# Thonus: Deng asks for 70+ million; not close to coming to terms with Bulls



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Luol Deng is asking for 12.5+ million a year at least, asking for money well over the 70 million range.

Him and the Bulls are not close at all to coming to terms money wise. This will not be the slam dunk signing that everyone thought it would be.

http://bullsbeat.com/


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

*Re: Luol Deng demands 70+ million; nowhere close to coming to terms with Bulls over m*



BG7 Lavigne said:


> Luol Deng is asking for 12.5+ million a year at least, asking for money well over the 70 million range.
> 
> Him and the Bulls are not close at all to coming to terms money wise. This will not be the slam dunk signing that everyone thought it would be.
> 
> http://bullsbeat.com/


Let him walk. Deng imo is the most overrated guy on our roster. He's a good player, don't get me wrong, but the guy is only a 2nd option on offense, and is only avarage in every other faze of his game. But Pax will crack, and over pay for him.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: Luol Deng demands 70+ million; nowhere close to coming to terms with Bulls over m*

Wow, I thought this was a guy who was just glad to leave his war torn country and was happy with whatever he got in terms of money.

LOL 70 million!!! Wow. 

But you got to remember this is the crazy state of NBA salaries, 12.5 million is still less than what Larry Hughes will be paid next year, do I think Deng is better than Hughes yup, Shawn Marion is making 17+ million, Do I really think Marion is 5-6 million dollars better than Deng probably not.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Luol Deng demands 70+ million; nowhere close to coming to terms with Bulls over m*

Excellent news. 

May be now Pax will seriously consider trading him. 

And I said it before; I would package entire Pax’s Draft Collection (*Kirk, Deng, Ben, Thomas, Noah* ) with exemption of Rose and Sefolosha, for something decent and watchable.

Rose, *Vacant*
Larry, Sefolosha 
*Vacant*, Nocioni
*Vacant*, Gooden
*Vacant*, Gray


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

*Re: Luol Deng demands 70+ million; nowhere close to coming to terms with Bulls over m*

I wonder what the Bulls are sliding across the table


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

*Re: Luol Deng demands 70+ million; nowhere close to coming to terms with Bulls over m*

It's a first offer, of course he'll ask for high.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

*Re: Luol Deng demands 70+ million; nowhere close to coming to terms with Bulls over m*

What's the surprise? That is around the number that Josh Smith (similar numbers) is probably going to ask for. $67M is reportedly the offer Philadelphia is preparing.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

*Re: Luol Deng demands 70+ million; nowhere close to coming to terms with Bulls over m*

nvm


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Luol Deng demands 70+ million; nowhere close to coming to terms with Bulls over m*



liekomgj4ck said:


> Yeah if you go to the link, there is no new news.
> 
> 
> 
> This thread needs to be locked.


CUT IT OUT, SLOTH



> Bulls Beat #50 Released
> Written by Doug Thonus
> Saturday, 05 July 2008
> Del Harris is in, and I'm one happy man when it comes to the Bulls assistant coaching staff. Free agency is starting to kick off and the rumors are piling up. * I've got a tidbit on Deng's contract demands*, and go over what you should expect and hope for in the Orlando Summer League.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

*Re: Luol Deng demands 70+ million; nowhere close to coming to terms with Bulls over m*



BG7 Lavigne said:


> troll


Correction:

Yes he states it is a want of Deng. 

12.5, 70

It's a first offer though and should be lowered.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Luol Deng demands 70+ million; nowhere close to coming to terms with Bulls over m*



BG7 Lavigne said:


> Luol Deng is asking for 12.5+ million a year at least, asking for money well over the 70 million range.
> 
> Him and the Bulls are not close at all to coming to terms money wise. This will not be the slam dunk signing that everyone thought it would be.
> 
> http://bullsbeat.com/



Everyone thought it was going to be a slam dunk? If so, those people weren't too bright, as it didn't get done last year, eh?


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

*Re: Luol Deng demands 70+ million; nowhere close to coming to terms with Bulls over m*



jnrjr79 said:


> Everyone thought it was going to be a slam dunk? If so, those people weren't too bright, as it didn't get done last year, eh?


Yep.

The title should be changed, because Deng did not "demand" this, it's his first request.

It's very misleading.

Two teams talked and somehow this came out that Deng wanted this. No offer has been given.

We have time and this is hardly a demand.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Luol Deng demands 70+ million; nowhere close to coming to terms with Bulls over m*

Agreed the title should be changed; something like Deng "asks" for 70+ million would be better. 

The number jumps out as a little shocking, but there are some things to remember:

- This number is over 6 years, not 5. Let's say he wants $70 million for 6 yrs then -- you're looking at 11.67M per season on average. More than likely, it starts out around $10M and increases to $13-14M by the end.

- Furthermore, if we can negotiate down a little but include some performance-based incentives, we might get the base salary down to something like $67M over 6 years. That's averaging a flat $11M per season, which honestly isn't terrible. We all knew Deng would be a double-digit player; and that's pretty close to on par with the 5 yr, $58M that he apparently was offered last year.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

Doug said:

in the area of 12.5 and around 70 million

NOT _well above_ like Sloth said.

I don't see a problem with Deng's request, it's called a negotiation, you start high and settle for lower.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I think it is fair to treat Deng the same way as Gordon.

When the Gordon asks for 70 million...I said that he was probably talking about next year, over 6. Everyone talked about how Gordon was demanding it, so I will treat Deng the same way as Gordon here the way everyone else did, and say Deng is demanding it.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> I think it is fair to treat Deng the same way as Gordon.
> 
> When the Gordon asks for 70 million...I said that he was probably talking about next year, over 6. Everyone talked about how Gordon was demanding it, so I will treat Deng the same way as Gordon here the way everyone else did, and say Deng is demanding it.


You can say whatever you want about the situation, but the problem is that in this thread you are quoting Doug. So you can't .


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I didn't quote Doug. I wrote a little synopsis after I listened to it.

12.5 x 6 = 75 million...that equates to well over 70 million.


----------



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

Why is it that you would ignore when doug said the Bulls are taking Rose, but when he's saying Deng wants 70 million, you believe him?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

As I said in another post:



> Deng - 5 years, $57.5 million turned down ($11.5 million per)
> Offer - 6 years, $63.0 million ($10.5 million per)
> Offer - 3 Years, $37.5 million ($12.5 million per)
> 
> ...


I'd stand firm at 6-years, $63 million if I were Paxson. If he wants that $12.5 M average, make him sign a shorter contract.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Greedy POS. Trade his butt for a worthwhile player. Try and get Josh Smith if it's at all possible, and pay him what Deng is asking for, which is WAY more than Deng is worth. Or, trade him for Joe Alexander. He's on a rookie deal, and the Bucks are in win-now mode apparently, so maybe they'll pony up the dough, and play Jefferson and Deng together at the 3-4....a little small ball. I'd let him walk before I paid him that though. Screw that noise.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I'd resign him for that much...if he went out and got an offer sheet from say the Warriors for an average of 12.5 million a year. But this goes for both Gordon and Deng, I wouldn't go over 10 million a year for either if we are just resigning them, and not matching an offer sheet.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

IMO any contract over 12M is over paying. 6y 72M is the max I would consider fair and it seems like a bit much. I don't mind the long contract as long as it's a reasonable number, hopefully just under 70M if 6 years or 60 for 5.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Why do I feel like this whole Deng and Ben contract situation will not be resolved for a while, I mean if it took Pax 100 years to find a coach I dont know how long its going to take him to sign these guys.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

With so many good players being available next year, GOOD LUCK MR. DENG. Deng has to realize that if he decided to take the QO, he would immediately lose $6M. 
I am not sure about thse players. Its $60M. This is just a game of monopoly. Too bad, we aren't in to play it.


----------



## RageofDaBulls (Feb 2, 2007)

i say S&T his slow robotic *** right outta town.

fans are really over rating BG and LD.i say neither are worth more then 8mil starting,maybe 9 for Deng.these are guys that put up nice stats at times but are up and down all the time and have gaping holes in their games.these guys are Robin's on a team full of Robins.if you keep paying these type of guys Batman money,when Batman comes around you wont be able to afford him.

The stock piling assets,then moving them for a Greater assest was a great plain in 03.but since then Star player after star player have been moved without the Bulls even asmuch getting a whiff of one of them.now is the time to either overpay for that Greater player or cut ties with that plain and move in a diff direction.i mean my goodness we are already 10 deep,are we going for 15 and just playing who ever was hot during shoot around? 

also ive seen every one talking about the 2010 plain and how we should just drop everything and plain for that.need i remind you that we have tried that twice in the past ten years and have came away with nothing more then an aged Big Ben and Ron mercer.DON'T COUNT on LBJ,Wade,or bosh even leaving their teams much less leaving to come here..


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

If something isn't worked out with Deng, would you be opposed to a S&T for Marion?


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

NewAgeBaller said:


> If something isn't worked out with Deng, would you be opposed to a S&T for Marion?


Nope, I'd love it


----------



## RageofDaBulls (Feb 2, 2007)

NewAgeBaller said:


> If something isn't worked out with Deng, would you be opposed to a S&T for Marion?


not Deng for SM straight up unless Deng forces us to move him,and Sm is the best we can get.

i tell ya the perfect SF for this team IMO is Gerald Wallace.


----------



## RageofDaBulls (Feb 2, 2007)

o and for the ppl that are saying Gerald who? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6phQvwUM8A

and it seems Jordon is looking to trade him. http://www.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=821250


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I haven't seen anyone here demand Batman money. About 110 million over 6 years is the max I believe. If Gordon signs the 6 year, 60 million contract that I think he will sign, he will be making only 54% of what Batman is making. That seems well less than a Batman salary, and even less than Robin (Robin should be pegged at about 70% of the max).


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

People advocating shipping out Luol Deng apparently fell in love with this Chicago Bulls concept of developing guys until they get good and then dealing them away... y'know, like Elton Brand, Brad Miller, Ron Artest, Tyson Chandler... 

But hey, I say we refuse to learn from our mistakes.


----------



## RageofDaBulls (Feb 2, 2007)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> I haven't seen anyone here demand Batman money. About 110 million over 6 years is the max I believe. If Gordon signs the 6 year, 60 million contract that I think he will sign, he will be making only 54% of what Batman is making. That seems well less than a Batman salary, and even less than Robin (Robin should be pegged at about 70% of the max).


your right,but it would be very close to Wonder Woman money and that's just not right.we all know Robin is nothing more then Batman's ballboy or C&^% Catcher depending on how you look at it..


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

RageofDaBulls said:


> your right,but it would be very close to Wonder Woman money and that's just not right.we all know Robin is nothing more then Batman's ballboy or C&^% Catcher depending on how you look at it..


But he isn't going to make Wonder Woman money, he is only making Thundercat money despite his request for Green Lantern money.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Dornado said:


> People advocating shipping out Luol Deng apparently fell in love with this Chicago Bulls concept of developing guys until they get good and then dealing them away... y'know, like Elton Brand, Brad Miller, Ron Artest, Tyson Chandler...
> 
> But hey, I say we refuse to learn from our mistakes.



Mmm, delicious sanity. Tastes good.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

jnrjr79 said:


> Mmm, delicious sanity. Tastes good.


Yeah but I think I'm taking in too much, I'm starting to choke


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

Dornado said:


> People advocating shipping out Luol Deng apparently fell in love with this Chicago Bulls concept of developing guys until they get good and then dealing them away... y'know, like Elton Brand, Brad Miller, Ron Artest, Tyson Chandler...
> 
> But hey, I say we refuse to learn from our mistakes.


Elton Brand was solid here, 20/20, per night is great. Brad Miller was good, but really took off as a King. Ron Artest, while good, is a nut job and isn't worth the headache. Tyson is no better as a Hornet, then he was a Bull. He just gets more points, because Paul knows the only thing he can do is dunk. So he gets tons of lobbes.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Tyson Chandler should have been DPOY. The guy has progressed so much as a man defender since going to the Hornets.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

70 million? 6 years? Pay him. Just do it. Deng is the one player on our roster we can ill afford to lose. As far as I'm concerned he's as valuable as rose at this point. Though admittedly if I had to choose, I'd take rose.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Looks like Warriors are going to give Monta Ellis 11 million per a year. That pretty much sets the market for Gordon.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> Looks like Warriors are going to give Monta Ellis 11 million per a year. That pretty much sets the market for Gordon.


Ellis is a hell of a lot better than Gordon. This means that Gordon should be paid in the range of 7-8 million a year which is what he deserves.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullybullz said:


> Ellis is a hell of a lot better than Gordon. This means that Gordon should be paid in the range of 7-8 million a year which is what he deserves.


Umm...no.

Ben Gordon was the #1 option on his team. Monta Ellis did what he did as the #3 option. His PPG was hardly higher than Gordon (who was screwed by assclown Boylan), despite playing quite a lot more of minutes, and playing at a much faster pace.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> Umm...no.
> 
> Ben Gordon was the #1 option on his team. Monta Ellis did what he did as the #3 option. His PPG was hardly higher than Gordon (who was screwed by assclown Boylan), despite playing quite a lot more of minutes, and playing at a much faster pace.


You kidding me?? Monta averaged 20 PPG for a "#3" option. Not only that but he averaged 5 rebounds for a 6'3 177 pounder along with 4 assists. Not only that but he even shot a 53% FG. That's crazy and this year he will improve further and become an all star/near star. 

The reason Gordon doesn't play a ton of minutes is because his defense is horrible. Please take off your Gordon spectacles. For a "#1" option on this team, he SUCKS.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

bullybullz said:


> You kidding me?? Monta averaged 20 PPG for a "#3" option. Not only that but he averaged 5 rebounds for a 6'3 177 pounder along with 4 assists. Not only that but he even shot a 53% FG. That's crazy and this year he will improve further and become an all star/near star.
> 
> The reason Gordon doesn't play a ton of minutes is because his defense is horrible. Please take off your Gordon spectacles. For a "#1" option on this team, he SUCKS.


I know it's hard but try to just ignore him man!


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullybullz said:


> You kidding me?? Monta averaged 20 PPG for a "#3" option. Not only that but he averaged 5 rebounds for a 6'3 177 pounder along with 4 assists. Not only that but he even shot a 53% FG. That's crazy and this year he will improve further and become an all star/near star.
> 
> The reason Gordon doesn't play a ton of minutes is because his defense is horrible. Please take off your Gordon spectacles. For a "#1" option on this team, he SUCKS.


Gordon would be doing the same thing in Golden St.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Martin and Ellis getting 11M per year is definitly the bar. I think Gordon is worth a bit less than Ellis and far less than Martin. The 10M per year he was offered last year seemed fair then and now.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> Gordon would be doing the same thing in Golden St.


Except we have no reason to believe he'd be shooting 53% from the field... or grabbing 5 rebounds... or 1.5 steals per game...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Agreed, especially considering Gordon was a 20 PPG scorer before Boylan ****ed him over.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Dornado said:


> Except we have no reason to believe he'd be shooting 53% from the field... or grabbing 5 rebounds... or 1.5 steals per game...


No doubt about it, Ellis was better last year. His scoring efficiency was at 58 TS%, which is tremendous. Ben Gordon's in 06-07 was 57.2 TS% as a #1 option. He was at 55.8 TS% last season, which isn't bad efficiency, but not elite like in 06-07.

I think he could easily match Ellis' scoring efficiency playing in the Warriors system, next to Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson, and Al Harrington.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> No doubt about it, Ellis was better last year. His scoring efficiency was at 58 TS%, which is tremendous. Ben Gordon's in 06-07 was 57.2 TS% as a #1 option. He was at 55.8 TS% last season, which isn't bad efficiency, but not elite like in 06-07.
> 
> I think he could easily match Ellis' scoring efficiency playing in the Warriors system, next to Baron Davis, Stephen Jackson, and Al Harrington.


I'm making the same argument for Gordon as I am for Luol Deng.

Both guys were offered strong, competitive contracts last summer which they both turned down. They both apparently thought they could increase their market value in the upcoming season.

However, both players had worse individual seasons. Numbers dipped for both, and the team did worse. They'd be crazy to think they upped their value even the slightest.

Hence, I think they both need to realize that just MAYBE those contract offers last year were pretty darn good and fair for what they are worth. Besides, they have the added advantage of signing for 6 years right now, rather than 5. Keep the yearly average the same, but up it to 6 years. 

Gordon = 6 yr, $60M
Deng = 6 yr, $70M

Call it a day there...trade Hinrich, Noch, Gooden, and/or Hughes for whatever consolidation we can muster up.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Gordon = 6 yr, $60M
> Deng = 6 yr, $70M
> 
> Call it a day there...trade Hinrich, Noch, Gooden, and/or Hughes for whatever consolidation we can muster up.


I wonder if the Bulls would even consider that.

I think Rhyder was right when he said he'd hold at 6 years , 63 mil for Deng, and even less for Ben.

If they want the big bucks, go for shorter deals, or make it incentive laden.

I can't see the Bulls committing themselves to both at that level to players who are good but not great.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> I wonder if the Bulls would even consider that.
> 
> I think Rhyder was right when he said he'd hold at 6 years , 63 mil for Deng, and even less for Ben.
> 
> ...


Those are good points and I don't really disagree. To be clear, those figures I threw out are the maximum I would want to pay either. I guess I'm slowly coming to grips with the overpaid nature of NBA players. The sad fact here is that guys who score 18 ppg or higher generally get $10M bucks per year or more. If you have other facets to your game in addition to 18+ ppg, as Deng does, you get paid even more.

I saw that Andrew Bogut just signed a 5 year, $72 million extension. I mean, holy crap...this guy has put up 14 pts, 9 rebounds on a lousy team. He's a good player but in no way a difference maker. I'd take Deng or Gordon over him. 

I think what's important is comparing the option I proposed versus the alternative options, which I frankly don't want to go into right now. The summary is that I am underwhelmed at the prospect of sign-and-trades for either given how good they both are. Jamal Crawford and Eddy Curry is one thing, but Deng & Gordon are another. If we can avoid a crummy sign-and-trade package for these guys just for an extra $1M per year on their salary, then maybe it's worth it. We'll eventually be capped out anyways.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

yodurk said:


> I saw that Andrew Bogut just signed a 5 year, $72 million extension. I mean, holy crap...this guy has put up 14 pts, 9 rebounds on a lousy team. He's a good player but in no way a difference maker. I'd take Deng or Gordon over him.


He'd have scored more points if Mo Williams and Michael Redd didn't hog the ball as often as the did.

But the contract is only 60 mill guaranteed, and he is playing a position where decent players tend to get overpaid.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I think what's important is comparing the option I proposed versus the alternative options, which I frankly don't want to go into right now. The summary is that I am underwhelmed at the prospect of sign-and-trades for either given how good they both are. Jamal Crawford and Eddy Curry is one thing, but Deng & Gordon are another. If we can avoid a crummy sign-and-trade package for these guys just for an extra $1M per year on their salary, then maybe it's worth it. We'll eventually be capped out anyways.


LT-land is where the Bulls WILL NOT go to keep these two. I don't know how they do it, but I can almost guarantee that they will not do it for them. They don't let both go, but they won't keep both unless they are willing to just "fit in" to what the Bulls are trying to do overall. I wouldn't even be surprised if they are trying to get the two of them to negotiate around each other. For instance, talking to Luol about reducing his demands so that they can also sign Ben. This is going to be a very complicated and messy business, even after sending Tyson away...


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> LT-land is where the Bulls WILL NOT go to keep these two. I don't know how they do it, but I can almost guarantee that they will not do it for them. They don't let both go, but they won't keep both unless they are willing to just "fit in" to what the Bulls are trying to do overall. I wouldn't even be surprised if they are trying to get the two of them to negotiate around each other. For instance, talking to Luol about reducing his demands so that they can also sign Ben. This is going to be a very complicated and messy business, even after sending Tyson away...


Something I was trying to say, but didn't, is that I don't see an extra $1M per year for each guy ($6M over the life of each contract) being the "do or die" amount to push us over the luxury tax figure. Teams that get pushed into luxury tax territory suffer from 2 or 3 just really bad contracts for guys who really have no business getting paid what they get paid. We're really not saddled with bad salaries right now compared to other teams. Hinrich & Noch are both on downscaling contracts that aren't outrageous, and Hughes only has 2 yrs left. We're in good shape otherwise. 

Luxury tax is something like $70M for next season. I figure that gives you the freedom of having maybe 3-4 guys getting paid $10M or more, a couple in the $6-8M range, and the rest on rookie type contracts or smaller.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

The Bulls have to keep both guys contracts to an average of 21.8 million on average a year to miss the LT this year.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> The Bulls have to keep both guys contracts to an average of 21.8 million on average a year to miss the LT this year.


Does that account for the lower first-year salary? Even if Deng is on a 6 yr, $70M contract, he's only making around $9M for the upcoming season. Gordon would only make around $8M on a 6 yr, $60M deal. I assume both contracts would increase by 8 or 10% with each passing season.

Hoopshype says we're at $49M if Deng and Gordon were to take the Qualifying Offer. Let's add $5M for Rose, $6M for the MLE, and convert those QO offers to $17M combined for Gordon & Deng ($8M and $9M as I mentioned above). My calculation says we'll be around $66M as a team, that's well under the luxury tax.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Does that account for the lower first-year salary? Even if Deng is on a 6 yr, $70M contract, he's only making around $9M for the upcoming season. Gordon would only make around $8M on a 6 yr, $60M deal. I assume both contracts would increase by 8 or 10% with each passing season.
> 
> Hoopshype says we're at $49M if Deng and Gordon were to take the Qualifying Offer. Let's add $5M for Rose, $6M for the MLE, and convert those QO offers to $17M combined for Gordon & Deng ($8M and $9M as I mentioned above). My calculation says we'll be around $66M as a team, that's well under the luxury tax.


Not sure what it works out to, but 10.9 million per a year was the number giving to me that both guys need to be making to avoid luxury tax.

I think that Gordon is going to be the easier of these two guys to sign, and will sign for less. Deng will be harder, because he has guys like Thorpe inflating his ego.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I think 70 million is about right for him. Unless you are going after Rudy Gay in 2 years (which is a thought).

Just pay him and get on with the business of playing basketball.


----------



## ChiSox (Jun 9, 2004)

Ben Gordon and Deng need to be signed. Paxson needs to make it happen. The minute he took Rose over Beasley he basically made us have to keep both of these players. If we lose either one of them, we lose a whole lot of scoring. The Bulls only have a few players who can take and make shots. Ben and Luol are the Bulls two top scorers. There is a huge drop off after them.

If you trade one of them you have to bring back a scorer. Gerard Wallace is a hell of a ball player but we don't need that type of player. We need a number one option who can scorer 20 plus points a game. The Bulls have enough role players. We need people who can put points on the board. Plus, it will be hard to come up with a sign and trade scenerio due to the fact they will be base year compensation players which are very hard to trade. If Paxson didn't want to pay Luol or Ben he should have traded them last year at the trading deadline.

Teams always over pay when they sign free agents. Paxson even said so when he signed Ben Wallace. I know Luol and Ben are restricted but to expect them to only get market value is unrealistic. Ben Gordon should get paid somewhere between Martin and Kirk Hinrich (probably closer to Martin). Luol is going to get paid a salary averaging around 11-12 million a year. 

The Bulls off-season plans should be: 
1) Get Ben and Luol signed
2) Traded either Kirk or Noch plus a rookie contract or two (Noah, Tyrus, Thabo) to get a good player older than 26 who can score and is better than two player we trade away. A player who will be a starter.
3) Get a veteran Big who can defend.

If we accomplish these three things I believe we will win at least 50 games this year.

We have to get older as a team. The Bulls have too many player under 25 who want/need to paid when their contract is up. This year it is Ben and Luol. Next it will be Tyrus and Thabo. 

To avoid being the Clippers, we need to identify the keepers and move the guys who can bring some experience to the team. History shows young teams usually don't win in the NBA. You can have a couple of young players but they need to be surrounded with talented veterans to be effective. IMHO young players looking to get paid usually equates to selfish, losing basketball.

Sorry for my rant, I know I got a little off topic. Paxson needs to spends some money this off season to keep Ben/Luol. He really doesn't have a choice.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

ChiSox said:


> Ben Gordon and Deng need to be signed. Paxson needs to make it happen. The minute he took Rose over Beasley he basically made us have to keep both of these players. If we lose either one of them, we lose a whole lot of scoring. The Bulls only have a few players who can take and make shots. Ben and Luol are the Bulls two top scorers. There is a huge drop off after them.


I agree so far.



> If you trade one of them you have to bring back a scorer. Gerard Wallace is a hell of a ball player but we don't need that type of player.


Agree.



> We need a number one option who can scorer 20 plus points a game. The Bulls have enough role players. We need people who can put points on the board. Plus, it will be hard to come up with a sign and trade scenerio due to the fact they will be base year compensation players which are very hard to trade. If Paxson didn't want to pay Luol or Ben he should have traded them last year at the trading deadline.


Damn, I agree.



> Teams always over pay when they sign free agents. Paxson even said so when he signed Ben Wallace. I know Luol and Ben are restricted but to expect them to only get market value is unrealistic. Ben Gordon should get paid somewhere between Martin and Kirk Hinrich (probably closer to Martin). Luol is going to get paid a salary averaging around 11-12 million a year.


Yup. 



> The Bulls off-season plans should be:
> 1) Get Ben and Luol signed
> 2) Traded either Kirk or Noch plus a rookie contract or two (Noah, Tyrus, Thabo) to get a good player older than 26 who can score and is better than two player we trade away. A player who will be a starter.
> 3) Get a veteran Big who can defend.
> ...


Well...I planned on disagreeing with SOMETHING in this point, but the reality is.....I just don't.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

haha I agree with him too, great post.

I couldn't help but think about Marion and Camby in while reading his post.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I will add one Caveat though. Ben is a bit easier to replace as a package, than Luol. ANd that's because of his high negatives. He gives up almost as many points as he scores. He's not the answer as the starting 2 guard in our backcourt. The reality is, its EITHER Rose, OR Gordon. NOT both. So unless he's willing to be a career sixth man here, we are best off, signing him to a REASONABLE contract (with every intention of trading him when its best for us to do so), and then trading him, and bringing in a competent 2 guard to replace him with.

As for first options, I honestly believe that if Derrick ROse is going to be the player we all expect him to become, then eventually he will become the first option, much the same way Paul is for New Orleans, and Nash is for phoenix.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I think Rose/Gordon could work together, but if push came to shove, I'm trading Rose.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> I think Rose/Gordon could work together, but if push came to shove, I'm trading Rose.


Rose/Gordon is not going to work defensively for extended stretches.

I'm not even going to touch the fact that you'd rather trade Rose than Gordon right now... but if Rose is what we think he is, I think he's a keeper.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Rose has a lot more trade value than Gordon, and I think the return on trading Rose would be far greater than what we would get for Gordon, not to mention, Rose's knees scare me just like they did before the draft.

When I look at Ben Gordon, the three teams I see jockeying for him are the Spurs, Hornets, and Blazers....why would two of the best teams in the NBA, and one of the up and comers want Ben Gordon? Blazers, Gordon is the natural fit next to Roy, but Parker and Paul are two guys who are similar size wise to Rose. This should give Paxson pause on those three teams being reportedly being the teams interested in Gordon...The best we could hope for from those teams is Jerryd Bayless, Peja Stojakovic or Mo Pete, and expirings from the Spurs. I am not excited.

With Rose, I think we can get maybe Billups, Hamilton, and Sheed in a trade (with fillers with Rose of course), Amare Stoudemire, Carmelo Anthony, Dirk Nowitzki, etc. in a trade right now.

Me personally, I would rather keep Rose-Gordon-Deng as our core, and then clear cap space for 2010 to bring in a max free agent (Yao Ming, Amare Stoudemire, Dirk Nowitzki, Lebron James) and enough left over to sign Asik.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> I think Rose/Gordon could work together, but if push came to shove, I'm trading Rose.


You lose.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

BG7 Lavigne said:


> Rose has a lot more trade value than Gordon,


Frankly, this says more about Gordon than it does about Rose. And honestly what it says is not very flattering, especially considering we are talking about a player that wants to get paid like he's near-franchise level.



> When I look at Ben Gordon, the three teams I see jockeying for him are the Spurs, Hornets, and Blazers....why would two of the best teams in the NBA, and one of the up and comers want Ben Gordon? Blazers, Gordon is the natural fit next to Roy, but Parker and Paul are two guys who are similar size wise to Rose. This should give Paxson pause on those three teams being reportedly being the teams interested in Gordon...The best we could hope for from those teams is Jerryd Bayless, Peja Stojakovic or Mo Pete, and expirings from the Spurs. I am not excited.


I don't think Gordon would start for any of those teams, precisely for the same reason he isn't the long term starter here in Chicago.



> With Rose, I think we can get maybe Billups, Hamilton, and Sheed in a trade (with fillers with Rose of course), Amare Stoudemire, Carmelo Anthony, Dirk Nowitzki, etc. in a trade right now.


Honestly, none of whom, I'd trade for him straight up right now, and for different reasons with each player. What I will say, is all of those players are known commodities, many of them older, and none of them will be winning a title as the best player on their teams any time soon....again...for different reasons.



> Me personally, I would rather keep Rose-Gordon-Deng as our core, and then clear cap space for 2010 to bring in a max free agent (Yao Ming, Amare Stoudemire, Dirk Nowitzki, Lebron James) and enough left over to sign Asik.


Rose and Deng yes. Tyrus maybe as well, Gordon can stay, as long as he commits to being satisfied as a 6th man. It just isn't going to work as a backcourt (rose-Gordon) long term.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Wow I cant even believe that we could not even last 1 month before the words Rose and Trade ended up in the same post.. Ugh.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

I'd trade ANYONE on our team for Amare right now.

The Ben Gordon thing was bound to be ugly when it didn't get done last year, and he had a crappy year.

I'm more concerned about Deng. If he doesn't come to terms, then we have a huge problem and a huge hole.

The only Certainties we have for the long term IMHO are:

PG - Rose
SF - Deng


That is disappointeng considering the high picks we had and the non-development of them. I am still hopeful on Tyrus....I would jump all over Kristic for Center. We can get by with Hinrich/Thabo at SG for now.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

The only way the Gordon thing gets messy is if we don't want him back imo. 

It'd thoroughly piss me off if Gordon isn't on the team next year, especially considering he will probably be on the Hornets, Blazers, and Spurs. On the brightside, we will be able to cheer him on with our full support in the playoffs since we will not even be in the playoffs without him.

What team doesn't resign their best players? Even the Clippers resigned their best players, and they didn't even taste the playoffs.


----------



## someone (Jul 17, 2007)

thebizkit69u said:


> Wow I cant even believe that we could not even last 1 month before the words Rose and Trade ended up in the same post.. Ugh.


lol god I know

If I could i was just go over there and.... 

nvm


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

liekomgj4ck said:


> lol god I know
> 
> If I could i was just go over there and....
> 
> nvm


 Now how long until we see the "Tyrus Thomas is too much to give for Kobe" thread.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> I'd trade ANYONE on our team for Amare right now.


I'd agree if we were getting the Amare that dominated tim duncan a few years ago in the playoffs. But sadly, I don't think we'll see that amare emerge ever again. Even now, he's a top 5 player at his position in this league. But I'm not convinced he's capable of putting a team on his back and willing them over the top, like he would have been pre injury.


----------



## chibull (Jul 2, 2008)

Wow! For that, the Bulls should just really trade him away. So high!


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

Deng and Gordon are the keys right now, but once their contracts are resolved one way or the other, the question I think becomes - where do Larry Hughes and Kirk Hinrich fit? Hughes is really easy to forget for whatever reason, but he is likely to still be the highest paid player on the team, and if you're looking for a guy over 26 who can score 20, well we do already have one of those. If we trade him, it's going to be a major trade. If we don't, he's NOT just going to be a contract sitting on the bench in ugly sweaters for the next two years - he's going to have to play, and is likely to get significant minutes. 

I think Pax is going to try pretty hard to sign both Gordon and Deng at fair prices. The plan changes radically depending on the success of that, and I think his gaze turns directly to Hinrich and Hughes once that answer is known. Carrying four big contracts of guys who can all play SG to some degree will be tough, but the question is, who goes?

If Pax ever hints that 2010 free agency is the plan for Hughes's contract (he really hasn't yet, has he?), it will be a big deal, because I think that affects every other thing he does.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Philomath said:


> If Pax ever hints that 2010 free agency is the plan for Hughes's contract (he really hasn't yet, has he?), it will be a big deal, because I think that affects every other thing he does.


He did in an interview with Doug Thonus over at Realgm/Draftexpress. But he also said he wasn't putting all his eggs in that basket.

Go Bulls!


----------



## Reignman (Feb 15, 2005)

Could the Clips or someone else play the Brand/Odom game with the Bulls? Any realistic concerns?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Reignman said:


> Could the Clips or someone else play the Brand/Odom game with the Bulls? Any realistic concerns?


Only if Paxson is an idiot. There's a threshold for Gordon, afterwhich you simply don't pay him, as it will affect what you do with the rest of the team.

Same for Deng, though it is IMHO quite a bit higher.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I think the problem with Gordon/Deng is that we haven't even offered either guy a contract yet. Why not try offering them something, and see if they take it? Why didn't we have an offer ready to go for both guys two weeks ago? 

Whoever said they are trying to do the good cop/bad cop thing with Paxson/Reinsdork seems to be right. Make Paxson seem like a fumbling idiot. It might work with Deng, but no way this bull**** works with Gordon, who is very close to Paxson.


----------

