And that's just what the stats tell us.  Beyond the stats, there's the fact he's a hell of a defensive player.

I came away from that interview thinking it very unlikely the Lakers would be willing to part with Odom, no matter what the deal.

"Shorter than Wallace's" means expiring after next year. If a team thinks there's a chance Wallace is washed-up and a cancer, unless they are at a horrible place at C, there's no reason to take the chance if they have expiring deals a year from now.

My guess/speculation would be that they would get 1 or 2 guys who expire this year or next at $6 mil, and someone w/ a contract like Nocioni's that they can sit without worrying that he's going to be pouting too much.

You can look the the Team Salary Pages on Sports2 and get a good idea of salary commitments.  Not trying to advertise too much, but this is what I'm using in addition to the trade checker.

Anyway, to give a run down on a)the cap ramifications and b)the salary ramifications (purely financial, we might save money but still not be under the cap in any useful way):

1. Cleveland's dross all expires next year, so we save a year (approx $14M) in salary.  Even taking into account re-signing Gordon and Deng, that gets us about $10-15M under the cap next summer (summer 09).  There's not a lot in the way of FAs available until Summer 2010 (potentially).
2. Q expires at the same time as Wallace, and Rose a year earlier, so we save about $8M total vs. the status quo with Wallace, and have (potential) cap space at the same time.
3. Davis is expiring, Blount has the same length as Wallace.  The cap effects are about the same as trade 2, but we save another $8M or so in guaranteed salary outlay.
4. Deal a)Wallace for Brown (expiring) and Rad (3 years left) saves the Bulls a total of $10M.  However, Rad's contract costs $6.8M in 2010, so it kills the cap room option unless we make other deals to reduce our salary during the next two years to possibly open it up again (eg by dealing Rad or Nocioni or Gordon).

c) Wallace + Noc for Odom, Rad and Coby Karl wipes an enormous $35M in salary commitment off the books for the Bulls.  It leaves us with about $10-$12M in cap room (for Summer 2010) because moving Nocioni offsets the gain of Radmanovic.

5. The deal with the Bucks costs the Bulls $7M over the life of the contracts (due to Bell's deal being 2 years longer than Wallaces).  Also due to this, the Bulls still have cap room, but it's down to $7-10M without accounting for more trades.
6. The deal with the Bucks costs the Bulls $10M and effectively kills the possibility of cap room in 2010 (unless, again, other deals are made in the meantime).

If he looks and acts like dogshit now, what's he going to be at this time next year?

Finally, moving contracts off the books as described above is a little bit illusory.  Yeah, moving Wallace and Noc for Odom and Rad saves us money, but that's because we've replaced a longer committment to Noc with a shorter commitment to Odom.  But we would only actually realize those savings (and the cap room) by letting Odom walk too.  Would the Bulls let him walk for nothing next summer and then not spend anything to replace him (since they'd have to not spend in order to create the cap room in Summer 2010).  While that might be the best decision, it'll be fodder for people saying the Bulls are cheap, especially if they struggle again?

Likewise, proponents of cap room tend to overestimate its value.  If we had cap room, people would end up being happy if our "haul" from the experience was another Ben Wallace.  Very likely the player/s we would get would be players of the same sort as AK-47 and Odom in the first place.  Guys who have done something, but have some risk attached to them.  That's pretty much what happens when major FAs change teams (eg Wallace or Rashard Lewis).

OK, that's going too far, but one man's old couch sitting there waiting for the trash man is another man's new living room centerpiece.

What's more, team's make different calculations about what crap is.  If a team like Utah does a deal like this, I would expect it's because they think even if Wallace is a clearly worse player than Kirilenko, the $10M they save over the course things is worth it.

Not every guy wants the same thing.  Would you rather drive an 88 Civic and get a check for $10M, or drive an 08 Acura and owe $10M?  

A team like Utah might look and say they're good enough that they can afford to lose a better player if it saves them money.

For us, I judge our situation differently.  I judge that Wallace has to go at almost any cost.  Even trading him for a longer contract buys some time, because that longer contract comes attached to a guy who can at least theoretically help on the court, and because you've still got time (years in fact), to make others trades.

On the other hand, I don't see time as being on our side in holding on to Wallace.  Every passing game exposes him more, and I suspect at some point his attitude becomes completely untenable.

Nor do I see a buyout as a very good solution.  I'd rather take a flyer on a guy like Kirilenko, who's young and could be very good than pay Wallace to do absolutely nothing.  Kirilenko makes a lot of money, but the vast majority of it is a sunk cost if the alternative is a Wallace buyout.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/basketball/nba/02/01/gasol.trade/index.html

Seems like another case of a team holding on to a player too long. The Bulls had a load of expiring contracts last season, and were likely willing to give up a better young player, or draft pick.

Personally, I don't understand the reticence to move Thomas.  The Bulls can't afford to give him away, but he doesn't look anywhere close to a breakout to me.

And if he is?  Then what sort of guy does he "break out" into?  A younger, skinnier Andre Kirilenko.  Maybe a better rebounding, worse shooting version.

And how much money does he get in 2010 if that's the case.  All the talk about cap space then is based on him either signing an extension before then (for about $7M or less, to match his QO), being gone as a FA, or being traded for a guy on a rookie deal before then.

The "Cap Space in the summer of 2010" plan is already highly dependent on what happens with Tyrus and Thabo, since they'll be RFAs and impose significant salary cap "holds" until their status is resolved.

The long and short of that is that if Tyrus and/or Thabo really breaks out, or even do well enough to justify more than about $10M combined, or just don't get their status resolved early, they'll likely create a Darko Milicec sort of situation the Magic faced this year, where they had to renounce his rights to sign the guy they really wanted, Rashard Lewis.

I really should have mentioned that earlier in my responses to Bayern, but somehow it sort of slipped my mind.

The solutions to that problem are:

1. Somehow clear Wallace a year earlier and use his cap room then (Not a great solution b/c the 09 class is nowhere close to the 10 class of FAs).
2. Trade a guy like Thomas for a guy with an extra year on his rookie deal (eg, a guy from the 07 draft class or a pick this year).
3. Accept the fact that if you end up being able to get a FA, letting Tyrus walk (or sending him somewhere in a sign and trade) might be an additional cost of getting him.  
4. Accept that, if free agency if often overrated and the cost is likely Tyrus, trading him for a guy who's under contract but similar to what you could get in the FA market is the same kind of trade off you'll be making in a couple years anyway.

Wallace, Khryapa and Jameson for Marbury and David Lee

I despise Marbury.  We could use him as an expiring contract next year.

1. Wallace still makes $8M more (total) than those guys.  If benching Wallace is alternative, surely the Bulls should trade him and save $8M.  Even if you never play those guys, it's freaking $8M!
2. Wallace on the bench is a team cancer.  Even if they send him home, the way they did Tim Thomas, that's not exactly a good situation.  Rose, on the other hand, is known as a hard working, well-respected leader.  Q... ok, Q's not know as that, but if he loses 15lbs he could be a serviceable player again.
3. Those guys give us a bit of flexibility.  Rose is an um... Kwame Brown sized contract next year.  Q is the year after that.  Just by virtue of having that option for two years in a row, instead of just having it once (in two years) with Wallace isn't a bad return.

They thought this would be their year, but I think they're taking a bath financially, and I read that Khol is  about at the end of his patience.