# bulls' (potential) offer for iverson



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

I didn't see this posted anywhere so i copied from realgm.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/sports/16211168.htm



> What matters is that at least nine teams from the Eastern Conference called the Sixers yesterday. What matters is that Dallas, Chicago and the Clippers have potential deals the Sixers should want.
> 
> King's imagination can capitalize on potential deals with Minnesota, Boston, Denver, Sacramento or Golden State if any of those teams are willing to play ball. His knack for politics may even position him to pull off a heist with Chicago or Dallas. Perhaps the biggest plus of all is that King and the Sixers are no longer concerned with the 6-foot guard out of Georgetown who said, "As hard as it may be to admit, a change may be the best thing for everyone."
> 
> ...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Edited thread title for accuracy


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I'd DEFININTELY do that deal..but are they talking about THIS pick in the upcoming draft? I'd protect the pick if it's top 5.

G Hinrich / Duhon
G Iverson / Sefolosha
F Deng / Nocioni
F Thomas / Khyrapa
C Wallace / Allen

= NBA FINALS


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Not hard to imagine Hinrich dribbling out the clock and getting it to AI with :04 left to shoot.​


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I cant see iverson coming here. Practice man, Practice.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The ROY said:


> I'd DEFININTELY do that deal..but are they talking about THIS pick in the upcoming draft? I'd protect the pick if it's top 5.
> 
> G Hinrich / Duhon
> G Iverson / Sefolosha
> ...


I agree that the pick needs to be protected. Everyone, including Paxson, should have learned from the Curry trade how stupid it is to trade unprotected lottery picks.

Thomas and Khryapa would have to step up their games big time. The Bulls would be playing without their only inside post-up threat and a good backup center as well as Gordon this year and any chance of drafting a good young big next summer. They would also have lost the "cap flexibility" that they "gained" in the Chandler trade.

It also means that either they would probably not resign Nocioni unless cheapskate Jerry is willing to risk a luxury tax when it comes time to resign Deng.

Still, if Philly is willing to do this trade, and Jerry is willing to spend some money this is a go.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Lottery protect the pick for this year and unprotected in 2008 and I'd love that deal from the Bulls perspective. If the Knicks happen to turn it around or win the Atlantic (with what looks to be a losing record) and are not in the lottery, that pick swap isn't a valuable commodity anyways...

Brown and Sweetney would not be a great loss. Khryapa can give us what Brown does - although possibly in a different manner. Sweetney really isn't giving us much and I'd like to see what Marty can do... Losing Gordon would kinda stink, but Iverson does what Gordon is supposed to, but he does it every night on a consistant basis. The inclusion of the pick should entice the Sixers and I wonder if they'd consider the deal even without the pick (Brown, Sweetney, Gordon - cap relief and a young gun to replace Iverson).

I may surprise some folks but I think Iverson would fit in nicely here. I've read a lot about his clashing with Skiles. It's definatly possible. I believe Skiles respects how Iverson plays the game. 110% every night. I also think Iverson would flourish in a motion offense like the Bulls. He's 10 assists waiting to happen every night. He's that quick guard that this team lacks in truly being able to break a defense down and get open looks for shooters (read hinrich and noce) and cutters (read Deng and Thomas). Iverson wants to win and he knows he's not going anywhere in Philly. I think he'd be very happy here because he's got teammates who'd play hard and who defend and can hit shots when they're open.

I wouldn't give up anything more than what was suggested in the article for him; but if that's the asking price I'd hit it quick before King changes his mind. Try and get a deal done without any pick, lottery protect it if necessary. Anything more and you'd have to pass...


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Trade Kirk for Iggy and let the commitee of Du, BG and Thabo handle the PG position.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Not hard to imagine Hinrich dribbling out the clock and getting it to AI with :04 left to shoot.​


Hinrich does absolutely nothing on the floor but hurt talented players around him to selfishly inflate his own ego.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I've said before that I think Iverson, as much as I like him, is a bad fit in Chicago.

But if you can acquire him for that package, especially with some protection on the 2007 pick, then you have to do it.

If it goes south, he's only got two more years on his deal, which in the era of expiring contracts is actually only one year due to the trade value it will have in 08-09. 

And the Bulls retain Thabo, Hinrich, Wallace, Duhon, Nocioni, Deng and Thomas for the future. 

The only bird in hand given up is replaced by a player who is 5x as good. At this price, its a risk worth taking. I just can't imagine that this is the best Philly can do.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Not hard to imagine Hinrich dribbling out the clock and getting it to AI with :04 left to shoot.​


But just imagine what a boost Iverson would be off the bench !


----------



## Mark_R (May 1, 2006)

Ron Cey said:


> I've said before that I think Iverson, as much as I like him, is a bad fit in Chicago.
> 
> But if you can acquire him for that package, especially with some protection on the 2007 pick, then you have to do it.
> 
> ...


I think it depends on what Philly is looking for. There is no commitment to Brown or Sweetney following this season which gives them a ton of money to throw at a guy like Chauncey Billups or Rashard Lewis (contingent on what their draft looks like. If they get Durant, Lewis would be a bad fit.) The deal would almost ensure that they would suck for the rest of this season. They'd have a nice young player who won't be a future max player, two non commitals for next season (It'd be somewhere around 15 million, IIRC) to go into full fledged rebuilding mode. 

I think the Bulls' offer (no 07 pick) is as good as any team can offer from a long term standpoint for the Sixers.

Unfortunately, Billy King is a moron, so he'll probably get Francis, Q Rich, and Nate Robinson. Or something like that.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

*damn cheesedoodles*

So is this something Screamin A thought up or is it legit?


We might have to give up Duhon too if we want to give AI any chance of starting


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

If Gordon is on the inactive list tonight the deal is going down. If not, then probably not. So we won't have long to wait to find out.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

why do we have to include the pick for any trade? Given the situation, Gordon and cap should do the trick.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

McBulls said:


> If Gordon is on the inactive list tonight the deal is going down. If not, then probably not. So we won't have long to wait to find out.


True. And I hope it does happen. I believe Iverson is the final piece to our team. Sure we could land KG, but we would have no one around him after we trade all our chips to Minny.

I'll be pissed if a deal does not go down, especially if this year's pick is lottery protected or it is the 2008 pick we are sending.

If this deal does not go down because of Skiles Ego, we will never win. Pax and Skiles should be shown the door. For any other superstar, we would have to gut the team.

This deal may also not go down due to Billy King choosing a dumber offer. 

Things I would change about the trade:
Get Alan Henderson back (expiring deal) if we are losing Sweets. I would rather keep Sweets and add another player. Tyrus better be ready to step up, we will need him. 

Random Question: Does Duhon's contract expire next year (07-08 season)?


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

We'd need a big back in this deal. There's no other way to look at it. We can't trade a big and our pick that's supposed to fill a long-term need for a big and get back only 5-10 Allen Iverson.

I like Dalembert, but I have a feeling he'd stay in Philly as part of their New Core. Shavlik and Steven Hunter, while solid, are less exciting.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I still have a major problem trading a 23 year old with a lot of potential, for a 31 year old who's been around the world about 1000 times and is always beat to hell. If Iverson could play at a high lvl for quite a while, and Ben never progresses, it'd be a great trade, as long as the 1st rounder included wasn't a lottery from the coming draft, or it was a future pick (no need to protect cause if we had Iverson with the current team no way it'd be a lottery pick IMO....but wouldn't hurt to be safe lol). The thing to keep in mind here, is we won't be picking high again for quite a while most likely, cause we're pretty good, and the East is so weak we'll most definitely make the playoffs...and most star players (99.9999% come in the top few picks, not med to late 1st). So if we do the trade, where are we going to get a star SG at, or even a really good one, once Iverson is done? He won't be around long IMO, and I prefer to think long term.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

PD said:


> why do we have to include the pick for any trade? Given the situation, Gordon and cap should do the trick.


Dream on. It won't do the trick because another team will be able to easily beat it. 

Hell, I don't even think Philly would do it with the pick protected, let alone no pick at all.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> But just imagine what a boost Iverson would be off the bench !


If he starts out 0-4, will he be riding the pine until Q4? Love watching Du play!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I still have a major problem trading a 23 year old with a lot of potential, for a 31 year old who's been around the world about 1000 times and is always beat to hell.


I don't. Not when the team is trying to contend and the rest of the roster is stacked with young talent - two of which are guards who can play the 2. 



> So if we do the trade, where are we going to get a star SG at, or even a really good one, once Iverson is done?


Where are we going to get a star SG at even if we don't do the trade? 



> He won't be around long IMO, and I prefer to think long term.


The beauty of this particular deal is that me still retain almost the entirety of the young core, while bolstering it in the short term with Wallace and Iverson.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> If he starts out 0-4, will he be riding the pine until Q4? Love watching Du play!


Both of your posts in this thread - a thread that contains otherwise intelligent discussion - are worthless bait.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Joe Johnson got a surprise (to me) DNP on my fantasy team last night. I hadn't heard he was injured until after the game.

It could be legit, or maybe Atlanta wanted to entertain a Johnson for Iverson swap as priciples.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't. Not when the team is trying to contend and the rest of the roster is stacked with young talent - two of which are guards who can play the 2.
> 
> 
> Where are we going to get a star SG at even if we don't do the trade?
> ...


I don't know how to do the individual quote-reply thing you did, so this will have to suffice.

Would you rather have a Lamborghini for 3 years, and then stuck walking, or drive a Corvette for the next 10 years? That's really what it's all about. Lamborghini and then nothing, or a lesser sportscar for a long time? I don't like walking, so I'll stick with the Corvette, and hope I can modify it into a Corvette Z06, or Callaway Corvette (hotter versions)..and the Callaway is comparable to the Lamborghini.

Ok, let me rephrase that. When are we going to get one as good as Lil Ben, once AI is done if we end up making the trade? Lil Ben is a stud, at times. If he could develop consistency, he'd be the answer long term IMO. 23 is damn young, so he could still improve greatly.

The only way this deal would work well long-term, is if Sefolosha was able to become a quality starting SG to replace AI when he's done. I wouldn't mind the trade, cause we would retain the core except Gordon, but I think eventually we will regret it if we don't win a few championships with Iverson. SG would be a weakness after he's gone, as it is now to a lesser extent.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> If he starts out 0-4, will he be riding the pine until Q4? Love watching Du play!


Come on DaBullz, Skiles doesn't do anything without a reason. Iverson would be benched because of his inconsistency.


----------



## ExtremeBrigs (Jul 20, 2006)

From everything I've heard, Iverson is inactive for tonight and has been told by the team to stay home. He will not play again in a Sixers uniform.

King believes that the best offers for Iverson come early (there was a HUGE lull in the Artest trade offers after Indy passed on some pretty good stuff early on. Peja was a gift considering the crushed value of Artest by that point). Many think he could be moved by tonight, if not by tomorrow.

As for the Bulls... he fits. He does every night what Ben Gordon does only part of the time. He gets pounded, but he plays through injuries, so it shouldn't be a big problem. If Ivo can come as cheap as BG, PJ, Sweets, and a pick, that's one you've got a jump on. Honestly, that's about 75 cents on the dollar. Would you buy a $100 bill for 75 bucks?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Both of your posts in this thread - a thread that contains otherwise intelligent discussion - are worthless bait.


Your post is utter BS. My posts are based upon history and witnessing the MO of the organization. Clearly others agree.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ExtremeBrigs said:


> From everything I've heard, Iverson is inactive for tonight and has been told by the team to stay home. He will not play again in a Sixers uniform.
> 
> King believes that the best offers for Iverson come early (there was a HUGE lull in the Artest trade offers after Indy passed on some pretty good stuff early on. Peja was a gift considering the crushed value of Artest by that point). Many think he could be moved by tonight, if not by tomorrow.
> 
> As for the Bulls... he fits. He does every night what Ben Gordon does only part of the time. He gets pounded, but he plays through injuries, so it shouldn't be a big problem. If Ivo can come as cheap as BG, PJ, Sweets, and a pick, that's one you've got a jump on. Honestly, that's about 75 cents on the dollar. Would you buy a $100 bill for 75 bucks?


The one thing that people haven't analyzed yet is what the economic impact of such a trade would be. Would we still be below the luxury tax threshold with AI's contract here next season and PJ's gone, plus Kirk's new deal and other new deals that have to be paid?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I still have a major problem trading a 23 year old with a lot of potential, for a 31 year old who's been around the world about 1000 times and is always beat to hell. If Iverson could play at a high lvl for quite a while, and Ben never progresses, it'd be a great trade, as long as the 1st rounder included wasn't a lottery from the coming draft, or it was a future pick (no need to protect cause if we had Iverson with the current team no way it'd be a lottery pick IMO....but wouldn't hurt to be safe lol). The thing to keep in mind here, is we won't be picking high again for quite a while most likely, cause we're pretty good, and the East is so weak we'll most definitely make the playoffs...and most star players (99.9999% come in the top few picks, not med to late 1st). So if we do the trade, where are we going to get a star SG at, or even a really good one, once Iverson is done? He won't be around long IMO, and I prefer to think long term.



Do you believe Gordon is the answer? Short term and Long term?

I don't ever see Gordon becoming a star. I don't see anyone on our team becoming a star. Solid role players? Yes. Possible sidekick? Prolly Deng. But that would be as a Sean Elliot-ish, not Scottie Pippen-ish. 

Iverson probably has a few good years in him and the same with Ben Wallace. In a trade like this, we have a legit shot at winning a title the next three years, and still retaining our core (minus Gordon). I can't see that as a bad deal. Especially since I doubt Gordon will explode. He has yet to prove his consistancy. Sure he can put up some points in a hurry, but the same with the bricks. You know you will get 30 + 7 with 12 FTA with Iverson, night in and night out. At worse you get 24 + 5 in a few years, which is still vastly superior to Gordon's production. Iverson put up 40+ points five striaght games his rookie year. You could tell he was going to be a star. I don't see it with Gordon. I would if he ADDED something to this game. But that is all talk. He works hard on the off-season on what? His already good shooting stroke? Why not use that muscle and learn to attack the rim, instead of a tear-drop.

With Iverson, we are getting the 3rd leading scorer (ppg) of all time. We are getting a guy who is ALL HEART. He may have the biggest heart in the NBA. A true warrior. Do you think his On-Court (the actual game, not practices), personality would rub onto the rest of our team? Hell Yes. Imagine wanting to fight the desires of Wallace, Noce, and Iverson. No team would want to face that. 

I don't see Gordon staying around long-term. I see him eventually being shipped out like Crawford. If we keep Gordon, I think we will regret it. He is not The Answer, or an answer to our problems. We rely on him, b/c he is our most gifted, but not amongst the league in putting the ball in the hoop. You could argue that guys like Kevin Martin and Monta Ellis are becoming more consistant. Until Gordon can put up 20ppg a night consistantly, I won't be a believer. And I don't see him doing this until he gets the courage to get to the FT line. 

Bring in AI. Championship contenders the next 3 years while retaining the bulk of our core?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I'm not sure I'd include a pick unless there was a lot of protection. Seriously, what is another team going to offer that beats Gordon and $12M in expiring contracts (Sweetney and PJ)?

The Celtics seem to be a front-runner, but they don't have any expiring contracts to offer... they can offer Ratliff, but he's under contract at $11.6M next year. *Thus, trading with the Bulls instead automatically saves the Sixers a lot of money*.

Second, look at the young players they are talking about offering. Telfair? Al Jefferson? Ick. Those guys haven't shown anything close to what Gordon has.

Third, I could be wrong, but I think since the Celtics traded their pick this past summer, they can't trade their 07 pick.

So it seems to me our hypothetical deal, even without including the pick, would make better sense for the Sixers than the Celtics deal I'm seeing.

I'd also consider trying to add Duhon in for us and having them give us Alan Henderson and Hunter (more cap relief) since we'll need something up front if we trade away PJ and Sweetney.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I'm about as big a Gordon supporter on the board, and even I would make a trade where Gordon (plus filler) for Iverson are the principles.

I absolutely disagree that with those who think Gordon won't blow up on the sixers though. He'd have far more free reign and wouldn't get benched if it takes him a few shots to get heated up.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> I'm about as big a Gordon supporter on the board, and even I would make a trade where Gordon (plus filler) for Iverson are the principles.
> 
> I absolutely disagree that with those who think Gordon won't blow up on the sixers though. He'd have far more free reign and wouldn't get benched if it takes him a few shots to get heated up.


I think he will blow up in Philly, but not here. B/c of the free reign he will be given. Skiles won't allow it here.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Third, I could be wrong, but I think since the Celtics traded their pick this past summer, they can't trade their 07 pick.


I'm pretty sure that clause stating you can't trade 1st round picks is always forward looking.

This probably isn't the best of explanations, but lets say Boston traded their '06 pick last season. If it were during last season, they would not be allowed to trade their '07 pick. However, now that the '06 draft has passed, they can trade their '07 pick unless they have already traded away their '08 first rounder.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> I'm not sure I'd include a pick unless there was a lot of protection. Seriously, what is another team going to offer that beats Gordon and $12M in expiring contracts (Sweetney and PJ)?


Fair point. 

Now, would you do it without the pick?

Would you do it with the pick?

If the pick were required, what would be your breaking point on protection, if any?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Your post is utter BS. My posts are based upon history and witnessing the MO of the organization. Clearly others agree.


Its uncanny how Hinrich's clock management and Skiles' use of Gordon is pertinent to virtually every topic on this board.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Fair point.
> 
> Now, would you do it without the pick?
> 
> ...


Top 10 for me. You could still land a 7 footer if you are in the top 10. I would aim for lottery-protected. If they did not do Top 10, *Top 5 is an absolute requirement.*

As someone mentioned in the other AI thread, this is our Rasheed Wallace Trade.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

If the Bulls were able to pull this off, I would be thrilled. AI is one of those guys who is somewhat enigmatic and a bit of a problem child, but you know 48 minutes a night he's going to give you everything he's got. 

BG + Pick (Top 5 protected) + Sweets + PJ (and Duhon if necessary)? Sign me up!

Hinrich/Sefolosha
AI/Sefolosha
Deng/Tyrus/Khryapa
Noc/Tyrus/Khryapa
Wallace/Malik

That team would definitely contend for a title if the chemistry worked.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

theanimal23 said:


> As someone mentioned in the other AI thread, this is our Rasheed Wallace Trade.


I'm not sure that it is. Rasheed Wallace filled an obvious team need for Detroit. 

Iverson gives us a "go to" scorer, but I frankly think that "need" is grossly overblown. 

That said, if you get a chance to acquire Allen Iverson while retaining Hinrich, Thabo, Tyrus, Chapu, Deng, and Wallace, I think you have to roll the dice and hope it works.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> If the Bulls were able to pull this off, I would be thrilled. AI is one of those guys who is somewhat enigmatic and a bit of a problem child, but you know 48 minutes a night he's going to give you everything he's got.
> 
> BG + Pick (Top 5 protected) + Sweets + PJ (and Duhon if necessary)? Sign me up!
> 
> ...



I think we absolutely need a big in return of a Iverson trade as well. Steven Hunter or Alan Henderson would be the likely candidates.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

theanimal23 said:


> Do you believe Gordon is the answer? Short term and Long term?
> 
> I don't ever see Gordon becoming a star. I don't see anyone on our team becoming a star. Solid role players? Yes. Possible sidekick? Prolly Deng. But that would be as a Sean Elliot-ish, not Scottie Pippen-ish.
> 
> ...


Well, I am on the fence about Gordon, just as I am about the proposed trade. Gordon's progression is really what it's all about. If he progresses into a consistent player, then it'd be a bad trade, and he'd be the answer. If he remains as he is, then no he isn't the answer and the trade would be a good thing. He does seem to be driving more this year when I've seen them play. But overall it still comes down to the question of if you wanna junk him for a short-term title run, or keep him and hope he progresses and is indeed the answer at SG in the long run. I've always been an Iverson fan, so I'd like to see him here, but with his age, mileage, injury history, AND his character issues, I see him as a big risk as well. I would under no circumstances trade the '07 1st rounder unless it was lottery protected though. Next year's draft might be very deep, with the whole lottery being quality players due to some staying in last year that could've been top picks, and the kids that should've been in the draft out of high school last year as well. I wouldn't give up one of them for a 31 year old.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Fair point.
> 
> Now, would you do it without the pick?
> 
> ...


Without the pick, yes, no question.

With the pick, that's tough. Or it's the 08 pick unprotected. This draft looks very good, and even though I actually think the Knicks end up in the 10-15 range, we'd be the world's biggest idiots if we ended up trading away even the slightest chance at Oden or Durant. The other guys are good, but those two show every sign of being absolute freaks of nature.

You know, in the process of writing this out, I think my conclusion is that I wouldn't feel very good giving up the pick. A top 2 protection is an absolute must. I'd still feel pretty stupid giving up a top 5 pick too.

Beyond that, I guess I still don't see Iverson as a guy we ought to give up that much for. Too much potential there for disaster in the first place.



rhyder said:


> I think we absolutely need a big in return of a Iverson trade as well. Steven Hunter or Alan Henderson would be the likely candidates.


Yup. I think Duhon would make some sense for them, and would probably fetch those guys in return.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I wonder if we would take part in a 3-team deal for AI. Reports said there were two or three 3-team deals on the table. The only way I would want in, in an offer like that is that we get a young player who can score inside, a la Jefferson with barely giving up any value (Sweets) etc. 

I do think we should go for the kill and get AI. But I wouldn't complain if we get a young player in this deal somehow. The chances of that happening are slim.

I hope we hear soon where AI goes, to get this over with.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Over 1000 posts on Iverson to Chicago trades and we haven't addressed a very pressing issue yet: Who gets to wear the #3 on the Bulls?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Over 1000 posts on Iverson to Chicago trades and we haven't addressed a very pressing issue yet: Who gets to wear the #3 on the Bulls?


They'll arm-wrestle for it. :bsmile:


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Over 1000 posts on Iverson to Chicago trades and we haven't addressed a very pressing issue yet: Who gets to wear the #3 on the Bulls?


I was thinking of that last night, but forgot about it by the time I finished writing what I was addressing at the time. Iverson would most likely not get #3 cause Big Ben was here already. #1 seems fitting for him IMO.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

I would replace Sweets with Khryapa/Marty and offer the 2008 pick unprotected if the Sixers don't get it in 2007.

Here is my trade proposal...

Bulls trade: PJ, Gordon, Khryapa, Marty, 2007 pick (top 8 protected, top 5 if it becomes a deal-breaker) and if they don't get our pick this year then they get it unprotected in 2008. 

Khryapa is a nice player but some of his actions on the court during our blowouts and his recent comments to the press make him come across as a constant whiner/complainer. I prefer to keep Sweets because he's a PF/C and Viktor is more of a SF/PF. 

I'm willing to give up our 2008 pick _unprotected_ because that would mean we kept our 2007 pick and added a top 8 or top 5 talent with it (Oden, Durant, Noah etc.) Even if Oden comes out in 2008, we would have zero chance of getting him anyway because we've just added another lotto talent to go along with Wallace, Iverson, Hinrich, Deng, Thomas & hopefully Nocioni. Holy crap that team would be loaded! Luxury tax be damned. :cheers: 

*note if my deal above doesn't work salary-wise, then replace Viktor/Marty with Sweets and I'm still fine with it as long as we get Randolph or Hunter in return. 

Sixers trade: Allen Iverson, Shavlik Randolph (or Hunter, but I prefer Shavlik). 

Bulls rotation...

C: Wallace, Allen, Randolph (or Hunter)
PF: Nocioni, Thomas (Sweets?)
SF: Deng, (Khryapa?), Griffin
SG: Iverson, Thabo
PG: Hinrich, Duhon

Fill up the rest of the roster with Luke/Marty/AD/Barrett. Who cares. We are still two deep at each position despite giving up more players than we get back.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

SALO said:


> I would replace Sweets with Khryapa/Marty and offer the 2008 pick unprotected if the Sixers don't get it in 2007.
> 
> Here is my trade proposal...
> 
> ...


I was thinking that Khryapa could be a nice player to add to the trade if Philadelphia balks at us protecting the pick or to add salary at getting a big in return.

However, I thought Shavlik broke his ankle.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Yeah Randolph broke his ankle but he's expected back in a few weeks. A broken ankle is better than a badly sprained one. He's also on the books for $2M over 2 years. Cheaper than Viktor's deal, plus he's 6'11" and can score. Another "hustle" guy but he does have skills, and oh yeah he's 6'11" 

edit: Just went over the thread at RealGM and some of those guys are saying Randolph is done for the year. So scratch that idea.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

From ESPN.COM:

_Another team that can't be totally dismissed is the New York Knicks, who are in the unique position of being able to take back both Iverson and Chris Webber in a trade. Because the salaries of Iverson and Webber add up to nearly $38 million, the Knicks would have to offer at least $30.4 million worth of contracts back -- a total that could be reached with a package of Steve Francis, Quentin Richardson, Malik Rose and Channing Frye._

WOW. That'd change the atlantic so the Knicks would have to be favored.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

I've never been a huge fan of A.I, though i do admire his determination and heart. I also question his character at times, but all that stuff also adds to his personality and who is as a basketball player, so you have to take the good with the bad. 

Regardless, i would do that trade in a heart beat. A.I is what Gordon is, but you just have to have a little attitude to go with it. He'll be that consistent scorer that we've all be yearning for in years. Yes, its a risk. But technically it can be only a *one year experiement*, since a expiring contract next season can be used. Expiring contracts are always desired around the league, so we could shop him easily next year if it doesn't work out. He would definitly get people to the united centre, and to buy more jerseys, so in a marketing stand point it also makes sense.

I think its a win win situation if we gave it a go. I don't think we have anything to lose what so ever.. 

...besides more hair lose from Skiles and Paxson from the stress A.I may give to them during his stay.

Id also like to add another note. If NY is in a position to get A.I i think we definitly have to pull the trigger, as NY would definitly benefit meaning the pick would become redudent. But at the same time i wouldn't want to get swindled by King in assumption that NY is favoured to get A.I.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

It'd be funnier if NY got AI without getting rid of Marbury and Franchise.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> From ESPN.COM:
> 
> _Another team that can't be totally dismissed is the New York Knicks, who are in the unique position of being able to take back both Iverson and Chris Webber in a trade. Because the salaries of Iverson and Webber add up to nearly $38 million, the Knicks would have to offer at least $30.4 million worth of contracts back -- a total that could be reached with a package of Steve Francis, Quentin Richardson, Malik Rose and Channing Frye._
> 
> WOW. That'd change the atlantic so the Knicks would have to be favored.


Still won't make New York anything significant, but it could improve them to the point of scratching at a playoff bid this year. 

Not good. I'm crossing my fingers that AI doesn't go to NYC.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Things are almost too quiet. No quote from Pax in the papers either. When the article stated that the Bulls Brass would meet today, do you think they flew to Philly to talk to Billy King?

Things are too quiet. Either we are very close to completing a deal, or it was paper speculated what Philly was interested in, without even having any negotiations with Pax.

Like someone mentioned earlier, maybe if Gordon is inactive tonight will be the sign of things to come.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Ron Cey said:


> Still won't make New York anything significant, but it could improve them to the point of scratching at a playoff bid this year.
> 
> Not good. I'm crossing my fingers that AI doesn't go to NYC.


Umm, they're already "scratching at a playoff bid". They're .5 games behind in their worthless division right now. If the Nets are going to play that bad this year, getting Webber, Iverson, along with Curry etc would make them a pretty good team I'd think. Lets hope he doesn't go to NY. Especially cause I hate the Knicks and like Iverson...one of my pet peeves when a player I cheer for goes to a team I refuse to cheer for.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Update from a thread on the Sixers board @ RealGM

http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=597900

The Guilty Party states:



> Chris Broussard was just on ESPNews and said that the 76ers have asked all teams to submit their final and best offers by the end of the night tonight. He said that the Sixers will review the offers and then decide what to do from there.
> 
> He also said that he's not so sure that this will now be done within the next 48 hours and wouldn't be shocked to see this drag out a bit longer.
> 
> ...





> Broussard didn't mention the Bulls at all but did add that the Sixers want a first round pick back in any deal for Iverson and apparently this is a sticking point with some of the teams.
> 
> I'm shocked that Broussard said that Dallas is one of the main teams in the hunt because it just doesn't seem like a good match. He did say that the people in Dallas do believe that Dirk and Iverson can co-exist because Dirk doesn't dominate the ball on the offensive end.
> 
> Also... I want no part of Sacramento as well. I'm not even sure that Sac can work a three-way that would give the Sixers a good return.



If you are Philly, what deal would you do? The Dallas deal looks nice. I wonder if any teams are offering them a 1st round pick? I don't see AI fitting in well in Dallas. I don't see him having much success in Boston either. Same in Sacto. If I'm Philly, and Chicago isn't serious, I take the Dallas deal.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Umm, they're already "scratching at a playoff bid". They're .5 games behind in their worthless division right now. If the Nets are going to play that bad this year, getting Webber, Iverson, along with Curry etc would make them a pretty good team I'd think. Lets hope he doesn't go to NY. Especially cause I hate the Knicks and like Iverson...one of my pet peeves when a player I cheer for goes to a team I refuse to cheer for.


As I see it, Webber is the prototypical PF you'd want alongside Curry. he boards, he plays outside, handles the ball real well on the perimiter, and puts up the points.

Iverson gives them a consistent 20+ PPG scorer, or even 30+ PPG, depending on how much they want him to dominate the ball. On this knicks team, he'd have plenty of people to pass to.​


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

On the otherhand, I don't know if Dallas is offering a 1st rounder, but is

Harris, Stack, Croshere > Gordon, PJ, Sweets? 

Harris is a true PG, while Gordon is a combo who can light up the scoreboard.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Umm, they're already "scratching at a playoff bid". They're .5 games behind in their worthless division right now. If the Nets are going to play that bad this year, getting Webber, Iverson, along with Curry etc would make them a pretty good team I'd think. Lets hope he doesn't go to NY. Especially cause I hate the Knicks and like Iverson...one of my pet peeves when a player I cheer for goes to a team I refuse to cheer for.


I think the Nets are going to rebound from this slow-ish start and leave New York in the dust. 

I also think Toronto will finish pretty far ahead of the Knicks. 

Unless they make significant moves, the Knicks are a lottery team and very likely a top 10 pick. They currently enjoy the 6th worst record in the entire NBA.

They stink. Even with Eddy Curry playing by far and away the best statistical basketball of his like, they can't even beat bad teams with any regularity.


----------



## r1terrell23 (Feb 11, 2006)

Get this deal done yesterday!!!!


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

On RealGM, they say that on Comcast Sportsnite, the reporter Mitch Robinson says we may be involved in a 3 way trade. Anyone see it? Could they elaborate on it?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_y...lug=ap-76ers-tradingiverson&prov=ap&type=lgns


PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- Allen Iverson's nameplate was gone and his locker was cleaned out. All that's left to officially sever his relationship with the Philadelphia 76ers is a trade. 

Iverson was still a Sixer on Monday night, though he was not in the arena for Philadelphia's game against Portland, the third straight contest he was on the inactive list. 

Iverson's days in Philadelphia are numbered and the NBA's leading scorer may soon have his trade demand granted. With four games this week, the Atlantic Division-worst Sixers seem unlikely to let the situation fester and are prepared to deal their franchise player.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> On RealGM, they say that on Comcast Sportsnite, the reporter Mitch Robinson says we may be involved in a 3 way trade. Anyone see it? Could they elaborate on it?


If the report is true, I hope we're getting someone like Eddie Griffin from the T-Wolves or Abdur-Rahim from the Kings. Griffin gives us a 6'11" shot-blocker/rebounder while SAR gives us a scoring 4. I'm just throwing those names out there but it seems like Minny or Sac would need a third team's help to get something done, which is where we might be able to jump in.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

SALO said:


> If the report is true, I hope we're getting someone like Eddie Griffin from the T-Wolves or Abdur-Rahim from the Kings. Griffin gives us a 6'11" shot-blocker/rebounder while SAR gives us a scoring 4. I'm just throwing those names out there but it seems like Minny or Sac would need a third team's help to get something done, which is where we might be able to jump in.


While I would be disappointed in not getting AI, I would be very content in this trade:

Philly Gets:
Bibby
Garcia
PJ

Chicago Gets:
SAR

Sac Gets:
AI
Louis Williams

Any trade involving us losing PJ for a non-expiring contract could hurt our chances of landing KG, if he becomes available. I am against trying to get KG since the asking price would be extremely high.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

The guy who hosts GAMENIGHT with fred carter on NBA tv said the Bulls made their offer using expiring contracts and Ben Gordon for A.I.

So, Paxson has made the effort to get him...interesting


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Just watched the highlights of the Bulls-Pacers on NBATV and the host (Bruce Beck) just said "The Bulls are one of the teams that has made an offer for Allen Iverson." He made it sound like the Bulls have a concrete offer on the table. Then they spotlighted Ben Gordon and mentioned him as a key component to the offer. I don't know if this guy is a reliable source or anything but he's on right now with the coach Fred Carter doing the highlights.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Roy you beat me to it!

Oh well I guess my post is just confirmation that Roy isn't making things up.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

how is pax gonna make an offer for a guy that wears a headband. even if AI did land here in chicago (which won't happen), if they thought ben's *****ing was bad, they haven't seen anything yet.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The ROY said:


> The guy who hosts GAMENIGHT with fred carter on NBA tv said the Bulls made their offer using expiring contracts and Ben Gordon for A.I.
> 
> So, Paxson has made the effort to get him...interesting


I honestly feel that it may come down to how much protection we throw on the 1st round pick, if its included in the deal. Some sources say it is, some don't.


Out of all the offers I have read, I see the following as the best:

Dallas offers Harris and the expiring contracts of Stackhouse and Chroshere. Philly benefits by sending Iverson west. 

Chicago offers BG7, PJ, and Sweets. Young stud, could play PG/SG on their team and could light up the scoreboard.

Boston, apparently has everyone but Pierce on the table. I think their young guys are overrated, but if you could get back Green, West, Jefferson, and maybe a PG thrown in, it would be robbery. I doubt the Celts would give up that much talent, but if you could get back their best young talent, it is enticing.


Sacto: How does Bibby help the Sixers?

I don't understand why the Sixers should care if AI goes West/East. You are in rebuilding mode. You didn't win anything before, and you definitely won't for several years. 

But knowing Billy King, he'll pick the worse offer on the table.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

SALO said:


> Just watched the highlights of the Bulls-Pacers on NBATV and the host (Bruce Beck) just said "The Bulls are one of the teams that has made an offer for Allen Iverson." He made it sound like the Bulls have a concrete offer on the table. Then they spotlighted Ben Gordon and mentioned him as a key component to the offer. I don't know if this guy is a reliable source or anything but he's on right now with the coach Fred Carter doing the highlights.


Thanks for the reply.

If we don't get AI, I hope Isiah does along with CWebb. But only if he keeps Marbury and Francis, and gets rid of Q, Fyre, and Lee.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Ainge said Gerald Green would not be included in ANY trade...

If Philly can't get Gerald...don't even TRADE with boston

We have one of the BEST deals on the table...

It would be absolutely shocking to find out we beat every one out and aquired Iverson


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

So from the NBATV guy, do you think there is any chance we do land AI?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

doubt it :



> Celtics, Warriors And Kings Lead Hunt For Iverson
> 12th December, 2006 - 12:27 am
> Newsday -
> Boston was in the hunt for Allen Iverson on Monday, with a deal that would include Al Jefferson and Theo Ratliff with his $11.7-million contract.
> ...


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The ROY said:


> doubt it :


I know we have inquired, but the NBA TV guy mentioned us, and then Comcast Chicago (according to the RealGM board) mentioned we would be involved in a 3 way deal probably landing AI.


Makes me wonder since things are quiet, and Pax is no where to be seen, that we could be close to a deal. Maybe it's false hopes on my part.

Maybe we played 7 guys tonight to showcase Ben? Then again, you never know with Skiles.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

theanimal23 said:


> I know we have inquired, but the NBA TV guy mentioned us, and then Comcast Chicago (according to the RealGM board) mentioned we would be involved in a 3 way deal probably landing AI.
> 
> 
> Makes me wonder since things are quiet, and Pax is no where to be seen, that we could be close to a deal. Maybe it's false hopes on my part.



nah, u make good points

who knows...it's possible


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

My gut tells me he ends up on the Kings. That type of move is typical Maloofs. They were the ones who pushed for Artest last year, not the GM (Petrie). Those guys crave the attention and I can see them going all out in their pursuit of AI.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> The guy who hosts GAMENIGHT with fred carter on NBA tv said the Bulls made their offer using expiring contracts and Ben Gordon for A.I


This is the most shocking news to me yet, it's not that we made an offer, but rather Paxson not wanting to give them a full house. Just speechless, maybe he's finally learnt something.
*edit* If the pick isn't included, I'd picket the front office to get Paxson a raise!

If we somehow do land Iverson, I have to wonder will Reinsdorf put his money where his mouth is as he's said so often.

Looking at it from another perspective, that is one of the better offers the Sixers will receive. Young stud plus salary cap relief, barely anyone else offers both in one package.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

step said:


> This is the most shocking news to me yet, it's not that we made an offer, but rather Paxson not wanting to give them a full house. Just speechless, maybe he's finally learnt something.
> 
> But looking at it from another perspective, that is one of the better offers the Sixers will receive. Young stud plus salary cap relief, barely anyone else offers both in one package.


I may go as far as saying, we are offering the best deal that I've heard thus far.


I like Devin Harris but I like Ben Gordon alot more, so I'd have to give us the nod over them.

I definintely understand why Philly wants a pick though, they'd rebuild with Gordon, the pick we give them PLUS the pick the incredibly HIGH pick they are destined to recieve in this upcoming draft.

Imagine them landing, say, Brandan Wright & adding B.G. + a top 15 pick from us


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

step said:


> This is the most shocking news to me yet, it's not that we made an offer, *but rather Paxson not wanting to give them a full house. Just speechless, maybe he's finally learnt something.**edit* If the pick isn't included, I'd picket the front office to get Paxson a raise!


I'm a little confused. The part I bolded, do you mean that Paxson did not show his full hand? That he should see if this deal works, then possibly up the ante? Or show them a quality offer, not the best we could offer, but a decent one and say take it and leave it?

I agree with your the rest of your posting though :yay: , especially if we do not have to include the pick. That would be incredible.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> I'm a little confused. The part I bolded, do you mean that Paxson did not show his full hand? That he should see if this deal works, then possibly up the ante? Or show them a quality offer, not the best we could offer, but a decent one and say take it and leave it?
> 
> I agree with your the rest of your posting though :yay: , especially if we do not have to include the pick. That would be incredible.


I think he means overpaying. Like giving away your leading scorer for an expiring contract.

In any case, we would be giving away BG, who was our leading scorer last year (and I think would be this year by the end). But getting back our new leading scorer by a wide margin.​


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Thanks DaBullz. Makes sense now.

And I believe this is why we got PJ, to try and make a deal by the deadline. Although I do not want to make this a Tyson vs PJ thread, I always felt that the benefit of getting PJ over any other veteran big man was his expiring contract. Lets hope it is put to good use.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

The ROY said:


> The guy who hosts GAMENIGHT with fred carter on NBA tv said the Bulls made their offer using expiring contracts and Ben Gordon for A.I.
> 
> So, Paxson has made the effort to get him...interesting


Glad to hear it. If Pax didn't make a legitimate run at AI I would've joined the "Fire Paxson" club.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

but seriously. iverson wears a headband...do you guys not see the problem here?!


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

HONESTLY? Don't believe we're getting A.I. UNLESS it's a 3-team deal

If you bring A.I. here, Philly is GOING to want P.J & Michael's contracts..

who exactly would be here to play PF next to Wallace? Yeah, Noc, Deng, Tyrus & Khyrapa but sooner or later you're GOING to need some true size. Especially to get past Shaq.

If Paxson wanted to get A.I., he could GET him and quite easily but I'm sure K.G. is his true target.

Offerring a package for A.I. might be Pax's way of trying to force Mchale's hand. He's not going to find a BETTER package for K.G....so either take Pax's offer (whatever that is) or stay in K.G.-no-help hell for the rest of the decade


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The ROY said:


> HONESTLY? Don't believe we're getting A.I. UNLESS it's a 3-team deal
> 
> If you bring A.I. here, Philly is GOING to want P.J & Michael's contracts..
> 
> ...


I'm all for KG, but I believe even after getting him, we will not have a great chance to win it. I hope I'm wrong. But, we are witnessing the offers AI gets, the offers will be 2x-3x better for KG. Plus his salary is higher, meaning we would need to throw in more players. Plus, the fact that we have the most assets, McHale won't succumb to us throwing fillers. He will want Deng, the swap option, and two other guys, probably Gordon and Tyrus. I can bet no deal will go down otherwise.

I feel that the asking price for AI is low, and we would lose one player, who AI replaces himself. AI's offensive abilities would solve our problems, and he would increase our FT attempts. I don't necessarily think we need low post scoring, if we had a guard capable of 30 ppg, like AI (Kobe, Arenas, Wade, etc). We just need the consistant scorer. I think with Deng and Noce putting up about 17 ppg each, and getting more looks with AI, their numbers will be increasing. Hinrich won't have to do it all, and hopefully increases his scoring ability. I think if we play defense like we have in the past, we will be incredibliy tough to beat with AI.

I agree, we need to get another big man. I was trying to think of Vet FAs we could sign, but no one comes to mind. And no one should say AD. If we could land a guy of at least Malik's caliber but more rugged, less finese, we will be in great shape.

I like KG, but at his price it's not worth it. I think we would be as capable with replacing Gordon with Iverson.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/43705/20061212/celtics_offering_jefferson_telfair_and_others_for_iverson/



> According to Bill Reynolds of the Providence Journal, the Celtics are offering Theo Ratliff, Al Jefferson, Delonte West and Sebastian Telfair in exchange for Allen Iverson.
> 
> The Sixers coveted both Jefferson and West last summer when the Celtics expressed an interest in Iverson, and also have expressed interest in Ryan Gomes.
> 
> The Celtics have told the Sixers that Gerald Green is not available, and might also get away with not having West in the trade, including a draft choice instead


They will win. 

Also the Bobcats agreed to a deal to land AI, but AI did not wish to go there. So that is done and over with.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

You must value those Boston players alot more than I do, because Jefferson, West and even Telfair doesn't excite me that much. Another downer to their deal is they don't get instant salary cap relief (their payroll is at 75M if I remember correctly), so having Webber and Theo and their $30M+ on their books for another season must be really appealing.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

I agree we have one of the better deals on the table, going to bed, possibility of waking up with AI wow! (okay that was worded badly) 

Although, I don't see them doing it without a draft pick.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

Also pretty funny how AI fever has hit the NBA General board, with every team (at least those involved in the rumors) having a fan who photoshopped him into their jersey. Meanwhile I have a feeling the Sixers have been secretly wishing for this day


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Reality has set in...

Skiles not interested in Iverson



> Bulls quiet on Al: A few out-of-town reports had the Bulls possibly open to trading for Philadelphia’s Allen Iverson. But coach Scott Skiles confirmed what was written in the local newspapers — that the Bulls have no interest in adding a player famous for his aversion to practice.
> 
> “I know we’re not a team that’s in there talking about it, contrary to a couple reports I’ve read,” Skiles said before Monday’s game.


:thumbdown:


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Oh Skiles, how you don't like any superstars. 

On the contraire, on RealGM they say that New York News has us in a 3 way deal landing Trop Murphy, with AI going to GSW. Talk about getting the wrong guy. I hope we end up with Diogu if we are involved in a trade.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> According to a source, the Sixers nearly sent Allen Iverson to the Charlotte Bobcats for a package of players Monday afternoon.
> 
> Iverson indicated his displeasure with being sent to the Bobcats the source said and the deal died there.


Well this bolds well for Chicago and Boston.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> On the contraire, on RealGM they say that New York News has us in a 3 way deal landing Trop Murphy, with AI going to GSW.


We better be getting Ellis aswell, not to mention much much more.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Bulls take themselves OUT of the running for Iverson, but still maybe involved in the deal



> Nameplate gone, Iverson remains
> 
> The Bulls took themselves out of the running for Allen Iverson yesterday, while the Sixers are still hopeful that they can wind up with Chicago's Ben Gordon, along with expiring contracts, when they trade their disgruntled superstar.
> 
> ...


Troy Murphy? BOoooo


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The ROY said:


> Bulls take themselves OUT of the running for Iverson, but still maybe involved in the deal
> 
> 
> 
> Troy Murphy? BOoooo


I won't go so far as to say Booo, but I agree we'd need to be getting back a lot more than just Troy Murphy for Ben Gordon and our valuable expiring contracts. Troy is a big man who can score a bit and doesn't turn it over much, but losing Ben is huge. Plus, doesn't Murphy have a huge contract? We take on his contract AND give up our expiring contracts and that ties our hands pretty well for a long time.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I won't go so far as to say Booo, but I agree we'd need to be getting back a lot more than just Troy Murphy for Ben Gordon.


If we get Murphy, I'd assume we're not going after K.G. right?

WHY send Ben away for HIM?!


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

I'm thinking Jason Richardson might be involved. Supposedly Nelson wants to pair Davis and Iverson together in the backcourt. You have to figure Ellis will be solidly in the mix, so where does that leave Richardson?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The ROY said:


> If we get Murphy, I'd assume we're not going after K.G. right?


Not that I thought we were seriously going after KG anyway, but you'd have to be right about that.



> WHY send Ben away for HIM?!


I dunno.

It certainly wouldn't be a "safe" move, so some folks around here probably would call it genius. I wouldn't, but what do I know?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

murphy is shooting almost 50%. 46% in threes. 11 pts 6 assists 3 assists, almost 1 steal. 

I would hope we get something more. But he is paxsons big shooting man he has been wanting. 

Gordon 42% 34% in threes. 3 rebounds 3 assists. 17.9 pts a game


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I won't go so far as to say Booo, but I agree we'd need to be getting back a lot more than just Troy Murphy for Ben Gordon and our valuable expiring contracts. Troy is a big man who can score a bit and doesn't turn it over much, but losing Ben is huge. Plus, doesn't Murphy have a huge contract? We take on his contract AND give up our expiring contracts and that ties our hands pretty well for a long time.


Agreed. I don't like the sound of that at all. I'm not as staunchly anti-Murphy as some, but I'd certainly expect a lot more than just him for Ben Gordon and expiring contracts.

He's averaging 11,6 and 3 in 28 minutes a game, and is paid MORE per year than we'd probably have to pay Gordon. If I recall correctly, he's in year 2 of a 6 year, 60 million deal. 

Terrible.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

truebluefan said:


> murphy is shooting almost 50%. 46% in threes. 11 pts 6 assists 3 assists, almost 1 steal.
> 
> I would hope we get something more. But he is paxsons big shooting man he has been wanting.
> 
> Gordon 42% 34% in threes. 3 rebounds 3 assists. 17.9 pts a game


But he doesn't play any bigger than Nocioni does. I don't get it. 

That would be a poor return for Ben Gordon and $8 million of expiring contracts, in my opinion. 

In fact, "poor" is far too kind a term.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

I don't think they mean we would trade Gordon in a deal for Murphy. Murphy's value is that of an expiring contract. If we're going after him (which I do not believe) there's no way we send out Gordon and expiring contracts and get him back. It would be PJ and maybe Sweets for Murph.


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

however if j rich is included, i would do it in a heartbeat


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

the-asdf-man said:


> however if j rich is included, i would do it in a heartbeat


PERSONALLY?


I'd rather have Ben Gordon


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

i am not advocating Gordon for murphy just thinking out loud and doing comparisons.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

While I do like J-Rich, I cannot condone parting with all that and receiving Troy freakin Murphy in return aswell. That's just wrong on so many levels.


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

actually, if jrich is available, philly would probably just do iverson straight up for those 2. who needs the bulls?


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

J-Rich: 31.3 mpg, 40% FG, 62% FT, 14.3 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 3.1 apg
Ellis: 34.3 mpg, 48% FG, 74% FT, 17.6 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 4.2 apg 

Gordon: *29.1 mpg*, 42% FG, 86% FT, 17.9 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 3.2 apg

18 in under 30 minutes a game and that was with a bad start to the season off the bench usually sitting a good portion of the 3rd quarter unless Kirky gets into foul trouble or we really get socked in. His function as of late has been to act as a safety valve for the starting unit's follies.

When I was about to cyber-rhetorically-ask: who else does that? 

Lo, and behold, the one, the only, JR Smith at 17.*8* in 29.*5* mpg.

You know if this org weren't so siamese twined to Skiles and Kirk and Du, we'd be a much much better team.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

> Bulls quiet on Al: A few out-of-town reports had the Bulls possibly open to trading for Philadelphia’s Allen Iverson. But coach Scott Skiles confirmed what was written in the local newspapers — that the Bulls have no interest in adding a player famous for his aversion to practice.
> 
> “I know we’re not a team that’s in there talking about it, contrary to a couple reports I’ve read,” Skiles said before Monday’s game.


Daily Herald


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Looking a bit at Golden State, how would AI fit in over there anyway?

They already have Baron Davis, Ellis, Pietrus, Richardson.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Looking a bit at Golden State, how would AI fit in over there anyway?
> 
> They already have Baron Davis, Ellis, Pietrus, Richardson.


It's Davis Nellie wants to replace.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

narek said:


> It's Davis Nellie wants to replace.


I've heard that Nellie wants to play Davis and AI together.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

narek said:


> It's Davis Nellie wants to replace.


This is a part ROY highlighted in some article he posted earlier in the thread.

"*But Don Nelson is interested in acquiring Iverson to pair with Baron Davis in his backcourt.* In the three-way scenario, the Warriors would send power forward Troy Murphy to Chicago as part of a package of players."

Kinda odd. Are they trying to be the Knicks East? There's only one ball and 48 minutes. I guess that's what happens when you go to the bay and get hyphy.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> actually, if jrich is available, philly would probably just do iverson straight up for those 2. who needs the bulls?


Depends what they're after, seems to be that they like our deal of a young stud and salary cap relief, it's just that we don't want Iverson makes it a tad bit difficult.

Troy freakin Murphy, we just so need to back out of this deal asap.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

So, from what I read on other boards...

G.S. would be sending Troy Murphy & Jason Richardson to Chicago

Philly sends A.I. to Golden State

Chicago sends B.G., Michael Sweetney & P.J. Brown to Philly

G Hinrich / Duhon
G Richardson / Sefolosha
F Deng / Nocioni / Khyrapa
F Murphy / Thomas
C Wallace

So we get a 6"11 big and a big scoring SG that gets to the line....hmmm, J Rich did average 23 last year and only is at 14 this year cause of nellie playing him at PF in his running system...

I'd do that deal....yeah, I'd definintely do it

If we could somehow get Shawn Hunter out of the deal, we'd be in real good position to go deep


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> J-Rich: 31.3 mpg, 40% FG, 62% FT, 14.3 ppg, 4.3 rpg, 3.1 apg
> Ellis: 34.3 mpg, 48% FG, 74% FT, 17.6 ppg, 2.6 rpg, 4.2 apg


If only we could get both.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

There is no way the Warriors will include Ellis in any deal. They aren't going to forfeit their future to have Iverson for a few seasons, and they have enough stockpiled talent to make a decent offer.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> There is no way the Warriors will include Ellis in any deal. They aren't going to forfeit their future to have Iverson for a few seasons, and they have enough stockpiled talent to make a decent offer.


I know, it's just that Murphy's contract and performance is the real downer of this whole trade, we're stuck with a guy for 5+ years who earns Chandler-like money and is softer than Poppinfresh. Can't blame a guy for trying.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The ROY said:


> So, from what I read on other boards...
> 
> G.S. would be sending Troy Murphy & Jason Richardson to Chicago
> 
> ...


I don't see how that works. Richardson and Murphy have contracts worth about $19 million this year. You can't trade PJ and Gordon for that.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I don't see how that works. Richardson and Murphy have contracts worth about $19 million this year. You can't trade PJ and Gordon for that.


$18.285M, so 75% = 13.71.

He forgot Sweets though.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't see how that works. Richardson and Murphy have contracts worth about $19 million this year. You can't trade PJ and Gordon for that.


U might be right, i'm not one to match contracts, i just posted..but this is recent from a cali poster on realgm



> fuzion wrote:
> damit don't get Murphy. My friend heard on the radio in Cali that this Golden State-Philly-Chicago deal is close to happening and that Murphy would indeed join the Bulls. Dammit. Iverson or Murphy, who do the Bulls choose? Murphy. go figure.



Looks like Pax is serious on aquiring Murphy, he was before and looks like he may get itd one


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

The ROY said:


> So, from what I read on other boards...
> 
> G.S. would be sending Troy Murphy & Jason Richardson to Chicago
> 
> ...


J-Rich did all that last year, the Warriors went nowhere despite those many times he went to the line. If you even bother to look at his game-by-game this year, in more minutes per game, he's getting to the line less frequently than Ben Gordon.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jason_richardson/game_by_game_stats.html

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ben_gordon/game_by_game_stats.html

BTW, J-Rich is actually taking a backseat to a younger Gordon-like (at least in his first year) player.

Murphy's got size, but that's about it. Noc would not only beat, but drub him out in no time.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I come back from class and we talk about Troy Freakin Murphy? What is Paxson thinking? Skiles is a moron. You say no to a kid who plays all out, and welcome Troy Murphy with open arms?

The only trade I accept is that

Philly gets:
PJ
Sweets
Gordon
GSW 1st Rounder (Are they sending one?)

GSW:
Iverson

Chicago:
Richardson
Diogu
Biedrins

I know we are asking for a lot of talent to come back, especially Biedrins. But they are getting the best player in the trade, and we are giving the expiring contracts to Philly.

If they take out Biedrins, I want Digou and JRich, not Murphy. Hell no to Murphy. 

*Any updates? What is the actual deal involving Chicago? Who is the frontrunner to win this trade?*


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> J-Rich did all that last year, the Warriors went nowhere despite those many times he went to the line. If you even bother to look at his game-by-game this year, in more minutes per game, he's getting to the line less frequently than Ben Gordon.
> 
> http://www.nba.com/playerfile/jason_richardson/game_by_game_stats.html
> 
> ...


Hey, i'm with u...i'd rather have Gordon..

But having JRich AND Murphy is sort of intriguing...I dunno.if it's just Murphy, and we move GOORDON? He BETTER have something else up his sleeve or the city is gonna be pissed


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Well, I'll say one thing. If the Bulls trade Gordon, PJ and Sweets for Richardson and Murphy, I better never hear anything more about how cheap ownership is. :biggrin: 

FWIW, I'd much rather have Richardson than Gordon.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I'm just not getting why Pax does this deal if it's just FOR Murphy?

Why move P.J. & Sweets VALUABLE contracts for JUST Troy Murphy? Someone who might help u win possibly 5 more games on the season...he's not a game changer...I thought the contracts were for HEAVYWEIGHT aquisitions?

I'd rather throw those contracts for Zach Randolph


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The ROY said:


> I'm just not getting why Pax does this deal if it's just FOR Murphy?
> 
> Why move P.J. & Sweets VALUABLE contracts for JUST Troy Murphy? Someone who might help u win possibly 5 more games on the season...he's not a game changer...I thought the contracts were for HEAVYWEIGHT aquisitions?
> 
> I'd rather throw those contracts for Zach Randolph


Murphy could also help us lose 5 more games this season.

I think Gordon > JRich and Murphy

Why? B/c I think Murphy does nothing for us. We need inside D and post scoring. Noce does everything better than Murphy at what Murphy excels at. 

JRich, I think could be great here, but I think its too hefty of a price for JRich. Especially since I think we could land AI in this very deal. While two heads may be better than one, I just don't get Murphy. If we get Diogu/Biedrins, sign me up.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> Well, I'll say one thing. If the Bulls trade Gordon, PJ and Sweets for Richardson and Murphy, I better never hear anything more about how cheap ownership is. :biggrin:
> 
> <b>FWIW, I'd much rather have Richardson than Gordon.</b>


I am totally with you on this one. JR will solve all the dilemma we had at 2 position doing almost everything Ben does and more.

But I don't think this deal will happen. If GW is willing to part with JR and Murphy to get Iverson, why do they need Chicago to be involved in 3 way trade?

Sixer want Gordon, PJ & Sweetney more than JR and Murphy that bad?

I just don't see this is happening (although if it does I will be a very happy camper).


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

theanimal23 said:


> Murphy could also help us lose 5 more games this season.
> 
> <b>I think Gordon > JRich and Murphy</b>
> 
> ...


If we are talking about healthy JRich, I have to say

JRich alone > Gordon

Jrich and Murphy >> Gordon.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Sixer want Gordon, PJ & Sweetney more than JR and Murphy that bad?


Jason is appealing but not at the cost of adding an immovable contract like Murphy, they're already in luxury tax, so they'll essentially be paying $16+M per season for him.

Not really great when you think about it.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

lgtwins said:


> I am totally with you on this one. JR will solve all the dilemma we had at 2 position doing almost everything Ben does and more.
> 
> But I don't think this deal will happen. If GW is willing to part with JR and Murphy to get Iverson, why do they need Chicago to be involved in 3 way trade?
> 
> ...


I don't think the Sixers want Murphy. I bet they would be happy with JRich as a consolidation prize for AI, but they are near Lux Tax levels, and Murphy is not a guy you want to shell out money for, along with CWebb. They have the same skill set, with CWebb just being better and having more passing ability.

The Sixers like this deal since they get cap room, and a young stud who is on a rookie contract. Thats why they do it. Paxson would do this deal because he likes second tier players and Skiles has a lovefest for player who are absolutely garbage, a la Murphy. Skiles can yell at him all he wants, and Murphy will take it like a dog.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

lgtwins said:


> I am totally with you on this one. JR will solve all the dilemma we had at 2 position doing almost everything Ben does and more.
> 
> But I don't think this deal will happen. If GW is willing to part with JR and Murphy to get Iverson, why do they need Chicago to be involved in 3 way trade?
> 
> Sixer want Gordon, PJ & Sweetney more than JR and Murphy that bad?


Yes. They want Gordon and two expiring contracts instead of $20-26 million in contracts guaranteed per year for the next 4 years after this one (which is what J-Rich/Murphy is).

Its completely logical. 

On the record - I'm fine with this proposal ONLY if its for Richardson and Murphy. 

If we trade Gordon and just get back Murphy, I will be quite pissed.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

lgtwins said:


> If we are talking about healthy JRich, I have to say
> 
> JRich alone > Gordon
> 
> Jrich and Murphy >> Gordon.


I just don't like Murphy. I see our interior D being even more exposed. I think JRich could explode for us. He is the size we need/want.

Has JRich improved his 3pt shot since coming in the league?

*I would accept Murphy's deal if we got Biedrins along with JRich.* I would do it then. Thats a price GSW should pay for getting Iverson and having someone take Murphy off their hands.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> If we trade Gordon and just get back Murphy, I will be quite pissed.


I'll be quite pissed if it's that deal at all. Murphy solves nothing, atleast bloody Brown and Sweets expire after this season.

J-Rich would be great to have, so not worth the headache in the end.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Well, I'll say one thing. If the Bulls trade Gordon, PJ and Sweets for Richardson and Murphy, I better never hear anything more about how cheap ownership is. :biggrin:
> 
> FWIW, I'd much rather have Richardson than Gordon.


It does look nice to see the pregame presentations and instead of seeing a 6'1 or 6'3 at shooting guard, we will see a guy who's 6'6. Imagine all the possibilities with those added 3 inches on our 2. All driving in all the time, 20 FTA a game, Ziploc tight defense, an end to the Palestinian/Israel conflict. Now seeing that 6'6 guy will surely bring back memories. Except for the part where were supposed to win championships.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I would accept Murphy's deal if we got Biedrins along with JRich. I would do it then. Thats a price GSW should pay for getting Iverson and having someone take Murphy off their hands.


Damn straight.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I think the deal also works if we don't get Murphy. On RealGM, someone posted the idea of us receiving Steven Hunter from Philly instead of Murphy. I would do this immediately. We would have some front court depth.

Any chance we could squeeze 1. Biedrins or 2. Diogu from GSW? It'd be a favor from us to take Murphy off their hands.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> It does look nice to see the pregame presentations and instead of seeing a 6'1 or 6'3 at shooting guard, we will see a guy who's 6'6. Imagine all the possibilities with those added 3 inches on our 2. All driving in all the time, 20 FTA a game, Ziploc tight defense, an end to the Palestinian/Israel conflict. Now seeing that 6'6 guy will surely bring back memories. Except for the part where were supposed to win championships.


You don't think Skiles will still start Duhon and Hinrich given the love affair?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Ron Cey said:


> Yes. They want Gordon and two expiring contracts instead of $20-26 million in contracts guaranteed per year for the next 4 years after this one (which is what J-Rich/Murphy is).
> 
> Its completely logical.
> 
> ...


I will start new "Fire Paxon" thread myself and many will follow IF this happens.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Biedrins 

Doubt it, 2nd year, 11 pts, 9 rebs and 2 blks


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> It does look nice to see the pregame presentations and instead of seeing a 6'1 or 6'3 at shooting guard, we will see a guy who's 6'6. Imagine all the possibilities with those added 3 inches on our 2. All driving in all the time, 20 FTA a game, Ziploc tight defense, an end to the Palestinian/Israel conflict. Now seeing that 6'6 guy will surely bring back memories. Except for the part where were supposed to win championships.


So you are on board then? :biggrin: 

I just think Richardson is a better fit. Better fit in style of play, better athleticism and, yes, taller and more physically imposing. 

I don't really expect you to support many potential trades that send Gordon out. I know you are a big fan. 

But Gordon does not, and never has, impressed me all that much as a good fit in Chicago. I think he could be a very good fit elsewhere, however. In fact, I think Philly is the PERFECT fit for him:

(a) primary ball handler;

(b) primary scorer and #1 option with few other back up options;

(c) Tall, athletic point guard/shooting guard hybrid backcourt mate in Iggy.

I think he'd really flourish there. If the rumors are true, it doesn't surprise me in the least that King is zoning in on Gordon.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Color me lukewarm on this stuff. I'm not a big fan of Troy Murphy, and I'm not as high on Richardson as some. Guys with that kind of athletic ability who've never shot over 45% or played on a half-way decent team scare me.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

How legit do you guys think this 3way trade rumor is?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

theanimal23 said:


> How legit do you guys think this 3way trade rumor is?


Not very. But its logical and at least we know Iverson is to be traded SOMEWHERE, which means that its far more likely than most trade rumors we hear about.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I'm torn on this one. Not a big Murhpy fan and he's paid an obscene amount for the next 4 or 5 years. J-Rich instead of Gordon? I'm pretty ambivalent on that one. One positive would be it should send Duhon to the bench and move Hinrich back to PG where I think he can be more effective.

If we're going to be taking on the contracts of both Murphy AND Richardson; I certainly hope Pax is getting someone (or something) of value here. Like Biedrins (I know - it's a pipe dream) or Diogu (very possible) or their (GSW) 1st rounder this year in exchange for giving the Sixers what they want - young quality player and cap relief and getting Nellie Iverson and unloading two pretty bad contracts. That's a boatload of cash for two guys who are decent but not great...


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> *So you are on board then?* :biggrin:
> 
> I just think Richardson is a better fit. Better fit in style of play, better athleticism and, yes, taller and more physically imposing.
> 
> ...


Yes, but only if it really does solve that last conflict. :eek8: 

I know he'd fit in Philly or wherever else, but I'd like for MY team to have the guy that is really good under the pressure cooker.



> You don't think Skiles will still start Duhon and Hinrich given the love affair?


Could happen actually, and I'd probably end up on the side defending Richardson's performance. With his average falling 9 points from last year, maybe he isn't that strong a scoring option --- they found more efficient ways of scoring and he's not getting as many touches. Only time he's been a leading scorer for the season, the Warriors have been a non-playoff squad.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Healthy JRich > Gordon

GSW is not giving up Biedrins, no way no how. As for Murphy being in the deal, not thrilled about that one. Give me Diogu instead and we have the makings of a decent deal IMO.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

fl_flash said:


> If we're going to be taking on the contracts of both Murphy AND Richardson; I certainly hope Pax is getting someone (or something) of value here. Like Biedrins (I know - it's a pipe dream) or Diogu (very possible) or their (GSW) 1st rounder this year in exchange for giving the Sixers what they want - young quality player and cap relief and getting Nellie Iverson and unloading two pretty bad contracts. That's a boatload of cash for two guys who are decent but not great...


If we throw in Malik (who I actually like), we could get back Ike Diogu or O'Bryant. I would do the trade as you suggest, if we can steal GSW's first rounder this year and a young big man. I think that would compensate for taking on Murphy's contract. We could have two lotto picks, and two chances at Oden.

Edit:
Without getting back Biedrins, or Digou + 1st round pick, I don't do this deal.

Sweets and PJ > Murphy
Gordon > JRich IMO. Late game heroics, similar stats, and Gordon has had a leash while putting up those numbers. Plus JRich's health is an issue.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Well, I'll say one thing. If the Bulls trade Gordon, PJ and Sweets for Richardson and Murphy, I better never hear anything more about how cheap ownership is. :biggrin:


You wouldn't hear it from me unless the Bulls used the acquisitions as an excuse to let Nocioni go. But they would.

Anyway, Paxson and Reinsdorf would have to have had brain transplants before they took on these two long-term increasing contracts. Not going to happen.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Is anybody else concerned that Richardson's numbers are way down this season?


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

What scares me most about Murphy, is how his rebound numbers just plummeted (I know its still early). In the previous two seasons he averaged 10 per. What happened?

But if this trade happened, it would make sense and I'd support it. I did expect a bit more, considering the expiring deals but it would help solve 2 problems: Legit size at the 2 guard that gets to the line often, and a decent lol: ) scoring big.



jbulls said:


> Is anybody else concerned that Richardson's numbers are way down this season?


Not really, his minutes are way down this year, playing about 7 less.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Bulldozer said:


> Not really, his minutes are way down this year, playing about 7 less.


True. But he's scoring 9 points a game fewer than last season. Maybe he's just not shooting the ball well, I haven't seen much of the Warriors this season. I'd be interested to hear comments from somebody who has...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

McBulls said:


> You wouldn't hear it from me unless the Bulls used the acquisitions as an excuse to let Nocioni go. But they would.
> 
> Anyway, Paxson and Reinsdorf would have to have had brain transplants before they took on these two long-term increasing contracts. Not going to happen.


I think it's almost a certainty that if we acquired Murphy and JRich that Nocioni would not be re-signed. Murphy is a teller, slightly better shooting and rebounding and much worse defensive player than Noc. and he's probably making at least $2m per year more than Noc will make.

<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 499pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="666"><col style="width: 74pt;" width="98"> <col style="width: 44pt;" width="58"> <col style="width: 47pt;" span="7" width="63"> <col style="width: 52pt;" width="69"> <tbody><tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl27" style="height: 12.75pt; width: 74pt;" height="17" width="98">*Player*</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 44pt;" x:str="'06-07" width="58">*06-07*</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 47pt;" x:str="'07-08" width="63">*07-08*</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 47pt;" x:str="'08-09" width="63">*08-09*</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 47pt;" x:str="'09-10" width="63">*09-10*</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 47pt;" x:str="'10-11" width="63">*10-11*</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 47pt;" x:str="'11-12" width="63">*11-12*</td> <td class="xl26" style="width: 47pt;" x:str="'12-13" width="63">*12-13*</td> <td class="xl25" style="width: 47pt;" width="63">*Years*</td> <td class="xl25" style="width: 52pt;" width="69">*Total*</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Wallace</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="16"> $ 16.00 </td> <td class="xl44" x:num="15.5"> $ 15.50 </td> <td class="xl44" x:num="14.5"> $ 14.50 </td> <td class="xl44" x:num="14"> $ 14.00 </td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">4</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="60"> $ 60.00 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Richardson</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="10"> $ 10.00 </td> <td class="xl44" x:num="11.11112"> $ 11.11 </td> <td class="xl44" x:num="12.22223"> $ 12.22 </td> <td class="xl44" x:num="13.33334"> $ 13.33 </td> <td class="xl44" x:num="14.44445"> $ 14.44 </td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">5</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="61.111139999999992"> $ 61.11 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Murphy</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="8.2857149999999997"> $ 8.29 </td> <td class="xl44" x:num="9.2063500000000005"> $ 9.21 </td> <td class="xl44" x:num="10.126984999999999"> $ 10.13 </td> <td class="xl44" x:num="11.04762"> $ 11.05 </td> <td class="xl44" x:num="11.968254999999999"> $ 11.97 </td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">5</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="50.634925000000003"> $ 50.63 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Hinrich</td> <td class="xl40" x:num="3.1926770000000002"> $ 3.19 </td> <td class="xl48" x:num="11.42"> $ 11.42 </td> <td class="xl48" x:num="10.46"> $ 10.46 </td> <td class="xl48" x:num="9.4999999999999947"> $ 9.50 </td> <td class="xl48" x:num="8.539999999999992"> $ 8.54 </td> <td class="xl48" x:num="7.5799999999999894"> $ 7.58 </td> <td class="xl48">
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">6</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="50.692676999999975"> $ 50.69 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Nocioni</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="3.9397199999999999"> $ 3.94 </td> <td class="xl46" x:num="7"> $ 7.00 </td> <td class="xl47" x:num="7.7350000000000003"> $ 7.74 </td> <td class="xl47" x:num="8.47"> $ 8.47 </td> <td class="xl47" x:num="9.2050000000000001"> $ 9.21 </td> <td class="xl47" x:num="9.94"> $ 9.94 </td> <td class="xl47" x:num="10.675000000000001"> $ 10.68 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">7</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="56.964719999999993"> $ 56.96 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Duhon</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="3.024"> $ 3.02 </td> <td class="xl44" x:num="3.2480000000000002"> $ 3.25 </td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">2</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="6.2720000000000002"> $ 6.27 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Deng</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="2.6144400000000001"> $ 2.61 </td> <td class="xl45" x:num="3.320338"> $ 3.32 </td> <td class="xl46" x:num="8"> $ 8.00 </td> <td class="xl47" x:num="8.84"> $ 8.84 </td> <td class="xl47" x:num="9.68"> $ 9.68 </td> <td class="xl47" x:num="10.52"> $ 10.52 </td> <td class="xl47" x:num="11.36"> $ 11.36 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">7</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="54.334778"> $ 54.33 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Thomas</td> <td class="xl39" x:num="3.2607599999999999"> $ 3.26 </td> <td class="xl44" x:num="3.5053200000000002"> $ 3.51 </td> <td class="xl43" x:num="3.7498800000000001"> $ 3.75 </td> <td class="xl43" x:num="4.7435980000000004"> $ 4.74 </td> <td class="xl49" x:num="6.2568060000000001"> $ 6.26 </td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">5</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="21.516363999999999"> $ 21.52 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl35" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Allen</td> <td class="xl39" x:num="1.8036000000000001"> $ 1.80 </td> <td class="xl43">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl49">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">1</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="1.8036000000000001"> $ 1.80 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl35" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Khyrapa</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="1.1724000000000001"> $ 1.17 </td> <td class="xl45" x:num="1.928598"> $ 1.93 </td> <td class="xl49" x:num="2.7926090000000001"> $ 2.79 </td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">3</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="5.8936070000000003"> $ 5.89 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl35" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Sefalosha</td> <td class="xl39" x:num="1.6972799999999999"> $ 1.70 </td> <td class="xl44" x:num="1.8051600000000001"> $ 1.81 </td> <td class="xl43" x:num="1.93116"> $ 1.93 </td> <td class="xl43" x:num="2.7596379999999998"> $ 2.76 </td> <td class="xl49" x:num="3.8165650000000002"> $ 3.82 </td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">5</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="12.009803000000002"> $ 12.01 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Griffin</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="1.4750000000000001"> $ 1.48 </td> <td class="xl48" x:num="1.47"> $ 1.47 </td> <td class="xl48" x:num="1.4750000000000001"> $ 1.48 </td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td class="xl44">
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">3</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="4.42"> $ 4.42 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Barret</td> <td class="xl39" x:num="0.74455099999999996"> $ 0.74 </td> <td class="xl39">
</td> <td class="xl39">
</td> <td class="xl39">
</td> <td class="xl39">
</td> <td class="xl39">
</td> <td class="xl29">
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">1</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="0.74455099999999996"> $ 0.74 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Andrews</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="0.64420900000000003"> $ 0.64 </td> <td class="xl30">
</td> <td class="xl29">
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">1</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="0.64420900000000003"> $ 0.64 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12pt;" height="16"> <td class="xl32" style="height: 12pt;" height="16">1st 07 #5</td> <td class="xl33"> </td> <td class="xl33" x:num="2.5"> $ 2.50 </td> <td class="xl33" x:num="2.75"> $ 2.75 </td> <td class="xl41" x:num="3"> $ 3.00 </td> <td class="xl41" x:num="4"> $ 4.00 </td> <td class="xl42" x:num="6"> $ 6.00 </td> <td class="xl41"> </td> <td x:num="" align="right">5</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="18.25"> $ 18.25 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl32" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1st 08 #25</td> <td class="xl33"> </td> <td class="xl33"> </td> <td class="xl33" x:num="0.75"> $ 0.75 </td> <td class="xl33" x:num="0.85"> $ 0.85 </td> <td class="xl41" x:num="0.85"> $ 0.85 </td> <td class="xl41" x:num="0.85"> $ 0.85 </td> <td class="xl42" x:num="0.85"> $ 0.85 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">5</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="4.15"> $ 4.15 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl32" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">1st 09 #25</td> <td class="xl33"> </td> <td class="xl33"> </td> <td class="xl33"> </td> <td class="xl33" x:num="0.85"> $ 0.85 </td> <td class="xl33" x:num="0.85"> $ 0.85 </td> <td class="xl41" x:num="0.85"> $ 0.85 </td> <td class="xl41" x:num="0.85"> $ 0.85 </td> <td x:num="" align="right">4</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="3.4"> $ 3.40 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;" height="18"> <td style="height: 13.5pt;" height="18">Players</td> <td x:num="" align="right">14</td> <td x:num="" align="right">12</td> <td x:num="" align="right">12</td> <td x:num="" align="right">11</td> <td x:num="" align="right">10</td> <td x:num="" align="right">6</td> <td x:num="" align="right">4</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 13.5pt;" height="18"> <td style="height: 13.5pt;" height="18">Total $</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="57.854352000000006"> $ 57.85 </td> <td class="xl28" x:num="72.01488599999999"> $ 72.01 </td> <td class="xl28" x:num="76.492863999999997"> $ 76.49 </td> <td class="xl28" x:num="77.39419599999998"> $ 77.39 </td> <td class="xl28" x:num="69.611075999999969"> $ 69.61 </td> <td class="xl28" x:num="35.74"> $ 35.74 </td> <td class="xl28" x:num="23.734999999999999"> $ 23.74 </td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Cap</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="53.134999999999998" align="right">$53.14 </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="53.666350000000001" align="right">$53.67 </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="54.203013500000004" align="right">$54.20 </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="54.745043635000002" align="right">$54.75 </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="55.292494071349999" align="right">$55.29 </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="55.845419012063502" align="right">$55.85 </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="56.403873202184137" align="right">$56.40 </td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">LT</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="65.42" align="right">$65.42 </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="66.074200000000005" align="right">$66.07 </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="66.734942000000004" align="right">$66.73 </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="67.402291419999997" align="right">$67.40 </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="68.076314334199992" align="right">$68.08 </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="68.757077477541998" align="right">$68.76 </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="69.444648252317421" align="right">$69.44 </td> <td class="xl50">
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Under Cap</td> <td class="xl38" x:num="-4.7193520000000078" align="right">($4.72)</td> <td class="xl36" x:num="-18.348535999999989" align="right">($18.35)</td> <td class="xl36" x:num="-22.289850499999993" align="right">($22.29)</td> <td class="xl36" x:num="-22.649152364999978" align="right">($22.65)</td> <td class="xl36" x:num="-14.318581928649969" align="right">($14.32)</td> <td class="xl36" x:num="20.105419012063507" align="right">$20.11 </td> <td class="xl36" x:num="32.668873202184137" align="right">$32.67 </td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="3.8400000000000105"> $ 3.84 </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Under Tax</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="7.5656479999999959" align="right">$7.57 </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="-5.9406859999999853" align="right">($5.94)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="-9.7579219999999935" align="right">($9.76)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="-9.9919045799999822" align="right">($9.99)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="-1.5347616657999765" align="right">($1.53)</td> <td class="xl24" x:num="33.017077477542003" align="right">$33.02 </td> <td class="xl24" x:num="45.709648252317422" align="right">$45.71 </td> <td>
</td> <td class="xl28" x:num="1.9200000000000053"> $ 1.92 </td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Based on this projection (based on 1% cap increases), we're well over the luxury tax unless we let Noc go. Of course, the cap and tax amounts could go up more than 1%, but it may not make enough of a difference.

So financially, this is a high risk proposition. It's not necessarily a matter of being cheap, but a matter of your time horizon. It's one thing to splurge on a big amount of money. Just because you splurge doesn't mean you're not cheap. If you're going to splurge and not be cheap, you ought to recognize you're splurging and not let it affect your long-run decisionmaking regarding other players. I personally don't think the Bulls would do this.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JRich is 25, Murphy is 26. If this deal went down, we'd have a legit scorer who's a big SG to replace Gordon. 

Murphy is nowhere near as bad as people are making him out to be.

Both these guys can use the change of scenery, and both are good enough that they're going to be on the court for a lot of minutes.

We also get taller/bigger at two positions.

Gordon is a special player, but so is JRich.​


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

From what I read on some G.S. forums

JRich has been playing PF at times, same with Dunleavy...

that's wayyyy out of position, small ball or not..for a 6"6 guard


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> JRich is 25, Murphy is 26. If this deal went down, we'd have a legit scorer who's a big SG to replace Gordon.
> 
> Murphy is nowhere near as bad as people are making him out to be.
> 
> ...


I second that.

My main concern if this trade goes through is losing Nocioni for nothing. However, we would then have the F combo of Murphy, Deng, Tyrus, Khryapa. That's certainly not a bad combo there even without Noc.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I love the idea of having Richardson & Thabo both at the SG. Both being 6"6" & 6"7 respectively, we'd always have the right size to deal with whatever SG comes to town. I also think it'll be atleast another season before Thabo gets fully comfortable in the NBA.

I won't jump to conclusions on the Richardson thing because, haven't seen it reported much so he might not even be involved.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

JRich had knee surgery this summer and has had repeated issues with it during the course of the season. First he had fluid buildup and now he's got a bone bruise of some sort.

That's pretty scary for a guy who depends on his hops.

I've looked at all the numbers here, and I have to say no. JRich healthy is clearly superior to Gordon. But he's not healthy and it could be a chronic injury. If it is, we've wasted assets to trade and taken on a huge contract we can't move. 

So while JRich is tempting, I can't advocate him unless I see he's both claimed healthy and shows it on the court.

Murphy... I don't like Murphy at all, and I'm quite certain he'll end up costing us Noc, a superior player who will likely come cheaper to boot.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Bulldozer said:


> What scares me most about Murphy, is how his rebound numbers just plummeted (I know its still early). In the previous two seasons he averaged 10 per. What happened?


He caught a severe case of Raef LaFrentz-itis


----------



## ExtremeBrigs (Jul 20, 2006)

It doesn't work financially:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=99~2381~1013~1018~366&teams=20~20~4~4~9

Sorry guys, but that trade's not gonna happen... Just ain't.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Someone's going to cost us Nocioni and Gordon anyway, in my opinion. 

I've been saying for some time that Gordon doesn't fit and will be traded, and the Bulls won't be able to keep Nocioni, Deng and Tyrus Thomas (and assumed lottery pick big from 2007 draft). 

Its going to happen. While I think an argument can be made that Gordon is better than Richardson (I don't agree) and that Nocioni is better than Murphy (Nocioni *is* better than Murphy) in a vaccuum, that isn't the question.

The question is what combination of players is best for the Bulls? There is no doubt in my mind that Richardson fits better than Gordon.

Murphy? I don't know. But I do know that he's a good fit as a pick and pop power forward and he adds size to our front line. If it eventually costs us Noc, so be it (though I don't consider that a certainty). Deng and Thomas (and assumed big from Knicks' lottery pick) will still be here, and of the 3, Nocioni is the one I'd let go anyway if I had to choose.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

If we lose Noce due to Murphy, I cannot forgive Pax. That was a great signing by him, and Noce and Deng are our two best players. We can get away with Noce at PF because his offensive game compliments Deng's well, and he is a tough sob.

JRich if healthy can be good, but I think if Gordon got some more minutes, he would put up the same production. While JRrich may have steadier production, Gordon can just explode some games. I do not think there is that much of a gap in the production of JRrich and Gordon. Now AI vs BG, yes. 

Murphy's contract could cause us to lose Noce. I don't want that. I do not see Murphy as a bad bench player, but not as his salary. If we really wanted to get Murphy, and no one else, I bet we could do it straight up for PJ. I'm not advocating the move, just saying how a 3 team trade is not needed for it to be done.

The deals I would accept, if we really are taking Murphy:
Murphy
JRich
Biedrins or Diogu/O'Bryant with GSW's 1st. 

I don't think Pax would do a deal otherwise. I have that much faith in him, or that much faith that no GM can be that stupid, even Isiah.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

ExtremeBrigs said:


> It doesn't work financially:
> 
> http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=99~2381~1013~1018~366&teams=20~20~4~4~9
> 
> Sorry guys, but that trade's not gonna happen... Just ain't.


Now it does

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=99~2381~2175~1013~1018~366&teams=20~20~20~4~4~9


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> JRich had knee surgery this summer and has had repeated issues with it during the course of the season. First he had fluid buildup and now he's got a bone bruise of some sort.
> 
> That's pretty scary for a guy who depends on his hops.
> 
> ...


That's pretty much how I see it.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Someone's going to cost us Nocioni and Gordon anyway, in my opinion.
> 
> I've been saying for some time that Gordon doesn't fit and will be traded, and the Bulls won't be able to keep Nocioni, Deng and Tyrus Thomas (and assumed lottery pick big from 2007 draft).
> 
> ...


I do think someone will be traded, and I think it is Gordon. But, I do not think right now is the sake of moving players sooner than later, for the sake of doing it. I think if we can get better players, then definitely.

We can keep Gordon another year (QO). In two years, we can enter RFA and try to make a trade. The only way I accept this package with Murphy's contract and the risk of losing Noce is to get additional compensation from GSW or Philly.

Edit: You think we be giving up the things Philly wants, and we would get Iverson. Instead we are focused on Troy Murphy. Go Figure.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Someone's going to cost us Nocioni and Gordon anyway, in my opinion.
> 
> I've been saying for some time that Gordon doesn't fit and will be traded, and the Bulls won't be able to keep Nocioni, Deng and Tyrus Thomas (and assumed lottery pick big from 2007 draft).
> 
> ...


How does a guy with a bum knee constitute an improvement over anyone?


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

I live in the Bay Area and watch plenty of Warriors games. I've made my case several times in regards to Murphy. Instead of giving another in-depth analysis, I'll just say the guy sucks. I'd rather have PJ Brown's expiring deal instead, which says a lot considering how much I bash PJ around here. Murphy is SOFT and he's too unathletic to get anything done around the basket, which is why he's strictly a jump shooting big man. We don't need another one of those. Nocioni is a better PF than he is, despite giving up 4 inches and 25 lbs. 

J-Rich has had knee problems and MikeDC is right, it's not to be overlooked. He was a tad overrated when he was healthy, now that injuries are a concern I'd stay far away from him as well. 

J-Rich & Murphy would not be my targets. Mullin is regretting giving those two huge deals and is looking for a sucker to take them off his hands. If Paxson makes this deal, then Mullin found that guy. Mullin would be robbing Paxson in this deal, and that statement alone might get me to join someone's "Fire Pax" club if one was started again. We might as well trade for Foyle's horrible contract as well, since we'd be doing Mullin a favor in unloading two of his worst contracts anyway.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Someone's going to cost us Nocioni and Gordon anyway, in my opinion.
> 
> I've been saying for some time that Gordon doesn't fit and will be traded, and the Bulls won't be able to keep Nocioni, Deng and Tyrus Thomas (and assumed lottery pick big from 2007 draft).
> 
> ...


I have trouble seeing how Gordon doesn't fit here, outside of perhaps Skiles not liking him. Skiles has said himself that Gordon is pretty much the only guy we have who can create for himself offensively, and every team needs a guy or guys who can do that. 

For what it's worth, Gordon's averaging 20 points a game in December, shooting 44% from the field and getting to the line over 6 times a game. He's also scored in double figures every game. He's a notoriously slow starter. I'd be very surprised if he didn't end up improving on his numbers, which aren't all that bad as is.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

So who else thinks this will end up like the Ron Artest situation, where a deal will be made months from now?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> How does a guy with a bum knee constitute an improvement over anyone?


Mike, if his physical doesn't pan out I wouldn't want him.

Having a current injury does not = chronic injury. It would need to be inspected by the Bulls' physicians. Though not stated, my posts assume a clean bill of health.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I have trouble seeing how Gordon doesn't fit here, outside of perhaps Skiles not liking him.


I don't mean "doesn't fit and must absolutely be traded". I mean "isn't a great fit, and a better fit will be found".

Richardson qualifies, in my opinion. 



> Skiles has said himself that Gordon is pretty much the only guy we have who can create for himself offensively, and every team needs a guy or guys who can do that.


Richardson can do that too and, frankly, among the league's shooting guards Gordon isn't really all that great at it. Its a talent of his, but its hardly unique. 

And I'd say that Skiles comments on this end are outdated. Though not as good at it as Gordon, both Deng and Nocioni have shown this ability this season. 



> For what it's worth, Gordon's averaging 20 points a game in December, shooting 44% from the field and getting to the line over 6 times a game. He's also scored in double figures every game. He's a notoriously slow starter. I'd be very surprised if he didn't end up improving on his numbers, which aren't all that bad as is.


If my posts imply that I don't think Gordon is good, then I should use my words more carefully. I like Gordon. I just don't like him as much as some of the rest of you do and believe that its more or less a certainty that he'll be traded within the next 12 months. 

I think Richardson is a good, but not great, return on such a trade and will improve this team. Thats what trades are for.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Earlier, Wiretap had an article saying how Philly was eyeing Gordon. If so, we hold the cards to any 3 way trade. If GSW is desperate to get AI, they have to give something up, and from their point of view, losing Richardson and Murphy is not giving anything up, they have wanted to get rid of their long term contracts. 

Maybe we sent Marty to D-League to develop him, and open up a roster spot? 

I have some faith in Paxson, that if we took on Murphy, we also took on a couple of additional assets.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

theanimal23 said:


> Earlier, Wiretap had an article saying how Philly was eyeing Gordon. If so, we hold the cards to any 3 way trade. If GSW is desperate to get AI, they have to give something up, and from their point of view, losing Richardson and Murphy is not giving anything up, they have wanted to get rid of their long term contracts.
> 
> Maybe we sent Marty to D-League to develop him, and open up a roster spot?
> 
> I have some faith in Paxson, that if we took on Murphy, we also took on a couple of additional assets.



Sending Marty to the D-League does not open up a roster spot. 

And I think a lot of these rumors are the result of Chris Mullin sharing his dreams with a few select reporters.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Kings out of the running for A.I., says owner*



> NBA's Kings Won't Trade for Allen Iverson, Owner Maloof Says
> 
> By Scott Soshnick
> 
> ...


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I swear, these reporters are contradicting themselves all the time. The only consistant team being interested is Boston. 

Tomorrow we'll have a quote from the Maloofs saying they are close to having a deal done. 

Looks like nothing went down today, what should we set the over/under at in how many days it takes for AI to get traded?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/479403p-403275c.html



> The Bulls took themselves out of the running for Allen Iverson yesterday, while the Sixers are still hopeful that they can wind up with Chicago's Ben Gordon, along with expiring contracts, when they trade their disgruntled superstar.
> 
> According to several league execs, *the Bulls decided they do not want to bring Iverson and his headstrong attitude to a team featuring many young players. The Bulls also did not think that Iverson and coach Scott Skiles could co-exist.* Iverson missed his third straight game last night, as the Sixers continued to hold discussions to trade him.


1. When will our guys be considered Vets and not be watched like little kids. If these guys who have been in the league for a few years, have had a taste of winning, do not know right from wrong, then so be it. Thats something a 25 year old living on their own should know. Tyrus is your youngster, I'm sure he will know better. Plus our guys should look out for him. Thabo lived in Europe, playing professional ball. It's just a different style of game over there, but the same responsiblities as an individual living independently. The rest of the team has been in the league for years.

2. Skiles needs to get out of here. I bet if we had Phil, we would have gone for AI. I know Brown and Iverson had their battles, but they both were determined to win. I feel that with Skiles, he is determined to win a personal battle than a basketball game. I don't care what Iverson does, he doesn't go TrailBlazers/Cincy Bengals on you, and he plays harder than anyone, Period.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/479403p-403275c.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, I bet that John Paxson told multiple league execs for other teams that he didn't want AI because of "his headstrong attitude to a team featuring many young players. The Bulls also did not think that Iverson and coach Scott Skiles could co-exist."

Gotta love the paraphrasing of unattributed quotes.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The Truth said:


> Yeah, I bet that John Paxson told multiple league execs for other teams that he didn't want AI because of "his headstrong attitude to a team featuring many young players. The Bulls also did not think that Iverson and coach Scott Skiles could co-exist."
> 
> Gotta love the paraphrasing of unattributed quotes.


Chances are that is probably true. If we are negotiating with Philly, especially to be involved as a 3rd team that is not getting AI, it makes sense. Pax has yet to make a risky move in his tenure. I don't classify drafting Tyrus and Thabo as risky moves as other GMs were wanting to do the same at the same position. I am not saying we should make a risky move for the hell of it, but if an offer like this is on the table, and we are aiming for JRich and Murphy, I do not see the Bulls serious in winning the big one. Not this regime. The only player I can think of that would not have any issue with Skiles is Duncan. Thats b/c Duncan has no emotion and is not vocal. 

The only way I would accept Pax not going for Iverson is to wait for a big man. I do think we would have to mortage the farm for a big man who I do not think would lead us to the top. I think our problems of needing a consistant scorer would be solved with Iverson at a cheap price. Teams that have star guards do not look for a big man, since these guards can create on their own. That is something we lack, and with Iverson we would not need a big man. I see the team constructed as perfect as they come in surrounding Iverson. Its a shame that Paxson goes for the Jib-ish players, yet feels their Jib will be destroyed by one player. The way we evaluate players, Duhon is the HOF, not Iverson. I bet we would have issues with the majority of the stars in this league coming onto this team.


----------



## Brothaman33 (Feb 21, 2006)

This bothers me...

Look apparently the Celtics are the only other team REALLY going after Iverson, the 76ers have to move him and We have the best parts for the trade...

Allen Iverson for Ben Gordon, P.J. Brown, and Mike Sweetney..

sign me up

Wallace
Deng
Noc
Iverson
Hinrich

a couple things we do have: A very small lineup, No bigmen period, more scoring, a go to guy, a young nucleus still intact..

maybe you make a trade for a bigman it the deadline...but we have the parts. and hes not puling the trigger because PAX CANT COACH SUPERSTARS...

you think he can?
then get Iverson and let him show me.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Duhon and Gordon make about the same salary.

I bet Philly is desparate enough that we don't have to giveup Gordon at all.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I'm pretty sure Pax has thought about Iverson taking away shot attempts from Noc & Deng...

might be a reason why he's not gonna pull the trigger..

look at how Igoudala is florishing WITHOUT A.I.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> The only way I would accept Pax not going for Iverson is to wait for a big man. I do think we would have to mortage the farm for a big man who I do not think would lead us to the top. I think our problems of needing a consistant scorer would be solved with Iverson at a cheap price. Teams that have star guards do not look for a big man, since these guards can create on their own. That is something we lack, and with Iverson we would not need a big man. I see the team constructed as perfect as they come in surrounding Iverson. Its a shame that Paxson goes for the Jib-ish players, yet feels their Jib will be destroyed by one player. The way we evaluate players, Duhon is the HOF, not Iverson. I bet we would have issues with the majority of the stars in this league coming onto this team.


calculating risk in this scenario, is very easy to (imo) see why paxson would feel iverson's not a good risk at this time. the "jib-ish" thing regarding the players is ridiculous. having the "best player" calling the shots, as well as hoarding shots (drawing double teams, i'd presume, lol)in games and choosing how to be part of the team dynamic is not a good strategical move, when you're building a basketball team, which the bull is, wallace notwithstanding, as he's a totally different character. also, a star big is what's *needed*, the bulls perimeter players don't appear to be having a big problem developing. if garnett doesn't take the farm to acquire, imo the bull and pax believes he can afford to wait. 

iverson's an extremely gifted player; however his style of play makes him as difficult to play with as he is to guard. a team full of "role players" with a hard-*** for a coach in larry brown couldn't do it in philly, but an old schooler like skiles? skiles would be charged with manslaughter after a practice.

good or bad, i'm on board with acquiring guys that help you win championships, iverson's game doesn't do that, imo.
and it matters not for this discussion whether hinrich, gordon, nocioni,or deng's game does at this time either.

the team that acquires iverson will smack of let's do it *right now*, i don't think the bull is overly worried about that. winning consistently is a process; iverson is the microwave-ing of that process. pax wouldn't do it, and i don't blame him.


----------



## Brothaman33 (Feb 21, 2006)

Iverson does things we need...

yea he does take alot of shots, but he also averages 7.3 assists per game...

he does one thing he sorely need... GET TO THE FREE THROW LINE...

He would open things up for everyone else...i hate the "ball hog" tag that put on him... look at his team. he tries to win himself because of his team... bring hi to a team where he doesnt have to do everything, and his scoring will go down im guesssing to about 25 or so and hes a go to guy and his assists would jump.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Mike, if his physical doesn't pan out I wouldn't want him.
> 
> Having a current injury does not = chronic injury. It would need to be inspected by the Bulls' physicians. Though not stated, my posts assume a clean bill of health.


I don't think there's any way to tell how JRich will be in a month from a physical today. There's a pretty big range of health between "healthy" and "can pass a phsyical". Guys pass physicals or come back from injuries all the time and then it's apparent later they're greatly diminished.

I mean, JRich has been out there playing in games. So I'd assume he's healthy enough to pass a physical. It'd be insanity to play if he couldn't and it could cause some long term damage. That's entirely different from saying he's completely healthy or will get completely healthy again. To my knowledge a doctor can't look at something like that and predict with much certainty whether it'll get better or not.

Guys try to come back and then end up having to go back under the knife all the time. Certainly they thought things were going ok when they initially came back.

He's not been right since his surgery, he's missed time because of it (something that commonly is a precursor to more surgery), and his play as been well below his prior play. No physical is going to tell you if he'll return to form with any certainty. Physical or not, it's a risk. A big one.

*Edit:* And yes, his current injury is chronic. At least, when a guy has surgery to fix something and it doesn't get fixed but continues to be an issue... that looks pretty chronic to me.


----------



## chibul (Oct 14, 2006)

If the Bulls seriously choose Troy ****ing Murphy over Allen Iverson, this team is a disgrace. Especially giving up Gordon AND PJ's contract.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

In the Tribune:



> "On Monday, Skiles shot down national reports that the Bulls had entered the Allen Iverson trade talks. On Tuesday, general manager John Paxson followed suit and went out of his way to protect Ben Gordon.
> 
> "It seems that Ben's name comes up constantly in trade rumors among fans and Internet reports," Paxson told reporters from the three newspapers that cover the team full time. "*It happens because he's a terrific player and I, along with Scott Skiles, value his ability at a very high level and view him as a key component to our team. I think very, very highly [of Gordon] as a player and person*."


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lsbits,1,1861761.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

narek said:


> In the Tribune:
> 
> 
> 
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lsbits,1,1861761.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


Well, perhaps that's it for now. I still say Gordon is gone by next season.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Well, perhaps that's it for now. I still say Gordon is gone by next season.


You think Pax will get more for him than he did for Crawford?

Remember, Crawford and JYD to NYK for Mutombo, Othella, Frank Williams, and Cezari Trybanski.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Well, perhaps that's it for now. I still say Gordon is gone by next season.


As well as any real chances at a championship unless were getting back Kobe, Melo, Duncan, etc. Gordon just has the same ring to it as Jordan. It's a winners name. It rolls off the tongue nicely for Marv (insert weird sexual innuendo here). I don't imagine Marv saying "Richardson" or "Murphy" (well maybe in a highly decreased role for spot minutes) in an NBA finals game, unless they were involved in some kind of postseason transaction, rumor, or off-the-court altercation.

I think I made this same point about John David Booty and look what happened to SC.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Remember, Crawford and JYD to NYK for Mutombo, Othella, Frank Williams, and Cezari Trybanski.


Wow, talk about fodder for some more unnecesary "update" threads.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> You think Pax will get more for him than he did for Crawford?
> 
> Remember, Crawford and JYD to NYK for Mutombo, Othella, Frank Williams, and Cezari Trybanski.


I think that had more to do with Pax seeking cap clearing contracts than it did getting equal talent back in the trade. Also, remember JYD had negative value around the league because of his ridiculous contract, one that Isiah got amnesty for a year later.

Honestly, I can't tell if your statement is spin or if you really believe that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

badfish said:


> I think that had more to do with Pax seeking cap clearing contracts than it did getting equal talent back in the trade. Also, remember JYD had negative value around the league because of his ridiculous contract, one that Isiah got amnesty for a year later.
> 
> Honestly, I can't tell if your statement is spin or if you really believe that.


I think I can never tell if Gordon would be gone for cap space or if I should expect to see some all-star or near all-star type player in return.

In fact, the very reason Gordon might be traded is cap space. Look at DC's financial table again and figure in what we'd pay in luxury tax by signing Gordon, Deng, and Nocioni to kirk-sized deals, on top of Wallace and Hinrich.

4x $9M = $36M + Wallace's ~$15M = $51M. For just five players.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

badfish.... that sig quote is just disturbing. I can't even think of what I was going to say in this thread anymore.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Ric Bucher just reported on Fastbreak that Indiana & Denver are at the TOP of the list now. Sacramento is out of the picture indefinintely.

Geez, A.I. & J.O.? that just makes the central even more tough for us.

Jamaal Tinsley, Stephen Jackson & filler goes to Philly for A.I.

I can't see Denver's GM bringing A.I. in to play with Melo. Don't think that would be good for his young career. On paper though, they look SICK

G Iverson
G Smith
F Melo
F Nene
C Camby


----------



## chibul (Oct 14, 2006)

The Pacers would do that deal in a heartbeat. The fans here in Indiana want Jackson's blood, basically...everyone's disgusted with him.

PG Iverson
SG Jasikevicius
SF Granger
PF Harrington
C O'Neal

Not too shabby...they'd just need a bench.


----------



## ExtremeBrigs (Jul 20, 2006)

It doesn't involve the Bulls, but my sources today told me that a deal with the Golden State Warriors could go down in the next day or two. Basically, GS would send out Baron Davis and Andris Biedrins (and probably one more guy) to Philly for Iverson and potentially Steven Hunter.

One of the guys potentially involved in the deal said it was all but "done." So we'll see...


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> You think Pax will get more for him than he did for Crawford?
> 
> Remember, Crawford and JYD to NYK for Mutombo, Othella, Frank Williams, and Cezari Trybanski.


Paxson traded one overpriced and another arguably overpriced contract for cap space. You don't get equal talent back.

With all that talent IT has fleeced from other teams over the years, you'd think the Knicks would be close to contender status by now.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> badfish.... that sig quote is just disturbing. I can't even think of what I was going to say in this thread anymore.



LOL. I'll take it down. Been on long enough. It was more of a contextual joke than anything. The line itself is not really funny.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I think I can never tell if Gordon would be gone for cap space or if I should expect to see some all-star or near all-star type player in return.
> 
> In fact, the very reason Gordon might be traded is cap space. Look at DC's financial table again and figure in what we'd pay in luxury tax by signing Gordon, Deng, and Nocioni to kirk-sized deals, on top of Wallace and Hinrich.
> 
> 4x $9M = $36M + Wallace's ~$15M = $51M. For just five players.


Fair enough. Although cap space and luxury tax avoidance are not inextricably aligned objectives. An owner could care less about avoiding a little luxury tax but want to get under the cap in order to bid on an impact UFA. Thus, the same motivation that Pax had to make the Crawford deal could be entirely different than what he would want back in a hypothetical Gordon deal. Especially since Pax has publicly stated that future contract extensions for our core have already been budgeted.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Bidrins and Davis looks like a decent return for the Sixers. The big guy is obviously very good, and while Davis is an injury problem, he's still younger and still going to save then $10M or so vs. what Iverson costs. I really like Bidrins, so I think this is possibly worth it for the Sixers.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

GSW fans are going nuts about the prospect of losing Beans. Don't seem to make much sense for them to do this. AI doesn't take that team to the promised land.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

philly will send AI out west, the warriors sounds about right.


----------

