# Crawford nearly a Knick



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

Crawford nearly is a Knick


After a 30-minute phone conversation with Knicks President Isiah Thomas on Friday, the excitement in Jamal Crawford's voice was palpable.

And on a day when all parties reported progress on sign-and-trade talks, Thomas is poised to land his targeted goal.


....

According to league sources, a nine-player deal involving Shandon Anderson, Moochie Norris and three expiring contracts for Crawford, Jerome Williams, Eddie Robinson and Chris Jefferies was discussed early Friday.

Later, a smaller version of Anderson, Dikembe Mutombo, Othella Harrington and Frank Williams for Crawford, Robinson and Williams surfaced.


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,2050307.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

Absolutely SICKENING


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I would be all for those deals on the condition that we used our MLE for a guy like Stephen Jackson or Rodney White.

EDIT: I want no part of Norris' contract.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I think I'm going to be sick.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Wow- the Bullsa re gonna get *RAPED* in the anal


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> Absolutely SICKENING


I think this sums it up the best. There isn't a single player that I like from that deal. I really think we would just be better off resigning Jamal.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*In either deal, Crawford could make $57 million over six years or $70 million over seven.*

 

unfreakinbelievaBULL. 

 

we'd _better_ get stephen jackson.

(i'm hating steve nash and steve nash's agent and the suns right now.)

stop the madness.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

*Re: Re: Crawford nearly a Knick*



> Originally posted by <b>garnett</b>!
> 
> 
> I think this sums it up the best. There isn't a single player that I like from that deal. I really think we would just be better off resigning Jamal.


Or if that isn't an option, just not be willing to sign and trade him. No one is forcing the Bulls to do what Crawford wants, so they can (and should, if these are the potential deals) just leave him high and dry if a return to Chicago isn't in the cards.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

If Paxson trades Jamal for that junk, he better use the MLE and the smaller exception for sure. 

By the way, im glad the bulls wont be paying jamal that much money.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

What kind of shape is this team going to be in by the time Paxson is gone?


----------



## -James- (Apr 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> *In either deal, Crawford could make $57 million over six years or $70 million over seven.*
> 
> 
> ...


dont forget adonal foyle and the warriors.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

Any deal with Dike is great.

Curry, Motumbo, Davis
Chandler, Harrington
Deng, Anderson
Gordon
Hinrich, Williams, Duhon

I like......consider that we'd get 13 million in cap relief at seasons end.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jae05</b>!
> 
> 
> dont forget adonal foyle and the warriors.



yeah, and marquis daniels.


i cannot believe pax is doing this deal. 

oh well.

and moochie norris? meh. 

look on the bright side, we get rid of e-rob.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Just Say No.


----------



## krob (Jul 6, 2002)

I don't liek the trades, but something is better than nothing... Expiring contracts are nice... Frank Williams would be a good gaurd to have too

*Edit* Just say no to Moochie.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> Any deal with Dike is great.
> 
> Curry, Motumbo, Davis
> Chandler, Harrington
> ...


This hits the nail on the head.

Everyone against this deal seems to be factoring Jamal into the talent equation when he shouldn't be. It's not about us getting back less talent, it's about positioning this team for the future.

Anderson fills a need as a veteran SG/SF who can play defense. Harrington is a serviceable frontcourt backup at PF or C. Neither have good contracts, but at least their not on the books for 5 or 6 years.

Deke's 13 million in cap relief next offseason would be the real prize though. It would allow us to become heavy players in Free Agency in a year where we do not have a 1st round pick.


----------



## Bullsmaniac (Jun 17, 2002)

This is the worst!!!
Who wants those players???? Dikembe is so old he will not be any help. Pax this is a HUGE mistake. Hold out for something better. Tlak to Miami again. I do not want to lose JC for this garbage.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Going off the depth chart listed below, you can count on Pax to do something in FA.

Say we add Eric Williams and Maces


Curry, Motumbo, Davis
Chandler, Harrington, 
Williams, Deng, Anderson
Gordon, Macas
Hinrich, Williams, Duhon

Anderson could be a good swing player between teh 2 and the 3.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

http://hoopshype.com/salaries/new_york.htm
:upset: 

Amount of cap for 2005/2006 before trade: $0

Amount of cap for 2005/2006 after trade: $0

Change in cap situation for 2005/2006: $0

This "cap" is the same "cap" that the Stepford fans praised Krause for in the first Rose deal when the Pacer took the Mercer deal instead of the Joakley deal.

Grab those ankles, ask for a deeper relationship, prove your love.


----------



## lou4gehrig (Aug 1, 2003)

If resigning Jamal means 9.5 or 10 million a season, theres no way we can justify keeping him. We could easily a) let him walk or b) do the Knick trade and be much better off. Use the money we would save and sign Stephen Jackson or Eric Williams. If we did the Knick trade we would be saving about 25 million over the next 3 years (assuming Jamal at 9.5 per season) plus the Dikembe 13 million for free agency. 

Basically, the worst thing to do would be to sign Jamal for 10 million per season.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lusty RaRue</b>!
> This "cap" is the same "cap" that the Stepford fans praised Krause for in the first Rose deal when the Pacer took the Mercer deal instead of the Joakley deal.


Well, that move did prevent the Pacers from signing Brad Miller.

My first preference would be for Craw to get his game together in Chicago but if we can trade him to lose a net of one bad contract, there could be worse things.


----------



## LoaKhoet (Aug 20, 2002)

Talking about numbers:

Anderson: 3 yrs: $7.3M, $7.9M, and $8.5M
Mutombo: 1 yr: $4.5M
Harringto: 1 yr: $3.2M
Williams: 1 yr: $.96M

EROB: 2 Yrs: $6.7M, $7.3M
JYD: 3 yrs: $5.6M, $6.1M, and $6.4M, (Team option 4th yr)
Jefferies: 1 yr: $.9M
JC: 6 yrs: $7M, $7.5M, $8.0M, $8.5M, $9.0M, and $9.5M

So this gives us cap flexibility next year. That's it. We will have Curry's and Chandler's contracts added to our payroll. Anyway, if we look at the players invovled, we can ask for more than just those 4. The Knicks are likely getting 1 or two starters here.

Honestly, i can't see how JC can be helpful for the Knicks. They already have Marbury, Morris, Hardaway, and Houston -- not counting Williams and Anderson. 

They should use the money and players on someone else -- a big Man -- go after Z or someone.


----------



## BullDurf (Feb 11, 2003)

Resigning Jamal does not mean 9.5-10 mill a year. NY can only offer the MLE anything more would be in a sign and trade. If we do this its because we want to not because we would have to match a huge contract.


----------



## lou4gehrig (Aug 1, 2003)

To me once a 9.5-10 million dollar long term deal is on the table (even though it has to be a sign and trade), then there is no going back to signing anyone for the MLE for multiple years. Its impossible. The player can sign a 1 year deal until he can be UFA. So basically there is no going back now. Either S & T or let him go now.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> This hits the nail on the head.
> ...


Deke's got a $4.5M contract. You're thinking of the one he got from the Nets, but it was over when he was waived. 

Leaving Jamal's contract out, we send out something like $35M in salary and take in $34M

And obviously, we're getting shafted talent-wise.

This trade is not a good one for any other reason than to re-structure (but not reduce) our salary committments. For that "benefit" we give up our leading scorer this year?

Pretty lame, but I'll say a couple things about who's to blame. It's my belief, although I have no proof, that Pax is under a pretty strict order not to exceed a certain salary amount. Thus, he has to operate within those limits. Making this move spends more this season and gives up Jamal so we lower salary next summer and can comfortably re-sign Curry and Chandler, and perhaps sign someone with the MLE. This year we limp through and suck again.

At least, that's the rational reason to make this trade. The irrational reason is that Pax has no salary restriction coming from above but is just a ****ing moron.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Its not the players the Bulls are getting...its the ones they're getting rid of.

That beats the hell out of watching Crawford accept the qualifying offer and then walk scott free next summer while we still have Robinson and Williams on the books. For all we know Goodwin has informed Paxson that if he doesn't work out a S&T, Crawford will accept the QO and then sign elsewhere as an unrestricted FA at the end of the year.

All things being equal, if Pax had to choose between Anderson and Crawford, of course he'd choose Crawford. But things aren't equal. Anderson has three years left on his contract and Crawford wants a six or seven year deal. TV contracts expire in 4 years. With the uncertainty of whether or not that revenue stream would shrink under a new arrangement, its my belief that the Bulls were willing to match the Knicks package up to 4 years but no longer. So Thomas will extend a six or seven year offer and leave Chicago with little alternative.

As I said before: it's not really about the quality of the players the Bulls are getting. Its really about who they're getting rid of.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Its not the players the Bulls are getting...its the ones they're getting rid of.
> 
> That beats the hell out of watching Crawford accept the qualifying offer and then walk scott free next summer while we still have Robinson and Williams on the books. For all we know Goodwin has informed Paxson that if he doesn't work out a S&T, Crawford will accept the QO and then sign elsewhere as an unrestricted FA at the end of the year.
> ...


My ***. It's all about the Benjamins, and I don't mean Corey.

You're alluding to that yourself.... it's more accurate to say it's not "who they're getting rid of" but "how much they make and how long their contracts are".


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

The trade says to me that the Bulls aren't interested in keeping Jamal for that price and want to ship out E-Rob ASAP, without waiting the two years for his contract to expire. Isiah having such a huge jones for Crawford gives Pax the opportunity to push Eddie out the door, although taking Anderson back doesn't help the overall cap more than maybe $5 million or so next year compared to just letting Jamal go.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

If there is not a future 1st round pick coming back from the Knicks, I'm going to throw up.

I understand cap relief, but seeing teams suffer no expense to make their teams better, I feel like it is still the regular season and we just got beat by the T-Wolves by 52.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I think it's also worth noting that the Sonics just lost Barry... perhaps that opens up an opportunity to explore in Seattle.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> My ***. It's all about the Benjamins, and I don't mean Corey.
> ...


Of course, you're right. But when you consider the alternative, what choice do the Bulls have? Do you really think Chicago should match NY's offer, considering the Knicks have had either the largest or second largest payroll in the entire league for the past 7 years? Money means nothing to them. Overspending for players is the way they do business. We're not the Knicks...no one is. Even Mark Cuban reached his limit this summer and let one of his favorite players walk. No one spends money like the Knicks. And it would be idiocy for Paxson to try, especially after coming off a 23-59 season.

Yeah its about the money...NY has money to burn, burn without a conscience. No one else can keep up with them in that regard over the long haul...Nobody.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I think it's also worth noting that the Sonics just lost Barry... perhaps that opens up an opportunity to explore in Seattle.


At least they have some desirables.


----------



## Bullsmaniac (Jun 17, 2002)

Pax should hold off and see idf seattle can be a 3rd team on this, maybe they can get Anderson or Williams off our hands.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> If there is not a future 1st round pick coming back from the Knicks, I'm going to throw up.


That was precisely my first thought. And then, when I thought a bit longer, I thought I still might throw up - even with the pick.

I know we all overreacted a tad in reaction to the possible lunacy being suggested by ESPN concerning us trading the #7 and Chandler for Harrington. So, I'm hopeful that this turns out much like that deal did. If its not and this deal goes down as suggested, it tells me Pax PROBABLY did not try to work a deal elsewhere hard enough. When even the MEDIA recognizes that NY really has nothing to offer us and we still make the trade :dead:


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I think it's also worth noting that the Sonics just lost Barry... perhaps that opens up an opportunity to explore in Seattle.


Well, if the Bulls/Knicks trade goes down as predicted, Pax will be left with a hole at SF.

At the point you'd have Hinrich, Williams and Duhon.

The SG slot would be handled primarily by Gordon and Anderson.

PF would be the responsibility of Chandler, O. Harrington and Davis.

Mutombo would back up Curry in the middle.

But who helps out Deng at SF? Maybe Anderson for a few minutes. But we'll need someone who's comfortable and effective as a SF to pair up with Luol.

Maybe Seattle has someone to fill that need. Maybe we find the help somewhere else.

If Milwaukee spends its entire MLE on Etan Thomas as is rumored, they'd have nothing left for Kukoc. He'd be a nice addition and a good teacher for Deng


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

I've been re-born.

Before:
It is my duty as a virtual GM to help ownership win games.

After: It is my duty as a virtual GM to save ownership $. No excuses.

With this in mind I propose the following:

Shandon Anderson

for 

Tariq Abdul-Wahad a.k.a. The Wad

both have 3 years left on their contracts but The Wad deal is only partially guaranteed in its' last 2 years:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=stein_marc&id=1711380


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, if the Bulls/Knicks trade goes down as predicted, Pax will be left with a hole at SF.


Oooooooor, we tell NY to go take a hike and get depth in a deal with Seattle. I'm sure they'd love to have hometown boy Jammy.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> Oooooooor, we tell NY to go take a hike and get depth in a deal with Seattle. I'm sure they'd love to have hometown boy Jammy.


For what (from Sea) in return, Retro?

On a side note, I'd love to get a closer look at Frank Williams. After barely getting off the bench for two full seasons he worked his way into the Knicks playoff rotation averaging 19mpg...not bad considering who he had to split time with. To me that shows that he didn't get discouraged, but instead he continued to work hard and improved. I especially liked the way he got in Jason Kidd's face when Kidd knocked him to the floor. FW could be a sleeper in this deal.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

A hole at the 3?
Wow, some fans are sure negative. 

I sure don't see it.

Deng, Pimp, the linty Johnson

now that's depth at the 3 spot mister.

Everything is beautiful.


----------



## life_after_23 (Jul 24, 2002)

Based on the news articles, no other team has shown a willingness to go after Crawford like Isiah has....
With the negotiations this serious, Seattle must have already made underwhelming offers that the Bulls don't want to deal with....

The Bulls could not have anticipated that the market is going to be this crazy....and Jamal would average over 6 mill a year playing on a lousy team. 

More importantly, based on this year's mess...if the Bulls let both their big men play out next year, that would be a big mistake...they need to sign TC & EC pronto as the market might dictate near max for both the guys (EC at max and TC pretty close to max). Does anyone know if there are going to be teams with large cap space available next year or most of them mortgaging the future by overpaying for these marginal FAs?

Now that they will be acquired expiring contracts, the Bulls now have additional assets along with the 2 bigs and countless small guards. Maybe, this can help them make a big play...go after some of the guys who are S&T possibilities or good players who are on the market....

In the next few years starting with this one, the Bulls would have players that would be very attractive to other teams due to expiring contracts...help them trade for veterans.
1) Erick Dampier
2) Al Harrington
3) Shaq?????
4) Eddie Jones / Caron Butler combination ??
5) Paul Pierce?
6) Ray Allen?
and others...


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Lusty RaRue</b>!
> A hole at the 3?
> Wow, some fans are sure negative.
> 
> ...


?!
Pimp?

Also, we shall refer to Linty Johnson as LJ3.
It puts him right up there with the elite players with nicknames. We can pronounce it LJ Tre.


And I agree, everything is beautiful.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

The myth that we will become players in free agency with this deal. 

I just did this on the computer notepad. Forgive me, but I don't feel like putting it in a better looking format right now. :grinning: 

28,776,440 in committed salaries next year
-
erob, jyd
=
15,413,320
+
7,900,000 shandon anderson
=
23,313,320
+
3,610,200 Gordon 120% salary scale 
+
2,443,920 Deng 120% salary scale 
=
29,367,400

29.3 million and that's only considering Anderson is the only contract we take back. That's without F. Williams 1.7 million if he's in there, assuming we don't sign anyone this summer past one year, excluding 2nd round picks. So sure, we could sign a max free agent.....by letting Eddy and Tyson go. Seeing the market right now, those guys are going to get huge offers. 

There's not a chance we are players in free agency next summer. 

But look on the bright side, we saved the owners from paying the luxury tax even after re-signing Tyson and Eddy. :greatjob:


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

Why do we need to let Tyson and Eddy go before signing a contract? We have their full Bird rights, so we can match anything. The only problem would be if we can't use the cap space before having to match Tyson and Eddy on an offer sheet.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mongoose</b>!
> Why do we need to let Tyson and Eddy go before signing a contract? We have their full Bird rights, so we can match anything. The only problem would be if we can't use the cap space before having to match Tyson and Eddy on an offer sheet.


We can't. They will have about max cap holds (10 + million) until their new contract is signed.


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

I dunno, I thought their cap worth during free agency was equal to their qualifying offer unless they sign an offer sheet. The qual is certainly worth less than $10 million. It makes no sense for them to impact the cap as max players during RFA when they aren't worth nearly that much if they don't sign an offer sheet from another team.


----------



## life_after_23 (Jul 24, 2002)

> Why do we need to let Tyson and Eddy go before signing a contract? We have their full Bird rights, so we can match anything. The only problem would be if we can't use the cap space before having to match Tyson and Eddy on an offer sheet.


As long as we resign Eddy and Tyson before the season....I don't know the exact cutoff date. If we don't resign them this year, they will become restricted free agents and we will have the option to match which is more dicey as the market will dictate the price for the two bigs.

After 2004-2005 season, they could take a 1 year qualifying offer and then become unrestricted FAs....

So, Pax has the best chance to negotiate with them now....but the problem is, if they reek over the next two years, this would be a huge financial burden on the Bulls...his skills as a talent evaluator will be tested for the first time truly with these two....as one wrong move could hamstring the Bulls for years to come.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mongoose</b>!
> I dunno, I thought their cap worth during free agency was equal to their qualifying offer unless they sign an offer sheet. The qual is certainly worth less than $10 million. It makes no sense for them to impact the cap as max players during RFA when they aren't worth nearly that much if they don't sign an offer sheet from another team.




Their Q offer is different from their cap hold. Their cap hold is 300% of their 4th year salary, and if it's past that, it's the max as the cap hold. This is done so teams can't do what you're trying to say.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course, you're right. But when you consider the alternative, what choice do the Bulls have? Do you really think Chicago should match NY's offer, considering the Knicks have had either the largest or second largest payroll in the entire league for the past 7 years? Money means nothing to them. Overspending for players is the way they do business. We're not the Knicks...no one is. Even Mark Cuban reached his limit this summer and let one of his favorite players walk. No one spends money like the Knicks. And it would be idiocy for Paxson to try, especially after coming off a 23-59 season.
> ...


1st, the Bulls are not a small market team. They're an incredibly profitable team that can afford to pay salary if they want to.

2nd, they could just as well take him at the QO this year and let him walk for nothing next year. The salary ramifications are a bit worse but our 05/06 cap isn't radically affected either way. We've got to hang on to ERob, but we we don't have to take on Anderson's deal which is more costly than JYD's and therefore somewhat offsets the savings we get from ERob. When you consider the additional salary we're taking on this year, the net change in guaranteed money is 0.

3rd, it's not like the Knicks are the only guys out there offering long-term deals. Perhaps the other way to think about things is that the Bulls have systematically mis-judged the market and future revenues, and are taking an extremely risk averse position that most other teams are not taking.

4th, with other developments, like Barry's signing with the Spurs, I think it's worth seeing if there's any interest there.

5th, with all the Kurt Thomas is loved by Dallas talk, it's worth exploring that.

6th, what we're really talking about is a $7M starting offer. While I think something in the $6M range is what I'm more comfortable with, it's not totally crazy or anything. If I was going to agree on a 6 year deal, it'd be with a guy like Jamal, who's 24. Considering the inflation that's extremely likely to occur, it's not a ridiculous deal.

Everyone's been looking at the total amounts thrown around but it needs to be kept in context. Is $7M more than I'd like to pay? Yes. But let's not get carried away... it's not a max contract (or anywhere close). Is it a bit much? Yes. But from a winning perspective, they can live with it if they commit to letting the bad contracts they have fall off the board in due time. Can the Bulls afford to give out huge deals to everyone? No. But a $7M starting deal on a team with a decent salary structure isn't horrible. The ONLY reason it is horrible is because the Bulls will already be paying $34M in 04/05 to guys who are slated to either come off the bench or who likely won't even play. 

That's not a long term cost to be born... that's a short-run cost that will largely fall by the wayside after the 05/06 season. Yes, we've overpaid for a 23 win team, but if we dump young guys who are going to be productive at their salary because of those old guys, then we aren't going to be a winning team in the future either.

7th, In a larger sense, the whole "don't pay until you have a winner" mantra voiced in support of the Bulls is going to be a viscious circle if we don't at some point accept that sometimes you have to take a chance and pay beforehand. If we pay now (by re-signing our kids and letting our overpaid geezers fall off the books) then in 2-3 years, we'll have plenty of salary but a maturing team under long-term deals. We won't, however, have "dead money" under the cap. If we refuse to pay now, we'll have more money to spend but following the "don't pay until" policy, I see no reason we re-sign whatever young kids we have at the time who are struggling to do more than we should expect them to do.

8th and finally, with basically half the league committing already to long-term deals, has it occured to you that maybe the next CBA is going to be more, rather than less forgiving of these deals, and offer more ways out? Certainly these deals are going to be in teams' minds when they start negotiating the new deal... are they going to impose new restrictions and penalties that inflict massive damage on themselves?


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

We WEREN'T IN THAT MUCH CAP TROUBLE TO BEGIN WITH.

Jeez.

Shandon Anderson is actually going to be a nice surprise for us next year, as is Deng.

Chandler and Curry WILL be in near-career form next year, regardless of how they play. That's my prediction. If Chandler is 12 and 9 and Curry is good for 16 and 7, then that's basically it. PF C= developed.

Hinrich was already a developed PG when he came in, basically. He has more to grow, and he will, but I think that the way he plays next year is also going to be basically it for his career. If he's good for 12 and 8 with a steal and a half, then that's about it. PG = developed.

Gordon? No real idea. SG = still a question mark.

Now with Deng, he's a good two years from being in full developed form. He will contribute at the position, and get a lot of minutes with the opportunity to make a lot of his mistakes. Shandon Anderson, then, gives us a solid, developed SF. My only hope is that he remains stingy on defense, even though I think the Bulls will be looking to him for a lot more offensive responsibility than he's used to. SF = an interesting mix.

Bench? I don't know.

One thing is for sure, though. If Pax DOES ride out this weird offseason of high priced signings (Brian Cardinal got the MLE?!), we will be in a good situation in future seasons. I do hope that he understands that the team he fields right now has to show that they are filled with talent and are ready to start winning some games on their own. Only then will he be able to draw the kinds of FA's that he wants. Otherwise, see Jerry Krause, 2000 offseason.

By the way, the best player we've had on this team since Michael Jordan is still Elton Brand.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

I don't see this as a bad trade. I know I am in the minority.

The only guy in question from our side is Crawford. JYD and ERobbery would be a godsend getting off the roster. 

So we give up Crawford, a few dead weight contracts, and we get veterans past their primes with loads of playoff experience and Frank Williams. The key is getting rid of Crawford. Is he a big loss?

Pax is banking on a Gordon/Hinrich backcourt. With this trade we get Anderson, who if healthy can provide minutes at both 2 & 3. Harrington & Mutumbo back up Curry/Chandler, along with Antonio Davis. 

To me, I just don't see Crawford as a guy who will help us win. I think he is a one dimensional, non cerebral player. If we trade him now, we get something. If we don't, we may lose him for nothing.

I say pull the trigger. Sign a veteran free agent at small forward, and our depth with veterans is much better.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

elton brand huh...how many games did his teams win again ? Until i someone can go back in time and get elton a few more W's the answer to that question is jalen rose.

but anyway the proposed deal is pretty good for the bulls the bellyaching needs to stop , what did you expect full value for JC ? it wasn't going to happen and it was never in the cards , i cant think of a sign and trade that ever was. they get some useful players and some cap relief plus got rid of a cancer in e-rob for a bunch of players who play hard and do theings the "right way" so all the whining about this deal should end.

anderson will most likely start at either the 2 or 3 depending on pips health and how good macas is (which in all probability he wont be better than anderson) so despite all the complaining he alone makes the deal worth doing for pax since he gets his defensive minded vet swingman.

mutumbo is the big man pax should have gotten his hands on instead of davis , he is a good defender and rebounder and the perfect role model for C & C.

harrington is a good enough bench player and the rest are just bodies at this point even though williams did well when he nplayed i doubt he gets much time in chi. even though he probably is better than duhon right now.

in truth until chandler and curry are out there and producing it wouldn't matter who pax brings in to compliment them so the as the saying goes the bulls are still only as good as they make them.

the bulls have more able bodies(for pax i assume the word is assets) the knicks are building a powerhouse ...everybody wins ...sort of.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> elton brand huh...how many games did his teams win again ? Until i someone can go back in time and get elton a few more W's the answer to that question is jalen rose.
> 
> but anyway the proposed deal is pretty good for the bulls the bellyaching needs to stop , what did you expect full value for JC ? it wasn't going to happen and it was never in the cards , i cant think of a sign and trade that ever was. they get some useful players and some cap relief plus got rid of a cancer in e-rob for a bunch of players who play hard and do theings the "right way" so all the whining about this deal should end.
> ...


I pretty much see things your way, grinchy. BTW, I thought Pippen retired?


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

The "problem" is that we are trying to clear capspace but to re-sign our own players (Read: Eddy and Tyson) instead of going for a superstar or whoever. And obviously we dont need to do so in order to re-sign our OWN free agents. Maybe Reinsdorf is just being cheap. 

Im against this deal....BAD!


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> the bulls have more able bodies(for pax i assume the word is assets) the knicks are building a powerhouse ...everybody wins ...sort of.


What powerhouse are you talking about? Thats the Yankees...


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

agree, we have to get expiring contracts in the worst way....

with out currents payrole can we be able to offer eddy and tyson max contracts ?


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

anyone remember that anderson won the 97 championships for us ? :yes:


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> What kind of shape is this team going to be in by the time Paxson is gone?


DaBullz you have been very critical of Pax but you do realize the past mistakes of the Krause era need some time to get fixed.

In one year Mutombo and Pippen,harrington and Frankie become free agents.

We could use some money to sign some FA and resign Curry and/or Tyson.

A year later comes Antonio Davis contract which will give us more freedom to enter in the FA market.

Those two years will make the Bulls.

So buddy take a deep breath.

Jamal is gone.So?

If w didn't want to play in nEw York we would've lost him for nothig to a team with plenty of salary cap room.

Let Isaiah deal with our problems.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> This hits the nail on the head.
> ...


Actually Harrington is only about 3 million and expires at seasons end.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> Going off the depth chart listed below, you can count on Pax to do something in FA.
> 
> Say we add Eric Williams and Maces
> ...


Luol Deng would start over Eric Williams. I'm so tired of drafting guys and sitting them for two years while we STILL LOSE just so we can say we have a veteran on the floor.....while other teams are getting production out of similar players by instilling confidence in them and baptizing them by fire. In today's free agency world you get production out of young talent or you die.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Here's the problem with the thinking in this thread (and also in Pax's mind). One simple conclusion that has not really made the way into the management...

LOTS OF CAP SPACE DOES NOT EQUATE TO GOOD PLAYERS.

See Eddie Robinson, etc.

We need good players quickly. The thing I like about Pax's current plan is that we have infused some high potential talent in very cheap rookie contracts in ADDITION to having cap space. 

Cap space, in short, cannot be DEPENDED upon. It can only be used to bolster a team that is already fairly solid. 

Gordon, in other words, is bearing much more responsibility than he did when he was drafted. 

The Bulls would be wise to re-sign Crawford, but if they don't, this is not the worst trade they could get.

Again, it does make a lot of sense to me to let these other teams blow their money on players that aren't totally worth it and end up with nasty contracts on their books for the next two years, while the Bulls will have the cash to extend Gordon and Hinrich and Curry (and hopefully Chandler).

But we are losing our leading scorer, ballthief, and free throw shooter all at once.

Here's a question for all those guys that evaluate talent vs. money paid out to that talent: there's GOTTA be other teams in the league with overpaid players besides New York. Dallas, Houston, Portland, and a few others come to mind. But you see teams tossing MLE's at Etan Thomas and Brian Cardinal. They are worth at least 5 mil, or whatever the MLE is, in this league.

Crawford, then, has to be worth way more than that to this league. 

My question, then, is simple:

Why aren't there more teams at Crawford's door?


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Luol Deng would start over Eric Williams. I'm so tired of drafting guys and sitting them for two years while we STILL LOSE just so we can say we have a veteran on the floor.....while other teams are getting production out of similar players by instilling confidence in them and baptizing them by fire. In today's free agency world you get production out of young talent or you die.


We used that approach with Chandler and Curry. Are we dying, then? Would it have been really bad if we had Antonio Davis or someone even better to be starting in front of Chandler and Curry for a full season still?


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, if the Bulls/Knicks trade goes down as predicted, Pax will be left with a hole at SF.
> ...


Anderson backs up Deng and Gordon assuming we don't land someone with the MLE, which we will


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> We used that approach with Chandler and Curry. Are we dying, then? Would it have been really bad if we had Antonio Davis or someone even better to be starting in front of Chandler and Curry for a full season still?


LMFAO!! NO WE DIDNT. We watched painstakingly as Oakley had to get his minutes and Floyd and Cartwright were stubborn SOBs. Then in Eddy's second year for half the year Tyson was in the dog house and half the year Eddy was in the doghouse.....when BC proved the only one who sucked was him.

That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. We baptized Tyson and Eddy by fire? NO we F-ing didnt......that's why we're still watching them make mistakes they could have made as rookies. Oh wait....we couldn't let them make mistakes as rookies. We needed to play the "veterans" so we could go to the playoffs. Only problem is we had a better point differential with Eddy in the game than with him out and we lost with the veterans.

You call 16.0 minutes per game and 19.4 minutes per game for a player's first two seasons "baptizing by fire"?? No......that would be the opposite approach of what I'm suggesting with Deng. 

19.6 minutes per game as a rookie for Tyson? Not exactly what I had in mind when he was drafted. 

Here's the theory. See if you play your player 20 minutes per game, and I play my rookie 30 minutes per game.....then in year TWO you are watching your rookie play 10 minutes per game of rookie ball that my rookie already played AS A ROOKIE. 

That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. "Didn't we try that with Tyson and Eddy." Well first of all....Tyson and Eddy have been FAR from the reason this team has failed since they got here, and secondly NO Tyson and Eddy were not put in a position to succeed until Scott Skiles got here and the season was a lost cause. This fall you will finally see them start with a coach who isn't gonna start them for 12 games (Cartwright) and then decide that they are the reason the Bulls are losing, when in fact, its because Cartwright couldn't coach a rodeo bull out of a dog cage. 

So no.......Eddy and Tyson did not get the Jay Williams treatment.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> LMFAO!! NO WE DIDNT. We watched painstakingly as Oakley had to get his minutes and Floyd and Cartwright were stubborn SOBs. Then in Eddy's second year for half the year Tyson was in the dog house and half the year Eddy was in the doghouse.....when BC proved the only one who sucked was him.


If I remember, Marcus Fizer was getting the minutes, and he deserved them. Our record was not super bad when he was contributing his best game.

I also remember that Brad Miller was our starting center for most of the first year Eddy was in town, and rightly so once again. Miller remains the best center this team has seen for a long time.



> That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. We baptized Tyson and Eddy by fire? NO we F-ing didnt......that's why we're still watching them make mistakes they could have made as rookies. Oh wait....we couldn't let them make mistakes as rookies. We needed to play the "veterans" so we could go to the playoffs. Only problem is we had a better point differential with Eddy in the game than with him out and we lost with the veterans.


You really think we were trying to get to the playoffs? Seriously, everyone knew we were in a losing effort but we had to try what we could.



> You call 16.0 minutes per game and 19.4 minutes per game for a player's first two seasons "baptizing by fire"?? No......that would be the opposite approach of what I'm suggesting with Deng.
> 
> 19.6 minutes per game as a rookie for Tyson? Not exactly what I had in mind when he was drafted.


Do you really want rookies from high school coming into the league with a team on their shoulders and understand the meaning of losing?



> Here's the theory. See if you play your player 20 minutes per game, and I play my rookie 30 minutes per game.....then in year TWO you are watching your rookie play 10 minutes per game of rookie ball that my rookie already played AS A ROOKIE.


Here's my theory. That's 10 minutes per game more that you've reinforced the rookie that high school basketball can work in the NBA. 

My rookie is playing 10 minutes per game a year later except that he's worked with coaches in practice, he's gotten physically stronger, he's a year more mature mentally... more skilled and ready to play. He will still make the "rookie" mistakes that you can only make on the court, but how he recovers from those mistakes is now a different story.



> That's the funniest thing I've ever heard. "Didn't we try that with Tyson and Eddy." Well first of all....Tyson and Eddy have been FAR from the reason this team has failed since they got here, and secondly NO Tyson and Eddy were not put in a position to succeed until Scott Skiles got here and the season was a lost cause. This fall you will finally see them start with a coach who isn't gonna start them for 12 games (Cartwright) and then decide that they are the reason the Bulls are losing, when in fact, its because Cartwright couldn't coach a rodeo bull out of a dog cage.
> 
> So no.......Eddy and Tyson did not get the Jay Williams treatment.


They were not tossed in as rookies, it's true, but this past year they were given the reins of the entire team. Not making a move for a backup center or anything in last year's offseason showed that Paxson wanted to let the young kids finally play. 

What did they show us? Injury and little recognizable progress.

I suppose you want to blame this on the fact that they weren't playing more minutes earlier. 

We DID try the "baptism by fire", it was just in the 3rd year instead of the 1st year, and I would say that it's not working out at all. Not because of WHEN it occurred, but because it occurred at all.

I don't disagree with the fact that we had to do it. Curry is still easily the team's best center and Chandler at least AS effective as AD as a rebounder and defender, with the ability to score when he can. We don't have a choice: the best team should be on the floor.

But I am looking for a way to make our best team better, not just with more minutes logged.

This has no real bearing on Deng, because if Deng can prove in practice that he deserves to be in the starting lineup over Shandon Anderson and potentially Stephen Jackson, then by all means, he should play. But there's no way that we should keep him in the starting lineup solely on the premise of "baptizing him by fire".


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> If I remember, Marcus Fizer was getting the minutes, and he deserved them. Our record was not super bad when he was contributing his best game.
> ...


Sorry lost a long response.....basically:

Fizer is not as good as Curry and never has been. Oakley still played way more. Miller was ahead of Curry which was fine, but Curry will be better, and Miller is no excuse for Tyson.

Your theory works fine if you have a coach who wants to teach, i.e. NOT Skiles or Cartwright.

Can't baptize someone their third year. Baptism implies initial arrival. Eddy and Tyson fell into the trap of being conditioned to only give you as much as you tell them they are capable of giving you. The whole team suffered from Rose and his selfish "im the man" attitude. Rose is gone and Eddy and tyson look like what we thought we were getting last year.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

a couple of thoughts. 

First off, I seriously doubt this is as close as the newspapers are saying. The knicks got a no from Kobe. I can tell you that they want to talk to Dampier and Sheed, and get confirmative nos before making a deal for Jamal

I understand Paxs angle for financial flexibility. But adding Shandon Andersons 8 mil per for the next 3 is a back breaker

One thing that bothers me about this deal is Paxs letter to the season ticket holders. While I wouldnt call it a guarantee, it was as close as you get, that the playoffs will be accomplished next season. Can anyone say that Mutombo, Anderson, Moochie Norris and whoever make us a playoff team? If this deal goes down, I certainly hope Pax has a FA (swift, white, KENYON MARTIN, Jackson) that can step in and get us to the playoffs.

If the Bulls feel like they have to do a deal, Miami, with Caron Butler in some kind of swap, is the better deal to do. I think that is fairly obvious

If the Bulls do the deal with the Knicks, at the least, get back the #1 pick that we are missing next year. Thats imperative. Next years draft is looking simply outstanding. It will be the best international draft in history, which I suspect is one of the reasons Pax wasnt worried about trading next years pick, considering the lack of international scouting. But its time to beef up that dept anyway and start to get to work. and any deal for Jamal, unless we are getting another young stud like Butler who can help right away, needs to replenish that pick that we are missing. 

And my final thought, I have been saying for a year that the Bulls need to focus on the season after next. If Crawford is dealt in the trade that is rumored, the fact is that we will have to focus on the year after next while maybe not having a draft pick.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Here's the problem with the thinking in this thread (and also in Pax's mind). One simple conclusion that has not really made the way into the management...
> 
> LOTS OF CAP SPACE DOES NOT EQUATE TO GOOD PLAYERS.
> ...


The answer is simple  

because the Bulls can and will match any offer probably up to 45 million for Crawford .No team in this market whose not tossing around 50-60 mil is gonna take that chance tying up their money for a few weeks only to have the Bulls match it.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

*NY Post 7/10 Update*

*Moving even closer to acquiring Crawford in a multi-player sign-and-trade, Thomas spoke on the phone with the Bulls' restricted free agent yesterday. 

Crawford can officially sign Wednesday to a reported six-year, $60 million pact. The Bulls are likely to acquire Frank Williams, who tellingly did not make the trip to Long Beach yesterday, Othella Harrington and either Shandon Anderson or Dikembe Mutombo. The Bulls have put Jerome Williams and Eddie Robinson in one version of the package.*

http://www.nypost.com/sports/knicks/26978.htm

Frank Williams' "sprained ankle" should tell you how close the Bulls might be to completing a trade. No summer league ball for him, unless he joins the Bulls for the RMR which begins on Friday, July 16. That's probably just enough time for him to recover from that ankle sprain, right?


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I must admit the frank williams ankle seems kind of telling but i still think lucus is right and paxson will not take on Shandon Anderson contract. My guess is if we trade with the knicks we need to be able to lose enough contract, along with pippens, to be well under the cap next year and get a first round pick. Thomas is likely playing up the trade to the press but i think paxson is in noooo hurry.

david


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

When do these players' contracts expire? ---> Harrington, Mutombo, Anderson


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> I must admit the frank williams ankle seems kind of telling but i still think lucus is right and paxson will not take on Shandon Anderson contract. My guess is if we trade with the knicks we need to be able to lose enough contract, along with pippens, to be well under the cap next year and get a first round pick. Thomas is likely playing up the trade to the press but i think paxson is in noooo hurry.
> 
> david


sorry buddy with deke's 4.5 mil. o harrington's 3.15 mil. and frank williams 1 mil contracts they need shandon's contract to make the deal anywhere near close . thats about 9 mil.

JYD and e-rob combined make near 13 mil , then of course you have to add in JC's deal. 

ol' #49 will be in the red and black come nov. if this deal comes through.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> sorry buddy with deke's 4.5 mil. o harrington's 3.15 mil. and frank williams 1 mil contracts they need shandon's contract to make the deal anywhere near close . thats about 9 mil.
> 
> ...


Knicks could throw in Tybaniski (sp), too.

So Anderson is not a necessity.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> I must admit the frank williams ankle seems kind of telling but i still think lucus is right and paxson will not take on Shandon Anderson contract. My guess is if we trade with the knicks we need to be able to lose enough contract, along with pippens, to be well under the cap next year and get a first round pick. Thomas is likely playing up the trade to the press but i think paxson is in noooo hurry.
> 
> david


Anderson's contract he'd take in a heartbeat if it meant getting rid of both Erob AND Jerome Williams. Anderson is three years of bad tract, while those two are six years.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> When do these players' contracts expire? ---> Harrington, Mutombo, Anderson


Harrington and Motumbo have one more year, and Anderson has three.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Knicks could throw in Tybaniski (sp), too.
> ...


Czary trybansky makes 1.7 mil., its not nearly enough, the knicks have to throw in 15- 20 mil in salary for JC, jyd and e-rob. trybanski is most likely included anyway.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> Czary trybansky makes 1.7 mil., its not nearly enough, the knicks have to throw in 15- 20 mil in salary for JC, jyd and e-rob. trybanski is most likely included anyway.


I think we are on the same page.

To get rid of both eRob AND JYD, we would have to take back one long-term bad contract.

To get rid of both eRob OR JYD, Pax can probably get all expiring deals.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> Crawford nearly is a Knick
> 
> 
> ...


If this deal goes down, I am no longer a Bulls fan. Plain and simple. This would prove to me that the Bulls are not serious about putting a competitive team on the court. Paxson is a loser VP of Ops just like his brother.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> Any deal with Dike is great.
> 
> Curry, Motumbo, Davis
> ...


No way that team wins more than 25 games.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> 
> No way that team wins more than 25 games.


You can't be serious!! We would have won 30 games this past year if we started out with the post-Rose trade lineup. Replace Pippen/Robinson/Dupree/Johnson/Gill with Luol Deng alone and you're looking good.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Harrington and Motumbo have one more year, and Anderson has three.


thanks


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> 
> 
> No way that team wins more than 25 games.


The Bulls were 2-3 heading into the game where Chandler injured his back. Also, Hinrich had missed all five of those games.

If we're in good health and Curry starts the season playing consistent if not spectacular basketball, this will be a competitive team. I know the cast appears to have changed noticeably, but with Chandler, Curry and Hinrich in the starting lineup we should hold our own.

I'm optimistic, and I have a very good feeling about our two first rounders. Tell you what as well...on the presumption the S&T goes thru with NY, a second unit of say, Duhon...Anderson...Kukoc(?)...Harrington/Davis and Mutombo will more than hold its own on the basis of experience alone.

Its really premature to make predictions at this point, but I think when the bell rings in November we'll have a deeper, more talented team to work with than we did back in November of '03.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Let's see, we make the trade and we have a first team of 
Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Chandler and Curry

we don't make the trade and we have a first team of 

Hinrich, Crawford, Deng, Chandler and Curry

I like Gordon, but if he's ready to start and play like a vet in the first year I'll be a bit surprised. Basically we're starting two rookies if we lose Jamal. If we keep Jamal, he is (frighteningly but still meaningfully) the most experienced player in our starting 5.

Now, lets look at the backups.

Duhon, Anderson, Kukoc, Davis, Mutombo
if we make the trade

and 

Duhon, Gordon, Kukoc, JYD, Davis
if we don't make the trade?

That basically reduces to whether we'd be more competitive with Gordon and JYD or Anderson and Mutombo. I'd go for the younger guys myself.

In short, I see this team as more competitive with Crawford. Mutombo is toast. Aside from an expiring deal, I don't see what he brings to the table. The Layden Knicks wore him out and even in reduced minutes in the second half of the season he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn and was relatively slow.

Anderson is nice because he slashes to the basket, but he can't and shouldn't be relied on to score. Who on this second line (with the trade) scores a point? Kukoc, when healthy is ok, but who's there he can set up? No one. If we keep Jamal, you're at least starting with Gordon on the second line (and if he does great over the season then Kirk or Jamal move back there), and it makes for a combo that can put some point on the board.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

I don't see how this can be viewed as anything other than a financial move if the trade goes through, because basketball-wise, it seems indefensible to me. 

People say we get cap room, but I doubt that's true unless the Bulls make the move to renounce Curry and Chandler. Or if those two suck to the extent that they somehow don't get at least Okur/Foyle type money.

What the deal does is make it lighten the payroll when the two young bigs get their expected big paydays. But, that isn't good enough for me, because the Bulls have full Bird rights. 

Such a financial move is undertstandable to me in the case of the White Sox, because attendance at Comiskey isn't good, and thus being a big payroll team isn't the smartest thing financially for that franchise. But in the case of the Bulls, you're talking about one of the richest franchises in the league. The Bulls could afford to take the financial hit of riding out Erob's 2 years left on his contract and JYD's 4(?) years left on his because we, the fans have continued to support the team by going to games and buying merchandise, etc etc.

I don't see Crawford as some kind of savior, and I don't see losing him for the little to nothing that would come back in the trade as the end of the world. I think the Bulls could still be better this coming season, if hopefully te two rookies play well, and if there's a couple good free agent signings made. But the fact is, this trade would show that the franchise is favoring frugality of making the Bulls the best team they can possibly be, both in the short and long term. A good draft and a good free agent signing can be 2 steps forward, but losing one of the team's best players for little is a step back.

I don't even think Crawford is the greatest fit anymore, but I'd prefer the Bulls to resign Crawford for 3 years at the type of money Shandon Anderson is making over the course of his contract , and then next season, when Antonio Davis is an expiring contract, he and Crawford could be a nice package in trades. And hey, you never know, he could turn out to be more valuable actually remaining a Bull.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Illstate2</b>!
> I don't see how this can be viewed as anything other than a financial move if the trade goes through, because basketball-wise, it seems indefensible to me.
> 
> People say we get cap room, but I doubt that's true unless the Bulls make the move to renounce Curry and Chandler. Or if those two suck to the extent that they somehow don't get at least Okur/Foyle type money.
> ...


Nice post.

I'd also add that at this point it kind of seems that acquiring the Phoenix pick was a move made to mask the true impact of the anticipated loss of Jamal. We'll seem a little better no matter what because we added two guys instead of one.

But we have to keep in mind that next year we've got nothing coming.

It's also worth noting that 4 summers from now we're going to have to sign two guys to big money deals, not just one, a fact that is going to further destabilize our salary cap (whereas in other cases it's maybe a little easier because the big hits are staggered).

The fact that we seem to be paralyzed with fear from trying to sign one free agent doesn't give me a lot of optimism for next year (when Curry and Chandler will both be RFAs) or for a couple years down the road when Deng and Gordon are. You can already see the groundwork being laid for the argument that "we can't afford both". Ugh.

How depressing. We're selling off future investments to cover the vast sums we've spent on a bunch of bums. Perfect. :|


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Nice post.
> ...


Good Gawd! Talk about viewing the cup as half empty.









So we've got to keep in mind that next year we've got nothing coming, huh? Well, how about this for a silver lining: Instead of drafting a rookie in '05 we'll have a pretty good young player (Luol Deng, age 20) on our roster who already has a years worth of NBA experience under his belt. 

But just keep peddlin' that doom 'n gloom. BTW, did you know it takes fewer facial muscles to break out a smile than it does to frown?
:boohoo:


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> The Bulls were 2-3 heading into the game where Chandler injured his back. Also, Hinrich had missed all five of those games.
> ...


You're definitely right about one thing ... you're optimsitic.

Here are the facts, like them or not. 

1) Crawford was the leading scorer for a team that struggled to win 23 games in what most everyone was calling the weakest conference in years.

2) Three players on the roster will be rookies all from a very diluted draft. Prior to all of the hype and hoopla, analysts were calling this draft a 2-man draft and that everyone draft 3rd or lower was work-in-progress or role players at best. At 6'2" or 6'3", Gordon will struggle defending other SGs. Deng will likely prove to be another Duke bust or will take at least a year or so to develop his game for the NBA. 

3) Tyson Chandler has a chronically bad back and will likely reinjure himself sometime next season. I hope I am wrong. 

4) Curry will be your only saving grace. The problem is keeping him motivated and out of foul trouble. Also, has anyone considered the fact that Eddy and Jamal have the same agent and are known to be very close friends? You think Eddy had a attitude problem the last couple of seasons, you haven't seen anything yet.

5) Lets not consider the garbage players that we are getting in return. Mutombo? That guy is worthless. Anderson? Be real. We'll be a combination or the worst half of the Bulls, the worst half of the Knicks, and some overhyped rookies. Sound like a winning formula to me.

25 games if they are lucky.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

I have been away for a couple weeks, so maybe this issue has been addressed, but with the trade scenarios to NY (with perhaps the exception of the Tim Thomas version), the Bulls are getting no good perimeter scoring options. The Bulls also do not seem to be pursuing such options in free agency.

All of this would put Ben Gordon in the Brent Barry/Ron Mercer/Jalen Rose/Jamal Crawford role as top perimeter scoring option and desperation shot clock beating creator. Think about how hated all of those players became while they were playing the "Jordan" role here in Chicago. How despite the fact that three of these guys are pretty good passers, they all eventually were thought of as selfish ball hogs with horrible shot selection.

Ben Gordon is the least experienced player the Bulls have ever placed into that role, and I shudder to think how hated he will have become by midseason. Perhaps he immediately will be better than Barry/Mercer/Rose/Crawford and everything will be alright, but more realistically his shooting percentage will dive well below 40 percent and a chorus will start about he is a ball hog who is hurting the team.

Throw in some lackadaisical defense once in awhile if he conserves some energy for his dominant role on offense and boy things could get ugly. And that doesn't even factor in if under all of this pressure, he cracks and says something he shouldn't in the press or in the locker room or does something off the court that turns a lot of people against him.

Some will say that Hinrich could shoulder some of this responsibility or that Curry will be ready for a Shaq-like role on offense or that somehow a magical team-oriented offense for one of the youngest teams in the league will somehow relieve this burden from Gordon. Any of these things are possible, but I suspect these hopes are mostly wishful thinking.

A probably more realistic guess is that Gordon will struggle and none of these other things will happen consistently. In that situation the Bulls likely will be a bit worse than this season, which may give them some hope in retaining their top-3 protected pick in 2005.

A potentially bigger problem is that the Bulls may have to make long-term decisions on Curry and Chandler without ever seeing them play in any meaningful post All-Star games. It looks like there will still be teams with money next summer, such as Charlotte, Cleveland, Portland, and Atlanta that might be willing to splurge on a young big man.

The light at the end of that tunnel seems to moving farther and farther away.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Good Gawd! Talk about viewing the cup as half empty.
> ...


I appreciate the attempt at optimism, and I wish I could buy into it. I'm not pedaling doom and gloom because I want to, but because I believe it.

How many games do you think that team wins if not 25? I agree that 25 is on the low side if we stay healthy, but we've got several key players who look to be injury prone (I'm looking at the trade team here)... Mutombo, Chandler, Davis... Kukoc. When we're looking at those guys, we're not being pessimistic to think they'll miss significant time, we're being realistic. 

I'd venture to guess that if things go reasonably well, this team wins 30 games next year. That may be charitable seeing as how several EC teams appear to have strengthened themselves considerably. But ok, say we win 30.

Where do we go from there? Next summer we'll have to re-sign Curry and Chandler (if they are at all successful) and we'll be back closing in on the luxury tax. How much internal improvement do we expect from that team and how much can we expect to add to it under the budget that's been imposed on it? At best we can add 1 player a year via the MLE. 

Maybe that's pessimistic, but I think it's also a pretty fair question to raise. Hell, you, me, everyone else and their mother sees this as a financial move, and it's one that's not even saving a whole hell of a lot of money except that we're letting our best player from last year walk for nothing. And hell, we've hardly even touched on what kind of team is being put on the court the way Dan just did. I guess I don't see much cause for optimism.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> I have been away for a couple weeks, so maybe this issue has been addressed, but with the trade scenarios to NY (with perhaps the exception of the Tim Thomas version), the Bulls are getting no good perimeter scoring options. The Bulls also do not seem to be pursuing such options in free agency.
> 
> All of this would put Ben Gordon in the Brent Barry/Ron Mercer/Jalen Rose/Jamal Crawford role as top perimeter scoring option and desperation shot clock beating creator. Think about how hated all of those players became while they were playing the "Jordan" role here in Chicago. How despite the fact that three of these guys are pretty good passers, they all eventually were thought of as selfish ball hogs with horrible shot selection.
> ...


Great post. I think it gets lost a lot of times that Crawford really HAD to hold the ball a lot. How many times did Eddy really establish position in the post? How many times did our pg dribble at the top of the court waiting for him to demand the ball, only to be forced to chuck up a three or create a bad shot off the dribble? Rose was in that same role. Gordon will be next year. Really great point...I'm equally pessimistic, I guess.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

Before we judge this team for the future we have to see what we get from NY and in Free Agency. If we can land Frankie Williams, Anderson, Cap Fillers then at least we have 2 quality bench players. 

Who knows what we will get in Free Agency, but popular opinion of beat writers in chicago (i dont know where they are getting their info) is that the bulls want to split up the MLE. 

IF they can get any of these 2 guys...Sura, Macijaukas, Kukoc, Williams, Rodney White it would be a step in the right direction. 

I think the worst thing we can do is start Deng from Day 1. he needs to come off the bench and get a chance to get his feet wet against opposing team's bench players. 

IF/WHEN the bulls make the JC deal, they will have their Front Court taken care of, they will need to go into free agency improving the wings. Hopefully Reinsdorf will Pax spend the money.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

assuming JC's deal is 6/$60 million, that would break down to $7.5 million the first year (then $8.5/$9.5/$10.5/$11.5/$12.5). if that's the case, then it doesn't work under the CBA:

NY gives out
Anderson ($7.3 million) + Mutombo ($4.496 million) + Harrington ($3.15 million) + F. Williams ($.95748 million) = $15.90348 million...+15%+$.1 million=$18.389002

and takes back
Crawford ($7.5 million) + ERob ($6.76754 million) + JYD ($5.6 million) = $19.86754 million, or about a million and a half too much. (even if FWill is replaced with Trybanski it's still about a half-million off.)

that means one of the following:
1) Trybanski's thrown in too -- which means we'd get a whopping trade exception of $281,462 :whoknows: 
2) Nazr Mohammed or --  -- Kurt Thomas replaces Mutombo in the deal :whofarted 
3) Moochie Norris replaces FWill, which would essentially mean trading two awful contracts for one bad and one awful contract  :verysad:

i have no real problem with leveraging JC into cap relief; the Bulls weren't likely to keep him anyway, and heck, i'm more or less in Pax's camp in the belief that JC's not worth much above the MLE (i'm speaking in _normal_ years, not in the crack-induced market we've seen in the last week and a half), based on his performance here. just because he's the leading scorer doesn't mean that he deserves $10 million a year...in _spite_ of Retro's odd declaration that if that's what someone thinks he's worth, that's what he's worth. :banghead: 

and since Pax has made it fairly clear with his actions what he thinks of Crawford, i'd rather make an asset that someone (okay, apparently one person) values more highly than Pax does work toward cleaning up a dreadful cap situation.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

One of the consequences of a S&T of a BYC player is that the team receiving the BYC player will receive more total salary(current year) than they send(current year) in the deal. This is a consequence of the fact that the team sending the BYC player can only receive the greater of that players last season salary or 1/2 his new salary(and then do the usual additional 15% + $.1 mil..), while the receiving team gets "full credit" for his salary. 

This means that NY will receive more salary than the Bull do.

More specifically, since the trade:

1. uses only one exception(assigned player) 

and 

2. aggregates players 

there can be no trade exception granted anyway.

7th paragraph:
http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#68


----------

