Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi, welcome to the team. By the way, you're cut!

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/gen/wire?messageId=9407374

The Bulls acquired Erick Barkley today and then immediately waived him.

The ramifications of this are that we get some cash in pocket from San Antonio and probably a low 2nd round pick in the 2041 draft, but eat Barkley's salary against the cap this year (which doesn't really hurt us, since we're already over the cap but not in luxury tax territory anyway). It move San Antonio away from the luxury tax, which helps them. Basically, we did them a favor.

IMO though, I don't see why we didn't just give him a legitimate look. There's certainly no harm in that, is there? On the off chance that we traded Crawford, he could have filled in nicely. We looked foolish a couple years ago for immediately waiving Bruce Bowen, and it seems we're repeating that mistake.

Probably not big deal, but kind of senseless to waste the opportunity to get a closer look at the guy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
220 Posts
The Chicago Bulls today acquired guard Erick Barkley and an undisclosed amount of cash from the San Antonio Spurs in exchange for future considerations.

Subsequently, the Bulls have waived Barkley.

A 6-1, 185-pound guard, Barkley played two seasons with the Portland Trail Blazers, averaging 2.9 ppg and 1.5 apg. The Spurs acquired Barkley with guard Steve Kerr and a 2003 second-round pick from the Trail Blazers in exchange for Antonio Daniels, Amal McCaskill and Charles Smith on August 5, 2002.

Of course it's possible the cash the Bulls received will offset Barkley's salary. S.A. had 18 players on their roster at the beginning of the day. Those "future considerations" the Bulls owe the Spurs will somehow never get delivered. But Krause isn't doing this just because he's a nice guy. There's a quid pro quo in this deal somewhere.
 

·
Lux Tax Avoider
Joined
·
5,988 Posts
NCBullsFan, what does this all mean?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,433 Posts
Bulls deal for E. Barkley - Implications?

I just read a report saying the Bulls have acquired Erick Barkley from the Spurs for cash and future considerations. I don't think this is a bad acquisition. It will probably cost us a future 2nd rounder.

Barkley is a PG with some solid potential who should serve as a good backup to J.Williams. It seems to me, however, that this acquisition might spell the end of Crawford's tenure as a Bull. With Crawford already in a tenuous situation, it looks as if perhaps the Bulls wanted to secure a usable backup PG before pulling the trigger on a Crawford deal.

Thoughts?
 

·
Oladipo for the people
Joined
·
48,150 Posts
Yea, looks like Craw will be dealt most likely. The Bulls still look solid at the point though. Barkley hasent realy had a chance to shine yet, and could end up being a great aquisition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,231 Posts
hey- ChiBullsFan & R-Star,

since Barkley was IMMEDIATELY waived, this really
has ZERO impact on Craw's future in Chicago...


"future considerations" probably are something like exchanging
2nd round picks in 2007
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts
ChiBullsFan & R-Star,

You might want to read a post or two before drawing improper conclusions. It's been clearly stated that Barkley was acquired and then promptly WAIVED!!!

Since Barkley was with the team for less than an hour, I doubt he'll make a very good backup to JWill. That also means he'd probably make a lousy replacement for Crawford SINCE HE'S NOT ON THE TEAM!!!

:jump:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Maybe...

Maybe you should read something first DickieHurtz.......


This thread was merged. There was a separate thread which ChiBullsFan started first. At the time of his thread, the Bulls hadn't released Barkley yet. Then they did, and their thread was merged with this one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts
Re: Maybe...

Originally posted by <b>Thrilla</b>!
Maybe you should read something first DickieHurtz.......


This thread was merged. There was a separate thread which ChiBullsFan started first. At the time of his thread, the Bulls hadn't released Barkley yet. Then they did, and their thread was merged with this one.
Their posts were at 10:28pm and 10:30pm respectively. Mikedc first reported it at 8:28pm and I followed it up with a similar post at 8:32pm. Both Mike's and my posts clearly stated that Barkley was waived.

So who cares if the threads were merged? Mikedc started this thread, entitled "Hi, welcome to the team. By the way, you're cut!" two hours before these guys initiated their posts.

So just so I understand your logic, Thrilla, in what time zone does 10:28pm precede 8:28pm? :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Hmm.....

Its the "10:28 comes before 8:28 in special circumstances so that I have an excuse for not checking the time of the post" time zone.


Its a new time zone.......not too many people have heard of it. I was in charge of creating it ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts
Re: Hmm.....

Originally posted by <b>Thrilla</b>!
Its the "10:28 comes before 8:28 in special circumstances so that I have an excuse for not checking the time of the post" time zone.


Its a new time zone.......not too many people have heard of it. I was in charge of creating it ;)
If you didn't "check the time of the posts" then why did you state that ChiBullsFan started his thread first?

Oh well, I guess we'll just have to chalk this up as just another example of the audacity of extreme youth. See what happens when you watch too many teenage movies where the kids have all the answers and the adults are all as dumb as a box of rocks?

Next time, know your facts, child, and don't try to BS the grownups. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
936 Posts
Re: Hmm.....

Originally posted by <b>Thrilla</b>!
Its the "10:28 comes before 8:28 in special circumstances so that I have an excuse for not checking the time of the post" time zone.


Its a new time zone.......not too many people have heard of it. I was in charge of creating it ;)

BTW, Thrilla, your sig says: "I can still see him hitting the shot over Craig Ehlo... Thanks for the memories, MJ."

According to your profile you were born on 1/8/86. Are you referring to this occasion: "There was his hanging, double-clutch jumper for the Bulls over the Cleveland Cavaliers' Craig Ehlo at the buzzer in a deciding 1989 playoff game."

Hmmm, that means when Jordan made that shot you were THREE YEARS OLD!! More BS from the prevaricating pip-squeak?:uhoh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Re: Re: Hmm.....

Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!



BTW, Thrilla, your sig says: "I can still see him hitting the shot over Craig Ehlo... Thanks for the memories, MJ."

According to your profile you were born on 1/8/86. Are you referring to this occasion: "There was his hanging, double-clutch jumper for the Bulls over the Cleveland Cavaliers' Craig Ehlo at the buzzer in a deciding 1989 playoff game."

Hmmm, that means when Jordan made that shot you were THREE YEARS OLD!! More BS from the prevaricating pip-squeak?:uhoh:
Actually, I did see the game when I was 3 yrs old. I have a remarkable memory........... I remember things Ive seen from when I was 2 as well........So don't tell me I don't remember it....Cuz I did watch the game, and I did see that play, and I do rememberi it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,709 Posts
Re: Re: Re: Hmm.....

Originally posted by <b>Thrilla</b>!


Actually, I did see the game when I was 3 yrs old. I have a remarkable memory........... I remember things Ive seen from when I was 2 as well........So don't tell me I don't remember it....Cuz I did watch the game, and I did see that play, and I do rememberi it.
I think this little childishness has gone far enough. ok?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm.....

Originally posted by <b>BamaBull</b>!
I think this little childishness has gone far enough. ok?
I do remember the play, because I did see it happen(live-well, not at the actual game, but on TV). Obviously I can't convince people I don't know, so I wont attempt to.....but it does anger me when someone tells me what I can and can't remember. They aren't me, and they don't know what I can remember.


I did admit I was wrong on the time of those posts........I didn't even bother to check the times, which was a mistake on my part.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Don't sweat it Thrilla, it's not a big deal.

I for one understood that your first reply was meant as a good humored acknowledgement that you made a mistake in your first reading. Don't worry if not everyone is mature enough to get that :)

ed note: By the way, no one should be getting called out here for their age.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
58,359 Posts
Mikedc said:

ed note: By the way, no one should be getting called out here for their age.

Well put!! That seems to be a problem on some other boards on the internet. We do not want it to be here!!!
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top