# Eddie Jones speaks



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...snotes,0,4272808.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


A shot at Jones?

Eddie Jones, long pursued by Bulls general manager Jerry Krause, is rumored to be available, and the team could be interested again.

The Bulls thought they had Jones signed as a free agent two years ago but Miami was able to trade for him.

Krause is said to still keep the news release announcing Jones' signing in his desk.

"That's my buddy," Jones said. "I like him. All those negative things people say about him, I like him. I don't know if he likes me, but I hope he does. I hope he understands."

As for being dealt, the likable Jones says it's out of his control. 


Allow me to translate. In other words, EJ is saying 'man the Heat are so bad... and w/ the 2 Butlers waiting to take my job..... Chicago doesn't look half bad..... is Benny the Bull going to greet me at the airport?'



VD


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

Trade Jay and E-Rob to the Heat for Jones


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Yeah, Eddie's the guy to turn this mess around. 

All I ask the Crawford-luvahs is that they're as patient with Jay as they are with their own guy. I mean, hell, it seems like Jamal's been in the league 5 years and I can still count the number of times I've seen him in the paint on both hands.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

I'll be at the airport if they need me.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KC</b>!
> Trade Jay and E-Rob to the Heat for Jones


Why not try with Jamal and E-Rob?

-Petey


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Thanks for the link VinDiesel i having a feeling Jones will be a Bull by the end of February- it just seems to be the right fit for everyone involved- i assume its going to be the Crawford,Erob,Hoiberg,Bagaric for Jones and the heat will throw in Mike James because they will have too many PG's and we would need a backup PG incase Mason isnt ready to produce- another sign this may be coming was last night BC going with Marshall at SF with Fizer and Blount at PF and C for a long stretch of time- this may be in preparation for this deal because with ERob gone the team would need someone with some size to backup Jalen at SF and Yell could do that job


Williams,James
Jones,Hassell
Rose,(Marshall)
Marshall,Fizer
Chandler,Curry

Guys that is a nice 9 man rotation and is something that i am holding hope we will see the second half of this season


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Salary gurus -- what's the salary matchup analysis of trade scenarios for EJ?


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

Chicago trades: C Dalibor Bagaric (2.0 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 0.7 apg in 8.0 minutes) 
SG Fred Hoiberg (2.5 ppg, 2.4 rpg, 1.4 apg in 13.6 minutes) 
PG Jamal Crawford (7.8 ppg, 1.9 rpg, 3.1 apg in 20.6 minutes) 
SF Eddie Robinson (5.5 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 0.6 apg in 18.6 minutes) 
Chicago receives: SG Eddie Jones (17.9 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 3.6 apg in 37.5 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: +0.1 ppg, -5.3 rpg, and -2.2 apg. 

Miami trades: SG Eddie Jones (17.9 ppg, 4.6 rpg, 3.6 apg in 37.5 minutes) 
Miami receives: C Dalibor Bagaric (2.0 ppg, 2.7 rpg, 0.7 apg in 3 games) 
SG Fred Hoiberg (2.5 ppg, 2.4 rpg, 1.4 apg in 37 games) 
PG Jamal Crawford (7.8 ppg, 1.9 rpg, 3.1 apg in 38 games) 
SF Eddie Robinson (5.5 ppg, 2.9 rpg, 0.6 apg in 37 games) 
Change in team outlook: -0.1 ppg, +5.3 rpg, and +2.2 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED

Due to Chicago and Miami being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. Chicago and Miami had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.


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

Lineup: 

PG-Jay Williams/Mason
SG-Eddie Jones/ Hassell
SF-Jalen Rose/Hassell
PF-Marshall/Fizer/Baxter
C-Chandler/Curry/Blount

That lineup ain't too shabby

Although, Crawford has been playing pretty great lately.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

eddie has said all the right things. Without actually saying come and get me out of miami. I mean, he is suppose to say something like, i have no control over where i am traded. Thats the right thing to say. 

I like the way eddie brings it to the basket!


----------



## HJHJR (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> eddie has said all the right things. Without actually saying come and get me out of miami. I mean, he is suppose to say something like, i have no control over where i am traded. Thats the right thing to say.
> 
> I like the way eddie brings it to the basket!


I've been told that back in 2000 while Eddie was still with Charlotte he was standing alongside BJ Armstrong on the United Center court during a free throw. He looked around at a filled stadium and told BJ something like "Boy, would I like to get some of this." BJ took it to mean that Eddie was seriously considering the Bulls as a team he'd like to play for because of the incredible fan support.

Now, most of you have probably heard versions of what happened between Jones and the Bulls during the summer of 2000. When he became aware that Riley and the Miami Heat were interested in him, they obviously became his first choice. And who could blame him? They were a championship calibur team playing in his home state. But in order for him to end up in Miami, he'd need both the Heat and Hornets' cooperation. And for quite a while it didn't look like the two teams were going to be able to agree on a sign and trade package. Jones and Krause talked at that time. Eddie told Krause that Miami was still his first choice, but if a deal couldn't be worked out he would absolutely sign with Chicago. We all know that Miami and Charlotte finally worked out a trade and Eddie ended up going home.

But at no time did Jones mislead the Bulls or Krause. That press release Krause keeps in his desk tells you just how close Jones came to being a Bull. As I understand it, Jones had actually reviewed and approved the release. Not only were the Bulls moments from signing Eddie, but Jones had also received a committment from Krause that once he'd signed, Krause would do everything in his power to work out a trade with Philadelphia for Eddie's long time friend, Aaron McKie.

That little story should give context to his recent remarks about his friendship with Krause. I have no doubt that at this time, with all things being equal between the two clubs, Eddie would welcome a trade to Chicago. He knows he's not part of Riley's long range plans in Miami. He knows that Riley has to move him if the Heat are going to have any chance of signing a top free agent big man. Riley's always had a stud post man and will do anything, including trading Jones to lay his hands on another one. With Chicago, Jones knows he'd play a role similar to the one Rose is currently trying to shoulder on his own. He knows he'd become a key member of the Bulls present and future.

I understand that talks between Chicago and Miami are ongoing. Krause I believe has a specific package in mind that he's willing to swap for Jones. It's probably not exactly what Riley wants. But we know how stubborn Krause can be. No one thought he'd ever be able to move Mercer and his large contract last season, but he ultimately got the Pacers to take him. And now you may have noticed that the Pacers are rumored to be actively trying to trade him so they can sign their free agents and avoid a huge LT penalty.

I think there's a fairly good chance that Eddie may wind up in a Bulls uniform before February 20 _if_ Riley's willing to accept what Krause may be offering. Just remrember, Riley's success as a coach has always been tied to building a team around a great pivotman. Krause is counting on Riley's obsessive desire for a free agent center to cause him to yield to the Bulls' demands.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> I'll be at the airport if they need me.


Don't forget to book the Polka band


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HJHJR</b>!
> 
> 
> I've been told that back in 2000 while Eddie was still with Charlotte he was standing alongside BJ Armstrong on the United Center court during a free throw. He looked around at a filled stadium and told BJ something like "Boy, would I like to get some of this." BJ took it to mean that Eddie was seriously considering the Bulls as a team he'd like to play for because of the incredible fan support.
> ...


Very nice! Great post!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

OK. Say we pull this off and land Jones at long last. We've shipped off a third of our active roster to get him. Therefore, even if we activate Brunson and Mason Jr, we've got some roster room to put more bodies on the bench. Who can we get?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I've looked over the salary numbers, and I've concluded that if we sign Jones, re-signing Curry and Chandler if they merit near max deals will put a very large one-year financial strain on the Bulls.

Whether they're willing to accept that fact is another question.

My assumptions going into this analysis are that the cap and luxury tax thresholds will increase by about 5% a year. The crucual point to consider is the 2006/2007 season, because that's where Curry and Chandler's new contracts would have to take effect.

For the comparison, I'll assume that we either keep Marshall or replace him at about his current salary, re-sign Fizer for about the MLE (approx $4.5M) and re-sign Crawford for about $6M. We replace ERob and our other players at basically minimum salary prices. Curry and Chandler average about $10M each in the first years of their new contracts.

Even under our current salary structure, if we project forward and sign those guys, Fizer, Marshall, and Crawford (or replacements for those guys), then we're moderately over the luxury tax (which will then be about $63M). We'll have about $67M in salary when we re-sign Curry and Chandler. 

Hence, we're something like $4M over the tax threshold for one year. The next year (07/08) Rose comes off the books, and we use his amount (16M) to re-sign JWill (about $10M), get under the luxury tax threshold, and account for inflation amongst other salaries.

$4M and whatever the luxury tax penalty might be might be acceptable for one year. That may be acceptable if we're a championship or near championship team (ha!), because when Rose came off the books the next year, we'd be back in good shape. Or we could deal with it by not re-signing Fizer, Marshall, or Crawford (or some combination) and replacing them with cheaper players.

Now, consider our salary structure if we trade ERob, Fizer, Blount, and Hassell for Jones and Lampley.

By taking on Jones, we are WAY over the luxury tax... something like $13M over it if my back of the envelope estimate is close to being right. Our total salaries are about $77M. To get anywhere close to the luxury tax cutoff we'd have to let go of Crawford and Marshall and replace them with guys making the veteran minimum. Or, we'd have to, for one year, eat a luxury tax plus $13M in salaries. The next year, though, we actually end up in better shape, because we shave off both Jalen and EJ's contracts. Thus, we could re-sign JWill with no problems.

So in my mind, the only real question we have is whether we're willing to pay a significant, but one year only luxury tax payment.

If we are, then we should be able to manage Jones' contract. If not, we might not be willing to handle the ones we have now.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc,

You are factoring in both Jamal's and Fizer's salaries, when one of them would have to be traded to Miami to get Jones.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

HJ

Good comments/insight

Who do you think that Riles may covet in free agency ?

He seems pretty enamoured with Lamar Odom 

Take on board your comments with regard to Riles and his post man but Brad, Jermaine and TD are all likely to stay home

There'e Kandi.. who I would stay the hell away from 

Does he take a short term chance on a 3 year deal for Elden Campbell who (IMO ) is a very talented post scorer which leaves Brian Grant playing the role of garbage man in his more natural PF position 

I think this is a possibility for him and he will use his high lottery pick to look for a big man to develop behind Campbell and Grant at C and PF respectively 

I'm guessing Odom is his real prize.

Odom at $9M - Campbell at $5M - $6M 

If he could get Crawford in a package from us which included ERob, Blount , Hassell and Brunson ( who I guess would be released straight away and resigned to by us as Jay's stable mate )....

that would give Riley a line up going into next season of :

Campbell
Grant
Odom
Butler
Crawford

1st round draft pick - big man C/PF
ERob
Hassell
R.Butler
2nd round draft pick - point guard prospect 
Vet minimum player 1 
Vet minimum player 2 

That's a lean and mean 12 player rotation at a cost of around $43M -$44M 

This should suit Riles as he notoriously prefers short rotations of around 8 - 9 players

Crawford is the perfect guard to pair with Odom who like Rose likes to handle his share of the rock . Butler is a scorer/defender (supposedly ) who balances their perimeter perfectly. Upfront its Campbell and his array of post moves balanced by Grant the hustling blue collar type.

ERob and R.Butler for energy - Hassell for back up perimeter D a young big man for a lottery pick to develop behind Campbell and Grant and a high 2nd round point guard prospect 

Things could be good for Riles with no need to envy Denver and Kiki Dee no more


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

One more note.

The package of guys I would be trying desperately to move to Miami is ERob, Fizer, Blount and Hassell, and that is definitely not the guys that they would want, I think.

Miami would wany either Jay or Jamal, but I have a few assumptions here.

I think there is some disagreement between what Krause wants and sees in the future and what Cartwright wants. Last year, Cartwright seemed pretty satisfied with a defensive oriented team and bringing the kids along slowly. Krause traded away Miller, Artest, Mercer and Ollie, which tended to force Cartwright's hand into playing the kids.

In my trade scenario, trading all of the guys we trade basically force Cartwright into playing the rotations I think Krause would like to see. No Fizer and Blount means more Chandler, Curry, and Dillybar. No Hassell means an opportunity for Jamal to get Jones' backup minutes at the 2. I'd be tempted to think, for that reason, Krause would be willing to include Hoiberg in the trade as well, but I have the feeling that Krause likes Hoiberg and doesn't want to trade him. Doing so, however, would probably please Miami, who wants all the expiring contracts it can get.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

What makes it difficult for Fred is that his wife is expecting a child in another month or so and he has just moved into a new house last year

Not that this should get in the way but Fred is loved by Mgt it seems. He's a company man and you get the impression Freddie is to be looked after.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Mikedc,
> 
> You are factoring in both Jamal's and Fizer's salaries, when one of them would have to be traded to Miami to get Jones.


No I didn't 

I gave two scenarios... the first was our current salary structure, in which we kept both Fizer and Crawford.

The second one, in which we make the trade, we trade Fizer (Erob, Hassell, and Blount) and keep Crawford.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Basically we have to get to $10M 

ERob is $5.75M
Blount and Hassell = $2M
Jamal = $2M 
Brunson = $500K
* Total = $10.25M *

I see your reasoning Mike but Eddie is coming here to play big minutes ( if he comes )

At the 1 to 3 spots there is 144 minutes which Jay, Eddie and Jalen take 110 minutes of 

That's 34 minutes for :

Roger Mason ( 20 ) 
Fred Hoiberg ( 13 ) 

If need be we could slip Yell back to the 3 to ease the load

In light of your well founded salary/LTax concerns 4 years forward if we retain Jamal and Yell as you suggest we take real pain regardless

The real pain is the opportunity cost of escrow forfeitures which no one can model anything reasonably meaningful to know what this may be as the factors that effect it are way too dynamic to model this far out 

So just to the extent that we are over a mooted limit - $4M or $13M I would suggest that Yell in 3 years will be nowhere near the MLE now or in fact if we would even need him resigned with a (hopefully) more productive front court of Curry, Chandler and Fizer. 

I mean if we have to resign Yell or anyone else on MLE to bolster our front court we won't have payment concerns to the levels you suggest for our young guns upfront anyway because if we need to pay this they will not be getting the job done - hence no money.

So straight away I think you can wipe $4M off the $13M in the 2nd scenario 

Either way do we pay penalties of $4M in scenario 1 or double that of $4.5M in scenario 2 

*To me , the effective cost of EJ using you sceanrio analysis with the Yell modification in sceanrio 2 is an extra $5M - the difference between L Tax penalties in the scenario *

$5M is small beer averaged over 4 years at $1.25M for the chance to improve as a team , rationalise the roster, instill better confidence in those we propose fpor the future and who we propose to pay this money when the time comes. 

If we are not prepared to take a financial chance and improve so that we can endeavour to grow incrementally ... yes that means being a average before we try and become great .... then any such talks about future prognastications about what we may have to pay our young is just pizzing into the wind


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

It's a good point FJ that, in the long run, acquiring EJ really forcloses any meaningful PT for Crawford at the 2. At most, Jamal could get 12-14 MPG there and all of the backup PG minutes (another 12-14 MPG assuming Jay comes around). That's 24-28MPG, which, I think, is probably not going to keep Jamal happy in the long run.

Hence, you might be right in that trading Jamal is the better option than trading Fizer.

Keeping Fizer, down the road, allows us to let Donyell go and/or not re-sign a MLE replacement for him to complement Curry and Chandler up front. Hence, that could be a savings.

One thing that concerns me though, is that, when Jones and Rose's contracts are up, Jamal would be really nice to have as the 2 guard. If we trade him, Jay will be set at the point but we'll at best be able to spend an MLE to acquire a 2/3, and we probably won't have anyone in the pipeline to replace Jones and Rose. If we traded Jay, we might be able to get a young 2/3 back in the trade (since I think Jay would command more than Jamal on the trade market) and we would have a wider variety of guys to spend our MLE on (1s, 2s, or 3s, since Crawford could probably slide to the 2 if there were a decent 1 available for the MLE).

Trading Crawford right now is banking a lot that Jay come around and be the kind of player we think he can. It's pretty clear, right now, that Jamal will at least be a decent NBA player. Maybe a pretty good one. Jay has that ability too, but right now he looks like less of a sure thing. If we keep Crawford and trade Jay, we have more flexibility down road when it comes time for EJ and rose to move on or take pay cuts. We could either keep Jamal at the point or move him to SG.

If we threw in Jay and kept Jamal though, we damn well ought to be getting more than Eddie Jones back. I'm a huge Caron Butler fan, and I'd love to get him, but I think Riley is too. Honestly, I don't think Riley would trade us Butler for either Crawford or Jay straight up. 

Just idle musings...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

If we did Jay and Fizer, would Miami be willing to give us back EJ and Butler?

ERob, JayWill, Fizer, Hassell

for Jones and Butler.

I'd give our #1 pick too if Riley asked. I think Butler might end up a the best player in this whole deal, and even if you don't like him that much, one has to recognize that he would satisfy the concern that we won't be able to deal with it if we loose both Rose and Jones at the same time. We groom Butler, who will be under contract, as one of their replacements and as an uber-sixth man.

If we really want, we could start Rose at the 1 and play Butler and Jones at the wing spotes.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Based on this article, http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/...19jan19,0,2463115.story?coll=sfla-sports-heat , the Heat have between $3.5M to $7M in cap space next season so I doubt they are able to make a run at Kandi or Odom. The $7M is expected with the release of LaPhonso Ellis upcoming.

If they trade with the Bulls it would be to clear Jones or Grant for young talent since the Bulls do not have expiring contracts to offer.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Isn't Blount's an expiring contract?


----------



## Tri_N (Aug 19, 2002)

If we trade for Jones, who's going to be our sf and sg when Jones and Rose are over their primes. Both of them are about 30 so we better get some good prospect behind Rose and Jones to learn the rope. My suggestion is to sign Maggette during the offseason after acquiring Jones. For our draft pick, we should pick a sf. If we do all this, I am all fine with trading for Jones while sacrificing some of our future. At this point, it's pretty clear that we're developing too many young players and some of them won't pan out at all if any.

For our offseason moves, it's pretty obvious that we need a lot of help in term of chemistry and coaching staff. I suggest that we fire one of the big three (Bill Berry, Pete Meyer, or Bob Thornton). IMO, these threes are useless. Last time I heard, BC was a bigmen coach so why do we need another one like him. BTW, does anyone know where's Dan Majerle because I won't mind offering him an assistant coaching job if he's available. For our FAs pursue, we should try to get either Q. Richardson or Corey Maggette. After this, I suggest we hired another assistant coach like the like of Steve Kerr to help these guys learn the fundamentals of the game. It's pretty obvious that the fundamental of this game is worse than a HSER team. Drafting is important in many aspects so we should see who's available before trading that pick for a veteran. Also, may I suggest that we cut Bargaric and Blount after this season because these two are the epitomies of chumps?


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Isn't Blount's an expiring contract?


I meant in the amount necessary to garner a realistic trade. Think Kenny Anderson sized rather than league minimum.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> If we did Jay and Fizer, would Miami be willing to give us back EJ and Butler?
> 
> ERob, JayWill, Fizer, Hassell
> ...



The Bulls CAN NOT and WILL NOT trade Jay. Yes, he is struggling, and yes, at this point, Crawford is playing better. However, Jay is hardly the first top point guard to struggle in his rookie year. I bet the Jazz, Sonics, and Hornets are all pretty happy that they didn't give up on Stockton, Payton, and Davis after their lackluster rookie seasons.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Based on this article, http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/...19jan19,0,2463115.story?coll=sfla-sports-heat , the Heat have between $3.5M to $7M in cap space next season so I doubt they are able to make a run at Kandi or Odom. The $7M is expected with the release of LaPhonso Ellis upcoming.
> 
> If they trade with the Bulls it would be to clear Jones or Grant for young talent since the Bulls do not have expiring contracts to offer.


Right, but you also have to consider that the Bulls would be giving back less salary than the Heat are giving.

Jones is at like $12M, so the Heat only have to take back just over $10M. Add a million or so for Blount or Brunson, and the Heat are getting about $3M in cap room out of the deal. By itself that's not a lot, but it gives them $10M instead of $7M total, which is probably enough to guarantee them someone like Odom or Kandi (and $7M may not be).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Truth</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> The Bulls CAN NOT and WILL NOT trade Jay. Yes, he is struggling, and yes, at this point, Crawford is playing better. However, Jay is hardly the first top point guard to struggle in his rookie year. I bet the Jazz, Sonics, and Hornets are all pretty happy that they didn't give up on Stockton, Payton, and Davis after their lackluster rookie seasons.


Actually, I remember Krause saying a while back that he was offered Baron Davis for the #2 pick, which would seem to suggest that the Hornets would have been happy to give up on Davis even after he'd shown something.

To me, it's not an issue of "giving up" on Jay. That's an emotion based argument. I could really care less who we trade, so long as we get the best value in return and have the best team possible after the trade.

So, which would be the better team in a couple of years?

JWill, Jones, Rose, Marshall, Curry, Chandler

or 

Jamal, Jones, Rose, Butler, Marshall, Curry, Chandler.

I'm a pretty big fan of Butler and I think he's gonna be a special player. I think Jamal and JWill both have a chance to be special too, but in the long run, I don't see a fit for them both on the Bulls.


----------



## HJHJR (May 30, 2002)

1/8: @ Wash. *Loss* 101-98.
1/10: @ Mil. *Loss* 93-85 (OT).
1/14: @ NY *Loss* 98-86.
1/17: @ NO *Loss* 90-83.
1/18: @ Mia *Loss* 102-101 (2OT).

Arguably, the Bulls could have won all five of these games. Had they done so, their record would stand at 19-21. That would put them in a tie with Washington for the 8th playoff spot. But what's even more notable, they'd only trail 5th seed Philadelphia (21-19) by two games! 

Hypothetically speaking, does anyone doubt that if you'd penciled in Eddie Jones' name in the Bulls starting lineup instead of Trent Hassell we'd not only be talking playoffs, but we'd also be thinking about making a run at Boston (23-17) for the 4th spot and home court advantage in the first round? True, we're still talking about achieving little more than mediocrity with a record that would be floating around the .500 mark. But logic seems to dictate that the jump from being a .500 ballclub to a championship contender is much shorter than from a fifth straight appearance in the lottery to even a sniff of a division title.

I'm sure Krause has his reasons, but frankly I'm mystified as to why he hasn't made that one more move to launch the Bulls from their current position to the position of possibly becoming a top 4 team in the Eastern Conference _right now._ And what about the corporate sponsors, season ticket holders, Bulls fans all over the world, not to mention the players and coaches? Is he doing all of those groups a disservice by adhering to a rebuilding plan that has the Bulls playing .350 ball in its 5th year?

Trading for Rose last year was the right thing to do in my opinion. The Bulls desperately needed an experienced closer, and an accomplished veteran whose record of success would command the respect of his young teamates. Krause has had plenty of time to evaluate Rose's impact on the club. It appears that while he's pushed them towards respectability, for the trade to have been truly worthwhile he'll need one more comparable star player to pair up with Rose and bring the young core of Bulls players into playoff contention. Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, he shouldn't have done the trade with Indiana in the first place. Afterall whats the difference between a 20 win team and a 30 win team? Neither one has an ice cube's chance in hell of winning a championship any time soon.

If this kind of rationale makes any sense at all, then I don't see how Krause can afford to turn his back on an opportunity to acquire Jones. He's playing a very dangerous game right now...because if the young Bulls players don't begin to get a taste of winning and playoff fever in the very near future, the psychological damage that comes from constant losing may become too big of a hurdle to overcome in terms of their development. Jordan recognized that in Washington. And Walsh in Indiana has proven by his personnel decisions that rebuilding while remaining competitive is not only possible, but efficient and effective. From my humble perspective, I don't think Krause has any choice...unless of course, he and ownership have higher, unstated priorities than winning championships.


----------



## Fergus (Oct 2, 2002)

I would not trade Crawford for Eddie Jones. The jury is still out on Williams and Crawford may still be an important part of the Bulls for years to come (either at point or part of a 3 gaurd rotation). I am not even sure I would trade Fizer, considering how well he has been playing lately.

Both of our players are young, fairly inexpensive and have tons of potential. Eddie Jones is about the exact opposite of those things. Eddie Jones is however, a solid pro who would give the Bulls more veteran leadership.

I would suggest more of a Robinson and Hassel for Eddie Jones swap with filler. I know that does not give the Heat equal value but a lot of trades in the NBA have not been given "value for value". The Heat would be getting younger and more athletic, while freeing up salary.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Based on this article, http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/...19jan19,0,2463115.story?coll=sfla-sports-heat , the Heat have between $3.5M to $7M in cap space next season so I doubt they are able to make a run at Kandi or Odom. The $7M is expected with the release of LaPhonso Ellis upcoming.
> 
> If they trade with the Bulls it would be to clear Jones or Grant for young talent since the Bulls do not have expiring contracts to offer.


This is pretty unclear on a couple of fronts - the main one being whether this figure includes or excludes unrenounced values of their free agents that would count against the cap 

Hoopshype.com record commitments to Jones, Grant, Carter, and C.Butler 

All other active players either expire or have team options 

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/miami.htm

Their recorded payroll according to this site with these players going into next season is $30.3M . With the salary cap at say $42M - that's $11M in cap room . 

*Of course what the article does not say is that they are factoring a high lottery pick in their salary prognastications for $3.5M to $4M - which, would give them $7M *

If Miami keep ERob and Jamal only out of a package , they will save around $3.5M in the salary differential , which gives them $10.5M to play with 

If Riles truly covets Lamar and tries to pinch him for $8M to $9M he needs to move Anthony Carter ( badly ) to try and make a play for a productive veteran bigman such as say Elden Campbell that he would have to buy for $5M to $6M

How does he move Carter ?

Well Riles has never been big on rooks anyway , so to give him extra cap room - the logical thing to do would be to trade the draft pick down with Carter to a team that has room to cop Carter's 1 year cost . Maybe some cash considerations go along with the deal to take the pain away 

Carter would be dealt to a team that is not going to be a player in free agency - a team that has payroll of around $36M that in the acceptance of Carter - may push them close to going over the salary cap edge which may trigger their exceptions.

If Riles had say a 3 - 5 pick - he could trade down to say a 10 - dump Carter , and save around $1.5M in his draft pick cost as well . 

This strategy would give Riley around $16M to spend in free agency - enough to make a play for Odom and Campbell and a #10 pick whilst also picking up Crawford ( with ERob )


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> One thing that concerns me though, is that, when Jones and Rose's contracts are up, Jamal would be really nice to have as the 2 guard. If we trade him, Jay will be set at the point but we'll at best be able to spend an MLE to acquire a 2/3, and we probably won't have anyone in the pipeline to replace Jones and Rose. If we traded Jay, we might be able to get a young 2/3 back in the trade (since I think Jay would command more than Jamal on the trade market) and we would have a wider variety of guys to spend our MLE on (1s, 2s, or 3s, since Crawford could probably slide to the 2 if there were a decent 1 available for the MLE).


Yeah.. I hear ya 

The thing is though Jones and Rose are 4 years away and in that ensuing period of time there will be Michael Redd types that can be had for the MLE or Desmond Mason/Ron Artest/Michael Finley types that historically have always been in that mid to late 1st round

Swing types are a dime a dozen . The reason why I am noty so worried about progression planning for Rose and Jones 4 years forward is because of the abundance of such players at the MLE or in mid to late 1st round draft position


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Come to think of it, Carter wouldn't be a bad fit here as the primary backup PG. He can't shoot for crap but he scraps on D. It'd be like bringing back the Kevin Ollie days  and throwing Mr. Bill a bone.

Seriously speaking, I know it's a horrible deal talent-wise, but I could readily see Krause including Fizer and taking back Carter.

From the reports I've seen, Krause really seems to want Fizer gone. He offered him to Utah for Marshall, and then to New York for their exception.

Boy, I get the shivers just thinking about that possibility.

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

On a completely different note, I heard a Cleveland fan say on the Trade board the other day he'd take Fizer and our #1 for Miles. I'd prefer that to or in additiono to an Eddie Jones trade.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

HJHJR thank you for the posts.

For the record, I don't think Tyson and Eddy will be commanding near-max deals in 3 years. Sorry. Tyson and Eddy would have to become very good two-way players for them to command this type of money. The recent signings of Harrington and Bender can give us a fair gauge at possible extensions... ~4yrs/28-30 million range. That's more like it.



VD


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Truth</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> The Bulls CAN NOT and WILL NOT trade Jay. Yes, he is struggling, and yes, at this point, Crawford is playing better. However, Jay is hardly the first top point guard to struggle in his rookie year. I bet the Jazz, Sonics, and Hornets are all pretty happy that they didn't give up on Stockton, Payton, and Davis after their lackluster rookie seasons.


stockton didn't have a bad rookie year he didn't play much but when he played , he played well he avg. over 5 ast. a game in less than 20 min and shot 47% from the field

payton had to split time with mcmilan at point and while he didn't put up great #s he still avg over 6 ast. a game and shot 45% from the field also he played great defense from the start of his career

and davis was still recovering from his knee blowing an acl williams is having some physical problems but nothing on par with davis


----------



## LoaKhoet (Aug 20, 2002)

Chicago is a big city so i dont' think it's a problem if we pay a little more for the team. I am just afraid that the team would still not be that good.


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

*"I hope he (Krause) likes me, because I like him," Jones said before the contest. "I agree with a lot of things he's done for that team. That's just my opinion."

With all the Krause-bashing that has gone on in Chicago over the years, it's unusual to hear such talk. But Jones didn't back down.

"I don't think it has anything to do with basketball," he said. "I just like him as a person. I've had dinner with him, talked to him a lot. To me, he was a good guy.

"I love to fish, too. So that was one of the reasons. We started to talk about that. We talked a lot about everything. It wasn't really about basketball."*

Sounds like somebody's getting ready for a move to Chicago. Imagine a couple of players like Rose _and_ Jones spreading positive vibes on Krause's behalf while the Bulls rebuild. 

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/main_story.asp?intID=3764022


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

*Get Jones and Miles*

Darius Miles and Jones. It eases congestion at many positions. Here is how to do it.

Crawford and filler (Hoiberg or Blount) for Miles

OR 

Fizer straight up for Miles.

THEN

Fizer, E-Rob and filler for Jones

OR 

Crawford, E-Rob and filler for Jones

PLUS, we still keep our pick (some may not like this). We could maybe draft someone such as Jarvis Hayes. He can be brought along slowly. Then you use the MLE for big man help. We then have a good rotation of:

PG - Williams, Mason
SG - Jones, Hayes
SF - Rose, Miles
PF - Marshall, MLE
C - Chandler, Curry

More veterans, more wins and you are only developing the players you want to keep.

With Miles, are there any prospects in this draft, apart from James and Anthony who could be better? Probably not. They say that apart from Milicic, Anthony and James, it could be a weak draft. So we get a young wing player to eventually replace Jones and/or Rose who has more experience than players in the draft. Plus he is a good defender. Jones will take the scoring pressure off Rose, and will help defensively.

Go out there and do it Jerry!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> stockton didn't have a bad rookie year he didn't play much but when he played , he played well he avg. over 5 ast. a game in less than 20 min and shot 47% from the field
> 
> payton had to split time with mcmilan at point and while he didn't put up great #s he still avg over 6 ast. a game and shot 45% from the field also he played great defense from the start of his career
> ...


You are missing the point ....

Stockton showed huge improvement during his first 4 or 5 years in the league. 

Payton showed huge improvement during his first 5 years in the league. 

Davis showed huge improvement during his first 3 years in the league. 

_BTW - Davis blew out his ACL during his freshman year at UCLA and was an All-American in his soph year in college. _

Given how these PGs improved, there is a good chance that the Bulls miss a lot of upside if they trade JWill.


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KrauseFan</b>!
> I remember someone saying that Krause and Riley were debating about what players should be involved in a Jones to Chicago trade- last year the hangup in the Rose trade was Krause convincing Indy to take Mercer's contract- what is the hang up this year with a possible Jones trade- we know Erob would have to be involved so what is it?


Could be a number of things...Riley may want Crawford (or you can substitute Fizer's name) but Krause has plans to ship that player elsewhere in another deal. Maybe Riley wants a draft choice included but Krause won't give it up. Or Riley may be insisting that the Bulls accept a player in the package that the Bulls have no interest in (Ellis?). Then again, there's always the possibility that there's a third team involved and the Heat and Bulls are waiting on that team.

The truth is, IMHO, I can see both Crawford and Fizer being traded before February 20, but not necessarily as part of the same transaction. An example might be a Crawford/Miles deal and a Fizer package/Jones swap that occur simultaneously. But what happens if Riley's demanding Crawford instead of Fizer?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*And put the big three (Curry, Chandler, and JWill)*



> Originally posted by <b>HJHJR</b>!
> 1/8: @ Wash. *Loss* 101-98.
> 1/10: @ Mil. *Loss* 93-85 (OT).
> 1/14: @ NY *Loss* 98-86.
> ...


I apologize in advance for this, but yes, let's trade Crawford, Hoiberg, Robinson, and Blount for Eddie Jones.

If we could pick up another veteran or two (and given Brunson's play), we could put JWill, Curry, and Chandler on IR and with our completely veteran squad, I am sure we could make the playoffs.

Is that the goal?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: And put the big three (Curry, Chandler, and JWill)*



> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> I apologize in advance for this, but yes, let's trade Crawford, Hoiberg, Robinson, and Blount for Eddie Jones.
> ...


If you felt the need to apologize, why say it in the first place?

In any case, HH already answered your question when he said:



> f the young Bulls players don't begin to get a taste of winning and playoff fever in the very near future, the psychological damage that comes from constant losing may become too big of a hurdle to overcome in terms of their development. Jordan recognized that in Washington. And Walsh in Indiana has proven by his personnel decisions that rebuilding while remaining competitive is not only possible, but efficient and effective. From my humble perspective, I don't think Krause has any choice...unless of course, he and ownership have higher, unstated priorities than winning championships.


The goal is to *BOTH* develop the young players and win. In truth, it's becoming clear when you look at the growth of a team like Indiana (which got into the playoffs and then skyrocketed) that winning will be REQUIRED to develop the young players.

I've trade to make this point before, and I've never really received a response, so I'll try again. The idea isn't just to add "veterans" in the sense of Rick Brunson or Corie Blount. Frankly, those guys suck despite an occasional good game or so. Replacing Chandler in the lineup with Blount for whole games wouldn't take us to the playoffs or anywhere else.

However, keeping Chandler in the lineup and replacing Trent Hassell with Eddie Jones will not only help us win, it will make accelerate Chandler's development for all the reasons HH stated above.

------

You think the playoffs don't matter? You think losing doesn't get to players and change their outlooks?

I don't know about you all, but I was shocked and more than a little saddened to hear that Elton Brand was one of the guys who just told Elgin Baylor that he was out on the court just playing for himself.

Stop for a minute, think about the Elton Brand that most of us loved when he was here, and consider how he got to this state. Coming out of college, I think it's a safe assumption to say those words would never have escaped Elton's lips. 4 years of constant losing, of no chance at the playoffs, of no real competition, however, seem to have taken their toll.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: And put the big three (Curry, Chandler, and JWill)*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> Stop for a minute, think about the Elton Brand that most of us loved when he was here, and consider how he got to this state. Coming out of college, I think it's a safe assumption to say those words would never have escaped Elton's lips. 4 years of constant losing, of no chance at the playoffs, of no real competition, however, seem to have taken their toll.


Great.

So now he's gonna sign with Miami and we're gonna have someone with a grudge dropping 40 ppg every time they play us...


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

very good point, mike. I was shocked about what Brand said also. Even miller! He was used to winning at utah. He has been losing every since he came into the league.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

40 points and 15 boards.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

And yes, I agree with Mike. Winning breeds winning. As long as we're convinced we have the right pieces in place and aren't just shopping for another high draft pick, developing the talent we have is best done by cracking the playoff barrier and giving the kids a tase of what it means to be a playoff team.


----------



## max6216 (Nov 27, 2002)

isn't it funny that eddie never had nothing nice to say about krause,until riley figured out that he was not a max SG.and wanted to dump his butt.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

> However, keeping Chandler in the lineup and replacing Trent Hassell with Eddie Jones will not only help us win, it will make accelerate Chandler's development for all the reasons HH stated above.


Forgive me if I didn't appreciate this point up until now, but I think it is perhaps the best argument I've heard for picking up Jones (or any other talented vet) yet. Actually, I'm not sure if my take on your statement was the outcome you were shooting for, but the way you phrased your comment elicited a new train of thought in my mind...

Perhaps more important than "getting a taste of winning," the best effect would be putting a more competitive team on the floor that doesn't have to rely on playing up to their best current abilities to win. As you eluded to, putting another competent player on the floor _allows_ BC to leave Chandler and our other young players on the floor for more minutes. When Hassell is on the floor, our young players' mistakes are magnified because there is no one to make amends at the offensive end (and to an extent on the defensive end). Since our margin for victory is so thin, and Bill ultimately wants to win, he can't afford to field a team that makes "rookie" mistakes. He'd rather get beat by better players than lose by making stupid mistakes. That's why Fred and Corie see so many minutes.

So, playing Jones instead of Hassell would let Cartwright stomach more of our young team's growing pains IMO. All that hard work in practice would finally get a chance to be tested more in real game situations. 

Sorry if you all understood this already. It sure was a breakthrough for me, though, thus the profundity.


----------



## HEATLUNATIC (May 27, 2002)

If u people actually think ur gonna get E.J. for GARBAGE ur out of ur minds!We DONT want E-Rob or his BS contract!For as much potential as Crawford has hes NOT enough to get u E.J.,cuz hes done NOTHING!Curry,Fizer and Crawford for E.J. and a 2nd rounder sounds fair!E.J. gives the Bulls a stopper on D and would put them in the playoffs!

Bulls

C - Chandler
PF - Marshall
SF - Rose
SG - E.J.
PG - Jay

Heat

C - Curry
PF - B.G.
SF - Caron
SG - Rasual
PG - Crawford

U people actually thought u were gonna get E.J. for garbage aka E-Rob,Hoiberg and Blount?:laugh:


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: And put the big three (Curry, Chandler, and JWill)*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!The goal is to *BOTH* develop the young players and win. In truth, it's becoming clear when you look at the growth of a team like Indiana (which got into the playoffs and then skyrocketed) that winning will be REQUIRED to develop the young players.
> 
> I've trade to make this point before, and I've never really received a response, so I'll try again. The idea isn't just to add "veterans" in the sense of Rick Brunson or Corie Blount. Frankly, those guys suck despite an occasional good game or so. Replacing Chandler in the lineup with Blount for whole games wouldn't take us to the playoffs or anywhere else.
> 
> ...


Let's assume we make the Eddie Jones trade (for Robinson, Crawford, Hoiberg, and Blount). In order to make the playoffs, our best rotation may very well be the following.

PG: Brunson (25), Williams (15), Rose (8)
SG: Jones (40), Hassell (8)
SF: Rose (32), Hassell (16)
PF: Marshall (16), Fizer (32)
C: Marshall (20), Baxter (10), Curry/Chandler (18)

And maybe Miami cuts Travis Best and we pick him up (or we pick up Greg Anthony) and we pick a veteran big guy to replace Curry/Chandler. At that point it wouldn't make any difference if we put Curry, Chandler, and JWill on the IR.

Then suppose we still don't make the playoffs. Then we'll be in a world of hurt. Our young guys don't even get the chance to taste the playoffs from the sidelines.

What Indiana did and what we are doing is very, very different. For Indiana the veterans and the young guys played roles of equal importance, but what we are thininking about doing is relegating our young players to marginal roles.

I don't get it. Last year when we were losing, nobody worried about it hurting our morale. This year, when we are winning much more often, we need to abandon the young guys for an all-out push for the playoffs.

Now I realize that is too strong of a statement (and I am being a bit ornery), but is it THAT far off from what we are proposing.

And if we get Eddie Jones, don't you think adding another veteran, maybe a big guy or a point guard, would make us that much better. When does it stop?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

NCBullsFan,

I think most of us who favor tading for Jones see something more like this:

JWill
Rose
Curry
Jones
Marshall

That's 3 vets, and 2 of our young guys. It is a lot closer to the kind of situation Amare is rapidly growing in.

What I want is 40 wins, 50 wins, 60 wins in successive seasons. Not 26, 32, and 40 over the same period. Or, who knows, 26, 26, and 26.

What I want is Curry, Chandler, and JWill being big contributors in that 60 win season, and beyond.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: And put the big three (Curry, Chandler, and JWill)*



> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> What Indiana did and what we are doing is very, very different. For Indiana the veterans and the young guys played roles of equal importance, but what we are thininking about doing is relegating our young players to marginal roles.


Sorry, but I'm starting to get irritated and I'm not goint to carry this debate any further on its current terms. No one here, you excepted, has argued that we should be "relegating our players to marginal roles", benching JWill for Brunson, picking up Travis Best when he mythically gets cut for no apparent reason, and suddenly deciding to play Baxter, a guy who's registerd almost no minutes in the last month and a half over Curry and Chandler. I think you're putting words in my mouth and if you actually read what I wrote, I suggested nothing of the sort.

In fact, if you go back and look at the whole text of the post you JUST quoted from, I explicitly stated as much:



> I've trade to make this point before, and I've never really received a response, so I'll try again. The idea isn't just to add "veterans" in the sense of Rick Brunson or Corie Blount. Frankly, those guys suck despite an occasional good game or so. Replacing Chandler in the lineup with Blount for whole games wouldn't take us to the playoffs or anywhere else.
> 
> However, keeping Chandler in the lineup and replacing Trent Hassell with Eddie Jones will not only help us win, it will make accelerate Chandler's development for all the reasons HH stated above.


If you want to pick up the debate again from that point forward, that's cool, but I'm not going to sit here and debate what you think I said when it's pretty clear to me that, at best, you're taking what I said out of context if you think I'm saying we should be playing Brunson 25mpg and benching JWill after a trade for Jones.

If I were to see the trades I want to see happen they would be: some combo of our pick (buying off Houston if we need to get the right to trade it back), Crawford, ERob, and Fizer and change... in order to get back Jones and Darius Miles.

Post Trade(s) Rotations would be something like:

C - Chandler 16, Marshall 12, Curry 20
PF- Marshall 22, Miles 16, Chandler 10 
SF- Rose 36, Miles 12
SG- Jones 36, Hassell 12
PG- JWill 32, Brunson/Mason 16

If anything, moving out Crawford, ERob, and Fizer would REQUIRE the kids to play more minutes. It's just that they'll have the benefit of playing with guys who 1) Don't suck and 2) aren't completely wet behind the ears themselves. 

Under that scheme, we'd still be a playing the kids plenty. Yet, thanks to the addition of two good defenders (Miles and Jones) and the exchange of a bunch of marginal players and 2 third year guys for a third year guy (Miles) and a veteran star (Jones), we'd at least be in the thick of the playoff race.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Qwerty123</b>!
> 
> 
> Forgive me if I didn't appreciate this point up until now, but I think it is perhaps the best argument I've heard for picking up Jones (or any other talented vet) yet. Actually, I'm not sure if my take on your statement was the outcome you were shooting for, but the way you phrased your comment elicited a new train of thought in my mind...
> ...


You got it! In fact, I'm sure you just said it better than I have 

I guess I'd list the benefits as follows.

1. Like you just said, putting another good player on the floor means we can tolerate more mistakes from our kids.

2. Maybe a related point, but a bit different is that having more good, experienced players on the floor creates more "easy" opportunities for our kids to make plays.

3. And yeah, the learning by winning thing. I think success breeds success.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: And put the big three (Curry, Chandler, and JWill)*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!Sorry, but I'm starting to get irritated and I'm not goint to carry this debate any further on its current terms. No one here, you excepted, has argued that we should be "relegating our players to marginal roles", benching JWill for Brunson, picking up Travis Best when he mythically gets cut for no apparent reason, and suddenly deciding to play Baxter, a guy who's registerd almost no minutes in the last month and a half over Curry and Chandler. I think you're putting words in my mouth and if you actually read what I wrote, I suggested nothing of the sort.


MikeDC, it was poor form on my part not to make clear that I was not specifically targetting my argument towards you. I should not have quoted your post.

Mostly, I am just playing devil's advocate. What worries me most about this year is not the losing; it is the fact that in many of our wins, Curry, Chandler, and JWill have played very marginal roles. I worry that if we add more veterans, especially good veterans, seeing the young guys play an important role in a win will become even more infrequent - a la the sarcastic point that we should just put these guys on the IR.

My reaction is probably just frustration with the realization that Curry, Chandler, and JWill may very well become very good players, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that they are unlikely to become the type of players that lead us to multiple championships.


----------

