I normally take the train into the city to work but since my stupid Ipod alarm clock that I got for Christmas decided to not work, I woke up late. So my train station parking lot was filled up so I had to drive in. Then I was fortunate enough to listen to North interview Pasxon and it was a nice heated discussion. North was trying to dig for information on the Noah situation. Then North, like he so good at doing, started pissing Pax off and he started firing back at North telling him that he is making inaccurate assumptions. It was good. I thought at one point Pax was going to go off on North because North was really being overbearing with his questions like he was his boss.

Am I the only one who thought it sounded like North was trying to instigate a repeat of the "Ozzie Guillen" situation from last summer? Hey, anything for publicity, right?

I thought the line of questioning and North's attitude was well warranted considering the Bulls performance this year.

_________________
"It's not exactly a rocket surgery." D.J.

Is that actually a positive comment that has been posted in the Mike North section?

[quote]I thought the line of questioning and North's attitude was well warranted considering the Bulls performance this year.[/quote]

Sure, Paxton had to expect North to ask about Noah's suspension.

But come on, anybody who heard it knows that North was just trying to pick a fight. No matter what Paxton said, North just ignored him, twisted around the point, and kept on yelling.

It's like he caught Nancy Grace Disease, where every conversation is an argument and winning counts more than making sense.

(if so, don't worry, there's hope: Chris Rongi proved you can grow out of that crap and become a solid analyst.)

Either that Tellander hit a sore spot and what North was really saying is "everybody look at me! I'm still relevant! See? See? See?"

Either way, it doesn't even matter who the guest was. Paxton just happened to be there.

Will there come a point where guests just refuse to go on his show? I'd like to see a boycott

There is some logic to attempting to take the person being interviewed out of their comfort zone in order to get the most honest answer.

good point, dolphin. You're right about it being an interview tactic. But it only works when the interviewer has a point. Otherwise it backfires.

I listened to the 'interivew' and I have no idea what North was trying to get at. I don't think North had any idea either, since he kept changing what he was yelling about.

Meanwhile, Paxton was being remarkably patient. Way more patient than 99% of us would have been. If anything, I think he would have been much more willing to talk about Noah if North hadn't thrown a tantrum.

Yeah, I'm not 100% sure what North was trying to accomplish through this interview either. It seemed to me like nothing more than a publicity stunt (as addressed above) and probably apologized up and down to Pax during the break.

Then he took a couple of calls and the callers used their similar work experience to backup what the Bulls players had done...and North changed the argument by saying "yea but what about when Paxson criticized Thomas & Sefalosha & Skiles had to apologize to them"? and...exactly how does that fit into this particular point? North was just going off in any old direction trying to stir something up and sound relevant.

That said...i think the Bulls look STUPID in this case with a team of misfits handing out extra penalities. Whatever.

I haven't heard any sports talk today outside of Murph's show. All I've heard since then is the Mike North interview. That horse is beaten to the point of decomposition.

_________________

Then there was a point where Paxson said that each veteran voted multiple times and North kept repeating his question of "Did Aaron Gray vote?" repeatedly trying to make it seem that Paxson was avoiding the question. When the truth was, if North would clear the crap out of his ears, he would of known that Paxson already stated who voted and who didn't. Until North wouldn't give up and Paxson eventually said no. Mike couldn't understand that when he says the veterans voted, that also means that the rookies didn't. No Mike need to have straight answers so he can understand.

I have to say though, that there are many successful companies out there that practice bottom-up management where the managers constantly receive feedback from their employees because they are the most valuable commodity of the company. And if there is a majority vote on a particular issue, the management will listen. I think that this approach can be beneficial.

As much as I enjoyed the interview, I think North should of asked other question, besides beating Noah thing to death. North kept asking if Gray got to vote, when Paxson had said 5 or 6 times that the rookies were the only ones not allowed to. Guess North forgot Gray was a rookie, or he had his selective hearing working again.

How is this so?

Yeah, if anything I remember North helping get skiles HIRED after that interview when him and the Bulls were at a contract standoff a couple years back.

When it comes to ripping North, I am always first in line, but I have no issues with his interview today with Paxson. Paxsons answers today were weak and Mike had every right to call him out on it.

I will agree Mike got more aggressive because he smelled a chance to get some pub out of it, but overall, Mike did a good job.

Wow (lol)! Jerry Reinsdorf, a licensed attorney, real estate mogul, owner of two professional sports teams (both champions), and he needs a hot dog vendor to be his mouthpiece.

Thanks for giving me a good laugh this morning.

If North is the OZ behind all the moves of the Bulls, then I am denouncing my title as a fan. That is ridiculous. North is nothing but another couch-sitting, non-athletic, armchair quarterback nobody who just happens to get paid for his opinion.

I loved it when Mike complained that Paxson wanted to give two minute answers to questions. North continuously cut Paxson off after about 10 seconds. Mike has a crystal ball and knows that Paxson would be exhaustive on each response.
Mike just doesn't understand that claims based on supposed occurrences are not going to be taken in the best why by the subject. Paxson is correct on the point that Mike didn't have proof for most of his claims. Mike's response was "it was in the paper". What paper? Was it in a column or a straight story. That would make a difference.
Once again, I believe North did a terrible job. He had a perfect opportunity to discuss things with Paxson, and he just muddied things up with subjective points.

_________________
President of Blake Shetlon fan club

North was on with Jesse Rogers during intermission last night. Interesting comments he made about Reinsdorf’s UC tenant, interesting in that he was once again talking out of his ass. He tried to draw a comparison between how the Hawks are now drawing sellouts as compared to the Bulls attendance. Did you know Mike used to stand in the 3rd balcony to watch Hawks games (his statement).

Butler and Chambermaid? More like the gardener trying to tell the solicitor how to fix the meals. Reinsdorf needs North as a mouthpiece about as much as he needs his shits to be runnier.

1. If anything Jerry Reinsdorf uses Mike North for publicity. Believe me now, Jerry takes nothing North has ever told him seriousely.

2. Reinsdorf owns the UC with Bill Wirtz Estate, thus Nobody is his tenant.

3. While Mike North has used every media person in this city to grab as much attnetion as possible to himself, yet Reinsdorf has done a great job of using North to get some 'regular guy' publicity for himself.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

I'm on record as having stated that IMO Mike North is a usually a pretty good interviewer. However, I'm with biggus on this one. North continually interrupted Paxson before he finished his answers and missed chances for well-reasoned follow-ups.

Beyond that, I thought that both North and B & B missed out on the real story - what happened behind the scenes with Skiles? B & B interviewed assistant coach Ron Adams and he stated that he had witnessed some signs that Skiles might be on his way out. He seemed to imply that specific actions or emotions led to Skiles firing. Then during North's interview, Paxson indicated that there was more to the dismissal than we were aware of and that the time to let him go was clear-cut. None of the hosts followed up on those points however. I realize that neither Adams nor Paxson would have gone into detail on the subject, but they may have characterized it so that it was possible to draw conclusions. At the very least the questions should have been asked.

I thought Paxson said the he wouldn't elaborate on the Skiles firing in his interview with Mikey?

_________________
President of Blake Shetlon fan club

He did say something to that affect and I would've been surprised if he were open about it. However, I believe that the subject merited some follow-up and perhaps Paxson would have provided some veiled clues as to what the deciding factor was. I still think there is a story there - more than just about wins & losses - but something concrete. Again, Paxson stated that he needed to make a change at that precise moment. Why?

No doubt Reinsdorf used North to get that Sox deal.

Now that we know, can you imagine him alluding to Mitch and North where they needed to be on their offer? While at the same time ESPN makes no offer?

I like Mitch and think he does a good job and I do like North, just not his show format (which is terrible), but they got schooled by Jerry R on that deal.

Overall I have to question WSCR in general for it's 2 biggest deals, being North and the Sox and it looks like both were poorly though out.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

I understand the White Sox deal. They wanted to make a splash with a local team, and they were on their way to a WS.

The North deal was mind boggling. I know that he's smart enough to attach himself to advertisers, but he never was known for his ratings. They way overpaid for him.

Of course I understand it, they wanted the pro sports team affiliation.

Mitch had just come from ESPN and he should have some direction on what they thought about the $5 million a year deal.

Remember at that time Reinsodrf was playing the "I hate ESPN guys " cards! He was ripping Silvy and Carmen for bad questions, said he would never be on the show again.

I am sure he was telling North how much he wanted to be on the Score and how it fits them perfectly and all things equal he would go to the Score.

Fact is the Score big $2,500,000 more than anyone else. They outbid nobody!

Remember all the hooplah before and after? Like they won? Yes they placed 1st in a one man race.

_________________
"That's what the internet is for. Slandering others anonymously." Banky
“Been that way since one monkey looked at the sun and told the other monkey ‘He said for you to give me your fuckin’ share.’”

It's not like this would be the first time the station did so. That's also how North got his big contract.

_________________