# Pierce to be traded?



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

according to vecsey:



> January 1, 2006 -- Real sources reveal Boston is attempting to trade as many of its major money players as possible in an effort to get younger than young — underage, actually.
> 
> I'm not saying Danny Ainge is about to give away Paul Pierce and Ricky Davis (Mark Blount is another story; Ainge will take expiring contracts of mediocre talent to move that contract), but I am shattering the illusion Pierce will remain a Celtic for the shelf life of this season, much less his career.


according to peter may:



> Paul Pierce. This is an easy one. He should keep doing what he's doing. He's playing the best all-around basketball of his career at a time when the Celtics may have no choice but to move him. Maintain that value. Despite what you hear and read from the Celtics, there is a multitude of NBA observers outside Boston that would be shocked if Pierce isn't moved this year.


this is new.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Same as the other 2,500 Pierce rumors. Nothing will come of it.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

I don't see how much younger we can get, but I think the rumors may start to be true. In the same article that I just linked on the other thread, there's a section on Pierce getting traded. If it's possible to get rid of Raef and Blount, we need to look into it.

If you think about it, it'll be impossible for this team to keep Pierce, Davis (who'll be getting max or near max dollars) and Jefferson (if he develops within the next two years.)


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Pierce's value may never be higher but they should move him in the off-season in my opinion. Trade deadline deals never result in fair value.


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

It's a bad idea to trade a top 20 player just to unload albatross contracts. A very, very bad idea.

A lot of time deadline deals don't bring back full value because a player is a cancer and being sold for 50 cents on the dollar. Ainge just wants to trade Pierce for the sake of making a move.

I honestly don't see how this might improve the team, and unless he pulls in something like Hinrich + Deng or Josh Howard + Marquis Daniels i'll be pissed.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

I honestly think we are too young right now, I can't imagine getting younger at this point. I mean Gerald Green is 19. Kendrick Perkins just turned 21, Al Jefferson turns 21 in a few days, Delonte West is 22, Justin Reed, Tony Allen, Ryan Gomes, and Orienn Greene are 23, and Marcus just turned 24.....do we really want to be younger than that???? I really don't.


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

Pierce is only 28, Davis is only 26.

Maybe Ainge thinks that by the time the young guys hit their primes, Pierce and Davis's contracts will be up and they may not be re-signed at their "advanced" ages. So it would be better to get some young guys now who can develop and jell with the other young'ns. But is that really good for development? Just throw together a team of young guys who are going to lose a lot of games?


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

If we trade Pierce _now_, we are assured of a top five selection in the '06 draft. If we trade Pierce _in the off-season_, we have a legitimate shot at Greg Oden. I cannot imagine Ricky Davis staying with his high value if Pierce is traded.


----------



## AMΣRICAN GOD™ (Jun 4, 2005)

Premier said:


> If we trade Pierce _now_, we are assured of a top five selection in the '06 draft. If we trade Pierce _in the off-season_, we have a legitimate shot at Greg Oden. I cannot imagine Ricky Davis staying with his high value if Pierce is traded.



That's a pretty fair idea.


----------



## UNHFan (May 14, 2005)

Any names being mentioned?


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

Chris Kaman


----------



## KingHandles (Mar 19, 2005)

DWest Superstar said:


> Chris Kaman


4 Pierce....??? If so, I doubt that will ever happen.

Would Ricky be traded before Paul, if either is traded?


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

DWest Superstar said:


> Chris Kaman


Brand and Maggette included in this deal?


----------



## #1AntoineWalkerFan (Mar 10, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> Brand and Maggette included in this deal?



lol


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

I heard from my personal sauces that it is Pierce for kaman


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

DWest Superstar said:


> I heard from my personal sauces that it is Pierce for kaman


What "sauce" was it? 

Believe me, Pierce for Kaman would not happen in a million years. The Clippers would have to give up their entire future to get Pierce.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> What "sauce" was it?
> 
> Believe me, Pierce for Kaman would not happen in a million years. The Clippers would have to give up their entire future to get Pierce.


Sauce is slang for source


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Pierce is on a max deal, Kaman on a rookie deal. Therefore the trade does not work per the CBA. Tell your sauces to sober up.


----------



## cgcatsfan (Jun 10, 2005)

They're on the sauce, just like the C's management. 
Good lord!! 
I call this syndrome DonZimmeritis in memory of my least favorite Red sox manager ever. 
Might have to change it to DannyAingitis, kinda sounds like angina, which is what I feel in my chest every time we have this discussion. 
I know, let's trade away everything that's working!!! :dead: 

I think they should dump Blount, Lafrentz and Scalabrine. The question is, who wants them? 
We overpaid grossly for LaFrentz and Scalabrine, and to a lesser degree Blount. 
For pete's sake, lets keep Davis and Pierce.


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

DWest Superstar said:


> Sauce is slang for source


so how about we stop w/ the ridiculous rumors and not use slang like sauce for source?!?


----------



## Richie Rich (May 23, 2003)

cgcatsfan said:


> They're on the sauce, just like the C's management.
> Good lord!!
> I call this syndrome DonZimmeritis in memory of my least favorite Red sox manager ever.
> Might have to change it to DannyAingitis, kinda sounds like angina, which is what I feel in my chest every time we have this discussion.
> ...


Keep: Davis, Pierce, West, Perk, Jeff, Gomes, Green, Allen
Tradeable: Blount, LaFrentz, Reed, Banks, Scal, Greene


Edit: RYAN GOMES IS 250 LBS! I did not realize this...


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Richie Rich said:


> Keep: Davis, Pierce, West, Perk, Jeff, Gomes, Green, Allen
> Tradeable: Blount, LaFrentz, Reed, Banks, Scal, Greene
> 
> 
> Edit: RYAN GOMES IS 250 LBS! I did not realize this...


"Tradeable" and "would like to see traded" are not the same thing.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

the only real expandable, tradable player on your list is Banks he is the only one teams would want


----------



## lolac101 (Jun 23, 2005)

Banks is a unrestricted free agent by the end of the season. What team is dumb enough to trade for him when they could just sign him by the end of the season? He's nothing special right now and won't bring any immediate help to anyone. Doubt anyteam interested in having banks on their team would have a problem waiting.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

lolac101 said:


> Banks is a unrestricted free agent by the end of the season. What team is dumb enough to trade for him when they could just sign him by the end of the season? He's nothing special right now and won't bring any immediate help to anyone. Doubt anyteam interested in having banks on their team would have a problem waiting.


have you ever heard of making trades to dump salary? which is what would happen if as team traded for Banks and does not want him long term, but only to dump a player who they don't want to pay (as long as the numbers work)

What an uneducated post


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

DWest Superstar said:


> have you ever heard of making trades to dump salary? which is what would happen if as team traded for Banks and does not want him long term, but only to dump a player who they don't want to pay (as long as the numbers work)
> 
> What an uneducated post


Banks is a young guy, you don't drop salaries with young guys...not to mention he makes 1.7 million...which can not even get them Veal...


----------



## LX (Oct 14, 2004)

DWest Superstar said:


> What an uneducated post


:rofl:

The sheer irony of you saying someone else's post is uneducated enduces side splitting laughter.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> Banks is a young guy, you don't drop salaries with young guys...not to mention he makes 1.7 million...which can not even get them Veal...


I'm not talking about US dropping salaries I was talking about other teams


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Pierce is not the problem. And I have yet to see a _realistic _ trade rumor/offer/dream involving Pierce that will improve the Celtics. Trading Pierce to "dump salaries" to me also does not make sense. It's cutting off your head to lose weight. Among other things you need to field a team that people want to watch and buy tickets for. The Celtics are not like the Sox - and the "Garden" is not like Fenway - if the team is not at least exciting people will not go. I was around for the 15 win season. For the most part it was like a HS crowd at the Fleet in terms of the # of people there. Sad. 

I am officially on the "Adios Doc" bandwagon.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

DWest Superstar said:


> I'm not talking about US dropping salaries I was talking about other teams


That's what I was talking about. What will anyone do with 1.7 dollars in salary space (the team we trade Banks to?)


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

Just throwing out something to see who the real homers are here.

Pierce straight up for the Matrix.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

Was also playing around with the trade checker and saw this worked. I know people would cry bloody murder over this deal, but I don't think it's awful depending on whether you could sign the young guys to longer term deals.

Pierce
Davis
Allen
Banks

for

Tim Thomas
Kirk Hinrich
Ben Gordon
Luol Deng

Line-up of the future:
Hinrich
West
Deng
Jefferson
Perkins

Gordon/G. Green


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> That's what I was talking about. What will anyone do with 1.7 dollars in salary space (the team we trade Banks to?)


Banks is a FA and the other team can dump a long term contract like Veal (similar) that they don't want


----------



## Metsfan619 (Oct 24, 2005)

Has anonye have a idea what team he might be traded to ?


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

Metsfan619 said:


> Has anonye have a idea what team he might be traded to ?


The Mets


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Just throwing out something to see who the real homers are here.
> 
> Pierce straight up for the Matrix.


Neither team does it. 

Boston's perspective - Pierce is the #1 option on this team and can create his own shot and make things happen on offense. Everybody rants and raves about how Marion scores 20 without plays run for him - why do you think that is? He is an average shooter who cannot create his own shot who scores on putbacks and setups from Nash, mainly. We don't have a PG who can make Marion look as good as he does in Phoenix. He would be a huge step up both on defense and rebounding, however, but this team will _not_ get better with Shawn Marion. Not a chance. Ricky Davis suddenly becomes the #1 option and the only guy on the court who can consistently generate offense on his own. You folks need to understand that Marion is a role player. A great one, but he's not going to lead a team and carry the load the way Pierce does. Too often Marion will put up 20/10 but he rarely can impact the game in the way Pierce can. If you think only a homer wouldn't trade Pierce for Marion straight up, well...I don't know what to tell you because you obviously didn't think that through.

Phoenix doesn't do it because Marion is a perfect fit and does everything he needs to.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

DWest Superstar said:


> Banks is a FA and the other team can dump a long term contract like Veal (similar) that they don't want


That's what we need, to trade away young guys and get long fat *** contracts...Blount, Raef and Veal aren't enough I guess.


----------



## Chaos (Feb 25, 2005)

Delontes Herpes said:


> I honestly don't see how this might improve the team, and unless he pulls in something like Josh Howard + Marquis Daniels i'll be pissed.


And that won't happen. You might be able to get Daniels, but Howard isn't going anywhere.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> You might be able to get Daniels, but Howard isn't going anywhere.


Paul Pierce is already the player Josh Howard hopes to be someday. I see Harris as more untouchable than Howard. But why compromise your future in any way when you're already contenders?


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

I love Josh Howard


----------



## Chaos (Feb 25, 2005)

P-Dub34 said:


> Paul Pierce is already the player Josh Howard hopes to be someday. I see Harris as more untouchable than Howard. But why compromise your future in any way when you're already contenders?


Pierce isnt close to the defender Howard is. The Mavs need Howard's defense much more than they need Pierce's offense. If the Celtics would take a package centered around Daniels or Van Horn, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But Howard isn't going anywhere.


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

Chaos said:


> Pierce isnt close to the defender Howard is. The Mavs need Howard's defense much more than they need Pierce's offense. If the Celtics would take a package centered around Daniels or Van Horn, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But Howard isn't going anywhere.


Are you saying Pierce can't play D?


----------



## Chaos (Feb 25, 2005)

DWest Superstar said:


> Are you saying Pierce can't play D?


I said he's not the defensive player Howard is. And Howard is only making about $850,000 this year.


----------



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

> Pierce isnt close to the defender Howard is.


Josh Howard isn't close to the basketball player Pierce is.



> The Mavs need Howard's defense much more than they need Pierce's offense.


If you are saying the Mavs wouldn't be a better team with Pierce instead of Howard, you're nuts.  Pierce is not a liability on defense, he isn't as good as Josh, but he's better in every other aspect of basketball. Except for the defense, Pierce already is the player Josh Howard can MAYBE be someday. Which isn't to say that Howard isn't a very good player in his own respect, but the Mavericks stand a better shot at an NBA title with Pierce on the team than Howard.



> If the Celtics would take a package centered around Daniels or Van Horn


No.



> I wouldn't have a problem with it. But Howard isn't going anywhere.


I guess I don't blame you. Already such a good team and keeping those young guys will be good. But understand this - if you swap Pierce with Howard, the Dallas Mavericks are unquestionably a better basketball squad.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

PatBateman said:


> Was also playing around with the trade checker and saw this worked. I know people would cry bloody murder over this deal, but I don't think it's awful depending on whether you could sign the young guys to longer term deals.


I don't like this deal at all.

A better Pierce to Chicago trade would be Pierce for Duhon, Deng, Chicago's '07 first-round selection and New York's '07 first-round selection (Chicago has the right to choose whether they want New York's '06 or '07 first from the Eddy Curry trade). Chicago would have to acquire a large expiring contract to make this deal satisfy the provisions of the CBA [this potential deal would be at the opening of the off-season]. I don't want Pierce traded before a weak draft.


----------



## Chaos (Feb 25, 2005)

P-Dub34 said:


> If you are saying the Mavs wouldn't be a better team with Pierce instead of Howard, you're nuts. Pierce is not a liability on defense, he isn't as good as Josh, but he's better in every other aspect of basketball. Except for the defense, Pierce already is the player Josh Howard can MAYBE be someday. Which isn't to say that Howard isn't a very good player in his own respect, but the Mavericks stand a better shot at an NBA title with Pierce on the team than Howard.


As I said, the Mavs need defense more than they need offense. Pierce is a great player(and a player I'd love to have), make no mistake about it. But Howard is just a better fit for this team than Pierce.




P-Dub34 said:


> No.


Hence the 'if'. I'd love to have Pierce in Dallas, so long as it doesn't come at the expense of Howard or Harris.



P-Dub34 said:


> I guess I don't blame you. Already such a good team and keeping those young guys will be good. But understand this - if you swap Pierce with Howard, the Dallas Mavericks are unquestionably a better basketball squad.


And this is where we disagree. They might be better offensively, but they'd get worse defensively. They don't need anymore offense.


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

P-Dub's right...if they traded howard for pierce straight up (I realize this isn't possible, but for the sake of argument) they become a better team. Reason it however you want with "who's a better fit," but Pierce is a significantly better player and he makes the Mavs a better team...they ain't gonna win the title with what they got, but they have a shot if they add an all-star like Pierce.

IF the Mavericks want Pierce (I have no idea if they do) they would need to at least give up harris or howard and include daniels as well.

Premier, I like your idea...Oden's the type of player that you need to win a championship and even if the C's miss out on him they'd still have green, jefferson, deng, duhon, and many other high draft picks to build on...what year is Mayo eligible? If he's eligible the same year as Oden, that makes that idea even more tempting.


----------



## Chaos (Feb 25, 2005)

Delontes Herpes said:


> P-Dub's right...if they traded howard for pierce straight up (I realize this isn't possible, but for the sake of argument) they become a better team. Reason it however you want with "who's a better fit," but Pierce is a significantly better player and he makes the Mavs a better team...


Again, he makes them a better offensive team(although he wouldn't get the same number of shots as he does in Boston), but a worse defensive team. For years, the Mavs were the best offensive team in the league but couldn't stop anyone. Now they are a vastly improved defensive team and still a very good offensive team. Why should they trade their best defensive player for an offensive player that they really don't need?



Delontes Herpes said:


> they ain't gonna win the title with what they got, but they have a shot if they add an all-star like Pierce.


Unless that all-star is named Ron Artest, they don't need another all-star caliber player. They need to get(and stay) healthy and continue to learn Avery Johnson's system. They don't need to go trading for a player they don't need.



Delontes Herpes said:


> IF the Mavericks want Pierce (I have no idea if they do) they would need to at least give up harris or howard and include daniels as well.


Good luck with that one. Thats almost like asking Boston to give up Ricky Davis and Gerald Green for Jerry Stackhouse. I know you wouldnt do that.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Mayo will be in the '08 or '09 draft but the '07 draft is closer and from the looks of it, stronger. For my scenario to work, the Bulls must acquire an expiring contract though Tim Thomas might work if the trade is completed before the contract officially expires.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Chaos said:


> Good luck with that one. Thats almost like asking Boston to give up Ricky Davis and Gerald Green for Jerry Stackhouse. I know you wouldnt do that.


No...it isn't.

For one, Ricky Davis is a much better player than Stackhouse.

Secondly, he is younger and his contract is reasonable.

Lastly, Gerald Green is still an exciting prospect. This comparison is just wrong.


----------



## Chaos (Feb 25, 2005)

Premier said:


> No...it isn't.
> 
> For one, Ricky Davis is a much better player than Stackhouse.
> 
> ...


My mistake...I meant to say Delonte West and Green for Stackhouse. Not sure how I ended up putting Davis in there(the fact that its 1:30 am here might have something to do with it). Point is, the Mavs won't be dealing Howard anytime soon. You can keep Pierce and stay well below .500 and we'll keep Howard and Harris and stay with the 3rd best record in the NBA.


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

Pierce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stackhouse

Is Howard going anywhere? I highly doubt it. I'm sure the Mavs will tell you that he's "untouchable." But he's not Lebron/Wade/Amare/D Howard untouchable...a player who is currently better than he'll ever be should pry him loose. If I'm a Mavs fan, and Ainge called up the Mavs' GM and offered Pierce + Dickau for KVH + Howard + a bucket of KFC chicken and the Mavs GM said no, i would eat my hat. As P-Dub said, Pierce is better player than what the Mavs hope Howard will someday be. Anyway it's pointless to discuss this potential trade because I didn't even get it from an unreliable source, I made it up 5 mins before I started this thread.

Premier- would Chicago have enough cap room to pull of the trade without sending back an expiring deal? I think they might. And wouldn't that get Boston a trade exception? I think it might.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Chaos said:


> Again, he makes them a better offensive team(although he wouldn't get the same number of shots as he does in Boston), but a worse defensive team. For years, the Mavs were the best offensive team in the league but couldn't stop anyone. Now they are a vastly improved defensive team and still a very good offensive team. Why should they trade their best defensive player for an offensive player that they really don't need?
> 
> 
> Unless that all-star is named Ron Artest, they don't need another all-star caliber player. They need to get(and stay) healthy and continue to learn Avery Johnson's system. They don't need to go trading for a player they don't need.
> ...



Chaos, to me it sounds like that Howard is the only guy who plays defense on the Mavs and the he stops all five opposing players at the same time.

Also, if you're going to argue about Pierce's shooting, it should be known that he puts up about 14-16 shots per game. Which compared to other wing players, is not a lot.


----------



## Chaos (Feb 25, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> Chaos, to me it sounds like that Howard is the only guy who plays defense on the Mavs and the he stops all five opposing players at the same time.


Obviously thats not true. However, he is easily the best defensive player the Mavericks have, and manages to put up 15 points a game despite being at best the 3rd option on offense and never having any plays run for him.



aquaitious said:


> Also, if you're going to argue about Pierce's shooting, it should be known that he puts up about 14-16 shots per game. Which compared to other wing players, is not a lot.


Pierce takes 17.7 shot a game. As I have said, I'd love to have him on the Mavs, as long as its for a package centered around a combination of Daniels/KVH/picks. If thats not enough, then we'll gladly keep our players and you guys can keep Pierce. I fail to see why the Celtics would want to deal him anyways. Dont you guys already have enough young players?


----------



## DWest Superstar (Jun 30, 2005)

> My mistake...I meant to say Delonte West and Green for Stackhouse.


Que? are you kidding?

And you said Pierce for howard was a bad deal for you


----------



## Chaos (Feb 25, 2005)

DWest Superstar said:


> Que? are you kidding?


It was a hypothetical comparison, not a real proposal or anything.



DWest Superstar said:


> And you said Pierce for howard was a bad deal for you


And I stick by that. Makes the Mavs better offensively, but worse defensively. Dont need that. Now we're just going in circles.


----------



## KingHandles (Mar 19, 2005)

Haha...No

You may lose some defensive intenisty, but Pierce is going to hold down a star player like J-Rich, Rip or Redd, for 48 minutes, better then Howard ever will be able to.

I wouldn't trade P2 for anyone on the Mavericks, yes anyone, no typo. Unless your going to package something incredible.


----------



## Chaos (Feb 25, 2005)

KingHandles said:


> You may lose some defensive intenisty, but Pierce is going to hold down a star player like J-Rich, Rip or Redd, for 48 minutes, better then Howard ever will be able to.


I highly, highly doubt that.



KingHandles said:


> I wouldn't trade P2 for anyone on the Mavericks, yes anyone, no typo. Unless your going to package something incredible.


Good for you. You keep him and continue to play .400 basketball, and we'll keep all of our young talent and continue to have the 3rd best record in the NBA and contend for a championship.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Delontes Herpes said:


> Premier- would Chicago have enough cap room to pull of the trade without sending back an expiring deal? I think they might. And wouldn't that get Boston a trade exception? I think it might.


Not until after July 1st. However, to make a deal like that, Boston would _only_ be allowed to take back picks. And Chicago would only have one to deal, the rights to New York's 2007 #1. Is that really the best they can do for Pierce?


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

I don't want Ben Gordon so I don't like that proposed Chicago deal unless it's Hinrich , Deng & NY's first rounder and why would Chicago do that?
As for Marion, I love him but yeah, we'd need a great PG to go with him or another great scorer, by himself we don't get better.


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> Not until after July 1st. However, to make a deal like that, Boston would _only_ be allowed to take back picks. And Chicago would only have one to deal, the rights to New York's 2007 #1. Is that really the best they can do for Pierce?


make 2 separate deals then:

1) pierce for pick(s) + exception
2) scals +dickau for duhon + deng (or trade just blount, or s&t banks)

that would work, wouldn't it?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Possibly, but who's to say that Paxson doesn't renege on B after A's complete? Besides, Paxson's stingy. He isn't interested in really dealing anyone. Pierce will be a Celtic until the offseason, I think. And Boston will revisit the trade market then (so long as Boston doesn't get stuck with Morrisson I'll be happy).


----------



## tdk1984 (May 9, 2005)

*groan*


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> 2) scals +dickau for duhon + deng (or trade just blount, or s&t banks)


That's a nice even trade right there, seeing how onesided it is, the Bulls would throw in Hinrich for free.



> A better Pierce to Chicago trade would be Pierce for Duhon, Deng, Chicago's '07 first-round selection and New York's '07 first-round selection (Chicago has the right to choose whether they want New York's '06 or '07 first from the Eddy Curry trade). Chicago would have to acquire a large expiring contract to make this deal satisfy the provisions of the CBA [this potential deal would be at the opening of the off-season]. I don't want Pierce traded before a weak draft.


First of all, I don't see Chicago parting with two young players to get Pierce.
Also you've misunderstood the pick situation.
The Bulls will have the 2006 first round pick from New York providing that the Knicks aren't in the top 5 and also if the Spurs don't finish in the bottom 5. So its basically the Bulls pick, as both are extremely unlikely.
Now for 2007 the Bulls possess the right to do a pick swap.


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

EDIT: double post


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> Possibly, but who's to say that Paxson doesn't renege on B after A's complete? Besides, Paxson's stingy. He isn't interested in really dealing anyone. Pierce will be a Celtic until the offseason, I think. And Boston will revisit the trade market then (so long as Boston doesn't get stuck with Morrisson I'll be happy).


i think that's how a lot of trades that involve exceptions work...wasn't the francis to orlando deal 3 different trades all pulled off at once (or within a second of each other)?

ditto on adam morrison, i don't want to see him in green.


----------



## Delontes Herpes (May 11, 2005)

step said:


> That's a nice even trade right there, seeing how onesided it is, the Bulls would throw in Hinrich for free.


trades 1+2 go hand in hand...dickau and scalabrine just make the salaries work.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Pierce, Scalabrine and Dickau for Deng, Duhon
:rofl:


----------



## joshuamikey (Jan 6, 2006)

A Pierce trade will be Ainges best move to date. Pierce is overrated by fans for some reason. Maybe because their isn't much to cheer for. He is hindering the development of the young Cetics into a powerful transition team. The sooner the better.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

joshuamikey said:


> A Pierce trade will be Ainges best move to date. Pierce is overrated by fans for some reason. Maybe because their isn't much to cheer for. He is hindering the development of the young Cetics into a powerful transition team. The sooner the better.


Yeah, a team of Perkins-Jefferson-Gomes-Green-West will scare anybody....


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

aquaitious said:


> Yeah, a team of Perkins-Jefferson-Gomes-Green-West will scare anybody....


On the bright side it would give the Celtics the inside track on breaking the 76ers single-season victory record and a primo-shot at Greg Oden. :bsmile:


----------



## tdk1984 (May 9, 2005)

If he goes to Chi-town, can we get both Hinrich and Gordon (or at least Gordon anyway) in return?


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> Yeah, a team of Perkins-Jefferson-Gomes-Green-West will scare anybody....


Scares me.


----------



## tdk1984 (May 9, 2005)

No offense to you, but you strike me as a "scaredy cat".


----------



## tdk1984 (May 9, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> On the bright side it would give the Celtics the inside track on breaking the 76ers single-season victory record and a primo-shot at Greg Oden. :bsmile:


No can do. We've already won more than 9 games.


----------



## cgcatsfan (Jun 10, 2005)

joshuamikey said:


> A Pierce trade will be Ainges best move to date. Pierce is overrated by fans for some reason. Maybe because their isn't much to cheer for. He is hindering the development of the young Cetics into a powerful transition team. The sooner the better.


I'm sorry, Pierce is hindering the development of the young Celtics?!? (Sorry couldn't bring myself to misspell the team name)

:krazy: 

That would be Doc Rivers....

As for Pierce being overrated, maybe you should check his stats........


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

tdk1984 said:


> No can do. We've already won more than 9 games.


I think he's talking about 2006/07...


----------



## tdk1984 (May 9, 2005)

aquaitious said:


> I think he's talking about 2006/07...


oh. My bad.


----------



## tdk1984 (May 9, 2005)

cgcatsfan said:


> I'm sorry, Pierce is hindering the development of the young Celtics?!? (Sorry couldn't bring myself to misspell the team name)
> 
> :krazy:
> 
> ...


I'm thinking he's not a C's fan cg...


----------



## cgcatsfan (Jun 10, 2005)

tdk1984 said:


> I'm thinking he's not a C's fan cg...


 :rofl: 

Maybe not even a basketball fan........
Repped.


----------



## tdk1984 (May 9, 2005)

cgcatsfan said:


> :rofl:
> 
> Maybe not even a basketball fan........
> Repped.


Thanks. I'll return the favor.


----------



## whiterhino (Jun 15, 2003)

tdk1984 said:


> If he goes to Chi-town, can we get both Hinrich and Gordon (or at least Gordon anyway) in return?


No thanx on Gordon, he's overated and one dimensional, he shoots a low % and he's been struggling this season. I'd take Hinrich & or Deng over Gordon in any trade at ALL times, I'd take Duhon over Gordon too.


----------



## tdk1984 (May 9, 2005)

oh. As long as we get Hinrich.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Duhon + Deng, please.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

tdk1984 said:


> No can do. We've already won more than 9 games.


Not in 2006-07 we haven't. And starting Perkins/Jefferson/Gomes/Green/West we'd definitely threaten that nine victory mark.



whiterhino said:


> No thanx on Gordon, he's overated and one dimensional, he shoots a low % and he's been struggling this season. I'd take Hinrich & or Deng over Gordon in any trade at ALL times, I'd take Duhon over Gordon too.


He's Ricky Davis' Minime.


----------



## cgcatsfan (Jun 10, 2005)

ehmunro said:


> Not in 2006-07 we haven't. And starting Perkins/Jefferson/Gomes/Green/West we'd definitely threaten that nine victory mark.
> He's Ricky Davis' Minime.


If he is, that would work for me.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

errrr, Paul Pierce for a 6'2" Ricky Davis Lite? No thanks. Gordon plays the exact same position as Davis & Allen while taking a huge bite out of Boston's rebounding,


----------



## LX (Oct 14, 2004)

ehmunro said:


> errrr, Paul Pierce for a 6'2" Ricky Davis Lite? No thanks. Gordon plays the exact same position as Davis & Allen while taking a huge bite out of Boston's rebounding,


Passing, defense, scoring etc.....

Gordon is the black version of Steve Kerr, not good at anything except hoisting up 3s. (And he shoots probably 3 times as much as Kerr did)

Maybe a better comparison would be Ricky Pierce...


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Much like Ricky, Ben can defend when he wants to, and is a serviceable passer. Ricky Pierce, on the other hand, was Milwaukee's point forward, and a much better player than either Davis or Gordon.


----------



## LX (Oct 14, 2004)

ehmunro said:


> Much like Ricky, Ben can defend when he wants to, and is a serviceable passer. Ricky Pierce, on the other hand, was Milwaukee's point forward, and a much better player than either Davis or Gordon.


I'll take your word for it. I just used Ricky Pierce as a stastical comparison. I never got to see him play, but from what I understand he was instant offense off the bench. Thanks for the clarification though.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Oh, Pierce could light it up, no doubt. But part of that was Don Nelson's offensive set in Milwaukee, a set that produced a lot of open shots for his perimeter players.


----------

