Will Bulls fans be patient?

TripleDouble said:

If Paxson drafts a player who might need a year or two to develop, will Bulls fans who criticize Paxson for always taking the safe pick and not gambling on talent then criticize Paxson for not producing instant returns from this important offseason?

I think it's very possible that Aldridge, Gay and Bargnini will take some time to develop. I, for one, hope this does not prevent Paxson from drafting the player who he thinks will ultimatly be the best player for the Bulls.

Click to expand...

On a superficial level I see where you're going...Pax bashers may bash Pax either way. But in this circumstance, I'll probably be on that side myself. I've taken the disappointment of this season in good humor because we have several different ways to improve the roster this coming offseason. If that doesn't happen, or happens in a way that takes 2-3 more years to coalesce, I'll be ticked. ScottMay is right on about this - we can take someone who might need development time, but if we don't find guys to fill our needs while we wait for them to round into shape, I won't be happy about it.

Pax is a victim of his own success to some extent now. He got us 47 wins last season when no one thought we'd win more than 35 or so. Now we're on pace for 35-40 when fans had every right to hope we'd build on last season. If Pax wanted the fanbase to buy into a "patience" mindset, last year's success made that much more difficult for us to accept - along with the fact that we've BEEN extraordinarily patient for the last seven years or so.

ALL THE YEARS, INCLUDING THIS ONE, where we could have been a 50 win team NOW, but instead will be waiting for Lemarcus Aldridge to develop into a player that will eventually lead us to a championship or something like that.

Click to expand...

the problem with this assertion is that there is a notion that the prospective pick is "expected" to "lead" us to a championship. that's far and away an untruth. the players currently on the roster aka, "the core" will lead the team. the pick, IF he's a player who can come in an get significant minutes (see williams, morrison, brewer), will be asked/required to fill in the missing elements from the team as it exists now. IF said player has the wherewithal to rise up on his hind quarters and be "special" (aldrige, gay, carney), so be it. but it's not as if the players that are on the team now are scrubs waiting for a superstar to show them which way to go; that's hardly the case.

further the "where we could have been" phrase in the above quote is marked by the operative word "could". there's absolutely NO guarantee this team WOULD have achieved 50 games next year; none whatsoever. that's a presumption everyone wants to take due to the success of last year. however, as i previously stated, many,many variables fell into place that contributed to that success; and yes , i too would have expected the next step upwards toward 50, but if injuries had occurred, or players didn't return, it was just as likely that the team won 42-45 games and still could mark progress.

i see progress this season as well, problem is it's harder to pinpoint because of the donut hole in the team's identity.

if pax gets 2-3 bigs and an athletic wing (2/3) this team will be right back in the thick of things; waiting for a first year player to develop won't be an issue.

BULLHITTER said:

the problem with this assertion is that there is a notion that the prospective pick is "expected" to "lead" us to a championship. that's far and away an untruth. the players currently on the roster aka, "the core" will lead the team. the pick, IF he's a player who can come in an get significant minutes (see williams, morrison, brewer), will be asked/required to fill in the missing elements from the team as it exists now. IF said player has the wherewithal to rise up on his hind quarters and be "special" (aldrige, gay, carney), so be it. but it's not as if the players that are on the team now are scrubs waiting for a superstar to show them which way to go; that's hardly the case.

further the "where we could have been" phrase in the above quote is marked by the operative word "could". there's absolutely NO guarantee this team WOULD have achieved 50 games next year; none whatsoever. that's a presumption everyone wants to take due to the success of last year. however, as i previously stated, many,many variables fell into place that contributed to that success; and yes , i too would have expected the next step upwards toward 50, but if injuries had occurred, or players didn't return, it was just as likely that the team won 42-45 games and still could mark progress.

i see progress this season as well, problem is it's harder to pinpoint because of the donut hole in the team's identity.

if pax gets 2-3 bigs and an athletic wing (2/3) this team will be right back in the thick of things; waiting for a first year player to develop won't be an issue.

Click to expand...

That's the funny thing.. there is no guarantee that a team that was:

a) 47-35
b) After an 0-9 start
c) The youngest team in the league

But this team will become a REAL contender when Pax uses our assets. See the contradiction there? At least I have a winning season in which we had one of the 3 winningest months in BULLS (as in Jordan's team) HISTORY to base my claims on. I think it is far more reasonable for me to say we'd have won 50 games this year and the next two years at least than it is for someone to say we'll ever contend with a team that currently has 29 wins and "assets." So if I can't say we could, then Pax fans REALLY can't say it. BUT more often than not you get someone who says that "you can't say that" (Not necessarily you) and then turns around and talks about what we WILL (as in a degree of certainty) do once our fabled assets join the team and what for example Lamarcus Aldridge WILL become.

The 2004-05 Bulls DID win 47 games after starting 0-9.

Also the players on the team now are not special. They are very good role players, nothing more. There isn't one of them that I see being better than Horace Grant for example. Think about that.

And I knew when I wrote the word "lead" someone would key on to that. Slight hyperbole. Though, don't think there aren't some Pax supporters that think an Aldridge or Bargnani could do just that. Ok so here is the question, and please... would someone, including yourself, finally ANSWER IT:

What about the years we spend waiting to win 47 games again, or the years we spend waiting until said player has the impact Eddy Curry had? Don't those years represent value? They are WASTED years where we could have been winning 50 games.