Burrell-Simpkins

Burrell-Simpkins

Post by Tomi Silvennoin » Wed, 24 Sep 1997 04:00:00


Not that it will make much differnece for either team but
I'm still amazed by the stupidity of the Warriors' front
office. Burrell hasn't been much of a player after his
injury but what are they going to do with the ever-descending
Simpkins. Their recent moves to improve the roster haven't been
much wiser, with the exception of the drafting of Adonal Foyle.
Donyell Marshall sucks bigtime as does Todd Fuller.

I can't understand the moves of the bad teams. Look at NJ or
the Clips for example. Well, that kinda explains why they suck.
Do they wanna be losers for the future as well. The Van Horn
trade was as bad a trade you'll see the whole forthcoming season.
Well this was my whine. Can't stand the Bulls.

Tomi Silvennoinen

 
 
 

Burrell-Simpkins

Post by David Crot » Wed, 24 Sep 1997 04:00:00

It is an impressive move by Krause, getting a limited but decent
player (when not injured) for a complete stiff.  Then again, Corey
Blount turned into a decent bench player with LA (nothing great,
but better than he was in Chicago).
The thing that puzzles me is why Chicago would trade size from their
front line for another stand still 3 point shooter.  Clearly they're
weakest up front.  They need size and rebounding more than they
need another Kerr or Harper.

dave

 
 
 

Burrell-Simpkins

Post by Eric B » Wed, 24 Sep 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

>It is an impressive move by Krause, getting a limited but decent
>player (when not injured) for a complete stiff.  Then again, Corey
>Blount turned into a decent bench player with LA (nothing great,
>but better than he was in Chicago).
>The thing that puzzles me is why Chicago would trade size from their
>front line for another stand still 3 point shooter.  Clearly they're
>weakest up front.  They need size and rebounding more than they
>need another Kerr or Harper.

I didn't get the size aspect of the trade either.  The rest of it made
sense though.  I would suspect that means that someone is moving on the
Bulls to another position or another team.  Perhaps Pip is going to be
playing alot more SG this year or maybe Pip's injury is alot worse than we
think and the Bulls need another SF.  Isn't Jud B. a free agent too?

So we have a backcourt of Kerr, Brown, the Sweaty Ballhog, Harper and a
part-time SG in Pippen.  A frontcourt consisting of Luc, Big Bill, Stiff
Joe, Rodman, Caffey, Kukoc, Burrell and Pip.  Seems to me that Jud is the
odd man out here.

--
Eric Bin

President of the Unofficial Luc Longley Internet Fan Club
Member of the 1996-97 All-Trube team (MIP)

 
 
 

Burrell-Simpkins

Post by John Livengoo » Wed, 24 Sep 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

> The thing that puzzles me is why Chicago would trade size from their
> front line for another stand still 3 point shooter.  Clearly they're
> weakest up front.  They need size and rebounding more than they
> need another Kerr or Harper.

Simpkins was 6'10", but often played like he was 6'5" or so.

I view this deal like when he dealt Stacy King. I would have
applauded had Krumbs traded***ie for a large pepperoni with
extra cheese.

I agree this adds more depth to an area where the Bulls are
already deep. Maybe it says something about the seriousness of
Pippen's injury?

-----------------------------------

John Livengood
VMARK Software
Westboro, MA

 
 
 

Burrell-Simpkins

Post by Dave Pawso » Wed, 24 Sep 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

> It is an impressive move by Krause, getting a limited but decent
> player (when not injured) for a complete stiff.  Then again, Corey
> Blount turned into a decent bench player with LA (nothing great,
> but better than he was in Chicago).
> The thing that puzzles me is why Chicago would trade size from their
> front line for another stand still 3 point shooter.  Clearly they're
> weakest up front.  They need size and rebounding more than they
> need another Kerr or Harper.

> dave

Sort of amusing since out here in the Bay Area we are puzzled as to why
the Warriors traded an outside shooter at the 2 or 3 for a power
forward/center with limited skills (how's that for a euphemism?)...
                                                Dave

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To e-mail me, remove the * from my e-mail address.  Spammers can gas up
and
leave me alone...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Burrell-Simpkins

Post by F. Barl » Wed, 24 Sep 1997 04:00:00


Quote:

>The thing that puzzles me is why Chicago would trade size from their
>front line for another stand still 3 point shooter.  Clearly they're
>weakest up front.  They need size and rebounding more than they
>need another Kerr or Harper.

>dave

Burrell's acquisition simply serves as an insurance policy in case
Pippen's foot needs surgery and he has to sit out for a while.  It is a
good deal no matter how you look at it for the Bulls, but Burrell has
been troubled with injuries all his career, so he is damaged goods.

Atila

 
 
 

Burrell-Simpkins

Post by Hubner_Chr » Wed, 24 Sep 1997 04:00:00

  The Warriors know they made a bad deal.  They apparently
  kept their word to Burrell to trade him to a contender.

  Not a smart move when he was Sprewell's backup and
  possible starting small forward if Donyell Marshall
  stunk it up in pre-season.

  The Warriors must give Marshall one last chance before
  totally giving up on him.  He's very enthusiastic about
  Carlisimo's hiring and has been working hard this off-
  season.

  Chris

 
 
 

Burrell-Simpkins

Post by Xb » Thu, 25 Sep 1997 04:00:00

I really can't believe there is anyone who doesn't see the
Simpkins-Burrell trade as a "NO-BRAINER".....

Simpkins, in 3 years, has averaged 10 min/gm, 2 reb/gm, 3 pt/gm, and never
able to contribute to any productivity either offensively or defensively.
These numbers in his lifetime stats are buoyed by the fact that almost all
of his playing time is when the Bulls are up by 20-30 points and playing
some patsies.  If one could cull some selective stats from whatever minutes
***ie ever played in close games or when production was needed....then I
think it would look even more horrendous....like 0.7 pts/48 min,  and 0.8
reb/48 min.............

By contrast,  Burrell in four years avgs....23 min/gm, 8 pt/gm, 4
reb/gm...........and he can play 2 different positions, adding versatility,
and his contract will even save $$ for the Bulls!!  There just isn't any
puzzle here.  This trade is as good as the Stacy King for Longley or the
Perdue for Rodman trade..........how could anyone doubt the benefit this
will give to the Bulls?......  .................GJS

 
 
 

Burrell-Simpkins

Post by Bruce Lero » Thu, 25 Sep 1997 04:00:00

Quote:

> It is an impressive move by Krause, getting a limited but decent
> player (when not injured) for a complete stiff.  Then again, Corey
> Blount turned into a decent bench player with LA (nothing great,
> but better than he was in Chicago).
> The thing that puzzles me is why Chicago would trade size from their
> front line for another stand still 3 point shooter.  Clearly they're
> weakest up front.  They need size and rebounding more than they
> need another Kerr or Harper.

> dave

What really amazes me is that a trade of such low caliber (no disrespect
to either player) all-of-a-sudden grabs all the headlines.  Just look at
the font size used for the headlines in nba.com.

--