# Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor (Hollinger pg 9)



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

I just copied this from another board. Not sure how accurate this is but it seems reasonable.






> Quote:
> This was on the local radio in Utah, these are the base pieces of the trade not counting all the fillers and stuff:
> 
> http://www.1280thezone.com/
> ...


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

obviously if this is accurate we would have some backcourt issues.... But nothing that couldn't be fixed. I think we would be overpaying but it would certainly give us a ton of money to spend on FA in 2010. I mean we should be able to afford 2 max contracts or resign Boozer and 1 max contract (wade?) The only part I wouldn't really understand is to give up our 2010 1st.
But our roster in 2010 could look like this:
Rose, ?
Wade, Salmons
Deng, Salmons, JJ
Boozer, JJ, Gibson
Noah, Gibson, ?

If we avoid major injuries... that team competes for a title for sure. Key phrase: Avoid injuries.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

I'm just not crazy about Boozer... I know he can bang on the boards and score, I just feel like we'd be relying on Noah for for too much defensively.

I'd rather have Hinrich, T-Time and our future first, to be honest. Boozer strikes me as the kind of guy you sink a lot of money into and then wallow in mediocrity.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



Dornado said:


> I'm just not crazy about Boozer... I know he can bang on the boards and score, I just feel like we'd be relying on Noah for for too much defensively.
> 
> I'd rather have Hinrich, T-Time and our future first, to be honest. Boozer strikes me as the kind of guy you sink a lot of money into and then wallow in mediocrity.


Boozer has an expiring contract...
We could see how it works out this year and if we don't like the fit, just let him go. If we let him go than we should have enough for 2 max contracts.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Hinrich, TT, and a 1st rounder is a hell of a lot to give up for a one-year rent-a-player situation. If he goes, then we really are going nuts for 2010 free agents. Though perhaps if you have the cash for 2 big contracts you can more easily persuade people to come?

Tough call.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



jnrjr79 said:


> Hinrich, TT, and a 1st rounder is a hell of a lot to give up for a one-year rent-a-player situation.


I think it is a finance/salary cap thing. TT, Hinrich, and a first would all affect our ability to sign FA in 2010. Boozer would free up a ton of money for us. Plus Boozer really is a perfect fit for us. He just has some question marks...


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



Dornado said:


> I'm just not crazy about Boozer... I know he can bang on the boards and score, I just feel like we'd be relying on Noah for for too much defensively.


It's not a bad trade IMO, but I'm not crazy about losing Hinrich. On this Dornado's point here, I'm not terribly concerned about the fit. If anything, having Boozer around to dominate the boards will allow Noah to be a more effective defender. He can wander around and play help defense, which is what he's REALLY good at. His rebounding average will go down, but effectiveness will go up.

The thing I can't get past is the injury stuff. If I can get some assurance that he plays 70 games a season, I will be much more in favor. I'm a fan of the healthy Boozer.


----------



## ATONYTOWN (Jul 25, 2004)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

why give up Gordon if you are gonna trade Kirk? Who's in charge of this train? I'm starting to get worried about the leadership.


----------



## KGBULLS06 (May 24, 2006)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

I like the deal, Boozer is a low post presence we havent had since Elton Brand and if it doesnt work out then it will open up more $ for next year. Tyrus is out of control most of the time, but has great defensive ability that we will miss. Hinrich is an overpayed backup point gaurd, he will be good for Portland. I think Portland will include either Blake or Outlaw. I would take Blake, just for extra PG help as Pargo is not a true pg. So I bet the Bulls get Boozer and Outlaw/Blake for Tyrus, Hinrich, 1 round pick. We have been living by the draft for years now, we need to dump the draft and get veterans.

Rose PG Blake
Salmons SG Pargo
Deng SF Johnson
Boozer PF Tim Thomas 
Noah C Miller 

Source: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4317515


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Come on everyone we are not trading KH to Portland and Portland gives away nothing. Portland would have to include another player who plays SG to make this trade work. Just saying no one gets a player for nothing.

david


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



> I'd rather have Hinrich, T-Time and our future first, to be honest.


Suck.

If we do go and trade for Boozer it will most likely be a rent a player type deal that in the long term gives us a TON of cap space to give to Bosh or Amare, heck even taking a huge risk like this is better than sitting on a guy like Tyrus who will never be anything more than serviceable. 

Also if we trade Hinrich it will just boggle my mind as to why the Bulls dint draft a SG with our second pick, Portland and Chicago have been trying to work on deal for a long time and to not draft a backup just to draft another pet project 4 boggles my mind.


----------



## Ragingbull33 (Apr 10, 2005)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

awful deal...


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



Ragingbull33 said:


> awful deal...


For whom?


----------



## Kidd (Jul 2, 2009)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Not a bad deal. Kirk Hinrich's contract was an albatross and this gives them a legitimate post-player which they badly need. Worst case scenario, the Boozer experiment fails and he expires next season leaving them with a ton of cap space.

Portland also gets the PG they've been looking for and Jazz gets to re-sign Millsap who they prefer over Boozer.

Win, Win, Win.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



briaN37 said:


> Not a bad deal. Kirk Hinrich's contract was an albatross and this gives them a legitimate post-player which they badly need. Worst case scenario, the Boozer experiment fails and he expires next season leaving them with a ton of cap space.
> 
> Portland also gets the PG they've been looking for and Jazz gets to re-sign Millsap who they prefer over Boozer.
> 
> Win, Win, Win.


And Tyrus becomes the Jazz's bust WIN!


----------



## Ragingbull33 (Apr 10, 2005)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



thebizkit69u said:


> For whom?


For the bulls...


----------



## Ragingbull33 (Apr 10, 2005)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



thebizkit69u said:


> Suck.
> 
> If we do go and trade for Boozer it will most likely be a rent a player type deal that in the long term gives us a TON of cap space to give to Bosh or Amare, heck even taking a huge risk like this is better than sitting on a guy like Tyrus who will never be anything more than serviceable.
> 
> Also if we trade Hinrich it will just boggle my mind as to why the Bulls dint draft a SG with our second pick, Portland and Chicago have been trying to work on deal for a long time and to not draft a backup just to draft another pet project 4 boggles my mind.


Dwayne Wade?! cross your fingers!!!


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



Ragingbull33 said:


> For the bulls...


How is trading a slightly above average combo guard in Hinrich and combo 3/4 bust for a legit allstar caliber 4 a bad move?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



briaN37 said:


> Not a bad deal. Kirk Hinrich's contract was an albatross and this gives them a legitimate post-player which they badly need. Worst case scenario, the Boozer experiment fails and he expires next season leaving them with a ton of cap space.
> 
> Portland also gets the PG they've been looking for and Jazz gets to re-sign Millsap who they prefer over Boozer.
> 
> Win, Win, Win.



Hinrich's declining contract is far, far from an albatross. Deng's looks like it fits that bill, however.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



thebizkit69u said:


> Also if we trade Hinrich it will just boggle my mind as to why the Bulls dint draft a SG with our second pick, Portland and Chicago have been trying to work on deal for a long time and to not draft a backup just to draft another pet project 4 boggles my mind.


Yeah, I can't understand the logic either behind our second pick. Especially now that we decide not to resign Gordon (which I'm fine with) and apparently serious about trading Hinrich (not surprised he's being shopped around). Pargo is a 4th guard who play 15-18 minutes max.

If this deal does happen, I assume Blake to be included. But I still don't like a 1 and 2 backup lineup of Blake and Pargo. We're seriously going to get killed defensively. Especially with Tyrus gone and the fact that Boozer doesn't play a lick of defense.

Offensively, assuming Boozer stays healthy, we might see one of the best offense we've seen played by the Bulls in awhile. I see Noah's, Miller's and JJ's passing ability to benefit Boozer (of course Derrick Rose will play a big part too). Too bad we don't have enough three point shooters to make it even more lethal. With Hinrich leaving, we basically only have Pargo as a guy who can be counted on knocking down treys.

Sooner or later Hinrich will be gone, it's just a matter or when (his contract is too big for a backup and the urgent need for us to acquire a big man). The same goes with Thomas, his trade value will only get higher next season and it's the perfect time for us to package him in a deal for that big man we've been looking for. So, if we pull this deal, I still think it's a step toward the right direction. The problem I'm having with this deal is... "Is Boozer really that guy?" Boozer is really not my no.1 guy because of his injury history and poor defensive ability. Plus, how is this trade going to affect our ability to attract premier players this coming free agency? We have the cap space. cool. But, what if Boozer, a high risk high reward player, turns into a disaster and our season is lost. Would it possible for such thing to ruin the value or attractiveness of our team in the eyes of 2010 FAs? just a thought I'm having.

I can't really say this possible move is a bad thing. Because we do need a low post scorer badly. But, if it does happen I'm just going to give trade a 'B-' if we end up with Boozer and Outlaw. a 'B' if we can get a solid backup guard like Blake instead of Outlaw. I don't think it's necessary to waste 1st round picks. Especially since next year crops suppose to feature solid big man prospects.


----------



## Kidd (Jul 2, 2009)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



jnrjr79 said:


> Hinrich's declining contract is far, far from an albatross. Deng's looks like it fits that bill, however.


How many years left? I was under the impression it was 3+ years.

I haven't given up on Deng yet.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



briaN37 said:


> How many years left? I was under the impression it was 3+ years.


3 years:

9.5 million, 9 million, and 8 million, respectively. Hardly an enormous deal, in the scheme of things.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Sam Smith pooh-poohs the idea of Boozer. He's never been in favor if you read him, but he specifically says he is informed nothing is going on.



> This is the up to date one I have heard from 1280/the Zone (Utah radio). The rumor is…
> 
> Chicago - Outlaw/Boozer
> Portland - Hinrich
> ...



http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/asksam_090710.html


----------



## Ragingbull33 (Apr 10, 2005)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

How is Thomas a bust? He just started developing into a pretty nice player Oden is a bust, thomas was never set to be an all star.

Boozer is forever hurt and a shady individual.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

This story is now being reported by Marc Stein and Chad Ford at espn.com: http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4317515&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines

I have mixed feelings on this one. I like the boldness, but I'm not sure I like the deal, especially if all we get is Boozer. Even without the first round pick (which ESPN doesn't mention), I'm not sure I like it. Hinrich was somewhat overpaid, but as others have mentioned, he was more overpaid at the beginning of his deal than at the end. And trading him would leave a huge hole in the backcourt. Hinrich is a luxury -- a backup guard who can start capably at either spot. If we trade him and don't get a guy in return, it's going to be ugly when Rose or Salmons get injured and miss a game (or more)! Maybe we get Rudy Fernandez included in the deal, as I proposed in a thread last week.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



Nater said:


> Hinrich is a luxury -- a backup guard who can start capably at either spot. If we trade him and don't get a guy in return, it's going to be ugly when Rose or Salmons get injured and miss a game (or more)! Maybe we get Rudy Fernandez included in the deal, as I proposed in a thread last week.


I don't mind Rudy at all. He's still developing but can contribute right away. But I doubt the Blazers is letting him go. They've been wanting to trade Outlaw for awhile. And Turk going to Raptors means Rudy is staying. Although I can see either Blake or Bayless coming. Bayless is an undersized combo guard. Despite his potential, I have a hard time thinking how he would fit with Rose long term.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Losing Hinrich in this deal will hurt us, but it covers a need. We need a low post player like Boozer. Just think about the pick and rolls with Rose and Boozer? 

I would rather Hinrich not be included in this trade and trade him at deadline. We shall see if the rumor has merit. Some media is saying its not true. Some say it is being discussed. One version included Salmons, not TT in the deal. About 50% say it is being discussed.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



Dornado said:


> I'm just not crazy about Boozer... I know he can bang on the boards and score, I just feel like we'd be relying on Noah for for too much defensively.
> 
> I'd rather have Hinrich, T-Time and our future first, to be honest. Boozer strikes me as the kind of guy you sink a lot of money into and then wallow in mediocrity.


That's exactly right. This trade would be horrific, and just a pure salary dump, but it'd wouldn't appear to be at first. Either scenario....just horrific.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Losing Hinrich would kill the team in all honesty. He would be getting key minutes at both the 1 and the 2, and he's our only defender at either position as well. Well, Salmons isn't bad, but come on Rose is terrible. 

Given the injuries and character of Boozer, along with no D, he's one of the last players in the entire NBA I'd want. I put him right up there with Benedict Wallace. And this deal right up there with the (essentially a trade) of Chandler for Wallace as a retarded blunder. 

This trade, either one, would merely shift the hole from the front court to the back court. The idea is to get better, not just make a strength a weakness in order to SOMEWHAT improve the pre-existing weakness. This would be a lateral move at best, and IMO we'd be going backwards big time in this scenario where all we get is freaking Boozer and yet another F, and giving up a great defender and versatile player in Hinrich, and one of the elite shot blockers in the NBA in Tyrus. Disgusting rumor, and that's all it'd better be, is a stupid rumor.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



DaBabyBullz said:


> Losing Hinrich would kill the team in all honesty. He would be getting key minutes at both the 1 and the 2, and he's our only defender at either position as well. Well, Salmons isn't bad, but come on Rose is terrible.
> 
> Given the injuries and character of Boozer, along with no D, he's one of the last players in the entire NBA I'd want. I put him right up there with Benedict Wallace. And this deal right up there with the (essentially a trade) of Chandler for Wallace as a retarded blunder.
> 
> This trade, either one, would merely shift the hole from the front court to the back court. The idea is to get better, not just make a strength a weakness in order to SOMEWHAT improve the pre-existing weakness. This would be a lateral move at best, and IMO we'd be going backwards big time in this scenario where all we get is freaking Boozer and yet another F, and giving up a great defender and versatile player in Hinrich, and one of the elite shot blockers in the NBA in Tyrus. Disgusting rumor, and that's all it'd better be, is a stupid rumor.


You are crazy if you think losing Hinrich and TT and adding Boozer would make us *worse*. How does losing a backup guard and a far below average starting pf, for a starting all star/olympic caliber player at our biggest weakness make us worse?! Please explain...
Regardless of whether or not you like Boozer and even considering your love affair for Hinrich, you have got to realize that not having to play TT and losing Hinrich for a 20 and 10, efficient power forward, would make us better. No?
I like Hinrich alot, and believe he is a valuable player... but we got D Rose starting and we are going to try and get a legitamate 2g next year in FA. That leaves... what 15-20 minutes max a night for 9 mil? Doesn't make a lot of sense. Especially if Salmons doesnt opt out, because than salmons would be getting all the backup 2g minutes and that would leave Hinrich to backup Rose... I don't know about you but I would hate to be in the position where our backup guards are making a combined 15 mil a season. Anyway you slice this it would be a great move for the Bulls both long and short-term. We get to dump 2 fairly big contracts and add an expiring. Plus the expiring (Boozer) gives us a better player and fills our biggest weakness. Right before the offseason where we need the most cap space. 

Which team would you rather have come 2010-11? (best case scenarios)

Rose, Hinrich
Salmons, Hinrich
Deng, JJ
Bosh/Boozer/Amare, TT, JJ, Gibson
Noah, Gibson, Bosh/Boozer/Amare 
+ 2010 mid 1st round pick

or...

Rose, ?
Wade, Salmons
Deng, Salmons
Bosh/Boozer/Amare, JJ, Gibson
Noah, Gibson, Bosh/Boozer/Amare


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Sportscenter just reported that Kevin Pritchard is telling people that this deal is not going to happen right now.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4319607
updated info says the bulls are demanding Bayless as well.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



caseyrh said:


> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4319607
> updated info says the bulls are demanding Bayless as well.


- Webster: I want no part of him (mainly because of him being under long term contract for 5 mil/year)
- Outlaw: Lateral move that doesn't address our need to fill the big hole left by Hinrich
- Bayless: I have mixed feelings about him. A talented player but I think his style of play is too similar to Rose.
- Blake: Good solid backup for Rose, but our backcourt remain depleted.

I wished we're able to snatch Anthony Parker when he was still available. He would be the perfect player to come off the bench for us.

Anyway, I agree to those who said that losing Hinrich would be tough. Our guards rotation have been our strength last year. Although losing Gordon to me isn't a big deal, losing both would significantly affect our ability to compete.

We don't have to pull off the Boozer deal now. I think we have time to explore other trade opportunities including Hinrich, Thomas, Deng and our expiring contracts.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



caseyrh said:


> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4319607
> updated info says the bulls are demanding Bayless as well.


If this is the deal breaker then the Bulls are just retarded. 

Carlos Boozer is better than Thomas and Hinrich COMBINED!


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Carlos Boozer is a glorified Drew Gooden... let's get a guy that has some length and upside defensively.


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



caseyrh said:


> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4319607
> updated info says the bulls are demanding Bayless as well.



I like Bayless a lot


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



Dornado said:


> Carlos Boozer is a glorified Drew Gooden... let's get a guy that has some length and upside defensively.


Like who?

Who are these great defensive long 4's that people always dream about?

Chandler? Camby? Dalembert?

Trust me if we get one of these upside defensive guys your just going to have the same people wanting upside offensive guys. 

Boozer IMO gives you a better chance for success than any of those names mentioned.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



thebizkit69u said:


> If this is the deal breaker then the Bulls are just retarded.
> 
> Carlos Boozer is better than Thomas and Hinrich COMBINED!


On the contrary, PORTLAND is being retarded because they over value their players worse than the Bulls overvalued Gordon/Deng/Hinrich for those couple years.

If Bayless is so "meh", then why are they being so stringent on not trading him? I've also heard similar reports that Portland does not want to trade him. It's pretty dumb because he is not a good fit for them as constructed. They are doing the "untouchable" BS with Rudy Fernandez too. They are convinced these guys are stars for some reason.

Bulls are looking for someone to replace Hinrich in this scenario, as a backup combo-guard. I have no problem with that being a hold up. A guard corp of only Rose, Salmons, and Pargo is frighteningly thin. Especially with Salmons being more of a 2/3.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



thebizkit69u said:


> Like who?
> 
> Who are these great defensive long 4's that people always dream about?
> 
> ...


I didn't necessarily mean someone who was already a great defender, but a guy like Bosh at least has the length/skill set to develop into a serviceable one.

Boozer just seems a bit limited... I'm not saying the guy has no value, I just don't know if his 20 and 10 translates into wins when you consider his entire game.


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Looks like this will be decided in the next 7 days now that Milsap has an offer sheet from Portland


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



Dornado said:


> I didn't necessarily mean someone who was already a great defender, but a guy like Bosh at least has the length/skill set to develop into a serviceable one.
> 
> Boozer just seems a bit limited... I'm not saying the guy has no value, I just don't know if his 20 and 10 translates into wins when you consider his entire game.


Well Bosh is a better offensive and defensive player period.

Boozer's game translates closer to winning games than Thomas period.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



thebizkit69u said:


> Well Bosh is a better offensive and defensive player period.
> 
> Boozer's game translates closer to winning games than Thomas period.


My problem is not with giving up Thomas. I'm almost 100% sure Thomas will be gone in a trade before the deadline and I expect the Bulls to try raise his value and shop him hard. I just hope that trade brings us back Bosh. Boozer and Amare are sort of my 2a, 2b options. But for Tyrus Thomas, I'd definitely do it in a heartbeat.

my problem is what's the point of trading for Boozer if that means we're going to have a new BIG hole in our backcourt? We wouldn't get much better. I think we can afford to be patient in trying to make a move at Bosh. Or if we want Boozer, we'll have another chance to acquire him next year during the off-season. Next season, Kirk can probably packaged in a S&T for either Dwyane Wade or Joe Johnson if in case they decide to change team and their teams don't want to lose them for nothing.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Don't understand Portland's viewpoint. They would be getting a starting point guard for their team and be giving up Bayless, a guy that hardly played for them and wanted to be traded anyway. I guess they _are_ over valuing their players...


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



dsouljah9 said:


> Don't understand Portland's viewpoint. They would be getting a starting point guard for their team and be giving up Bayless, a guy that hardly played for them and wanted to be traded anyway. I guess they _are_ over valuing their players...


portland would be sacrificing their 8 or so mil in cap room.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



caseyrh said:


> portland would be sacrificing their 8 or so mil in cap room.


Well, they made an offer to Millsap(apparently) and both Roy and Aldridge are up for extensions, so either way, they will lose that cap space. I think they want to dump Outlaw on us anyway...


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



caseyrh said:


> You are crazy if you think losing Hinrich and TT and adding Boozer would make us *worse*. How does losing a backup guard and a far below average starting pf, for a starting all star/olympic caliber player at our biggest weakness make us worse?! Please explain...


Well, lets see here. It's not that simple, and you should know that. For starters, we lost our leading scorer. Even though I wanted him gone, that was partially so we could keep the superior all-around player in Hinrich. Now if you lose Hinrich, you have exactly TWO guards on the roster really worth mentioning for significant minutes. Rose who plays no D, and Salmons. That would suck. Then, you took away the only perimeter defender, AND our best shot blocker (one of the league's best) and replaced that with nothing (Pargo?) and The Lush, who plays no D. Like that article said, his own college coach didn't even play the scrub in the olympics. I watched the olympics, so I know he didn't play much. So gaining an undersized PF that plays no D, losing our only G capable of playing D, losing our best shooter and losing our best shot blocker does indeed make the team worse. You are giving up 40-50 points a game (3 combined), good D (Hinrich) and shot blocking (Tyrus), and getting a 17-10 player. Yiptee freaking doo.



> Regardless of whether or not you like Boozer and even considering your love affair for Hinrich, you have got to realize that not having to play TT and losing Hinrich for a 20 and 10, efficient power forward, would make us better. No?


Nope, I don't. He's also not a 20/10 guy. He's a 16.8 and 10 guy with no D. Lets not exaggerate. Giving up a (career) 14 points/6 assists guy with great D. So a net of minus ~3 points, but the D makes up for it. Now, add in the whole plus/minus from last year's team (minus Gordon and Tyrus as well in this scenario) and yes, much worse unless the returning players pick it up.



> I like Hinrich alot, and believe he is a valuable player... but we got D Rose starting and we are going to try and get a legitamate 2g next year in FA. That leaves... what 15-20 minutes max a night for 9 mil? Doesn't make a lot of sense. Especially if Salmons doesnt opt out, because than salmons would be getting all the backup 2g minutes and that would leave Hinrich to backup Rose... I don't know about you but I would hate to be in the position where our backup guards are making a combined 15 mil a season. Anyway you slice this it would be a great move for the Bulls both long and short-term. We get to dump 2 fairly big contracts and add an expiring. Plus the expiring (Boozer) gives us a better player and fills our biggest weakness. Right before the offseason where we need the most cap space.


IF/when the Bulls get a legit SG, lets assume Salmons and Pargo are both gone. That leaves 96 minutes at the guards. Assume Rose and Joe Johnson (Wade doesn't pair up well IMO) each play 35. That's leaving 26 minutes a game for Hinrich. He could play well with either, and if the Bulls are competing for titles, Reinsdorff should be willing to pay a little luxury tax. The D and shooting off the bench is worth a lot IMO. Boozer isn't better either. He's also missed 125 games in 3 seasons, so that shows he's either very fragile or not very tough. 2 good years in between those injury years, but the rest were pretty mediocre. He's a one-time all-star, not a perrenial all-star too. 

Also, take a minute to compare his stats with Tyrus's stats at the same age (this year for Tyrus and '04 for the Lush) on a pace adjusted per 40 basis to even the playing field:

Points per game: Tyrus 15.3, Lush 17.9
Rebounds per game: Tyrus 9, Lush 13.2
Blocks: Tyrus 2.7, Lush .8 (and this guy's a freaking all-star post?)
Steals: Tyrus 1.6, Lush 1.1
FG%: Tyrus 45.1%, Lush 52.3%
FT%: Tyrus 78.3% on 5.4 attempts, Lush 76.8% on 4.4 attempts

So there isn't that much difference in the 2 value-wise at that point in their careers. Tyrus scores 2 less points, but erases 4 more a game with the blocks. Less rebounds, but better steals. More FT attempts (which is what people always say we need) and a better percentage shooting them. Like I said before, give me Tyrus and Kirk over the Lush anyday.



> Which team would you rather have come 2010-11? (best case scenarios)
> 
> Rose, Hinrich
> Salmons, Hinrich
> ...


Your little scenario is bogus. I'd get rid of Deng's worthless butt and roll with this scenario instead, if we're going into lala land with 2 max FAs in '10:

Rose/Kirk
Joe Johnson/Kirk
James Johnson/Salmons (only for a year)
Tyrus/Noah/Gibson
Amare/Noah

That gives us 2 more ball handles in the 2 Johnsons, both with very good size for the position, 2 athletic bigs that can block and finish at the rim. And Rose to make it fire on all cylinders. You got Noah backing up both post positions, and Kirk/Salmons backing up the backcourt. That's a championship caliber Top 8 to me. In your scenario you have 2 smaller guards that are the same basic player in Wade/Rose. They both dominate the ball, are smaller and Wade has too many injuries and if they ever start calling him for fouls he wouldn't be dominant at all.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



> One source close to the process on Friday identified two main obstacles to the aforementioned three-way deal. Concerned about the quality of its backcourt rotation if it has to surrender Hinrich with Thomas after losing Ben Gordon in free agency, Chicago would insist that the Blazers surrender young guard Jerryd Bayless, which Portland is reluctant to do.
> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4319607


Echoes exactly what I've been saying all along. But I also think that losing Tyrus and gaining Boozer isn't that much of a net positive in the long run. Tyrus is healthier, younger, better defender, better FT shooter, more upside. Boozer scores and rebounds more and is more established, but also has injury concerns, serious character flaws, no defensive presence in the post whatsoever, etc etc. If we have to deplete our backcourt to add Boozer's worthless butt, it's simply not worth it. 

As for Bayless, I have mixed feelings. I think he'd struggle defensively, and his shooting was piss poor this year 36 and 25%. I did like him in college though. If we got him back it'd make the trade more easy to stomach, but I'd still feel sick with Boozer on the team rather than TT and Kirk. That would leave exactly one player worth watching on the entire team that I like, Rose.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

I think the deal to do is sub Webster in for Bayless 

We get ourselves a big G/F shooter and a guy that _could_ be a long term fit

So Portland gives us Webster and Blake and Utah gives us Boozer 

Portland take Hinrich and shed an average of $4.8M for the next 3 years in what they are committed to with Webster so they can accommodate Hinrcih at an average of $8M. The salary diffs mean they only absorb at an extra say $3M in salary per year to get the guy they think is the best fit for Roy.

Utah get TyTom and TimTom

I don't buy the whole we have no guard depth argument if we do this trade . You have free agent choices for guys like Trent Hassell, Matt Barnes, Keith Bogans and maybe even Devean George who you could bring in for the minimum on a 1 year deal - and aside from Bogans , the rest of the guys would add starch to our perimter defense 

The insistence on Bayless is puzzling as I would still play Pargo ahead of him if we want to be a serious competitive team ..notwithstanding that Bayless is a young athlete etc etc. Pargo, IMO , gives us what we would seek in Bayless just a less athletic but smarter vet who knows how to make plays and has serious playoff experience 

I still say the better deal to do would be to swing Salmons for Raja Bell 

Why ?

Effectively , Webster would be taking Salmons salary slot and if we retained Boozer , we would have the cap room to make a play for either Dwayne Wade or Joe Johnson to make the shooting guard our first positional priority . We would also have the lever of Bosh over Boozer if Boozer starts looking shaky..even though I believe that Boozer is actually a better fit for us . 

My preferences , in terms of fits to play with Rose , are Boozer and Joe Johnson instead of Bosh and Wade


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



DaBabyBullz said:


> Well, lets see here. It's not that simple, and you should know that. For starters, we lost our leading scorer. Even though I wanted him gone, that was partially so we could keep the superior all-around player in Hinrich.


Its debatable whether or not Hinrich's all around skills offset Gordon's VAST offensive advantage...



> Now if you lose Hinrich, you have exactly TWO guards on the roster really worth mentioning for significant minutes. *Rose who plays no D,* and Salmons.


Rose was a rookie. His D will improve. Moreover, Rose's lackluster D is not going to cause Hinrichs minutes to suddenly go up, since he's so much better than Hinrich in virtually EVERY other area (except 3 pt shooting, for now), so Hinrich isn't going to be suddenly be inserted back into the starting lineup, and he likely WONT get 30 minutes per game here. The fact is, that if he's getting LESS THAN 30MPG, he's being VASTLY overpaid on this team. He isn't eating into Rose's minutes, he isn't going to challenge Salmons for the starting 2 guard spot. So he's a 25 minute a night guy. At 9 million per, even WITH his favorable contract, that's too much for a non starter. Now I'm not suggesting that he doesn't have value. He has GREAT value: As a starter, or a 30 minute per night 6th man. But even with our lack of depth in the backcourt, I have doubts about him getting that time of burn here.



> That would suck. Then, you took away the only perimeter defender, AND our best shot blocker (one of the league's best) and replaced that with nothing (Pargo?) and The Lush, who plays no D.


Pargo is not Hinrichs replacement, so you can stop there. Rose is, and has been since the moment he was drafted. So in essence, Hinrich was replaced LAST SEASON. There's a reason he's in all these trade rumors. Its because he's getting traded. ANd NOT for Joe Johnson or Dwayne Wade.

And no matter how little D Boozer plays (and in man to man situations, he's not worse than Tyrus), he's INFINITELY BETTER on the offensive end. I cannot overstate how much better he is compared to tyrus in the half court offensive sets.



> Like that article said, his own college coach didn't even play the *scrub* in the olympics.


Hyperbole doesn't help your case. If boozer is a scrub, what does that make Tyrus, or Hinrich? He's better than each of them individually.



> So there isn't that much difference in the 2 value-wise at that point in their careers. Tyrus scores 2 less points, but erases 4 more a game with the blocks.


No he doesn't, since he STILL hasn't learned how to block the ball to his teammates and instead sends it out of bounds. The opposing team on MOST possesions, RETAINS possesion, so his block ends up being tantamount to a deflected pass where it goes out of bounds and they get it back. But it looks pretty though, and so it is OVERINFLATED by people like you on these boards. Just like Jamal Crawford and his SIKKKKK crawsover was all those years ago.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> I think the deal to do is sub Webster in for Bayless
> 
> We get ourselves a big G/F shooter and a guy that _could_ be a long term fit
> 
> ...


:10: Great post.....


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

And also ..bring LIndsay Hunter back as a Coach and let Steve Blake play in a back up PG role . This would allow Pargo to play the spark plug role. You'd have Raja Bell at the 2 ( if you could do the Salmons deal )that would starch us better defensively at the 2 ( as well as giving us a long range bomber ) and you have Webster in a swing G/F role 

I would be more than satisfied with a guard rotation of 

*

Rose
Bell
Pargo
Blake
Webster


*

If it enabled us to give us what we need in Boozer ( genuine inside scoring ) and also put us in the box seat next summer for two "full boat" ( dare I use that phrase ? ) free agents at the shooting guard and power forward

*

Noah
Boozer
Deng
Joe Johnson
Rose

bench

Gibson
James Johnson
Webster
2010 Draft pick
Vet minimum additions

*


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> And also ..bring LIndsay Hunter back as a Coach and get a vet point between Anthony Carter, Jason Hart, Brevin Knight or Kevin Ollie . This would allow Pargo to play the spark plug role. You'd have Raja Bell at the 2 ( if you could do the Salmons deal )that would starch us better defensively at the 2 ( as well as giving us a long range bomber ) and you have Webster in a swing G/F role
> 
> I would be more than satisfied with a guard rotation of
> 
> ...


:10: Good Post.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

I should add that if Webster is healthy, I prefer him to Bayless as well.....


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Y'know .... the hypothetical of Salmons for Raja Bell would mean that the guy to bring in at the minimum to steel the wing defense would be Matt Barnes

The Phoenix connection - Vinny etc

Nothing wrong with Salmons . I love him. But Raja Bell gives us a more genuine 2 and a better defender at that position although he can't create his own like Salmons. Plus , we get even greater salary flexibility for next year


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

This organisation too , in its choices , is all about defense first

This is what led to the abortion of the signing that was Ben Wallace

This is what had its impacts into weighing up Pau Gasol

This is what killed Dan Tony

This is why we lost Ben because Kurt was preferenced

And this is probably the biggest burr in the saddle as to why we would give up the great Kurt Hinrich when we would be supposedly making ourselves weaker defensively notwithstanding our turnstile defense on the perimter for the last 2 seasons that the great Kurt Hinrich has supposed to have been a leader of 

But like I have suggested above ...what's wrong with identifying other precise target fits like Raja Bell that also fits our salary structuring strategy ..and ...adding short timer vet help to steel up the perimeter in role playing defensive wingmen like Barnes, Hassell or George ?

There are only problems in a singular dimension and solutions in the multiple dimension


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

The defense first obsession is also why we took Taj Gibson when even if you had questions over Wayne Ellington's defense , and you knew you were going to lose Ben Gordon for zip , then why in the sweet name of Jesus , did you not make a play for Toney Douglas ? ( who reminds me of a slightly smaller but outwardly more tenancious Eric Gordon )

He's a guy that can score in bunches and guard the perimeter ?

Too simple ?

Did Taj's agent mail those photos of Gar , the dwarf and the Shetland Pony to Gar with the threat that would be sent to Mrs Gar ?

Answers are needed


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



> my problem is what's the point of trading for Boozer if that means we're going to have a new BIG hole in our backcourt? We wouldn't get much better. I think we can afford to be patient in trying to make a move at Bosh. Or if we want Boozer, we'll have another chance to acquire him next year during the off-season. Next season, Kirk can probably packaged in a S&T for either Dwyane Wade or Joe Johnson if in case they decide to change team and their teams don't want to lose them for nothing.


I get what your saying when talking about a looming hole at the 2/1 if Kirk is traded but thats something that should be blamed on the Bulls, they had the opportunity to draft a decent SG in this year's draft, they dint.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

I think I should add that I'm not in favor of this trade AT ALL, since it doesn't make the Bulls better in the all-importatnt "overall rating" on NBA2k9.:wtf:


----------



## Lets_Play_2 (Jan 22, 2004)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Take a look at this proposed 3 way trade differently....

Who "wins"/"loses" if no 3 way trade occurs between the Jazz, Blazers, & Bulls? And instead, you have a "food fight" between the Jazz/Blazers over RFA Paul Millsap?

Answer: The Bulls.

Blazers: If they win the "food fight", it's unlikely the Jazz will look forward to dealing with the Blazers. Also, they just spent most, if not all of their available cap space for a while, and they still have a serious hole at PG.

Jazz: If they win the "food fight", the Jazz are probably in Luxury Tax "hell", and to get out/stay out of it, they have to find a way to move Boozer under pretty depressed market circumstances. And realistically, they're not going to get a whole lot better as an overall result.

Bulls: Basically, they get to be bystanders, and see who wants to give them the best deals. The Bulls have expiring contracts, talent, and skilled position players who would fill needs for both the Jazz and the Blazers.

Bulls don't have to do anything except kick back and listen to the offers, which will probably become increasing favorable to the Bulls over the next week.

The real question is going to be what the Bulls really think of Carlos Boozer. Sam Smith, whatever you may think of him, made some critically serious comments in that Carlos Boozer has a "Contract History" which makes the Bulls fairly leery of him, and they are going to want some hard core reassurances put in place to protect the interests of the Chicago Bulls, as they should.

Because if Boozer is going to be nothing more than a one year rental, and an injury prone one at that, you don't give up a whole lot of talent in exchange. That's just common sense - particularly when the single year 'rental' is at $12.7 mil per. That would be making a "surrender" [:whiteflag:] trade for the Bulls, when they don't have to.


----------



## cohenri (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

With all due respect to the Hinrich and Tyrus apologists, this trade is truly a no-brainer. Once the Bulls failed to sign Gordon, any flicker of a possibility of contending in 09/10 was gone. Most will argue that it would not have been around regardless, but that discussion is for another thread. So, if the Bulls are not contending, it is best to build a team around Rose that has a chance at contending. Hinrich will not be on that team. His shot is too poor to be a shooting guard and he is too young and too talented and (currently) makes too much money to be a backup guard. Tyrus has been a horrible flop with the Bulls and is clearly out of favor with Bulls management and the coaching staff. It is clear that he does not have a long term future with this team. Perhaps another coach or different teammates can tap the potential that the Tyrus apologists see from time to time. Therefore, giving up two guys without a future on the team for an all-star PF makes a lot of sense. He is on an expiring contract so the Bulls can see how he fits with Rose with no long term concerns. If he is a fit, the Bulls will have the best chance to sign him as they will be able to offer more money than anyone else. Plus, hopefully the guy will like Chicago and will like his teammates. If he is not a fit, he could be nice trade bait mid-season to either a contender needing one more piece or a team needing an expiring contract for 2010. OR, the Bulls can just let him expire and have his cap space for a 2010 free agent. The future of this team could be Rose, FA, Deng, Boozer, Noah. Or it could be Rose, FA, Deng, FA, Noah. Both of those options are much better and more easily attained after doing this deal. Get it done GAR/PAX.

By the way,if the deal is being held up because of Bayless and it doesn't get done, it will be another case of shortsightedness and idiocy of this team. Sure, it would be great if they could pick someone like Bayless up as a sweetener to the deal. BUT, if the Pistons or Heat get Boozer because we insisted on Bayless, it will just be another missed opportunity to be added to the long list of failings since #23 walked out the door.


----------



## KwaZulu (Jul 7, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

First off, some very good observations "Lets_Play_2". Especially the part about guarrantees needing to be given by the Boozer camp given Boozer's past history. Giving up KH and TT for a one year rental of Boozer is way too much.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Good post Lets Play 2 

The reality is is that even if Boozer is a 1 year rental I gtee that being in a contract year Boozer will be healthy and playing his butt off to compete in a competitive free agent class next summer where he will struggle being in the top 5 sought 

Boozer's history will count against him so if the addition of Boozer gets us to the 2nd round and possibly to the Conference Finals with well balanced fits in this team ...and ...if we also have the chance to add a top gun guard .... my tip is we'll have every chance of retaining him

Even if we kept Tyrus and Kirk ... and we had the chance at two full boat free agents next summer we'd have to renounce Tyrus and have Kirk traded for zip

So doing it now , and having a fully motivated Boozer who will be giving it his all in a contract year and where he has a chance to get his money in a depressed economic environment long term with good fits all around him in Rose, Noah and Deng ( and hopefully a top flight 2 ) and , being in a major market , well he would have to be a complete and utter a$$ wipe to kick this gift horse in the mouth 

But Boozer _is_ Boozer 

Bottom line is the whole losing Kirk and Tyrus for nothing is bogus if you can be the shiz this season without them and add/improve a 2nd marquee stud next summer 

The thing really holding this up is that Bulls brass may be concerned about how a trade like this is perceived by Bosh if they are still carrying around a chubby for him....but hey ...bird in the hand is worth two in the bush

And , with Bargnani and the Turkish delight alongside him and with Calderon running the show and Derozan being drafted /groomed at the future stud wingman ....then with a commitment to signing some inside muscle with the types of ex Raptor Rasho Nesterovic etc ....then the Raps are clearly doing whatever is necesasry to win now 

The end result : Holding your cherry for Bosh is a waste. 

You may as well go out and pop it on a skank like Boozer


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

I call Boozer a skank because he can give you good things but invariably I think he makes you feel cheap and dirty


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



The Krakken said:


> Its debatable whether or not Hinrich's all around skills offset Gordon's VAST offensive advantage...


Yes it is. We both know where the other stands, so futile to discuss it.



> Rose was a rookie. His D will improve.


It had better. Gordon's sure as hell never did. 



> Moreover, Rose's lackluster D is not going to cause Hinrichs minutes to suddenly go up, since he's so much better than Hinrich in virtually EVERY other area (except 3 pt shooting, for now), so Hinrich isn't going to be suddenly be inserted back into the starting lineup, and he likely WONT get 30 minutes per game here. The fact is, that if he's getting LESS THAN 30MPG, he's being VASTLY overpaid on this team. He isn't eating into Rose's minutes, he isn't going to challenge Salmons for the starting 2 guard spot. So he's a 25 minute a night guy. At 9 million per, even WITH his favorable contract, that's too much for a non starter. Now I'm not suggesting that he doesn't have value. He has GREAT value: As a starter, or a 30 minute per night 6th man. But even with our lack of depth in the backcourt, I have doubts about him getting that time of burn here.


I VERY CLEARLY spelled out TWENTY SIX minutes for Hinrich. Not 30. So again you're talking about something I didn't say. 30 minutes, 26, big difference. He has plenty of value to the Bulls if they make the right moves and trade Dung instead.



> Pargo is not Hinrichs replacement, so you can stop there. Rose is, and has been since the moment he was drafted. So in essence, Hinrich was replaced LAST SEASON. There's a reason he's in all these trade rumors. Its because he's getting traded. ANd NOT for Joe Johnson or Dwayne Wade.


And again your reading comprehension suffered. I was looking at the BIG PICTURE. Gordon is gone. Pargo added. Thus, Pargo was the replacement from last year to this year. Since the trade rumors just have us getting back Outlaw and Boozer, again no guards to replace Gordon, so that means that from last year to this year, both Hinrich and Gordon would've been replaced with freaking Pargo who wasn't even in the NBA last year.



> And no matter how little D Boozer plays (and in man to man situations, he's not worse than Tyrus), he's INFINITELY BETTER on the offensive end. I cannot overstate how much better he is compared to tyrus in the half court offensive sets.


Yes he is. The #s speak for themselves. More blocks, more steals......and I have eyes.



> Hyperbole doesn't help your case. If boozer is a scrub, what does that make Tyrus, or Hinrich? He's better than each of them individually.


I disagree. I'd take Hinrich over him any day. I'd take Tyrus too, since I still think that Tyrus will be a better player eventually. Sorry I just have never been impressed with Booz.



> No he doesn't, since he STILL hasn't learned how to block the ball to his teammates and instead sends it out of bounds. The opposing team on MOST possesions, RETAINS possesion, so his block ends up being tantamount to a deflected pass where it goes out of bounds and they get it back. But it looks pretty though, and so it is OVERINFLATED by people like you on these boards. Just like Jamal Crawford and his SIKKKKK crawsover was all those years ago.


Yes he does. He pins it against the backboard quite a bit of the time, and I've seen him block it right to the teammates too. Not always, but it is still wiping a basket off the scoreboard and if he's blocking it it was in close and that means it was a high % shot if not for him.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Well this should be fun and easy..


DaBabyBullz said:


> Well, lets see here. It's not that simple, and you should know that. For starters, we lost our leading scorer. Even though I wanted him gone, that was partially so we could keep the superior all-around player in Hinrich. Now if you lose Hinrich, you have exactly TWO guards on the roster really worth mentioning for significant minutes.


It is ridiculous to bring BG into this as he has nothing to do with this potential trade. BG is already gone regardless of whether or not this trade happpens. Deal with it. Bringing BG into this conversation is just a weak attempt to justify your stance on this trade.



> Like that article said, his own college coach didn't even play the scrub in the olympics. I watched the olympics, so I know he didn't play much.


Not smart to knock the guy for winning an olypic gold medal... Even more ridiculous to imply Krzyzewski doesn't think Boozer is good. Considering Boozer led Duke to its last national championship... 



> So gaining an undersized PF that plays no D


The whole undersized pf thing makes no sense. Boozer is bigger than TT.



> losing our only G capable of playing D


Salmons does play very good D and Rose is certainly capable of playing D



> losing our best shooter


BG is not a part of this trade nor is he on the Bulls anymore get over it...



> and losing our best shot blocker does indeed make the team worse.


Shot blocking is way overated!



> You are giving up 40-50 points a game (3 combined), good D (Hinrich) and shot blocking (Tyrus), and getting a 17-10 player. Yiptee freaking doo.


Once again BG is not a part of this trade... or are you hearing a different rumor than I am? So even if you want to continue with this flawed arguement that you lose points when you trade multiple players for one... I will entertain you because it would be hinrich and TT for boozer which is 9.9 points .437 fg% in 26.3 minutes + 10.8 points .451 fg% in 27.5 minutes= 20.7 points on .444 fg% in 53.8 minutes Vs. (I will even take Boozers injury riddled season even though you should recognize Boozer would be expected to come closer to his last two full seasons of 21 points 55% shooting but for the sake of the arguement I will use last years bad stats for Boozer) 16.2 points, 49% fg, 32.4 minutes. Which would you rather have? Even at Boozer's worse he would still have 21 minutes and a lot of shots to miss to make up those last 4 points... 



> Nope, I don't. He's also not a 20/10 guy. He's a 16.8 and 10 guy with no D. Lets not exaggerate. Giving up a (career) 14 points/6 assists guy with great D. So a net of minus ~3 points, but the D makes up for it. Now, add in the whole plus/minus from last year's team (minus Gordon and Tyrus as well in this scenario) and yes, much worse unless the returning players pick it up.


In his last two healthy seasons Boozer has been better than a 20 and 10 player... unless you believe he is still injured and rusty why would you expect him to not be a 20 and 10 player especially in his contract year?

Also Hinrich is not a 14 and 6 player anymore. He is a BACKUP now! 

Are you still including BG in this deal? :wtf: 



> Assume Rose and Joe Johnson (Wade doesn't pair up well IMO) each play 35. That's leaving 26 minutes a game for Hinrich


Really?!!! You would rather have Joe Johnson than Wade... Hilarious!
Even if you take Joe J instead of Wade. Why are you assuming 35 min per game for them? JJ played 40 and Rose played 37 last year (as a rookie)? If you are going to estimate their minutes per game you should probably raise Rose's up to JJ's level and keep JJ the same. So 39.5 and 39.5. which leaves Hinrich with 17 minutes or 19.5 if both Rose and JJ play the same amount of minutes as last year (and if hinrich gets every single non Rose/JJ minute which obviously won't happen) You want to pay 9 mil for 15-20 min? (half of those min will come as a pg playing 2g



> Boozer isn't better either. He's also missed 125 games in 3 seasons, so that shows he's either very fragile or not very tough. 2 good years in between those injury years, but the rest were pretty mediocre. He's a one-time all-star, not a perrenial all-star too.


he missed most of those 125 games 4 and 5 years ago... it is pretty slective to take years 04-05 05-06 and 08-09but omit 06-07 and 07-08. Granted he got hurt and missed a lot of games last year but so did Hinrich. So do you think Hinrich is fragile or injury prone also? 



> Also, take a minute to compare his stats with Tyrus's stats at the same age (this year for Tyrus and '04 for the Lush) on a pace adjusted per 40 basis to even the playing field:
> 
> Points per game: Tyrus 15.3, Lush 17.9
> Rebounds per game: Tyrus 9, Lush 13.2
> ...


I am sorry but this is just dumb...
Fist of all Boozer is not going to be TT's age next year. Boozer will still be in his prime and TT will still be slowly developing and unlikely to ever come close to matching Boozer's career.

Second... Look at the stats bro... Boozer is *MUUUCCCHHH better* in these stats
but thanks for pointing it out :krazy:



> Your little scenario is bogus. I'd get rid of Deng's worthless butt and roll with this scenario instead, if we're going into lala land with 2 max FAs in '10:
> 
> Rose/Kirk
> Joe Johnson/Kirk
> ...


My little _scenario_ was a best case scenario. Based on the 2010-11 impact of *this* trade. Now you are substituting Deng for some reason. Why? is he a part of this rumor? Why don't you stay on topic and stop straying off with BG and now Deng?

Bottom line is... if we make this trade we should be able to offer two max contracts in 2010 if we don't we should be able to offer only one. Not to mention all we would be giving up is two backups. *Think about it we could potentially bring in Wade and Bosh next year if we get rid of Hinrich and TT now* Enough said.

P.S. I won't even get into your choice of Joe Johnson and Amare over Wade and Bosh.

Good night.


----------



## cohenri (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Da Baby Bulz is one of those Tyrus apologists that tries to twist faulty numbers around to support his stance. The Bulls sat Tyrus in key moments in the Boston playoff series last year because he often causes more harm than good on the court. Whether it is bad shot selection, lack of hustle, goal tending, turnovers, fouls, bad help defense or overall dumb plays, he is more of a detriment than a benefit. Hinrich's numbers may have looked good a couple of years ago, but his skills are just an unnecessary luxury if the Bulls are trying to build a championship team. Sure this trade would leave the Bulls extremely thin at guard for 2009, but this is not a 1 year plan. No one has ridiculous expectations of a championship this year. It is all about building a team to eventually contend and Tyrus and Hinrich will not be a part of it and their value in the trade market is extremely limited (no matter how much YOU like them). If the Bulls can steal Boozer in exchange for them, they need to do it. NOW!!!!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Tyrus is a project. The jury will remain out on him for the next 2-3 seasons. He has shown marked improvement in his jump shot and free throw shooting abilities. However, he still does not "get it" and disappears for long stretches inside of games. It's tough to say mentally whether he'll ever be there.

In any event, I agree with those who think that renting Boozer for a year by trading away Tyrus and Kirk is "overpayment." On its face, it looks like a bad deal. The only way it makes sense is when you look at it from the perspective that the Bulls are going "all-in" on the 2010 offseason. It's a highly, highly risky maneuver, but if you have the cap space to sign 2 major players, assuming Boozer is outta here, the Bulls could set themselves up to be a contending team for another decade if they could sign Wade and Bosh, etc. Of course, the huge risk is that you don't pull the free agents you want, and you traded away some talented guys and got nothing for them. 

So, I think the ultimate question is that if you do the Boozer deal, are you going to either retain Boozer or be able to sign 2 top-level free agents in the 2010 offseason? If not, it looks like a bad deal. If so, it seems like a way to vault yourself into the upper echelon of NBA teams.

Tough call.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> The defense first obsession is also why we took Taj Gibson when even if you had questions over Wayne Ellington's defense , and you knew you were going to lose Ben Gordon for zip , then why in the sweet name of Jesus , *did you not make a play for Toney Douglas *? ( who reminds me of a slightly smaller but outwardly more tenancious Eric Gordon )
> 
> He's a guy that can score in bunches and guard the perimeter ?
> 
> ...


Good question! 

I am guessing, they drafted Taj because they are wanting to move TT either this summer or by deadline.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> I think the deal to do is sub Webster in for Bayless
> 
> We get ourselves a big G/F shooter and a guy that _could_ be a long term fit
> 
> ...


Bulls are indeed looking for guard depth. Or looking for backup if they trade Hinrich. 



> The Bulls want veteran guard Lindsey Hunter to play one more season.
> 
> ''We're talking right now,'' Del ***** said. ''I love Lindsey's leadership. He's a positive influence in the locker room. With the number of young guys we have, that's important to have.''


http://www.suntimes.com/sports/basketball/bulls/1661592,CST-SPT-bull11.article


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



The Krakken said:


> :10: Great post.....


I agree. SKOC has always been a good poster.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



Lets_Play_2 said:


> Take a look at this proposed 3 way trade differently....
> 
> Who "wins"/"loses" if no 3 way trade occurs between the Jazz, Blazers, & Bulls? And instead, you have a "food fight" between the Jazz/Blazers over RFA Paul Millsap?
> 
> ...


Very nice post! Common sense tells me you make the trade if the other teams are game.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



cohenri said:


> With all due respect to the Hinrich and Tyrus apologists, this trade is truly a no-brainer. Once the Bulls failed to sign Gordon, any flicker of a possibility of contending in 09/10 was gone. Most will argue that it would not have been around regardless, but that discussion is for another thread. So, if the Bulls are not contending, it is best to build a team around Rose that has a chance at contending. Hinrich will not be on that team. His shot is too poor to be a shooting guard and he is too young and too talented and (currently) makes too much money to be a backup guard. Tyrus has been a horrible flop with the Bulls and is clearly out of favor with Bulls management and the coaching staff. It is clear that he does not have a long term future with this team. Perhaps another coach or different teammates can tap the potential that the Tyrus apologists see from time to time. Therefore, giving up two guys without a future on the team for an all-star PF makes a lot of sense. He is on an expiring contract so the Bulls can see how he fits with Rose with no long term concerns. If he is a fit, the Bulls will have the best chance to sign him as they will be able to offer more money than anyone else. Plus, hopefully the guy will like Chicago and will like his teammates. If he is not a fit, he could be nice trade bait mid-season to either a contender needing one more piece or a team needing an expiring contract for 2010. OR, the Bulls can just let him expire and have his cap space for a 2010 free agent. The future of this team could be Rose, FA, Deng, Boozer, Noah. Or it could be Rose, FA, Deng, FA, Noah. Both of those options are much better and more easily attained after doing this deal. Get it done GAR/PAX.
> 
> By the way,if the deal is being held up because of Bayless and it doesn't get done, it will be another case of shortsightedness and idiocy of this team. Sure, it would be great if they could pick someone like Bayless up as a sweetener to the deal. BUT, if the Pistons or Heat get Boozer because we insisted on Bayless, it will just be another missed opportunity to be added to the long list of failings since #23 walked out the door.


Count me in as well. A no-brainer.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> Good post Lets Play 2
> 
> The reality is is that even if Boozer is a 1 year rental I gtee that being in a contract year Boozer will be healthy and playing his butt off to compete in a competitive free agent class next summer where he will struggle being in the top 5 sought
> 
> ...


possibly, but wouldnt he want to play next to a bruising pf? We play Bosh at center. Their game do not clash that I know of. 

Toronto seems to be trying to do the right thing now, but what will it do to wins? We shall see.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor(Hanley update page 5)*



> Broussard quoted Pritchard as saying the deal is ''not going to happen,'' despite his team's strong desire to trade for Bulls guard *Kirk Hinrich*.
> Hinrich reportedly was headed to the Blazers in the deal. Bulls forward *Tyrus Thomas* would have gone to the Utah Jazz and Boozer to the Bulls.
> The Jazz is desperate to dump Boozer's $12.7 million salary.


http://www.suntimes.com/sports/basketball/bulls/1661592,CST-SPT-bull11.article


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



> The Jazz initially vowed to match any offer that restricted free agent forward Paul Millsap received this offseason.
> 
> However, in the wake of Portland's four-year, $32 million offer, Utah appears to be softening their stance.
> "I think we'd analyze everything," general manager Kevin O'Connor told the DeseretNews.
> ...


http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705316159/Jazz-brass-debate-Millsap-match.html?pg=1


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Pritchard has to be one of the worst GMs in the NBA. This years FAs have made him look like a fool. The guy has 8 million in cap space and has nothing to show for it. And we all know the Jazz will match the offer for Milsap and Pritchard will again look like a fool. And for this trade Pritchard is not interested. He wants KH for zero??? He is offering nothing to get a starting PG and if he knew what he was doing (and he doesnt) he would jump at this trade. All he has to do is give a one of his guards who will be a bench warmer next year and he cant do it.

I feel really bad for Roy who will have to be in Portland for a while.

d


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



giusd said:


> Pritchard has to be one of the worst GMs in the NBA. This years FAs have made him look like a fool. The guy has 8 million in cap space and has nothing to show for it. And we all know the Jazz will match the offer for Milsap and Pritchard will again look like a fool. And for this trade Pritchard is not interested. He wants KH for zero??? He is offering nothing to get a starting PG and if he knew what he was doing (and he doesnt) he would jump at this trade. All he has to do is give a one of his guards who will be a bench warmer next year and he cant do it.
> 
> I feel really bad for Roy who will have to be in Portland for a while.
> 
> d


I know. I am surprised that FA dont want to sign with them. A young and talented team on the rise.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor(Hanley update page 5)*



truebluefan said:


> http://www.suntimes.com/sports/basketball/bulls/1661592,CST-SPT-bull11.article


THey are trying to discourage Utah from matching for milsap. Nothing more.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor(Hanley update page 5)*



The Krakken said:


> THey are trying to discourage Utah from matching for milsap. Nothing more.


could be, could be.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Yo TBF,

hope you are going well.

david


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Y'know 

The ball is in KOC's camp

#1 

He could let Pritchard blow his wad foolishly on Millsap notwithstanding that LMA is a 4 and will play big minutes and you have Pryz and Oden that will play the 5 minutes. He has an outstanding pick up in Jeff Pendergraph to develop as a back up 4/5. The correct play would be to bring in veteran big man on a short timer to add positive influence to the developing Oden and Pendergraph

Leaving the Blazers shot with extensions to Roy and LMA looming , and still not addressing the point and 3 shortcomings could be a strategic move that KOC could play , but , which means leaving the Jazz with Boozer for the year 

Bottom line is if KOC lets Pritchard take Millsap the Blazers lose a lot of flexibility and in view would be diminished

#2

KOC could match and keep Millsap and consider accepting Tyrus Thomas, Aaron Gray and Jerome James from the Bulls ...which is almost an exact match in salary and therefore L tax neutral for both teams

And Pritchard is left with nothing


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

I was out of town and thankfully missed all the drama over the past few days. 

I'm still in favor of getting Boozer as a fall-back or stepping stone toward the Bosh plan. Hinrich and Thomas is a reasonable price. We do need another guard, but I'm not sure why Bayless would be the only acceptable substitute. I'd take SKOC's suggestion of Webster.

I'm still not sold on the Salmons for Bell deal, though. Salmons is a very nice player. I guess it depends on how much we think he'd cost. 

I guess we'll revisit this Boozer deal soon, as the King suggests.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



giusd said:


> Yo TBF,
> 
> hope you are going well.
> 
> david


Thanks David, this last year has been bad on me physically. Thanks for asking. Trying to get back into the flow of things.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Pistons Turned Down Prince-For-Boozer?*



> According to a league source, the Pistons turned down a trade offer that would have had them receiving *Carlos Boozer *from the Jazz for *Tayshaun Prince*. While the Pistons have long coveted Boozer, they recently signed free agent forward *Charlie Villanueva*, drafted forwards *Austin Daye *and *DaJuan Summers*, and have strong feelings for Prince .


 . .

http://www.boston.com/sports/basket...009/07/12/it8217s_time_to_cut_minutes/?page=3


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



caseyrh said:


> Well this should be fun and easy..
> 
> 
> It is ridiculous to bring BG into this as he has nothing to do with this potential trade. BG is already gone regardless of whether or not this trade happpens. Deal with it. Bringing BG into this conversation is just a weak attempt to justify your stance on this trade.


Gordon is part of the conversation because we're referring to the lack of depth and quality guards now that Gordon, and if this trade is done, Hinrich, are both gone replaced by Boozer...and also losing Tyrus. It's the big picture, which narrow minded people can't seem to understand. 



> Not smart to knock the guy for winning an olypic gold medal... Even more ridiculous to imply Krzyzewski doesn't think Boozer is good. Considering Boozer led Duke to its last national championship...


He didn't play him for a reason. He's a scrub compared to the rest of Team USA.



> The whole undersized pf thing makes no sense. Boozer is bigger than TT.


Tyrus is also on a cheap rookie deal, and we're not gutting the team of it's backcourt depth to get him now are we? Tyrus plays taller too, but can't bang. I've let it known in the past that my ideal frontcourt would be 2 guys close to 7' tall and with some muscle to the C and athleticism to the PF. Those are hard to find though of course, especially when you're the damn Bulls and trade them away (Chandler).



> Salmons does play very good D and Rose is certainly capable of playing D


I guess I did say capable, and shouldn't have. I don't give a crap if he's capable of it, if he doesn't actually do it. Salmons plays good D, but he's more of a 2/3. No PG defense at all on the team once Kirk leaves if he does.



> BG is not a part of this trade nor is he on the Bulls anymore get over it...


He's still a large factor in this team's structure. So if he's gone, then that means Kirk isn't disposable. Thus he's very much worth mentioning. And as I said, nothing to get over.....I wanted him gone.



> Shot blocking is way overated!


No it's not.



> Once again BG is not a part of this trade... or are you hearing a different rumor than I am? So even if you want to continue with this flawed arguement that you lose points when you trade multiple players for one... I will entertain you because it would be hinrich and TT for boozer which is 9.9 points .437 fg% in 26.3 minutes + 10.8 points .451 fg% in 27.5 minutes= 20.7 points on .444 fg% in 53.8 minutes Vs. (I will even take Boozers injury riddled season even though you should recognize Boozer would be expected to come closer to his last two full seasons of 21 points 55% shooting but for the sake of the arguement I will use last years bad stats for Boozer) 16.2 points, 49% fg, 32.4 minutes. Which would you rather have? Even at Boozer's worse he would still have 21 minutes and a lot of shots to miss to make up those last 4 points...


Well, lets see here. I look at recent history, and trends. Last year was the most recent year, and just 2 seasons before that he had 2 in a row where he wasn't worth crap. A guy making that kind of money and only playing in an average of half the games a year is a disgrace. Kinda like the current sissy-boy Dookie we have on the team, but way worse. 



> In his last two healthy seasons Boozer has been better than a 20 and 10 player... unless you believe he is still injured and rusty why would you expect him to not be a 20 and 10 player especially in his contract year?


It's not all about being a 20/10 guy. We all saw how effective Brand was first hand. Some guys put up routine stats and go nowhere. Others make impact plays and win. Brand and Boozer are both just stats guys.



> Also Hinrich is not a 14 and 6 player anymore. He is a BACKUP now!


That doesn't make him any worse than he used to be. Rose plays pretty hard and gets dinged up, so a backup is good, plus having someone to play D off the bench and spread the court with 3s as well. 6th men win championships sometimes.



> Are you still including BG in this deal? :wtf:


Yes and I always will. We needed to retain 3 of Rose, Hinrich, Salmons and Gordon. Gordon's gone, so that means the other 3 must stay. 



> Really?!!! You would rather have Joe Johnson than Wade... Hilarious!
> Even if you take Joe J instead of Wade. Why are you assuming 35 min per game for them? JJ played 40 and Rose played 37 last year (as a rookie)? If you are going to estimate their minutes per game you should probably raise Rose's up to JJ's level and keep JJ the same. So 39.5 and 39.5. which leaves Hinrich with 17 minutes or 19.5 if both Rose and JJ play the same amount of minutes as last year (and if hinrich gets every single non Rose/JJ minute which obviously won't happen) You want to pay 9 mil for 15-20 min? (half of those min will come as a pg playing 2g


Yes I would. I never said Joe was BETTER. But it's about how players compliment eachother. I don't see Wade and Rose complimenting eachother at all, just replicating/duplicating. Johnson and Rose goes together real nice in my book. It's called injuries. Hinrich is starter quality, and would be a great 6th man/3rd guard. 



> he missed most of those 125 games 4 and 5 years ago... it is pretty slective to take years 04-05 05-06 and 08-09but omit 06-07 and 07-08. Granted he got hurt and missed a lot of games last year but so did Hinrich. So do you think Hinrich is fragile or injury prone also?


He missed 45 games last year. He also mised 8 games, or 10% of the season, in one of his "good healthy" years. Now, you contrast that to Hinrich, who has missed 7 games at most in a season in his entire career, till last year when he still played in 14 more games than Boozer. He's also played more minutes per game than Boozer. So, looking at regular season games, 440 of a possible 492 (89.4%) vs 432 of a possible 574 (75.3%)....and you think there's a valid comparison there? No, there's absolutely no comparison, and to even suggest they're similar is just plain old stupid and ignorant.



> I am sorry but this is just dumb...
> Fist of all Boozer is not going to be TT's age next year. Boozer will still be in his prime and TT will still be slowly developing and unlikely to ever come close to matching Boozer's career.


My point was that it's stupid to compare someone who is just getting started to someone who's been around 5 more years. This is also not a one for one comparision here, as I've made very clear. 2 starting-caliber players in Hinrich and Thomas for Boozer, who is older, has character flaws and injury issues, which Hinrich and Thomas neither one have.



> Second... Look at the stats bro... Boozer is *MUUUCCCHHH better* in these stats
> but thanks for pointing it out :krazy:


Depends on what you like. We don't agree on what is and isn't important, so obviously we value players differently.



> My little _scenario_ was a best case scenario. Based on the 2010-11 impact of *this* trade. Now you are substituting Deng for some reason. Why? is he a part of this rumor? Why don't you stay on topic and stop straying off with BG and now Deng?


You did a best case scenario, which with both Wade and Bosh is totally unrealistic, so I figured I'd do my own. Deng's been mentioned in trades, so why not?



> Bottom line is... if we make this trade we should be able to offer two max contracts in 2010 if we don't we should be able to offer only one. Not to mention all we would be giving up is two backups. *Think about it we could potentially bring in Wade and Bosh next year if we get rid of Hinrich and TT now* Enough said.
> 
> P.S. I won't even get into your choice of Joe Johnson and Amare over Wade and Bosh.
> 
> Good night.


It's just stupid to shred your team in the HOPES that you'll be able to lure 2 "max-contract" type players to the team next year. If I KNEW it would happen, where we'd be able to get them (and wouldn't keep Boozer) it wouldn't be too bad, even if you do think that Wade and Rose wouldn't be a waste paired up together.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



DaBabyBullz said:


> Depends on what you like. We don't agree on what is and isn't important, so obviously we value players differently.


Obviously...

I won't go through the entire post again (especially since this rumor seems to be dead) but... After the 2010 free agency what is your ideal team?
I guess you want TT to start?
Because if not... why would we hold on to him?
Do you really want to pay 15 mil for 2 backups??? Which is basically one max contract and like 25-35% of the salary cap. Right before arguabbly the biggest offseason in basketball history? 



> You did a best case scenario, which with both Wade and Bosh is totally unrealistic, so I figured I'd do my own. Deng's been mentioned in trades, so why not?


First of all deng was not mentioned in this trade... so that's why not.

Second if we could offer them both max contracts, *why is it "totally unrealistic" to land both Wade and Bosh*? 
Chicago is a major market team. Wade is from Chicago. They both played together on the olympics. They would get to play with Rose. They could pretty much guarantee the opportunity to compete for championships every year for the duration of their contracts. And they would make more money in endorsement deals in Chicago than any other city that is under the cap with the exception of New York. And New York seems to be targeting LBJ. 

If I were them Chicago would be my ideal location.


----------



## cohenri (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Da Baby Bulz keeps throwing around worthless stats without addressing the main point. Are the Bulls going to win or contend for a championship (based on the current salary limitations imposed by management) with Tyrus and Hinrich each being paid large contracts? I ask this because, the Bulls are not contending this year and they will eventually need to pay Tyrus if he is going to stay on the team. Hinrich already has an extremely large contract for a back-up PG. He speaks about the issue of whether Rose and Wade compliment each other, but completely avoids the obvious elephant in the room - Tyrus and Noah do not compliment each other. They each have highly limited offensive games. The Bulls struggle mightily on offense when both of those guys are on the court together. I'm not convinced that Rose and Wade are the best combination, but at least the Bulls will be able to score. Tyrus is out of favor with management and will likely be gone for nothing soon enough. The Bulls will dump Hinrich for nothing close to the trade deadline when they see that this team is not a contender.

To win in the NBA, as has been shown over and over and over again, you need 2 star players and a 3rd very good borderline all-star. Once you have that core, you can always find very good roll players to mold around them. Whether a team is dumping salary a la Richard Jefferson or Vince Carter or veterans are looking to win a title a la Ron Artest or Rasheed Wallace, there are very good players to be had to fill in around your stars. Tyrus and Hinrich are utterly replaceable and it is worth the risk on Boozer getting healthy or on trying to get a couple of 2010 free agents. 

Maybe you would be satisfied with a .500 team that bows out in the 1st or 2nd round of the playoffs every year (at best). Most of us would prefer taking a shot at a championship and if it doesn't work out, tanking for the next Lebron James or Tim Duncan.

The Bulls need to finally understand this 2.5 star approach and trade "potential" for the Gasol's, Garnett's, Kobe's, etc of the world. Winning organizations make bold moves for these types of players and losing organizations hope that backups/borderline starters will suddenly bloom into stars. It rarely happens!

Get with the program, baby! It is guys like you that helped convince management to stay the course the last couple of years with "the CORE". See how that's worked out?


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Well, to get back on topic, here is McGraw's view of the situation from today's Herald:



> Everything is on hold until the Jazz decides whether or not to match Portland's offer sheet for Paul Millsap. There have been many suggestions that Utah would prefer to keep Millsap and trade Boozer. But unless the Jazz can find a way to trim its payroll, matching Millsap will result in an $11 million luxury-tax bill next year.
> 
> The Bulls remain interested in acquiring Boozer, who is one of the league's best low-post scorers when healthy, but there is no telling how this might play out.


The main news: Bulls are still interested in getting Boozer. But, how to help Utah shed salary?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Miami Talking Boozer Trade*



> He's been linked to Miami for quite some time, partly because he has an offseason home there, partly because of his relationship with Heat star Dwyane Wade and partly because of his friendship with Heat owner Micky Arrison.
> But Miami has no team payroll salary cap space this summer, so for a while talk of Carlos Boozer-to-the-Heat as a free agent cooled.
> And now it's warming back up.
> Heat star Dwyane Wade — who has been bickering with the franchise lately regarding a contract extension and the team's need to improve its roster — is lobbying, to a degree, for Miami to go after the Jazz's on-the-trade-block power forward.
> The two are good friends and were gold medal-winning USA Basketball Olympic teammates.


http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705316531/Utah-Jazz-Boozer-to-Miami-trade-talk-is-warming-up.html

If Miami gets Boozer, this will really hurt us. Miami will not only pass us up in the eastern conference this season, but this will probably end any thought of Wade coming here.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Miami Talking Boozer Trade*



truebluefan said:


> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705316531/Utah-Jazz-Boozer-to-Miami-trade-talk-is-warming-up.html
> 
> If Miami gets Boozer, this will really hurt us. Miami will not only pass us up in the eastern conference this season, but this will probably end any thought of Wade coming here.



Yes, that would certainly be a depressing turn of events.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



> Miami will not only pass us up in the eastern conference this season,


They were better than the Bulls last season WITHOUT Boozer lol.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



caseyrh said:


> Obviously...
> 
> I won't go through the entire post again (especially since this rumor seems to be dead) but... After the 2010 free agency what is your ideal team?
> I guess you want TT to start?
> ...


I'd rather have Tyrus than Noah, so yes. You want Bosh/Noah. I'd prefer Tyrus/Amare. 2 guys more suited for finishing at the rim and getting to the line, and that fits Rose at PG better. Just as Joe Johnson fits next to Rose better than Wade does. So like I said, I'd love a lineup of Rose, JJ, JJ, TT and Amare, assuming our rookie JJ is going to be the point forward he's hyped to be. We'd have either great size (SG and SF)or athleticism (PF and C) at all positions, and both at PG. So it's the #3 guard and starting PF that would be getting 15 mill, if that's what they would be slated to make. And if Tyrus doesn't work out next to Amare at PF, maybe we could trade for a pick to draft Aldrich and put him at C and Amare at PF. If you gut the team of guard depth, which your scenario, dependent upon that BS trade would do, the team would be in position to draft Aldrich on it's own if we had one injury. If we keep Kirk, we can get by any G injuries this year (remember Salmons and Rose were both dinged up, Rose with knees and Salmons with hamstrings if I recall). 





> First of all deng was not mentioned in this trade... so that's why not.


So, we don't have to keep all discussions exactly in line with this trade RUMOR. 



> Second if we could offer them both max contracts, *why is it "totally unrealistic" to land both Wade and Bosh*?
> Chicago is a major market team. Wade is from Chicago. They both played together on the olympics. They would get to play with Rose. They could pretty much guarantee the opportunity to compete for championships every year for the duration of their contracts. And they would make more money in endorsement deals in Chicago than any other city that is under the cap with the exception of New York. And New York seems to be targeting LBJ.
> 
> If I were them Chicago would be my ideal location.


Exactly how many FAs has Chicago been able to land after the way they disbanded the dynasty? Not many. Maybe Wade wouldn't wanna play with a real PG, since he thinks he's the PG that has to score every time. All he is is a dribble/driver, same as Rose. Makes a lot of sense to (in a few years) have 2 guys on max contracts when they both have to have the ball all the time. Wade isn't a good enough shooter to be worthwhile next to Rose at that money, although he is definitely getting better. 

So basically, you think that just Rose is why the FA luck of the Bulls would change? Maybe, but I wouldn't gut the team on the hope of it.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Miami Talking Boozer Trade*



truebluefan said:


> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705316531/Utah-Jazz-Boozer-to-Miami-trade-talk-is-warming-up.html
> 
> If Miami gets Boozer, this will really hurt us. Miami will not only pass us up in the eastern conference this season, but this will probably end any thought of Wade coming here.


Good. Then we can try and get Joe Johnson and Amare instead.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

*Re: Miami Talking Boozer Trade*



truebluefan said:


> http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705316531/Utah-Jazz-Boozer-to-Miami-trade-talk-is-warming-up.html
> 
> If Miami gets Boozer, this will really hurt us. Miami will not only pass us up in the eastern conference this season, but this will probably end any thought of Wade coming here.


But, to me this further confirms my fear of our ability to resign Boozer if he ends up with us until next offseason. The reason is I think Wade will resign with the Heat. And Boozer will definitely be looking at the possibility of signing with the Heat. There will be Bosh and Amare available for pursuit. But, if none of them end up in our uniform, we're going to be screwed big time; having only Noah, Miller, Johnson and Gibson in our frontcourt. We would gave up Thomas for nothing basically.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



DaBabyBullz said:


> I'd rather have Tyrus than Noah, so yes. You want Bosh/Noah. I'd prefer Tyrus/Amare.


For a guy that really likes size... you certainly have strayed from that here. 
Plus you were slamming Boozer for his injuries and yet you want Amare over Bosh?



> 2 guys more suited for finishing at the rim and getting to the line, and that fits Rose at PG better. Just as Joe Johnson fits next to Rose better than Wade does.


You are showing your lack of basketball IQ here. There is an enormous gap between Wade and JJ. I don't care how you percieve their "shooting ability" it is irrelvant. Wade was damn near the MVP of the NBA last year and was second team all defense. You really are clueless if you would rather have JJ than Wade. 



> And if Tyrus doesn't work out next to Amare at PF, maybe we could trade for a pick to draft Aldrich and put him at C and Amare at PF. If you gut the team of guard depth, which your scenario, dependent upon that BS trade would do, the team would be in position to draft Aldrich on it's own if we had one injury.


What is up with your love affair of Aldrich? 



> If we keep Kirk, we can get by any G injuries this year (remember Salmons and Rose were both dinged up, Rose with knees and Salmons with hamstrings if I recall).


I am not willing to risk losing out on a big time free-agent next year just so that we can have a better than average back up guard this year. 



> Exactly how many FAs has Chicago been able to land after the way they disbanded the dynasty? Not many. Maybe Wade wouldn't wanna play with a real PG, since he thinks he's the PG that has to score every time. All he is is a dribble/driver, same as Rose. Makes a lot of sense to (in a few years) have 2 guys on max contracts when they both have to have the ball all the time. Wade isn't a good enough shooter to be worthwhile next to Rose at that money, although he is definitely getting better.


I can't remember all of the FA years when we were in position to land big time FA's and we failed. I believe it was only one year when that happenned and that was about 6 years ago or something. Maybe you could outline it for me? Name all the times when we had max contracts available to hand out and we pursued someone who went to another team. I do remember us signing Ben Wallace who I believe was the biggest FA on the markey a few years ago. Also none of those FA years were even close to comparable to this years where there are many targets worthy of max contracts and we could certainly add 2 big time players. 


> So basically, you think that just Rose is why the FA luck of the Bulls would change?


:wtfid you read what i wrote? I had multiple solid reasons why FA's would come here and you write back "just Rose"
Here are the reasons I already wrote...:


> Chicago is a major market team. Wade is from Chicago. They both played together on the olympics. They would get to play with Rose. They could pretty much guarantee the opportunity to compete for championships every year for the duration of their contracts. And they would make more money in endorsement deals in Chicago than any other city that is under the cap with the exception of New York. And New York seems to be targeting LBJ.


Please read them this time before you respond with "just Rose"

And I do think Rose would be a very good reason for these guys to come here...



> Maybe, but I wouldn't gut the team on the hope of it


Pretty tough to call losing TT and Hinrich "gutting the team" The only way we could gut the Bulls is if we lost Rose. Losing a below average starter and a backup guard is a long way from gutting the Bulls.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



caseyrh said:


> For a guy that really likes size... you certainly have strayed from that here.
> Plus you were slamming Boozer for his injuries and yet you want Amare over Bosh?
> 
> 
> ...


Your posting has improved DRAMATICALLY here lately. I basically agree with everything in this post. Most importantly, you were able to pick him apart (though I'm not sure why you are still arguing with him--I gave up after his first reply to my initial response to him), without hurling a single insult. Impressive.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Tyrus Thomas, Tim Thomas and Aaron Gray to the Jazz

Hinrich and Harpring to the Blazers

Boozer, Webster and Blake to Chicago

*Why*

Jazz save approx $8M in doing this deal ( the difference between Boozer and Thomas's salary which is the net diff ) 


Blazers take on an additional $6M in salary this season in the net diffs as to who goes out and comes in and can absorb this in their cap space , but , moving forward into next season and above they only actually add a net diff of $4M to the payroll for the two seasons after this coming one which is the average differential between Hinrich and Webster . Portland get a lot tougher ( and vet tough on a young team ) in positions of need - point and small forward 

Bulls get a low post guy and a back up point on expirings which also fits needs and also lower our payroll by $4M over the next couple of seasons which is the net diff between Hinrich and Webster - notwithstanding the fact that Webster gives a big shooting guard to back up Salmons. Johnson backs up Boozer and Deng on the forward line . In doing this deal the Bulls only add a net $700K in payroll . still slipping in under the L Tax limit 

Seems to me that every one has a win without compromising short term or long term goals

If the Jazz hold on to Booze between now and deadline they'll get even less and Booze's season leading into free agency will be severely disrupted . Best for both parties to cut bait now .. particularly seeing as though the Jazz have told Booze he's not wanted . Tyrus gives an above the rim player for Deron on the forward line and gives the Jazz a a bit of a different look upfront with Okur , Millsap and Kirilenko starting and Gray, Thomas and Korver backing up


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



The Krakken said:


> Your posting has improved DRAMATICALLY here lately. I basically agree with everything in this post. Most importantly, you were able to pick him apart (though I'm not sure why you are still arguing with him--I gave up after his first reply to my initial response to him), without hurling a single insult. Impressive.


Trust me, my posting has not dramatically improved. It was this sharp when I picked you apart last month. You just didn't appreciate it because it was aimed at you.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

ha, touche


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



caseyrh said:


> For a guy that really likes size... you certainly have strayed from that here.


Oh really? Stoudemire is 6'10" 249. Bosh is 6'10" 230. Stoudemire is not only more athletic, but he's also bigger and stronger. And my preference is mainly because Amare is an attacker whereas Bosh is a jump shooter. Screw that noise. Also, Tyrus has the makings of an offensive game, whereas Noah will never have anything remotely resembling offensive skill. Sure Noah is a little bigger than Tyrus but he doesn't play bigger and isn't noticeably bigger anyway. Tyrus's wingspan makes up for the height discrepancy. I've always said that it would be nice if Tyrus were bigger, but his athleticism makes up for it to an extent. Not ideal, but better than Noah....and remember he's a year and a half younger than Noah too. 

And your pairing would have guys 6'10 and 6'11, both 230. Mine has the biggest of the 4 at 6'10" 250, and Tyrus at 6'9" 215. So you lose an inch in height, but they're both very long and way more athletic, with more offensive game plus better blockers. 



> Plus you were slamming Boozer for his injuries and yet you want Amare over Bosh?


Yeah, Boozer has, as I stated before, missed 25% of his career games, and had major injuries in 3 of his 7 years. Amare had one major knee injury, which he's proven to be healthy from by only missing 3 games combined after that year in 2 seasons. Last year was an eye, which I don't see as anything to do with being frail or injury prone. That's bad luck getting poked in the eye. So it took him a shredded knee and a bad poke in the eye to miss games. Boozer has had 3 seasons where he's missed way too many games with nothing. Just sissyitis basically.



> You are showing your lack of basketball IQ here. There is an enormous gap between Wade and JJ. I don't care how you percieve their "shooting ability" it is irrelvant. Wade was damn near the MVP of the NBA last year and was second team all defense. You really are clueless if you would rather have JJ than Wade.


JJ is more durable, less turnovers, and shoots 11% better from behind the arc. I'm looking at is as a package deal too. JJ is more likely to be available IMO, and maybe easier to afford + Amare/Bosh than Wade.



> What is up with your love affair of Aldrich?


No love affair, I just think he'll be the best big in the draft and that's what we need. A real legit C. 



> I am not willing to risk losing out on a big time free-agent next year just so that we can have a better than average back up guard this year.


Well, I'm not willing to give up something of value to play the lotto with some stupid free agents that might be traded and not even be available by next year. Then you have the morons running this team that probably wouldn't be able to lure them in anyway. What star is gonna want to play for Vinnie and the morons in charge?



> I can't remember all of the FA years when we were in position to land big time FA's and we failed. I believe it was only one year when that happenned and that was about 6 years ago or something. Maybe you could outline it for me? Name all the times when we had max contracts available to hand out and we pursued someone who went to another team. I do remember us signing Ben Wallace who I believe was the biggest FA on the markey a few years ago. Also none of those FA years were even close to comparable to this years where there are many targets worthy of max contracts and we could certainly add 2 big time players.


I said stars, not Benedict Wallace. We overpaid a scrub, that's how we got him. My point was, I don't recall us EVER landing stud free agents really. Not a single one comes to mind. 



> :wtfid you read what i wrote? I had multiple solid reasons why FA's would come here and you write back "just Rose"
> Here are the reasons I already wrote...:
> Please read them this time before you respond with "just Rose"


I read it, and it's garbage. Thus, why I only mentioned Rose. As I was just reading the other day, a very high profile player agent said New York, which is a much bigger market than Chicago, isn't even a viable destination for most FAs since they aren't relevant with the way they're operated....sound familiar? So if they won't go there for the money, why would they go to Chicago? No one on the roster is really worth mentioning other than Rose. Vinnie sure isn't worth a crap to attracting FAs. NY, Chicago....same difference, except we have Rose. At least they have an established coach...although if I recall that same guy said that people don't see his system as one you win championships with so that hurts as well. 



> And I do think Rose would be a very good reason for these guys to come here...


So do I, thus the only reason I even acknowledged it.



> Pretty tough to call losing TT and Hinrich "gutting the team" The only way we could gut the Bulls is if we lost Rose. Losing a below average starter and a backup guard is a long way from gutting the Bulls.


What exactly would you have left, if Boozer turned out to be the POS I think he is and a one-year rent-a-bull, and then you couldn't snag (or they weren't available even) Bosh/Amare/Wade/JJ? This is what you'd have left:

Rose
Salmons
Dung 
JJ/Gibson
Noah/Miller/Gray

Wow, that's freaking outstanding! Team might get you the #1 pick, but that's about it. Dung is always hurt so may as well take him off and pencil JJ in at SF, leaving a frontcourt of either Noah/Miller or Gibson/Noah....that's enough to make me puke.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

another slew of worthless points...


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

I was just going to ignore this but I am bored so I will take a moment to once again counter these ridiculous points.



DaBabyBullz said:


> Oh really? Stoudemire is 6'10" 249. Bosh is 6'10" 230. Stoudemire is not only more athletic, but he's also bigger and stronger. And my preference is mainly because Amare is an attacker whereas Bosh is a jump shooter. Screw that noise. Also, Tyrus has the makings of an offensive game, whereas Noah will never have anything remotely resembling offensive skill. Sure Noah is a little bigger than Tyrus but he doesn't play bigger and isn't noticeably bigger anyway.


Yeah Really. The size arguement has nothing to do with Amare v Bosh. Because neither one of them is on our team and we will not be signing both. So it is either TT or Noah that starts next to one max contract pf. Thus it is TT's size Vs. Noah's size. From their combine numbers Noah was 7'0 in shoes. TT was 6'8 1/4 in shoes. *7'>6'8*. So once again you have countered yourself. Good job.



> Yeah, Boozer has, as I stated before, missed 25% of his career games, and had major injuries in 3 of his 7 years. Amare had one major knee injury, which he's proven to be healthy from by only missing 3 games combined after that year in 2 seasons. Last year was an eye, which I don't see as anything to do with being frail or injury prone. That's bad luck getting poked in the eye. So it took him a shredded knee and a bad poke in the eye to miss games. Boozer has had 3 seasons where he's missed way too many games with nothing. Just sissyitis basically.


I guess you chose to ignore the fact that I was comparing *Amare to Bosh. Not Amare to Boozer*... But regardless not even worth countering your opinion on injury. I am guessing you are an MD?


> JJ is more durable, less turnovers, and shoots 11% better from behind the arc. I'm looking at is as a package deal too. JJ is more likely to be available IMO, and maybe easier to afford + Amare/Bosh than Wade.


I think it is funny that you actually spent some time comparing JJ's stats to Wade's (at which point you must have realized how much better wade's stats are) and still had the balls to mention them in defense of *JJ*. Again not even worth countering this nonsense by mentioning the overwhelming and blatantly obvious statistical evidence in support of Wade.



> Well, I'm not willing to give up something of value to play the lotto with some stupid free agents that might be traded and not even be available by next year. Then you have the morons running this team that probably wouldn't be able to lure them in anyway. What star is gonna want to play for Vinnie and the morons in charge?


Very good points. I hate those "stupid free agents" too. And all the morons. Stupid morons! :drool2:




> I said stars, not Benedict Wallace. We overpaid a scrub, that's how we got him. My point was, I don't recall us EVER landing stud free agents really. Not a single one comes to mind.


Ben Wallace was a big time free agent that we got. Regardless of whether or not he worked out is seperate to the issue of whether or not we have been able to land big-time free-agents. But again please point out these free-agent stars that we missed out on and pursued when we had a max contract available? I am not saying it did or didn't happen I would just like to know when all this happened, and what the specifics are. Since you are basing your whole theory on our chances in this FA class on this supposed truth. I hope you know what you are talking about. 




> I read it, and it's garbage. Thus, why I only mentioned Rose. As I was just reading the other day, a very high profile player agent said New York, which is a much bigger market than Chicago, isn't even a viable destination for most FAs since they aren't relevant with the way they're operated....sound familiar? So if they won't go there for the money, why would they go to Chicago? No one on the roster is really worth mentioning other than Rose. Vinnie sure isn't worth a crap to attracting FAs. NY, Chicago....same difference, except we have Rose. At least they have an established coach...although if I recall that same guy said that people don't see his system as one you win championships with so that hurts as well.


First of all I was naming New York as the only potentially more desirable location for FA's then Chicago. I guess you didn't understand...


> No one on the roster is really worth mentioning other than Rose


 Isn't that kinda my whole point...


> What exactly would you have left, if Boozer turned out to be the POS I think he is and a one-year rent-a-bull, and then you couldn't snag (or they weren't available even) Bosh/Amare/Wade/JJ? This is what you'd have left:
> 
> Rose
> Salmons
> ...


Ok so let me get this straight: In your theory if Boozer leaves and we don't sign anyone with the 25 or so mil that we have available under the cap. And I guess we lost our 2010 draft pick somehow. than our 2010 roster would look like that? Did I get that right?

Yeah in that case our team wouldn't be very good. 
However if we add Hinrich and TT to that roster.... Championship Baby!:champagne: Right?
Personally if we had this highly unlikely scenario occur I would rather take the #1 pick that you say we would get.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



caseyrh said:


> Trust me, my posting has not dramatically improved. It was this sharp when I picked you apart last month. You just didn't appreciate it because it was aimed at you.


Once again you miss the mark, in an exchange with me.

1) I didnt aoppreciate it, because you made it personal, and you behaved like a juvenile. 

2) I didnt appreciate it because not only did you try to tell me what i was thinking, but why i was thinking the way i was....a feat that you managed to replicate in your post above. And again, you are wrong.

Look, I dont care about whether you or I are right or wrong, or as you erroneously asserted above, who you direct your "supreme sharpness" at, as this is a message board. By its very nature, its a sounding board for a collection of OPINIONS. Unlike you, I believe intelligent people can disagree, and do so personally, without personal insults or attacks.

Its specifically that quality that has improved. Or at least I thought it had prior to your last post to DaBullz. Amazingly, I disagree with both you and he on virtually every point concernin FA's...as I beleive both of you represent extreme points of view, and I believe you are both right and wrong. As an example, Joe Johnson is likely a better fit next to Rose. This is a separate issue from yours, that Wade is unquestionably a better player. The issues are only tangentially related as to who will PLAY best next to Rose, yet the two of you have managed to spend hours typing back and forth exchanges about who is totally right, when the answer is probably, neither of you.

Finally, you could use a lesson, both in graciousness and humility, as you seem to lack both. Throw in a lesson on respecting the opinions of others, while you are at it. As evidenced by your needlessly abrasive response to me.


As for picking me apart, I'll simply disagree, for many of the reasons outlined above....I have no desire to get into another juvenile exchange, so I'll make this my last post on this subject in this thread.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



SausageKingofChicago said:


> Tyrus Thomas, Tim Thomas and Aaron Gray to the Jazz
> 
> Hinrich and Harpring to the Blazers
> 
> ...


Ah, but apparently Tim Thomas has been bought out? (today's tribune, quoting Sam Smith)


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



Good Hope said:


> Ah, but apparently Tim Thomas has been bought out? (today's tribune, quoting Sam Smith)



Just so I'm clear, what is the advantage of buying him out?


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Take a look at the thread I started on the topic. 

It freed up quite a bit of money, apparently, enough for Pargo, Hunter and another big man, possibly. Or, it makes enough room under the LT for us to complete the Boozer trade.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



The Krakken said:


> Once again you miss the mark, in an exchange with me.
> 
> 1) I didnt aoppreciate it, because you made it personal, and you behaved like a juvenile.
> 
> ...


HaHa. Nice thesis. You try so hard to sound intelligent... Anyways I am not on this board to make friends, or impress you. I am on here to discuss basketball, specifically Bulls basketball. I suggest you do the same and ignore all of this peripheral stuff.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Boozer on chicago radio...


> Jazz power forward Carlos Boozer told a Chicago radio station today that he expects to soon be traded, and that he'll be happy if he is.
> 
> According to a transcript from WMVP 1000-AM, the ESPN affiliate in Chicago, Boozer — who has not spoken to Utah media since the Jazz's season ended in late April — said this when asked if he thought he'd be dealt:
> 
> ...


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

This is officially getting weird.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Idk if it's weird, lets just hope it's like most rumors and never comes to fruition.


----------



## KGBULLS06 (May 24, 2006)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Would the Bulls be interested in Lamar Odom? He is a 6-10 power forward, who is not scared of anyone and would be at least a 15 point and 9 rebound guy. Would the Lakers be willing to deal Kirk Hinrich for Lamar Odom in a sign and trade. From what I've seen is that the Lakers and him are not on the same page. But would it be a good fit if we fall out of the Boozer running? But I dont see the Lakers losing him. Plus the Bulls would have to get a backup SG.
Bulls:
Derrick Rose PG Lindsey Hunter
John Salmons SG Pargo
Loul Deng SF James Johnson
Lamar Odom PF Tyrus Thomas
Jokiam Noah C Brad Miller


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

I'd take Odom over Boozer.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



DaBabyBullz said:


> I'd take Odom over Boozer.


What justification, beyond Boozer not being healthy, allows you to arrive at THAT conclusion.:wtf:

Odom gives us NOTHING that we need, that we don't already have.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



The Krakken said:


> What justification, beyond Boozer not being healthy, allows you to arrive at THAT conclusion.:wtf:
> 
> Odom gives us NOTHING that we need, that we don't already have.


Again I agree with you. 

We have passers on this team. We dont Odom.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



The Krakken said:


> What justification, beyond Boozer not being healthy, allows you to arrive at THAT conclusion.:wtf:
> 
> Odom gives us NOTHING that we need, that we don't already have.


Part of it is the price tag. Giving up half as much.....

He's a career 15 and 9. Boozer is 17 and 10. Odom averages .6 more blocks, 1.6 more assists, 1.5 more assists, and has 3 point range (31% isn't bad from that position) Not that much difference overall....definitely not worth twice as much....and, as I said before, Boozer would cost twice as much. 

BTW, Odom isn't exactly healthy either, although his 81.1% is better than Boozer's 75.3%.


----------



## Kidd (Jul 2, 2009)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Stats can only tell you so much.

Odom doesn't play big, although his stats may suggest that he does. The Bulls need inside presence and intensity and they're not going to get that with Odom, especially with him already getting his probably last long-term lucrative contract.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

i want neither one of them,


----------



## Tyreke (Jul 14, 2009)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

Boozer would give some much needed inside presence for Bulls. I like the idea of having him in Chicago.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

BTW, I never said I wanted Odom either. I just said if I had to choose between those 2 trade scenarios that I'd choose the Odom one.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



Tyreke said:


> Boozer would give some much needed inside presence for Bulls. I like the idea of having him in Chicago.


I do too.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*

TBF,

I didnt know you had been ill. Good to hear you are feeling better. 

best d


----------



## cohenri (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



DaBabyBullz said:


> BTW, I never said I wanted Odom either. I just said if I had to choose between those 2 trade scenarios that I'd choose the Odom one.


You do realize that getting Odom would likely mean a 5 year inflated contract and getting Boozer gives the Bulls a chance at a test drive?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



cohenri said:


> You do realize that getting Odom would likely mean a 5 year inflated contract and getting Boozer gives the Bulls a chance at a test drive?


I am no familiar with Odom's contract. I just know that I do not want anything to do with Boozer, and sure as hell don't wanna give up Hinrich and Tyrus for a 1 year rental of him. You can't trust him to sign later, as he already screwed over the Cavs in similar fashion.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor(updated, Hollinger)*

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/ ... -hollinger



> Jim (Cambridge)
> What's holding up Hinrich-Thomas-Boozer-Blazers? Seems like a win-win-win, and gives the Bulls even more cap space in 2010...
> 
> John Hollinger (3:57 PM)
> Bulls want something extra from Portland if they're going to include Tyrus Thomas, but Blazers don't want to part with their prospects


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Bulls want something extra from Portland if they're going to include Tyrus Thomas, but Blazers don't want to part with their prospects


Just take the damn deal GarPax, a no brainer type of deal like this is not going to fall on your lap again.

I will just laugh my *** off if the reason we dont pull the trigger on this deal is Steve Blake lol.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I will just laugh my *** off if the reason we dont pull the trigger on this deal is Steve Blake lol.


Yeah, but what if after sending Hinrich to Portland and Thomas to Utah, Boozer leaves Chicago and decides to play with Wade in Miami? And Bosh stays in Toronto. Who are we going to sign? We're going to have even more holes to cover. This 2010 free agency is really scary. Teams are clearing cap space assuming it's going to be enough to attract premier players to sign. I currently don't have any idea how attractive the Chicago Bulls franchise in the eyes of 2010 FAs (Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Amare, Boozer, Joe Johnson, etc.)

I think the Bulls' issue with this trade is more than just Steve Blake.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Yeah, but what if after sending Hinrich to Portland and Thomas to Utah, Boozer leaves Chicago and decides to play with Wade in Miami? And Bosh stays in Toronto. Who are we going to sign? We're going to have even more holes to cover.


Its a risk the Bulls are going to have to take. The Bulls dont have the luxury or the talent to sit out and wait while other teams keep getting better around them.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Just take the damn deal GarPax, a no brainer type of deal like this is not going to fall on your lap again.
> 
> I will just laugh my *** off if the reason we dont pull the trigger on this deal is Steve Blake lol.


I would agree with this sentiment if the trade were for Chris Bosh.... but I still think Boozer is a glorified Drew Gooden, and a potential one year rental... hardly a no brainer.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

As much as I like Hinrich, I think the Bulls have gotta try something. We need to consolidate our talent. With Gibson and JJ, we are loaded with young talent. Lets swing for the fence.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

RSP83 said:


> Yeah, but what if after sending Hinrich to Portland and Thomas to Utah, Boozer leaves Chicago and decides to play with Wade in Miami? And Bosh stays in Toronto. Who are we going to sign? We're going to have even more holes to cover. This 2010 free agency is really scary. Teams are clearing cap space assuming it's going to be enough to attract premier players to sign. I currently don't have any idea how attractive the Chicago Bulls franchise in the eyes of 2010 FAs (Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Amare, Boozer, Joe Johnson, etc.)
> 
> I think the Bulls' issue with this trade is more than just Steve Blake.


That's why I wouldn't even consider the trade. People say it's win-win. We get Boozer, and if he works out great. If not, dump him and sign someone else. But it's looking like Bosh and Wade are likely to stay put, and those are the 2 guys mentioned most often on here. Add in Boozer wanting to play with Wade, and it's very likely the Bulls end up with nothing worth mentioning other than older guys like Dirk or something. Hinrich + Thomas for sure = better than a long shot at landing someone better for way more money.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Hinrich + Thomas for sure = better than a long shot at landing someone better for way more money.


The Worst case scenario is staying with Thomas and Hinrich long term, if you think the Bulls will even come close to sniffing a championship with those two guys playing a huge role then you can forget it.

The Bulls need to make a move, THEY NEED to.


----------



## BullsBaller (Oct 6, 2002)

What is the latest scoop on Boozer?


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

The Jazz are apparently interested in trading Boozer. The Bulls would want Boozer. Lets make the damn deal.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I'm fine making the deal or not making the deal for the most part. If we get Boozer and he stays healthy and has a great year, we can offer him more money than anybody else. If he bombs, we go after Bosh or Amar'e. If we keep Tyrus and he has a monster year we can extend him for cheaper and go after Joe Johnson or somebody like that. 

But I just don't think it is extremely wise to try and build a team with the goal of winning a title in the next 5 years. It just doesn't happen too often. LeBron is in his 7th year and didn't win a title. Shaq didn't win one until his 7th year. Jordan didn't either. Same goes for Isiah. And Hakeem. Magic, Bird, and Kobe are really the only legendary players who captured titles early. Magic and Kobe because they came onto teams with Kareem and Shaq. 

So to think that somehow Derrick Rose (who certainly could end up being mentioned along with the players above) will win a title in his 2nd year or 3rd year without a guaranteed HOF-er playing next to him is misguided. 

Right now, we have a playoff team. Boozer makes us slightly better but doesn't come close to pushing us over the top. But his contract is up next year. I'm just wary of giving up Hinrich (who can play point, knock down open shots, and defend three positions) plus Tyrus (who has shown flashes) for a one-year rental. 

Now, if the Bulls can get back Bayless or Fernandez...


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

T.Shock said:


> And *Hakeem.* Magic, Bird, and Kobe are really the only legendary players who captured titles early.
> 
> Right now, we have a playoff team. Boozer makes us slightly better but doesn't come close to pushing us over the top. But his contract is up next year. I'm just wary of giving up Hinrich (who can play point, knock down open shots, and defend three positions) plus Tyrus (who has shown flashes) for a one-year rental.
> 
> Now, if the Bulls can get back Bayless or Fernandez...


I don't think Hakeem won a championship for a decade unless he won one in the 80s that I don't know about but I don't think so. As far as I know, and I don't have time to look it up, he didn't win one will '94 when Jordan retired the first time, and was drafted the same year as His Airness. 

I agree that people want results way too fast. That's why I'd rather wait and see what we get in Tyrus (I still think he could explode) and I think that D wins you championships and Kirk is good at that and a perfect 3rd guard since he can play both positions. 

Bayless isn't worth tipping the scales, but he'd help ease the pain if that trade was made. I really think that the fabled class of '10 isn't going to be that great. It's already sounding like Bosh and Wade are staying put, so there goes 2 top targets off the market already. Others like Amare will either be resigned or traded. I think that the Hawks have something going on over there, so I expect Joe Johnson to stay put unless the Hawks start having financial trouble....they appear to have opened up the checkbook this offseason though, with resigning their boys and getting Crawford, so maybe things are changing over there for the better management-wise. That leaves a lot of 2nd tier guys at best available. Dirk would be nice but he's older and declining. TMac injured. Yao? lol * Who else is there that would really be worth giving up BOTH Kirk and Tyrus for if Boozer doesn't resign or isn't the answer?*


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Por, Utah, Bulls Rumor*



giusd said:


> TBF,
> 
> I didnt know you had been ill. Good to hear you are feeling better.
> 
> best d


David it is always good to see you here!


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

It seems Derrick Rose is under the impression the Bulls will be making trade/s soon.

:40 in

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KljIZxNDaMQ&feature=fvhl


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Hustle said:


> It seems Derrick Rose is under the impression the Bulls will be making trade/s soon.
> 
> :40 in
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KljIZxNDaMQ&feature=fvhl


No one will argue with him when he said we are a piece or two away. We are. That being said, do we get them this year? I dont think so. We can and should get one of the pieces, but even if we don't we aren't not going to bomb. We are still set to add some nice players to a playoff team next year and of course draft yet another young player.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I don't think Hakeem won a championship for a decade unless he won one in the 80s that I don't know about but I don't think so. As far as I know, and I don't have time to look it up, he didn't win one will '94 when Jordan retired the first time, and was drafted the same year as His Airness.
> 
> I agree that people want results way too fast. That's why I'd rather wait and see what we get in Tyrus (I still think he could explode) and I think that D wins you championships and Kirk is good at that and a perfect 3rd guard since he can play both positions.
> 
> Bayless isn't worth tipping the scales, but he'd help ease the pain if that trade was made. I really think that the fabled class of '10 isn't going to be that great. It's already sounding like Bosh and Wade are staying put, so there goes 2 top targets off the market already. Others like Amare will either be resigned or traded. I think that the Hawks have something going on over there, so I expect Joe Johnson to stay put unless the Hawks start having financial trouble....they appear to have opened up the checkbook this offseason though, with resigning their boys and getting Crawford, so maybe things are changing over there for the better management-wise. That leaves a lot of 2nd tier guys at best available. Dirk would be nice but he's older and declining. TMac injured. Yao? lol * Who else is there that would really be worth giving up BOTH Kirk and Tyrus for if Boozer doesn't resign or isn't the answer?*


Hakeem was mentioned as someone it took 7 years or more. The '86 Rockets made the Finals (by upsetting the Lakers somehow) but even with some talent around Hakeem, he couldn't win a title and maybe wouldn't have until Jordan retired in '93. I think everyone here is obsessed with with winning a title as soon as possible when it is entirely probable that we don't win one again. Stockton & Malone, Barkley, Ewing, those 80s Bucks teams, those late 80s-early 90s Cavs teams, Payton & Kemp, those early 2000s Kings teams. Frankly, there have been some very, very talented teams who never won a title. 

GarPax's job right now should be to put the best possible team on the floor without getting tied up in lengthy contracts paying second options max money and such. Derrick Rose is the future. And that future isn't next year or even the year after that. It's five years from now. So, that's why I don't mind Boozer. He makes the team better this year, his contract isn't unwieldy, etc.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

T.Shock said:


> Hakeem was mentioned as someone it took 7 years or more. The '86 Rockets made the Finals (by upsetting the Lakers somehow) but even with some talent around Hakeem, he couldn't win a title and maybe wouldn't have until Jordan retired in '93. I think everyone here is obsessed with with winning a title as soon as possible when it is entirely probable that we don't win one again. Stockton & Malone, Barkley, Ewing, those 80s Bucks teams, those late 80s-early 90s Cavs teams, Payton & Kemp, those early 2000s Kings teams. Frankly, there have been some very, very talented teams who never won a title.
> 
> GarPax's job right now should be to put the best possible team on the floor without getting tied up in lengthy contracts paying second options max money and such. Derrick Rose is the future. And that future isn't next year or even the year after that. *It's five years from now*. So, that's why I don't mind Boozer. He makes the team better this year, his contract isn't unwieldy, etc.


I am glad we now know when Rose's future is. Thanks time-traveler.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

boozer loves miami



> For all those Bulls fans who got breathlessly excited about Carlos Boozer's radio interview last week in which he stated his desire to play for the Bulls, Boozer said similar things Monday about playing for the Heat.
> 
> In fact, Boozer said playing for the Heat is his No. 1 choice.
> 
> ...


and this after smith had a change of heart about boozer. good job, kc!


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

Whether he ends up in the Bulls uniform or not this season, I have a strong feeling that he's going to be in Heat uniform at the start of 2010. If we acquire him I'm almost certain it's going to be a 1-year rental. I also doubt Wade is changing team (which is why I believe Miami is at Boozer's top of the list).


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> I am glad we now know when Rose's future is. Thanks time-traveler.


It's an opinion. But I have enough sense not to put "I think" before everything sentence I write. So why don't you just take a deep breath and add something productive.


----------

