# Pax talking to Houston about Piatkowski for Mutumbo



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...trade,1,4018712.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines




> Crawford deal finally done
> Mutombo likely to be traded
> 
> Crawford and Jerome Williams go to the Knicks for Dikembe Mutombo, Othella Harrington, former University of Illinois standout Frank Williams and Cezary Trybanski. Mutombo and Trybanski won't be around long.
> ...



I'd rather keep Mutumbo and sign a cheap arsed shooter in free agency yet. And again, cut Jefferies over Trybanski.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

I rather get Calbert Cheaney (kc mentions him in teh article), but i wouldnt be opposed to Piatkowski in a bulls uni. 

The only roadblock to a Cheaney to the bulls deal would be Calbert wanting a multiple year contract. AT least w/ Piatkowski he is an expiring contract as well.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

I'd rather keep Mutombo and sign a cheap free agent SG. 

I think Mutombo can help up this year... and didn't K.C Johnson mention the reason Paxson wanted Mutombo in the first place was so that Eddy could practice against him for a year?


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> The only roadblock to a Cheaney to the bulls deal would be Calbert wanting a multiple year contract. AT least w/ Piatkowski he is an expiring contract as well.


And we'd be risking lux tax to get him. I like the Pike idea if Mutombo doesn't want to be here. Not sure the salaries match up right unless Houston adds something else.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

Also, looks like Pike has 2 years left...
http://www.hoopshype.com/salaries/houston.htm


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> I rather get Calbert Cheaney (kc mentions him in teh article), but i wouldnt be opposed to Piatkowski in a bulls uni.
> 
> The only roadblock to a Cheaney to the bulls deal would be Calbert wanting a multiple year contract. AT least w/ Piatkowski he is an expiring contract as well.



Hoopshype and Patricia's salaries have his deal running 2 more seasons. I'm not completely opposed to bringing him in but I like keeping Mutumbo and just getting a cheap free agent to fill the shooter role.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I'm down with the Pike deal. Do it.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

WTF?! The Bulls should keep Mutombo. Even if he retires, he helps them more than Eric Piatkowski!


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> WTF?! The Bulls should keep Mutombo. Even if he retires, he helps them more than Eric Piatkowski!


A retired Mutombo would provide nothing to the Bulls. Pike could provide a tall SG to a team in need of a tall SG. He also would provide good perimeter shooting and perhaps the right attitude, both of which would be helpful.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Houston has a $5.4 million trade exception, so they could acquire Mutumbo from the Bulls with that trade exception.

Then the Bulls would have a $4.6 million dollar trade exception, which it could use to acquire Piatkowski.

Piatkowski also appears to have two years left on his contract, so perhaps the Bulls go one step further and have Houston trade for Trybanski with the exception they would get from the Piatkowski trade.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

> "I just know Dikembe through other people. The one thing I know about him is he's a true professional," Paxson said. "He's been around league and seen a lot of things, and he has a great, positive attitude about this business. It's going to be a wonderful thing for our young guys to learn from him."



http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1853011


Sounds like Pax intends to keep him...


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

Thanks Dan!

In the end it's pretty simple: If Mutombo wants to be here, then we should keep him and perhaps try to find a different solution to our undersized SG issue. If he wants out, then trading him for a SG such as Pike makes a lot of sense. From what I heard previously, he doesn't want to be here, but he could change his mind.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

I like the idea of having Mutombo around as an influence for our young guys, from what I know Pax is right, he's a wonderful guy. That said, I think we have a bigger need for a shooter and in my opinion Piatkowski is light years better than guys like Cheaney and Person.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

Glad to see that Paxson quote. I hope we keep him around.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

I really like this trade for the Rockets... Piatkowski is coming off a bad year but is still a career 40% 3PT shooter, would definitely help the Bulls outside shot.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Count me in for Pike. I would rather keep Dekembe but if he wants to move on, Pike can shoot!


----------



## Kramer (Jul 5, 2002)

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


Actually, it sounds like a reporter asked him what he thought about Mutombo and Pax gave the typical, no-brainer answer that any of us could've given. I wouldn't expect Pax to say "The guy is at _least_ 45 years old and I'm gonna try like **** to trade him!"

Mutombo's a waste, we don't need him. His "vet" experience and "professionalism" won't help Curry anymore than Gill, JYD, Oakley or AD helped him. We NEED a tall guard, we need another perimeter player who can shoot. Piatkowski would fill both roles. I hope the trade goes down. :yes:


----------



## rebelsun (Nov 25, 2003)

I think this would be a steal for the Rockets. The Bulls are deep at C, but I think they could get better value for Deke.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Eric Piatkowski fills a need. And by trading for him the Bulls avoid adding more payroll the way they would if they signed a free agent instead. That helps them keep their distance from the LT threshold.

I'm wondering though, if Houston might insist that the Bulls include the rights to Chris Duhon as part of the transaction. The only PG they have right now is Tyrone Lue. Paxson's earlier remarks about Williams suggest that he's going to be given an opportunity to contribute.

“Frank is a young player who hasn’t played a lot in his two years in the league,” Paxson said. “Going into year three, we expect him to get a chance to play some minutes in our backcourt and he will have the opportunity to prove himself.” 

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/crawford_trade_040805.html

Paxson asked Williams, who is listed at 6-3, if he can play shooting guard. Williams, who grew up in Peoria, told him yes. 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...trade,1,4018712.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

Deke's expendibility would seem to depend on what the Bulls think of Othella Harrington. Antonio Davis is a solid backup for Curry. And I would expect we'll see Chandler spend some time in the post as well. That makes Mutombo a dealable asset.

Harrington, a 6-foot-9-inch forward, is an eight-year veteran with a strong work ethic and career averages of 8.1 points and 5 rebounds. He developed a knee infection this summer that the Bulls will check in a physical.

"Those Georgetown guys are tough and physical," Paxson said, referring to Harrington. "He's a solid role player who isn't afraid to mix it up."

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...trade,1,4018712.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

Perhaps the deal will be consumated once Harrington takes his physical and the Bulls are assured that he will recover from his knee infection.

Paxson has a lot of respect for players like Mutombo. If Dekembe has expressed a preference for finishing his career with a title contender, and the Rockets with Ming and McGrady certainly are that, I'm sure John will attempt to accomodate him. Deke would probably only get spot minutes in Chicago anyway. His greatest value to the Bulls would be as a teacher for EC and TC, and not as a key rotation player. Piatkowski, on the other hand, would become a valuable role player for the Bulls. Every team needs a player who can bust zones and counter defenses designed to pack it in around the post. Piatkowski would fill that role nicely. And at 6'7" he would add depth at both swing positions.

Its a good deal for both teams. Those are always the best kind of deals to make.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

OK, so Paxson's "vision for the future" includes trading for another overpaid, over the hill, unathletic player.

I'm shocked. :uhoh: 

Piatkowski brings absolutely nothing we couldn't bring by signing a younger better player like Bobby Sura or Dion Glover. He can't play defense worth a ****, can't create his own shot... he brings little if anything that I can see, except another over the hill guy with a two year guarantee. That would be another step in the wrong direction.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

> Piatkowski brings absolutely nothing we couldn't bring by signing a younger better player like Bobby Sura or Dion Glover. He can't play defense worth a ****, can't create his own shot... he brings little if anything that I can see, except another over the hill guy with a two year guarantee. That would be another step in the wrong direction.


:clap: 

This reminds me of the rumored interest by Pax in Shandon Anderson... why bring in a guy with that type of contract when you can get the same production by signing a free agent shooting guard for much cheaper? 

In regards to the whole luxury tax argument, we're talking about signing someone to the league minimum for crying out loud! Geez, what kind of budget are we working with when we're worried about adding a player for the minimum! (E.g, Wesley Person, Dion Glover, etc.)

Mutombo could help land us a better player than Piatkowski if we wait awhile, and if he can't, he still provides us with a solid backup C for the year. IMO trading him for Piatkowski is awful.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> OK, so Paxson's "vision for the future" includes trading for another overpaid, over the hill, unathletic player.
> 
> I'm shocked. :uhoh:
> ...


Glover yes. Sura....when inspired and starting, he's at his best. Benched, he'll just rot. Still we need to make up the scoring loss of jamal and piatkowski is decent enough. He's a good shooter and might as well trade for him if mutumbo is going to retire.

No way Deke stays here. what's the point? he has no connections here.


----------



## DontBeCows (Apr 22, 2003)

Why would Mutombo want to play for the Bulls this year? 

We're not going to win.

He'll get his 4.5 mil. regardless. 

I say trade him. But we could probably get something better in return.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DontBeCows</b>!
> Why would Mutombo want to play for the Bulls this year?
> 
> We're not going to win.
> ...


We could definitely get something better and there's alot of contenders in this league that could use mutombo's size and shot blocking. A team like dallas for instance, although he'd prolly slow them down since their RUN and GUN.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1855721

Rockets sign Ward and Sura.

Maybe the glut of guards can foreshadow a Piatkowski deal? Yeah I'm stretching it a bit...  but who knows at this point...


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Well, one thing's for sure...Pax is going to have to acquire a big guard one way or another. Right now Eddie Robinson is the only player (besides Pippen) who's taller than 6'3" and has played the two guard position.

Now I'd love to see Robinson be all he can be as the off guard in the Bulls backcourt rotation. But to count on him to fill that role with his history of injuries and disputes...that would be a risky proposition.

As for why Paxson would prefer to acquire a big guard via the trade route instead of spending more exception money, consider this:

For the 2003-04 season, a tax will be collected from teams equal to the amount by which their payrolls exceeded $54.6 million. The tax money is re-distributed to NBA teams.  

http://www.nba.com/news/cap_040713.html

Now, guess what the Bulls payroll was for the '03/'04 season:

Chicago Bulls: $54,983,480.

http://www.nationwide.net/~patricia/misc/salaries04.txt

Now, Patricia Bender (the website's author) states that her payroll totals are a compilation based on information gathered from a variety of sources. In essence she's more or less indicating that the totals may be off a little bit here and there. Dan Rosenbaum would have a much better handle on this than I do. But from what I had heard, the Bulls avoided paying the LT by less than $1 million. That's cutting it real close. For all I know they may have been spared by something called the "cliff provision" which protects teams who are slightly over the threshold.

Anyhow, the point is even a measily veteran's minimum contract could mean the difference between sharing in the tax distribution or paying the tax (a double whammy if there ever was one). And that could equate to millions of dollars when you combine what you don't get to share with the penalty you're required to pay.

Think about that for a moment. The Bulls, a 23-59 team, were probably within a couple hundred thousand dollars of having to pay the LT! Mind boggling.

Bottom line, the Bulls definitely need to add a big guard. And based on their '04/'05 payroll committments I'm sure they'd prefer to swap salaries to get that big guard rather than add to payroll and run the risk of becoming a non-playoff team that pays the LT. And if you accept that premise and look around the league for SG candidates, there's not a lot to choose from with short, manageable contracts.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

i thought after a team traded for a player they have 48hr's to trade him alone for something,after that they had to wait 2mo's b4 they could move the player.


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

Good point, Kismet. While I don't like it--I don't care what the owners have to shell out--we seem to be a team driven by staying under the lux tax at the moment. And my understanding from Dan's post is that Houston would use a trade exception to take back more salary than they get in the proposed Pike/Mutombo deal. Therefore, doing the Pike deal would actually give us more money to add another minimum or so contract such as Glover. Why not try to get both Glover and Pike instead of having an unhappy/retiring Mt. Mutombo and little-to-no lux tax wiggle room?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

As I posted earlier today

They could trade Trybanski and/or Jefferies to a team that's under the cap for with cash to cover their salary and some bonus to the team for taking these guys off our hands. Say, a million bucks each, or a future second rounder. A million bucks sounds like a lot, but it will save the Bulls quite a bit more than that in escrow payments. Further, a team like Charlotte, which isn't getting escrow payments anyway (under the expansion deal), would likely be glad to do this to gather some operating revenue this year.

So, we spend $3M to send Trybanski to Charlotte. This puts us down to $57.19M, well under the $58M target.

*I'm sure one of the reasons the Bulls are considering trading Mutombo's ending contract for the washed up, over the hill Eric Piatkowsi is that, using Houston's trade exceptions, they could take him back and pay him only $2.5M instead of the $4.5M they're paying Deke. That is, this move gets them under the tax threshold. *

However, consider that the Bulls are talking about waiving Trybanski outright, in which case they'd have to pay him $1.76M, and then getting under the cap by trading Deke for Pike.

However, doing this is only saves a trivial amount more money than the move I propose. If the Bulls can trade Trybanski as I suggest, they get under the cap for $2.76M, and then they have to pay Deke $4.5M. That's a total of $7.26M.

If they do the Pike trade and waive Trybanski, they have to pay the latter $1.76M this year and they have to pay Pike $2.5M this year and $2.7M next year. That's like $6.96M.

So, why do the more expensive option? Well, because:
1) It preserves Mutombo as an expiring contract trading chip.
*2) We get an enhanced salary cap position next year, since we aren't paying $2.7M to a 35 year old shooting guard who can't play defense and has lost his legs. Given that the Bulls are going to be bumping the luxury tax threshold next year too if they try to use their exceptions and re-sign the big kids, that just doesn't make much sense.*

*Because of those facts, making a trade for over the hill Pike just so we can have a guard on the roster would be unwise in the extreme. Especially if... in practice, Frank Williams, despite being shorter, might come in and take a bunch of the guy's minutes just because he's younger, quicker, and a better defender. Remember that the reason we want a tall guard is largely for defense. While I hate the idea of using FWill in that role, I'd rather do that than further harm our cap position next year just so we can say we have a 6'6 SG (even though he's past his prime and couldn't play defense even in his prime).*

That and cutting Lint would give you enough space to sign a Dion Glover or Bobby Simmons or Richie Frahm or DeMarr Johnson. If you really insist on getting an over the hill guy, you can look at Jon Barry or Wes Person or bring back Kendall Gill.

Or, you could go a step further and try and move Jefferies as well. Trading Jefferies too would put them down to $56.3M, which would give probably give them enough to sign up a guy like Dion Glover or DeMarr Johnson (under the cap) and still keep Lint and Duhon... the true cost, of course, of signing Glover would be about $3M... the cost of the $2M or so you need to send with Jefferies plus the $1M or so you need to pay Glover. However, just on a player for player basis, and from a long term standpoint, I'd rather pay $3M for a younger guy who might stick like Glover than pay $5.2M for an other the hill guy like Piatkowski. That probably also gives you enough to keep around Duhon if you want to.

Thus, if I were the Bulls (barring any major trades), I'd try to go into the season looking like:

1- Hinrich, Williams, Duhon (IR)
2- Gordon, Glover, ERob
3- Noicini, Deng, Lint (IR), Pippen (IR)
4- Chandler, Davis, Harrington
5- Curry, Mutombo

Pippen and Mutombo you keep for trade purposes.

In short, the luxury tax doesn't provide much, if any justification I can see for making such a move.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Fizer Fanatic</b>!
> Good point, Kismet. While I don't like it--I don't care what the owners have to shell out--we seem to be a team driven by staying under the lux tax at the moment. And my understanding from Dan's post is that Houston would use a trade exception to take back more salary than they get in the proposed Pike/Mutombo deal. Therefore, doing the Pike deal would actually give us more money to add another minimum or so contract such as Glover. Why not try to get both Glover and Pike instead of having an unhappy/retiring Mt. Mutombo and little-to-no lux tax wiggle room?


That's my understanding, too. The trade exception is what makes it work. And that's a good idea about using the acquired exception to add another player. I don't recall specifically, but I believe most trade exceptions have time limits. This stuff can get very complicated. Not to mention the fact that no matter how badly you may want to acquire someone or move someone else, that old adage rings true every time: *"It takes two to Tango."* Finding an agreeable trading partner can be the toughest part of the whole damn process.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

A few points of clarification.

1. Houston has a trade exception worth more than $5 million, so they can trade for Mutumbo without sending any salary to Chicago. But if they do so, the Bulls then would get a trade exception for Mutumbo's full salary plus $100,000. The Bulls could then use this trade exception to trade for a player from Houston (such as Piatkowski) or any other team.

2. Hoopshype makes it look like the Bulls were a lot closer to the luxury tax than they were. I do not know precisely why Hoopshype was off, but I think I remember the Bulls being about $2 million away from paying the luxury tax in 2003-04.

3. The cliff provision did _not_ keep the Bulls from paying the luxury tax last season. The cliff provision keeps a team that barely crosses the luxury tax threshold from losing all of the luxury tax and escrow tax distributions, i.e. if keeps them from falling off the cliff. So instead of losing the distributions lump-sum, teams in effect pay about a 400 percent tax for the first couple million over the luxury tax threshold. Thus, if the Bulls are $500,000 over, they pay $500,000 in taxes and lose about $1.5 million in distributions.

4. There is almost no chance the luxury tax will be triggered in 2004-05. The designated percentage rose from 55 to 57 percent, which lessens the likelihood of the luxury tax being triggered. The spending spree in early July, however, threatened to bring back the luxury tax despite the designated percentage rising. But there is accounting oddity (and don't ask me more about that), which in all but the most extreme circumstances will keep the luxury tax from being triggered. Non-national TV BRI growth would have to be an order of magnitude lower than the lowest growth rate in recent history for the luxury tax to be triggered. Earlier in the summer teams could have used the luxury tax as an excuse, but now it is becoming increasingly obvious that there will be no tax in 2004-05. If the Bulls paid a $1 million premium to a team to lower their team salary because fears about the luxury tax, that would be a very, very bad investment of $1 million.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> A few points of clarification.
> 
> 1. Houston has a trade exception worth more than $5 million, so they can trade for Mutumbo without sending any salary to Chicago. But if they do so, the Bulls then would get a trade exception for Mutumbo's full salary plus $100,000. The Bulls could then use this trade exception to trade for a player from Houston (such as Piatkowski) or any other team.


Do trade exceptions count against the cap? I don't think so, right?

So really, they could trade Mutombo to Houston for nothing (not taking back Pike and his two year guaranteed deal), and then, with the couple million bucks they have before they bump the tax threshold, they could go out and get a younger guy or sign an older guy to less stupid one year deal (assuming they really are being cautious with the luxury tax, which I don't doubt they are).

That probably gives the Bulls the most flexibility for the least cost.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 4. There is almost no chance the luxury tax will be triggered in 2004-05. The designated percentage rose from 55 to 57 percent, which lessens the likelihood of the luxury tax being triggered. The spending spree in early July, however, threatened to bring back the luxury tax despite the designated percentage rising. But there is accounting oddity (and don't ask me more about that), which in all but the most extreme circumstances will keep the luxury tax from being triggered. Non-national TV BRI growth would have to be an order of magnitude lower than the lowest growth rate in recent history for the luxury tax to be triggered. Earlier in the summer teams could have used the luxury tax as an excuse, but now it is becoming increasingly obvious that there will be no tax in 2004-05. If the Bulls paid a $1 million premium to a team to lower their team salary because fears about the luxury tax, that would be a very, very bad investment of $1 million.


Regarding this point, would it be a good investment if the Bulls disagreed with you and believed the tax would be imposed after all?

No agenda... I'm just trying to figure it out.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Do trade exceptions count against the cap? I don't think so, right?
> 
> So really, they could trade Mutombo to Houston for nothing (not taking back Pike and his two year guaranteed deal), and then, with the couple million bucks they have before they bump the tax threshold, they could go out and get a younger guy or sign an older guy to less stupid one year deal (assuming they really are being cautious with the luxury tax, which I don't doubt they are).
> ...


A trade exception does not count towards team salary and thus does not affect salary cap space or luxury tax payments or distributions. Houston also is pretty cautious too, so they may not want to take on Mutumbo's salary without giving back some salary.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Regarding this point, would it be a good investment if the Bulls disagreed with you and believed the tax would be imposed after all?


Yes. It always amazes me how teams can simultaneously be hyper-cautious about the luxury tax while they seem oblivious to the inherent risks in signing an older player like Scottie Pippen to a multi-year contract. I am not say the latter was a bad decision; I am just saying that both decisions potentially entail multi-million dollar risks.


----------



## THE'clip'SHOW (Sep 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> *I'm sure one of the reasons the Bulls are considering trading Mutombo's ending contract for the washed up, over the hill Eric Piatkowsi is that, *


*

Mikedc you may say alot of intellegent things, but this... well this is just funny. What do you base this on? Washed up over the hill... wtf. It makes me wonder how much of other teams you watch. The reason why Eric Piatkowski didn't get deserved playing time is because of Jeff VanGundy. He didn't sign to play under VanGundy he got stuck. Dont get me wrong, Pike is far from a great defender, but he plays hard shoots LIGHTS OUT, is one of the hardest players in the league to gaurd off picks, and knows how to play the game.

That being said I hope you guys pick him up, as soon as the season starts he'll show that he is a valuable asset, not interchangable with some f'n rookie. *


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>THE'clip'SHOW</b>!
> 
> 
> Mikedc you may say alot of intellegent things, but this... well this is just funny. What do you base this on? Washed up over the hill... wtf. It makes me wonder how much of other teams you watch. The reason why Eric Piatkowski didn't get deserved playing time is because of Jeff VanGundy. He didn't sign to play under VanGundy he got stuck. Dont get me wrong, Pike is far from a great defender, but he plays hard shoots LIGHTS OUT, is one of the hardest players in the league to gaurd off picks, and knows how to play the game.
> ...


What's up with Jeff Van Gundy? He seems like a good coach to me. Maybe something else to think about... he seems like a hard nosed defensive minded coach who preaches "playing the right way". You could say he's a rich man's Scott Skiles in some ways.

I mean, no, obviously I didn't watch the Rockets a huge amount, but I had league pass and i saw him play... What I saw is that he didn't shoot all that well and he's not a good defender. When you're a one-dimensional player, you're 33 years old, and your one dimension isn't what it used to be... yeah, that looks potentially washed up to me. Nothing personal against the guy... I just don't see how he makes any sense for us, especially when you consider the one dimension he used to be good is one we don't particularly need.

I mean, we need a tall guy who can defend first. Ideally you'd also want a guy who is coming into his prime, so maybe he can stick around for a few years. When you start making a list of guys like that... how far down are you before you reach Pike?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Isn't another thing to consider here that a veteran player who signs for the minium doesn't count the full amount against the salary cap, or even have his full salary paid by the Bulls.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#9

That is, for a ten year+ vet like Calbert Cheney, the minimum salary will be $1.1M this year, but the Bulls will only pay him $745K of this and the league will cover the rest. He also will only count for $745K for cap and luxury tax purposes.

These rules in the CBA help insure that older vets aren't dumped for younger players. 

Similarly, the minimum salary for Dion Glover, a 5th year guy, would be $807,546, but the Bulls would only have to pay $745K of it.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

I like Pike. He would be a nice pickup. But am I the only one who thinks that Mutombo could get us more? I mean, it seems like we would be giving him away. A team like the Lakers could use some size, and an expiring contract. A team like Miami needs backup support for Shaq. Indiana needs a center. What we have here is a decent center, with an expiring contract. I mean, someone will give us a first round pick for that and maybe a player like Rodney White or someone in a sign and trade.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> I like Pike. He would be a nice pickup. But am I the only one who thinks that Mutombo could get us more? I mean, it seems like we would be giving him away. A team like the Lakers could use some size, and an expiring contract. A team like Miami needs backup support for Shaq. Indiana needs a center. What we have here is a decent center, with an expiring contract. I mean, someone will give us a first round pick for that and maybe a player like Rodney White or someone in a sign and trade.



You're not the only one. Pike would be alright but I would just rather keep Deke for now and see what offers come down the line. Before or by the trading deadline, I want to see what kind of players are going to be available for a team looking to blow it up (since we have a nice lot of expiring contracts) or just dealing him striaght up for a better player.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> I like Pike. He would be a nice pickup. But am I the only one who thinks that Mutombo could get us more? I mean, it seems like we would be giving him away. A team like the Lakers could use some size, and an expiring contract. A team like Miami needs backup support for Shaq. Indiana needs a center. What we have here is a decent center, with an expiring contract. I mean, someone will give us a first round pick for that and maybe a player like Rodney White or someone in a sign and trade.


That's inside the box thining.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> That's inside the box thining.


I like to think of myself as an outside of the box type but jeez, I think a Pike for Mutombo swap is so obviously one sided that I just cant make a case for it. I mean, if it happened, with no other compensation, then Id be convinced that Pax and Skiles were intent on adding every white player they could. But Pike and a first round pick? Now we are talking. I mean, Mutombo is a 7-2 4time defensive player of the year in the last year of his contract and probably could start for 20 teams in the NBA. Lets not just give him away for a guy who couldnt crack Houstons lineup


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I know you like to talk about outside the box thinking, but actually trading an actually decent player (for part of a year, in a few minutes) for someone actually good in return seems "inside" the box, if ya know what I mean.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Bring forth the Polish Cannon!!!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I know you like to talk about outside the box thinking, but actually trading an actually decent player (for part of a year, in a few minutes) for someone actually good in return seems "inside" the box, if ya know what I mean.


In this case, I think your trading someone who has an impact, and no time left on his contract, for a guy who didnt, and has a worse contract in terms of years. If that is an inside the box thought, then consider me unoriginal. In this case, I cant see how it makes any sense that we would consider it. Heck, ask for Nachbar. but as of now, get a no 1 back in the least. That and a big 2 are the focus for Pax for the rest of the offseason


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I like to think of myself as an outside of the box type but jeez, I think a Pike for Mutombo swap is so obviously one sided that I just cant make a case for it. I mean, if it happened, with no other compensation, then Id be convinced that Pax and Skiles were intent on adding every white player they could. But Pike and a first round pick? Now we are talking. I mean, Mutombo is a 7-2 4time defensive player of the year in the last year of his contract and probably could start for 20 teams in the NBA. Lets not just give him away for a guy who couldnt crack Houstons lineup


Wow. Where to start?

First off, "intent on adding every white player they could".....Did you notice who we drafted? There is absolutely no basis for a comment like this, other than to further prove your hatred for Pax. It's kind of like those that were crucifying Paxson for trades that he never made. And it's like you accusing me of hating Crawford, and not posting "intelligently".

Pax is simply trying to get something for Deke, AND trade him to a team that should make the playoffs. We need a consistent outside threat, and Pike fits the bill. And it's not like we're going to get capstrung in this deal.

I personally don't see the problem here.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Wow. Where to start?
> ...


The way I see it, there is plenty of cheap shooters on the FA market, why not look at them? What did Pike do last year? thats right, he couldnt crack the rotation in Houston. And you think its a good idea? So why add him? Especially for a player in the last year of his contract and has size, and nearly half a dozen of DPY Awards. Ofcourse you dont see a problem. The Clueless often dont see problems, particularly in such a lopsided trade like this. I have a good idea. why dont we just waive Mutombo, pay his contract and let him play for someone else. There is no guarantee Piatkowski will do anything for us. He couldnt do it for Houston


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> The way I see it, there is plenty of cheap shooters on the FA market, why not look at them? What did Pike do last year? thats right, he couldnt crack the rotation in Houston. And you think its a good idea? So why add him? Especially for a player in the last year of his contract and has size, and nearly half a dozen of DPY Awards. Ofcourse you dont see a problem. The Clueless often dont see problems, particularly in such a lopsided trade like this. I have a good idea. why dont we just waive Mutombo, pay his contract and let him play for someone else. There is no guarantee Piatkowski will do anything for us. He couldnt do it for Houston


It would be wise to stop insulting me.


Deke says he would probably retire if forced to play here. He's old, and wants to taste the playoffs once again. I dont blame him. So it seems to me that we either trade him, or lose him. And I highly doubt that Pax will mess up and overpay for a trade.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Wow. Where to start?
> ...


This is what I wrote on another thread. Real hateful stuff I might add

I get the sense, from everyone outside of Kismet (mate, your guilty of being too optimistic ), that Pax or the Bulls wont be that good this year. Im a little surprised. Sure the Crawford fiasco was a setback, no one can deny that. But Pax has set this club up pretty well for the future this summer. If Nocioni signs (is it tomorrow yet? Im not convinced but we will see) he provides depth at the 3 (anyone who thinks he can play the 2 has never seen him play). DMD has rightly pointed out that Deng looks special and he will be the starting 3, and probably the Bulls best player very quickly. Gordon should score, Curry will do whatever he does, which is score, and not rebound and Chandler should be greatly improved. In fact I think this might be Chandlers year. Kirk will take up jamals spot for bricks and the bench will be ok to good. Is it good enough to get to the playoffs? Probably not. But a 35% improvement in wins is doable, plus the Bulls have better financial flexibility and have seemed to change the league wide percepton of themselves in terms of FAs. 3 good young players (Deng, Gordon, Nocioni) plus 2 possible nice young players (Frank and Duhon) with tradable assets (Harrington, Mutombo) means the club is headed in the right direction. One more year is what I say. Paxs job, recoup the number one pick for next year (next years class looks amazing) and add a big guard to the club. But its headed in the right direction. Now let the pieces grow up and mature.


Shinky, where is the hate in that? Unlike you, I dont let my personal feelings, and Id like to know exactly where your feelings come from, get in the way of how I call them


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> It would be wise to stop insulting me.
> ...


Its impossible to not insult you. You come at things from such a clueless angle and carry yourself in such a way that is really annoying. I have no problem saying that in a public forum. You want to question everything I say, fine. but do it intelligently. Why add Pike for an established player like Dike? I made a stab, call it controversial, but I cant see another reason why. Instead, you dont offer anything. You never do.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> This is what I wrote on another thread. Real hateful stuff I might add
> ...


Granted, I dont visit this site much. But it seems that when I do, your usually railing Paxson quite a bit. I could be wrong. And believe me, I didn't let my personal feelings about Crawford get in the way of my judgement. I based my judgement of him on his play.

Ask anyone that knows me. All I ask for is maximum effort from my team. Shot not falling? Do other things to make an impact. Somebody schooling Jamal? Then knock him on his *** Eddy Curry!

For me, it's all about effort and work ethic.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Its impossible to not insult you. You come at things from such a clueless angle and carry yourself in such a way that is really annoying. I have no problem saying that in a public forum. You want to question everything I say, fine. but do it intelligently. Why add Pike for an established player like Dike? I made a stab, call it controversial, but I cant see another reason why. Instead, you dont offer anything. You never do.


Do we have a legit 3 point shooter? Somebody that is dead on?

There's your frigging reason.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Do we have a legit 3 point shooter? Somebody that is dead on?
> ...


Was Pike so good at knocking down Js that he could crack the Houston lineup? I mean, they have a ton of inside players, and not much outside shooting, and he couldnt make the rotation. And you give Pax a free pass if he were to make that trade? Maybe someone ought to consider your motivations.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Granted, I dont visit this site much. But it seems that when I do, your usually railing Paxson quite a bit. I could be wrong. And believe me, I didn't let my personal feelings about Crawford get in the way of my judgement. I based my judgement of him on his play.
> ...


Ask Kismet, or anyone else, I call it like I see it. I didnt like what Pax did last year. I like what he did this offseason. But again, the clueless like to say things without really knowing. But then again, this isnt the first time you spoke with no real clue


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Was Pike so good at knocking down Js that he could crack the Houston lineup? I mean, they have a ton of inside players, and not much outside shooting, and he couldnt make the rotation. And you give Pax a free pass if he were to make that trade? Maybe someone ought to consider your motivations.


Who was supposed to sit?

Cat?

Francis?

If you think I consider Pike a better player than those two, your sorely mistaken.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Ask Kismet, or anyone else, I call it like I see it. I didnt like what Pax did last year. I like what he did this offseason. But again, the clueless like to say things without really knowing. But then again, this isnt the first time you spoke with no real clue


Sort of like you saying Paxson is going for an "all white" team?

What fact are you basing THAT on?

And you've been warned about insulting me.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Who was supposed to sit?
> ...


Do those guy play 48 minutes a night, every night? I mean, even when they sat, Pike didnt play. Explain that


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Sort of like you saying Paxson is going for an "all white" team?
> ...


Are you warning me? Thats a good one. No one else has.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I dunno... Mutombo looked pretty bad down the stretch last year.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> Do those guy play 48 minutes a night, every night? I mean, even when they sat, Pike didnt play. Explain that


Like I said, I am not calling Pike a stud, or anything of the sort. He could help our team though.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

Mike;

I am trying like heck to be civil with this guy, but I'm having a hard time man. LOL!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Like I said, I am not calling Pike a stud, or anything of the sort. He could help our team though.


from the 12th man spot? Do you know anything about Pikes game? I mean, you talk about hard work and ethic. have you seen this guy play D? This guy is a one trick pony. And he couldnt get any run on a team that needed outside shooting. So what good is he? You said you see no problem. According to you, Pax can do no wrong. Hey Shinky, I hear Pax said for you to jump off a bridge. :uhoh:


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> from the 12th man spot? Do you know anything about Pikes game? I mean, you talk about hard work and ethic. have you seen this guy play D? This guy is a one trick pony. And he couldnt get any run on a team that needed outside shooting. So what good is he? You said you see no problem. According to you, Pax can do no wrong. Hey Shinky, I hear Pax said for you to jump off a bridge. :uhoh:


You first...


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> You first...


I dont blindly follow, I have a brain of my own.


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I dont blindly follow, I have a brain of my own.


Actually, I have said that the Pippen signing ended up being a bad deal. So far, that's the only one IMO.

I love Pax's drafts so far, and I think getting Deng will pay HUGE dividends for us.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, I have said that the Pippen signing ended up being a bad deal. So far, that's the only one IMO.
> ...


I agree on Deng. Deng is going to be the one we will be talking about in 6 months, not Gordon. Just my opinion


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree on Deng. Deng is going to be the one we will be talking about in 6 months, not Gordon. Just my opinion


Yep. There is absolutely a chance this kid could be ROY. Pax raves about how hard this kid works, and that is NEVER a bad thing. Paxson got the number one overall pick for 05/06 a year early.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shinky</b>!
> 
> 
> Yep. There is absolutely a chance this kid could be ROY. Pax raves about how hard this kid works, and that is NEVER a bad thing. Paxson got the number one overall pick for 05/06 a year early.


I would put money on him for ROY actually. But 05/06 number one pick? I dont know. Oden I think had that locked up as a 12 year old. Next year is Nemanja Aleksandrov. But still a top flight player no doubt about it.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Pike could help us as long as he's only playing 10-15 minutes per game. He doesn't play any defense or handle the ball well. He does know how to get his 3ball off quickly and knows how to float around the arc looking for a seam, but don't expect him to put the ball on the floor effectively if he doesn't have the space to shoot.

I agree with shinky that he could help us with his shooting, but also with rlucas that Deke's deteriorating but still useful talents plus his expiring contract should get us more than just Pike. Pike + Nachbar or a 1st rounder (Houston's won't be very high for the forseeable future, but you can still find players there) works for me.


----------



## ogbullzfan (Mar 9, 2004)

From an article I read, it seems Deke will NOT retire if he stay's a Bull. Maybe he can still be the mentor we need. However, I'm sure him and his agent are trying hard as hell to go to a contending team. I'm for trying to keep Deke and paying for a FA shooter.


----------



## ogbullzfan (Mar 9, 2004)

Here's the link from Hoopshype.

http://www.hoopshype.com/rumors.htm


----------



## rocketsthathavespurs (Jul 17, 2004)

so yall any more updates on the deal for mutombo


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ogbullzfan</b>!
> From an article I read, it seems Deke will NOT retire if he stay's a Bull. Maybe he can still be the mentor we need. However, I'm sure him and his agent are trying hard as hell to go to a contending team. I'm for trying to keep Deke and paying for a FA shooter.


Someone I know who has a good feel for these things agrees with you. Mutombo wont retire. Reason being, he is building a hospital in Africa and needs the money to fund the operation. He will probably hold on for as long as he can


----------



## rocketsthathavespurs (Jul 17, 2004)

i heard some where that it said some new info on mutombo to the rockets. but the link was mest up! do yall no any thing that happend?


----------



## rocketsthathavespurs (Jul 17, 2004)

like he dont have enuff money to build a hospitail lol good heart of mutombo


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rocketsthathavespurs</b>!
> like he dont have enuff money to build a hospitail lol good heart of mutombo


Building a hospital (it might be multiple hospitals if I remember correctly), isnt exactly cheap. We are talking about upper 8 figures to get it done and get it done right. He doesnt have that type of money


----------



## rocketsthathavespurs (Jul 17, 2004)

lol ya i guess but anyone no when or if the deal will be done


----------



## Shinky (Feb 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> Pike could help us as long as he's only playing 10-15 minutes per game. He doesn't play any defense or handle the ball well. He does know how to get his 3ball off quickly and knows how to float around the arc looking for a seam, but don't expect him to put the ball on the floor effectively if he doesn't have the space to shoot.
> 
> I agree with shinky that he could help us with his shooting, but also with rlucas that Deke's deteriorating but still useful talents plus his expiring contract should get us more than just Pike. Pike + Nachbar or a 1st rounder (Houston's won't be very high for the forseeable future, but you can still find players there) works for me.


Let me clear something up here. I have no problem with keeping Deke. None at all, just that I am afraid he would retire before playing for us.

If that is not the case, then by all means, keep him! Everyone talks about him possibly having an impact on Curry, but there is another big guy on our team as well. One that HAS the proper work ethic and desire. He could soak up basketball knowledge from Deke like a sponge!

In fact, Tyson is alot like Deke. Very emotional and intense. I would bet that Ty and Deke would become very good friends. Also, having a player with Deke's pedigree on the team might give us a bit more respect as far as the refs are concerned.


----------

