Ben Wallace to New York+A new kid on trading block?

by lwinston300 on Feb 9, 2008 6:50 AM CST Comment 22 comments

[Fixed up. -Matt]

ESPN.com reported Friday that the Knicks and Bulls have discussed a deal that would bring Ben Wallace to New York in exchange for Fred Jones, Quentin Richardson and Malik Rose.

"We're not looking to do anything really major," Thomas said Friday.

Sam Smith: A new kid on trading block? One player rarely talked about but who could be in demand these days is Chris Duhon, who is in the final year of his contract and coming off a career-high 34 points in Thursday's win over Golden State.

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.

0 recs | Comment 22 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Do the Corpse deal

We save (I believe) 3 mil and finally bury the Corpse's. What's not to like? Opens up minutes for Noah. Rose and Q's contracts are terrible but not as bad as the Corpse. Rose would be an expiring contract next year. You could try to trade Q. I doubt anyone would take him but this is the NBA. There is always a GM in love with someone. It is easier to get rid of Rose and Q than the Corpse.

by chgobr on Feb 9, 2008 8:17 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

The Bulls would spend more...

but it'd be a bargain to get rid of The Corpse. Since both teams would pay prorated salaries for this year the combined total of Wallace's salaries would be $44mil ($28.5 over the next two years). The Bulls would be taking back $44,332,500 ($25.8 over the next two years).

So in essence they would be spending $332,500 to get rid of Ben Wallace. I think you're not allowed to re-trade someone unless they are in a deal by themselves so Fred Jones would be money off the books this off-season. If nobody takes Duhon it'd be another $3mil off the books. Surprisingly (or not, depending on your view of JR) the Bulls would be taking on more financial responsibility this year yet still remain under the tax line. Those savings could go towards re-signing Deng.

They'd be paying Q and Rose $1.9mil more next season than they would the Corpse and would have Rose's expiring contract to deal or let go in order to free up cap space for possible runs at guys like Marion or Brand if neither opts out this year. They'd save about $4.6mil in '09/'10 over Wallace and if for some reason Q doesn't exercise his player option for $9.3mil then that'd be very, very nice.

by CubFan81 on Feb 9, 2008 10:12 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I forgot to include this year's salaries

in my calculation.

by chgobr on Feb 9, 2008 12:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I just want it to go through

so we can hear Isaiah talk about how he "robbed" Paxson "again."

"Today we've paired the premere offensive big man in the league with the primere defensive big," a visibily relieved Thomas will report. "Now, if we just give the team time to gel...."

by Freethefro on Feb 9, 2008 10:28 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

there's got to be

a better trade out there than this.

rose is an expiring contract next year, but if there's anything that we've learned from pax, it's that he has trouble utilizing expiring contracts. perhaps around this time next year, he buys out the rest of disgruntled rose's contract and tells him to go home.

pick up Q to try to trade him? if you guys get on Noc's case about being a chucker, at least Noc plays some defense and chucks. Q is a pure chucker. and not even a good one at that. say no to Q.

fred jones? other than his expiring contract, why bother?

there has to be a better deal out there to trade wallace. wallace has value to a playoff team looking for a little toughness. there's no need to take on additional shitty contracts to save a 'little bit'.

by leeac on Feb 9, 2008 11:11 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

I disagree

I think this makes a lot of sense for both teams.

NY can rid itself of 2 pretty bad contracts and offer Curry and Randolph some defensive help down low, which Wallace can provide if he has that other big body next to him.

For the Bulls, this is merely a trade to open up time for Noah and Thomas.

Yeah, they would be taking on a couple bad contracts, but Boylan or whomever is the coach next year won't feel obligated to start or give any of them huge minutes because of their contracts or historic play. They would be given the Sweetney type treatment. Only counted on in desperate times.

by Option27 on Feb 9, 2008 11:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Take what you can get

The deal is as much for addition by subtraction for the Bulls as it is getting those shorter-term, broken up contracts. Then, as mentioned, you have two young bigs who need time and the deal should be made if possible.

I don't know why New York would want to make this deal but I don't care to know. Just do it, Zeke.

by messwiththebull on Feb 9, 2008 12:36 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Do it

I'm tired of playing 4 on 5 offensively. With Chandler and Ben Wallace, I would like to see what this team can do playing 5 on 5. Noah is improving his game offensively and can be counted on for some low post scoring.

I vote for Thomas to play, play more and play regularly.-Sam Smith

by tyrus4prez on Feb 9, 2008 1:11 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Now that Big Ben might finally

be on his way out of town I find myself missing him.

Sound crazy? Well, yeah, but...if Wallace can be content to spend 4th quarter on the bench, waving his towel and cheering on Noah--which is what he was doing in Portland and Golden State--and I wouldn't mind keeping him around. Give him 20 minutes a game and let him morph into a big man's/defensive player/coach.

"No, no. Stop talking to me. Someone might notice," Paxson squeaked.

by alec on Feb 9, 2008 1:12 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Here's my new blockbuster

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=429~2801~3223~885~2986~990~1718~703~2782~7 39&teams=18~18~18~18~17~17~4~17~17~4&te=&cash=

I'm not even sure if picks need to be sent anywhere in that deal. The new espn trade machine increases the Nets by 4.88%, Bulls by 1.22%, but decreases the Knicks by 2.44%. I disagree that it would decrease the Knicks.

by Mattchoo on Feb 9, 2008 2:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

The Knicks decrease because they get

Nichols with his -22 PER. The whole system does it by PER so getting someone with a -22 means your gonna probably go lower in winning percentage.

by SRQman on Feb 9, 2008 3:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice trade dude!

I don't think the Thomas would trade "Babby Shaq" Eddy Curry tho... but if he did that trade would work for everyone.

by Takeaseat on Feb 9, 2008 3:46 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Mr Hanley has some more

Over here

Ben didn't respond too well when asked if he wanted to stay with the team.

"I'll be here 'til I'm gone?"

Sounds like he is ready if you ask me.

by Option27 on Feb 9, 2008 2:44 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

not sure why anyone is excited about this

Paxson turned off his cell phone soon after the rumor was reported. No trades for you!

Fire Boylan!

by hscs on Feb 9, 2008 3:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

heh

The remaining energy in his cell phone battery unanimously agreed to suspend his service.

by NBA Observer on Feb 9, 2008 5:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My trade idea...

...was Wallace for Starbury. They can be traded for each other without filler. Marbury is hurt and will sit at home the rest of the season. Next year Marbury will have an expiring contract. The Bulls could deal him or buy him out. This is definitely an addition by subtraction situation, but it clears the way for the kids to play.

by Stay Chisel on Feb 9, 2008 4:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

If this is possible

then I am all for it.

by YaoPau on Feb 9, 2008 6:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I know a lot less

... about basketball trades than I do baseball trades, but here's a thought:

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/features/traderesult?players=2377~885~615~1718~703~739&teams=11~18~ 4~11~11~11&te=&cash=

Bulls pay more in the short-term, but pay for one fewer year and - health permitting - acquire a better center and offensive player in the post.

Pacers receive about $6.5 million in contracts that expire this off-season, and divide up the rest of their commitment between Rose's $7.65 million contract expiring after 2008-2009, and Richardson's ~$9 million contracts for 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 (a lucrative player-option for Richardson).

The Knicks get Ben Wallace, since he is apparently attractive to them in some fashion.

And maybe draft picks have to be factored into this; like I said, constructing totally fair or logical trades within the context of the NBA isn't necessarily my forte.

by jpx7 on Feb 9, 2008 4:28 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

By the way

With this novel TradeMachine 2.0 Beta, ESPN predicts such an acquisition would increase the Bulls' chances of winning by 8.54% (from a projected 35-47 to 42-40). In terms of the entire trade, ESPN predicts an -8.54% change for the Knicks, and a -19.51% change for Indiana this season.

by jpx7 on Feb 9, 2008 4:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs