Is the "Paxson type players" method a failure?

[Shakes]

Back when Paxson took over the horrible, horrible Bulls team, a big thing in the turn around was the idea that we needed hard working players. And for a time it worked, to the extent that fans when looking at potential draft picks would say "he doesn't seem a Pax type player". The primary guys who fit this mould that Paxons brought in were Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Noc.

To get to the point though, look at it the PERs they put up on rookie contracts vs now:

Hinrich: 13.1, 15.3, 15.5, 17 vs 13.1, 13.9, 11.3
Gordon: 14.9, 14.5, 18.2, 16.4, 17 vs 13.2
Deng: 14.2, 15.8, 18.7, 17 vs 14.7, 16.7
Noc: 10.1, 16.1, 15.6 vs 13.6, 12.2, 11.6

Notice a pattern at all? We told ourselves these are high character guys, they wouldn't just put in for a contract year then steal our money. But they have, each and every one of them (OK, Gordon has stolen Detroit's money, and now Noc is stealing Sacramento's money, but you know what I mean).

I do think these guys are high character guys. I don't believe they're intentionally dogging it. But if you're a guy who has had to try that little bit harder to make it to where you are, surely there's that little temptation in the back of your mind when you sign that big contract to say "I've made it" and just slack off that tiny fraction. That fraction that gave you the edge you had.

I'm clearly not saying screw hard workers: the Tyrus experiment shows that you do have to at least avoid the worst of the bad attitudes. But I do think we're suckers if we ever give a non-rookie contract to one of these hard working types ever again. It's counter-intuitive, but they seem to be the most likely to fall off.

Anyway, just something to think about since we're coming into FA and the draft. Maybe I do need to rethink my "David Lee is a good plan B" position.

 

[cool007]

Re:Is the

I thought it was more like Skiles AND Paxson type players - that came from a winning program from college. As they wanted to change that whole losing culture we had before he came.

Also, don't forget Tyrus Thomas.

I am not too upset over Gordon/Deng/Hinrich picks as there were no better alternatives after that. Gordon at 3 and Deng and Hinrich at 7 were really good picks and Noc was a free agent signing and that was also a good pick up. Not to mention Duhon at 2nd round pick was also good at the moment.

The thing is that we got top 3 picks at the wrong moment. When we got #2 pick with Tyrus, that is the year they stopped with drafting players from high school, if it wasn't for that we would have been able to draft 1 of Oden/Durant but instead it came down to Aldridge vs Tyrus.

Since Tyrus had a HIGHER ceiling, Paxson tried something different and picked him. I do back it up for Pax here as well. It was upto Tyrus to improve his game (especially offensively and being consistent) which he failed to do. So that can't be on Pax.

 

[??? ??????]

Re:Is the

I don't think it is necessarily a failure. The Bulls failure with that team was that they never had some star to be the focal point of the team. The Bulls team from last season was basically just Rose and Gordon fighting it out by themselves for the first part of the season before we brought them in some more help, and Hinrich came back from injury, and that team proved they could be really good. I would imagine this year's Bulls team with Gordon would have been a pretty tough 50 win team. It was just a matter of getting that focal point in Rose. Guys like Gordon/Deng can be good 2nd or 3rd options, but you don't want to build a team around them, and I think everyone knew that.

I think long term, we will look at Gordon and Deng's first years after the big contracts being fluke years. Deng had the injuries problems last year, and now Gordon this year, as well as a hellish situation in Detroit where his playing time is jerked with.

I think Kirk Hinrich gives an honest effort as well. I think Hinrich's struggles came from the big expectations put on the Bulls for 07-08. He's never been a good clutch player, so it would make sense that he would be a player who struggles when the pressure is on. And I also felt that Hinrich was a big time system player in Skiles' system, which allowed him to look like a better player than he actually was.

Nocioni is the only one who I think who really will fit this description in the long term. Nocioni just stopped caring about playing defense, and just became a shot chucker of the worst kind.

 

[Shakes]

Re:Is the

I'm not saying they were bad picks or anything. Getting productive players through their rookie contracts is an achievement in itself. I'm not calling it a failure on John Paxson's part, I mean more about the implications for what we do going forward.

As I said, thinking about how every single one of the four guys who fit the mould dropped off makes me really worry about signing David Lee, who seems a similar sort of guy. He's the sort of guy that everyone has doubted ("just a hustle guy") and if he shows his worth and earns a big contract will he feel he's proven the doubters wrong? Will his drive to success drop off just that tiny fraction?

On the other hand, it's a good sign for Amare. Maybe I've been looking at him completely the wrong way by complaining he has attitude issues. We've seen that even when he doesn't give a crap he still puts up decent numbers. Sure, he's a beast when he cares, but he has enough talent that even if he doesn't care he's at least a very good player. Maybe he's actually the smaller risk because of that.

I imagine it's true in most jobs, not just basketball, that the hardest working guys are often the ones who have to work hard to compensate for not being quite as talented. I guess I'm saying beware the hard worker, because the talented slacker will have their talent to fall back on, but if the hard worker ever slacks off just a little (and yes, injury may be what forces them to slack off) then they can drop off a cliff.

 

[pinkizdead]

Re:Is the

part of the equation that might help the mystery/anamolie is :

i think more than anything, the bulls have shown to be poor negotiators.
it's not so much that their bad judges of talent as much as skiles is an amazing coach.

 

[jsain360]

Re:Is the

??? ?????? wrote:

I don't think it is necessarily a failure. The Bulls failure with that team was that they never had some star to be the focal point of the team. The Bulls team from last season was basically just Rose and Gordon fighting it out by themselves for the first part of the season before we brought them in some more help, and Hinrich came back from injury, and that team proved they could be really good. I would imagine this year's Bulls team with Gordon would have been a pretty tough 50 win team. It was just a matter of getting that focal point in Rose. Guys like Gordon/Deng can be good 2nd or 3rd options, but you don't want to build a team around them, and I think everyone knew that.

I think long term, we will look at Gordon and Deng's first years after the big contracts being fluke years. Deng had the injuries problems last year, and now Gordon this year, as well as a hellish situation in Detroit where his playing time is jerked with.

I think Kirk Hinrich gives an honest effort as well. I think Hinrich's struggles came from the big expectations put on the Bulls for 07-08. He's never been a good clutch player, so it would make sense that he would be a player who struggles when the pressure is on. And I also felt that Hinrich was a big time system player in Skiles' system, which allowed him to look like a better player than he actually was.

Nocioni is the only one who I think who really will fit this description in the long term. Nocioni just stopped caring about playing defense, and just became a shot chucker of the worst kind.

And a freaking hack