RealGM

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:28 pm**

Full Article

Why let players run Bulls asylum?

January 14, 2008
BY JAY MARIOTTI Sun-Times Columnist

Having worked in my share of asylums, I know the basic house rule: Only

let the inmates run it when they've earned the right. The Bulls, the most dysfunctional NBA team west of New York, barely deserve to earn paychecks this season, much less demand disciplinary action against a teammate. In fact, their unanimous vote to extend Joakim Noah's suspension to two games is extraordinarily bizarre even for sports.

Does this team have a coach?

Does this team have a general manager?

The Bulls are 14-21 misfits, remember, disappointments to a league and a city. They are the same underachievers who openly quit on Scott Skiles and cost him his coaching job. They've heard firm boos, mocking chants of "Kobe! Kobe!" and calls for roster upheaval. They've built no equity and mustered no credibility. But that didn't stop the players from calling a meeting and deciding that Noah, the immature and excitable rookie who verbally abused assistant coach Ron Adams at a shootaround Friday, deserved more than the original one-game benching issued by interim coach Jim Boylan.

Whether the punishment is one game, two games or 10 games -- and the tirade, coupled with Noah's tardiness all season, might be worth the maximum treatment -- isn't really the point here. The problem is, why isn't management making the decision exclusively? Why would Boylan and his boss, GM John Paxson, be so quick to let the players lengthen an original penalty that should have been weighed carefully and rendered permanently? If a coach has nothing else, he has the big hammer. When Boylan openly relinquishes it to players, he symbolically gives up a piece of his authority. These aren't the San Antonio Spurs, whose four league championships and mutiple-ringed leaders might allow for a locker-room political rule. These aren't the Detroit Pistons, who have been together for years as a cohesive, proud unit. Back in the day, Phil Jackson used to let Michael Jordan play sheriff because, well, he was Michael Jordan and could tell Dennis Rodman that he'd basically ruin his life if he didn't show up for practice on time.

But these are the last-place Bulls, whose lack of cohesion and energy gives them no right to define scapegoats when they've all pretty much stunk. That's especially true when they took a predictable route Sunday and followed their grand statement with a 21-point loss to the Atlanta Hawks, who had lost their previous dozen games to the Bulls. The episode doesn't say much for an organization that couldn't get the punishment right the first time and, consequently, risks losing Noah spiritually after a vote of his peers was made public. And it sure doesn't say much for the players, who should be spending less time worrying about internal justice and more on how to avoid the draft lottery and shoot better than 41.9 percent, still a league worst.

Sorry, but quieting a mouthy kid isn't going to kickstart a playoff run. Paxson knew he was getting an opinionated, goofy character when he drafted Noah out of Florida, where he was integral in winning back-to-back national titles. What he said to Adams was unacceptable, but why didn't the interim coach recognize as much immediately with a harsher penalty Friday? "This isn't college anymore," Boylan said. "It's the NBA. This is professional sports."

You don't figure Noah, who still cracks wise like a spoiled teenager, will become a grown man anytime soon. "They just told me what I did was unacceptable and I'm just going to move on from here," he said. "I've just got to accept it. What do you want me to say? I've just got to move on. There's nothing I can do about it."

Was a two-game ban unfair? "Ask the players who made the decision. I don't know," he said. "Do I agree with it? It doesn't make a difference. I respect my teammates. I respect their opinions and stuff like that. I just have to deal with it."

This is a season that can't end soon enough. But this I know is true: You can't let players make policy when they can't make jumpshots.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:36 pm**

I think the most outstanding thing about this article is the 14-21 part. After all of this, this team is only 7 games off of .500.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:42 pm**

SensiBull wrote:I think the most outstanding thing about this article is the 14-21 part. After all of this, this team is only 7 games off of .500.

and this is after losing to 2 teams that they have been beating regularly: Knicks and Hawks

This team could easily be 16-19 :banghead:

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:48 pm**

Well, for the most part I agree with Mariotti. This discipline thing has me more than a bit confused. So Adams is "riding" Noah, Noah snaps and the head coach suspends the rook. Fine.

But then Griff and Wallace are the emerging leaders on this team and call for a longer punishment?? I guess thats the part I have an issue with. It's been absolutely obvious that we don't have that "star leader" who typically keeps everyone in check.

The ironic part is this team has been playing awful, they call a team meeting, and its about suspending Noah for another game?? I agree there should be professionalism on both sides between players and coaches. So after the Atlanta game, should the team suspend itself for playing like crap??

I just don't really get it. Your season is going down in flames and your more worried about a shouting match with an emotional player.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:49 pm**

Naturally, I disagree with what I consider to be inflammatory rhetoric from Jay Mariotti. To my surprise, however, the Noah thread proves that Jay speaks for many Bulls fans with his thoughts on this.

Interesting notes:

(a) Jay doesn't say exactly what it is that Joakim did. Why? He doesn't know. But why let that stop you when there is a burning ember and you happen to have a can of gasoline handy?

(b) Oh, but how to get around the obvious flaw in his article? Well:

Whether the punishment is one game, two games or 10 games -- and the tirade, coupled with Noah's tardiness all season, might be worth the maximum treatment -- isn't really the point here.

Well, I beg to differ. It kind of is the point. Indeed, its the only point.

(c) Jay questions: Why let the team extend the suspension? Well, Jay, if you actually attended games or interviewed coaches/players, you'd know that the answer to your question (which you cite nowhere in your article) was already provided by the head coach himself. He said that since the coaching change, the organization has been advocating to the team that they take "ownership" of the season and the situation they are in. Would it not be incongruous to deny the team an opportunity to take "ownership" of a situation involving the team when that has been a staple of your message to them since Christmas? The answer, of course, is "yes".

The point is simple: Jo **** up. Big time, evidently - and not for the first time. And his teammates had enough. Couple that with the message of "ownership" from the organization, and you end up with a scenario where when the team does take a decisive, cohesive step that isn't totally insane, you pretty much better let them do it and hope it yields a positive result.

Will it? Who knows? Did it appear to Sunday afternoon in Atlanta? No, though I don't think the two had anything to do with one another.

In short, this is much ado about nothing unless we are talking about whether we spent the #9 pick on a player with attitude problems (which no one is discussing). The only reason this is being discussed as any more than it is, is the losses. Were the Bulls 21-14, the articles would simply be wondering how a young, hard-working kid like Jo could have made such an error in judgment.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:50 pm**

SensiBull wrote:I think the most outstanding thing about this article is the 14-21 part. After all of this, this team is only 7 games off of .500.

I don't know how many games you get to watch in Australia, but you are obviously not in tune with this team. How is that the most oustanding thing in the article? Only the most dysfunctional teams cannot be close to .500 in the East.

I don't like Marrioti, but I'm usually always with him in his rants against the Bulls and their ownership.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:53 pm**

moonrod wrote:I just don't really get it. Your season is going down in flames and your more worried about a shouting match with an emotional player.

Right. Because I'm sure the players-only meeting concluded like this:

Griff: "Alright guys, so we are in agreement. Jo gets another game for verbally abusing Coach Adams. Thats some good work, gents. We've earned our pay for the weekend. No need to worry about playing well against Atlanta."

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:59 pm**

DuckIII wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Right. Because I'm sure the players-only meeting concluded like this:

Griff: "Alright guys, so we are in agreement. Jo gets another game for verbally abusing Coach Adams. Thats some good work, gents. We've earned our pay for the weekend. No need to worry about playing well against Atlanta."

I think it's pretty obvious that neither you or me or anyone knows exactly what was discussed. I think it's pretty evident to guess that quite a few things were brought up along with this incident.

If your fine with Griff being the leader of this team, so be it. It also goes to show that these meetings do nothing for this team when ur 10th man is the one who is trying to motivate the team to play well.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:59 pm**

I just don't really get it. Your season is going down in flames and your more worried about a shouting match with an emotional player.

I think it's pretty darn important to keep the reigns on an outgoing rookie with a huge personalty. It's obvious that Noah was out of line, it was a unanimous decision by the team to suspend him further. He has to learn how to act appropriately, that doesn't mean he can't act like himself, he just has to control it in certain scenarios.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:04 pm**

And don't get me wrong, I'm fine with the original suspension. It sounds like this was the straw that broke the camels back for Noah.

I just wish it had been Boylan who had come down hard on Noah. Let him sit 2, 3 or 5 games so he gets the message that acting professionally, arriving on time, and not letting ur emotions get the better of you is important.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:40 pm**

moonrod wrote:I think it's pretty obvious that neither you or me or anyone knows exactly what was discussed. I think it's pretty evident to guess that quite a few things were brought up along with this incident.

I'm not the one pretending to know, you are. You criticized the team for being more worried about this incident than they are worried about the poor season. I'm merely pointing out that you've reached a conclusion that (a) you can't possibly know; and (b) is pretty illogical. Its certainly not difficult for a team to meet, issue a punishment, and still talk about playing well and salvaging the season.

If your fine with Griff being the leader of this team, so be it. It also goes to show that these meetings do nothing for this team when ur 10th man is the one who is trying to motivate the team to play well.

I don't care who calls the meeting. But even if I did, that wasn't my point.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:50 pm**

DuckIII wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I'm not the one pretending to know, you are. You criticized the team for being more worried about this incident than they are worried about the poor season. I'm merely pointing out that you've reached a conclusion that (a) you can't possibly know; and (b) is pretty illogical. Its certainly not difficult for a team to meet, issue a punishment, and still talk about playing well and salvaging the season.

I must have missed the part in my post that said I knew what happened in the meeting. I am critical that the coaching staff didn't make this decision as opposed to the players.

I'm simply making sure that you understand that I made no conclusions, merely opinion. And your opinion on my conclusions are clearly mistaken.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:54 pm**

moonrod wrote:I must have missed the part in my post that said I knew what happened in the meeting. I am critical that the coaching staff didn't make this decision as opposed to the players.

I'm simply making sure that you understand that I made no conclusions, merely opinion. And your opinion on my conclusions are clearly mistaken.

Is this not a conclusion:

I just don't really get it. Your season is going down in flames and your more worried about a shouting match with an emotional player.

Thats what I was writing about. Its the only part of your post I quoted.

You are not alone. But you and many others seem to be of the opinion that an underperforming team either cannot, or should not, undertake to police itself when it deems it necessary. That doesn't make any sense to me. Indeed, perhaps the exact right time for such an undertaking is when things aren't going well.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2008 4:56 pm**

I don't have a real problem with the team uniting to send a message to Noah. It seems pretty apparent that they all had beef with the kid for some of his antics thus far in terms of acting like a professional. For the team to pull together in such an unusual way make such an unusual request for staff to discipline a teammate and to do so unanimously, none the less, says a heck of a lot. Whatever Noah said to Ron must have been truly appalling to the team to garnish such a response.

Hopefully this is in the past now and we can move forward to the remainder of the season and concentrate on minimizing our ubiquitous suckitude.

RealGM

Jay: Why let the players run the asylum?

Jay: Why let the players run the asylum?