In defense of John Paxson

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 12:04 AM CST Comment 170 comments

This is mostly repeating a reply I made to post that disappeared earlier.

Careful what you wish for. Before screaming hysterically that Pax sucks, let's think through this for a minute or two. I'm not positive he's a very good GM, or even a good one. But I'm also not positive that he isn't the best in the game. He's not his own man. JR runs the show. Period. Always has. A GM on this team is a gopher. You put together your best plan, and bring it to Jerry. That's where the decisions are made, or else D'Antoni is our coach this year.

So to believe that firing Pax is going to improve the team, you have to believe two things: Jerry is willing to pay off his contract AND he's ready, willing and able to acquire a first rate GM. This would involve surrendering a lot of money and control. Do you see that as likely? I don't.

But let's put the moves that most frequently get cited as hanging offenses in context. They were made without the advantage of 20/20 hindsight. I don't think I'm alone in feeling that the Big Ben acquisition was a gigantic detour in the progress of the team under Pax. I also believe JR had a lot to do with that move; at the very least, he did the deal, whether it was his idea or not. At the time, we celebrated both getting a big time presence in the post and weakening our top division rival. Didn't hear a lot of predictions that he would dog it after he got the money, nor that he would disrupt the discipline that Skiles had so carefully crafted to the degree that Skiles had to sneak out the back door,

So with an eye to acquiring BW at center, fortifying PF was the elephant in the room. Most felt pretty much the same way about Tyson that they do about Noah today. The 2006 draft was about Aldridge or Thomas. Go back and review the mocks and the ratings. LA was viewed as more Brad Sellers than Karl Malone. Roy-Foye-Gay were good choices, but we weren't looking for wings. Our core were the darlings of the NBA. By most accounts, TT was the right choice. Fast forward through 2006-7 to the next draft.

I'm pretty confident that the braintrust was already rethinking Wallace, and we spent our first two picks on centers. Coincidental that they traded BW at the first opportunity? I'm guessing not. Again, go back and look at the predraft info. I'm pretty sure if he was still on the board, Pax would have taken Oden. Noah was rated much higher than Hawes; he was the right choice.

If you need someone to blame for last year and the unsure status of this year, I have a target for you: the core. Anyone here think they've gotten better since then? People were tossing around names like Garnett, Gasol, Bryant, etc, as trade targets for the Bulls back then. What do you think they'd fetch today? Ben Wallace?

If there's someone out there who has the ability to predict how young players are going to react to the slings and arrows (not to mention the money, women, etc) of NBA life, there is an extremely lucrative career waiting for them out there. The professional scouts get it wrong, the GMs get it wrong, Michael F'ing Jordan gets it wrong. In my opinion, the jury's still out on Noah and Thomas. Can they be real good frontcourt players? Of course. Will they? Tell you in 4 or 5 years.

But my main point is, judge Pax realistically. He's doing his job in JR's world, not yours and mine. There is an absolute salary cap. There is JR's veto power. There is probably quite a bit we don't know and don't want to know about it. I'm imagining that Phoenix and the Clips may be the only worse jobs out there. This team is not the worst pile of crap in the league, as they're so frequently accused of being. They're near .500 in a year where that's going to be an achievement, with 3 teams looking for 70 wins. Vinnie's doing a very respectable job. I'm sure Pax is looking for a sound deal like every other GM is doing. But I don't want him to make trades just to appease the restless.

We're not going to contend this year. I'm 100% in the play Noah and TT camp. But Vinnie finally came out with what's holding up the program. It ain't a video game, kids. The horses have a lot to say about how the race is going to play out. Tonight, they got a lot of PT, and they both showed flashes of why they were lotto picks. Apparently a few hours in the gym and a little prep time help. Who knew? I'm happy to see the organization setting standards.

Pax has some serious decisions to make this year. He'll err on the side of caution if anything, but so far he's been making pretty sound choices. Let's see our $10 million dollar men step up and earn their pay. If they do, things are not so bad.

FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.

6 recs | Comment 170 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

While, i'm with you that a lot of our problems can be attributed to Reinsdorf's ownership,

I still think there’s plenty of blame for Pax to shoulder. Particularly in the talent evaluation department. Tyrus Thomas was not a slam dunk, Paxson could have went several routes. Just for an example: look at the awful Ben Gordon situation right now. He’s our leading scorer, a key component to our team yet he’s about to leave for NOTHING. Unacceptable. Why couldn’t Pax have traded BG during that draft for some sort of low post prescence (Maybe include Deng) then move down in the draft and take Roy? A gm has to have foresight, he should have known he was never gonna be able to please Ben, so he should have traded him when he had value. I’m just saying that when criticizing a gm you can’t just go off of draft picks and free agency. Sure it’s extremely important, but Pax has had plenty of time to make moves and he hasn’t.

by Juiceboxjerry on Dec 14, 2008 1:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think that if

he knew that Ben thought of himself as Gilbert Arenas, he may have been on the bus with JR Smith. Nobody was thinking of the core as inadequate at the time; the Bulls were viewed as one good PF away from real contention. That’s why I said that draft was purely Aldridge or Thomas, and TT was rated higher.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 1:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with a lot of what you're saying regarding drafts,

I liked most of Pax’s moves as well. But it’s his job as GM to know his players and their signability and he should’ve seen this Gordon thing coming. And he should have traded Luol Deng.

by Juiceboxjerry on Dec 14, 2008 2:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Everyone at the time said Portland gave up too much to get Aldridge

meaning Kryapa, so almost everyone agreed with Pax’s move. No one wanted Roy except Portland and Houston because of knee issues.

Foresight is balony. Luck also plays a big part.

Plus you never know if a player is a good fit for your system because they’re not fully developed when you draft them.

Koponen - PG of the future. For Italy, that is. Book it.

by Blazerholic on Dec 22, 2008 8:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you.

The other thing is that Portland was in demolition mode, and just going out and grabbing the best 12 NEW players. The Bulls were a couple of years ahead of them in the process, and were now looking for the missing parts up front. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I didn’t see a scoring deficiency from Kirk, BG, Lu, Noc and Du back in 05-06. We were winning with defense, and the 70 points or so we were getting out of those 4 was sufficient.

by California Al on Dec 23, 2008 2:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The problem with Pax is his inability to acquire scorers

You’re right that our core was overrated by everybody, but we were the darlings of the East, not the NBA. Nobody thought we’d have a shot to beat the Mavs, Suns, or Spurs if we reached the Finals.

Bottom line is that in five years of managing the team, the only legitimate scorer that Paxson brought in was Ben Gordon, and that wasn’t a pick he could’ve fucked up. The other option, Devin Harris, would’ve worked just fine too. Hinrich and Deng are unathletic role players, and Paxson realized we were lacking in athleticism when he drafted Tyrus and Thabo.

The problem is, Tyrus and Thabo can’t score. Neither can Noah. And so when teams figured out that guarding Luol was as easy as standing next to Luol, we had nobody else to fall back on. And that’s all on Pax.

He had Eddy Curry, he had J.R. Smith, and he let both go. I’m not saying either of them make us a Finals team, but they both would’ve scored a shitload for us, and instead Paxson gave them up for Tyrus, Noah, and PJ Brown. Dear Lord.

by YaoPau on Dec 14, 2008 1:29 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'm still puzzled by the Smith deal

But we’re judging Tyrus and Thabo after the fact. Go back and look here: http://www.nbadraft.net/rankings/2006_positional.html . Not a lot to choose from. The mocks also had us taking TT. Yeah, now we can say forget drafting for need; he shoulda taken the best player available. I seem to recall a desperation for drafting a PF around here. He didn’t do anything wrong with that pick; it just didn’t work. Now, if he’d chosen Morrison…

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 1:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not only about, who else he could have taken. He shoulda got creative, made a move. There's a million differnt options when you have a high pick.

by Juiceboxjerry on Dec 14, 2008 1:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Again, my friend, context

The motto was “In Pax We Trust”. We were all pretty happy with the core back then. The frontcourt was the issue, and it was going to be LA or TT, period. No crazy tradesdesired; he’d snookered Isaiah and we were in the driver’s seat in the East. The problem hasn’t been managing the team so much as the underperforming core.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 1:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, it's judging after the fact, but...

…Paxson is paid to judge before the fact. As much as some of us blabber around here (myself obviously included) about what the organization is doing wrong or what it should do, they still know way more basketball than us. Paxson is paid to figure out who is going to work out and who isn’t. He had good drafts (not great) when he didn’t have much choice, but he’s made some bad picks lately.

For instance, Kevin Pritchard was willing to give up a piece (however valuable) to get Aldridge over Thomas. He clearly knew Aldridge was a better player and didn’t want to take a chance that the Bulls took him and they had to settle for Thomas. He was also right in trading for Roy. And Fernandez. And maybe Batum. Maybe not Bayless… that he got in the 13th spot of the draft.

Anyway, yes, your normal GM misses. Your great ones rarely do. Paxson has missed bad recently. Except for Rose…. which really should have been a no-brainer.

Or something. I realize this is a ramble and might not make much sense. Maybe it does.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 14, 2008 11:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good points

You always make sense, you know your stuff, Tyger. But if Pritchard’s hot streak is the barometer, who except for Kupchak and Ainge don’t get canned? And Portland does have a billionaire owner that wants to win; it’s not everything, but it helps.
Yeah, Pax is supposed to predict the future better than us, but I really can’t see where he deviated from the consensus opinions, professional and fans alike. What the Bulls are lacking, in my humble opinion, is The Man. There has to be a stud on the team that won’t put up with the lack of commitment and woossie play of a few of our key elements. Rose could be that player, but he needs to assert himself, and he’s demonstrated that he has to get comfortable first, and will step up after he’s earned his stripes. Maybe in a year or two, we’ll hear that he elbowed Gray in the head, or gave Heinrich a black eye.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 11:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, I wouldn't call Pritchard the barometer as far as what to expect.

I think Paxson made good picks with Hinrich, Gordon and Deng. Not great, but there wasn’t else much to take. But he missed bad (or so it looks to be… or at least he thinks so) on Thomas and probably missed on Noah. I understand the moves at the time. I really do. And, I’m not even saying they were bad moves, in my opinion.

They had taken character guys w/ good but not great upside before Thomas; they had a solid core in place and could take their time to develop him if he thought he was going to be a superstar. Fine.

Then the next year, last year, as we all know, they were on the verge of being a top-tier team. Don’t take another development player in Hawes; take the ready-to-go-now guy in Noah. He’ll step in to spell Wallace and complement Thomas and eventually Joe Smith. It made sense.

Still, on Noah, if the guy didn’t have the “heart” to play, Paxson needed to detect that. And on Thomas, I think, as Sports2 pointed out elsewhere, Paxson said when they drafted Thomas that they thought he needed “special handling” and that it would take awhile to get his full abilities out of him. Or something like that. And Paxson’s completely failed in that regard. They haven’t treated him “specially”, I don’t think. And whether one agrees with whether they even should have, if Paxson knew he needed to do that (and be patient with his development), and he hasn’t or hasn’t had his coaches do so (as I think he hasn’t), then I think that’s a failure on his part.

In his whole tenure of drafting, I don’t think Paxson has been bad. Personally, I still think he’s great because I think there is still some small hope for Thomas and Noah. And even if they’re both busts, he’s still been average as a drafter taking into consideration his other picks. But I want better than average.

And yes, having an owner spend money helps. So you take away Batum and Fernandez and any other draftee than required extra money to be spent, and Pritchard is still above-average. I think. Maybe.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 14, 2008 11:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Pritchard has done an outstanding job

Now we’ll have to wait and see if the players do an outstanding job. You know what’s funny? How come you never hear him ripped for taking Oden for the same exact reasons Pax gets ripped for taking Thomas? Shouldn’t he have known Oden was injury prone? Wasn’t real quick? Can’t score much? Durrant was a natural. I’m telling ya, 20/20 is a lot better than tea leaves.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 1:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Um... Oden was/is ridiculously quick.

And yeah, he can be lambasted for that pick if Durant is outperforming Oden (even if in just pure playing time, I guess) another year from now.

Here’s the other reason: With Roy and Aldridge, the only spot Durant fit on their team was at SF. They now have 127,347 players who can small forwards. If Outlaw, Webster, Batum, Fernandez never pan out as at the bare minimum average players and Oden busts due to injuries, then it will look dumb. Definitely. Which is why Paxson is (or should be, in my opinion) less criticized for taking Thomas over Roy than Thomas over Aldridge. The Bulls had a competent, and still do, SG. Not as good as Roy? No, Gordon’s not. But on the same level.

The Bulls have no backup plan for Thomas or Noah at this point.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 14, 2008 2:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Oden was the right pick, I'm just saying

I haven’t heard one negative post about Pritch, even though the early returns are all Durant. If LA and TT both achieve 100% of potential, TT was a great choice, and forcing Portland’s hand in giving us something extra to take the player we wanted was pure genius. If neither progress much beyond what was known at the time of the draft, LA shoulda been the pick. And I still think I’m 4-5 years away from knowing who TT and Noah are going to be, so no way am I turning over the aplle cart unless another opportunity comes along for one of the true stars of the league.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 2:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

only the early returns aren't all Durant. Durant has been extremely inefficient

as a scorer, hasn’t lived up to his potential as a monstrous rebounder, and has been terrible on D. Oden has been decent on O and still provides the boarding you want from a big man. His D could use some work though, he looks lost (especially when compared to Joel P – who is having a monster year on D).

by fundamentallysound on Dec 14, 2008 3:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

But I think this makes the point of how random the draft is

Oden/Durant was the easiest 1/2 combo that I can remember. Yet so far neither has done much at all. I’d take Rose over all 3 (although with the Bulls lack of bigs, Oden would have to get a thought). And now Beasley is struggling. People act like drafting is an exact science, you are either good or bad. It doesn’t work that way.

by CJ Bulls on Dec 14, 2008 3:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with that to a degree

because there’s no way I could have guessed that Oden and Durant would have been this disappointing thus far. I do think though that there’s another way to blame Pax. Lots of the teams that “draft well” actually draft the same way as everyone else they just “develop their guys better.” Look at the Celtics. Ainge didn’t draft THAT much better. He was picking in the late lotto mid first round all the time and he got guys like Rondo, Perkins, Tony Allen, Powe, etc. much later in the draft. Does that make him a great talent evaluator or does it mean that they develop their players in a more effective manner than the Bulls do? I’m inclined to think it’s the latter. That’s why I think the Spurs seem to “draft” well. They develop their talent well. Why? Because they have an excellent coaching staff. Why does Andrew Bynum develop into the monster that he’s become and other 7 footers with worlds of potential don’t? Coaching, coaching, coaching.

by fundamentallysound on Dec 14, 2008 4:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You have a great point there.

Developing players can make a difference for a lot of guys. I still wonder what could have become of for example a Darko if he didn’t get brought up in Detroit. And they are a well regarded organization. He just never had the chance to screw up and seemed to lose focus on becoming a good player as a result.

You could make the case the Bulls don’t develop bigs, but they certainly seem to develop guards well with Rose, Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon etc.

by CJ Bulls on Dec 14, 2008 6:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Have you pondered that...

Your argument also supports the case that those players have “developed” better (or have better numbers, i might be inclined to say) not because of the support or development given by the franchise, but because of Tim Duncan/Manu; Kobe/Phil Jackson; Pierce/Allen/Garnett? Your argument just as easily supports my inference that great players not only help young players mature better, but quite obviously, make it easier for them to put up numbers because of who they are on the court with.

My question would be how can you decide so conclusively that the issue is Paxson and/or the bulls front office? What about the litany of other factors that aid in development other than who your team pays to train you: Diet, maturity, workload, attitude, frame-of-mind, ability, experience, off-season help, family, off the court issues, etc etc.

You do not really think it is Paxson job to micromanage Noah and or Thomas’s lives (just using these players as the obvious analogy) just because he runs the front office, do you?

by ridindirty on Dec 14, 2008 11:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

its his job to

Hire people(like coaches) to do that or help the players do that, to the extent that its reasonable…

Its not his task, but its partially his responsibility.

by reprisal on Dec 14, 2008 11:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You decided

not to touch on the subject of my post at all.

touche.

I would assume the bulls have a pretty adept development staff, as I am sure every NBA team does.

The other reasons I listed, IMO, have a much greater affect on development that the coaching staff.

by ridindirty on Dec 14, 2008 11:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The issue is on Paxson regardless of whatever side you look at it from

he drafted these guys. If they aren’t hard workers, then he should have seen that when he interviewed them. If the coaching staff isn’t handling them properly, that’s on him too because he hired this coaching staff. Really, no matter what perspective you take on it, the problems of this team are on Pax.

by fundamentallysound on Dec 14, 2008 11:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Honestly

You start a logical discussion on here and it still goes nowhere.

Did you, honestly, read my post?

Its not like you sit down and say, this guys a hard worker, and this ones not, and this one has a 134 IQ, and this one shoots 35% from 3, and 74% from the field and it adds up to player A.

Even with all the information the GM’s have, the probability of correct identifying what a player will become is INFINITELY SMALL.

This is not a math equation.

by ridindirty on Dec 14, 2008 11:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I never said it was a math equation. You introduced

that metaphor.

Also, my reading comprehension skills are quite fine, thanks. I just don’t think your points have much merit. The guy is responsible for the direction of this team and so far he hasn’t shown any vision or clue about what he wants to do with this team. Maybe he’ll pull something off at the deadline that makes this team make sense, but right now it’s a mess and that is to be laid at his feet.

by fundamentallysound on Dec 14, 2008 11:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

but you totally ignore them. You see Paxson as having almost total control over these young players lives and development. Like no other aspect matters.

What really matters is he made the correct choices at the time.

As I said, the probability of predicting a players future production when drafting them (ESPECIALLY TODAY) is extremely small.

by ridindirty on Dec 14, 2008 11:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

it is extremely small, but that's his JOB.

he’s done a pretty okay job at drafting players. I like Tyrus and Noah a lot. I think they should play more. I think players improve on the court, not by watching from the bench. I think that Pax needs to clean out the roster to make this team coach-proof or to simply tell Vinny to play these guys so they get better.

I don’t see Paxson as having total control over his players’ lives, I never said or even inferred that. What I do say though is that he should have had some sense of who these guys were when he drafted them. If they were jerks or arrogant or lazy, he should have seen it and done his “due diligence” as he would say. Either he screwed up in drafting a couple of lazy losers or he screwed up in hiring a coach who refuses to play his lotto picks the amount of time necessary to develop said lotto picks.

by fundamentallysound on Dec 14, 2008 11:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

see...

my development question below. I think, even if u disagree, its a very valid point.

by ridindirty on Dec 14, 2008 11:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't read the initial post.

…but he was really good in identifying hard workers in Hinrich, Gordon and Deng. He decidedly and obviously (in my opinion) went in a different direction with Thomas and failed. Maybe.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 15, 2008 9:46 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I still think

Thomas was viewed as a hard worker coming out of college. At this point I dont know if his deficiencies are work related or not, so I am not going to venture into that, other than to reaffirm that he was seen as a hard worker coming out of college.

by ridindirty on Dec 16, 2008 12:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I know he was.

I actually put the emphasis on Paxson regarding developing his players. Not who he drafts.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 16, 2008 2:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Okay

we are on the same page then.

We just disagree as to the importance of the GM in a players development.

by ridindirty on Dec 16, 2008 4:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

also..

I introduced the metaphor because it appears to me you think that its pretty easy to predict player development.

And what about my idea that great players make other players better and aid in development much more than a coaching staff. You disagree?

by ridindirty on Dec 14, 2008 11:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

sure, great players help a lot in development

but coaching staffs are equally important in my view. Look at what having Kareem has done for Bynum. Look at what Cliff Ray (Celtics big man coach) did for Al Jefferson, Kendrick Perkins, and Leon Powe. Look at what Cliff Ray and Ewing did for Dwight Howard’s development. I agree that playing with great players helps a lot, but who do you think is responsible for making sure the Bulls have great players on the team? Oh right, it’s still on Johnny Pax.

by fundamentallysound on Dec 15, 2008 12:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes...

But those players being on the court with greatness raises their games. Bynum may be a lot different on Memphis.

I am not saying there are not better or worse coaches. I am saying that when weighing all the factors, there are many thing more important than their coaches.

Let me frame it this way: There are 30 big man coaches in the league. All, I would assume, know more about post play than, probably, any player in the league. (lets leave out the Duncan may know more, etc. It is their jobs to coach big men, lets assume they are students of the game) There are thousands and thousands of coaches in America. Only 30 are good enough to coach big men in the NBA. The probability that there is a large difference between the first best and the 30th best is small. More than likely the difference is not huge. Either way, the 1st best or 30th best will have a WEALTH of knowledge to impart on a player.

However, the number of players in the NBA who are true superstars, who can dominate the game, is minute. The difference between having Kobe Bryant as your starting 2 guard and Ben Gordon is astronomical, and Gordon is not the worst 2 guard in the league.

So even if the Bulls have the WORST coaching staff in the league, and the Lakers/Spurs/Celtics have the best, it is obvious that having a superstar on your team alters player development much more than having a strong coaching staff. Not because coaching staffs arent important, but because the difference between the best and worst assistant coaches is small, while the difference between the best and worst starters is HUGE.

by ridindirty on Dec 15, 2008 12:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Theres a difference

between development and contributing – altho theyre definitely related as you are indicating.

Its definitely much easier to contribute with superstars. Basically a little bit of improvement goes a lot longer way.

by reprisal on Dec 15, 2008 12:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

;-D

I am happy you saw my underlying point, which was that while fundamentallysound is labeling these players as being better developed by their organization, and better players, I would say it is much more likely they are merely contributing more because of the superstar on their team.

by ridindirty on Dec 15, 2008 12:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the Celtics players I mentioned

particularly Al Jefferson developed on a garbage lotto team. The only player that was even arguably a superstar was Pierce and I don’t see how he was really helping anyone’s development that year. He was clamoring for veteran help and basically taking a big dump on his younger teammates at every turn (much like Kobe two summers ago).

by fundamentallysound on Dec 15, 2008 12:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I am

really surprised u disagree with me. I was reading that blog about deng, and saw you were a eco major.

My argument is all based on the fact the coaches have little variance, while the other factors have large variances.

What sort of behavioral economics are you interested in?

by ridindirty on Dec 15, 2008 12:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess I just disagree with principle

of small variance in terms of coaching staffs. You’re making a mathematical argument for something that’s inherently amorphous and tough to quanitfy. There are a lot of factors that go into being an effective coach / player developer. The most important, to me, is the one Phil Jackson recognizes probably better than any coach in the league. It’s basically that every guy is different and responds to things differently. You have to coach each player to suit him if you want to get the most possible out of him. You also have to be able to balance the egos. It’s an extremely tough thing to do and that’s why Phil is so great and why the other top echelon coaches are so important. How much better are Sloan, Popovich, and Phil Jackson at coaching than every other coach in the league? I think the margin is pretty wide. You seem to think that it’s not so wide.

In terms of behavioral economics, I’m just interested in taking the studies they’ve done in psychology and applying those in real-world contexts. I find it fascinating that one of the fundamental assumptions of economics, that people are rational, utility maximizing actors, has been shown time and again by behavioral economics and psychology to be a false assumption.

by fundamentallysound on Dec 15, 2008 12:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well,

first off, I didn’t ever mention head coaches. I mentioned coaching staffs, with the emphasis on assistant coaches. I do think the margin between Phil Jackson and VDN is high.

Second, statistics is a way to mathematically quantify something that is not hardly mathematical in nature. I disagree that what I am arguing is tough to quantify. I think it is inherently logical.

You should read Fooled by Randomness by Nasim Taleb if you haven’t already. Probably my favorite book ever.

I am also interested in behavioral economics. I read trading books on the subject. I too find it fascinating that economics bases fundamentals on the assumption that rationality is a given.

by ridindirty on Dec 15, 2008 1:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

taking...

the studies done in psychology and implementing them in real world contexts are what many traders do everyday :-)

by ridindirty on Dec 15, 2008 1:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Differences are the same

The difference between the best and the 30th best big man coach is just as different as Kobe and the 30th SG in the NBA. There are only 30 of these people in the whole world and yet there is a radical difference between the best and the 10th best let alone the 30th best. The same principle applies to coaches as evidenced by last years interim coach who shall not be named versus a Phil Jackson or Pop comparison.

by bullschwaa on Dec 15, 2008 6:11 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

no way.

that is just poor logic. To stat there is no difference between the 1st best and 30th best of any two things is incorrect.

There are differences in the variance.

EX: the 30th best big man coach still known a hell of a lot more than Tyrus Thomas about how to play the 4. However, the worst SG in the league is not going to provide the benefit to Thomas which he would be afforded if he played if Kobe.

by ridindirty on Dec 16, 2008 11:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I would also add

that this is an example. I believe this to be true, but really, I think that most of player development is based on work ethic and ability. I think there are many random variables that play into development, and coaching has the smallest variance I can think of.

It really doesn’t surprise me that Thomas is developing slowly. I think he works hard, but didn’t start playing ball until he was senior in high school and I don’t particularly find him to be smart. My assumption is he’s a slow learner. I would think these are MUCH more important in his development than who coaches him.

And I also think he was a consensus top 5 pick and Paxson can’t be blamed for taking him. I wanted Aldridge. Oh well, you can’t cry over spilled milk and Thomas was a player EVERYONE loved. I think its too early to judge him anyway.

by ridindirty on Dec 15, 2008 12:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Paxson knew that Tyrus was a relatively

green baller when he drafted him and if Tyrus is stupid, Pax should have been able to figure that out. I have my doubts about Tyrus being stupid. He seems bright enough to me, he just doesn’t appear to realize what his strengths are versus his weaknesses. His strengths are rebounding, shot-blocking, dribbling (for a 4 he dribbles well), and dunking. His weaknesses are shooting, playing out of control, and not always running the floor (which isn’t a weakness in his game, just an effort thing). But I hate it that he’s characterized as stupid. How does any of us know how bright he is? I agree that it’s too early to judge Tyrus. I just want the coaching staff to handle him properly which, in my view, means not yanking him out at the first sign of trouble, but giving him constructive criticism and telling him what to do while he’s out there.

by fundamentallysound on Dec 15, 2008 12:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

fundamentallysound

while I agree with everything you wrote, the point really is he made a sound pick in Thomas that anyone else would have made. It was a 50/50 shot, him or Aldridge.

He is not to be blamed for the pick, and as I have so thoroughly tried to explain, his role in the development is fairly small.

by ridindirty on Dec 15, 2008 12:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wanted Tyrus over LMA

at the time of the draft. It looks like my prognostication was incorrect, but I still think Tyrus will end up being a good player somewhere. I just hope that place is Chicago.

I don’t fault Pax for drafting TT. What I do fault him for is not believing in TT enough to demand that his coaches play him at least 20 mins a game every game so that the kid learns the game.

by fundamentallysound on Dec 15, 2008 12:37 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, in reality, me too.

The only bad move I attribute to Paxson, as of right now, is Nocioni’s contract. Hinrich’s contract was good for a 25-year-old starting PG. I still think Deng will live up to his contract. I think Thomas and Noah were the right players to take at the time. No one could have foreseen Wallace’s complete crash a year ago.

He’s also made some bad non-moves, too, though. Not re-signing Gordon. Not trading Hinrich over the summer. Not silencing Hughes’s expectations of himself. Etc.

I do think, however, that there are a lot of things that hang in the balance right now, and are teetering toward the bad: Thomas, Noah, Gordon leaving, etc.

I wouldn’t call him bad, YET, but I think by the end of this year, or the end of next year’s free agency, that we will be able to say with much support whether he’s good or bad.

If it turns out that he has to scrap EVERYONE around Rose and rebuild, that’s an utter failure considering he had five years on the job before that.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 14, 2008 3:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Completely agree with you

His moves from now until 7/1/2010 will define John Paxson’s run. Some things have gone badly, but I don’t think that he called those shots on his own. For instance, was it entirely necessary to move TC immediately and get so little in return? I sense the accountants in the background. TC was pretty much exactly the same scenario as Kirk this year. Good insurance for your lotto pick, still functional if you need him, and just wait for a good trade. That’s what he’s doing now.
In the meantime, 2010 is very early in the Rose-TT-Noah-Deng timetable, and Hughes is our MVP in that game. If the Pax-Larry-VDN meeting brought Hughes into the fold and he can man the 2 the next two years, brilliant work. Just give LBJ whatever he wants, and away we go. JR can improve the balance sheet by another half-billion or so. You think Bron might be interested in the Governorship or the Senate seat he was selling?

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 3:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that Paxson should be expected to have a solid grasp

of the team’s long-term outlook. But I can only think of one GM that meets your “great ones” standard — Pop/Buford.

by drew gooden's facial growth on Dec 14, 2008 1:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's fine. Isn't that what the superlative "great" should be reserved for?

I think there are others, though. Not many.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 14, 2008 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There's still one problem

Auerbach was as great a mind as ever touched a basketball, and he admitted that there was no predicting the work ethic of a Larry Bird. He made some big mistakes too. All lotto picks have tools, but you can’t predict how the money and lifestyle is going to affect their effort. Not to mention the competition. Some turn into bulls, some make better steers.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 2:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't doubt that.

And as I’ve repeatedly said, I don’t expect any GM to be perfect. And I don’t even think a “championship-caliber” GM has to be great. There is a lot of luck involved.

There is no 100% prediction rate, and if one were to take Auerbach’s comments as completely locked to “impossible to have any clue” what their work ethic will be, I think that’s a little ridiculous. I think it’s possible to have a good idea. And if you’re a good GM, along with evaluating talent, you’ll have a good grasp of who will work hard and who won’t more often than not.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 14, 2008 2:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think he or I looked at it as a crapshoot

But shit happens. Sometimes the number one pick in the draft cokes himself dead before his first game. Sometimes you pick up the hardest working defensive player in the NBA at your neediest position and he goes into semi-retirement and busts your coach’s balls. Now, if it’s really true that we passed on Kobe Bryant to hang onto Deng, Pax is a moron.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 3:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

They couldn't deal Deng in any deal to get Kobe

Kobe wanted to play WITH Deng and has a no trade clause. He explicitly said he wouldn’t allow himself to be dealt if Deng wasn’t going to be on the team (despite how bad he wanted out of LA at the time).

by fundamentallysound on Dec 14, 2008 3:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

First, sarcasm detector back on

Second, if there’s any truth to the rumors, how bad is Deng really? I liked your response to Yao’s mythbuster post.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 3:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that Deng is quite good. He's one of Paxson's greatest successes

He essentially got him for nothing from Phoenix. My biggest problems with Pax are these:
1) Failing to have the spine to say to a coach, play Tyrus and Joakim or you’re going to be fired.
2) Signing Noc to that ridiculous contract when he was bidding against himself
3) Not locking up Ben Gordon this summer, especially when at the end of the summer Ben reportedly decided he wanted to take the deal they offered and they pulled it off the table.
4) Going off of 3) – not dealing Hinrich this summer for expirings to free up the money to sign Gordon.

I still think Tyrus is pretty good and could be a really good contributor, maybe LMA would be better for us (he probably would be), but Tyrus is our guy and I think Pax should recognize that and tell Vinny play these guys, develop them, or you’re gone. I just hope last night was a sign of things to come, though I’m scared to get my hopes up because I’ve seen Tyrus get jerked around after good performances so many times in his young career.

by fundamentallysound on Dec 14, 2008 3:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

oh and how could I forget

the Ben Wallace signing and subsequent dismissal of Tyson. That should be somewhere near the top of the list.

by fundamentallysound on Dec 14, 2008 3:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"Dismissal of Tyson"

-and the equally abhorrent handling of the assets we got back! It’s clearly not Paxson’s drafting which has created this roster-fuck. It’s his mismanagement of team assets-largely known quantities, unlike draft prospects.

His befuddling policy of hanging onto “our guys” at all costs is inconsistent and has proven a terrible policy when implemented. Contrast Nocioni’s absurd contract and the team’s unequivocal infatuation of Hinrich with our handling of BG and Chandler, both of whom are/were “our guys” too.

BG, and with him our offense, is going to walk.

Chandler netted us JR and PJ, both of whom were completely misused. JR Smith is a head case, but he’s a damn talented one and if he never “gets it” he’ll still be an enviable asset.

PJ Brown was supposed to do more than be a “mentor” to Tyrus and a solid veteran presence. His large (8 million or thereabouts I think?) expiring contract was one of our greatest trade assets. That contract should have netted us something.

Asked what kind of player he expects to be in the next five years, he said: "Not a star, but like, a superstar. Something around, like, Chris Paul, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James, Kevin Garnett, Paul Pierce, something like that."

by BigBenign on Dec 14, 2008 7:24 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

well...

1.) You would have the coach give playing time to people who aren’t playing well and aren’t working hard in practice/going the extra mile? How do you think that would reverberate around the team? Aren’t we in contention for the 8th playoff spot right now?

I see youopinion as prevalent around here and I disagree with it.

by ridindirty on Dec 14, 2008 11:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

contending for an 8th seed is the worst possible thing to do in

the NBA. It decreases your chances of getting better through the draft and when you have young talent that needs developing like the Bulls do (Tyrus and Noah), it’s silly to play older, established players with no upside just to sneak into the playoffs and get obliterated by the Celtics or the Cavs, which is what will happen to this team.

by fundamentallysound on Dec 14, 2008 11:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So....

Would you like to answer my post?

How do you think that reverberates around the team? You think people that make dumb mistakes and dont practice hard, dont always know the plays, arent in the right positions, AKA mental mistakes should be handed playing time? How do you think that makes Rose, Deng and Gordon feel?

by ridindirty on Dec 14, 2008 11:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

it probably makes them feel pretty good because

Tyrus and Noah are better than the scrubs playing ahead of them (Gooden, Gray, and Noc). Also, Tyrus makes life easier for those backcourt guys because if they get blown by, he’s there to alter or block the driver’s shot. I see no reason why they would be down on Tyrus and Noah getting PT, especially since they aren’t competing with them for PT. Gray, Gooden, and Noc are the ones whose feelings would get hurt and I could care less how they feel because they stink and aren’t in the Bulls future if the Bulls are going to have any sort of success.

by fundamentallysound on Dec 14, 2008 11:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah,

I am sure they love it when their help D is in the wrong position, or when the game is on the line and they want to win (That IS the point here) Tyrus commits a turnover on some bone-head play. Or when they are supposed to run a play and noah/thomas are out of position…. and then are rewarded with praise and more playing time. Yeah, I am sure our young players LOVE that.

Again, the point is to WIN the game. You may not care, but EVERY player on the Bulls wants to win EVERY game. It is called pride.

by ridindirty on Dec 14, 2008 11:47 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think those guys are sophisticated enough

to know that TT and Noah’s development is important for the long term future of this team. They aren’t stupid, they know they aren’t winning a title this year, same as you and I know they aren’t winning a title this year. The important thing is that our lottery picks get better so that the whole team is better down the road. These guys know basketball they understand that.

by fundamentallysound on Dec 14, 2008 11:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We

aren’t getting anywhere.

Lets leave it at you are NUTS if you think that the players don’t want to win every game, and mistakes and lack of work should be praised and promoted.

Rose is not worrying about Thomas’s development during a game. He wants to win. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

You can retort if you want, but I’ll agree to disagree.

by ridindirty on Dec 14, 2008 11:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll just retort that I'm not NUTS

I see your point about competitiveness from game to game with guys, but I actually think even with their mistakes Tyrus and Noah give us the best chance to win. You may disagree with that and I will just think you’re wrong.

by fundamentallysound on Dec 14, 2008 11:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

okay.

well thats different. I thought you wanted them in the game JUST for player development, and conceded they were worse than the players ahead of them.

I would agree that is not NUTS, my apologies.

But, lol, I do disagree with that. They need to earn playing time by being better than the person ahead of them, until late in the year if we are out of the playoff hunt.

by ridindirty on Dec 15, 2008 12:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Just to butt in...

…since I read through the comments one after another, he did say, at least once, that Thomas and Noah gave the team a better chance to win than the other guys.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 15, 2008 9:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I missed that,

and already apologized.

by ridindirty on Dec 16, 2008 11:56 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

maybe

They are happy they were benched some…
and even happier with how they responded vs the Nets

Seeing parts of what your working for come together is what motivates teams contending for the 8th seed.

by reprisal on Dec 14, 2008 11:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

You don’t just give up. This is not that bad a team and it sends a HORRIBLE message to your players and everyone else in the league. That would be a joke. I would cease being a Bulls fan.

by ridindirty on Dec 14, 2008 11:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, unless Kobe was the one saying to do it.

He has a no-trade.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 14, 2008 3:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

so you...

are inferring that some GM’s take players with high picks they know will not work hard.

Why would a GM do that?

by ridindirty on Dec 14, 2008 11:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No. I didn't infer that at all.

Besides, I think inferring is a reading thing. I think you inferred that.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 15, 2008 9:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

inferring isn't a reading thing

but inferring is interpretation, since you can infer something out of spoken word also. implying is the other side of that, suggesting without saying explicitly.

by Jaina on Dec 15, 2008 10:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, what I meant was...

…I can’t infer something by typing it out. The giver of a communication doesn’t infer, do they? The receiver does. I said “reading” because of the typing/reading dynamic we’re in. I should have mentioned it as the larger point of communication.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 15, 2008 10:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

but right

you’re correct. inferring is the act of interpretation, implying is the act of suggestion.

by Jaina on Dec 15, 2008 10:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Those were the words I needed.

Thanks.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 15, 2008 11:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

np :)

i wasn’t necessarily thinking you were wrong but just that inferring wasn’t just a reading thing. but i knew you were using the word correctly. people get that stuff mixed up all the time…

by Jaina on Dec 15, 2008 11:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

I cant figure out what post I was replying to when I said that.

by ridindirty on Dec 16, 2008 12:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think it was in response to your point that:

And if you’re a good GM, along with evaluating talent, you’ll have a good grasp of who will work hard and who won’t more often than not.

So GM’s take lazy players, because of other mitigating factors, who they know are lazy.

by ridindirty on Dec 16, 2008 12:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

More often than not = always in your vocabulary?

read my sig line

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 16, 2008 2:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No.

If all GM’s hard work, dedication, preparation, experience, etc led them to know, more often than not, which players would end up being lazy during their careers, as you IMPLY/INFER (whichever), than they are choosing to take said lazy player.

I.E. Every lazy player in the NBA was chosen by a GM. Someone, somplace, gave him a contract. Therefore, when you imply that GM’s have crystal balls which give them the ability to forecast laziness to high degree, those lazy players are taken regardless of the fact said GM already knows the player is lazy…. Or, as I said, you infer GM’s draft lazy players, knowingly, regardless of the consequences.

by ridindirty on Dec 16, 2008 4:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, so "more often than not" does equal "always"

yeah, they took the lazy players, but they can make mistakes. they may have done their work, decided he worked hard, but they ended up being wrong. they didn’t take the lazy player knowing he was lazy.

jesus, why is this so hard to comprehend?

christ, here’s an example. I do all my work. I come to the conclusion that Corey Brewer has all the tools and will probably dominate the NBA. I was wrong. Doesn’t mean I knowingly took someone who sucked. I was just wrong.

Please, just be smarter. For me?

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 16, 2008 7:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

lol

I propose you stick to one argument in a debate.

by ridindirty on Dec 17, 2008 10:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Or you could be smarter?

no?

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 18, 2008 8:50 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

or you could work on following a debate on a point by point case?

im not sure. It might help your comprehension of the topic. just an idea.

"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming"

by ridindirty on Dec 18, 2008 5:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

So where did I mess up?

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 19, 2008 1:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Um, this is just me, but this is what you're saying:

It’s ok that I always screw up, I’m still good.

Things could be worse. We could have kept (name redacted).

by stupidgenius on Dec 20, 2008 1:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Wow

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 21, 2008 12:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah Auerbach is horrible.

He picked Len Bias. He should have known about the cocaine!

by CJ Bulls on Dec 14, 2008 3:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Auerbach was great

maybe the best ever. Just saying, sometimes you make the right move, and the players screw up the whole thing. If Jwill doesn’t get a bike, maybe Krause proves his point and Johnny’s still announcing.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 4:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure

I guess it’s just a matter of where your expectations are.

by drew gooden's facial growth on Dec 14, 2008 4:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

word

well done bud. Pax can’t predict the future and Jerry runs a tight ship. Tough job. His experience in how a championship team runs on a players and coaches level is huge. Just like with vinnie, new job, mistakes are inevitable. Learn from history and apply what you learned to what you do in the future. Patience in professional sports is important.

I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE

by CONOR6 on Dec 14, 2008 2:00 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think the process has already begun in Paxson's case

Beasley was EASILY the safe choice, given TT’s disappointment so far. We were still weak in the post, had Kirk, and what better excuse for getting rid of Thomas; “We still belive in TT, but we have to make room for Michael”. Poof, mistake swept under the carpet. He didn’t do that.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 11:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Beasley was the easy choice?

If Pax would have taken Beasley he would be getting daily death threats from thousands of people in the Chicagoland area for not taking the hometown boy. Given the market and circumstance, Derrick Rose was one of the biggest no brainers in the history of the draft.

by Juiceboxjerry on Dec 14, 2008 11:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Are you shitting me?

Even the fabulous Doug Thonus was giving Beasley the advantage, guaranted 20/10 and all that. I thought Rose was the far better choice, and a lot here did as well. I’m just saying that if Pax wanted a do-over on the TT pick, this was an easy out, and I’m glad he took the best available instead of the need pick. I said Beasley was easily the “safe” pick, meaning a pick that can be defended later. Kind of like Sam Bowie was a safe pick.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 11:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're forgetting how many questions there were about Rose

Beasley had one of the most statistically dominant college seasons ever. If it wasn’t for the so-called “character issues” Beasley would be a Bull right now. The humble, media-averse Derrick Rose made life really easy for Paxson. But let’s not forget that Rose was seen as a super quick PG who couldn’t shoot or make free throws, and Beasley was seen as someone who could stuff the box scores and drop 20 on anyone.

What do you see in a 14 ppg with no jumper that makes one think he will be better than a 26ppg\ 12rpg guy? Is there some kind of magic formula that tells you 14 > 26??
by Dabullsfan on Jul 1, 2008 10:19 AM CDT actions actions 0 recs

by Ozzie Montana on Dec 14, 2008 1:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's also true

But my main point is that a GM has the same headaches we do. You’re trying to stay employed, and safe picks are very tempting. Beasley was considered a can’t miss, post present, rebounding 20 point machine. Since Pax only had one big self-thrown egg on his face, Beasley was the way out of standing by the TT pick. Drafting Rose was correct and riskier to his job security; that’s good GMing.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 2:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I remember it as...

“Beasley is going to be amazing….but Rose is a safe pick. He can help the Bulls rebuild when he learns the game in a few years.”

by CJ Bulls on Dec 14, 2008 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

This is just silly. When the entire city wants you to draft Derrick Rose, THAT"S THE SAFE PICK!

by Juiceboxjerry on Dec 14, 2008 5:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yep.

Rose was the “safe” pick in the eyes of the city IMO.

When I watch NBA games I often call the fouls before the referees do. Sometimes it’s a gift. Most of the time it's troublesome. - NBA Observer

by Illini15 on Dec 14, 2008 5:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

In the city, yeah

Not in the eyes of most basketball analysts, scouts, etc. The consensus was that Rose would go to Chicago, but many people at the time thought Beasley was a far better pick given our roster status.

by Ozzie Montana on Dec 14, 2008 5:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

bingo

And BTW, the city doesn’t pay Paxson. And we’re probably pissing into the wind arguing that point. Doesn anyone think JR said “pick who you like”?

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 6:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and

when you think that yi jianlian is 3rd in the east for all star voting (as well as other things) doesn’t make fans right. the fans wanted rose here but probably most of them didn’t even watch him play ball, just that they knew he was from chicago.

by Jaina on Dec 14, 2008 6:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

as well as other things

with all star voting, that is.

by Jaina on Dec 14, 2008 6:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Except that Beasley said he wanted to be like Carmelo Anthony.

And had work ethic issues. And “character” issues. And he already had an uber-athletic college PF who thought he was a SF before the draft in Thomas. If he even considered Beasley, he was stupid.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 14, 2008 11:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

California Al

Are you actually Pax? Nice defense of the situation.

by bullschwaa on Dec 14, 2008 8:23 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Nah, I wish I was

It’s easy with time to forget why his moves were what they were. Looking at the last three lotto choices, there really weren’t better choices to make. He was building Skiles’ team. TC had to go, BW was a logical fit, and TT the best power forward. The inadequacies of the backcourt/wing positions wasn’t fully exposed until the Detroit series. Once the Body became the Corpse with the F You attitude, center became a must-do draft. Personally, I love Noah and believe he’s simply making sophomoric mistakes with his partying. Will he grow up? I think so.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 10:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree on drafts

Pax made decent decisions at time of each draft, what do you expect out of the 9th pick?

My only beef is that he does not pull trigger fast enough when deals are available, Pau Gasol anyone?

by bullschwaa on Dec 14, 2008 5:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

We need a fortune-teller

California Al accurately defends Paxson because we still do not know what we have. I am as guilty as anyone wanting Paxson at times to make a trade. Then last night happens.

TT, at 22 years old could easily develop into a star. Or, he could develop into Kwame Brown. I am convinced he has unique talent but also appears to unfortunately lack team basketball intelligence. Will TT develop any consistency? Even last night when he made you feel he could be a star he had flashes of his well-documented stupidity. With about a minute to go in the game Tyrus had the ball in his hand and you could tell he wanted to dribble it up court and do with it I don’t know. Well likely turn the ball over. Rose was five feet from him. VDN was screaming at him to give Rose the ball. I believe the whole coaching staff chimed-in and he reluctantly gave Rose the ball. I believe Rose then made a great play and scored. Tyrus’ mind doesn’t think team. He is so used to relying on instinct he doesn’t seem to be able to use his mind. Or he is just stupid and that will not change.

I am a bit more optimistic about Noah. He fit into a winning college team. But there are real questions waiting an answer. Where does this lack of conditioning come from? He was clearly out of shape in the summer league game he played and this didn’t improve by training camp. What would possess a professional athlete to let himself get so out of shape?

I am most pessimistic about Thabo. He was given a great opportunity to play when Hinrich went down. He was terrible. His shot is lost. His defense while OK isn’t at the Bruce Bowen level that would keep him in the NBA. But this could be an aberration and he may blossom on another team.

We need a fortune-teller before Paxson makes a major move.

by chgobr on Dec 14, 2008 9:35 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Thomas really seems to have Lebron envy.

Someone needs to sit his ass down to watch a career tape of Larry Nance. He can have a helluva career just hanging around the basket for help d, rebounds, and the easy scoring opportunities.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 3:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Or they could just show him Sportscenter from the nights when he does those things

he ends up on Top 10 plays and he puts up double doubles with relative ease. Note to Tyrus: that’s where you’re most effective and it will get you paid. Camp out near the bucket, man.

by fundamentallysound on Dec 14, 2008 3:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Here here!!

Rec that! I’ve been wanting to do a post like this (with exactly the same title) for the past month. The “fire Pax” sentiment has far outgrown the considered arguments to support it.

by T Maple on Dec 14, 2008 11:20 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Thanks

The man brings so many good qualities to the job, I’m proud of him. Yeah, I also like a Pat Riley kind of wicked scheming, or an Al McGuire street smarts. But the key question is, if JR let him go, would he bring in someone better, or look for a good value. I’m thinking that the over-under would be VDN, at best.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 11:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that it's tough to find a replacement for Paxson.

GM’s aren’t as easily definable as coaches or players.

Still, if Paxson doesn’t keep Gordon, doesn’t trade Hinrich this year, doesn’t trade Nocioni, Deng never “gets it” in the new offense, Thomas and Noah just… never get it at all… then what’s he really accomplished? (yes, he turned the team around for a brief few years, but IF all these things happened (which I don’t think they will) then they will be stuck in mediocrity for even the next few years)

He shouldn’t be fired mid-season. He needs a chance to work this deadline. But if he does nothing….

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 14, 2008 11:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Then again,

if Pax gets those done, we might be pretty good. One thing you skirted around, by the way, is his contracts. Overpay Hinrich, Deng, Noc, and don’t sign Gordon. That didn’t require much foresight.

Things could be worse. We could have kept (name redacted).

by stupidgenius on Dec 14, 2008 12:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, there's too much.

I was trying to stick with just drafting for the “past” part of it… and then the current situation, which includes getting rid of bad contracts.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 14, 2008 1:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No argument there.

Those are all 50/50 propositions. If they all go wrong, we’re screwed. If they all go right, he’s a genius. If, which is most likely, some work out and some don’t, we’re around a .500 club that has too much money tied up in role players. What I guess will happen is that:
A: Kirk will appreciate in value as the races shape up and injuries cause demand
B. Hughes is making Gordon less necessary (Not un, just less; JR can keep his $10m per)
C. Deng is a functional 3rd spoke of a big three
D. Thomas will always have value but never become a star
E. Noah will be a good starting center, kind of a 9th pick in the draft center

How to get that first or second spoke of the big three is the puzzle. 2010 is screaming hints for him, but is Jerry on board?

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 2:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Its the not the Draft

It’s not Pax draft picks that bother me. Yea I would rather have Aldridge and while Aldridge is good he is not great, I have hope Thomas could work out in the end. Noah way to eary to judge. It’s his inability to make the trades and close the deal that Bothers me. We have needed a post player for what seems like forever and the list of great big men that have been traded or mover in the past few years ….its upsetting we couldnt land one: Gasol, Garnett, Shaq, Randolph, Brand. Im not saying all the names make sense just that we have had draft picks, expiring contracts, young guys with potential that gm’s love, and we have not been able to make a deal to adress problem.

by sibulls23 on Dec 14, 2008 11:38 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'll give you Gasol

But personally, I don’t think he’s the center that would have made the Bulls contenders; he’s a great fit in LA. Everyone wanted KG, Boston had the most reasonable package to make it happen. Jefferson’s a reasonable replacement. Who were we going to send, Wallace? The rest, keep ‘em; that’s why they were available. Good centers are the rarest commodity in the NBA. People keep bringing up Miller and Kaman. You’re going to pay either one of them a lot money for R&R or pension.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 11:45 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

The big kicker is that if Pax lives in Reinsdorf's world of an absolute salary cap

Then he’s made some really, really awful decisions. If that’s the case, then
1. He should have never acquired Wallace in the first place.
2. He definitely shouldn’t have re-signed Nocioni
3. He should be looking to acquire more players on rookie deals.

If you’re going with a “No tax, ever.” policy, then you also know that ahead of time. And the only way you ought to deviate from a policy of reasonable contracts and young players is if you can really bust out and make a title run. And if that’s what Pax thought when he was getting Wallace, he just horribly misjudged his talent.

De gustibus non est disputandum

by Sports2 on Dec 14, 2008 12:25 PM CST reply actions 2 recs

I don't know the impetus for the BW deal

Neither do you. Noc was an integral part of the club, and every coach has liked him to the point of overusing him. Re the turnstyle of rookie deals, worked out well for Elgin, huh?
I don’t like the balance on the payroll now. The league has almost always been dominated by 3-4 players. And you need two of them. We’re positioned to make a run at one of the free agents, and we have the role players already. Moving Kirk would be a big step. Matt will shit at this one, but I’m wondering if using Kirk to get KLove wouldn’t be a workable deal. I could see him working a pretty good pick and roll/pop with Rose, and he could provide some of the heft that Noah’s lacking. Minnie could like the idea of moving Foye to the two, which might make a Kirk-TT for Miller-Love deal possible. The Love-Mayo trade looks as bad as the TT-Aldridge trade; maybe both teams would like to undo their mistakes?

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 12:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

In the absence of written transcripts from all conversations regarding Wallace

I’ll simply go with the common sense assumption that BW was here because Pax wanted him here. If Pax didn’t want him here, he wouldn’t have come.

And if Pax didn’t want him, then he’s even dumber for throwing good money after bad by trading Chandler so soon.

I like the idea of Kevin Love. He seems like the solid, offensive-minded guy we need. I don’t really want Miller, since that just makes the 2-3 spots more crowded, and he seems to have value for the TWolves. Maybe they’d go for Love+Cardinal for Hinrich. That’s actually hurts our cap space a tad next year, but I think I’d still consider it. Of course, if we could move Nocioni for an expiring deel, it wouldn’t be a problem

De gustibus non est disputandum

by Sports2 on Dec 14, 2008 3:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

When Wallace was brought in,

were you upset about it?

They were a good team that was thin up front. The Bulls added an all-star big. It was a risk, but one that should have been made at the time.

by CJ Bulls on Dec 14, 2008 3:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

When Wallace was brought in, I took it as a sign the Bulls would spend more to win

I was quickly set straight.

De gustibus non est disputandum

by Sports2 on Dec 14, 2008 4:11 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

heh heh

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 4:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

They brought in Joe Smith

who was a nice pickup. That was their only chance to spend money?

by CJ Bulls on Dec 14, 2008 6:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

wallace

I didnt like the Wallace trade when it happened. But they did the trade because Chandler STILL could not run the offense after 4 yrs in Scott Skiles system. That trade was as much about getting a big man that could pass and be in the right position. Skiles calls plays every single time down the floor.

So while I didnt like it, and still dont, I understand why they did it.

by ridindirty on Dec 14, 2008 11:27 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The only Wallace trade the Bulls made

was with Cleveland. Chandler was traded to NO, and Wallace signed as a FA.

by Granny Waiters on Dec 14, 2008 11:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good point...

I meant the Wallace singing, and Chandler trade. I assume they knew they were trading Chandler when they signed Wallace.

Sorry.

by ridindirty on Dec 14, 2008 11:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I haven't watched Miller much

but he seems like the shooter we wish Lu was when we go small-ball. And a not too insignificant benefit is that Love would be vocal when it’s needed.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 4:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Read your first two sentences & more

I still think Paxson should be eliminated ASAP, this is really beyond reasonable discussion, imho.
If JR does want to pay for a real GM, then replace Paxson with a Ouija Board . Which I don’t believe would be worst.

man up!

by exult463 on Dec 14, 2008 4:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Still don't care for him much, eh?

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 4:12 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

California Al

lets have a followup discussion may/june/july 2009 after we review what has happened between now and then with the team and Pax.

By that time I predict one of us will probably have a change of opinion? Or one or both of us are as stubborn as mules? Or you’re related to JP?

man up!

by exult463 on Dec 14, 2008 4:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Or

another possibility is that you aren’t a fan of logical reasoning.

by ridindirty on Dec 14, 2008 11:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sure, and I'm guessing it's more B than A, and no, me and JP had our go rounds

Unfortunately, I don’t see much happening that will be dramatic enough to change either of our opinions. Mine is that I’m not sure Pax is good or bad, that Reinsdorf makes every major decision on the team. If you really think the Ouija board outperforms Pax, go with it. I’m about as optimistic about JR bringing in a first rate GM as I was about McCaskey after he proceeded to oust Finks, then Vanisi, and finally Ditka.

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 5:58 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

reply to exult463

by California Al on Dec 14, 2008 6:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

clapclapclapclapclap

I want to the get this out of the way, then I will go defend you to what I will assume is outrage.

GREAT post. Couldn’t have said it better myself. I actually tried bringing up this point in another thread but I could not get anyone to bite on the topic.

I think if people on this site thought about the probability of actually making the correct choice, they would have a much different outlook.

by ridindirty on Dec 14, 2008 10:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

ty ty and ty

The anti-Pax crowd has been obnoxiously vocal lately, and I just wanted to make a balancing statement. I hated the team that Krause built after MJ. I’ve really liked the team Pax has built. That’s enough for me personally. Titles are a dream. A lot of great teams have come up very short; Phoenix and Dallas of recent vintage, Utah, Portland and the Knicks before that. I cheer for every young man on this team, except maybe Gooden. Can’t quite warm up to him, even when he was red hot.
Pax was an unathletic player who had a great career purely on effort. Again, I’m quite proud of him for succeeding in his post-play career and how he represents the team, and apart from Jerry Sloan, I can’t think of another ex-Bull I’d prefer to see leading this team.

by California Al on Dec 15, 2008 12:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't mind not winning a title every year. I'd be thrilled to watch a team like Phoenix (not this PHX team, the Mike D Suns)

that goes deep into the playoffs every year and at least has a shot at competing for a title. I just hate being stuck in this limbo the Bulls are in. Not good enough to really get out of the first round, but not bad enough to land a superstar… until the Basketball Gods smiled on us with Derrick Rose. I just want to watch a team that’s in that top tier, regardless of whether they win a title or not.

by fundamentallysound on Dec 15, 2008 12:33 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I could not say it any better - you get a "rec" for a great post

I like watching good basketball. If we develop a team that has a shot, even an outside shot of winning a championship that is sufficent. Yes I would love to win a championship again, but I’m satified with having a shot at winning. When we lost to the Pistons a couple of years ago that was a great season. I thought we could have won the series against the Pistons if we played just a little better and were making some shots. Sure we weren’t as good as the Pistons but we we had a shot at winning. I have not liked all of Paxson’s moves but by-in-large there is more postive than negative. This is a tough business. You need to be a clarvoyant and get lucky to succeed. He also has the financial limitations a few other teams do not have. Great post

by chgobr on Dec 15, 2008 12:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

2 years ago was great

first time they were playing on my birthday in years. and they won that game too (game 4 i believe). :)

by Jaina on Dec 15, 2008 1:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Happy belated birthday :-)

by California Al on Dec 15, 2008 6:19 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you, chgobr

We all want the Bulls to return to glory. What Pax was building was very reminiscent of the Dick Motta years. We had very little all-star caliber talent, but man, you better eat your Wheaties. In fact, we choked away a couple of title opportunities, but the best team I enjoyed was post-Sloan, I think. We had the most phenomenal teamwork, and I predicted going into the playoffs that if Walton’s Blazers didn’t beat us, nobody would (they had just as much teamwork, and Walton and Lucas). Sure enough, we were the only team that gave them much of a workout.
The Jordan years coming right after the Super Bowl years were the zenith of Chgo sports in my lifetime, but honestly, I was just as transfixed by Sloan and Van Lier, Clifford Ray and Gar Heard, A-Train and Chet the Jet, Love and Mickey Johnson. The core started off in true Bulls tradition, and that was all on Pax. 2007-8 was quite a 180. For some reason, I believe VDN is turning the ship back on course, and am very optimistic again. I like this team, give Pax a lot of credit, and really hope the program works, because it’s a good bunch of guys.

by California Al on Dec 15, 2008 6:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the Bulls should hire Cliff Ray away from the Celtics as a big man coach for TT and Noah

the guy has done just great work with Al Jefferson (when he was there), Leon Powe, Perkins, etc. He also worked with Dwight Howard for a bit too and helped him out quite a bit. He’s a former Bull, maybe he’d like to come home and the young bigs sure could use him.

by fundamentallysound on Dec 15, 2008 7:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Like that idea

Cliff played a lot bigger than he was. If he has the ability to communicate that, he’s worth big bucks to the current team.

by California Al on Dec 15, 2008 9:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Pax

He has done an average job honestly. People crucify him for Tyrus but Tyrus had made Aldridge look like a soft little bitch in the NCAA tournament and everyone was talking about the lack of athleticism on the Bulls and how Tyrus compared to Kemp or Amare.

Hawes got passed up because of his knee problems.

The real blame is Jerry not caring about winning and being all about the bottom line. What GM would have done better than Pax has done with a boss like Jerry honestly…

And I don’t see why the Bulls haven’t brought in someone like Oakley or Cartwright or Gilmore to tutor the young bigs like Kareem does in LA or Ewing in Orlando.

by C Smoove on Dec 15, 2008 10:48 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Kareem

I see a lot of talking up of Kareem, but you guys know he has been trying to get into coaching for years and is treated like the plague, right? I would not use him as an example.

I wish I could remember why, maybe someone else does. There was an article years ago in SI about it, and I researched it at that point. He was coaching some Native American Indian Team or JUCO or something crazy like that.

by ridindirty on Dec 16, 2008 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Re the long debate between ridindirty and fundamentallysound

Very interesting and enlightened points by both. There was point one made by fs that is relevant to the discussion about Pax: should he demand that the coach plays TT x minutes per game? I can’t think that Pax and VDN don’t have a good working relationship, and sharing personnel issues would certainly be in the correct realm of their conversations. But “demanding”? I have to pull away from that idea. At this point, VDN is the coach, and Pax has no business meddling. I think that would be as destructive to his authority as the D’Antoni negotiations were this summer to Paxson’s.
   Tutoring TT and Noah has obviously been a challenge to 3 coaches. This may be a case of taming the shrews. TT seems to view himself as miniLBJ. Noah’s overindulging the NBA life. If it doesn’t cost them anything, they may never get it. Making the correct call between the carrot and the stick is an art; if the horse is clueless as to why he gets one or the other, then it really doesn’t matter much. From the outside looking in, I’d guess that they had heard the gospel of hard work before, but maybe they now understand that ignoring VDN will cost them plenty. Now why would Pax want to interfere with that?
   Now re the quality between first and worst of the big man coaches, I’d guess there’s a chasm; 80/20 probabilities and all that. But if the problems with TT and Noah are as mentioned above, then Skiles’ “try jumping” approach isn’t too far off. I don’t think there’s a big man coach out there that has a magic system to succeed. TT and Noah don’t execute basics very well, and that’s just repetitions. They can buy DVD’s on what they’re supposed to do, but until the fundamentals are so thoroughly rehearsed that they’re as automatic as “God bless you”, they will be thinking when they should be reacting. That’s too slow for the NBA.
   We can imagine that a good coach would have a different impact, but imagine if you will Phil coaching this team. How long would it take before their lack of preparation and conditioning landed them in the 11th and 12th spots on the bench? If VDN’s doing his job, they’re putting in the sets that the team’s going to run in the future. The personnel can change if they don’t/won’t fit. That’s the part where Pax facillitates the coach or undermines him. The team cannot view the head coach’s decisions as up for arbitration; better to fire him instantly than that. Unless your an Al Davis fan.

by California Al on Dec 16, 2008 1:49 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I'll just point out that Skiles and B**** were one in the same in regards to veterans

and Del Negro has yet to show he can develop someone. I don’t think the case is made yet that they’ve had proven coaches at developing talent.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 16, 2008 2:43 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I really do not understand

why the onus of developing talent falls directly onto the coach and the GM?

These guys we are discussing lack fundamentals! They make poor decisions with the basketball, create TO’s, are oftentimes in the wrong position defensively, forget plays, etc!!!

What in the world are Pax and VDN going to do about that? And would more playing time alleviate and correct those problems?

Or another way to put it: When do you guys start blaming TT and Noah for being unprepared, rather than the front office and coaching staff? Is there a line they must cross? Is it time related?

I am really at a loss here.

by ridindirty on Dec 16, 2008 5:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Blame 'em all you want.

Either:

A) GM took a bad player who lacked fundamentals and didn’t provide him the tools to succeed.
B) GM took a bad player who lacked fundamentals and lacked a work ethic to get good.

Yeah, it’s on the players, but the GM chose the players. he gets the blame because he’s in charge of getting good players to make a good team.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 16, 2008 7:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Correctomundo

But, I know you read my post re the drafts; what other choices did he really have at that time? 06 was gonna be LA or TT, and most touts were on TT’s side. 07 was probably the replace BW now draft, and he took 2 centers. With 20/20, we know he chose 2 kids whose futures are very questionable. But I don’t think a fanpost prior to the 06 draft that called for forgetting the best post player, we need to draft a replacement for Gordon in 2008 because there will be a salary impasse and he’s still going to be short would have gotten too many recs, do you?

by California Al on Dec 17, 2008 3:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Of course not

If anything, this season has indicated that David Thorpe doesn’t know jack about developing players and ought to be told to stay the hell away from our kids! Or maybe it’s the kids.

by California Al on Dec 17, 2008 3:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Cal

I think you summarized everything pretty well, definitely much better than I could have. It seems to me you lean to my side of the argument.

by ridindirty on Dec 16, 2008 5:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

California Al

might it be the case that you can be patience and forgiving of Paxson because you have your A-team (Lakers) and your sub performance B-Team (Bulls)?

Where would your “heart” really be if the Lakers met the Bulls in a Finals series (imo, it will not happen as long as JR is at the helm, but just supposely?)

ridindirty do you also live in LA, or another town with a championship contender?

man up!

by exult463 on Dec 16, 2008 5:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I never equivocate on that one

I’ve been a Bulls fan from before their first game. I go back to Walt Bellamy and the Packers/Zephyrs. I copied Guy Rogers as a young street ball dreamer. Without Phil Jackson, I’d probably have no interest in the Lakers; I really disliked the threepeat team of theirs, and predicted and cheered for Detroit’s upset. I’d cheer for the Bulls even if it was only the 82nd game of the season and they were trying to cost LA the homecourt in the playoffs.
I cheer for Utah and Sloan, LA and Phil, Phoenix and Kerr; do you see a thread there? But this is essentially the only blog I follow. So, it’s like the Bulls are my childhood sweetheart, the Lakers are the necessary local girl because I don’t do celibacy very well.
I’m not forgiving of Paxson, but possibly I shift too much blame to JR. Chicago has the best fans and worst owners of any city in sports. I get sick of everyone taking the blame except the people who keep all of their teams mired in mediocricy. JR bought the team for peanuts (brilliant move) and it’s now worth probably a half-bil. This BS of an absolute salary cap isn’t necessary for him to grow rich(er) from this team. It’s artificial, hamstrings the GM, and probably prevents any major players from coming here. So, unless you know of a genius GM-in-waiting that’s available cheap, the first point of my post is be careful what you wish for. Did anyone else here see the VDN signing with 2 head coaches as assts as a prelude to Pax moving on? That’s still my hunch beyond this season. And here’s my totally fantasy ending: Pax becomes AD at ND, hires Ditka as coach, and they win the BCS bowl ever after.

by California Al on Dec 17, 2008 3:29 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

romantic & poetic

man up!

by exult463 on Dec 17, 2008 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

jerk.

USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Dec 17, 2008 10:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

brash & un-poetic

man up!

by exult463 on Dec 17, 2008 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"terse" would have been more poetic

than “unpoetic”

--Torch

by torch on Dec 17, 2008 12:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No.

I think this board is short sighted and it annoys me. I think Pax has done a formidable job overall. Some mistakes, obviously some moves I disagree with, but that is life. I am not making the decisions, I cannot expect all the decisions to be made as if I were.
Ex: I wanted Iggy taken with the third pick.
Ex: I liked Chandler a lot. I envisioned him leading the league in rebounds for 8 yrs.
Ex: I liked Aldridge over TT.

But I also drank the Nocioni kool-aid, and at the time I didnt think it was a horrible contract.

IMO Pax hasn’t made a horrible move since he has been here. You can question him, and disagree, but its not as if you sat there, at the time he made his decision , were outraged…. Well, I should digress here, I know a lot of people here did not like the Gordon debacle this offseason, but I am not one of those. I wanted Gordon at 5 yrs 50 mill he was offered last yr.

I also think most of these arguments are made in relation to hindsight, which is always 20/20. California Al’s main point here is that when Pax’s decisions were made, nobody was here disagreeing with him. But now you want to lay all the blame on the man. C’mon.

So, I think all this Pax-hating is just overzealous fans. Its annoying. I come to forums for thought provoking discussion. Not to hear the same crap I can hear at any bar in America.

by ridindirty on Dec 17, 2008 10:34 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

So we're not better than Pax and can only use hindsight to judge if he made good decisions.

Duh?

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Dec 18, 2008 8:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

These points go right over your head

because No, that is not what I am saying at all.

by ridindirty on Dec 18, 2008 5:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Pax should have the foresight to make good decisions.

He’s payed to figure out this stuff, unlike us.

Things could be worse. We could have kept (name redacted).

by stupidgenius on Dec 20, 2008 2:00 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs

Yeah, sometimes this board is pretty manic

But, it keeps it exciting. I’m not defending everything Pax has or hasn’t done. Like Tyger said, when you have the number two pick, there’s a lot of possibilities. Of course, if you change one thing, you change everything. But just imagine if Pax looked at TT and LA and said, nah, and traded that pick to Portland for either the pick that became Roy and consideration, or the pick that became Oden and consideration. Either one smells a little like championship if we still ended up with Rose. And Chandler for essentially nothing still pisses me off. But we were so in love with the core, were getting Wallace, Noc was a super sub, so it looked like all we had to do dump that loser Chandler and get a good young pf and we were set for life.
He’s not beyond criticism. I just think his job is complicated by Jerry’s criteria and “veto” power, and the gist of my argument is that I think we’re pretty fortunate to have Pax vs what I believe would be his replacement. He’s an intelligent guy, and has/will grow from his experience. The only reason we’re arguing here is that he brilliantly and decisively undid the muck that Krause assembled in favor of guys who would show up for work. A lot of people like me who’d lost interest have really become passionate fans of the team again. They’ve experienced what I’d consider an unforeseeable downturn, and panic moves while at the bottom of their market value might have been satisfying, but doubtful in re to acquiring anyone of substance. Let’s hope his patience pays off and he can pull another winner or two out of his bag.

by California Al on Dec 20, 2008 2:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

JR does not care

The only time JR intervenes with da Bulls is with the coaching position. We would have Doug Collins as our coach if it were not for JR placing more importance on his friendships than da Bulls. Nevertheless, JR does not care about da Bulls, as long as they make money, which they always will. So it is absolutely wrong to say that a Bulls GM is a gopher and that Paxson is handicapped. It is Paxson who is accountable for the state of da Bulls team. He got very lucky that we ended up with the number one pick. Otherwise he would look really bad, and a lot more people would be calling for his head.

As for Paxson, he is terrible. He thinks too hard and always ends up scaring himself away from a move. He says he is exhausted and overworked by his job. Are you kidding me? A GM of an NBA team does not have that much work where he should be working long hours every night and getting a lack of sleep. Give me a break. Being a NFL or MLB GM is much more difficult. You hear with players some times that they are trying too hard. Well that is the case with Paxson. He needs to relax and start taking some chances.

When you say Wisconsin, you've said it all.

by Looney_Bucky on Dec 23, 2008 10:30 PM CST reply actions 0 recs