My inspired-by-Christmas-spirit Kevin Garnett post. (complete with unexpected Ben Gordon love?)
I had an epiphany last week.
Of course it wasn't about anything truly important, and instead centered around the Bulls next move in their progression from 'good team in the East' to 'championship contender'.....so naturally it involved trading for Kevin Garnett. But this new revelation wasn't about Garnett, but about a Bull: I'm starting to think Ben Gordon won't (and shouldn't) be a part of any such trade.
His constant involvement in trade rumors does imply that he is highly valued around the league. But Gordon's performance this season has me better appreciating his value as a Bull. He's having his best season, being more aggressive in his possessions (increase in usage rate) while still maintaining his shooting percentage. And the best news is that he is getting to the line more, up to 7.7 FTAs per 40 minutes from 4.3 the season before. For Gordon it is especially beneficial as he's shooting over 87% from the line. When he attacks the basket like that, not only is he getting free points at the line, but it causes defenders to give him room to shoot the 3, which has been not falling as much this season but will likely come back up near his career norms. His defense has also looked improved, and it seems there are fewer games this season where Skiles yanks him for lapses on that end.
Speaking of Skiles, He's still not starting Gordon, and more importantly not giving him enough minutes. It's almost as if his recent performance has hurt his standing in the rotation. [Now that he's playing better....well it must be because he's more comfortable off the bench!] Thinking like that seems more superstition than any conclusive correlation, but if Skiles still insists on starting Chris Duhon at least have Gordon get the starters bulk of the minutes. Sure they'll still have a 'small' backcourt with him and Hinrich, but Duhon's even shorter and I'd rather have the newly aggressive Ben Gordon getting heavy minutes than any other guard on the team.
***
So back to Garnett, which I promise is only brought up because the Bulls are playing the Wolves tonight (I think I've been pretty good in terms of not bringing up Garnett trade fantasies too often, all things considered). The failure to acquire Allen Iverson was the final blown chance to pair Garnett with another superstar...as there will never be another player that good who is available for that cheap (and it can be said that the Wolves have so few tradeable assets that they'd need someone even cheaper). Garnett himself has voiced displeasure over management's failure, and while he could wait another full season to opt-out of his contract, the upcoming draft may have the Wolves thinking that the time to deal Garnett is now. I won't go into too much why Garnett is a near-perfect fit, but there are aspects of his production, position, and attitude that make him a final-piece type acquisition. What makes the trade even more desirable is that the Bulls are a perfect trading partner:
- All the Bulls expiring contracts are big men. So in any deal for a shooting guard (such as Paul Pierce or Ray Allen) they'd risk depleting their front line. But when dealing for Garnett that issue is mitigated.
- If the Wolves trade Garnett, they will almost have to get a '07 lottery pick in return. The inherent problem with accepting a team's pick is that if that team is getting Garnett you'd almost have to pencil them into the playoffs. However since the Bulls can offer the Knick's pick, that is a much safer bet for plenty of lottery balls (furthermore, by dealing Garnett the Wolves have a better chance at keeping their own pick which they'd owe to the Clippers if not in the top-10)
- The best combination of salary cap relief and young talent, as has been discussed in this interwebspace plenty of times.
But the point of this post is that when considering which young talent to give up, further Garnett trade scenarios from me will no longer have Ben Gordon, for both his improved play and the revelation (through the Iverson non-acquisition) that the Wolves really like Randy Foye, a similar player. If I were to now rate the core assets on the Bulls, in terms of which I'd more easily trade away in a Garnett deal, Gordon is now only less 'untouchable' than Deng or Hinrich.
So here's my (latest) best shot in a Garnett trade. The Bulls parting with the expiring deals of Sweetney and Brown, young talent in Tyrus Thomas and Chris Duhon, Andres Nocioni (could be thought of as either an expiring deal or someone Minny would want to build around), and the Knicks first-rounder (officially it'll probably be called 'future first round pick' since the Bulls do not technically own that pick yet). Some more notes to the deal:
- In this scenario the Bulls offer cap relief in taking on Marko Jaric's deal (also why Duhon was included), but Minnesota could reasonably substitute similarly-overpaid guards like Troy Hudson or Mike James. I think Jaric would be the best fit of the three, but his deal also runs the longest.
- If they wanted to offer further (or less, if they don't have to take a guard) cap relief, the Bulls could take on Mark Madsen and the 3 more seasons he's getting paid.
- To help alleviate Minnesota's roster crunch, Bracey Wright can be included, since minimum-salaried players can be included without cap consequences.
Garnett's salary means that any deal would hurt the Bulls roster depth (although there's still some quality bench players left) But when thinking of that, or whether it's too early to give up Ty Thomas, or that you can't pass at a shot in the '07 draft, or that Nocioni is the heart and soul of the franchise (ok, I never think that)...all I can see is a starting front line of Deng, Garnett, and Wallace. Still seeing Kirk Hinrich as the starting point guard. And a new wrinkle to my KG dream: Ben Gordon remaining a Bull.
0 recs |
21 comments
Comments
Maybe it's just me
by Colossus on Dec 26, 2006 8:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Jaric can play
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Dec 26, 2006 8:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Why would MN
by sue369 on Dec 26, 2006 9:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
their team won't win with or without him
I think McHale should've been been more aggressive in getting some other 'star' that's been cast off (hell, I even advocated trying to get Marbury back) but I think he has to pick one way or the other. And actually...he'll just be fired so someone else can do the messy work of trading KG.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Dec 26, 2006 10:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I like this trade
KG and Ben Wallace, without saying, gives you a ferocious defensive cushion that can cover for any "defensive liabilities" mentioned ad nauseum about Gordon...
I go back and forth with keeping the core intact and going for the superstar, but I feel more and more that if we ever get a chance, we need to pull the trigger to get KG. We're too inconsistent as a perimeter oriented team. He's getting up there in age, but he is still too good NOT to go after.
Now if I could only believe that slim chance that the Timberwolves will actually make him available in the near future...
by Bullschicago on Dec 27, 2006 12:42 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Deng actually
I'm not sure any team can offer as much as the Bulls, why give away Thomas and the Knicks' pick?
by Paxson Jackson on Dec 27, 2006 9:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
yeabut
I can see the Bulls not having to include Thomas....but I doubt Minny even bothers trading KG without getting an '07 pick. I wouldn't be surprised though if Minnesota was less concerned with cap flexibility they could get far better realized talent somewhere else though besides the Bulls.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Dec 27, 2006 9:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree on the double-teams,
by Paxson Jackson on Dec 27, 2006 9:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
time to channel stacey king
by milesgmsu on Dec 29, 2006 10:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Good post, Matt
How bad would it suck though if the Knicks landed the #1 pick? We'd be potentially giving up the NEXT Garnett for a 30-year-old one, not to mention a third of our roster.
by Mike Aparicio on Dec 27, 2006 10:03 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Any trades for Pau would be fabulous as well
As for that Knick pick, I've been following the Knicks a little too closely this year and last, but I think we've really got a slim, slim chance to get Oden. New York, for all of its flaws, is going to do better than last season. The big problem is that there's even an outside chance that the Knicks may even win the terrible Atlantic division.
Usually New Jersey pulls out of their funk and brings some semblance of respectability, but it's going to be harder to do with Krstic out for the season and Jefferson ailing with whatever ankle problem he's got.
So that leaves the devastating teams of the Celtics? Raptors? Philadelphia? The Knicks and Raptors right now are tied for most wins (12).
Most likely, New Jersey will still pull together a run, but I still give New York a decent outside chance to win the Atlantic, get into the playoffs, and take out any chance to win the Oden sweepstakes... or even get a lottery pick for that matter. Totally depressing, but it's a real possibility.
by Bullschicago on Dec 27, 2006 10:35 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Make My Day
One question about the pick...which I don't mind dealing for Garnett...some have said it can't be exchanged with NY if traded. Does anyone know if this is the case? It certainly makes it more valuable to us than anyone else at this point in the season, but this looks to be a deep draft anyway.
Just keep Deng out of the deal and we come out winners.
by rednomore on Dec 27, 2006 10:58 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
minor problem
Getting rid of Chandler's big contract that wasn't worthy of his shabby play as a Bull was definetly something. It can be argued that the Bulls essentially dumped Chandler for Wallace too.
by Paxson Jackson on Dec 27, 2006 11:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
NY pick
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Dec 27, 2006 11:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I hope that's true.
Before anyone else brings it up, I'd just like to shoot down the idea that the Bulls could make the pick top three (or two, or one) protected. There's no way Minnesota makes this deal without at least some shot at getting a top pick. Especially since the Bulls' pick in '08 is likely to be at the end of the first round.
by Eddy Currys Broken Heart on Dec 27, 2006 11:28 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
NY Pick
For example, If the Bulls were to make a trade with Philadelphia which involved along with players trading their draft pick and receiving Denver's pick, the right to switch picks with NY would go with the Chicago pick.
The Bulls would not be able to take the NY pick and give the Knick's Denver's pick in return.
by OldeBull on Dec 27, 2006 11:20 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Malcolm Gladwell on Ben Gordon's Rookie Year
I don't buy the Berri or the Hollinger calculations as an end-all be-all, but they do show a nice perspective. (For instance, Randy Foye had a +/- of -20 last night, but he did hit a Ben Gordon-like athletic game winner last night). Anyway, Gladwell said,
Whatever those numbers say about Gordon's first year, they say nothing about his explosive scoring ability in the fourth quarters, which most assuredly won the bulls a few games. It appears that at least this year, Gordon has minimized those flaws that make him a bad candidate to approach those nerdy algorithms.
by GWKD on Dec 27, 2006 4:07 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
never read wages of wins
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Dec 27, 2006 4:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
link above didn't work, I think.
and yes, it is a little hard on high volume shooters.
by GWKD on Dec 27, 2006 4:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Clutch
However, in basketball, I was able to convince him that there is such thing as clutch by examining both players' regular season statistics and playoff statistics. (It should be noted that this was pre-Wizards Jordan and certainly pre-Lakers Malone). The kicker was that Malone's FG% went way down in the playoffs (from 52 to 46 or something). Defense should be better in the playoffs, particularly on the superstars, but Jordan's FG% remained consistent.
Anyway, I'm off on a tangent. Ben Gordon has shown that he is clutch, and that's not going to show up in any kind of Hollinger numbers or anything. You just have to see it.
by corey williams corey benjamin on Dec 27, 2006 5:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

by 











