Welcome everyone to the first bi-weekly Bulls Debate. This week we will have the members “TheFreshPrince” and “michiganave17” going head-to-head in a debate. This debate will begin once the first reply is submitted and will last approximately 48 hours. If anyone is interested in participating in this game the next time, it comes around please send me a private message. Here are some rules and other things to remember…. 1. Only the two people participating should post in this thread after the debate is over there will be a thread for discussion and voting. 2. You can only have a debate if the people involved disagree so please try to take opposing views on the topic. 3. Keep it to clean no personally shots Now down to the question….. In your opinion what has been the best move of the John Paxson era in Chicago?
In my opinion this is an easy question to answer. The greatest move that Pax has done since being General manager is assigning Scott Skiles as Head coach. Think about it. After the Failure of Tim Floyd and Bill Cartwright who’s combined record is 100-290. Paxson put in place a guy who would settle for nothing but the best. The Best they could be defensively, offensively, and the best under pressure. Think about it. It took a little balls to bring in a guy who hadn’t proven himself on the NBA level yet. Especially with the situation the Bulls were in. Being in a town that had spent 10 years in basketball bliss was now barley winning 1/3 of their games. And Pax had the nerve to put in a rookie coach after the failure of another rookie in Cartwright. He took away a Cartwright whom we all thought would be a mentor to Tyson and Eddie. And look at what we accomplished because of this one great move. Today because of this move we were able to basically make something out of nothing. After being thrown into the coaching position after the season began he struggled. He made no excuses about the ruff year. That next season with basically a whole new team and he took them to the playoffs. Skiles was the catalyst to getting Curry involved into the offence. He made a Team believe they were winners. Think about it there is not 1 move that has been bigger than that one move. Skiles is the life’s blood of this young Chicago Team and in a short amount of time molded them into Men who believed they could win. Think about it. When the Bulls started out the 2004-2005 season their record was 0-9. Zero Wins Nine Losses!!! To finish with a 47-35 record was miraculous. Most teams/coaches would have given up but there was something that he did to motivate these guys to a good record. If making Skiles Head Coach isn’t the best move that Skiles has done in his short career please prove me wrong.
A new coach is great, but John Paxson's best move as the Chicago Bull's GM has to be his performance in the draft. He added Kirk Hinrich, Ben Gordon, Luol Deng, Chris Duhon, and Andres Nocioni in two draft years. All of these players are currently huge pieces to any of our teams success. Without the great drafting of these players, the Bulls would still be "trying to recover from the Jordan era." John Paxson gave this team their pg, sg, and sf's for the future. I am not going to get into this years draft yet because we dont know how good these guys will turn out, but Paxson clearly has turned this team into contenders due his excellent drafting. Hinrich is on the verge of being an olympian, and an elite pg of this league. He is an intelligent, prototype pg, that was the perfect choice for this franchise. he is already climbing the board of the now infamous 2003 draft class. Paxson got him at 7, and there is not a single guy better still on the board. The following year Paxson does even better, by adding 4 players who would all make significant impacts on the franchise. He nabbed Gordon at 3, Deng at 7, stole Duhon at 38, and got Nocioni (an olympic gold medal winner) as an undrafted free agent. Gordon became the sparkplug off the bench for any team by winning the 6th man of the year award. The first ever rookie to do so. He was also electric in fourth quarters where he nearly led the league in fourth quarter points. Deng was solid from the get go, and still is. He plays good defense, rebounds, scores, passes, and is unselfish about all of it. He truly is a team player. Duhon came in without any expectations to even make the team, but proved that a pg doesnt need to score to make an impact. Duhon's hard nosed D and great descision making skills made him one of the top rookie pg's in the draft. He rarely makes a mistake, and never forces a shot. Nocioni is the ultimate hustle guy. He gives you 110% every time he steps on the court. Whether it is rebounding, playing defense, or hitting threes, he will do it. If you check the roster now, you will clearly see that if Paxson had not been so wise in his draft selections, the Bulls would still be a bottom feeder in this league.
The question is "what has been the best <u>move</u> of the John Paxson era in Chicago?" You say his drafts have been good and you named a number of moves. Of course the combination of <u>4 moves</u> is greater than the one i chose. But which one of those moves where bigger than signing coach skiles?
Alright, i see we are gonna get picky, well then fine. If you are not gonna count that, then the single greatest move by John Paxson is the eddie curry trade. Paxson got rid of a bust in the making player, with a possible heart defect for the number 2 pick in the draft, and possibly another high lottery selectoi next yeat. He used that pick on Tyrus Thomas out of LSU. He is an explosive player that is bound to do good in this league. Plus, the move gave us an expiring contract in Tim Thomas, and a solid young big in Michael Sweetney. With Tim Thomas' expiring contract, the Bulls had enough cap space to go after a top notch free agent, Ben Wallace of the Detroit Pistons was that guy. If not for this great move by Paxson, then the Bulls would just be struggling to make the playoffs under an inexperienced coach. BTW, BKS, can i get a ruling on my argument. Does the first one not count? I am cool either way, but i was just curious, thanks.
The talent differential between what Skiles has had to work with and what Cartwright had to work with are night and day. Under Cartwright, Chandler was actually getting better. He was learning a jump hook, an "ugly" but somewhat effect J from 10-15' out, and a post move or two. That all regressed and dissapeared under Skiles. I don't blame Chandler being a bust just on Skiles. Its also on Chandler. Every year, he went back to California to "work out" instead of working out at the Berto Center. But Skiles definetely curtailed Chandler's development. Not to mention, Skiles has had the benefit of having Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, Curry, Chandler, Davis, Hinrich, Duhon, etc. Something Cartwright didn't have. Instead, Cartwright had Curry, Chandler, Crawford, and Rose.... Paxson has drafted very well....and that's been his best asset to our franchise. He added a solid base with quality players. He drafted from successful programs, drafting players with 'jib' to form a solid base. (Hinrich, Duhon, Gordon, Deng). Now, with a solid foundation, he has swung for the fences for a superstar (Thomas) and added a top Euro prospect (Thabo). If Thomas does bust out, it won't hurt the foundation of the team, since its chalked full of jib. Smart move. But since that equates into more than one move...and you can only choose one...I'd have to go with either the dumping of Crawford/Rose (ridding ourselves of bad jib) or the drafting of Gordon, which gave us a legitimate scoring threat, esp. late in games. That was something we were looking for in Jalen Rose. Oops. Since I'd rather look at the positives, I'd say Gordon was his best move. It gave us a 20 ppg scorer (well, not technically...but he more than has the ability to...and should, this season) and someone who we can turn too late in games. Something we wanted from Rose; but never got.
The talent differential between what Skiles has had to work with and what Cartwright had to work with are night and day. Under Cartwright, Chandler was actually getting better. He was learning a jump hook, an "ugly" but somewhat effect J from 10-15' out, and a post move or two. That all regressed and dissapeared under Skiles. I don't blame Chandler being a bust just on Skiles. Its also on Chandler. Every year, he went back to California to "work out" instead of working out at the Berto Center. But Skiles definetely curtailed Chandler's development. Not to mention, Skiles has had the benefit of having Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, Curry, Chandler, Davis, Hinrich, Duhon, etc. Something Cartwright didn't have. Instead, Cartwright had Curry, Chandler, Crawford, and Rose.... Paxson has drafted very well....and that's been his best asset to our franchise. He added a solid base with quality players. He drafted from successful programs, drafting players with 'jib' to form a solid base. (Hinrich, Duhon, Gordon, Deng). Now, with a solid foundation, he has swung for the fences for a superstar (Thomas) and added a top Euro prospect (Thabo). If Thomas does bust out, it won't hurt the foundation of the team, since its chalked full of jib. Smart move. But since that equates into more than one move...and you can only choose one...I'd have to go with either the dumping of Crawford/Rose (ridding ourselves of bad jib) or the drafting of Gordon, which gave us a legitimate scoring threat, esp. late in games. That was something we were looking for in Jalen Rose. Oops. Since I'd rather look at the positives, I'd say Gordon was his best move. It gave us a 20 ppg scorer (well, not technically...but he more than has the ability to...and should, this season) and someone who we can turn too late in games. Something we wanted from Rose; but never got.
Sorry Vintage had to delete your post man this is a one on one debate game we need to let these guys figure things out by themselves. TFP as far as your question goes I will allow the draft to be used because you can categories all those picks into one thing The 200_ Draft. However, Nocioni would not be included as he was acquired after the draft as an undrafted free agent. PS: Vintage if you want to participate next time we have this please PM me. Thanks.
Alright cool, Michiganave17, i will let u respond to either, it is up to you which one i debate, that seems the fairest way to do it.
Okay I think that the Skiles signing is greater than this move. Simply because of the fact that if the bulls weren’t doing so well under Skiles, Wallace wouldn’t have signed with us anyway. And in my opinion Curry forced Pax to trade him. If Curry would’ve taken the heart test and passed he would be flourishing as a bull right now. I don’t think it was John’s intention to get rid of Curry. He just wanted to be able to sleep at night knowing that Curry’s Heart was totally 100%. And if we did sign curry to a deal we could’ve still made a move for Wallace. If Pax didn’t like what he saw in Curry we would’ve simply done a sign and trade for Wallace. Without the sighing of Skiles……. would we even be a hard nosed defense oriented team? Probably not. So Ben would’ve more than likely gone to a team other than the bulls. That trade was forced by curry. So I would give Curry more credit for that trade then Pax.
I wouldnt go that far, i think that Pax was feed up with Curry's lack of developement and would have done the knicks deal witht the heart issue or not. The bulls need cap room to sign all their young guns, so 2 first from the knicks, a solid player, and a big expiring contract is still a great deal if Curry is 100%. I really feel that Pax would have done it anyway. Skiles didnt turn the franchise around anyway, Paxson drafting did (not my point, just a counter argument). If Paxson would have drafted poorly, Skiles would have no one to turn into a solid team. Plus, I think Ben woudl have came here anyway. He obviously went to whoever gave him the most amount of money, so if Chicago gave him the same contract (which they couldnt have without the curry trade) he still wouldve came.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">I wouldnt go that far, i think that Pax was feed up with Curry's lack of developement and would have done the knicks deal witht the heart issue or not. The bulls need cap room to sign all their young guns, so 2 first from the knicks, a solid player, and a big expiring contract is still a great deal if Curry is 100%..</div> Here I disagree with you. Before curry was injured he was on the upswing. Okay we know he had some problems but overall his numbers got better year after year. Especially with Skiles game plans. Skiles began to utilize Curry's strengths in our offence. Curry was our ignition and would give us that great start in a game that we still lack today. Curry would get off in the first Quarter. I would say his last season here he averaged 7-10 of his 16 points per game in the first Quarter. Which opened things up for Ben Hinrich and Duhon. Curry was valuable in helping to compromise the opposing defense. Currys not a great 1 on 1 player but when you set plays for him he can put up numbers quickly. And if Curry had been healthy we would?ve beat the Wiz in the first round. In that series we were basically exploited down low. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">I really feel that Pax would have done it anyway. Skiles didnt turn the franchise around anyway, Paxson drafting did (not my point, just a counter argument). If Paxson would have drafted poorly, Skiles would have no one to turn into a solid team..</div> Skiles is a great coach and there aren?t many coaches who can squeeze what he has out of this group of players. There are teams with taller players, stronger players, and more athletic players yet Skiles found a way to win. Whether it is sitting down Gordon and Hinrich to give Duhon and Pargo a try or putting TT on the bench. You have to give him credit most coaches would never have the confidence in a guy like Pargo. Watch what Pargo does when he leaves bulls he will be a distant memory, stuck on the end of someones bench.
Skiles is a risk taker, but why wouldnt he be. This team was going no where, the Curry deal is what set this team up for success, before that the team had no chance at being good, now there are talks of a title. If you really think that Skiles could have turned this team into a title contender by now, without the curry trade, then i just dont understand
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">Skiles is a risk taker, but why wouldnt he be. This team was going no where</div> What do you mean the Team was going nowhere? We took the Heat 6 games with absolutly no inside preseance. And made every game exciting to watch. the bulls heat series was one of the top 3 series this past playoffs. I consierthat amazing looking at out roster. That shoed tremendous growth on our core players. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">the Curry deal is what set this team up for success, <u>before that the team had no chance at being good,</u> now there are talks of a title.</div> Had no chance of being Good? We were already one of the most respected teams in the league. if our team wasnt already good just adding Wallace would mean nothing. We added a good player to an already good team thats why there is so much hype about it. I guess the Nets arent a good team also. They only won 1 game aginst the nba champs in their series. <div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheFreshPrince:</div><div class="quote_post">If you really think that Skiles could have turned this team into a title contender by now, without the curry trade, then i just dont understand</div> Your not getting it. If the team wasnt performing well wallace wouldnt have joined our team. Its just that chicago playing well plus our willing to give big bucks was too enticing for him. Hiring Skiles was the seed that grew into the tree and wallace is a branch. Skiles is still the heart and soul of the team.
^^Chicago didnt play well and take the heat to 6 games, until AFTER the eddy curry trade. That trade put everything in motion for the franchise to make a comeback. It free'd up time for tyson chandler, sweetney a little, and nocioni and deng who really broke out this year. If it wsnt for the Curry trade, Nocioni would still be deng's backup and struggling to get minutes. Now he is a solid all arould player that our team needs. Skiles, as you said was unproven, so there is no proof that it was him, or the players that started the turn around that was completed by the Curry trade. Ok, which team is better, the bulls before the eddy curry trade or after? If the bulls had not done the eddy curry trade, do you really think they woudl be considered title contenders this year? A different coach could have got them here with the eddy curry trade, but without that trade, the bulls would be just struggling to make the playoffs
Sorry for being a bit late guys I was at church. I would like to thank you two for participating and making this a very successful first edition I will post a discussion thread soon for people to vote and comment on the debate. Until then thread closed.
