One of the things that folks, myself included, worry about with trading Hughes is screwing up our long-term cap position.  We want to be rid of him, but we don't want to take back post-2010 salary to do it. And we want to be rid of him, but we don't just want to buy out his contract, because it could be a "useful trading chip" when it's expiring next year.

Well, I think we've reached the point where we need to consider these options. A few days back, I compared Hughes to Jalen Rose. Many folks might not remember, but we didn't shed any salary in trading away Rose.  In fact, it extended our obligations because Jerome Williams' contract ran a year longer than Rose's, and it cost the Bulls $5.8M in total additional salary obligations.

In short, the Bulls both paid extra money and hurt their cap position to get rid of Rose. And a relatively productive player, Donyell Marshall.

They were able to make it up later by taking advantage of Isaiah Thomas, and shed JYD in the Crawford sign and trade deal.  I'm not saying that's what I prefer or that would definitely happen again, but it's a point the Bulls should consider.  Suppose they take on a player with some 2010 salary.  If it's not ridiculously huge (Darius Songaila, who'd been rumored as a Hughes exchange partner, for example) will make $4.8M.  That's certainly not great, but it's the sort of thing we might be able to work around. We'd still have another year to try and shed him or other players.

Again, that's not what I want to do.  I don't even think it's what we have to do. I think, somewhere out there, is a way to get rid of Hughes that wouldn't take on that sort of space.  But at this point, we probably should consider either that or simply sending him away and negotiating a buyout.

Let's contrast the current team to the beginning of Pax's tenure. He started off with a ball full of energy and stupid, proclaiming the Bulls would return to the playoffs and signing up Scottie Pippen to get us over the hump.  But ok, though he was completely unqualified for his job, he did get it together pretty quickly when his initial assessment of the 2003 Bulls turned out to be dead wrong.  Within a little over a month, he identified the problems and attempted to fix them.

But the really crazy thing is Pax has re-created the problems he inherited.
1. A team with no veteran defensive big man, and hence, one of the worst defenses in the league. We've got Aaron Gray as the stand-in for Eddy... still needing to lose 20-30lbs. We've got Noah standing in for Chandler, but with twice as much lip and ego, and a third of the athleticism.  We've got Gooden, who's about as similar a player to Donyell Marshall as you can get.  OK rebounder and shooter, offensive player on a team crying for defense.
2. A team with a Roger Dornish has-been on a highly paid, long-term contract Jalen then, Hughes now.
3. A complete nitwit we've sunk considerable stock into. ERob then, Tyrus now.  And before anyone gets mad, the comparison is pretty fair, except that ERobbery confined his nitwittery to stupid sweaters, stupid toe injuries, and stupid musings about consumer electronics. Tyrus, is the sort of guy his teammates probably want to beat mercilessly instead of just a clown.
4. A shooting guard with an impending contract negotiation that's problematic more than anything because the Bulls are completely and totally capped out and in danger of paying the luxury tax, which the owner won't do.
5. The coach was openly and frequently disrespected.
6. (Not like today) we had not a single NBA small forward on the roster

So yeah, Paxson finally came to his senses and in short order made a series of moves to set things right.
1. He fired Cartwright and hired Skiles, who demanded respect and defense.
2. He unloaded Rose and brought in Antonio Davis, a great defender and glue guy to hold it together with the kids.
3. He shortly unloaded ERobbery.
4. He signed Nocioni and traded for a pick to get Deng and solve the lack of a SF problem.
5. He got very lucky in being financially bailed out by Isaiah and the Knicks (twice, but I'm mainly talking about that first summer with Crawford), something we probably can't count on again.
6. I've heard from one guy who said Duhon was Skiles' pick, but even so, I'll credit Pax for adding another glue guy and solid player with a throwaway pick.

All in all, he managed to make these moves pretty quickly, and he was certainly decisive in what he wanted to do.

And yet somehow, Pax walked away from that impressive set of moves and then recreated the 2003 Bulls and has sat around and let it simmer into a stinking pile of shit.  Which, as you might be able to tell, really bothers me.

What bothers me even more is that, unlike back then, Pax doesn't seem to be decisive at all.  Back then, he was making significant moves in about a month.  And given a whole summer to work with, he made major headway.  The major problems with this Bulls team have been evident for nearly a year, and were certainly evident last year.  But it's like Pax closed his eyes and hoped they'd all go away.  Well, they didn't.

Maybe I should have skipped the alcohol at lunch.

Hughes and $3M cash to the Thunder for Earl Watson, Damien Wilkins, Johan Petro.
This deal should have appeal for both teams.  For the Bulls, it trims $1.5M off this year's cap and just under $1M off next year's cap.  If we let Petro (an RFA this summer) walk, we'd save another $2.85M off next year's.  The Thunder are so far under the cap it won't really matter for them.

In terms of actual finances, the Thunder might find this attractive.  They've got $24M committed for this year and next to those three guys.  $21M if they let Petro Walk.  Hughes will cost them $26M minus the cash, so $23M. 

So the basic jist is that they're getting Hughes for $2M in additional expense, or they're getting $1M to take on Hughes (if you imagine they plan on keeping Petro).  Either way, that seems workable.  $2M in outlay for an actual NBA shooting guard seems reasonable when they just dropped $15M on Nenad Krstic.

On the court, it's obvious help for the Thunder. The guys the Thunder are trading absolutely suck (in terms of PER and pretty much every other mode of measuring production) and they need a SG in the worst way. Hughes is producing slightly above average as a SG.  It's a good fit.  They actually get NBA quality players at most every position, some stability, and maybe things look up for them down the stretch.

For us, the good fit is getting rid of Hughes, getting some luxury tax breathing room, and getting some cap flexibility.  I guess we can say that Watson is a true "backup PG" if we end up trading Kirk.  He's acceptable there, but nothing more these days.  Damien Wilkins, I guess, fills backup minutes at the 3 if Deng's injury is worse than we think.  He also sucks.  Johan Petro... pretty yucky, but tall.  Worth a look for a half a year. 

Put simply, the players we're getting aren't the reason we do this trade.  It's all about giving us more flexibility and better chemistry.

OK, I think it's a little bit unlikely we win 49 games, but we've exceeded expectations in this early part of the season.  We've had a pretty brutal schedule and are 8-9.  If we can go 41-24 over the remaining games, we'll end up 49-33.

And what happens if we win 49 games?

Larry Hughes gets $2M I think.  And the Bulls pay the Luxury Tax.

Continue reading this post »

Bulls trade Kirk, Noc and Simmons

Blazers trade Raef, Martell Webster and Channing Frye

Martell Webster just signed a relatively cheap extension, and I think he can be traded by the deadline.  He's big, athletic, only 21, on a solid contract, and is a very good shooter.  Put it all together and he could be the right guy to put next to Rose.  And if he's not, he doesn't kill us because he's still moveable.

Raef LaFrentz is an expiring contract.  By trading away our two guys for the Blazers guys, we net about $12.5M in additional room under the luxury tax threshold next year.  That makes it possible for us to resign both Gordon and Gooden if we choose, or take back salary in sign and trades.

Frye will be an RFA next year, and might constitute a cheap(er) big man to replace Gooden should we feel the need. 

In short, this is a trade that opens a lot of options for us while closing few off.

For the Blazers, I'm reading they want more veterans, and their biggest areas of need are at PG and SF.  So our guys might make sense for them.

The Chicago situation was different.

The Bulls offered their job to ex-Phoenix coach Mike D'Antoni, who turned them down and signed on with the Knicks.

After missing out on the high-profile D'Antoni, Chicago GM John Paxson went in the opposite direction and hired Vinny Del Negro, who did not have any coaching experience.

"I don't know what exactly happened," Hornacek said. "I called Paxson after that and he said, 'Yeah, we'll get together some day and talk about it.' Personally -- and I'm just guessing -- I think they wanted a big-name guy and if he did great, they would probably keep him [long-term]. But I think they offered [Del Negro] only two years and the lowest [coaching] salary in the league. To me, that's a sign they were not looking too far into the future."

Of course, Hornacek grew up in suburban Chicago. So to return as coach of the Bulls would have been special, from a personal standpoint.

"It would have been a good opportunity, but that's why you go talk to them," Hornacek said. "You never know what's going to happen. When they called, I said, 'Sure, I'll go talk to them.' And we had a great meeting. [Paxson] even called me back and said, 'We're going to bring three or four guys back a second time and, when you come back I want you to talk about how you would use the rookies, [Michael] Beasley or [Derrick] Rose.' But they didn't call back. He indicated he was going to have me come back, but ..."

Hornacek laughed.

"Maybe someday I'll hear the story and get a clue," he said.

Who would like to piece together exactly what the hell went on here? 

Since there isn't a topic yet, here's one.  It's on WGN Superstation so I get to see it without resorting to weird internet tricks.

The pre-planned Gordon plays the last game/Hughes plays this game thing confuses the hell out of me.

I wish Ben were playing tonight and Hughes were not.  Who'l be starting for the Bulls? Kirk or Hughes? Or Kirk and Hughes?

Anyone still want to debate Ronnie Brewer vs. Thabo?  I didn't think so. :(

This trade is so good it's already happened.  Back in July of 2004 the Magic traded Gooden to the Cavs for Tony Battie.  To be precise it was Gooden, Steven Hunter, and the rights to Anderson Varejao going to Cleveland for Battie and two second round picks (no one of note... Martinas AndroclesandtheLionuswiththereallylongneckus and Brad Newly).  Pretty good trade for the Cavs who netted two starting quality bigs for Battie.

Four years later and Gooden would be a very solid player to put next to Howard to shoot and create some space.  They don't need Battie because he does the same things Howard does, just much much worse.  Not because Battie is awful, but because Howard is just that good.

For us though, Battie is our best interior defender, and a veteran who'll make our perimeter defenders better look that much better.  It'll make it put up or shut up time for Tyrus, but we've still got (ugh) Noc as a sort of back up plan... I guess.  And oh yeah, he's signed to a very reasonable deal for this year and next, which gives us a bit more trade flexibility for the rest of this year and some continuity for next year.

We still, of course, need to trade Kirk and Noc in the worst possible way, but it's at least a step in the right direction.  For that matter, Noc or Hinrich for Battie and change would really float my boat as well.