RealGM

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:18 pm**

All I can say is that I'm very excited to see a Bucks team that is going to scrap, claw, and give it 100% every night.

Next season cannot come fast enough.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:42 pm**

I just look at the Bulls as a whole this year, it seems everyone declined. It started with Hinrich who was awful the entire year. For one, he couldn't shoot, and he's not that good of a point guard where he makes anyone around him that much better to make up for that. Ben Wallace is on a rapid decline since his last year in Detroit. Great move by Joe D not to sign Big Ben.

Also, guys like Nocioni, Deng, Gordon also had slightly down years in comparison to last year. They have no inside game and Ty Thomas looks to be like a complete headcase and major bust. I can understand why Skiles wanted out.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:53 pm**

I think that being a hard ass coach in the NBA does not work. If you don't like your coach it not like you can get fired. Traded sure. Players like Mo and CV will never listen to anyone. Players have lots of leverage in the NBA.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:57 pm**

bullzman23 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

...but at at the same time don't be shocked when he benches Yi Jianlian for Michael Ruffin...

He has my vote for coach of the year already.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:58 pm**

The key difference, though, Mike is Skiles will have Hammond's full support. That's huge. If Mo or Villanueva or Redd or anybody else can't get in line Skiles will make the moves necessary and he'll be able to make them stick. That's huge for a dysfunctional team like this one with so many egos clashing and so many players unwilling or incapable of embracing the true team concept.

Skiles likely will have a short shelf life. But I think he brings exactly what this team needs to turn things around. If he's not here for the long haul but can get the team back on track and playing the right way I'll take that.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:09 pm**

europa wrote:The key difference, though, Mike is Skiles will have Hammond's full support. That's huge. If Mo or Villanueva or Redd or anybody else can't get in line Skiles will make the moves necessary and he'll be able to make them stick. That's huge for a dysfunctional team like this one with so many egos clashing and so many players unwilling or incapable of embracing the true team concept.

Skiles likely will have a short shelf life. But I think he brings exactly what this team needs to turn things around. If he's not here for the long haul but can get the team back on track and playing the right way I'll take that.

I just feel that the good teams have coaches who are really good teachers and are masters of the game without getting hotheaded about mistakes. Coaches like Phil Jackson for most part looks cool, calm, and collective.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:11 pm**

msiris wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I just feel that the good teams have coaches who are really good teachers and are masters of the game without getting hotheaded about mistakes. Coaches like Phil Jackson for most part looks cool, calm, and collective.

And Gregg Popovich is known to go off on his players during games. I don't think there's any one style that is guaranteed to work for everyone. What matters to me is that Skiles has proven he can win in this league. His teams win. They play hard and they defend. All three are things this soft, putrid Bucks team need.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:13 pm**

fingers crossed that skiles can get us to respectability and then someone else will be interested in taking over

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:14 pm**

Skiles reputation is as a no-nonsense guy who demands hard work/effort, and is a stickler for details and playing smart. A guy who'll bench guys who don't play like that, and now Hammond should be transacting away those who don't step up.

So after hammond and Skiles see a roster predominantly populated with guys who are too soft, too dumb, and too slow defensively, who's going to play after Skiles benches Mo, Redd, CV, Yi, and Simmons? And is Hammond going to trade all of those guys?

Just make a run with Ivey and Bell, Ruffin and Storey, and Bogut and see how far we can go with them playing the right way?

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:18 pm**

bullzman23 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

That's a bit silly. I can understand why you'd disregard Tim Thomas and Curry, but the entire Bulls team? This team was regarded as the hardest working team before this season. Don't you think there's something odd about a team like that quitting on their coach?

A great coach finds ways to get contributions from the roster he has. With Skiles we often had to get vanish guys he disliked. I know right now, after this season, that seems like a good thing. But it'll catch up with you. The communication thing is a huge issue, though. Unless he has grown from it, it will be his downfall again.

Also, I know you guys especially hate Tim Thomas. That being said, he was a huge expiring contract and instead of trying to trade him at the deadline we bought him out. That year we had a thin front-court and easily could have played him at PF. Instead we elected to give big minutes to Malik Allen and Darius Songaila who are equally bad rebounders/defenders but worse offensive players. Skiles /Paxson would determine that Thomas wasn't good enough for the Bulls, but he would go on to be huge for the Suns' playoff run. A similar line of thinking was used when we traded J.R. Smih for a second round pick to make room for Adrian Griffin, who was regarded as a hard-working, no-nonsense, defender. I don't know if Skiles requested this move, but it's safe to assume that he had some influence on it. Just be prepared for things like this. More talented guys will be benched for scrappier ones and initially it may seem like the right thing to do but eventually it'll prevent you from succeeding.

I am also concerned about communication issues.. a coach that can't communicate with his players can't get the most out of them, and that really bothers me. Kryskowiak also was not a good communicator and didn't address issues even when his players begged him too. The difference between Kryskowiak and Skilles is that Skiles is more experienced, has developed a track record of success on the NBA level, and has what appears to be a stronger personality which will probably be more dominant than the individual players personalities in the locker room.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:21 pm**

craig wrote:
Just make a run with Ivey and Bell, Ruffin and Storey, and Bogut and see how far we can go with them playing the right way?

What's the worst that could happen - a trip to the lottery? Sounds like the past two seasons to me.

But the hope with me is that Hammond will do a much better job than Harris did of adding quality depth and talent to the roster. So instead of trotting out guys like Ivey and Storey, hopefully the backups on this team are of a higher caliber.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:31 pm**

bango_the_buck wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Please. If anyone on the Bucks roster is a 'Skiles guy', it will be Bogut...

I wouldn't say that.. He has the most "potential" to fit into Skiles system, but his history of giving up on the team, not rebounding as well as he is capable of (before this season) and being somewhat of a emo kid doesn't exactly strike me as a perfect fit next to Skiles.

Some times Bogut has needed more "nurturing" to get him to do what he is supposed to do.. and Skiles isn't the hand holding type. We'll see.. perhaps this will be the coaching change he will need to know that regardless of what everyone else is doing on the court it's his job to play hard regardless and that hasn't always been the case with Bogut.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:43 pm**

I'd like the Chicago posters to weigh in on his relationship with Hinrich and Duhon. I.e. Will the Bucks go after Duhon as a FA or try to trade for Kirk.

From what I read, it would seem like we'll sign Duhon in FA and then go with a Sessions-Duhon PG combo.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:46 pm**

Tommy Udo 6 wrote:bullzman wrote:

1.) The Bulls-Lakers-Kings agreed to a Kobe trade. Kobe vetoed it and wouldn't accept any trade that involved Deng or Wallace. Kobe (allegedly) made it clear that he didn't want to play with Hinrich so a trade was agreed upon where the Lakers would get Artest, Wallace, and picks while the Kings would get Hinrich. Kobe vetoed that too.
----------------

I have always disagreed with this comment but bullzman accepts it as truth & keeps repeating it.

Lenin once said that if you repeat an untruth often enough, people will accept it as truth.

I dont want this untruth to avoid being challenged.

In all interviews about Kobe, Paxson said he called the Lakers GM & was told that Kobe was not available. No specific trade was ever discussed.

Tommy Udo, I really don't understand why you believe this. Paxson had no choice but to say this. The season had started and players were extremely stresed. The Kobe trade fell through...had Paxson said otherwise he'd have lost the trust of his players and would have been scrutinized by the media even more. Do you really expect him to hold a press conference saying that "Kobe was available but we couldn't get him"? Of course not.

Paxson is to be blamed for not stopping the media speculation & "inside info" that was running rampant. Paxson should have done what Joe Dumars did when Kobe was rumored to be traded to Detroit: immediately call a press conference & deny it. Paxson didnt & his team suffered great damage.

Have you ever thought that perhaps he didn't "immediately call a press conference & deny it" because he believed that he was closing in on a deal for Kobe? If he was truly never really seriously engaged in talks for Kobe why would he be so slow to denounce the rumors?

When Paxson did reveal that there was never a trade discussed, Mitch Kupcake even verified that.

Again, what else would you expect?

Remember how Billy Knight handled the Iverson situation? He said sent Iverson home and told everyone that Iverson would be traded...and affectively destroyed his trade value. Any smart GM would know better.

I object to bullzman constantly repeating that Kobe "rejected a trade". All indications are that a trade was never discussed in detail - and thus Kobe had no trade to approve.

Here are some links that disagree with this notion:
http://www.ickypeople.com/2007/10/bulls ... trade.html

http://lakers.topbuzz.com/PNphpBB2-view ... -6599.html

http://thelakersnation.com/blog/2007/10 ... osal-what/

http://www.sportzin.com/forums/index.php?s=fe71c1224c53d4cd7e1183748d0307e5&showtopic=25054&st=0&p=3722360&#entry3722360

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/s ... eng_Bryant

Even Sam Smith - who loves trades so much that he makes them up - admitted that the Lakers were not going to trade Kobe

Sam has been incorrect on more than one occassions. He's said one thing, others have said different.

bullzman's comments on KG & Gasol are generally accurate - but the Kobe part is just not true. There was no trade for Kobe to "approve" because LA never had any intention of trading him

Again, this is just your opinion and not fact. There have been countless reports that disagree with your opinion.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:47 pm**

paulpressey25 wrote:I'd like the Chicago posters to weigh in on his relationship with Hinrich and Duhon. I.e. Will the Bucks go after Duhon as a FA or try to trade for Kirk.

From what I read, it would seem like we'll sign Duhon in FA and then go with a Sessions-Duhon PG combo.

Haven't heard anything outstanding/bad about his relationship with Kirk.

Duhon, well if it's up to Skiles will be playing 30mpg and at one point find himself defending LeBron

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:49 pm**

paulpressey25 wrote:I'd like the Chicago posters to weigh in on his relationship with Hinrich and Duhon. I.e. Will the Bucks go after Duhon as a FA or try to trade for Kirk.

From what I read, it would seem like we'll sign Duhon in FA and then go with a Sessions-Duhon PG combo.

Skiles has a great working relationship with Duhon & I fully expect Bucks to go for him. Since Duhon is a UFA & can be had for under the MLE, I would put possibility at around 95%

Skiles and Hinrich seem also to get along & I would expect Skiles to try to get Kirk. Bulls would not have a player who can handle PG if they trade Kirk. Neither Gordon, Hughes, nor Thabo can handle it.

Kirk is available but Bulls need a PG back - either from Bucks or someone else. I would say 50% chance of Bucks getting him.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:53 pm**

paulpressey25 wrote:I'd like the Chicago posters to weigh in on his relationship with Hinrich and Duhon. I.e. Will the Bucks go after Duhon as a FA or try to trade for Kirk.

From what I read, it would seem like we'll sign Duhon in FA and then go with a Sessions-Duhon PG combo.

It seems like he had a good relationship with both guys. Early in his career, Skiles called Kirk "the Bulls best player" and it was perceived that Hinrich was given special treatment by Skiles. Later this seemed less accurate.

Skiles had a great amount of trust in Duhon and played him quite a bit. It should be noted though that Duhon was supsended by Skiles at one point for I think being late or something like that.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:55 pm**

bullzman23 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Again, this is just your opinion and not fact. There have been countless reports that disagree with your opinion.

I do not know what actually happened. I dont pretend otherwise. But you constantly state the Kobe rejection of a trade as an absolute fact based on bloggers & writer speculation.

Kobe would know for sure, so would Mitch & Paxson. Since none of them have publically admitted that it happened, you should not state it as a fact. You can state it as a speculation or opinion.

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:56 pm**

bullzman23 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

It seems like he had a good relationship with both guys. Early in his career, Skiles called Kirk "the Bulls best player" and it was perceived that Hinrich was given special treatment by Skiles. Later this seemed less accurate.

Skiles had a great amount of trust in Duhon and played him quite a bit. It should be noted though that Duhon was supsended by Skiles at one point for I think being late or something like that.

Duhon is a party animal. He was often late. Skiles would fine him & bench him. There may have been a suspension.

Duhon was definitely suspended by Paxson & Boylan for being late after that trip he made to Duke during NCAA playoffs

Posted: **Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:14 pm**

Tommy Udo 6 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I do not know what actually happened. I dont pretend otherwise. But you constantly state the Kobe rejection of a trade as an absolute fact based on bloggers & writer speculation.

Kobe would know for sure, so would Mitch & Paxson. Since none of them have publically admitted that it happened, you should not state it as a fact. You can state it as a speculation or opinion.

This is rather unfair. I've never said it as fact.

This was my comment from the Duhon thread that you refered to on the Bulls board:

I don't think I'm off-base here. Chandler took a small shot at Hinrich after he left and Kobe reportedly said that he wanted Hinrich traded if he was coming to Chicago

.

And from this thread:

Kobe (allegedly) made it clear that he didn't want to play with Hinrich so a trade was agreed upon where the Lakers would get Artest, Wallace, and picks while the Kings would get Hinrich.

I know that you are specifically talking about the veto, but this falls in the same line. The veto has been reported by several news articles that I've referenced in the past. It's difficult finding the exact sources because it's been some time since all this actually happened. That being said, it should be clear that no one can say what is truly a fact unless they are Buss, Kobe, or Paxson.

RealGM

Some Things you Should Know About Scott Skiles....