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

[Rerisen]

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

Right, this issue is all about fans obsessing about Paxson and not the result of Paxson busting into his coach's office and getting into a physical altercation. Right.

I just love how anyone critical of Paxson in this 'hates him' or is obsessing on him. The overly defensive name calling is more telling of his defenders than those who are saying he did wrong, in a case he clearly did, and admitted and apologized for it.

[DuckIII]

The overly defensive name calling is more telling of his defenders than those who are saying he did wrong, in a case he clearly did, and admitted and apologized for it.

Namecalling is a bad idea. But your post would make more sense if Paxson was being defended by anyone.

[kyrv]

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.

Well he's wrong, it did happen. JVG worked what, two jobs? Three jobs? Did he ever play a key player more minutes than allowed, two games in a row?

Now, affecting a coach makes more sense than a FA, and it could happen. I doubt it.

Pax: "Do you know how to tell time?"

Candidate: "Yes."

Pax: "Great, no after game angry visits - what's for lunch?"

Let me add, JVG can speak to if it would bother HIM (JVG), and if he was applying and dollars at stake, wild guess he would sing a different tune. He doesn't speak for other candidates and (incoming spoiler based on a recent thread) he doesn't know what the FA's are thinking or what they will do or have any evidence they give a rat's arse about Pax and VDN's "fight".)

[Rerisen]

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

I said it looks that way to call it the team's side. But if the other side of the story was true, you would expect it to be put forth more stridently, to clear the opposite perception in the media, and to clear wrongdoing on the team's behalf. Not for the team to cave and accept Vinny's version.

You seem to believe the caving was for the sake of PR and getting the issue behind them. But fail to accept the possibility that just maybe it was because what leaked originally might have been closer to the truth. Is that not possible?

[Rerisen]

The overly defensive name calling is more telling of his defenders than those who are saying he did wrong, in a case he clearly did, and admitted and apologized for it.

Namecalling is a bad idea. But your post would make more sense if Paxson was being defended by anyone.

If the other side is just "Vinny may have done wrong too". I've already said that is possible. I just no longer care since Vinny has been fired.

The issue is the degree to which Paxson did wrong, whether the team went far enough in handling the situation and if in handling it, they tried to imply that Paxson was being demoted, when in fact, his position as the ultimate decision maker may not have changed at all (the K.C. side of the story related on the last few pages).

[Professor Frink]

Right, this issue is all about fans obsessing about Paxson and not the result of Paxson busting into his coach's office and getting into a physical altercation. Right.

Quit trying to twist the conversation. You asked: "Is that apology enough to erase any tarnish on the organization?"

I said: "Yes, at least for people who don't obsess on the guy."

I didn't say this entire issue is about fans obsessing on Paxson.

I just love how anyone critical of Paxson in this 'hates him' or is obsessing on him. The overly defensive name calling is more telling of his defenders than those who are saying he did wrong, in a case he clearly did, and admitted and apologized for it.

I love how you misrepresent other people's arguments. I love it. I'm in love with it. I can barely sleep I'm so giddy. I love how you invent namecalling and then get on your high-horse. I love it.

[Professor Frink]

I said it looks that way to call it the team's side. But if the other side of the story was true, you would expect it to be put forth more stridently, to clear the opposite perception in the media, and to clear wrongdoing on the team's behalf. Not for the team to cave and accept Vinny's version.

They didn't accept Vinny's version. Pax just said he did not behave appropriately. That's not endorsing Vinny's story.

You seem to believe the caving was for the sake of PR and getting the issue behind them. But fail to accept the possibility that just maybe it was because what leaked originally might have been closer to the truth. Is that not possible?

It's possible, but I'm not jumping to conclusions. You are.

[DuckIII]

Not for the team to cave and accept Vinny's version.

That didn't happen though. I really, really don't understand what is so complicated about this.

[Rerisen]

Let me add, JVG can speak to if it would bother HIM (JVG), and if he was applying and dollars at stake, wild guess he would sing a different tune.

Well reports are he isn't on the team's list (even though most of the other big names are) and it won't ever come to that. Because of what he said? Possible.

He doesn't speak for other candidates

No he does not. But the fact that one of the top coaches on the market that many Bulls fans would like to target sees the situation in such a way I think is enough reason to think its *possible* other candidates might as well.

That is all I'm suggesting. The same way in which other people are suggesting the possibility that Vinny might have been partly to blame for the fight between him and Pax.

[Fl_Flash]

Seems to me that Pax was the instigator in all this. Anyone who has ever watched Peoples Court or Judge Judy knows that when two knuckleheads are driving their cars and one cuts the other off or otherwise pisses them off - the one who gets out of his/her car to confront the other person is almost always at fault for escalating the situation. If Pax never goes to Vinnie's office - none of this ever happens. Who started yelling and shoving first really becomes a secondary issue.

I'm pretty sure Pax was apologizing for being the one who started it all. But for his actions, everything else than ensued would never had occurred. He's got to show more control. That's not how a professional acts. Especially one of a 100+ million dollar operation.

[Rerisen]

Not for the team to cave and accept Vinny's version.

That didn't happen though. I really, really don't understand what is so complicated about this.

No, they did not come out and say "everything Vinny said was true". But that is basically the perception that is left by not further arguing for Paxson's side, but rather having him step up and apologize, while Vinny walks away without mentioning the incident at all, as if he has nothing to apologize for.

And that is why on radio and TV you have people like JVG painting the issue as Paxson in the wrong, and pundits saying they can't see certain FA's wanting to come here because Chicago needs to clean house with management to look as attractive as they could.

[Rerisen]

I'm pretty sure Pax was apologizing for being the one who started it all. But for his actions, everything else than ensued would never had occurred. He's got to show more control. That's not how a professional acts. Especially one of a 100+ million dollar operation.

Pretty much.

This is why I said early in the thread that is silly to argue about this at a fan perception level.

Because I could turn around in the next post and say I agree with Duck and Frink that the situation is just sooooo convoluted that no one can really cast opinions about wrongdoing on anyone.

But regardless if *I* were to say that it doesn't change that out in the court of public opinion, Pax is being viewed as the bad guy (hot headed, unprofessional, etc) and the team's management is being viewed as dysfunctional.

[kyrv]

Let me add, JVG can speak to if it would bother HIM (JVG), and if he was applying and dollars at stake, wild guess he would sing a different tune.

Well reports are he isn't on the team's list (even though most of the other big names are) and it won't ever come to that. Because of what he said? Possible.

He doesn't speak for other candidates

No he does not. But the fact that one of the top coaches on the market that many Bulls fans would like to target sees the situation in such a way I think is enough reason to think its *possible* other candidates might as well.

That is all I'm suggesting. The same way in which other people are suggesting the possibility that Vinny might have been partly to blame for the fight between him and Pax.

So we have a former coach who sticks up for...the coach.

You might find a former GM to say that (aside from right before or duing a game) he will talk to his employees when he wants to, and they don't tell him "FU" or get up in his grill. That's just a guess on my part.

Did you notice when it was announced (probably incorrectly) that Calipari had interest in the Bulls job, people's first thoughts weren't "wow, that's surprising because of what happened to VDN".

P.S. We've heard from bad fits who aren't candidates, if we have a real candidate who is a good fit beg out because of this, then we have a story.

[Professor Frink]

No, they did not come out and say "everything Vinny said was true". But that is basically the perception that is left by not further arguing for Paxson's side, but rather having him step up and apologize, while Vinny walks away without mentioning the incident at all, as if he has nothing to apologize for.

That's how it seems to you, a guy who was pretty down on Pax before this and would want him fired regardless. You don't have any idea what the perception is post-apology, but I get the sense from all the second and third acts I see in the sports arena, that this is the end of the situation.

And that is why on radio and TV you have people like JVG painting the issue as Paxson in the wrong, and pundits saying they can't see certain FA's wanting to come here because Chicago needs to clean house with management to look as attractive as they could.

Had people like JVG painting Paxson as in the wrong, not have. You are using pre-apology examples to support your argument that an apology wasn't enough. That doesn't make sense.

[kyrv]

Vinny walks away without mentioning the incident at all, as if he has nothing to apologize for.

No, Vinny didn't mention it as if he takes no accountability and also, again, declined to thank the people who gave him the job (well 2/3 of them).

So if Pax had said nothing, it would have been as if he had nothing to apologize for?

Come on now. You are trying to play both sides and arrange the facts after the fact.

[Rerisen]

It's possible, but I'm not jumping to conclusions. You are.

I'm only attributing to Paxson that which he has already stood up and admitted to.

100% blame? Doesn't need to be 100%. Not to be relevant to the concerns that have spun off from the issue. But blame such that it certainly makes him look like the instigator and main person in the wrong.

My concern is about Paxson acting like a boob and creating bad press for the team. You keep trying to make it about me. Why do you care? You are never going to convince everyone on this forum to accept your can't make judgment view of the situation. Even if you could it would not alter one bit the perception that is already out there and has been commented on in the media to the detriment of the Bulls.

[Rerisen]

So we have a former coach who sticks up for...the coach.

You might find a former GM to say that he will talk to his employees when he wants to, and they don't tell him "FU" or get up in his grill. That's just a guess on my part.

Unfortunately, we aren't in the process of looking for a new GM. We are in the process of looking for a new coach.

P.S. We've heard from bad fits who aren't candidates,

JVG is a bad fit? I'm not particularly in love with him as a candidate but I've seen at least a half dozen fans here that are.

[DuckIII]

Not for the team to cave and accept Vinny's version.

That didn't happen though. I really, really don't understand what is so complicated about this.

No, they did not come out and say "everything Vinny said was true".

Right. So what you wrote originally isn't accurate. So why write it?

But that is basically the perception that is left by not further arguing for Paxson's side, but rather having him step up and apologize, while Vinny walks away without mentioning the incident at all, as if he has nothing to apologize for.

That is not my perception, nor in my opinion will it be the perception of anyone paying attention with an open mind. Some will, some won't, as evidenced by this thread.

And that is why on radio and TV you have people like JVG painting the issue as Paxson in the wrong, and pundits saying they can't see certain FA's wanting to come here because Chicago needs to clean house with management to look as attractive as they could.

The whole reason this was done is so that people would shut up about it. Which is exactly what will happen. Had the Bulls fired Vinny, and defiantly and explicitly waged war on their version of events, this thing would live on and taint free agency and the coaching search. There is absolutely no upside to that route, so they wisely avoided it.

Whether the apology also represents some sort of acknowledgement that Paxson was a physical aggressor, and not Vinny, is possible, but unsupported by anything actually said. In fact, the nebulous generality of it all far more strongly suggests no concession on that point whatsoever. It was handled well, precisely as any competent PR specialist would have designed it.

[Rerisen]

Had people like JVG painting Paxson as in the wrong, not have. You are using pre-apology examples to support your argument that an apology wasn't enough. That doesn't make sense.

Nope. JVG was on CTL after the Bulls noon press conference. He stuck to his guns about his statements and even admonished K.C. Johnson who tried to paint them as "strong comments". JVG corrected him that they were "obvious comments" as in his opinion how the situation would be viewed by anyone around the league.

Other comments, long before yesterday, had people expecting the Bulls had no other choice than to fire Pax. So obviously those opinions aren't going to change just upon him issuing an apology.

[Rerisen]

That didn't happen though. I really, really don't understand what is so complicated about this.

No, they did not come out and say "everything Vinny said was true".

Right. So what you wrote originally isn't accurate. So why write it?

Sure it is. The team doesn't have to recount the leak line by line to cave to it. If the resulting perception left is that Paxson was to blame, they have accomplished the same thing.

I understand that a couple of Bulls fans here don't think that is the perception, but I'm afraid that is at odds with how it is being viewed outside Bulls circles.

That is not my perception, nor in my opinion will it be the perception of anyone paying attention with an open mind.

Whether you think most of the opinions on the incident are from people without an open mind (and far beyond this message board), they exist all the same.

The whole reason this was done is so that people would shut up about it.

The whole reason this was done was that it was hoped people would shut up about it. Like any hot topic, its going to die away. That was true whether Paxson was fired or whether he just apologized. Doesn't mean the actions taken by the Bulls still can't look weak and ineffectual and won't have any lasting impact on the view of the organization.