# The Boston deal that almost happened(ESPN Insider)



## hps (Jul 23, 2002)

http://insider.espn.go.com/insider/story?id=1570769

-QUOTE-
one of the rumored deals had the Bulls shipping Williams, Donyell Marshall and Marcus Fizer to Boston for Antoine Walker. 
-QUOTE-

If Jay getting injured prevented this deal from being made, well...


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

Man, I'm glad that didn't happen.:yes:


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

me too... that would have been an awful deal... I'de almost go so far to say I'de rather have Fizer straight up than Walker...

Fizer and Marshall FOR SURE is better than Walker... throw in Jay and it is WAY too lopsided


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

Wasn't Walker an All-star last year, also the guy who looked most upset getting booted by the Nets, this guy has talent and plays with heart, and hurt, I think you are under valuing the guy.

-Petey


----------



## Sicky Dimpkins (May 28, 2002)

Great link. Not.

Chad Ford(I assume) has a wet dream and prints it and says it "almost happened". :laugh:

Horrible lobsided trade. Walker is a better fit on the Globe Trotters than alongside Rose jacking ... 

Chad babe :kissmy:.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Petey</b>!
> Wasn't Walker an All-star last year, also the guy who looked most upset getting booted by the Nets, this guy has talent and plays with heart, and hurt, I think you are under valuing the guy.
> 
> -Petey


he was not deserving to be an all star, he sat on the bench like the whole time (deservedly SO too) and he sucked in the 3pt contest too... he is useless IMO... sorry I don't value him like some...


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

i think that is just some more espn insider garbage. i dont know why anybody pays for that


----------



## hps (Jul 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottVdub</b>!
> i think that is just some more espn insider garbage. i dont know why anybody pays for that


It's all about the site lines. Makes reading articles so much more convenient.

The rumors are just a bonus.


----------



## digital jello (Jan 10, 2003)

I don't get Bulls fans sometimes. You wouldn't take Fizer for just Walker? You're nuts. Nuts.

That's just being silly.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> I don't get Bulls fans sometimes. You wouldn't take Fizer for just Walker? You're nuts. Nuts.


There's no doubt that Walker is a better player than Fizer, but can you imagine the chuck-fest that be going on up here with Rose and Walker on the same team? There would be no shots left for anyone else- Eddy and Jamal would never touch the ball.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

i wouldnt trade dali for walker. okay so walker has more talent than most players but his talent doesnt translate well to most teams. The only reason it works in boston, imo, is because walker got their at the right time when the team absolutely stunk and he was a building block. So the style of play that they have was evolved for to fit his game. I wouldnt want the bulls changing their game for antione walker


----------



## Bulls Are The Future (Jun 8, 2003)

If all those Bulls players got the same amount of minutes as Walker here is what there ppg's would be. Not to mention how useless Walker was in the playoffs. Celtic Fans dont realize how good Paul Pierce is to carry this team with a 2nd best player who is just a mere role player on any other team.

Walker -20.1
Williams-19.6
Fizer-24
Marhsall-27

You got to be crazy everyone of these players are better than him.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> There's no doubt that Walker is a better player than Fizer, but can you imagine the chuck-fest that be going on up here with Rose and Walker on the same team? There would be no shots left for anyone else- Eddy and Jamal would never touch the ball.


If this trade did happen, the Bulls' two best scorers would be taking half the shots and scoring half the team's points.

It is simply not true there'd be "no shots for anyone else" or that "Eddy and Jamal would never touch the ball." 

In fact, Eddy and Jamal might score 30 PPG - EACH - if the Bulls had both Rose and Walker.


----------



## draftexpert (Jun 3, 2003)

*Celtics fan*

I'm a Celtics fan and even though myself and many other Celtics fans can't stand him at times, the one thing he always does, is play with heart and he gives it his all. He cares about winning (when they lost to the Nets last year in the CF, he was crying on the bench) and is a leader. He could've easily caused trouble by trying to be the main man instead of Pierce, but he let it be known that he was the #2 man and he was fine with it. He does all the little things that don't show up on the statline. Opposing fans can't stand him and I bet I would too if he was on another team, but you have to respect him and the way he gives it his all. He doesn't havethe quickness of alot of players, but he's one of the smartest players in the league. 

Given that, I was shocked that a deal like that would go down. Jay Williams was overrated in college (UNC fan here, but I do wish Williams comes back from this injury). He had all the freedom in the world and he overpowered players. In the NBA I knew that wouldn't work. Then Donyell Marshall is old, out of shape and decent. Fizer always kills us, but his stats aren't too good against everyone else. If the Bulls gave their #7 then yeah I would do it and get Peitrus, but just those three players for walker, give me a break. Maybe Crawford but not Jay Will.

I do believe that Antoine getting traded is the only way we can challenge for the championship. With him we're a playoff team, without him, depending on the trade, we can suck real bad or do something big. There's a rumor saying Walker and the #20 pick for Antonio Davis and the #4. Even though it would be tough to say goodbye to a warrior, I would do it and get Bosh. 

Ridnour/Banks, Pierce, Williams, Davis, Bosh would look really good.

This was a long post, but I think many of you need to let your personal feeling about a player off the table and just focus on his playing ability. And he does more than just shoot 3's, unlike what many of you say that's all he does.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> It is simply not true there'd be "no shots for anyone else" or that "Eddy and Jamal would never touch the ball."


Well, _obviously_ that was a hyperbole, but the point i was trying to make is valid- we'd have two guys eating up a ton of shots while shooting a low %. 



> In fact, Eddy and Jamal might score 30 PPG - EACH - if the Bulls had both Rose and Walker.


I don't see any way that could happen, unless either Rose or Walker (or both) made major sacrifices in their respective games (which I doubt would happen). How many teams have had 4 guys average 22 ppg or more, especially when two of those guys are averaging 30 ppg.

My point is just that Rose and Walker are high volume shooters-that is, they need to shoot alot to get their points- and they'd be taking a ton of shots away from the guys that this franchise *should * be building around.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> I'm a Celtics fan and even though myself and many other Celtics fans can't stand him at times, the one thing he always does, is play with heart and he gives it his all. He cares about winning (when they lost to the Nets last year in the CF, he was crying on the bench) and is a leader. He could've easily caused trouble by trying to be the main man instead of Pierce, but he let it be known that he was the #2 man and he was fine with it. He does all the little things that don't show up on the statline. Opposing fans can't stand him and I bet I would too if he was on another team, but you have to respect him and the way he gives it his all. He doesn't havethe quickness of alot of players, but he's one of the smartest players in the league.


Well, you're right about that- the guy does have heart, and he wants to win. And i do respect him for accepting the #2 role, but that shooting % just stands out at me every time someone mentions him. He is not the right type of player to play alongside another chucker in Rose.



> I do believe that Antoine getting traded is the only way we can challenge for the championship.


Well, I agree again- actually, i posted virtually the same thing on the Celtic forum, and the Celtic regulars lost their minds! Where were you, man?!?:upset: 
J/K


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Well, you're right about that- the guy does have heart, and he wants to win. And i do respect him for accepting the #2 role, but that shooting % just stands out at me every time someone mentions him. He is not the right type of player to play alongside another chucker in Rose.
> 
> ...


I have no problem with Walker in chicago, for one reason he has dominating potential, if he changed his game from outside shooter to inside player he is unstobable, Walker has superb ball handling skills for a pf, and is quick, if only he plays like a pf he is easily a top 3 pf in the NBA.


----------



## ErikDaniels14UK (Dec 8, 2002)

last year walker was plagued with the bad knee which when he was hurt and after his shooting precent dropped. Then he started playing better during the indiana series. then in the new jersey series the announcers kept on saying something is wrong with walker they thought it was his back. the point im trying to make is if walker would stay at shape like he was when he went to kentucky he could compete at a better level. Lets hope walker is in shape next year or loses some pounds so his play will be better.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ErikDaniels14UK</b>!
> last year walker was plagued with the bad knee which when he was hurt and after his shooting precent dropped. Then he started playing better during the indiana series. then in the new jersey series the announcers kept on saying something is wrong with walker they thought it was his back. the point im trying to make is if walker would stay at shape like he was when he went to kentucky he could compete at a better level. Lets hope walker is in shape next year or loses some pounds so his play will be better.


as a bulls fan id rather have him be slightly out of shape and not on his game so playing boston will be an easier night for us.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

My first thought was this was an awful deal.

Yeah, let's get Walker. Weally do need another power forward :no: 

I agree that Walker wants to win, but it's amazing to me that he wants to win but still plays the way he plays (dumb). What's up with that?

But ok, let's consider it another way.

Is Walker capable of playing the 3? Well, to some extent, I'd say yes. He's certainly got the ballhandling and shooting skills to do it.

He's really quick for a 4... probably a bit quicker than Yell. 

What it would really take for him to make things fit well for the Bulls is to give up his crazy 3 point shooting tendencies. And it would take Jalen really comitting himself to guard the opponent's best players... because there's no way Walker will be able to keep up with somone like TMac (of course, I doubt Rose can either).

The really nice thing about him, though, is that he's only got this year and next left on his deal. That would be a help, cap-wise, if we could unload ERob. If Boston really wanted the #7 pick, ERob, Fizer, Marshall and #7 for Walker and #16 (Diaw, Gaines, Pavlovic?) might work. I'm not sure that we aren't giving up a bit too much though. Would Boston throw in the #20 pick?

PG-Crawford, Mason
SG-Rose, Pavlovic, Hassell
SF-Walker, (Rose)
PF-Chandler, (Walker), Baxter
C-Curry, Dillybar


----------



## hps (Jul 23, 2002)

If Rose and Walker changed the way they played, it could be a good deal. But I don't see it happening.

It seems like Rose and Walker are actually very similar players. Neither is good enough to carry a team, but they can be a dangerous weapon.

We need a talented SF with a defensive presence or unselfish play, preferrably both. Walker only has the talent.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Well, _obviously_ that was a hyperbole, but the point i was trying to make is valid- we'd have two guys eating up a ton of shots while shooting a low %.


The Celtics had two guys eating up a ton of shots while shooting a low %. And made the playoffs. And had a roster full of guys, like ours, who scored ~10PPG.



> I don't see any way that could happen, unless either Rose or Walker (or both) made major sacrifices in their respective games (which I doubt would happen). How many teams have had 4 guys average 22 ppg or more, especially when two of those guys are averaging 30 ppg.


You are assuming that Rose and Walker would score 22PPG or more if the Bulls had two other guys scoring 30.

We'd actually look more like the Kings or Mavericks, today. Or these teams from a few years back:

86-87 Lakers
Bird 28.1PPG
McHale 26.1PPG
Parrish 17.5PPG
Ainge 14.8 PPG

(pretty close)

86-87 Lakers
Magic 23.9 PPG
Worthy 19.4 PPG
Jabbar 17.5 PPG
Scott 17.0 PPG



> My point is just that Rose and Walker are high volume shooters-that is, they need to shoot alot to get their points- and they'd be taking a ton of shots away from the guys that this franchise *should * be building around.


My point is that guys like Jalen Rose and Antoine Walker fill out the score sheet in ways our "future" being built around only dream of. For now.

Do we want to win, or do we want to watch college quality basketball?

And, FWIW, I'm not necessarily suggesting this is a good deal. I just think your hyperbole is nonsense.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I think some are way off on toines game the reason they chuck up 3's like that is because thats the way O'Brien has designed there offensive system.

Toine is a highly skilled player inside and out and a GREAT passer and ballhandler he just needs to be better conditioned.Anyone thinks thats one of the reasons ainge fired bostons trainer last week.

I once saw him score 58 in a summer league game in chicago and his duels with Finley,posey,matrix,paul mcphearson is stuff of legends at the summer league.

Get him in a better structured offense and better conditioned and he would make a real impact on the bulls .


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> *Originally posted by DaBullz*
> The Celtics had two guys eating up a ton of shots while shooting a low %. And made the playoffs. And had a roster full of guys, like ours, who scored ~10PPG.


a.)Paul Pierce>Jalen Rose
b.)The Celtics don't have a high-scoring center like Curry or a pg capable of lighting it- JC and EC are gonna want touches.
c.)The Celtics are mired in mediocrity and will never win a title as currently constructed- do you really want to be like them? I sure don't.



> You are assuming that Rose and Walker would score 22PPG or more if the Bulls had two other guys scoring 30.
> We'd actually look more like the Kings or Mavericks, today. Or these teams from a few years back:
> 
> 86-87 Lakers
> ...


The 86-87 Lakers is not a good comparison, IMO, becasue their top two scorers are averaging 23.9 and 19.4 ppg, respectively. That is a whole different ballgame than having two 30 ppg scorers.

As for the Celtics, though they are closer, they still don't quite have two 30 ppg scorers. Also, the lowest of their top 4 is Ainge with 14.8 ppg- can you really see Rose or Walker accepting a role where they are scoring 14.8 ppg?




> My point is that guys like Jalen Rose and Antoine Walker fill out the score sheet in ways our "future" being built around only dream of. For now.


Exactly- for now. I'd rather give our young-uns time and oppurtunity to develope than mortage our future with two aging scorers. 



> Do we want to win, or do we want to watch college quality basketball?


I really disagree with the notion that we would win with Jalen and Walker taking the majority of our shots.



> And, FWIW, I'm not necessarily suggesting this is a good deal. I just think your hyperbole is nonsense.


Why is it nonsense? I used it to illustrate a point- that having two high-volume, low % shooters on our team- especially when both are making max money, considerably older than the rest of our nucleus, and not very good defensively- is not a good idea.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

It's nonsense because any team can win with two or more guys taking 18+ attempts per game. Period. It's nonsense that we would not want our two best players to take the most shots.

The bottom line is that Walker is a better player than anyone on the Bulls, Rose included. It's also a matter of record that nobody on our team scores half what Rose does on a consistent basis, let alone score like Walker.

It's obvious that if you replace a player with a better player, the team improves. It's obvious that Walker+Rose+Crawford+Curry+Chandler is better than Walker+Pierce+whatever else the Celtics have. OBVIOUS. And that's a team that is a playoff team already. The big difference between the Celtics (now) and us (with Walker) is that our other players are more likely to improve.

Walker put up consecutive seasons of ~22.5PPG, ~9RPG, and ~5.25APG. Those are Chris Webber type numbers. And despite Walker's lower FG%, it translates to one bucket per game difference. Walker is also just 28 years old, hardly some old player...

It's bad enough that we diss our own best player. Why diss other teams' best players?


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> It's nonsense because any team can win with two or more guys taking 18+ attempts per game. Period. .


That depends on who the two players are. If they are Shaq and Kobe, that's fine. But if they are two low % guys who spend alot of time on the perimeter, then I don't think that would work well.



> It's nonsense that we would not want our two best players to take the most shots


A year from now, would Toine and Jalen be our best players? I would think that Eddy Curry would have surpassed both of them in terms of scoring ability/efficiency, so it would make sense for him for him to get more shots- something that will be made all the more difficult to do if you have Jalen and Toine launching from the perimeter.



> The bottom line is that Walker is a better player than anyone on the Bulls, Rose included. It's also a matter of record that nobody on our team scores half what Rose does on a consistent basis, let alone score like Walker.


That is true _right now_, but Eddy Curry should soon become one of the most devestating post presences in the league, plus we have an excellent, albeit shoot-first pg in Crawford. Both of them shoot a higher % than Walker. Eddy is the freakin' league leader in FG%, and Crawdad shoots .413 to Toine's paltry .388, so common sense dictates that we'd want Crawford and Curry shooting, not Toine.



> It's obvious that if you replace a player with a better player, the team improves. It's obvious that Walker+Rose+Crawford+Curry+Chandler is better than Walker+Pierce+whatever else the Celtics have. OBVIOUS. And that's a team that is a playoff team already. The big difference between the Celtics (now) and us (with Walker) is that our other players are more likely to improve.


I don't buy this argument at all- it is *not* always true that replacing a player with a better player makes a team better. If that better player causes chemistry problems because he *shoots too much* and the ball doesn't go in enough, then you've got problems. We've already got a guy who shoots too much- why add another?



> Walker put up consecutive seasons of ~22.5PPG, ~9RPG, and ~5.25APG. Those are Chris Webber type numbers. And despite Walker's lower FG%, it translates to one bucket per game difference.


And Jalen Rose put up 22 ppg last season, but do you think he was playing effectively? I don't- I think Jalen would be much better served scoring 17-18 ppg- that was more or less his scoring average the year Indy went to the Finals. My point? Numbers don't tell you everything.
However, if you do want to talk about numbers, I will tell you this: Anotoine's have dropped since he put up the numbers you mentioned, and believe me, it is not because he is shooting less or sacrificing his game for the team's sake. Not that Antoine wouldn't make sacrifices- he is an excellent leader and a great team guy- that's just not what is happening. His numbers are dropping because he is becoming more content just to stay on the perimeter and jack up threes than to scrap for better shots. His numbers this past season? 20.1 ppg, 7.2 rpg, and 4.8 apg- still good, but not great , and when you see the .388 shooting %, they lose alot of their luster.



> It's bad enough that we diss our own best player. Why diss other teams' best players?


Paul Pierce is easily the Celtics best player, and nobody is dissing him.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

KC Johnson was on AM670 last night, around 10pm or so.

He said he had zero knowledge of a deal with Boston in any way, shape or form after Dave Kerner asked him straightout. Now I'd be inclined to think that KC has more contacts w/ the Bulls than even the great Chad Ford. Just my opinion.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> It's obvious that if you replace a player with a better player, the team improves.


This is not always the case, some examples:

Jerry Stackhouse for Richard Hamilton (though, some tend to think Rip is better than Stack, i disagree). Wizards stayed the same with the better player, and Pistons improved WITH the lesser of the two players.

Andre Miller for Darius Miles. Cleveland got worse with Miles, the lesser of the two players, and Clippers got worse with Miller, who before this past season was considered one of the best young point guards in the league.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

THREE years from now, Walker and Rose would still be our best two players. We're talking about two of the top 15 players in the NBA. The rest of our team is <B>wannabes</B> until they PROVE they belong in that category. And they could prove it on a good team (with Walker/Rose), or they can prove it on a bad one. 

Common sense dictates that the guys who work to get open and willing to take the shots should take the shots.

Efficiency is a GARBAGE measure of a player's performance. Otherwise Hoiberg would be getting all the minutes he could handle, and we'd be talking about trading him for Kobe. There's absolutely no proof that if Curry took 3x more shots he'd shoot as high a percentage; far more likely he'd shoot a lower percentage. <SARCASM>Better yet, we should trade for a guy like Chris Wilcox because he's a 50% shooter and let him shoot all he wants.</SARCASM>

It's all about scoring more points than your opponent. It's FREQUENCY of scoring that matters (and defense). Points per game. Walker's 20+ PPG is worth exactly the same as Curry+Crawford's 20+ PPG (combined, that's what they scored).

I hope you realize you can score just as efficiently shooting 33% from 3PT land as you can shooting 50% from 2PT land.

Stackhouse vs. Rip. It looks like a perfectly even trade. Washington was 37-45 with Rip and 37-45 with stackhouse. Ironically, Detroit was 50-32 with stackhouse and 50-32 with Rip.

Miller vs. Miles. Cleveland got the far worse end of that deal. Period. Miles is a career 9.5PPG player who hasn't improved his game after 3 years in the NBA (compare that to Fizer!). It makes my skin crawl when people suggest we trade for that bum. You can't pin the Clippers' results on Miller - Brand played 62 games, Magette 64, Odom 49, Olowakandi 36, Richardson 59, etc. That's a season/team devastated by injuries across the roster.

And I think VD is probably right on the money.


----------



## bigbabyjesus (Mar 1, 2003)

Why would the Bulls do it? Their set at the PF position.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> THREE years from now, Walker and Rose would still be our best two players. We're talking about two of the top 15 players in the NBA. The rest of our team is wannabes until they PROVE they belong in that category. And they could prove it on a good team (with Walker/Rose), or they can prove it on a bad one.


I don't believe for a second that Rose and Walker will still be better than Eddy Curry in three years, unless Curry breaks his leg or something. The guy is already the league leader in fg%. As far as the rest of the team being "wannabes" until they can prove otherwise, sometimes in this sport you have to make a decision based on potential. At the time that Vlade Divac was traded for Kobe, Kobe was merely a "wannabe" by your standards- even moreso than Curry is now- but that deal paid off for L.A., didn't it?



> Common sense dictates that the guys who work to get open and willing to take the shots should take the shots.


And in what way has Eddy Curry proven himself unwilling to work to get open. If you have two guys working to get open- one guy who shoots 38.8% and one guy who shoots 58.5%- commone sense dictates that you give it to the guy who shoots 58.5%.



> Efficiency is a GARBAGE measure of a player's performance. Otherwise Hoiberg would be getting all the minutes he could handle, and we'd be talking about trading him for Kobe. There's absolutely no proof that if Curry took 3x more shots he'd shoot as high a percentage; far more likely he'd shoot a lower percentage. <SARCASM>Better yet, we should trade for a guy like Chris Wilcox because he's a 50% shooter and let him shoot all he wants.</SARCASM>


First off, Hoiberg only shoots 38.9 % from the field- that's barely better than Walker in much less mpg.
But fine, let's say for a second that he was shooting 50% from the field in 8-10 mpg- that's a totally different situation than that of Eddy Curry. Eddy averaged 20 mpg for the season, and was getting a lot more minutes than that in the 2nd half of the year, and he was still shooting above 50 %. Efficiency is an *excellent* measure if a player's worth- it is only invalid when you are comparing one guy that plays, say, 10 mpg to a guy who plays, say 40 mpg.
If Eddy Curry took as many shots as Walker, I absolutely guarantee that Eddy would still shoot a higher %. How do I know this? Look where Eddy's shots are coming from on the floor- close in to the basket. Anyway the value of a high % shooter is not that he can take as many shots as a low % shooter and score way more points- their value lies in the fact that they can get the same ppg on much fewer shots than the low % guy.



> It's all about scoring more points than your opponent. It's FREQUENCY of scoring that matters (and defense). Points per game. Walker's 20+ PPG is worth exactly the same as Curry+Crawford's 20+ PPG (combined, that's what they scored).


No, Walker's 20 ppg do not have the same value because it took more shots to get them. That means that Walker is taking more shots away from his teammates.



> I hope you realize you can score just as efficiently shooting 33% from 3PT land as you can shooting 50% from 2PT land.


I do realize that, but I fail to see how it applies here. Walker shoots 32% from three-point range while Eddy shoots 58.5% from 2-point range. Thus, Eddy is more efficient.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Stackhouse vs. Rip. It looks like a perfectly even trade. Washington was 37-45 with Rip and 37-45 with stackhouse. Ironically, Detroit was 50-32 with stackhouse and 50-32 with Rip.
> 
> Miller vs. Miles. Cleveland got the far worse end of that deal. Period. Miles is a career 9.5PPG player who hasn't improved his game after 3 years in the NBA (compare that to Fizer!). It makes my skin crawl when people suggest we trade for that bum. You can't pin the Clippers' results on Miller - Brand played 62 games, Magette 64, Odom 49, Olowakandi 36, Richardson 59, etc. That's a season/team devastated by injuries across the roster.


You forgot Detriot's performance in the postseason, from that, I think they did IMPROVE from last season. And also, I am not pinning the Clippers season on Miller. I am simply saying that getting the better player in a trade does not always make a team better. Though it may MOST of the time, it is not ALWAYS the case.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The first question has already been addressed. Can Walker fit in on this Bulls team, which is already topheavy at the PF position. Walker may or may not be able to play SF. My guess is he can. On the other hand, if this deal did go down, we'd have given up both Marshall and Fizer, so we wouldn't be as deep at the PF position.

If this deal was to be made, it would have been made to put Walker in the starting lineup - of that I have no doubt. But as VD said, the deal is probably one that never was even talked about, except by some ESPN writer.

Now, the difference between Curry and Rose/Walker is that we KNOW exactly what Rose/Walker will be like in 3 years. We can only HOPE that Curry turns into a better player than the two. It's HOPE vs. KNOW.

Curry had a terrific stretch of games, FOR HIM, from about mid-Februrary on. But to put it into perspective, he still wasn't as good as Ilgauskas. Eddie's going to have to play far better than he's shown he can to be better than Walker.

Aside from shooting percentage, _every_ phase of Eddie's game needs improvement. Defense, rebounding, passing, getting open, etc. Especially staying out of foul trouble.

In spite of low shooting percentages, both Rose and Walker are NOT selfish players. They both average around 5 assists per game. Good for 25th and 26th best in the league. Of the top 25 players in assists, all are point guards, except for: Brent Barry, TMac, Ricky Davis, Mashburn, Bryant, and Garnett.

In Rose's first full season with the Bulls, their record imrpoved by NINE wins (from 21 to 30 wins). I have little doubt that adding a guy of Walker's caliber would translate to a playoff level team (Milwaukee and Orlando had 42 wins and made the playoffs). And the beauty of the whole thing is that this would be a playoff team WITH Curry, Chandler, and Crawford on it, WITH two veterans who average 10 assists between them combined.

Yeah, Marshall had a lot to do with the Bulls' improvement, too. However, I'd rather have Walker than Marshall, because Walker's a much better defensive player and a better offensive player.

You asked me if I wanted this team to be like the Celtics. In one respect I do: I want to make the playoffs. In all other respects, I think that having Curry, Chandler, and Crawford to go along with the two star caliber vets is a LOT better than having guys like Tony Battie, Kedrick Brown, Tony Delk, etc. We still have upside, the Celtics don't. This means we won't just reach some level where we can't advance further in the playoffs, as the Celtics can't.

Now I ask you if you'd rather see us be like the Clippers. Young, potential, always a player away from being in the hunt. Currently the Clippers are the team we resemble the most.

Regarding Rip vs. Stackhouse. The Wizards defense improved from 94.2 pts allowed/game to 92.5. Detroit's improved from 92.2 to 87.7. Detroit also added Billups to their lineup, and the team "discovered" Tayshaun Prince late in the season. They contributed _something_ to the Pistons' playoffs run (Billups averaged 18PPG in the playoffs!).

As an aside, the tragic injury to JWill really shows how badly this team needed him. Our depth and lineup got a lot worse without him (or someone we could have traded him for). If we'd have lost Rose (i.e. trade him for bag of rice), we'd be looking at another 20 win season.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Now, the difference between Curry and Rose/Walker is that we KNOW exactly what Rose/Walker will be like in 3 years. We can only HOPE that Curry turns into a better player than the two. It's HOPE vs. KNOW.


While that is technically true, a 7-footer with Curry's skills, size, hands, footwork and athleticism is about as close to a sure thing as you're ever gonna find. Like I said, you sometimes have to make decisions based on potential in this sport (see the Kobe for Vlade trade). Sometimes you just have to take the chance on a young guy with the idea in mind that he will become better than the proven vet. Unless Curry suffers a career-ending injury or falls off the face of the earth, I don't see any conceivable way that Walker and Rose are still better than him three years from now, and yes, I am basing that statement on potential. I could care less what Curry has *proven* so far- waaay too much emphasis is put on the idea of "proven commodities", IMO. The whole buisness of basketball is based on projecting what players will be like years down the road. Based on what I have seen of Curry, I am willing to *guarantee*, on my reputation, that he will be better than Walker and Rose 3 years from now. Of course there's no way I can be 100% sure of this, but I consider it about as safe a bet as you're ever gonna find.



> Curry had a terrific stretch of games, FOR HIM, from about mid-Februrary on. But to put it into perspective, he still wasn't as good as Ilgauskas. Eddie's going to have to play far better than he's shown he can to be better than Walker.


You're right- he wasn't as good as Ilgauskas. But he's also 20 years old. Obviously his game needs work in alot of areas, and obviously he is not a proven star like Walker. But when you watch Eddy play, you can see the potential that is there- he just makes scoring look way too easy. Yes he needs to rebound better, yes he needs to play better defense, but unless Eddy just completely stops working, those will come in time. Again, I am not concerned at all with what Eddy has "proved" so far- that is not the bottom line. The bottom line is that he has the potential to be a far more dominating force than Walker ever has been or ever will be.



> Aside from shooting percentage, _every_ phase of Eddie's game needs improvement. Defense, rebounding, passing, getting open, etc. Especially staying out of foul trouble.


I agree. But Eddy is 20 years old. No, he can't use his age as a crutch forever, but at the same time you have to be patient.



> In spite of low shooting percentages, both Rose and Walker are NOT selfish players. They both average around 5 assists per game. Good for 25th and 26th best in the league. Of the top 25 players in assists, all are point guards, except for: Brent Barry, TMac, Ricky Davis, Mashburn, Bryant, and Garnett.


I never said anything about them being selfish, I just said that they take a lot of shots- which they do.



> In Rose's first full season with the Bulls, their record imrpoved by NINE wins (from 21 to 30 wins). I have little doubt that adding a guy of Walker's caliber would translate to a playoff level team (Milwaukee and Orlando had 42 wins and made the playoffs). And the beauty of the whole thing is that this would be a playoff team WITH Curry, Chandler, and Crawford on it, WITH two veterans who average 10 assists between them combined.


Adding Walker to the team might make us somewhat better in the short run, but I'm not concerned with just making the playoffs, I want this team to eventually contend for a title. Having two shot-happy vets like Walker and Rose could cause all kinds of problems- if Eddy, Jamal and Tyson feel like they are not getting the ball enough and not being allowed to develope their game, then what is their motivation to stay here? Even if they do they do stay, I see this team as a potential chemistry nightmare- I do wanna turn our promising young team into Portland East and waste all that talent.



> You asked me if I wanted this team to be like the Celtics. In one respect I do: I want to make the playoffs. In all other respects, I think that having Curry, Chandler, and Crawford to go along with the two star caliber vets is a LOT better than having guys like Tony Battie, Kedrick Brown, Tony Delk, etc. We still have upside, the Celtics don't. This means we won't just reach some level where we can't advance further in the playoffs, as the Celtics can't.


But if Curry, Chandler or Crawford don't want to stay in Chicago _because_ of the two vets, how does that help us? Adding Walker to this team is a great idea *in theory*, but in the real world players can be selfish, players want more touches, and the most talented team does not always equate to the best team.



> Now I ask you if you'd rather see us be like the Clippers. Young, potential, always a player away from being in the hunt. Currently the Clippers are the team we resemble the most.


The Clips are not out of the hunt because they are " a player away"- they've got enough players, more than enough. Their downfall is chemistry- they've got a bunch of guys who want the ball, and there's not enough shots to go around. I would have to disagree with the notion that we most resemble the Clippers right now- the Clippers are a leaderless, directionless gaggle of players that are talented but don't fit well together and are poorly coached. Plus, the fact that their franchise is so poorly managed that half the players are playing for contracts doesn't help either. The Bulls, on the other hand, have only a couple guys playing for contracts (Fizer and Crawford), several guys that seem to be willing to step up and accept the leader role (Chandler, Crawford, Rose), a pretty good owner and a decent coaching staff (better than the Clippers' coaching staff, anyway), and are not overloaded with scorers- yet. Trading for Walker would most likely change this, IMHO.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Shaqille O'Neal <B>AT THE SAME AGE AS CURRY</B>

.562 FG%, 13.9RPG, 23.4PPG

That's the real deal.

Potential doesn't win ballgames or championships.

Curry is no sure thing. Your guarantee is worthless. If or when he fills out the box score every night like Walker, then we can talk about him being in the same class as Walker. 

I would not hold my breath.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

First off, nobody ever said that Curry is gonna be the same kind of force that Shaq is- nobody in the league today has that type of potential.



> Potential doesn't win ballgames or championships.


Well it does actually- you just have to let it develope. You can't win without talented players. If everybody went for the sure thing all the time as opposed to rolling the dice on potential, then Kobe, TMac, KG, Jermaine O'Neal, ect. wouldn't even have been drafted- teams would have passed on them for college seniors.

For my money, I'd take Curry's potential over Walker's proven ability 7 days a week.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

All of those players you mention were rookies on teams that were loaded with veterans. Veterans like Walker and Rose.

Kobe went to a team that had:

Shaq, E. Jones, Van Exel, Campbell, and Byron Scott. Their whole team wasn't potential.

You do draft for the future, but you do not bank your entire future on nothing but potential.

Actually, YOU would. I wouldn't. 6 years of rebuilding and one of the worst (if not the worst) records in basketball history is the result.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

BTW,

Antoine Walker at the same age as Curry:

9 RPG, 3 APG, 1.3 Stl/Gm, and 17.5 PPG


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> All of those players you mention were rookies on teams that were loaded with veterans. Veterans like Walker and Rose.
> 
> Kobe went to a team that had:
> 
> Shaq, E. Jones, Van Exel, Campbell, and Byron Scott. Their whole team wasn't potential.


That team is not a good example at all- they were a boiling pot of controversey with terrible team chemistry. Kobe would have been much better off, IMO, if he was given more PT and oppurtunites to learn on the job as opposed to being forced to play behind Jones. Their chemistry problems could have proved to be a huge distraction for an impressionable young player like Kobe- the Lakers are just lucky that: 
a.)Kobe is an extremely focused and motivated young man
b.)they were able to trade Van Exel, Jones, Campbell, etc. once Kobe was ready for a starring role. We already know that it is unlikely that we will be able to unload Rose a year or two down the road because of his contract. If we had added Walker, his contract is up in two years, so we'd have two options: either sign Walker to a big, long deal that will significantly hurt our cap scenario down the road, or let him walk as an F.A. and have nothing to show for Jay, Fizer, and Donyell.



> You do draft for the future, but you do not bank your entire future on nothing but potential.
> 
> Actually, YOU would. I wouldn't. 6 years of rebuilding and one of the worst (if not the worst) records in basketball history is the result.


Those six years of terrible basketball produced a team that is primed to be a major contender a few years down the road. Are there other, quicker ways to rebuild? Of course, but I'm willing to wait for a potentially excellent team as opposed to mortgaging our future for a shot at just-above-mediocrity right now.



> BTW,
> 
> Antoine Walker at the same age as Curry:
> 
> 9 RPG, 3 APG, 1.3 Stl/Gm, and 17.5 PPG


Good for him. Typically, big men take longer to develope than perimeter players (Walker is primarily a perimeter oriented 4, though he can be very effective posting up in certain matchups). I'm not all that concerned with how long it takes Eddy to develope- i care more about how good he becomes in the end. Anyway, Eddy should be able to eclipse those scoring numbers by next season (while shooting a higher %). He probably won't get 9 rpg next season though- that's a part of his game that needs improvement. However, FWIW, Walker's rpg is closer to 7 than to 9 nowadays.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

All you are offering is <b>excuses</B> for why our "future" stars aren't stars at all. Promising they will be is fine and dandy, but it is not the same thing as saying they ARE.

Walker is a bonafide star, and will be until the day he hangs up his sneakers.

The deal won't happen, especially if it required JWill (or Crawford) to be included. So it's moot.

We're destined to see a repeat of the early season last year, when we started Curry and Chandler, and fell behind by the end of Q1 and could only muster a furious comeback attempt to fall short.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

I like "the early years" Walker. I don't want the current Walker for the Bulls. 

He was quicker, slimmer, and was not a trigger happy from the three point line.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> 
> 
> he was not deserving to be an all star, he sat on the bench like the whole time (deservedly SO too) and he sucked in the 3pt contest too... he is useless IMO... sorry I don't value him like some...


I think he deserved to be there, remember he is from the East, he plays PF, and remember how bad everyone said Thomas' coaching was after? Well there you go...

He is an All-star player, for the East.

-Petey


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> All you are offering is <b>excuses</B> for why our "future" stars aren't stars at all. Promising they will be is fine and dandy, but it is not the same thing as saying they ARE.
> 
> Walker is a bonafide star, and will be until the day he hangs up his sneakers.


So you've put up this whole big argument but for what purpose... other than arguing about semantics? 

So do you advocate trading someone with "potential" - specifically - Curry or Chandler for a "current star" like Antoine Walker?

Because that's what Louie appears to be arguing against doing. Are you arguing for it? And if you're not, on what basis would you NOT trade Chandler or Curry for Walker?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> So you've put up this whole big argument but for what purpose... other than arguing about semantics?
> ...


Louie was arguing that trading Fizer+Marshall+JWill for Walker would be bad for the Bulls. It isn't about trading Curry or Chandler. In fact, the beauty of such a deal would be that the Bulls would have Rose and Walker and Curry and Chandler and Crawford.

I would trade "potential" for a sure thing under some circumstances. 

I would not have made the brand for chandler trade. I do not believe the gamble of trading away a 20/10 guy for any other player at the same position is going to net better than 20/10. The odds are just slim.

If we could trade Chandler or Curry for any number of established stars, I would absolutely consider it. Curry for KG? Sign me up! Chandler for TMac? You bet. Of course we'd never get those guys straight up, which is my key point...

Now, the crux of the argument is simple. Should the Bulls simply play unproven talent (with "potential") and let them jack up all the shots they want, or could they put together a combination of vets and potential/talent, with the vets carrying the load? I say the latter is better, because we can actually win, and we can bring along our talent at a reasonable pace without relying solely upon them for any chance of playoffs and beyond.

Peace


----------



## CelticsRule (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> 
> 
> he was not deserving to be an all star, he sat on the bench like the whole time (deservedly SO too) and he sucked in the 3pt contest too... he is useless IMO... sorry I don't value him like some...


That's because he was hurt during the allstar game. This thread is the reason why I almost never come into the Bulls forum. All the Bulls fans overrate their whole team, nobody wants Marcus Fizer and the Bulls fans seem to think any trade where they gain anyone who isn't a top 10 player in the league they get ripped off. 

Please before you judge Antoine watchhim play in a game where he doesn't play the best defensive PF in the league. Where wre all the Antoine haters when he was leading his team through the playoffs last year?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Exactly. Bulls fans here have a strong tendancy to overvalue and overinflate the performances and quality of our players. Thanks for the unbiased view.

http://www.nba.com/community/walker_020711.html

Antoine Walker Earns Community Assist Award 

NEW YORK, July 11 -- Boston Celtics forward Antoine Walker has been selected to receive the NBA Community Assist Award for his community outreach during the month of June. 

Since being selected in the first round of the 1996 draft, Walker has made an immediate impact in both Boston and <B>his hometown of Chicago</B>. His commitment to the community was evidenced by his community activities throughout the month of June.


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>celticsrule0873</b>!
> 
> 
> That's because he was hurt during the allstar game. This thread is the reason why I almost never come into the Bulls forum. All the Bulls fans overrate their whole team, nobody wants Marcus Fizer and the Bulls fans seem to think any trade where they gain anyone who isn't a top 10 player in the league they get ripped off.
> ...








ExactLy the reason I do not come in here either...So stuck on their team and cannot reaLize or even as an NBA fan admit WaLker is a quaLity pLayer, and an aLL star o wait I 4got here we say he is just a roLe pLayer if he was on another team (note the sarcasm)...get off it...your days are over...jordan and pippen are gone........


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>CeLtZ in 04</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Question? What does pippen and jordan have to do with some of the posters views on Walker? Not all bulls posters have that view, so you are generalizing the group as one. Not true. 

Another question, the way you talk about Antoine, to us here, aren't you doing the same thing you accuse some of the posters as doing? Building up Walker? 

Fans, ARE STuck on their teams. Come into a forum, expect it. If i was to come into the Celtics forum, i would expect their views to differ. And i would not throw up Bird and Russell eras are over and tell you guys to get over it......


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> Question? What does pippen and jordan have to do with some of the posters views on Walker? Not all bulls posters have that view, so you are generalizing the group as one. Not true.
> ...








No one is buiLding up WaLker, aLL i am saying is WaLker is an ALL STAR, not a ROLE pLayer...I hate aLot of the things about him and I wiLL be the 1st to admit it...You guys sit here and bash him because he has Led this team to the pLayoffs two years in a row? Yes, I am a CeLtics fan and partiaL to them...but I am aLso an NBA fan and can admit weaknesses...WaLker is not the best pLayer...but he is an ALL star and a perfect fit for the CeLtics...I am not buiLding him up...jus stating the obvious which is fact and everyone disagrees with........


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Exactly. Bulls fans here have a strong tendancy to overvalue and overinflate the performances and quality of our players. Thanks for the unbiased view.








GLad to see someone reaLizes how it is...As is the case w/ most teams 'n' their fanz...but as NBA fans sometimes you have to think reaListicaLLy in the reaL worLd and not jus in terms of why your team is the best bLa bLa bLa........


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>CeLtZ in 04</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We expect you to view Walker that way. But because some bulls fans have a different view, is no reason for you to generalize and tell them to get over the pippen and jordan run. That has nothing to do with Walker.


----------



## CelticsRule (Jul 22, 2002)

How about this pointless argument over who overrates players more ends by saying any fan of a team will overrate its players a little. Also Bulls fans have been known to underrate players in proposed trades. Both the Celtics and Bulls are in the process of becoming great teams again, why bother arguing over a trade that can't happen because of JWill's injury?


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

3 things about Walker if he were on the Bulls - 

1. He'd have to play in the post sometimes. That 3 point **** is horrible. 

2. Would he be willing to stay when his contract is up? Isn't that next year?

3. He has to donate 1 million to charity every time he does the shimmey. I hate that with a passion.

Otherwise - if he can play sf - sign me up! (although I'd rather trade the pick than Marshall)

Of course, this trade can't happen due to Williams injury. However, just want to let the Boston folks know that not everyone here is down on Walker.


----------



## CelticsRule (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> 3 things about Walker if he were on the Bulls -
> 
> 1. He'd have to play in the post sometimes. That 3 point **** is horrible.
> ...


I agree with you. He does need to play the post more and shoot about 200 fewer threes. I think if in Chicago he would resign so he could stay in his hometown. On the Walker Wiggle how can you not like it?:grinning:


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> 
> We expect you to view Walker that way. But because some bulls fans have a different view, is no reason for you to generalize and tell them to get over the pippen and jordan run. That has nothing to do with Walker.







True, and I sed that out of mere frustration b/c ppL don't give WaLker enough respect, but its aLL good........


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>celticsrule0873</b>!
> 
> 
> On the Walker Wiggle how can you not like it?:grinning:


Cuz usually the Bulls are on the business end of the wiggle. (At least half the time anyway)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

This proposed trade between the Celtics and Bulls is intriguing to say the least. The Celtics are going to consistently make the playoffs with their two _great_ players. However, I think they are in a bind. They can make the playoffs, but they don't seem to be able to go deep into the playoffs. Beyond their two stars, they do not seem to have a lot of talent, and because they do make the playoffs, they aren't going to end up with good enough draft picks to get a quality player.

Sure, they can get lucky and get a very good player with a late pick, but it's not the likliest of scenarios.

I don't see how the Celts can pick up another quality player by trading guys like Delk, Williams, or McCarty. 

But if the Celtics did trade Walker for JWill, Marshall, and Fizer, they'd certainly be deeper and have some upside. Marshall has a nice enough game that he'd be a quality starter, though his defense isn't so great. If Fizer comes back from his injury strong (as Crawford did from the same injury), he's going to be a solid scoring and rebounding option for the team for years to come.

And the trade would be good for the Bulls, too. They'd be getting an all-star while maintaining a core of young talent.

The Celts might not like this deal, anyhow. Walker is such a fine player, he's drawing fans into the stadium. Or maybe they could get a better deal from another team.

It is now moot, because of JWill's injury.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

For the Boston fans who love Walker soooo much:

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/list/mostoverrated.html

Check out athlete #7.

Hey. I didn't write this stuff.

In your defense. I agree. Every fan overvalues their own players. It's part of being a fan. I think Walker is a decent player, I just would prefer he stay on the Celtics. For a guy with such a great low post game (he can stick that little jump hook with either hand consistantly) he sure does like his trey's!


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Louie was arguing that trading Fizer+Marshall+JWill for Walker would be bad for the Bulls. It isn't about trading Curry or Chandler. In fact, the beauty of such a deal would be that the Bulls would have Rose and Walker and Curry and Chandler and Crawford.


Having Rose and Walker together is what makes me so wary of this trade- I don't think think they would fit together well at all (I've already explained why several times).

*Value-wise*, Walker for Fizer-Jay-Donyell is not a bad deal at all-I never argued that it was, and that is something that you all need to understand before you accuse me of overrating the Bulls' players. *Of course* Toine is twice the player that Marcus Fizer is, but my reasons for not wanting to do this trade are all about chemistry, not talent. I believe that Walker would, in the long run, hurt our team chemistry.



> If we could trade Chandler or Curry for any number of established stars, I would absolutely consider it. Curry for KG? Sign me up! Chandler for TMac? You bet. Of course we'd never get those guys straight up, which is my key point...


I would do either of those trades in a heartbeat (if they were possible), absoutely. But trading Eddy for KG or Tyson for Tmac basically has no bearing at all because it is a completely different concept than adding Walker to a team that already features Tyson, Eddy, Jalen and Jamal.




> Now, the crux of the argument is simple. Should the Bulls simply play unproven talent (with "potential") and let them jack up all the shots they want, or could they put together a combination of vets and potential/talent, with the vets carrying the load? I say the latter is better, because we can actually win, and we can bring along our talent at a reasonable pace without relying solely upon them for any chance of playoffs and beyond.


Well, I'd have to say that I'd choose the former. We already have Jalen and Donyell carrying a big portion of this team's load, and I just don't see the value in making this team even more dependent on vets. Our young guys need to learn how to win on their own- they're not going to develope as well if they don't get the oppurtunity to get out on the court and learn on the job from their own mistakes and successes. Anyway, we can still _win_ with the guys we have- we may not win as much right away, but I expect us to at least challenge for a playoff spot this year, and I believe that we'd spare ourselves from a great deal of chemistry and salary cap problems by not trading for Walker.



> Exactly. Bulls fans here have a strong tendancy to overvalue and overinflate the performances and quality of our players. Thanks for the unbiased view.


There's no such thing as an unbiased view. 
Anyway, there's a *huge * difference between overrating your own players and realizing when you have a special talent. I believe Eddy is a special talent, and i want this team to be built around him- not Antoine Walker, not Jalen Rose.



> Antoine Walker Earns Community Assist Award
> 
> NEW YORK, July 11 -- Boston Celtics forward Antoine Walker has been selected to receive the NBA Community Assist Award for his community outreach during the month of June.
> 
> Since being selected in the first round of the 1996 draft, Walker has made an immediate impact in both Boston and his hometown of Chicago. His commitment to the community was evidenced by his community activities throughout the month of June .


That's great to hear- I do believe that Walker is a good guy, and an excellent teammate as well.
But I hardly see why this supports your claim that we'd be better off trading for him.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> That's because he was hurt during the allstar game. This thread is the reason why I almost never come into the Bulls forum. All the Bulls fans overrate their whole team, nobody wants Marcus Fizer and the Bulls fans seem to think any trade where they gain anyone who isn't a top 10 player in the league they get ripped off.
> 
> Please before you judge Antoine watchhim play in a game where he doesn't play the best defensive PF in the league. Where wre all the Antoine haters when he was leading his team through the playoffs last year?





> ExactLy the reason I do not come in here either...So stuck on their team and cannot reaLize or even as an NBA fan admit WaLker is a quaLity pLayer, and an aLL star o wait I 4got here we say he is just a roLe pLayer if he was on another team (note the sarcasm)...get off it...your days are over...jordan and pippen are gone........


I'm going to respond to these two posts in one fell swoop because their message is essentially the same.
Nobody dounts that Walker is a quality player and a quality leader and team guy. Nobody is "disrespecting" him- that is not the issue in this thread and it never has been. The issue is whether Walker would be good *fit *for the Bulls- you can be a great player and still be a bad fit for a certain team. I believe that Walker's presence on the team would cause chemistry problems, hamper the developement of our young players, and hurt our already touchy cap situation (if we resigned him, that is).


----------

