# Relooking Trading Rose and Crawford



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

This is what the trade is looking right now. 

Jamal Crawford
Jalen Rose
Donyell Marshall
Roger Mason Jr.
Lonny Baxter

for

Antonio Davis
Chris Jefferies
Eric Piatowski
Adrian Griffin 
Mike Wilks
Othella Harrington
Cezary Tybranski
Frank Williams


now tell me with a straight face John Paxson's trades were good. All they did was fill our roster with crappy and old players.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

To add more Donyell Marshall, Jalen Rose, and Jamal Crawford are all beter then anything we recieved. Roger Mason Jr. and Lonny Baxter about as equal to pretty much everything we recieved.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Or Starting Result

Ron Artest
Brad Miller
Ron Mercer
Kevin Ollie
Donyell Marshall
Roger Mason Jr.
Lonny Baxter
Jamal Crawford

Finished Result

Antonio Davis
Chris Jefferies
Eric Piatowski
Adrian Griffin
Mike Wilks
Othella Harrington
Cezary Tybranski
Frank Williams


what 8 players would you take. Funny how a string of bad trades can change 4 core players and others into 8 average or worse players that aren't a part of our core. I think Paxson took a page out of Krause's book on how to make a team worse. Oh wait Jalen Rose with his career with the Bulls averaged 21.4 PPG and showed that he at least had talent and was a borderline star. 2 gm's 3 bad trades a bad setback for an organization.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

When you look at it like that..

WOW

*shakes head*


----------



## Thorgal (Feb 1, 2003)

Blame Krause for Robinsons, Brands, Artests, Millers, Bags, Roses and many others.

Don't blame Pax for trying to clean this **** out.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> This is what the trade is looking right now.
> 
> Jamal Crawford
> ...


I don't think anyone believes we got better talent in return for any of these trades. However, to play devil's advocate, you don't account for addition by subtraction or cap relief (second trade).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Re: Relooking Trading Rose and Crawford*



> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone believes we got better talent in return for any of these trades. However, to play devil's advocate, you don't account for addition by subtraction or cap relief (second trade).


What happens if you perpetually add through subtraction?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Relooking Trading Rose and Crawford*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> What happens if you perpetually add through subtraction?


You save up enough to afford mercer and erob?

EDIT: changed above statement to GREEN!


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Relooking Trading Rose and Crawford*



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> What happens if you perpetually add through subtraction?


Bad, bad things. We better not do any more of it.


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

I will be master of the obvious...

Salaries play a role.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

The Hawks have done good with salary room, so have the Clippers for that matter.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> The Hawks have done good with salary room, so have the Clippers for that matter.


Uncle Jerry is becoming Sterling-esqe the last few years. The Bulls are quite profitable right now.

I wonder if he sold the current scerio to the group of investors to justify the money paid to Jordan during the title years?


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> The Hawks have done good with salary room, so have the Clippers for that matter.



Weren't you just advocating trading Kirk and AD for capspace?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Cochise</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Weren't you just advocating trading Kirk and AD for capspace?


For Antoine Walker 

In which we either sign Michael Redd/Ray Allen or resign Antoine Walker.

Trading mass amounts of talent (which we wouldnt be for Walker in my proposed trade) don't get you no where. Talent wins. And look at what we went from to then now and you'll see what I'm talking about.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> And look at what we went from to then now and you'll see what I'm talking about.


It's not like you guys got worse. Jalen Rose... Jamal Crawford... this will be remembered as the period of expectations. I doubt we'll ever see a "I miss Jalen Rose " or "We needed that 50 pt effort from Crawford tonight" post. If you kept these guys the Bulls would have been stuck in salary cap hell and mediocrity for years... and would've probably had to decide between keeping Curry or Chandler.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ming Bling</b>!
> 
> 
> It's not like you guys got worse. Jalen Rose... Jamal Crawford... this will be remembered as the period of expectations. I doubt we'll ever see a "I miss Jalen Rose " or "We needed that 50 pt effort from Crawford tonight" post. If you kept these guys the Bulls would have been stuck in salary cap hell and mediocrity for years... and would've probably had to decide between keeping Curry or Chandler.


What says we wont end up deciding between the two. Paxson has made some bad moves and not giving both extensions this summer could be another.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> Or Starting Result
> 
> Ron Artest
> ...


Or Starting Result

*Elton Brand*
Ron Artest
Brad Miller
Ron Mercer
Kevin Ollie
Donyell Marshall
Roger Mason Jr.
Lonny Baxter
Jamal Crawford

Finished Result

*Tyson Chandler*
Antonio Davis
Chris Jefferies
Eric Piatowski
Adrian Griffin
Mike Wilks
Othella Harrington
Cezary Tybranski
Frank Williams


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Rhyder</b>!
> 
> 
> Or Starting Result
> ...


I didn't include that trade because it wasn't in the long string of trades coming from the Ron Artest trades and on. That is a seperate trade. Bad trade well idk bout the Brand one quite yet. The players we got as a result of the other trades we know we got screwed over.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> 
> 
> What says we wont end up deciding between the two. Paxson has made some bad moves and not giving both extensions this summer could be another.




No it won't. I like these guys as much as anyone here, but you don't give a big extension to a guy who just came off a bigtime back injury and another who has motivation problems no matter what their "potential" is. I am positive the Bulls organization will be happy to give these guys some extra money next summer knowing they proved themselves and those other issues didn't come back up.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If this year is any indicator, "prove themselves" is an ambiguous phrase Paxson has thrown around just to stahl from making big decisions.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ming Bling</b>!
> 
> 
> It's not like you guys got worse. Jalen Rose... Jamal Crawford... this will be remembered as the period of expectations. I doubt we'll ever see a "I miss Jalen Rose " or "We needed that 50 pt effort from Crawford tonight" post. If you kept these guys the Bulls would have been stuck in salary cap hell and mediocrity for years... and would've probably had to decide between keeping Curry or Chandler.



I miss Jalen Rose


----------



## WookiesOnRitalin (Jan 22, 2004)

There stats are replaceable. 

That's why its okay. 

Now Paxson has brought in players who he knows he can put his faith into.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> This is what the trade is looking right now.
> 
> Jamal Crawford
> ...


As opposed to crappy old players.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>WookiesOnRitalin</b>!
> There stats are replaceable.
> 
> That's why its okay.
> ...


Well, in a manner of speaking. I have little doubt that Gordon, Deng, Noicini, Williams, and Pike, and perhaps Curry and Chandler will make up the ppg that Crawford, Gill, and JYD contributed.

The problem is that the overall PPG we were scoring was pathetically bad. Equalling or slightly topping our offensive output last year is a realistic goal, but it doesn't constitute improvement out of the league basement.

Improvement doesn't come in replacing, but augmenting.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Improvement doesn't come in replacing, but augmenting.


i couldn't have put it better .

people often take comments like that as paxson hating , if thats the case then so be it. But as fans we are supposed to want our team to do better then before especially if they were doing poorly , i dont understand all this need for pax to have faith in the players ....this isn't religion , sports isn't faith based its production based , and performance based, if the players dont do what they are supposed to they have not justified any faith put in them and if they are doing well than faith really isn't needed , is it.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

All of Pax's trades sucked, let's go back to the glory days of those wonderful rosters that included all those fantastic players. 

Pax didn't break up a dynasty, I am for looking towards the future and seeing a better team with better results.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
> All of Pax's trades sucked, let's go back to the glory days of those wonderful rosters that included all those fantastic players.
> 
> Pax didn't break up a dynasty, I am for looking towards the future and seeing a better team with better results.


Pax was obviously given the authority to rebuild around Chandler and Curry. He has successfully. Mark my words. The Bulls will make the playoffs this year!

Curry and Chandler will have career years. BG will be rookie of the year.


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> This is what the trade is looking right now.
> 
> Jamal Crawford
> ...


I don't think there's any question that we gave away more talent. Thing is, though, that roster we had on the top... went 4-16 to start last season. Same thing with the Artest and Miller trades; we traded them away because our team wasn't so hot at the time, and unfortunately, the trade didn't help any. (Brand for Tyson, that was Krause gambling.) I will say with straight face that the trades gave away talent, but I also don't expect the roster to be stable when we don't win.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Relooking Trading Rose and Crawford*



> Originally posted by <b>Mongoose</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't think there's any question that we gave away more talent. Thing is, though, that roster we had on the top... went 4-16 to start last season. Same thing with the Artest and Miller trades; we traded them away because our team wasn't so hot at the time, and unfortunately, the trade didn't help any. (Brand for Tyson, that was Krause gambling.) I will say with straight face that the trades gave away talent, but I also don't expect the roster to be stable when we don't win.


That pretty much sums up my fears for the next two years. How long until this plan goes out the window too?

We gave away talent and experience in those trades at times what we really needed was to add talent and experience.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Good post! It's nice to see someone else clear headed about the trades the Bulls have made in the past. We have traded solid players for manure basically. I think that the reason the Bulls didn't do very well is that they were always at a crossroads. I mean, they may have a couple of decent verterans in Rose & Marshall but then Curry & Chandler may not be "ready". THe team has made kneejerk trades, the initial Rose trade was a mistake and Krause didn't want to do it but papa Reinsdorf pressured him into it (some speculate thats part of the reason he resigned). Anyway, regardless what anyone says, the Bulls won't be successful by trading talent for junk. There is so much "oh we need players that are on the same page, hard workers!" What we NEED is a managemnet and coaching staff that is capable of GETTING everyone on the same page. We have had hard workers, Crawford & Hassell for instance were always hard workers, but that didn't stop Pax from getting rid of them.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!THe team has made kneejerk trades, the initial Rose trade was a mistake and Krause didn't want to do it but papa Reinsdorf pressured him into it (some speculate thats part of the reason he resigned).


This is sheer fantasy. IF KRAUSE REALLY DIDNT LIKE THE TRADE the time for Krause to resign due to the Artest and Miller trade was when it happened, not 1.5 years later.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> This is sheer fantasy. IF KRAUSE REALLY DIDNT LIKE THE TRADE the time for Krause to resign due to the Artest and Miller trade was when it happened, not 1.5 years later.


It was a factor, not the ONLY factor.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Great Twinkee</b>!
> This is what the trade is looking right now.
> 
> Jamal Crawford
> ...


Fast forward to the end of this year and this trade is:

Jamal Crawford @ 6 more years for $49M
Jalen Rose @ 2 more years for $31M

for

Antonio Davis @ ending contract $12M
Eric [email protected] ending contract $3M

===========================

Now ending contracts are valuable. So AD and Pike will have positive value. 

Will Rose have positive trading value at the end of the year? NO!

Will Crawford have positive trading value at the end of the year? It's possible. 

Will Crawford and Rose have positive trading value at the end of the year? NO!

=============================

Building a team is not just augmenting talent. It's setting a tone and style of play. Both Rose and Crawford set the wrong tone. That's why they are not here.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Relooking Trading Rose and Crawford*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Fast forward to the end of this year and this trade is:
> ...


For some folks it is all about dollars and sense, for others it is about actually WINNING games on the basketball court. I don't want to hear about how much caproom we have or what wonderful free agents we will be able to sign in the future. And if Crawford & Rose are so bad, why did we draft or trade for them in the first place? Personally I would take either Rose or Crawford over Davis AND Piatowski, hell, you could even throw in a second rounder and I would STILL take Crawford or Rose over both of those cats. But oh wait...we sure will have some caproom!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> It was a factor, not the ONLY factor.


Krause got canned for many, many bad decisions made. The Bulls called it a resignation was to save Krause some face.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Relooking Trading Rose and Crawford*



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> And if Crawford & Rose are so bad, why did we draft or trade for them in the first place?


This logic is ridulous even if it was the same GM which it isn't



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!Personally I would take either Rose or Crawford over Davis AND Piatowski, hell, you could even throw in a second rounder and I would STILL take Crawford or Rose over both of those cats.


\



Of course you would. But you see JC as more talented the the entire league of GMs.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Krause got canned for many, many bad decisions made. The Bulls called it a resignation was to save Krause some face.


I don't think Krause MADE that many bad decisions. And some of the decisions he did make that ended up bad like the Rose trade were pushed from higher up. It technically wasn't even a resignation, they just didn't resign Krause when the time came up. Still, IMO, Krause was an awful lot better GM than Paxson. He also has 6 titles and a couple of GM of the year awards to back that up. All Paxson has in his favor is that he has done a good job at the draft so far....


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Relooking Trading Rose and Crawford*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> This logic is ridulous even if it was the same GM which it isn't
> ...


I don't see what is ridiculous about it. The Bulls put their draft picks through more than most teams. They even make them undergo psychological testing! Surely they should be able to tell if a player can "fit into" what they are trying to do with all of that, no? 


A LOT of GM's like Crawford, a lot of GM's didn't have the flexibility to sign Jamal, Paxson did and he blew it IMO. I know, I know, I am just a "Crawford fan" but I bet in a season or 2 from now people will wish he was still a Bull.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I don't think Krause MADE that many bad decisions.


In a "what did you do for me last season" profession.....

2002-03 30 52 .366 
2001-02 21 61 .256
2000-01 15 67 .183
1999-00 17 65 .207
1998-99 13 37 .260



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> And some of the decisions he did make that ended up bad like the Rose trade were pushed from higher up.


Unsubstanciated speculation from posters based upon a vague comment in the newspaper or two.

That trade set the Bulls back 4 years and has a disaster.

Do you really think that Krause figured that Miller would continue to develop and was OK with the deal.

Krause horribly miscalculated how far along Tyson and Eddy were. And how Miller would develop.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> In a "what did you do for me last season" profession.....
> ...


I think a lot of Bulls fans just don't understand. The Bulls went from being one of THE most dominating teams ever to scratch all in the space of a year. Pippen demanded to be traded, MJ retired, Rodman retired. About the only real assett that the Bulls had left was Toni Kukoc, who they traded for the draft pick that landed Crawford. Rome wasn't built in a day and you can't rebuild the Bulls from nothing into a competetive team without some losing years to amass draft picks and talent. 

I don't think Krause miscalculated so much with Curry & Chandler as the fan base and higher ups did. I said when they were drafted that both players were 3-5 year projects...I am certain Krause was aware of that. The main problem was that management wasn't patient enough. We should have been trying to keep Miller. We should have kept Artest. I know Krause wasn't quick to sign off on the Rose deal, it was mentioned in several places that he was reluctant to do it, as was BJ Armstrong, and was kind of forced into it. That pretty much was the end of Krause's rebuild right there.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Relooking Trading Rose and Crawford*



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I don't see what is ridiculous about it. The Bulls put their draft picks through more than most teams. They even make them undergo psychological testing! Surely they should be able to tell if a player can "fit into" what they are trying to do with all of that, no?


I have one word for you - Artest



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> A LOT of GM's like Crawford, a lot of GM's didn't have the flexibility to sign Jamal, Paxson did and he blew it IMO. I know, I know, I am just a "Crawford fan" but I bet in a season or 2 from now people will wish he was still a Bull.


Come on now, ACE. Lay it on the table.

Your projection for Crawford is which of the following:
good 6th man
decent starter
Top 20 guard in the league
Top 5 PG


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I think a lot of Bulls fans just don't understand. The Bulls went from being one of THE most dominating teams ever to scratch all in the space of a year. ....Rome wasn't built in a day and you can't rebuild the Bulls from nothing into a competetive team without some losing years to amass draft picks and talent.


excuse, excuse, excuse....

The best expansion football teams in basketball and football have a much better track record than Krause.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Relooking Trading Rose and Crawford*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I have one word for you - Artest
> ...


I think Crawford will be a top 20 guard in the league and COULD end up being one of the top 5 pg's in a couple of years, it really depends on how he develops.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> excuse, excuse, excuse....
> ...


Yeah, the difference is the expansion teams are TRYING to be competetive whereas the Bulls were clearly TRYING to tank up until about 02.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Yeah, the difference is the expansion teams are TRYING to be competetive whereas the Bulls were clearly TRYING to tank up until about 02.


Not sure that I agree. The current Bobcats, for example, are clearly building for tomorrow.

Either way, the strategy didn't work. So Krause had to go....


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Relooking Trading Rose and Crawford*



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I think Crawford will be a top 20 guard in the league and COULD end up being one of the top 5 pg's in a couple of years, it really depends on how he develops.


I guess you are really covered. 

If Crawford stinks, you can always just say his talent was mismanaged by the teams that he was on. 

If he is great, well, you knew that, too.

 

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

How about a "I, Ace, will have been wrong about Crawford unless he is at least as valuable or good as ________________".


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Not sure that I agree. The current Bobcats, for example, are clearly building for tomorrow.
> ...


The strategy didn't work because people got impatient and moves were made that guranteed failure!


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Relooking Trading Rose and Crawford*



> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess you are really covered.
> ...


I don't understand why all of this effort to "pin me down" on Crawford. I have been pretty clear that I believe Crawford will be a prime time player and will be very good. When I say very good I mean good enough that he could be a top pg in the league. I don't know what further clarification you need. And I don't know if he could be any more mismanaged after his stint with the Bulls. What is amusing to me is that some folks are just determined to see Jamal fail, I wonder how they will react when he does become a prime time player and they realize that we traded him for some magic bean cap relief.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

We sacraficed Marshall and Crawford to get of the last 30 million of Roses contract. 

When you look at that list you must look at the flexibility it gave us for trades with in the next two years and the fact that is makes us FA players in 06'.

Breakdown-
Paxson broke up a middle of the pack team at best for a chance at something great.
Just like trading next years pick for Deng.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Krause got canned for many, many bad decisions made. The Bulls called it a resignation was to save Krause some face.


Drafting Artest with the 15th?
Drafting Brand witht the 1st?
Drafting Crawford with the 7th (in effect)?

I supported the Fizer pick. Not to many better players in the draft. JWill was not Krause's fault.

Even the trades he made (brand for chandler, artest and miller for rose) are nowhere near as bad as Paxson's crawford for NOTHING swap. At least we received something of values in those trades.

*The biggest mistake Krause made was assuming cap room was worth something. (sound familiar?)* When he found out it was not, he was painted into a corner and made some bad deals (mercer, erob), which began the death spiral.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Drafting Artest with the 15th?
> ...


THANK YOU!


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> *The biggest mistake Krause made was assuming cap room was worth something. (sound familiar?)* When he found out it was not, he was painted into a corner and made some bad deals (mercer, erob), which began the death spiral.


that was a diff time and the bulls were very diff..part of Krause's plan was to sign Tmac with all that cap space but he didnt think MJ tellin other players not to play for the bulls while he(Krause) was around would hold much water with them,well it did so what would this team look like today if we had Tmac on the team?Cap space is very important after all there are only 2 ways to get players on your team 1 draft 2 sign/resign them all of which require capspace..


you all can act like Jrose and JC were greek gods all you want but you must remember no other team made a play for them so pax didnt have a whole lot to work with.and ace dont start that "no team would make a play for JC couse they knew pax would match the offer"stuff,thats BS couse if that were the case no FA's would ever change teams...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> Even the trades he made (brand for chandler, artest and miller for rose) are nowhere near as bad as Paxson's crawford for NOTHING swap. At least we received something of values in those trades.


Artest and Miller for Rose is 100 times worse than Crawford for cap space.

Two future All-STARS for one of the most long-term overpaid players in the league.

Please.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Relooking Trading Rose and Crawford*



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I don't understand why all of this effort to "pin me down" on Crawford.


Are you in effect pinning yourself down? 

You are critizing Paxson. So you must think Crawford will improve enough to make it a huge mistake not to retain him.


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Drafting Artest with the 15th?
> ...



You would rather have JC back than Elton or Artest and Brad?

How about we actually wait to see what Paxson does with the capspace/expiring contracts first? Opinions like this, formed well before we know what his final trade looks like or even before the season begins, is unreasonable and unfair.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The point people seem to be missing is what we actually got in return. Did it make the team better? How good would we be with Rose, Marshall, Crawford, AND Gordon+Deng?

Another point is that you can look at the deals Pax has made and ask yourself (NOT IF BUT) when is the next bad deal going to be made and what's it going to cost us?


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> The point people seem to be missing is what we actually got in return. Did it make the team better? How good would we be with Rose, Marshall, Crawford, AND Gordon+Deng?
> 
> Another point is that you can look at the deals Pax has made and ask yourself (NOT IF BUT) when is the next bad deal going to be made and what's it going to cost us?


I'm still waiting for the FIRST bad deal.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm still waiting for the FIRST bad deal.


i agree..on paper they may look lobsided but they allow us to resign both TC and EC which is huge,and no one other then TOR,NY wanted either of those guys,its simple really in your eyes JC and/or Jrose may have been worth kobe(just a example) but to the rest of the GM's they are worth AD,Pike,ag ect: so thats what your going to get.its not like pax can just call up LA and say here take Rose and JC and YOUR GOING to give us kobe i mean come on...


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> The point people seem to be missing is what we actually got in return. Did it make the team better? How good would we be with Rose, Marshall, Crawford, AND Gordon+Deng?
> 
> Another point is that you can look at the deals Pax has made and ask yourself (NOT IF BUT) when is the next bad deal going to be made and what's it going to cost us?


You can't ask your second question before Pax is done with the capspace/expiring contracts. 

And Rose needed to go. Badly. He proved to be a cancer on a young team. Or, at least, an albatross. You can't have a "leader" with a big-ego, ball-chucking and playing no defense on a team that desperately needs more all-around toughness, better defense and discipline. It was worth Marshall to get rid of him (and ultimately gain more financial/roster flexibility), ASAP.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

The three major mistakes Krause made was:

1) Trading for Rose and losing Artest and Miller (which pressure was on him to make the move, so I don't think Krause was the most at fault). I didn't mind losing Miller to give Eddy more minutes, but losing him AND Artest was way too much for what we got back.

2 & 3) Using the cap space he attained on third tier FAs. Once the top tier names didn't sign, Krause was pressured into finding a breakout type player who had the potential to be great, but never followed that potential (Mercer and ERob). The best moves he could have made was just to fill the team with role players to small or short-term deals until we landed a star with that cap space. Krause was pressured to make the playoffs, and therefore was pressured into using all of that cap money into landing an impact player. Unfortulate, neither of his FA finds amounted to anything.

Cap space is valuable, but it can easily be completely wasted (see Chicago the past three years).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bulls</b>!
> 
> 
> that was a diff time and the bulls were very diff..part of Krause's plan was to sign Tmac with all that cap space but he didnt think MJ tellin other players not to play for the bulls while he(Krause) was around would hold much water with them,well it did so what would this team look like today if we had Tmac on the team?Cap space is very important after all there are only 2 ways to get players on your team 1 draft 2 sign/resign them all of which require capspace..
> ...



TMAC and Kruase had a surprisingly close relationship. I'm surprised too... but TMAC has always spoke glowingly of Krause. It stems from Krause being a big TMAC fan from when he was coming back from high school. TMAC wanted to be closer to his home town... and the fact the Hill was going there meant it was a better chance to win.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Artest and Miller for Rose is 100 times worse than Crawford for cap space.
> ...



At the time Artest was a crazy man and Miller was a solid player. Not all-star caliber. They got a player that was closer to being an all-star in rose. They blossomed into all stars on other team. When they were here... they were losers.

Just like Crawford. Young... talented... on a losing team. Ready to blossom.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> At the time Artest was a crazy man and Miller was a solid player. Not all-star caliber. They got a player that was closer to being an all-star in rose. They blossomed into all stars on other team. When they were here... they were losers.
> 
> Just like Crawford. Young... talented... on a losing team. Ready to blossom.


:sour: 

You still have not sold me...... Bulls were decent with Artest and Miller in the lineup right b/f they got traded.

Miller was better than Crawford
Arest even crazy was better than Crawford

Rose was only close to being an All-STAR in his and your mind.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Artest and Miller for Rose is 100 times worse than Crawford for cap space.
> ...


At the time it was considered to be a good trade. 

In hindsight, yes, it was a bad one.

But... it all stems from him not being able to land a quality vet via FA.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> At the time it was considered to be a good trade.
> ...


I was one of the few people who said it was bad when it happened. Of course I frequently get lambasted for having my own opinion on things, nothing new there.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> At the time it was considered to be a good trade.


Isn't every trade considered a good one at the time by both sides?

So, by this logic, the Crawford trade must be a good one, too.

Stop the thread....

:laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Isn't every trade considered a good one at the time by both sides?
> ...


Its good for uncle jerry. Its not good for the fans.... unless you harbor an irrational hate for Jamal Crawford.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Its good for uncle jerry. Its not good for the fans.... unless you harbor an irrational hate for Jamal Crawford.


Or unless one harbors a hate for Jamal Crawford that is warranted.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> Its good for uncle jerry. Its not good for the fans.... unless you harbor an irrational hate for Jamal Crawford.


I'm not so sure. Let's check back in a few months.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Botton line: Crawford was a 7 year, what, 55 mil commitment? Forget what you got in the trade, are you willing to get stuck with that contract?

Good trade. The guy is not someone we want long term. Despite some good scoring nights he was a negative on the court if we want to win. 

Pax got some expiring contracts for a player who was most likely leaving in a year anyway.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> 
> 
> At the time it was considered to be a good trade.
> ...


In the need to acquire a veteran leader it was a good trade. However, the problem was that the veteran leader was Jalen Rose, not a number 1 option (which is what we needed to acquire). Since we were not getting that player, I thought giving up Artest AND Miller was way too much at the time. I would have been happy with the trade if we gave one or the other + filler up for Rose, but not two budding talents.

Even though Artest was crazy, I was more willing to give up Miller, because he was a starting-caliber big, and moving him would give Curry more minutes while upgrading at another position. I didn't mind losing Artest either, but to lose both was crazy in my eyes, even at the time of the trade, especially given how many Pacers fans didn't like Rose to begin with.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

A 7 year $55M contract is less than $1M over the MLE.

It is the equivalent to a 6 year $45M contract with an additional year on it. In either case, Jamal would be paid $5.8M next year and the same amounts in years 2-6 as well.

The type of MLE contract supposedly offered to Jamal by the Bulls would have been 6 years and $39M. Jamal would have gotten $5M this year.

In short, the only real way I see you can think Crawford would be massively overpaid is if you wouldn't have offered him a 6 year deal at all.

Under the contract the Bulls actually offered, they were willing to pay him $8.1M to play in the 6th year of his deal. Given that:

* Does it really make sense to say it would have been "too much" to pay him $9.4M in year 6 (what he will actually make)? As Johnston797 once said, that's a trivial difference in the scheme of things. Chump change.

* Does it really make sense to say it was worth paying Jamal $8.1M in year 6, but not $10.1M in year 7 (what he will actually make)?

The Bulls, by offering that the contract they did, said they thought Jamal was worth $8.1M as a player in six years. If that's the case, I fail to see how paying him $2M more (chump change!) in a seventh year is drastic overpayment.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> A 7 year $55M contract is less than $1M over the MLE.
> 
> It is the equivalent to a 6 year $45M contract with an additional year on it. In either case, Jamal would be paid $5.8M next year and the same amounts in years 2-6 as well.
> ...


How are the bulls only paying him $2M (potentially)more in year seven? The Bulls offered a six year contract with an ending amount of $8.1M in the sixth year. There is no seventh year. The difference isn't $2M, it's $10.1M. All other things being equal, if the Bulls paid Jamal $8.1 mil in his sixth year and then let him walk after that, they just saved themselves $10.1 mil off their bottom line in the seventh year because they wouldn't have to pay him.

You're looking at an incremental difference and that's just not the case. Also, if a player is worth $8 mil, what's the big deal in paying him $10 mil. Hell, if he's then worth $10 mil, what's the big deal in paying him $12 mil? It's all chump change, right? Eventually, even to multi-millionaires, a few one's followed by six zeros going out too quickly and they'll take notice. $10.1 million is quite a bit of money, even to the Bulls.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> You're looking at an incremental difference and that's just not the case. Also, if a player is worth $8 mil, what's the big deal in paying him $10 mil. Hell, if he's then worth $10 mil, what's the big deal in paying him $12 mil? It's all chump change, right? Eventually, even to multi-millionaires, a few one's followed by six zeros going out too quickly and they'll take notice. $10.1 million is quite a bit of money, even to the Bulls.


I agree with Mike. If JC is worth a MLE contract, its' highly likely that he is worth the contract that the NYKs gave him.

In other words, if he is worth $8M six years from now, then he is likely to be worth $10 seven years from now.

With that said, I think that Pax is just as happy that he didn't get JC for the MLE. While JC's talent is *probably* worthy of that deal and he *probably* would be a tradeable asset, I don't think Pax feels that he fits in the image he is trying to create at all.

So I will let Pax work 100% within his vision. If it works, great. If it doesn't work, let's get a new GM. And Pax will never feel like he compromised his vision.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> How are the bulls only paying him $2M (potentially)more in year seven? The Bulls offered a six year contract with an ending amount of $8.1M in the sixth year. There is no seventh year. The difference isn't $2M, it's $10.1M. All other things being equal, if the Bulls paid Jamal $8.1 mil in his sixth year and then let him walk after that, they just saved themselves $10.1 mil off their bottom line in the seventh year because they wouldn't have to pay him.


Well right, but is there any real reason not to offer him a 7th year if you're willing to offer him a 6th year? If you think he's worth that much in year six (and you better, if you're offering him the deal) then it seems kind of unlikely that you don't think he's worth it in year 7.



> You're looking at an incremental difference and that's just not the case. Also, if a player is worth $8 mil, what's the big deal in paying him $10 mil. Hell, if he's then worth $10 mil, what's the big deal in paying him $12 mil? It's all chump change, right? Eventually, even to multi-millionaires, a few one's followed by six zeros going out too quickly and they'll take notice. $10.1 million is quite a bit of money, even to the Bulls.


Well, that's the slippery slope argument, of course, but we aren't talking about a $4M or $14M difference, we're only talking about a $2M difference in this case..

I think Johnston maybe said it more effectively than me. I think Paxson made an offer that he knew and hoped Jamal would never accept. We'll see if that turns out to be the right move.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with Mike. If JC is worth a MLE contract, its' highly likely that he is worth the contract that the NYKs gave him.
> ...


Quite possibly.

Is Jamal then worth $12 mil eight years from now? Is he worth $14 mil nine years from now? How about $16 mil ten years from now? At what point does it end?

It's all abitrary anyways. The Bulls thought he was worth what they offered over six years. The Knicks believe him to be worth more over seven years. The only way to truly find that answer out is to see what he's doing six or seven years from now. At some point, everyone and every business must determine what they're willing to pay for whatever it is they're looking at. Is that house worth $249,000 or should I offer less? Does this or that employee deserver a 10% raise? Can I afford to pay that raise? Should I build or lease? At what cost? Do I offer a six or seven year deal to that player?

Tough decisions all around.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!The Bulls thought he was worth what they offered over six years.


Alternatively, perhaps Pax did not want to pay JC the MLE, but just put out that offer to protect his asset. If so, wise move, b/c he unloaded JYD's bad contract.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Well right, but is there any real reason not to offer him a 7th year if you're willing to offer him a 6th year? If you think he's worth that much in year six (and you better, if you're offering him the deal) then it seems kind of unlikely that you don't think he's worth it in year 7.
> ...


So when do you stop offering incremental increases? When does a players value decline? It's really a value judgement. YOu can pay the guy $8 mil one year, but do you want to pay him $10 mil the next? Apparently Pax didn't and Thomas did. And the difference still is $10 mil. Not the $2 mil you keep alluding to. Run the numbers if you'd like. Elect not to pay Jamal and you'd save $8 mil in salary. Pay Jamal for a seveth year and you'll pay $2mil more. The net effect of the choice?: $10 mil. How can it be anything else?

Also, to put it in your economist terms, there is an opportunity cost of paying Jamal in the seventh year. Pay him and you lose the ability to do something else with that $10 mil. You're quick to point that out with the deal for Piatkowski.

I tend to agree that Pax kind of lowballed Jamal in hopes he wouldn't take the offer. I got to believe Pax was also disappointed in the lack of genuine interest in Jamal. He took the only deal available. I guess we'll just have to see how it goes.

Can we start training camp soon!!!!! I want some real basketball news!!!!


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I thought the 7th year of Jamals deal was a option year .Does anyone know if this is true ?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> I thought the 7th year of Jamals deal was a option year .Does anyone know if this is true ?


I believe it's a Players Option.


----------

