Is Skiles going to ruin any chance of FA signing

[MagicStarwipe]

This thread is even better than the other one.

[ezzzp]

Chandler was in no way one of their top players, he was a bad offense/good defense big. It was CP3 that made Chandler into more than that once he reached his prime.

So are you saying that Chicago should not have exchanged Chandler for Ben Wallace who was the reigning Defensive Player of the Year (for 4 consecutive years) and had also been an all-star for those 4 years plus had been the soul and centerpiece of the Detroit Piston's championship team?

I find it concerning that under Skiles the only player who went on to actually be a meaningful contributor to a contender was the one that was considered to be expendable.

Chandler didn't look great under Skiles, so he was traded to sign a 32 year old version of the role he'd come to play. That dramatically shortened the window for that Chicago team. (Although they did back it up with drafting Noah, so they were just fine in the end). I don't like the idea that Skiles isn't getting the most out of some of our guys, so we could end up shipping quality youth out for 'veterans' who won't make a giant difference for the team in the end, anyway.

Tobias for Ilyasova and Jennings is ringing those Chandler for PJ Brown bells right about now.

That is your understanding of the Ilyasova/Jennings trade? over two weeks of discussion and that is your comprehension of it? Amazing.

It couldn't have been that Chandler was a super raw 19-22 year old under Skiles? Nah right - that wouldn't fit your anti Skiles spin

[Xatticus]

• Skiles was part of coaching/management team that traded veteran Jud Buechler to Orlando for the their first round pick. That 9th pick became Amare Stoudemire

You realize this was a salary dump by the Magic? That first round pick was the cost of absorbing Bo Outlaw's contract. Bo Outlaw was the best player involved in the trade (and he was a veteran!). Jud Buechler was included because you can't trade something for nothing. Referring to Jud Buechler as an asset is amusing.

uh what's amusing is that nowhere in that sentence do I say Jud Buechler was an asset. If you notice the whole phrase is about Skiles involvement in trading away a player (few have ever heard of) for a draft pick (aka youth) to Phoenix...maybe the ending asset being written in bold red wasn't clear enough?

You refer to him as a veteran. There is an obvious implication that he was the asset sent in return for the pick. You don't even mention the best player in the transaction that went to Phoenix.

You are enamored with Skiles. We get it. You take a position and then pore over basketball-reference looking for anything that supports your view. Skiles has never been a general manager. He has never been in charge of the personnel decisions you give him credit for. I get the sense that he is a royal pain in the rear to those that are, harping on about veterans and the right way to play until some combination of his griping and the team's lack of progress gets him fired. But that's just my opinion.

[Bensational]

Chandler was in no way one of their top players, he was a bad offense/good defense big. It was CP3 that made Chandler into more than that once he reached his prime.

So are you saying that Chicago should not have exchanged Chandler for Ben Wallace who was the reigning Defensive Player of the Year (for 4 consecutive years) and had also been an all-star for those 4 years plus had been the soul and centerpiece of the Detroit Piston's championship team?

I find it concerning that under Skiles the only player who went on to actually be a meaningful contributor to a contender was the one that was considered to be expendable.

Chandler didn't look great under Skiles, so he was traded to sign a 32 year old version of the role he'd come to play. That dramatically shortened the window for that Chicago team. (Although they did back it up with drafting Noah, so they were just fine in the end). I don't like the idea that Skiles isn't getting the most out of some of our guys, so we could end up shipping quality youth out for 'veterans' who won't make a giant difference for the team in the end, anyway.

Tobias for Ilyasova and Jennings is ringing those Chandler for PJ Brown bells right about now.

That is your understanding of the Ilyasova/Jennings trade? over two weeks of discussion and that is your comprehension of it? Amazing.

It couldn't have been that Chandler was a super raw 19-22 year old under Skiles? Nah right - that wouldn't fit your anti Skiles spin

Sorry, I forgot that you have all the answers.

Yes, that was my understanding of that trade. You got me.

And you're right, if a 19-22 year old is struggling under Skiles, we should totes ship him out for PJ Brown's carcass. You got me again!

[seeingstars]

This thread is even better than the other one.

Its all fun and games until Skiles defensive skills infect our youth and we become a defensive goat team with elf vic and ag. Smh. I know it can be hard to keep the vision over the long term but the guy is consistent and hopefully our team will be soon enough

[ezzzp]

You realize this was a salary dump by the Magic? That first round pick was the cost of absorbing Bo Outlaw's contract. Bo Outlaw was the best player involved in the trade (and he was a veteran!). Jud Buechler was included because you can't trade something for nothing. Referring to Jud Buechler as an asset is amusing.

uh what's amusing is that nowhere in that sentence do I say Jud Buechler was an asset. If you notice the whole phrase is about Skiles involvement in trading away a player (few have ever heard of) for a draft pick (aka youth) to Phoenix...maybe the ending asset being written in bold red wasn't clear enough?

You refer to him as a veteran. There is an obvious implication that he was the asset sent in return for the pick. You don't even mention the best player in the transaction that went to Phoenix.

You are enamored with Skiles. We get it. You take a position and then pore over basketball-reference looking for anything that supports your view. Skiles has never been a general manager. He has never been in charge of the personnel decisions you give him credit for. I get the sense that he is a royal pain in the rear to those that are, harping on about veterans and the right way to play until some combination of his griping and the team's lack of progress gets him fired. But that's just my opinion.

Nope, vet was an implication of age I thought it was pretty obvious with Jud Beuchler as context, but I guess I should have put it in even more simple terms.

You hate Skiles. We get it. You take a position and then don't have anything to back it up with except for the authority you assign to your own opinion.

I know Skiles has never been a GM, that was the whole point of my initial response to Ben's post, which I guess you again didn't read but find it ok to contradict me based on the tail end of conversations.

How do you get that sense that he is a royal pain? from news clips, blogger opinions, real gm posts? do you have any close contact with the situation? if not then perhaps you should rethink about how you arrive at your conclusions about someone. Leave room for the fact that you might not know what the real situation is on matters such as personal relationships amongst player/coach.

Btw, I could care less about Skiles...but the attacks on him are fueled primarily by uninformed fans looking for someone to blame because their expectations for this season isn't what they wanted. Or it comes from player fans that are only concerned with the player they'll follow around wherever they go and get angry when they aren't getting the attention the player fans want.

I prefer to look at facts and accumulate as much evidence as possible before bursting out yelling some emotional and unsubstantiated attack. Thus far, all the facts I have sorted through and other arguments I have heard other people make, have solidified my belief of what the situation is. Skiles is not the problem: youth, years of losing habits, and a roster in mid construction are the issues.

[Xatticus]

Nope, vet was an implication of age I thought it was pretty obvious with Jud Beuchler as context, but I guess I should have put it in even more simple terms.

Nonsense. You omitted the details of the transaction and referred to him as a veteran, a distinction you have continually used as the crutch by which you prop up Skiles despite this season's struggles since the first couple months of the year. The implication was obvious. You were trying to combat the perception that Skiles prefers veterans to youngsters. That you cited this particular transaction, as irrelevant as it is, only serves to undermine this notion.

You hate Skiles. We get it. You take a position and then don't have anything to back it up with except for the authority you assign to your own opinion.

Wrong. I don't hate Skiles. I recall him fondly as a player. I simply don't think he is what this team needs as a coach. Frankly, I don't believe he is among the 30 best NBA coaches right now, and is fortunate to have landed this job. But you can feel free to go back and read my posts and try to churn up something negative I have said about Skiles.

I know Skiles has never been a GM, that was the whole point of my initial response to Ben's post, which I guess you again didn't read but find it ok to contradict me based on the tail end of conversations.

I did read it. You can feel free to ask Ben if I gave his posts And1's. And your thinly veiled attempts to insult me are amusing. This is nothing more than a futile attempt to divert attention away from the point in question, as though any point that I have made is rendered meaningless within the context of the conversation.

How do you get that sense that he is a royal pain? from news clips, blogger opinions, real gm posts? do you have any close contact with the situation? if not then perhaps you should rethink about how you arrive at your conclusions about someone. Leave room for the fact that you might not know what the real situation is on matters such as personal relationships amongst player/coach.

Are you actually asking for citations for what I stated was my opinion?

He doesn't smile enough.

Btw, I could care less about Skiles...but the attacks on him are fueled primarily by uninformed fans looking for someone to blame because their expectations for this season isn't what they wanted. Or it comes from player fans that are only concerned with the player they'll follow around wherever they go and get angry when they aren't getting the attention the player fans want.

Really? The irony here is that one of these back-and-forth exchanges arose from my praise for Stevens, which you falsely interpreted as an insult to Skiles. But you "could care less[sic] about Skiles".

I prefer to look at facts and accumulate as much evidence as possible before bursting out yelling some emotional and unsubstantiated attack on someone. Thus far, all the facts I have sorted through and other arguments I have heard other people make, have solidified my belief of what the situation is. Skiles is not the problem: youth, years of losing habits, and a roster in mid construction are the issues.

Is the implication here that I have done this? If so, you can investigate the matter to reveal your own hypocrisy.

I genuinely don't believe you presently have the wherewithal to differentiate facts from your own opinions.

[ezzzp]

Nope, vet was an implication of age I thought it was pretty obvious with Jud Beuchler as context, but I guess I should have put it in even more simple terms.

Nonsense. You omitted the details of the transaction and referred to him as a veteran, a distinction you have continually used as the crutch by which you prop up Skiles despite this season's struggles since the first couple months of the year. The implication was obvious. You were trying to combat the perception that Skiles prefers veterans to youngsters. That you cited this particular transaction, as irrelevant as it is, only serves to undermine this notion.

The trade included 4 teams and too many players to list. I chose to use the applicable one which is exactly that Skiles was part of coaching/management decision to bring in youth ...what is so complicated about that - I even highlighted the key acquisition.

You hate Skiles. We get it. You take a position and then don't have anything to back it up with except for the authority you assign to your own opinion.

Wrong. I don't hate Skiles. I recall him fondly as a player. I simply don't think he is what this team needs as a coach. Frankly, I don't believe he is among the 30 best NBA coaches right now, and is fortunate to have landed this job. But you can feel free to go back and read my posts and try to churn up something negative I have said about Skiles.

All you have is your biased opinion. I at least stated Winning %'s of the current coaches to substantiate my subjective opinion. You pretend like your opinion is the correct position - it is absolutely not, it is just an opinion from another couch gm.

I know Skiles has never been a GM, that was the whole point of my initial response to Ben's post, which I guess you again didn't read but find it ok to contradict me based on the tail end of conversations.

I did read it. You can feel free to ask Ben if I gave his posts And1's. And your thinly veiled attempts to insult me are amusing. This is nothing more than a futile attempt to divert attention away from the point in question, as though any point that I have made is rendered meaningless within the context of the conversation.

The point in question wasn't even the important a factor in my overall post - that you are nitpicking at one sentence to somehow implant a foolish notion that you "got me" somehow is ridiculous. Not to mention the foolish arrogance to assume your interpretation of my words hold importance over my intended meaning.

How do you get that sense that he is a royal pain? from news clips, blogger opinions, real gm posts? do you have any close contact with the situation? if not then perhaps you should rethink about how you arrive at your conclusions about someone. Leave room for the fact that you might not know what the real situation is on matters such as personal relationships amongst player/coach.

Are you actually asking for citations for what I stated was my opinion?

He doesn't smile enough.

exactly you have nothing but mediated assumptions from your convoluted conspiracy - absolute zero.

Btw, I could care less about Skiles...but the attacks on him are fueled primarily by uninformed fans looking for someone to blame because their expectations for this season isn't what they wanted. Or it comes from player fans that are only concerned with the player they'll follow around wherever they go and get angry when they aren't getting the attention the player fans want.

Really? The irony here is that one of these back-and-forth exchanges arose from my praise for Stevens, which you falsely interpreted as an insult to Skiles. But you "could care less[sic] about Skiles".

There you go again with your conspiracies, I was making a point about how to gauge performance with coaches. That's not irony thats your inability to keep multiple concepts aligned within one discussion.

I prefer to look at facts and accumulate as much evidence as possible before bursting out yelling some emotional and unsubstantiated attack on someone. Thus far, all the facts I have sorted through and other arguments I have heard other people make, have solidified my belief of what the situation is. Skiles is not the problem: youth, years of losing habits, and a roster in mid construction are the issues.

Is the implication here that I have done this? If so, you can investigate the matter to reveal your own hypocrisy.

If you see yourself in that description, then thats on you.

I genuinely don't believe you presently have the wherewithal to differentiate facts from your own opinions.

Now that is comical. You do amuse me.

[Xatticus]

All opinions are biased. That is the nature of opinions.

It is my opinion that you are an utter fool.

[ezzzp]

All opinions are biased. That is the nature of opinions.

It is my opinion that you are an utter fool.

Resorting to name calling when you lose...now that is an ironic usage of "utter fool"

[Xatticus]

All opinions are biased. That is the nature of opinions.

It is my opinion that you are an utter fool.

Resorting to name calling when you lose...now that is an ironic usage of "utter fool"

What did I lose? And I didn't call you anything.

[ezzzp]

All opinions are biased. That is the nature of opinions.

It is my opinion that you are an utter fool.

Resorting to name calling when you lose...now that is an ironic usage of "utter fool"

What did I lose? And I didn't call you anything.

if you don't know now, you never will.

[Xatticus]

if you don't know now, you never will.

Your attempts at forum banter do nothing to prop up your rudimentary understanding of statistics, logic, grammar, or semantics.

[zuppafly]

All opinions are biased. That is the nature of opinions.

It is my opinion that you are an utter fool.

Resorting to name calling when you lose...now that is an ironic usage of "utter fool"

Coming to the Internet to win or lose an argument. Yeah...

This thread is even better than the other one.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

[NBlue]

Context:



Ben Wallace was the reigning DPOY and selected to the all-star team the year before his signing that summer. At that time, that free agent signing was considered a major coup by Chicago:

Total coup. Got them all the way up the 5th seed in the East before Skiles was fired and the Bulls sank back into the mire. I suppose we can only hope by trading off our top young players for aging vets that maybe we can reach the 5th seed as well. Fingers crossed.

Chandler was in no way one of their top players, he was a bad offense/good defense big. It was CP3 that made Chandler into more than that once he reached his prime.

So are you saying that Chicago should not have exchanged Chandler for Ben Wallace who was the reigning Defensive Player of the Year (for 4 consecutive years) and had also been an all-star for those 4 years plus had been the soul and centerpiece of the Detroit Piston's championship team?

Once again, you have proved me wrong. Chicago was absolutely correct in trading for Wallace -- just ask any Bulls fan. He led them with 6 points per game the year after the trade. And 5 points per game 2 years after the trade. He got his coach fired and then was unceremoniously shipped off to Cleveland.

OTOH, Tyson Chandler AVERAGED a double double after being traded to New Orleans. A winning trade if ever there was.

I guess under your theory we should try to see if we can move Dipo and Gordon for Kobe Bryant...

[ezzzp]

if you don't know now, you never will.

Your attempts at forum banter do nothing to prop up your rudimentary understanding of statistics, logic, grammar, or semantics.

[ezzzp]

All opinions are biased. That is the nature of opinions.

It is my opinion that you are an utter fool.

Resorting to name calling when you lose...now that is an ironic usage of "utter fool"

Coming to the Internet to win or lose an argument. Yeah...

This thread is even better than the other one.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

I come here to talk Magic basketball, destroying dumb arguments by morons is merely a side effect of being in an open forum

[ezzzp]

Total coup. Got them all the way up the 5th seed in the East before Skiles was fired and the Bulls sank back into the mire. I suppose we can only hope by trading off our top young players for aging vets that maybe we can reach the 5th seed as well. Fingers crossed.

Chandler was in no way one of their top players, he was a bad offense/good defense big. It was CP3 that made Chandler into more than that once he reached his prime.

So are you saying that Chicago should not have exchanged Chandler for Ben Wallace who was the reigning Defensive Player of the Year (for 4 consecutive years) and had also been an all-star for those 4 years plus had been the soul and centerpiece of the Detroit Piston's championship team?

Once again, you have proved me wrong. Chicago was absolutely correct in trading for Wallace -- just ask any Bulls fan. He led them with 6 points per game the year after the trade. And 5 points per game 2 years after the trade. He got his coach fired and then was unceremoniously shipped off to Cleveland.

OTOH, Tyson Chandler AVERAGED a double double after being traded to New Orleans. A winning trade if ever there was.

I guess under your theory we should try to see if we can move Dipo and Gordon for Kobe Bryant...

Every GM would have made that move. Wallace was a game changer and the most feared defender in the NBA. He was also still very capable at 32 as proven by his DPOY award.

To show how ignorant your argument is, you put up Ben Wallace's point total - LOL he had a lifetime 6ppg. Ben Wallace was never a scorer or anything other than one of the most game changing defensive centers ever in the NBA....SMH.

...and under my theory, it wouldn't be a 40 year old Kobe, that's a weak and incorrect analogy. It would be a young recently overpaid 23 year old (such as Tobias Harris) for an a veteran high impact defensive anchor (such as Andrew Bogut).

[MagicFan32]

he always blames the players
never accepts ANY accountability
and the players have already tuned him out
the "magic connection" fails again

ownership needs to do the right thing, and stop caring about PR, and fire him, take the hit, a year from now if you have a good coach everyone will praise the team for being proactive

he has to go.

[shadrock]

In my view, for Hennigan to dump Tobias to the Pistons he must be very confident that something significant is going to happen in free agency. If it were just to sign Chandler Parsons I don't think he would have dumped Harris, the risk/reward there just doesn't make sense.