# Fred Mitchell : Antoine Walker for Antonio Davis Being Discussed.



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Word on street:

Informal discussions have taken place between the Celtics and Bulls regarding a sign-and-trade deal involving Mt. Carmel alum Antoine Walker and the Bulls' Antonio Davis. … 

www.chicagosports.com


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

Another player would have to be added in that b/c Pax isn't paying Walker 14-15 million a year. Likely Blount and we don't want that contract. 

Also since when is Fred Mitchell on the NBA beat? :raised_ey A little blurb in the Tribune from him is nothing I'm reading into right now.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

ChiBulls2315 said:


> Another player would have to be added in that b/c Pax isn't paying Walker 14-15 million a year. Likely Blount and we don't want that contract.
> 
> Also since when is Fred Mitchell on the NBA beat? :raised_ey A little blurb in the Tribune from him is nothing I'm reading into right now.


don't shoot the messenger


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

Please, please, please take Blount. :gopray:


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

ChiBulls2315 said:


> Another player would have to be added in that b/c Pax isn't paying Walker 14-15 million a year. Likely Blount and we don't want that contract.
> 
> Also since when is Fred Mitchell on the NBA beat? :raised_ey A little blurb in the Tribune from him is nothing I'm reading into right now.



New CBA is supposedly a little less stringent in matching... I think like 20% versus 15% in salaries.

Antoine would be a nice addition, though he'll probably want a bunch of time on the floor, whereas AD was much more satisfied with his role.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Who would come off the bench, Eddy,Tyson, or Toine? Or would Eddy be gone? Hmm...Paxson has had interest in Toine before. I personally do not care for him but Paxson apparently does.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

The ROY said:


> Word on street:
> 
> Informal discussions have taken place between the Celtics and Bulls regarding a sign-and-trade deal involving Mt. Carmel alum Antoine Walker and the Bulls' Antonio Davis. …
> 
> www.chicagosports.com


Where's the article?

I don't see anything on 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Here is paxsons shooting big man. 

I don't see Walkers salary and contract at Hoopshype. How long is it for?

Walker is a career 19 pts 9 rebounds. 41% 33% in threes. 4 assists and over 1 steal a game. He brings a lot of offense and rebounding will not be lost. But how much defense do we lose with AD being traded. 

As I said earlier, how long is his contact? I need to know because this could change the fA outlook in 2006.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

truebluefan said:


> Here is paxsons shooting big man.
> 
> I don't see Walkers salary and contract at Hoopshype. How long is it for?
> 
> ...


 Walker is a FA to it would have to be a S&T


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

HMM a FA. So Antoine is worth an AD contract with the new CBA? I guess Pax thinks so. 

I wonder if more players are involved with Boston? We take Walker with a lesser contract? I wonder if Vin Baker is included?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Certainly, Walker and Gordon in the game in the 4th quarter could be very potent! The defense will be stretched! 

Scoring was a problem at times last season.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

I don't think you can trade a waived players contract, Mark Blount could be included though.

Please, please, please take Blount. :gopray:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

He'll be chased out of town on a rail.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

This is the worst news I've heard in a long time, if it can be considered news. 

AD's expiring will probably be much more valuable around the deadline. And plus, Walker just sucks. The guy's no good. Never has been.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Lets go with a big lineup

PG-Kirk Hinrich
SG-Luol Deng
SF-Antoine Walker
PF-Tyson Chandler
C- Eddy Curry


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Here's the link 



> Informal discussions have taken place between the Celtics and Bulls regarding a sign-and-trade deal involving Mt. Carmel alum Antoine Walker and the Bulls' Antonio Davis. …


It's on a Sox article...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Walker is enough of a big that letting Curry go in S&T or just as a FA wouldn't hurt as much as it could.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

Walker is a FINE player... I can't wait for all the people to start posting how he is a selfish bum who only jacks up 3's... let the stereotypes start....


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

HAWK23 said:


> Walker is a FINE player... I can't wait for all the people to start posting how he is a selfish bum who only jacks up 3's... let the stereotypes start....


I have to agree. Antoine Walker is a terrific NBA player. I think people mistake him for Jalen Rose, which he's not.

He's got inside-outside game, he has the ability to take over a game, he jacks less threes than he used to, and who cares? He makes them. He'd be asked to play PF for us, so I think it would be great to have his skills stretching the floor.

By the way, we don't have a SINGLE good passing big. AD = 1.1 apg, Othella = .8 apg, Curry = .6 apg. Those guys really don't look to create plays in their passing; they may pass it out of the post if they don't like what they have but it's not to a creative shot, it's just a last-ditch rescue effort. 

Antoine Walker = career 4.1 apg, 3.4 last season. The guy prides himself in passing the ball.

He's athletic, he's a good rebounder, he's a good passer, and he's a good scorer. He's 28 turning 29 and he has good years in front of him. He's durable; I think he's missed less than a dozen games in his entire career.

You want defense? After being traded to Boston last season, he averaged a steal and a block a game. He's no shut-down defender, but I daresay that he's a better defender at his position than Curry.

For Antonio Davis, I don't know that we could do much better.

Duhon/Hinrich/Pargo
Hinrich/Gordon/Basden/Pike
Deng/Nocioni/Basden
Walker/Othella/Chandler
Curry/Chandler


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Whether we deal for Walker or not, this highlights a pretty good strategy for using next year's Cap Space now, when the FA pickings are better.

Dan Rosenbaum's stats show that Walker is not a very good player. I suspect there's some truth in the stats, and we'd find out first-hand if we got the guy. On the other hand, the Celtics sure took off after they got him back, in spite of what the stats say about him.

My take on things is that the names we're seeing, particularly Al Harrington and now Walker, means that Paxson is looking for full-time frontcourt help. A deal for either would minimize the effect of trading away Curry in some S&T for anything but another big.

Like the guy or not, he's guaranteed to out-rebound, out-score, out-assist, and even out-defend Curry. He won't have as high a FG% for sure, but we won 47 games with four guards who shot near 40% or below, a SF who shot close to 40%, and another who shot 43%. So maybe the FG% isn't as important a stat.

Here's the obvious:
If Pax deals for Walker, Walker is going to play 36 minutes per game. That leaves 108 minutes for Curry, Chandler, Deng, and Nocioni. Who is the obvious odd man out in this scenario?


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I do not want Walker and Curry upfront. I like the idea of Walker along if we move Curry in a sign and trade. Chandler, Walker, and then a solid defensive rebouding center and not Curry. 

I am with DaBullz on this:

Here's the obvious:
If Pax deals for Walker, Walker is going to play 36 minutes per game. That leaves 108 minutes for Curry, Chandler, Deng, and Nocioni. Who is the obvious odd man out in this scenario? Answer. CURRY!!!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Poor Skiles -- first he learns that Nate Macmillan's going to make twice as much as he does, then he sees that he might have to coach Antoine Walker.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I'd like to add this.

Paxson and Skiles seem to really like their point guards at almost any position (Hinrich at SF!). It would be a lot more productive if when those guards passed to a big, they might get the ball back.

Unsaid in Showtyme's quality post is that Walker turns the ball over a lot.
4.1/48 minutes, compared to Hinrich at 3.0, or Curry at 4.3


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I'd like to add this.
> 
> Paxson and Skiles seem to really like their point guards at almost any position (Hinrich at SF!). It would be a lot more productive if when those guards passed to a big, they might get the ball back.
> 
> ...


He also needs the ball way too much to be effective. Walker, Curry, and Gordon together would be too many guys that need to dominate the ball...but it would be a great offensive team if Skiles can work it out.

Not sure that Skiles would ever play Walker and Curry together in the post though - not enough D...


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I agree with Dabullz and showtyme. For AD, we could do worse. Also this may or may not be a clue as to the future of Curry. Pax has said all along he wants a big man that can shoot. Walker does that. And he does other things well. So why did Pax say that months ago? Was it because he wants to add someone to go with Curry or is it because John's mind is made up. Has been all along. Curry will be traded sooner than later. 

Then why has John been saying teams are wasting their time in going after Eddy? Well its true, we can match any offer. So he should say that, obviously. But anyone that really wants him, will have to deal. 

I think, this is a prelude to Eddy being traded. The team will be messed with yet again. It has to be true. Some may argue that Walker could help Eddy's game in the 4th quarter by stretching the defense. Well, how many times has Eddy played in a 4th quarter recently and been productive? 

Some of us wants Kukoc. Walker is much much better and does not stay hurt. 

If Blount is included in the deal, then Eddy is being moved...for sure! Maybe for our big SG. 

With Walker, the team can run more.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Jalen Rose replaced by Antonie Walker.

Marshall gone.

Jib-tastic musical chairs.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

EDIT: DISREGARD


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Walker would have to be signed for 11.14 million for his first season if there weren't any other players involved.

Walker fits very nicely with the Bulls, though.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

TBF awesome post and I could not agree more. If this is actually true then acquiring Walker means bye bye Curry.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Premier said:


> Walker would have to be signed for 11.14 million for his first season if there weren't any other players involved.
> 
> Walker fits very nicely with the Bulls, though.


There lies the problem, Unless it is for one year, the Bulls do not take him @ 11.14, imo. The Bulls would want him signed for less than that, so there has to be others involved. 

AD has been valuable to us. I do not look for Pax to trade AD for a longer, similar contract. 

Also can Walker turn down a 1 year deal? Why would he sign for just one year?


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Considering the new CBA and Michael Redd's new contract, teams are willing to spend more money on free agents. Player raises would be only 10% (as he's resigned by Boston; then traded). I would say Antoine's market value is around eight million dollars (Adonal Foyle got that kind of money). Mark Blount would likely be added to make the salaries work.

With Walker, you either love him or hate him. I think he's a very good player, but other Celtics fans regularly call for his head.

You won't like Blount, though. Unless he's playing in a contract season.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Celtics went 18-9 after they got Walker. This includes some games when Payton was not with Boston. 

They were 27-28 without him. Finished regular season 45-37.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Premier said:


> Considering the new CBA and Michael Redd's new contract, teams are willing to spend more money on free agents. Player raises would be only 10% (as he's resigned by Boston; then traded). I would say Antoine's market value is around eight million dollars (Adonal Foyle got that kind of money). Mark Blount would likely be added to make the salaries work.
> 
> With Walker, you either love him or hate him. I think he's a very good player, but other Celtics fans regularly call for his head.
> 
> You won't like Blount, though. Unless he's playing in a contract season.



8 mill is about right


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

no way we should take blount in a deal...he has a terrible contract...and after he got his contract extended he played like crap.


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

truebluefan, can you explain why a Walker trade means that Eddy will definitely be traded? I've read through your post a few times, and I still don't get it.

I understand the logic of your argument if Blount is the player coming back in the deal, but there's no indication who else might be included. Couldn't the Celtics send a guard back instead (haven't checked the salaries, but it all depends on how much the Bulls would pay Walker).

I like this trade a lot if Curry stays - I don't like it as much if Walker comes at the expense of Curry.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

We could send Tony Allen. He's trade bait.

Is Curry even healthy?


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

onetenthlag said:


> He also needs the ball way too much to be effective. Walker, Curry, and Gordon together would be too many guys that need to dominate the ball...but it would be a great offensive team if Skiles can work it out.
> 
> Not sure that Skiles would ever play Walker and Curry together in the post though - not enough D...


Wait, let's see here.

In Dallas, as an 82 game starter that took a backseat to other important players, he averaged a career-low 34.6 mpg. Something definitely did happen that year, and his FT% has been bad since he left Boston part I. But behind Nash, Nowitzki and Finley, and an emergent Josh Howard, Walker was still good for 14 ppg, 8.3 rpg, 4.5 apg, .8 spg and .8 bpg.

By the way, Eddy Curry stats: 16.1 ppg, 5.4 rpg, .6 apg, .33 spg and .92 bpg in 28.7 mpg. I'm not saying that Curry can be replaced by Walker, but I'm saying that for all the big-money contract love that we shower on Curry on these boards, it's a lot of "potential". Walker can bring the real deal.

In similarly lowered minutes (34.5), Walker played like a true pro. 44.2% FG, 34.2% 3pt, 16.3 ppg, 8.3 rpg, 3 apg, 1 spg, 1 bpg.

We're a real team now. We're not begging for some All-Star caliber player to carry us. We don't need Jalen Rose graciously coming in and feeding Curry and Chandler the ball from his first week here to make a statement. We already have a working offense that knows what it's doing and a more than working defense that ferociously initiates.

Walker is a smart player, a smart passer, a gritty rebounder and a strong veteran presence. Paul Pierce has always been the leader in Boston, but Walker knew when to fire up his teammates, step up his own game, get in the huddle during a timeout and start hyping up the energy, especially in the 4th quarter.

Antonio Davis turns into cap space. What valuable vet are we really going to get for him at the trade deadline? Anyone truly better than Walker? Tell me who, because I can't think of too many.

Cap space for 2006, the year of marginal free agency? I don't think so.

A Walker for AD trade would be perfect right now. We upgrade a lot of talent at a position (a scoring PF) where we need it and with a skill set where we lack a lot of punch (scoring and passing). 

Final point: I can't understand why we love Othella so much but we don't love Walker, who is essentially a super-Othella in every sense except that he might not have as much size as O.


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

Tony Allen makes 970,000 this year. I think the new CBA requires salaries in trades to be within 120 or 125% - let's say 120%.

AD makes 13,900,000 this year. 80% of that is 11,120,00. So Walker would have to start out around that number. Unless this is a one year deal, I can't imagine Pax tying up future cap space for Walker.

Ricky Davis and his 5.9M deal makes a lot more sense. But I can't imagine Pax brining him in.

This all leads me to believe that rumors of this deal are not at all true. Think about it - Boston really doesn't have anyone with a salary around 5M that the Bulls would take (Davis and Blount are the only two that could work). Tony Allen doesn't make enough unless the Bulls give Walker a huge deal (way above market), and the only way that the Bulls pay him that much is for one year. Walker won't take a one year deal with the Bulls - he'll get something better elsewhere I bet.

The numbers just don't work unless more players going both ways are involved.

(I got all the salary information from hoopshype.)


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Premier said:


> We could send Tony Allen. He's trade bait.
> 
> Is Curry even healthy?


yes yes YES. I'm pretty ambivalent about a straight AD-for-Walker swap where we give employee #8 big dollars over the long term, but we'd fill two needs in exchange for AD if we got Allen back too. If that were the case, I'd agree with DaBullz's supposition that we're using our future cap space now, and wisely.

edit: though, I'd wonder why the Celtics would do that. I know they're stacking up at the wings, but Allen proved to be more than filler material last season, at least in my eyes.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

onetenthlag said:


> truebluefan, can you explain why a Walker trade means that Eddy will definitely be traded? I've read through your post a few times, and I still don't get it.
> 
> I understand the logic of your argument if Blount is the player coming back in the deal, but there's no indication who else might be included. Couldn't the Celtics send a guard back instead (haven't checked the salaries, but it all depends on how much the Bulls would pay Walker).
> 
> I like this trade a lot if Curry stays - I don't like it as much if Walker comes at the expense of Curry.


48 minutes at SF, 48 minutes at PF, 48 minutes at C
144 minutes total.

Walker gets 36, leaving 108 for Deng, Chandler, Curry, Nocioni

One is the odd man out.

Walker produces MORE than Curry. He's a seasoned veteran with lots of playoff experience. He's not the odd man out.

Chandler is sure to get 30, even if the team doesn't change at all. 36+30 = 66, leaving 78 for Deng, Curry, Nocioni. Two of those guys should get 30+ or even 35.

The obvious man out is Curry. Heart problem is a risk. He wants a big contract, not deserving, especially if there's not enough minutes to play him. His play doesn't justify big minutes, either. His scoring isn't needed with Walker taking his place. The others all bring something more valuable.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> yes yes YES. I'm pretty ambivalent about a straight AD-for-Walker swap where we give employee #8 big dollars over the long term, but we'd fill two needs in exchange for AD if we got Allen back too. If that were the case, I'd agree with DaBullz's supposition that we're using our future cap space now, and wisely.


Sign and trade Curry for a big SG. What can you get for $6M - $8M worth of contract + curry?

Or another little PG ;-)

That's how this would play out.


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

Showtyme said:


> A Walker for AD trade would be perfect right now. We upgrade a lot of talent at a position (a scoring PF) where we need it and with a skill set where we lack a lot of punch (scoring and passing).
> 
> Final point: I can't understand why we love Othella so much but we don't love Walker, who is essentially a super-Othella in every sense except that he might not have as much size as O.


I agree with you that Walker would help the Bulls - he's not a ballhog type player. The more I think about it, he could definitely be a complimentary player to Curry and others. The point though is that we need Curry to stay to make this trade a good one. If Curry is gone, Walker then becomes a Jalen Rose type #1 offensive option. You example of Dallas proves that Walker is probably better at this stage as a #2 or 3 guy for a good playoff team.

Walker probably is better than anyone that the Bulls could sign in FA next year with their cap space.

One other random note: Walker could be a great point forward with Hinrich and Gordon on the wings. Offensively, this trade is great for the Bulls.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

onetenthlag said:


> Tony Allen makes 970,000 this year. I think the new CBA requires salaries in trades to be within 120 or 125% - let's say 120%.


It's 125%.



> AD makes 13,900,000 this year. 80% of that is 11,120,00. So Walker would have to start out around that number. Unless this is a one year deal, I can't imagine Pax tying up future cap space for Walker.


11.14 million dollars. I already said that Blount would have to be included.



> Ricky Davis and his 5.9M deal makes a lot more sense. But I can't imagine Pax brining him in.


Davis wouldn't be dealed just to get an expiring contract. Blount or LaFrentz, on the other hand, would be traded.



> This all leads me to believe that rumors of this deal are not at all true. Think about it - Boston really doesn't have anyone with a salary around 5M that the Bulls would take (Davis and Blount are the only two that could work). Tony Allen doesn't make enough unless the Bulls give Walker a huge deal (way above market), and the only way that the Bulls pay him that much is for one year. Walker won't take a one year deal with the Bulls - he'll get something better elsewhere I bet.


Walker is from Chicago and would love to play there. 



> The numbers just don't work unless more players going both ways are involved.


Walker and Blount or Walker and LaFrentz work.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

ViciousFlogging said:


> edit: though, I'd wonder why the Celtics would do that. I know they're stacking up at the wings, but Allen proved to be more than filler material last season, at least in my eyes.


Tony Allen is a great defender. That's it.

The only other thing he can do is go from the weak-side and blow by everyone for a put-back slam after his teammate misses a shot.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Sign and trade Curry for a big SG. What can you get for $6M - $8M worth of contract + curry?
> 
> Or another little PG ;-)
> 
> That's how this would play out.


I'm not sure I follow. Tony Allen could be our big SG. The guy already defends like a maniac and can get to the rim better than any of our players at the 1-3 positions. He's raw, but he does have the almighty jib.

Unless you're suggesting we S&T Curry AFTER completing this deal (hopefully with Allen included, though that's just a thought)...I agree that if we brought Walker aboard, we should see what we could turn Curry into, as Walker's a very productive post player (both passing and scoring) when he stays down there. We could really flesh out our roster if we could trade AD in for Walker and Allen (not likely, but a pleasant thought), and then find good value for Curry.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Tony Allen is 6'4". His only position is shooting guard.

Only if he could shoot. Oh well.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Premier said:


> Tony Allen is a great defender. That's it.
> 
> The only other thing he can do is go from the weak-side and blow by everyone for a put-back slam after his teammate misses a shot.


A great defender at the 2-3 is something this team can really use. And a guy who can get to the rim is another thing we didn't really have. I saw him get to the rim off the dribble a handful of times in the few Celts games I saw. And he's just coming into his 2nd year - I don't think he's a finished product. 

I know the Celtics don't have much use for him as long as Pierce and Davis are both there, and with Green now on board, but I still don't think they'll just pawn him off.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Premier said:


> Tony Allen is 6'4". His only position is shooting guard.
> 
> Only if he could shoot. Oh well.


He plays a lot bigger than 6'4" IMO. But maybe I only saw his good games, I dunno.


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> 48 minutes at SF, 48 minutes at PF, 48 minutes at C
> 144 minutes total.
> 
> Walker gets 36, leaving 108 for Deng, Chandler, Curry, Nocioni
> ...


I get your point (great post btw).

But I don't agree with the math.

You say that there's 144 minutes at the 3,4, & 5 for Noc, Deng, Curry, Chandler, and Walker.

36 for Walker (which may be high but OK) - leaves 108 min's
30 for Chandler - leaves 78 min's
30 for Curry - leaves 48 min's
24 for Deng (plus 6 more for him at the SG spot - which has been discussed publicly) - leaves 24 min's
24 for Noc

That's 150 minutes total for 5 guys (including half a quarter for Deng at the 2).

The Bulls would be very deep and have more size. Nocioni gets screwed a little bit, but I don't think that his play warrants 30+ minutes every night. He's a great spark to annoy other teams off the bench, and 24 minutes is 2 full quarters worth of time - not exactly terrible. Plus, the Bulls would be really flexible and could cause serious matchup problems when Walker went to the 3 and Deng went to the 2.

I also like the idea of Deng at the 2 b/c it takes Pike, Griffin, and Pargo (all great players last year but not better than others on this team) out of the rotation. Gordon, Hinrich, and Duhon (if he's still around) would split 90 minutes at the PG and SG (48PG + 48SG - 6SG for Deng). Plenty of time for three guys. Hinrich 35, Gordon 30, Duhon 25.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

No! No! Hell no! I'd rather get Donyell Marshall then 'jack it up' Walker.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> 48 minutes at SF, 48 minutes at PF, 48 minutes at C
> 144 minutes total.
> 
> Walker gets 36, leaving 108 for Deng, Chandler, Curry, Nocioni
> ...


Thank you! You said it better than I could.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

I'm not convinced this news means Curry is out. On the contrary, I think getting Walker means Paxson is making a commitment to Eddy. Who better to stretch out the floor when Eddy is on the floor? And who better to overcome Tyson's offensive woes during spot minutes? I'm not a big Antoine fan but his game is Pippenesque (minus the defense). 

Now as far as having a glut at the 3/4, unbelievably it's true. I think Noc is the one to go. AD/Noc for Walker and filler? Not thrilling since it means we're destined to take back junk. Perhaps Pax can make things interesting by throwing in a protected draft pick, AD and Nocioni for Raef, Walker, and Allen? That would balance our roster and allow us to blow our full MLE on a single FA.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

sp00k said:


> I'm not convinced this news means Curry is out. On the contrary, I think getting Walker means Paxson is making a commitment to Eddy. Who better to stretch out the floor when Eddy is on the floor? And who better to overcome Tyson's offensive woes during spot minutes? I'm not a big Antoine fan but his game is Pippenesque (minus the defense).
> 
> Now as far as having a glut at the 3/4, unbelievably it's true. I think Noc is the one to go. AD/Noc for Walker and filler? Not thrilling since it means we're destined to take back junk. Perhaps Pax can make things interesting by throwing in a protected draft pick, AD and Nocioni for Raef, Walker, and Allen? That would balance our roster and allow us to blow our full MLE on a single FA.


Nah Nocioni isn't going anywhere. I'd prefer Blount to LaFrentz actually. Hell, he might even equal the production we got out of Othella The Fella last season. Blount had one bad year, maybe he rebounds, maybe he doesn't. A lineup of 

Antoine Walker(PG)
Kirk Hinrich(SG)
Luol Deng(SF)
Andres Nocioni(PF)
Tyson Chandler(C)

Hell what if we wanted to trade Curry for something substantial. Think Cuban would give us Josh Howard or Marquis Daniels for Eddy Curry. That would solve our big 2 dilemna fast. I think this is the way to go actually. It gives us legitimate scorer and passer and opens up the floor for Chandler down low. It makes Curry easier to trade and gives us leverage if we want to re-sign him. I'm for it.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

I didn't read the whole thread...but ima say what I said in the Nets fourm....

I hope he goes to you guys...cause that means he won't be in houston


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Future said:


> No! No! Hell no! I'd rather get Donyell Marshall then 'jack it up' Walker.


Paxson already traded him away for AD.


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

T.Shock said:


> Nah Nocioni isn't going anywhere. I'd prefer Blount to LaFrentz actually. Hell, he might even equal the production we got out of Othella The Fella last season. Blount had one bad year, maybe he rebounds, maybe he doesn't. A lineup of
> 
> Antoine Walker(PG)
> Kirk Hinrich(SG)
> ...


No Ben Gordon? This would leave Deng guarding 2 guards *all the time * - not sure that Bulls can win that way.

I still think that Curry should stay if the Bulls get Walker. It makes for a flexible, deep team.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

As an added benefit. Antoine Walker has played in the last 4 playoffs. That's the type of experience plus talent that outweighs AD considerably.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

onetenthlag said:


> No Ben Gordon? This would leave Deng guarding 2 guards *all the time * - not sure that Bulls can win that way.
> 
> I still think that Curry should stay if the Bulls get Walker. It makes for a flexible, deep team.


No that would be a lineup. We could also throw out a scoring lineup featuring Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, A.W., and Chandler. Or like I said we could trade Curry for Howard or Daniels and be free of Duhon and have a big 2 guard. Gordon could start, but not with Toine in town.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

pax was on the score earlier today (see link ) and there has not been one conversation about Walker. not a single one.

but apparently they  eddie basden. really want him in camp. fwiw. 


Fred Mitchell must be getting his stuff from a shadowy figure named wes.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> pax was on the score earlier today (see link ) and there has not been one conversation about Walker. not a single one.



Thank God. 

Let's just sign the RFA's, sign Badsen, and anyone else is gravy.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Badsen huh?

What did Paxson get in return for Trenton Hassell?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Badsen huh?
> 
> What did Paxson get in return for Trenton Hassell?


Nothing, which is close to what Hassell is worth in my mind. Basden can't be much worse.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Badsen huh?
> 
> What did Paxson get in return for Trenton Hassell?


The same thing Krause got for Bruce Bowen?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i believe his name is ba*s*den.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Is this a done deal yet?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i believe his name is ba*s*den.


Since when do the undrafted have to be spelled correctly?

Basden could be one of the best undrafted NBA players in the last 5 years! And that’s quite a list!


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Since when do the undrafted have to be spelled correctly?
> 
> Basden could be one of the best undrafted NBA players in the last 5 years! And that’s quite a list!


Wasn't Brad Mill*a*r undrafted? :angel:


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Since when do the undrafted have to be spelled correctly?
> 
> Basden could be one of the best undrafted NBA players in the last 5 years! And that’s quite a list!


If he's better than Marquis Daniels, that'd be one hell of a pickup, FWIW.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Since when do the undrafted have to be spelled correctly?
> 
> Basden could be one of the best undrafted NBA players in the last 5 years! And that’s quite a list!


If he fits the role that we need of him, then I'd be content. I'm pretty confident that he can beat out Hassell's 6.6 pts, 2.7 reb, 1.6 ast, 0.37 stl, 0.37 blk, and 2.4 fouls in 25 minutes of play. Ugh.


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

I think Walker is an excellent idea. And we should not get rid of Eddie once we get him. This gives up much needed depth. Moreover, I think it will enable us to play more of Tyson. We can at the same time play Chandler for D and have a great post threat, even when Eddie is not in the game.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

Eddy for Antoine would make me cry.



I wouldn't want to have to take on some guys like Raef and Blount at the expense of alienating or shipping out Eddy Curry...not to mention trading AD who is a great leader AND an expiring contract. I'm pretty fond of Antoine, actually, and was happy to see him back in Boston...but I guess I'm turning a bit hypocritical when I say I wouldn't necessarily want him on my team. Especially not at 11.14 million (or dragging along that much garbage with him).

edit: Keeping Antoine and convincing him to split 32/32/32 with Tyson and Eddy up front would certainly be interesting though, now that I think about it...

C: Eddy/Tyson
PF: Tyson/Toine
SF: Deng/Nocioni
SG: Gordon/Hinrich/Deng
PG: Hinrich/Duhon


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

Walker for AD?

LOL...are you kiddin me?

Our offense would be instantly upgraded...INSTANTLY


I say that would translate to MORE wins..


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

smARTmouf said:


> Walker for AD?
> 
> LOL...are you kiddin me?
> 
> ...


Yeah, but this would be what Pax calls a "short term fix", when long-term there's a potential for disaster. If we got Antoine on a 3 year deal, then I'd be all over it. But if it's 5 or 6 years, forget about it. The latter 1/2 of that deal would strangle the Bulls' flexibility and Walker would be just another "bad contract".


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Yeah, but this would be what Pax calls a "short term fix", when long-term there's a potential for disaster. If we got Antoine on a 3 year deal, then I'd be all over it. But if it's 5 or 6 years, forget about it. The latter 1/2 of that deal would strangle the Bulls' flexibility and Walker would be just another "bad contract".



I'm just confident if Pax wants Walker..the RIGHT price would be arranged..

5-6 is entirely too long

But i guess you're a fan of that space that AD's contract would leave once it comes off the books...

i just have bad memories from that sort of wishful thinking that we'd land a top talent from free agency


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

If Danny wants relief why not give him the real thing:

PP - owed around 45 mil the next 3 years

and Blount - owed about 35 mil the next 5!!! years

For AD and Pike (17 mil together that expire after next) and a signed and traded Duhon (Danny is looking for a PG) and we can add a 2007 first rounder (Danny loves them picks)


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Are you kidding me?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Bump.

Isn't walker a UFA?

We do have cap space now (see my other thread). I just thought the concept in this thread should be pointed out.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Found this, not sure if anyone else posted it:



> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/cs-050707bulls,1,1919234.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines
> 
> Paxson also shot down a rumored sign-and-trade deal with the Boston Celtics involving Antonio Davis for Antoine Walker. Regarding veteran free agent Donyell Marshall, Paxson doubted the team's payroll could afford "what he's looking for."


We can forget about Yell, too.


----------

