The Long Rebuild?

[Lascar78]

only because the real rebuilding began 5 years prior and netted them Hinrich, Curry, Chandler etc... that is why they were able to turn it around and you know it. Paxson didn't start a rebuilding, he took a team 5 years into rebuilding and finished it off nicely

[Diesel]

Hinrich came in with Paxson...

However, you say that getting Chandler was real rebuilding???

They gave up Elton Brand!

How would you rather rebuild around?

Just think...

They don't have Curry anymore and they gave up Elton Brand.

They basically set themselves back 5 years with those two draft picks.

Let's not forget about Fizer..

Let's not forget about Jay Williams (unfortunate)...

Let's not forget about the whole Eddie Robinson debacle...

That's not real rebuilding. That's real messed up...

Paxson came in and restored order.

[Buzzard]

Touchy feely and having warm feelings all over....

Quote:

---

It doesn't matter who you trade. If you're the GM and feel that Marvin will be the star at the Sf, then trade Smoove for value. If you feel that Marvin will never be as good as Smoove, then trade Marvin for Value.

---

Until one of these guys at least comes close to having a breath of an all star game and/or makes the all defensive team, no one knows squat about how they are going to be. And knowing is what rebuilding is all about.

Chicago traded away a cornerstone in Brand ...Orlando traded away a defensive cornerstone in Big Ben ... Portland in an attempt to clean house totally traded away its best player in Rasheed...

You don't make rash decisions based on "feelings". Just look at the facts and build from there. The fact is no one knows if we even have one cornerstone yet but either or both could be!

Hell, Chillz could turn out be one of our conerstones.

[Diesel]

How do you think BK is building his team...

He's not building his team based on the statistics... He's building his team based on WHO HE FEELS is the best player available and WHO HE FEELS fits his needs the best.

We can go throughout history and show mistakes... and they were probably based on one GM's feelings. However, at the end of the day, that's what the GM has to do in order to build that team.

Just Like Portland got Rasheed in a trade where they sent their PG to Washington. Do you think that was NOT a feeling that Rasheed would be more than just a guy who was known for Crying at the ACC championship game?? He got there based on a feeling.

Just like it was a feeling that LED Jerry West, to trade Vlade Divac for Kobe...

Just like it was a feeling that led Chicago to draft Brand in the first place. Remember, the whole world thought that he was going to take either Steve Francis or Lamar Odom... He shocked the world by taking Brand. That was based on a feeling...

[Diesel]

Or was it just three with 2 playoff years??

Let me help you with this because you can't seem to get it...

Click Here.

Hawksfanatic.. I guess in your world, we've been rebuilding since Ted Turner turned over the GMing???

How dumb is that.

If you think that each GM doesn't make his own Mark then you are a fool...

BK is not completing what Babcock started??

Neither is Paxson completing Krause's legacy...

How stupid is that?

If you want to be insulting... Let's do that...

But first do this..

Get your Number 2s out and draw out your family tree and try to figure out how many of your cousins are really your brothers... and then stop thinking that it's alright to molest your sister... We call that incest.. ya inbreed. I bet your family tree looks like a tomatoe vine!!

Now.. if you want to pass insults... We can do it all day.

If you want to ignore what I say... There's a button for that.

If you want to have a conversation... (especially when you'er lacking the facts...) take a chill pill and get on with it.

Its all about reciprocity.

[Buzzard]

Quote:

---

He's building his team based on WHO HE FEELS is the best player available and WHO HE FEELS fits his needs the best.

---

So BK is making his picks based on warm fuzzy feelings and not what he thinks based on all his experience in the NBA?

That's how you work Diesel. Everyone of your post are based on how you "feel" about a player. Its also obvious to everyone here how you "feel" about Smoove in a good way and how you "feel" about MWill in a bad way.

But I guarantee you, most highly successfull people in any business base their decisions on knowledge. Knowledge that is based on facts (stats, probability) and experience. Knowledge that was aquired through education and experience; not bias feelings one way or the other concerning anyone person or situation.

I imagine you have some touchy feely aurgument, concerning the below statement, that makes you feel that you do know how these three players (Smoove, Chillz, Marvin) are going to turn out in two to three years. Diesel the touchy feely psychic. You should make that your signature

The fact is no one knows if we even have one cornerstone yet but either or both could be!

Hell, Chillz could turn out be one of our conerstones.

[Buzzard]

Quote:

---

No, look at your freaking original post. It clearly says what

TEAM

has had a long rebuilding process through the draft. I am sorry you like to change your topic without letting others know about it, but you are just pulling yet ANOTHER ad hoc move to your post. You get disproven and then you change your stance, "oh I meant to say GM instead of Team, you should have known that".

Post what you want to say, and if you meant something else but didn't post it that way its your own damn fault for being a moron.

---

That is what touchy feely people do. They change their minds based on their feelings. You hurt his feelings by showing him up, so he changed his mind (original post) so it would not hurt his feelings so bad....

[Diesel]

Since you want to act as if you don't know what feel means... Let's hear from some GMs in the league... huh??

Jerry Krause, why didn't you guys pick Odom?

Quote:

---

"We

felt

if we did not face Lamar and talk to him, then we really didn't have a comparison between him and Elton," general manager Jerry Krause said. "You know, in an election, you wait until all the precincts were in

before you make a decision.

We waited until all of the precincts were in, until we could look at everybody, and talk to everybody and then we made our decision."

---

Click

BK, what is your criteria for picking a player?

Quote:

---

"When you pick somebody at six or seventeen, you have a three-year commitment at a minimum to those guys.

So you have to feel comfortable and like those guys.

Seventeen is really interesting. We think (at six) there are enough good players in the draft, you're obviously waiting to see what the top five teams will do, but it could be somebody that you really like. It still could be somebody we like that another team is looking at differently."

---

Click

Nobody is knocking Knowledge... But all a GM does is take said knowledge and develop a belief or a feeling about a player.

Why do you think BK took Marvin last year?? All Marvin has is potential. If it were just an exercise in pure KNOWLEDGE, you go with need at the PG position, experience of leading a team either Paul or Deron... That's the statistical and logical choice. So when BK chooses to go with Marvin what is he using??

When Orlando choose Dwight Howard over Omeka Okafor.. What was the basis.. couldn't have been knowledge.. Knowledge says go with experience... Go with Okafor... But anytime you go with potential, you're going with a feeling... Not Knowledge...

Being that most players these days are drafted on potential...Most players are drafted on how the GM FEELS that player will turn out. It has little to do with Knowledge.

[Buzzard]

I went to the two links you gave. The one on Brand is missing error 404 at Sports Illustrated. The one on BK has 3 references to "feel" and 8 references to "think". The whole reference to feel was we need to feel comfortable with the pick and the player.

Nothing about how we have to "feel" he will be the next Kidd or AI.You think things through and then base your decisions. If you feel your way through, everyday offers the possibility of changing your mind, much like you change your "feelings" on almost every player you have ever offered a post on.

Its called being wishy washy Diesel and no one in a position of power can afford to come across like that. Being a good decision maker is based on knowledge and research. And all good decision makers and leaders stand by their decisions because they "feel" they did as good a job as anyone at making that decision.

It has more to do with how they feel about the process of making the pick and not how they feel about the player. They are, in a nutshell, comfortable within themselves and their abilities to make said decisions.

Which also explains why Jerry picked Brand over Odum. His process was to meet the potential picks face to face. When he could not do that, he did not feel comfortable within himself with Odum. Had nothing to do with Odums talents; had everything to do with Krause feeling comfortable within himself that his process (based on planning which requires thought) was the right one to follow. Krause being a strong leader followed his process and stuck to his guns.

I can't beleive you brought this up as a "feeling". Okufor had documented physical issues (back problems) that caused doubts concerning his abilitiy to play for a full NBA season. They made the right pick as far as I am concerned.

And last but not least:

You don't feel you have the best player. You feel good about the pick because you know you made the right decision based on your knowledge and experience. This is not about gut feelings, this is about big time people making big time decisions. BK obviously feels good about drafting Marvin, Chilz, and Smoove.

And once Al is gone he is going to feel even better about it. So get over it, stop whining, and flip flopping all over the board like a wishy washy teenage girl...

Quote:

---

It doesn't matter who you trade. If you're the GM and feel that Marvin will be the star at the Sf, then trade Smoove for value. If you feel that Marvin will never be as good as Smoove, then trade Marvin for Value.

---

Quote:

---

When Orlando choose Dwight Howard over Omeka Okafor.. What was the basis.. couldn't have been knowledge.. Knowledge says go with experience... Go with Okafor... But anytime you go with potential, you're going with a feeling... Not Knowledge...

---

Quote:

---

Since you want to act as if you don't know what feel means... Let's hear from some GMs in the league... huh??

Jerry Krause, why didn't you guys pick Odom?

Quote:

---

"We

felt

if we did not face Lamar and talk to him, then we really didn't have a comparison between him and Elton," general manager Jerry Krause said. "You know, in an election, you wait until all the precincts were in

before you make a decision.

We waited until all of the precincts were in, until we could look at everybody, and talk to everybody and then we made our decision."

---

Click

BK, what is your criteria for picking a player?

Quote:

---

"When you pick somebody at six or seventeen, you have a three-year commitment at a minimum to those guys.

So you have to feel comfortable and like those guys.

Seventeen is really interesting. We think (at six) there are enough good players in the draft, you're obviously waiting to see what the top five teams will do, but it could be somebody that you really like. It still could be somebody we like that another team is looking at differently."

---

Click

Nobody is knocking Knowledge... But all a GM does is take said knowledge and develop a belief or a feeling about a player.

Why do you think BK took Marvin last year?? All Marvin has is potential. If it were just an exercise in pure KNOWLEDGE, you go with need at the PG position, experience of leading a team either Paul or Deron... That's the statistical and logical choice. So when BK chooses to go with Marvin what is he using??

When Orlando choose Dwight Howard over Omeka Okafor.. What was the basis.. couldn't have been knowledge.. Knowledge says go with experience... Go with Okafor... But anytime you go with potential, you're going with a feeling... Not Knowledge...

Being that most players these days are drafted on potential...Most players are drafted on how the GM FEELS that player will turn out. It has little to do with Knowledge.

---

[Diesel]

As much as BK is documented as feeling a certain thing about a player... It's hard to believe you would even say such a thing?

Let's see.

We fell that JJ can be our PG..

Sounds familiar.

Let's see, is that based on Knowledge? NO.. JJ failed at PG in Phoenix which is why they brought Nash in instead of Kobe.

We fell that JC is a SG...

Sounds familiar.

And about Okafor.. He had back issues but that didn't have anything to do with the decision that Orlando made. After seeing Howard in person, Orlando's staff felt that he was the right guy to pick.

[Buzzard]

Go find all the quotes with links for this non-sense ok. You are hillarious....

Quote:

---

As much as BK is documented as feeling a certain thing about a player... It's hard to believe you would even say such a thing?

Let's see.

We fell that JJ can be our PG..

Sounds familiar.

Let's see, is that based on Knowledge? NO.. JJ failed at PG in Phoenix which is why they brought Nash in instead of Kobe.

We fell that JC is a SG...

Sounds familiar.

And about Okafor.. He had back issues but that didn't have anything to do with the decision that Orlando made. After seeing Howard in person, Orlando's staff felt that he was the right guy to pick.

---

[mudderfudder77]

Quote:

---

not by choice, but the bulls pretty much lost everyone when MJ and pip left in 98. That's why I compare our situation to theirs in terms of rebuilding through the draft first.

Maybe not the whole roster, but MJ, Pippen, Longley, Burrell, Kerr, Rodman, Brown, Caffey, Bueschler...

They basically kept Kukoc, Harper and Wennington. Harper and Wennington were gone by the next year.

If you compare our progress to theirs immediately after clearing house:

YEAR 1 (98-99, 03-04): CHI:.26 ATL:.341

YEAR 2: CHI:.207 ATL:.159

YEAR 3: CHI:.183 ATL:.317

YEAR 4: CHI:.256 ATL:?

YEAR 5: CHI:.366 ATL:?

YEAR 6: CHI:.281 ATL:?

YEAR 7: CHI:.573 ATL:?

YEAR 8: CHI:.500 ATL:?

Obviously they didn't have the luxury of a good draft pick in year 1, but still we seem on pace to recover faster than them

---

Hold on a minute... Atlanta hasn't made the playoffs since 98-99. Isn't that when your rebuild should start as well?

YEAR 1 (98-99) CHI:.26 ATL:.620

YEAR 2: CHI:.207 ATL:.341

YEAR 3: CHI:.183 ATL:.305

YEAR 4: CHI:.256 ATL:.402

YEAR 5: CHI:.366 ATL:.427

YEAR 6: CHI:.281 ATL:.341

YEAR 7: CHI:.573 ATL:.159

YEAR 8: CHI:.500 ATL:.317

You haven't been over .500 since the strike shortened 98-99 season.

If Atlanta gets a Muligan on their first rebuild from 99-00 to 2002-2003 shouldn't Chicago?

Krauses mistakes were Krauses - John Paxson came in and the rebuild started, in his second year the Bulls made the playoffs.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Hold on a minute... Atlanta hasn't made the playoffs since 98-99. Isn't that when your rebuild should start as well?

YEAR 1 (98-99) CHI:.26 ATL:.620

YEAR 2: CHI:.207 ATL:.341

YEAR 3: CHI:.183 ATL:.305

YEAR 4: CHI:.256 ATL:.402

YEAR 5: CHI:.366 ATL:.427

YEAR 6: CHI:.281 ATL:.341

YEAR 7: CHI:.573 ATL:.159

YEAR 8: CHI:.500 ATL:.317

You haven't been over .500 since the strike shortened 98-99 season.

If Atlanta gets a Muligan on their first rebuild from 99-00 to 2002-2003 shouldn't Chicago?

Krauses mistakes were Krauses - John Paxson came in and the rebuild started, in his second year the Bulls made the playoffs.

---

That is retarded. You think Atlanta was rebuilding the season they guaranteed they would make the playoffs just because they finished under .500? That is just ridiculous. Of course they weren't rebuilding when they were adding veterans like Ratliff, Robinson, etc. in an effort to make the playoffs.

Atlanta started rebuilding when they shipped out Big Dog and tore down the team. That is the point rebuilding began. The comparison is not 100% there with Chicago at that point because Atlanta had already forfeited future draft picks but you can compare them from that point forward.

Chicago doesn't get a "mulligan" with rebuilding any more than the Clippers, Warriors, etc. do. Neither does Atlanta - they have to accept their rebuilding started in full bore in the 2003-04 season. (Not 1999-00 when they were still adding veterans and trading away lottery picks in an attempt to win now - that isn't rebuilding).

The value in looking at those situations is looking at the pace of progress in its entirety to see how successful the long-term rebuilds have been.

[Lascar78]

I don't consider rebuilding to start by record. When we were losing in the late 90s / early 00's, we were trying our hardest to win. That was no rebuild. As far as I'm considered, a rebuild means wiping your roster clean and starting over. As opposed to trying to win and failing miserably.

After the 97-98 season, the bulls roster had NO ONE, due to everyone leaving. That's when the rebuild began. For us, we shipped everyone (reef, theo, jt...) in the middle of the 02-03 season, leaving us with NO ONE by the 03 season. Which is when our rebuild started. As I said, we had a leg up because we had a high pick coming (plus a mid 1st), and you guys didn't. But that is still when both rebuilds started

[Diesel]

You can't hold Paxson responsible for the failings of Krause...

A rebuild is a concerted effort. You are suggesting that Paxson picked up where Krause left off. That's definitely not the case because Paxson traded away one of Krause major pieces.

Each GM comes in with his own vision.

Therefore, Rebuilding doesn't start with record.. Rebuilding doesn't start with just the move of one GM. Rebuilding changes from GM to GM...

Paxson took over a bad Chicago team. His rebuild started by the acquisition of Hinrich.

BK took over a bad Hawks team, his rebuild started by cutting all the high cost players. Had Babcock stayed, he might have been content to keep JT and Reef... However, BK (different vision, new rebuild) changed things..

[Lascar78]

If you look just at what paxson did, it's not a rebuild. A rebuild is getting rid of all your pieces and starting from scratch. If you consider just what paxson did, he brought the club back to prominence in 2 years, but it wasn't a rebuild. He started with a bunch of young pieces, no cap problems etc... that's not a rebuild. Rebuild is starting with nothing

[AHF]

Quote:

---

You can't hold Paxson responsible for the failings of Krause...

---

Ageed but when have I ever done this? Has anyone suggested that Paxson is to blame for trading away Artest and Brad Miller or for dealing Elton Brand? No one is suggesting that Paxson is responsible for the early years of the Bulls' rebuilding. However, that doesn't mean that he didn't come in and clean up a flawed rebuilding blue print, though.

Quote:

---

A rebuild is a concerted effort. You are suggesting that Paxson picked up where Krause left off.

---

That is exactly what I am suggesting. I am suggesting Paxson picked up where Krause left off and made his own moves to improve the team. There is no question in my mind that Paxson benefited from the rebuilding the TEAM had already done and took them in a new and better direction.

Quote:

---

That's definitely not the case because Paxson traded away one of Krause major pieces.

---

Are you talking about Jalen Rose?

Quote:

---

Each GM comes in with his own vision.

---

True. I don't think that means that the Bulls weren't rebuilding under Krause, though, or that they didn't continue and improve those rebuilding efforts under Paxson.

Quote:

---

Therefore, Rebuilding doesn't start with record.. Rebuilding doesn't start with just the move of one GM. Rebuilding changes from GM to GM...

---

I already made the same argument about record. I agree it is about what you are doing. However, I don't understand this argument. You are saying that Chicago was rebuilding from the time Jordan left but that the rebuilding started fresh when Paxson came in? I guess I just view that as a new phase in the same rebuilding effort.

Quote:

---

Paxson took over a bad Chicago team. His rebuild started by the acquisition of Hinrich.

---

Paxson's moves started with trading for inside muscle in the Junkyard Dog and Antonio Davis. However, the rebuilding of the Chicago Bulls began years earlier. Paxsons' era as GM did begin with him taking over a bad Chicago team but he didn't gut that team and build anew. He made some moves and kept adding pieces to an existing core and took them where they needed to go to be in the playoffs. IMO, that is a not a new rebuild but is a new direction for a long-standing rebuild.

Quote:

---

BK took over a bad Hawks team, his rebuild started by cutting all the high cost players. Had Babcock stayed, he might have been content to keep JT and Reef... However, BK (different vision, new rebuild) changed things..

---

The Hawks rebuild started with shipping out Big Dog, Reef and others and starting over. That happened to coincide with BK taking over.

If Babcock would have shipped everyone out and drafted, Diaw, Chills and J. Smith and then handed the team over to BK who did what he has done since then, I would not consider that two different rebuilding eras. The team tore down its foundation and began adding talent to rebuild the team. That rebuilding effort continues regardless of who is the GM until the team is contending and no longer rebuilding.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

If you look just at what paxson did, it's not a rebuild. A rebuild is getting rid of all your pieces and starting from scratch. If you consider just what paxson did, he brought the club back to prominence in 2 years, but it wasn't a rebuild. He started with a bunch of young pieces, no cap problems etc... that's not a rebuild. Rebuild is starting with nothing

---

.

Exactly. Paxson didn't say he was scrapping the team's core. To the contrary, he said:

Quote:

---

“The one thing that really sold me on doing the trade was that I didn’t have to give up the core youth of this team,” Paxson says. “We’ve still got Eddy, Tyson and Jamal... We’re still only going to be as good as they become, and I’ll live with that.”

---

[Diesel]

I think had Chicago kept Krause, they probably would have gone on in the same direction for years.... and may have never gotten anywhere.

However, they hired Paxson.

He made sweeping changes. He brought in a new coach. He got the team back into the playoffs in two years.

If it's not a rebuild... Then you got to come up with another name for it... because the team that Paxson has now, looks NOTHING Like what Krause had...

[Diesel]

Is that he did just that...

He gave up Eddy and Jamal and resigned Tyson under stress.

Let's ask the question. Does the team that Paxson have look anything like the team that Krause Had???

How is it not a rebuild if the building doesn't look the same?