# Offseason Outline: Chicago Bulls



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

> *• How can the Bulls improve this offseason? Through free agency? The draft? Trade?*
> 
> None of the above. Chicago won’t even have the means to bring back its own free agents based on its payroll history, much less make any significant additions through that avenue. (Chicago is set to pay the luxury tax this season for the first time in franchise history.) The Bulls can’t expect immediate help from the 20th and 49th picks in the draft. The trade market would seem to provide the most room for growth, but who can Chicago reasonably deal? Rose, Noah and Butler will be off the table. Deng and Gibson are crucial to the defense. Boozer is owed $15.3 million next season and $16.8 million in 2014-15. That leaves Hinrich (who has a $4.1 million expiring contract for 2013-14), Teague and the No. 20 pick as the most attractive trade options, though moving either Hinrich or Teague would open up a new hole in the depth chart. Chicago will be better next season, but that growth is likely to come almost entirely through internal development and improving health.
> 
> ...


http://nba.si.com/2013/05/16/chicago-bulls-offseason-derrick-rose-carlos-boozer/


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Weird perspective on the Bulls. 

"How can the Bulls improve this offseason?"

How about having a legit starting 5 for the first time in the Rose era? Rose, Butler, Deng, Boozer, and Noah...that lineup is going to be very good. How good exactly, that remains to be seen, but mark my words they will do some damage. 

The bench still needs to get filled out but Kirk and Taj is a decent start, we'll likely get either a wing or backup C in the draft, a vet min signing or two (hopefully get Marco back at that price), and we'll still be up there in the standings, maybe even back to elite level.

As far as trade options go, I don't know why they aren't mentioning Deng. He's in the last year of a deal and desirable to multiple teams according to the rumor mill, along with having Jimmy there to fill his slot if needed. There are some 2-guard options we might explore for Deng, though I am not expecting anything to happen there. 

And amnestying Boozer this off-season is not going to happen. There is no benefit and it gets us nowhere. Maybe next year when he's in the last year of his deal.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

I was coming into this thread to say what yodurk has already covered. They need to keep the starting 5 together, bolster the bench, and then stay healthy coming into the playoffs. That's it.


----------



## taco_daddy (Jun 13, 2004)

RollWithEm said:


> I was coming into this thread to say what yodurk has already covered. They need to keep the starting 5 together, bolster the bench, *and then stay healthy coming into the playoffs.* That's it.


Thibs might want to lay off the gas pedal a little bit then if that is to happen.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> How about having a legit starting 5 for the first time in the Rose era? Rose, Butler, Deng, Boozer, and Noah...that lineup is going to be very good. How good exactly, that remains to be seen, but mark my words they will do some damage.


WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LOL, this has been seen already. 




> Butler will be off the table.


This is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. How the hell does he put Jimmy Butler in the same category as Rose? lol.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Weird perspective on the Bulls.
> 
> "How can the Bulls improve this offseason?"
> 
> ...





thebizkit69u said:


> WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LOL, this has been seen already.


No, it hasn't. Jimmy has developed into a legit starting two guard with nearly elite level defense who can be out ALL 48 minutes (of intensitay) night after night. 

The real question is what will Rose be like? Do we trust that he is going to be better, or do we find that he is the quitter the masses have identified him as?

I'm honestly not sure. I'd like to believe he'll be better, but...


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

taco_daddy said:


> Thibs might want to lay off the gas pedal a little bit then if that is to happen.


Part of that will likely be dictated by the strength of the bench players they acquire this offseason.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> Part of that will likely be dictated by the strength of the bench players they acquire this offseason.


The odds are not with us getting much better in that regard. 

I suppose shedding Vlad Rad and Cook will help, but no guarantees, and losing Nate will hurt, but in a significant way only if Derrick is not up to speed.

The major improvements are Derrick's return and Jimmy's entrenchment as a starting player. And Taj getting better would be nice. He needs a complementary back up big, though. Will Nazr do it again?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LOL, this has been seen already.



That's true. I think Butler and Rose have logged eight whopping minutes together on the floor, so we've had plenty of that experiment!


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> The major improvements are Derrick's return and Jimmy's entrenchment as a starting player. And Taj getting better would be nice. He needs a complementary back up big, though. Will Nazr do it again?


Teague also should improve to become a legit third PG so that they won't miss Nate as much. They will need to resign Marco as well. The 4th big could still be Nazr or possibly an upgrade. Guys like Anthony Tolliver, Luke Walton, Anthony Morrow, or Dorell Wright might be low risk, veteran options to round out the rotation.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> That's true. I think Butler and Rose have logged eight whopping minutes together on the floor, so we've had plenty of that experiment!


Are you seriously implying that Jimmy Butler is the missing piece to dethroning Miami in the playoffs? 

Seriously?! This can't be what you are saying. 



> No, it hasn't. Jimmy has developed into a legit starting two guard with nearly elite level defense who can be out ALL 48 minutes (of intensitay) night after night.
> 
> The real question is what will Rose be like? Do we trust that he is going to be better, or do we find that he is the quitter the masses have identified him as?
> 
> I'm honestly not sure. I'd like to believe he'll be better, but...


Jimmy Butler isn't nor was he even considered one of the best Rookies of 2013 and yet hes all of a sudden a starting 2 on an NBA team with title aspirations?!

Jimmy Butler all of a sudden makes the Bulls better than the 2010-2011?Those Bulls who were not only deeper than last years squad but just flat out BETTER!


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> Are you seriously implying that Jimmy Butler is the missing piece to dethroning Miami in the playoffs?
> 
> Seriously?! This can't be what you are saying.
> 
> ...


Jimmy was a rookie in 2013?

Keith Bogans wasn't the starting 2-guard for the 2010-2011 Bulls?

But seriously, the main thing I wonder about Jimmy is how effective he'll be with Derrick. Can he be the secondary ball handler we need to free Derrick from some of those duties? But I have hope. I think Jimmy is certainly the best option at 2 that we've had with Derrick. I suppose Ben Gordon might get that nod. But only on the offensive side of the ball, and Jimmy is a big plus over any of the other options, offensively speaking.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Good Hope said:


> Jimmy was a rookie in 2013?
> 
> Keith Bogans wasn't the starting 2-guard for the 2010-2011 Bulls?
> 
> But seriously, the main thing I wonder about Jimmy is how effective he'll be with Derrick. Can he be the secondary ball handler we need to free Derrick from some of those duties? But I have hope. I think Jimmy is certainly the best option at 2 that we've had with Derrick. I suppose Ben Gordon might get that nod. But only on the offensive side of the ball, and Jimmy is a big plus over any of the other options, offensively speaking.


Well technically hes not a rookie, but he played so little the year before that hes basically a rookie. 

The problem with the idea that Butler will perform better with Rose is that you are assuming that Butler will develop a consistent jumper. A lot of Butlers point's came from playing 40+ minutes a game and driving a lot to the basket. I don't predict Butler will have the ball in his hands as much, once Rose returns and with Rose's style of play, Butler will NEED to develop a consistent jumper. 

Is Jimmy a better option than Bogans? Sure. Is he a significant upgrade over the Bogans, Brewer and Korver platoon? No. So again, while Butler may be a better individual player than Bogans, the team is going to be very limited in what they can do this off season and there is just no way this team is going to be as good as the 2011 Bulls.

In order for the Bulls do be better than that team, Butler is going to have to average 13-15 ppg and I doubt hes going to average that unless he plays those crazy 40+ mpg and there is just no way he can do that for a full 82 game season.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Are you seriously implying that Jimmy Butler is the missing piece to dethroning Miami in the playoffs?
> 
> Seriously?! This can't be what you are saying.


No, dude. You said that starting five had already played together, and in fact, you were a big dick about it what with your all-caps LOL-filled tirade. And of course, you were wrong. But never let that get in the way of shitting all over someone's opinion.



> Jimmy Butler isn't nor was he even considered one of the best Rookies of 2013 and yet hes all of a sudden a starting 2 on an NBA team with title aspirations?!
> 
> Jimmy Butler all of a sudden makes the Bulls better than the 2010-2011?Those Bulls who were not only deeper than last years squad but just flat out BETTER!



Please make the argument that Jimmy Butler is not an upgrade over Keith Bogans. I look forward to it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Well technically hes not a rookie, but he played so little the year before that hes basically a rookie.
> 
> The problem with the idea that Butler will perform better with Rose is that you are assuming that Butler will develop a consistent jumper. A lot of Butlers point's came from playing 40+ minutes a game and driving a lot to the basket. I don't predict Butler will have the ball in his hands as much, once Rose returns and with Rose's style of play, Butler will NEED to develop a consistent jumper.



Umm, Jimmy shot 38% from 3 last year. What are you even going on about? And how is it a bad thing having a guy who drives to the lane and draws fouls better than anyone on the roster in the past several years?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> No, dude. You said that starting five had already played together, and in fact, you were a big dick about it what with your all-caps LOL-filled tirade. And of course, you were wrong. But never let that get in the way of shitting all over someone's opinion.


It basically is the same starting 5 lol. You are acting like Butler SIGNIFICANTLY is better than what the Bulls had in 2011. Like I said in the previous post, Butler may be better than Bogans but if you remember correctly the 2 guard position that year was more than just Bogans, it was a platoon of guys who actually played pretty damn good that season. 

So your idea that Butler is some sort of significant upgrade, is just not an accurate one. 

But if you wan't to be technical, SURE its not the same starting 5, but in NO WAY is it better than the one we saw in 2011 which was BASICALLY the same team.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> It basically is the same starting 5 lol. You are acting like Butler SIGNIFICANTLY is better than what the Bulls had in 2011. Like I said in the previous post, Butler may be better than Bogans but if you remember correctly the 2 guard position that year was more than just Bogans, it was a platoon of guys who actually played pretty damn good that season.
> 
> So your idea that Butler is some sort of significant upgrade, is just not an accurate one.
> 
> But if you wan't to be technical, SURE its not the same starting 5, but in NO WAY is it better than the one we saw in 2011 which was BASICALLY the same team.


Butler is significantly better than Bogans. So, I definitely disagree (strongly) with your belief that he is not. I would assume there is virtual consensus on that issue. Butler is a better shooter, better ball handler, better slasher, better finisher, better at drawing fouls, better defender, more athletic, and more versatile as he can play the 2 or the 3.

And I'm not being "technical" about anything. You're the one who said it was the same starting 5. It's not. This is pretty basic.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Butler is significantly better than Bogans. So, I definitely disagree (strongly) with your belief that he is not. I would assume there is virtual consensus on that issue. Butler is a better shooter, better ball handler, better slasher, better finisher, better at drawing fouls, better defender, more athletic, and more versatile as he can play the 2 or the 3.
> 
> And I'm not being "technical" about anything. You're the one who said it was the same starting 5. It's not. This is pretty basic.


I said hes not a significant upgrade over their 2 guard situation in 2010-2011. Heck, we can argue back and forth about this, but if your only argument is that hes better than Bogans, sure I agree. But like I said before, hes not significantly better than what the Bulls used in 2010-11. Honestly, Butler and Ronnie Brewer were almost the exact same player. Butler was/is better offensively and Brewer was better defensively. 

If you want to still debate Butlers overall impact on this team in the grand scheme of things, be my guest. But, lets just be real here for a moment, if we are resting our title hopes on the development of Jimmy Butler, well then we are pretty much screwed. 

I also find it incredibly laughable that Jimmy Butler was described as an untouchable in the *article*. I wasn't trying to mock or insult anyone poster intentionally.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> I said hes not a significant upgrade over their 2 guard situation in 2010-2011. Heck, we can argue back and forth about this, but if your only argument is that hes better than Bogans, sure I agree. But like I said before, hes not significantly better than what the Bulls used in 2010-11. Honestly, Butler and Ronnie Brewer were almost the exact same player. Butler was/is better offensively and Brewer was better defensively.


Butler and Brewer are not the same player. I agree Butler is better offensively and Brewer arguably better defensively, but Butler's margin on offense over Brewer is much greater than the converse.



> If you want to still debate Butlers overall impact on this team in the grand scheme of things, be my guest. But, lets just be real here for a moment, if we are resting our title hopes on the development of Jimmy Butler, well then we are pretty much screwed.
> 
> I also find it incredibly laughable that Jimmy Butler was described as an untouchable in the *article*. I wasn't trying to mock or insult anyone poster intentionally.


I agree Butler is eminently touchable.

Ok, you know what I mean. 

But yes, the notion Butler couldn't be available is ridiculous. I agree.

But why do you have to do the whole "if we are resting our title hopes on the development of Jimmy Butler" routine? Obviously, that's a dishonest line of argument. If you want to set up strawmen, that's your business, but it's not a particularly productive use of time.

You said Jimmy B couldn't be the starting guard on a championship team. I think I pretty clearly demonstrated that's rubbish. Now you're saying we're "pinning our hopes" on him. Well, not really. He projects to be the fifth-best starter out of five next season, so I don't really see how the hopes are pinned on him. What has been accomplished is that the Bulls have finally found a competent starting two guard. This should be a happy development, but you seemingly need to twist everything with dishonest rhetoric to serve whatever your agenda is. 

If you want to argue the remaining starters aren't good enough to win a chip, sure, that's something I'm happy to discuss. But to express this weird fixation on Butler and his supposed inadequacy is just not accurate.

Also:



> WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LOL


cannot live with:



> I wasn't trying to mock or insult anyone poster intentionally.


Sure you were. And that was a _poster_ you were mocking, not an article. And you were incorrect about the basic fact you were arguing (i.e. that the starting unit yodurk was referencing had already played together). So let's not engage in revisionist history, here.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Weird perspective on the Bulls.
> 
> "How can the Bulls improve this offseason?"
> 
> How about having a legit starting 5 for the first time in the Rose era? Rose, Butler, Deng, Boozer, and Noah...that lineup is going to be very good. How good exactly, that remains to be seen, but mark my words they will do some damage.


In fairness, before the quoted passage, the author did write



> If the Bulls follow through on releasing Hamilton, they would be left with a terrific starting lineup (Rose, Noah, Deng, Carlos Boozer and Jimmy Butler)


It seemed that lots of Bulls' fans desperately needed the team to pay the luxury tax just to show that ownership cared enough about the team to write that LT check.

Well, they wrote it and will write another one for the 2013-14 season. 

Yippee?

Anyway, as Bulls' fans, we figure to have a very good team to follow next season. Should be fun.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

transplant said:


> In fairness, before the quoted passage, the author did write
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I thought we avoided the LT this season, no? The design was that we knew we were going to pay the tax in 13-14, so we would not want the repeat offender penalty in 14-15 when we were attempting to bring Mirotic over.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> I thought we avoided the LT this season, no? The design was that we knew we were going to pay the tax in 13-14, so we would not want the repeat offender penalty in 14-15 when we were attempting to bring Mirotic over.


Nah, we were over. It's why a lot of fans expected a salary dump of some sort (Rip) at the deadline. I was surprised it didn't go down.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> Nah, we were over. It's why a lot of fans expected a salary dump of some sort (Rip) at the deadline. I was surprised it didn't go down.


Are you sure? I know we were over in terms of total payroll. However, there is some sort of incentive for paying vet min contracts. I believe the league pays something like 50% of their salary and the amount the league pays does not count against the cap.

I did not believe that we would have signed Malcolm Thomas if it was going to put us over or farther over. I also thought the main reason for trying to trade Rip this season was that so we would not have to pay the guaranteed portion of his money that will be penalized from being over the LT for a guy not playing on the team.

This is sort of serious, because if we do pay the LT this year and next, Mirotic will absolutely not be coming over for the 14-15 season.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> Are you sure? I know we were over in terms of total payroll. However, there is some sort of incentive for paying vet min contracts. I believe the league pays something like 50% of their salary and the amount the league pays does not count against the cap.
> 
> I did not believe that we would have signed Malcolm Thomas if it was going to put us over or farther over. I also thought the main reason for trying to trade Rip this season was that so we would not have to pay the guaranteed portion of his money that will be penalized from being over the LT for a guy not playing on the team.
> 
> This is sort of serious, because if we do pay the LT this year and next, Mirotic will absolutely not be coming over for the 14-15 season.


Positive we were over, yes. Here's the easiest rundown I found: 



> _For 2014-15 teams pay the repeater rate if they also were taxpayers in all of the previous three seasons. For 2015-16 and all subsequent seasons, teams pay the repeater rate if they were taxpayers in at least three of the four previous seasons._
> 
> So, it's out there, but it also seems to be an incredibly unlikely scenario. The Bulls kept their spectacular streak alive this season of not paying the tax. Even if they crept into it for 2012-13, they'd have to do so again for the following 2 seasons to begin to risk that repeater tax after 2015-16 campaign. Keep in mind that Luol Deng's contract is off the books after 13-14, and they can wipe Carlos Boozer off of their taxed amount in any offseason via the amnesty clause.


We were definitely over the mark this year, that much I know. Us being over this year (12-13) shouldn't be awful as far as repeater tax goes for 14-15, though, since 13/14 would only be the two previous seasons.

I dunno. I'd have thought Sham would have written about it, but I didn't find anything.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q16



> Players may receive salary advances, loans, and deferred compensation (see question number 110 for more information).
> 
> When a player has been in the NBA for three or more seasons, and is playing under a one-year, 10-day or rest-of-season contract, the league reimburses the team for part of his salary -- any amount above the minimum salary level for a two-year veteran3. For example, in 2011-12 the minimum salary for a two-year veteran is $854,389, so for a ten-year veteran, with a minimum salary of $1,352,181, the league would reimburse the team $497,792. Only the two-year minimum salary is included in the team salary, not the player's full salary. They do this so teams won't shy away from signing older veterans simply because they are more expensive than younger veterans.


According shamsports, we had $74.245M in salaries, but he already took out this difference. http://data.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/bulls.jsp

The info I needed was here: http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q17



> NON-TAXPAYER MID-LEVEL EXCEPTION -- This exception is available only when a team is below the "apron" (i.e., not paying luxury tax, or less than $4 million above the tax line). This determination is made after the exception is used, so a team below the apron cannot use this exception if doing so takes it above the apron. It cannot be used by a team that has already used the Taxpayer Mid-Level Exception or the Room Mid-Level exception. It allows a team to sign any free agent to a contract with a starting salary up to the following amounts3:
> 
> 
> Season
> ...


It seems that if we amnesty Boozer, we should be able to use the full MLE to sign Mirotic because it is calculated in the year we use it. That makes more sense as to why we will only have the MMLE this offseason.

OK, I feel better. I had the last CBA virtually memorized. This one seems to have a lot more loopholes that are covered that I wasn't aware of.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

That's why I usually leave the work to Sham and co. :laugh:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

This also makes it abundantly clear Boozer will be amnestied after next season. They're not going to jeopardize bringing Mirotic over and I doubt they'd be inclined to pay the repeater tax even with Mirotic in tow.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

We stayed below the apron, which is $4.0 million above the LT threshold. I mistakenly assumed the apron was the same as the LT number.

This is important as it gives us more exceptions to use and flexibility in trading in the offseason.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Boozer had a nice season for us, but he's still on the decline. If amnestying him gets us a full Mid-Level Exception to use on Mirotic (with really big back-end raises that coincide with Deng coming off the books), and we have a frontcourt of Gibson/Mirotic/Noah/the 20th pick (likely to be a big in my opinion), that's not so bad, is it?

Rose/Butler/Deng/Gibson/Noah with a bench of Teague/Mirotic/20th pick and vet minimum contracts and exceptions (hey, Forman had an even more depleted bench last year and did ok).

We really need Mirotic as soon as possible. It's going to take a while for him to acclimate and the next two seasons are basically our window as we know it until we have to re-build around Rose again, assuming he's still capable of being Rose.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Showtyme said:


> Boozer had a nice season for us, but he's still on the decline. If amnestying him gets us a full Mid-Level Exception to use on Mirotic (with really big back-end raises that coincide with Deng coming off the books), and we have a frontcourt of Gibson/Mirotic/Noah/the 20th pick (likely to be a big in my opinion), that's not so bad, is it?
> 
> Rose/Butler/Deng/Gibson/Noah with a bench of Teague/Mirotic/20th pick and vet minimum contracts and exceptions (hey, Forman had an even more depleted bench last year and did ok).
> 
> We really need Mirotic as soon as possible. It's going to take a while for him to acclimate and the next two seasons are basically our window as we know it until we have to re-build around Rose again, assuming he's still capable of being Rose.


I'm all for getting Mirotic over ASAP, but getting him over here can't happen. Given when the Bulls acquired his draft rights, they would have to pay him rookie scale if he comes over this year. Mirotic is making more than that in Europe, so he's got no incentive to come over. Starting next year, the Bulls can pay him like any other free agent. So, at that time, they will have the full MLE available, which is slightly more than Mirotic would be making in Europe. So, that appears to be the first realistic opportunity to get him over here.

It seems relatively certain we're looking at 1 more year of Boozer and then the amnesty.

Good to see you, Showtyme.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'm all for getting Mirotic over ASAP, but getting him over here can't happen. Given when the Bulls acquired his draft rights, they would have to pay him rookie scale if he comes over this year. Mirotic is making more than that in Europe, so he's got no incentive to come over. Starting next year, the Bulls can pay him like any other free agent. So, at that time, they will have the full MLE available, which is slightly more than Mirotic would be making in Europe. So, that appears to be the first realistic opportunity to get him over here.
> 
> It seems relatively certain we're looking at 1 more year of Boozer and then the amnesty.
> 
> Good to see you, Showtyme.


i am in the boat of never amnestying viable players, boozer for all his warts was still an above avg. starting 4 last season.

after a year garpax should be able to turn his ending deal into something of value.

as far as mirotic , its very possible he will need an adjustment period after coming over as he will be transitioning from an above average athlete to a below average one, i think people are already jacking up expectations and he hasn't even come over yet.

garpax may want to keep boozer through the duration of his deal and even re-sign him


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> i am in the boat of never amnestying viable players, boozer for all his warts was still an above avg. starting 4 last season.
> 
> after a year garpax should be able to turn his ending deal into something of value.
> 
> ...



There is zero chance the Bulls keep Boozer for the last year of his deal, I would imagine. It would lead to a big luxury tax bill and also prevent them from bringing over Mirotic. So, I'd be surprised if it happens. It's going to be a straight salary dump (with potentially something of value in return) before that point or an amnesty.

My impression is the Bulls think they have something important for the long-term in Mirotic and are going to do whatever they can to get him over. It will be interesting to see if their judgment on that is correct.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> Boozer had a nice season for us, but he's still on the decline. If amnestying him gets us a full Mid-Level Exception to use on Mirotic (with really big back-end raises that coincide with Deng coming off the books), and we have a frontcourt of Gibson/Mirotic/Noah/the 20th pick (likely to be a big in my opinion), that's not so bad, is it?
> 
> Rose/Butler/Deng/Gibson/Noah with a bench of Teague/Mirotic/20th pick and vet minimum contracts and exceptions (hey, Forman had an even more depleted bench last year and did ok).
> 
> We really need Mirotic as soon as possible. It's going to take a while for him to acclimate and the next two seasons are basically our window as we know it until we have to re-build around Rose again, assuming he's still capable of being Rose.


Outside of trading Gibson or Deng away to a team with cap space or in a consolidation trade for a starting big, using the amnesty clause on Boozer now only gets us the full MLE instead of the taxpayer MLE (~$5M instead of $3M). I do not expect we can sign a guy better than Boozer with that money, despite Boozer being overpaid.

Don't forget the Bobcat pick in your do nothing but amnesty Boozer and sign Mirotic scenario. Although the lineup you mention above won't be here until 14-15, and that is assuming no trades over the next two offseasons.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I just can't imagine that the Bulls are so dumb that they are going with the "Wait it out" plan of action. Sure, waiting for Mirotic and the Bobcats pick is a sound strategy, but only if you are a bad team or a very young one. The Bulls aren't bad and are not all that young. Lets just look at the captains on this team, Deng is nearing 29 and has a ton of mileage and an expiring contact up soon, Derrick will be 25 in October and is in his prime years (barring any injury setback), Noah is 28 has peaked and has a chronic foot ailment and Boozer is gone after next season.

One could make the argument that we have young guys like Teague and Butler, while that's true, its still debatable on how good of a player these guys actually are and will be. You have to ask yourself, will Butlers development match the development of other guys around our conference? I highly doubt Butler will ever be as impactful as Hibbert and George, and if we are going to play the wait it out game, this needs to happen.

Another argument that I keep hearing is, "Well Lebron will be on a bad Heat team in 2 years, so we can wait him out", this is assuming Lebron CHOOSES to stay in Miami, in fact many people think Lebron will GO BACK to Cleveland and play with a younger and more talent rich team. Kyrie Irving, Deion Waiters, Lebron and the #1 pick in this year's draft will still be better than our team of Rose, Mirotic and whoever else not named a top 10 NBA player.

I really think our only shot is to be proactive and be very creative. I understand our cap limitations, but is waiting really the best plan of action? Deng is on the last year of his deal, his value on the trade market is higher than the last couple of seasons, why not trade him now for a player who may not be as good but is younger and can potentially be better? 

With Miami still being dominant, with Indiana now becoming the second best team in the east (with younger and better talent and some upcoming cap flexibility), I don't see how "Waiting" is the best option.

Also, concerning the Bobcats pick. It only takes one player to turn a team around, do we really hang our hopes on the Bobcats continuing to select the wrong player with their top 3 picks year after year? I really think MKG was the right pick last year and its going to be pretty hard to expect a top 10 pick for us if they continue potentially draft guys like Bennet or Victor Oladipo this year and Jabari Parker (Next year).


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

If you believe in Jimmy Butler as I do, the Bulls have no glaring holes. They are a potentially awesome defensive team with the improved offense that DRose will bring. For the first time in the Rose era, their key need is depth. It's great to have this as your team's key need.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I would imagine that having no bench is a glaring hole. Look at the Pacers, they really struggled with their second unit against the Heat, who knows how far they could have gone if they din't have the worst bench in the NBA. 

As for Jimmy, I believe that Jimmy can be a decent player in this league but I don't believe hes a difference maker.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I would imagine that having no bench is a glaring hole. Look at the Pacers, they really struggled with their second unit against the Heat, who knows how far they could have gone if they din't have the worst bench in the NBA.
> 
> As for Jimmy, I believe that Jimmy can be a decent player in this league but I don't believe hes a difference maker.


Bulls had a pretty good bench this past season. Sure much of that was Nate Robinson who probably won't be here next year, but that means we try to go out and find someone to fill that role.

Also worth noting that in the new CBA you're likely going to see fewer deep benches in the NBA. It's just too hard to spend the money necessary to have quality 6th, 7th, and 8th men with the hard cap and severe lux tax penalties in place. Best chance of deepening your bench will come from vets looking to win titles and playing for the vet min salary. Fortunately the Bulls should be in position to make that type of pitch. I believe Gar made a comment similar to that on the radio recently, about how coming to play for Thibs will raise your value. Hopefully enough to keep up with Miami making the same pitch.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

to me the bulls biggest weakness is their lack of 2ndary scorer behind rose .

boozer and deng try hard but its clear they aren't the caliber of the other top teams supporting scorers.

also because of the lack of scoring , it forces thibs to overplay his guys.


with jimmy butler in tow there is no reason for deng to be leading the league in minutes per game for a 2nd consecutive season.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I would imagine that having no bench is a glaring hole. Look at the Pacers, they really struggled with their second unit against the Heat, who knows how far they could have gone if they din't have the worst bench in the NBA.
> 
> As for Jimmy, I believe that Jimmy can be a decent player in this league but I don't believe hes a difference maker.


No bench? Gibson is well above average as a first big off the bench. They also have the taxpayer's mid-level exception, a $5mil trade exception and have done well in the past with the vet minimum. If the FO does its usual fine job, the bench will be fine.

There are no guarantees, but I honestly think you have to work harder at being pessimistic about this team than being optimistic.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

transplant said:


> No bench? Gibson is well above average as a first big off the bench. They also have the taxpayer's mid-level exception, a $5mil trade exception and have done well in the past with the vet minimum. If the FO does its usual fine job, the bench will be fine.
> 
> There are no guarantees, but I honestly think you have to work harder at being pessimistic about this team than being optimistic.



I really sometimes have to wonder if you guys live in some other world. The Bulls bench last season was 27th in points and 28th in Efficiency. That is not good, that's actually terrible.

Half of their bench rarely even played and the other half was injured for most of the season. You wan't to pat Taj Gibson on the back for being an underachiever go ahead. The Bulls expected Gibson to take a big step in his development and he has not. Heck, he got outplayed by freaking BIRDMAN!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I really sometimes have to wonder if you guys live in some other world. The Bulls bench last season was 27th in points and 28th in Efficiency. That is not good, that's actually terrible.
> 
> Half of their bench rarely even played and the other half was injured for most of the season. You wan't to pat Taj Gibson on the back for being an underachiever go ahead. The Bulls expected Gibson to take a big step in his development and he has not. Heck, he got outplayed by freaking BIRDMAN!


its hard to put up good numbers when you dont play.

and chris anderson has been their 2nd best player in these playoffs , he's shooting .815 from the field an scoring at a per minute rate that is 2nd on the heat behind lebron.

jimmy butler led the bulls in minutes in these playoffs....individual matchups will never matter when that happens.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I really sometimes have to wonder if *you guys *live in some other world.


Please describe the group into which I'm being lumped.



> The Bulls bench last season was 27th in points and 28th in Efficiency. That is not good, that's actually terrible.
> 
> Half of their bench rarely even played and the other half was injured for most of the season.


I don't recall saying that I thought the Bulls bench was good this past season.



> You wan't to pat Taj Gibson on the back for being an underachiever go ahead.


Thanks. Yeah, I like Gibson. Sorry he had those troubles with his knee last season, but I already knew he can play.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

transplant said:


> Please describe the group into which I'm being lumped.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was mostly referring to dork. I wasn't trying to be negative but its pretty obvious the bench situation is a glaring hole. 

Taj unfortunately has not performed up to his contract. Like I said in previous post's, losing Omer Asik has as much to do with his stuck in neutral production as much as his knee.


----------



## spencert15 (Jun 11, 2013)

I think butler will be huge going forward for the bulls. If he comes off the bench, he will be a solid contributor, much like gibson. If he starts, he will be a really solid #2 wing defender that can add some offensive help in spurts. His development will be huge this offseason. 
Their best bet for improving the roster is possibly to trade either Hinrich or Teague, plus the first rounder this year, for an experienced shooting guard with an expiring contract (salary cap permitting). Even if they do land a solid pick, there's almost no chance he can contribute in his first year. The Bulls just have to get everyone healthy and keep them healthy. With Thibs running the show, the defense will always be solid, but you have to have talent on the floor to score, and they just didn't have enough down the stretch.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Catching up on my rumor reading this morning.

Memphis rumored to be interested in Deng are false.

Phoenix has inquired about Taj Gibson. They are interested in trading away Jared Dudley and Shannon Brown, but no word on an offiicial offer.

Cleveland has inquired about Luol Deng. No specifics have been mentioned, but I think a logical trade chip would be centered around Dion Waiters, especially if the Cavs want McLemore. They fill their SF void and we fill our SG/secondary creator void. That might not be the best win now move, but would free up cash and bring on a guy outplaying his rookie contract over the next three years.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> Cleveland has inquired about Luol Deng. No specifics have been mentioned, but I think a logical trade chip would be centered around Dion Waiters, especially if the Cavs want McLemore. They fill their SF void and we fill our SG/secondary creator void. That might not be the best win now move, but would free up cash and bring on a guy outplaying his rookie contract over the next three years.


I would love that trade, but honestly I think they might be centering this trade around Tristan Thompson. I just don't see why the Cavs would trade a scoring 2 for another scoring 2 in the draft, when they really could use some size upfront. While I don't like Nerlens Noel, one has to imagine he gives them more than Zeller, who is their starting 5 right now. 

Also, with Kyrie Irving being so injury prone, I don't see how they can afford to move Waiters who can play some PG.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> I would love that trade, but honestly I think they might be centering this trade around Tristan Thompson. I just don't see why the Cavs would trade a scoring 2 for another scoring 2 in the draft, when they really could use some size upfront. While I don't like Nerlens Noel, one has to imagine he gives them more than Zeller, who is their starting 5 right now.
> 
> Also, with Kyrie Irving being so injury prone, I don't see how they can afford to move Waiters who can play some PG.


It very well could be, but no way would I trade Deng for Thompson. I might consider Deng for Thompson + #19 pick, but that kind of defeats what Cleveland is trying to do.

Deng is better than any of the SF candidates in the draft, and that is the Cavs largest weakness so far. Personally, I think McLemore is the best prospect in the draft and will be better than Waiters. If they do said trade, they upgrade at the 2, get a starting 3 better than any of the rookies out there and still have the #19 to draft the best big available in a deep big man draft. Sounds like a win for them.

That said, this won't work if they are planning on trying to tank for Wiggins. If that is the case, Noel is a more logical pick.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> It very well could be, but no way would I trade Deng for Thompson. I might consider Deng for Thompson + #19 pick, but that kind of defeats what Cleveland is trying to do.
> 
> Deng is better than any of the SF candidates in the draft, and that is the Cavs largest weakness so far. Personally, I think McLemore is the best prospect in the draft and will be better than Waiters. If they do said trade, they upgrade at the 2, get a starting 3 better than any of the rookies out there and still have the #19 to draft the best big available in a deep big man draft. Sounds like a win for them.
> 
> That said, this won't work if they are planning on trying to tank for Wiggins. If that is the case, Noel is a more logical pick.


Well if the only other option is let go of Deng at the end of his contract, then I think Thompson is a solid pickup.

I agree about McLemore, I think hes one of the best pure 2 guard prospects to come out in a long time. The Cavs would do great drafting him, but who knows what the GM over there thinks. Maybe he feels like Noel is a better fit next to Kyrie. 

I'll tell you one thing though, if they do decide to draft McLemore and keep Waiters, the Cavs will have an explosive sixth man.


----------



## Fergus (Oct 2, 2002)

A couple of points:

1) The Bulls will be very, very cautious about trading Deng. He is too much a coaches favorite.
2) That being said, I hope they do strongly consider trading him for the right deal. The right trade just might be the proactive move that gets the Bulls over the top. 
3) Only Noah and Rose should be considered "off the table" when it comes to trade talks. I loved watching Butler develop, but both he and/or Deng should be in the mix if the right trade were to come along. However, any trade must land a player or players that fit the Bulls system.
4) On a more realistic note (assuming that no such trade for Deng happens), the biggest challenges for the Bulls will be scoring off of the bench and some help for Noah in the middle. I think the Bulls will draft a big to help Noah and try to sign a veteran scorer for the short term.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Fergus said:


> 1) The Bulls will be very, very cautious about trading Deng. He is too much a coaches favorite.


This should not matter. Liking someone should never get in the way of improving the team. If there is a trade out there that can make the Bulls better, it would be a travesty if Deng isn't traded just because hes a favorite of the coach. 



> 3) Only Noah and Rose should be considered "off the table" when it comes to trade talks. I loved watching Butler develop, but both he and/or Deng should be in the mix if the right trade were to come along. However, any trade must land a player or players that fit the Bulls system.


Rose is probably the only real untouchable player on this team. 




> 4) On a more realistic note (assuming that no such trade for Deng happens), the biggest challenges for the Bulls will be scoring off of the bench and some help for Noah in the middle. I think the Bulls will draft a big to help Noah and try to sign a veteran scorer for the short term.


I would love to see the Bulls trade down to get Shabazz Mohammed or take a chance on the uber athletic Tony Mitchell. I think Shabazz gives them scoring punch off the bench and Mitchell gives them at the very least some much needed athleticism at the 3/4 with elite finishing ability.


----------

