# New Rumor



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

http://www.bulls4ever.com/rumors.php

This is from the same guy that broke the Marshall and Brunson signings over at the other board. He's been on point thus far.

The gist is Fizer/Crawford for Tim Thomas.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Obviously any 6'10" 240 lb forward is the prototypical Jerry Krause guy (see draft history for details), so I wouldn't be surprised if he's interested in Thomas. Fizer and Crawford for Thomas is a pretty steep price IMO, so it would seem to me there would have to be something else in the mix...

And let's here from the salary gurus. Anyone? Bueller?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

i would do it but does the salaries match? 

Remember also that milwaukee traded big dog to play thomas.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

Wow, Williams, Rose, Thomas, Chandler, Curry... with Marshall off the bench, I think that looks hot.

-Petey


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> i would do it but does the salaries match?
> 
> Remember also that milwaukee traded big dog to play thomas.


Not to worry trublue this doesnt work at all, even with Chicago being under the cap


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*Realgm trade checker does not work anymore*

but just looking at the figures...thomas comes out to a figure of "39"...while fizer AND crawford only come to 17....I would say the salaries do NOT match up..:upset: I think I would like this trade....thomas would solve ONE of our problem areas while the two they would be getting would help them in TWO areas....I do not see it happening....realistically....:sigh:


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Fizer and Crawford make just a little over 5 mill. 

Thomas, 10.750. Dont match. Has to be a big trade.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

Yeah - Thomas makes too much.

I've actually started thinking that the defensive SF might be Aaron McKei. Philly could sure use a PF that scores while Coleman is out and get a scoring back-up for Snow.

Fizer/Crawford for Aaron McKei is a sweet deal. He can back-up 3 positions when needed. 

And please don't say we're giving up too much. Fizer and Crawford aren't that good.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Guys i would love to have tim thomas but erob has to be included - which means milwaukee has to thrown in someone besides thomas- oh and by the way this guys is legit with the rumors he hasnt missed one yet-deal could look something like this

Craw
Robinson
Fizer

for

Thomas
E. Johnson


Williams,Brunson,Mason
Rose,Hassell
Thomas,Hoiberg
Chandler,Marshall,Blount,Baxter
Curry, Johnson,Bagaric

Guys we need this to happen!!


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Guys i would love to have tim thomas but erob has to be included - which means milwaukee has to thrown in someone besides thomas- oh and by the way this guys is legit with the rumors he hasnt missed one yet-deal could look something like this
> 
> Craw
> ...


Sorry but the math of this trade doesnt allow it to happen. IF Crawford and Fizer alone dont match Thomas's contract how could throwing in Robinson and johnson make the sides closer???? It dont but I feel your enthusiasm


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

He mentioned Thomas but he said it was a "defensive SF" so it could be anyone.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*those THREE for thomas works...*



> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Guys i would love to have tim thomas but erob has to be included - which means milwaukee has to thrown in someone besides thomas- oh and by the way this guys is legit with the rumors he hasnt missed one yet-deal could look something like this
> 
> Craw
> ...


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*With the roster openings....maybe*

Krause will give my alabama bud a shot...Rod Grizzard....who is presently unemployed....come on JK....DO IT!!! He will get over his injury...besides, he is not need right this moment! lol:grinning:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

If we make this trade, Fred Hoiberg will be getting most of the minutes at point guard.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*Is Tim Hardeway out there somewhere???*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> If we make this trade, Fred Hoiberg will be getting most of the minutes at point guard.


Sign him and rod grizzard...lol did ya notice I slipped him in there again??? lol:laugh:


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

*James Posey*

James Posey
Sprewel.

Both of these guys are getting mentioned as the defensive small forwards on realgm.

Thoughts?

Posey, would be nice.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

No thanks on Spreewell but Posey would be a nice addition.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

spre makes too much. 

posey 1.7 mill. Posey would be nice.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

posey would be fine. 

Eric williams? With the bad start Boston has had?

George lynch?

Mckie?


----------



## I'm Just Saying (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> http://www.bulls4ever.com/rumors.php
> 
> This is from the same guy that broke the Marshall and Brunson signings over at the other board. He's been on point thus far.
> ...


That's too much to give up for a player WE DON'T NEED AND DON'T HAVE MINUTES FOR. 

We already have Rose-Marshall-ERob-Hassell at the SF position. So with your deal we now have Rose-Marshall-ERob-Hassell-Thomas fighting for minutes at the SF. Even if Rose is strictly a SG, it's still a log jam at SF.


----------



## Bighead734 (Jul 15, 2002)

Here's pretty much what I posted at Realgm.com

Here's my list..... 

Eddie Jones- big contract, but is a good veteran defender who can score a good 15-20 ppg. 

Eddie Robinson, Marcus Fizer, and Jamal Crawford for Eddie Jones would work under the cap, but kill our bench. 

Eric Williams- good all-around role player. 

Marcus Fizer and Jamal Crawford for Eric Williams would work. For Krause to accept this a first round pick would have to be included. 

Aaron McKie- good defender, but a very long contract for a guy in his thirties. 

Jamal Crawford and Fizer for McKie would work under the cap. Again, a pick may have to be included. 

Al Harrington- the extensions of Artest and Bender may be a sign that Harrington isn't needed in Indiana. 


Fizer and Crawford for Harrington with some fillers could be a possibility. 

James Posey- good solid young player; could be a good role player 

Jamal Crawford for Posey and a 2nd rounder could work 

George Lynch- he's solid, but I don't know if the Bulls would give Fizer and/or Crawford for a package with him 

Shane Battier- this is my dream. Battier for Crawford 

anyone got anymore?



After posting this many fans agreed that Harrington would be a great addition. I really think he would be available with the extensions of Bender and Artest.

Indiana's lineup
C- Miller/Foster
PF- O'Neal/Croshere
SF- Artest/Bender/Harrington
SG- Miller/Mercer/Harrington/Freddie Jones
PG- Tinsley/Strickland

They have plenty of depth at 2 and 3


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> Obviously any 6'10" 240 lb forward is the prototypical Jerry Krause guy (see draft history for details), so I wouldn't be surprised if he's interested in Thomas. Fizer and Crawford for Thomas is a pretty steep price IMO, so it would seem to me there would have to be something else in the mix...
> 
> And let's here from the salary gurus. Anyone? Bueller?



Yeah, Thomas is a Krause kind of guy. Do you remember that Thomas came oh so close to signing with the Bulls? He was so close, in fact, that the Tribune printed that the deal was done.

That being said, I just can't see it happening salary wise. Hopefully something gets done, though, so we can get rid of Fizer and Crawford while they have some trade value left.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Nice work tech n9ne. Anything else you can give us this? for instance if it is thomas, Are other teams involved?


----------



## Lope31 (Jun 11, 2002)

I may eat my words but I don't think all our cap room is worth giving u pin a trade for Thomas


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

Following this guy's train of thought, a CBA compliant deal between the Bulls and Bucks might look like this:

Eddie Robinson ($5.7 million)
Marcus Fizer ($2.9 million)
Jamal Crawford ($2.0 million)
*TOTAL: $10.6 Million*

Tim Thomas ($10.7 million)
Kevin Ollie ($700,000)
*TOTAL: $11.4 million*

This deal couldn't be consumated until 12/15 because Ollie's under a trade restriction. But it makes sense from this perspective:

Thomas replaces Robinson at SF.
Ollie replaces Crawford as our backup PG.
Baxter replaces Fizer on the depth chart behind Chandler and Marshall at PF.

Both Thomas' and Robinson's contracts expire after the '05/'06 season. The Bulls actually save money on this deal next season:

Thomas is scheduled to make $11.8 million.
Robinson, Fizer and Crawford combined will make $12.5 million.
Ollie's a free agent and will likely be replaced by Roger Mason.

Seems like a very doable deal if you go by the numbers. 

If you want to do the bulk of the deal now, you'd ship Robinson, Fizer and Crawford to Milwaukee for Thomas right now. In December you'd do a separate deal of Ollie for Brunson. Between now and then Brunson is activated and fullfills his role as an emergency backup behind Williams and Rose. 

I think Krause considers Ollie a viable PG backup who knows the triangle. Brunson is really viewed as more of an insurance policy, not a guy who would expect to be part of a rotation.

Milwaukee should be game, given the ages of Cassell (33) and Mason (36) versus Crawford (22) and Fizer (24). Thomas (25) and Robinson (26) are basically a wash age-wise. The Bucks also become deeper with a second unit comprised of Crawford, Redd, and Fizer instead of Ollie, Redd and Caffey.

Seems like a fair deal all the way around.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

interesting Dickie! I would think it would be three people involved as you said. JK wanted Tim real bad a couple of years ago. But, They let big dog go to play thomas. I wonder if they are throwing in then towel already?

What makes this so doable for the bulls is the fact that Baxter is ready to step in, now! So by trading thse three for Tim now, actually makes us better, believe it or not.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> What makes this so doable for the bulls is the fact that Baxter is ready to step in, now!


You sure about that?


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> Following this guy's train of thought, a CBA compliant deal between the Bulls and Bucks might look like this:
> 
> Eddie Robinson ($5.7 million)
> ...



I would do this trade. Knowing Krause he'll probably insist on a conditional 2nd rounder thrown into the mix. But why would we have to wait for Dec. 15 though, if the Bucks waived Ollie today nobody would pick him up. We could trade for Thomas and the Bucks would agree to waive Ollie, knowing we're the only team who would snatch him up.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> 
> 
> You sure about that?


I think that he is. I have only seen him play four or five times but he has looked good every time.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

How about Chris Mills? Is he hurt? He makes 6 mill and is off the books after this year.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

If the Bulls are under the cap, that is also where they could make up difference for the money...

-Petey


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

I know Thomas hasn't put up the kind of numbers you'd expect from a guy making $11 million, but he's not getting a lot of shots, either. Allen and Cassell are both averaging 15 shots per game compared to Thomas' 9. Still, he's shooting 47% and averaging over 5rpg in 30 minutes of playing time. My guess is he'll get more than 9 shots per game with the Bulls. BTW, he's also averaging 2 steals and 1.3 blocks per game which makes him the kind of ball hawk that Cartwright should like.

This deal makes a lot of sense and it's eerily reminiscent of last year's Rose deal. 

One final thought: There's been some concern expressed that the Bulls roster is loaded with too many players who still have their careers ahead of them. I think most would agree that despite what they say to the press, Robinson, Fizer and Crawford all believe they should be starting. And who can blame them? You're on a team that won a mere 21 games last year. Of course you think you should be a starter on this team. This trade eliminates almost all the potential pouting that might happen if things stay as they are.

As for Marshall, he'd continue his pursuit of the 6th Man Award as the primary backup to both forward slots.

Lets do it!


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> Following this guy's train of thought, a CBA compliant deal between the Bulls and Bucks might look like this:
> 
> Eddie Robinson ($5.7 million)
> ...


Great idea Dickie.

I do this trade in a heartbeat. Crawford and Fizer are not part of the long-term plan for the Bulls, and E-Rob has not shown he can be an NBA starter. This would assure us of having Thomas, Rose, and Marshall together for the next 3 years. Add to this Jay Williams, Curry and Chandler? That's a great squad.

For those that are so 'worried' about the cap situation, here's two facts:
1. Big name FAs won't come to Chicago next offseason, we just won't have enough money to throw at guys (5-6 teams are in better cap situations than us); Tim Thomas, like Jalen, must be acquired via trade. Arguably we could never sign a player of his caliber anyways
2. Management vowed to pay whatever for a championship caliber team

I really hope there is some substance here.


Jerry get it done!!!


VD


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

I think this trade kills the one very big advantage we have at this point: depth. Look at Championship-favorite Sac-town. They have 3 starters out on opening night and they just plug in 3 more guys and keep on winning...

Depth in the NBA=Wins. 

And besides, Tim Thomas ain't all that. He's proven only slightly more then ERob, IMO. He's being paid about $4mil more then he's worth and that's a problem.

If your going to kill the bench and get rid of 3 players with upside, you damn well better be getting an all-star/boarderline superstar. Thomas ain't that guy....


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> And besides, Tim Thomas ain't all that. He's proven only slightly more then ERob, IMO. Thomas ain't that guy....


IMO with TT you guys would make the playoffs. Thats how good of a trade for the Bulls I think it would be.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

We would still have pretty good depth...Our second unit would look like this...

PG- Ollie
SG- Hassell
SF- Hoiberg
PF- Marshall
C- Blount

That's not bad, except Hoiberg would be back at the 3. Right now, it seems like BC is trying to play too many people. This trade makes things more clear.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> I think this trade kills the one very big advantage we have at this point: depth. Look at Championship-favorite Sac-town. They have 3 starters out on opening night and they just plug in 3 more guys and keep on winning...
> 
> Depth in the NBA=Wins.
> ...


Hey Jim.

We are NOT the Sacramento Kings. Not even close. This being said, this trade only leaves us a bit thin at PG. If we can get Ollie in December, then all the more better.

Starting 5: Jay, Jalen, Tim, Tyson, Eddy
Bench Squad: Ollie, Hassell, Marshall, Blount

That's a 9 man rotation! That's great. Throw in some minutes for Baxter and that rounds it out to 10.

I am not enamored with Jamal, Marcus or Eddie. I can give you my evals of them if you want, but I've posted enough here that most people know where I stand on these guys. I'm still for this trade, if it happens.



VD


----------



## Bullsmaniac (Jun 17, 2002)

This trade is the most viable one so far..Good work Dickie.
I can totally see Krause doing this. He wanted TT before and I think BC likes Kevin Ollies defense. He could be a good back-up PG w/ experience, he knows the triangle since he was just here, he knows the team.
The only thing I am doubtful about is on the Milwaukee side. George Karl loves TT. TT likes playing for him as well. They gat rid of the Big Dog already, maybe they don't want "potential" players like JC, Fizer and ERob. They might want more and another team might have to be included.


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> I think this trade kills the one very big advantage we have at this point: depth. Look at Championship-favorite Sac-town. They have 3 starters out on opening night and they just plug in 3 more guys and keep on winning...
> 
> Depth in the NBA=Wins.
> ...


You're right about depth being an advantage...as long as everyone knows and accepts their roles. That's what I don't think will happen. Robinson, Crawford and Fizer are not going to accept being members of the "supporting cast" on a team that only won 21 games last year. If they were all closer to 30 years old...maybe. And how long are you going to restrict Curry and Chandler to less than 20mpg? As their play improves, they're going to take additional minutes from someone. The same goes for Williams who will eventually reduce Crawford to part time status.

There's a potential for some real attitude problems to develop as the season progresses. Basically, sometimes too much depth can destroy a team as well (eg.: Portland).


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey Jim.
> ...


Vin, I argree we are not the Kings. But you can't deny that you can't win without depth. And Ollie, Blunt, and Dali in our second unit? I shiver at the thought. This trade leaves us VERY VERY thin at the 2 most important positions in the NBA: PG & Center. If JWill goes down or can't hit free throws & Curry fouls out, do you really want to see Ollie and Dali in the 4th quarter of a tight game? Again, these shivers.... 

As for paring down to a 9/10 man roster... that's pretty much what we have now... so I don't really see your point on that one.

Fizer I'd give away for a pick. I've soured on his game recently and I think Marshall/Baxter can effectively soak up his minutes. I've been impressed with ERob & Crawford this season, I think they will both be soild player in the league. Personally I'm not ready to give up on either.

Now Erob/Fizer for Thomas.... Now that I might pull the Trigger on. Call me a Crawford fan, but I'm in no rush to trade him. To much upside to give away for my blood....
It's just my opinion, but I'd pass, and I have a feeling JK would do the same...


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> Vin, I argree we are not the Kings. But you can't deny that you can't win without depth. And Ollie, Blunt, and Dali in our second unit? I shiver at the thought. This trade leaves us VERY VERY thin at the 2 most important positions in the NBA: PG & Center. If JWill goes down or can't hit free throws & Curry fouls out, do you really want to see Ollie and Dali in the 4th quarter of a tight game? Again, these shivers....


Ollie and Blount would be the backups. Leave Dolly on the IR  Still, doesn't sound all too bad. This trade doesn't affect our center rotation.



> As for paring down to a 9/10 man roster... that's pretty much what we have now... so I don't really see your point on that one.


That's exactly my point. Our current depth isn't affected. I agree depth is important just as you said.



> Fizer I'd give away for a pick. I've soured on his game recently and I think Marshall/Baxter can effectively soak up his minutes. I've been impressed with ERob & Crawford this season, I think they will both be soild player in the league. Personally I'm not ready to give up on either.


Hey I respect your opinion. In my mind, Fizer and E-Rob will never be NBA starters. With E-Rob, he dunks well and is a streaky jumpshooter. He hasn't shown to be an NBA starter. He's getting paid 5 mil a year and is in his 4th NBA season, so yes he should be showing more right now. And no a chronic toe problem doesn't help this either.



> Now Erob/Fizer for Thomas.... Now that I might pull the Trigger on. Call me a Crawford fan, but I'm in no rush to trade him. To much upside to give away for my blood....
> It's just my opinion, but I'd pass, and I have a feeling JK would do the same...


Crawford is defintely the best player we are giving up. Jamal is 1) not happy with being a backup, 2) just wants to play and 3) he should get that chance elsewhere. Jay is the better PG for this team now, and will be in the future.

Peace.



VD


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> 
> 
> You're right about depth being an advantage...as long as everyone knows and accepts their roles. That's what I don't think will happen. Robinson, Crawford and Fizer are not going to accept being members of the "supporting cast" on a team that only won 21 games last year. If they were all closer to 30 years old...maybe. And how long are you going to restrict Curry and Chandler to less than 20mpg? As their play improves, they're going to take additional minutes from someone. The same goes for Williams who will eventually reduce Crawford to part time status.
> ...


I think everyone on these boards really plays this "Attitude" card a bit too much. Have you seen these guys on the bench? All laughing, huggin, cheering, high-fiving. I look at the smiles on that bench... and I don't see JC & JWill fighting... I don't see Fizer pouting, I don't see Chandler sulking. Instead, I see Jwill running to halfcourt and chest-bumping Crawford & Crawford pumping his fist when JWill makes a 3; I see Tyson jumping up and down when Marshall makes a clutch shot & Dali hugging Blount during a timeout. Problems?.... Where? Attitude? ... Who? US? Maybe they are faking it. Maybe they hate each other... but I have yet to see one shread of actually evidence to support that theory...

I don't see ANY comparison between the Blazers and Bulls. Toss that out the window, IMO. You have a bunch of overpaid THUGS vs. a bunch of YOUNG (Krause players=good citizens) players growing and learning the game together, laughing all the way.

If the teams wins and grows together, I think there is enough minutes for 8-9 players (Jwill, Crawford, Hassell, Rose, ERob, Marshall, Chandler, Curry +Fizer or next years pick). The bad boys (world champs in 90-91) went 10 deep. The Mavs go deeper, the Kings do it... Hell even the Blazers do it (albeit VERY badly).

IMO there ARE enough minutes to go around. Maybe I'm crazy... But I'm just not seeing the "problems" some of you are. Seems to me it's a case of seeing what you want to see....?


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

id take an upgrade in our starting lineup then nice depth anyday, depth is fine and dandy but to upgrade our starting lineup with tim thomas would as clips show said, make us playoff contenders

and yes, tim thomas has proven to be much better then erob, tim thomas can actually _dribble_, and drive to the rack, he can shoot MUCH better then erob and isnt injury prone, so yes again, TT is a SERIOUS upgrade to erob IMHO

also having TT would help us against teams with the bigger small forward who totally abuse the 6'5 trenton hassel in the post which is out biggest weakness, hassel guarding garnett? WHAT?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

My first thought when I saw this trade was "yuck". Thomas in undisputably overpaid. However, I don't see that his salary would pose a problem for us as far as re-signing our own young players (his contract expires sooner than theirs with their options) so I don't see it as a real problem.

What this trade does is make us a defense oriented team, which I think would make Cartwright happy. We're giving up one ok defender and 2 bad ones for two good ones.

I don't see a problem with overall lack of depth, but I do see a problem in that our second teamers don't seem to be very good scorers. Of course, that's probably why Marshall would still be coming off the bench.

Starting 5:
Curry, Chandler, Thomas, Rose, JWill

Second Team:
Blount, Marshall, Hassell, Hoiberg, Ollie

Our second team is Marshall offensively... Of course, in reality, we rarely sub 5 guys at a time. If we keep Rose, Thomas, JWill, or Curry on the court, we'll provide at least one more scoring threat while the majority of the starters are resting.

All in all, not a bad lineup.


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> I think everyone on these boards really plays this "Attitude" card a bit too much. Have you seen these guys on the bench? All laughing, huggin, cheering, high-fiving. I look at the smiles on that bench... and I don't see JC & JWill fighting... I don't see Fizer pouting, I don't see Chandler sulking. Instead, I see Jwill running to halfcourt and chest-bumping Crawford & Crawford pumping his fist when JWill makes a 3; I see Tyson jumping up and down when Marshall makes a clutch shot & Dali hugging Blount during a timeout. Problems?.... Where? Attitude? ... Who? US? Maybe they are faking it. Maybe they hate each other... but I have yet to see one shread of actually evidence to support that theory...
> ...


Just give it time.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> Crawford is defintely the best player we are giving up. Jamal is 1) not happy with being a backup, 2) just wants to play and 3) he should get that chance elsewhere. Jay is the better PG for this team now, and will be in the future.
> 
> VD


Just for the sake of continued banter... do you have any proof that Jamal is A) Not happy or B) will end up being a backup anyways? Jwill is not a sure thing. He still has work, and the future is VERY subjective my friend. NEVER say Never!

I'm sorry, and I wouldn't have said this last year... But IMO, JC *might* be better suited to play SG. That being said, he is still 2-3 years from being close to his potential. It's easy to forget he has only SLIGHTLY more College/NBA experiance level as the twin towers (at a MUCH harder position to grasp). And he doesn't have freakish size to help hide his developmental flaws and growing pains... 

His game in a way reminds me VERY much of Rose, with his moving from the point to a 2/3 & slow deveolpment. How bad is Denver kicking themselves for giving up on him and trading him away for nothing now....? So perhaps grooming him behind Rose is not a bad idea?

Besides, Jerry is still high on JC, and for good reason. I really honestly, don't see him going anywhere. 

(Vin, in your opinion, *Thomas for Fizer/ERob/?* Is there perhaps another player who fits salary/talent wise in your opinion?)


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> 
> 
> Just give it time.


Yee of little faith!  

Care to elaborate?


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> We would still have pretty good depth...Our second unit would look like this...
> 
> PG- Ollie
> ...


Don't be so rigid in your thought process, KC. Most teams don't go beyond a regular 9 man rotation. It's not always a perfect, one for one match between starters and backups.

If this trade went down, the Bulls rotation might look like this:

PG's: Williams & Ollie
SG's: Rose & Hassell
Forwards: Thomas, Chandler, and Marshall
Centers: Curry & Blount

Now, depending on a lot of variable circumstances, Rose could fill in at the point or at SF. Hoiberg's third on the depth chart at SG. Baxter provides insurance at PF. Bags could provide some help at center as could Chandler. But these are all emercency, or one shot deal substitutions. Barring injury, the primary nine man rotation would be as I described:

PG's: Williams & Ollie
SG's: Rose & Hassell
Forwards: Thomas, Chandler, and Marshall
Centers: Curry & Blount

Overall, you're actually three deep at every position:

PG: Williams, Ollie, Rose, Mason (injured).
SG: Rose, Hassell, Hoiberg, Mason (injured).
SF: Thomas, Marshall, Rose.
PF: Chandler, Marshall, Baxter.
Center: Curry, Blount, Bagaric, Chandler.

That's a very balanced roster with a much better mix of starters and role players. It's a 13 man roster which means only Mason will be placed on the injured list. That means Dali gets activated which somewhat placates his biggest supporter, Jerry Krause.

This transaction makes so much sense for both teams its scary to think we thought it up ourselves!


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> Yee of little faith!
> ...


Ok. 
I'll just elaborate on one main reason why if the minutes continued as they are then there would be many unhappy bulls, and that is "the all powerful dollar bill". 
Players quickly realize that in order to get paid they need to put up stats. When you have players like Eddy and Tyson and JC, I think these guys will at some point realize that there stock is not rising by sitting on the bench.

And if there not allowed an adequate development period, than they could miss out on their big payday. I'm not sure Eddie and Tyson want to be seen as the next "supporting cast" or role players, when they could be allstars or franchise players.

Its kind of hard to explain, but you've got to remeber all these guys have made it to the NBA and some of them in question are considered to be LOADED with potential, and leaving an imprint of their backsides on the pine is gonna get real old given time.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*this is a weak trade*

TT gets nearly max money 

is he that kind of player? no and he's really not close 

he's avg. 11 pts 5 boards and less than 3 assists in over 30 min a game 

I like his game but putting him on our team means he's our future along with TC EC rose and the rest but unlike the rest he's staying because his production doesn't match his salary so no Gm worth his salt will trade for him after he's been dealt away from 2 teams that wanted to unload him 

am i willing to bet on TT being a franchise player or near franchise player from what i've seen?
no and would anyone else probably not 

he's not getting shots on a team that traded away a 20 pt a game scorer so he could start earning that pay and get the shots they think he is suppose to get and be the player they envision 

but he isn't so far and while its foolish to trade a player you've invested so much into without making sure he can get the job done its equally foolish to take that burden off another teams hands

i wouldn't take him for free at his salary let alone for Fizer JC and e-rob 

he's a good player but he's not worth the hoopla yet nor this trade


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok.
> ...


I agree with you to an extent.... 

But I don't think a team of youngsters like this has EVER been assembled. Kids, 18-22, growing up, learning the game together. This is not the kind of comaradery you usually see in a team, IMO. I think this Bulls group has the oppurtunity to break new ground on many levels.. Win wise, finance wise & harmony wise.

Of the 4 players with Superstar potential, 2 will achieve, 1 will star, one will role play. But we don't know which is which. And maybe they will be all happy with that and a couple rings.... who knows.. maybe thier friendship and success will be enough, and they won't be tempted by the ulmighty dollar (I can only hope!)

That being said... there is always the ULTIMATE in harmony, the one thing that cures all evils... Wins!


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

*Re: this is a weak trade*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> TT gets nearly max money
> 
> is he that kind of player? no and he's really not close
> ...


Would you rather pay Robinson, Crawford and Fizer a combined $12.5 million next season or pay Thomas' '03/'04 salary of $11.8 million?

You see, next year we will have replaced the trio of Robinson, Crawford and Fizer with Thomas, Mason Jr., and Baxter and at a significantly lower cost since Mason and Baxter are already on our payroll.


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> That being said... there is always the ULTIMATE in harmony, the one thing that cures all evils... Wins!



:laugh: Problem is the ultimate harmony for players today is an 6 year 80 million dollar deal!:sigh:


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> 
> :laugh: Problem is the ultimate harmony for players today is an 6 year 80 million dollar deal!:sigh:


:sigh:

Can't a guy hope it changes though?


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

*Re: Re: this is a weak trade*



> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> 
> 
> Would you rather pay Robinson, Crawford and Fizer a combined $12.5 million next season or pay Thomas' '03/'04 salary of $11.8 million?
> ...


But...
Mason Jr is no Crawford, he's proven nothing (due to injury).

Baxter I like, but can he score like Fizer?

Thomas is still overpaid, and this trade weekends our bench a lot. I think you'll get more "W"'s out of the Trio then Thomas....


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: this is a weak trade*



> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> 
> 
> Would you rather pay Robinson, Crawford and Fizer a combined $12.5 million next season or pay Thomas' '03/'04 salary of $11.8 million?
> ...


Of course i would (you did read my post right)

TT is avg. 11 pts and 5 boards in 31 min. a game fizer last year put up 12 and 5 in 26 min. 

e-rob can almost do the same with far superior defense. 

and Jc will most likely be better than everyone in the deal when all is said and done

you can trade any of those players at any time (maybe not robinson )

a flexibilty Thomas will not have due to his enormous salary


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with you to an extent....
> ...


I refer you to the Indiana Pacers whose roster includes THREE "high school to the pros" players: Bender, Harrington and O'Neal. Last year their coach liked to refer to the Pacers as the youngest team in the league. If they want to keep their nucleus together next season they'll have to re-sign O'Neal, B. Miller and R. Miller. And that, my friend, combined with their signings of Foster, Artest and Bender this season will put them well over the luxury tax threshold. That's a ton of dough to spend on a bunch of players who have played .500 ball the past two seasons.

I also refer you to the LA Clippers who many consider to have more young talent on their roster from top to bottom than any team in the league. How have they dealt with their abundance of riches? So far they've gone in the exact opposite direction that the Pacers are headed...they've stiffed their fans by not signing even one of their eligible players to an extension.

So please, lay off the Bulls kool-aid and take off the Rose colored glasses. The Bulls haven't proven ANYTHING...yet.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> 
> 
> Don't be so rigid in your thought process, KC. Most teams don't go beyond a regular 9 man rotation. It's not always a perfect, one for one match between starters and backups.
> ...


Yes, I understand that, Dickie. I was merely pointing out that we don't really lose that much depth. I was giving a list of players that could _possibly_ come in and give us solid minutes. All depth would not be lost. We are already playing 11-12 guys per game and with this trade, we would return to normalcy in that our rotation would be cut down. In reality, Hoiberg probably wouldn't see much time and Baxter wouldn't get a whole lot of minutes either. I do agree that this trade makes sense for us and I don't think we would lose much, except for loose parts that we can afford to get rid of.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Re: this is a weak trade*



> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> 
> 
> Would you rather pay Robinson, Crawford and Fizer a combined $12.5 million next season or pay Thomas' '03/'04 salary of $11.8 million?
> ...


Thomas stays on the payroll till 05/06, by which time we'll need cap space to pay Curry/Chandler.

Although it will be nice to lose ERob's contract, Craw and Fizer only have another year with us.

I understand that because of the term of Thomas's contract, that makes the deal more attractive to the Bucks. But while I'd rather have Thomas slotted in and have our role players in Mason and Baxter step up more, I also want to have cap space to be flexible. The only time a long term contract is a good thing is when the player is WORTH the contract, as Rose has been showing he is. 

Any other time, it's nothing but a hindrance.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: this is a weak trade*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> TT gets nearly max money
> 
> is he that kind of player? no and he's really not close
> ...



he isnt putting up eye-opening stats because cassel and allen are taking all the shots, he could easily be a 16ppg and 5 boards on the bulls which is more then you could say for any of the guys we're trading away, besides, there isnt a deal out there that gives up jamal, fizer and erob which nets us a better player then thomas, thomas is no worse then rashard lewis offensively


----------



## hps (Jul 23, 2002)

From a salary cap standpoint, there is no reason why Ollie should be included in the Tim Thomas deal, because he makes the salaries farther apart as Thomas salary is still higher then Fizer, Crawford, and EROB.

So those four players should be the deal, and if JK and Cartwright think it'll help the team, I'm all for it.

It would seem to make sense from alot of angles.

1 - Gives us a quick, big SF to defend other SF, and Thomas is averaging over a block and a steal a game.

2 - Getting rid of Fizer frees up more minutes at the PF position for Chandler, Marshall, and even Baxter.

3 - Getting Thomas means Hoiberg, though a nice player, will likely have his minutes taken by Thomas, Hassell, and Rose, all of whom are better players.

4 - EROB has a somewhat big contract, and at some point the Bulls will have to trade Fizer and Crawford or resign them to relatively big bucks. It consolidates three salaries who will eventually be larger then Thomas's into one.

PG - Williams, Brunson
SG - Rose, Hassell
SF - Thomas, Marshall
PF - Chandler, Baxter
CT - Curry, Blount

Mason
Hoiberg
Bagaric


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Other defensive minded SF's:

JYD, George Lynch.

Lynch has been feeling very left out of the Hornets rotation. I don't know if he'll be as good on D as he was before the injury, but he was quite a gritty player in Philly, a solid rebounder and a tough man defender.

JYD, while a favorite in Toronto, won't get much time behind Mo Pete and Lamond Murray when he comes back. He's also a strong defender and a dirty-work type player.

And as someone else mentioned, Al Harrington makes a good deal of sense.

I like George Lynch and some filler for Fizer. Fizer can step in and take primary minutes behind the aging PJ Brown.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Scale of 1 to 10...how likely is this to happen?


----------



## settinUpShop (Jun 8, 2002)

*Re: Re: this is a weak trade*



> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> 
> 
> Would you rather pay Robinson, Crawford and Fizer a combined $12.5 million next season or pay Thomas' '03/'04 salary of $11.8 million?
> ...


I think Dickie is right on. Mason and Baxter have shown some very nice things early. Mason's expected to come back early from his surgery. He's a bigger and more physical player than JC and there is much less doubt about him being able to succeed as a 2 guard. Please JK do this trade!! Rose gets another vet to help this team mature, and we fill our most glaring need on defense. Speaking of which, does anyone know how good TT is on D? I haven't a clue.


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> I think everyone on these boards really plays this "Attitude" card a bit too much. Have you seen these guys on the bench? All laughing, huggin, cheering, high-fiving. I look at the smiles on that bench... and I don't see JC & JWill fighting... I don't see Fizer pouting, I don't see Chandler sulking. Instead, I see Jwill running to halfcourt and chest-bumping Crawford & Crawford pumping his fist when JWill makes a 3; I see Tyson jumping up and down when Marshall makes a clutch shot & Dali hugging Blount during a timeout. Problems?.... Where? Attitude? ... Who? US? Maybe they are faking it. Maybe they hate each other... but I have yet to see one shread of actually evidence to support that theory...
> ...


From Wednesday's Tribune:

Curry continues to wonder when his first big-minute game will come after scoring 11 points in 12 minutes in Monday night's overtime loss to Toronto. The second-year center hit all five of his shots but grabbed only one defensive rebound and didn't play after the 6-minute 15-second mark of the third quarter. 

"I thought I was making strides in the right direction, but I guess there are still things I need to improve on," Curry said. 

"That seemed like it could've been one of my breakout games," Curry said. "I still think in a way it was. I just didn't get the minutes I thought I would get. But when I was in there, I thought I did all right. 

Marcus Fizer failed to score in seven minutes. Tyson Chandler, visibly frustrated afterward, played 18 minutes. Curry is averaging 14 minutes per game, ahead of only Blount (barely) and rookie Lonny Baxter. 

Now, I'm not trying to leave the impression that there's an insurrection pending. But there are some signs of frustration. It's funny you mention the attitudes of the players on the bench. I was struck by the observation last night that during the 4th quarter and throughout the overtime, our bench seemed unusually subdued. I clearly saw a number of sullen faces as the cameras panned the bench. Those faces included Curry, Chandler, Fizer and Crawford, who BTW, was once again wearing his towel over his head in a Middle-East type of wrap. All the fire on the bench we'd seen in previous games was noticeably missing. IMHO, all's not well in Camelot.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> Scale of 1 to 10...how likely is this to happen?


so far the guy who reported the potential trade is batting 100%


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

Here's an alternative plan that moves Crawford and Fizer to Denver and replaces them with James Posey and Chris Whitney.

It would have to be done as two seperate transactions because Whitney was just traded. As such, until 12/24, he can only be traded individually and not as part of a package. After Christmas Eve he can be included in a trade package.

So the deals would look something like this:

Crawford for Posey.

Then

Fizer for Whitney.

Posey IS a defensive minded SF. And Whitney provides the Bulls with a veteran backup PG whose perimeter shooting skills should fit in with the triangle nicely.

Hmmmm.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

I think the proposed trades impact , much like the Artest for Rose trade can be felt through the loss of one key player.

Erob over the last four games has shown me the potential to be a very solid starter in this league. He has demonstrated a complete game with strong D, work on the glass. While his O game has been somewhat limited and marred by mistakes he hit consistenly enough at the beginning of last season for me to feel comfortable with this aspect of his game as well. It is hard to remember how inexperienced Erob is, but I really feel like he is going to be a late developer, perhaps a season from now. 

If the TT trade were to happen I think the Bulls would end up missing Erob a great deal. 

PS heres a call for trading Blount. The signing of Marshall negated the need for Corey. He is just another vetran temptress who will end up performing almost passable with minutes that could be better spent.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

*Re: Re: this is a weak trade*



> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> he isnt putting up eye-opening stats because cassel and allen are taking all the shots, he could easily be a 16ppg and 5 boards on the bulls which is more then you could say for any of the guys we're trading away, besides, there isnt a deal out there that gives up jamal, fizer and erob which nets us a better player then thomas, thomas is no worse then rashard lewis offensively


You act as if there aren't shots for Thomas in mil. Milwakee traded robinson to give him more shots.

and robinson didn't seem to have trouble getting shots from Allen & Cassell last year so its not like there is just no way he can get shots there he just isn't and its probably his fault 

Rose & marshall have been shooting the ball alot lately and when Curry is on the floor the plan is to run some of the offense through him why would you thnk the bulls offense which really isn't a problem for the bulls (its their defense which by the way Thomas is not known for) would all of a sudden have more shots to hand over to Thomas 

its not a trade that helps the Bulls much if at all in fact i'm thinking it just takes away from depth while not giving them anything they already don't have


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

FYI, from Hoopsworld.com:

CRAWFORD: Jamal is likely going to be dealt as soon as the Bulls get confident in Jay Williams, so its just a matter of where? Rumor has it the Celtics have had talks, but nothing as materialized from it. …


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Count me as against this trade. Tim Thomas just makes way too much money and I think he is a little overrated too. He's had opportunities to prove that he can be the man handed to him over and over and he never capitalizes on them, there has to be a reason for this? 

Anyways, if the Bulls do make a deal I'm hopeful it won't be for Thomas.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: this is a weak trade*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> You act as if there aren't shots for Thomas in mil. Milwakee traded robinson to give him more shots.
> ...


your probably right, after looking at the stats of the "big two and a half" i realized that something is WRONG in milwaukee

cassel is only averging like 3 assists a game and only like 14 points(unusual for trigger-happy cassel), allen is only averging 18ppg and thomas is only averging 11, theres a project that needs to be started in milwaukee and thats the rebuilding project


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: this is a weak trade*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> You act as if there aren't shots for Thomas in mil. Milwakee traded robinson to give him more shots.
> ...


Is everyone forgetting about Micheal Redd??


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*Is that like 100 for 100....or*



> Originally posted by <b>JOHNNY_BRAVisimO</b>!
> so far the guy who reported the potential trade is batting 100%



1 for 1? 100% IS 100%.....but the latter is just not that impressive, eh? lol


as for the trade itselt...heck, yeah, I LOVE IT!:grinning:


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> I refer you to the Indiana Pacers whose roster includes THREE "high school to the pros" players: Bender, Harrington and O'Neal.


O'Neal was broken in during his Portland years, Harrington & Bender was a few drafts apart if I'm not mistaken. And none played minutes of any significance their first 3 years. Far different then our scenario.



> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> That's a ton of dough to spend on a bunch of players who have played .500 ball the past two seasons.


Blame Isiah. He's awful. The record is NOT a reflection of their talent... which is very high, IMO.



> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> 
> I also refer you to the LA Clippers who many consider to have more young talent on their roster from top to bottom than any team in the league. How have they dealt with their abundance of riches? So far they've gone in the exact opposite direction that the Pacers are headed...they've stiffed their fans by not signing even one of their eligible players to an extension.


It's the Clippers man! The CLIPPERS! They had *one* high schooler (who they traded too early, and that will come back to haunt them). They never re-sign ANYONE!



> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> So please, lay off the Bulls kool-aid and take off the Rose colored glasses. The Bulls haven't proven ANYTHING...yet.


No, the Bulls have not proven anything. But if my glasses are rosey, then yours are murky. Someone has to play the optimist to your pessimist.

My point was there has never been a team with 4 major players, drafted in 3 consecutive years, all near or under the legal drinking age. A players first 2 years are very much a bonding time, and are you really going to turn your back on a player you've grown up with... a friend? I'd like to hope Jerry drafts players with better character then that....



> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> 
> 
> From Wednesday's Tribune:
> ...



I've been less then impressed with the level of reporting in Chicago lately. Their need to create controversies is annoying and getting quiet old, IMO. I'll pass on even dignifying that story with a response.
 
As for the game... I clearly saw excitement and joy when the raptors called time during a bulls run. Sullen? I guess my rose colored glasses missed it...  I believe Big Bill plays a part in this as well. Blounts minutes will lessen, I guarantee it. His 22 minutes given to the youngsters will surely ease much of the perceived "problem"


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

Regarding losing depth and the Kings

The Kings have depth but in the play-offs they often went with a 7 man rotation. Depth is nice but it isn't the only key to success.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> Regarding losing depth and the Kings
> 
> The Kings have depth but in the play-offs they often went with a 7 man rotation. Depth is nice but it isn't the only key to success.


Bibby, BJax, Christie, Hedo, Peja, Webber, Pollard, Divac. That's 8, plus the added Clark this year and are giving Wallace a bigger role to assist in depth. 

While I see your point, I'm just saying the best team in the NBA is attempting to get *deeper* to win it all. Now while us getting deeper won't win it all for us... it will help us win more games period...


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

We don't HAVE to re-sign Crawford and Fizer, and trading them this year or next would be easy since a lot of cap-strapped teams want the salaries to come off their books.

There's no reason we should make OURSELVES cap-strapped by taking on Tim Thomas's ridiculously long and expensive contract. 

Thomas is slated to make almost $14 M in 05/06. Crawford and Fizer are slated to make NOTHING in 05/06. ERob is scheduled to make a hefty but bearable $7.2 M in 05/06. That's almost $7 M difference in cap space!

If we pick up Jay's extension, which we certainly will, and let's say that the sum of all the other signficant salaries on the team comes out to about $7 M (which is pretty doable... Mason, Hassell, Baxter are probably worth an average of $2-4M each by then) then we will have $35M against the cap in 05/06. If we had re-signed Marshall for that year, it would probably be for about $3M... I think we got him for a good deal in his current contract, but he's not going to outplay it as age comes. No one is going to sign him for more than $3M in 05/06...

So we're up to $38M, along with other negligible salaries of rookies and other role players (an interesting thought: if we perform better in the next few years, drafting later in the first round means we don't have to shell out as much money to pay the higher rookie scales).

The core we will have on payroll: Jay, Jalen, Marshall, E-Rob, Mason, Baxter, Hassell, some rookies. That is a great roster for the $38M... Jay, Jalen, Marshall, and Hassell are getting the primary minutes for the Bulls these days and they seem to be doing okay. The improvement of Chandler and Curry only elevates this team to an elite tier... and we'll have the cap room to see if that will get us the championship.

I don't know what the CBA is going to be like then, but $38M keeps us near the cap and out of luxury tax territory, enough to reward Chandler and Curry with big extensions, although probably a little less than the max. 

If we tack on an extra $7M in guaranteed salary in Tim Thomas, then that crucial extension-signing year is going to be difficult in 05/06. We'd up near $45M, instead of $38M, and if the luxury tax is around where it is today (if it still exists), then it makes QUITE a huge difference. 

As I said earlier, hefty long-term contracts are only good if the player is totally worth every dollar, like we have in Rose. Tim Thomas won't be worth our money. That's the skinny of it.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> Bibby, BJax, Christie, Hedo, Peja, Webber, Pollard, Divac. That's 8, plus the added Clark this year and are giving Wallace a bigger role to assist in depth.
> ...


Jim, how does pulling this trade affect the BUlls current depth? It doesn't. I still don't see any comparision between the Kings and Bulls. There are no All-Stars on this squad (yet), we have not had a winning season in 4 years, etc. The BUlls may resemble a Clippers or Pacers lineup at best.

How is it that suddenly after 2 wins in 4 games the Bulls 'logjam' at forward positions has become 'great depth'? I don't see it. If you can get a young starter for three bench players.. you do that trade in a heartbeat. Tim Thomas is better than Eddie Robinson. Tim Thomas is better than Trent Hassell (our current starter at SF). Marcus Fizer is not part of our long term plans. Jamal is a talent, but obviously we give up a talent to get one.

I agree with some sentiments about the Bulls cap situation... and yes this could be a hindrance for such a trade to get done. But in terms of talent, the Bulls would win out in this trade.



VD


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Jim, how does pulling this trade affect the BUlls current depth? It doesn't. I still don't see any comparision between the Kings and Bulls. There are no All-Stars on this squad (yet), we have not had a winning season in 4 years, etc. The BUlls may resemble a Clippers or Pacers lineup at best.
> ...


Vin, ya gots to give me a little here. Yes, the Bulls are no Kings. But the model... the formula... is indisputable.

That being said.... I just think Thomas makes TOO MUCH. If he made $6mil (still more then he's worth, but managable... I might consider it. But part of the equation is that he's overpaid. And he's not, IMO, the most talented (potentially) member of the group. I think we are giving up to much for a player, as far as I can see, doesn't do *Enough* to solve our problems. Thomas is not an awsome defender. good, yes... but not great. He's overpaid, he is not a clutch/premier player. He fills a position we already have covered. And $14mil in a couple years? That's highway robbery.

I just think we can do better for Craw/ERob/Fizer. Now like I said... ERob/Fizer for Thomas... That might be something I'd consider..... I just think this trade saps us of our depth advantage and burdens us with a HUGE salery... and a guy who isn't really earning it...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> Vin, ya gots to give me a little here. Yes, the Bulls are no Kings. But the model... the formula... is indisputable.


The Bulls are not following the Kings model. Krause is trying to create his own model which is live with a terrible team for a number of years - load up on the rawest kids with the most potential + add a few vets. If anything, this most resembles the Clippers model which has yet to make the playoffs.

Of the Kings' top 9 players, they have drafted 2 of them - the Euros. Not much like the Bulls, huh? Of the other top 7, they were all fairly high draft picks that were of dubious value to their original teams. Some are on their third for fourth team like Webber, Vlade & Christy. Whether these guys would have blossemed with their original teams OR NEEDED SOME CHANGE, we will never know. I think the latter is necessary.

IMHO, a player is much more likely to accept a role on a successful team if they are on their second or third team. epecially if they did not experience earlier success. 

Let's say that it was Fizer not Caffey on the Bulls 2nd three-peat. Or say that he was on the Celtics roster. I'd say keep Fizer and develop him as he would be the only young post talent on the entire squad.

But that's not the case, we have 2 young post talents in Curry and Chandler that have a lot more potential and are arguably playing better than Fizer right now despite less experiance. So Fizer needs to go. He will probably never reach his full potetial with the Bulls. That's ok. He probably can not do it here. It's just not in the cards.

Same logic could be used for Craw.


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*EROB has shown me over the last four games....*



> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> I think the proposed trades impact , much like the Artest for Rose trade can be felt through the loss of one key player.
> 
> Erob over the last four games has shown me the potential to be a very solid starter in this league. He has demonstrated a complete game with strong D, work on the glass. While his O game has been somewhat limited and marred by mistakes he hit consistenly enough at the beginning of last season for me to feel comfortable with this aspect of his game as well. It is hard to remember how inexperienced Erob is, but I really feel like he is going to be a late developer, perhaps a season from now.
> ...


that once again, he knows how to stay hurt...in the chicago tribune, it reported that he suffered another injury AFTER DUNKING THE BALL AGAINST TORONTO, however EROB says, he will be ready to play tonight....lets wait until tonight and see who is right? My money is on him being on the bench the whole game....he is OVERPAID and I wish he could be traded with crawford instead of fizer!


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gotta call you out on this one. 
Odom, Miles, Maggette, Brand, Q-Rich, Dooling, and even Kandi is "an up-and-coming" player. This year we've added Marco Jaric and Dre Miller who is still young. 
I would take that group of young talent any day.

I think the Bulls are doing the right thing by following the "clipper" formula, the clips haven't made the playoffs (barely) cause they haven't had a veteran leader or anyone for that matter with real experience. The bulls have Jalen Rose and if they picked up TT I think they would posses what it takes to contend for a playoff spot this year.


----------



## LoaKhoet (Aug 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: New Rumor*



> Originally posted by <b>I'm Just Saying</b>!
> 
> 
> That's too much to give up for a player WE DON'T NEED AND DON'T HAVE MINUTES FOR.
> ...


No-no-no-no-no!!!

Rose would be a full-time SG
Marshall has been playing PF up to this point.
So technically, Thomas would fill in the SF position. Hassell will continue to play a lot of minutes until Thomas knows the system. ERob will continue to come off the bench to back up the SG position. 

JWill -- 36 minutes
Rose -- 37 minutes
Thomas -- 30 mins
Hassell -- 30 Mins
ERob -- 25 mins

The rest will go to Hoisberg and whoever the other Backup is. 

48*2 =144-(36+37+30+30+25) = 14 mins

So, it is not a log-jam


----------



## LoaKhoet (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> Following this guy's train of thought, a CBA compliant deal between the Bulls and Bucks might look like this:
> 
> Eddie Robinson ($5.7 million)
> ...


Milwaukee can waive Ollie and we can sign him as a free-agent. That solves everything. Or, Just Thomas and not Ollie, that would work too.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

thatsnobull from realgm came up with this thre way trade. This could explain why Milwaukee would be willing to trade Thomas. 





I tried the following and the salaries worked out: 


Milwaukee trades: SF Tim Thomas (11.7 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 1.4 apg in 26.9 minutes) 
Milwaukee receives: SF Latrell Sprewell (19.4 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 3.9 apg in 41.1 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: +7.7 ppg, -0.3 rpg, and +2.5 apg. 

Chicago trades: SF Eddie Robinson (9.0 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 1.3 apg in 22.5 minutes) 
PF Marcus Fizer (12.3 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 1.6 apg in 25.8 minutes) 
PG Jamal Crawford (9.3 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 2.4 apg in 20.9 minutes) 
Chicago receives: SF Tim Thomas (11.7 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 1.4 apg in 74 games) 
Change in team outlook: -18.9 ppg, -5.8 rpg, and -3.9 apg. 

New York trades: SF Latrell Sprewell (19.4 ppg, 3.7 rpg, 3.9 apg in 41.1 minutes) 
New York receives: SF Eddie Robinson (9.0 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 1.3 apg in 29 games) 
PF Marcus Fizer (12.3 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 1.6 apg in 76 games) 
PG Jamal Crawford (9.3 ppg, 1.5 rpg, 2.4 apg in 23 games) 
Change in team outlook: +11.2 ppg, +6.1 rpg, and +1.4 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED 

Due to Milwaukee, Chicago, and New York being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. Milwaukee, Chicago, and New York 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. 
You have been assigned Trade ID number 808387


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

HAHAHA... Sprewell in Milwaukee? That's a riot... crazy crazy chemistry there.

Maybe let's think about it. I'd kind of miss ERob, since we still don't TOTALLY know what he can do, whereas with Tim Thomas, we know what he can do and just hope that he can do it better with us.

An interesting trade... the most interesting one I've seen by far.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> thatsnobull from realgm came up with this thre way trade.


What would Milwaukee do with Allen _and_ Sprewell?

Plus they just got rid of one player they perceived as a bad attitude guy... what would they want Sprewell for?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Wow. I like the Milwaukee-NY-Chicago trade scenario. It has a lot better chance of happening than a MIL-CHI trade straight up.




VD


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

This "rumor" still cracks me up. 

Fizer has been on the block for well over a year and Crawford may as well have been since the minute JWill was drafted. 

If it turns out to be Tim Thomas, then I give props to the guy who shared it with us. If Fizer and Crawford are dealt for another player, then I hardly think that it takes a genius to figure out that the Bulls like Marshall at PF and Rose at SG, leaving a gaping hole at SF that Robinson hasn't really shown he can fill.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> This "rumor" still cracks me up.
> 
> Fizer has been on the block for well over a year and Crawford may as well have been since the minute JWill was drafted.
> ...


Nor would it take a genuis to figure out that the Bulls need another bigman (backup C). But he says they use their chips for a small forward, which with Jalan's, ERob, and Marshall, is not exactly a barren position for the Bulls.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Granted it doesn't take a rocket scientist to project that Craw and Fizer are on their way out, but not even NASA could have predicted that Roger Mason would be out for the season with a shoulder injury two weeks before the national media picked up the story. "Victor", the guy who broke this rumor, has been breaking news that you could not have info on, unless you posessed an inside job with in the organization, quite consistently.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TripleDouble</b>!
> 
> 
> Nor would it take a genuis to figure out that the Bulls need another bigman (backup C). But he says they use their chips for a small forward, which with Jalan's, ERob, and Marshall, is not exactly a barren position for the Bulls.


I don't feel they need another big man. they have 3 guys about 7' in Curry, Chandler, Bagaric plus Baxter, Blount, and Marshall.

Exactly how soon is this deal supposed to be made. I have some posts I made before the season started saying pretty much the same thing but indicated it would be closer to the trade deadline.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> Granted it doesn't take a rocket scientist to project that Craw and Fizer are on their way out, but not even NASA could have predicted that Roger Mason would be out for the season with a shoulder injury two weeks before the national media picked up the story. "Victor", the guy who broke this rumor, has been breaking news that you could not have info on, unless you posessed an inside job with in the organization quite consistently.


This is not breaking though and both players have been discussed in the media involved in trades over the past year.

I also believe I mention Mason's shoulder woes prior to the injury that set him out for the year, especially as a reason why he went in the second round. Remember this was an injury that kept him from competing in pre-draft camps.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

TT for the three of them? Dunno. JCraw, Fizer and ERob sure aren't stars. The jury is out on whether any of the 3 will ever truly be an impact player, with JCraw being the one who's most likely going to get the benefit of the doubt on that analysis.

Maybe they aren't the best fit on this team, but each is capable of giving the Bulls quality minutes and at the very least, offer 3 sets of young legs and 18 fouls -- sometimes important assets for players off the bench.

The three players' stats combile to average 10.2 ppg 3.36 rpg and 1.7 assists. We give up three players whos stats are that average for a player averaging 11.7 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 1.4 apg.

I know stats aren't everything and that Thomas would fit in as a starting very large SF when we would be giving up three players more or less doomed to the bench, but getting one player in exchange for three players whose average stats are comperable to the one player seems like an awful lot.

Man, that was hard to put into words in a way that makes sense. Does the point make sense?


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Ztect, who must have been banished with ignominy since I don't really see him posting anymore, was the last person to overtly challenge a Victor rumor. Since then he also predicted the Brunson workouts (which led to an eventual signing), well before local and national media.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Count me as against this trade. Tim Thomas just makes way too much money and I think he is a little overrated too. He's had opportunities to prove that he can be the man handed to him over and over and he never capitalizes on them, there has to be a reason for this?
> 
> Anyways, if the Bulls do make a deal I'm hopeful it won't be for Thomas.


I agree. I'd rather have 3 cheaper unproven guys than one very expensive unproven guy.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

@C.C.C.P.

I think you are missing the point. I am not doubting the guy's validity. I am merely saying that it doesn't really seem that newsworthy unless the Bulls are about to pull the trigger on a Tim Thomas deal. If they are then a kudo to him, but speculating that it might be a defensive SF at some point during the season before the trade deadline? I agree with him, that they are going to try and trade Craw and Fizer for some perimeter oriented defender with size, read a defensive SF. But I, and many others, have speculated the Bulls would do the same thing. And by not identifying who the involved parties are going to be, it is just speculation on everyone's part, including Victor.


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> 
> 
> Gotta call you out on this one.
> ...


I agree 100%. I was speaking of High-schoolers/under 20 year olds. Only Miles on the Clips fit that bill. 

The Clips have much up and coming talent... theres no question about that. Hopefully they can keep most of it. I was speaking of the age and drafting order (1 in 2001, then 2 in 2002). The Clippers have not done that.

Peace


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

I am not sure enough attention has been given to how things would work for the Bucks.

George Karl ragged on the "Big 3 " because they just thought they could outscore anyone and would not commit to defense

Why would he want Marcus Fizer when he has a more versatile PF in Mase, serviceabe ( yet overpaid ) back up in Jason Caffey and combo forward in Marcus Haislip - that granted, could take up some slack at SF with ERob ?

But does ERob make them better at SF than TT even though he is cheaper ? Short answer is no. At least with evidence we have at this point in time.

So then the Bucks rationale is , if we don't need Fizer, and ERob does not make us better at SF than TT , you then turn your attention to Jamal Crawford

You have Sam Cassell tied up for awhile and you are committed to Ray Allen and Michael Redd which means Jamal maybe a two guard argument is not going to hold water on the Bucks. Which means he is Cassell's back up. And we all know how Jamal feels about being a back up . On the Bucks with Cassell getting 35 minutes a night there is around 13 minutes for Jamal a game. Do the L Tax challenged Bucks see this as an unnecessary luxury ? I would assume so .Better bang for the buck in having KO @ $700K - who is a better defender anyway

And that's the thing - defense. Karl would be getting scoring players back in Fizz and Jammy when shots are already hard to come by unless your name is Sam or Ray , a defender in ERob who is arguably not as good as the one you are giving up in TT and you are losing the better defender at back up point.

I like the New York 3 way from the Bucks perspective and could understand it. Spree is a Karl type defender and Spree woud thrive again under Karl and being outside a bad situation in New York. Sam and Spree could clash but maybe Ray is the circuit breaker. Funnily enough it could be that Spree is needed in Milwaukee to redress the chemistry and compel this change where ( IMO ) Sam Cass needs to be dealt with and have his dominance taken away which hurts his team's Chem more than it helps. You need a strong personality to take that away. Enter Spree. And then you have Smooth Ray to broker the transition.

Could work.

From New York's perspective... I am not sure. Yes they would play Jamal over Charlie Ward and Howie Eisley . Yes ERob would start at SF backed up Shandon Andersen who also backs Houston . But is gets back to Fizer again. Assume Dice is done and is gone after next year anyway.... but you have already have Othella, Spoon tied up on long term contracts and Fizer does not do anything to address their height deficiency of their current rebounding woes on the front line.

Which from Chicago's perspective leaves us with TT and KO ... I would probably take the risk and do it 

* But *

I prefer Fizer and Crawford to Denver for Whitney and Posey and a 2nd round draft pick ( their 2nd round draft pick will be at the top of the 2nd round next year anyway ) 

Whitney fills in as point guard back up until Roger Mason comes back and the team option on Whitney's contract could be waived in the offseason. That would leave us with Posey to fight ERob for the 3 spot.

Crawford would be a good fit in Denver that need a starting point guard . Fizer may even have opportunity here with Hilario moving over to Center ( as he is adept at playing ) Camby is gone this season and only has next season left on his contract and Juwan Howard is gone ( I reckon by trade deadline to New York for Alan Houston and Kurt Thomas ) 

If any of these scenarios have any credence Chicago may have to determine is it better off having TT in a Bucks/Knicks 3 way or a Denver deal ( as outlined above ) or a Denver/Bucks 3 way where we still get TT with who we give up but Fizz and Jammy go to Denver and Whitney and Posey go to the Bucks . 

In this latter scenario , Karl gets a couple of defenders at the swing spots in Posey and ERob which enables him to develop Haislip more at 4 and he gets to trim Whitney's team option at season's end and pick up an Ollie type again to back Sam.

Bulls get TT and a Denver 2nd rounder - Denver , Fizz and Jammy 

Having mulled over this , I would prefer TT and a 2nd rounder over Posey and Whit if Fizz, Jammy and EFelon were the players we were giving up .

I think it is just a matter of the home that could be found for our guys as I really don't see them being needed in Milwaukee. Denver maybe and New York 2nd if a 3 way was worked with one of these teams


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

Victor updated the rumor saying it could happen closer to the trade deadline. Uhhhh - no kidding. He might move them closer to the trade deadline? Shocking. 

:|


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

I would love the opportunity to get Shane Battier

With the drafting of Drew Gooden and having to find time for Lo Wright and Stro Swift on a crowded frontline which also includes Trybanski - which pushes Gasol back into the forward line out of the Center position.

In the 3 front court positions where you have 144 minutes to fill Gooden will ultimately be playing at least 33 and Gasol 38 . You will have Wright playing 28 , Swift 25 and Trybanski at say 15 

That's the bulk of the minutes gone at the forward spots.

You then have Girecek at the 2 - who they seem to be high on and Mike D .

I mean you could play Battman between the 3 and 2 as they did last season but I only see him getting around 20 minutes a game .

If his role of defender is costing the Grizz $2.5M a year I wonder whether Jerry West would give him up for Trent Hassell + Dolly and Brunson as filler to make it work

Dealing Trent would give us a bigger defender to mark the 3 and it would free space for Roger to take back up minutes at the 2 as well as the 1 

I would then deal Fizer and Crawford for Charlie Ward and a NY 1st round draft pick ( would probably have to be top half protected next year and then unconditional thereafter ) 

Jay and Shane together again ... 

Curry/Marshall/Blount
Chandler/ Marshall/ Baxter
Battier/ERob/Rose
Rose/Battier/Hoiberg
Williams/Ward/Rose

IR : Mason


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Denver's willingness to trade*

Predictions or Shocking Rumors. You make the call. 

*1.) Denver will not trade Juwan Howard.*

Kiki traded Howard for $25M in cap space in the offseason. Kiki has already wined and dined Kandi and will have a whole lot of money waiting for him. Why in the hell would Denver want to trade for a guy like Alan Houston as has been speculated on this thread? It's just like signing him to the remainder of his cap-killing contract.


*2.) Denver will NOT trade Posey and stuff for Fizer and Crawford*

Again, Posey's contract expires and he is an RFA. Fizer especially and Craw wouldl take a nice chunk of the cap space. 

Maybe, just maybe Denver would trade Posey straight up for Craw but only if come mid-season, the Nugz are not willing to match a mid-level execption offer to Posey ala Ricky Davis and the Cavs\Timberwolves. And Craw would need to hit a heck of a lot more than 18% of his shots between now and then.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

I wish the defensive minded SF was Scottie Pippen. Unfortunatly - Portland doesn't need anything.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Maybe this trade doesn't work with the CBA, but I think it'd be an interesting one:

Bulls trade Fizer, Crawford, ERob to Milwaukee for Cassell and Kukoc.

Bulls starting lineup would be:

Cassell, Rose at gaurd
Kukoc, Marshall at forward
Curry at center

Bench would be:

JWill, Chandler, Blount, Hoiberg, Baxter, Hoiberg


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Maybe this trade doesn't work with the CBA, but I think it'd be an interesting one:
> 
> Bulls trade Fizer, Crawford, ERob to Milwaukee for Cassell and Kukoc.
> ...



HELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

The problem in Milwaukee last year was Cassell, not Robinson. Cassell DOES NOT pass the ball and he complains. I can't imagine he and Rose in the same locker room.

Why would we want Williams coming off the bench? If he's the point guard of the future, he needs to learn on the court.

If there is any player on the Bucks that I would love to see in a trade to the Bulls (other than Allen) would be Michael Redd. I think he'd be a great fit for Chicago, but of course the Bucks would never do that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Truth</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you answer some of the issues. They won't trade Redd. Cassell is their problem now - a chance for us to solve this problem for them and get a quality PG in return. Somehow Rodman and Pippen got along...

Why do we want JWill coming off the bench? Two reasons. Good for the 2nd team (he can get minutes with the starters at any time, too). And:

REBOUND
PLAYER MIN FG FT 3PT OFF TOT AST PF ST TO PTS 
Jay Williams 26 2-11 1-4 1-6 1 6 6 4 1 5 6 

Cassell is a real point guard. A veteran. We see how adding a veteran in Rose helped the team, and then how adding a second one in Marshall helped even more.

JWill could easily get 30+ Min/Game with this roster.

Last year, Cassell shot 46% FG, 34.8% 3PT, 86% FT, 6.7 Ast (he does pass), and 19.7PPG. He doesn't turn over the ball like our two young PGs do. He's the kind of player that can be on the floor in the 4th Q of close games.

Kukoc helps us more than he does Milwaukee, especially if they have Fizer and ERob. Crawford gives them a PG replacement who can shoot and play alongside Allen well. He's a proven veteran player who can play all 5 spots, and he knows the triangle offense.

In Kukoc, Curry, Marshall, and Chandler, you have four guys to play 48x3 (144) minutes - 36 minutes EACH, per game.

As Cassell and Kukoc get older, our young guys will be able to step in.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

*Re: Denver's willingness to trade*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Predictions or Shocking Rumors. You make the call.
> 
> *1.) Denver will not trade Juwan Howard.*
> ...


Well seeing as though I made the "shocking" prediction , I will own up to it in my reply as to why IMO it is a trade that makes sense .

Basically Denver sucks and will suck for a long time.

But Denver has an exciting one two punch that could be big time within 3 years - Nene and Skita . That's the core. If they could add an up and coming point guard - such as JC in a direct swap for Posey ( who will likely not be part of their future mix ) then they have 3 of their future starting 5 .

But no prime free agent is going to want to sign there when they can get money elsewhere where immediate situations are better. 
Kiki Dee will find out what Jerry Krause found out in the Summer of Full Boat free agent love of 2K with regard to Kidd and TD - and I suspect Olowakandi ( who I don't rate anyway )

The best Kiki will be able to do if he is prepared to accept the liklihood of where the primo talents are going , is that he is going to be around mid level or slightly above mid level exception money for guys like PJ Brown and Elden Campbell who are wanting a fat pension contract for the remaining 3 years or so that they have in the league

Next year's free agency is not as rich now as what it seems - at least not for teams like Denver. Kidd and TD are not going there and basically outside of those 2 , if you scroll through the list its slim pickings with who you would pay the big dollar to.

Denver's payroll next season ( including a top 5 pick say ) is going to be $18M for 6 players. It would be $21.5M if Fizer were included as part of a package with Crawford for Posey and Whitney. Allan Houston and Kurt Thomas would take that figure to $42M for 9 players

If Denver did not have James with the #1 pick they may interest the Hornets in swapping say a number 2 or number 3 pick with the Hornets say 20 pick and get them to give up Jamal Magliore - or even if they had to give up that pick outright to snare him to partner Nene in the frontline it would be a gamble worth taking because positionally you are set across the board

Denver would have a high 2nd round pick and could bring back any 3 of Yarbrough, Savovic, Andersen , Bowen and Satterfield for around $500K to $1M each which would fill their Roster out at 13 spots for $45M

They would then have the option of spending up to $6M approximately suing their exceptions to acquire a couple more vets in that lower to mid tier range that would serve as role players - Foyle, Mills , Childs, Michael Curry , Eric Williams etc .

So Denver, in pulling off these moves and "renting" Houston for 4 years would look like

Magliore
Hilario
Skita
Houston
Crawford

K.Thomas
Fizer
E.Williams or Michael Curry
R.White
Childs

Satterfield
Yarbrough
C.Andersen
2nd round pick


IR 
Camby

The most likely starting 5 next season would be 

Magliore
Thomas
E.Williams
Houston
Crawford

That's a pretty tight defensive front line. You could bring Fizer and White off the bench for instant scoring and develop Nene and Skita at your leisure with Childs backing Crawford. 

The season after they would have Camby's $7M off the books and salary would be around $40M 

Long term in Houston's 4th year you would have to make qualifying offers to Nene and Skita but after that you lose Houston off the books. 

Yes he would be overpaid but he would only commit their salary to the $40M's for the next 4 years hence no risk of L Tax - would give them respectability and the cost of his contract is mitigated by how cheap you your young talent for and how cheap Kurt Thomas comes for for the next 3 years . I mean $14M for Allan and $5M for Kurt - $3M there is worth $3M over here. Dig ?

Fact is it does not confine Denver at all really if you look at the practical realities of their situation. 

Additionally all the sexy young talent are all signing deals to stay in their own back yard- save for the Clippers but that's another story.

I think trading for Kurt and Allan and the draft pick for Magliore ( if not James ) and getting Fizz and Jammy in for Whit and Posey makes a ton of sense for the Nugz .

But that's just my opinion of course


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

*Let's just undo what we did in one fell swoop*

DaBullz,

You are proposing trading our youth for established veterans. If that was the proper course, why didn't we simply keep Scottie Pippen, Ron Harper, Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Luc Longley, Randy Brown, etc. after MJ retired and spackle in the holes with draft picks?

Because such a team, while it might have made the playoffs, would not have contended for a championship.

Cassell is a head case and arguably a cancer. He plays "me first" basketball.

Crawford for Kukoc? Kukoc was the player we traded to acquire the draft pick used to select Crawford in the first place. Do we really want to go backwards and then have to start all over in a few years when Kukoc and Cassell are old and have no value?

Everyone here needs to get used to the fact that Krause has cast his lot with these young guys. Marshall was signed because it didn't cost us any of our young players. Krause will no doubt do some tweaking, but I guarantee that no young player will be traded for anyone older than 25. This group is either going to develop and grow into a championship team, or they're not. If not, Krause will retire and leave the mess for his successor.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Juwan Howard will not be traded.... especially for Houston*

Kiki just got into place. He will be given time b/c he is cleaning up Issel's mess. Heck, he is being listed as one of the best GMs in the game and no one expected them to win anything this year.

Why would he blow up all his cap space for Alan Houston? After this season, Alan Houston costs $72M over the next 5 years. $16M for next year alone. Is this really a prudent way to spend money? For contracts totaling $16M in year 1 starting salary this past year, a team could locked up Rashard Lewis & Keon Clark. 

They definetly have their eye on Kandi whom they wined and dined this summer They could just go down the Clippers roster of RFAs and offer max deals until Sterling blinks. Why blow themselves up right now? For Houston? 

If they find out they can't sign anyone at the end of the summer and lose all patience, the Knicks still might give them Houston for a second round draft pick ala the Bulls acquiring Oakley. 

p.s. Fizer is just as useless for a team with Howard, Nene, Tsika, Rodney White and others as he is on our team.


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> I would love the opportunity to get Shane Battier
> 
> 
> ...


How does that work? Battier at SG? Why do you want Battier, just cause he played at Duke too?


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> 
> 
> How does that work? Battier at SG? Why do you want Battier, just cause he played at Duke too?



Ideally, Battier is a small forward. However, he did play a lot of shooting guard last year as well.

I would love to see Battier on the Bulls because he would bring so much of what they don't have: defensive prowess, intelligence, and selflessness.


----------



## fear7 (Jun 12, 2002)

My question would be how much of an upgrade would Battier be over Hassell?

Would a combo of Rose and Battier be all the different from Rose and Hassell?


----------



## LoaKhoet (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Truth</b>!
> 
> Ideally, Battier is a small forward. However, he did play a lot of shooting guard last year as well.
> 
> I would love to see Battier on the Bulls because he would bring so much of what they don't have: defensive prowess, intelligence, and selflessness.


<b> Lets make a bigger trade. </b>

Bulls trade:

Chandler, Crawford, Hassell and Fizer

Bulls receive:

Battier, Gooden, and Swift

If u are a Chandler's fan then u will hate this but, realistically, we are getting 2 starters. Gooden is going to average 20/10 for us while Battier giving us that consistent defender who is actually better than Hassell in all areas. 

Swift would give us that power physical player inside. Believe it or not, we would be deeper as a team. 

I don't think Jerry West will do such a deal though.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Let's just undo what we did in one fell swoop*



> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> DaBullz,
> 
> You are proposing trading our youth for established veterans. If that was the proper course, why didn't we simply keep Scottie Pippen, Ron Harper, Toni Kukoc, Steve Kerr, Luc Longley, Randy Brown, etc. after MJ retired and spackle in the holes with draft picks?


Indeed I am. But not exactly "our youth" as you suggest. We'd still have JWill, Curry, Chandler, and Hassell - that's a lot of youth! Like I said, look at what the veterans have done for us already (Rose, Marshall, even Blount).

The second point you made is also something I agree with. They should have kept those veterans and patched with rookies, trades, or free agents. Krause liked to point to the celtics and how they declined when their players got old. My view is that it was acts of God (deaths of Bias and Lewis) that made that team decline. In fact, it's pretty evident that a championship caliber team can actually get young players like Lewis and Bias while competing for playoff spots and even titles.



> Because such a team, while it might have made the playoffs, would not have contended for a championship.


Pure speculation. If the Bulls had Ron Mercer to go with Pippen, they may well have been a championship team.



> Cassell is a head case and arguably a cancer. He plays "me first" basketball.


Rodman was a head case, too. 5 rings. It is clear that having a trio of Casell, Rose, and Marshall would be huge for us, and Kukoc would make us even better. Heck, we could start and play Blount huge minutes and not even care.



> Crawford for Kukoc? Kukoc was the player we traded to acquire the draft pick used to select Crawford in the first place. Do we really want to go backwards and then have to start all over in a few years when Kukoc and Cassell are old and have no value?


I see it as Crawford for Cassell and Fizer for Kukoc. Gives Milwaukee young replacements for their rebuilding effort. Our rebuilding is done, and we need to fill the gaping holes we have at point guard and small forward. I'm being blunt. JWill will mature in time to replace Cassell. At this point in time, Fizer has almost no value to this team (see his minutes) and it's clear Kukoc would be an immediate contributor.



> Everyone here needs to get used to the fact that Krause has cast his lot with these young guys. Marshall was signed because it didn't cost us any of our young players. Krause will no doubt do some tweaking, but I guarantee that no young player will be traded for anyone older than 25. This group is either going to develop and grow into a championship team, or they're not. If not, Krause will retire and leave the mess for his successor.


After last game, I see little signs of maturation by our young players with potential. It's possible, even likely, though. Maybe not this year - no, certainly not this year. In the mean time, the youngsters could be part of a team with real chance to win, experience wins, sub for players who know how to win, play with a guy (Kukoc) who knows the triangle, receive passes from guys who understand the game better, etc., etc.

Just being on the practice floor with those kind of vets, or in the huddle on the sidelines during timeouts would be a benefit to the guys we're trying to groom.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Re: Let's just undo what we did in one fell swoop*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Indeed I am. But not exactly "our youth" as you suggest. We'd still have JWill, Curry, Chandler, and Hassell - that's a lot of youth!


Yes, youth that will be stuck on the bench behind mediocre veterans. Then, when the veterans are old and have no value, we will have some youth, but not as much as we had. And who knows if or how much of the youth will all develop? This approach is headed towards the cycle of mediocrity in which so many teams in the league are stuck (Pistons, Timberwolves, Nets, Sonics, Celtics, etc.)



> Like I said, look at what the veterans have done for us already (Rose, Marshall, even Blount).


By my count, 2-3 so far. You really think adding Sam Cassell to this mix puts us over the top?



> The second point you made is also something I agree with. They should have kept those veterans and patched with rookies, trades, or free agents.


Water under the bridge...



> Krause liked to point to the celtics and how they declined when their players got old. My view is that it was acts of God (deaths of Bias and Lewis) that made that team decline.


Those deaths contributed, no doubt. But the Celtics problems stem much deeper. I think most would agree the loss of Larry Bird, Robert Parish, Kevin McHale, and Dennis Johnson (all within a 3 year period, I believe) was the primary factor. They then tried the patchwork approach, signing guys like Dominique Wilkens, Kevin Gamble, Sherman Douglas, Dana Barros, and Xavier McDaniel, all of whom were on their last legs. That combined with some bad draft picks (Michael Smith, John Bagley, Dee Brown, Acie Earl, Eric Montross, etc.) and you have a bad situation.



> In fact, it's pretty evident that a championship caliber team can actually get young players like Lewis and Bias while competing for playoff spots and even titles.


It's possible, but it takes a lot of luck. And the odds of success are much lower. History shows that most of the teams that are good now spent considerable time in the lottery during the 90's.



> Rodman was a head case, too. 5 rings.


Rodman with the Bulls was the exception to the rule. Would you like me to list all the "bad attitude" players who have not succeeded? You could start with Rodman on the Spurs.



> It is clear that having a trio of Casell, Rose, and Marshall would be huge for us, and Kukoc would make us even better. Heck, we could start and play Blount huge minutes and not even care.


If that isn't a recipe for a 50-win team that bows out in the first or second round, I don't know what is.



> I see it as Crawford for Cassell and Fizer for Kukoc.


Cassell will be 33 in another week or two and Kukoc is 34. That gives the Bulls, what, maybe a 2-year window to win it all? After that, we loose these guys for nothing. I'm not against trading Fizer or Crawford-- just not for old guys past their prime.



> Gives Milwaukee young replacements for their rebuilding effort. Our rebuilding is done...


How is it that Fizer and Crawford and useless to us, but are young replacements for their rebuilding effort? And how is it that Kukoc and Cassell are the final pieces for us, but not for the Bucks, who are not even officially in rebuilding mode?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Let's just undo what we did in one fell swoop*



> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> Yes, youth that will be stuck on the bench behind mediocre veterans. Then, when the veterans are old and have no value, we will have some youth, but not as much as we had. And who knows if or how much of the youth will all develop? This approach is headed towards the cycle of mediocrity in which so many teams in the league are stuck (Pistons, Timberwolves, Nets, Sonics, Celtics, etc.)


FWIW, I think all the NBA teams, except 3 (lakers, mavs, kings) are stuck in mediocrity.



> By my count, 2-3 so far. You really think adding Sam Cassell to this mix puts us over the top?
> 
> 
> Water under the bridge...


My guess would be 4-1. Is that over the top? (Maybe, maybe not, granted). However, 4-1 is good experience for the guys we're trying to groom.



> Those deaths contributed, no doubt. But the Celtics problems stem much deeper. I think most would agree the loss of Larry Bird, Robert Parish, Kevin McHale, and Dennis Johnson (all within a 3 year period, I believe) was the primary factor. They then tried the patchwork approach, signing guys like Dominique Wilkens, Kevin Gamble, Sherman Douglas, Dana Barros, and Xavier McDaniel, all of whom were on their last legs. That combined with some bad draft picks (Michael Smith, John Bagley, Dee Brown, Acie Earl, Eric Montross, etc.) and you have a bad situation.


In 92-93, the Celtics were 48-34. Then Lewis died. In 93-94 the Celtics were 32-50. Now play the "what if" scenario of the team having Len Bias.



> If that isn't a recipe for a 50-win team that bows out in the first or second round, I don't know what is.


Sounds like the Bulls who lost to the Pistons twice before becoming champions. Contrast that with a team that might win 20 games...



> Cassell will be 33 in another week or two and Kukoc is 34. That gives the Bulls, what, maybe a 2-year window to win it all? After that, we loose these guys for nothing. I'm not against trading Fizer or Crawford-- just not for old guys past their prime.


In the bigger picture, Cassell and Kukoc give us a highly competitive team, right now. And a team with guys like Curry and Chandler and JWill. What the team needs right now is a point guard who won't turn the ball over as much as JWill does (I hope/pray/expect that will get better in this 2-year window), and reliable scoring options when Rose isn't playing his A game.



> How is it that Fizer and Crawford and useless to us, but are young replacements for their rebuilding effort? And how is it that Kukoc and Cassell are the final pieces for us, but not for the Bucks, who are not even officially in rebuilding mode?


Look at the minutes we can't give these players and that Milwaukee could after the trade. I suspect that Crawford and Fizer will turn out to be fine NBA players, but I don't think we're going to give them the time and the situations where they'll grow like Milwaukee could.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> 
> 
> How does that work? Battier at SG? Why do you want Battier, just cause he played at Duke too?


In short... yes . Chem builder. 

And for Fear 7 ...

Battman is a guy that can defend the perimeter and also inside. He has greater size than Trent who is a little too small to defend 3's and 3 - 4 combo's.

Shane is like a new and improved / more skilled younger George Lynch


----------



## Peter Vescey (Oct 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> :laugh: Problem is the ultimate harmony for players today is an 6 year 80 million dollar deal!:sigh:


The voice of reason or a byproduct of Sterling's checkbook? :grinning:


----------



## Peter Vescey (Oct 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> Those faces included Curry, Chandler, Fizer and Crawford, who BTW, was once again wearing his towel over his head in a Middle-East type of wrap. All the fire on the bench we'd seen in previous games was noticeably missing. IMHO, all's not well in Camelot.


Ah Dickie, you make it so enjoyable to read. :grinning: You can come to work for the NY Post anytime!


----------



## Peter Vescey (Oct 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> But that's not the case, we have 2 young post talents in Curry and Chandler that have a lot more potential and are arguably playing better than Fizer right now despite less experiance. So Fizer needs to go. He will probably never reach his full potetial with the Bulls. That's ok. He probably can not do it here. It's just not in the cards.


Thats very true and is apparent in Fizer's sub-par level of play this year.


----------



## Peter Vescey (Oct 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> 
> the clips haven't made the playoffs (barely) cause they haven't had a veteran leader or anyone for that matter with real experience


Or a big time closer. :grinning:


----------



## Peter Vescey (Oct 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> thatsnobull from realgm came up with this thre way trade. This could explain why Milwaukee would be willing to trade Thomas.
> 
> 
> ...


If Sprewell can get traded while he's not in the final year of his deal --- its living proof any contract can be moved!


----------



## Peter Vescey (Oct 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> Kiki Dee will find out what Jerry Krause found out in the Summer of Full Boat free agent love of 2K


With the only exception being that the definition of 'Full Boat free agent' has changed.

With declining salaries the number of players fitting this description just 'keeps on a dwindling'!


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

*Re: Juwan Howard will not be traded.... especially for Houston*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Kiki just got into place. He will be given time b/c he is cleaning up Issel's mess.


I agree. He will be given time and IMO it will be time that is squandered in the hope that you can snare the sexy FA's. It really is a case of Kiki Dee is all dressed up but will find out he has no place to go. 



> Heck, he is being listed as one of the best GMs in the game and no one expected them to win anything this year.


Huh?

In that ESPN best GM poll I thought they had him in the back half?



> Why would he blow up all his cap space for Alan Houston?


Because what I am saying is he will have to use his cap space to facilitate trades and get a player that someone else does not want anymore. Let's face it someone that is prized and has the right buzz about them is not going to be given up . The only players that will be given up to a cap dumping wasteland are those that are perceived as trash or at least trash for the cash - and in this regard Houston is a bit like Juwan Howard . People forget about their skills as a basketball player and only focus on the pay check and downgrade their skills because of the concept of getting ripped off with what you get for your money. I mean for $16M next year in this new dawn of financial rationalism you would expect TMac on acid . I wonder why KG and Sheed never get seen as bad value / bad deals / bums that don't deserve their earnings when their teams are really middle of the roaders?? Could it be that they have more panache and rep the smoke and mirrors show in the tightly woven bundle of hocus pocus that is NBA superstaw marketing?? 

Compare them to the No T'in up , No Dunkin , No In your face , No peppy parlance in puff piece print style of the more I share the remote with my wife. excuse myself from the room to fart, I don't leave the toliet seat up style of Allan Houston .

Is Allan Houston overpaid ? No doubt.

Is Allan Houston one of the best pure shooters in the game ? No Doubt.

On a team that costs me peanuts in payroll cost for the next 3 - 4 years would I blink in paying Allan Hosuton an extra say $5M over what I would like to pay him and perhaps what is more appropriate now in this new dawn of fiscal prudence? No Doubt.

Is the pain of Allan Houston's contract on a one on one nominal level of consideration mitigated because I get other talent cheaper that are underpaid? Do I "average" to rationalise? No Doubt.

Does Allan Houston contribute to a non trouble locker room and together with KT contribute to a _ proven , contributing _ veteran core that can help legitimise an otherwise illegitimate collection of talent ? No Doubt.

Can Allan Houston/KT get other vets here for the MLE down the track much in the way that Jalen was a factor in getting Yell here ? No Doubt. 



> After this season, Alan Houston costs $72M over the next 5 years.


Not according to hoopshype salaries. That's 4 years. 



> Is this really a prudent way to spend money?


Yes, IMO for reasons set out above - no one is going there anyway - if they get trade for a young point and deal their draft pick for a Magliore C type - they are set in positional coverage in the structure of their team except for SG and with current trends of RFA and UFA - the primo talents are reupping and staying home.



> For contracts totaling $16M in year 1 starting salary this past year, a team could locked up Rashard Lewis & Keon Clark.


I would still rather have Allan Houston and Kurt Thomas myself - on the basis of even though Hoo's cost next year is $16M - Kurt is still part of the deal in the scenario that I have outlined.



> They definetly have their eye on Kandi whom they wined and dined this summer


Oh. 

I guess that settles it . Kandi to Denver. I see.


Just because they got him laid and tanked him up does not mean Kandi whistling Rocky Mountain High for the rest of the winter

Kandi has about as much chance of going to Denver as what Juwan Howard has of being dealt to New York for Houston and Thomas. 

However - the latter is a deal that should be made as opposed to the former IMO . 

I would much rather Houston for 4 at his cost then Kandi for 7 at his cost . Kandi is such a bum but San Antonio and Orlando - hell maybe even Utah will represent better situations - and with the money most likely . Kiki can wine and dine all he likes but he would be best advised to keep the Dom in the cellar .



> They could just go down the Clippers roster of RFAs and offer max deals until Sterling blinks.


Brand. Has lost with a crap team in Chi + they have Nene and Camby. Brand to Nugz for a few bucks more ? No.

A.Miller. Has lost for a crap team in Cleveland and is in his home town . They do have a point guard opening in Denver but he is in a better situation in LA - at least they are currently a mediocre team who honestly believe they are going to get better with their mythical stockpiling of supposed world beating talent. AMiller to the Nugz for a few bucks more ? No.

Maggette . Clips will keep him just out of reach of mid range territory and no one else will have the courage to give him more including teams like the Nugz who are dressed up with no place to go . Maggette to the Nugz ? No. 

Odom ? See Maggette. Clippers will see his troubles as a chance to tie him up at reasonabe cost - and he did not do anything last season and he has not and will not do anything this season for awhile yet. If he struggles with chem and the new structure as he did last year when Brand came on board - its even less likely still someone is going to offer him Max money. Odom to the Nugz? No.

Q. You gotta wait 18 months before you have a crack at Q . Lots of things can happen in 18 months before you pass on talent in the hope that maybe just maybe you might be able to throw a bag of dough at Q and he will come . I rate Houston over Q anyway both in basketball IQ and ability ( currently and perhaps for half of the 4 year term that Houston's contract would have to run ) but there are other benefits to Houston such as those that have already been outlined in the scenario ( KT coming along for the ride , legitimacy , attracting other vet MLE in a more bona fide effort to win now etc ) Q to the Nugz? No.




> If they find out they can't sign anyone at the end of the summer and lose all patience, the Knicks still might give them Houston for a second round draft pick ala the Bulls acquiring Oakley.


Maybe. But either way - Howard at deadline or dumper to spaceholder at summer's end - the end means is the same isn't it? 

So you question 5 times why would theu do it and blow it up - for Houston and then you come around and concede that they might at the end of the summer. That's funny.



> p.s. Fizer is just as useless for a team with Howard, Nene, Tsika, Rodney White and others as he is on our team.


At the moment . Yes. Because we have had a couple of crap games. But as he gets into the swing of the season and has those 9 point 4th quarters like he did in the Atlanta comeback he will in time develop a rep around the league as bench scorer , who , on his night can get hot quickly. And if a guy like this costs around $3M - $4M , then what the hell . You need guys like this off your bench who can give this type of boost if a team is going to win games


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Peter Vescey</b>!
> 
> 
> With the only exception being that the definition of 'Full Boat free agent' has changed.
> ...


This is true and teams I think will not pay out for medicore talents trying to pass themselves off as something more.

Mediocre talent and perceptive value ( in a subjective determinant ) do need to be seperated in the mindset of how you see a player's _ talents _


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Juwan Howard will not be traded.... especially for Houston*



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> It really is a case of Kiki Dee is all dressed up but will find out he has no place to go.
> ....
> Does Allan Houston contribute to a non trouble locker room and together with KT contribute to a _ proven , contributing _ veteran core that can help legitimise an otherwise illegitimate collection of talent ? No Doubt.
> ...


Per an earlier point, at the time the poll was released on ESPN, Kiki was one of the 5 GMs that were given a full page article glowing with praise. I can't find it anymore. I did find this:



> "He understands how much we like him as a player. Sometimes it is hard to understand the overall plan. We worked so hard to create all this cap space and we have to preserve it."_-- GM Kiki Vandeweghe, on declining Donnell Harvey's option, in the Nov. 1 edition of The Rocky Mountain News_


So it sure looks like Kiki plans to hold onto his $25M+ rather than blow it on marginal and/or overpaid players like Houston, Thomas & Fizer.

You clearly think he is in the wrong. I like his chances. We will just have to wait and see.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

I have nothing against Kiki.

I am curious, however, why some people are so ga-ga over him when he has absolutely zero track record as a GM.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Juwan Howard will not be traded.... especially for Houston*



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> 
> > Originally posted by <b>Johnston</b>!
> ...


What's funny is that you ignore my words in BOLD above. So typical. To reiterate:

IF the Nugz strike out in FA 
IF they lose their patience 
IF they are ready for years of mediocrity

Meeting all 3 of these conditions, I would bet that they could pick up a player of the caliber of Alan Houston or a Tim Thomas for nothing just like we did with Oakley or the Pistons did with Cliff Robinson.


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

*Re: Re: Juwan Howard will not be traded.... especially for Houston*



> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All very good answers :clap:


----------

