# According to DraftExpress Bulls-Celtics trade in the works!



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

It's Duhon+No.16 for the 7th pick.

http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1374


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

In Pax I Trust

Man. If we do think Tyrus will slip, who do we grab at 2? I think it's safer to grab Tyrus then Brewer versus Grabbing Roy and hoping Tyrus is there. Unless he has O'Bryant, Sene, or Shelden in mind at 7


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Makes no sense for Boston, Boston can easilly get a better player then Chris Duhon at the #7 spot and could possibly even nab a guy like Roy. This trade is not going to happen, but if it does its a horrible trade for Boston.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Pax would be on "America's Most Wanted" after this -- it's robbery.

Ainge is just this stupid, too.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Duhon + 16 for Dan Dickau + 7 works under trade checker.

Dickau has a solid year two seasons ago. He sucked this past year, but if he can regain that old form, he would be a decent replacement for Duhon and err Pargo too.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Makes no sense for Boston, Boston can easilly get a better player then Chris Duhon at the #7 spot and could possibly even nab a guy like Roy. This trade is not going to happen, but if it does its a horrible trade for Boston.


Still bitter over Curry&Crawford?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Pax would be on "America's Most Wanted" after this -- it's robbery.
> 
> Ainge is just this stupid, too.


And Pax likes beating Ainge. Still hasn't gotten over that NCAA loss.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

unBULLievable said:


> Still bitter over Curry&Crawford?


Why would I be bitter?

I mean I am all for this trade as a Bulls fan, but I just dont see this happening its a horrible trade for the Celtics they get an average player in return and almost drop 10 spots in the draft. What sense does it make?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Why would I be bitter?
> 
> I mean I am all for this trade as a Bulls fan, but I just dont see this happening its a horrible trade for the Celtics they get an average player in return and almost drop 10 spots in the draft. What sense does it make?



I think Duhon is better than average and probably just what the Celts need. Besides, there should be some good players that will drop to them at 16 regardless.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Since Houston is likely getting Roy via Atlanta, this is how I want the draft to go

In no particular ranking:
1. Roy and T2
2. Aldridge and Brewer
3. Aldridge and T2
4. Aldridge and O'Bryant
5. If Bargani is available, Bargnani and O'Bryant (Get your PF and C of the future)
6. Aldridge and Gay

*Man, so many possibilities. So many.*

We can go 2 Bigs, if Pax knows he won't be going hard after any FAs (does not want to overpay)


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I think Duhon is better than average and probably just what the Celts need. Besides, there should be some good players that will drop to them at 16 regardless.


OK, this would be extremely exciting.

So how would we do it?

What would we be angling for?

Roy at #2, Thomas at #7? WOW!

Thomas or Aldridge at #2, Roy or Brewer at #7?

I say it again, WOW, WOW, WOW!

Make it happen, Pax! Bring us two potential stars in this draft!


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

That would be a great trade for us . . . Ainge does this, and he is up there with Isaiah in terms of GMing.

I'd part with Duhon for this in a nanosecond. Aldridge and Roy . . . Aldridge and Roy . . . Aldridge and Roy . . . Aldridge and Roy . . . Aldridge and Roy . . . Aldridge and Roy . . . Aldridge and Roy . . . Aldridge and Roy . . .Aldridge and Roy . . .Aldridge and Roy . . .Aldridge and Roy . . .


----------



## Zeb (Oct 16, 2005)

What brain type is Duhon?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> OK, this would be extremely exciting.
> 
> So how would we do it?
> 
> ...


I think getting Aldridge & Roy with 2 & 7 is a pipe dream, or TT & Roy either. I think if we get 7 it is for either Brewer, or for O'bryant who we just brought in for a late workout. Simmons is a possibility too as a lot of folks have been impressed with him in workouts and say he is a Theo Ratliff clone. I agree though, the prospect of trading up to #7 is definitley exciting.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

This is on google images under excited.










Yeah, thats me.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

unBULLievable said:


> It's Duhon+No.16 for the 7th pick.
> 
> http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1374


If one of the top 6 fell to #7, I bet Boston would get all sorts of calls. It's in their best interest to wait until they're on the clock and seeing what some desperate team would give up.

Still, this would be awesome news for the Bulls if Pax could pull this off.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

ace20004u said:


> I think Duhon is better than average and probably just what the Celts need. Besides, there should be some good players that will drop to them at 16 regardless.


I think that would be a dream trade. Rid ourselves of a chump who's just a role player and nothing more, for moving up 9 slots in the draft with the potential to get a star. Duhon is probably good enough to provide adequate guard play for a poor team in desperate need of a guard, plus they'd be able to grab a decent player at 16 possibly. But for our team with much better guards, he's unnecessary and moving up 9 slots is definitely worth giving him up. I will be mad if we take Shelden Williams with the #7 though...he's the one and only player I really don't want out of this draft. 

As for who to take, Thomas at 7 is pretty realistic, and I'd be in favor of that, but not at #2. At #2, take Bargs, Morrison, Gay, Aldridge.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Think with the late O'Bryant workout, he impressed Pax enough that he is trying to land the 7th pick to get him

I agree, this deal needs to be done ASAP, before Boston gets more value for the pick during the draft.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I think that would be a dream trade. Rid ourselves of a chump who's just a role player and nothing more, for moving up 9 slots in the draft with the potential to get a star. Duhon is probably good enough to provide adequate guard play for a poor team in desperate need of a guard, plus they'd be able to grab a decent player at 16 possibly. But for our team with much better guards, he's unnecessary and moving up 9 slots is definitely worth giving him up. I will be mad if we take Shelden Williams with the #7 though...he's the one and only player I really don't want out of this draft.
> 
> As for who to take, Thomas at 7 is pretty realistic, and I'd be in favor of that, but not at #2. At #2, take Bargs, Morrison, Gay, Aldridge.



Thomas won't be there at 7. I'd be thrilled if we landed Williams at 7 myself.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I also think that boston wants Rondo and he will be there at 16 and this will save boston and ton of cap space and i hear the Ainge doesnt think much of the draft after the first few picks and thinks rando is a good as Foye and marcus williams. I think that is the major reason to trade down.

Thomas and brewer? Roy and Thomas. Roy and Aldridge. Roy and Bangnani?


david


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

I thought they couldn't trade Duhon until August?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Thomas won't be there at 7. I'd be thrilled if we landed Williams at 7 myself.


Roy at #2, Sene at #7. If the gamble was to get Thomas at #7, why not take a guy who brings the same to the table, is taller with a better reach and actually can play a position of need? I think for this deal to work we'd have to take back a little salary from Boston. The poster who mentioned Dikau might have been spot on.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Qwerty123 said:


> If one of the top 6 fell to #7, I bet Boston would get all sorts of calls. It's in their best interest to wait until they're on the clock and seeing what some desperate team would give up.
> 
> Still, this would be awesome news for the Bulls if Pax could pull this off.


I think that the anticipation of a guy falling out of the top 6 is why this deal should be done now from a Bulls' perspective. Even if no one drops, you'd still have your choice of everyone after them, so still a pretty good situation. Sene, Brewer, Redick, etc etc would all be there for the taking.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

giusd said:


> this will save boston and ton of cap space


. . . or even a little under a million dollars a year for four years.

That would be an insanely dumb rationale for Ainge to make the trade, but then again, it is Ainge.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

ace20004u said:


> Thomas won't be there at 7. I'd be thrilled if we landed Williams at 7 myself.


I wouldn't bet on that. Some mocks have Thomas falling to 7 and one even has a top 6 guy at #8. Some teams might not buy into all the hype on the big 6, always gotta remember that. One of the big 6 has to fall if Shelden gets taken by the Hawks as anticipated. I'd say that Thomas is as likely to be that guy as anyone, maybe Roy would be tied for most likely IMO. 

As for not taking Williams, I have hated that guy ever since the first time I saw him play. Granted I can't stand Duke anyway, but it's just one of those things where you instantly dislike someone. Kinda like Patrick Ewing, Anthony Mason, Kobe, etc. Instantly turned off and want nothing to do with them. I am still in favor of Redick being a Bull, even though he's a Bluedevil, so it's not just a Duke thing with me not liking Williams.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> OK, this would be extremely exciting.
> 
> So how would we do it?
> 
> ...



corrected :biggrin:


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

In his latest mock, Chad Ford has Gay falling out of the top 6. If he were there at 7, I'd be torn between him and Brewer. Gay for the upside, and Brewer for the fit (yet good upside as well).

Minnesota appears to be the key to who drops. According to Ford, their draft board has Aldridge and Thomas at the top, followed by Foye. If Aldridge and Thomas are gone, they'd look to drop back a couple spots for Foye and pick up another asset in the process.

So under this scenario, if we were to get #7, it's unlikely Thomas would be there, but Gay might be.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

DaBabyBullz said:


> One of the big 6 has to fall if Shelden gets taken by the Hawks as anticipated.


this shelden williams at #5 thing is just something i will not think has 1% chance of happening til i see it.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Chops said:


> I thought they couldn't trade Duhon until August?


Duhon would have to agree to the trade, but if he does, he can be traded to any team but Toronto.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

The real issue is who is minny going to take here. I hear McHale (the worst GM in the NBA) has his mind set on Foye who he thinks is a poor man's D. Wade and since he is a senior should be able to contribute immediately. If the raptors really do trade down to take bangs than either thomas or Aldridge will be there at 7. Also what about Alt. Houston wants Roy. If Roy is gone than i assume that trade is off and Alt has to take Williams since there is no one to trade down with who will let Willams go. They cant trade with minny it is one spot. Chicago will be at 7 and Houston will likely just take Brewer or JJ redrick. And i hear GS and Seattle are thinking about Willams. So if Alt really wants williams they either have to get houston to take thomas at 5 or houston will just stay at 8. But i also guess they could take thomas but then Bangs falls to the bulls.

david


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> . . . or even a little under a million dollars a year for four years.
> 
> That would be an insanely dumb rationale for Ainge to make the trade, but then again, it is Ainge.


Boston really, really, really needs guards. Ball handling, defense, assist oriented guards to take some pressure off Pierce and to allow their young bigs to develop.

Duhon + #16 (Marcus Williams or Carney) gives them two players of depth at the guard spot. Duhon is really too good to be our backup PG and we really don't need him.

For us, obviously moving up from #16 to #7 is about quality. We have so many good assets that consolidating them into single higher quality assets is just what we need. Imagine we get two bigs (Thomas and O'Bryant, or Aldridge and O'Bryant or Aldridge or Roy). Nice.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

This seems to good to be true..... I won't believe it till I see it.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Im waiting for some report/rumor from Draftexpress to become true. Hopefully its this one.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Boston really, really, really needs guards. Ball handling, defense, assist oriented guards to take some pressure off Pierce and to allow their young bigs to develop.
> 
> Duhon + #16 (Marcus Williams or Carney) gives them two players of depth at the guard spot. Duhon is really too good to be our backup PG and we really don't need him.
> 
> For us, obviously moving up from #16 to #7 is about quality. We have so many good assets that consolidating them into single higher quality assets is just what we need. Imagine we get two bigs (Thomas and O'Bryant, or Aldridge and O'Bryant or Aldridge or Roy). Nice.


Isn't Delonte West the same thing as Duhon, but younger, better, healthier, and cheaper?

I agree that consolidating assets is the way to go. I just think this trade is heavily skewed in our favor, and thus fairly implausible.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

DengNabbit said:


> this shelden williams at #5 thing is just something i will not think has 1% chance of happening til i see it.


I bet it's more likely than you'd think. They need a post presence and rebounder, that's what Williams would give them, and there's not a whole lot of other players worth a #5 pick that would give you that. I think he'll always be an average at best role player, but he should give you solid play right away coming from Duke as a senior.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I bet it's more likely than you'd think. They need a post presence and rebounder, that's what Williams would give them, and there's not a whole lot of other players worth a #5 pick that would give you that. I think he'll always be an average at best role player, but he should give you solid play right away coming from Duke as a senior.



Making this trade with the Celtics would also freeze the trade between Houston and Atlanta. Atlanta would have to take Sheldon Williams at five, because I'm sure Paxson would have interest in drafting him at seven.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

ScottMay said:


> Isn't Delonte West the same thing as Duhon, but younger, better, healthier, and cheaper?
> 
> I agree that consolidating assets is the way to go. I just think this trade is heavily skewed in our favor, and thus fairly implausible.



then again, as you've stated, Ainge. 

the same man who's traded antoine for garbage, then traded back FOR antoine, then let antoine go in free agency. 

building a winner is a hard thing to do. this is why isiah, kupchak, ainge are the most valuable of commodities.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Whoever Paxson wants at seven will be gone at five.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

GB said:


> Whoever Paxson wants at seven will be gone at five.


Only if he wants Sheldon Williams [if we make the trade].


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Im waiting for some report/rumor from Draftexpress to become true. Hopefully its this one.


They certainly are throwing an awful lot of stuff against the wall.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

This was speculated by a Boston reporter a few days ago. I wonder if DX is just picking up on that, or whether they're hearing something else.

If we can pull it off, I'm all for it. No doubt we can get a quality player at #7.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> I think getting Aldridge & Roy with 2 & 7 is a pipe dream, or TT & Roy either. I think if we get 7 it is for either Brewer, or for O'bryant who we just brought in for a late workout. Simmons is a possibility too as a lot of folks have been impressed with him in workouts and say he is a Theo Ratliff clone. I agree though, the prospect of trading up to #7 is definitley exciting.


huh? SIMMONS? hell no lol

how is grabbing two of the top 6 in the top 7 a PIPEDREAM? especially when roy's going 5 for shelden at 8?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

such sweet thunder said:


> Making this trade with the Celtics would also freeze the trade between Houston and Atlanta. Atlanta would have to take Sheldon Williams at five, because I'm sure Paxson would have interest in drafting him at seven.


Yeah you have a good point that the Houston/Atlanta trade wouldn't happen then cause we might take the guy that Houston was wanting.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

DengNabbit said:


> this shelden williams at #5 thing is just something i will not think has 1% chance of happening til i see it.


it's #5 Roy drafted by Atlanta to #8 houston for Shelden & Luther head

nothing wrong with the deal...they want extra assets


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Slightly OT, I'm not sure I wouldn't prefer Shelden Williams to Aldridge. If only Williams wasn't slow as a turtle I'd be really really high on him.

Him and Morrison are guys who will have a tough time playing a transition game in the league, I think, but if you played them in a slow it down environment they'll be really good.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

MikeDC said:


> This was speculated by a Boston reporter a few days ago. I wonder if DX is just picking up on that, or whether they're hearing something else.
> 
> If we can pull it off, I'm all for it. No doubt we can get a quality player at #7.


Well, if it was started from someone in Boston, maybe it's more likely to happen than we think. It seems to me to be lopsided in our favor, but if it was originated by a Boston guy maybe they're the ones who are proposing it and therefore it's more realistic than we'd think.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Slightly OT, I'm not sure I wouldn't prefer Shelden Williams to Aldridge. If only Williams wasn't slow as a turtle I'd be really really high on him.
> 
> Him and Morrison are guys who will have a tough time playing a transition game in the league, I think, but if you played them in a slow it down environment they'll be really good.


Billy Knight said he wanted more mature players who could contribute right away.

I still wouldn't take Williams over Aldridge though


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Slightly OT, I'm not sure I wouldn't prefer Shelden Williams to Aldridge. If only Williams wasn't slow as a turtle I'd be really really high on him.
> 
> Him and Morrison are guys who will have a tough time playing a transition game in the league, I think, but if you played them in a slow it down environment they'll be really good.


Sheldon was the quickest big man in the agility drills (though I'm sure you know this from the killin' spread sheets you've been nice enough to circulate ). I'm sure that players can be preped for the agility drills in a way that they can't for the dead sprint, which he was just average in, but it does show some ability. O'Bryant always struck me as the player from the draft that might have trouble adjusting to the speed of the up-and-down game.

I'd love a Williams draft. 

Scratch that I'd love any draft that nets us Roy and one of Aldridge, Thomas, Sheldon Williams, Bargnani, Armstrong and Sene.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I don't think it's lopsided...

They want Simmons or Rondo later in the draft...Rivers also is a Duhon fan...

makes sense to me...


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

I was just thinking, if it's Duhon that Boston wants, they might not have the luxury of waiting until they're on the clock. Since the deal would require Duhon's permission, you couldn't really spring the deal during the draft. You'd have to get assurances from Duhon before the draft so that Ainge wouldn't get stuck with whomever the Bulls want in case Duhon nixes things. You'd want to give Duhon a chance to mull things over as well, but you wouldn't want to broach the subject with him unless you had assurances from Ainge that the deal was on the table.

Also, Ainge has supposedly been linked to Simmons and Brewer in the last couple days. Perhaps one of those guys is Pax's target, and Ainge was either doing due diligence or the talk stems from Boston selecting one of those guys for the Bulls.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

The ROY said:


> Billy Knight said he wanted more mature players who could contribute right away.
> 
> I still wouldn't take Williams over Aldridge though


Aldridge has a higher ceiling than Williams by far. Williams might be more ready to play right away, but no way does he have the athleticism or ability that Aldridge does.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

I would think there'd have to be some future considerations involved, because Boston could almost certainly get a more attractive package than just Duhon and #16. Maybe our '08 1st round pick? I don't think Paxson would give up the Knicks '07 pick though.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Aldridge has a higher ceiling than Williams by far. Williams might be more ready to play right away, but no way does he have the athleticism or ability that Aldridge does.


umm

I agree WITH you


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Qwerty123 said:


> I was just thinking, if it's Duhon that Boston wants, they might not have the luxury of waiting until they're on the clock. Since the deal would require Duhon's permission, you couldn't really spring the deal during the draft. You'd have to get assurances from Duhon before the draft so that Ainge wouldn't get stuck with whomever the Bulls want in case Duhon nixes things. You'd want to give Duhon a chance to mull things over as well, but you wouldn't want to broach the subject with him unless you had assurances from Ainge that the deal was on the table.
> 
> Also, Ainge has supposedly been linked to Simmons and Brewer in the last couple days. Perhaps one of those guys is Pax's target, and Ainge was either doing due diligence or the talk stems from Boston selecting one of those guys for the Bulls.


Makes sense....Ainge selects Brewer to secure him for Chicago..

yep

If this happens...

WHOOOOOOOOOA


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

The ROY said:


> huh? SIMMONS? hell no lol
> 
> how is grabbing two of the top 6 in the top 7 a PIPEDREAM? especially when roy's going 5 for shelden at 8?



Yeah but Roy is being selected 5. Thomas, Adrdidge, Roy and probably Bargnani & Gay will all be gone by 7. Simmons is a pretty good big man, Theo Ratliff clone isn't a bad thing at 7.

I think Pax takes Thomas at 2 (or possibly Bargs) and then picks up Brewer or O'bryant at 7 myself.

And no, #7 is way too high for Sene. Whoever said something like he gives you what Thomas gives you but in a more atheletic body...uhhh..no..he doesn't, if he did he would be the consensus #1 pick! he is a PROJECT player, a guy you take a flyer on AFTER the lottery..


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Qwerty123 said:


> I was just thinking, if it's Duhon that Boston wants, they might not have the luxury of waiting until they're on the clock. Since the deal would require Duhon's permission, you couldn't really spring the deal during the draft. You'd have to get assurances from Duhon before the draft so that Ainge wouldn't get stuck with whomever the Bulls want in case Duhon nixes things. You'd want to give Duhon a chance to mull things over as well, but you wouldn't want to broach the subject with him unless you had assurances from Ainge that the deal was on the table.
> 
> Also, Ainge has supposedly been linked to Simmons and Brewer in the last couple days. Perhaps one of those guys is Pax's target, and Ainge was either doing due diligence or the talk stems from Boston selecting one of those guys for the Bulls.


Good points there. I don't know why Duhon wouldn't go for it though. He knows he'll never be a starter here, which he would be in Boston. You'd think he'd have to go where there was more opportunity right?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Good points there. I don't know why Duhon wouldn't go for it though. He knows he'll never be a starter here, which he would be in Boston. You'd think he'd have to go where there was more opportunity right?



I don't know if he would beat West out of the starting job or not, Delonte is pretty good, I am honestly not so sure why Boston is looking for a pg.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

real talk

I'm not even gonna post on this again til it happens...


----------



## nybullsfan (Aug 12, 2005)

hmmmm interesting trade if it goes down if this trade were to go down do you think paxson would draft roy and williams in the draft? seeing how he likes three or four year guys, and these guys seem the have the most experience at their positions. now this is not in any way my idea just going by what paxson seems to look for in drafts.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Remember when Pax could have traded for Wade, but he turned it down? Back in the 2003 draft, Toronto was desperate to trade Lamond Murray & the 4th pick for Donyell Marshall & the 7th pick. But Pax was too afraid to pull the trigger. This is an absolute fact because I remember reading about it online!  

When this supposed 7th pick for Duhon & 16 DOES NOT HAPPEN (because it's too good to be true), and Boston is fortunate enough to land a stud at #7, what will stop people from turning this rumor into another "Pax could have traded for Wade" scenario.

Let's say Boston takes a stud at #7. Will we then have people criticize Pax for not acquiring the 7th pick when he had the chance? Sure! Why not? I mean, we have proof. Just check out this link. http://www.draftexpress.com/viewarticle.php?a=1374 

You want more proof? Ok, click here . Two different web sites reporting on this deal. It must be true. It's really on the table. All Pax has to do is say yes. But when it doesn't happen, remember people, it's because Pax didn't want it to happen. Let's ignore the fact it was a rumor started by an online newspaper columnist, and another web site read the rumor and decided to put it on their web site too.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Are you sure that is right i heard that Houston wanted Roy bad and they were trading up to get him.

david


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I don't know if he would beat West out of the starting job or not, Delonte is pretty good, I am honestly not so sure why Boston is looking for a pg.


I can understand them looking for one PG, a more traditional PG, and shifting West to a 6th man combo guard role. But what I don't understand for the life of me is why they'd want Duhon and Rondo, which is who is sounds like they'd target by trading back.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> I don't know if he would beat West out of the starting job or not, Delonte is pretty good, I am honestly not so sure why Boston is looking for a pg.


Ainge said he doesn't look at him as a point but rather as a combo guard who's more a 2


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Yeah but Roy is being selected 5. Thomas, Adrdidge, Roy and probably Bargnani & Gay will all be gone by 7. Simmons is a pretty good big man, Theo Ratliff clone isn't a bad thing at 7.
> 
> I think Pax takes Thomas at 2 (or possibly Bargs) and then picks up Brewer or O'bryant at 7 myself.
> 
> And no, #7 is way too high for Sene. Whoever said something like he gives you what Thomas gives you but in a more atheletic body...uhhh..no..he doesn't, if he did he would be the consensus #1 pick! he is a PROJECT player, a guy you take a flyer on AFTER the lottery..


But that was just my point. If Bulls trade to seven, Atlanta has to take Williams at five. Otherwise the Bulls will grab him. Paxson is forcing their hand.

One more contingency you can count on: Ainge knows who McHale will select better than any person. They have been working out players together so that they can see more prospects. Rumors on Draft Express have McHale flying to Boston today to look at Foye, their presumed pick, one last time. If McHale heart Foye then Ainge would know. I'll bet Ainge has communicated this to Paxson.

If this goes down you're probably looking at two picks for sure: Williams at five; Foye at six.

Thus, probably:

Bargnani
Roy
Morrison or Gay
Adridge
Williams
Foye
*Thomas!!!

Thats how it most likely plays out. *


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

giusd said:


> Are you sure that is right i heard that Houston wanted Roy bad and they were trading up to get him.
> 
> david


Roy or Brewer...wouldn't matter to me...

as long as we get a big and a small....


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

SALO said:


> Remember when Pax could have traded for Wade, but he turned it down? Back in the 2003 draft, Toronto was desperate to trade Lamond Murray & the 4th pick for Donyell Marshall & the 7th pick. But Pax was too afraid to pull the trigger. This is an absolute fact because I remember reading about it online!
> 
> When this supposed 7th pick for Duhon & 16 DOES NOT HAPPEN (because it's too good to be true), and Boston is fortunate enough to land a stud at #7, what will stop people from turning this rumor into another "Pax could have traded for Wade" scenario.


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3715633&postcount=38


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> But that was just my point. If Bulls trade to seven, Atlanta has to take Williams at five. Otherwise the Bulls will grab him. Paxson is forcing their hand.
> 
> One more contingency you can count on: Ainge knows who McHale will select better than any person. They have been working out players together so that they can see more prospects. Rumors on Draft Express have McHale flying to Boston today to look at Foye, their presumed pick, one last time. If McHale heart Foye then Ainge would know. I'll bet Ainge has communicated this to Paxson.
> 
> ...



I disagree. I understand your reasoning but if Tyrus Thomas was to drop to 5 ATL would probably wisely go ahead and select him and pass on Williams. Teams like certain players for sure but a guy like Thomas won't drop past 5 or 6 IMO.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

So the real question is who is more important to us. Roy or Thomas.

Because if it is Roy then we are looking at maybe not getting are pick of thomas or Aldridge or maybe as ROY suggests it will be Williams at 7. But if we want thomas more that it is likely to be Thomas and Brewer. So the real issue is who is more important to paxson: Roy or Thomas?

david


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Now if Minnesota takes Tyrus Thomas 6, and the draft goes like this:

1. Bargnani
2. Aldridge
3. Gay
4. Morrison
5. Roy
6. Thomas

then we should take Shelden Williams at #7. Not only is he the best player available, he'd give us height, and if Atlanta really wants him, we'd get Roy. Its a win win situation for us, because worse case we have the best player available, a strong guy, that can contribute off the bat in the NBA.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I disagree. I understand your reasoning but if Tyrus Thomas was to drop to 5 ATL would probably wisely go ahead and select him and pass on Williams. Teams like certain players for sure but a guy like Thomas won't drop past 5 or 6 IMO.


If you look Atlantas moves over the past few weeks . . . it really points to them believing that Williams is the best player in the draft. If your organization wanted to draft Williams, and he wasn't a consensus top six pick, then you would have to leak it the press and make your direction obvious. Otherwise, your organization would just get killed by the fans and the media on draft day. It's GM self preservation. This is similar to how Krause leaked the Brand trade.

I'll bet Atlanta is stepping out on a limb and they sincerely believe that Williams is the best player in the draft (which is not really that far out on a limb). They haven't even bothered to work anyone else out. Atlanta is all but broadcasting to the fans that Sheldon is going to be their pick, and because of this, the ownership will not get tomatoes thrown at them by their most loyal supporters who are taken aback.

One more note, did you read the sportslawblog article about promises? It examined whether draft promises are enforceable and concluded that they are not, but stated that they are followed almost without exception. There are very few reasons that one team should promise a draft pick. Atlanta has a legitimate one. I'd be shocked if he wasn't with them next season.

Edit: one more thing. Atlanta really needs a four-five, not a three-four. They already have Josh Smith, Marvin Williams and the rights to Al Harrington at that spot. Williams is just a better fit.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

SALO said:


> Remember when Pax could have traded for Wade, but he turned it down? Back in the 2003 draft, Toronto was desperate to trade Lamond Murray & the 4th pick for Donyell Marshall & the 7th pick. But Pax was too afraid to pull the trigger. This is an absolute fact because I remember reading about it online!
> 
> When this supposed 7th pick for Duhon & 16 DOES NOT HAPPEN (because it's too good to be true), and Boston is fortunate enough to land a stud at #7, what will stop people from turning this rumor into another "Pax could have traded for Wade" scenario.
> 
> ...


if the trade doesn't happen, it's not because it wasn't on the table. it's because chuck norris wouldn't allow it to happen.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

giusd said:


> So the real question is who is more important to us. Roy or Thomas.
> 
> Because if it is Roy then we are looking at maybe not getting are pick of thomas or Aldridge or maybe as ROY suggests it will be Williams at 7. But if we want thomas more that it is likely to be Thomas and Brewer. So the real issue is who is more important to paxson: Roy or Thomas?
> 
> david


Actually it's more than just Roy and Thomas that need to be considered. They are most likely not even our top choice for #2, but they are the most likely of the big 6 to still be there at 7 if we don't take them at 2. They're probably the last 2 of the big 6 that I would take. I say do the trade ahead of time, take the guy at 2 that you want the most, not taking into consideration who might fall and who might not, cause you don't want to lose your main target while speculating who will drop. At #7, take the BPA....if it's one of the big 6 that dropped, take them, if they're all gone, take the best player left anyway.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

sloth said:


> Now if Minnesota takes Tyrus Thomas 6, and the draft goes like this:
> 
> 1. Bargnani
> 2. Aldridge
> ...


BREWER


----------



## Fairsportsfan (Aug 10, 2005)

It will most likely be Adridge and Brewer, its kind of funny that Thomas might slip all the way to 9 or 10, lol.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Thank you Chuck Norris.

david


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I can't help it . . . 


It's been a while . . . 


Can you feel it . . . ?


Here we go,


IN PAX WE TRUST!!!


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

sloth said:


> Now if Minnesota takes Tyrus Thomas 6, and the draft goes like this:
> 
> 1. Bargnani
> 2. Aldridge
> ...


Wow. Total jerk move, but we'd get our guy (as would Atlanta), but Houston would be pissed.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Actually it's more than just Roy and Thomas that need to be considered. They are most likely not even our top choice for #2.


huh?

lol every publication has said Roy & Thomas were at the top of the Bulls board and Aldridge slowly crept in the mix AFTER his workout


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

That would be a ridiculous trade. And then with a high pick next year, it might be safe to say that the Bulls have finally finished the rebuilding process from the Jordan era.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

sloth said:


> Now if Minnesota takes Tyrus Thomas 6, and the draft goes like this:
> 
> 1. Bargnani
> 2. Aldridge
> ...


Minnesota has a corner stone power forward. They're not going to draft to their one strength.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

sloth said:


> Now if Minnesota takes Tyrus Thomas 6, and the draft goes like this:
> 
> 1. Bargnani
> 2. Aldridge
> ...


Nah, don't take Sheldon. Just say NO to Sheldon!!!! Kinda like DARE lol. We already have our role players. We need stars, no way in hell is Sheldon ever going to be anywhere near a star caliber player. I'd rather take Sene than Sheldon, cause at least he'd give us the possibility of someone above average, and his height/athleticism almost makes it a given he'll be better in the long run. Shot blocking he'll instantly be better at, and most likely rebounding too. 

If Atlanta really wanted Williams, they'd select him with the #5, so we would by no means have Atlanta in a stranglehold over Roy if we took Williams.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> We already have our role players. We need stars



Cool it man! You've got draft fever!


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

A lot could hinge on Michael Jordan. Imagine if Atlanta conveys that they see us as a risk of taking Shelden Williams, and takes him #5 and skips the trade.

So who does Jordan take #3, Thomas, Gay, or Roy?

What if Toronto takes Morrison #1, Portland takes Roy #4, and Bargnani falls to 7? I think this is a great move, because you basically rank the players like this:

1. LaMarcus Aldridge
2. Andrea Bargnani
3. Rudy Gay
4. Brandon Roy
5. Adam Morrison
6. Shelden Williams
7. Tyrus Thomas

Those are 7 guys right there, if we come out with 2, I'd be happy. Aldridge and Roy, or Aldridge and Williams are my two favorite possibilities that are likely, but if it is Aldrdige and Bargnani I'd be happy. Its a good trade, because as I pointed out in my post, were going to get two good players (hopefully not Thomas).


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

sloth said:


> A lot could hinge on Michael Jordan. Imagine if Atlanta conveys that they see us as a risk of taking Shelden Williams, and takes him #5 and skips the trade.
> 
> So who does Jordan take #3, Thomas, Gay, or Roy?
> 
> ...


That pick won't be so much Jordan as people think. It'll be more Bickerstaff...as MJ is coming into the process late.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

such sweet thunder said:


> Minnesota has a corner stone power forward. They're not going to draft to their one strength.


What? 

SG-Ricky Davis
SF-Tyrus THomas
PF-Kevin Garnett

Thomas is by no means a powerforward, he already made sure that we knew that.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

How about #2, '07 first rounder with swap, Chandler, and DENG for KG.

Sign Pryz and Al Harrington, draft O'bryant at #7.


Hinrich, 
Gordon, 
Noc, A. Harrington
KG, A. Harrington
Pryz, O'Bryant

Crap nevermind that leaves us with no backup guards. OOPS.


----------



## nybullsfan (Aug 12, 2005)

iam going to assume the worse (thomas does not slip at 7) but if this trade happens you pick roy with #2 (i kno i said he would not make sense to draft but this potential trade changes things dramtically) and obryant at #7. 

With roy it gives bulls a solid rotation of hinrich (35mins as starting pg) gordon (22mins as starting sg 13 mins as back up pg) and roy (26mins as back up sg). this talleys 48 mins in both backcourt spots and gives roy solid backup rookie mins at 26.

as for obryant (assuming wolves dont take him, then he would be switched with sheldon) he gives the bulls a legit center with some experience under his belt (tho not as much as roy). and should be developed properly under skiles give him about 26-30mpg to learn the ropes.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

such sweet thunder said:


> Minnesota has a corner stone power forward. They're not going to draft to their one strength.


Tyrus Thomas is not a PF and it will take him atleast 4 years of Strength 
building to be ready to be a full time PF, in 4 years KG is on his way out as the corner stone of the T-Wolves.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

madox said:


> How about #2, '07 first rounder with swap, Chandler, and Gordon for KG.
> 
> Sign Pryz and Al Harrington, draft O'bryant at #7 and Brewer/Thabo/Shannon Brown at #16.
> Only problem is backup PG.
> ...


Umm, no, no, don't trade Gordon. In such a swap, you trade #2, Pickswap (as in they get first choice out of us/newyork/them, we get 2nd choice, new york gets 3rd choice), deng, Tyson Chandler. You won't have as much capspace either htough. How do you draft Thabo if you traded the #16, or how do you have Gordon if you trade him for Garnett, yours is one of hte most flawed posts.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

giusd said:


> Thank you Chuck Norris.
> 
> david


mr. norris graciously accepts your gratitude.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Sloth and the Biz:

I think Thomas is a four. I know what Tyrus has said in interviews. His shot is suspect. His handles are suspect. Hes long enough to be a four. He's a great rebounder on the offensive glass. That says four to me.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

nybullsfan said:


> iam going to assume the worse (thomas does not slip at 7) but if this trade happens you pick roy with #2 (i kno i said he would nto make sense to draft but this potential trade changes things dramtically) and obryant at #7.
> 
> With roy it gives bulls a solid rotation of hinrich (35mins as starting pg) gordon (22mins as starting sg 13 mins as back up pg) and roy (26mins as back up sg). this talleys 48 mins in both backcourt spots and gives roy solid backup rookie mins at 26.
> 
> as for obryant (assuming wolves dont take him, then he would be switched with sheldon) he gives the bulls a legit center with some experience under his belt (tho not as much as roy). and should be developed properly under skiles give him about 26-30mpg to learn the ropes.


If Toronto takes Bargnani #1, we take Roy 2...than.

You have Gay, Morrison, Williams, Aldridge, Thomas. Hope that Williams or Aldridge falls.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

GB said:


> Cool it man! You've got draft fever!


LOL, you got me. I am pretty sold on our core guys...Hinrich, Ben, Nocioni, Chandler, and though they're pretty good, we don't have a superstar. I see picking at #2 and #7 as a playoff team as a chance to take a shot at a true superstar, rather than just a role player, which is what Sheldon is to me. I don't wanna replace the guys we have, that's what I normally consider draft fever...when the draft prospects are hyped up to being better than your starters....but I do feel that we won't have many, if any chances to pick this high in the coming years so we have to get impact players while we can. NY's choice next year is a definite option for a high pick, but that's just guessing they don't do better. We don't know how good they'll be coached or anything next year.


----------



## Fairsportsfan (Aug 10, 2005)

The ROY said:


> huh?
> 
> lol every publication has said Roy & Thomas were at the top of the Bulls board and Aldridge slowly crept in the mix AFTER his workout


Aldrigde has been promised the the number 1 or 2 pick and it seems like Bargnani is going number 1. And with the deal of the of Hou/Atl roy won't be there at 7. So drafting Thomas at 7 would make no sense, since u guys already drafted Aldrigde. And since the bull like Brewer so much and also fits the bill of what they need in a wing, he is the number one choose.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

madox said:


> I would think there'd have to be some future considerations involved, because Boston could almost certainly get a more attractive package than just Duhon and #16. Maybe our '08 1st round pick? I don't think Paxson would give up the Knicks '07 pick though.


That's what I was thinking. Duhon + #16 for the #7 is probably just the key idea of the trade. It could easily include our first-rounder for next season (which would be good, b/c I would expect us to have nothing better than the 20th pick)...or it might involve us taking on a "bad contract", ala Scalabrine. Who knows, but there seems to be substance behind this. I sure hope so, I'd do backflips if we came out of this draft with Roy/Thomas, Roy/O'Bryant, Bargnani/Brewer, or Bargnani/O'Bryant.

Edit: Nevermind, I forgot about our pick swap circumstances for next season...with the strength of next year's lottery, we are NOT going to trade our draft pick next year. The way I understand it, trading that pick means trading our swap right. Not gonna happen. So I'm thinking this rumor involves us taking back a contract.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

madox said:


> How about #2, '07 first rounder with swap, Chandler, and Gordon for KG.
> 
> Sign Pryz and Al Harrington, draft O'bryant at #7 and Brewer/Thabo/Shannon Brown at #16.
> Only problem is backup PG.
> ...


..................

why pass up the chance at a franchise player (next year) and trade all your assets for 30 yr old kg?


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

such sweet thunder said:


> Sloth and the Biz:
> 
> I think Thomas is a four. I know what Tyrus has said in interviews. His shot is suspect. His handles are suspect. Hes long enough to be a four. He's a great rebounder on the offensive glass. That says four to me.


I think so too. He's a hybrid, but his length and defensive instincts say 4 to me at this point, and certainly in the future. I'm with everybody else - this would be a great deal. Duhon doesn't seem to have a meaningful role here long term and this would be a good way to get something really valuable for him. And wow, 32 people view this thread right now. Draft fever indeed.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

such sweet thunder said:


> Sloth and the Biz:
> 
> I think Thomas is a four. I know what Tyrus has said in interviews. His shot is suspect. His handles are suspect. Hes long enough to be a four. He's a great rebounder on the offensive glass. That says four to me.


his handles are actually pretty damn good...

he moves like a SF and has went coast-to-coast numerous times last year..and very easily..


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Fairsportsfan said:


> Aldrigde has been promised the the number 1 or 2 pick and it seems like Bargnani is going number 1. And with the deal of the of Hou/Atl roy won't be there at 7. So drafting Thomas at 7 would make no sense, since u guys already drafted Aldrigde. And sense the bull like Brewer so much and also fits the bill of what they need in a wing, he is the number one choose.


Grabbing Aldridge & Thomas wouldn't be such a BAD idea my friend. That's a hell of alot of versitility in the frontcourt


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I don't like Roy #2, because Gay or Thomas could be the ones left of the big 7.

Now if we take Aldridge #2, we have our big guy, and maybe we get our two guard in Roy or Gay slipping....or worst case we geta Williams or a tweener Thomas.

Worse case, we improve our frontcourt. We know our backcourt did fine last year, theres room for improvement, but 2 frontcourt guys is better than 2 backcourt guys for us, so take Aldridge #2, and let it play out.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

madox said:


> How about #2, '07 first rounder with swap, Chandler, and Gordon for KG.
> 
> Sign Pryz and Al Harrington, draft O'bryant at #7 and Brewer/Thabo/Shannon Brown at #16.
> Only problem is backup PG.
> ...


I wouldn't even trade Gordon and Chandler for KG, let alone both of them AND the #2, AND next year's first rounder.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

The ROY said:


> his handles are actually pretty damn good...
> 
> he moves like a SF and has went coast-to-coast numerous times last year..and very easily..


Apparently he was a point guard in highschool.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

yodurk said:


> That's what I was thinking. Duhon + #16 for the #7 is probably just the key idea of the trade. It could easily include our first-rounder for next season (which would be good, b/c I would expect us to have nothing better than the 20th pick)...or it might involve us taking on a "bad contract", ala Scalabrine. Who knows, but there seems to be substance behind this. I sure hope so, I'd do backflips if we came out of this draft with Roy/Thomas, Roy/O'Bryant, Bargnani/Brewer, or Bargnani/O'Bryant.


Imagine Tyrus/Aldridge/Bargnani and O'Bryant. I know we will likely go big and small somehow with 2 + 7. But I see it being possible to land 2 bigs. The FA class for big man this year is gonna require us to overpay for RFA. 

O'Bryant looks extremely skinny for a guy who weights 260. I am not trying to make this into an Eddy Curry trade, but Eddy seemed to have 'bulk' (even if it was a lot of fat). O'Bryant just seems skinny. 

I think we will go Roy and Tyrus/Sene or Tyrus/Aldridge and Brewer.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

The ROY said:


> his handles are actually pretty damn good...
> 
> he moves like a SF and has went coast-to-coast numerous times last year..and very easily..


 I've read that Thomas is good at dribbling in the open court about a hundred times and I wonder if all the hype os from that one clip of him bolting towards the basket in the Duke tournament game. I don't think Thomas's handles are bad, just not what you need from a small forward. A lot of power forwards handle quite a bit. His skills will still be put to use. But the thought of him playing on the perimeter in a guard role is a stretch to me.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

such sweet thunder said:


> Sloth and the Biz:
> 
> I think Thomas is a four. I know what Tyrus has said in interviews. His shot is suspect. His handles are suspect. Hes long enough to be a four. He's a great rebounder on the offensive glass. That says four to me.


Hes a great rebounder in college but he was far from being "The Best" rebounder even at the college level. Hes just not "BIG" enough to be a 4, yeah hes long and athletic but at 215 pounds I dont know of any other productive PF in the NBA that weights that much. At 6'8 hes going to have to play in the post to get those offensive boards and hes just not strong enough to play in the post anytime soon.


----------



## Fairsportsfan (Aug 10, 2005)

The ROY said:


> Grabbing Aldridge & Thomas wouldn't be such a BAD idea my friend. That's a hell of alot of versitility in the frontcourt


But don't u guys have a need at the 2?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Fairsportsfan said:


> But don't u guys have a need at the 2?


yeah..but you got a few SG's in FA that could possibly handle that role..we don't necessarily need a STUD..


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

yodurk said:


> That's what I was thinking. Duhon + #16 for the #7 is probably just the key idea of the trade. It could easily include our first-rounder for next season (which would be good, b/c I would expect us to have nothing better than the 20th pick.




uhhhh...you are aware of the knicks pick swap option, yes?


EDIT: nevermind. just saw your edit.


EDIT: just to make it clear, ignore my first line, see my second line.


EDIT: i like ice cream trucks. that is all.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

such sweet thunder said:


> I've read that Thomas is good at dribbling in the open court about a hundred times and I wonder if all the hype os from that one clip of him bolting towards the basket in the Duke tournament game. I don't think Thomas's handles are bad, just not what you need from a small forward. A lot of power forwards handle quite a bit. His skills will still be put to use. But the thought of him playing on the perimeter in a guard role is a stretch to me.



nah..I've seen him at times during games handle the ball...and actually got confused thinking it was a guard....seriously...


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

We don't need a #2 at all. If we were to take Gay he could cover the big SGs. Offensively our guards are plenty good, and they're pretty good at D too, just mismatched sizewise at times. Definitely not worth wasting a top 10 pick on a SG.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The ROY said:


> yeah..but you got a few SG's in FA that could possibly handle that role..we don't necessarily need a STUD..


Well you the Bulls dont necessarily need a "stud" at the 2, but they really need a "Stud" someone who can take over a game.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

theanimal23 said:


> Imagine Tyrus/Aldridge/Bargnani and O'Bryant. I know we will likely go big and small somehow with 2 + 7. But I see it being possible to land 2 bigs. The FA class for big man this year is gonna require us to overpay for RFA.
> 
> O'Bryant looks extremely skinny for a guy who weights 260. I am not trying to make this into an Eddy Curry trade, but Eddy seemed to have 'bulk' (even if it was a lot of fat). O'Bryant just seems skinny.
> 
> I think we will go Roy and Tyrus/Sene or Tyrus/Aldridge and Brewer.


Funny thing is...

David Aldridge said that the Bulls might end up with 3 players out of this draft.

Then reading another article...I forgot where..it said something about the Bulls moving Deng and bringing in Morrison...I think it was a Chicago article...

Problem..how the hell do you pay all those players when it's time?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> Well you the Bulls dont necessarily need a "stud" at the 2, but they really need a "Stud" someone who can take over a game.


agreed


----------



## Fairsportsfan (Aug 10, 2005)

The ROY said:


> yeah..but you got a few SG's in FA that could possibly handle that role..we don't necessarily need a STUD..


With the current f/a's i think it would be better to get a wing in the draft.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

here it is, from a Chicago paper



> The Bulls have said he can play some shooting guard (Morrison) and there's talk that Luol Deng could too. But one rumor making the rounds has the Bulls drafting Morrison and trading Deng because the team is getting into trouble with upcoming contract extensions with so many young players and needs some breathing room. And Deng might bring that shooting guard or big guy the Bulls need. Though hard to quantify, Morrison screams winner and that's irreplaceable in the NBA.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Wow, if we came out with Aldridge, Morrison, and Roy....I wouldn't no what to say. I think...basically we lose Deng, but gain those threes, so I'm a bit indifferent.

I think Morrison works his way into the starting lineup and we get Nocioni back on the bench and he's 6th man of the year.

So

PG-Kirk Hinrich/Brandon Roy
SG-Ben Gordon/Brandony Roy
SF-Adam Morrison/Andres Nocioni
Pf-Tyson Chandler/Al Harrington
C- LaMarcus Aldridge/Joel Pryzbilla

That'd be an interesting team. I however think we only end up with 2 rookies from this draft, and keep Deng.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The ROY said:


> Funny thing is...
> 
> *David Aldridge said that the Bulls might end up with 3 players out of this draft.*
> 
> ...


I noticed that too when I read DA's article. I figured he meant picking up a 2nd rounder. He was the only one who reported it. I've always loved DA's work and I was pissed when ESPN let him go. He doesn't shout ratings, but he is a legit NBA reporter who knows his facts. I was always a fan of 'NBA Today' a long time back on ESPN with him and Dr. Jack Ramsey.

Interesting if we move Deng. Imagine adding Tyrus, Roy, and Morrison. It'll definitely cause some trouble a few years from now in terms of EGOs and Payroll. But it does set things up for a major trade if needed.


----------



## nybullsfan (Aug 12, 2005)

the thing with the #2 and 7 scenario is if you take a big man like thomas or aldridge (who i orginally want if this trade never happens), is there is more talented big men (ex thomas obryant williams) that would never be talked about when it comes to slipping out of the lottery lets say at #16 than swingman. the top swingman in the draft (roy brewer carney redick) outside roy, are not locks to be in the lottery. You can however make a case for gay/morrison and take a scenerio like aldridge and gay/morrison with 2 and 7 but i see roy and morrison as more of a sf than a sg and we are already stocked their with deng and nocioni. also taking two swingman in the draft does not really help us the same way as two big men or a big and small would.

NOTE: when i say swingman i refer to pure sg's rather than sf's


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

paxman said:


> uhhhh...you are aware of the knicks pick swap option, yes?


Yeah, I actually just edited my post. If it was just the 20th pick we were giving up I'd hand it over in this trade, but I would assume that we'd lose our swap option if we trade that pick. So that's an absolute NO from me.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Roy,

Ever think that if Aldridge is really going one or two that Bangnani could still be there at 7. Now i think that Portland is going to trade up to 1 by using either of their later picks (30 or 31, thro i think that the raptors want both) and will take Morrison at 1. This really makes things interesting since what the bulls do effects the rest of the draft. If we take Thomas then it is Gay, bangs, roy and Aldridge likely goes to Minny and then i think it is Brewer.

However, if bangs does number one then we could take roy and that changes everything. Gay goes three than morrison and Atl has a decission to make. If they pass on williams then pax will take him at 7 and they are f-ed at 8 with no one to take. So they take Williams and Aldridge is number one on minnies board and Thomas is there at 7. 

Personally i would prefer Thamas and Brewer. I really wonder how much better roy will be then brewer. if you watch the clips Roy is great but really doesnt play above the rim and Brewer does the thing is roy has a great stroke but brewer will be a better defender and finisher.

david


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

sloth said:


> Wow, if we came out with Aldridge, Morrison, and Roy....I wouldn't no what to say. I think...basically we lose Deng, but gain those threes, so I'm a bit indifferent.
> 
> I think Morrison works his way into the starting lineup and we get Nocioni back on the bench and he's 6th man of the year.
> 
> ...


I don't see any way we end up with 3 of the big 6, but those 3 you picked would make for a nice combination. I'd prefer Bargnani, Gay and Morrison though. Gay is athletic enough he could be a backup guard or at least play D on them if need be. Morrison is our go to scorer along with Gordon. Bargs would give us size and really spread the floor. The thing I like better about your scenario is Chandler is back at PF, whereas in mine he'd be the C still. Aldridge isn't really a C either though, he's a PF just like Chandler.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

The ROY said:


> Problem..how the Hell do you pay all those players when it's time?


If the Bulls draft 2 bigs and both are fairly average to good, then there is no way they can afford to keep both, the market for good post men is so high right now its ridiculous.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

The only way we come out of this draft with 3 players is if we use one of our picks to trade down. For example,

Our #16 for the Knicks' #20 and #29.

or

Our #2 for the Hornets' #12 and #15.

or

Our #16 for Phoenix's #21 and #27.

or

Our #16 for New Jersey's #22 and #23.

Stuff like that. There's no way we're trading Luol Deng for anyone in this draft, IMO. He's already really darn good and still has alot of room to grow.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

If I was getting two OTHER picks? I'd probably take Morrison over Deng.

If he pans out, he'll be your #1 go-to player and a possible superstar.

We love Deng but he'll never be a superstar type...


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I really doubt pax is trying to get another pick. We already have a core of 5 players (KH, BG, LD, noci, and TC) and we have another pick next year that is very likely a mid to mid late lotto so adding two players this year should take us to 7 core players and next year we should get number 8. That should be what we need to either make a run or a trade for a star.

david


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

yodurk said:


> Yeah, I actually just edited my post. If it was just the 20th pick we were giving up I'd hand it over in this trade, but I would assume that we'd lose our swap option if we trade that pick. So that's an absolute NO from me.



yeah sorry. i just edited mine as well.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

giusd said:


> I really doubt pax is trying to get another pick. We already have a core of 5 players (KH, BG, LD, noci, and TC) and we have another pick next year that is very likely a mid to mid late lotto so adding two players this year should take us to 7 core players and next year we should get number 8. That should be what we need to either make a run or a trade for a star.
> 
> david


I doubt it also...

I just hope he finishes THIS deal


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

The ROY said:


> I doubt it also...
> 
> I just hope he finishes THIS deal


Me too. Regardless of who he picks as long as it's one of the top 6 or Sene, it'd be an upgrade over Duhon, who was just a backup anyway.

Edit here: In the long run it'll be an upgrade. Projects like Sene won't be as good as Duhon right away, but in the long run will most likely be a big upgrade.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

interesting. most celtics fans seem to actually like this trade:

http://realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=531133


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I personally think we underrate Duhon on this board 

I think the reaction in this thread is that that a 10 and 6 point guard who plays excellent defense and can really get a team humming ( as he proved when he came in and started when we begun to turn it around ) is not worth going from #16 to #7 

But this is _this draft_

And this draft could be one of the most turbulent in history with teams moving up annd down all over the place _ where there is such a flat dispersal and no real clear pecking order *needs and additional assets* may predominate over the nominal consideration of #16 and Duhon is not enough for 7 _

In this draft where a team has a need for a true point who can make the motor hum, like Boston , and if they don't like Marcus Williams and are not convinced he is a substantially better player than Chris Duhon.....why not get a player you think is the equal ( in Duhon ) who you may have been considering in this spot ( Marcus Willaims or Rajon Rondo ) and get another player you also really wanted who is going to likely be there at #16 anyway ( perhaps one of UConn's Armstrong or NC's Simmons 

Boston would have Duhon , West and Orien Greene in their point guard stable 

West and Greene are still developing and quite honestly I personally have reservations about Delonte West ..but the steadiness of Duhon who is like a vet enables them to have a guy who can come in and run the show from Day 1 and they can still have the luxury of developing West and Greene

I am obviously in the minority in the opinion on this but I think its a good trade for the Celtics...particularly if they can offload Brian Scalabrine on us which I think is the extra price we have to pay

As much as Scalabrine sucks arse I would still do the deal


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I am obviously in the minority in the opinion on this but I think its a good trade for the Celtics...particularly if they can offload Brian Scalabrine on us which I think is the extra price we have to pay
> 
> As much as Scalabrine sucks arse I would still do the deal


I agree that it could be a good trade for the Celtics in that they complete multiple objectives: a) Get a proven PG who can run a team and play starter minutes; b) Build depth by snagging 2 players (Duhon & #16 pick) as opposed to only 1...and trust me the Celtics lack depth big time; c) Possibly unload salary. Apparently they think the talent drop-off from #7 to #16 isn't too significant...afterall, this is a 6-player draft as Sam Smith has been writing about. 

Still though, the Bulls I think get the better end of the deal. Instead of getting deeper, we're consolidating. We might be able to fill our 2 biggest needs in this draft. I'm holding my breath until this plays out.


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

If we trade Duhon...

We can bring Jay Williams back!!


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

paxman said:


> interesting. most celtics fans seem to actually like this trade:
> 
> http://realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=531133


I read all 6 pages, I would not say that they are in favor of it. It's about half and half at best.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I must also agree i do think that Duhan doesnt get much respect on this page but we used a 7 pick on KH and he plays best at PG and we used a 3 pick on Ben and he can play PG and SG so if we do draft a big SG for D and scoring than the truth is Duhan minutes are going to go way down and he will end up playing 10 minutes a game with a lot of DNPs.

If we could get roy and a big man or thomas and brewer than i think we should do it and frankly duhan will play more minutes in boston next year than he will in chicago.

david


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Or Prigioni. Good defender, floor general, plays lots of pick n' roll.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I read all 6 pages, I would not say that they are in favor of it. It's about half and half at best.


In the world of internet message boards 50/50 is pretty good. Especially for Celtics fans.  You could offer them Lebron for Brian Scalabrine and 30% would probably turn it down


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

smARTmouf said:


> If we trade Duhon...
> 
> We can bring Jay Williams back!!


if we trade Duhon. and we draft brewer or even roy. we'd still have no need for williams. because hinrich, gordon and brewer can all play the point gaurd position. we need extra bigs...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Now with the entire Aldrdige buffer zone thing from Tellem, I still think he's our pick. 

But I think Roy is ours for the taking, with enough I'm taking Shelden Williams if you take Roy 5 phone calls from Paxson, Roy should drop to 7.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

MikeDC said:


> In the world of internet message boards 50/50 is pretty good. Especially for Celtics fans.  You could offer them Lebron for Brian Scalabrine and 30% would probably turn it down


LOL. That's a good one about LeBron. The board was funny, at first people were for or iffy, then it turned to HELL NO, and some still in favor, but towards the end was primarily "this is dumb, even the Bulls' forum is TOTALLY in favor of it, so you know we're being screwed!" (paraphrasing)


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

kulaz3000 said:


> if we trade Duhon. and we draft brewer or even roy. we'd still have no need for williams. because hinrich, gordon and brewer can all play the point gaurd position. we need extra bigs...


Gordon cannot play PG...Well...He COULD...But kinda like I can play WR for the Chicago Bears.


We definatly have options and that's what I'm loving about this offseason.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

smARTmouf said:


> Gordon cannot play PG...Well...He COULD...But kinda like I can play WR for the Chicago Bears.
> 
> 
> We definatly have options and that's what I'm loving about this offseason.


He wouldn't be the ideal PG, but I doubt he'd be a bad one either. Unlike you playing WR...pretty sure you'd be real bad lol.

Edit here: That wouldn't take a whole lot to play on O for the Bears though.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

smARTmouf said:


> Gordon cannot play PG...Well...He COULD...But kinda like I can play WR for the Chicago Bears.
> 
> 
> We definatly have options and that's what I'm loving about this offseason.


Gordon runs the fastbreak better than both Hinrich and Duhon, those two are better for the halfcourt. Gordon can pass better than Hinrich, Gordon just loses control sometimes, and gets too risky.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Has there been any attempt to contact Jonathan to find out the source of this rumor?


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> Has there been any attempt to contact Jonathan to find out the source of this rumor?


Source: Jock Itch Mitch


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

El Chapu said:


> Source: Jock Itch Mitch


I read it in the Herpes Murphy too.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Has there been any attempt to contact Jonathan to find out the source of this rumor?


I really, really doubt that Jonathan is going to reveal who his sources are.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

You're probably right but he might say whether or not it's from a league insider or just based on the speculation of a boston journalist. I guess he wouldn't admit that either. 

Like someone mentioned earlier, draft express has thrown a lot of stuff out there of late. I'm not counting on this happening.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> Like someone mentioned earlier, draft express has thrown a lot of stuff out there of late. I'm not counting on this happening.


yep...very true

but they are pretty accurate with the houston/atlanta deal...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> You're probably right but he might say whether or not it's from a league insider or just based on the speculation of a boston journalist. I guess he wouldn't admit that either.
> 
> Like someone mentioned earlier, draft express has thrown a lot of stuff out there of late. I'm not counting on this happening.


This is seemingly the genesis of the Draft Express mania -- basically a throwaway line in Peter May's not-to-be-missed Sunday Globe NBA column.



> BOSTON (NO. 7)
> 2005 first-round pick: Gerald Green
> Asked what he thought the Celtics were up to, one rival general manager said, ‘‘Who knows?’’ Danny Ainge has drafted well, and this represents his highest pick. If the Celtics draft for need, a point guard (Marcus Williams, Rajon Rondo) would seem logical. They might simply take the best player, regardless of position. Or Ainge might look at the draft and think he can get a decent player further down. *Would he take Chris Duhon and the 16th pick from Chicago in exchange for No. 7?* If he does, here’s another name to fi le away: Thabo Sefolosha.


http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/articles/2006/06/25/a_line_on_the_draft_pick_em/

So apparently Jonathan Givorny's source is Peter May, and I think that this tidbit has two-inch-long legs, if it's lucky.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> This is seemingly the genesis of the Draft Express mania -- basically a throwaway line in Peter May's not-to-be-missed Sunday Globe NBA column.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sam Smith did "condition" the reader before the Brand / Chandler trade 

Might Peter May be doing the same 

Not saying it will happen..probably won't 

But I do see the sense in it given what type of draft this is


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

According to draftexpress, the draftboard looks like this:

1. Ronnie Brewer
2. JJ Reddick
3. Saer Sene.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

When a rumor gets so much publicity (?), we get to know about its legitimacy soon. I think the papers will have something to say about it, and maybe shot it down. Or even Chad Ford. Tomorrow we will have an idea if it has a chance of happening or if it was total BS.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> This is seemingly the genesis of the Draft Express mania -- basically a throwaway line in Peter May's not-to-be-missed Sunday Globe NBA column.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great find. It has got to be very tempting for draft sites to use this kind of thing at this time of year.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Christmas just ended early


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

I would give Givony the benefit of the doubt over this one. I dont think he recycled May's info.


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

:biggrin: I say do the trade if we can.Duhon is another PG we don't need.Of course Boston might be loosing out on the deal big time.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jan 6, 2006)

If true,this has to be for Shelden or O'Bryant. When you think about it, Shelden produced what the Bulls need. Low post points, blocks, rebounds, defense. Consistently. I love it when posters say a guy has no "upside" because he produced consistently for a highly visable top tier program. But they are all for the Skita's of the world. Shelden slow and unathletic? Such crap. The guy tested the quickest among big men in the agility drills, you know, where basketball is actually played. Kinda like the slow, unathletic no upsiders Elton Brand and Carlos Boozer. I'll take a basketball player over Tyson Chandler or Stromile Swift any day.

Aldridge and Williams gives the Bulls the length and skill they need out of this draft.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Paxson isn't passing up the chance to get a star guard or big for Shelden.....

We all like Shelden...but c'mon now...


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jan 6, 2006)

The ROY said:


> Paxson isn't passing up the chance to get a star guard or big for Shelden.....
> 
> We all like Shelden...but c'mon now...


What all star guard or big is there at 7? Charles Oakley was the seven pick. You know, you have to overpay so much to get a producing big guy in free agency, its hard to overlook one who is NBA ready fills your needs, and may be available (although Atlanta will probably grab him).


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

If the trade is exactly the way that has been posted? Pax has got to do it.


----------



## southpark (Jul 5, 2003)

I really hope we could go something like Roy/Aldridge or Roy/TT but wouldnt be surprised if we end up going TT or Aldridge / Brewer @ 7....I'd rather do any of those 3 than a Roy/S WIlliams.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Pax has got to do it.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Jello Biafra said:


> What all star guard or big is there at 7? Charles Oakley was the seven pick. You know, you have to overpay so much to get a producing big guy in free agency, its hard to overlook one who is NBA ready fills your needs, and may be available (although Atlanta will probably grab him).


We have some solid players...Shelden will be a very solid pro...

Did we even work him out?

Ford & Smith said the top of the Bulls board is Thomas, Roy, Alridge & Morrison...

Don't think Shelden's even in the picture...although he is a Bulls type of guy...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

We worked out O'Bryant and Boone (punchign bag) on Saturday, so if O did good, the other Mac-O might need to skip town.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> I would give Givony the benefit of the doubt over this one. I dont think he recycled May's info.


Actually, when he failed to footnote May, that's pretty much exactly what he did.

Even if you're bringing something new to the table (say, confirming that talks are actually ongoing), you gotta credit the guy who first brought it to light.

Bottom line -- I think this is all just Peter May thinking out loud, and if there are two pieces of constructive criticism I can offer to DraftExpress for next year, it would be to do a much better job of differentiating what they're reporting/confirming from chatter that they're just passing along, and to not write their workout reviews in the breathless, gushing style of an 11-year-old girl reviewing a Chris Brown concert.


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Actually, when he failed to footnote May, that's pretty much exactly what he did.
> 
> Even if you're bringing something new to the table (say, confirming that talks are actually ongoing), you gotta credit the guy who first brought it to light.
> 
> Bottom line -- I think this is all just Peter May thinking out loud, and if there are two pieces of constructive criticism I can offer to DraftExpress for next year, it would be to do a much better job of differentiating what they're reporting/confirming from chatter that they're just passing along, and to not write their workout reviews in the breathless, gushing style of an 11-year-old girl reviewing a Chris Brown concert.


You're right. That's disappointing. It got me excited for a while...


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Geez, how many mediocre PGs do the Celtics need? Delonte West, Dan Dickau, Orien Greene, Chris Duhon...

This would just be a fantastic trade for the Bulls. Even I, as a Lakers fan, am excited about the possibility of Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni, Deng, Chandler and the #2 and #7 picks in the draft.

There is a huge gap between the perceived top 7 players in this draft (Bargnani, Aldridge, Gay, Morrison, Thomas, Foye, Roy) and the rest of the crop. Thinking that the Bulls could get two of them is just unbelieveable.

If I were Chicago and this trade went down, I'd take Aldridge at #2 and then rest my hopes on the T-Wolves taking Foye at #6. However, if they decide to go with Roy at #2, there would still be a good chance that Thomas would be there at #7 because the Hawks would be forced to keep their 5th pick and take Shelden Williams.

PG: Kirk Hinrich...Jannero Pargo
SG: Ben Gordon
SF: Andres Nocioni...Luol Deng
PF: LaMarcus Aldridge (2nd pick)...Tyrus Thomas (7th pick)...Mike Sweetney...Darius Songaila
C: Tyson Chandler

Furthermore, the trade opens up the possibility of the Bulls trading for a star player such as Jermaine O'Neal.

An offer of Chandler and Thomas/Aldridge for JO would be very attractive to the Pacers. If that didn't happen, the Bulls would still have around $25M in cap space remaining. Man, this team is in good shape.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Actually, when he failed to footnote May, that's pretty much exactly what he did.
> 
> Even if you're bringing something new to the table (say, confirming that talks are actually ongoing), you gotta credit the guy who first brought it to light.
> 
> Bottom line -- I think this is all just Peter May thinking out loud, and if there are two pieces of constructive criticism I can offer to DraftExpress for next year, it would be to do a much better job of differentiating what they're reporting/confirming from chatter that they're just passing along, and to not write their workout reviews in the breathless, gushing style of an 11-year-old girl reviewing a Chris Brown concert.


I've gotta say I'm impressed that you were able to spice in a Chris Brown reference. :laugh:


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Is this deal done or no? I'm sure it's more serious than some of the rumors floating around, but I just hate getting so deep into what this trade does for us when it's not even a sure thing yet.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Is this deal done or no? I'm sure it's more serious than some of the rumors floating around, but I just hate getting so deep into what this trade does for us when it's not even a sure thing yet.


I would say it's speculation with at least a little substance, and we might not know for a few days lol


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I would say it's speculation with at least a little substance, and we might not know for a few days lol


the draft is in like 40 hours! 

It might not be official until the 7th pick is announced though. Damn it to hell.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Hanley addresses the rumors:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull27.html



> The rumor mill is in full gear as Wednesday's NBA draft draws near.
> 
> A report on draftexpress.com on Monday said the Bulls were working on a trade that would send guard Chris Duhon and the team's second first-round pick (No. 16) to the Boston Celtics for the No. 7 pick.
> 
> Neither Bulls general manager John Paxson nor Duhon was available for comment Monday, but a team source said that deal, though enticing, is not going to happen.


The Celtics seem to be a part of a lot of rumors - supposedly they're trading for Allen Iverson (which was shot down), there's also a rumor about them getting Telfair from Portland.

And there's a bit at the end about those draft promises:



> Roy is represented by Arn Tellem, also the agent for Aldridge and Williams. Tellem reportedly has said that three teams among the top eight in the draft have promised they will take his clients.
> 
> The Bulls have made no such promise to Tellem or any other agent, according to those in the know.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

narek said:


> Hanley addresses the rumors:
> 
> Neither Bulls general manager John Paxson nor Duhon was available for comment Monday, but a team source said that deal, though enticing, is not going to happen.


Hold on just a gotdamn minute -- is this implying that the deal is on the table and the Bulls are turning it down?

Or maybe they've asked Duhon and he's said no (I can't imagine saying "no" in that situation, but maybe that's just me)?

I mean, if Ainge has actually thrown this deal out there, and we've said "thanks but no thanks," I'm completely befuddled. You don't get chances like this very often.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

nah, i think they're saying there's no truth to it.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Damian Necronamous said:


> Geez, how many mediocre PGs do the Celtics need? Delonte West, Dan Dickau, Orien Greene, Chris Duhon...
> 
> This would just be a fantastic trade for the Bulls. Even I, as a Lakers fan, am excited about the possibility of Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni, Deng, Chandler and the #2 and #7 picks in the draft.
> 
> ...



:yes: You got it. This is a very important summer for the bulls.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Hold on just a gotdamn minute -- is this implying that the deal is on the table and the Bulls are turning it down?
> 
> Or maybe they've asked Duhon and he's said no (I can't imagine saying "no" in that situation, but maybe that's just me)?
> 
> I mean, if Ainge has actually thrown this deal out there, and we've said "thanks but no thanks," I'm completely befuddled. You don't get chances like this very often.


I think the Celtics haven't offered it, that's what I think.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Hold on just a gotdamn minute -- is this implying that the deal is on the table and the Bulls are turning it down?
> 
> Or maybe they've asked Duhon and he's said no (I can't imagine saying "no" in that situation, but maybe that's just me)?
> 
> I mean, if Ainge has actually thrown this deal out there, and we've said "thanks but no thanks," I'm completely befuddled. You don't get chances like this very often.


I hear ya! If John turned it down, he better have something else better in mind because this is indeed a sweet deal for the bulls!


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

narek said:


> I think the Celtics haven't offered it, that's what I think.


Me too, our "Bulls source" calls it enticing and we all know well that this would be a good trade from our end. If it were really on the table, we'd have no choice but to make the trade.

There's more evidence suggesting that it's false; mainly the Peter May link which shows that it came from one man's mind. And the fact that I don't think Ainge would give up the #7 pick so easily.


----------



## KGBULLS06 (May 24, 2006)

If the trade for Duhon and the 16th pick for the 7th pick does go down. What would you think if The Bulls traded Tyson and the 7th pick for Shawn Marion. Then Select Lamarcus Aldridge with the 2nd pick. What are your thoughts of this line up?

Kirk H
Ben G
Noce
Shawn
Lemarcus

Then look to add a veteran big man in FA. Such as Joel P, AD, and so for. What u think?


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Hold on just a gotdamn minute -- is this implying that the deal is on the table and the Bulls are turning it down?
> 
> Or maybe they've asked Duhon and he's said no (I can't imagine saying "no" in that situation, but maybe that's just me)?
> 
> I mean, if Ainge has actually thrown this deal out there, and we've said "thanks but no thanks," I'm completely befuddled. You don't get chances like this very often.


I took it as the deal was/is on the table, but, certain unlikely circumstances must come together. Maybe Duhon turned it down. Maybe its contingent on none of the top 6 guys being there at 7, which the Bulls source thinks has little chance of happening. Maybe Boston has other, better opportunities. Or maybe Boston flat out turned it down. I just think Pax would be crazy to say no to this one, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

The way the source worded his answer makes me think it was at least discussed, however. He didn't deny the rumors. He just said it wasn't going to happen.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Qwerty123 said:


> I took it as the deal was/is on the table, but, certain unlikely circumstances must come together. Maybe Duhon turned it down. Maybe its contingent on none of the top 6 guys being there at 7, which the Bulls source thinks has little chance of happening. Maybe Boston has other, better opportunities. Or maybe Boston flat out turned it down. I just think Pax would be crazy to say no to this one, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> The way the source worded his answer makes me think it was at least discussed, however. He didn't deny the rumors. He just said it wasn't going to happen.



I think thats the right outlook, either Duhon said he didn't want to be traded or Boston found a better deal. It makes too much sense from Boston's perspective for them not to have discussed it IMO.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

According to someone in the RealGM thread regarding this deal, someone said that Pax wanted Delonte West in return. Which Ainge would not do, and rightfully so (from a Boston point of view).

Someone also mentioned on that thread that Pax may have another deal that could go down, but who knows. That same poster I think said that the deal was close to being done and we'd here about it today. So take everything w/a grain of salt since this is how things work around the Trade Deadline and Draft Day. I wish this trade went down. We'd have no more backcourt worries and fill our void in the front court.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Personally, I take it as Hanley called someone on he Bulls staff and said "Hey, I read this rumor on a website of a trade of Duhon and #16 for the #7. Any truth to that?"

To which the reply was something like "Du and 16 for 7? That'd be an interesting one. Ain't gonna happen though."


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Actually, when he failed to footnote May, that's pretty much exactly what he did.
> 
> Even if you're bringing something new to the table (say, confirming that talks are actually ongoing), you gotta credit the guy who first brought it to light.
> 
> Bottom line -- I think this is all just Peter May thinking out loud, and if there are two pieces of constructive criticism I can offer to DraftExpress for next year, it would be to do a much better job of differentiating what they're reporting/confirming from chatter that they're just passing along, and to not write their workout reviews in the breathless, gushing style of an 11-year-old girl reviewing a Chris Brown concert.


Yeah, how come you didn't footnote that I posted that May link a few days ago when you brought it up again? :clown:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Yeah, how come you didn't footnote that I posted that May link a few days ago when you brought it up again? :clown:


I would have, if I'd known/remembered you posted it first.

May's column is one of the first things I read every Sunday a.m. I'm a little worried about my mental status that I completely forgot about the Duhon blurb.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

Insider talked about the Celtics options today.



> As for the rumor that has the Chicago Bulls sending Chris Duhon to Boston for the No. 7 pick, Ainge flatly denied it, saying he had no interest in doing that deal.


  

Ford left out the #16 pick part of the rumor, but it sounds like our dream trade is dead. He also mentioned a potential Celtics deal with Portland that is a little confounding from a Celtics perspective if you ask me.



> The Blazers and Celtics have discussed a trade that would send Sebastian Telfair to Boston for Dan Dickau and the No. 7 pick.
> 
> The Blazers asked for Dickau's medical records to see how he's healing from his Achilles' tendon injury. The thinking as of late last night was that if Dickau checks out medically, the Blazers would seriously consider pulling the trigger on the deal. If he doesn't, they may come back and ask for more compensation.


If I were the Celtics, I'd rather have Duhon and #16, and I'm surprised Portland would even hesitate at all if that deal was on the table. I mean, is Dickau really the key to that deal?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Yeah, ScottMay, it sounds like Ainge doesn't like the deal, not the other way around, at least if we trust Chad Ford.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Yeah, ScottMay, it sounds like Ainge doesn't like the deal, not the other way around, at least if we trust Chad Ford.


Oh, yeah.

You know what I'm thinking.

Here we go . . . 

IN CHAD FORD WE TRUST!

Sorry . . . like Triple Double said, let's just hurry up and have the damn draft already.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

No wonder Danny Ainge sucks. If the deal with Portland is Telfair for Dickau and 7, how the hell is that better than Duhon + 16 for 7 + Dickau (works under trade checker)?

Now maybe if it was 4 + Telfair for 7 + Dickau, I can see Ainge more willing to do that. But thats a KEY piece of info Ford left out.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Oh, yeah.
> 
> You know what I'm thinking.
> 
> ...


ScottMay, how long did you live in NY? I lived on the Upper West Side from 2001-2004. Were you there then? 

And have you ever gone to the draft at the Garden?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Can we delete this thread, it hurts


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> ScottMay, how long did you live in NY? I lived on the Upper West Side from 2001-2004. Were you there then?
> 
> And have you ever gone to the draft at the Garden?


I still live in New York. I moved here from Chicago in 1995.

I went to the draft in 2002. It was pretty fun -- my two personal highlights were having Bobby Flay, of all people, sit across the aisle from me, and then later encountering a totally alone, lost, and befuddled Jiri Welsch wandering around the theatre lobby (he probably didn't know what team he was on). It was also the year that Stern made his hilarious and infamous "Charles and Kenny didn't speak English when they came into the league, either" remark, and when Casey Jacobsen's girlfriend nearly caused a riot. I posted a recap of my night either here or on RealGM.

I think once was enough for me, though. I mean, being in the company of 5000 screaming 15-year-olds is cool and all, but there's literally nothing about the event that can't be better seen on TV (for those who haven't seen it live -- when the draft coverage breaks for a commercial, so does the actual draft. They play NBA PSAs and stuff on the screens, and everything just stops. It's truly a made-for-TV event.).


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I still live in New York. I moved here from Chicago in 1995.
> 
> I went to the draft in 2002. It was pretty fun -- my two personal highlights were having Bobby Flay, of all people, sit across the aisle from me, and then later encountering a totally alone, lost, and befuddled Jiri Welsch wandering around the theatre lobby (he probably didn't know what team he was on). It was also the year that Stern made his hilarious and infamous "Charles and Kenny didn't speak English when they came into the league, either" remark, and when Casey Jacobsen's girlfriend nearly caused a riot. I posted a recap of my night either here or on RealGM.
> 
> I think once was enough for me, though. I mean, being in the company of 5000 screaming 15-year-olds is cool and all, but there's literally nothing about the event that can't be better seen on TV (for those who haven't seen it live -- when the draft coverage breaks for a commercial, so does the actual draft. They play NBA PSAs and stuff on the screens, and everything just stops. It's truly a made-for-TV event.).


So you won't be taking a header from the mezzanine when we draft Aldridge?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jbulls said:


> So you won't be taking a header from the mezzanine when we draft Aldridge?


The draft is held in something called the Theater at Madison Square Garden (for years this was called the Paramount), not the Garden itself. It probably seats 5-6000, but there aren't any decks, just a single seating bowl. This configuration has been estimated to have saved the lives of hundreds of Jets fans over the years.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Katz on Insider with a few tidbits.


League sources said the Bulls are considering a host of options at No. 2, *with Bargnani among those at the top*. Aldridge is also in the mix, along with LSU freshman Tyrus Thomas. There are other scenarios whereby the Bulls could move the pick, but league sources say Chicago also is listening to offers for Tyson Chandler (but not necessarily trying to push him out). 

Meanwhile, Boston and Portland are talking about a deal that would send second-year point guard Sebastian Telfair to Boston for the No. 7 pick and injured point Dan Dickau (Achilles tendon). 

The decision for general manager Danny Ainge is whether or not Telfair is a better fit for Boston over whomever the Celtics could land at No. 7. After Monday's workout, the top choice appears to be Villanova senior guard Randy Foye, but Foye could easily be gone at No. 6 to Minnesota. The Timberwolves were supposed to watch Foye on Monday in Boston but general manager McHale decided to go see England's Joel Freeland -- a possible Wolves second-round pick -- in a workout in Houston, instead. 

Telfair is now behind Steve Blake and Jarrett Jack on the team's depth chart, making it obvious why the Blazers are willing to move him. Still, Ainge is reviewing how Telfair performed prior to the injury to see if he fits in Boston. This trade, if it happens, might not occur until after the draft, once Boston sees who falls to No. 7.

He also reports dead deals being the Houston / Atlanta swap and Utah / Boston / Philly involving Boozer and Iverson.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> The draft is held in something called the Theater at Madison Square Garden (for years this was called the Paramount), not the Garden itself. It probably seats 5-6000, but there aren't any decks, just a single seating bowl. This configuration has been estimated to have saved the lives of hundreds of Jets fans over the years.



DMD and I caught the 2004 draft and I must agree, its pretty much a one time only affair. There were some high points, the crowd wen't crazy when Jameer Nelson was finally selected. My personally favorite was when Jay Billas spent five mintues absolutelys trashing Josh Smith, when he was standing about fifteen feet away. We were sitting too far back to hear any of the commentary, and couldn't move up until most of the first round was finished. We left soon afterwards. I'm glad I went once but I could have gotten the same experience on the tele.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I would have, if I'd known/remembered you posted it first.
> 
> May's column is one of the first things I read every Sunday a.m. I'm a little worried about my mental status that I completely forgot about the Duhon blurb.


I know, I'm just giving you a hard time :cheers:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ESPN Pre-Draft show was on tonight. They said Boston is looking at a 3-team swap with Portland involving Wally, #7, Al Jefferson, Telfair, and potentially Cleveland dealing Gooden.

They said the trade was going to involve a different 3rd team besides Cleveland, and the deal is likely to happen after Boston sees if someone like Morrison falls to them at #7.


----------



## PatBateman (May 26, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> ESPN Pre-Draft show was on tonight. They said Boston is looking at a 3-team swap with Portland involving Wally, #7, Al Jefferson, Telfair, and potentially Cleveland dealing Gooden.
> 
> They said the trade was going to involve a different 3rd team besides Cleveland, and the deal is likely to happen after Boston sees if someone like Morrison falls to them at #7.


The Celtics are also re-doubling their efforts to acquire AI.

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/41137/20060628/boston_working_hard_on_deal_for_iverson/


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> ESPN Pre-Draft show was on tonight. They said Boston is looking at a 3-team swap with Portland involving Wally, #7, Al Jefferson, Telfair, and potentially Cleveland dealing Gooden.
> 
> They said the trade was going to involve a different 3rd team besides Cleveland, and the deal is likely to happen after Boston sees if someone like Morrison falls to them at #7.


To add to this, Utah was supposedly the third team in the deal with Boozer being the cap ballast. But they backed out of the deal and left it to Boston to find a different 3rd team (Cleveland)

The ramifications of this, if true are:
1) If we want Boozer, we could probably get him cheap
2) If we think we're going to easily be able to get Gooden, we won't because Cleveland is sure to S&T him before letting him go for nothing.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> To add to this, Utah was supposedly the third team in the deal with Boozer being the cap ballast. But they backed out of the deal and left it to Boston to find a different 3rd team (Cleveland)
> 
> The ramifications of this, if true are:
> 1) If we want Boozer, we could probably get him cheap
> 2) If we think we're going to easily be able to get Gooden, we won't because Cleveland is sure to S&T him before letting him go for nothing.



1.) After the way Boozer did Jim Paxson it is a pretty safe bet that John Paxson has no interest in him.

2.) I would think Cleveland wouldn't mind a sign & trade of Gooden that brings them Duhon, they need a point like Duhon and he would be extremely effective for them.


----------

