PDA

View Full Version : Eddie Robinson almost a Pacer? Blech.



blanket
10-18-2004, 03:30 PM
http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sports_story.asp?intID=38278106

"Indiana was willing to take [Eddie] Robinson and the No. 3 pick for forward Al Harrington, but Bulls would only part with the No. 7 pick, and no trade was made."

:puke:

Destined4Greatness
10-18-2004, 04:07 PM
I doubt this is true, we didn't need another SF.

db530
10-18-2004, 04:08 PM
We are better off with Stephen Jackson then the third pick. Maybe if we could have gotten Hinrich and the 7th pick for Harrington, but that would never happen.

Cactus Jax
10-18-2004, 09:39 PM
I doubt this is true, we didn't need another SF.

If you read a quote from Larry after the draft, he wanted Ben Gordon, not Luke Jackson. Stephen Jackson is better than that though.

Anthem
10-18-2004, 10:24 PM
I still think we could have traded Al to, say, Denver for a draft pick. We would have then had cap room to give SJax the MLE.

Of course, we couldn't have given AJ as big of a contract as we did, but you'd have to convincce me that was a bad thing.

blanket
10-18-2004, 11:12 PM
I still think we could have traded Al to, say, Denver for a draft pick. We would have then had cap room to give SJax the MLE.

Of course, we couldn't have given AJ as big of a contract as we did, but you'd have to convincce me that was a bad thing.

:amen:

Cactus Jax
10-19-2004, 12:17 AM
I'd rather Atlanta have Harrington, than Denver, and either New Jersey or somebody else having K-Mart. Atlanta really sucks, and trading him to Atlanta slightly helps the team's championship hopes.

Destined4Greatness
10-19-2004, 04:00 PM
Jackson wasn't going to sign for the MLE. I remember reading that from somewhere. I think NO was offering him slightly more than that.

Destined4Greatness
10-19-2004, 04:00 PM
Jackson wasn't going to sign for the MLE. I remember reading that from somewhere. I think NO was offering him slightly more than that.

blanket
10-19-2004, 04:39 PM
Jackson wasn't going to sign for the MLE. I remember reading that from somewhere. I think NO was offering him slightly more than that.

The most recent report about S-Jax's contract (forget which news agency, but it was posted here) stated that he essentially DID sign for the MLE here (I know it was a trade, but in terms of the amount of the contract). And New Orleans was also over the cap so they couldn't offer more than the MLE.

ChicagoJ
10-19-2004, 05:02 PM
I thought when we did the math that SJax (1) signed for less than the MLE, and (2) only signed for six years, even though he was eligible to sign a seven-year contract with the Hawks.

IOW, signing with somebody else for the MLE would've been a better financial deal for him. Obviously, he didn't have that 'option'.
I spell like I graduated from Greenwood. :(