Wanted to provide a forum for rampant speculation and trade-machinin' in the wake of some recent events around the league.

On Monday afternoon, the Orlando Magic shook up their entire situation with the firing of coach Stan Van Gundy and the mutual parting with GM Otis Smith. If they were intent on firing SVG, and the well was likely too poisoned not to, it made sense to take Smith out with him. It also means that maybe their new GM could make a better deal of Dwight Howard, or one building around him, than Smith would've. Orlando Pinstriped Post has two recent reports indicating that Howard still wants out. The Magic had previously indicated that if Howard didn't sign an extension beyond the 2012-13 season, he would be moved.

Unfortunately, the Bulls don't seem to be on Howard's list of places he'd want to be traded to (and, I assume, sign that extension). That doesn't seem to have changed since last year. Though that was a time when I figured the Bulls should still risk the move and hope Howard liked being on a 'super-team' with Rose, winning more and stuff, and the Bulls personable dynamic front office would...ok, maybe it was a far-fetched plan.

But now, it's a plan that is probably even be less likely. With Rose out for much of the season, and not fully 'back' when even when he returns, it may not be as much of a guaranteed championship-caliber situation that would mask his reluctance to stay with the Bulls. And one of the Bulls main trade pieces, Luol Deng, has a wrist surgery looming that probably puts off any deal as big as a Dwight Howard one. Not that Deng can't be traded (a team can waive the physical), but there's likely too much uncertainty there for a team to take him on.

And meanwhile in Los Angeles, the Lakers were just eliminated from the playoffs Monday night, which will undoubtedly get rumors going on anyone not named Kobe Bryant. I haven't seen any reports that Pau Gasol trades will be explored, but found this interesting fan perspective from Silver Screen and Roll:

Hoo boy. For the second straight year Pau Gasol's performance was... lamentable. With two years left on his deal at $19 million apiece, he won't be easy to move - certainly not with his perceived value in freefall. Pau looks like a guy who, for whatever reason, is tired of being a Laker and possibly tired of playing professional basketball. You'll hear plenty of trade rumors involving him in the months ahead. Behind Pau on the depth chart you've got unrestricted free agent Jordan Hill and the disappointing Josh McRoberts.

If you can find a way to figure the Lakers would be interested in any kind of Boozer-Gasol swap, you have more of an imagination than I. While 'lamentable' is the type of performance Boozer can provide just as well, Gasol is still a far better all-around player, and on a shorter contract. He also makes $4m more in 2012-13 salary than Boozer, and really both the Lakers and Bulls are looking to save money in that season. I'm figuring that any Gasol deal would be instead for mid-level rotation players and depth, of which the Lakers have very little.

Although, you could figure that maybe if the Lakers received Dwight Howard in a 3-way deal, that'd be the only way they'd be alright with also taking Carlos Boozer...well, figure it out, everyone.

Ugh, thinking about the Rose injury timetable is truly sickeningly depressing. I wanted to see the Bulls take some kind of optimistic defiance, trying to keep their very good Rose-centered team, maybe even (gasp) improve. Then, when Rose got back before the 2013 playoffs, hope that for once the Bulls would be an inverse of their usual selves: a tepid regular season performance but potentially playoff-dominant.

But I had questioned the Bulls pushing Rose too much and too soon all of this past season, culminating in the knee injury in an already-won game. So it seems hypocritical to want them to do something similar for 2012-13 as he rehabs from a very serious surgery. Which means that logically the Bulls aren't title contenders in that season. Which blows.

But I'm trying not to get as down as Sam Smith, who's advocating the Bulls trade what they can for flexibility (of course!), lottery picks, and the next great free agent class.

Is it about competing until Rose returns, which will happen perhaps late next season or the season after? Or is it about trying to have the pieces in place or the flexibility to go for a championship when he returns and thereafter?

The Bulls the way the East is breaking down did seem to have a chance this season for a title. But they also seem to have the same issue of the lack of another star player....So then the question becomes, how do you get another star?

...say the Bulls withdraw next season: They keep Rose out, maybe deal Deng or Noah for a pick and miss the playoffs. So then they get another lottery pick in 2013. They bring those young players back with Rose in 2013-14, and then in the summer of 2014...

He then lists a lot of free agents, leading off with Miami's big three though it gets less appetizing after that and after a dozen names all the way down to Marcin Gortat.

It's a concept more distressing than idiotic. The Bulls already did a tear-down during the years of Derrick Rose's rookie contract, and I'm not too excited to see it again. Especially since the summer of 2010 merely garnered consolation prizes and the Org. has not been much for making (and executing) big plans.

But I see the point. I think the word 'tank' is used too reflexively when suggesting some kind of change. I think it's hard for teams to tank, especially with this current group and this coach. But Organizations certainly can. So if the Bulls did deal Noah (and I guess Deng if he proves his health again), along with a combination of simply letting other role players go and injuries, they could very likely miss the playoffs next season. I really don't think the Bulls would do this to their fanbase (specifically: season ticket holders), or their coach: if Thibs sees this going the other way, not only would his style start to grate on a team not competing for a championship, but he may simply leave for a better situation and paycheck.

Of course, something similar can happen by accident. The '07-'08 Bulls were coming off of their best season in 10 years, but completely fell apart. Their coach was fired, and they wound up with a lottery chance of 1.7%...and Derrick Rose.

So it's possible, whether by design or not. But it's the repetitive Flexibility-> ? ->Championship cycle (of profits) I'd rather get out of, and it's a lot less romantic than the lauded concept of 'the Thunder model' make it sound.

Here's an idea from BaB contributor Sports2 in the comments:

Rip is basically expiring. The only taker I can think of for him is a team that sucks and will be under the cap. Send him to New Jersey or Charlotte for a sack of doorknobs. This gives us enough money to re-sign Ronnie Brewer, who played much better and much more consistently.

And don't forget: younger and likely healthier.

I think this makes sense. Rip Hamilton was a win-now acquisition and the Bulls didn't win. He was an upgrade over Keith Bogans. He sometimes looked very good, especially during the rare time he played with Derrick Rose, including 19 points in 26 minutes in game one of the playoffs.

But his season was an overall disappointment, least of which was missing 38 games due to groin and shoulder issues. He showed good playmaking ability but his TS% sunk to a career-low 50% while still aggressively pulling the trigger. The real obvious signs of decline looked to be on the defensive end. He may have been a bit of a turd in the locker room and not forthright about his injuries. All told, by the end of the season Rip had shown to be better than Keith Bogans but stayed in the Bogans role. Both Kyle Korver and Brewer took the 'closing' SG spot at times showing that Rip hadn't 'won' the job according to Thibs.

Without Rose and Deng to start the year, going with another defensively-emphasized player like Brewer over Rip (plus Jimmy Butler taking some SF minutes) may be trouble. But if Rip's only really effective playing off of Derrick Rose, he won't be of much use this season, and there's little reason to believe he'll be healthier (or better) as he turns 35 in the middle of next season. The Bulls will need bodies to take up minutes and Brewer's proven to be better at that.

So if it's possible that a team under the cap (or with a big-enough trade exception...Utah?) would take Hamilton and his $5m (plus $1m buyout next season) off of the Bulls hands for effectively nothing, would you rather $4.37m instead go to Brewer?

Keep in mind, this would be the kind of move lauded as 'shrewd' while it's really the Bulls dodging the luxury tax. Kind of like signing Rip in the first place because he was willing to take a 2-year deal. But these are the kind of choices that they force themselves in.

Our latest in a series about the Bulls upcoming offseason is about the luxury tax. Mortal enemy of the Chicago Bulls, as well as an enemy of BaB readers sick of me harping on it for the past...oh man, I've been doing this too long.

But it's somewhat timely as Bulls GM Gar Forman was asked about it Wednesday morning on The Score, specifically referencing Bulls chairman Jerry Reinsdorf's stance that it'd be paid for a winner and how that mindset may have changed in light of Derrick Rose's lengthy absence next season.

What Jerry has said is "if we're in a position to compete, that we would consider going into the tax". Obviously we've been in a position to compete the last couple of years. Then when I talk about our long-term window, we feel we're going to be in a position to compete. I'm really confident that we will go into the tax if it makes basketball sense, as far as our long-term vision with this team. If it does, I think we'll go into the tax. I don't think we'll go into the tax for a short-term plug-in. But we're going to protect our assets, we're going to continue to build this thing for the next 5-7, 10 years built around Derrick and some of our young pieces.

Gar's correct that his boss has been lukewarm on the issue, and he follows suit here. But why (still) so scared?

Continue reading this post »

Omer Asik is a restricted free agent and yfBB laid out the options for the Bulls. It likely cost the Bulls $5 million to keep Asik for next season, but for a longer and more expensive deal than he may seem to be worth, presenting a dilemma: the Bulls can't really afford to keep him, but they moreso can't afford to lose him.

When looking around the NBA over the last decade, one can get flabbergasted at the tens of millions that bums get because they're seven-footers. It can be a complete mindrape to even see that guys like Darko Milicic and Eddy Curry even land spots on NBA rosters, let alone the fact that just about every NBA center between their rookie contract and hanging onto the ends of benches made over $5 million in 2011-12.

Asik may not not replaceable

Tim Duncan (unrestricted), Spencer Hawes, and Roy Hibbert (restricted) aren't going anywhere [some would disagree on Hawes, but maybe these playoffs change things -yfbb]. If Brook Lopez (R) isn't a Net next season, it'll be a sign-and-trade. What you're left with is a group of a specific type of player that all NBA teams need where the best un-signed option is: Javale McGee (R). Because of this, McGee will make a lot -- and I mean dozens of millions of dollars over the next three or four years wherever he goes.

The available centers for the Bulls to replace Asik are, according to ESPN.com (R=restricted free agent): Jason Collins, Greg Stiemsma (R), Ryan Hollins, Semih Erden, Brian Cardinal, Ian Mahinmi, Yi Jianlian, JaVale McGee (R), Ben Wallace, Marcus Camby, Roy Hibbert (R), Kyrylo Fesenko, Jordan Hill, Marreese Speights, Hamed Haddadi, Eddy Curry, Juwan Howard, Ronny Turiaf, Kwame Brown, Brook Lopez (R), Chris Kaman, Nazr Mohammed, Earl Clark, Lavoy Allen (R), Spencer Hawes, Robin Lopez (R), Joel Przybilla, Hasheem Thabeet, Jason Thompson, Boris Diaw, Tim Duncan, Jamaal Magloire, Aaron Gray, and maybe a handful of others I've missed because they're just that much worse.

Continue reading this post »

Some side-news from the knee surgery press conference Tuesday, where Bulls GM Gar Forman also addressed the media:

General manager Gar Forman said the team will pick up coach Tom Thibodeau's option for next season and will starting working on an extension this summer.

"Obviously, we value Tom greatly," Forman said. "We value what he brings to the organization and what he brings to the team and think he's one of the finest coaches in the league and we're hopeful he'll be our coach long-term.

One thing I'm curious of: does this option year precludes any kind of raise Thibs would receive through an extension? If they work out a contract extension, would that start this coming season and the option year is 'ripped up'? Or would it start only after next season?

I think the difference matters because this upcoming third year of the original contract likely is still going to be underpaying the nearly two-time coach of the year. So I could still see some hard-lined negotiation (as it always is with the Bulls) to come when it gets to the part of actually factoring in a raise (and when) for Thibs. There has already been plays through the media by Thibs's camp.

In related news, Dallas extended their coach Rick Carlisle with a 4-year contract. I had originally thought (and sorry for spreading misinformation in the comments) that Carlisle was in a similar situation to Thibs, but indeed Carlisle would've been completely without a contract on 7/1, whereas the Bulls had this option year for Thibodeau.

The Bulls held a press conference at Rush University Medical Center on Tuesday afternoon, to give an update on Derrick Rose's ACL surgery. Team physician Brian Cole gave the latest prognosis:

Cole estimated that Rose would need eight to 12 months for a full recovery, and saw no reason why his performance should be diminished.

There's more, of course, but this is mostly standard, yet vague, stuff...pretty much how a 4-month deviation in recovery time can be explained. And thus how KC Johnson can call that an 'optimistic assessment', yet PBT sees this as somehow different and worse than an earlier report.

It's neither, it's nothing. Which is fine. There isn't going to be much in terms of reliable news with this, especially considering how the Bulls treated their paying public with the various and much less serious injuries to Rose all season. So I wouldn't expect anything concrete, and certainly won't care what Reggie Rose thinks about it.

A couple bits that were actually interesting though:

• Rose's MCL was not torn. So that's better news than...well, better than if it had been torn.
• Cole on the cause: "This could be anything from a completely random event to maybe conditioning. We'll never know with certainty." OH, REALLY?!?