In Defense of John Paxson

Bill Simmons is outraged at many teams, but especially the Bulls:

When the media guide for the No Balls Association is released, I demand that John Paxson appears on the cover. At some point, you have to roll the dice, right? Not landing Gasol was inexcusable; the Bulls could have made the Finals with him (and if it meant sacrificing Luol Deng, Ty Thomas and the Knicks' pick, so be it).

I don't think this makes any sense at all. Simmons is asking Chicago to make a big sacrifice of its future -- the very good and very young Deng, a young project in Thomas, a high draft pick, and they'd need to throw in PJ Brown's expiring contract -- in order to improve rather marginally this season. What's more, they'd be eliminating their shot at landing Kevin Garnett if the Timberwolves decide they want to blow things up in the offseason. Swapping Gasol for Deng would improve Chicago somewhat, but it's not as if swapping Deng's 18.8 ppg for Gasol's 20.3 ppg suddenly transforms the Bulls into an offensive powerhouse. Yes, Chicago could use low post scoring, but it's not as if points scored from the post count double or something (and, no, Gasol's not a wildly more efficient scorer either).

Comments

Yeah, the whole column was a bit unhinged, but the slam on Paxson was totally wrongheaded. Pau Gasol gets the Bulls to the Finals? And he says that in the same column where he says Gasol is basically Al Jefferson with a few more points and fewer rebounds?

Posted by ogged | February 25, 2007 1:32 PM

Yeah, the whole column was a bit unhinged

To say the least.

Posted by Al | February 25, 2007 1:34 PM

agreed. whats so amazing about gasol? is he THAT much better than Deng? Who will be better in 3 yrs? I would put my money on Deng. The Grizzlies asking price was utterly outrageous.

"Yeah, the whole column was a bit unhinged"

That's an understatement. The guy will literally go to ANY LENGTH to criticize Isiah. He claims that Knicks released Jalen Rose to save 500K, while completely ignoring the TRUTHFUL reasoning behind the buyout, which is that James Dolan DID NOT WANT TO TAKE ON ANYMORE LONGTERM CONTRACTS. The team is trying to be a bit more responsible with the cap, and all he does is criticize them for not trying to get another veteran with an enormous contract. If they had done it, he'd be slamming Isiah for not rebuilding with young talent like Frye and Crawford. I can't read what he writes about the NBA anymore, it such BS.

Posted by b.schac | February 25, 2007 1:39 PM

ogged and MY are deeply wrong; the Bulls have long been overly generous in their evaluation of their own young talent and all of its potential. See every year from 1999 onwards. Assume a pick can be protected for one or two--isn't the only reasonable hope that any other player will somehow become as good as Gasol? Really, the worse offender is Ainge. (Simmons is wrong about the Celts.) But they're both pretty bad.

Seriously, how long a "rebuilding" are you allowed before people can decide that the planning sucks? The Bulls are, what, fifth in a crap Eastern Conference? Yes, Pax has done a marvelous job.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 25, 2007 1:40 PM

well, there's a growing sense within reality-based communities that "sense" and Simmons are mutually incompatible.

Posted by r | February 25, 2007 1:49 PM

Seriously, how long a "rebuilding" are you allowed before people can decide that the planning sucks? The Bulls are, what, fifth in a crap Eastern Conference? Yes, Pax has done a marvelous job.

That's just ignorant. Paxson has been GM for what, three years? He got Skiles to coach and drafted Gordon, Deng, Hinrich and Nocioni. What does 1999 have to do with anything?

Posted by ogged | February 25, 2007 1:52 PM

I'm no Simmons apologist, but I'm going to agree with him about the Bulls. As you can see with the Heat and Dwayne Wade's injury, opportunities don't last long for teams. With a very good low post scorer like Gasol, I think that the Bulls would run away with the East and have a decent shot of knocking off whoever meets them in the Finals. The East is a historically weak conference and I think that you take advantage of that while you can.

As to the actual parts of the trade, I like Deng but this is a league where good wing players aren't hard to come by and low post scorers are, PJ's contract is now going to be wasted because of their inaction this year and I personally don't believe that McHale will ever trade Garnett. I think that the present is worth the risk for the Bulls.

As for b.schack, Dolan and Isiah might have thought about the long term contracts before giving that hideous contract to Jared Jeffries this past offseason. Preaching financial responsibility at this point for Isiah is about as disingenuous as defending Bush for the surge, it's to little way to late.

Posted by Derrick | February 25, 2007 2:03 PM

Krause did the same sort of thing as Pax, except he was a better evaluator of talent. He traded Brand for Chandler because of Chandler's upside. During the Bulls' championship run, Krause and Jackson were often at loggerheads because Krause didn't want to trade picks (or, IIRC, young players) for full-grown adults. Jackson believed you needed "men" to win in the playoffs. Between those two guys, and the team-building philosophies behind them, I pick Jackson.

Gordon's wildly overrated, Hinrich is mildly overrated (inc. by me--I love him), and Deng remains unfinished. And Skiles is an excellent turnaround coach, but he's never going to reach the Finals.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 25, 2007 2:04 PM

Assume a pick can be protected for one or two--isn't the only reasonable hope that any other player will somehow become as good as Gasol?

But Deng is pretty damn good now. It seems like every time I see him, he poses matchup problems for someone. So, giving that away, with a prospects and picks, for a player that is a bit better just seems silly.

But, that is the move that Simmons loves to make. For the Wiz, he proposes trading away either Brendan or Etan, along with much of their limited bench scoring (Hayes) AND their pick for Jamal Magloire, who's stats are nearly identical to Etan's. I suppose Magloire at least doesn't hit people who are on his team, only opponents.

Posted by brad | February 25, 2007 2:06 PM

I would have done the Deng-Gasol trade if I were the Bulls - mostly because they could fit Nocioni in as a starting 3 in place of Deng and been just as good there. The main problem with Pax isn't that he kept Deng now but that he gave away Chandler for nothing.

Posted by Al | February 25, 2007 2:12 PM

It seems like MY and most of these posts miss just how few dominate post-players there are in the East. I think Gasol stats go up if he were to move to Chicago, and in this sense post points are worth more - especially for the Bulls, who are way overloaded on the perimeter There's such a thing as balance, and I think Derrick is exactly right on this issue. While Deng's age and potential are very attractive, Gasol is not exactly long in the tooth.
Don't get me wrong - I love Deng - but the Bulls are close and they need to work all aspects of the floor.

Posted by berger | February 25, 2007 2:29 PM

While Deng's age and potential are very attractive, Gasol is not exactly long in the tooth.

Sure, but we're talking about Deng + a good prospect + a good draft pick + an expiring contract; that requires a much bigger Deng-Gasol margin in my mind.

Meanwhile, Memphis did exactly the right thing in not accepting a bad offer for Gasol from Chicago. This just wasn't a deal that's meant to be.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 25, 2007 2:43 PM

Deng + a good prospect + a good draft pick + an expiring contract

is really Deng + potentially Stromile Swift II + a pick likely to be outside the top 10 for an underdeveloped player+ a use-it-or-lose-it trade asset. What's a fair offer, then?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 25, 2007 2:59 PM

What's a fair offer, then?

Gordon, Thomas, Brown. No Deng, no pick.

Posted by Tim | February 25, 2007 3:03 PM

Paxon made a quick decision on Chandler that he would play no part in his premature death. There was no upside in this decision for Paxon or the Bulls. Let me repeat, he Paxon, and the Bulls made a decision contrary to their self interest. This was a bad decision basketball and bussiness wise.

Now criticize it on any other grounds, if you dare. Double dare you to include gutless.

Posted by rapier | February 25, 2007 3:05 PM

Jeebus. Like I said, Chicago vastly overrates its talent.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 25, 2007 3:05 PM

As to the actual parts of the trade, I like Deng but this is a league where good wing players aren't hard to come by and low post scorers are...

true enough. but simmons, as usual, misses the forest for the trees. prior to wallace, there were 3 chicago starters who averaged 60%+ of total team minutes. only 1 of the 3 consistently delivered negative on/off court ratings. yet, he was the one untouchabull not routinely mentioned in discussions concerning gasol.

hinrich delivered in the playoffs(1 round), but he's not the foundation player many think he is. otherwise, the bulls were probably right to keep deng, thomas. the player CHI should've dealt is their offseason centerpiece. tangible & intangible advantages accrued to CHI's defense are somewhat offset by wallace's negative impact on offensive flow. the bulls were a smoother, quicker team on both ends w/out wallace. in that sense, gasol's skillset would've been a better match given CHI's perimeter orientation (offensively). were there matching interests, gasol+stoudamire for wallace+draft picks would've worked according to realgm (trade id #3717441) though we can't see west coveting a 30-something one-dimensional player like wallace. defensively? bulls opponents averaged 42rpg, 97ppg at 42% last year; this year, 42rpg, 95ppg at 43%.

simmons asserts CHI "overpaid" for wallace. yet simmons never suggests/demands/chortles CHI "should've" traded wallace assuming interest + opportunity.

Posted by r | February 25, 2007 3:07 PM

Sure, but we're talking about Deng + a good prospect + a good draft pick + an expiring contract; that requires a much bigger Deng-Gasol margin in my mind.

My impression is that Chicago was hung up on trading Deng, not that the "good prospect + a good draft pick + an expiring contract" was the real issue. I don't think Chicago would have done it no matter what was thrown in with Deng. Of course, that's just an impression.

Posted by Al | February 25, 2007 3:17 PM

Using 2006 statistics (latest available), Deng looks a lot like Tayshaun Prince. Prince is the third or fourth most important player on the Pistons. I'm not sure how much better Deng gets, and I'm not sure how good he would look on a team on which he was the third or fourth best player.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 25, 2007 3:38 PM

I totally agree. Gasol's a nice piece, but he's not worth mortgaging the future for. If it was Garnett, I'd make the trade. But Deng is good, young, and still improving, Thomas is a raw project with the potential to be very good, and by the way, he was the fourth overall pick. You'd be giving up an awful lot for a guy who is the centerpiece of the worst team in basketball.

Posted by Freddie | February 25, 2007 3:46 PM

Did anyone catch the Cavs beating the Lakers in LA on TV last week? Amazing performance by Clevland forward Anderson Varejao, the guy with the big bushy Afro out of Brazil. He plays an awkward, ragged kind of game which is no thing of beauty, but if I were a coach a guy like him is the first person I'd want on the team. He was on the floor for about 90% of the game, was involved in every loose ball scramble, rebounds and sets picks like crazy, and just hustles his ass off. I was frustrated by how little the TV commentators referred to him-- they are so hung up on Kobe and Lebron and the dunkaholic show that passes for an NBA offense these days. IMHO Varejao was the MVP of the game, and was barely noticed by the courtside pundits.

Posted by guido sarducci | February 25, 2007 3:54 PM

"As for b.schack, Dolan and Isiah might have thought about the long term contracts before giving that hideous contract to Jared Jeffries this past offseason. Preaching financial responsibility at this point for Isiah is about as disingenuous as defending Bush for the surge, it's to little way to late."

Derrick-

I agree that the Jeffries signing was unwise, esp. in light of the fact that Balkman does exactly what he does but he's younger, cheaper, and could get a lot better. However, that signing was made because the Knicks lacked defense, and Jeffries can play D. Also, his contract is only worth around 5 million dollars a year. I would agree that the signing isn't wise, but it's a lot different than taking on an ~16-18 million dollar contract like the players Simmons was discussing.

P.S. How do italicize text in the comments? I can't figure it out...

Posted by b.schac | February 25, 2007 5:04 PM

sorry, it should read that Jeffries' contract is an average of 6 mil a year in my previous comment.

Posted by b.schac | February 25, 2007 5:08 PM

Has anyone noticed that the Bulls have beat the Cavs and the Wiz since the break, barely lost to the Pistons today with a lot of things not going their way and gave Dallas a very rare L last month.

No need to give up three or four pieces for a player who makes your team marginally better. P.J., one of Ty/Sefo/Noce, and the '07 first rounder for Gasol should have been enough. Maybe throw in Sweets or Duhon.

Simmons is right about giving up J.R. Smith for three million in cap space. Seems like they should have been able to get something for him, ideally a Jeff Foster type player.

Posted by Coach Skiles | February 25, 2007 5:50 PM

Yeah, that column was the worst in quite a while. The funny about it was that even though Simmons ripped almost every team in the league for not making trades, he *correctly* debunked the conventional wisdom on two of the most anticipated trades: Kidd to LA and Bibby to Cleveland. Kidd would be great anywhere, but he would be least effective in the triangle; and it's not worth giving up significant assests to replace Cleveland's current platoon with over-the-hill Bibby.

But contrary to Simmons' main claim, most good young teams in the league did not get that way by frantically making trades. They got that way by taking good deals when they were available but also being patient with prospects and cap space.

Simmons gave the Jazz a D minus--why? Because they didn't give up two useable players in exchange for Marquis Daniels and his crappy contract (assuming of course that the Pacers were willing to deal Daniels). Apparently if you don't pull the trigger on that deal, you barely deserve to draw a paycheck.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | February 25, 2007 9:17 PM

I'm starting to hate reading comparisons that refer to points scored as any kind of worthwhile measure between players, especially when it's only around 2 points. Yes, that's a dig at Matthew because that seems to be the only defense he offers (what's the chance that McHale deals Garnett, really?).

The Bulls were stupid not to make the trade for Gasol, one of the top post players in the league. The combination of Gasol, not a physical but an athletic defender, and Wallace would have been murder on the frontline for opposing teams. Is it just me that sees how these guys could compliment each other so well?

Luol Deng, who I see as a quality player (much higher ceiling than Gordon) will never be as valuable as Gasol because Gasol's an all-star level post player with very nice passing ablility and a mean streak (even though he's slightly on the 'soft' side). Deng is a one-dimensional shooter (and dime-a-dozen swingman as somebody upthread noted) who is all athleticism and doesn't put up very good defensive stats for his length and shows very little variety and ivention in his game. Thomas is a "project" but cripes, we KNOW Gasol is a top player.

On top of that, whatever happened to the idea that getting the best player in the deal should be the trump card?

Posted by Sigh | February 25, 2007 11:30 PM

What I can't really see is what is Chicago planning. I mean, once you let Chandler go and sign Ben Wallace to a big contract, you are saying "we want to win now, this is our year", right?. But suddenly, the potential of Deng and a rookie that barely plays is more important that improving your team right now. I like Deng a lot, but Big Ben will be a shadow of himself (and will still be earning 15 million a year) by the time Deng becomes an All-Star (and do you realize that Chicago will have 24 million tied up in Hinrich-Wallace by 08/09, when Deng and Gordon contracts expire?); the window of opportunity doesn't last forever. And a team that wins only 56% of its games and is currently fighting for playoff position with the Raptors can have only so many "untouchable" guys

Posted by Carlos | February 26, 2007 12:07 AM

"Swapping Gasol for Deng would improve Chicago somewhat, but it's not as if swapping Deng's 18.8 ppg for Gasol's 20.3 ppg suddenly transforms the Bulls into an offensive powerhouse. Yes, Chicago could use low post scoring, but it's not as if points scored from the post count double or something"

But, of course, the Bulls with Gasol would be significantly better than the Bulls with Deng. If you want a perfect example of the limits of the statistical approach to basketball, here ya' go...

Posted by Petey | February 26, 2007 8:35 AM

I think that the Bulls probably should have made the trade. I don't know that it would have gotten them to the finals, but I think they're probably the second-best team in the East anyway (they actually have the best point differential, but the Pistons haven't been playing with Webber for that long). With Gasol, they'd have as good of a shot as anyone. At the same time, it seems really unlikely that they could beat the Mavs, Suns, or Spurs. How much is a Conference Champion banner worth?

Posted by Mac | February 26, 2007 9:34 AM

Bill Simmons? Boston-homer Bill Simmons?! Asshat who unironically refers to himself as the "Sports Guy" Bill Simmons?!? The only man--or woman--alive who could make Jimmy Kimmel LESS funny Bill Simmons?!?! That guy?

He's pathetic, but I do have to wonder about the otherwise bright people who take Simmons seriously when he's not adding to the most overfilled canon in sporting literature, The Agony of the Sox Fan(TM).

Posted by jim | February 26, 2007 2:07 PM