# Bulls agree to swap Fizer, pick for Cheany, Claxton



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Not sure what the pick is, on my way out the door...


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

source?


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Wow...

I would imagine it is a future 2nd rounder because if not, this makes no sense. To throw in a 1st rounder instead just would be boneheaded.

Claxton is not as good as Kirk, so he is a backup and Cheaney just never made an effective transition to the NBA.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Our pick!?!?!?

Please for the love of god don't let it be our first round pick this year!!!


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

If this is true then another trade is on the way moving JC for a SF. Hinrich and Claxton at PG and Cheaney and Gill at SG. That is a nice group of guards.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

If this has anything to do with a first round pick, I'll be volunteering as captain of the FIRE PAX lynch mob.

If it's a second rounder then it looks like a pretty good trade although Cheney is closing in on 33 years old and has no three point shot.

Claxton shoots like Linton Johnson but at least he's young.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> If this is true then another trade is on the way moving JC for a SF. Hinrich and Claxton at PG and Cheaney and Gill at SG. That is a nice group of guards.


Cheney and Gill would be an ok group of guards if it were... i dunno... 1995.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Well it would not be anything permanent I know that just not bad for right now. Although Cheaney has had a nice year in GS shooting like 49% from the field and 8.5 points in like 26 minutes per game.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I like Speedy a lot, and Fizer was dead weight anyways. I already think this is a good deal, because theres no way I can believe that Pax would include a 1st rounder in this deal. 

Claxton will give Hinrich some much needed rest though, hes just a rookie and Claxton will make it easier for him for the rest of the season.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

This deal also takes away an expiring contract (Fizer) that we could have used in another trade, so I wonder if it means Pax has something lined up that doesn't involve big salary players.

Either that or he's just a fool who doesn't know what he's doing.


----------



## Modena360 (May 22, 2003)

*Is this true??*

Who else heard this?? I would give a 2nd rounder but defineatly not a 1st round pick for this deal. If I was Pax I would of done:

Jamal
Fizer
2nd round Pick

for 

J-Rich
C.C
Speedy


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

*Re: Is this true??*



> Originally posted by <b>Modena360</b>!
> Who else heard this?? I would give a 2nd rounder but defineatly not a 1st round pick for this deal. If I was Pax I would of done:
> 
> Jamal
> ...


Yea I would do that in an instant, Jrich is much better than Jamal at this point.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Claxton's deal was originally a 3 year, $10 deal, right? Just trying to figure out the cap implications here.


----------



## Modena360 (May 22, 2003)

*Is this Legit*

???

I wanted J-Rich...damn that sucks...


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

anybody have any kind of confirmation here, c blizzy do you know anything about this?


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

I'm getting really frustrated here.

I know Fizer was in the doghouse, but really, why not just let him walk instead of trading for two players who are less then 20% from three point range?

We need a shooter and got two guards who can't do just that.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> If this has anything to do with a first round pick, I'll be volunteering as captain of the FIRE PAX lynch mob.
> 
> If it's a second rounder then it looks like a pretty good trade although Cheney is closing in 33 years old and has no three point shot.
> ...


Agreed, Mike! If we got rid of our first rounder for THAT, Pax shouldn't only be fired, he should be forced to sit in his own poop for like a year. It HAS to be a 2nd rounder. Noway Pax is that stupid...right?

I think this is more of an addition by subtraction move. We get rid of a bonehead who hasn't made a layup in a year and a half. I would have given up Fizer for a beverage at this point.

I haven't seen much of Claxton this season. I assume he'll be a better backup PG than Brunson, though.

I'd also like some sort of confirmation of this deal. Anyone got any?


----------



## Modena360 (May 22, 2003)

*I think this is B.S.*

There was no deal.....Pax is not that dumb to give up a #1 pick for those 2 unless J-Rich is involved.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I like Claxton. I like the deal. Like anyone?


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

Is GB just being mean?


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I really like the deal if the pick is a future second. I think Hinrich and Claxton is a very nice duo at PG and Cheaney is a very efficient SG. True neither are shooters from deep but hopefully we can fill that need elsewhere.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> Is GB just being mean?


If GB is just pulling strings here, he should be banned for a week.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

We should have really tried to get a good SG for Fizer though. I wish we would have gone after Joe Johnson, Fizer is an expiring contract and we could have offered JC.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I hope GB can post more info about this soon, because I've checked everywhere I can think of and found not a peep about it.

Not doubting anyone, just would like to see the confirmation.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Claxton's deal was originally a 3 year, $10 deal, right? Just trying to figure out the cap implications here.


Yup, and Cheney's deal is up at the end of the year.

Speedy gets $3.3M next year and then has a *team option* for $3.6M the year after according to HoopsHype 

That doesn't look like that bad of a deal, contingent upon us not really giving up our first round position... in which case it goes from "good" to "worst episode ever".


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

If anyone's at home or has a radio, turn on the score or AM 1000 to try to hear something. I wish GB would have given the source.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> If anyone's at home or has a radio, turn on the score or AM 1000 to try to hear something. I wish GB would have given the source.


Posting a Bulls trade like it has already happened is like yelling 'fire' in a packed movie theatre.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Yeah, getting kind of fishy that we don't see anyone else reporting this.

Actually, I think both players in this deal aren't too bad. Cheney is just a filler to make the trade work, but he's probably just as good as Gill. He's not going to make a difference but he's not horrible. I do wish, however, he had more shooting range.

Speedy is a solid backup PG. I do really wish he had shooting range, but I remember him playing for the Spurs and he was pretty decent. Good defense, lots of athleticism, pretty good decision-making. Kind of like TJ Ford only not as good. I like him.

But neither of them are worth passing up a chance on Deng or Okafur or someone like that. If that happens I'll most likely have an aneurism.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

GB sounded confident in posting this. I wouldnt doubt it. Good trade for the Bulls and Warriors. GS wanted to free up some time for Pietrus and they get a backup 4 since Murphy doesnt look good for the rest of the year. They also get a pick. The bulls get a decent shooting swingman and a real backup guard. job well dont by both teams. unless our pick is a 1st rounder


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> Posting a Bulls trade like it has already happened is like yelling 'fire' in a packed movie theatre.


Well, if it is true, would that inidicate that JC is on the move, because we just acquired two more guards???

God, Fizer was awful yesterday. I don't mind seeing him go. 

This vague pick that we're throwing in is what's concerning now.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Fire, Damnit! Fire!


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I would not worry to much about it being our first rounder in 04 because I think we can not trade it because of that Bryce Drew fiasco.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> I haven't seen much of Claxton this season. I assume he'll be a better backup PG than Brunson, though.


Last night Brunson was more effective than Hinrich was. And that was hardly the first time that has happened. I agree that Hinrich has been our best player this year, but has there ever been a team where the difference between their best player and a player like Brunson has been so small? The sad part of this whole trade is that Speedy Claxton could come in and be our best player the second half of the season.

Watching Fizer last night reminded me of the Fizer last year who the Atlanta announcers were calling "Wilt." Last year we saw plenty of evidence about how a mature Curry/Chandler/Fizer combination could put a tremendous amount of pressure on opposing teams' interior defenses. But this year all we see was some early brilliance of Chandler and glimpses from Curry and an offensive game from Fizer that has fallen below that of Blount. We have quickly become a team with absolutely no inside presence on the offensive end.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, I've been looking on the net and I don't see any evidence yet


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

If this trade goes through and it involves a 1st rounder, Paxson becomes public enemy #1

If this trade is just a fabrication for personal enjoyment, GB becomes public enemy #1

If this trade goes through not involving a high draft pick, Jamal should start putting his house up for sale


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Golden State trades: PG Speedy Claxton (8.2 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 3.9 apg in 23.6 minutes) 
SF Calbert Cheaney (8.6 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 1.9 apg in 27.3 minutes) 
Golden State receives: PF Marcus Fizer (6.1 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 13.7 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: -10.7 ppg, -2.4 rpg, and -5.0 apg. 

Chicago trades: PF Marcus Fizer (6.1 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 0.8 apg in 13.7 minutes) 
Chicago receives: PG Speedy Claxton (8.2 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 3.9 apg in 39 games) 
SF Calbert Cheaney (8.6 ppg, 3.9 rpg, 1.9 apg in 38 games) 
Change in team outlook: +10.7 ppg, +2.4 rpg, and +5.0 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED


so it does work


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

and if this is true, which I have no reason to believe it isnt, then this is only the beginning


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Speedy Claxton is a winner. Hes been in, and stepped up big in huge situations. He has a title, and hes still young. 

I actually like this trade as long as its a 2nd rounder. 

For some reason I cant recall what Speedys defense is like? Anyone know?


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Rlucas,

One thing is for sure GS is nuts to just let there 1st round pick this year sit on the bench for Chaney. Like you i am interested to see what kind of player he is going to be.

david


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Rlucas,
> 
> One thing is for sure GS is nuts to just let there 1st round pick this year sit on the bench for Chaney. Like you i am interested to see what kind of player he is going to be.
> ...


100% agree. I look at this is a way to force Musselman into playing him. When given the shot, he has played well to pretty good. But Muss hates rookies (ask Dunleavy last year). And GS seems to be growing tired of him anyway. My gut says this is a move, on their half, to make sure that he develops his young talent.

good move for both teams. Does this help GS in terms of cap space next year?


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> I would not worry to much about it being our first rounder in 04 because I think we can not trade it because of that Bryce Drew fiasco.


That is right. The only way it's a 1st rounder is if its 2005 or 2006 pick, which you would assume have some sort of protection.

Claxton played well in the playoffs last year and is a nice back up PG. Cheaney can play SG or SF. Fizer was not giving us anything. So if this deal is for real, I don't mind.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> 100% agree. I look at this is a way to force Musselman into playing him. When given the shot, he has played well to pretty good. But Muss hates rookies (ask Dunleavy last year). And GS seems to be growing tired of him anyway. My gut says this is a move, on their half, to make sure that he develops his young talent.
> ...


Slightly. If they are in fact moving Speedy's contract, then they move from 42.7 mil to 39.4.

GB=tech_n9ne ?????????????????????


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

i cannot find anything about this trade and think it is still not final. However, with that in mind hinrich needs to have his minutes decreased. I mean he played 45 minutes monday night and he looked totally gases last night. I know skiles wants him on the floor but he is a rookie and it is to much to ask him to run the team, guard the other teams best offensive guard, and score without some rest. Claxton would really help take some of the pressure off of hinrich. And he is also an uptempo player who plays good D.

david


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Slightly. If they are in fact moving Speedy's contract, then they move from 42.7 mil to 39.4.
> ...


I dont think so, but GB sounded in confident in his post. It would not surprise me if this happens


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

That is a very nice deal for us .Speedy is a guy I'd be happy to have on my team and CC is another(+-) Gill.

I'm not even referring to it being our 1st rounder unless it's 2005 protected as good as the bryce drew deal(top 20 or 2 2nd rounders).

when I think of it there is NO way pax would give a high pick for that unless he's high himself...

and basghetti80 is correct,this year our pick is still under lease!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, someone reported the trade (citing our URL which nicely showed up as ***BANNED*** :laugh: ) over on RealGM, so maybe someone over there will come up with confirmation.

--------------------

Even if it's not this year's pick, it better have some damn good protection built into it. 

------------------

The other interesting question is this was a two for one deal.

Who gets cut?

My guess would be Brunson, but I could see it being Dupree too. I'd not like to see that, however.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

who gets cut? We would have to cut someone before this deal is made. My guess is it would be Jefferies. But if it were me, it would be Brunson


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

We may not have to cut anyone if JC and Erob are traded for a SF. If not cut Brunson.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> 100% agree. I look at this is a way to force Musselman into playing him. When given the shot, he has played well to pretty good. But Muss hates rookies (ask Dunleavy last year). And GS seems to be growing tired of him anyway. My gut says this is a move, on their half, to make sure that he develops his young talent.
> ...


Nice points.
It's also that Troy Murphy is injured again,so they'd check how Fizer might work in their system.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> who gets cut?


Maybe there's another deal in place?

If someone gets cut, I hope its Jefferies.

Maybe the buyout for JWill is close to being finalised?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> who gets cut? We would have to cut someone before this deal is made. My guess is it would be Jefferies. But if it were me, it would be Brunson


If we cut Jeffries, we have to continue paying his rookie contract anyway.

That kind of sticks in my craw, because it was needless to take him in the first place.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

If trade goes through... 
please cut Brunson.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> If we cut Jeffries, we have to continue paying his rookie contract anyway.
> ...


Well,I won't cry for JR's checkbook,but it was needless to move him here,and then bring in his best freind from Toronto we forgot in the 1st deal...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> Well,I won't cry for JR's checkbook,but it was needless to move him here,and then bring in his best freind from Toronto we forgot in the 1st deal...


I won't cry for the checkbook, either, but I don't at all like the fact he'll continue to count against the salary cap :|

----------

Anyway, this is looking more and more like a hoax to me.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Well GB's back on the site viewing things. GB, WHAT'S YOUR SOURCE?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Egads! 

It was a joke fellas. Thought everyone would see through it after 5 minutes...

Morning after a loss 'coffee'. Something to throw a jolt around.



Sorry. :no:


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Not funny. 

:no:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> Egads!
> 
> It was a joke fellas. Thought everyone would see through it after 5 minutes...
> ...


Public


Enemy


Number


One


I'm gonna call you <b>PENO</b> from now on


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> It was a joke fellas.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

That is so wrong, someone suggested earlier and I agree he should be banned for like a week.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

In color for the full effect


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I was thinking---at the seasoning opening of one of the seasons two or three years ago I posted a "breaking: Brand injured on way to stadium" " Motorcycle injury--broken leg"


But it "kinda came true" later on...


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Why all of the hating on Brunson?

Hinrich is a more efficient scorer, but because Brunson is more effective at getting to the line, the difference isn't big as you might think. Morover, per minute played, Brunson is a better assist man, better rebounder, and gets a lot more steals. Brunson does collect more fouls and turnovers, but his assist to turnover ratio is better than Hinrich's. There is no statistic for this, but I think Brunson is just as effective at organizing the offense as Hinrich is.

The point here is not to argue that Brunson is better than Hinrich. The point is that it seems quite odd to put Hinrich on a pedestal and argue that Brunson isn't NBA-material when their play on the court just doesn't seem all that different.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Huh... for some reason that one won't display


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> In color for the full effect


WHAT is that?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I'll give you all something I heard on the radio this morning.

They played a clip of Pax saying he was looking at tightening the roster a little bit in terms of "character" before the trade deadline.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> I was thinking---at the seasoning opening of one of the seasons two or three years ago I posted a "breaking: Brand injured on way to stadium" " Motorcycle injury--broken leg"
> 
> 
> But it "kinda came true" later on...


ok, that is just wrong. and can you believe that by the time you left your house and got to work the thread was five pages long.

tsk, tsk GB.

:uhoh:


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

I am done playa hatin, I'm now poster hatin. 

The hell with Eddy and Eddie, I got GB to hate. 

Gotta give GB credit 400looks and 40 + posts for pure BS.

The hell with a week ban put the man in a pillory at once!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> Why all of the hating on Brunson?
> 
> Hinrich is a more efficient scorer, but because Brunson is more effective at getting to the line, the difference isn't big as you might think. Morover, per minute played, Brunson is a better assist man, better rebounder, and gets a lot more steals. Brunson does collect more fouls and turnovers, but his assist to turnover ratio is better than Hinrich's. There is no statistic for this, but I think Brunson is just as effective at organizing the offense as Hinrich is.
> ...


Err... I think you're watching different games than me. Obviously Hinrich has stretches where he performs poorly and Brunson stretches where he plays relatively well. That doesn't mean that there's little significant difference between them. Dupree played a great first couple of minutes... that doesn't make him Michael Jordan.

If there's so little difference then why is Kirk playing 38 mpg and Brunson 10? If Brunson was playing Hinrich's minutes over the long run, he'd look worse I'm fairly certain of it. I know what you're saying about the stats and all, but I don't think it adds up in reality.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> ok, that is just wrong. and can you believe that by the time you left your house and got to work the thread was five pages long.
> ...


I honestly expected one or two talking about WHY the trade wouldn't take place.

Sorry to get peoples hopes up.

Some state we're in if we get all hot and bothered over Speedy and Calbert. Sounds like a 70's show, doesn't it?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>GB</b>!
> 
> 
> WHAT is that?


You can't see it? It's a textbook tarring and feathering.

Don't worry if you don't understand... you'll be getting a closer and more vivid impression of it real soon now


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Just for you GB

:kissmy:


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

GB, that was just wrong and not funny. Especially knowing how people here are. We're like baby dingoes at the first sight of a fresh carcass. 

You even had people vouching for you saying things like "He wouldn't make this up."  

I suggested Pax should sit in his own poop for a year if he had given up a 1st rounder. I think I now transfer that suggestion over to you.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> Why all of the hating on Brunson?
> 
> Hinrich is a more efficient scorer, but because Brunson is more effective at getting to the line, the difference isn't big as you might think. Morover, per minute played, Brunson is a better assist man, better rebounder, and gets a lot more steals. Brunson does collect more fouls and turnovers, but his assist to turnover ratio is better than Hinrich's. There is no statistic for this, but I think Brunson is just as effective at organizing the offense as Hinrich is.
> ...


Player stats per 48 can be very deceiving concerning lower minute bench players. Remember how good Fizers' minutes per 48 were in the last few years. 

Brunson is NBA material. He's generally solid and has always done a decent job for us. But despite being seasoned, he doesn't have enough veteran moxy to make up for his slow feet on defense. Kirk most exceeds Brunson on the defensive end.


----------



## robg (Jul 19, 2002)

GB, your a cruel, cruel person
:curse: 

We are sooo desparate for change,
even a tyson, eddy & JC for claxton trade would have me pondering hmm "maybe it'll work". :thinking:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robg</b>!
> GB, your a cruel, cruel person
> :curse:
> 
> ...



My sentiments exactly.:laugh:


----------

