A New Blueprint for Making the Bulls Better with deals that benefit all involved
by fundamentallysound on Dec 8, 2008 9:16 PM CST
Email
PrintThere've been a number of trades thrown out with the Bulls involved and with them not involved and a good many of them made sense. What I've tried to do is identify my favorite outcome for the Bulls (dumping Larry, keeping 2010 money coming off the table, and oh yeah, landing Brad Miller for 2 years) and make it work for the other teams involved.
So here's the first trade that I've come up with for Pax to make happen. It's a four-teamer and it's a doozy.
Sacramento trades:
Brad Miller
Sacramento Receives:
Gerald Wallace
Bulls Trade:
Larry Hughes
Bulls Receive:
Brad Miller and Jason Hart (or other contract filler for LAC to make the deal work under the cap)
Bobcats Trade:
Gerald Wallace
Bobcats Receive:
Chris Kaman
Clippers Trade:
Chris Kaman
Clippers Receive:
Larry Hughes (2010 cap space)
Why do the Bulls do it? Duh, they get a real center and keep the $11-12 million coming off the books in 2010. Why do the Kings do it? From what I can tell their weakest position is SF (John Salmons). This gives them instant credibility on the wings and secures that position for a while. Why do the Bobcats do it? They've wanted Kaman for a while (or any competent post-player really), but haven't had the pieces to get it done. The Clips need a two-guard and they don't have one they're willing to part with. Which brings me to why the Clippers do it? Well, this one is a bit of a leap and it is where the whole trade could break down, but Larry is playing well and sinking ridiculous numbers of threes. He's a natural two-guard and he expires in 2010. Kaman is redundant for them and they have been looking to unload him and his 4 years remaining contract. LA is a great market, so you've got to think if they can get some 2010 expirings they could be players in that free-agent market, or at least you could sell it to their management that way.
That would be the first move I'd try to make. The next thing I'd try to do if I were Pax is dump Hinrich to the Timberwolves for expiring contracts (either this year or 2010). Something like Hinrich for Jason Collins and Rashad McCants (who they've soured on) or Hinrich for Brian Cardinal (2010 expiring in the same amount as Jason Collins). The T'Wolves are going to be way under the cap for 2010 even if they make this deal and it shores up a real weakness of theirs. They need a defensive minded PG who can hit a jump-shot to pair with Randy "turns out I'm not really a PG at all, despite my size" Foye. This deal fills one of their big holes and doesn't completely kill them long term in the cap situation. Then the only bad remaining contract for the Bulls to dump would be Nocioni and his 8 million a year for 5 (!) more years. I haven't yet figured out where we could dump him off to, but I'm working on it.
At the end of the two proposed deals I've set out we'd have this rotation:
PG: Rose / Hunter / BG
SG: BG / Thabo / McCants / Hart
SF: Deng / Noc / Thabo
PF: Gooden / Tyrus / Noc (hopefully in slim to none minutes)
C: Brad Miller / Noah / Gray
Rose, Gordon, Deng, Gooden, and Brad Miller is a very solid starting five and that bench wouldn't be terrible. Most importantly the deals would free-up cap space which is crucial for this Bulls team as has been repeated ad nauseam here by me and many, many others.
I've borrowed heavily from the ideas of others here and thrown my own twists on things as well, if you hate it let me know why? If you think it implausible or impossible let me know as well. I have a dream for this team and these two deals are the start for that dream. Now, if only Pax read BaB.
FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.
111 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Very well thought out scenario
With the exception of the years on kaman’s contract, wouldn’t it make more sense for the Bulls to just deal straight with the Clips, and get Kaman, to make this work? Especially if the follow up plan would be to dump Hinrich for expiring contracts. I just think Kaman is a better fit for this team than Miller.
Unless we are just renting Miller for two years to change everything up in 2010. That makes sense. But we still have a big hole at the center, I have given up on Noah and am not banking anything on Asik.
"I can accept failure, but I can't accept not trying." -- Michael Jordan
Really poorly done.
So many things wrong with everything in this scenario.
1) The clippers just signed Baron to an expensive long contract, then traded away 2 people with expiring deals in 2010, for randolph. THEY ARE NOT IN THE RUNNING FOR 2010, and have no desire to get cap space for that year. They can get more for Kaman than hughes’ expiring contract that they dont need. I think theyd rather have Wallace.
2) “From what I can tell their weakest position is SF (John Salmons).” Do you follow the NBA. Do you look up stats before you make ridiculous accusations. Salmons has been getting acclaim for the past two years, with people saying, he’s great when he gets playing time, hes just been stuck behind Kevin martin and ron artest. Now artest is gone, and hes averaging 20 ppg, on 50% shooting, 42%3pt. almost 4rb, and 3 assists. He is currently the clippers best player not injured. Seriously Weakest position? How about their PG situation. OR the fact That their best player is injured. They have lots of issues, wingmen isnt one of them.
3) Why in gods name would the T’Wolves do this deal. Youre saying Foye isnt really a PG at all. And hinrich is??? with his stellar drives, and great passing ability? The T’wolves are FAR from competing, and Hinrich isnt putting them anywhere near over the edge. Theyre not gonna take his ridiculous contract, while hes injured for 2 expiring deals. Especially 10 mil of expiring deals. There are lots of FA to be had in the Offseason, and theres still a lot of season to Tank for high draft picks.
The only part of this WHOLE proposal that would make any sense… would be take out all the other teams, and make it a bulls and kings swap of Hinrich for Miller Swap. Throw in a 2nd rounder or something to give some extra incentive. The kings have good young big men who they can develop, good wing players who are offensively gifted, and one shitty over rated PG. At least hinrich isnt shitty, although he is over paid. He can play some D for them. Even with this deal i dont think the kings go for it, because hinrichs contract is so bad.
Think and research before you make claims about great deals that make absolutely no sense.
by sillyrussian on Dec 9, 2008 1:34 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
I think you need to relax a little bit. Drink a little vodka.
You make some good points, especially the ones regarding Salmons and the strengths of the Kings roster. But, there are some issues with point #3. I think the Wolves would love to get a player like Hinrich. Especially for only expiring contracts. Hinrich’s contract isn’t nearly as bad as you’re making it out to be. Many teams have interest in him and he would definately be an upgrade over Randy Foye at the pg spot. As for you saying the Wolves aren’t close to competing, I agree, but unfortunately I don’t think the Wolves brass agree. There was a lot riding on this season (hence the Whitman firing) and at the outset Mchale predicted they would be in the 40 to 45 win range. So there is pressure to win there, right now. And Hinrich is also the type of player that wouldn’t run away from Minnesota the moment he hit free agency, which is another issue the Wolves are worried about.
by Juiceboxjerry on Dec 9, 2008 2:23 AM CST up reply actions
Hinrich
Can drive to the lane pretty consistently, he just has an uncanny ability to have those shots rim out…..
But yeah I don’t know, Hinrich and Davis wouldn’t be a bad duo as both are strong and Davis, while not known as a lock down defender consistently can defend the best of them when he focuses on that end. HInrich is good too at D and having Davis’s flashy passing and offensive capabilies with the steadier, less flashy but much better defender Hinrich wouldn’t be bad, except the Clipps just drafted Eric Gordon and aren’t likely to give up on him. Still that might just be a nice piece, say a Hinrich-Gooden-Tyrus Thomas-next year’s #1 draft pick, and the following year’s #2 draft pick for Chris Kaman and Marcus Camby.
LA starts Davis-Hinrich-Thornton-Randolph-Gooden with Eric Gordon, Tyrus Thomas, Ricky Davis coming off the bench. They also pick up next year’s #1 from the bulls (10-18 pick likely, with proximity to 10 depending on when this trade is made….they can slowly bring on Eric Gordon and have the insurance when Baron gets hurt. They also might be quite good if Dunleavy could coach with all that athleticism and guards and scoring options……and they get a #1 overall and a #2 overall. Not the shabbiest (unfortunately for a 2 team trade to work they have to throw in Camby in the deal because of the assets they have if they want the expiring Gooden, which I think is a key)….
Bulls:
Rose-Gordon-Deng-Noah-Kaman with Camby-Hughes-Nocioni-Hunter-Thabo off our bench….
Might be fav for the Bulls short term, but the Clipps aren’t playoff bound as is this year and they’d likely get two lottery picks for next year.
They just invested a pretty good chunk of money in Udrih
and he’s not much worse than Hinrich (and they got him for cheaper). When I meant weakest, I meant in terms of what they have invested their. Salmons has played well, but he’s older and he’s not a good defender. Salmons is certainly a fine player, but Gerald Wallace would be a nice upgrade and trading Miller would clear minutes for Hawes to become the starting C.
by fundamentallysound on Dec 9, 2008 3:50 PM CST up reply actions
I salute your Salmons recognition
The man produces when given the opportunity, unlike some of our young guys.
by messwiththebull on Dec 11, 2008 9:38 PM CST up reply actions
let me elaborate on this...
cause i know it sounds like im kidding….. the one thing that i have hated about LH is that he takes very stupid shots….very very very stupid shots……well guess what people …rose is so good that even LH is NOT completely sucking ass this year….. because of the attention that rose receives, hughes is actually taking good open shots (the majority of the time….still stupid sometimes) and making them….he really has become a big part of our offense….and not to mention that he’s actually pretty good on defense……now i know that this actually would be the best time to trade since his value is at a high that it will probably never be at again……but …. i would hate to trade him for a contract that extends past 2010…. especially since he is actually playing pretty well with rose….. and lastly…its not like he’s starting or anything……way overpaid bench player that is providing solid minutes right now and comes off the books in 2010…..not all that bad…
by masputo on Dec 9, 2008 3:11 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
and nobody talk shit to me.....i dont wanna hear it...
its my opinion…..so let it be….just give me your thoughts…not your shit…
props to boldness, but....
I disagree with keeping Hughes if we’re going to keep Gordon. Gordon is younger, a more talented shooter and is also gelling well with Rose. Larry’s improved shot selection has been a nice surprise. But will he keep it up? I do like that Larry is taller, and he’s a good defender (another, less talked about, aspect of his game that improved since last year is defense.)
If Pax knows that Gordon will re-sign, then I think he needs to dump LH while he can. If not by the trade deadline, then right away in the off season. However, if you don’t think you can resign Gordon in the off season, an improved LH isn’t a bad insurance policy to hold on to… it sure is better than Thabo!
BTW, glad to hear someone willing to say something against the grain.
As a sign of acceptance and happiness over Larry Hughes' newfound game,
I think we should start the website: heylarryhughespleasekeeptakingthosegoodshots.com
by Juiceboxjerry on Dec 9, 2008 9:22 AM CST up reply actions
Hughes
Though when he plays his game is a far superior defender than Gordon, and who knows if we can keep BG anyway….
GOrdon’s playing solid D for Gordon, but Larry’s been a better defender in the past and is at least more skilled there.
I’m not indicating Larry’s a better player than Gordon (he isn’t) but again if Larry keeps this play up, losing Gordon this offseason might not completely kill our guard rotation.
Hughes is not a "far superior" defender than Gordon
he plays the passing lanes better, but that is about it. He is not physical, gets beat off the dribble all the time and is often out of position. Gordon and Hughes are both average man-to-man defenders with Hughes accumulating more steals because he gambles and reads passing lanes better.
by Basketball Smurf on Dec 9, 2008 12:15 PM CST up reply actions
Gordon this year vs. Hughes this year
is not that large of a gap. But Hughes is still a better defender.
Didn't want to make a big post about it, just throw my opinion in.
Defensive based stats are nowhere to really be found with adjusted +/- the best out there. It’s way too early in the season still to bring those numbers up. I guess the best point I can make is name the 2 guard who lit up BG this year?
I think Hughes is better because he’s a more active defender. He goes after players where I think Ben just tries to limit their ability to drive and shoot. Hughes as a result causes more turnovers and this team is pretty effective in transition. Is that good enough for you?
is it way to early to bring those numbers up
because they favor BG and not your argument? According to 82games.com BG scores more and holds his opponent to less scoring. http://www.82games.com/0809/0809CHI.HTM
Nevermind though. Neither is really that great of defender. They are both average.
by Basketball Smurf on Dec 9, 2008 12:53 PM CST up reply actions
No because the numbers on 82games
are unadjusted and there aren’t enough games to pull meaningful data. If you were to work off of 82 games numbers, Rose is by far the worst defender on the team and he is a significant net negative player.
That's not that much of a stretch.
By any measure, stats or scouting, most thing he is a sub-average defender right now. Add in that he’s playing so many minutes on a net-negative point-differential team, it makes sense that he has the largest unadjusted negative net value.
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
Move Hughes first chance you get
for cap relief. I also want to see what Paxson does with Gooden because he better do something with that expiring deal.
by messwiththebull on Dec 11, 2008 9:42 PM CST up reply actions
If nothing else
Pax needs to use the space from Gooden’s expiring contract to re-sign BG. Unless Joe Johnson signs as a FA in 2010 the Bulls are not getting a better 2 than Ben any time soon.
by Granny Waiters on Dec 11, 2008 10:20 PM CST up reply actions
At the very least... not re-sign it.
Either get a definitively better player for Gooden + stuff, or don’t re-sign him.
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
Hughes
in the history and of late is a far superior defender than Ben Gordon is. He’s long, athletic, can get in front of his man and control his man consistently over the years.
Hughes however for a long time would take too many risks, but if he plays his game there’s no question who’s the most skilled defender.
Either way though if Hughes continues his play, he’s far more valuable as an expiring deal next year than Brad Miller and he might help us more than Brad Miller would long term either way (higher salary coming off the books in a couple years if we didn’t trade him, and right now a better player than the modern Brad Miller).
I’m not going to gush on here that Larry Hughes is better than Ben Gordon, he is not, GOrdon’s likely still underappreciated and can be such a spark on offense that that can’t be discounted. But Hughes is so horribly underappreciated. True he’s sig overpaid but at $7-8M as a starter on many teams or solid 6th man, he’s not bad. He might live up to his salary this year too if he continues with his current trek, but I’m not going to get too overly excited about him putting up 25 PPG off the bench in limited minutes while playing solid D for the remaining 62 games…
I think your opinion sucks.
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Dec 9, 2008 10:40 AM CST up reply actions
I don't
Larry un-legend may/will be a more valuable expiring contract/component next year/offseason for us than Brad Miller, and that will grow especially if he plays well this year like he’s been doing.
That’s why unless we get someone like Kaman, etc we don’t just throw him into a trade to deal him because of his “chucking ways”…I mean it’s early but Hughes has a 16.6 PER and that has grown significantly after a rough start….
And in the meantime
we have 764 guards fighting for minutes. What happens when Kirk gets back? One or two of these guys needs to be moved. I would assume only one as insurance for if Gordon doesn’t come back.
Who cares
I’d rather have 764 guards fighting for minutes this year if we can acquire a real need big man next year when Hughes contract becomes more valuable, especially if he keeps up this play. I mean teams aren’t going to be as willing to give us a nice piece for Brad Miller as a contending team in need of a tweak or a close team needing a big free agent might due to acquire Larry Hughes….Larry makes more and is a better player than the modern Brad Miller and what 3-4 years younger.
I mean the scary thing with Larry is he might revert back to his chucker/un-legend ways, but if he plays the team game—something he hasn’t approached in 4 years before this recent stretch, he’s a really good player…..and it’s not just a 1 game thing, he’s been playing as good a stretch as any Bull the past 5-6 games.
Kirk’s expendable now with Rose, he’s getting traded. I like Kirk, but he’s both not expiring in 2010, which is a need in the league right now and he’s not as good as Rose at PG, nor is he a pure SG…
If we cannot move Kirk, his minutes might get cut, unless we can’t resign Ben Gordon…folks act like Ben’s back, which is hardly a given and likely a not going to happen….unfortunately.
So
what big man other than Kaman are the Bulls going to be in a position to acquire at next year’s deadline?
If you want to trade Kirk instead of Hughes, fine with me. But you have to move one of them. And I think in the long run Kirk has more trade value than Hughes. So dealing him now hastily would mean not getting his full value.
There already aren’t enough minutes to go around. The team will turn into the civil war if you try fitting 25-30 minutes per game for Hinrich. Either that or they’ll star putting Hinrich at PF and Deng at C.
I don't know
if 2010 wasn’t so huge, I’d agree with you, but that free agent year is the free agency of the century, so Hughes’s $12.6M off the books will become more valuable than Hinrich’s $9M on the books through the next 2 years….
Kirk’s a more consistent and better player IMHO, but that doesn’t mean he’ll be more valuable, given the year Hughes expires, his contract will have a lot of value, and will have more value say than Ben Wallace will have this time next year.
As for who we could get, I don’t know, I don’t have a crystal ball, I don’tt hink at this point last year anyone would have thought Camby would get traded or knew exactly yet how poor the Zach-Curry backcourt would be (some did, not all), or that Chris Kaman would be in trade discussions this year given how well he played last year pre injury….
Truth is there will be a lot of opps as teams see the prizes and a lot of good players who might not work for their teams (ahem Kirk Hinrich for us, or even Drew Gooden who could ba very good player on a team that is weaker at the guard spots and has a great C)….
I agree it's huge
but most of the players on that list are past their primes. McGrady, Nowitzki etc. While it would be nice to get some of them, they won’t mesh at all with Rose’s timetable. So if you miss out on the big 4, there is a dropoff. While there are still some good players like Joe Johnson, he probably isn’t worth the risk of waiting 2 years.
Bravo, masputo!
Bravo, my friend :)
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
Larry
Is playing well not only because of Rose, but mostly because he’s seemed to buy into the system a bit and is finally playing team ball. That’s been his issue. He wasn’t playing team ball in the preseason or in the first 2-3 games since he came back from injury, but something happened after that talk with Paxson and Vinny that seems to have changed him a bit.
It’s always been if he buys into the system he can be quite good, and he’s bought in at least the past 6-7 games, playing the best team ball since maybe his Washington days. I hope it continues, because he’s increasing his value significantly as an expiring contract for us to utilize in a trade next year should nothing materialize this year….
You're falling into the trap of trades
meaning even wants to sell low not understanding what they have. Meaning when Larry looked horrible, everyone wanted him gone. But no one wants a bad player. So you have to wait for him to improve. Then when he improves, you go, “hey he’s pretty good, we can’t trade him”. When he starts taking crazy shots again, then we’ll have nothing in return.
I know you touched on this a little in your post, but not enough. And letting his contract expire in 2010 means nothing unless you have several other moves accompanying it. So the all eggs in the 2010 basket is your plan. I just don’t want to rely on it if there is a chance to make a move now.
I agree
he is not going to be happy getting 25mpg long-term, nor is he going to keep shooting this well. Sell-(relatively)high!
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Dec 9, 2008 2:08 PM CST up reply actions
I think the idea is
that Larry’s contract is replaced by Miller’s. They both expire in 2010. With Miller we have a serviceable big instead of a chucker. My concern is if this happened then we still have a gaping hole at the center position when he comes off the books and that money is used (hopefully) to help sign Bosh or Amare.
"I can accept failure, but I can't accept not trying." -- Michael Jordan
by bennythebull on Dec 9, 2008 10:04 AM CST up reply actions
He has been playing very well
consistency has never been one of Larry’s strong points. I still think his expiring contract is worth more than anything we could get for trade though.
"I can accept failure, but I can't accept not trying." -- Michael Jordan
by bennythebull on Dec 9, 2008 10:06 AM CST up reply actions
Why
Don’t we just nix the whole Brad Miller thing and go after Chris Kaman. Miller’s not what he was, and isn’t the greatest of influences to have on the team anyway.
If it was the Brad Miller of 3-4 years ago, oh hell yeah, but I’d rather have Larry Hughes right now and play more Noah than have Brad Miller down there. Larry is playing a nice stretch of basketball for the past 5-6 games (pretty consistent) playing team ball and if he continues he might move into best 6th man categories.
We keep talking of Brad Miller, Brad Miller Brad Miller on this site. Sure he’s a C, and he was very skilled at passing and defense with attitude, but he’s a shell of his former self, makes only materially less than Hughes, and is not quite good enough to delay the development of Noah….
I know last games DNP-CD for Noah makes fans jump the gun that it’s a permanent benching….I think that’s more a message benching to get Noah in line. Joakim did quite well last year post the team insituted benching….it might be the tactic to work on him.
Chris Kaman is young and definately good enough to be a solid C, in fact he’d be amongst the best in the East (Howard, Rasheed, Al Horford, and maybe when healthy Jermaine are probably those who are definately better or can/will be better in bigger moments than Kaman, but he’s right there).
We have a lot of assets, we can pool that with draft picks for Kaman….I think we have enough talent here at the other spots to do quite well if we had a real center…..I’m coming around to the Kaman talk, mostly because it seems the Clipps want to get rid of him….and we have a need.
I’d much rather have that then make a trade for Miller just so we can not develop anyone and likely make ourselves worse.
Acquiring Kaman would make it very difficult to have cap space in 2010 and he's not worth doing that for
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
Yes Kaman kills 2010.
I wouldn’t have a problem with it if it was just Hughes for Kaman. We’d have several assets left over to build a team with. I don’t think Clippers would deal Kaman for just Hughes. They could do better than that.
It all depends what you give up for him
and what moves are made afterwards. If you give up Larry and then move Hinrich and Noc for expiring contracts then your fine. There are tons of other scenarios that could happen that would create cap room.
From what I’ve read the Clippers are looking for a Swingman that can play SF and SG. Larry kind of fights that mold but not really…..
At this point if Paxson can come up with some mircale in January to get Kaman and moves Deng in the process not only would it help with the cap but it would get rid of a mistake.
Dengs not bad but he’s not untouchable anymore. And in January Gordon can be traded as well as Deng. Kaman will not be playing until then either.
But the way
Deng’s been playing, I doubt any team will sniff at his contract given his lack of performance (last 2 games notwithstanding). Might be able to move him in 2010 after this free agency if necessary, but Deng won’t be moved witht he BYC and sluggish start this year or next year with folks clamoring for the free agency of the century.
maybe
but the Clips don’t look like one of the teams that will be involved in 2010.
Dunleavy looks like a coach who will go after what he wants and looks like he thinks he can pick up a players game no matter what slump they are in.
Let’s see if you can give a young prospect like Deng and maybe a draft pick I doubt the Clips won’t listen.
Yeah
But why would the Clipps want Luol with the young THornton at Luol’s price?
Not happeneing, and if Luol gets his consistancy back, we’re not trading him unless someone like Yao or Howard is available (of course we’d add a lot more pieces)….Deng for Kaman is a wash that favors Deng really due to his age and at least before the first 18 games this year more consistency and perceived image across the league.
I don't agree
If you can get a true center then you give up Deng.
As far as the Clips I don’t know if they do it. Maybe Deng isn’t even discussed but if the Bulls have the chance of making an offer they would be insane not to persue it.
I don't know
I don’t think Kaman’s in the Deng league for consistency or all around play….
I can see a move for Kaman, but Luol’s too much for us to give up—it leaves us in the driver seat a bit.
I know Kaman’s as I mentioned somewhere here likely in the top 5 C’s out East, but that’s not because he’s a great player, it’s because the C position is probably at it’s historically weakest levels, sans Dwight Howard.
I think Deng and Kaman are in the same league
Same type of player that shows glimpse of a very good player then disappear. But as far as positions go on the court goes Deng can be replaced and the center position is very hard to fill; just like you said the center position is very weak.
Yeah
I don’t know….Deng has a higher perceived value in the league and is much more marketable thanks to Kaman being the ugliest man alive…..
plus Deng’s 3 years younger and has done things on a more consistent basis already throughout his career.
I do think as actual players they are pretty similar, but throwing in the age considerations, the marketability and the perceived value (Deng was picked as one of the top 5-10 might be coaches after their careers by I think the GM’s this offseason for one, which denotes ability to play with them and high bball IQ)….and I think Deng’s more valuable. And Kamanreally only has had 1 good year of basketball (last year) and a nice start to this year…..so it’s hard to say.
I think we’d be the drivers if Deng was included, but I doubt he’s being moved.
BTW, Thornton's younger than Deng
If they have a chance to move a redundant piece like Kaman for Deng, the Clips would have to jump on that. I don’t think that deal is all that great from the Bulls perspective.
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
Crap, meant Thornton's older than Deng
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
Yeah
But maybe just maybe we don’t need to be a player in 2010. Not everyone with cap money is going to win in the big free agent year.
With Kaman and hopefully Noah if he gets more serious coupled with Deng and Gordon and Rose, we’d have a real team.
We might be able to get one of hte lesser appreciated guys that year as there are bound to be guys coming up with a value contract because everyone’s going to throw the $111M-$122M Arenas and Rashard Lewis money at the Wades, Lebron’s, Bosh’s, Stoudemires….and there’s then plenty of good players who will be caught up in the market and lose out….
We’d only need 1 or 2 of them. and might not need any of them, as our guards are really good and need some consistency inside.
I’d rather make my trade to trade Noah over Tyrus, but I think Tyrus’s upside and age still has more value, sot hat’s why he’s there. Noah can help control the paint with his athleticism next to Kaman….
Kaman’s not my favorite guy out there, but he might really fill a need more than others who might be available.
I don’t think we can get a Hughes for Kaman trade….either.
Rose and Kaman
is a very big start to a very good team. Let’s say we get Wade, he fits in.
Carmelo? yup
Lebron? yup
Bosh? yup
and so on. In 2010 all will need is one more piece to fit in with Rose and Kaman already having chemistry. Just one more piece instead of TWO.
I think everyone needs to relax on 2010. It should be a backup plan.
It should be a backup plan, not THE plan. Otherwise they could be left in the cold and all we’ll hear about is 2012, when Rose is a free agent.
Having Kaman would be the backup plan.
The Bulls need to use there players to get something now that will stick with Rose. Then try and build another plan to aquire another player to join them. If that is through free agency, the draft, or trades.
But Kaman opens up other options other than relying on just 2010.
If not Kaman we still need one to two….. how should I say it “superstars”, “allstars”, “leaders”. Then build a core of role players around them.
Exactly CJ.
It’s a backup plan, Bulls have the assets now to trade, we should pursue that first. We have enough to get enough for teams trying desperately to woo the Wades to get some good players for say Larry un-legend next year….
I don't think it should be THE plan, but it needs to be taken into consideration before any move is made
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
I'm not convinced Deng doesn't work.
He doesn’t work in Del Negro’s system, but who’s to say Kaman would either? Or even Bosh? maybe it’s Del Negro that doesn’t fit.
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
That's why VDN is on a 2 year deal.
I don’t think the Bulls are making any moves to fit his system.
Kaman is the 2010 back up plan!
If he is actually available, and we can get him him without giving up Rose, Deng, or Gordon, then we need to make it happen now…. an if we can send out Kirk, or Nocioni, then all the better.
If we have to trade Hughes, then so be it. We can then send out Kirk and Nocioni for expiring contracts, and still have enough left for one max player.
With Kaman on the team, we don’t need to sign two huge free agents in 2010. We will have a good core with Rose, Deng and Kaman.
Plus, I would have no worries about attracting a max free agent to play with that core. And the two holes are at SG and PF, which aligns with the positions of the most talanted free agents.
Really, I unerstand that CJ Bulls and others are afraid to strike out, but it’s not like were trying to convince Bron and Wade to come to Charlotte, or the Timberwolves, we are in a huge market, with a great history, on a team with the youngest superstar in the league, what’s not to like?
It's just a scary premise
1)We can all agree LeBron is going to NY or Cleveland.
2)Amare said he wants to be “the man” on his team. If he were to come to Chicago, at the rate DRose is going, he would be counterpart to Rose. Not exactly the man. Interestingly, if he wants to be the man, he just should stay in Phoenix.
3)Miami is probably going to be under the cap this year and probably going to get Boozer. Boozer deflects the questions more than LeBron, and I’m not so sure Utah is even upset about this given the age and numbers Millsap is putting up. If Boozer goes to Miami, then suddenly Wade has less reason to leave. Especially if Beasley develops or is traded for a good veteran big.
4)Bosh is a good shot to leave Toronto. But if Lebron goes to NY, why wouldn’t Bosh go with. No offense to Rose, but Bosh has a better chance to win in NY than Chicago in that scenario. It’s also been written he prefers to return to his home state of Texas. I know at least the Mavs are under the cap. Spurs too.
So while Chicago is a logical scenario for Wade, it’s a backup for all these other guys. And after those 4, the dropoff might not be worth the wait.
....
1. Agree
2. Amare is unstable. Two years from now, a month from now he might change his mind.
3. Miami will have a chance for Boozer if they do not trade Marion. It’s a def possiblity.
4. You can’t guarantee NY will have the money. First they can’t resign any of their young players and then they have to get rid of Curry. This is not guaranteed. At best NY is going after one free agent.
But there are other free agents out there and players that we might still be in the best position to make a trade next year if their team believes they are bolting. I think Carmelo is the most slept on player from the free agency.
Trading for Brad Miller would put all of our cards in for 2010 but trading for Kaman will not.
I think
NY would be fine to let all their young players go. There’s nobody that’s a “oh I need to keep no matter what on that club”. Wilson Chandler’s been a surprise, but he’s not irreplaceable, and plays the same pos that James can do better…or Bosh can do much much better.
David Lee doesn’t seem to be in their plans without the extention.
I don’t think they’re holding everything up for Nate Robinson….
They could lose everyone on that roster and win out with Lebron James. He’s better than all of them combined…..and he’ll bring some veterans if they’re under the cap.
But James is not a guarantee
So they lose out on Lee and let him go and then James stays in Cleveland then what would they do?
Really the concern is that they should be in a great position to attract James regardless but letting a player like Lee leave for nothing just to bank everything on getting another superstar is would be a huge mistake on their part.
If James is out
THey might have D. Wade, Bosh, Stoudemire, and a slew of others.
New York will draw the players….the market’s huge and the marketing dollars are even bigger….plus Madison Square Garden is one of seemingly everybody’s favorite places to play.
So if they fail on those 4
Who would you want to get?
Joe Johnson
Ray Allen
Manu Ginobili
Marcus Camby
Tracy McGrady
Shaquille O’Neal
Brad Miller
Jermaine O’Neal
Mike Miller
Dirk Nowitzki
Josh Howard
Mike Redd
Tyson Chandler
Ben Wallace
Larry Hughes
Zydrunas Ilgauskas
Anderson Varejao
Al Harrington
Darko Milicic
Udonis Haslem
Jamal Crawford
Eddy Curry
Amir Johnson
Derek Fisher
Raja Bell
T.J. Ford
Travis Outlaw
Bruce Bowen
Earl Watson
Luke Ridnour
Matt Harpring
Quentin Richardson
Damien Wilkins
Joe Johnson
and that’s about it. When I talk about Carmelo I mean as in a trade scenario because I don’t think he’s going to last in Denver.
Carmelo is not a free agent in 2010
He signed a long term deal when Lebron signed a 3yr.
Because Carmelo is signed an extra year?
And he’s not as good as the rest?
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
Is that seriously what you got from my comment?
Or are you just creating a straw man argument?
(honest question)
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
Okay.
I was just giving a reason why “Carmelo is the most slept on player from the free agency”. He’s not a free agent, and he’s not as good as the others.
As to if I wanted him? Probably not if they have Deng and he is as good as he should be (from previous performances as an indicator), not if they have other holes to fill or he wants a max contract.
It’s a tough question to answer since he’s not available until 2011. Would Denver take Deng + filler + 1st rounder for him in the summer of 2010? Maybe. Should the Bulls offer that? If they have Kaman and a really good SG or PF somehow.
Rose + junk + Anthony + junk + Kaman does not make a championship team.
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
check this out
comparing Gordon, Deng and Anthony. Foolish?
Anthony is a superior offensive player to Deng, but does his relative lack of D mitigate that to an extent? Anthony is the more versatile scorer than Gordon, but how much more valuable does that actually make him?
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
I'm a big fan of adding Melo
but only if we lost Gordon. Too many #1 scorers fighting for the ball. Melo does not play defense, but it doesn’t mean he can’t learn in the right environment. Part of that is a reflection of George Karl’s coaching. In the right environment he could adapt the way Paul Pierce has on the Celtics.
First, Pierce has always been a really good defender.
That is, except for the few years before Garnett and Allen arrived when he was just coasting—and even still he was okay. Anytime they’ve been good, and he’s tried, he’s been a pretty good defender.
Second, I’m not convinced that a 26-year-old who’s been pretty indifferent to defending is actually going to start being good. He could start trying, which would make him better, but I’m not sure about good. And that’s a pretty big gamble besides.
Third, I don’t like Anthony and Deng on the team, so I think you’d have to be rid of both of them.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t want him on the team. Just that, it’s not “no matter the cost” as it would be with James. And virtually would be for Wade or Bosh.
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
Besides, I don't get the George karl dig.
His team is 7th in defensive efficiency. And they were 10th last year
So I’ll need some more evidence to back up that claim other than just points per game they give up.
Plus, I am secretly hoping that Karl quits sometime this year, takes a year off, and comes back to coach D-Rose, Gordon, Deng and Bosh to a championship in 2010, so if he’s the problem for Anthony’s D, then…
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
I'm referring to Karl's teaching
not his results in Denver. They did well on an efficiency scale, but it wasn’t because of Karl focused on defense. Karl seems to break his players into offense or defense. And the players marked offense aren’t responsible for defense. This seems to have developed from his Milwaukee days.
Do you have any evidence at all to support that claim?
If you do, I’d love to read it.
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
His star players
Ray Allen, Sam Cassell, Glenn Robinson, Carmelo Anthony, Allen Iverson clearly preferred not to play defense under Karl. He has never been the coach to scream about defense. It’s a consistent reputation coming from a coach. It’s not a secret.
Rebuttal.
Ray Allen had been an average to below-average defender his entire career until he got to Boston. There was little-to-no difference in his time w/o Karl compared to w/ Karl.
Sam Cassell is virtually the same. Not a bad defender, but nothing good either. He’s been pretty consistent throughout his career. The time in Milwaukee was NO DIFFERENT than elsewhere.
Glenn Robinson pretty consistently became a better defender as his career moved along, and he recognized that to be a better player, he had to play defense. It’s pretty steady progression. Karl was in the middle of that. Not in his best defensive years, but not in his worst either.
Carmelo Anthony has had virtually no other coach, so it’s impossible to really say.
Iverson? You talking about Iverson? In his less than two years in Denver, he was no worse nor to better than his other years.
And… Denver has a reputation as being a weak defensive team. It’s the points-per-game numbers. But as you’ve said, they’re a pretty efficient defensive team. At least better than what others typically think. I mean, I could say Larry Hughes has a pretty consistent reputation for being an okay offensive player and a really good defensive player and that’d be true. He does have that reputation. It’s not a secret at all. However, we know those things aren’t true.
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
I will quickly respond that I disagree
especially on the Bucks players. Robinson for example, slipped as his career went on but that had a lot to do with bad knees.
There was a culture with that team, similar to Denvers, where offense and scoring were prioritized over defense. I don’t think that is even debatable. Players then fit in with the culture of the team.
The end result is this.Carmelo is more than worth the risk. I mean, that’s what we were originally discussing to begin with. He isn’t lacking physically, he just doesn’t have that mentality right now. I believe that attitude can be changed in players. You seem to disagree. . I would love to see the Bulls pursue Anthony as he could probably be had at a discount if/when he is traded.
Here's the rub...
I’m not arguing that offense wasn’t emphasized in Milwaukee. Or that it’s not in Denver. Sure it was. The reason, though, wasn’t that Karl loved offense over defense. It was because his best players (Robinson, Allen and Ray) were better offensive players than defensive ones. He didn’t change them to being bad defenders at the expense of offense. They were already like that.
Karl, in fact, is a very good coach. He coaches players (and thus, the teams) to the best of their abilities. If you look back further than the Bucks (since he has such a lengthy resume), the evidence clearly bears this out. Start here, and go through his seasons. Only in Milwaukee (other than his first two stints where he definitely had bad players) has he had a consistently bad defense.
My contention then, is not that he said, or thought, that those guys could play defense but told them not to so they could dominate on offense, but that the recognized they were average, at best, defenders and thus decided to focus on offense—to bring the most out of their abilities. Looking back, and thinking back, to those guys you mentioned, none were, or have ever been known as defensive standouts.
And of course, this all comes back to Anthony in that way: it is my belief (of which I’m obviously trying to convince you of) that George Karl has recognized that Carmelo Anthony is not a better-than-average defender and thus has not lamented that fact (i.e. calling him out in public or something). He has, in fact, asked others to be standout defenders—and not just one-or-the-other players like you originally suggested.
If one thinks Anthony is worth the max contract in his current state (or expected current state since this season is still early), then you pay him that. (I think that’s debatable but as another topic.) I don’t think you pay a what-will-then-be 27-year-old for something he might be, especially one who’s been coached by George Karl.
(But then, as mentioned, I’ve become a George Karl fan.)
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
I didn't mean to imply
Karl is a bad coach because he favors offense. Just like I don’t come down on Skiles even though he’s the opposite. That’s a philosophy. He obviously is a very good coach.
You may be right about Karl taking advantage of what he has. These teams should play to their strength. I just meant in the long run, it’s tough to judge Anthony’s desire for defense when he plays on a team that emphasizes the other end of the court. Maybe he feels Anthony isn’t ever a great defender. I tend to believe he’s not the type to chew players out for slacking on D, or deny Anthony playing time when he blows assignments.
Karl just isn’t that coach. He is known as much more of a good guy coach, not afraid to take on projects because he is more lenient.
george karl
also coached the 90’s sonics with guys like Payton and McMillan. That team was known for wrecking havoc in the passing lanes, getting steals and aggressively trapping their opponents. I think Tyger is right. Karl coaches to his personnel.
by Basketball Smurf on Dec 10, 2008 9:36 PM CST up reply actions
He's also had Ervin Johnson in Milwaukee
and Camby in Denver. I didn’t say there weren’t defensive players on these teams, just that he didn’t require defense of those stars. Gary Payton didn’t need any coaching to be a great defender.
Ok...
I just think it’s hard to say “he plays on a team that emphasizes the other end of the court.”
His team is good on offense and defense (actually better on D so far this year). Billups is pretty alright on D, and I haven’t noticed Karl asking him to not try as much and to run the ball more. In fact, they’ve slowed down a little… currently 6th in pace. There could be all kinds of reasons for that, but I (surely) would suggest it’s because Karl recognized that Billups isn’t a runner.
Sure, Anthony could have a good defensive player in him. I just “trust” George Karl enough, that I wouldn’t take the chance that he would be a significantly different player (if at all) just by getting a more intense coach.
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
Whether or not you believe Pierce has always been a really good defender
he has certainly improved the last 2 seasons. It wasn’t because he suddenly lost weight or got smarter on D. His focus just changed to all facets of his game. Carmelo is a very below average defender, but it’s not for lack of ability. It’s for lack of desire to play defense. Coaching and teams can help evolve that for the better.
I present a hypothesis:
A lack of desire is a lack of an ability.
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
Besides, it isn't "whether or not" w/ Pierce
he was good whenever his teams have been good. He’s been good when he’s tried. He has proven that he has the ability (whereas Anthony hasn’t so you’re taking a gamble on that).
Pierce didn’t “improve” from his best defensive abilities. He displayed that previously. He no longer cared so he didn’t try. He cared again, so he tried again. So it’s not “whether or not” [sic].
Anthony has never shown the desire or ability to play really good defense. You can blame that on Karl and give him a max contract in hopes and prayers that he can do it, or you can just accept him for what he is… It’s not like very-talented, strong, athletic, offensive players who aren’t good on defense never come along.
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
even at his current defensive level
Anthony is worth close to, if not, the max. And yes lack of desire for defense exists for a lot of highly talented young scorers. You hope as he matures as a player he sees what defense can do for winning. If he doesn’t, you still have a very talented player. I don’t think the team would collapse under Anthony in any scenario.
Well, that first line is debatable.
And I’m willing to agree to disagree on that.
The Bulls do now have Rose, so the team wouldn’t be built around Anthony. I’m at least glad they have a couple more years to evaluate him. Sure, he scores 20.0 PPG for his career, and he’s somewhat efficient for it. But if you actually look at the more advanced numbers, there isn’t a whole lot to distinguish him. I mean, 29.5% 3FG? He’s a very good player. Great? Maybe eventually. Worth being paid as one of the very best in the league? I’ll wait it out…
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
This year aside,
his point per minute numbers are through the roof. So he can be a #1 scorer. He doesn’t have range, correct. But he is probably the best post up SF in the league. He would provide the dump downs people have been clamoring for with this team for years.
And obviously...
…this all assumes Deng gets shipped.
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
I assume Deng
would be the principle piece in the trade.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Jason Whitlock apologizes for his unfunny Jeremy Lin comment on Twitter
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
