# More "Zach Trade" Talk



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Apparently Chad Ford said today he thinks Zach is at the top of the Bulls list . . . also the Chicago Tribune had an article discussing the possibility of trading for Zach.

It seems like Zach is exactly what Chicago needs.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

I just don't see how we get a deal done. When they had PJ Brown's contract, the numbers worked fine, but now they don't have any contracts kicking in until mid July. Do we wait until then?


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

I just hope that we don't go out and get Nocioni. He WAS an interesting prospect, but his age coupled with his health problems lead me to believe that his most productive years will soon be behind his short career.

Outside of him, I don't see much that they'd be willing to offer outside of the ninth pick.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

SheedSoNasty said:


> I just hope that we don't go out and get Nocioni. He WAS an interesting prospect, but his age coupled with his health problems lead me to believe that his most productive years will soon be behind his short career.
> 
> Outside of him, I don't see much that they'd be willing to offer outside of the ninth pick.


Well if they used Hinrich, #9 pick (after July 12) and Sweetney for Zach, Jack it actually works cap wise. I just don't see them getting rid of Hinrich.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

It's difficult to gauge Paxson's opinion, but from the articles I've read, it sounds like they have this hard-lined approach where they want a certain player, but put it out there that players XYZ are off limits. 

Unfortunately for them, outside of the #9 pick and those 'protected' players, there isn't much on that team that anyone would want in a trade.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

I actually really like Nocioni and would be very happy if we could get him as part of the Zach deal (of course more value would have to come, but he's a good piece). This is of course assuming the doctors think the injury shouldn't affect him long term. I think Nocioni would fill a similar role on this team that Ruben did, only without the crazy. He brings toughness and energy, two things that I think are really underrated a lot of the time. I think he is an ideal bench player in a 6th man type role. He's capable of giving minutes at both the 3 and 4 spots.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

Samuel said:


> It's difficult to gauge Paxson's opinion, but from the articles I've read, it sounds like they have this hard-lined approach where they want a certain player, but put it out there that players XYZ are off limits.
> 
> Unfortunately for them, outside of the #9 pick and those 'protected' players, there isn't much on that team that anyone would want in a trade.


I agree. I think the untouchables are Hinrich, Deng and Wallace. I actually think Gordan, Nocioni, Duhon and even Ty Thomas are very tradable. Our problem is, who would we want out of that bunch?


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

magnifier said:


> I agree. I think the untouchables are Hinrich, Deng and Wallace. I actually think Gordan, Nocioni, Duhon and even Ty Thomas are very tradable. Our problem is, who would we want out of that bunch?


From what I've read, Thomas and Gordon are off limits, and they'd love to get rid of Ben Wallace's contract.


----------



## Oil Can (May 25, 2006)

If PDX could dump ZeBo for a combo of Hinrich, the pick, and filler it woudl really be awesome. The turn around and trade Jack to Atlanta for #11 and some change.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

The only guy I want from Chicago is Deng, and it doesnt look like Chicago wants to deal him.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

Oil Can said:


> If PDX could dump ZeBo for a combo of Hinrich, the pick, and filler it woudl really be awesome. The turn around and trade Jack to Atlanta for #11 and some change.


I'd do that in a heart beat. Hinrich is one of the best defensive PG in the league. Plus, he's got a nice wingspan, which would give us a lot of length on the defensive end. I'd turn around and pull the Jack for #11 and draft Green if we could pull that off. We'd immediately become young, explosive and defensive minded. Legacy, here we come.

(Note to self.... Be sure to slip some drugs into Paxon's drink on draft day)


----------



## BuckW4GM (Nov 2, 2005)

if the bulls can't get hawes or another bigs in the draft that they like, i think they'll go hard after zach. as much as i read bulls fans dreading the idea of adding zach to their team, i think they'll do a 180 once they find out that he's a terrific addition to their team. they'll have to relent their earlier stance of hinrich being untouchable. that's the guy i want and i think kp does as well.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

Samuel said:


> From what I've read, Thomas and Gordon are off limits, and they'd love to get rid of Ben Wallace's contract.


Hmmm... Well if Thomas and Gordan is off limits, then they aren't going to be moving much this summer.


----------



## Japers (May 24, 2007)

i seriously doubt the bulls have any idea what it takes to make a deal happen. it's like they don't understand the concept of a mututally beneficial trade. remember all the pau gasol talk? it seemed like all they were willing to offer was nocioni and some filler. they've already stated that half of their team is "untouchable". go to the bulls board and see what the people are saying. no captain kirk, no deng, no gordon, no wallace. i don't blame them for not wanting to disturb the core of their team, but just don't expect to land a 20 and 10 PF with chris duhon and pj brown on the table.

it's frustrating because i want to get rid of zbo just as much as everyone else but despite his reputation and various off court transgressions i still think we can get a little something in return for him. especially with a team in the east where the downside of his game isn't nearly as much of a liability. that's why talking to the bulls seems like a total waste of time.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

League sources say Chicago Bulls' general manager John Paxson is active in potential trade scenarios, with guard Chris Duhon the most likely Bull to be shopped. 
Source: Chicago Tribune

I'm sure Chicago fans are thinking up some Duhon for Zach trade senarios . . .

Unless Hinrich or Deng is involved (which it sounds like they are not available), I don't want to see any deal with Chicago.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

Japers said:


> i seriously doubt the bulls have any idea what it takes to make a deal happen. it's like they don't understand the concept of a mututally beneficial trade. remember all the pau gasol talk? it seemed like all they were willing to offer was nocioni and some filler. they've already stated that half of their team is "untouchable". go to the bulls board and see what the people are saying. no captain kirk, no deng, no gordon, no wallace. i don't blame them for not wanting to disturb the core of their team, but just don't expect to land a 20 and 10 PF with chris duhon and pj brown on the table.
> 
> it's frustrating because i want to get rid of zbo just as much as everyone else but despite his reputation and various off court transgressions i still think we can get a little something in return for him. especially with a team in the east where the downside of his game isn't nearly as much of a liability. that's why talking to the bulls seems like a total waste of time.


Let them make their mistakes. If they don't get that low post presence, they won't go anywhere in the playoffs. I laughed at them this season, watching them get man-handled down low by Detroit. They had no answer down there.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

magnifier said:


> then they aren't going to be moving much this summer.


That's been my impression from the start. 

Paxson had been doing exactly what it seems like KP is doing.

Drafting well, building a solid core and not sacrificing the youth development for trades that will only make the team better in the short term.

But MAN, I don't think I've seen a GM make a trifecta of moves so poor in my life



> *Paxson last summer*
> July 13 2006
> 
> 
> ...


I thought he drafted okay. Sefalosha, Khryapa, cash and Thomas wasn't a bad draft day return, but they really screwed the pooch after that.

They sign a 31-year old, undersized center on a 4-year contract worth about 60-million dollars. 

Then to make space on the payroll, they trade their 7-1, 24-year old center for a dinosaur PF who is expiring and a talented malcontent in JR Smith.

"Okay," you think. Smith is still going to be a pretty good player, and they'll be able to package one of their core players, NY's lotto pick and Brown, and get a marquee big man to replace Chandler.

Nope. They send out Smith for junk and simply let Brown expire without getting anything.

Paxson's track record was starting to look like Dumars in the early 00's... I was _convinced_. Only his Darko Milicic moment happened over and over again.

And it looks like it will continue. Even though they have a #9 pick in one of the best drafts in years, they won't package it with one of their core to get the big they need. All they're offering up is Andres Nocioni...


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Japers said:


> it's frustrating because i want to get rid of zbo just as much as everyone else but despite his reputation and various off court transgressions i still think we can get a little something in return for him. especially with a team in the east where the downside of his game isn't nearly as much of a liability. that's why talking to the bulls seems like a total waste of time.


Exactly. 

I think the Blazers netting Oden was huge, but I think down the road, we'll look back on KP's decisionmaking regarding Randolph as one of the most important moves he makes with regard to the future of the franchise.

I hope before he sat down and started working the phones, he accepted the possibility that Zach might still be on the team when training camp starts.

If you head into that activity with the notion that you HAVE to move someone, it gives the other teams all sorts of leverage that you can't afford to let them have.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

Samuel said:


> That's been my impression from the start.
> 
> Paxson had been doing exactly what it seems like KP is doing.
> 
> ...


Paxson had a chance to make a serious deal before the deadline: Nocioni, New York's pick and PJ Brown for Zach. That would have completed their team without any major sacrafice. I think he bought into the chance at Greg Oden. Both the draft lotto and the playoffs blew up in his face. Now Paxson has a hard time moving players because they don't have contracts to absorb what's coming back in return. There could be a possible (Sign and Trade) with PJ Brown that the other team could just waive him after the deal is made. Then PJ could just retire like he's wanted to do.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Chicago has not put all of Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, & Thomas off limits in a search for a low post scorer.

That would be silly. After that the only valuable trading asset they have is the #9 pick.

I think their real untouchables are Hinrich and Deng. Though if they can swing a trade for an all-star Post big, AND can get back a serviceable PG, they might include Hinrich. I don't think they could get fair value for Ben Wallace, nor would they trade him because of how that would look.

I would trade anything we have, short of Roy, Aldridge, Oden to get either Hinrich or Deng. Either of those guys would be great fits with our core. Deng is a budding star. Hinrich is a solid point with outstanding defense and good 3-pt shooting.

Gordon doesn't float my boat, would wreck our already poor perimeter defense, and thinks too much of himself. He would be great as a combo-guard off the bench, sixth man of the year on a contending team. Unfortunately he sees himself as an all-star, and wants the starting position, shots and contract that goes with it. Pass.

Thomas fits where on our twin-tower lineup? Another backup. We need to fashion a Zach trade that nets us a probable starter to finish out our starting lineup with at least 4 solid players. We can get away with one below average starter, not two.

Asking Chicago for Hinrich or Deng is like asking us to look at trades involving Roy or Aldridge. It would have to really knock our socks off. We don't have the juice for it.

Besides the #9 pick, I don't want anything else the Bulls have that badly. I don't think the #9, plus a bunch of matching junk is good value for Zach. Maybe a 3-team deal could be worked out so the matching salaries are more appealing to us.


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

Masbee said:


> I think their real untouchables are Hinrich and Deng. Though if they can swing a trade for an all-star Post big, AND can get back a serviceable PG, they might include Hinrich. I don't think they could get fair value for Ben Wallace, nor would they trade him because of how that would look.
> 
> I would trade anything we have, short of Roy, Aldridge, Oden to get either Hinrich or Deng. Either of those guys would be great fits with our core. Deng is a budding star. Hinrich is a solid point with outstanding defense and good 3-pt shooting.


I completely agree with that. The only untouchable players they have are Hinrich and Deng. Everyone else is open game. I would love to see Deng as a Blazer, but he's the "Golden Child" of Chicago. He's a humanist and is completely loved by the fans.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Zach & Raef for B. Wallace, Duhon & their 9th pick works on RealGM.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Samuel said:


> That's been my impression from the start.
> 
> Paxson had been doing exactly what it seems like KP is doing.
> 
> ...


Bingo.

I already posted this on the Bulls board. They passed on Andre Igodula for Gordon. They passed on LaMarcus Aldridge for the smaller Thomas. And made the other moves you mentioned. This is the roster the Bulls could (should?) easily have had:

Hinrich - Iggy - Deng - Aldridge - Chandler

plus the #9 pick this year.

I say that team is about as good now, but MUCH better in the years ahead then what they have now. Chandler was a monster rebounder and shotblocker this past season. And they dumped him because he couldn't score except on dunks and replaced him with.....Wallace??


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

Masbee said:


> I say that team is about as good now, but MUCH better in the years ahead then what they have now. Chandler was a monster rebounder and shotblocker this past season. And they dumped him because he couldn't score except on dunks and replaced him with.....Wallace??


It was a questionable trade even if Wallace ended up having a better year than Chandler this year. The ridicule was supposed to happen 2-3 years down the line when Wallace's abilities clearly started taking a hit (despite the fact that he's already showing his age).

But then Chandler put up better numbers than Wallace _and_ the team didn't make it to the conference finals.

Chandler per 40: 
10.9p, 14.3r, 2.0blk, 62.4FG%, 

Wallace per 40:
7.3p, 12.2r, 2.3blk, 45.3FG%


----------



## magnifier (Jul 2, 2003)

Samuel said:


> It was a questionable trade even if Wallace ended up having a better year than Chandler this year. The ridicule was supposed to happen 2-3 years down the line when Wallace's abilities clearly started taking a hit (despite the fact that he's already showing his age).
> 
> But then Chandler put up better numbers than Wallace _and_ the team didn't make it to the conference finals.
> 
> ...


This totally resembles the trade Trader Bob made after our game 7 loss to the Lakers. Dale Davis for Jermaine Oneal.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

If only we had known what we had in Aldridge and what we were going to end up with in Oden at the trading deadline. Then we could have done Zach for PJ, Nocioni and #9.

But I suppose it doesn't matter if you believe the rumors that Portland already has a deal for Zach lined up where we get back plenty of talent.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Samuel said:


> It was a questionable trade even if Wallace ended up having a better year than Chandler this year. The ridicule was supposed to happen 2-3 years down the line when Wallace's abilities clearly started taking a hit (despite the fact that he's already showing his age).
> 
> But then Chandler put up better numbers than Wallace _and_ the team didn't make it to the conference finals.
> 
> ...


Ben Wallace is still the better defender, but yeah, I questioned the signing/trade when that all went down as being a little short-sighted, even with the bonus of weakening their Detroit rivals. I assumed they had a plan to get a post scorer somehow. When the trade deadline passed and they ended up with NOTHING out of trading Chandler, coupled with the off season Wallace had and the strong season Chandler had, these moves look real bad now.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

So, a Zach for Nocioni, Duhon & the 9th is workable according to BNM.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

I can't dis Paxson too much. He's done a good job putting together a young winning team. The only thing that makes us better is Oden and we got him by sheer luck.


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Pax did the right thing when he rolled the dice on the NY pick. It was clear that NY was over-achieving and they would find a way to screw it up - so hoping it would turn into a Durant or Oden was the right kind of move for them - assuming Oden and Durant are really the franchise kind of players we assume they are - the NY pick was too valuable to dump as part of a trade for Zach at the trade deadline. My understanding is that Gasol was not available without Deng - so basically it came down to rolling the dice on Oden/Durant (which would have made a dynasty in Chicago) vs. Zach (which would have made them contenders for the eastern conference championship but still not a real match to the Spurs, Suns and even Mavericks).

The Wallace deal vs. Chandler was more puzzling, but it was mentioned that Chandler and Skiles did not see eye to eye. It is all nice and dandy to compare the numbers - but if the chemistry is not there - you have to go one way or the other - and Skiles is a good coach and he did a fantastic job with a young team - while it was not clear that Chandler would become the force he is at NO/OKC.

The DD for O'neal trade was one of the "win now" mode and was dumber than the Wallace/Chandler deal, imho.

At worst, the Bulls will be an eastern conference playoff team for 2 - 3 years with Wallace and their core maturing. They are basically a #9 and Gordon for impact low-post player or a good #9 pick and a couple of years of experience away from being eastern conference contenders anyway.

Capitan Kirk and Deng are the true untouchable in this team - and for a good reason.


----------



## Samuel (Jan 1, 2003)

graybeard said:


> So, a Zach for Nocioni, Duhon & the 9th is workable according to BNM.


Nocioni makes a ton of money in that scenario. No thanks.


----------



## ZBoFanatic (Feb 10, 2003)

If Zach gets traded, I hope it is to Chicago because 1) I just moved there, and 2) I think it'd be a great fit, but I actually think him staying in Portland may be the best thing for him and the Blazers. A 3 big-man rotation of Oden, Zach and LMA would be the most dominant in the league, and foul trouble would never be an issue. It'd be sort of like an NBA version of the Florida Gators. If Jarret and/or Sergio step up their game this year, I could see 50 wins this season and 60 the next.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

andalusian said:


> The Wallace deal vs. Chandler was more puzzling, but it was mentioned that Chandler and Skiles did not see eye to eye. It is all nice and dandy to compare the numbers - but if the chemistry is not there - you have to go one way or the other - and Skiles is a good coach and he did a fantastic job with a young team - while it was not clear that Chandler would become the force he is at NO/OKC.


And yet, there were HUGE issues with Wallace this season with the coach. Bad chemistry.

So, the moves did nothing to solve that "problem" with Chandler/Skiles. Funny that.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Samuel said:


> Nocioni makes a ton of money in that scenario. No thanks.


 How do you figure that?
I'm thinking the 9th pick has a salary ratio of about 11, Duhon is making 13, that leaves about 17 for Nocioni, which is about what he is making now. I don't see a problem.
Zach is a 52, so we should be able to give Nocioni a small raise.


----------



## yakbladder (Sep 13, 2003)

Paxson supposedly is not into making any bold, dramatic moves that reek of chance. So don't look for him to gamble with his core at all unless there is a hands-down no-brainer deal on the table. The problem is (from Chicago's perspective) that I don't see KP being stupid enough to give Chicago an outright edge in a deal unless those photos of KP have found their way to the Internet.


----------



## Sambonius (May 21, 2003)

There's no reason to help one of the up and coming teams in the east. It's not a bad deal but I'm sure we can find something better than Nocioni, 9th, and fillers.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

The CBA rules complicate any possible trade with Chicago. Besides the fact that Deng and Hinrich are basically untouchable, Hinrich is a Base Year Compensation player next season, making it very difficult to match salaries with his contract. BYC effectively means that trades involving players who just got a big raise have to be huge or involve a third team to get the $$ to match up.

If Nocioni does a sign and trade deal, he will also be a BYC player. Even if we overpay him enough that he and another small salary equal within 25% of Zach's, the BYC rules means it does _not _match.

PJ Brown is an interesting possibility to match salaries. Since he was way overpaid last year, he can be overpaid next year without triggering the BYC rules. Sign and trade deals are required to be at least 3 years, but we could put a team option in the second year, effectively making it a 1 year deal in the $8-9 mil range. PJ would have to agree to this, but I think he likely would since he is getting vastly overpaid for that one year, and then he gets to sign with the team of his choice the following year if he wishes to continue playing.

Also, we're all talking about adding the #9 pick to a deal that includes Nocioni or PJ Brown, but keep in mind that the draft is two weeks before the free agent signing period. We cannot negotiate with free agents, let alone work out a sign and trade deal, until well after the draft. What that means, basically, is there is probably _no way for us to get that pick_ in a one on one trade with Chicago, unless we simply like who they pick and convince them to give the player up in trade after the draft.

Besides Deng and Hinrich, the Bulls have a number of decent assets to use in trade. Nocioni, Gordon, Sefolosha, Duhon, Tyrus Thomas. None of them will knock your socks off, but all have some value and create opportunities for Paxson to make a trade.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

graybeard said:


> How do you figure that?
> I'm thinking the 9th pick has a salary ratio of about 11, Duhon is making 13, that leaves about 17 for Nocioni, which is about what he is making now. I don't see a problem.
> Zach is a 52, so we should be able to give Nocioni a small raise.


It's not full contract size that has to match, it's next year's salary.

Nocioni will get a big raise and be a BYC player though, making it very difficult to match his salary in any trade.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

dudleysghost said:


> It's not full contract size that has to match, it's next year's salary.
> 
> Nocioni will get a big raise and be a BYC player though, making it very difficult to match his salary in any trade.


 Duds, did you read Boob No More's post on this page? http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/362944-what-small-forward-you-5.html

Nocioni won't be BYC.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

graybeard said:


> Duds, did you read Boob No More's post on this page? http://www.basketballforum.com/portland-trail-blazers/362944-what-small-forward-you-5.html
> 
> Nocioni won't be BYC.


BNM is leaving a lot out. The only way they actually have that cap space is if they renounce their Bird rights to PJ Brown, Malik Allen and Mike Sweetney, which they won't do. If they do renounce all those guys, then they have to add a couple minimum salary cap holds to their cap number, because they will have so few players. They will also be adding a first round pick in the draft, which of course counts against the cap.

Added together, if they do all that then they have about $6 mil in cap space. That's possibly not enough to get Nocioni to agree to sign and trade, since it's very close to the MLE that any team can offer, although it has bigger escalators. If he would though, then Chicago would have to structure the deal such that their salary coming in equalled their salary going out, because otherwise the BYC rules apply to Nocioni and the trade can't be done. That means instead of having to match 80% of Zach's salary, Chicago would have to match close to 100% of his $13.3m.

So basically, there is a very convoluted way that Nocioni possibly wouldn't be BYC, but in real life he will be.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

Samuel said:


> Nocioni makes a ton of money in that scenario. No thanks.


Not really. With Chicago under the cap, they can take on more salary than they give back. I haven't seen any official numbers yet, but let's assume the cap for 2007-08 will be around $57 million. I think that's reasonable and probably a tad conservative. Prior to the draft and any other moves (trades, signings, etc.), Chicago has about $46.7 million on the books. Adding Zach's $13.3 million to that puts them right at $60 million. So, they'd only have to give back about $3 million to stay under the cap - in which case the salaries don't have to match. Duhon will make about $3.2 million. So, sending his contract alone to Portland would be enough to potentially keep Chicago under the cap. In which case it wouldn't matter how much Nocioni makes. He could make the league minimum (he won't) and it wouldn't matter.

Worst case, Duhon's contract isn't quite enough to keep Chicago + Zach under the cap. They could simply throw in another player making less than $2 million (Griffin or Khryapa to get back under the cap. If not, the salaries must match within 125% + $100,000. So, Portland would have to take back about $10.5 million in combined salaries. With Duhon set to make $3.2 million and the No. 9 pick slotted at $1.8 million rookie scale contract, that would mean a starting salary of about $5.5 million for Nocioni - which is right around the MLE and very reasonable for a guy who will be starting and likely averaging in the mid to high teens in PG. 

So, there are several possible scenarios to make a Zach for Nocioni + Duhon + No. 9 happen (but it would have to wait until July 12 when Nocioni can officially re-sign). Chicago being under the cap makes this all a lot easier. Because they are under the cap, the salaries don't have to match and Nocioni won't be considered BYC.

BTW, I'm not saying this is a good trade, or likely to happen, just commenting on how it _could_ happen within the confines of the CBA. 

BNM


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Masbee said:


> And yet, there were HUGE issues with Wallace this season with the coach. Bad chemistry.
> 
> So, the moves did nothing to solve that "problem" with Chandler/Skiles. Funny that.


Yes, but we only know that after the fact. At the time when Pax made the deal(s) he knew for sure that Skiles/Chandler did not work and decided that the problem was not the coach. Let's face it - the deal really did a lot of damage to the Pistons: 

There is no way in hell that LeBron goes to the rim as he did in game 5 if Wallace was in the game.

When you judge the deal given what he knew at the time - it was not a bad gamble.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

dudleysghost said:


> BNM is leaving a lot out. The only way they actually have that cap space is if they renounce their Bird rights to PJ Brown, Malik Allen and Mike Sweetney, which they won't do. If they do renounce all those guys, then they have to add a couple minimum salary cap holds to their cap number, because they will have so few players. They will also be adding a first round pick in the draft, which of course counts against the cap.


If they are getting Zach, I don't see them wanting/needing to re-sign PJ. Not sure how bad they want to retain Allen and Sweetney, but both are relatively cheap. And in the scenario I proposed the No. 9 pick would be coming to Portland in the trade.



dudleysghost said:


> Added together, if they do all that then they have about $6 mil in cap space.


Actually, it will be closer to $9 - $10 million assuming the cap goes up to ~$57 million. An increase of less than $4 million which is well within reason and if anything, conservative.



dudleysghost said:


> That's possibly not enough to get Nocioni to agree to sign and trade, since it's very close to the MLE that any team can offer, although it has bigger escalators. If he would though, then Chicago would have to structure the deal such that their salary coming in equalled their salary going out, because otherwise the BYC rules apply to Nocioni and the trade can't be done. That means instead of having to match 80% of Zach's salary, Chicago would have to match close to 100% of his $13.3m.


Nocioni won't be BYC. Chicago will be under the cap when they re-sign him. So, the 80% rule applies IF Chicago goes over the cap when taking on Zach's contract. If giving back Duhon + No. 9 is enough to keep Chicago + Zach's contract under the cap, it won't matter how much Nocioni makes. If he signs for market value (say starting somewhere between $6 - $8 million), Nocioni + Duhon + No. 9 would easily match Zach's salary within the 125% + $100,000 requirement.



dudleysghost said:


> So basically, there is a very convoluted way that Nocioni possibly wouldn't be BYC, but in real life he will be.


No, he WON'T be BYC. Unless Chicago offers him something in the neighborhood of $10 million to start (in which case, I don't want him) when they sign him, they will under the cap. According to Larry ****'s Salary Cap FAQ, that means he won't be BYC.

BNM


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

Boob-No-More said:


> If they are getting Zach, I don't see them wanting/needing to re-sign PJ. Not sure how bad they want to retain Allen and Sweetney, but both are relatively cheap. And in the scenario I proposed the No. 9 pick would be coming to Portland in the trade.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Yeah, so take that, Duds. :biggrin: What Boobs said!


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

BTW, I don't think it's a given the Bulls extend a qualifying offer to Sweetney. He played very limited minutes this year - and when he did play he played poorly. He's certainly no favorite of Skiles and I seem to recall reading elsewhere that if they get any kind of serviceable big man in the draft or through a trade, they'll let Sweetney walk. His "production" could be easily replaced by someone making the league minimum salary or a minor fraction of the MLE. So, I wouldn't necessarily count his $3.6 million qualifying offer against the Bulls cap space.

BNM


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I just don't see how a deal involving the 9th pick and a player who cannot be signed and traded until July 15th can be agreed upon....there are just too many factors involved here....First of all, technically a team cannot talk to a free agent, even their own until the onset of the free agent period...Now even if we get around this by the team talking to his agent, and getting an agreement....both teams are walking a fine line here, and there is no guarantee that the player (or agent) will stick to his original agreement...and how do you solidify such an agreement anyway? They (the agent and player) have you "over the barrel" so to speak, don't they? I mean, does anyone really think they are going to be reasonable and sign a fair market\modest contract before they have even pitted teams against each other? My guess is you would have to grossly overpay to get such a "wink, wink" agreement in place...and like I said, even that is a tenuous agreement at best....

I would think just the prospect of....

A) Running afoul with the NBA and at worst facing sacntions for illegal contact
or
B) Having the agent or player back out of an already agreed upon deal and leaving both teams hanging...particularly CHI...with a player they may or may not even have wanted to pick...

Would be enough to cool any thought of attempting such a deal...

At best I would think it could be a series of deals...a draft day deal for the #9 and then a seperate deal at the start of the FA period, and one in which there would have to be an agreement b\t the two teams that if Nocioni (in this case) refused for whatever reason (doesn't want to go to POR, more money, etc...) a seperate deal would have to be on the back burner to complete the exchange....which leads me to think...why even bother with a S&T in the 1st place?

I think there is definitely some talk b\t POR & CHI...I do think that Paxson IS interested and IS looking to acquire Zach...I am NOT convinced that Paxson would deal Hinrich or Deng for Zach...

IF a POR\CHI deal for Zach is made...my guess is that niether PJ Brown or Nocioni will be involved....and I would be shocked if Hinroch or Deng woudl be involved...

So who does that leave?

Would CHI deal Ben Wallace? He is tied down for 3 years at big $$, he will be 33 and his play has shown signs of starting to slip.....

Zach, Jack and Pryzbilla (and a 2nd round pick or 2?) for Ben Wallace, Chris Duhon and the #9?

CHI had interest in Pryzbilla, I DO think they have interest in Zach...both are 5 & 7 years younger than Wallace, and both would move into the starting rotation with Hinrich, Gordon and Deng....I would suspect that CHI would even look to re-sign PJ Brown....

adding Jack would give CHI as good or better replacement for Duhon..

POR gets that 2nd top 10 pick to go after a SF or other player of interest...Duhon could move into b\u role (my guess is POR will go after Blake) and Ben Wallace moves into a 3-man rotation and mentor? to both Aldridge and Oden.....

Now Duhon is interchangeable here....POR could get Khryapa back instead to helpf shore up SF\PF, or Griffin or Sefolosha (my preference) instead...or just for Wallace, and Jack perhaps not included....

POR could even add a future #1 instead of Jack

Alternative

Wallace & #9
for
Zach, Pryzbilla and future 1st round pick


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Kmurph said:


> I just don't see how a deal involving the 9th pick and a player who cannot be signed and traded until July 15th can be agreed upon....there are just too many factors involved here....First of all, technically a team cannot talk to a free agent, even their own until the onset of the free agent period...Now even if we get around this by the team talking to his agent, and getting an agreement....both teams are walking a fine line here, and there is no guarantee that the player (or agent) will stick to his original agreement...and how do you solidify such an agreement anyway? They (the agent and player) have you "over the barrel" so to speak, don't they? I mean, does anyone really think they are going to be reasonable and sign a fair market\modest contract before they have even pitted teams against each other? My guess is you would have to grossly overpay to get such a "wink, wink" agreement in place...and like I said, even that is a tenuous agreement at best....
> 
> I would think just the prospect of....
> 
> ...



What you don't believe that teams would talk to an agent to set up a deal ahead of time just because there is a rule in the book? Just like Danny Ainge just happened to sit next to Kevin Durants mom and the ncaa tourney. Just like how George Karl was fined for talking to Lebron James. That never happens. Deals never get made ahead of time. George Bush always tells the truth. This world sure is perfect isn't it?


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

andalusian said:


> Yes, but we only know that after the fact. At the time when Pax made the deal(s) he knew for sure that Skiles/Chandler did not work and decided that the problem was not the coach. Let's face it - the deal really did a lot of damage to the Pistons:
> 
> There is no way in hell that LeBron goes to the rim as he did in game 5 if Wallace was in the game.
> 
> When you judge the deal given what he knew at the time - it was not a bad gamble.


So they throw away a very young big man and do NOTHING to solve their "problem" with a coach who refuses to call a few of plays for really hard working bigs who suck at offense. Stupid.

I also disagree about it being a good gamble - at least the way they did it.

If you (essentially) swap Chandler for Wallace, you are saying I want to make a run NOW.

Fine, then make moves that make sense to win NOW.

They didn't do that.

They had the #2 pick and took the rawest player at the top of the draft.

They should have traded the #2 for a really good vet.

Or, if they wanted youth, they should have drafted the more skilled, polished and bigger LaMarcus Aldridge, who would have been a much better fit with Big Ben.

Or, they should have traded down and picked Brandon Roy, the rookie of the year.

They should have traded PJ Brown's expiring contract for more veteran help, or paired it with the #2 for an all-star.

What did they do to help Ben Wallace win now?

None of those things. Pick a damn plan and go with it. Don't keep your toes in two pools at once. Are you swimming or not?

That is what makes swapping Wallace for Chandler really, really dumb.


----------



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

i really like this idea


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> What you don't believe that teams would talk to an agent to set up a deal ahead of time just because there is a rule in the book? Just like Danny Ainge just happened to sit next to Kevin Durants mom and the ncaa tourney. Just like how George Karl was fined for talking to Lebron James. That never happens. Deals never get made ahead of time. George Bush always tells the truth. This world sure is perfect isn't it?


I am not saying it doesn't happen...I am just saying it is a lot more complicated than you think...especially when you are talking about Team "A" selecting a player for "Team B" and then holding onto that player for 2+ weeks until a free agent can be signed and traded for them..

Does it or can it happen? Yeah...but isn't an easy thing to lineup IMO...There are a lot of factors that can go wrong..


----------



## andalusian (Jun 29, 2006)

Masbee said:


> I also disagree about it being a good gamble - at least the way they did it.
> 
> If you (essentially) swap Chandler for Wallace, you are saying I want to make a run NOW.
> 
> ...


There is something to what you say - but I guess that they viewed Chandler as a lost cause and Wallace as an upgrade that will be around for the 4 years of contract they gave him and for the fact that it hurt the Pistons a lot (which it did).

Do I think that taking TT + Victor over Aldridge or Roy that were available at the #2 position was good? No. I think it was a bad move - but once again we have the advantage of knowing a bit more now after 1 year of these guys in the league. 

All I am saying is that the Bulls were not Danny Ainge dumb. You can understand why they did the Wallace deal. You can understand why they rolled the dice on Durant/Oden with the NY pick. Yes, the pick did not work out and Wallace had (has?) some issues with Skiles and Chandler worked out better in NO - but overall it can be understood what they thought about these moves.

Aldridge, just like TT was assumed to be a project. I think that Portland was lucky he was able to deliver as much as he did this year (and even then, it was only for a portion of the year).


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> If they are getting Zach, I don't see them wanting/needing to re-sign PJ. Not sure how bad they want to retain Allen and Sweetney, but both are relatively cheap. And in the scenario I proposed the No. 9 pick would be coming to Portland in the trade.


Right, if they want to renounce all three players, giving up their bird rights and waiving Sweetney's QO year, they get that cap space.



Boob-No-More said:


> Actually, it will be closer to $9 - $10 million assuming the cap goes up to ~$57 million. An increase of less than $4 million which is well within reason and if anything, conservative.


You're neglecting to add cap holds for the Bulls first round draft pick and for minimum salary players to fill their roster up to 12.

A non-conservative estimate of NBA inflation would assume a rise of the historical average, which is less than 6%, putting the Bulls cap number at about $56.3m, giving them just about $9.5m in space. But when you subtract a $2mil cap hold for their first round pick and about $800k ea for their empty roster spots up to 12 (two of them), you get about $6 mil in actual space they can sign a player with.

Would Nocioni agree to sign for $6 mil/year to start with 10.5% escalators, instead of to the team of his choice for something like $5.7m + 8% escalators with the MLE? Maybe. Players often go to the high bidder, even if the difference is is only a couple mil. Will any team with cap space or with another nice S&T offer be willing to pay more? Possibly.

That possibility is why I don't think the Bulls will be willing to renounce their entire backup PF/C rotation just to get this deal done, which also happens to leave them without the use of the MLE or the bi-annual exceptions (or the disabled player or trade exceptions if they even have any) with which to re-fill their roster with capable players. They would be left trying to make a playoff run using whatever they can get with the minimum salary, whatever second round picks we send them and whatever they can get in trade as their primary backups at the big man positions.



Boob-No-More said:


> Nocioni won't be BYC. Chicago will be under the cap when they re-sign him. So, the 80% rule applies IF Chicago goes over the cap when taking on Zach's contract. If giving back Duhon + No. 9 is enough to keep Chicago + Zach's contract under the cap, it won't matter how much Nocioni makes. If he signs for market value (say starting somewhere between $6 - $8 million), Nocioni + Duhon + No. 9 would easily match Zach's salary within the 125% + $100,000 requirement.
> ...
> No, he WON'T be BYC. Unless Chicago offers him something in the neighborhood of $10 million to start (in which case, I don't want him) when they sign him, they will under the cap. According to Larry ****'s Salary Cap FAQ, that means he won't be BYC.
> 
> BNM


I'm pretty sure that is not true. A sign and trade deal is considered one transaction. Teams can't use cap space to avoid the BYC in a sign and trade if the whole deal takes them over the cap. It's considered _one deal_, so if they go over the cap, then BYC applies.



Larry **** #77 said:


> A sign-and-trade is treated like a single, atomic transaction, not two separate transactions...


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Kmurph said:


> I am not saying it doesn't happen...I am just saying it is a lot more complicated than you think...especially when you are talking about Team "A" selecting a player for "Team B" and then holding onto that player for 2+ weeks until a free agent can be signed and traded for them..
> 
> Does it or can it happen? Yeah...but isn't an easy thing to lineup IMO...There are a lot of factors that can go wrong..


Absolutely. Look at what happened when the Cavs tried to arrange a handshake agreement with Carlos Boozer ... they got screwed. In a sign and trade deal, there would be even more pitfalls, since there are three parties involved who have to not reneg on the deal and keep it secret. Will the Bulls be willing to let Portland dictate who they pick knowing that if _either_ Nocioni or the Blazers might change their mind if they find a better deal later? I don't think so. And would all three parties even be willing to wink and nod knowing how thoroughly the Timberwolves got screwed over when they tried to bypass the cap rules in the Joe Smith fiasco? Doubt it.


----------



## Boob-No-More (Apr 24, 2006)

dudleysghost said:


> You're neglecting to add cap holds for the Bulls first round draft pick and for minimum salary players to fill their roster up to 12.
> 
> A non-conservative estimate of NBA inflation would assume a rise of the historical average, which is less than 6%, putting the Bulls cap number at about $56.3m, giving them just about $9.5m in space. But when you subtract a $2mil cap hold for their first round pick and about $800k ea for their empty roster spots up to 12 (two of them), you get about $6 mil in actual space they can sign a player with.


Nocioni + the 9th pick would give them 11 players under contract. $1.8 million is the slotted salary for the 9th pick in this years draft. So, that adds about a million to your $6 million number. So, since we don't know what the exact 2007-2008 cap will be until it's announced, let just assume they could, if they really wanted to, offer Nocioni a new contract starting between $6 and $7 million without going over the cap and making him BYC.



dudleysghost said:


> That possibility is why I don't think the Bulls will be willing to renounce their entire backup PF/C rotation just to get this deal done, which also happens to leave them without the use of the MLE or the bi-annual exceptions


How/why does this deal cause them to lose their exceptions?



dudleysghost said:


> I'm pretty sure that is not true. A sign and trade deal is considered one transaction. Teams can't use cap space to avoid the BYC in a sign and trade if the whole deal takes them over the cap. It's considered _one deal_, so if they go over the cap, then BYC applies.


I'm not sure if that's true, but for the sake of discussion, I'll assume it is. If it's all considered one transaction and the Bulls send back the resigned Nocioni (with a deal starting in the $6+ million range - as much as their cap space will allow) + Duhon ($3.2 million) + the No. 9 pick ($1.8 million), they will remain under the cap. So, Nocioni won't be BYC. Neither his re-signing, nor the subsequent trade would push Chicago over the cap.

I'm, not saying this deal will happen, just that it's possible. There are risks and dependencies and enough potential complications that could easily derail it before it gets off the ground. Of course, it is supposedly his ability to work out the details for exactly these kinds of messy deals that lead the Blazers to hire cap expert Tom Penn as their assistant GM. So, anything is possible.

I personally prefer a couple simpler deals (like Zach to Boston for Wally and No. 5 + Jack to Atlanta for No. 11) that would net us a couple lottery picks on or before draft day so we can actually grab the players we want without all these dependencies, complications and potential pitfalls.

BNM


----------



## ChadWick (Jun 26, 2006)

I'd like to trade him to the Bulls...

Z-Bo & J-Jack for Duhon and others..


----------



## BIG Q (Jul 8, 2005)

dudleysghost said:


> Absolutely. Look at what happened when the Cavs tried to arrange a handshake agreement with Carlos Boozer ... they got screwed. In a sign and trade deal, there would be even more pitfalls, since there are three parties involved who have to not reneg on the deal and keep it secret. Will the Bulls be willing to let Portland dictate who they pick knowing that if _either_ Nocioni or the Blazers might change their mind if they find a better deal later? I don't think so. And would all three parties even be willing to wink and nod knowing how thoroughly the Timberwolves got screwed over when they tried to bypass the cap rules in the Joe Smith fiasco? Doubt it.


A couple other items that should also be discussed here are;

1. Even if Chi/Por could swing a deal that included the #9, KP would want it in his possession so that he could try to wheel and deal with it as well. I doubt the #9 alone carries much cache with him, nor would the #11 alone. But #9 and #11 together might get you the 4, 5, or 6.

2. I am not versed enough in the BYC vernacular to guess whoe is right in the above debates on "how far below the salary cap Chicago will be." I would like to point out that when assessing if Nocioni would agree to a S&T to PDX, you must take a couple other things into consideration. 

A. His age. He will be 28 next season. I would expect him to try to get the max dollars for the max years as this is his one and only shot at it. That would lead to agreeing to a S&T with the highest bidder. That is because of;

B. When looking at the teams under the cap, who wants him? Atl, no. Cha, no. Orl, no. Mem, no. Mil, no. He will have to agree to a S&T to get anything more than a MLE deal, which is what I really think is all he is worth. But that will not get him the extra year and higher pay increases. I am sure that Chicago made it clear to him that they were more than willing to do a S&T for him before the season was over when they could still talk to him. I do not see any teams willing to get busted for pulling a Minny. 

Where this leads to I am not sure, but I know that what I have typed above is extremely important to KP considering a deal with Chicago. I am sure Pax and KP both went into the off season with some sort of understanding of what could happen and I think that Nocioni went into the off season with the same type of knowledge. 

Thoughts?


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

Boob-No-More said:


> Nocioni + the 9th pick would give them 11 players under contract. $1.8 million is the slotted salary for the 9th pick in this years draft. So, that adds about a million to your $6 million number. So, since we don't know what the exact 2007-2008 cap will be until it's announced, let just assume they could, if they really wanted to, offer Nocioni a new contract starting between $6 and $7 million without going over the cap and making him BYC.


From the language in the Larry ****'s Appendix on the 2005 CBA I'm assuming that the cap holds for empty roster spots below 12 are required at all times in the offseason, which would mean if Chicago does a 2 for 1 or 3 for one, they have to account for the extra spaces made in their cap calculations, although I'm not sure since LC doesn't directly address that question either.

It makes a big difference though. I think if we're offering $6m Nocioni about the MLE, he might go somewhere else. If we're offering him $7 mil to start, we'd be clearly outbidding most if not all of the potential competition.

I am skeptical though that Chicago would include their #9 pick in any deal after the draft though. Does any team trade their pick 2 weeks after the draft? Basically, Chicago went to all the trouble of working players out and interviewing, make a choice based on their needs and not ours, got their fans all excited about this new guy and then trade him to us soon after? It could happen, but usually doesn't.



Boob-No-More said:


> How/why does this deal cause them to lose their exceptions?


To use cap space for anything, you have to renounce your MLE and Bi-A exceptions. It's part of the deal.



Boob-No-More said:


> I'm not sure if that's true, but for the sake of discussion, I'll assume it is. If it's all considered one transaction and the Bulls send back the resigned Nocioni (with a deal starting in the $6+ million range - as much as their cap space will allow) + Duhon ($3.2 million) + the No. 9 pick ($1.8 million), they will remain under the cap. So, Nocioni won't be BYC. Neither his re-signing, nor the subsequent trade would push Chicago over the cap.
> 
> I'm, not saying this deal will happen, just that it's possible. There are risks and dependencies and enough potential complications that could easily derail it before it gets off the ground. Of course, it is supposedly his ability to work out the details for exactly these kinds of messy deals that lead the Blazers to hire cap expert Tom Penn as their assistant GM. So, anything is possible.


It's exactly the risks and dependencies that make me believe it's not even possible as structured. A cap expert can find ways to make things work, but can't break the rules nor get teams to act against their own interests. If Chicago is trading away Duhon and their pick, in addition to all those guys they renounced, they are left trying to make a playoff run with no backup C, PF or PG, and only second round picks and minimum salary players to fill those roles. Ouch!

More likely I think we could trade for Nocioni, but Chicago would simply let themselves go over the cap and try to find a third team with the kind of pieces necessary to make it fit under the cap despite the BYC rules. Or maybe POR and CHI coudl work up enough salary filler to make it work. A re-signed but overpaid PJ Brown, Raef LaFrentz, Sweetney ... if you pile enough salary onto a trade, eventually the BYC differential fits within the 125% rule.



Boob-No-More said:


> I personally prefer a couple simpler deals (like Zach to Boston for Wally and No. 5 + Jack to Atlanta for No. 11) that would net us a couple lottery picks on or before draft day so we can actually grab the players we want without all these dependencies, complications and potential pitfalls.
> 
> BNM


I like those deals too. I think Jack is going to ATlanta for the #11 (my imaginary sources tell me so), but I doubt that Boston would give up the #5 for Zach, because they are so cheap. Let's hope they aren't though...


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

ChadWick said:


> I'd like to trade him to the Bulls...
> 
> Z-Bo & J-Jack for Duhon and others..


If I'm trading Z-Bo & JJ I'd hope for more back then Duhon and others... Duhon should be one of those others.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

BIG Q said:


> A couple other items that should also be discussed here are;
> 
> 1. Even if Chi/Por could swing a deal that included the #9, KP would want it in his possession so that he could try to wheel and deal with it as well. I doubt the #9 alone carries much cache with him, nor would the #11 alone. But #9 and #11 together might get you the 4, 5, or 6.
> 
> ...


I disagree that KP wouldn't treasure the #9 pick if he could get it before draft day, but anyway I don't think teams would be willing to trade 4-6 for 9+11 anyway. 4-6 is Brewer/Horford/Wright/Yi territory. At #9 though, we could get a pretty good SF or maybe Mike Conley Jr, so since we don't need a PF, we don't have such a pressing need to move up from that spot.

But in any case, if we are to trade with Chicago in a deal that includes Nocioni, it can't happen until _after_ the draft, so we'd be taking whoever Chicago decided to pick for themselves at #9, rather than KPs preferred player.

I definitely agree that Nocioni will be looking to get paid though. This will probably be his first and only very large contract, so he has to maximize it. If we are trying to avoid BYC status, that may hurt us, because we would be limited in how much we could offer him. If we can structure a trade that works around the BYC status though, we could pay well above the MLE using Paul Allen's money.

I do think that Charlotte or Orlando could use Nocioni though. Gerald Wallace is a SG/SF while Nocioni is a SF/PF. In Orlando, Grant Hill is either retiring now or very soon and AN is an upgrade over Turkoglu, when healthy. One or both of those teams is not going to get Rashard Lewis, and Nocioni is probably the next best SF free agent. Milwaukee might even want him if they are successful in moving Bobby Simmons big contract, as they probably will try to do.


----------



## meru (Jul 2, 2003)

Samuel said:


> It was a questionable trade even if Wallace ended up having a better year than Chandler this year. The ridicule was supposed to happen 2-3 years down the line when Wallace's abilities clearly started taking a hit (despite the fact that he's already showing his age).
> But then Chandler put up better numbers than Wallace _and_ the team didn't make it to the conference finals.
> Chandler per 40:
> 10.9p, 14.3r, 2.0blk, 62.4FG%,
> ...


While I'm not a huge fan of the Wallace signing, I think you're missing several points.
1. Chandler was an underachiever in Chicago. He's had one good year on a NO team that missed the playoffs, and that seems to have a stat-padding style (check out what kind of stats Dan Dickau put out as a Hornet). I'd like to see if he can sustain it. If he does, great - but even that doesn't prove it was wrong to trade him. He might just have needed a change of scene and a coach that was prepared to pamper him a bit (the "Isiah" treatment, you could call it - see Jermaine O'Neal for a classic example). He wasn't worth risking a big contract on, so he had to be traded, for everyone's sake. Blame other teams for not offering more for him, but don't blame Paxson for getting rid of him. (For all we know, Skiles might've demanded him gone.)
2. Wallace isn't just about numbers. He's about changing the mindset of the team. Sometimes you overspend on a guy who's won a championship and who will set the tone for the team. It worked for Miami, after all.

I like how you dismiss the Bulls' season as "didn't make the conference finals" - neglecting to mention that they *swept* the NBA champions in the first round. They should've beaten the Pistons, and probably would've if it hadn't been for Rasheed raising his game.


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm starting to think if a deal was done with the Bulls it would involve Wallace (who we don't need with Oden) going to a 3rd team (possibly Boston?). Wallace seems like a more natural fit alongside Jefferson than Zach would be. There'd be way too much duplication in Zach and Al and their interior D would be awful. Obviously picks/players would have to be involved to even out values. On Portland's side that would most likely mean Theo's expiring, one of the lotto picks, and possibly fillers returning to Portland.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I don't think that Ben Wallace would be a bad fit with POR at all...

1) He is 33yrs old...and his career....whether he acknowledges it or not, is winding down...

2) He could use less minutes...whether or not he is willing to accept them or not is another factor for sure...

3) He has 3 years left on his deal...and his presence in POR during those 3 years would allow Oden and Aldridge to grow into their games...

4) POR needs at minimum a 3rd big man anyway...and Ben Wallace is a heck of an upgrade over Pryzbilla IMO...and capable of playing PF or C when needed...

5) He provides a positive veteran presence..in terms of effort, leadership and work ethic

6) He will still have good trade value at this years deadline or in the next 2 years....and is the type of player whom other teams would desire when looking to add that last piece to the puzzle...

and POR would get their sought after 2nd lottery pick, which is a large factor as well, and #9 IMO is about as high as POR can realistically hope for...and IMO...dealing Zach and Pryzbilla and a future 1st is a pretty low acquisition cost for that pick and the "veteran" POR is getting (in Big Ben) who would be very beneficial to our young big men...and a team in general that is looking to make the playoffs...


----------



## Verro (Jul 4, 2005)

All valid points Kmurph, my biggest concern though would be his salary. With the right moves (i.e. Zach for an expiring + a pick) we could be in a position in one of the next couple years to have the cap space to sign a big time free agent (at which point we'd also be a very desirable FA destination). After this window I don't see us being back under the cap for the foreseeable future with our current young crop of players coming due for large contracts. Wallace would effectively close this window.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Paxson wants his cake and to eat it to.

He'll get neither wish.


----------



## Yega1979 (Mar 22, 2003)

The point of trading Zach would be to get a good SF and balance out the starting lineup right? So why then would we take Ben Wallace? To be a backup PF/C? Since we already have Joel at backup C, I'd rather keep Zach and his offense.


----------



## Five5even (Jun 15, 2007)

Kmurph said:


> I don't think that Ben Wallace would be a bad fit with POR at all.


If we could land Big Ben in portland AND get Greg Oden at #1 i think we might break the allowed ppg average by the end of the season.

Oden, LMA, Wallace and Przbilla as our bigs would be absolutely insane. You could add Outlaw and Udoka in there for support at SF.


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

andalusian said:


> Aldridge, just like TT was assumed to be a project. I think that Portland was lucky he was able to deliver as much as he did this year (and even then, it was only for a portion of the year).


I agree with your points but I hope this was not luck but good scouting and diligent work. I believe a lot of teams bought into the TT hype last year, I like to think our management did their homework and picked the right guys. (We still have our secret weapon from last years draft stashed away in Europe):lol: We'll find out in a few years once KP has 2-3 draft under his belt or when we draft in the 26-30 range a'la San Antonio.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

> The point of trading Zach would be to get a good SF and balance out the starting lineup right? So why then would we take Ben Wallace? To be a backup PF/C? Since we already have Joel at backup C, I'd rather keep Zach and his offense.


Well I think one of the goals is to get another top lottery pick....to get that SF player...I don't know who Pritchard likes, but there appears to be several quality SF available in this draft...and likely (outside of Durant of course) all but 1...possibly 2 of them would be available at #9...out of Corey Brewer, Julian Wright, Jeff Green, Thad Young, Al Thornton, Yi Jianlin and Nick Young......

and POR still has Martell Webster, possibly Travis Outlaw and possibly Ime Udoka to add to the mix as well....

I agree that a quality veteran SF would be ideal....but it may be very likely that guys like Antawn Jamison, Marvin Williams, Caron Butler, Tayshaun Prince, Luol Deng and Jason Richardson...are just rumours and nowhere near reality for POR...and if that is the case...and IMO it may very well be...then this sort of deal I think would be very beneficial to POR....

Look, POR has 2 young SF already in Webster and Outlaw....and with the #9 they could easily add another...resign Ime and see which of the young guys emerges from the pack...and don't discount the effect Ben Wallace would have on this team...he may not be what he was in his DET heyday, but in limited minutes...in a rotation with Oden and Aldridge I think he would be very effective....



> Oden, LMA, Wallace and Przbilla as our bigs would be absolutely insane.


Pryzbilla would be part of the deal...but I agree that a frontline rotation of Big Ben, Oden and Aldridge would be formidable...


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Here's an idea. With Cleveland looking like a really prime location for Zach, I thought of this:

Zach to Cleveland; Hughes + Future Cleveland pick + scrub to Utah; Kirilenko to Portland.

I really like AK for his defense and all-around skills, and he would seem like a good solution at SF with our Aldridge up top, and Oden down low. He has shown the ability to hit the mid-range jumper and the ability to handle the ball if needed. Also, can you imagine what kind of block party it would be with that front line?

The only constraints would be Utah's willingness to take on an injury prone Hughes, and us taking on AK's salary.


----------

