Re: In the USA Today, well... today (fwd)

[ManChul Park <Manchul.Park@oit.gatech.edu>]

IF this is true.  I can kinda understand it. They do have many guards, but
none of them are great 3 point shooters.  Here are some numbers:

Iverson		16-55	.291
Stackhouse	10-34	.294
Jackson		 9-29	.321
Tim Thomas	 7-15	.461

So, he would be great playing with the 2nd unit like John Starks.  Also,
I could see him getting a lot of open shots playing with Iverson.  Iverson
is good as anyone when breaking down defenses.

Also, I really don't think that $3 Mil is steep for Kerr (now).  He is an
excellent role player that does much more than just shoot the 3 for the 
Bulls.  I think that he is a really good TEAM defensive player and gives
you 110% every night.

What I would like to know is for whom they would trade for Barros.

-Chul

Forwarded message:

> Philly. Why? Well, for one thing, they have a tremendous glut of guards :
> Iverson, Stackhouse, J.Jackson, Rex Walters, Mark Davis and Anthony
> Parker. In light of this, why in the world would they want to add another
> guard and a 5-11 one at that? Then, the second thing is that Barros is
> hopelessly ineffective if he does not receive playing time and plenty of
> shots. He is a scorer in the mold of Abdul-Rauf, and when he is given free
> rein, we know he can pass too. But with Iverson there, how likely is it
> for him to be given such freedom there? Also, it's no secret that Philly
> is not the best place in  the world for someone who's looking for shots.
> T.Thomas, Iverson, Stack, Parker, Coleman, Walters and even Chambers are
> all from D. Wilkins shot selection school. Well, the only conceivable
> reason I can see for his going to Philly would be to be an outside threat
> which they do not have much of. As a Steve Kerr type player. But $3 M a
> year is pretty steep price tag to pay for Kerr.