# Dwayne Wade for Derrick Rose?



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

This is just a test people, I want to see how high of a stock he has with fans. This sure brings back memories of the Kobe for Deng thread lol.

Without any hesitation I dont trade Rose.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Im not a bulls fan, but if i was given the choice of wade or rose ill take wade for the next 5 years, to go even further I would take a Hinrich Wade backcourt over a rose salmons/hinrich backcourt


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

My only question is, does Wade guarantee you a championship? 
Does he stay 100% healthy for the next 5 years?

Yes, I know the same can be said about Rose but he would not cost the Bulls as much money as Wade.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

I wasnt really taking into account the finacials behind it, no rose isnt going to coast you as much as wade next year, but rose will get maxed out after his third season so the difference in money wont be that staggering after that


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

roux2dope said:


> I wasnt really taking into account the finacials behind it, no rose isnt going to coast you as much as wade next year, but rose will get maxed out after his third season so the difference in money wont be that staggering after that


Still thats 2 more years of cheap Rose to build around. Wade is a WIN NOW player and if we cant put up a championship caliber team we are stuck with declining Wade for 4 years?


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

No. Is wade better now... yes. There is even a very good chance that a prime wade is better than a prime Rose ever will be. But Rose is an emerging superstar. This season's stats don't even do him justice because he has been improving very rapidly (whether that is because of an early season injury or just his natural progression or both). I would say that his recent high level of play is primarily because of increased aggression (and to a lesser extent IMO because of better arc on his jumper). But he can do things that I can't ever remember a pg being able to do. But the most promising thing is that he still has so much room for improvement. If he can continue to improve his jumper, get to the free-throw line more (which should happen naturally without any effort just by increasing his profile) and most importantly become even more aggressive he could easily average 30 in this league if he remains the primary option. Not to mention he seemingly has all the "intangibles" a great work ethic, good head on his shoulders to accomplish this. You just don't trade guys like that. Especcially when he is still on a rookie contract and for a guy who isn't even guarunteed to stay past this season. 

Not to mention along with his scoring improvement he is also improving his assist and rebound totals. Sky is the limit for this kid. We just got to surround him with the "right" players this offseason and this team will be a legit contender for a long time.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

Hmm I would take Rose. Wade would mean win now, and honestly do we have the pieces to win now?(assuming we wouldn't have max cap space next summer)

Rose gives us about 10 years to build a contender.


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

Rose with zero hesitation...............I'll be happy to have them both next year


----------



## carlos710 (Jun 13, 2002)

lol at rose winning this poll... holding into young players instead of trading for real all-stars is the main reason why lottery teams stay in the lottery for a longgggggggg time.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I don't know man, it's definitely not a no-brainer either way.

Wade is great, but Rose is much younger and could be nearly as good. Then again, maybe he won't be. We just don't know.

Keeping Rose would be the greater "risk" because you don't know his max. For Wade, you know his max and it's great. But for not as long.

I will abstain from voting because I can't decide. However, I would probably lean toward Wade (by a hair) because most of our team would already be primed up for a deep playoff run. Hinrich, Wade, Deng, ???, Noah is pretty darn good. We'd be a title team if we somehow got Bosh or Boozer in there (not sure how though).


----------



## TwinkieTowers (Jul 16, 2002)

Nein!

Rose is seven years younger and his career arc so far is closely resembling Wade's first two seasons -- note that the Heat had Shaq in Wade's second season.

The Heat wouldn't do it right now anyway. Wade himself drives ticket sales in Miami, and Rose hasn't established himself yet to be as large of a national draw.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

carlos710 said:


> lol at rose winning this poll... holding into young players instead of trading for real all-stars is the main reason why lottery teams stay in the lottery for a longgggggggg time.


What if we went back to 03-04? 

Would you give up Wade for T-Mac at the time?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> What if we went back to 03-04?
> 
> Would you give up Wade for T-Mac at the time?


Pretty good comparison actually. With Wade's playing style and previous issues, it's entirely possible he starts breaking down at age 30. It's a legit concern at least.

Even though Rose doesn't shoot enough FT's, the good thing is he's always evading contact and rarely gets thrown to the floor like Wade.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Pretty good comparison actually. With Wade's playing style and previous issues, it's entirely possible he starts breaking down at age 30. It's a legit concern at least.
> 
> Even though Rose doesn't shoot enough FT's, the good thing is he's always evading contact and rarely gets thrown to the floor like Wade.


I would like for Rose to at least get to the line 7 or 8 times a game but I dont know whats it going to take for him to get that kind of respect from the Ref's. Watching all the games there are so many calls that dont go Rose's way its just weird.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

I think Wade has probably reached his peak, but then I don't think Rose will ever get to that peak. So it's difficult. That's one of those situations where if you're either team you just stand pat.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I would say no. Rose is much younger and is blossoming before our eyes each and every game. 

Wade may be better, right now, but long term, I am for keeping Rose.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

Would we trade Rose for Paul? The answer is YES.
Would you trade Paul for Wade? The answer is Yes. 

Therefore, Rose for Wade is a done deal.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Why would you trade Paul for Wade? Paul is a better player and younger. He's also a better building block than Wade. That argument is entirely faulty. Of course Wade is better than Rose and there's not much chance that Rose will catch him. 


The argument for keeping him lies in his rookie contract and the hope that you can use the flexibility to add pieces. Any argument based on Rose's ability as a player are foolish.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

I don't know. I have a lot of respect for Dwyane Wade's game. But, I think I've become so attached with Derrick Rose in a bulls uniform.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

yodurk said:


> Pretty good comparison actually. With Wade's playing style and previous issues, it's entirely possible he starts breaking down at age 30. It's a legit concern at least.
> 
> Even though Rose doesn't shoot enough FT's, the good thing is he's always evading contact and rarely gets thrown to the floor like Wade.


That is the thing I like least about Wade. How he just throws himself into people to get bailed out by the refs. It's also why I don't want him. Too physical style of play, that leads to injuries. Rose is going to be amazing and is way younger, healthier, and doesn't get beat up like Wade always beats HIMSELF up. 

Only edge Wade has is defense. Otherwise it's Rose in a landslide.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

PD said:


> Would we trade Rose for Paul? The answer is YES.
> Would you trade Paul for Wade? The answer is Yes.
> 
> Therefore, Rose for Wade is a done deal.


No on all 3 counts, if I'm calling the shots.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Since CP3 was mentioned, I will say that I'd rather have him over all of the above. He makes teammates better like nobody else in this league, IMO, and is still young enough.

In fact, given the state of the Hornets (esp. financial issues and poor fan support), I bet CP3 is more gettable than Wade. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Hornets just break up the whole team for expirings, young talent, and draft picks. 

If they wanted to cut CP3 loose, you can guarantee they'd want an uber-talented young PG in return...


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I really hate sounding like a homer, but.....Derrick Rose is ahead at 21 of where dwayne wade was at 22. Significantly so. So why are we limiting his potential? He's ahead of where chris paul was at 21. Now in pauls case, he has the kind of court vision that you cannot teach. However, I'm not of the belief that you NEED that kind of court vision to be an effective PG. See: Chauncey Billups, and Mark Jackson. Now, Derrick rose has physical tools that neither Jackson, Nor Billups ever had. In fact, Chris Paul doesn't have them either. So again, why are we limiting derricks potential?

He's not as good as paul and wade now, but he's moving into the top 20 NBA players fairly quickly, and nobody know what his ceiling is. What we know for sure is that it's pretty damned high.

Now to answer the question: nope. And it has more to do with Wade's age, and wear and tear than anything else. I don't see wade being the player he is now in 5 years. In fact, in 5 years, Rose will be the better player. We've waited 10 long years for this: to have a young budding superstar on our squad with his best years far in front of him. Lets not waste time pondering what the next 3 years would be like with asuperstar in his prime but aging quickly, in his place.......


----------



## Ben (Nov 7, 2006)

DaBabyBullz said:


> No on all 3 counts, if I'm calling the shots.


You'd rather Rose than Paul?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Rose's potential is that of a possible 30 ppg scorer, I'm not kidding. Hes averaging close to 24 points since like late December and thats without getting those crazy Lebron James, Dwayne Wade foul calls. Its not hard to imagine Rose averaging 29-30 ppg if he gets to the line at least 8-10 times a game, which I really think hes capable of. 

AMAZING for a PG.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

wow, I am shocked so many people voted no! This is a no brainer, if Miami were to offer Wade for Rose we would be stupid not to jump all over that like free hotcakes. Yes Rose is great and has great potential but Wade is a superstar right now and will be for the foreseeable future. Not dealing Rose for Wade (like Miami would even offer such a thing) would be terrible homerism IMO.

ACE


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> wow, I am shocked so many people voted no! This is a no brainer, if Miami were to offer Wade for Rose we would be stupid not to jump all over that like free hotcakes. *Yes Rose is great and has great potential but Wade is a superstar right now and will be for the foreseeable future*. Not dealing Rose for Wade (like Miami would even offer such a thing) would be terrible homerism IMO.
> 
> ACE


Rose is basically a superstar _now_ also...
month of january:
fg%.514, points 23.5, rebounds 4.4, assists 6.5 

Not to mention Wade has a lot of wear and tear on him.

But the real crux of this arguement is contracts. Anyone who says they would trade Rose for Wade is crazy because:
A.)Wade is a FA after this year 
B.)Rose is still on a rookie contract for the next three years.

Those two things alone mean you are delusional if you think the bulls _would_ do it. Trade an emerging superstar for a rental player? Nope.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Rose's potential is that of a possible 30 ppg scorer, I'm not kidding. Hes averaging close to 24 points since like late December and thats without getting those crazy Lebron James, Dwayne Wade foul calls. Its not hard to imagine Rose averaging 29-30 ppg if he gets to the line at least 8-10 times a game, which I really think hes capable of.
> AMAZING for a PG.


indeed it would be amazing; i'm just trying to get a picture of the kind of team the bulls would be with a pg averaging 30ppg. :bowen:



> Rose is basically a superstar now also...
> month of january:
> fg%.514, points 23.5, rebounds 4.4, assists 6.5


superstar..... in a month? no wonder people value your opinion so highly.....


with the team the bulls have RIGHT NOW, i'd probably take wade too. he's got the experience, he has a track record of carrying teams. rose has been great the past few games, but nba teams adjust all the time, rose's game is showing improvement this season but is hardly complete; i'm not looking for space on his tip just yet.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> indeed it would be amazing; i'm just trying to get a picture of the kind of team the bulls would be with a pg averaging 30ppg. :bowen:


A damn good one. 





> rose has been great the past few games, but nba teams adjust all the time.


Rose has been playing like this since late December not just the "past few games". Teams HAVE been bracketing him and keeping him from driving to the basket and now hes hitting that mid range shot with great accuracy, teams are now doubling him out on the perimeter and hes finding the open man either at the arc or inside (Miller and Taj), they tried putting bigger players on him (Thabo) and hes just burning them. 

NBA teams are adjusting, so is Rose.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Nobody is arguing that Wade is a better player but my biggest concern is his health, hes not going to keep doing what hes doing at age 30 and thats the Wade we are going to get. Heck most NBA players begin their natural decline at 30-32, hes 28 now so we would have a 2-3 year window to build a championship team, maybe we get lucky and win one but then we have a declining player making a TON of money (T-Mac anyone). 

But that being said Wade IMO is the best player in the game when healthy, I just dont think hes going to stay healthy much longer and thats the only reason why I would not do the trade.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

The Krakken said:


> I really hate sounding like a homer, but.....Derrick Rose is ahead at 21 of where dwayne wade was at 22. Significantly so. So why are we limiting his potential? He's ahead of where chris paul was at 21. Now in pauls case, he has the kind of court vision that you cannot teach. However, I'm not of the belief that you NEED that kind of court vision to be an effective PG. See: Chauncey Billups, and Mark Jackson. Now, Derrick rose has physical tools that neither Jackson, Nor Billups ever had. In fact, Chris Paul doesn't have them either. So again, why are we limiting derricks potential?
> 
> He's not as good as paul and wade now, but he's moving into the top 20 NBA players fairly quickly, and nobody know what his ceiling is. What we know for sure is that it's pretty damned high.
> 
> Now to answer the question: nope. And it has more to do with Wade's age, and wear and tear than anything else. I don't see wade being the player he is now in 5 years. In fact, in 5 years, Rose will be the better player. We've waited 10 long years for this: to have a young budding superstar on our squad with his best years far in front of him. Lets not waste time pondering what the next 3 years would be like with asuperstar in his prime but aging quickly, in his place.......


Very well said. I agree with it all. I bet in less than 5 years Wade will be the lesser player of the 2, maybe 2-3 if he keeps getting dinged up. The defense is the only shortcoming of Rose. Offensively he's turning into one of the elites already.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

FX™ said:


> You'd rather Rose than Paul?


Yeah, I would. He's bigger, more athletic, younger, and in their first 2 years, he's also the more productive player. I'm not saying Rose is the better player right now, but I think he will be. Stats in 1st 2 years:

Shooting % = Rose 47.5, 47.7 - Paul 43.0, 43.7
PPG = Rose 16.8, 19.8 - Paul 16.1, 17.3

Paul does have the edge in 3pt % (32% to 23%), rebounds (5 to 4), assists (8 to 6) and steals (2 to 1), but Rose has the edge in blocks (.2 to 0). I just believe that Rose has more potential and is a more high impact player that can take a game over, which Paul can't do. We also don't have the finisher types to take advantage of Paul's distribution skills.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> wow, I am shocked so many people voted no! This is a no brainer, if Miami were to offer Wade for Rose we would be stupid not to jump all over that like free hotcakes. Yes Rose is great and has great potential but Wade is a superstar right now and will be for the foreseeable future. Not dealing Rose for Wade (like Miami would even offer such a thing) would be terrible homerism IMO.
> 
> ACE


Gosh, even considering that:

a) Rose gives you at least 5-6 more years of service; and

b) Rose is on a CHEAP rookie contract for 3 more seasons (and will be re-signed under the next cheaper CBA, per early reports), compared to Wade who will get paid $15 million ANNUALLY starting next year??

It is definitely *not* a no-brainer. If the Bulls wanna build a contender more quickly at the expense of future success, then yeah go with D-Wade. (As I stated earlier, I would personally take this route b/c we've been following the wait-til-next-year mantra for too long). But I also won't pretend "win now" is the absolute no-brainer approach. IMO of course.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Fair enough Yodurk, I hadn't considered the age difference, I honestly didn't even realize that Wade is already 28! He seems so much younger than that. Of course Rose being on a rookie contract as oppossed to Wade being on a max deal is another factor I wasn't thinking about. I was thinking straight talent for talent. Some good points I hadn't considered and I concede my argument that ist a no brainer at least.

ACE


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Fair enough Yodurk, I hadn't considered the age difference, I honestly didn't even realize that Wade is already 28! He seems so much younger than that. Of course Rose being on a rookie contract as oppossed to Wade being on a max deal is another factor I wasn't thinking about. I was thinking straight talent for talent. Some good points I hadn't considered and I concede my argument that ist a no brainer at least.
> 
> ACE


I appreciate the open-mindedness, that's an all-to-hard quality to find around here sometimes. 

I still really can't decide if I'd do it, myself. I originally said yeah, go for Wade -- but now I'm hearing these reports about the next CBA cutting down player salaries. The players really don't have much leverage, so eventually they will have to concede. That means when it's time to extend Rose, we might get a discount. Wade on the other hand will be reaping in a good $20M in 2012...


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> superstar..... in a month? no wonder people value your opinion so highly.....


Honestly I don't really care if everyone here values my opinion. I am sure there are quite a few people here who agree with me. But i have my opinion and you have yours. That's all i will say about the personal attack because it's not worth my time to get into it with you.
As for Rose playing like a superstar right now. He is. if you want to say it is only for a month, whatever, but recognize that that month happens to be _this_ month. Which means he is playing like a superstar right _now_. So you agree with me and then attack me at the same time. :wtf:

If you watched the Thunder game they put a very good defensive point guard on him and that didn't work. So next they did what a lot of teams have been doing against him which is put a much bigger defensive player against him and that didn't work. Not to mention they keyed in on him the whole game. Whoever was guarding noah basically igonored Noah and put himself between Rose and the basket the whole game, none of it worked. Because Rose is pretty much unguardable right now. The opposing teams are certainly treating him like a superstar right now.

But you want to trade the best young guard in the game who is under a rookie contract right now (and for the next 3 years)for a guy who is 28 and on a max contract that ends this year. How much sense does that make??? So we trade Rose for a rental player??? Awesome idea. Since it makes so much sense defend that please...


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I appreciate the open-mindedness, that's an all-to-hard quality to find around here sometimes.
> 
> I still really can't decide if I'd do it, myself. I originally said yeah, go for Wade -- but now I'm hearing these reports about the next CBA cutting down player salaries. The players really don't have much leverage, so eventually they will have to concede. That means when it's time to extend Rose, we might get a discount. Wade on the other hand will be reaping in a good $20M in 2012...


No problem, glad to be able to give you hope! lol

yeah players salaries eventually have to go down and I am sure that will be addresed at the next CBA, teams can't afford to keep paying players quite the exorbinant salaries and remain profitable, particularly smaller market teams like Milwaukee and Minnesota. Of course, thats an interesting point too, are we doing this trade from the perspective of a fan? A GM? (I guess that makes the most sense), or an owner's perspective where more "business" concerns may be considered?


ACE


----------

