# Ray Allen--Not Gasol--Headed to Bulls?



## ExtremeBrigs (Jul 20, 2006)

I've heard about this from three different sources, guys (which is a lot more than I've heard about Gasol lately).

Not sure what we're supposed to be giving up to get him, but I've gotta think it starts with PJ and Ben G. Anyway, all the details I've got are here:

http://www.hoopsworld.com/article_20674.shtml

Whaddya think? Gasol or Allen? Who should Pax pull the trigger on?


----------



## Headfake98 (Dec 10, 2006)

I love me some Ray Allen, but I'd prefer kirk and PJ and have Ben G as point and Ray as SG.

I think we need a low post threat more than another outside shooter however....

EDIT: Also I hate this talk that as soon as we get a Ray Allen or Garnett or Gasol or even Iverson that the Bulls would be favorites to take the east and go far. I just can't see what the thought process is on that one.


----------



## ExtremeBrigs (Jul 20, 2006)

The thought process is that if a team that's already right up there with the best teams in the East improves itself via trade, then they make themselves better. If the Bulls get much butter, they have to be considered the Best in the East.

Also, if a = b, and b = c, then a = c.


----------



## charlietyra (Dec 1, 2002)

ExtremeBrigs said:


> I've heard about this from three different sources, guys (which is a lot more than I've heard about Gasol lately).
> 
> Not sure what we're supposed to be giving up to get him, but I've gotta think it starts with PJ and Ben G. Anyway, all the details I've got are here:
> 
> ...


If the Bulls are going to trade PJ and Gordon I would much prefer Gasol to Allen. He is younger, bigger, cheaper and meets more of our needs. Having said that, it makes sense that Pax would go for Allen.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I think I'd fly to Chicago and slam Pax's nuts in a drawer if that happens.

Ray Allen is a loser. He wears ugly shoes, and to answer Brigs' questions:



Brigs said:


> Sounds like a lot for an aging star, doesn’t it? Ben Gordon’s supposed to be untouchable, right? This is making you all very nervous, yet strangely excited, isn’t it?


Yes, Yes, and no, just the nervous part.

I absolutely hate the idea of trading another young improving player for another old, declining player. I can't stress enough how ****ty I think that'd be.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Let me add one point. If the Bulls could somehow swing Allen _after _getting Gasol, that'd make me at least consider it because I think it may make "winning now" a realistic possibility.

Suppose Brown, Deng, Thabo for Gasol and Dante Jones
Then Noc, Gordon, Tyrus for Allen and Johan Petro

1- Hinrich, Duhon
2- Allen, Jones
3- Griffin, Khyrapa
4- Wallace, Allen
5- Gasol, Petro

I think that's pretty far fetched, but I'd be pretty interested to see what that team could do this year and next.


----------



## ExtremeBrigs (Jul 20, 2006)

The Bulls don't have enough salary to match both guys. You gotta figure Allen's 14 mil + Gasol's 12 mil + Big Ben's 15 mil = $41 million for three guys. That won't happen.

But I'm sorry, I just don't think the Ray Allen thing would be as horrible as many of you think, though I laughed at "slam Pax's nuts in a drawer."

That was actually pretty funny 

I guess all we can do is wait and see what happens, but I thought you guys should know this was out there. It shouldn't be a surprise; Pax has talked about how much he loves Ray Allen before...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Royalty checks for all nut slamming references goe to Sausage King of Chicago.

And the Bulls do have enough salary... check out the two trades I suggested in a trade checker... they both work


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Good article, Brigs.

I'm LOL about the "where there's smoke, there's usually fire" line however. Even Vescey and Sam Smith wouldn't agree with that, would they?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Is Ray Allen really much of an upgrade over BG?

Ray only has 26.7 PPG 4.1 REB 4.0 AST

45.2 FG% and 36.3 3PT%

to BG's

21.3 PPG 2.9 REB 3.6 AST

on 45.8 FG% and 39.1 3PT%

Just seems dumb to me, especially considering Allen is over 30.

If its something like Hinrich and PJ, okay, but there is no point in trading Gordon for Ray Allen. He's old.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Good article, Brigs.
> 
> I'm LOL about the "where there's smoke, there's usually fire" line however. Even Vescey and Sam Smith wouldn't agree with that, would they?


Odd that Brigs heard this rumor from three different sources. A trade for Allen by itself makes little sense for the Bulls. Presumably it would be part of a larger, possible 3-team trade.

Obviously Allen would come to the Bulls with a little baggage : 
-- $67 M 4 year contract ending when he is 36.
-- A reputation for unenthusiastic defense (confirmed in last night's game)
-- 20 shots per game with an accuracy of 44-45% is good. But Gordon is better. 

It would be hard to justify a trade of Gordon for Allen on any basis.
Gordon is a better shooter, a better defender and he is 8 years younger. 
Surprisingly he is getting many more foul shot attempts (7.5/40 min) compared to Allen (5.8/40 min). 
Last, but not least, Allen will be paid about $11 million more than Gordon next year. 

So any idea that includes trading Gordon for Ray Allen must include some pretty nice additions from Seattle; including compensation for the salary relief the trade would provide Seattle. 

So, Gordon, PJ, and Sweetney for Allen, Wilcox and a 2007 1st round pick might be worth considering.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

No. Gasol!


----------



## bre9 (Jan 8, 2006)

I think this would be good trade if the bulls want to win now Allen for Gordon. He's a better scorer and more experienced but he doesn't stick defense at all i can see it now in late game situations Duhon coming in for Ray on defense plays. He's just an older Ben Gordon with more experience can score but can't stick defense.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

There is no way in hell Pax trades Gordon for Ray Allen.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Nonsensical. Disastrous. Pointless. Those are the first words that come to mind.

Ben Gordon's a better player than Ray Allen. End of story. 

Gasol fits the Bulls like a glove, and vice versa. That's the deal that has to get done by the trading deadline.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I think that's pretty far fetched, but I'd be pretty interested to see what that team could do this year and next.


That would be pretty much the time frame, a couple of seasons if we're lucky.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I really hope this is not true.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

That trade would make absolutely zero sense. The team still wouldn't be good enough to go all the way, and it leaves the team with the same weaknesses it has now.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> That trade would make absolutely zero sense. The team still wouldn't be good enough to go all the way, and it leaves the team with the same weaknesses it has now.


Yup. Not a fan, unless we can trade for Gasol first. That would be a win now team that is much different than our current roster, but I'd go with it.

If we traded for both (unlikely but possible), I'd like to come up with a way to keep Noch. I'm working on it right now to see if it's possible.

Edit: It is possible to do this trade and keep Noch, MikeDC:

Chicago trades: Gordon, Brown
Chicago receives: Allen

Chicago trades: Deng, Sefo, Sweetney, Allen, Khryapa, (some pick?):
Chicago recieves: Gasol, Kinsey, Alexander Johnson

Roster:

Hinrich, Duhon, Barrett
Allen, Kinsey
Nocioni, Griffin
Gasol, Thomas
Wallace, Johnson

That's a super thin bench but a killer starting lineup.

However, I still don't see just why we would need to trade for Allen anyway. I'd rather throw all our chips at Gasol for obvious reasons. We don't need than much more perimeter scoring and/or age.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Paxson is making West think, if you don't make a deal with me, I can go elsewhere.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Paxson is making West think, if you don't make a deal with me, I can go elsewhere.


...and get an older version of my best player. I'm sure West is readjusting his expected return for Pau as we speak!


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> ...and get an older version of my best player. I'm sure West is readjusting his expected return for Pau as we speak!


It all depends on what else is on the table for Memphis and how bad the situation is. Is Gasol leaving no matter what, or will can they manage to keep him till the summer. In the Spanish Interview, I felt that a trade won't happen ASAP, but it will just before the deadline. I am against getting Ray Allen.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Paxson is making West think, if you don't make a deal with me, I can go elsewhere.


If West sees this and seriously thinks Paxson might want Allen for Gordon, all he's going to do is think 1) Gordon is available and 2) Pax is a major assclown.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Babble-On said:


> That trade would make absolutely zero sense. The team still wouldn't be good enough to go all the way, and it leaves the team with the same weaknesses it has now.


There is a precedent: Ray Allen is to Ben Gordon as Ben Wallace is to Tyson Chandler.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> There is a precedent: Ray Allen is to Ben Gordon as Ben Wallace is to Tyson Chandler.


That's hardly fair. Ben Gordon is in the midst of a breakout season. Chandler had just finished a very sub-par season.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I saw that Elton Brand demanded a trade. It said on RealGM that Brand had a meeting with his agent Singleton to discuss it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mebarak said:


> I saw that Elton Brand demanded a trade. It said on RealGM that Brand had a meeting with his agent Singleton to discuss it.


Link?

He demands a trade AFTER the team starts to turn it around and climb in the playoff standings?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Actually, Brand was talking to 2nd year player James Singleton. Singleton requested a trade, Brand talked him out of it.

LOL.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> That's hardly fair. Ben Gordon is in the midst of a breakout season. Chandler had just finished a very sub-par season.


While I understand your point, I think it is fair, at least from one perspective.

If you want to win NOW and worry about the future in the future, Ray Allen is better than Gordon, just as Ben Wallace is better than Tyson Chandler. The key difference, of course, is that if you trade Gordon now, you KNOW you're trading a young and special player. When you traded Chandler, you were just trading a young and tall player (who you were paying a lot of money).

Anyway, my initial reaction to this trade rumor was to ask MikeDC if I could have sloppy seconds at the Paxson nut crushing party. After thinking about it some more, I'm a little torn. 

I certainly can't characterize it as a stupid trade. If I'm Paxson and I believe that I can't get a Gasol (or Garnett) trade done by the deadline, and I still want to do whatever I can to improve my team to win THIS SEASON, Allen for Gordon fits the bill.

I'm still not comfortable with it though.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

transplant said:


> While I understand your point, I think it is fair, at least from one perspective.
> 
> If you want to win NOW and worry about the future in the future, Ray Allen is better than Gordon, just as Ben Wallace is better than Tyson Chandler. The key difference, of course, is that if you trade Gordon now, you KNOW you're trading a young and special player. When you traded Chandler, you were just trading a young and tall player (who you were paying a lot of money).
> 
> ...


We'd surely have to give up Deng and Gordon to do it. It's also extremely difficult to execute both deals without giving up Nocioni, Thomas, or Hinrich as well, and though I managed to do it above, it guts the bench.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Stupid trade. We actually throw in a draft pick to go along with PJ + Gordon? Please. If anything Seattle would need to send US a draft pick for taking on Allen's contract. 

Go for Gasol!


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

transplant said:


> While I understand your point, I think it is fair, at least from one perspective.
> 
> If you want to win NOW and worry about the future in the future, Ray Allen is better than Gordon, just as Ben Wallace is better than Tyson Chandler. The key difference, of course, is that if you trade Gordon now, you KNOW you're trading a young and special player. When you traded Chandler, you were just trading a young and tall player (who you were paying a lot of money).
> 
> ...


A nut-crushing party...now THERE's a theme. If this were to go down, I guess I'd bring the party hats, loot bags, and little toot horns.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I would absolutely hate that trade. I have always been a fan of Ray Allen, but he's not too far away from being 32 years old, with a career scoring average of only 21.4 points, I don't see him as much of an upgrade at all. Granted he is at a career high in scoring of 26.7 PPG, but he's just like Gordon...a one dimensional SG..scoring only. Does it make sense to trade a 23 year old for a 31 year old? Ben is scoring 21.3 points per game right now, and shooting at a better percentage. Neither one rebound, defend, or are big in the assist column. This looks to be a VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY stupid trade if it goes down. I 2nd the notion that Pax's nuts should be slammed in a drawer.

23 vs 31 is all that needs be said.

BUT, as previously stated, Pax has shown the stupidity to make this kind of move before, in canning Chandler and signing Wallace. We all know how that worked out.


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

I very surpised about this deal coming from joel on hoopsworld.com.He and I have spoken plenty on about the bulls and really respect a lot of his knowledge and wisdom when it comes to the bulls.Although latly he and I haven't been speaking as much,i was though to talk to him i would really have to question his mind in this deal or even reported this deal,because it just seem stupid except for the sonic part.IMO they get a steal,because thier's no telling how good gordan can become in the right system,and that draft pick we give them is that the knick's pick.That could be a high lottery pick(hay you never know).Plus Allen will make way more money then gordan would even if we resigned gordan to a ext this summer.I just cann't believe this unless i hear this from a better source,till then this is just a gimick to draw attention to the site.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

This would be one of the most befuddling moves ever. All I can think of is that Pax would have to be completely hell bent on reaching the finals this season. I can't think of any other reason you would mortgage your future for a 31 year old.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

_it makes absolutely no sense._

pax would get crucified (and RIGHTLY SO!) for this trade, brigs, sorry. with all due respect to your "sources" i think it's a bunch of BS. 

but let me understand this: for MONTHS pax has been saying the bulls need a low-post threat, and inside scorer (you know, like oh, a GASOL type guy) and now within the spate of 24 hours there's rumors abounding about a trade for ray allen involving ben gordon.

it's fiction. someone is jerking your chain.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> This would be one of the most befuddling moves ever. All I can think of is that Pax would have to be completely hell bent on reaching the finals this season. I can't think of any other reason you would mortgage your future for a 31 year old.



Yeah, I only see a Ray Allen trade going down if Pax is hell bent on getting to the finals this year and next, and wants to swing a trade for him and Gasol (or some other big man).

In a vacuum, the trade stinks, but if we got a duo, then I think I could accept the moves, although they would make me nervous.

Ray Allen is playing lights out this year, but it's worth noting that Ben Gordon's and Ray Allen's per 40 minute stats are almost identical to one another..........so much in fact that's it's a little scary.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> We'd surely have to give up Deng and Gordon to do it. It's also extremely difficult to execute both deals without giving up Nocioni, Thomas, or Hinrich as well, and though I managed to do it above, it guts the bench.


I was only talking about the Allen form Gordon+Brown deal.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> We'd surely have to give up Deng and Gordon to do it. It's also extremely difficult to execute both deals without giving up Nocioni, Thomas, or Hinrich as well, and though I managed to do it above, it guts the bench.


I was only talking about the Allen form Gordon+Brown deal, and prefaced it by saying that this only makes sense (and I remain uncomfortable) if a trade for a big wasn't doable.


----------



## ExtremeBrigs (Jul 20, 2006)

You know, I've been thinking about this trade all day... what if Nick Collison were involved somehow?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

ExtremeBrigs said:


> You know, I've been thinking about this trade all day... what if Nick Collison were involved somehow?



Yeah, i mean if Gordon/PJ for Ray Allen were happening, it would pretty much guarantee some other type of move to bring a big of some sort in here... if not another big coming via that same trade.

So Pax's comments about needing bigs aside, it would absolutely have to be that way. no way they'll force TT or Sweets into a bigger role just to upgrade at guard.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Nonsensical. Disastrous. Pointless. Those are the first words that come to mind.
> 
> Ben Gordon's a better player than Ray Allen. End of story.
> 
> Gasol fits the Bulls like a glove, and vice versa. That's the deal that has to get done by the trading deadline.


Agree with this, and agree with everyone else calling this a horse**** idea. 

Well, I don't actually agree that Gordon is a "better player" than Ray Allen. But I definitely agree that due to their respective ages and salary situations, the trade would be "nonsensical, disastrous, pointless".

I'd be up for some slamming of nuts in a drawer myself. (Paxson's nuts, just in case that wasn't clear.) Someone else can hold his nuts, but I'd definitely slam the drawer.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

i dont know what the parameters of the trade would be, so i'll hold back on full-fledged support

but flipping Gordon for Allen would give us a guy who can create his own shot with 6 seconds left in a game.

Gordon really struggles to do this. He often has to settle for an off balance runner. 

Last night, Allen was pumpfaking and knocking down fadeaways with ease. No one on the team can do that right now, so even if you disapprove of the trade, dont deny that we'd be adding a facet we dont have.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Agree with this, and agree with everyone else calling this a horse**** idea.
> 
> Well, I don't actually agree that Gordon is a "better player" than Ray Allen. But I definitely agree that due to their respective ages and salary situations, the trade would be "nonsensical, disastrous, pointless".
> 
> I'd be up for some slamming of nuts in a drawer myself. (Paxson's nuts, just in case that wasn't clear.) Someone else can hold his nuts, but I'd definitely slam the drawer.


Penguin, I'm putting this to you, but it's really to everyone.

Asumptions:

1) The Bulls as currently constituted, have some recognizable holes in their team but still have a reasonable chance of winning the East, finding themselves in the NBA finals this season.

2) Despite Allen's "advanced age" (31) and despite Gordon's recent improvement, THIS SEASON (and maybe next season) Ray Allen is a better player than Gordon. Besides being more productive, he also knows the game better, is less turnover-prone, etc.

3) Despite best efforts, the Bulls find that they can't use Brown's expiring contract to get a big that makes sense. After the trade deadline, Brown just becomes Brown...a mediocre big with a (big) expiring contract.

With these assumptions, while the incremental improvement is small, since you're already close, this marginal improvement may be enough to get you to the finals. Once you get there, you just never know.

As I've said, I'm not comfortable with this proposed deal, but I don't see it as patently stupid (or nonsensical, disastrous, pointless).

Signing Wallace was a commitment to making a very serious run in the next 3 years. Wouldn't this fit with that thinking?


----------



## ballerkingn (Nov 17, 2006)

maybe if nick was involved i might do that deal,if i where pax's but i doubt the sonics would give him up right now.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Paxson is making West think, if you don't make a deal with me, I can go elsewhere.


You voiced my thoughts exactly. When I first read Briggs article I thought no way!! Then I being to think about why pax would want allen! Sending word to memphis! 

Remember Jerry said he wont give Pau away. Well Pax wont over pay either. He is telling Jerry we have other partners to trade with.


----------



## Roscoe Sheed (Jun 19, 2006)

ScottMay said:


> Ben Gordon's a better player than Ray Allen. End of story.


ridiculous comment

name one thing gordon does better than allen?

I could understand why the bulls would want to keep gordon over allen because allen is much older, but in no way is gordon better than allen


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

transplant said:


> I was only talking about the Allen form Gordon+Brown deal, and prefaced it by saying that this only makes sense (and I remain uncomfortable) if a trade for a big wasn't doable.


I think you remain uncomfortable for good reason. To me it only makes sense if a trade for a big is already made. If we've got a top big and we've got Wallace, then it at least seems feasible that the short-run improvement Allen brings to the table might bring us a title.

If we don't get a big, then it makes a little better but not better enough.

In either case it's a tremendous long run cost. In the former case, the benefits might be worth it. In the latter case, I don't see how they are.



> Signing Wallace was a commitment to making a very serious run in the next 3 years. Wouldn't this fit with that thinking?


Yes. It's also a poster child example of throwing good money after bad.

Here's what I said a couple weeks ago, and I'll stick by it. Trading for a marginal upgrade in Allen who's vastly older and more expensive just because we already traded for one older, more expensive, fading and not quite good enough guy is making one mistake to try and dig out from another.

Stupid, stupid idea.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

How would collison be involved???


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Collison doesn't make that trade much, if any, better than it looks already. He's a 6'9" C-PF that doesn't get much for blocks (.8 a game), has only started 52 games in 3 years (for a poor team), etc. He is a decent scorer, at 10 ppg this year, but he's nothing more than a role player and bench warmer. He certainly doesn't make the Allen/Gordon trade any more feasible in my opinion. You're still giving up a 23 year old guy who just keeps getting better, for a 31 year old guy that has a huge salary. Allen IS better than Gordon, but not enough to make it worth giving up an 8 year younger Gordon for. If Gordon improves at all, he'll be the better player in the near future....right now they're very close.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Collison doesn't make that trade much, if any, better than it looks already. He's a 6'9" C-PF that doesn't get much for blocks (.8 a game), has only started 52 games in 3 years (for a poor team), etc. He is a decent scorer, at 10 ppg this year, but he's nothing more than a role player and bench warmer. He certainly doesn't make the Allen/Gordon trade any more feasible in my opinion. You're still giving up a 23 year old guy who just keeps getting better, for a 31 year old guy that has a huge salary. Allen IS better than Gordon, but not enough to make it worth giving up an 8 year younger Gordon for. If Gordon improves at all, he'll be the better player in the near future....right now they're very close.


I agree. 

I wouldnt do the trade with deng involved either.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Just an Idea

http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...456~2175~3032~1017~9&teams=25~25~22~25~22~4~4


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Just an Idea
> 
> http://games.espn.go.com/nba/featur...456~2175~3032~1017~9&teams=25~25~22~25~22~4~4


That's a team heading to luxury tax land if I ever did see one.

Hinrich, Duhon, Barrett
Allen, Sefalosha
Deng, Griffin
Randolph, Khryapa
Wallace, Allen

I also don't think we're in the position to trade four forwards and get only one back.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Roscoe Sheed said:


> ridiculous comment
> 
> name one thing gordon does better than allen?
> 
> I could understand why the bulls would want to keep gordon over allen because allen is much older, but in no way is gordon better than allen


As someone pointed out earlier, adjusted for minutes, their statistics are nearly identical. Gordon's a better defender (no, really), and I think he's proven to be a better clutch player.

Allen's age and contract make it a no-brainer, but I truly do believe that in terms of raw output, they're basically equivalent players. Gordon's less consistent, but Allen has a *lot* of games where he is simply out to get his numbers.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

truebluefan said:


> I agree.
> 
> I wouldnt do the trade with deng involved either.


I don't think that Deng would even be considered there. Allen and Gordon together on a team would be redundant. If Allen is brought in, Gordon would have to go I think. It's just dumb period lol.


----------



## eymang (Dec 15, 2006)

Too bad he's hurt but I'd love to go after Rashard Lewis


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

The only way the Bulls are going to get Ray Allen is a package that includes Ben Gordon and Tyrus Thomas. Seattle plays a zone defense now, so Allen's lack of defense isn't a much of a factor. Ben Gordon's style of play would kill the chemistry of the Sonics fastbreak (sans Damien Wilkins). I don't know if it's Skiles orders, but pulling up for 18-foot jumpers on a 1-on-1 fastbreak is not something I'd like to see. Gordon is a product of the Chicago system- up-tempo, jump-shooting team. While Seattle plays the same way, Allen is more valuable because he has proven he can shine in a half-court system, back in his Milwaukee days. He also has a turnaround-jumper from the block that Gordon could never, ever have because of his lack of height.

Ray Allen has improved every year since the Sonics traded for him, in every aspect of his game. He is a leader, both in the locker room, and on the court, something that Gordon is not. Ben Gordon is not better than Ray Allen.

Also, forget about Collison. He's gotten a double-double for 9 of the last 12 games. The guy cuts well, hustles, rebounds, is deceptively athletic, and is a great man defender despite his lack of height. He's doesn't get blocks because he plays safe defense - think Kwame Brown, exepct he is above average at rotating. He can pass and score against some of the better players in the league. He's Seattle's David Lee, or the big-man version of Shane Battier. The only thing missing from his game is his 18-foot jumper, which he was hitting earlier this year, but hasn't hit consistently since that 12 game stretch.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Chan said:


> The only way the Bulls are going to get Ray Allen is a package that includes Ben Gordon and Tyrus Thomas. Seattle plays a zone defense now, so Allen's lack of defense isn't a much of a factor. Ben Gordon's style of play would kill the chemistry of the Sonics fastbreak (sans Damien Wilkins). I don't know if it's Skiles orders, but pulling up for 18-foot jumpers on a 1-on-1 fastbreak is not something I'd like to see. Gordon is a product of the Chicago system- up-tempo, jump-shooting team. While Seattle plays the same way, Allen is more valuable because he has proven he can shine in a half-court system, back in his Milwaukee days. He also has a turnaround-jumper from the block that Gordon could never, ever have because of his lack of height.
> 
> Ray Allen has improved every year since the Sonics traded for him, in every aspect of his game. He is a leader, both in the locker room, and on the court, something that Gordon is not. Ben Gordon is not better than Ray Allen.
> 
> Also, forget about Collison. He's gotten a double-double for 9 of the last 12 games. The guy cuts well, hustles, rebounds, is deceptively athletic, and is a great man defender despite his lack of height. He's doesn't get blocks because he plays safe defense - think Kwame Brown, exepct he is above average at rotating. He can pass and score against some of the better players in the league. He's Seattle's David Lee, or the big-man version of Shane Battier. The only thing missing from his game is his 18-foot jumper, which he was hitting earlier this year, but hasn't hit consistently since that 12 game stretch.


That's pretty funny. You're conveniently forgetting the fact that Allen makes like $11 million more than Gordon, and is 8 years older. Those are HUGE factors, and we both know it. You can't just look at how good they are right now (which is VERY VERY comparable, but with Allen having the edge). Gotta look at the big picture, and the big picture says that Gordon is the better piece to have on your team...as someone stated earlier, if we give up Gordon and PJ and just get Allen back as far as players go, WE should get the 1st rounder from the Sonics, not the other way around.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

eymang said:


> Too bad he's hurt but I'd love to go after Rashard Lewis


Lewis would not do well in Chicago. If he comes in, he is going to be the post-up guy by default, because while Seattle's post play is bad, Chicago's is non-existent. He'd never get to shoot threes. His greatest asset is his versatility from the arc and the block, and trading him here would take that away.

That, or Skiles will let him play like he did in Seattle, and he'll do well. I'm just hypothesizing.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Royalty checks for all nut slamming references goe to Sausage King of Chicago.
> 
> And the Bulls do have enough salary... check out the two trades I suggested in a trade checker... they both work


Thank you m'boy


----------



## ExtremeBrigs (Jul 20, 2006)

Hey guys, it looks like I caused much ado about nothing today! I just talked with someone in the Bulls organization and it looks as if the rumors about Ray Allen are NOT true. There were rumblings of things coming out of different areas last night, but it turns out the Bulls aren't going after Ray-Ray after all.

Now if you'll excuse me, I think it's time to take my crow out of the oven. It smells delicious...


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Good article, Brigs.
> 
> I'm LOL about the "where there's smoke, there's usually fire" line however. Even Vescey and Sam Smith wouldn't agree with that, would they?


I don't think Vescey gets his props 

He can be very funny but he _does_ seem to be able to cut from the pulp and when there is something legit going on he is one of the first to be on top of it 

He and Smith , like them or not , do seem to be well connected


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

ExtremeBrigs said:


> ...it turns out the Bulls aren't going after Ray-Ray after all.


No kidding.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

ExtremeBrigs said:


> Hey guys, it looks like I caused much ado about nothing today! I just talked with someone in the Bulls organization and it looks as if the rumors about Ray Allen are NOT true. There were rumblings of things coming out of different areas last night, but it turns out the Bulls aren't going after Ray-Ray after all.
> 
> Now if you'll excuse me, I think it's time to take my crow out of the oven. It smells delicious...


LOL, hey that happens. 

I couldnt for the life of me see the logic in a gordon for Allen trade! Unless you look at Rays height. But still, Gordon is valuable to this team. 

We need a big man. Gasol is still a logical choice. 

Keep us posted on rumors you can tell us about Gasol.


----------



## eymang (Dec 15, 2006)

bye bye credibility!


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Collison doesn't make that trade much, if any, better than it looks already. He's a 6'9" C-PF that doesn't get much for blocks (.8 a game), has only started 52 games in 3 years (for a poor team), etc. He is a decent scorer, at 10 ppg this year, but he's nothing more than a role player and bench warmer. He certainly doesn't make the Allen/Gordon trade any more feasible in my opinion. You're still giving up a 23 year old guy who just keeps getting better, for a 31 year old guy that has a huge salary. Allen IS better than Gordon, but not enough to make it worth giving up an 8 year younger Gordon for. If Gordon improves at all, he'll be the better player in the near future....right now they're very close.


Collison is 18 and 12 the last couple of weeks shooting above 50% from the field , getting to the line , and if last night was any example ( as I have consistently seen from him in the past ) he is a solid interior defender - you can't fault him positionally in getting to the right spots and contesting 

He's really coming into his own 

I don't think he'll be an All Star but the guy is for real and is a genuine NBA starting big


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ExtremeBrigs said:


> Hey guys, it looks like I caused much ado about nothing today! I just talked with someone in the Bulls organization and it looks as if the rumors about Ray Allen are NOT true. There were rumblings of things coming out of different areas last night, but it turns out the Bulls aren't going after Ray-Ray after all.
> 
> Now if you'll excuse me, I think it's time to take my crow out of the oven. It smells delicious...


You're all good, Briggs. We know you're for real if you're going to come up for air and show your face after you find your rumor isn't in fact true.

Look, we know a lot of this talk swirls around every trading deadline. 

It's just good to hear, in this case, that the Allen trade isn't really on our radar.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ExtremeBrigs said:


> Hey guys, it looks like I caused much ado about nothing today! I just talked with someone in the Bulls organization and it looks as if the rumors about Ray Allen are NOT true. There were rumblings of things coming out of different areas last night, but it turns out the Bulls aren't going after Ray-Ray after all.
> 
> Now if you'll excuse me, I think it's time to take my crow out of the oven. It smells delicious...


Goes down well with a pee shake 

Room temperature recommended 

Bon Appetite !


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> If West sees this and seriously thinks Paxson might want Allen for Gordon, all he's going to do is think 1) Gordon is available and 2) Pax is a major assclown.


Touche


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

I lived in Seattle for 5 years and I've seen a lot of Ray Allen and the Sonics. All I can say this trade Gordon for Allen won't make a lot of difference. Ray Allen is basically an older Ben Gordon, witha lot more experience, great leadership skill, and large contract. If we're just looking for Allen's leadership, I don't think it's a good reason to trade Ben Gordon. Ray Allen is a great leader, he keeps every single player in check. He's the guy who brought that huddle circle the Sonics do in the middle of the court at the end of every game. But as great as a leader he is, he won't make our team so much better. We're still going to be a team which relies a lot on our jumpshot. And if some of you have been complaining that Gordon shooting too many jumpers. Wait until you see Allen.

Our problem have been low post scoring. Nothing that doesn't address that will fix this team. Whether it's Gordon or Ray Allen playing the SG role, it's going to be the same. Gordon's problem in Chicago is the same problem Ray Allen have been facing since he arrived in Seattle. "No legit low post scoring" (I'll explain why I put those quotation mark). So what makes people think that switching Ben Gordon with Ray Allen will make us any better? If Ray can't do it in Seattle with a long line of big men from Nick Collison, Chris Wilcox, Danny Fortson, Jerome James (then), Robert Swift, and Johan Petro (so..."no low post scoring" at all?), what makes people think he can do better with PJ Brown, Mike Sweetney, Ben Wallace, and Tyrus Thomas??


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

DaBabyBullz said:


> That's pretty funny. You're conveniently forgetting the fact that Allen makes like $11 million more than Gordon, and is 8 years older. Those are HUGE factors, and we both know it. You can't just look at how good they are right now (which is VERY VERY comparable, but with Allen having the edge). Gotta look at the big picture, and the big picture says that Gordon is the better piece to have on your team...as someone stated earlier, if we give up Gordon and PJ and just get Allen back as far as players go, WE should get the 1st rounder from the Sonics, not the other way around.


You make it seem like Ray Allen is a burden. This is a top 3 SG, only behind Kobe and Wade. If Chicago is going to take Allen, money is not going to be a concern - contending is. 

If Chicago wants Allen, that means they want to win now. Ray is old, but he has shown absolutely no sign of declining. If Seattle trades Allen, that means they are rebuilding, and there is no way we are rebuilding around Gordon. He is not good enough to build a team around- like I stated in my other post, he is a product of the up-tempo system. The difference between Allen and Gordon right now, besides age and leadership, is that Gordon is nowhere near Allen in a half-court game. Seattle is going to need that half-court game when Wilcox sits, which he's doing more and more often with Collison's emergence.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Maybe if Sip Rogers came in the deal .........


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Chan said:


> The only way the Bulls are going to get Ray Allen is a package that includes Ben Gordon and Tyrus Thomas. Seattle plays a zone defense now, so Allen's lack of defense isn't a much of a factor. Ben Gordon's style of play would kill the chemistry of the Sonics fastbreak (sans Damien Wilkins). I don't know if it's Skiles orders, but pulling up for 18-foot jumpers on a 1-on-1 fastbreak is not something I'd like to see. Gordon is a product of the Chicago system- up-tempo, jump-shooting team. While Seattle plays the same way, Allen is more valuable because he has proven he can shine in a half-court system, back in his Milwaukee days. He also has a turnaround-jumper from the block that Gordon could never, ever have because of his lack of height.
> 
> Ray Allen has improved every year since the Sonics traded for him, in every aspect of his game. He is a leader, both in the locker room, and on the court, something that Gordon is not. Ben Gordon is not better than Ray Allen.
> 
> Also, forget about Collison. He's gotten a double-double for 9 of the last 12 games. The guy cuts well, hustles, rebounds, is deceptively athletic, and is a great man defender despite his lack of height. He's doesn't get blocks because he plays safe defense - think Kwame Brown, exepct he is above average at rotating. He can pass and score against some of the better players in the league. He's Seattle's David Lee, or the big-man version of Shane Battier. The only thing missing from his game is his 18-foot jumper, which he was hitting earlier this year, but hasn't hit consistently since that 12 game stretch.


I don't think you realize how poor the Sonics' situation is. They are stuck in 38-win land -- not good enough to make the playoffs but not bad enough to get a high draft pick and improve. 

2 years from now, Allen is going to be a slightly worse player with 36 million left on his contract, and the Sonics are still going to be a losing team. It would be best to dump him now and try to get some value and a lottery pick in one of the deepest drafts in history. 

Consider the New Jersey Nets.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

again... what makes people think that switching Ben Gordon with Ray Allen will make us any better? If Ray can't do it in Seattle with a long line of big men from Nick Collison, Chris Wilcox, Danny Fortson, Jerome James (then), Robert Swift, and Johan Petro (so..."no low post scoring" at all?), what makes people think he can do better with PJ Brown, Mike Sweetney, Ben Wallace, and Tyrus Thomas??


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Chan said:


> You make it seem like Ray Allen is a burden. This is a top 3 SG, only behind Kobe and Wade. If Chicago is going to take Allen, money is not going to be a concern - contending is.
> 
> If Chicago wants Allen, that means they want to win now. Ray is old, but he has shown absolutely no sign of declining. If Seattle trades Allen, that means they are rebuilding, and there is no way we are rebuilding around Gordon. He is not good enough to build a team around- like I stated in my other post, he is a product of the up-tempo system. The difference between Allen and Gordon right now, besides age and leadership, is that Gordon is nowhere near Allen in a half-court game. Seattle is going to need that half-court game when Wilcox sits, which he's doing more and more often with Collison's emergence.


You make a lot of sense in what you say

I like Seattle's roster and don't believe they have to do anything drastic 

I think Mgt have to decide exactly what type of team you want to be. There seem to be some conflicting pieces . Allen, Lewis ,Collison and Swift better suit a half court style IMO but are adaptable to play in a faster tempo

Ridnour, Allen and Lewis don't exactly thrill you defensively as a wing combination and I am fully in favor of starting Earl Watson and bringing Ridnour from the bench - as I think you need Watson and Collison in the starting line up to balance out Allen and Wilcox

Wilcox and Gelable ( from what I've seen of the latter ) are questionable defensively ) but both would appear to be better in a running fast paced system which I see Watson as faciliating better

I don't think Watson is the half court point guard . Good transition guard and defensively he's good but his outside shooting and half court offense is too unreliable . So is he the best point guard for Allen and Collison's ( and I think Swift's ) strengths - if Swift makes it back 

I like your players and the talent is there I just don't know whether there is a complimentary structure in place


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Chan said:


> You make it seem like Ray Allen is a burden. This is a top 3 SG, only behind Kobe and Wade. If Chicago is going to take Allen, money is not going to be a concern - contending is.
> 
> If Chicago wants Allen, that means they want to win now. Ray is old, but he has shown absolutely no sign of declining. If Seattle trades Allen, that means they are rebuilding, and there is no way we are rebuilding around Gordon. He is not good enough to build a team around- like I stated in my other post, he is a product of the up-tempo system. The difference between Allen and Gordon right now, besides age and leadership, is that Gordon is nowhere near Allen in a half-court game. Seattle is going to need that half-court game when Wilcox sits, which he's doing more and more often with Collison's emergence.


To be honest, Ray Allen is one of my very favorite players not currently on the Bulls' roster. He wouldn't be a burden persay, BUT, I would consider him a detriment to the long term success of the Bulls, if we gave up Ben Gordon for him. They're basically the same player, but 8 years diffeence in age, and his salary makes resigning Nocioni, Deng, etc much harder and less likely to happen. 3 years down the road, Gordon would be in his prime, and Allen would be well into his decline most likely. 

You need to watch some more Bulls' games though. Gordon is great at running around a little curl and popping the jumper in the corner. He'll most likely never be a real elite superstar, but he is definitely headed for stardom, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if in the next few years he's putitng up 25+ PPG at a better shooting % (which is already higher than Allen's).


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

ExtremeBrigs said:


> Hey guys, it looks like I caused much ado about nothing today! I just talked with someone in the Bulls organization and it looks as if the rumors about Ray Allen are NOT true. There were rumblings of things coming out of different areas last night, but it turns out the Bulls aren't going after Ray-Ray after all.
> 
> Now if you'll excuse me, I think it's time to take my crow out of the oven. It smells delicious...


Well, that's great news. Thanks for the info, and keep it coming.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

rwj333 said:


> I don't think you realize how poor the Sonics' situation is. They are stuck in 38-win land -- not good enough to make the playoffs but not bad enough to get a high draft pick and improve.
> 
> 2 years from now, Allen is going to be a slightly worse player with 36 million left on his contract, and the Sonics are still going to be a losing team. It would be best to dump him now and try to get some value and a lottery pick in one of the deepest drafts in history.
> 
> Consider the New Jersey Nets.


I think I do. I've posted this before, so I'll cut and paste it here.



Chan said:


> :sigh: Here we go again:
> 
> Seattle is doomed. You can't win a title with no interior defense, and no interior offense. Lewis is the post option, and Wilcox the 2nd post option. There is nobody to anchor the offense, and nobody to anchor the defense. Petro and Collison aren't good enough. Wilcox is soft. Fortson is foul prone. Sene is years from contributing. Swift is an unknown.
> 
> ...


We are not going to rebuild, unless we get a highly marketable player. Ben Gordon is not that player.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

DaBabyBullz said:


> To be honest, Ray Allen is one of my very favorite players not currently on the Bulls' roster. He wouldn't be a burden persay, BUT, I would consider him a detriment to the long term success of the Bulls, if we gave up Ben Gordon for him. They're basically the same player, but 8 years diffeence in age, and his salary makes resigning Nocioni, Deng, etc much harder and less likely to happen. 3 years down the road, Gordon would be in his prime, and Allen would be well into his decline most likely.
> 
> You need to watch some more Bulls' games though. Gordon is great at running around a little curl and popping the jumper in the corner. He'll most likely never be a real elite superstar, but he is definitely headed for stardom, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if in the next few years he's putitng up 25+ PPG at a better shooting % (which is already higher than Allen's).


It comes without debate that Ray Allen is not a player your trade for if you want to win in the future. I don't think Gordon will ever be as good as Allen because of his lack of leadership. Allen hits big shots and inspires, and you can tell because when he hits his shots, Watson, Gelebale etc start playing more aggressively and hit their shots more consistently. Gordon is just 'let the kid do his thing and kick some ***'. I haven't seen as many Bulls games as Sonics games, but I feel that Gordon doesn't have the same effect on this team as Allen has with his team.

With the signing of Ben Wallace, the team has already shown its hand. This is a win -later team with a marquee player (not this year) that is right about to decline. The trade for Allen would make this team a full-out win now team, and give the Bulls a sense of urgency.

Of course, Seattle would never trade Allen, but the trade makes sense from a Chicago point of view.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Just thought I'd throw it out there that Ben Wallace and Ray Allen's contracts expire at the same time 

Time to take a plunge on U Haul Stock is right now 

Deng, our 2008 1st rounder, + 2x 2007 2nd rounders to Memphis for Gasol ( with the expiring contract of Danny Fortson as filler )

Brown Sweetney ( as fillers ) with Gordon and Thomas as the principals to Seattle for Ray Allen, Danny Fortson and Robert Swift (assuming he is able to play next season and gets rid of his Danny Bonaduce Partridge Family haircut)

*

Wallace
Gasol
Nocioni
Allen
Hinrich

bench

Swift
Allen
Draft pick ( say Horford )at 8 to 10 
Khyrapa
Griffin
Sefolosha
Duhon 

*


That Bulls team competes for a ring now and is young enough with younger vets like Gasol, Kirk , Nocioni and Duhon to grow with Swift , Horford and Sefolosha when Wallace and Allen are up in 3 years

Chan Man ..would you do Ray Allen and Robert Swift for Ben Gordon and Tyrus Thomas?


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

I like this move..i mean it gives a bulls a real go to man


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Just thought I'd throw it out there that Ben Wallace and Ray Allen's contracts expire at the same time
> 
> Time to take a plunge on U Haul Stock is right now
> 
> ...


Waiting until Wallace and Allen expire? Doesn't that seem Mike Dolan-esque? 

I would not trade Allen and Swift for Gordon and Thomas, even though I think it's the closest package to a fair trade (maybe swap out Swift for Petro, cuz I like Swift more, but neither has much value). Seattle cannot afford to trade Allen for a less marketable player. Financially, we cannot afford to lose the tickets that Allen sells. 

If there is any transaction between Seattle and Chicago, I would be most interested in Deng. That's just a random thought.

I dunno, Seattle management is always very good about keeping rumors in check. Nobody ever saw the Ray Allen trade or the Chris Wilcox trade coming.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Chan said:


> With the signing of Ben Wallace, the team has already shown its hand. This is a win -later team with a marquee player (not this year) that is right about to decline. The trade for Allen would make this team a full-out win now team, and give the Bulls a sense of urgency.
> 
> Of course, Seattle would never trade Allen, but the trade makes sense from a Chicago point of view.


I view the team status the same...we're a win later team, with an over-priced guy on the decline being the ONLY part that is win now. In my opinion, we're better off going for win-later so we don't have to go back to sucking so soon. If we ship off young guys for another old guy, in a few years we'll suck again, and I don't think that trading for Allen will win a championship anyway...he's not much of an upgrade IMO, so our chances wouldn't be a whole lot different than they currently are. 

Your last statement is totally wrong. The trade makes all the sense in the world for the Sonics, and NONE for the Bulls. The Sonics get a good, young, CHEAP guy. They're in bad financial shape, and Ben Gordon would still sell tickets...did you see tonight's game? 30+ points, and an all around good performance IMO. 

Lets just be glad that the trade rumor turned out to be just that, a rumor, with no truth behind it.


----------



## ExtremeBrigs (Jul 20, 2006)

Yeah, it's been a long day with the Ray Allen stuff... all kinds of people calling me crazy for even bringing it up, but hey, that's part of the business  I'll survive. My skin is tough, and I've got a very supportive message board behind me either way. I appreciate the kind words, guys. To bed now for this exhausted writer! In Pax we trust, and GO BEARS!!!


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Chan said:


> You make it seem like Ray Allen is a burden. This is a top 3 SG, only behind Kobe and Wade. If Chicago is going to take Allen, money is not going to be a concern - contending is.
> 
> If Chicago wants Allen, that means they want to win now. Ray is old, but he has shown absolutely no sign of declining. If Seattle trades Allen, that means they are rebuilding, and there is no way we are rebuilding around Gordon. He is not good enough to build a team around- like I stated in my other post, he is a product of the up-tempo system. The difference between Allen and Gordon right now, besides age and leadership, is that Gordon is nowhere near Allen in a half-court game. Seattle is going to need that half-court game when Wilcox sits, which he's doing more and more often with Collison's emergence.


Chan, you are clearly biased towards Ray Allen. Top 3 SG?? Um, how about Joe Johnson, Paul Pierce, Rip Hamilton, Tracy McGrady, Michael Redd, and Vince Carter(at least he's younger than Allen) ???


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Everyone, there is a simple solution as to what everything has been said in this thread.

Trade for "The Big Ticket" Kevin Garnett!!


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Trade for "The Big Ticket" Kevin Garnett!!


No.


----------



## ballafromthenorth (May 27, 2003)

step said:


> No.


Hahaha I love this board.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

step said:


> No.


Why would you say no to KG and say OK to Gasol. Please don't talk about the salary stuff (Gasol's contract is longer anyways, KG would be a lot better for the Bulls market) so everything evens out in the end(plus with an NBA champsionship, even more money for the organization).


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

step said:


> No.


I'll see that, and raise it to a HELL NO!


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Brigs,

If you don't mind, could you tell us something about the 3 independent sources who mislead you about the Ray Allen trade business. Were they just making mischief, or what?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

bullybullz said:


> Why would you say no to KG and say OK to Gasol. Please don't talk about the salary stuff (Gasol's contract is longer anyways, KG would be a lot better for the Bulls market) so everything evens out in the end(plus with an NBA champsionship, even more money for the organization).


Because of his age, and how much it'd take to get him. It'd be ridiculous, and not even close to worth it. Add to that the fact that he's already proven not to be able to elevate his game and lead his team to championships year after year, so a championship with him is FAR from a guarantee anyway. Money is money, he has a ridiculously large contract, that is twice as big as Gasol's. Garnett's contract is up in '09 at 24 mill, if he picks up the option following the '08 season. Gasol's contract in '09 is only $15 mill, and $17.8 mill in '11. So it's a big contract, but NOTHING like Garnett's. With a cheapskate owner like Reinsdorf, that extra 9 million will kill us as far as being able to resign our guys (if we have any left after trading for KG...hypothetically of course).


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Because of his age, and how much it'd take to get him. It'd be ridiculous, and not even close to worth it. Add to that the fact that he's already proven not to be able to elevate his game and lead his team to championships year after year, so a championship with him is FAR from a guarantee anyway. Money is money, he has a ridiculously large contract, that is twice as big as Gasol's. Garnett's contract is up in '09 at 24 mill, if he picks up the option following the '08 season. Gasol's contract in '09 is only $15 mill, and $17.8 mill in '11. So it's a big contract, but NOTHING like Garnett's. With a cheapskate owner like Reinsdorf, that extra 9 million will kill us as far as being able to resign our guys (if we have any left after trading for KG...hypothetically of course).


DaBabyBullz, how can you say that KG has proven that he is not a winner when he has never had that All-Star/1-2 tandem at all throughout his career. Every top-tier team has two great players such as Kobe and Shaq, Duncan and David Robinson, Magic and Kareem, Frazier and Willis Reed and Scottie and Michael. Garnett has not had a player close to these types of players I have mentioned so you can't say KG is not a winner.

KG may be 30 but doesn't play like a 30 year old. KG has been consistent every year and watching him play against Dallas last night made me that much more appreciative of KG/ that we need KG (draws so much attention/can get his shot off any time he wants/great passer/still very athletic/great defender) and he played great defense on Dirk which Gasol can never do. Gasol as of now, is injury-prone and KG has been amazing throughout his career in terms of staying in great basketball shape.

About trading for KG, trade him for Malik Allen, Michael Sweetney, P.J. Brown(expiring contracts), Martynas Andriuskevicius, Chris Duhon, Viktor Khryapa. Also we add 2008 first round pick or 2 2nd round draft picks to the T-Wolves (since next year is a deep draft) plus cash (probably a couple million).

Also, Toronto is involved in this 3-team deal. T-Wolves trade Craig Smith to Toronto along with a 1st round pick for next year and the Bulls can also give the Raptors 2008 first round pick or 2 2nd round draft picks to the T-Wolves in next year's draft while the Raptors give Joey Graham to Minnesota. Since Minnesota wants a player like Deng, Graham is close to him because they are both slashers.

BTW, works on ESPN Trade Machine.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

You're not going to get KG for NOTHING, which is all you are proposing there. If you got him, and just gave up bench warmers and scrubs, then sure we'd win the championship, or have a real good shot. But if you trade away good players, which is what we'd have to do, our team would be no different than all those teams that choked with KG "leading" them.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

bullybullz said:


> About trading for KG, trade him for Malik Allen, Michael Sweetney, P.J. Brown(expiring contracts), Martynas Andriuskevicius, Chris Duhon, Viktor Khryapa. Also we add 2008 first round pick or 2 2nd round draft picks to the T-Wolves (since next year is a deep draft) plus cash (probably a couple million).
> 
> Also, Toronto is involved in this 3-team deal. T-Wolves trade Craig Smith to Toronto along with a 1st round pick for next year and the Bulls can also give the Raptors 2008 first round pick or 2 2nd round draft picks to the T-Wolves in next year's draft while the Raptors give Joey Graham to Minnesota. Since Minnesota wants a player like Deng, Graham is close to him because they are both slashers.
> 
> BTW, works on ESPN Trade Machine.


bullybullz, if you can get us KG without giving up any of our core players, our '06 draft choices or the Knicks' pick, go for it.

Just curious, but why would the T-Wolves do this?


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Why would you say no to KG and say OK to Gasol. Please don't talk about the salary stuff (Gasol's contract is longer anyways, KG would be a lot better for the Bulls market) so everything evens out in the end(plus with an NBA champsionship, even more money for the organization).


How can you not talk about salary when he's making over twenty freakin million dollars, there is such a thing called the CBA that needs to be adhered to in order to get him.



> About trading for KG, trade him for Malik Allen, Michael Sweetney, P.J. Brown(expiring contracts), Martynas Andriuskevicius, Chris Duhon, Viktor Khryapa. Also we add 2008 first round pick or 2 2nd round draft picks to the T-Wolves (since next year is a deep draft) plus cash (probably a couple million).


... I'm speechless.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

DaBabyBullz said:


> You're not going to get KG for NOTHING, which is all you are proposing there. If you got him, and just gave up bench warmers and scrubs, then sure we'd win the championship, or have a real good shot. But if you trade away good players, which is what we'd have to do, our team would be no different than all those teams that choked with KG "leading" them.


There is a word for this. It's called a "rebuilding" stage. If the wolves do this, they will have a ton of cap space to pursue free agents this summer for Billups, VC or Jermaine (if they opt out) and also this means more playing time and opportunities for Randy Foye, Ricky D and Mike James. 

This basically means that wolves have given up with the KG experiment and this will be the best way to do this (thinking about the future). Remember the Vince Carter trade or the Allen Iverson trade? It was basically for a bunch of scrubs or role-players besides Andre Miller. 

Besides, even with KG now, they clearly aren't going anywhere/advancing deep into the playoffs so instead of making the playoffs and do nothing, might as well rebuild and the only way to do this is to trade KG.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

transplant said:


> bullybullz, if you can get us KG without giving up any of our core players, our '06 draft choices or the Knicks' pick, go for it.
> 
> Just curious, but why would the T-Wolves do this?


Exactly, they won't. His scenario was ridiculous.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

step said:


> How can you not talk about salary when he's making over twenty freakin million dollars, there is such a thing called the CBA that needs to be adhered to in order to get him.
> 
> ... I'm speechless.


Um, just make the salary match up and all is well (which I have done). Plus KG is clearly better than Gasol. No comparison necessary.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

transplant said:


> bullybullz, if you can get us KG without giving up any of our core players, our '06 draft choices or the Knicks' pick, go for it.
> 
> Just curious, but why would the T-Wolves do this?


I have already explained below. Also talking about the Gasol trade, why would Memphis do a trade with the bulls? The same reason the T-Wolves would (rebuild).


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

bullybullz said:


> There is a word for this. It's called a "rebuilding" stage. If the wolves do this, they will have a ton of cap space to pursue free agents this summer for Billups, VC or Jermaine (if they opt out) and also this means more playing time and opportunities for Randy Foye, Ricky D and Mike James.
> 
> This basically means that wolves have given up with the KG experiment and this will be the best way to do this (thinking about the future). Remember the Vince Carter trade or the Allen Iverson trade? It was basically for a bunch of scrubs or role-players besides Andre Miller.
> 
> Besides, even with KG now, they clearly aren't going anywhere/advancing deep into the playoffs so instead of making the playoffs and do nothing, might as well rebuild and the only way to do this is to trade KG.


You're clueless, so I'm not even going to bother trying to talk sense into you. All I'll say is that the T Wolves are going to expect good young talent, like Gordon, Deng, etc, plus HIGH draft picks ('07 1st) for KG. Not all of our bench warmers and an '08 pick, which will have no chance of even being in the lottery.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

DaBabyBullz said:


> You're clueless, so I'm not even going to bother trying to talk sense into you. All I'll say is that the T Wolves are going to expect good young talent, like Gordon, Deng, etc, plus HIGH draft picks ('07 1st) for KG. Not all of our bench warmers and an '08 pick, which will have no chance of even being in the lottery.


So in your opinion, what do you think about the VC trade or the AI trade? Yes, it seems like an absolute PATHETIC, DISGRACEFUL trade but think one more time. Don't think about the players involved in this particular trade. Think about the trade as a team in the case for Minnesota (benefits them greatly in the future, gets rid of KG's salary, get's expiring contracts, plays the youngsters, Foye, McCants, Davis and can pursue a top-tier free agent this summer or the next). 

Plus, if the Wolves make the right management decisions, they can quickly go from lottery bound to a good team once again in one to two years.

I know, it sounds crazy but think about it for a sec. As a team, this benefits the Wolves for the near future.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

bullybullz said:


> I have already explained below. Also talking about the Gasol trade, why would Memphis do a trade with the bulls? The same reason the T-Wolves would (rebuild).


There are some differences. 

- The Grizz has THE worst record in the league, while the T-Wolves still have hopes of making the playoffs. 

- Gasol apparently has asked to be traded. KG hasn't. 

- Most of the reasonable Gasol trade proposals included Gordon, Hinrich, Deng, or at least Nocioni or the '07 pick.

As for gutting your team to create cap space, this has proven to be a bad strategy for rebuilding teams since top free agents typically don't want to go to a terrible team (just ask Jerry Krause).


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

transplant said:


> There are some differences.
> 
> - The Grizz has THE worst record in the league, while the T-Wolves still have hopes of making the playoffs.
> 
> ...


Yes, the T-Wolves might make the playoffs but aren't going to do anything so might as well tank the season to get a higher draft pick. Yes, Garnett hasn't asked to be traded but its not like Gasol want's to be traded so bad (like AI) and West doesn't want to trade him anyways.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Brigs,
> 
> If you don't mind, could you tell us something about the 3 independent sources who mislead you about the Ray Allen trade business. Were they just making mischief, or what?


Completely agree. How about just explain what type of source they were. On Skiles staff. On Paxson's staff. Other Bulls employee (i.e. marketing). Media-type for major newspaper. Cyber-columnist. Friend of a friend of a barber that cuts the hair for the girl who is engaged to Kirk.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

bullybullz said:


> So in your opinion, what do you think about the VC trade or the AI trade? Yes, it seems like an absolute PATHETIC, DISGRACEFUL trade but think one more time. Don't think about the players involved in this particular trade. Think about the trade as a team in the case for Minnesota (benefits them greatly in the future, gets rid of KG's salary, get's expiring contracts, plays the youngsters, Foye, McCants, Davis and can pursue a top-tier free agent this summer or the next).
> 
> Plus, if the Wolves make the right management decisions, they can quickly go from lottery bound to a good team once again in one to two years.
> 
> I know, it sounds crazy but think about it for a sec. As a team, this benefits the Wolves for the near future.


Totally different scenarios here. AI has always been a headcase, and asked to be traded, and had had troubles with the team in the past anyway. Vince wasn't playing hard, if at all. KG still is, and is on a team that is at least competitive, and hasn't even asked for a trade, so he has full value.


----------



## Mr. Hobbes (Jul 1, 2005)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I view the team status the same...we're a win later team, with an over-priced guy on the decline being the ONLY part that is win now. In my opinion, we're better off going for win-later so we don't have to go back to sucking so soon. If we ship off young guys for another old guy, in a few years we'll suck again, and I don't think that trading for Allen will win a championship anyway...he's not much of an upgrade IMO, so our chances wouldn't be a whole lot different than they currently are.


If you feel that way, then it's not good to trade for Allen. I think if Allen goes to Chicago, the team will be a repeat of the 04-05 Sonics. Chicago has good defensive players, instead of Seattle's bad defensive players that stepped up in their contract year. This team would be an improvement over those Sonics- Hinrich, Deng, Nocioni, Wallace > Luke, Antonio Daniels, Rashard, Reggie Evans, Radmanovic. The team definitely has enough defense to be a contender. In the east, chances are that team would make them the #1 seed. Chemistry is a great factor too, but none of Chicago's guys play out of the system.



> Your last statement is totally wrong. The trade makes all the sense in the world for the Sonics, and NONE for the Bulls. The Sonics get a good, young, CHEAP guy. They're in bad financial shape, and Ben Gordon would still sell tickets...did you see tonight's game? 30+ points, and an all around good performance IMO.
> 
> Lets just be glad that the trade rumor turned out to be just that, a rumor, with no truth behind it.


I don't feel Gordon is as marketable as Allen. He's a up-and-coming player, Allen is a certified star. Allen's star power won't leave with age- shooters generally keep theirs.



bullybullz said:


> Chan, you are clearly biased towards Ray Allen. Top 3 SG?? Um, how about Joe Johnson, Paul Pierce, Rip Hamilton, Tracy McGrady, Michael Redd, and Vince Carter(at least he's younger than Allen) ???


Joe Johnson is not better that Allen. He's got him on defense, but who cares when you're playing zone? In a few years - maybe even next year, he'll be better. So if thay happens, Ray Allen is #4. Ever since Pierce stopped playing defense, he's dropped out of top SG conversations. His offense and his team record doesn't justify his lack of defense. Rip doesn't hold a candle to the elite SGs of the league. He can't creat well enough for himself to be considered elite. T-Mac is up there, and better than Allen when healthy, but I consider him a forward. Redd may score more than Allen, but in Milwaukee, he is a pure finisher, while Allen can create for others too. As for Carter, ask the Jersey fans how they like him. Most of them we love to trade him for Allen. His youth is irrelevant. A shooter at 34 is going to be better than a dunker/average jumpshooter at 32.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Brigs, yo, you got slammed, just slammed by Sam Smith

http://feed.insnews.org/v-cgi/feeds.cgi?feedid=144&story_id=2607719



Sam Smith said:


> An Internet rumor site was buzzing over the weekend with a report the Bulls are close to dealing a package including Ben Gordon to the Sonics for Ray Allen. Other than the teams not talking and neither having interest in such a deal, it was interesting.





Sam Smith said:


> Hey, let me say, please leave any interesting but completely bogus rumors up to the more established print media


:lol: OK, only the first quote block is legit.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Brigs, yo, you got slammed, just slammed by Sam Smith
> 
> http://feed.insnews.org/v-cgi/feeds.cgi?feedid=144&story_id=2607719
> 
> :lol: OK, only the first quote block is legit.


But I bet hoopsworld got a bunch of hits!


----------



## ExtremeBrigs (Jul 20, 2006)

Yeah, it was a rough weekend for me 

The interesting thing is that I never once said that Ben Gordon was being offered up in exchange for Ray Allen, just that if the Bulls truly were interested in Ray (which apparently they weren't) it would seem like he'd be the guy to go. But oh well, what can ya do? Sam Smith is The Man in Chicago, and I suppose it would be smarter for me to just leave the rumor churning up him in the future, eh?

That said, _I_ still like me, even if the rest of the internet community thinks I'm a complete moron  I've still got plenty of valid things to say!

Thanks for the tip, Johnston!


----------



## eymang (Dec 15, 2006)

Smith really wrote about it, isn't that kind of weird?


----------



## ExtremeBrigs (Jul 20, 2006)

Haha.. yeah, it is kinda wierd. The man's more informed than anybody in media about the Bulls, and he's probably got more of my respect than anybody who covers the team, period. That said, he certainly is "more experienced." I can't argue with that!


----------

