Rocks and Blows wrote:
I'm all but certain they could have pulled off the Amare trade last week but were to afraid.
Yeah I am sure you are in the know.
| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| It's a good, not great, trade https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=29788 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | bigfan [ Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | It's a good, not great, trade |
This team needed size! I have been bitching about it since Pax and Skiles tried to create a team in their images and they disregarded the fact the game is played by big men. Not that Brad Miller is great, but he is an NBA center. This has the feel of Oakley for Cartwright. You needed an NBA center than can score and defend., This teams more than what they did and they did improve, not drastically! But Gooden added very little, I can find 33 Nocionis and all the Ced SImmons you want |
|
| Author: | Mr. Reason [ Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
bigfan wrote: Ced SImmons Who the hell is he? |
|
| Author: | SHARK [ Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
According to what 670 "The SCORE's" David Schuster told "Boers & Bernstein" late this afternoon, John Salmons' acquisition likely signals the end of Ben Gordon after this season, and he seemed to think that Kirk Hinrich is an expensive & expendable backup guard now that Derrick Rose is here... |
|
| Author: | schmitty1121 [ Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
Brad Miller is nothin. Salmons of course will take Gordon's spot next season. Once again Pax can't make the big move. |
|
| Author: | RFDC [ Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
schmitty1121 wrote: Once again Pax can't make the big move. It does not seem like Pax had a willing partner in making a "big move" |
|
| Author: | Rocks and Blows [ Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
I'm all but certain they could have pulled off the Amare trade last week but were to afraid. Pax has no credibility. |
|
| Author: | RFDC [ Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
Rocks and Blows wrote: I'm all but certain they could have pulled off the Amare trade last week but were to afraid. Yeah I am sure you are in the know.
|
|
| Author: | SHARK [ Wed Feb 18, 2009 11:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
RFDC wrote: schmitty1121 wrote: Once again Pax can't make the big move. It does not seem like Pax had a willing partner in making a "big move" Are you sure he's still general managing this team into the ground? It was a few days ago when Peter Vecsey reported in the New York Post & the Sun-Times' own & "SCORE" morning co-host Brian Hanley confirmed that Paxson is resigning...Pax, his rumored replacement Gar Forman, and the Bulls have been awfully quiet since the story broke Friday morning...The closest there's been to a statement on this situation is that Reinsdorf blasted Vecsey... |
|
| Author: | Mr. Reason [ Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
SHARK wrote: According to what 670 "The SCORE's" David Schuster told "Boers & Bernstein" late this afternoon, John Salmons' acquisition likely signals the end of Ben Gordon after this season, and he seemed to think that Kirk Hinrich is an expensive & expendable backup guard now that Derrick Rose is here... Christ, where is that Kid Cairo fellow when you need him? |
|
| Author: | SHARK [ Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
Was it something I wrote? 
|
|
| Author: | bigfan [ Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
Top section deleted by me Brad Miller is a better back to the basket player than gooden was. Plus Gooden was injured too often anyways to have any input. I have not watched enough of Salmon to see if he can be that 2 guard to play with Rose AND DEFEND. |
|
| Author: | W_Z [ Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
john...salmons...hoo boy... |
|
| Author: | SHARK [ Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
The TV voice of Sacramento Kings' basketball was a guest this morning with "Mully & Hanley" and he gave a rave review about John Salmons being the best all-around player on a bad Sacramento team & someone who can defend in addition to averaging 18.3 points per game. On the surface, nobody should be enamored by this deal. Salmons appears to be the key to this trade... |
|
| Author: | Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
Nas wrote: It appears that Gooden can score and rebound better than Miller. Gooden was also off the books next season and won't cost the Bulls $12M I think you get more production from Miller and Thomas than Gooden and Noah. Further, Since they appear stuck with him, they need Thomas to start and play major minutes the rest of the way so they can evaluate him before his contract comes up. Finally, I'll take Miller's $12M expiring contract in 2010 over Gooden's $7M expiring contract in '09. While there is no guarantee that one of the bigtime free agents will come to the Bulls, they will be able to offer max money in a major market which certainly gives them a better shot than most. With Stoudemire and Bosh out of the picture for now, it's the next best chance they have of building a championship caliber team.
|
|
| Author: | SHARK [ Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
ESPN.com's Chad Ford was on with "Tirico & Van Pelt" last hour, and because of the sagging American economy, NBA teams might be dealing with a lower salary cap and a luxury tax that might prevent teams from going after marquee free agents come 2010. Not to say the Bulls have a snowball's chance of landing LeBron James, Amare Stoudemire, Chris Bosh, Dwyane Wade or anyone else for that matter in this much-publicized free agent class. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Thu Feb 19, 2009 8:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
`I like the trade. Miller's contract will be a valuable asset a year from now whether we keep it and use the FA money or deal it. Salmons is a much, much better contract than Noc, and Im glad we are out from under it. He's also a much better defender than Gordon. Not saying hes great, but he was a very decent starter a year or two ago(forgot how long ago it was) when Artest was hurt and the Kings had a short rotation. |
|
| Author: | Bulldog Scott [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
Nas wrote: FavreFan wrote: `I like the trade. Miller's contract will be a valuable asset a year from now whether we keep it and use the FA money or deal it. Salmons is a much, much better contract than Noc, and Im glad we are out from under it. He's also a much better defender than Gordon. Not saying hes great, but he was a very decent starter a year or two ago(forgot how long ago it was) when Artest was hurt and the Kings had a short rotation. What difference will Miller's contract make? Why is that so hard to understand? They had Hughes and they traded that for 2 expiring deals. The Bulls would have to pull off 2 big trades for stars for his contract to even matter. Salmons only makes a couple million less than Nocioni next season and after that they have essentially the same contract. That's not going to make a difference when it comes to signing a star. Miller contract cost the Bulls $10M that they could have kept. He doesn't improve their position in 2010. Kings Drew Gooden $7.1M contract (expiring after the season) Andres Nocioni $7.5M contract for next season ($6.8M the following season) Total financial responsibility for next season: $7.5M Bulls Brad Miller $12.2M John Salmons $5.4M next season ($6.2 the following season) Total financial responsibility: $17.6M Unless the Bulls make 2 major trades it will cost them and extra $10M and they aren't a better team. I guess it remains to be seen, but I think they are a better team with Miller and Salmons than they were with Nocioni and Gooden. We'll find out soon enough... |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
Bulldog Scott wrote: Nas wrote: FavreFan wrote: `I like the trade. Miller's contract will be a valuable asset a year from now whether we keep it and use the FA money or deal it. Salmons is a much, much better contract than Noc, and Im glad we are out from under it. He's also a much better defender than Gordon. Not saying hes great, but he was a very decent starter a year or two ago(forgot how long ago it was) when Artest was hurt and the Kings had a short rotation. What difference will Miller's contract make? Why is that so hard to understand? They had Hughes and they traded that for 2 expiring deals. The Bulls would have to pull off 2 big trades for stars for his contract to even matter. Salmons only makes a couple million less than Nocioni next season and after that they have essentially the same contract. That's not going to make a difference when it comes to signing a star. Miller contract cost the Bulls $10M that they could have kept. He doesn't improve their position in 2010. Kings Drew Gooden $7.1M contract (expiring after the season) Andres Nocioni $7.5M contract for next season ($6.8M the following season) Total financial responsibility for next season: $7.5M Bulls Brad Miller $12.2M John Salmons $5.4M next season ($6.2 the following season) Total financial responsibility: $17.6M Unless the Bulls make 2 major trades it will cost them and extra $10M and they aren't a better team. I guess it remains to be seen, but I think they are a better team with Miller and Salmons than they were with Nocioni and Gooden. We'll find out soon enough... I definitely think they are. Nas, obviously the point of having Miller's contract next season would be to use it as a trading asset. Unfortunately we dont have the right GM for that. Either way you cant argue that it wont be a valuable asset, and I really dont care that it might cost Uncle Jerry a few extra bucks. Salmons contract overall is much better than Noc's. He's a better player for less money. Noc had a pretty bad contract. Im glad to get rid of it. |
|
| Author: | The Original Kid Cairo [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
Rocks and Blows wrote: I'm all but certain they could have pulled off the Amare trade last week but were to afraid. Pax has no credibility. Phoenix were the ones who pulled Amare off the trading block. It didn't have anything to do with Pax's willingness or unwillingness to make a deal with them. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
A few things. The Bulls being good doesn't really matter. The best thing to happen for the future would be to lose every game the rest of the season. Salmons will be a good replacement for Gordon who is clearly gone after this year. The Bulls freed up salary for the future. Nocioni's long term deal is gone. Once again, it doesn't matter that the Bulls are paying $10 million more next year. Gordon was gone anyways. If they pay the luxury tax that's the owners problem. The Bulls traded an expiring contract this year that's useless for an expiring contract next year. Brad Miller could be very valuable next year in a trade since his contract can take $12 million off the books of a team that gets him. I'd rather have $12 million expiring next year instead of $7 million expiring this year and Brad Miller is just as good as Drew Gooden and you get him for an extra .5 years to 1 year if he's not traded. |
|
| Author: | SHARK [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
The Original Kid Cairo wrote: Rocks and Blows wrote: I'm all but certain they could have pulled off the Amare trade last week but were to afraid. Pax has no credibility. Phoenix were the ones who pulled Amare off the trading block. It didn't have anything to do with Pax's willingness or unwillingness to make a deal with them. The only way the Suns were going to trade Amare Stoudemire was that GM Steve Kerr couldn't pass up what was being offered. Besides, when Alvin Gentry was hired as the interim head coach, he immediately put in the offense that the John Ratzenberger-looking Mike D'Antoni had before leaving for New York last summer. 'Nuff said. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
Trade analysis: True either way: Ben Gordon is gone after this season. The Bulls are nothing more than an average to below average NBA team with no real shot of competing with the best in the East. Nocioni, Gooden, Brad Miller, and Salmons aren't going to change the above statement. 2008 season if the Bulls hadn't made the trade: Drew Gooden's expiring contract of $7.1 million gets off the books at the end of the season. No real value. Andres Nocioni stays for $7.5 million next season. 2008 season with the Bulls making the trade: Brad Miller and John Salmons are similar in salary to Drew Gooden and Nocioni for this season. 2008 verdict: Draw. This trade really doesn't change anything for 2008. 2009 season if the Bulls hadn't made the trade: Drew Gooden is gone. Andres Nocioni is still around. The Bulls have less payroll. 2009 season with the Bulls trade. Miller and Salmons still around. The Bulls have the very valuable "expiring contract" in a season where this is the most valuable commodity in the league. This is a great thing to have and at worst it's an expiring deal. This may make the whole trade worth it right here. The Bulls have more payroll, but since I don't pay the bills I don't care. This will not cost them any players. There is a small chance Salmons opts out if he plays very well. If so, this gives the Bulls even more cap space for the most important free agency period in NBA history. The entire league changes during the off-season and the Bulls are in as good of shape as anyone. 2010 and beyond: 2010 season if the Bulls hadn't made the trade: Andres Nocioni is still on the team making more than he's probably worth for a bench player. 2010 season with the trade. Salmons may be gone, but probably not. He has an expiring contract. Brad Miller is definitely gone if he wasn't already traded away. So really, by this trade, the Bulls pretty much drew even in 2008, added a valuable expiring contract for 2009 with the small possibility of having another contract off the books for the 2010 draft class, and got rid of Nocioni's long term deal. Winner: Bulls |
|
| Author: | Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
Nas wrote: What difference will Miller's contract make? Why is that so hard to understand? Nas, I think you're focusing only on 2010 in terms of big name free agents. For teams who know that they won't be able to keep their stars (due to economics or bad mojo), Miller's expiring contract is very valuable. If Toronto comes to the conclusion that Bosh is gone after next season, why lose him for nothing?Props to Boilermaker Rick...your post explains it best. 
|
|
| Author: | Brick [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
Nas wrote: You guys keep missing the point. Unless the Bulls make 2 big trades having Miller won't be a plus. That is false. The Bulls could make 1 big trade and keep that expiring contract for another free agent. By my count, there are at least 10 impact free agents coming on the market. They weren't going to get anything for Drew Gooden's expiring contract. Now they can trade Miller's for something. That's a positive. They would still have the other contract to use on a free agent. That's where the value is. There is a lot of flexibility by having an extra expiring contract. At worst, it's the same situation they would have been in otherwise. At best, it turns into a big time trade. You keep on saying it wasn't a plus, but at a minimum, besides the Bulls maybe paying the luxury tax which doesn't matter, it's not a negative. This can only help the Bulls. It can't hurt. |
|
| Author: | Mustang Rob [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
Nas are you forgetting ALL of Noc's contract? Nocioni $8,000,000 $7,500,000 $6,850,000 $6,650,000 Salmons $5,104,000 $5,456,000, $5,808,000 It improves the Bulls position by a Mil in 2010/2011 & by 6.7Mil the year after that. |
|
| Author: | Mustang Rob [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
Nas wrote: What am I missing here. The free agents hit the market after next season, not this offseason, so how would Gooden's contract help them then? How does Miller's contract hurt them? How is Salmons' contract worse than Noc's? I see the bulls treading water next season with pretty much what they have less Gordon, and positioning themselves to make a run at CB4, Amare or Wade in the next offseason. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
Nas wrote: Keep it for another free agent? What am I missing here. How will that contract help them bring in a free agent? If Brad Miller is traded, they get a pretty good price in return since his expiring contract will be very valuable. If Brad Miler is not traded, they can use that expiring contract to try and sign a free agent. It gives them plenty of options. Even if they trade Miller, they still have expiring contracts they got back from the Hughes trade which they can use for a free agent. So, the Bulls either have a ton of free agent money, or some good return on trading away expiring contracts. A year from now we will realize just how valuable having a $12 million dollar expiring contract is in 2009. It's impossible to predict the future but the Bulls are positioned very well. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
Nas wrote: Since the Bulls didn't trade Kirk they will have the same amount of money to use on free agents in 2010 if they had done nothing. This didn't help the cause. Again the Bulls would have to make 2 trades for this to make sense. Making one is something they could have done without Miller. Why are you so hung up on that? Everyone acknowledges that this trade may not result in anything. However, there is nothing that could happen that hurt the position they are in. They acquired a contract that is going to be very valuable next season. They added a very valuable contract for next season with no downside. Drew Gooden would not have been an expiring contract next season, and therefore would not have been trade bait. The Bulls did not have two expiring contracts next year. They had one. Now they have Brad Miller's contract and the equivalent expiring contracts to Larry Hughes. The Bulls have an extra $12 million of expiring contracts for next year they wouldn't have had otherwise. It may not lead to a blockbuster trade but it's much more likely now because of it. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
Boilermaker Rick wrote: Nas wrote: Keep it for another free agent? What am I missing here. How will that contract help them bring in a free agent? If Brad Miller is traded, they get a pretty good price in return since his expiring contract will be very valuable. If Brad Miler is not traded, they can use that expiring contract to try and sign a free agent. It gives them plenty of options. Even if they trade Miller, they still have expiring contracts they got back from the Hughes trade which they can use for a free agent. So, the Bulls either have a ton of free agent money, or some good return on trading away expiring contracts. A year from now we will realize just how valuable having a $12 million dollar expiring contract is in 2009. It's impossible to predict the future but the Bulls are positioned very well. This is pretty much how I see things. And Im glad to get rid of Noc. |
|
| Author: | Brick [ Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: It's a good, not great, trade |
Nas wrote: Will you acknowledge that if the Bulls don't trade Miller they wasted $10M? I'll admit they didn't take advantage of it. I think if they don't trade Miller that the market for expiring contracts dried up. It's a nice option to have. Nas wrote: Will you acknowledge that this trade doesn't improve their position in the 2010 free agent market? It would depend on what would have happened with Gooden's expiring deal. I don't know what would have happened. Assuming no new signings would have happened this summer, I will acknowledge that. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|