Can a Window Be Closed Before It Opens?

By: Charlie Danoff

Let me take you back, Bulls fans. Take you back a few years and a million lifetimes ago, before I ever had any foolish dreams about wanting to be a writer.

Entering the 2003-04 season, Bill Cartwright was the coach of a young Bulls franchise that featured unproven young bucks: Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, Jamal Crawford, Jay Williams, and a rookie named Kirk Hinrich.

Since that fateful season, the Bulls have been shaken out of their losing ways and forced into playing “hard” and the “right way,” en route to three straight playoff appearances. However, using the Skiles method - complemented by Paxson finding players to fit his system - has had many costs.

Before I get into the lost opportunity costs, let me begin with the tallest, most obvious costs: Curry and Chandler. Aside from being drafted together out of high school in 2001 and being relied upon to double-handedly bring the Bulls out of rebuilding and back into championship contention, they were very different players and left for different reasons.

Curry was the aloof, local 19-year-old, maybe a little too talented for his own good. Though he has not worked as hard to hone them, his post moves come more naturally than those of Yao Ming. He is one of the biggest players in the NBA, but also one of the smoothest and most athletic. Most importantly, he is one of the rarest commodities in sports these days - a true center (no, Ben Wallace does not make this group).

Given all of these positives, you may forget why he was dealt. Paxson traded him following the Bulls first playoff run of the millennium, in the summer of 2005. The biggest reason was because he was a lazy kid who did not rebound and or fit into the Scott Skiles cookie-cutter image of a basketball player.

Publicly, the Bulls made the deal seem to be about Curry’s supposed heart problems and whether he would take or not take a DNA test to see when he would die. Even if Paxson did a good job covering his rear, he wanted Curry gone because he did not feel that this Jerry Krause draftee had it in his “character” to be a championship NBA player. Chandler, on the other hand, was a very different case.

He, too, was a 19-year-old phenom who probably could have used a couple years of college seasoning before beginning his NBA career; but that is where the comparisons stop. The California boy had no offensive game whatsoever at the 2005 stage of his career. He seemed to be modeling his offensive big man skills in a Ben Wallace-esque vein.

Yet, even with his offensive shortcomings, Chandler shined on the defensive end of the hardwood. While Curry disappeared defending the opposing center, Chandler defended the paint like it was his home. Blocking shots, taking charges, and rebounding, Chandler made up for the defensive deficiencies of many teammates.

On-court prowess aside, the big divide between Chandler and Curry was in terms of effort and attitude. Chandler seemed to be looking for the leadership roles Curry constantly shunned. He was a positive influence on his teammates and the franchise in general.

Nevertheless, one summer after trading away Curry, Paxson decided that Chandler did not fit into his plans either. He gave Tyson up for more or less nothing (save cap space) and chose to go with a guy who looks more and more like a poor man’s Tyson Chandler - Ben Wallace. Thanks to this player personnel wizardry, last year’s Bulls were able to sweep the Miami Heat in round one of the 2007 playoffs.

It was the first time the Bulls had gotten out of the first round since Jordan left, and everything seemed peachy heading into the 2007-08 season. Paxson had another lottery pick, and his team was being picked by many an “expert” to win the Eastern Conference.

Given this bevy of riches in his portfolio, Paxson decided to stand pat. He made his moves the previous summers, cashing in on all of Jerry Krause’s chips, and was unwilling to do the same with any of his draft picks. Facing up against an Eastern Conference won by Cleveland last year, why should he stretch in trying to improve his team?

So what if two of the top five players in the NBA were available to him?

Paxson stood aside as Danny Ainge traded: Ryan Gomes, Gerald Green, Al Jefferson, Theo Ratliff, Sebastian Telfair and a 2009 first round draft pick for Kevin Garnett. Could a package of Deng, Duhon, the 2007 #9 pick and a sign-and-trade with PJ Brown have gotten Garnett? Who knows, but it looks much better to me than what Minnesota accepted.

Similarly, when the Kobe Bryant trade circus came to full fruition this preseason, Paxson stood aside. A package of Hinrich, Deng, Wallace and Thomas works under the cap for Bryant and Kwame Brown. Other player combinations would have worked as well, but once again the venerable Mr. Paxson passed - he preferred a diminutive backcourt to one featuring the NBA’s best 2-guard since MJ.

So, after giving up on Curry and Chandler, and not exercising their opportunities with Garnett and Bryant, where does this leave the Bulls today?

Well, currently they sit at 2-10. For a Scott Skiles-coached team this is not a huge cause for alarm, as they always start slow. Don’t worry fans, coach Skiles will figure out this mess and have his Bulls team losing in the early rounds of the playoffs once again.

Does it matter that last year Chandler led the league in FG%, finding a way to make his limited offensive skills work? Or that Curry has started to rebound, while still averaging nearly 20 points per game and shooting over 57%? Consider too, in comparing Eddy to Wallace, that Wallace will stop more people at the defensive end. Does that make up for the fact that Curry will score at least 10 more points/game than Ben, and make it a lot easier for Hinrich and Gordon to score?

Whatever… I mean, its not like young, talented 7-footers are the hardest commodity in the world find or anything.

Besides, as discussed, Paxson still could have had either Garnett or Kobe. But he did not make the necessary moves. Now, Garnett is leading the best Boston team since the Larry Bird era, and Kobe has a less-talented surrounding squad sitting at 7-6 in the harder Western Conference.

One of the NBA’s best unknown writers, Harlan Schreiber, described the Bulls-and-Bryant situation thusly:

Having assets when a great player is available is a like an eclipse, it’s a rare event and you better catch it while you can.

And how often do two eclipses come in the same summer?

It took me a while, but now I agree with him. It is time for the Bulls to cash in on their young assets while they still can. Or perhaps the more correct way to put it is if they still can. If I were the Lakers, I might have traded with the Bulls in training camp, but not any more. At this point, New York has twice as many wins as the Bulls.

Indeed it is a very strange time to be a Bulls fan. First, they slammed shut one championship window by trading Tyson and Eddy. Then, through hard work and “grit,” they somehow got fans to believe it might open again. But by not capitalizing on their assets, it seems to have shut again before ever really being re-opened.

Tags: , , , , ,

Charlie is an aspiring writer and a caddy at Skokie Country Club. Odds are you will hear a lot about him in the years to come, so if you want to be the first kid on the block familiar with his work, click here.

Share This Article

No Comments

No comments yet.

Comment On This Article