# Bulls packaging draft pick with Hinrich or Deng?



## Ragingbull33 (Apr 10, 2005)

The Bulls have a lot of cap room this offseason, but they're looking to increase it by trading their first round pick (No. 17) in the draft and another player.

Bulls general manager Gar Forman told Adam Fluck of Bulls.com that he's had talks with other teams about the pick, but trading it by itself is "not significant enough" to make a deal.

"It would have to be the pick with a combination of something else," Forman said.

Most feel that Forman is shopping Luol Deng and Kirk Hinrich due to their high salaries and the ability to add two max players if the forward or guard can be moved in a trade.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

no reason to gift anything away, unless gar is for sure that two high profile players will sign with the bulls.

hinrich and deng while being a bit overpaid are very productive players.
r.lewis gets paid way way more and deng is for sure better than him.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

I wonder if what he is really trying to do is just move JJ and the pick. Not Hinrich or Deng and the pick like we are assuming. JJ and the pick would free up an additional 3 mil.

Now even though that is not gonna give us the amount needed to bring in a second max. It is a significant amount when your talking about what type of role players we can bring in.
To me if we could trade that pick plus JJ and receive an average teams first round pick next year and maybe a second round pick this year. I think I'd do it.


----------



## Basel (Mar 31, 2005)

Send Hinrich to the Lakers, please.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

They would love to find a taker for their draft pick plus Deng or Hinrich. There is not one name in the draft right now that really stands out, Tom T has not had a lot of time to sit with the franchise and look over prospects, they are trying to get 2 max free agents so it makes sense that they are trying to make some moves.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> They would love to find a taker for their draft pick plus Deng or Hinrich. There is not one name in the draft right now that really stands out, Tom T has not had a lot of time to sit with the franchise and look over prospects, they are trying to get 2 max free agents so it makes sense that they are trying to make some moves.


I just can't see how this would work.

It seems like an awfully big deal (hinrich or Deng) to hinge on the 17th overall pick. Plus can we even take back no salary in a deal like that. I guess I just don't see it working. But if possible I would love to move Hinrich in a deal like that. Deng not so much.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I'd love to move Dung and the 1st to move up and get a real SF. As long as Dung's contract is off the books, all good with me.


----------



## BullySixChicago (Jun 8, 2010)

Ragingbull33 said:


> The Bulls have a lot of cap room this offseason, but they're looking to increase it by trading their first round pick (No. 17) in the draft and another player.
> 
> Bulls general manager Gar Forman told Adam Fluck of Bulls.com that he's had talks with other teams about the pick, but trading it by itself is "not significant enough" to make a deal.
> 
> ...


Well I hope he is trying to trade one or both of them to get us that second player that can change a game on both ends of the floor. I know most Chicago Bulls fans are for Bron and Bosh.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> ...I would love to move Hinrich in a deal like that. Deng not so much...




"What is bred in the bone will not go out of the flesh"


----------



## BullsBaller (Oct 6, 2002)

Anyone have the source where this came from. I don't see how the Bulls can open up more cap space at this point since they can't take a player who will be coming off the books.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

For once, I'm with Basel. Please send Hinrich to L.A. We'll throw you a mean comination of the Machine and Powell!


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

VanillaPrice said:


> For once, I'm with Basel. Please send Hinrich to L.A. We'll throw you a mean comination of the Machine and Powell!


You would have to send back a similar total salary, which the Bulls don't want. You would have to find a third team that is stupid enough to take part. However, who do you want to trade on the Lakers? Sasha and Luke? Which team that is willing to waste $9-10M of cap for Luke and Sasha? The Bulls and Lakers would have to throw in their 1st this year to make up.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Bulls96 said:


> "What is bred in the bone will not go out of the flesh"


???


----------



## mo76 (Jun 13, 2003)

The only way this happens is if lebron and bosh sign with a team before the draft and a team with lots of cap room after missing out on lebron and bosh wants something, then this is not a bad deal. It's kind of a sticky situation though.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

BullsBaller said:


> Anyone have the source where this came from. I don't see how the Bulls can open up more cap space at this point since they can't take a player who will be coming off the books.


the bulls can deal with teams who have cap space and can take back more salary...but most of those teams are trying to get in the free agent sweepstakes as well this summer.

for instance trading deng for a guy who makes 4 mil. a year on a team with 8 mil. in cap space.

if they can swing it , it will be a major coup...but i think i'm in the boat of people saying its unlikely.


----------



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

caseyrh said:


> It seems like an awfully big deal (hinrich or Deng) to hinge on the 17th overall pick. Plus can we even take back no salary in a deal like that. I guess I just don't see it working. But if possible I would love to move Hinrich in a deal like that. Deng not so much.


Most teams won't have significant cap space until July 1st, and the draft is the 24th of June. So that pretty much eliminates every option but one.



mo76 said:


> The only way this happens is if lebron and bosh sign with a team before the draft and a team with lots of cap room after missing out on lebron and bosh wants something, then this is not a bad deal. It's kind of a sticky situation though.


Players can't sign until after the moratorium ends in the first week of July. So nothing like this will be decided before the draft.



VanillaPrice said:


> For once, I'm with Basel. Please send Hinrich to L.A. We'll throw you a mean comination of the Machine and Powell!


Here's a lesson, agreeing with Basel always backfires. The ship sailed on that deal in February. Unless LA could find someone to take $9 million worth of contracts in exchange for nothing then it isn't happening. The Bulls want to sign players this summer, before the new CBA. Not next year. 

:vuvuzela:



BullsBaller said:


> Anyone have the source where this came from. I don't see how the Bulls can open up more cap space at this point since they can't take a player who will be coming off the books.


There's pretty much one deal out there, Josh Howard (at the trade deadline I was really hoping that Boston would exchange Ray Allen for Mike Miller and Josh Howard for precisely this reason). He has a team option worth over $10 million. The question is would Washington take on Deng's contract in exchange for just the 17th pick? Methinks the Bulls would need to up the ante a little.


----------



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

I'd try trading Deng to Dallas for Dampier and then waive Dampier(unguaranteed contract). Dallas would have:

PG-Kidd/Beaubois
SG-Butler/Beaubois?
SF-Deng/Marion
PF-Nowitzki/Marion
C-Haywood/FA


Not sure if they'd accept but we can try. If not try swinging Kirk+Richards for Dampier but don't see why Dallas would accept.

Then once FA begins, try finding a suitor for whichever person wasn't traded. If we have 2 max slots, Bosh+LBJ would probably come here.


----------



## BullySixChicago (Jun 8, 2010)

The Bulls plan on using Kirk and Deng in a sign and trade for a max player and that would give them the ability to sign another player at Max numbers. It would be like Kirk and Deng for Bron or Bosh and the Bulls still have max money to sign the other player at max numbers and I think in a sign and trade for free agents that salaries dont have to match now I am guessing on that. But that is how the Bulls plan on getting two max players.


----------



## BullySixChicago (Jun 8, 2010)

P to the Wee said:


> I'd try trading Deng to Dallas for Dampier and then waive Dampier(unguaranteed contract). Dallas would have:
> 
> PG-Kidd/Beaubois
> SG-Butler/Beaubois?
> ...


The Bulls are not gonna take any salary for any player just to trade deng and kirk, I am sure that the Bulls thinking is that they will (Deng/Kirk) in a trade that will allow the Bulls to acquire either Bron or Bosh not these bums from Dallas.


----------



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

BullySixChicago said:


> The Bulls plan on using Kirk and Deng in a sign and trade for a max player and that would give them the ability to sign another player at Max numbers. It would be like Kirk and Deng for Bron or Bosh and the Bulls still have max money to sign the other player at max numbers and I think in a sign and trade for free agents that salaries dont have to match now I am guessing on that. But that is how the Bulls plan on getting two max players.


Why would some team agree to eat Deng's contract for the privilege of helping out the Bulls? You're better off with cap space if you could find some sucker... errr... trade partner willing to take Deng's contract.


----------



## BullySixChicago (Jun 8, 2010)

E.H. Munro said:


> Why would some team agree to eat Deng's contract for the privilege of helping out the Bulls? You're better off with cap space if you could find some sucker... errr... trade partner willing to take Deng's contract.


Its not about a team taking Kirk or deng's contract to help the Bulls out the Bulls will use both of them in the sign and trade for either Bosh or Bron. That is the logical thing that the Bulls will do it's not about getting some team to take their contracts I dont think any team would be that stupid but the sign and trade whereas you dont take them then you the Cavs and Raps could lose Bron and Bosh for nothing. If Bron and Bosh demand that they be traded to a certain team what leverage do their teams have? Bron and Bosh could just say later for you and take the 5 year deal and that means they would certainly take kirk or deng rather than get nothing. So in this situation the players have the levetage not the teams


----------



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

There is no way that the Cleveland Cadavaliers are paying $75 million for the privilege of losing a quarter billion. It isn't happening. Nor will Toronto pay $75 million to lose Bosh. Chicago can say "You have to take it!!!!!" all they want, but all that other GMs are going to do is say "No." Chicago might be able to fob one or the other off on Washington by throwing in JJ & #17, but that's a dicey proposition. No, Dallas isn't giving up Dampier's contract for Deng, they have their free agent plans built around using Dampier's team option as trade ballast.


----------



## Vuchato (Jan 14, 2006)

BullySixChicago said:


> Its not about a team taking Kirk or deng's contract to help the Bulls out the Bulls will use both of them in the sign and trade for either Bosh or Bron. That is the logical thing that the Bulls will do it's not about getting some team to take their contracts I dont think any team would be that stupid but the sign and trade whereas you dont take them then you the Cavs and Raps could lose Bron and Bosh for nothing. If Bron and Bosh demand that they be traded to a certain team what leverage do their teams have? Bron and Bosh could just say later for you and take the 5 year deal and that means they would certainly take kirk or deng rather than get nothing. So in this situation the players have the levetage not the teams


It isn't a given that a team would prefer either of those guys on their contracts over nothing. If the Raptors have Calderon, Turkoglu, Deng/Hinrich, and Bargnani on their current contracts, they're pretty much screwed to do nothing until their deals run out. They're already trying to dump Jose and Hedo, and they're on similar deals with similar talent levels. The Bulls are willing to give up a mid first draft pick just to get rid of one of them, and have yet to get a taker, so that should tell you that teams don't want them even with a sweetener.


----------



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

Yeah, he's entirely overrating the Bull's leverage here. If Chicago signs one max guy, and another says "I'm signing with Chicago anyway unless you take back Deng!" I'm sure the other GM will have no trouble saying "Have fun playing in Chitown for the MLE for the next three years." At which point Bosh or whomever will cut a deal with a team under the cap and their former team end up with a nice TPE after the sign & trade is worked out.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Vuchato said:


> It isn't a given that a team would prefer either of those guys on their contracts over nothing. If the Raptors have Calderon, Turkoglu, Deng/Hinrich, and Bargnani on their current contracts, they're pretty much screwed to do nothing until their deals run out. They're already trying to dump Jose and Hedo, and they're on similar deals with similar talent levels. The Bulls are willing to give up a mid first draft pick just to get rid of one of them, and have yet to get a taker, so that should tell you that teams don't want them even with a sweetener.


I'm sorry but Hedo and Deng are not on "similar talent levels".

Lets see one guy plays bad D. Averages 11 and 5 on 41% shooting. and is 30 years old.

The other guy plays great D Averages 18 and 7 on 47% shooting. and is 24 years old.

How are they similar again????


E.H. Munro said:


> Why would some team agree to eat Deng's contract for the privilege of helping out the Bulls? You're better off with cap space if you could find some sucker... errr... trade partner willing to take Deng's contract.



You know Iv'e come to get used to the Deng Haters out there. About half the posters on the Bulls board hate on the guy. But the fact is there aren't a lot of guys that are good defenders averaging 18 and 7 out there. However there are a lot of guys making Deng money. 

So let's stop pretending Deng is on this albatross contract which some team would have to be crazy to take on.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

Wait why would the Wizards trade Howard for Deng? What else are the Bulls giving up?


----------



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

caseyrh said:


> I'm sorry but Hedo and Deng are not on "similar talent levels".
> 
> Lets see one guy plays bad D. Averages 11 and 5 on 41% shooting. and is 30 years old.
> 
> ...


Deng has 4/52 remaining. He's a nice defensive roleplayer that's an OK offensive player. Not great. Not even really good. Just OK. He can finally hit wide open corner threes. And that's about it for his skill as a shooter. If you have a point guard that can get out in transition he can pick up a lot of points at the rim. He's a nice garbageman. But he's on a long-term near max deal and not really a near-max talent. There's just no way that a team losing a franchise player is going to agree to a four year cap hit for the privilege of losing a great player. It's just not happening.



Dre™ said:


> Wait why would the Wizards trade Howard for Deng? What else are the Bulls giving up?


The article seems to suggest the 17th pick. Which won't be enough (as I stated earlier).


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Deng has 4/52 remaining. He's a nice defensive roleplayer that's an OK offensive player. Not great. Not even really good. Just OK. He can finally hit wide open corner threes. And that's about it for his skill as a shooter. If you have a point guard that can get out in transition he can pick up a lot of points at the rim. He's a nice garbageman. But he's on a long-term near max deal and not really a near-max talent. There's just no way that a team losing a franchise player is going to agree to a four year cap hit for the privilege of losing a great player. It's just not happening.


You knock Deng's shooting and yet he is regarded as one of the best mid range shooters in the game...

Deng is close to an elite defender and there are stats that back that up. Most elite defenders are terrible offensive players. Deng averages 18 a game with a very respectable 47% fg%. Argue all you want but that is far from OK. That is well above average. In fact good for 33rd in the NBA. Meaning he is one of the top second offensive options in the NBA.
Deng is also the 3rd best rebounder at his position.

And this is for a player who's biggest strength is D.

The only legitamate knock on Deng is that he has been injury prone. But his talent level and production should not be questioned.

If we are to add a big time scorer then Deng would be a phenomenal fit. If we added one of the big three than Deng would add more value to this team then anyone outside of the big 3. I guarantee you Deng would Help the Bulls win more than Boozer, Lee, Joe Johnson, Amare, etc...

Also when I think Of max type players I am thinking of guys like Lebron that are averaging well over 20 mil over the course of their contract.

That is a far cry from the remaining 13 mil that Deng will average.

So I'm not sure how that is considered "near max"

That's like saying Deng is on a near vet minimum contract.


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

E.H. Munro said:


> * Chicago might be able to fob one or the other off on Washington by throwing in JJ & #17, but that's a dicey proposition.*


I don't see that happening at all. Wizards already have a glut of guards as it is with Wall, Arenas, and Young and whoever they end up drafting with their 30th pick and late 2nd rounder so there's no point bringing in Hinrich.

Deng would be a nice piece but he's not really a bargain at his contract and it could interfere keeping the Wizards core together if guys like Blatche, McGee, and Young pan out. The Wizards would be more likely to use that cap space to go after Rudy Gay IMO (and I don't see that as a likely scenario either).

Finally, I don't see the Wizards gift wrapping the Bulls an opportunity to get 2 max players.


----------



## BullySixChicago (Jun 8, 2010)

It ins't about what the Raps will take its about what Bosh wants if he desires to play with the Bulls then the Raps have to either accept what the Bulls are offering or Bosh would accept the 5 year deal and the Raps get nothing. Bosh is the key here not the raptors. Bosh wants the 6 year deal which makes sense, but the raptors can hold up that deal if they feel they are not getting value from losing Bosh but the raps are taking a chance that bosh will not accept that 5 year deal. The raps want Noah for Bosh Bulls are not biting on that do do, I say Bosh will have to make a decision not the raps. Just think what team out there has what the Bulls have in order to get bosh? Knicks, Heat, Rockets would the nets give up their young players how about the clips would they give up players that would make them weaker again I say the raps have no leverage Bosh has all the leverage


----------



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

caseyrh said:


> You knock Deng's shooting and yet he is regarded as one of the best mid range shooters in the game...


He's never really wowed me with his mid-range shooting, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and checked his shot charts. He shoots .399 from mid-range. Now maybe the NBA really sucks more than my eyes tell me and sub-.400 shooting from the mid range really is _teh ossum_, but I have a sneaking suspicion that I could find _at least_ ten starters that shoot better in that range. 



caseyrh said:


> The only legitamate knock on Deng is that he has been injury prone. But his talent level and production should not be questioned.


What's being questioned is his contract. You _do_ understand that losing LeBron, Wade, or means that Cleveland, Miami, and Toronto are in full rebuild mode, right? So why would _any_ of those teams want a long-term near-max contract that actually retards their rebuilding process? They won't. And that, in a nutshell, is why Chicago is trying to trade him now.



caseyrh said:


> I guarantee you Deng would Help the Bulls win more than Boozer, Lee, Joe Johnson, Amare, etc...


Not if you need a power forward he won't.



caseyrh said:


> Also when I think Of max type players I am thinking of guys like Lebron that are averaging well over 20 mil over the course of their contract.
> 
> That is a far cry from the remaining 13 mil that Deng will average.


You understand that those $20 million guys are franchise players, right? And that taking back Deng would hamper those teams from recovering from the loss, right? You're asking the Cavs to spend $70 million to lose half their franchise value and tens of millions in ticket revenue. What's in that exchange for them?



caseyrh said:


> So I'm not sure how that is considered "near max"


The max contract for people coming off their rookie deal averages around $16 million, meaning that Deng's contract is an 80% max deal. That should be pretty basic math.


----------



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

BullySixChicago said:


> It ins't about what the Raps will take its about what Bosh wants if he desires to play with the Bulls then the Raps have to either accept what the Bulls are offering or Bosh would accept the 5 year deal and the Raps get nothing.


Bosh will not leave a single dime on the table. So Chicago needs to work out a sign & trade anyway. If Chicago insists on Toronto eating their bad deals they'll simply say "Go ahead, sign with Chicago for less" and Bosh will end up signing with another team willing give Toronto a traded player exception. If Chicago blinks and does the sign & trade for nothing in exchange, aside from a valuable TPE, and then goes after LeBron or Wade, or Joe Johnson, or whoever, and tells the other team "You have to take Deng or your superstar is signing a three year sub-max deal with us!" I'll guarantee you that the other GM will still be laughing when he hangs up the phone.




f22egl said:


> I don't see that happening at all. Wizards already have a glut of guards as it is with Wall, Arenas, and Young and whoever they end up drafting with their 30th pick and late 2nd rounder so there's no point bringing in Hinrich.
> 
> Deng would be a nice piece but he's not really a bargain at his contract and it could interfere keeping the Wizards core together if guys like Blatche, McGee, and Young pan out. The Wizards would be more likely to use that cap space to go after Rudy Gay IMO (and I don't see that as a likely scenario either).
> 
> Finally, I don't see the Wizards gift wrapping the Bulls an opportunity to get 2 max players.


I pretty much agree with this. As I said in that other thread, you guys have enough roleplayers, you need to use the cap space on better starters.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Deng's salary just isn't that out of line with comparable players... I posted this in May:



me said:


> Are there many people averaging over 17 and 7 who are paid substantially less?
> 
> Who are we comparing Deng to, exactly?
> 
> ...


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> He's never really wowed me with his mid-range shooting, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and checked his shot charts. He shoots .399 from mid-range. Now maybe the NBA really sucks more than my eyes tell me and sub-.400 shooting from the mid range really is _teh ossum_, but I have a sneaking suspicion that I could find _at least_ ten starters that shoot better in that range. .



Look I have never looked up the stats on his midrange game. All I was basing my comment on is that every other Bulls game I watch the commentator says something like "Deng is one of the best mid range shooters in the NBA". It is a very common sentiment throughout the league.
That being said I looked up the Mid Range shooting of a couple guys that I consider to have great mid range games: Paul Pierce=.391 and Richard Hamilton=.426. I didn't even bother calculating it for other guys. But if Deng is in a similar range as those guys than let's not pretend he is not a good shooter. Which was your original point... you said this: "He can finally hit wide open corner threes. And that's about it for his skill as a shooter." Meaning you were wrong. Now you are trying to argue that he is not elite which is changing your original remark. If he is mereley above average than that is a strength.


> What's being questioned is his contract. You _do_ understand that losing LeBron, Wade, or means that Cleveland, Miami, and Toronto are in full rebuild mode, right? So why would _any_ of those teams want a long-term near-max contract that actually retards their rebuilding process? They won't. And that, in a nutshell, is why Chicago is trying to trade him now.


You continuing to use "near max" is ridiculous, all it is doing is showing a ton of bias. Obviously if there are guys making 23 mil in the NBA and Deng is making 11 next year then he is not "near max".


> Not if you need a power forward he won't.


If we get say Lebron.
Than we will get around 50 points a game out of Lebron and Rose, another say 15 out of Deng, 10 out of Noah, 10 out of an expensive roleplayer we sign and start, about 15 out of Hinrich+Gibson. That adds up to 100 points right there. And that's only are top 7. Add in a few other guys that contribute a bit and you are talking about a team that is very strong defensiveley and rebounding and averaging over a 100 points a game. Why would we need to spend more money on an expensive pureley offensive player? Especcially since those guys need the ball a lot more than Deng. 




> You understand that those $20 million guys are franchise players, right? And that taking back Deng would hamper those teams from recovering from the loss, right? You're asking the Cavs to spend $70 million to lose half their franchise value and tens of millions in ticket revenue. What's in that exchange for them?


look I don't want to trade Deng. And I think you are seriously underrating the guy. That being said the Cavs arent going to get anything back for Lebron regardless. What you think Lebron's going to a team that has to give up it's best player. Not happenning.



> The max contract for people coming off their rookie deal averages around $16 million, meaning that Deng's contract is an 80% max deal. That should be pretty basic math


What does them coming off a rookie contract have to do with it? There are three different types of max contracts. Why use the cheapest type of "max contract" unless you are intentionally being misleading. Are you impling that Deng should have less value than other players because he is younger? Bad logic. 

Anyways, that is the cheapest type of max contract. And it is still significantly more than what Deng makes. But just to put it in perspective. Joe Johnson will likeley average much more than 16 mil per on his next contract. And yet Deng scores 83% as much as Joe Johnson and is a much better rebounder and Defender. So even if you only consider scoring, than 83% has to be near max talent, if 80% is the bench mark for near max "contract". Just simple math.


----------



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

caseyrh said:


> Look I have never looked up the stats on his midrange game. All I was basing my comment on is that every other Bulls game I watch the commentator says something like "Deng is one of the best mid range shooters in the NBA". It is a very common sentiment throughout the league.
> That being said I looked up the Mid Range shooting of a couple guys that I consider to have great mid range games: Paul Pierce=.391 and Richard Hamilton=.426. I didn't even bother calculating it for other guys.


Pierce isn't a great example to use as he was injured for much of this season and shooting less. In 2009 he shot .444 in the mid range. This year he took a lot more spot up treys and scored more garbage buckets.



caseyrh said:


> You continuing to use "near max" is ridiculous, all it is doing is showing a ton of bias. Obviously if there are guys making 23 mil in the NBA and Deng is making 11 next year then he is not "near max".


Deng received a contract that was 80% of the max, I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.



caseyrh said:


> look I don't want to trade Deng. And I think you are seriously underrating the guy. That being said the Cavs arent going to get anything back for Lebron regardless. What you think Lebron's going to a team that has to give up it's best player. Not happenning.


Let me try this another way, and see if this penetrates. _A team losing a franchise player either wants a young player on the road to stardom or nothing except a traded player exception and draft picks_. They have no need for expensive roleplayers on long term deals. Those guys reduce a team's chances in the lottery without giving them the hope that they'll ever get anywhere. When that expensive roleplayer is on a long term deal, they're even less desirable because they eat up valuable cap space while not providing any serious trade value. 

Guys like Deng are the antithesis of what teams are looking for in sign & trade scenarios. Sure, there's a chance that they win the Powerball and get the chance to draft Derek Rose. But the odds are decidedly against the team with the ninth worst record jumping to the head of the line (and that's before addressing the fact that you need to do it in the right year).



caseyrh said:


> What does them coming off a rookie contract have to do with it?


Because the max is limited by years of service, so the max value of a second contract is less than the max value of a third. Deng received 80% of the max available contract when he signed his deal. Hence my observation that he's on a near-max deal. What players with more service time are getting is irrelevant when discussing Deng.


----------



## Vuchato (Jan 14, 2006)

Dornado said:


> Deng's salary just isn't that out of line with comparable players... I posted this in May:


There are really three types of guys on that list though. All stars (which Deng is not), expiring contracts (which Deng is not), and contracts no one would take on, especially those who have the cap space to take him on outright this offseason, who have bigger dreams.

Just look at Beasley in Miami, his contract costs about a third of Dengs, and has a much higher upside, and Miami can't find anyone willing to take him on.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

a respected poster on a message board that will go un-named is reporting rumors of an offer from Orlando that would send Gortat and Pietrus to Chicago for Deng... obviously just a rumor, but interesting.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Because the max is limited by years of service, so the max value of a second contract is less than the max value of a third. Deng received 80% of the max available contract when he signed his deal. Hence my observation that he's on a near-max deal.* What players with more service time are getting is irrelevant when discussing Deng*.



No it's not. Comparing Deng to what guys coming off of rookie contracts is irrelevant. Because it has nothing to with whether or not Deng has a bad contract. You continuing to use this logic is baffling. So you want me to believe that Deng's contract is only relative to what other players of his experience can make? Why? How does that determine whther or not Deng is being grossly overpayed? 

Basically what you are saying is that if Deng was five years older or 29. Than him averaging 17 mil over the next 4 years is the same as him averaging 13 mil as a 24 year old over the next 4 years. Because 17 mil would be about 80% of the max contract at that experience level. It is absoluteley flawed logic. You cant be that dense to actually believe that Deng's true value should be _lower_ money because he is _younger_. This is a perfect example of a poster finding a loophole that defies all logic to argue a ridiculous point.

The only way to determine if Deng is overpayed is to comare his contract against other similar players that are not on the rookie scale. Like Dornado did.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Vuchato said:


> There are really three types of guys on that list though. All stars (which Deng is not), expiring contracts (which Deng is not), and contracts no one would take on, especially those who have the cap space to take him on outright this offseason, who have bigger dreams.
> 
> Just look at Beasley in Miami, his contract costs about a third of Dengs, and has a much higher upside, and Miami can't find anyone willing to take him on.


Beasley is on a rookie contract. Terrible example.
Edit Beasley is also a mental midget and a drug addict. And plays zero defense, can't rebound, and doesn't score as much as Deng. And his contract is not a third of Deng's anyways.

And yet I guarantee you there are a number of teams in the league that would gladly add Beasley to their roster.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Dornado said:


> a respected poster on a message board that will go un-named is reporting rumors of an offer from Orlando that would send Gortat and Pietrus to Chicago for Deng... obviously just a rumor, but interesting.


that would be an absoluteley horrible deal for the bulls. I don't understand that one.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

caseyrh said:


> Beasley is on a rookie contract. Terrible example.


You can't be serious. First you say he has no logic by comparing Deng to only guys on his contract level (meaning 2nd contract) and then proceed in the next post to say you can't compare to Beasley because he's on a rookie contract? Same god damn thing! Just one works in your favor, so therefore you choose to roll with it right?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Dornado said:


> a respected poster on a message board that will go un-named is reporting rumors of an offer from Orlando that would send Gortat and Pietrus to Chicago for Deng... obviously just a rumor, but interesting.


Would we be getting cap relief, and/or a pick back with that?


----------



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

Dornado said:


> a respected poster on a message board that will go un-named is reporting rumors of an offer from Orlando that would send Gortat and Pietrus to Chicago for Deng... obviously just a rumor, but interesting.


Now that's a trade that I can see, Orlando wants to improve on the wing and Deng is a clear upgrade over Pietrus & Barnes, and Gortat is extraneous in Orlando and would really help the Bulls. 



caseyrh said:


> No it's not. Comparing Deng to what guys coming off of rookie contracts is irrelevant. Because it has nothing to with whether or not Deng has a bad contract.


I'm not "comparing Deng" to anyone. I'm commenting on the reality that teams about to lose their franchise player have zero interest in expensive roleplayers on long-term deals because it in no way helps their rebuilding plans. This is doubly true of the two players that Bulls fans have been discussing here (Bosh & James) because the Raptors & the Cadavaliers already have payrolls cluttered by those sorts of contracts.

The only "comparing" being done is the person comparing the annual average salary of Deng's remaining contract to the face value on the outyear of players with more service time. No **** that max players on their second or third contract make more than a guy coming off his rookie one. Especially if we're comparing the average salary of the lower priced contract with the last year salary of the more expensive one. Hey, Kobe makes a whole lot more than Dwight Howard or Chris Paul, they must not be max players!



caseyrh said:


> Beasley is on a rookie contract. Terrible example.


Actually, given the thread's topic it's entirely relevant. If Miami can't give away a high upside player on a rookie deal, going into the gold rush of 2010, what chance do the Bulls have of giving away someone on a much more expensive deal?


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> You can't be serious. First you say he has no logic by comparing Deng to only guys on his contract level (meaning 2nd contract) and then proceed in the next post to say you can't compare to Beasley because he's on a rookie contract? Same god damn thing! Just one works in your favor, so therefore you choose to roll with it right?


You don't get it? Basically all productive players that are on rookie contracts are underpayed... It is a given. You can only compare Deng to other guys that signed after their rookie contracts. Because that is when teams try and evaluate what a player is actually worth and then pay him according to his true value. Then there is a cap to how much they can pay him so that there is a chance that someone is more valuable than what you can pay them in that case the various max scales come into play. but Deng did not receive a max deal. he got what he got. Which was the Bulls opinion of his true value. Whether or not he had x amount of experience has nothing to do with him because he didnt get the max deal get it. Compare him to guys that are not on rookie contracts and then find out whether or not his value is in line with his peers.

For example Rose would get a max deal if he were a FA right now. His Rookie contract has nothing to do with what he would get on the open market.


----------



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

What does Beasley being under_paid_ have to do with Vuchato's point that the Bulls are unlikely to find someone willing to take Deng off their hands to help them sign two max players because the Heat are unable to trade a lower-priced player with more upside for the same reason? If anything the fact that Beasley is underpaid underscores his point that teams value capspace more highly this summer. (Also what Rose can receive on the open market is dictated by the year in which he signs his new contract, max deals are a percentage of the available salary cap and are limited by years of service time.)


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> I'm not "comparing Deng" to anyone.


Your implying that Deng is on a terrible deal and that he has no value ebcause of his contract. and then comparing him to near max contract players and saying his talent is not in line with those guys.

This is preciseley what you are doing and calling him a "near max" player is the type of misleading lingo that guys like DaBabyBullz are suckers for. 
It has nothing to do with true value. Personally I'd rather have a 24 year old than a 34 year old. But the NBA's pay scale doesn't reflect that.



> The only "comparing" being done is the person comparing the annual average salary of Deng's remaining contract to the face value on the outyear of players with more service time. No **** that max players on their second or third contract make more than a guy coming off his rookie one. Especially if we're comparing the average salary of the lower priced contract with the last year salary of the more expensive one. Hey, Kobe makes a whole lot more than Dwight Howard or Chris Paul, they must not be max players!


But guess what genius... Deng didn't get a max deal. So calling him a "near max" guy because he gets 80 percent of the cheapest max contract is simply misleading. Max implies, the most money you can pay someone, 16 mil avg is not the most you can pay someone. Look around the league there are a lot of guys out there making more than 16 mil. You are only misleading the casual fans that know nothing about the intricacies of NBA contracts. I know a little so you aren't confusing me. Deng got what our team determined his value to be. And as Dornado clearly pointed out. That is right in line with what the rest of the league pays guys like Deng. 



> Actually, given the thread's topic it's entirely relevant. If Miami can't give away a high upside player on a rookie deal, going into the gold rush of 2010, what chance do the Bulls have of giving away someone on a much more expensive deal?


First of all you must have missed my addition to the post. Regardless Because some poster says the Heat can't give away Beasley it is true? But anyways there are a whole host of problems with Beasley that make him a unique case. The fact that the guy is spending his summers in a drug rehab facility could be a reason right? Maybe his multiple personality disorder is scaring some teams away.

but regardless the rumors I heard regarding beasley always had Miami getting something of value back in return. Like Stoudamire for example. that is hardly like saying Miami can't "give away" Beasley.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> What does Beasley being under_paid_ have to do with Vuchato's point that the Bulls are unlikely to find someone willing to take Deng off their hands to help them sign two max players because the Heat are unable to trade a lower-priced player with more upside for the same reason? If anything the fact that Beasley is underpaid underscores his point that teams value capspace more highly this summer.


Dude you are ridiculous. You have completeley failed to understand the arguement here and insted are just focusing on little tiny meaningless points, taking them out of context and then arguing them. In order to win them

My point about Beasley's being underpayed for his production is a fact. It was also in response to DaBabyBullz comment about that I should compare a guy not on a rookie contract to someone who is on a rookie contract, when determining their value. Everyone know that as soon as productive players get off their rookie contracts they get significant salary increases.

Also Vuchatoe or you implying that the Heat can not give away Besley is simply opinion not fact. And if it is true it has nothing to do with his production and everything to do with the fact that Beasley is a drug addict and nutcase. Probably about the worst and most biased arguement you could make.


> (Also what Rose can receive on the open market is dictated by the year in which he signs his new contract, max deals are a percentage of the available salary cap and are limited by years of service time.)


Hypothetical guy. You didn't understand the point that productive rookies are underpayed and not a good example of what someone who is not on a rookie contract should make??? Meaningless and silly arguement.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Dornado said:


> a respected poster on a message board that will go un-named is reporting rumors of an offer from Orlando that would send Gortat and Pietrus to Chicago for Deng... obviously just a rumor, but interesting.


Can't figure out why we would trade for two guys, that combined can't out produce the one guy we are trading, and don't give us any salary cap relief.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> Can't figure out why we would trade for two guys, that combined can't out produce the one guy we are trading, and don't give us any salary cap relief.


I don't know... it obviously makes sense if you can land Lebron in free agency... otherwise it's a tough call for me. I do like Gortat


----------



## Vuchato (Jan 14, 2006)

caseyrh said:


> Also Vuchatoe or you implying that the Heat can not give away Besley is simply opinion not fact. And if it is true it has nothing to do with his production and everything to do with the fact that Beasley is a drug addict and nutcase. Probably about the worst and most biased arguement you could make.


I was going off the reports that Miami offered Beasley for Keyon Dooling's non-guaranteed deal so they would only be paying 500k instead of Beasley's entire deal. New Jersey turned it down, and assuming Riley was looking to get rid of Beasley to get as far under the cap as possible, which is really the only reason they would make that offer, you would have to assume the Heat would be offering Beasley to every team under the cap for just a trade exception, and since no deal has been made yet, you would have to assume they were unable to give Beasley away, assuming the initial report was true.



caseyrh said:


> Hypothetical guy. You didn't understand the point that productive rookies are underpayed and not a good example of what someone who is not on a rookie contract should make??? Meaningless and silly arguement.


I honestly cannot argue against this, since I have no idea what you are trying to argue at this point. Are you saying that the only reason Deng seems overpaid in comparison to Beasley is because Beasley is on his rookie deal? While that may be true, that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. I'm saying that you will probably be unable to find someone willing to take on Deng for his current deal if no one is willing to take on Beasley for his current deal.


----------



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

caseyrh said:


> Dude you are ridiculous. You have completeley failed to understand the arguement here and insted are just focusing on little tiny meaningless points, taking them out of context and then arguing them. In order to win them


Did you read the thread title? Have you been following the conversation? Apparently not. Bulls fans have been talking about Deng's contract bringing them a franchise player in return. Or, alternatively, that the Bulls should have no problems moving Deng at all. Vuchato pointed out that if the Heat can't move Beasley for nothing heading into this summer, then the Bulls are unlikely to have more luck with a higher priced player, which point you called ridiculous. You're wrong, admit it and move on.



caseyrh said:


> Also Vuchatoe or you implying that the Heat can not give away Besley is simply opinion not fact. And if it is true it has nothing to do with his production and everything to do with the fact that Beasley is a drug addict and nutcase. Probably about the worst and most biased arguement you could make.


Vuchato wasn't stating an opinion, he was referencing the various news stories about the Heat trying to trade Beasley for an expiring deal with no luck.



caseyrh said:


> Hypothetical guy. You didn't understand the point that productive rookies are underpayed and not a good example of what someone who is not on a rookie contract should make??? Meaningless and silly arguement.


I have no idea what you're talking about here, and I suspect that you don't either. The rest of us are discussing the thread's topic, and the thought that the Bulls are trying to convince someone to take Deng without sending back salary by using the 17th pick as bait. Please try to at least relate your increasingly outlandish posts to that point.



caseyrh said:


> Can't figure out why we would trade for two guys, that combined can't out produce the one guy we are trading, and don't give us any salary cap relief.


Because Gortat provides the Bulls with a competent post defender, freeing up Noah to concentrate on his role as primary help defender, and it's a hell of a lot easier to give away a player making MLE money than someone on a near-max deal.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Did you read the thread title? Have you been following the conversation? Apparently not. Bulls fans have been talking about Deng's contract bringing them a franchise player in return. Or, alternatively, that the Bulls should have no problems moving Deng at all. .



What we have been arguing about is whether or not Deng is grossly overpaid to the point where he can now be considered a "bad contract" I have been arguing that Deng is not grossly overpayed. Whether or not Deng is a piece the Raptors would be willing to move Bosh for is pureley speculation and is dependent on what the raptors are looking for. You do not know nor do i. What I do know is that it wouldn't be about us getting rid of "our bad deals".



> Vuchato pointed out that if the Heat can't move Beasley for nothing heading into this summer, then the Bulls are unlikely to have more luck with a higher priced player, which point you called ridiculous. You're wrong, admit it and move on


Vuchato chose probably the craziezt player in the NBA. Trying to make the point that if Beasley can't be traded then Deng couldn't either. As any sane person could tell you the Beasley is a unique case of a player who is reportedly a drug addict, suicidal, and is not mentally sound.
That is a far cry from Deng and if you guys cannot understand the differences.



> Vuchato wasn't stating an opinion, he was referencing the various news stories about the Heat trying to trade Beasley for an expiring deal with no luck.


I wonder why... an undersized strictly scoring pf who doesn't rebound, plays no d, is a drug addict, suicidal, and has major issues with his management. Can't believe the heat might struggle to trade him. Shocking. Funny thing is I bet they still get rid of him in spite of his unparalleled pile of problems. Still can't figure out that is a good arguement for Deng being completeley untradeable.




> I have no idea what you're talking about here, and I suspect that you don't either. The rest of us are discussing the thread's topic, and the thought that the Bulls are trying to convince someone to take Deng without sending back salary by using the 17th pick as bait. Please try to at least relate your increasingly outlandish posts to that point.


I already addressed this earlier in the thread and made these comments:


> I just can't see how this would work.
> 
> It seems like an awfully big deal (hinrich or Deng) to hinge on the 17th overall pick. Plus can we even take back no salary in a deal like that. I guess I just don't see it working. But if possible I would love to move Hinrich in a deal like that. Deng not so much.


and earlier in regards to the thread I wrote this:


> I wonder if what he is really trying to do is just move JJ and the pick. Not Hinrich or Deng and the pick like we are assuming. JJ and the pick would free up an additional 3 mil.
> 
> Now even though that is not gonna give us the amount needed to bring in a second max. It is a significant amount when your talking about what type of role players we can bring in.
> To me if we could trade that pick plus JJ and receive an average teams first round pick next year and maybe a second round pick this year. I think I'd do it.


Those are my comments on the thread topic. 

However we have been now arguing about Deng's contract... I am surprised that you were unaware of this. Anyways didn't know you were the thread topic police. And that I cannot slightly stray from the topic on the 4th page.



> Because Gortat provides the Bulls with a competent post defender, freeing up Noah to concentrate on his role as primary help defender, and it's a hell of a lot easier to give away a player making MLE money than someone on a near-max deal.


Only scenario that it makes any sense is in the event that we sign Lebron. Because then it opens up our SF spot and gives us 2 roleplayers that might be able to start around Rose, Noah, and Lebron.

however it is a terrible deal talent wise. And I would pass on that deal quickly. I'm in no rush to trade borderline all stars for average role players.


----------



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

caseyrh said:


> What we have been arguing about is whether or not Deng is grossly overpaid to the point where he can now be considered a "bad contract"


No, we're not. You may be, but that's your problem. No one else is, and no one else cares how much you love Deng, because it simply isn't pertinent to this conversation.



caseyrh said:


> Vuchato chose probably the craziezt player in the NBA. Trying to make the point that if Beasley can't be traded then Deng couldn't either. As any sane person could tell you the Beasley is a unique case of a player who is reportedly a drug addict, suicidal, and is not mentally sound.


Again, not really relevant to what we're discussing. I understand that you're throwing as much sand in the air as you can to derail the conversation, but we're discussing how teams value capspace at this present moment. And they value the capspace more highly than a player that you're calling grossly underpaid in one breath and grossly overpaid in the next.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> No, we're not. You may be, but that's your problem. No one else is, and no one else cares how much you love Deng, because it simply isn't pertinent to this conversation.


Hilarious how you are unaware of the discussion we have been having on Deng and yet you took the time to calculate his mid-range shooting percentage and compare to paul pierce's number's of 2 years ago. If you aren't interested in discussing whether or not Deng is a good player than why are you busy disecting his stats. 
And I still don't understand how whether or not Deng is worth his contract, is not pertinent to this conversation. It is almost the whole point of the topic (and Hinrich). Because if Deng is worth his contract he is an asset. If he is grossly overpaid than he is a liability. Which is pretty much the whole point of this thread. Of course I'm not surprised this is over your head. What I am surprised is that you have been arguing that he is a liability this whole time, while I have been arguing the opposite and yet you are completeley unaware of this discussion.




> Again, not really relevant to what we're discussing.


How is me pointing out that Beasley has an almost unheard of amount of baggage not relevant to his value??? 


> And they value the capspace more highly than a player that you're calling grossly underpaid in one breath and grossly overpaid in the next


What I said is that because Beasley is on a rookie contract he is outproducing his contract. But I also said that the issue with Beasley is not his production, it is the fact that he is a complete head case. Are you not aware of this??? Did you not realize that he spent his summer in a drug rehab clinic? Can you not realize that Beasley could produce on the court above his contract, but the ridiculous and extremeley rare amount of off-the court problems that Beasley has is what scares teams away.

I'm done with you, Go troll on another teams board.


----------



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

caseyrh said:


> Hilarious how you are unaware of the discussion we have been having on Deng and yet you took the time to calculate his mid-range shooting percentage and compare to paul pierce's number's of 2 years ago. If you aren't interested in discussing whether or not Deng is a good player than why are you busy disecting his stats.


Pierce's numbers of two years ago just involved my looking at my spreadsheet for the '09 Celtics. And the rest of us most certainly aren't discussing Deng's _ossumness_, merely the realistic odds of Chicago moving his salary for nothing, opening up the space for the Bulls to sign two max players, or the odds that a team losing a franchise player would take back Deng's contract. The rest of your horsepuckey is irrelevant to the discussion.



caseyrh said:


> And I still don't understand how whether or not Deng is worth his contract, is not pertinent to this conversation.


Then allow me to enlighten you, why would the Cadavaliers add yet another expensive roleplayer to their vast collection of expensive roleplayers for the privilege of losing a quarter billion or so? See, this is the question, is a team willing to sacrifice cap space and the opportunity to sign someone else for Deng?



caseyrh said:


> How is me pointing out that Beasley has an almost unheard of amount of baggage not relevant to his value???


Beasley has considerably less baggage than say, Ron Artest. He smokes weed, like 80% of the NBA. If he's a "drug addict" then so are the Los Angeles Lakers. Hell, given that he's only got one weed incident on his record, he carries less baggage than Lamar "Two Strikes" Odom and his husband, Princess Fiona Kardashian. Far from being some heavily armed psycho on the verge of going on a shooting spree after snorting three keys of coke, he's just another young player with a lot of warts in his game and a lot of untapped upside. But, teams aren't willing to commit cap space to him going into free agency, because they value the cap space more highly at the moment.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Then allow me to enlighten you, why would the Cadavaliers add yet another expensive roleplayer to their vast collection of expensive roleplayers for the privilege of losing a quarter billion or so? See, this is the question, is a team willing to sacrifice cap space and the opportunity to sign someone else for Deng?
> .


I didn't know the cavaliers were the crux of this arguement... It's good that you can interpret a vague point in the OP to connect specifically to the Cavs. Silly. Here is the OP again:



Ragingbull33 said:


> The Bulls have a lot of cap room this offseason, but they're looking to increase it by trading their first round pick (No. 17) in the draft and another player.
> 
> Bulls general manager Gar Forman told Adam Fluck of Bulls.com that he's had talks with other teams about the pick, but trading it by itself is "not significant enough" to make a deal.
> 
> ...


Please point to the part that discusses the Cavs, in a sign and trade for Deng. Hilarious how off base you are considering you are the stay on topic thread nazi.



> Beasley has considerably less baggage than say, Ron Artest. He smokes weed, like 80% of the NBA. If he's a "drug addict" then so are the Los Angeles Lakers. Hell, given that he's only got one weed incident on his record, he carries less baggage than Lamar "Two Strikes" Odom and his husband, Princess Fiona Kardashian. Far from being some heavily armed psycho on the verge of going on a shooting spree after snorting three keys of coke, he's just another young player with a lot of warts in his game and a lot of untapped upside. But, teams aren't willing to commit cap space to him going into free agency, because they value the cap space more highly at the moment.


You are Naive and ignorant of the situation:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ba...asley-s-controversial-photo-Bi?urn=nba,184660 
Go check out that link. This is a photo he released... There is weed and coke in the photo. He then posts a tweets a potentially suicidal message.


> 'Y do I feel like the whole world is against me!!!!!!! Back on my FTW!!!!! I can't win for losin!!!!!!!!!!' ... *'Feelin like it's not worth livin*!!!!!!! I'm done' ... 'not feelin this at all!!!!!'"


Then quickly goes to a drug rehab facility. And yet you believe he is just a guy smoking a little weed??? Ok guy.

You lose... now go away.


----------



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

caseyrh said:


> I didn't know the cavaliers were the crux of this arguement.


He isn't. The crux of the _argument_ was "Are the Bulls attempting to use the 17th pick to tempt someone into eating Deng's contract". You've been tossing **** into the air three ways from Tuesday because your Deng love is leading you to argue his status as an expensive roleplayer. Your histrionic convolutions over Beasley have been pretty funny, though,


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> He isn't. The crux of the _argument_ was "Are the Bulls attempting to use the 17th pick to tempt someone into eating Deng's contract". You've been tossing **** into the air three ways from Tuesday because your Deng love is leading you to argue his status as an expensive roleplayer. Your histrionic convolutions over Beasley have been pretty funny, though,


:clap:


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Would we be getting cap relief, and/or a pick back with that?


Sam Smith poo-poos the trade in his letters column.



> Im sure you've gotten emails about this already, but realgm has a rumor in the message boards that Orlando is offering Gortat and Pietrus for Deng. If you were the Bulls wouldn't you jump on this deal?
> 
> Mark Dittmeier
> 
> Sam: That doesn’t sound like any real GM to me. There’s zero to it, but like in life, if something seems too good, aren’t you supposed to be suspicious? I guess that’s also why we had such a financial crisis. Too many people believe what they hope is real. Deng’s no giveaway in my mind, but look at it this way: Orlando is paying Rashard Lewis, who really is a small forward, about $19 million. So they’re going to give up their best reserve big man and their best defensive two for another three while probably letting go Matt Barnes because they don’t want to pay him and he makes $1.6 million. Yeah, makes a lot of sense. No, it’s never been discussed or even broached.


Honestly, my first reaction was, they already have Lewis. But I guess if you view Lewis and Deng as 3-4's but with different games, I can see the idea behind it for Orlando. I don't know Gortat well enough to know if he is worth it, and Pietrus has never been a regular. Still, it is some value for pieces that could be moved later for more space. One thought that was compelling was that having Gortat might possibly make a Noah for Bosh S&T thinkable for the Bulls. Again, I don't know Gortat well enough to say. The other thought that is spicy is that this means the Bulls are quite confident LBJ wants to come....But if this isn't real, then it doesn't mean that. :-(


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Good points Good Hope, and thanks for the link and all. What Sam said is largely what I was thinking, what with their roster and all. Gortat doesn't want to be there, so that's part of why I thought there may be something to it. I don't know Pietrus or Gortat either one that well, but at least they would mean the end of Deng so we could get a real SF instead of an over-paid, injury-prone, soft, pansy.


----------



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

Pity, Gortat on the Bulls would be a huge leg up on taking the next step. If for nothing else than in allowing Chicago to surgically separate Brad Miller from the roster. It would solidify them at the 5 and allow them to concentrate on upgrading the wing spot.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

There's nothing wrong with Brad Miller... sure, he hits the occasional cold streak every once in a while, but as he would say "it can't be peaches and gravy all the time"


----------



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

Dornado said:


> There's nothing wrong with Brad Miller... sure, he hits the occasional cold streak every once in a while, but as he would say "it can't be peaches and gravy all the time"


Not arguing that, just that Gortat is a whole lot better and allows Chicago to concentrate on the 2/3 this offseason.


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

E.H. Munro said:


> Not arguing that, just that Gortat is a whole lot better and allows Chicago to concentrate on the 2/3 this offseason.


Gortat is better at D and rebounding. Brad is a much better scorer and passer. Also he does have a knack for knocking down cluth/big shots as well.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

The way I see it is we have 2 holes in our lineup. 2g and Pf. and we have about 24 mil to spend and a 17th overall pick to address it. Fortunateley for us virtually all of the Max type FA can fill one of our 2 holes. Which means we get one max guy to fill one spot and then we have about 6.5 mil to sign someone to fill the other gap. And that is without trading anyone.

So we could easily add Bradley in the draft, Reddick in FA, Asik, And say Bosh in FA,

So we could easily put together a lineup like this:
Rose 
Reddick
Deng
Bosh
Noah

Bench
Hinrich
Gibson
Bradley
Asik
JJ

Which is a team 10 deep before even adding vet min guys.

I'm not sure how anyone could argue that on a team that deep that you would trade a well above average 2 way starter (Deng) for 2 more much worse roleplayers that would very likeley be bench players. For the same amount of money???

No this is just another bad rumor that would never happen.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Gortat will be getting an average of 7 mil per for the next 4 seasons. He averages 4 points and 4 rebounds per. Thats pretty laughable really. And before you go saying he only plays 13+minutes. Realize his PER is still below average. And typically guys that play limited minutes tend to put up better per minute numbers if they really do deserve more PT, cause they have more energy.


----------



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

TheDarkPrince said:


> Gortat is better at D and rebounding. Brad is a much better scorer and passer. Also he does have a knack for knocking down cluth/big shots as well.


At 34 Brad Miller is pretty close to his expiration date, and is no longer as efficient a scorer as he once was. About all he beats Gortat at is passing these days.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> At 34 Brad Miller is pretty close to his expiration date, and is no longer as efficient a scorer as he once was. About all he beats Gortat at is passing these days.


Miller was a backup for us, I think we could find better uses for 7 mil than a slight upgrade over our 34 year old, declining, ex backup center.


----------



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

Noah's a better primary help defender than post defender, so adding a post defender to free up Noah essentially upgrades the Bulls at two spots. And provides them with a safety net just in case they don't add a prime 4 in free agency.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Noah's a better primary help defender than post defender, so adding a post defender to free up Noah essentially upgrades the Bulls at two spots. And provides them with a safety net just in case they don't add a prime 4 in free agency.


I can not understand how inserting inferior talent into our starting lineup upgrades 2 positions. We have a PF entering his second season that is better than Gortat already. So inserting Gortat into our starting lineup and taking Gibson out of it decreases our talent level in our starting lineup. not to mention we likeley will sign a max forward so Gortat will just be an extremeley expensive 4th big man bench player just like he is right now.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> The way I see it is we have 2 holes in our lineup. 2g and Pf. and we have about 24 mil to spend and a 17th overall pick to address it. Fortunateley for us virtually all of the Max type FA can fill one of our 2 holes. Which means we get one max guy to fill one spot and then we have about 6.5 mil to sign someone to fill the other gap. And that is without trading anyone.
> 
> So we could easily add Bradley in the draft, Reddick in FA, Asik, And say Bosh in FA,
> 
> ...


Reddick starting at the 2 is like having a worse Ben Gordon, heck I think Ben Gordon played better D than Reddick and thats NOT SAYING much at all.

I like the idea of Reddick as an off the bench 3 point shooter but as a starter NO THANKS. 

I would love to trade Deng for a chance at Joe Johnson, the guy can fill two holes. Hes a 3 point threat which is GREATLY needed and hes a scoring machine at the 2.


----------



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

caseyrh said:


> I can not understand how inserting inferior talent into our starting lineup upgrades 2 positions. We have a PF entering his second season that is better than Gortat already. So inserting Gortat into our starting lineup and taking Gibson out of it decreases our talent level in our starting lineup. not to mention we likeley will sign a max forward so Gortat will just be an extremeley expensive 4th big man bench player just like he is right now.


Taj Gibson has one role, the one that Noah's really really good at. To my way of thinking, you don't minimise the impact of your best players to accommodate roleplayers. Gortat increases Noah's impact by letting him play the way Garnett does in Boston (disrupting the passing lanes, cutting off penetration and blocking shots). Gibson isn't some future all-star himself and he's not that much younger than Gortat as there's less than 18 months separating them.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Taj Gibson has one role, the one that Noah's really really good at. To my way of thinking, you don't minimise the impact of your best players to accommodate roleplayers. Gortat increases Noah's impact by letting him play the way Garnett does in Boston (disrupting the passing lanes, cutting off penetration and blocking shots). Gibson isn't some future all-star himself and he's not that much younger than Gortat as there's less than 18 months separating them.



No Gibson is not a future all-star. Gibson should be a very good backup big, not a starter. But the Fact that he is better than Gortat makes it extremeley difficult to sell me on the notion that we should pay Gortat 7 mil per for the next 4 years. 
Especcially when 
A.) He is nowhere close to as good as our current Starting Center, which is the position he plays. 
B.) Our big man at PF has much less professional experience, is younger, much better, and costs a little more than one mil per.
C.) We would be trading a younger, better fit, and borderline all-star at SF to get him ( a position where we have no backup and fewer free agents options to fill) 
D.) We could easily be spending max money on a very good starting PF. Relegating Gortat to our 4th best big man. Which if that occurred would make this deal an absoluteley terrible deal.

If someone gave me the option to trade two older bench players, for one younger borderline all-star sf, and they make the same amount of money. I would tell them they are absoluteley crazy. but I love that people on here actually like this idea because of their unreasonable hatred for Deng.

All you guys that constantly whine about Deng and Hinrich getting paid way too much for their production. Would throw an absolute fit over a guy like Gortat who will be one of our higher paid players and sit on the bench all game.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Reddick starting at the 2 is like having a worse Ben Gordon, heck I think Ben Gordon played better D than Reddick and thats NOT SAYING much at all.
> 
> I like the idea of Reddick as an off the bench 3 point shooter but as a starter NO THANKS.
> 
> I would love to trade Deng for a chance at Joe Johnson, the guy can fill two holes. Hes a 3 point threat which is GREATLY needed and hes a scoring machine at the 2.


reddick has come a long way defensiveley. If you have seen him play lateley you will notice that he actually tries really hard. Which is half the battle. He might not be a stud but he is much better than BG at D.

Me inserting Reddick into the starting lineup is more about fit and less about talent. I think Hinrich with that roster is better off the bench, because he can fill in at both guard positions. Also it puts the Shooter we need into the starting lineup. It's just a better fit overall IMO. Plus Reddick would have a very simple role. try hard on D, and get open and knock down shots on O. He wouldn't have to handle the ball or create for anyone.

I would hate to trade Deng for a chance at Joe johnson.
I think a lot of you guys are overvaluing the value of offense on our team next year. If we add one max guy like Bosh/Lebron/Wade. Then we are talking about Joe Johnson being our 3rd option on offense. His production will drop as a third option and he will get the ball a lot less. Defense and Rebounding are going to be much more important out of that spot. We won't have any problem scoring. I mean honestly Deng's role on offense would bareley change. he would still get his mid range looks, still get his fastbreak buckets, and still get his slashing/put back/garbage buckets around the rim. Joe J on the other hand would have to play a completeley different role. He wouldnt have the ball in his hands nearly as much and thus his production would drop significantly. Deng is suited perfectly to working off the ball playing d and rebounding. He really is the perfect third option. And he is like 6 years younger than JJ.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> caseyrh said:
> 
> 
> > reddick has come a long way defensiveley. If you have seen him play lateley you will notice that he actually tries really hard. Which is half the battle. He might not be a stud but he is much better than BG at D.
> ...


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Ben Gordon is bigger, stronger and quicker. No matter how hard Reddick tries to play defense it doesnt make him a good defender, at the 1 maybe his hard effort is worth it but defending 2's no way.
> .


Ummm Reddick is 3 inches taller than BG. Go check their pre draft measurements...And just because one guy is more athletic doesnt make him a better defender. Neither one of them are great defenders but Reddick does try hard which just by default makes him a bit better.




> A better fit would be a taller 2 who can defend a bit and hit the 3, not a small 2 who cant defend and has battled with inconsistency his entire career.


Yeah but it might not be available to us and my scenario had us signing Bosh which means we wouldnt have much left over to get a tall 2 who can shoot and defend. And say what you want about Reddick but he can flat out shoot and is 6'4 without shoes. Maybe you want a guy that is an inch or 2 taller and plays better D. But you won't get him for 5 mil. And you also won't get a guy who shoots better than Reddick. Reddick would be a great fit with the resources we have. You can't have all-stars at every spot.




> I have to disagree, I dont see how trading away 1 average player for a better player who fills a need is a negative.


I'm not even going to get into a multi post arguement again... But Deng is far from average. A lot of you guys just have no understanding of what other starting sf's in the NBA do. You are blinded by the fact that Deng is not an exciting player, and so a lot of you guys hate on him. 





> Luol Deng puts up ok stats but I have never seen another player that is consistently one of the least most important players on the court.


First of all he puts up very good stats. But If he is so unimportant how come he has by far the best adjusted plus/minus on our team? According to that stat he has the biggest impact of all our players. in fact he leads us in offense, Defense, and Rebounding. In adjusted plus/minus. For example our team gives up 3 fewer points when Deng is on the court, The Hawks give up 4 more points when Joe J is on the court. This is a huge deal.



> Deng cant dribble


Good. He wouldn't be required to either if we add another scorer



> cant shoot 3's


shot 39% last year from 3 and has a good mid range game.



> is just an ok defender


and yet is statistically the best defender on an above average defensive team..



> and is most importantly is not a great fit with Rose


How is a defender/rebounder and one of the highest scoring 2nd options in the NBA, who play O primarily off the ball, not a good fit with Rose? 


> I will agree with you if we do get Bosh and Lebron there is no need for Johnson but I'm under the assumption that Lebron is not coming here, so If thats the case I take Joe over Deng any day of the week but not at a max level


If we get any other Max guy Joe J would not be as good of a fit. The only way he is a bteer fit is if we nothing this offseason and even then Joe J wouldn't be more than a second option. So his stats would still likeley go down.


----------



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

caseyrh said:


> No Gibson is not a future all-star. Gibson should be a very good backup big, not a starter. But the Fact that he is better than Gortat makes it extremeley difficult to sell me on the notion that we should pay Gortat 7 mil per for the next 4 years.


Except that he isn't better than Gortat. He's not much of a post defender, not a terribly good scorer, not even an efficient one. He provides help defense, only not anywhere near as good as Noah. So to use him you reduce Noah's defensive impact. Did you never pay attention to how badly misused Garnett was in Minnesota?


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Except that he isn't better than Gortat. He's not much of a post defender, not a terribly good scorer, not even an efficient one. He provides help defense, only not anywhere near as good as Noah. So to use him you reduce Noah's defensive impact. Did you never pay attention to how badly misused Garnett was in Minnesota?



Statistics would say your wrong. Ill go with the stats and ignore your opinion. Thanks.

And I fail to see how Garnett has anything to do with Noah

Also since I was just looking the adjusted plus minus stats up. I might as well point out that according to that stat Pietrus and Gortat are the 2 worst players on their team.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> Ummm Reddick is 3 inches taller than BG. Go check their pre draft measurements...And just because one guy is more athletic doesnt make him a better defender. Neither one of them are great defenders but Reddick does try hard which just by default makes him a bit better.


I stand corrected on the height but still just because he tries harder doesn't make him a better defender. 



> Yeah but it might not be available to us and my scenario had us signing Bosh which means we wouldnt have much left over to get a tall 2 who can shoot and defend. And say what you want about Reddick but he can flat out shoot and is 6'4 without shoes. Maybe you want a guy that is an inch or 2 taller and plays better D. But you won't get him for 5 mil. And you also won't get a guy who shoots better than Reddick. Reddick would be a great fit with the resources we have. You can't have all-stars at every spot.


He can flat out shoot the 3 this past year, but for the majority of his career hes been no where near the shooter that he was in College. Hes not a good passer, not a good ball handler and not a good defender. If he comes off the bench fine but hes not a great fit outside of an off the bench sniper.



> I'm not even going to get into a multi post arguement again... But Deng is far from average.


Hes pretty average.




> Good. He wouldn't be required to either if we add another scorer


He would not need to score either if we added another scorer so WHY even keep him on the team.... gotta love those 12 million a year SF's who cant dribble. 




> and yet is statistically the best defender on an above average defensive team..


Like I said hes an OK defender, hes not a very good defender but hes decent.



> How is a defender/rebounder and one of the highest scoring 2nd options in the NBA, who play O primarily off the ball, not a good fit with Rose?


Hes terrible on the Pick and Roll, hes not a spot up shooter, he settles for alot of long range shots and when that mid range game is not working for him hes not athletic enough to make a difference when the ball is actually in his hands. 

Listen I'm not saying hes a terrible player, hes just an extremely mediocre one. Like I said MANY times I have never seen another player EVER that puts up good numbers but is far and away the least important player on the court. 

It has nothing to do with the way he play's, to be honest I think teams really dont fear Deng's game. 

Hes just an ok player. Not Horrible but Not great either.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> Hes pretty average.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are entitled to your extremeley biased and not surprisingly entireley unsupported opinion.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

caseyrh said:


> You are entitled to your extremeley biased and not surprisingly entireley unsupported opinion.


How is it biased, you are acting like I'm calling the dude horrible. 

Hes a mediocre player,accept it.

You defend him like hes your babies daddy.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

I'd be interested to know who the majority of Deng detractors would rather see at SF than Deng. By this I mean someone we CAN acquire. Outside of LeBron, I don't know that there is a better option. I'm on board with bringing in LeBron. If LeBron does not choose Chicago, what is plan B?

I'd love for any answers to this question to be free of insult. I'd like a reasonable, practical solution for an SF who will produce better results for the Bull and how we should go about acquiring this player.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> How is it biased, you are acting like I'm calling the dude horrible.


Here is how your opinion is biased. I have spent the time and listed a number of reasons supported by evidence. (meaning statistics) that point to the fact that Deng is actually a very good player. You then decide to ignore the evidence and instead choose a side that is completeley opposite of the facts. This makes you IMO Bias.

for example you say he has no impact:
I then let you know that he has the best adjusted plus minus on our team. 
You ignore it.

That stat is excellent evidence to prove your point completeley wrong. Because if the Bulls do better with Deng in our lineup than any other single player. Than that would mean he is in fact having an impact. 

You choosing to ignore that fact, as well as the host of other good evidence I have supported my arguement with. Suggests bias.

You say he is not a good defender i counter it with stats that say he is, you say he can't shoot 3's I counter it with a stat that says he can.

At some point when all the evidence points to Deng being well above average and you and the rest of anti deng crew ignores it, then you start to look extremeley biased.



> Hes a mediocre player,accept it.


Prove it.

here are the averages (rounded) of the 14,15, and 16th highest scoring sf's: 
11 ppg, .43%fg, 5rpg, 3apg, 

And this is Deng's
18ppg, 47%fg, 7rpg, 2apg


One set is average SF the other is Deng. Please also keep in mind that Deng is also a far superior defender to any of the three guys that made up the middle of the pack sf's (Hill, Turkgolu, Delfino)

Which is better???

So if you agree that Deng has better numbers than them than you agree that Deng is better than average.



> You defend him like hes your babies daddy.


Really funny comment, any time you can work "babies daddy" into a post it's always good for instant comedy.

honestly though I only defend the guy because there are so many Deng haters on here that I feel like someone needs to stick up for the guy. 

Especially when anyone on your side of the arguement never brings anything of value to the discussion. it is always based soleley on your sides personal opinions. Which they can never defend. 

I wish more people on here appreciated more than crossover's and dunks but unfortunateley most of you don't. All to often you guys fail to value defense, rebounding, or the value of the type of simple offense that Deng brings to the table. You would rather watch a crazy turnaround jumber with a hand in his face like Kobe used to shoot over a simple open 18 footer like Deng shoots I get it. His awkward moves turn you off. You want someone sexier. I am more interested in production and guys that will help us win. which is why I will contine to defend Deng against the casual highlight reel basketball fan.


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

E.H. Munro said:


> Except that he isn't better than Gortat. He's not much of a post defender, not a terribly good scorer, not even an efficient one. He provides help defense, only not anywhere near as good as Noah. So to use him you reduce Noah's defensive impact. Did you never pay attention to how badly misused Garnett was in Minnesota?


Gibson is far better than Gortat. He's a better rebounder, and far far better scorer. All rookie team and fifth in rookie of the year voting. Gortat is just some big stiff who will throw down a dunk here and there. I have no clue why you love Gortat so much, because he's really nothing special.

Ps
Gibson played all of last year hurt.


----------



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

caseyrh said:


> Statistics would say your wrong. Ill go with the stats and ignore your opinion. Thanks.


Statistics, including your beloved PER, say no such thing. They do say that Gibson shoots a sub .500 from the floor, has a worse RebRate, defensive RebRate and Block% than Gortat. And, of course, his poor post defense means that Joey Noah has to handle that chore, and reduces his potential impact. But hey, so long as the Bulls don't trade one of the greatest small forwards in NBA history.


----------



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

TheDarkPrince said:


> Gibson is far better than Gortat. He's a better rebounder, and far far better scorer. All rookie team and fifth in rookie of the year voting. Gortat is just some big stiff who will throw down a dunk here and there. I have no clue why you love Gortat so much, because he's really nothing special..


Gibson grabbed a much lower percentage of available rebounds than Gortat did, so I'm not sure how you can call him a better rebounder. Gortat is a post defender, and while it's fashionable to denigrate the skill, it's a necessary one for successful teams to have.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Statistics, including your beloved PER, say no such thing. They do say that Gibson shoots a sub .500 from the floor, has a worse RebRate, defensive RebRate and Block% than Gortat. And, of course, his poor post defense means that Joey Noah has to handle that chore, and reduces his potential impact. But hey, so long as the Bulls don't trade one of the greatest small forwards in NBA history.


PER says Gibson and Gortat are virtually identical. However Gortat also played literally half the minutes that Gibson did.
its easier to give more energy and put up better numbers when you play half as much and almost eclusiveley against the opposing teams second unit. But if you want to ignore that fact than look at adjusted plus minus. Or virtually every other stat.

You have a propensity for choosing terrible arguements.


> Gibson shoots a sub .500 from the floor, has a worse RebRate, defensive RebRate and Block% than Gortat.


Gibson shot .494 btw for anyone confused by how far under .500 he was, and also scored almost three times as many points as gortat. FYI, When players shoot more theyre percentages often go down. Gortat has a surprising low fg%(.533) for a big C that scores 3.6ppg. when you score 3.6 you basically are only shooting layups. As for your rates you are again ignoring the fact that Gortat bareley played and that these rates are very similar anyways. How would his rebounding rate's look if he had to play against a teams best players and play twice as much ?? I think its safe to say they would go down.
but thanks for proving my point... Do you have any other 13 minute per game scrubs you want to hype because their rates are similar to a starters?


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> Gibson grabbed a much lower percentage of available rebounds than Gortat did, so I'm not sure how you can call him a better rebounder. Gortat is a post defender, and while it's fashionable to denigrate the skill, it's a necessary one for successful teams to have.


I believe the Bulls held opposing teams to the third lowest fg% in the NBA. Our defense is just fine.


----------



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

caseyrh said:


> But if you want to ignore that fact than look at adjusted plus minus. Or virtually every other stat.


As adjusted +/- has zero predictive value I never touch it. The other stats simply don't back up your argument. Gibson isn't a better rebounder, isn't a better or more efficient scorer. And most importantly, _forces Noah to play a role that reduces his defensive impact_.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> As adjusted +/- has zero predictive value I never touch it. The other stats simply don't back up your argument. Gibson isn't a better rebounder, isn't a better or more efficient scorer. And most importantly, _forces Noah to play a role that reduces his defensive impact_.


The other stats do. He has more points, more assists, more rebounds, more blocks, more steals, etc... Except their rates are similar because one guy plays against second team opposition all the time and in limited minutes.

Remove the rates and Gibson dominates. Your complete lack of understanding of how rates are impacted by playing time is surprising though.

Not to mention Gibson is younger and will only be entering his second year next year. I think anyone with any understanding of the NBA would pick Gibson to out perform Gortat next year. Considering Gortat has been steadily declining for a few years and Gibson will be entering only his second season.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Wynn said:


> I'd be interested to know who the majority of Deng detractors would rather see at SF than Deng. By this I mean someone we CAN acquire. Outside of LeBron, I don't know that there is a better option. I'm on board with bringing in LeBron. If LeBron does not choose Chicago, what is plan B?
> 
> I'd love for any answers to this question to be free of insult. I'd like a reasonable, practical solution for an SF who will produce better results for the Bull and how we should go about acquiring this player.


Rudy Gay. Joe Johnson could play there. I don't have a list of FAs in front of me, but those 2 stand out big time, especially Rudy. They're ten times the player Dung is.


----------



## SWIFTSLICK (Aug 22, 2009)

Basel said:


> Send Hinrich to the Lakers, please.


Really? Why? You think he'd help you with what exactly? Newsflash: It's Kirk Hinrich, not Gail Goodrich. His nickname is "Klank Hinrich" for a reason.The stats are misleading due to him actually playing SG quite a bit. 

Plus, didn't the Lakers just win a 2nd consecutive title with Derek Fisher as thier starting PG?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Rudy Gay. Joe Johnson could play there. I don't have a list of FAs in front of me, but those 2 stand out big time, especially Rudy. They're ten times the player Dung is.


Do you acknowledge that either of those two guys will make a LOT more than Deng next season? Do you recognize that Memphis will match any offer that we make for Gay? If you play Gay or Johnson at SF, who plays SG?


----------



## BullySixChicago (Jun 8, 2010)

Wynn said:


> I'd be interested to know who the majority of Deng detractors would rather see at SF than Deng. By this I mean someone we CAN acquire. Outside of LeBron, I don't know that there is a better option. I'm on board with bringing in LeBron. If LeBron does not choose Chicago, what is plan B?
> 
> I'd love for any answers to this question to be free of insult. I'd like a reasonable, practical solution for an SF who will produce better results for the Bull and how we should go about acquiring this player.


 Great question we trade Deng and dont get Bron who do we have to handle the 3? The plan should be to use Deng in he sign and trade to get get Bron otherwise we keep him. Furthermore we are gonna have to give up someone for Bosh who will that be? Kirk, Gibson and the pick?


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Sam had an email discussing the concern about sending out Deng.

His conclusion: The Bulls must know something we don't. He still doesn't see how you trade Deng.



> It seems as if strategy for the Bulls is that they are going all in an attempt to land to land two max free agents. Can't say I really understand that too much. Placing the hopes of the franchise on landing one high tier free agent is risky pining for two should land you in gamblers anonymous. I personally believe we already have one marquee player in Rose and a good supporting cast (Noah, Deng, Gibson and Hinrich); seems like we are only one star away. Would love to see them go after Johnson then bring in another veteran rotation player and draft the best available player (preferably Paterson or Henry). Am I over valuing our talent? And could you explain the rational behind trading away assets (Hinrich or Deng, pick) for what strikes me as a huge gamble.
> 
> Troy Sarni
> 
> Sam: It is a gamble, and they are going all in as I’ve been saying for some time. I’ve also said I probably wouldn’t as I’m more conservative and still feel stung by the summer of 2000. But I don’t get the intelligence they do from free agents and they must be getting some positive stuff to suggest they can pull this off. Still, I don’t think it would be a disaster if they deal Hinrich and Deng and get, say, one guy because I feel you can replace guys as they’ll have money left. If they trade Deng, they’ll probably have just about for two max players without sign and trade. If they trade Hinrich as well for cap space then it’s two max and another highly paid player, and there will be veterans and restricted free agents looking for deals. Raja Bell, for instance, is a good veterans who’ll be on the market. Guys like that. I’d say there’s a chance to deal Hinrich, though I don’t see how you deal Deng. Still, I’d be fine with Joe Johnson added to the current group and then adding a pick and some veterans, maybe like a Juwan Howard coming back to Chicago to help like he did in Portland last season. But you also have to give them credit as you can’t say the Bulls aren’t trying to win big with this free agency. As I’ve long wrote, the big issue is if LeBron intends to stretch this out a week or more and won’t let you know can you risk then losing guys like Joe Johnson, Amar’e Stoudemire and Carlos Boozer who could sign up elsewhere while you are trying for the jackpot?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Sam's last line there is what I've been wondering about. If you wait around too long on LeBron, could you miss out on everyone else? 

Is Sam saying he doesn't see how they could find someone to take Deng, or saying he doesn't see how you could justify trading away Deng??


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

BullySixChicago said:


> Great question we trade Deng and dont get Bron who do we have to handle the 3? The plan should be to use Deng in he sign and trade to get get Bron otherwise we keep him. Furthermore we are gonna have to give up someone for Bosh who will that be? Kirk, Gibson and the pick?


the problem isn't deng because he is a good player, really the problem is team balance.

Rose is the only guy who can consistently create offense for himself and the only player who can create good shots for others.

Deng for his 17 a game cant be depended on to create his own shot or for others, and the same for kirk noah and gibson , its a great strain on Rose and he cant play all 48 minutes , its a big hole, Deng is a good player , he can play defense , is a good rebounder , a team guy and a very competent finisher of created offense by others , he can hit jumpshots, move without the ball and can score inside a bit too....but for the money he is paid _on this team _he needs to be able to help rose create offense , it wasn't that big a deal before when they had Gordon , but they dont now and it most likely wont be a big deal if they get a star free agent who can take that strain off of Rose in the offense.

you just dont see really successful teams with just one guy being the only player to be the offensive spark to the degree the bulls need Rose to be ...kobe has gasol , odom and even artest and bynum who can just be thrown the ball and the lakers can be successful with the results late in games , the celts have pierce allen rondo and garnett, 

they dont have to be kobe level offensive players but at least to the level that they have favorable matchups half of the time, and the bulls dont have anything close to that from anyone but rose , good defense and game planning can only take you so far .

but because of this major flaw in the bulls makeup Deng is treated as a problem , when really he isn't at all.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> the problem isn't deng because he is a good player, really the problem is team balance.
> 
> Rose is the only guy who can consistently create offense for himself and the only player who can create good shots for others.
> 
> ...


I agree almost completeley with this post.

And I think it is almost a guarantee that we will add a 20 point per game or better type scorer. Which should make Deng a great fit going forward.


----------



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

caseyrh said:


> The other stats do. He has more points, more assists, more rebounds, more blocks, more steals, etc... Except their rates are similar because one guy plays against second team opposition all the time and in limited minutes.


I have a sneaking suspicion that the per game counting numbers are different because one guy plays when Dwight Howard is either injured or in foul trouble and the other guy is forcing Joey Noah to get beat up defending the post.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

E.H. Munro said:


> I have a sneaking suspicion that the per game counting numbers are different because one guy plays when Dwight Howard is either injured or in foul trouble and the other guy is forcing Joey Noah to get beat up defending the post.


Why even respond to my post if you are going to ignore the second half of my post that answers your response?

I'm bored of you.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Wynn said:


> Do you acknowledge that either of those two guys will make a LOT more than Deng next season? Do you recognize that Memphis will match any offer that we make for Gay? If you play Gay or Johnson at SF, who plays SG?


Do you acknowledge that when Dung only plays in 82% of his career games that you can justify paying someone who plays in 97% of them a lot more? I mean at least Gay you can count on to play in almost every game. The last 3 years he's scored more PPG than Dung has at any point in his career. He's actually a threat from 3pt land, which is what we really need with Rose, and is a better finisher as well...again what we need to pair with Rose. Dung may have an edge in rebounds, of 1 per game, but Gay actually has the edge in blocks and steals...which I find funny since all the Dung apologists/fan boys want to claim he's such a star defensively. Dung's only positive comparisons are a slightly better shooting % (which is helped by not shooting as many 3s of course) and slightly less turnovers. There's no comparison here who is the better player, the younger player, the better athlete, and a better fit. Gay is worth twice as much as Dung is, literally. I also think that Gay could play SG if need be, if we landed LeBron or someone in FA as well. Hinrich also does well at SG, so could just keep him there. With a more athletic SF that can actually stretch the D, that gives us a much better lineup just by replacing Dung with Gay. 

As for Johnson, again, he is way more productive than Dung, and is durable even though he's older. Only missed more than 7 games in a season ONCE. 95% of his career games he's played in. A consistent 20+ PPG guy too since he's been in Atlanta the last 5 seasons. Again, stretches the court with his 3pt shooting range. So, it is another instance of a vastly superior player that is actually durable, and WORTH paying a lot for. I don't want him as much as Gay, mainly due to him being 29 years old in a few days whereas Gay is 23. But yes, I 100% feel that those 2 at 15 mill are better than Dung at 7.5 mill per. I don't know about JJ though on a long-term deal as age may catch up to him before it's up.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> the problem isn't deng because he is a good player, really the problem is team balance.
> 
> Rose is the only guy who can consistently create offense for himself and the only player who can create good shots for others.
> 
> ...


Nice observation! I agree that once we add a MAX FA we will have another (or 2 more!) "creator" on the floor. With only one ball to go around, players like Deng, who do their best work OFF the ball, will be incredibly valuable to team chemistry. I also feel like having an offense designed to break some players free (other than constant pick & roll, which seemed to be VDN's only play) will "create" some offense for a good spot up midrange shooter like Deng.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Do you acknowledge that when Dung only plays in 82% of his career games that you can justify paying someone who plays in 97% of them a lot more? I mean at least Gay you can count on to play in almost every game. The last 3 years he's scored more PPG than Dung has at any point in his career. He's actually a threat from 3pt land, which is what we really need with Rose, and is a better finisher as well...again what we need to pair with Rose. Dung may have an edge in rebounds, of 1 per game, but Gay actually has the edge in blocks and steals...which I find funny since all the Dung apologists/fan boys want to claim he's such a star defensively. Dung's only positive comparisons are a slightly better shooting % (which is helped by not shooting as many 3s of course) and slightly less turnovers. There's no comparison here who is the better player, the younger player, the better athlete, and a better fit. Gay is worth twice as much as Dung is, literally. I also think that Gay could play SG if need be, if we landed LeBron or someone in FA as well. Hinrich also does well at SG, so could just keep him there. With a more athletic SF that can actually stretch the D, that gives us a much better lineup just by replacing Dung with Gay.
> 
> As for Johnson, again, he is way more productive than Dung, and is durable even though he's older. Only missed more than 7 games in a season ONCE. 95% of his career games he's played in. A consistent 20+ PPG guy too since he's been in Atlanta the last 5 seasons. Again, stretches the court with his 3pt shooting range. So, it is another instance of a vastly superior player that is actually durable, and WORTH paying a lot for. I don't want him as much as Gay, mainly due to him being 29 years old in a few days whereas Gay is 23. But yes, I 100% feel that those 2 at 15 mill are better than Dung at 7.5 mill per. I don't know about JJ though on a long-term deal as age may catch up to him before it's up.


I don't disagree that Gay and Johnson are better players than Deng... you miss my point. If they're playing Deng's position, who is playing SG? Do you prefer Kirk to Deng? Are you sold on Jannero Pargo making a large improvement over last season? My argument is not that those guys aren't better than Deng. It's only that REPLACING Deng with either of those guys will only be a marginal improvement (less than 4ppg and we lose rebounds in the deal). ADDING those players to Deng, however, would make a fierce combination. If you have Rose, Johnson, AND Deng then you're looking at 60 points any given game from your smalls. Add whatever your frontcourt and bench can contribute and you've got a contender. If a team tries to cheat off of any of those three defensively, the open man can hit the jumper and make them pay. If the defense DOESN'T cheat off any of them, then there's a one-on-one opportunity to drive to the basket.

So I ask again, who is going to play SG if you replace Deng with Gay or Johnson? Wouldn't it make more sense to replace Hinrich (11ppg) in the starting line-up than Deng?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Wynn said:


> I don't disagree that Gay and Johnson are better players than Deng... you miss my point. If they're playing Deng's position, who is playing SG? Do you prefer Kirk to Deng? Are you sold on Jannero Pargo making a large improvement over last season? My argument is not that those guys aren't better than Deng. It's only that REPLACING Deng with either of those guys will only be a marginal improvement (less than 4ppg and we lose rebounds in the deal). ADDING those players to Deng, however, would make a fierce combination. If you have Rose, Johnson, AND Deng then you're looking at 60 points any given game from your smalls. Add whatever your frontcourt and bench can contribute and you've got a contender. If a team tries to cheat off of any of those three defensively, the open man can hit the jumper and make them pay. If the defense DOESN'T cheat off any of them, then there's a one-on-one opportunity to drive to the basket.
> 
> So I ask again, who is going to play SG if you replace Deng with Gay or Johnson? Wouldn't it make more sense to replace Hinrich (11ppg) in the starting line-up than Deng?


Well I do definitely prefer Kirk to Deng, and it's not even close. Kirk plays in 90% of his games, and is an elite defender, and gives versatility to the roster that Deng doesn't. He can D up his guy better than Deng can. He stretches the D better with 38% career 3pt shooting (almost 41% in '08). We could conceivably add BOTH Joe Johnson and Rudy Gay too, giving us a really formidable backcourt with Rose. There's always the draft, and there's always other free agents not on max deals. 

Reddick, Ray Allen, lots of guys out there that could play some SG. I wouldn't mind a 3 guard rotation of Rose, Hinrich and Reddick at all. It's all about matchups. Reddick is really coming around as a 3pt shooter and all around player. I don't think that Orlando wants to get another big contract on their roster to keep him, so he may be available. 

And no to Pargo. I am looking at it as a situation where Hinrich backs up Rose and Gay or Joe Johnson rotates in at SG when Hinrich is at the point, with James Johnson or Luke Babbitt or whoever filling in at SF. There are a lot of variables that must be taking into account here. We'll know more by tomorrow. I just hope that the Bulls don't ruin my bday by taking some loser or trading Hinrich in a salary dump.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I would also like to point out that Hinrich at 11 PPG is misleading, since he was a 15-16 PPG guy before the last 2 years. A new coach may get him back to that 16 ppg guy, and better defense too. Deng, on the other hand, is pretty much a 17 ppg guy, and is gonna miss about 8 more games per season, so that's a net loss in my book going from Hinrich to Deng. Thibs should prefer Hinrich too, if he's a defensive guy. Gay is my #1 target here if I'm the owner if I can't get Lebron. Gay and Johnson plus a S&T (Gibson, James Johnson & Deng) for a PF would give you a heck of a team. Basically you dump all the salaries on the team aside from Rose, Hinrich and Noah.

Rose/Hinrich
Joe Johnson/Hinrich
Gay/Babbitt
Stoudemire or Bosh or Lee/Babbitt
Noah/(whatever FA PF)


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

I would bet my left leg that Gay will not be a Chicago Bull this offseason. Gotta let the dream go.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

King Joseus said:


> I would bet my left leg that Gay will not be a Chicago Bull this offseason. Gotta let the dream go.


You're probably right, but I hope not. I think he'd be a perfect fit with Rose, and he was my guy back in that draft anyway, especially when he slid to #8....should've moved up and grabbed him then.


----------

