# Trading for KG is suicide.



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Please someone knock some sense into Paxons head, these KG trade rumors are getting stronger by the day and i have a horrible fealing in my stomach that the bulls will make a big mistake, Iam not saying that KG is not a great player but the T wolves would be the winner in this trade, I keep hearing Jay JAlen, erob, Tyson and First Round pick for one Kg this would be a dumb move, First of we dont know for sure wich PG on the bulls is the best one YET and trading away Jay a future star and rose a player who only scored a point less then KG, also giving up tyson is to much, KG is not Micheal Jordan and he will never win you a championship. Adding KG to the bulls and trading away rose,jay etc would make this team a playoff team but will not lock us as a top team that could take the east let alone compete against a team from the west in the finals, I love our core of players i love our own players, i dont wanna see KG here in chicago if it means trading away half an entire starting lineup, it just makes no sense. To put it in simple text we dont need KG.

We have eddy,rose,tyson,craw,and jay. and maybe even possibly a good young euro player or god giving Carmelo to us. The bulls have a core that can become the next dominating franchise, are you willing to jepordize greatness for just a taste of it?


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

I have to disagree- I think you underestimate the value of consolidating talent. One great player is easily worth 2 or 3 good players. Sure we give out more talent than we bring in, but do you really think that we'd be the losers of that trade? A team built around JC, Eddy Curry and KG could go to the Finals within two years. Jalen, Jay and Tyson are all very good players; but KG is a superstar, already one of the greatest of all time at his position. Pair him with two budding stars in Eddy and JC, and you've got yourself a legitimate contender within the next few years.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> I have to disagree- I think you underestimate the value of consolidating talent. One great player is easily worth 2 or 3 good players. Sure we give out more talent than we bring in, but do you really think that we'd be the losers of that trade? A team built around JC, Eddy Curry and KG could go to the Finals within two years. Jalen, Jay and Tyson are all very good players; but KG is a superstar, already one of the greatest of all time at his position. Pair him with two budding stars in Eddy and JC, and you've got yourself a legitimate contender within the next few years.


Again as much as i love Crawford he is very Unproven, And to an extend so is Curry 1/4 of a season does not make great players, I give props to KG he is a great one, but again you will not win an NBA championship with KG, In 2 years this bulls team will become a legitimate contender so we really dont need KG, We traded away Brad Miller,Ron Artest, Ron Mercer for pretty much one player and as good as ROse is our future is still in the hands of Curry Chandler Crawford and Jay, we need to give them atleast one more full year to play and if we see no progress then sign KG as a Free Agent , or you can even still trade for him. All iam saying is that we dont need KG we have everything in front of us.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> I have to disagree- I think you underestimate the value of consolidating talent. One great player is easily worth 2 or 3 good players. Sure we give out more talent than we bring in, but do you really think that we'd be the losers of that trade? A team built around JC, Eddy Curry and KG could go to the Finals within two years. Jalen, Jay and Tyson are all very good players; but KG is a superstar, already one of the greatest of all time at his position. Pair him with two budding stars in Eddy and JC, and you've got yourself a legitimate contender within the next few years.


I agree...

if bringing in KG is suicide then I'm ALL for dying!


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Again as much as i love Crawford he is very Unproven, And to an extend so is Curry 1/4 of a season does not make great players


True, but sometimes when oppurtunity knocks, you have to go out on a limb and make a move based on the potential you've seen. I've seen enough of Curry and Crawford that I'd be willing to take this gamble. I believe that if we wait and try to sign KG as an F.A., we may miss our window to get him.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>thebizkit69u</b>!
> 
> 
> Again as much as i love Crawford he is very Unproven, And to an extend so is Curry 1/4 of a season does not make great players, I give props to KG he is a great one, but again you will not win an NBA championship with KG, In 2 years this bulls team will become a legitimate contender so we really dont need KG, We traded away Brad Miller,Ron Artest, Ron Mercer for pretty much one player and as good as ROse is our future is still in the hands of Curry Chandler Crawford and Jay, we need to give them atleast one more full year to play and if we see no progress then sign KG as a Free Agent , or you can even still trade for him. All iam saying is that we dont need KG we have everything in front of us.


EVERYONE ON OUR TEAM OUTSIDE OF ROSE AND MARSHALL ARE UNPROVEN !!!

So if dont trade for KG we will be champiosnhip contenders in a few years but if we do trade for kg Crawford and edy are unproven so we wont ?????


----------



## Chicago_Cow (Mar 5, 2003)

The point is to win a NBA Championship and not to get to the Finals and lost. Do you seriously think that a team with a depth of only KG, Crawford, and Curry is going to get you anywhere. What are we going to get to surround KG? Before you talk, I suggest you look up KG salary. His salary is around 27 mil and that's more than 50 % of the current crap. Add in about 7 mil for Crawford and 10 mil for Curry and we're max out. Again, do you seriously think that a team composed of KG, Curry, and Crawford is going to net us a ring? If you do, get off the crack pipe because it's not healthy to smoke and type at the same time.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago_Cow</b>!
> The point is to win a NBA Championship and not to get to the Finals and lost. Do you seriously think that a team with a depth of only KG, Crawford, and Curry is going to get you anywhere. What are we going to get to surround KG? Before you talk, I suggest you look up KG salary. His salary is around 27 mil and that's more than 50 % of the current crap. Add in about 7 mil for Crawford and 10 mil for Curry and we're max out. Again, do you seriously think that a team composed of KG, Curry, and Crawford is going to net us a ring? If you do, get off the crack pipe because it's not healthy to smoke and type at the same time.


that is why iam so against a KG trade what he brings just wont win us a championship, We have nice depth now when we get a healthy Fizer back, rememeber guys a team of Jay Jaylen craw and Curry beat the Lakers,Nets,Sixers, Boston very good teams that made the playoffs, now if we can build on our team and play the way we play at home all the time we are an unbeatable team.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Chicago_Cow</b>!
> The point is to win a NBA Championship and not to get to the Finals and lost. Do you seriously think that a team with a depth of only KG, Crawford, and Curry is going to get you anywhere. What are we going to get to surround KG? Before you talk, I suggest you look up KG salary. His salary is around 27 mil and that's more than 50 % of the current crap. Add in about 7 mil for Crawford and 10 mil for Curry and we're max out. Again, do you seriously think that a team composed of KG, Curry, and Crawford is going to net us a ring? If you do, get off the crack pipe because it's not healthy to smoke and type at the same time.


This has been gone over in numerous threads before KG has stated hes willing to take a paycut to win a title.in paycut meaning 17 mil a year.

By the traded posted in this thread we would still have Marshall and Fizer and our MLE,Not to mention Hassell,baxter and mason and blount.

Curry//rooks 
Marshall/Fizer/blount 
Kg
MLE /hassell
Crawford/mason

could we not get Lucious harris and maybe Kevin ollie to split our MLE 


Id like to know since when do 10 deep teams win championships I think you forget we are in the east and while Curry and Craw are young if they develop like everyone expects then yes we could win a ring with those 3 as the nucleus surrounded by role players.


----------



## DaFuture (Nov 5, 2002)

*That cap number is for one season,*

He will be max player next year which means 13-15 million at most to resign.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> Id like to know since when do 10 deep teams win championships I think you forget we are in the east and while Curry and Craw are young if they develop like everyone expects then yes we could win a ring with those 3 as the nucleus surrounded by role players.


Kinda hard to belive a team nucleus of 2 players that have never been in the playoffs and 1 player whose playoff record is horrible at best would take us to the promised land without depth and i doubt Harris and Olie would do any good.


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

Im not saying whether I like the trade or not, but a team with KG and Curry would absolutely tear new a-holes in basically every team in the east. If we could resign KG, a team with Crawford, Curry and KG would definately have championship potential if Curry and Crawford do improve as many think they will. I think KG is the best player in the league, and thats obviously very debateable, but an opportunity to get that kind of player has to be worth at least considering.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>thebizkit69u</b>!
> 
> 
> Kinda hard to belive a team nucleus of 2 players that have never been in the playoffs and 1 player whose playoff record is horrible at best would take us to the promised land without depth and i doubt Harris and Olie would do any good.


If Crawford and Curry cant get us a ring when added to a top 5 nba player then how do we do it with Chandler ,rose and jay who are not nearly as good as KG.

right now NJ is in the eastern conference finals with Kidd jeferson and Kmart and 9 role players 

Detroit is in the finals with Billups,wallace,and Rip and 9 role players 

Spurs are in the conference finals with Duncan,Parker ,and robinson/ and 9 role players 

Mavs are in the conference finals with Dirk,Nash, and finley and 9 role players some are highly overpaid but role players none the less.

Not to mention that going by the trade you posted we still have Fizer and Marshall .

So now you dont think KG could deliver the goods in the EAST??He got the Twolves 50 wins in the west and the 4th seed if that was the east the Twolves wouldve had the #1 .


If you dont belive that Curry and Crawford will be that good then just say it.But for any person that belives they will be 2 of the leagues best in 2-3 years as I do then you cant convince me that KG,Curry and Crawford wouldnt dominate the east .


----------



## Fergus (Oct 2, 2002)

The Timberpups need young talent and can not afford to let Garnet walk away in a year or two. Personally, I am not sure Garnet is going to walk away, bit it has got to be a concern to Kevin McHale. I can only hope that Garnet has clearly told McHale to trade him to the Bulls or loose him in a year (please, please, please).

McHale is not stupid. I am sure he is doing his best to keep Garnet. However, if McHale becomes convinced that Garnet intends to leave, he will try and trade him. Plus, he will try and trade him to a team he would like to go to. I said "try". Now, lets look at what the Bulls and do and what the Timberpups need.

The Timberpups need to bring in some new talent. They need youth plus at least one "star" player in return. The whole idea of equal value must be looked in the parameters of the salary cap situation. The Bulls can offer Jalen Rose, Fizer or Marshall, and Jay or Jamal. I do not think Tyson or Eddie are part of a serious offer. John Paxon is not letting those two go. Pax will also be very cautious in any talks involving Jamal. What Pax can throw in are #1 draft picks. I think this years (lets hope we get lucky) and their choice of our first pick in either of the next two years.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> I have to disagree- I think you underestimate the value of consolidating talent. One great player is easily worth 2 or 3 good players. Sure we give out more talent than we bring in, but do you really think that we'd be the losers of that trade? A team built around JC, Eddy Curry and KG could go to the Finals within two years. Jalen, Jay and Tyson are all very good players; but KG is a superstar, already one of the greatest of all time at his position. Pair him with two budding stars in Eddy and JC, and you've got yourself a legitimate contender within the next few years.


I have to say that I totally agree. Don't get me wrong, I think the Bulls have a very good chance to make it to the Eastern Conference finals in a couple of years, with or without KG. But a team with JC, Maggette, KG, Fizer/Marshall, and Curry would have a legitimate chance to win it all in 3 years or less.

Let's break this trade down player by player ...

KG - an extremely versatile Superstar. An excellent passer, rebounder, shot blocker, defensive specialist, exceptional ball handler for someone who's 7'+, and virtually unstoppable in the paint. A triple-double threat every night (and extremely unselfish in the scoring department). Year in and year out this guy is in the running for the league's MVP award. A change of pace is exactly what this guy needs. Surround him with another dominate scorer in the post (Curry), an electrifying PG who can pretty much do it all (JC), and serviceable, quality, role players like Fizer, Marshall, and Hassell and you have title condender in a couple of years. Add a free agent like Maggette into the mix and this team would be scary on both ends of the court.

Rose - a very good player. In spite of what his critics might claim, he's a great team player who tries to get everyone involved in the game. Rose is also a very respectable scorer who can score in the 30's on any given night, and is usually good for at least 20. A very underrated assist man as well. Offensively, he's a definite 2nd team All-Star. Unfortunately, as good as he is on O, he's just about equally as bad on D. He doesn't have the footspeed to defend the quality 2s in the league, and lacks the upper body strength to defender some 3s. He usually gives up as many points (if not more) as he scores. Rebounding is definitely not one of his strong suits either (but in all fairness, SGs are really expected to do a lot rebounding and he contributes a little). What Jalen lacks in athleticism. he makes up for in court smarts. Don't get me wrong, I like Jalen a ton, but I'd trade 3 Jale Roses for just one KG (and I'm not even a huge fan of KG).

JWill - Undersized for this league (IMO). In the right system he could excel offensively, but when it comes to holding his own with the Gary Paytons or Jason Kidds of the league, he'll get eaten up. (As will be the case when the Spurs lose to the Nets in the Finals ... which is a whole other thread). I see JWill being a servicable PG for a mediocre team or being a back up PG for a great team. Either way, he's another Travis at Best (pun intended)

ERob - Athleticism galore. Unfortunately that's where his game ends. Too skinny to rebound, can't handle the ball good enough to create off the dribble, his shot's good but inconsistent, and his D needs a lot of work. Worst of all, he eats up 6$ of the salary cap to be the 2nd or 3rd string SF (which is the only position that he's capable of playing). He has potential to be a solid player, but whether or not he ever lives up to that potential is unknown. If I'm Minny, I want Fizer instead of ERob.

Chandler - Athleticism and potential glore. Young, raw, and full of energy. Plays exceptional interior D (ala Camby), especially for someone who's just 19. Has one shot in his repetoire; the two-handed tomahawk slam (usually off the missed shot). Also a respectable rebounder, although he tends to struggle against more disciplined rebounders in the league. Weakness: Bricks for hands, limited range on his shot, lacks upper body strength for a big man, and inexperienced. Chandler is the huge question mark of this trade, if I new that Chandler would develop into 80% of the player that KG is (with a couple of years), there's no way I'd do the deal. But unfortunately, I think Tyson's will be a great player in the NBA one day, but I don't see him ever being 80% as good a player as KG.

Paxton is smart man ... given the opporunity ... he'll make this trade (provided KG agrees to sign a 5 year deal for no more than $80M.) KG already has more money than God, so it's completely realistic to think that KG would consider an opportunity to play for a team that has a legit shot at winning it all one day.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

I really think we should see what draft pick we get before we get too carried away with kevin garnett trade discussions and we also have to remember that Sam Smith wrote the article which proposed the whole kevin garnett thing in the first place and he isnt exactly the most reliable media source in the world. If we can get the 3rd pick in the draft and get mello i would rather keep carmello. but if we get darko i wouldnt mind trading that. I really am skeptical about this whole trade idea. Part of me loves it but part of me is not sure. I would really love to see Chandler and Curry blossom together.


----------



## TyGuy (Apr 19, 2003)

First of all to whoever said the nets will beat the spurs you are crazy( I dont care if thats in another thread had to point that out). Don’t forget you guys are still a crummy team in the east, you guys definitely need to make some changes and if you dont want kg on your team thats nuts! Consider the garbage he has on his team and how far he took them. If the wolves are stupid enough to do a trade like this, chi town would take it in a heart beat ( I don’t know how you guys can fall in love with players that only bring you l's). Anyway if curry continues to develop into a great scorer then you would have an awesome frontcourt with two huge scorers and one awesome defender. Not to mention you guys could get lucky and snag the #1 for Mr. LeBron. Hmmm KG, curry and bron another bulls Dynasty anyone? So yes you guys should be willing to give up anybody and everybody for a man like Kg if given the opportunity.


----------



## BullsAttitude (Jun 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TyGuy</b>!
> First of all to whoever said the nets will beat the spurs you are crazy( I dont care if thats in another thread had to point that out). Don’t forget you guys are still a crummy team in the east, you guys definitely need to make some changes and if you dont want kg on your team thats nuts! Consider the garbage he has on his team and how far he took them. If the wolves are stupid enough to do a trade like this, chi town would take it in a heart beat ( I don’t know how you guys can fall in love with players that only bring you l's). Anyway if curry continues to develop into a great scorer then you would have an awesome frontcourt with two huge scorers and one awesome defender. Not to mention you guys could get lucky and snag the #1 for Mr. LeBron. Hmmm KG, curry and bron another bulls Dynasty anyone? So yes you guys should be willing to give up anybody and everybody for a man like Kg if given the opportunity.



One, Minnesota isn't total garbage, I mean are you forgetting Wally, Anthony Peeler(a traveled veteran), and Troy Hudson. All these players helped get Minnesota into the playoffs where they ran into a better team. 

Two, I don't want to give up 2 potential superstars for 1 superstar. It shows we have no patience at all. Yes, we've put up with losing the past 5 years, but this was the first year we saw what we know will be the Bulls team of the future. 

Three, in the rumors, Minnesota wants the pick thrown in, I don't think the Bulls would make the trade if they got the 1st pick. 

Four, the Bulls went 30-52 this year and only 3 of those wins were on the road. You get between 10 and 15 wins on the road next year and stay pat at home and that's a .500 team and a playoff team in the East. Were young, not crummy and that's the way I like to look at it because I believe if given the chance, the Bulls will be the dominate team of the East(along with Indiana) in a few years and maybe the one of the dominate teams of the league.

It's called watching this team growing together and learning to play together, which they did this year and we all saw improvement.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

i just hope these ideas are just sam smith writing his BS as usual but if this was actually offered to paxson that puts him in a tough situation because that would be his first real move as a gm and he would need to have some brass balls to turn this trade down because alot of people would be upset if he didnt. Im actually shocked at how much this article has spread. PTI reported on it, and inside the nba talked about it. I really wish this sam smith crap wouldnt have gotten this much exposure because if it doesnt happen there well be some disapointed bulls fans and thats never good when u just get a brand new gm.


----------



## sTiLLaFaN42 (Sep 1, 2002)

My question is, how does this work with this being KG's last year on his contract. Could we get Minn. to do an extension before trading him to us

Another important point that many of you guys probably know, but aren't really pointing out, is that we've accumulated all this talent, not so each and everyone of them can become a star, but so that we can hopefully trade it in for 1 big star. A team full of young players with "star potential" just doesn't work. It's about time we condense it and choose 2, or 3 AT MOST, to build around. It seems like the general consensus is that Crawford, Curry, and KG are the ones. I'm all for a KG trade, as much as I love Tyson's energy/personality and as much as I hate the possibility of JWill haunting us for years to come.


----------



## TyGuy (Apr 19, 2003)

KG is a superstar that’s the difference and not only that he’s the cream of the crop. What are Chandler and Curry? They certainly aren’t kg and never will be. Yes it is about time you start winning not only is kg possibly the best player in the nba, he’s Young! You would be a better team right now and in the future if you got Kevin Garnet. If you guys had to get rid of chandler or Curry plus other people to get kg I guarantee you guys would do it. Didn’t know about how they wanted this years draft pick does that include the 1 pick? Cause if so no deal but anybody other the bron should definitely be a green light for a trade. 30 wins in the eastern conference isn’t going to blow anybody’s socks off sure you guys are very young but changes do need to be made.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TyGuy</b>!
> you guys are very young but changes do need to be made.


why because you say so.
The ony change that necessarily needs to be made is this potential we have to start being more and more productive. Did you not see the end of the bulls season last year? They make making huge strides and this lineup they have right now could make the playoffs. THey only won 30 games last year because for most of the season Jalen and Donyell were the only guys getting it done consistantly at the end of the year Curry, Chandler, Crawford were doing most of the work and even williams started being a player at the end of the year.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

*Re: That cap number is for one season,*



> Originally posted by <b>DaFuture</b>!
> He will be max player next year which means 13-15 million at most to resign.



Wrong, a player on a contract signed before the last CBA can
make more than the current CBA max, that is he can get a pay increase over his current salary.

In other words to keep KG, a team may have to fork over $29 mill 
next season to resign him.

Now with a resigned Craw, a resigned Fizer, and a resigned
Curry, the Bulls with KG will easily get into LT territory, so
everydollar of KG's salry over the LT threshold will cost twice
as much.

Samspeak fanatises of getting Maggette for the MLE are just 
that fantasies. Maggete will get signed for more than the MLE.

Unless, KG were willing to agree to extend to less money 
in Chicago, with the obvious question being why ( Maybe
with the answer being he could make more endorsement money)
then the Bulls would be fiscally imprudent to trade for KG since
such a signing would reduce any and all flexibility that the Bulls
had.

Remember too that MJ's large contracts were pre-CBA max 
salaries so the Bulls could still get a few decent players to play 
around
him despite having poor draft positions, whereas teams like LA 
have been strapped due to the cap to sign players becuase of 
Shaq's and Kobe's salary capping their team out.

The Lakers lack of depth cost them the four peat, despite having
two of the best players in the game.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

KG is a 26 year old All-NBA player not even in the prime of his career.

I agree with someone here who said the only proven players the Bulls have are Jalen and Donyell. Many Bulls fans are <i>projecting</i> all of our kids to become stars in the NBA and <i>projecting</i> the BUlls to be in the Eastern Conference finals in 2-3 years. Hmm... while I'm optimistic, I don't think the current team the Bulls have will be getting that good that quickly. Sorry. Not without consolidating some talent.

Dallas, San Antonio....even Indiana, Houston, Phoenix... whichever team has Kobe (Memphis?) in 2 years... these teams aren' t going anywhere soon. They too have young stars to build around. And I have a hard time picturing the Bulls young players making a serious run in only 3 years time.

Adding KG to our roster gives us a legitimate franchise player who makes those around him better. I call it the Tim Duncan effect, though KG hasn't come up as big in big games as Duncan. ITs amazing how much people dog the guy b/c he hasn't advanced out of a season series. He averaged 27/16/5 to go along with a couple blocks/steals per game in the Lakers series.

Defense? 4-time All-NBA defender
Points? #8 in NBA
Rebounding? #2 rebounds per game
Assists? #13 overall
Blocks? top 20
Double-doubles? #1 overall
Efficiency? #1 overall


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

*Re: Re: That cap number is for one season,*



> Originally posted by <b>ztect</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Excuse my ignorance, but I've been out of the loop for a little while. Have the Bulls truly extended Craw, Fizer, and Curry's contracts? If so, when did this happen and what were the terms of the contracts? If it did ... I am extremely happy!


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: That cap number is for one season,*

You ONLY trade for KG if he agrees to a contract extension as part of a trade, and that extension is for the normal max contract for seven years (90-something million). Otherwise, no way - he'll rob us of half of our young talent AND kill our cap.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

I don't trade for KG. No way in Hell I'd give up 4 or 5 players plus a pick... that would be franchise suicide.

You've seen that KG couldn't win with a decent team in Minny, so you think he could win with a decent team here in Chicago? Plus we don't have the lights out shooter in Wally that Minny does... why do you think KG gets so many good looks? Plus Troy Hudson is very underrated.

No way, no way, no way. He isn't THAT good.


----------



## MadFace (Jul 12, 2002)

*just a thought,,,*

Keep in mind that Charlotte is going to be picking up players in the expansion draft next year. It's not a good time to stockpile developing young players when you can only protect 8. I would try for KG to move some of those guys


----------



## TheWindyCityBallers (May 19, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>thebizkit69u</b>!
> Please someone knock some sense into Paxons head, these KG trade rumors are getting stronger by the day and i have a horrible fealing in my stomach that the bulls will make a big mistake, Iam not saying that KG is not a great player but the T wolves would be the winner in this trade, I keep hearing Jay JAlen, erob, Tyson and First Round pick for one Kg this would be a dumb move, First of we dont know for sure wich PG on the bulls is the best one YET and trading away Jay a future star and rose a player who only scored a point less then KG, also giving up tyson is to much, KG is not Micheal Jordan and he will never win you a championship. Adding KG to the bulls and trading away rose,jay etc would make this team a playoff team but will not lock us as a top team that could take the east let alone compete against a team from the west in the finals, I love our core of players i love our own players, i dont wanna see KG here in chicago if it means trading away half an entire starting lineup, it just makes no sense. To put it in simple text we dont need KG.
> 
> We have eddy,rose,tyson,craw,and jay. and maybe even possibly a good young euro player or god giving Carmelo to us. The bulls have a core that can become the next dominating franchise, are you willing to jepordize greatness for just a taste of it?


Im going to have to disagree as well. KG in my opinion is the best player in the NBA. And people keep saying that the supporting cast in Chicago will be even worse than the one in Minnesota for KG. But may I remind you how well Curry and Crawford performed near the end of the season. I look for curry to average around 15-20 ppg next season and Crawford has proven that he can score almost at will and can drain the 3s. So... I think Kevin Garnett would be a perfect fit and this team would enjoy many years of success (not just 1st round exits like in Minnesota, but real success).


----------



## TheWindyCityBallers (May 19, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> I don't trade for KG. No way in Hell I'd give up 4 or 5 players plus a pick... that would be franchise suicide.
> 
> You've seen that KG couldn't win with a decent team in Minny, so you think he could win with a decent team here in Chicago? Plus we don't have the lights out shooter in Wally that Minny does... why do you think KG gets so many good looks? Plus Troy Hudson is very underrated.
> ...


\

Decent team in Minny? Whick Minny team have you been watching? The Wild? The T'Wolves are nothing without KG. Troy Hudson just got there this year and didn't elevate his game until the playoffs, and Wally Sczerbiak is about as unpredictable as the weather here in Michigan. Sorry if you are a Wolves fan, but I think the Bulls have a lot more talent and potential to offer The Kid.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I just heard Sam Smith on Tony Kornheiser's show, and he said that the trade is just an idea and isn't being discussed between the team to his knowledge. This is just Smith playing "I'm wanna be a GM" again.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: That cap number is for one season,*



> Originally posted by <b>DMD</b>!
> You ONLY trade for KG if he agrees to a contract extension as part of a trade, and that extension is for the normal max contract for seven years (90-something million). Otherwise, no way - he'll rob us of half of our young talent AND kill our cap.


This is the key point, IMO. If KG would agree to a current "max" deal when his current contract is up-- and I don't believe he will agree to such a deal-- then the deal makes some sense. It would actually reduce the Bulls cap considerably as the Bulls would be trading equivalent salary based on current contracts, but then KG would be renewed for considerably less whereas the player the Bulls would be giving up would be due for raises when their current contracts expire. And, as MadFace pointed out, our current roster is going to be prime pickings for the Charlotte expansion draft with the stockpile of young talent we have now.

However, I don't see KG signing for much less than he's making now, and that, as Retro said, would be franchise suicide. Therefore, I don't expect such a deal to happen.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I can't see this happening. 

1.) Garnett torn into Reinsdorf and Krause a few years ago about the ending of the dynasty. So both Garnett and Reinsdorf would have to look past this.

2.) Garnett would have to agree to a less $$$ than he could possibly make. If the Wolves or Bulls played hardball, he very well migh decide to go play somewhere else for less money - just like Donyell Marshall did this past summer.

3.) There is not much salary relief for the Wolves. Seems like some talent with a couple ending contracts would be more appealing to them.


----------



## TheWindyCityBallers (May 19, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> I can't see this happening.
> 
> 1.) Garnett torn into Reinsdorf and Krause a few years ago about the ending of the dynasty. So both Garnett and Reinsdorf would have to look past this.
> ...


Ok, I've got it. Lets send them Hoiberg, Blount, and Brunson for Garnett. That way they will have some expiring contracts. Perfect:hurl:


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BullsDynasty2004</b>!
> \
> 
> Decent team in Minny? Whick Minny team have you been watching? The Wild? The T'Wolves are nothing without KG. Troy Hudson just got there this year and didn't elevate his game until the playoffs, and Wally Sczerbiak is about as unpredictable as the weather here in Michigan. Sorry if you are a Wolves fan, but I think the Bulls have a lot more talent and potential to offer The Kid.


Sure, if they didn't trade 3/4 of it away to get him.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

All the talk about KG taking a paycut is ridiculous as he has already said he would if its to seriously compete to win a title .

And why wouldnt he take a paycut ?He could easily accept 15-17 mil per year extension and by the time it kicks in with Malone ,scottie,Sheed,howards deals all up he would still be top 2 in the league behind Shaq.I cant see him being unhappy with that playing for a title contender.

As for not getting that Minny team anywhere they won 50 games with Wally missing 30+ games due to injury.

Troy hudson underrrated ????Hes soooo overrated its unbelievable because all he did was shoot lights out but he couldnt get anyone else the ball when he wasnt scoring leaving KG not only to dal with Shaq on the boards but run the offense and HELP EVERYONE on defense.

Im sorry put him with Curry and Crawdford in the eastern conference and thats a title .Its a no brainer !!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> All the talk about KG taking a paycut is ridiculous as he has already said he would if its to seriously compete to win a title.


If he takes a paycut, KG might be more interested in joining a team with another established star than banking on Crawford and a 20 yr old C. For instance, if his contract was up this off-season, he could go play for the Spurs and still get paid a ton.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> If he takes a paycut, KG might be more interested in joining a team with another established star than banking on Crawford and a 20 yr old C. For instance, if his contract was up this off-season, he could go play for the Spurs and still get paid a ton.


If he comes east to chicago marketing and endorsments play a factor and any paycut he takes could be made up very easy in chicago. Im sure his agent and companies he represents would be pusing him to a larger market as well.Add in the fact that if KG was in Chicago this year he wouldve won the MVP.


----------



## pjc845 (Jun 9, 2002)

*Get your head out of the sand*

Its clear to everyone who the best PG is. Only those to proud to admit that the difference between Jay Williams and Jamal Crawford's performance to date and potential are night and day refuse to give Jamal his props.

If we can unload Williams now with Robinson and Rose and get Garnett, we should do it. If it takes our 1st round pick too, I'd do it but not if we can get Melo at #2 or #3. Melo could be a All-NBA player one day. Williams, Robinson, Rose, and our #7 would be a great trade IMHO.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

*Re: Get your head out of the sand*



> Originally posted by <b>pjc845</b>!
> Its clear to everyone who the best PG is. Only those to proud to admit that the difference between Jay Williams and Jamal Crawford's performance to date and potential are night and day refuse to give Jamal his props.
> 
> If we can unload Williams now with Robinson and Rose and get Garnett, we should do it. If it takes our 1st round pick too, I'd do it but not if we can get Melo at #2 or #3. Melo could be a All-NBA player one day. Williams, Robinson, Rose, and our #7 would be a great trade IMHO.


The deal on ESPN & TNT included Chandler.

They had Rose, Williams, Chandler, Robinson and our draft pick for Garnett. That is absolutely insane as Garnett isn't that good... no way would I do that deal and set back our franchise another 5 years.


----------



## pjc845 (Jun 9, 2002)

*Yeah, right*



> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> I don't trade for KG. No way in Hell I'd give up 4 or 5 players plus a pick... that would be franchise suicide.
> 
> You've seen that KG couldn't win with a decent team in Minny, so you think he could win with a decent team here in Chicago? Plus we don't have the lights out shooter in Wally that Minny does... why do you think KG gets so many good looks? Plus Troy Hudson is very underrated.
> ...


And Michael Jordan was a loser until he got Pippen and Grant playing with him and got them to grow up a bit.

You can't brand KG a loser because he can't win a championship in Minny. The pieces aren't there.

If you put MJ on that team, they don't get by the Lakers either.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

*Re: Yeah, right*



> Originally posted by <b>pjc845</b>!
> 
> 
> And Michael Jordan was a loser until he got Pippen and Grant playing with him and got them to grow up a bit.
> ...


As much as you say it was because of Pippen and pieces, I also say it was because of Jordan's development. He developed pieces of his game (his long jumper for instance) and how to pass out of double-teams. Jordan learned how to fill the stat sheet instead of just the scoring column.

I don't see KG getting that much better as he pretty much fills the stat sheets nightly... so I just can't go with that comparison.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> If Crawford and Curry cant get us a ring when added to a top 5 nba player then how do we do it with Chandler ,rose and jay who are not nearly as good as KG.
> ...


I never said i dont think that curry and crawford will not become very good players, and i have no problem trading for KG but not trading away half the starting lineup! The East is the weakest conference in the NBA so the nets and pistons might not even make the playoffs in the WEST, Dallas has 4 great players dirk,nash,finley, and Van Exel. DAllas does have its role players but theire role players can score and play defense, i mean they have DUncan! I like KG but the money,the lack of depth, i dont wanna become the Wolves of the East.


----------



## pjc845 (Jun 9, 2002)

*That's a lot*



> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> 
> 
> The deal on ESPN included Chandler.


I'd do it, but only if we give away #7 and not #1-#3.

Reason?

Rose: good, but not great and his D is poor. His role will diminish as guys like Craw and Curry, and without D what role exactly would he play? Then does he throw a hissy fit like he did in Indiana? We can survive without him. In fact, I hear Artest may be available. I'd trade Rose straight up for Artest if I could, even if it means admitting that the original trade with Miller and Mercer was ill advised.

Williams: I think he's as good as what we've seen -- he's not going to get tons better. Here's a kid that was drafted because he was ready. He was supposed to be mature. He didn't need development time. He failed to live up to those expectations. Also, people who think a 6'2" SG who can't shoot and has above average quickness in this league can somehow be a dominant PG are dreaming. Unloading him for any sort of value is a good trade in my opinion.

Chandler: I like him a lot. But, he'll never be KG. And If I have KG, I don't need Chandler.

Robinson: Dead weight, at least on this team. Wouldn't think twice about unloading him, especially with his salary. Maybe he resurrects his career in Minny, but I don't see any future for him here.

#7 Pick: A mystery. Problem a good player in the future, but I have plenty of talent on the roster. If I can package it for a superstar, I do it.

Overall, its a lot. But, I think we have plenty of talent, and it opens up the roster to bring in a vet or two for the MLE (Maggette) and see if we pluck a gem or two from our later draft picks.

Craw/[Pete Myers clone]
Maggette/Hassell
Garnett/Pippen
Fizer/Marshall/Baxter
Curry/[Bill Wennington clone]

That's a championship lineup.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

Man, do people ever undervalue our talent... there is a reason people have us pegged as being an up-and-coming dominant team.

Why do you think people are all of the sudden interested in trading for our players?

STAND PAT PAX... Stand Pat!


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I would only trade for KG if it meant not trading Crawford, Curry or Chandler. Rose, J-Will, Fizer, the pick (especially if it's #7-#10) and whatever else is needed to get it done. Of course, KG would have to agree to a SUBSTANTIAL pay cut or fuggedaboutit!

The poster who pointed out about the expansion draft next summer has a legit point. We really don't want too much talent on this team as we would be ripe for the pickings by the Charlotte franchise. Although, it theory, we could protect 10 players - just keep Rose and E-Rob exposed. If Charlotte wanted either of those players/contracts - more power to em! The 8 you would protect would be Curry, Chandler, Crawford, J-Will, Fizer, Mason, current lotto pick and either Baxter or this years top second round pick. That's 10 players essentially covered.

The Bulls are one of the few teams that could give the T-Wolves even some semblance of equivalent value for KG. The problem the Wolves have is a lack of leverage. They're also going to have to take on some large contracts in order to move KG. It may be wiser for them to wait until next off-season and work a sign-and-trade with whatever club(s) Garnett would hope to go to. I doubt there will be any team next year far enough under the salary cap to just sign KG outright. And if there is, is he gonna want to play there?

Garnett is an intriguing possibility but I don't particularly want him here if it is going to cost us too much in talent and also limit what this team can do as far as the salary cap is concerned.

Edit: Oops! I forgot about Donyell Marshall in the list of players to protect. Just put him in there and pull out Baxter or this years top second round pick!


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> Man, do people ever undervalue our talent... there is a reason people have us pegged as being an up-and-coming dominant team.
> 
> Why do you think people are all of the sudden interested in trading for our players?
> ...


Yes STAND PAT PAX please dont trade away a sure championship team in a couple of years for a one and out playoff team if we trade all of our talent for one player!


----------



## DaBigTicketKG21 (Apr 27, 2003)

KG could help Eddy Curry develop. He could become the most dominant Center other than Shaq. Marcus Fizer could also be taught a few lessons and he is already a decent PF with a lot of Power. This Bulls team could rip its way into the Finals with no problem. Look at what KG did to the Lakers this year. He could dominate every single game like that in teh East.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBigTicketKG21</b>!
> KG could help Eddy Curry develop. He could become the most dominant Center other than Shaq. Marcus Fizer could also be taught a few lessons and he is already a decent PF with a lot of Power. This Bulls team could rip its way into the Finals with no problem. Look at what KG did to the Lakers this year. He could dominate every single game like that in teh East.


What did he do to the Lakers???
SUre he played well but hardly like Tim Duncan did against them.


----------



## Siouxperior (Jan 15, 2003)

Wow! you guys totally overvalue Tyson Chandler!!!!!

He's good, but IMHO... He'll NEVER be anywhere near as good as KG!

To not want to give him up to land KG is just dumb imo.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> To not want to give him up to land KG is just dumb imo.


True dat- much as I love Tyson, he is not in the same stratosphere as KG talent-wise.

Here's what I like about this trade- a frontcourt of KG and Eddy Curry has the potential not only to be the greatest in the game, but one of the greatest *ever*! Seriously, how many frontcourts in the history of the game have had two players like that? Not a whole lot. (Off the top of my head, the only one I can think of is Kareem/Worthy)

Also, I really don't think that this trade would deplete our team as bad as some think. Jamal Crawford, IMO, is on his way to becoming a special player- mark my words. We'd still have Fizer and Donyell, plus whoever else we sign to the MLE. Either way, KG's supporting cast here will be far superior to the one he had in Minny. Wally is, IMO, the game's most overrated player (he completely dissapeared in the playoffs). Hudson is alright, but not exactly a true pg- and is there anyone that doesn't anyone believe that Jamal will be a better player within a year or two?


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Hudson is alright, but not exactly a true pg- and is there anyone that doesn't anyone believe that Jamal will be a better player within a year or two?


a year or 2? I think that Jamal is a better player right now. During the last couple months of the season he made his opponents look silly.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> a year or 2? I think that Jamal is a better player right now. During the last couple months of the season he made his opponents look silly.


Well, Hudson did drop 38 on the defending champs in the playoffs- gotta give him some cred for that.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Well, Hudson did drop 38 on the defending champs in the playoffs- gotta give him some cred for that.


yeah but fisher was guarding him. ill take jamal any day


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> yeah but fisher was guarding him. ill take jamal any day


Oh, I'd take Jamal in a second too, don't get me wrong. Just pointing out that Troy ain't exaclty a scrub himself.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Oh, I'd take Jamal in a second too, don't get me wrong. Just pointing out that Troy ain't exaclty a scrub himself.


Troy isnt a scrub but is not as good as Jay and Jamal.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> Also, I really don't think that this trade would deplete our team as bad as some think.


Well, including our draft pick, we lose 5 of our top 9 players. 2 of our 4 best long-term prospects. Hard to get much more depleted than that.


----------



## ballocks (May 15, 2003)

coming from another team's board, i think that the proposed trade (or any variation thereof) is very difficult to swallow. i think the bulls have been stocking themselves expertly through the draft and would do well to see what the current roster could do.

i think jalen, tyson, williams and, in all likelihood, another elite draft pick would fare better than one kevin garnett. don't get me wrong, it's exciting to acquire such a fantastic talent but depth is such an underrated asset in the nba. given time to mature together, i would totally prefer the current group to any garnett-led bunch.

if you put all your eggs in one basket (i.e. garnett), you expose yourself naked to injury. and even so, are the bulls any closer to another championship with a healthy garnett? i dunno, it's questionable. 

(imo)

peace


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

The Bulls would be insane NOT to do this deal. It would immediately make them the best team in the EC. Minnesota won 51 games this year in the WC - worth about 55 wins in the EC. The #1 seed in the EC won just 50 games. I don't see why Garnett/Crawford/Curry (plus a MLE FA) isn't just as good as Garnett/Wally/Rasho/Hudson - and this year's T'Wolves would have won the EC. Garnett's not old, he NEVER gets injured, he's one of the top 5-6 players in the NBA. With the EC being as weak as a conference has ever been (and it'll get worse when NO leaves) the Bulls could win the EC starting next season for years to come. While that Bulls team probably won't be good enough to beat the West's Big 4 right away, in 3-4 years with tons of playoff experience and more wear and tear on 30+ year old elite WC players like Webber, Nash, Finley, and Shaq the Bulls could easily win a title.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ballocks</b>!
> coming from another team's board, i think that the proposed trade (or any variation thereof) is very difficult to swallow. i think the bulls have been stocking themselves expertly through the draft and would do well to see what the current roster could do.
> 
> i think jalen, tyson, williams and, in all likelihood, another elite draft pick would fare better than one kevin garnett. don't get me wrong, it's exciting to acquire such a fantastic talent but depth is such an underrated asset in the nba. given time to mature together, i would totally prefer the current group to any garnett-led bunch.
> ...


I agree with you, we have depth and as good as KG is he canot make up for loss of depth, We have a good young group of players and if given just alittle more time can become an elite team not just in the ec but in the entire NBA! Why become the Wolves of the east when we can become the NEw Chicago Dynasty of old?


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

How about this twist.............

If we received KG and their 1st rd. pick - #26 (might net you a Carlos Delfino, Zarko Cabarkapa, Aleksander Pavlovic, or someone else who can fill a hole in terms of depth.)

That would make it more palatable for me. Hell, anyone after pick three is a craphsoot anyways............


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Well, including our draft pick, we lose 5 of our top 9 players. 2 of our 4 best long-term prospects. Hard to get much more depleted than that.


Yeah but my point was that we are still left with a very talented team, and get to keep our two *best* long-term projects.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Yeah but my point was that we are still left with a very talented team, and get to keep our two *best* long-term projects.


Make no mistake - our 2 best projects are Chandler and Curry. 

Shoot, the Wolves probably prefer JWill to Craw. Part of this would be due to marketing, but also indicates the gap is pretty narrow between the 2 players.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RangerC</b>!
> The Bulls would be insane NOT to do this deal. It would immediately make them the best team in the EC. ... While that Bulls team probably won't be good enough to beat the West's Big 4 right away, in 3-4 years with tons of playoff experience and more wear and tear on 30+ year old elite WC players like Webber, Nash, Finley, and Shaq the Bulls could easily win a title.


In my opinion, this is the exact reason why the Bulls should _not_ do this deal.

Best team in the EC is nice, don't get me wrong. Especially after 5 years of dreck that we as fans have had to endure.

However, after enduring this rebuilding process, I want nothing less than an NBA championship, preferably more than one. I question whether a Bulls team taht has been gutted to acquire KG would accomplish that. Of the players you mentioned, in 3 years Webber will be 33, Nash 32, Finley 33, and Shaq 34-- hardly over the hill (although Shaq's physical condition might make him so prematurely.) And let's not forget some other Western Conference players like Nowitzki (who in 3 years will be 27), Bryant (27), Duncan (29), Yao (25), Francis (29), etc.


----------



## RetroDreams (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> In my opinion, this is the exact reason why the Bulls should _not_ do this deal.
> 
> ...


They wouldn't, and exactly why Pax should STAND PAT.

KG is good, but he isn't championship good...


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RetroDreams</b>!
> KG is good, but he isn't championship good...


Oh, I don't know about that. KG is the best overall player in the league, in my opinion, and I don't blame him for Minnesota's lack of advancement in the playoffs any more than I blamed Michael Jordan for the Bulls inability to advance in the mid-80's.

But it's clear that no one player can lead or "will" his team to an NBA championship like the media would have us believe. And if that's what you meant, then I agree.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Agreed, KG needs a low post back to the basket post player and a dynamic backcourt scorer to compliment his skills. Well guess what we have both in Crawford and Curry. That trio would compliment each other perfectly. Sign a couple quality veterans in free agency to go along with those 3 and Marshall and Fizer and this team would be set to really do some great things.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Agreed, KG needs a low post back to the basket post player and a dynamic backcourt scorer to compliment his skills. Well guess what we have both in Crawford and Curry. That trio would compliment each other perfectly. Sign a couple quality veterans in free agency to go along with those 3 and Marshall and Fizer and this team would be set to really do some great things.


Yeah, and then the second unit of Bruson, Hoiberg, Hassell, Blount, and Bagaric comes in.

The Bulls are, and would be after a KG trade, over the cap. They have the MLE. Other than that, how do you propose to "sign a couple quality veterand in free agency"???

It has been pointed out several times in the thread already that the proposed deal for KG leaves the Bulls with absolutely no depth, and unless I missed it, you have not addressed that issue.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Ok fair enough I will address it. I dont think the depth will be as bad as most think. Here my out on this. Sign Lucious Harris with the MLE and Kevin Ollie with vet minimum along with bringing back Hoiberg and Blount. Use two secound round picks on Dahntay Jones and Kyle Korver.



Crawford,Ollie,Mason Jr
Harris,Hassell,Hoiberg
Marshall,Jones,Korver
Garnett,Fizer,Baxter
Curry,Blount,Bagaric


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> Ok fair enough I will address it. I dont think the depth will be as bad as most think. Here my out on this. Sign Lucious Harris with the MLE and Kevin Ollie with vet minimum along with bringing back Hoiberg and Blount. Use two secound round picks on Dahntay Jones and Kyle Korver.
> 
> Crawford,Ollie,Mason Jr
> ...


I thought Fizer was in the KG deal?

So our second unit is Kevin Ollie, Trenton Hassell, Dantay Jones, Lonny Baxter, and Corie Blount.

I rest my case.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

The KG trade I was referring to was the Williams,Rose,Robinson,Chandler,1st rd pick for KG. Hence why I still have Fizer on the team. With KG playing 40+ minutes the second unit would really be Ollie,Hassell,KG,Fizer,Blount. I have no problem with that.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Reality is that unless you have Tim Floyd as a coach, the secon unit is only on the floor as a complete unit in blowouts.

I have no problem mixing in Ollie, Hassell, Baxt, Jones, Mason, Jr. for the time needed to rest another player or if that player is in foul trouble.

Remember, the more dominating we become as a team, the more respect (couch, cough....calls) will come our way.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>chifaninca</b>!
> Reality is that unless you have Tim Floyd as a coach, the secon unit is only on the floor as a complete unit in blowouts.
> 
> I have no problem mixing in Ollie, Hassell, Baxt, Jones, Mason, Jr. for the time needed to rest another player or if that player is in foul trouble.
> ...


Oh god Ollie hassel baxt mason on the same court who the hell would score?!!! iam sorry but if trading for KG means having to play a pathethic second unit build to blow leads and not score at all then iam all for not trading for him. i mean common we have a team now that will compete why destroy it again?


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

As I explained Fizer would be on the bench along with Ollie,Hassell, and Blount. KG would get the minutes at backup SF since he would play 40+ minutes. Mason Jr, Baxter would still be 11/12 men as they should be.



PG Crawford
SG Harris
SF/PF Marshall
PF/SF/CGarnett
C Curry

6-9: PF Fizer, PG Ollie, SG/SF Hassell,C Blount

10/11/12: PF Baxter, PG/SG Mason Jr, SF/SG Jones(2nd rd pick)

IR: C Bagaric, SG/SF Hoiberg, SF Korver(2nd rd pick)


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Biz,

You missed the point. You never have all of the in at the same time.

You rest Curry for a few minuites with Blount playing with Garnett, Crawford, etc....


You don't have the entire second unit, or even the majority of the second unit on the floor without Garnett or Crawford on the floor to take shots and drvie the offense. 

How many minutes do you want to give Back-Ups?

I want the starters to be playing 30-38 minutes a game. That doesn't leave a lot of time for back-ups. 

You need depth for injuries, hold leads, fould trouble......OK, I know the Bulls have problems with all three....


The arguments can be made both ways.....Tough decision for a rookie GM.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>basghetti80</b>!
> PG Crawford
> SG Harris
> SF/PF Marshall
> ...


You keep explaining but having Lucious Harris, Ollie and Hassel in the regular backcourt rotation would mean that we have the worst backcourt in the league. :sour: That's even if Craw reached All-STAR level which is no guarentee.

Selecting a player rather than just saying the #7 pick helps show how many bodies we are trading away.

eRob aside, it's basically saying that Garnett is so much more effective player than Chandler that we are willing to throw

Jalen Rose
Jay Williams
Wade or Pietras or Turk or Rad-man

into the deal. 

That's going to hurt your depth. Now Curry and Crawford are not ready to win a championship so depth next next is not the most critical part of the equations. 

But you have to ask, how many MLE guys will we be able to sign with the payroll after adding KG? And how many of those MLE and middle to lower round draft picks are going to be productive.

Seems like the bench could be darn slim for a long time.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> I thought Fizer was in the KG deal?
> 
> ...


From what I've heard, it's Chandler, Rose, JWill, ERob, pick.

That leaves us with either Fizer or Marshall leading the bench brigade, plus our MLE if we wanted to spend it.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> From what I've heard, it's Chandler, Rose, JWill, ERob, pick.
> ...


The MLE would need be used to fill the SG slot unless you consider Hassel to be an adaquate starter.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> From what I've heard, it's Chandler, Rose, JWill, ERob, pick.
> 
> That leaves us with either Fizer or Marshall leading the bench brigade, plus our MLE if we wanted to spend it.


Yes, I stand corrected.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> Oh, I don't know about that. KG is the best overall player in the league, in my opinion, and I don't blame him for Minnesota's lack of advancement in the playoffs any more than I blamed Michael Jordan for the Bulls inability to advance in the mid-80's.
> 
> But it's clear that no one player can lead or "will" his team to an NBA championship like the media would have us believe.


Thank you Kneepad.

Curious though, Kneepad... which way would you be leaning if the supposed deal went through (Rose, E-Rob, Jay, Chandler, pick) for KG? I'm also assuming KG would be re-signed and nowhere near the 29M per or gaudy number he could be eligable for. Let's say 18-20M per for 5+ years.




VD


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Make no mistake - our 2 best projects are Chandler and Curry.


Chandler is valuable because of his size, but JC is gonna be a much better pro than him, IMO.



> Originally posted by basghetti80!
> Agreed, KG needs a low post back to the basket post player and a dynamic backcourt scorer to compliment his skills. Well guess what we have both in Crawford and Curry. That trio would compliment each other perfectly. Sign a couple quality veterans in free agency to go along with those 3 and Marshall and Fizer and this team would be set to really do some great things.


Basghetti, you just hit it on the head.:clap: This deal would be especially good if we got to keep our pick and draft someone like Pietrus or Diaw. Chandler, Jay, and Jalen is quite alot to give for a player with one year left on his deal as it is- maybe Pax can negotiate his way into making the deal without sacrificing our pick. If not though, I'd still do it. We got another first rounder coming next year anyway.


----------



## Half-Life (Jan 1, 2003)

Does the Bulls organization not realize that Chandler and Curry complement each other?? Trading away one of them means that they will suffer for a period of time before really breaking out. How would Curry feel with a Superstar like Garnett around him?? 

Anyways, let's look at the team that TWolves at right now

C-Nesterovic
Pf- Garnett
Sf- Gill
Sg- Szczerbiak
Pg- Hudson

If he goes to the Bulls, then it's like this:

C- Curry
Pf- Garnett
Sf- Robinson
Sg- Hassel
Pg- JCraw

Curry and Crawford are already improving day by day and can help KG get past the first round...in my opinion this Bulls team with Fizer and Marshall coming off the bench is pretty dangerous. A lot more dangerous than the Wolves team that KG is on right now.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*salary shmalary*

Per my estimation, the Bulls will owe 95-100M to these four players over the life of their contracts:

Jay 3yrs/ 12M+
Tyson 2yrs/ 8M
ERob 4yrs/ 20M
Jalen 4yrs/ 55M

(These figures are estimations and are actually a bit lower than the probable summation of salaries. I didn't have time to break down each year by year, but instead averaged the per year salary and subtracted accordingly. As we know, most NBA salaries increase over the life of the contract)

So that's 100M the Bulls owe to 4 players. And we're not even counting re-signing Tyson and/or Jay. E-Rob and Jalen represent the two worst contracts on the Bulls right now. so the larger point here is that maybe fiscally this deal doesn't kill the Bulls after all. We might be in <i>WORSE</i> shape if we keep all our horses together, add a pick, and try to lock up Jamal, Eddy, Tyson and don't move E-Rob/Jalen before '06.






VD


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> Curious though, Kneepad... which way would you be leaning if the supposed deal went through (Rose, E-Rob, Jay, Chandler, pick) for KG? I'm also assuming KG would be re-signed and nowhere near the 29M per or gaudy number he could be eligable for. Let's say 18-20M per for 5+ years.


You mean would I approve of the deal? I'm not sure. I'm still on the fence.

On the plus side for me, there's:

We get KG
We get rid of Rose and his contract
We get rid of ERob and his contract

On the minus side:

We lose Chandler
We lose Williams
We lose our pick (which I think could have more value than some here think even if it's as low as #7)
We have no SF's on the roster (KG is a PF, I don't care what he or anyone else thinks)
We lose a great deal of depth

On the whole, though, I guess I would have to say I'm leaning more in favor of the deal than against under the conditions you laid out.

[Added later] I have to add, though, that I don't think there's any way in hell Minny goes for this deal-- unles McHale is an even bigger idiot than I thought!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Louie</b>!
> 
> Chandler is valuable because of his size, but JC is gonna be a much better pro than him, IMO.


Reading the end of the year reviews on the Bulls site, I don't think Bill Cartwright agrees with you. 

Cartwright indicated that Chandler's goal should be to be the best forward in the East in 3 years time.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Think about the flip side*



> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> Per my estimation, the Bulls will owe 95-100M to these four players over the life of their contracts:
> 
> Jay 3yrs/ 12M+
> ...


Rose would have to be part of any deal. eRob doesn't though.

Do the math on the Wolves payroll if they did the trade with eRob and Rose...

They would have a $60M payroll for quite some time with Rose, Wally, eRob, Marc Jackson, and Joe Smith all pulling in big bucks for years. 

If we don't include eRob, we have to include Chandler + Fizer or Chandler + Marshall by my calculations. That thin bench just got thinner. The current deal seems like a Sam Smith fantasy to me.


----------



## robyg1974 (Jul 19, 2002)

Unbelievable that a single Bulls fan considers anybody besides Curry untouchable. Trade any non-Curry player for KG, and you have a team that IMMEDIATELY contends for a spot in the NBA Finals in the terrible Eastern Conference. KG, Curry, either Williams or Crawford, and junk--that team wins around 50 ballgames and competes with New Jersey and Detroit NEXT SEASON for a spot in the NBA Finals.

Unbelievable that anybody thinks that a KG trade that does not include Curry is a bad idea. Honestly, guys, what is the problem? What are some of you guys THINKING? How can a fan of a 30-win team be opposed to trading for The Great Kevin Garnett? This is not rocket science, fellas!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>robyg1974</b>!
> Unbelievable that anybody thinks that a KG trade that does not include Curry is a bad idea. Honestly, guys, what is the problem? What are some of you guys THINKING? How can a fan of a 30-win team be opposed to trading for The Great Kevin Garnett? This is not rocket science, fellas!


For one, KG is a FA next summer. And he said that he would never play for the Bulls. It would kinda suck for him to leave after one year. 

For two, his huge salary would cause some owners to be conservative in giving out MLE offers. 

For three, the less we give up, the better the chances to win some of those championships.

So it's not quite the no-brainer that you seem to feel that it is.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> For one, KG is a FA next summer. And he said that he would never play for the Bulls. It would kinda suck for him to leave after one year.


Come on, johnston, this sounds like a Moronotti style argument. This hardly reflects the reality of the situation.

Obviously trading for KG would be conditional on him signing a long term deal first. Also, when he said he'd never sign with the Bulls, he specifically cited Krause as the reason why he wouldn't. And those comments probably needed to be taken with a grain of salt anyway, since being in Chicago was not a very realistic option when he said that. At this point, I can hardly see him protesting a trade to a rejuvenated franchise (minus Krause) in his hometown.


----------



## FSH (Aug 3, 2002)

That is what i am afraid of us gettin KG and then when he is a FA him not signing with us..Him leave us and what do we get from that deal 2 years from now..Not a dam thing and the Twovles get a star in Chandler,Rose and a draft pick that can turn in to a star..That is the only reason i am saying lets not get KG just because he is a FA after the year and he probly wont resign with the bulls..


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> Come on, johnston, this sounds like a Moronotti style argument. This hardly reflects the reality of the situation.
> 
> Obviously trading for KG would be conditional on him signing a long term deal first. Also, when he said he'd never sign with the Bulls, he specifically cited Krause as the reason why he wouldn't. And those comments probably needed to be taken with a grain of salt anyway, since being in Chicago was not a very realistic option when he said that. At this point, I can hardly see him protesting a trade to a rejuvenated franchise (minus Krause) in his hometown.


No, I am trying to avoid the simplistic thinking that I see on this board.

First, the Wolves have to decide that they can't win with one of the four best ballers on the planet - a guy that's only 26. 

Second, the Wolves are ok with remaining in lux tax land and keeping Wally, Marc Jackson, and Joe Smith on the roster with long-term contracts.

Third, our offer has to be the best that they receive. (Would the Kings give up Bibby, Peja and Keon? Would the Mavs give up Nash, Finley and LaFrenze)

Fourth, KG would have to agree to an extension where he takes a paycut to go play with Crawford and Curry. I'm not sure this is as compelling for KG as it is for some Bulls fans.


----------



## ChiBullsFan (May 30, 2002)

> No, I am trying to avoid the simplistic thinking that I see on this board.
> 
> First, the Wolves have to decide that they can't win with one of the four best ballers on the planet - a guy that's only 26.


They seem to have pretty much decided this. Or at least they are seriously entertaining offers which should tell you they don't feel they can win with JUST him.



> Third, our offer has to be the best that they receive. (Would the Kings give up Bibby, Peja and Keon? Would the Mavs give up Nash, Finley and LaFrenze)


Ours will be the ONLY reasonable deal they could receive. No top team is gonna make a crazy move, so count out the Mavs and Kings. Mavs may be crazy enough, they just can't supply the young talent it would take to trade KG.

If the Wolves decide to trade KG, it's gonna be with the intention of REBUILDING, not reloading. That means they almost definitely want a lottery pick and a few young studs. They'd also have to trade to a team that KG will agree to sign a long term deal with before the trigger is pulled.



> Fourth, KG would have to agree to an extension where he takes a paycut to go play with Crawford and Curry. I'm not sure this is as compelling for KG as it is for some Bulls fans.


KG doesn't feel like he has the surrounding talent in Minnesota. I think he'd be hard pressed to think that JC, Curry, Fizer, Marshall and draft pick/JWill/Chandler wasn't a good enough supporting cast. Clearly much better than Wally and Troy Hudson.


Hey, johnston, I'm on your side for the most part with this argument, I just don't agree with your reasons. They are a bit flimsy ... Bottom line is, if the trade wasn't feasible it wouldn't be discussed. But it is. I'm not saying it will happen or that I necessarily want it to, but Chicago is the ONLY logical place for KG to end up if Minnesota decides to go in another direction.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> First, the Wolves have to decide that they can't win with one of the four best ballers on the planet - a guy that's only 26.


That's not the issue. Its the TWolves realizing that KG is not going to resign with them or that he is going to demand a sign and trade that will make this go down... and given the circumstances of the TWolves... I think KG is going to do this.



> Second, the Wolves are ok with remaining in lux tax land and keeping Wally, Marc Jackson, and Joe Smith on the roster with long-term contracts.


That's true... but what is their other option on this front? You either have to trade KG or resign him for lotsa $$$. How do they avoid the tax?



> Third, our offer has to be the best that they receive. (Would the Kings give up Bibby, Peja and Keon? Would the Mavs give up Nash, Finley and LaFrenze)


I don't think that either of these trades would happen... and I think that our offer (incuding chandler) would be more tempting for the Wolves. Big men are rare... and clark and lafrenze have proven to be average. 



> Fourth, KG would have to agree to an extension where he takes a paycut to go play with Crawford and Curry. I'm not sure this is as compelling for KG as it is for some Bulls fans.


This is the main reason why the deal would not happen. I have to agree with you here. I can't see why KG would choose the Bulls, as promising as Crawford and Curry look.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBullsFan</b>!
> If the Wolves decide to trade KG, it's gonna be with the intention of REBUILDING, not reloading. That means they almost definitely want a lottery pick and a few young studs. They'd also have to trade to a team that KG will agree to sign a long term deal with before the trigger is pulled.


Strange that a team would go into rebuilding project when they don't have a first round draft pick over the next 2 years and remain in lux tax land. Not sure I buy it.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Looking at why the Wolves are willing to consider this, you have to realize that the problem there is not just the fact that Kevin Garnett "makes too much money", but the fact that they've got a lot of money tied up in players who are either not worth it (Wally world, Joe Smith, Marc Jackson, Anthony Peeler) or have suffered career ending injuries (Terrell Brandon is counting $11M against the cap!). And then there's Malik Sealy who died 

If they done a better job of putting players around him and not had the bad luck of losing Sealy and Brandon they might be better.

And then you have to consider they lost like 5 first round picks due to the Joe Smith fiasco.

I don't think they'd be winning any championships, but they'd definitely be better if they hadn't completely botched the team they put around KG.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

<b>WHY WOULD MINNY DO IT?</b> Hmmm...
(in descending order)

1) Jay and Tyson: Jay will do just fine in the West and Tyson could be an All-Star in a couple seasons. We're talking about two #2 overall picks from the past two seasons, not bad

2) Jalen Rose: servicable paper All-Star, not unlike Wally World of course but better at creating his own shot

3) More money to re-sign Rasho

4) Draft pick (haven't had a high pick in years)

Still, this is a puzzling deal for Minny. Jay and Tyson are young studs and should keep the ticket office buzzing. Jalen will be owed 4yrs/55M, Wally 6yrs/60M, E-Rob if included 4yr/20M not to mention the contracts of Jackson, Peeler and Smith. They would have to be waaayyy high on Jay/Tyson to even agree to this trade in principle. 

Thoughts??!


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

Sorry to switch gears, and I apologize if this has already been brought up, but one of the biggest concerns is a lack of depth after a trade.

If our pick next year is 21 or worse, we lose it to Houston. With KG on board, that's possible, so he very well could end up costing us 2 first rounders.

I'm still undecided, but I wanted to point that out.


----------



## RangerC (Sep 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> In my opinion, this is the exact reason why the Bulls should _not_ do this deal.
> 
> ...


I don't see how the Bulls have been 'gutted'. Rose will be 35 (at least) by the time the current team is ready to contend, so might as well dump him. Williams and Crawford are overlapping pieces - fairly pointless to keep both. Robinson is worthless. The #7 pick might not be terribly valuable in a draft with so little proven talent. Chandler is a tough loss, but he's being replaced by a 26 year old who finished 2nd in the MVP voting. I think that Curry/Crawford/Garnett is a strong enough trio to win it all in 3-4 years with the right roleplayers (and if the Bulls win the EC, they'll get their pick of MLE FA in the years to come). On the other hand, I'm anything but convinced that Curry/Chandler/Rose/Crawford/Williams will EVER be the kind of team that can win a title. 

Look at what happened to Sacramento this season. They had all the depth in the world, but when their superstar went down, they couldn't beat a team they had historically dominated. The MOST important thing in the NBA is to have a superstar player. Depth is a great thing to surround your superstar with, bur it won't win you a championship by itself. If you have a chance to acquire a 26 year old superstar player, you do it by any means necessary.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Hmmm, that's a pretty good point. I don't think anyone has brought that up. Still though, I don't think it should affect our thinking that much. The chances are the player we pick won't make much of an impact anyway.

As to what Vin said: I'm not sure if Minny would be completely willing to do a deal with us, but they really are stuck in a bind, and they don't seem to have any good options. I think it's pretty obvious that the team they have right now isn't going to win any championships anytime soon, and they can't get a whole lot better since they don't have any draft picks or cap space. 

So I guess they have three options: They can either try and resign KG when his contract is up and continue the path they're on, and hope they can add enough quality players with their exceptions to put them over the hump (unrealistic, IMO) or they can let him walk for nothing, or trade him. 

Letting him walk for nothing would put them in a worse situation than they're in now, since they would still have cap problems, would be a terrible team, and still have no draft picks. Not to mention the PR disaster.

So the last straw is to trade him, and if you look around the league, their aren't a whole lot of suitors. KG's enormous salary makes trading him extremely difficult since most teams either a.) have too many players on their rookie contracts to come up with a matching salary (Clippers) or b.) would have to include veterans with bloated contracts, in which case, Minnesota would probably be better off just keeping KG. 

A couple of days ago I was looking through team's salaries, and I was surprised, Chicago may very well be the only team in the NBA with the right mix of young talent and veteran players to put together a reasonable package for KG. So basically, if Minnesota is going to get in bed, it's going to be with us. Making a deal with us may not be a great option for Minnesota, but it may be their only one.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rosenthall</b>!
> 
> A couple of days ago I was looking through team's salaries, and I was surprised, Chicago may very well be the only team in the NBA with the right mix of young talent and veteran players to put together a reasonable package for KG. So basically, if Minnesota is going to get in bed, it's going to be with us. Making a deal with us may not be a great option for Minnesota, but it may be their only one.


I can't say that I agree:

Dallas could offer Finley, Van Excel & LaFrenze, throw in a soon to expire contract like Avery Johnson and take back KG and a bad contract like Joe Smith.

KG, Nash and Dirk - nice!

Kings could offer Bibby, Peja, Keon Clark, Turk or Wallace, throw in a soon to expire contract like Funderburk and take back KG and a bad contract like Joe Smith.

KG, Webber, Vlade, Christy and BJackson - very nice!

Blazers could make a deal at mid-season if they sign Pip to a 1 year contract. The deal could be Bonzi, Randolf, Pip, Woods, and stuff and also take back a bad contract or two.

KG, Wallace, Anderson, and leftovers - better than what they have now!


----------



## MadFace (Jul 12, 2002)

*yeah I am Biased But*

I want to see teams in the EAST get better ( even Da Bulls) not dallas sac-town or The jailblazers


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I can't say that I agree:
> ...


Okay, you bring up very good points. 

I'll admit that those options are in the realm of possibility, and I had not considered them, however, I think the chances of these trades happening are very slim. 

If Minnesota makes either of those first two trades, their lineups are:

Pg: Van Exel/Hudson
Sg: Finley/Peeler
Sf: Wally
Pf: LaFrentz
C: Rasho/MJax

or 

Pg: Bibby
Sg: Wally
Sf: Turk/Wallace
Pf: Clark
Pf: Rasho

Both lineups are pretty good, but I doubt that either could compete out west, and they would leave Minnesota in the same position they were in before......a mediocre team that does not have the cap room or draft picks to get better. And in either case, they'd probably be better off just keeping KG. Also, considering the situation of both teams, I think both would be very hesitant to gut their roster when both are championship contenders, and should be for the next 3-4 years if they keep their roster intact.

Regarding Portland, I don't think that offer would cut it. The only real blue chip player in the whole deal is Zach Randolph. Qyntel Woods is a 21st pick who has done nothing, Bonzi has a reputation as a malcontent, and Scottie Pippen, at this point, is what he is.......decent. I don't think it would be enough to get Garnett. Although I do think that Minnesota would have to think about a Rasheed/Bonzi/Randolph deal. That's a lot of bad attitude, but a hell of a lot of talent. 

Regardless, I still think Chicago is the most feasible destination for KG if Minnesota is seriously considering trading him.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

I keep coming back to the Question why o why would Minny trade Garnett

If its all about bucks and how he hamstrings them all they are doing in is taking back equivalent contractual value which is instrinsically worse as they run longer 

If they do trade him and purely for their own best interests ( and not necessarily KG's ) they should deal him with Joe Smith to Denver for Lebron ( if Denver got the #1 pick ) and Marcus Camby who will give them ( Minny ) further salary cap flexibility 

When Brandon is off the books and they start getting their draft picks back - with all that cap room they are back in business .

Starting over and rebuilding but back in business nonetheless

If they can't swing Lebron from a team with room to absorb the salary diffs they are best advised just to lety him walk next summer.. and start again


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

*Sporting News Guy says Garnett trade is a hoax*

Been looking for a thread to mention this, and this looks as on-topic as any - Sean Devaney of the Sporting News says a few interesting things in his Mailbag column today, including in effect that this Garnett trade scenario is a hoax perpetrated by Sam to sell columns and Minny to drive down Garnett's next contract. He says he'll get into it more at a later date, so he implies he has some good details. 

He also says the following about Sammy:

Sam Smith writes a very entertaining column every Monday in the Tribune where he finds a deal that makes sense for the Bulls, and explores it. He always makes it clear, though, that what he is writing is fiction. Unfortunately, word spreads, and next thing you know, everyone is talking about a Bulls deal as reality. 

Pretty close to reality! :yes:


----------

