Sam Smith-esque trade idea of the week: get in on Jason Kidd deal
That's right, I'm putting on my sweater-vest again, and trying to come up with a midseason trade for the Bulls. Not sure if it's really to make the team better as much as more interesting, as to be honest I can't stomach watching this same group much longer.
As far as why to trade at all, The Bulls aren't losing enough to have true lottery dreams, and with the pick they'll likely get I wouldn't want another young player clogging up the roster. (then again, I said the same thing last year and am pretty happy with Noah) And, as currently constituted they won't do much in the playoffs either. So while I suppose that makes me for the organization's new lowered-expectations of simply making the Eastern Conference playoffs, I still think changes should be made so a playoff run is made with an eye still to the future.
And while the first option would be to deal Wallace, or make some blockbuster acquisition, it just doesn't seem possible.
But the Bulls do have a nice congruence [or confluence, or in congruence, or confusing -ed.] of circumstances: a goal (or should-be goal) of developing Thomas and Noah for this playoff push, and some solid performing veterans in Joe Smith and Andres Nocioni. The Bulls should be doing what they can to see if any value can be had for those vets, as not only will they have the highest value but they're blocking their most important projects.
Which brings me to the most recent trade speculation floating around the league: Jason Kidd's latest trade demand. Kelly Dwyer broke down the limited options:
Making things more complicated are the tradeable (we think) contracts that the Nets won't want. The Lakers could send Lamar Odom and Kwame to New Jersey in a half-second for Kidd, but why would the Nets want to rebuild with Odom's contract on the books? Odom's in his ostensible prime, he's not some young stud who can develop on a rebuilding team, and his contract expires the same year as Kidd's.
It makes sense that a rebuilding team wouldn't want Odom, but as I stated above the Bulls shouldn't be rebuilding just yet, and acquiring Odom can make sense as long as it means dealing out two other veteran big-men.
Here is my proposed 3-team deal with the Bulls/Lakers/Nets.
Lakers (acquire Jason Kidd, Joe Smith, and Jamaal Magloire): Figure that a triumvirate of Bryant/Kidd/Bynum can give them a 2-year championship window. Smith is a veteran having a great season and thus a great role-playing fit for a contender. Magloire (or as later mentioned, Jason Collins) can be the stopgap center (taking Kwame's role) until Bynum returns. Dealing Kwame's monster expiring deal is their best chance to get a player of Kidd's caliber (or perhaps more importantly, stature) around Kobe, so it seems like now is the time to strike.
Nets (acquire Jordan Farmar, Andres Nocioni, Kwame Brown, Chris Duhon, picks and cash): Are likely resigned to not getting much more than expiring deals and mid-level prospects and picks for Kidd at this point. Nocioni's deal is long and mean (though front-loaded, which is less mean), but perhaps their previously reported interest in the 'tough guy' isn't extinguished even though they're dealing Kidd. Getting a point guard prospect seems like a must, and it can be hashed out between them and the Lakers as to whether it's Farmar or Javaris Crittenton. Another negotiating wrinkle could be forcing L.A. to take Jason Collins (another year on his deal) instead of Magloire, and to make up the salary difference the Lakers could deal Chris Mihm's expiring deal (with Mihm's consent) back. In terms of draft picks, I'm not sure they couldn't get either (or both) the Bulls or Lakers first round selections, and as an added asset: by coincidence the Nets owe their 2009 second rounder to Seattle, and both the Bulls (Knicks) and Lakers (Bobcats) have extra 2009 picks to even out that debit.
Bulls (acquire Lamar Odom, Darrell Armstrong, Bostjan Nachbar): I like this deal for the Bulls because even though it's technically 3-for-3, it still serves as roster consolidation, as it'd replace two players ahead of Noah and Thomas with one. And while Odom is highly paid ($13.2m+$14.1m), it's still only one additional season (same as Smith, and three fewer than Noc), and it'll give Paxson 2 straight years of fat expiring deals (Odom and then Wallace) in case the 'right' superstar comes along. And while he's having a poor season (and overall just aint that great), as previously discussed on this site Odom can still help on the court too. As Hollinger says, he's high-volume and medium-efficiency, but, unlike most of the current Bulls roster, is someone who can create shots and has a more diverse offensive game beyond jumpshooting. He rebounds well enough (14.1 rebound rate this year, compared to 12.9 for Smith and 10.4 for Noc) to stay at the PF spot but can play multiple positions. In this deal the Nets stand to simply trade away bodies, so Armstrong is coming over to take Duh's spot as backup point (asking for Marcus Williams is a bit greedy), and the Bulls and Nets can negotiate whether Nachbar or Antoine Wright is their new backup SF.
New Bulls roster (IR: Nichols, Curry, Khryapa):
Hinrich/Armstrong
Sefolosha/Gordon
Deng/Nachbar/Griffin
Odom/Thomas
Wallace/Noah/Gray
This new Bulls team would be (most importantly?) different, but also both better suited for this year's playoffs and beyond. None of the Bulls young talent is touched, and in fact they'd get opportunity for a developmental boost simply by having fewer guys in their way. Financially the Bulls are in better shape with a big expiring deal next year, and the long-term commitment to Nocioni off the books.
And the rest of this season becomes a lot more fun to watch.
0 recs |
109 comments
Comments
Creative
by balta1701 on Jan 28, 2008 9:17 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I get your point
Plus I'm sick of watching Nocioni 'step up'.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 28, 2008 10:34 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
HOMER TRADE ALERT!!!
-- Why would the Lakers trade Odom and Farmar for a 34-year-old point guard and garbage?
-- Why would the Lakers essentially trade Lamar Odom for Chris Duhon and Joe Smith?
-- And why wouldn't the Lakers just offer Farmar and Brown to the Nets for Kidd without including the Bulls scrubs?
Nice try, guys. Kupchak is stupid, but he ain't that stupid!!!
by biggame james on Jan 30, 2008 3:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
TRADE MACHINE ALERT
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 30, 2008 3:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
by bullshooter on Jan 28, 2008 9:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
uh...
If Tyrus booms (he already broke out as far as I'm concerned, ha) then he can take the starting role. Granted this involves a real coach.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 28, 2008 10:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
for some reason I want to talk about this more
I think if Odom is starting and Tyrus plays 15-25 minutes a game on a GOOD team (and having 4 good bigs...er 3+Wallace, isn't overdoing things), that's progress. He doesn't have to start and play 35 minutes to not get some arbitrary 'bust' label at age 22, and getting junk minutes on a junk team to end to this season will likely facilitate bad habits anyway.
Plus, it seems that your crediting this idea of waiting until guys get hurt for young players to see action as some brilliant scheme from the coaching (and management?) staff, and not what it is: them falling ass-backwards into competence.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 29, 2008 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I would expect TT
by bullshooter on Jan 29, 2008 12:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's my point
'half' the minutes seems arbitrary, but it works for me. I'm not unconvinced they couldn't swing a Tyrus/Odom frontcourt at times too. Again, 4 big men doesn't seem like too much, and I think it's less than 5.
And I still cringe when you mention this 'shot' Tyrus is getting. Quit giving the organization any credit and join us who think they're just complete idiots who are now forced to play Thomas out of unintended circumstances. join us....
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 29, 2008 3:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
The Dark Side is enticing
by bullshooter on Jan 29, 2008 6:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Right now
I can see someone taking Noc or Smith as they are having relatively good years and are overvalued as well. Duhon on the other hand...I guess if he is an upgrade to a desperate team it is possible. I am not sure if we actually get anything with this deal but we do get rid of things and get us in position for the coming years when some really talented players hit open season. And perhaps by then Noah and Thomas and Deng will have kicked it up a notch.
by cranscape on Jan 28, 2008 9:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I wouldn't give up a lottery pick either
by bullshooter on Jan 28, 2008 9:47 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I know you wouldn't
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 28, 2008 10:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
not to mention
by bullshooter on Jan 29, 2008 9:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I like this
by messwiththebull on Jan 28, 2008 10:37 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Wow
This should really happen. I forsee a nightmare scenario, however, with all the GMs ready to pull the trigger, and then Pax suddenly backs out, saying, "I just couldn't trade Nocioni to a team in our conference."
by BenGo07 on Jan 28, 2008 11:59 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
definitely interesting
bigger organizational question for the bulls: what to do in the future? would you then extend deng and gordon and hope to land a big FA when odom and corpse come off the books? completely gut the squad by signing and trading deng and/or gordon and hope to make a big splash when odom and corpse expire? lots of directions to go from there.
by Mike C on Jan 29, 2008 12:01 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I like Odom
by eross226 on Jan 29, 2008 1:02 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I'd take this trade
by ForWhomTheBullTolls on Jan 29, 2008 1:51 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Not sure...
Why would the lakers trade an emerging point guard (Farmar) and get rid of an important piece like Odom, just to get one or two good years from Kidd ?
At the moment, they are contenders for the title (with a healthy Bynum), and Kobe being far (I guess, but you never know) from being over-aged, they figure that the'll only get better with the continuous improvement from the youngs (Bynum, Farmar, ...).
If they do this trade, they shorten their window of opportunity for a title.
by Diabolo on Jan 29, 2008 2:54 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Because Kobe
by cranscape on Jan 29, 2008 8:30 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Now to get
by sue369 on Jan 29, 2008 6:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Amen to that
by TMD on Jan 29, 2008 10:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Where do I sign up?
by paxson43 on Jan 29, 2008 7:01 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
My goal is to move Wallace
by chgobr on Jan 29, 2008 7:33 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
"we need Noc"
If Deng's out for the majority of this season, it's doomed either way.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 29, 2008 9:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Matt's probably correct
That said, I'm still not sure how Deng's being out for the remainder evinces a valid criticism of Matt's proposed Odom-acquisition. With Odom, the Bulls would have a PF who - if healthy - is swift/skilled enough to handle significant playing minutes at SF; moreover, his defense at either position would have to better than what Nocioni provides. In Matt's scenario, the Bulls would also add Nachbar to their SF depth, who could provide jump-shooting off the bench (though not as efficiently as Nocioni, which sounds weird to say), and would only be a third-option at SF if Deng can return.
I guess, personally, I'd just prefer the following lineup - on aesthetic grounds, as well as in terms of production-potential - to the non-Deng lineup the Bulls have been sending to the floor:
PG Hinrich
SG Sefolosha
SF Odom
PF Thomas
C Noah/Wallace
Dumping Wallace, while a noble sentiment, is practically intractable; though there may be some viable scenario, I doubt Paxson has enough creativity to arrive to it.
by jpx7 on Jan 29, 2008 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
giving effort
by ScottieCartwright on Jan 29, 2008 9:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's one way to look at it
by bullshooter on Jan 29, 2008 10:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I look at it as PER being friendly
by hscs on Jan 29, 2008 10:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
PER
That says nothing for him because in reality if he were THAT efficient, he'd be 1st among those
by ScottieCartwright on Jan 29, 2008 10:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Deng has still played more minutes than Noc
by bullshooter on Jan 29, 2008 10:24 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
At first
I think having the flexibility of Odom with our smallish guards could really help us. Odom can handle the ball and play anywhere from 1-4 (though is best suited for 3/4). I like thinking we'd space the floor with Lamar, Sef, Gordon, Deng during some stretches, or even use Lamar's every other game rebounding strengths to play a very fast paced run and gun with Hinrich-Gordon-Sef-Deng-Odom......could be interesting too.
We've all seen Lamar when he's good (when he's on he's great)....
I'd hate to lose Noc though in this deal, and I DEFINATELY would not part with our first round draft picks for this deal because I don't think Odom's stock is high enough to warrant his salary or the loss of Nocioni, who's been more vital to our team than anyone else this year....(I know we're in last place, but we'd be nipping on Miami territory without Noc).
I still think I'd like to see a Deng/Gordon trade for a superstar......first.
by majoyenrac on Jan 29, 2008 7:49 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Wasn't Odom a big part of
Let's book it!
by hhi on Jan 29, 2008 8:05 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
don't see
As for the Bulls making this trade, I would be fine with it. Nocioni isn't worth anymore than Odom and Duhon/Smith won't be worth much for much longer. I'm so sick of this team that it would be refreshing to deal some pieces. Although, losing 'bright spots' Nocioni and Smith means we leave ourselves with more disappointments than we had before the deal. But, at this poin, whatever.
by CookDing on Jan 29, 2008 8:14 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Jordan Farmar struck many
Farmar is a good player. Is Kidd better? Yes. And don't limit Kidd's career to only one or two more years. His below-the-rim game could keep him in the game for a good five more years.
The question that jumps out from the Nets' perspective: Why in the world would they add Farmar AND Duhon when they already have Kidd's heir-apparent on the roster in Marcus Williams?
Matt, this whole deal sounds like nothing more than a (not so veiled) attempt to move your nemesis off the Bulls roster.
by alec on Jan 29, 2008 9:46 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Duhon's just an expiring contract
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 29, 2008 9:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I like this proposal
by TMD on Jan 29, 2008 10:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Matt's right
Marcus Williams was stealing notebook computers while on scholarship at UCONN. He was a top prospect coming to UCONN. He was the next of kin of Ben Gordon. He had amazing recruits around him. you had all these pieces in place and the kid still had one thing on his mind, getting money.
by NBA Observer on Jan 29, 2008 12:21 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Kidd
by ScottieCartwright on Jan 29, 2008 10:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Odom is wack
He shows up about once every 4 games.
Yeah, he's a stat filler but he couldn't give a shit about the game.
Once he lost his son a couple years ago, it killed any basketball motivation he once had.
Plus his health is a another issue.
by Option27 on Jan 29, 2008 10:03 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Losing his son...that's a tough thing,
There's no way in the world Paxson would ever invite Odom onto his team.
by alec on Jan 29, 2008 10:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If so
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 29, 2008 10:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not like
I think Pax is at the point where he's willing to give up on some of his self loved players. If it will help the team.
But bringing in Odom won't help the team and that is what was meant. He isn't the guy that's gonna help your team out immediately or for the future.
Now if you're talking on just taking on a bad contract to match with Wallace's when both are up, then I'm sure there are plenty other options out there
by Option27 on Jan 29, 2008 10:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I think the league is over what Odom could be
Nocioni shouldn't be on the 'loved' list for Pax. They could use guys who try less and play more.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 29, 2008 11:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Odom does have a good game.
Tyrus is too impressionable, and Odom's laid-back, who-gives-a-shit attitude could infect Tyrus like an air-borne virus...with permanently disabling effects.
by alec on Jan 29, 2008 11:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
He was
by TMD on Jan 29, 2008 1:44 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yep
by ScottieCartwright on Jan 29, 2008 2:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
ah more knee jerk reaction
by bullshooter on Jan 29, 2008 3:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Changing scenery is what Odom does best
Colleges? Check.
NBA clubs? Check.
by NBA Observer on Jan 29, 2008 12:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I like the idea
Also, it doesn't seem like the Lakers are in too much of a hurry to go after Kidd. The rumors are that the Mavericks have moved to the forefront in the race for Kidd. They can't match up the contracts, as of yet, so perhaps the Bulls can hop onto that trade, and see if we can't get something out of that trade. Now that I think of it, I wouldn't want part of that, considering Paxson would probably ask for Trenton Hassell or the washed-up Eddie Jones. We already have enough of those guys on our team!
It is being said that Paxson is willing to trade Duhon, Khryapa, and Thomas. Although, reports are saying that he won't trade Thomas "just to trade him." I'm glad to see that he's not thinking like an NBA Live team owner, and that of an actual GM. My guess is we make no deals that are worth any ink, seeing how we won't get much in return for Duhon and Khryapa.
by BigScott03 on Jan 29, 2008 10:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
getting in on a Dallas deal
None of these guys are 'the answer', but I think it allows Tyrus or Noah to become that answer, and/or position the Bulls cap-wise to acquire that answer after the season (when Odom's an expiring deal).
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 29, 2008 10:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What do you think of
Oh well. I guess we're just getting desperate now.
by BigScott03 on Jan 29, 2008 11:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What about just getting Kidd?
by preverbal on Jan 29, 2008 10:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Why?
by snley on Jan 29, 2008 10:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Not so sure
Kidd, Duhon
Gordon, Thabo
Deng, Noc
Smith, TT
Noah, Gray
It could work. It would definitely be more fun to watch.
by preverbal on Jan 29, 2008 11:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
might be worth it just to get rid of Wallace
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 29, 2008 11:07 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Back court size? What the hell?
by tyger1147 on Jan 29, 2008 11:21 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's just a hot phrase
by snley on Jan 29, 2008 1:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
You're an ass
Backcourt size is significant. Unless you like getting abused by big backcourts. And its not some "hot" phrase that is currently in vogue for no reason. It was, point of fact, a significant factor in the Bulls dynasty's domination, but judging by the tenor of your comments, you were probably being swaddled in the late 90's and missed it.
by preverbal on Jan 29, 2008 2:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
It's still ridiculous.
by tyger1147 on Jan 29, 2008 3:17 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Its not inherent winning
Size is one reason why Gordon is a liability on defense. It is why Hinrich frequently has to guard opposing 2s. It is also a reason why he gets into such foul trouble -- he has to guard bigger and stronger players almost every game.
by preverbal on Jan 30, 2008 11:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Pardon my insult.
I may be quite younger than you, but that does not diminish the validity of my opinions. Again, I apologize for analysis lacking from my previous post. I am old enough, though, to have watched all 6 Bulls championship seasons.
by snley on Jan 29, 2008 3:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No problem
If you look at Hinrich and Kidd side by side, you will see that there is a significant size difference between them, not just height but physical bulk and strength. Would that make a meaningful difference? Maybe not, given that Matt thinks Kidd is no longer a strong defender. I have only watched a handful of Nets games this year -- maybe he's fallen off.
Anyway, it was just a thought.
by preverbal on Jan 30, 2008 12:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Size matters
by NBA Observer on Jan 29, 2008 2:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Just cause the salaries match
WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD NJ DO THIS!?
by Option27 on Jan 29, 2008 10:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Kidd wants out
The Bulls get rid of their "cancer" in Wallace. They sacrifice Hinrich for a PG who will help all the other guys develop offensively now. They take a flier on Krstic, who again may or may not be done.
Maybe the Nets wouldn't want to take on the Bulls salaries. Maybe they wouldn't want to give up on Krstic. But fundamentally, why is this an insane trade idea?
by preverbal on Jan 29, 2008 11:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Simply put
by Option27 on Jan 29, 2008 11:22 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My guess would be that people
They are seeing what he can do when used as a legitimate scoring option. I bet his value right now is at or near a two year high--not quite as high as when he was first chosen for the national team, but higher than any time subsequent.
by alec on Jan 29, 2008 11:42 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
scoring binge?
A scoring binge is something like when Kobe hit 40+ for 5 games in a row, or whatever the amount of games
by ScottieCartwright on Jan 29, 2008 11:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
That's just it.
by alec on Jan 29, 2008 11:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I often wrestle with that idea
But also, GMs like to 'fix' things, and take other teams mistakes to try and look like geniuses if it works.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 29, 2008 12:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Heh.
by tyger1147 on Jan 29, 2008 11:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
No need to call BS
by alec on Jan 29, 2008 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
kidd is playing on borrowed time
by bullshooter on Jan 29, 2008 1:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I sure hope not
I really hope all that nonsense stays out of the NBA though....I suppose we'll see.
by majoyenrac on Jan 29, 2008 2:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
OT
MORE TYRUS AND JOAKIM!
by Option27 on Jan 29, 2008 11:10 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
it's a smokescreen
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 29, 2008 11:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Then by all means
by bullshooter on Jan 29, 2008 11:15 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
depends on how that big man coach
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 29, 2008 11:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If Joe doesn't go
Who knows? The staff is unpredictable.
by NBA Observer on Jan 29, 2008 12:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Brand-wagon
by ForWhomTheBullTolls on Jan 29, 2008 11:12 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
really?
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 29, 2008 11:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually Matt
All be it at this point though, this season has all of us in such disarray from where and what we thought the Bulls would or could have been at the half way mark -
I'd take just about ANYTHING right now that would represent something better (or at the very least, NEW) to look watch...
This same cliche' every day - so predictable that it's become BORING as well as painful...
Which brings to mind - who would you suggest for a new coach?
No matter WHO the Bulls bring in player wise, it seems rather obvious that they aren't going anywhere with who they have now...
by Bluelou on Jan 29, 2008 12:04 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Immediacy Trade Order
- Gordon
- Hinrich
- Wallace
- Deng
- Duhon
- Nocioni
by NBA Observer on Jan 29, 2008 12:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
The fact that Wallace isn't first
by Option27 on Jan 29, 2008 12:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Despite Wallace
Ben Gordon cannot stop anyone in the NBA. Therefore he must be an elite scorer that puts people in foul trouble. He's showing us that he is neither.
If we can sign and trade Gordon it will be a miracle.
by NBA Observer on Jan 29, 2008 1:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
We'd have to get someone
by cranscape on Jan 29, 2008 2:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
There aren't enough Michael Jordan's running NBA clubs right now to generate for us what Joe Dumars trade of former Pistons leading scorer Jerry Stackhouse did for Detroit.
Looking at Stackhouse's career actually makes me think Ben Gordon will be just like him, but with lesser production due 5 inches of height. Stack's numbers are almost the same across the board except for the free throw attempts. Stack gets to the line. He makes 82% of them.
This is why I think Gordon's game must focus on getting to the line. I thought we'd see this happen this year. We haven't.
by NBA Observer on Jan 29, 2008 3:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
getting to the line
by ScottieCartwright on Jan 29, 2008 3:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
What I ponder
Iverson is best 6'0 guard I have ever seen at getting to the free throw line. He lists at 180. Ben is 200. I think these numbers are off a little. I'd say Ben looks more like 215 and AI is probably hovering at 180. Is AI quicker? Yes. A whole step quicker? No.
Some numbers.
AI: 4.5 minutes per free throw attempt
BG: 7.5 minutes per free throw attempt
AI: 41.8 mpg career
BG: 30.3 mpg career
AI: 9.29 attempts per game
BG: 4.04 attempts per game
For Ben to be effective in the NBA he has to find ways to get to the line. How does he do it? I have no idea. Who teaches Dwayne Wade?
by NBA Observer on Jan 29, 2008 5:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
eh
He had 4.35 attempts p/g in his senior year at UConn (170 attempts in 39 games). I can't see how he would make THAT big of a leap from his last year in school to his rookie season, even from then up until now.
Basically, if you got to the line a lot when you were in college, that trend most likely will continue in the NBA (maybe except for someone's rookie year where they won't get a lot of calls)...if you weren't someone who got to the line a lot, then I expect the same.
Point is, I don't see Ben all of a sudden becoming an 8-9 FT/game player anytime soon.
by ScottieCartwright on Jan 29, 2008 6:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Which is why
by NBA Observer on Jan 29, 2008 6:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. The list has to start with Wallace.
- Wallace
- Hinrich
- Nocioni
- Gordon
- Deng
But let's be real: Paxson is going to do nothing. He may do something in the offseason, or he may wait to see if Derrick Rose bails him out, but he's not going to be aggressive or proactive. He tried it with Wallace and Chandler and it traumatized him.
by messwiththebull on Jan 29, 2008 12:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wallace and Chandler
by hscs on Jan 29, 2008 12:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Wallace is the only guy who needs to be moved
by bullshooter on Jan 29, 2008 12:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Here's my list of trades in order
- Wallace (though he's in it for the long haul because of his sulking ways and ridiculous salary and "diminished skills". I don't buy that he's got diminished skills, I do buy that he has diminished effort, and is dogging it for us every night.
- Deng (most value on the team, he's a .com stock say in late 1999 pre the Nasdaq blow up)
- Gordon--I like BG, but the guys got gobs of value and I'd be happy to part with him and Luol if it brought in a superstar
- Andres Nocioni--he's been our most consistent and thus his trade value is at its peak. I'd want to keep him and trade Deng first, but I wouldn't be upset if we kept Deng and parted with Noc for the right deal (I just know Deng's more valuable, but I'm not sold Deng is or will be THAT much better).
- Duhon. I'm tired of the Duhon experience. If he had any value, I'd love to list him first.
- Joe Smith. I'd like to keep him, reasonable salary, very reasonable when you see the production, but again I can part with him for the right pieces.
- Tyrus Thomas. Mgmt seems to be giving up on him, so why don't we use him for a trade while we still have time to do so. He seems very skilled and still raw, I would like to see him get the starting nod and forgo this season, but it ain't happening.
- Kirk Hinrich. I don't want to trade a good player for 25 cents on the dollar. Kirk seems to be finally bouncing out of his horrendous slump. I don't want to see a Tyson part 2, with a very solid player who hit a funk that we trade for nothing and then see that player thrive again in the new environment. I think with Gordon and Deng out we're seeing that Kirk can play on the offensive side of the game as well as on the D. I still can't explain what happened to him in Nov, Dec, and start of Jan, but I hope he's back. If he keeps playing at an advanced level, I see him as a big trade piece next year if we don't do anything again and flounder. I still have in at the end of any "meaningful" trade piece because I would include him for a superstar, but that's about it. Kirk's been a solid player and Kirk will return to being a solid player.....he hit a funk at a bad time for us Bulls. Although to be honest his BYC status makes him tough to trade either way.
9)/10/11) Griffin/Khryapa/Gray--who cares
Let's keep Noah and Thabo Sefalosha at least. I'd love to say keep Noah, Sef, and Thomas, but management seems fed up with Tyrus (why he barely even gets garbage time minutes is beyond me).
by majoyenrac on Jan 29, 2008 1:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i like this deal
by Conor on Jan 29, 2008 12:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
HOMER TRADE ALERT!!!
-- Why would the Lakers trade Odom and Farmar for a 34-year-old point guard and garbage?
-- Why would the Lakers essentially trade Lamar Odom for Chris Duhon and Joe Smith?
-- And why wouldn't the Lakers just offer Farmar and Brown to the Nets for Kidd without including the Bulls scrubs?
Nice try, guys. Kupchak is stupid, but he ain't that stupid!!!
by biggame james on Jan 30, 2008 3:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Kidd to Houston??
by BNeL21 on Jan 29, 2008 1:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Why would the Lakers
In a perfect (rebuilt) Bulls world, Noc only gets a Stackhouse-like 25 min. And Joe Smith might get 20 or so DNPs, 'cause he's not even needed. But Odom would require 35 mins, and that cuts into TT's time and development.
by marionette on Jan 29, 2008 3:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I don't get why Odom's 'required' of anything
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jan 29, 2008 3:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Odom's talent level
And if you were NJ, you'd really do that trade?
by marionette on Jan 29, 2008 4:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
13 million is a lot to pay
by Freethefro on Jan 29, 2008 3:57 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
I'm also wondering
by Freethefro on Jan 29, 2008 4:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Talk about who doesn't play defense!
by marionette on Jan 29, 2008 5:03 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 











