# I hear Harrington for No 7 is done



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Reliable source says its been completed. 7 for Harrington. Probably Pippen going to Indiana


----------



## LuolDeng (Feb 22, 2004)

Hmmm...
I hope not.
I want Jackson.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

Thank you Phoenix!!!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Paxson really is not equipped to do the GM job. The last straw happened a long time ago. This is just piling bad move on top of a littany of bad moves.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

#7 for Harrington is a GOOD deal for us.

Just as long as Chandler is NOT involved...


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

thank you again PHOENIX!!!

the bulls are going to be much more competitive definitely. icant wait for the season to start already


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Reliable source says its been completed. 7 for Harrington. Probably Pippen going to Indiana


Is he really the answer at the 3? I don't think so. If you are right, me thinks Tyson Chandler may be on the move for a two guard...


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

That is very depressing news. Please don't let it be true.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

Tyson will get moved for either Paul Pierce or Ray Allen I suppose


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

*Re: Re: I hear Harrington for No 7 is done*



> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Is he really the answer at the 3? I don't think so. If you are right, me thinks Tyson Chandler may be on the move for a two guard...


I think the Pierce deal still has legs. Tyson is on the way out.


----------



## Dionysus2k (Jun 24, 2004)

I would be happy with Pippen (the creaky old arthritic dinosaur) for Harrington.

So what about the #3 pick, Gordan or Iggy or Deng?
I like Iggy ALOT!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Reliable source says its been completed. 7 for Harrington. Probably Pippen going to Indiana


Interesting... I know lots of folks will disagree, but this probably constitutes about fair value. Of course, if Like Jackson blows up, we'll look foolish. wonder if anything else is coming (#29?) or just Harrington?

I think if this is true, it must mean Chandler's on his way somewhere. If it's for 27 year old Paul Pierce just entering his prime, I'm gonna be pretty happy. If it's for 29 year old Ray Allen who's about to start declining, I'm not gonna be very happy.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

Harrington will not be a 3 he will be our starting PF...

I suspect The #3 pick and Chandler will be on it's way to Miami, Seattle, or Boston for Ray Allen, Paul Pierce or 2 quality players from Miami...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I hope this isn't so. I'd prefer we kept #7 & drafted someone than taking Harrington.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

while Harrington is NOT the best fit, he probably is the Bulls best player as of now. he will help out on the boards and will play D. Luke Jackson would have been a disaster in Chicago with that matador D and will be exposed in Indiana. Thats who Indy will take, looks like Bird will go for the white guy. With Harrington coming on board, the Bulls absolutely need a 4 with 3 pt range. There arent many of those types around. lets pray Mehmut Okur comes to Chicago via the MLE


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I hope this isn't so. I'd prefer we kept #7 & drafted someone than taking Harrington.


the problem is we're all overrating the draft picks now... a month ago you would have loved the #7 pick for Harrington... we've all been getting so much hype we overrate the draft picks now...


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I hope harrington is the answer at the 3. I really dont want him as our starting PF. and if Chandler is traded.... I can't believe we're giving him up with his value at his lowest point.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Bleh.

I suppose that'd be ok if we can move Chandler and/or the pick for a SF, but otherwise I don't like it.

Hopefully its not true, though I trust you and your sources rlucas.
Maybe that means Pax has another deal lined up (the Pierce deal?), but I'm still unsure if #3 and Tyson gets us Pierce. If it does, then the Harrington deal wouldn't be bad I suppose.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> 
> 
> the problem is we're all overrating the draft picks now... a month ago you would have loved the #7 pick for Harrington... we've all been getting so much hype we overrate the draft picks now...


No. I've never been a big fan of Harrington and never advocated trading for him, I don't think he is worth the #7 and I never have.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> 
> 
> the problem is we're all overrating the draft picks now... a month ago you would have loved the #7 pick for Harrington... we've all been getting so much hype we overrate the draft picks now...


A month ago we didn't ALSO have the #3 pick. 

To those who think Chandler is going to go, this deal makes me want to trade Curry instead. Curry will get us more in trade, and he absolutely is a bad combination with Harrington.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

Now lets just pray that Pax has deal for Pierce.

Harrington is the power forward.Tyson will get traded tonight.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Thanks rlucas. As long as Chandler is not in the trade for #7, we should be ok. 

So many trade options!! Wow this is unreal!


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> while Harrington is NOT the best fit, he probably is the Bulls best player as of now. he will help out on the boards and will play D. Luke Jackson would have been a disaster in Chicago with that matador D and will be exposed in Indiana. Thats who Indy will take, looks like Bird will go for the white guy. With Harrington coming on board, the Bulls absolutely need a 4 with 3 pt range. There arent many of those types around. lets pray Mehmut Okur comes to Chicago via the MLE


Okur has absolutely no reason to come here, nor has he ever been rumored to be coming here. Right?

If this trade really did go through:

Kirk
Jamal
Pierce
Harrington
Curry


----------



## WookiesOnRitalin (Jan 22, 2004)

Here's my obvious problem with Al Harrington. He's not a small forward. 

That is clear. 

Then supposedly at 3 we are going to draft Ben Gordon? A 6-2 190 2 guard. 

1: Hinrich
2: Gordon
3: 
4: Harrington
5: Curry




ANYBODY ELSE SEE ANYTHING MISSING?

Seriously, how do we go into this draft and take an overrated for a lottery pick and STILL don't get our SF of the future out of it?


It's ridiculous.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

If this is true, that's not such a bad deal. So long as the extra that is included on our end is not Chandler. All I want out of this draft is two guys who can contribute and to keep Chandler (Unless the Pierce deal is for real). Hopefully Pax held out long enough to get the #29 pick. A guy like Donta Smith might be there if he's not taken by the Kings.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Ok, put what I mentioned on hold for a minute, let me find out some stuff about Harrington first.
What is he primarily, a SF or PF?

I was under the assumption he'd play at PF with the ability to play SF, is that right?
In that case, I don't like it if we're keeping Chandler, simply because they'd be in the same slot.
But if he can effectively play SF all the time, then its not so bad, althoug not my first choice.

I don't know enough about him to decide quite yet.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Okur has absolutely no reason to come here, nor has he ever been rumored to be coming here. Right?
> ...


no no, if this trade goes through it's:

Kirk
Jamal
Harrington
Chandler
Curry


we do not have Paul Pierce....


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Okur has absolutely no reason to come here, nor has he ever been rumored to be coming here. Right?
> ...


Kirk
Pargo
Pierce
Harrington
Curry

With Paul Shirley as our candidate for 6th man of the year.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

GUYS WE DON'T HAVE PAUL PIERCE


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*pierce is essential*

PG Hinrich
SG Craw
SF Pierce
PF Harrington 
C Curry

Sign me up. I like it.

I like the Ray Allen trade as well if and only if we can get a solid 3 for a sign and traded craw and the 12. If not... I'm happy with the above lineup.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HAWK23</b>!
> 
> 
> no no, if this trade goes through it's:
> ...


What I meant to say was that's our best case scenario if we've made this first move.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

<FONT SIZE=+10>My schwartz is bigger than your schwartz</FONT>

May the schwartz be with you.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

My prediction is that if this trade goes down, we're also doing Pierce/LaFrentz for Chandler#3/AD. We'll seal the deal by taking on Raef's big salary and hoping he gets healthy.

If we do that, Raef and Harrington are pretty much an ideal combo. Raef can play at the 5 capably for part of the time, and Harrington can play at the 3 part of the time. Their strengths and weaknesses match up quite nicely... Raef's got the outside shooting to go next to Curry while Harrington's got the quicks to defend guys on the perimeter. Honestly, it's a pretty good match.

If that trade doesn't go through, and we've just traded for Harrington to play the 3 full time, or we've effectively traded #3, 7, and Chandler for Harrington and Ray Allen, I'm going to say Paxson got desperate and blew it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Lets remember, rumors dont always come true. 

Here is my conversation. I protect the name of the contact


x: hey what does ford say bro
RLucas4257: just a sec
x and how do you like gordon+iggy
x: http://proxy.espn.go.com/nba/draft2004/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&id=1827261&CMP=ILC-INHEAD
x: chad cancellend my insider subscription 
x: and refunded me
RLucas4257: there is no way the Bulls pass on Deng for Jackson
x: at 3?
x: no screw jackson
x: deng goes 6
x: gordon at 3
x: iggy at 7
RLucas4257: I think so. I think it goes like this
RLucas4257: Okafor
RLucas4257: Howard
RLucas4257: Gordon
RLucas4257: Livingston
RLucas4257: Pavel
RLucas4257: Deng
RLucas4257: Iggy
RLucas4257: unless Bird trades for Jackson at 7
x: ha
x: right on the money
x: that's our mock
x: then nelson
x: snyder
x: harris
x: biedrins
x: jackson
RLucas4257: I have Nelson going late in my bock
RLucas4257: mock
x: I mean jefferson
x: luke
x: teams talk **** abotu nelson
x: but they lvoe him
RLucas4257: I have him going to Boston at 25
x: I guarantee he will go MUCH earlier
RLucas4257: by the way, I gave x your name
x: yo
x: indiana trade is DONE

x: harrington for #7
x: luke to indiana
RLucas4257: who do the Bulls trade back?
RLucas4257: The Bulls have to give a contract back
x: pippen I bet
x: gtg dude
x: have fun
RLucas4257: later mate, im at the England game
x: ha
x: later my man
x: score?
RLucas4257: starts in a hour
x: k
x: I'm out
x: see ya dude
x: have fun 
RLucas4257: laters

Just in case it doesnt happen, you guys dont bash me over the head over with a stick. Im off to watch England/Portugal.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Harrington is primarily a 3, but can play the 4 as well. You can drop him in either possition.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

i think harrington will handle the 3 just fine. if the no.7 for harrington does go down, believe it or not, i wouldnt want chandler+3 for pierce. i mean look at that line up

kirk
jc
pierce
harrington
curry

?? anyone notice whats missing there? no size, no rebouding no def, no toughness???

compring to

kirk
gordon at no.3 and jc backs up both guard spoots
harrington
chandler
curry

which line up would u rather have?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> Harrington is primarily a 3, but can play the 4 as well. You can drop him in either possition.


LOL.

Anyone remember how Fizer was supposed to be a "Power 3"??

:laugh:


Edit: Site is very slow today. And I'm on an ultra-fast pipe...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Getting Harrington now gives the Bulls a chance at being a much better team next year. Is it the best long term move? No. But Pax promised playoffs for next year to the season ticket holders and seems to be willing to mortgage the future for the now. Is that ok? Depends on your opinion. But Id rather have Harrington then Jackson. But Deng or Iggy might be there as well? Iggy vs harrington. now that looks tight to me

One thing the current team wont have is shooting. And its imperative that we get a front court player who can also make the bomb. Chandler cant do that. But we are going to need it. This teams spacing is still bad, and that assumes we bring in a world class shooter like Macas


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

harrington will play better full time at 3 than hes at 4. hes not a PF.


----------



## WookiesOnRitalin (Jan 22, 2004)

I wouldn't be so anti Harrington if I thought he was what we need. 

We don't need to give up a top 10 pick on a 6th man within the division. 

That's just stupid. 

Harrington has always lacked consistency and some have said he has been a real sour kraut in Indiana the past couple of years. 

I think he's Rose all over again.


----------



## genex (Apr 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> harrington will play better full time at 3 than hes at 4. hes not a PF. [/QUOTE
> 
> I read a post in the Indiana forum that summed it up best when it comes to Harringtion. It sums up as follows:
> ...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Well the real bad thing is we aren't just giving up the #7 for him, we are giving up a pick either next year or the year following, is Harrington worth TWO lottery picks? I hope your info is wrong mate.


----------



## NorthSideHatrik (Mar 11, 2003)

The only reason he's a 6th man is because he plays on the same team as J. Oneal and Ron Artest. By the way he has the best FG% on Indiana


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

a 250lb. 3? 

He'll be able to cover the quick 3's better than Deng.
Not.

Real nice 3 PT % too. 
Not.

Ooh and .30 blocks per game! That's impressive if he's going to be a 4 and TC goes.
Not.

If TC goes because of this, all I have to say is:
Have Glock, will travel.

FWIW: SP for Harrington works on the trade checker.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> harrington will play better full time at 3 than hes at 4. hes not a PF.


Uh, why not?

Most of the people here would argue he is definitely a 4.

He's 6'9" 250. That says 4 to me, as does his game (no range, no handles, good rebounder, tough defender, post scorer).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Purely off the wall... you know who would be a nice complement? Keith Van Horn. Van Horn is a 3 offensively and sort of a 4 defensively.

Would the Bucks to AD for Van Horn straight up? I think AD makes slightly less money and they could stand to have an interior muscle man in their lineup.

AD for Van Horn and #3, Chandler, ERob for Pierce gives us
1- Hinrich
2- Pierce
3- Harrington (4 on offense)
4- Van Horn (3 on offense)
5- Curry


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lusty RaRue</b>!
> a 250lb. 3?
> 
> He'll be able to cover the quick 3's better than Deng.
> ...


Lusty, Harrington is not a shot blocker, but he's a much better man defender than Chandler.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Wow. Actually I have no problem with this deal.

If this is indeed the case, kudos to Paxson for making a good sell. What I mean is that while he does have some interest in Luke Jackson, he realizes that Indiana was hot after the guy. Indy was looking to trade up to #10, #8, and even #7 when it became available.

A week ago, every fan on this board would have done #7 overall (or better said Luke Jackson himself) for Harrington. I'd still do it today. Harrington is a guy who gets after it defensively at the 3, and has the post game and strength of a 4. Not the ideal slasher or a great passer but a better player than 95% of the guys on our roster.


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

I'm not a big fan of this trade. But, I will find a way to deal with it if we dump a BAD contract like JYD/AD/Erob. If we let Indy luck out with Pip's expiring contract, there's no doubt in my mind they got the better end of the deal. Let's not forget that they basically HAD to trade him cuz there was no way he was gonna accept being a backup anymore. If they got Pip's contract too, Pax is a MORON.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Wow. Actually I have no problem with this deal.
> 
> If this is indeed the case, kudos to Paxson for making a good sell. What I mean is that while he does have some interest in Luke Jackson, he realizes that Indiana was hot after the guy. Indy was looking to trade up to #10, #8, and even #7 when it became available.
> ...


Yeah, but this isn't the #7 pick for Harrington, this is the #7 & NEXT years lottery pick or the next....NOT a good deal.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Purely off the wall... you know who would be a nice complement? Keith Van Horn. Van Horn is a 3 offensively and sort of a 4 defensively.
> 
> Would the Bucks to AD for Van Horn straight up? I think AD makes slightly less money and they could stand to have an interior muscle man in their lineup.
> ...


I actually like Van Horn, so I'd be for it, though me and you might be the only ones, alot of people hate KVH.

He may not necessarily be a "Pax/Skiles type player" but I get sick of hearing that crap.

If we do end up with Harrington (not my first choice, but I can't really complain either) I wouldn't mind getting Van Horn.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, but this isn't the #7 pick for Harrington, this is the #7 & NEXT years lottery pick or the next....NOT a good deal.


Huh? We traded next year's pick for the #7... it can't be both.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Just wanted to throw this out there, what if we got Fred Jones in the deal somehow too? There's supposedly some post on the ESPN board that we got him as well. That might require more salary than just Pip though going out, so I'm not sure how it's possible.


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

Let's not get carried away with the shooting for now. First, Pax is not done. Once he can find a good deal for Jamal he'll do it -- possibly addressing the shooting. He could also still get that deadeye Euro shooter. He's getting a nice influx of scoring, toughness, athleticism and defense in Gordon and Al -- all in one night. And besides, if you have defense and determined guys that can find a way to put the ball in the bucket you're gold -- fill in the details later. 

Al can play the three fine. He's basically Antawn Jamison with defense (and less scoring ability -- but getting better). 

It's a very good night for the Bulls and Paxson will begin to fill in the holes this summer.

I'd kiss the Pierce thing goodbye as well. The Celtics become the Clippers without Pierce -- they won't give him up with the cast that's left.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, but this isn't the #7 pick for Harrington, this is the #7 & NEXT years lottery pick or the next....NOT a good deal.


Ace, isn't it one or the other? Because we originally had our 2005 pick and only the #3 this year. So we swapped the 2005 pick and the #7 pick, so now we just have #7, and no 2005 pick. So we've only had one or the other at different points in time, never both at the same time. We don't lose a pick, we just take it in a different year. 

So wouldn't it be saying Harrington is worth the #7 _Or_ the 2005 lotto pick?

Though maybe I'm not thinking it through correctly.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Huh? We traded next year's pick for the #7... it can't be both.


THATS my point, we traded next year or the year following's pick to GET #7, if we trade #7 for Harrington we are, in effect, trading two lottery picks for him unless we somehow make the playoffs... and then it would be a #7 & a lower pick which seems unlikely.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Well the real bad thing is we aren't just giving up the #7 for him, we are giving up a pick either next year or the year following, is Harrington worth TWO lottery picks? I hope your info is wrong mate.


2 lottery picks?? am i missing something here? cause i dont get it. ive alreayd finsihed cal3 in college, so i dont think my math can be that bad


----------



## Hammertoes (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Huh? We traded next year's pick for the #7... it can't be both.


I agree. I don't think you are correct, Ace. If we traded a future #1 for the 7th pick, and then trade the 7th pick for Harrington, then aren't we essentially just trading a future #1 for harrington (along with a salary, obviously)?  That's the way I read it.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JRose5</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace, isn't it one or the other? Because we originally had our 2005 pick and only the #3 this year. So we swapped the 2005 pick and the #7 pick, so now we just have #7, and no 2005 pick. So we've only had one or the other at different points in time, never both at the same time. We don't lose a pick, we just take it in a different year.
> ...


Actually you make a good pointy and I wasn't thinking it through clearly. We are only losing one pick because we didn't have the #7 before we traded for it, thanks for clearing up my draft day addled mind.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Throwing in Jeffries and or Shirley/Pargo would probably be enough to make Jones work salary wise.

Anyway, not to doubt RL, but my sense of things is that this deal is probably only "in place" and is probably contingent upon another trade happening, but of course I could be wrong.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> THATS my point, we traded next year or the year following's pick to GET #7, if we trade #7 for Harrington we are, in effect, trading two lottery picks for him unless we somehow make the playoffs... and then it would be a #7 & a lower pick which seems unlikely.


Dude, that makes no sense.

If you trade x for y and then y for z, you aren't trading x AND y for z. 

Basically we just traded next year's lotto pick for Harrington. Forget the #7 pick, if that helps.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Actually, if this deal is true, we gave up something like:

Protected pick next year, 2nd round pick this year, $3M in cash, and Pip's expiring contract.

The funny thing is Pip is probably going to play for Indy next year and give them something like 10/5/5 in limited minutes.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Lusty, Harrington is not a shot blocker, but he's a much better man defender than Chandler.


Thanks DMD. 

It just seems to me that 
JYD replaced Marshall in the 6'9" combo forward role and is the better comparison.

I fail to see the need to upgrade at any price let alone for #7.


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> THATS my point, we traded next year or the year following's pick to GET #7, if we trade #7 for Harrington we are, in effect, trading two lottery picks for him unless we somehow make the playoffs... and then it would be a #7 & a lower pick which seems unlikely.


Ace, you're letting this crazy trade cloud your mind. If this trade goes down, we basically traded NEXT YEAR's #1 for Harrington. The 7 pick that we have now is just the middle stages of that trade. Think of next year's #1 as a coccoon, this year's #7 as the caterpillar, and Harrington as the butterfly. Of course, this butterfly can't shoot for ****, but it's still the equivalent of just one #1 pick.

Actually, this is what we would be paying for Harrington:

Next year's #1
This year's #31
$3 million
Pippen


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

So after all of this BS, we're still going to come out of this draft WITH NO TRUE SG OR SF???????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:upset:


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lusty RaRue</b>!
> 
> Thanks DMD.
> 
> ...


There's just no comparison in ability between Harrington and JYD. Harrington is going to score 15 per game if he's our PF. Did JYD ever score 15 a game once?


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> There's just no comparison in ability between Harrington and JYD. Harrington is going to score 15 per game if he's our PF. Did JYD ever score 15 a game once?


i doubt it...but i think he's played 15 _minutes_ in a game before, and may have had 15 _turnovers_ in one game.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

per the JYD question:


*17 vs. Washington 10/31/03 (2003/04 high)

30 @ Orlando 11/12/02 (career high)*

aaahhh. how easy is it to click on NBA.com and find the answer you seek? super easy.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

would it be hillarious of Pax takes Jackson at #3?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> per the JYD question:
> 
> 
> ...


OK, so he scored 30 milkbones one game, but how many points did he score? POINTS?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

wow...

I don't know what else to say.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> wow...
> 
> I don't know what else to say.


:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> OK, so he scored 30 milkbones one game, but how many points did he score? POINTS?


LOL. 

and to answer DaBullz - that would be HILARIOUS. 

screw larry bird.


----------



## Mongoose (Jun 24, 2003)

More importantly for JYD, 

*16 rebounds, 2 Times (2003/2004 high)

21 vs. Charlotte 12/26/99 (career high)*

Al Harrington by comparison:

*27 points vs. Boston 1/31/04 (2003/2004 high)	

40 vs. Atlanta 12/23/02 (career high)

14 rebounds @ Seattle 12/05/03 (2003/2004 high)

16, 2 Times (career high)*


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Throwing in Jeffries and or Shirley/Pargo would probably be enough to make Jones work salary wise.
> 
> Anyway, not to doubt RL, but my sense of things is that this deal is probably only "in place" and is probably contingent upon another trade happening, but of course I could be wrong.


Mike,I think you might be accurate regarding Fred Jones being included. IMO he is way more valuable than just a throw in. I like his energy/explosion off the bench, kind of what most thought we were getting in erob. If we dump a bad contract in this deal it will ice the cake, but that may too much to hope for. The devil is in the details, wait for the announcement before judging Pax.
I agree that the entire deal may be contingent on the completion of the PP trade. If Pax pulls both of these deals off, he will have completely revamped the entire direction of this team in a few short days. 
I would rather add (PP,RL,AH,FJ) good young veterans than developing more kids. Actual vets in their prime, would be great for the fans!


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

I'm really starting not to like this, more that I read about it; if we get Gordon and Harrington, they'd better take a number behind the other 1s and 4s..I'd feel better about Harrington, except he can't shoot the ball worth a lick!


----------



## Dionysus2k (Jun 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Kramer</b>!
> 
> Ace, you're letting this crazy trade cloud your mind. If this trade goes down, we basically traded NEXT YEAR's #1 for Harrington. The 7 pick that we have now is just the middle stages of that trade. Think of next year's #1 as a coccoon, this year's #7 as the caterpillar, and Harrington as the butterfly. Of course, this butterfly can't shoot for ****, but it's still the equivalent of just one #1 pick.
> 
> ...


See, look how succinctly Kramer summarized this deal. Brilliant. Now, consider if we make the playoffs next year, and end up with like the 18th pick, the deal doesnt look nearly as bad:
18th pick
31st pick
$3 million
Pip and his orthopedic shoes

FOR

Harrington, who buy the way, is a better player than JYD, across the board, JYD always plays hard and is a good back-up for the 3 and the 4, 15 minutes a night.


----------



## shroombal (Jul 17, 2002)

This is a great trade for the bulls. They are starting to grab more players in their prime!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i think alot of people are losing perspective ...if the harrington for the #7 goes down ...what have the bulls really given up for al?

a future #1 and an early 2nd round pick ....i say its a good deal , i choose not to believe that 1st rounder will be in the top 14 whenever it is taken and that it will be a non lotto pick , soooooo....whats the big deal its good value even if you an haggle and say we can get more for the #7 ...of which there really isn't enough time considering its been all of a day since pax got his claws on it.

is harrington the best fit ...no of course not he is a post up 3 ...yes a 3, and there really isn't much of a role on the bulls for that guy among the starters ....what he will be is a guy who plays off of Curry while curry is in the game and someone to run offense out of in the post when curry isn't(essentially what fizer was supposed to be except he give you starter min. at the 3 as well) . there are worst deals out there and i pray pax doesn't find one. There should be a very good role for harrington on the bulls and unlike eddy he can pass out of a double team well enough teams wont do it automatically if al hits a couple of shots, plus he is something the bulls dont have ...a vet player in his prime producing at a good level all the while he would be the best defender on the bulls.

i'd do this if for no other reason it should satisfy pax's need to meddle with the young group while still making it needed to bring all the important pieces back.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Its only more speculation, but:

_Rumors To Affect the Draft 
Chicago/Indiana The rumored trade involving the #7 pick and Al Harrington appears to be finalized, although anything can happen between the time of this writing and the draft. If the Pacers were to get the #7 pick they are rumored to be interested in Luke Jackson. 
_

http://draftcity.com/mocks/2004.htm


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>JRose5</b>!
> Its only more speculation, but:
> 
> _Rumors To Affect the Draft
> ...


Count me out.

See ya'll next june around draft time again.:no: :no: :no:


----------



## DontBeCows (Apr 22, 2003)

No. 7 for Harrington is a good deal for the Bulls. 

People are losing perspectives here. Harrington can be a 15/9 guy on the Bulls easily. You are not going to get a 15/9 guy with the No. 7 pick period. In fact, I doubt that there will be more than 3 rookies who score over 10 ppg this year. This draft class is THAT weak. 

Harrington is a 3. He is a very good defender and can guard opposing threes very well. This is exactly what we need. We need a good defender at SF. Sure he's not a slasher/shooter, but he can score and he shoots at a good percentage. I don't know why people don't like this trade. No. 7 and Chandler for Harrington would be horrible, but No. 7 for Harrington is a good deal.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> would it be hillarious of Pax takes Jackson at #3?


 :wait: :verysad: :whoknows: :naughty: :laugh: 

We shall know soon enough.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DontBeCows</b>!
> 
> 
> Harrington is a 3. He is a very good defender and can guard opposing threes very well. This is exactly what we need. We need a good defender at SF. Sure he's not a slasher/shooter, but he can score and he shoots at a good percentage.


You guys confuse skills with position...

Harrington is not a 3...

He gets most of his points on the block a little off the block, but he's not the kind of 3 that we need that can slash and pop from outside.

IMO, Indiana is a better judge of talent than we are, obviously its an upgrade in their opinion if they're shipping out Harrington for whoever it is they want at #7.

This is not a good deal...

Maybe one day we'll stop playing guys out of position...

Maybe one day we'll stop doing a lot of dumb things...

Until that day comes, we'll be what we are, losers.


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

Back in time for Draft Night  

Im not a big fan of Al Harrington, especially if we are planning to use him @ PF. But thats me.
Pierce wont come here.
At the same time, Hinrich suc*s and Pax was so dumb to draft him j/k. So I will let John do what is best for the Bulls. Even though I dont trust John 100%, I think he will do a fine job for us tonight.


----------



## BullDurf (Feb 11, 2003)

Arenas i rarely agree with you, but you might be right. Unless we trade Chandler and #3 for PP and Harrington could then play the 4. Im not a hugre fan at that idea either though.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DontBeCows</b>!
> No. 7 for Harrington is a good deal for the Bulls.
> ....
> . I don't know why people don't like this trade. No. 7 and Chandler for Harrington would be horrible, but No. 7 for Harrington is a good deal.


I think it's pretty good, too. Very worst case, Al is a good starter on a bad team or a very good 6th man on good team.

Al can play some 3 as well as 4. At least he can guard the 3. We were at a mismatch at the 3 on both O and D last year.

I would now like us to get Iggy- either at #3 or ideally trading down a bit. We would have a very good defensive team potentially and it would make sense for us to resign Craw.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I agree. If harrington is so great why is bird trading him for Luke Jackson? 

david


----------



## Dionysus2k (Jun 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> I agree. If harrington is so great why is bird trading him for Luke Jackson?
> 
> david


Because Bird wants a "WHITE" superstar. Thats why Croshere got that huge contract when he was coach and thats why he is willing to trade his sixth man for a rookie. Bird comes from that Adolph Rupp school of thought, and I can't believe he didnt get ROASTED for those comments that he made. I thought it was funny that 'Melo and Lebron had nothing to say about it! They are so cool, just laughinhg it off.


----------



## DontBeCows (Apr 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> I agree. If harrington is so great why is bird trading him for Luke Jackson?
> 
> david


Bird loves white kids who can shoot. J/K.

Harrington wants a starting role and more playing time, which he's not going to get behind Artest. He already asked for a trade. He also pissed the Pacers management off by not attending the season end meeting, along with Artest.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> LOL.
> ...


:laugh: That would be f'in funny. Both for screwing Larry Bird and the enormity of Pax's stupidity.


----------



## DontBeCows (Apr 22, 2003)

DELETED


----------



## TJ (Jul 23, 2002)

Bird didn't get roasted because he didn't say he hated blacks, he said the NBA could a white superstar, like he was. I don't think that is racist, especially since Magic agreed with him. Bird does not hold back, and says what he really feels. Now if Bird said there was too many blacks or there was not enough whites, that would be different. There are whites in the NBA, just none that are on the level of Shaq, Kobe, Duncan, etc. Bird does like long range white shooters, like Croshere and Jackson.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> You guys confuse skills with position...
> ...


i think it you who is confused .

harrington posts up for most of his points but he is a small forward , he guards small forwards the best and quite simply that matters more than how he gets his points .

okur from detriot gets most of his points from the outside does it make him a 2?

harrington can hit a midrange shhot so he can create some space for players in the post so its not really the problem you make it out to be ....does erob LJ3 or dupree have any more range on their shot than harrington? ...i dont think so

now is this the best deal possible i kind of doubt it but it helps the bulls and simply thats what trades are supposed to do , doing deals in the nba is not about trying to give the other guy crap and take his goods , its about improving your own team.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

Draftcity is now racanting and saying it apparently fell through...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LoyalBull</b>!
> Draftcity is now racanting and saying it apparently fell through...


oh well ...its not that big a deal in the scheme of things anyway....harrington , luke jax whomever all that matters is that the player can play well, al is more of a sure thing though


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

I think what a lot of people are missing here is ironically the team concept. Harrington is not a complete SF, and probably never will be, because he lacks elite form on his jumper. I can't think of another area, with the exception of taking a man off the dribble where he is behind.

You don't need a team full of primary scorers. If anything the Pistons showed this. You just need two guys will absolutely kill you if you don't bring some type of double or help defense. Then the other three guys need to be able to score on midair if they catch the ball wide open. Then you need probably 3 or 4 defenders who are good, and the other 1 to 2 need to be able to D up off of good defenders. And you need 1 or 2 of those 3 or 4 good defenders to be very good defenders.

So where do we start? If we take Ben Gordon at 3 look at the lineup if this trade goes down:

Curry
Chandler
Harrington
Gordon
Hinrich

Hinrich, Chandler and Harrington are your good defenders. Gordon should be good enough to look good with those three. Eddy should be slightly below average by this season, especially if Paxson is elated with Eddy's condition, so with those four he should look decent. Plus, if Shaq is traded to the east.....we all know that Eddy is the best defensive answer you could have for O'neal . 

Gordon and Curry become the guys who are gonna score big and hurt you if you just play them head up. When those doubles come you have Hinrich, Chandler and Harrington.....all of whom can be a threat if they catch the ball off of Gordon or Curry doubles.

Then don't forget...we'd be at 36 million if we didn't re-up Jamal. That gives us anywhere from 6-10 million to chase a SF/SG swingman. 

All I'm saying is just don't be p#ssed or afraid if we pull this steal of a deal.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> You don't need a team full of primary scorers.


You do need to defend at every position. I am not too excited about a Gordon and Hirich back court.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

Bull salaries 

The most the Bull have is the MLE @ about $5 million.

Regardless of whether JC is a Bull.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> You do need to defend at every position. I am not too excited about a Gordon and Hirich back court.


I am......first of all, Ben Gordon benches 400 lbs. When I found that out i was shocked. So if bigger guards (who won't be able to take the shorter, quicker Gordon off the dribble) take him down low and post him......they won't back the much stronger Gordon down. Think David Wesley. Even Jordan had a hard time with Wesley, who is built like an NFL strong safety. Same is true of Gordon. So guards will be relying on height.

Secondly.....remember Tyson Chandler. A guard posting would be playing right into our twin tower hands.

Finally remember......we can sign a Stephen Jackson and draft a Romain Sato. Go out there gunning.....and then go to Sato and Hinrich with Gordon on the bench. Need to bring Ben back for offense? Sub him back for Kirk, and leave Romain at the two. Playing a small small forward like Latrell Sprewell or Jerry Stackhouse? Sub Jackson in for Harrington, or even for Chandler with Harrington moving to the four. 

Remember in my Pistons analogy.....Detroit didn't win because they just played their starting five. They could matchup with any combination of size and speed you had by going to a proper combo of bench and starters.


----------



## LB26matrixns (May 6, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Lusty RaRue</b>!
> Bull salaries
> 
> The most the Bull have is the MLE @ about $5 million.
> ...


Apologize. I thought Crawford's greened salary was part of the Hoopshype total, but when you add up the numbers you see that their 41 million. If we also *refuse our team options on Johnson and Dupree, we're at 39*. Talk is the cap may go as high as 46, though could be at 42 or even stay at 40. In some scenarios we actually would have cap room of 7 million.....depending on how the cap moves. So we're both a little wrong and a little right.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> Apologize. I thought Crawford's greened salary was part of the Hoopshype total, but when you add up the numbers you see that their 41 million. If we also *refuse our team options on Johnson and Dupree, we're at 39*. Talk is the cap may go as high as 46, though could be at 42 or even stay at 40. In some scenarios we actually would have cap room of 7 million.....depending on how the cap moves. So we're both a little wrong and a little right.


Except there's a whole bunch of stuff that counts against the cap that's not in the Hoopshype total, including:

* The pro-rated portions of the trade kickers for AD and JYD (that's about $2M next year)
* The remaining pro-rated portion of Jay Williams' buyout amount (that's something like $1-1.5M)
* Our draft picks, which will count on the cap immediately upon their selection (#3 is probably about $3M and #7 is probably about $2M)

Thus, we're actually at something on the order of $8.5M over what you might get by just looking at hoopshype


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

Have you added the drafted players salaries?


----------



## Lance Fabrie (Jun 24, 2004)

Wow all that talk and nothing.
Theres *no way* Indiana wants that scrub Luol Deng, especialy not for a stallion like Al Harrington.
Harrington is bigger, stronger, quicker, smarter, more athletic, better defender, and a better offensive player.
Deng is also a SF which Indy doesnt want or need. edited


----------

