# Merged: ESPN Insider: Bulls/Clippers Trade/Is Pax an Idiot?



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

*ESPN Insider: Bulls/Clippers Trade*

On Insider today, Chad Ford says that the Clippers are unwilling to do the Fizer for Jaric/Ely trade straight up. Apparently, L.A. is asking for Crawford to be included as well.

Ford says that the Bulls would do a Crawford/Fizer for Richardson/Ely trade but that the Clippers want to keep Richardson.

Instead, Ford suggests Jaric/Dooling/Ely for Crawford/Fizer. He says that this makes sense for both teams.

If the Bulls did that final trade, I think I would have to stop watching games. Crawford is clearly worth more around the league IMO.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Now this is a good trade for the Clips the Fizer for Jaric/Ely was ****. No way the clips will give Q up.


----------



## greekbullsfan (Oct 26, 2003)

*Is Pax an idiot?*

He is concidering to trade craw for jaric and Dooling?Is he drunk or sth?At least he should take Q IN THE PACKAGE.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

For all I care the Clippers can :kissmy:


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

As much as I want JC traded I would not do a Jaric/Dooling/Ely for JC/Fizer. No way.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Yeah, thats just Ford speculating. If the Clips want to clear their cap for a chance at signing Kobe they will give us Jaric & Ely for Fizer & maybe Brunson. If not, they can look to find another team to clear cap with.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Got to get Q if we're giviing up Jamal.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

You're not getting Q, put the pipe down...

As a Bulls fan, we'd be ripping the Clips off in a Fizer for Jaric/Ely deal....

That's not going to happen.

As a Clips fan, if we do any deal at all, lets keep it simple, Fizer for Jaric, or Fizer for Ely, I don't really see where Fizer fits in our team, and honestly I don't want him.

I want JC.

We can sign JC this offseason.

Trade with Bulls, not going to happen, unless its a simple deal.

We're a good team, the Bulls are going nowhere fast, I don't even know why we're considering blessing them with Jaric.

I think we need a starting PG...but Jaric would be a nice 6th man, I hope we keep him.


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

If the Clippers land Kobe, a big IF, where is Q going to play? He certainly wont come off the bench. Maybe later, during the offseason, but it could look like this:

Bulls:
Curry
Chandler
?
Q
Hinrich

Clippers:
Kaman
Brand
Maggette
Kobe
Crawford


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

Arenas, Crawford is restricted free agent, meaning the Clippers would have to offer him in the neighborhood of 6-7mil for the Bulls not to match.


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>dsouljah9</b>!
> Arenas, Crawford is restricted free agent, meaning the Clippers would have to offer him in the neighborhood of 6-7mil for the Bulls not to match.


exactly, so the clippers either sign kobe or try to get crawford with a big offer sheet if the kobe pursuit fails. they'll never get both.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> You're not getting Q, put the pipe down...
> 
> As a Bulls fan, we'd be ripping the Clips off in a Fizer for Jaric/Ely deal....
> ...


Arenas, I understand where your coming from but the Clips have to free up some capspace to make a run at Kobe. Thats why they ought to do the ELy/Jaric for Fizer package. After all, it's for expiring contract anyway. ANd they won't be able to resign those guys AND go after Kobe.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I understand wanting to make a run at Kobe, but I also understand not shooting yourself in the foot.

I haven't done the research, but I'm sure we have a lot of money to play with.

We resigned Mags and Brand last year to huge deals and still were able to offer 10 million to Arenas...

I'm not convinced we can't sign Kobe and JC.

JC won't command Arenas money, and 6 million is what I think he's worth and what the Bulls won't pay.

If Kobe leaves The Lake Show, he goes to Phoenix or Clips, anywhere else that someone imagines is just the result of inhaling too much paint thinner.

We can deal with Charlotte for Augmon and Drew, this deal doesn't have to get done with the Bulls.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Arenas, I understand where your coming from but the Clips have to free up some capspace to make a run at Kobe. Thats why they ought to do the ELy/Jaric for Fizer package.


I'm sure that's what Bulls fans want, but Elgin has already said no.

The more I think about that trade it's a stupid trade.

If JC isn't thrown in there, we're idiots...

Why create a huge hole at PG for this rest of this season?

We're actually a good basketball team, and any steps we take should be steps taken forward, not backwards, and that's exactly what a trade like that would exhibit.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm sure that's what Bulls fans want, but Elgin has already said no.
> ...


Again, you guys have to get under the cap to offer Kobe a deal! It's simple as that. Your not trading for value your trading for cap space! You need to realize that.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

I dont think JC can play point and wouldnt be a good fit on the CLips team.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

Jaric/Dooling/Ely for Crawford and Fizer?

uhhhh - I'd rather save Fizer and get some financial relief after the season than this.

I like the Q trade though.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Again, you guys have to get under the cap to offer Kobe a deal! It's simple as that. Your not trading for value your trading for cap space! You need to realize that.


Ok I understand that, but Elgin has already said NO to Ely/Jaric for Fizer...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> I dont think JC can play point and wouldnt be a good fit on the CLips team.


Hmm....

Do you ever say a good thing about anyone?

I saw your posts about "I saw such and such play in the (insert league) and they sucked, I can't believe they made it to the league"

Read Matt Barnes....

So your evaluation of talent is in ? for now...

You obviously haven't seen JC play enough and he is exactly what the Clips need.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok I understand that, but Elgin has already said NO to Ely/Jaric for Fizer...


I don't think he has. All the reports I am hearing is he is just trying to get Crawford in the deal too which won't happen. Bottom line is the Clips deal Jaric & Ely for Fizer or they find another team to try to shed cap with, and thats not as easy as it may sound. If Baylor is confident in their chances at Kobe he WILL do this deal.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

What are u talking about Barnes scked at that game and Crawford is a 2 not a 1.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think he has. All the reports I am hearing is he is just trying to get Crawford in the deal too which won't happen. Bottom line is the Clips deal Jaric & Ely for Fizer or they find another team to try to shed cap with, and thats not as easy as it may sound. If Baylor is confident in their chances at Kobe he WILL do this deal.


I read somewhere he has....and I'll try and find it...

I think if he's trying to add to the deal, he's not agreeing to original one proposed.

I understand we're trying to shed cap space, I'm telling you we don't have to do it with the Bulls, New Orleans is another team we've talked to.

If we're going to do something with the Bulls, we could and should get something out of it besides the cap space.

Read JC.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> What are u talking about Barnes scked at that game and Crawford is a 2 not a 1.


He sucked at the game you went to, then suddenly he's in the NBA and actually productive....

As I said before, you OBVIOUSLY haven't seen JC play enough which means you don't know his game, so you're evaluation on him means absolutely nothing to me.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

The clips need a point like T.J Frod quick and can penetrate and distribute the ball. The game I went Barnes has 3 point ans 6 turnovers and alot of complaining. I am happpy he is helping the Clips I was just saying what I saw of him in the ABA I was surprised he was picked up.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

For me its simple - no Q no JC.

I'd consider JC,Fizer and Brunson for Jaric,Ely and Dooling(Or without the last 2)+a 1st round pick.


----------



## Bolts (Nov 7, 2003)

I agree with Starbury that the Clips need a distributer and not a JC type. Add JC to a team with three legit scorers and he'll get trouned in the locker room for not distributing the ball. Add KH to the mix and the other players will be happy and KH will get better open shots and driving lanes. JC is the lone Bull that can can be reasonably expected go off for 30+ on a given night. As much as I dislike his style, the Bulls need JC more than the Clipps do unless we got a scorer in return.


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

Arenas, to sign Kobe you need space for a max contract, which I'm guessing will run for 13 million or so. Signing Crawford for 6 million after that means you need almost 20 million in cap room. That's a pretty tall order.

And the Clips won't be getting Crawford without including someone like Q in the deal. You have to give away talent to get talent, and the Bulls are not going to give up a 17 ppg scorer for change.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mongoose</b>!
> Arenas, to sign Kobe you need space for a max contract, which I'm guessing will run for 13 million or so. Signing Crawford for 6 million after that means you need almost 20 million in cap room. That's a pretty tall order.
> 
> And the Clips won't be getting Crawford without including someone like Q in the deal. You have to give away talent to get talent, and the Bulls are not going to give up a 17 ppg scorer for change.


I've never said we're going to get JC, I'm just saying if a deal were to be done with the Bulls we'd have to get him...

I don't believe a deal is going to be done with the Bulls. The Bulls want Jaric and Ely for Fizer, granted, we're trying to clear cap space, but I don't see us blessing the Bulls with that for just the cap space.

If we sign Kobe, we probably don't even need a PG...

If Kobe signs elsewhere, we sign JC and Q, and we'll definitely have the money to do that.

To Bolts and Starbury, what you don't understand is yes on THIS team JC is needed to score, but for those of us who understand JC's game, his game is having the ball in his hands and getting others involved and he feeds off that and his points come as a result.

This is a guy who is a combo guard who plays better at the 1 than strictly as a 2, he has the ball handling skills, passing skills and whatever else needed to play the 1.

JC would blossom with the Clips for the reason that he would be a 3rd/4th option in the offense, he doesn't want to be the 1st, and isn't suited to be the 1st.

Those of you who are challenging me on this, watch some of his games, look at some of his boxscores where he scores 30 and still has 6-7 assists...

In other words, do some homework, then come to my class.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

He cant play point I guarentee if he was to go to the Clips he would be gone in two years. He would turn out like Miller. He cant play good D on a point either u need a quick point to get all over the ball led a break and be able to distrubute. U dont know what ur talking about. Ur blinded by the fact that u like Crawford too much. I like Marbury but he would be horrible on the CLips.
Also 6 or 7 assist isnt that good cuz when u score u get doubled and that leaves people wide open for easy shots. A good point can get tons of assist without scoring. Clips need a point with 9 to 10 assist per game average.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

well I definitley think your right about JC being a nice fit with the Clips. Anyone who doesn't give JC credit as a distributor must not be paying attention.

In any case, there is no way Pax trades him to LA for merely ELy & Jaric. We're willing to help you clear cap by giving you Fizer for them but thats about it. If the Clips aren't interested in that then they will have to look elsewhere to deal their cap. But I think they will deal with the Bulls. They NEED that cap if they are going to make a run at Kobe and thats the bottom line. I don't see them getting anything better as an expiring contract than Fizer. Unless you really like Drew and Stacy Augmon or something.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> He cant play point I guarentee if he was to go to the Clips he would be gone in two years. He would turn out like Miller. He cant play good D on a point either u need a quick point to get all over the ball led a break and be able to distrubute. U dont know what ur talking about. Ur blinded by the fact that u like Crawford too much. I like Marbury but he would be horrible on the CLips.
> Also 6 or 7 assist isnt that good cuz when u score u get doubled and that leaves people wide open for easy shots. A good point can get tons of assist without scoring. Clips need a point with 9 to 10 assist per game average.


I think your way off.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

U can think what u want but look at your teams record I dont want a player from a losing team. They need someone who can come in and knows how to win.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

The losing record is everyones fault, not just one player. JC would be a perfect fit on the Clips, or on the Cavs too.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

:no: :no:


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I would agree that JC is not the PG Clips should be looking for. That team needs someone like Arroyo at PG with either Q or Kobe at SG, Maggette at SF, and Brand at PF. JC would not be a good fit along with those 4. JMO though.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> He cant play point I guarentee if he was to go to the Clips he would be gone in two years. He would turn out like Miller. He cant play good D on a point either u need a quick point to get all over the ball led a break and be able to distrubute. U dont know what ur talking about. Ur blinded by the fact that u like Crawford too much. I like Marbury but he would be horrible on the CLips.
> Also 6 or 7 assist isnt that good cuz when u score u get doubled and that leaves people wide open for easy shots. A good point can get tons of assist without scoring. Clips need a point with 9 to 10 assist per game average.


What are you talking about?

You're confused in your statements...

You say the Clips need a PG that can average 9-10 APG, yet you also say Marbury would be a horrible fit with the Clips when he does average those kind of assist numbers!


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> U can think what u want but look at your teams record I dont want a player from a losing team. They need someone who can come in and knows how to win.


lol...

and it continues...

You don't want a player from a losing team...

You're a Clips fan! We ARE a losing team, we're better, but we can't put ourselves on some kind of pedastal.

We're not the damn Lakers so we want "winners" only...

Since when is a player bad because he's not on a good team?

I guess by your logic, A-Rod is a terrible baseball player...

I'll agree with Ace, "you're way off".


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Need a point that doesnt need to score. Marbury needs to score to be affective. He cant just set up his teamates all game. The clips need someone to play a John Stockton role. If ur a losing team do u keep bringing in player that lose NO u bring player in the know how to win that is rebuilding 101.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> I would agree that JC is not the PG Clips should be looking for. That team needs someone like Arroyo at PG with either Q or Kobe at SG, Maggette at SF, and Brand at PF. JC would not be a good fit along with those 4. JMO though.


Or maybe a guy like Andre Miller maybe? 

The clips could use Crawford becaues he is more of a PG than Jaric, and he is very unselfish, but can knock down the outside shot to help keep space for Brand and Kaman.

Why wouldn't we just do a Crawford for Jaric/Ely trade? Clips can still do their salary dump. And don't they get Crawford's bird rights? So they could sign Kobe first. And then sign Crawford to whatever the market dictates.

They can also work a sign and trade with the Lakers of some sorts with Maggette or Q going to the Lakers for Kobe.

I think the Clips want to keep Q and still get JC because they want to win this year, and still be able to go after Kobe.

As far as Jaric and the Bulls, isn't he kind of what Paxson would be looking for? I know he's european, and there seems to be some sort of ban against having Euros on the Bulls, but isn't he pretty much a solid defending, under control shooting, guard, that can play with Hinrich in the backcourt?

Not sure what Ely would do on our team.

It is too bad we cann't just wait for draft day and trade JC for a high schooler?


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

I am so glad that u guys have no affect on the clips decision cuz then the team would be a bunch of wasted talent again. Andre Miller dribbles too much that is why he ddnt work and he has no J he cant even shot one.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> Need a point that doesnt need to score. Marbury needs to score to be affective. He cant just set up his teamates all game. The clips need someone to play a John Stockton role. If ur a losing team do u keep bringing in player that lose NO u bring player in the know how to win that is rebuilding 101.


You have no idea what you're talking about...

Marbury needs to score to be effective?

I've seen most of the Knick games since Marbury has come on board, he pretty much scores when he feels like it, at the beginning he was hardly looking to score, Kurt Thomas had a couple 25-10 games from running pick and rolls with Marbury all game.

As far as your knowledge on rebuilding 101...

I guess that's why teams use the drafts to build their teams with rookies, who obviously know how to win (on a NBA level).

As far as what the Clips need, you're being unrealistic..."we need a John Stockton type"...

I'm sure EVERY NBA team would like that "type" on their team...

To Basghetti, Arroyo would be interesting...

Played with him at a park by where I used to live this past summer, he's nothing flashy, but its obvious he belongs where he is...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> I am so glad that u guys have no affect on the clips decision cuz then the team would be a bunch of wasted talent again. Andre Miller dribbles too much that is why he ddnt work and he has no J he cant even shot one.


Man, everyone knows why Andre was not a success in Clipperland...

But wow, he sure is having a terrible year in Denver....


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> As a Clips fan, if we do any deal at all, lets keep it simple, Fizer for Jaric, or Fizer for Ely, I don't really see where Fizer fits in our team, and honestly I don't want him.


I'd do Fizer fo Jaric alone and maybe even consider it as a better deal without Ely.Clips can keep him.


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

The Clips wouldn't do that deal at all. The whole point from their end is that they can get rid of Ely's salary.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> I am so glad that u guys have no affect on the clips decision cuz then the team would be a bunch of wasted talent again. Andre Miller dribbles too much that is why he ddnt work and he has no J he cant even shot one.


What do you suggest they do? It would seem to me that Crawford is the best available option? He's better than what they have now. Which is nothing.

Is your plan to bring Stockton out of retirment? The type of point guard you talk about, one who doesn't dribble, only passes and never shoots...doesn't exist in the NBA at a prominent level right now. Jason Kidd. TJ Ford? You're not getting either one of those. You might get Ford by offering up Brand and eating bad Buck's contracts. But then you'd still suck.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Team that rebuild on Rookies which one of them has won anything look at the NBA every team like that is bad. Just like last year Clips team. U can only have 2 or 3 main guys the rest of the plaayers hae to be in that role Marbury isnt a role player he is a star. And Crawford isnt the right player for that role.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

There are point that just distribute Omar Cook I think could be a good NBA point I think Hinrich and Ridnour could also be good points to that mold also. So there are plenty of points out there like that it's how u tell them to play.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> Team that rebuild on Rookies which one of them has won anything look at the NBA every team like that is bad. Just like last year Clips team. U can only have 2 or 3 main guys the rest of the plaayers hae to be in that role Marbury isnt a role player he is a star. And Crawford isnt the right player for that role.


I've already come to terms with that you don't know what you're talking about, and this post solidifies that.

Last year's Clips were filled with talented players on the brink of explosion that were playing for contracts, and as a result playing for themselves, not playing to win and without a coach to try and show them the way...

Not rookies...

We're a better team this year because we've brought in a good coach, and solidified a nice core in which we can actually build around.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

That is what a said u have to have 2 or 3 core players.The Clips built those players on the draft and it was too much young talent and potential everyone felt they were going to be a star.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

u can go around and think u know who would be good for the CLips but u dont know.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I think Starbury03 is waaay off here .Crawford already has a relationship with Brand,Maggette,and Q and they know and respect his game as he does theirs .They all have Chicago ties and I think out of all the fa's available they will be pushing for for Crawford if they cant get Kobe.

The one thing missing from the clipps lineup is a shooter,distributor with some quicks and Crawford is definitely that .You sit him at the top of the key with Q and Maggette on the blocks and the question becomes who do you double team Brand on the block off of ?

The clipps problem is that teams doubleteam off of jaric and he cant make them pay nor break down a defense off the dribble.

If anything playing this season on the Bulls will have given Crawford a greater appreciation of having other guys to pass to that can get the job done.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Craford cant shoot 32% isnt that good he is a volume shooter not a good shooter. Just cuz he know them doesnt make him a good point.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> Crawford cant shoot 32% isnt that good he is a volume shooter not a good shooter. Just cuz he know them doesnt make him a good point.


thats because we need him to be a volume shooter we really have no one else to score.

:lol: what if they want to play with him ?what will you do then ?Hes top 20 in assists on a team in which HES the #1 option and only real consistent scoring threat .


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> Craford cant shoot 32% isnt that good he is a volume shooter not a good shooter. Just cuz he know them doesnt make him a good point.


What are you talking about?  Crawford shoots threes at a higher percentage than that, much less normal baskets. He's not a high-percentage shooter, but he's not _that_ bad. Or are you basing your opinion on watching a single game?


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

that cuz or we need him to do that why do u keep saying that. He isnt MJ he isnt even close to an all-star. Are the bulls that ****ty that it seems like Crawford has to do everythin on your team he has to shoot all the time. No he doesnt have to shoot all the time. Players in the NBA can score so he doesnt have to.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jamal_crawford/index.html?nav=page

look at the percentages


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jamal_crawford/index.html?nav=page
> 
> look at the percentages


Yep, I did. 39.4% shooting, 32.8% from three. Which are both higher than the 32% shooting you attribute to Crawford.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

We are not going to take JC, who is our leading scorer at almost 19ppg, for one bench player, and a second player who is there 12 man. Come on here give me a break. The clippers are trying to unload two players they don't want and don't need for our leading score. Stop all this nosense. If the clippers want a 18 ppg scorer they will need to take back a 17 ppg scorer. Paxson is not stupid.

david


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

32% from threes that is how u figure out a shooter. He isnt that good of a shooter. It's a fact by his stats. He isnt a point he is a scoring two or a scoring combo guard OFF THE BENCH.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> 32% from threes that is how u figure out a shooter. He isnt that good of a shooter. It's a fact by his stats. He isnt a point he is a scoring two or a scoring combo guard OFF THE BENCH.


becauses hes been playing both guard spots and hes our ONLY scorer from the perimeter .

Would the clipps trade jaric for Crawford straight up right now ?

you know the real answer to that no matter how much you would try to talk yourself out of it :laugh:


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

I would trade Jaric for him but not to play point. Crawford is a very good player but he isnt a point guard the clips need he could be a great role player of the bench.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> I would trade Jaric for him but not to play point. Crawford is a very good player but he isnt a point guard the clips need he could be a great role player of the bench.



:laugh: So jaric plays the point for you now and Crawford is a better point than jaric so if you traded for him you would start overton or Dolling over him ?


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Yeah and Jaric is a better point the JC. JC isnt the solution to the teams point guard problems but he would be a good player.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Starbury03</b>!
> Yeah and Jaric is a better point the JC. JC isnt the solution to the teams point guard problems but he would be a good player.


I dont know of anyone in the Clipps organization or league wide that wouldnt take Crawford over jaric at point guard .Jaric averages 3-4 assists per game playing on a team with 3 bigtime scorers  

I dont think jamal being a clipper would be the second coming of stockton but he would give the Clipps what they thought they would be getting from Andre Miller last season.


----------



## Starbury03 (Aug 12, 2003)

Probably JC would be better than Jaric but he isnt the solution at the point. He is good but I dont thin it's the right mix. He would work well off the bench in my opinon.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> You're not getting Q, put the pipe down...
> 
> As a Bulls fan, we'd be ripping the Clips off in a Fizer for Jaric/Ely deal....
> ...



The newest chad ford trade will not happen, unless we make another trade before this one.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Does Chad Ford have it in for us? come on, Dooling? I don't think we can talk about stats right now. When we are talking about JC, we have to talk about his potential and not right now.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

All this BS about getting ripped off and inequitable talent for talent 

Who would have thought Starbury would have been dealt for dogpoop 

And now everyone waxes lyrical that Kobe is practically a Sun already 

And we're talking about Q for Chrissakes ? A nice player but hardly as hoo haa'd as Starbury 

The whole motivation supposedly for the Clips doing this deal is space for Kobe

Keeping the unrenounced values of Q and Jamal doesn't work - so trading for Jamal and keeping Q doesn't work 

Dealing Jaric and wanting Crawford means if your Baylor you prefer Crawford as your point to Jaric in an attempt to squeeze him in if you get Kobe in free agency .. and your going to have to give up Q anyway 

Its either the reported deal that makes sense ( Fizer for Ely and Jaric ) 

Or if the Clips get too smart by half and want Crawford instead of Fizer they are harpooning themselves right out of the Kobe sweepstakes given the unrenounced values of Q and Crawford and probably losing both but definately one of them anyway 

So if your Baylor and you have a brain .. you have to decide if you want Crawford now and try and squeeze him in over the summer .. which means its a preference for Crawford over Jaric (who is only being dealt to clear space and is therefore not considered a piece ) and Q 

I could see Crawford and Fizer for Jaric , Ely and Q working which would meet the aims of what both teams are trying to achieve.. if they think they can bring Crawford back at around $5M 

Or ... both parties could agree to a the 1 year qualifying offer which keeps Jamal's cost down for 1 year .. allows them to resign Kobe , and then pay Jamal accordingly the following year as they could retain his bird rights and go over the cap to sign him 

Or if Jamal didn't want to wait 1 more year and prove himself worthy of the deal he thinks he's worth .... then the Clips could always deal their draft pick in exchange for a future 1st round pick ( they just defer their draft pick ... its hardly as though they need it )

Or if the Clips wanted to keep their draft position over the summer and they could get retain Jamal between $6M to $7M starting .... they could expand the original deal and deal Peja Dropdick to us giving us the expanded trade of 

* Crawford ( keeper ) Fizer ( Cut ) Blount ( Cut ) for Jaric, Ely, Richardson and Dropdick - Jay is bought out freeing the roster spot and its a 3 for 4 deal - Everybody wins - the Clips cut Jaric, Ely and Dropdick - role players and not part of the core to clear space to resign Jamal to around $6M starting if they wanted to take that risk or match up tp this level and they would still have room for their 1st round pick at $1.5M and still have around $14M for Kobes . They basically swap Q for Crawford and upgrade their point position and clear space for Kobe. The Bulls would have a starter at the 2 in Q - and a legit 2 at that , a great 3rd guard in Jaric to work a core 3 guard rotation , a young guy in Ely to bring on behind AD to eventually replace him as he winds down and ultimately work a 3 man big man rotation of Curry, Chandler and Ely ... and we'd have Peja Dropdick shooting his 18ft jumpers... at about $700K more a year than the same service Corie Blount provides for us *


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

And maybe the acquisition of Ely and the drafting of Okafur ( if we were in that position ) allows us to deal Eddy Curry with JYD or Eddie Robinson ( last year of his contract next year so will have trade value at next midseason deadline ) for a starting calibre "3 " - say a Rashard Lewis

*

Chandler
Okafur
Lewis
Richardson
Hinrich

Ely
Davis
Robinson
Dupree
Jaric

Pip .. retires and quits stealing our money 

*


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

FJ...breakin' it down.
Thumbs up, somewhere the pope is smiling.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

1. Crawford would be a great PG for the Clips, but they'd need a faster-tempo backup a la Earl Boykins for a change of pace. Dooling could be it if he knew how to play basketball better. That guy has serious raw talent but... gosh. Never bloomed. Maybe he will still...

2. The real questions with the Clips wanting to keep Crawford for the long-term are:

a. Do they have to lose Q?
b. If they commit to do so and thus maybe miss out on a chance for Kobe, are they willing to settle for whatever else is out there (not much)?
*c. (most importantly) Do they think Pax is going to dish out a ton of money to keep Craw next summer anyway? If not, then won't they save money if they make the right kind of offer next summer rather than being susceptible to other teams' offer sheets jacking up the price of their players (hint: Elton Brand)?*

3. FJ needs to stop having a hard-on whenever he hears a certain player's name... rhymes with Schmashard.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I'll just come right out and admit that I laughed when FJ referred to Peja as "Dropdick".


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

To the question "Is Pax and Idiot?"

The record speaks for itself.

He's traded our most tradable commodities for lesser talent.

Watch out for his next blockbuster.


----------



## Natty Dreadlockz (Jul 21, 2003)

> Yeah and Jaric is a better point the JC. JC isnt the solution to the teams point guard problems but he would be a good player.


Come on Starbury.. Crawford's a better point.. better combo guard and overall a better player than Jaric.. That's a fact.. BTW.. What happened to your push for Omar Cook.. Erik Barkley or Kareem Reid, to be our point's of the future?.. I guess you slip in and out of reality!


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> To the question "Is Pax and Idiot?"
> 
> The record speaks for itself.
> ...


Can't be Rose. Surely not. Toronto was .500 and now they are a game below .500. Look at the affect he has had on that team. Truth be said, his affect on this team would have been the same. 

We were bad with Rose and we are bad without him. Toronto was mediocre and struggling to stay that way. They still are with Rose. One game below .500. Yeah wished we had kept him. 

We beat them with Rose. 

We won 30 games last year, not with Rose leading the way but when Curry and chandler and williams and Crawford clicked. 

Now Marshall is another story. We do miss him and his threes and scoring.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> Can't be Rose. Surely not. Toronto was .500 and now they are a game below .500. Look at the affect he has had on that team. Truth be said, his affect on this team would have been the same.
> ...



I'm sorry but when all the glad happenings happened with the 3C's and williams the bulls had already won 21 games and during march and april Rose avg. over 18 points a game which is still more than anyone is doing now.

Rose was very important.Oddly enough during that time marshall was the one who was giving little not rose so when asking who was needed less the obvious answer is marshall.

the bulls are having the same problem last year as this year except for 2 things .

there has been no fizer resurgence like last season's and there is no marshall, other than that you can pretty much put JC into rose's role from last year and kirk's into jay will's and its the same team.

pax should have left things alone because instead of jalen having to have great games for us to win ...now its JC and look all the anti-rose stuff from last year now falls on crawford for no other reason than he is now the guy taking the big shots ...if he's the 4th quarter to take them that is.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> ...now its JC and look all the anti-rose stuff from last year now falls on crawford for no other reason than he is now the guy taking the big shots ...if he's the 4th quarter to take them that is.


People are angry with Crawford not because he is taking big shots, but because he is not making them. Just like Rose…:laugh:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> People are angry with Crawford not because he is taking big shots, but because he is not making them. Just like Rose…:laugh:


Thats what happens when you don't have enough offensive options.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

The concept that Rose was a "tradeable commodity" seems pretty dubious to me. As far as I can tell no one was beating down the doors and in fact we had to give something extra (Marshall) to get rid of him.

Now it's true we might have gotten more for Marshall alone... but I really have no evidence of that either.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> People are angry with Crawford not because he is taking big shots, but because he is not making them. Just like Rose…:laugh:


the funny thing about the nba is that no matter how good you are as a perimeter player without someone to occupy the defense with the best you can be is about a .500 team 

ask T-mac,or kobe when shaq is out or vince or paul pierce 

Rose except for a stretch when fizer was doing well(the 28 games before marcus went down the bulls went 13-15)

and a stretch when JC and Ec were playing well (9-11 from march 3rd on to the end of the season)

during those 2 stretches 22-26...the rest of the year when rose basically had to go it alone 8-26

crawford right now has no one whom the opposing teams have to account for and basically the team sucks because of it ,but the uniformed love to blame the guy on their team despite the fact the guys playing them have an easier time of it because they have more prime time players to throw at the bulls than the bulls have to throw back


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> crawford right now has no one whom the opposing teams have to account for and basically the team sucks because of it ,but the uniformed love to blame the guy on their team despite the fact the guys playing them have an easier time of it because they have more prime time players to throw at the bulls than the bulls have to throw back


It's simple. Crawford can't, at the moment, be the No. 1 option. There is no shame in that. Not many players can do this. It doens't help that he has very little help on offense. 

People can have legitimate criticisms of Crawford such as his defense, ability to penetrate and getting to the foul line more. However, blaming him for not being able to handle the load offensively is wrong.


----------



## robert60446 (Nov 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> blaming him for not being able to handle the load offensively is wrong.


We cannot blame Crawford for not being able to handle the load offensively and we cannot blame Curry and Chandler either! So my question is whom we can blame? And if they cannot be held responsible for the franchise, why we need them?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robert60446</b>!
> 
> 
> We cannot blame Crawford for not being able to handle the load offensively and we cannot blame Curry and Chandler either! So my question is whom we can blame? And if they cannot be held responsible for the franchise, why we need them?


Paxson.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Always blaming someone else.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

How were the Bulls doing when we had Rose and Marshall as legit 'offensive options'?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Always blaming someone else.


Hey, I think thats fair game. They put this team together like Crawford, Curry, and Chandler were set to dominate the league. They clearly aren't ready for that. Neither one of these guys should have to be a #1 option at this point in their development. Pax should have tried to surround them with more solid players. Posey instead of Pip would have been great! So would Armstrong instead of Gill. The bottom line is this team is relying far too heavily on young developing players, who else's fault could that be but the GM's?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> How were the Bulls doing when we had Rose and Marshall as legit 'offensive options'?


Rose sucked to begin the season, probably partly because of his hand injury and partly because he had already demanded Pax trade him. Marshall was probably the best player on the team but Cartwright didn't even play him consistently.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey, I think thats fair game. They put this team together like Crawford, Curry, and Chandler were set to dominate the league. They clearly aren't ready for that. Neither one of these guys should have to be a #1 option at this point in their development. Pax should have tried to surround them with more solid players. Posey instead of Pip would have been great! So would Armstrong instead of Gill. The bottom line is this team is relying far too heavily on young developing players, who else's fault could that be but the GM's?


Paxson misjudged the level of improvement the 3 C's would make. His moves were based on those 3 improving dramatically, which was unrealistic. However, if we had Armstrong and Posey instead of Pippen and Gill, I don't think we would be much better.

I blame Paxson and Krause.

The 3 C's are accountable, but to realistic expectations. Criticise Curry for being overweight, Chandler underweight, Curry being soft, Crawford's poor defense etc, but they are improving.

Rose is still sucking in Toronto, shooting a poor %. Marshall is playing really well. He could be helping us.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

If you think Armstrong and Posey instead of Gill and Pippen makes this team good then I don't even know what to say to you. Bottomline is we are going to stink until the 3C's step up and lead this team. Paxson is giving them an opportunity to do that. Whether or not they take advantage is up to them.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey, I think thats fair game. They put this team together like Crawford, Curry, and Chandler were set to dominate the league. They clearly aren't ready for that. Neither one of these guys should have to be a #1 option at this point in their development. Pax should have tried to surround them with more solid players. Posey instead of Pip would have been great! So would Armstrong instead of Gill. The bottom line is this team is relying far too heavily on young developing players, who else's fault could that be but the GM's?


Krause put this mess of young players together, not Paxson. Paxson inherited Jalen Rose, our quality free agent signing in eRob, the Bryce Drew fiasco, coach Bill Cartwright, and we know JK traded away 3 All-Stars to 'make room' for the 3 C's and Jalen. Now we must blame Paxson for this?!

I agree that we could have gotten more value for the MLE this year. But we had Rose/Marshall/eRob logging minutes at the 2-3, so a Posey signing was less imminent. Heck I'm sure more all-knowing fans here we campaigning for Ira Newble over James Posey. I don't remember too many fans here crying a river when Pip was signed or when we passed on Posey. Hindsight is always 20/20. 

I credit Pax for taking Hinrich who has been our most consistent player this year. We finally got a draft pick that has <i>exceeded</i> our expectations. He picked up Dupree who has been a pleasant surprise and probably a fixture as a 2/3 bench guy for years to come. While these moves aren't mind blowing, I'm willing to give him more than 9 months on the job considering the hand he was dealt. Thanks.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Excellent post superdave!


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I blame Krause:

1.worst mistake - Rose trade
2.Brand trade
3.ERob
4.Many good FA (harpering and others) would not sign with us cause of him
5.bad draft picks - all 2nd rounders useless.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> The concept that Rose was a "tradeable commodity" seems pretty dubious to me. As far as I can tell no one was beating down the doors and in fact we had to give something extra (Marshall) to get rid of him.
> 
> Now it's true we might have gotten more for Marshall alone... but I really have no evidence of that either.


The evidence does speak for itself:

* Rose was traded. By definition, he was tradable. As an aside, I think we could have gotten AD for him straight up, at least.

* Given the serious lack of quality SFs league wide, Rose probably had more trade value than you want to believe.

* What we got in return for Rose/Marshall/Baxter/Mason Jr. is LESS tradable than what we had before.

* In fact, I look at the Bulls roster and see little on it that has huge trade value. Before the trade, this was not so.

For TBF:

Rose is the PG for the Raptors now and is the 3rd scoring option behind Carter and Marshall. What the Raptors have shown since the trade is they can win 5 in a row - something the Bulls cannot. Carter got hurt and could not play for 5 games and the Raps lost them all, or you would not be able to make the claims you do.

With Rose, the Raps are 6th best team in a 15 team conference. A playoff team. Without Rose, the Bulls are 14th best team in a 15 team conference, just 1 game ahead of the worst team. With Rose, the Bulls were arguably the 8th (many people thought playoffs) or 9th best team. So to me it is rather obvious the trade certainly didn't hurt the Raptors, but clearly hurt the Bulls.

The sad thing is I look at the Raptors' roster and they have guys like Alvin Williams and Lamond Murray and Morris Peterson while we have guys like Curry and Crawford and Hinrich and Gill. 

The Raptors do have Carter, but in every other respect, how can a team with 4 guys off our roster and lesser players elsewhere be 6th best team in the league while we can't be better than 14th?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The evidence does speak for itself:
> ...


:laugh: 

Yes, by definition he was "tradeable". That is a big retraction from your original "most tradeable commodities" statement.

By that statement you were seemed to me to be implying Rose (or even Marshall or Baxter) was more tradeable than Curry, Chandler, or Crawford. That seems damn unbelieveable.

Similarly, you're still stating above that before the trade we had players with huge trade value and after we don't.

Again, what you are clearly saying here is that Rose and Marshall have a higher trade value than Curry and Chandler.

It's pretty evident that there were NO other suitors for Rose. Probably had more value than I think? Well, if that's the case, you would expect to see suitors for him... and aside from Toronto we didn't see much of anything. On the other hand, reportedly most every GM in the league called to inquire about Curry.

Thats unavoidable evidence that there was little interest in Rose and lots in Curry.

---------

Would it have been better or worse for us if we traded Curry, Chandler, Fizer, ERob, and Baxter for AD and JYD than the actual trade that occurred?

Worse.

Would the Raptors have been more or less inclined to do such a trade. They would have been more inclined. They would have laughed all the way to the bank.


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> With Rose, the Raps are 6th best team in a 15 team conference. A playoff team. Without Rose, the Bulls are 14th best team in a 15 team conference, just 1 game ahead of the worst team. With Rose, the Bulls were arguably the 8th (many people thought playoffs) or 9th best team. So to me it is rather obvious the trade certainly didn't hurt the Raptors, but clearly hurt the Bulls.


That's misleading. Without looking at the standings before the trade, you imply that Rose somehow propelled the Raptors into the playoffs. The Raptors were a playoff-bound team in the standings prior to the trade, and we were out of the playoffs, no matter if we _should_ have been near a playoff team. The question is more, how much better are both teams after the trade? Let's look at more "evidence":

The Raptors pre-trade were 8-8, and post-trade they're 21-22, so they've gone 13-14 since the trade. Before the trade they had a 50% winning percentage, and after the trade they've had a 48% winning percentage, roughly the same.

The Bulls were 4-12 pre, and are 13-33 post, so we've gone 9-21 since the trade. Before the trade we had a 25% winning percentage, and after the trade we've had a 30% winning percentage. Better, but no telling whether it's the trade or the coach.

More tellingly, the Raptors were scoring an abysmal 78 ppg and allowing 84 ppg before the trade, for a -6 differential. Yes, they still had a .500 record, but when they won, they eked by, and when they lost, they lost big. Post-trade, they're averaging 88.8 ppg and giving up 89.2 ppg, for a differential of -0.4. So, they're scoring a 10 more points a game, but giving up 5 more, for about the same record. So, they've statistically improved, but lost ground on their percentage.

The Bulls were scoring 90.2 ppg and giving up 101.1 ppg before the trade, for a not-so-stellar differential of -10.9. (Actually, that's horrid.) After the trade the Bulls are scoring 89.1 ppg and giving up 93.5 ppg, for a differential of -4.4. So, our scoring has dropped a point, and our defense has tightened up by a lot (although it's slipped again recently). Statistically, we've improved significantly, and our percentage is higher (not that that makes us a good team).

So, we are a better team post-trade, although it hasn't translated much to our standings. The Raptors are staying in games closer than before and traded defense for offense, resulting in better statistics but the same rate of winning. I'd say the Bulls didn't really hurt themselves, given the horrific performance pre-trade.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Krause put this mess of young players together, not Paxson. Paxson inherited Jalen Rose, our quality free agent signing in eRob, the Bryce Drew fiasco, coach Bill Cartwright, and we know JK traded away 3 All-Stars to 'make room' for the 3 C's and Jalen. Now we must blame Paxson for this?!
> ...


:greatjob: :clap:


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mongoose</b>!
> 
> 
> That's misleading. Without looking at the standings before the trade, you imply that Rose somehow propelled the Raptors into the playoffs. The Raptors were a playoff-bound team in the standings prior to the trade, and we were out of the playoffs, no matter if we _should_ have been near a playoff team. The question is more, how much better are both teams after the trade? Let's look at more "evidence":
> ...


Thanks Mongoose. I have been saying the very same thing since the trade. I was keeping track of all of this, but time constraints forced me to stop. 

We were at 101 pts a game allowed and rising!!! We had just gotten to 91 a game. Why? Blowouts allow garbage scoring. So even the 91 is misleading. 

Nice post!!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> By that statement you were seemed to me to be implying Rose (or even Marshall or Baxter) was more tradeable than Curry, Chandler, or Crawford. That seems damn unbelieveable.
> 
> ...


Before the trade, Crawford's trade value was probably higher because people thought he'd be a lot better than he's shown to be when not buried behind superior players (Rose, Pippen, Gill, Hinrich). He's had the opportunity to prove he's worth less (not worthless). Same is true for Curry. So, Paxson exposed these guys as being worth less and hurt their trade value, ergo the team has less tradable players.

Pax is such an idiot that he thought it better to pay max dollars to Curry than to Antoine Walker. By my reasoning, a team with Walker, Marshall, Rose, Curry, Chandler, Hinrich, et al should be better than a team with Carter, Marshall, Rose, and guys less capable than Curry, Chandler, Hinrich, et al.

I dispute that we are better off now than before the trade. In no way do I see us better off. We've gone from being the 6th worst team to the worst (or 2nd worst). And our roster is so devoid of talent that the only way we can make an effective trade to make real improvement is to offer Curry and/or Chandler, the two cornerstones of the team.

The only thing we have to trade that has improved in value is our draft pick, since we now are on pace to have more ping pong balls.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Rose is the PG for the Raptors now and is the 3rd scoring option behind Carter and Marshall. What the Raptors have shown since the trade is they can win 5 in a row - something the Bulls cannot. Carter got hurt and could not play for 5 games and the Raps lost them all, or you would not be able to make the claims you do.
> 
> ...


That's some nice spin you're doing there. Are you dizzy yet?  

The Raptors were better than the Bulls before the trade. They're still better, by approximately the same margin, after the trade. So they unambiguously won the trade? So if we traded with the Kings, we'd have to become the better team almost immediately post-trade to have won the trade? hmmm I'll keep that in mind.

The Raptors are the 6th best team in the Eastern conference. Whoodee doo. What were they before the trade? About the same. In the East, where the 6th best team is close to being in the bottom third of the NBA overall. Yep, we turned them into a juggernaut all right. Rose is still shooting around 35% last I checked. I had to dump him from my fantasy team. Losing Marshall hurts and I'll agree that we should have either kept him and played him or parlayed him into something more dynamic than JYD and CJeff...like...someone else who can score - even Mo Peterson would have been nice consolation. 

The Bulls were arguably the 8th-best team in the east before the trade? At 4-12? That's a pretty tough argument to make. We were horrible with Rose. I'll leave Marshall out of this since he didn't play nearly as much as he should have. We're still pretty horrible, but not any more so. We weren't the 8th best team with Rose. not even close. 4-12 pre-trade, .25 winning pct. 9-21 after trade, .30 winning pct. It's a modest, nearly negligable improvement, but it is an improvement.

MikeDC addressed the issue of Rose's tradeability, and I have to agree with him there.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mongoose</b>!
> 
> 
> That's misleading. Without looking at the standings before the trade, you imply that Rose somehow propelled the Raptors into the playoffs. The Raptors were a playoff-bound team in the standings prior to the trade, and we were out of the playoffs, no matter if we _should_ have been near a playoff team. The question is more, how much better are both teams after the trade? Let's look at more "evidence":
> ...


It isn't misleading.

The Raptors are playing FOUR guys off our roster and are still .500, no matter how you want to spin it. Rose is playing ~40 minutes a game for a team that's 1 game under .500 for those games (the 48% figure you post is misleading, agreed?). He clearly is able to contribute to a .500 team, at worst (and to a near champion at best, as he did with Indy).

All your stats prove is that with Rose and Marshall, and minus their quality defensive players (AD/JYD), they're still a better defensive team than the Bulls WITH AD/JYD.

The Bulls had a 9 game losing streak before the trade and recently finished an 8 game losing streak after. They've lost two in a row now since breaking that 8 game losing streak. Whoo hoo!

The Bulls traded their best two players to the Raptors and got their 3rd and 4th best players (I'm being generous about AD and JYD here). I don't think that's how you get better, and I think it proves Pax is an idiot.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Before the trade, Crawford's trade value was probably higher because people thought he'd be a lot better than he's shown to be when not buried behind superior players (Rose, Pippen, Gill, Hinrich). He's had the opportunity to prove he's worth less (not worthless). Same is true for Curry. So, Paxson exposed these guys as being worth less and hurt their trade value, ergo the team has less tradable players.


How Noam Chomsky of you. However, this is simply not the common meaning of what you said. Your first stab at things was to imply Rose and Marshall were more tradeable than the 3Cs. Now you're retreating to a position of saying that Curry and Crawford are less tradeable now than they were before (without acknowledging it).

That's not at all the same thing and claiming they are seems to me to be a pretty conscious bait-and-switch.



> Pax is such an idiot that he thought it better to pay max dollars to Curry than to Antoine Walker. By my reasoning, a team with Walker, Marshall, Rose, Curry, Chandler, Hinrich, et al should be better than a team with Carter, Marshall, Rose, and guys less capable than Curry, Chandler, Hinrich, et al.


Yet, a team with Walker, Marshall, Rose, Curry, Chandler, and Hinrich was never an option. The only trade option I saw involved trading Crawford and the #7 pick. Thus, we'd likely not have Hinrich and no Walker or Walker and no Hinrich. The injury to JWill looks to have forclosed that option as realistic, so I don't really see why you keep bearing the standard for something that couldn't have happened. You might as well be saying we'd be better off if we also had Shaq and Kobe.



> I dispute that we are better off now than before the trade. In no way do I see us better off. We've gone from being the 6th worst team to the worst (or 2nd worst). And our roster is so devoid of talent that the only way we can make an effective trade to make real improvement is to offer Curry and/or Chandler, the two cornerstones of the team.


Err... wasn't that pretty clearly the case before the trade as well? You keep seeming to want to romanticise our past position, but the evidence doesn't bear it out. Your implication is that before the trade we could have made an effective trade to make real improvements without trading Curry or Chandler by trading Rose and Marshall. Well, we traded them and by your own analysis we aren't better. Thus, you've got a pretty circular set of logic there, and the only way out is to imagine that there must have been better deals out there for Rose and Marshall and therefore Paxson must be an idiot. Unfortunately, I don't see ANY evidence of this. It's a set of conclusions based on emotion and faith, not on fact.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> It isn't misleading.
> ...


We have lost 8 of last night 9. *6 Game losing streak, not 8* had 2 four game losing streaks since the trade. Toronto? one four game and one five game losing streak since trade. Sounds like a super team? With Rose here we would have lost the same if not more. With Rose at Toronto, they experienced a 4 game AND a five game losing streak. In fact, they are *8-14 with Rose in the last 22 games*. That is with a team that played .500 ball BEFORE he arrived. We are 5-17 last 22 games. about .230%. Slightly worse. Before Rose, Toronto was .500,.... last 22 games, about .368%. 

Rose is shooting 37%. He shot 39% for us. Rebounding about the same. His assists is down! About 1.2 assists less a game. Scoring same.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

For MikeDC:

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/d...rlton/stories/111603dnspoaroundnba.ab4ed.html

<B>Cap derailed Walker return to Chicago </B>

Before Antoine Walker became a Maverick, the rumor mill had him bound for his hometown Chicago Bulls. 

Although the Celtics and Bulls held brief talks, nothing materialized. Chicago general manager John Paxson said he liked Walker's talent but could not find a way to make a deal work under the salary cap with Boston GM Danny Ainge. 

"For us, with our salary structure, we would have had to give up too much – too much and too many guys for us to do something like that," Paxson said. "I mean, everybody likes Antoine as a player, but this league is so much about trying to find that right group that fits. It was a brief conversation, but that salary wouldn't fit for us." 

<FONT COLOR=0000ff>I never saw any trade suggested for Walker that included the #7 pick, though the trades I did see that Pax supposedly nixed included Marshall and JWill (I think they'd have taken either JWill or Crawford).

I take Paxson's quote to mean, "We want to pay MAX contracts to Curry and Chandler, so taking on Walker's MAX deal would put us over the cap." Over the cap not being "our salary structure."

Yeah, I'm romanticizing all right! A 21 win team to 30 wins is the right direction. A 30 win team to whatever less we're headed for is the wrong direction.</FONT>


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> It isn't misleading.
> 
> The Raptors are playing FOUR guys off our roster and are still .500, no matter how you want to spin it. Rose is playing ~40 minutes a game for a team that's 1 game under .500 for those games (the 48% figure you post is misleading, agreed?). He clearly is able to contribute to a .500 team, at worst (and to a near champion at best, as he did with Indy).


So what? You seem to be arguing that there's some kind of transitivity in basketball players here, and that simply doesn't exist.

They swapped four guys from us and their record hasn't changed much at all. Partially that does mean that the rest of their team is better than the rest of our team. It also means the four guys they got aren't much better a fit than the four guys they gave. Not much better, not much worse.



> All your stats prove is that with Rose and Marshall, and minus their quality defensive players (AD/JYD), they're still a better defensive team than the Bulls WITH AD/JYD.


But this is another bait-and-switch. The important thing to consider from the Bulls perspective is whether the bulls' indicators are moving in the right direction. Which Mongoose shows pretty conclusively.



> The Bulls had a 9 game losing streak before the trade and recently finished an 8 game losing streak after. They've lost two in a row now since breaking that 8 game losing streak. Whoo hoo!


Yet, the overall winning percentage is better and the margins of victory are smaller. If you want to say it's a bad trade because it didn't turn us into winners, you've got a pretty unrealistic criteria for judging trades. It's not magic- a trade can push you in one direction or the other, but it's pretty infrequent that it will make the kind of dramatic short-term improvement you're judging by.



> The Bulls traded their best two players to the Raptors and got their 3rd and 4th best players (I'm being generous about AD and JYD here). I don't think that's how you get better, and I think it proves Pax is an idiot.


That doesn't prove anything, and in fact is a statement without operational meaning. 

By that logic, trading our two best players, Rose and Marshall, for the 3rd and 4th best players on the Kings (say, Mike Bibby and Chris Webber) would be a bad trade.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> We have lost 8 of last night 9. *6 Game losing streak, not 8* had 2 four game losing streaks since the trade. Toronto? one four game and one five game losing streak since trade. Sounds like a super team? With Rose here we would have lost the same if not more. With Rose at Toronto, they experienced a 4 game AND a five game losing streak. In fact, they are *8-14 with Rose in the last 22 games*. That is with a team that played .500 ball BEFORE he arrived. We are 5-17 last 22 games. about .230%. Slightly worse. Before Rose, Toronto was .500,.... last 22 games, about .368%.
> ...


Right. It was 7 game losing streak with the old team, 6 with the new.

Rose is shooting 38.9% for Toronto in 27 games with 5.7 assists per game in 39.5 minutes per game.

Toronto is 13-14 in those games.

Minus the 4 games Carter missed, Toronto was 13-10.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> By that logic, trading our two best players, Rose and Marshall, for the 3rd and 4th best players on the Kings (say, Mike Bibby and Chris Webber) would be a bad trade.


The Kings aren't the Raptors, which is YOUR logic flaw. If you want to play the logic game with me in this manner, you may as well edit my posts to make me say what you want me to say


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> For MikeDC:
> 
> http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/d...rlton/stories/111603dnspoaroundnba.ab4ed.html
> ...


Marshall and JWill or Crawford wouldn't have worked under the cap. 



> I take Paxson's quote to mean, "We want to pay MAX contracts to Curry and Chandler, so taking on Walker's MAX deal would put us over the cap." Over the cap not being "our salary structure."


But the Bulls were already over the cap and Walker's deal will expire after next season. Thus, Walker's deal would expire at the time the Bulls would have to consider new offers for Curry and Chandler.

Let's be clear about this: Curry and Chandler will be restricted free agents next summer. At that time the Bulls will have to either match offers to them or offer a contract themselves. However, if we had traded for Walker, his contract would ALSO be off the books.

Thus, the who line of your argument here (and the article's headline) is completely spurious.



> Yeah, I'm romanticizing all right! A 21 win team to 30 wins is the right direction. A 30 win team to whatever less we're headed for is the wrong direction.</FONT>


I never said they were, but the right direction isn't going to be found by believing things that were simply not true. That makes it easier to assess blame, but harder to find real solutions that are going to help us get better.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Chat with Chad Ford, June 20 2003

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=3681

Chris (Boston): Other than trading Antoine Walker, how else could the Celtics really improve? I don't want to see him go, but doesn't he have to if they ever want to be anything more than a 4-8 seed? He is their only tradeable commodity 

Chad Ford: Everyone in the league seems to think he's available. In the last 48 hours I've heard his name linked to Chicago (for Jay Williams, Marcus Fizer and Donyell Marshall - obviously off now), Toronto (for Antonio Davis and the No. 4) and Seattle. It looks like Danny Ainge is getting restless.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The Kings aren't the Raptors, which is YOUR logic flaw. If you want to play the logic game with me in this manner, you may as well edit my posts to make me say what you want me to say


Ooh... and now the not-so-subtle implication of censorship and manipulation on the part of the moderator.  Sorry, I'm not biting on that. No one with that power on this site would use it in that way. At least, if they did, they wouldn't get away with it for long. 

But that's entirely beside the point. 

Right, the Kings aren't the Raptors, but the implications of what you're saying was that we shouldn't trade our best two players for another team's third and fourth best players. At least, not the Raptors 3rd and 4th best players (even though they were, by your own admission, a substantively better team than us).

So I guess I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you mean. Is it something in particular about the Raptors? Or is it just the particular players? 

If that's the case then all you're really saying is that you think Rose, Baxter and Marshall are better than AD and JYD. That's ok, but why all the complication of saying we traded our best two players for the 3rd and 4th best players on another team? It doesn't seem to introduce anything new and I don't see how it bears at all on the argument.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Chat with Chad Ford, June 20 2003
> 
> http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=3681
> ...


"Obviously off now"

So I don't quite get it... Pax is an idiot because he could trade a hospitalized Jay Williams, Marcus Fizer, and Donyell Marshall for Walker?

Go back and look at what I said again. Maybe the Bulls could have substituted Crawford for Williams, but I'm not at all sure of that. Nor am I sure that just because Chad Ford mentioned it the first deal was on the table. I just don't see anything I can draw a solid judgement about.

Nor is it clear that trading a healthy Jay for Antoine Walker would have been a good idea.

And underlying all of this is the fact that the cap implications were not at all what you seemed to think they were.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Ooh... and now the not-so-subtle implication of censorship and manipulation on the part of the moderator.  Sorry, I'm not biting on that. No one with that power on this site would use it in that way. At least, if they did, they wouldn't get away with it for long.
> ...


I explicitly stated what I stated. To add to it further, we traded our best two players to the Raptors and what we got back wasn't our two best players now.

And, yeah, I think Rose, Baxter, and Marshall are better than AD and JYD.

As for the Raptors, I look at their team and see ONE superstar difference between their .500 team and what we had to start the season. Us with Walker stacks up with the Raps, and going from 21 wins to 30 wins to ~ .500 is the right direction.

I'll add some fuel to the fire. We were 4-12 last season and 4-12 this season (our first 16 games). After 46 games last season, we were 17-29. We're 13-33 this season.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> "Obviously off now"
> ...


The deal for Walker was mentioned several places, and was discussed thouroughly here.

"Obviously off now" because Pax didn't pull the trigger when the deal was on the table before JWill's injury.

Even after the injury, Pax could have pushed for the deal substituting Crawford for JWill.

The previous newspaper article I quoted for you further supports that the deal (or something like it) was on the table, and Pax admitted (see the quote) he wouldn't do the deal because of "salary structure." He's an idiot.

To comment on something else you wrote, you assume we'd trade for Walker and let him walk as a free agent. I assume we'd have to (and want to) resign him to a max deal. The guy is only 27 years old and a stud.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> The deal for Walker was mentioned several places, and was discussed thouroughly here.
> ...


Again, it's entirely unclear what he's really referring to there, given that the salary structure is not what you thought it was.

In any case, it's all pretty far afield from what you were originally saying and what I was pointing out was incorrect. Paxson might be an idiot, but the Bulls have so far been marginally better after the trade and more laughably, Rose and Marshall aren't "more tradeable commodities" than Curry and Chandler.



> To comment on something else you wrote, you assume we'd trade for Walker and let him walk as a free agent. I assume we'd have to (and want to) resign him to a max deal. The guy is only 27 years old and a stud.


I don't see where I made that assumption at all. I said:



> Let's be clear about this: Curry and Chandler will be restricted free agents next summer. At that time the Bulls will have to either match offers to them or offer a contract themselves. However, if we had traded for Walker, his contract would ALSO be off the books.


They'll all be free agents at the same time.... I didn't make an assumption that they wouldn't offer him another contract... just that he'd be off the books... a free agent and therefore not be incompatible with signing the other two because of luxury tax concerns. They could well, if they were in that situations, offer contracts to all three of them.

If I had to make an assumption right now, it'd be that they could re-sign all three for at or less than what two maximum contract players will get. I don't think anyone else would offer Antoine or Curry the max on an open market unless they really step up their games. Chandler might get it if he stays healthy.

But the larger point is that such a situation would give us flexibility without forcing us into assumptions.

Of course, there's likely to be a new CBA the summer after this, so it's very possibly all a moot point anyway.


----------

