# offical thread bulls/rockets trade



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

Piakowski/Griffin/Wilks for Mutombo 

this trade will be completed tomorrow


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Fo real?

For a second I thought it was Eddie Griffin and I got excited...but this trade won't do anything for us so I could care less.


----------



## WhoDaBest23 (Apr 16, 2003)

Whoo _another_ point guard coming... 

Don't care too much for this trade.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mr.ankle20</b>!
> Piakowski/Griffin/Wilks for Mutombo
> 
> this trade will be completed tomorrow


Link?


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

well the PG is just trade filler. Won't be on the team.
Pike should help some in the shooting dept
Griff the defender

There goes my Lucious Harris dream


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I like the trade. Piat will give us a shooting threat that will keep teams from collapsing on Curry and Chandler. 

No one talks about Griffin. He can play some D.


----------



## Sigifrith (Nov 10, 2002)

This gives us 147 players under contract.
Will the Bulls introduce Thunderdome?
2 players enter, 1 player leaves.:dogpile:


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

And you know this HOW? not doubting you, just asking. Obviously it was gonna be completed sooner or later.

KIRK HINRICH / FRANK WILLIAMS
BEN GORDON / ERIC PIATKOWSKI / ADRIAN GRIFFIN
ANDRES NOCIONI / LUOL DENG / EDDIE ROBINSON
TYSON CHANDLER / OTHELLA HARRINGTON
EDDY CURRY / ANTONIO DAVIS

GRIFFIN was a defensive BEAST on dallas, hopefully he'll be healthy enuff next season to provide that same intensity.


----------



## BullDurf (Feb 11, 2003)

Its being reported at espn now


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

SportsRadio in Houston also reported this deal is all but done.

Edit: ESPN Link http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1873684


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Don't be suprised if Griffin get some major minutes and Frankie Dubs finds himself as the 11th man on the bench. Griffin can play D, not a good shooter but he can score. 

Hinrich(PG)
Gordon(SG)
Nocioni(SF)
Chandler(PF)
Curry(C)

BACKCOURT: Griffin, Piatkowski, Williams
WING: Deng, Robinson
FRONTCOURT: Harrington, Davis

That'd be my guess on what the team looks like on October 31st


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

somethings not right here,why would pax get Hou to sign Wilks then turn around and cut him?.also espn is sayin maybe sometime next week this will happen not tomorrow...


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Too bad we can't get our second round picks back in this trade.

Really a nothing deal for both teams, except we now have adequate coverage at the SG position. I still believe it will be our weak spot.


Let's hope Gordon or Hinrich learn to play in High soled shoes!


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

I don't see Pike helping us that much though wasn't he once nicknamed "The Polish Pistol"? Am I making this up or does someone else remember this? If it's true, this deal gets a 7/10. If not, a 5/10. 

I suppose we never were really counting on Deke anyway...though he might have had more trade value as a contract than this...


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bulls</b>!
> somethings not right here,why would pax get Hou to sign Wilks then turn around and cut him?.also espn is sayin maybe sometime next week this will happen not tomorrow...


Maybe Wilks' contract won't be be guarranteed, allowing the Bulls to cut him without having to eat his salary. Apparently Houston doesn't want to use any of the trade exception that it gained in the McGrady deal. Like us, they don't want to take on anymore salary unless they're trading an equal amount away. LT concerns, I suppose.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Most people know what Piatkowski brings. Griffin, if he sticks, had a two season run with the Mavs (01/02 and 02/03) where he played a key role in their rotation as a physical, defensive stopper. I don't know why he never saw any PT with the Rockets last season.

If the deal is completed, it looks like the team's rotation will be initially comprised of Hinrich, Gordon, Piatkowski, Nocioni, Deng, Chandler, Harrington, Curry and Davis.

Pargo's on a "make good," non-guarranteed contract, and with the addition of Piatkowski you can color the 6' SG gone. I'm going to assume for now that Wilks' contract will be non-guarranteed as well which means he'd also be released.

The Bulls probably won't release their future Hall of Famer, Scottie Pippen, which means that unless he retires he'll probably consume a roster spot and spend most of the season on the injured list. Robinson has two years left on an expensive contract, and from what I hear he's been somewhat of a workout regular at Berto, so I presume he'll take up another roster slot.

There's a rather large pool of "bubble" players for Skiles to choose from...players with guarranteed, ending contracts who by no means are assured of a roster spot: Frank Williams ($899,040), Chris Jefferies ($957,480), Adrian Griffin ($807,546) and Cezary Trybanski ($1,760,000).

Finally, you've got two unsigned draft picks in Chris Duhon and Tommie Smith who will either make the roster or play overseas as Mario Austin chose to do earlier this summer, while the Bulls retain their rights. The Bulls, as I understand it, really like Chris Duhon, which leads me to believe he's got a better than average chance of being signed and sticking with the team.

If I had to guess, I'd say that Jefferies and Trybanski seem like two likely candidates to be given their walking papers along with Wilks and Pargo.

That would leave the Bulls with a roster comprised of the following 14 players:
*Guards:* Duhon, Gordon, Griffin, Hinrich, Piatkowski, Williams.

*Small Forwards:* Deng, Nocioni, Pippen, Robinson.

*Power Forwards:* Chandler, Harrington.

*Centers:* Curry, Davis.

Tommie Smith's length, and the shot-blocking/defensive skills that he displayed in Salt Lake this summer might earn him a spot on the roster as the 15th man backing up the power positions. Or the Bulls may choose to keep that final roster spot open in case they need to sign a free agent during the year.

There's still a month to go before camp opens. But if this trade with Houston is consumated, I'd say the Bulls are probably done acquiring players for the rest of the summer. And if things go down as it looks like they may, the Bulls will have added as many as eight new players to their roster in Duhon, Gordon, Griffin, Piatkowski, Williams, Deng, Nocioni and Harrington. And at least five of those new players will play key roles in the Bulls rotation.

And you thought it took Team USA a long time to learn how to play together! It appears the Bulls will face a similar challenge with only six holdovers from last year's team: Hinrich, Pippen, Robinson, Chandler, Curry and Davis. Skiles will have his hands full molding this group together in time for the start of the regular season.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

last i heard duhon had signed overseas,i could be wrong but thats just what i heard..

i broke it down b4 if this trade went down and to get to 15 players all we had to do was cut PS,CJ,LJ3,wilks along with duhon going over seas. PS and LJ3 have been let go so to get to 15 players if this trade goes down is to let CJ and wilks go along with duhon going over seas..

i think Pargo is the same Type of player as Bruce Bowen,Trenton Hassell,Fred Hoiberg for us and if we let this guy go WE WILL REGRET IT down the road..

i also feel that if deke is traded we should keep Trybanski around on the IR just in case one of are PF/C's go down for more then a few games..


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

All players who are signed and traded must be signed for at least three seasons and the first season must be fully guaranteed.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Griffin is a nice pickup.

Taking Piatkowski and his guaranteed salary next year is dumb, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. One of the (few) good things from the Crawford deal is that if we get outpriced on Curry and/or Chandler, we'd have some flexibility to make up for it. Buy taking on a guy who's guaranteed $3M next year, we seriously cut into that. And for what? A 35 year old SG who can't play defense (or do anything besides shoot) and who has played in a combined total of 4 playoff games in 10 years.

We could have gotten an equivalent or better guy off the free agent market and been in a better cap position this year. (And saved Mutombo for a better deal heading into the stretch, when playoff teams will be looking to get a big guy who can help them).

If Mike Wilks has guaranteed money it's only that much more foolish.


----------



## Rodman (Feb 5, 2004)

Wow that means we really have to have Mike Wilks on our roster??? I don't like that at all, what do we want with him? Hopefully Paxson has some follow up trade for him then.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> All players who are signed and traded must be signed for at least three seasons and the first season must be fully guaranteed.


So according to the ESPN report this is really a S&T transaction for Mike Wilks. LOL! Well, I guess the Bulls would eat his contract as well as any others they release because I can't see how Chicago has any need for a 5'11" pg with limited skills. Thank goodness only the first year of his contract is guarranteed.

Good catch, Dan.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

I like that we added Griffin. My biggest fear was going into this season without a defensive SG. In fact, just yesterday I posted that on another thread. Pike may be helpful in situations where we need to spread the floor, and has certainly proven his NBA value by sticking around as long as he has. Wilks? Who knows....


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> I like that we added Griffin. My biggest fear was going into this season without a defensive SG. In fact, just yesterday I posted that on another thread. Pike may be helpful in situations where we need to spread the floor, and has certainly proven his NBA value by sticking around as long as he has. Wilks? Who knows....


Good point, Wynn. If only we could combine the skills of Griffin and Piatkowski. But what these guys seem to provide is more choices for Skiles.

I believe that both players can be considered "swing" players, capable of filling in at both wing positions. Both players provide invaluable depth at both the SG and SF slots...and don't we wish we had that kind of depth last year, especially at the SF slot.

As far as Wilks is concerned, since as Dan correctly points out, his three year deal only has the first year guarranteed, then adding him to the package is a non-event for the Bulls. As it turns out, they're trading dollar for dollar and not adding additional salary to this year's payroll. And they're getting two functional veterans out of the deal in Piatkowski and Griffin. I think its a good deal, a fair deal for the Bulls that provides them with better roster balance and the kind of positional depth every team seems to need over the course of an 82 game schedule.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

It is still an open question how much much adding Piatkowski, Griffin, and Wilks will help. On a team with preciously little depth at the wing positions last season, Piatkowski and Griffin played just 836 minutes combined. That is just over 10 minutes per game and is fewer minutes than Ronald DuPree played for the Bulls. Neither of these players is getting any younger, so my guess is that this deal would have been equivalent to cutting Mutumbo (but still paying him) and retaining DuPree on a two-year contract for free this season and $3 million next season. It probably is not quite that good for the Bulls, because DuPree probably is slightly better than either of those players.

It sure would have been nice to have held onto Hassell or Hoiberg, both of whom are a big upgrade over Piatkowski and Griffin.

The funny thing about the Bulls roster right now is that last season Corie Blount was as productive as any of the Bulls big men. And Hassell and Hoiberg were more productive than any perimeter player on the current roster, except Hinrich. If I only cared about this upcoming season and this upcoming season only, my guess is that Hassell, Hoiberg, and Blount as a group would help the Bulls win just as many games as any three players on the Bulls' roster (not counting Hinrich). And all three of these guys would have helped foster a team-first attitude.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

The Rockets would send Eric Piatkowski, Adrian Griffin and Mike Wilks to the Chicago Bulls, Houston television station KRIV said in a report citing anonymous NBA sources.

Wilks, a free agent, would have to sign with the Rockets first.

"I have considered this deal to be imminent for about a month," his agent, Bill Neff, said. *"In the last week, Carroll Dawson asked me not to sign Mike Wilks with someone else.* If it was anybody but Carroll Dawson, I would probably ignore them. Mike Wilks will not be an issue."

These statements from Wilks' agent do make you wonder what kind of creativity went into this anticipated transaction. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe the Bulls like Wilks. I guess I shouldn't presume the Bulls will cut him since in all honesty, I've never seen him play.

Its just hard to imagine that with Hinrich, Gordon and Williams onboard and Duhon waiting in the wings, a guy like Mike Wilks would be excited about being traded to Chicago. It would seem more likely that he'd be released by the Bulls and then re-sign for the absolute minimum with Houston.

Either way, the Bulls and Houston are swapping dollar for dollar, and that appears to be an important financial factor for both teams.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I've seen Wilks several times and he does have some talent, still, with our derth of pg's I'm not sure what place he would have on our team...


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I've seen Wilks several times and he does have some talent, still, with our derth of pg's I'm not sure what place he would have on our team...


Exactly....

Hell, they still don't know what they're gonna do with Chris Duhon....

When exactly do they SET the rosters anyway? after the preseason?

I don't know about you all, but I'm pretty damn excited. We got 7 new players (well atleast the ones that will make the playing roster) that all should be solid contributers. Amazingly talented youth and solid back-up veterans. This may be a GOOD season after all.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Chi_Lunatic</b>!
> 
> 
> Exactly....
> ...


I don't see how, we have practically turned over the whole roster. I mean, I am ALWAYS excited when a new season kicks off, still, with this much turnover it's gonna be back to the beginning another season or two to gel. And I still don't see any "solid back up veterans" other than maybe Adrian Griffin.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't see how, we have practically turned over the whole roster. I mean, I am ALWAYS excited when a new season kicks off, still, with this much turnover it's gonna be back to the beginning another season or two to gel. And I still don't see any "solid back up veterans" other than maybe Adrian Griffin.


What about harrington? piatkowski? I guess we all just see it differently then. Skiles and Paxson have built this team into their own "image", I'm excited to find out exactly WHAT that is.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Chi_Lunatic</b>!
> 
> 
> What about harrington? piatkowski? I guess we all just see it differently then. Skiles and Paxson have built this team into their own "image", I'm excited to find out exactly WHAT that is.


to Me Harrington isn't anything special, heck, he's a downgrade from JYD or Marshall. Piatowski is a good shooter, he's a bit one dimensional but he is a "solid vet" 3pt shooter and thats about it. It's great that the team has been built the way the coach and the GM want, even if I don't especially think they know what they are doing, still, it will really take time for this team to gel properly.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> It's great that the team has been built the way the coach and the GM want, even if I don't especially think they know what they are doing


LOL, it does look that way most of the time


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> It is still an open question how much much adding Piatkowski, Griffin, and Wilks will help. On a team with preciously little depth at the wing positions last season, Piatkowski and Griffen played just 836 minutes combined. That is just over 10 minutes per game and is fewer minutes than Ronald DuPree played for the Bulls. Neither of these players is getting any younger, so my guess is that this deal would have been equivalent to cutting Mutumbo (but still paying him) and retaining DuPree on a two-year contract for free this season and $3 million next season. It probably is not quite that good for the Bulls, because DuPree probably is slightly better than either of those players.
> 
> It sure would have been nice to have held onto Hassell or Hoiberg, both of whom are a big upgrade over Piatkowski and Griffin.


Actually, Griffin only played a short time while he was a member of the Rockets. He only saw game action from 2/4/04 through 3/24/04 and was placed on the injured list on 3/26/04. I don't know why he didn't play from 11/03 through 1/04. Maybe he was on the injured list. I don't know. It seems he signed a two year minimum contract on 8/7/03. Maybe we can get some enlightenment from a Rockets fan.

As for Piatkowski's minutes, he averaged 15mpg for a team that had three starting wing players (Francis, Mobley and Jackson) who averaged 40mpg each. That doesn't leave too much for anyone else. The Rockets had signed Eric to a 3 year, $8 million dollar deal last summer, which as journeyman players go is a decent contract. So I'm going to guess that at least in the eyes of the Houston Rockets, he still had game last summer.

Piatkowski averaged 9.7 points last season (02/03), shooting just under 40 percent from 3-point range. He is the Clippers' career leader in 3-pointers.

"I'm just going to make the team better. I'll spread the floor,'' Piatkowski said. "Not a lot of teams want to leave me when I'm out there on the floor. Either (his teammates are) going to get an open shot or I'm going to get an open shot.''

Rockets general manager Carroll Dawson said Piatkowski's presence will give Yao more space to operate in the post.

"Guys like Eric spread the floor and make room for our center,'' he said. "He makes the game a lot easier.''

Jeff Van Gundy, the Rockets' new coach, said he is looking forward to having Piatkowski on the team.

"Eric has proven himself to be one of the league's better perimeter shooters and his versatility, as well as his veteran leadership, will be a great asset to our team,'' Van Gundy said.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/story?id=1585965

Those exerpts from last summer should give everyone an indication of what his role in Chicago will be...just substitute the name Eddy Curry for Yao Ming.

Actually, Eric could end up doing very well in Chicago. He'll be playing for a team with a legit low post threat. In addition, he'll be on the floor with guards who are very good at penetrating and kicking the ball out to spotup shooters. Sure, he's a specialist. But his "special" skills may blend perfectly with the talents and skills his other teammates possess.


----------



## BEEZ (Jun 12, 2002)

Mutombo is becoming quite the journeyman


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> Those exerpts from last summer should give everyone an indication of what his role in Chicago will be...just substitute the name Eddy Curry for Yao Ming.


Heh.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> I don't know why he didn't play from 11/03 through 1/04. Maybe he was on the injured list. I don't know. It seems he signed a two year minimum contract on 8/7/03. Maybe we can get some enlightenment from a Rockets fan.


Griffin was hindered by a knee injury most of the season. He was on the injured list from October 27 - February 4 following a knee surgery leading up to the preseason. He came back and never really got into a groove, defensively or offensively, and was straight up beaten out for minutes by Nachbar and Pike. He reaggravated his knee and went back on the IL March 26.

And yes, he did sign a 2 year minimum deal with the Rockets.

An interesting article on Griffin:

http://www.nba.com/rockets/news/Role_Play-85942-34.html


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ming Bling</b>!
> 
> 
> Griffin was hindered by a knee injury most of the season. He was on the injured list from October 27 - February 4 following a knee surgery leading up to the preseason. He came back and never really got into a groove, defensively or offensively, and was straight up beaten out for minutes by Nachbar and Pike. He reaggravated his knee and went back on the IL March 26.
> ...


Hey, thanks very much! Good article on Griffin also. He looks like Trent Hassel on steroids!

















It sounds like he plays defense like Trent as well. Now lets hope his knee is fully recovered. He could be a great role-playing addition to the Bulls roster.
:greatjob:


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Kismet, good roster analysis above. We need to add a fifth player whose primary position is 4 or 5. Maybe Trybanski will get a shot, or Tommy Smith. Trybanski would be the cheapest option, because we're already paying for him no matter what.

Deng or Nocioni could play the 4 if needed for small stretches, so along with Harrington and Chandler, we'll be OK there. But having only four 4-5's is not good, especially when you have four small forwards on the roster. 

I agree that if there are 14 on our roster as you have established them, we need the 15th to be a big.


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>BEEZ</b>!
> Mutombo is becoming quite the journeyman


I agree this is 5 team in the last 3 years


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

As the only fan of Piatkowski in Chicago, I'm still in favor of this trade. Why do I think that Griffin will be the Bulls best player next season?! Ruh-roh. I think he might even start from day one. Kirk-Griffin-Noci-Chandler-Mutt is a pretty high energy defensive lineup.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> As the only fan of Piatkowski in Chicago, I'm still in favor of this trade.


You're certainly not the only one, tough guy. I posted last week how much I wanted this trade to happen. It seems everyone disagrees with me on this. Except you. Which makes me seriously doubt my own evaluation of the trade now. :uhoh: 

I love Piatkowski as a player. He's a great shooter and good guy who may not be a good defender, but it's not becasue he doesn't try hard. He's going to be a great guy for offense off the bench. We got a 2 who can defend and a 2 who can shoot in one trade. I think that's a fantastic thing!


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> 
> 
> You're certainly not the only one, tough guy. I posted last week how much I wanted this trade to happen. It seems everyone disagrees with me on this. Except you. Which makes me seriously doubt my own evaluation of the trade now. :uhoh:
> ...


I did not know that you liked Piatkowski as a player.  Man oh man. Since this is the case, I've decided that I no longer want Pike on the Bulls. I've officially taken the stance of whatever is the opposite of you. So this means I hate Pike, hate Ben Gordon, and don't have a signed Dalibor jersey hanging on my wall at home.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> So this means I hate Pike, hate Ben Gordon, and don't have a signed Dalibor jersey hanging on my wall at home.


That's still better than the signed Kornell David used underpants...that you wear.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> 
> That's still better than the signed Kornell David used underpants...that you wear.


Touche.

That was the best Christmas gift I ever got. Thanks again PCLoad!! Not sure how you got those bad boys but its not my place to question.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I'd be excited about the trade if Griffin and Pike were going off their 2002\03 seasons.

But they were both injured or just plain bad last year.

Pass me the Kool-Aid and maybe I can put this out of my mind.


----------



## life_after_23 (Jul 24, 2002)

*Griffin is going to be cut...*

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...3bulls,1,739583.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

According to the Tribune the Rockets paid his salary and the Bulls are going to waive him and surprise, surprise...they are going to hold onto Wilks. 

I say we trade Curry and get a couple of more short guards...please Pax!!


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>PC Load Letter</b>!
> 
> 
> That's still better than the signed Kornell David used underpants...that you wear.


:rotf:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> The trade talks were first reported in the Tribune on Aug. 6, the day the Bulls acquired Mutombo from New York in the Jamal Crawford trade. They moved forward this week when Houston agreed to pay Griffin's salary of $807,546, a league source said. This will allow the Bulls to waive Griffin with no financial commitment.



LOL....the one guy who I actually like us getting in the deal!

Classic.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, even though Griffin's salary will be paid, his salary amount will count against our cap even if we waive him, thus making us that much closer to the luxury tax and giving one (more) excuse to not make some other move.

Let's see... we are trading an accomplished if over the hill backup center with an expiring contract for an unaccomplished over the hill backup swingman who doesn't address our biggest single need at the swing position (defense), and who has a two year guaranteed deal. 

Despite the fact we could go out and sign guys just like him and/or younger/better (Jon Barry, Kendall Gill, Dion Glover, even Rodney White).

At the same time, we're cutting a guy who does address the major need so we can create another dead space on our cap, and guaranteeing another contract to a guy who is completely and utterly redundant to the 11 short guards we already have.

Just freaking ridiculous.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> The trade talks were first reported in the Tribune on Aug. 6, the day the Bulls acquired Mutombo from New York in the Jamal Crawford trade. They moved forward this week when Houston agreed to pay Griffin's salary of $807,546, a league source said. This will allow the Bulls to waive Griffin with no financial commitment.



Eh???


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

The trade talks were first reported in the Tribune on Aug. 6, the day the Bulls acquired Mutombo from New York in the Jamal Crawford trade. They moved forward this week when Houston agreed to pay Griffin's salary of $807,546, a league source said. This will allow the Bulls to waive Griffin with no financial commitment.

Wilks, a free agent who will sign a three-year contract with one year of guaranteed money, will battle Chris Duhon for the backup point-guard job. The trade is expected to become official next week, contingent on Mutombo and Piatkowski passing physicals.

Griffin's knee must be shot. He injured it last summer and had surgery. He didn't play for the Rockets until 2/4/04. Unfortunately he re-injured the knee and went back on the injured list on 3/26/04. Too bad. We could have used his defensive abilities on the perimeter.

So now the three guard rotation appears to be mainly comprised of Hinrich, Gordon and Piatkowski. This also could be an indication that Eddie Robinson's going to be given a full shot at providing perimeter defense at the SG slot. From what I hear ERob's been working out at Berto all summer on a fairly regular basis. Early into the offseason Robinson and his people did meet with Paxson and Skiles and apparently came to an understanding. We'll just have to wait and see.

Mutombo must have made it clear that he wanted to end his career with a contender. I'm sure his wishes were expressed amicably to Paxson by David Falk, who btw also happened to be Paxson's agent back when he was a player. And while Pax most likely assured Falk that he'd do what he could, it would not come at the risk of weakening the Chicago Bulls.

So whereas earlier today most of us though we had our two-headed big guard in Piatkowski and Griffin, apparently the Big guard slot will be handled by Piatkowski and Robinson. If Robinson's got his head together he's probably an upgrade over Griffin anyway.

As for the battle between Duhon, Wilks and Williams as a backup PG, my money's on Duhon despite the fact that the other two will have ending contracts that will need to be paid.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> Also, if I'm not mistaken, even though Griffin's salary will be paid, his salary amount will count against our cap even if we waive him, thus making us that much closer to the luxury tax and giving one (more) excuse to not make some other move.


Well...no ramifications in this deal put us any closer to the luxury tax then when we had Deke. Even though I haven't seen the salary number of the three players in return added up, I would guess those three salaries come in a little bit under Deke's salary.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Miami got Shaq, Houston got McGrady, and we got Piatkowski. Three big blockbuster trades. 

Pardon me if I don't get up and do 20 triple sow cows in glee(yawn).

Talk about insignificant. I don't think this trade will be worth one more/less victory this season.

All about the rookies this season (again). 

Don't we have about 67 players on the roster now?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>sinkingship</b>!
> Miami got Shaq, Houston got McGrady, and we got Piatkowski. Three big blockbuster trades.
> 
> Pardon me if I don't get up and do 20 triple sow cows in glee(yawn).
> ...


You forgot to mention the significant parts of the other half of those trades...Miami traded Olympian *Lamar Odom*...Houston traded all-star *Steve Francis*...

You're absolutely right to state that this Bulls trade pales in comparision to the other two you mentioned. So???

What in the world would Dikembe Mutombo have contributed to the Bulls that Antonio Davis won't as Curry's backup? In fact, can you even say with certainty that he would have made the Bulls' 12 man active roster? Without this trade it's very possible that Mutombo would have simply retired and the Bulls would have still been stuck paying him the final year of his contract. At least we've now got a guard over 6'3" with experience and an excellent outside shot. 

Since the 00/01 season Mutombo has seen his name listed on five different rosters. Houston will be his 6th. At this point of his career he's probably more of a specialist that Piatkowski is. And whatever he still may have to offer just doesn't fill as big a need as what Eric will bring to the club.

By now it should be pretty clear that Paxson has assembled this season's roster with the intention of giving Gordon, Nocioni and Deng a lot of playing time along with Hinrich, Chandler and Curry. That means he had to bring in the kind of players to back up the team's young core that would accept and thrive in their supporting roles. If he had the assets to trade for a Shaq or a McGrady, don't you think he would have tried? He did, however take his best shot at acquiring a superstar level player through free agency via a sign and trade (his only real route) and recieved serious consideration from Kobe Bryant for his efforts. He still wants to add that superstar, go-to-guy and has targeted 2006 as the summer when his team will have its best chance of accomplishing that goal.

Like it or not, that's the direction Paxson has chosen for this team. That probably means a lot of losses this season. It should also mean that if everyone plays up to expectations and stays healthy, the 05/06 Bulls should set a .500 record as an achievable goal. And at that point, acquiring that special free agent in '06 should boost this team into title contention.

I know, the best laid plans of mice and men... But it is a plan that puts us into playoff contention in 05/06 and with some luck, possible title contention in 06/07. Now, all we need is Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni, Deng, Chandler, Curry and their supporting cast to do their part.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> The trade talks were first reported in the Tribune on Aug. 6, the day the Bulls acquired Mutombo from New York in the Jamal Crawford trade. They moved forward this week when Houston agreed to pay Griffin's salary of $807,546, a league source said. This will allow the Bulls to waive Griffin with no financial commitment.
> 
> Wilks, a free agent who will sign a three-year contract with one year of guaranteed money, will battle Chris Duhon for the backup point-guard job. The trade is expected to become official next week, contingent on Mutombo and Piatkowski passing physicals.
> ...


Couldn't you just once call a stinker a stinker and be done with it? We will still survive without the relentless and nauseating spin.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> Couldn't you just once call a stinker a stinker and be done with it? We will still survive without the relentless and nauseating spin.


...relentless and nauseating spin. Thanks, Dan. Very thoughtful of you.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

I find the criticism of this trade to be almost laughable. This is such a small deal in the scheme of things. 

Mutombo is a former all-star and strong shot blocker; but he is now 38 years old and didn't even want to play here. Piatkowski is a 33 year old, 6-7 SG, and a career 40% 3pt shooter. He also happens to be the type of player we don't have. Shooting guard is also the most questionable position on this team. Thats the trade spelled out as clear as day.

We traded one veteran for another veteran. Both players are also bench players, though Piatkowski would have more of a chance to break the Bulls starting lineup than Mutombo.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Qwst25</b>!
> I find the criticism of this trade to be almost laughable. This is such a small deal in the scheme of things.
> 
> Mutombo is a former all-star and strong shot blocker; but he is now 38 years old and didn't even want to play here. Piatkowski is a 33 year old, 6-7 SG, and a career 40% 3pt shooter. He also happens to be the type of player we don't have. Shooting guard is also the most questionable position on this team. Thats the trade spelled out as clear as day.
> ...


Mutombo gives you nothing. Piatkowski gives you nothing. The difference is Mutombo was an expiring contract. This has been debated at nauseum, but we didn't trade Mutombo for Piatkowski; remember, we trade Crawford.

Take out the middle step:

Artest, Miller, Mercer, peripherals for Antonio Davis, JYD peripherals.

Crawford for Piatkowski, peripherals. 

Damnit, where's our cap relief? 

THe whole reason we traded Crawford was for cap relief, right??? Maybe Pax should have looked into whether Deke was willing to report before he made the Crawford trade? It was only in the papers for 6 months.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

i would be much happer with this deal if we got Reece Gaines insteed of wilks and or Griffin.or if you took pike out and added Jim Jackson.but as it stands i dont think this does much of anything to help this team tho it cant hurt it either 

i see it as movin crap for crap in the hopes their crap smells better..


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

How is this working where Houston is paying Griffen's salary? If they are just giving us the money to do it, it would be a better to take the $92,000 hit and cut Jefferies.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Err... if Mutombo simply retired we wouldn't have to pay his salary.

DMD... you're right, we'd be paying about the same amount this year, but:

1) With Deke we're paying that amount to a guy who may (though I doubt it) be worth it, and would actually be on the roster. With this trade, we've got another two players that we're paying not to play. 

2) We'll be obligated $3M next year (when Mutombo would be off the books) to pay a 35 year old SG who has a) played in 4 playoff games in his career, b) can't play defense, c) couldn't shoot last year, d) all of the above (D. appears to be the correct answer).

---------------------------------------------------------

Calling this trade a stinker isn't spin, it's having your eyes open. Hell, it's hard to see an accusation of spin when, ex ante, even those not criticizing this deal were saying "Gotta pass on this proposal."


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

What are the odds we could trade Pike and his non-expiring contract somewhere (alone, or in a package for a better player) somewhere down the road?

What were the odds we could have done so with Mutombo and his expiring contract?

Maybe not 100%, but certainly the latter was higher than the former.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

WHen was the last time we got equal value in a trade?


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

... I can't think of anything besides the Kukoc for number 7 pick, 7 years ago.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

I was kinda hoping we'd keep Mutumbo around just to see what kind of offers we'd get for our expiring contracts at the deadline or maybe just him alone. I don't think we could squeeze much more though out of Dikembe than two decent wing players. We do need a defensive 2, but we also need a shooter. And Pike is the 22nd best 3 point shooter in NBA history so we are filling a hole there. I'm not sure why we'd cut Griffen though if they're going to pay us the money for his salary (if that's how it works). There's other players that should be cut before him. Otherwise, we could fill the shooter and the defender with those two.


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

I think it's clear that Paxson likes Piatkowski and thinks his three-point shooting will help the Bulls. It's really as simple as that. All the Knicks we got and the other two Rockets were all obtained for financial reasons. Paxson thinks Piatkowski is a shooter that can help the Bulls enough for the next two years to merit his contract.

Is Paxson right? Nobody knows. On paper, Piatkowski fills a need for the Bull. As a Bulls fan, I hope he's able to shoot like he did with the Clippers and won't be exposed too badly on defense. Time will tell.


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> WHen was the last time we got equal value in a trade?


How about Deng for next year's pick? Not too long ago.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Aesop</b>!
> I think it's clear that Paxson likes Piatkowski and thinks his three-point shooting will help the Bulls. It's really as simple as that. All the Knicks we got and the other two Rockets were all obtained for financial reasons. Paxson thinks Piatkowski is a shooter that can help the Bulls enough for the next two years to merit his contract.
> 
> Is Paxson right? Nobody knows. On paper, Piatkowski fills a need for the Bull. As a Bulls fan, I hope he's able to shoot like he did with the Clippers and won't be exposed too badly on defense. Time will tell.


Pax has a major hard-on for him, that's for sure


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Good grief! All this hand-wringing and brow beating over a trade of Mutumbo for Piatkowski? Scrub for scrub? If Pax doesn't do this deal (or something similar) he'll get lambasted for leaving this team so weak at shooting guard. Now that he's done this deal, he gets lambasted for not getting "equal value" (whatever that is) for Mutumbo. New's flash folks... Deke's been on, what, five teams in the last three years? If he's so friggin valuable, why hasn't anybody held onto the guy for more than a season over the last few years?

In the grand scheme of things, this really is a minor trade. Mutumbo would have been nice to keep but he's basically done. Pike gives us shooting that was painfully lacking last season. It isn't like either of these guys are/were going to be the keys to having this team be competetive again.

I can't wait for training camp. At least we can get back to getting info on the team again instead of falling apart over such a minor deal.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Regarding retirement:

*51. How do retired players count against the cap?* 
Any money paid to a player is included in team salary, even if the player has retired. For example, James Worthy retired in 1994, two years before his contract ended. He continued to receive his salary for the 94-95 and 95-96 seasons, so his salary was included in the Lakers' team salary in those seasons. It is at the team's discretion (or as the result of an agreement between the team and player) whether to continue to pay the player after he has retired.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#51

I think it might be very difficult to site an instance in the NBA where a team exercised its right and terminated the contract of a retiring player. I'm sure it may have happened, but I don't believe its SOP.

Paxson's relationship with Falk, the organization's image and reputation with players and agents leaguewide, etc...there are a number of very good reasons why retiring players continue to get paid. From the player's point of view, its the "quid pro quo" for opening a roster spot. Sure, there's a chance a buyout might be arranged. But you'd still end up paying the player, in this case Mutombo, when in all liklihood he'd end up signing with Houston as a free agent anyway. In the meantime the Bulls would still have to deal with the problem of having a short backcourt.

This is not a major transaction as everyone is aware. It's a possible solution to adding some size and offense to the backcourt. The Bulls are acquiring a player who will, to some degree, fill a _short_ term need (no pun intended...well maybe). And they're doing it by trading a player they probably wouldn't have gotten anything out of but would have had to pay in some way, shape or form. This is a minor deal, but IMO the Bulls are a better team with Piatkowski than with Mutombo. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> Good grief! All this hand-wringing and brow beating over a trade of Mutumbo for Piatkowski? Scrub for scrub?


fl_flash, I think alot of us know that most of this isn't _really_ about the trade itself. You're right...its a minor transaction.

BTW, how are you holding up in Florida? Be careful down there.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ugh. While looking up Piatkowski's numbers to support my contention that he's pretty much done (he is), I discovered we share the same birthday. 

Getting old is not cool.

And neither is this deal. Yes, Piatkowski is an excellent shooter when he's wide open, and in theory the Bulls are deficient in that area (although presumably improved with Deng, Nocioni, and Gordon). But isn't it short-sighted to address a team deficiency with a player who is individually deficient in literally every other facet of the game? 

Piatkowski cannot guard 2s effectively. I would trust Deng's or ERob's handle before I'd trust Pike's. Basically, I am hard-pressed to think of anything that Pike can do to make his teammates better.

And for those who think our spacing will radically open up the moment Pike steps on the floor, consider this: we now have only one legitimate post-up player in Eddy Curry, and Eddy Curry successfully finds the open man on what, maybe one out of ten double teams? We're not talking about Shaq or Vlade here, and the only way Pike is going to get any looks is off someone else's dribble.

Even though I'm not upset we're losing Mutombo, per se, I strongly believe he'd have been more valuable to us than Piatkowski. It's very likely that Chandler (fragility) and Davis (old like me) will miss extensive periods of time, and if Curry struggles with weight/foul trouble/defensive indifference, Mutombo would have been a nice guy to throw out there 20 minutes a night. Even at 49 years old, he'd have been our best defensive center by a mile.

What bothers me about the deal is that it squanders the only valuable thing we got back for Jamal Crawford--a batch of expiring contracts that should have been used to acquire an honest-to-goodness NBA player prior to the deadline. If Mutombo was threatening to retire, we should have called his bluff. 

Most importantly, unless you're an ERob believer, this marks the second year running that we do not have a player who can match up, physically speaking, with most of the 2 guards in the league. That boggles the mind--it's equivalent, in my opinion, to a football team playing two seasons while using a linebacker as its nickel back, or a hockey team choosing to go without an enforcer. It just doesn't happen. 

I don't know which prospect is more disturbing--that getting a average-size two guard is on Paxson's to-do list but somehow not at the top of it, or that getting an average-size two guard isn't on his to-do list, period.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> fl_flash, I think alot of us know that most of this isn't _really_ about the trade itself. You're right...its a minor transaction.
> ...


Right now it's a nice day... A little breezy but other than that - nothing. I just wish this storm would hurry up, get here, and leave. I've never seen a storm move so slowly. It's weakened already so by the time it gets here, I'm hoping it's just a really heavy tropical storm.

Signing out!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> What bothers me about the deal is that it squanders the only valuable thing we got back for Jamal Crawford--a batch of expiring contracts that should have been used to acquire an honest-to-goodness NBA player prior to the deadline.


I agree. This does cause us to lose a lot of our flexibility. It also will probably mean that we keep Tryb and Jeffires and Pippen around as ending contracts when just Mutombo and Pippen would done the trick better (more $$$s) for fewer roster spots.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> I don't know which prospect is more disturbing--that getting a average-size two guard is on Paxson's to-do list but somehow not at the top of it, or that getting an average-size two guard isn't on his to-do list, period.


Pike's got great size, he just doesn't play like it. He could be 6'3 and it wouldn't change what he does (and doesn't) do for a team one iota. I said it before and I'll repeat it... Defensively Kirk, Frank, Luol and maybe Ben (with some seasoning) are probably better options at guarding your average 2 than Pike.

Size isn't to be counted for size's sake... it's good for a reason. Getting a guy who's utterly deficient in everything for which we needed size and then saying you've filled a whole is just silly.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, at least we've gotten rid of a deadwood, no heart guy like 4 time defensive player of the year, 7 time all-star, 1 time citizenship award winner, and noted hospital builder Mutombo in favor of a hard working winner like 4 playoff games in 10 seasons warrior Eric Piatkowski.

Unlike Deke, Pike has vast experience dealing with the Bulls likely situation (losing) and can be expected to teach our young kids the right way to handle it (just smile and cash the checks). Don't get mad about losing... you've been put in a position to lose.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Pike's got great size, he just doesn't play like it. He could be 6'3 and it wouldn't change what he does (and doesn't) do for a team one iota. I said it before and I'll repeat it... Defensively Kirk, Frank, Luol and maybe Ben (with some seasoning) are probably better options at guarding your average 2 than Pike.
> ...


You're right, of course. I guess I could have made it clearer that by "average-size" I meant "average-size and not standing on the doorstep of the glue factory."

I think people assume that if a player isn't athletically gifted to begin with, his game won't suffer that much when he does begin to break down physically. But in reality, those guys suffer much MORE compared to the physically gifted players. The reason guys like Danny Ferry or Steve Kerr remained great options right up until retirement is that they were in just about as good a shape as they were when they entered the league.

Paxson need look no further than his OWN CAREER to figure out how an athletically challenged guard fares once his wheels break down and all of a sudden he can't guard anyone or get any uncontested looks at the basket. That's what makes the Pike-lust all the more puzzling.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Oh my god. Have any you ever watched Pike play? Way too many vague references and assumptions based on little verifiable facts.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> Oh my god. Have any you ever watched Pike play? Way too many vague references and assumptions based on little verifiable facts.


Due to his being on the same NBA team as key members of my rotisserie team the last three seasons, I've seen more Pike than I care to remember. 

He has lost a step, big time, and counting on a 34-year-old guard to bounce back from injury and get back to peak form is, historically speaking, not a good bet.

I'm just trying to prepare people for wide gap between the player they seem to think we're gaining in this trade and reality.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ScottMay</b>!
> 
> 
> Due to his being on the same NBA team as key members of my rotisserie team the last three seasons, I've seen more Pike than I care to remember.
> ...



Well I'm not expecting him to be a key piece here, just knock down some shots. And I don't see him having trouble doing that.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Aesop</b>!
> 
> 
> How about Deng for next year's pick? Not too long ago.


Verging off topic:

That trade was hedging that the Bulls finish better then 7th worst team this upcoming year. I think we lose that one. 

Let me clarify though, I love the Deng pick. But I would have taken him at 3 and not made the trade. The Gordon selection has me slightly baffled. Its one thing to gamble on him being a good player in the league and quite another to gamble on him being a good combo guard. Ick... This has all been debated; but what if its another disasterous season -- and theres an awful good chance it will be -- and at the end of it, we have no pick to look forward? I say that trade is at best a push...


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> Good grief! All this hand-wringing and brow beating over a trade of Mutumbo for Piatkowski? Scrub for scrub? If Pax doesn't do this deal (or something similar) he'll get lambasted for leaving this team so weak at shooting guard. Now that he's done this deal, he gets lambasted for not getting "equal value" (whatever that is) for Mutumbo. New's flash folks... Deke's been on, what, five teams in the last three years? If he's so friggin valuable, why hasn't anybody held onto the guy for more than a season over the last few years?
> 
> In the grand scheme of things, this really is a minor trade. Mutumbo would have been nice to keep but he's basically done. Pike gives us shooting that was painfully lacking last season. It isn't like either of these guys are/were going to be the keys to having this team be competetive again.
> ...


Nobody is arguing that Deke can still contribute. Its clear that he wouldn't report to camp; let alone help the team. His value stems purely from his expiring contract. Look at what Minnesota did with Brandon's expiring contract -- Compare that with what the Bulls did and you'll see why I am less then pleased.


----------



## Raekwon da Chef (Sep 4, 2004)

First of all now that this trade is complete in principle (I don't know if the chicagosports.com article saying so was pasted here yet), I'd like to say that almost no one who likes this trade is expecting Piatkowski to come here and be a starter or even play a whole hell of a lot. He's here to knock down shots and so that we have at least ONE SG taller than 6'1". I'm happy to have him as a *backup SG* and I don't think anyone is saying....."oh my god, we got Piatkowski......now we have that starting SG we've been looking for since MJ left." I'm expecting him to come off the bench (assuming Gordon deserves to start) and hit some shots to take the pressure off of C&C Twin Tower Factory.

Sampling the Bulls lineup I really like what I see over last year at this time:

Curry, Davis
Chandler, Harrington
Nocioni, Deng
Gordon, Piatkowski
Hinrich, Duhon, Williams

And then we have obvious dead roster spots in Pippen, Trybanski and Robbery. But right now I'm looking at a team that will have roles and play hard.....and still have a lot of the talent we had going into last year.....plus three new talents in Andres Nocioni, Luol Deng and Ben Gordon.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> 
> 
> Verging off topic:
> ...


well i've got some good news and some bad news for you cccp

i think the bulls pick is top 3 protected, so if the bulls are just as bad next year , they will keep their pick for another year ...thats the good news .

the bad news is its better than even money that the bulls will have their 2005 pick, so it will be a long season.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that Deke can still contribute. Its clear that he wouldn't report to camp; let alone help the team. His value stems purely from his expiring contract. Look at what Minnesota did with Brandon's expiring contract -- Compare that with what the Bulls did and you'll see why I am less then pleased.


And what was Brandon's expiring contract amount as compared to Mutumbos? Brandon's contract was more valuable, hence, you'll get a more valuable player back. See, there's this thing called the CBA and if you're over the salary cap, you have to match salaries. Whom, exactly, would you have had pax trade Mutumbo for? Again, Pax does nothing and he gets slammed for not trying to fill a hole. He does what he's done and he's not gotten "value" for the trade. What ANYBODY has yet to provide, exactly, is what that value is. I've only see that it apparently isn't Piatkowski.

MikeDC bemoans that Pax has traded a Defensive player of the year and multiple all-star. Nevermind that these accolades have long since passed and that Deke will not ever come close to garnering either of those honors again. It seems to me that he wanted Deke around to be an influence on the kids. This is the same person who has been the leader of the charge for Pax to quit bringing in tired old vets to "mentor" the kids. Oakley, Pip, AD and now Mutumbo. Pax trades a retread of a player in Mutumbo and all of a sudden he's let go this wonderful player. Sorry, it just doesn't fly. Deke is such a great guy and professional yet apparently he was hell bent on not ever showing up for the Bulls (according to some). Which is it?

This was an extremely minor deal. Whether we had Mutumbo or Pike, neither player is going to make a great difference in the quality of the product that is put on the floor. Pax should have waited and gotten something more. Of course, then he'd get shelled for not doing enough. He would have sat on his contract and let it expire. Then he'd be labeled cheap. That or he would have made a deadline deal much like the one he just made and he'd be burned in effigy then. All this over scrubs...


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

Do we know if DUHON makes the team or not yet?!

And I wonder is paxson done with this offseason

G HINRICH / WILLIAMS
G GORDON / PIATKOWSKI / GRIFFIN
F NOCIONI / DENG / ROBINSON
F CHANDLER / HARRINGTON
C CURRY / DAVIS

Sorry, I know I do that damn near every thread but I just like looking at the new squad on paper...


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Chi_Lunatic</b>!
> Do we know if DUHON makes the team or not yet?!
> 
> And I wonder is paxson done with this offseason
> ...


i think pargo should be and will be the back up pg...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> MikeDC bemoans that Pax has traded a Defensive player of the year and multiple all-star. Nevermind that these accolades have long since passed and that Deke will not ever come close to garnering either of those honors again. It seems to me that he wanted Deke around to be an influence on the kids. This is the same person who has been the leader of the charge for Pax to quit bringing in tired old vets to "mentor" the kids. Oakley, Pip, AD and now Mutumbo. Pax trades a retread of a player in Mutumbo and all of a sudden he's let go this wonderful player. Sorry, it just doesn't fly. Deke is such a great guy and professional yet apparently he was hell bent on not ever showing up for the Bulls (according to some). Which is it?


Oh give me a break fi... I was being sarcastic 

I do think that tired old vets don't do us any good, and if they do do us any good, the good that they do is done enough by having a guy like Davis and Pippen and/or Gill. To the extent they do us some good (very limited), Mutombo was better at doing that than Pike. So we're 2 or 4 dolls into the ****










* I would have liked to have a productive guy entering his prime
* Short of that, a productive old guy with an expiring contract
* Short of that, a nonproductive old guy with an expiring contract and good credentials.
* Short of that, a nonproductive old guy with an expiring contract and no credentials.
* What we actually have is a nonproductive old guy with a multiyear deal and no credentials, and we've moved right down this progression to get him.

-----------------------------------------------

CCCP,

Another idea to consider is the fact that, given that we seemed to have a decent idea Deng was going to be there at 7, we should have been able to trade down from 3, 
_acquiring an additional asset_ in the process. We'll see if Gordon was worth forgoing that additional asset, next year's pick, and Jackson Vroman (who looks like he might be an ok player).


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C.C.C.P</b>!
> 
> 
> Nobody is arguing that Deke can still contribute. Its clear that he wouldn't report to camp; let alone help the team. His value stems purely from his expiring contract. Look at what Minnesota did with Brandon's expiring contract -- Compare that with what the Bulls did and you'll see why I am less then pleased.


Just for the record, we still will have slightly over 12 million dollars in expiring contracts on our hands, and probably we will have much more by the time we fill out our roster with one year contracts. We will have enough expiring contract space to trade for a max player (most of them anyway) should we want to (we won't).

And just for the record, I was much more in support of this deal when I thought Griffin was really coming. Without him, I don't like the deal, and I agree with MikeDC that Pike is not the guy to be our big guard considering his age, recent injury history, and below average defensive ability. 

Also, WTF do we want with Wilks? I though we were going to let Duhon and Pargo battle it out for the third pg spot. It's not that I don't think Wilks has any game, because actually I think he's OK. Maybe it's that he's 27 years old and would be one of the few players on this team that doesn't either take Flintstone vitamins or geritol.

Whatever happened to the few days of hope for Lucious Harris?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Just for the record, we still will have slightly over 12 million dollars in expiring contracts on our hands, and probably we will have much more by the time we fill out our roster with one year contracts. We will have enough expiring contract space to trade for a max player (most of them anyway) should we want to (we won't).
> ...


I don't see any WWW pages saying the deal is done. There's some that say the deal is agreed to and will happen.

The latest I saw was that Griffin IS in the deal, that we're getting $827K in the deal, and we're cutting him.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Meh, it gives you outside shooting with Piatkowski. No real downers about the trade, but nothing too great, either.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't see any WWW pages saying the deal is done. There's some that say the deal is agreed to and will happen.
> ...


I should be more clear. I know Griffin is part of the deal, but I wish we were going to keep him, unless he's really just not healthy enough. I viewed him as an asset as part of the trade, whereas recent news would imply that he is filler and will be cut.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sigifrith</b>!
> This gives us 147 players under contract.
> Will the Bulls introduce Thunderdome?
> 2 players enter, 1 player leaves.:dogpile:


Line em up ...Run their asses off....whoever is left standing......keep em.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Did we keep the Fire Paxson fan club alive? If not, never to soon to dust that one off.


And before you play that "this is a non issue card"...If it's not an issue - PAXSON IS A LIAR!!!!!!!!!!

COme on guys - We didn't want Crawford "Who is a much better player than Pike, even on his best nights" because we needed flexibility. We had to ahve that to resign.....oh wiat, we haven't done that yet either.

Hey I love getting Deng, but would've loved him at the #3 pick. Gordon is and was a luxury that our team didn't have.

Mutumbo could've been trade at the deadline to a playoff contender for a late #1 or atleast 2 2nd rd picks to cover our Bryce Drew debt.

Paxson is building.......a bigger mess than he was left with.

The players don't like him - Link? Read Eddy's comment about anything I had to say to Paxson was and will be said by my agent.

For every good move Paxson makes he compounds our situation with 2 bad moves.

Remember, it's these "little" moves that put us where we are - The WORST team in the NBA and that includes the damn Bobcats.

Skiles better be the greatest coach since Red Auerbach or we are sunk. 

If this team doesn't finish atleast in the hunt for the playoffs, Paxson should be gone. Why? Because their is nothing he can do to help this team next offseason without trading one of our big guys......or Hinrich. Neither of those options sounds good.

I predict Eddy Curry will be either an All-Star or be traded by the trade dealine.

Why am I so pissed? Cause he did exactly what I feared he would do - Filled one hole, but created another gaping hole.

Gotta trade Gordon or Hinrich next off-season, cause we're gonna need a real SG.


----------



## Maestro (May 28, 2002)

Man oh man, this off-season appears to be really rubbing some people


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bulls</b>!
> 
> 
> i think pargo should be and will be the back up pg...


He's BARELY beating out chris duhon for a spot on the roster..no way he's hinrich's back-up...


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

you think Williams should be the back up?

williams FG%385 3PT% 300 APG 2.2 PPG 3.9 MPG 12

Pargo FG%429 3PT% 377 APG 3.6 PPG 13.5 MPG 26.5

going by that stat line you can clealy see who should be the backup...

and lets not forget pargo's 34pt,13-22 fg,7-12 3pt,9assist game he put up...

if you read all these posts about the deke/pike trade everyone says WE NEED SHOOTING,then they will turn around and say we should cut pargo,or he sucks.you can tell they dont know WTF they are talking about as if they did they would see pargo is just as a good of a shooter as pike(stat wise)..same cant be said for williams,duhon or wilks.so tell me why should williams get the backup spot but pargo gets left out in the cold when he is exactly when is needed on this team(hence the pike trade)


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bulls</b>!
> you think Williams should be the back up?
> 
> williams FG%385 3PT% 300 APG 2.2 PPG 3.9 MPG 12
> ...


We needed shooting last year..this year we've added a few more scoring options than just crawford....Luol, Ben, Adres, Pike...

Pargo isn't a PG, he's a very VERY small SG..yea, he put up 34..when the nbdl all stars were our starting line-up...fizer put up 30 and 20, that still doesn't mean he isn't a friggin bum...

pargo's nice no doubt, i never said he didn't have game...we'll just have to see...


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Chi_Lunatic</b>!
> 
> 
> yea, he put up 34..when the nbdl all stars were our starting line-up...


no the starters that night were 

KIRK HINRICH 27min
JAMAL CRAWFORD 36min
LINTON JOHNSON 25min
ANTONIO DAVIS 35min
EDDY CURRY 23min


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Now the same trade is on the verge of becoming official because the Rockets have agreed to include cash to cover Griffin's $870,000 salary this season, according to sources close to the deal. The Bulls would most likely release the 30-year-old Griffin, who played in just 19 games last year because of injuries.
> 
> http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp



Again, if they're paying this money, why not cut Jefferies? In this scenario, that's only a $29,000 dollar hit. I know we're really close to the Ltax, but that close? If we can fit it in there, I don't see why you don't do that. Maybe his injury is really serious, but if that's not the case, cut CJ.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if they're paying this money, why not cut Jefferies? In this scenario, that's only a $29,000 dollar hit. I know we're really close to the Ltax, but that close? If we can fit it in there, I don't see why you don't do that. Maybe his injury is really serious, but if that's not the case, cut CJ.


I'm guessing at this point that he wouldn't pass a physical. That may be part of the reason why either Houston offered to pay his salary or the Bulls insisted that Houston pick up his tab. Either way, he'll count against our cap. Waiving Jeffries wouldn't make a difference either way. It's not an either or regarding the cap and these two guys. Both players will count against our cap this season, regardless of who picks up the tab. Our cap position, for this season, hasn't changed regardless of who is kept or who is waived.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Pax can use the money from Houston to bump his offer to Curry after the season to $100K over MLE.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm guessing at this point that he wouldn't pass a physical. That may be part of the reason why either Houston offered to pay his salary or the Bulls insisted that Houston pick up his tab. Either way, he'll count against our cap. Waiving Jeffries wouldn't make a difference either way. It's not an either or regarding the cap and these two guys. Both players will count against our cap this season, regardless of who picks up the tab. Our cap position, for this season, hasn't changed regardless of who is kept or who is waived.


I know that. I'm not concerned about the cap position. I'm talking about who will be on the roster and it makes more sense to keep Griffen than Mr. Jefferies, provided Griffen is able to walk.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

where do you guys get that Griff if hurt?i only heard that he messed up his ankle sometime last season..


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> I know that. I'm not concerned about the cap position. I'm talking about who will be on the roster and it makes more sense to keep Griffen than Mr. Jefferies, provided Griffen is able to walk.


I agree... that's probably not a bad idea, provide there's any chance Griffin could return.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bulls</b>!
> where do you guys get that Griff if hurt?i only heard that he messed up his ankle sometime last season..


I guess since he finished the year injured, they figure he still must be...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Chi_Lunatic</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess since he finished the year injured, they figure he still must be...


Or maybe Pax is just negotiating for more money from the Rockets.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Ming Bling</b>!
> Griffin was hindered by a knee injury most of the season. He was on the injured list from October 27 - February 4 following a knee surgery leading up to the preseason. He came back and never really got into a groove, defensively or offensively, and was straight up beaten out for minutes by Nachbar and Pike. He reaggravated his knee and went back on the IL March 26.


Ming Bling was kind enough to provide some information on Griffin early in this thread. As you can see, Griffin missed most of last season rehabbing from knee surgery and when he tried to return, he reinjured the knee and finished the season on the injured list.

Fl_flash may be right when he speculates that Griffin might not pass the pre-trade physical and that's why Houston is paying his salary. He gets released but is on the Bulls 04/05 payroll. In effect this would mean that Griffin was nothing more than filler to meet CBA trade requirements.

Thanks again to Ming Bling for his input.


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

The bulls are sooo getting the better deal of the trade...basically the bulls are getting a pure 3 pt shooter in Eric and giving up an old guy in tumbo...great pick up for the bulls!


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

I like this trade. Mutombo is a stiff and has been one for the past 4 years. Piatkowski and Griffin are two players this team needs.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> Good grief! All this hand-wringing and brow beating over a trade of Mutumbo for Piatkowski? Scrub for scrub? If Pax doesn't do this deal (or something similar) he'll get lambasted for leaving this team so weak at shooting guard. Now that he's done this deal, he gets lambasted for not getting "equal value" (whatever that is) for Mutumbo. New's flash folks... Deke's been on, what, five teams in the last three years? If he's so friggin valuable, why hasn't anybody held onto the guy for more than a season over the last few years?
> 
> In the grand scheme of things, this really is a minor trade. Mutumbo would have been nice to keep but he's basically done. Pike gives us shooting that was painfully lacking last season. It isn't like either of these guys are/were going to be the keys to having this team be competetive again.
> ...


Flash saved me some typing. I'll just quote him and say "ditto."


I'll add one thing to this debate:

Everyone appears to be ignoring little Mikey Wilks. Don't forget that he is a one time winner of the NBDL Sprotsmanship Award. They don't just _give_ those away, you know...

Playoffs, here we come!


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

*Mutumbo confirms he's headed to Houston*

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory2/2782009



> The 38-year-old former NBA All-Star confirmed that he has agreed to a trade with the Chicago Bulls that will bring him to Houston in exchange for Eric Piatkowski, Adrian Griffin and Mike Wilks. The Rockets will pick up the majority, if not all, of the money that is remaining on Griffin's contract.





> Mutombo said he agreed to the terms of the sign-and-trade deal on Friday, but his travels through Africa — which included a stop in Kinshasha, Congo, to monitor the progress of the hospital he is building in his native land — have kept him out of the NBA loop.
> 
> Rockets general manager Carroll Dawson noted that the *deal hasn't been finalized* but said Mutombo is just the kind of player the team would like to have behind Yao.


Maybe Pax is pushing for a 2nd rounder? This trade IS a big deal for Houston, Mutumbo is exactly what the Rocket's need. If they don't get him, they are in big trouble at the backup spot. I would think Paxson knows this, and is trying to get more out of this deal than just Pike.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Maybe he's smart and pushing for Scott Padgett instead of Wilks

Wilks makes no sense for us, Padgett doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for you guys, since you're looking at

3- Jackson/Nachbar
4- Howard/Taylor
5- Ming/Mutombo

For us, Padgett would make some sense as a space creating option at the 4.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Another perspective on Dikembe Mutombo from ESPN's Insider:

Mutombo, when he's capable of actually playing, is the perfect back-up for Yao. But he hasn't been healthy in two years. There's a reason the 7-foot-2 former defensive player of the year has bounced around Philly, New Jersey, New York and Chicago in the space of two years. Teams aren't convinced Mutombo (who's generously listed at 38) has much left in the tank. Teams keep trading for him, hoping he still has some juice, but lately he has disappointed everyone. This is relevant to the Rockets, because they have no one else to back up Yao. Yao goes through a grueling offseason every year for the Chinese national team and has been incapable, in the past, of giving the team more than 30 mpg.

So one might ask, "How much could a non-contending team expect to get out of an aging player with a questionable health record?" On a team like the Bulls this season, those aches and pains might drive a player like Mutombo to the injured list. On a contending team like Houston, however, perhaps he'll find the motivation necessary to play through the pain and draw on whatever he may still have left in his tank.

Practically speaking, one might conclude that minor as this trade might be for Chicago fans, at least there's a better chance that the players the Bulls are getting will contribute more than the player they're sending away, had that player remained in Chicago instead.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!Practically speaking, one might conclude that minor as this trade might be for Chicago fans, at least there's a better chance that the players the Bulls are getting will contribute more than the player they're sending away, had that player remained in Chicago instead.


I think most people opposed to the trade are concerned about losing the flexibility of an ending contract and also commiting to Pike for next year for $3M. He was worth about $0.30 last year.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I think most people opposed to the trade are concerned about losing the flexibility of an ending contract and also commiting to Pike for next year for $3M. He was worth about $0.30 last year.


Even without Mutombo, the Bulls still have $12.4 million in ending contracts on their roster, and that doesn't include Wilks or Griffin.
Pippen ($5.4), Harrington ($3.2), Trybanski ($1.8), Williams ($1.0), Jefferies ($1.0)

As it stands, next season (05/06) the Bulls will probably have nine players under contract, at least to start with (Davis, Robinson, Piatkowski, Chandler, Curry, Gordon, Nocioni, Deng, Hinrich) and three of those players will be on ending contracts totalling $23.3 million.
Davis ($13.0), Robinson ($7.3), and Piatkowski ($3.0)

That's pretty decent flexibility both seasons. Of course things could change. We don't know yet who might get released before this season begins. That would reduce the number and amount of ending contracts management would have available between the start of the season and the trade deadline.

Now I'm not smart enough to figure out the Bulls grand plan from a financial perspective, but I really don't think they hamstrung themselves by trading Mutombo. $12 million this year and over $20 million next year in ending contracts still seems to provide a considerable amount of room to maneuver tradewise. Maybe I'm wrong, but with or without Mutombo there still seems to be plenty of ending contracts to play with.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

If the Bulls have to give Tyson and Eddy significant money next year they'll be pushing the luxury tax with only 10 guys under contract.

Say $20M between Curry and Chandler
+ AD, ERob, Pike, Noicini, Gordon, Harrington, Deng, Hinrich, and Frank Williams is about $58.4M

When you consider how many things could go right or wrong to change the plans, another $3M (just a little less than we're giving our "big" FA signing - Noicini, could make a lot of difference. , especially if it means we bump the luxury tax and Jerry Reinsdorf pops up to start telling Paxson how to do his job again.

Will it make a difference? Maybe, maybe not.

But it's definitely a needless risk and a waste of $3M bucks.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> If the Bulls have to give Tyson and Eddy significant money next year they'll be pushing the luxury tax with only 10 guys under contract.
> 
> Say $20M between Curry and Chandler
> ...


I'm missing something here. If Curry and Chandler get extended this season, their salaries as far as the cap are concerned don't increase until the '05/'06 season (summer of '05). Are you assuming that Harrington and Williams will be around after this season? Their salaries aren't much in the grand scheme of things but it looks like you're including their salaries after this season. That, and after the '05/'06 season, you'll be trimming the first three players on your list off the payroll - like 25 mil?

I don't see how this trade is a waste of 3 million bucks. We'll be over the cap next season regardless of whether we kept mutumbo or whether we traded him. 

If I were guessing here, Pax will let trybanski, Williams and Harrington simply expire this season. IE, no trade of expiring contracts at the deadline unless its a knock-your-socks-off type deal. Those expiring contracts are going to be used to absorb the incremental difference between Curry and Chandlers wages from this season to the next (provided they are both retained). I actually think they (ownership/management) are hoping beyond hope that we don't have a first round pick this next summer because they don't necessarily want to committ that money. They probably view that money as already committed in the form of Deng. Piatkowski being here instead of Mutumbo really doesn't make that big of a difference.

Just my $.02


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Tell you what...if both Chandler and Curry both play well enough to earn $80 million each from the Bulls, I doubt the LT will be much of a concern to ownership.

'Cause if those boys play like top tier players, our record's going to be a whole lot better than most of us are expecting it to be!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm missing something here. If Curry and Chandler get extended this season, their salaries as far as the cap are concerned don't increase until the '05/'06 season (summer of '05).


I think you stated this correctly but aren't understanding it correctly. They are under contract for _this_ season (04-05), so their new contract will start for the 05-06 season. This is the summer of '04, and next summer they will start counting against the cap with their new contract amounts, which is what I said. 

If they cost us $20M, when the FA period rolls around, I'm pointing out that we'll be at $58.4M and 10 players.



> Are you assuming that Harrington and Williams will be around after this season? Their salaries aren't much in the grand scheme of things but it looks like you're including their salaries after this season. That, and after the '05/'06 season, you'll be trimming the first three players on your list off the payroll - like 25 mil?


How does it look like I've included Harrington... I didn't list him. He'll be gone.

Frank Williams has a $1.7M team option and at this point I think it should probably be picked up. He played well down the stretch last year.

If we didn't pick it up, it would seem that it would be another opportunity cost of this trade, since whatever fiscal rationale for not picking up FWill's option would be offset by not having a 35 year old making $3M on the cap next year. 



> I don't see how this trade is a waste of 3 million bucks. We'll be over the cap next season regardless of whether we kept mutumbo or whether we traded him.


Not necessarily... while it's easy to imagine Curry and Chandler getting big deals, it's also easy to imagine them being complete wastes and us deciding to let them go entirely (or getting offers we don't want to match). In my opinion, they're that volatile.

And let's just imagine that happened. Suppose the cap is $45M next year.

If we renounced the rights to both Curry and Chandler, we'd be at $38.5M, or $6.5M under the cap. That's a bit over the MLE, but not by much.

If we didn't have Pike, we'd be $9.5M under the cap. That is, we'd be under by enough to make a pretty strong (although not max level) offer.

At the other extreme, you have the possibility that Curry and Chandler are worthy of huge contracts, and in that case, while we're over the cap in any case, Pike's $3M pushes us that much closer to the luxury tax threshold and/or the (phantom) budget that Reinsdorf has(n't) set. That is, it hampers us, and it's complete and utter deadweight.

In any of the middle ground scenarios between Curry/Chandler are great/suck, we obviously are have less to worry about, but $3M in worthless expenditure is still a waste when we could be getting exactly the same or better result on the court by signing up a vet for the league minimum or slightly above (a la John Barry, Dion Glover, Bryon Russell, Kendall Gill, etc.).

Cut it any way you want to, we're paying $5.6M over two years for a guy who we could replace by paying $1M over one year.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DC --

The players have to play their Qualifying Offer year and THEN their extensions start.

At least I'm reasonably sure.

-- DB


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> DC --
> 
> The players have to play their Qualifying Offer year and THEN their extensions start.
> ...


No, an extension signed this Fall for a player like Curry or Chandler would start in the 2005-06 season.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> No, an extension signed this Fall for a player like Curry or Chandler would start in the 2005-06 season.


Now what if they didn't sign one of two until next offseason? If we matched some offer sheet or just agreed on a contract, that new contract would start right away and the qualifying year rate would just disappear, right?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> Now what if they didn't sign one of two until next offseason? If we matched some offer sheet or just agreed on a contract, that new contract would start right away and the qualifying year rate would just disappear, right?


Right.

To summarize, if we extend one of these guys now (say Curry, who's due $3.9M this year), we still pay him only $3.9M for 04-05, and we pay him whatever his extension starts at (say $11M) in 05-06.

If we don't extend him, we obviously still pay him $3.9M for 04-05. Then, we'll (presumably) extend the "qualifying offer" ($5.1M for 1 year) to him next summer. Us *tendering this offer makes him a restricted free agent, but it does not create a contract for that year.* If we matched an offer or agreed on another deal, then the tender offer disappears.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

i dont have time to read the whole 9 pages. but one question though, did the trade go down officially?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> i dont have time to read the whole 9 pages. but one question though, did the trade go down officially?


The depth charts as of on ESPN Insider as of 9/7 show Mutombo with Houston and Wilks, Piatkowski and Griffin with the Bulls. Are they jumping the gun?
:whoknows:


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I think you stated this correctly but aren't understanding it correctly. They are under contract for _this_ season (04-05), so their new contract will start for the 05-06 season. This is the summer of '04, and next summer they will start counting against the cap with their new contract amounts, which is what I said.


Oh, I understand perfectly. I'm thinking you're not getting it quite right...



> If they cost us $20M, when the FA period rolls around, I'm pointing out that we'll be at $58.4M and 10 players.
> 
> How does it look like I've included Harrington... I didn't list him. He'll be gone.


what does this mean then?... Say $20M between Curry and Chandler
+ AD, ERob, Pike, Noicini, Gordon, * Harrington * , Deng, Hinrich, and * Frank Williams * is about $58.4M

Looks like you have Harrington and Williams included in the 05-06 cap figure you're quoting. Which is it?




> Not necessarily... while it's easy to imagine Curry and Chandler getting big deals, it's also easy to imagine them being complete wastes and us deciding to let them go entirely (or getting offers we don't want to match). In my opinion, they're that volatile.
> 
> And let's just imagine that happened. Suppose the cap is $45M next year.
> 
> ...


I don't have the time to go into this now but I'm not feeling what you're getting at. Pikes salary would be paid to Pike this year, and if not, it would have been to Mutumbo. You talk of 5.6 mil being wasted over two years, but that's not the case. Only his next years salary would be "wasted" in your analysis. As for the different "scenarios" that you project, my response is - so what? Pike or no Pike, what happens next year isn't going to change. The summer of 05 for this franchise is going to be rather dull. No draft picks and probably very little free agent activity. It seems to me that the ownership is clearly looking at the summer of 2006 to make some sort of move or to at least free up capital.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> No, an extension signed this Fall for a player like Curry or Chandler would start in the 2005-06 season.


Explain this to me:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#49

49. Can existing contracts be extended?

None of this applies to rookie "scale" contracts signed by first round draft picks. These contracts may be extended from August 1 to October 31 of the player's fourth (option) season. The salary in the first year of the extension is limited only by the maximum salary, and raises are limited to 12.5% of the salary in the first season of the extension. <B>Rookie "scale" contracts cannot be extended unless the team picks up the player's option for the fourth season.</B>

http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/chicago.htm

Curry's salary for his 4th season isn't listed as a team or player option.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Explain this to me:
> ...


picking up the option is basically a footnote. Every team picks up the option of every rookie-scale player they have, unless they're absolutely worthless. Hell, Krause even picked up Bags's option. I imagine we've already picked up Curry and Chandler's options (and I think that happened LAST offseason, though I'm not sure).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh, I understand perfectly. I'm thinking you're not getting it quite right...
> ...


Sorry, that was a typo on my part.

It should have been Say $20M between Curry and Chandler
+ AD, ERob, Pike, Noicini, Gordon , Deng, Hinrich, and Frank Williams is about $58.4M.

I could have sworn I edited out Harrington's name, but I didn't. The $58.4M is correct and accounts for those ten players' salaries. It doesn't include Harrington's. Sorry for the confusion.



> I don't have the time to go into this now but I'm not feeling what you're getting at. Pikes salary would be paid to Pike this year, and if not, it would have been to Mutumbo. You talk of 5.6 mil being wasted over two years, but that's not the case. Only his next years salary would be "wasted" in your analysis.


Well, it's wasted a bit this year because we're trading a guy who has at least some value for a guy who has no value at all.



> As for the different "scenarios" that you project, my response is - so what? Pike or no Pike, what happens next year isn't going to change. The summer of 05 for this franchise is going to be rather dull. No draft picks and probably very little free agent activity. It seems to me that the ownership is clearly looking at the summer of 2006 to make some sort of move or to at least free up capital.


That's rather presumptuous IMO. Suppose Chandler's back isn't healthy (he's still only rehabbing at the last report) and suppose Curry does worse than expected. Suppose we win 20 games. I think we'll win more, but I could see it happening. And if it does, it's likely that there will be (and should be) yet another house cleaning. In that scenario without Pike, we'd have significantly more cap room.

On the other hand, say Curry and Chandler are healthy and at least exhibit "potential" and both get max offers from other teams, but we only win say... 32 games. If we sign them both, with Pike on board, we'll might be closing in on the luxury tax range with only ten guys if we match those offers. Is that something that Pax/Reinsdorf are going to do, or are they going to say "boy, we really haven't won enough yet to justify a luxury tax hit", even though they could have avoided the tax hit by not taking on a 35 year old SG who's owed $3M.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Explain this to me:
> ...


Right, the 4th year option, not the 5th year qualifying tender. That is, the Bulls could extend Curry, but the first year of the "new salary" wouldn't take effect until 05-06, as the option for Curry's 4th season, 04-05, has already been picked up.



> http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/chicago.htm
> 
> Curry's salary for his 4th season isn't listed as a team or player option.


Because it's no longer an option. It was a team option up until the point they exercised it (last summer I believe). Now it's a certainty.


----------



## DontBeCows (Apr 22, 2003)

I just don't see how big a difference those 3 million dollars would make.

We are not going to let both Curry and Chandler walk. If we resign at least one of them, we'll be over the cap. I don't think that they will command a combined 20 mil., not by the way that they've been playing the last three years. Curry may get 8~9 mil to start with yearly increment if he plays a bit better this year (say a 7 year/75 mil. salary). Chandler will cost even lower than that (maybe around 6-7 mil. to start). 

My guess is that we'll be over the cap but not close to the luxury tax thread next summer. 

Three mil. is not that much, well, by the NBA standards.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DontBeCows</b>!
> I just don't see how big a difference those 3 million dollars would make.
> 
> We are not going to let both Curry and Chandler walk. If we resign at least one of them, we'll be over the cap. I don't think that they will command a combined 20 mil., not by the way that they've been playing the last three years. Curry may get 8~9 mil to start with yearly increment if he plays a bit better this year (say a 7 year/75 mil. salary). Chandler will cost even lower than that (maybe around 6-7 mil. to start).


Probably not, but it's hard to say.

One factor to consider is that if we decide we want to let one of them walk, we might be _better_ letting both of them walk, because then we're under the cap.

Suppose Curry gets an $11M offer we don't want to match. Then, we've got the possibility of signing Chandler for $7M or renouncing him, being under the cap, and offering $8M to another player who we like better than Chandler.

That is, if we sign Curry, we're over the cap no matter what, so we might as well sign Chandler too (there's no foregone opportunity of signing another FA by doing so). However, if we let Curry go, then we face an either/or- sign Chandler or sign someone else's free agent, who we might like more.

In that scenario, if we don't have Pike, we can make like an $8-9M offer to another FA (and still have lots of room in 06 too) if we find one who we like better than Chandler (or Curry, you could easily switch the names in the preceeding paragraphs).

Having Pike's $3M on the books greatly diminishes that chance, since we go from like 8-9M to $5-6M available under the cap if we chose to do so.



> My guess is that we'll be over the cap but not close to the luxury tax thread next summer.
> 
> Three mil. is not that much, well, by the NBA standards.


It's not in total, but it is at the margin, which is how guys are (practically) thinking when they make roster decisions. By that, I mean look at how one decision affects another. We look at the money we have locked up in an old guy like Pippen and decide we can't afford to pay Crawford a penny over the MLE. We look at a slug like Jefferies but think he's got a guaranteed deal so we refuse to give a guaranteed deal to a young player who's been an exemplar of hard work like Lint. 

At the margin, the decision is something like "we'd like to have the better player, but we've already got money locked up in this schmoe". 

Even worse, we keep kicking the can down the road and exaccerbating the problem. 

Because we don't feel like we can simply buy a couple of these guys out, but we "just have to have a tall guard" (never mind if he doesn't play tall), we make a deal that doesn't increase our salary this year but does increase it next year. So instead of just paying a million or a million .5 to a Jon Barry or Dion Glover or Kendall Gill, we "save" money this year by trading away a tradeable asset for a guy who'll put us in the same place again next year. Because next year we'll be looking at some younger guy again and say "but oh, we've already got $3M tied up in Pike". Similarly, taking back Mike Wilks on a guaranteed deal strongly tips the scales in favor of keeping him over Chris Duhon (who we supposedly really like) or Pargo, who does everything Wilks does but has the advantage of already actually being here.

Point is, there is some relationship here. We're penny-wise and pound-foolish; as we worry about "saving money", we seem to get ourselves into positions where we have to keep letting go of guys who are liked to keep guys we don't like, and ironically, we then make up for it by acquiring guys "we need" who are over the hill, expensive, and re-create the problem in the future.

Now I'm sure someone will say, "but Mike, all those guys are scrubs anyway". Well, maybe, but other teams take scrubs that can maybe be role players one day. Lint, Pargo, Duhon, Dupree, a guy like Glover... they at least fit that category.

They could be tomorrow's Damon Jones, Mike James, Raja Bell, or Bruce Bowen. Of course they might not be, but there's at least a chance. But because we let our (foolish) decisions for guys like Pike, Jefferies, and Wilks (guys who probably don't have that opportunity) affect things, we miss out on those opportunities.


----------



## elitetrackstar (Aug 26, 2004)

*Trade: Chicago and Houston*

Dikembe Mutombo for Eric Piatkowski, Adrian Griffin, and Mike Wilks

Sourse: The Post

was this already posted?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Er.... take a look at the other thread here


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

Mike Wilks just re-signed with houston today...it's on espn, so i guess they trade will be dun today or tomomorrow


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

merged


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

One thing I find curious. If Houston is going to S&T Wilks how come it wasn't done all at once? Also, why would Wilks resign with Houston if he knew he was likely to be shipped to Chicago and be waived?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Also, why would Wilks resign with Houston if he knew he was likely to be shipped to Chicago and be waived?


In a S&T, when player signs the contract, it is set in stone that he will be moved to the second team.

Even if he was told that he was going to get wavied, one reason Wilks might be OK in signing a S&T deal is to get some money. The first year would have to be guarenteed. Then he could go try out for any other team after being waived and perhaps double up his money.

Joe Klein got traded in a similar fashion in a S&T at the end of his career. It was a little extra money for retirement.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> One thing I find curious. If Houston is going to S&T Wilks how come it wasn't done all at once? Also, why would Wilks resign with Houston if he knew he was likely to be shipped to Chicago and be waived?


I would think it's because as part of a sign and trade, he signs a three year contract and the first year is guaranteed. So, his salary is taken care of this year regardless of where he is playing or if he's even playing at all. I'd also hazzard a guess that because he agreed to be a part of this sign and trade, his earnings for this year are probably a good bit more than he would have made signing a one year non-guaranteed contract with Houston or anybody. Financially, he comes off better with this arrangement and he's got a year to work on his game. He may stick with the Bulls or get waived. Whatever happens with his playing status, he's covered. For a fringe guy like Wilks, that's gotta look better than the prospect of the NBDL or the CBA or even overseas.

Why it wasn't all done at once? I don't know...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> Why it wasn't all done at once? I don't know...


If it wasn't done at once, it can't be done.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

That is correct. It hasn't been done. There has been no official announcement. We just had Deke's comments that it was a done deal.

Now that the S&T portion of the deal is apparently finalized, I suppose we can expect an announcement soon.

As a man much wiser than I has been known to say:

Is it tomorrow yet?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/mutombo_trade_040908.html


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

It's tomorrow.

And it smells like garbage.

I'm happy to hear that the trade is conditional on Griffin 1) passing a physical and 2) that he might be in the plans. 

Hog-tying ourselves with Pike at 3M for next year when we could get a comparable or better player for the vet min this year is still stupid and needlessly limits our options.

However, if Griffin can play, that's a silver lining, because it gives us a solid younger role player. 

1- Kirk, Williams
2- Gordon, Pike, Griffin
3- Noicini, Deng, _Griffin_, ERob (IR)
4- Chandler, _Davis_, Harrington
5- Curry, Davis, Trybanski (IR)

Duhon overseas
Pippen retired
Jefferies waived
Pargo and Wilks battling for the last spot, with Wilks (guaranteed contract) having the edge.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Paxson added. “We obviously are crowded in the backcourt and we will work to resolve that issue.”


Our crowded backcourt and uncrowded front line are issues which need to be addressed. Does Pax have one more move he can make to weed out some back up pont guards and get us a reserve big?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Our crowded backcourt and uncrowded front line are issues which need to be addressed. Does Pax have one more move he can make?


Probably not... they'll just slide Noicini or Deng to the 4 if they're in a pinch.

At this point I don't see any point to them cutting Trybanski either, so he'll probably be around.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

If Pipen retires, that leaves us with how much in ending contracts?


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

FINALLY!!!

G HINRICH / F. WILLIAMS
G GORDON / PIATKOWSKI / GRIFFIN
F NOCIONI / DENG / ROBINSON
F CHANDLER / HARRINGTON
C CURRY / DAVIS

IR WILKS / JEFFERIES / TRYBANSKI (IF PIP retires)

I like the team we're going into the season with...

The only weak links we really have is ANTONIO DAVIS and his 1 mile per hour game...Some teams still need a big man, hopefully we can get him, his big *** contract and a couple of them scrubs moved....We can put a very effective run-and-gun style offense out there, but he slows us down somethin' TERRIBLE.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> One thing I find curious. If Houston is going to S&T Wilks how come it wasn't done all at once? Also, why would Wilks resign with Houston if he knew he was likely to be shipped to Chicago and be waived?


Wilks will be lucky if he ever plays in the NBA again. He will take the 500k no ifs or buts, and porbably play in the NBDL this year.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

We need to load up our roster with guys who play 46, 29, and 19 games and who average 4.1, 1.9 and 0.6 PPG.

I'm _really_ impressed.

EDIT:

Anyone but me notice a trend with Pax's trades? We always seem to be giving up the best player in the deal and getting not much of value in return.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Was there anything else out there for us to get with Mutombo?

I mean, anyone that was willing to give us a decent tall guard that could shoot and play for more than 10 mpg?

Here's my list:

Atlanta- Diaw? For Mutombo? No way.
Boston- Ricky Davis? Jiri Welsch? Nope.
Charlotte- Um, nope.
Cleveland- Newble? Wagner? Those were possibilities. But Wagner adds no height, and Newble is not quick enough to play SG, nor has he shown the ability to anything but come off the bench for 19.5 mpg and shoot 39% from the field and 10% from the arc.
Dallas- Basically, no. Howard, Daniels, Finley, Stackhouse, Terry, Devin Harris crowd the guard positions but not a single one of them could get Mutombo on a team that just shelled out for Dampier.
Denver- Voshon would be nice, but he's their only SG and they have Nene, Camby, and Francisco Elson for their C's.
Detroit- Heck no. They took DUPREE from us; they don't even have anyone that we could use, not to mention that you generally don't need to mess with what works too much.
GS- Cheaney? Not only is he well-liked there, he was 0 for 10 from 3 point range. A decent defender and a smart player but nothing to help us stretch the floor at all (career 30% from arc). Pietrus is worth more than a sixth center (Cliff Robinson, Dale Davis, Christian Laettner, Adonal Foyle, Biedrins).
Indy- No tall guards. Fred Jones is 6-2?!
Clippers- I count 5 centers on their roster, and they don't have a tall guard for us other than Jaric, who started 50 out of 58 games he played last year. Starting guard > 6th center.
Lakers- The funny thing is, there was a window of a year or two where they might have considered trading Kobe for Mutombo at one point. Kareem Rush would have been a great target, though his 3-pt shot is average, and the Lakers could have used Mutombo.
Grizzlies- I would have liked a Dahntay Jones deal, but for all we know, he might completely stink (1.8 ppg in 7.7 mpg? Who knows.) He has not demonstrated a shot outside the arc.
Miami- Gosh. They don't even have enough tall guards for themselves; the injury-prone aged Eddie Jones and Wesley Person is all they have for now. Not to mention, they've recently dealt for a decent center. :uhoh: 
Milwaukee- no one attractive. They need both D. Mason and Redd like crazy.
Minnesota- oooh, if only we could have seen those solid guys, Trenton Hassell and Fred Hoiberg, in Bulls unis. Wait, that's right.
New Jersey- aren't they still paying Mutombo or something? Lucious Harris would have been a good pickup, but the Nets are thin here too.
New Orleans- they don't even HAVE a big guard under contract.
New York- uhm...
Orlando- they might have been interested, for perhaps Keith Bogans? But I have a feeling it would not have panned out; they'd have to throw in another player to make the money work, and the rest of their roster doesn't look so great.
Sixers- uhm, hasn't Mutombo been there/done that? Anyway, we might have tried to get Salmons or something, I suppose.
Suns- Casey Jacobsen. YES! That would have been a GOOD TRADE. But we'd have to take another player off of them, and there aren't great ways to make that work out.
Blazers- Ruben Patterson? Maybe if he weren't such a thug. I like Patterson, though, and would have been willing to think about that.
Kings- No one there.
Spurs- they just signed Brent Barry for a reason.
Sonics- Flip Murray? Short and an offensive jitter without tremendous defense.
Raptors- I'm through trading with them. But if they were willing, I'd take Lamond Murray off their hands. 
Jazz- Maybe Raja Bell? Above-average defender with not a lot of good scoring abilities. Not so much.

The bottom line was that though there were a FEW more trades available for Mutombo that might have been worth pursuing, the Pike one is by no means a bad one if our goal was to find a solid outside guy to hit the big shots.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Was there anything else out there for us to get with Mutombo?
> 
> I mean, anyone that was willing to give us a decent tall guard that could shoot and play for more than 10 mpg?
> ...


- Fred is 6'4 and a superb defender. Who cares about being tall if you don't play tall?



> Grizzlies- I would have liked a Dahntay Jones deal, but for all we know, he might completely stink (1.8 ppg in 7.7 mpg? Who knows.) He has not demonstrated a shot outside the arc.


- Err, for all you know, Pike is going to completely stink... he's going to be 34 at the start of the year, never could play defense, and sucked last year.



> Minnesota- oooh, if only we could have seen those solid guys, Trenton Hassell and Fred Hoiberg, in Bulls unis. Wait, that's right.


- Those guys are both... get this... upgrades over Pike.



> Jazz- Maybe Raja Bell? Above-average defender with not a lot of good scoring abilities. Not so much.


- Take a look at who was one of the league leaders in 3pt %



> The bottom line was that though there were a FEW more trades available for Mutombo that might have been worth pursuing, the Pike one is by no means a bad one if our goal was to find a solid outside guy to hit the big shots.


- When has Pike ever hit a big shot? In 10 years, he's played in *a grand total of 4 playoff games*. Aside from infecting everyone with the winning spirit of the LA Clippers, I'm not feeling him.

We gave up the (slightly) better player in the deal *and* we took back a worse contract to boot. How the hell do you do that?

Pike is *NOT* a "solid" player. He's an over the hill guy who will be ineffective playing with inexperienced guys and guys who can't pass.

What else could we get for Mutombo? Well, we didn't _have_ to get anything for him... we could have just held on to him for inclusion later in a bigger trade (which now will be rather difficult to do) and signed any one of three or four free agent SGs that were as good or better than Pike (Glover, Barry, and Russell, for example, are all still available... countless guys went for cheap and were better).


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Was there anything else out there for us to get with Mutombo?
> 
> The bottom line was that though there were a FEW more trades available for Mutombo that might have been worth pursuing, the Pike one is by no means a bad one if our goal was to find a solid outside guy to hit the big shots.


It also goes without saying that someone has to be interested in _acquiring_ Mutombo (takes two to tango). If there's little or no market for him, and you have holes that need to be plugged, you make the best deal you can. Fact is, I doubt Paxson's phone was ringing off the hook with offers for a player with a recently spotty health record who strongly expressed his desire to finish his career with a contender.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Ming Bling</b>!
> 
> 
> Wilks will be lucky if he ever plays in the NBA again. He will take the 500k no ifs or buts, and porbably play in the NBDL this year.


Have you ever seen Wilks play? :laugh:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> It also goes without saying that someone has to be interested in _acquiring_ Mutombo (takes two to tango). If there's little or no market for him, and you have holes that need to be plugged, you make the best deal you can. Fact is, I doubt Paxson's phone was ringing off the hook with offers for a player with a recently spotty health record who strongly expressed his desire to finish his career with a contender.


Don't you argue that expiring contracts, such as Mutombo's, are worth trading away young players we've invested 4 years of training into and who are on the verge of becoming solid regular NBA contributors for years to come?

Apparently only we see that kind of value in those contracts.

And now we've effectively traded Crawford for Pietkowski and Frank Williams.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> Have you ever seen Wilks play? :laugh:


:|


----------

