PDA

View Full Version : Chicago



indygeezer
06-23-2004, 01:30 PM
From the Chi board ( I'll edit in a link in a minute)

http://boards.espn.go.com/cgi/nba/request.dll?MESSAGE&room=nba_chi&id=489097&move=firstThread
++++++++++++++++++++++
Al Harrington, Fred Jones, and 29th pick for 3rd pick and Antonio Davis

I just heard this on Radio 1000

they say something near this may go down today

It also said that with the 3rd pick Indiana may wanna trade down with Atlanta so the Pacers can acquire "LUKE JACKSON" ROFLMFAO
++++++++++++++++=

able
06-23-2004, 01:50 PM
not even worth discussing

zxc
06-23-2004, 01:52 PM
Yeah that would be just terrible, especially with Antonio Davis and his huge deal added in there. I like how Chicago fans in that thread don't want to do that deal.. huh

Will Galen
06-23-2004, 01:56 PM
I guess this is as good as place as any to post this since the thread has the Chicago title. I'll highlite the Pacers stuff.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-040622smithcolumn,1,7747456.column?coll=cs-bulls-utility

Sam Smith
Fizer eyes 'new beginning'
June 23, 2004

Tuesday wasn't a great day for the Bulls, though they were among the more active and imaginative teams behind the scenes preparing for Thursday's NBA Draft.

They talked with teams about adding another draft pick, perhaps picking up a veteran and even expanding a deal with an anxious-to-deal Indiana Pacers to rival the blockbuster trade the teams completed a few years ago involving Jalen Rose, Ron Artest and Brad Miller.

But by Wednesday, the Bulls had basically the same roster, which made them a lot better off than the Charlotte Bobcats, who were expressing excitement about Tamar Slay and Theron Smith.

The NBA conducted an expansion draft Tuesday to stock the Charlotte franchise. Among the players selected was Bulls backup forward Marcus Fizer, the Bulls' first-round selection (fourth overall) in the 2000 draft.

Fizer is a restricted free agent, so he automatically becomes an unrestricted free agent, able to negotiate with any team.

"I'm thankful for a new beginning," Fizer said from Alabama, where he was continuing his recovery from the second surgery on his right knee in two years. "I'll be working the rest of the summer on rehabbing my knee. There's no question I'll be ready by training camp. I know I can score and contribute in this league when given the chance."

The Bobcats are uncertain whether they will try to sign Fizer, whose selection was one of the few greeted with applause at the selection show in Charlotte.

"He's a guy who can really score down on the block," said coach/general manager Bernie Bickerstaff. "His health is the issue, whether he's capable."

Bickerstaff said the team wants to concentrate on the draft and free agency and probably will keep about eight players from the expansion draft.

Others selected were former Bull Lonny Baxter from Washington, Primoz Brezec from Indiana, Predrag Drobniak from the Clippers (as part of the trade Monday to move up to No. 2 in Thursday's draft), Brandon Hunter from Boston and Jason Kopono from Cleveland.

Also, Zaza Pachulia from Orlando, Aleksandar Pavlovic from Utah, Jamal Sampson from the Lakers, Gerald Wallace from Sacramento, Jahidi White from Phoenix (in part of a deal that gets them $3 million and a future No. 1 pick), J.R. Bremer from Golden State, Maurice Carter from New Orleans, Desmond Ferguson from Portland, Richie Frahm from Seattle, Jeff Trepagnier from Denver and Loren Woods from Miami.

The Cavaliers will acquire Utah's Pavlovic from Charlotte for a future draft pick and a deal also is expected for Bremer and Pachulia.

As for the Bulls, talks have cooled, but are not over with the Pacers regarding Al Harrington. The Bulls also had preliminary talks with several teams about front-line starters.

"There's a lot of interest in Al," Indiana general manager Larry Bird said Tuesday of Harrington. "We're not really shopping Al. I wish Al was happy here and everybody else was happy, but sometimes a change of scenery will do both teams some good."

It's possible the Pacers might turn back to the Bulls after having been rejected by the Magic, which continues working on that tentative deal of Tracy McGrady to Houston.

The first hurdle to that deal was whether any of the players involved might go in the expansion draft. They didn't.

Also, Steve Francis, the principal from Houston, is balking at going to Orlando.

The Bulls, meanwhile, get some benefit from losing Fizer, a $3.7 million trade exception that could help facilitate a deal.

The Bulls, according to several league insiders, appear to be trying. They have had talks with several teams, one believed to be Phoenix, about acquiring a second draft pick, perhaps to deal to the Pacers.

That scenario is somewhat complicated because the Suns are said to be moving aggressively now to try to get McGrady away from Houston.

McGrady, who can opt out of his contract after next season, reportedly has said he prefers Houston. The Suns are betting McGrady would re-sign with them and supposedly are offering Shawn Marion, Casey Jacobsen and the No. 7 overall draft pick.

The sudden movement—or potential for it—around the NBA of so-called superstars really is the story of this draft season.

General managers are saying not to believe denials this week of a deal that could involve Allen Iverson and Vince Carter. There's also the Lakers' saga, talk of McGrady, Francis and now Marion maybe moving, and Antoine Walker even on the expansion list.

"There are a lot of star players out there now who no longer are untouchables," one general manager said. "People are starting to realize you cannot win with one guy making the max unless he's really, really a superstar."

For now, we'll call that the Detroit Pistons' effect.

Meanwhile, if that No. 7 pick from Phoenix isn't in play, there's a chance the Bulls could move down to Atlanta's Nos. 6 and 17 picks for their No. 3.

A deal like that could get the Bulls a player—many general managers say the talent level doesn't drop that much in this draft from 10 to 20—and a veteran.

It would also put a team like the Pacers in position to address a need, like point guard, with point guards expected to be three of the top five or six selections.

Moving into next season with a veteran starter and a good draft pick would be a coup, though difficult, for general manager John Paxson.

"The Bulls really control the draft," one general manager said. "We know who the top two guys are (Emeka Okafor and Dwight Howard), so the draft really begins at three. A lot of teams are wondering what they'll do."

So are we.

Young
06-23-2004, 01:57 PM
Yeah that would be just terrible, especially with Antonio Davis and his huge deal added in there. I like how Chicago fans in that thread don't want to do that deal.. huh

I don't see why there is talk of Harrington for 3/Filler in the first place.

Makes no sense from either team.

Pacers don't want a pick that high. We don't need one either, even to get Luke Jackson.

Bulls could get more from that than Harrington. I think that they should pursue Pierce/Allen and even Stackhouse because they need a veteran scorer in there in the worst way possiable.

And if this deal that indyg. reported goes down, that will suck. But like able said, no chance.

Will Galen
06-23-2004, 02:01 PM
I'm thinking if Indiana, Boston, and Chicago, got together in a three way deal all three teams could make out.

Boston wants young players, Chicago wants vets, and Indiana just wants a couple pieces to put them over the top.

Hicks
06-23-2004, 02:04 PM
I'd do this. We get Tony to beef up the front court, and we either pick someone at #3 who helps immediately, or draft down to say 10 or so for that pick and a player who plays now, and then take Jackson or whomever.

sweabs
06-23-2004, 02:04 PM
I don't see what all the hype is about acquiring draft picks, when people have labelled this draft as one of the "weaker" ones to come around. Seems a little risky to me.

Hicks
06-23-2004, 02:05 PM
For those doubting this, assuming the guy isn't plain lying, ESPN 1000 is where I first head about the Bulls trade in '02. If they're saying it's close, it very well could be.

Hicks
06-23-2004, 02:06 PM
Oh ****, just noticed Fred's in there too. Don't like that unless we get someone else too.

indygeezer
06-23-2004, 02:20 PM
Truthfully these guys are getting abit off the wall. I'm now very "skeptical" of their truthfullness.

Will Galen
06-23-2004, 02:35 PM
Truthfully these guys are getting abit off the wall. I'm now very "skeptical" of their truthfullness.

Al and Fred for Davis doesn't work cap wise so the trade would have to be expanded.

Suaveness
06-23-2004, 02:41 PM
NO FRED. NEVER.

Unclebuck
06-23-2004, 03:19 PM
I have lost the ability to decide whether a trade is good or not, it happens every year right before the draft.

When I first read this I thought good trade, then I thought a minute and thought bad trade, ...confused.

Livingston sounds like he is going to be a player.


here is a little from ESPN.comAndy, Indianaopolis: Any chance the Pacers could move up to the top 10 in the draft?

ESPN Insider Chad Ford: (2:36 PM ET ) They're trying. I think that the Bulls at No. 3, the Wizards at No. 5, the Raptors at No. 8 and the Cavs at No. 10 are all possibilities. The Wizards would prefer to move out and a guy like Al Harrington would be good trade bait. If the Pacers were picking here, my guess is that Livingston would be the guy.

ESPN.COM NBA MOCK DRAFT: (2:37 PM ET ) With the 6th pick in the 2004 NBA Draft, the Atlanta Hawks select Shaun Livingston.

ESPN Insider Chad Ford: (2:37 PM ET ) To me, Livingston has more potential than anyone in the draft. I love him. He does things at his size that no one else can do. Patience will be the key. But honestly, I think the Hawks will be better off with Livingston than Howard in the long run.

Will Galen
06-23-2004, 03:40 PM
When Larry Bird said to the press that Luke Jackson was like Cris Mullen I immediately thought he was interested in someone else.

Then remembering he was trying to trade for the third pick I reasoned the third pick was to high a pick to use on Jackson, he's after Livingston.

Why? Bird's toughest opponent was Magic Johnson, a big point guard. He's had to have studied Magic, so he probably see's something he likes in Livingston.

Suaveness
06-23-2004, 03:41 PM
What about Tinsley? He IS our starting PG, and is pretty damn good.

Suaveness
06-23-2004, 03:48 PM
What about Tinsley? He IS our starting PG, and is pretty damn good.

Well, you're 1 for 2. As of today, he IS our starting PG.

Right. But if we have him, why do we need Livingston?

Natston
06-23-2004, 03:54 PM
What about Tinsley? He IS our starting PG, and is pretty damn good.

Well, you're 1 for 2. As of today, he IS our starting PG.

Right. But if we have him, why do we need Livingston?

Becuase he's not "pretty damn good".

Because Livingston would probally end up playing both PG ans SG for us... :idea:

Suaveness
06-23-2004, 03:59 PM
What about Tinsley? He IS our starting PG, and is pretty damn good.

Well, you're 1 for 2. As of today, he IS our starting PG.

Right. But if we have him, why do we need Livingston?

Becuase he's not "pretty damn good".

He is good enough though, isn't he? Don't you think the SG position is more important to fill than PG?

Hicks
06-23-2004, 04:06 PM
Sure, I think the SG position needs help. But I also think that a PG incapable of effectively playing more than 28 minutes per game, can't shoot , isn't quick or smart enough to play anything resembling "good" defense, and can't penetrate because of a lack of any foot speed to be "good enough". He's our starting point guard by default, not because he's one of the best in the league. If you have a chance to upgrade either position, you go for it. Especially since Livingston has the capability of being the best player in this draft.

I'm looking forward to Ragnar's response to this. :D

Suaveness
06-23-2004, 04:06 PM
What about Tinsley? He IS our starting PG, and is pretty damn good.

Well, you're 1 for 2. As of today, he IS our starting PG.

Right. But if we have him, why do we need Livingston?

Becuase he's not "pretty damn good".

He is good enough though, isn't he? Don't you think the SG position is more important to fill than PG?

Sure, I think the SG position needs help. But I also think that a PG incapable of effectively playing more than 28 minutes per game, can't shoot , isn't quick or smart enough to play anything resembling "good" defense, and can't penetrate because of a lack of any foot speed to be "good enough". He's our starting point guard by default, not because he's one of the best in the league. If you have a chance to upgrade either position, you go for it. Especially since Livingston has the capability of being the best player in this draft.

I don't agree with you there. His shooting was tremendous in the playoffs before he got hurt, and he has improved tremendously in the year. His defense on Billups was superb, you cannot deny that. Billups torched Payton, but did not do that against Tinsley. Did you not see how many times Tinsley penetrated into the lane against Detroit? He did a GREAT job getting into the lane and either passing or floating it into the hoop. You can upgrade, but you also need to fill positions that are weak. SG is all we need to get over the hump.

Natston
06-23-2004, 04:09 PM
What about Tinsley? He IS our starting PG, and is pretty damn good.

Well, you're 1 for 2. As of today, he IS our starting PG.

Right. But if we have him, why do we need Livingston?

Becuase he's not "pretty damn good".

He is good enough though, isn't he? Don't you think the SG position is more important to fill than PG?

Sure, I think the SG position needs help. But I also think that a PG incapable of effectively playing more than 28 minutes per game, can't shoot , isn't quick or smart enough to play anything resembling "good" defense, and can't penetrate because of a lack of any foot speed to be "good enough". He's our starting point guard by default, not because he's one of the best in the league. If you have a chance to upgrade either position, you go for it. Especially since Livingston has the capability of being the best player in this draft.

I don't agree with you there. His shooting was tremendous in the playoffs before he got hurt, and he has improved tremendously in the year. His defense on Billups was superb, you cannot deny that. Billups torched Payton, but did not do that against Tinsley. Did you not see how many times Tinsley penetrated into the lane against Detroit? He did a GREAT job getting into the lane and either passing or floating it into the hoop. You can upgrade, but you also need to fill positions that are weak. SG is all we need to get over the hump.

I wouldn't call it tremendous shooting, but I pretty much agree with everything else.

MSA2CF
06-23-2004, 04:09 PM
btown, you may have just described one of the greatest PGs ever, the man second all time in assists, Mark Jackson.

Unclebuck
06-23-2004, 04:15 PM
As much as I would love to enter into the Tinsley discussion, I am not allowed.

But if Livingston is as good as some seem to think, you take him no matter if he had Jason Kidd.

My first and really only rule in the NBA draft is never pass up the best player available because of position.

MSA2CF
06-23-2004, 04:18 PM
I hope no one here is counting on this rookie to save the team. No matter who we draft, he's not going to come in and lead this team to the championship. I've seen a few posts where the understanding is that "this guy is the last piece to the puzzle."

Suaveness
06-23-2004, 04:19 PM
As much as I would love to enter into the Tinsley discussion, I am not allowed.

But if Livingston is as good as some seem to think, you take him no matter if he had Jason Kidd.

My first and really only rule in the NBA draft is never pass up the best player available because of position.

Why aren't you allowed to enter?

MSA2CF
06-23-2004, 04:19 PM
btown, you may have just described one of the greatest PGs ever, the man second all time in assists, Mark Jackson.

What? Stockton COULD play more than one half, COULD shoot, WAS smart enough to play effective defense, and COUlD into the lane when needed (running pick and rolls with Karl Malone didn't hurt). I'm not saying we need John Stockton ( :drool: ), but I am saying we need a lot more from Tinsely (that he may just physically not be capable of doing), or somebody else.

I said Mark Jackson, not John Stockton.

Suaveness
06-23-2004, 04:23 PM
I whole-heartedly agree that SG is a bigger priority than PG. But I also think that if you're counting on Tinsley being your starting PG next year, you absolutely have to bring in someone not only capable of starting, but of playing 30+ minutes per game. You never know when Tinsley is going to be hurt, fat, tired, of generally ineffective.

before he got hurt........

Noticing a pattern? He's always that way by the time the playoffs come around. And he even got to sit out the first 30 games this year after getting into more respectable shape.

I really don't. This is the first year we have actually gone into this far of the playoffs. JO was hurt too. Should we find a replacement for him too?

His defense on Billups was superb, you cannot deny that.

Hardly. I watched the same games you did, and I can deny that all I want. "Superb" is not a very apt description for the matador defense he played.

Then why didn't Billups go off on us like he did LA? Granted, we are a better defensive team than LA, but don't you think Tinsley had to have done something right in order to keep CB in check?

Did you not see how many times Tinsley penetrated into the lane against Detroit? He did a GREAT job getting into the lane and either passing or floating it into the hoop

The times Tinsley was getting to the hoop was because Detroit was letting him in there. Remember all those blocked shots? They didn't have to block any of his missed 3 pointers..........

Why would Detroit let him get into tehre? As far as I remember, they are a very good interior defensive team. He did that a lot, and should have done it more. Those missed 3 pointers were mainly due to teh fact that he was hurt, remember? He had absolutely no lift at all on his jump shots.

MSA2CF
06-23-2004, 04:23 PM
Having said that, the IQ difference between Jackson and Tinsley is enormous. Not only that, but Jackson could still do a lot of thingsTinsely either hasn't or can't.

Well then. I guess the only thing left to do is call Mark Jackson & "sign him up."

Natston
06-23-2004, 04:24 PM
Having said that, the IQ difference between Jackson and Tinsley is enormous. Not only that, but Jackson could still do a lot of thingsTinsely either hasn't or can't.

Well then. I guess the only thing left to do is call Mark Jackson & "sign him up."

You would like that way too much MSA... :P

MSA2CF
06-23-2004, 04:26 PM
Having said that, the IQ difference between Jackson and Tinsley is enormous. Not only that, but Jackson could still do a lot of thingsTinsely either hasn't or can't.

Well then. I guess the only thing left to do is call Mark Jackson & "sign him up."

You would like that way too much MSA... :P

I'd put on my Mark Jackson jersey and head down to Conseco to celebrate on the steps.

Suaveness
06-23-2004, 04:26 PM
Having said that, the IQ difference between Jackson and Tinsley is enormous. Not only that, but Jackson could still do a lot of thingsTinsely either hasn't or can't.

Well then. I guess the only thing left to do is call Mark Jackson & "sign him up."

You would like that way too much MSA... :P

I'd put on my Mark Jackson jersey and head down to Conseco to celebrate on the steps.

We'll look for you.

MSA2CF
06-23-2004, 04:27 PM
Hee hee. I wish he could still do anything.

Well, if you read closely, I didn't say he needed to play. He could be signed as a coach to Tinsley, if that's what you want.

Unclebuck
06-23-2004, 04:29 PM
As much as I would love to enter into the Tinsley discussion, I am not allowed.

But if Livingston is as good as some seem to think, you take him no matter if he had Jason Kidd.

My first and really only rule in the NBA draft is never pass up the best player available because of position.

Why aren't you allowed to enter?


I was joking, although I was ripping Tinsley so bad a year ago, and had so many discussions with Ragnar and others, that I feel like I am better off not saying a thing.

I will say this, I would not be opposed to an upgrade at the point guard position.

One thing I agree with btowncolt about is that Tinsley cannot be counted upon to play more than 32 minutes per game

Suaveness
06-23-2004, 04:30 PM
JO was hurt too. Should we find a replacement for him too?

Ah, my cue to exit. I have no desire to get into a battle of smartass remarks.

Oh come now. That wasn't smartass, that was a pertinant question. Seriously. I am just trying to prove a point here.

Suaveness
06-23-2004, 04:32 PM
As much as I would love to enter into the Tinsley discussion, I am not allowed.

But if Livingston is as good as some seem to think, you take him no matter if he had Jason Kidd.

My first and really only rule in the NBA draft is never pass up the best player available because of position.

Why aren't you allowed to enter?

One thing I agree with btowncolt about is that Tinsley cannot be counted upon to play more than 32 minutes per game

I agree with this.

Suaveness
06-23-2004, 04:58 PM
I see your point, though I don't know if I agree. If that happened again, I might be worried, but I don't really know if it would.

ChicagoJ
06-23-2004, 05:56 PM
I see your point, though I don't know if I agree. If that happened again, I might be worried, but I don't really know if it would.

Jersey - Kevin Ollie played most of the minutes.
Boston - Erick Strickland played most of the minutes.
This year - hurt down the stretch.

I'm generally a Tinsley fan, and I'm only willing to trade him if we get a better PG because he's a good fit for the Pacers...

But I've got serious concerns about his inability to play more than 32 mpg as a relatively 'young' player.

The Pacers really needed him to be a 42 mpg guy in the playoffs, in order to keep AJ on the bench, but he couldn't deliver.

I'd rank this at about #7 on reasons why we lost to Detroit, but it is a factor and it needs to be fixed one way or another.

Oh and Suaveness, we've really got to send you to adjective school.

Tinsley's defense = Suberb? Are you kidding?
Tinsley's shooting = Tremendous? That's even more proposterous.

I'm glad you love these Pacers, but I'm concerned about you. :D

Shade
06-23-2004, 06:01 PM
Isn't DALE Davis a FA? :devil:

C - DDavis/Foster/Pollard
PF - O'Neal/ADavis/Croshere
SF - Artest/Bender/JJones
SG - Miller/LJackson
PG - Tinsley/AJohnson/Brewer

Then sign another SG? :shrug:

Kstat
06-23-2004, 06:02 PM
Isn't DALE Davis a FA? :devil:

Isn't Mosas Malone a FA? ;)

Jose Slaughter
06-23-2004, 06:19 PM
Isn't DALE Davis a FA? :devil:

C - DDavis/Foster/Pollard
PF - O'Neal/ADavis/Croshere
SF - Artest/Bender/JJones
SG - Miller/LJackson
PG - Tinsley/AJohnson/Brewer

Then sign another SG? :shrug:

How about Rik Smits at the 2.

I bet he still has a really nice shot & his D couldn't be worse than Reggie's.

He could revolutionize the shooting guard position! :P

MSA2CF
06-23-2004, 06:21 PM
Isn't DALE Davis a FA? :devil:

C - DDavis/Foster/Pollard
PF - O'Neal/ADavis/Croshere
SF - Artest/Bender/JJones
SG - Miller/LJackson
PG - Tinsley/AJohnson/Brewer

Then sign another SG? :shrug:

How about Rik Smits at the 2.

I bet he still has a really nice shot & his D couldn't be worse than Reggie's.

He could revolutionize the shooting guard position! :P

Guys, guys. Let's be realistic here.

Mark Jackson would be the guy to sign. He's the one who is actually still playing in the league.

Shade
06-23-2004, 06:38 PM
Yeah, and we could bring back Jalen, too. ;)

C - DDavis/Foster/Pollard
PF - O'Neal/ADavis/Croshere
SF - Artest/Bender/JJones
SG - Miller/JRose/LJackson
PG - Tinsley/MJackson/AJohnson

DO IT, DONNIE!!! :devil:

LAPacer
06-23-2004, 06:44 PM
Yeah, and we could bring back Jalen, too. ;)

C - DDavis/Foster/Pollard
PF - O'Neal/ADavis/Croshere
SF - Artest/Bender/JJones
SG - Miller/JRose/LJackson
PG - Tinsley/MJackson/AJohnson

DO IT, DONNIE!!! :devil:

Why resign AJ? When Best is available. I like the Smits idea too.

C - DDavis/Foster/Pollard
PF - O'Neal/ADavis/Croshere
SF - Artest/Bender/JJones
SG - Smits/Miller/JRose/LJackson
PG - Tinsley/MJackson/TBest

Hicks
06-23-2004, 06:47 PM
:laugh: Sweeeet.

Shade
06-23-2004, 06:53 PM
Yeah, and we could bring back Jalen, too. ;)

C - DDavis/Foster/Pollard
PF - O'Neal/ADavis/Croshere
SF - Artest/Bender/JJones
SG - Miller/JRose/LJackson
PG - Tinsley/MJackson/AJohnson

DO IT, DONNIE!!! :devil:

Why resign AJ? When Best is available. I like the Smits idea too.

C - DDavis/Foster/Pollard
PF - O'Neal/ADavis/Croshere
SF - Artest/Bender/JJones
SG - Smits/Miller/JRose/LJackson
PG - Tinsley/MJackson/TBest

That's 16 players. What are we -- Charlotte? :laugh:

Steveman
06-23-2004, 07:06 PM
Jamaal Tinsley IS (or at least will be) the next Mark Jackson, without the post up game. We do not need a point guard, we need a shooter. Doing anything else would be a mistake.