# Golden State Looking for a SF & Shopping #7



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/05/31/SP2H1OQ8DD.DTL



> After securing their own No. 7 pick in Wednesday's draft lottery, the Warriors have four picks, which can be used to trade up in the draft or for an experienced small forward. They could use a playmaking forward, like Andre Iguodala or Lamar Odom, or a defensive-minded guy, like Nic Batum, *Luol Deng*, Luc Mbah a Moute or Josh Smith.


This comes from Golden State's beat writer, Rusty Simmons, so it is more projecting hypotheticals than anything. However, I did a little digging through Twitter, and someone claims that Golden State called our front office and inquired about CJ and Taj as well.

I really can't see a deal that I necessarily like from looking at the two teams. The closest thing that I can come up with is:

Bulls trade:
Luol Deng
Taj Gibson

Golden State trades:
Richard Jefferson
Klay Thompson
#7

This would give us more salary flexibity than anything as we add two more guys on their rookie deals for four years, can sign Asik and not worry about re-signing Taj. It also seems like a Reinsdorf type of move and gives us a shot at getting that #2 option.

That said, there is probably a 75% chance that we do not draft a player as good as Deng at that spot. Do we take that chance of contending away to possibly upgrade the team through the draft? Seems iffy.

I'm still much more in favor of a consolidation trade.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

I'd love to get Thompson... But hate to lose Taj. I'd do thus deal though...not a fan of RJeff, but 7 and Thompson is good....


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Bulls should take that and run.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

By the way, if Golden State actually does trade #7 for one of those guys (and their contract), they get my vote for dumbest front office in the NBA. They've been right there for a while but this would just push them over the top and then some.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Who would be available at pick 7 that would be better than Deng? I know pretty much nothing about this draft class.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

garnett said:


> Who would be available at pick 7 that would be better than Deng? I know pretty much nothing about this draft class.


Harrison Barnes, perhaps. Jared Sullinger, Jeremy Lamb, and Perry Jones all could be as well. If I were Chicago, though, the only way I would do that is if Barnes were on the board. Even still, he doesn't have the kind of defensive commitment that Deng does.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Deng is a bit overrated as a defender IMO, so if there's someone available that can create their own shot it's something we have to consider. 

If GS really are interested in trading their pick I'm speechless.


----------



## Pacers Fan (Aug 25, 2002)

garnett said:


> Deng is a bit overrated as a defender IMO, so if there's someone available that can create their own shot it's something we have to consider.
> 
> If GS really are interested in trading their pick I'm speechless.


Maybe. He's a little slow-footed and probably not All-D 2nd Team worthy, but he's pretty good and better than most at his position. It's tough to say if anyone besides Barnes, Sullinger, or maybe Austin Rivers will be able to create their own shot at #7. Sullinger would make Boozer more worthless than he already is, and Rivers is probably a reach, so the only way I can see Chicago doing this is if Barnes falls.

As for Golden State, this is the perfect time for them to trade their pick. They've had young talent for years, and now they're turning it into solid players. Considering they're probably not going to trade Bogut, Lee, Thompson, or Curry, that leaves them a solid SF away from the playoffs. With the right coach, some depth, no injury problems, and Luol Deng, I could see that team making some noise in the playoffs. That's an entire starting five of guys who can go off for 20 on any given night.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Garnett, I don't like this deal. 

The players who would make me feel good in a deal like this are Drummond and Kidd-Gilchrist. By 7 you have a lot of players whose strengths are offset by problematic weaknesses or players who have speculative potential. 

I wouldn't want to give Taj up in this deal and I wouldn't want to take Jefferson back. 

If GSW had the 3rd pick and just wanted Deng really bad, and they had some bum on an expiring deal then I'd do that, but this is just not the organization or pick. 

Now, Kings and the 5th pick plus Cousins; I'm ready to wheel and deal. Not the crappy Warriors though and not the 7th pick.

And you know I'm not shy about moving anyone on this team other than Rose and Gibson.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> Garnett, I don't like this deal.
> 
> The players who would make me feel good in a deal like this are Drummond and Kidd-Gilchrist. By 7 you have a lot of players whose strengths are offset by problematic weaknesses or players who have speculative potential.
> 
> ...


To be fair, I'm not a huge fan of this deal either. This is just the closest I came up with being fair for both teams considering the story. With me, it's consolidation trade or stay the course. I still want to S&T Asik this offseason if possible for a pick upgrade or a slightly more offensive minded big.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Hoodey said:


> Now, Kings and the 5th pick plus Cousins; I'm ready to wheel and deal. Not the crappy Warriors though and not the 7th pick.


And the Kings would trade the only two remotely valuable commodities on their roster right now because...?


----------



## hroz (Mar 4, 2006)

GSW need to get rid of Lee package him with Curry and see who bites maybe for an expiring or a 2 year contract.
Biedrins and Jefferson are expiring this year.

They will have salary cap space and expirings next year to play with.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

garnett said:


> Who would be available at pick 7 that would be better than Deng? I know pretty much nothing about this draft class.


This draft is very similar to the 2009 draft. You have your consensus #1 first pick (Blake vs. Davis), and then it's a crap shoot of really solid players.

There will probably be a couple All Stars out of the lottery, but no real superstar potential. That said, this draft is very deep. You could see end of first round guys starting for some teams.

As far as who is better than Deng, there is no guarantee outside of maybe Davis. Harrison Barnes scares me. I think he has high bust potential.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Floods said:


> And the Kings would trade the only two remotely valuable commodities on their roster right now because...?


Well I'm confused, because half the people here who are Bulls fans say Cousins isn't that good. Is he considered a legend for the ages in Sacramento?

The reason you trade your two more valuable commodities is you don't believe in your plan.

Cousins playing WITH Rose = very good
Cousins playing with Tyreke Evans = probably a dead end plan where you'll need to start over before ever sniffing the late playoffs


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Hoodey said:


> Well I'm confused, because half the people here who are Bulls fans say Cousins isn't that good. Is he considered a legend for the ages in Sacramento?


Most valuable player currently on the roster. Fix his iffy shot selection and he's a 20/10 guy easy. Defense will come.



> The reason you trade your two more valuable commodities is you don't believe in your plan.


Right. Our plan stinks. Let's fix it by trading away a future 20/10 guy and the fifth overall draft pick this year! :laugh: Not even the Maloofs are that stupid.



> Cousins playing WITH Rose = very good
> Cousins playing with Tyreke Evans = probably a dead end plan where you'll need to start over before ever sniffing the late playoffs


Terrific. But the Kings aren't in the business of making the Bulls look good. Outside of Rose there isn't a single piece on your roster, or any combination of pieces, that warrant trading Cousins and #5.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Floods said:


> Most valuable player currently on the roster. Fix his iffy shot selection and he's a 20/10 guy easy. Defense will come.


I've never viewed 20/10 as any barometer of how great you are. What percentage do those shots come on that give you the 20? I'd value Cousins more for his threat at his size. Just like Bynum I don't need him to reach 20 and 10. Elton Brand was a 20 and 10 guy. I'd rather have Bynum or Perkins over him.

That said, I think he's going to be good. #1 player on a title team you can build around? No. Maybe a #2. But teams with a #2 and no legit #1 just end up barely out of the lottery so that they can't get the pick to GIVE them the #1.

If I was them I'd rather move a player like that for the kind of picks that might get me the 2016 Derrick Rose or James or whoever. I would consider offering the Charlotte pick for Cousins; maybe more. I don't know if you thought I meant I wanted the guy for free. I didn't.



> Right. Our plan stinks. Let's fix it by trading away a future 20/10 guy and the fifth overall draft pick this year! :laugh: Not even the Maloofs are that stupid.


Yeah, but they've Kiiinda proven they are pretty stupid; so you can get a profit margin in a trade with them.

When I said "Cousins plus the 5th" I didn't mean I wanted them both in one trade. I was just referencing what they have to deal. If I did want them both I'd be looking at Deng or Noah plus Charlottes pick as a realistic principle of a trade. Hardly nothing in return. Hardly nothing in return. 



> Terrific. But the Kings aren't in the business of making the Bulls look good. Outside of Rose there isn't a single piece on your roster, or any combination of pieces, that warrant trading Cousins and #5.


So Noah plus the Charlotte pick (plus possibly this years first) and maybe Brewer for Cousins, the #5 and bad salary coming back wouldn't make them flinch? Noah can take a team struggling to find an identity and give them one. That Charlotte pick has big potential.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

If there's a guy at 7 we feel can be our legit 2nd option, then I'd look into dealing Deng for 7. I would trust our scouting department. It seems that ever since we got Rose, we've been one of the best at drafting. With the exception of James Johnson(who seems to be capable of being an OK role player in the NBA), we've selected since: Rose(1st pick), Omer Asik(36th overall), Taj Gibson(26th overall), Jimmy Butler(29th overall. Seems like he could develop into an OK role player), and Nikola Mirotic(23rd overall. Although we have yet to see him play, there has been a ton of great reports about him coming out of Europe).


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hoodey said:


> I've never viewed 20/10 as any barometer of how great you are. What percentage do those shots come on that give you the 20? I'd value Cousins more for his threat at his size. Just like Bynum I don't need him to reach 20 and 10. Elton Brand was a 20 and 10 guy. I'd rather have Bynum or Perkins over him.
> 
> That said, I think he's going to be good. #1 player on a title team you can build around? No. Maybe a #2. But teams with a #2 and no legit #1 just end up barely out of the lottery so that they can't get the pick to GIVE them the #1.
> 
> ...


I like Cousins, as do you, but there's no way he's a #1 option on a title team. He is what Eddy Curry should have been. Once he gets his mental issues figured out, he might have Bynum type potential. If he doesn't, he is still a very good, but inconsistent center.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

mvP to the Wee said:


> If there's a guy at 7 we feel can be our legit 2nd option, then I'd look into dealing Deng for 7. I would trust our scouting department. It seems that ever since we got Rose, we've been one of the best at drafting. With the exception of James Johnson(who seems to be capable of being an OK role player in the NBA), we've selected since: Rose(1st pick), Omer Asik(36th overall), Taj Gibson(26th overall), Jimmy Butler(29th overall. Seems like he could develop into an OK role player), and Nikola Mirotic(23rd overall. Although we have yet to see him play, there has been a ton of great reports about him coming out of Europe).


Agreed. My least favorite move draftwise has been Tyrus Thomas in favor of Aldridge. Although to be fair, we did not have any star at that point and Tyrus' ceiling was higher, so perhaps they were rolling the dice.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

Rhyder said:


> Agreed. My least favorite move draftwise has been Tyrus Thomas in favor of Aldridge. Although to be fair, we did not have any star at that point and Tyrus' ceiling was higher, so perhaps they were rolling the dice.


I believe one of the reasons we drafted Tyrus was because our team severely lacked athleticism. With Chandler on his way out, we were left with Duhon, Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Mike Sweetney, Malik Allen, Othella Harrington, Songaila, Pargo, and Nocioni.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> Agreed. My least favorite move draftwise has been Tyrus Thomas in favor of Aldridge. Although to be fair, we did not have any star at that point and Tyrus' ceiling was higher, so perhaps they were rolling the dice.


This is the one time Pax has rolled the dice and it didn't work out. I wouldn't be shocked if this is the reason why he's been so complacent the past few years.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

garnett said:


> This is the one time Pax has rolled the dice and it didn't work out. I wouldn't be shocked if this is the reason why he's been so complacent the past few years.


that is not a good excuse .

he's paid to do a job just like his players, if rose missed a last second shot it wouldn't be an accepted excuse that he can now avoid taking them because he missed one .

he has a job to do , supposedly to the best of his ability.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

I would take Jefferson and the 7th pick for Deng. Eventually, we will need to address our salary situation and this is it. We can develop that 7th pick next near when Rose is out.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Rhyder said:


> I like Cousins, as do you, but there's no way he's a #1 option on a title team. He is what Eddy Curry should have been. Once he gets his mental issues figured out, he might have Bynum type potential. If he doesn't, he is still a very good, but inconsistent center.


You saw this part, right?

"That said, I think he's going to be good. *#1 player on a title team you can build around?* No. Maybe a #2. But teams with a #2 and no legit #1 just end up barely out of the lottery so that they can't get the pick to GIVE them the #1."

Not sure if you were just agreeing with me, or what.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

mvP to the Wee said:


> I believe one of the reasons we drafted Tyrus was because our team severely lacked athleticism. With Chandler on his way out, we were left with Duhon, Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Mike Sweetney, Malik Allen, Othella Harrington, Songaila, Pargo, and Nocioni.


And I still haven't gotten an actual good answer as to why Chandler was on his way out to begin with. OR, if you think it was good to give up on him after one year on his new deal, why that same logic doesn't apply to the non-explosive 6'8" wuss we have at PF now.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

garnett said:


> This is the one time Pax has rolled the dice and it didn't work out. I wouldn't be shocked if this is the reason why he's been so complacent the past few years.


I get constant questions from Rhyder about thinking everyone is a Pax lover, or whatever, but it's not just that I think people blindly follow him, it's that there are so many rationalizations that are made in his favor to give him the benefit of the doubt.

It "didn't work out." Not so much. It didn't "take on a life of it's own" and "not work out." HE made a decision which HE FAILED at.

And then this is used as a justification for him being complacent. The "rolling the dice" part wasn't the part he needed to ditch. The "being incompetent" part is. 

I've seen so many mistakes, from being offered the #4 pick and Murry for the #7 and Marshall, and the Tribune reporting that he decided that the cagey, solid vet Marshall was just "too much to give up in that trade"

to 

Getting offered a trade for Jay Williams from GSW (offered the very next pick and 3 future firsts) and from Denver (offered I believe the Camby and the Carmelo pick [which Paxson was apparently intent on using to get Wade] for Williams, the 7) right before nimrod got involved in the "tragedy" where his own dumb self decided to play motorcycle racer in Chicago. The only thing "tragic" about that is what a complete idiot Jay Williams was

to 

Bidding against himself for Tyson Chandler. It was reported by Shuster and I believe De Falco that no one else was offering Chandler anything close to that deal, and Paxson just made an offer that he didn't have to make

to

shipping Chandler the following season right after you gave him a contract that no one else was offering

to 

signing Ben Wallace for his past and not his future

to

signing Deng to a "reward contract" that you only give a legit #2 if you JUST drafted your #1 and he still needs his #2.

and all I've seen is rationalizations for a guy it was going to get pretty ugly for if he wasn't bailed out by lottery luck in 2008. I ask, once again, where were we going exactly before we got to having to rebuild with that 2007 team if we don't get the #1 pick?


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Da Grinch said:


> that is not a good excuse .
> 
> he's paid to do a job just like his players, if rose missed a last second shot it wouldn't be an accepted excuse that he can now avoid taking them because he missed one .
> 
> he has a job to do , supposedly to the best of his ability.


Ding ding ding ding.

Ironically this boob who apparently found the bible to basketball - that managed to escape Wooden, Auerbach, Holtzman, West, Prestee, McCloskey and Popovich - somehow gets to preach ultimate accountability at every turn, and yet the excuse makers hold him to zero account. 

If I was Jerry Angelo I would be ticked off. That guy should have been run out of town a while ago, but still, he WAS run out of town. He has to be looking at Paxson like "what free pass did this guy get??"


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> that is not a good excuse .
> 
> he's paid to do a job just like his players, if rose missed a last second shot it wouldn't be an accepted excuse that he can now avoid taking them because he missed one .
> 
> he has a job to do , supposedly to the best of his ability.


I'm not saying its right at all, I just wouldn't be surprised if that was why he's never come close to taking a risk.


----------



## Fergus (Oct 2, 2002)

Interesting thread!

I am not in favor of any trade bringing Cousins from Sacremento to the Bulls. Does anyone really think he will fit on the Bulls as long as Thibodeau is our coach. Cousins already has a horrid reputation for being lazy, arrogant and having a bad attitude. He does not sound like a player the Bulls would touch, despite his talent.

Also, Hoodey is right about Paxon and the Bulls. The Bulls have missed a lot over the years. However, most teams have missed on moves as well. If we would not have lucked out with getting the 1st pick and selecting Rose, this team might really be sad.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

Fergus said:


> Interesting thread!
> 
> I am not in favor of any trade bringing Cousins from Sacremento to the Bulls. Does anyone really think he will fit on the Bulls as long as Thibodeau is our coach. Cousins already has a horrid reputation for being lazy, arrogant and having a bad attitude. He does not sound like a player the Bulls would touch, despite his talent.
> 
> Also, Hoodey is right about Paxon and the Bulls. The Bulls have missed a lot over the years. However, most teams have missed on moves as well. If we would not have lucked out with getting the 1st pick and selecting Rose, this team might really be sad.


I would disagree with your assessment of Cousins. If the Kings were willing to accept Deng for Cousins, I would do that in a heart beat. Cousins is a rare player like Bynum. Teaming him with Noah would be very ideal. Rose has been missing that 2nd offensive threat and Cousins can be that player.


----------



## BlakeJesus (Feb 1, 2006)

Deng for Cousins would be really nice, because it will also keep you in contention longer. Rose is 23 and Cousins is 21, so there would be no need to rush Rose back and your team will be a force with a high ceiling to grow. I think a setting like Chicago would be good for Cousins too, he'd be around a lot of hard working blue collar bigs who won't let him get away with slacking off (as well as being fantastic compliments on the court with him).


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

garnett said:


> I'm not saying its right at all, I just wouldn't be surprised if that was why he's never come close to taking a risk.


if for a moment that were true he should be fired immediately.

risks and risk assessment are a part of his job....if he cant gauge them it inhibits his ability to do his job well.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

Fergus said:


> Interesting thread!
> 
> I am not in favor of any trade bringing Cousins from Sacremento to the Bulls. Does anyone really think he will fit on the Bulls as long as Thibodeau is our coach. Cousins already has a horrid reputation for being lazy, arrogant and having a bad attitude. He does not sound like a player the Bulls would touch, despite his talent.
> 
> Also, Hoodey is right about Paxon and the Bulls. The Bulls have missed a lot over the years. However, most teams have missed on moves as well. If we would not have lucked out with getting the 1st pick and selecting Rose, this team might really be sad.


I think what you touch on is an embodiment of the system. John Wooden is dead. There are no Woodens, John Thompsons or Denny Crumbs out there to teach these post players how to come up and be Kareem or Ewing. They get coached by AAU or neighborhood pimps who wouldn't know the first thing about pivot footwork and then they come into a league where Stern no longer tolerates big men bullying their way in due to the problems officiating Shaq. Of course in college they end up with a guy like Calipari who is only interested in moving them on and getting the next 5-star one-and-done in there.

So I think you have to do what LA did with Bynum and bring in a former hall of fame big man who can teach the footwork aspects of post maneuvering. You have to make that commitment.

Cause at the end of the day, guys with Cousins talent who really want it and do all the right things, they just don't become available ever. If the guy wasn't potentially crazy, we'd never have a chance to get him.

It's similar to Rasheed to Detroit or Rodman to Chicago. Nobody would touch those guys, and to a far greater extent than Cousins (to be fair, although they were considered trouble to a greater extent, they also had more matured talents).

Good GMs figure out how to make those things work. Because this team needs talent. Anyone can play it safe and wait for talent to magically fall in our lap. It doesn't work.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

BlakeJesus said:


> Deng for Cousins would be really nice, because it will also keep you in contention longer. Rose is 23 and Cousins is 21, so there would be no need to rush Rose back and your team will be a force with a high ceiling to grow. I think a setting like Chicago would be good for Cousins too, he'd be around a lot of hard working blue collar bigs who won't let him get away with slacking off (as well as being fantastic compliments on the court with him).


Plus, as I'm watching Lebron draw extra defenders and hit threes, I think about picking your poison. 

It's pretty hard to crash on a driving Rose if Cousins is hanging out in front of the basket to grab a pass for an easy dunk or layup. This to me is better than a bad shot by Rose against extra defense or Rose retreating and throwing to Deng who then has no offensive break down game.


----------



## Hoodey (Jul 3, 2011)

PD said:


> I would disagree with your assessment of Cousins. If the Kings were willing to accept Deng for Cousins, I would do that in a heart beat. Cousins is a rare player like Bynum. Teaming him with Noah would be very ideal. Rose has been missing that 2nd offensive threat and Cousins can be that player.


So this is pretty easy actually. Once you have a plan and you decide what specific types of players are going to allow you to not only defend but SCORE against top teams, then you start with something like Deng for Cousins.

Not enough? How about a draft pick? How about a salary relief swap? How about the Charlotte pick in which case Sacramento would have to give us something other than just Cousins, but not something as valuable as the Charlotte pick.

You can MAKE these deals work if you want to. If you're never looking you'll never find them. I'm convinced Paxson doesn't want a legit big center like this. He likes putting forwards at center.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Hoodey said:


> I'm convinced Paxson doesn't want a legit big center like this. He likes putting forwards at center.


Why?


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Cousins is one of the most immature, lazy, and non committed NBA players i have ever seen. How many times has the coach kicked him out of practice. On a one to ten (one being best) imho his charactor rates a 2. Guys like that destroy team chemistry and there is no way that the bulls would ever trade for him and clearly not Deng who is an all star for a total head case.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

giusd said:


> Cousins is one of the most immature, lazy, and non committed NBA players i have ever seen. How many times has the coach kicked him out of practice. On a one to ten (one being best) imho his charactor rates a 2. Guys like that destroy team chemistry and there is no way that the bulls would ever trade for him and clearly not Deng who is an all star for a total head case.


I would disagree with you. Cousins can be a headache in terms of his maturity (or lack thereof). However, he is a legit PF/C with offensive skills that teams love. I am a huge Deng fan but if the Kings offered Cousins for Deng, I would take it and run away. Him and Noah would compliment each other very well. He commands double teaming, is young, and nice to have him grow along with Rose.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

giusd said:


> Cousins is one of the most immature, lazy, and non committed NBA players i have ever seen. How many times has the coach kicked him out of practice. On a one to ten (one being best) imho his charactor rates a 2. Guys like that destroy team chemistry and there is no way that the bulls would ever trade for him and clearly not Deng who is an all star for a total head case.


You're living in the past.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

Completely forgot about this thread.



Hoodey said:


> I've never viewed 20/10 as any barometer of how great you are. What percentage do those shots come on that give you the 20? I'd value Cousins more for his threat at his size. Just like Bynum I don't need him to reach 20 and 10. Elton Brand was a 20 and 10 guy. I'd rather have Bynum or Perkins over him.


His FG% is actually pretty terrible, low 40s. He has terrible shot selection (he hoists up way more than his share of perimeter shots), but that can be ironed out. Despite his bad percentages he still had a PER of almost 22 last season.



> Yeah, but they've Kiiinda proven they are pretty stupid; so you can get a profit margin in a trade with them.
> 
> When I said "Cousins plus the 5th" I didn't mean I wanted them both in one trade. I was just referencing what they have to deal. If I did want them both I'd be looking at Deng or Noah plus Charlottes pick as a realistic principle of a trade. Hardly nothing in return. Hardly nothing in return.


Deng's a mid-range jumpshooter on a bloated contract. Noah is what he is, whereas Cousins has a lot of room for improvement.



> So Noah plus the Charlotte pick (plus possibly this years first) and maybe Brewer for Cousins, the #5 and bad salary coming back wouldn't make them flinch? Noah can take a team struggling to find an identity and give them one. That Charlotte pick has big potential.


Charlotte's pick has _heavy_ protection on it until 2016. I believe it's top 14, 14, and then 12 for each year respectively. Your first round pick this year is pretty worthless.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

Rumor has it that Forman has offered Deng+29 to GS for Wright, Biedrins, and 7.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Giving up Taj hurts, but Deng for Thompson/possibly Barnes? would be a pretty nice deal. Especially since y'all could give them a year to develop while Rose is healing. That could be a pretty great core going forward if they both pan out and commit defensively like the rest of the Bulls have.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Rumor has it that Forman has offered Deng+29 to GS for Wright, Biedrins, and 7.


Deng - $13.4 million

Biedrins - $9.0 million
Wright - $4.1 million

Save us only $300k next season and still paying the tax, but it would save $14.3 million of salary in 13-14 minus whatever the #7 pick makes that season. Puts us only in ~$51.2 in guaranteed money for that season. Not really a FA player persay, but it would give us the chance at a full MLE player unless resigning Taj and Asik both are going to cost more than I might expect. Sounds like a Reinsdorf approved type move.

MMLE FA / Lucas (Rose)
Beal / Wright / Rip
Rip / Wright / Butler
Boozer / Taj
Noah / Asik / Biedrins

Doesn't sound like a bad little team. Or if you think Barnes is the better option, start Rip at SG and Barnes at the SF slot. I probably would not do this trade unless it is one of those two or TRob available.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

Ehh, I'm not sure I'd do the deal honestly. Not sure I'd like anyone at 7. I'd love the Salmons+Tyreke+5th pick for Deng+Bobcats pick a lot more.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Rhyder said:


> Deng - $13.4 million
> 
> Biedrins - $9.0 million
> Wright - $4.1 million
> ...


Beal isnt going to be around at 7, and you probably have a 50/50 shot at best of Barnes falling there as well..Lamb would be a nice pick there though, may be a reach but the guy stretches the floor and you need a long term running mate for rose at the 2


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

mvP to the Wee said:


> Ehh, I'm not sure I'd do the deal honestly. Not sure I'd like anyone at 7. I'd love the Salmons+Tyreke+5th pick for Deng+Bobcats pick a lot more.


thats because it would be highway robbery


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Adrian Wojnarowski:


> The Bulls have privately assured Luol Deng that there's "no chance" of a deal sending him to the Warriors


 league source tells Y! Twitter


----------



## Fergus (Oct 2, 2002)

This will be an interesting draft, if the Bulls pull the trigger on any of these proposed deals. If they do land the 7th pick, NBADRAFT.com has Kid-Gilchrist, Barnes and Beal all gone (the best of the SF/SG types). So the Bulls would be looking at SG/SF's like Ross and Lamb or bigs like Leonard, Henson or Zeller. 

I think it will come down to either planning for the future (salary cap)vs planning for the present (depth). I think Thibideau will be very reluctant to sign off on a trade involving one of his favorite players in Deng.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

roux2dope said:


> Beal isnt going to be around at 7, and you probably have a 50/50 shot at best of Barnes falling there as well..Lamb would be a nice pick there though, may be a reach but the guy stretches the floor and you need a long term running mate for rose at the 2


I could definitely see the draft go along the lines of.

1. NOH - Davis
2. CHA - Robinson
3. WAS - Kidd-Gilchrist
4. CLE - Barnes
5. SAC - Drummond (keep or trade)
6. POR - Lillard

Somone is going to slip out of Robinson, Beal, Kidd-Gilchrist and Barnes, and possibly two. I don't know that it will be Beal, but I doubt he is a guaranteed top 4 pick.

In any case, I'm not trading Deng for Lamb, Waiters, or Rivers. Ross has some appeal, but I doubt we make a move unless one of Beal, Barnes, or Robinson is available. My preference would be Beal.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> I could definitely see the draft go along the lines of.
> 
> 1. NOH - Davis
> 2. CHA - Robinson
> ...


Drummond has a much higher probability of falling than does Beal or Barnes.


----------



## Bogg (May 4, 2009)

Rhyder said:


> I could definitely see the draft go along the lines of.
> 
> 1. NOH - Davis
> 2. CHA - Robinson
> ...


Beal's going no lower than 3 unless Washington trades the pick for a better shooting guard, and he supposedly has a promise from Cleveland at 4. There's an outside chance that Drummond might slip, but that's it. If Golden State thought that there was a real shot at one of the top swingmen in this draft falling to them, they wouldn't be looking to deal the pick for a swingman.


----------



## Firefight (Jul 2, 2010)

I think it's safe to say the Bulls will NOT deal with GS. If the Bulls do move Deng, the primary reason would have to be salary cap relief. Of course the youth movement and getting the pick is a major part of it, but there are other teams in the top 8 that are not over the cap like GS. If the Bulls trade with GS, they would have to take back that $$, and that would have to be a driving force as to why they pull the trigger.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Bogg said:


> Beal's going no lower than 3 unless Washington trades the pick for a better shooting guard, and he supposedly has a promise from Cleveland at 4. There's an outside chance that Drummond might slip, but that's it. If Golden State thought that there was a real shot at one of the top swingmen in this draft falling to them, they wouldn't be looking to deal the pick for a swingman.


Cleveland is supposed to like Kidd Gilchrist and Beal, but their insiders did say that Barnes was on their radar as well.

I agree that Beal's chances of slipping are less than some of the other guys, but he certainly is not a lock.

Just today, Sacramento apparently said they preferred Lillard to Beal or Barnes, but who knows if it's just blowing smoke as the other guys refused to come in for a workout.

My take on the guys chances of slipping from least likely to most likely:
1. Robinson
2. Beal
3. Barnes
4. Kidd Gilchrist
5. Drummond
6. Lillard

Doesn't mean there won't be some surprises.


----------

