Gar Forman: Assets and Liabilities

[SpinninHouse]

Much of this season's failures have been placed on the coach and the players (as it should). But how about the guy responsible for player personnel: Gar Forman. Many consider our FO to be amongst the best in the NBA - and I'd agree. But like any GM, Forman has strengths and weaknesses.

I'm not sure if he had been promoted to GM when we selected Joakim Noah 9th overall - but that was an amazing pick. I believe he held the GM title when we drafted Jimmy Butler and Taj Gibson - two of the better later round picks in recent memory. He's also had an incredible track record of acquiring back up PG's (Watson, Brooks, Nate Robinson, Augustin, etc). I think we can also all agree the Pau Gasol signing has been good and it looks like the Mirotic move will be huge down the road. The Dunleavy signing was great value, as well. That is a nice collection of moves.

He also has some black marks, as evidenced by the Marquis Teague and Tony Snell selections. Two absolutely awful picks. Also his decision to re-sign Hinrich was horrible. Rose openly pined for Kirk to return and Thibs obviously loves him to death -- so maybe he did it for those reasons. It clearly has not worked out with Hinrich this year.

It will be very interesting to see what becomes of McDermott. We gave up two first round picks in a good draft to get him. He better be a darn good NBA player or that trade will be absolutely devastating.

As of now, I think Forman has done more good than bad. But do you feel his good has been good enough? No GM will hit on every pick or every FA signing so it's unrealistic to expect that. So I get the Teague and Snell busted picks because that will happen to every one. But if McDermott busts out, is that enough to cost him his job?

Thoughts on Forman and his assets and liabilities? At what point does his job get called into question?

[ikeziskash]

If someone has to go Gar's neck should be the first on the chopping block.

Here is a simple test...if Thibs were fired would he be hired by someone else? Of course. If our players were cut would they be picked up by another team? I'd say yes for all of them. If Gar were fired would any other franchise want him? I'd wager the answer is no.

[HomoSapien]

You can't talk about our front office without talking about their unwillingness to make trades for actual established talent. Trading is a part of building a team, and we simply don't do it.

Regardless of right out wrong, I also think it's disappointing that this front office regularly has a sour relationship with its coaches.

[DanTown8587]

As of now, I think Forman has done more good than bad. But do you feel his good has been good enough? No GM will hit on every pick or every FA signing so it's unrealistic to expect that. So I get the Teague and Snell busted picks because that will happen to every one. But if McDermott busts out, is that enough to cost him his job?

Thoughts on Forman and his assets and liabilities? At what point does his job get called into question?

Would you fire Sam Presti for using four first round picks and acquiring Andre Roberson, Steven Adams (lottery), Josh Huestis, and Mitch McGary? Completely trading out of the 2011 draft with Beldsoe/Bradley on the board?

I'm not saying Gar has been perfect but he acquired Niko + Butler after the 20th pick in the same draft; that's WAAAAAAYYYYYY more of a win than missing on Teague (29) and Snell (20) are.

There are legit reasons to let Gar go but his draft record is not one of them.

[Rerisen]

I said years ago, I dislike this Bert and Ernie show we have going at the top with two decision makers.

It's a smokescreen to protect them, because how are we supposed to assign responsibility if we don't know what decisions Gar is making and which ones Pax is?

Even the NBA didn't know in 2011, some execs voted for Gar and some voted for Paxson for GM of the year.

I guess there is no choice but to take them as a crazy pair, Bonnie and Clyde, Thelma and Louise, and if either goes down, both have to go down at the same time.

[HomoSapien]

both have to go down at the same time.

Sadly, I feel like that could be twenty years from now. The Bulls front office is extremely loyal to their own, and these guys have absolute job security.

Things aren't going to change unless we get new ownership.

[AirP.]

You can't talk about our front office without talking about their unwillingness to make trades for actual established talent. Trading is a part of building a team, and we simply don't do it.

Regardless of right out wrong, I also think it's disappointing that this front office regularly has a sour relationship with its coaches.

When trading in a position of trying to win a championship you're usually going to lose value overall to take a chance at winning a championship. This FO doesn't like to lose in trades, they'll just wait for players being cut. Thing is, Chicago needed help at SG 3 years ago and the front office brought Rasual Butler in, no he's not a great player but he would have been a better SG than Ronnie Brewer, in this case that fell upon Thibs and his notion of not wanting to alter the rotation.

[kyrv]

I said years ago, I dislike this Bert and Ernie show we have going at the top with two decision makers.

It's a smokescreen to protect them, because how are we supposed to assign responsibility if we don't know what decisions Gar is making and which ones Pax is?

Even the NBA didn't know in 2011, some execs voted for Gar and some voted for Paxson for GM of the year.

I guess there is no choice but to take them as a crazy pair, Bonnie and Clyde, Thelma and Louise, and if either goes down, both have to go down at the same time.

We don't know, for sure.

Supposedly Tyrus was more of a Gar preference, but who knows.

Same thing came up with NFL discussions on new GM hires for teams. 99% of the time it's not knowable who made what calls.

Granted, it's not our job to assign responsibility. We don't really need to know. The person that needs to know, knows.

The setup/structure is actually pretty common. Team presidents often (usually?) have GM's under them.

One thing I disagree with you about is that they don't have to go down at the same time. Again, just because we don't know who's doing what, doesn't mean that he person who actually needs to know, doesn't know.

Lastly, we have a top FO team, we are fortunate. They are a bit of risk takers for fans like us on this forum, but they do a good job. As someone who has been a Chicago sports fan for a really long time, I appreciate the rare times we get good people running the teams. Sadly, it's really not the norm.

[Rerisen]

Lastly, we have a top FO team, we are fortunate.

They've done well mostly, considering the restraints. Mostly because they replace lost turnover salary with drafting like they made deals with the devil.

Though the returns this year aren't so hot so far.

One thing I disagree with you about is that they don't have to go down at the same time. Again, just because we don't know who's doing what, doesn't mean that he person who actually needs to know, doesn't know.

Yeah, but what if the person that needs to know doesn't know and axes the wrong guy? We wouldn't find out for years later as fans, until the one lingering continued to screw up.

And yes, its our self-appointed job as fans to pontificate as we see fit on responsibility. That's why we are here.

[HomoSapien]

You can't talk about our front office without talking about their unwillingness to make trades for actual established talent. Trading is a part of building a team, and we simply don't do it.

Regardless of right out wrong, I also think it's disappointing that this front office regularly has a sour relationship with its coaches.

When trading in a position of trying to win a championship you're usually going to lose value overall to take a chance at winning a championship. This FO doesn't like to lose in trades, they'll just wait for players being cut. Thing is, Chicago needed help at SG 3 years ago and the front office brought Rasual Butler in, no he's not a great player but he would have been a better SG than Ronnie Brewer, in this case that fell upon Thibs and his notion of not wanting to alter the rotation.

I don't agree with that first sentence, but regardless, we haven't been in the championship hunt always. John Paxson has been here since 2003. How many of his trades haven't been about draft picks or flexibility? How many times could you say, "wow, Pax just traded for a guy who's going to help us now?"

I happen to think the Salmons/Miller trade was primarily about flexibility, but even if you count it as a trade for talent, that's one trade in twelve years that happened years ago. It's becoming less and less defendable by pro management fans. There's many ways to build a team, but it seems sort of clear that Paxson isn't skilled or at least able to build it by making trades.

[kyrv]

both have to go down at the same time.

Sadly, I feel like that could be twenty years from now. The Bulls front office is extremely loyal to their own, and these guys have absolute job security.

Things aren't going to change unless we get new ownership.

Sadly? I'm confused. You want someone worse? Or do you think the Bulls are going to follow a top five FO hiring the very best or something? I don't think JR is *that* brilliant. I'm not sure any owner in sports history has been that brilliant?

[Mech Engineer]

Just my opinion....I don't think Micheal Reinsdorf is as loyal as his dad to Gar or Pax. Off-course, I don't think he is trigger happy either. Why do I think that? He seems to be a more involved Bulls fan and that means he evaluates with a lot more information than his dad who didn't want to interfere too much into details unless absolutely necessary. That had worked well for a long time but circumstances are different right now.

But, like all of us...common sense tells that Thibs is a hot commodity in the market and you don't lose him because of some ego, communication issues. If Thibs was taking the Bulls to a lottery finish, yeah...it makes sense to get rid of Thibs.

And, again, they are not able to pull of a trade to supplement the FA signings, drafting. This is crazy...you either provide a deep roster or provide healthy, durable 5-7 guys or tell that you don't except a championship.

You don't want Thibs to play your best players too many minutes and you want wins but give him guys like McDermott, Snell as the guys to play. Nobody can string together wins with those guys especially when you have Noah, Derrick coming back from injuries.

This is a very unique and odd situation. I can't seem to draw this kind of parallel atmosphere to any contending team.

[kyrv]

You can't talk about our front office without talking about their unwillingness to make trades for actual established talent. Trading is a part of building a team, and we simply don't do it.

Regardless of right out wrong, I also think it's disappointing that this front office regularly has a sour relationship with its coaches.

When trading in a position of trying to win a championship you're usually going to lose value overall to take a chance at winning a championship. This FO doesn't like to lose in trades, they'll just wait for players being cut. Thing is, Chicago needed help at SG 3 years ago and the front office brought Rasual Butler in, no he's not a great player but he would have been a better SG than Ronnie Brewer, in this case that fell upon Thibs and his notion of not wanting to alter the rotation.

I don't agree with that first sentence, but regardless, we haven't been in the championship hunt always. John Paxson has been here since 2003. How many of his trades haven't been about draft picks or flexibility? How many times could you say, "wow, Pax just traded for a guy who's going to help us now?"

I happen to think the Salmons/Miller trade was primarily about flexibility, but even if you count it as a trade for talent, that's one trade in twelve years that happened years ago. It's becoming less and less defendable by pro management fans. There's many ways to build a team, but it seems sort of clear that Paxson isn't skilled or at least able to build it by making trades.

You seem to think it needs to be defended. I don't think it does. We love trades here. We live for them.

But that's not the only way to win titles, as we all know. In fact if we had to pick something to not be good at, that would be it, it's less important than the other things, the things they are good at.

Bulls have a contender, and you are complaining because it wasn't done "trading for established player", not sure why we should care about that.

[HomoSapien]

Sadly? I'm confused. You want someone worse? Or do you think the Bulls are going to follow a top five FO hiring the very best or something? I don't think JR is *that* brilliant. I'm not sure any owner in sports history has been that brilliant?

Kyrv, why on earth would that be your conclusion?

Quite frankly, I don't think the bulls have a top five FO. I think they have a top five coach who has done an outstanding job of bleeding out every inch of talent from a roster that several times had no business being in the playoffs.

[AirP.]

Lastly, we have a top FO team, we are fortunate. They are a bit of risk takers for fans like us on this forum, but they do a good job. As someone who has been a Chicago sports fan for a really long time, I appreciate the rare times we get good people running the teams. Sadly, it's really not the norm.

Chicago has won 1 game in the Eastern Finals in the GarPax era. We are very fortunate. Teams that have more than 1 conference final wins since Forman taking over as GM in 2009...

Laker
Suns
Boston
Orlando
Heat
Mavs
Celtics
Spurs
Thunder
Pacers

So only 1/3 of the NBA has had more success in the post-season than Chicago has in the GarPax era. We truly are fortunate!

[HomoSapien]

You seem to think it needs to be defended. I don't think it does. We love trades here. We live for them.

But that's not the only way to win titles, as we all know. In fact if we had to pick something to not be good at, that would be it, it's less important than the other things, the things they are good at.

It does need to be defended. Every year under the Paxson regime, we go into the postseason with major flaws and they always end up becoming exploited in the playoffs. They're usually not small flaws either, but are pretty glaring (lack of post option, lack of size, lack of athleticism, lack of a SG, lack of shooting, etc.). I'm not saying that a team needs to be perfect, but it's odd to me that we never seem to explore this avenue, and just go with what we already have.

Bulls have a contender, and you are complaining because it wasn't done "trading for established player", not sure why we should care about that.

Excuse me, Kyrv. This is a thread discussing the ability of the front office, so yes, I will discuss their short comings. Quite frankly, we're not looking like a contender at the moment, nor are we playing like one despite some recent impressive wins. That said, do not confuse what I am saying. I am not complaining that we haven't built our roster through trades, I'm complaining that we never make trades for established players, and that we don't really do much to get better within the season.

[musiqsoulchild]

I said years ago, I dislike this Bert and Ernie show we have going at the top with two decision makers.

It's a smokescreen to protect them, because how are we supposed to assign responsibility if we don't know what decisions Gar is making and which ones Pax is?

Even the NBA didn't know in 2011, some execs voted for Gar and some voted for Paxson for GM of the year.

I guess there is no choice but to take them as a crazy pair, Bonnie and Clyde, Thelma and Louise, and if either goes down, both have to go down at the same time.

Sometimes you astound me. Its clear to me that you have worked /are working in corporate America. Still you type up stuff like this, Re?

Every large company (as it gets larger) needs to bifurcate its Operations from its Executive. Thats how the Executive can think clearly without getting lost in operational details.

Similarly, the Operations lead should focus on the nitty gritty of running a team and escalate up any issues that need larger decision-making.

This is ESSENTIAL for proper running of a large franchise like ours. Almost every big franchise has a seperation of Basketball Operations and Executive Management.

Whats different is that for example in New York you dont hear about Phil - Mills....but here you hear about Gar-Pax. The reason is that Operations guys are not seen as peers to executives in old-school companies. They are seen as grunt-workers.

In the Bulls, refreshingly, the Operations guy and the Executive guy are given equal importance. This is a good thing.

[Rerisen]

In the Bulls, refreshingly, the Operations guy and the Executive guy are given equal importance. This is a good thing.

We don't know the exact power ratio actually, that is where the confusion comes in. Its a unique situation in that Paxson wanted to quit at one point and Jerry convinced him to stay on by hiring Gar to handle the day to day while Pax could recede and be merely in a final arbiter role. But how much has Pax receded, because of course his job was Gar's job prior, vs how much he still gets into the minutia of decisions prior to the final call, we really don't know.

[musiqsoulchild]

In the Bulls, refreshingly, the Operations guy and the Executive guy are given equal importance. This is a good thing.

We don't know the exact power ratio actually, that is where the confusion comes in. Its a unique situation in that Paxson wanted to quit at one point and Jerry convinced him to stay on by hiring Gar to handle the day to day while Pax could recede and be merely in a final arbiter role. But how much has Pax receded, vs how much he still gets into the minutia of decisions prior to the final call, we really don't know.

Well, we know.

You see how Gar and Pax are BOTH present at all the important signings.

And how its ONLY Gar who makes hiring decisions when it comes to his side of the business (Jen for example or not renewing Ron Adams contract).

Those are Gar's areas of accountability. Thats why he says "we will make basketball decisions". Because thats what he's responsible for.

Pax is the Executive...the guy who will publicly bash Jeff Van Gundy. You wont see Gar doing that....he doesnt speak for the entire organization. He speaks on behalf of his team.

This is the general framework of the organizational structure. And its a good one. We dont have Paxson commenting on "We are looking at 10 day players"...unlike Phil Jackson tweeting about Shane Larkin or Langston Galloway et al.

[Rerisen]

It seems to me we end up guessing every year at draft time, who was a Pax guy and who was a Gar guy. Gar was essentially regarded as a puppet for several years around here.