My view on blowouts:

If you don't like getting "embarrassed" don't get down by 30+ points. If you do, it's your own fault. The Knicks should've been talking about how bad THEY are after the game, not how it's not fair that the other team kept trying, or God forbid, rubbed some salt in it.

Their fans should be concentrating on how this team has given up, which flows from the coach right on down. Not bitching about how Chicago ran up the score.

The Sixers lost a game by 50 earlier this season. Five Zero. Did anyone on the Sixers run to the press and say, "Hey, why did Houston run the score up?" No. Did anyone on the Sixers threaten violence, like Steve Francis? No. They said they played horribly. It's called accountability, something no one, and I do mean no one, on the Knicks team or in the Knicks organization knows a thing about.

And you know what? I think the 76ers and their fans are okay to throw stones at the Knicks, because of what you just said about the 50 point blowout.

But I don't think the Bulls or their coach or fans should; they are equally as guilty of being classless. I am not trying to absolve the Knicks of blame (I've said repeatedly they behaved classless), just pointing out that both sides have earned it equally.

If the Bulls actions had lead to an altercation, like the one in the Nuggets-Knicks game, it could have ruined their playoff ambitions. What if Tyrus Thomas had earned a 15-game suspension? Or Ben Wallace? It would have carried over to the playoffs, no?

The Bulls coach and fans should not be complaining about the Knicks actions, but instead asking why did their coach put them in a situation that could have potentially have ruined their season? For what, a few Big Macs?!? Not smart....

You took the words out of my mouth. If my team is on the winning side of a blowout, I don't want them running up the score, and I'm definitely not going to go to their fans and say "you suck." If they do, it makes me feel embarrassed for them more than anything. What are you proving, that you can kick a guy when he's down?

All of these guys are professionals, nominally at least. Even if the players on the floor are immature, which many of them are, the coaches know better. Act like a professional when you win, act like a professional when you lose.

Exactly. I love the Bulls fan over at FreeDarko who told me that "With his Knicks blowing out the Raptors by 20-plus at the Garden a couple weeks ago, Nate Robinson stripped Mo Pete at halfcourt with six seconds left. That's sportsmanlike?"

No! Nate Robinson is the very definition of "unsportsmanlike"! If your best argument is that you are doing the same thing Nate Robinson does then you have already proven my point....

Furthermore, at least Isiah Thomas has seemingless tried to break Nate Robinson out of his stupid showboating habits; note that in the game against the Bucks a few weeks ago he twice (twice!) passed up the opportunity to do a dunk on a breakaway basket in favor of a simple layup. He got booed by the Buck crowd, too. Maybe there is hope for the littliest clown?

> they are equally as guilty of being classless

You have to play ball and give it your best when you play whether your up by 30 or down by 30. Its not being classless. Its called being a professional. People pay good money to see a good game. And that means seeing athletes who give it their all - And yes I think if the Knicks did put more effort in the game, and had a little more pride, they would have at least tried to cut that lead by themselves instead of whining about not getting "respect" because they've already "surrendered".

Look, I'm a regular reader and I don't mean to sound rude: But where I came from, when you play you abide by this rule: "No mercy asked, no mercy given."

Or are you telling me the Knicks are a bunch of pansies?

How are you giving it your all by throwing alley-oops and chucking up threes! I actually don't mind the third quarter pressing when up 30 (fourth quarter is excessive, though), but that sh*t at the end of the game was totally unnecessary. That's not giving it your all. If that's giving it your all, then the All-Star game must be the hardest-fought NBA game of the season, huh?

This wasn't "giving it your all", this was trying to embarrass another team on your home court.

Running up the score is akin to padding your stats. Remember when someone threw a pass of the backboard in garbage time so he could have a triple-double? I can't remember who that was, but he was heavily criticized for that, and rightfully so. That stuff is totally unnecessary.

This isn't about asking for mercy, it's about being a professional and having respect for the game. If you want to label the Knicks or me "pansies" for feeling that way, fine. I personally think there is a better way, and prefer my teams to take the high road in those situations. One, it's classy, Two, it prevents bad feelings, or possible incidents. I felt George Karl was equally to blame for the Nuggets-Knicks fight as Isiah was, and I feel Scott Skiles was just as much to blame for that minor incident the other night.

You might think this is unique to the Knicks, but a lot of players would take offense to what happen the other night if they were in that situation. Of course, the reason it doesn't happen has much to other teams (only to Knicks it seems) is because Isiah has lots of enemies, including Popavich and Karl (Larry Brown's friends) and Skiles/Paxson (for the reasons in the post). I bet you the Bulls would never try that to another team....

Good post, I think the Curry trade actually work out better for New York then most people in Chicago expected. We half expected him to drop dead on the court in his first game in Madison Square Garden.

And the Knicks not cutting AD really pissed off Pax and apparently AD. Remember, the Bulls won 47 games in 04, then slipped to a .500 in 05 (and i think they won 10 of their last 12 just to ge there) and they thought the lack of Davis' leadership was a big reason why.

Good point Ricky. A lot of people seem to forget that they were 37-26 with Curry, then dropped to .500 (10-9) the rest of the season, then went .500 all of last year, too (and they were below .500 most of the season). Now with the addition of Ben Wallace the Bulls are back to where they were when they had Curry!

It's like the last two years they haven't move forward much. Yeah, they might end up the number two seed, but their record indicates a marginally increase over their record when they had Curry in 04-05. And unless they acquire a low post presence, I don't see how they will continue to move forward.

I'm writing a post on the Curry trade tommarow for the new site (can I get a welcome to the family?) but i'm of the opinion that if the Bulls still had EC and Tyson they prolly woulda won close to 60 games this year. The Bash Brothers perfectly complemented each other: Eddy scores like a mother but couldn't grab boards, and Tyson was a mad man on the boards but was horrible offensivly. Honestly, Tyson has the worst hands ive seen since the Bears drafted Rashan Salamn who fumbled 9 times as a rookie in 95'.

But i love that you're a Free Darko fan. Those guys rock.

I believe for most of those trades, not including Curry, the term 'addition by subtraction' could be used. I know Paxson shipped a lot of parts he didn't want/need over to the Knicks and while he may not have receieved the greatest assets in return (Frank Williams time!) it was a way to get him roster and cap flexibility. That's why people believe the Bulls did so well on all of those deals. Plus, right now, people in Chicago love Tyrus and believe he's playing better (maybe not statistically) and contributing more than Eddy Curry did in his first or second years.
As for playing pressure defense in the 3rd quarter and blocking layups at the buzzer....that's what the Bulls do. They are taught to do that every day. Their entire team 'mantra' is about pressure, intensity and playing hard. Paxson and Skiles want them doing that no matter what the score is and no matter who is in the game. I believe no other team in the NBA does this (maybe Utah) and it is what seperates the Bulls at times. That is why when you watch the Bulls play on TV the pace/intensity of their games are decidedly different than other NBA teams.
You're right though, we detest Isiah and feel he's a fucktard in every sense of the word. You have to remember waaaayyy back when he called for the 'ice out' on Jordan in the All Star game when Jordan first came into the league and that's where it probably started. Bulls fans have great memories. I think the question that should be asked, and I can't completely answer is....why can't Bulls fans hate Isiah and still respect the Knicks? We used to be able to do it when Van Gundy and Riley were there.

"i'm of the opinion that if the Bulls still had EC and Tyson they prolly woulda won close to 60 games this year."

That's wrong on so many levels that I'm not even going to begin to explain why that wouldn't have happened.

Ricky - I'll be happy to give you a welcome. Absolutely. Send me the link.

Cobra: I don't agree with the "cap flexibility" issue. Crawford and Curry were free agents, so the Bulls didn't "trade" them for cap reasons. They gave up on them, and wisely were able to get some good value for them rather than to let them walk away for nothing. Well, value for Curry, anyway.

I'm not sure about Chandlers' situation (was he a free agent), but I don't think the Bulls inked him to the big contract, so the same applies to him. They gave up on him, and were smart to get something for him.

However, what they got for him - JR Smith - was cheap (he is under $2 million per year for the next three seasons). They gave up on him, though he's a cheaper version of Ben Gordon.

I'm not sure the Bulls would have won 60 or not had they kept Curry and Chandler, but it's hard to argue they would haven't have won at least the same amount of games as this year's Bulls. The numbers show they were 37-26 with Curry/Chandler, on pace for a 50-win season. That's where they are once again, after being .500 for the past year plus.

So for all the "we play hard now" stuff, it's hard to say you guys have improved. If you don't manage to hold on to that 2-seed, if Cleveland passes you, then you have to go play at Miami in the first round. Then it becomes a strong possibility that the Bulls do not make it out the first round for the third straight year.

Oh, I don't have a problem with pressure in the third. But so you know, even Skiles admitted that he had blame:
"If there was a situation, it was more than likely my fault", Skiles told reporters. "We had the ball out of bounds with 2:56 to go... I said to the guys 'Let's go ahead and get 100'..."

Skiles also said he could understand why the Knicks were angry about Allen's shot with 9.9 second left. Though he left out any comments on Tyrus's alley-oop or the threes, but the point is simple: Skiles and the Bulls are as much to blame for this as the Knicks are. Both exhibited poor sportsmanship. I can't believe how many Bulls fans are refusing to acknowledge that, and simply placing blame on the Knicks!

"Cobra: I don't agree with the "cap flexibility" issue. Crawford and Curry were free agents, so the Bulls didn't "trade" them for cap reasons. They gave up on them, and wisely were able to get some good value for them rather than to let them walk away for nothing. Well, value for Curry, anyway.

I'm not sure about Chandlers' situation (was he a free agent), but I don't think the Bulls inked him to the big contract, so the same applies to him. They gave up on him, and were smart to get something for him."

In response to that, actually the Bulls signed Chandler to a huge contract and he played under it for 1 year with the Bulls. By trading him and signing Ben Wallace to a contract that was loaded at the end it will allow to Bulls to extend, or have extended the contracts of Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and possibly Nocioni in the coming years.

JR Smith was never going to play for the Bulls. Everyone knew it, get over it. If he were in Chicago I would guess he would have produced even less than he did for Byron Scott. I don't have anything to go on but a feeling on that one.

Showing overall records like 37-26 are so bland and broad. Look at the Bulls home record this year, look at how they've played within their division. I would fetch a guess that when the Bulls were 37-26 they were probably catching a lot of teams sleeping as it was the first year that they were decent. In the NBA a win isn't a win isn't a win a lot of times. Look at how the Bulls have played the tougher teams in the league for them to play such as the Pistons, Cavs, Suns, etc. They've improved in those areas. They've improved in the fact that they've become a more athletic team. There are quite a few of these areas. Just to say the Bulls haven't improved based on their record is a bit short sighted.

We've played hard the entire time, it's just that it took awhile to see results. There have been rumblings for years about how the Bulls are dirty or 'play too hard'. That has been around since Skiles/Paxson showed up.

The Bulls weren't trying to piss off the Knicks by fighting, they were trying to win Big Macs for the fans. Even King Stern said so and doesn't have a problem with it.

in you "let's go ahead and get 100...." you conveniently left out the end of the quote when skiles says ....for our fans."

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/cs-070412bullsbrite,1,7955476.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

Stop writing so much about the Bulls. It's embarrassing.

The 'cap flexibility' in the Crawford deal that you struggle to comprehend was Jerome Williams' contract, which the KNICKS ARE STILL PAYING

Chandler wasn't a free-agent, he was in the first year of a 6 year $60+ million dollar deal, a year which was the worst of his career.

And they traded Curry because of his heart. They likely would've re-signed him if not for the heart scare, and it wasn't really a basketball decision.

(Speaking of, you can keep saying that Eddy Curry is breaking out as a player, but it doesn't make it true.)

Do you really need to be explained the difference between Isiah and Joe Dumars?

Lastly, while you can say running up the score and then trying to start a fight are both classless, they're not equals. And now you can't play pressure defense in the 3RD QUARTER? Please commission some rulebook for what's ok and not ok in blowout situations. Better yet, what makes it a blowout situation?

besides all that, bang-up job.

SML,

As an ardent Bulls' fan, I came across these posts a couple of days ago. I have been following them, hoping that you would stop with this whinny shit. The overwhelming feeling I get when I read this is that this is exactly the kind of lame ass, whinny thing that MIKE LUPICA would write. Enough already! Love your Knicks, but be man enough to admit that it doesn't matter what the Bulls did or didn't do in the last minute of the game. The Knicks weren't in it from the first quarter, and forfeited the right to have their feelings hurt in the fourth. Seriously, you are being won over by the dark side. Come back into the light before it is too late!

Matt, you made some good points, so I'll respond to you:

Lastly, while you can say running up the score and then trying to start a fight are both classless, they're not equals. And now you can't play pressure defense in the 3RD QUARTER?

Well, first off, if you read what I wrote, I'm fine with pressure defense in the 3rd quarter.

Okay, they're not equal. Fine. But they are both wrong, and both contributed to the scenerio that took place, which could have been worse (in fact, if the Nuggets incident hadn't happen, chances are the Knicks might have done something stupidier, which probably would have led to a suspension, and ruined your playoff run, or at least your chances of getting the second seed). So what's the % of the blame, Matt? 40% Bulls, 60% Knicks? Does it matter?

Or is it worse what the Bulls did, because their actions caused the Knicks' anger? My opinion: It don't matter which is worse, both parties are guilty. And both parties should avoid doing what they did. You want to argue that the Bulls did no wrong when even their coach is quoted as saying "it's more than likely my fault"?!?

If the Bulls end up second seed, and the Wizards drop to 7th (a possibility), maybe you should hope your coach and team realizes that they made a mistake, and don't repeat against an overmatched Wizards team. Because in a playoff atmosphere the Wizards might react ever worse than the Knicks.

I appreciate the Jerome Williams aspect of the Crawford trade, but it's $6 million, and the Bulls are currently more than that under the salary cap. So even if they hadn't gotten the benefit of dumping him on the Knicks, the Bulls' salary cap status wouldn't be affected. And Jerome Williams' contract expires this season. My point there is what was the benefit to your salary cap, if the freed up salary of Jerome Williams' wasn't used?

Bulls management is trading young players they don't like, and not showing a clear plan. I can't wait to hear in three years how Tyrus Thomas had to go because he didn't "work hard enough"! None of ya sees that as the bullsh*t excuse to justify trades, some of them bad (like the JR Smith one)? Maybe Isiah ought to try that:

"We don't want our lottery draft picks because lottery players have a sense of entitlement! We would rather have late first rounders who work harder! Isiah ain't coaching people who aren't down with his program!"

@BullShooter: Keep telling yourself it's all about the Knicks, and the Bulls are blameless, and this is just whininess. I could care less if you call me whiny.

"It doesn't matter what the Bulls did or didn't do in the last minute". Fine. You know what else doesn't matter? What the Knicks did after the game in the tunnel. So as long as ya'll don't complain about that, I won't complain about what ya'll did in the last minute, cool? The only reason I did these posts was in response to the media's outrage at the Knicks' behavior. I really don't care about you Bulls fans, but since you have seeked me out on FreeDarko and here, I'll respect your comments and respond. As long as you don't care about what happened after the game in the tunnel, I won't care about what ya'll did in the last minute which caused this.

As neither a Bulls nor a Knicks fan (let's go Bobcats), I can give an unbiased state on the following:

1. Crawford trade was a bad, bad, bad move for the Knicks. If memory serves, he was a free agent and neither the Bulls, nor any team not run by Isiah Thomas had serious interest in signing him to a long-term deal, let alone a huge long-term deal. Isiah wanted to give Crawford a truck load of money, but (obviously) had already hamstrung the team in terms of payroll. The only way to get Crawford in New York under a long-term deal was the sign-and-trade, which the Bulls happily did considering they would have let Crawford walk for nothing. It allowed them to dump a terrible long-term contract (Jerome Williams) in exchange for some short-term contracts, giving Chicago the cap flexibility to become major players in free agency.

Crawford is a decent player, instant offense off the bench. But so are a lot of guys. Guys like Crawford are almost a dime a dozen. They could have had the same thing for next to nothing this year if they signed Balkman's USC teammate Tarence Kinsey.

2. Obviously, the jury is still out on the Curry deal, but I'd be prepared for the worst if I were a Knicks fan. Health issues aside, I really don't see how Curry has improved. He gets a lot more touches now, but I don't think there was ever any doubt that, if you ran an offense through him, Curry could consistently score 20 a night. I suppose he's improved against double teams a little bit.

But the problem with Curry is that he's such a liability on defense, and the Knicks can't afford that since, well, they have a lot of guys who are liabilities on defense, and they either have a coach who doesn't seem to understand even the basics of a modern defensive rotation, or a roster that just doesn't care about stopping teams.

Right now, Curry is like the anti Adonal Foyle - great on one side of the court, not so much on the other. Someone's got to start kicking his ass and getting him to contribute something on defense. If that ever happened, dude's battling Yao and Oden for "best center in the NBA" honors. But I have a feeling it never happens.

And he's got a ways to go offensively, but Tyrus Thomas: holy crap. Dude's looking a lot -- a LOT -- like the second coming of Shawn Marion once he gets consistent minutes. He came in the Curry deal, as will the draft pick swap this year. And that Knicks pick keeps on moving up and up in the lottery, and the chances keep increasing that it's going to land in that top 2. If that happens, oh boy...

And to sum things up:

This Knicks team is just shaping up to be awful for a long time. They needed to cut bait with Isiah ASAP (or, preferably, get in a time machine and never hire him) and then just burn the thing down like Denver did five years ago.

If you don't like teams running up the score on you, play defense and don't fall behind by 30. You're grown men playing in the NBA, not 10-year-olds playing youth soccer in Massachussets.

And Bulls, we Bobcats will see you in the playoffs next year.

Yep, the Bulls could really use another jump shooter who doesn't get to the line like J.R. Smith. He'd really help out the Bulls in the minutes he'd get backing up Adrian Griffin on the depth chart. FYI, Adrian Griffin rarely plays. It's obvious you don't follow that much basketball, so I thought I'd clue you in.

Y'all. I just wanted to type that. Is that NYC slang?

Steve B, I've seen your blog before, you're not that impartial. You dislike Isiah and the Knicks, right?

But I appreciate your feedback. So, here's what I don't understand:

Crawford trade was a bad, bad, bad move for the Knicks

Well, if the only way the Knicks were going to be able to acquire Crawford was via a sign and trade, and the price for doing that deal with the Bulls was to take back Jerome Williams, why is that a bad trade for the Knicks? You could argue that signing Crawford was a bad move, and that they don't need him. Which is what I think your argument is. You think he's a dime a dozen. I agree he's not rare, but how else are the Knicks suppose to acquire someone like that, if they were over the cap? The only way would be via the draft, or via a trade. So show me one player drafted over the past two seasons who currently matches Jamal Crawford's ability. Adam Morrison? Jarrett Jack? Those are the two best from the past two drafts, in terms of players who would have been available to the Knicks with their picks.

I've written all year about the Knicks and what "shape" they are in.

PaxsonJackson: So are you saying that JR Smith would have been buried on the bench behind an inferior player, or are you saying that Adrian Griffen is that nice?

Ya'll. Not y'all. That's southern. Ya'll is NYC. Look at the lyrics from any hip-hop song from NYC.

I appreciate the Jerome Williams aspect of the Crawford trade, but it's $6 million, and the Bulls are currently more than that under the salary cap. So even if they hadn't gotten the benefit of dumping him on the Knicks, the Bulls' salary cap status wouldn't be affected. And Jerome Williams' contract expires this season. My point there is what was the benefit to your salary cap, if the freed up salary of Jerome Williams' wasn't used?

Since you're a Knicks fan, I'll forgive you if you don't understand how to use the salary cap.

If the Bulls were paying $6m to JYD this season, they wouldn't have been under the cap enough to sign Wallace.

And it's not just being under the cap, it's a bad idea to be paying a lot of money to stiffs.

Moving on to J.R. Smith, I know in order to worship at the altar of FreeDarko means you have to believe J.R. Smith is super awesome, but the thinking at the time is that off the bench they needed a guy like Griffin more than a guy like Smith. Thus is the burden of expecting success, not just accumulating prospects.

So you're arguing over a move that affected the 10th to 12th man on the roster. Unless you truly think Smith is a cheaper Ben Gordon (which you stated), and in which case I can't help you. I'm not saying it was a good move, in fact Griffin has dissapointed even meager expectations.

But if having a good coach like Skiles means that you can't get players like J.R. Smith or Tim Thomas, I can live with that. Tyrus Thomas has improved tremendously over the season and Skiles deserves some credit for that.

On an unrelated note...when can we expect an SML column about what the Knicks need to do this off-season to get better? I think they have a couple of different options: One way to go to would be to trade Frye and Robinson to Cleveland for Drew Gooden (a deal Cleveland might not accept) and sign Jason Kapono with their mid-level exception (somewhere around 3 years, $10 mill). That would leave them with a rotation of:

PG Stephon Marbury
SG Quentin Richardon
SF David Lee
PF Drew Gooden
C Eddy Curry

Bench: Crawford, Kapono, Balkman, Jeffiries

End of Bench/In Development: Mardy Collins, Randolph Morris, 1st Round Draft Pick

Another option would be to peddle Frye, Robinson and their first round pick to the Clippers for Corey Maggette, then sign Anderson Varejao with their mid-level exception.

That would leave them with

PG Stephon Marbury
SG Quentin Richardson
SF Corey Maggette
PF Anderson Varejao
C Eddy Curry

Bench:
Jamal Crawford
Renaldo Balkman
David Lee
End of Bench: Jeffries/Collins/Morris

What do you think?

"Steve B, I've seen your blog before, you're not that impartial. You dislike Isiah and the Knicks, right?"

SML, make no mistake, I absolutely hate hate hate Isiah. And not because he's a bad GM, or a bad coach, which I can deal with. Or even the fact that he's an egomaniac, which many NBA players are. It's what he did to the CBA. Growing up in a minor league area like the Hartford suburbs, I know what those teams mean to the community, especially as a kid. The whole situation has been re-hashed enough, but what Isiah did to the people of that league and those communities should be criminal.

But as for the Knicks, they were actually the closest thing I had to a "team" during the 90's, even if I'd never consider myself a hard-core fan. And maybe when Isiah's gone I can get back to that.

And as for Crawford, I'm just saying they burnt so much money on him, when there are guys like that everywhere. He's just not an efficient enough scorer for my tastes. There are plenty of guys of his ability who can be had on the cheap every summer, be it with late draft picks of free agents: Monta Ellis, Chucky Atkins, J.R. Smith, Juan Dixon, Charlie Bell, Jannero Pargo, Bobby Jackson, Devin Brown, Eddie House. While most of them aren't as athletically gifted (or marketable) as Crawford, they could all fill that scorer off the bench role just as well, and for a heck of a lot less money.

Invest big in your stars, find effective role players cheap.

Steve, I'm not disagreeing with you in regards to Crawford; I'm just asking which "late draft pick" should the Knicks have drafted in the last two drafts that would be better than Crawford. Of your list, only Monta Ellis even comes close to fitting the profile.

The rest are free agents, which, like Crawford, the Knicks would not have been able to sign without doing a trade first. And the guys on your list don't strike me as better than Crawford, honestly. I think you could put together a list of better guys, but that ain't them.

JR Smith, yes. But he hasn't been a free agent yet. Chucky Atkins is a very old point guard, not really instant offense. Eddie House is, but Crawford can at least pass the ball. Crawford averaged over 4 assists a game, pretty good for a sixth man who is suppose to provide instant offense. Not saying Crawford is great, nor that he's Chris Paul or nothing, just saying he does a better job than those guys you mentioned.

Jacob: Great comment. I was working on a post like that before I got sidetracked by all this Bulls stuff. I want to get that in before the playoffs start, so expect that sometime this weekend. Thanks for the suggestion.

Matt, I made a mistake in my salary cap assessment - I thought it was $60 million, not $53. So the Bulls did spend every penny this year, which is very efficient.

But not trading Jerome Williams shouldn't have prevent the Ben Wallace signing. Williams is $6 million; Howard Eisley (whom you are still paying) is $1.8 million. So you are talking about a $4 million savings. Considering you front-loaded Wallace's contract (a great idea, if you can pull it off), if they only had $12 million in cap room after trading Chandler for PJ Brown, I still think they would have been able to sign Wallace to $12 starting salary, and just increased it. So don't position as "If Jerome Williams isn't traded, then we don't get Ben Wallace". That's completely false logically.

BTW, I'm not arguing about the "10th-12th player" - JR Smith has shown what he can do this season. He is to Denver what Crawford is to the Knicks (younger, cheaper, too), and what Ben Gordon was to the Bulls before he was moved into the starting lineup. He's a valuable talented player that was given away because he didn't fit in the system. That is all I was saying. You agreed, and said that was okay with you because you believe in Skiles and his way! So stop with the BS argument.

My point is Tyrus Thomas, whom you love today, could be the next one to go if Skiles doesn't like his work ethic. Then what? Will you still love Thomas, or keep placing your faith in Skiles?

JR Smith is so valuable he played 5 scoreless minutes in their last game. He wouldn't have been valuable for the Bulls. You've made it known that the Bulls 'style' of wanting players with a good work ethic turns away talented players. Nevermind that Hinrich, Gordon, and Deng are all lottery picks themselves. J.R. Smith wasn't even that. Your hypothetical worry over Tyrus Thomas is noted, but I think uncalled for based on this season.

And let me detail the Bulls cap situation even simpler since you can't get the timeline correct:

The Bulls were around $15m under the cap this offseason, BEFORE trading Chandler. If they still had Williams on their roster they wouldn't have that cap room. get it?

Chandler was traded after aquiring Wallace (for nearly all their cap money), and because those darned tricky cap rules that trade was for nearly even salary (Brown and Smith). They then traded Smith for Eisley (and 2 second rounders, I'm sure Isiah could spin wonders with those), whose contract wasn't guaranteed and therefore waived and not on the cap (I'll forgive you for that one, hoopshype has him on there). With THAT money they signed Griffin.

The reason your angle sucks to high heaven is not *just* because your premise is 'The Knicks suck but the Bulls aren't all that because Skiles will keep talented players away because he's mean', but you continually get the facts wrong along the way. It's a rare accomplishment.

But your premise is your opinion, you're entitled to think it's a winning strategy (that's a key word, not the 'winning is boring, NBA is a style league' strategy at FreeDarko) with players like Smith and Jamal Crawford, but Pax and Skiles don't happen to think so and I don't either.

And even though you're wrong about this figure, Wallace likely wouldn't have signed for $12m in the offseason. The reason he left the Pistons was because the Bulls offer was *so much more* than theirs.

Well, this isn't really aimed at anyone in particular but a general response to the article and responses.

How to divide the blame? 80/20 Knicks. From what I remember the Bulls were at the 98 point mark with almost 3 minutes to go so had they done it properly they should've gotten to 100 within 2 possessions. Then again, what did the Knicks want them to do? Dribble out the whole 24 and just take the shot-clock violation? What would've happened had they dribbled it down to 2 or 3 and shot a wild shot that managed to make it's way in? Then what? The Bulls responsibility is to their fans who A) Pay their salary and B) Support them all year long. It's not much but a free Big Mac is still FREE! If you don't want it give your stub to the homeless guy and let him eat, but who really turns down free stuff?

On the Curry situation. Nobody doubted his abilities. As for his "improvement" this year, well he's averaging 3 more points than his best/last Bulls year but he's also playing almost 7 more minutes a game. Shouldn't that scoring average be higher??? Last season he averaged the same minutes as in Chicago and actually scored 3 fewer points per game.

Pax actually wanted to keep Curry but once he was gone, Chandler was the only remaining link to Krause and wanting the team to be "his" Paxson moved him. The entire team as it stands now was brought in by Paxson.

Would they be better with Curry and Chandler. Probably, but the Bulls made the same mistake other teams made - they became the "college" for players who weren't ready. This is both players 6th year in the league. They stunk it up for 3 1/2 and are just now showing anything.

Isiah Thomas:

"...has been years in the making. Paxson was with the Buills when Thomas and the Detroit Pistons, in a show of poor sportsmanship, defiantly marched off the court in the final seconds of a playoff loss to Chicago."

Good info. Um, does Paxson have beef with Detroit GM Joe Dumars, who was also a member of that Pistons team? They are divisional rivals, so I guess we can infer they don't like each other much, and the Ben Wallace signing couldn't have helped.

fyi
you don't need to put this on the website but this is just and fyi regarding your use of language.

You said, "I could care less if you call me whiny..."

Wheat that actually means is that you do care that he calls you whiny. The phrase that you probably should have used is "I could NOT care less..."

Also you state, "Ya'll is NYC." However, you use the phrase "in regards to..." That phrase is English usage. In the US we say, "In regard to..."

You didn't print my whole post about Dumars. You only printed why I quoted from your article. You left out my own comments where I stated that Dumars was the only Piston that stayed on the court to congratulate the Bulls. For that Jordan and company publicly lauded Dumars at that time and for years to come.

magickirk: I don't know why your comment didn't print out in full... maybe it was a technical glitch or something. But thanks for all the headsup. Indeed, it is "in regard to" and "I could not care less"; I'll attribute my sloppiness to my haste in responding. I don't edit my writing very well, so grammatical and spelling mistakes are, unfortunately, all too commonplace on this website.

And thanks for sharing about Dumars. I didn't know that, and that is very useful info.

Cubsfan81, you make clear and intelligent points. You brought up a good point about Krause versus Paxson players. Indeed, I think a lot of the moves the Bulls have made have been about getting rid of players, some talented, in order to remake this team their way. That's been kinda what I've been saying all along, and most of the feedback has supported that.

My main argument is not that I don't understand why Paxson or Skiles got rid of these players - Curry, Chandler, etc... I understand they were jettison because the Bulls wanted "hard-nosed, defense-oriented, gritty players". That's fine, and I have no problems with building a team that way.

My argument is that it seems odd to me that all these Bulls fans writing in, very angrily in most cases, seem to believe that those moves automatically means their team is better than it was before. First off, they got rid of some talented players, as I have mentioned almost every time I've commented. Chandler may win Defensive Player of The Year. They got rid of talented players so they could recreated the image of the team as a defense-oriented team. Cool.

Why is that automatically considered a winning formula, though? They are still going to need to get a low post presence to be a legit threat (otherwise, they are still playing at the same level they were in 04-05, just with a different team identity). To this point the team has not shown an improvement; pointing to the future is fine, but every fan expects their team will get better; only some do.

Agree that a lot of teams, not just the Bulls, have wasted picks on high schoolers who took 3-4 years to mature enough to contribute. Jermaine O'Neal and Zach Randolph are good examples. This is especially true for big men. This is why Durant will have more of an impact next season than Oden; Oden's full impact won't be known until about 4-5 years from now, when he is fully developed and entering his peak.

Eddy Curry was "jettison" for one reason and one reason only -- Pax wanted to make sure he wasn't going to drop dead on the floor at the UC. He stated publicly, repeatedly, exactly that.

Chandler was traded because he was given a huge deal and immediately regressed. He's also completely useless on offense.

I love how most of the arguments against the Bulls are phrased mostly in the hypothetical -- "well if Skiles runs Tyrus Thomas out of town in 5 years, what then?" I don't know, dude, if it happens we'll judge the decision on its merits?

Here's another one -- "Well what if the Bulls inexplicably honk a bunch of games down the stretch and drop out of the 2 seed and then lose to Miami, WHAT THEN!?

Yes, well, your Knick wet-dreams aside, there's no evidence that is actually going to happen. If and when it actually happens outside your skull, we can discuss the ramifications.

In the meantime, I'll point out that the Bulls are the current #2 seed. So that's, you know, the actual facts of the situation.

Oh yeah, one more thing. The Bulls were playing basketball at the end of the Knicks game. If the Knicks don't want to play basketball, they can drop out of the National Basketball Association and go join a little league team.

Meanwhile, this line still jumps out at me: "If the Bulls actions had lead to an altercation, like the one in the Nuggets-Knicks game, it could have ruined their playoff ambitions. What if Tyrus Thomas had earned a 15-game suspension? Or Ben Wallace? It would have carried over to the playoffs, no?"

Let me see if I get this straight. If the Bulls had been, you know, playing basketball. And then the Knicks had gotten pissed off and started a fight. And then one of the Bulls players had gotten suspended for 15 games (which only happened to 'Melo because he threw a punch). And then had missed the playoffs. Then that would be BAD for the Bulls.

Therefore, they shouldn't play basketball and risk hurting the poor little Knicks feelings?