# Bulls skipping on Bargnani? /Pax interviews/ Pax on the Score 6/20



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I'm surprised these tidbits haven't gotten more discussion. Maybe they have sort of been buried in the stickied threads and people haven't seen them.

First, in the workout thread there is a WGN interview with Pax and a trib article (posts 595 and 596) seem to indicated we're skipping the opportunity to talk to Bargnani now that he's coming to the states. The fact we're passing up a chance to see one of the top prospects makes no sense to me.

Second, in the draft thread there's a transcript of part of this interview up (post 3260) where Pax goes into great detail talking about Gordon, Roy, Thomas, and Aldridge. He seemed to me to show a pretty clear preference for Thomas, though others have read things differently.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*

I'm ok with what he's said about Andrea. It seems like he's had some good exposure to the guy:


> Paxson went on to say he doesn’t think he needs any more time with the 7-foot Bargnani, who averaged 11.6 points for Benetton during the Italian league regular season.
> 
> “I went over in January and saw him practice a couple times, saw him play a couple times,” Paxson said. “Just recently, (European scout) Ivica Dukan and (assistant coach) Ron Adams were over there for the Treviso big man camp and they spent some time with him. We feel very comfortable in knowing what we need to know about him.”


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


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*

Paxson said that they have a Sunday workout planned for an unamed guy that he said is a longshot to happen...who it is, I don't know.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*

really? maybe pax and the bulls have scouted and talked and done what they feel is due diligence on bargnani. sounds like they are trying to get him to chicago (sunday) but it's not likely. 

for the record: imo, pax hasn't "failed" if he is unable to get bargnani a) to visit in person b) hasn't offered him a nice merlot to go with the skiles pre-dinner staredown c) doesn't draft him and drafts someone else.





again - a link to the pax interview at bulls.com 

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/paxson_060622.html


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*



sloth said:


> Paxson said that they have a Sunday workout planned for an unamed guy that he said is a longshot to happen...who it is, I don't know.


it's bargnani..and it's a longshot because pax knows colangelo's taking him


----------



## doomraisin (Jun 23, 2006)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*

Yeah, I suppose Pax hasn't talked to Bargnani because he just forgot. 

Come on, people. You all think you know more than Paxson and Skiles? Please. Believe me, these guys are all over it. Let 'em work.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*



doomraisin said:


> Yeah, I suppose Pax hasn't talked to Bargnani because he just forgot.
> 
> Come on, people. You all think you know more than Paxson and Skiles? Please. Believe me, these guys are all over it. Let 'em work.



:greatjob:

welcome doomraisin. interesting user name!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*



doomraisin said:


> Yeah, I suppose Pax hasn't talked to Bargnani because he just forgot.
> 
> Come on, people. You all think you know more than Paxson and Skiles? Please. Believe me, these guys are all over it. Let 'em work.


Welcome. Rep for you. And awesome name. 

Mike, as for the Thomas quotes. I agree with you. Those smell a little bit like preemptive justification to me.


----------



## doomraisin (Jun 23, 2006)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*

Thanks for the welcome. I've been lurking for quite awhile.

Both Paxson (played at N.D.) and Skiles (played at Plymouth High School) are local heros for me, and I can't quite believe the good fortune we Bulls fans have getting both these guys, especially those of us who admire hard-*** old-school basketball. We know that Pax and Skiles are guys who personify the gym-rat work ethic.

So anyway, I'm going to be confident that Paxson and Skiles will make the best decisions they can when it comes to who to draft and trade. Me saying they should've done this or should've done that is like them telling me how to build a DNS server.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*



doomraisin said:


> Thanks for the welcome. I've been lurking for quite awhile.
> 
> Both Paxson (played at N.D.) and Skiles (played at Plymouth High School) are local heros for me, and I can't quite believe the good fortune we Bulls fans have getting both these guys, especially those of us who admire hard-*** old-school basketball. We know that Pax and Skiles are guys who personify the gym-rat work ethic.
> 
> So anyway, I'm going to be confident that Paxson and Skiles will make the best decisions they can when it comes to who to draft and trade. Me saying they should've done this or should've done that is like them telling me how to build a DNS server.


I like you already. Have some rep!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*



doomraisin said:


> Thanks for the welcome. I've been lurking for quite awhile.
> 
> Both Paxson (played at N.D.) and Skiles (played at Plymouth High School) are local heros for me, and I can't quite believe the good fortune we Bulls fans have getting both these guys, especially those of us who admire hard-*** old-school basketball. We know that Pax and Skiles are guys who personify the gym-rat work ethic.
> 
> So anyway, I'm going to be confident that Paxson and Skiles will make the best decisions they can when it comes to who to draft and trade. Me saying they should've done this or should've done that is like them telling me how to build a DNS server.


It's just like another local hero said -- let Pax and Skiles do what they're gonna do; just lie back and enjoy it.

Welcome to the board!


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*

I would imagine that Bargs is indeed the "long shot" that is coming in. Hard to say for sure what the deal is with that though. I do wonder though, if the Bulls would take Bargs if he was available...if Toronto went with a wing player after the trade or something and passed on Bargs, or they traded away the pick.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*



doomraisin said:


> Yeah, I suppose Pax hasn't talked to Bargnani because he just forgot.
> 
> Come on, people. You all think you know more than Paxson and Skiles? Please. Believe me, these guys are all over it. Let 'em work.


Good stuff right out of the box. Welcome.

As fans, we're clearly entitled to an opinion, even when it is contrary to the guys who do this for a living. GMs have made some pretty questionable decisions in the past (e.g., Knicks' roster). This said, I completely agree that Pax/Skiles are as well-prepared as GM/Head Coach tandem in sports.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*

EROB could build a DNS box.

He was strong with technology.


If you like gym rats, this is the team for you.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*



transplant said:


> Good stuff right out of the box. Welcome.
> 
> As fans, we're clearly entitled to an opinion, even when it is contrary to the guys who do this for a living. GMs have made some pretty questionable decisions in the past (e.g., Knicks' roster). This said, I completely agree that Pax/Skiles are as well-prepared as GM/Head Coach tandem in sports.


So from a cost benefit perspective, why not go see Bargnani? I just don't see the logic in not availing oneself of the opportunity.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*



kukoc4ever said:


> EROB could build a DNS box.
> 
> He was strong with technology.
> 
> ...


:laugh:

Oh, and the latest update on E-Rob...apparently his favorite sweater got stolen:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*

so that was an interesting interview just now on the score. we'll be sure to post the link once it's up.

immediately disputed the rumor of chandler + #2 etc for marion.

gave the hilarious picture of lamarcus' dinner with skiles. i was dying.

gave a sorta lukewarmish endorsement of ben which was surprising. ok. not really.

talked a bit about the pyschological stuff - what kind of things they look for - pax said a few times he looks to see "who is the most competitive, who has come to play"

fascinating.

i think he's picking tyrus.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*

and who was the player that "raised a red flag" when asked something about his background. pax said the way they react to a question is a dead giveaway.

he said it happened with a certain player during this workout process.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*

wow. that was fast. the score already has the interview linked.

let's talk about it here, in mike's thread!

http://www.670thescore.com/includes/news_items/49/1090/paxson_bb_6_23.mp3


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*



mizenkay said:


> wow. that was fast. the score already has the interview linked.
> 
> let's talk about it here, in mike's thread!
> 
> http://www.670thescore.com/includes/news_items/49/1090/paxson_bb_6_23.mp3


It was a great interview - Boers and Bernstein asking about the process, which they knew Pax could talk about, instead of who he's going to pick, made it a heck of a lot more interesting than the ESPN interview. And it had laughs.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*



mizenkay said:


> and who was the player that "raised a red flag" when asked something about his background. pax said the way they react to a question is a dead giveaway.
> 
> he said it happened with a certain player during this workout process.


I think it was Roy...yeah, I think I saw Paxson mouthing Roy.....

I'll have to do some investigation on this one.

I know Al Jefferson was a redflag guy from last year.

I'm gonna look into it.

btw, I thought after the WGN one, Paxson said he wouldn't be available for interview until after the draft!


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*



sloth said:


> I think it was Roy...yeah, I think I saw Paxson mouthing Roy.....
> 
> I'll have to do some investigation on this one.
> 
> ...


Yo Slothster, I hope you're right that it was Roy. That way we're a whole lot less likely to waste the #2 on him. He's probably the least impactful player of the top 6 IMO, so not worth the 2, especially when it's the position we're best at.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*



mizenkay said:


> really? maybe pax and the bulls have scouted and talked and done what they feel is due diligence on bargnani. sounds like they are trying to get him to chicago (sunday) but it's not likely.
> 
> for the record: imo, pax hasn't "failed" if he is unable to get bargnani a) to visit in person b) hasn't offered him a nice merlot to go with the skiles pre-dinner staredown


Bargnani's agent said that if anyone orders Merlot they're leaving 

He went on to say that they're not drinking no ....'n Merlot !


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Interview Summary* 


Won't do the Shawn Marion for #2 and Tyson Chandler because he sees it as giving up three assets, a player, another quality player from the pick, and tons of capspace for more quality players
Paxson is a Shawn Marion fan. 
Thinks the game is changing because the rules favor the offensive player. Gives guards ability to get to lane. Thinks defending and rebounding are the primary components of winning. 
Paxson's playing phone tag with Jordan. 
Paxson and Gar were asking LaMarcus a lot of questions, and Scott was just intently listening while they were talking.
A guy that they interview and Paxson just won't draft them based on it happens quite often. The stuff the background check usually has the character issues unraveled during the interview process. 
5-6 people, including a psychologist during interviews.
If they find out something during background checks they'll ask a question and study the body language/response like if its a "how did you find out", or "oh ****, I'm caught" type response.
One instance this year, big red flag. 
Want to see if they use their phone, changes their shoe, putting down their bag, before, after, how they arrive type stuff to see how a player carries one self during a workout. Wants to see if a player is there for the competition, wants to be there, can they learn, are they smart enough to understand relayed info. 
Watches how the kids interact with one another. Likes to see a guy go all out balls out ballistic 100% during a workout.
Gets love at home, not at the office (what gives Scott?)
Pays attention to how guys feel after their interview. Roy had a good workout, annointed a future hall of famer.
Ben Gordon in the teams long term plans. Asked to play several roles, Scott uses head games on Gordon, and Gordon was mentally tough. Appreciates his ability. Better defensively. Contract could be an issue with Ben in the future. Ben is the most popular name in trade talks. 
Paxson just said that at 16, the Bulls will draft a player that will confuse "casual fans" but people following the draft, and Europe will not be surprised. (Thabo/Sene?)
Right now they are throwing up random names and talking about who'd they'd pick in a given scenario.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Interesting interview. I really considered it a window into the process. B&B really asked some good questions to get the interesting answers. Well done fellas.

By the way, I agree with them that the Gordon comments were "lukewarm".


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Ron Cey said:


> Interesting interview. I really considered it a window into the process. B&B really asked some good questions to get the interesting answers. Well done fellas.
> 
> By the way, I agreed with them that the Gordon comments were "lukewarm".


How much warmer could you ask for? He said he wouldn't trade him unless it was in a huge trade. That can be said for any player. Everyone is for trade if for the right price.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

It seems as clear as clear to me in listening to how Pax responded that Ben is NOT in the long range plans 

He will continue to help us win games and keep his trade value up but I expect him to be traded next summer or by the following season's trade deadline before his free agency 

It seems to me that we're drafting Tyrus Thomas and one of Ronnie Brewer / Shannon Brown or 

Brandon Roy and one of Hilton Armstrong /Saer Sene


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*



DaBabyBullz said:


> Yo Slothster, I hope you're right that it was Roy. That way we're a whole lot less likely to waste the #2 on him. He's probably the least impactful player of the top 6 IMO, so not worth the 2, especially when it's the position we're best at.


You're grasping at straws if you think it was Roy. He's one of the top character guys in this draft. It also wouldn't be a waste of the #2 pick on him if he turns out to be better than the big-men in this draft, which is very likely. I also see him along with Adam Morrison as the biggest impact player in this draft.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> It seems as clear as clear to me in listening to how Pax responded that Ben is NOT in the long range plans


I agree. Here are some choice words/sounds:

sigh, then "He has to be [in the long term plans]"

"its very difficult *to say * that I've made a decision that ben doesn't fit"

"its a dilemna"

"he's 6'1" and "that isn't going to change"

"will it become a problem . . . the next contract . . . it might be"

"I'm *willing* to keep moving forward with Ben"

Lukewarm is putting it quite nicely, if you ask me. If they're convinced he needs to go, then maybe I'll need to rethink the possibility of drafting Roy.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> I agree. Here are some choice words/sounds:
> 
> sigh, then "He has to be [in the long term plans]"
> 
> ...


This interview was weird. In the one yesterday, when talking about Ben, Paxson said that Ben wouldn't be affected no matter who they take, and that Ben will use his competitive advantage to maintain his starting spot, etc. etc.....


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*



BDMcGee said:


> You're grasping at straws if you think it was Roy. He's one of the top character guys in this draft. It also wouldn't be a waste of the #2 pick on him if he turns out to be better than the big-men in this draft, which is very likely. I also see him along with Adam Morrison as the biggest impact player in this draft.


Well, think what you like, but that don't mean crap that he's supposed to be "one of the top character guys in the draft." You always hear that about guys, and then they turn out to be totally different once they are in the public eye and making millions. For example Santonio Holmes of my Steelers. Was supposed to be a top character guy, since being drafted he's been arrested twice.

And btw, I wasn't the one to mention him. I just said I hoped it was him, so we wouldn't take him, cause he'd be a waste of a pick.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

I thought it was interesting that at the end of the interview, Paxson said that he would be "honest" and told the radio talkshow hosts that if really likes a player at 16, he would take "the kid" regardless of the position, even if its a strength of the Bulls. Hint that he's seriously considering Sene?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

FanOfAll8472 said:


> I thought it was interesting that at the end of the interview, Paxson said that he would be "honest" and told the radio talkshow hosts that if really likes a player at 16, he would take "the kid" regardless of the position, even if its a strength of the Bulls. Hint that he's seriously considering Sene?


I took that to mean he found another point guard he likes, and won't hesitate to pull the trigger if his other guys are off the board.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

FanOfAll8472 said:


> I thought it was interesting that at the end of the interview, Paxson said that he would be "honest" and told the radio talkshow hosts that if really likes a player at 16, he would take "the kid" regardless of the position, even if its a strength of the Bulls. Hint that he's seriously considering Sene?


I would think it would be Thabo, but I think Sene's up there above Thabo on the board....unless Tyson Chandler is considered a position of strength....The more telling part of that was a guy who casual fans would say WHO, while people following the draft and everything will know. Which pretty much instantly narrowed it down to Sene and Thabo.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Bulls skipping on Bargnani? / Pax interviews*



DaBabyBullz said:


> Well, think what you like, but that don't mean crap that he's supposed to be "one of the top character guys in the draft." You always hear that about guys, and then they turn out to be totally different once they are in the public eye and making millions. For example Santonio Holmes of my Steelers. Was supposed to be a top character guy, since being drafted he's been arrested twice.
> 
> And btw, I wasn't the one to mention him. I just said I hoped it was him, so we wouldn't take him, cause he'd be a waste of a pick.


I agree with him being a waste of a pick, but I only mentioned him because of the little Paxson was mouthing Roy thing from weeks ago, just a little joke, nothing serious.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> I took that to mean he found another point guard he likes, and won't hesitate to pull the trigger if his other guys are off the board.


It better not be that damn Quincy Douby if thats the case!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

FanOfAll8472 said:


> I thought it was interesting that at the end of the interview, Paxson said that he would be "honest" and told the radio talkshow hosts that if really likes a player at 16, he would take "the kid" regardless of the position, even if its a strength of the Bulls. Hint that he's seriously considering Sene?


But Sene is a big guy and we aren't exactly deep there. If indeed that's a hint, it'd seem to indicate a PG or a forward. I'd can't imagine he'd take a PG, but I suppose a guard isn't out of the question.

I'm thinking Thabo is the likely pick at 16. I don't think Brewer will be on the board and none of the big guys seem ideal. We'll get athletic with Thomas and Thabo and then look to free agency to add some bigs.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

Yes, he could be referring to a point guard (random thought, Lowry seems like a Paxson type of player). Big man isn't much of a strength, but I was thinking more of a situation where the Bulls take a big man with 2 (be it Aldridge, Thomas, or Bargnani) and then taking another one (Sene) with 16.



> I would think it would be Thabo, but I think Sene's up there above Thabo on the board....unless Tyson Chandler is considered a position of strength....The more telling part of that was a guy who casual fans would say WHO, while people following the draft and everything will know. Which pretty much instantly narrowed it down to Sene and Thabo.


I was doing other things while listening, so I must have missed that part.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

There was no doubt in my mind that Pax's voice betrayed him when he was talking about Ben 

I think he's looking at Roy as a guy that come in straight away and get it done and addresses the long term issues he was addressing with Ben 

Give Roy a season or two to integrate and for the team to settle down and Ben will be cashed in in the summer of 2007 or at the trading deadline in 1.5 seasons from now 

Even though Rozner is a nob ...all the continual Ben Gordon is unhappy flash fires kind of make some sense even if Rozner is hyping it up to have something sensationalist to write about 

Just speculating...but who might be suitable swaps for Ben ? Logical destinations ?

The Clippers spring to mind ... A Livingston/Gordon backcourt when Cassell is out of there soon enough. *Cory Maggette and the #34 pick - say Quincy Douby *

Minnesota TimberWolves come to mind. * The #6 pick . Could Jordan take Tyrus Thomas at #3 for Chicago and we take Rudy Gay at #6 for Jordan * Gordon could have the star power lift for the Wolves and sit with a big ball handling guard like Marco Jaric in the backcourt . Ricky Davis on the wing and Hudon, McCants and Hassell in support in the 2nd unit . Chicago comes out of the draft with Roy and Thomas 

The Lakers could be ideal * Gordon and Darius Songaila ( in a sign and trade ) for Odom * Kobe has a legit 2nd scoring option in the backcourt and a high post passing big man that can hit the mid range face up J in Songaila that is perfect for the triangle offense and covers some of what is lost in Odom 

I personally don't want to see him go and believe it would be a huge mistake but if he was to go these trades I could live with or that at least may seem semi plausible


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> But Sene is a big guy and we aren't exactly deep there. If indeed that's a hint, it'd seem to indicate a PG or a forward. I'd can't imagine he'd take a PG, but I suppose a guard isn't out of the question.
> 
> I'm thinking Thabo is the likely pick at 16. I don't think Brewer will be on the board and none of the big guys seem ideal. We'll get athletic with Thomas and Thabo and then look to free agency to add some bigs.


Thabo is a Swiss Guard 

I don't think the Vatican will release him


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> There was no doubt in my mind that Pax's voice betrayed him when he was talking about Ben


I agree with this as well. It couldn't have been more obvious, if you ask me. Nothing about his comments put off even the slightest vibe of commitment to Gordon.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

my take from the interviews is that Ben and/or Duhon are as good as gone.TT is 100% pax man at #2.i also beleave that PHX made the offer of TC and the #2 for SM but pax doesnt want to lose the #2 because he likes TT so much.he just used the interview as a way of telling them to take the #2 off the table or no deal..

also where does he gets we'd be givin up three assets for SM?the 1st + TC contract are within 1mil of SM's contract.even if they would take the 16 i would be more then willing to use some of the cap to gain SM..


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

A position of strength would indicate a guard or small forward, not Sene by any means. He'd just better not get rid of Ben.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The organization has been giving signals for years about that they are lukewarm at best on Gordon.

I'm glad there is finally one out there that makes it obvious to everyone.

Hey Paxson, Gordon was 6'2" when you drafted him. What, did you think he would develop into a PG? Or did you really think he was an Iverson?

I hate it when Paxson says he “has” to do something. He “had” to resign Chandler. Ben “has” to be in the long-term plans.

Paxson, you run the team and the owner and fanbase for the most part love you. You don’t have to do anything you don’t want to do.


Great interview by B+B.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I agree with this as well. It couldn't have been more obvious, if you ask me. Nothing about his comments put off even the slightest vibe of commitment to Gordon.


Seriously. He was like a split second away from saying, "No, it just didn't work out with Ben; we have to figure out what to do with him." 

Then right after the protracted Gordon discussion, one of the hosts says something to the effect of "Anyone who'd question your drafting is an idiot." That slays me.

But man, what a great interview overall. I honestly can't remember the last time I've heard such a good interview (Mike and the Mad Dog used to have absolutely killer interviews with George Young in the mid-late 90s.) They pretty much Charlie Rose'd Pax -- I think it was the fact that he was so comfortable that his guard was down when the host snuck in that point-blank Gordon question.

Several random observations/questions:

-- I wonder how Ben got through their vetting process in the first place. I guess when confronted with the battering incident, he must have appeared contrite, owned up to it, and said he wished it'd never happened.

-- *There is absolutely no way the Bulls are drafting Bargnani.* None. They aren't going to make that kind of financial committment to a guy they can't sit down in front of their five-man interviewing squad. I'm certain of it. I just don't understand why they chose to not have him in their draft-day equation.

-- Ron, I think the odds of your consolidation trade happening are slimmer than I'd guessed. We're going to have to hope for an oddball situation, like Kobe-Shaq, where the asset we're trading for is situationally distressed. He doesn't seem like he'd be willing to give up a bunch of stuff for anything other than a megastar, and those just don't come on the market very often.

-- I think one of the guys at 16 is Kyle Lowry, if the bigs and tall guards are gone. He's pretty much Ben Gordon-lite.

-- I'm happy that Paxson seems to recognize Chandler's value. I guess he does have some face to save there in relation to the contract he gave him, but outside of that, he understands what Tyson can do for the team when he's "right".


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> I agree with this as well. It couldn't have been more obvious, if you ask me. Nothing about his comments put off even the slightest vibe of commitment to Gordon.


Paxsons twofaced, in the interview yesterday, it seemed like he was totally committed to Ben long term. I wonder if he got a phonecall last night or something.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> The organization has been giving signals for years about that they are lukewarm at best on Gordon.
> 
> I'm glad there is finally one out there that makes it obvious to everyone.
> 
> ...


Am I allowed to question assertions like "Pax's draft history is unblemished; no one does a better job with it" or "Pax rocks the draft!" after this interview? 

Pax doesn't seem to think his drafts have been mistake-free.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

sloth said:


> Paxsons twofaced, in the interview yesterday, it seemed like he was totally committed to Ben long term. I wonder if he got a phonecall last night or something.


It was masterful interviewing. Pax was totally distracted by a series of thoughtful, interconnected questions about how the Bulls go through their draft, and wham, they hit him with Ben Gordon and the truth came out before Pax knew what happened.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

If Gordon is truely the most sought after player on the Bulls, Paxson has done well in drafting him.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Sure sounds like Tyrus Thomas is the long, athletic guy who will be drafted at #2. 
Why trade for Marion or Odom if you think you've got someone just as good for nothing?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Actually, Pax's "2-facedness" impression is ingenious really. I didn't see it, so just going by what I read here, but this is what I get out of it. He really likes Ben, and he's not for trade. Yet he lets it slip out occasionally that he's not 100% sold on him, thus opening up trade proposals from other teams. He has let it known that only when it would be a monumental trade that would benefit the Bulls would he be interested, so now teams know that Ben isn't going anywhere unless Pax gets very justly compensated for him. Nothing wrong with that. It's not like Ben is Michael Jordan or something, so he is tradeable, as is everyone not named MJ, for the right price.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> If Gordon is truely the most sought after player on the Bulls, Paxson has done well in drafting him.


A. That's awfully thin comfort.

B. We have absolutely no idea what's being offered for him.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It was masterful interviewing. Pax was totally distracted by a series of thoughtful, interconnected questions about how the Bulls go through their draft, and wham, they hit him with Ben Gordon and the truth came out before Pax knew what happened.


I'm getting the feeling you aren't high on Paxson.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

McBulls said:


> Sure sounds like Tyrus Thomas is the long, athletic guy who will be drafted at #2.
> Why trade for Marion or Odom if you think you've got someone just as good for nothing?


Saer Sene is athletic, and he is long, nice and long is how we like em!


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Actually, Pax's "2-facedness" impression is ingenious really. I didn't see it, so just going by what I read here, but this is what I get out of it. He really likes Ben, and he's not for trade. Yet he lets it slip out occasionally that he's not 100% sold on him, thus opening up trade proposals from other teams. He has let it known that only when it would be a monumental trade that would benefit the Bulls would he be interested, so now teams know that Ben isn't going anywhere unless Pax gets very justly compensated for him. Nothing wrong with that. It's not like Ben is Michael Jordan or something, so he is tradeable, as is everyone not named MJ, for the right price.


Yeah, its weird though.

One day, you won't trade a player in anything short of a blockbuster....the next day, you foresee contract problems, if a player is untradeable basically for anything short of a superstar, then why would you have any problem giving him the max, which I don't think he fetches unless he blows up even more this year and next....which begs the question, why wouldn't we give him the max if he blows up? Very weird indeed.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> The organization has been giving signals for years about that they are lukewarm at best on Gordon.
> 
> I'm glad there is finally one out there that makes it obvious to everyone.
> 
> ...


Hold on. Years? Gordon's been a Bull for two years. The Bulls have been giving signals since day one that they're lukewarm on Gordon? They drafted him third overall. He played more minutes than anyone else in the playoffs this year. I'm not sure that I agree that the Bulls are as down on Ben as you think. It's really interesting to me that when Paxson stands firmly behind Gordon as he did in print yesterday it's not that big a deal. But when he's not cheerleading for him on the radio everyone gets up in arms. Deep breaths, people. Deep breaths.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

sloth said:


> Saer Sene is athletic, and he is long, nice and long is how we like em!


Can any pessimists here list some Sene-ish players in past drafts that turned out to be busts? The shorter the list the better, but tell, do tell!

Olumide Odejyi and Somalia Soumaki come to mind, but they were projected in the second round anyways. Dalembert may be a successful comparison,m though he played in college. Jamal Sampson?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> I'm getting the feeling you aren't high on Paxson.


No, that's just the thing -- Paxson's usually a pretty tight, focused interviewee who doesn't give a lot away (although I do wish he wouldn't give so many long interviews). But B&B asked him what for a sports radio program were basically Pulitzer Prize-caliber questions, and he kind of got lost in a little bit. 

I actually had to rewind that part because I let out an involuntary Sopranos-style "Hoe!" when Pax sighed and hesitated before answering the question.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Hold on. Years? Gordon's been a Bull for two years.


Fine... over a year.

They benched him after trying to start him his rookie year... and then the winning started.
They attempted to start him in game 6 of the playoffs his rookie year.... and we all remember what a nightmare that was. Benched.





> It's really interesting to me that when Paxson stands firmly behind Gordon as he did in print yesterday it's not that big a deal. But when he's not cheerleading for him on the radio everyone gets up in arms.



The interview is so much more telling than the quote. Its pretty clear from the inflection him Paxson's voice that there are concerns. I doubt we would hear the same thing when he's discussing Nocioni and Hinrich.


Its nothing to get up in arms about, IMO. I believe that PaxSkiles are not high on Ben Gordon, and that Hinrich and Noc are the clear favorite sons. This interview just solidifies my belief... that I've had for a while now.

If they are high on Ben Gordon as their starting SG going forward... then what the heck is the "dilemma?"


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

sloth said:


> Yeah, its weird though.
> 
> One day, you won't trade a player in anything short of a blockbuster....the next day, you foresee contract problems, if a player is untradeable basically for anything short of a superstar, then why would you have any problem giving him the max, which I don't think he fetches unless he blows up even more this year and next....which begs the question, why wouldn't we give him the max if he blows up? Very weird indeed.


I think that Ben is a Star, but not a Superstar. You don't pay stars superstar money, that's all. It's hard telling what exactly he means by that, but my analogy there might have something to do with it, who knows.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Electric Slim said:


> Can any pessimists here list some Sene-ish players in past drafts that turned out to be busts? The shorter the list the better, but tell, do tell!


Well there aren't any centers taken that have the unique athleticism and length of Sene. But here are the closest 3.

Mamdou Ndiaye- also from Senegal, also had hardly played, also good at shotblocking, but he wasn't anywhere near as athletic, and nowhere near as long, and extremely injury prone, heck I'll admit, the only true reason I added him is because he's from Senegal.

Tyson Chandler- Juries out, worse hands, not as lengthy.

Samuel Dalembert- Juries out, solid center.

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

As for players similiar to Tyrus Thomas that were busts, and taken in the first round, no problem:

2000-Donnel Harvey
2001- Rodney White
2002- Chris Wilcox (only he was stronger with a frame to add weight, and a better touch, and height)
2002- Marcus Haislip (only he was stronger)
2002- Ryan Humphrey
2002- Jared Jefferies (only he was taller)
2003- Travis Outlaw
2003- Ndudi Ebi

But the formula of taking an athletic freak with length has worked time and time again.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

sloth said:


> Well there aren't any centers taken that have the unique athleticism and length of Sene. But here are the closest 3.
> 
> Mamdou Ndiaye- also from Senegal, also had hardly played, also good at shotblocking, but he wasn't anywhere near as athletic, and nowhere near as long, and extremely injury prone, heck I'll admit, the only true reason I added him is because he's from Senegal.
> 
> ...


Those Thomas comparisons are awful. Ryan Humphrey, Jared Jeffries, Rodney White and Marcus Haslip? Athletic freaks? Come on. If you've ever seen any of those four play I'm sure you know that they're not athletic freaks. They weren't in college and they certainly aren't in the pro's.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

jbulls said:


> Those Thomas comparisons are awful. Ryan Humphrey, Jared Jeffries, Rodney White and Marcus Haslip? Athletic freaks? Come on. If you've ever seen any of those four play I'm sure you know that they're not athletic freaks. They weren't in college and they certainly aren't in the pro's.


But do you know what they all have in common with Thomas?


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Fine... over a year.
> 
> They benched him after trying to start him his rookie year... and then the winning started.
> They attempted to start him in game 6 of the playoffs his rookie year.... and we all remember what a nightmare that was. Benched.
> ...


Yes, they benched him as a rookie and he won the 6th man award. Tyrus Thomas may not start this season if we draft him, if that's the case I won't see it as an indicator that Paxson and Skiles are "down" on him. As far as the playoff stuff - Gordon stunk in game 6 of the playoffs his rookie year. What would you have had them do? As I said before, he played more minutes than anybody in the Miami series this year. I consider that a whole lot more telling than the fact that he rode pine in game 6 the previous season. 

I think the dilemma (and I have no idea why Paxson felt the need to go into the dilemma on the air - this is why his doing interviews pre draft concerns me, get him on the air and it's like he's on a combo of truth serum and self righteous juice) is whether or not Gordon is going to be worth the really large contract he's going to get offered as a FA. Personally, assuming continued improvement, I think he will be. I hope they think so too. I do agree that they're easier on Hinrich than Gordon, but they're easier on Hinrich than anybody.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> No, that's just the thing -- Paxson's usually a pretty tight, focused interviewee who doesn't give a lot away (although I do wish he wouldn't give so many long interviews). But B&B asked him what for a sports radio program were basically Pulitzer Prize-caliber questions, and he kind of got lost in a little bit.
> 
> I actually had to rewind that part because I let out an involuntary Sopranos-style "Hoe!" when Pax sighed and hesitated before answering the question.


It was pretty beautiful, I thought it was a great interview.

But let's talk about Ben Gordon for a sec. I, for one, was dissapponted on how in love Ben Gordon was days before the draft. "My Guy" was Deng, and with Jamal still on the team I thought he was the best fit.

But it was not a strong draft, and Pax had nothing to lose by saying he liked Gordon since okafor and howard were the clear #1 and #2. If Toronto had ANY desire to draft Tyrus, I don't think Pax would praise him so much publicly (Time Out: wouldn't Tyrus be one hell of a fit in Toronto is he did have these SF skills? back to that later). Pax can only drive up the value of his pick by hyping Tryus.

But back to Ben, did it really hurt the Bulls franchise by selecting Gordon? If you asked my today, or even near the beginning of last season, I'd take Iggy over Ben, but Ben has still been amazing at times on a team that (*pauses to pat k4e and rlucas on the back*) doesn't have "amazing" players.

But how long can you keep an "amazing" player on the bench? These aren't the days on John Havlicek. I'm not quite sure what Pax expected of Gordon, but I don't think that if Pax trades Gordon he should be labeled a traitor. Im really torn on the Gordon issue because i really like him, but I have a nagging feeling that his value rioght now might be at it's all time high. 

O not.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

sloth said:


> But do you know what they all have in common with Thomas?


Honestly, no I don't. Marcus Haslip, Ryan Humphrey and Rodney White have very, very little in common with Tyrus Thomas. Rodney White doesn't really have a lot in common with Haslip and Humprey. The list is bizarre at best, and idiotic at worst.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

jbulls said:


> Honestly, no I don't. Marcus Haslip, Ryan Humphrey and Rodney White have very, very little in common with Tyrus Thomas. Rodney White doesn't really have a lot in common with Haslip and Humprey. The list is bizarre at best, and idiotic at worst.


Wrong! They all suck!


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Those Thomas comparisons are awful. Ryan Humphrey, Jared Jeffries, Rodney White and Marcus Haslip? Athletic freaks? Come on. If you've ever seen any of those four play I'm sure you know that they're not athletic freaks. They weren't in college and they certainly aren't in the pro's.


Well, you're dead wrong about Haislip. That guys was off the charts everywhere.

nbdraftnet on Marcus Haislip:

NBA Comparison: Marcus Camby 

6'10 230

Strengths: Amazing run jump athlete with great work ethic. A workout junkie, bench presses 400 pounds. Might have one of the highest verticals in the NBA someday. Very good shotblocker. Offensive game doesn't always look pretty especially his post moves but the result is usually positive. 

Weaknesses: Appears to still be learning the game. Doesn't always look like he knows what he's doing. Fundamentals can improve.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

sloth said:


> Wrong! They all suck!


Ah. Well then, why not add Mateen Cleaves to the list? And Ed O'Bannon? Let's throw Eric Montress in there too. They all stunk too. Good analysis.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Honestly, no I don't. Marcus Haslip, Ryan Humphrey and Rodney White have very, very little in common with Tyrus Thomas. Rodney White doesn't really have a lot in common with Haslip and Humprey. The list is bizarre at best, and *idiotic* at worst.


Good grief, I asked you guys to make a quick list and sloth delivered. Where's your list?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Those Thomas comparisons are awful. Ryan Humphrey, Jared Jeffries, Rodney White and Marcus Haslip? Athletic freaks? Come on. If you've ever seen any of those four play I'm sure you know that they're not athletic freaks. They weren't in college and they certainly aren't in the pro's.


Well, Humphrey did have an exceptional vertical for a guy built like an outside linebacker, and Haislip did have an exceptional vertical for a guy his height, and Jeffries could move pretty well for a guy his size. None are in the same class as Thomas, obviously. I'm just saying.

White, on the other hand, ran and jumped like he was about to break a six-day poopless streak but didn't quite want to let it go.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> A workout junkie, bench presses 400 pounds.


Marcus Haislip might be able to bench press 400 pounds on the moon. He's not doing it on this planet.



> Doesn't always look like he knows what he's doing.


:laugh: You never want to see THAT in your draft capsule.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Well, Humphrey did have an exceptional vertical for a guy built like an outside linebacker, and Haislip did have an exceptional vertical for a guy his height, and Jeffries could move pretty well for a guy his size. None are in the same class as Thomas, obviously. I'm just saying.
> 
> White, on the other hand, ran and jumped like he was about to break a six-day poopless streak but didn't quite want to let it go.


I did not recall Haislip being a total workout stud pre-draft, obviously he was. Still, nobody was talking about Marcus Haislip as a top 5 pick - Haislip averaged something like 6 or 7 rebounds a game over 33 minutes as a junior in college, he was not the interior force that Thomas was as a redshirt freshman. I still don't think that comp is entirely fair. Ryan Humphrey was a four year guy at Notre Dame with a pretty limited ceiling. Jeffries is a decent athlete for a guy who's 6'10'' but he's not in the same class at all as Thomas. Rodney White had a fair amount of offensive polish coming out of school, but wasn't much of athlete. They are, IMO, slightly weird comp's - my ignorance of Marcus Haislip's athletic prowess aside.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Electric Slim said:


> Good grief, I asked you guys to make a quick list and sloth delivered. Where's your list?


Alright. Some comps, both best case and worst case:

Stromile Swift
Kenyon Martin
Shawn Marion
Josh Smith

It's not easy to make a comp list for Thomas. He's a fairly unique player. I'm not sure we've seen anybody do what he's done at the college level lately. At 6'8'' he's obviously not big, but he's tremendously explosive, really aggressive, has great defensive and rebounding instincts, and would seem to have the potential to improve offensively. At worst he's Stromile Swift, at best I think he'll be a player who's really not that comparable to anybody. I just can't write off what I saw out of him at the collegiate level this year. He was a force to be reckoned with, a freakish athlete, and he produced just as much as LaMarcus Aldridge (the supposedly safe pick) did.


----------



## eljam (Aug 1, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> I took that to mean he found another point guard he likes, and won't hesitate to pull the trigger if his other guys are off the board.


Sergio Rodriguez maybe? He is said to be immensly talented...

http://www.draftexpress.com/viewprofile.php?p=24#


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

Electric Slim said:


> It was pretty beautiful, I thought it was a great interview.
> 
> But let's talk about Ben Gordon for a sec. I, for one, was dissapponted on how in love Ben Gordon was days before the draft. "My Guy" was Deng, and with Jamal still on the team I thought he was the best fit.
> 
> ...



Picking iggy over ben would had been a mistake , Just think how awful the bulls offense would been with Iggy , Duhon and Chandler. Minus dunking Iguodala offense is not that much better duhons


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I saw this on another board, but heres Paxsons trade talks with Houston.

houston: Alright, I want Tyrus Thomas, take him #2.

Paxson: Alright, then you guys take Roy, but I'm gonna want Head too.

Houston: No way I'm giving you head.

Paxson: You better give me Head or no deal.

Houston: No, for the last time, I'm not giving you Head, NO MEANS NO.

Paxson: I love Head as much as the next guy, but okay, how about you give me T-Mac. Head would start in front of him when he recovered from injury over there any how.

Houston: No way T-Mac comes off the bench for Head.

Paxson: Head might be better than T-Mac next year.

Houston: No way T-Mac goes to the bench for Head.

Paxson: I want Head more than T-Mac.

Houston: I'm not giving you Head.

Paxson: Fine, so T-Mac and Roy for Tyrus Thomas?

Houston: Fine, I'll give you Head.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

sloth said:


> I saw this on another board, but heres Paxsons trade talks with Houston.
> 
> houston: Alright, I want Tyrus Thomas, take him #2.
> 
> ...


:laugh:

Very good Sloth


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

FWIW I don't think we would be where we are today.... a respectable team had we not have drafted Ben Gordon 

In my mind he really was the guy responsible for the turnaround of our fortunes . Big statement I know and Scott Skiles might have something to say about that 

But as much as Skiles may have figured out how and where to use him ...the bottom line is if the guy couldn't execute and lead the league in 4th quarter points scored IN HIS ROOKIE SEASON then we'd still likely be entrenched firmly in the crapper

Ben Gordon executed and found ways to get it done and was a catalyst that was used for this team to believe in itself and feel good about itself 

His success gave impetus for Coach Skiles to define roles and inspiration for players to step up into those roles . I firmly believe that this hugely beneficial by-product of Gordon's success inspired Tyson , with clear communication and the prospect of a contract year , to become the 4th quarter closer he was the season before last. Hinrich and Nocioni were the hard before their years professionals that exemplified the scrappy toughness and identity that this team was looking for at its cultural base. Duhon and Deng supported this and all Eddy had to do was put the ball in the hoop with a very unselfish offense 

When you look back on that team it was an exquisitely balanced team and I honestly do think if we had Eddy and Luol at full fitness we would have taken the Wizards and moved into the 2nd round 

With the disturbances of last season this team found huge mental strength to battle their way through all season when their balance was thrown out and talent diminished - don't underestimate last season in what I consider to be hugely important for the mental strength that our guys had to develop and perhaps won't cash in on until next season ( and seasons to follow ) 

We went toe to toe with this season's champions in 6 games. Sure the Heat lifted a notch as they went through the playoffs but until they found that notch we were going hammer and tong with them , and I honestly believed ( as I believe they do ) that we played them as tough as anybody 

The point ?

How did we get to this point in one and a half seasons ?

The base had been set right by Paxson and Skiles ..but someone still needed to step from the pack and execute ON THE FLOOR to lift this franchise back up 

And it was undeniably Ben Gordon 

Show some ****'n loyalty and build with the guy as part of your core rather than the "gun for hire to get us to Point X " messages that get communicated in Huckleberry Pax's unfailing obsession for ill chosen candour 

I have a problem with the thinking ..but outside of this I have an even bigger problem with the nakedness of the messages and the penchant Pax has ( unintentionally I'm sure ) for screwing with the value of his own assets

It was a terrific interview by B+B - who really surprised me 

They absolutely ambushed him while giving him "the love" at the same time 

Real clown prince assasin stuff


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Look at the realgm frontpage. You'd feel all rosy if thats all you saw and never heard this last interview. http://realgm.com/

Ben just plain old looks like a star, jsut like Kobe and Lebron and Wade look like stars, Ben looks like a star, therefore he'll become one.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

I say if Gordon isn't in the long term plan you get the most you can get for him. I'd love the sound of a Hinrich/Gordon/Roy rotation, but sign me up for the club that says Ben won't be happy in his current role when his contract is up. Everyone knew Jamal wouldn't be happy in a Hinrich/Gordon/Crawford rotation and I think "it's deja vu all over again". That said, a bigger frontcourt could reduce defensive deficiencies and reduce Ben's size and defense as a factor. It won't however alleviate Hinrich's burden of guarding big 2's.

Can a couple of old buddies hook up one more time for a trade of mutual benefit? Charlotte is already small but would Jordan be interested in Gordon for the #3? Maybe we could get Ely as well with some possible filler. Gordon teams up with Okafor again and I gotta believe he'll help sell more seats than a rookie. And boy do they need to sell seats. $5 tickets!? Jordan finally has his ownership so I suspect some of his dealings will now reflect one eye on the balance sheet.

An old article with insight to MJ and Ben? 



> In draft two, Pax became enthralled with Ben Gordon and Luol Deng - so he went and got both of them and added Chris Duhon for good measure. Then, a weird thing happened.
> 
> _Jordan invited Gordon to his annual summerfest of NBA stars at Hoops the Gym. MJ fell in love with Gordon and they become so close they frequently had dinner and drinks at Jordan's home after their workouts.
> _
> ...


Would Toronto take Gordon and #16 for #1 OR Gordon, [Deng/Nocioni] and the #16 for Villanueva and the #1? I sense any deal with Toronto would probably be pretty hard to get done. It sounds like Colangelo wants a real bounty for the pick.

I'd be angling for the #1/2 or #2/3 to take Thomas and Roy. Pax did manage to pull off the Phoenix deal to get the 2 picks before so this time he just needs to move up from that #16. History?

If Pax and Skiles aren't comfortable going that young then maybe Pax should quit waiting to take calls on Gordon and start making them. What kind of deal could get done involving Gordon and Jason Richardson? 

It really sounds like the Bulls will sit tight and take Thomas at #2. It'll give Pax another year to evaluate Ben and probably decide at the deadline if he's really in our future.

While I want to address the frontcourt in the draft, I confess to a case of draft-itis. It seems like every team would like to take Roy and I have this pressing feeling that we're going to regret not picking him.

Nothing is likely to happen with Ben this year and I'm expecting more of the same - endless speculation. But, it seemed clear that Pax is anything but clear on Ben's future. If we do nothing, will we look back on this as a smart non-move or will it be a missed opportunity?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

sloth said:


> Look at the realgm frontpage. You'd feel all rosy if thats all you saw and never heard this last interview. http://realgm.com/
> 
> Ben just plain old looks like a star, jsut like Kobe and Lebron and Wade look like stars, Ben looks like a star, therefore he'll become one.


Looks don't mean crap Sloth. The way they look when they're playing, meaning movement, not appearance has a bearing, but not just plain old looks.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Am I allowed to question assertions like "Pax's draft history is unblemished; no one does a better job with it" or "Pax rocks the draft!" after this interview?
> 
> Pax doesn't seem to think his drafts have been mistake-free.


In fairness, saying (in so many words) they want to move Gordon isn't necessarily the same as saying they made a mistake in drafting him. 

Who else would they have drafted? As big a fan as I am of Iggy, and I'm a huge fan of his, I'm not sure an Iggy/Deng combo would have worked out well without a true scorer on the team. Perhaps Kirk could be a bigger offensive weapon if a big, defensive ball-handling guard like Iggy was on the team, and perhaps his above the rim game would bring more offense away from AI and CWebb. I think both of those things are true, in fact. But I also don't think they'd together make up for the dimension Ben brought. I think the only way it would have worked is if the Bulls kept around Jamal, which, while I would have preferred, I think wasn't going to happen.

I bring it up because going forward we look to be in somewhat the same position if we trade Gordon. Who scores? The guy at the top of this draft we appear to like - Thomas - is not a scorer. To trade Ben, we need to add a legitimate scoring threat. Which is maybe what Pax is alluding to with his "blockbuster" comments. 

---------

By the way, does anyone else thing Pax looks at Tyrus Thomas and sees Kevin Garnett?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Word around the league is, Bargnani is slipping and Toronto will trade the #1 pick to #3 or #4 to pick up an extra asset.

Does Colangelo really believe we won't take Bargnani?

I'm tellin' ya'll, Pax already know what he's gonna do, Colangelo knows too. Which is why he isn't worried.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Alright. Some comps, both best case and worst case:
> 
> Stromile Swift
> Kenyon Martin
> ...


ERob


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> ERob


With a personality transplant ERob could have been an exciting player (assuming the chronic injury complaints were at least partly psychosomatic).

Just trying to be positive about the situation. :sigh:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Gordon would be the 4th straight team's leading scorer traded if it happens.

If we keep trading away everyone who outscores Kirk and Nocioni, one of those two will eventually become our leading scorer. Plus there isn't a better way to keep the payroll down to the league minimum.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Scoring points = selfishness.

Ohhhh... mr shoot a lot has the most points....

Greedy *****. Trade his ***.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Gordon would be the 4th straight team's leading scorer traded if it happens.
> 
> If we keep trading away everyone who outscores Kirk and Nocioni, one of those two will eventually become our leading scorer. Plus there isn't a better way to keep the payroll down to the league minimum.


It's a little discouraging to hear Paxson worrying about meeting Gordon's salary demands two years from now. It's his job to keep the personnel budget under control, but the Bulls are drowning in cash and profits right now, and Ben Gordon's performances are at least part of the reason. I think he was caught off guard in the interview and let his long term concerns show a bit more than they should.

As John Meynard Keynes once said "In the long term, we're all dead." 
Carpe dieum Paxson. It's not your money.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Am I allowed to question assertions like "Pax's draft history is unblemished; no one does a better job with it" or "Pax rocks the draft!" after this interview?
> 
> Pax doesn't seem to think his drafts have been mistake-free.


Although I wholeheartedly agree the interview indicates that the team is waiting for the right time and offer to trade Gordon, I don't believe it means they think they made a mistake in drafting him. You have to look at who they would have rather had in that particular draft.

If they trade him head up for Iggy, you'll be onto something there. 

As for your earlier quote about the "vetting process" and Ben's prior assault, I got the impression from the Paxson interview that the issue was Ben's height and fit. Not that it had anything to do with character issues or that they don't like him as a talent. 

I think Paxson thinks the "big guard" is critical. I don't agree with him. But from that interview, I think that is the issue - not Ben Gordon the person.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Shawn Livingston would have been a better choice.
So would Iggy, Al Jefferson and Josh Smith.

All long term of course. None of them would have won the coveted 6 th man of the year award and led us from the bench to a 1 st round playoff exit.

3 of these 4 didn't have big game experience and we didn't know if they could play the right way at the time.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

McBulls said:


> It's a little discouraging to hear Paxson worrying about meeting Gordon's salary demands two years from now.


Well, Pax did say that "it's not an issue right now." Right now, being the key phrase, but still he suggests that it isn't on his mind too much. I think it's a good thing to be aware about this early actually; I'm sure Pax knows as well as anyone that he can't give double-digit millions to 5-6 of his current players. I would be a little surprised if our current core is the the end product 3 years from now, just for that very reason.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Scoring points = selfishness.
> 
> Ohhhh... mr shoot a lot has the most points....
> 
> Greedy *****. Trade his ***.


Funny. The only time I've ever heard anyone from the Bulls organization question Gordon's shot selection is when he's too passive and doesn't shoot enough.

Look, its obvious Gordon isn't considered a lock for the core. This actually suggests to me that Roy, not Thomas, will be drafted. This disappoints me terribly as anyone reading my posts the last month will note. 

But its equally obvious from all of Paxson's fawning about the (ficticious) "need" for a big guard, that its a size and fit issue with Gordon. Paxson could not have made this more clear in his surprisingly candid interview yesterday.

In other words, its an interesting discussion that opens the door to intelligent criticism of Paxson and the organization as a whole without muddying it up with stuff like this that has absolutely no basis in fact.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Shawn Livingston would have been a better choice.
> So would Iggy, Al Jefferson and Josh Smith.


I'll give you Livingston now, and though I didn't post here at the time, I'd have given it to you on draft day. Though Dwight Howard is going to be a super-duper star, I still think there is a chance that Livingston won't be far behind him in best player from that draft. Considering the apparent "need" for a big guard in Chicago, Livingston would have been perfect. 

I won't give you Iggy, but I think its fairly debateable that he'd be a better choice "now". But he wouldn't have given us what Gordon did the last two years. Lets not undersell the importance of that and what Gordon has given us. 

I won't give you Jefferson. He's horribly overrated. And we had Chandler and Curry (and misplaced hope) back then.

Josh Smith was picked 17th. And as good a he's starting to look, I don't know how he would fit on this team. And, like Iggy, he wouldn't have been the better fit these last two years for sure. If thats the issue, just draft Tyrus Thomas now.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> I'll give you Livingston now, and though I didn't post here at the time, I'd have given it to you on draft day. Though Dwight Howard is going to be a super-duper star, I still think there is a chance that Livingston won't be far behind him in best player from that draft. Considering the apparent "need" for a big guard in Chicago, Livingston would have been perfect.
> 
> I won't give you Iggy, but I think its fairly debateable that he'd be a better choice "now". But he wouldn't have given us what Gordon did the last two years. Lets not undersell the importance of that and what Gordon has given us.
> 
> ...


We had Jamal Crawford, then we traded him......Crawford was a big guard right? Now we have a hole to fill.......Eddy Curry was a big man, right? Then we traded him away.....now we have a hole to fill.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> In other words, its an interesting discussion that opens the door to intelligent criticism of Paxson and the organization as a whole without muddying it up with stuff like this that has absolutely no basis in fact.


Just cracking a joke counselor.

Ah yes... the 'ol "no basis in fact" line.... I remember this being used a lot when talking about the organization not being high on Ben Gordon over the past few months.... until yesterday of course... now its the opening of a door to intelligent criticism of Paxson and the organization. 

And you're right... the perpetual rebuild isn't over.... not until the inevitable Kobe Bryant trade.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Just cracking a joke counselor.
> 
> Ah yes... the 'ol "no basis in fact" line.... I remember this being used a lot when talking about the organization not being high on Ben Gordon.... until yesterday of course... now its the opening the door to intelligent criticism of Paxson and the organization. LOL.


Hard to tell when you are kidding. Especially when the "trade the leading scorer" bit is one of your cut-and-paste favorites. 

There is "no basis in fact" for the suggestion that the Bulls don't like it, and will jettison, a leading scorer not named Hinrich or Nocioni. All statements suggest a fit issue with Gordon due to his size. 

The past "no basis if fact" statements were directed at the Rozneresque speculations that Gordon and Skiles simply don't like each other and that Skiles fears stars. There remains no basis in fact for that. 

Now there is a "basis in fact" for the notion that Paxson really views Gordon's size as a poor fit in Chicago. 

But there remains "no basis in fact" that they aren't high on him as a real talent. In fact, the plain language of the interview is that they do recognize him as a real talent with value to them in the past and the short term and perhaps for other teams around the league down the road.

You are blending distinguishable concepts. I'm just trying to be precise. I think its important to be precise. Otherwise what you are discussing is fiction.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Hard to tell when you are kidding. Especially when the "trade the leading scorer" bit is one of your cut-and-paste favorites.


No its not, its someone elses. 



> The past "no basis if fact" statements were directed at the Rozneresque speculations that Gordon and Skiles simply don't like each other and that Skiles fears stars. There remains no basis in fact for that.



I remeber it as being tension between the two parties. Skiles has no problem benching Gordon and if given a viable alternative would prefer to start another player over him (roy?), IMO.

Gordon wants starter minutes, SC highlight clips, energy drink deals.... and a fat deal at the end of his rookie contract. Its tougher to land that from the bench. Hence the dilemma. Hence the tension. But, as Paxson said, Gordon is being a pro about it... which is a good thing.







> But there remains "no basis in fact" that they aren't high on him as a real talent. In fact, the plain language of the interview is that they do recognize him as a real talent with value to them in the past and the short term and perhaps for other teams around the league down the road.


If you are happy with your #3 pick in the draft SG coming off the bench... or needing to find a replacement player for his starting slot.... as a positive... then fine. If he's a "real talent," I would think the organization would not be looking for a replacement player for his starting slot.

Yah, he's talented. Never said otherwise. Good bench player. #3 pick in the draft for a bench player? 

If its true, I would bet that Paxson gets the most trade offers for Gordon b/c its clear that Paxson would be more likely to trade Gordon than the other "core" players on our team.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Those Thomas comparisons are awful. Ryan Humphrey, Jared Jeffries, Rodney White and Marcus Haslip? Athletic freaks? Come on. If you've ever seen any of those four play I'm sure you know that they're not athletic freaks. They weren't in college and they certainly aren't in the pro's.


OK, I'll bite. Who is this player?




> Height: 6' 8"
> Weight: 220
> 
> Strengths: An unbelievable athlete who can jump out of the gym with the best of them. A highlight real waiting to happen. His incredibly long arms and intensity make him a ferocious offensive and defensive rebounder. Gets off the floor almost instantaneously. Possesses a nice turnaround jumper and decent ball handling skills for a player his size. Has the potential and desire to not only become an offensive force, but a shut down defender as well. A very exciting player to watch with huge potential.
> ...



This is my #1 comparison for Tyrus Thomas.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I agree. Here are some choice words/sounds:
> 
> sigh, then "He has to be [in the long term plans]"
> 
> ...


Didn't listen to the interview till this morning -- better connection for download.

Honestly, after reading the discussion in this thread, and then listening to the interview, I think you all have quite overstated Pax's "dissatisfaction" with Ben. 

Pax is in a quandary, no doubt, regarding Ben, but we knew that.

The fundamental issue that Pax is thinking about is "not" that Ben is too short, or that he's a problem, etc.. I think someone hit the nail on the head when he said that, to Pax, the question is how Ben's desires for himself as a career basketball player are going to mesh with how Pax and the team see Ben fitting on the roster they are creating. 

Ben has some limitations, in Pax's mind. He's short. He's not a great defensive player, although he went out of his way to emphasize that Ben has made strides with his defense.

Ben has some great skills, in Pax's mind. He scores. He's mentally tough and focused. He is learning and growing in areas where he was weak. 

But Pax is not sure where Ben is going to be several years down the road, when he and the team need to come to an agreement, not only on Ben's role for the team, but also where Ben fits in the salaray structure, etc. And this is Pax's quandary, and it's on his mind. 

Because Pax knows he can't just say, "Ben, you're a great player and you fill a role on our team, so we're going to pay you such and such an amount of money," because Ben might think, "No, I see myself as such and such a type of player, and I think that I can fill this larger, more important (and better compensated) role." And if other teams agree, then Pax has to negotiate. Either he sacrifices resources that could be committed to something else to keep Ben, or he lets Ben go and restructures the team. This happened with JC. It could happen with Ben. 

I don't think Pax feels any urgency about "solving" this problem now, because he has time. I don't think he thinks that Ben's value is going to go down, or that Ben is finished developing as a player. I don't think he's going to trade Ben this year, unless a "blockbuster" comes along. 

He does like Roy, obviously, from the interview, and we know why. But I don't think that Pax is committed to going for him. I still think he's after Thomas. 

His comment was telling: Yes, we need "size" (read: height), but what we need more is "length and athleticism" and also, "competitive fire" (read: Tyrus Thomas) -- Unless, something showed up in the background check that they talked so extensively about. I could see Roy (yes to everything, but not quite on fire) as a good second option if that is the case, perhaps L Aldridge (short on fire) or A Morrison (short on athleticism) third. I don't think he sees Bargnani filling this need.

I also don't think he will gamble, going small and then waiting for size at 16. He is very aware that they have no idea who is going to be there, although they do suspect that someone with size will be there. 

And, I didn't take the comment about taking someone at a position of strength as a commitment to do so, just that, IF the players they like that fill their needs are gone, THEN they will not hesitate to take someone they like as a player, regardless of the position.

My two cents, offered a day late, so probably only worth one cent.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> OK, I'll bite. Who is this player?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I give up. You can PM me the answer.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

...


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> Can a couple of old buddies hook up one more time for a trade of mutual benefit? Charlotte is already small but would Jordan be interested in Gordon for the #3? Maybe we could get Ely as well with some possible filler. Gordon teams up with Okafor again and I gotta believe he'll help sell more seats than a rookie.


I know Paxson is generally not in favor of getting younger, but this might be a possibility now that Jordan has entered the fold in Charlotte. Most likely, we could have our pick of Thomas/Aldridge at #2 and then take Roy at #3. I honestly am hesitant to trade Gordon though, and one of the things I like about Roy is his ability to play with Gordon rather than make him expendable.

Based on how much I like Roy, though, and how well I think he would play as a Bull, I would accept a trade of Gordon for the #3 pick, assuming Roy is on the board after the #1 pick.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> No its not, its someone elses.
> 
> I remeber it as being tension between the two parties. Skiles has no problem benching Gordon and if given a viable alternative would prefer to start another player over him (roy?), IMO.
> 
> ...


K4E, you're a hoot. I agree with much of what you say, but you have a way of going over the top that is unmatched on these boards. Sure adds spice to the discussion. So, thanks.

What I've bolded is where I've got an argument with you. What Ben brought and brings to the Bulls is something I don't think anyone else would have brought at #3, and that is, he's a winner. He had a huge impact on the Bulls, and not for short term gratification. He as much as anyone has changed the atmosphere on the Bulls from losers to winners. I could care less about "bench" player or "starter", although he surely does. From a Bulls' fan's perspective, he was exactly the right guy to draft to be the spark that really turned this team around. Better than the other guys you mentioned as alternatives, by far, both short and long term. 

We are where we are in large part because of Ben. We have a bright future and a good hope (!) because of him, too. I hope *with* him, but that's a personal decision he needs to make, and one Pax has to deal with when the time comes.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> My two cents, offered a day late, so probably only worth one cent.


No way, that was the best post on the issue so far!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Let me ask this: Is it even the right move to get rid of Ben? 

In the thread I just started on the ideal Bulls draft, I suggested trading him and getting Roy. Suppose we were to do that. I like Roy, but he strikes me as a steady scorer, not an explosive scorer. so does Kirk. Thomas, if he really blows up, might be, but I wouldn't bet on it. Deng also seems more steady than explosive. Chandler and every FA option doesn't do much for scoring.

My point is that a team that starts Kirk, Roy, Lou, Thomas, and Chandler or Nene... with Noc and maybe Duhon coming off the bench... that's a team that has 4 guys who can score, but probably not 4 guys who really score in bunches the way a guy like Gordon can. That's a valuable asset to have, and not a very common one. Perhaps we'd be better off finding a way to keep him around and just being willing to pay more to have an explosive scoring sixth man?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

If we land Brewer/Carney with the 16, I want to keep Gordon.

Gordon can be a very strong bench asset for the Bulls.

Ideally, we could have a SG that can not only fill up the stat sheet on the offensive end but also guard the opposing 2.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Shawn Livingston would have been a better choice.
> So would Iggy, Al Jefferson and Josh Smith.
> 
> All long term of course. None of them would have won the coveted 6 th man of the year award and led us from the bench to a 1 st round playoff exit.
> ...


So that's the route you really would've rather taken? During the past couple years, you've derided our first round playoff exits to no end. And this year, you mocked how we were again depending on ping pong balls. So, if Pax had taken any of those players instead of Ben, what would have been the measuring stick for the Bulls during the past two seasons? First round exits for a young team weren't enough for you, yet you expect me to suddenly believe that you would've been peachy keen with two trips to the lottery as long as we had Livingston, Jefferson, or J-Smoove (sic) on the roster?


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Let me ask this: Is it even the right move to get rid of Ben?
> 
> In the thread I just started on the ideal Bulls draft, I suggested trading him and getting Roy. Suppose we were to do that. I like Roy, but he strikes me as a steady scorer, not an explosive scorer. so does Kirk. Thomas, if he really blows up, might be, but I wouldn't bet on it. Deng also seems more steady than explosive. Chandler and every FA option doesn't do much for scoring.
> 
> My point is that a team that starts Kirk, Roy, Lou, Thomas, and Chandler or Nene... with Noc and maybe Duhon coming off the bench... that's a team that has 4 guys who can score, but probably not 4 guys who really score in bunches the way a guy like Gordon can. That's a valuable asset to have, and not a very common one. Perhaps we'd be better off finding a way to keep him around and just being willing to pay more to have an explosive scoring sixth man?


I'm with you pretty much all the way on this one. And not just "scorer" in my mind, but "winner". Let's keep Ben.

But Roy or Thomas do have the potential of doing more than we have seen thus far on the offensive end.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If we land Brewer/Carney with the 16, I want to keep Gordon.
> 
> Gordon can be a very strong bench asset for the Bulls.
> 
> Ideally, we could have a SG that can not only fill up the stat sheet on the offensive end but also guard the opposing 2.


Yeah, but if it's a guy like Carney who's more of a true swingman type, Skiles may not really put him on the floor with Gordon. So when Carney's in to guard swingmen, Ben is on the bench, not where he belongs. That's part of the reason I'm so intrigued by Roy, Brewer, and to a lesser extent Mardy Collins. These are players that can keep Ben on the floor AND shore up defensive issues.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> What I've bolded is where I've got an argument with you. What Ben brought and brings to the Bulls is something I don't think anyone else would have brought at #3, and that is, he's a winner. He had a huge impact on the Bulls, and not for short term gratification. He as much as anyone has changed the atmosphere on the Bulls from losers to winners.


I disagree.

I attribute the lone winning season since MJ more to the maturation of Hinrich, a more mature, effective Chandler, and a more mature, effective Curry.

That, along with the addition of Deng, Noc, Gordon (EDIT: and duhon!!!) really had this team going in the right direction... up.... explosively up.


Gordon was the guy taking the shots at the end of the games... and providing little else. Those shots are exciting and valuable... no doubt.... but I still feel that a guy like Mike James can give you similar to what Ben Gordon does.

"Winners" usually can start, IMO. He's the Microwave Vinnie Johnson. Nice player. That's a valuable role.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Yeah, but if it's a guy like Carney who's more of a true swingman type, Skiles may not really put him on the floor with Gordon. So when Carney's in to guard swingmen, Ben is on the bench, not where he belongs. That's part of the reason I'm so intrigued by Roy, Brewer, and to a lesser extent Mardy Collins. These are players that can keep Ben on the floor AND shore up defensive issues.


I agree. Brewer's exactly what we need for that "big guard". No chance he drops to 16 though. It just seems like he's had an absolutely perfect pre-draft experience - great measurements, combine numbers, workouts, and interviews. I really like him. He could play some PG alongside Gordon and would alleviate that defensive pressure from Kirk. Roy would fill the same needs, but going for him eliminates getting either Tyrus, Aldridge, or Bargs. But Brewer is certainly within our grasp. I'd definitely be willing to trade Du and the 16th pick to move up and get him.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Let me ask this: Is it even the right move to get rid of Ben?
> 
> My point is that a team that starts Kirk, Roy, Lou, Thomas, and Chandler or Nene... with Noc and maybe Duhon coming off the bench... that's a team that has 4 guys who can score, but probably not 4 guys who really score in bunches the way a guy like Gordon can. That's a valuable asset to have, and not a very common one. Perhaps we'd be better off finding a way to keep him around and just being willing to pay more to have an explosive scoring sixth man?


No, it's not right.

This business of worrying about paying a shooting guard because he is 6'1'' is stupid.
Would Paxson really pass on a chance to keep a young Allen Iverson, Vinnie Johnson, or Lloyd Free?

Guards who demand a double team in the fourth quarter, play team ball and defense are keepers. Unless you are near bankruptsy you find a way to pay them without chasing them away.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I attribute the lone winning season since MJ more to the maturation of Hinrich, a more mature, effective Chandler, a more mature and a more mature, effective Curry.
> 
> ...


"Taking the shots at the end of games and providing little else?"

He was single-handedly winning games at the end of that season. It's mind blowing to see somebody categorize those 4th quarter performances as "taking the shots...and providing little else." K4E, he was MAKING the shots at the end of games.

Also, "explosively up"? You were bashing that team a year ago as Grizzlies east. The grass is always greener, eh?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Yeah, but if it's a guy like Carney who's more of a true swingman type, Skiles may not really put him on the floor with Gordon. So when Carney's in to guard swingmen, Ben is on the bench, not where he belongs. That's part of the reason I'm so intrigued by Roy, Brewer, and to a lesser extent Mardy Collins. These are players that can keep Ben on the floor AND shore up defensive issues.




That's the problem with drafting any starter quality 2. And the whole "we need to add a big guard" strategy that does not involve ditching Ben.

Who gets benched at crunch time? 

Carney is more of a SF... true. I'd rather have Brewer that him personally... he'd fit in perfectly, IMO. I like Roy as well... I just think the team needs long, athletic big men more than a big guard.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I disagree.
> 
> I attribute the lone winning season since MJ more to the maturation of Hinrich, a more mature, effective Chandler, a more mature and a more mature, effective Curry.
> 
> ...


K4E, no way!

That Utah game that stopped the road loss streak was huge. Having Ben's dynamite ready to go off in the fourth quarter just made everyone else SO MUCH more free to do what they do to set the table. But someone had to be there for the kill, and more times than not, it was and still is Ben. The other things you mentioned were important, no doubt, but something had to start the thing crystallizing, and that was Ben's ability to put the ball in the hole when it counted.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> That's the problem with drafting any starter quality 2. And the whole "we need to add a big guard" strategy that does not involve ditching Ben.
> 
> Who gets benched at crunch time?
> 
> Carney is more of a SF... true. I'd rather have Brewer that him personally... he'd fit in perfectly, IMO. I like Roy as well... I just think the team needs long, athletic big men more than a big guard.


None of them get benched at crunch time, K4E:

Hinrich
Gordon
Roy
Nocioni
(insert our best big next year)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Also, "explosively up"? You were bashing that team a year ago as Grizzlies east. The grass is always greener, eh?



I underestimated how well the team would do two seasons ago, true. Looking at the preseason prediction thread, I was not alone.

I was ready to giddily leave the Fire Pax club if he just managed to resign that core. Oh well. Then we had the Great Regression.

Thankfully, we have the Found Money to help us not go the way of the Grizzly.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> None of them get benched at crunch time, K4E:
> 
> Hinrich
> Gordon
> ...


Yah, I don't think Noc is a full time 4 and what about Deng?

That lineup may be out there based on particular matchups... but its not my ideal one by any stretch.

What position is Gordon guarding in that scenario? I thought one of the main benefits for going big guard is to stop Hinrich from getting his *** kicked out there?

If Paxson's idea is to get longer and more athletic, I don't see it from that lineup compared to last years.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I want no part of trading Gordon. He's the teams only go-to offensive player and I think should the Bulls land Brewer, the 96 minutes or so between Gordon, Brewer and Hinrich should be enough to keep Ben happy. In fact, given his upcoming FA, it seems even more important to consolidate backcourt talent and get a third guard who will allow Ben and Hinrich to play the minutes they deserve.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, I don't think Noc is a full time 4 and what about Deng?
> 
> That lineup may be out there based on particular matchups... but its not my ideal one by any stretch.
> 
> ...


The big guard isn't necessarily the crunch time defender. He saves Kirk's energy so that at the end of the game, Kirk is ready to clamp down.

Ben is guarding the point, as usual. And hopefully, he's making strides in doing so, as he did last year.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I was ready to giddily leave the Fire Pax club if he just managed to resign that core. Oh well. Then we had the Great Regression.



We did?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> The big guard isn't necessarily the crunch time defender. He saves Kirk's energy so that at the end of the game, Kirk is ready to clamp down.
> 
> Ben is guarding the point, as usual. And hopefully, he's making strides in doing so, as he did last year.



Perhaps... its just that I usually think of your end of game lineup as your best lineup.... unless you are faced with an unusual lineup match up.

Hinrich
Gordon
Roy
Nocioni
(Przy, Chandler, Thomas)

Maybe.... I just don't see the size/length/athleticism gain compared to last season.

And, I like Hinrich, I just don't want him guarding big SGs in crunch time... and I don't really think the Bulls want him to either. That's based on necessity. Its not fair to Hinrich, IMO, and certainly not ideal.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> We did?


47 wins
3rd best team in the east
home court advantage
anything less would be uncivilized (unless I guess J-Smoove is along for the ride)

jnrjr79, you know the diatribe.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, I don't think Noc is a *full time* 4 and what about Deng?
> 
> That lineup may be out there based on particular matchups... but its not my ideal one by any stretch.
> 
> What position is Gordon guarding in that scenario. I thought one of the main benefits for going big guard is to stop Hinrich from getting his *** kicked out there?



Who said anything about full time, K4E? You were asking about who see s the floor in crunch time?

See, here's the thing. Ben Gordon is an amazing clutch player. I want him on the court at the end of the game no matter what, and when he wasn't on the court at the end of games in the last, say, 120 games we have played, I've been pissed. 

It has been theorized that Hinrich gets tired chasing around big 2's the whole game. If you bring in a big guard like Roy, who will almost exclusively guard 2 guards when he's on the court (and sometimes 3's in a small lineup as listed above), Hinrich gets to spend the majority of his court time guarding 1's and spends the time he runs with Ben Gordon guarding 2's. It doesn't alleviate the issue, but it minimizes the problem and provides flexibility. Meanwhile, Roy has the handling, passing, and decision making skills to play next to Gordon, meaning that Ben is just about exclusively guarding point guards. So we get a versatile, big guard into the rotation, and he helps to protect us over the course of a long game from the giant outbursts from the likes of Carter and Stephen Jackson that plagued us this last year.

However, I'm comfortable going with a small lineup at the end of the game. I don't like being as small as we are over the course of 48 minutes, but for 4-5 minutes at the end of the game, being that our guys play with serious defensive intensity, yeah, I'd do it. I could also deal with a lineup of Gordon/Hinrich/Deng/Nocioni/big on the floor as well, as was the case most of this year. Roy would have to prove he was worthy of crunch minutes (which I think he would, especially because he has more propensity to get to the FT line than any other Bull). Yes, having Ben on the court makes us a bit small, but in those crunch minutes he is such a unique assasin that I still think having him on the court is a major disadvantage to the opposition, and not the other way around. I can only wonder whether we could have stolen game 1 from Miami in round 1 if we had just gotten Ben the ball at the end of the game. Lots of teams, including the TWolves with a great player like Garnett, don't really have anyone that has the late game confidence/effectiveness of Ben Gordon.

As for Deng, as versatile and talented of a player as he has been thus far in his career, he's hit very few clutch shots and has generally thrived over the span of 48 minutes. I don't see any particular reason why he HAS TO be on the court in the last four minutes of the game.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> 47 wins
> 3rd best team in the east
> home court advantage
> anything less would be uncivilized (unless I guess J-Smoove is along for the ride)
> ...



Hey big bertha... I'm gonna go hit golf balls for a spell... mind taking over for a few hours?

thx bud....


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

What a ridiculous thread. Goes from Bargnani conversation to Gordon bashing. Ben is the biggest star on the team. The single most important thing a player can do is MAKE shots in the 4th quarter in close games to WIN those games. You act like all he does it take the shots and it's not worth keeping. Well it is! You have to have a go to guy, PERIOD! He IS our go to guy. So what if he's a little small. You get the right people to go around him if need be. IF we weren't so poor at the 4 and 5, it wouldn't be that much of an issue. Is Ben perfect, NO. Is he better than any guard in the draft, most likely. At least we KNOW he can get it done in the NBA, whereas the rest are just speculation. You don't trade a star player who hasn't even hit his prime yet, on the HOPES that another guard TWO inches taller will be better than him. The only way you trade Ben is if it's for a proven guard, or you take a guard as BPA in this year's draft, see how he'll work out, and trade Ben next year if that new guy works out.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Unfortunately, this thread that was once excellent has turned into a collection of quippy bait and responses. 

MikeDC, to answer your question about is trading Ben a good idea - not simply to replace him with Brandon Roy its not. And for many of the reasons you listed. That is part of what bothers me about this entire picture. A picture, I fear, that is coming into focus.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Unfortunately, this thread that was once excellent has turned into a collection of quippy bait and responses.
> 
> MikeDC, to answer your question about is trading Ben a good idea - not simply to replace him with Brandon Roy its not. And for many of the reasons you listed. That is part of what bothers me about this entire picture. A picture, I fear, that is coming into focus.


Don't worry, Ron Cey. I just haven't seen any signs that Paxson is going to take my boy Roy.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Unfortunately, this thread that was once excellent has turned into a collection of quippy bait and responses.
> 
> MikeDC, to answer your question about is trading Ben a good idea - not simply to replace him with Brandon Roy its not. And for many of the reasons you listed. That is part of what bothers me about this entire picture. A picture, I fear, that is coming into focus.


What, you think waxing nostalgic over Eddy Curry and the halcyon days of a 47 win season isn't more worthwhile than a legitimate basketball discussion? 

Anyone feeling lucky? Let's set the over-under on "found money" jabs from now until the draft and take bets!


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

"Just recently, Ivica Dukan and Ron Adams were over there for the Treviso big man camp and they spent some time with him. "

Going back on topic, I'm really not too concerned about this. While this might not exactly be the 6 person inquisition at the Berto Center, I think they've done their due diligence with respect to Barney. And for all we know, he could be that guy coming in on Sunday. Or maybe Pax genuinely thinks that he's Colangelo's guy. I don't know, but I'm not really bothered by this. I think playing a key role on a premier championship euro team automatically alleviates many of the concerns one might have with a HS kid or a NCAA player with some off the court issue.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Gordon was the guy taking the shots at the end of the games... and providing little else. Those shots are exciting and valuable... no doubt.... but I still feel that a guy like Mike James can give you similar to what Ben Gordon does.
> 
> "Winners" usually can start, IMO. He's the Microwave Vinnie Johnson. Nice player. That's a valuable role.


Just so you know, Gordon's rookie stats alone basically matched Vinne Johnson's BEST season. The vast majority of Vinnie's production was far below Gordon's. They might have similar styles but pretty different overall productivity. Vinnie was mostly a 13 ppg type scorer without doing anything else. He also rarely scored the 3-ball which IMO is Gordon's most lethal weapon. Gordon has already averaged 17 ppg and will likely exceed 20 ppg in future seasons (hell, maybe next season). Vinnie's your ideal 6th man, whereas Gordon is a legit starter.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsvi01.html


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

yodurk said:


> Just so you know, Gordon's rookie stats alone basically matched Vinne Johnson's BEST season. The vast majority of Vinnie's production was far below Gordon's. They might have similar styles but pretty different overall productivity. Vinnie was mostly a 13 ppg type scorer without doing anything else. He also rarely scored the 3-ball which IMO is Gordon's most lethal weapon. Gordon has already averaged 17 ppg and will likely exceed 20 ppg in future seasons (hell, maybe next season). Vinnie's your ideal 6th man, whereas Gordon is a legit starter.
> 
> http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/j/johnsvi01.html


Great point. The Vinnie Johnson comp seems semi-absurd when you take into account that he was a pretty lousy 3 point shooter.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

bbertha37 said:


> 47 wins
> 3rd best team in the east
> home court advantage
> anything less would be uncivilized (unless I guess J-Smoove is along for the ride)
> ...



I guess my view is that the regular season doesn't really matter. It's how you do in the playoffs that does. To the extent the regular season sets up your playoff run, that matters. 

We lost 4-2 last year in the first round.
We lost 4-2 this year in the first round.

At the end of the day, I don't think there was any important difference between the two seasons.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Didn't listen to the interview till this morning -- better connection for download.
> 
> Honestly, after reading the discussion in this thread, and then listening to the interview, I think you all have quite overstated Pax's "dissatisfaction" with Ben.


I don't think Paxson is dissatisfied with Ben. I think he has a vision that he thinks Ben doesn't fit in long term. 



> Pax is in a quandary, no doubt, regarding Ben, but we knew that.
> 
> The fundamental issue that Pax is thinking about is "not" that Ben is too short, or that he's a problem, etc.. I think someone hit the nail on the head when he said that, to Pax, the question is how Ben's desires for himself as a career basketball player are going to mesh with how Pax and the team see Ben fitting on the roster they are creating.


Those are one and the same thing, to me at least. To Paxson, Ben is too short to be the full time shooting guard. Therefore, Paxson needs a Roy or someone else to do that with Ben most likely coming off the bench as a point guard/shooting guard backup in a 3 man rotation. We all know this would be awesome.

But we also all know that Ben ain't going to go for it. Nor should he be expected to. This isn't the younger Jamal Crawford where a player is unrealistically overvaluing himself. Ben Gordon is a starter. Maybe at point guard for a team not worried about distribution from that position. But he has borderline allstar level talent. And he's not going to accept a career as a sixth man. Its just not going to happen. 



> Ben has some limitations, in Pax's mind. He's short. He's not a great defensive player, although he went out of his way to emphasize that Ben has made strides with his defense.
> 
> Ben has some great skills, in Pax's mind. He scores. He's mentally tough and focused. He is learning and growing in areas where he was weak.


No doubt.



> But Pax is not sure where Ben is going to be several years down the road, when he and the team need to come to an agreement, not only on Ben's role for the team, but also where Ben fits in the salaray structure, etc. And this is Pax's quandary, and it's on his mind.
> 
> Because Pax knows he can't just say, "Ben, you're a great player and you fill a role on our team, so we're going to pay you such and such an amount of money," because Ben might think, "No, I see myself as such and such a type of player, and I think that I can fill this larger, more important (and better compensated) role." And if other teams agree, then Pax has to negotiate. Either he sacrifices resources that could be committed to something else to keep Ben, or he lets Ben go and restructures the team. This happened with JC. It could happen with Ben.


Exactly. But that is linked directly to his height and the perception, flawed in my mind, that this creates a problem of significance. 

This is exactly why I've advocated *having the third guard as the role player, and not Gordon*. John Salmons for example. This way the so-called need is addressed, and Gordon remains in the fold in a way that satisfies his reasonable expectations. 



> I don't think Pax feels any urgency about "solving" this problem now, because he has time. I don't think he thinks that Ben's value is going to go down, or that Ben is finished developing as a player. I don't think he's going to trade Ben this year, unless a "blockbuster" comes along.


I agree. But what I'm talking about is long term commitment. The interview leads me to believe his departure is inevitable. 



> He does like Roy, obviously, from the interview, and we know why. But I don't think that Pax is committed to going for him. I still think he's after Thomas.


Being that Aldridge is looking less likely, I'm fine with Thomas (though I'll be crossing my fingers about his mental fortitude). He's my #2 choice. But I'm starting to smell Roy. I'm in the minority on this board that doesn't like the smell. 

But if Gordon isn't in the long term plans, then maybe its not a bad idea. I just think Gordon should be in the long term plans - as a starting shooting guard (unless consolidated with others for a "superstar" scorer). 



> His comment was telling: Yes, we need "size" (read: height), but what we need more is "length and athleticism" and also, "competitive fire" (read: Tyrus Thomas) -- Unless, something showed up in the background check that they talked so extensively about. I could see Roy (yes to everything, but not quite on fire) as a good second option if that is the case, perhaps L Aldridge (short on fire) or A Morrison (short on athleticism) third. I don't think he sees Bargnani filling this need.
> 
> I also don't think he will gamble, going small and then waiting for size at 16. He is very aware that they have no idea who is going to be there, although they do suspect that someone with size will be there.


I agree. I've been thinking "Tyrus, Tyrus, Tyrus" lately when Paxson talks. Including yesterday. But the Gordon discussion gave me pause. 



> And, I didn't take the comment about taking someone at a position of strength as a commitment to do so, just that, IF the players they like that fill their needs are gone, THEN they will not hesitate to take someone they like as a player, regardless of the position.


No doubt. Thats exactly what he said. 

Good post.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> I guess my view is that the regular season doesn't really matter. It's how you do in the playoffs that does. To the extent the regular season sets up your playoff run, that matters.
> 
> We lost 4-2 last year in the first round.
> We lost 4-2 this year in the first round.
> ...


Ultimately, at the end of the season, I think we performed just as well as in '04-05. Perhaps even better in some ways. I just think it's unfair to have demanded significant improvement last season given the circumstances of the Curry trade. If we had immediately received a significant asset in the frontcourt, I certainly would've expected improvement. But given the main benefits that we reaped in the Curry deal, I don't think it was reprehensible that we experienced some stagnation last season.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> Ultimately, at the end of the season, I think we performed just as well as in '04-05. Perhaps even better in some ways. I just think it's unfair to have demanded significant improvement last season given the circumstances of the Curry trade. If we had immediately received a significant asset in the frontcourt, I certainly would've expected improvement. But given the main benefits that we reaped in the Curry deal, I don't think it was reprehensible that we experienced some stagnation last season.


I'd like to second (third?) the argument. While we were 2-4 in both post seasons, post season 2004-2005 had us losing to the Wizard, who went on the get drummed in round 2. Post season 2005-2006 had us making the eventual NBA champs look like a disorganized and frustrated bunch of kids after game 4. Fact is, our young roster looked like the veteran group when compared to the Heats. Our weakness in the front-court was the deciding factor in that series. Once we address the front-court, I'd put our team's mental strength over that of just about anyone else.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I guess my view is that the regular season doesn't really matter. It's how you do in the playoffs that does. To the extent the regular season sets up your playoff run, that matters.
> 
> We lost 4-2 last year in the first round.
> We lost 4-2 this year in the first round.
> ...


Well, if the regular season's about setting up the playoffs, there was actually a big difference: in 04-05 we were good enough to draw an opponent we could beat (and but for literally two or three plays, probably should have). And that team was missing two key starters in the postseason (#2 and #4 guys in mpg during the regular season).

In 05-06, beating our first-round opponent would have rated as one of the greatest playoff upsets in modern NBA history. It's to the Bulls' credit that they managed to keep the series interesting, but as the Heat woke up, the size of the challenge the Bulls faced became pretty clear (31-point deficit in Games 5-6).

There's also the small matter of the 05-06 team's being extremely lucky to make the playoffs to begin with. In 04-05, a 42-win team didn't make the postseason in the East. In 05-06, 42 wins was good for a five seed!

I guess one's perception of the difference between the two is inevitably colored by one's opinion of the Curry trade. I think, though, that even if you factor out Curry, 04-05 was a significantly better team because it had the "good" Tyson Chandler, a smoking-hot Ben Gordon, a much more effective Duhon, etc.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Wynn said:


> I'd like to second (third?) the argument. While we were 2-4 in both post seasons, post season 2004-2005 had us losing to the Wizard, who went on the get drummed in round 2. Post season 2005-2006 had us making the eventual NBA champs look like a disorganized and frustrated bunch of kids after game 4. Fact is, our young roster looked like the veteran group when compared to the Heats. Our weakness in the front-court was the deciding factor in that series. Once we address the front-court, I'd put our team's mental strength over that of just about anyone else.


Given how things turned out, you don't think our early success against the Heat might have had something to do with a veteran team pacing itself for a championship run?

We came up 31 points short in the two final games, and game 6 on our home floor was noncompetitive. The Kings had a nearly identical series vs. the Spurs, and they even kept things interesting in Games 5-6 as well. Would you be willing to make the same claim about their mental strength?

The Bulls did do a much better job of defending Wade than anyone else did, I'll grant you that.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> OK, I'll bite. Who is this player?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I believe you were referring to Hakim Warrick


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Given how things turned out, you don't think our early success against the Heat might have had something to do with a veteran team pacing itself for a championship run?
> 
> We came up 31 points short in the two final games, and game 6 on our home floor was noncompetitive. The Kings had a nearly identical series vs. the Spurs, and they even kept things interesting in Games 5-6 as well. Would you be willing to make the same claim about their mental strength?
> 
> The Bulls did do a much better job of defending Wade than anyone else did, I'll grant you that.


I also liked our approach to Shaq better than what I saw any other team doing. Ultimately we had the right game-plan, but not enough front-court to make it work. Judging purely from the frustration the Heats displayed in games 3 and 4, I really don't think they were pacing themselves. I think they were truly surprised by the ferocity with which the Bull played.

I think the King is a much more veteran team than the Bull, and a team that has played with a renewed vigor since acquiring Artest. Ultimately, I think the Spur/King series SHOULD have been closer, based on star quality and veteran leadership. I'm thinking most nonBULLfan observers would have figured Chicago to lose pretty handily to the veteran and all-star laden Heats.

Ultimately, I guess I'm contributing to pulling this thread even further off-topic, but my claim was only that the Bull represented themselves better in postseason 2006 than they did in postseason 2005.


----------

