Mully & Hanley going off on the bulls NOW!

[Bulls69]

I feel like I'm having a very bad dream please someone wake me up this team can't be this bad.

[BULLHITTER]

not sure i'm understanding how it is "paxson's having a bad season" as a GM.......

sure, i guess he could've seen the disconnect between skiles and the players coming;

i guess he could've surmised skiles would not be a nuturer of his young bigs;

and he could've seen wallace's decline before signing him to big money, OR after last season, find anybody who'd take him....

and he could've taken the "safe route" (paxson's got no balls, right?) in selecting a skinny, jumpshooting big with one extra year of college over TT and a history of injuries, recognizing ahead of time that said big would "blow up" and be "destined for stardom".......even though he had a hardazz for a coach that underutilized bigs from day one.

i guess he could've also forecast deng and gordon would reject multi-million dollar deals......and the resulting fallout negatively affect his 2 most productive players......

yea, he'll be fired for that.

[Jujuba69]

not sure i'm understanding how it is "paxson's having a bad season" as a GM.......

sure, i guess he could've seen the disconnect between skiles and the players coming;

i guess he could've surmised skiles would not be a nuturer of his young bigs;

and he could've seen wallace's decline before signing him to big money, OR after last season, find anybody who'd take him....

and he could've taken the "safe route" (paxson's got no balls, right?) in selecting a skinny, jumpshooting big with one extra year of college over TT and a history of injuries, recognizing ahead of time that said big would "blow up" and be "destined for stardom".......even though he had a hardazz for a coach that underutilized bigs from day one.

i guess he could've also forecast deng and gordon would reject multi-million dollar deals......and the resulting fallout negatively affect his 2 most productive players......

yea, he'll be fired for that.

uhhhhhhhh aaaa...PRETTY MUCH YEAH???

[ATRAIN53]

it'd be a lot easier to accept all this mess if Paxson was an experienced GM with a track record of good drafts and some playoff success.

but he's yet to draft an All-Star and i don't feel like the Bulls are closer to raising a championship banner today than when he arrived in 2003.

attendance will start slipping later this year and that will spell the beginning of the end of the Paxson era.

[Sinistar6]

Besides a very select few sports radio is a bunch of wannabes or has beens, looking to play devils advocate to management,and never admit they have ever been wrong.

[BULLHITTER]

it'd be a lot easier to accept all this mess if Paxson was an experienced GM with a track record of good drafts and some playoff success.

how so? with the great hindsight of the fans, there'd have been even less patience with a so-called experieced GM.

but he's yet to draft an All-Star and i don't feel like the Bulls are closer to raising a championship banner today than when he arrived in 2003.

but they are a better team, reinsdorf probably acknowledges this, and isn't in any rush to payoff a coach AND a GM.

attendance will start slipping later this year and that will spell the beginning of the end of the Paxson era.

i'm doubtful about this too; however, fan apathy is different from fan enmity, so unless the 25 or so "fanatics" that haunt internet message board don pitchforks and burning torches, paxson's clock hasn't begun to tick.

it'll take a more than one .500 (which is about where i think they'll resolve to) season to get reinsdorf to pull the plug.

uhhhhhhhh aaaa...PRETTY MUCH YEAH?

things that cannot be forecast accurately won't get any gm fired; owners aren't like fans. they actually do have some business sense (too much so often times), contrary to such eloquent possesors of basketball insight as the above author.

[theanimal23]

Bernstein has said on todays show that the Bulls are fed up with Tyrus, and that he has been told that Tyrus will be gone by the trade deadline - and that they are so fed up they don't care what they get back for him.



I'm scared.

Really?

I don't know what to think. If he sucks, I'll hate Pax for not taking Roy/Gay/Aldridge, and if he is good elsewhere, I'll hate Pax for not having Ty develop here.

Its a lose-lose situation for Pax IMO.

All was going too well and the status quo was not the answer.

[BULLHITTER]

I don't know what to think. If he sucks, I'll hate Pax for not taking Roy/Gay/Aldridge, and if he is good elsewhere, I'll hate Pax for not having Ty develop here.

well, hell, why be rational?

just hate pax now, and get a head start.....

[girlygirl]

I thought the general feeling that if Tyrus was traded it would be in a package for a big name, like Gasol, or Bryant or whoever. First of all, since he's on a rookie deal, the Bulls would get little back in return if they traded him straight up for someone. Secondly, while they are probably a little frustrated by his attitude or lack of ability to remember the plays or whatever else has been mentioned about him, Paxson has seen stuff like the Chandler deal blow up in his face, so hopefully won't be quick to trade anyone just to get him off the team. It's one thing to trade Tyrus (or anyone else) for an established star...it's another just to throw him (or, again, anyone on the team) away like yesterday's trash

[DuckIII]

I don't know what to think. If he sucks, I'll hate Pax for not taking Roy/Gay/Aldridge, and if he is good elsewhere, I'll hate Pax for not having Ty develop here.

well, hell, why be rational?

just hate pax now, and get a head start.....

Thats what I thought when I first read his post too. Because I was thinking "what about option 3: Pax doesn't trade Thomas, and Thomas ends up being a good and valuable player." That would be win/win.

But he means that if TT is traded for very little return, Paxson loses no matter what Thomas becomes. And he's right. If Thomas ends up being a bust traded for beans, then Paxson loses because he blew it by drafting Thomas in the first place.

If Thomas gets regular run and turns into an impact player post-trade, then Paxson loses because he shouldn't have traded him for beans.

Its a compelling argument NOT to trade Thomas for beans, frankly. Its the only way "option 3: win/win" can happen.

[emperorjones]

It all balances out for Pax in the end. If you look at what he got for Curry overall ....oops! didn't mean to open that up again....

[dougthonus]

Most teams in the league wouldn't take Curry back on his existing deal if they had to give up nothing. So I don't think there's any fear in opening that can up again.

At worst, it's a trade that helped no one, at best the Bulls absolutely kill the Knicks long term. The scenario where Eddy Curry becomes good and makes the Bulls rue the day they traded him doesn't exist. I'm surprised by the number of people who think it still does.

[bagsboy]

Most teams in the league wouldn't take Curry back on his existing deal if they had to give up nothing. So I don't think there's any fear in opening that can up again.

At worst, it's a trade that helped no one, at best the Bulls absolutely kill the Knicks long term. The scenario where Eddy Curry becomes good and makes the Bulls rue the day they traded him doesn't exist. I'm surprised by the number of people who think it still does.

Most teams in the league wouldn't take Wallace back on his existing deal if they had to give up nothing. Most teams in the league wouldn't trade Chandler for nothing. Pax is at best one for three.....

[dougthonus]

I agree about the possibility of a trade being unlikely.

I disagree, though, that we could make a "good" trade with Tyrus at this point. I mean, we certainly wouldn't be dealing from a position of strength.

"And you're trading one of your centerpiece bigs/youngs 40-odd games into his second season why, John?"

A fair counter point, but I think he could leave in a package that still ends up being good for us.

[Red Larrivee]

Dan Bernstein's sources most likely just over-exaggerated, but if anything it says that nobody on this team has a shield from being traded.

The span over this next month will be an interesting one. I'm expecting a major package deal to happen. If Pax had no interest in doing so, he probably would just push the red button and end the season, but the business in that would ruin this team, and Gordon/Deng will get the wrong message.

[dougthonus]

Most teams in the league wouldn't take Wallace back on his existing deal if they had to give up nothing. Most teams in the league wouldn't trade Chandler for nothing. Pax is at best one for three.....

If you only look at those 3 moves I guess you are right.

I'd say at best he's 4 for 5. As in making the playoffs 4 out of 5 years after the team was an absolute laughing stock of the NBA while way over the salary cap and no good assets when he inherited it.

At worst he's 3 for 5, as in making the playoffs 3 out 5 years which is still better than the average NBA team especially considering the starting point.

[bagsboy]

Most teams in the league wouldn't take Wallace back on his existing deal if they had to give up nothing. Most teams in the league wouldn't trade Chandler for nothing. Pax is at best one for three.....

If you only look at those 3 moves I guess you are right.

I'd say at best he's 4 for 5. As in making the playoffs 4 out of 5 years after the team was an absolute laughing stock of the NBA while way over the salary cap and no good assets when he inherited it.

At worst he's 3 for 5, as in making the playoffs 3 out 5 years which is still better than the average NBA team especially considering the starting point.

NBA playoffs is the standard? Slightly better then my kids soccer team were everyone gets a trophy I guess.

[Biggame 33]

-= original quote snipped =-



The people "living in a dreamland" are doing so because they need some actual evidence to support the conclusions that you make without the benefit of proof.

I'd say those people are actually grounded firmly in reality whereas it is someone like you who is dealing in the realm of the unknown.

This GM has no balls to pull a deal? Why? Because he hasn't pulled a deal? What are the terms of the deals he proposed? What are the offers he rejected? Did said terms make sense for Chicago?

He doesn't know how to take a good gamble? What are the facts of the gamble he should have taken, but didn't take?

Answer those questions and get back to me. Also, fax the answers to ESPN, FoxSports, the Chicago Sun Times and the Tribune so that they can report what you've learned.

I agree he doesnt have the balls to take a gamble .
He is holding on to a core of guys that arent that good.
Hinrich suck , Ben Gordon is too short and cant defend.
Deng is the only true keeper but he is not a true superstar.
Deng is more like a Scottie Pippen a good side kick to a superstar.
He should have taken a gamble and traded for Zach Randolph.
The knicks got him for little or nothing he is a 20/10 guy.
Should have kept J.R Smith that was our big guard.
Danny ainge has made some bold moves and they paided off.
We could have traded our pick for Ray Allen just like they did.
Dont fall in love with Paxson because he has screwed up bigtime .
He doesnt have the heart to make a BOLD trade like some GM's.

[topper09]

-= original quote snipped =-



The people "living in a dreamland" are doing so because they need some actual evidence to support the conclusions that you make without the benefit of proof.

I'd say those people are actually grounded firmly in reality whereas it is someone like you who is dealing in the realm of the unknown.

This GM has no balls to pull a deal? Why? Because he hasn't pulled a deal? What are the terms of the deals he proposed? What are the offers he rejected? Did said terms make sense for Chicago?

He doesn't know how to take a good gamble? What are the facts of the gamble he should have taken, but didn't take?

Answer those questions and get back to me. Also, fax the answers to ESPN, FoxSports, the Chicago Sun Times and the Tribune so that they can report what you've learned.

Ahhh... I see.

Perhaps I can also teach you some thing and perhaps you didn't what I"m about to tell you already.

1. The Bulls need a PF with a low post game to complement Wallace, or need a big who is (Go to the basket oriented)!! Paxson hasn't delivered for 2 years now. Hence, he hasn't done squat to improve the Bulls.

2. Paxson hasn't signed a Big 2 guard yet. It's been 2 years in the making. The team needs one badly. Just watch every Bulls game and you'll find out. If you can't find out, ask me and I'll be more than glad to answer you.

3. Paxson doesn't want to make a trade because why?? Kobe Bryant is on the Bulls team and is untouchable right ????? WRONG.. It's Loul Deng the untouchable that Paxson doesn't want to trade !!!! ((OH MY. Loul Deng)).


Before you flap on about how I'm unrealistic and ungrounded. Look at the facts. And you don't need me to explain them to you. The facts are the facts. The Bulls still don't have a low post scorer and they still struggle with point guards, guarding the other teams SG's all game long.

I've seen this team way too long. And I can come up with my own conclusions. and I was right before, and I'm right again. The thing is.. Those same individuals that don't agree, will agree as time goes on, because they'll finally get the full picture.

[DuckIII]

Ahhh... I see.

No, I don't think you do. I asked you a number of questions to give you an opportunity to validate your conclusory opinions with underlying data. You didn't answer any of them. Which was predictable.

Let me ask it to you another way. In order to intelligently say that a GM lacks the balls to make certain trades, wouldn't you want to know what the demanded terms for said trades were?

Or are you saying that these trades should have been made without regard to the outgoing cost?

Perhaps you'll answer those simple questions since you found the other questions not to your liking.