# Mike McGraw Reports... MICHAEL FINLEY !



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

He also says a source confirmed the possible Jay for Antoine Walker trade prior to the accident. Things are heating up! My personal opinion to this trade is NO WAY!!

Why draft the Euro Finley if you can trade for the real thing?

The Bulls are negotiating with Dallas to acquire Chicago-area native Michael Finley, according to a league source. The Bulls would give up their No. 7 draft pick, Marcus Fizer, Donyell Marshall and another player.

The Mavs want Pietrus to replace Finley.

Bulls lose Fizer and Marshall but replace them with JUWAN HOWARD. 

Howard, who played in Denver last season, grew up on Chicago's South Side and could reunite with close friend and former Michigan Fab Five teammate Jalen Rose. Even if the Lakers make the same offer, Howard might prefer to join the Bulls.

The source confirmed the rumor that the Bulls considered trading Jay Williams, Fizer and Marshall to Boston for Antoine Walker until Williams was severely injured in a motorcycle accident last week.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sports_story.asp?intid=37797122


----------



## LuCane (Dec 9, 2002)

That would be very interesting. If Finley were a bit younger, it would be even more intriguing. I dont quite know if what we need is a 30 year old Wing player that is about to be on the decline stage of his career.

I am not looking for a star player, or one with the potential to be a star player, ala Maggette, but I think a "young vet" is better suited to the long range goals of this team.

Curry and Chandler will not be ready for a Championship run this year or next, in my humble opinion. 

I will repeat, I would prefer Shane Battier and the #13 deal, as it brings us possibly a solid wing player (Im a big supporter of trying for Pavlovic, the Euroshooter), AND a young vet in Battier.

However, you cant ignore the curiousity of having this lineup (even though Im not sure about giving up BOTH Marshall AND Fizer):

Jamal Crawford
Jalen Rose
Michael Finley
Tyson Chandler
Eddy Curry

6th Man Juwan Howard

Extremely Formidable, yet lacking a dead-eye shooter.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I like this idea a lot I think. They laid out two scenarios in the article. For financial reasons I prefer the one that included them taking Eddie Robinson.


Fizer,Marshall,Bagaric,#7(Pietrus) for Finley


Fizer,Marshall,Robinson,#7 for Finley and Najera


I prefer the second one and yes this would more than likely bring Howard to Chi-town. Sign a vet PG like Kevin Ollie and lets go win the East!



Crawford,Ollie
Rose,Hassell
Finley,(Najera)
Chandler,Najera
Curry,Howard


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

It was rumored that Dallas would have taken last year's #2 pick (JWill) for Finley, straight up. That was prior to last year's draft.


Hindsight is 20-20.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Remember all the talk we had during the season about the Bulls reluctance to add another max salary player? The thought at the time was that eventually the Bulls might have Rose, Chandler, Curry and possibly Williams bringing home max paychecks at the same time and that the Bulls simply couldn't afford a 5th max player.

Oh how circumstances have changed. The reports of adding Finley pretty much suggest that in the Bulls opinion, even if Williams makes a miraculous recovery, he'll never be the player he was before the accident, and he certainly won't be commanding max dollars by '06. It also suggests that if Crawford thinks he deserves anything near a max contract, he's not going to get it in Chicago. Actually, the pursuit of Finley probably debunks all that talk last week about JC demanding a max extension as well.

Finley's a 40mpg guy...has been his whole career. I don't think he'll be asked to play as many minutes with the Bulls. Depending on who's part of the package from the Bulls, Pax could use free agency to pick up players like Howard, or Ira Newble or James Posey with part or all of the mid level exception. The medical exception could then be used on a player like Tyronn Lue, Kevin Ollie or Antonio Daniels.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Despite the JWill situation money is still an issue with this. Can we pay Rose,Finley,Chandler,Curry,Crawford? That is a very good question that would have to be answered before I would sign off on this. Which is also why I said I prefered the deal that included ERob and gave us back Najera. Someone mentioned Antonio Daniels with the medical exemption. That is someone I had not thought of. He would be a better option than Ollie since he can play SG as well. If Paxson could trade ERob,Fizer,Marshall,#7 for Finley,Najera and then sign Daniels and Howard that would be one amazing offseason. I would like someone to crunch numbers to see if this is feasible.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Looks like this one is hitting al the wires............

DIfferent names...........

from the Chicago Sun Times:


"It may not be a priority, but that doesn't mean Paxson stopped working the phones. According to one league source, Paxson contacted the Dallas Mavericks to inquire about Michael Finley. The Mavericks are said to be interested in France's Mickael Pietrus, who is expected to be available with the seventh pick. Finley is a max player, so the Bulls would have to combine Marcus Fizer and Eddie Robinson with No. 7 for Finley and No. 29." 

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull25.html 


The problem with this trade is three fold:

1) Finley is a Max Player and has 5 years left on his deal. 
$13,281,250 
$14,609,375 
$15,937,500 
$17,265,625 
$18,593,750 

2) He is 30 Years Old and the Bulls are Championship contenders next year or two.
So do we take a guy who has the potential to be like Finley (and on a rookie contract for 5 years - Wade -Pietrus) or do we get Finley and pay him the Max prior to a championship run?


3) Getting the 29 Pick and 3 second rounders doesn't exactly restock our bench.
I know we need to consolidate talent but wish it was for a younger, non max palyer.

The starting line up looks great on paper - but financially, nothing short of a disaster in two years:

5 Max or near max Starters:

PG - Crawford
SG - Rose
SF - Finley
PF - Chandler
C - Curry

Bench
PG - Mason Jr.,
SG - Hassell
SF - Marshall
PF - Baxter
C - Bagaric

Plus - Williams (IR), MLE, Injury Exceptioin, #29, 3 2nd round picks....... Yeah, I know - trade the second rd picks and the #29 and move up. Nice idea, but who's gonna bite on that?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Despite the JWill situation money is still an issue with this. Can we pay Rose,Finley,Chandler,Curry,Crawford? That is a very good question that would have to be answered before I would sign off on this. Which is also why I said I prefered the deal that included ERob and gave us back Najera. Someone mentioned Antonio Daniels with the medical exemption. That is someone I had not thought of. He would be a better option than Ollie since he can play SG as well. If Paxson could trade ERob,Fizer,Marshall,#7 for Finley,Najera and then sign Daniels and Howard that would be one amazing offseason. I would like someone to crunch numbers to see if this is feasible.


In your proposal, even though they're getting Fizer and Marshall, do you think Nelson would be comfortable swapping perimeter players like Finley and Najera for Robinson and a shot at a rookie like Pietrus. Sure, they've strengthened their post presence. But boy, do they ever take a short term hit on the wing! I just can't see them trading _both_ Finley and Najera at the same time. One _or_ the other is very possible, but not both, IMHO.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Yeah I wonder why Dallas wants this unless they really like Pietrus.



Nash,VanExel
Pietrus,Griffin
Marsall,Robinson
Nowitski,Fizer
LaFrentz,Bradley


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

With Finley's age and contract status it seems to me that the only way the Bulls should make a move to acquire him is if it is to their benefit. I suppose a Fizer, Robinson & #7 for Finley and the 29 pick would be fair. I don't like the idea of giving up Fizer but realistically there isn't enough time for Marshall and Fizer both on this club. I'd prefer we keep Fizer (marginally) but I imagine Dallas would demand Fizer for his ability to score in the post and toughness, which is obviously something they lack. I'm not sold on the idea of adding Howard. I think the Bulls would be better served by just hanging on to Marshall and letting him be the back up. If this deal is done, the Bulls will probably be looking for a vet utility center (possibly just resigning Corie Blount for that role) and probably a vet pg nearing the end of his career to back up Jamal.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I like this rumor more than one for Antoine Walker.

Finley is a two-time All-Star and would be the Bulls best player. I'm assuming the Bulls would followup this deal by offering the full MLE to Juwan Howard for 3 seasons. Between Rose, Finley and Howard.. you have 3 vets who you can count on for night-in and night-out production. Playoffs? Bingo. That's J-Pax's goal going into this season.

Obviously there's financial ramifications here. I'm curious to see how this would affect us. One interesting aspect is that this would put some pressure on Curry, Crawford and Chandler to prove their worth as well. Play well the next 1-2 seasons and <i>then</i> get your money. No entitlement or big contract by default, it simply doesn't work that way.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

chifanica, the way this proposal burst on the different newswires, I have no doubt that there's some substance to it. I also believe that because of the contract ramifications, there may be at least one other deal in the works. Based on what Pax has been saying it's my impression that only Chandler and Curry are untouchable. Everyone else is available...everyone.

Pax wants to build a team that will be known for its defensive tenacity. Finley's a solid defender. But guess who isn't...that's right, our own Jalen Rose. Is it possible that Pax may want to add Finley and at the same time swap out Rose in another transaction? 

All I'm suggesting is that there may be more afoot than what we're hearing about. Pax has been pretty closed mouthed about what he's been up to. The Walker and Finley proposals have really come out of left field. Who's to say he hasn't got a deal lined up that will move Rose somewhere else and information about the transaction just hasn't leaked yet.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

I'll say one thing: If there's substance to both the Walker and Finley proposals, then one thing's for sure..._our new GM sure isn't shy about trying to pull the trigger on a big time deal right out of the gate_!!

This is why I think Reinsdorf made the switch...he wants a playoff team _now_, and Krause had fallen too much in love with his young players to trade any of them away. That certainly doesn't appear to be a problem with Pax, thank God!

And that's why I still think he'll trade the 7th pick as part of a package on draft day rather than use it to acquire another young project who'll take a couple of years to develop into a contributing rotation player.


----------



## Bulls42 (Jul 22, 2002)

*I LOVE THIS TRADE I LOVE THIS TRADE I LOVE THIS TRADE*

This is exactly the trade we need. We bring in a solid veteran in Finley and give up bench players. Finley is proven and will help win games NOW. Role players are a dime a dozen. We can plug him in at small forward. If Pax can swing this one, the Bulls' starting line up will be set for the next five years. Finley does make a lot of money, but the trade will need to have equal contracts to work.
I LOVE THIS TRADE.
MAKE IT HAPPEN PAX!!!!


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> chifanica, the way this proposal burst on the different newswires, I have no doubt that there's some substance to it. I also believe that because of the contract ramifications, there may be at least one other deal in the works. Based on what Pax has been saying it's my impression that only Chandler and Curry are untouchable. Everyone else is available...everyone.
> 
> Pax wants to build a team that will be known for its defensive tenacity. Finley's a solid defender. But guess who isn't...that's right, our own Jalen Rose. Is it possible that Pax may want to add Finley and at the same time swap out Rose in another transaction?
> ...


Interesting Kismet!!

The only offers that come to mind are Rose for Brandon or Rose for Spree (who is signed for 2 more seasons). NY would give away Spree for a bag of chips at this point.

Pax may succeed in trading away our two worst contracts (Rose and E-Rob), acquire a two time All-Star SF in Finley all during his first offseason. Pax, you have my attention!!


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Please don't do it!


----------



## Bulls42 (Jul 22, 2002)

*I also like the free agents the Bulls are already looking at*

Kevin Ollie and Voshon Leonard are both solid vets.
The only thing that might happen is what happens to the Cubs, when they sign free agents that always light them up (like Voshon Leonard lighting up the Bulls), they end up being crappy. Still, I like these two names Pax is thinking about.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

(We're keeping Ollie thankyou very much... :yes: )

Great trade for the Bulls. Finley will give you 4 solid years before "declining" to about 12ppg, IMO. But, more importantly, he will give you play-offs. This team would make it for the next two years, under the stewardship of Finley and Rose, and would challenge for the championship in the following two with the young guns ablazing.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Interesting Kismet!!
> ...


I seriously doubt that Pax would trade Rose in this scenario. It would make the PG spot way too thin. I am convinced that Rose is going to play big minutes at PG.

A more likely (but I don't think it'll happen) scenario is that Pax trades Crawford. That would be another way to eliminate a (future) max salary from the picture.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Greg Ostertag!</b>!
> (We're keeping Ollie thankyou very much... :yes: )
> 
> Great trade for the Bulls. Finley will give you 4 solid years before "declining" to about 12ppg, IMO. But, more importantly, he will give you play-offs. This team would make it for the next two years, under the stewardship of Finley and Rose, and would challenge for the championship in the following two with the young guns ablazing.


I agree with your assessment of Finley. If you couple his addition with the continued improvement of Crawford, Chandler and Curry, the potential of this team is downright scary. 

And lets not forget the added credibility Finley brings to the Bulls in terms of how the team is perceived and treated by game officials. We've got genuine star power now and in the future. With Finley I doubt we'll be treated like stepchildren any longer by the refs. Now if only we can find a way to get Rose to stop his incessant whining.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

I don't like this trade at all; he's too old, makes too much money, we give up too much. Maybe if we don't surrender the #7!

We've waited 5 years for something good to happen, why can't we be patient for a couple more years and actually LET OUR TALENT DEVELOP!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

FYI, Finley's stats:

38.3 Min/Game
42.5 FG%
17.3 Att/Gm
37.0 3PT%
86.1 FT%
5.8 Reb/gm
3.0 Ast/gm
1.1 Stl/gm
19.3 PPG

And Rose's stats:
40.9 Min/Game
40.6 FG%
19.3 Att/Gm
37.0 3PT%
85.4 FT%
4.3 Reb/gm
4.8 Ast/Gm
0.9 Stl/Gm
22.1 PPG

And Walker's stats:
41.5 Min/Game
38.8 FG%
19.9 Att/Gm
32.3 3PT%
61.5 FT%
7.2 Reb/Gm
4.8 Ast/Gm
1.5 Stl/Gm
20.1 PPG

Walker is 27 in August
Rose is 31 in January
Finley is 31 in March


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

A story relating to the Mavs... Kidd for Nash?

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/sports/basketball/6157851.htm

Kidd-for-Nash trade rumors are flying around Mavericks


----------



## Coyat (Jun 18, 2003)

I'm all for that trade as long as we get Finley and #29. Some articles I read only said Finley and IMO, I wouldn't do that trade without #29. I'd rather we package Rose and #29 and maybe a 2nd rd. to move up in the draft. Of course that's just wishful thinking, but then we'd get some young talent to help the 3 or 2. If Howard comes in, I'm all for it as long as we don't overpay for his services.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

While I'm at it, here's Howard's stats:

77 Games
45.0 FG%
16.4 Att/Gm
80.3 FT%
7.6 Reb/Gm
3.0 Ast/Gm
1.0 Stl/Gm
18.4 PPG

Howard is same age as Rose.


Finley+Rose+Howard would be downright scary.

I wonder if some of you would be happy with Howard, because he'd probably start over Chandler.


----------



## Bulls42 (Jul 22, 2002)

*Not giving up that much*

In this league, it is all about stars. Stars win games. Finley is a star. We are giving up an unproven draft pick, 2 solid bench players (Fizer and Marshall) and E-Rob (hopefully). It's simple, we get a great player by giving up some good players. Net: Bulls get the better end. Also, the draft pick may be good someday, but that is not a lock (and won't help the Bulls get into the playoffs now.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

I don't know about this.

We sacrifice the one thing we have in our favor (depth in the front court). We used to have depth at the 4 and the 1. Now thats only at the 4. In obtaining Finley, we get a long term deal with big $cheese$ attached to it. Finley still depends on athleticism to play his game and the athleticism will start to decline when our bigs are becoming true players.

If Rose were to be moved, I wouldn't mind! But having two guys making more than 15mil in the next 3-4 years is scary!


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Well,

I think this is really short sighted. Does adding Finley get us to the playoofs, probably. Does he get us a championship - no. Neither does anyone we draft, atleast not for the next 3 years. However, a guy on a rookie contract growing with the team is much easier to stomach.

If this negatively impacts our ability to sign Curry, Chandler or Crawford then it simply isn't worth it.

As for getting rid of E-Rob's contract - great. but it still doesn't equate to the horrific financial situation we will be in 3 years from now. 

I guess you could try to trade Rose - for Brandon. They'll jump at it.

Of course, the trade then becomes - Pietrus, Rose, Fizer, Robinson for Finley and #29. Well, I guess we consolidate.

I would hope if we were doing that we'd see if the knicks will trade Spree for Rose, but what do the Knicks gain in that? Not moving up in the draft. Unless it was Rose and #7 for Spree and #9, then # 9, Fizer, Robinson, Bagaric to Dallas for FInley and #29.


I'm not opposed to Finley. I would've loved to have gotten him before. However, he just seems to expensive of a luxury for a team that isn't ready to compete for a championship. If money's no object - pull the trigger.

If I'm Pax (and I'm heavily leaning toward trading) then I take the Memphis swap of Battier and #13 for Fizer and #7 and grab Hayes. I'm going to have to pay Battier, but he's not a max player and yet, he's probably what we need. Role player who brings it every night. Hayes gives us flexibility down the line.


I could live without Fizer or Marshall, but it can't be at the cost of any of the three C's.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Wonder if trading Rose after acquiring Finley would change Howard wanting to come here in FA? If Fizer and Marshall are traded getting Howard would be essential. Something tells me Pax would like having all three of these guys next season. Whether we can afford it is another question all together.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Not giving up that much*



> Originally posted by <b>Bulls42</b>!
> In this league, it is all about stars. Stars win games. Finley is a star. We are giving up an unproven draft pick, 2 solid bench players (Fizer and Marshall) and E-Rob (hopefully). It's simple, we get a great player by giving up some good players. Net: Bulls get the better end. Also, the draft pick may be good someday, but that is not a lock (and won't help the Bulls get into the playoffs now.


Thank you Bulls42. You win with stars, period.

Last season, who could the Bulls count on to create offense night-in and night-out?! Only Jalen Rose. Teams started locking down on Rose and guess what?! No offense. Fizer could create in spurts. Marshall could do some damage in the post. Crawford showed a tendancy for knocking down open J's. Curry worked well off the pick and role and in the post. But none of these guys are complete offensive players like Rose, none. Not to mention the defensive side of things.

We are operating under the blind assumption that Curry, Chandler and Crawford will all be All-Stars demanding max contracts. Umm... I'm not so sure about that. This season will go a long way in determining their value as players and to the franchise. Adding an All-Star talent like Finley accelerates the process. The BUlls make the playoffs this year, and we'll see what this team really has and if they can really produce when it matters.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>chifaninca</b>!
> Well,
> 
> I think this is really short sighted. Does adding Finley get us to the playoofs, probably. Does he get us a championship - no. Neither does anyone we draft, atleast not for the next 3 years. However, a guy on a rookie contract growing with the team is much easier to stomach.
> ...


If there's truth to this proposed trade, then I have to presume that Paxson has carefully thought through every one of your listed objections, and more. I have no doubt that he's asked Mandel to project the present and future payroll ramifications. I'm also quite certain that he's discussed this kind of deal and Mandel's findings with Reinsdorf since we're talking about adding a long term, max contract to the payroll.

If Pax and Reinsdorf don't have a financial problem with such a transaction, then neither should we. I'd be a little more judicious when it comes to labeling Bulls management as fiscally short-sighted. Over the last 18 years they've done a fairly good job of ensuring a very good return on their investment. Why would you assume that they're throwing fiscal caution to the wind at this time? I think that based on their financial track record, management deserves a lot more credit than you're giving them.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

At first the thought of trading for Finley seemed like a good idea to me... but I'm having some doubts.... here's the way I see it.

This trade has to be done on draft day... and it has to be done while the Bulls are on the clock. If we're drafting #7 and Dwyane Wade is still on the board I think we have to go in that direction... he gives you what Finley will give you, he's younger, will cost less, and in my opinion has a better upside at this point. That, and you can keep your frontcourt depth... Marcus Fizer and Donyell Marshall are still pretty valuable in my mind.

That being said, if Wade isn't on the board (which is looking like more and more of a possibility)... then I'd pull the trigger. I'm not sold on Pietrus (call it ignorance, I'm not saying he'll be bad... but it seems like a relatively big chance to take)... and Finley does give us a veteran presence. Getting to the playoffs is important... even if we can't win it all within Finley's prime production years, the experience gained by the 3 C's will be priceless.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

*Re: I LOVE THIS TRADE I LOVE THIS TRADE I LOVE THIS TRADE*



> Originally posted by <b>Bulls42</b>!
> This is exactly the trade we need. We bring in a solid veteran in Finley and give up bench players. Finley is proven and will help win games NOW. Role players are a dime a dozen. We can plug him in at small forward. If Pax can swing this one, the Bulls' starting line up will be set for the next five years. Finley does make a lot of money, but the trade will need to have equal contracts to work.
> I LOVE THIS TRADE.
> MAKE IT HAPPEN PAX!!!!


Finally! A post that I agree with. Finley is a great player and exactly what the Bulls need. A wing, who can score and defend and is reliable, on the court and off. I think everyone is grossly overrating Pietrus' value. Finley is the real deal. I've said this before and I'll say it a 100 times, if you can trade 4 good players for one great player, you do it and don't look back. 30 years old is not old at all. How old is Kidd? How old was Jordan when he last dropped 40? Everyone is always complaining about the Bulls lack of experience and veteran leadership, but as soon as a viable option comes up ... everyone spouts off about someone being too old at the age of 30. I'm sorry I wish people would make up their minds.

I would rather trade ERob, and keep Marshall or Fizer, but I don't see Cuban going for that.

Let me go on record as say, "I LOVE THIS TRADE TOO"


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Not giving up that much*



> Originally posted by <b>Bulls42</b>!
> In this league, it is all about stars. Stars win games. Finley is a star. We are giving up an unproven draft pick, 2 solid bench players (Fizer and Marshall) and E-Rob (hopefully). It's simple, we get a great player by giving up some good players. Net: Bulls get the better end. Also, the draft pick may be good someday, but that is not a lock (and won't help the Bulls get into the playoffs now.


No way Howard would start over Chandler.

Reasons:

-Pax just insisted this week we are building around Chandler and Curry.
-Howard would fill Marshall role.
-Howard is a consummate team player like Marshall. He never complained about being traded to the Nugs, and he led that team with dignity.
-Howard would be signed to the exception, I assume. He would be brought in to be our 6th man and he would know it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Not giving up that much*



> Originally posted by <b>Bulls42</b>!
> In this league, it is all about stars. Stars win games. Finley is a star. We are giving up an unproven draft pick, 2 solid bench players (Fizer and Marshall) and E-Rob (hopefully). It's simple, we get a great player by giving up some good players. Net: Bulls get the better end. Also, the draft pick may be good someday, but that is not a lock (and won't help the Bulls get into the playoffs now.


That same logic applied to the Rose trade as well. Artest and Miller were good.... but Rose was a star. A star with a big contract. I love Finley, but we should be careful about that huge contract. 2 aging swingmen making huge dollars could be a problem.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dornado</b>!
> This trade has to be done on draft day... and it has to be done while the Bulls are on the clock. If we're drafting #7 and Dwyane Wade is still on the board I think we have to go in that direction... he gives you what Finley will give you, he's younger, will cost less, and in my opinion has a better upside at this point.


Except that Pax wants to win now... not wait. Wade may be as good as Finley is now in 3-4 years..... but odds are he won't be his rookie year.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Ok guys an update here. Been talking to some people and apparently this is legit. But dont worry Paxson does not want Rose and Finley. He also has lined up Rose to Minny for Brandon. The Dallas deal is ERob,Marshall,Fizer,#7 for Finley,#29, filler(Najera?). Apparently according to Insider Finley and Howard are workout buddies and both have dreamed of playing for the Bulls. Insider said Howard would play SF here which surprised me. 


Crawford
Finley
Howard
Chandler
Curry


Daniels(?)
Hassell
Najera
Blount
Baxter
Bagaric
Mason Jr
#29
2nd rd picks


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I think I like the idea of the Bulls adding a up and coming vet like Corey Maggette a lot better than going after Finley. Sure, Finley IS a good player, but I want the Bulls to not only GET to the playoffs but to get to the championships! 30 isn't ancient but in basketball years you can expect him to start to decline in a couple of years. When I think about the Bulls adding a vet, I think adding a young 24-25 year old vet is probably best.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*let's do it*

Acquiring Finley for Fizer, Marshall, Erob and the pick

Pros
Well, this would certainly solve our 2-3 dilemma. Crawford, Rose and Finley would be an effective trio…. One that can get us to the playoffs and perhaps farther. Tall, athletic, multi-positional. I love that kind of team.

Cons
Contract. Finley has a huge contract. Somewhat like Rose. We will have two aging swingmen on the roster making huge dollars. That could really hamper our flexibility. We don’t know how Rose and Finley are going to decline with age. We don’t know if they are going to break down with recurring injuries. Its risky.


Should we do it?

Only if we can acquire Howard and don’t trade Rose for cap space. The purpose of this move would be to win now. Is Finley better than Rose…. probably slightly but not significantly. So, making the trade for Finley and then shipping out Rose does not make us better, especially considering we are losing Fizer/Marshall/#7. Chandler and Curry may be ready for major minutes, but I feel a lot more comfortable with Marshall and Fizer there coming off the bench. IMO, that’s one of the biggest strengths of this upcoming Bulls team. If we can get Howard, that will give us at least one very solid player coming off the bench at the 4, which would somewhat deaden the blow of losing Marshall/Fizer.

The Bulls desperately need to consolidate talent, even with the Williams injury. Let’s face it, we are probably not going to be able to trade for a Garnett/Kobe/TMAC type player in a consolidation trade. Its not worth waiting for. This would give us a solid young core to build on (craw, curry, chandler…. Who I think are our most talented, promising young players) along with solid vets that can help us win now and develop a winning attitude for this organization.

The worrisome contracts of Rose and Finley are a huge issue if it affects our ability to resign craw, curry and tyson. I have faith in Reinsdorf that he will spend the money. He always has in the past. Also, the contracts are an issue if they don’t remain healthy/productive. Rose’s playing style does not produce injuries. Finley is a little riskier….. he’s been hurt at times the last two seasons. But, he’s been pretty healthy throughout this career…. Its worth the risk based on his talent.

This team would make the playoffs if healthy… and could very well challenge for the east…. If chandler, Crawford and curry develop as expected. I also think this team would have incredible chemistry… with Rose, Lenard, Howard, Finley and their ties to either Chicago or each other.

Crawford/Mason
Rose/Lenard/Hassel
Finley/2nd round draft pick/Late 1st round pick
Chandler/Howard
Curry/Baxter/Bags

If you can get Howard and keep Rose, pull the trigger Pax.


----------



## bullsinjection (May 15, 2003)

*I LOVE IT!*

Adding a vet like Finley will give the Bulls stability and veteran scoring for the next 2-3 years. After that if Finley's production slows he can take on a Ron Harper role while the kids are scoring (hopefully). I don't see any problems with Finley and Rose together. I'd rather have Howard off of the bench than in the SF role. He is a definite 4/5 with his post moves and short jump shots.

My question about the Rose for Brandon deal. I thought Brandon's salary wasn't off the books until mid-year. Does that mean the Bulls can't use that money to get another player (Magette) to start the year?


----------



## Bulls42 (Jul 22, 2002)

*Rose to Minny*

Damn Basghetti, you have sources? Really. I thought we were all just amateurs here. Impressive. 
I hope Rose doesn't get axed. I don't think his contract is so terrible where we would just give him away.

According to Bags souces this deal is really:
Rose, Marshall, Fizer, ERob (please take him, quickly before you re-consider), and our 7th pick

for

Michael Finley and the creation of cap room for Tyson, Eddy and Crawford

Hmm...I thought the injury to J Will would be enough cap space to keep the team in tact. Also, the trade would get rid of giving Fizer an extension as well as E-Robs contract.

Would we still need to get rid of Rose to pay Chandler/Crawford and Curry if we have an owner willing to pay?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Ok guys an update here. Been talking to some people and apparently this is legit. But dont worry Paxson does not want Rose and Finley. He also has lined up Rose to Minny for Brandon. The Dallas deal is ERob,Marshall,Fizer,#7 for Finley,#29, filler(Najera?). Apparently according to Insider Finley and Howard are workout buddies and both have dreamed of playing for the Bulls. Insider said Howard would play SF here which surprised me.
> 
> 
> ...


basghetti, is this from the other board? I have yet to see the Finley deal linked with Rose-Brandon in print anywhere. It makes some fiscal sense however.

As well, I don't think Najera is included in any deal IMO. I would hope he is though.


----------



## jwill22bulls (Jun 23, 2003)

Basghetti, where you hear all this stuff? You know people on the inside? I'm indifferent towards the Finley deal, it would have some pros and cons. But I really wouldn't want to trade rose for brandon. That would really mess with team chemistry to much. Also, I have doubts that brandon can stay healthy......


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*insider*



> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> basghetti, is this from the other board? I have yet to see the Finley deal linked with Rose-Brandon in print anywhere. It makes some fiscal sense however.


Chad Ford mentions it in insider... is that is considered 'in print'

He then calls Pax a genius if it goes down. I don't know about that one.


----------



## bullsinjection (May 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>jwill22bulls</b>!
> Basghetti, where you hear all this stuff? You know people on the inside? I'm indifferent towards the Finley deal, it would have some pros and cons. But I really wouldn't want to trade rose for brandon. That would really mess with team chemistry to much. Also, I have doubts that brandon can stay healthy......


Brandon'a agent has guaranteed that he will retire and thus his salary comes off of the team's books in January or February. But can the team use that opening right away?


----------



## TJ (Jul 23, 2002)

I like this trade : Finley and Cap Space for Marshall, Fizer, ERob and the #7 pick.

It is too bad that Najera cannot be included, due to the cap. It could work maybe if we sign the pick and and include Bagaric.


----------



## Bulls42 (Jul 22, 2002)

*It's a contract dump*

Rose for Brandon is just dumping the contract of Rose and renting Brandon for a year. We don't want Brandon.
We would just give up Rose for free.
I AM AGAINST THIS.
Our owner has said he will overpay for a championship contender.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I dont have inside sources, someone was telling me this last night about the Finley trade in papers today and about Rose for Brandon if Finley trade was done. Then I read it in ESPN insider today about Paxson wanting Rose for Brandon. Now how legit either is I have no idea. Someone should ask Dickiehurtz.


----------



## brazys (Jul 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> I have yet to see the Finley deal linked with Rose-Brandon in print anywhere.


From today's insider:

-----
It's 2:13 a.m., and the phone rings with yet another GM who has a story to tell. 
"Are you up?" I am now. 
"The Bulls are on the verge of a blockbuster. They're sending Donyell Marshall, Marcus Fizer, Eddie Robinson and the No. 7 pick to Dallas for Michael Finley." 
Really? 
Two hours earlier, the buzz had the Bulls sending Jalen Rose to Minnesota for Terrell Brandon and his expiring contract. 
----

"Buzz" isn't the strongest word talking about serious sources...


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

I like this if we can FOR SURE get rid of Rose. Otherwise you have two guys who make about the same amount of money doing the same thing at the same age.

But if I were to decide between Rose and Finley I'd take Finley. (Although Rose is more durable).

If the GM would pay for a Crawford, Finley, Rose, Curry and Chandler line-up? That's a top team in the east for sure. In fact - if Jermaine leaves Indiana it's maybe the best team in the east (given that Tyson and Eddy improve).


----------



## jwill22bulls (Jun 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>brazys</b>!
> 
> 
> From today's insider:
> ...



according to the insider, we are getting only finley?? I'm sure we'd get more.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

Also - I hope they can keep Marshall or Fizer.


----------



## jwill22bulls (Jun 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> I like this if we can FOR SURE get rid of Rose. Otherwise you have two guys who make about the same amount of money doing the same thing at the same age.
> 
> But if I were to decide between Rose and Finley I'd take Finley. (Although Rose is more durable).
> ...


If we kept both rose and finley, it would be a glorious day.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

> according to the insider, we are getting only finley?? I'm sure we'd get more



Yeah it would have to be Finley and Najera unless Erob is kept which would not be bad if Rose is traded for Brandon and Howard is signed.


Crawford,Daniels(FA)
Finley,Hassell
Robinson,(Finley)
Chandler,Howard
Curry,(Howard)


----------



## jwill22bulls (Jun 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Would we get a pick? Also where would we play Brandon if we got him? Starter?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

so now we are also suppossed to just dump Jalen Rose for an expring retiring contract? Man, this gets crappier and crappier.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I to saw this and it was in a couple different places on insider. I love finley's game but he is 30 years old and was hurt most of last year. I also think the mav's are sending there 29 pick as well.

I also saw the rose for branden deal. It was not linked with the other but i have say i don't think rose and finley can play together so if we really get finley rose is history. We would be under the cap next year big time but no this year.

We would also need some more big men. Howard is a small forward for the most part much like marshell, he can play pf but is at his age i think sf is a better fit, or at least against most sf in the east. 

However, that only leaves chandler and curyy as big men. Bloung su-cks and Baxter is only 6'7" so while he can play some pf we have no back up center. If we use the MLE on howard i don't see how we bring in anohter big man unless we get a exemption for Williams.

However, if we are getting the 29 pick i would like to see us try to trade down a couple of times into the low 20's to get another player. We could also use a SF for euro to play backup sf who could work his way into the starting sf spot.

david



david


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jwill22bulls</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Would we get a pick? Also where would we play Brandon if we got him? Starter?



Dude, Brandon is retiring due to injury, he hasn't played a game in forever. Trading Rose for Brandon's expiring contract is stupid IMHO.


----------



## jwill22bulls (Jun 23, 2003)

Whoops, it just was clicking for a second. I understand now.


----------



## bullsinjection (May 15, 2003)

Aside from salary why can't Rose and Finley play together? They have totally different games.

Rose: dribble and create outside shots for himself or teamates.

Finley: slash to the bucket or spot up for jumpers. PLAYS DEFENSE.

In the Dallas offense Finley does not handle the ball nearly as much as Dirk or Nash. He'd fit right in with Crawford and Rose.


----------



## jwill22bulls (Jun 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> I to saw this and it was in a couple different places on insider. I love finley's game but he is 30 years old and was hurt most of last year. I also think the mav's are sending there 29 pick as well.
> 
> I also saw the rose for branden deal. It was not linked with the other but i have say i don't think rose and finley can play together so if we really get finley rose is history. We would be under the cap next year big time but no this year.
> ...




Sophocles???


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I dunno about all of this. I'd rather go for a couple of younger, cap friendlier players rather than a big revolutionary change.

First, if we acquire Finley and don't trade Rose, Pax damn well better have Reinsdorf's assurances that he doesn't care about the luxury tax. Because we're going to be in it up to our ears. That's a business decision on their part. If they're willing to throw that money out the window, that's cool, but they better not get trigger happy and start jettisoning guys two years down the road if we suddenly only win 50 games in a season rather than 60.

This would also require us to rebuild our depth... we're going to have to spend money on a guy like Howard as a principle front court backup and at least one or two more guys at the backup guard positions.

Second, if we acquire Finley and trade Rose immediately for cap space, it seems like we have taken a big step backwards. Basically, we've swapped Finley for Rose, which doesn't get us anything, and we've DUMPED Marshall, Fizer, and the #7 pick just to get rid of ERob's salary. I think we'd be able to dump ERob's salary without giving up ALL of those other guys... it's just too much to give up.


----------



## bullsinjection (May 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I dunno about all of this. I'd rather go for a couple of younger, cap friendlier players rather than a big revolutionary change.
> 
> First, if we acquire Finley and don't trade Rose, Pax damn well better have Reinsdorf's assurances that he doesn't care about the luxury tax. Because we're going to be in it up to our ears. That's a business decision on their part. If they're willing to throw that money out the window, that's cool, but they better not get trigger happy and start jettisoning guys two years down the road if we suddenly only win 50 games in a season rather than 60.
> ...


Bingo!!!

Rose has to bring value in return if he is traded. Cap room doesn't work here.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

If the deal is Erob,Fizer,Marshall,#7 for Finley,Najera then you have to get rid of Rose and his contract. You dont do the Finley deal unless the Brandon deal is guaranteed. We will need the expiring contract next summer to extend JC and maybe TC & EC. As for this coming season after those two trades and signing Howard and someone like Daniels we have a nice group of 8 players. Crawford,Finley,Daniels,Hassell,Howard,Najera,Chandler, and Curr.


----------



## brazys (Jul 17, 2002)

*Bulls can pay more*

Here's a link to excellent NCBullsFan's post in Salaries and CBA forum, which explains why bulls could take on more salary than an average nba team because of bigger market:

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34527&forumid=111.



> The first thing to notice about the Bulls is that they are fabulously profitable. They are one of the few teams in the league that could afford to go deep into luxury tax territory and still be profitable


Bulls profits from last three years were +52mln, +39mln and +~55mln. That is simply the best profit numbers in nba. Just compare them to other teams profits (For example, money saving spurs had -2, +8 and +6).. They could really swallow both Finley and Rose salaries.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> If the deal is Erob,Fizer,Marshall,#7 for Finley,Najera then you have to get rid of Rose and his contract. You dont do the Finley deal unless the Brandon deal is guaranteed. We will need the expiring contract next summer to extend JC and maybe TC & EC. As for this coming season after those two trades and signing Howard and someone like Daniels we have a nice group of 8 players. Crawford,Finley,Daniels,Hassell,Howard,Najera,Chandler, and Curr.


Yeah, if you get Najera back, it's a better deal. Ideally, I'd want Najera and the #29 pick. That'd make up for the depth we're losing


----------



## jwill22bulls (Jun 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> If the deal is Erob,Fizer,Marshall,#7 for Finley,Najera then you have to get rid of Rose and his contract. You dont do the Finley deal unless the Brandon deal is guaranteed. We will need the expiring contract next summer to extend JC and maybe TC & EC. As for this coming season after those two trades and signing Howard and someone like Daniels we have a nice group of 8 players. Crawford,Finley,Daniels,Hassell,Howard,Najera,Chandler, and Curr.


But what good will that do us if we don't keep rose? Like bullsinjection said, we pretty much sawp rose for finley, and then give up the 7th pick, robinson, fizer, and marshall. It makes no sense.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

The thing that scares me most about this trade is that when Cuban signed Finley to that $100 million contract I thought "what an idiot! Finley isn't worth that much." I know Rose isn't worth his contract either but I've grown used to him. It's not like we're getting Kobe Bryant for 100 million.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

A lineup of Rose, Finley, Crawford, Howard, and Curry is a championship contender, not just a playoff team. That would give us Chandler off the bench to play both PF and C, and insurance for if Howard can't play the big minutes. Though Howard did play them last season.

Rose, Finley, and Crawford give the Bulls an outside game that is equal to what Dallas had last season. Curry and Howard give the Bulls a SUPERIOR inside game to what Dallas had last season.

Dallas was absolutely a championship contender last season.

Trading Rose for cap space is the stupidest idea I can conceive of.

We should not forget that Fizer is coming off a serious knee injury, and may not be able to contribute for a good part of the season.

This deal, solves our two biggest needs. That would be backup C (Chandler) and the wingman who can shoot/score/defend (Finley).

We would have a huge advantage over other playoff teams in that we have a core of young players in Curry, Chandler, and Crawford (and JWill if he comes back) who can step up when the older players decline.

We also have Baxter and Mason Jr., who should turn out to be quality role players at least.

This is HUGE.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Jwill22bulls,

I love the idea of Sophocles??? in the low 20's. Do you think he would really be there. The bulls will also need a swing player if they trade rose and robinson.

david


----------



## bullsinjection (May 15, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> A lineup of Rose, Finley, Crawford, Howard, and Curry is a championship contender, not just a playoff team. That would give us Chandler off the bench to play both PF and C, and insurance for if Howard can't play the big minutes. Though Howard did play them last season.
> 
> Rose, Finley, and Crawford give the Bulls an outside game that is equal to what Dallas had last season. Curry and Howard give the Bulls a SUPERIOR inside game to what Dallas had last season.
> ...


I agree with everything here except Howard/Chandler. I'd rather have Chandler's D and energy to start the games and then bring in Howard for stability and instant offense.


----------



## Revco38 (May 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> 
> But if I were to decide between Rose and Finley I'd take Finley. (Although Rose is more durable).


Finley was on IR this season for the first time in his career. He is as solid as a horse, and plays mega-minutes.

WHat has not been talked about in terms of Finley is how much of a team player he is, and how well he plays defense.

He was with Dallas when they $ucked, and was their only star, and go-to guy. Bring in Nash and Dirk, and he is relegated to the 3rd option-no complaints, just keeps playing his game. He is a team player, and accepts the role the team assigns to him-leader, go-to guy, 3rd option, you name it. 

He also was the only player in Big D to play D last year. Sure, he is not Kobe or Bowen, put he is willing to play defence, whereas Rose seems content to just be on the floor. He also does not jack unnecessary shots, and would give the team a legit option other than Rose at the end of games.

He does play the same position as Rose which creates some problems, but I am not sure I would make a Rose for Brandon trade, just to shed salary. 

This is a tough one. I like Finley, but to give up our bench (and possibly Rose) for him... Not sure.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Just so I understand this is what many of you want:


Bulls Trade:
Rose, Fizer, Marshall, #7 Pick, Robinson

Bulls get:
Finley, Brandon's Expiring contract, maybe #29



Somehow I'm not excited at all.

IF, and only if we were keeping Rose then it becomes ineteresting to me.

I love the depth that Fizer, Marshall, Robinson bring - but they are, at this point, a luxury and not starters. The #7 pick is impossible to judge, so I won't.

Finley is a very good player and is a definite starter.

Rose is Rose, love him or hate him, he'll win some and he'll lose some. 

Brandon - is the retiring injury.



As I search for Paxson's financial justification, and I assume nothing about the Bulls financial situation. Until Chandler, Crawford and Curry are signed to long term 7-8 year deals I won't feel they are here to stay.

So:

Fizer - He's up for an extension in the 4-6 million range.
Robinson - He's on acontract int he 6.5 range
#7 Pick - Five years on a rookie contract

Marshall is a wash, cause if you sign Howard to the exception, you've essentially paid what you were going to pay for Marshall.

So, if you are getting rid of 11-13 million with Fizer, E-Rob, #7 pick then maybe you can keep Rose.

If you are going to trade Rose to clear money, why not see if you can get Spreewell for two years and give them Rose. Spree is gone as the new contracts kick in and you may even be able to swing a sign and trade deal then.


I just have a problem giving Rose away for nothing. It is nothing. We don't gain extra cap space, we just lessen the amount we are over the cap.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

I love the rumored Finley deal. Finley is a stud and since when is 31 old? Blah, Blah, Blah, he'll be washed up at 36? Whatever.

If we aquire Michael and don't pull the Brandon deal, we're looking at the playoffs. We will also be able to watch some good basketball, night in and night out. 

If the Mavs throw us 29, I 'd go with Luke Walton.


----------



## Revco38 (May 30, 2003)

Chifanica

I forgot about the Spree possibility. If we are intent on dumping Rose, and SPree is an option, I say take Spree over Brandon. Getting nothing but cap space (next year) for Rose depletes our bench completely.

And I have a feeling that Howard would not sign with us if A) the Lakers make him an offer, or B) Rose is gone.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Giving up our bench is something to think about. But this team is a playoff team in the east. No doubt about it. If we do have Howard, thats a very good team. Yes, i want Finley. But i do wonder why dallas does this?


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> The thing that scares me most about this trade is that when Cuban signed Finley to that $100 million contract I thought "what an idiot! Finley isn't worth that much." I know Rose isn't worth his contract either but I've grown used to him. It's not like we're getting Kobe Bryant for 100 million.


Yes, exactly. Believe me, in a year or two, this Finley deal will look like a terrible albatross, just as the Rose deal looks like now!


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Yes, i want Finley. But i do wonder why dallas does this?


That's what I can't figure out... and that's why I don't think its going to happen.

Why Dallas might do it?

Finley is hurt.... or they are afraid he is declining.

They are really high on Pietrus.

They need rebounders and they think that Fizer and Marshall can provide that. Erob and Pietrus will make up for Finley's athleticism/scoring (i don't think so!)

But, at the end of the day, Fizer is coming off a knee injury.... marshall is talented... but not a bruiser like dallas needs. fizer has never been a power 4 either. Erob is Erob and a draft pick is a draft pick.

Dallas wants to win now more than the bulls do. I have a hard time convincing myself that this trade helps them. But... stranger things have happened.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Giving up our bench is something to think about. But this team is a playoff team in the east. No doubt about it. If we do have Howard, thats a very good team. Yes, i want Finley. But i do wonder why dallas does this?


Good question. Fizer and Marshall don't seem to give them the defense or inside game they really need... and losing Finley opens up a giant hole at the SG spot... who plays there?

If Pietrus or Wade can step in immediately and play at a high enough level to replace Finley then shouldn't we take him ourselves?


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

Ok...

It is generally assumed that Howard will be headed to LA to play with the lakers for their MLE.

That said, WHY THE HECK WOULD HE SIGN WITH THE BULLS IF WE WERE PLANNING ON SHIPPING ROSE OFF FOR CAP SPACE??? 

Now while we all like the idea of an all star good guy smart shooting swing man (Finley) we all seem to realize that trading Rose will almost certainly be part of this in order to remain sound financially when the inevitable extensions come around with the 3 C's. 

Essentally most of us prefer Finley to Rose. But do any of you really prefer Finley to Rose, Marshall, Fizer, Erobb and the #7? Becuase essentailly that (and money) is the trade off in order to resign our young core. Essentially we have gone from a young talented team (with depth as its greatest asset) to a team with 1 established star and 3 "could bes". Were we not there the year before last?

The ONLY way Howard signs in Chicago is for assurances that his friend Rose is part of the scenario. Im still not even sure he wouldn't head to LA anyways!

As much as I apprecieate Finley, and it does address a need (quality defender at the 2) it doesn't address depth nor fiscal responsibility. 

Finley, Rose, Crawford, Curry. All four of those guys who we expect to put up 20 + points a game. Thats a whole lot of shooters and there still remains only 1 ball. Add Howard in there and you have another guy used to getting his shots.

Paxson better start looking at that type of hodgepodge of good (but not elite) talent and see where it has gotten Portland before he pulls that trigger!


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Ignoring the impact of these two trades from the Bulls' perspective, why do Dallas and Minnesota do them?

First of all, the Rose for Brandon trade. There is perhaps no team in the league who needs luxury tax relief more than Minnesota. They need it this year, next year if they keep Garnett, and every year in the forseeable future if they keep Garnett. They get that luxury tax relief if they keep Brandon.

The Bulls do not need luxury tax relief this year, could use a little next year, and after that could really use it.

So in essence this becomes a trade where a team who desperately needs luxury tax relief trades their luxury tax relief who won't really need it until 2005-06, when the luxury/escrow tax system may be very different than it is today.

From Minnesota's perspective, I would not be surprised if this deal cost Minnesota more than $70 million in higher luxury taxes, lower luxury/escrow tax distributions - and at least $30 million even if the luxury/escow tax system changed significantly.

On the other hand, it probably would only save the Bulls $40 million in luxury taxes and luxury/escrow tax distributions - and it could be nothing if the luxury/escrow tax system changed significantly.

Overall, I suspect this deal would cost the Wolves something like $110 million over the next 4 years. I am not sure Kobe Bryant or Tracy McGrady would be worth that much - let alone Jalen Rose.

And Dallas would then have three "tweeners" in Najera, Fizer, and Marshall. I suppose Marshall would play SF for them, and perhaps Fizer would play some C (Nellie is pretty creative sometimes), so maybe they could make this work, but even with this trade, they don't really get a guy who could guard Shaq or Duncan or Garnett or Webber on a regular basis.

Do they still go after Mourning/Olowokandi with their MLE or do they now have to find someone who could play SG for them in case Pietrus doesn't pan out?

Also, at the end of the day, this combination of trades provides luxury tax relief for the most notorious spender in the league (Cuban), while a low revenue owner takes on an extra $100 million in obligations (Taylor). This just seems a bit odd.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

There already were a lot of people high on Pietrus. Add Dallas to that list, and I'm becoming more and more convinced he's going to be special. I'd say the Dallas staff has an eye for foreign talent.

I wouldn't do this deal (depth, age, money, and value issues).


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> Ignoring the impact of these two trades from the Bulls' perspective, why do Dallas and Minnesota do them?
> 
> First of all, the Rose for Brandon trade. There is perhaps no team in the league who needs luxury tax relief more than Minnesota. They need it this year, next year if they keep Garnett, and every year in the forseeable future if they keep Garnett. They get that luxury tax relief if they keep Brandon.
> ...


You know - I've been waiting to see what you said about this! We were probably all wondering what you thought.

My only thought for Minny doing this is if they do nothing Garnett might get frustrated and leave. If they seem willing to get better players - he might stay.

But is it work 100 million to the owners or do they take the chance and let KG go and start over.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Yeah, if you get Najera back, it's a better deal. Ideally, I'd want Najera and the #29 pick. That'd make up for the depth we're losing


As far as depth is concerned, I don't think that a straight swap of Rose for Brandon works under the CBA. The Wolves would have to add filler. Either Peeler or Jackson along with Brandon makes it a doable deal. So maybe that's where we'll regain some depth.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Essentally most of us prefer Finley to Rose. But do any of you really prefer Finley to Rose, Marshall, Fizer, Erobb and the #7?


So true. This thins out our bench big time. 



> The ONLY way Howard signs in Chicago is for assurances that his friend Rose is part of the scenario. Im still not even sure he wouldn't head to LA anyways!


Word is Howard and Finley are workout partners and would love to come back to Chicago together. That's at the root of this rumor.


----------



## blizzaw665 (May 23, 2003)

I have a theory.
We are the most profitable team in the NBA. Reinsdorf understands this, and is not scared of LT territory.
Say we re-sign Crawford to 7 million/ year. Finley and Rose make a combined 30. If we re-sign Curry and Chandler to 10 million/ year deals, that is 57 million! 
If we pay 15 million for the remaining 10, that is a total of 72 million. With the LT tax, that sum will jump to about 90.
However, we paid 42 million last year, and profited 45. That is 87 million, so Reinsdorf assumes that he can make that money back when we begin having a winning record again, because of slightly higher interest. In fact, he probably assumes that he can still crack a profit.
In other words, Chicago is a good franchise who can handle this type of burden to get the championship back to Chicago.


----------



## NoJoke (May 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blizzaw665</b>!
> I have a theory.
> We are the most profitable team in the NBA. Reinsdorf understands this, and is not scared of LT territory.
> Say we re-sign Crawford to 7 million/ year. Finley and Rose make a combined 30. If we re-sign Curry and Chandler to 10 million/ year deals, that is 57 million!
> ...


Great Point Blizz!

There are plenty of teams that are over the salary cap big time, why can't the Bulls spend some money if they are in the playoffs fighting for a Championship every year. Stop giving Jerry (The Owner) a free pass! The Bulls was ranked 27th out of 29 in team salaries for 2002/2003. 8 out of 10 top salary teams made the playoffs.

1) Portland - $105+ million*
2) NY - $76+ million
3) Kings - $69+ million*
4) Dallas - $69+ million*
5) 76ers - $65+ million*
6) Lakers - $62+ million*
7) Bucks - $60+ million*
8) Twolves - $59+ million*
9) Nets - $59+ million*
10) Memphis - $58+ million
27) Bulls - $42+ million
(*=Playoffs)

I hope this trade is made and Howard signs with the Bulls also.

:devil:


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

I don't think it's a given that Chandler will demand the max.

And knowing how strapped every team is they may be able to low-ball Jamal a little. I mean - if Arenas and these other free agents really struggle to get big paychecks - jamal may take 6 million or just above the MLE. Similar to Artest's 7 year 42 million. 

Tyson's play may not demand a max contract and who knows if he will either? Maybe 8 million per year starting?

Anyway - I'm just speculating.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

It seems to me that this deal would definitely help the Bulls make the playoffs now but it is hard to win a championship. Does Finley bring us any closer than Rose does. I would make this trade but under the condition that Pax absolutely knows Howard would come along for the MLE. Now the question is what do we do with Rose? Well since I highly doubt Minnesota does the Brandon for Rose thing I guess we either keep Rose or find some how some way to unload him to a desperate team for some better contracts. It also thins out our bench but I think we would be all right.

Starting Five - Jamal Crawford/Michael Finley/Juwan Howard/Tyson Chandler/Eddy Curry

Bench - Roger Mason Jr./Lonny Baxter/Trenton Hassell/Corie Blount/INJURY FA/#29 Pick/#36 Pick/#45 Pick


----------



## Coyat (Jun 18, 2003)

I'd prefer a:

J. Crawford
J. Rose
M. Finley
T. Chandler
E. Curry

lineup for next yr. This def. gives the Bulls a solid chance to be contenders in the East. Will they win? All depends on the play of the frontcourt. Anyways, after next yr, we could dump Rose's contract for a better one or a draft pick and keep Finley. Just my 2 cents. Plus i have no idea if that actually works with the cap and other financial issues seeing how i don't have any logic in that.


----------



## Aloe (Jun 23, 2003)

Yeah I heard about this earlier, I think it'd be a good move for the Bulls.

Finley is better than any draft pick would be right now.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

After much thought, I would only do the trade if we can keep our pick and are assured of landing Howard. Keep Rose as well. If not, there's better alternatives.

I think Howard is an ideal third player in a rotation with Chandler and Curry down low. I've often wanted him, but he never made sense with either Marshall or Fizer here. If I'm Pax, though, I don't consider Howard as part of the trade. Regardless, you still have to get value for your assets. Howard just enables us to add the specific players we're offering.

Another of my concerns is giving up too much youth. The past five years have been spent accumulating talent that can contend for a decade. I want to show improvement in the short-term, but not skip a beat when Rose (and now possibly Finley) retire. Assuming Jay is done for good, we'd only have 3 guys to show for our 5 years of futility. Please keep the pick.

In a matter of a week, we might have lost 3 highly valuable young guys to potentially build the franchise around. Jay with his injury and Fizer and the 7th pick i this trade. It took a long painful time to gather those pieces. I just don't want to jettison half of our potential in a week, especially for an aging veteran.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

Here's a solution!


http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36098&forumid=27 


:bsmile:


----------



## jwill22bulls (Jun 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Jwill22bulls,
> 
> I love the idea of Sophocles??? in the low 20's. Do you think he would really be there. The bulls will also need a swing player if they trade rose and robinson.
> ...



Honestly, i think he will be taken at 19, but won't slip past 22. He would be able to play some center and power forward for us, but we'd have to make a few deals to get him, so the chances are low.


----------



## jwill22bulls (Jun 23, 2003)

Also, my stance on the deal is basically this. ONLY do the deal if we keep rose. Otherwise we're getting ripped off. If we're not going to keep rose, we might as well just draft pietrus and forget about Finley.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

That trade is insane. 

Dallas give up Michael Finley ( 30 yr. , Draft Pick # 21 ) and the Bulls would give up their No. 7 draft pick, Marcus Fizer ( 25 yr. , Draft Pick # 4 ), Donyell Marshall ( 30 yr. , Draft Pick # 4 ) and another player ???.

Does anybody remember, what we received by trading Scottie Pipen ??? Memo: Traded by the Bulls to the Houston Rockets for Roy Rogers and a conditional second-round draft pick on 1/22/99 !!!


----------



## jwill22bulls (Jun 23, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Bulls96</b>!
> That trade is insane.
> 
> Dallas give up Michael Finley ( 30 yr. , Draft Pick # 21 ) and the Bulls would give up their No. 7 draft pick, Marcus Fizer ( 25 yr. , Draft Pick # 4 ), Donyell Marshall ( 30 yr. , Draft Pick # 4 ) and another player ???.
> ...




It means jack where they were drafted. Finley is arguably bettr than marshall and fizer combined.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

I couldn't comment on it earlier.

I'd trade Fize, Marshall and the pick and welcome Finley into the organization in a heartbeat.


----------



## life_after_23 (Jul 24, 2002)

*Most of you are not thinking straight...*

With Finley and Rose, the Bulls will be better able to compete in the East -- a league dominated by wing players. TC and EC can learn to play on a playoff bound Bulls team -- valuable experience. There is nothing wrong with veteran leadership. This will give the Bulls multiple options for carrying the load during the season. 

What did Fizer do last year that was so incredible? Donyell was a decent pickup but he was a tweener who could not d-up the 4s in the league and not quick enough to d-up the 3s. He is a valuable bench player and so is Fizer. What the Bulls need is a quiality starting 5 (and Finley will definetly provide that) and then putting a bench together will be a bit easier job.
Pietrus (who will sit on the pine for most of this season) will mean another 30+ win season for the Bulls...who wants to see Hassell play at the 3-spot for another season?
Juwan Howard is more likely to come to the Bulls because they have a good team and he can be a solid role player who can elevate them off the bench....he is not going to come for Pietrus...

Bulls -- its time!


----------



## LuCane (Dec 9, 2002)

Life After,

You make extremely solid points, especially about TC and EC learning to win. This is an amazingly simple, yet misunderstood aspect of developing players in that players as young as the Teen Towers would be aided in understanding what it takes to win ballgames week in week out, AND in the playoffs, BEFORE they reach their primes.

That being said, the reason I think you are seeing people against the trade is because other posters are thinking more along the lines of building a Dynasty and keeping it intact over the years.

Now, is that possible? I have my doubts. Is it what I would like to see? Sure. However, as long as we build a team with CORE players, and keep them around, I believe that would also be as good.

Remember, Jordan did it with a number of different players... From Horace to Brian Williams to Rodmanand Paxson to Steve Kerr, what is important is that Pippen and Jordan remained the heart and soul of those teams.

The heart and soul of this team will hopefully be Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

Get me some of that home cooking. Bring back Bertha's baby boy. 

I would pull this trade if Howard was on board and the Brandon deal is bull. Rose has to have more value than cap space. 
Winning games now, would also be very good for Jamal, Tyson and Curry. 

I wonder if the additions of Howard and Finley would motivate Jalen to expand his game? 

I think of the meat of this trade is getting rid of duplication and filling two glaring needs. If the Bulls come out of the draft with an All Star swingman and an former allstar bigman, I'd be doing cartwheels.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

*Re: Most of you are not thinking straight...*



> Originally posted by <b>life_after_23</b>!
> With Finley and Rose, the Bulls will be better able to compete in the East -- a league dominated by wing players. TC and EC can learn to play on a playoff bound Bulls team -- valuable experience. There is nothing wrong with veteran leadership. This will give the Bulls multiple options for carrying the load during the season.
> 
> What did Fizer do last year that was so incredible? Donyell was a decent pickup but he was a tweener who could not d-up the 4s in the league and not quick enough to d-up the 3s. He is a valuable bench player and so is Fizer. What the Bulls need is a quiality starting 5 (and Finley will definetly provide that) and then putting a bench together will be a bit easier job.
> ...


Ask anyone here, and they'll tell you we'd be better off next year with this deal. Will we be better off long-term, though? I really don't think so. We've waited too long to give up the real chance of long-term dominance for simply getting to the playoffs next year. The real quesiton here seems to be settling for a good team now or waiting for a great team later. I'd rather wait and let this Bulls group form a new dynasty. Only then will the last 5 years have been worth it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>LuCane</b>!
> Life After,
> 
> You make extremely solid points, especially about TC and EC learning to win. This is an amazingly simple, yet misunderstood aspect of developing players in that players as young as the Teen Towers would be aided in understanding what it takes to win ballgames week in week out, AND in the playoffs, BEFORE they reach their primes.
> ...


While I am a big fan of Phil Jackson, something has become painfully evident to me after watching him coach two teams to threepeats.

When he left the Bulls, the franchise was a wreck. Jordan retired. Pippen was old. Kukoc was even on the old side. And there was nothing but guys like Jason Caffey and Corrie Blount types on the roster, providing little in the way of a future.

In LA, he's in the same boat. Shaq is 31 years old, overweight, and has played just 74, 67, and 67 games the past three seasons. I wonder how much he has left. LA still has a young Kobe, but their roster reminds me of the Bulls' at the end of the Jackson era. That is, aging veteran role players and no quality youth to step up to keep the dynasty rolling.

I don't actually blame PJ, it's really a matter of how a winning team gets draft picks at the end of the 1st round. And you don't want to trade away your veterans while you are winning championships, so you ride them until they are done.

Now, the Bulls are in a radically different position. If they make this trade with the Mavs and sign Howard, they will have THREE veteran stars and a chance to go deep in the playoffs. But they also will have Curry, Chandler, and Crawford who can step up when the vets are done. The Lakers' future is Deven George and Kareem Rush. BIG DIFFERENCE!

These moves would not only benefit us in the short run, but also in the long run. Rose, Finley, and Howard are done in three years, or will at best be role players. CCC will be 23 years old.

There's no threat to any future dynasty or any real sacrifice to get a championship contender in the short run.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Just a short update...

NBC5's Peggy Kozinski filed a report on the rumored Bulls trade for Finley. She stated that while Dallas won't acknowledge that they'd even consider trading MF, other NBA teams have confirmed that the Bulls are in fact talking trade with Dallas and that Chicago's actively involved in trade talks with other teams. 

It sounds like Paxson really wants to make something happen by tommorrow that will catapult the Bulls into the playoffs next season. Lets not forget that the Nets went from a team that won 26 games in 00/01 to 52 wins and a division championship and a spot in the Finals the following season. Who says the same thing can't happen for the Bulls if Paxson is somehow able to make just the right move.

Whether he pulls it off or not, it sure sounds like he's doing everything he can to make some kind of significant move.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

The Nets lost to the Spurs in the Finals, yes. But you cannot measure the quality of the future Bulls against winning the East. Because if you are just barely good enough to win the East, you will not win the Finals.

The Nets would have lost to the Lakers, the Kings (if healthy), and the Mavs. They possibly would have lost to the Blazers. 

And with the Suns, it would have been a close one... they are very similar teams. Marbury vs. Kidd goes to Kidd, but Marion/Amare vs. Jefferson/Martin? That edge should probably go to the Suns. Penny and Kittles are a wash, and Mutombo is only just barely better than Big Jake these days. The benches are also interesting, and it would have been close.

Conclusion: The Nets went to the Eastern Conference Finals, but IMO, they might have struggled against even the 8th seed in the West.

Conversely, one would never say that the Celts, the Sixers, the Magic, the Hornets, or any of the rest of the Eastern Conference playoff teams would have given ANY of the Western teams a run for their money more than the Nets (except maybe the Jazz, who were at the end of their line).

Conclusion number two: THEREFORE, we must NOT make the playoffs a goal, but rather the construction of a team that would utterly obliterate the East and provide real competition against the West.

Are Rose, Finley and Juwan Howard the answer to that? Could the Bulls UTTERLY DOMINATE the East and be able to really stack up against the likes of Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, Webber, Garnett?

Conclusion number three: If playoffs are the goal, then so be it. Make the trade. But if we want a dynasty, then please pass on it.


----------



## DickieHurtz (May 28, 2002)

Don't discount the East. They're in line to add four of the top five picks in this draft with three of those picks headed for the Bulls' Central Division. They may be down now, but I doubt it will remain that way for too much longer. 

Overall, though I agree with Kismet that the right personnel move can have a significant impact on the Bulls future, no matter what conference they're in. And of course the Bulls have the added advantage of having two of the leagues brightest young players under contract. If you combine their expected improvement this year with the addition of a present day star, who's to say how much farther they'll have to go to catch the top teams out West.

BTW, I have a lot of respect for the World Champion Spurs. But I don't think you'll ever hear talk about ranking them among the best teams of this or any other generation. Maybe the West isn't that strong afterall.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

What about this idea ...How about selling the rights to the Bulls name to Bank One, and then spending the money to pay Curry, Craw, and Chander. And NOW YOUR Bank One Bulls!


----------



## jwill22bulls (Jun 23, 2003)

Name us whatever you want as long as we win.


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> The Nets lost to the Spurs in the Finals, yes. But you cannot measure the quality of the future Bulls against winning the East. Because if you are just barely good enough to win the East, you will not win the Finals.
> 
> The Nets would have lost to the Lakers, the Kings (if healthy), and the Mavs. They possibly would have lost to the Blazers.
> ...


No, but Curry, Chandler and Crawford, supported by Rose, Finley and Howard might be... The core of this team is still the twin towers, as Paxson said, and crawford might come into the picture. Making that trade, we are indeed getting rid of a useful backup (Marshall) a somewhat promising pf that is not part of the Core and has as many flaws as his strenths (Fizer), for two players who can get us to the playoffs and give our Core an invaluable experience. Moreover, let's face it, we have a bunch of useful backups. I could very well see Baxter stepping up to fill the void.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> The Nets lost to the Spurs in the Finals, yes. But you cannot measure the quality of the future Bulls against winning the East. Because if you are just barely good enough to win the East, you will not win the Finals.
> 
> The Nets would have lost to the Lakers, the Kings (if healthy), and the Mavs. They possibly would have lost to the Blazers.
> ...


I like your analysis.

Conclusion 2. I believe Rose, Finley, and Howard do give us the ability to utterly dominate the East. 

Consider Boston. They have two guys roughly equivalent to Howard and Rose or Rose and Finley or Finley and Howard. Boston was a 44-38 team. New Jersey was just 5 wins better. 

I have little doubt that Rose+Finley+Howard is > Walker+Pierce.

Not only are we 3 deep with veteran stars, as opposed to 2, we have Crawford, Chandler, and Curry, where Boston has Delk, Williams, and Bremer. Again, I think we have superior depth.

The difference between this proposed Bulls lineup and New Jersey is also pretty big. The only think I believe the Nets have that we don't is THE MVP candidate (Kidd). 

The Nets have a real weakness at the C position. We do not.

The Bulls with two 7' guys on the court have to cause problems for Western Conference teams, even if they're not the focus of our team's offense. They will alter shots and otherwise make life miserable for the Western Conf. centers (Shaq, etc.).

I look at this lineup and see something that more resembles the Mavericks than any Eastern Confernce team. They have four really talented outside guys (though they'd be giving us one in Finley). And they have only moderately good C's (comparable to our own at this point).


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

I'll post on this thread what i posted on the other Finley thread:

Finley is a 30 year old signed through *2008-2009* to a max deal that, IMO, he didn't deserve in the first place. If we are already worried about resigning Curry and Chandler, doing this move would *kill* us financially. Finley is a nice player, but I believe his best days are behind him (not that his best days were ever _that _ spectacular). If it comes down to a choice of adding Finley and possibly losing one or both of our two young bigs or passing on a chance to win right away, I will gladly wait. Finley is nothing special and he never has been.

I would not be terribly upset if this deal happened, as it is hard to be upset by a deal that gives you a definite shot at the Finals this year, but I think we would be *much* wiser just to pass this one up. This move would be great in the short run but hurt us badly down the road.

On another note, if we're gonna do deal for a veteran swingman, why not go for Sprewell? His contarct is up in two years and Ny is ready to practically give him away, or so i hear (you never can tell with Layden).


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

Can't say I like this idea only because I REALLY want us to draft and keep Pietrus. I just have this strange feeling about him. It's hard to explain. All I know is I had the same strange feeling about Gilbert Arenas when we didn't pick him up and now everytime I hear about his success, I just think "what if?" I just don't wanna feel this way about Pietrus down the road, if we don't end up picking him. But who knows? Maybe its worth it, maybe it's not. That's just me. I just hope whatever we do, we will be successful.


----------



## Coyat (Jun 18, 2003)

Considering recent reports on ESPN, it looks as though the Mavs/Bulls trade talk has died down..

_The Bulls-Mavericks talk about swapping Michael Finley for Donyell Marshall, Marcus Fizer and the No. 7 appears to be a lot of bull. 

Both teams denied on Wednesday that they started the trade talk, and by late Wednesday evening it appears that the phone lines were silent.

The pressure is on GM John Paxson to turn some of that raw young talent into a veteran or two, but chances are, that won't happen tonight._


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

Phew! Thank goodness!! 
Thanks for the excerpt, Coyat.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DickieHurtz</b>!
> Don't discount the East. They're in line to add four of the top five picks in this draft with three of those picks headed for the Bulls' Central Division. They may be down now, but I doubt it will remain that way for too much longer.
> 
> Overall, though I agree with Kismet that the right personnel move can have a significant impact on the Bulls future, no matter what conference they're in. And of course the Bulls have the added advantage of having two of the leagues brightest young players under contract. If you combine their expected improvement this year with the addition of a present day star, who's to say how much farther they'll have to go to catch the top teams out West.
> ...


Good post DH. The East isn't far behind the West, not as much as people would think. Detroit is on the brink of being a monster, especially if Darko can contribute right away. NJ and Indiana aren't far behind if they can resign their major players.

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=415245#post415245


----------

