# Rumor: Nocioni, Thabo, PJ, pick swap to Portland for Randolph, Outlaw



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

This came up in another thread, but it certainly deserves a thread of its own.

Obviously, I can't verify its validity.

http://www.oregonlive.com/forums/blazers/index.ssf

Search for Chicago in the search field and look for the post "Zach is gone" by Drazen44.

The source, Riggo, says the deal won't go down until Thursday, which is peculiar. Would this suggest that this is the deal Paxson will make if he can't successfully trade for Gasol?

It certainly works on Trade Checker.

I'm not sure how I feel about this possible trade. Randolph certainly gives us the post scoring we desperately need, if not the height. We also don't give up Hinrich/Gordon/Deng/Wallace/Thomas, which is pretty impressive, considering we net a player averaging 24/10.

I know Pax and Reinsdorf would prefer to not add any salary besides Zach for next year, but personally I'd much rather add Dixon to the mix as opposed to Outlaw. Without Noch, we'd lose almost all of our offensive punch off the bench. Dixon is signed through the 07-08 season. He's on the books for 2.9 million next year. 

No word on potential pick protection/whether we can acually protect the pick/whether I can protect you from picking your nose.

Hinrich, Duhon, Barrett
Gordon, Griffin
Deng, Khryapa, Outlaw
Randolph, Thomas
Wallace, Allen, Sweetney

It's certainly a shakeup, and it certainly fills a weakness. I still hope we hold out a few days for Gasol.

Talk amongst yourselves.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> This came up in another thread, but it certainly deserves a thread of its own.
> 
> Obviously, I can't verify its validity.
> 
> ...


I would also want LaMarcus Aldridge and Martell Webster or just Brandon Roy. Then I'll do it. If Portland doesn't want to, no thanks.


----------



## Headfake98 (Dec 10, 2006)

Heres a trade that works for both Chicago and Memphis

Bulls Trade: Thabo/TT, PJ, Noc, Malik, 2008 1st round Pick
Memphis Trades: Gasol and Cardinal.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Headfake98 said:


> Heres a trade that works for both Chicago and Memphis
> 
> Bulls Trade: Thabo/TT, PJ, Noc, Malik, 2008 1st round Pick
> Memphis Trades: Gasol and Cardinal.


We know this trade works. But does it fit the needs of Memphis and jerry west? If we are to believe the rumor we see in this thread, looks like Paxson is not sure if Jerry would do this trade. So he may have his base covered with the rumored (alledged) trade. He can tell Jerry that he has another trading partner ready to go.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Mods: merge, if you wish.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

As i said in the other thread, it covers a need. I like the young T Outlaw as well he is averaging over 8 pts and a game and almost 4 bds. 

Zach is a mild threat with the three. He is shooting about 28%. He is a good ft shooter. That could help us. 

I will miss nocioni. Thabo may turn out to be a nice a player as well.

We keep the trinity and add Zach and a young outlaw. We keep TT... yeah.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

This makes some sense given the Skiles /Michigan connection - but not the draft pick

I'd deal Tyrus , keep Thabo and they can keep Outlaw but no draft pick in this draft for Randolph


Noc, Thabo and a 1st round pick for ZBo again is an overpayment 

Yeah we're flawed but we're a playoff team and don't have to do a deal right now 

We really should be patient and do a deal on our terms without overpayment


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> This makes some sense given the Skiles /Michigan connection - but not the draft pick
> 
> I'd deal Tyrus , keep Thabo and they can keep Outlaw but no draft pick in this draft for Randolph
> 
> ...


Yes, we should go after KG next year or Vince Carter this year.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

All I can say is wow.

Nice deal for PDX. No Cardinal contract for you guys. Could turn around and sign Noc for the MLE. However, I am big on ZBo. Underrated IMO.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

now he is saying the trade is not as reported. He said he cant say what it is. Said the GM in question has three trades in front of him, One of them being Zach. He says he is getting the info from 4 sources. 

http://realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=628526&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=12


----------



## bmac (Feb 18, 2007)

I'd stay the hell away from this deal if i were the Bulls.

Zach doesn't strike me as a 'Scott Skiles guy'. Sure he's clearly an offensive dynamo, but he's also a defensive liability, not to mention a questionable character guy.

While most people don't seem to think much of Gasol's defensive abilities, he at least blocks 2 shots a game. Zach has 3 blocks in the last 2 and a half months! Pretty pathetic for someone who is 6'9. And Gasol is also a FAR superior/willing passer, meaning he'd be a much better fit with the outside shooting of Gordon and Hinrich.


----------



## JaffLo (May 24, 2006)

Comparing Randolph to Gasol is just ridiculous. Gasol is a far better basketball player, a top nba player, while Randolph is just a good scorer in an awful team.

Gasol is what ideally we need, I think it just won´t happen because we can not afford to lose either Gordon, Deng or Hinrich.

I don´t like the Randolph trade at all. I would prefer Noccioni alone over Randolph, not to mention all the other stuff thrown in it. I just can´t believe Pax would make that.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

JaffLo said:


> Comparing Randolph to Gasol is just ridiculous. Gasol is a far better basketball player, a top nba player, while Randolph is just a good scorer in an awful team.
> 
> Gasol is what ideally we need, I think it just won´t happen because we can not afford to lose either Gordon, Deng or Hinrich.
> 
> I don´t like the Randolph trade at all. I would prefer Noccioni alone over Randolph, not to mention all the other stuff thrown in it. I just can´t believe Pax would make that.


Agreed, Zach is a good player but just won't fit with the Bulls.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I think Scott Skiles and Zach Randolf know and like each other from the Michigan State connection.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> Could turn around and sign Noc for the MLE.


Noc is restricted this summer. PDX would match that for sure.


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

Wait, we are getting, and more importantly, paying 
zach near max money for "x" more years AND then we have to reup BG and Lou with hefty raises in the near future...

C'mon people, this is Reinsdork we are talking about. He had to practically hold his nose when he signed MJ to his last contract...

The economics alone dictate that this trade will most likely not happen.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

truebluefan said:


> now he is saying the trade is not as reported. He said he cant say what it is. Said the GM in question has three trades in front of him, One of them being Zach. He says he is getting the info from 4 sources.
> 
> http://realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=628526&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=12


I wonder which opposing GM has 3 offers to choose from? Would it be Pax?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> I wonder which opposing GM has 3 offers to choose from? Would it be Pax?


He didnt say. I assume it is.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

truebluefan said:


> He didnt say. I assume it is.


I wonder if that person has 3 offers to choose from Portland, or from various teams. Interesting, nonetheless.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I mean in my mind giving up Nocioni, Thabo, and the pick is simply too much for what I consider a rich man's Shareef Abdur-Rahim. Randolph is a nice enough player, but does he put us over the top. I don't think so. Outlaw and Thabo pretty much balance out so I guess when I look at it from a math standpoint is Nocioni + #9 Pick = Randolph. It's debatable.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Oh dear god no.


----------



## heiesuke (Jan 12, 2006)

Coach Skiles probably wouldn't even play Darius Miles if this ever went down.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

If this deal has any legs to it, it's not that bad. This is the kind of secodary deal I could see Pax making if Pau is just unobtainable because West's asking price is simply too high. I think it's quite a bit to give up for Z-Bo and Outlaw. Basically, Nocioni and PJ are a given and I'd try to get Portland to choose between Thabo and the pick swap. As good as Randolph is, he's got MAJOR baggage and a MAJOR contract. We're doing Portland a favor by taking on the obligation and helping them to remake their team image. Even still, a starting five of Hinrich/Gordon/Deng/Randolph/Wallace is pretty damned good. Outlaw isn't bad. It's kind of a horizontal move, but it would seem to balance out the roster somewhat.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

fl_flash said:


> If this deal has any legs to it, it's not that bad. This is the kind of secodary deal I could see Pax making if Pau is just unobtainable because West's asking price is simply too high. I think it's quite a bit to give up for Z-Bo and Outlaw. Basically, Nocioni and PJ are a given and I'd try to get Portland to choose between Thabo and the pick swap. As good as Randolph is, he's got MAJOR baggage and a MAJOR contract. We're doing Portland a favor by taking on the obligation and helping them to remake their team image. Even still, a starting five of Hinrich/Gordon/Deng/Randolph/Wallace is pretty damned good. Outlaw isn't bad. It's kind of a horizontal move, but it would seem to balance out the roster somewhat.


One question, how will the Bulls re-sign Gordon and Deng???


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

bullybullz said:


> One question, how will the Bulls re-sign Gordon and Deng???


I'm pretty sure we have enough to get them both. Nocioni is the odd-man out IMO.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

The ROY said:


> I'm pretty sure we have enough to get them both. Nocioni is the odd-man out IMO.


HOPE SO....


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I like Nocioni a lot. Randolf costs more and, and by all reports, defends less. No deal.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Please..I'd give up Noc for Randolph in a heartbeat.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

bullybullz said:


> One question, how will the Bulls re-sign Gordon and Deng???


Well... Looking at '07-08 I can see the Bulls having 10 players under contract that would almost certainly be on the roster. I'm no good at making pretty tables, so I'll just list them out..
Randolph........13.3
Outlaw.......... 2.2
Wallace.........15.5
Gordon...........4.9
Thomas...........3.5
Hinrich.........11.0
Duhon............3.3
Deng.............3.3
Griffin..........1.6
Khryapa..........1.9
------
Total...........60.5

The Luxury tax threshhold for '06-07 is $65.42 million. Assumimg a minimal increase in the Lux tax ceiling for '07-08 would leave the Bulls with roughly the MLE to play with this comming offseason. 

This next season (07-08) won't be a big deal because even if Gordon and Deng sign extensions, they don't kick in until the 08-09 season. It's the 08-09 season that could see ole Uncle Jerry exceeding the Luxury Tax if he decides to retain both Gordon and Deng as well as keeping Hinrich and Wallace (who's deals actually decrease over time) and Z-Bo (who's deal really increases over time - kind of offset by Wallace and Hinrich's decreases). You can let guys like Duhon and Khryapa go at that time and save some cash, but I don't know how wise that would be...

Frankly, if we could keep Thabo OR the Knick pick this year, that would bump that 60.5 up to around 62 mil for 0708. Still, some wiggle room beneath the Lux Tax to work with and 11 players who could all contribute. Stick another 3 Andre Barretts - league minimum types - and you're pretty much done.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

T.Shock said:


> I mean in my mind giving up Nocioni, Thabo, and the pick is simply too much for what I consider a rich man's Shareef Abdur-Rahim. Randolph is a nice enough player, but does he put us over the top. I don't think so. *Outlaw and Thabo pretty much balance out so I guess when I look at it from a math standpoint is Nocioni + #9 Pick = Randolph. It's debatable.*


Yes, its debatable. But I'm going to go back to my point that as fans we are way too interested in what's going out as opposed to what we have when its over. 

Its not, in my opinion, looking at the assets in a vacuum. It must take into consideration the context of the team and the remaining roster. But this is just an observation about analysis, not a judgment on the merit of the rumored trade. 

*That said, I don't like this trade. Pass.* If Paxson isn't going to make a move for Gasol, I'd rather just stand pat and show patience than jump at Randolph.

Randolph is young, talented, and is an excellent scoring 4. But I don't trust his approach, his attitude, his reliability, or his ability to conform to Skiles' structured offense. Randolph strikes me as a bit of Jalen Rose type player, without the solid-citizen lifestyle. He'll break the offense to get his, and won't play D. 

I don't trust him, no matter how well he fills our obvious team need. Plus, what is up with his .463 fg%?

I'm against this. If we were giving away pennies on the dollar, maybe. MAYBE. But Nocioni, Thabo and the Knicks' pick? No. I'd rather stand pat.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Just like West getting teams to shop against themselves, Paxson finding an acceptable second suitor gives Paxson more leverage in negotiations for Gasol.

"West, if you aren't going to take this package, I am perfectly fine taking this package elsewhere. I can get Randolf substituting Thabo for Tyrus in the package I offered to you."

I don't think it is any coincidence that we keep hearing the same names in trade proposals on Chicago's end. A trade rumor that is "acceptable" by both sides doesn't necessarily mean that this trade will go through if there is no deal for Gasol.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

If Portland is looking to trade a big, I'd rather have Aldridge than Randolf. They can have Nocioni & Thalbo in return if they like.

Truth is, I'd even rather have Przybilla than Randolf. Not because he's a better player, but he has a non-budget-busting contract, and we'd have a front line with a player taller than 6'9" who doesn't mind practicing, passing, setting picks, playing defense and doesn't have to be bailed out of jail periodically. 

Alternatively, we could buy Mario Austin's contract out and keep everyone. He's also 6'9" and seems to be scoring well in europe (17.9 pts, 6.8 rb) in fewer minutes than Randolf plays. Hapoel Jeruselum is probably comparable in team quality to Portland.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

McBulls said:


> If Portland is looking to trade a big, I'd rather have Aldridge than Randolf. They can have Nocioni & Thalbo in return if they like.


Why would the blazers be willing to do that? I believe Portland is willing to trade Zach because of his salary and his off the court troubles. Aldridge is cheap and is a good character guy.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

McBulls said:


> If Portland is looking to trade a big, I'd rather have Aldridge than Randolf. They can have Nocioni & Thalbo in return if they like.


Um, if they didn't trade Aldridge for Gasol in that rumored deal, I'm sure Thabo and Nocioni are not going to do it. We had our chance at Aldridge, and we went with Thomas. 

Ron Cey, 46% from the field isn't ideal for a big man who shoots that much. However, 83% from the free throw line is really, really good for a big -- especially one who is shooting 7.3 free throws a game.

I don't particularly like Zach Randolph, but I think the Bulls are probably a better team with him on it.

That said, again, I'm still holding out hope for a Gasol trade.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

L.O.B said:


> Why would the blazers be willing to do that? I believe Portland is willing to trade Zach because of his salary and his off the court troubles. Aldridge is cheap and is a good character guy.


I was being sarcastic. The point is that the value of a big man isn't measured only by the number of points he's currently scoring. The desperate search for a post-up player has reached an absurd end-point with the Randolf proposal.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The more I think about it, them more I don't want ZBo. His D is horrible, he isn't too tall, and while he provides points, I love Noce so much more than ZBo. Noce for Gasol, Yes, I'm definitely in. But ZBo, and we also include the NYK pick, I don't know. 

I wouldn't be horribly sad if we got ZBo, but I really don't know how it'll play out. We'll have him for the next four years (I think).

I wonder what other trades are on the table for Pax. Something will go down. Its a matter of who for who.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Portland is willing to trade Zach because he doesn't fit their plan of the future. His off court incidents are overplayed, most of them are simple guilt by association situations. He busts his arse night in and night out, but he's not a good defender. 

Whoever said they would only trade that chicago Package if Roy or Aldridge needs to get out of the homer tank and think about a little bit of realism. A good fair trade is measured in 2 ways, and 2 ways only. Either both fan bases are happ, or both fan bases are miffed. There is no in between.


----------



## BeZerker2008 (Jun 29, 2006)

Zach randolph is a nice player that we could possibly aquire but for that much & I'm not sure if he's the person that would necessarily gets us over the hump. He's young, puts up good numbers, but imo I still think he's a project and with the baggage he carries he is not worth giving up the package we could very well give to Memphis.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

BeZerker2008 said:


> Zach randolph is a nice player that we could possibly aquire but for that much & I'm not sure if he's the person that would necessarily gets us over the hump. He's young, puts up good numbers, but imo I still think he's a project and with the baggage he carries he is not worth giving up the package we could very well give to Memphis.


I think the reason Zach enters into the topic though is Portland is wiiling to take less in return for Zach than Memphis is willing to take for Gasol.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Boy, talk about putting out fire with gasoline.

Nobody would ever accuse Paxson again of being risk adverse.

I am intrigued by the possibility.

If it is good, it will be very, very good.

and if it is bad it will be horrible.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Boy, talk about putting out fire with gasoline.
> 
> Nobody would ever accuse Paxson again of being risk adverse.
> 
> ...


yea, but if it is bad, think of all the great "wouldacouldashoulda" threads we can create.....:argue:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> yea, but if it is bad, think of all the great "wouldacouldashoulda" threads we can create.....:argue:


I am.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Just an FYI, I actually know Riggo through several boards. He isn't the guy who posted this. Another poster who was just playing around said he received an Email from Riggo that this is a deal that is going down. that poster is HanktheDwarf at Olive. I checked with Riggo, this rumor is completely bogus. Riggo does get some valid insight on occasion, but this Rumor though credited to him didn't come from him. Hank is always messin around like that.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Thanks, Schilly.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

But...I will say that Randolph is a legitimate option to the Bulls.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Just an FYI, I actually know Riggo through several boards. He isn't the guy who posted this. Another poster who was just playing around said he received an Email from Riggo that this is a deal that is going down. that poster is HanktheDwarf at Olive. I checked with Riggo, this rumor is completely bogus. Riggo does get some valid insight on occasion, but this Rumor though credited to him didn't come from him. Hank is always messin around like that.


Thanks and good to know. 

I'm relieved. This is not a good trade idea.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

The deal is a perfect salary match and makes some sense for both teams. I'm not 100% convinced something lilke this couldn't happen this week.

Well, at very least, the deadline week got a little bit more interesting with this rumor.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Well, I'm sure we all know some SORT of move will be made. Whether it's Randolph, Gasol or some other player, SOMETHING will get done. No way can Pax let us go into the 2nd half of the season without attempting to bring in SOME kind of low post scoring help.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The ROY said:


> Well, I'm sure we all know some SORT of move will be made. Whether it's Randolph, Gasol or some other player, SOMETHING will get done. No way can Pax let us go into the 2nd half of the season without attempting to bring in SOME kind of low post scoring help.


If low post scoring is so much more important than defense that one would consider trading a ton of assets for Randolf, then I suggest we play Sweetney a lot more. Just like Randolf, he can score in the low post, he draws fouls and shoots foul shots pretty well, and he's a good rebounder. He's a better passer than Randolf and is a good citizen who doesn't ever complain. Sweetney and Randolf are about the same height. They are both lousy defensive players, although in different ways and for different reasons.

My guess is that unless Paxson threatened to fire him, Skiles would see to it that Randolf had about the same amount of playing time as Sweetney on the Bulls. And rightly so.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Schilly said:


> Just an FYI, I actually know Riggo through several boards. He isn't the guy who posted this. Another poster who was just playing around said he received an Email from Riggo that this is a deal that is going down. that poster is HanktheDwarf at Olive. I checked with Riggo, this rumor is completely bogus. Riggo does get some valid insight on occasion, but this Rumor though credited to him didn't come from him. Hank is always messin around like that.


THANKS

Can we DELETE this thread now mods? Now we're just teasing our own damn selves.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I think the trade as rumored was hot garbage.

Here's some other things I think.
1. Ben Wallace and Zach Randolph will be an absolutely disasterous combination, both offensively and defensively. Zach can hit a jump shot, but he's no Rasheed Wallace. Ben will be in his way and Zach will get double-teamed. Defensively, Zach will cement us into a seriously undersized team that opponents attack. I don't think Wallace needs a great man defender next to him. A guy that's just ok and tall will do the trick. Zach isn't OK and he isn't tall.

In short, I don't really see the need to get into the off-court issues, attitude or anything else. From a basketball perspective it's a bad fit to keep Wallace and try to fit Randolph next to him. It's wishful thinking based on the fact that we need someone who can score. Yeah, Zach can score, but he's a poor fit next to Wallace.

2. From everything I've seen and heard over the past couple years, Portland is desperate to be rid of him. I haven't heard of any team that seriously wants to take on his $70M contract. So we'd step in and dish up Noc, and two lottery picks (Thabo ad this year's?). We've already done the Blazers one favor this year, and that's just plain ridiculous. We do that trade, and we've locked ourselves into supreme mediocrity. Bad contracts, no bench, no draft pick. Going nowhere and not anywhere meaningful to speak of.

In short, it's a desperation move.

The only sort of deal that would make sense for Randolph is one where we jettison Wallace. They're incompatible and flawed players on bad contracts, but Randolph at least is young and can be worked with. I guess I'd also do it for something like PJ and Sweetney just because we add a talented player for nothing, but I wouldn't have very high hopes of it working.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

There's no way the Bulls take Randolph, they simply do not like or want him. Here's why. If the Bulls wanted Randolph, they could have kept Chandler, and we would have our 7 foot defensive presence with our scoring 4. Since Chandler was on the way out, the Bulls could have EASILY shipped him to Portland for Randolph, where the Blazers would have been more than willing to pair Aldridge with Chandler. I hope its clear now, the Bulls never wanted Randolph, period, paired with Chandler OR Wallace. 

Now when you think about it like that, then it has to make you think that these talks coming up are either made up, or Pax is completely desperate. If this happens, Pax fails again because this could have been done a long time ago. I was under the impression when Chandler was traded for cap space, that PJ would be used wisely to bring us something WE WANT in return. This (potential) move would be taking a big step backwards IMHO.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Sure would be interesting if it went down though, eh?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Most trainwrecks are interesting.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Schilly,

Why the hell would a guy like Hank *mess* around like that. To me, that should be an automatic ban. Its one thing to say it's your opinion of a trade idea, it's another to make something sound legit. It'd be lime me starting a thread that a Gasol trade was done b/c I read that Gasol was 'available'. I go no sources. My sources are ESPN and whatever I read on these message boards, I take as rumors. 

I'm not blaming you Schilly, just it's messed up for a guy to make it sound like a complete deal when he is talking out of his [edit]


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

FWIW

I have never been under the impression that PJ Brown was acquired so Pax could trade his expiring contract.

For all the reasons his contract is valuable to other teams, it's valuable to Paxson.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Schilly,
> 
> Why the hell would a guy like Hank *mess* around like that. To me, that should be an automatic ban. Its one thing to say it's your opinion of a trade idea, it's another to make something sound legit. It'd be lime me starting a thread that a Gasol trade was done b/c I read that Gasol was 'available'. I go no sources. My sources are ESPN and whatever I read on these message boards, I take as rumors.
> 
> I'm not blaming you Schilly, just it's messed up for a guy to make it sound like a complete deal when he is talking out of his @$$.


It's a different website entirely, one that the mods lets go to garbage pretty regularly.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> FWIW
> 
> I have never been under the impression that PJ Brown was acquired so Pax could trade his expiring contract.
> 
> For all the reasons his contract is valuable to other teams, it's valuable to Paxson.


Right, but when you see the Bulls bringing in aging Wallace for that much money, what does it tell you? For me, it says we are making a push to go all the way. So, we get Wallace, but send Chandler off.....and that's it? I don't think so, not with aging Wallace on the team, which tells me we are in "win now" mode, and Pax is not finished making major deals. Even if you thought at the point of acquiring Wallace that he was better than Chandler, you still knew we needed another scorer. Since you now got rid of your 7 footer, and you already needed scoring...you put yourself in a position where, I guess, a scoring 7 footer would be the final piece. Its why we always hear Gasol and KG talks.

I hate to say this, but bringing in Wallace in place of Chandler, especially in hindsight, seems like a lateral move. To make sense out of all this, a trade has to happen, or this will be a major failure. With young Chandler here, there isn't as much urgency to win now. With geriatric money stealing Wallace, we have to win now. That expiring contract is for loser teams not in contention, we have to use that asset to help us over the top. It would be more valuable to Pax under different circumstances, but not now. Wallace's peak years are fading, so we can't afford to wait around. Pax madeth his bed, thus he shall lyeth on it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Bulldozer said:


> Right, but when you see the Bulls bringing in aging Wallace for that much money, what does it tell you? For me, it says we are making a push to go all the way. So, we get Wallace, but send Chandler off.....and that's it? I don't think so, not with aging Wallace on the team, which tells me we are in "win now" mode, and Pax is not finished making major deals. Even if you thought at the point of acquiring Wallace that he was better than Chandler, you still knew we needed another scorer. Since you now got rid of your 7 footer, and you already needed scoring...you put yourself in a position where, I guess, a scoring 7 footer would be the final piece. Its why we always hear Gasol and KG talks.
> 
> I hate to say this, but bringing in Wallace in place of Chandler, especially in hindsight, seems like a lateral move. To make sense out of all this, a trade has to happen, or this will be a major failure. With young Chandler here, there isn't as much urgency to win now. With geriatric money stealing Wallace, we have to win now. That expiring contract is for loser teams not in contention, we have to use that asset to help us over the top. It would be more valuable to Pax under different circumstances, but not now. Wallace's peak years are fading, so we can't afford to wait around. Pax madeth his bed, thus he shall lyeth on it.


Or Paxson way overestimated how good Wallace was going to be for the Bulls.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> Or Paxson way overestimated how good Wallace was going to be for the Bulls.


Well, if that's the case then I guess he's an idiot. I thought it was fairly obvious, that it was only a matter of increased minutes for Chandler to put up the desired stats (boards, blocked shots). Since we got rid of Curry, we needed to fill that scoring void. We still have not filled that void. So say Paxon overestimated how good Wallace would be in place of Chandler, fine, but that's only defensively. Again, we took a step back getting rid of Curry and we still haven't replaced that production. A big time scorer is what this team is missing, a 21+ ppg type of player...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> FWIW
> 
> I have never been under the impression that PJ Brown was acquired so Pax could trade his expiring contract.
> 
> *For all the reasons his contract is valuable to other teams, it's valuable to Paxson.*


I'd have to admit that I agree with the non-bolded part. I always considered it a salary dump. Now, though, I expect to get some value for the contract in light of the way Chandler is playing this season. 

But the bolded part isn't accurate. There is a completely different reason Brown's contract has value to other teams - Memphis included. Allowing it to expire gives them that much more room under the cap to sign free agents.

If PJ expires in Chicago, the Bulls get no such benefit. They will be over the cap regardless and limited to the MLE, LLE, and VE.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Bulldozer said:


> Well, if that's the case then I guess he's an idiot.


It could be a genetic trait.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Just FYI, I think Randolph is a fantastic offensive player, one of the most underrated guys in the league, he's still only 25 and big men tend to hit their primes a little later than guards. I watched him in a game the other week (whenever they were on national TV, when was that?) and Zach Randolph spotted up for a 3 and nailed it.

He's no Rasheed Wallace, but he's probably better than Wallace in terms of pure back-to-the-basket game (Rasheed gets "post" points but it's mostly in a face-up game, not that it really matters). Zach would come to this team and instantly be a 20/9 guy at the PF spot.

That's second-tier, alright, but it's good enough to get the job done. And while everyone worries about defense, time of possession and slowing the game down into the half-court will do a lot of things for us. Why is it that the Bulls always have pretty low opp FG% but substantially higher opp PPG? Because the pace of the game is faster, because the Bulls try to get out in transition, and because when you're a jump-shooting team, rebounds tend to be longer and thus even if Chicago runs their half-court offense it still gives rise to their opponents' fast-breaks. This also explains why the Bulls always see really big swings in their game... the fast-break. Scoring in bunches on both sides.

Get a guy like Zach, a dribble back-to-the-basket guy, and you'll see a lot more paint play. Then Ben Wallace, historically one of the best offensive rebounders around, will have a lot more of a chance to make his offensive contributions on put-backs (whereas now he's asked way too often to make his own moves?!).

Zach's also a better rebounder in the defensive game because he's more of a box-out type, where Nocioni gets a ton of rebounds but basically it's because he's insane and will fly in for rebounds or just jump over his guy. (again, not that it really matters, i guess)

Add in the fact we'd basically have 5 high-quality near-All-Star level starters (Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Zach, Ben) and some post offense to boot... also put in the goodwill factor of a GM "coming through" for a need that's been voiced by several of his players... and finally, the fact that New York is looking fairly decent and the pick is looking closer to 7-11 rather than 2-5...

This deal would be just fine by me. With Tyrus still coming up as a SF/PF on the bench, I'm satisfied that we'd be "young enough" but also still learning while winning. Put in one MLE vet and find some gems in the 2nd round, and the team's rounded out completely. Gordon, Deng and Zach carry the offensive load; Hinrich, Duhon, Tyrus contribute as legit threats, and Big Ben does what Big Ben does.

Finally, Travis Outlaw is a player. If anyone keeps track of him in fantasy, whenever he gets minutes, he produces. The kid is learning, he's 22 years old, an athletic freak, and has improved every year. He's also a pretty sick defender. At worst, he's the younger more talented replacement for Griffin; at best, he's a rotation player as a defensive specialist and an athletic finisher. He'd solidify this deal in my view. I'd also be interested in Udoka or Dixon (Juan Dixon is my kind of player... that Maryland squad had serious ballers, see Steve Blake over in Denver right now).


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

It was a fake rumor that turned out to be completely false

why are we still discussin this?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

The ROY said:


> why are we still discussin this?


The ROY, I hate to pull the "one thing I've learned as I've gotten older" card, but one thing I've learned as I've gotten older is that it is damn near impossible to control the behavior of others.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> The ROY, I hate to pull the "one thing I've learned as I've gotten older" card, but one thing I've learned as I've gotten older is that it is damn near impossible to control the behavior of others.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


>


LOL.

I knew that Bulls kool-aid tasted kinda funny.....


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

I still don't think Zach is a viable option. He may be a scoring big-man, but he is in no way a Skiles type of player. I doubt he fit's with Ben as well as some people may think. I think it's worth the wait on Gasol, and if it doesn't happen a SAR like player will be perfectly fine. My choice would be to keep the core, and just try and fill the hole.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

superdave said:


> LOL.
> 
> I knew that Bulls kool-aid tasted kinda funny.....


"Drink it and be enlightened. DRINK IT AND BE ENLIGHTENED!!"


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'd have to admit that I agree with the non-bolded part. I always considered it a salary dump.


Ya know, at first that's what I thought as well.

But then they made the guy a team captain and put his face on a season ticket. 

Those are the guys the organization decided to feature for the upcoming season.

Stunning. I guess they may have just been trying to make the best of the situation, but I honestly think that Paxson thought PJ Brown would be a valuable player on the Bulls this year.

Instead, he's sucked on the court and demanded to be traded off the court.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Now I think we'll make a trade with the Blazers, but not for Zach. I think I saw Paxson mouthing "Roy". 

I talked to Ben Gordon on AIM. He said that he was trying to make up time, because that girl missed so many damn shots at the beginning. But then she missed again, so they lost, he just had strategy. Secondly, we talked trade. He said he liked Brandon Roy, Pau Gasol, and he became a fan of Jason Kapono at allstar weekend during the three point weekend. He thinks either something big will go down, or NOTHING AT ALL.

Now this is just pure speculation, but based off what he said, I'd expect to be the trade as follows.

Bulls Trade:

Kirk Hinrich
Andres Nocioni
PJ Brown
Chris Duhon
Thabo Sefolosha
Luol Deng
Ben Wallace

Bulls Receive:

Brandon Roy
Pau Gasol
Jason Williams
Earl Barron
Jason Kapono
Dan Dickau
Raef Lafrentz

Blazers Trade:

Raef Lafrentz
Dan Dickau
Brandon Roy

Blazers Receive:

Kirk Hinrich
Andres Nocioni
James Posey

Grizzlies Trade:

Pau Gasol

Grizzlies Receive:

Luol Deng
Thabo Sefolosha
PJ Brown

Heat Trade:

Jason Williams
Earl Barron
Jason Kapono

Heat Receive:

Ben Wallace
Chris Duhon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I'm kind of a fan of this trade.

It'd give us a core of:

Ben Gordon
Brandon Roy
Jason Kapono
Earl Barron
Tyrus Thomas
Pau Gasol
Knicks Pick


----------



## Guest (Feb 20, 2007)

Wow. It looks like you put an awful lot of thought and work into a post that, by past experience with you, I wouldn't read if there was a gun against my head.

Nice effort, though. I assume.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Mebarak said:


> Now I think we'll make a trade with the Blazers, but not for Zach. I think I saw Paxson mouthing "Roy".
> 
> I talked to Ben Gordon on AIM. He said that he was trying to make up time, because that girl missed so many damn shots at the beginning. But then she missed again, so they lost, he just had strategy. Secondly, we talked trade. He said he liked Brandon Roy, Pau Gasol, and he became a fan of Jason Kapono at allstar weekend during the three point weekend. He thinks either something big will go down, or NOTHING AT ALL.
> 
> ...




I'm not even sure where to start. Porltand wouldn't trade Roy for what they would get back, and that's me being nice. I realize you are a fan of the Bulls, and I'm sure Paxson was mouthing Roy. I'm also certain Patterson laughed at him unless the offer was...well, I'm not sure the Bulls have anything as valuable as Brandon Roy is to the Blazers. Let me explain before your panties get into a bunch. You certainly have players as valuable on the floor as Roy, but Portland has put their entire marketing promotion behind this kid. He is exactly the player our franchise has needed to once and for all rid itself of the stupid jail blazer moniker that seems to hang on to us. He is hard working, well spoken, went to school for 4 years, from the NW, and he is pretty dang good.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'd have to admit that I agree with the non-bolded part. I always considered it a salary dump. Now, though, I expect to get some value for the contract in light of the way Chandler is playing this season.
> 
> But the bolded part isn't accurate. There is a completely different reason Brown's contract has value to other teams - Memphis included. Allowing it to expire gives them that much more room under the cap to sign free agents.
> 
> If PJ expires in Chicago, the Bulls get no such benefit. They will be over the cap regardless and limited to the MLE, LLE, and VE.


If PJ expires, the bulls have $8M more to pay Gordon and Deng without going over the luxury tax threshold.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> Just FYI, I think Randolph is a fantastic offensive player, one of the most underrated guys in the league, he's still only 25 and big men tend to hit their primes a little later than guards. I watched him in a game the other week (whenever they were on national TV, when was that?) and Zach Randolph spotted up for a 3 and nailed it.
> 
> He's no Rasheed Wallace, but he's probably better than Wallace in terms of pure back-to-the-basket game (Rasheed gets "post" points but it's mostly in a face-up game, not that it really matters). Zach would come to this team and instantly be a 20/9 guy at the PF spot.
> 
> ...


+3
and1
and another +2 on the putback after rebounding the missed FT.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> If PJ expires, the bulls have $8M more to pay Gordon and Deng without going over the luxury tax threshold.


I know that. But it doesn't create capspace. I'm simply pointing out that his expiring contract provides different things to different teams. 

For the Bulls, it provides additional funds to the team to avoid the luxury tax when re-signing Deng and Gordon - just as you pointed out. 

For the Grizzlies, for example, it provides $8 million more in money under the cap to sign big money free agents - which is something it does not provide the Bulls.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> If PJ expires,


Come on DaBullz, we all know PJ Brown is old as dirt, but I think worrying about this is overdoing it.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Mebarak said:


> Now I think we'll make a trade with the Blazers, but not for Zach. I think I saw Paxson mouthing "Roy".
> 
> I talked to Ben Gordon on AIM. He said that he was trying to make up time, because that girl missed so many damn shots at the beginning. But then she missed again, so they lost, he just had strategy. Secondly, we talked trade. He said he liked Brandon Roy, Pau Gasol, and he became a fan of Jason Kapono at allstar weekend during the three point weekend. He thinks either something big will go down, or NOTHING AT ALL.
> 
> ...


Bulls blow up the team??? Why?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

You guys do realize that Ben Wallace would sure up any defensive liabilites Zach had. We were fine with Sheed at the 5 and ZBo at the 4..defense wasn't an issue because Sheed made up a lot of ground and Ben is better at D than Sheed, so....I personally don't want Noc and NY pick...I'd rather have Deng and no pick or a future pick with Deng. I agree that right now Thabo and Outlaw are prolly a push.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Come on DaBullz, we all know PJ Brown is old as dirt, but I think worrying about this is overdoing it.


:laugh:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Come on DaBullz, we all know PJ Brown is old as dirt, but I think worrying about this is overdoing it.


LOL


:scatter: :scatter: :scatter: 

All we are is Dust in the Wind, Dude!










:scatter: :scatter::scatter:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the rock this morning...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

That schmuck just needs proper representation...


----------



## nybullsfan (Aug 12, 2005)

if this deal has any legs to it,then how exactly could we be overpaying? dont this team need a low post scorer? i think i speak for everyone when i say yes. ok lets see how we overpaying lets examine shall we

*nocioni* (good role player coaches dream, but the reality is he is a free agent and we have to pay big bucks to gordon and deng and we know jerry is caucious about the luxury tax, so who's to say nocioni is going to stay with us or blazers at the end of the season.)

*sefolosha* (i would hate to give up this guy like nocioni from what i see hes a great passer defender and does all those little things but the reality is hes still unproven but he will be a great player some day hes very ginoblish)

*pj brown* (has been playing better solid veteran he would be in the trade to match salaries the reality is he is probably not on any team future plans as he is closer to retirement)

*the draft pick *(i hear its a swap so i cant really comment on it until i hear full details assuming this trade is real)

lets look at the benefits zach would bring us shall we

not only will teams have to worry about gordon dropping 20-22 on the wing but now they would have to worry about zach dropping 20-22 in the interior. how many big men is going to give him competition compared to the west. In the east you got dwight, bosh, okafor, and jermaine. I dont think they have hinrich, duhon, gordon, and deng type players who have experience in the playoffs, and at a young age as coming from winning programs like duke uconn and kansas. point is in this potential its very rare to find a big man wing combo that both give you 20 in gordon and randolph teams have to respect that no matter what. 

now some might say this guy has attitude problems hes a cancer well wasnt these the same things said about another former blazer in rasheed? ( i understand everybody different for the record) and when he teamed up with ben wallace (also on bulls) he was basically an angle ever since (evidence is when he actually tried to break up that brawl instead of jumping in like the old rasheed would) the only bad thing i can see with this trade is skiles may not like him. but i believe it can be worked out with proper leadership from ben wallace much like he probably did with rasheed. i like this team as it stands dont get me wrong, but this defintley gives us what we need badly, just my take on this rumored trade.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Come on DaBullz, we all know PJ Brown is old as dirt, but I think worrying about this is overdoing it.



this was funny


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

Mebarak said:


> Now I think we'll make a trade with the Blazers, but not for Zach. I think I saw Paxson mouthing "Roy".
> 
> I talked to Ben Gordon on AIM. He said that he was trying to make up time, because that girl missed so many damn shots at the beginning. But then she missed again, so they lost, he just had strategy. Secondly, we talked trade. He said he liked Brandon Roy, Pau Gasol, and he became a fan of Jason Kapono at allstar weekend during the three point weekend. He thinks either something big will go down, or NOTHING AT ALL.
> 
> ...



Sure, why not. More things that aint happenin.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

With all respect to Zach Randolph's ability. He's a very good low post player. But I still can't see how he fits our team. We're at our best playing collective basketball. And I don't think collective basketball is Zach's field.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Steve Patterson says 'No deal'

Posted by Casey Holdahl February 20, 2007 09:19AM



Tribune: Did you see the Chicago Tribune story that said the Bulls could acquire Randolph without giving up any of their top three players?*

*Patterson:* (Long laugh) Guess again.
*Tribune:* Would you consider trading Randolph?
*Patterson:* We don't have any interest in trading Zach.

*Tribune:* How many inquiries have you had from other teams regarding the chances of the acquisition of your rookies? We hear Rodriguez has drawn a lot of interest.
*Patterson:* Teams are always interested in bright young talent. The whole league has paid close attention to all of our young guys. When I talk to (NBA executives), they'll always ask who we like on their team, and we ask who they like on ours. Just about everybody out there likes our rookies.
*Tribune:* Would you be interested in trading any of the three?
*Patterson:* Oh, God no. Look, we're building around our young guys, who have good character and are signed to market-rate contracts. We're not giving them up.​


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

So who are the 3rd tier PFs and Cs out there? Leave no rock unturned, after all.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> So who are the 3rd tier PFs and Cs out there? Leave no rock unturned, after all.


Apparently Sweetney is available.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Looks like Portland isn't even shopping Zach, let alone the trade rumor being discussed.



> As for a report that the Bulls could get Zach Randolph from the Portland Trail Blazers without losing a young talent such as Ben Gordon or Luol Deng, Blazers president Steve Patterson laughed before telling the Portland Tribune, ''Guess again.''
> 
> ''We don't have any interest in trading Zach,'' Patterson said.


http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baske...llnt21.article


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Due to Sports Illustrated, talks about Zach Randolph to the Bulls have heated up and accelerated.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Sloth is right about this. Marty Burns reported at 10 pm tonight at SI: Sorry dont have the link but go to SY/Marty Burns/market watch (continued)

Meanwhile, rumors of a *Zach Randolph* deal for Chicago have begun to regain steam. Randolph is just the kind of low-post scorer the Bulls need, and his Michigan State background fits with coach *Scott Skiles*. However, his past character issues, lack of defense and big contract make it doubtful Paxson would mortgage his team's future on him. Besides, the Blazers continue to insist they aren't trading Randolph. Chicago might instead make a run at *Shareef Abdur-Rahim*, who has been platooning with *Kenny Thomas* in Sacramento.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

truebluefan said:


> Sloth is right about this. Marty Burns reported at 10 pm tonight at SI: Sorry dont have the link but go to SY/Marty Burns/market watch (continued)
> 
> Meanwhile, rumors of a *Zach Randolph* deal for Chicago have begun to regain steam. Randolph is just the kind of low-post scorer the Bulls need, and his Michigan State background fits with coach *Scott Skiles*. However, his past character issues, lack of defense and big contract make it doubtful Paxson would mortgage his team's future on him. Besides, the Blazers continue to insist they aren't trading Randolph. Chicago might instead make a run at *Shareef Abdur-Rahim*, who has been platooning with *Kenny Thomas* in Sacramento.


Marty Burns was on with Hanley and Mulligan yesterday and Hanley mentioned Zach and the hot rumor in press row was a trade for Shareef.

They discussed that Pax may be holding out for Garnett because it is rumored he may opt out of his contract


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Paxson won't make a move at all. I think we'll end up with no changes, letting our contracts expire, and searching for a low-post scorer for the next few years.


----------

