# Trade Deadline Approaches..will Pax make a deal? Chad Ford trade ideas (merged)



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

very simple question. 

yes or no.

will pax make a deal before the feb 23rd trade deadline? he stated in the sun-times that no one on the team is untouchable. and on a 20 win team, no one is. (as much as it might personally pain me to say that! :smilewink )

so let's guage the temperature of the room. will pax make a deal? or will he hold steady and make roster moves in the summer? 


http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull311.html



> LET'S MAKE A DEAL: Operations chief John Paxson expects to burn up the phone lines between now and the NBA trading deadline on Feb. 23, but is unsure whether he'll be able to swing a significant deal.
> 
> ''It's so hard to answer right now,'' Paxson said Monday. ''I do know that there are a lot of teams that are going to want to discuss deals. I feel silly saying it, but we'll do a deal if it feels right.
> 
> ...




http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/311sd7.htm



> The result of the trip also could impact personnel decisions in advance of the Feb. 23 trading deadline.
> 
> "I will talk to a lot of teams," said Paxson, who scouted talent in Europe the last two weeks. "I do know that a lot of teams want to discuss deals. We'll do what we think is right. If there's a deal that makes sense and improves our club or a big deal that helps our future, then of course we'll do it."
> 
> ...


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

I think he'd like to, but I don't think it's going to happen. 

I heard Hanley on the Score last night saying the principal owner of the Celtics doesn't want to trade Pierce, so Ainge might need a deal so far in favor of the Celtics to convince the owner to change his mind.

We aren't a championship level team yet, and one player right now won't make us one. I'd rather all the moves were made in the off season when we know the drafting order.

And here I am, talking about "we" like I have a say in anything.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

I don't see anything spectacular happening before deadline, but I would be pleasantly surprised if something did. If its spectacular.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

In terms of major trades, my guess is that Pax will stand pat until the summer. The only guy I really saw Paxson going after this year was Pierce, and I don't see Boston moving him this season after having made the deal for Wally.

We may see some sort of deal trading TT for another expiring contract or take on some minimal contract back, but I really don't see any other sort of moves.

However, if the Bulls start tanking--like another 6 or 7 game losing streak without much of a win streak to complement it by the trade deadline, then I think it is more likely that a move be made.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

One interesting thing to look for might be a team with cap space, although less cap space than a full MLE player. If such a situation existed, I think said team would be looking either to add or remove a bit of salary so they can be FA players with other teams over the cap. Such a team could definately be a target for a TT trade where we take an expiring contract and a small salary, whether TT has a chance to be in their future plans or not.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

I say yes. I'm still hoping TT gets moved. Right now the league is so watered down and mediocre, more teams will make a push for a star rather than trade for an expiring contract so it's going to be tough.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

I just found this blurb under the rumor section at hoopshype:

http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm



> Despite rumors and newspaper stories suggesting otherwise, Bulls general manager John Paxson is not close to making any deals that include a “big-name’’ player.
> 
> “Right now, we still have over three weeks (before over the trade deadline), and as I have learned, a lot of teams don’t do much until the trade deadline gets closer,’’ said Paxson, who just returned from a scouting trip in Europe.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

I'm going to go with . . . . YES. Although, frankly, I'm not sure I want him to. I'm really starting to settle into Harrington, a big, and best draft picks available as the right short term plan.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

Well, atleast we KNOW Paxson is looking for a star player, which is NICE to know 

Problem is, the only star player we could probably pull IS Paul Pierce. To get Garnett, we'd have to gut the team and give them next year's picks, which I'm not diggin'.

I think he WILL make a deal.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

We may deal TT for an expiring contract and a second rounder or something but I don't see any major trades being done. In fact, the more I think about it, I think we will probably sign Harrington and AD in the offseason (Harrington roomed with AD for a while so they have a bond) and draft a big like Bargnani.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



Ron Cey said:


> I'm going to go with . . . . YES. Although, frankly, I'm not sure I want him to. I'm really starting to settle into Harrington, a big, and best draft picks available as the right short term plan.


BOOOOOOOOooooo @ Harrington


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

I voted no, but there's a slight chance he'll sign another CBA/D-League type player - does that count?

Not such a simple question after all! :biggrin:

(yeah, yeah, I know what you ment, MIZE)


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



DaBullz said:


> I voted no, but there's a slight chance he'll sign another CBA/D-League type player - does that count?
> 
> Not such a simple question after all! :biggrin:
> 
> (yeah, yeah, I know what you ment, MIZE)


WHY are these cats on our team anyway!? what's the purpose?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

I'm going for a no. It takes two to tango and I don't think Pax is going to find any dancing partners. At least none that want to talk about the likes of Thomas, Pargo (can he even be dealt?), Pike, Sweets, Basden or second round picks. I also think that quite a few teams will offer up garbage for the likes of Gordon or Deng just to gauge what it really would take for Pax to move one of them.

Keep the picks, get the best players available and target whomever is needed in free agency to fill whatever void is still there after the draft.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



DaBullz said:


> I voted no, but there's a slight chance he'll sign another CBA/D-League type player - does that count?
> 
> Not such a simple question after all! :biggrin:
> 
> (yeah, yeah, I know what you ment, MIZE)



it's *miz* hahaha. 

and no, that's not what i meant. 

but could you - or another admin do me a favor? pretty please? i meant for this poll to close on feb 20th NOT feb 2nd and i am unable to edit the poll for some reason. thanks doll. appreciate it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



mizenkay said:


> it's *miz* hahaha.
> 
> and no, that's not what i meant.
> 
> but could you - or another admin do me a favor? pretty please? i meant for this poll to close on feb 20th NOT feb 2nd and i am unable to edit the poll for some reason. thanks doll. appreciate it.


MIZE, MIZEN, what's the difference? :biggrin:

Poll fixed


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

I voted no. It wouldn't shock me either way, but for some reason I've got a gut feeling he is going to stand pat. If that's the case, the NY pick better end up being pretty spectacular, because I don't see much happening in free agency this summer that will in and of itself turn this team into a championship contender.

EDIT: Not that draft picks must be retained. I wouldn't be surprised to see a draft day deal rather than a deal this year before the deadline.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



The ROY said:


> WHY are these cats on our team anyway!? what's the purpose?


I think the goal is to get Basden playing experience against borderline NBA talent while we still hold his rights in the NBDL. This comes at the expense of us being able to hold auditions for potential sleepers who haven't made it as of yet. I'm guessing we'll see some of the same names come summer league next year.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



jnrjr79 said:


> EDIT: Not that draft picks must be retained. I wouldn't be surprised to see a draft day deal rather than a deal this year before the deadline.


I consider that to be the far more likely trade scenario as well. Then the Bulls two picks will be locked in and the draftees known.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



Ron Cey said:


> I'm going to go with . . . . YES. Although, frankly, I'm not sure I want him to. I'm really starting to settle into Harrington, a big, and best draft picks available as the right short term plan.


I voted no and I'm total agreement with Ron on the offseason plan.


----------



## MuresansThimble (Nov 16, 2005)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

an aging Pierce wouldnt be attractive to him, not for what it would cost.

no way the deal would happen, unless Boston really really wants someone in the draft and NY keeps tanking it.


even then though, we'd have cap issues and a frontcourt to fill.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



Frankensteiner said:


> I voted no and I'm total agreement with Ron on the offseason plan.


Didn't you just say you preferred Drew Gooden a day or two ago?!?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



Mikedc said:


> Didn't you just say you preferred Drew Gooden a day or two ago?!?


I said I'm fine with either. And I was speaking more in general terms (i.e. don't make a trade, pick up two free agents, and use the draft picks).

Even so, do I not have the option to change my mind? Gooden and Harrington aren't exceptionally different players...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



Frankensteiner said:


> Even so, do I not have the option to change my mind? Gooden and Harrington aren't exceptionally different players...


How are they similar?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



kukoc4ever said:


> How are they similar?


They both provide offense.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



Frankensteiner said:


> I said I'm fine with either.


Perhaps, but you were quite specific in saying (post #21) "I'd rather have Gooden, too." And then pointing it out for good measure again later when I missed it (post #51).



> And I was speaking more in general terms (i.e. don't make a trade, pick up two free agents, and use the draft picks).


That didn't come across very clearly.



> Even so, do I not have the option to change my mind? Gooden and Harrington aren't exceptionally different players...


LOL, sure you do. Are you? Perhaps you could share your basketball insights as to why you've changed your mind (if you have- I'm rather unclear about whether you've actually changed your mind), by responding to post #69 in this thread, which you stopped participating in.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



Mikedc said:


> Perhaps, but you were quite specific in saying (post #21) "I'd rather have Gooden, too." And then pointing it out for good measure again later when I missed it (post #51).


The quote you pointed out also included "But Harrington is a fine player." 

As I said, I was more or less supporting the idea of not making a trade and then following up with subsequent moves in the summer. With that said, I don't really see anything controversial in my agreeing with Ron's specific off-season plan in which the Bulls acquire a player I said I would like having on the team.

But even stranger are your continuous attempts to pick apart my posts or hold me to your pre-approved double standards. Thanks for always being there to say I'm 1) unfairly selective, 2) misleading, 3)unfairly critical of others, 4) snarky/snotty, and apparently 4) changing my mind.

If only you were able police the board by applying that criteria to others...


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

No

Unless James, ( no not Mike ..that other guy )Duncan , Brand , Nowitski, Bryant , Wade , Garnett or Bosh becomes available

So.....

No


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



Frankensteiner said:


> The quote you pointed out also included "But Harrington is a fine player."
> 
> As I said, I was more or less supporting the idea of not making a trade and then following up with subsequent moves in the summer. With that said, I don't really see anything controversial in my agreeing with Ron's specific off-season plan in which the Bulls acquire a player I said I would like having on the team.


Nor do I. Nor do I think it's controversial for me to simply ask if this means, other things being equal, you now prefer signing Harrington to signing Gooden, and if so, why?



> But even stranger are your continuous attempts to pick apart my posts or hold me to your pre-approved double standards. Thanks for always being there to say I'm 1) unfairly selective, 2) misleading, 3)unfairly critical of others, 4) snarky/snotty, and apparently 4) changing my mind.
> 
> If only you were able police the board by applying that criteria to others...


I'm not trying to pick apart your post, I'm just trying to understand what you actually believe. Nor am I trying to hold you to any standard. Like I said before, you have every right to change your mind. I'm just trying to illicit some basketball conversation by finding out why you've changed your mind. If, in fact, you have. 

As to your numbered accusations, I've said none of the those things. Where did I say you were "unfairly selective"? I said I was unclear about who you preferred ... and I remain so after your latest post, but I'm not saying you're being purposefully misleading. I didn't say you were unfairly critical of others.

And you, yourself, said that you were changing your mind. I'm not saying you're bad to change your opinion, I'm simply asking you what is leading you to do so. W Well, actually I'm not so clear on that... which is why I keep trying to figure out what you actually think.

In any case, I'm not sure what the animosity you're showing is based on, except perhaps an unwillingness on your part to say what you really think. I'm not criticizing you, just asking you to explain why you seem to have changed your position. Not because that position "needs" defending per se, but because, well, this is a message board and it'd make for interesting conversation to see why you prefer one guy over the other after, only a day before, you twice proclaimed your preference for the other guy.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



Mikedc said:


> Nor do I. Nor do I think it's contraversial for me to simply ask if this means, other things being equal, you now prefer signing Harrington to signing Gooden, and if so, why?


I prefer Gooden because he's a better rebounder and probably a little bit better around the basket. On the other hand, Harrington is a more rounded player and has skills which Gooden doesn't, so in my mind, the difference is miniscule. I think Harrington is a better overall player while Gooden may be a better team fit. It’s very easy to go back and forth between the two.

Regardless, I don't think my agreeing with Ron's plan indicates exclusivity to that specific plan. For example, if Ron had proposed a Pargo for Kobe trade to my agreement, could I not also be in agreement with a Pargo for Duncan trade proposed by someone else?



> I'm not trying to pick apart your post, I'm just trying to understand what you actually believe. Nor am I trying to hold you to any standard. Like I said before, you have every right to change your mind. I'm just trying to illicit some basketball conversation by finding out why you've changed your mind. If, in fact, you have.
> 
> As to your numbered accusations, I've said none of the those things. Where did I say you were "unfairly selective"? I said I was unclear about who you preferred ... and I remain so after your latest post, but I'm not saying you're being purposefully misleading. I didn't say you were unfairly critical of others.


That list is not in reference only to your previous post. There have been past instances (ex: the argument with ScottMay regarding the Peja rumors) where you made sure to scrutinize me while not giving the same attention to Scott’s comments.


----------



## mw2889 (Dec 15, 2005)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

We have to trade TT!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



Frankensteiner said:


> I prefer Gooden because he's a better rebounder and probably a little bit better around the basket. On the other hand, Harrington is a more rounded player and has skills which Gooden doesn't, so in my mind, the difference is miniscule. I think Harrington is a better overall player while Gooden may be a better team fit. It’s very easy to go back and forth between the two.
> 
> Regardless, I don't think my agreeing with Ron's plan indicates exclusivity to that specific plan. For example, if Ron had proposed a Pargo for Kobe trade to my agreement, could I not also be in agreement with a Pargo for Duncan trade proposed by someone else?


Sure, though I don't think that example is a very good one. Ron was pretty specific. Harrington and a big is "the" plan. That coming on the heals of the Harrington/Gooden comparisons the other day, where he stated pretty unequivocally that Harrington was "his guy". You said you were in "complete agreement".

So yeah, I get it, you weren't intending to say what I thought you were, but it seemed to be a pretty definitive about face on the first (and second) readings.




> That list is not in reference only to your previous post. There have been past instances (ex: the argument with ScottMay regarding the Peja rumors) where you made sure to scrutinize me while not giving the same attention to Scott’s comments.


In that instance I agreed with Scott; what am I supposed to scrutinize if I agree with him? By that logic, shouldn't you be scrutinizing Ron's favoring Harrington? Yesterday the points I made largely undercut the point K4E was making, even though I think we agree on the basic (not too hot on Harrington) premise. In this case, I simply chose to reply to you rather than Ron because I was surprised to see you agreeing with the Ron's idea that Harrington is "the" plan (after Ben Wallace, etc. etc.). But as it turned out, you were only expressing more general agreement, not a belief that Harrington should be the main target. Got it.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

chris sheridan in his insider column today writes many GMs are looking to trade to improve their teams, but that chicago and denver are notable for "their foot dragging". ahem. 

in summary:

he says pax has three weeks to decide whether to make a big deal now or just hold tight to his cap-space dream, which makes the bulls "the no. 1 player" in this summer's "weak" free agent market (and possible multi-team trade enabler for just about any team that wants to make a deal)

wonders if pax should, in this "season of transition" trade for a center to help get back into the playoffs. (lotsa writers lately, like hollinger and stein think that is the only way it will happen)

also says timmy's agent might be making noise about getting his client traded so he can re-establish his value. (i'm surprised we haven't heard much noise from his agent, but i wouldn't be surprised as the deadline nears)


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



mizenkay said:


> chris sheridan in his insider column today writes many GMs are looking to trade to improve their teams, but that chicago and denver are notable for "their foot dragging". ahem.
> 
> in summary:
> 
> ...


Timmy could have always asked for a buyout. 

I don't want a trade if it gets us into the playoffs but keeps us out of real contention two or three years from now.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

bump.

tick tock, tick tock. deadline is thursday. chad ford in his insider column says the bulls are one of five teams that should start "wheelin' and dealin'"

some proposals from the chadster:

*Minnesota sends Garnett and Jaric to Chicago.

Chicago sends Luol Deng, Tim Thomas, Eric Piatkowski, Chris Duhon, Malik Allen and two 2006 first-round picks (New York's and Chicago's) to Minnesota.*


or


*Boston sends Paul Pierce and Raef LaFrentz to Chicago.

Chicago sends Ben Gordon, Tim Thomas, Chris Duhon, Eric Piatkowski and a 2006 No. 1 (from New York) to Boston.*



or

*Chicago sends Ben Gordon, Luol Deng, Tim Thomas, Eric Piatkowski and a 2006 No. 1 pick (from New York) to Seattle.

Seattle sends Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis and Reggie Evans to Chicago*


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



mizenkay said:


> bump.
> 
> tick tock, tick tock. deadline is thursday. chad ford in his insider column says the bulls are one of five teams that should start "wheelin' and dealin'"
> 
> ...


The first deal isn't too bad. The only really useful player we give up is Deng. Chandler and Garnett would simply grab every board in sight. The second deal isn't as good. Change the Knicks pick with our own pick and it's doable. The third trade I don't like. We give up way too much.

I don't think any deal gets done tho.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



mizenkay said:


> bump.
> 
> tick tock, tick tock. deadline is thursday. chad ford in his insider column says the bulls are one of five teams that should start "wheelin' and dealin'"
> 
> ...


And with the last two deals, Chad Ford further showcases his lack of common sense...


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



fl_flash said:


> The first deal isn't too bad. The only really useful player we give up is Deng. Chandler and Garnett would simply grab every board in sight. The second deal isn't as good. Change the Knicks pick with our own pick and it's doable. The third trade I don't like. We give up way too much.
> 
> I don't think any deal gets done tho.


Deal #1:

Hinrich, Jaric, Pargo
Gordon, (Jaric), (Basden)
Nocioni (Jaric)
Garnett, Songaila, Sweetney
Chandler, Harrington

What's the league minimum for number of players? I think we'd have to sign someone else right away. We'd only have 11 on the roster, and that's with Basden. 

That's a good team, BTW. Jaric would be a great 1/2 off the bench to play behind Hinrich and Gordon with his handle and height. I'm sure he'd prefer to start, but he'd get plenty of minutes. 

I'd definitely go to war with that team. We could sign Nocioni to an extension over the summer, try to sign a decent SF with the MLE, and fill in a few role players with the league minimum, and go to war for the next four years and try to see if we can bring home one title. Gordon could be the finisher that KG has seldom played with.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

The Seattle trade is amusing.

Hinrich, Duhon
Allen, 
Lewis, Nocioni
Othella, Evans, Sweetney
Chandler, Songalia

I guess we'd really hope to hit a home run with our pick or we're pretty much screwed.
Entertaining trade nonetheless.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



mizenkay said:


> bump.
> 
> tick tock, tick tock. deadline is thursday. chad ford in his insider column says the bulls are one of five teams that should start "wheelin' and dealin'"
> 
> ...


Yes.

No. 

Yes. 

I noticed some people dogging the Seattle trade, but did you notice it includes Lewis *and * Allen? Not sure how that is a bad deal for Chicago. Plus we still have our pick to get a servicable big, plus the 2007 pick swap and the MLE this summer.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



Ron Cey said:


> Yes.
> 
> No.
> 
> ...


I could sign on to either of those "yesses."


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



Ron Cey said:


> Yes.
> 
> No.
> 
> ...


On that Seattle deal... I see Gordon as giving us as much as Allen would. Especially two years from now. Ben is only going to get better. Deng and Lewis? Lewis may well be the better player a couple of years from now, but I don't think the gap will be all that much. So I look at it as Reggie Evans for a top-3 pick. Not interested. If we're talking Evans vs. Gay/Morrison/Aldridge/Bargnani, it's not even close - I take the pick.


----------



## PowerWoofer (Jan 5, 2006)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

None of these deals are gonna go through, and I hope they wouldn't even be considering them anyway. Most if not all the players we'd be getting back only have a few more good years left in them, then it's the re-building stage again. Screw that.

I'd rather have Gordon and Deng, plus Duhon and Allen than any of those guys that we'd get back (and yes, I know every one of major names proposed are *all* All-Stars. I don't care. They are in the last few years of their careers anyway.)

Young players with tons of time to become All-Stars is TEN times better than players with only a couple good years left in them. (Pierce, Allen, even Garnett in some sense.)


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*



fl_flash said:


> On that Seattle deal... I see Gordon as giving us as much as Allen would. Especially two years from now. Ben is only going to get better. Deng and Lewis? Lewis may well be the better player a couple of years from now, but I don't think the gap will be all that much. So I look at it as Reggie Evans for a top-3 pick. Not interested. If we're talking Evans vs. Gay/Morrison/Aldridge/Bargnani, it's not even close - I take the pick.


I can appreciate that. I'm not suggesting its a scramble-over-your-desk-to-grab-the-phone-and-say-yes-yes-YES deal. :biggrin: 

But I would do it. 

Hinrich/Pargo
Allen/Pargo
Lewis/Noc
Songaila/Sweets/miscellaneous college power forward
Chandler/(Nazr? Lorenzen Wright? MLE)/Othella

Plus an LLE point guard. Basden maybe if he is coming around. Its thin in some spots that couldn't be filled out for another year, but its a pretty damn good team. 

Add the pick swap and another MLE/LLE to use in 2007 and its looking good.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Will Pax make a deal by the deadline?*

Read the post by 'Murray the Skull' at RealGM at this link: RealGM Forum Link 

He makes some valid points, and it is a great post to read.

I would love to somehow keep the NYK pick, trade our 2006 + 2008 1st rounders, hell, even all the 2nd Rounders NYK gave us, all our expiring contracts, Sweets, and Duhon. I love Noce, but Deng is so young. 

We get the NYK pick which can become Gay or Aldridge. If we get Gay, we can always trade Deng for a viable SG (Pietrus?). We can't trade back to back 1st rounders, and this also allows us for the swap with NYK.

We get back KG, Jaric, and I'd try to hard to get Griffin. He would be a great backup to our frontline.


----------



## Ragingbull33 (Apr 10, 2005)

*Chad Ford's Bulls trades:*

2 of these are ridiculous and one makes sense. the seatle trade is horrible, it makes us the eastern conference sonics...


*Minnesota sends Garnett and Jaric to Chicago.

Chicago sends Luol Deng, Tim Thomas, Eric Piatkowski, Chris Duhon, Malik Allen and two 2006 first-round picks (New York's and Chicago's) to Minnesota.*




the bs ones:

*Boston sends Paul Pierce and Raef LaFrentz to Chicago.

Chicago sends Ben Gordon, Tim Thomas, Chris Duhon, Eric Piatkowski and a 2006 No. 1 (from New York) to Boston.*


*Chicago sends Ben Gordon, Luol Deng, Tim Thomas, Eric Piatkowski and a 2006 No. 1 pick (from New York) to Seattle.

Seattle sends Ray Allen, Rashard Lewis and Reggie Evans to Chicago
*


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

*Re: Chad Ford's Bulls trades:*

I do not want kg on the team , we would probally still underachieve if he was on the bulls


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

*Re: Chad Ford's Bulls trades:*

Nothing we haven't heard before...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Chad Ford's Bulls trades:*

ragingbulls, i merged your thread into this one. i also edited out the verbatim INSIDER editorial stuff, since we're not supposed to do that.


thanks.


----------



## Fergus (Oct 2, 2002)

Lets start with Coach Skiles is not going to be fired or change his approach to coaching.

This means the Bulls should not go for anyone who does not work hard and play defense. We do not want a repeat of the Tim Thomas situation.

In my opinion, that probably rules out the Boston trade. Pierce might come around to play better team defence but I have not seen it in all of his years with Boston. That also rules out Gooden and probably a few others as well.

The players it does not rule out are players like Garnet from the T. Wolves or Allen and Lewis from Seatle. Obviously Garnet is an outstanding example of what we want on the Bulls. That guy would be amazing in a Bulls uniform. So, lets consider the other trade....Allen and Lewis. Allen used to be a fair to good defender, but not so much this year. Plus he is getting older, has injury issues and is not really so much bigger than Gordon. Lewis has a game I could learn to like. He hustles and will play some defense. I am just not so sure he could survive in a Coach Skiles environment. 

Now lets consider what happens if we do not make a trade.....it seems that Paxon could probably sign Al Harrington from Antlanta as a free agent and not give up a thing. He then uses the New York pick to take on of the names in the draft such as a Morrison, or an Aldridge. Those three give us solid size at center and power forward and a scorer. Add in Gordon, Deng and Hinrich with Nocioni and Duhon off of the bench and you would seem to have a good team. Personally, I would then use the Bulls pick either in a trade for a future pick or on flyer with a lot of potential.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I think I do all of those INSIDER deals....after I rework the Sonics deal to give up our pick rather than the Knicks or give them Noch instead of either Gordon or Deng. OK - maybe the Knicks pick is too much for Pierce, too. 

But we are going to have to consolidate talent sooner or later.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I think I do all of those INSIDER deals....after I rework the Sonics deal to give up our pick rather than the Knicks or give them Noch instead of either Gordon or Deng. OK - maybe the Knicks pick is too much for Pierce, too.
> 
> But we are going to have to consolidate talent sooner or later.


I'd do the Minnesota and Boston deals in the blink of an eye; I don't do any deal with Seattle that doesn't fetch us Robert Swift. Although it would be fun in a sick way to watch Skiles's face when he sees Rashard Lewis and Ray Allen playing "defense."


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I'd take the first deal, though this season it severely kills our bench. Still next season...

PG-Hinrich
SG-Gordon
SF-Nocioni
PF-Garnett
C-Chandler

Jaric(PG/SG)
Harrington(PF/C)

We'd have to find a good swing man who can spot Noc at the 3 and another big guy in case Garnett or Chandler goes down, but still that team is still very young and KG makes us so much better instantly. 

The 2nd deal is ludicrous in my mind. Pierce is a great player, but I have no reason to believe that Gordon won't be at his level in two or three years. LaFrentz is dead weight, he's basically Songalia plus 5 years and with bad knees. The 3rd deal is a little better, but like somebody said, the Sonics are under .500 with a similar team. The fans would prolly stop showing up if they sent Lewis and Allen away. Perhaps, the Sonics trade could work if we sent them our pick instead of the Knicks pick, but that would be the only way or if we swapped out Gordon for Deng and got Allen back. Then dealt the Knicks pick, Hinrich, and our 2007 1st rounder for Jermaine O'Neal. Haha. But that would take a miracle by Pax to get Allen and Jermaine while keeping Gordon and Chandler. Still I can dream of...

PG-Gordon
SG-Allen
SF-Nocioni
PF-O'Neal
C-Chandler

That is a contending team right there.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Chad ford has some good ideas. Interesting read that is for sure. 

But we trade the youth to win now at all cost? Do we do it this week or do we wait until draft and summer? 

A major trade now can get us back into the playoff hunt. But at what cost?


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

truebluefan said:


> But we trade the youth to win now at all cost? Do we do it this week or do we wait until draft and summer?
> 
> A major trade now can get us back into the playoff hunt. But at what cost?


Hopefully not at the cost of what our youngsters could be in five years. Look at the Pistons, etc; they were patient. I know most everyone on this board wants to make as many Isiah-like acquisitions as possible to win now, but I say that our guys together, as a team in 5 years > whoever we pick up. Patience...


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> Hopefully not at the cost of what our youngsters could be in five years. Look at the Pistons, etc; they were patient. I know most everyone on this board wants to make as many Isiah-like acquisitions as possible to win now, but I say that our guys together, as a team in 5 years > whoever we pick up. Patience...


Patient? Yes to a point but they made some trades as well. Hamilton and Sheed came through trades. Ben Wallace came through a trade.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

truebluefan said:


> Patient? Yes to a point but they made some trades as well. Hamilton and Sheed came through trades. Ben Wallace came through a trade.


But they weren't established stars, sans Sheed. It's not like they knew instantly what they were getting with Hamilton, Wallace, or Billups. Wallace was nothing special, Chauncey was considered a bust, and Hamilton wasn't too great. They had to wait for them to develop, both together as a team and as individual players.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> But they weren't established stars, sans Sheed. It's not like they knew instantly what they were getting with Hamilton, Wallace, or Billups. Wallace was nothing special, Chauncey was considered a bust, and Hamilton wasn't too great. They had to wait for them to develop, both together as a team and as individual players.


Hamilton scored 18 PPG and then 20 PPG his last two seasons with Washington. I think Detroit knew they were getting a pretty good scorer.

Billups scored 12.5 with 5.5 APG when he was acquired. His minutes went from 28/gm to 38/gm and his scoring has gone up by 4 PPG; his assists are about the same.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

You also have to consider what they were giving up to obtain these players.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

DaBullz said:


> Hamilton scored 18 PPG and then 20 PPG his last two seasons with Washington. I think Detroit knew they were getting a pretty good scorer.
> 
> Billups scored 12.5 with 5.5 APG when he was acquired. His minutes went from 28/gm to 38/gm and his scoring has gone up by 4 PPG; his assists are about the same.


But either way, their success came playing team ball, as the media let us know all too frequently... and it took them time to gel together. That's what I'm referring to, stats aside.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

giantkiller7 said:


> But either way, their success came playing team ball, as the media let us know all too frequently... and it took them time to gel together. That's what I'm referring to, stats aside.


And actually, within playing "team ball", their individual stats all got better (except for Rasheed, whose stats were inflated). Chauncey is now a top 5 in the league in assists, Rip suddenly figured out how to shoot from the arc (looks nasty though), Ben Wallace upped his scoring, Tayshaun really emerged.

Anyway. Back on the topic: I don't know that Pax will make a deal, but if he does not, it's not the end of the world.

Does anyone think that Pax is overlooking our own Ben Gordon as the potential 20 ppg guy? I don't want to sound like a BG-fanatic, but the guy is 19ppg as a starter and has shown the ability to string many more games together with high scoring outputs. He's really revved up and back in the game. I think by his third season, he WILL be the 20 ppg guy. With Hinrich continuing his contributions of about 14 a night, and Deng stepping into a 15 ppg role, I think Gordon can become the go-to scorer.

And even stranger, philosophically, if he is NOT that guy, then he's probably not the guy to hang around and be the #2 to the guy who IS that guy. It's possible, like a Ricky Davis - Paul Pierce combination, but not likely. In other words, Ben is probably the guy to go, if a trade goes down. And that makes me really sad, because I think he's going to become one of the most explosive scorers in the league (not athletically, but in terms of just scoring mad points in bunches).


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Chad Ford's Bulls trades:*



Ragingbull33 said:


> Chicago sends Luol Deng, Tim Thomas, Eric Piatkowski, Chris Duhon, Malik Allen and two 2006 first-round picks (New York's and Chicago's) to Minnesota.


Our depth chart
PG Hinirch/Jaric
SG Gordon/Jaric
SF Nocioni
PF Chandler/Songaila
C Garnett/Harrington/Sweetney

We re-sign Songaila and use our MLE to grab the best available wing (can be a combo player but a 3/2 would make more sense then another 3/4 in the Nocioni mold). We then sign a big vet to the minimum. AD would probably be ideal since he knows our system already and is probably unlikely to sign elsewhere.

This could be our team heading into next season:
PG Hinrich/Jaric/Pargo
SG Gordon/Jaric/Pargo
SF Nocioni/Posey (or another FA)
PF Chandler/Songaila/Harrington
C Garnett/AD (or another FA)/Sweetney

That looks like a team that can make it past the first round on paper already. In this sort of deal, I'd actually rather trade Minnesota Sweetney and keep Allen. That might allow us to keep our own draft pick as well.

I think the Boston and Seattle trade ideas are awful. In the Boston deal, I wouldn't give up that much unless Raef was replaced by Perkins. In the Seattle deal, upgrading for Lewis with Deng as the principle or trading for Allen with Gordon as the principle makes sense, but not both.


----------



## giantkiller7 (Feb 9, 2006)

Showtyme said:


> And actually, within playing "team ball", their individual stats all got better (except for Rasheed, whose stats were inflated). Chauncey is now a top 5 in the league in assists, Rip suddenly figured out how to shoot from the arc (looks nasty though), Ben Wallace upped his scoring, Tayshaun really emerged.


Thanks, that's what I was trying to get across. We have to give our guys time.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

^^agreed.

with that said, i think that first minnesota trade scenario was the best one i've ever seen; i'd do it in an instant--we still keep chandler, gordon, hinrich, and nocioni, the cornerstones of our young core, having to give up only deng and duhon.

-Z-


----------

