# Daily Herald: Trade rumors involving K-Mart, Gooden



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

> The Bulls talked about a multi-team deal involving Denver, different than the one mentioned in the New York Post on Sunday involving Orlando’s Steve Francis going to the Nuggets. It’s also possible the Bulls were offered Denver power forward Kenyon Martin, a tough take with $70.8 million and five years left on his contract.





> The Bulls and Cleveland Cavaliers have had discussions about the 6-foot-10 power forward, according to a league source. Gooden will be a restricted free agent this summer, so it’s likely the Bulls would have to give up something in return whether they trade for him now or try to sign him during the off-season. The most logical fit in a trade would be Chris Duhon, since the Cavaliers are hurting for a true point guard.


They have a bunch of quotes from Hinrich talking up Gooden as well. I would say no to any deal involving K-Mart, but I like this Duhon for Gooden possibility. Someone on this board suggested this exact trade not too long ago and it seems like it has some life.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=151136


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> It’s also possible the Bulls were offered Denver power forward Kenyon Martin, a tough take with $70.8 million and five years left on his contract.


I wish.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I don't know about Martin. His game seems to be in decline to me and he has legitimate health issues with his knees. Possibly chronic health issues. For a guy who relies purely on his springs to be effective, if his knees go down hill he becomes an albatross.

I'd have to pass on that option. 

I'd rather just make the trade for Gooden.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

looks like kirk is trying to be the influence to get it done..

i can't say i'm too fond of drew gooden at all...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I'd have to pass on Duhon for Gooden myself.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I would definitely do Duhon for Gooden.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The ROY said:


> looks like kirk is trying to be the influence to get it done..
> 
> i can't say i'm too fond of drew gooden at all...


Think Gordon is the piece we'd trade on our end?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

rwj333 said:


> I would definitely do Duhon for Gooden.


I would too. My only concern, and I think I expressed it earlier this year, is that this trade might help Cleveland more than us and give them the one last thing they truly lack - a pure point guard. 

But that was early in the season when Duhon was playing excellent ball and Sweetney was a prominant part of the rotation and playing well.

I've pretty much abandoned that thought process, especially with the Hinrich/Gordon backcourt taking over.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Think Gordon is the piece we'd trade on our end?


No.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Think Gordon is the piece we'd trade on our end?


...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No.


The article doesn't say who'd be involved on our end.

One might look at Gordon getting the starting job as a means to showcase him. It's been suggested more than once on the TV broadcasts.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> The article doesn't say who'd be involved on our end.
> 
> One might look at Gordon getting the starting job as a means to showcase him. It's been suggested more than once on the TV broadcasts.


Maybe its Deng and Hinrich being offered for Gooden and Luke Jackson. They both start. In short, whatever. 

No way Chicago gives Gordon to Cleveland. No way.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Maybe its Deng and Hinrich being offered for Gooden and Luke Jackson. They both start. In short, whatever.
> 
> No way Chicago gives Gordon to Cleveland. No way.



Man, if we do that deal I hope Pax has an industrial sized vat of KY jelly laying around somewhere.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I'm not comfortable with Pargo backing up Hinrich.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

I'd take the deal. I like what Duhon brings to each game but Skiles tends to go overboard by constantly subbing him in favor of Gordon or Hinrich. 

As far as Gooden, it'd be nice as a Bulls fan to evaluate him first hand and see how he fits with the team. Although after giving up a valuable asset in Duhon, the Bulls would really be in no position to let Gooden walk at the end of the year.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

If it were Duhon for Gooden, I cannot fathom why Gooden isn't in a Bulls uniform right this minute.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Because Gooden isn't that good. He's not a very good defensive player or offensive player.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> Because Gooden isn't that good. He's not a very good defensive player or offensive player.


Gooden would easily be the best PF we've had since Brand.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> Because Gooden isn't that good. He's not a very good defensive player or offensive player.


!!!!!!!


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

In regards to the Denver rumors, McGraw notes "it's also possible" Denver offered Martin, which would make one believe he wasn't the principal, or initial, focus of the talks. And I doubt Denver would trade Martin, regardless of bad contract, at a time when they're fighting for a playoff spot.

It's more likely the Bulls are targeting Nene, IMO.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Gooden would easily be the best PF we've had since Brand.


That's not saying much and I disagree with it. Chandler was a PF last season and was better than Gooden.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

I can't believe what I am reading from some posters. Why in the world would you not want Gooden for Duhon? This team needs to get big. Gooden is (and always has been) a terrific rebounder. He is also a much better scorer than Chandler.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

TripleDouble said:


> Because Gooden isn't that good. He's not a very good defensive player or offensive player.


From what I've seen, Gooden is an above average offensive player. Not a great player, but he would effectively fill a role for the Bulls.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> I can't believe what I am reading from some posters. Why in the world would you not want Gooden for Duhon? This team needs to get big. Gooden is (and always has been) a terrific rebounder. He is also a much better scorer than Chandler.


I don't think he's a bad player and he would be better than any other big outside of Chandler. However, the Bulls will have to overpay to retain him + give up Duhon and I think they'd be better served by drafting bigs and maybe overpaying for one in FA (without giving up talent).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

charlietyra said:


> I can't believe what I am reading from some posters. Why in the world would you not want Gooden for Duhon? This team needs to get big. Gooden is (and always has been) a terrific rebounder. He is also a much better scorer than Chandler.


Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

It isn't about being "better than chandler" though, it's about getting bigger, gaining a young quality big who can play for us for years, who'd start right away and play significant minutes, who'd play well with Chandler, and address an obvious need at the expense of a backup/bench player who was a 2nd round pick.

Given the team's record with the status quo, this deal is a no-brainer.

My sense, still, is that it isn't a Duhon for Gooden swap here, it's Gordon for Gooden - which SHOULD give Pax reason to think hard on it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> If it were Duhon for Gooden, I cannot fathom why Gooden isn't in a Bulls uniform right this minute.


Because Cleveland might want more. I'm sure that Cleveland would ASK for Gordon, but there is simply no way that Chicago would ever do that deal. Never. Not unless its part of an enormous deal involving multiple teams.

Sending Gordon to Cleveland would be a disaster in every meaningful way.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:



> Because Cleveland might want more. I'm sure that Cleveland would ASK for Gordon, but there is simply no way that Chicago would ever do that deal. Never. Not unless its part of an enormous deal involving multiple teams.
> 
> Sending Gordon to Cleveland would be a disaster in every meaningful way.


I'm really taking Pax at his word. He says the kinds of deals we talk about on these boards (or Sam Smith's proposals) aren't out there. I take that to mean that other teams don't value our players as highly as we do, or that to get a quality player, we have to give up a lot more than WE think.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> My sense, still, is that it isn't a Duhon for Gooden swap here, it's Gordon for Gooden - which SHOULD give Pax reason to think hard on it.


No, that wouldn't make sense for either team. You think the Cavs, desperate for a point guard, have targeted Ben Gordon, who hasn't shown even the slightest ability to run a team at any point, as their guy?

My guess is Cleveland started the bidding high, asking for Hinrich or Duhon + 1st rounder. There's also the problem, as was mentioned, of the Bulls having Jannero Pargo as their primary backup guard.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Frankensteiner said:


> No, that wouldn't make sense for either team. You think the Cavs, desperate for a point guard, have targeted Ben Gordon, who hasn't shown even the slightest ability to run a team at any point, as their guy?
> 
> My guess is Cleveland started the bidding high, asking for Hinrich or Duhon + 1st rounder. There's also the problem, as was mentioned, of the Bulls having Jannero Pargo as their primary backup guard.


I agree. First, I think giving up Ben is too much. Second, I don't think he's really what they're looking for in a point guard. Mostly, that's because he's NOT a point guard. 

I'd do the Duhon swap for sure. We trade a redundant piece (a strong defensive player, good ball mover, occasional good outside shooter) for a piece we really need (a low post scoring presence). Works for me.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Very interesting stuff.

I'd be hesitant to trade Duhon for Gooden (or any other impending FA). Not because I think it wouldn't help in pure basketball terms or because I think it'd help the Cavs too much, but because I don't see the value in trading what I consider a quality player with a reasonable contract for a soon to be free agent we have a strong chance of signing anyway.

Obviously it'd be some benefit to have him this year and have the right of first refusal on him, but everything I see is that the Cavs aren't going to make a strong bid to keep him. They've got one guy they're really high on (Varejo), another solid guy with a long-term deal (Marshall), and Alan Henderson, who's a perfectly ok 3rd string PF. And they just don't seem that enthusiastic. Given those facts, I'd rather make a play for keeping one decent player and getting another to boot rather than trading one for the other.


PS- I'd trade them Pargo and/or Sweetney to get it done though!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> No, that wouldn't make sense for either team. You think the Cavs, desperate for a point guard, have targeted Ben Gordon, who hasn't shown even the slightest ability to run a team at any point, as their guy?
> 
> My guess is Cleveland started the bidding high, asking for Hinrich or Duhon + 1st rounder. There's also the problem, as was mentioned, of the Bulls having Jannero Pargo as their primary backup guard.


I don't think Cleveland needs a PG because they have a point-forward who can do the job just fine.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I don't think Cleveland needs a PG because they have a point-forward who can do the job just fine.


Well, I don't think the Cleveland needs a one-dimensional scorer when they have 3 guys (James, Z, Hughes) who do that job just fine. 

That is not the way to build a team. At some point you need to bring in players who don't have to dominate the ball.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Well, I don't think the Cleveland needs a one-dimensional scorer when they have 3 guys (James, Z, Hughes) who do that job just fine.
> 
> That is not the way to build a team. At some point you need to bring in players who don't have to dominate the ball.


Gordon isn't a one-dimensional scorer. He plays fine defense, and I think he's going to get a lot of rebouns for his position over the course of his career. In his last 5 games, he's averaged 5.4 RPG, with games of 8, 1, 4, 8, and 6 boards.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Gordon isn't a one-dimensional scorer. He plays fine defense, and I think he's going to get a lot of rebouns for his position over the course of his career. In his last 5 games, he's averaged 5.4 RPG, with games of 8, 1, 4, 8, and 6 boards.


The Cavs have a slasher and defender in the backcourt in Hughes. They have shooter (Jones). All they're missing is an effective PG. 

While James has the Skills to be a point forward, he doesn't have Jordan to defer to like Pippen did -- he needs to be the man scoring-wise and so a lightening of his ball handling duties would benifit that team.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> The Cavs have a slasher and defender in the backcourt in Hughes. They have shooter (Jones). All they're missing is an effective PG.
> 
> While James has the Skills to be a point forward, he doesn't have Jordan to defer to like Pippen did -- he needs to be the man scoring-wise and so a lightening of his ball handling duties would benifit that team.


Between Hughes, LeBron, and Gordon, they'd surely be able to bring the ball upcourt and start the offense.

Hughes is a fine defender, but I think you'd want him guarding the bigger SGs, not PGs.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Gordon isn't a one-dimensional scorer. He plays fine defense, and I think he's going to get a lot of rebouns for his position over the course of his career. In his last 5 games, he's averaged 5.4 RPG, with games of 8, 1, 4, 8, and 6 boards.


"Fine defense" is just sligthly generous. With respect to rebounding and using your criteria of why the Cavs wouldn't be interested in Duhon, Cleveland has other wing players capable of rebounding (James, Hughes). Besides, what team evaluates their point guard needs based on rebounding? 

By the way, this is not to say that I think Gordon is a good rebounder, because I don't think he is.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> "Fine defense" is just sligthly generous. With respect to rebounding and using your criteria of why the Cavs wouldn't be interested in Duhon, Cleveland has other wing players capable of rebounding (James, Hughes). Besides, what team evaluates their point guard needs based on rebounding?
> 
> By the way, this is not to say that I think Gordon is a good rebounder, because I don't think he is.


Well, you think Gordon is just a one-dimensional scorer, and he clearly isn't.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

This arguement is silly. Regardless of the Cavs need for a PG, it seems highly unlikely (to be diplomatic) that the Bulls trade Gordon for Gooden.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> This arguement is silly. *Regardless of the Cavs need for a PG, it seems highly unlikely (to be diplomatic) that the Bulls trade Gordon for Gooden.*


This is why I think Gooden isn't already in a Bulls' uniform.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Well, you think Gordon is just a one-dimensional scorer, and he clearly isn't.


Gordon doesn't pass well (2.8 ast), commits turnovers (2.18), isn't a good rebounder (2.5), and isn't a good defender. So how is he "clearly" more than just a scorer?

Furthermore, when is he going to start dunking?

I like Ben Gordon a lot, and wouldn't even trade him for guys like Pierce or Ray Allen, but right now, he's only a very gifted scorer. If he can improve other aspects of his play (i.e. ball handling, creating for others, defense, etc.) to even average levels for a guard, he'll be an All-Star player. He's not there yet.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I'm really taking Pax at his word. He says the kinds of deals we talk about on these boards (or Sam Smith's proposals) aren't out there. I take that to mean that other teams don't value our players as highly as we do, or that to get a quality player, we have to give up a lot more than WE think.


He said that in the context of a discussion about trading for that one "star player" to get us over the hump.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I am for getting either one of these guys! As long as Gordon is not in the trade. I was very impressed with Ben's game on Saturday night! He could be a star in the making.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Gordon doesn't pass well (2.8 ast), commits turnovers (2.18), isn't a good rebounder (2.5), and isn't a good defender. So how is he "clearly" more than just a scorer?
> 
> Furthermore, when is he going to start dunking?
> 
> I like Ben Gordon a lot, and wouldn't even trade him for guys like Pierce or Ray Allen, but right now, he's only a very gifted scorer. If he can improve other aspects of his play (i.e. ball handling, creating for others, defense, etc.) to even average levels for a guard, he'll be an All-Star player. He's not there yet.


If you see him play, you can see that Gordon IS a good passer but doesn't dominate the ball like Hinrich sometimes does, and his +/- ratings for defense have always been excellent. And in 19 games that Ben has started this season, the Bulls are 9-10 (better win% than their overall record), and they have won those games largely because of their defensive tenacity. Gordon is a PART of that; he is not a gaping defensive liability.

I don't really understand what the knock is on his ball-handling. Right now it may LOOK bad because of his turnover ratio, but when I see him play he has great handles. He has a tendency to overdribble, something he might have picked up from Captain Kirk, but in terms of his actual dribbling abilities, he's got serious moves.

I'm not saying that Gordon is anything amazing at any of those areas, but a "pure scorer" in my opinion is someone like Damon Jones, and I don't think Gordon and Jones are very similar players right now.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i wouldn't think the cavs would ask for duhon _or gordon_ but kirk. so i agree with dabullz to a degree, that this is probably why the deal hasn't been done yet. i don't think you'd want kirk running with lebron. that would not be a good idea for the bulls in the already deadly central!

and yet i think gooden on the bulls would have far more impact than duhon (or gordon) on the cavs for some reason. but since we don't know what cleveland would give up it's hard to know. also - luke jackson broke his wrist last week and is out for seven weeks now. 

i like gooden and think he's being underused in cleveland. and with anderson v. coming around, drew is finding his minutes dwindling. 

if cleveland would take duhon + ? to get it done, i would say pax PULL THE TRIGGER. (he'd have to break the news very delicately to skiles though, so be tender pax, be gentle). of course a enormous concern, as voiced by several already in this thread is the idea of pargo as the primary PG backup. that frightens me. alot. 

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/sports/basketball/13797294.htm



> As expected, Drew Gooden's minutes have been dropping off significantly with the return to prominence of Anderson Varejao.
> 
> Since the day Donyell Marshall was signed, this situation has been assured. Gooden has been the ultimate team player throughout the season and continues to put up good numbers.
> 
> Yet, his patience in his free-agent season is no doubt being tested.



anyway, i really like gooden and would love him on the bulls but i have no idea how to get it done. i leave that to you armchair GM expert types.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Frank, JNR, you seem to be violating the transitive property here.

You know, if A>B, and B>C, then C must be greater than A?

I think you'd agree, right, that all told, Ben > Chris? (A>B)
And the Cavs would like he best player possible back in their deal, right? (B>C)
So they'd prefer getting Ben to getting Chris (A>C)

The positional thing really doesn't hold up, I don't think. It's sort of like saying, a few years ago (obviously attitude issues aside), would I rather have Eric Snow or Allen Iverson. Eric Snow's a pure point, and a nice player, and AI's not a pure point but a hell of a player. I don't think any team, other things being equal, would say "Screw AI, give me Eric Snow".

Obviously Gordon's not to AI's level, but we seem to be hoping he sort of taps the lower bound of AI-level play. (Duhon, however, will be every bit the player Eric Snow was).

I think a lot of this is based on conflicting feelings about Gordon. To my mind people are assuming he'll break out and look more and more like Iverson, but so far he looks more like Bobby Jackson. The rest of this season is going to tell a lot about how far Ben can and will pick up his game. I've been somewhat skeptical of it, but so far he's noticeable better, both in terms of stats and what I see on the court. I'd rather give him the chance to see what he can do unless we really get a good deal.

In any case, I still say you don't trade away a quality player like Duhon just to get a player's Bird Rights. Same with Gordon. We need significant upgrades in talent... swapping one guy for another, slightly better fitting guy doesn't cut it. We need to add a guy(s) without giving much up to really get better.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> Frank, JNR, you seem to be violating the transitive property here.
> 
> You know, if A>B, and B>C, then C must be greater than A?
> 
> ...


Well, this is what I said:



jnrjr79 said:


> I agree. First, I think giving up Ben is too much. Second, I don't think he's really what they're looking for in a point guard. Mostly, that's because he's NOT a point guard.
> 
> I'd do the Duhon swap for sure. We trade a redundant piece (a strong defensive player, good ball mover, occasional good outside shooter) for a piece we really need (a low post scoring presence). Works for me.


So, it's obvious I value Gordon more than Duhon, because I say giving up Ben is too much. I also said that Gordon is not what the Cavs are looking for as far as being a point guard. I believe Ben is a 2 guard. 

Nothing I said was meant to say I didn't believe the Cavs would want Duhon more than Gordon, though I can see how you could read it that way. The Cavs just may want the better player/asset rather than the better pure PG. Clearly Ben to me is the superior player and has much more upside.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> anyway, i really like gooden and would love him on the bulls but i have no idea how to get it done. i leave that to you armchair GM expert types.


Do nothing now... sign him in the off-season!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Showtyme said:


> I don't really understand what the knock is on his ball-handling. Right now it may LOOK bad because of his turnover ratio, but when I see him play he has great handles. He has a tendency to overdribble, something he might have picked up from Captain Kirk, but in terms of his actual dribbling abilities, he's got serious moves.


 
I strongly disagree with this. Ben certainly does not have good ball-handling ability right now. What he does have is the ability to make some sick moves and break people down off of the dribble. However, he is also very sloppy with the ball. Every game I watch, there is at least one instance where he is trying to make a move and accidentally leaves the ball behind. He turns the ball over sometimes when he attempts to make a move. So, I guess what I would say is that Ben has the ability to make some great moves, but he is not consistent with his ball-handling. I think he has a long way to go in terms of protecting the basketball.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Nothing I said was meant to say I didn't believe the Cavs would want Duhon more than Gordon, though I can see how you could read it that way. The Cavs just may want the better player/asset rather than the better pure PG. Clearly Ben to me is the superior player and has much more upside.


Gotchya... I actually think either guy would be a scarily good fit for the Cavs, although obviously for different reasons. Gordon because he gives them a guy who can play off the ball and shoot like a freak, Duhon because of his defense and distribution capabilities.

Gordon on the Cavs I picture as somewhat similar to Pax, BJ, and Kerr on the MJ/Pip Bulls teams... except a better version of those guys, which is a pretty scary thought.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Gordon on the Cavs I picture as somewhat similar to Pax, BJ, and Kerr on the MJ/Pip Bulls teams... except a better version of those guys, which is a pretty scary thought.


Exactly.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Wow. A trade I've been talking about actually being rumored to happen... that's a first. I hope the Bulls do it, as long as they don't let Gooden walk.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Just jumping in here...

I'm not a very big fan or Drew Gooden. Never have been, doubt I ever will. I think he's a hundred thousand dollar talent with a ten-cent brain. (Not quite a million dollar talent) There's a reason why this supposedly very talented young man might possibly be on his fourth team in four years - he's really not all that good. Even with all that being said, I'd still trade Duhon for him straight-up in a heartbeat. Gooden is active and a pretty good rebounder. Good offensive player. Not so great defender. What I really don't like is that he's pretty much a black hole on offense. He kills ball movement and player movement the instant he gets the ball. I also don't think he's ever really been in the right system and it's possible that Skiles and this team can maximize what he can do.

No way do you deal Gordon for him.

I wouldn't be too adverse to moving Duhon for him even tho we could go after Gooden in the offseason. It really is a small price to pay to see if he'd fit in here. Gooden isn't going to demand top-dollar this offseason and signing him to a MLE-type deal really would only eat about $2 to $2.5 mil in cap space (difference between what Duhon will make next year vs. a MLE deal).

I don't know if the salaries work, but would you expand the deal a bit and make it Du/Pike for Gooden/Jackson?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Gordon on the Cavs I picture as somewhat similar to Pax, BJ, and Kerr on the MJ/Pip Bulls teams... except a better version of those guys, which is a pretty scary thought.


Except Pax, BJ, and Kerr are spot up shooters who didn't nearly demand the ball as much as Gordon. And the Bulls had Cartwright/Longley who themselves didn't nearly demand the ball as much as Z. Too many guys who need the ball in their hands, IMO.

It's my contention the Cavs would prefer Duhon because he fills a need and is a better complimentary player, even if they consider Gordon to be more talented (is this not similar to the Harrington-Gooden argument for the Bulls?). If we're going to use a Bulls analogy, he's a shorter Ron Harper with better point guard skills.

Their Pax/BJ/Kerr clone is Damon Jones. How good he is is open to interpretation.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Flash, those are good comments about Drew Gooden. But actually, I think he is MORE talented than a hundred thousand dollar player. I've seen him work from the post with some real killer moves, all by himself... moves that a PF shouldn't even be able to make. Spins towards the basket and etc. I'm not saying that he needs to be some kind of playmaker from the frontcourt position on offense, but I am saying that he's got real agility and occasionally knows how to get creative in basketball.

That being said, I think his rebounding would be welcome but his defensive liability would be tough to deal with. I'd much rather have a Shelden Williams (I know, the argument is that he's not a terrific man-on defender either) or a guy with more size (Splitter, etc.). Gooden might be a better and more polished scorer than either of them, but I think Williams has the athleticism and active energy to defend guys better in the NBA, regardless of how Marco Killingsworth tore him up.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

fl_flash said:


> Just jumping in here...
> 
> I'm not a very big fan or Drew Gooden. Never have been, doubt I ever will. I think he's a hundred thousand dollar talent with a ten-cent brain. (Not quite a million dollar talent) There's a reason why this supposedly very talented young man might possibly be on his fourth team in four years - he's really not all that good.


This has crossed my mind as well. In his defense, Memphis traded him because of Gasol at PF (how smart it was to draft Gooden with Gasol already there is another matter), and Orlando traded him after drafting Dwight Howard.

The best explanation for why Cleveland would trade him is because they have depth at his spot (Marshall, Varejao) and he's likely to bring back more in trade than either of his backups.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Okay, first off, I just want to point out that we have a 4 page thread that, so far, has managed to be very interesting and constructive, and has yet to be taken off track. And furthermore, the names Eddy Curry, Jamal Crawford, and Jalen Rose haven't been mentioned _once._ 

Good job guys. :cheers: 



Mikedc said:


> Very interesting stuff.
> 
> I'd be hesitant to trade Duhon for Gooden (or any other impending FA). Not because I think it wouldn't help in pure basketball terms or because I think it'd help the Cavs too much, but because I don't see the value in trading what I consider a quality player with a reasonable contract for a soon to be free agent we have a strong chance of signing anyway.
> 
> ...


Mike, I think what you're saying here is something that, in theory, makes sense, but in reality, may not be the best risk management strategy when it comes to handling our assets this summer. 

As I've elaborated in other posts, I basically think that, if we don't use our cap space + picks to fix our frontcourt problems this offseason, we could very well be F'ed in a lot of ways. And the closer the trade deadline approaches, the more I tend to think that standing pat until the offseason and just hoping that we can sign a bunch of guys in a lot of ways, is gambling. I think that it's fairly likely that some move(s) will be made to either move at least one of the FA's that we're planning on targeting this offseason, or some team will free up room to have the space to try and sign one. Heck, Toronto's already done it. All of that decreases our chances of being able to sign someone that we want, or increases the chances that we'd have to overpay to get someone, and in an offseason where we really can't afford to fail, I think that might be playing with fire, and it'd make a lot of sense to be PROACTIVE :biggrin: in making sure we get someone that we'll need.
to use something that you've pointed out before in the (ongoing) Eddy Curry debates, a lot of the time, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, or however the hell that goes, and I think that really applies here. 

And furthermore, I think Pax has sort of proven that he knows how to use RFA to his advantage, and with the right of first refusal, it increases the chance that we WON'T have to overpay for Drew Gooden, which offsets the negatives of trading away a good contract in Chris Duhon. And since we'll probably have to sign two big men this offseason anyway, it helps ensure that we'll have enough money left over to go hard after someone like Al Harrington or Nene. Add a draft pick like Sheldon Williams, Splitter, or Paul Davis, and we're sitting pretty. 

Also, it looks like Pax is indeed using Kirk as a barometer to gauge whether or not Drew would be a good fit, something we talked about.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> Flash, those are good comments about Drew Gooden. But actually, I think he is MORE talented than a hundred thousand dollar player. I've seen him work from the post with some real killer moves, all by himself... moves that a PF shouldn't even be able to make. Spins towards the basket and etc. I'm not saying that he needs to be some kind of playmaker from the frontcourt position on offense, but I am saying that he's got real agility and occasionally knows how to get creative in basketball.
> 
> That being said, I think his rebounding would be welcome but his defensive liability would be tough to deal with. I'd much rather have a Shelden Williams (I know, the argument is that he's not a terrific man-on defender either) or a guy with more size (Splitter, etc.). Gooden might be a better and more polished scorer than either of them, but I think Williams has the athleticism and active energy to defend guys better in the NBA, regardless of how Marco Killingsworth tore him up.


Gooden can score - no doubt about that. He's got a nice shot. Active body. He's a quick leaper. he seems to get off the floor before the players around him. You'll get no arguments about him as a scorer from me. He kills an offense though. Watch him play. Anytime he get's the ball below the free throw line extended, odds are 95% that the only time that ball leaves his hand is as a shot attempt. Even if he's 18-20 feet out on the wing, if he's got the ball in his hands below the free throw line, he's shooting it. He's almost as predicatble as the tides. I get the feeling that he thinks he's a better player than he really is. He'd be such a nice player if he'd recognize what's going on around him. His defensive questions you can live with. He's not _that bad_ of a defender.

His rebounding and energy that he would give would be very welcome. That, in and of itself, would make a trade with Duhon worth it.

If it's Gooden or Sheldon Williams, I'd take Williams. Williams isn't the athlete that Gooden is, but he's a polished post scorer, decent post defender, excellent weak-side shot blocker and very good rebounder.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Here are some stats to consider when talking about Gooden.

Of all PFs in the league, Gooden is 9th in scoring at 11.1. There are only 9 PFs who score double figures.

Among PFs in the league, Gooden is 5th in rebounding at 8.8.

Among PFs in the league, Gooden is 2nd in FG% at 52.6% (Brand is 1st at 52.7%)

I think it is a REAL risk to assume that some draft pick is going to be as good.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Are there any options involving Chris Wilcox who is a poor mans version of Kmart and can also come at way cheeper price then Gooden and Kmart.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

I like Duhon, he's better than I ever expected. But I think trading him would help us in the long run. I really feel like Hinrich and Gordon should be getting all the minutes at PG, and we need to eventually acquire a big SG who can handle the ball to put next to them, in the mold of a Boris Diaw, Doug Christie type. Luckily for us there are a few players available in the offseason who fit that description, notably John Salmons in free agency or Ronnie Brewer in the draft. Both are 6'7 long athletic types who are very capable of running an offense. 

We won't be competing for any championships this season anyway, so I really don't have a problem with Pargo getting any leftover minutes at PG that Hinrich and Gordon don't get. I think people look at Pargo as a "chucker" because that's basically been his role on the team. If we traded Duhon, we would then be asking Pargo to run the offense more when he's in the game, and I think he's very capable of playing a backup PG role. He had a nice run last year where he showed he could be more than just instant offense. 

MikeDC, normally I would agree with you in stating why give up anything of value (Duhon) when in all likelihood Cleveland won't match an offer at the end of the season anyway. But in this instance, I would be ok with trading for Gooden now, IF Pax really wanted him that badly. There is always the danger of...

1) Cleveland trading him and his rights to another team before the trade deadline, and that team using his RFA status as leverage to keep him. 

2) Cleveland waits until the offseason, and Gooden becomes a RFA. Gooden might try to force a sign and trade to a handful of teams, or maybe Cleveland decides on a sign and trade in order to get something of value in return. In this scenario, we could possibly be competing with any number of teams for his services, not just teams under the cap. 

If we traded for Gooden now, it's pretty much a guarantee that we'll be able to sign him to an extension, IF that's what we decide to do. I say that because he'll have been through a "trial run" under Skiles, and we'll have a better feel if all those negative rumors about him are true. We'll have the money, matching rights, and his Jayhawk buddy Kirk here to help get a deal done.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Here are some stats to consider when talking about Gooden.
> 
> Of all PFs in the league, Gooden is 9th in scoring at 11.1. There are only 9 PFs who score double figures.
> 
> ...



I look at Gooden as a Horace Grant type

14 points night, 9-10 Boards, good help defender, only OK on man to man

**good but not great... he would be a real nice addition to the frontline, and his new contract would be manageable.

If the price was Duhon, I would cut the deal (and I am a Duhon fan).


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> If it were Duhon for Gooden, I cannot fathom why Gooden isn't in a Bulls uniform right this minute.


Because Coach Skiles probably can't see anyone that gives a backrub and a reach around at the same time like Du


----------



## 4door (Sep 5, 2005)

I think by getting Gooden we could open up the draft to more talented but higher risk players. I assume that if we don't make a deal for a post player our options will be Shelden Williams, Tiago Splitter, and Paul Davis. I don't see any of those players being better than the 12pts/10 rbs we would get from Gooden right now. But that pick could be used for more talented players that might take longer to develop...Gay, Rondo, Williams, Thomas, Bargnani. We still need a 1st option scorer and I fear we will waste the pick on an average big man.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Rosenthal, Salo - 

Very good points; I think you guys might be right. Certainly there should be some market for Gooden, and I really didn't consider that aspect of things at all. 

Couple that with the savings from Duhon's contract, which will knock $3M off our cap, and we'll theoretically still be able to go after another pretty good FA.

The only downside to that, I see, is that it makes negotiating strategy a bit more difficult. Remember that restricted free agents still count against the cap- in fact, Gooden, as a guy coming out of the 4th year of a rookie deal, will count 250% of his prior salary of just over $4M. That means that until he signs his new deal, he'll count $10M against the cap. That gives him some leverage and gives us a strong incentive to get a deal done quick, because with him tying up our cap space, we wouldn't be able to make the offers to the other guys we want.

And there, Rosenthal, I'm not sure I agree that we've got a stellar record of dealing with RFAs, but I see where that view comes from. In general, we've spread the process out and let time work "for us". With Gooden and a $10M cap hold, however, time will be working against us.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Because Coach Skiles probably can't see anyone that gives a backrub and a reach around at the same time like Du


I dunno about that. Look at the starting lineup now


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Another thought has occured to me... Maybe it's Duhon plus one of the 1st round draft picks.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

charlietyra said:


> I can't believe what I am reading from some posters. Why in the world would you not want Gooden for Duhon? This team needs to get big. Gooden is (and always has been) a terrific rebounder. He is also a much better scorer than Chandler.


Why not just bid for him in the offseason and keep Du ?

Cavs won't keep him - I guarantee it 

They have max or near max contracts in place for Z and Larry and then they will extend Lebron to max in the summer giving them 3 max contracts and two mid tier contracts in Eric Snow and Donyell Marshall and lower level $3M to $4M a year contracts tied up for Ira Newble and Damon Jones 

Pavlovic and Jackson are guard / swing reserves that combined only account for a $3M a year for the next couple of years 

They are using Drew as a garbage type player as Kirk Hinrich rightly points out - and that role is reserved in their plans for Andersen Vareajo . 

They risk losing Andersen though via the Gilbert Arenas / Carlos Boozer rules next summer 

I'm sure they would like to get a starting quality point guard like Chris Duhon ...Hughes can create and they have Snow whose game has diminished .. but if you really look at it and break it down they are not going to commit big dough to Drew Gooden because of their salary structure and we can just wait and make an appropriate bid for Drew in the summer without having to give up Chris Duhon 

I'm sure the Cavs would like to get some return of asset for Drew Gooden and will try and sign and trade him . I don't think they will deal him before the deadline and upset the balance / success of their team in the back half of the season approaching the playoffs 

And I don't think that Pax deals Duhon to a Central Division competitor that sets them up better structurally in the long term when you can put 2 and 2 together and know that you can probably have Drew for 6

I'd expect them to target Dee Brown in the draft and maybe even Gerry McNamara in the 2nd round

If they can't work out a deal for Drew Gooden in a sign and trade over the summer I would expect they will let him go and try and fill the spot with a short term vet like Tony Battie at decent cost and give the burn to Vareajo 

If Cleveland is desperate for a truer style point guard ( and I don't think they are ..it would be nice to have but I don't see them as "desperate" ) what about :

* Sasha Pavlovic and Ira Newble for Earl Watson and Denver's 2nd round pick at #52 *

Cleveland picks up a Bobby Jones type at that level


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Nice, Kinky Sausage, but...

Isaiah might bid for him and then we're toast.

We'd have to give up someone for him anyway, and the only big contract we could use in S&T is Chandler.

Or maybe you see it differently.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> I'm really taking Pax at his word. He says the kinds of deals we talk about on these boards (or Sam Smith's proposals) aren't out there. I take that to mean that other teams don't value our players as highly as we do, or that to get a quality player, we have to give up a lot more than WE think.


Which means that those players that are targeted aren't really on the market in the first place 

Off market means you pay premiums 

On market means you pay FMV

Same in any business


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Nice, Kinky Sausage, but...
> 
> Isaiah might bid for him and then we're toast.
> 
> ...


The only teams that don't have to go down the S and T route are :

Us , Toronto , New Orleans / Oklahoma , Atlanta 

Toronto has Bish Bash and Charlie , Atlanta has Marvellous Marv and Rogan Josh and the untold story in Oklahoma this season has been David West who is quietly having a great season

We're the only ones with the money who can and will pay and who need a starting power forward 

Plus us and the Hornets are fringe playoff teams ..except we're East and they're West

And then there is the Kirk factor

Not a hard decision if your Drew/Drew's agent .

All the liklihoods point to him being ours ..and we don't have to give anything to get him except for a chunk of our salary cap room which we would have to commit to him anyway irrespective of who we prematurely ( and I think foolhardedly ) would have to give up for him now 

Patience


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> with the savings from Duhon's contract, which will knock $3M off our cap, and we'll theoretically still be able to go after another pretty good FA.
> 
> The only downside to that, I see, is that it makes negotiating strategy a bit more difficult. Remember that restricted free agents still count against the cap- in fact, Gooden, as a guy coming out of the 4th year of a rookie deal, will count 250% of his prior salary of just over $4M. That means that until he signs his new deal, he'll count $10M against the cap. That gives him some leverage and gives us a strong incentive to get a deal done quick, because with him tying up our cap space, we wouldn't be able to make the offers to the other guys we want.
> 
> With Gooden and a $10M cap hold, however, time will be working against us.


Good point concerning the whole "cap hold" restriction. But an interesting, although somewhat risky, solution to the cap hold problem is to simply "renounce" our rights to Gooden, similar to what the Cavs did with Big Z this past offseason. If we renounced Gooden, and consider we no longer have Duhon's $3M contract on the books either, wouldn't that leave us with around $23M in cap room? 

Although Gooden becomes an UFA, the advantage to us is that he would no longer have RFA status with any other team either. With $23M in cap room, a need for a quality big man, and Captain Kirk here recruiting him to stay, I would think trading for him now would make us his number one choice to sign with in free agency, regardless of whether we keep his rights or renounce them.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> And then there is the Kirk factor


Let me guess:

Because nobody gives a backrub and a reach around at the same time like Kirk

You didn't address teams over the cap that could do an S&T with Cleveland. Seems to me they'd like to get _something_ back rather than letting him walk.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Rosenthal, Salo -
> 
> Very good points; I think you guys might be right. Certainly there should be some market for Gooden, and I really didn't consider that aspect of things at all.
> 
> ...


Good point about the cap hold. I forgot about that. And I think you're more or less right about its implications in how we'd have to negotiate with him, which, is something that Pax hasn't really done yet, which negates my comments somewhat about him being an RFA.

However, I still think having the right of first refusal on him is pretty advantageous, since, in an offseason where we pretty much have no choice but to go out and get as many talented bigs as we can, having a talented big in our pocket who we can sign unless we decide otherwise, is a pretty valuable commodity. And the way I see it, if he's our RFA, that gives us a reasonably good chance of signing him to a fairly priced deal, whereas if he's someone else's RFA, it's more or less guaranteed that we'd have to overpay to get him, which directly takes away from our ability to sign another big, which is something we'll probably have to do. Although, as you correctly pointed out, it would place a rather strict time frame on us to get it done. But, hell, if Pax is a good GM..........he should be able to do that. 

So, overall the way I see it, we'd be trading a useful backup PG on a reasonably priced contract, for an even more useful PF/C, and the increased probability that we'd be able to sign him to a reasonably priced contract, which we wouldn't be able to do otherwise. Since we don't know how much we'd ultimately sign him for, there's some risk involved, but IMO, it'd be an acceptable one to take, with a positive cost/benefit relationship.

SALO...........interesting idea about renouncing him altogether. I'm not sure if I'd do it, and I think just trying to hammer out a deal with him as quickly as possible would be the best way to go, but it's worth a thought. And it'd be sadistically ironic if Drew Gooden did to John what Carlos Boozer did to his brother.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Let me guess:
> 
> Because nobody gives a backrub and a reach around at the same time like Kirk
> 
> You didn't address teams over the cap that could do an S&T with Cleveland. Seems to me they'd like to get _something_ back rather than letting him walk.


Cleveland is going to be over the cap so the issue of the cap hold of Gooden's unrenounced value doesn't matter to them ..its all about trying to get some return on their asset 

And I can't see anyone surrendering anything of value or being compelled to deal when he will be in free agency in a few months 

As we have seen up and close and personal , RFA sign and trades , have been rare historically , and the team trading the asset gets little back in strict immediate value for value terms 

We got lucky with Curry ..because New York hasn't valued draft picks since they drafted Patrick .

The other issue to consider in RFA is the Base Year Compensation difficulties and the probable liklihood of having to drag in a 3rd team as the Ferryman ...and Chris DeBurgh had it wrong - in this case you are going to have to pay the Ferryman before he gets you to the other side 

Too hard and too complicated , and where , RFA direction if someone is leaving usually comes from the player and we are the only team that has a need for him , will pay him the dough , where he presumably would want to come here for the reasons mentioned , and where we don't need to sign and trade or give assets 

Yeah we could the KMart to Denver thing or the give away draft picks or assets for future return and to create room ( the merits of which have been debated on the draft thread as to why this doesn't really work despite Lucas and others burying their heads in the sand ) .....but we don't really have to 

Clear a draft pick or Chris Duhon's contract for whom ?

I think we're all agreed there are some OK pieces here in 2006 free agency but clearing a piece for another piece that we can fill anyway via the draft and with other available free agency capacity seems wasteful and doesn't make much sense to me 

But I'm pretty meat and potatoes simple like

We will get one of possibly two of Al , Drew , Pryz , Nene or Chris Wilcox 

We will draft a big with one of our picks

We will bring AD back

We will likely draft a wing player and bring in one of Jiri Welsch or John Salmons 

And all this will happen with keeping all of our existing happens 

We're under no compulsion to rush and panic and to put ourselves into a diminished negotiating position to facilitate some other team's aspirations 

We may not think it and realise it ..but we're actually in a pretty good position


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

I read only the first 3 messages of this thread (too long already!), and let me say I would do Duhon for Gooden in a heartbeat!


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

rosenthall said:


> SALO...........interesting idea about renouncing him altogether. I'm not sure if I'd do it, and I think just trying to hammer out a deal with him as quickly as possible would be the best way to go, but it's worth a thought. And it'd be sadistically ironic if Drew Gooden did to John what Carlos Boozer did to his brother.


You wouldn't renounce him and screw his bird rights 

Plus ... if you were an A Hole and you did screwing up any goodwill in the process..the only teams that could sign him outright where he could go and do a Bozo Boozer would be Atlanta , NO/OK, and Toronto ..all of whom have assets at the strong position whereas Utah had the cap room and the need to fill

Its a pretty different set of circumstances


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rose's expiring contract, Jamdrop, and 2 draft picks are what IT might offer.

Maybe the Lakers want him.

All it takes is two teams, and you have a bidding war.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Gordon would be an interesting fit for the Cavs. Lebron and Hughes have basically been the point guards for the team this year. And Mike Brown usually plays Damon Jones or Eric Snow as the off-guard in the second half. They just want a guy who is quick enough to not be a matador on defense(not sure if that's Gordon--sounds more like Hinrich) and who can knock down the wide open shot, as well as drive to the basket and get non-3pt baskets(Gordon?).

I doubt they're in a geniune rush to get this deal done though. Because Jones and Snow have both kind of upped their game this year, and at this point in the season when Cleveland is trying to get consistent, a major change to the roster is probably not something Ferry wants to do. Unless he thought that change would put the Cavs over the top and make them contenders. Which I'm not sure Gordon, Hinrich, or Gordon do.

As far as Gooden for the Bulls, you have to remember Gooden is the 4th option for the Cavs. He has no plays run for him. Yet he still finds ways to score. He has good ball handling skills, he is a decent passer, and an excellent shooter and a supreme rebounder. The problem is his scoring skills are pretty wasted in a front court with Z and James, as there is more of a call for either a specilalist like Marshall, or a defensive minded guy like Verejao. He would be an excellent grab for the Bulls, especially if they were to trade a player from their bench to get him. He could probably get close to 20ppg and 12 rpg on the Bulls with a few blocked shots. I watch him every game, and his offensive skills are really really under utilized on the Cavs.

Plus you know Gooden and Hinrich have the Kansas connection.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Rose's expiring contract, Jamdrop, and 2 draft picks are what IT might offer.
> 
> Maybe the Lakers want him.
> 
> All it takes is two teams, and you have a bidding war.



Who are we talking about ?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Who are we talking about ?


IT making a S&T offer for Gooden.

It doesn't have to be IT/knicks. It could be ANY team with tradable contracts.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> As far as Gooden for the Bulls, you have to remember Gooden is the 4th option for the Cavs. He has no plays run for him. Yet he still finds ways to score. He has good ball handling skills, he is a decent passer, and an excellent shooter and a supreme rebounder. The problem is his scoring skills are pretty wasted in a front court with Z and James, as there is more of a call for either a specilalist like Marshall, or a defensive minded guy like Verejao. He would be an excellent grab for the Bulls, especially if they were to trade a player from their bench to get him. He could probably get close to 20ppg and 12 rpg on the Bulls with a few blocked shots. I watch him every game, and his offensive skills are really really under utilized on the Cavs.
> 
> Plus you know Gooden and Hinrich have the Kansas connection.


Jerry West looked at him as a dissapointment in Memphis, he didn't do all that well in Orlando, what makes u think he could do that here? If people thought Gooden really could do 20 and 12 in a better system, EVERYBODY would be trying to trade for him.

G Hinrich
G Gordon
F Deng
F Gooden
C Chandler

looks good on paper, don't know how much I really like it though. Duhon is NICE man, I'd hate to give him up. Is Gooden a LONG term piece for us to win a chip? hell, or even get to the 2nd round next year? looks like Pax realizes the crop of big men this offseason is scarce (sp)

who would would we draft with that KNICKS pick now!? whoever is drafted is backing up ONE Of those guys, and u don't draft lotto picks to come off the bench.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Rose's expiring contract, Jamdrop, and 2 draft picks are what IT might offer.
> 
> Maybe the Lakers want him.
> 
> All it takes is two teams, and you have a bidding war.


I assume your talking about Drew 

The Knicks actually want Rose if you can believe that and Cleveland wouldn't have the gun powder to pull it off in addition to which there are complications with the Knicks draft picks in who they are owe and under what conditions etc and with Curry, Frye, Lee and James and then Maurice Taylor and Malik Rose upfront..the Knicks are OK upfront

Insofar as the Lakers are concerned Gooden sounds fine in theory but he, like Lamar , would just be another overpaid passenger on Kobe's bus 

If Drew can't do his thang in Cleveland right now ....well good luck with that hanging with the Kobestar

Chris Mihm and the Lakers pick would work in theory but practically I can't see it working in basketball terms 

I actually think we are Drew's ideal fit ..probably equal to Seattle although Seattle has more realistic assets to help Cleveland in getting a deal done by the deadline 

*I could see where Nick Collison, Reggie Evans and Flip Murray for Drew Gooden and a 2nd round draft pick at #50 may work ..with Evans , Murray and Sasha Pavlovic going to Denver with Earl Watson going to Cleveland *

Seattle gives up Nick, Flip and Reggie and gets Drew and a 2nd rounder 

Denver gives up Earl Watson and gets Flip, Reggie and Sasha

Cleveland gives up Drew, Sasha and a 2nd rounder and gets Nick Collison and Earl Watson

I think that pretty much meets everybody's aims 

Damn... a future starting 5 of Swift, Gooden , Lewis , Allen and Ridnour backed by Petro , Fortson Radmanovic ,Wilkins and a lottery pick this summer is not too shabby


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

The ROY said:


> Jerry West looked at him as a dissapointment in Memphis, he didn't do all that well in Orlando, what makes u think he could do that here? If people thought Gooden really could do 20 and 12 in a better system, EVERYBODY would be trying to trade for him.
> 
> G Hinrich
> G Gordon
> ...


Well it won't kill the Cavs to keep him, especially if they can get him on a decent contract this summer, as a Verejao-Gooden front court is good for the future, post-Z. I think the Cavs would like a point guard, but they don't want to give Gooden up for a point guard of the level of what they already have. I have to think that the interest here is on the Bulls part, who being out of the playoff picture right now, are in a far more desperate situation than the Cavs are. If the Cavs stand pat and wait for Hughes to get back, the short term may suffer, but long term, it might be one of the best trades they never made.

People bash on Gooden because he's young and been traded a lot. But people don't really look at the circumstances in all of those places, and how Drew has played in those places. Which should help the Cavs if they decide to keep him.

If the Bulls want him they are going to have to either trade for him now, or overpay for him in the offseason. Don't forget that the Cavs owner is more in the Cuban mold than the Reinsdorf mode. So far he hasn't been shy about dolling out the big bucks in order to get a winner.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I assume your talking about Drew
> 
> The Knicks actually want Rose if you can believe that and Cleveland wouldn't have the gun powder to pull it off in addition to which there are complications with the Knicks draft picks in who they are owe and under what conditions etc and with Curry, Frye, Lee and James and then Maurice Taylor and Malik Rose upfront..the Knicks are OK upfront
> 
> ...


The downside is Luke Jackson just broke his hand. So I don't think Sasha is going anywhere for awhile. As Newble is also out. The Cavs are razor thin now at the 2 spot.


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

Although Gooden has more experience, I think the ceiling of the guys available at the Knicks pick are all higher than Gooden's. Ya, we could have that PF now, but I don't see Gooden making us much better this season, especially after losing Duhon. 

I say if we can get Harrington cheap, trade for him. If not, wait until the draft and offseason to sign Harrington. Why give Cleveland Duhon if it doesnt really help us. 

Btw, if we get Gooden it will likely be a one year rental because in order to get him back it will have to be one of those contracts other teams give to mediocre big men that make us puke. So why puke? Let's just take the rest of the season to learn as a team and then re-load in the offseason.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

JPTurbo said:


> Although Gooden has more experience, I think the ceiling of the guys available at the Knicks pick are all higher than Gooden's. Ya, we could have that PF now, but I don't see Gooden making us much better this season, especially after losing Duhon.


I agree

honestly, I'd rather just go ALL in for LaMarcus Aldridge...


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

Pretty interesting stats DaBullz. 

I think Duhon as the center piece of a deal would be enough to get Gooden. They might ask for more initially, but it's ridiculous to think they're going to get Gordon or Hinrich for him. Could they get better offers? I really don't think so. As it's already been mentioned, the man is likely going to be headed to his 4th team in as many years within the month whether it be here or somewhere else. Drew is a guy that a decent amount of teams may have mild interest in, but no one wants to be the team that ends up paying him 8, 9+ million a year. Cleveland certainly doesn't. He's been rumored to be moved from there almost from the time of his arrival. Varejao is the guy they're apparently going with. (BTW someone mentioned Varejao could leave ala Booz/Arenas, but Cleveland signed him for 3 years.) I'm guessing teams will not want to give away any pieces of their foundation or future, but rather their problems or young players with pretty limited potential. Sort of like Donyell with the Raptors last year. Half the league was interested, but when it came down to it, their best offer ended up being Pavlovic and a 2nd or something to that effect. Seattle's "bait" they seem to be offering around of Evans, Murray, and a contract may be the best they can do. Duhon is a guy who would start at PG for them for a very long time. Then again, maybe Isiah steps up and and offers to take back Snow and Newble's contracts along with Gooden for Penny and Ariza. Snow's been mentioned as a Brown "fave" for a while now anyway. 23+ million more to the payroll + whatever you pay Gooden if that would stop them. 

Would I move Du for him? My initial thought would be no. Like already mentioned, I don't really like the idea of basically trading an asset like Duhon for Gooden's bird rights. I definitely wouldn't mind adding him as a free agent. It depends on how the situation folds out though. If it looks like Cleveland won't deal him by the deadline, you got to like our chances if we throw the right amount of money out there in the offseason. On the other hand if someone steps up and is about to deal for him, you got to think that team is looking to re-sign him. In that case, how bad do you want Drew Gooden? You then can either 1)give up Du at the last second or 2) be prepared to hand over a 10+ million dollar offer sheet to him this summer on the *chance* of getting him. Meh...I don't know. I've been looking at free agency like we will get _someone_ between Harrington/Gooden/Nene/Wilcox so I really don't like giving up Duhon. 

I suppose if you did trade for him though, instead of us solely looking at bigs for the draft and free agency, you could look there for Duhon's replacement in the rotation. Nobody has said much about that since we figured we're set with the guards. The FA list is even weaker at guard with the likes of Fred Jones, Jason Hart standing "out" as realistic targets. Harpring is also there as a G-F. I haven't followed the draft much so maybe someone could help me out there.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Statistically, Gooden is the third-best offensive rebounder in the league (5.7 per 48 minutes) and 7th-best overall rebounder (15.1 per 48 minutes). Give him 30 mpg and he almost always gets you at least 10/10/1 blk/1 stl on better than 50% shooting.

Gooden's PER is currently higher than that of Dwight Howard, Jason Richardson, Sam Cassell, Baron Davis, Rasheed Wallace, Richard Jefferson, Joe Johnson, Chris Webber, Mike Bibby, Al Jefferson, Steve Francis, Stephon Marbury, Antawn Jamison, Al Harrington, Ricky Davis and Caron Butler.

Gooden's eFG% is currently higher than that of Ray Allen, Dwyane Wade, Elton Brand, Dwight Howard, Richard Jefferson, Rasheed Wallace, Al Jefferson, Mehmet Okur, Dirk Nowitzki, Chris Bosh and Tim Duncan.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

JPTurbo said:


> Although Gooden has more experience, I think the ceiling of the guys available at the Knicks pick are all higher than Gooden's. Ya, we could have that PF now, but I don't see Gooden making us much better this season, especially after losing Duhon.



Why not just take Gooden and a a big with a pick from the draft ?

The odds are he won't be traded before the deadline and that a S and T will be difficult and we have the cap space and the money and a significant connection in Kirk to land him 

The deck is firmly stacked in our favor on this one

We can have our cake and eat it too.. a big in FA and a big through the draft 

It's not hard


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> You wouldn't renounce him and screw his bird rights
> 
> Plus ... if you were an A Hole and you did screwing up any goodwill in the process..the only teams that could sign him outright where he could go and do a Bozo Boozer would be Atlanta , NO/OK, and Toronto ..all of whom have assets at the strong position whereas Utah had the cap room and the need to fill
> 
> Its a pretty different set of circumstances


I agree that we'd stand a real risk of ticking him off by renouncing him, but it's an interesting idea. It'd really depend on some upfront communication with him. If we gave good assurances that we were going to re-sign him and had basic agreement on the parameters it'd seem like a formality. But then again, you never know what weird **** can happen. Curry felt like he had those assurances. Jim Paxson felt like he gave those assurances.

I could see Atlanta going after Gooden. He'd fit in perfectly for them at the 4, no? Athletic, good rebounder, can run.... if they re-up Harrington and sign him they'll be pretty well set at the forwards while they figure out whether Josh Smith and Marvin Williams can play (which would seem to take several more years at this rate).


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> I agree that we'd stand a real risk of ticking him off by renouncing him, but it's an interesting idea. It'd really depend on some upfront communication with him. If we gave good assurances that we were going to re-sign him and had basic agreement on the parameters it'd seem like a formality. But then again, you never know what weird **** can happen. Curry felt like he had those assurances. Jim Paxson felt like he gave those assurances.
> 
> I could see Atlanta going after Gooden. He'd fit in perfectly for them at the 4, no? Athletic, good rebounder, can run.... if they re-up Harrington and sign him they'll be pretty well set at the forwards while they figure out whether Josh Smith and Marvin Williams can play (which would seem to take several more years at this rate).


yah I agree 

The Atliean would have my guts for garters for saying this ..but the time is now for Atlanta if they could secure Gooden and Harrington at foward to match up with ZaZa upfront 

If they secured Gooden and Harrington over the summer and dealt their draft pick ( say a top 3 pick - Aldridge ) and Josh Childress for Andre Miller and Nene in a sign and trade then Ohhh mama they wwould be smokin ...

*

ZaZa
Gooden 
Harrington 
Johnson
Miller 

bench

Nene 
Williams 
Smith 
Stoudamire
Lue
*


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)




----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

VincentVega said:


>


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Why not just take Gooden and a a big with a pick from the draft ?
> 
> The odds are he won't be traded before the deadline and that a S and T will be difficult and we have the cap space and the money and a significant connection in Kirk to land him
> 
> ...


Why won't he be traded by the deadline? And if he's not, why wouldn't the Cavs just re-sign him? Are the Bulls going to make him a major offer? Doubtful. Reinsdorf won't like opening the purse strings wide enough to get it done. The Bulls have enough trouble getting their own players to sign, one can imagine without the ability to play brinksmanship with Gooden, Gooden will just use the Bulls to get a decent offer and then Dan Gilbert, or Mr. Moneybags, will drop the money to keep him and the Cavs will just let he and Verejao be their frontcourt of the future. Gooden and Verejao look damn good together in a frontcourt and Z and Marshall won't be around forever.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> Why won't he be traded by the deadline?


Who is going to trade anything significant for him ?

In the circumstances no one is going to buy what they can't steal 

Powder will be kept dry and he will come into play over the summer 



> And if he's not, why wouldn't the Cavs just re-sign him?


Read the thread .

But salary structure basically with 3 max players and two high MLE and over players on their roster and the requirment for cheaper cost and better basketball fit of Andersen Vareajo

I guarantee you in the law of immediate precedents he will be let go by the Cavs and if they can get a draft pick or a nice piece now and at deadline they do it otherwise they'll cut bait and let him go


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Who is going to trade anything significant for him ?
> 
> In the circumstances no one is going to buy what they can't steal
> 
> ...


But who is going to offer Drew Gooden that much more than a MLE type contract? All Ferry has to do is sit around and match. But yeah, I do think the Cavs would part with him in the summer for a draft pick

I just don't like this sense of entitlement that many Bulls fans have that 1) they're too good for a player like Drew Gooden and 2) if they wanted to they could just have him.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

VincentVega said:


> Statistically, Gooden is the third-best offensive rebounder in the league (5.7 per 48 minutes) and 7th-best overall rebounder (15.1 per 48 minutes). Give him 30 mpg and he almost always gets you at least 10/10/1 blk/1 stl on better than 50% shooting.
> 
> Gooden's PER is currently higher than that of Dwight Howard, Jason Richardson, Sam Cassell, Baron Davis, Rasheed Wallace, Richard Jefferson, Joe Johnson, Chris Webber, Mike Bibby, Al Jefferson, Steve Francis, Stephon Marbury, Antawn Jamison, Al Harrington, Ricky Davis and Caron Butler.
> 
> Gooden's eFG% is currently higher than that of Ray Allen, Dwyane Wade, Elton Brand, Dwight Howard, Richard Jefferson, Rasheed Wallace, Al Jefferson, Mehmet Okur, Dirk Nowitzki, Chris Bosh and Tim Duncan.


Numbers aside, something about Gooden makes me very wary. He's developed into a nice offensive rebounder, and gets a bunch of easy buckets because of it - but (PER aside) I'm not convinced he and Tyson Chandler would be a good pairing. I'd prefer to see Tyson paired with a 4/5 who's effective in the post and can body up bigger opponents.


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

Gooden is an upgrade over Othella.....Point blank.

What's the problem?


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

The Pax haters are at it again....

By reading this effin thread one can understand who want Pax to fail......

Drew gooden will be kidnapped by aliens in a few days.....

No way Pax can do anything about it.....

The hate is driving people away from bbb.net....Trust me


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Zeke wants K-Mart and Earl Watson: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/story/389051p-330109c.html



> According to a league source, the Nuggets are shopping Martin, who will earn $65 million through the 2010 season. Denver has also contacted Chicago about Martin, whose contract and medical history will prevent more teams from pursuing him. Martin, acquired in a sign-and-trade from the Nets two summers ago, has been slowed by knee and back problems this season. Thomas has two weeks to trade Penny Hardaway's expiring contract and has been in conversations with the Nuggets about point guard Earl Watson. According to published reports, the Knicks, Nuggets and Magic are discussing a deal that would bring Watson to New York and send Jamal Crawford to Orlando.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

It sounds like Denver knows something about K-Mart and wants to pawn him off before the cat is let out of the bag. Though many thought the same thing with Webber, so its a tough to analyze.

I just wonder what part Orlando has in this, as i'm unable to think up of a worthy trade scenario with Francis and Crawford.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Does anybody on here really think Paxson's trying to make a move for Martin? It's been reported in two different papers in two different cities already. I'm not for the trade but who exactly would be trying to trade for Kenyon Martin? Chandler & change??


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

The ROY said:


> Does anybody on here really think Paxson's trying to make a move for Martin? It's been reported in two different papers in two different cities already. I'm not for the trade but who exactly would be trying to trade for Kenyon Martin? Chandler & change??


I think Denver wants to get rid of Martin, and thinks the Bulls are as good a place as any to do it.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

unBULLievable said:


> The Pax haters are at it again....
> 
> By reading this effin thread one can understand who want Pax to fail......
> 
> ...


I dont think its the hate...

Its the fact that they express their opinion stronger than the rest of us do. 

I find it amazing that Gordon is a star in the making yet the majority of the boards talk is Rose, JC, Eddy, LB and the fire paxson fan club. It dominates. 

But then I cant blame that faction at all. The other side is not getting their point across as well as they should and as well as that faction does. 

I would do more myself but real life issues prevent me from posting as often as I would like.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

narek said:


> I think Denver wants to get rid of Martin, and thinks the Bulls are as good a place as any to do it.


Why would u say that though? Cuz we need a big??

He has 5 years with 60 mill left though.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

If Paxson is interested, he better make damn sure Kenyon is not damaged goods. Even if he is damaged he is an up grade over anything we have now.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

truebluefan said:


> I find it amazing that Gordon is a star in the making yet the majority of the boards talk is Rose, JC, Eddy, LB and the fire paxson fan club. It dominates.


We're like teh only forum that consistently OBSESSES over our old players, BAD players at that. It's disgusting.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

unBULLievable said:


> The Pax haters are at it again....
> 
> By reading this effin thread one can understand who want Pax to fail......
> 
> ...


Respectfully, I'm not sure how constructive posts like these are. Personally, I think if one has a problem with what someone says, it's either best to take it up with them via PM, or just start another thread, to start another stream of discussion that's more suited to your tastes. To post with no other intent but to point out all the 'hate' that's here only magnifies the problem, IMO, and does nothing to make the situation better.

And personally, I haven't seen anything that's gone on in this thread that's fallen outside the realm of intelligent debate. You can't hold someone's opinion against them, just the ways in which they choose to express it, and to me, everyone's been doing that respectfully. 

................

In your opinion, what's the most we should be willing to give up to acquire Drew Gooden?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/nuggets/2006-02-03-martin_x.htm



> Martin says he wasn't walking out on teammates
> DENVER (AP) — Forget what it looked like, Kenyon Martin insists he wasn't walking out on his teammates, and the Denver Nuggets are standing behind him.
> 
> Martin retreated to the locker room with three minutes left and the Nuggets down by 15 points in a loss at Utah on Wednesday night. He returned to the bench for the final seconds.
> ...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Interesting note from David Schuster from THE SCORE on The Mike North Morning Show.

Claimed he talked to Paxson. Don't expect a trade anytime soon. If there is going to be a trade, it will be as close to the trade deadline as possible. Paxson apparently is "busy scouting."


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Interesting note from David Schuster from THE SCORE on The Mike North Morning Show.
> 
> Claimed he talked to Paxson. Don't expect a trade anytime soon. If there is going to be a trade, it will be as close to the trade deadline as possible. Paxson apparently is "busy scouting."


I thought that anyway. Pax will not do anything until the deadline unless a "knock-your-socks-off" trade is offered. 

He has inquired about Gooden and Martin. Thats better than doing nothing imo.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> He has inquired about Gooden and Martin. Thats better than doing nothing imo.


It does nothing to help us claw our way up to that #8 playoff spot.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

ChiBulls2315 said:


> Pretty interesting stats DaBullz.
> 
> 
> 
> Would I move Du for him? My initial thought would be no. Like already mentioned, I don't really like the idea of basically trading an asset like Duhon for Gooden's bird rights. I definitely wouldn't mind adding him as a free agent. It depends on how the situation folds out though. If it looks like Cleveland won't deal him by the deadline, you got to like our chances if we throw the right amount of money out there in the offseason. On the other hand if someone steps up and is about to deal for him, you got to think that team is looking to re-sign him. In that case, how bad do you want Drew Gooden? You then can either 1)give up Du at the last second or 2) be prepared to hand over a 10+ million dollar offer sheet to him this summer on the *chance* of getting him. Meh...I don't know. I've been looking at free agency like we will get _someone_ between Harrington/Gooden/Nene/Wilcox so I really don't like giving up Duhon.


ChiBulls, I think your analysis is more or less spot on, but I only have one discrepancy. The more I think about it, the more I tend to convince myself that it's not really accurate to lump Harrington/Gooden/Nene/Wilcox/Pryz/Nazr all together. Considering our circumstances and needs, I'm beginning to feel that Drew Gooden and Nene should be our top targets, and it might be wise to separate them from everyone else when we're identifying who to go after. 

Everyone else is either slightly out of position, one sided, unproven, or just not talented enough to make a significant impact, at least not as much as those two would.

Assuming Nene is healthy of course.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> It does nothing to help us claw our way up to that #8 playoff spot.


For now? Yes you are right. But then how would making a trade just for the sake of making a trade help us claw our way to the #8 spot? What if he made a trade now...then another team made a better deal for another player that we may have been interested in and this player helps that team....what about that? Had John waited until deadline he too could have been in the running for such a player. That is my point. 

Why trade now when the trade may be there at deadline. Explore ALL options. 

Then again there is always the chance the players he inquired about are as good as it gets. If thats the case, then the other teams may be asking for too much in return or John knows something we dont know.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> For now? Yes you are right. But then how would making a trade just for the sake of making a trade help us claw our way to the #8 spot?


I'm not talking about making a trade for the sake of making a trade. I'm talking about trading Chris Duhon for Drew Gooden to resolve an obvious issue with our team.




> Why trade now when the trade may be there at deadline.


To help the Bulls win basketball games. The next one is on Wednesday.




> Then again there is always the chance the players he inquired about are as good as it gets. If thats the case, then the other teams may be asking for too much in return or John knows something we dont know.


Or he's just happy to stand pat.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> The next one is on Wednesday.


Is this snarkiness necessary? I'm sure everyone knows when the next game is.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Is this snarkiness necessary? I'm sure everyone knows when the next game is.


"Why put off until tomorrow what you can do today?"

It seems to me that a sense of urgency right now is reasonable.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not talking about making a trade for the sake of making a trade. I'm talking about trading Chris Duhon for Drew Gooden to resolve an obvious issue with our team.
> 
> To help the Bulls win basketball games. The next one is on Wednesday.
> 
> Or he's just happy to stand pat.


I'd rather he be doing his due diligence on Duhon's value.

There are lots of teams out there looking for point guards. The Sonics, Knicks, and Magic all appear to have at least some interest in Earl Watson, and I'd take Duhon and his contract over Watson and his every day of the week. The Hawks should have an interest in a PG, at least.

I like Gooden as an FA target and I don't see real questionmarks about whether we should give up a productive player for a guy we likely can get anyway this summer. Doesn't seem like a bad deal, but I'm still on the fence about it.

Anyway, point is, what Pax should be doing is seeing if there are some other options out there. I still think a Duhon for Josh Childress swap makes a lot of sense for all involved. Maybe the Sonics will start to consider Nick Collison or a couple of their other bigs (Evans, Potapenko). Not sure I'd prefer them over Gooden, but it'd be worth considering.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> "Why put off until tomorrow what you can do today?"
> 
> It seems to me that a sense of urgency right now is reasonable.


It's pretty unclear to me that it _could _be done today, and I'm still not decided on whether it _should_ be done it all.

One way to look at it is the net effect of having Gooden instead of Duhon might give us a few more victories this year. Let's be wildly optimistic and say 3 more. That's a small number, but it could well push us above .500 and into the playoffs. It's a lot for having a one player swap account for (especially when you consider we'll suddenly have 0 depth at the guards).

However, if we make no trade and sign Gooden in the offseason (lets say the probability is 50% we can), then over the next 2 seasons we win an additional 5 games each by having Duhon and Gooden.

So is it worth it to get 3 more games now or have a 50% chance at 10 more games over the next two years. well, 3 is less than 5, so I'd wait. Even if it's only an additional 3 games each year, then it's unclear that we're better off making a trade now. We're indifferent between the two options.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

unBULLievable said:


> The Pax haters are at it again....
> 
> By reading this effin thread one can understand who want Pax to fail......
> 
> ...



respectfully, i have to say this post is off-base. this thread is a good discussion back and forth of the pros and cons of duhon, gooden, trade ideas etc. i don't see any hate at all, frankly.

i don't think anyone thinks pax is going to trade for k-mart.

calm down. 

and if you think this thread is full of "those who want pax to fail" why don't you give us some thoughts on "how you think pax will succeed"?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> "Why put off until tomorrow what you can do today?"
> 
> It seems to me that a sense of urgency right now is reasonable.


That's not my point. My point is we can take a more civil tone with each other. I read "The next game is Wednesday" as being a smartalecky way of stating that sense of urgency. I'm just trying to make a suggestion that we be nicer to each other. I assume that a group of people who post on, moderate, and administer an internet message board about a basketball team know when the next game is. I am not addressing the issue of whether or not there is an existing need, or how pressing that need is.


Addressing the substance of your point, the cliche sounds good, but that doesn't make it true. The right course of action in acquiring Gooden could be to wait until this offseason to sign him without having to give up an asset. It also may be wise now to go ahead and trade an asset if it can better guarantee we keep Gooden around next year. But it's incorrect to assume that doing it faster necessarily means doing it better.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> It's pretty unclear to me that it _could _be done today, and I'm still not decided on whether it _should_ be done it all.


Certainly trading TT's expiring contract and the cap space it represents for a player we'd like to use the cap space on anyway is something that could be done today.

And there's no harm in getting that player playing with the team for the rest of the season, regardless of our final record, to build upon that for next season and beyond.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Certainly trading TT's expiring contract and the cap space it represents for a player we'd like to use the cap space on anyway is something that could be done today.
> 
> And there's no harm in getting that player playing with the team for the rest of the season, regardless of our final record, to build upon that for next season and beyond.


What makes you think this is even remotely true? Teams aren't lining up to hand over good players just to get TT's expiring deal. We'd have to give up some combination of Kirk/Ben/Deng/Duhon/Noc/1st rounders along with TT to get someone worth blowing the cap space on, and once you start talking about the former assets, it becomes a much heavier decision. The players who are available for TT's contract alone are probably vastly overpaid for this year and beyond and not worth bringing in.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I'm encouraged by the interest in Gooden. Somehow I get the idea that he could be had for a reasonable bargain rate, and I can imagine him thriving on our team next to a player in Hinrich whom he had good chemistry with in college. He's a post player with skill and he rebounds well. His defense has been questioned, but at least he has legit 6' 10" height and a wingspan of over seven feet. He'll but just the right age - 25 - at the beginning of the 05-06 season. He's been basically healthy during his pro career.

I am a bit concerned about attitude issues that have plagued him before, plus the fact that he's been traded a few times, but I'd be willing to take a risk on him. I'd prefer to try to pick him up in free agency, although I suppose if he's close to #1 on Paxson's list, you might consider acquiring him now, because then maybe you're not too concerned about acquiring another top tier free agent right after the signing period begins. Of course I'd rather not have to give up a Duhon level player to get him. And, DaBullz, Gordon just can't be in the conversation in trading for Gooden this year.

So who do we know are Paxson's "guys"? From what we know so far, he seems to like Harrington, Gooden, and Bosh. No word on whether he likes Nene yet.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

How much would you guys offer Gooden if we don't trade for him and he's a restricted free agent next year? 5 years, 40 million? Do you think he will get more?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> respectfully, i have to say this post is off-base. this thread is a good discussion back and forth of the pros and cons of duhon, gooden, trade ideas etc. i don't see any hate at all, frankly.


No, let's face it, he's right. Face it... all is lost! We're going to be destroyed!

Funny, I always thought we'd go out like this:









(Of course, we could probably divide up the board between the above pic is an image of Eddy Curry or Michael Sweetney, but I've probably already taken a good thread too far afield).


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> How much would you guys offer Gooden if we don't trade for him and he's a restricted free agent next year? 5 years, 40 million? Do you think he will get more?


Truthfully, I think it would take more than that.

Couple of reasons.

1). Dan Brown doesn't seem to be a cheapskate, and Drew Gooden has been a pretty productive player for them this year and last, and if he doesn't get traded at the deadline, I still think it'd take a pretty sizeable offer to pry him away from the Cavs, one that would border on overpayment.

2). With big men, it always seems that no matter the market, they end up getting more than their production would merit. Adonal frickin' Foyle got 45 million 2-3 years ago. Whether it be through S and T or if it's us or Atlanta with our cash, I'd imagine someone will come to the plate with a bit to offer.

3). It kinda seems like Drew Gooden is going to be one of those guys that is talked about slipping under the radar so much that when he's finally a FA, quite a market will have created itself for his services. After all, when you get down to it, he's probably the most talented big man that looks to be readily available right now.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> No, let's face it, he's right. Face it... all is lost! We're going to be destroyed!
> 
> Funny, I always thought we'd go out like this:
> 
> ...


It's interesting that you chose this particular image. If you want to talk about a polarizing issue that's divided people into two starkly opposed camps and created incredible amounts of spirited, passionate debate, you need look no further than the marble-clad building to the StayPuff Marshmallow Man's left.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> ChiBulls, I think your analysis is more or less spot on, but I only have one discrepancy. The more I think about it, the more I tend to convince myself that it's not really accurate to lump Harrington/Gooden/Nene/Wilcox/Pryz/Nazr all together. Considering our circumstances and needs, I'm beginning to feel that Drew Gooden and Nene should be our top targets, and it might be wise to separate them from everyone else when we're identifying who to go after.
> 
> Everyone else is either slightly out of position, one sided, unproven, or just not talented enough to make a significant impact, at least not as much as those two would.
> 
> Assuming Nene is healthy of course.



Definitely. I don't mean to lump Wilcox in with Harrington, Gooden, or even Nene. We'd be paying for all potential there. He's just a young big guy with some degree of talent who's a FA. I think the two targets you named, Gooden and Nene, are good ones to have 1 and 2. But I wouldn't be too upset if Pax went after Al #1 even though he is slightly out of position. Getting one of them three would be a big score IMO. The other three (Pryz, Nazr, Wilcox) are all guys I wouldn't mind, but not as our big prize. I certainly don't want the Bulls to be the team paying Joel Przybilla 8+ million a year. 

I'm getting a bit worried though about all these trade rumors involving those top three guys. Harrington, Nene, and Gooden all have a pretty good incentive to leave their current teams. Harrington might want to head to a winner. Nene and Gooden want to be somewhere where they'll start and in Gooden's case, be appreciated. The teams of the those two have also financial concerns which gives us a nice edge there as well. 

But if those guys get traded, the chances of them re-signing with their new teams goes up significantly IMO. They wouldn't have traded for them unless they planned to re-sign them. Gooden and Nene are RFAs so even if they wanted to leave, they couldn't. That would be absolutely terrible for us. What are we supposed to do then? Especially if Aldridge didn't fall to us in the draft? If that happened, we're going to have to do like I said before, and offer a seriously ridiculous amount of money to one of those guys. Otherwise we're left with Wilcox/Pryzbilla/Nazr to choose from. Ugh. 

That's why I'm hoping these guys stay right where they're at. But if I had to bet, I'd say Gooden and Nene are gone for sure. Al's up in the air right now I think. That's why Pax may need to trade for one of these guys now. Luckily Atlanta and Cleveland both would likely be interested in Duhon, who seems like the logical candidate in a trade. Then more of a longshot, but depending on how much Atl/Cle/Den liked Sweetney, maybe we could pawn him off for their guy in hope they'd take him vs. losing their player for nothing this summer.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

ChiBulls2315 said:


> Definitely. I don't mean to lump Wilcox in with Harrington, Gooden, or even Nene. We'd be paying for all potential there. He's just a young big guy with some degree of talent who's a FA. I think the two targets you named, Gooden and Nene, are good ones to have 1 and 2. But I wouldn't be too upset if Pax went after Al #1 even though he is slightly out of position. Getting one of them three would be a big score IMO. The other three (Pryz, Nazr, Wilcox) are all guys I wouldn't mind, but not as our big prize. I certainly don't want the Bulls to be the team paying Joel Przybilla 8+ million a year.
> 
> I'm getting a bit worried though about all these trade rumors involving those top three guys. Harrington, Nene, and Gooden all have a pretty good incentive to leave their current teams. Harrington might want to head to a winner. Nene and Gooden want to be somewhere where they'll start and in Gooden's case, be appreciated. The teams of the those two have also financial concerns which gives us a nice edge there as well.
> 
> ...


This upcoming trade deadline and FA period is definitely an exercise in risk assessment. I agree that if any of those guys gets get moved, our chances of acquiring them kinda go down the ****ter, particularly with the RFA's. Nene especially, with his injury. I tend to think it'd be wise to inquire about the availability of both Gooden and Nene, since we'd more or less be hedging our bets, so to speak.

I think Nene's important since he seems like the only FA big guy that can play center on both ends. I suppose Nazr could count too, but I'm not sure he's all that good. And with his injury, any team trying to sign him is at an inherent disadvantage with the team holding his RFA status. 

I also wonder if the Cavaliers supposed financial concerns are real or fabricated. I understand the teams financial structure, and the upcoming contracts they'll have to give to Lebron, but I've never read anything that says they're looking to pinch pennies or are loathe to give out a contract to Drew Gooden. And when it's all said and done, Drew Gooden is a young big guy who's played well for them, and I think they'd try and trade someone like Damon Jones or even Donyell Marshall before they just let Gooden go. And I'd imagine they'd at least be willing to sign him to a decent deal. If he doesn't get traded, I think we'd have to cough up a decent amount of money to get him over here.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I'd rather he be doing his due diligence on Duhon's value.


If that really what he's doing, then OK, I'd rather that too.





> Anyway, point is, what Pax should be doing is seeing if there are some other options out there. I still think a Duhon for Josh Childress swap makes a lot of sense for all involved. Maybe the Sonics will start to consider Nick Collison or a couple of their other bigs (Evans, Potapenko). Not sure I'd prefer them over Gooden, but it'd be worth considering.


To be honest, none of those players excite me more than Gooden. I've only seen Childress live a couple times but I have not been impressed, especially with Deng and Noc being on our team.

I think there should be some sense of urgency. If PP is available, be all over it. If Drew Gooden is up for grabs, do what it takes to get him. Paxson has a bad habit, IMO, of hemming and hawing until the last minute and then being “forced” into making moves that don’t maximize value, IMO. I don’t want to see that again. Now is not the time to be scouting the CBA and NBDL….. or even the NCAA… the trade deadline is coming up in the NBA and I’d like to see a move or two made to try to improve both our chances this season and going forward. He can watch CBA/NCAA ball in a few weeks, both live and on tape. Its NBA time. I have a bunch more games to go to!


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

CHris DUhon for Josh Childress?! YUCK, wtff kinda sense does that make?!


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It's interesting that you chose this particular image. If you want to talk about a polarizing issue that's divided people into two starkly opposed camps and created incredible amounts of spirited, passionate debate, you need look no further than the marble-clad building to the StayPuff Marshmallow Man's left.


Funny, I always though that Mr. StayPuff was a comical version of Jerry Krause.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> However, if we make no trade and sign Gooden in the offseason (lets say the probability is 50% we can), then over the next 2 seasons we win an additional 5 games each by having Duhon and Gooden.
> 
> So is it worth it to get 3 more games now or have a 50% chance at 10 more games over the next two years. well, 3 is less than 5, so I'd wait. Even if it's only an additional 3 games each year, then it's unclear that we're better off making a trade now. We're indifferent between the two options.


I agree with this thought process, but I'm nervous this organization will not do what it takes to land Gooden in the off-season. And, it would be nice to make the playoffs this season. 

If we don’t have a respectable starting 4 or 5 that has some offensive game next off season, its going to be this year all over again, IMO. There has to be some premium assigned to locking in a team need for an area where we have an abundance. I also think its easier to replace a Duhon type when over the cap than to acquire a Gooden type, if Gooden keeps performing like he has this season.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> That's not my point. My point is we can take a more civil tone with each other. I read "The next game is Wednesday" as being a smartalecky way of stating that sense of urgency. I'm just trying to make a suggestion that we be nicer to each other. I assume that a group of people who post on, moderate, and administer an internet message board about a basketball team know when the next game is. I am not addressing the issue of whether or not there is an existing need, or how pressing that need is.


Sorry to offend to instigate. I know that everyone here knows the date of the next game. I was just trying to make the sense of urgency point... I could have made it in a less sarcastic or smart-alecky manner. I do openly confess to being a smart aleck and sarcastic though.... especially when I get frustrated.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

One good thing about getting Gooden now would be that if the Bulls could resign him early they would have a lot more flexibility in the draft.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It's interesting that you chose this particular image. If you want to talk about a polarizing issue that's divided people into two starkly opposed camps and created incredible amounts of spirited, passionate debate, you need look no further than the marble-clad building to the StayPuff Marshmallow Man's left.


OK, I'll bite. Pray do tell, sir, what is this building of which you speak, which has engendered such spirited, divisive and polarizing debate? I confess I do not know the building by sight.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> But who is going to offer Drew Gooden that much more than a MLE type contract? All Ferry has to do is sit around and match. But yeah, I do think the Cavs would part with him in the summer for a draft pick
> 
> I just don't like this sense of entitlement that many Bulls fans have that 1) they're too good for a player like Drew Gooden and 2) if they wanted to they could just have him.


We're not too good for a player like Drew Gooden and there is no sense of entitlement in how I feel about it

Just sense of strong position that if we want him we can have him (if we want to pay him ) and The Ferryman won't match at $7M starting . 

Don't forget that past this trade deadline and when the summer comes it would be very difficult to work out a Sign and Trade without involving a 3rd team and /or a bunch of salaried players thrown into a deal that no team really wants ( in all liklihood as those players are usually just thrown into a deal as ballast )

The simplest route for Drew ..is someone that needs him , wants him and shows him the quong 

And that would be us over Toronto, Atlanta and New Orleans 

Personally I think that if Seattle could get their act together he would be an awesome fit there 

But its just the way the mechanics of his market work and it will shake out

Gooden and Harrington are #1 and #2 options in that order .

Nene is damaged goods and Pax is too risk averse to make a significant play....someone will take a punt on him via trade before the deadline to acquire his bird rights and let the market dictate value 

I'd give up Sweetney and our pick ( protected 1 - 12 ) for the next 2 years and unconditonal thereafter 

Who are we going to draft after #12 that's is going to have as much upside as Nene 

This way we get to acquire his bird rights and control his market which I imagine won't be robust ..but if we can tie him up around the MLE mark on a term deal then for me it worth the risk of losing a draft pick of #12 or lower 

We still sign Drew Gooden ...AD and a wing player between Salmons / Welsch .


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> The simplest route for Drew ..is someone that needs him , wants him and shows him the quong



Not that there's anything _wrong_ with that. 

Is there anybody on the Bulls roster who's quong Drew really wants to see?


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

jbulls said:


> Numbers aside, something about Gooden makes me very wary. He's developed into a nice offensive rebounder, and gets a bunch of easy buckets because of it - but (PER aside) I'm not convinced he and Tyson Chandler would be a good pairing. I'd prefer to see Tyson paired with a 4/5 who's effective in the post and can body up bigger opponents.


Gooden is actually quite polished in the post if you have seen a good cross section of what he can do ..although he's more finesse than power per se ..but he can use his feet to beat his man

I know some may take issue with me saying this but I see a bit of Rasheed Wallace in this guy


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Gooden is actually quite polished in the post if you have seen a good cross section of what he can do ..although he's more finesse than power per se ..but he can use his feet to beat his man
> 
> I know some may take issue with me saying this but I see a bit of Rasheed Wallace in this guy


I've always thought that if we got Drew Gooden, it could potentially be a Chauncey Billups-like signing.

Meaning, a high draft pick who's always had lots of talent, who just needed the right situation to succeed in. 

Of course, the guy could be a complete flake too.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> OK, I'll bite. Pray do tell, sir, what is this building of which you speak, which has engendered such spirited, divisive and polarizing debate? I confess I do not know the building by sight.


Google "2 Columbus Circle," or better yet, if you're a TimesSelect(TM) subscriber, search for it there.

And while you're doing that, I'll Google "quong," assuming our company's firewall allows it.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

And I agree that his game is pretty Rasheed Wallace like. Really, he's got one of the most developed offensive games of any big man, IMO.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I'll save you guys the trouble 

"Quong" was a term coined by the character of Rod Tidwell ( played by Cuba Gooding Jr ) in Jerry Maguire 

"The Quong" was the money , the love , the shoe contract ..the whole package ..the.....( pause, draw breath , close eyes and then open as slowly exhaling while moving hands in a circular motion..)

Quong 

Ring this one up to Cameron Crowe


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Google "2 Columbus Circle," or better yet, if you're a TimesSelect(TM) subscriber, search for it there.
> 
> And while you're doing that, I'll Google "quong," assuming our company's firewall allows it.


I did Google 'quong' and nothing came up. FJ, did you just make that word up??

Either way..........l like it.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> And I agree that his game is pretty Rasheed Wallace like. Really, he's got one of the most developed offensive games of any big man, IMO.


I don't agree. Wallace was and is an elite defender. Gooden isn't.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> I don't agree. Wallace was and is an elite defender. Gooden isn't.


It wasn't a direct comparison in a very literal sense only there were elements of Drew's game that for me are strike some resembelance 

I agree Sheed is a superior defender..but Drew is not a bad defender IMO and actually has played pretty well on the defensive end this season in the Cavs games I have caught

He's not a dominant man on man defender but he does his job fairly well within the team's defensive scheme


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

OT 

The other classic from Cameron Crowe in Jerry Maguire surrounds that conversation Rod Tidwell and Jerry Maguire have about single mothers and when Rod accuses Jerry of "robbing the pooty"

Jerry looks at Rod solemnly and in half disgust / half earnestness says slowly and deliberately:

"I did NOT rob the pooty"

It is one of my favourite lines from films made in the last half a dozen years or so right up there with Paul Giammati's classic in Sideways 

"And Miles ..no going to the darkside take your zanex or whatever it is you got to do..and if they want to drink Merlot..then we're going to drink Merlot "

"Hey! I'm not drinking no F'n Merlot!!!"


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> "And Miles ..no going to the darkside take your zanex or whatever it is you got to do..and if they want to drink Merlot..then we're going to drink Merlot "
> 
> "Hey! I'm not drinking no F'n Merlot!!!"


"No, if anyone orders Merlot, I'm leaving. I am NOT drinking any ****ing Merlot!"

And you can't even begin to describe the venom with which that second sentence is delivered.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> "No, if anyone orders Merlot, I'm leaving. I am NOT drinking any ****ing Merlot!"
> 
> And you can't even begin to describe the venom with which that second sentence is delivered.


I paraphrased


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Is anything still happening on this? I'd love to see Gooden for Duhon happen.

We need Duhon as our purest PG but I think we need Gooden more, with the way our offense is set. Kirk, Gordon, even Noch all run the fast break well enough; Kirk sets up the offense and the ball bounces around the perimeter in any event; we don't really run off of a PG right now.

Let's say we make it Duhon + Sweetney for Gooden + Luke Jackson. That way, they get a big man back and we take back a salary burden in a wasted player like LJax (and who knows? maybe he'll turn it around as a bench spark on a new team).

I just love what it does for us. If we can land Aldridge (best big in the draft, gives us a third big man up front) and sign a backup C with real size (Nazr Mohammed or even Antonio Davis sounds good enough for me), we can use our own pick on the best available talent. That might even be Splitter, but I'd be happy to take a PG type to fill in the backup role that Duhon had, like a Mardy Collins or a Rajon Rondo (not a huge Rondo fan, although he really plays way bigger than his size).

I mentioned this in the draft thread, but I think this is all contingent on our ability to have Drew Gooden in the frontcourt. He's a solid passer and a fluid movement guy, and an offensive stud. I don't think he's that much a worse defender than Songaila.

After we re-up Gooden and sign Nazr, we can spend some of the remaining $$ on a backup guard, like a Rasual Butler.

Hinrich/Collins
Gordon/Butler/Collins
Deng/Noch
Gooden/Songaila/Aldridge
Chandler/Aldridge/Mohammed/Songaila

A 2nd unit of Collins, Gordon, Noch, Songaila and Aldridge might allow us to stay out of those "stretches" where we sort of slacken our lead. In general, we would have a really balanced 4-guard rotation (Kirk, BG, Collins and Butler), our two strong SF's, and a really solid 5-big rotation (Gooden, Aldridge, Songaila, Chandler, Mohammed). Lots more talent, lots more size, and lots more balance in the roster this way. I'd love this team.

The bottom line answer is that I'd rather have Drew Gooden than Al Harrington + Chris Duhon. Al + Du is much more talent than Drew, but Gooden is the better fit for what the team's core is like.

So is this happening or what? Any more news bytes on this?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

According to the NYDaily News, Isaiah is making Channing Frye available for trade at Larry Browns insistence.

Maybe we should offer them their lottery pick back.



> According to a source, Thomas is willing to trade any player Brown deems undesirable, rookies included.
> 
> "Isiah wants to make this work and it is not working right now," said a person close to Thomas. "He's not going to fight with Larry. He'll get the players that Larry wants."
> 
> Thomas has ongoing conversations with several teams, including the Denver Nuggets, who are looking to trade ex-Net forward Kenyon Martin. The Nuggets want rookie Channing Frye included in the deal. *Thomas would trade Frye...*


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/story/389848p-330742c.html


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> Is anything still happening on this? I'd love to see Gooden for Duhon happen.
> 
> We need Duhon as our purest PG but I think we need Gooden more, with the way our offense is set. Kirk, Gordon, even Noch all run the fast break well enough; Kirk sets up the offense and the ball bounces around the perimeter in any event; we don't really run off of a PG right now.
> 
> ...





> The bottom line answer is that I'd rather have Drew Gooden than Al Harrington + Chris Duhon. Al + Du is much more talent than Drew, but Gooden is the better fit for what the team's core is like.


Completely agree. I like Al, but Gooden fits a need. Al is a tweener and the sf position is covered. We have a nice tweener in Nocioni already.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Guess we don't want K-mart anymore.

Trib:



> Forward Kenyon Martin, who didn't play because of a sore knee, reportedly is being shopped for a trade. The Bulls were approached, but Martin's off-season knee surgery and the 5 1/2 remaining years on his contract---worth $73 million--- turned off the Bulls, according to a source in the organization.


----------

