The more you know: the Bulls own a traded player exception

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 15, 2008 7:28 PM CDT Comment 100 comments

Thanks to Bulls Beat (#38) for alerting me (sorry if this is old news to some, skip and grumble) to a pretty important fact when considering the Bulls options this offseason: a $5.2m trade exception resulting from the Wallace/Hughes crapswap.

How? You can read about it, courtesy of "Tommy Udo 6" at the RealGM board, here. Basically the Bulls structured that deal as two technically separate trades, with the 125% rule in outgoing/incoming salary creating a trade exception for the Cavs, then the Cavs using that exception in a separate transaction to acquire Joe Smith, giving Bulls a trade exception for the value of Smith's salary. At least that's how I think it worked out.

It's not that important how they did it, they do have the traded player exception, it's even 'reported' in the ESPN Trade Machine.

The exception can be used to acquire a player (or players) making up to that amount of money, for nothing in return. You can't combine an outgoing player with an exception, but this gives the Bulls an extra weapon in structuring deals by using that exception as part of a bigger deal (again, if you split deals up seperately). This is especially important considering the base-year compensation issues incurred when potentially sign/trading Deng or Gordon.

Per Doug's example on the BullsBeat podcast:

The Bulls can do a sign/trade with Ben Gordon (making $9m annually) going out, while taking in two players that total $9m.

From the Bulls perspective, the first such incoming player can have a salary that matches (within the 125%) Gordon's BYC amount ($4.5m). The second player, earning a salary up to the value of the trade exception amount ($5.2m), can be acquired with that exception.

So for the Bulls it's two separate deals, for the other team they're sending out the sum of the two players and acquiring Ben Gordon at his full new salary (per BYC trade rules).

That's just one example, and likely the simplest. The Bulls are in a bit of a roster crunch so any Deng or Gordon sign/trade likely won't be done in a two-for-one anyway. But this exception can be used in a mega-player deal to massage the salary matching in myriad scenarios.

The whole Bulls operation from top to bottom has been put into question over this past year, but one thing they've shown to be consistently good at is using the cap to their advantage. Getting this additional asset makes the Wallace trade an even bigger coup (if you needed a reminder, another team actually took Ben Wallace), and in the past they've pioneered cap tricks such as front-loaded contracts, and swapping first round draft positions in trades. So kudos to their cap wonk, Irwin Mandel.

(Now if some want to keep with the cynical and depressing theme of the offseason, we can say that all this cap massaging does is keep Reinsdorf happy with a lower payroll, and they'll never take back enough salary in a deal to go into the tax anyway. I won't feel that way, but I can't hold it against you. Maybe a little.)

0 recs | Comment 100 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

maybe...

just maybe Pax is not a dope.

Step 1 - Hire a coach. Step 2 - ... Step 3 - Win.

by Lt.Dan on May 15, 2008 8:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I’m sure Paxson’s not a dope.

It’s not about being or not being smart. It’s about having or not having vision.

Paxson would probably make a world-class legal proofreader, with fantastic spelling skills and super human attention to detail.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on May 15, 2008 9:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm probably one of the last holding out hope for the current front office

but the handling of the cap is one of the main reasons I do so. Whatever happens with the roster this summer, Paxson will have a much easier time making net positive changes than other GM’s.

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

by snley on May 15, 2008 8:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i share the hope...

Step 1 - Hire a coach. Step 2 - ... Step 3 - Win.

by Lt.Dan on May 15, 2008 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you're not the only one

just the only willing to take the abuse…

2008 or bust.

by bullshooter on May 15, 2008 8:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

::rolls eyes::

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 15, 2008 11:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

who?

me?

Step 1 - Hire a coach. Step 2 - ... Step 3 - Win.

by Lt.Dan on May 16, 2008 7:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And if that's all Irwin Mandel does all day

I’d have to say that’s my dream job.

2008 or bust.

by bullshooter on May 15, 2008 8:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

That would just mean you're good at reading directions.

Bullshooter, you’re much more creative than that. You’d be suicidal in less than a year.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on May 15, 2008 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's going to take some creativity

to plug some of the holes in that lineup…

2008 or bust.

by bullshooter on May 15, 2008 9:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I went to law school with his son.

Good guy.

Irwin is also an Northwestern Law grad, as is Reinsdorf.

LSU 38 OHIO STATE 24 - LSU IS THE NATIONAL CHAMPION AND I AM THE KING OF BOURBON STREET!!

by 1958ChiTown on May 16, 2008 4:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Be honest.

Doesn’t Paxson remind you of the folks in your proof reading room?

I’m no law firm expert, having only seen the inside of an office for the odd deposition, but at one time I did have some aspiring author legal proof reader friends (this was at M&A behemoth Skadden, Arps.)…and they were smart, I mean upper reaches of mensa smart.

One proof reader in particular, I remember could translate ancient texts through two different dead languages into modern English on the fly. (True fact, he was Mel Gibson’s nephew, and he was as crazy right-wing religious as Mel.) Don’t take this personally, but the joke was that the proof readers’ average IQ was higher than that of the lawyers.

Anyway, back to the point (sure, the point, as if there was one). When I opined at the top of this thread that I was sure Paxson’s not a dope…what do you think?—John Paxson, legal proof reader material, or not?

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on May 16, 2008 7:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

pax is good that

u gotta give it to him wen it comes to stuff like this. my personal fav was taking away NYK draft picks and stealing mike sweetney from them… good times. remember wen mutumbo was on the bulls, but i think we traded him for eric piatowski… i still have my “I wanna be like PIKE” shirt, i wore to the playoffs. o well. heres to hoping for a good offseason.

Ralph Wiggum, a smarter man than Jim Boylan

by Yibs on May 15, 2008 10:27 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Glad we stole Mike Sweetney

What a coup!

by bullschwaa on May 16, 2008 7:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i wonder

where sweetney is now… i wikipediaed him, i never knew he had such a good career at georgetown.

Ralph Wiggum, a smarter man than Jim Boylan

by Yibs on May 16, 2008 8:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Shameful

That Nick Collison ended up being a better player….not to mention Mikael Pietrus.

Rusty Longley v 2.0

by Ozzie Montana on May 16, 2008 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Someone

should find out where sweetney is. He definitely had some sweet skills. Even enough skills to be a starter. In fact, maybe its a sign that the bulls shouldnt draft Love because he might end up eating his way out of the league. Love-Sweets. Not a bad comparison. Both had big bodies and could hold position well for rebounding and they both have nice back to the basket games.

by Sambossanova on May 16, 2008 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Love has lost 13 pounds since the Tourney

At least one of them is showing dedication to not be the white version of Oliver Miller.

Rusty Longley v 2.0

by Ozzie Montana on May 16, 2008 4:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It doesn't help you unless you use it

People also talked about how much PJ Brown’s expiring contract would help the Bulls swing a big trade, but it never happened.

by Big D on May 15, 2008 10:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

heh

thus my final paragraph.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 15, 2008 11:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not to mention the disregard for JR Smith's chucking potential

"I tell you, Steve Blass, you pitch me inside, they never, never find that ball."
-Roberto Clemente

by cubbybear on May 16, 2008 2:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I have faith that Pax knows

He can field a team that misses the playoffs.

He can field a team over the cap that misses the playoffs.

He can even field a team that does both!

What he can’t field is a team that keeps spending more and getting less. He’s covering his own ass, and that helps the team too.

Please hire a coach, Pax. This team is a better sale than the other jobs(maybe Phoenix excluded), pitch it. It’s a hanging curveball, man. They should be begging him to coach the Bulls, one of the most storied franchises in the league. I can’t wait for the wait to be over.

"I tell you, Steve Blass, you pitch me inside, they never, never find that ball."
-Roberto Clemente

by cubbybear on May 16, 2008 2:24 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

That second line should be:

He can field a team over the salary cap.

"I tell you, Steve Blass, you pitch me inside, they never, never find that ball."
-Roberto Clemente

by cubbybear on May 16, 2008 2:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Steve Kerr knows what a time table is.

Well, at least he says something like that. Better? Maybe just more reassuring.

Kerr has also made it clear that he plans to be “thorough and methodical” and might need “a month” to settle on a replacement for new Knicks coach Mike D’Antoni.

by tyger1147 on May 16, 2008 7:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Those silly, white, former PG's who became famous as shooters playing alongside Jordan

they all think the same.

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

by snley on May 16, 2008 8:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well, it could be worse

the GM could be Jordan himself.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 16, 2008 8:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jordan gets such little guff for that Morrison pick.

Well, I haven’t had cable for 2+ years… Hey, at leas Paxson built up the team into contenders before making the dumb decisions!!!

by tyger1147 on May 16, 2008 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

dont forget

the cancer that is kwame brown. that was all MJ

Ralph Wiggum, a smarter man than Jim Boylan

by Yibs on May 16, 2008 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In a way, Kwame and Morrison

both point out how much of a role luck plays as far as what year you get the top pick. Jordon, like Paxson, has had his share of high draft picks, but generally at times when the top of the draft has been unimpressive, to say the least.

When Jordon took Kwame, the consensus top three were Kwame, Chandler, Curry. You could say that Jordan missed on Gasol, and some good players came along later in the draft, but nobody would have taken them at the very top.

In defense of the Morrison pick, Charlotte already had Okafor, so that lets Jordon off the hook for not picking Aldridge. Then you really have to go down to Roy and Gay at 6 and 8 before you find the likely future all-stars in that draft, meaning a lot of GMs missed on them.

(Speaking of Chandler, it was nice to hear JVG last night give 99% of the credit for Chandler’s game to CP3.)

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on May 16, 2008 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's nice to hear JVG say things that are 100% right

Yes, the draft is a crapshoot. But, MJ was always the one who said “these young guns get too much, too soon, and never are as good as they should be.” So, he drafts an 18 year old who had no poised, and basically acted like an 18 year old. I don’t give people grief for Gasol, because people were still leery of European players at the time. I remember Krause had fooled everyone, saying he was going to pick Pau, but ended up going for Curry.

Rusty Longley v 2.0

by Ozzie Montana on May 16, 2008 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You remember incorrectly

Krause did not end up “going for” Curry. Curry was taken #4, Gasol was gone at #3. The only way Krause could have had Gasol was to take him at #2 with the pick from the Brand trade but that occurred simulatenous with the Clippers selection and I seriously doubt the close-to-the-vest sleuth would in any way telegraph that he was trading for the #2 pick.

Anyways, I hope this means the Bulls can package the #9 and a signed Deng for Carmelo, or a signed BG for B Diddy. The Bulls need a superstar who can command a double team on a nightly basis and is capable of carrying a team, attitude problems be damned.

by messwiththebull on May 16, 2008 6:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ah, Forgive Me

Maybe he was just fooling everyone saying he wanted Pau so Memphis/ATL would take him, so he would be free to take Curry. That actually makes more sense and much more Crumbs-esque.

Rusty Longley v 2.0

by Ozzie Montana on May 16, 2008 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That makes sense

or I thought you may have meant to say Chandler, which would have made sense, too. Either way, something made ATL trade up to get Gasol.

by messwiththebull on May 16, 2008 9:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

baron is an injury risk

and melo isn’t going anywhere

by Orlando Woolridge on May 20, 2008 2:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

From Matt's post - can we use the $5.2 exemption as part of a trade for Deng and Gordon?

If yes we could take in a player worth $11 – $13 and trade Gordon plus the exemption to make the deal work. This leads me to think they wanted the exemption with the possibility of trading one of them.

by chgobr on May 16, 2008 8:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i think

it can only be used in exchange for a single player, the way matt explains in this post.

by Jaina on May 16, 2008 8:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see - so we need two players coming in to make this work. Here is Matt's explaination

From the Bulls perspective, the first such incoming player can have a salary that matches (within the 125%) Gordon’s BYC amount ($4.5m). The second player, earning a salary up to the value of the trade exception amount ($5.2m), can be acquired with that exception.

by chgobr on May 16, 2008 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep.

So we’ll have a lot of success trading Gordon for Darius Songaila and Etan Thomas.

by Sports2 on May 16, 2008 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

right

can’t combine it with a player. You can combine it with a draft pick (which has no salary value)

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 16, 2008 9:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trading BYC's

Let’s say the Bulls sign Deng for $12mil and the Sixers sign Iggy for $12 mil.

The way I understand it, each of those contracts is only worth $6 mil in a trade, but could Deng and Iggy, In the example above, be traded even up?

In other words, do outgoing contracts get treated differently than incoming contracts?

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on May 16, 2008 9:17 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

this is explained in the old BYC post

http://www.blogabull.com/2008/4/2/221720/2463

outgoing salary is halved, incoming is the full. So if you’re trading two BYC players, both teams have to work around this.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 16, 2008 9:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No.

Because they use the actual salary for what’s going out. This is why it’s so difficult to trade them. Both teams would be “sending out” $6 million in contracts but both would be “taking in” $12 million in contracts. Obviously, these don’t match as far as the 125% is concerned. Or the reverse of that.

Does that make sense?

by tyger1147 on May 16, 2008 9:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sixers don't want Deng

They have Iggy and Thaddeus Young, I’d rather have those guys, too.

I like Deng, though, but feel that this upcoming year has to be his coming of age year. We need to see a Deng that can carry the team for stretches but first he has to be willing to. He wants that $12m+ money, but the Bulls don’t pay guys to perform like Rashard Lewis and I commend them for that. I don’t know what the hell happened with Noce’s contract, but I can only surmise that Pax got a little worried once guys like Kapono were getting years and dollars when Memphis came along.

The Bulls have the possibility of getting one of two superstars who appear to be on the market – Carmelo and Baron. I will not understand it when the Bulls will decide to pass on both.

by messwiththebull on May 16, 2008 9:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I don't know if you're responding to my post

If you are, I was only using Iggy and Deng because of their similasr contract status. I am under no illusion that Philly would trade away Iggy and only get Deng in return.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on May 16, 2008 9:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My bad

BYC is a poison pill and I see Deng and Gordon on this team next year.

by messwiththebull on May 16, 2008 9:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's hard to say what we should do with the roster

When we have no idea what coach or what identity we will have next year.

by BoxingHideout on May 16, 2008 11:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

You are right about that. The personnel thread should start after we know who is the coach .

by chgobr on May 17, 2008 7:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I read in today's Tribune

That the Pistons are probably not going to let Pax interview Michael Curry. Avery seems more content to just take the year off, I think the writing is on the wall for a Thibodeau hiring….

Rusty Longley v 2.0

by Ozzie Montana on May 17, 2008 11:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

It does seem like Thibodeau's job to lose.

It may beThibodeau by default. Does Thibodeau have the personality to relate/engage/motivate/lead our players? I do not know. My fear is we are headed toward chronic 30-35 win seasons. I lean toward trading up to try to get the number 2 pick. Number 1 seems unobtainable. With Beasley we have hope that we really might have someone special. If it turns out we don’t we are headed to the 25-30 win seasons. 25-30 wins provide an opportunity for a top draft pick. It is the 30-35 range that locks you into the chronic pain of the Milwaukee Bucks.

by chgobr on May 18, 2008 6:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why?

Why does it seem like Thibodeau’s job to lose? Why is is the job so much more likely his than anybody else’s? Paxson hasn’t even interviewed him yet. Maybe he never will. He’s not even officially a candidate.

And why does trading up to #2 seem so easy but trading up to #1 seem “unobtainable?” We don’t even know who has the first 2 picks, and we don’t know if Rose or Beasley is going to go #1. I would think that any team that’s drafting 1 or 2 isn’t going to trade the pick, and if for some crazy reason they did, I would think they’d want a star in return. We obviously can’t provide that.

by rb22 on May 18, 2008 10:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's not his to lose obviously

I’m just saying that the big name candidates are all gone, (unless you consider Mark Jackson a big name) now we must seriously look at all the assistants out there. Tyrone Corbin was interviewed today by Paxson(according to Trib), I’d imagine Thibodeau is going to be contacted about an interview. Just saying his pedigree fits what Paxson would like in a head coach. Personally, I want to see Paxson interview Brian Shaw. I think the triangle could work well for our roster, and Shaw’s spent over 4 seasons learning from Tex and Phil how to properly teach the offense.

Rusty Longley v 2.0

by Ozzie Montana on May 18, 2008 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good questions!

1- Why does it seem like Thibodeau’s job to lose? The competition is Brian Shaw and Tyrone Corbin. I wish there were other big name/good candidates out there.

2- Why does trading up to #2 seem so easy but trading up to #1 seem "unobtainable? A current consensus seems to indicate that Derrick Rose is the next coming of Paul.

Several NBA executives said Memphis guard Derrick Rose has a strong edge over Kansas State forward Michael Beasley to be the top pick in this year’s draft. “If you get a franchise point guard, you can have him for a while,” said an Eastern Conference executive. “Rose will probably get the nod even as good as Beasley is. It’s easier to find Beasley than Derrick Rose.” Said a general manager: “It’s too hard to get a point guard. If you could imagine, how good would Atlanta be with [Deron] Williams or [Chris] Paul?”

by chgobr on May 18, 2008 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

GM's are being sucked into PG's because of CP3 and Deron

Also, the rise of Nash, Tony Parker, and Baron Davis, and Chauncey Billups over the past 4 years as game changing PGs. Every team now wants to have that kind of PG that can not only get the rest of his teammates involved, but also take over a game with speed, getting into the lane at will and dishing it out to the open guy.

Rusty Longley v 2.0

by Ozzie Montana on May 18, 2008 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The game is also making PGs better

A good PG has the ball in his hands from the get-go. A good big… even the best of them, like Dwight Howard, need to be fed the ball, and that’s just a lot more complicated.

by Sports2 on May 18, 2008 8:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sam Smith said

last night that he sees the Bulls trading their ninth pick and not taking any more young players and said they have enough young players.

by sue369 on May 18, 2008 10:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yuck.

by Sports2 on May 18, 2008 8:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sports, didn't you summarize a study

on this issue (trading vs keeping high draft picks) a few months ago? I think you even provided a link?

As I recall, it came out fairly definitively in favor of keeping and using your high draft picks.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on May 19, 2008 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pick for what?

9 and Larry Hughes for an expiring contract, any takers?

by bullschwaa on May 19, 2008 9:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

good move!

make it happen ..

by exult463 on May 19, 2008 10:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's never a good idea to throw away high draft picks

by hscs on May 19, 2008 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

at the expense of hughes's

contract?

by exult463 on May 19, 2008 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the Bulls should get a useful player out of the #9

There’s no reason to lose it just to get rid of Hughes, who only has 2 seasons left on his contract anyway.

by hscs on May 19, 2008 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's true

if it’s just to get Hughes off the roster, might as well buy him out instead. Unless the Bulls intend use that salary to get another high-salary player back (who can play).

Just kidding (luxury tax).

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 19, 2008 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok

I thought hughes had 3 years remaining, but if only 2 years then it makes some business sense to hold on to him and trade him in 2009 as an expiring contract?

by exult463 on May 19, 2008 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know about "business sense"

But Hughes becomes more valuable as a trading chip in the final year of his contract.

by hscs on May 19, 2008 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

you mean trade away

the way the Bulls develop players, they’ve been throwing them away plenty.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 19, 2008 10:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes, that too

by hscs on May 19, 2008 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Those High Draft Picks still have value elsewhere?

even while being under developed in the Bulls system for 2 or 3 years?

Farm system for the rest of the NBA?

Is this what you’re saying?

by exult463 on May 19, 2008 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not throwing it away

The choice is the Kevin Love type player available at #9 or trade the #9 and Hughes for an expiring contract this year to be moved with a Deng/Gordon/Any valuable piece for a good player on a bad team looking for a salray dump. Pau Gasol anyone?

by bullschwaa on May 19, 2008 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's a high pick, I don't care what the draftniks think about Love

Gordon and Deng can’t be moved before or during the draft, and a team looking to dump salary wouldn’t trade an expiring contract for Hughes.

by hscs on May 19, 2008 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is why

you trade the pick to get the piece that can be moved during the season so you have an expiring contract to send in exchange mid-season with Deng/Gordon/Valuable Piece. Hughes goes with the pick to jettison him now and make “giving” the # 9 pick away mean something positive for the Bulls.

by bullschwaa on May 19, 2008 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Deng and Gordon will (hopefully) both have BYC issues

If they sign, and it’s not a sign and trade, they’re going to be Bulls all season. Trading the 9 with Hughes now is probably getting the least value out of both too.

Not to mention who the hell is even headed to the trading block in 2008-09.

by hscs on May 19, 2008 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Value

What is the value of the #4 pick in a former draft that gets inconsistent minutes? What is the value of a shooting guard that stinks? Is the #9 pick magically going to be an awesome addition. We got lucky with Noah to get a serviceable NBA player, the previous #9 picks were Patrick O’Bryant and Ike Diogu, Iggy in Philly and then Michael Sweetney, 1 out of the last 5 is a top 40 NBA player, 3 stink or are out of the league and Noah is solid. The odds are against good things happening.

by bullschwaa on May 19, 2008 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the odds of the #9 being useful

(and Mike Sweetney was useful) are much better than hoping a BYC’ed Deng/Gordon plus expiring $13 million mystery man can be traded for a player better than Deng or Gordon.

by hscs on May 19, 2008 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also listed

in both of my scenarios were any valuable piece, excluding Deng and Gordon. The Bulls and you seem incapable of understanding that a superstar player is needed to win in the NBA. How do teams trade for those type of players, they trade valuable young pieces and expiring contracts (see PJ Brown and how not use an expiring contract) or they trade value for value (not an option for the Bulls because we don’t have that type of player.) Since the Bulls refuse to go over the cap, you need to get rid of Hughes as a non-producing high earner and need to do whatever it takes to accomplish this.

Ps How the hell is Mike Sweetney useful other than making sure you don’t waste any team meals?

by bullschwaa on May 19, 2008 3:41 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Sweetney had good per minute numbers, and an average-ish PER for a few seasons

Until the eating caught up with him, he was a fine, young player. Top 10 picks are worth too much to facilitate a salary dump, and the Bulls would be better off hanging on to Hughes to pair with Gordon or Deng to trade for an upgrade, or ship him off in 2009-10 when his expiring deal is really valuable.

The Bulls aren’t worried about the salary cap as much as the luxury tax . I believe they were over the cap in 2007-08, and will be next season.

As far as your confusion with including and excluding goes, Deng and Gordon are the most valuable players on the roster. If the Bulls trade for a really good player, at least one of them is going to be headed out.

by hscs on May 19, 2008 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Most Valuable

What if the new coach somehow gets TT to play at a high level? Would he not be more valuable than Deng/Gordon in a trade situation.

I know Pax overvalues his talent but my point was that all players should be on the block when you are as bad as we are and you can improve

by bullschwaa on May 20, 2008 9:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

what if what if what if

If Thomas plays better than Deng and Gordon next season he should be untouchable. I don’t see what any of this has to do with wasting the #9, and trading Larry Hughes.

by hscs on May 20, 2008 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Untouchable is the problem hscs

Why are any Bulls deemed untouchable? We have no top 20 players on our roster why are you so protective of them? We won’t trade the great Luol Deng for KG or for Pau or include him in apackage for the MVP of the frickin league?

Carmelo is on the block, Shaq has been traded 3 times, Rasheed, Pau, Kevin Garnett all have been traded.

The Bulls need to find better players and sometimes that involves trading good players with a higher ceiling to get better ones right now.

PS Are you actually John Paxson lurking here?

by bullschwaa on May 20, 2008 10:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

for the last time

MVP of the league would have rejected any trade that included deng, from my understanding. deng actually was offered with chandler for KG the previous year, and instead mchale rejected this and then ended up trading him for jack shit. not sure it would be worth giving him up for pau, plus heisley is a moron too.

yes, maybe pax should have gotten something done, but i think there is some delusion on how close we were to actually getting any of these guys.

by Jaina on May 20, 2008 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

McHale wound up getting Al Jefferson...not exactly what I'd call

jack shit.

I’d take Al Jefferson over any two players on the Bulls currant roster. And as JVG and Mark Jackson correctly pointed out, Chandler is almost entirely a product of Chris Paul.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on May 20, 2008 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

horseshit

The T-Wolves would be immensely better with Deng, Chandler, and the #2 (if McHale used it wisely). Jefferson can score and rebound real good, but that’s it. He’s slow, not big, and can’t defend. He’s a far cry from the ideal big man, and his career could easily go the way of Zach Randolph’s and Eddy Curry’s. Gomes is average, and the rest of the players McHale colluded for are terrible.

by hscs on May 20, 2008 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As long as you're throwing in the #2,

why not the #1? And not only that , but why not the #1’s from each of the that past, oh, say…five drafts?

What are you horseshitting anyway?

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on May 20, 2008 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Throwing in?

Didn’t the Bulls have that #2 pick locked up when they apparently made this offer? If McHale accepts this trade, he has 2 lottery picks, Chandler, and Deng, and he already had McCants.
He drafts LaMarcus Aldridge (or Tyrus Thomas) and Brandon Roy and trots out
Roy
McCants
Deng
Aldridge/Tyrus
Chandler

Rusty Longley v 2.0

by Ozzie Montana on May 20, 2008 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let me clarify...

I was NOT commenting on what may or may not have been in Paxson’s proposal to McHale.

I was only saying that what McHale ended up getting back from Boston was not jack shit.

Further, and again not commenting on any trade/not trade, I said that I’d take Al Jefferson over any two players currently on the Bulls roster…or substitute Chandler for any one of those players.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on May 20, 2008 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The jack sh*t

If Minnesota and the Bulls were to make a trade straight up Al Jefferson for ??? on the Bulls Who would Minny want where they would actually make the deal. That jack sh*t is better than every player on the Bulls roster.

Not good times when Kevin McHale is getting better players than you.

by bullschwaa on May 20, 2008 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or, as I was trying to say above,

any two players on the Bulls roster.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on May 20, 2008 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

jackshit compared to the Bulls offer

that’s how I understood Jaina’s comment.

by hscs on May 20, 2008 1:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here is what they got

Ryan Gomes, Gerald Green, Al Jefferson, Theo Ratliff, Sebastian Telfair, a 2009 first round draft pick (top three protected) and a return of Minnesota’s conditional first round draft pick previously obtained in the Ricky Davis-Wally Szczerbiak trade. Minnesota also receives cash considerations in the deal.

versus

Chandler, Deng and our unknown at the time 1st round pick

Jefferson PER 22.80
Gomes 15.75

Tyson 17.56
Deng 17.07

Now how is this jack sht?

The reason it is jack sht is because the Bulls chronically overvalue their own players and so the Minny deal is garbage because our players are so much better, even tough stats say otherwise.

I am not even factoring in that we traded Tyson for PJ and JR Smith, worth how much now to the Bulls now?

by bullschwaa on May 20, 2008 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

now that's a bunch of shit

by hscs on May 20, 2008 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

wow, i never thought my comment would garner such responses.

ratliff and green aren’t even on the t-wolves anymore, because one is garbage and the other has no brain. and they had to take telfair.

so basically, they get jefferson, and then gomes who isn’t better than either bulls player. the #2 pick is obviously higher than a top-3 protected pick. so i guess the only real net they get is their pick back from the davis-szczerbiak trade. i’d still rather take the bulls’ deal.

by Jaina on May 20, 2008 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think everybody's feeling all pent up.

Tonight’s our final appeal before the lottery gods.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on May 20, 2008 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

JVG and Jackson weren't entirely correct

Chandler’s PER the last two seasons in NO were 17.0 and 17.5. That’s not too far away from his 04-05 PER of 16.4. Much of that increase seems to be from his TS%, which probably is due to CP3. If anything, it seems Chandler’s not truly improving from what he was before signing the big contract with the Bulls, he’s just getting more minutes (about 10 more per game) and better looks. The publicly perceived improvement is probably due more to the minutes than Paul and those better looks.

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

by snley on May 20, 2008 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure you're right.

Probably, Mark Jackson and JVG were trying to make a point of how good CP3 is, rather than how different or not different of a player Chandler is since his Bulls days.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on May 20, 2008 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

i like jefferson

but i think the two posts above me pretty much explain everything.

by Jaina on May 20, 2008 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We don't even have a top 50 player

We have to get one this offseason if we want to be good next year. We just have a bunch of solid young pieces, and Pax has to be willing to trade any of them if it means getting a proven top tier player. I know getting 2 guys the caliber of KG and Ray Allen isn’t going to happen, and we don’t have a Paul Pierce, but we have as many young tradeable assets that teams looking to rebuild are going to want as any team in the league. If Pax is aggressive and plays his card right, I think we can do what Boston did on a smaller scale and at least get us back in the top 4 or 5 teams in the east.

by rb22 on May 20, 2008 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I never said anyone is untouchable...

With the exception of an imaginary Tyrus Thomas out-producing Deng and Gordon in 2008-09. All that past trade rumor nonsense didn’t have much to do with an unwillingness to part with Deng, either.

I’m confused. I said a top 10 pick is too valuable to use to facilitate a salary dump, especially one the Bulls don’t need, and Larry Hughes will be more valuable as a trading chip in 2009-10. What’s your point?

by hscs on May 20, 2008 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs