How to get rid of Larry Hughes
by NamingRightsOnSale on Jul 31, 2008 4:03 AM CDT
Email
PrintFrom hoopsworld: http://www.hoopsworld.com/HeadlineStories.asp?hd=20080731&lc=NBA#STORY_10921
"The Bulls also have discovered some interest in guard Larry Hughes, as long as they're willing to take a big contract in return. Since the Bulls need to thin out their backcourt, some possibilities could include Portland's Joe Przybilla, New York's Jared Jeffries, Dallas' Erick Dampier or Denver's Kenyon Martin."
Well I wanted to see what the fans think of who we should get. I think a big guys inside who can post up and score. But since there arent any of those available, we will settle for any of those guys in my opinion. We are loaded at the back court, and if we can get rid of a back court player who is overpaid, we should at least have an overpaid frontcourt player. Besides, I dont think anyone here disagrees that any of those guys are actually worse than Larry Hughes for our future as a team. Joel P provides size and solid D inside, JJ is an OK defender and at least he is big and he wont shoot so much(lesser of two evils), Erick Dampier same concept as JJ except he is bigger which is good. K-Mart talk too much and doesnt do enough, but he does way more than Larry Hughes thats for sure. If I had a choice I would go with Joel P because of his size he can play with either Ty or Noah and help us defensively and he wont be too much of a chucker or much of anything on offense. Dont worry, he is not as bad on offense as the corpse, in fact he is way better than Larry...
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.
32 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Okay...
I’ve been okay with the idea of keeping Hughes because he is a big fat expiring 2010 deal. And I’m am having an unabashed love affair with players that can get us under the cap that year, or be used as valuable trading chips because of their timely expiration dates.
I definitely agree, I would rather trade our extra guard for an extra big, especially if a deal is going to be worked out with BG.
But, I wouldn’t want to take on a deal that’s longer than Hughes… which i think eliminates K-Mart and Joey Prizz…
Joe P
According to hoops hype his salary is 6.3 mil which isnt too bad if he comes with another 2010 friendly contract
by NamingRightsOnSale on Jul 31, 2008 4:43 AM CDT up reply actions
here is da link i tried posting it but i messed up
by NamingRightsOnSale on Jul 31, 2008 4:46 AM CDT up reply actions
No Way They Trade Joe P!!!!!!!
Oden is coming off surgery and hasn’t played a single minute in the NBA. NO WAY they trade their ONLY other center, who did play great last year in Oden’s absence. What about Foster?(just a thought)....but the guy can rebound and hey, we lose Hughes…. thats an addition in itself
Joel
His name is Joel. I thought 1 or 2 could be a typo but not this many.
please excuse me rb22 and Mr. Joel Pryzbilla
I’m pretty ashamed/embarrassed, its not everyday you mess up a first ballot HOF’s name
.......
.......
Now, as I was saying, Joel won’t be traded for the reasons above, and foster seems like a good-sized rebounder with an expiring contract. How bout Nocioni for Foster. Indiana’s rebuilding and seems to be collecting assets.
ehh, ehh….. anyone?
Foster works
That works too, I dont really care… but this Brad Miller rumors dont sound too bad for us either. I dont know, I just hope Pax does something productive.
by NamingRightsOnSale on Aug 1, 2008 3:09 AM CDT up reply actions
Just read this in ESPN Rumors:
Pryzbilla, Dampier, or Kmart would all be good offers for Larry Hughes.
As much I hate Hughes
I don’t think we should trade him for someone with a contract that expires after 2010. If we are working to be under the cap in that year, we have so stick with him… I just hope VDN don’t select him all season long!!!
Please Pax, don't trade Hughes! Just make sure that he stays injured until... 2010!!!
Just a question...
I assume that if a player is bought out, he gets paid whatever they agree to on the buyout BUT his cap value is the same as if he was still on the team? If so then my suggestion wouldn’t work but if not…wouldn’t there be some way to just buy him out?
The problem with trades is that I think only Memphis is under the cap so the salaries will have to match closely. Hughes is owed $12.8 this year and $13.7 next year. A total of $26.5. I think if the 125%/100K rule works the way I think it does…in the best case scenario we could trade Hughes away for contracts that equal $10.18M this season.
Hughes for Dampier and James Singleton (the Mavs cheapest player) just barely makes it “saving” the Bulls $2.48M which of course could be used towards Gordon. The problem there is that as much as Mark Cuban is willing to pay the tax, this essentially make Larry Hughes a $15.3M addition this year for the Mavs.
i think
the way buyout works, is whatever he’s bought out for is what remains on the cap, but it’s spread out over the years of the contract in the same % of the money (so if he’s getting the 15% raise, the next year will be for 15% more than this year) he would have been paid on his contract.
Why not Hughes for Dampier straight up?
Dampier’s contract is basically not guaranteed for the 2010 season, so this doesn’t hurt us there.
While we’re at it, how about we throw in Noc for Jerry Stackhouse? Would Aaron Gray sweeten the deal? :D
Give McGraw the cred
this is from his article.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 31, 2008 9:37 AM CDT reply actions
I wouldn't trade Hughes for a longer contract.
Though I am not a big fan of Hughes’ game, moving him for the sake of moving him would be a mistake…especially for a poorer contract and worse basketball player…No one mentioned in the McGraw article is worth making the move. I would rather hold the contract and wait until its expiring next summer, when teams looking to get under the cap may be more willing to make moves.
We have to get rid of huge contracts not Hughes
Hughes is OK. His contract is the problem. Why trade a problem for another?
by JustAnotherFan on Jul 31, 2008 11:21 AM CDT up reply actions
Hughes for Pryzbilla and change is too good to be true
Why would Portland take Hughes? Do they think he can contribute? His game seems best suited for the East or a slow half court team and neither of these options are found in Portland.
I’d do the trade in a heartbeat, but looking over the Blazers’ roster I’m stuck determining what players would represent “the change”.
I agree that Joel Przybilla is the best out of those choices.
He’s a good chemistry guy, works hard, and is serviceable as a 5. This would improve the backcourt-to-frontcourt balance of this team. It would also improve the starter-to-backup balance of this team. Let’s face it: if Hughes doesn’t get the playing time he feels he’s entitled to, he’s going to be a big problem for this team’s chemistry. Joel probably would demand or feel entitled to starting or a certain number of minutes.
"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
Good joke.
You guys are in the position of need here, so you are trying to get rid of dead weight. Not only is Pryzbilla a more valuable player to you than Hughes because of your abundance at guard and scarcity of frontcourt players, but Hughes has a much bigger contract than Pryzbilla, which means we would have to give up some of our own players to match salaries. Exactly who would we deal? Lafrentz’s expiring contract? That is the only player who’s salary exceeds his production, as everybody else on the blazers roster is a valuable piece that we would not ever trade for dead weight like Hughes. Lafrentz, although making too much money, has an expiring contract as already noted, and this makes him more valuable to us as dead weight than Hughes, whose contract doesn’t expire till 2010.
Andy Roddick has the most wimbledon titles in the world. He just hides them in Federer's trophy case
a bit overboard on the you/we/us
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 1, 2008 10:09 AM CDT up reply actions
my bad,
I’m a stray Bedger, so the “we” and “us” refers to the PTB. I figured that “you” referred to the Bulls and “we/us” referred to the Blazers. If you want to criticize my post, do it straight up rather than side tracking. If you are criticizing my use of pronouns when referring to professional basketball teams, I’m not gonna apologize for that (part of being in a town where NBA is the only Major professional sports organization with a presence). If you were criticizing because the use of those pronouns made what I’m saying unclear, then my bad. But you need to elaborate regardless.
Andy Roddick has the most wimbledon titles in the world. He just hides them in Federer's trophy case
we gave up on Tyson and get J P.
We give up Tyson for expiring contracts so we can sign Ben Wallace. We then trade BW contract for Larry. Then we trade Larry for JP. Looks like we’re just clueless.
not clueless.
Tyson -> Big Ben -> Larry -> ?
Big Ben wasn’t a disappointment. In my opinion he performed as you would expect him to perform (more or less). Unfortunately the other pieces of the puzzle didn’t come together as the Bulls wanted. Small backcourt, poor leadership, poor contract negoiations, TT never matured as a scorer (or hasn’t yet.)
It’s always easy to “blame the guy before you.” Blame the previous coach, or the previous team leader. Ben Wallace did rebounds and defense. He always did that.
Drafting Rose really brought some complicated issues on the Bulls, and the Hughes deal seems to be a poor choice in hindsight. If only the Bulls could have drafted a offensively skilled power forward…but I guess none were available. (BeasleyBeasleyBeasleyBeasleyBeasleyBeasleyBeasleyBeasleyBeasley)
by chicago-homesick-blues on Aug 4, 2008 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions
no he didn't
Wallace’s rebounding (defensively especially) went in the crapper. And his offense went from bad to unplayable. Sure, it was always bad, but there’s a difference.
Hughes is just a contract with a jersey. His position shouldn’t matter, and the only reason management is claiming it does is to put the screws to the rest of the guards.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions
that should be the hope with Hughes, but we've seen them screw things up before
hopefully VDN doesn’t make the same mistakes Skiles made – i.e. playing big contracts big minutes over players who actually contributed.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions
then VDN knows the agony of watching Larry jack up terrible jumpshots over and over
and he’ll remain firmly on the bench :-)... atleast that’s an optimistic view of things.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions
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
- On Paul Pierce’s incredible, sometimes unlikely, run as a Boston Celtic
- Mark Jackson doesn’t want to hear your excuses/is totally making excuses
- Video: Steve Nash gave himself a great birthday gift
- DeMarcus Cousins is playing like a star, if anyone notices
- Mike D’Antoni wants Knicks fans to quit booing Jared Jeffries
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.
