Chicago Fanatics Message Board
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/

something to chew on
https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=5844		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Spinnin' Bucket [ Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:59 pm ]
Post subject:  something to chew on
At the risk of inciting a riot around here, I feel compelled to jump-start the “Bulls aren’t done dealing yet” debate again. And yes, I’m talking about KG. Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I’m not necessarily lobbying for Garnett (not that it would matter if I am), but merely laying out the groundwork for things that may or may not go down based on both legitimate information and my own gut intuition…

Exhibit A

Garnett has 3 years remaining on his contract. However, he has the ability to opt out next offseason. Obviously, the Bulls will not be under the cap for years to come. So if KG opts out, there will be several teams (most notably the Lakers) scrambling to acquire his services, but the Bulls will not be among them. If Pax wants to make a run at Garnett, the time is now, not only because of the financial details on our end, but also because Minnesota may have no say in the matter this time next year if KG wants to make like a tree and get outta there.

Exhibit B

I’m not convinced they’re going to hold on to PJ Brown. League rules prohibit them from moving him for 60 days within the official acquisition, so he won’t be going anywhere until the 2nd week of September if he goes at all. Nevertheless, I just have a gut feeling that he’s not here to stay. Also, it doesn’t seem that he really wants to be here. This was his reaction after learning he was being shipped to the Bulls:

“This trade is something I'm not ecstatic or overjoyed about, but I understand it's part of the business”

So that leaves 3 questions. A) did he and his wife just fall in love with Oklahoma City and were they looking forward to returning to a city in shambles like New Orleans? B) is he dumb enough to think the Hornets have a better shot at winning than the Bulls? C) do he and his agent realize that this is temporary and the Bulls intend to move him later as part of a bigger package?

Exhibit C

Let’s not bother getting into the details of the cyclical Tyson Chandler argument again. To be brief… On the negative end - he plays limited minutes, limited offense, and has a terrible contract. On the positive end – he is only 23 years old and may one day become a quality player, at least from a defensive and rebounding perspective.

Here’s the crux of the situation, though. Which is more advantageous for the Bulls, which is a better bargaining chip, so to speak? Most teams would probably rather have a large expiring contract like Brown’s, allowing them to spend in the following offseason as they see fit, rather than take a gamble on a player like Chandler that hasn’t yet proven his worth. Moreover, a team like Minnesota would be significantly under the cap next year if they were to get Garnett off the books. It would take a bit of tweaking, however, but it’s certainly doable. They’d need to move 2 of the following 5 players – Ricky Davis, Troy Hudson, Marko Jaric, Mark Blount, Trenton Hassell – for guys with expiring contracts, but none of those 5 has what you might call an immovable contract.

For this reason, I believe they’d rather have PJ Brown. And for the same reason, I believe that may be why the Bulls traded Chandler for him. We’ll see.

Exhibit D

The Rashad McCants injury. The Wolves 2005 1st rd pick is out 4-6 months, perhaps longer, with the same type of knee injury as Amare. That’s not good. And that’s where JR Smith comes into play. Sending Smith to Minneapolis would provide the Wolves with a solid young 2-guard who’s purpose would be 2-fold: a) provide minutes in McCants’ absence and push him in his rehab, b) provide an insurance policy should this become a recurring Cub-like injury to McCants.

Exhibit E

The offer. Here goes:

SG JR Smith
SF Luol Deng
PF Tyrus Thomas
FC PJ Brown
2007 NY Knicks pick

Sounds like a shitload, and in fact it is, but that’s what it would take contractually to line up from a financial standpoint. The ’07 Knicks pick holds no monetary value at this point, but I do believe Minnesota would insist on the pick, so I’m throwing it into this hypothetical scenario.

Minnesota would have a bright young future. Their line-up would probably be as follows:

PG Randy Foye
SG McCants/Smith
SF Luol Deng
PF Tyrus Thomas
C 2007 lottery pick

As for the Bulls, they’d be more dangerous than Dan McNeil:

PG Kirk Hinrich
SG Ben Gordon
SF Andres Nocioni
PF Kevin Garnett
C Ben Wallace

The bench would be a little thin…

PG Chris Duhon
GF Thabo Sefolosha
F Viktor Khryapa
FC Michael Sweetney
FC Malik Allen

… and the long-term outlook not as secure, but might it still be worth it?

If the Bulls don’t make a major shake-up, I’d say their odds of winning a title in the next 5 years are above average to good. Despite the young assets they’d lose in pursuit of KG, I’d say the line-up of Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni, Garnett, and Wallace would put their odds of winning a title in the next 3 years in the neighborhood of good to great.

Just something to chew on as we all sit and wait on Pax’s next move. Love to hear some feedback/debate, but try not to have a coronary in your responses please.
Author:  good dolphin [ Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:33 am ]
Post subject: 
That is a lot of machinations by the Bulls just to get to the point of possibly getting Garnett.

I believe PJ Brown is from New Orleans and by many accounts JR Smith will be available in the near future (although I would like the Bulls to give him a legitimate look).

You would be trading the equivalent of 3 top draft choices. That is a heavy price. You would also be selling that Knick pick short, as the traders say. If that becomes the #1 pick, you may be able to get Garnett for it straight up.

If that deal was out there wouldn't Minnesota have completed it before the draft in order to control who was taken.
Author:  Spinnin' Bucket [ Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
All valid questions, which is why I call it just something to chew on.

However, you couldn't have pulled it before the draft because you need Thomas' salary thrown in to offset Garnett's contract. Draft picks hold no monetary value when balancing contracts in a trade. He needs to actually sign first.

Also, I know we're all hoping the Knicks blow and yield a top-3 pick, ideally #1, but there is no guarantee. There is just as good a chance they give us the #10 pick. I'd gladly take it, since the Bulls' pick will likely be somewhere in the 20's, but I'm sure Pax is not penciling Greg Oden into the 2007 roster just yet.

Finally, you could not trade the #1 pick straight up for Garnett even if both sides were in favor of it. The money has to match up within 15%. That's why you need PJ and the youngsters.
Author:  A7X [ Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
Where the hell has Nas been? I'd like to hear his thoughts on this.

Even if you could trade the #1 straight up for Garnett, why in the world would you? By all accounts, Oden is one of those special, once-in-a-generation big men.
Author:  good dolphin [ Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
Spinnin' Bucket wrote:
Also, I know we're all hoping the Knicks blow and yield a top-3 pick, ideally #1, but there is no guarantee. There is just as good a chance they give us the #10 pick. .


If you are the worst team in the league aren't you assured a top 3 pick?

I know we are not assured the Knicks will suck but I would be willing to bet this will be a horrible year.

Tyler Hansbrough will be a very nice second pick if the Bulls do not get the #1.
Author:  Spinnin' Bucket [ Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
Nas hasn't been around much lately. Wasn't he due to get married soon? Maybe that's it.

Either way, Nas weighed in on the Garnett ordeal a while back. He doesn't want to part with the young talent it would take to get it done. Maybe his stance has shifted since, not sure. He has made the argument that there aren't enough minutes to go around for all the talent they've stockpiled, though, and thinning out the roster to bring in KG would certainly solve the minutes dilemna.

I'm not convinced it's the right thing to do either. Just wanted to stir up some discussion since there won't be much Bulls talk for a couple of months now. I do know one thing, a front court of Garnett & Wallace would be a motherfucker for opposing teams to deal with. Hinrich & Gordon in the backcourt, not too shabby either.
Author:  Spinnin' Bucket [ Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Tyler Hansbrough will be a very nice second pick if the Bulls do not get the #1.


Tyler Hansbrough? Check back with me in 11 months on that one, Dolphin. He won't crack the lottery.

Also, worst team in the league is guaranteed no worse than the 4th pick. The Knicks are loaded with selfish asswipes, but I'm not convinced they will be as bad again this year. They'll likely be watching the playoffs from home, but if you're counting on them to lose 60 games again, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. I see them picking somewhere between 6 & 12.
Author:  good dolphin [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:01 am ]
Post subject: 
Spinnin' Bucket wrote:
Quote:
Tyler Hansbrough will be a very nice second pick if the Bulls do not get the #1.


Tyler Hansbrough? Check back with me in 11 months on that one, Dolphin. He won't crack the lottery.

.


I would have said the same thing about Sheldon Williams. Look at the big men in the lottery this year. Are you telling me Patick O'Bryant, Sene or Hilton Armstrong were or will be better than him.
Author:  Spinnin' Bucket [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 11:31 am ]
Post subject: 
All of those guys are significantly bigger than him. Tyler is listed at 6'8", which means he's 6'7" on a good day. Also has poor wingspan and mediocre athleticism.

Try-hard guy with lousy measurables. Sounds like a journeyman to me. Lots of guys look good in a college uniform, play the game right, bust their ass, but simply don't have the raw tools to make it happen at the professional level. I'm not saying he has no place in the league, but if he gets drafted in the top-10, some GM is going to lose his job and I will owe you a beer Dolphin.
Author:  doug - evergreen park [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 1:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
question about the poor wingspan....

I always thought that your height and wingspan were the same measurement.
Is that not the case?
Author:  Beardown [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Height is your height. Wing spand is the measurement of your arms while spread eagle.
Author:  A7X [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Spread eagle.

Those two words conjure up images of NBA players posing like Hustler centerfolds while having their wingspan measured. :twisted:
Author:  doug - evergreen park [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
o.k.
maybe i should have been a little more clear.

i know what the difference is between the two. however, i had the understanding that the wing span and the height measurements would actually have the same value or real number.
i.e.
fingertip to fingertip = 5'7"
height = 5'7"
Author:  Spinnin' Bucket [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 6:53 pm ]
Post subject: 
they're usually in the same neighborhood, doug. but typically, the taller you are, the more variation there is, with the wingspan being slightly greater than the height.

for example, tyrus thomas is 6'8" but his wingspan is 7'3".
Author:  Spinnin' Bucket [ Sun Jul 16, 2006 8:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
The Bulls just signed Adrian Griffin to a 3-year deal and had to outbid Dallas & Sacramento to do so (most likely they used up the majority of their mid-level exception). That makes 14 guys on the roster, none of which has a BS league-minimum type salary. Something is going to go down. They've also dropped hints that they're going to keep Luke Schenscher, who is a restricted FA.

I can see it now...

PG Kirk Hinrich
SG Ben Gordon
SF Andres Nocioni
PF Kevin Garnett
C Ben Wallace

pg chris duhon
gf thabo sefolosha
gf adrian griffin
f viktor khryapa
fc michael sweetney
fc malik allen
c luke schenscher

A guy can dream, can't he?

Bulls in '07...
Author:  Spinnin' Bucket [ Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:26 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
Spinnin, you can trade a pick or picks straight up for a player as long as you have cap room.


The Bulls did not have the cap room to cover Garnett's salary. They had a lot (upper teens), but not 20mil dollars worth. They could have thrown in a player to bring the cap space up into the 20s, but the whole point of this was to have Garnett AND Wallace, so that scenario is out the window.

And don’t be so sure he won’t opt out. There’s not that much life left on the contract, and he might accept slightly less not only to get added years on a new deal but also for the opportunity to play for a respectable franchise.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/