Posted by EnySpree:

I think Paxson is a freakin idiot.

He already had Hinrich yet drafted Duhon and Gordon. He already had two under achievers in Tyson and Curry who both decided to finally show up.

Then he drafts Deng and signs Nocioni too? Why?

It all worked out some how because Skiles finally got them to believe that playing hard, rebounding and defense will help them win. This team was losing at the start of last season.

Paxson is just as bad as Mullin. Golden State was a laughing stock until he made the Baron trade. Why did Mullin overpay Fisher and Foyle?

Call you a hater if you want. Pax and Mullin are nit wits

I agree, and IMO the warriors are still not out of the woods, baron davis and his fat azz need to stay healthy and so far that has been virtually impossible.. The bulls are strange, they overachieved this year and if you ask the bulls fans, they think they are on the verge of greatness with that team... Paxon is a fool, Duhon, Hinrich, Gordon are all sub 6'2 guards, pretty much the same game except that gordon does not defend, then he has a bunch of other players that do one thing or the other good, but never both, Chandler plays defense and rebounds but can't score a lick, curry scores but doesn't rebound or defend, nocioni defends well, deng shoots all the time and is a average defender.. Win some games and no one seems to question you at all, no matter how bad of a job you really did at the start......

I agree a 100% with djsunyc. I wrote a similar post from way back, but I didn't use Paxon as my model of GM. However, knowing the type of guy that Isiah is, he has a totally different view about where to find players. He is more like give them all a chance type, especially those who have had a pretty bad past and so on. Isiah always wants a challenge, because he had a pretty rough life himself. He would be quicker to give a job to a kid like a talented Odoms who had a really crazy upbringing over a guy like Kobe, that is if he didn't much about the two...

Posted by djsunyc:

Posted by EnySpree:

I think Paxson is a freakin idiot.

He already had Hinrich yet drafted Duhon and Gordon. He already had two under achievers in Tyson and Curry who both decided to finally show up.

Then he drafts Deng and signs Nocioni too? Why?

It all worked out some how because Skiles finally got them to believe that playing hard, rebounding and defense will help them win. This team was losing at the start of last season.

Paxson is just as bad as Mullin. Golden State was a laughing stock until he made the Baron trade. Why did Mullin overpay Fisher and Foyle?

Call you a hater if you want. Pax and Mullin are nit wits

that's called drafting for depth. unless you have a SUPERDUPERSTAR, you just keep stockpiling as many good players as possible. now, all those players pretty much have better trade value than anyone we have. i don't get the paxson is an idiot thing. i was talking about the type of players he drafted attitude wise.

eny - i would trade this team's roster with either the bulls or the warriors in a nano-second.
the bulls are set-up to be the team of the decade. the warriors, despite the foyle and fisher signings, we're still talking about a core of baron, pietrus, jrich, murphy, and biendrich.

That warriors roster has been together for a few years now, and what have then done? but fail? The bulls overachieved, but again I am not suprised a Knicks fan would see the grass is greener on the other side... Almost typical..

I would also like to mention, when you are a perinnial lottery team, you should not be drafting for depth, you should be drafting starters in the lottery or potential impact players.. You draft for depth with later picks....

[Edited by - tkf on 05/27/2005 22:51:41]

Posted by nyballer:

Posted by tkf:

Posted by EnySpree:

I think Paxson is a freakin idiot.

He already had Hinrich yet drafted Duhon and Gordon. He already had two under achievers in Tyson and Curry who both decided to finally show up.

Then he drafts Deng and signs Nocioni too? Why?

It all worked out some how because Skiles finally got them to believe that playing hard, rebounding and defense will help them win. This team was losing at the start of last season.

Paxson is just as bad as Mullin. Golden State was a laughing stock until he made the Baron trade. Why did Mullin overpay Fisher and Foyle?

Call you a hater if you want. Pax and Mullin are nit wits

I agree, and IMO the warriors are still not out of the woods, baron davis and his fat azz need to stay healthy and so far that has been virtually impossible.. The bulls are strange, they overachieved this year and if you ask the bulls fans, they think they are on the verge of greatness with that team... Paxon is a fool, Duhon, Hinrich, Gordon are all sub 6'2 guards, pretty much the same game except that gordon does not defend, then he has a bunch of other players that do one thing or the other good, but never both, Chandler plays defense and rebounds but can't score a lick, curry scores but doesn't rebound or defend, nocioni defends well, deng shoots all the time and is a average defender.. Win some games and no one seems to question you at all, no matter how bad of a job you really did at the start......

Duhon, Hinrich, and Gordon have size in common, but thats about it. Hinrich and Duhon play like point guards, Gordon isn't a point at all. drafting duhon in the second round is drafting for depth. They pretty much drafted potential stars at each position, Deng was putting up the same numbers as tim thomas, except he is a rookie on a deep team. Chandler and Curry were drafted together to complement each other, you can't expect to draft a Garnett in every draft. granted they might not be able to sign all their players, but if they do, they have the foundations to be an excellent team..they're definitely NOT a bunch of "overachievers."

actually hinrich plays more like a SG, if you notice he is not a great passer, gets low assits numbers and is not a good creator for others on offense, Duhon passes because he sucks offensively, ben gordon and hinrich are pretty similar and when you throw Pargo in there they are almost one in the same... I think they overachieved, as noted by even the announcers during the game, the bulls have a bunch of role players, Hinrich is a starter to me, but the rest are role players, chandler may be a starter but he has no offense whatsoever, curry is weak on the boards and can't defend, so you need both as you said, but man, to take those guys so high in the draft and get incomplete players in not my idea of genius drafting....But again, win a few games and everything is A-OK..

As you all can see, it took Paxon about 2 years to get the players that he as a GM views decent enough to play the style that he desires. Granted, he is in a much smaller market than N.Y. and the fans in Chicago understand what it takes to build a championship team. It has been so long since we won a championship in N.Y., majority of us fans just either forget or just don't have a clue about the formulas of winning.

Bring in a hard nose coach in Laimbeer that will demand attention to detail and preach defense, and draft 3 big boys and let them free....Who's better for a young Center to learn from between Herb, Pat, and Laimbeer? I would say Laimbeer, because he has won the ultimate prize at all level so far...Tell me what the other 2 have won??? O

[Edited by - diderotn on 05/28/2005 01:11:24]

Is it me or is this the typical "winners" vs. "losers" argument? I think Chicago has a nice young team, with nice pieces, but they will be very different in 2-3 years or so. They can't sign all those guys but theu can trade them for other decent pieces. I dont think theres anythign really magical about having a team who already had2 top 3 drafted players on their team already, and drafted more good young players with more high lotto picks. I think any decent GM can do that, its not like he had to wheel and deal to make them better. its really not that impressive, but they have a pretty good team nevertheless.

I would give lots of credit to a GM who can step into a situation that is screwed up and can make great moves, or that can take a mediocre team and make it better through trades, drafts and FA signings. Doing it through the draft alone, especially with high lottery picks, is nothing to write home about. I think I could do it.

Posted by djsunyc:

killa - any team can go from first to worst at any time b/c you have NO CLUE what a GM or a player will do at any given time and chicago is the prime example of how not to run a franchise b/c they got rid of artest, miller, and brand. BUT with paxson, they are in a position that we desperately should want to be in. they just won 45+ games with a core of 22 year olds and with cap space and by not giving up picks.

did he come into a better situation? hells yeah but this post is NOT about paxson vs. isiah. it's about how paxson said before he drafted that he wanted players from winning situations and with good "winning" attitudes. and i simply stated that those are the type of players we should be targeting.

Chicago did give up picks, they have none this year, and I tell you that chicago still has a lot of work to do, you act as if they have "made it" that team still has a lot of flaws, if they win 38 games next year, will your view remain the same?

Posted by tkf:

Posted by djsunyc:

killa - any team can go from first to worst at any time b/c you have NO CLUE what a GM or a player will do at any given time and chicago is the prime example of how not to run a franchise b/c they got rid of artest, miller, and brand. BUT with paxson, they are in a position that we desperately should want to be in. they just won 45+ games with a core of 22 year olds and with cap space and by not giving up picks.

did he come into a better situation? hells yeah but this post is NOT about paxson vs. isiah. it's about how paxson said before he drafted that he wanted players from winning situations and with good "winning" attitudes. and i simply stated that those are the type of players we should be targeting.

Chicago did give up picks, they have none this year, and I tell you that chicago still has a lot of work to do, you act as if they have "made it" that team still has a lot of flaws, if they win 38 games next year, will your view remain the same?

If Curry doesn't come back healthy, they'll struggle to get to 38 wins next year. Without him their entire offense changes.