<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ May 7 2008, 03:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ May 7 2008, 02:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ May 6 2008, 04:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Jose Calderon isn't really a fast-break point guard. I'm not saying he can't push the tempo, but he doesn't like to and, more often than not, he tends to wait for everyone to cross the court so he can run a halfcourt set. If you're looking for an uptempo PG, TJ Ford's your man.</div> Heh, going for the soft-sell there Chutney? I don't disagree, but that's not enough to make me want TJ Ford on my team. </div> I thought if I was subtle enough... I don't blame you for not wanting TJ. What I really wonder, though, is what type of coach D'Antoni was prior to the Phoenix Suns. I think a lot of the time people make assumptions about what a coach can or can't do from just one stint. D'Antoni ran the run-and-gun with the Suns, but who knows if thats the only type of offensive philosophy that he's committed to. It very well may have just been him getting the most out of the roster he was given. </div> That's my thinking as well. I mean, using Nash in other ways might be pretty criminal. Marion too. On the other hand, I don't see why Amare can't play defense, or why they didn't use Joe Johnson to the best of his abilities. He didn't seem much different than Q Richardson... run down the court and jack up a bunch of shots... and even then he had a very nicely rounded game that could have been more useful. I guess it all comes back to me being mixed on D'Antoni. I can't tag him a loser because he's had the Suns, who I think have some serious flaws, but on the other hand, I can't say he's some kind of genius for overachieving either. He seems like a very expensive mystery to me, and I'm not sure where that gets us.
I saw a lot of Suns fans on RealGM talking about doing a Steve Nash for Kirk Hinrich and #9 pick for Steve Nash. That was all they are asking for. It seems they know the reality of D'Antoni making Nash what he is. I think a more realistic trade would be that and Tyrus, but that was all they were asking for.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The New York Knicks are well aware of Mike D'Antoni's strong desire to coach the Chicago Bulls, as well as Chicago's strong interest in hiring D'Antoni. Mike D'Antoni D'Antoni They're simply ignoring all that. NBA coaching sources told ESPN.com on Wednesday that the Knicks continue to regard D'Antoni as their new No. 1 target to replace Isiah Thomas and are preparing a "staggering" financial offer they hope will prove too steep for Chicago to compete with, thus convincing D'Antoni to spurn the Bulls. It was widely assumed in coaching circles -- and even by the Knicks to some degree -- that New York's involvement was pursued by the D'Antoni camp mostly to get Chicago to increase its offer. But sources close to the situation were stressing Wednesday night that the rough monetary estimates in circulation from the Knicks, believed to be $6 million or more annually, are too substantial not to make them a real threat to the Bulls.</div> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3386183 What are they offering him? 12 million a year? Well worth it imo for a coach, considering what players make. I would be estatic if this happens, so we can go after Avery Johnson. He is a much better fit for this team imo.
Ric Bucher said on ESPN News that D'Antoni is leaning towards the Knicks. This is good news imo. Don't want him in Chicago, i'll take Avery Johnson or even Thibodeau over him.
What the hell. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Bulls, the only other club in the mix, aren't prepared to offer D'Antoni what he would be making on average in the final two years of his Phoenix deal ($4.25 million).</div>
I’m not hugely in favor of D’Antoni simply based on my analysis of him as a coach. On the other hand, he's not totally screwed anything up either. But if this is who the Bulls want, at least he’s an interesting pick. To be honest, I don’t see any obviously better candidates. For a completely demoralized and dysfunctional team, especially, I’m pretty warm to the idea of bringing in a guy that players are actually excited about. This was about the least excited looking bunch of guys I’ve ever seen last year. As with most things run by the Bulls, it seems to come with more conditions and provisos and dragged out, useless negotiating ploys than is necessary. It’s painful. That’s where the “cheap” tag comes from with the Bulls. The “Reinsdorf is cheap” and “BS, the Bulls gave Ben Wallace $60M!, don’t call them cheap” firing lines all sort of miss the point to me. When we commonly talk of people being cheap, it’s not because they’re never willing to spend anything, but because they’re inconsistent and often petty in how they do. Mr. Burns on the Simpsons is the stereotypical cheap tycoon but one can’t really call him literally cheap. Mr. Burns will spend on mansions and yachts, but will risk his life for a nickel, or kill for an extra billion. He’ll buy up major leaguers to play on the company baseball team, but he’ll fire them on a whim or try to coach them himself. In short, it’s not cheapness per se that’s the problem, it’s his general weirdness about money. A willingness to lavishly overpay if the mood strikes but a willingness to be exceedingly tight over gnat’s ass details. At this point though, I’ve got no clue when it comes to D’Antoni what they’re in the mood to be concerned about. They seem to be spending an awful lot of time talking to the guy though to not make him a sensible offer.
Maybe signing Wallace had to be done. We were fed the cap space line enough to buy into it, and it got to a point where Pax had to use it or lose it. He got even, though, by shipping off Chandler for an expiring deal. It was a move that had to be made to keep the butts in the seats. You'd think signing D'Antoni would be a similar move. A screwed up way to look at it is the amount you'd have tied up in coaches, combining D'Antoni's and Skiles' salaries. I don't think anyone thinks the Bulls are cheap, but rather that they're focused on the bottom line and maximizing profit like a laser beam. To the point of the team suffering on the floor.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 10 2008, 12:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't think anyone thinks the Bulls are cheap, but rather that they're focused on the bottom line and maximizing profit like a laser beam. To the point of the team suffering on the floor.</div> Isn't "cheap" just shorthand for "focused on ... maximizing profit like a laser beam. To the point of the team suffering on the floor"?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JayJohnstone @ May 10 2008, 09:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 10 2008, 12:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't think anyone thinks the Bulls are cheap, but rather that they're focused on the bottom line and maximizing profit like a laser beam. To the point of the team suffering on the floor.</div> Isn't "cheap" just shorthand for "focused on ... maximizing profit like a laser beam. To the point of the team suffering on the floor"? </div> My point, at least, was that "cheap" wasn't necessarily focused on profit, but weirdly focused on budget in the way Denny says would be "screwed up". Like, the profitable thing to do would probably be to hire the exciting coach. The weird thing to do would be to obsess over your sunk costs (how much Skiles is being paid, for example). Or trading for Kevin Garnett and then refusing to spend any money to put pieces around him (like not signing James Posey, etc).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ May 10 2008, 09:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Like, the profitable thing to do would probably be to hire the exciting coach. The weird thing to do would be to obsess over your sunk costs (how much Skiles is being paid, for example). Or trading for Kevin Garnett and then refusing to spend any money to put pieces around him (like not signing James Posey, etc).</div> If you are saying that Reinsdorf likes to focus on the micro (some personal affront of paying too much for a coach) rather than the macro (what a great coach and a turnaround could mean in terms of TV $$$ and tickets), I would have to agree. I still think "cheap" works fine in the shorthand.
Reindsorf is meeting with D'Antoni today. This upsets me, we should at least be interviewing Avery Johnson first. D'Antoni isn't the worst coach, but I think Thibodeau and definitely Johnson would be better.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JayJohnstone @ May 10 2008, 06:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ May 10 2008, 12:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't think anyone thinks the Bulls are cheap, but rather that they're focused on the bottom line and maximizing profit like a laser beam. To the point of the team suffering on the floor.</div> Isn't "cheap" just shorthand for "focused on ... maximizing profit like a laser beam. To the point of the team suffering on the floor"? </div> Cheap is being able to afford champagne but drinking Schlitz. Profit is defined as revenue minus expenses. P = R - E. There's two elements in the equation that affect profit. Those are what I think he's focused on. If increasing E (by paying more for a coach) doesn't increase R by at least as much, then you don't profit.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Anyone wondering how John Paxson is conducting his coaching search need only return to April 17, the day he fired Jim Boylan and made his only public comments about the process. "I'm not going to worry about a timetable," Paxson said then. That across-the-board philosophy even applies to former Coach of the Year winners like Mike D'Antoni, who no doubt would have enjoyed celebrating his 57th birthday Thursday with a contract offer. Instead, unfazed by media reports that the Knicks were preparing a large offer to D'Antoni, Paxson has made it clear to the Suns coach's camp that he still plans to interview other candidates. Paxson interviewed D'Antoni over parts of Sunday and Monday in Phoenix. Those familiar with Paxson's reaction said he liked the gregarious D'Antoni personally and is intrigued by certain ideas on using Bulls personnel. But the same issues that plagued D'Antoni's basketball relationship with Suns GM Steve Kerr—lack of attention to defense, practice habits—are giving Paxson pause beyond possible financial concerns. He will likely seek around the $8.5 million the Suns still owe him over two years. That's why Paxson still plans to interview people like Celtics assistant Tom Thibodeau and Pistons assistant Michael Curry, although the latter isn't expected to be given permission from GM Joe Dumars. Paxson began his search with a long list that certainly includes other unknown candidates. Paxson remains so open-minded he might interview former Mavericks coach Avery Johnson, even though sources close to Johnson insist Paxson has reservations.</div> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...,1,610174.story If Reindsorf undermines Paxson, and hires D'Antoni this weekend, can we assume this to be the end of Paxson, with Paxson resigning?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne @ May 10 2008, 11:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>If Reindsorf undermines Paxson, and hires D'Antoni this weekend, can we assume this to be the end of Paxson, with Paxson resigning?</div> Which would be a great thing for the Bulls future
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne @ May 10 2008, 11:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Anyone wondering how John Paxson is conducting his coaching search need only return to April 17, the day he fired Jim Boylan and made his only public comments about the process. "I'm not going to worry about a timetable," Paxson said then. That across-the-board philosophy even applies to former Coach of the Year winners like Mike D'Antoni, who no doubt would have enjoyed celebrating his 57th birthday Thursday with a contract offer. Instead, unfazed by media reports that the Knicks were preparing a large offer to D'Antoni, Paxson has made it clear to the Suns coach's camp that he still plans to interview other candidates. Paxson interviewed D'Antoni over parts of Sunday and Monday in Phoenix. Those familiar with Paxson's reaction said he liked the gregarious D'Antoni personally and is intrigued by certain ideas on using Bulls personnel. But the same issues that plagued D'Antoni's basketball relationship with Suns GM Steve Kerr—lack of attention to defense, practice habits—are giving Paxson pause beyond possible financial concerns. He will likely seek around the $8.5 million the Suns still owe him over two years. That's why Paxson still plans to interview people like Celtics assistant Tom Thibodeau and Pistons assistant Michael Curry, although the latter isn't expected to be given permission from GM Joe Dumars. Paxson began his search with a long list that certainly includes other unknown candidates. Paxson remains so open-minded he might interview former Mavericks coach Avery Johnson, even though sources close to Johnson insist Paxson has reservations.</div> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...,1,610174.story If Reindsorf undermines Paxson, and hires D'Antoni this weekend, can we assume this to be the end of Paxson, with Paxson resigning? </div> Well, it'd either be Reinsdorf undermining Paxson, or it'd be that the article is just plain wrong.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (JayJohnstone @ May 10 2008, 11:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ May 10 2008, 09:04 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Like, the profitable thing to do would probably be to hire the exciting coach. The weird thing to do would be to obsess over your sunk costs (how much Skiles is being paid, for example). Or trading for Kevin Garnett and then refusing to spend any money to put pieces around him (like not signing James Posey, etc).</div> If you are saying that Reinsdorf likes to focus on the micro (some personal affront of paying too much for a coach) rather than the macro (what a great coach and a turnaround could mean in terms of TV $$$ and tickets), I would have to agree. I still think "cheap" works fine in the shorthand. </div> That's about it. But no need to fear, what's not to like about the cut of this jib? I hope he doesn't see this one though:
