# Tech_N9ne rumor (Hinrich/Wallace for Gooden/Hughes)



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

He has appeared at realgm long enough to say a trade is being discussed between the bulls and cavs. 

Wallace and Hinrich to cavs for gooden and Hughes plus filler. 

Your thoughts?


----------



## O2K (Nov 19, 2002)

i hope this is a joke.

Hughes is terrible. I wouldn't give up Hinrich for both gooden and hughes.

Not a good move


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I don't know... i feel like Hinrich and Lebron would murder us. I do like getting rid of Wallace though...


----------



## Smez86 (Jun 29, 2006)

Oh god no.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Those are some talented players. Like the caliber we've got several of already...good, but not superstar.

Noah or Tyrus grabs some bench here. Gooden helps, but this is mostly a lateral move. Fresh blood, some height, not much else.

Would this smack of impulsiveness or desperation?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

I bet Danny Ferry called Pax up and said we'll take Wallace of your hands if you'll take Hughes off ours, and oh, we want Kirk, too..........


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Just going by career scoring and rebounding, we would win that trade...but no way you win the East with Gooden battling Howard and Sheed and Garnett.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

First off, Tech_N9ne is the man. Years ago he would break numerous stories over at RealGM before anyone else. He's definitely legit. 

We get bigger and more athletic. That's good. I like Hughes, but not at his current contract. I'd hope we ship him off somewhere else. Not really a Gooden fan but I just want Big Ben outta here. I'd try and get either Pavlovic or a future 1st rounder thrown in by the Cavs.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

If they rework this a little bit with filler & picks I could see it happening.


----------



## chibul (Oct 14, 2006)

Definitely one of those fake bogus rumors. Nobody in their right mind would believe this one.


----------



## Jib Meister (Sep 24, 2007)

Wow, just wow. Hughes and Gordon is a duo that works better on paper than the Hinrich/Gordon combo.


----------



## bball2223 (Jul 21, 2006)

Ruff Draft said:


> If they rework this a little bit with filler & picks I could see it happening.


Yeah exactly what I thought, but this would be an absolutely dumb trade by the Bulls. It must mean Paxson wants to rebuild again.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

Duhon
Hughes
Deng
Gooden
Noah

Gordon


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Gives us more scoring. We get a big guard. That is if Hughes can turn it around. How much has injuries slowed down his game?


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

bball2223 said:


> Yeah exactly what I thought, but this would be an absolutely dumb trade by the Bulls. It must mean Paxson wants to rebuild again.


Most definately as rebuild. Which is what they may need to do?


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

truebluefan said:


> Gives us more scoring. We get a big guard. That is if Hughes can turn it around. How much has injuries slowed down his game?


It can get pretty horrid at times. His jumper is just straight up broken. Maybe it's just Cleveland though... maybe?


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

Cleveland would probably bite.

Boobie
Hinrich
Lebron
Wallace
Z


----------



## Jib Meister (Sep 24, 2007)

Rebuild? Not seeing it. This is Pax giving up on Kirk and addressing our lack of production at the 4/5. Defensively Hughes and Kirk are close enough, with Hughes being a little bigger. Offensively Hughes might be a better fit next to Gordon. Let's not forget he earned his big money deal playing with Gilbert Arenas and Jamison. This trade makes us a similar team. 

And I don't think I need to explain how Wallace for Gooden is a win for us.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

I think it's a rebuild in the way that CHI's front-court would need work.

Duhon would look better at the one, and Hughes gives them much needed size at the guards.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Hmm...

Well, I'd much rather keep Gordon than Hinrich so that's a win...

Hughes WANTS to go back to slash/attack (obviously since he knows he can't shoot) and we need a guy that can draw fouls...

He also can handle some PG and guards the other teams best perimeter player @ 6"6

His contrct is also shorter than Ben's or Kirk's....

Drew Gooden is much more productive now than Ben but isn't as good defensively....

But he can score and is pretty good rebounder...

His contract is also shorter than Ben's or Kirk's...

My only issue is him taking minutes from our young guys...

Just to get rid of Wallace...I'd probably do it


----------



## BeZerker2008 (Jun 29, 2006)

I would do the trade only if we could substitute kirk for other filler players & if this is only team willing to take Wallace off our hands, if not pass. I know kirk could probably fetch more in a trade than Gooden, but I don't know if I like the idea of helping out a rival.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

I am for this trade.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

For the record, Wallace and Hinrich for Hughes, Gooden, and Newble (filler) works under the cap.

I think I am against this trade. Whereas I am in favor of new blood on this team, I've been waiting for some time for us to combine some of our young assets to get a better player on the team. I think the best player in this trade is Hinrich, despite his recent struggles. The Hughes of three years ago was a much better player, but so was the Wallace of three years ago. Is there really no consolidation trade to be made? Is it really advisable to trade Hinrich when he is playing at his worst?

This is, however, a reasonable trade. It also would save Papa Reinsdorf quite a bit of long term money, and I am more and more convinced of how important that is.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Hinrich and Wallace both suck. 

We get a big guard who has had some success at point guard (leading the Cavs to the finals as the point guard last year....). This would be Paxson showing Gordon that he trusts him to be the man in the backcourt. 

I think what Paxson is seeing is Kirk is a bad offensive player. He wasn't the greatest point guard ever, and now he has regressed. But that was all okay, because Kirk was all nba defensive caliber. This year, Kirk has been a joke of a defender. Duhon and Gordon are easily defending better than Hinrich. Paxson probably sees defense as a complete committment, and he doesn't think Hinrich (or Wallace) will ever get that committment back, and is shipping their asses off.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I actually like it.

Listen, Hughes was a great player with the Wiz. So the question is it role, health or what with the Cavs? I think he could go back to his traditional role here with the Bulls.

We need to get rid of Wallace. I was just thinking about Wallace for Hughes the last couple of days, but thought there was no way such a trade would happen, given that the Cavs have big Z and its in the same division. 

If they check him out and OK the health, he's a guy that has a chance to be a good player. Gooden can be a very good PF for us for years. I wanted him when he was a FA years back, when we landed Wallace.

Hinrich and Wallace are 2 bad contracts. Gooden is a productive, good big man and Hughes could be the type of guy that goes back to excelling with a change of scenery.

We need to finally abort this "right way" nonsense once and for all. Hinrich is the icon of this failed movement.

Even if Hughes is a stiff, which I don't think he'd be here, we still gain Gooden who is productive. It seems like both of these guys need a chance of scenery, as do Kirk and Wallace.

We can wait and wait, but we're likely not going to get more. We've been waiting for the big KG, Gasol and Kobe trade for years, and all we get is nothing, and a bunch of excuses about how these trades are impossible.

We immediatly become a properly sized team. 

Duhon / Gordon
Hughes / Gordon
Deng / Nocioni
Gooden / TT
Noah / Gray

I can live with that. Wallace has to go. 

Hughes is a nice, athletic defensive 2 who can take it to the hole. If we think that his decline is due to improper fit with Lebron, it could be a very nice deal for the Bulls.

We simply can't go on being so undersized at the 2. And if it totally bombs, we'll get a higher draft pick and have a good PF in Gooden, and a bad contract in Hughes. He's less of a headache than Big Ben. At least we won't have to give him his own in-game sound effect for his crappy play.

I say do the deal.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Have any of you actually watched Larry Hughes play lately? And by lately I mean in the last two and a half years? We're better off with Kirk, and that's saying something. When he shoots it's basically a turnover, and he doesn't want to drive because he's scared of getting injured. So what exactly is he good for?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I actually like it.
> 
> Listen, Hughes was a great player with the Wiz. So the question is it role, health or what with the Cavs? I think he could go back to his traditional role here with the Bulls.
> 
> ...


K4E, just be aware that in Hughes, we're talking about a player with this kind of an injury history. He's more brittle than peanut brittle:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3114004



> CLEVELAND -- Bruised but not broken this time, Larry Hughes is again too hurt to play for the Cavaliers.
> 
> Cleveland's fragile guard, who has also endured personal misfortune in the past, will miss at least four weeks with a deep bone bruise in his left leg, yet another setback for Hughes and the defending Eastern Conference champions.
> 
> ...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Yah, I know about Hughes.

Worst case, its a better bad contract than Wallace, and less of a headache. We can't just not play Ben Wallace. And its going to kill the team.

Gooden is a pretty solid PF. I've always liked him. He can rebound well and score close to the hoop. I also liked Hughes with the Wiz, but he's nowhere near as productive with the Cavs. He was brittle with the Wiz, but productive. Is a mesh issue with Lebron, or has he simply lost it? Its it worth the gamble to find out?

I dunno, perhaps its better to sit and wait. Maybe a better deal involving Wallace comes up.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I would trade Wallace for Hughes in a heartbeat. The Bulls win that deal, IMO. Hughes is cheaper and has a chance to be productive for the Bulls, and isn't the giant eyesore/problem child that Wallace is.

Then it comes down to Gooden for Hinrich. That's tougher. Gooden can score close to the basket, is entering his prime and can rebound the ball. He's signed to a fair contrct.

Hinrich? I think we've seen what Hinrich is going to be in this league. We don't want him at 1, and I just don't see how we're going to go forward with him at the 2 either. He's not a good shooter, a nice defender, although undersized. I think I'd do Hinrich for Gooden.

This allows us to get out from under the two troublesome contracts on this team. Sure, we take on another bad one, but at least we can hang onto hughes and dump him later if he's a stiff, and its not going to be the massive headache that Wallace is going to be if we keep him.

Or we can wait for a better deal... I'm not sure how much more we can get from someone to take Wallace off our hands. We're going to likely have to take some crap back no matter what happens.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its it worth the gamble to find out?


And to lose Hinrich? Not sure? See, Hughes may be physically battered to the point where he can't regain his former ability, even at the young age of 28. Hinrich, whereas he's playing terrible this year, is in excellent physical shape and has seldom been injured. Despite the fact that Hughes's best years have been better than Kirks, I somehow get the feeling that it's Kirk that will have a better future. 

Again, I'm more than happy to part with Kirk (especially with Du on the team) as long as we get the best player in the deal.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Man, what a massive mistake signing Ben Wallace was.

Skiles is gone. Hinrich is about to get shipped out.

What a devastating signing it was. Its ripped apart this team.

If only Paxson saw what many here saw. It was a bad idea to dump Chandler and Curry and bad idea to build Cap Space in the summer of average to bad FAs that he chose.

Oh well. Paxson did all of this to himself. He chose this.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Again, I'm more than happy to part with Kirk (especially with Du on the team) as long as we get the best player in the deal.


Given the current state of this team (Duhon, Gordon, lack of anything down low, bad play from Hinrich, big Hinrich contract), would you trade Hinrich for Gooden?


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, I know about Hughes.
> 
> Worst case, its a better bad contract than Wallace, and less of a headache. We can't just not play Ben Wallace. And its going to kill the team.
> 
> ...


I don't like the deal. Like everybody else, I'm disappointed in Hinrich's play this season and horrified with Wallace's, but :

1) Hinrich, assuming he regains his form of the past couple seasons, is probably the best player in the deal.

2) I don't think Gooden is very good. 13 and 9 in 32 mpg are nice numbers, but he never sees the opposing team's best interior defender and James draws an absolute ton of attention. Athletic high lottery pick bigs typically don't play for 3 teams in their first 5 seasons. Something's not quite right with him. Why did Orlando trade him? Why did Memphis trade him? Why has Cleveland been dangling him in trade talks for the bulk of his time w / the Cavs?

3) Hughes and Deng aren't a good pairing. You can't win with two sub 30% 3 point shooters at the 2 and 3 in the NBA today.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> 3) Hughes and Deng aren't a good pairing. You can't win with two sub 30% 3 point shooters at the 2 and 3 in the NBA today.


I agree with this. Its what concerns me the most.

We'd rely heavily on Gordon playing 30 minutes and providing outside scoring, if he can get his game back.

Given the play of Wallace and Hinrich, the perfect trade will likely not be coming down the pipe.

I'm not in love with the deal, but it could go a long way to jettisoning the problems with this club.

We'll see. I detest Ben Wallace. And I've never thought Hinrich is as good as many of his fans claim. 

Gooden is 26 years old, is one of the top rebounders in the game and can score both inside and in the midrange. The reason he gets the boot, IMO, is his periodic mental lapses. He's a good but not great player, hence the 2 year, 6-7 mil per year contract.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Gooden is 26 years old, is one of the top rebounders in the game and can score both inside and in the midrange. The reason he gets the boot, IMO, is his periodic mental lapses. He's a good but not great player, hence the 2 year, 6-7 mil per year contract.


Let's not go nuts re : rebounding. Gooden is third on his team in rebounding rate at present (albiet with extremely limited minutes for Anderson Varajao), and 38th in the NBA. He's a good rebounder, not an elite one. I think Gooden is alright, what do you do with Gooden / Noah / Thomas / Smith / Nocioni / Gray at the 4 and 5 spots if you acquire him? Gooden's a proven mediocrity, I'd rather see Thomas or Noah out there.

I do agree that dealing Wallace is a borderline neccesity at this point. But I'm not sure what the market's like for a coach killing malcontent averaging 4 and 9 while shooting 32 percent and demanding big minutes. Maybe Gooden / Hughes isn't that bad after all.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Let's not go nuts re : rebounding. Gooden is third on his team in rebounding rate at present (albiet with extremely limited minutes for Anderson Varajao), and 38th in the NBA. He's a good rebounder, not an elite one.


He's having an off year.

Last year he was 6th among PFs.

The year before he had an even higher rate.

The question to be asked is why are his numbers down this season. The last two seasons he's been one of the best rebounders in the NBA.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> He's having an off year.
> 
> Last year he was 6th among PFs.
> 
> ...


His rebounding rate is marginally worse this season that the past two, there's no precipitous drop. Gooden is good rebounder. He's not a difference making rebounder (like Tyson Chandler, I'll go ahead and say it for you).

Gooden's a career 47 percent shooter, that's not very good for a young, athletic big, and I fear that number could drop sharply upon moving to Chicago. There's no LeBron James here to draw the defenses attention. There are precious few easy baskets for our big men. Drew will have to score one on one, in the post - and I'm not sure that he can. He may even see double teams. It's not like a kick out to Larry Hughes or Luol Deng around the three point stripe is all that scary a prospect for opposing defenses.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

IMO, this is a bad trade...too risky.

Hughes reminds me Jalen Rose and Gooden looks like a very inconsistent/mentally unstable player.

For BW and Kirk we should be able to get something more substantial.

Proposed trade immediately makes Cleveland a championship contender…number one. And we got almost nothing in return, in terms of contribution towards the future.

I don’t mind to trade half of our team (with exception of Nocioni and Du) for at least one all-star player, but not for another waste. We already have an average or potentially good PF such as TT, Noah, JS. And Hughes definitely not a savior or good enough to help our team to succeed more, than Kirk does now.

But I can see JR probably will love that move…saves him some money and probably gets some “an extra undeclared cash” for making Cleveland a next NBA champion.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

The ROY said:


> Hmm...
> 
> Well, I'd much rather keep Gordon than Hinrich so that's a win...
> 
> ...


How would gooden take minutes away from TT and JN? Gooden would take wallace minutes. Trading wallace would allow Gray and Noah to play in the post.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I actually like it.
> 
> Listen, Hughes was a great player with the Wiz. So the question is it role, health or what with the Cavs? I think he could go back to his traditional role here with the Bulls.
> 
> ...


I like the trade as well. Sure it's not a world beater, but on paper it improves us offensively. Gives us more size at the two. We get rid of Wallace. Gooden is younger. Hughes is not an old man. 

Hinrich has slumped big time. I would do it. 

Does it make us challenge for the east? No. We need TT and Noah and Gray to play a much larger role on the team in order to do that.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I actually like it.
> 
> Listen, Hughes was a great player with the Wiz. So the question is it role, health or what with the Cavs? I think he could go back to his traditional role here with the Bulls.
> 
> ...



Absolutely correct on all points. I think posters who have expressed doubts about this deal should read this post again- carefully. Keys: getting rid of Wallace and "right-sizing" our team.

Worst case scenario is that Hughes turns out to be useless. Well folks, Wallace is already there. So, at least we save money. Moreover, IMO Wallace is a bigger cancer than Jalen Rose was. 

Gooden is a solid, albeit, not spectacular player. I think he is the best player in the deal now that Kirk has regressed so badly. Noah and Gray get to develop at the 5 spot. TT may be the odd man out. Although he is not the subject of this thread, time will show that there is a reason that TT is the odd man out.


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

I think this is a bad trade, and I also seriously doubt it could happen just due to the realities of human nature and of staying employed. 

Gooden has been available before, both as a free agent and on the trading block, and his name has been bandied about here and elsewhere as the most obvious available source of scoring from the 4 (out of what was a bad free agent class). Paxson conspicuously did NOT bite on getting Gooden then, probably for the same reasons that have been alluded to here.

This year, Hinrich has had a bad season and Gooden has had a good one. I still think they are who they are. 

Regardless, for Paxson to trade his signature free agent signing AND his one major contract extension, in return for somebody he actively passed on before plus a laughingstock - that's such a backtracking, such a capitulation, that regardless of whether it's a good or bad trade, I just can't see it happening.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

I slept on the trade, and I think even more highly about it.

Wallace NEEDS to go, and Hughes needs a change of sceneary. Chicago can get much more use out of Larry than Ben. Swapping a slumping Hinrich for Gooden is fine.


----------



## Headfake98 (Dec 10, 2006)

I swear to god, if John Paxson makes this deal, this will be the end of his GMing after Hughes plays a game at the United Center. The man is an absolutely horrible basketball player - have you seen his attempts to lay the ball in? I mean, honestly. He is airballing 5ft shots, and the worst part is he walks into every game prepared to shoot like he's Michael Jordan.

I mean, look at the NBA hotspot shooting percentage thing : http://www.nba.com/hotspots/

Larry Hughes is shooting the majority (54 shots to the second place 16) of his shots right under the hoop - at an astounding 37%. 33% on the season due to his next highest shooting place - a left of the arc 3 pointer at 25%. 

The guy is ****.

As for Gooden, he's ok but he is just a decent player on a bad team (outside of lebron) and not worth Hinrich imo, or even Wallace. He doesn't give us a low post player to run with in the half court set, and we lose a good offensive rebounder in wallace (still at 3.5rpg on the offensive glass iirc) and a combo guard who can be very effective.

Don't do this trade.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I agree with this. Its what concerns me the most.
> 
> We'd rely heavily on Gordon playing 30 minutes and providing outside scoring, if he can get his game back.
> 
> ...



If the Bulls do this deal, it's to save money down the line, pure and simple. This is something you usually are against.


Wallace's low post defense is better than any of Gooden's strengths, Hinrich's defense is better than anything Hughes does well.

The reason Cleveland wants to do this is that the guys they would get do more for a team.



Yeah, we'd get our big defensive SG finally... but that's about the main argument I can see for this. Well, mainly the money. Then that.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I like this trade. With Hinrich and Wallace being the two worst defenders on the team (definitely in the starting lineup) they have become hindrances on the team. 

Hinrich and Wallace have more name value, but I think we might be getting the two best players back in this trade. Gooden is a strong, tough guy. Definition of solod. The type of guy we need in our frontcourt. hughes can play ball, its just a matter of getting it out of him. We might just get the allstar Hughes.

This trade also changes the direction of the team. This trade makes the big opening for Ben Gordon to play point guard, which is the position he will thrive at. Long term, post-Hughesmus, it would give Thabo the starting shooting guard spot next to Gordon. Thabo is a good defender, and has shown the ability to slash and get to the basket in a great position to score. He just hasn't finished. Will he be able to become a better finisher? That 30+ mpg cinderblock in the lowpost is gone. Gooden will certainly take more minutes at the powerforward. Joe Smith may be phased out a tad bit, and certainly there would be more minutes for Gray and Noah. Tyrus is still at a lost a bit...but maybe Paxson comes to the realization that Tyrus is a bust, and ships him out soon. (Maybe get a guy like Marcus Camby back).


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Well the deal can help us and hurt us also, 

Pros
2 years of Hughes at a cheaper price is slighty better than 2 more years of Wallace at a much to high of a price. 

Kirk Hinrich is not a true PG, its time to move on and hope that we can snap one up in next years draft. Gooden with 1 year left is a valuable trade piece that could get you something down the road. Gooden is cheaper and has less years on his contract than Hinrich so this is most likely a salary move. 

Your getting rid of Wallace and Hinrich two high paid low producing players for 2 lessly high paid low producing players but the difference is one of them will be off the books sooner than both Wallace and Hinrich. 

The team isnt much better and your still in the lottery hunt in a year thats going to be full of impact players thats not such a bad thing.

You free up more money if you want to resign Deng and Gordon.

Cons

Have you seen their Stats?!
Granted Hinrich and Wallace have not impressed with their stat lines but for a team that CANT Score trading for 2 guys with FG%'s of 44% for a PF and possibly pairing up 2 SG's with FG %'s of 33% and 38% could turn off a lot of fans. 

This trade does not make you any better, it doesnt do anything for team but help you find minutes to showcase how terrible Thomas and Noah really are. 


Possible lineups

C- Gray
PF-Gooden
SF- Thomas
SG-Deng
PG- Hughes

Not a fan of this lineup as Thomas and Deng arent skilled enough to play those possitions but hey Pax wants Thomas to showcase his athleticism and wants Deng to post up smaller guards so what he wants he gets.

2.

C- Gray
PF-Gooden
SF- Deng
SG- Hughes
PG- Gordon

This is the Bulls best shot at atleast resembling a decent offense, I think Gordon can play the PG possition hes got the court vision and its just up to him to NOT turn the ball over. This is your poormans washington lineup. 

3. 

C-Gray
PF-Nocioni
SF-Deng
SG-Hughes
PG-Duhon

This is probably the lineup that has the best chance of starting, Duhon is well liked by the coaches and for some reason people still think that hes a starting PG.


----------



## george (Aug 8, 2003)

Cleveland should add a 1st round pick.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

thebizkit69u said:


> Well the deal can help us and hurt us also,
> 
> Pros
> 2 years of Hughes at a cheaper price is slighty better than 2 more years of Wallace at a much to high of a price.
> ...


Duhon
Hughes
Deng
Gooden
Gray

Is most probable.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Ruff Draft said:


> Duhon
> Hughes
> Deng
> Gooden
> ...


For whatever reason, I look at that lineup and think 30-52. Or 28-54. Or well you get the picture. I think we have to make some type of trade for a #1.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

> Larry Hughes' time with the Cavaliers might be just about over. According to several league sources, the Cavs have contacted several teams about a deal involving the 6-5 guard.
> 
> "Hughes will be gone way before then," said one source, who did not want to be identified.
> 
> The relationship between the Cavs and Hughes has not gone well. Hughes was GM Danny Ferry's biggest signing, but Hughes' two-plus seasons have been riddled with injuries. When healthy, Hughes has not been comfortable in the Cavs' offense, which takes away from his strength as a slasher. He's instead asked to take outside shots, which is not one of his strengths.


http://www.cleveland.com/sports/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/sports/1198488778307550.xml&coll=2

You know about what they say about places where there is smoke.

Hopefully Paxson can get this deal sorted out ASAP. I'm sure they're just discussing who the third player is (Yell, Pavlovic, Newble, Snow, etc.), and whether a draft pick will be involved (1st or 2nd round).

I hope Paxson can ciphen a draft pick out of this. It ends up being maybe the 20th pick from the Cavs. Then we have our own thats like the 21st or so...gives Paxsons two times to get something in the draft, and maybe he can use the two picks, Tyrus Thomas, and Nocioni to trade into one of those top spots, and get us a Derrick Rose or OJ Mayo. 

This is in line with Paxson's saying that connections are so important in the industry. He has the obvious connections with Isiah in New York, Colangelo in Toronto, Jordan in Charlotte, and with Ferry in Cleveland thanks to his brother Jim. 

I proposed a trade a few days ago of Curry and Richardson for Hinrich and Wallace. This is essentially the same trade, only with a Cleveland spin on it. I'd rather take the New York version of the trade if possible, but I can't see Paxson sucking up his pride and taking Curry back. While Gooden is statistically better than Curry this year (and I think Hughes is statistically better than Richardson), I think Curry is the type of talent you have to roll the dice on.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> I like this trade. *With Hinrich and Wallace being the two worst defenders on the team* (definitely in the starting lineup) they have become hindrances on the team.
> 
> Hinrich and Wallace have more name value, but I think we might be getting the two best players back in this trade. Gooden is a strong, tough guy. Definition of solod. The type of guy we need in our frontcourt. hughes can play ball, its just a matter of getting it out of him. We might just get the allstar Hughes.
> 
> This trade also changes the direction of the team. *This trade makes the big opening for Ben Gordon to play point guard, which is the position he will thrive at.* Long term, post-Hughesmus, it would give Thabo the starting shooting guard spot next to Gordon. Thabo is a good defender, and has shown the ability to slash and get to the basket in a great position to score. He just hasn't finished. Will he be able to become a better finisher? That 30+ mpg cinderblock in the lowpost is gone. Gooden will certainly take more minutes at the powerforward. Joe Smith may be phased out a tad bit, and certainly there would be more minutes for Gray and Noah. Tyrus is still at a lost a bit...but maybe Paxson comes to the realization that Tyrus is a bust, and ships him out soon. (Maybe get a guy like Marcus Camby back).



Sloth, come on. I love how you can just casually toss in the opposite of the truth... its almost like you're trying to see if we're paying attention. Hinrich is the worst defender on the team? I thought you'd moved on from the promote-Ben-Gordon-regardless-of-how-ridiculous-the-argument-is phase. Ben Gordon does not have the handle or vision to play point guard, and Hinrich is a solid defender for his size. These points are not really debatable... at least not in this reality.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

T.Shock said:


> For whatever reason, I look at that lineup and think 30-52. Or 28-54. Or well you get the picture. I think we have to make some type of trade for a #1.


Me too. Chicago is at a point where they need to rework what they have. I think this trade does that well, but after that they must hit the draft for a couple years. A star guard would bepriority #1.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

If we throw in Gordon and Noc will they give us lebron?

Say yes.... PLEASE say yes!


----------



## Smez86 (Jun 29, 2006)

Ask anyone on the Cavs board. Larry Hughes is the worst basketball player in the league.

We should be consolidating to land a superstar, not trading for two bums.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Larry Hughes has been as bad as Wallace has been for us, but his contract is slightly better.

Bulls are going to be rebuilding for a long time if Pax screws up the 08 draft like he has the past 2.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> I like this trade. With Hinrich and Wallace being the two worst defenders on the team (definitely in the starting lineup) they have become hindrances on the team.


I dont know whether you're counting Gordon in that or not, but either way they're the best two defenders in the lineup.

Why else would you think Cleveland wants them? They need defense, and are the kind of offense that can hide someone like Wallace.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Would anyone change their mind if it could be Hughes/Ilgauskas coming here? He's an expiring after next yr.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

DengNabbit said:


> Would anyone change their mind if it could be Hughes/Ilgauskas coming here? He's an expiring after next yr.


Yes...but so would Cleveland.


----------



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

trade wont even work on nba trade machine


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

DengNabbit said:


> I dont know whether you're counting Gordon in that or not, but either way they're the best two defenders in the lineup.
> 
> Why else would you think Cleveland wants them? They need defense, and are the kind of offense that can hide someone like Wallace.


Cleveland would be trading for them in the hope of things changing.

They were our two best defenders last year, but both have been dreadful this year.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

F.A.B said:


> trade wont even work on nba trade machine


Has to be filler added from Cavs end of the trade.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> They were our two best defenders last year, but both have been dreadful this year.



Hinrich has had good defensive games against Ray Allen and Rip Hamilton. Wallace's blocks-to-foul ratio is #1 in the NBA. I wouldnt call 'em dreadful. They're NBA All-Defensive Teamers for a reason.

Meanwhile, the rest of the guys in the starting lineup are traditionally thought of as the defensive weak links.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I was actually thinking about us making a similar trade just last night but I decided against it. Hughes has too much injury history for my tastees and Hinrich, although struggling, IS the best player in the deal. Who here believes Hinrich's remaining career will be a slump? I don't. And I am so sick of hearing people ride on Ben Wallace saying he is garbage and needs to go. Do people just not realize that Wallace has been playing injured and noone is making him sit? He's a warrior and he refuses to miss games and at this point its to the detriment of the team. Still, Ben Wallace is a great player and I don't think he is finished like so many suggest. THe coaching staff needs to sit Wallace and they need to see what Hinrich can do at the 2 with Duhon running the point for now. I'd pass...

ACE


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

Ben Wallace would ***** to the media if they sat him for an extended period of time.

As for Hughes when healthy, he can give you 22,6,4 and 3spg(that's what he put up his last year with the Wizards) and would be the size at the 2 we need. His injury history is a concern though...


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> I was actually thinking about us making a similar trade just last night but I decided against it. Hughes has too much injury history for my tastees and Hinrich, although struggling, IS the best player in the deal. Who here believes Hinrich's remaining career will be a slump? I don't. And I am so sick of hearing people ride on Ben Wallace saying he is garbage and needs to go. Do people just not realize that Wallace has been playing injured and noone is making him sit? He's a warrior and he refuses to miss games and at this point its to the detriment of the team. Still, Ben Wallace is a great player and I don't think he is finished like so many suggest. THe coaching staff needs to sit Wallace and they need to see what Hinrich can do at the 2 with Duhon running the point for now. I'd pass...
> 
> ACE



Ace, 

The wisdom of this trade aside, I guess my problem with Wallace is that I don't feel like his struggles have been all injury-related. Or, if they have, they seem to have come on so gradually that they more resemble the wear and tear associated with old NBA-age... and I don't necessarily see him coming back from that. Maybe that isn't the case, maybe with some rest he can return to something resembling the Detroit Ben Wallace... but even Ben Wallace of last year was nothing special. Wallace is a guy that relied on athleticism and defensive awareness to become a superstar... now the athleticism is gone and we're left with a defensively savvy (and offensively inept) 6'7" power-forward. If the lift comes back, I'm with you, keep him around... he knows how to guard people and he's strong as on ox. If the lift never comes back... like I've said, I'll buy his plane ticket out of town.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I was actually thinking about us making a similar trade just last night but I decided against it. Hughes has too much injury history for my tastees and Hinrich, although struggling, IS the best player in the deal. Who here believes Hinrich's remaining career will be a slump? I don't. And I am so sick of hearing people ride on Ben Wallace saying he is garbage and needs to go. Do people just not realize that Wallace has been playing injured and noone is making him sit? He's a warrior and he refuses to miss games and at this point its to the detriment of the team. Still, Ben Wallace is a great player and I don't think he is finished like so many suggest. THe coaching staff needs to sit Wallace and they need to see what Hinrich can do at the 2 with Duhon running the point for now. I'd pass...
> 
> ACE


Stop by more often, and I definitely agree.

People want to get rid of Wallace because he is playing bad. Irregardless of whether or not you feel it was a good/bad Paxson signing, what would getting rid of Wallace net us? About the only reasonable answer I see is getting Thomas, Noah, and Gray more playing time. That could be good, but if that's the only positive, why not just cut BW outright? Why take on another bad contract to be rid of him?

People want to trade Hinrich because he is playing bad right now.

People wanted to trade Gordon after last year's slow start. People also wanted to trade Deng and start Noc after the 05-06 playoffs.

What happens each time you trade a player when they are playing poorly? You lose value. Look for a consolidation trade or no deal.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Whatever happened to jibb? Pretty sure Gooden's poor team defense(he's alright on the ball), weird hair growth patterns, and Larry Hughes' headband would clash with team jibb.

Good trade for the Cavs in that they get rid of the WORST player in the NBA. The injuries have destroyed Hughes. He's no longer a slasher. Just a 30 percent chucker who kills ball movement.

Gooden is good though. You give him the minutes and he can do 16-18 with 10 rebounds on a decent percentage operating out of the low post, with a jumper that goes out to just inside 3 point range. He solves the bulls lack of inside scoring.

Hinrich of course solves the Cavs backcourt, because now they can play he and Gibson and not be sieves defensively. Hinrich is a Mike Brown kind of player. Dunno why he has started sucking, but then I don't know why the Bulls as a team started sucking either.

Wallace will be the Cavs backup getting minutes with Marshall behind Z and AV. Hopefully he doesn't play too much, because he's just another guy to double off of on Lebron. But whatever.

Think it's the trade of two desperate GMs looking to make it look like they did something when they really didn't.

If this trade goes through, you know it was the only one on the table for either team.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

Well the good thing about this trade from the Bulls perspective is that Gooden is very underutilized offensively in Cleveland. Lebron is our first option, Z is our second option, and sadly Hughes is probably the third. Drew is the only one we don't run plays for. 

So I think as the Bulls' only real low post scoring threat, he could easily get 15 ppg, if not more. (As long as you actually try to put him in a position to score, like running plays to get him the ball.)

I don't know if Hughes could turn it around in Chicago because he hasn't shown the ability to in Cleveland. I guess the one thing you have working for you there is that you're primarily a jumpshooting team without any real slashers, so maybe he'll have more room than he does in Cleveland. And maybe he just needs the change of scenery, who knows. But he's been garbage in Cleveland, that's for sure.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

If you can't play with the best player in the NBA who happens to be one of the most un-selfish players in the league...

What is going to Chicago gonna do for this guys career?

I thought about it @ first but nah..

Hinrich may be slumping but when he's on, he looks like one of the best combo g guards in the league....

The only real plus of this trade is getting two shorter contracts back....


----------



## Benedict_Boozer (Jul 16, 2004)

The ROY said:


> If you can't play with the best player in the NBA who happens to be one of the most un-selfish players in the league...
> 
> What is going to Chicago gonna do for this guys career?
> 
> ...


Exactly right...Hughes isn't turning anything around. This dude is done, believe me. His problem is more his body breaking down than a mentality or "system fit" problem. 

His contract is shorter than B. Wallace's though..I'm sure thats a big part of the equation from an owners perspective.


----------



## Fergus (Oct 2, 2002)

Unless Ben Wallace has some unknown injury that he will soon miraculously recover from, thus returning to his days of old, as a defensive / rebounding monster, we have to get rid of him. He just can no longer be relied on to perform on a consistent basis and has a huge contract.

Realize that if you are going to build a successfull NBA team, you have to have your big contract guys performing. Assuming you are not going to pay the lottery tax, you only have a certain amount of money to pay your players.

So, trading Ben Wallace is a good thing. Trading Hinrich may be the price you pay, plus Kirk just got a decent contract. If you can get rid of both of them and not take bad contracts back, then you have a chance to rebuild a bit plus pay your upcoming stars.

So the question is, are Gooden and Hughes the players we want to take on. My answer is NO. I would rather take on ending contracts, if we are not getting a player who can really help us.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

Fergus said:


> Unless Ben Wallace has some unknown injury that he will soon miraculously recover from, thus returning to his days of old, as a defensive / rebounding monster, we have to get rid of him. He just can no longer be relied on to perform on a consistent basis and has a huge contract.
> 
> Realize that if you are going to build a successfull NBA team, you have to have your big contract guys performing. Assuming you are not going to pay the lottery tax, you only have a certain amount of money to pay your players.
> 
> ...


I agree with your analysis. The problem is that Wallace has the worst contract in the NBA this side of Stephon Marbury and Raef LaFrentz. If Paxson cannot get a better deal than Gooden and Hughes then I would make this deal to get rid of two bad contracts. Wallace is a waste IMO and Hinrich is overpaid for what he is giving you. I always liked Gooden. I think he could easily be a 15/9 guy in the league in the right situation. Hughes may even have some game left which would be a bonus.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Moving Hinrich for Gooden, which is basically what the deal is, is a bad idea. Hinrich's a better player. Wallace for Hughes is neutral in that both players are terrible and overpaid. Hughes is done. Listen to the Cavs fans who have no choice now but to loath him.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

After another night of watching Larry Hughes try to play basketball, I concur. The guy is finished.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

With respect to Gooden vs. Hinrich, I think they are pretty similar. Except one is a big. Which the only reason the Cavs are doing big for small is the opportunity to get rid of Hughes, and they have Varejao to come in and replace him. It would mean more minutes for him, and more touches for Z. Not playing Hughes would be a big enough of a bonus to sacrafice Gooden.

Seriously. Run away from Hughes. Run away very fast. I don't think some of you are appreciating fully how awful a basketball player he is. Even if he was being paid the league minimum he would be overpaid. He brings nothing to the table. Nothing. Sometimes he gets steals. But most of the time his man just drives past him. And offensively he makes Eric Snow look like Tiny Archibald.

I wouldn't wish Larry Hughes on any team in the NBA.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> With respect to Gooden vs. Hinrich, I think they are pretty similar. Except one is a big. Which the only reason the Cavs are doing big for small is the opportunity to get rid of Hughes, and they have Varejao to come in and replace him. It would mean more minutes for him, and more touches for Z. Not playing Hughes would be a big enough of a bonus to sacrafice Gooden.
> 
> Seriously. Run away from Hughes. Run away very fast. I don't think some of you are appreciating fully how awful a basketball player he is. Even if he was being paid the league minimum he would be overpaid. He brings nothing to the table. Nothing. Sometimes he gets steals. But most of the time his man just drives past him. And offensively he makes Eric Snow look like Tiny Archibald.
> 
> I wouldn't wish Larry Hughes on any team in the NBA.


Can we send this exact post to John Paxson? Is that allowed?


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

I understand the rationale behind the trade, but I don't think it's a good one. 

Hinrich and Wallace aren't doing too well right now, and I think that's really influencing people's objectivity about fair value.

If you took this board's sentiments towards Ben Wallace this season and put them in a bottle for two years, you'd get what the cavs have with Larry Hughes. 

To me Hinrich has a good contract, he's just been in a big slump this season. But he's never been seriuosly injured, is a hard worker, and has always been consistent up until this point. I think that's different than ol' Larry, who's had a terrible two and a half years that have been riddle with injuries. When he signed his extension, he was probably underpaid, and if he regains some semblance of his old self, he'll still be a good player on a good contract in his prime years. I don't want to give that up in a lateral move.

A Ben Wallace salary dump? Yeah, that's okay. I would consider Wallace for Hughes straight up. A deal like that would probably be the only kind that could do to trade him. That or trade him to a contender for expiring contracts and filler.


----------



## chibul (Oct 14, 2006)

Seriously? Six pages for a bogus rumor that nobody in their right mind would believe?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Someone emailed Sam about the trade!



> *In my desire to help all 30 teams with trade ideas, I've developed a core of volunteer assistants and sometimes an interesting suggestion comes along. An e-mailer who's had some good information *before wrote last week to say the Bulls and Cavs were discussing Kirk Hinrich and Ben Wallace for Drew Gooden and Larry Hughes.
> 
> *I've been unable to confirm if there have been such discussio*ns. But I know the Cavs have locker-room and chemistry chaos. Damon Jones and Ira Newble declined to enter games last week, and the Cavs are desperate to deal Hughes. His contract—money and years—pretty much matches Wallace's, and if the Bulls can find anyone to take Wallace's contract, you'd think they would. Interesting how quickly his sore foot healed.
> 
> ...


Cavs-Bulls deal at least piques interest


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

> Houston, with coming on, won its first back-to-back set and had at least five players in double figures for the second straight game, both without Tracy McGrady. It's giving the team more reason to move McGrady, who is said to have quietly let it be known he's no longer happy in Houston. With the Rockets still in need of a point guard, you could see them working out a package that includes Hinrich and Andres Nocioni.


That trade doesn't work at all; both players are B.Y.C. It would have to be Wallace and Gordon...


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

After seeing what Wallace did with Howard tonight, I wonder if Cleveland will start spicing up the offer with draft picks.

And I wonder if it'll matter.


----------



## chibul (Oct 14, 2006)

IT'S NOT A REAL OFFER. It's a made-up rumor. I can't believe some of you are this gullible.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> I wouldn't wish Larry Hughes on any team in the NBA.


I would. Specifically the Spurs and Pistons. They deserve him.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

chibul said:


> IT'S NOT A REAL OFFER. It's a made-up rumor. I can't believe some of you are this gullible.


People are debating whether it'd be a worthwhile trade. That's what a message board is for.


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

wow, has Kirk's value regressed that much since the offseason? What happened?


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

*MAS RipCity...*

I sure wish we would have taken the player in your signature than the guy we took at 2. But, I doubt that he would have flourished as well as he has in Skiles' system...

As for Kirk; I don't know what happened to him, but he's started off slowly and has started to pick it up as of late...


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

If Pax does that, he should be shot. As already stated by someone else, I wouldn't give up Hinrich for those 2 by himself. I would, however, LOVE to get rid of Benedict Wallace.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> He has appeared at realgm long enough to say a trade is being discussed between the bulls and cavs.
> 
> Wallace and Hinrich to cavs for gooden and Hughes plus filler.
> 
> Your thoughts?



His instincts are good.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Man,

You wonder if it wouldn't have been better for Pax to send along Kirk instead of Joe Smith?

But he did pretty well, really, given what Wallace has become. I wonder if there's any redemption for Hughes in this upcoming year?


----------

