# WGN 720:Pax contacts Miami Heat



## DOGMAN (Jun 10, 2003)

I just heard on WGN radio 720 that Pax is in talks with the MIAMI HEAT. The trade proposed is Jalen Rose who is making $13,279,500 and a future 2nd round pick for the Miami Heat's Eddie Jones who is making $12,320,000 and a player to be named later. The reporter said that Pax contacted the Heat's front office today after meeting with both Jalen Rose and Jamal Crawford, who are disgruntled over the fact that they were benched by coach Bill Cartwright in yesterday's win over the New Orleans Hornets.


I heard this in my car on my way back from the BEARS/LIONS game today.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

that might be a damn good trade....


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Eddie Jones can't score as well as Rose. Where's the scoring going to come from on our roster? Eddy Curry? What's Pax going to do with Fizer and Crawford?


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

Why does Miami make this trade? The Heat only wants to deal Jones because of his contract, but bringing back Rose solves nothing in that regard and brings a bad personality into the lockerroom.

Are they just looking for a shakeup because they suck so bad?


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> Why does Miami make this trade? The Heat only wants to deal Jones because of his contract, but bringing back Rose solves nothing in that regard and brings a bad personality into the lockerroom.
> 
> Are they just looking for a shakeup because they suck so bad?


This is exactly what I was thinking -- I thought the reason Miami has always wanted to trade Jones (and Grant) was for salary reasons, which this obviously wouldn't help.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

if we are gonna trade rose then we better keep crawford. the only problem i have with rose and crawford is that they are both too similar. but jalen is taller and attacks the basket which makes him more valuable. Eddy Jones is even older than Jalen, why would we want that. isnt he injured all the time now. Oh I get it, he wants jones to be injured so Kendal Gill can start.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

I think Miami could use another ball handler, especially when Wade is at the point. All things considered, it is a pretty even swap, except that it solves A LOT of problems for us.

Rose just does not seem like the kind of guy who will be willing to fade into the background as our young players get better and better. Jones does seem like that kind of guy. Jones' defense and outside shooting/slashing game is also something we need right now rather than someone like Rose who is best when he controls the ball.

And most importantly, this will send a huge message to Crawford and his agent. You either play under our rules or you won't be here for long. That more than anything is what will make this trade work.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

The Bulls would be giving up the better player. Rose never misses a game while Jones has become a little brittle. However, Jones will bust his *** defensively and he won't need the ball in his hands nearly as much as Rose does. 

This also lays the groundwork for the Hinrich/Crawford duo to see more PT together.

The Heat need a guard who can actually play the point. Rose satisfies that need. It looks like a good deal for both teams. And in terms of maintaining some kind of team harmony, Paxson absolutely has to do something.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Q: Why does this trade make sense for the Heat?

A: They have a banged up rookie playmaker in Wade and banged up Rafer Alston as the backup. Caron Butler is banged up. A guy like Rose could ease the load on Odom and Wade and bring a bit more to the offense than Jones brings. Wade and Butler are good defenders, so Rose's defensive short-comings can be hidden more than they are playing next to an old Pip, Marshall, and Crawford.

Q: Why does this trade make sense for the Bulls?

A: They can give up some scoring if it means they get some defense, hustle, and toughness. Crawford looks like a guy who can score a lot, and so does Curry. Chandler, Marshall, Fizer, and Hinrich all stand ready to take up some slack too. What the Bulls need is a guy who sets the tone defensively. Jones can be that guy.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

**

:no:


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> And most importantly, this will send a huge message to Crawford and his agent. You either play under our rules or you won't be here for long. That more than anything is what will make this trade work.


How effective is this message if Crawford already thinks "the writing is on the wall"? Won't this just confirm to him, that it's only a matter of time before he's traded as well? I'm not certain Crawford would really look at a trade as a bad thing right now. He's not demanding a trade or anything yet, but I can't see how he could want to be with the bulls much longer given the current atmosphere.

I would think a change in scenery would be in his best interests. I don't know if it's in the bulls best interests, but I'm not totally confident the bulls really know too much about what they're doing all the time.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Q: Isn't this a very risky trade for the Bulls?

A: Right now everything is risky for the Bulls. Doing something... Not doing something... there are consequences to consider to all of it. Kismet raises a good point with Jones appearance of increasing injury problems. Also, I'm not too sure that a Jones for Rose trade lays the groundwork for playing Crawford and Hinrich. With Jones slighter stature (than Rose) the only way I see that happening is if Eddie is hurt. Otherwise we'll be pretty undersized with Jones, Crawford, and Hinrich on the court all at the same time. And Jones still has a long time left on his deal.

From a short-term perspective, I wouldn't be that surprised to see a Jones for Fizer/ERob/Crawford trade rehashed. It would seem to do the same things, and maybe more for both teams. If Fizer gets healthy, he gives the Heat a low post presence that they currently lack. Crawford gives them a playmaker (theoretically) that could be effective feeding off guys like Wade and Butler. ERob is filler, but the Heat need bodies right now. and this provides cap relief for them.

For the Bulls, we've concluded that maybe the luxury tax doesn't matter. We've also concluded we urgently need to win. One might argue that swapping our best, most established player for a roughly equal player is not making tangible improvement to the team. Consolidating a couple of unestablished guys who don't play good D into an established guy who does might bring about tangible improvements. We move Pip to the PG slot and theoretically we're ready for a serious playoff push. Of course, we've done it at the expense of two promising players, but I could see it happening- Crawford is obviously at loggerheads with BC and Pax and they don't seem to like Fizer anyway. Rose, while also at odds with them, will get over it and pick up his game if he's paired with the right veteran team (adding Jones may do this). The only issue would be money. 

1- Pippen, Hinrich
2- Jones, Gill
3- Rose, Marshall
4- Chandler, Baxter
5- Curry, Blount


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Actually if the Bulls are open to Jaml playing sg in their longterm plans then this trade makes sense as it puts a defensive mided player next to Crawford to take on the Tmacs,Kobes and Pierces if needed.

I mean Crawfod has one of the most respected agents in the league in Tellem anyone who doesnt think he could find a willing and happy taker for Crawford is kidding themselves .

I honestly believe that the Bulls may think Crawfod is better suited for Jalens role and could get better results running set plays through Crawford.Thats just my 2 cents though


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Players, most speaking privately, were split, with some supporting Crawford and Rose but most questioning the timing of their comments given the 109-106 victory over New Orleans. 

Paxson had hoped to quell the infighting by talking bluntly and directly to the players, even sharing an anecdote about how he lost his position to B.J. Armstrong in 1993 after starting for back-to-back Bulls title teams. 

Rose and Crawford appreciated Paxson's effort, but they didn't back down or hide their displeasure. 

Don't think for one second that Paxson wasn't livid over the fact that what's been lost in all of this is that the Bulls beat a quality opponent on the road while playing shorthanded.

Arn Tellem, who represents Rose and Crawford, called Paxson's office Sunday shortly after the GM met with both players. 

...and there's the confirmation that meetings and conversations took place between Paxson, the named players and their agent. Now, if we can just get Riley to cooperate.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I wonder how fast a deal could happen?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> I wonder how fast a deal could happen?


Depends on any "unusual" clauses that might be contained in a player's contract, I suppose. If there aren't any contractual issues I suppose the players could suit up for there new teams in a couple of days.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> How effective is this message if Crawford already thinks "the writing is on the wall"? Won't this just confirm to him, that it's only a matter of time before he's traded as well? I'm not certain Crawford would really look at a trade as a bad thing right now. He's not demanding a trade or anything yet, but I can't see how he could want to be with the bulls much longer given the current atmosphere.
> 
> I would think a change in scenery would be in his best interests. I don't know if it's in the bulls best interests, but I'm not totally confident the bulls really know too much about what they're doing all the time.


Interestingly, if Rose was traded for Jones, Cartwright and Paxson might be able to allow Crawford to play more like he wants to play. That could help ease some tension. Paxson could also sit down with Crawford and his agent and tell him that he is not going to be traded unless a fabulous offer comes along, but if he doesn't produce in the way the Bulls need him to produce, he will find himself on the bench.

Crawford would be left with little choice but to do what Cartwright says. But with Rose still around, he and Rose (and possibly Curry and others) could together really sabotage the season.

And yes, Jones is not as durable as Rose, but unlike last year, I think we could afford an injury to Jones (or Rose). We needed everything that Rose gave us last year, but this year I don't think he is as good of a fit.

And even though Rose is two inches taller than Jones, I bet Jones probably would do a better job on bigger small forwards that Rose does, especially considering he would be playing SG for most of the game.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

well if we're playing zone a lot anyways, the height diffrences won't matter as much.

That's an interesting point NCBullsfan. I think all Crawford really wants is some assurances. Whereas Rose is more or less just pissed off.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> From a short-term perspective, I wouldn't be that surprised to see a Jones for Fizer/ERob/Crawford trade rehashed. It would seem to do the same things, and maybe more for both teams. If Fizer gets healthy, he gives the Heat a low post presence that they currently lack. Crawford gives them a playmaker (theoretically) that could be effective feeding off guys like Wade and Butler. ERob is filler, but the Heat need bodies right now. and this provides cap relief for them.
> 
> For the Bulls, we've concluded that maybe the luxury tax doesn't matter. We've also concluded we urgently need to win. One might argue that swapping our best, most established player for a roughly equal player is not making tangible improvement to the team. Consolidating a couple of unestablished guys who don't play good D into an established guy who does might bring about tangible improvements. We move Pip to the PG slot and theoretically we're ready for a serious playoff push. Of course, we've done it at the expense of two promising players, but I could see it happening- Crawford is obviously at loggerheads with BC and Pax and they don't seem to like Fizer anyway. Rose, while also at odds with them, will get over it and pick up his game if he's paired with the right veteran team (adding Jones may do this). The only issue would be money.
> ...


If we trade Crawford we have to get a perimeter player that could still be around five years from now. Hinrich is still too much of a question mark, and I don't think it is a good idea to put ourselves in the position that at about the time Chandler and Curry might be hitting the beginning of their prime, we are looking to find replacements for two or perhaps three perimeter positions.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> If we trade Crawford we have to get a perimeter player that could still be around five years from now. Hinrich is still too much of a question mark, and I don't think it is a good idea to put ourselves in the position that at about the time Chandler and Curry might be hitting the beginning of their prime, we are looking to find replacements for two or perhaps three perimeter positions.


This is a very valid point. We'll be extremely old around the perimeter if we do this. And I do agree that even against 3s, Jones will probably bring more than rose does, but more because Rose doesn't bring as much than Jones is that good. It'll probably look a lot like Spree/Houston in New York, which, truth be told, was actually a pretty good combo... they just didn't have any help around them.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

I think this is a more plausible trade than Chad Ford's proposed trade Nash, Finley, Jamison for Curry, Crawford, Rose, and Eddie Robinson.

My roommate and I are arguing who'd be more valuable for the Bulls, Finley or Eddie Jones. As much as I like Finley with his tough D, I'd take Eddie because he shoots a bit better. He is however injury prone.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Craw for Mo Pete


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> If we trade Crawford we have to get a perimeter player that could still be around five years from now. Hinrich is still too much of a question mark, and I don't think it is a good idea to put ourselves in the position that at about the time Chandler and Curry might be hitting the beginning of their prime, we are looking to find replacements for two or perhaps three perimeter positions.


Gaping wholes are never as big as they seem when you have stars on the team. I amazed at the way the Wolves and Dallas continually retool even while above the cap. I suppose this relies on management that is willing to spend, but I think there is more flexibility above the cap then appears at first glance. 

Lost in all of this is this "sick to my stomach" feeling that we traded two players making a legitimate push for the all-star team in Artest and Miller for a player who is going to become an aged Eddie Jones. What a disaster.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

This trade would ensure another year in the lottery.

You don't make the playoffs with 2/5 of your starting lineup can't play the majority of the season. 

Between Jones and Pippen, you really think you'll see 100 games out of the two combined? I don't... and thats a recipe for a high draft pick. 

You can't be a "veteran leader" wearing street clothes....


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Jones has only had two injury plagued seasons in his career--last season and 3 seasons ago. Two years ago he played 81. The rest of his career has been relatively solid. I'm not saying hes going to play 82 this year, but hes not Lamar Odom, either.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

Jones is still a very good perimeter defender, which is what BC and Paxson want.

Rose is the better player, in terms of scoring, and more durable. If Curry can step it up consistently on offense, I like this deal.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> How effective is this message if Crawford already thinks "the writing is on the wall"? Won't this just confirm to him, that it's only a matter of time before he's traded as well? I'm not certain Crawford would really look at a trade as a bad thing right now. He's not demanding a trade or anything yet, but I can't see how he could want to be with the bulls much longer given the current atmosphere.
> ...


Then if this doesn't wake him up to be the very best he can be, nothing will.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

defense. Clear and simple. Our defense so far is the same as last year. Guards are killing us. Once pippen gets well, this team won't need Rose and scoring. 

So far this season, Jones is averaging 20.8 a game. 42%, 5.6 rebounds(we need more of this) 1.6 assists and 1.6 steals. just 1.8 t/o. 

Rose: 40% 3. rebounds. 3.4 assists. 2.0 t/o 15 pts.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Rose is a cancer and i will keeping posting this. He is a bad apple and always has been. The pacers could not wait to get rid of him. IMO JC would be a lot better off with rose gone. As for Eddie Jones he has a lot of game left in him and plays great D. As i and other keep posting you cannot win in the NBA without good guard play on both ends of the court. The awful D and selfish O is hurting everyone's game especially curry's. Ever hear the phase he makes everyone else play better. Does that apply to rose. NO.

david


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

but Eddie Jones as atleast a year more on his contract and he is totally washed up. He will only play about 60 games for you. its a bad deal for the Bulls. if they were desperate to get rid of Rose, the trade to have made would have been to send Rose to NJ this summer for Mutombo. Dike only had 2 more years on his deal, and NJ was desperate for shooting and scoring on the wings.


----------



## OG (Aug 12, 2003)

i agree rose is a cancer to any developing team.. cus he thinks he has to be the man, when the team really needs the young guys to step up & get some experience, while rose acts as a mentor & steps up when they need him to get the job done..
that's the reason i don't like the rose trade for the heat.. i'd be happy with the crawford one tho.. as suggested in another thread:
Heat trade
Jones,
R. Butler

Bulls trade
JC
Fizer
Robinson


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Rose is a cancer and i will keeping posting this. He is a bad apple and always has been. The pacers could not wait to get rid of him. IMO JC would be a lot better off with rose gone. As for Eddie Jones he has a lot of game left in him and plays great D. As i and other keep posting you cannot win in the NBA without good guard play on both ends of the court. The awful D and selfish O is hurting everyone's game especially curry's. Ever hear the phase he makes everyone else play better. Does that apply to rose. NO.
> 
> david


Actually, he was Larry Bird's favorite player and had Larry never left the organization, Jalen wouldn't have either. I don't know if this has soured over the years, but if not, we should also get in touch with Indiana to see if they want him back.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> but Eddie Jones as atleast a year more on his contract and he is totally washed up. He will only play about 60 games for you. its a bad deal for the Bulls. if they were desperate to get rid of Rose, the trade to have made would have been to send Rose to NJ this summer for Mutombo. Dike only had 2 more years on his deal, and NJ was desperate for shooting and scoring on the wings.


Huh? So far this season Jones seems to be very productive: 38mpg, 21ppg, 40% and 42% shooting. He may be a bit brittle, but if its the Bulls intention to pair up Hinrich and Crawford more and more as the season goes on then Eddie's minutes can be managed in a way that will keep him productive all season long.

While I'm sure the Bulls want to manage their payroll, I don't think they'd be interested in moving Rose just to dump salary. That's pretty much what a Rose/Mutumbo deal would have looked like. Besides, all this chatter about moving Rose has just come up over the weekend. Prior to Saturday I don't get the impression the Bulls had any intentions of trading Rose. So why would they have swapped Jalen for Deke this summer?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

BTW, has anyone heard of any other media sources picking up on this story? Is this Bulls/Heat trade story being reported anywhere else or was someone last night just having a good time at this board's expense?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Huh? So far this season Jones seems to be very productive: 38mpg, 21ppg, 40% and 42% shooting. He may be a bit brittle, but if its the Bulls intention to pair up Hinrich and Crawford more and more as the season goes on then Eddie's minutes can be managed in a way that will keep him productive all season long.
> ...


Considering they are having a hard time paying Chandler and Curry this summer, the Bulls would be very wise in limiting the years they pay a max salary. They in effect would be paying EJones a max salary well past his 36-37th birthday. Does anyone even think he would be in the NBA then? I mean the guy doesnt play more then 65 games a year. and the reason he is off to such a statistically hot start is cause, frankly, miami has no one else. its a bad deal for the Bulls. they have to manage their cap situation. Mark Cuban is not our owner


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

:gopray: :gopray: :gopray: :gopray: :gopray: 


Please let this go down! I have always loved Eddie Jones and his game and having Jones,Gill, and Pippen all on the perimeter would do wonders for us defensively and would allow Crawford a little more offensive freedom which in turn would make him more comfortable. Cross your fingers guys this is good.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Considering they are having a hard time paying Chandler and Curry this summer, the Bulls would be very wise in limiting the years they pay a max salary. They in effect would be paying EJones a max salary well past his 36-37th birthday. Does anyone even think he would be in the NBA then? I mean the guy doesnt play more then 65 games a year. and the reason he is off to such a statistically hot start is cause, frankly, miami has no one else. its a bad deal for the Bulls. they have to manage their cap situation. Mark Cuban is not our owner


Salary-wise, Jones is owed $56 million over the next four years, while Rose is owed more than $60 million over the next four years. Jones will be 35 when this contract runs out. I have been adamantly against most of the Eddie Jones trades and last year was even against this very trade. But now with Crawford showing signs of being the kind of player than can do a lot of the same things that Rose does, I think such a swap might make sense for us.

Miami has had a very difficult schedule so far with the loss to an undermanned Spurs team (that took the Lakers to double overtime and stayed close with the Mavs) being their only really winnable game. Jones has already missed one game, but besides that he seems to have been more productive than Rose. And there have been quite a few games where we have been offensively challenged, as well.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Considering they are having a hard time paying Chandler and Curry this summer, the Bulls would be very wise in limiting the years they pay a max salary. They in effect would be paying EJones a max salary well past his 36-37th birthday. Does anyone even think he would be in the NBA then? I mean the guy doesnt play more then 65 games a year. and the reason he is off to such a statistically hot start is cause, frankly, miami has no one else. its a bad deal for the Bulls. they have to manage their cap situation. Mark Cuban is not our owner


First of all, any extensions TC and EC sign this summer won't kick in until the 05/06 season. And what makes you think the Bulls will have a "hard time" paying either of them?

You also said that Jones "doesn't play more than 65 games a year." Please refer to his 01/02 season in which he averaged 39mpg and played in 81 games.

And what does the number of Miami scoring options have with Jones being, as you put it, "totally washed up." I don't care if Eddie's the _only_ scoring option in Miami. The point is that he's delivering when called upon and a "totally washed up" player couldn't do that.

And while Reinsdorf may not be Mark Cuban, John Paxson has stated publicly on a number of occasions that Chandler and Curry are the Bulls cornerstones of the future and that the organization is prepared to pay them accordingly when the time comes.

C'mon, man, if you want to paint a picture a certain way, try to be a little more accurate and factual with your brush strokes.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

DO IT.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

This would be a stupid trade made simply to make pax look like gestapo GM.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I'm alll for it. Do it Pax.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

I would have done this trade about three years ago, but I don't really see how it would help us at this point. Kismet, Eddie Jones did indeed play 81 games in 01-02, but that is by far the exception rather than the rule. He played 63 the season before and 47 the season after. He is definitely a better defender than Jalen, but is not as good of a scorer, shooter or passer. The only advantage I see is his contract ends sooner than Jalen's, I believe. I don't think that's enough of a reason. Unless management feels Jalen's lack of respect for Cartwright will hold us back as a team OR we include Cartwright in the deal, I don't do this trade.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> but Eddie Jones as atleast a year more on his contract and he is totally washed up. He will only play about 60 games for you. its a bad deal for the Bulls. if they were desperate to get rid of Rose, the trade to have made would have been to send Rose to NJ this summer for Mutombo. Dike only had 2 more years on his deal, and NJ was desperate for shooting and scoring on the wings.


Eddie Jones has the same contract length that Rose does but actually makes approx $1M less per year. In other words, this constitutes slight savings against the cap. Thus if anything, Rose for Jones would facilitate re-signing our existing players.

Obviously from his quality play this year he's not totally washed up. If he's washed up, Rose must be totally finished.

Next, I don't see ANY reason to buy into the dire predictions that he'll only play 60 games. As several folks pointed out, he's generally been healthy and has come back looking good this year. Injuries happen, and just because a guy is 32 doesn't mean he's in some kind of death spiral. Hell, there are all kinds of players that have played great until they are 35-37 and all kinds of players that come back from an injury problem for a year and go on to play a long time. I don't see any more reason to think Jones is finished than I do Vince Carter from last year (who's dropped two 30+ point games) or Ray Allen or Jerry Stackhouse this year. He might be an injury-prone guy from here on out, but so could any player. He certainly hasn't been over the course of his whole career.

Finally, the Mutombo thing... that seems to be in left field to me. Mutombo is really is a guy who's finished. The Knicks won't put him on the court. Jones is playing 38 mpg. And most obviously, especially if we traded Rose, the last thing we would want to do is trade him for a guy that would bring 0 help on the perimeter. Such a move would be a complete surrender of the season in order to gain some kind of cap relief.

Coincidentally, it would be harmful to our cap position. Mutombo's deal only lasts through next year, but that's long enough to make it harder to re-sign Crawford and Fizer, if they prove worth it. And to top it off, Mutombo makes significantly more than Rose (in contrast to Jones, who makes less!), so such a move would actually push us in the wrong direction over the short term in regards to the luxury tax. That's if the luxury tax comes into play at all... there's a good chance it won't, but I'm saying that if it does, Rose for Jones would be helpful next season but Rose for Mutombo would be potentially disasterous.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> BTW, has anyone heard of any other media sources picking up on this story? Is this Bulls/Heat trade story being reported anywhere else or was someone last night just having a good time at this board's expense?


More likely than not the latter 

But it's one of those few trades that at least outwardly makes some sense.


----------



## Clinton Boswell (Aug 10, 2003)

not to defend Rlucas, but Eddie Jones has averaged 13 injured or missed games per year, not including this year or the lockout shortened year. which means he plays 69. over the last 3 or 4, outside of the one year Kismet pointed out, that number is much higher. While i would agree Jones is a better fit, what happens when he and Pip are both down at the same time, which will probably be for 10 games per? I dont like Rose, but you can count on one thing, and that is 82 games per year.


----------



## Clinton Boswell (Aug 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Eddie Jones has the same contract length that Rose does but actually makes approx $1M less per year. In other words, this constitutes slight savings against the cap. Thus if anything, Rose for Jones would facilitate re-signing our existing players.
> ...


not exactly true, the knicks start him


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Clinton Boswell</b>!
> 
> 
> not exactly true, the knicks start him


Yeah, they start him, but how much is he playing? I think like 25 minutes. And he's raised a ruckus about not playing down the stretch (against teams that were running him ragged as far as i could tell).

On Jones, it's true that he's a bigger injury risk than Rose, I wouldn't deny that. I just objected to the idea that he's washed up and can't play, and was a major injury problem. He doesn't seem to be to that level yet.

As a final note, lots of injury is just due to chance, and over time, this evens out. Even though Rose has been Ripken-like, should we really expect him to continue to be? I'd expect him to stay as healthy as the next guy, which means he'll probably get banged up at some point :|


----------



## Clinton Boswell (Aug 10, 2003)

Mutombo plays approx 25 min a night, averages about 7 pts and 6 bds. and 2 blks. He doesnt play in the 4th, from what i read, but he does play. Just correcting your original comment. If we are going to bash some posters for not having exact stats to back up their claims, i thought i would point out some out as well. Its not like Mutombo is Lonny Baxter or something


----------



## HEATLUNATIC (May 27, 2002)

The Heat WONT be trading for the CANCER that is Rose!!!At this point E.J. is better then Rose cuz he can put up just as many points,but he also plays great D!!!There is no way in hell that Riles will bring in someone that couldnt guard a chair to save their soul,and who could corrupt our young core of CB4,Wade and Odom!!!

The Bulls can keep Rose!!!:devil:


----------



## Takeit2dahouse00 (Jun 12, 2002)

Miami trades: SG Eddie Jones (18.5 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 3.7 apg in 38.1 minutes) 
SF Rasual Butler (7.5 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 1.3 apg in 21.0 minutes) 
Miami receives: SF Eddie Robinson (5.7 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 1.0 apg in 21.2 minutes) 
PF Marcus Fizer (11.7 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 1.3 apg in 21.3 minutes) 
PG Jamal Crawford (10.7 ppg, 2.3 rpg, 4.2 apg in 24.9 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: +2.1 ppg, +3.7 rpg, and +1.5 apg. 

Chicago trades: SF Eddie Robinson (5.7 ppg, 3.1 rpg, 1.0 apg in 21.2 minutes) 
PF Marcus Fizer (11.7 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 1.3 apg in 21.3 minutes) 
PG Jamal Crawford (10.7 ppg, 2.3 rpg, 4.2 apg in 24.9 minutes) 
Chicago receives: SG Eddie Jones (18.5 ppg, 4.8 rpg, 3.7 apg in 47 games) 
SF Rasual Butler (7.5 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 1.3 apg in 72 games) 
Change in team outlook: -2.1 ppg, -3.7 rpg, and -1.5 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED


The Bulls get rid of Eddie Robinson's contract, end the dispute Crawford/Rose dispute and pick up a great defender that can score in Jones. The Bulls have always loved and wanted Jones.

The Heat keep rebuilding and going younger, Crawford allows Wade to move to SG and develop at a position he is familiar with and able to perform at. 

Heat Starting 5
C-Brian Grant 
PF-Lamar Odom
SF-Caron Butler
SG-Dwyane Wade
PG-Jamal Crawford

Bulls Starting 5
C-Eddy Curry
PF-Donyell Marshall
SF-Tyson Chandler
SG-Eddie Jones
PG-Jalen Rose


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Clinton Boswell</b>!
> Mutombo plays approx 25 min a night, averages about 7 pts and 6 bds. and 2 blks. He doesnt play in the 4th, from what i read, but he does play. Just correcting your original comment. If we are going to bash some posters for not having exact stats to back up their claims, i thought i would point out some out as well. Its not like Mutombo is Lonny Baxter or something


I don't see where my statement needs correcting since I never said that he doesn't play at all. I meant finished in the figurative sense i guess. Further, I'm not bashing anyone for not having exact stats to back up their claims. 

Put it this way, if Eddie Jones was only playing Mutombo-like minutes, I'd consider him finished too. The difference between the two's stats is not what I'd call minor


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

If Jamal is in any deal to get Jones, Miami has got to give a lottery pick as well.

If we want Eddie Jones, it's for Rose straight up or for Fizer (expiring contract), E-Rob (smaller contract than Jones, one year less) and filler. I don't think many teams are hot for Eddie Jones right now. His contract is a killer.


----------



## Clinton Boswell (Aug 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't see where my statement needs correcting since I never said that he doesn't play at all. I meant finished in the figurative sense i guess. Further, I'm not bashing anyone for not having exact stats to back up their claims.
> ...


Finally, the Mutombo thing... that seems to be in left field to me. Mutombo is really is a guy who's finished. The Knicks won't put him on the court. Jones is playing 38 mpg. And most obviously, especially if we traded Rose, the last thing we would want to do is trade him for a guy that would bring 0 help on the perimeter. Such a move would be a complete surrender of the season in order to gain some kind of cap relief.

The Knicks do put him on the court. And lets also acknowledge that Jones is only playing those types of minutes because Wade, Odom, Butler have all been, or are currently hurt. Jones will be down to 30 or less minutes per game, when and if that club gets totally healthy


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Why give up on JC until we see him at sg with rose gone. JC is rose's bit--ch right now and needs to stop listening to him. If rose was gone maybe JC would see the light. One thing is for sure paxson is not going to take this bull much longer. If it is between paxson and rose or JC we all know who is going to win. Bye bye rose.

david


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Takeit2dahouse00</b>!
> Miami trades:
> SG Eddie Jones
> SF Rasual Butler
> ...


How about we include a conditional first rounder and you switch Butlers on us. Consider that if you have Odom, Wade, Crawford, and Rose, CB4 is going to be your sixth man at best. Having a pick that could turn into a big man could help you and having a nice young swing player could help us.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Do it. Throw in Fizer if necessary.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

Crawford won't be on the Bulls next year people. This trade will give the Bulls a 

Hinrich
Jones
Pippen
Curry
Chandler

Line-up for the next year. OOOOOHHHHHH SCARY!!!! Which, with the injuries and general body decay and bone decomposition it will be more like

Hinrich
Gill
Robinson
Curry
Chandler

With Marshall on the bench w/ Linton Johson and some rookies and Blount. 

:laugh: 

AWESOME! We go from being a team to be feared in a season or two to AARP.


----------



## Bulls4Ever (May 6, 2003)

Hey it's can bea very good trade for BULLS!!!:dogpile: 

Let's trade Rose+E-Rob for Jones+C-Ron


----------



## Clinton Boswell (Aug 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> Crawford won't be on the Bulls next year people. This trade will give the Bulls a
> 
> Hinrich
> ...


it will be good, IF, Kirk can get the ball over the half court line


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Clinton Boswell</b>!
> 
> 
> it will be good, IF, Kirk can get the ball over the half court line


That's a really big "If."


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

This trade is insane. Especially if the Dallas deal is on the table. I would much rather have Finley than Jones and Nash than Crawford. Add to it a young SF who can play post in an offense oriented to post players, and it's a phenominal deal for us:

Nash
Finley
Chandler
Jamison
Fizer
(and that front line plays together for 10+ years)

As long as Jamal is running the point, we're going to lose games by 20 and 30 points. It won't matter if we have Jones or Rose, because BC is going to have to shake up the lineup periodically to get a win.

We're already seriously hurting at PG depth, and Rose can at least bring the ball up and run the offense. This is not something that Jones is known for.

Jones IS brittle. A player with a lot of nagging injuries turns into a Pippen by age 38. A player without a lot of nagging injuries turns into a Jordan by age 40 (he played 82 games and 38 minutes per game last season).

If we can add Jones while keeping Rose, then the deal becomes interesting.

RLucas has a clue about this one.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> This trade is insane. Especially if the Dallas deal is on the table. I would much rather have Finley than Jones and Nash than Crawford. Add to it a young SF who can play post in an offense oriented to post players, and it's a phenominal deal for us:
> 
> Nash
> ...


As long as Jamal is running the point, we're going to lose games by 20 and 30 points. It won't matter if we have Jones or Rose, because BC is going to have to shake up the lineup periodically to get a win


I have zero idea where you get this at. Haven't you heard that NBA GM's have picked Jamal as most likely to "break out" this season? This, to me, just seems to be your anti-Jamal bias speaking and it says volumes.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> As long as Jamal is running the point, we're going to lose games by 20 and 30 points. It won't matter if we have Jones or Rose, because BC is going to have to shake up the lineup periodically to get a win
> ...


I've actually watched all 7 games. You might have seen the blowout losses in the box scores or the game recaps or the TV highlights. It's a thing called experience.

I'd be thrilled if Jamal would accept a scoring role at SG, but I do not think that is going to happen in the short or long run.

I don't care what GM's say about Jamal being likely to "break out." He's busted out, and if GMs still like him, trade his sorry [you-know-what] to some fool for someone who will win ballgames for us instead of losing them for us.


----------



## HEATLUNATIC (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> How about we include a conditional first rounder and you switch Butlers on us. Consider that if you have Odom, Wade, Crawford, and Rose, CB4 is going to be your sixth man at best. Having a pick that could turn into a big man could help you and having a nice young swing player could help us.


U expect Miami to trade E.J. and CB4 for E-Rob,Fizer,Craw and a crappy pick?!?!

1. E-Rob is GARBAGE!!!

2. Fizer is coming off a blown out knee!!!

3. Crawford DOESNT look like half the baller he was for the 2nd half of last season!!!

4. E.J. alone is BETTER then EVERY player that Chicago gives up in this deal,yet u seem to think Miami is also gonna give up CB4 whos gonna be better then E.J.?!?!


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

ACE I could care less what other GM's think. If they want him so bad they can have him. I would not mind the Rose for Jones trade, as a matter of fact I like it. As for JC if we did this maybe he is more comfortable because he will have more of a scoring load but he still would be PG and that is a problem. I would like the Rose for Jones and then something like a JC,Fizer for Harrington,Johnson trade with Indy. Or at least something similar to that trading JC for a young stud SF and a veteran PG to go along with Hinrich.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> ACE I could care less what other GM's think. If they want him so bad they can have him. I would not mind the Rose for Jones trade, as a matter of fact I like it. As for JC if we did this maybe he is more comfortable because he will have more of a scoring load but he still would be PG and that is a problem. I would like the Rose for Jones and then something like a JC,Fizer for Harrington,Johnson trade with Indy. Or at least something similar to that trading JC for a young stud SF and a veteran PG to go along with Hinrich.


your right Basghetti. My bad. You clearly know more than all of the GM's in the NBA combined and should not be worried about what they think. After all, just because the NBA is a 24/7 job for them and they are paid millions of dollars a year to identify talent, just because they have entire scouting STAFFS at their disposal, all of that is no reason to take their opinion on a player you don't like personally seriously


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

You are absolutely right I don't like JC as a player. I don't think he is a good PG and is a horrible defender which makes him unable to play SG fulltime. As for the GMs yeah they did pick him to break out but guess what they were wrong he has not broken out at all he has regressed quite a bit. They do make mistakes every once and awhile they are not perfect nor am I.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> You are absolutely right I don't like JC as a player. I don't think he is a good PG and is a horrible defender which makes him unable to play SG fulltime. As for the GMs yeah they did pick him to break out but guess what they were wrong he has not broken out at all he has regressed quite a bit. They do make mistakes every once and awhile they are not perfect nor am I.


I will take the consensus of GM's of the league over your trite evaluation of Jamal everyday and twice on Sundays. Sorry man.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Clinton Boswell</b>!
> not to defend Rlucas, but Eddie Jones has averaged 13 injured or missed games per year, not including this year or the lockout shortened year. which means he plays 69. over the last 3 or 4, outside of the one year Kismet pointed out, that number is much higher. While i would agree Jones is a better fit, what happens when he and Pip are both down at the same time, which will probably be for 10 games per? I dont like Rose, but you can count on one thing, and that is 82 games per year.


That's a good observation. I guess when you look at where the Bulls are at this moment with Jalen Rose it might be described as a case in which the feather in your cap becomes the pain in your a$$. I guess everthing will depend on whether Paxson views this as a one time situation or an irreconcilable split between player and coach.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

So you are telling me that JC has improved this season on last season and is a better player than he was at the end of last year. Ha! Please he is worse and you know it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Clinton Boswell</b>!
> 
> 
> Finally, the Mutombo thing... that seems to be in left field to me. Mutombo is really is a guy who's finished. The Knicks won't put him on the court. Jones is playing 38 mpg. And most obviously, especially if we traded Rose, the last thing we would want to do is trade him for a guy that would bring 0 help on the perimeter. Such a move would be a complete surrender of the season in order to gain some kind of cap relief.
> ...


Oh for pete's sake. I already said *"I meant finished in the figurative sense i guess."* and clarified exactly what I meant. And if you think he could go for the minutes Jones is going for and be worth a damn then well... we just disagree.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Q: Why does this trade make sense for the Heat?
> 
> A: They have a banged up rookie playmaker in Wade and banged up Rafer Alston as the backup. Caron Butler is banged up. A guy like Rose could ease the load on Odom and Wade and bring a bit more to the offense than Jones brings. Wade and Butler are good defenders, so Rose's defensive short-comings can be hidden more than they are playing next to an old Pip, Marshall, and Crawford.
> ...


seeing as offense is the bulls big problem this year...on the suface giving up offense looks like a bad idea


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> This trade is insane. Especially if the Dallas deal is on the table. I would much rather have Finley than Jones and Nash than Crawford. Add to it a young SF who can play post in an offense oriented to post players, and it's a phenominal deal for us:
> 
> Nash
> ...


So really what you're saying is that Crawford has to go. He's not gonna be happy if he's not the PG, and we aren't going to win if he's the PG.

I'd point out that we'd only have Jones under contract until age 35, which would put him pretty well inside the parameters you're setting forth as to when we should be really concerned about chronic injuries. Two years down the road, when his contract is ready to end, he'll fetch a nice younger player in return (as would Rose).

I'm not sure the Dallas trade was ever more than a glint in Chad Ford's eye, but I do agree in general that Rose + Jones on the same team will get us further in the short run than swapping relatively equivalent but differently skilled players.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

If I hear the term *break out* one more time I'm going to run out and buy a tube of Clearasil and give it to Jamal at tonight's game.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> seeing as offense is the bulls big problem this year...on the suface giving up offense looks like a bad idea


But have our offensive problems been the result of not enough firepower or just several players slumping at the same time and a lack of good management of the offense?

Even though we've had problems on offense, I still tend to think the it's not as big a problem as defense. And while Jones isn't as complete an offensive player as Rose, he's no slouch. He doesn't dominate the ball in the same way either. In some ways, he might free up Crawford to do more.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> If I hear the term *break out* one more time I'm going to run out and buy a tube of Clearasil and give it to Jamal at tonight's game.


will there be an extra tube for eddy too?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> will there be an extra tube for eddy too?


If I thought he'd know what to do with it, sure!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> But have our offensive problems been the result of not enough firepower or just several players slumping at the same time and a lack of good management of the offense?
> ...


i actually think jones could be a good fit for the team ...but i like rose better and trading rose would probably do more harm than good 

rose is close to JC who is very close to eddy who all are represented by the same agent ..it has the potential to get ugly and the risk isn't worth the reward ...not even close

defense is about effort in the bulls case now they have the coaching and the pyhsical ability ...and despite what people are ranting about their defensive stats are pretty avg. compared to the rest of the league

i still just call this a rough patch and think the bulls will just work their way through thisand in dec. after the bulls have come back from the west coast trip and had a few favorable games under their belts (the schedule gets much easier) this will be a not too distant memory


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> So really what you're saying is that Crawford has to go. He's not gonna be happy if he's not the PG, and we aren't going to win if he's the PG.
> ...


Maybe Crawford does have to go. If the lightbulb goes off over his head and he figures out that he has to play defense first, then run the offense so his teammates are involved in the game, then he can be very successful here (and I mean we win ballgames).

I'd be thrilled if he scores 20+ points in games, but only if Rose scores 20+, Marshall scores 15+, Curry scores 15+, and so on. I can see the result of him scoring 19 points and leading the team with only one or two other <B>teammates</B> scoring in double figures (barely).

No matter how gaudy his numbers are (and they're not exactly stellar), it's no good to be the only "man" on a team with talent at 1-8 like we're supposed to have.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Maybe Crawford does have to go. If the lightbulb goes off over his head and he figures out that he has to play defense first, then run the offense so his teammates are involved in the game, then he can be very successful here (and I mean we win ballgames).
> 
> I'd be thrilled if he scores 20+ points in games, but only if Rose scores 20+, Marshall scores 15+, Curry scores 15+, and so on. I can see the result of him scoring 19 points and leading the team with only one or two other <B>teammates</B> scoring in double figures (barely).
> ...


Now my question is, why wouldn't this post work equally as well written this way?



> Maybe *Rose* does have to go. If the lightbulb goes off over his head and he figures out that he has to play defense first, then run the offense so his teammates are involved in the game, then he can be very successful here (and I mean we win ballgames).
> 
> I'd be thrilled if he scores 20+ points in games, but only if *Crawford* scores 20+, Marshall scores 15+, Curry scores 15+, and so on. I can see the result of him scoring 19 points and leading the team with only one or two other <B>teammates</B> scoring in double figures (barely).
> 
> No matter how gaudy his numbers are (and they're not exactly stellar), it's no good to be the only "man" on a team with talent at 1-8 like we're supposed to have.


And don't tell me that it is because he is the "point guard," because you have gone through great pains to point out that Rose or Pippen have played just as much "point guard" as Crawford has.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Now my question is, why wouldn't this post work equally as well written this way?
> ...


Jamal leads the team in assists. I don't know how Jamal is suppossed to magically make guys hit their shots. All he can do is initiate the offense and distribute the ball which he has done. again...he LEADS the team in assists.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal leads the team in assists. I don't know how Jamal is suppossed to magically make guys hit their shots. All he can do is initiate the offense and distribute the ball which he has done. again...he LEADS the team in assists.


I don't think its an issue of selfishness. Crawford does share the ball as you point out. IMHO, I think its more about his decisions on the court. When he puts up a long range shot, is it in fact the best shot the Bulls could have gotten out of that offensive set? Only a trained eye who's extremely familiar with the nuances of the offensive schemes and who sees more than what TV cameras reveal to the average fan can answer that kind of question.

As fans, we have no idea what the next progression would have been or what option would have been implemented had Crawford chosen to make one more pass instead of taking a shot. But the coaches know. And in that regard, we as fans have to defer to their analysis. So again, I don't think the coaches consider Crawford a selfish player as opposed to being a player who too frequently exercises poor judgement when executing an offensive set.


----------



## realbullsfaninLA (Jan 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> If I thought he'd know what to do with it, sure!


Curry is lucky because he can use it for hemmrhoids and acne all in the same application.


----------

