# Offseason Goal: Paul Pierce



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I tend to think in terms of goals. The Bulls should have a goal this offseason of targeting one of the top players in the game and then going to get him. This obviously has to be tempered by some reality- no one is going to, for example, trade us Tim Duncan, but it seems to me that we ought to aggressively pursue getting a guy like this.

The most obvious guy to me is Paul Pierce. Why:
1) Availability. Word has it that he's available for some price we might meet. That's not the case for guys like TMac or Duncan or Garnet.

2) Fit. He seems to be big enough so he can play on the court with Jamal and Kirk and make up for Jamal being a small and average at best defender.

My question is, is there anyone else who fits these criteria?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I tend to think in terms of goals. The Bulls should have a goal this offseason of targeting one of the top players in the game and then going to get him. This obviously has to be tempered by some reality- no one is going to, for example, trade us Tim Duncan, but it seems to me that we ought to aggressively pursue getting a guy like this.
> 
> The most obvious guy to me is Paul Pierce. Why:
> ...


Pierce is at the top of the list. Ray Allen is another one. So might be a sign and trade of Bryant though very unlikely and any of the Dallas Mavs wing guys


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Pierce is a possiblility.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

If we get Pierce, no need to keep Jamal around. S&T perhaps? I'm also assuming Chandler gets dealt in the transaction.

Kirk/Paul backcourt
MLE 3 (let's say Hedo Turkoglu)
Draft/acquire 4
Curry

When you have Hinrich/Pierce/Curry, you have a franchise that's going somewhere.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> If we get Pierce, no need to keep Jamal around. S&T perhaps? I'm also assuming Chandler gets dealt in the transaction.
> 
> 
> > If we were able to get Pierce, I'd still try keep JC. Why? Because over the next few years, we'll likely only have the MLE, and JC will likely be better than a MLE players. Crawford can still improve. So while Hinrich, Crawford and Pierce as starters isn't ideal, if you sign Stephen Jackson with the MLE, and a back up SG, once JC's BYC has passed, maybe JC and Jackson can get you a decent SF, if that is better for the team. So while I wouldn't resign or match JC to trade him in the future, the way I see it is he's a commodity which has value, and losing it for nothing doesn't make much sense.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

The trade to do would be to deal them the #1 pick if we got it and send Jerome Williams and Chris Jeffries ( 1 season left ) to make up the balance for salaries


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> 
> If we were able to get Pierce, I'd still try keep JC. Why? Because over the next few years, we'll likely only have the MLE, and JC will likely be better than a MLE players. Crawford can still improve. So while Hinrich, Crawford and Pierce as starters isn't ideal, if you sign Stephen Jackson with the MLE, and a back up SG, once JC's BYC has passed, maybe JC and Jackson can get you a decent SF, if that is better for the team. So while I wouldn't resign or match JC to trade him in the future, the way I see it is he's a commodity which has value, and losing it for nothing doesn't make much sense.


JC will likely sign for over the MLE. Maybe a S&T and package Chandler can get negotiations with Boston going.

The goal here is to get Paul Pierce and you have to give up something. Boston is not going to take our scraps and a #1 for Paul Pierce. I would feel a lot better about having Kirk and Paul in the backcourt and Eddy down low. A defensive 4 is more common and a two-way 3 can be had for the MLE.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> The trade to do would be to deal them the #1 pick if we got it and send Jerome Williams and Chris Jeffries ( 1 season left ) to make up the balance for salaries


As a Bulls fan, where do we sign??? 

However as a Celtic fan, I fear they would not like this trade. 

Pierce is a notch below the Kobes and the McGradys. I think he can be had for the right trade. Would take one of three C's and draft and maybe a JYD added. Just MHO.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> As a Bulls fan, where do we sign???
> ...


IMO Pierce is at the same level as Kobe and McGrady. My superstar hierarchy is as folllows:

tier1 - Shaq, Duncan, Garnett, (Yao in 1-2 years)
tier2 - Kobe, McGrady, Pierce, Nowitzki, Iverson, Kidd


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> IMO Pierce is at the same level as Kobe and McGrady. My superstar hierarchy is as folllows:
> ...


If your list is more accurate than mine then it would take a Kobe or an Iverson to get Paul. Seems all three players are available. Maybe a three-way this summer involving all three could happen.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> If your list is more accurate than mine then it would take a Kobe or an Iverson to get Paul. Seems all three players are available. Maybe a three-way this summer involving all three could happen.


I think with Ainge anything can happen. I also think that he let his ego get in the way of things and he set the franchise back 5 years with his bonehead moves. Sorry not to vent on the guy, but his moves have been awful, awful, awful.

The Eastern semis team of Delk, Pierce, Walker, eWilliams, Battie <i>should</i> have been kept together. That team had virtually no bench but the talent to be a top 3 team in the East for years to come.

What has Ainge gotten in a year's time since then? A damaged LaFrentz, a complete loss in Baker, coach O'Brien leaves, and Ricky f'n Davis. Welsch is the lone salvagable player from these trades. Sheesh.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: Offseason Goal: Paul Pierce*



> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Pierce is at the top of the list. Ray Allen is another one. So might be a sign and trade of Bryant though very unlikely and any of the Dallas Mavs wing guys


Rumor has it Jesus is available too- The Sonics know they will not be able to give him the cap room next year- so htey may deal him to get something other than nothing


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> IMO Pierce is at the same level as Kobe and McGrady. My superstar hierarchy is as folllows:
> ...


Ray Allen is better than Pierce, Nowitzki, and Iverson.......


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Sorry not buying that for a second. Allen is a very nice player but is a notch below Pierce,Notwitski, and Iverson.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> Sorry not buying that for a second. Allen is a very nice player but is a notch below Pierce,Notwitski, and Iverson.


i MAY give you Nowitzki is better

And Pierce MAY be even

But I dont think Iverson is even close to that level


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Marcus13</b>!
> 
> 
> Ray Allen is better than Pierce, Nowitzki, and Iverson.......


Stop eating glue, its bad for you.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Signing and trading Crawford would be difficult, if not impossible, according to ****'s Cap FAQ. According to Larry:

Under no circumstances can a team sign and then trade another team's free agent. But there is a special rule that allows teams to re-sign their own free agents for trading purposes, called the sign-and-trade rule. Under the sign-and-trade rule, the player is re-signed and immediately traded to another team. This is done by adding a clause to the contract which stipulates that the contract is invalid if the player's rights are not traded to the specific team within 48 hours.

A sign-and-trade deal can be made even with players that have been renounced. However, a sign-and-trade deal cannot be made when the player was signed using the Mid-Level, $1 Million or Disabled Player exception. Sign-and-trade deals are only allowed if the contract is for three years or longer (however, only the first season of the contract must be guaranteed).

One complication with sign-and-trade deals is that the signed player can immediately become a BYC player (see question number 72 for more information on BYC), so it's the player's BYC value that must be used when determining whether the trade is allowed. 

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#75

BYC would almost be guaranteed to apply to Crawford:


Usually, the salary used for comparison is the player's actual salary. But under either of the following circumstances, a different salary is used when comparing salaries for trading purposes:

* The team is over the salary cap, used theLarry Bird or Early Bird exception to re-sign the player, and the player received a raise greater than 20%.
* The team is over the salary cap, it extended the rookie scale contract of the player, and the player received a raise greater than 20%.


Basically, a player is BYC if we gave him a minimum of 20% raise using his Bird rights or we extended his rookie contract.

A 20% raise for Crawford's salary would be about $600,000. We absolutely will be giving him at least a 20% raise, and we will have to use Bird or extend the cap.

Could we renounce him and use our MLE to sign and trade him? No. See _supra_:

However, *a sign-and-trade deal cannot be made when the player was signed using the Mid-Level*, $1 Million or Disabled Player exception. 

Sign and trades just don't work out when you have an RFA coming off the rookie contract and you are over the cap. If we were under the cap, this would all be different, but we're not.

Rule Crawford out of any trade. He will not be bringing back even close to equal value in talent or salary.

The trade would have to be something like our Chandler, ERob, JYD, and our unprotected 2005 pick for Pierce, Yogi Stewart (valuable guy because he's expiring), and Jiri Welsch (also to become a nice player). Boston is stockpiling draft picks; an unprotected pick in 2005 might even be the #1 pick (God forbid). They grab a real big man that can play center in the East with dominance, an improved ERob that is showing up this year and would fit in perfectly with Boston's fast-pace offense, and JYD, the consummate rebounding/gritty kind of role player. And a shot at a top player next year, in addition to their own pick this year, who should be in the high lottery, and their high pick next year. It might mean three lottery picks in two years, and toss in Detroit's 1st rounder this year as well. A lot of young talent for Ainge to play with.

As for us, are there enough shots for both Crawford and Pierce? Can they complement each other? Yes. Crawford still has the PG vision and mentality to pass the ball, and he still takes most of his shots from outside. With Pierce on the other wing, Crawford can create for him, or be the #2 guy for Hinrich to look for after Pierce.

And if Curry continues to develop into a post beast, theoretically this should be a killer offensive inside-outside team.

The lineup kind of lacks some of the rugged defense that we need, but still. I'm willing to sacrifice Chandler for Pierce.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Stop eating glue, its bad for you.


Another example of why Jesus is incredibly underrated in this league of ours


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Since we're playing make believe, let's do a Jamal S&T (6.0M starting) + Chandler + 2M filler for Paul Pierce and a swap of #1 picks.

Take Ryan Gomes with Boston's pick, probably in the #10-12 range. His game reminds me some of Jamison, but I will give him the edge on defense and athleticism, and Jamison the edge on outside shooting. Either way, this kid's stock is rising fast.

Kirk-Pierce-Curry-Gomes-MLE player
eRob-JYD-AD-vet PG


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Signing and trading Crawford would be difficult, if not impossible, according to ****'s Cap FAQ. According to Larry:
> 
> Under no circumstances can a team sign and then trade another team's free agent. But there is a special rule that allows teams to re-sign their own free agents for trading purposes, called the sign-and-trade rule. Under the sign-and-trade rule, the player is re-signed and immediately traded to another team. This is done by adding a clause to the contract which stipulates that the contract is invalid if the player's rights are not traded to the specific team within 48 hours.
> ...


Good stuff man. I'll have to rule out Jamal in my make believe trades from now on


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Here's some thoughts:

1) Isn't a Jamal sign-and-trade is unlikely because it would be hard to get his presumably BYC salary to match up with Pierce, even including other players. Plus, Jamal would have to agree to any such deal, and I don't see any reason to think he would. Too many factors at play there to make it a realistic scenario. For all practical purposes, I don't think Jamal can be on the table for trade/planning purposes for this reason (in any deal).

The only things to plan for are either A) We let him walk or B) We re-sign him.

2) Option B is pretty clearly more preferable. Whatever you think are Jamal's faults, we aren't going to get better by letting talented young players leave for nothing. Since we're out of other options, the only option we have to is to re-sign him almost without regard to what he commands. Personally though, I'm not worried he'll command too much... I don't think other teams will make a huge offer.

Anyway, the bottom line is that we should plan on Jamal being here and it is totally within our power to keep him.

3) That being said, it explains why a guy like Pierce is an option and Ray Allen, even if he's on the table, isn't. Pierce, Jamal, and Kirk can play on the court together for significant minutes, I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure Ray, Jamal, and Kirk can't. Thus, in terms of fit, if Pierce isn't the guy we go after with everything we can, the guy we do go after should at least, like Pierce, be able to play at both the two and the 3.

4) So what does this analysis leave us as options for getting Pierce (or another such guy)? Curry, Chandler, our pick, future picks, and some value we might give by taking on worse contracts for better ones. If Pippen will truly retire and not take salary, it might be that he becomes a valuable trading chip- could we trade him to say Boston, where he immediately retires and comes off the books, allowing them another $5M in free agency?

Looking at things realistically, I could imagine us giving up two of those three (and cap filler- ERob and a soon to retire Pippen?) to get Pierce.

Question then is what makes the most sense to give up (and what would other teams most want)? Think of what we would have in our frontcourt depending on who we gave away:

Curry, Pick leaves us with:
4- AD, JYD, Fizer
5- Chandler, Blount

Chandler, Pick leaves us with:
4- AD, JYD, Fizer
5- Curry, Blount

Curry, Chandler leaves us with:
4- Okafor/Howard?, JYD, Blount
5- AD, Blount

We're not exactly thin up front in any of these cases. Honestly, I'm not sure we wouldn't be better off in the long-run picking a guy like Howard. He looks more like a Garnett clone (which is what Tyson was hyped to be) than Tyson ever did.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Signing and trading Crawford would be difficult, if not impossible, according to ****'s Cap FAQ. According to Larry:
> 
> Under no circumstances can a team sign and then trade another team's free agent. But there is a special rule that allows teams to re-sign their own free agents for trading purposes, called the sign-and-trade rule. Under the sign-and-trade rule, the player is re-signed and immediately traded to another team. This is done by adding a clause to the contract which stipulates that the contract is invalid if the player's rights are not traded to the specific team within 48 hours.
> ...


You don't make sense.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#72

<FONT COLOR=0000ff>Here is an example of a BYC calculation: A player earned $2 million in 99-00, after which he became a free agent. Prior to the start of the 00-01 season, he signs a new contract (re-signing with his previous team, which is over the salary cap) starting at $9 million. This player qualifies for BYC, so his trade value is the greater of his previous salary ($2 million) or 50% of his new salary ($4.5 million), or $4.5 million. So this player, who actually earns $9 million, is worth $4.5 million for trading purposes. </FONT>

So if we sign&trade Crawford and sign him to a $9M contract, he'd be $4.5M in trade value. 

The only hangup I can see is that we'd have to add a 2nd player with $4.5M in trade value to get back a $9M contract in return.

Where's the beef?


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> You don't make sense.
> ...


Dude, I'm totally with you. *I* said that exact thing in another thread, but someone pointed out to me that this was really silly. I'm not sure why, but I think it was convincing. But after poring over the **** FAQ, my only conclusion is this:

To S&T a player off of a rookie contract, you just have to 

a) sign him for a ridiculous amount of money;

b) have two teams over the cap; and

c) find a trading partner that doesn't mind being significantly MORE over the cap and increasing his overall sum of salaries.

I think Boston might work as that type of trading partner. But the whole point of BYC is to make it tough for these types of trades to happen. 

For instance, Boston is paying Pierce 12.6 mil next year. Let's say we sign Crawford to a 9 mil contract, which will count for 4.5 in a trade.

If we add up Crawford, JYD, and ERob, and say we took Atkins and Jumaine Jones off their hands (we'd want at least Welsch, but I'd probably do the deal like this), then the Celtics have lost a total of 70.1 mil in total contract value in Atkins, Jones, and Pierce (if he exercised his PO in 07/08). They take between 95 and 100 million back in total contract value (if Crawford starts at 9 mil a year and gets 6 years, that K will probably be worth around 60-65 mil). That's almost 30 mil more in salary that you are strapping them.

Not to mention, it hurts them about $4.5 mil next year just because they decided to make the trade. Basically, Crawford's expensive signing hurts them because in order to get his services, they have to pay 2 bucks for every dollar they are paying their current guys. They'd have to balance that out with talent value, i.e. Crawford is WORTH twice as much as some of these guys they are trading. But letting go of a franchise player like Pierce... it doesn't seem like they are getting a HUGE advantage in talent, currently or over the long haul. JYD and ERob aren't going to blow up into stars. 

The only way the C's would pull this trade is if we threw in a 2005 first-round pick, which has infinite talent value compared to its trade price ($0). And I think I'd still pull that trade were I the Bulls... after this year's pick, we'll have enough youth to deal with, and with the addition of Pierce, we should instantly be a playoff contender in the midst of all these rebuilding teams.

I agree with you, DaBullz, but I think the argument against trading BYC players was pretty strong. If only I could remember just exactly what it was...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

OK, you guys are pretty far off here. Showtyme, the total value over the life of the contract isn't what matters... just the salary in a given year.

If Jamal signed a contract for $9M next season, his BYC value would be $4.5M.

What this means is that we, as the team trading him, could accept back $4.5M in salary for him. *However, the team acquiring him still has to make room for the entire $9M.*

For instance, let's assume Boston and Chicago will both be over the cap. 

To take back Paul Pierce's $12.6M salary, the Bulls have to trade away about $10.71M (incoming salary has be be within 15% of the salary traded away).

ERob is due about $6.7M so if the Bulls were to sign Crawford for $9M and make his BYC value $4.5M, this would mean the Bulls are trading away $11.2M, which would be enough to accomodate Pierce's coming back.

However, the problem breaks down when you come over to Boston's side. There, they're trading away Pierce at $12.6M and have to be within 15% of that total. That's a range of basically $10.7-14.49M However, remember that the team receiving the BYC player has to accomodate his full amount. Thus, for the Celtics, Crawford counts the full $9M, putting he and ERob together at some $15.7M. This is outside the 15% so the trade is declined.

Now it might be possible to expand this deal (adding more players and salary) enough to fit in the margins, but it's clear that as it stands it couldn't be done.

It's also hardly clear why the Celtics would want Jamal at $9M or why Jamal would agree to such a move unless he got no other offers. Say, for example, he gets $9M offers for the Clippers, Hawks, Jazz, and Celtics... why would he choose the Celtics just to help us out.

That's the bigger problem and that was my point earlier. A sign and trade of Crawford is a lot harder to do because it adds an order of magnitude of uncertainty and agreements to be required before the deal can be done. Not the kind of thing you want to plan your off-season around.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

i just wanna comment about Ray Allen Being better then Pierce and Iverson and Nowitzki, now Allen is a hell of a player and comparable to pierce and is an allstar, but hes not better then Iverson and Nowitzki, But i would still love to have Ray Allen on the bulls.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> OK, you guys are pretty far off here. Showtyme, the total value over the life of the contract isn't what matters... just the salary in a given year.


Yeah, I know, it's just that for the Celtics organization as a whole, I think they'd care that they commit $30 mil in total contracts to lose their best player.. it would take some degree of faith in Crawford to pull it. I know that it doesn't have bearing on the trade.



> For instance, let's assume Boston and Chicago will both be over the cap.
> 
> To take back Paul Pierce's $12.6M salary, the Bulls have to trade away about $10.71M (incoming salary has be be within 15% of the salary traded away).
> 
> ...


I had a feeling this was what someone said once (and I think it was you). This is a really big issue... NCBullsFan anywhere?

I think you're right on that. The trade salaries are not used when they invoke the 115% + 100k rule under the CBA.

BYC players are pretty much untradeable unless their last year's salary is fairly close to what you are getting back.


----------



## lochdoun (Jun 11, 2003)

From a Celtics POV it will take ALOT to get Pierce. He is not as available as you may think. Eddie Curry, a swap of no 1 picks, and cash might get it done however...

I do agree that Pierce would help the Bulls and Curry would give the C's a dominant big man.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lochdoun</b>!
> From a Celtics POV it will take ALOT to get Pierce. He is not as available as you may think. Eddie Curry, a swap of no 1 picks, and cash might get it done however...
> 
> I do agree that Pierce would help the Bulls and Curry would give the C's a dominant big man.


Deal!


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

You guys are dreaming with these deals, sorry you think you are gonna get our allstar, not lose a first round pick (just swap them), keep all your young studs and steal Welsch, What are you guys smoking?


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

You have to see where Boston are invested and then work back from there 

There is this notion that you'd have to give up Crawford and that Boston would want him 

Why ?

They have Marcus Banks and Jiri Welsh that are ball handling guards not to mention the fact Ricky Davis handles the ball - a lot 

In terms of their guard rotation ( assuming they dealt Pierce ) all they really need to do is acquire a defensive guard who can play back up point minutes say like Anthony Johnson, Erick Strickland, Damon Jones , Mike James ( Whoops they traded him ) etc etc 

I don't see them dealing Banks or Welsh to make way for Crawford and I don't see them adding a 3rd young guard to this mix who is physically a bit light on .. the order would call for a chunky sturdy defensive minded vet point 

Ricky Davis is your primary scorer in the event of Pierce being shipped and he plays across the 3 and 2 spots as Pierce does 

In order to shore up your wing position .. you would probably want someone like Luol Deng through the draft ... the thinking being you need a bigger more robust forward who can genuinely handle the bigger 3's on defense . 

Let's say Boston end up with a top 5 pick of their own .. they pick Deng at #5 if he is there .

You then look at the guard / swing / perimeter attack and its amply covered 

*

Luol Deng , Jumaine Jones
Ricky Davis, Erick Strickland 
Jiri Welsch , Marcus Banks

*

That's a big guard / swing guard - forward line up . A good combination of scorers , shooters, ball handlers who can get their own shot , speed and defense ( save for Ricky Davis ) 

And all they have to do is acquire Deng with their own pick and knock down Erick Strickland or Charlie Ward's door - and if their not home , Anthony Johnson or Damon Jones. Easy. Oh and they have Chucky Atkins . Yay.

Why would Crawford be needed as part of a package for Pierce again ?

Looking at the power positions ... they have Mihm, LaFrentz, M.Blount, Stewart and a couple of young prospects in Perkins and Hunter

Bottom line ?

They need a pretty big makeover of their front line . Keep Perkins and Hunter as your young prospects and keep Mihm who is pretty underrated and who plays across the two front court positions and is a better defender than he gets credit for . The rest can go .. and will go in time ( Blount and Stewart will run off the books and/or not get playing time 

So any trade for Pierce , I think , has to have someone willing to take LaFrentz and relieves Boston of that contract with a shorter contract

* The deal therefore , in rationality, based on needs and complementary player mixes etc , should be :

Antonio Davis , Tyson Chandler and our pick ( assume top 3 ) for Paul Pierce and Raef LaFrentz *

I would then offer Stromile Swift swift the anticipated $5.1M in MLE money to see whether he would come play for us 

*

Curry
Swift
Pierce
Crawford
Hinrich

bench

LaFrentz
Williams
Robinson
Gill
Anthony Johnson ( vet minimum FA signing ) 

*

BOSTON

Go young and start over and balance up positionally with talent 

*

Podzolkine ( with their say #5 pick )
Chandler
Deng ( with our say #3 pick )
Davis
Welsch

bench 

Mihm 
Davis
Jumaine Jones 
E.Strickland ( trade or vet minimum signing )
Banks

*

That's an infinitely better structure than what they have right now


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Pierce, Perkins, and Lafrentz for Eddy, AD, and ERob and our draft pick.

Our core? 
Pierce/Jamal/Kirk/Tyson

Boston gets shorter contracts in AD and ERob as well as a big block in Eddy plus our draft pick. 

But I can't help but feel that we're putting ourselves in a tough position for the future with our core. Nor do I think it's enough to get Pierce.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

AD's contract is shorter than Raef's, right?

but I really don't want to touch Raef.

I'm not sure how we could get something done with Boston without giving up half the team, and if I'm in Boston's shoes, I don't give up a 2nd-tier superstar like Pierce unless that's exactly what I got in return. Boston could use more help up front and Curry and/or Chandler would be a very nice carrot, but i'm not sure that would get it done unless we coughed up some serious draft picks as well.


----------



## WXHOOPS (Jan 15, 2004)

In order to get Pierce, Curry and Crawford would have to go to Boston. Ainge ain't going to let him go for nothing.


----------



## jbs (May 4, 2003)

I have to agree with whiterino. The Celtics won't give Pierce away. FJ_of _Rockaway is also correct, what we need is frontcourt help. 
What about Pierce, LaFrentz for Curry, Chandler, Pippen and Eddie Robinson? You would keep your precious 1st round pick and get rid of two bad contracts and we'd get two promising frontcourt players instead.

From realgm.com:
"Boston trades:
SG Paul Pierce
(23.0 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 5.1 apg in 38.5 minutes)
C Raef LaFrentz
(7.8 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 1.4 apg in 19.3 minutes)

Boston receives:
SF Eddie Robinson
(7.1 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 1.2 apg in 20.9 minutes)
SF Scottie Pippen
(5.9 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 2.2 apg in 17.9 minutes)
PF Tyson Chandler
(8.5 ppg, 8.3 rpg, 0.8 apg in 23.4 minutes)
C Eddy Curry
(13.6 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 0.9 apg in 27.8 minutes)

Change in team outlook: +4.3 ppg, +8.3 rpg, and -1.4 apg.

Chicago trades:
SF Eddie Robinson
(7.1 ppg, 2.2 rpg, 1.2 apg in 20.9 minutes)
SF Scottie Pippen
(5.9 ppg, 3.0 rpg, 2.2 apg in 17.9 minutes)
PF Tyson Chandler
(8.5 ppg, 8.3 rpg, 0.8 apg in 23.4 minutes)
C Eddy Curry
(13.6 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 0.9 apg in 27.8 minutes)

Chicago receives:
SG Paul Pierce
(23.0 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 5.1 apg in 58 games)
C Raef LaFrentz
(7.8 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 1.4 apg in 17 games)

Change in team outlook: -4.3 ppg, -8.3 rpg, and +1.4 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED
Due to Boston and Chicago being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. Boston and Chicago had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

You have been assigned Trade ID number 1537397"


----------



## lastlaugh (Oct 30, 2003)

Danny Ainge is not trading Paul Pierce.

A few fans have wanted it but I have not heard one rumor about Pierce being on the trade block. It's wishful thinking on the parts of many Celtics fans who are sick of his lack of hussle on the court.

The only way Pierce gets traded is if we get Shaq in return. If Ainge doesn't bring us title number 17 he gets hung by his fingernails from the Zakum bridge if he trades Pierce.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>lastlaugh</b>!
> Danny Ainge is not trading Paul Pierce.
> 
> A few fans have wanted it but I have not heard one rumor about Pierce being on the trade block. It's wishful thinking on the parts of many Celtics fans who are sick of his lack of hussle on the court.
> ...


On the Celtics board, lastlaugh dismisses Paul Pierce's 21-21 FT in the playoffs last year as "choking". He also believes that the only reason Pierce was known as Mr. Fourth Quarter for the last three years is because "the players on that team allowed him to be". Apparently, the only reason Pierce became a superstar was because "other people allowed him to be one".

Sweet deal!


----------



## lastlaugh (Oct 30, 2003)

How old are you?
Stop whining here at the Bulls board and go back to whining on the Celtics board.
The Bulls fans don't want to listen to your Pierce obsession.




> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> On the Celtics board, lastlaugh dismisses Paul Pierce's 21-21 FT in the playoffs last year as "choking". He also believes that the only reason Pierce was known as Mr. Fourth Quarter for the last three years is because "the players on that team allowed him to be". Apparently, the only reason Pierce became a superstar was because "other people allowed him to be one".
> ...


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Coming from a guy who thinks Antoine "I can't make a free throw with under 5 minutes left to save my life" Walker is a better clutch player than the person described by the entire freaking basketball media as Mr. Fourth Quarter, I find your above post exquisitely amusing.

Sweet deal!


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>lastlaugh</b>!
> 
> 
> The only way Pierce gets traded is if we get Shaq in return. If Ainge doesn't bring us title number 17 he gets hung by his fingernails from the Zakum bridge if he trades Pierce.


*Drumroll*

Ever considered just _why_ this is the case? Perhaps Pierce is *gasp!* better than you give him credit for being?

He is, afterall, a superstar.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jbs</b>!
> I have to agree with whiterino. The Celtics won't give Pierce away. FJ_of _Rockaway is also correct, what we need is frontcourt help.
> What about Pierce, LaFrentz for Curry, Chandler, Pippen and Eddie Robinson? You would keep your precious 1st round pick and get rid of two bad contracts and we'd get two promising frontcourt players instead.


I might be in the minority of Bulls fans, but I would strongly consider that. I might request that less awful contracts than LaFrentz come back, but it's also true that Raef got a bad rep in Boston mostly because of his injury. If healthy and we pair him with Okafor, Howard, or Stromile Swift, we'd be in good shape. Especially with JYD, Blount, and AD still available to come off the bench.

LaFrentz, AD, Pierce, Crawford, Hinrich... yeah, that could be a basketball team full of smart talented players. Add in Stephen Jackson and Okafor, Deng, Howard, or Josh Smith coming in and we're looking pretty nice.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

...as long as you don't try to tell us that Stephen Jackson fits into the "smart" category.  

I agree that the above deal might be the fairest one proposed, given what the young bigs have (not yet) accomplished to this point. It's just hard to imagine trading BOTH of them away, given how we've waited, most of us fairly patiently, for them to be the foundation of a winning team. these guys have been sold so aggressively as our "future" that it's hard to picture a hypothetical winning Bulls team that doesn't include at least one of them.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I dunno, man.

I'd want at least ONE proven frontcourt player that's still somewhat younger. A guy like Shareef or something. 

Or even better, a guy like Rasheed.

Pierce and an average frontcourt... that's like the Boston Celtics of 2000-2002. It's not the championship formula, and LaFrentz + AD isn't going to cut it. Even if we get Okafor, it won't be enough, I don't think. 

I'd consider that trade if they threw in THEIR 1st rounder next year. If we had a new Twin Towers growing, I'd be into it (i.e. Okafor + Pavel).

If we re-sign Fizer (and I'm a Fizer fan) I think this could work out. Fizer + LaFrentz or Fizer + Okafor... that's a pretty good combo. It's enough for Pierce to work with.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Considering that Pierce is a top 10-15 NBA player, don't expect to get much in addition to him...

I think this is a pipe dream that Bulls fans need to live alone...

Pierce isn't going anywhere unless another superstar is going the way of the Celtics...

Let's not get caught up in the Antoine deal, Ainge just wanted him gone, that's why that bad deal was made...

He's not making another one on Pierce.

Hey here's our 3 bags of a trash plus a future middle first rd pick (which it will be after Pierce leads us to the playoffs), for your franchise player...

Sign right here Danny next to the line that says complete tool...

Let's be more realistic than that...


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

To be honest almost any deal that would bring us PP is a good one for us.
In my list he's a top 5 player,mostly because what he can do in crunch time...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Celtics fans give their opinion...

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=80452&forumid=34


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

I'd try to get Allen first before trying to get Pierce.

I think Allen and Pierce are at the same level. Pierce is the better scorer, but Allen IMO is the better leader. Pierce struggles after Walker left Boston, while Allen so far has done a great job in replacing Payton as a leader of the Sonics.

The Bulls need a leader and Allen is the perfect guy for the job. What I like about him is he makes the Sonics a better team than many people think. Other than that, with AD, Eddy, and JYD, Allen would have the post pressence that he asks for in Seattle (low post scoring, toughness, and rebounding). Hinrich and Allen would be a very good backcourt duo.

One other point why acquiring Allen is more likely is that we have the players the Sonics want. We know that the Sonics is interested in bringing Jamal home. We have the talented big men they need in Eddy and Tyson (I'd keep Eddy). The Sonics could use JYD too.

I think Jamal + Tyson + JYD/Fizer for Allen + a filler would be a good trade for both side. The Sonics filler is probably more likely to be either Daniels or Murray since their backcourt is pretty stacked.

Then, on draft night, if we get the #1 pick, we pick Okafor. If not and Deng is available, get Deng.

The Bulls would look like:

C - Curry/AD/Blount
PF - Okafor/JYD or Fizer
SF - Erob/Pippen/Dupree
SG - Allen/Gill/Murray or Daniels
PG - Hinrich/Murray or Daniels/Brunson

or

C - Curry/AD/Blount
PF - JYD or Fizer/AD
SF - Deng/Pippen/Dupree
SG - Allen/Gill/Murray or Daniels
PG - Hinrich/Murray or Daniels/Brunson

I personally like the team with Okafor better.

So, I'd go with Allen first before Pierce. I've seen a lot of Ray Allen here in Seattle and from what I've seen, he's definitely in Pierce level.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

nice idea. 
Ray Allen might be a notch below Pierce, though. Plus, Pierce can play small forward and better defense. I would really rather have pierce.

I really like this idea though. Jamal + Tyson + JYD/Fizer for Allen + a filler ? sign me up. 

Of course, if we dont get Okafor, I really don't like our starter at PF. It all depends on what pick we get.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rwj333</b>!
> nice idea.
> Ray Allen might be a notch below Pierce, though. Plus, Pierce can play small forward and better defense. I would really rather have pierce.
> 
> ...


I might be bias about Ray Allen since he's my favorite player and he's playing for the Sonics, my hometeam. To me, he's Pierce calibre. If others disagree, I'm fine. Because I know Pierce is a big time clutch NBA star. Also, I agree Pierce has better size and better defender.

But, there is one more thing why I choose Allen over Pierce. Allen has shown in the past that he can coexist with other star players while still playing up to his capability (see The Bucks Big 3). And when he's given the role as a leader he shows everybody that he can lead a team. He proved everybody that he is more than just a shooter and he can lead a team.

This is a good thing if hopefully later Eddy finally becomes the number 1 player on the team and our 2005 rookie emerges where Allen probably have to accept a reduction of role. Allen have shown in the past that he can be the second or third option but still effective. And IMO he'll have no problem doing it again if this situation occurs. He can step up his game if he has too.

I'm not saying that Paul Pierce can't do what Allen does. Pierce is a great player and like a lot of people say he is probably a notch above Allen. But, Allen have shown everybody that he can do so much things and play different roles. From being labeled as a shooter to averaging 20-5-5. From one third of the Big 3 to a team leader.

Besides, if that contract extension issue is true, he's more gettable than Pierce. And also we don't have to gamble on sending potential stars like Jamal and Eddy to our Eastern Conference rival the Boston Celtics.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Sign right here Danny next to the line that says complete tool...
> 
> Let's be more realistic than that...


Would you trade your starting point guard, pulling you out of close games by his ability in the 4th quarter and an expiring contract that people are after for... Chucky Atkins and a really low 1st rounder?

We have more than Chucky Atkins to offer, and our 1st rounder is pretty high. I'm pretty sure we can grab Pierce from Ainge if we wanted to. Just dangle Chandler and Crawford, and our 2005 pick.

Pierce is gettable.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RSP83</b>!
> 
> I'm not saying that Paul Pierce can't do what Allen does. Pierce is a great player and like a lot of people say he is probably a notch above Allen. But, Allen have shown everybody that he can do so much things and play different roles. From being labeled as a shooter to averaging 20-5-5. From one third of the Big 3 to a team leader.
> 
> Besides, if that contract extension issue is true, he's more gettable than Pierce. And also we don't have to gamble on sending potential stars like Jamal and Eddy to our Eastern Conference rival the Boston Celtics.


This is very palatable, and accurate. I think Allen is more gettable, and very skilled. I'd say he might even have better conventional skills than Pierce as far as shooting and athleticism. But Pierce has more basketball IQ, leadership, etc.

That being said, I'd pass on Allen unless we could rob Seattle.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I dont think the Celts would want Crawford because they have Ricky Davis and welsh already they would want cap relief,quality bigs and draft picks .

There have been some very good ideas mentioned in this thread we just need to remember that for Jamal to S & T he would have to agree and I dont know of any player that would agree to such a trade to Bsoton that has Pierce leaving .Because who really volunteer to go rebuild in Boson and be the player they traded Pierce for .  I think Crawford would take less money for a better situation that that one .


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

Anyone who thinks that BULLS can get PP without Kirk being involved in the deal is totally delusional. The post involving Pierce, Perkins and Lafrentz to the Bulls for crap is laughable. Why would we want Eddy when a good core of Bulls fans don't want him?

Pierce is loved in Boston. JC is going to walk away for nothing so how could he be involved. We could possibly sign him on our own. We don't want EROB or the oft-injured Chandler.

I would trade Pierce for Kirk, Chandler, and Erob if the contracts work.

I mean come on guys, try and be at least a little bit realstic. Ainge is not going to get snake-bitten twice after getting hosed on the Walker deal. Both of his other trades have been solid B-B+'s for the C's


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

But Pat , do you really need further guard strength ( particularly at point - hence your call for Kirk ? ) 

I mean I would do your trade straight up and retain Crawford , play Pierce at the 2 and use our pick to acquire Luol Deng if he there and just play AD and JYD at the 4 with Curry upfront being backed by Corie Blount

As good as Kirk is .. do you really need him with Banks, Welsh and Davis ?

Would you not be better served picking up a top notch back up defensive point like Charlie Ward or Anthony Johnson?

Would you not consider : Davis , Chandler and Deng ( if we drafted him for you ) for Pierce and NoFrentz?

I honestly think that this trade gives you two young stud forwards to work with going forward who conceivably could be your forward line for the next 10 - 12 years and then you have the underrated Chris Mihm at Center and vets Antonio Davis (tougher and steelier than Raef the Waif and 3 years shorter in contract tenure ) Mark Blount and Walter backing them up .. and you still have young projects , Kendrick and Brandon .... plus you still have your own draft pick to take a plunge on Podzolkine 

* Upfront *

Podzolkine , Chandler , Deng

Mihm, Davis , Jumaine Jones

Perkins, Blount 

* Back court *

Welsh , Davis 

Banks, Anthony Johnson ( vet min pick up ) 

Chucky Atkins

Is parting with Pierce worth it to balance your team and go with youth and rebuilding sprinkled with a couple of tough old vets whereby you could put a team on the floor of 

*

Podzolkine ( 7'3 )
Chandler ( 7'2 ) 
Deng ( 6'8 ) 
Welsh (6'7 )
Banks ( 6'2 ) 

6th man : Ricky Davis ( scoring from the bench ) ( 6'7 )

*


In two seasons you would have Antonio Davis off the books (your only big contact remaining ) and manageable payroll with young talent

Is dealing Pierce in this circumstance worth it ?


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Essentially the way you got to look at it is 

Davis for No Frentz 

and 

A #2 pick ( Chandler ) and say a #3 pick ( Deng ) for Pierce 

plus the salary relief you get in the Davis / NoFrentz swap 

plus the fact that the Celts are ( in theory ) a better positionally covered / balanced team


----------



## honk4tad (Feb 18, 2004)

> Pierce is the better scorer, but Allen IMO is the better leader. Pierce struggles after Walker left Boston, while Allen so far has done a great job in replacing Payton as a leader of the Sonics.


Paul Pierce plays ball with a bunch of YMCA all-stars and Raef LaFrentz. What's there for him to lead? You give him the Sonics roster, and I guarantee you he wins more than Ray "Ouch, I have a hang-nail" Allen.

CHRIST, somebody get ol' Pauly Pierce some help. It's so, so sad.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> But Pat , do you really need further guard strength ( particularly at point - hence your call for Kirk ? )
> 
> I mean I would do your trade straight up and retain Crawford , play Pierce at the 2 and use our pick to acquire Luol Deng if he there and just play AD and JYD at the 4 with Curry upfront being backed by Corie Blount
> ...


When a team has a chance to acquire a player of such talent, character and ethic as Hinrich early in their career, you jump at it


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I think Hinrich is the best trade bait we have right now...

Pat Bateman...

Great posts man.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PatBateman</b>!
> Anyone who thinks that BULLS can get PP without Kirk being involved in the deal is totally delusional. The post involving Pierce, Perkins and Lafrentz to the Bulls for crap is laughable. Why would we want Eddy when a good core of Bulls fans don't want him?
> 
> Pierce is loved in Boston. JC is going to walk away for nothing so how could he be involved. We could possibly sign him on our own. We don't want EROB or the oft-injured Chandler.
> ...


Bingo, Bravo, Superb, Truer words have never been spoken. can I say anymore?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Kirk is untouchable .Pax would trade away the entire team before he listens to offers for kirk .He would want multiple #1's from boston in addition to Pierce .We are not gonna get cheated on this deal .


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> Kirk is untouchable .Pax would trade away the entire team before he listens to offers for kirk .He would want multiple #1's from boston in addition to Pierce .We are not gonna get cheated on this deal .


Please...

This is beyond ridiculous...

Pax loves Kirk, but let's not act like he's a top 10-15 player...

Don't see how getting Pierce, we get "cheated"...

That's insane thinking...

Agreed with many of your posts today, but this is not even close to being one of them.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

I'm still not sure why Boston would be so enamored with Hinrich as to trade a superstar for him and Chandler when they've got a lottery pick rookie PG with a good deal of potential in their lineup now. The more I think about this the more out there it seems. I doubt the C's will give him up for anything less than both Chandler and Curry, or possibly one of them plus this year's No. 1. But you never know, maybe Ainge wants to completely blow the team up and start from scratch, he has said he wants to build through the draft.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I agree with posters saying Kirk would be part of it.Ainge will want him and if he's dumb enough to give PP up he'll get whatever he wants and we got.
PP is not Jalen and not Toine,he's a franchise,one of top crunchtime guys,a player to build around.

It would be VERY sad to give Kirk+++ but if we get Truth so it's sure worth it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> I agree with posters saying Kirk would be part of it.Ainge will want him and if he's dumb enough to give PP up he'll get whatever he wants and we got.
> PP is not Jalen and not Toine,he's a franchise,one of top crunchtime guys,a player to build around.
> 
> It would be VERY sad to give Kirk+++ but if we get Truth so it's sure worth it.


The club needs a superstar. No one wants to see Kirk go. Myself included. But on a team this bad, there is no such thing as an untouchable player. We have to start somewhere. and we can only do that with a superstar. Kirk is not a superstar.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> The club needs a superstar. No one wants to see Kirk go. Myself included. But on a team this bad, there is no such thing as an untouchable player. We have to start somewhere. and we can only do that with a superstar. Kirk is not a superstar.


Agree rlucas - PP in my list top 5 player,build around him.
during the season i even wrote I'd agree to trade all 3 c's for PP(only to keep Kirk)but I'm quite sure Ainge will at least want Kirk in the package(a big one)if he gives us Truth.
I think in the draft we cannot find a PP caliber and Deng is not a great scorer(but a very good one)- we needed someone like Mello,a scorer.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

The other attractive thing about Pierce is that he's just 26, only one year older than Kobe and two years older than TMac. I know some people on this board have envisioned scenarios where the Bulls might get them. With Pierce you've got a player in their mold.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> The other attractive thing about Pierce is that he's just 26, only one year older than Kobe and two years older than TMac. I know some people on this board have envisioned scenarios where the Bulls might get them. With Pierce you've got a player in their mold.


wow... I thought he was older, too. at least 28. 

I would give up Hinrich and Chandler and filler, or Hinrich and Our Pick and Filler in a second. Then, resign Jamal to play the point where he plays better anyways.

I just don't see how Hinrich Chandler and Eddie Robinson would be enough.  Isn't Pierce worth more than that?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> The other attractive thing about Pierce is that he's just 26, only one year older than Kobe and two years older than TMac. I know some people on this board have envisioned scenarios where the Bulls might get them. With Pierce you've got a player in their mold.


The Genghis Khan fact of the week. It never ceases to amaze me the stuff you can learn on a basketball measure board


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

I know a scenario where you might not have to give up Hinrich or the pick. Some of you probably won't like it because you'd have to part ways with Curry and Chandler. Here is my proposition:

*Chicago trades* 
E. Curry
T. Chandler
E. Robison

*Chicago receives* 
P. Pierce
J. Jones

*Boston trades* 
P. Pierce
C. Mihm

*Boston receives*
E. Curry
T. Chandler
E. Robison

If you're parting ways with both Curry and Chandler you won't have to give up Hinrich. However, I'm not sure if Boston would go for it without the pick. If they did, you guys would have a solid core. Pierce is a superstar and a legitimate top 10 player in the league. Mihm isn't great but he is a 7 footer and is capable of starting at C. You give up the young guys but you part ways with Robinson and his ridiculous contract. Again, it's probably unlikely that Boston does this but I've seen worse deals. Here is you new starting lineup:

PG-Hinrich
SG-Pierce
SF-#1 pick
PF-Williams
C-Mihm

That isn't a great lineup by any stretch of the imagination but it allows you to be competitive while you're rebuilding. Since Pierce is young I think you can afford to accumulate talent for 2-3 years. You might even sneak into the playoffs once or twice. Just get AD and Pipp's contract off the books and you're set.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> I know a scenario where you might not have to give up Hinrich or the pick. Some of you probably won't like it because you'd have to part ways with Curry and Chandler. Here is my proposition:
> 
> *Chicago trades*
> ...


I'd do this deal in a second if I were the Bulls, especially if Okafor were available with the pick. You'd have 3 pieces set for years to come (assuming Okafor pans out, and I see absolutely no reason why he wouldn't, he seems to be about as much of a sure thing as you can find in the draft). I'm not sure if Crawford (if he re-signed) would be able to coexist with Pierce and accept a lesser role or not, but it's a possibility. Pierce could play the 3 with how physical, and how good a rebounder he is, and Crawford could play the 2.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

This board is completely nuts...

I would give up KH way before I ever thought up giving up EC...

If I have to start over and I've got Pierce and Curry, I'm ready to go...


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> This board is completely nuts...
> 
> I would give up KH way before I ever thought up giving up EC...
> ...


totally agree. you don't give up bigs with talent that easily. even with his defensive liablilities and lack of intensty (for right now) i am willing to wait on Curry. I'm willling to trade Chandler, but his value can only go up right now...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rwj333</b>!
> I'm willling to trade Chandler, but his value can only go up right now...


I disagree...

His value can only go down....

It only goes up if we start seeing some 15-15 performances, and even then I'd still trade him...


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> This board is completely nuts...
> 
> I would give up KH way before I ever thought up giving up EC...
> ...


The thing is, Boston would probably much rather have Curry than Hinrich. They've already got Banks, and Welsch can even play a little point. What's the point in having 2 lottery PG's from the same draft? Unless they've completely lost hope in Banks, I think they'd be much more willing to give up Pierce for Curry and Chandler than Hinrich and Chandler, though it may be a no-go on them both.

Would you be opposed to Pinball's idea, or just would rather ship off Hinrich over Curry?


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

Chandler, Crawford signed and traded, ERob plus 2005 1st rounder unprotected and 2007 1st rounder (top 3 protected) for Pierce.

If he is available, do whatever possible to get him here.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I agree with Benny,Jamal S&t should be part of the deal if possible.
we'd have to give future picks as well.maybe even further then 2005(if they r unprotected or top 3 as benny suggested we can do it 2006,2008 picks or 2005,2008) thats because in Bryce Drew deal we'd probably loose our 2nd rounders at 2005-6,so giving our 1st as well will give us no way to improve through draft.
one more possibility is to give 2005-6 and get a mid 1st rounder from boston(although hopefully we'd be a mid 1st rounder as well).
I'd do every deal proposed if at the end we get PP,we got nothing close to him.Trade whatever u need for a superstar as truth and build around him.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I would:

Trade Hinrich in a minute to get PP!!

I would try and keep Curry. I would include Chandler in the trade. resign Crawford and call it a day. 

To get Pierce we would need to give up somebody good. 

Do I want to get rid of Hinrich? Of course not, but when a Pierce is included you have to do it!


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

Will Ainge trade Paul Pierce?

"No," he answered. "I haven't had any discussions about Paul Pierce. But in this league, there's no such thing as a player who's untradeable."

http://www.boston.com/sports/basket...rtsighted_ainge_believes_his_vision_is_clear/

Hmmmm.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan (Oct 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> Will Ainge trade Paul Pierce?
> 
> "No," he answered. "I haven't had any discussions about Paul Pierce. But in this league, there's no such thing as a player who's untradeable."
> ...


I know in the past Ainge has made comments about Paul being the only player on the Celtics roster who is absolutely untradeable (this was back when they still had Walker). Looks like he's backtracked a bit...........maybe it's a possibility afterall.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> I agree with Benny,Jamal S&t should be part of the deal if possible.


Not really possible. See about two pages earlier in this thread; Jamal would be BYC and in order to give him enough value to make the trade work, the trade will necessarily break down.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Thanks showtyme.

I'd do this one

Chicago trade the Bulls***

Boston trades the truth


----------

