# Wilcox still in the Bulls' sights?



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Chris Wilcox the No. 1 option for the Bulls (Edit - 7/7/2006)?*

Suntimes


> After landing his top free-agent target, Paxson is far from done revamping his roster. Rumors are circulating that the Bulls are close to a deal that would send Tyson Chandler to the New Orleans/ Oklahoma City Hornets for veteran big man P.J. Brown and guard J.R. Smith.
> 
> Trading Chandler makes a lot of sense because Wallace assumes much of his role. Because both players are limited on offense and are awful free-throw shooters, it would be difficult to play them together for long stretches.
> 
> ...


I already posted this in the PJ Brown thread, and it does have some possible connection, through the JR Smith contract, as *Swan!* points out..., but this seems to have a life of its own, as Jackson writes about it, anyway. Hard to say if he has sources like old Lacy did...

I think it would be a great move, while still giving the team the cap relief (Ahhhh!) it needs.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

So, assuming the PJ Tyson trade goes through, how can they make this work with Seattle? I have been very critical of the proposed trade, but it they can swing this in conjunction with the initial swap, I'd be very impressed! So, what are the pieces that would make this work? How much would be involved, moneywise? What would Seattle want? I thought they wanted to hang on to Wilcox?


----------



## epic (Mar 16, 2004)

can Pax trade PJ's expiring contract + JR or whoever for Wilcox in a S&T as soon as this Chandler deal is finalised or would all three teams have to be involved from the outset? if Seattle are looking to save money perhaps an expiring contract would suit them perfectly.

if we could land Wilcox through trading Chandler, in some way, then this deal suddenly becomes great.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

First, Chris Wilcox is a horrible defensive player which to me is a serious red flag, although I suppose we have enough defense to cover up his deficiencies. Second, I like the idea of Nocioni and Thomas getting their share of minutes at the 4. I'd rather have a stopgap player for next season than make a long term commitment to a player who's likely to just "get in the way" a season from now.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! said:


> So, assuming the PJ Tyson trade goes through, how can they make this work with Seattle? I have been very critical of the proposed trade, but it they can swing this in conjunction with the initial swap, I'd be very impressed! So, what are the pieces that would make this work? How much would be involved, moneywise? What would Seattle want? I thought they wanted to hang on to Wilcox?


Well, I have no idea! However, *Mr. Swan!* proposed the following in the very large and expanding above mentioned thread (page 39 or thereabouts):



> Seattle is strapped for cash and in a tough situation with their city. They may be looking to keep costs down, so (maybe) a J.R., Khyrapa, Sweetney and/or malik + cash and maybe a future (2008?) first for their trouble for a resigned Wilox At chandler money would entice them. We could probably just squeeze it in with our remaining cap room. So in essence, we would be dealing chandler for a more offensive/ less defensive version of himself and picking up a great frontcourt backup (P.J.) in the process.
> 
> I think Wilcox could work for us. Seattle, where he thrived, is similar to us in that the offense is dictated from the outside in, not inside out like the Clippers. He could give us those easy frontcourt buckets (nearly 70% of his shots were close in), and playing with Ben should improve his defense.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I don't know what would lead anyone to believe that we are going after Wilcox. It seems blatantly obvious we are talking about dumping Chandlers salary for an expiring contract...not signing some free agent to another big deal.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Wilcox + Wallace + Thomas

Not sure how Pax could swing this deal, but damn. Latest I read was that the Sonics and Wilcox were far apart in negotiations but this is the first I've heard of a S&T


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Cap Space was really "financial flexibility."

Replace Tyson Chandler with Ben Wallace.

Avoid the luxury tax while resigning Paxson's guys.

I'd be stunned if we traded for Wilcox. It would be a good move, but we're looking to avoid the tax here.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

We can't trade anyone else with Smith. So maybe Smith for Wilcox?


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I don't know what would lead anyone to believe that we are going after Wilcox. It seems blatantly obvious we are talking about dumping Chandlers salary for an expiring contract...not signing some free agent to another big deal.


*Ace!*, we are certainly dumping Chandler's contract -- to Greg Couch's delight, I might add.

However, the point is that we could trade in some smaller contracts for a signed Mr. Wilcox, not adding to our overall salary, but consolidating our considerable length into some legitimate size. 

And please ask Mr. Jackson about what gave him the idea, or Mr. Hanley, who mentioned Wilcox prior to the Big Ben signing.

Edit: the key is, in my mind, dumping a contract that represents a commitment to a redundant type of player, but also making room for a player with a needed skill set. I'm not sold, because Wilcox is a little too "flash in the pan" for my tastes, but he might be the guy to be our Rasheed.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> *Ace!*, we are certainly dumping Chandler's contract -- to Greg Couch's delight, I might add.
> 
> However, the point is that we could trade in some smaller contracts for a signed Mr. Wilcox, not adding to our overall salary, but consolidating our considerable length into some legitimate size.
> 
> And please ask Mr. Jackson about what gave him the idea, or Mr. Hanley, who mentioned Wilcox prior to the Big Ben signing.



We could but we won't. I think it is pretty clear if you understand the fiscal realities of the NBA. We aren't trying to deal Chandler to sign & trade a guy like Wilcox, we are sending him to Charlotte to get PJ Browns big expiring deal. We aren't doing that so we can then go sign & trade for another expensive free agent. IT's just not happening so folks should get over it now and save themselves the heartache.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

FWIW, Wilcox's usage rate, or ability to create his own shot, is 16.9. Same as Malik Allen's. He's more of a garbage man than the post scorer people clamor for.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Cap Space was really "financial flexibility."
> 
> Replace Tyson Chandler with Ben Wallace.
> 
> ...


Stunned once, shame on you. Stunned twice...?


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> We could but we won't. I think it is pretty clear if you understand the fiscal realities of the NBA. We aren't trying to deal Chandler to sign & trade a guy like Wilcox, we are sending him to Charlotte to get PJ Browns big expiring deal. We aren't doing that so we can then go sign & trade for another expensive free agent. IT's just not happening so folks should get over it now and save themselves the heartache.


My heart aches when I see my son growing up too fast...

Not getting Wilcox is not quite at that level.

But I wouldn't be as surprised or stunned as you think I should be if it happens.

*Frankensteiner!* might be right. He may not be worth it. What do I know?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> My heart aches when I see my son growing up too fast...
> 
> Not getting Wilcox is not quite at that level.
> 
> ...


I think there is an inherent nature in fans to not look at the business side of basketball but to rather look at the players we could add, moves we could make, the fact that trading Chandler for Brown/Smith is even being discussed is a sure sign that the Bulls are looking for a salary dump for Chandler. They aren't dumping that salary to add another big time free agent either...trust me.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Kudos to Swan for bringing up the trade idea in the long thread. 

What if we are trying to land PJ Brown to use him as the bait to land Wilcox. Seattle might be unwilling to take on Chandler's hefty contract, but could be okay receiving a vet big man whose deal is expiring. This would definitely enable us to do a S&T. 

If Pax can land Wallace and Wilcox along with his great draft, we've had an incredible offseason. We already have, but this would be perfect. I'll take Wilcox (or PJ) over Tyson anyday. We would have a good team. I hope we decide to push the ball a lot a la Phoenix.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I think there is an inherent nature in fans to not look at the business side of basketball but to rather look at the players we could add, moves we could make, the fact that trading Chandler for Brown/Smith is even being discussed is a sure sign that the Bulls are looking for a salary dump for Chandler. They aren't dumping that salary to add another big time free agent either...*trust me.*


Why?


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Count me as the tiny minority that doesn't view the Tyson trade as a salary dump. Or at least not a salary dump in the strictest sense. Tyson's services are redundant now that Ben's here. They're redundant 4 years down the road when Tyrus gets here. He'd make a wonderful insurance policy if he were making back up money but that's clearly not the case.

Does $8 million a year and JR Smith in exchange get it done? If Paxson pulls this off I will never doubt him again.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> Why?



Ok, don't trust me. And when Paxson isn't trying to deal for Wilcox or Harrington using Brown or Smith or whatever you can just remember who told ya first, ok?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

sp00k said:


> Count me as the tiny minority that doesn't view the Tyson trade as a salary dump. Or at least not a salary dump in the strictest sense. Tyson's services are redundant now that Ben's here. They're redundant 4 years down the road when Tyrus gets here. He'd make a wonderful insurance policy if he were making back up money but that's clearly not the case.
> 
> Does $8 million a year and JR Smith in exchange get it done? If Paxson pulls this off I will never doubt him again.



I don't understand why having a good defensive minded pf and a good defensive minded center is "redundant". Sure they can do a lot of the same things, so can Deng & Nocioni for that matter, Hinrich & Gordon. Skiles plays lots of players and there would be plenty of minutes for Wallace and Chandler to both be in the game and not be paired with each other, and if they were paired with each other, who is gonna score inside on them? Who is gonna steal a board from them? Besides, what happens if Wallace gets hurt?


----------



## Swan (Jun 27, 2005)

If we are in win-now mode, and we can get an asset package together, I can see it happening.

Reisdorf has been willing to spend for a winner. Look what has happened to the sox in the last few years. And furthermore, let's take a look at what the big picture cap plan was a year ago.

Had Eddy's heart not skipped some beats, He and chandler would've most likely been signed to market extenstions around 10 mill per year each. Assuming that, that's 20 million locked up in the frontcourt right there. And knowing how much the org likes our young wings, you figure they're ready to spend for them when the time comes.

Now, with the eddy deal, we gained two extremely valuable assets in T Thomas and next year's swap. What's nice about them, however, is we don't have to commit to them for a long time, as Ben's deal will be off the books by the time they are up for renewal. So essentially, our longterm frontcourt commitment RIGHT NOW is Ben and Chandler, which is 5 million more that what TY and EDDY would have been.

Now longterm, that doesn't work, so if there is a chance to flip Chandler to NO for PJ, and then take some of our cheap young pieces (but not the core) and get Wilcox, the Bulls are suddenly going to get tightfisted, after the moves they have made 1. getting wallace in the first place and 2. bartering to get guys like Deng and Thabo in the draft, when is essense the only extra long term commitment they have added is the 5mill extra money over Eddy that Wallace is getting.

Is Wilcox a perfect prospect? No, he's got some question marks, but it's true that he briefly thrived at Seattle, which is more akin to our team than the Clippers, and he can get easy buckets in the post. As I said in the other thread as well, his contract will give us some "cap fat" for pax to make deals next year, to potentially build to go for a guy like garnett (and summer 2007 will be the time to do it). He could be our lamar odom piece, to draw an analogy to the Heat of 2003-2004.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Ok, don't trust me. And when Paxson isn't trying to deal for Wilcox or Harrington using Brown or Smith or whatever you can just remember who told ya first, ok?


So, you're convinced that Paxson is just not interested long term in adding a talented player at the 4 or 5 spot with "size" through consolidation of assets? 

No one is talking about trading Chandler's salary for Wilcox's. I agree fully that Tyson's salary is being shed. But, to say that Paxson has no interest in consolidating other assets to get someone who gives us the size we need, (when there are several reporters who disagree) is not a reasonable position, to say the least.

Maybe he thinks it will come in the draft? Possible. But not likely in the time B Wallace has.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Swan said:


> If we are in win-now mode, and we can get an asset package together, I can see it happening.
> 
> Reisdorf has been willing to spend for a winner. Look what has happened to the sox in the last few years. And furthermore, let's take a look at what the big picture cap plan was a year ago.
> 
> ...


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Swan said:


> If we are in win-now mode, and we can get an asset package together, I can see it happening.
> 
> Reisdorf has been willing to spend for a winner. Look what has happened to the sox in the last few years. And furthermore, let's take a look at what the big picture cap plan was a year ago.
> 
> ...


By the way.. repped.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> So, you're convinced that Paxson is just not interested long term in adding a talented player at the 4 or 5 spot with "size" through consolidation of assets?
> 
> No one is talking about trading Chandler's salary for Wilcox's. I agree fully that Tyson's salary is being shed. But, to say that Paxson has no interest in consolidating other assets to get someone who gives us the size we need, (when there are several reporters who disagree) is not a reasonable position, to say the least.
> 
> Maybe he thinks it will come in the draft? Possible. But not likely in the time B Wallace has.


Well we just added a talented player at the 4-5 in Wallace, we have one in Chandler we are looking to trade. We just drafted Thomas who will play more 4 than 3 by a long shot IMO and we will likely have a very high draft pick in a draft heavy with big men next season. Unless you consider PJ BRown the talentedp layer with size through consolodation of assetts then I would say no...what Pax is trying to do is clear, he wants to dump Chandlers salary for an expiring contract to save up to sign our player and stay under the luxury tax...period.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> I don't understand why having a good defensive minded pf and a good defensive minded center is "redundant". Sure they can do a lot of the same things, so can Deng & Nocioni for that matter, Hinrich & Gordon. Skiles plays lots of players and there would be plenty of minutes for Wallace and Chandler to both be in the game and not be paired with each other, and if they were paired with each other, who is gonna score inside on them? Who is gonna steal a board from them? Besides, what happens if Wallace gets hurt?


 It's not that they can do some of the same things, they do the same exact thing. Before FA started you and I discussed the possibility of signing Ben Wallace and I was firmly against it because I didn't feel Ben, Tyson, and Tyrus would fit. Looks like Paxson and company is in accord. 

Wallace can definitely be hurt but I'd rather have Wilcox, a player that can play 20-30 mpg with Wallace there rather than Tyson, a player who can only play spot minutes with Ben on the bench.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Jared Jeffries?!

Wait wait wait.

Jared JEFFRIES?!!?!???!

If we were to get him, I think I'd bump the AGHGHGHGGGHHHGHGHGHHHH thread.

Wilcox is a different story, and I think if we added him and PJ Brown, it would be a really nice mix. I think Wilcox would get starting-style minutes from the bench, while PJ and Big Ben started in the middle. PJ could probably take the "veteran big man" role like AD did (AD took 25 mpg and his average was pushed up by Curry's absence in the last months of that season, so closer to 20 mpg really). 

PF/C minutes = 96 total

PJ = 20 mpg
Wallace = 32 mpg
Wilcox = 27 mpg
Ty Thomas = 17 mpg

This allows Tyrus to really develop in practice, saves PJ for the playoffs (hopefully), gives Wallace a little bit of a reprieve too while still maintaining high intensity with guys like Wilcox and Thomas.

We'd probably have to give up at least Nocioni and Sweetney to S&T Wilcox to a deal starting at 5 per. If I'm doing my rough estimates right, and if the Chandler trade goes through, this would actually still leave us with about $3-4 mil in cap space next year, maybe even more. Not good enough to land a top-tier FA in 2007 but enough to allow us to add another piece and not be subject to the 125% rule.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> So, you're convinced that Paxson is just not interested long term in adding a talented player at the 4 or 5 spot with "size" through consolidation of assets?
> 
> No one is talking about trading Chandler's salary for Wilcox's. I agree fully that Tyson's salary is being shed. But, to say that Paxson has no interest in consolidating other assets to get someone who gives us the size we need, (when there are several reporters who disagree) is not a reasonable position, to say the least.
> 
> Maybe he thinks it will come in the draft? Possible. But not likely in the time B Wallace has.


I agree with Ace... adding salary just isn't a logical move after blatantly cutting salary. Plus, there have been numerous reports that the Bulls don't like Wilcox.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I don't understand why having a good defensive minded pf and a good defensive minded center is "redundant". Sure they can do a lot of the same things, so can Deng & Nocioni for that matter, Hinrich & Gordon. Skiles plays lots of players and there would be plenty of minutes for Wallace and Chandler to both be in the game and not be paired with each other, and if they were paired with each other, who is gonna score inside on them? Who is gonna steal a board from them? Besides, what happens if Wallace gets hurt?


Because it means we are committed to having no significant offense in the post. Both those guys need to be around the basket, getting rebounds, and yet they can't do anything offensively when they're down there. And at 15 and 10 million per year? What's the point?

Again, maybe Wilcox is not the answer. But TC is certainly NOT the answer. And sorry, he was not anywhere near as good as Ben, even in his best season. He was good. And he still is, in his own way. But not in the way this team needs, going forward.

But, as you say, let's wait and see what actually goes down.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I think there is an inherent nature in fans to not look at the business side of basketball but to rather look at the players we could add, moves we could make, the fact that trading Chandler for Brown/Smith is even being discussed is a sure sign that the Bulls are looking for a salary dump for Chandler. They aren't dumping that salary to add another big time free agent either...trust me.


rather than waste my valuable time expressing my opinion about paxson's abilities as a gm, the above quote made me realize that while the above is true to an extent, there's also the inherent nature of fans to believe they know as much (therefore have an inherent right to be critical of) as professionals who get paid to dissect information about players, contracts, personalities et al. the reality is, they don't. most would be hard pressed to assemble a winning team at the ymca, let alone structure a team that will compete for a championship at the highest level of basketball.

it's not beyond the realm of reality that brown, (who's not as bad a pickup, imo as some are blathering about) could be used as a piece in a S&T for wilcox. this would cement paxson's abilities as a top flight gm imo, due to the wilcox addition being a valuable scoring big who's also a good rebounder. i question the criticism of his defense, mainly because unless his detractors are watching him on NBA TV, there's but a small sample size of clipper and/or sonic games available to us midwesterners to make a reasonable assessment. my op of wilcox comes mostly from seeing his deameanor on the court as a freshman at Maryland, where i thought he was a work in progress.

however, he's young, athletic, tough and is capable of starting. acquiring him would likely mean minutes for someone will suffer, but skiles will let the players decide who gets minutes which is a quality i especially endorse. it seems as though there's always a so and so versus so and so debate raging, to which i pose the question, what about depth? you can never have too much. dallas, san antonio are proven models of this. also, for the skeptics who believe the championship will ultimately run through cleveland, depth is the countering move for such a notion. when cleveland posseses the depth of the bull beyond lebron, let me know.



> I agree with Ace... adding salary just isn't a logical move after blatantly cutting salary. Plus, there have been numerous reports that the Bulls don't like Wilcox


really? where?.......it doesn't have to be a link, just what did it say more specifically than "numerous reports".....


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I agree with Ace... adding salary just isn't a logical move after blatantly cutting salary. Plus, there have been numerous reports that the Bulls don't like Wilcox.


That's cool. 

But, and I'm not picking on you, just saying, there seems to be some kind of sense of "betrayal" that Tyson is going to be traded for the sake of financial flexibility. 

To a number of you, that means Reinsdorf is a cheapskate and doesn't care about winning. 

And you're the ones being logical? After the Sox just won the world series? After we go out to get Ben Wallace with open wallets?

It's foolish to assume that it ends with a dump. After dumping, you can start eating again, you know?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Nothing is gonna go down. That offense in the post your speaking of is PJ Brown if we trade Chandler...thats it! If you guys want to play NBA Live GM and think we are gonna make some big move after this to bring in Wilcox or Harrington or even Jeffries, then be my guest. But I will say it again, if we trade Tyson for PJ Brown then Pax is basically done. Sure, he might make a minor move or two but nothing along the lines of what you guys are salivating over...it just isn't realistic.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> That's cool.
> 
> But, and I'm not picking on you, just saying, there seems to be some kind of sense of "betrayal" that Tyson is going to be traded for the sake of financial flexibility.
> 
> ...



We opened up the wallets for Wallace BECAUSE we are dumping Chandlers salary. We aren't making these moves to add the players you are coveting, we are making these moves to SAVE MONEY. We made two steps forward with the signing of Wallace and it will be one step back when we trade Chandler...thats it...


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> *Nothing is gonna go down.* That offense in the post your speaking of is PJ Brown if we trade Chandler...thats it! If you guys want to play NBA Live GM and think we are gonna make some big move after this to bring in Wilcox or Harrington or even Jeffries, then be my guest. But I will say it again, if we trade Tyson for PJ Brown then Pax is basically done. Sure, he might make a minor move or two but nothing along the lines of what you guys are salivating over...it just isn't realistic.


Book it! Mark it down! 

Done.

And now, we wait.


----------



## different_13 (Aug 30, 2005)

If the Bulls WERE to get Wilcox - would Brown have to be involved?
Or would a mix of Sweetney, Smith and some picks swing it for them? (seeing as they're tryna be cheap)

And if the Bulls DON'T get Wilcox - anyone think at least one more signing is likely, and possibly resigning Pargo too?
(i still think the Bulls should sign Jackie Butler, they need another big body - alternatively, resign Othella Harrington)


----------



## Swan (Jun 27, 2005)

different_13 said:


> If the Bulls WERE to get Wilcox - would Brown have to be involved?
> Or would a mix of Sweetney, Smith and some picks swing it for them? (seeing as they're tryna be cheap)
> 
> And if the Bulls DON'T get Wilcox - anyone think at least one more signing is likely, and possibly resigning Pargo too?
> (i still think the Bulls should sign Jackie Butler, they need another big body - alternatively, resign Othella Harrington)


I doubt brown would be involved. In a sign and trade scenario, it doesn't save them any money now (i.e. it would be cheaper to just let him sign someplace).

I agree with you, that there is another deal on the way (otherwise, what's been holding up this trade?) I think that if it's not wilcox, it's somebody: maybe scola, who knows, but I think the front office knows it needs to find somebody to get some frontcourt scoring


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Swan said:


> I doubt brown would be involved. In a sign and trade scenario, it doesn't save them any money now (i.e. it would be cheaper to just let him sign someplace).
> 
> I agree with you, that there is another deal on the way (otherwise, what's been holding up this trade?) I think that if it's not wilcox, it's somebody: maybe scola, who knows, but I think the front office knows it needs to find somebody to get some frontcourt scoring



Whats holding up this trade is that trades can't officially be done until 07/12 & the Bulls want to see if there is a potentially better offer on the table before they announce it.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Ace, when I first saw this article I was scratching my head the same as you, thinking "wait, aren't we trying to dump the long term contracts, not add another one like Wilcox?" Then it sort of hit me...what if Tyson Chandler were a scoring PF instead of a one-dimensional defensive PF? Would we still be trying to dump his contract if that were the case? I actually think that we'd keep him and start him alongside Ben Wallace. That's where a Chris Wilcox acquisition would make some sense.

I agree that the Bulls are open to dumping Chandler for an expiring contract like PJ Brown, but I think this is happening because Chandler is no better than a backup with Ben Wallace on board. I think Skaxson would rarely, if ever, trot out a lineup featuring Chandler/Wallace as your bigs. The Bulls don't want to pay him $50M+ over the next 5 years just to be a backup. He still would be a starter for most teams but not here. He simply doesn't fit anymore. Chris Wilcox DOES fit. I think Drew Gooden would fit too, but it seems we don't wanna give LeBron James the defensive stopper that we would regret down the line (and rightfully so).

We'll see how this plays out. I'm not counting on Wilcox, but I do think Paxson would keep a Chandler-sized contract if it meant good point production out of the PF spot. So there could be some truth to this rumor. Stay tuned.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

C Wallace
F Wilcox / Thomas
F Deng / Nocioni / Khyrapa
G Gordon / Sefolosha
F Hinrich / Duhon

If we didn't make the ECF, we'd be damn close


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

Good Hope said:


> Book it! Mark it down!
> 
> Done.
> 
> And now, we wait.



i don't think it is possible to trade for pj, then immidiately use
him in another trade. anyone familiar with the cba care to shed light on this?

i think if the wilcox thing was true, then seattle would be part of 
the hornets trade and we wouldn't have heard of it before july 12th
since it requires a S&T.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Tyson + Malik for PJ + JR = $5.3M in extra cap space. 

Since Malik is no longer part of the NO deal, it's down to just $3.5M in cap space. 

But a sign & trade involving Sweetney ($2.7M) & Allen ($1.8M) for Wilcox could allow us to offer him a starting salary of about $8M. Should be enough to get it done. 

Seattle does it because they're only taking back $4.5M in salary, and both deals are expiring. 

If Wilcox is a target (which I doubt is the case), we could definitely make it happen.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

If the Bulls get both PJ Brown and Chris Wilcox, well, then I'll very satisfied with the offseason.

Wlicox would be able to start and help the Bulls contend along with Big Ben right away, and he's young enough that he'd be a valuable consolidation piece when Tyrus is ready and or the 1007 pick comes.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I wish we could swing a 3 team deal with PJ and JR going to Seattle, and us getting Wilcox.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

paxman said:


> i don't think it is possible to trade for pj, then immidiately use
> him in another trade. anyone familiar with the cba care to shed light on this?
> 
> i think if the wilcox thing was true, then seattle would be part of
> ...


you can't S & T a player and then trade him, nor can you sign a player in general and then trade him right away. With rookies, you can trade them 30 days afterwards; with all other players, it's 3 months.



The NBA Collective Bargaining Agreement said:


> (d) Except as set forth in Section 8(e) below: (1) no player who signs a Contract as a Free Agent may be traded before the later of (i) three (3) months following the date on which such Contract was signed or (ii) the December 15 of the Salary Cap Year in which such Contract was signed; and (2) no Draft Rookie who signs a Player Contract may be traded before thirty (30) days following the date on which the Contract is signed.


http://www.nbpa.com/cba_articles/article-VII_8.php

Article VII, Section 8, subsec. (d).

But that's only for SIGNED players. I think traded players in their existing contracts can be traded almost immediately. See, e.g.,



Rasheed Wallace's Playerfile said:


> *Traded to the Atlanta Hawks* with Wesley Person in exchange for Shareef Abdur-Rahim, Theo Ratliff and Dan Dickau on *2/9/04*...*Traded in a three-team deal to the Detroit Pistons* along with Mike James from the Boston Celtics that sent Chucky Atkins and Lindsey Hunter of the Pistons to the Celtics and Bobby Sura and Zeljko Rebraca from the Pistons and Chris Mills form the Celtics to the Atlanta Hawks while the Celtics also received the Pistons' first-round pick in the 2004 draft and cash compensation and the Hawks received the rights to the Milwaukee Bucks' 2004 first-round draft choice, which Detroit previously obtained from Denver *on 2/19/04.*


Rasheed was in Atlanta for 10 days.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> you can't S & T a player and then trade him, nor can you sign a player in general and then trade him right away. With rookies, you can trade them 30 days afterwards; with all other players, it's 3 months.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you're right, Showtyme...the Rasheed Wallace trade immediately popped into my head. He was traded after 1 game with Atlanta.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

thanks showtyme!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ace, could you provide a link (article/post) that backs up your claim that the bulls have said several times that they aren't interested in wilcox?

thanks in advance.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

So Showtyme, we cannot do a 3 team deal landing us Wilcox in a S&T? Am I understanding this correctly? The S&T is possible between Chicago and Seattle alone, but not in a 3 team deal?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> ace, could you provide a link (article/post) that backs up your claim that the bulls have said several times that they aren't interested in wilcox?
> 
> thanks in advance.



I think they were interested in Wilcox, I read somewhere today that their wish list was Wallace, Harrington, and then Wilcox and that Pryz wasn't even ON Pax's list. Still, I don't think the Bulls will look to dump Tysons salary in order to make some crazy move to bring in Wilcox. It's a salary dump because we signed Wallace...


----------



## Swan (Jun 27, 2005)

theanimal23 said:


> So Showtyme, we cannot do a 3 team deal landing us Wilcox in a S&T? Am I understanding this correctly? The S&T is possible between Chicago and Seattle alone, but not in a 3 team deal?


No, I think we could. A similar trade a couple of years back took place between Sacto, Indiana and San Antonio (the Brad Miller trade) if the transaction was done simultaneously, we could *theoretically* do 

Chandler to NO

P.J. Brown, Wilcox to Chicago

Khrapa, Smith, Sweetney to SEA

provided we had enough cap room to cover Wilcox's new salary.
:banana:


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

You just can't trade for someone, then (in a separate deal) package him with more players to land another guy. i.e. you can't trade Chandler for Smith and Brown, then turn around and package Smith with Sweetney, Khryapa, etc. for Wilcox.

Theoretically, Smith could be traded again, but no one else from our side could be part of the deal. However, our remaining cap space and Smith wouldn't be enough to get Wilcox.


----------



## Swan (Jun 27, 2005)

Qwerty123 said:


> You just can't trade for someone, then (in a separate deal) package him with more players to land another guy. i.e. you can't trade Chandler for Smith and Brown, then turn around and package Smith with Sweetney, Khryapa, etc. for Wilcox.
> 
> Theoretically, Smith could be traded again, but no one else from our side could be part of the deal. However, our remaining cap space and Smith wouldn't be enough to get Wilcox.


That's right. But there's nothing stopping Pax from getting a deal in place with Seattle now, and making the NO trade an expanded 3 team deal that goes down simultaneously on the 12th, in which case Smith goes directly to Seattle and never actually joins the bulls. I think Pax is PF shopping right now, and doesn't want to finalize the NO deal in case somebody would like J.R. as an ad in.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Today's Suntimes has the following story. The first Jackson story could have been speculation. This one is attributed to sources. Wilcox is on Paxson's wish list. He does mention the obstacle of Wilcox demanding too much salary. Anyway...things are cooking -- prepare to eat crow -- you know who you are!  (j/k) I'm more watchful and hopeful than convinced myself.

Jackson in Suntimes 



> Bulls operations chief John Paxson met the media Thursday for the first since landing free agent Ben Wallace and trading Tyson Chandler, but he still isn't allowed to talk about either move.
> 
> Even though the NBA's free-agent period began July 1, league rules stipulate that contracts can't be signed and other moves can't become official until the salary-cap figure is firmly established next Wednesday. Until then, Paxson must remain mum on his two coups.
> 
> ...


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

So, he's going after Wilcox now. The only thing I'm worried about is Wilcox not understanding that Thomas is our future and his development is a priority. Some guys don't care about that stuff, they just want their minutes.

Oh well, what Pax wants, Pax gets

*pencils Wilcox into starting line-up*

C Wallace / Brown
F Wilcox / Thomas
F Deng / Nocioni
G Gordon / Sefolosha
G Hinrich / Duhon

= Contender


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

I think this deserves a thread of its own


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

If we can get Wilcox for Sweetney, Khryapa and JR Smith, I'd give Pax MAD props. Khryapa was the difference between Aldridge and Ty Thomas (um, is there even a difference?), JR Smith was an interesting 3rd-string prospect as part of a salary-relief trade, and Sweetney is a useful but limited big man. In essence, it's taking a bunch of collateral damage to upgrade Sweetney into Wilcox.

That's insane. Not that Wilcox is a superstud, but he's a 28-30 mpg worthy starter in this league, and that's a big deal.

From a talent standpoint, though, it's three very decent young players, several of them expiring contracts, in exchange for Wilcox, who was basically just Vladimir Radmanovic, which wasn't very much to give up in the first place. Sweetney is a decent low-post threat, Khryapa is an improving long defender, and JR Smith is an athletic stud. 

I'd be willing to put Allen into the deal along with a future 2nd rounder (hardly sweetening the deal, I suppose) to get back Robert Swift. I think Swift has some talent as a scrappy 7-footer and could be the one true big center among forwards. They have Johan Petro (the better talent over Swift) and now Saer Sene, with Mikki Moore still on the roster. Sweetney can play some center and Collison still plays big at PF, and they like running Rashard at PF a lot of the time next to Damien Wilkins, Ray Allen and Ridnour.

In other words, they have enough size to spare one of Petro or Swift (hoping that one will step up and develop this year) since they're going to hopefully be developing Saer Sene, and it's tough to develop three young centers. They'd have enough pieces as big man role players to put in when the young guys are faltering.

If it was Wilcox + Swift for Sweetney, Khryapa, JR Smith, Allen and future 2nd rounder... I'd be a happy man.

Hinrich/Duhon
Gordon/Thabo
Deng/Noch/Tyrus
BROWN/Wilcox/Tyrus
Wallace/Brown/Swift

And what's cool is that after a year of learning the ropes and being under Brown's tutelage, PJ can retire and we've got Wilcox/Tyrus at PF and Wallace/Swift at center, a solid rotation of bigs.

Seattle:

Ridnour/Watson
Allen/JR Smith
Rashard Lewis/Damien Wilkins/Denham Brown/Viktor Khryapa
Nick Collison/Mike Sweetney
Johan Petro/Saer Sene/Mike Sweetney

Looking at that, JR Smith is an athletic addition that can score in bunches, and Sweetney could actually compete for the starting spot as PF.

And to be honest, that might be a lot more than they could get for Wilcox in the S&T market. They took a flyer on Wilcox and it worked out for them. Taking a flyer on JR Smith might be a decent, low-cost investment (short contracts all around).


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I somehow doubt they'd throw in Robert Swift...he's a pretty talented young center who's only entering his 3rd season.

But if you ask me, with the Sonics being in a tough financial state, trading Wilcox for JR Smith, Khryapa, and Sweetney really deepens their squad for a very low-risk cost. I guess it depends what other teams are offering. I might even throw in our first-rounder next season, but only if we can put a protection on it for the swap rights. Then they'd likely get our first-rounder the following year, in 2008.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

If Pax can pull this one off (for basically our young spare parts) then I would be ecstatic. A frontline of Wilcox, Wallace, Thomas and Brown... damn.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

superdave said:


> If Pax can pull this one off (for basically our young spare parts) then I would be ecstatic. A frontline of Wilcox, Wallace, Thomas and Brown... damn.


I agree. i personally prefered a starting line up of either Nene or Wilcox two scoring powerforwards with Chandler over Wallace. But since that arguement is out of the window, i would love to have Wilcox on our team to add some force inside. 

To have two bulls in terms of Wallace and Wilcox just throwing people down and dunking over people would be awesome.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

I'm with ace, this will never happen. For one thing, I don't think JR Smith can be traded as part of a package. More importantly, Noc is a better power forward than Wilcox. If you disagree with that however, then that means Noc and Deng are both strictly playing SF and they each get 24 minutes a game. 

Noc averaged like 18/10 as the starting PF at the end of last season.


----------



## epic (Mar 16, 2004)

i'd probably orgasm if we could add Wilcox in a S&T for a few of our bit parts but my pessimism meter has just kicked in.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

madox said:


> I'm with ace, this will never happen. For one thing, I don't think JR Smith can be traded as part of a package. More importantly, Noc is a better power forward than Wilcox. If you disagree with that however, then that means Noc and Deng are both strictly playing SF and they each get 24 minutes a game.
> 
> Noc averaged like 18/10 as the starting PF at the end of last season.



Yeah this is a beat writers fevered mind.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

i don't think it's that far fetched; that's not a prediction, but wilcox fits the description of the type of players paxson has indicated he'd go for; big, long, athletic, and in wilcox's case the ability to score on the block. the bull has multiple relatively cheap contracts and young players to entice the package, so if it's negotiable it's not beyond the realm of reality.

not seeing it as possible is the equivalent of not seeing ben wallace attainable, and the evidence presently herein suggests rethinking the prospect.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

madox said:


> I'm with ace, this will never happen. For one thing, I don't think JR Smith can be traded as part of a package. More importantly, Noc is a better power forward than Wilcox. If you disagree with that however, then that means Noc and Deng are both strictly playing SF and they each get 24 minutes a game.
> 
> Noc averaged like 18/10 as the starting PF at the end of last season.


I believe JR can be traded until the trade becomes official on the 12th.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

TripleDouble said:


> I believe JR can be traded until the trade becomes official on the 12th.


No, once the trade is offical, they have to wait another 60 days for him to be tradeable. Not sure its 60 days is the exact number but its roughly around that. 

Thats why im hoping they are working a three way deal with NO and Seattle, but i highly doubt it.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> I believe JR can be traded until the trade becomes official on the 12th.


I believe he can be traded immediately after that as well.

We're not signing him, so we don't have a 60-day waiting period on him at all. We're acquiring his contract via trade.

Rasheed got traded twice in a span of 10 days.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> I believe he can be traded immediately after that as well.
> 
> We're not signing him, so we don't have a 60-day waiting period on him at all. We're acquiring his contract via trade.
> 
> Rasheed got traded twice in a span of 10 days.



I think he has to be traded by himself though, right?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I think he has to be traded by himself though, right?


Right. We could trade JR Smith on the 12th, but we'd have to trade him by himself. The same goes for PJ Brown or Khryapa. I guess Smith and Brown could be traded in packages around September 12, while Khryapa could be traded around August 28.

That being said, can anyone actually come up with an actually reasonable S&T deal for Wilcox that coudl be completed beforelate August? We could consider something clever like adding Duhon and taking back Watson, although that actually doesn't make the deal any easier to push through (though it would give further incentive to Seattle).

edit: We could probably find a way to swing it if Othella is still part of our roster. Is he?!?!?


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Right. We could trade JR Smith on the 12th, but we'd have to trade him by himself. The same goes for PJ Brown or Khryapa. I guess Smith and Brown could be traded in packages around September 12, while Khryapa could be traded around August 28.


I've been operating under this assumption as well, however, I was just doing some refresher reading of Larry ****'s faq, and I came across an interesting tidbit...



> 85. When can't a player be traded?
> 
> In addition, teams cannot trade players under the following circumstances:
> 
> For two months after receiving the player in trade or claiming him off waivers, if the player is being traded in combination with other players. However, the team is free to trade the player by himself (not packaged with other players) immediately. *This restriction applies only to teams over the salary cap.*


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I'd be pretty surprised if the Bulls make a run at Wilcox. He seems to be very similar to the guy they just got rid of, except, if possible, he's got less basketball IQ. He does have bigger hands, thus leading to better offensive abilities but in every other way he's not so good.

From my perspective, he's better than not signing anyone, but I don't see him as a very good fit. For the money he's likely to command, I think we'd do better with Harrington (who's definitely,like Wilcox, on the block) or Gooden.

Perhaps we'd even do better with Melvin Ely. He's still athletic, though not a freak like Wilcox, has a post move, and has a big body and knows how to stick it on another big body. 

Any of those three guys, to various extents, seem like better fits for the Bulls.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> 85. When can't a player be traded?
> 
> In addition, teams cannot trade players under the following circumstances:
> 
> For two months after receiving the player in trade or claiming him off waivers, if the player is being traded in combination with other players. However, the team is free to trade the player by himself (not packaged with other players) immediately. *This restriction applies only to teams over the salary cap. *


Huh. That IS interesting.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Huh. That IS interesting.


Nice find. 

If that's correct then that "flexibility" everyone is talking about comes into play right away. So if the hypothetical KG trade demand comes even in 2 weeks, then the Bulls can be players.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> I'd be pretty surprised if the Bulls make a run at Wilcox. He seems to be very similar to the guy they just got rid of, except, if possible, he's got less basketball IQ. He does have bigger hands, thus leading to better offensive abilities but in every other way he's not so good.
> 
> From my perspective, he's better than not signing anyone, but I don't see him as a very good fit. For the money he's likely to command, I think we'd do better with Harrington (who's definitely,like Wilcox, on the block) or Gooden.
> 
> ...


Wilcox is interesting. A lot of people look at the 14 and 8 Wilcox put up during his time in Seattle as something of an abberation, from a statistical standpoint it actually isn't. 

Wilcox started for the first month or two of the '04-'05 season (in place of an injured Elton Brand, if memory serves) and put up very similar numbers - 12.5 and 6.2 in 27 MPG as a starter, including a 14 and 7 November. Essentially, over the course of about 60 starts in the past two seasons Wilcox has been consistently good for about 13 to 15 points and 6 to 8 boards in 27 to 30 minutes. He's extremely athletic, a big body, and 23 years old. Those Seattle numbers aren't fool's gold. He's done it before last year and he can do it again.

Now the bad stuff. Outside of Corey Maggette, Wilcox has been the number one resident of Mike Dunleavy's doghouse over the past few seasons. He strikes me as a poor defender and something of a mental midget. He should be doing way better than half a block a game with his physical tools. Still, I consider him to be far and away the best option left in free agency. We're talking about a guy with an unlimited ceiling. He's grabbed 26 rebounds in a game. He's scored 30 points. He can play the 4 and the 5.

Seattle is a notoriously cheap franchise in an unstable situation, if we can swoop in and take Wilcox off their hands we ought to. They obviously don't want to pay him and we can. He's not worth Nene or Chandler money but something like 5 years 40 million would be fine by me. We're talking about an athletic, skilled big man. His percentage on around the rim shots is strong at 56, he gets up and dunks plenty, and he's not a terrible shooter - 40% on jump shots. If Paxson can pull this off I take back everything I said about the Chandler deal.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

What would deal for Wilcox though? The Hornets guys, Duhon, Khryapa. I'm not willing to give up Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Noc, Thabo, Tyrus, or the Knicks pick for Wilcox. It'd have to be some combo of PJ, JR, Duhon, and Viktor.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

T.Shock said:


> What would deal for Wilcox though? The Hornets guys, Duhon, Khryapa. I'm not willing to give up Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Noc, Thabo, Tyrus, or the Knicks pick for Wilcox. It'd have to be some combo of PJ, JR, Duhon, and Viktor.


I think we have to hope that a) the Sonics don't want to pay him and b) they see something Duhon, Smith or Sweetney.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I'd be pretty surprised if the Bulls make a run at Wilcox. He seems to be very similar to the guy they just got rid of, except, if possible, he's got less basketball IQ. He does have bigger hands, thus leading to better offensive abilities but in every other way he's not so good.
> 
> From my perspective, he's better than not signing anyone, but I don't see him as a very good fit. For the money he's likely to command, I think we'd do better with Harrington (who's definitely,like Wilcox, on the block) or Gooden.
> 
> ...



I am a big Gooden fan but I don't know how we could swing a deal for him considering his price and the fact that the Cavs situation is different than the Sonics situation.

I share your feelings regarding Wilcox. I think we should aim for Ely or possibly Francisco Elson. Ely is solid, if not overly athletic, and he can be another banger on the inside. He also has post moves which we lack in our current big men. It seems like every time I saw Elson last year he was a factor. It is not clear to me, however, what price range he is in. He would bring much needed size to the team.

FYI, I am pissed that the Bulls did not identify Justin Williams as an undrafted rook that we could use. I am not surprised at his showing yesterday in the summer league. I don't know how in the world he fell out of the draft as he supposedly made a terrific impression during workouts. Can anyone shed some light on this?


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

Being under the cap may have an additional advantage in pursuing Wilcox. Because Wilcox would become BYC, it will be easier for Seattle to deal with a team under the cap (such as the Bulls) as opposed to a team over the cap that would require expanding the deal by either including a third team or by adding additional players. If limiting payroll is Seattle's most pressing concern, they're better off dealing with a team under the cap.

In looking at the possibility of dealing with a team over the cap, I quickly looked at Seattle's salary structure. Upon first glance, it looks like Fortson is the most likely player to be thrown in if the Sonics deal with a team over the cap. Assuming Fortson ($6.6 million) is part of a deal and Wilcox gets a $7-8 million starting salary, the incoming players would have to have salaries of about $12 million. But if avoiding paying Wilcox is the main reason for doing a S&T, I don't see why they'd be willing to pay it for someone else. For instance, a Randolph for Wilcox and Fortson deal works under the rules, but I don't see how Seattle would be willing to pay him $12 million a year when they don't want to pay Wilcox $7-8 million per year.

So even though we may have relatively little to offer in terms of player assets, we may still be in a good position to deal with Seattle if that's the route they choose to pursue.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I'd be pretty surprised if the Bulls make a run at Wilcox. He seems to be very similar to the guy they just got rid of, except, if possible, he's got less basketball IQ. He does have bigger hands, thus leading to better offensive abilities but in every other way he's not so good.
> 
> From my perspective, he's better than not signing anyone, but I don't see him as a very good fit. For the money he's likely to command, I think we'd do better with Harrington (who's definitely,like Wilcox, on the block) or Gooden.
> 
> ...


Thanks to Qwerty's revelation that we don't have to wait to trade JR Smith in a package due to the fact that we're under the cap, how about Smith and Allen for Oberto? Honestly, I'm not sure if San Antonio could even make this move right now, as they've recently lost Rasho and Nazr, but they'd at least be getting a big back of the same size who was more productive last year in Allen. Plus, they'd be getting JR Smith, a player they have coveted in the past.

I know Oberto's stats are paltry, but I have still not forgotten how well he played against Duncan last Olympics. I also notice how good he looked when he saw limited floor time last year. He's got a lot of skill, including post moves, and he is gritty. He's 31 years old, which all of a sudden is the right age for us. The only thing is, Mike, he has a player option for next year.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I hadn't noticed this abomination before:

http://www.82games.com/0506/0506SEA.HTM

During his nice little run in Seattle (a small sample size, to be sure), Wilcox was literally not playing any defense. A 23.0 PER against? I don't think I've seen that before, at least not from a starter.

On offense, he shoots a ridiculously good percentage inside and exercises pretty good shot selection overall -- .719 eFG on inside shots, which comprise a healthy 60% of his attempts. But nearly 80% of his baskets are assisted. This is a minor red flag to me -- ours is not a big-man offense, and our guards are better at taking care of/moving the ball and finding the open man than they are in penetrating and setting the table for a big. 

So all in all, I'd hope Paxson would pass on Wilcox for a $50-60 million deal, unless it didn't cost us much talent to get him. I would be interested in Gooden at that price, however. He's not perfect, but I think he fits into the offense better (he's more of an opportunistic player) and he would run less of a risk of falling out of favor with Skiles due to defensive shortcomings.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

ScottMay said:


> So all in all, I'd hope Paxson would pass on Wilcox for a $50-60 million deal, unless it didn't cost us much talent to get him. I would be interested in Gooden at that price, however. He's not perfect, but I think he fits into the offense better (he's more of an opportunistic player) and he would run less of a risk of falling out of favor with Skiles due to defensive shortcomings.


really? i thought gooden was a horrible defender?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

paxman said:


> really? i thought gooden was a horrible defender?


He's not great, don't get me wrong, but I think he's better than Wilcox. At the very least he's a top-level rebounder, which means there's less of a sacrifice to get his offense. He's also a big hustle/little things guy, which Wilcox is not.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

ScottMay said:


> He's not great, don't get me wrong, but I think he's better than Wilcox. At the very least he's a top-level rebounder, which means there's less of a sacrifice to get his offense. He's also a big hustle/little things guy, which Wilcox is not.


true.

i just like that, consistently, every time wilcox got released from underneath
brand's shadow(including in LA,) his game improved 10 fold.

we just can't have a full rotation of defensively superior, offensively stunted big men. we 
need a little balance. (and i'm not sure sweets and malik provide enough balance)


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Thanks to Qwerty's revelation that we don't have to wait to trade JR Smith in a package due to the fact that we're under the cap, how about Smith and Allen for Oberto? Honestly, I'm not sure if San Antonio could even make this move right now, as they've recently lost Rasho and Nazr, but they'd at least be getting a big back of the same size who was more productive last year in Allen. Plus, they'd be getting JR Smith, a player they have coveted in the past.
> 
> I know Oberto's stats are paltry, but I have still not forgotten how well he played against Duncan last Olympics. I also notice how good he looked when he saw limited floor time last year. He's got a lot of skill, including post moves, and he is gritty. He's 31 years old, which all of a sudden is the right age for us. The only thing is, Mike, he has a player option for next year.



I'm sorry DMD but I must have seen some Spurs games that you didn't. I think Oberto is a joke. He always appeared confused and out of position. A total non-factor in the playoffs. Plus, he has the second worst haircut in the league after Kamen. Although I am not as familiar with Scola I have a feeling that posters think he is a player that can possibly make a difference for the Bulls should there be a trade. From the little I have seen of him he appears to be somewhat of a more skilled and rugged versiono of Dragan Tarlac. Nothing to get excited about.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I hadn't noticed this abomination before:
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0506/0506SEA.HTM
> 
> ...


I actually like that about him (not the part about his defense). 

If Wilcox puts up a shot inside, it's most likely gonna go in. If his baskets are mostly assisted, that would mean he's pretty good at finishing around the basket, no? That's what we need. We've had enough big guys who rely on sticking outside jumpers (Davis, Othella, Allen, Songaila). 

Even Eddy wasn't that effective when we gave him the ball and forced him to create one on one. Better than anyone else we had at the time, yes, and certainly very good compared to other centers around the league, but where he truly excelled was getting the ball on the move, going towards the basket. Skiles made a point about this during Eddy's last year with us. He also said what we missed most about Eddy was his ability to catch the ball near the hoop and finish. 

I'm not sure I'd give either Wilcox or Gooden huge deals. I'm leaning towards using the remaining cap space ($3.5M?) on someone like Butler, Ely, or in a trade for Scola.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

I really don't expect the Bulls to bring in Wilcox. I'm sure there might be discussions but i can't imagine we find something that A) Sonics want B) Fits under Salary cap rules.

I was watching TV when Pax commented on making more moves and by his expressions it seems that he is talking Mid-season than anything immediate. I hope i am wrong and Pax makes a run at Wilcox.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Wilcox actually makes some sense across a number of fronts 

We have around $4M left in caproom after the Wallace signing and the reported Chandler trade come through 

We could sign Wilcox to a 5 year $45M deal - which starts him at around $7.5M per 

In order for the sign and trade to work we would have to send approx $4M back to Seattle which is around 120% of his prior year's salary and nearly 50% of his new salary . I believe the rule re sign and trades for outgoing teams is that they have to accept either of these stipulates - whichever is the greater 

That would likely be close to $4M which is 120% of Wilcox's salary last year

We accept back the full face value of his contract and for the fact that we are already $4M under approx when these other moves come through , in theory , it becomes easy for us to get rid of non core players with skills/ contracts that Seattle may covet :

1. Malik Allen - veteran big man to defer to their young bigs in Petro and Swift - $1.8M 

2. Victor Kyhrapa - lengthy forward back up behind Rashard Lewis - $1.2M 

3. JR Smith - Young guard/forward with big upside - $1.1M

That's $4.1M 

That to my way of thinkking would be the basic principals of the trade 

Wilcox definately helps us next year paired with Ben Wallace in the first unit and PJ is the 3rd big that pairs with Tyrus in the 2nd unit 

I don't think that we do ourselves in with flexibility for moves next summer should Garnett finally be put on the block and I would expect that we would have the following assets to offer Minnesota (not all but in some combination of ) 

1. Ben Gordon
2. Chris Wilcox
3. Andres Nocioni 
4. The Knicks draft pick 
5. Further cap space accommodation 

We would retain :

Ben Wallace
Tyrus Thomas
Luol Deng
Thabo Sefolosha
Kirk Hinrich 

Chris Duhon

We add KG to this mix ( if any of the above assets could be combined to acquire him ) and just add MLE pieces as we need to compete 

We still have Hinrich , Deng , Thomas , Sefolosha and Duhon as the young core moving forward 

This is a team that cam compete for championships straight away and be strong for several years into the future 

The acquisition of Wilcox is for help now and as an asset later 

And if we don't pull off a KG trade next summer ..never mind 

Long term - Wilcox is a great 3rd big option for us . He's long , has awesome hands , atheletic as all hell and can score the basketball in a fast paced push type game . May not as ScottMay would say , be a "stout" defender ..but hey we have good all round support in this regard . We need a guy who is as sure as sure once you push the ball and get it to him 

Kind of like as sure as sure big man scorer we had in Eddy Curry ( although they are different types of scorers ) 

He's a fit - helps us right now - and doesn't compromise us down the road if we can get him for $45M on 5 years 

If Pax does get him I will be super surprised as he has previously had some work ethic question marks surrounding him and didn't seem to be a Paxskiles guy

He does make sense ( to me ) but I will be surprised if we get him as I though the dogma may have got in the way 

And still probably will

I am cautiously optimistic


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Also remember from Seattle's POV its not about necessarily getting equal value back - its about getting costs down and therefore short term expiring contracts - and preferably in positions of need 

We can accommodate them and accommodate Camp Wilcox and give him an appropriate deal

Rationality dictates this has legs 

Unfortunately these types of things don't always work on a level platform of rationality


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Also remember from Seattle's POV its not about necessarily getting equal value back - its about getting costs down and therefore short term expiring contracts - and preferably in positions of need
> 
> We can accommodate them and accommodate Camp Wilcox and give him an appropriate deal
> 
> ...


I agree. Seattle just doesn't want to pay him. Their initial offer was 6 years, under $42M. That's LESS than what they offered Radmonovic last year. They're being cheap because he's restricted. I bet they're hoping he takes the QO and walks next year. At least that way they get another year out of him below market value. 

We have a number of expiring contracts to make this work. J.R. Smith can also be included in any package since we're currently under the cap, so the waiting period doesn't apply to us. 

I just don't believe Wilcox is the type of guy Paxson would be targeting. After he was traded by the Clippers, Elton Brand came out and said that Wilcox didn't work hard enough to get better.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I hadn't noticed this abomination before:
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0506/0506SEA.HTM
> 
> ...


The link says only 60% of his FG were assisted. I wouldn't put a ton of credibilty to the defense #'s, he was outscored by 50 and is good offensivily so he did get scored on a lot. But Seattle doesn't really demand defense and most the guys around him weren't very good. Their defense allowed the same amount of points with and without him. 

I doubt he gets $50M+. And I wouldn't be willing to give up anything outside of Du, Smith, Sweets, Allen, Khryapa, cash, or 2nders. So if a deal can be made with that I'm more than just all for it, it would be dope.

Wilcox can play the same roll on d that Eddy played. He makes up for his size difference with just slightly more athletisim, but an outstandingly greater ability to "jump" for a rebound. :biggrin:


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

SALO said:


> I just don't believe Wilcox is the type of guy Paxson would be targeting. After he was traded by the Clippers, Elton Brand came out and said that Wilcox didn't work hard enough to get better.


I think you may have been right in the past. Now it seems that Paxson may be more willing to take a gamble.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Wilcox actually makes some sense across a number of fronts
> 
> We have around $4M left in caproom after the Wallace signing and the reported Chandler trade come through
> 
> ...



Why not toss in Sweetney? With Swift, Petro AND Sene they have three young centers to develop, but all three are really true C's and can't play PF. Sweetney gives them a PF, sort of. They can fill that spot by committee, with Collison and Fortson and whoever else they still have over there. Heck, run Rashard at that PF spot.

Then we keep even close to our cap while still keeping Wilcox's contract sizeable.

The only thing is that we're putting a LOT of eggs in one basket with all these offseason changes coming at once. You almost get the feeling that something is bound to fail if you make so many changes, even though our "core" of Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Noch is still intact.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Hustle said:


> The link says only 60% of his FG were assisted. I wouldn't put a ton of credibilty to the defense #'s, he was outscored by 50 and is good offensivily so he did get scored on a lot. But Seattle doesn't really demand defense and most the guys around him weren't very good. Their defense allowed the same amount of points with and without him.
> 
> I doubt he gets $50M+. And I wouldn't be willing to give up anything outside of Du, Smith, Sweets, Allen, Khryapa, cash, or 2nders. So if a deal can be made with that I'm more than just all for it, it would be dope.
> 
> Wilcox can play the same roll on d that Eddy played. He makes up for his size difference with just slightly more athletisim, but an outstandingly greater ability to "jump" for a rebound. :biggrin:


You're looking at a different page -- 60% of the FG the Sonics made when Wilcox was on the court, period, were assisted. You can get the near 80% number on his player page:

http://www.82games.com/0506/05SEA16A.HTM

I'm aware that the Sonics were horrible defensively, but Wilcox's 23 PER against is just inexcusably bad. I'm not going to do the legwork, but I'd be willing to bet you won't find many (if any) players who averaged more than 25 mpg and yielded that high of a number.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Showtyme said:


> The only thing is that we're putting a LOT of eggs in one basket with all these offseason changes coming at once. You almost get the feeling that something is bound to fail if you make so many changes, even though our "core" of Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and Noch is still intact.


This is a very good point. There is already a lot of changeover in the team. It's fine to trade some of the new acquisitions, but moving any more of the personnel from last years team at this time seems counterproductive. The current left-over players from last year are :

Hinrich, Duhon & Gordon
Deng & Nocioni
Allen & Sweetney (& maybe Schenshur)

Integrating the two rookies and five or six other players with these guys will take a while. Trading Duhon, Allen or Sweetney is just going to make the job that much more difficult.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jbulls said:


> ... He strikes me as a poor defender and something of a mental midget. He should be doing way better than half a block a game with his physical tools. Still, I consider him to be far and away the best option left in free agency. We're talking about a guy with an unlimited ceiling. He's grabbed 26 rebounds in a game. He's scored 30 points. He can play the 4 and the 5.


Why is he a better option than Harrington or Gooden? He's more athletic than Harrington, certainly, but both of those guys are better defenders and smarter players. 

The smarts thing, IMO, limits Wilcox's upside. I think Gooden is a good comparison there. Gooden knows how to play basketball. He's got a lot of different skills that Wilcox doesn't have. Gooden hasn't put it all together, but he's got the opportunity to because he's smarter. Their mindsets (not pure basketball IQ) are pretty equal... neither is ideal. But Gooden has had some measure of success and Wilcox has, as far as I can tell, only done well in garbage time.

Athletically, they happen to be a couple guys I have a full set of measurements on. Obviously we're a couple of years down the road, but looking at the raw tools is still interesting. Gooden doesn't get the rep for it, but he's very comparable to Wilcox, and perhaps better (given his size) for playing the 4/5

<table x:str="" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 768pt;" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="1024"><col style="width: 48pt;" span="16" width="64"> <tbody><tr style="height: 25.5pt;" height="34"> <td class="xl22" style="height: 25.5pt; width: 48pt;" height="34" width="64">Player</td> <td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Wt.</td> <td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> </td> <td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Ht.</td> <td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> </td> <td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Wing span</td> <td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> </td> <td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Stnd Reach</td> <td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> </td> <td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Vertical</td> <td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> </td> <td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Bench Press</td> <td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> </td> <td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Agility</td> <td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64"> </td> <td class="xl22" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">Sprint</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl23" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Gooden</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="" align="right">227</td> <td class="xl23">
</td> <td class="xl23">6' 10"</td> <td class="xl23">
</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">7' 0.5"</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td> <td class="xl23">8' 10.5"</td> <td class="xl23">
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">33</td> <td>
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">13</td> <td>
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">11.81</td> <td>
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">3.19</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17"> <td class="xl23" style="height: 12.75pt;" height="17">Wilcox</td> <td class="xl23" x:num="" align="right">218</td> <td class="xl23">
</td> <td class="xl23">6' 9.5"</td> <td class="xl23">
</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">7' 1"</td> <td class="xl24" style="width: 48pt;" width="64">
</td> <td class="xl23">8' 11.5"</td> <td class="xl23">
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">34.5</td> <td>
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">20</td> <td>
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">11.43</td> <td>
</td> <td x:num="" align="right">3.16</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
I don't think Harrington has the physical talents of either of them, but he's produced better and doesn't have the questions of smarts or work ethic the other two have. He's a little beefier, though I think that's a wash because he plays less of a big man game than the other two.

Anyway, playing next to Wallace, I'd take Gooden or Harrington well before I'd take Wilcox.



> Seattle is a notoriously cheap franchise in an unstable situation, if we can swoop in and take Wilcox off their hands we ought to. They obviously don't want to pay him and we can. He's not worth Nene or Chandler money but something like 5 years 40 million would be fine by me. We're talking about an athletic, skilled big man. His percentage on around the rim shots is strong at 56, he gets up and dunks plenty, and he's not a terrible shooter - 40% on jump shots. If Paxson can pull this off I take back everything I said about the Chandler deal.


I think this is pretty much on the mark. Wilcox is not a better option in basketball terms, but he appears to be a better option in terms of availability. Everything I've read suggests the Cavs are going to re-sign Gooden to an above MLE deal, so it's probably not worth talking to them (though I also don't see why we wouldn't give them a call)

Still, the Hawks seem to be in a very similar situation to the Sonics. So it seems to me it should at least be explored. We could conceivably send them any combination of several very acceptable contracts (Sweetney, Duhon, Allen, Kyhrapa... ?) that could fill in their fairly shallow roster.

This will be unpopular, but I'd consider parting with Noc to get Harrington. They're pretty comparable, but homerism aside, Harrington is bigger (making him a slightly better fit at the 4) more athletic, and generally a better scorer. Whether he's an oversized three or not (he is, and that's why in absolute terms I'd prefer Gooden), he's known as a smart, quality player. Noc is on the last year of his deal, and judging by the other thread (where several folks seemed to think $6-7M might not be enough to resign him), he's going to take up comparable salary. By trading Noc (whose reasonable expiring deal would be valuable to them) to Atlanta, we'd be able to lock in a slightly better player at about the same price.

To go off on a tangent, I actually wonder if we have the cap space/players to deal for Wilcox and Harrington both. I'm a little confused at this point about what exactly we can do and not do, and how much we're actually giving Wallace this year.

Noc + Allen to the Hawks for Harrington?
Sweetney + Smith to the Sonics for Wilcox?

1- Hinrich, Duhon
2- Gordon, Sefolosha
3- Deng, Thomas
4- Harrington, Wilcox
5- Wallace, Brown

That'd be a pretty crazy team


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

McBulls said:


> This is a very good point. There is already a lot of changeover in the team. It's fine to trade some of the new acquisitions, but moving any more of the personnel from last years team at this time seems counterproductive. The current left-over players from last year are :
> 
> Hinrich, Duhon & Gordon
> Deng & Nocioni
> ...


The remaining guys played nearly three-forths of the total minutes this past season so I don't think the turnover will be much of a problem.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

charlietyra said:


> I am a big Gooden fan but I don't know how we could swing a deal for him considering his price and the fact that the Cavs situation is different than the Sonics situation.
> 
> I share your feelings regarding Wilcox. I think we should aim for Ely or possibly Francisco Elson. Ely is solid, if not overly athletic, and he can be another banger on the inside. He also has post moves which we lack in our current big men. It seems like every time I saw Elson last year he was a factor. It is not clear to me, however, what price range he is in. He would bring much needed size to the team.
> 
> FYI, I am pissed that the Bulls did not identify Justin Williams as an undrafted rook that we could use. I am not surprised at his showing yesterday in the summer league. I don't know how in the world he fell out of the draft as he supposedly made a terrific impression during workouts. Can anyone shed some light on this?


 I would love Gooden or Ely. Both bang very well and they have some post moves, though Ely is more adept at scoring with his back to the basket, in the low post. Gooden scores well off in a variety of ways - low post, jumpers, putbacks, dunks, pick-and-roll situations. Gooden has proven to be a very good offensive rebounder and with Wallace, those two could really help this jumpshooting team. Gooden could be a bit out of our price range though.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> . For the money he's likely to command, I think we'd do better with Harrington (who's definitely,like Wilcox, on the block) or Gooden.


I don't agree with this. Harrington is a perimeter player. The Bulls need someone to convert easy baskets for them down low and Wilcox can do that better than Harrington. They also could use a third player who can play center and Wilcox can do that too.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Why is he a better option than Harrington or Gooden? He's more athletic than Harrington, certainly, but both of those guys are better defenders and smarter players.


The thing that has me intrigued about Wilcox is his apparent ability to play center as some posters are claiming. That separates him from Harrington and Gooden. I haven't seen enough of him to say whether or not he can play center, but it seems as if he'd be rather undersized. However, if he can do it, he'd be a perfect transition from old to new for this team. He could log significant minutes at PF while Thomas develops and slowly shift over to center as Wallace ages and Thomas gets closer to claiming the majority of the PF minutes.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> I don't agree with this. Harrington is a perimeter player. The Bulls need someone to convert easy baskets for them down low and Wilcox can do that better than Harrington. The also could use a third player who can play center and Wilcox can do that too.


Harrington is mostly a perimeter player yes. He's not perfect. But from what I can tell, he plays the 4 spot defensively better than Wilcox. He's as good as a rebounder.

Can he play center? I dunno. He's 6'9 and 240 or so. Wilcox is 6'10 and 220. I'd go with the beef myself. The other option would be to use PJ as the backup 5... Harrington would certainly start if we got him.

I look at Harrington is a bit of a poor man's Rasheed next to Ben. Sheed was a good complement to Ben because he was an inside/outside guy who could score in a variety of ways and didn't have to live in the paint right next to Ben. That description fits Harrington.

It doesn't fit Wilcox well. How do we space the floor with both of those guys on the court? Do we have them both hanging out waiting for tip ins?


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Harrington is mostly a perimeter player yes. He's not perfect. But from what I can tell, he plays the 4 spot defensively better than Wilcox. He's as good as a rebounder.
> 
> Can he play center? I dunno. He's 6'9 and 240 or so. Wilcox is 6'10 and 220. I'd go with the beef myself. The other option would be to use PJ as the backup 5... Harrington would certainly start if we got him.
> 
> ...


That's a good point about spacing. However I think the comparison is off in a sense because Rasheed is worlds better defensively and has the length to offset Wallace's lack of height. He is also a very good man-to-man defender, allowing Ben to freelance. Obviously Harrington doesn't have those defense capabilities and so I would prefer to get perimeter offensive PF production from a guy who is allready on the team and who needs to play the position in order to get enough minutes -- Nocioni.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Qwerty123 said:


> The thing that has me intrigued about Wilcox is his apparent ability to play center as some posters are claiming. That separates him from Harrington and Gooden. I haven't seen enough of him to say whether or not he can play center, but it seems as if he'd be rather undersized. However, if he can do it, he'd be a perfect transition from old to new for this team. He could log significant minutes at PF while Thomas develops and slowly shift over to center as Wallace ages and Thomas gets closer to claiming the majority of the PF minutes.


I can't say I've seen a lot of him (in the pros) either, but he really doesn't strike me as a center. He strikes me as ERob without the mid-range jump shot. Loads of ability, but no clue what to do. That's not to say he's a baby like ERob was, just that he's not got a high hoops IQ.

He doesn't seem big enough to D on any real center. The only time I recall seeing him sort of in that role was playing next to Brand (that's also how 82Games shows him as playing "center". But Brand basically played the 5 role defensively, and was flexible enough offensively that they just let Wilcox play the garbage man. Wilcox was more effective as a defender there because they could just let him match up against most 4s.

So put it all together, and I don't see him as an especially good fit next to Ben now, or to Tyrus later. Harrington I see as a decent fit with Ben, but a bad fit down the road. Still, better a guy who at least fits in now than a guy who doesn't fit in at all.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> That's a good point about spacing. However I think the comparison is off in a sense because Rasheed is worlds better defensively and has the length to offset Wallace's lack of height. He is also a very good man-to-man defender, allowing Ben to freelance. Obviously Harrington doesn't have those defense capabilities and so I would prefer to get perimeter offensive PF production from a guy who is allready on the team and who needs to play the position in order to get enough minutes -- Nocioni.


He doesn't have the length, for sure, but my impression is that Harrington is actually one of the better man defenders out there. He's going to have trouble with the longer 4s, a little bit, but he knows what he's doing. So I agree, he's not as good as Wallace defensively, especially because of his (lack of) height.

But at the same time, all that you say is even more true of playing Nocioni at the 4. And that's a bit of a problem for us... which is sort of why I'm advocating trading Noc for Harrington


----------



## G-Force (Jan 4, 2005)

SALO said:


> *I agree. Seattle just doesn't want to pay him. Their initial offer was 6 years, under $42M. That's LESS than what they offered Radmonovic last year. They're being cheap because he's restricted. I bet they're hoping he takes the QO and walks next year. At least that way they get another year out of him below market value.*
> 
> We have a number of expiring contracts to make this work. J.R. Smith can also be included in any package since we're currently under the cap, so the waiting period doesn't apply to us.
> 
> I just don't believe Wilcox is the type of guy Paxson would be targeting. After he was traded by the Clippers, Elton Brand came out and said that Wilcox didn't work hard enough to get better.


Its not a matter of the Sonics not wanting to pay him, its a matter of not wanting to *overpay* him. We are just not about to give him a six year $60+ million contract. Everybody talks about the Sonics wanting to cut costs. That is not exactly true. What they would like to do is increase revenue through making improvements to Key Arena or moving to a new facility.


----------



## G-Force (Jan 4, 2005)

jbulls said:


> Wilcox is interesting. A lot of people look at the 14 and 8 Wilcox put up during his time in Seattle as something of an abberation, from a statistical standpoint it actually isn't.
> 
> Wilcox started for the first month or two of the '04-'05 season (in place of an injured Elton Brand, if memory serves) and put up very similar numbers - 12.5 and 6.2 in 27 MPG as a starter, including a 14 and 7 November. Essentially, over the course of about 60 starts in the past two seasons Wilcox has been consistently good for about 13 to 15 points and 6 to 8 boards in 27 to 30 minutes. He's extremely athletic, a big body, and 23 years old. Those Seattle numbers aren't fool's gold. He's done it before last year and he can do it again.
> 
> ...


Don't count on swooping in and picking up Wilcox that easily. If Seattle only has to up their offer by a million or so per season, they will likely do it. Its not like their qualifying offer is their final offer to Wilcox. 

G-Force


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

> No way on Wilcox
> 
> A source close to the Bulls disputed published reports that the Bulls are interested in acquiring Seattle restricted free agent Chris Wilcox. The source said the Bulls have no interest in the 6-10 power forward.


ChiTrib


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

_*No way on Wilcox

A source close to the Bulls disputed published reports that the Bulls are interested in acquiring Seattle restricted free agent Chris Wilcox. The source said the Bulls have no interest in the 6-10 power forward.*_



http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,2574595.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

That sounds more like what I'd expect to hear if someone sauntered up and asked Pax or Skiles to give Chris Wilcox a $40 or $50M contract.


----------



## Deng101 (Jan 13, 2005)

I dont trust the Tribune on anything. Why would they know considering they own the cubs and the owner of the bulls own the whitesox... why would he let anything out to them. And wasnt it the Sun-Times that seems to have the headsup on the bulls plans this off-season so far.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> _*No way on Wilcox
> 
> A source close to the Bulls disputed published reports that the Bulls are interested in acquiring Seattle restricted free agent Chris Wilcox. The source said the Bulls have no interest in the 6-10 power forward.*_
> 
> ...



But I can't remember the last time we had a report like this come out and then something to actually go ahead and happen. Maybe it's submarine, and maybe my memory's clouded, but generally stuff like this means something.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

jackson's (sun-times) sources say wilcox is on the Pax list.

marcia's sources says no interest.

mcgraw makes _no mention_ of wilcox at all in his column today.

who to believe?


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> jackson's (sun-times) sources say wilcox is on the Pax list.
> 
> marcia's sources says no interest.
> 
> ...


Considering that only Jackson knew that the Bulls were going after Wallace and that Garcia and McGraw were preaching "Przybilla and that's all" I'd tend to beleive Jackson more than the others.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> You're looking at a different page -- 60% of the FG the Sonics made when Wilcox was on the court, period, were assisted. You can get the near 80% number on his player page:
> 
> http://www.82games.com/0506/05SEA16A.HTM


Yeah 79% - with some explanation

http://www.nba.com/sonics/news/wilcox060313.html

You may recall that last summer I spent a bit of time researching Eddy Curry trade scenarios when it became clear to me he wasn't coming back and that the best way out of the mess was a sign and trade 

I was the first at the time to suggest the Sweetney trade as probably the most realistic we could expect and got hammered from all and sundry 

As part of looking into that I too went stat digging at the Bible of Stats otherwise known as 82 games.com

Both players were surprisingly similar in terms of their productive output 

Anyway without laboring into that analysis / debate again - the thing I remember fairly clearly that 73% of Eddy Curry's points were assisted 

I guess the point I want to make is that I do not see the fact that 79% of Chris Wilcox's baskets being assisted as a red flag . He's a running big man and in the right system I actually see this as a strength - not a red flag. Why ? Because the guy is an absolute kick arse finisher 

That link I reference above talks about how these type of uber finishers in the mould of Stoudamire and McDyess aren't as productive if they don't have the right type of guards . Its common sense really . They reference MyDyess when we ran with Kidd in Phoenix going at mid 50%'s then sliding down to 47% when he played with Nick Quick Shot in Denver . Amare shot something like 57% with Nash before he went down with his injury

Getting back to Eddy Curry , another bona fide finisher , he was right up there is league leading FG% 2003/2004 ( I think he won that season actually ) and he was right back at the top in this category before he was traded - where , as I mentioned earlier 73% of his FG's were asssisted with old school guards Kirk Hinrich and Chris Duhon setting the table for him . As a Knick last season , Eddy came in #2 in the NBA in FG% , yet :



His assisted FG's went down from 73% as a Bull to 69% as a Knick
His touches went down 11.6 as a Bull ( one every 2.47 minutes of court time ) to 8.3 touches a game ( one every 3.12 minutes of court time ) as a Knick

What a difference having the right type of guards make if your a ( scoring ) productive big man 

In Eddy Curry's case , if he could have stayed out of foul trouble and get his conditioning up to play 38mpg had we have retained him he would have been approaching 16 odd touches a game and would have been scoring 22ppg and probably between 7 to 8 rebounds . Elton Brand averaged around 18 touches last season for a frame of reference , and I use Elton as a reference because he is one of if not the most efficient scoring big man in the game right now 

In Chris Wilcox's case , he is undoubtedly a better rebounder than Eddy , a superior athlete , and can stay on the floor longer because he does not get into dumb foul trouble . If he was our primary target upfront with Kirk Hinrich and Chris Duhon finding him at the same rate they found Eddy Curry - and assuming he played the same amount of minutes as he did when he transferred over to the Sonics - he would be getting 12 scoring opportunities a game instead of the 9.7 he got as a Sonic last season. * The basic numbers compute to him being a legitimate 18ppg scorer with 30 minutes a game - and more with more minutes *

18 and 8 - with 2.5 offensive rebounds a game ( his relentlessness and athleticism obvious ) and only 1.5 turnovers a game and 2.5 fouls per game - why would we rule this guy out automatically and not at least entertain fair market value at $45M for 5 years - and a few million more up to $48M if we had to

He's for real . He has aspects of his game that need work but he's 24 , athletic as all hell , can stay on the court and shows real concrete evidence that if you have the right type of push and find guards he is genuine finisher 

We've got the right base for him and we're looking for long athletic guys because we're "building with Kirk "right?



> I'm aware that the Sonics were horrible defensively, but Wilcox's 23 PER against is just inexcusably bad. I'm not going to do the legwork, but I'd be willing to bet you won't find many (if any) players who averaged more than 25 mpg and yielded that high of a number.


Yeah I agree . That stat in isolation is in the crapper 

However the Supes give up 115 per with Chris Wilcox on the floor and 115 with him not on the floor . They take a hit on their offense when's he not on the floor 

I am not excusing that stat you reference but I do believe it has to be looked at in the right context

The primary context is that here is this guy that really could be a breakout type player and is stuck behind Elton Brand in LA where the Clippers favor a more traditional Center in Chris Kaman and a style of ball which is slower and is all about pound it into Elton in the half court sets . He gets traded to the shoot and gun em Supes in a contract year where he has 79% of his baskets being assisted but yet they are still not getting him the ball under 3 minutes of court time - and he's converting at 57% 

If you were him would you not be excited and frustated at the same time and not have your whole focus on scoring the ball and staying on the floor to put your numbers up because Bob Hill sure as hell is not demanding any defense from the team 

One of your main stars , Rashard Lewis , has a 4 point negative swing when he's on the court ( and surprise surprise he has a player option coming up ) and when he's off the court the team gives up 7 fewer points 

Your main point guard doesn't contribute much on the offensive side of the ball even though he moves the ball well - but he also gives up a 6 point swing on the defensive side of the ball when he's not on the floor 

Nick Collison is an un sexy but quite productive big - on both sides of the ball and is a stabiliser . Danny Fortson is a effective when's on . The problem is you have two projects in Swift and Petro getting all the minutes with Wilcox - who is clearly focusing on his numbers in a contract year 

Petro by the way from watching him doesn't impress me . Looking at him statistically just backs up what I already thought about him . He's a ***** tease that looks the part physically but really can't play a lick . Swift on the other hand just oozes big man skills . He's going to be legit. 

Slight digression - what the Sonics really need to do is run a backcourt of Watson and Allen , Collison and Wilcox upfront backed by Swift slowly and deal Rashard Lewis , Johan Petro and Luke Ridnour for Josh Smith and Josh Childress. Yup that's right - assuming the Hawks would be dumb enough to do this trade

SUPES

*

Wilcox
Collison
Smith
Allen
Watson

bench

Swift
Fortson
Wilkins
Childress
Wilks 
*

HAWKS

*

Pachulia
S.Williams 
Lewis
Johnson 
Claxton

bench

Petro
Jones
M.Williams ( 6th man ) 
Stoudamire 
Ridnour

Edwards
Batista
Smith

*

Anyway ..now that I have satisfied U Haul's shareholders back on topic

This combination of factors - two inept non two way players in starters Ridnour and Lewis + two greenhorns in Swift and Petro that are alongside you....if your Chris Wilcox what are you going to do ?

Yeah that's right . If I were him I'd do the same thing and get paid 

That's not meaning to say that once he has the security of the money that he can't be effective and tighten up defensively . He has all the talent and phyical tools and there is no good reason why he can't

On the Bulls ..having a guy like Ben Wallace alongside you and Andres Nocioni on the other and with Kirk Hinrich at guard and a Coach like Scott Skiles - they're going to demand it off you . Not necessarilly demanding that you morph into First Team defense but at least execute basic team defense / help defense principals

I reckon you'd find that once he has his money tied up you'd wouldn't see a stat like the one you isolate , Scott , next season or beyond if he had the type of team mates and Coach he would have here in Chicago 

And for MikeDC that references Wilcox as being a bit doughy in the head that doesn't get the game ..in the immortal words of Sherman Potter .

Horse Hockey !

And Drew Gooden does ?

Huh ?

The same Drew Gooden who the consistent knock over his pro career is that he has mental breakdowns and loses focus super easily ? 

Don't get me wrong - I don't mind Drew Gooden as a player but to hold him out in some way as being more cerebral than Chris Wilcox and that he is a better long term fit than Chris Wilcox is an opinion I just can't agree with 

Gooden's vanishing act in this playoff's kind of turned me off him as a strong target ( and certainly not at big money ) He had lost minutes to Donyell Marshall this year and the role they have required of him , arguably , Andersen Vareajo is just as good and is a crap load cheaaper ( at last for 1 more year when they will be forced to pay him - and I can't see them playing two blokes big money for the same role ) 

Drew Gooden is not likely to be a genuine 20 and 10 guy in 30 minutes per 

All the signs point to Chris Wilcox having greater capacity in this regard 

The quantitative data is there that supports a qualitative opinion that this guy could really come on big time in the right environment 

I think we've got that environment and I would take the risk and go hard for him


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

mizenkay said:


> jackson's (sun-times) sources say wilcox is on the Pax list.
> 
> marcia's sources says no interest.
> 
> ...


kc johnson!


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Wilcox measured at 6'8 and 1/2 barefoot at the predraft camp, if I remember correctly.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

rwj333 said:


> Wilcox measured at 6'8 and 1/2 barefoot at the predraft camp, if I remember correctly.


Maybe that's right - he is listed at 6'10 ( I guess that's with shoes - always allowing for another 1.25 to 1.5 inches ) 

When you can jump like Chris Wilcox though I think you can play him a 4 to 5 in a faster paced tempo like how the Suns play Marion and Stoudamire at 4 and 5 

Replicating that (long term) with Tyrus Thomas is fine with me - two jumping jacks with awesome hands and huge wing spans that can catch stuff a few zip codes away


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

The other issue is: if we're looking at 45-49 million ball park for 5 years, will the Bulls be willing to pay that money? It's less than Tyson's going rate, but would still, nonetheless, cut into their spendthrift ways. And his signing, coupled with the reupps to the core, sqarely would put them up into, gulp, the dreaded "luxury tax" mode. Thus, I don't see Pax making a trade for Wilcox, in all honesty, unless he intends not to reup some of thre core in due course. 

I'm betting they're betting on the Knicks tanking it next year, so they can get another quality, scoring big man in the draft. 

And to be frank, the KG trade scenarios blow chunks, big time. Whatever way you slice it, they would effectively gut the team.

So, in conclusion: I don't anticipate Pax making this move: we play another year without an inside scoring threat.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

For what's it worth - and for those that place some value in stat analysis to back up an opinion 

Al Harrington as a frontliner on the Hawks with a genuine big swinging dick marquee free agent in Joe Johnson and a surprisingly competent big man in Joey ZaZa ( alas no competent point guard )

Anyhoo his net ( offense / defense and on court / off court per 100 possessions ) was negative 4.7 

Gooden's alongside an All Star Center and probably the most complete player in the game was negative 4.2 

Chris Wilcox with no real big help and ineffective "star" support ( save for Ray Allen who is surprisingly effective - moreso than I would have thought ) is positive 1.3

Lax defender and playing for a contract ? 

Sure 

But the boy can score .

Lots 

Which balances out what he gives away - and the good news he can make big strides in this area of his game that needs work


----------



## G-Force (Jan 4, 2005)

I have mot plowed through all 100+ posta in this thread, but most of the later ones. Say Chicago does go for Wilcox in a sign and trade deal. Whatcha willing to give up for him? And remember, this trade has to work for Seattle as well.


G-Force


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

I think Pax is done for now, and he should be. Wilcox isn't worth tying up 10 mil a year in cap space, and Seattle is going to want something in return I certainly wouldn't want to give up. 

It is a good idea to go into the season with what we have. Who knows what we have? Thomas may turn out to be a great player quicker than we think. Someone may get injured. Someone else may surprise, leaving others expendable. We don't need to make any more moves. Keep the flexibility and see what we have. Then later we can make a move when it is clear what we need. If Thomas turns out great and you sign Wilcox and he turns out a bum, you are stuck with the guy and no time to play him. No way is Pax going for Wilcox.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

thanks for that sausageking, very informative


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> jackson's (sun-times) sources say wilcox is on the Pax list.
> 
> marcia's sources says no interest.
> 
> ...


Now, just to make things more confusing -- or maybe not!

Hanley's article about Ofella  contained this tidbit at the bottom. 



> Still, Paxson might be looking to make a sign-and-trade deal with the Seattle SuperSonics for forward Chris Wilcox. According to a source, Wilcox was third on the Bulls' offseason free-agent list behind Ben Wallace and Atlanta's Al Harrington. Wallace agreed to a four-year, $60 million deal Monday with the Bulls, who no longer have interest in Al Harrington.
> 
> Wilcox, a restricted free agent, is reportedly seeking a five-year, $50million contract and is at an impasse with the Sonics.
> 
> Brian Hanley


I guess that the source the Suntimes writers are referencing is pre Ben Wallace signing. I don't think they have a source saying that Wilcox is the one they want next to Ben. 

I like your analysis, SKOC. Still hopeful, but not convinced that the source is strong enough to take a stand on.


----------



## travel_monkeys (Feb 22, 2006)

Wilcox would be a very good signing for the Bulls. As of now they're already a good team, but if they don't get a low-post scorer that will be their achilles heel. Ben Wallace isn't it certainly, and Tyrus Thomas won't be it for some time, as his offensive skills are well behind his defense.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Marty Burns, SI:


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/marty_burns/06/30/free.agent.tracker/index.html

The NBA free-agency period officially began on Saturday. Teams can negotiate with players, but no contracts can be signed until July 12.
Only five teams have significant cap room (Bulls, Hornets, Hawks, Raptors, Bobcats) to make a run at a top-tier free agent. The league's 25 other teams can only offer a deal starting at the mid-level exception (around $5 million). However, as in past years, the league's collective bargaining agreement allows teams in most cases to go over the salary cap to re-sign their own free agents.
Here's a look at SI.com's top 10 free agents on the board, and the early rundown on where they stand:
Chris Wilcox*, Seattle SuperSonics 
Possible suitors: Warriors, Bulls, Nets, Suns 
Leader in clubhouse: Sonics 
The 6-10 former Maryland star blossomed last year in Seattle after being acquired from the Clippers in a midseason trade for Vladimir Radmanovic. In 29 games with the Sonics he averaged 14.1 points and 8.2 rebounds, nearly double his career marks. The Sonics say they want to keep him, and have the right to match any offer, but his reported asking price of a deal for Nenê money ($60 million over six years) is too high given that only a few teams have the salary cap room to make such an offer. Seattle is hoping Wilcox will accept something in between his asking price and the more realistic midlevel exception ($31 million over five), but if he refuses they could work a sign-and-trade 
*Restricted


----------



## Team Mao (Dec 17, 2005)

rwj333 said:


> Wilcox measured at 6'8 and 1/2 barefoot at the predraft camp, if I remember correctly.


Check Amare's measurements from draft camp.

IF the Bulls could get Wilcox from the Sonics then I'd hand them the Central division right now. Wilcox and Ben Wallace would be THE scariest frontcourt in the East.

The thing with a s&t with Seattle is tha because Wilcox is base year, they could only take back half of his salary. The Bulls have enough players still on rookie deals, that they could put together an attractive package for the Sonics, something that no other team with capspace could do. And in the end, the Bulls would only lose 4-5 million in caproom.

Deng and Sweets for Wilcox?


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

Team Mao said:


> Deng and Sweets for Wilcox?


LMAO


----------

