# ESPN Reporting that Pacers and Bulls may trade



## ArtestFan23 (Jun 20, 2003)

Bulls get: 
F Al Harrington

Pacers get: 
7th overall pick (from PHX through CHI)
F/C Tyson Chandler

That's probably the base package on it and I'm sure the Bulls would want our 29th overall pick as well.


----------



## Captain Obvious (Jun 15, 2003)

Pacers get a steal.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

thats just hilarious, not happening really laughable. I think they got messed up on the phone and that its Chandler and the 7th pick are on their way out, not in the same deal. Im just dying of laughter at that idea. If Bird offered Harrington for 10 straight up what makes it neccesary to add Chandler when its with the 7th pick.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BabyBlueSlugga7</b>!
> thats just hilarious, not happening really laughable. I think they got messed up on the phone and that its Chandler and the 7th pick are on their way out, not in the same deal. Im just dying of laughter at that idea. If Bird offered Harrington for 10 straight up what makes it neccesary to add Chandler when its with the 7th pick.


I remember a discussion I think almost a year ago between Bulls and Pacers fans as to who's better: Chandler or Harrington? Now that we're getting Chandler AND #7 (Luke Jackson) for Harrington I think it's obvious who's better and who has the better GM


----------



## ArtestFan23 (Jun 20, 2003)

Because the Bulls are desperately trying to get Chandler off the blocks...

Not really a far fetched trade.

Oh and with the 7th pick, Aldridge says we'd take Luke Jackson out of Oregon..


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pacers Fan</b>!
> 
> 
> I remember a discussion I think almost a year ago between Bulls and Pacers fans as to who's better: Chandler or Harrington? Now that we're getting Chandler AND #7 (Luke Jackson) for Harrington I think it's obvious who's better and who has the better GM


It would probaly be Chandler filler 7 for Artest. Once again it would be 7 filler for Harrington and thats it. Bird can stop thinking that he can push this out cuz Pax isnt even that stupid.


----------



## Grangerx33 (Mar 9, 2004)

the pacers must enjoy ripping the bulls off, wow their gm is dumb if they go for this especially after that trade that brought us artest miller mercer haha


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

Hot damn that's a trade. If Chandler can play center, we could be filling two position holes.


----------



## Midnight_Marauder (Dec 1, 2003)

I think Chandler would be a decent pick up for us.....maybe he could go from a 8 point scorer to a double double man if he plays underneath with O'Neal......





*************
Hey wheres my sig sucka.....


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan23</b>!
> Because the Bulls are desperately trying to get Chandler off the blocks...
> 
> Not really a far fetched trade.
> ...


"Not really a far fetched trade."

I see, but understand this clearly, "past performance is not indicative of present day outlook or performance." IMO, a late lottery is about the best you can hope for or REASONABLY expect in return for Baby Al. The days of date raping the Bulls are over. Why... we simply have much better options staying at the 7 if Larry gets greedy, he has the second move which is merely reactionary in any potential deal. No need to sweeten any deals for a reserve player that has publically asked to be traded. Your lokking at picking up a expiring contract with the pick or the discussion stops. Maybe you can find better value elsewhere, but dont assume Chicago will consider some crazy demand, remember he is only Al Harrington, and its quite likely he will never be a one-time all-star.


----------



## PacersguyUSA (Sep 1, 2002)

Well Dallas just got a huge haul for Antwan Jamison, who is basically the same player as Al Harrington, so it's possible.


----------



## Jermaniac Fan (Jul 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> Well Dallas just got a huge haul for Antwan Jamison, who is basically the same player as Al Harrington, so it's possible.


Harrington = Jamison with good defence


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PacersguyUSA</b>!
> Well Dallas just got a huge haul for Antwan Jamison, who is basically the same player as Al Harrington, so it's possible.


Not at all the same.

#5 Pick = real value

Laettner = IR or retirement

Stack = Waystation stopover to use his salary (which 28 teams passed on) to facilitate a trade.

Jamison True Market Value = #5 Pick

AJ>AH 
It is not even debatable, I may have overestimated Al's trade value a little bit.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I think your missing the fact that Harrington would be the best player on your team. 

And you can quit bringing up that hes a bench player also, since if you guys had Artest and JO, every big man on your team would sit on the bench and watch as well.


----------



## BullFan16 (Jun 2, 2003)

uhhhh....NO

its more like 

Pippen and #7 for harrington


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> I think your missing the fact that Harrington would be the best player on your team.
> 
> And you can quit bringing up that hes a bench player also, since if you guys had Artest and JO, every big man on your team would sit on the bench and watch as well.


R-Star,

No issue with Al the player whatsoever.

The problem starts with DA and ESPN's sloppy style of reporting, I'm somewhat surprised he did'nt add Kirk to Tyson and the #7. He has little attention for the details and runs with rumors that make no rational sense at all. Tyson AND #3 makes no sense at all from a value perspective.
There is also a strong probability that this entire deal (which is widely speculated in the Bulls board), is contingent on a bigger deal that actually involves Chandler as a key piece (PP). 
One thing for sure, today is going to be a wild draft day. I cannot remember a recent draft that has had so many proposed blockbusters. Cool day to be a fan.


----------



## Jermaniac Fan (Jul 27, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BullFan16</b>!
> uhhhh....NO
> 
> its more like
> ...


lol, it seems like you don't know who that Harrington guy is


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

now that the Cavaliers have drafted Jackson, I really think its unlikely that they'd trade him for Harrington. Jackson really fits a need in Cleveland that while Harrington might be the better player right now, he does not fit the same need as Jackson.


----------



## chicubs (Jan 25, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>The OUTLAW</b>!
> now that the Cavaliers have drafted Jackson, I really think its unlikely that they'd trade him for Harrington. Jackson really fits a need in Cleveland that while Harrington might be the better player right now, he does not fit the same need as Jackson.


Well, sort of. They got a sharp shooter already in Pavolivic (whatever, his name is) and they have no real small forward. Al Harrington could be their starting small forward easily...unless you put LBJ at SF.


----------



## naptownpimp (Feb 1, 2004)

being that oregon is my fav college team and the pacers are my fav pro

i hope we do the trade.

i hoped we drafted fred and i hoped we got luke.  hopefully we still can


----------



## Lance Fabrie (Jun 24, 2004)

I don't want Luke Jackson. There are far more talented, more experienced shooting guards that are very abtainable. Stephen Jackson for one.


----------



## RA231 (Jun 27, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Lance Fabrie</b>!
> I don't want Luke Jackson. There are far more talented, more experienced shooting guards that are very abtainable. Stephen Jackson for one.


I like Stephan Jackson, I also hope we go after Quentin Richarson to. That would be great if we could get one of the two as a free agent, we would still have Harrington to trade for an upgrade at center.


----------



## Jermaniac Fan (Jul 27, 2003)

I love Q's game! It would be great to have him in Pacers!


----------

