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

[HomoSapien]

The problem is you guys had no facts, zero, to base anything on, just your long standing prejudices. You still don't have facts. KC Johnson saying he thinks Pax can overrule Gar is a fact? Really? Has the meaning of that word changed suddenly?

What's the point of being this rigid? It's like you don't want people to form opinions based on what's being read/said.

[lu9]

I would be MOST disappointed if they didn't. They sure have had enough time to prepare, eh?

I
sure
do
hope
you
are

right

No doubt about that. I hope I'm right too. But of course having a well though out plan is only half (or less) of the battle. Its that execution part that is all too tricky.

"Anybody can take a reservation" Jerry Seinfeld

[Professor Frink]

The problem is you guys had no facts, zero, to base anything on, just your long standing prejudices. You still don't have facts. KC Johnson saying he thinks Pax can overrule Gar is a fact? Really? Has the meaning of that word changed suddenly?

What's the point of being this rigid? It's like you don't want people to form opinions based on what's being read/said.

It wasn't based on what's being read. You read that he was a consultant and said he was not. That was based on nothing. It was just a knee jerk reaction: the FO said something that makes them look good; it must be BS. On the flip side, if they say something that doesn't reveal them in a good light, it's the honest to goodness truth. They can't win with some of you guys.

[DuckIII]

The problem is you guys had no facts, zero, to base anything on, just your long standing prejudices. You still don't have facts. KC Johnson saying he thinks Pax can overrule Gar is a fact? Really? Has the meaning of that word changed suddenly?

What's the point of being this rigid? It's like you don't want people to form opinions based on what's being read/said.

I'm going to, hopefully, only write one more post about this.

(1) The people being rigid and dogmatic are the people claiming a set of facts to be true with absolutely no evidence. The people saying that both sides of the story are plausible, and therefore a definitive stance cannot be rationally taken, are the ones being flexible and open minded. Yet somehow that dynamic is being described here in opposite terms.

(2) I completely and totally blame Paxson for the altercation and its aftermath. And despite that, I've been specifically called out for blindly defending Paxson's role in these events as though I am incapable of being critical of the man. All I've done is to temper the agenda driven witch hunt to note that some of you go to far with not enough.

[Ralphb07]

Anyone hear the JVG interview on Waddle and Silvy today? I guess he was on 25 minutes ago

[kyrv]

The problem is you guys had no facts, zero, to base anything on, just your long standing prejudices. You still don't have facts. KC Johnson saying he thinks Pax can overrule Gar is a fact? Really? Has the meaning of that word changed suddenly?

What's the point of being this rigid? It's like you don't want people to form opinions based on what's being read/said.

I'm going to, hopefully, only write one more post about this.

(1) The people being rigid and dogmatic are the people claiming a set of facts to be true with absolutely no evidence. The people saying that both sides of the story are plausible, and therefore a definitive stance cannot be rationally taken, are the ones being flexible and open minded. Yet somehow that dynamic is being described here in opposite terms.

(2) I completely and totally blame Paxson for the altercation and its aftermath. And despite that, I've been specifically called out for blindly defending Paxson's role in these events as though I am incapable of being critical of the man. All I've done is to temper the agenda driven witch hunt to note that some of you go to far with not enough.

Yesterday, after reading pages and pages, someone (I think Re) finally said he wanted Pax gone. I wish he had just started with that instead of doing the dance.

I don't blame anyone for wanting Pax gone, pending this summer I would vote him off the island probably, but that doesn't skew every issue relating to Pax, at least to me. And I don't think he's going anywhere so not going to spend much energy debating it. I think reasonable cases can be made both pro and anti Pax's job.

[Rerisen]

(2) I completely and totally blame Paxson for the altercation and its aftermath.

That is the same thing that most are doing. The same thing the whole basketball world has been doing that has discussed this story since. Everywhere I've heard it tossed about, the original story of Paxson being the aggressor is the one that is being accepted and judged, and where the criticism for him has been based on. Outside of one initial weak recreation, I'm not aware that there even was two sides to the story. At minimum the mere fact that such a event happened, has caused criticism of all the parties involved because its so out of line.

What are the opinions that are beyond the one in your sentence, and are going too far?

[Rerisen]

Yesterday, after reading pages and pages, someone (I think Re) finally said he wanted Pax gone. I wish he had just started with that instead of doing the dance.

I don't blame anyone for wanting Pax gone, pending this summer I would vote him off the island probably, but that doesn't skew every issue relating to Pax, at least to me. And I don't think he's going anywhere so not going to spend much energy debating it. I think reasonable cases can be made both pro and anti Pax's job.

Me wanting Paxson gone though was based on previous GM decisions unrelated to this.

Would you suggest that you are able to fairly look at this situation despite preferring to probably 'vote him off the island' but then not extend the same ability to anyone else?

If that is the case, then no one here is capable of not 'skewing the issue' since those that like Paxson and the job he is done would be equally predisposed in the other direction in judging his responsibility in this.

[Professor Frink]

(2) I completely and totally blame Paxson for the altercation and its aftermath.

That is the same thing that most are doing. The same thing the whole basketball world has been doing that has discussed this story since. Everywhere I've heard it tossed about, the original story of Paxson being the aggressor is the one that is being accepted and judged, and where the criticism for him has been based on. Outside of one initial weak recreation, I'm not aware that there even was two sides to the story. At minimum the mere fact that such a event happened, has caused criticism of all the parties involved because its so out of line.

What are the opinions that are beyond the one in your sentence, and are going too far?

There is always two sides to a story like this. Always. That doesn't mean Pax wasn't at fault. It means there is probably more to the story.

[DuckIII]

What are the opinions that are beyond the one in your sentence, and are going too far?

The statements that Paxson was the physcial agressor and that Vinny wasn't. One version says it was one guy, one version says it was another. Many posters evidently consider this to be the critical component of the altercation. And as part of that, a significant group of posters (all of whom, by coincidence I'm sure, already opposed Paxson as GM) have claimed that only one version of events is plausible, and have cited the press conference as evidence despite the fact that it provides none.

The readiness with which many of you completely dismiss the team's version of events is telling.

[Rerisen]

There is always two sides to a story like this. Always. That doesn't mean Pax wasn't at fault. It means there is probably more to the story.

I don't have issue with that. But the other party involved in this, Del Negro, is now gone. So to whatever extent he may have acted wrongly himself, it's not going to effect the Bulls from this point on. While Paxson still being here could.

Whatever level of Paxson's fault, 80%, 100% or just 50%, it was enough that the Bulls felt they needed to have him apologize and admit wrongdoing.

Is that apology enough to erase any tarnish on the organization? I don't know.

[DuckIII]

I don't have issue with that. But the other party involved in this, Del Negro, is now gone. So to whatever extent he may have acted wrongly himself, it's not going to effect the Bulls from this point on. While Paxson still being here could.

Whatever level of Paxson's fault, 80%, 100% or just 50%, it was enough that the Bulls felt they needed to have him apologize and admit wrongdoing.

I completely agree with all of this. My point is simply that the apology itself has no bearing on which of your percentages is accurate.

[kyrv]

Yesterday, after reading pages and pages, someone (I think Re) finally said he wanted Pax gone. I wish he had just started with that instead of doing the dance.

I don't blame anyone for wanting Pax gone, pending this summer I would vote him off the island probably, but that doesn't skew every issue relating to Pax, at least to me. And I don't think he's going anywhere so not going to spend much energy debating it. I think reasonable cases can be made both pro and anti Pax's job.

Me wanting Paxson gone though was based on previous GM decisions unrelated to this.

Would you suggest that you are able to fairly look at this situation despite preferring to probably 'vote him off the island' but then not extend the same ability to anyone else?

If that is the case, then no one here is capable of not 'skewing the issue' since those that like Paxson and the job he is done would be equally predisposed in the other direction in judging his responsibility in this.

I don't think Pax should be fired for the incident, nor do I think it will affect FA's.

I also don't think JR is going to fire Pax for the incident or his job performance.

I don't agree with your prhasing.

Quick note, Gar and Pax both said nice things about VDN, and Pax apologized for the incident.

Vinnie did not apologize for his part in the incident, nor say nice things or even thank the people who hired him. The people that, by hiring him, will allow him to interview for future jobs.

Last aside, the original version I heard of the story has really both sides being at fault, and escalating, which sounds pretty plausible. I don't think either party just up and attacked the other one without escalation.

[Rerisen]

The readiness with which many of you completely dismiss the team's version of events is telling.

I think someone here is lying then. Because the two stories are at odds, IIRC what the 'team's version' of events was, essentially blaming Vinny for escalating.

How does the team even have a version if the only people involved were Paxson and Vinny? Just by saying team's version, it begins to look like a manufactured war of words right there.

[waffle]

as management, Pax was wrong regardless. When you are in charge that's just the way it is, it's ALL your fault.

[Professor Frink]

There is always two sides to a story like this. Always. That doesn't mean Pax wasn't at fault. It means there is probably more to the story.

I don't have issue with that. But the other party involved in this, Del Negro, is now gone. So to whatever extent he may have acted wrongly himself, it's not going to effect the Bulls from this point on. While Paxson still being here could.

Whatever level of Paxson's fault, 80%, 100% or just 50%, it was enough that the Bulls felt they needed to have him apologize and admit wrongdoing.

Is that apology enough to erase any tarnish on the organization? I don't know.

Yes, at least for people who don't obsess on the guy.

And if he didn't address the issue and apologize, you'd be singing the same tune.

[Professor Frink]

The readiness with which many of you completely dismiss the team's version of events is telling.

I think someone here is lying then. Because the two stories are at odds, IIRC what the 'team's version' of events was, essentially blaming Vinny for escalating.

How does the team even have a version if the only people involved were Paxson and Vinny? Just by saying team's version, it begins to look like a manufactured war of words right there.

Ok, change team to Pax's version. Why is it manufactured to offer the other side of the story?

[DuckIII]

The readiness with which many of you completely dismiss the team's version of events is telling.

I think someone here is lying then. Because the two stories are at odds,

Obviously. Or each perceived the heated events differently, which also happens. But I tend to think its probably just a good old fashioned lie by someone. It could be a little bit of both though.

IIRC what the 'team's version' of events was, essentially blaming Vinny for escalating.

That is how I interpreted it.

How does the team even have a version if the only people involved were Paxson and Vinny?

The same way Vinny's camp has a version.

Just by saying team's version, it begins to look like a manufactured war of words right there.

That doesn't frankly make any sense to me. How about "Paxson's version" then? Same difference.

[kyrv]

There is always two sides to a story like this. Always. That doesn't mean Pax wasn't at fault. It means there is probably more to the story.

I don't have issue with that. But the other party involved in this, Del Negro, is now gone. So to whatever extent he may have acted wrongly himself, it's not going to effect the Bulls from this point on. While Paxson still being here could.

Whatever level of Paxson's fault, 80%, 100% or just 50%, it was enough that the Bulls felt they needed to have him apologize and admit wrongdoing.

Is that apology enough to erase any tarnish on the organization? I don't know.

What do you mean the "Bulls" felt, I assume you mean "Paxson felt"?

I think there is very little tarnish now and will be very little, probably zero, come summer time.

[Rerisen]

I don't think Pax should be fired for the incident, nor do I think it will affect FA's.

I don't know if it will affect FA's, I would think probably not, more likely it could affect a coaching hunt. Why?

Because one coach, one of the few that has voiced an opinion on the matter, Jeff Van Gundy was very critical of the situation and implied that it was a negative factor with respect to the team, that could play in a role in how willing a coach was to work here.

Van Gundy's secondary comments on CTL the other day were to the point of you just don't go into a coach's office after a game, and especially a tough loss, with the mind to criticize something the coach has done or have it out with them. He said it had never happened to him in his career.

Now maybe that is just JVG, but I would think the chances are that at least some other coaches would feel the same way he does.