# The value of cap space and draft picks...



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

There’s been talk on the board of the low value of cap space and draft picks, as well as the merits of making a deadline trade for Paul Pierce. I disagree with both opinions.

Ideally, if Paxson plans to consolidate his talent, he should wait until this summer, or even into next season. As far as using the cap space and picks, the Bulls would be best off drafting to fill needs (Aldridge/Brewer), and then signing two of the best available free agents (let’s say Harrington and Przybilla). By my count, this would give the team 11 valuable "players":

Duhon
Hinrich
Gordon
Brewer
Deng
Nocioni
Harrington
Aldridge
Chandler
Przybilla
+ Knicks 2007 pick

If that team isn’t seen as a contender or still deemed to need a superstar player, they‘re still in much better shape trading for the star AFTER cashing in their assets in the summer. The proposed moves would give the Bulls depth at every spot, making each player into a tradable asset and increasing the likelihood of surrounding the incoming star with better players.

See, even if you don’t think Harrington is a PF, his signing allows the Bulls to shop Deng (in combination with others) for a true star PF. So in that way, cap space has value. 

Trading for Pierce now doesn’t allow the team to maximize the assets (kills cap space) and probably doesn’t get the Bulls out of the 1st round (now or in the future). It seems like a no-brainer to wait.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Frankensteiner said:


> There’s been talk on the board of the low value of cap space and draft picks, as well as the merits of making a deadline trade for Paul Pierce. I disagree with both opinions.
> 
> Ideally, if Paxson plans to consolidate his talent, he should wait until this summer, or even into next season. As far as using the cap space and picks, the Bulls would be best off drafting to fill needs (Aldridge/Brewer), and then signing two of the best available free agents (let’s say Harrington and Przybilla). By my count, this would give the team 11 valuable "players":
> 
> ...



Actually this is a very good point. If we sign two very good players, we can still facilitate a trade at anytime for a superstar. Why prevent ourselves from getting those drafted players and free agents when we don't have to?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

lougehrig said:


> Actually this is a very good point. If we sign two very good players, we can still facilitate a trade at anytime for a superstar.


VERY good point indeed

Honestly, I'm ALL for trading Luol Deng..he just doesn't appear to have much upside to me...


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Frankensteiner said:


> There’s been talk on the board of the low value of cap space and draft picks, as well as the merits of making a deadline trade for Paul Pierce. I disagree with both opinions.
> 
> Ideally, if Paxson plans to consolidate his talent, he should wait until this summer, or even into next season. As far as using the cap space and picks, the Bulls would be best off drafting to fill needs (Aldridge/Brewer), and then signing two of the best available free agents (let’s say Harrington and Przybilla). By my count, this would give the team 11 valuable "players":
> 
> ...


This is good thinking, however I think Memphis has been trying a similar strategy for a few years now, and as far as I can tell, they're still looking for the consolidation trade(s) they want. Point being, you don't always get to choose when a star becomes available for a reasonable price. You take a risk either way - if we make a big trade now, we lose our cap space and might not have the juice to put the roster over the top. 

If we stand pat now, we can accumulate more pieces via cap space and the draft, but there's no guarantee that a star we like will be available for a price we want to pay later on. And to boot, we might not have a Gasol-level player on our roster yet, though I have some hope for Ben and Luol to get that good in time.

I'm fine with either strategy. I'm an advocate for a Pierce deal as long as we don't sell the farm, but I do think we can take a huge step forward if we just sit tight and make prudent use of our picks and space. I think we'd come out ahead either way.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ViciousFlogging said:


> This is good thinking, however I think Memphis has been trying a similar strategy for a few years now, and as far as I can tell, they're still looking for the consolidation trade(s) they want. Point being, you don't always get to choose when a star becomes available for a reasonable price. You take a risk either way - if we make a big trade now, we lose our cap space and might not have the juice to put the roster over the top.


I don't think Memphis ever had the amount of talent the Bulls should have by the end of summer. From what I can tell, the Grizz were not interested in moving Gasol, so the talent consolidation was based on their other players: Williams, Posey, Swift, Battier, Miller, and Bonzi. I could severely be overrating our talent, but it seems like Gordon, Deng, Hinrich, Chandler, or even someone like Aldridge would have more value around the league than either of those players.

And there have been stars available which they could have attempted to acquire (McGrady, Davis, Vince). So IMO, it's not so much that they didn't have an opportunity, but rather the talent to get a deal done. That shouldn't be a problem for us.



> If we stand pat now, we can accumulate more pieces via cap space and the draft, but there's no guarantee that a star we like will be available for a price we want to pay later on.


This is true, however, I'm willing to take the risk. Trading our assets for Pierce right now won't make us a better team than if we hang on to the assets. We're heading for perennial 1st/2nd round exit and trying to strike gold with MLE free agency after that trade.



> And to boot, we might not have a Gasol-level player on our roster yet, though I have some hope for Ben and Luol to get that good in time.


I agree, we don't have a Gasol-level player. He's actually a player we could try to acquire if Memphis continues to struggle. As I said though, the talent consolidation doesn't necessarily have to happen this off-season. That core is young enough and allows us time. Surely, there's going to be some star player changing hands in the next two seasons. 

Free agency in 2007 includes plenty of stars (Wade, Bosh, Vince, even Pierce) that could be had in sign & trades. And there's the Wolves, Lakers, and Grizzlies, who have struggled lately after fast starts.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

This thread makes basically similiar points to those I made in this thread below I started entitled "acquiring assets"

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=239321

Though using this philosophy, drafting the best players available irrespective
of need, and not overspending on marginal free agents was a slightly different strategy though that also allows the Bulls to package players to get a greater asset w/. my target being Chris Bosh, who for the reasons I listed in my acquiring assets thread I believe will be available.

So for example draft "Gay" (not that there is anything wrong with that), and keep the better of either Deng or Gay, and trade the other one in a package with another player.

Personally I don't think Alridge physically brings enough to the table for the Bulls to draft. Moreover overspending both in terms of years and amount on someone like Al Harrington, makes Harrington more difficult to trade until his contract is closer to expiring especially if the signed FA's become BYC players. BYC players are extremely difficult to trade becuase of the trade matching requirements. So overpaying for many FA's give you non-tradable assets.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

I think that's a pretty good point.

The only downside is that since we'd have so many players it wouldn't be possible to give them all they PT they need to maximize their worth. Other teams could look at that and say well X and Y players aren't doing much for you so we're going to need more for this trade. 

I don't think it's a really big issue, but something I'm sure other teams would at least try to use to their advantage.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

ztect said:


> This thread makes basically similiar points to those I made in this thread below I started entitled "acquiring assets"
> 
> http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=239321
> 
> ...


I kind of agree about Aldridge, but I feel he will be a safe pick but not the best player available where ever he is taken. He will be good, but not the star we need. But if we could add Joel Pryzbilla, Aldridge is very enticing even at a very pick. Having Songaila/Pryz/Tys/Aldridge upfront would be very promising. I haven't seen enough of Thomas or Bargnani, but those guys Gay, Carney, and Shawne Williams are who I'm hoping for us to find a star in next draft.

If Portland doesn't trade Ratliff, the Pryzbilla sweepstakes could be only between Toronto and Chicago. He could come at a very reasonable price this summer.

Al Harrington is the guy I want more and more. I wouldn't mind giving him a 5y 50M offer, but not the max. If he'd rather take a couple million more to play for the Hawks I would be surprised. All the other teams with cap stink, Charlotte is going to be bad for a long time and Toronto has Nueva, Bosh and Graham. Harrington has said that winning is very important to him, and the Bulls would be a team he would be looking at this summer. He isn't quite a star, but has the leadership and toughness qualities that our other not quite stars don't have.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

The ROY said:


> VERY good point indeed
> 
> Honestly, I'm ALL for trading Luol Deng..he just doesn't appear to have much upside to me...



Wow, he must've stolen your prom date cause you've been on him alot lately.

Deng and Gordon are currently our best shots at being the star or 2nd star options. Deng is friggin 20 years old. He's still one of the top 3 players on this team already. 

Anotehr point about the FA cap space - Joe Johnson was not a stud previous to this season. He showed flashes of being good, but not great. Right now, he's better than anyone we have on our team. Q Richardson was thought to be a rising superstar. Not so. Steve Nash was reallly good in Dallas, but many thought overrated. In Phoenix, he's a candidate for League MVP.

My point is you never know till that player is in your system whether they can truly rise to the occassion. Also, will they get the same respect wearing a Bulls uni? Pierce could be gotten and regress simply because he's a Bull now and the system, the refs, etc...........

I completely agree with getting as many assets as possible so that we're not splitting hairs over not being left with any quality to surround an eventual superstar.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> There’s been talk on the board of the low value of cap space and draft picks, as well as the merits of making a deadline trade for Paul Pierce. I disagree with both opinions.
> 
> Ideally, if Paxson plans to consolidate his talent, he should wait until this summer, or even into next season. As far as using the cap space and picks, the Bulls would be best off drafting to fill needs (Aldridge/Brewer), and then signing two of the best available free agents (let’s say Harrington and Przybilla). By my count, this would give the team 11 valuable "players":
> 
> ...


Here are just a few reasons why it's hardly a "no brainer" to wait.

1. The probability of the Bulls using free agency or the draft to obtain a player who will be better than Paul Pierce (or even close to it) during the next four to five years is very, very low. 

2. Pierce turned 28 four months ago. Today he was named to his fifth All-Star team. He is having the best year of his career and is playing as well as any wing in the league not named Kobe Bryant. The fear that this is "Jalen Rose, Part II" is completely unfounded. He fits our team needs -- can get off his own shot, create for others, draw double teams, finish at the rim, and go to the line in droves -- like a glove.

3. The biggest flaw with the "wait and see" approach is that it squanders a hugely important asset, Tim Thomas's expiring contract. Once that opportunity goes by the wayside, the Bulls will actually be very poorly positioned to receive a max-level-type salary back in a trade for at least three years. We'll have a bunch of high-quality players on rookie-scale deals or the first years of their extensions, and very little in the way of cap ballast. (Al Harrington's/Joel Pryzbilla's contracts will be massive albatrosses the day they're signed; no GM will want to touch them.)

4. Pierce's deal comes off the books in 2008 -- four years sooner than the $100-odd million we'll likely have to pay to Harrington/Pryzbilla/assorted 2006 FA flotsam and jetsam will. Heck, even if we have to take on LaFrentz's deal, that's over with in 2009. A very important note: simply carrying over our Cap Space until a better class of FAs comes along isn't an option. Hinrich's cap hold, raises for Ben/Luol/Chandler, and the salaries of the three incoming first-rounders will eat up most of it.

I am not proposing doing whatever it takes to land Paul Pierce. I think it'd be insane not to trade Tim Thomas, Ben Gordon, and the Knicks #1 to land him, though. We would instantly become the third or fourth-best team in the East. We'd still have Cap Space to sign a FA to a contract above the MLE this year. We'd still have our own draft pick (though it'd probably end up in the 15-22 range). We would still have the option to take the Knicks' pick next year. We would still have Hinrich, Deng, Duhon, Chandler, Nocioni, Sweetney, etc. 

And I am not claiming that this is necessarily a championship-level team. It will be extremely competitive for four-five seasons, though, and it doesn't run the risk, like your team does, of simply spinning its wheels and starting another vicious circle of rebuilding. If the Pierce plan doesn't work out, we get to start over in 2008, not 2012.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Here are just a few reasons why it's hardly a "no brainer" to wait.
> 
> 1. The probability of the Bulls using free agency or the draft to obtain a player who will be better than Paul Pierce (or even close to it) during the next four to five years is very, very low.
> 
> ...


At the end of the day we need a "Superstar" and as I pointed out in another thread
currently we can
1.) draft one, which N.Y number one pick next year is the most likely chance (I wouldn't hold me breath)
2.) develop one which I think would require gordon or deng to improve immensly
3.) trade for one. Which I think Scott May suggestion is quite good. 
we'd still have our shot at Oden and Deng still has a shot at become the number two star.

What people are really saying by wanted to keep Gordon and our draft pick is they're going to be more value the Pierce currently, at some stage in the future.

Hinrich/Duhon
Pierce
Deng/Nocino
?/Sweetney/Songalia
Chandler
and our draft pic.

If a free agent PF would come on broad that would be good. Harrington Perhaps.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Here are just a few reasons why it's hardly a "no brainer" to wait.
> 
> 1. The probability of the Bulls using free agency or the draft to obtain a player who will be better than Paul Pierce (or even close to it) during the next four to five years is very, very low.


That might be the case, although there are players with star potential in this draft (Gay, Aldridge, maybe even Morrison). However, the true question is will the Bulls be able to obtain another player comparable to Pierce in the next one or two years with a combination of current players and players acquired through the draft and free agency? I believe they would be.



> 2.Pierce turned 28 four months ago. Today he was named to his fifth All-Star team. He is having the best year of his career and is playing as well as any wing in the league not named Kobe Bryant. The fear that this is "Jalen Rose, Part II" is completely unfounded. He fits our team needs -- can get off his own shot, create for others, draw double teams, finish at the rim, and draw double teams -- like a glove.


No one is disputing Pierce's individual talent. Just our ability to assemble a championship level team around him and his ability to lead that team to a championship.



> 3. The biggest flaw with the "wait and see" approach is that it squanders a hugely important asset, Tim Thomas's expiring contract. Once that opportunity goes by the wayside, the Bulls will actually be very poorly positioned to receive a max-level-type salary back in a trade for at least three years. We'll have a bunch of high-quality players on rookie-scale deals or the first years of their extensions, and very little in the way of cap ballast. (Al Harrington's/Joel Pryzbilla's contracts will be massive albatrosses the day they're signed; no GM will want to touch them.)


That has crossed my mind. Tyson Chandler would become the starting point of any trades involving a max level salary in return. Still, Przybilla is a starting quality C in the league, and here we would see the importance of cap space.



> 4. Pierce's deal comes off the books in 2008 -- three years sooner than the $100-odd million we'll likely have to pay to Harrington/Pryzbilla/assorted 2006 FA flotsam and jetsam will. Heck, even if we have to take on LaFrentz's deal, that's over with in 2009. A very important note: simply carrying over our Cap Space until a better class of FAs comes along isn't an option. Hinrich's cap hold, raises for Ben/Luol/Chandler, and the salaries of the three incoming first-rounders will eat up most of it.
> 
> I am not proposing doing whatever it takes to land Paul Pierce. I think it'd be insane not to trade Tim Thomas, Ben Gordon, and the Knicks #1 to land him, though. We would instantly become the third or fourth-best team in the East. We'd still have Cap Space to sign a FA to a contract above the MLE this year. We'd still have our own draft pick (though it'd probably end up in the 15-22 range). We would still have the option to take the Knicks' pick next year. We would still have Hinrich, Deng, Duhon, Chandler, Nocioni, Sweetney, etc.


I think there are some inaccuracies there. First, Boston probably would not make a deal unless they're unloading LaFrentz's contract. That way, the Celts can at least get under the cap to sign a free agent (this kills our cap situation). Second, the Bulls would not be better than Cleveland, New Jersey, Detroit, or Miami, which would likely mean a 1st round exit. So then, is the 18th pick and a MLE free agent enough to make us better than either of the four teams ahead of us? I don't think so. Rinse & repeat for the next 3-4 years until Pierce starts to decline.



> And I am not claiming that this is necessarily a championship-level team. It will be extremely competitive for four-five seasons, though, and it doesn't run the risk, like your team does, of simply spinning its wheels and starting another vicious circle of rebuilding. If the Pierce plan doesn't work out, we get to start over in 2008, not 2011.


Yeah, that's smart. Trade Gordon/#1 pick for a year and a half of Paul Pierce. If you trade for Pierce, you don't just let him go, meaning you have to resign him to a max contract (regardless if you're a contending team or not). Therefore, no rebuilding in 2008.

Anyway, what's the point of locking ourselves into an "extremely competetive" team if it's not a contender? This is something we differ on, I suppose, but I don't see my proposed team as being anything less than extremely competitive in the East next year. So at worst, we'll still have a very good team with a possibility of upwards mobility. I don't see that with a team built around Pierce.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

I'm amazed at how many would be happy with simply making the playoffs and being competitive.

Pierce and the remaining scraps make us the Celtics.

Garnett and scraps makes us the Timberwolves.

Get as many assets, then really determine what you need. It's much easier when you need One last player than when you need 2 or 3. We currently need TWO and Pierce doesn't fit either position of immediate need. Garnett would, but would strip us of additional key parts, probably creating a hole or two. Though, we may be able to do that in the future.


Think of it this way:

THis off-season we have the realistic chance of adding 3 to 4 high contributing players. 

Adding Pierce we add...............what we give away, just a bit better and we lose the ability to add 3 additional pieces.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

chifaninca said:


> I'm amazed at how many would be happy with simply making the playoffs and being competitive.
> 
> Pierce and the remaining scraps make us the Celtics.
> 
> ...


Yeah, what he said.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

If our goal is to consolidate assets into a max salary star, I think we're in the best position to act now than with the roster presented above.

A GM looking to rebuild wants flexibility and draft picks. Their own options. Just like Paxson did when he took over the team. That’s what we have to offer teams right now. Cap Space freedom and the option to use draft picks the way you want to, along with whatever you want to label Gordon as. 

If we use our draft picks and Cap Space, we’ll have to find a team who wants 2-3 of our players… not the option to get top 5 players in the draft or the players available that fit their particular needs in the free agent market. It’s a tougher sell, IMO, and a lot tougher to find an exact fit with another team. The picks and expiring deals are a lot more liquid and easier to deal than the actual players after we pick them/sign them. 

Also, I don’t think its realistic to think that a team is going to be looking to trade a player that’s any better than PP or any more of a fit for our team (“big” guard) than PP is.

If PP and Gooden are available, I like the option of trading for them now a lot better than “wait and see.” If we only have to give up Duhon, Gordon, Knicks pick, expiring deals to get PP and Gooden, then I think we have a hell of a core, our pick this year, the Knicks pick next year and MLE to fill in the backup PG role for next season.

Paxson, IMO, would prefer to remain flexible as long as he possibly can since I don’t think he’s a decisive GM and I don’t think he has a vision for the team other than “stay flexible” and bring in guys that try hard and don’t cause trouble.

I predict no move is made and we use the draft picks for more young players, and sign a couple FAs in the off-season. I’m not sure if we’ll “overpay” if there is any type of bidding war. The trade Toronto made scared me more than anything. I don’t think Paxson is pro-actively pursuing PP and Gooden. (of course, I’m not 100% how available they really are and what’s needed to get them). The “wait and see” approach could work out if one of our draft picks does become a star and Uncle Jerry is willing to resign our young players when their deals come up, even though we probably won’t be much of a winner at the time. 

I also like trading for PP/Gooden because I would like to enjoy a winning, contending IMO team next season, not waiting 3 years for a crap shoot. We’ve built around draft picks the last, what, 6 seasons? How many are still around helping the team right now? How many stick around after their rookie deals expire?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> A GM looking to rebuild wants flexibility and draft picks. Their own options. Just like Paxson did when he took over the team. That’s what we have to offer teams right now. Cap Space freedom and the option to use draft picks the way you want to, along with whatever you want to label Gordon as.
> 
> If we use our draft picks and Cap Space, we’ll have to find a team who wants 2-3 of our players… not the option to get top 5 players in the draft or the players available that fit their particular needs in the free agent market. It’s a tougher sell, IMO, and a lot tougher to find an exact fit with another team. The picks and expiring deals are a lot more liquid and easier to deal than the actual players after we pick them/sign them.


I would like to point out the Bulls would still have what figures to be a very high pick from the Knicks that could be included in any deal. 

Also, the Bulls could always just sign one non-max free agent (Pryzbilla or Nazr) and have enough cap space to not worry about matching salaries for a max salary player. In that case, they would still be providing the other team with cap flexibility.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> That might be the case, although there are players with star potential in this draft (Gay, Aldridge, maybe even Morrison). However, the true question is will the Bulls be able to obtain another player comparable to Pierce in the next one or two years with a combination of current players and players acquired through the draft and free agency? I believe they would be.


I think you need to look at Paul Pierce's stats and realize that if he has 3-4 more seasons similar to his career averages, he'll be a Hall of Famer. Players of his stature in their primes simply aren't available very often. And as I said, the fit couldn't be better -- he is a star crying out to play with hard-nosed guys who know their roles, and we are a group of hard-nosed role-players crying out for a star.

You need to name names. Who are we going to get that's better than Pierce and/or doesn't need 4-5 years to get to that level? 



> No one is disputing Pierce's individual talent. Just our ability to assemble a championship level team around him and his ability to lead that team to a championship.


Again, name names. Are we rolling to a championship with LaMarcus Aldridge, Ronnie Brewer, Al Harrington, and Joel Przybilla? 



> That has crossed my mind. Tyson Chandler would become the starting point of any trades involving a max level salary in return.


That's a rough starting point. A team unloading a player of Pierce's caliber or better will probably be looking to rebuild, and odds are their GM won't want Chandler's cap-crippling deal. We won't have a sure lottery pick to dangle then, either.



> Still, Przybilla is a starting quality C in the league, and here we would see the importance of cap space.


"Starting quality" is damning with faint praise, I guess. Przybilla is in a virtual platoon with Theo Ratliff on a dreadful Portland team, and he's just not a very good basketball player, period. 



> I think there are some inaccuracies there. First, Boston probably would not make a deal unless they're unloading LaFrentz's contract. That way, the Celts can at least get under the cap to sign a free agent (this kills our cap situation).


I didn't run away from this possibility -- even if we do have to take on LaFrentz, we A. Get a player who actually does fill a need for us, and B. His contract expires three years earlier than the FAs we'll presumably sign this summer. He'll give us a massive expiring contract to dangle in 2008-2009, which will be a huge asset if we assume we extend Pierce and he retires as a Bull. 



> Second, the Bulls would not be better than Cleveland, New Jersey, Detroit, or Miami, which would likely mean a 1st round exit. So then, is the 18th pick and a MLE free agent enough to make us better than either of the four teams ahead of us? I don't think so. Rinse & repeat for the next 3-4 years until Pierce starts to decline.


I guess I have more faith in the Bulls' nucleus than you do. Pierce and the current team would give any team in the East fits in the first round. The draft pick and MLE become nice pieces that can grow as Pierce absorbs most of the pressure for the next couple years. Then LaFrentz can be traded for more pieces. 



> Yeah, that's smart. Trade Gordon/#1 pick for a year and a half of Paul Pierce. If you trade for Pierce, you don't just let him go, meaning you have to resign him to a max contract (regardless if you're a contending team or not). Therefore, no rebuilding in 2008.


I wouldn't expect Pierce to be allowed to walk, but it is a pretty nice escape valve if the plan absolutely bombs. Resigning Pierce will be expensive, no doubt, but there's also a good chance it'll be worth it. He has been a rock his whole career -- he's missed 16 games in 7 1/2 years. He's not a high-flyer, he's built like a brick ****house, and his game is based more on skill than athleticism. It's easy for me to envision Pierce playing at a pretty decent level until 35, 36. 



> Anyway, what's the point of locking ourselves into an "extremely competetive" team if it's not a contender? This is something we differ on, I suppose, but I don't see my proposed team as being anything less than extremely competitive in the East next year. So at worst, we'll still have a very good team with a possibility of upwards mobility. I don't see that with a team built around Pierce.


Didn't you think the Bulls would be extremely competitive this year? 

I just don't see how adding mediocre free agents who don't mesh well with our current personnel guarantees we'll be competitive. As for the draft, I'm sure this draft will yield some good players somewhere. It's just that we have no idea where, or if we'll be in a position to draft them. 

Adding Pierce in one fell swoop stops the bleeding. It puts Hinrich, Deng, Chandler, etc. in positions where they can maximize their abilities and grow. We keep our shot at Greg Oden. We probably become a much more attractive destination for quality vets via full-length MLE deals.

"Upwards mobility" is a dirty word, imo. Pierce would be the third-best player to ever wear a Bulls uniform. You have to make that deal in the face of a piss-poor free agent class, a spotty draft, and the "use-it-or-lose-it" nature of the Bulls' Cap Space.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

K4E was kinda getting at this Frankensteiner, but if we draft players and sign free agents, they won't be immediately tradeable, not until December for the draft picks (unless we traded them after drafting them but before signing deals with them, which rarely if ever happens) and probably later for the new free agents, who we would have a hard time parting with due to BYC rules.

Yes, we'd have a lot of assets, but we'd have less people to trade, and I think it might be literally impossible to trade for a max type player for a while. Even Chandler will be 2nd year BYC next year, no?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> I'm amazed at how many would be happy with simply making the playoffs and being competitive.


I'm amazed at how many would be happy going back to the Dark Ages of 1998-2004. Hoping and praying that the stars align and things break our way in a big bubble of Ping Pong balls.



> Pierce and the remaining scraps make us the Celtics.


Our nucleus is so much stronger mentally and defensively than the Celtics', it's not even funny. We have better players at every single position other than Pierce's, and we're much better coached and GM'd.



> Garnett and scraps makes us the Timberwolves.


You're probably right, but then again, it would take us a lot more to get Garnett.



> Get as many assets, then really determine what you need. It's much easier when you need One last player than when you need 2 or 3. We currently need TWO and Pierce doesn't fit either position of immediate need. Garnett would, but would strip us of additional key parts, probably creating a hole or two. Though, we may be able to do that in the future.


Pierce doesn't fit an immediate need?

:laugh:

I must have missed the announcement that we had a top-15 or so NBA player. One who commands double teams. Goes to the free throw line in buckets. Etc. 




> Adding Pierce we add...............what we give away, just a bit better and we lose the ability to add 3 additional pieces.


Five consecutive All-Star Games. On a steady, practically inexorable path to the Hall of Fame. Just turned 28 years old. Has missed 16 games out of 591 in his career. 

That's just a little bit better than Tim Thomas, Ben Gordon, and Draft Pick X?


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

I do think that if we're going to make a move it needs to be for an established guy. Pax has so far only fiddled around with a bunch of Songailas and Malik Allens, guys that nobody knows about but "will fit into our system," or whatever BS he's selling. Fact is if you want to compete in the NBA you can't rely on your key acquisitions--especially after last year--being these career bench guys that Paxson's going to groom into superstars, or whatever his plan is. Getting guys that play as a team is nice, but they have to be able to play first, period. I know they're going the Patriots' route of building through the draft and turning castoffs into superstars, thus without throwing around huge contracts (sans Tyson's), which I definitely agree with, but even the Pats acquired Rodney Harrison and Corey Dillon, guys that were already established stars. We have an excellent team structure already, a bunch of guys that play well together, but right now we're a team of #2 options and supporting pieces. We need "that guy" that will be the face of the team, that will be the primary scoring option and the guy that will WANT to take shots, especially at the ends of games; the guy whose role Ben took last year, but I believe we're going to need something more than Ben to be able to contend at a higher level.

Preferably, that guy would be a post player, because then we could kill two birds with one stone. I'm sold on our young guys, I would hate to part with any of them. We have 2 first-round picks, one that could come as high as #2, and a whole lot of cap room. I say make the best use of those before getting rid of one of the young guys that could be one of the faces of the franchise for years to come. Think about how great all our young guys would be if they could all develop together for years; although to do that I believe we need one more piece to kind of guide them. I really believe any of the young guys would be more valuable in a few years on this team than on any other, if they have the chance to grow together. I would make every effort to hold onto them, and rather make our moves in FA whether it be this year or down the road, and bid with our draft picks and cap space, because the team doesn't need to get any younger.

I want to see the organization continue to plan for the future, instead of rushing something and giving up something special to contend, but not to the degree we would down the line, immediately.

We also desperately need more vet leadership. The trading away of AD was the most underrated tihng that happened this offseason. He was why we were so good last year. He brought in that badass mentality and hustle.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Paul Pierce stats for the year
25.7 p 7.3 rb 4.5 assists 1.41 steals 39 minutes a game

Tell me our young guns aren't going to have an easier time playing along side PP?

Hinrich and Duhon are productive at the PG positions
Deng and Nocino are productive at the SF position

Hinrich/Duhon
PP
Deng/Nocino
Al Harrington/Songalia
Chandler/Sweetney
and our draft pick, and the N.Y 2007 draft pick

I'm not talking about some phantom guy we're going to trade for in the future, I'm naming names.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I think you need to look at Paul Pierce's stats and realize that if he has 3-4 more seasons similar to his career averages, he'll be a Hall of Famer. Players of his stature in their primes simply aren't available very often. And as I said, the fit couldn't be better -- he is a star crying out to play with hard-nosed guys who know their roles, and we are a group of hard-nosed role-players crying out for a star.
> 
> You need to name names. Who are we going to get that's better than Pierce and/or doesn't need 4-5 years to get to that level?


Paul Pierce a Hall of Famer? Maybe when they start letting the Mitch Richmond's and Jerry Stackhouse's of the world into the Hall of Fame. Pierce has at no point been a top 10 player in the league. Maybe he does make it, but I don't think he deserves that honor.

As far as naming names, any name I throw out there I'm sure you'll dismiss rather quickly for some reason or another. Guys I would look at are Bosh, Garnett, J. O'Neal, Gasol, Wade, Carter, and even Pierce (the latter 3 could be acquired next summer in sign and trades if they do decide to leave their current teams). We'll be in a much stronger position as a team if we wait on acquiring those players. And I realize these are hypotheticals but so is current speculation on acquiring Pierce.



> Again, name names. Are we rolling to a championship with LaMarcus Aldridge, Ronnie Brewer, Al Harrington, and Joel Przybilla?


We'd have about as good a shot after adding those players as we would with Pierce and whatever is left of our roster.



> That's a rough starting point. A team unloading a player of Pierce's caliber or better will probably be looking to rebuild, and odds are their GM won't want Chandler's cap-crippling deal. We won't have a sure lottery pick to dangle then, either.


I need to correct myself here. We could always trade multiple players (Duhon/Gordon/Noc/Deng/Hinrich/Sweetney/Songaila/pick 1/pick 2) without having to offer a long term contract in Chandler. Please note Sweets and Song aren't there because I consider them valuable assets, but because they have relatively cheap and short contracts that could be used as salary filler. 



> "Starting quality" is damning with faint praise, I guess. Przybilla is in a virtual platoon with Theo Ratliff on a dreadful Portland team, and he's just not a very good basketball player, period.
> ....
> I didn't run away from this possibility -- even if we do have to take on LaFrentz, we A. Get a player who actually does fill a need for us, and B. His contract expires three years earlier than the FAs we'll presumably sign this summer. He'll give us a massive expiring contract to dangle in 2008-2009, which will be a huge asset if we assume we extend Pierce and he retires as a Bull.


Lafrentz only fits a need if a team is looking for an incredibly soft white guy to put on the team. You're seemingly dismissing Przybilla because he's in a platoon for a dreadful team yet building up a guy who plays even less on an equally horrible team? And there's always that guy in New York who plays about the same as Przybilla yet for just about the worst team in the league. Bad teams can have good players, right?



> I guess I have more faith in the Bulls' nucleus than you do. Pierce and the current team would give any team in the East fits in the first round.


I don't care about giving teams fits. The Paul Pierce Celtics have been giving teams "fits" for years yet ultimataly end up sitting at home when the games really matter. Can we beat any of the East's top 4 teams? I doubt it.

The draft pick and MLE become nice pieces that can grow as Pierce absorbs most of the pressure for the next couple years. Then LaFrentz can be traded for more pieces.[/quote]

I would not call a 20s pick and an MLE free agent "nice pieces." You always bring up overpaying Harrington and Przybilla as some sort of cardinal sins, but usually the worst contracts are the ones given to MLE free agents. I can count on one hand how many teams have used the MLE wisely. Also, name some names that we could acquire with this MLE...



> I wouldn't expect Pierce to be allowed to walk, but it is a pretty nice escape valve if the plan absolutely bombs. Resigning Pierce will be expensive, no doubt, but there's also a good chance it'll be worth it. He has been a rock his whole career -- he's missed 16 games in 7 1/2 years. He's not a high-flyer, he's built like a brick ****house, and his game is based more on skill than athleticism. It's easy for me to envision Pierce playing at a pretty decent level until 35, 36.


Is a "pretty decent level" superstar level, though? I just don't see it. While it wouldn't be unprecedented, shooting guard/small forward types usually start declining when they hit their 30s. Look at Stackhouse, Finley, even Drexler.



> Didn't you think the Bulls would be extremely competitive this year?


Didn't you think the Knicks would be better than what they are now? 



> I just don't see how adding mediocre free agents who don't mesh well with our current personnel guarantees we'll be competitive. As for the draft, I'm sure this draft will yield some good players somewhere. It's just that we have no idea where, or if we'll be in a position to draft them.
> 
> Adding Pierce in one fell swoop stops the bleeding. It puts Hinrich, Deng, Chandler, etc. in positions where they can maximize their abilities and grow. We keep our shot at Greg Oden. We probably become a much more attractive destination for quality vets via full-length MLE deals.
> 
> "Upwards mobility" is a dirty word, imo. Pierce would be the third-best player to ever wear a Bulls uniform. You have to make that deal in the face of a piss-poor free agent class, a spotty draft, and the "use-it-or-lose-it" nature of the Bulls' Cap Space.


It's like I'm reading a Mariotti column: metaphors, hyperbole, pie-in-the-sky scenarios, and after a main point is established, every conceivable counter-argument is quickly and superficially deconstructed. 

Just as an example, you mention _"I'm sure this draft will yield some good players somewhere. It's just that we have no idea where, or if we'll be in a position to draft them."_ Umm, how about at the top of the draft, just like at the top of every draft before it, and where we're almost guaranteed to be picking thanks to Knicks. This is followed up by keeping "our shot at Greg Oden" which is, by far, more of a long shot than finding a good player in this year's draft.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Another point would be that having such a large number of assets at the same time is not desirable because there would be less playing time for each asset and less time to showcase. Gordon's value has shot up because he received enough playing time to become comfortable and play well. 

My opinion is that having too many assets at the same time would weaken the collective value of those assets because there's too little playing time to go around. 

This is a really great debate, though. It's pretty clear that Frankenstein is echoing Paxson's thoughts on this. Pierce is going to peak in 2 years, but Chandler, Gordon, Hinrich, and Deng clearly won't.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Frankensteiner, I basically agree with everything you wrote. It becomes easier to make the "consolidation trade" - a theory I wholeheartedly advocate by the way - AFTER we put the free agency money and draft picks into play. Plus we retain more depth after the trade is made.

That said, I've also said that "there is a Pierce trade" that works. But that trade most certainly does not include Ben Gordon AND the Knicks pick. As I wrote in another thread, that trade effectively means trading:

Gordon
Morrison/Gay/Aldridge/Bargnani/etc.
Filler
Nazr/Pryzbilla
Harrington/Gooden

For Pierce and Raef. Make no mistake, if we get Pierce we get additional contracts as well. We will have NO capspace after that deal is made.

I would do probably do that trade, however, if we trade our pick instead of the Knicks' pick. I agree with Scott that Pierce is an ideal fit for this team. But without the Knicks pick (to either use or package in a second trade) we don't have a good enough team to seriously compete in the East after acquiring him. Also, we are then just like every other team in the league as far as assets are concerned to make further improvements - the MLE. 

I'm sorta talking out of both sides of my mouth, I guess. But by and large I agree with Frank. I just also think that there are possible in-season consolidation trades that work as well. But those trades don't line up with what Scott suggested because they fall short of the prize.

If a consolidation trade is to happen this calendar year, I find it more likely that it takes place on draft day. But the best thing for the team might be to make that trade a year from now, or maybe even two years from now.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay couldn't be more right.

You have cap space now in the form of TT's expiring contract.

You have cap space in the summer.

Either way, you can facilitate the same trades. The only issue is whether you'd want to give up on a slam dunk superstar known-quantity in hand for a roll of the dice on people who are misfits for our current roster (or just not at Pierce's level) and/or draft picks. We've had plenty of draft picks, including #1s, #2s, #3s, #4s... How many of them have panned out FOR US like a Pierce?

WHO ARE WE GOING TO GET THAT'S BETTER THAN PIERCE?

(it may be moot if Pierce isn't really available)


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> ScottMay couldn't be more right.
> 
> You have cap space now in the form of TT's expiring contract.
> 
> ...


Pierce is a great fit. I absolutely agree with that notion. But if we trade for him, we are done. Thats the move. Rebuilding complete.

Is that a team that competes for a championship? I don't think it is. Thats my only problem with it. I guess if we could work out a Gooden trade on top of it, like MikeDC wrote the other day, then I'd be totally behind it. 

But the Pierce trade just isn't enough. That is my reservation.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Pierce is a great fit. I absolutely agree with that notion. But if we trade for him, we are done. Thats the move. Rebuilding complete.
> 
> Is that a team that competes for a championship? I don't think it is. Thats my only problem with it. I guess if we could work out a Gooden trade on top of it, like MikeDC wrote the other day, then I'd be totally behind it.
> 
> But the Pierce trade just isn't enough. That is my reservation.


We're not done.

We have draft picks, we have MLE, we have the draft pick swap in 2007. We still have players we can trade.

I don't think the Pierce trade is enough, either. A player like Brendan Haywood would be an ideal addition.

You can't know if it's enough to trade for Pierce or not, though. What I do know is that not having him, we're 21-28, and the current strategy has produced 91 wins in 213 games (.427) which isn't enough.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Superstar or star level players that have changed teams in the last two years: Carter, Webber, Wallace, Shaq, Baron Davis, McGrady.

This would indicate a star player other than Pierce would become available at some point, even if it's not apparent at this time.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Ideally, if Paxson plans to consolidate his talent, he should wait until this summer, or even into next season. As far as using the cap space and picks, the Bulls would be best off drafting to fill needs (Aldridge/Brewer), and then signing two of the best available free agents (let’s say Harrington and Przybilla). By my count, this would give the team 11 valuable "players"


Since when does the world turn out ideally?

That's my problem with your plan, and what I perceive as what Pax is doing. Too inflexible. He's "a plan" and he's sticking to it and perhaps not looking at the other possible uses.

I don't mind the plan, per se... If things work out that way, things could be worse. But they aren't necessarily better either, certainly not so unquestionably so that other options should be dismissed and this one is clearly "the way to go". 

It's not. No one can really say that, because the right way depends on a lot of circumstances we don't know.

Still, if we're thinking in ideal terms, for example, I don't see how a lineup after a series of trades is necessarily worse.
Suppose we could do Gooden+Damon Jones for Pike+Duhon.
Then we trade Tim Thomas and two seconds (or maybe pick swap, depending on where we end up) for Jeff Foster and Austin Croshere

We're over the cap... ok. But by taking on that cap space we've added 3 solid frontcourt players and we've still got the picks. We can add a MLE type player in the summer too, if we so desire.

Kirk, Ben
Deng, Noc
Gooden, Croshere (who will be a valuable expiring contract)
Chandler, Foster
+ Knicks pick, + Our Pick, + MLE

That doesn't seem any worse off to me... still a lot of assets and depth there. Which is really what I'm getting at... it seems to me there's are just as many possibilities to get good by "using" our cap space now (by trading Thomas) as there might be later.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> We're not done.
> 
> We have draft picks, we have MLE, we have the draft pick swap in 2007. We still have players we can trade.


I forgot about the pick swap, which is a good point. I don't expect the Knicks to be horrible again next year, though. 

The players left to trade shouldn't be traded though. Thats the thing. If you have Hinrich, Deng, and Chandler to go with Pierce, you need to keep them to make it work. 

I guess you'd have Noc (on the final year of his small deal, which makes him an undesirable trade asset for other teams), Sweetney and Duhon to work with. I'm not sure what that's going to get you that really makes a difference.

And we're still small up front.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Something to consider is the Boston fans' point of view on the trade. Most of them think Pierce shouldn't be traded and that Gordon/Duhon/Knicks pick/taking Raef's contract isn't enough (much less just Gordon/pick).

http://celticsblog.net/blog/?p=1421

I point this out, in part, because I can already sense the misconception developing that Pierce MUST be available and Pax could just swipe him away from Boston for very little in return.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I forgot about the pick swap, which is a good point. I don't expect the Knicks to be horrible again next year, though.
> 
> The players left to trade shouldn't be traded though. Thats the thing. If you have Hinrich, Deng, and Chandler to go with Pierce, you need to keep them to make it work.
> 
> ...


We get our pick, too - assuming it's a Gordon+TT+Knicks pick for PP deal.

And note I suggested a player like Brendan Haywood - he's a legit 7 footer


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Something to consider is the Boston fans' point of view on the trade. Most of them think Pierce shouldn't be traded and that Gordon/Duhon/Knicks pick/taking Raef's contract isn't enough (much less just Gordon/pick).
> 
> http://celticsblog.net/blog/?p=1421
> 
> I point this out, in part, because I can already sense the misconception developing that Pierce MUST be available and Pax could just swipe him away from Boston for very little in return.


Nobody knows that Pierce is available. Several reporters wrote that he was, but that was before Boston traded for Wallyworld.

The celtics blog seems to indicate we value our guys more than a celtics fan does, eh?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Superstar or star level players that have changed teams in the last two years: Carter, Webber, Wallace, Shaq, Baron Davis, McGrady.


You also have to take into account the jib restriction the team operates under.

2/3 of those players are ruled out due to jib issues, IMO. 

One of those players chose his new team so he could be in movies (not going to happen for us).


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Frankensteiner said:


> There’s been talk on the board of the low value of cap space and draft picks, as well as the merits of making a deadline trade for Paul Pierce. I disagree with both opinions.
> 
> Ideally, if Paxson plans to consolidate his talent, he should wait until this summer, or even into next season. As far as using the cap space and picks, the Bulls would be best off drafting to fill needs (Aldridge/Brewer), and then signing two of the best available free agents (let’s say Harrington and Przybilla). By my count, this would give the team 11 valuable "players":
> 
> ...


I agree with u 100% on the drafting of Aldridge & Brewer.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Nobody knows that Pierce is available. Several reporters wrote that he was, but that was before Boston traded for Wallyworld.
> 
> The celtics blog seems to indicate we value our guys more than a celtics fan does, eh?


Yeah, they also believe Hinrich and Deng are both better than Gordon, even calling Gordon overrated. Dellusional.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> He's not a high-flyer, he's built like a brick ****house, and his game is based more on skill than athleticism. It's easy for me to envision Pierce playing at a pretty decent level until 35, 36.


I disagree with this point. To me, because Pierce does not have great athleticism when his athleticism starts to decline he'll be a poor athlete and that will be a liability. A great athlete would be able to add more skill with age and still be a good athlete. In essence, a great athlete at 34 could be Paul Pierce at 28.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

If you can land Gooden and PP, its not "over," IMO. There are still young picks to develop and young players, and we have an awesome (IMO) team to follow NOW.

We saw a PP lead team come within a couple games of the NBA finals. PP is more productive a player now than he was that season. Our core sans Gordon and Duhon, with Gooden, a MLE PG, our pick and next years our/Knicks pick is better than what PP had on that team. 

Hinrich/Claxton
PP/Pargo/Our Draft Pick?
Deng/Noc
Gooden/Sweets/Songo/Our draft pick?
Chandler/Othella

If Deng continues to develop like many here including myself thinks he will and Chandler and Gooden keep doing what they are currently doing (and they *should* get better) that's a hell of a team, IMO. That team can hang with any team in the league next season and the season after that. 

To turn down having that team for "wait and see" is unacceptable, IMO.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Yeah, they also believe Hinrich and Deng are both better than Gordon, even calling Gordon overrated. Dellusional.


Given that you and I seem to have a lower than average valuation of Gordon among people around here, I'm even more surprised you would not be happy getting PP in return for a Gordon/Knicks pick trade.

If I thought Gordon is going to become a top 15 player in the NBA, I’d hesitate in pulling the trigger on that deal.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Yeah, they also believe Hinrich and Deng are both better than Gordon, even calling Gordon overrated. Dellusional.


I am a HUGE Gordon fan, and yet I think he's overrated. 

I think he's clearly the best Bulls' draft pick since the dynasty, aside from Brand. He had immediate impact as a rookie, and is better in year 2 than in year 1.

Of all the Bulls on the roster, he's the closest thing to a star we have. 

But he's not yet a star.

Let's see him put up 22/4/4 for the rest of the season, and then we can talk about how good he really is NOW.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Superstar or star level players that have changed teams in the last two years: Carter, Webber, Wallace, Shaq, Baron Davis, McGrady.
> 
> This would indicate a star player other than Pierce would become available at some point, even if it's not apparent at this time.


Yup . . . and all of them were acquired using assets that we won't have if we don't use Tim Thomas's expiring deal and trade the draft picks.

Carter -- acquired for multiple first-rounders and cap-friendly deals.

Webber -- acquired for multiple big contracts

Wallace -- an insanely complicated deal involving a variety of cap-friendly contracts and a lousy decision by the Celtics. 

Shaq -- two max (or close to it) contracts

Baron Davis -- a max (or close to it) expiring contract

McGrady -- a similarly salaried "superstar" player (Steve Francis).

The expiring contract we have is massively valuable, and it is worthless to us after the trading deadline.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#86


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> If you can land Gooden and PP, its not "over," IMO. There are still young picks to develop and young players, and we have an awesome (IMO) team to follow NOW.
> 
> We saw a PP lead team come within a couple games of the NBA finals. PP is more productive a player now than he was that season. Our core sans Gordon and Duhon, with Gooden, a MLE PG, our pick and next years our/Knicks pick is better than what PP had on that team.
> 
> ...


You know, the way you present it, that is obviously a good looking team. I have doubts as to our ability to only include Gordon/TT/pick in the Pierce trade and only Duhon in the Gooden deal. I don't see Boston doing a trade without including Lafrentz. And then there's the problem of attracting Claxton with only the MLE. There will be teams offering him a starting job, IMO.

Basically, including Gordon (and yeah, I don't think he's going to be a top 15 player either, but could be an occasional All-Star and a very good scorer) only makes sense if you can compete for a championship now. This would require getting Gooden. One team orchestrating multiple trades at the deadline does not happen often, though, which would mean trades like that are difficult to pull off.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> I disagree with this point. To me, because Pierce does not have great athleticism when his athleticism starts to decline he'll be a poor athlete and that will be a liability. A great athlete would be able to add more skill with age and still be a good athlete. In essence, a great athlete at 34 could be Paul Pierce at 28.


I look at Pierce's athleticism as being comparable to the kind that lets big men, on average, have longer careers than the little guys. He uses his strength more than quickness to gain separation. 

I could be wrong. In any case, he's 28 and at the absolute top of his game. If he gives 3-4 more years of that, then "tails off" to be a 20/6/3 sort of guy, I think that would be absolutely fine if the other players on the team step up accordingly.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Something to consider is the Boston fans' point of view on the trade. Most of them think Pierce shouldn't be traded and that Gordon/Duhon/Knicks pick/taking Raef's contract isn't enough (much less just Gordon/pick).
> 
> http://celticsblog.net/blog/?p=1421
> 
> I point this out, in part, because I can already sense the misconception developing that Pierce MUST be available and Pax could just swipe him away from Boston for very little in return.


I think Ainge is under an incredible amount of pressure in Boston, and he's in a spot that can be easily taken advantage of -- his team stinks, but his ownership group still trusts him. I think he'd be hard-pressed to turn down a deal that would likely net him two of the top 3-4 picks in the draft and offer massive cap relief (whether it involves just Pierce or LaFrentz as well).


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Yup . . . and all of them were acquired using assets that we won't have if we don't use Tim Thomas's expiring deal and trade the draft picks.
> 
> Carter -- acquired for multiple first-rounders and cap-friendly deals.
> 
> ...


Eric Williams included in the Carter trade did not have anything close to a cap friendly deal.

I'm not sure what your point is. First you're telling me how GM's aren't going to want Chandler's cap crippling deal and then point out trades (Shaq, Webber, McGrady, Carter) where long term contracts were indeed included or, in the case of Baron Davis, the talent level exchanged was nowhere near equal, making the expiring contract the most valuable part of the deal.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Paul Pierce a Hall of Famer? Maybe when they start letting the Mitch Richmond's and Jerry Stackhouse's of the world into the Hall of Fame. Pierce has at no point been a top 10 player in the league. Maybe he does make it, but I don't think he deserves that honor.


If Pierce makes 2-3 more All-Star teams and plays 4-5 more seasons at or near his career averages -- not at all a far-fetched prospect, imo -- he'll make the Hall.



> As far as naming names, any name I throw out there I'm sure you'll dismiss rather quickly for some reason or another. Guys I would look at are Bosh, Garnett, J. O'Neal, Gasol, Wade, Carter, and even Pierce (the latter 3 could be acquired next summer in sign and trades if they do decide to leave their current teams). We'll be in a much stronger position as a team if we wait on acquiring those players. And I realize these are hypotheticals but so is current speculation on acquiring Pierce.


The most attractive players of that bunch are Bosh and Wade, and the chance either will leave their current team is tiny. And if Bosh does decide to leave, we'll be competing with most teams in the league for his services. Carter isn't anywhere near the caliber of Pierce, imo. Gasol or Jermaine O'Neal would be nice, but I don't think they fit us as well as Pierce does. I've maintained all along that it would take too much for us to get Garnett, and probably a bigger obstacle is that he harbors a venomous, bitter hatred for the Bulls' organization. 



> Lafrentz only fits a need if a team is looking for an incredibly soft white guy to put on the team. You're seemingly dismissing Przybilla because he's in a platoon for a dreadful team yet building up a guy who plays even less on an equally horrible team? And there's always that guy in New York who plays about the same as Przybilla yet for just about the worst team in the league. Bad teams can have good players, right?


LaFrentz can still rebound, he'd be our team's leading shot-blocker if he got 28 minutes a game, and he spreads defenses with his shooting. I'm not saying he's a savior, but we desperately need a back-up center. 



> It's like I'm reading a Mariotti column: metaphors, hyperbole, pie-in-the-sky scenarios, and after a main point is established, every conceivable counter-argument is quickly and superficially deconstructed.


This is hilarious.

I'm pie-in-the-sky? No, I'm proposing that we build around an established NBA star. Your plan is the one that relies on vague trades for superstars, draft picks immediately panning out, and Al Harrington/Joel Przybilla playing like they're worth $100 million + (when there's hardly any evidence to suggest that they're even any better than players we already have on the roster.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Eric Williams included in the Carter trade did not have anything close to a cap friendly deal.
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is. First you're telling me how GM's aren't going to want Chandler's cap crippling deal and then point out trades (Shaq, Webber, McGrady, Carter) where long term contracts were indeed included or, in the case of Baron Davis, the talent level exchanged was nowhere near equal, making the expiring contract the most valuable part of the deal.


The point is pretty simple -- if we let Thomas's contract (or, even though it's pretty unlikely on a variety of fronts, don't sign our draft picks or any free agents and hoard the cap space through the summer and wait for a deal then) go by the wayside, we would not have had the ammunition to make ANY of the deals you cited.

Chandler's deal isn't a max deal, and while I think he fits our needs perfectly (kinda like Curry), obviously there aren't many teams who feel as fondly for him. I don't see a rival GM trading a star to the Bulls and having the centerpiece of what he gets back be Tyson Chandler. That's just not realistic.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> The most attractive players of that bunch are Bosh and Wade, and the chance either will leave their current team is tiny. And if Bosh does decide to leave, we'll be competing with most teams in the league for his services. Carter isn't anywhere near the caliber of Pierce, imo. Gasol or Jermaine O'Neal would be nice, but I don't think they fit us as well as Pierce does. I've maintained all along that it would take too much for us to get Garnett, and probably a bigger obstacle is that he harbors a venomous, bitter hatred for the Bulls' organization.


IMO all those players will be better fits down the road (as opposed to Pierce now) because we'll have a much better team to assemble around them. I'm curious as to why you think Carter isn't "anywhere near" Pierce. Carter dogged it the last two and a half years in Toronto, but when he's motivated, he's as good as, if not better than, Pierce. Garnett would require a lot of talent in return, but that is the whole point of amassing talent with picks and free agency: to have enough talent left over when over-paying for a star.




> LaFrentz can still rebound, he'd be our team's leading shot-blocker if he got 28 minutes a game, and he spreads defenses with his shooting. I'm not saying he's a savior, but we desperately need a back-up center.


So Lafrentz can rebound, block shots, and we have a desperate need for a backup center, yet it's a bad idea to go after Przybilla who would cost less annually and provides more rebounding and shot blocking than Lafrentz?



> No, I'm proposing that we build around an established NBA star. Your plan is the one that relies on vague trades for superstars, draft picks immediately panning out, and Al Harrington/Joel Przybilla playing like they're worth $100 million + (when there's hardly any evidence to suggest that they're even any better than players we already have on the roster.


First and foremost, discussing a trade for Pierce is as vague as one for any of the previously mentioned star players. There has been no confirmation as to his availability other than non-reliable rumors. We should make a distinction about that right now. Second, expecting immediate production from high level college players selected with a top 3 pick isn't some unlikely occurrence. Paxson has done very well with his picks. Finally, Al Harrington and Przybilla will not receive $100 M + contracts.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> The point is pretty simple -- if we let Thomas's contract (or, even though it's pretty unlikely on a variety of fronts, don't sign our draft picks or any free agents and hoard the cap space through the summer and wait for a deal then) go by the wayside, we would not have had the ammunition to make ANY of the deals you cited.


What about Chandler? And possibly Harrington and Przybilla? If that list shows anything, it's that GMs will take back players on bad long term contracts (Francis, Odom, Eric Williams, Kenny Thomas) to make a trade happen (as long as there's enough talent exchanging hands from our end). 



> Chandler's deal isn't a max deal, and while I think he fits our needs perfectly (kinda like Curry), obviously there aren't many teams who feel as fondly for him. I don't see a rival GM trading a star to the Bulls and having the centerpiece of what he gets back be Tyson Chandler. That's just not realistic.


Yeah, but Chandler would not be the centerpiece of any deal, only his contract. Other young players would obviously have to be involved.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Basically, what I'm getting at here, does anyone think that a team like the Grizzlies would turn down Chandler/Aldridge/Deng/Duhon/2007 pick for Gasol/Damon's bad contract (adjust accordingly with whatever other filler is possible)? Am I crazy for thinking that would be a great deal for the Grizzlies?

Sure, the Bulls would overpay, but they're in a position to do so after acquiring all that talent. Here's the leftover lineup:

PG - Hinrich/Brewer
SG - Gordon/Brewer
SF - Harrington/Noc
PF - Gasol/Noc
C - Przybilla/MLE

That's a great, young lineup that compares favorably to that O'Neal/Artest Pacers team that won 61 games 2 years ago.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> You know, the way you present it, that is obviously a good looking team. I have doubts as to our ability to only include Gordon/TT/pick in the Pierce trade and only Duhon in the Gooden deal. I don't see Boston doing a trade without including Lafrentz. And then there's the problem of attracting Claxton with only the MLE. There will be teams offering him a starting job, IMO.
> 
> Basically, including Gordon (and yeah, I don't think he's going to be a top 15 player either, but could be an occasional All-Star and a very good scorer) only makes sense if you can compete for a championship now. This would require getting Gooden. One team orchestrating multiple trades at the deadline does not happen often, though, which would mean trades like that are difficult to pull off.


How do you do a PP/LaFrentz deal and have it work under the trade checker?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> How do you do a PP/LaFrentz deal and have it work under the trade checker?


I'm not sure, but the proposed scenario had us sending over Pike and Duhon which would obviously kill the Gooden deal.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> I'm not sure, but the proposed scenario had us sending over Pike and Duhon which would obviously kill the Gooden deal.


The answer is you'd have to include Chandler and TT's contracts, and no way do we do it.

And I agree with you that Carter and Pierce are comparable players who'd both fit in here quite well.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> The answer is you'd have to include Chandler and TT's contracts, and no way do we do it.


Well, this worked (it would presumably work with Duhon as well, but his "trade permission" keeps popping up):


> _Chicago Trade Breakdown _
> 
> Outgoing
> * Ben Gordon*
> ...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Frank, 

If that's the deal, Pax should pull the trigger.

Cap space, crap space. Who cares? After this summer, we're over the cap.

LaFrentz can help/still play, and we could still use his contract to facilitate trades down the road. He's got skills and a big body to play alongside Chandler for about half a game. In fact, I bet he'd start for us.

I'd rather see us trade Hinrich than Gordon, but either way is a nice deal for us.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay

Would you do *Deng ( instead of Gordon ) *, TT, Piatowski . Sweetney and Malik Allen for Paul Pierce and Raef LaFrentz and our draft pick ( say #15 to #18 ) + the rights to swap our Knicks pick with Boston's if the Knicks are say top 3 and Boston is #7 to #9  ???

At #7 to #9 I would take Shelden Williams whose inside offense complements LaFrentz's outside game 

Give Shelden interior defense support with AD ..cut Othella loose 

LaFrentz is a weakside help defender/blocker and Chandler gets given a freer roving commission with complementary pieces upfront and size to resume his role/form from last season 

*

Chandler
LaFrentz
Pierce
Gordon
Hinrich

bench

S.Williams
Songaila
Nocioni
Welsch ( free agent target with part MLE )
Duhon 

A.Davis 
Pargo

*

Boston gets Deng to pair with Sczcerbiak on the wings and they get the chance to maybe put Aldridge upfront with Perkins and Jefferson 

They have Green in the development league ..Tony Allen backing up the wings and Orien and Gomes as developmental players as well 

Delonte West at the point and perhaps they take whoever is available of *Foye, Collins or Gibson in the mid teens with our pick *

In any event they would need to add some depth at the point guard and strong /power positions upfront

But they would basically have a completely clean slate and Sczcerbiak helps with consistent scoring ( he can do that ) and also to reach league minimum payroll hurdle

The Celts would have a payroll of $35M for 13 guys ( including the draft picks ) and cap space of around $13M 

Deduct $5M off for the addition of a further lottery pick in 2007 which is offset by Vin Baker's contract of $5.3M coming off the books and they still have a Top 3 lottery pick in 2006 ( our swap with them and the Knicks pick ) another in 2007 ( of their own as they will suck in the short term ) and they will still have around $14M and a collection of young rookie contract to perhaps consolidate going into 2007 free agency comprising 

*

Perkins
Aldridge
Jefferson
Deng
Green 
Greene
Gomes 
Allen
West
2007 lottery pick 

*

Nice instant rebuilding position for Danny Ainge to be in 

Imagine if we negotiated to hold onto our #15 to #18 pick and threw Darius Songaila into the deal who expires ahead of 2007 free agency and we took the pain of Brain Scalabrine at $3M per for the next 4 years to give the Celts even further cap cleansing ?

But then what if say Maurice Ager is available at #15 and we dealt the rights to our pick to Denver with LaFrentz and Scalabrine for Kenyon Martin 

I mean Martin and LaFrentz are roughly equal in terms of injury /health risk although IMO Martin is the superior player if both are healthy ..the upside for Denver is that they get out from Martin's deal 1 year earlier and they get a draft pick this year where they don't have one and they get a chance to draft a two guard like Ager who could really fit

On top of this ... they get to show the love to Nene to retain him as their projected starter with Camby and Elson slips into backup reserve support with LaFrentz . Scalabrine is the 5th big

The Nugz are one of the worst long range shooting teams in the league ...the addition of LaFrentz and Scalabrine on the front line and Ager or Redick ( if he falls this far ) at the 2 guard at the expense of Martin ? 

Why wouldn't the Nugz do it? Surely it would be reasonable to expect it would be of some appeal to them 

Boston clean out and start over with rookie contract talent and with Scalabrine added to the deal they would have around $17m in 2007 free agency 

The Bulls give up *Deng, Songaila , our #say #15 pick and the rights to swap picks with Boston (using the Knicks pick ) + ending contracts for Paul Pierce and Kenyon Martin *

On this amendment I would make Splitter our pick instead of Shelden Williams and still pursue a Jiri Welsch and AD free agency and bring back Othella Harrington

*

Chandler
Martin
Pierce
Gordon
Hinrich

bench

Splitter
AD
Nocioni
Welsch
Duhon

O.Harrington
Pargo

*

Anyway..the question again ScottMay...would you be prepared to use Deng as your principal ( instead of Gordon ) to get Pierce ?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Would you do *Deng ( instead of Gordon ) *


I'd probably take Deng over Gordon if I was starting a team from scratch but I think Pierce\Gordon is definetly a better fit than Pierce\Deng on the parimeter. I really don't think Pierce is going to want to chase SGs around over the next few years and don't see Deng during this full-time either. 

Besides we have Noch as backup SF anyway. So Deng would be the guy I would dangle as the centerpiece for Pierce.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> I'd probably take Deng over Gordon if I was starting a team from scratch but I think Pierce\Gordon is definetly a better fit than Pierce\Deng on the parimeter. I really don't think Pierce is going to want to chase SGs around over the next few years and don't see Deng during this full-time either.
> 
> Besides we have Noch as backup SF anyway. So Deng would be the guy I would dangle as the centerpiece for Pierce.


Yeah its hard ... because I really rate Deng 

Question is would Pax be prepared to part with him and would Boston want him if we cleansed their salary books completely by taking LaFrentz and Scalabrine ( the latter two I would try and convert into Kenyon Martin with our likely mid 1st round draft pick )


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Anyway..the question again ScottMay...would you be prepared to use Deng as your principal ( instead of Gordon ) to get Pierce ?


Absolutely.

I've just used Gordon's name in the discussion because he's the player all of the media's informed speculation has centered on (and IIRC there was a lot of talk of Ainge coveting him leading up to the draft). But I would be willing to part with either Deng, Gordon, or Hinrich; the Knicks' pick; and Tim Thomas's contract to get Paul Pierce.

I'm not attached to any of the Bulls at this point. This year has revealed that they're all fundamentally incomplete, and that they all have limited upside. The odds of a player on the current roster becoming even a top-20 player in the league is pretty low, imo. I reserve my highest hopes for Deng, but I'd still deal him to get Pierce.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> And I agree with you that Carter and Pierce are comparable players who'd both fit in here quite well.


Pierce has missed 16 games in his career; Carter 164.

I like the cut of Pierce's jib a little bit better.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Pierce = Peja - Meaning, the latest guy to be lusted after by Bulls board memebrs. He doesn't make our team a contender. He only fills a hole created by trading the scurrent starter. He kills Cap space and giving up any picks means we continue to suck for eternity or atleast until Pierce is long gone.


And Raef..........makes me glad I'm not a Celtics fan.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

chifaninca said:


> Pierce = Peja - Meaning, the latest guy to be lusted after by Bulls board memebrs. He doesn't make our team a contender. He only fills a hole created by trading the scurrent starter. He kills Cap space and giving up any picks means we continue to suck for eternity or atleast until Pierce is long gone.
> 
> 
> And Raef..........makes me glad I'm not a Celtics fan.


People wanted Peja? Are you serious?

A whiny shooter who's obviously lost it, with a big contract and absolutely no semblance of defense? Heck, as of now Gordon, Pargo, even Kirk are shooting better than him.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

with the report today that pax has decided to stay pat, i dont think we have to worry about any washedup vets coming in here and ruining chemistry. yeah, we're a sub .500 team, but compared to where we were 2 years ago i'll take this any day.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

anorexorcist said:


> yeah, we're a sub .500 team, but compared to where we were 2 years ago i'll take this any day.


that's a refreshing view around here. Some people here say we're in a "losing environment" yet they are disappointed when we lose. I like hearing your POV more often, I agree.


----------

