So here comes the trade deadline -- and the Bulls are NOT expected to be a player in any way, shape or form. Is there something that they can use? Well, there's always SOMETHING that a team can use, but the more pertinent question is, is any player available that makes sense for the Bulls?
That's a question I can't answer. I look at the bottom teams and I don't see much that would truly help the Bulls. Teams like the Pacers aren't going to give up pieces of their future because their 'future" (Paul George) will presumably be back next year and they don't want to have him return to a gutted team. Amare Stoudamire would have possibly made some sense; a scoring big who can give limited minutes (18-20 per game?) off the bench, but he made sense for Dallas and they didn't hesitate.
I suspect that this year's deadline (like many in the past) will come and go without notice here in Chi-town.
*****
Showing posts with label trade rumors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trade rumors. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Not that strange...
So NBA free agency signings are winding down, and LeBron James' decision to leave the Heat for his hometown Cavaliers changed the balance of power in the East. Suddenly the Heat are an aging Dwayne Wade, Chris Bosh and Luol Deng. Not bad, but not the superteam that they were with LeBron and Wade near his prime.
My Bulls made an important signing, though not exactly where they probably needed one. With a dearth of impact free agents at the 2 and 3, they instead signed Pau Gasol, an aging big man who can score with his back to the basket. Will he be what Derrick Rose needs (assuming Rose can stay on the court after two years of injuries)? Maybe. Boozer is gone, but Gibson remains. And so does Dunleavy and Butler and Hinrich and most importantly, Noah. Added to the team are draft pick Doug McDermott and Euro star Nikola Mirotic. Is that enough to surpass the Heat and (now) the Cavs and the Pacers? Maybe. Just maybe.
So now the big talk all over is a potential trade. It seems that the Cavaliers are really pushing to get Kevin Love from the T-wolves. They've offered their number one pick, top overall selection Andrew Wiggins (no, not the kid from Ender's Game, this is Mitchell Wiggins' son) and other assets in an attempt to acquire the all-star power forward. And the Bulls are in the hunt as well. According to at least one report, they've offered Taj Gibson, Nikola Mirotic and Doug McDermott for Love.
I'm torn. Is it too much? Does it decimate their depth in order to get a superstar at a position where they're not all that weak? Is Love plus Gasol that much greater than Gasol plus Gibson? Is it enough better to absorb the loss of Mirotic's and McDermott's potential scoring? On paper I'd say no. I'd say that if they were going to move that many assets, they should instead go for an impact shooting guard or an impact small forward. Are there any of those such players available? Or is it Love or nothing?
On the other hand, Mirotic and McDermott are, at this point in time, nothing more than "potential". Let's put it a different way. If they had, two months ago, dealt Gibson, their 16th and 19th picks in the draft, and the rights to Mirotic for Love, would I have applauded the deal? (This before the Gasol signing...) I think I would have been cool with that deal. I was nervous about including Butler in the deal but that was because I knew what Butler brought to the table in a more concrete sense. But this is basically the exact same deal as that one.
In the end, does it make the Bulls a better team? I'm not sure it does. Unless I'm sure, I don't think I'd get behind such a deal. Love's a good player, but I've heard it pointed out that he got those boards and points on a bad team with very few options for scoring and rebounding. On the Bulls, where Noah is the rebounder and Rose will also score, does he really have the impact? Or is the hard-working Gibson just as valuable to this team?
If there's a deal out there for a SF or a SG, I'd rethink the deal. Otherwise, for now - no deal.
*****
My Bulls made an important signing, though not exactly where they probably needed one. With a dearth of impact free agents at the 2 and 3, they instead signed Pau Gasol, an aging big man who can score with his back to the basket. Will he be what Derrick Rose needs (assuming Rose can stay on the court after two years of injuries)? Maybe. Boozer is gone, but Gibson remains. And so does Dunleavy and Butler and Hinrich and most importantly, Noah. Added to the team are draft pick Doug McDermott and Euro star Nikola Mirotic. Is that enough to surpass the Heat and (now) the Cavs and the Pacers? Maybe. Just maybe.
So now the big talk all over is a potential trade. It seems that the Cavaliers are really pushing to get Kevin Love from the T-wolves. They've offered their number one pick, top overall selection Andrew Wiggins (no, not the kid from Ender's Game, this is Mitchell Wiggins' son) and other assets in an attempt to acquire the all-star power forward. And the Bulls are in the hunt as well. According to at least one report, they've offered Taj Gibson, Nikola Mirotic and Doug McDermott for Love.
I'm torn. Is it too much? Does it decimate their depth in order to get a superstar at a position where they're not all that weak? Is Love plus Gasol that much greater than Gasol plus Gibson? Is it enough better to absorb the loss of Mirotic's and McDermott's potential scoring? On paper I'd say no. I'd say that if they were going to move that many assets, they should instead go for an impact shooting guard or an impact small forward. Are there any of those such players available? Or is it Love or nothing?
On the other hand, Mirotic and McDermott are, at this point in time, nothing more than "potential". Let's put it a different way. If they had, two months ago, dealt Gibson, their 16th and 19th picks in the draft, and the rights to Mirotic for Love, would I have applauded the deal? (This before the Gasol signing...) I think I would have been cool with that deal. I was nervous about including Butler in the deal but that was because I knew what Butler brought to the table in a more concrete sense. But this is basically the exact same deal as that one.
In the end, does it make the Bulls a better team? I'm not sure it does. Unless I'm sure, I don't think I'd get behind such a deal. Love's a good player, but I've heard it pointed out that he got those boards and points on a bad team with very few options for scoring and rebounding. On the Bulls, where Noah is the rebounder and Rose will also score, does he really have the impact? Or is the hard-working Gibson just as valuable to this team?
If there's a deal out there for a SF or a SG, I'd rethink the deal. Otherwise, for now - no deal.
*****
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Carmelo as a Bull - Good idea?
Okay, I know...this is probably off the table now that Phil Jackson has agreed to run the Knicks as their president and has endorsed the idea of committing to Carmelo Anthony. Phil knows how to win, and he knows how to work with star players. He's got 11 rings as a coach, and 2 as a player. If I had to bet money on the outcome, I'd bet that Anthony will stay with the Knicks, where he can earn the most money in the biggest market, and take a chance on Phil turning things around for that franchise.
But what if Phil is blowing smoke? What if when Phil says that he believes that Carmelo can help the team, he means that Carmelo can help the team by being dealt in a sign-and-trade? And who has what it would take to make that sort of a deal? Who has assets that might just help the Knicks rebuild this year and in the future? Or what if Carmelo looks at the picture in the short term and says, "There is no way we're going to compete next year...and probably not the year after either. Not with as bad as the Knicks look and as capped out as they are."
What if either one of those things is the real truth? I submit that the Bulls are one of, and maybe the only team that makes sense to make a move for Anthony, from both the Bulls' and Knicks' points of view.
For the Bulls, is Anthony a fit? I don't know...but I do know that this Bulls team as it is currently constituted is not going to win an NBA championship. So let's say they amnesty Boozer and they have the cap room for a really good player (which should be the case). Who is that player? After Anthony, who is the next best free agent? Well, it looks to me like it is probably...wait for it...
Luol Deng!
Here's one list of free agents for 2014: Sports Illustrated List
Notice that most of the free agents above #10 (Deng's position) are centers and power forwards. Also note that many of them (Lebron, Bosh, Wade, Duncan, Nowitski, Kobe, and even Anthony) are likely to resign with their own teams. Pao Gasol and Zach Randolph make some sense for the Bulls (especially Randolph, if they do indeed amnesty Boozer) but their real need is for a scorer at either shooting guard or small forward. Anthony is the only one on that list before Deng who fits that role, and might possibly be available in a sign-and-trade.
Does Anthony make the Bulls a championship contender? I think he does. But if he doesn't, so what? No one else, either free agent or draft pick (outside of maybe Parker or Wiggins or a couple of others who will be long gone when the Bulls draft) makes the Bulls a contender. Anthony provides what the Bulls need - scoring. With Derrick Rose (even if he isn't as good as he used to be), and a supporting cast including Noah and Gibson, and whatever is left that the Bulls don't trade to the Knicks to get Anthony, it's a Bulls team that can go deeper in the playoffs. They have their secret weapon as well - coach Thibodeaux. (I'm probably spelling that wrong.)
So why would it make sense for the Knicks? The biggest asset they'd get in the deal would be Boozer and his 16 million dollar expiring contract. Assuming Anthony's max deal with the Knicks is 130 million over 5 years (a figure I heard on the radio this morning, but I'd previously heard 23 million a year over 6 years), that means the Bulls have to match 26 million a year. Boozer accounts for 16 million of that amount. 10 million to go.
What would the Knicks want? I'd think they want a young player. Butler, probably. Butler's valuable to the Bulls but not indispensable, and Anthony is going to be the starting "3". I don't know what he makes but it can't be too much. So what else goes east? Could they sign-and-trade Hinrich to a team-friendly deal that would make him very attractive to the Knicks, who could use veteran leadership at the point? Or could they decide that Jimmer Fredette is their three-point shooter and deal Mike Dunleavy? I think his contract is about 5 million a year. Let's just guess-timate that Butler is around 3 million. That brings us to 24 million. Two to go. I'm positive that they'd want the Bulls' pick. I'd rather trade both Bulls' first rounders (2014 and 2015) if that's possible. I know there's a league rule about dealing successive first round picks, but I don't know if it applies when you also have other teams' first round picks. If it does, then keep the 2015 pick and send them the pick they got for Deng (the Kings' pick, I believe, protected this year but not next?). I think all the Bulls have to do is find another million dollars in salary to deal. I'm sure it could be done. That's if the Bulls have to match 26 million. If it's 23 million, it's a little easier.
The key is Boozer. Does he work for the Knicks, who will also have Stoudamire under contract? I think it does. First, Boozer is expiring after next season. Second, Boozer is a good player (if not a great player, and if not worth the big contract the Bulls gave him), and Stoudamire can swing between center and power forward. Butler replaces Anthony, and Hinrich gives them veteran leadership for a couple of years. Or Dunleavy gives them a year of a solid small forward and three point shooter. And they get some young players with not-too-low draft picks. Would that work for someone like Phil Jackson and the Knicks?
So is this likely? I doubt it. Like I said earlier, I'd bet that Anthony will stay in New York and the Bulls will have to find somewhere else to spend the money. Maybe they don't amnesty Boozer, maybe they bring Mirotic over and draft a couple of more pieces and see what they have in Rose. Maybe they make a run at Paul Pierce or something like that. There are options.
But none of those options lead to a Bulls championship next year, in my opinion. The only scenario where I see a championship in the picture is one where they get Carmelo Anthony.
*****
You can find my short story NIGHT FAMILY on Amazon!
You can also find another of my short stories DEAD OR ALIVE on Amazon!
*****
But what if Phil is blowing smoke? What if when Phil says that he believes that Carmelo can help the team, he means that Carmelo can help the team by being dealt in a sign-and-trade? And who has what it would take to make that sort of a deal? Who has assets that might just help the Knicks rebuild this year and in the future? Or what if Carmelo looks at the picture in the short term and says, "There is no way we're going to compete next year...and probably not the year after either. Not with as bad as the Knicks look and as capped out as they are."
What if either one of those things is the real truth? I submit that the Bulls are one of, and maybe the only team that makes sense to make a move for Anthony, from both the Bulls' and Knicks' points of view.
For the Bulls, is Anthony a fit? I don't know...but I do know that this Bulls team as it is currently constituted is not going to win an NBA championship. So let's say they amnesty Boozer and they have the cap room for a really good player (which should be the case). Who is that player? After Anthony, who is the next best free agent? Well, it looks to me like it is probably...wait for it...
Luol Deng!
Here's one list of free agents for 2014: Sports Illustrated List
Notice that most of the free agents above #10 (Deng's position) are centers and power forwards. Also note that many of them (Lebron, Bosh, Wade, Duncan, Nowitski, Kobe, and even Anthony) are likely to resign with their own teams. Pao Gasol and Zach Randolph make some sense for the Bulls (especially Randolph, if they do indeed amnesty Boozer) but their real need is for a scorer at either shooting guard or small forward. Anthony is the only one on that list before Deng who fits that role, and might possibly be available in a sign-and-trade.
Does Anthony make the Bulls a championship contender? I think he does. But if he doesn't, so what? No one else, either free agent or draft pick (outside of maybe Parker or Wiggins or a couple of others who will be long gone when the Bulls draft) makes the Bulls a contender. Anthony provides what the Bulls need - scoring. With Derrick Rose (even if he isn't as good as he used to be), and a supporting cast including Noah and Gibson, and whatever is left that the Bulls don't trade to the Knicks to get Anthony, it's a Bulls team that can go deeper in the playoffs. They have their secret weapon as well - coach Thibodeaux. (I'm probably spelling that wrong.)
So why would it make sense for the Knicks? The biggest asset they'd get in the deal would be Boozer and his 16 million dollar expiring contract. Assuming Anthony's max deal with the Knicks is 130 million over 5 years (a figure I heard on the radio this morning, but I'd previously heard 23 million a year over 6 years), that means the Bulls have to match 26 million a year. Boozer accounts for 16 million of that amount. 10 million to go.
What would the Knicks want? I'd think they want a young player. Butler, probably. Butler's valuable to the Bulls but not indispensable, and Anthony is going to be the starting "3". I don't know what he makes but it can't be too much. So what else goes east? Could they sign-and-trade Hinrich to a team-friendly deal that would make him very attractive to the Knicks, who could use veteran leadership at the point? Or could they decide that Jimmer Fredette is their three-point shooter and deal Mike Dunleavy? I think his contract is about 5 million a year. Let's just guess-timate that Butler is around 3 million. That brings us to 24 million. Two to go. I'm positive that they'd want the Bulls' pick. I'd rather trade both Bulls' first rounders (2014 and 2015) if that's possible. I know there's a league rule about dealing successive first round picks, but I don't know if it applies when you also have other teams' first round picks. If it does, then keep the 2015 pick and send them the pick they got for Deng (the Kings' pick, I believe, protected this year but not next?). I think all the Bulls have to do is find another million dollars in salary to deal. I'm sure it could be done. That's if the Bulls have to match 26 million. If it's 23 million, it's a little easier.
The key is Boozer. Does he work for the Knicks, who will also have Stoudamire under contract? I think it does. First, Boozer is expiring after next season. Second, Boozer is a good player (if not a great player, and if not worth the big contract the Bulls gave him), and Stoudamire can swing between center and power forward. Butler replaces Anthony, and Hinrich gives them veteran leadership for a couple of years. Or Dunleavy gives them a year of a solid small forward and three point shooter. And they get some young players with not-too-low draft picks. Would that work for someone like Phil Jackson and the Knicks?
So is this likely? I doubt it. Like I said earlier, I'd bet that Anthony will stay in New York and the Bulls will have to find somewhere else to spend the money. Maybe they don't amnesty Boozer, maybe they bring Mirotic over and draft a couple of more pieces and see what they have in Rose. Maybe they make a run at Paul Pierce or something like that. There are options.
But none of those options lead to a Bulls championship next year, in my opinion. The only scenario where I see a championship in the picture is one where they get Carmelo Anthony.
*****
You can find my short story NIGHT FAMILY on Amazon!
You can also find another of my short stories DEAD OR ALIVE on Amazon!
*****
Friday, February 5, 2010
Bulls trade rumor
This trade rumor is a couple of days old now. It's been going around that the Bulls and Celtics might be discussing a deal for Ray Allen and his 19+ million dollar expiring contract. The names being suggested for the Bulls to send to the Celtics are Kirk Hinrich and John Salmons.
If I'm the Bulls I do it. I've read assertions that they'll be better (because Ray Allen is a big two guard who can shoot the lights out) and that they'll be worse (because Ray Allen can't defend as well as Hinrich and can't back up the point - he can pretty much play only one position at this point in his career, and his age is catching up with him this year).
But I suppose that does not matter in the end. This Bulls team is not a championship team. The regret I'd have with dealing Hinrich is that I think he could be an important part of a championship team, as a third combo guard. But I wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice him for that sort of cap space. Hinrich is, I believe, signed through 2012, and his yearly dollar amount decreases (instead of increasing) each year. Salmons has an opt-out for next summer which the Bulls probably hope he exercises, but, with the way he's playing this year, he's likely to elect to take the 6 million and stay with the Bulls. I'm sure they'd need to include some cap filler, maybe Jerome James, to get to where Allen is, salary-wise, but it does clear several million dollars that otherwise won't be going anywhere, and would likely allow the Bulls to pursue two quality free agents.
The question is why the Celtics would do this. Do they really feel that Allen's skills are dimishing so much that they need to get rid of him right now? And why not just keep him and not resign him? I don't know what the impact of the Celtics simply letting him go would be but it probably would not give them the full 19 million like it would the Bulls, since they have to match salaries in order to make the deal. And if they're going for it this year (as I'm sure they are), do they feel that Hinrich (or Salmons) provide something valuable that Allen can't provide at this point? Defense (in Hinrich's case)?
It's an interesting rumor, and if I were the Bulls GM and this is seriously on the table, I think I'd be doing it.
If I'm the Bulls I do it. I've read assertions that they'll be better (because Ray Allen is a big two guard who can shoot the lights out) and that they'll be worse (because Ray Allen can't defend as well as Hinrich and can't back up the point - he can pretty much play only one position at this point in his career, and his age is catching up with him this year).
But I suppose that does not matter in the end. This Bulls team is not a championship team. The regret I'd have with dealing Hinrich is that I think he could be an important part of a championship team, as a third combo guard. But I wouldn't hesitate to sacrifice him for that sort of cap space. Hinrich is, I believe, signed through 2012, and his yearly dollar amount decreases (instead of increasing) each year. Salmons has an opt-out for next summer which the Bulls probably hope he exercises, but, with the way he's playing this year, he's likely to elect to take the 6 million and stay with the Bulls. I'm sure they'd need to include some cap filler, maybe Jerome James, to get to where Allen is, salary-wise, but it does clear several million dollars that otherwise won't be going anywhere, and would likely allow the Bulls to pursue two quality free agents.
The question is why the Celtics would do this. Do they really feel that Allen's skills are dimishing so much that they need to get rid of him right now? And why not just keep him and not resign him? I don't know what the impact of the Celtics simply letting him go would be but it probably would not give them the full 19 million like it would the Bulls, since they have to match salaries in order to make the deal. And if they're going for it this year (as I'm sure they are), do they feel that Hinrich (or Salmons) provide something valuable that Allen can't provide at this point? Defense (in Hinrich's case)?
It's an interesting rumor, and if I were the Bulls GM and this is seriously on the table, I think I'd be doing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
