# Does Ron Mercer really **** that bad?



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

*Does Ron Mercer really stink that bad?*

I know that the Bulls were glad to get rid of him, but it's interesting how thin we are at SG now that we don't have him anymore. 

Thin isn't exactly the word, seeing all the backcourt players we have. Inexperienced.

Ron Mercer plays hard, scores well, and although he's begun hoisting shots as of late in his career (what do you expect when he's the main gunner on the Bulls), he can be good for a decent FG percentage. His supposedly subpar defense got 2.36 steals in December last year, and he averaged 2nd in steals among rookies his rookie year.

15.2 ppg, 44.1% FG, 2.3 rbs, .65 stls, 2.26 assists per game. Oh wait, those aren't Ron Mercer's numbers. Those are the numbers of the $100 million man, the All-Star, Allan Houston, in his first five years of basketball. (I know, no one likes Houston either, but still...)

17.1 ppg, 43.9% FG, 3.7 rbs, 1.38 stls, 2.56 assists per game. Oh THOSE are Ron Mercer's numbers... better than Houston in almost every aspect of the game, in the first four years of his career, playing for FOUR different teams (it's harder to get assists with teammates you don't play with for more than six months). The only advantage that Houston held over Mercer, at that point in their careers, was range on his shot. Houston shot exceptionally from behind the arc, while Mercer didn't try too often. Houston averages a career 40.1% 3point, while Mercer averages 25.7 %, over only 214 career attempts.

So other than the fact that he doesn't have the range (at least he doesn't hoist too many from behind the arc), why does he get bounced around the league like that? Does a three point shot make Houston the man of the Knicks while Mercer is trade scum? Does one post-season flash of Houston during a miracle lockout playoff for the Knicks make him worth so much more?

And WHY the freak would the Bulls trade Oakley instead of Mercer? Ron Mercer was a very coachable player, and he enjoyed being on the Bulls... it wouldn't have taken much convincing to get him to limit his FG attempts and play into a system more oriented to the big men... and he was showing improvement on his 3 point range too...

Then the roster would look like:

Jay Williams/Craw
Mercer/Hassell/Mason
Rose/Robinson
Chandler/Fizer
Curry/Bags

This is a STACKED team. Seriously it is. As long as you can be a believer in Mercer like I always was, then you could see how well this team could do. Even if you want Craw to get starting SG minutes and Hassell to contribute, then just shift Robinson further down the bench and let Mercer play 6th man behind Rose and only spot minutes at SG.

It all depends on what kind of FA we add this summer, but honestly, having money to spend this summer isn't really all that attractive with the weak FA pool out there. I'd rather have Mercer here with his contract and let the team grow. I think all the pieces are together and we don't need to save up a ton of money to pay a big time FA to come play for us. Mercer isn't really overpaid at 6.1 mil a year, when he can shoot the ball and warrant real minutes unlike Oakley, who "tutored" the big men and got paid 6.5 mil for it.  And he's a FA in 2004, which is relatively soon and certainly before all the young guys need extensions...

I am open to attacks at this time. I know there are a lot of Mercer haters out there, but please tell me why sending Oakley away in the trade wouldn't have been better than sending Mercer.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

as i understand, mercer was the dealmaker for donny walsch, donny likes ron, and ron came through BIG TIME in the playoffs, probably his first playoffs ever, RIP hamilton is no better then ron, yet ron gets no respect

alot of fans expected too much from ron, (and fizer), but with the squad we have now, ron would flourish, especiall in the FG% area, and on a good team ron would put more effort into defense if he wasnt asked to carry the load of the teams offense, thats why i expect jalen's defense to be sub-par this year because he will be the center of our offense

you pair ron with jordan, and he thrives...id like the pacers to hold onto ron after reggie retires, he needs some stability in his life


----------



## Wishbone (Jun 10, 2002)

the main problem of having Mercer on the Bulls... imho... was watching him falter again and again, trying to be the focal point of the Bulls offense.

comparing him to Rip and Houston is a somewhat fair comparison... I'd have to say Rip is a better player right now -- he reminds me very much of Reggie (nearly identical size, great range, and the ability to hit the dagger in the back 3pter)

Houston is also a similar player to that, and sure, he's had his clutch moments too... but i just think he ****s horribly. mostly because he is one of the least well rounded guys in the league. yeah, he can shoot... but what else?

Reggie was always an underrated defender... Rip shows signs of the same... Mercer meanwhile, seems like he could very much be an all-around type player -- if he just wasn't so in love with his mid-range jumper on offense... and not being the focal point in Indiana should allow him the energy to D up as well


would Mercer still fit in on the Bulls right now? well, if we still pulled off the Jalen Rose trade, and substituted Oakley for Mercer... yeah, he'd fit in pretty well

this would, however, mean that Crawford would definitly have no place on the team any longer, and he would likely be shipped out for a big man and whatever else can be gotten.

still..

JWill/Best/Mason
Mercer/Hassell/Mason
Rose/Robinson
Chandler/Fizer/Baxter
Curry/?big man?/Bagaric

aint that bad... Mercer would be the 3rd option after Rose and Curry (pending Curry's development)
and depending on how quickly JWill progresses, that's a playoff bound team. perhaps not this coming season... but i have not a doubt in my mind that roster would reach the playoffs (7th or 8th seed) in the 2003/04 season


----------



## Dr. Kerr (Jun 21, 2002)

I think having 3pt range definitely does make a BIG difference. First, of course 3pts is more than 2pts. But more importantly, having 3pt range creates spacing. Especially now with the zone defenses.

If 3pt shooting weren't so important, Kerr would've been out of the league.

I think Mercer and erob (preinjury) were very similar players. Perimeter players with a streaky mid-range jumper. Erob is a bit taller with more athleticism. Both could really benefit from a post game and a 3 pt shot. 

One of the big beefs I had with mercer was his inability to finish driving to the basket. 

I think hassel is a capable replacement, if he continues to improve. Hassel's D is better and he seems to have a better 3pt shot and post game. I think Mercer can create his little mid range jumper better, but Hassel is a good role player that can complement the inside games of rose, chandler, curry.

Jamal may be able to become a better 2-guard too, if he bulks up. Jamal was lighting up the 3pt line near the end of the year. And he can do that same cross-over pull up mid range jumper that mercer loves.

Hoiberg provides great hustle, 3pt range for the remaining minutes (although last year his shot was off. I think he was injured though).

Rose and erob may be able to move to the 2 guard too.

I think our biggest hole is more the 3-spot. Jalen and erob are good slashing threes. But we need a more physical three presence. That's why Harpring is big on the FA wish list.


----------



## Sep (Jun 5, 2002)

:no: I guess my assessment of Ron Mercer is much more negative than all of yours. First, in response to Johnny Bravisimo, I'm pretty sure it was the other way around. As I understood it, the Pacers liked the idea of having Oakley as an enforcer, but the fact that his contract ended this year was the main attraction. Mercer, meanwhile, has like 3 more years at $7 mil per on average. Not good for the cash-strapped Pacers, who are scrounging for money to sign Harrington, O'Neal, and Bender. The reason the deal took so long was that Krause was trying to get them to take Mercer instead of Oakley (we had to throw in Kevin Ollie to make it work - the original deal was Oakley, Artest, and Miller for Rose, Best, and Brezec).

Why does Ron Mercer stink? Let me count the ways:

1. He's a cancer. Darrell Armstrong said it in not so many words when he talked about that season when Orlando barely missed the playoffs. Said something about how the team had a hustling, play-hard mentality, and they brought in some guys mid-season who didn't fit in well with that - he supposedly meant Ron Mercer. When a guy plays for 5 teams in 5 years (and is traded in 3 of his first 5 seasons), it's usually because the coaches don't like him (or his name is Chris Gatling).

2. He doesn't play defense. Matador defense, all the way. Steal numbers don't mean squat. All they tell you is how much a guy likes to gamble into passing lanes. He probably gives up twice as many baskets as he creates by not playing solid D and gambling for steals.

3. He froze out the rookies. He wasn't the only guy guilty of this, but I got really tired of seeing him look off Curry with good position in the post, just so he could jack up his leaning 20-footer. Talk about a guy who's just out to pump up his numbers...

4. He's not aggressive enough with the ball on offense. Whenever he gets into the lane or on the fast break (which is a rarity in itself), you can count on him to pull up for a short jumper, or attempt some overly-finesse layup, which often misses. He's just so weak with the ball. I've never seen him take it up real strong and dunk it on someone. I'm not dunk-obsessed, but you like to see a player be aggressive. 

5. That contract. How many of us are whining about E-Rob's contract right now? Mercer has a richer contract, which he really doesn't deserve. Nobody in the league thinks he's worth that much.

6. He cannot shoot the 3-pointer. I've watched too much of Ron Mercer to let anyone write this off as good shot selection. Granted, some players with enough range choose not to shoot a lot of 3-pointers (e.g. Kobe Bryant this season). Ron Mercer consistently looked very uncomfortable every time he stepped behind the arc, and was always way short on his shot. Hard off the front iron is most consistent miss from 3, but not from anywhere else. I don't think he has the legs to get it there. You just can't be a starting SG in the NBA today without 3 point range. I don't advocate reliance on the 3, but it's too powerful a weapon to not have in your arsenal, as a swingman. 

I was glad to see him go. In fact, I can pinpoint the day that trade was announced as the day I regained faith in Jerry Krause. Getting rid of Miller and Mercer was the best thing we could have done. Neither one of those guys was part of the long-term solution. I can watch my team lose a lot of games, as long as some of the pieces of the puzzle are in place. I can't bear to watch them lose night after night with guys who are mercenaries, here for a few years to make a paycheck before moving on.


----------



## Dr. Kerr (Jun 21, 2002)

Yes, sep. It has been so long that I forgot about how Mercer did nothing to develop our kids!

What a breath of fresh air jalen was when he came! Mercer used to run that same exact baseline curl to get his little mid-range shot. Jalen comes to the bulls and does that nice quick pass to chandler or curry or the curl for a dunk.

Mercer also hindered fizer too. He never gave the ball up to fizer in the post. This may have contributed to fizer's tendency to be a black hole. Once there isn't ball movement, people tend to chuck up shots when they touch the ball because they feel they won't get another chance.


----------



## MiSTa iBN (Jun 16, 2002)

Ron Mercer is no Allan Houston, Rip Hamilton 

Not even close

If you ask me, he looked horrible last season. Is it me or is his athleticism decreasing at an early age. It could be the injuries..don't know, but that young man sucked, thought he would be a player after his 1st two seasons in the league, but he hasn't improved one bit..We look much better at the 2 guard position with Hassell..Hassell goes out there and defends and rebounds and rarely turns the ball over..I like Hassell, he's a keeper just for the fact he gets down n dirty on the defensive end


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

The fact is, Mercer can score. If it's on a sad mid-range jumper, it doesn't matter... he actually has a fairly good looking stroke. That's what initially made me compare him to Houston... a good body that doesn't rebound too hard, average passing, but a nice sweet stroke. 

Steal numbers DO count. Mercer's man defense isn't beautiful at all, but invading passing lanes count for something, and he's got good size. He might get burned fairly often, especially on a fast break, but it'll be tough for opposing SG's to just shoot it in his face, and it's tough to post him up. 

As for not advocating the rookies development, I think Mercer had the mentality that he had to carry the team. I remember in an interview when he first came to Chicago, how he was saying that it used to be Jordan's team but that time is over, and other people had to step it up, and he was referring to himself. This was HIS team. The coaching staff didn't really let him into the plan of building the twin towers, and if you don't remember, they got very sporadic playing time until January, when BC took over. Mercer went in a trade in February. You can't really point the finger at him.

I'm not saying he's a star, or that he ever will be. But he's a strong SG with good size and a good jumper, and better defense than he is credited for. 

That is NOT true of Eddie Robinson. Eddie Robinson does NOT have a sweet shooting stroke, and his jumper is much worse than streaky... it's absolutely lucky when it sinks, and much more normal when he bricks it. 

As for Mercer's athleticism, he was somewhat overrated in this area coming out of college. He's has some quickness, and can actually create his own shot, as was seen in Indiana's playoff series. But he's not a slasher, really, and not a good enough passer to work up a penetration-kick type of play. 

I think that lacking the 3 pointer is definitely a major knock on him, but I also think that the three point shot is one of the most acquireable shots. Consider that Tyronn Lue was also scared of the 3 point shot, and Washington isn't a ferocious team offensively, but Lue managed to put up 63 for 141 from behind the arc, for 45%, and this after taking only 58 three pointers in his 61 games over the last three years prior to this season. There are other shooters that have added the 3-pointer to their game, enough to make an impact. 

Those of you who are saying that we like Hassell better than Mercer, I tend to agree with you. I'm a big Trenton Hassell fan. 

But Mercer's numbers don't lie (that much); he's a scorer. In the four games the Bulls won under Tim Floyd, Mercer was the high scorer in three of them. In two wins after the Floyd era, Mercer remained the high scorer for both. Only until he was injured and out did the other Bulls begin leading scoring in the wins. I'm not saying that leading the team in scoring means anything, but if anyone thinks that the Bulls could have done better if Mercer took a more secondary scoring role during his time here, they are wrong. There was no one else to score the points. Fizer wasn't going to be the primary option, or Curry, or anyone else... and Mercer can't handle the primary scoring role, but he was certainly forced into one and we can't be upset at him for taking one too many shots or not having a pass-first mentality. They asked him to score, so he took a lot of shots and he made a whole bunch of them too.

I am not saying I approve of his style of play in the past seasons as a Bull. I'm saying, would he fit if he were here now, playing in a different role? I think he might...


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

My beefs with Ron Mercer (some of which I realize have already been mentioned):

No 3-point range.
Didn't play well with the rookies.
Is known as an anti-social loner off the court.
Matador defense.
Strikes me as the type of NBA player who could care less if his team wins or loses-- he is perfectly content living the NBA lifestyle and collecting his nice paycheck.
Doesn't seem to be the type to work hard on his game. There's no reason for him not to have developed a 3-point shot after 5 years in the league.
Perhaps most importantly, he just doesn't "get" how to play basketball in a team concept. This goes way beyond assist numbers and shooting percentages. I'm talking about things like knowing when to swing the ball to the other side of the court, when to make the extra pass that leads to the pass the gets the assist, when to take his shot and when not to, when to take an outside shot and when to force it down low, etc.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I once made the same comments about Mercer when he was still on the Bulls. 

Bad things happened.

That being said, Mercer is still all of the above, and he is no Rip Hamilton. That is funy.


----------



## Sep (Jun 5, 2002)

Showtyme,

You will feel differently about Ron Mercer once we spend the $7 mil he had coming to him this season on a couple of big bodies to help rebound and play D, and to help the kids along.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Mercer is a poison pill for the Pacers*

I was one of the biggest supporters of Mercer when he was with the Bulls, but by unloading him on the Pacers, Krause has given them a glut of SG/SFs (Miller, Mercer, Bender, Harrington, Artest, Jones) and $7M less in cap room. The lack of playing time these guys are going to see along with the lack of cap room is going to make it very difficult for the Pacers to keep everyone happy. Add a coach that some folks say doesn't work very hard and plays favorites and this is a recipe for disaster for a young, talented team like the Pacers.

Mercer is a nice player, but he is not worth $7M on a good team, especially a team like the Pacers with an abundance of talent at the SG/SF positions. I think Krause is envisoning the day when having Mercer on the squad results in Bender or Harrington or Artest being available for cheap. And then Krause may just swoop in and buy low and get the last benefit from the Rose trade.


----------



## JOHNNY_BRAVisimO (Jun 11, 2002)

one thing i noticed about ron's game was that it was VERY robotic

it seems as if he has no feel for the game, like he thinks about what he's gonna do before he even gets on the court, its always the same crossover, drive and pull-up fadeaway jumper, and sometimes he'd add a pretty spinmove but thats about it, but he game looks beutiful when he's hot

like he practices his poses in his apartment, because i could swear he looks like mj sometimes, but he dosent have the substance to his game that mike did

still.... i like the guy and hope he gets cut some slack in indiana


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

*Mercer would be overpaid at $3M/year*

Why JK knows what he is doing was demonstrated when he held out for including Mercer in the Indy trade. That move in itself has opened up a lot of possibilities for the future by providing the additional cap space. Mercer is not as strong as Hassell. The only thing that Mercer can do is shoot a 17ft jumper. He is very weak driving to the basket, cannot create his own shot but will at times play ok defense. An unathletic, essentailly one dimensional shooting guard is easy to find anywhere. Now Indy has two problems; an overpaid Mercer and Croshere. Today you can only be succesful if you limit the amount of money you pay for poor talent. Hopefully EROB will not be the next stiff that JK needs to move


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Actually it was Walsh who wanted Mercer not Krause that had to include him in the deal.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by *BCH *
> Actually it was Walsh who wanted Mercer not Krause that had to include him in the deal.


How do you know?


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

*Who wanted Mercer?*

If it was really Indy who wanted Mercer then that would be quite interesting since Indy has no need for him and they need cash for signing O'neil next year.

I assumed it had to be Krause that demanded Mercer be included because almost all of the articles in the week or so before never mentioned Mercer and much of the info was coming from Indy papers


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I will agree that it may not have been Walsh that wanted him.

I was going by what the guy who started the Walsh talk said.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

LMAO!

You edited your post and left out the Elton Brand part.... :laugh:


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I am not trying to start a controversy.

I could easily leave that part in but why do I want to start a fight? You looking for one?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I will say this though, Krause did not want to do the Rose deal. He was against it even though the rest of the organization was for it. I believe Reinsdorf was the one that got it done in the end.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

No one is looking for a fight, buddy and I don't think anyone cares what you think Jerry Krause was thinking or what you think he wanted to do or what you think he had for lunch. If you don't have the facts then you are just as blind as everyone else on the outside looking in.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

So what isn't a fact?

I would say it was well known and widely reported that Krause was against the Rose trade.

**Please stay on topic, thanks- KC*

And exactly how am I looking in and you aren't? Care to explain that one?


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

Well known? The only person that knows what Krause was thinking is Krause. Widely reported? Yeah, and so were a lot of things that were never true....

We are all looking in from the outside. I never said that we have some magical connection inside the Bulls organization that you don't. We are all just speculating on what might have happened.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by *KC *
> Well known? The only person that knows what Krause was thinking is Krause. Widely reported? Yeah, and so were a lot of things that were never true....
> 
> We are all looking in from the outside. I never said that we have some magical connection inside the Bulls organization that you don't. We are all just speculating on what might have happened.


You want to get technical then you can argue everything that Krause does because there is no way for you to know whether he did it or not. All you can go by is what was reported and take into account the source. It was widely reported by reputable sources that Krause did not want to do the deal. This was never disputed by ANYONE. How about that? Does that satisfy your need for some sort of accountabilty of information?


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by *BCH *
> 
> 
> You want to get technical then you can argue everything that Krause does because there is no way for you to know whether he did it or not. All you can go by is what was reported and take into account the source. It was widely reported by reputable sources that Krause did not want to do the deal. This was never disputed by ANYONE. How about that? Does that satisfy your need for some sort of accountabilty of information?


If you give me a link to an article, then I will consider this argument credible.... :yes:


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

*Why Krause reportedly didn't want the deal*

I heard the rumors that everyone in the org wanted to do the deal but JK was holding back. I assumed he was holding out for Indy to include Mercer instead of Oakley. JK likes his cap room.

Of course we on the outside may never really find out what went on. Indy wanting Mercer is just not consisitent with Indy's needs. I know not all GM's are good but we shouldn't assume they are stupid.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Here is an article cached on Google.

I don't have the patience to go look at what the Papers and ESPN were reporting in early February about the deal, but ignoring it doesn't make it less true.

At least this article also says it was Oakley that Walsh wanted.

http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:bBBMMQ7dQ94C:www.msnbc.com/news/718371.asp


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

Ok, but going by what a newspaper article said doesn't make it true either. For all we know, Krause wanted to do this deal. It is just a matter of opinion and I don't think Krause would do something because of pressure from the organization. He has always maintained that anything he does is for the betterment of the team.

This argument could go around in circles......


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Again, I am at least providing some proof in print that supports my argument. It wouldn't really be a circular argument if you could do the same. You challenged me to find you an article and I did so. I challenge you to do the same.

I acknowledge that I was wrong about Walsh and Mercer and Oakley. 

I was perusing some old Mariotti articles and he has the perfect word for it, Jerryganda.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

I'm a bit confused. What is it you want me to find an article of? Jerry Krause saying he wanted to make the trade? Why don't you read any Bulls article where Krause has talked about the future of the team? He always mentions that Rose is key to what we are doing here.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Krauses comments were made after the fact. A bit of Jerryganda, if you will. 

I want you to find an article saying Krause was for the trade and that Walsh was the one balking at it. You asked me to provide something written to support the idea that Krause was against it, which I did. Feel free to even find an article saying Krause was all for the trade and only did it when Idiana accepted Mercer instead of Oakley. Indiana was hot to move Rose. They wanted a center in Brad Miller. They achieved both of their objectives. I was thinking they wanted Mercer as backup to Miller, because they had none, but apparently they wanted more inside muscle.

Why would people bother to mention Krause's reluctance to do the deal at all? Why is it a story unless there is validity to it? Does that make it a more interesting read?

If you have access to ESPN Insider try looking in the archives for the week before the trade deadline. I am sure you will find adequate mentions of the proposed trade and who was and was not for it.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

LOL, I'm not searching for anything. You presenting an article doesn't make your argument fact. It gives a reporter's opinion of what they heard. What is the importance of this discussion anyways? I've already wasted enough time debating this. I'm not gonna go back in the archives so that I can keep it going.

Also, Jerry would never do a trade that wasn't for the betterment of the team. That is straight from the horses mouth and not from some article based on one reporters opinion. I trust that Jerry is telling the truth when he says something like that.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

KC,

You are the one that asked for documentation. I provided it. You want to say it is a circular argument. It isn't. It is a one sided affair, with you having nothing but you own opinion with absolutely nothing to back you up.

I am not saying I can't be wrong. I am asking you to provide anything to show me a contrary view. 

I will take your inability to provide anything to back up your point of view as your concession to the fact that you are unable to provide it.

The point is that Krause didn't want Rose and for whatever reason conceeded to the deal. You weren't too hot for the deal before hand either, if I recall correctly. Of course your opinion has been revised.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

As for Jerry never doing a trade that wasn't for the betterment of the team, I am not sure what you classify the Pippen sign and trade as.

According to everyone else it was Krause doing it so Pippen could get the larger contract because of Bird rights. That doesn't sound like it was done for the betterment of the team to me.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

LOL, like I said in my previous post, one reporter's view doesn't mean squat. Jerry has said that he would only do a trade if it would help the team. Those are his own words. I take his word over an authors opinion. You can take that however you want and you can proclaim that you won, but it doesn't matter. I trust the words that come right out of his mouth.

No, I was for the trade, not against it. Don't make assumptions like the author in your linked article.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by *BCH *
> As for Jerry never doing a trade that wasn't for the betterment of the team, I am not sure what you classify the Pippen sign and trade as.
> 
> According to everyone else it was Krause doing it so Pippen could get the larger contract because of Bird rights. That doesn't sound like it was done for the betterment of the team to me.


Getting rid of Pippen was for the betterment of the team..... Who cares how it was done?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

one article? it was merely representative of providing you with one example. I am sure there are plenty more, as well as other people who are willing to admit they recall the same circumstances.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2002/0219/1336371.html

_Walsh said Bulls general manager Jerry Krause called him right before he left for the All-Star break and made an offer for Rose. Walsh discussed a potential trade with Chicago later in the week and the deal was tentatively made Sunday.


"We feel Jalen is an outstanding all-around player who can play three positions offensively and defensively," Krause said.
_

Those don't sound like the words of someone who didn't want to do the trade. Walsh said Jerry called him about Rose before the all-star break...... That was before any rumors of Jerry's displeasure ever came out.

Anyways, if you want to assume that Jerry is BSing, then i will assume that the author of your linked article is BSing about Jerry's displeasure.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by *KC *
> 
> 
> Getting rid of Pippen was for the betterment of the team..... Who cares how it was done?


He was an unrestricted FA. The Bulls never needed to sign him. Try again. This and your denial of Krause's objection to the Rose deal is getting amusing.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by *BCH *
> 
> 
> He was an unrestricted FA. The Bulls never needed to sign him. Try again. This and your denial of Krause's objection to the Rose deal is getting amusing.


And? The point is that he didn't come back HERE with a huge contract. That is for the betterment of the team.....


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Whatever, you care to explain to me how the trade benefited the Bulls?


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by *BCH *
> Whatever, you care to explain to me how the trade benefited the Bulls?



They aren't stuck with Pippen's huge contract, plus they got a loyal member of the Bulls dynasty paid in a major way. Care to explain how it was not for the betterment of the team?

I provided your documentation as well. :yes:


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

The Pippen deal brought back a lot of useless players for a team that had no desire to win. Did the trade make the team better in any way? Absolutely not. Did it make them worse? The answer to that is tied to whether they could have been any worse either way. The long and short of it is, Pippen's trade did nothing to better the Bulls. It was a payoff to someone that deserved it.


Your documentation is after the fact. More Jerryganda.

**Stick to the topic, thanks- KC*


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by *BCH *
> The Pippen deal brought back a lot of useless players for a team that had no desire to win. Did the trade make the team better in any way? Absolutely not. Did it make them worse? The answer to that is tied to whether they could have been any worse either way. The long and short of it is, Pippen's trade did nothing to better the Bulls. It was a payoff to someone that deserved it.
> 
> 
> ...


OK, so what's your point? Not having his contract is for the betterment of the team. That's a fact. Trading him was for his own good. 


Your documentation is after the fact as well. What's worse is that it is after the fact speculation. Not a concrete detail or quote. If you assume that Jerry's words are fake, then I will assume that the author of your articles words are also fake.

Round and round we go.....


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Lets go around some more, then.

_The Pacers didn't want to wait until the trade deadline was all up on them to make a move. So they were proactive in calling the Bulls and trying to make something happen for Jalen Rose. And now, Indiana has some toughness where it only had height and scoring before._

http://espn.go.com/nba/columns/aldridge/1338539.html

Fairly concrete on who was doing the initiating isn't he? I hope Aldridge meets your reputable journalist quotient.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

The Bulls never had Pippen's contract, a sign and trade is one transaction. The contract is void if there is no trade. So the Bulls would never have been "stuck" with his contract as you imply. It is however a trade that did nothing to better the Bulls.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by *BCH *
> The Bulls never had Pippen's contract, a sign and trade is one transaction. The contract is void if there is no trade. So the Bulls would never have been "stuck" with his contract as you imply. It is however a trade that did nothing to better the Bulls.


Ok, so when Krause isn't helping nor depreciating the team, he is helping a future hall-of-famer get a sweet-heart contract. What is your point? Is it that, since he made one trade to help out a great player, he now does trades all of the time that aren't for the betterment of the team? That one trade justifies that he didn't like the Rose trade? This is pointless.....


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Now was it so hard to admit that not everything Krause does is to the betterment of the team. The point is you should not make absolute declarations unless they are true.

**Please stick to the topic. Consider this your first warning- KC*


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by *BCH *
> Lets go around some more, then.
> 
> _The Pacers didn't want to wait until the trade deadline was all up on them to make a move. So they were proactive in calling the Bulls and trying to make something happen for Jalen Rose. And now, Indiana has some toughness where it only had height and scoring before._
> ...


I trust Walsh's comments more than those of David Aldridge.... :yes: 

That doesn't mention anything about Krause not wanting to do the deal..... That was the point of this discussion.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

The point of your article was I believe to show Krause's desire to do the trade was predicated by his contact Walsh to get the deal done.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by *BCH *
> Now was it so hard to admit that not everything Krause does is to the betterment of the team. The point is you should not make absolute declarations unless they are true.
> 
> To put this to bed:
> ...


You still didn't answer the question. You proved 1 incident where Krause made a trade to help a future hall-of-famer. Good job.....


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by *BCH *
> The point of your article was I believe to show Krause's desire to do the trade was predicated by his contact Walsh to get the deal done.


Yeah, and that doesn't prove that Krause didn't want to do the deal.... :no:


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

What exactly was the question?

You made the statement Krause only made trades to the betterment of the team as some sort of reasoning for him wanting Rose. I didn't prove you wrong but I definitely showed an example of Krause making a trade that had nothing to do with making the Bulls better.

**If you have something to say to me personally, take it to PM's- KC*


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by *KC *
> 
> 
> Yeah, and that doesn't prove that Krause didn't want to do the deal.... :no:


No but it clearly brings into question your article. It plays into the theme of Jerryganda. Once you acknowledge that you will understand the spin. It goes a long way to show that Krause wasn't after Rose and very well could have balked at wanting to do the deal. That was the point right? For you to find something showing he wanted to do it that didn't involce Jerryganda?


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by *BCH *
> What exactly was the question?
> 
> You made the statement Krause only made trades to the betterment of the team as some sort of reasoning for him wanting Rose. I didn't prove you wrong but I definitely showed an example of Krause making a trade that had nothing to do with making the Bulls better.
> ...


Yeah, and I explained why he made that move. The point is that you have nothing to prove that Krause didn't like the trade. I have his quotes.... Which is better?

You get your wish.....


----------

