Vinny Fired;Vinny+Gar+Pax (?!) Press Conference @ 11AM today

[anorexorcism]

seriously though, no one is a tool, and no one is a fool. like charity stripe said, i think you guys are going around in circles. this is all pointless until we find out what the bulls actually end up doing.

[lu9]

If I may...

I am not interested in the Bulls coaching gig.


lu9 = Not interested. I just said it above.
JVG = Not not interested. Didn't say the above when he had multiple opportunities to say it.

Not taking any sides here, that's just how I see it.

[DuckIII]

I am not interested in the Bulls coaching gig.

Damn Pax and his chokey, punchy ways!

[Professor Frink]

I am not interested in the Bulls coaching gig.

Damn Pax and his chokey, punchy ways!

This chick is interested:



Note: This joke will go over like a lead balloon if I'm the only one who watches Archer.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

I am not interested in the Bulls coaching gig.

Damn Pax and his chokey, punchy ways!

This chick is interested:



Note: This joke will go over like a lead balloon if I'm the only one who watches Archer.

Archer is awesome. One of my favorite new shows.

[Professor Frink]

Archer is awesome. One of my favorite new shows.

Yeah, it's brilliant.

"I said M! M as in Mancy!" LOL

[KingoftheCastle]

Just saw that CLT interview for the first time, damn JVG was on fire in that exchange.

[BrooklynBulls]

Archer is awesome. One of my favorite new shows.

Yeah, it's brilliant.

"I said M! M as in Mancy!" LOL

DANGA ZOOONE!

[Professor Frink]

Archer is awesome. One of my favorite new shows.

Yeah, it's brilliant.

"I said M! M as in Mancy!" LOL

DANGA ZOOONE!

LULZ!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3-zaTr6OUo

[Rerisen]

Don't worry, I'm not. I'm saying you are wrong.

I'm wrong that a ridiculously unprofessionally act by the Bulls front office and a suspect handling of that incident *could* hurt their chances at recruiting? I'm gland you are the guaranteer of absolute truth. Unfortunately, I'm not joining you on your island of F.O. infallibility.

You don't provide any compelling evidence that it will do so.

Not that it will do so, that it could do so. Paxson provided the evidence for that with his actions. JVG provided the explanation of why it was baaaaaad.

If you would rather choose to ignore that those opinions are out there, I can't help you.

None. A possibility means nothing.

Wait a minute. I thought a possibility did mean something, back when it was 'possible' that Vinny shared blame for Paxson trying to assault him? You can't seem to keep your position consistent.

There's a possibility that firing Pax would do nothing to improve our chances of landing a top coach or free agent and yet you advocate for firing him.

This incident didn't change my opinion of Paxson as a GM. It changed my opinion of how he might be viewed by others.

And you do this after acknowledging that there may be more to the story than just Vinny's side of it

No, not 'after this'. Because I already acknowledged it way back in the discussion. I just don't think its relevant to perception, which is what matters. I do think its very unlikely that the story is radically different than reported. I take Paxson at his word then he says he was accountable and responsible for what happened.

"I want to apologize to fans and Vinny for what happened March 30 after the Phoenix game," Paxson said. "I hold myself accountable and responsible.

Anyone 'jumping to conclusions' would be someone that thinks Paxson is lying..

And I countered that with equally compelling quotes from the same interview that suggested he might have an interest in the job.

No you didn't. The quotes are him talking about the job being attractive in a general sense without any specific relation to him. He was asked three times point blank if *he* was interested in the job, and he dodged all three times and even defensively answered instead about the criticism he had made about the Bulls FO.

Does this mean he is not interested? That can't be substantiated either way, unless you want to jump to conclusions.

And others on this board have also come to a similar conclusion. Your point?

And others have come to the conclusion that Jeff's comments could make it hard for him to become a candidate, which is why people are admonishing the organization to suck up their pride, anger at being scolded, and look into him anyway.

Wow, saying I don't think it is true, is not the same as saying it's not a possibility. I'm just not convinced

No one said you have to be. As long as you see it as a possibility you agree with my central point. We can differ about likelihood.

The difference with the JVG comments is there is a record of them and there is much in that record that doesn't support your version of things. Is that so hard to understand?

Afraid so. It's pretty hard to understand someone building a strawmen of your opinion which isn't actually your opinion. I don't have a 'version' of things. We are dealing in perceptions.

There's nothing left to discuss.

Yet you keep discussing it.

[sonny]

She's like the Pele of anal. She must've been like a prostitute, in Bangladesh.

[Professor Frink]

I'm wrong that a ridiculously unprofessionally act by the Bulls front office and a suspect handling of that incident *could* hurt their chances at recruiting? I'm gland you are the guaranteer of absolute truth. Unfortunately, I'm not joining you on your island of F.O. infallibility.

I addressed this in the very post you are responding to. I hope you deal with that part. Something tells me you won't.

Not that it will do so, that it could do so. Paxson provided the evidence for that with his actions. JVG provided the explanation of why it was baaaaaad.

If you would rather choose to ignore that those opinions are out there, I can't help you.

I don't ignore those options. I just don't think that outcome is likely.

Wait a minute. I thought a possibility did mean something, back when it was 'possible' that Vinny shared blame for Paxson trying to assault him? You can't seem to keep your position consistent.

Hmmm, you still don't see the difference between passing judgement on an event that already happened and speculating on the future? Really?

This incident didn't change my opinion of Paxson as a GM. It changed my opinion of how he might be viewed by others.

Right, but so what?

No, not 'after this'. Because I already acknowledged it way back in the discussion. I just don't think its relevant to perception, which is what matters. I do think its very unlikely that the story is radically different than reported. I take Paxson at his word then he says he was accountable and responsible for what happened.

Let's review. You passed judgement on an event that you were not present for, wasn't recorded and of which you only heard one side of the story. Then when holes were punched in your theory, you made it about perception, only as has been discussed repeatedly over several posts, you have no idea what the perception is since Pax apologized. Sorry, but that's ridiculous.

"I want to apologize to fans and Vinny for what happened March 30 after the Phoenix game," Paxson said. "I hold myself accountable and responsible.

Anyone 'jumping to conclusions' would be someone that thinks Paxson is lying..

Wow, we already addressed this too. Pax acknowledging wrongdoing is not saying he alone is to blame. It doesn't endorse any particular version of events. We discussed this already.

No you didn't. The quotes are him talking about the job being attractive in a general sense without any specific relation to him. He was asked three times point blank if *he* was interested in the job, and he dodged all three times and even defensively answered instead about the criticism he had made about the Bulls FO.

This again? Your whole argument is about perception and when asked about perceptions of the organization and the head coaching job, he said positive things. Not only that, but he didn't say he wasn't interested in the job after telling other organizations that he had no interest in their open positions. In fact, many on this very board came away from that interview thinking he was interested in the Bulls job. What do you think of that, Mr. Perception?

Does this mean he is not interested? That can't be substantiated either way, unless you want to jump to conclusions.

Now you're coming around to my way of thinking.

And others have come to the conclusion that Jeff's comments could make it hard for him to become a candidate, which is why people are admonishing the organization to suck up their pride, anger at being scolded, and look into him anyway.

Ok, but that part is irrelevant to our conversation.

No one said you have to be. As long as you see it as a possibility you agree with my central point. We can differ about likelihood.

Your central point is Pax should be fired over an event you know little about because of perceptions that you haven't shown to exist among anyone who matters. I don't agree with that at all.

But hey, why'd you cut out the other part of my comments? I said: "How about this: I find it unlikely. Satisfied? Is that enough for you to feel vindicated. I think your position, while possible, seems unlikely. Got it?" I guess you didn't read that part.

Afraid so. It's pretty hard to understand someone building a strawmen of your opinion which isn't actually your opinion. I don't have a 'version' of things. We are dealing in perceptions.

My perception is you keep recycling poorly thought out arguments.

Yet you keep discussing it.

Yeah, but I'm winning, so it's fun. Why do you keep arguing?

[Rerisen]

Let's review. You passed judgement on an event that you were not present for, wasn't recorded and of which you only heard one side of the story.

I heard the side of the story the Bulls and Paxson supported at the PC.

"I want to apologize to fans and Vinny for what happened March 30 after the Phoenix game," Paxson said. "I hold myself accountable and responsible.

I've said many times I don't care if Vinny shared blame or not, because its not relevant to the perception of the event that has been created.

you have no idea what the perception is since Pax apologized. Sorry, but that's ridiculous

Sure we do. Van Gundy discussed the incident post-apology and still echoed the same opinions he originally voiced.

This again? Your whole argument is about perception and when asked about perceptions of the organization and the head coaching job, he said positive things. Not only that, but he didn't say he wasn't interested in the job after telling other organizations that he had no interest in their open positions. In fact, many on this very board came away from that interview thinking he was interested in the Bulls job. What do you think of that, Mr. Perception?

Perception is Jeff Van Gundy may not be considered for the job because of his comments. Evidence for? Jeff Van Gundy’s own comments!

someone got back to me that they didn’t think I was fair. So first of all I don’t think I would be considered.

I don’t know how much more I can do, maybe put flashing arrows pointing to his words? If you refuse to see the obvious possibility that Jeff just alluded to, and very well seems to think is the reason he wouldn’t be considered.

Your central point is Pax should be fired over an event you know little about because of perceptions that you haven't shown to exist among anyone who matters. I don't agree with that at all.

I just told you my central point. There you go putting words in my mouth again.

If Paxson were to be fired, I think there is far less chance the incident would have a chance to hurt the organizations reputation going forward. That's is called making an observation.

I said: "How about this: I find it unlikely. Satisfied? Is that enough for you to feel vindicated. I think your position, while possible, seems unlikely. Got it?" I guess you didn't read that part.

I did read that part and I'm fine with it being main place we differ. Unfortunately I have to clear up all these other misconceptions you keep alluding to.

Yeah, but I'm winning, so it's fun. Why do you keep arguing?

You are 'winning' having an opinion?

[kyrv]

I don't even get your point Re besides you don't like Pax, and you are worried about something that has a very tiny likelihood of happening. Worry away.

If you are trying to demonstrate you have sound reasoning to spend resources worrying, I don't think you have achieved that goal.

Did I mention, you don't like Pax?

[AKfanatic]

I'd still like to know why there is more of a chance that Pax losing his cool (admittedly) will deter a FA from signing than bringing in a FA. As a potential FA i'd much rather have a GM that is willing to get in a coaches face for risking long term health of a player. I know not everyone see's it that way, to each his own.

[Rerisen]

I don't even get your point Re besides you don't like Pax, and you are worried about something that has a very tiny likelihood of happening. Worry away.

If you are trying to demonstrate you have sound reasoning to spend resources worrying, I don't think you have achieved that goal.

Did I mention, you don't like Pax?

I like Paxson as a person. He seems honest (despite what others might think about him taking a PR fall for Vinny) and he seems to care about the job he's in. I l liked him as a player. I liked him as a GM his first couple of years when he helped get the team out of the gutter. I haven't liked him as a GM the last couple of seasons.

What does that have to do with my point that what he got into with Vinny could be damaging to the organization, not only in reputation, but in terms of attractiveness.

We have one coach that already believes he wouldn't likely be a candidate for the job due to his comments over the incident. Yet people are still saying such a thing is unlikely and this is all pretty much like it never happened since Pax said sorry. It seems it may already affected one potential coaching candidate.

I'm not 'worried about it', just trying to get understanding why some people don't think its a legit concern.

[kyrv]

What does that have to do with my point that what he got into with Vinny could be damaging to the organization, not only in reputation, but in terms of attractiveness.

The likelihood is that it won't be damaging.

It's possible someone will like the fire and it end up being a positive.

I think it is a positive Pax spoke at the PC, even if he only did it because of the incident. Unlike Gar, he has a lot of charm, passion, and charisma. That's the type of face we need sending out.

Oh, and he will go to bat for his player's well being, he's shown that with Eddy Curry and again with Noah. I work for people like Pax. I love it.

[Rerisen]

It's possible someone will like the fire and it end up being a positive.

I find that very hard to believe. In fact much harder to believe than the opposite, that its more likely to be a negative. I don't think any coach would find it a positive that the VP might come down to his office after a tough game and get into a altercation with him.

I think JVG was right to say that his comments on the incident were obvious ones, that would be mirrored by many coaches around the league.

[AKfanatic]

It's possible someone will like the fire and it end up being a positive.

I find that very hard to believe. In fact much harder to believe than the opposite, that its more likely to be a negative. I don't think any coach would find it a positive that the VP might come down to his office after a tough game and get into a altercation with him.

I think JVG was right to say that his comments on the incident were obvious ones, that would be mirrored by many coaches around the league.

Again I ask.....what about a player? Would a player really see it as a major negative that a VP came down to tell a coach the players health is a concern and the coach needs to listen to what the medical staff has told him for the good of the player and teams future?

[Rerisen]

Again I ask.....what about a player? Would a player really see it as a major negative that a VP came down to tell a coach the players health is a concern and the coach needs to listen to what the medical staff has told him for the good of the player and teams future?

I think the incident is less likely to affect players.

As far as VDN not listening to the medical staff, our players had the chance to go silent on their support of Vinny (due to him 'risking' Noah's health for 2 extra minutes) but they did the opposite, and stood up and supported him.

Noah himself had prior to that game, talked several times about the frustration of not being able to be out there longer. So I don't think he was angry at Vinny over it, probably the opposite.