeping him.



> Garnett for P.J. Brown, Mike Sweetney, Andres Nocioni, Tyrus Thomas, Malik Allen, Adrian Griffin (can't be traded until 12/15), and a top-2 protected 2007 first-round pick is CBA-compliant.


Nocioni, Thomas and the 07 first round pick, way too much champ.

Seriously we just need to bide our time, don't try and pry Garnett away, wait for him to come to us. It'll happen sooner than you think.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

step said:


> Nocioni, Thomas and the 07 first round pick, way too much champ.


Whether or not it's too much is extremely debatable, I think. It's a very average NBA rotation guy (Nocioni), two complete unknowns, and some salary cap relief for a perennial first-team All-NBA superstar. Who probably has a good 3-4 years left at his current level of play. 



> Seriously we just need to bide our time, don't try and pry Garnett away, wait for him to come to us. It'll happen sooner than you think.


Oookay . . . and what are we going to use to trade for him then, some fishing hooks and a bag of rice?

EDIT: here's a piece which suggests the Lakers could trade for Garnett using Odom and Kwame as the bait. So I don't think sending Minnesota our garbage is going to get the job done -- once word gets out that Garnett is on the block, we're going to have to field an attractive offer, not one that merely works salary-wise.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

The KG deal is close to a no-brainer to me. 

Especially, if Minn agrees to waive some of the surplus we send and we can get them back. (is that still allowed?)


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I like KG but the guy is just too old at this point to trade as much as we would have to to get him..I say keep Thomas...

ACE


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Big KG fan

But I can't give up on Tyrus yet...

Anybody else? sure. If they couldn't get Tyrus, they'd DEFININTELY want Deng.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

The ROY said:


> Big KG fan
> 
> But I can't give up on Tyrus yet...
> 
> Anybody else? sure


That position really, truly boggles my mind.

There appears to be a fairly reasonable chance of getting Kevin Garnett -- Kevin Garnett! -- on the Bulls in time for this season's playoffs, and it wouldn't cost us Ben Wallace, Ben Gordon, Kirk Hinrich, or Luol Deng. 

You'd give up a chance at being a prohibitive favorite to win the East for the next 2-3 seasons just to see what Tyrus Thomas and a high 2007 first-rounder might turn out to be? 

Or do you not think that the Bulls would be a prohibitive favorite with Garnett, Wallace, Deng (my God, what a front line), Hinrich, and Gordon? 

Or do you think that Tyrus Thomas + 2007 first round pick + whatever parts of the nucleus remain in 4-5 years will be a prohibitive favorite to win the conference titles for a greater period of time than "just" 2-3 seasons?

And how long do you think it's going to take Tyrus Thomas to become the 2nd/3rd-team All-NBA, multiple All-Star appearance type of player who can typically be found on a championship-winning roster?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Whether or not it's too much is extremely debatable, I think. It's a very average NBA rotation guy (Nocioni), two complete unknowns, and some salary cap relief for a perennial first-team All-NBA superstar. Who probably has a good 3-4 years left at his current level of play.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What was Vince Carter traded for ?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> What was Vince Carter traded for ?


You mean the injury-riddled Vince Carter who quit multiple times on his team, belittled his teammates and insulted a whole country, and had a lot of questions about his desire and his mental health and just about everything else?

I'm not sure NJ's picking up an extremely distressed asset on the cheap should serve as a benchmark for what Minnesota might fetch if they started taking bids on KG.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> That position really, truly boggles my mind.
> 
> There appears to be a fairly reasonable chance of getting Kevin Garnett -- Kevin Garnett! -- on the Bulls in time for this season's playoffs, and it wouldn't cost us Ben Wallace, Ben Gordon, Kirk Hinrich, or Luol Deng.
> 
> ...


Maybe some think this team is a top 3 to 4 team in the East as it is and going forward over the next 2 - 3 seasons has every good chance of contending in the East anyway ......and beyond that 

Its the "beyond that" which perhaps creates pause for some if they are giving away two top lottery picks ( Thomas and he who is to be named later )

Mark me down as a no for Garnett if it included Tyrus Thomas ....I'd sacrifice next year's draft pick (but protect it 1 - 3 ) but that's all I'd be prepared to do


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> You'd give up a chance at being a prohibitive favorite to win the East for the next 2-3 seasons just to see what Tyrus Thomas and a high 2007 first-rounder might turn out to be?


yes


> Or do you not think that the Bulls would be a prohibitive favorite with Garnett, Wallace, Deng (my God, what a front line), Hinrich, and Gordon?


favorite for 2-3 seasons does not equal a ring, and it's not guaranteed the Bulls would be a favorite for all of those seasons. The team would have no depth upfront and would be a KG or Wallace injury away from making it potentially the worst move ever.



> Or do you think that Tyrus Thomas + 2007 first round pick + whatever parts of the nucleus remain in 4-5 years will be a prohibitive favorite to win the conference titles for a greater period of time than "just" 2-3 seasons?


that is my primary reason for not liking that trade



> And how long do you think it's going to take Tyrus Thomas to become the 2nd/3rd-team All-NBA, multiple All-Star appearance type of player who can typically be found on a championship-winning roster?


I know it wasn't the arguement you based your post on, but one of the core would also have to go, likely BG or Hinrich or the 07 pick.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> You mean the injury-riddled Vince Carter who quit multiple times on his team, belittled his teammates and insulted a whole country, and had a lot of questions about his desire and his mental health and just about everything else?
> 
> I'm not sure NJ's picking up an extremely distressed asset on the cheap should serve as a benchmark for what Minnesota might fetch if they started taking bids on KG.


KG isn't what you'd call stable 

Just ask those of his teammates who he has punched out , frozen out , belittled or inconsistent commentary he has made about "sticking" and "that Mgt has to do something"

It strikes me as a little odd that for a terrific individual player that he is he has been out of the first round once in what 10 or 11 seasons ? 

I am not comparing KG's situation to Vince literally but I do believe that he isn't beyond reproach as to what may be part of the problem with Minnesota


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Maybe some think this team is a top 3 to 4 team in the East as it is and going forward over the next 2 - 3 seasons has every good chance of contending in the East anyway ......


This is exactly what I think, too. I'm talking about going from having maybe a 10-20% shot at winning the east to more of a 80-90% shot (and realistically, only a critical injury or something totally unforeseen would stop a Garnett/Wallace/Deng/Hinrich/Gordon-led unit from winning the East, imo).



> and beyond that


Beyond that, to me, is LeBron and Dwight Howard's decade. I think the odds of Tyrus Thomas being that good are slim to none, and even if Greg Oden is that good (I don't know that he'll be as good as Howard), then we get into that whole niggling detail about how unlikely it is we'll actually have a chance to draft him.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> KG isn't what you'd call stable
> 
> Just ask those of his teammates who he has punched out , frozen out , belittled or inconsistent commentary he has made about "sticking" and "that Mgt has to do something"
> 
> ...


I agree with all of this, and I've said as much in the more distant past when people would propose trades that would have gutted the Bulls just to get him. 

However, he would not be asked to be the lead dog here, just the biggest and best cog in a well-oiled machine. He draws double-teams, he is flawless in moving the ball, he would be energized by the Bulls' committment to effort and to defense. 

And we wouldn't have to gut the team to get him. Just give up spare parts and the rights/draft rights to two players who we have no reasonable idea whether they'll amount to championship-caliber NBA players, and even if we charitably assume that they will, players who won't reach that level for another X number of years.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> This is exactly what I think, too. I'm talking about going from having maybe a 10-20% shot at winning the east to more of a 80-90% shot (and realistically, only a critical injury or something totally unforeseen would stop a Garnett/Wallace/Deng/Hinrich/Gordon-led unit from winning the East, imo).


I'm not exactly sure how you arrived at those percentages but I would think our chances without Garnett would be significantly better. Watching the Pistons and Heat play at the start, there's really no clear favorite in the East; Miami will be better come playoff time but not to the point of where our odds of winning should be as small as 10-20%.

As far as the trade itself, I would think the right decision now would be to wait and continue to evaluate the current team until February. It's very possible the Bulls will prove themselves as the best team in the East, making a trade for Garnett uneccessary.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Oookay . . . and what are we going to use to trade for him then, some fishing hooks and a bag of rice?


Why is trading for Garnett the only option? He does have an opt out clause for 07, is that such a long time to wait?


> EDIT: here's a piece which suggests the Lakers could trade for Garnett using Odom and Kwame as the bait. So I don't think sending Minnesota our garbage is going to get the job done -- once word gets out that Garnett is on the block, we're going to have to field an attractive offer, not one that merely works salary-wise.


Teams can offer the holy grail and then some, it won't make any difference if Garnett chooses where he wants to go.



> I'm not sure NJ's picking up an extremely distressed asset on the cheap should serve as a benchmark for what Minnesota might fetch if they started taking bids on KG.


McHale would be lynched if he started the process willingly.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Well, I've seen enough of Gordon as our top scoring option. Hinrich, Deng, and Wallace (for the immediate future) should be the players we build with. The rest should be used as pieces to acquire the best available PF or SG.

Maybe trying to pry Ray Allen away from Seattle would be the best available option?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

step said:


> Why is trading for Garnett the only option? He does have an opt out clause for 07, is that such a long time to wait?
> 
> Teams can offer the holy grail and then some, it won't make any difference if Garnett chooses where he wants to go.
> 
> McHale would be lynched if he started the process willingly.


Garnett's opt-out is after the 2007-2008 season, not after this season. If he is our target, then yes, that's too long to wait. 

And McHale might be lynched if he waits any longer. I met up with an old friend of mine last week who has been a T-Wolves season-ticket holder since 1993. I asked him if he'd be willing to entertain a deal with the Bulls, and he said not only would he welcome it, he'll probably not re-up his tickets next year if the Wolves DON'T deal Garnett.

I think their general fan-base is pretty tired of their situation and would welcome a chance to start over.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Sam Smith, of course. The Tribune's pro basketball reporter is back to answer reader questions every week during the NBA season. 

It's full of questions on Ben. Both Bens, but more BG than BW, so lots of stuff pertinent to discussions going on around here. But the opening is his snarky self:



> So this is what you really want to ask Sam: Did it occur to you the season started a few weeks ago and camp about seven weeks ago, genius?
> 
> Well, I'm not sure you noticed, but when we took the motto "World's Greatest Newspaper" off the front page, we replaced it with "It's news when we say it is." Not actually, and I've got to be careful as I don't want to run down our value while we're on the market. In fact, if anyone's got about $10 billion, you can have this column and I'll also write advice to the lovelorn. My advice: Love this game. And don't look at me that way or I'll give you a technical foul.
> 
> Ah, but I digress. There's a simple explanation why we couldn't start answering your questions until almost Thanksgiving. I don't have this first hand, but I believe The Tribune was trying to get 1,000 stories in the paper by now comparing this Bears football team to the 1985 team and had gotten up to why this team's cooks were better before they lost. So then someone stood up and screamed, "The NBA season has begun! People have questions!" This kind of screaming still goes on in newsrooms, which is why the job is so much fun. But enough about me. What do you think about me answering some questions?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

The Tribune's pro basketball reporter answers readers questions--questions about Ben Wallace


Sam gets lots and lots of questions on BW which read like they came from this board.



> *Don't you think that management should admit that this no headband rule is dumb and forcing players to tape their ankles is also pushing it. At least now I know why Wallace has not been playing like himself, but it's not like he is playing with his shorts around his thighs. How about banning those awful tattoos!! Now there is a rule I could go for*. --Fausto, Quito, Ecuador
> 
> That's the point, in a way, though I don't care for that shorts around the ankle image. It's not about the headbands as you can always find a rule you don't like. I hate having to be on deadline and get my story in before it's done. Why isn't Wallace upset they won't let him shoot at a five-foot basket from two feet away so he wouldn't be the worst free throw shooter in history. What about banning tattoos? Imagine the ruckus. We are a society of rules and laws. When they don't make sense, you work within the society. Ben's outburst was about Ben, which is most disappointing.





> *Have to say that I don't always agree with your comments, especially when you try to trade half the roster for a 30-year- old KG, but at least you come up with some scenarios to try to improve the team. I know you received lots of Skiles questions last week, but in light of the headband incident last night with Ben Wallace, don't you think it's time for Skiles to get the boot with Pax going with a more established coach that can take us to the conference finals?* --Omar Abdel-Hady, London
> 
> This is the inevitable other part of the debate. Well, if we keep Ben then Skiles has to go. Skiles has hanging over him the reputation from Phoenix that veterans won't play for him, though guys like Antonio Davis were big boosters when they were here. The Ben-Skiles thing could bubble up again this season, but I get the sense the Bulls like what Skiles has done so far and aren't the kind of organization to have players, in effect, make personnel decisions. Michael Jordan often complained he couldn't, so I'm guessing Wallace's actions make Skiles more secure.


\

Much much more at the link, and more to come tomorrow.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Part Deux

*Who are Paxson and Skiles actively pursuing? Is there a list of options? For instance, could this be the order -- 1. Kevin Garnett, 2. Jermaine O'Neal, 3. Pau Gasol, 4. Paul Pierce, 5. Zach Randolph, 6. Ray Allen and 7. Corey Maggette? --Larry, West Palm Beach, Fla.*

My guess, or at least what I'd do, would be 1, 3, 4 and 6 with perhaps 7 if it doesn't cost too much. But there's plenty of competition with the East so wide open. The one big advantage the Bulls have is more tradeable assets than any team. It should be interesting come trading deadline.



*Isn't the inevitable "Did we pay Ben Wallace too much for too little" anxiety a little misplaced? Shouldn't we expect a drop off in Ben's numbers, not because of a decline in abilities, but because the Bulls run a different defensive system than the Pistons? The Pistons' scheme was designed to funnel people towards Wallace, so of course he racked up plenty of blocks and collected rebounds off shots he altered. In contrast, the Bulls already had an excellent defense that demanded individual accountability--since we didn't (sorry Tyson) have anyone to defend the basket, we couldn't just open up the running lanes and let people take their chances near the hoop. Now we do have a presence inside, but that isn't going to change how we defend people on the perimeter, it just gives us added insurance if people do get to the hoop. So isn't a drop-off in Ben's numbers actually an odd testament to the strength of the Bulls' defense? --Matt Nelson, Berkeley, Calif.*

Well, Ben hasn't exactly bought in, either. It's an intriguing point, but the issue with Ben has mostly been his lack of enthusiasm and hustle. He hasn't seemed the least bit interested in playing in all but a few games. Now it's supposed to be because he was mentally unbalanced because of the lack of a headband. I think he'll recover some, though we won't see the constant numbers we saw before because, frankly, the Pistons didn't see them either, last season. The Bulls understood that, but they believed Ben would be more enthusiastic after being taken care of when his own team refused. I've often said that dealing with pro athletes can be like U.S. government dealings with the Middle East. We don't ever seem to understand the culture and make grave mistakes all the time, and we keep applying logic to the actions of ballplayers, and they prove us wrong constantly.

*Sam, it's obvious to me that long-term contracts are the ruin of sports. I have no problem with the big money that players are given; I'd just prefer it to be given on a yearly basis only. This would keep players hungry if they knew that next year's salary would be based on this year's results. Is there any chance that sanity could ever be brought into the sports world, whereby fans could know that they're watching these athletes actually giving their all every year, instead of signing the long-term deals knowing that they're set for life no matter what effort they put out? --Rod Gallagher, Mascot, Tenn.*

Give me an Amen, brother. I've often commended David Stern on the way he's overseen the NBA. But I thought he made a huge miscalculation that will hurt the NBA for years with the agreement to allow the continuation of long-term contracts in the last collective bargaining agreement. I understand why he did it. The NHL was on strike and Stern didn't want to risk the bad publicity and loss of momentum to insist on say, three-year, maximum contracts. These long-term deals cripple franchises. But Stern would have had to lock out the players. It wouldn't have lasted long because there was no strong leadership among the players. Look at the stars of today's game. Who would follow them? In the last big deal, the players had Jordan, Barkley, Malone and Ewing to lead. Now, who? Kobe, LeBron, Carmelo? Shaq is the only one who carries any weight (pun intended), but he's not the kind to dig in for a fight. Stern needed to take the hit, but he wouldn't. And the NBA will suffer until it gets a hold of these contracts because it's only human nature that you'll get better performance the closer people are to playing for pay.

*Steph Marbury and Steve Francis are both off to awful starts for the Knicks. Have they lost it, or is it a matter that they can't work together? When I look at Marbury, Francis and Baron Davis, I see the same guy. Is that fair, because all three of these lead guards don't elevate anybody's game but their own. Meanwhile, here's Chris Paul, in his second year, ballin'. In turn, David West is playing well, and Tyson Chandler is contributing. Help me understand why Chris Paul gets it and those other three guards don't. --Julian "Star-Crossed Guards", Jersey City, N.J.*

It's a good question, but let's wait and see if Paul gets the big head and starts to believe it's all because of him. Remember, Francis was a perennial All Star, and out of New York, Marbury wasn't bad. He wasn't even a distraction in Phoenix. He's just been stupid most of his career and hasn't had advisors who did more than allow his worst instincts to show. One difference for now is Paul defends better than any of those three ever did. But I can see where he will get the idea he needs to score more if someone doesn't work with him. The Knicks situation now is bad in that the two can't play together. I didn't disagree with Thomas' move to get Francis for almost nothing. The idea was to stockpile talent and make a deal, but it blew up in his face with the big contracts and poor performance that made them hard to trade. Again, the problem with long-term contracts. They'd be better off now cutting Marbury, but it's hard to give up all that money.

*Why is Ben Gordon still with the Bulls? On second thought, why did they draft him ahead of some very good players, including the Bulls' best player, Luol Deng? Was it Michael Jordan's endorsement? It is/was obvious to anyone who knows and loves this game that Ben is a painfully limited player. A 30-point outing every third game just doesn't cut it. Do you think that Sefolosha can take his place? --James Westbrook, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico*

I know there's tremendous ambivalence about the other Ben as well. I've often mentioned him in trade scenarios because he is valuable. He just needs a better player, like Eddie Johnson, Ricky Pierce and Vinnie Johnson. Ben's like the closer in baseball, not the best player on your team, but cool and effective under pressure. He needs someone else to help the team get there.

*The Bulls obviously didn't address their problem this past offseason and get a consistent inside presence. Instead they took the Washington Redskins route and made the big splash by signing a declining player to unbelievable money. Will the Bulls finally address their problem by trying to trade for guys like Kevin Garnett, Jermaine O'Neal, Sean May or Zach Randolph? Or are they just really, REALLY waiting and hoping to get Greg Oden? --Jesse Miller, Washington, D.C.*

The Redskins analogy is scary. Though it has looked that way. I don't think any of those guys but Garnett is the answer. What we've seen is that Wallace is not the leader the Bulls hoped he'd be, that his teammates took more pressure off him than we realized, and his Big Ben thing was more an act. He's a remote, aloof soul and it appears he's been cracking under the expectations more than his young teammates. I don't think anyone realized how dependant he was on his teammates in Detroit.

*I think people put too much pressure on Gordon by calling him the Bulls' lone real scoring threat. Personally, I think Deng and Hinrich are just as capable of putting up 20 points on any given night. And Hinrich, at least, has proven himself as far more consistent, if less explosive. People seem to forget Kirk averaged more than 18 PPG after the All-Star break last season, then 20-plus in the playoffs. Deng, meanwhile, has looked much more aggressive on the offensive end so far this season. So why do so few people seem to regard either one as the Bulls' primary offensive weapon? Maybe if all the pressure wasn't heaped on Ben to score, he'd relax and his all-around game, including his shooting, would improve. --Tracey, Los Angeles*

Perhaps, though I don't think that stuff bothers Ben. One thing I admire about him is the way he seems to maintain an even demeanor all the time. I don't think the coaches like that because they believe he cruises through periods of games as a result. But I've rarely ever seen him upset or seeming to feel pressured, which is why he has the chance to be such a great closer. He's just small, so the shots come harder. Ben seems to get a kick out of all the moaning over his plight with a wry smile often creasing his face when questions are raised. He never seems as upset as everyone around him.

*Could you please tell me about the new playoff system for this season? --Kobe, Oakland, Calif.*

Because you think you and the Lakers will make it? Oh, this is the Oakland Kobe. The big difference is the three division winners and next best record will be seeded to open the playoffs so the two top records, like last season with the Spurs and Mavs, can meet before the conference finals. The big issue not addressed is if one division is lousy, some team can make the playoffs without having one of the eight best records by being a division winner.

*After reading the latest mailbag, I have a question: How do you keep from tearing your hair out after reading some of the letters, Super Glue? Why don't some of these armchair GM's apply to work for the Bulls? It occurs to me that only one team can win the NBA title. All the others will have upset fans that believe their coaches and GM's are idiots. --Larry Siegel, Manteno, Ill*

How dare you put logic and perspective in some of our discussions. Having little hair is always good in these instances as Skiles tells me. But the fun is in the debate as much as the games.

*What is wrong with you guys? You call yourself a professional newspaper? One of the biggest newspapers in the country? Why can't you get these "questions about your Chicago team" articles out in any sort of consistent timely fashion? People look forward to this stuff and it seems like someone from your offices just wakes up every once in awhile and says "Oh yeah, we should get one of those 'Ask The Team' articles out." Get with it. Jeez! --Chris E., Los Angeles*

How did you know about our mandate to wake up occasionally and put stuff in the paper and on-line?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Don't mean to inturrupt all the Honest Thoughts or anything, but here is the latest from Sam.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Part Deux
> 
> *Who are Paxson and Skiles actively pursuing? Is there a list of options? For instance, could this be the order -- 1. Kevin Garnett, 2. Jermaine O'Neal, 3. Pau Gasol, 4. Paul Pierce, 5. Zach Randolph, 6. Ray Allen and 7. Corey Maggette? --Larry, West Palm Beach, Fla.*
> 
> ...


It's interesting that Sam Smith is much more sensible when answering questions than when he's writing columns. My guess is that he has lost interest in writing columns, but he still follows the game and is quite knowledgeable. So, when he's asked a question his expertise shows, but when confronted by a blank sheet of paper his basic embarassment at being an expert on a trivial pursuit shines though.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...smith,1,5421347.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

So, now, what was everyone so upset about? Heck, if the Bulls had Ben Wallace, imagine how good they could be. That's seven straight losing teams coming up starting with the 76ers Wednesday night. The Bulls could be 10 games over .500 by the end of December with this schedule. And this is with Wallace as just another piece. Now, the Bulls understand that and it looks like everyone else has gone back to work to make up for it. As long as Wallace just shows up and isn't a problem, the Bulls should be OK, at least in the East. And by their good fortune, it's where they play. Maybe Wallace can be the new Kyle Orton. Though being competitive in the East is not necessarily the reason to stand pat. The East is wide open this season, as everyone knows, so why not try to crush it by making the team better? It is easier, by the way, to deal when your team is playing better. And not wearing headbands.

Wow! Are these comments from Bulls fans or Chicken Little? The team needs time to fuse and grow. Even with Wallace, the starters average less than three years experience. And next year we get a gift from the Knicks by the name of Greg Oden. --M. Kegel, San Diego



Everyone knows the lottery is just that, so there's hardly any Oden guarantee. Plus the Knicks have played better. Also, remember when Boston dumped the season to get Tim Duncan, had the worst record and got No. 3 and Chauncey Billups? The Spurs got Duncan and three titles. It had more impact on the Celtics than the death of Len Bias. All these comments in past mailbags show the fun of being a fan, and I commend the passion. It shows people care, and, frankly, this team hasn't been easy to figure out. But you know it gets better as the season goes on. By the way, I did get one letter from C. Little and he said the sky was falling, but I checked and it was that inversion from the lake effect.

Just wondering after playing the Knicks at Madison Square Garden, why it's called a garden? And the same with the Celtics at the Garden. Why not at the park? --Ray Geiselman, Glasgow, Ky.

Glad to get off the topic a little bit. I'm not fully sure why, though arenas in the '20s when a lot of them were built were called gardens. I guess it sounded more classic since those old arenas, like the old movie theaters, were often great architectural pieces compared with the space ships that went up after the '60s. I happened to be talking with some of the Knicks guys about this last week. I'm a native New Yorker and know the original Garden was around 26th and Madison near Madison Square Park. It's moved several times before ending up where it is now. When I was a kid it was up on 8th Avenue near 48th St.. Now it's at Penn Station, at 33rd St. and 7th Ave. Who care? I know, but we old timers love to reminisce since I can't recall what I had for breakfast. The Boston Gahden, by the way, was modeled after the New York one so took on a similar name.

I don't understand guys like Mike Sweetney. He has potential to become an impact player. Why doesn't he take his career more seriously and get in better shape? Why don't his agent or his loved ones motivate him? Is it the bad eating habits or reluctance to work out intensely that's keeping him larger than ideal? Aren't there any authoritative figures in the Bulls organization who monitors his condition throughout the whole year? --Jay Choi, Glenview, Ill.

They have been playing Sweetney a little more of late. Look, he can score some in the post and they don't have anyone who does, so it seems like they're giving in and realizing no one else will and why not give him a chance? You can see they're throwing the ball into him more now. But the Bulls have never quite figured out Sweetney. He seems to care and is a very polite, decent man. It appears he has some sort of eating disorder. I know he often tries to lose weight and even when he wasn't playing early in the season, his shirt was soaked through before games from running. But he doesn't seem to lose weight. And the Bulls have leaned on him constantly. My guess, and it's not particularly educated one, is that he eventually gets some help to save his career because he does have enough skills to be a rotation player somewhere.

What other teams outlaw headbands in the NBA? If John Paxson was as brilliant as Joe Dumars, he would turn this into a promotional thing at the United Center and hand out headbands! Imagine all of the headbands in the stands, kind of like the 'fro in Detroit -- not that that was Joe Dumars doing, but banning headbands makes the Bulls organization look silly, not Wallace. --Christian Sage, Kalamazoo, Mich.

There still is plenty of headband angst and it's amazed me how this became a national debate on dress codes. As I've said, Ben was just angry, embarrassed and hurt and acting out to show up Scott Skiles. Anyway, we're probably done with that. The interesting thing is this is not unique. Jerry Sloan, regarded as one of the league's best coaches, doesn't allow headbands and now has players association president Derek Fisher on the team and Fisher used to wear a headband. No more. Seattle disallows them, so does San Antonio and, of course, Pat Riley and the Heat and the Magic. Doesn't seem to be hurting Dwight Howard. So how come Scott Skiles is a dictator and some of these other coaches, most, other than Bob Hill, regarded as the elite in coaching, never get mentioned and continue to be regarded as players' coaches?

I've never seen so much made of a headband since Richard Simmons was doing his dance videos. Jiminy Christmas! First off, a rule is a rule. You break it, you pay for it. Wallace broke the rule and paid by sitting each time he broke it. If Skiles didn't sit Wallace those few minutes then it is the beginning of the end for his Bulls coaching career. You can't let any player run the show and the young guys would have taken notice. I'm in Indy and saw it happen with the Pacers. Stephen Jackson came in with Ron Artest and ruined Jermaine O'Neal. Now look at that franchise, they're worse than the Jailblazers. The box score says "shots per game" and you don't know if its with a basketball or a 9mm. Instead of all the "trade Ben" questions, why not trade for a Jack Haley? Is there a veteran out there that Ben respects that will be what Cris Carter was to Randy Moss, a mentor and friend who keeps him in line? --Gimy, Indianapolis

The Bulls players hated that Jack was there for Rodman like that. They did like that he was a sucker at cards and rich (not from basketball) and lost fortunes to them. Then they didn't vote him any playoff share, which Bulls management quietly gave him on their own. Maybe Ben's brother, who was banned from Pistons games after participating in the big fight with your Pacers. I feel badly the way you guys feel about the Pacers. They have long been one of the most fan, media and player friendly organizations in basketball. Artest did make a mess of it all and I figure he will in Sacramento as well. You can see the Pacers don't know who they are or what they want to be. They've done well by building on the fly before, but look like they'll have to break it down and I figure Jermaine O'Neal will be the big piece a lot of teams soon will be chasing.

What's your deal, being all pessimistic about Big Ben, saying that acquiring him was a mistake and that he's being childish with the headband issue? Sure the guy's getting $16 million a year, but give him a break. He's had to adjust to a new city and team for the first time in what, seven years? Let's face it, the Bulls aren't the same as the Pistons, and Ben has had to adjust to playing with a less experienced team in an environment of plays that run contrary to how he has played for his career. Theoretically, if you gather your information about the NBA from interviews, and were told to change, that you aren't allowed to interview anyone but must get your info from the internet in a restricted time frame each day, you would experience a drop in writing ability and information in your articles while maybe losing some readers to another writer. Have some faith in Big Ben. --Tim Pirera, Melbourne, Australia

Some say we do get all our information from the internet, though they get it all from us. This is the fact of life in pro sports. You get paid well for production. If you don't produce, you get criticized. I know it doesn't seem fair, but it's part of the entertainment business. Few get judged daily like athletes and entertainers. I've often joked how hard it would be to work if 20,000 people were behind me yelling, "verb! verb! verb, you idiot!" It doesn't work that way for us, fortunately. You get the big bucks and the big buildup, you have to perform. When Ben does, he'll get the credit.

I'm loving that Ben Wallace is trashing the Bulls. I read somewhere that he's is the only player to ruin three franchises, the Bulls, Pistons and Pacers, though the Pistons are better. When is the Ben Wallace experiment over? I've seen enough. They played with more heart and passion without him. --Jimmy Orr, Las Vegas

Funny. It's not over yet and you can still make a case for the Bulls being in the Finals. Shaq's talking about being out until the All Star break. If Wade sprains an ankle, they might not win 25 games. Who are you putting in the Finals from the East? The Bulls don't look like a Finals team, but no one else does, either. I'm looking forward to the games with the Pistons, the first one Jan. 6.

Will the Bulls seriously look to make a trade this year? Word is part of the reason why they acquired P.J. Brown was simply to package him and his contract into a trade for a player like Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce or Jermaine O Neal. --Chris Herbst, Chicago

I believe they will try, which doesn't mean they will. But the P.J. piece is valuable as well as Sweetney for expiring contracts worth more than $11 million. You throw Chris Duhon in there and that's a lot of money to temp teams having financial issues, like Memphis, Golden State and Seattle. I think February may be the most interesting month of the season.

You recently wrote something to effect of "who would have guessed Orlando would be doing so well?" But, I seem to remember that after they finally got rid of Steve Francis last year and inserted Jameer Nelson into the starting point slot, they went on a tear, winning something like 18 of their final 22 games. So, I, for one, was looking for a possible breakout season for them. Dwight Howard is the big story there, and rightfully so, but it seems to me that Nelson has quietly become one of the league's better emerging quarterbacks. Didn't see many preseason picking them in Top 4 in weak East. In fact, none. But that's why we come back every season, to find out how wrong we were. --Kevin Moriarty, Glen Ellyn, Ill.

I'm with you there. Like we say in the newspaper business, we publish every day so we can correct the mistakes we made the day before. I missed it, if they hang in there. We always hedge on the Magic because of Grant Hill, who has played well. Howard is going to be fabulous, as he has shown, but I'm still not sold on Nelson and Arroyo does play a lot for him. But they have depth and a big-time center and Nelson is a tough little guy who doesn't seem to know he's not supposed to be very good, which in the East should go farther than I thought. So I missed one. Ok, two, OK...

The Bulls spent a lot of money on Ben Wallace and in the beginning I applauded the signing however, does it make sense to sign a player for $15 million per that can't hit a layup. I mean for what Ben does on the boards and defensively I understand but everyone sees that on offense the Bulls are always playing four on five. In the NBA playoffs when the defense amps up you have to have a low-post threat--someone who can get you an easy bucket when things get tough. The Bulls aren't even close to having someone like that. Is it time to admit that we overpaid and pray that we get a shot at Greg Oden? I'm praying for some early snow for you guys. --Dante Brown, Houston

Is this Dante from the inferno? Yes, we got that snow and if you think you know hell ... Though I've been tough on Ben and disappointed as well, he's not a lost cause and can help. Perhaps it's awakened the other players, who realize now they have to play harder to make up for Ben. As I've said, I believe the Bulls will be looking to deal, so may come up with another scorer. The Heat got to the Finals without a low-post scorer as Shaq wasn't carrying anyone and the Pistons did OK with Ben there, even though he's not quite that Wallace anymore. Plus, they still could have a shot at Oden and that would extend Ben's career in Chicago.

Now that Pau Gasol was declared by Grizzlies as untradable who do you think Chicago should look to trade for? I think we are still an inside guy short to make a run at the championship now. Do you think we could get Vince Carter now? --Rheneir Mora, Cebu City, Philippines



No, the Nets aren't about to trade Carter, though he can opt out. There's been talk he'd go to Orlando, where he is from, or nearby. I doubt that and Vince isn't the defensive or hard working player the Bulls would hire. Of more interest to me is why you'd believe Grizzlies owner Mike Heisley. Nothing personal, but for one thing he is trying to sell the team to guys who want to cut payroll. Believe me, Pau will remain in play. And, by the way, how many playoff games have they won with him? Yes, zero. Bigger is why people believe owners, coaches, general managers, players. How many times have you heard a GM say there's nothing going on and make a trade the next day? I understand they don't want their players to know they might be trying to get rid of them and often deals get killed if they get out. One of the famous ones was the Pippen for Shawn Kemp in 1994 when the Supersonics backed out after a public firestorm because the fans didn't want Pippen, who had just walked out of a playoff game the season before. It worked out for the Bulls, anyway. If I lie, I'm fired. No second chance. If my credibility is questioned, I cannot continue to write. Why believe anything I write if you know I've lied about something? Teams have to do it to protect their investment. Of course, that brings up the question of why we quote them. But that's another issue.

I've been reading your column since June and it always seems to revolve around K.G. Are the fans in Chicago, you included, so sure that K.G. wants to be traded? Especially to Chicago! I think you and your fans need to move onto someone else on the trade rumors. How about we trade you Hassell, Hudson, Jaric for Gordon? --Aaron, Maple Grove, Minn.

Ouch. It's not that everyone is sure Garnett will be traded. If the Timberwolves were a playoff team, nobody would ever raise the issue. But if they miss the playoffs for a third straight season, doesn't it seem reasonable they may try to do something major? And no team has more assets than the Bulls with its depth and the ability to exchange draft picks with the Knicks. Why wouldn't a team that can't make the playoffs try to put together something for the future? And the Bulls are Garnett's kind of team. They need a power forward, are defensive oriented and on the brink. They'd be the favorites to get to the NBA Finals with Garnett and Minnesota could get some nice pieces to begin to put together a team to make a run in a year or two. After all, it's clear they're going nowhere. It seems to me that kind of deal helps both teams. Can't say as much for your suggestion.

I resent some of your comments about Wallace and the headband rule. Skiles, contrary to what you seem to think, is not Ben's father or teacher. He's not here to educate him. Wallace is a grown man, he's 32 years old, and he's certainly not stupid. The only stupid thing here is the rule, and to equate it to having a deadline or shooting free throws from five feet, well, that's what's stupid. Telling grown men not to wear headbands is like telling you not to wear a belt to work. The grown man that you are, you will resent that and maybe you'll break that rule and hope no one notices. I also don't really understand why no one is asking why this specific rule even exists in the first place? Actually, I do understand. Headbands scream hip-hop and streetball, and people think it necessarily means selfish play and showmanship. But Wallace won four Defensive Player of Year awards with the headband (and music in the locker room that's also hip-hop, BTW), and also a championship ring. It seems to me that the headband works well for him. Skiles should be the bigger man and change the rule. --Gil Kidron, Tel Aviv, Israel

And now it becomes an international incident. As I've said, I'm amazed by the passion for this thing. The rule was put in place for previous Bulls players and I'm sure if the Bulls had the chance to relax it before the season had Wallace said something they would have. But you can't just cave in when you are challenged. If the players did, there would be no team. Though I do notice now Ben is suggesting he did it on purpose to motivate the team. See, we all missed the real story.

Do you think Eddy Curry is starting to turn his career around in New York? It's hard not to root for the guy; he has gone through so much. --Charlie Armstrong, Kalamazoo, Mich.

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

How come George Karl can take J.R. Smith and make him effective even if his defense sucks? Last season the Suns took in Tim Thomas and he played great for them, killing the Lakers in the playoffs. Regardless of the facts that the Suns don't play defense, don't have a set offense outside of pick and rolls and Steve Nash, Tim Thomas doesn't practice or play, but he is still effective on the Suns and this season the Clippers. Hard work and hustle can only get you so far. It seems like the Bulls won't even give talent a chance if 110 percent hustle is packaged within. You can't get both in the NBA--it's one or the other. Skiles and Paxson need to put aside their egos and get players that can play, and forget about working their brains off. The fact that at 3-9, Wallace was benched for wearing a headband shows where their priorities lie, they could have just fined him or talked to him about it after the game. --Usman, Skokie, Ill.

Second guessing is the price of expectations. Though I don't disagree with what they did. Perhaps they could have held onto Smith longer to try to get more, but he wasn't going to play here with Hinrich and Gordon and Sefolosha coming in. He played in Denver because they had no one else and were looking. It happens and they may have lucked out. But the Bulls were deep without Smith and I doubt he'd ever have gotten a chance to play and make mistakes like he's done in Denver. I don't think the Bulls are afraid of talent. They're just having trouble getting the veteran kind. They have enough kids. And while Tim is OK, would he play ahead of Deng and Nocioni? He had a great playoff run in Phoenix, but had he been with the Bulls you'd be going nuts over some of the shots he takes.

The Bulls have been a high turnover team for several years, and their guards are no longer rookies. Could their system be contributing to the turnover problem? --Bob, Norfolk, Va.

I believe it does, but that's OK. Magic Johnson made plenty of turnovers. Systems of play that require considerable ball movement and passing produce turnovers. But they also produce opportunity and good entertainment for the fans. I'll live with the turnovers, though Skiles seems to have a bigger problem with them than I do. Magic led the league in turnovers one year the Lakers went to the Finals. No one saw it as a big problem.

I'm happy with Luol Deng's breakout season so far. I saw this coming before the season started, and I think he has the potential to be a star. I think the next development on offense should be a post-up game. With his size and length, he could be unstoppable if he worked on it. Do you know if he is working on this, and why he hasn't worked on it in the past? --Dave Thomas, Gurnee, Ill.

Well, he did average over 14 last season, so he was coming. He's been hurt in previous summers and I don't think has had as much opportunity to develop. But he's just 21, so give him time. Though the team has complained about his defense this season, I still wonder if he can ever play some shooting guard and give them a big lineup across the board.

If you're going trade members of the core of these young Bulls, I think you've got to leave Luol Deng off the trading block. Deng is the most underrated player in the team. If Skiles designed more plays for him, the guy will prove to be a reliable go to guy. He's efficient and effective. His biggest flaw is that he is not being more assertive. Stop trying to trade him! --Jeffrey, Singapore

The only time I talk about Deng in trade is for the likes of Kevin Garnett. Perhaps it's short-term thinking, but I've believed with one major deal the Bulls could make a serious run this season and change the balance of power in the NBA. I'm a go-for-it guy when you have a chance, though personally I drive the speed limit. I explained to Luol that I only mention him in trades because he's good and teams like him. That's no insult, and I'm still waiting for my first call from John Paxson actually asking me what he should do.

With regards to commissioner Stern, I support him on the technical foul calls issue the players union is crying about. It was getting sickening watching these million-dollar crybabies whine every time there was a call against them. It's about time something was done. And I think the officiating has been better this year partly as a result or this. --Norm, Newport, Maine

As much as Stern tries to end the disconnect between fans and his players, it only gets worse. Though this is the only e-mail on this issue I received. I think fans are so accustomed to the players whining about something, they almost tune it out. I know it hurts overall perceptions, but I really do think people still do love the game and put up with some whining as part of the deal.

Solution on the headband rule. Black shoes aren't allowed during the regular season, only playoffs, so they should do this with headbands. Headbands and black shoes for the playoffs? What do you think? --Chad, Pana, Ill.

You've got it! That would be perfect for the playoffs, sort of the new beginning, no one loses face and Ben can pretend they gave him his strength back. There really is no reason to do it before then, but we'll keep it between us until then and then surprise them.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Theoretically, if you gather your information about the NBA from interviews, and were told to change, that you aren't allowed to interview anyone but must get your info from the internet in a restricted time frame each day, you would experience a drop in writing ability and information in your articles while maybe losing some readers to another writer.



Paging Jay Mariotti...Jay Mariotti, please pick up the nearest white courtesy phone...


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: Sam Smith Q&A in the Tribune - Updated & Merged with questions on AI*

Ask Sam take on AI trade talks

Sam talks about The Answer, and why he won't be the answer for the Bulls:



> Sorry if my English is bad but I haven't written English for a long time. But my question is who do you think will take AI (Allen Iverson)? Would it make sense for Chicago to trade Ben Gordon, Michael Sweetney and possibly, Adrian Griffin or someone else that doesn't do much for the team? --Guðjón Hilmarsson, Iceland
> 
> The majority of the questions I've gotten in the past few days have been about the Bulls trading for Iverson. I decided to answer this one at length because I have to have sympathy for someone who lives in a worse climate than I do, and there aren't many. And you probably can't get across the country and find Phoenix or L.A. Heck, we admire you. Most Americans can't write English. So here goes: No way, AI! What is infinity in reverse? That's the chance of the Bulls pursuing Iverson. Though we'd love to see him at practice--Yes, Practice!--with Scott Skiles. The main rumor has him going to Sacramento and you'd pay to watch Iverson and Ron Artest on the same team. The Trib's sports editor, Dan McGrath, worked in Sacramento and we were commenting the other night on Eric Musselman wanting to return to coaching in the NBA in the worst way, and this would be the definition of the worst way. This is the product of two goofy, fun loving brothers owning a basketball team and making the personnel decisions.
> 
> ...


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Another new one from Sam, with a lot of questions reflecting topics from the board the past couple of weeks, like this one:



> *Hi Sam, I'm hoping that you with your infinite wisdom will help me understand why Kirk Hinrich is soooo important to the Bulls. I know he's the "defensive leader," the "catalyst" for the offense, and blah, blah, blah. However, look at the games of Gordon, Deng and Nocioni and you see steady improvement from each one each year. They are all better at something or several things than they were when they were rookies. In comparison, look at Captain Kirk's numbers and the only thing that has gone up is his shooting percentage, and the verdict is still out until the end of the year. I'm not advocating a trade but I can't begin to see why Kirk Hinrich would ever be untouchable or even so highly regarded by Pax and Skiles. Is it a smoke screen? Has Hinrich reached his ceiling of potential? --JayMan, Salt Lake City*
> 
> *I'm not exactly sure where all the Hinrich hate comes from these days*. That's the right lexicon these days, isn't it, the haters stuff? I don't think Hinrich has played his best defense this season, but neither has Ben Wallace. Can an entire Olympic selection committee be wrong? They picked Kirk and liked him and I believe will bring him back. But he could be worn out some from that experience and might be better off from a Bulls standpoint not playing. I also think he's a guy who puts a lot of pressure on himself given the contract extension. I heard a lot of similar complaints at one time about Steve Nash in Phoenix and Dallas. I'm not saying Hinrich will be that kind of player and may not have the passing instincts. But he's a keeper for me given his defense, aggressive play and improving shooting. Though I wouldn't say from what I've heard that any Bulls player is truly untouchable.


More on Posey, All-Stars, who is and isn't untradeable here: Ask Sam


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I thought this latest Q&A was pretty great. Lots of interesting stories. Sam was particularly hard on Wallace for his play in the Phoenix game, which was surprising.

Also, I enjoyed his food poisoning explanation, and I have apparently been very naive to believe that food poisoning is food poisoning in the NBA. You learn something new every day.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

> I really would love to see the Bulls get Kevin Garnett and I know that would include almost a firesale of Chicago assets. I think any trade they make shouldn't include Hinrich, Deng, and Nocioni. I think they are the real future of the team. Despite Gordon's recent heroics, I think he is expendable when talking Garnett. --Andy, Westport, Conn.
> 
> I don't hear much talk about trading Ben these days, and for good reason. He really has developed that ability to go into the big man, take the blow and finish, which he never could do. It's the sign of the great small player, and if he has that, you wouldn't want to let him go. Garnett is the great debate because the Bulls do have the pieces, and, as we saw against the Suns the other night, they do need another big guy. But what can you give up?
> 
> ...


Tell us about it Sam


----------



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

rwj333 said:
 

> I thought this latest Q&A was pretty great. Lots of interesting stories. Sam was particularly hard on Wallace for his play in the Phoenix game, which was surprising.
> 
> Also, I enjoyed his food poisoning explanation, and I have apparently been very naive to believe that food poisoning is food poisoning in the NBA. You learn something new every day.


LOL, this lends some credibility to Mebarak's "Partying with Lebron" theory.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

I've been enjoying Sam's columns lately, hope he keeps it up. What is the world coming to when you can't even make fun of Sam Smith anymore. Soon dogs and cats will be living together, Sweetney will be a Trimspa spokesman, Marbury and Duhon will have the same stat line, and Ben Wallace will hit two freethrows. It'll be anarchy.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Philomath said:


> I've been enjoying Sam's columns lately, hope he keeps it up. What is the world coming to when you can't even make fun of Sam Smith anymore. Soon dogs and cats will be living together, Sweetney will be a Trimspa spokesman, Marbury and Duhon will have the same stat line, and Ben Wallace will hit two freethrows. It'll be anarchy.


I don't know that I can find the link, but I remember Sam mentioning after his first season of answering letters that he was surprised how good the questions and analyses of the fans that wrote to him were. 

I think Sam realized that he doesn't need a schtick to be a popular writer about basketball. Now, he seems to take his time to analyze the game and really engage the fans with his personality and love for the game. His taking over for KC that one year was the best thing for him as a writer.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> LOL, this lends some credibility to Mebarak's "Partying with Lebron" theory.


By most accounts, Kirk spent most of his time hanging out with Shane Battier.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> By most accounts, Kirk spent most of his time hanging out with Shane Battier.


Well, clearly Battier infected Kirk with his prima donna hard partying sense of entitlement, then.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> Well, clearly Battier infected Kirk with his prima donna hard partying sense of entitlement, then.


Who, me?










I'm a happily married man.










Who enjoys checked shirts and picnics in the park.










I even clap like a girl.










And have cute, non-threatening shar pei skin folds all over my head.










I'm just the guy you want Captain Kirk hanging out with. Just ask Dick Vitale . . .










Duhon on the other hand . . .


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> By most accounts, Kirk spent most of his time hanging out with Shane Battier.


The only tangible thing I read stated that Hinrich was chumming with Shane Battier and Brad Miller. I seem to remember the, "no surprise there..." sentiment.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...smith,1,4700450.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

*Could give me your list of Bulls, among Kirk Hinrich, Ben Gordon, Luol Deng, Andres Nocioni and Tyrus Thomas, whom you would trade? Most people I've asked want Hinrich gone first or second, but I think he's been one of the best Bulls over the past few years and is in a slump that he will eventually snap out of. --Drew, Chicago*

This is a great question I'm sure John Paxson is asking as well now that there's talk the Bulls could get Pau Gasol. Ben Gordon is invaluable with his scoring, but doesn't do that much else. He doesn't really run the offense, pass or defend. But they do count the points at the end of the game and no one on the Bulls does it better. Hinrich isn't quite the scorer, but is a better defender but probably doesn't quite have the point guard mentality of Duhon. Deng is the most consistent, able to do a little bit of everything. I know I still haven't answered. Nocioni is a nice specialist, tough guy and good shooter and Thomas is the best athlete of all but a bit away in skills.



I'd put Hinrich, Gordon and Deng together at the top and find them almost inseparable in value. If I had to I'd probably keep Gordon because of his unique scoring ability and Hinrich because he defends the best and can play point and score, though he's more an old-time guard like Danny Ainge. Good guards are harder to come by than good small forwards, which makes it tough because Deng might have a higher ceiling than Hinrich and Gordon and could improve the most, but it depends on whom you're trading for.

With a low-post scorer, I'd want to keep Gordon most to spread the floor. With a big guard scorer like Jason Richardson or Ray Allen, I'd want to keep Hinrich or Deng. I'd trade Nocioni and Thomas if I could get a power forward. I'd probably let Deng go first of the big three with regret, then Hinrich and Gordon -- and still not be sure. That's why the Gasol thing is going to be difficult, if not impossible.

*Do you think Pau Gasol could be had for Tyrus Thomas, Andres Nocioni, Chris Duhon and a future first round pick? Or am I dreaming? --Curt, Farmington, N.M.*

It's a nice dream for the Bulls. This is why this isn't going to happen soon, if at all. The Grizzlies apparently are asking for at least two of three from among Gordon, Deng and Hinrich. If that doesn't change, there will be no deal for the Bulls. I don't believe they'd give up two of the three. They'd like to keep all three, but might have to give up one. It will probably come down to the trading deadline, and if the Grizzlies don't have a better deal, then maybe the Bulls do it without disturbing their main core, though I doubt that.

*What other teams will be competing with the Bulls for Gasol? Who, if anyone, can offer a package comparable to that of the Bulls? --Tim, Evergreen Park, Ill.*

He's a nice piece, but the Bulls seem to have the most assets a team like that could use. If only they realized that as much as we do. Toronto has several young big men and could get in it. The Nets have talked about dealing Vince Carter, who is a bigger name than anyone the Bulls can offer. The Celtics have offered just about everyone but Paul Pierce. I can see the Cavs making a big offer or maybe Washington. The Bobcats and Hawks have plenty of young assets. They're unlikely to deal him West, but Portland would give them Zach Randolph, I assume Seattle would offer Rashard Lewis and the Warriors any number of players. It's going to get busy for the Grizzlies.

*Why does John Paxson get a free pass for trading J.R. Smith and getting exactly nothing for him? I am sure he is not a Skiles/Paxson guy, but I think that quality is overrated. By my account, he was given to Denver and the Bulls have zero to show for it. Are the Bulls here to win games or pass judgment on character? --David Cox, Chicago*

I can't say I disagree. The Bulls are loaded with guards and Smith never would have played. Who are you going to sit, Gordon? Hinrich? And Sefolosha eventually will be the bigger defensive guard they need. I'm interested to see how Smith does with Anthony and Iverson firing now. It's not like I heard a lot of people saying the team had to keep him after the trade. The fact is there are some issues with the guy; he's already stated he doesn't like to get up early to come to practice and character does matter. Not for the sake of judging someone or making the world better, but you need people you can count on and are reliable. Smith had not shown any of that with the Hornets and I'm interested to see what happens now with Anthony and Iverson running everything in Denver.

*A couple questions on Jermaine O'Neal: I love his game but he's also a frustrating player to watch sometimes, like an SF in a center's body. He's got a great shooting touch and blocks like crazy, but seems to hate all the shoving in the post. What's with that? You beat on him some earlier this week for complaining about his team, which was a tacky thing for him to do. But O'Neal does work with some certifiable knuckleheads while he's been quite classy as he's literally grown up in the spotlight. How much of this "disgruntled player" stuff is manufactured by bored reporters with inches to fill and not much to say about a .500 team during the regular season? --Chris R., Chicago*

With all the talk about Garnett, he may be the one to be traded because it seems clear the Pacers are close to breaking up their team. The big problem with O'Neal is the way you opened: He should be a power post player, but he doesn't like the contact. He prefers to wander outside and shoot jumpers. You don't need an $18 million power forward to do that. It's probably the big reason why the Pacers never have gone far in the playoffs with him despite that great talent. So they get rid of another of the knuckleheads in Stephen Jackson and I heard O'Neal was fine with letting Harrington go because Harrington was clogging things up for him in his 15-foot range and then O'Neal complains about the team being close and now having to start over. He's a guy who always seems to be upset with something, though he is not a major distraction. It's frustrating for a team and I wouldn't be surprised if the Pacers quietly begin taking bids on him.

*Do you think both the Bulls and the Nuggets would trade Marcus Camby and Reggie Evans for Chris Duhon, PJ Brown and Tyrus Thomas? The Bulls would get a big guy who's an excellent defender and can score more than Brown to pair with Big Ben and the Nuggets would get a defensive-minded point guard, a project in Thomas and salary cap flexibility with Brown's contract. --Vasco Curado, Lisboa, Portugal*

At least you're thinking from both sides, which is vital. But I doubt the Nuggets would give up their best defender for a project and a short term guy in P.J. I can tell you are a Bulls fan and not a Nuggets fan.

*Are the Bulls too nice? Ben Wallace was brought in to add some toughness and grit to this squad. Instead, it appears that this team has softened up Wallace. Scott Skiles was the type of player who ate nails for breakfast. Why doesn't the character of this team reflect its leader? I'm not saying that these guys should play like thugs. There's no place for that in basketball. Gangsta-like stupidity aside, there does not seem to be much NBA-caliber backbone on Skiles' roster. Tough teams grab loose balls and finish lay-ups. Sans Andres Nocioni, could somebody on this team ingest some testosterone. --F.A. Bartkus, Coconut Creek, Fla.*

I think this is frustrating to Skiles, who again talked about it after the loss to the Jazz. But I think there is a paradox in the Bulls' philosophy. The Bulls have made a point to try to build their team with high character people from good programs whom you can count on, players who love the game and love to practice and with whom you won't have problems. I agree with that. Yet, those types of people tend to avoid the physical nature of the game and like to play. Remember, Skiles was no angel in college. It's not like Hinrich, Gordon and Deng aren't tough guys. They get beat up pretty good and play very hard and aggressively and you see teams upset and take shots at them, like Miami, Detroit and Washington. But they're not by nature, other than Nocioni, physical people who look to mix it up. Ben looks the part, but it was always more image than reality. And he had crazy guys behind him like Rasheed Wallace.

Do you need it to win? I think the Bulls are OK, though still seem one guy short -- that tough power forward to score and throw his weight around. Maybe if Thomas gains some it will be him.

*I'm frustrated the Bulls aren't beating the top-tier teams. From my vantage point, they'll always be an above-average team but will never seriously challenge for the NBA crown. The way the Knicks are playing, their pick probably won't land them an impact draft player. To stay the course, they won't beat any teams from the West. I say take a chance and make a deal for a proven scorer even if you have to trade some of the young talent. I think Hinrich, Nocioni, Duhon and Thomas are all expendable. Paxson's philosophy can only go so far. They really need to get an elite player that can score consistently. --Ron, Pasadena, Calif.*

Perhaps Pau Gasol, who seems available now. Those guys don't seem to move too often. And if you think those guys are all expendable, why would a team give up a star for one? There are other reasons, like a guy wanting to be traded, which has been the hope for Garnett and Gasol. Kirilenko? Jermaine O'Neal? Zach Randolph? None seem to be the ideal fit over Garnett or Gasol, two role-playing stars who can't carry a team but need the kind of supporting players the Bulls have. The fact is the Bulls have beaten the elite teams from the East. They've had big games against Miami, Detroit, Cleveland and Indiana. They clearly are a notch below the top Western teams, but you get to the Finals by beating the teams in your conference. Not to say the Bulls are the favorite, but they have a chance against any of those teams. And if you get to the Finals, you only have to beat one Western team, which could panic, like Dallas did last season.

*Why is it that this Bulls team appears very mechanical without much display of emotion? When other teams make a run, score some key baskets, there is a lot of chest bumping and thumping. But when the Bulls score big they just put their heads down and run back to their end. Makes me mad! Is that also an edict by Skiles and Paxson? --Jeet, Evanston, Ill.*

It's not an edict, but I do think there's too much chest bumping for making layups. You do see a reasonable amount of healthy emotion from the team in close games. What they don't have are the NFL type of morons who do a dance 20 points behind when they make a tackle or prepare a routine for making a score. They are professionals you can be proud of by their behavior. We talk about so-called old school players who respect the game, themselves and their opponent, and when we get those people we want them to act like idiots?

*Are people comparing Kirk Hinrich to Steve Nash because they are both white or because neither looks like a basketball player? In my opinion, they have such different styles of play. I just can't see this comparison at all. Nash's game is centered around creativity, fast break, and making his teammates better. Hinrich's style of offense is just totally different, and much of his assists come from designed plays. I think Hinrich is much more like Derek Harper. --Farhan, Rio Rancho, N.M.*

Wouldn't be bad to be like Harper, who had a heck of an NBA career. The reason you hear the comparison on occasion, and Steve Kerr makes it often on TNT and I'd say he knows something about the position and Nash since he is an advisor for the Suns, is that Hinrich carries the ball through the defense and often comes out the other side, keeping his dribble as he looks for openings to pass and can make a deep shot. No, Hinrich is no Nash and probably never will be because of decision making. But Nash may soon be a three-time MVP and that's rare in the history of the game. There is no other Steve Nash, but Hinrich is pretty darned good.

*You said no team has four players making high salaries, so the Bulls would only sign Gordon and Deng if they make the Finals or at least the ECF. Are you sure about this? What about Phoenix with Nash, Stoudemire, Marion, Diaw, Barbosa and I think even Marcus Banks got a little nice contract. If this is so, how was Phoenix management able to do this? --Derek, The Netherlands*

You are right to a point, but they did let Joe Johnson and Tim Thomas go rather than pay them. Barbosa makes about the exception and Diaw is under eight figures at about a $9-million average. So they have three eight figure players. They also have three all-pro players in Nash, Stoudemire and Marion. The Bulls have none. If the Bulls had four players at that level, they'd pay them, I believe. And as I said, if they made the Finals, I believe they'd probably take care of all of them. Despite the reputation, the history of the franchise always has been to pay its players and to take care of their players if they left, like Pippen, getting his big deal with Houston only because the Bulls made accommodations. But Phoenix already is looking to get rid of Banks to limit their payroll and might make other such moves if the season isn't an ultimate success.

*With the Knicks playing better and flirting with the Titanic ... sorry, Atlantic division title, the pick the Bulls got back from the Knicks may not result in a lottery pick. Could the Bulls send something to a woeful team, maybe the Hawks, for their pick? You know, open up a second shot in the Oden sweepstakes? It sounds like Oden is exactly the kind of young, low-post guy the Bulls need. If you were Paxson and had to structure something to get a guaranteed high pick in addition to the pick from the Knicks, what would you do? --Jeffrey, Singapore*

Forget it. Oden is going to be great and no one is going to give up a shot at him. My guess is you couldn't get him for any player in the league but the half dozen or so MVP candidates. But don't despair. I believe the Nets win that division and the Knicks end up in the lottery. The league could make a mistake thinking the Knicks still have the pick and fix it like they did in 1985 with Patrick Ewing and ... oh, right, we're not supposed to mention that or the Warren Commission report.

*If Scott Skiles had not re-signed with the Bulls, do you feel all these misguided fans who are now calling for his removal would be lamenting the fact he is no longer with us and would be wishing for his return? We Chicago fans have such short memories, don't we? --Jack Drummond, West Richland, Wash.*

Exactly. I like to publish the emails I get in proportion to total responses to give people an idea of the mood of my reading community that week. It's why I ran so many about Skiles last week. Frankly, I was surprised myself. He is a very good coach, but after two weeks with the backup quarterback doesn't everyone want the other guy back? It's not Chicago fans; it's sports fans. That's part of the fun really, the debate, the possibilities, the contingencies. He is a good coach, but it is a player's game in the NBA and the Bulls have some good players. When he leaves the Bulls, and in this business it's always a when, he'll get another job right away, and then another after that. Overall, he's one of the better coaches around. No, he's not perfect. Perhaps his people skills aren't always the best, but Rosie O'Donnell has a TV show and hers seem awful. Heck, if Skiles were an American Idol judge, he'd be the nice guy.

*Wow, I think everyone in this city has gone mad. Maybe it's the confusion about wanting to root for Rex and needing to hate him for some bizarre reason. Why does everyone in town want to run Scott Skiles out? Good week, bad week, its the NBA; it is supposed to be a roller coaster ride. That's why the Bulls have a circus trip at the start of every year. The ride begins with the first big drop that everyone sees coming and can do nothing but brace themselves for. Scott Skiles is an above-average NBA coach. Bulls fans had the great fortune of watching one of the best teams, with some of the best players, in one of the best eras in professional sports. We also had a great coach who let his ego and personality help destroy two dynasties. What we have now is less of an anomaly. We have a good organization with good players and good coaches who work hard. This is reality in sports and life. If they continue to work hard and improve and are in the right position at the right time they might, just maybe get within striking distance of a championship, then they will have a puncher's chance. So, insanity aside, the one thing I saw in the past two weeks is the glut of comparable talent. The Bulls have no superstars but they have a front line of above-average players, they also have a fleet of better-than-average, overachieving substitutes. Their problem is they need about three fewer guys and one more difference maker. How can they package Brown, Duhon, Sweetney, and two of their top picks over the next two drafts to get a serious power forward? Forget KG! Who can they get? --Skokie Pete, Skokie, Ill.*

Shareef, Melvin Ely. Look, as I often note, you don't get much for the guys you don't want. Though I have fun with the trade speculation and always feel it's a good way to look at the league in another way by examining other teams and their needs, the likelihood is the Bulls will have to try to get lucky in the draft to get their missing piece. Lucky and smart. Would you like to have Gilbert Arenas, Michael Redd, Carlos Boozer, Manu Ginobili? They were all second-round picks. Kobe Bryant and Steve Nash weren't top 10. You can get a great player other than the top of the draft, and the Bulls might just have to be patient and look in that direction. Though I intend to continue to help them find someone more quickly. Jermaine O'Neal? Zach Randolph? Nick Collison? Gasol? The Chicago Tribune trade machine is working for you.

*I cannot believe the amount of email you have received blasting Skiles. Have people forgotten what he has done? Three years ago he led a team made up of mostly players under 24 from 0-9 to the No. 4 seed in the playoffs for god's sake!!! This year the Bulls started 3-9 and now are in position to compete for the top seed--not mention the fact that he always gets the squad playing its best basketball down the stretch. How long until you just tell everyone to shut up? --Winson Giordano, Fredericksburg, Va.*

Haven't gotten a job offer from the View yet.

*With the result of the big Pacers-Warriors trade, I have the feeling that some other team can get lucky. Indiana still needs a PG and Golden State now has too many egos and too many shooting options. Yes, Jason Richards has to be available! How can our Bulls win from this situation? --Simao, Oporto, Portugal*

I don't think they will, and I'm not sure the Pacers or Warriors will either. It clearly was a situation with two desperate teams. I think last season the Bulls would have been seriously interested in Richardson. But I doubt it now with his knee issues this season and with the Bulls getting Sefolosha as that big defensive guard down the road to go with Gordon's scoring. I'm sure Indiana would like to move Tinsley, too, but I don't see much they have to interest the Bulls. I also think Golden State will look to move Pietrus, but it's size the Bulls need and Golden State doesn't have it to spare. Adonal Foyle? Not likely.

*Do you think the Bulls are a better team with out Ben Wallace, and possibly better with PJ? The two games he sat out, the Bulls seemed to dominate, and have looked flat with him back. --Mike, Albrightsville, Penn.*

It's tempting to say so, but I wouldn't go quite that far. The Bulls could be better if he showed more enthusiasm and wasn't complaining about injuries so much. You don't hear Hinrich, Deng and Gordon moaning almost daily about stiff necks and the nonsense Wallace keeps bringing up. Wallace isn't a force anymore, but he does get respect from officials and stays out of foul trouble, which keeps opponents out of the bonus. He chases on the floor and does disrupt some plays. And he does pursue rebounds. He's more consistent than special, but I'd probably cut back his minutes and give Tyrus Thomas more time.

*I wish someone in the sports media would point out the "net +" figure (see:http://www.82games.com/0607/0607CHI.HTM) for Ben Wallace. The "net +" figure for a player indicates the relative difference a player makes to his team's scoring differential when he's on and off the floor. It's a useful statistic, because you can compare all the players in the league to see how much they help their teams. Wallace's figure of -15.4 is the worse of any player in the NBA who has played more than 50 percent of his team's minutes. In fact, I believe he is even the worst for any player drawn from a larger group of those who has played more than 30 percent of his team's minutes, but I haven't checked this yet. The bottom line is that the Bulls play much better, both offensively and defensively (see http://www.82games.com/0607/0607CHI1.HTM), when Wallace is off the floor. They would be much better giving more minutes to Thomas and Sweetney -- especially when the opposing team is in the free-throw penalty situation. --Martin Purvis, Dunedin, New Zealand*

Here's the sad part: You're not even on our side of the world and you can see this, too. Statistics can be somewhat deceiving in basketball because of the unique team elements. I recall an ESPN stat thing last year listing Ben Gordon as the Bulls' best defender. Clearly, that guy wasn't watching the games, just box scores. But Ben Wallace has remained a major disappointment and I think we're coming close to another headband type episode. The guy's history is to act out when things don't go well. The Pistons babysat him way more than anyone here knew was necessary. You'd think paying him so much was the ultimate sign of respect. But he's clearly a headcase who needs more support. Perhaps if the Bulls can get Gasol, that will take some pressure off Wallace. But he's been a major disappointment and I feel badly for the Bulls for going out and putting out the red carpet for the guy and forgetting their poop bag for all the mess he's been creating. I feel badly myself for supporting the Bulls' decision and hope Wallace has enough pride and professionalism to decide to live up to his obligations come playoff time.

*After watching the Bulls lose pathetically to the Pacers this morning I noticed something about the way a certain player was playing defense on the interior. Ben Wallace just looked bored down there, lacked any kind of energy, didn't front the post, and basically gave Jermaine O'Neal all the space in the world to do his thing. I was wondering whether a trade for Darko could solve the Bulls' need for an interior scorer, i.e. a cheaper alternative to Pau Gasol. Would Darko fit into the Bulls' system? --Ben, Hong Kong*

Darko for Ben? No, I don't think we're going there. Ben's not there yet even if he seems to be losing interest. It does happen before the All-Star break with a lot of players, so we'll see if he wants to get it together for the stretch. I'm not a big Darko fan. If you think Ben looks disinterested, watch that guy. He's barely got a pulse.

*How tradable is Ben Wallace considering his age and contract? My hunch is not very, but I was wondering how much of a demand there would be for a player like him, all factors considered. --Dan Davus, Chicago*



Probably not much at this point with the long contract. I remain hopeful the Bulls will get more out of him and I doubt they are even considering dealing him. He's not quite the bust category yet, but perhaps his wife can get his attention. There always were stories in Detroit when he was playing badly of her getting him going. I hope she's watching.

*Wow. I cannot believe what a bunch of crybaby fans we have!!! Talk about a what-have-you-done-for-me-lately culture we live in. Fire Skiles, trade Kirk...I thought these guys all deserved to be All Stars or the coach of the year!? It really sickens me how quickly people turn. Ben Wallace and Tyson are averaging just about the same numbers. I admit, he does have better hands and is a better passer. But do you think we can send him back to Detroit?? His body language and stories of him crying on the phone to his boys in Detroit would suggest that is where he wants to be. I say send us Mohammed and a draft pick. --Rick Downs, Chicago*

It's interesting but I don't think the Pistons really wanted Ben back. I think they made the kind of offer they knew he wouldn't accept. I think they believe he had another good year, and he might be good in the playoffs if they can cut his minutes some. But I think the Pistons were running into financial issues with Billups up for a contract and were ready to make some changes as a team, as you see they are doing. I think they knew their run with that group was over, so it's smart not to pay guys who won for you when they are past their prime. The fans seemed to buy it. The Bulls wanted to take a chance on a good veteran and I can't argue with that. I don't see the Pistons trading in the division for now and probably will move Mohammed out west.

*Hey, love the name! I also love Tyrus Thomas! Why do our fans dismiss him in trade rumors so quickly? He's only 19, and he is by far the best athlete on the Bulls. People make comparisons to Stromile Swift, but I think Tyrus has a better attitude and has higher basketball IQ. What's with all the skeptics? --Sam Smith, St. Louis*

You are doing a disservice to the name by being to rational. And by the way, do you have trouble getting them to make a take-out pizza for you, too? It's not so much to dump Tyrus--I think he's going to be really good--but the big deals involve getting a power forward, which is his position. There's a great chance to go for it now and to take it, you have to give up something very good you like.

*Do you think the Pacers trade makes Paxson a little more proactive in trying to land a low-post scorer? Nazr Mohammed and Brad Miller are a couple of names that come to mind. --Tuan D., Moline, Ill.*

Not so much because because it doesn't appear the Pacers or Pistons are measurably better by the additions they made.

*What about Eddie Jones? He's a jump shooter and many rumors have him heading out of Memphis. Can Paxson make a deal? --Jaime Martinez, Chicago*

I think he eventually gets bought out and goes to Miami, where he is from. It's another flaw in the NBA system where the richer and better teams can keep adding cheap talent. You can't trade for his contract because he makes too much and isn't worth giving up players for at this point in his career.

*If the Bulls do make a multi-player trade to bring in a big name like Pau Gasol, Jermaine O'Neal or Kevin Garnett, do you see them approaching former Bulls Toni Kukoc or Antonio Davis to fill out the roster? While their best days are clearly behind them, both could contribute something in spot minutes during a playoff run. --Chris Feldman, Dubuque, Iowa*

I like that idea. I know Toni would love another shot with the Bulls, but I doubt he's in shape for now. Davis has told them he's retired, but I can see him coming back for a playoff run. If they do dump all their expiring contracts on a team like Memphis, they'd need some help to fill out the roster and those are two good names. The Bulls would be appealing because they'd have a good shot at the Finals and I think they could interest a number of veterans now sitting out.

*Come on Sam, make it happen: Hinrich and the No. 1 for Corey Maggette. If he's healthy and he wants to run in his home town, and really plays his heart out, the Bulls become much better. Kirk is too inconsistent. My only reservations are if Maggette is lazy and if he isn't 100 percent healthy. --Trey, Merrillville, Ind.*

Those are some pretty big reservations. Check, please. Maggette doesn't fit as well this season with all the guards they have. Though you can always use a lazy injured guy. Maggette is an interesting case, the ideal sixth man who wants to start. The Bulls already have that.

*I'm convinced Kirk Hinrich and Rex Grossman are long-lost brothers. They are both the best players at their respective positions their teams have had in decades, yet these 'experts' are constantly ripping them and want them to lose their jobs or get traded. Be careful for what you wish for. Kirk is not overrated. I'm not exactly sure where these people get these mysterious ratings, but they are erroneous if they think KH is a detriment to the Bulls. From what I recall, we missed the playoffs with players like Elton Brand, Ron Artest, Jamal Crawford, Jalen Rose, yet somehow, despite the "detriment" that Kirk brings, they have made the postseason two of his three years and it will soon be three out of four. I'd like to give a Josh Smith salute to all of your wonderful e-mailers. --Scott, Northbrook, Ill.*

I kind of like this the way so many have rallied to the defense of Skiles and Hinrich the last two weeks. I've been checking and I think all the critical e-mail came from New York and Philadelphia, where they like everyone to share in their own despair. I do love that Grossman and Manning, the two quarterbacks who couldn't get to the Super Bowl, are there, though I wasn't happy to hear all the Colts guys thanking God afterward for the win. Except He probably hates Bill Belichick, too.

*I just read the article about the possible Gasol trade. Would we really have to give up Hinrich or Thomas? I have been a huge Hinrich fan since he was at Kansas and would probably cry if he were traded! I know he is no superstar but he is my favorite player in the league. What is your honest opinion of him? Is he as overrated as some say or do you see a solid, gritty, all-around player who is the best decision maker on this team like I do? --Steven Schnakenberg, Waymart, Penn.*

It's all just speculation now and not even any certainty the Bulls would do a deal. Plus, dealing with Jerry West is a little like dealing with Billy Beane in baseball. He's always trying to outsmart the other guy and the Bulls might walk away from any demands for too much. I don't hear the Bulls that eager to trade their top players. I think Hinrich is terrific and would want him on my team anytime. Unfortunately for him, I don't have a team.

*I was watching the T-Wolves/Pistons game recently), and one of the commentators mentioned how so-and-so was a steal in the second round. I was wondering who's the starting five for the All Second Round Team? --Chris, Forest Park, Ill.*

It's a good team: Carlos Boozer, Mehmet Okur, Gilbert Arenas, Michael Redd, Manu Ginobili. Also Trenton Hassell, Earl Watson, Bobby Simmons, Rascul Butler, Darius Sonagila, Luke Walton, Varejao, Rashard Lewis, Chris Duhon, Monta Ellis, Stephen Jackson and Ruben Patterson to name a few. It's why good scouting is so important.

*What the hell is up with Chicago fans? I'm a native Chicagoan, and I'm embarrassed. We have a football team with a great record and now in the Super Bowl and all they do is whine and complain. Enjoy it! And the Bulls are, on most any given night, the most exciting team in the NBA to watch. They generally play with a relentlessness you never see in a sports team, seem to all be model citizens, and the coach manages to get more out of them then one would think he could. Their M.O. seems to be that they work out the kinks in the early part of the season then pour it on. Where can we trade these fans, will anyone take them, and if so what can we get for them? --Bodie, Los Angeles*

You don't get it, do you? We're cold. We can't go outside or we'll die. Are you writing this on your laptop from the beach? Our beach is under ice. You roller blade; we skid on the ice. Sometimes we don't see the sun for weeks. The El breaks down and the cab driver doesn't have change, the bus splashes big puddles all over our coats and they're still doing that damned road construction, not a single guy working and two of the three lanes shut for five miles. And the expressway--yeah, expressway my butt--is three lanes wide and the few hours it's not rush hour they're doing road work. In the winter, too, so there's no break. The car is perpetually dirty and good luck keeping your shoes clean for 10 seconds. Good luck getting your side street plowed and hope some chunk of ice doesn't fall off a building and decapitate you. It will be four months until we can plan something outside and you better be wearing your stocking cap, gloves and scarf for the baseball openers. NOW WHAT WAS YOUR FREAKIN QUESTION!?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Sam's got another great Q and A up this week, starting in with the Gasol trade:



> *Greetings from Iraq. I think the Bulls need to keep the team together because they may give away too much to get Pau Gasol. I mean he is a good player, but not great. If I were to trade for him, I would trade Kirk Hinrich, Noce and P.J. Brown. I love all of these guys, but I think Chris Duhon can handle the PG duties. Chris does not shoot a lot which is good because the offense will be handled by Gordon, Gasol and Deng. Deng! That's the main reason we don't need Noce. I love the guy, but I will be willing to trade him for a PF. We need P.J to make the contract work, plus he wants out. We could include a first-round pick in there, too. The Grizz would get a good young point, a good SF, a "classy" expiring contract and a first-rounder for a soft, weak defending big man? --Sgt. Roy Williamson, Iraq*
> 
> Sounds like you're planning to come back to take my job. Or Paxson's. I wouldn't be surprised if that's the discussion going on internally with the Bulls: Make a bold move now and take a shot at the Finals, or be patient with the Heat and Pistons fading, get the Knicks' pick, let the rookies develop and maybe have a great six or seven-year run. Lots of second guessing each way they go, which should make the next month very interesting. I'd probably make the deal, but that's what I do.


But this was my favorite:



> *I've got the perfect trade for the Bulls. Dallas sends them Josh Howard, $3 million in cash, and a second-round draft pick in exchange for your resignation from the Tribune. It would break my heart to see you go, but as you say you got to give something up to get something back. --Sean Vogt, Monrovia, Calif.*
> 
> This also is intriguing as we at The Tribune, along with many of our colleagues in the industry, expect buyoffs and layoffs at any time given the uncertainty of the media business. So my time at the Tribune may soon be coming to an end, anyway. I'm guessing this is Cuban-inspired since we have been at odds. Though I'm not sure the deal gets done because Mark was quite friendly with me after the Mavs' loss to the Bulls last week. We don't talk much, usually him sending barbs from his blog and me from my column. I figured there was no point starting anything, so I didn't talk to him, but he stopped me in the locker room after the game and asked, "Not even going to say hello, Sam?"
> 
> ...


Subtle slam at Mariotti?

Ask Sam Smith


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I guess we all have our ups and downs, but Sam Smith has been having a good season this year, sports-column-wise. Right now he's in the top tier of NBA reporters. He's informed, reports his rumors in a calibrated manner, and offers good insights into the NBA on nearly a daily basis.

Oddly, he is at his best in these Q&A columns. Most reporters tend to be at their worst when answering their mail -- offering quips rather than real insight. Sam gives much more.

So, if Sam needs a little positive reinforcement, there it is.


----------

