# Trade Rumor from the trade forum???



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97774&forumid=55 

"It has been discussed by both teams, that sometime possibly right before the draft or on draft day that the Bulls would trade the 3rd pick in exchange for either Dunleavy or Richardson. Apparently the Warriors want a chance at Shaun Livingston and Luol Deng. And with the 11th take Jameer Nelson, Josh Childress, or Josh Smith
"


----------



## jollyoscars (Jul 5, 2003)

yeek thats kinda scary or atleast i wouldn't do that for j-rich but dunleavy i would but i would demand #11 from them and we would give them our 2 #2s and a player to match dunleavy ... crawford (is it possible?) if now who would we match w/ dunleavy?


----------



## jollyoscars (Jul 5, 2003)

LOL I JUST REALIZED IF WE GOT MD WE WOULD TOTALLY BE PAX'S TYPA TEAM W HINRICH & DUNLEAVY :grinning:


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

If I'm talking to the Warriors, I'm not off the phone until Pietrus is in the deal.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Richardson would come here to replace Crawford. Stupid to let Craw walk, but stupid is as stupid does.

Or if Pax does the right thing, he resigns Craw and gets Dunleavy to play SF. Much better.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Richardson would come here to replace Crawford. Stupid to let Craw walk, but stupid is as stupid does.
> 
> Or if Pax does the right thing, he resigns Craw and gets Dunleavy to play SF. Much better.



Can J-Rich play SF? He's athletic enough, and will get burned less often by SF's than he does by SG's. He's "listed" as a SF.

I'm a really big Jason Richardson fan; I think that his defense is underrated (not by a lot, but he's not the worst defender in the entire NBA). Offensively, this kid could completely explode. If it weren't for being in Golden State, people would really recognize. 

He would be our superstar. Dunleavy offers none of that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Can Richardson play SF any worse than anyone we have? Heck, I can't count the number of times I saw Gill at SF last year (or maybe you'd say they played 3 guards).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I see J-Rich as pretty small for the SF slot.

How about Chandler for either Richardson or Pietrus and #11?

If they'll deal Pietrus, we maybe draft Josh Smith and if they deal JRich maybe we draft Iggy. Iggy and JRich wouldn't have the length I'd like, but it'd be an interesting lineup.

I agree with Dabullz that it's foolish to let Jamal walk. Ideally, we come out with Pietrus, Smith, and then re-sign Crawford.

This season we play something like
1- Hinrich 34, Crawford 14
2- Crawford 30, Pietrus 18
3- Pietrus 16, ?, Smith 16
4- Davis 18, JYD 30
5- Curry 34, Davis 14

If Smith turns into a star, then we've got a scary combination in him and Pietrus on the wings and Kirk or Jamal at the point. Down the road we can look to move one of those guys to get a young PF, but for the next year or two we'll get journeyman production from the guys we got. Maybe Austin or Fizer would come in and help there?


----------



## Professor (Jun 6, 2002)

To make it work under the cba, additional players would have to be added to make the salaries match. Golden State's board indicates dumping Eschmeyer would be desirable. His salary could be combined with either Dunleavy or Richardson in exchange for the #3 and either ERob or JYD. Not bad. Eschmeyer is nothing special, but he played at Northwestern and might be an ok backup center. Bulls dump a contract and get a decent wing player (former #3 or #5 pick) in exchange for this year's #3.

However, I'm not convinced Golden State is ready to give up Dunleavy or Richardson both of whom really showed improvement last season. Which leads me to a third possibility.

What about Pietrus, Eschmeyer, Popeye Jones and #11 for the Bulls #3 and either ERob or JYD? Bulls could at least get Jackson at #11, and one of Childress, Iggy, or Smith might still be available. Golden State has to like what they see in Pietrus, but Richardson showed he is not going to surrender his spot easily. Pietrus may be a luxury they are willing to surrender if they see an asset they really like at #3.

I kind of like Golden State as a trading partner.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Can Richardson play SF any worse than anyone we have? Heck, I can't count the number of times I saw Gill at SF last year (or maybe you'd say they played 3 guards).


That's not a good yardstick to be using :uhoh:


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

I'd do it for Dunleavy.

Resign Crawford though.

I could live with:
Hinrich
Crawford
Dunleavy
Davis
Curry

Moreso than any combination we could come up with through the draft.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

I'd do it for Richardson... I dunno about Dunleavy...


----------



## LoaKhoet (Aug 20, 2002)

That's too good to be true. MD and Pietrus for 3rd? that's too much for me to look forward to. GS is so high on Pietrus that i don't think they want to trade him at all. However, MD and Pietrus would fill our needs so well.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> That's not a good yardstick to be using :uhoh:


It was something of a joke. But I would rather see him at SF than LJ or Dupree. In a heartbeat.

But like I said earlier, if there's any truth to this rumor, then I get the impression Pax is looking at letting Craw walk and trading for JRich as a replacement. Subtraction by addition... or something like that.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> It was something of a joke. But I would rather see him at SF than LJ or Dupree. In a heartbeat.
> ...


Yeah... that's really going to suck. :yes:

The thing to keep in mind here is that in fairness that's not necessarily Paxson's fault. If Reinsdorf is imposing spending restraints, Pax has to operate within that reality. :|


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>jollyoscars</b>!
> yeek thats kinda scary or atleast i wouldn't do that for j-rich but dunleavy i would but i would demand #11 from them and we would give them our 2 #2s and a player to match dunleavy ... crawford (is it possible?) if now who would we match w/ dunleavy?


your nutts if you woundnt trade the #3 for jrich,he has everything we need in a SG and + he's young in what his 3rd year?

i havent seen to much of MD but i did see him play some street ball with and1,at 1st he didnt do to much then he just blew up and startin hitin everthing from everywhere so he wouldnt be so bad to trade for but im a jrich fan so i would want him over MD


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

i know this is just a Rumor but hearin this has givin me hope that pax has finally pulled his head out of his butt and will start to make this team better.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

Besides the fact that Jrich plays the same position as JC, there is no chance Jamal will be back if that deal happened.

Next summer, Eddy, Tyson, and Jrich will all be free agents and that's going to tie up a hell of a lot of money. 

If they're going to let Jamal walk then, they better make sure those 3 will be re-signed. Since we'll be playing the match game with them next summer, I'm sure other teams could really drive up all their prices.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I've said all along that something along the lines of the #3 for Troy Murphy and #11 would be perfect. Not only because Murphy can stretch the middle out for Curry, but also cause he plays good D and is a tenacious rebounder. I'd keep Chandler around and draft Snyder, Iggy, Childress, or L-Jax at #11. Then I'd look to sign a SF for a decent amount...

Kirk Hinrich(PG)
Josh Childress(SG)
Morris Peterson(SF)
Troy Muprhy(PF)
Eddy Curry(C)

Jamal Crawford(PG/SG)
Romain Sato(SG)(#32)
Eddie Robinson(SF)
Antonio Davis(PF)
Tyson Chandler(C)

That's a pretty decent Top 10 right there...


----------



## BullDurf (Feb 11, 2003)

How about Chandler, Jefferies, #3 & #32 for Dunleavy, Pietrus and #11.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

I'd do it for either Dunleavey or Richardson alothough personally, I'd prefer Lil' Dun. He has the ability to play run the point(which he did this past season in GS due to injurires to Claxton and NVE) and he could play the two or three as well. He is 6'9"/ 6'10" and would fill a position of need at small foward. We could then use the MLE and vet min to sign a guy like Macas and possibly two other guys. If that rumor is true, that would be too good to pass up on.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>dsouljah9</b>!
> I'd do it for either Dunleavey or Richardson alothough personally, I'd prefer Lil' Dun. He has the ability to play run the point(which he did this past season in GS due to injurires to Claxton and NVE) and he could play the two or three as well. He is 6'9"/ 6'10" and would fill a position of need at small foward. We could then use the MLE and vet min to sign a guy like Macas and possibly two other guys. If that rumor is true, that would be too good to pass up on.


Honestly, I think Dunleavy, Jason Richardson, or Pietrus could help our team. Richardson is a pure shooting guard, however. His arrival would mean the end of Jamal Crawford's Bulls tenure. Dunleavy is a pure 3 and is probably the best fit for us because he would stretch the defense with his outside shooting, but he's also a point forward with great handles. Pietrus could conceivably play small forward because his defense is so good, but really he's sized to play shooting guard. I also don't think he is worth a #3 pick right now. 

If Golden State wants to retool and they want to use this draft, how about this trade:

Dunleavy, Pietrus and Eschmeyer for #3, #32, Erob and Jeffries


----------



## Devestata (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Honestly, I think Dunleavy, Jason Richardson, or Pietrus could help our team. Richardson is a pure shooting guard, however. His arrival would mean the end of Jamal Crawford's Bulls tenure. Dunleavy is a pure 3 and is probably the best fit for us because he would stretch the defense with his outside shooting, but he's also a point forward with great handles. Pietrus could conceivably play small forward because his defense is so good, but really he's sized to play shooting guard. I also don't think he is worth a #3 pick right now.
> ...


I like that proposal. All we really give up is #3, which could end up being a bust. We already know Dunleavy would help the Bulls right off the bat. Pietrus would end Crawford's tenure with the Bulls too, I would assume?


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

> Dunleavy, Pietrus and Eschmeyer for #3, #32, Erob and Jeffries


this would balance the team and really i would be happy with it but i really want JRich i feel this guy will turn out to be a star.

now if we could do the above trade then somehow trade for JR Smith or a pick to draft him,then sign SJack or QRich then i would be more then happy with this offseason and feel that pax had redeamed himself in my eyes(<like he or any1 else really gives a crap tho LOL)


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

As someone who is forced to be mildly attached to GS, I don't know about this one -- it seems to have been written by someone who isn't really concerned about the GS side of things. 

Why does GS trade essentially a developed third pick for the third pick in trhis draft? The original post says it's to take either Livingston or Deng, and then another PG/Swingman at 11. This is what strikes me as odd about the proposal -- the Warriors have needs at center, not PG this moment and certianly not the swing spots. NVE and Speedy are not GS points of the future, but they will still be on the roster next season (I think people unconcsiously have written these guys into retirement because they were injured this season). If they draft a point they will have to try and develop them behind these two, which will create a similar dillemma to the one we have with Pietrus now. GS could trade NVE or Speedy, but I don't see that as being an easy one. 

While GS is not far away from losing both of their centers to free agency.

I'm not overly attached to J-Rich or Dunleavey, and would like to see them moved if it meant that GS could get something going, but I don't think they need to be moved for the sake of being moved, at all. I have a hunch that if they're moved it's to get something grander done, like a prospect at C/PF.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MongolianDeathCloud</b>!
> As someone who is forced to be mildly attached to GS, I don't know about this one -- it seems to have been written by someone who isn't really concerned about the GS side of things.
> 
> Why does GS trade essentially a developed third pick for the third pick in trhis draft? The original post says it's to take either Livingston or Deng, and then another PG/Swingman at 11. This is what strikes me as odd about the proposal -- the Warriors have needs at center, not PG this moment and certianly not the swing spots. NVE and Speedy are not GS points of the future, but they will still be on the roster next season (I think people unconcsiously have written these guys into retirement because they were injured this season). If they draft a point they will have to try and develop them behind these two, which will create a similar dillemma to the one we have with Pietrus now. GS could trade NVE or Speedy, but I don't see that as being an easy one.
> ...


That makes a lot of sense MDC. I could see the Warriors most likely moving Richardson or Pietrus and plugging the other one in as their shooting guard of the future. Richardson has a lot of trade value, more than Pietrus anyhow at this point I would think. 

NVE has only one year on his contract left, so he's out of the picture soon enough, maybe mid year at the trading deadline. I could see them taking Livingston or Gordon to be their pg of the future. Yes, they will clearly need a center too.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Professor</b>!
> 
> What about Pietrus, Eschmeyer, Popeye Jones and #11 for the Bulls #3 and either ERob or JYD?


does the GM of the Warriors get a supply of vasoline in this trade to ease the pain? 

Terrible, terrible proposal.

The Bulls really have nothing to offer for Pietrius unless Hinrich was included, and then it would be way too lopsided in the Warriors favor because of how good Kirk is(by far the Bulls best asset right now).

Having the 3rd pick in the draft is not always striking gold guys, but good luck anyway.


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

Here's a thought though -- suppose that current re-hyping of Pavel is true, and he works himself into a 5 pick like people are suggesting. Then I would see the original proposal in a new light, in order to either pick or further deal to pick Pavel.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MongolianDeathCloud</b>!
> Here's a thought though -- suppose that current re-hyping of Pavel is true, and he works himself into a 5 pick like people are suggesting. Then I would see the original proposal in a new light, in order to either pick or further deal to pick Pavel.


That could be a great pick for you guys if your management is sure he's worth the risk. I don't know if Gordon, Harris, or Livinston will slip to you at 11 or if you really like Nelson (I do), or maybe Telfair. This draft is so funny. I feel that there are going to be a lot of great players drafted and a lot of busts, but a lot of them aren't going to be the players you would think. This draft has lots of depth but a lot of mystery.


----------



## Johnjo (Jun 4, 2002)

I think at this point trading for J-Rich might not be too bad of an idea. Until Curry develops we don't have anyone who could be close to considered as a go to guy. Even if we do resign Crawford, he is way too streaky. Richardson puts points on the board and landing a fresh start in Chi-Town might do wonders for him.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

If JRich is available, I'd trade any one player on the team for him, including Hinrich. I'd consider trading any two players on the team for him, depending on who the two are (i.e. I wouldn't trade away both starting guards or both Curry and Chandler).


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

I don't know HOW we would be able to do this, but I would give a lot to somehow make our starting lineup look like this next season:

PG-Hinrich
SG-Richardson
SF-Pietrus
PF-Chandler
C-Curry


what would we need to give for Pietrus AND Richardson.... a re-signed crawford, out pick AND..... what else a future #1, a few more players....



that would be an exciting team that would play defense...

I think Hinrich and Richardson could be our backcourt for a longggggg time... and if we think we have what we need for the front court Chandler and Curry should be there for a longgggg time..... only thing left to look for would be an unselfish defensive minded SF.... like Pietrus.... that would be sweet


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> That could be a great pick for you guys if your management is sure he's worth the risk. I don't know if Gordon, Harris, or Livinston will slip to you at 11 or if you really like Nelson (I do), or maybe Telfair. This draft is so funny. I feel that there are going to be a lot of great players drafted and a lot of busts, but a lot of them aren't going to be the players you would think. This draft has lots of depth but a lot of mystery.


Well, if there isn't a promising point on board I'd be satified going with the best big, even if the Warriors had traded and already drafted Pavel. Any big drafted beyond possibly one is going to a be a gamble of some sort, so might as well grab some insurance if you're in the Warrior's boat. 

The little talked about reality is that both of the Warrior's centers are free agents, and both have expressed desire to play elsewhere. The Warriors could survive with another season of NVE and Claxton, but if they have to play Cliffy and Eschemyer as centers they will get mudholes stomped in them (bigger ones then the previous seasons, heh. Actually they could get another lotto pick..). And getting a competent big is just flat out difficult in this NBA climate. Whereas I'm of the belief that the Warriors could buy a competent point if the need arose.

I agree about this draft wholeheartedly, it's going to be an odd one. I still think that volume is definitely going to be more valuble than quality in terms of picks, although perhaps this will change as more workouts take place and some players cement themselves in the top five alongside Okafor and Howard.


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> If JRich is available, I'd trade any one player on the team for him, including Hinrich. I'd consider trading any two players on the team for him, depending on who the two are (i.e. I wouldn't trade away both starting guards or both Curry and Chandler).


Just curious, would you go so far as trading Chandler and the pick for JRich and the Warriors' pick? I have no idea if this trade is feasible because A) I'm looking in from the Warriors' side and b) I have no value what Chandler's stock is, he seems to be a very enigmatic in terms of value.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MongolianDeathCloud</b>!
> 
> 
> Just curious, would you go so far as trading Chandler and the pick for JRich and the Warriors' pick? I have no idea if this trade is feasible because A) I'm looking in from the Warriors' side and b) I have no value what Chandler's stock is, he seems to be a very enigmatic in terms of value.


as a Bulls fan I would do this...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MongolianDeathCloud</b>!
> 
> 
> Just curious, would you go so far as trading Chandler and the pick for JRich and the Warriors' pick? I have no idea if this trade is feasible because A) I'm looking in from the Warriors' side and b) I have no value what Chandler's stock is, he seems to be a very enigmatic in terms of value.


Most certainly. It isn't a case of either team being ripped off. Rather, both teams are dealing from strength and filling needs. 

The Bulls have just two guards, and were forced to play them both (Crawford, Hinrich) 40+ minutes in a lot of games. When one of those guys wasn't on the court, we often had to play guys like ERob and NBDL roster filler guys like Ronald Dupree at guard.

Chandler would fit right into your lineup and you'd have your starting C for the next 10+ years. He will grow with your team and he will contribute at least what Foyle gave you this year, and when he has a great game, it'll be a monster of a game. He's capable of putting up a 30/30 game on occaision, and he may end up doing that more regularly than any of us believe at this point.

The negative about Chandler is that he missed the end of last season with an esophogus problem and came into camp before this season with a sore back. He injured his back diving into the seats early in the season, and missed most of the rest of the year. But before that, he was considered the Bulls best player (we even have a poll you can search for where we posters voted him the best player). But I think he'll be good as new before next season.

We'd be able to use the GS pick to select a good SF prospect to fill our 2nd biggest weakness.

But JRich gives the Bulls something they sorely lack. A consistent scorer and a guy who's not afraid to go to the hole. JRich would look terrific alongside either Crawford or Hinrich. I think he'd also elevate the entire Bulls' game from something resembling an NBDL franchise to one resembling an actual NBA team. 

I'm convinced this trade would mean 10 more wins for the Bulls and certainly more wins for the Warriors.

My $.02.


----------



## pr0wler (Jun 8, 2003)

That lineup you posted LINE23 is pretty damn good, but I doubt it would happen.

I don't see why u guys can't keep Crawford, but trade for richardson as well (for #3 pick). Your lineup would be....

PG - Hinrich/Crawford
SG - Richardson/Crawford
SF - Fizer/Richardson/Robinson
PF - Chandler/JYD
C - Curry/Davis

That's an exciting young lineup. Crawford can be the sixth man, backing up hinrich in his natural PG position, and spelling Richardson at the 2 guard. Fizer is a good player, and you bring him back into the rotation.This would cover all 5 positions, with great depth in a 9 man rotation. If you aren't satisfied with Fizer at SF, then you could always trade for someone like radmanovich, or sign someone underrated like Cardinal, who happens to be on the warriors too. And did I mention this lineup is young with lots of potential?


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

> Dunleavy, Pietrus and Eschmeyer for #3, #32, Erob and Jeffries


The Warriors give up WAY too much in this trade.

I can see this trade happening. It makes a lot of sense. I think Dunleavy would be the better fit for the Bulls, as he's a 3, a shooter, unselfish offensive player, can play some point forward, has size, etc. I doubt J-Rich can really play the 3, after all he's closer to 6'5" than 6'6". Yeah, height is overrated, but his game is built to be a 2, not a 3. He's a scorer and I doubt he can take the physicality of some of the larger 3's, even though it won't happen often.

I don't see the Warriors giving away *both* JRich/Dunleavy and Pietrus. That's a deal the Warriors aren't willing to make because they see 3 very, very talented wingmen. I can see them trading away 1, then taking a point guard or big men with #3 and Childress/big man/PG with #11.



> How about Chandler for either Richardson or Pietrus and #11?


That's something I could see. However, with JRich's improved play and Chandler's back, I can't see the Warriors giving up their first rounder. Probably giving a future 1st + player and picking up the #3.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MongolianDeathCloud</b>!
> 
> 
> Just curious, would you go so far as trading Chandler and the pick for JRich and the Warriors' pick? I have no idea if this trade is feasible because A) I'm looking in from the Warriors' side and b) I have no value what Chandler's stock is, he seems to be a very enigmatic in terms of value.


Not for me.

JRich and Pietrus +11th would do it.


----------



## ChiGuy_82 (May 31, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>pr0wler</b>!
> That lineup you posted LINE23 is pretty damn good, but I doubt it would happen.
> 
> I don't see why u guys can't keep Crawford, but trade for richardson as well (for #3 pick). Your lineup would be....
> ...



There is no way Crawford signs back with us to be a sixth man, i mean he had a hissy fit when BC sat him in the final quarter 2 years ago, in his mind he is a starter and would be very disgruntled if he had to come off the bench for an extended period of time, and i dont know if Fizer is SF material.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MongolianDeathCloud</b>!
> 
> 
> Just curious, would you go so far as trading Chandler and the pick for JRich and the Warriors' pick? I have no idea if this trade is feasible because A) I'm looking in from the Warriors' side and b) I have no value what Chandler's stock is, he seems to be a very enigmatic in terms of value.


not me noway do you trade TC right now,i woundnt even trade him for shaq at this point.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> There is no way Crawford signs back with us to be a sixth man




He may not want to, but then again, it's not really his decision if he signs an offer sheet this summer and we match. 

If we bring in any starting caliber SG though, I think Crawford is as good as gone.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

i hope we can get rid of JC this offseason,pax must be begin some other GM to take him off his hands.

now its time to get bashed by arenas lol:starwars:


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MongolianDeathCloud</b>!
> 
> 
> Just curious, would you go so far as trading Chandler and the pick for JRich and the Warriors' pick? I have no idea if this trade is feasible because A) I'm looking in from the Warriors' side and b) I have no value what Chandler's stock is, he seems to be a very enigmatic in terms of value.


Mongolian:

What is the relative values of Pietrius, Dunleavy and Jrich among GS fans? Is their a consensus over who is the better player or which player has a brighter future?


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

I would love for us to get a shot at getting J-Rich. If Curry ever pulls his head out of his *** and continues to work like he's been doing right now, then him and J-Rich could be a fun duo to watch.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Interesting...Personally I like J-Rich and Dunleavy both. WHile I would love to be able to get them on the cheap it isn't going to happen. So here is my scenario for what it is worth:

Bulls trade: #3 pick, Hinrich, E-rob (could be AD or Pip either)

GS trades: Dunleavy, Richardson, and Troy Murphy


DOes anyone think that GS would go for that? If they did that would leave the Bulls with an awfully sweet starting 5:

Crawford
J-Rich
Dunleavy
Chandler
Curry

I almost couldn't craft a better balanced team without paying big money for a superstar. What does everyone think? I know trading KH isn't popular and I am not thrilled about the idea either, but if we could get J-Rich & Dunleavy and move JC back to the point I would just have to do it.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

i think i would raither have Hinrich playin PG for this team,he plays D,plays hard night in night out,and is a leader those 3 things JC just wont/cant do and you must have those things at the PG pos.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bulls</b>!
> i think i would raither have Hinrich playin PG for this team,he plays D,plays hard night in night out,and is a leader those 3 things JC just wont/cant do and you must have those things at the PG pos.


Personally I'm a Crawford fan. I like Kirk but I don't think he is any better than Jamal really....just different. Nevertheless, we can't trade Jamal on draft day....we can trade Kirk so it would HAVE to be Kirk.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bulls</b>!
> i think i would raither have Hinrich playin PG for this team,he plays D,plays hard night in night out,and is a leader those 3 things JC just wont/cant do and you must have those things at the PG pos.


I'm not trying to turn this into a JC/Kirk war, but it annoys me that everyone on this board talks about Kirk like he's their brother, and JC is an unwanted step child.

How much of a difference did Kirk make?

We won 23 games, exactly how much "leading" did he do?

Go to a game and sit close to the court, and you'll hear JC talks and leads probably the most on the team during the game and on the bench.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Personally I'm a Crawford fan. I like Kirk but I don't think he is any better than Jamal really....just different. Nevertheless, we can't trade Jamal on draft day....we can trade Kirk so it would HAVE to be Kirk.


naw i would let JC walk and keep KH,throw in a 2006 1st rd pick or something


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not trying to turn this into a JC/Kirk war, but it annoys me that everyone on this board talks about Kirk like he's their brother, and JC is an unwanted step child.
> ...


i knew you would be here lol do you have some kind of 6th sense that lets you know when smack is talked about JC?

anyway the same could be said about JC we only had 23 wins blah blah blah.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bulls</b>!
> 
> 
> i knew you would be here lol do you have some kind of 6th sense that lets you know when smack is talked about JC?
> ...


W/O him we win what?

I still say Livingston could have been our PG last year and our record wouldn't have been any worse.


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> 
> 
> Mongolian:
> ...


Well, I dunno if I'm the right guy to ask, since I fall in one extreme of Warrior fan. There seem to be two schools -- the people that like J-Rich alot and want the Warriors to move conservatively, staying the course. These people are probably influenced by all the terrible Gary St. Jean personnel moves, and I don't blame them even if I don't agree. Also, these people like seeing decent Warriors games now, and again I don't blame them -- this team is not that great but they are not bad to watch either.

I'm of the camp that believes that we are just treading water in mediocrity, and that the team still needs to search for some ground level talent. If this means drastically changing the core of the team, than so be it because I don't see the Warriors' current group of talent taking them far enough. And I'm confident enough in Mullin to let him take a whirl at retooling this team to his liking.

So to answer your original question, I'll try and look at these players from both perspectives.

_Pietrus_: Conservative Camp: I don't think he's valued as highly by the conservative Warriors' fan as the rest of the league does. In some ways he seems like a threat to J-Rich and Dunleavey, and he's got some awkward spots in his game. His kind of ennhh start had alot of GS people sour on him and the pick (I was included for a period). I think the conservative Warriors fan is most interested in seeing where J-Rich, Dunleavey, and T-Murph take us, so I imagine he's movable in their eyes. I like Jiri Welsch as well, no one else did, and no one seemed to care when he was moved last summer; I obviously saw that moving him to get what we wanted done was necesary, but still no one seemed to see him being moved as a downside. So take that for what it's worth.

Radical Camp: I like the dude alot and am more attached to him than the other two wings. First reason, the guy is a defender and a hustle maniac. Not only am I fond of that style of play, but I also think every team needs at least a guy like that. Second, he's young and a fresh new type of player that the Warriors' have never really had -- a wild, international guy, not a conservative ho-hum yet consistent guy. Third, he's got less trade value than the other two wings, yet can do a similar/better job in the long run. 

_Dunleavey_: Conservative Camp: They like him alot. Seems to be due to a couple reasons, mostly that a high pick was invested in him and that he's a good guy. Alot of people seemed to believe he had star potential, although that's starting to simmer down. 

Radical Camp: Mmmm, kind of torn. I don't think he'll be a star, but I do think he's the type of baskteball player that winning teams have -- he's got b-ball IQ, good instincts, versatility, and fundamental skills. However, he's definitely someone's Robin, and not a Batman, and franklly we need to look for Batman. And I think he's not really happy with his role in Golden State, and could perform much better on another team and the other GMs out there probably realize this (kind of like alot of the Chi-Town guys). So I say we move him if it gets something done, but not for the sake of justm oving him.

_Richardson_ Conservative Camp: They don't want to move him. Go check out the Warriors' board. I think it's that right now he's our best player, and moving him would seem to imply that we are going to go cellar. He's also fun to watch. And he does have star-potential, although it's very limited on the Warriors.

Radical Camp: I'm all for moving him this off-season. Chemisty reasons for the most part. I don't think he's a bad player, it's just a bad fit. He could be a Batman somewhere else, but on this team he settles on being like half Batman and half Robin (Maybe Green Arrow or something, I dunno). Further, I don't think he's a good star to have without others in place for a variety of reasons -- I don't like strength to come from the guards primarily, I don't think that he likes leading a team, and yet I think his presence kind of takes pressure off of other guys to step up. A subtle yet bothersome note about J-Rich that a Bulls fan might relate to-- the Warriors always seem to do much better after they are mathematically eliminated from the playoffs, and J-Rich is a big part of this recently. That to me screams personnel that would have more value elsewhere, and so I think his trade vlaue is more than his contributions to the team so I'm for moving him for some more rebuilding pieces.

Whew, thatr was long, likely due to the dearth of Warriors talk on these boards.


----------



## MongolianDeathCloud (Feb 27, 2004)

Check this out:



> From the Draft Board:
> "Chad Ford did an article this morning where he had a "mock draft" with 16 NBA personnel from 12 teams.
> 
> They went pick by pick, not worrying about need or which team was picking. They each voted for a player and the winner was "picked". A tie resulted in a re-vote. They assumed all the players that have declared are staying in (although a few guys sitting on the fence, like Andriuskevicius and Splitter, seem to be lower than they should be).
> ...


If it stays like this, I like your pick for the Warriors. While Childress is not on board, you guys could still get another wing with the 11th.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Good stuff, MDC. Don't be a stranger.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

This is an interesting thread and an interesting set of ideas. I haven't really figured out who and what I want out of the Warriors and who I think they'd most want.

MDC raises good points when he talks about the Warriors needs probably most being up front. If they want to move up to the #3 pick, I'd bet it's for Howard or maybe Pavel the Pod Person, who suddenly went from getting reviews like "Shouldn't be drafted" to getting "top 3 talent" marks. I still don't know what the hell to think about that guy. They'd probably like Hinrich too but he's less of a pressing need. Speedy isn't the greatest PG, but he's probably solid enough and will be in place if they want to take a shot on a young guy with the 11 pick.

Thing is, I'm not at all sure Howard is still on the board at 3, and I'm not too they'd wanna trade up for Pavel. That looks like a really risky move to me.

So, I think if Howard is there at draft time, I can see something happening. My preference would be to see Pietrus and Dunlevy coming here, but I think it's a lot to ask Golden State to give up a #3 pick they've spent two years on plus a promising #11 pick from last year for this year's #3 pick. Does Howard excite them THAT much? I think they'd probably need more.

But I don't think the Bulls are in a position to give Hinrich. We need to make net additions of assets, and here we're talking about giving two assets and getting two. Same thing with trading Chandler. What we really need is to get more than we give.

Thus, I think we have to ask for either Murphy or the #11 pick if we give up one of those guys. I'd really be pushing to give up Chandler. We can afford to lose a guy out of our frontcourt, but even with getting Pietrus and keeping Jamal, we're thin in our backcourt. I think Golden State, even if they're getting Howard, might still like Chandler too, since they're probably going to loose both Dampier and Foyle. This is also the reason they offer up the #11 pick before they offer up Murphy

So OK, I think what might be workable is if they offer Dunleavy (a #3 pick), Pietrus (a #11 pick), and the #11 pick this year in exchange for Chandler (a #2 pick) and this year's #3 (Howard). On the surface of things, that's a workable deal. The Warriors likely also get cap filler like Chris Jeffries and/or Paul Shirley to meet the CBA requirements.

That leaves the Bulls with a pretty solid set of players. If we can pick up a guy like Jackson or Smith at #11 or by trading down, we're solid.

1- Hinrich 34, Crawford 14
2- Crawford 20, Pietrus 28
3- Dunleavy 32, #11 pick 16
4- Davis 14, JYD 24, Austin 10
5- Curry 34, Davis 14

PS- Why I prefer Dunleavy to J-Rich: I watched JRich at MSU, and he never struck me as being a particularly smart player. Dunleavy is. JRich is a bad defender and while he's a strong scorer, he's limited in what he does. A good and smart defender can take him off his game. Getting him probably means the end of Crawford's days here, and I don't want that. While I don't like the defensive potential of Crawford and Dunleavy, Crawford and JRich playing as a small 3 gives me cold sweats. In fact, even if Crawford leaves and Pietrus is there at the 2, I still have cold sweats. Dunleavy will be ok defending 3s. JRich doesn't seem to be ok defending anyone :|

Also, because the ultimate goal of things is to be feeding Curry, we need a team with as many players capable of doing that as possible. That's the problem with dominant big men... you need to be able to get them the ball. Hell, that's even a problem with Shaq. The solution for that problem is to have guys who can A) create space and B) Distribute the ball. Dunleavy does both of these things and JRich does neither of them.

Finally, JRich will require an extension next year. By having Dunleavy, we get another year of breathing room against the cap vs. having either JRich or Chandler. Dunleavy makes our whole finance situation better in this respect.

Based on all those factors, we absolutely take Dunleavy over JRich.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Instead of the #11 pick give me Murphy and we got a deal. Also we should start Pietrus and sign someone like Macijauskas or Sura to be backup PG/SG. You can't play Crawford and Dunleavy together much at SG/SF. Not physical enough. Plus Pietrus is a starter in this league IMO.

A cheap veteran guard might be useful here. A Lindsey Hunter or a Damon Jones. 


Hinrich 34 Hunter 14
Pietrus 28 Macijauskas 20
Dunleavy 34 JYD 14
Murphy 34 JYD 10 Davis 4
Curry 32 Davis 16


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> So OK, I think what might be workable is if they offer Dunleavy (a #3 pick), Pietrus (a #11 pick), and the #11 pick this year in exchange for Chandler (a #2 pick) and this year's #3 (Howard). On the surface of things, that's a workable deal. The Warriors likely also get cap filler like Chris Jeffries and/or Paul Shirley to meet the CBA requirements.


I like J-Rich...but your conclusion is the right one.

How you got there though...

Should we have traded Fizer (#4) for Kobe(#13) ?? :laugh: 

Joking.


----------

