# Rumor I heard



## BSchmaranz (May 26, 2003)

Take this with as much truth as you will but I got this rumor from a source that gave me the Jalen Rose/Antonio Davis deal weeks before it was ever reported:

Chicago trades: SF Eddie Robinson (6.8 ppg, 2.1 rpg, 1.1 apg in 20.0 minutes) 
2005 1st Round pick (could or could not be top 3 protected)
Chicago receives: SF Jerry Stackhouse (17.8 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 4.6 apg in 34.6 minutes) 
Change in team outlook: +11.0 ppg, +1.9 rpg, and +3.5 apg. 

Washington trades: SF Jerry Stackhouse (17.8 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 4.6 apg in 34.6 minutes) 
Washington receives: SF Eddie Robinson (6.8 ppg, 2.1 rpg, 1.1 apg in 43 games) 
2005 1st Round pick (could or could not be top 3 protected)
Change in team outlook: -11.0 ppg, -1.9 rpg, and -3.5 apg. 

TRADE ACCEPTED

--------------------------------------------------
Really don't know what to think about this one. If Stackhouse is back to his form from a couple years ago and beyond his injury, I might be in favor of this one.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Dear god I hope not.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I could see why both teams would consider this. My question is would our intention be to play Stackhouse at the 3 alongside Crawford (not Jerry's real position) or to have him be our SG when Crawford leaves...

I'd rather parlay ERob/2005 1st rounder into a real SF like a Rashard.


----------



## BSchmaranz (May 26, 2003)

I believe their intention in this deal would be simply to just play Stack at the 3... it give us a pretty quick lineup that is capable of putting a lot of points on the board.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

BSchmaranz WOW..so is this deal going to happen or is it just talked about??


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Can't trade our 2005 first rounder - even with protections because it's still not assured that we'll have our 2004 first rounder this year. Once it's mathmatically impossible for us to lose our 2004 first pick, then we can trade our 2005 pick. Until then we can't include that pick in any talks.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> Can't trade our 2005 first rounder - even with protections because it's still not assured that we'll have our 2004 first rounder this year. Once it's mathmatically impossible for us to lose our 2004 first pick, then we can trade our 2005 pick. Until then we can't include that pick in any talks.


I think we can cause the Bryce Drew deal is if not 2004 1st rounder we give 2005 and 2006 2nd rounders,so the 1st rounder is ours.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Why would Washington do this? What do they get out of this? 

Stackhouse is injured isn't he?

Stackshouse is signed through 2009 with a decent contract! Very decent. I cannot see Washington trading him! Not for what he will get paid. He is a deal!! No doubt. 

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


----------



## BSchmaranz (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>unBULLievable</b>!
> BSchmaranz WOW..so is this deal going to happen or is it just talked about??


No, it's not a done deal or anything, it's just been discussed a few times.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Why would Washington do this? What do they get out of this?
> 
> Stackhouse is injured isn't he?
> ...


Washington does this if they like the future of the Larry Hughes/Gilbert Arenas backcourt, and they don't see Stackhouse as the answer at the 3 long term.

Yes he does have a reasonable contract.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Does anyone know the status of Jerry's Injury?

he has a reasonable contract but a very long one and he is injury prone,and still i find it hard to believe Wiz's do this,I think they can do better!


----------



## BSchmaranz (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Why would Washington do this? What do they get out of this?



I dunno man, I just got this from a friend of mine who's an insider with the Bulls and many other teams. Perhaps Washington sees something in ERob, or maybe they think the Bulls will do a lot better in the second half of the season, almost assuring them of a good draft pick out of it.

And for you guys asking about his health, he's been back with the Wiz since Feb. 1st. He's currently having a bit of an ankle problem but seems to be playing through it and doing just fine.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BSchmaranz</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But u wrote down 2005 1st rounder,so u mean they believe the Bulls will be a bad team next season...


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

As a Wizards fan, I don't know what to think about this if it happened. E-Rob isn't worth his contract, and the draft pick would be great if it's completely unprotected.

As for Stack's health, he's been just fine since coming back. He's averaging a cool 18,4,4 on 47% shooting. And he could be probably score alot more if he needed too. He's been very unselfish, he's already had a game with 11 assists. 

I don't think I'd do this trade if I'm the Wizards. Stackhouse has shown that he can play SF just fine.


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Why would Washington do this? What do they get out of this?


edit: Oh wait...it's a 2005 pick. 

Why would they do it ?


----------



## BSchmaranz (May 26, 2003)

Sorry, that was a typo... it's a 2004 first rounder.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

where do i sign? 

i'm torn a little. Usually i'm not in favor of trading picks, yet the timing of this teams development makes me thing the Bulls need a boost for mental health 
I guess The little Bryce Drew fiasco makes this sound impossible though. Bryce Drew trade, the gift that keeps on giving

............Aoops, 2004 pick not 2005? Thats a no can do i think:sigh: That would be a mistake


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

is it a 2004 1st round pick or 2005 1st round pick???


----------



## Scinos (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BSchmaranz</b>!
> Sorry, that was a typo... it's a 2004 first rounder.


OK, well I can understand if it's a 2004 pick (provided it's not protected). That could give the Wizards two top 3 draft picks. If the season ended now, #2 and #3 I believe. That would allow them to pick up a stud bigman like Howard or Okafor and a future replacement for Stack like Josh Smith. :yes:


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Hmm....Emeka Okafor and Josh Smith....maybe I'd have to reconsider then.

When does E-Robs contract end?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BSchmaranz</b>!
> Sorry, that was a typo... it's a 2004 first rounder.


Now I know you're not telling the truth. We CANNOT trade our 2004 first round pick as of right now it still conditionally belongs to Houston (or Utah). Once it is mathmatically impossible for us to pick 21st or later in the draft, then the pick stays our own and we owe a 2005 and 2006 second round pick. Hence, we cannot trade our 2005 pick (with or without protections) as league rules prevent a team from trading consecutive first round picks. As it stands - right now - conceivably we could lose our 2004 and 2005 picks and the league simply won't allow it.

Your "source" is yanking your chain.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I don't buy it from the Wizard's perspective.

From the Bulls perspective, I think I'd do it assuming the pick isn't top 3.


*fi_flash*
I'm not sure about whether we can trade the pick. I'd imagine we could if we properly conditioned the deal. That is, I think we'd be ok as long as we conditioned the deal to not conflict with the contingencies of the Bryce Drew deal.

That is, the Bryce Drew deal is that we give up our 1st rounder if we fall to 21 or lower in the first rounder this year.

If that were to happen, the league rules would prevent us from trading our pick next year (you can't trade a 1st rounder two years in a row).

As long as we made another trade contingent on meeting those conditions, however, I don't see why we couldn't do it.

For example, why couldn't we offer:
Our 2004 1st round pick if it falls anywhere between 4-20.
If our pick is 1-3, we give our 2005 pick, and if it is >21, we give our 2006 1st round pick. If we offered that kind of thing, it would seem to not interfere with the conditions of the Drew trade.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> Hmm....Emeka Okafor and Josh Smith....maybe I'd have to reconsider then.
> 
> When does E-Robs contract end?


Exactly, everyone is so quick to underplay the value of a pick... Stack is a one way player, who in many ways is not conducive to winning. You don't give up a pick for a third tear star--they are a dime a dozen. We are not talking about Elton Brand. 

Who would you rather have Okafor, Smith, Deng or Stack? I think thats an easy question.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> As a Wizards fan, I don't know what to think about this if it happened. E-Rob isn't worth his contract, and the draft pick would be great if it's completely unprotected.
> 
> As for Stack's health, he's been just fine since coming back. He's averaging a cool 18,4,4 on 47% shooting. And he could be probably score alot more if he needed too. He's been very unselfish, he's already had a game with 11 assists.
> ...


I understand. As a bulls fan I would love this. Robinson has been playing a lot better, but he is no Stackhouse. Maybe there is more to this trade than Robinson and a pick and stackhouse? Salaries do match though. 

Hmmm 18, 4 and 4? Sounds like aother guy we used to have!  but he shoots a lot better.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> 
> 
> Exactly, everyone is so quick to underplay the value of a pick... Stack is a one way player, who in many ways is not conducive to winning. You don't give up a pick for a third tear star--they are a dime a dozen. We are not talking about Elton Brand.
> ...


I agree we only do this top 3 protected.Bobcats have 4 so actually the highest we give is 5 where Emeka and Deng would be gone.also if we get stack we might get like 5-8 pick.
he's a good player,but it's still risky unprotected.
The good thing is we get rid of ERobs contract and actually get a worthy contract.


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

So why can't we trade the 2004 pick with the condition attached? Sort of a "buyer beware" transaction. Its top 20 protected, right? So we trade the pick to Washington with their understanding that if the Bulls somehow finish in the top 9, Washington forfeits the pick to Utah, I think. If you were Washington would you take that chance? Of course you would. You're doing the deal in the first place because you believe the Bulls pick will end up a high lottery pick. If it ends up being the 21st through 29the pick...well that's the chance they took.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

If it's a conditional pick, than it would still have to be a lottery pick. The Wizards probably wouldn't do it because we already have too many young players on the roster and two more lottery picks would sort of jumble up the roster with way too much young talent and not enough minutes.

As far as winning goes, Stackhouse has led a team to 50 wins as the #1 option, the key with Stack is surrounding him with defensive guys that can hit the 3-pointer. When completely healthy and depending on the circumstances, Stack is a 22ppg/5/4 guy. Hell if need be, he can lead the league in scoring.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I can't imagine this happening though I can soty of see why it would be done from the Wizards standpoint if they did do it. Injuries have plagued the Wizards this year, and because of it, they are pretty low in the Eastern Coference. With Stackhouse's return, there is a very good possibility that this will reverse and the Wizards will probably play themselves into the late lottery. Larry Hughes has played well as a SG and Hayes, though he has struggled lately, has had some promise at the 3. If Stack is moved, the Wizards have a better shot at a high pick. The Wizards are a pretty good fastbreak team, and ERob for all of his many faults is a pretty good fast break player. Also, Stack is a leader. I know Pippen was supposed to lead, but recent comments about him not wanting to get involved with the Jerome Williams comments, was a little disappointing to me. Pippen could very well be bought out as well. Grunfeld must really like someone in this draft, or has something lined up if does do this.

It would have to be this years unprotected first though, I can't imagine the Wizards doing it otherwise. It is not as if Stackhouse doesn't produce, or has a bad contract.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> 
> Hmmm 18, 4 and 4? Sounds like aother guy we used to have!  but he shoots a lot better.


Does he?

Jalen shoots 38-39%, Stack shoots 39-40%. Both players cant do anything on D. This move would be the bulls just spinning their wheels.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

I only pull this deal if we get top 5 protected. And if we get Stackhouse, odds are pretty good that we don't finish dead last anyways, which means we don't finish with a top 5 pick. This year's draft doesn't look too high on impact players, especially if Deng doesn't come out. Couple this with the fact that the draft is big man heavy, and the Bulls really don't have a dire need for the pick. But why not just call it a season and trade our pick in the offseason? Shouldn't we be able to get a better deal once our draft position is secure? But this is tough - we unload ERob and get a proven 20 ppg guy in return that has finally shaken the 'me first' attitude that he was labled with early in his career. And this plan probably means we keep Jamal and have stability for the first time in years.


----------



## Chicago_Cow (Mar 5, 2003)

Sorry, if Paxon can turn our first rounder into another Kirk Hinrich at sf, I think we should keep the trade for our sake.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> I can't imagine this happening though I can soty of see why it would be done from the Wizards standpoint if they did do it. Injuries have plagued the Wizards this year, and because of it, they are pretty low in the Eastern Coference. With Stackhouse's return, there is a very good possibility that this will reverse and the Wizards will probably play themselves into the late lottery. Larry Hughes has played well as a SG and Hayes, though he has struggled lately, has had some promise at the 3. If Stack is moved, the Wizards have a better shot at a high pick. The Wizards are a pretty good fastbreak team, and ERob for all of his many faults is a pretty good fast break player. Also, Stack is a leader. I know Pippen was supposed to lead, but recent comments about him not wanting to get involved with the Jerome Williams comments, was a little disappointing to me. Pippen could very well be bought out as well. Grunfeld must really like someone in this draft, or has something lined up if does do this.
> 
> It would have to be this years unprotected first though, I can't imagine the Wizards doing it otherwise. It is not as if Stackhouse doesn't produce, or has a bad contract.


Yeah, that's probably about the view I have too. If I was running the Wiz, I probably wouldn't do it. Stack looks to me like the additional link that could maybe get us in the playoffs. He's still relatively young and signed for a reasonable price considering what he brings. I've been pretty critical of him before, but the lineup of Arenas/Hughes/Stack/Kwame looked, dare I say it, very good.

I'd like to see what they can do before dumping him off for a draft pick, even if in theory it's not that bad an idea.

Another option to consider is that if the Bulls would take back Laettner for expiring contracts, the Wiz could end up with some $10-12M in cap room next year, which would be enough to make a run at guys like Okur, Ginobili, or Q Richardson, although probably not Kobe.

I don't like any of those guys that much, nor would I bet that the Wiz have an inside track on them, but it's an interesting idea.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Paxson would get run out of town if he gave up an unprotected pick for Stackhouse and it ends up being the top pick in the draft.

Personally, I like the smaller Fizer or JYD deals better b/c I don't see Craw and Stack working together at the 2/3.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Paxson would get run out of town if he gave up an unprotected pick for Stackhouse and it ends up being the top pick in the draft.
> 
> Personally, I like the smaller Fizer or JYD deals better b/c I don't see Craw and Stack working together at the 2/3.


Why?

Stack is playing the 3 in Washington...

People get serious...

Kirk/JC/Stack/Chandler/Curry

Let's play ball....


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

thats actually a pretty good trade for both teams, 05 first rounder, top 1 protected sounds fair for both teams, stack is expendable, and bulls get a decent sf with very decent contract.
good trade for both teams


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Stackhouse in five games this month

30-63 shooting just shy of 18 pts! He had one 11 assist game.Wiz went 2-3. 

He played major minutes.


----------



## Bigjad66 (Aug 29, 2002)

The way I look at this deal is we basically get Jalen back without a Max contract. From that standpoint I would sign off on this deal.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Stackhouse in five games this month
> 
> 30-63 shooting just shy of 18 pts! He had one 11 assist game.Wiz went 2-3.
> ...


I'm glad hes played well the last five games, but how does this change the fact that over the last 5 years he has shot 40% from the field... and chooses not to play D?


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

^You do realize that he was the starting shooting guard on the Detroit Pistions defensive team that won 50 games?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> ^You do realize that he was the starting shooting guard on the Detroit Pistions defensive team that won 50 games?


lol...

that's hilarious...

Why anyone here would frown on Stack is beyond me....

He'd be our best player immediately.

He'd get his 18-20 game, JC and EC would play better because a lot of pressure would be taken off them...

We bring in Giricek and Lue...

I mean we'd have a team then, and we definitely would win some games..

Do we want to win?

Oh, that's right...

We don't...

We want to draft Okafor so we can win next year...

Next.


----------



## BSchmaranz (May 26, 2003)

I don't remember anyone ever knocking Stackhouse's defense in the past.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

stack was never known as a good defensive player. he was always known as a 20PpG and little else. i would do the trade if the 05 pick is top3 protected. though the chance of picking top3 for us isnt that high, but i think we should all learn from rom the otis thorpe mistake. u never know...


----------



## Bigjad66 (Aug 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> lol...
> ...


Exactly. Why do we even want Okafor anyway. Dont we already have a taller and more proven version of him in Tyson Chandler? At some point we have to stop wanting the next big phenom and start getting actual players. Which Stackhouse is.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> stack was never known as a good defensive player. he was always known as a 20PpG and little else. i would do the trade if the 05 pick is top3 protected. though the chance of picking top3 for us isnt that high, but i think we should all learn from rom the otis thorpe mistake. u never know...


Please, you can't not do things based off what happened to others in the past...

This is far from a Otis Thorpe trade anyway...

We're getting an all-star caliber player.

The pick won't be top 3, we'll win some games, and the pick will end up somewhere between 10-15.

You wouldn't do...

Erob and #10-15 pick for Stackhouse?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bigjad66</b>!
> 
> 
> Exactly. Why do we even want Okafor anyway. Dont we already have a taller and more proven version of him in Tyson Chandler? At some point we have to stop wanting the next big phenom and start getting actual players. Which Stackhouse is.


EXACTLY.

It would be different if Blount was our starting PF...

PF is not a hole for us...

We're going to start drafting PFs every year?

Don't we have 2 PF's playing overseas right now?

Up until now it's been PGs...

Look, I want Stack, Lue, and Giricek, and JYD stays here...

We have a team then.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

On second thought, top 3 protected sounds good. I still fail to see why Washington pulls this deal. For the option of having 2 lottery picks? Stack has one more year than ERob, and they do have Hayes now, but shouldn't they be able to get much more than ERob and a pick? In all reality, the addition of Stackhouse - dare I say - might make us legit competitor for the number 8 spot in the playoffs, in which case our draft pick is highly unlikely to net us an impact player. 

And Stackhouse has come quite a way since his early years where he was known as nothing more than an offensive guy. He plays better D than Rose ever did and has finally learned to sacrifice his stats for the sake of the team. He'd fit in pretty well with the players we have now, and as I stated before, we can probably hold onto Jamal as well. Stack is the big wing that we've been missing that is willing to do it all - defend, score, create his own shot, and create for others. Sign me up.

But once again - why the hell does Washington do this???  

EDIT:

Then again, the number 2 pick in the 2001 draft netted only Elton Brand who was arguably producing more than Stackhouse is now. Maybe a lottery pick + ERob for an "older" veteran is more fair than we think?


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

Stack is not just a 20ppg guy and nothing else.

Over the last 5 years he's averaging a cool 24,5,4.

His best year is 30/5/5 over 80 games. 

He's led his team in assists for the last 3 years. When healthy, he's one of the better all around guards.


----------



## Bigjad66 (Aug 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> Stack is not just a 20ppg guy and nothing else.
> 
> Over the last 5 years he's averaging a cool 24,5,4.
> ...


So we would be looking at Stackhouse being Jalen Rose with a much better contract correct? I have been working on my John Paxon signature. Where do I sign?


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

I still think this rumor is being a little overblown. What is the source of this other than somebody just making it up? 

The Wizards wouldn't do this unless it was an unprotected pick. And the Bulls can't do that until the end of the season correct?


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

I don't get where the "20 PPG and nothing else" mindset comes from. He's given a pretty consistent 21/4/4.5 over the past five seasons or so, and he plays defense just fine. He is certainly no stopper, but he's not a Glenn Robinson or anything like that. I personally think he'd instantly become the Bulls top player (for the rest of this season, anyways) if he were traded to you guys.

I don't like it for the Wizards at all though. Sure, a high lottery pick is always nice, but the last thing we need is more youth at the expense of one of our few good veterans. We're already pretty much two (or more) deep at every position, and we will have our own lottery pick to worry about finding time for. There's no reason why we can't make a major jump with our current team next season if everyone can stay healthy, especially with our weak division. This trade will hurt us over next season in my opinion, as whatever lottery pick we get from you won't give us as much as Stackhouse can. Factor in that he is still at a decent age (28, right?) and signed to a very reasonable contract, and I don't really consider this as Washington.


----------



## Bigjad66 (Aug 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>MJG</b>!
> I don't like it for the Wizards at all though. Sure, a high lottery pick is always nice, but the last thing we need is more youth at the expense of one of our few good veterans. We're already pretty much two (or more) deep at every position, and we will have our own lottery pick to worry about finding time for. There's no reason why we can't make a major jump with our current team next season if everyone can stay healthy, especially with our weak division. This trade will hurt us over next season in my opinion, as whatever lottery pick we get from you won't give us as much as Stackhouse can. Factor in that he is still at a decent age (28, right?) and signed to a very reasonable contract, and I don't really consider this as Washington.


Its nice to hear the opinion of a Wiz fan on this deal. I hope this can debunk some of the people saying Stack plays no D. I have no idea why the Wiz would do it but if it is offered the Bulls should jump on it. Thakns again.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I'm still down for bringing in Stackhouse...

Think it sucks management in Washington is making him play hurt...


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

*Re: Re: Rumor I heard*



> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> I could see why both teams would consider this. My question is would our intention be to play Stackhouse at the 3 alongside Crawford (not Jerry's real position) or to have him be our SG when Crawford leaves...
> 
> I'd rather parlay ERob/2005 1st rounder into a real SF like a Rashard.


Rashard is a favorite up in Seattle, Stackhouse is not, perhaps why this rumor and not a Rashard rumor?

-Petey


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Rumor I heard*



> Originally posted by <b>Petey</b>!
> 
> 
> Rashard is a favorite up in Seattle, Stackhouse is not, perhaps why this rumor and not a Rashard rumor?
> ...


I seriously doubt Rashard is even available...

Radman?

Yes...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Top 3 protected 2004 pick & E-Rob for Stack? Pull the trigger, call it a day. IMO, a lineup of:

Hinrich
Crawford
Stack
Chandler
Curry

is a sick start. Plus we still have the MLE to use on whomever..


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I might have said it before, Stackhouse has a bargain salary compared to other players. But then, some posters may think we are getting a Jalen Rose back in return, after getting rid of him in November. Me? I would be tempted. He covers a real need.


----------



## shyFX325 (Jul 28, 2002)

i dont know how i feel about the whole idea...

i know i would like it alot more if it was solely top1 protected. After all who is out there that you really want not named okafor. After last nights game i think he is a lock for that top pick so the second and third picks are inconsequential anyways. You have to realize we are not only giving you stack we are also taking on the contract that is ERob. With charlotte pushing all teams back a pick it really kills some of the value of your guys potential pick.

6 months ago if you told me the wiz MIGHT draft one high schooler i would have lost it and had a coneption fit right there. Now looking at this trade and seeing the possibility of picking up livingston and one of the smith bros (josh or JR; and yes i know they arent related) i am rather excited. Think about having shaun, josh, kwame, and gilbert all on the same team. IT WOULD BE CRAAAZY!! all that talent and the oldest one is gilbert 22 1/2


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Top 3 protected 2004 pick & E-Rob for Stack? Pull the trigger, call it a day. IMO, a lineup of:
> 
> Hinrich
> ...


This team would win 30 games next year. Barely.


----------



## SavSicc (Feb 26, 2004)

i think the bulls are going to get the 3rd or 5th pick. The hawks will get the 1st pick and orlando get the second pick. wizard 3 or 5th. The bulls suck period


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

I make that trade ONLY if we cant draft Okafor, or move up to get him.

But I wouldn't want a Jamal/Stack team. No thanks. Too "shoosty" for me. And probably so for Pax as well. If that deal is made, say goodbye to Jamal.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> This team would win 30 games next year. Barely.


Yeah, but add a good free agent for the MLE, add maybe another vet for the exception, pick well in the second round and your pushing 35 wins, with the improvement of the younger players it shouldn't take too much overachieving to make the playoffs.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, but add a good free agent for the MLE, add maybe another vet for the exception, pick well in the second round and your pushing 35 wins, with the improvement of the younger players it shouldn't take too much overachieving to make the playoffs.


How do Stackhouse and Rose compare these days? I'd say its pretty close.

Give me a good MLE player ala Donyell Marshall.

We're looking at the same type of team to start next season Ace. Kirk, Jamal, Eddy, Tyson and two vets in Stack + MLE player + 2nd round pick(s). 30 wins. Oh yeah, improvement from the younger players. Still waiting for it to translate into wins. :no:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> How do Stackhouse and Rose compare these days? I'd say its pretty close.
> ...


Personally I like Stack better than Rose. He has a body that is better suited for playing the three than Rose and even though he CAN jack shots, I don't think he is as much of a jacker as Rose, I honestly think Stack can be a good team player on the right team. And I think he would fit in well on this team. And just because we have been waiting for the youngsters development to translate into wins and it hasn't thus far it doesn't mean it never will.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Any interest in Stackhouse to Chicago?*

Over on the Wizards board, we have an "ideal offseason" thread and here's my post. Post.

One of my presumptions going into next year is that the Bulls management isn't that keen on having Crawford back, but that they also don't want to see him walk for nothing. Unfortunately, that's boxed them into a trying to make a sign and trade work and that's going to be pretty hard to do.

One place I could see a sign and trade working is with the Wizards. They are going to be a bit under the cap, I think... enough so they might be able to take back Jamal despite his BYC status if they are giving up Stackhouse. A deal that could probably be made to work is Stackhouse for Crawford (re-signed starting at $5.5M) and ERob.

Jamal would make some sense there because between him, Gil Arenas and Larry Hughes, three combo guards might be enough to make things click. As it stands, Jamal has the best PG skills out of those three, and although they've given Gilbert big money, he's been atrocious at taking care of the ball. On the brighter side, he's a lot stronger player than Jamal, and more capable of guarding stronger opponents (when he tries). It's a bit of a gamble on their part, but I think Jamal at the "1" and Gill at the "2" could work. At least, it's an alternative and they need an alternative now, because I don't think Gil can cut it as a full time PG. I think Crawford might, and with his size he and Gill could at least theoretically take on most opponents defensively. Taking on ERob might seem onerous to them, but he could flourish in a run and gun attack there, and his contract will be up in two seasons, as opposed to Stack's, which goes on for like another four.

The Wizards have tried to keep a lid on things, but they've got to want to unload Stackhouse in the worst way. Doctors can't find anything wrong with his knee, but he doesn't want to play on it. In addition to grousing about it, he appears to have purposefully gotten himself kicked out or fouled out of a couple games so he wouldn't have to play. In short, he's been a punk.

But at the same time, he would give Pax and crew the ability to say that Jamal didn't walk for nothing. They could overlook Stack's goldbricking tendencies and point to the fact that he's a former all-star and has been on teams that went deep into the playoffs. And he's still young enough to be around for a while and he's not got a completely outrageous contract.

From the Wizards perspective, I think this is a good deal. They need to unload Stackhouse in the worst way, and they need to get someone who can co-exist with Arenas and keep him from having to play the major decision-making role.

From the Bulls perspective, I think it's one of those deals that looks good on paper but could blow up in Pax's face. Stackhouse has a pedigree, but his behavior and poor play over the last year has been very unimpressive to say the least. And if his knee really is screwed up, or even if he just thinks it is, he'll just be more dead weight on our salary cap.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Any interest in Stackhouse to Chicago?*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> The Wizards have tried to keep a lid on things, but they've got to want to unload Stackhouse in the worst way. Doctors can't find anything wrong with his knee, but he doesn't want to play on it. In addition to grousing about it, he appears to have purposefully gotten himself kicked out or fouled out of a couple games so he wouldn't have to play. In short, he's been a punk.
> 
> But at the same time, he would give Pax and crew the ability to say that Jamal didn't walk for nothing. They could overlook Stack's goldbricking tendencies and point to the fact that he's a former all-star and has been on teams that went deep into the playoffs. And he's still young enough to be around for a while and he's not got a completely outrageous contract.
> ...


If you think Pax is even remotely interested in Jerry Stackhouse, you haven't been paying attention to what he's been saying.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Any interest in Stackhouse to Chicago?*



> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> If you think Pax is even remotely interested in Jerry Stackhouse, you haven't been paying attention to what he's been saying.


You would think so, but I've seen his name brought up more than in passing too (at least, by guys that might actually have a clue rather than guys who are just pulling names out of their ***). Not to put anyone on the spot, but looking back on this thread, it's possible to see that there were quite a few people willing to consider a Stack deal a few months ago. Since then he's driven down his value something fierce, but honestly, would you rather Jamal walks for nothing?

I think I'd rather have Jamal at $5.5M and ERob for 2 more years, than have Stackhouse, but I can see the case that Stackhouse is better than letting Jamal walk for nothing.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Any interest in Stackhouse to Chicago?*



> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> You would think so, but I've seen his name brought up more than in passing too (at least, by guys that might actually have a clue rather than guys who are just pulling names out of their ***). Not to put anyone on the spot, but looking back on this thread, it's possible to see that there were quite a few people willing to consider a Stack deal a few months ago. Since then he's driven down his value something fierce, but honestly, would you rather Jamal walks for nothing?
> 
> I think I'd rather have Jamal at $5.5M and ERob for 2 more years, than have Stackhouse, but I can see the case that Stackhouse is better than letting Jamal walk for nothing.


Absolutely I'd rather lose Crawford for nothing than have to take Stackhouse in return. He would be worse than Jalen Rose, and Pax had to take a hit to get rid of Rose.

We need 12 guys who are on the same page-- Skiles's page.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> I might have said it before, Stackhouse has a bargain salary compared to other players. But then, some posters may think we are getting a Jalen Rose back in return, after getting rid of him in November. Me? I would be tempted. He covers a real need.


so the end result if you consider stack and rose equal is , donyell e-rob and a pick for jyd AD ...not a good year 4 pax if you ask me, i personally believe you pass on this deal draft a 3 and make sure the Curry and chandler come in and work hard this summer and let e-rob start at the 3 as long as he plays well and is healthy


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Any interest in Stackhouse to Chicago?*



> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> We need 12 guys who are on the same page-- Skiles's page.


Not sure if that's the formula for a winning team....

To me that equation equals a team that gives maximum effort (because it lacks talent) and still comes up short.

No thanks.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Any interest in Stackhouse to Chicago?*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Not sure if that's the formula for a winning team....
> 
> To me that equation equals a team that gives maximum effort (because it lacks talent) and still comes up short.
> ...


I'm not sure, either, truth be told. It's tough to tell what Skiles brings to the table because he's spent his first year on the job figuring out what he has to work with. But as long as Skiles is coach, it's our only chance. Can you name the last NBA championship team that didn't have at least its key players all playing on the same page? That is Phil Jackson's calling card-- getting prima donna players playing on the same page.

And has been pointed out already in this thread, where is it written that players who are willing to follow Skiles game plan cannot be talented?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Any interest in Stackhouse to Chicago?*



> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> I'm not sure, either, truth be told. It's tough to tell what Skiles brings to the table because he's spent his first year on the job figuring out what he has to work with. But as long as Skiles is coach, it's our only chance. Can you name the last NBA championship team that didn't have at least its key players all playing on the same page? That is Phil Jackson's calling card-- getting prima donna players playing on the same page.
> 
> And has been pointed out already in this thread, where is it written that players who are willing to follow Skiles game plan cannot be talented?


I don't think Skiles is the answer...

Plain and simple.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>BSchmaranz</b>!
> Take this with as much truth as you will but I got this rumor from a source that gave me the Jalen Rose/Antonio Davis deal weeks before it was ever reported:
> 
> Chicago trades: SF Eddie Robinson (6.8 ppg, 2.1 rpg, 1.1 apg in 20.0 minutes)
> ...


I'm still down, let's change that 2005 to 2006, and we're good to go...


----------

