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

[Rerisen]

Which, by that I mean, you are grasping at straws now. You used JVG as 'evidence' against the Bulls, which Frink has debunked.

BS alert.

We don't know or not know if Paxson trying to fight Vinny would prevent JVG, or anyone else from wanting the job. No one has claimed that they do know (unless you are?). Only that JVG spoke tough on the Bulls about the incident.

What we do know is that comments he made both there and on-air during the playoff game, were that he thought it was something unprofessional and unacceptable to have going on. He stressed the importance of management backing the coach, and how Vinny obviously didn't have that backing. Both in the incident and in their failure to back Vinny earlier in the year when the rumors of him being fired came out.

He suggested these were 'obvious' opinions to have.

If his comments amounted to nothing why would K.C. Johnson question him about his "strong comments" as if to imply they reflected harshly on the Bulls.

Once again, the incident is obviously bad press and reflects badly on the organization. To the extent that it is possible it could impact people wanting to join the organization, or be a factor in someone weighing another team vs the Bulls. That is all that is being said, and all that was ever being said. You are going Max Pax on a strawman.

Nothing that JVG said suggests that Paxson's apology has made the whole thing a non-issue. In fact one thing he said sort of indicated there might be a problem there now with him. Which is exactly what I was worried about the potential for.

[Rerisen]

I see a lot of people saying Jeff Van Gundy in the coaching wish thread. It’s not looking good folks. Examining Jeff's Tribune Live Interview more closely reveals a hiccup.

Prospects don’t look good for JVG no matter how polite he is in his general statements about the team. Read between the lines, or more accurately, just read the right lines.

KC asks him about his comments, Van Gundy hardly indicated the issue is over just because Pax said sorry.

JVG: I didn’t make strong comments, I made obvious comments. It’s not a strong opinion that you don’t go into a room, into the coach’s room right after a tough loss. That’s not a strong comment. I’ve never seen that happen before, or I should say, I haven’t ever had anybody do that and I’ve had my fair share of tough losses where you know I’m sure General Managers disagreed, but what I was saying you handle it differently than going in the next day when you can talk under cooler situations.

My second comment I find obvious too. When they had the chance to come out and support him, as he was going through a tough year, and some ups and downs, they chose not to do that. Is that disputable?

KC: Ok, strong comments, obvious comments-

JVG: Is that disputable?

KC: Uh no

JVG: No. So to me that’s not strong, that’s just stating the obvious.

KC: Can I ask my question?

JVG: No absolutely. I’m just saying, like to me, who would not agree with what I said.

KC: Right, so I misspoke. Not strong comments, obvious comments. So my question would be do *you* still find the job attractive. Would *you* still be interested in the job?

JVG: I don’t talk about… I think if, you know when I spoke the truth as I saw it during that game, I’m sure… 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. But that’s ok too, because I don’t worry about that.

So what did we learn? Well that JVG and KC came to agreement that it was *obvious* that you don’t go into the coaches office after a tough loss (in the way Paxson did) and that it was obvious that the Bulls didn’t support the coach when they had the chance.

Then when asked about taking the job (not the PC question of whether it was a good job, duh he’s gonna say yes) but whether *he* would want it, he doesn’t answer and then, apparently, suggests that someone even told him that his comments weren’t appreciated and therefore, he doesn’t think he would be considered for the job anyway.

He then goes on to talk up the Bulls *in a general sense*, obviously not wanting to damage their reputation (like they need help with that). And because the Bulls do have a lot of selling points in spite of this. But as for him taking the job, or even being offered it? It sounds like the incident may have indeed borked that possibility.

But wait, then he is asked again at the end of the interview

Kaplan: If John Paxson picked up the phone and said, “Look, I didn’t like your comments but that’s all in the past I want to talk to you about the job would you listen?

JVG: Oh I don’t even think about that. I always let the teams make those comments you know, I steer clear of all that sort of talk and just worry about trying to tell the truth as I see it on the air.

Again defensive answer relating to the issue under discussion. After listening to the above does it seem likely JVG would be more or less interested in the job? Or that his comments would make him a weaker or stronger candidate from the organizations POV?

Is it possible that the Bulls hurt their chances with Jeff Van Gundy? And if it is, that they might have hurt their chances with other candidates or even players?

But even if its just him, it seems to be a guy a lot of people like.

Jeff was also on Waddle and Silvy, where the podcast is now up. They tell him that that he is not looking to be interviewed by the team as reported in the papers. He says he likes Paxson and Gar and respects them, but that he understands that they did not like what he said about the Vinny and Pax incident.

http://espn.go.com/chicago/radio/archive?id=3095454

[TheAdmiral]

I didn't want JVG anyway, so to me, this is awesome.

[AKfanatic]

That really didn't show that JVG wouldn't want to coach here, it did show that he got defensive with the questions. But you know there is a solution to that, ask questions in a different way. For example, your quote of a quote:

Kaplan: If John Paxson picked up the phone and said, “Look, I didn’t like your comments but that’s all in the past I want to talk to you about the job would you listen?

JVG: Oh I don’t even think about that. I always let the teams make those comments you know, I steer clear of all that sort of talk and just worry about trying to tell the truth as I see it on the air.

Why hypothetically throw out, "Look, I didn't like your comments but that's all in the past"? That sounds like Pax saying "Jeff I feel your wrong for what you said, he want to coach for me." What if the question was more like Pax calls you and says "Jeff I know what you said, and respect that...I really shoulda cooled off before going into Vinnys office, perhaps slept on it"....."what do you think about an interview?" The answer may have been different.

[Rerisen]

What is frustrating is that even though Jeff reiterates that the Bulls didn't handle the Vinny thing right, he still gives the team a lot of praise. Could be fluff or not. He doesn't say he would or wouldn't be interested in the job. But how stupid would it be, if the Bulls could persuade JVG even despite the incident, but their own bitterness on being called out by him, prevent them from considering him?

[kyrv]

That really didn't show that JVG wouldn't want to coach here, it did show that he got defensive with the questions. But you know there is a solution to that, ask questions in a different way. For example, your quote of a quote:

Kaplan: If John Paxson picked up the phone and said, “Look, I didn’t like your comments but that’s all in the past I want to talk to you about the job would you listen?

JVG: Oh I don’t even think about that. I always let the teams make those comments you know, I steer clear of all that sort of talk and just worry about trying to tell the truth as I see it on the air.

Why hypothetically throw out, "Look, I didn't like your comments but that's all in the past"? That sounds like Pax saying "Jeff I feel your wrong for what you said, he want to coach for me." What if the question was more like Pax calls you and says "Jeff I know what you said, and respect that...I really shoulda cooled off before going into Vinnys office, perhaps slept on it"....."what do you think about an interview?" The answer may have been different.

Most of what JVG said, Pax also said, as well. I don't think all of it. Certainly wasn't a Moronotti hatchet job.

[AKfanatic]

What is frustrating is that even though Jeff reiterates that the Bulls didn't handle the Vinny thing right, he still gives the team a lot of praise. Could be fluff or not. He doesn't say he would or wouldn't be interested in the job. But how stupid would it be, if the Bulls could persuade JVG even despite the incident, but their own bitterness on being called out by him, prevent them from considering him?

That would be pretty childish.

[kyrv]

Which, by that I mean, you are grasping at straws now. You used JVG as 'evidence' against the Bulls, which Frink has debunked.

BS alert.
...
You are going Max Pax on a strawman
...

It's been real.

I'm not going to lose sleep on this issue as it will be ancient history in 1-2 months (except for here of course).

Question: What do FA's and prospective coaches like?

Answer: Money money money...money

Have fun. So sorry about the BS. No clue what Max Pax on a strawman means, and frankly don't care. I look forward to the huge list of people lost due to this issue. Should make for good long reading.

[pduh01]

Is it a fluff I don't know but I do know that with that statement alone it doesn't mean he is interest on the team but that doesn't mean he isn't either. He give his view about the Paxson/VDN incident that isa bout it but he also give good phrase about the Bulls it may not be a fluff at all.

The question remain is will the Bulls have interest in Jeff Van Gundy and if so if they give him a call will he be interest in coaching with the team? Only that we will find out if JVG want to coach the team or not or the Bulls front office are interest in him hell they may not interest him at all even before the interview.

[Rerisen]

Have fun. So sorry about the BS. No clue what Max Pax on a strawman means, and frankly don't care. I look forward to the huge list of people lost due to this issue. Should make for good long reading.

You likely won't ever know it. Which wouldn't mean it doesn't exist.

But it might start with the coach by far most cited by Bulls fans as who they want.

He's just had two interviews where the Pax/Vinny fight was brought up as a major issue and not just in a general way, but with regard specifically to the comments he made about it and the friction they may have caused.

Botching a chance at Van Gundy wouldn't be exactly up to the level of misreading Deng/Gasol's value, or whiffing on D'antoni for Vinny Del Negro, but it would be just another botch.

At some point we as Bulls fans might ask why the only people that think this management is great is a few Bulls fans, and why so many outsiders don't think they have done a good job. Or we can stay in our bunker and keep firing missiles at anyone and everyone who dare criticize them.

[kyrv]

Have fun. So sorry about the BS. No clue what Max Pax on a strawman means, and frankly don't care. I look forward to the huge list of people lost due to this issue. Should make for good long reading.

You likely won't ever know it. Which wouldn't mean it doesn't exist.

But it might start with the coach by far most cited by Bulls fans as who they want.

He's just had two interviews where the Pax/Vinny fight was brought up as a major issue and not just in a general way, but with regard specifically to the comments he made about it and the friction they may have caused.

Botching a chance at Van Gundy wouldn't be exactly up to the level of misreading Deng/Gasol's value, or whiffing on D'antoni for Vinny Del Negro, but it would be just another botch.

At some point we as Bulls fans might ask why the only people that think this management is great is a few Bulls fans, and why so many outsiders don't think they have done a good job. Or we can stay in our bunker and keep firing missiles at anyone and everyone who dare criticize them.

People in the media bring it up. They are asked about it. It is news. It is not good news.

Botching a chance at JVG? Whiffing on D'Antoni? What a balanced way to put things.

You thinking it will matter contradicts history, and it doesn't mean everyone else is in a bunker.

But I see the problem, you are not looking at this issue independently, but rather as part of the management is bad thing, and you are looking for possible bad outcomes. You found them.

They are unlikely.

[Professor Frink]

I see a lot of people saying Jeff Van Gundy in the coaching wish thread. It’s not looking good folks. Examining Jeff's Tribune Live Interview more closely reveals a hiccup.

Prospects don’t look good for JVG no matter how polite he is in his general statements about the team. Read between the lines, or more accurately, just read the right lines.

KC asks him about his comments, Van Gundy hardly indicated the issue is over just because Pax said sorry.

JVG: I didn’t make strong comments, I made obvious comments. It’s not a strong opinion that you don’t go into a room, into the coach’s room right after a tough loss. That’s not a strong comment. I’ve never seen that happen before, or I should say, I haven’t ever had anybody do that and I’ve had my fair share of tough losses where you know I’m sure General Managers disagreed, but what I was saying you handle it differently than going in the next day when you can talk under cooler situations.

My second comment I find obvious too. When they had the chance to come out and support him, as he was going through a tough year, and some ups and downs, they chose not to do that. Is that disputable?

KC: Ok, strong comments, obvious comments-

JVG: Is that disputable?

KC: Uh no

JVG: No. So to me that’s not strong, that’s just stating the obvious.

KC: Can I ask my question?

JVG: No absolutely. I’m just saying, like to me, who would not agree with what I said.

KC: Right, so I misspoke. Not strong comments, obvious comments. So my question would be do *you* still find the job attractive. Would *you* still be interested in the job?

JVG: I don’t talk about… I think if, you know when I spoke the truth as I saw it during that game, I’m sure… 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. But that’s ok too, because I don’t worry about that.

So what did we learn? Well that JVG and KC came to agreement that it was *obvious* that you don’t go into the coaches office after a tough loss (in the way Paxson did) and that it was obvious that the Bulls didn’t support the coach when they had the chance.

Then when asked about taking the job (not the PC question of whether it was a good job, duh he’s gonna say yes) but whether *he* would want it, he doesn’t answer and then, apparently, suggests that someone even told him that his comments weren’t appreciated and therefore, he doesn’t think he would be considered for the job anyway.

He then goes on to talk up the Bulls *in a general sense*, obviously not wanting to damage their reputation (like they need help with that). And because the Bulls do have a lot of selling points in spite of this. But as for him taking the job, or even being offered it? It sounds like the incident may have indeed borked that possibility.

But wait, then he is asked again at the end of the interview

Kaplan: If John Paxson picked up the phone and said, “Look, I didn’t like your comments but that’s all in the past I want to talk to you about the job would you listen?

JVG: Oh I don’t even think about that. I always let the teams make those comments you know, I steer clear of all that sort of talk and just worry about trying to tell the truth as I see it on the air.

Again defensive answer relating to the issue under discussion. After listening to the above does it seem likely JVG would be more or less interested in the job? Or that his comments would make him a weaker or stronger candidate from the organizations POV?

Is it possible that the Bulls hurt their chances with Jeff Van Gundy? And if it is, that they might have hurt their chances with other candidates or even players?

But even if its just him, it seems to be a guy a lot of people like.

Jeff was also on Waddle and Silvy, where the podcast is now up. They tell him that that he is not looking to be interviewed by the team as reported in the papers. He says he likes Paxson and Gar and respects them, but that he understands that they did not like what he said about the Vinny and Pax incident.

http://espn.go.com/chicago/radio/archive?id=3095454

Man, you're great with a narrative. Read the right lines? The guy spoke at length about what was attractive about the Bulls coaching job before that. He talkned about Rose and Noah and the chance to win a title. You just want to focus on what you want to focus on. That sets my BS meter off.

[Rerisen]

Man, you're great with a narrative. Read the right lines? The guy spoke at length about what was attractive about the Bulls coaching job before that. He talkned about Rose and Noah and the chance to win a title. You just want to focus on what you want to focus on. That sets my BS meter off.

Honestly you don't think that is the most significant thing in the whole interview?

That the Bulls specifically let it be known, and get back to Jeff that they didn't like his comments? And that that might not be very significant in avoiding him as head coach?

Is that common for a management team to send word to a analyst doing a NBA playoff game that they didn't approve of his comments?

Come on man. The stuff about the Bulls being a good job, is what anyone is going to say. The guy is not going to come on a local Chicago show and crap all over the town and team. He would have no reason to, because Chicago is an attractive market, does have nice young players. But that doesn't mean a blunder by the team still can't hurt them. And in this case, it may have driven a wedge in between the Bulls looking at one of the top coaches on the market.

He's been asked three times now if *he* personally would be interested in the job, not whether the job is good in a general sense, and he's dodged all three times and felt the need to defend his comments as an answer to that question.

Now maybe they were never interested in Van Gundy to begin with. But why is it so hard to concede that that things like what happened with Vinny and Pax can have negative consequences. Kyrv even allowed that much in the above post, which is all we are saying on this side.

[The Explorer]

This argument has gone on for more than 24 hours now. Its getting nowhere.

[Professor Frink]

Honestly you don't think that is the most significant thing in the whole interview?

No. This is a guy who has told other teams he wasn't interested in coaching and he didn't say that here. Using your special brand of reading between the lines, I'm going to say he is interested in the job.

That the Bulls specifically let it be known, and get back to Jeff that they didn't like his comments? And that that might not be very significant in avoiding him as head coach?

Specifically? You don't know how he heard they didn't like his comments. They might've said something to another reporter. Heck, they were asked about that broadcast during yesterday's press conference.

And JVG's speculating on them not wanting him. That or he might've just been avoiding the question.

Is that common for a management team to send word to a analyst doing a NBA playoff game that they didn't approve of his comments?

I don' t know that that is the case.

Come on man. The stuff about the Bulls being a good job, is what anyone is going to say.

Oh, of course, stuff that fits your narrative is the real deal and stuff that doesn't is just diplomacy -- diplomacy from a guy that according to you was browbeaten over comments he made as an analyst and has no real reason to be diplomatic. I get it.

The guy is not going to come on a local Chicago show and crap all over the town and team.

Why not?

He would have no reason to, because Chicago is an attractive market, does have nice young players.

You just gave a reason for him to. You said they were giving grief over his comments. Or maybe that's not really the case. Perhaps he just heard through the grape vine or read something. You don't know.

But that doesn't mean a blunder by the team still can't hurt them. And in this case, it may have driven a wedge in between the Bulls looking at one of the top coaches on the market.

Only there is no evidence to suggest that they were looking at him or that it would cause him to not listen to an offer.

He's been asked three times now if *he* personally would be interested in the job, not whether the job is good in a general sense, and he's dodged all three times and felt the need to defend his comments as an answer to that question.

And yet, he pretty came right out and said he wasn't interested in other jobs. Again, using your special brand of reading between the lines, this is conclusive proof he wants the job. Case closed.

Now maybe they were never interested in Van Gundy to begin with.

Maybe, but don't let that stop you from speculating on it ad nauseum.

But why is it so hard to concede that that things like what happened with Vinny and Pax can have negative consequences. Kyrv even allowed that much in the above post, which is all we are saying on this side.

That's your position now? Not who was the aggressor or how it is perceived around the league? Of course it has negative consequences. No one likes bad press, but I don't think it has the longlasting consequences that you think it does or that Pax's apology wasn't enough or that it will have an impact on free agency or our coaching search.

[Rerisen]

Of course it has negative consequences. No one likes bad press, but I don't think it has the longlasting consequences that you think it does or that Pax's apology wasn't enough or that it will have an impact on free agency or our coaching search.

I think Paxson's apology will be viewed as a weak way of handling it. He hardly even mentioned Vinny except once briefly at the start. Then leveraged his love of the Bulls on the other hand sort of as rational.

Was it enough to be acceptable? Maybe to some maybe not to others. I think the whole shebang is unlikely to make anyone say outright that they don't want to come to the Bulls. But that it could be a weighting factor for example when a coach or player is looking at two teams (i.e. well Chicago's FO is kind of screwy).

For Van Gundy maybe significantly more than that now that he got dragged into the middle of it.

This is really all that needs to be said on it I think. I could answer your other stuff line by line if you really like, but I suspect it won't advance the discussion one bit.

[Professor Frink]

I think Paxson's apology will be viewed as a weak way of handling it. He hardly even mentioned Vinny except once briefly at the start. Then leveraged his love of the Bulls on the other hand sort of as rational.

Good for you.

Was it enough to be acceptable? Maybe to some maybe not to others. I think the whole shebang is unlikely to make anyone say outright that they don't want to come to the Bulls. But that it could be a weighting factor for example when a coach or player is looking at two teams (i.e. well Chicago's FO is kind of screwy).

So you have said. You just don't have anything at all to back it up. I think you're wrong.

For Van Gundy maybe significantly more than that now that he got dragged into the middle of it.

How was he dragged into it? You haven't even established that. He made some comments that he was asked about. That's being dragged into it?

This is really all that needs to be said on it I think. I could answer your other stuff line by line if you really like, but I suspect it won't advance the discussion one bit.

I suspect it won't. You have one story and you stick to it.

[Rerisen]

So you have said. You just don't have anything at all to back it up. I think you're wrong.

I hope you are not putting words in my mouth.

I don't have anything to back up the *possibility that the Bulls actions could hurt their recruiting*?

I've just been giving the reasons for why its a possibility for the last couple pages. I'm not stating it's a fact. The incident itself provides reason for the possibility. Concerning JVG, his comments and the organizations comments back, are the reason for him possibly being affected as a coaching candidate.

You really don't even allow for that possibility to be true? Wow.

Major contradiction considering you championed for numerous pages that there was a *possibility* that Vinny shared blame in the incident, or even was the aggressor in the incident -which I accepted as possible- But said that it didn't really matter since the perception to the opposite could hurt the Bulls anyway.

So you accept the possibilities in one case where you favor what those possibilities entail, but you refuse to accept the possibilities in the case of the Bulls potential to have harmed themselves in recruiting.

I think I've found the difference in our discussion. If that's not your position, but rather you do accept both possibilities, then I don't see what is left to discuss.

[Professor Frink]

I hope you are not putting words in my mouth.

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

I don't have anything to back up the *possibility that the Bulls actions could hurt their recruiting*?

You don't provide any compelling evidence that it will do so. None. A possibility means nothing. 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. And you do this after acknowledging that there may be more to the story than just Vinny's side of it. Don't get on your high horse. You're the one jumping to conclusions.

I've just been giving the reasons for why its a possibility for the last couple pages. I'm not stating it's a fact. The incident itself provides reason for the possibility. Concerning JVG, his comments and the organizations comments back, are the reason for him possibly being affected as a coaching candidate.

And I countered that with equally compelling quotes from the same interview that suggested he might have an interest in the job. And others on this board have also come to a similar conclusion. Your point?

You really don't even allow for that possibility to be true? Wow.

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. 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?

Major contradiction considering you championed for numerous pages that there was a *possibility* that Vinny shared blame in the incident, or even was the aggressor in the incident -which I accepted as possible- But said that it didn't really matter since the perception to the opposite could hurt the Bulls anyway.

I don't see the contradiction.

So you accept the possibilities in one case where you favor what those possibilities entail, but you refuse to accept the possibilities in the case of the Bulls potential to have harmed themselves in recruiting.

Uh-huh. Do each of those cases have the same amount of evidence supporting them? 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? There's no record of the altercation -- no film, no audio, no one even going on record to describe the event. That's the difference and that's the commonality in my approach to these matters.

I think I've found the difference in our discussion. If that's not your position, but rather you do accept both possibilities, then I don't see what is left to discuss.

There's nothing left to discuss. You have your story and you're sticking to it.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

Frink is owning fools, and schooling tools in this thread. Represent!