I think of how many intern coaches make the season actually better. Would that symbolize giving up on the season?

I also think of whether Paxson would rather make a trade first to see how Skiles would handle whatever new player the Bulls were to get. Maybe he figures he owes it to Skiles to give him that go to guy needed to win.

I say keep Skiles, and this "core" of this team for the year. Too many people are gung-ho with firings. If the Bulls haven't significantly improved when it matters (in the playoffs), then let the fire sale begin.

The way it's looking, signs seem to point to Noce being the Bulls most tradable asset.  I would love to be able to use him to somehow pry Calderon away from the Raptors.  Also, the next (first?) good game Hinrich has I'd be looking to move him, regardless of who's the coach.   The Bulls need a point guard who is a point guard.  The only reason Hinrich ever gets credited with an assist is that the next touch in line happens to hit his jump shot.

So those are the players I'd try to move first--Noce because he's playing well and has some present value, and Hinrich because he just plain sucks.

Certainly, this is a business, and it is the man's job to take care of player personnel moves in order to make the team better.  But, as I wrote at Taking it to the Rack in the season's first week, this is a young roster with just two rotation regulars (Smith and Wallace) above the age of 27.  Most of the young core has never played for another NBA team (Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Duhon, Nocioni, Thomas, Sefolosha).  While they may be big boys in big business, they aren't grizzled veterans, and it is certainly easy to see how the constant rumors swirling over several of them could have been a major distraction at season's start that led to a lot of tentative play.  Once you fall into that rut, it can be hard to get out of.

While Pax's job is to make the team better, he had what certainly appeared (and still appears) to be a very solid young core that looked like it was only going to improve with time.  In the eyes of many, he didn't NEED to bring in the likes of a Bryant, but once he officially went after him (which he did publicly enough), he likely needed to make a move of some sort simply to calm the nerves of his players, who in some regards may still be waiting for that proverbial other shoe to drop.  He can say all he wants to that trade talks are over, but the fact is that it's a company line that likely won't be believed until February and then likely revisited again in the summer.  

I wondered in the initial column whether or not once the Kobe talks broke down, Pax should have looked to make a small, largely inconsequential move just to make the "There, I made my move, now I'm done" gesture to his players and coach.  Perhaps it would have provided a bit more security for them and allowed them to go out and just play the game at ease.

With all that in mind, it seems to me that Matt's suggestion to fire Skiles makes more sense than ever.  It would in effect be that "shake things up" move that would allow the players to loosen up -- at least for a time -- as they had their shot to once again prove their worth as a unit under a new coach.  It makes sense right now because there is still ample time to salvage this season, and it makes sense right now because if my theory about the psyches of the players has any merit to it, this type of move may help correct it without having to make any sort of trivial personnel move simply for the sake of making a move.

Perhaps I'm reading much too far into the issue of what Paxson's negotiating with the Lakers (and his failure to lock up Deng and Gordon) long term did to this team to start the season.  But I figure it's worth a thought.  I'd be curious to hear some thoughts on this.

-sw

Use the year to better get a feel for what we have or don't have.  Let's throw in the towel and go with Noah, TT and Grey.  That would guarantee a lottery pick.  Maybe we get lucky and pick up Hibbert, Thabeet, etc. and we get lucky again and the pick turns out to be a ligitimate low post threat.  This makes us a contender with our present group.  We can make a decision after the draft if we have the right coach.  Playing Noah, TT and Grey is risky and painful, but it increases the liklihood of a lottery pick and hope.  We don't get there with this present group.

While I generally agree with you that the Bulls have some talent in their core, the problem is they also have some deficiencies in their core...and the real problem is that all their deficiencies tend to line-up with each other, rather than compensate for each other.

For example, in this Bulls line-up--Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Thomas and Wallace--what stands out at 4 of the 5 positions?  Everyone is too small.  Only Deng matches up, size-wise, with the players he has to defend.

The Bulls roster, though talented, is completely unbalanced.  Other teams in this league are smart enough to figure out ways to exploit opponent's deficiencies.  There are a number of things they can do with the roster as presently constituted...but going smaller, which Skiles did by starting Griffin, is not the way.