# Wizards' Hayes in Bulls' Eyes



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

The Chicago Bulls have approached the Washington Wizards about trading the No. 3 pick in the June 24 draft and a lesser-salaried player for second-year forward Jarvis Hayes and Washington's fifth overall draft selection, according to sources in Washington and Chicago, who did not want to be named. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41879-2004Jun14.html

As a Wizards' fan, I can say that I definitely would not want this to happen. I think the Wizards can get as much value at 5 as the Bulls can at 3. Throwing in Hayes is just crazy.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Why didn't we just draft Hayes last year?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Why didn't we just draft Hayes last year?


Some guy named Hinrich?

The more I think about this, I think it all depends on whether Stack gets taken in the expansion draft. I seriously doubt it, but if that happened, I may be inclined to do this deal, depending on who came back as well. A lot of dependencies in my mind, but right now, I wouldn't do it straight up.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I wouldn't worry too much BCH...

We're pushing for this, you guys aren't...

I'm still asking, if we like Hayes this much, why the hell didn't we just draft him last year?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Some guy named Hinrich?


I guess, but if we had taken Hayes last year, this year we'd have our pick of Gordon, Harris, Livingston, etc...

Hinrich isn't some rare player you can't pass on, you can get a PG in every draft...

Livingston is the only "rare" PG I feel you couldn't pass up on.


----------



## Maestro (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Why didn't we just draft Hayes last year?


Because Pax chose Hinrich which turned out to be a pretty good pick.


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

I'd do that in a second. Basicly we get two lotto picks for one. 

If that does happen, I would be very curious who Paxson will draft with the 5 considering Deng will likely be gone.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>JAF311</b>!
> I'd do that in a second. Basicly we get two lotto picks for one.


Well ya I'd do it too, but Washington won't do this...

What motivation do they have to do this deal?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess, but if we had taken Hayes last year, this year we'd have our pick of Gordon, Harris, Livingston, etc...
> ...


Hinrich has trade value. I would not be surprised if he could bring back a fairly high lotto pick this year.

SFs are even more of a dime a dozen position player than PGs.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Hinrich has trade value. I would not be surprised if he could bring back a fairly high lotto pick this year.


I think we're completely closed to the idea even though I don't see how anyone should be a lock on a team that won 23 games...

If you can improve your team and it makes sense, you do it....(within reason).

If we like Hayes enough to try and trade for him now, we should have just drafted him last year...

Who here is honestly going to say they would have been mad if we had done that and ultimately this year had our choice of Livingston, Harris, or Gordon?

All 3 guys have a very good chance of being better than Hinrich.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

BCH, how high is Washington on Deng? You hearing anything? I agree with you, can't see why Washington would do this, but being a bulls fan it gives us a chance to get two players. Hayes was second on my list last year, behind Wade. If John likes Iggy as much as we are led to believe or even a Jackson this is a good trade for us. 

Arenas, as for why we didn't draft him? We had Rose and Marshall. I really think the Jay williams tragedy hurt us more than people think. Some people may argue that we were going to trade either Williams or Crawford so how did it hurt us? We lost Jay for nothing! At least if Jay had not gotten hurt we could of had a player through a trade. Doing a trade like this would allow us to get our draft pick back from last year and a pick this year. 

All of this being said, just how much would this trade help us?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Ultimately this trade becomes something like Hayes for Jefferies...

That's a dumb deal for Washington to even consider...

They can do better than that, this guy is a year removed from the lotto and a 2nd team all-rookie.


----------



## Reciprocity Failure (Jun 10, 2004)

Arenas, in hindsight, I have to agree. If we had taken Hayes last draft, we could be set to take a stellar PG in this draft. I like Hinrich, but I'm sure I like him b/c he is a Bull or if I really like his game....because I couldn't stand him @ Kansas. 

If we did nab Hayes and he could fill that glaring hole at the 3, we could then focus on filling another need. and I say that assuming that JC splits for your Clips or somebody else. This trade could potentially fill 2 holes, but I don't think the Wiz do it.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I think we're completely closed to the idea even though I don't see how anyone should be a lock on a team that won 23 games...
> 
> If you can improve your team and it makes sense, you do it....(within reason).
> ...


And all three have a very real chance of being worse than Hinrich. Are you attempting to turn a thread about a rumored trade involving Hayes into a bash Hinrich thread?

Given Paxson's dealings with Grunfeld in the past, this rumor might have some legs, especially if Stack isn't taken by the Bobcats. In the same article there is also mention of how Washington is interested in Harrington. Might we see a three way deal involving us, Washington, and Indiana? Can we send out our #3 to Washington, Pippen, and our second rounders to Indiana, Indiana sends Harrington to Washington and Washington sends us their #5 and Hayes?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Ultimately this trade becomes something like Hayes for Jefferies...
> 
> That's a dumb deal for Washington to even consider...


At the end of the day this is exactly how I feel.

I think Grunfeld likes Deng. I also think he likes Childress. I have not heard much about Washington trying to move up to grab Deng. Remember, this is being offered by the Bulls. I find it surprising that, this is what it is though. It is not like Washington has a dearth of swingmen. Deng would be nice, but Hughes or Stackhouse would likely have to be traded. 

I really can't see this happening, but Grunfeld has kept it close to the vest. I have no idea to be honest what he is going to go for.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I think we're completely closed to the idea even though I don't see how anyone should be a lock on a team that won 23 games...
> ...


if I'm understanding this trade correctly, we'd come away from the last two drafts with this:

Hinrich
Hayes
#5, which will probably leave us with a choice between whoever's left of Deng, Iggy and Childress.

how is that NOT at least equal to, if not better than: 
Hayes
#3 

am I misunderstanding something here? I know you're super-high on Livingston and the other PGs in this field, and heck, so am I, but we make out awfully well in the former scenario IMO. Jarvis Hayes is an awful lot to receive just to move down 2 slots and still get a player you really like. (and I agree, I highly, highly doubt the Wiz do this unless we're giving them a future pick or something else of value. I'm trying to figure out what "lesser salaried" player we might give up and can't think of anyone)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I'm confused.

Jarvis Hayes shot 40% FG, and scored < 10 PPG. He wasn't a particularly good rebounder or passer.

He did have a decent stretch of games early in the season, but I'm not sure he really showed that much.

Oh yeah, I'd much rather have him than any of the Bulls' SFs that finished the season with the team.

But I don't see any panacea here.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> If we like Hayes enough to try and trade for him now, we should have just drafted him last year...
> ...


I don't understand this logic. If we do this deal then we get Hayes, Hinrich and the #5 (which can be used to draft Livingston, Harris, Gordon)

Hayes+ (SL, BG, DH) < Hayes+Hinrich+(SL, BG, DH)

As for the deal, it sounds too good to be true, but I'll take it.:greatjob:


Sorry VF, you beat me to it with your response.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

In other news, the Chicago Bulls called the Wizards and offerred a cash only deal of $50000 traded for a cool million dollars. Surprisingly, the Wizards declined.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

I would jump on this deal from the Bulls standpoint. From Washington's, not sure why unless you think Jared Jeffries is going to come back strong.

Washington could certainly live without Hayes. Is Deng or maybe Livingston or some other deal (Indiana) worth Hayes and Iggy?

If we could get Hayes and Iggy we'd have filled two big holes quickly.

PG - Hinrich, Pargo
SG - Iggy, Macas
SF - Hayes, Second Rd. Pick
PF - Chandler, JYD, Austin
C - Curry, Davis

Then you add in Crawford resigned, though I think this lessens that.

You also have Another Second Rd pick this year (though I am hoping for a Euro (Marquinos)

We'd be very Young again, but a bit deeper with talent. If we get Hayes, you can go for Iggy (who I think is better suited to be a SG). If you grab Iggy and he can't play SF, sign Macas and resign Crawford you have 3 quality SG's, but no SF. Not a good thing, till you can trade one of them.

I would've been happy with hayes last year, though I wanted Pietrus. Maybe this signals than John is thinking along the lines of needing two wing positions filled. rlucas, get on the phone with GW and let them know we may be willing to take Pietrus, filler and their pick for our pick and JYD. 

This is encouraging. Much better than other rumors (which is all this stuff usually is).


Damn, if only MJ were the GM, we could sign and trade Crawford for Stackhouse and J. Jeffries too. J/K


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

In truth its not that big a deal if the wizards think that highly of deng they have to get rid of either jeffries or hayes , and since hayes is basically shaping up to be a 2 guard in the nba more than a 3 the wizards are more than likely want trade him .

with the 5th pick the bulls options dont change imo they should stay away from similar leveled players ...and let whoever they get at the 3 either hayes or JJ and let them start without threat of being removed and get a project at either the 3 or at pg which is basically saying get livingston or smith.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I'm confused.
> 
> Jarvis Hayes shot 40% FG, and scored < 10 PPG. He wasn't a particularly good rebounder or passer.
> ...


I'm not making Hayes out to be a savior, but he does bring some things we could use. A decent shooting touch from deep and some athleticism to attack the basket (in the same guy, unlike Dupree who can't shoot and ERob who can't shoot from 3 OR drive).

Hayes also had to deal with a lot of congestion at the swing positions in Washington. 

My point was, given that the general opinion on this board is that Iggy may in fact be better than Deng, and Childress isn't too far behind either (not to mention Josh Smith, who I'm just assuming for the moment that Pax is afraid to touch), why not add a solid player who was a lottery pick last year and has some skill, and still get a guy who was #2 or 3 on your wish list anyway (at positions of dire need)? Seems like a win-win. That's why I can't imagine Wash does it unless we're adding something pretty nice on our end.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

wow this would be a hell of a deal for the Bulls...


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

*Ah, the old non-denial denial*

*Wizards President of Basketball Operations Ernie Grunfeld said, "I don't comment on conjecture and rumor."*

* Non-denial denial* is a term for a particular kind of equivocation; specifically, an apparent denial that, though it appeared clearcut and unambiguous when heard, on examination turns out to be ambiguous and not a denial at all. The phrase is particularly associated with politics and means in effect "something made to sound like a denial without actually being one."


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Why didn't we just draft Hayes last year?


Cuz he's overrated and he sucks


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

*Re: Ah, the old non-denial denial*



> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> *Wizards President of Basketball Operations Ernie Grunfeld said, "I don't comment on conjecture and rumor."*
> 
> * Non-denial denial* is a term for a particular kind of equivocation; specifically, an apparent denial that, though it appeared clearcut and unambiguous when heard, on examination turns out to be ambiguous and not a denial at all. The phrase is particularly associated with politics and means in effect "something made to sound like a denial without actually being one."


From the fabled British sitcom.. Yes Prime Minister 

_ Humphrey .. when exactly will that be ?

When the time is ripe , Prime Minister 

Yes .. Yes.. but when Humphrey ?

In the fullness of time, Prime Minister 

But when precisely ?

At the appropriate juncture , Prime Minister 

OK .. very well then _


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Cousin Jarvis ain't all that 

If the scuttlebutt on Crawford is that he is costing us more than $5M .. I would do a deal of JYD for Loz Hughes and a #3 for #5 pick swap 

Follow it up with ERob ,Chris Jeffries , #39 and #5 for Tony Battie, Kedrick Brown and #10 

Draft Luke Jackson ( at #10 ) and Chris Duhon ( at #32 )

Sign Macijauskas for part of the MLE 

*

Curry
Chandler
Jackson
Hughes 
Hinrich

bench

Battie
Davis
Brown
Macijauskas
Duhon

Lint
Pargo
Pippen

*

Thank you .. that is all


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sp00k</b>!
> 
> 
> And all three have a very real chance of being worse than Hinrich. Are you attempting to turn a thread about a rumored trade involving Hayes into a bash Hinrich thread?
> ...


So if I'm reading this right, we're trading Al Harrington for Scottie Pippen and second rounders?

Please keep your hands off our team. :no:


----------



## jollyoscars (Jul 5, 2003)

you guys this isnt a "set" trade. this is just like a layout of a possible trade


----------



## jollyoscars (Jul 5, 2003)

i would think #32 #3 for hayes #5 is a deal that has a good possibility especially if washington is high on deng


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess, but if we had taken Hayes last year, this year we'd have our pick of Gordon, Harris, Livingston, etc...
> ...


U'r so funny sometimes Arenas with your opposites...

This year we got choice of Deng,Iggy,Childress,Jackson etc.

Hinrich was by far the best player available at 7th , and not many his kind , so wrong again.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> U'r so funny sometimes Arenas with your opposites...
> ...


Hinrich isn't this rare player...

There's PGs every year...

Livingston is rare just because of the skill he has at his size...

My point is this guys...

We apparently like Hayes...

But this proposal is not going to get him, and if you know that...

The deal ultimately becomes Hayes for Jefferies or someone like that, and my ? is why would Washington be that stupid?

If we like Hayes now, we probably liked him last year, draft him last year and then this year address your PG need, and you do so with either Livingston, Harris, or Gordon...

Ya if they were dumb enough to do this deal we end up with Hinrich, Hayes, and whoever at 5, that's great, but it's NOT going to happen.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> If we like Hayes now, we probably liked him last year, draft him last year and then this year address your PG need, and you do so with either Livingston, Harris, or Gordon...
> 
> Ya if they were dumb enough to do this deal we end up with Hinrich, Hayes, and whoever at 5, that's great, but it's NOT going to happen.




The deal does not ultimately become Hayes for Jefferies if the Wizards love Deng or Childress and want to make sure they get their player. Don't forget Grunfeld isn't even the one who picked Hayes last year. I don't think they'd do this deal as stated, but I'm just saying that's a reason why they would do it. 

And Hinrich is a better player at PG than Hayes will ever become at SG or SF.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right now the draft picks are =....

The deal ultimately is Hayes for Jefferies and Shirley or Pargo...

Grunfeld isn't an idiot, if he wants to move Hayes, he could get a better deal than that....

I do agree with you on the Hinrich-Hayes thing...

I'm just saying don't be disappointed if this deal doesn't go through, it would be a stupid move by Washington.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

I agree it would not be the smartest move by Washington. 

And while at least right now, I agree for the most part the draft picks are pretty equal, maybe EG doesn't feel the same way and just wants to get his guy. I would be very surprised if something else wasn't added from our side though. 

Washington seems like favorite trade partner around here. I just hope if we trade down to 5, Iguodala is still there for us to pick up.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

The reason that paxson drafted hinrich is because Jay williams had a career ending injury and pax wants a tough, team leading, defensive minded PG, period.

As for Hayes i live in washington now and watch the wiz quite a bit since the games start at 7pm est. Now i think they need a center in the worst way but the have way to many swing players right now than can play SG and or SF. Hughes, stack, Hayes, and jeffries. If the draft another SF and really want deng then at least one and perhaps two of the players have to go.

Now on Hayes i like his game and on O is really great off the ball on picks and what not. But his D is a little weak and his J is a little inconsistent. I would never make this trade if i am washington but we shall see. I still say the wiz need a center.

david


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

I've never really been very high on Hayes, I especially hoped the Bulls wouldn't take him last year, but if the deal is as written, then there's basically no reason to not do it for the Bulls.

On the flipside, there's no point in doing it for the Wizards.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, driving in to work this morning they were talking about it on the radio, so all signs point to it being a potentially serious discussion.

Hayes, I'm all for it if we can get it done. 

Hayes as a player isn't great. He could be a thicker Rip Hamilton or he could be Tracy Murray. The guy can come off screens and shoot, but he can't create his own shot to save his life. He's not much at creating one for anyone else either. But he's young, he could get there.

This move doesn't help our cap situation at all. I'd almost be happier if we could foist off ERob or JYD on them for Hughes or Stackhouse respectively.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

The Trib also has a piece on it. Where there's smoke.....


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

There's no doubt there's smoke...

But that doesn't mean this deal gets done...

This would be a totally stupid move by Washington...

If Grunfeld wants to move Hayes, he can do a better deal than basically for Jefferies and Shirley.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Wow I really like this deal. Don't understand it for Washington unless they really have a boner for Deng or Childress. Have to remember this is Grunwald. Paxson apparently really likes dealing with him. Grunwald really liked Marshall and lobbied hard to get him from us when he was with Toronto(he tried at least twice that we know of). Deng has been compared(by Mike McGraw) to a younger Donyell Marshall. Could be something here. Also I like a potential Iggy/Hayes duo on the wings.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> Wow I really like this deal. Don't understand it for Washington unless they really have a boner for Deng or Childress. Have to remember this is Grunwald. Paxson apparently really likes dealing with him. Grunwald really liked Marshall and lobbied hard to get him from us when he was with Toronto(he tried at least twice that we know of). Deng has been compared(by Mike McGraw) to a younger Donyell Marshall. Could be something here. Also I like a potential Iggy/Hayes duo on the wings.



That's Grunfeld. Grunfeld comma Ernie.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I'll be glad when the next article says the talks have stalled or Washington has totally passed, then we can come back down to Earth.

There's no motivation for Washington to do this other than to dump Hayes, when they could easily do this deal to get the guy they want and fill a Center need.

Jefferies and Shirley for Hayes, if you had Hayes would you do that?

Hell no.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

oh yeah right, whoops, thanks Chibulls. Its still early I ain't up good yet.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

The assumption arenas is that Washington wants Deng and might be willing to move up to ensure getting him. Will they? I dunno. But they arent trading Hayes for Jeffries and Shirley. They would (in theory) be trading Hayes to move up to get the guy they want(in this scenario Deng). Don't act like you are the Washington GM or something and that you decide what they do.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> The assumption arenas is that Washington wants Deng and might be willing to move up to ensure getting him. Will they? I dunno. But they arent trading Hayes for Jeffries and Shirley. They would (in theory) be trading Hayes to move up to get the guy they want(in this scenario Deng). Don't act like you are the Washington GM or something and that you decide what they do.


I'm not acting like I'm the Washington GM...

I'm just not going to be stupid and start playing with myself believing we're gona rip them the hell of because they would do this deal as proposed.

The draft picks at this point are =...

The rest of the deal is Hayes for Shirley and Jefferies...

Knock that stuff off. MikeDC


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

The draft picks are not equal. I wish you would quit saying that. It ain't true. A # 3 has more value than a #5.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> The draft picks are not equal. I wish you would quit saying that. It ain't true. A # 3 has more value than a #5.


That much is clear. Washington wants someone at #3 they think they can't get at #5.

Truthfully, it could very well be that it's Livingston or Childress and not Deng they want. 

Whomever it is, they don't think he'll be there at #5, so if they want him that bad, they're gonna have to go get him.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Oh I agree Mike it might not be Deng, I was just using him as an example that if the guy you want might not be at your pick then you might be inclined to move up and get him which is what this scenario is. If it is Childress for instance then one of their wings has to go and it may very well be Hayes.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> The draft picks are not equal. I wish you would quit saying that. It ain't true. A # 3 has more value than a #5.


We're not talking the difference between a 5 and a 15, we're talking 2 spots...

There isn't so much value there that you'd give away a guy 1 year removed from the lotto and was a 2nd team all rookie...

He himself has value...

Grunfeld is walking around his office, thinking, "We'll pick up Deng, we don't need Hayes anymore, so we'll just take Paul Shirley and Chris Jefferies...

I work for the Wizards, but I care so much about helping out the Bulls so I'll give them Hayes on a stick for 2 guys I'll probably cut before the season starts."

You're a Bulls fan, but think both sides for a second, if you were the Washington GM, you wouldn't do this deal, "AS PROPOSED".

I think that's been my point from jump, as proposed this is a one sided deal, a deal might be made, but I wouldn't hold my breath believing that it's this one.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

You think for a second if Deng is the guy he is moving up for then how in the world can he find time on the court for Hughes,Stack,Hayes,and Deng? He can't a wing has to go. Will it be Hayes? Who knows? But if they want a certain player bad enough at #3 then they might give him up.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> You think for a second if Deng is the guy he is moving up for then how in the world can he find time on the court for Hughes,Stack,Hayes,and Deng? He can't a wing has to go. Will it be Hayes? Who knows? But if they want a certain player bad enough at #3 then they might give him up.


I think I understand that...

That's pretty clear in my posts...

What you're seeming to miss that I'm saying is if he wants to move Hayes, he can do better than Shirley/Pargo and Jefferies.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

:curse: :curse: :curse:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> We're not talking the difference between a 5 and a 15, we're talking 2 spots...
> ...


Let me ask ya- if he were thinking as YOU are thinking, that there's no difference between the #3 and the #5 pick, why is he talking to Chicago at all?

As you said, there's some smoke here. The fact that there is suggests you're simply not right in equating those two picks.

Now, what you really need to do is quit seeing everything through the lens of a guy who doesn't want to see the Bulls pull off a good trade and figure out why the Wizards would want to move up.

Well, there's more than just Deng and the Bulls on the table. Charlotte likes Livingston and Childress. The Wiz like Childress a lot by every account I've heard. Grunfeld's kid went to school with Childress. If they have any sense, they like Livingston. A year or two down the road, a Livingston/Arenas backcourt could be freakish. So if you consider one of those guys as being "special" (for the right reasons or the wrong ones) and you think Charlotte's got a hard on for the guy you want, then you better be willing to give up something to get him.

If Grunfeld's sitting there saying "Livingston is just the future all-star we need" and "Charlotte is gonna take him for sure", both of which are plausible assumptions, he'd better be willing to trade up to get him.

And I'll tell ya what... as I said earlier, Jarvis is no sure thing. If he turns out a bust and the Bulls trade down to add him and don't even get cap relief then it will be a pretty nice deal on Ernie's part.

Even though you see Wiz fans groaning about this deal, you also don't see a lot of them raving about Hayes' game, do you? There's a reason for that. He could, of course, blossom, but he's far from the sure thing that some of the other guys they've traded away have been.



> You're a Bulls fan, but think both sides for a second, if you were the Washington GM, you wouldn't do this deal, "AS PROPOSED".
> 
> I think that's been my point from jump, as proposed this is a one sided deal, a deal might be made, but I wouldn't hold my breath believing that it's this one.


Methinks you're gonna be very unhappy if the Bulls pull off a good deal


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Let me ask ya- if he were thinking as YOU are thinking, that there's no difference between the #3 and the #5 pick, why is he talking to Chicago at all?
> ...


I'm saying right now the draft picks are = because my thinking is who you get a 3 could be just as good or bad as you do at 5, right now there's no guarantees...

You know exactly what you're getting and losing by trading Hayes for Jefferies /Shirley...

If Pax pulls off this deal, it's a great deal...

But if Grunfeld can't get a better deal for Hayes than Jefferies/Shirley, I don't know if he should have a GM job afterwards.

I don't see Wiz fans raving about Hayes, but do I care?

No...

Hayes still has value as a guy who's 1 year removed from the lotto and a 2nd team all-rookie...

Moving him for Jefferies/Shirley, 2 guys who probably won't be on the opening day roster is just stupid IMO.

I don't believe this deal, "AS PROPOSED" being the keywords I continue to use gets done...

I mean hell, we've seen from numerous sources Harrington and 29 for Pip and 3, there's smoke there, but does that mean the deal is done or even gets done?

So why is this deal any different?

If it gets done, kudos to Pax, am I holding my breath that it does?

Hell no.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm saying right now the draft picks are = because my thinking is who you get a 3 could be just as good or bad as you do at 5, right now there's no guarantees...


Have you ever considered a legal career?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Have you ever considered a legal career?


Well am I wrong in that regard?


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Let me ask ya- if he were thinking as YOU are thinking, that there's no difference between the #3 and the #5 pick, why is he talking to Chicago at all?
> ...



Very good post. This isn't like trading Hayes for scrubs at all. If EG feels he won't get his player at 5, trading Hayes, who's probably going to be a career backup, is not that hard to swallow. Pax has to know that Charlotte won't take Iguodala for this trade to work out great for us IMO.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Very good post. This isn't like trading Hayes for scrubs at all. If EG feels he won't get his player at 5, trading Hayes, who's probably going to be a career backup, is not that hard to swallow. Pax has to know that Charlotte won't take Iguodala for this trade to work out great for us IMO.


It's a good post, but let's remember, Pax went to them on this deal, not the other way around.

So if Grunfeld is doing all this thinking that you guys are assuming, why isn't he the one that approached with this offer?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

This would be a great deal. Hayes was my pick last year..I wanted us to go with a vet for a back up pg to Crawford and try playing Hayes at the three. It seems Hayes has evolved into more of a 2 in the NBA but he would still be a nice player to have.

In retrospect the Bulls probably would have been better off taking Hayes last year and getting their pg this year (Livingston) or just letting JC play the point and drafting a sg. Still, I like what I have seen from Hinrich and he seems to be a pretty good pick so I won't complain.


ALso, no way in hell does Washington do this deal. No way they would give up on last years #10 pick only to move up two spots in this draft. If they do the Bulls should be all over it and send them a thank you card.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> It's a good post, but let's remember, Pax went to them on this deal, not the other way around.
> ...



I'm not saying that Grunfeld would do this deal. I'm just saying it isn't that far fetched if he sees a player who is a longterm answer in Washington who he might not get picking at 5. They have enough wing players to still give Hayes' minutes to a quality guy. 

I am in agreement with you for the most part on the difference between 3 and 5, but that doesn't mean everyone sees it that way.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Hayes was a bum last draft and he's a bum this draft 

Why don't we tell the Wiz to check it .. and we can go get the vet version of the league minimum 

I'm sure Dennis Scott still works out


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that Grunfeld would do this deal. I'm just saying it isn't that far fetched if he sees a player who is a longterm answer in Washington who he might not get picking at 5.


But we're assuming that aren't we?

What indication is there that Grunfeld wants to move up if Pax initiated this rip off?

Right now from facts it's more that Pax is trying to pull one over than Grunfeld is willing to be robbed to grab a certain player.

Guys here are assuming, look at the situation, the facts, and then assess.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

One thing that seems to be slipping from our views here, is the fact that Pax is obviously being pretty aggressive trying to make some moves, and he is exploring every avenue.

This is good. I like it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Well am I wrong in that regard?


Wrong in considering a legal career? Nope 

Been there and done that, you'll have a great time


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Wrong in considering a legal career? Nope
> ...


Cute Interns?


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> But we're assuming that aren't we?
> ...



There have been plenty of reports the Wiz are very high on Deng. There really doesn't have to be any indication right now anyway that he wants to move up. Just because you don't hear it, doesn't mean he's not thinking it. 

He didn't exactly shoot down the idea either.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Why would Grunfeld send Hayes to Chicago just to move up two slots in the draft?

Why would Sacramento not place Gerald Wallace on its protected list?

And why isn't Utah protecting Aleksandar Pavlovic from being drafted by the Bobcats?

Sometimes the rationale for certain moves and decisions aren't readily apparent to the general public or the media. Not every transaction needs the public's seal of approval to go down. In many instances there are off-court issues that fans may never learn about that prompt certain moves. And in a draft that's ripe with more uncertainty at the top than perhaps any previous draft and is being effected by an expansion draft just a few days earlier, the potential for deals that might make folks do a double take is dramatically increased.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How do we know?

Again you're just assuming...

I'm looking at fact, Pax initiated this deal, your assumption, Grunfeld wants to move up...

If anything, Pax wants to move down...

If Grunfeld comes to Pax with an offer like this, then yes he's obviously trying to move up...

But that was not the case.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

This would be a great trade for the Bulls. I still can't understand why the Wiz would do it, but perhaps there is some reason I don't understand. 

We could help to balance the trade by throwing in out #32 pick. 

I wonder if we did this trade if we would take my guy Iguodala at #5, but after that "Iggy wasn't all that article," I wonder if Paxson would actually reach that high for Luke Jackson. I still think if Luke is his guy, he should trade down for him one more time if he makes this move with Washington, a la Mike DC's proposal.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> How do we know?
> ...



How do we know he didn't shoot it down? Well he gave the classic "I don't comment on conjecture and rumor" line. There's something there. That's what people say when they're talking. If he was totally against it, he would say there is no truth to that, which what GMs say when they really do not like something. 

If you're looking for an article on why they'd want to jump up, then just read one of the articles on them wanting Deng. There's one reason for ya. He almost certainly will not be available at 5.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

DMD my bet is Paxson would go with Iggy at #5 and have an Iggy/Hayes wing duo.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Hey ChiBulls, check your PMs


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I'd look for something closer to #3 and Pippen or JYD for #5 and Hughes. After all this could be a telephone situation where somebody says Hughes and they thought they said Hayes. Ok maybe not. I'd grab Hughes and #5 for either #3 and Pips or JYD though. I'd take Iggy at #5 while the Wiz prolly took Childress at #3 or the other way around and look to sign somebody at the 2 or 3 and use Hughes as a 6th man. Or maybe deal Curry for somebody who can play the 3 and move Chandler to the 5 and sign a 4. But I agree, even if you don't like Hayes the Wiz are basically giving him to us for free so...


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Do it Pax. And let the English see you do it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

the only way this has a chance of happening is IF Washington gets a woody for Howard at the last second. And they dont appear to be much of a fan. With the Clips looking at Livingston, that means Howard might be there for the Bulls. But if they really are looking at swingmen, there just isnt that big of a difference between Deng, Iggy, Childress, Monya, Jackson, Smith, Wright, to include a decent rookie to move up 2 spots. Law of economics, the more supply, the lower the price. 2 spots isnt going to get Jarvis Hayes, UNLESS Howard is the guy they want


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

This is a great deal for the Bulls and if Pax pulls it off, I'm impressed...

I just don't know why Washington does it, maybe they like Deng maybe they like Howard, (would they tell us anyway?), but enough to give away Hayes?

Taking Jefferies/Shirley for him would be giving him away....

They could do this deal so it's better for them, right now it's clearly better for us.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Can anyone see any other reasonable ways aside from throwing in a second rounder to sweeten this deal for Washington?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I'm also now thinking what if Stackhouse is taken in the expansion draft?

You've traded Hayes...

You're left with Hughes and Deng...

Hughes is going to miss a good 15-20 games, they become a lot less flexible on the wings, and still haven't addressed their C need.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

If hayes was in this draft he would be in the running for the 3rd pick just like livingston ,deng, iggy ben gordon and 5 other guys ...its a no brainer for pax because he is going to get 2 players for the price of 1 .

its not too unfair for ernie G either we all know how pax dropped the ball on the donyell and the 7th pick for wade selection last year ....yell = 3 picks ....then i can see hayes equalling 2...the only difference there wont be a clear division of tallent dropoff like there was in last years draft , from 6th pick on there is absolutely no one who you would trade for anyone in the top 5. That is not the case in this draft in 12 months time its very conceivable whoever is drafted 15 could have more value than whoever is draft 3rd.

i say both of them should do it to get what they want ...pax gets his "assests " and grunfield gets coveted player whomever that is.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I would be very shocked if Stack is taken by Charlotte. But yeah if he is then this is not a good idea for the Wiz. But don't hold your breath arenas. Them taking Stack is a longshot at best.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> If hayes was in this draft he would be in the running for the 3rd pick just like livingston ,deng, iggy ben gordon and 5 other guys ...its a no brainer for pax because he is going to get 2 players for the price of 1 .


Man, I don't agree with you on Hayes, I think he'd be in the same position, or lower, in this draft. Especially after his iffy rookie performance.

He really doesn't have the tools that a guy like Iggy or Deng has. Maybe he doesn't even have the tools of Luke Jackson. And he doesn't have the size or crazy hops of Smith.

I'd rate him as Luke Jackson without the handle but probably a better shot in this draft.



> its not too unfair for ernie G either we all know how pax dropped the ball on the donyell and the 7th pick for wade selection last year ....yell = 3 picks ....then i can see hayes equalling 2...the only difference there wont be a clear division of tallent dropoff like there was in last years draft , from 6th pick on there is absolutely no one who you would trade for anyone in the top 5. That is not the case in this draft in 12 months time its very conceivable whoever is drafted 15 could have more value than whoever is draft 3rd.
> 
> i say both of them should do it to get what they want ...pax gets his "assests " and grunfield gets coveted player whomever that is.


I tend to agree with this however.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> I would be very shocked if Stack is taken by Charlotte. But yeah if he is then this is not a good idea for the Wiz. But don't hold your breath arenas. Them taking Stack is a longshot at best.


It's a longshot, but it still has to be taken into consideration...

I don't see this as a no-brainer deal...
from their end..

Especially considering what they're getting back...

If Hayes is a #10-15 pick in this draft as well as Mike just said, then let's call Cleveland and offer them Jefferies and Shirley for their 10...

I think people aren't putting that part of it into perspective and if you do, your hopes wouldn't be as up about this.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

For the umptenth time in this scenario we would getting Hayes for Shirley and Jeffries. We would be getting Hayes and the #5 for the #3 pick. These guys are just filler. Washington at #3 gets the guy they really want that might not be there at #5.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> For the umptenth time in this scenario we would getting Hayes for Shirley and Jeffries. We would be getting Hayes and the #5 for the #3 pick. These guys are just filler. Washington at #3 gets the guy they really want that might not be there at #5.


For he umptenth time right now the 3 and 5 are equal...

You are ASSUMING they want to move up to 3, and I don't know why because it was Pax who initiated these talks...

Grunfeld might want to, but I would concede to that if he started these discussions, FACT is he didn't.

Based off facts though, I right now am looking at this more as Paxson wanting to move down (and maybe getting a player) than Grunfeld wanting to move up.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I'm also now thinking what if Stackhouse is taken in the expansion draft?
> 
> You've traded Hayes...
> ...


The BobPuss have a payroll cap at $29M

Stack earns close to $7M 

Stack goes nowhere


----------



## Bulls4Ever (May 6, 2003)

I think this trade will happen and it's a good trade for the Bulls.
The will get an interessant swingman with Hayes and maybe can get an other goog potential player in person of Iggy.

If we can trade Shirley and Jefferies or somenone like E-rob or JYD it can be good for us!
If the Wizz are ok to trade a guy like Baxter,Thomas or Haywood it can be an interresant point for us.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> 
> 
> The BobPuss have a payroll cap at $29M
> ...


Well, maybe he doesn't....

Maybe they pick him to send to Denver, Utah, someone else....


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Man, I don't agree with you on Hayes, I think he'd be in the same position, or lower, in this draft. Especially after his iffy rookie performance.
> ...


he has something deng or iggy dont have , legitamite scoring ability , everyone knew he could score from day 1 ....no one has these strong beliefs in iggy or deng .He's pretty similar to luke jax in a lot of ways kind of a mixture of childress and him with a better body than both.

how soon they forget 12 months ago they were calling hayes vince lite, and i'm not considering his rookie year ...goes to reason if they were in the draft , they wouldn't have been in the nba , if that were the case people could say darko wouldn't be #2 (although he still would)

the thing that got to him more than anything else was wash. inconsistency they have alot of young players of similar abilities playing the same position or squeezing players at other positions . JJ was drafted around the same spot 2 years earlier and he plays the same position and stack was going to get his min. at the 3 as well considering how well hughes was playing at the 2 .If he gets on a team where he is clearly the starter and he gets regular time , its almost a certainty he will be a better player , most players improve with such changes .

the bulls went through the same thing 2 years ago with jay will JC hassell hoiberg rose and e-rob...and the players who are in an enviroment when they play are doing alot better since they aren't being squeezed for time.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> I'll be glad when the next article says the talks have stalled or Washington has totally passed, then we can come back down to Earth.
> 
> There's no motivation for Washington to do this other than to dump Hayes, when they could easily do this deal to get the guy they want and fill a Center need.
> ...


Well I a glad that your are concerned about washington. I said Yesterday, washington does not do the deal, but then it appears something is being talked about by some of the media mentioning it. But being a bulls fan, it is a nice deal for the bulls. Hayes and iggy or jackson or someone else is nice. 

No if I was washington I would not do Jeffries/shirley for hayes, but if deng is thrown in, who knows? We really do not know what is being offered in the complete deal.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> Well I a glad that your are concerned about washington. I said Yesterday, washington does not do the deal, but then it appears something is being talked about by some of the media mentioning it. But being a bulls fan, it is a nice deal for the bulls. Hayes and iggy or jackson or someone else is nice.
> ...


Agreed TBF...

If we pull this off, this is a great deal...

I think we're going to have to sweeten the pot a little, but I'd gladly take Hayes...

The guy can score, and we need scorers.

I think on a better team he puts up 12-13, we all know the ball sharing issues Washington had last year, and this kid shot 40% from FG and was only getting 9 shots a game...


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> But we're assuming that aren't we?
> ...


Last year he was criticized for doing nothing at the deadline. Now he is criticized for trying to "pull one over on grunfeld" Isn't that one of the things a GM is suppose to do? Improve a team?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> Last year he was criticized for doing nothing at the deadline. Now he is criticized for trying to "pull one over on grunfeld" Isn't that one of the things a GM is suppose to do? Improve a team?


I wasn't criticizing, I'm actually glad he's trying to rip someone off...


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Why would Grunfeld send Hayes to Chicago just to move up two slots in the draft?
> 
> Why would Sacramento not place Gerald Wallace on its protected list?
> ...


I was shocked to see Wallace and Pavlovic on the unprotected list. Very shocked. And I am a little shocked to see the trade allegedly being discussed between us and Washington. 

Remember, Dumars made a trade his first offseason. He got C Robinson and someone else for scrubs. Scrubs. Who is to say what will and will not happen here?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I wasn't criticizing, I'm actually glad he's trying to rip someone off...


Ok, my mistake.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

To give you a perspective from a Wizards fan, Ernie Grunfield is VERY high on Deng, so much that he guaranteed to pick him if he was there at #5. As said, theirs been no indication that he wants to trade up, but he is very, very high on Deng.

As for the trade, it seems a little much to give Hayes to move up two spots. Personally, I'll take Iggy and Hayes over Deng any day of the week. If we did this trade, it would mean that EG sees something special in Deng, and this is a guy who drafted Micheal Redd and Flip Murray in the second round, so he has credentials when it comes to the draft. While the trade seems lopsided towards the Bulls, who knows, maybe Deng becomes hugely better than Iggy and Hayes.

With all that said, if Iggy or Deng are drafted by the Wiz, than Hayes isn't going to get alot of playing time. It would only make sense to trade him, but surely the Wiz can get something better than what this trade is offering. 

The expansion draft is very important. If Stack is taken, I figure Hayes will be more likely to stay on the Wizards. If Stack is still here, than somebody, whether it's Hughes, Stack, or Hayes, has to be traded. That would make a draft day trade more likely.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> The Chicago Bulls have approached the Washington Wizards about trading the No. 3 pick in the June 24 draft and a lesser-salaried player for second-year forward Jarvis Hayes and Washington's fifth overall draft selection, according to sources in Washington and Chicago, who did not want to be named.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41879-2004Jun14.html
> ...


Not crazy at all, this could be pure spin.

How does everyone feel if it was Grunwald to approched Pax with the offer???
Do not assume that Pax initiated these talks because it says so in the papers, the media get used as mis-direction everyday.
Would that change you viewpoint?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Wizards' Hayes in Bulls' Eyes*



> Originally posted by <b>SPIN DOCTOR</b>!
> 
> 
> Not crazy at all, this could be pure spin.
> ...


Paxson should be on it like a dog on a bone in that case and I would think that Grunfeld either stopped taking his medication or Paxson has some pictures of him performing obscene acts with a donkey or something..


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> To give you a perspective from a Wizards fan, Ernie Grunfield is VERY high on Deng, so much that he guaranteed to pick him if he was there at #5. As said, theirs been no indication that he wants to trade up, but he is very, very high on Deng.
> 
> As for the trade, it seems a little much to give Hayes to move up two spots. Personally, I'll take Iggy and Hayes over Deng any day of the week. If we did this trade, it would mean that EG sees something special in Deng, and this is a guy who drafted Micheal Redd and Flip Murray in the second round, so he has credentials when it comes to the draft. While the trade seems lopsided towards the Bulls, who knows, maybe Deng becomes hugely better than Iggy and Hayes.
> ...


Wow...

Amazing...

Increible...

You've said EVERYTHING I was saying throughout this thread.

But I'm a simple idiot.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Wow...
> ...


Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes


I find nuts daily


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Shanghai kid is right about ernie G the guy is a top notch GM especially in talent evaluation....in addition to what he did in mil. he built the knicks team that went to the 99 finals


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I find nuts daily


Wait a damn minute, that doesn't sound good does it?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

that being said there are at least 7-8 guys i would take before deng and wouldn't think twice about it.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Wait a damn minute, that doesn't sound good does it?


no it didn't , but we'll blame mikeDC for that ...blind squirrels are dead squirrels


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> Shanghai kid is right about ernie G the guy is a top notch GM especially in talent evaluation....in addition to what he did in mil. he built the knicks team that went to the 99 finals


You almost get the impression that we should be questioning whether Hayes would be worth it if Ernie would give him up.

Maybe he sees something in Hayes (like a lack of being good at basketball) that some folks here aren't seeing


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> You almost get the impression that we should be questioning whether Hayes would be worth it if Ernie would give him up.
> ...


Seems to me Hayes needs a pass to get a shot...

If he needs a pass, Washington isn't the place for him to be...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I find nuts daily


Careful or FJ will start talking about his vertical again.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> You almost get the impression that we should be questioning whether Hayes would be worth it if Ernie would give him up.
> ...


no i dont think so , hayes is a lot like jalen rose he has the mentality of a guard defensively in the body of a small forward , he's not a perfect player but he will in my opinion shape himself into a good one.he's been in the nba for a year now , for nearly 30 min. a game he is being misused in wash. but another added factor is that he is perfectly suited for the offense skiles wants to run ...the bulls would have won some extra games if they had hayes coming off those curls for 17ters instead of kendall gill.

there aren't an excessive amount of the EG really ripped off that GM deals on his resume , he just builds his teams and they get better and better .So i dont look at like that ...like i would if it was joe dumars who has made a living ripping off teams (grant hill , jerry stackhouse to name 2)


----------



## hps (Jul 23, 2002)

While it is absolutely true that there are no guarantees, there is an increased likelyhood of getting a better player when you pick higher, it's that simple.

I'm pretty sure that if you looked at every draft and compared the #3 picks vs. #5 picks, OVERALL the number of quality of players will be higher in the #3 list. Of course there will be exceptions, lots of them, but the CHANCES are higher with the #3 then #5. 

And that's why the Wizards are even having discussions with the Bulls about trading up. Because they recognize that they would rather be picking third then fifth. It simply flies in the face of logic to declare that the two picks have no difference in value.

Whether Jarvis Hayes is reasonable compensation for moving up is a completely seperate issue. It seems most feel he's too much, which is fine, but given his performance and situation in the Wizards rotation, it makes sense that his name was brought up in discussions.


----------



## ChiGuy_82 (May 31, 2004)

Guys! all this post says is a lesser salaried player, couldnt this also mean a sign and trade with Marcus Fizer. Washington fans how would you feel if it was fizer and not Shirley and Jeffries


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiGuy_82</b>!
> Guys! all this post says is a lesser salaried player, couldnt this also mean a sign and trade with Marcus Fizer. Washington fans how would you feel if it was fizer and not Shirley and Jeffries


How would you feel if it was Kirk Hinrich? He fits the description too


----------



## ChiGuy_82 (May 31, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> How would you feel if it was Kirk Hinrich? He fits the description too


Nah, he's not going anywhere!:no:


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> How would you feel if it was Kirk Hinrich? He fits the description too


I'm down for moving Kirk...

But in a better deal...


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> I'm down for moving Kirk...


Well I am glad that Paxson disagrees with you about this.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm down for moving Kirk...
> ...


I would definitely rather not move Kirk, but he isn't untouchable, so if the right deal came along, you have to do it..

I agree with you that this deal would not be worth it if Kirk was involved.
He's not worth as much as some people think he is around here, but he's worth more then just being a toss-in in some deal with Washington.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> 
> 
> Well I am glad that Paxson disagrees with you about this.


Well whatever...

I wouldn't give him away...

But on a 23 win team should anyone be a lock?

If you can improve your team, you do it...

Detroit is the perfect model of that.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Unless Hinrich is in a package that brings us a superstar then he should not be moved. And who did Detroit trade that was so good that made you mention them as an example?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> Unless Hinrich is in a package that brings us a superstar then he should not be moved. And who did Detroit trade that was so good that made you mention them as an example?


They shipped out Hill and got back Ben Wallace...

They shipped out Stackhouse and got Rip....


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

The focus has been on Washington this whole thread. Lets take a look at it from Chicago's perspective.

Paxon could think really highly of Hyaes. After all it was Chicago who approached Washington. Has is a SF who can shoot it from the outside. He was inconsistent last year for sure, but he was a rookie. However, he had enough going early on that he forced the Wizards to look at getting him more shots, and a bigger role in the offense. If he can gain consistency, he is exactly what the Bulls would need at SF, while grabbing a guy like Igoudala to play SG.

Grunfeld played plausible deniability. Why should he show his cards right now? If Paxson thinks he can get a guy he really likes, like Hayes, as well as a player like Iggy, then he may be willing to give up something more than filler. Remember, Paxson's job is to make his team better, not satisfy the draft geek in all of us. Grunfeld could be holding out for a better offer, or he could be stringing the Bulls along to get a better feel about what they are going to do in the draft, seeing as what the Bulls do will probably directly impact what will be available with the 5th pick.

This is about what Chicago wants, and if you think it has to do with perceived promises reported on by Chad Ford about a 5th pick guarantee to Deng then so be it. 

The simplest reason is that Paxson wants his cake and to eat it too. Lets see if Grunfeld can make him pay for the privilege.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> The focus has been on Washington this whole thread. Lets take a look at it from Chicago's perspective.
> 
> Paxon could think really highly of Hyaes. After all it was Chicago who approached Washington. Has is a SF who can shoot it from the outside. He was inconsistent last year for sure, but he was a rookie. However, he had enough going early on that he forced the Wizards to look at getting him more shots, and a bigger role in the offense. If he can gain consistency, he is exactly what the Bulls would need at SF, while grabbing a guy like Igoudala to play SG.
> ...


But really, what do the Bulls have that Washington would want that along with the #3 pick just about equals Hayes and the #5 pick?


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Very good question DMD, maybe our first second round pick? Maybe Scottie Pippen's expiring contract?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> But really, what do the Bulls have that Washington would want that along with the #3 pick just about equals Hayes and the #5 pick?


Luol 'Catch Me if you can' Deng


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Luol 'Catch Me if you can' Deng


Luol "I'm *****footing Around, Don't Want To Get Shown Up In A Workout Cuz I'm Eric Williams Jr." Deng....


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> They shipped out Hill and got back Ben Wallace...
> ...



Grant Hill was leaving with no compensation.

And Stackhouse basically said give me a max deal or trade me. 

Not exactly bold moves considering the situations.

Not that Dumars wouldn't do something like that anyway, but I'm just saying. Paxson is not going to look into trading Hinrich, but I'm sure he would trade him if the right situation came up.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Luol "I'm *****footing Around, Don't Want To Get Shown Up In A Workout Cuz I'm Eric Williams Jr." Deng....


LOL. You should pre-order your Deng Clippers throwback. Its gonna happen my man, enjoy the ride :grinning:


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> Very good question DMD, maybe our first second round pick? Maybe Scottie Pippen's expiring contract?


Maybe.

It is obvious that Chicago is not gung-ho for Deng by approaching Washington. They are now dealing from a position of weakness. Grunfeld can wait and see what Chicago wants to offer.

I seriously doubt Scottie Pippen's expiring contract holds any value right now for the Wizards.

It is sort of like Chad Ford saying the Wizards will give up the 5th to Charlotte to take Laettner so the Wizards can pursue a center.

Who would that be exactly? Mark Blount? Dampier if he opts out? Please.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> It is obvious that Chicago is not gung-ho for Deng by approaching Washington. They are now dealing from a position of weakness. Grunfeld can wait and see what Chicago wants to offer.


First, there is no guarnetee that Deng is even there at #3.

Second, Pax would not be doing his job if he didn't assess what he could pick up by moving down in the draft. And he can't do that without discussing hypothetical trades.

Third, if Pax is gung-ho on trading the pick, then the Wiz are really competing with all of the other teams anyway.

So I really fail to see how Pax has weakened his poker hand.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> First, there is no guarnetee that Deng is even there at #3.
> ...


I think BCH is right...

As I said at whatever o'clock this morning, by Pax initiating the talks, that's more of an indication he wants to move down (and possibly pick up a player) as opposed to the assumption everyone here has made that Grunfeld wants to move up.

As it stands, Grunfeld has heard what Pax's offer is, and he's not stupid, he's not giving up Hayes for Shirley and Jefferies, he'll make a move if it's going to help his team out without giving up the farm.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I think BCH is right...
> ...


Maybe Pax is using an old Jedi trick on Grunfeld and doesn't even want Hayes, but wants Hughes.

No matter what, I would rather have my GM calling around and fishing for the best deal possible than sitting on his hands.


----------



## Professor (Jun 6, 2002)

My take, for what it's worth:

Paxson approached Grunfeld, apparently perceiving he might have an interest in moving up, with an offer of #3 and filler for Hayes and #5. Grunfeld hasn't said no, indicating there is an interest in moving up. But this is a negotiation process. Pax makes an offer. If there's interest, back comes a counteroffer. The deal, as proposed, probably does not happen. But maybe all it takes is the addition of a second round pick from the Bulls. Just depends on how important two spots are to Grunfeld.

I don't buy the generalism that in this draft #3 = #5. That may be true from the Bulls' perspective, but not necessarily from Washington's. If the guy Washington really wants won't be there at #5, two spots in the draft may be worth quite a bit.

Last season Paxson didn't trade up to get the guy he really wanted because he couldn't justify giving up Marshall just to move up a few slots. Hinrich is a nice consolation prize, but who among us today (Pax included) would not give up Marshall and #7 to have Wade on the Bulls roster? 

The point is, if Grunfeld has decided he wants Deng (or Livingston or a shot at Howard), he'll have to move up to get what he wants. Paxson is testing him with a proposal that may be hard to swallow, but is not completely out of the question.

I think it's a great move by Paxson. Grunfeld might bite, and with some adjustments, they might work out a deal. If not, Paxson has at least put the league on notice that, for the right price, the #3 pick can be had.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Very good post Professor.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Just because you're out there shopping for a bigger house doesn't mean sellers are going to get to name their price. Paxson is shopping, that's all. If he doesn't see a deal he likes with Washington he'll simply move on to what he feels may be an even better offer. All Grunfeld knows is that the #3 is available. He has no idea who he may be competing with to acquire the pick.

And worse case scenario, Paxson keeps the pick, drafts Deng, signs Arvydas Macijauskas or some other wing player through free agency. And everyone else who pined for Deng, including Grunfeld, can pound sand. 

Oh, and I'll just toss this out as food for thought. Paxson's rebuilding moves aren't limited exclusively to trading the third pick. I know you're all aware of that already. Its just that sometimes we tend to focus on one issue so hard that we forget all the other possibilities that may exist. Chandler and Curry are still assets that other teams covet.

Is Paxson "dealing from a position of weakness" with regards to the third pick? Not hardly.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Paxson's pattern has been to avoid making good deals that are rumored, to trade away our best players for little in return (this time he'll let Crawford walk?), and to pad the roster with guys like Shirley (who apparently was even protected in the expansion draft).

If Pax trades Curry or Chandler, or lets Jamal walk, it will clearly be one day too late to have delayed firing him.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> If Pax trades Curry or Chandler, or lets Jamal walk, it will clearly be one day too late to have delayed firing him.


Well I do not think it is fair to say that without knowing what he could get in return for them. Obviously I do not want either big to be gone but if Paxson finds a great deal that makes our team better and it involves move one or both of them then I am cool with it. And that goes for any Bulls player, Hinrich included.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Basghetti80</b>!
> 
> 
> Well I do not think it is fair to say that without knowing what he could get in return for them. Obviously I do not want either big to be gone but if Paxson finds a great deal that makes our team better and it involves move one or both of them then I am cool with it. And that goes for any Bulls player, Hinrich included.


Based upon the track record, those guys get us someone like JYD or AD in return.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> No matter what, I would rather have my GM calling around and fishing for the best deal possible than sitting on his hands.


I definitely agree with that.

I'd love to see Pax turn this team around, I just didn't think he needed to run into ground and then turn it around.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> Based upon the track record, those guys get us someone like JYD or AD in return.


Oh come on Curry or Chandler either one could bring more than that in a trade. Paxson would never trade them for that. You know better than that. Quit starting something.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Hey Kismet did you get my PM?


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Paxson has really made only a couple moves as GM so far. We seem to be in agreement that Hinrich was the best pick at #7 although Pietrus could give him a run for that in a year or two. The Rose and Donyell trade was to get rid of the horrible defense we had been playing and upgrade with hard workers like JYD and AD, simply because Paxson believed it relied on Hinrich/Crawford/Chandler/Curry to produce. Not Jalen and Donyell. It's those guys who failed to come through every game. Most of the time we couldn't win the games that Crawford scored a lot in, and the same goes for Curry. Would have it been any different with Jalen around? I said in the beginning of the year after the Raps trade we have four guys who are the future but two of them are hard-working, high defense guys who are better role players than they are stars and two guys who are non-working, high offense guys who should be stars rather than role players. It seems that Pax is going for the high-defense guys rather than the high-offense guys. However, I'm of the opinion that if he wants to go that direction he needs to deal Curry now and force a team to sign-and-trade Jamal (although that BYC makes it difficult). 

The basis of this is...Paxson needs to pick a team and stick with it. We're trying to put four squares together to make a circle. I'm sure the ANGRY contingent would go with the Crawford/Curry team and deal Hinrich + Chandler while others like the PATIENT contingent would go with Hinrich + Chandler and deal Crawford/Curry. I can't make a decision but if we deal Hinrich + Chandler we need to get a PF who can make a jump shot and slashers on the wing who can play defense. If we trade Crawford + Curry we need to get shooters and a post player with some offensive skills all the while maintaining some team philosophy i.e. Curry isn't an offensive weapon on the 2nd team because he can't play D and doesn't work hard.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>T.Shock</b>!
> Paxson has really made only a couple moves as GM so far. We seem to be in agreement that Hinrich was the best pick at #7 although Pietrus could give him a run for that in a year or two. The Rose and Donyell trade was to get rid of the horrible defense we had been playing and upgrade with hard workers like JYD and AD, simply because Paxson believed it relied on Hinrich/Crawford/Chandler/Curry to produce. Not Jalen and Donyell. It's those guys who failed to come through every game. Most of the time we couldn't win the games that Crawford scored a lot in, and the same goes for Curry. Would have it been any different with Jalen around? I said in the beginning of the year after the Raps trade we have four guys who are the future but two of them are hard-working, high defense guys who are better role players than they are stars and two guys who are non-working, high offense guys who should be stars rather than role players. It seems that Pax is going for the high-defense guys rather than the high-offense guys. However, I'm of the opinion that if he wants to go that direction he needs to deal Curry now and force a team to sign-and-trade Jamal (although that BYC makes it difficult).
> 
> The basis of this is...Paxson needs to pick a team and stick with it. We're trying to put four squares together to make a circle. I'm sure the ANGRY contingent would go with the Crawford/Curry team and deal Hinrich + Chandler while others like the PATIENT contingent would go with Hinrich + Chandler and deal Crawford/Curry. I can't make a decision but if we deal Hinrich + Chandler we need to get a PF who can make a jump shot and slashers on the wing who can play defense. If we trade Crawford + Curry we need to get shooters and a post player with some offensive skills all the while maintaining some team philosophy i.e. Curry isn't an offensive weapon on the 2nd team because he can't play D and doesn't work hard.


I'm of the patient team that would keep Crawford, Curry, Chandler, and Hinrich. I would have kept Rose and Marshall, too. And Hassell. And Cartwright. 

How much more patient could I be? ;-)


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm of the patient team that would keep Crawford, Curry, Chandler, and Hinrich. I would have kept Rose and Marshall, too. And Hassell. And Cartwright.
> ...


Based on your one or two sentence sarcastic wisecracks on every thread, I don' think you are that patient at all.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lgtwins</b>!
> 
> Based on your one or two sentence sarcastic wisecracks on every thread, I don' think you are that patient at all.


Actually I quake with fear thinking about what future we have with Paxson making all the wrong moves.

People who've posted here know I can write up nice long posts analyzing the Bulls' situation, but I don't see the point when we have several other people who are quite articulate and basically saying the right things (I M O).


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

This would be an absolute steal. We could grab Andre at 5 and get two good wings.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Yea I'm with DaBullz on this one. I might have done Marshall for JYD straight up but definitely not AD for Rose. That was a significant downgrade. I'd love to see this team...

Jamal Crawford(PG)
Mickael Pietrus(SG)
Jalen Rose(SF)
Jerome Williams(PF)
Eddy Curry(C)

2004 1st Round Pick(PG/SG)...
Eddie Robinson(SF)
FREE AGENT 2004(MLE)
Tyson Chandler(C)

Roger Mason Jr.(PG)
2004 2nd Round Pick(SG/SF)
Lonny Baxter(PF)

Now that my friends is a playoff team in the East. And we could replace Fizer with somebody if Fizer was still hurt. But no use to live in the past...

What Pax needs to do now...

Kirk Hinrich(PG)
Luke Jackson or Kirk Snyder(SG)
Morris Peterson(SF)
Troy Murphy(PF)
Eddy Curry(C)

Romain Sato(PG)
Arvydas Macijauskas(SG)
Eddie Robison(SF)
Tyson Chandler(PF/C)

Marcelo Huertas(PG/SG)(#39)
Ronald Dupree(SF)
Antonio Davis(PF/C)

That is...#3 for #11 and Troy Murphy especially if Howard is on the board.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>T.Shock</b>!
> Yea I'm with DaBullz on this one. I might have done Marshall for JYD straight up but definitely not AD for Rose. That was a significant downgrade. I'd love to see this team...
> 
> Jamal Crawford(PG)
> ...


I sincerely hope we wouldn't draft Sato to be a backup PG...

Dupree shouldn't even be on the roster if we're planning on being decent...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Just because you're out there shopping for a bigger house doesn't mean sellers are going to get to name their price. Paxson is shopping, that's all. If he doesn't see a deal he likes with Washington he'll simply move on to what he feels may be an even better offer. All Grunfeld knows is that the #3 is available. He has no idea who he may be competing with to acquire the pick.
> 
> And worse case scenario, Paxson keeps the pick, drafts Deng, signs Arvydas Macijauskas or some other wing player through free agency. And everyone else who pined for Deng, including Grunfeld, can pound sand.
> ...


For the most part, I agree. I actually appreciate that he made this offer. After feeling like we were going to get the shaft from the Knicks on the Crawford for Harrington (Othella) trade, it is nice to see him out there poking around for value on this pick


----------

