Exit interviews

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Apr 15, 2008 6:56 PM CDT in News Comment 73 comments

Paxson gave out some media morsels on Monday (and we all talked it out today), with the announcement that a meeting with the Boylan Bunch will take place Thursday, followed by the players on Friday.

And then came the PaxSpeak:

Several players recently have suggested a massive overhaul isn't needed to recover from what could be the first 50-loss season since 2003-04.

"You can't take your whole roster and revamp it," Paxson said. "There's no question we have talent on this team. The question is what happened to the willingness to play as a team that we exhibited the last couple of years as opposed to what happened this year.

"I really am looking forward to sitting down with each player and talking with them about this year and about what I expect going forward. I do expect this off-season to be more team-oriented as opposed to individually oriented. That to me is going to dictate this organization's future."

Several players recently have stated intentions to split off-season workouts between the Berto Center and either hometowns with personal coaches or cities with basketball academies. As a player, Paxson participated in closely knit team off-season workouts organized by Michael Jordan.

(I wish he gave a better timetable, although I assume that he doesn't mean the players have to be around all summer, merely around sometime before training camp and after whatever individual workouts or respective national team commitments are scheduled. At least sometime after a new coaching staff is hired and free agency is settled.)

At first glance, it looks like another instance of Pax concerning himself way too much about off-court 'habits'. We all heard last summer's tales from the Berto Center Parking Lot that made Gordon and Deng seem to be workout mavens, and where did that get anybody?

And the example given of how Pax used his summers to work with the team rings hollow, as what was more important: the workouts between blackjack sessions? Or that they had Michael Jordan on the team?

Sometimes I worry that Paxson isn't sure.

It sounds like the biggest concern going into the offseason is getting a great coach (as, apparently, a very good coach who may quit on you wasn't the answer), and getting everyone 'bought in'. But in the grand title-striving scheme, those should be secondary steps, with the first getting a team talented enough to compete without such things.

However, I think Paxson is just gearing up for the truth that there's little sense banking on some major upgrade 'star' acquisition, or lottery dreams. Not that it's impossible, just that it takes some luck anyway, so while always keeping an eye on that, in the meantime you have to worry about the little things that could make a team go back from above average to below average. It's not the ultimate goal, but it's a start.

Though even with that goal in mind, I sure hope that Paxson doesn't value the interview over the resume. Especially with a franchise with an abysmal record of developing players, maybe it's best they get away for a while.

0 recs | Comment 73 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

If it weren't for bad luck, he'd have none at all

One of Paxson's biggest problems is simply that he hasn't had much good luck as GM of the Bulls.

Jay Williams motorcycle accident.
Eddy Curry heart problem.
Landing the #7 pick in the Draft of Dreams (LeBron, Carmelo, Bosh) and then having Pat Riley pluck Dwayne Wade at #5.
Having the #3 pick (and acquiring the #7) in a draft where the best players available at #3 were probably Gordon, Deng, and Igoudala - when the following season the #3 pick would've landed either Deron Williams or Chris Paul (and the year prior would've landed Wade or Bosh).
Having the #2 pick in the draft the year that the NBA arbitrarily decided to prohibit high-schoolers from entering the draft. (Not that it was an arbitrary decision, but it could have happened any year - and it just so happened it was the year the Bulls picked #2.) So instead of Kevin Durant, the Bulls get Tyrus Thomas.
Not landing a #1 or #2 lottery pick despite being in the lottery so dang often.

Paxson has managed to make lemonade out of lemons, but all of us fans want to be drinking the fine champagne of success by now. I don't think you can make champagne out of lemons.

I like Paxson, and I hope he turns this ship around. But he hasn't had great luck in his tenure, and I see no reason why it would start this season (Derrick Rose). If ever there is a franchise that deserves the top pick and Derrick Rose, it's the Bulls. At least they didn't shut players down and lose on purpose like Miami and Seattle. How is it that Pat Riley gets Wade and is in line for Derrick Rose, while Paxson gets the scraps?

by BullsFanInSeattle on Apr 15, 2008 7:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

oops

Contradicted myself a little there. The last bullet point should probably read "Never acquiring a Lottery Draft pick higher than the Bulls spot in the Lottery."

by BullsFanInSeattle on Apr 15, 2008 7:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Paxson had the 2nd pick in 2006

and looks to have wasted it. No excuses.
He went to Michigan to give away 60 million for a player no one else coveted, not even his own team and his Pistons coached bashed him all summer before the signing as creating 4 or 5 matchups? He attempted to make Kirk a PG, the franchise player and bulls icon? Kirk didn't play PG at Kansas? Tyrus doesn't want to be a power forward in the NBA? How quickly we forget? Gave Tyson away for virtually nothing? Paxson wasted what he got in return? Tyrus is no equal to Tyson at this point or will he ever be? Noc? 38 million bench player. etc.etc.etc.. Please stop this pity party with Paxson.

by exult463 on Apr 16, 2008 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is a terrible thing to say . . .

But Eddy Curry's heart problem was actually a lucky break for the Bulls. If not for it, Paxson probably would have given Eddy the same contract the Knicks gave him, and then he would have immediately gotten fat again, just like he did with the Knicks. Instead, the heart problem forced the Bulls to trade him, instead of giving him a huge contract. Obviously getting so much in return was just luck, since no one had any idea the Knicks would be so terrible the past few years (Paxson has even admitted as such), but I certainly don't miss Eddy Curry. Somehow I think Donnie Walsh would rather have Tyrus Thomas and Joakim Noah than Eddy Curry right now.

by Big D on Apr 15, 2008 7:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

It has turned out to be a fortunate development for the Bulls (lemons from lemonade).

However, it severely hampered the Bulls' plans when it happened. And it also limited the Bulls' possible trade partners for Eddy to one - the Knicks. Maybe that's the one time when Paxson truly did get good luck. The Knicks were only bargaining against themselves, and STILL bet the farm on Eddy.

It all turned out well in the end - especially for Eddy Curry's health so far, which is more important than basketball - but it was a huge blow to the Bulls at the time.

by BullsFanInSeattle on Apr 15, 2008 8:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well said

My one criticism of Paxson was essentially trading Chandler for the Corpse. I didn't like getting Wallace immediately. I remember really being upset when Pax made that trade. If you watched Wallace with Detroit the last year he significantly deteriorated. This is definitely an old story. That being said I think the majority of Paxson's moves have been positive. As stated above he has had some bad luck. This year's draft is interesting in that after Beasley and Rose it is a crap shoot. Is there a player out there who can respond with the game on the line? That appears to be a big need of ours.

by chgobr on Apr 15, 2008 8:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My issue

wasn't that he traded Tyson "essentially" for the Corpse, it was that he traded Tyson for JR Smith and PJ Brown, and then sold JR on pennies on the dollar so we could sign the BaB fave Adrian Griffin to a ludicrous 2 yr guaranteed deal.....

And then us failing to use PJ's huge contract for anything when he was hardly the PJ of yesteryear as a Bull and hardly happy (With the "good guy" complaining about PT and asking a trade in Dec).

That's the issue there. Tyson wouldn't have the same numbers he has now if he stayed a Bull. He needed a change of scenery, he totally regressed his last yr as a Bull, and at the time the city and the team were in a Scott Skiles lovefest, so I don't fault Pax for that part of the trade even if Tyson was one of my favorite Bulls during his tenure.....I really fault Pax for what he did afterwards....

Sure the Wallace signing was hardly what we could have expected, but I think judging from most everyone thought for 3 yrs that would be an ideal fit and Wallace's workhorse rep would help the young guys....of course nobody assumed Wallace would decline as much as he did this year, even Wallace, and I think that hurt even his inner coaching of the young guys because he had to constantly face all the crap that comes when you're making superstar money, but are a washed up former near superstar who now more resembles a 7th man off the bench 2 yrs removed from your last DPOY, and 1 yr removed from a much deserved 2nd team DPOY for the way he came on in the second half of last yr for our Bulls team....

by majoyenrac on Apr 15, 2008 11:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Bulls didn't "Get" Tyrus

Pax traded for him.....

There are two moves that Pax made that made me say he is good, the rest made or (not made) makes me say fire the guy

the Eddy Curry trade and the Ben Wallace trade

"The days of 'I can't wait til next year!' are now replaced with 'Wait til next year!'"

by Thirdrock on Apr 16, 2008 7:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They got Tyrus Thomas

I understand that the Bulls could've gotten Aldridge or Brandon Roy rather than getting Tyrus, but that wasn't the point.

It's that they SHOULD'VE gotten Kevin Durant, but for the fact the NBA put in the non-high-schooler rule the year the Bulls had their highest draft pick since Elton Brand. And Durant will be better than Thomas, Aldridge, and Roy in the long run.

by BullsFanInSeattle on Apr 16, 2008 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent post.

I guess I'd add the two following bullet points in their trend of bad luck:

Landing the #1 overall pick when the consensus #1 overall pick was Elton Brand, essentially a very good role player but not a superstar; and
Selecting Marcus Fizer #4 in 2000, when (as you point out) #4 was Chris Bosh in 2003 and Chris Paul in 2005.

It's worth pointing out that none of these was considered a flat-out "blown pick" at the time that the picks were made.

With Fizer, there was also the failed trade that could have sent J. O'Neal to the Bulls for Fizer in a package deal.

There are also the facts that Tyson Chandler failed to develop as scouted (a perimeter-effective 7-footer similar to Kevin Garnett); and that Jamal Crawford failed to develop after playing a handful of games his freshman year in college, as compared to Corey Magette, who had essentially a similar amount of college experience.

It's like a perfect storm of mediocrity.

"Duhon, don't make that garbage-time jumper... Save it for the next game!"

by bullhockey on Apr 16, 2008 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep, I was talking mainly...

....about the Paxson era, but their lack of good fortune in the Lottery goes back to Krause.

Selecting Marcus Fizer at #4 was bad luck mainly because the 2000 draft may go down as the WORST draft in NBA history. Where did the Bulls select in the worst draft ever? Number 24? Nope! Number four!

by BullsFanInSeattle on Apr 16, 2008 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

charlotte

New Jersey's up on charlotte by 20!

Deandre Jordan, the future hall of fame center for the bulls.

by armstrong2389 on Apr 15, 2008 7:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Charlotte

gave a clinic on how to tank today.

by jpchi on Apr 15, 2008 10:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess they just wanted it

(the 8th pick) more than the Bulls.

by alec on Apr 15, 2008 11:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The same crew who creates

excuses for Pax will be the same crew praising his future exit. Pax has done an unacceptable job basically since his inception as GM. He's going to interview the players he chose? Who's going to interview him?

This organization is now so passive it reacts like a monastery.

by exult463 on Apr 15, 2008 10:21 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

They don't have....

...yearly reviews where you work?

by BullsFanInSeattle on Apr 15, 2008 11:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

every GM and usually the coach

meet with the players after the season and talk about all sorts of stuff like if you don't improve, you are history.

by KT on Apr 16, 2008 5:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

McGraw's take

Mike McGraw has an article that touches on some of the topics that Pax mentioned. He doesn't suggest anything surprising and continues to predict that we'll have at least another season of hot Thabo action:

Thabo Sefolosha: A groin injury probably contributed to a late-season slump. Otherwise, Sefolosha might be the least likely player to be moved this summer. Continuing to improve his outside jumper is an obvious goal. When he gets into the lane, Sefolosha should try to drive and score instead of drive and dish every time.

by paxson43 on Apr 15, 2008 11:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The question

What do you all think happened to our "willingness to play as a team"? Why were the same guys who did it for a couple years not doing it all of a sudden?

How would you answer that question if Pax put it to you as an outside observer?

My Blog (Econ/Politics/Sports/NBA Salary Info)

by Sports2 on Apr 16, 2008 6:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I think that question being asked

shows that Paxson doesn't get it. Your team didn't fall off a cliff becaues of some lost "willingness to play as a team". Your team fell off a cliff because the "we'll play harder than you every night and eek out a victory" style can only take you so far. As the talent improves, that talent has to be matched and the Bulls don't have it. Paxson sees "willingness to play as a team" as the problem but not our 6' 2" backcourt, right? Not our SF who plays soft yet wants to be paid like The Man. Not our overcrowded roster that creates playing time issues 10-deep. I think the article even mentioned Jim Paxson being involved in recommending Carlisle. The same Jim Paxson who was one of the worst GMs in the league. I shuddered with the team hired him as a "consultant" and that hiring seems to coincide with the beginning of John Paxson's fall.

by messwiththebull on Apr 16, 2008 7:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So do you think the Bulls played just as hard

this season as they did in past seasons?

My Blog (Econ/Politics/Sports/NBA Salary Info)

by Sports2 on Apr 16, 2008 7:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see it that way

I don't recall ever watching the Bulls the last three seasons prior to this dog it on defense and find themselves boxed out(I gotta have more Matt ridicule) by Glen Davis types let alone guards.

The Kids Must Stay In The Picture!!!

by NBA Observer on Apr 16, 2008 8:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep.

Which is exactly my point. They might not have enough talent, but they clearly weren't playing up to whatever talent they have.

My Blog (Econ/Politics/Sports/NBA Salary Info)

by Sports2 on Apr 16, 2008 8:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

An Answer on Ben Gordon

Ben Gordon was, given the circumstances, pretty darn good. You, Pax, publicly stated there were problems with him starting (ever) simply because of his height. Um, every season up to this one, Pax, he's performed better as a starter and your team has performed better with him as a starter. Pax, I don't see how telling a guys who's clearly one of your five best players 'he's too short to start' makes him very willing to take one for the team. How are the 30 minutes a game he played as coming from the bench any different from the 30 minutes a game he'd play as a starter?

Now, if you think Gordon simply isn't good enough to be on your team, then by all means, get rid of him. He obviously is limited by his height, no disagreement there. But limited or not, he's going to be just as limited coming off the bench or starting. But by publicly pigeon holeing him, you've damaged his value around the league and artificially set a barrier for him. What sort of incentive does he have to work hard for you if it'll never get him in the starting lineup, or vis-a-vis that decision, will never get him to the all-star game or recognition as more than a "good sixth man". Nobody wants to have their boss talk about you the way you've talked about Ben Gordon, Pax. So don't be surprised if he wants to go somewhere where he feels he at least has an honest chance to get as far as his talents will take him.

Coincidentally, Gordon actually shot less per 36 minutes than he did last year, turned the ball over less as well, and saw his usage rate decline. If you're looking for scapegoats, you probably shouldn't look in the direction of the guy who jerked around but who, despite that, shut up and did what he was asked.

My Blog (Econ/Politics/Sports/NBA Salary Info)

by Sports2 on Apr 16, 2008 7:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I predict...

Ben Goedon will move heaven and earth to get off this team. He'll do it quietly, because that's his style, but he absolutely must have next year to rehabilitate his stature around the league if he wants to get back in position for a big contract.

My question--can he be traded and play on a one-year contract for another team? Or, if he chooses to play on a one-year deal, would it have to be for the Bulls?

by alec on Apr 16, 2008 8:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've been thinking about the right offer to Gordon

My thoughts are:

I don't see any real basis for the rumors he's said he wants $14M/yr or stuff like that. I'm sure he wants as much as he can possibly get, just like every player, but so what. That's what negotiation is for. I do think he considers himself the best player on the team and wants to be paid accordingly. And it's pretty hard to argue he's definitively not the best player on the team. At the same time, saying he's the best player on this team doesn't necessarily say much.
Given the Bulls' position and the amount of the QO ($6.4M or so), it's really not a bad thing for Gordon to take it. He'd be much better positioned as a UFA and the Bulls would lose much of their leverage. Also, on a one year tender the Bulls would have limited options for trading him.
I don't see any obvious destinations for Gordon out there this summer.
There's plenty of history to see what similar guys to Gordon get paid (Mo Williams, Jason Terry, etc), and similar competitors for FA dollars out there this year (Louis Williams, Monta Ellis).

So I'd try to fashion a deal that keeps the Bulls options pretty open while keeping Gordon, who definiately has value, in the fold.

Why not look at a shorter term deal for more money? I always look at Gordon as fairly similar to Jason Terry, and I think Terry provides a pretty similar template for understanding Gordon here. Terry was a guy who was too for the Hawks to let go for nothing after his rookie deal, but not good enough that they wanted to bet the farm on him with a long-term deal. So they signed him to a 3yr, $22.5M deal.

That deal worked for everyone. The Hawks got to keep around one of their better players and Terry got more money than he would have gotten as a free agent.

I'd offer something like that. Perhaps a 3yr $24.2M contract with declining salary, so he gets

2008    $9.0
2009    $8.1
2010    $7.1

That'd give him some reason to sign without committing the Bulls to a guy pay him a huge amount forever. With an eye toward free agency in 2010, they could potentially keep him along with Deng, Hinrich, Noah, and their pick this year along with one or two of Gooden/Thomas/Thabo, and still have enough cap room to offer the max to someone.

My Blog (Econ/Politics/Sports/NBA Salary Info)

by Sports2 on Apr 16, 2008 9:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

as much

as what you said makes sense, there's no way I see BG accepting less than $10/mill a yr (aka, less than Kirk).

by NormVanBeer on Apr 16, 2008 9:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

if gordon

can accept the fact that Pax screwed up this team with (draft picks, mgmt, trades, coach selection) and also the contracts to Kirk, Noc and Hughes(c/o Ben Wallace) and his (Gordon's) options are limited because he didn't jump at the opportunity to sign on Pax's other potential 50 mil/5yr screw up. Gordon missed that wagon, because most would have taken advantage of a GM who doesn't have a clue to running this organization. I don't mean to slam Paxson, but if you look at this situation objectively, with personal-political feelings aside. The conclusion is the organization needs a house cleaning starting with the GM.

Probably 85% of the NBA people and fans knew Isiah Thomas was not going to make the Knicks better once he move down to coach. Paxson can't make this team better because he continues to speak as clueless as he always has since becoming GM.

Everyone can't be a successful NBA GM because they look smart and don't talk a lot, just anybody can't select talent because they played in the NBA. Some people are cut out to be accountants or public relations specialists.

Paxson step down, and let us move forward to make the Chicago Bulls a proud team.

by exult463 on Apr 16, 2008 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's something I expect could happen

Or at least if it's a 5-year deal, give him an early termination option after 3. That way if he plays to what he believes he's worth, he can opt out and avoid the messiness of the qualifying offer. He'll be 28 after the 3rd year and can get another 5-year deal then.

I think you're a bit conservative on the money, however.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Apr 16, 2008 9:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was thinking along the same lines

2 years 16-18 million. Makes him a valuable trading chip if LBJ/Wade/Melo become available. Since I doubt those guys just walk away in free agency, I think the only way they leave is by forcing a trade at the deadline in a year and a half.

Don't tell anybody, but here's hoping TT puts it all together.

by bullshooter on Apr 16, 2008 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If he signs the one year QO with the Bulls

he can eventually be traded but only with his consent as a trade would void his Bird rights. If he doesn't want to play for the Bulls that badly, he's going to have resort to holding out until the Bulls decide to trade him.

by snley on Apr 16, 2008 9:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks.

I think the continuing BG saga will be one of the more interesting stories of the summer. I am looking forward to a summer filled with gossip and drama...too bad for Sam that he won't be here to cover it.

by alec on Apr 16, 2008 9:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right

Part of what I was getting at there is agreeing to a shorter deal would be beneficial to Gordon by protecting his Bird status.

The QO is like a nuclear weapon. Using it hurts everyone. Instead of getting to that point, there's no reason the both sides couldn't agree to a similar deal that 1) Gives the Bulls better options for trading him and 2) Let's Gordon protect his Bird rights and make a bit more money.

For example, you could even do something like sign him to a two or three year deal with the second or third years as options. That way the deal could be ended after a year or two.

My Blog (Econ/Politics/Sports/NBA Salary Info)

by Sports2 on Apr 16, 2008 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Never even thought about a short term deal

or using player/team options. In the case of Gordon, I could really see that being the best situation for both sides.

by snley on Apr 16, 2008 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

::applause::

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Apr 16, 2008 9:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

disagree on most of this

(shocker, I know). Let me begin by addressing your last point. BG decreasing his usuage is not a good thing. Everybody claims BG is the bull's best scorer, and if so, he should shoot at every good opportunity. If he isn't getting those opportunities, that's one thing, but I've seen just about every game and I've seen him pass up open shots numerous times.

What's my theory? Glad you asked... Somebody, probably BG's agent told him that he's not going to get the big money if he's just a scorer. He needs to round out his game and be more of a combo or pg and less of a scorer. That's fine for him, but it hurts the bulls when they structure their offense to get BG shots.

BG could be an ok pg against the crappy half of the league. It's against the good teams, that actually exploit BG as a weakness, like NJ last year.

As far as his minutes getting jerked around, he's averaging a whopping 54 seconds less this year, even after all the late season Boylan shenanigans. His minutes are still there, the rotation is the only thing that has changed. And while his TO's are down significantly, so are his assists, and even his rebounds. Together, these suggest that he's just passing the ball when he should be shooting. And that's just his offense. In total, in my opinion he's just as guilty as anybody on this bulls team of not playing as hard. That shouldn't single him out from the other underachievers, but as one of the three core players the team counted on, I'd say it puts him in the top three on the list of scapegoats.

Don't tell anybody, but here's hoping TT puts it all together.

by bullshooter on Apr 16, 2008 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just a second.

A scapegoat is someone who gets the blame even though he's not really at fault ("a person who is blamed or punished for the mistakes of others"--WordNet). Isn't your argument that Gordon is actually blameworthy?

I do believe you're right that Gordon was trying to expand his game, and in the process took himself away from what he does best.

by alec on Apr 16, 2008 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think the biggest culprit is Skiles

for not adjusting and walking away rather than switching it up. That was probably inevitable, but not unpredictable. Same thing for BW's decreased effectiveness, it was coming, but it happened a lot faster than anybody thought. Some of that falls on Paxson, but I don't really see what he could have done other than preemptively fire the coaching staff, which would have seemed pretty crazy at the time.

And as being punished for the mistakes of others, the entire bulls team is being scapegoated. Everybody who picked them to be contenders was mistaken. AS far as BG goes, he's always been one dimensional.

He's also delusional to think he's worth big money, but that's beside the point and I support him in his effort to get the money. I just hope that if he does get it, it isn't the bulls giving it to him since I don't think that's a good deal for the bulls. And I hope it doesn't hurt the bulls in the way that he ultimately gets it.

Don't tell anybody, but here's hoping TT puts it all together.

by bullshooter on Apr 16, 2008 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

by sue369 on Apr 16, 2008 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

ah, but what a dimension!

If you're going to be on-dimensional, make it scoring.

Some of it is market inefficiency (as Dave Berri will incessantly tell ya) but high-volume yet efficient shooters are at a premium. Gordon could be more efficient, but if you lose him who are you going to get who's better? You're stuck with the Larry Hughes' of the league.

One could say Thabo (for instance) is just as good of an option becuase he is also one-dimensional, just at a different dimension. But it'd be foolishness, as long-armed wing defenders can be plucked out of the d-league eazy breezy.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Apr 16, 2008 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree to an extent

but I think BG is an exceptional shooter, not scorer. And if Thabo can be an above average defender of SG's and an ok scorer, then I think he's a decent replacement or at least a much better value. But BG isn't the first guy I'd replace either. I still think it is Deng. And Thabo might be a better replacement of Deng.

Don't tell anybody, but here's hoping TT puts it all together.

by bullshooter on Apr 16, 2008 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm leaning that way too

although I don't like Thabo as a replacement for anyone, unless the team plans on being bad for a while (which they're not).

Back to BG, yes he needs to get to the line more. But the shooter/scorer thing really matters less if there's someone else brought in to handle the 'tough' points, while Gordon can fire away.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Apr 16, 2008 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thabo does a number

of things well, but if scoring is not going to be one of them, I'm afraid he won't be that much use to us. Right now, he's just another player at a position in which the Bulls are average.

by alec on Apr 16, 2008 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agree on Deng.

Even Charles Barkley agrees. There is nobody on this team who creates a mismatch on the offensive end. Nobody who draws a double team...outside of Gordon on a hot streak.

by alec on Apr 16, 2008 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I buy the theory

about BG trying to 'expand' his game this year, as well as seeing his defense regress (or just evaporate) like everyone else.

But I also agree with Sports2 that Paxson started with the shot across the bow saying he wanted more size in the backcourt. The Bulls were a top-5 defensive team in consecutive seasons with the 'midget' backcourt.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Apr 16, 2008 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep

I don't think I'm going to swallow the idea that Gordon was in some way selfish by being, er... unselfish with the ball.

Trying to figure out how that'd work on a practical level boggles the mind. I mean, I think it's reasonable to say Gordon was trying to expand his game, but I also think it's what everyone's been wanting from him.

Pax and Skiles and everyone else have had it in mind to use Ben more at the point for his entire tenure here. Size in the backcourt. And this year they came into the year with the idea of featuring Deng more as a scorer (remember Deng as a guard, Deng in the post, Deng getting shots... etc).

All of those plans, of course, ended up not working, but it seems pretty revisionist to say Gordon is selfish for trying to change his game to accommodate them.

The question going forward doesn't change in any case. Gordon, to me, is clearly not worth the long-term, big time commitment he (and every player) wants. But saying he's not good enough to make this team a winner when everyone is playing like crap doesn't mean much either. That means he's not worth a zillion dollars, but he still clearly brings a lot to the table that this team doesn't get from anyone else.

My Blog (Econ/Politics/Sports/NBA Salary Info)

by Sports2 on Apr 16, 2008 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

BG's defensive negatives

You made me take another look at BG's defense. Despite the regression from the whole team this season we still were 3-1 against the template team for exploiting the midget backcourt, the Detroit Pistons.

In those four games BG brought his A game. +points, -turnovers, +fg%, +FT%, +3ptFG%.

The Kids Must Stay In The Picture!!!

by NBA Observer on Apr 16, 2008 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Detroit

is also the template team for not giving a shit in the regular season.

Don't tell anybody, but here's hoping TT puts it all together.

by bullshooter on Apr 16, 2008 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

we all know

BG's defensive problems, but saying that he played well against Detroit because they didn't "give a shit" is quite a stretch. What accounts for everyone else who has a good game against them? I think you give them way too much credit.

by NormVanBeer on Apr 16, 2008 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well it's that

and the bulls seem to rise to the occasion, and for Cleveland too. If the bulls only played cleveland and detroit, they'd win 60 games. Detroit didn't have much trouble with the bulls in the playoffs last year, did they?

Don't tell anybody, but here's hoping TT puts it all together.

by bullshooter on Apr 16, 2008 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

BG's 2007 Summer

where he put in all this extra work was focused on balance and body control at minimal cost of developing more strength. This said to me that Ben wanted to get better inside the paint. This is to get to the line primarily, but also a way to increase FG% because a guard that shoots above 47% from the field is worth a lot more than a guard that shoots only 43% from the field.

There may be better reports in regards to BG's work at the Berto Center last Summer. Was this BG alone or BG with coaches or BG with teammates? If he wanted to get better at passing he's going to need bodies around to receive them.

The Kids Must Stay In The Picture!!!

by NBA Observer on Apr 16, 2008 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The stories made it seem

like it was BG and his ball-fetcher.

by alec on Apr 16, 2008 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it did

and it did for everyone. TYI brought this up over the past summer, that it almost sounds like the Bulls just want their players in the gym, yet don't actually plan what they should work on or track their progress.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Apr 16, 2008 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

your right

This article pretty much sums it all up. Gordon, a couple of folding chairs, and a hot tub

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/gordon_feature_070918.html

While he shoots, Head Coach Scott Skiles makes a brief appearance in the gym, challenging Gordon to shoot 90 percent from the line this season. Gordon, who shot 86.4 percent last season, thinks about it and says, "Man, that's tough."

by NormVanBeer on Apr 16, 2008 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, there's another thing the coaching staff

can take credit for (sort of - it was Skiles, but if Boylan is pretty much the same...)

Here we all thought BG was just a good free throw shooter, when all along it was the coaching staff "developing" his talent. ;)

It takes a special coach to make Aaron Gray a guy you can see.

by wjb1492 on Apr 16, 2008 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Paxson signed the folding chairs

to a five year deal worth over 55 million. The chairs could have waited a year for restricted free agency, and more money, but chose security instead.

Stephen Curry is the lowpost answer!

by hscs on Apr 16, 2008 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow

how much did the hot tub turn down?

Don't tell anybody, but here's hoping TT puts it all together.

by bullshooter on Apr 16, 2008 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, the hot tub turned down its contract

offer, and then went on to have a sub-par season raising some questions as to whether Pax should try to sign the hot tub or look to signing a hot towel for substantially less.

by RogersPark Kris on Apr 16, 2008 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

speculation only because

Pax couldn't get a deal done for a hot tub with more jets and seats, a cup holder, and two message therapists...

Don't tell anybody, but here's hoping TT puts it all together.

by bullshooter on Apr 16, 2008 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The hot tub (who will be shopped)

is still under a rookie contract, and refused to be interviewed.

Stephen Curry is the lowpost answer!

by hscs on Apr 16, 2008 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

ugh

Rebounding for Gordon throughout it all is Imran John, another roommate and long-time friend dating back to their childhood in Mount Vernon. John has been by Gordon's side for the last year and a half as his personal assistant, helping him with his workouts, day-to-day errands and appointments. There's very little verbal interaction between the two during the workout. John has a good feel for how Gordon operates, from where he likes his passes to what routine is next.

After more shooting, he brings two folding chairs on the court and strategically places them about 10-12 feet from the hoop. As Gordon runs routes and curls around the chairs, John feeds him passes to set up each shot.

I'm a Gordon guy, but it seems like shooting should be the last thing he needs to work on...

by NormVanBeer on Apr 16, 2008 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

hey

his free throw percentage went up, right?

Don't tell anybody, but here's hoping TT puts it all together.

by bullshooter on Apr 16, 2008 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

thank goodness for that

maybe this offseason, someone can grab Skiles, bring him into the Berto, and have him give another motivational challenge to Ben. This time he should say, "you should see if you can't dribble and fall at the same time for 5 games in a row". At which Ben would reply, "man, that's tough."

by NormVanBeer on Apr 16, 2008 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

hahaha

by sue369 on Apr 16, 2008 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was watching the 4th of Suns-Warriors

and, I swear, I saw Monta Ellis commit a 'BG turnover'

(!)

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Apr 16, 2008 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This just means

he's not a great fit for the Bulls yet, but he has potential...

"Duhon, don't make that garbage-time jumper... Save it for the next game!"

by bullhockey on Apr 16, 2008 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bulls GM

Jerry would serve himself better selecting Matt to be GM of the Bulls at some point I imagine. Paxson turn in your papers...

by exult463 on Apr 16, 2008 11:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

conflict of interest

and give up all this?

I'd settle for simply an advisory role, like telling him just because Chicago seems like a completely meatball town, it doesn't mean we have to keep Andres Nocioni because he tries hard.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Apr 16, 2008 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Remind me when Whole Foods

advertises during a Bulls broadcast and we can talk about the "Meatball Perception".

The Kids Must Stay In The Picture!!!

by NBA Observer on Apr 16, 2008 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok! asst. Gm

on three following conditions,
(1)you would have to turn over BaB during your term to someone else. We wouldn't want to allow censorship.
And (2) Paxson would defer all decisions to you other than how much should be budgeted for the office coffee fund.
(3) Noc would be allow to having a one round 20 second boxing match on HBO with the new Asst. GM (before he was traded) because it was implied he was a meatball.

by exult463 on Apr 16, 2008 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs