PDA

View Full Version : Phoenix trades the #7 pick to Chicago for the #31 and a future 1st rounder.



Kstat
06-23-2004, 09:38 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2004/columns/story?id=1827142

the pick is protected too. WOW phoenix must not have liked its prospects....

Suaveness
06-23-2004, 09:40 PM
Chicago must be trying to trade it's 3 then...

Hicks
06-23-2004, 09:40 PM
Either we didn't talk to them, or they hate us, if we're offering Al for the #10.

TheSauceMaster
06-23-2004, 09:44 PM
Either we didn't talk to them, or they hate us, if we're offering Al for the #10.

They wanted more than AL for the #3

Snickers
06-23-2004, 09:46 PM
Either we didn't talk to them, or they hate us, if we're offering Al for the #10.

They wanted more than AL for the #3

But if Phoenix dumped #7 for so cheap, you'd think we could have gotten it. Now we'll look damn stupid if we trade Al for #10.

Hicks
06-23-2004, 09:46 PM
Either we didn't talk to them, or they hate us, if we're offering Al for the #10.

They wanted more than AL for the #3

#31 and future pick is > Al? Not in my universe....

Kstat
06-23-2004, 09:47 PM
Either we didn't talk to them, or they hate us, if we're offering Al for the #10.

They wanted more than AL for the #3

#31 and future pick is > Al? Not in my universe....

They wanted cap room, Hicks. Thats it. Basically they delayed their pick till next year.

Hicks
06-23-2004, 09:48 PM
Damn it says Chicago wants to take Luke Jackson w/ the #7, too. @)(*#%@)

TheSauceMaster
06-23-2004, 09:48 PM
Either we didn't talk to them, or they hate us, if we're offering Al for the #10.

They wanted more than AL for the #3

#31 and future pick is > Al? Not in my universe....

They wanted cap room, Hicks. Thats it. Basically they delayed their pick till next year.

Exactly :D

zxc
06-23-2004, 09:48 PM
Yeah nice deal for the bulls, guess Phoenix just didn't want to take on a rookie contract right now so they could have more to go for free agents.

Shame we couldn't have got in on something like that to get the pick we want instead of giving up player.. ah well.

Hicks
06-23-2004, 09:51 PM
Yeah, if the Suns were OK with this why the hell not give them out #29 for it along with future picks?

Kstat
06-23-2004, 09:52 PM
Yeah, if the Suns were OK with this why the hell not give them out #29 for it along with future picks?

Because the Bulls were offering a likely top-10 pick in 2005. They didnt get ripped off, they basically just put off their #7 pick till next year. The Pacers wouldnt have been able to offer sucha future pick.

Snickers
06-23-2004, 09:52 PM
Yeah, if the Suns were OK with this why the hell not give them out #29 for it along with future picks?

Well, I guess our future picks won't be near as good as the Bulls'. But I gotta believe that we could have had #7 if we wanted it. That's just too cheap.

Hicks
06-23-2004, 09:54 PM
Yeah, if the Suns were OK with this why the hell not give them out #29 for it along with future picks?

Because the Bulls were offering a likely top-10 pick in 2005. They didnt get ripped off, they basically just put off their #7 pick till next year. The Pacers wouldnt have been able to offer sucha future pick.

But for so cheap, surely we could have gotten this pick SOMEhow.

Cactus Jax
06-23-2004, 09:54 PM
Yeah, if the Suns were OK with this why the hell not give them out #29 for it along with future picks?

Because the #29 pick is guaranteed money while the #31 pick isn't guaranteed.

Looks like with this deal, the Cavs talk may be dead now if Chicago wants to take Jackson.

Kstat
06-23-2004, 09:56 PM
Yeah, if the Suns were OK with this why the hell not give them out #29 for it along with future picks?

Because the Bulls were offering a likely top-10 pick in 2005. They didnt get ripped off, they basically just put off their #7 pick till next year. The Pacers wouldnt have been able to offer sucha future pick.

But for so cheap, surely we could have gotten this pick SOMEhow.

So name how you could have given them future value with next to no cap hit whatsoever?

Hicks
06-23-2004, 09:57 PM
Yeah, if the Suns were OK with this why the hell not give them out #29 for it along with future picks?

Because the Bulls were offering a likely top-10 pick in 2005. They didnt get ripped off, they basically just put off their #7 pick till next year. The Pacers wouldnt have been able to offer sucha future pick.

But for so cheap, surely we could have gotten this pick SOMEhow.

So name how you could have given them future value with next to no cap hit whatsoever?

I'm just saying it was pretty damn cheap, surely there was a way. If I knew how, I'd just say it.

Hicks
06-23-2004, 09:57 PM
Here's a thought: What if we the idea was for Chicago to get #7, so they could do a trade for Al?

Maybe they felt Al for #3 and Pippen/AD/whatever was too much, but if they could get #7, get Al for #7 Pippen or AD or whatnot.

Shade
06-23-2004, 09:58 PM
To me, this means two possible things:

1) We're gonna trade Al for the #7 (which we'll then use to select LJ).

2) Phoenix is out of the running for T-Mac.

Cactus Jax
06-23-2004, 09:58 PM
Here's a thought: What if we the idea was for Chicago to get #7, so they could do a trade for Al?

Maybe they felt Al for #3 and Pippen/AD/whatever was too much, but if they could get #7, get Al for #7 Pippen or AD or whatnot.

My guess is if they want Jackson a lot, than maybe the Bulls might be willing to trade the #3 pick now. What if the Pacers trade Harrington for the #3 and whatever extras and the Pacers take Livingston?

Kstat
06-23-2004, 09:58 PM
Yeah, if the Suns were OK with this why the hell not give them out #29 for it along with future picks?

Because the Bulls were offering a likely top-10 pick in 2005. They didnt get ripped off, they basically just put off their #7 pick till next year. The Pacers wouldnt have been able to offer sucha future pick.

But for so cheap, surely we could have gotten this pick SOMEhow.

So name how you could have given them future value with next to no cap hit whatsoever?

I'm just saying it was pretty damn cheap, surely there was a way. If I knew how, I'd just say it.

the thing is, hicks, the ONLY way to offer value that has no immidiate cap hit is to deal in future picks. Indiana doesnt have anything to offer in that reguard.

Snickers
06-23-2004, 10:01 PM
Maybe Chicago will pick Jackson for us?

Would be dumb to take him at #3, but #7 [conveniently one spot ahead of #8, where he's been rumoured to be taken] would work out pretty well.

Will Galen
06-23-2004, 10:02 PM
Speculation here. I think we are going to do a multi player trade with Chicago. Maybe Boston will join in. We know Chicago wants vets and not rookies.

Snickers
06-23-2004, 10:08 PM
Speculation here. I think we are going to do a multi player trade with Chicago. Maybe Boston will join in. We know Chicago wants vets and not rookies.

Y'know, I'm starting to get a funny feeling about this too. And it's not the kind of funny feeling I get when my pants are too tight. :blush: