# Is there any way we can go get Gasol for Deng?



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Man, I'm bummed.

Our crazy string of luck ran our last night. It could only go on for so long though.

Now that Oden isn't coming to save our big man woes, is there any way we can go back to the Griz, hat in hand, and get a Gasol for Deng deal done?

Since its obvious we're a "win later" team, the best move, IMO, is to somehow trade Deng for Gasol and draft Julian Wright. Resign Nocioni if healthy to be the starting 3 next season. What the heck, its not like this team is going to win the title next year.

3 years from how Hinrich/Gordon/Thabo/Wright/Thomas/Gasol is a decent core. Better than some stiff center drafted based purely out of need.

Is there anyway a Gasol trade can be done at this point?


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

http://www.basketballforum.com/chicago-bulls/359764-dont-fall-love-deng.html


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Also, if you call not making good on a a less than 5% chance of getting a top-2 pick the end of an era of luck, ok. I'd beg to differ.

A friend mentioned that had Eddy Curry not tipped in that one last shot against the Bobcats, we'd have been in Portland's shoes. And that's where we'd have been today.

But you can say that for a host of last-minute buckets at various stages of the season, and you could point to that every single season. I might also say that our luck officially ran out when we failed to put the Nets away in Game 82, but I wouldn't call that luck. The truth is that every single game has that potential impact.

I digress. I actually feel somewhat lucky that we managed to keep the #9 pick and didn't get leapfrogged by the five teams below us who had to have at least a combined 10% chance of shifting our pick down. If you look at it that way, I think we got lucky by keeping the #9 spot locked up.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Yah, yah, yah, its clear that trading Deng for Gasol is the right move, but is it possible at this point?

How would the trade be constructed, CBA wise?


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Man, I'm bummed.
> 
> Our crazy string of luck ran our last night. It could only go on for so long though.
> 
> ...


Short answer is no. Gasol will remain the Grizz franchise player and probably ain't going anywhere.

I'm not sure that the Bulls are either a win-now or win-later team. Unless something changes, they're a very good, not great, team that figures to stay that way for a while. In the East, they've got to get past the Pistons and the Cavs, with Toronto closing fast. The Bulls will get better, but unless they get lucky, they may ultimately fall short of a championship. It's all together possible that we're going to have to endure a period of consistently entertaining playoff teams that play into May, but not June.

Just going to have to ride with it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

The Bulls had been on a crazy string of luck? Not that I've seen.

And I'll pass on the Deng for Gasol trade, regardless of whether or not the deal could get done.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Just trade Ben Wallace if you want to trade that badly. Not DANG!!


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I disagree.

I see Gordon/Deng as our core duo. These are the guys that are going to remain on the team no matter what.

Ben Wallace, this is the guy you WANT to move. Big contract, not doing too much.

One trade we could do is

Bulls Trade: Ben Wallace, Chris Duhon Spurs Trade: Oberto, Horry, Barry, Butler.

With this trade, they get a better backup point guard, then bring back Finley for the main guard minutes. Then they bring in Scola to put in the rotation along with Wallace.

But anyhow...beyond the 2 core pieces, the 1 untradeable because he's so bad and has such an awful contract, we have lots of assets.

Kirk Hinrich, Thabo Sefolosha, Tyrus Thomas, #9 Pick, Andres Nocioni. These are assets. You build this team with these assets, whether it be through a trade, or keeping some of them to be Gordon/Deng's teammates....


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullybullz said:


> Just trade Ben Wallace if you want to trade that badly. Not DANG!!




That's not going to happen.

His contract is a millstone for a franchise, now that he's been exposed as a good but not great player.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

transplant said:


> I'm not sure that the Bulls are either a win-now or win-later team.


Yah, we're not "win now."

One would think we would have to be "win later" but you're right, we might not have enough to do it.

Entropy, sun fizzling, etc.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Even if Deng's salary matched Gasol's I would not make the trade without additional compensation from Memphis (e.g., their first round pick next year), because...

Deng is a better basketball player than Gasol.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

It wasn't Deng for Gasol. It was something more (maybe a lot more). So, if were talking about going "hat in hand" then it's got to be 

Deng + pick
Deng + Kirk
Deng + Ben
Deng+ Tyrus+Thabo
etc. etc.

Especially since we don't have an expiring contract. All of the above is way too much at this point. Maybe at the deadline it would have been different. Too late.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Forget letting Deng go. I'd bet that S&T Noch, Thabo and the pick could bring back Gasol, Tarence Kinsey (the official Tank MVP) and Alex Johnson (nice bench talent as well).

Hinrich/Duhon
Gordon/Kinsey
Deng/Kinsey
Tyrus/Alex Johnson
Gasol/MLE Big

We'd be very, VERY thin on the bench, but this might get the job done depending on who we could sign and pickup in the 2nd round.

Grizzlies:

Lowry/Atkins/Mighty Mouse?
Gay/Thabo
Miller/Noch
Warrick/Horford (their pick)
Wallace/Hawes (our pick)

Pretty balanced team, deep, veteran. Perhaps without a superstar, or perhaps just waiting to see who will BECOME the superstar.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> Forget letting Deng go. I'd bet that S&T Noch, Thabo and the pick could bring back Gasol, Tarence Kinsey (the official Tank MVP) and Alex Johnson (nice bench talent as well).


I'd bet not and I'd bet big.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Right now Deng is better than Pau. Why would we trade a young all star for a fading soft big man whose numbers are going down while Deng's are going up????

Deng will be an all star for many years to come. Pau will never see the all star game again. Pau is worth maybe the 9th pick and thabo but no more. West thinks he is better than KG but i dont.

david


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

West retires. Maybe the next GM there will want to clean house and start over with a certain kind of player.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

giusd said:


> Right now Deng is better than Pau. Why would we trade a young all star for a fading soft big man whose numbers are going down while Deng's are going up????
> 
> Deng will be an all star for many years to come. Pau will never see the all star game again. Pau is worth maybe the 9th pick and thabo but no more. West thinks he is better than KG but i dont.


The facts say otherwise.

Statistically, Gasol had his best year as a pro last year.

Deng is not yet "a young all star"-- he's never made an all star team to this point. (Gasol has, for what it's worth.)

Gasol is not "fading"-- he's 27 years old, arguably just entering in his prime.

Gasol could very easily make several all star games before he's through-- he plays on a crappy team which virtually kills his chances for making it. Put him in the Eastern Conference on a contending team, and he would be a virtual lock for the all star game.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

We should wait and see what Memphis is going to do. Maybe they blow the team up (meaning, Gasol gets traded).

We have a good lottery pick in a deep class plus other young talent. We have plenty of leverage. More so than some of the other lottery teams.

Gasol would be a nice addition, but not at the cost of Deng. I am not sure that's anything more than "spinning our wheels." Pick #9 + ????? for Gasol?

Maybe throw in next years 1st? #9 + '08 1st + S&T Nocioni + filler?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Man, I'm bummed.
> 
> <b>Our crazy string of luck</b> ran our last night. <b>It could only go on for so long though.</b>
> 
> ...


As usual. the parts that bugs me is in bold. From a fellow Bulls fan (although I did question even that).


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> As usual. the parts that bugs me is in bold. From a fellow Bulls fan (although I did question even that).



His schtick is well documented.

Best to take with a grain of salt.

Nothing we do is ever right; every win is flawed and makes him angry.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I think a trade of Deng, Duhon, Thabo, Griffin, Khryapa for Gasol is CBA compliant. $2.6+3.0+1.7+1.5+1.2M = $10M outgoing salary. Gasol's salary is $12.4M

The CBA rule is that salary gained in trade must be less that 125% + 100k of salary lost. $10M * 125% + 100k = $12.6M, so the trade works.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Kneepad said:


> The facts say otherwise.
> 
> Statistically, Gasol had his best year as a pro last year.
> 
> ...


Gasol is a very good player. So is Deng, but Deng is 5 years younger; and 5 years in the NBA is about 40% of a career.

Anyway the main problem with discussing trades for Gasol is matching his salary. Either Hinrich or Wallace have to be included in the deal, and I'm not sure that including Hinrich is possible either (BYC?). The Grizzlies would want an expiring contract, and the Bulls simply don't have one that is large enough anymore.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

MikeDC said:


> I think a trade of Deng, Duhon, Thabo, Griffin, Khryapa for Gasol is CBA compliant. $2.6+3.0+1.7+1.5+1.2M = $10M outgoing salary. Gasol's salary is $12.4M
> 
> The CBA rule is that salary gained in trade must be less that 125% + 100k of salary lost. $10M * 125% + 100k = $12.6M, so the trade works.


That trade is just HORRIBLE for the Bulls. Although if I do want to trade, I'll trade Ben Wallace, Duhon, Viktor Khryapa for Gasol and Brian Cardinal.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Gasol is a very good player. So is Deng, but Deng is 5 years younger; and 5 years in the NBA is about 40% of a career.
> 
> Anyway the main problem with discussing trades for Gasol is matching his salary. Either Hinrich or Wallace have to be included in the deal, and I'm not sure that including Hinrich is possible either (BYC?). The Grizzlies would want an expiring contract, and the Bulls simply don't have one that is large enough anymore.


See the post I just made. Should be possible without those guys.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bullybullz said:


> That trade is just HORRIBLE for the Bulls. Although if I do want to trade, I'll trade Ben Wallace, Duhon, Viktor Khryapa for Gasol and Brian Cardinal.


What's so awful about it. VK and Griffin didn't play, so we're basically talking about Deng, Thabo, and Duhon.

I like those guys, but we could very easily replace them:
1. Resign Noc
2. Draft a guy like Wright, Brewer, Green, Young
3. Sign a free agent like MoPete or Luke Walton, or maybe even take a run at Rashard Lewis (that'd probably have to be a sign and trade of some sort)

You end up with something like:
Bigs Wallace/Gasol/Thomas/Noc. 
Forwards Noc/MoPete/Draft pick 
Guards Hinrich/Gordon/MoPete

If we really feel the need, we can probably get another PG with our smaller exception too, but I'd like to see Gordon get some more run there.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

I wouldn't trade Deng for Gasol, 1-to-1, back then and I won't do this trade even in the future.

Deng for Gasol is the lateral movement at best.

When you start to add fillers to match the salary, then it is backward movement in my book. 

Now if there is a way to get Gasol without giving up Deng, then I am in. But we all know that that's not going to happen. So why bother talking about Deng for Gasol? Dream on, people. Paxon might still want Gasol but it will never be Deng for Gasol in any possible scenario. Never.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> See the post I just made. Should be possible without those guys.


You can't be serious about trading Deng, Duhon and Sefolosha (plus Griffin & Khryapa) for a guy who's not worth Deng alone. I just assumed you're trying to be provocative.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yah, yah, yah, its clear that trading Deng for Gasol is the right move



I disagree.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I think a trade like this is essential at this point.

We're likely not going to get the big man we clearly need in the draft.

I don't think our small-ball style is going to get the job done on offense in the playoffs.

I actually like our team slightly more from a "win now" perspective next year after MikeDC's proposed trade, and like it more going forward as well.

Having Gasol will open up the floor considerably so that Hinrich and Gordon have some more breathing room and teams like the Pistons can't completely shut down our game plan like they did in the playoffs.

Signing the best guard available (either backup PG or larger SG) with the MLE and going after Gasol is the way to go.

Hinrich
Mo Pete
Nocioni
Gasol
Wallace

Gordon / Wright / Tyrus

I like it. We need to get a serviceable backup PG though. Still though, I like that team.

With Gasol on this team, Gordon would be even more deadly, IMO.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I disagree.


I think you are wrong.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

McBulls said:


> You can't be serious about trading Deng, Duhon and Sefolosha (plus Griffin & Khryapa) for a guy who's not worth Deng alone. I just assumed you're trying to be provocative.


No, I'm not. I know you like Deng more and Gasol less than me, but it also boils down to Deng... and those other guys too... being replaceable with our other assets. Gasol, on the other hand, is not gettable with our other assets.

I dunno that he's gettable with this deal, but it seems fairly close, and perhaps a bit more favorable to the Deng, Brown, Thabo deal Memphis was reportedly willing to accept this past season.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I disagree.


West is going to retire. Why not see what the new GM wants?

We could offer the #9 pick, next years 1st, Nocioni (S&T) and filler for Gasol.

Memphis gets a 2nd 1st rounder this year, 2 1st rounders next year to build around Gay. We get the low post scoring option we need without "spinning our wheels" in a trade.

I don't know if Memphis would do it, but its worth a look.

----------

As far as Deng for Gasol, I am really torn on this. Gasol with Gordon and Hinrich would be great. If Tyrus can take the next step, it alleviates concern for me.

And we could, as MikeDC said, pick up a Julian Wright/Jeff Green to fill the need at SF...


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I think a trade of Deng, Duhon, Thabo, Griffin, Khryapa for Gasol is CBA compliant. $2.6+3.0+1.7+1.5+1.2M = $10M outgoing salary. Gasol's salary is $12.4M


five players for one (especially this one) is not a good deal, no matter how many minutes the last two guys get. i think the SF position, while possibly the easiest to fill, will take a step backward without deng. if the pick is kept, i'd imagine they'll draft a prospect, but it then sounds like a lateral move at best, possbily backward if chemistry is adversly affected.

and as previously stated, if west is leaving as GM, why not wait until draft day to see who wants the pick the most. i'm not a huge gasol fan, and i definitely don't think he's an upgrade WITHOUT keeping deng.

if he's added to the roster without losing core people, i'm cool with it; letting one of the team's leading scorers go for a midlevel suspect big who hasn't really done much but put up ok numbers on mediocre playoff teams to bad/unlucky lottery teams doesn't seem like a smart piece of GM'ing. i don't think pax'll do it.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

Vintage said:


> We could offer the #9 pick, next years 1st... for Gasol.


Can't do that... against the rules (unless we pickup up another first round pick in either year in another deal first).


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Kneepad said:


> Can't do that... against the rules (unless we pickup up another first round pick in either year in another deal first).


We select someone for Memphis, trade their rights plus next years 1st and filler....


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> I dunno that he's gettable with this deal, but it seems fairly close, and perhaps a bit more favorable to the Deng, Brown, Thabo deal Memphis was reportedly willing to accept this past season.


Here's the thing. I don't think we have any idea what the trade Memphis was willing to accept actually was, beyond that Deng was a component of it. The reports have been so widely varying that it's just impossible to know. The pro-trade people always cite the least expensive version of it while the anti-trade people cite the most expensive version. In a case like this, hindsight is far from 20/20.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, the deal I suggested could be done before or after the draft. Vintage's point is well taken, I think Memphis is going to have to figure out how they want to proceed.

I don't know whether getting screwed by the basketball gods made them more or less likely to trade Gasol. One school of thought is now that they aren't getting an obvious star, they need to hang on to him for purely marketing purposes if nothing else.

On the other hand, he doesn't appear particularly marketable to Memphis. Mabye they'd be better off to save several million bucks a year and try to start fresh. From that perspective our pick and/or Tyrus might make more sense for them than Deng, who's near an extension himself.


----------



## Swan (Jun 27, 2005)

I think Paxson is right to be extremely wary about trading Deng. When you look at the season he put up, his work ethic, and his age, you are trading a player with considerable future value that's hard to gauge, and you could be giving up the better player in the deal sooner rather than later. Larry Bird the GM once said that his philosophy was to not trade guys you weren't sure of. I don't think we have a great handle on Deng's ceiling: it isn't unreasonable to assume he looks at what Tayshaun did to him in the Detroit series and comes back next year with more back to the basket game. Couple that with increased strength, experience, etc. and what kind of numbers are we seeing next year?

Another consideration is the team dynamic. While we don't have the reconizable superstars on our roster, our two best players, Deng and Gordon, are also our hardest workers, and that sets a good tone and example for the team as a whole. Does adding Gasol change that? There is no doubt he is a basketball prodigy, but I don't have a great handle on his work ethic, leadership, and willingness to commit to the team ethic. He was a good for Spain, but I've heard he smokes, too, and you have to wonder if he could condition himself better. Don't get me wrong he'd be a great addition for the right package, but not Deng.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Why am I not surprised by a thread like this? Deng for Gasol is supposedly _clearly_ the thing that needs to be done. Pau Gasol. That 20/10 machine. That guy who led his team to a 50 win season. Which, by some accounts, is the pinnacle of success (or at a minimum is certainly better than 49 wins - especially in the all-powerful western conference). The same Pau Gasol who is the unquestioned best player on his team. The one who puts up inflated stats as the unquestioned best player on a terrible team. The same Pau Gasol who is so uber-special that he's led his team to a first round exit every time they've gotten to the post season. The same Pau Gasol who's led his team to a whopping ZERO playoff victories. The same Pau Gasol who's five years Luol Deng's senior.

Two pretty knowledgeable guys - Jerry West and John Paxson - both wanted Deng over Gasol. But, we've got folks here who_know_ the real deal. Hats in our hands and the whole nine yards.

Deng is better and more importantly; more effective, than Pau Gasol right now. Jerry West knows it. John Paxson knows it. It ain't rocket science folks. Deng is better and will BE better than Gasol for years to come.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Swan said:


> I think Paxson is right to be extremely wary about trading Deng. When you look at the season he put up, his work ethic, and his age, you are trading a player with considerable future value that's hard to gauge, and you could be giving up the better player in the deal sooner rather than later. Larry Bird the GM once said that his philosophy was to not trade guys you weren't sure of. I don't think we have a great handle on Deng's ceiling: it isn't unreasonable to assume he looks at what Tayshaun did to him in the Detroit series and comes back next year with more back to the basket game. Couple that with increased strength, experience, etc. and what kind of numbers are we seeing next year?
> 
> Another consideration is the team dynamic. While we don't have the reconizable superstars on our roster, our two best players, Deng and Gordon, are also our hardest workers, and that sets a good tone and example for the team as a whole. Does adding Gasol change that? There is no doubt he is a basketball prodigy, but I don't have a great handle on his work ethic, leadership, and willingness to commit to the team ethic. He was a good for Spain, but I've heard he smokes, too, and you have to wonder if he could condition himself better. Don't get me wrong he'd be a great addition for the right package, but not Deng.


That's the reason I am unsure of whether or not I want to do this deal (from a fan's perspective). Deng, Gordon, and Hinrich are coming together and the chemistry is there.

I would love to add Gasol to this team for obvious reasons. But I want to see if we can do it for our 9th pick, Nocioni in a S&T, and if need be our 1st rounder next year (we make the pick at 9 for Memphis to make the deal work).

Deng for Gasol to me, might be "spinning our wheels."

And if that's the case, then why do the deal?

We need to ADD to this team.

Let's say we sign and trade Nocioni + Duhon + 9th pick for Gasol.

Hinrich
Gordon/Thabo
Deng/
Gasol/Thomas
Wallace

We could very well turn around and offer the MLE to Darko, perhaps still...

Hinrich/Gordon/Thabo as our main guard rotation
Deng/Thomas/Gasol as our main forward rotation
Wallace and Millicic as our center rotation

Something to perhaps think about? Hinrich/Gordon/Sefalosha/Deng would be freed up by the interior scoring of Gasol and Millicic.

A young and balanced team....


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

At this point, I'd be willing to trade Deng for Gasol without TT, #9, or Noc, or any of the core. I'd include Thabo, S&T (not Noc), a 2007 2nd. Then at #9, we go with either Brewer, Green or Wright, or the player with the best offensive/defensive combination that can play SF and some SG minutes.

From my perspective, Gasol + Brewer/Green/Wright

is better than:

Deng + Hawes/Noah/Splitter/etc

*edit* I'd give them an '08 1st as well.

Have fun with all that Memphis


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Even if you think Deng is “better” than Gasol, the team could be better with Gasol than Deng, given the sad state of our big man core, the availability of a good player to play the 3 in Nocioni and that there likely will be some high quality 3s available to us in the draft. Gasol will make every guy on this team better with the skillset he brings.


Think whatever you want. I don’t see how someone can argue that the team as presently constructed can win a NBA title and I don’t see a way to land a great big man without trading a guy like Deng right now. I think a Deng trade like this would be a required step in the right direction.

Paxson burned through his massive inheritance of great young 7 footers, lottery picks and even the “found money.” We’re good but not great. I think a trade is needed to make us great.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Anything less than Deng + No. 9 for Gasol and Warrick, and I don't like it.

Memphis isn't getting back salary relief in this scenario like it would have at the deadline. It would get back a much less-appealing piece like Nocioni with a brand spankin' new contract (probably Brian Cardinal-sized).

Memphis won't be finding a lack of suitors for Gasol, should they choose to trade him. If Paxson doesn't offer any more than Ben Wallace and Duhon - essentially wasting Memphis' time - you'll see a deal with the Celtics or Hawks rather than the Bulls.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Even if you think Deng is “better” than Gasol, the team could be better with Gasol than Deng, given the sad state of our big man core, the availability of a good player to play the 3 in Nocioni and that there likely will be some high quality 3s available to us in the draft. Gasol will make every guy on this team better with the skillset he brings.
> 
> 
> Think whatever you want. I don’t see how someone can argue that the team as presently constructed can win a NBA title and I don’t see a way to land a great big man without trading a guy like Deng right now. I think a Deng trade like this would be a required step in the right direction.
> ...


"Burned through his massive inheritance"? Oh my goodness. I think Paxson is universally well regarded in basketball circles for bringing the Bulls back to respectability after a truly dreadful 7 or 8 year stretch, meanwhile here we are criticizing him for recklessly squandering the oh so promising 32 win team he was given to work with initially. Come on.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Paxson burned through his massive inheritance of great young 7 footers, lottery picks and even the “found money.”


Very nice.

Quick question (anyone can answer). I've seen reference a couple times to K4E's "found money." What exactly does that refer to? Just tryin' to keep up with the tour group.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

transplant said:


> Very nice.
> 
> Quick question (anyone can answer). I've seen reference a couple times to K4E's "found money." What exactly does that refer to? Just tryin' to keep up with the tour group.


It means the Knicks were worse in 2005-6 than expected. Therefore, Paxson doesn't deserve credit for the fact that the Curry deal netted such a high draft pick (that became Tyrus Thomas).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

transplant said:


> Very nice.
> 
> Quick question (anyone can answer). I've seen reference a couple times to K4E's "found money." What exactly does that refer to? Just tryin' to keep up with the tour group.


Its Paxson's "found money," not mine.

Paxson's words to describe how he didn't expect to get a high draft pick after he dumped Curry.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Oh my goodness.


This is what I think when I see Curry as one of the top scoring centers in the game and Chandler getting DPOY votes and Team USA appearances , as the Bulls desperately search for a productive young big man.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its Paxson's "found money," not mine.
> 
> Paxson's words to describe how he didn't expect to get a high draft pick after he dumped Curry.


Thanks. Makes sense.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

IMO, the reason the "found money" thing grates on so many people is that it's intellectually dishonest. Pax indicated in a radio interview that it was a bit of "found money" because the Knicks were poorer than expected. That's humility. It would be classless to say "Hey, it's the Knicks. They suck and Isaiah sucks, so I figured it'd be a sweet deal." Of course Pax wasn't going to say that. Of course he's going to say, "Golly gee whiz, they tried real hard and they have great guys, so it's unexpected they didn't do well."

The fact of the matter is, Pax made a pick swap. The ONLY reason you would do that is if you _expected_ the Knicks to be worse than you. Otherwise, the right to swap picks isn't an asset. So, at a minimum, Pax expected the Knicks to be some degree worse than the Bulls, which they were. 

Unfortunately, Pax's humility has been perverted into a tired refrain.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Pax indicated in a radio interview that it was a bit of "found money" because the Knicks were poorer than expected. That's humility. It would be classless to say "Hey, it's the Knicks. They suck and Isaiah sucks, so I figured it'd be a sweet deal." Of course Pax wasn't going to say that. Of course he's going to say, "Golly gee whiz, they tried real hard and they have great guys, so it's unexpected they didn't do well."


I disagree with this interpretation.

There is no love lost between Isiah's Knicks and Paxson. Especially off of the AD debacle. He is not humble when speaking about the Knicks.

And Paxson dumped Curry at the last minute. According to Paxson, he wanted Curry to remain a Bull, but was too concerned about Curry's health issues. Boy, was he wrong on that one.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> This is what I think when I see Curry as one of the top scoring centers in the game and Chandler getting DPOY votes and Team USA appearances , as the Bulls desperately search for a productive young big man.


Actually, Chandler got no votes for DPOY. He did get 5 2nd place votes, however. But nobody voted him the best defender in the league.

Also, the Bulls "desperately" searching for a productive young big man is news to me. I think the 4 and 5 spots can be ably manned by Wallace and TT. I do agree that another productive big needs to be added, but I suppose I disagree that it's a desperate need. I think that's overstating the matter.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I disagree with this interpretation.
> 
> There is no love lost between Isiah's Knicks and Paxson. Especially off of the AD debacle. He is not humble when speaking about the Knicks.
> 
> And Paxson dumped Curry at the last minute. According to Paxson, he wanted Curry to remain a Bull, but was too concerned about Curry's health issues. Boy, was he wrong on that one.


Really, I haven't heard Pax stick it to the Knicks before in an interview. I have heard him acknowledge that after the trade he has rooted for them to lose, but I think that's natural. I agree though that it's likely that he'd love to see Isaiah suffer. I just don't think he'd be up front about it in the press.

I guess he was wrong about Curry. It's not as though that has had a chance to fully play out though. I still don't see what dumping him at the last minute has to do with whether Pax expected the Knicks to be worse. It's a red herring argument.

(I am on the record, though, of believing that requiring the DNA test was wrong. I still do think that the Bulls may well end up the ultimate winner of that trade, even if I disagree with the need for it.)


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> IMO, the reason the "found money" thing grates on so many people is that it's intellectually dishonest. Pax indicated in a radio interview that it was a bit of "found money" because the Knicks were poorer than expected. That's humility. It would be classless to say "Hey, it's the Knicks. They suck and Isaiah sucks, so I figured it'd be a sweet deal." Of course Pax wasn't going to say that. Of course he's going to say, "Golly gee whiz, they tried real hard and they have great guys, so it's unexpected they didn't do well."
> 
> The fact of the matter is, Pax made a pick swap. The ONLY reason you would do that is if you _expected_ the Knicks to be worse than you. Otherwise, the right to swap picks isn't an asset. So, at a minimum, Pax expected the Knicks to be some degree worse than the Bulls, which they were.
> 
> Unfortunately, Pax's humility has been perverted into a tired refrain.


OK, another question. Did Paxson characterize the 2006 Knicks' pick (not a pick swap) as "found money" or the pick swap? 

If it was the 2006 pick, I don't think Paxson was being _completely_ insincere. I mean, there were a lot of people surprised that the Knicks sucked THAT bad with all that talent.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I don’t see a way to land a great big man without trading a guy like Deng right now.


that leaves us to assume there is a belief that gasol is a "great big man..." i disagree.



> "It's a red herring argument.


seems like its the same one over and over, when 20-20 hindsight would believe that the bull would be appreciably better. based on the five years of watching the two bigs i don't believe that. now, even after all either have done is put up some respectable (not league leading, not award garnering) numbers, nor leading their teams (since they were *so *instrumental in the bulls winning 47 games) to anything but mediocrity this lame-arsed debate entitled "shoulda,coulda,woulda" rears its head once again subtitled "the found money" debate.

here's my view regarding "found money"....who gives a flying f***.! does anyone believe the cavaliers, spurs, or even the trailblazers should be denigrated as an organization for putting to use a pick that fell in their lap? yea, their bad team earned the lotto balls, but to infer negativity toward a GM for utilizing something that was a gift, *regardless of the circumstances *speaks to an hidden agenda (i've never understood the point to these debates) that goes much deeper than some man-love for all things curry (the second coming of kevin duckworth).

and since rumor, innuendo, and speculation are all fans have at their disposal in these discussions, i really wonder when the beaten horse will nay for its last time.

i hope (and expect) the last word won't be with the short-sighted trade of luol deng.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Really, I haven't heard Pax stick it to the Knicks before in an interview. I have heard him acknowledge that after the trade he has rooted for them to lose, but I think that's natural. I agree though that it's likely that he'd love to see Isaiah suffer. I just don't think he'd be up front about it in the press.


Pax would never "stick it to the Knicks" publicly.

I also don't think he was bending over backwards to praise them, as you infer with your "found money" interpretation, MIO



> It's not as though that has had a chance to fully play out though.


Someday Curry will die.





> (I am on the record, though, of believing that requiring the DNA test was wrong. I still do think that the Bulls may well end up the ultimate winner of that trade, even if I disagree with the need for it.)


"may well end up the ultimate winner"

 Way to go out on a limb there.

OTOH, they may well end up not being the ultimate winner.

My opinion is that the Bulls lost this trade. A top scoring center is more valuable than a springy, gangly PF and a #9 pick. And, in the meantime, we have no scoring on the inside. It will take years to reap the rewards of TT and this pick. Curry would be dominating the paint for us right now.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Pax would never "stick it to the Knicks" publicly.
> 
> I also don't think he was bending over backwards to praise them, as you infer with your "found money" interpretation, MIO
> 
> ...


Yes, it's your opinion. Opinion that most of us disagree. You will be hard to find another whose opinion is like you. You will find some who think that they wished Curry is still a Bull. But to find one who actually think we lost on that trade? That's probably impossible task.

So who else think We <b>lost</b> on Curry trade? Who else? 

We all know where K4E stands on this matter for some time. Now who else think that we lost on Curry trade? I just want to know how many really think that so I can at least understand where they came from.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> we lost on Curry trade?


Other than assuming that we would not have signed the deteriorating Ben Wallace if Curry was still here, its asinine to think that the Bulls have gained over the last 2 years with 1 year of TT, the #9 pick and the sack of crap we received from the Knickerbockers.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Maybe we should venture back on topic regarding the possibility and desirability of a Gasol for Deng trade...


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> This is what I think when I see Curry as one of the top scoring centers in the game and Chandler getting DPOY votes and Team USA appearances , as the Bulls desperately search for a productive young big man.


Ben Wallace got DPOY votes. He's played for Team USA. There's your productive defensive big. The Curry thing has been beaten to death, so I'm not even going to go there. I think everybody on the board knows where you stand on this stuff, but framing the dialogue in a manner that makes John Paxson sound like an irresponsible trust fund brat burning through the family millions is pretty absurd. Here's hoping the "desperate" search for a young big man goes well this off-season.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Maybe we should venture back on topic regarding the possibility and desirability of a Gasol for Deng trade...


I agree.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Ben Wallace got DPOY votes. He's played for Team USA. There's your productive defensive big.


The old Ben Wallace was an all-star and DPOY.

The Bulls Ben Wallace is fading fast and likely will not ever make an all-star team or sniff the DPOY ever again.

He will continue to collect his massive 4 year, 60 million dollar contract though. He's overpaid.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Other than assuming that we would not have signed the deteriorating Ben Wallace if Curry was still here, its asinine to think that the Bulls have gained over the last 2 years with 1 year of TT, the #9 pick and the sack of crap we received from the Knickerbockers.


Ben Wallace got nothing to do with this conversation. What you asked (the way I interpreted) is this:

Curry >> TT + this years's 9th pick?

To be more specific (to save you time to nitpcik),

Curry + this year's twenty something pick >> TT + this year's 9th pick

And one more thing, you can't really compare 5th year player with a rookie, so we are talking about when it's all said and done as a player in NBA. (so think of 5th Curry vs. 5th TT. And don't even go there like "we have no idea T will be a Bull in 5 years" place. Please, please.)

In the end, I do believe it is more likely we won on this trade when everything is said and done. Yes, it's just my opinion. Exact opposite of yours.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> In the end, I do believe it is more likely we won on this trade when everything is said and done.


Perhaps.

Over the last 2 years, the Bulls have clearly lost though.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> The old Ben Wallace was an all-star and DPOY.
> 
> The Bulls Ben Wallace is fading fast and likely will not ever make an all-star team or sniff the DPOY ever again.
> 
> He will continue to collect his massive 4 year, 60 million dollar contract though. He's overpaid.


He'll continue to garner some DPOY votes I imagine, which to this point is all Chandler has accomplished. And yes, he is overpaid, most half way decent bigs are after their rookie deals expire. On the plus side, the deal isn't very long and it'll become an asset in a season or two. 

Back on topic, I find it incredibly ironic that after all the "Grizzlies East" carping over the past two seasons you're foaming at the mouth to trade for Pau Gasol of all people, the centerpiece of Grizzlies West. I'd prefer to see us continue to develop Thomas and move up in the draft and try and snag Wright or Horford. We play best up-tempo and a frontcourt featuring Wallace and Gasol would struggle trying to do that.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> Over the last 2 years, the Bulls have clearly lost though.


I know Tom want us to stay on the topic of this thread but one last question to you, K4E then.

Which team do you think will win out on that trade in the next 2 years in your mind?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Back on topic, I find it incredibly ironic that after all the "Grizzlies East" carping over the past two seasons you're foaming at the mouth to trade for Pau Gasol of all people, the centerpiece of Grizzlies West.


The Bulls have progressed from Grizzlies East, due to the Wallace signing and the "found money." Given Paxson’s lucky streak, I think the Mark Price Cavs are now the best comparison.


BTW, the origin of "grizzles east" was the all-for-one, one-for-all attitude of the Hubie Grizzlies, when they were not treating Gasol like the star that he is and were routinely getting bounced from the first round. I think I posted years ago that its not really a valid comparison to the current Bulls anymore. 



And, if you want to talk about carping from the past, how about we start with your adamant support of the PJ Brown for Tyson Chandler trade. LOL. I'll never forget those.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The only thing I would dispute is that the 2006-7 Bulls were not a win-now team.

They indisputably were a winning NBA team. They won 49 games in the regular season, even with a team that had significant turnover and injuries. They then swept last year's NBA champions in the first round, and took a team that is going to the finals this year to 6 games -- even though a key player was injured and not playing well.

Give me a heathy Nocioni and I like my odds against the Pistons in this year's playoffs.

The idea that Curry or Chandler's presence would have substantially improved the Bulls performance this year in the absence of Wallace and Brown is ...:lol:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Which team do you think will win out on that trade in the next 2 years in your mind?


Depends what you mean by "win out."

The Bulls would be better off with Curry than with Thomas and whoever, IMO. There still is some uncertainty given the rawness of TT and that the #9 has not been used yet. We really, really need a scoring threat down low. Curry is damn near the best in the business at center right now. He's a beast.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> The Bulls have progressed from Grizzlies East, due to the Wallace signing and the "found money." Given Paxson’s lucky streak, I think the Mark Price Cavs are now the best comparison.
> 
> 
> BTW, the origin of "grizzles east" was the all-for-one, one-for-all attitude of the Hubie Grizzlies, when they were not treating Gasol like the star that he is and were routinely getting bounced from the first round. I think I posted years ago that its not really a valid comparison to the current Bulls anymore.
> ...


Sorry I'm not up to date on which team you're derisively comparing these Bulls to. It's the Mark Price Cavs now? Alright. Didn't they have a couple of pretty good offensive minded bigs? Anyway...

The PJ Brown / Chandler trade is incredibly OT. I thought, and still think, that signing Wallace necessitated Chandler's departure. Tyson seems extremely mentally fragile and I don't think he would've developed at all in Chicago backing up Ben Wallace for 20 minutes a night. Given Chandler's past season you can make a pretty compelling argument for not signing Wallace at all and sticking with Tyson I guess, but those two weren't going to work on the same roster.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> The idea that Curry or Chandler's presence would have substantially improved the Bulls performance this year in the absence of Wallace and Brown is ...:lol:


I find it staggering that you don't think having Curry down low would have positively affected the way the Pistons played defense against us.

Curry used to abuse the Pistons his last year with the Bulls, and he's a better player now then he was then.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I find it staggering that you don't think having Curry down low would have affected the way the Pistons played defense against us.
> 
> Curry used to abuse the Pistons his last year with the Bulls, and he's a better player now then he was then.


I cringe at the thought of what the Pistons or Heat would have done to a doughnut defense featuring Eddie Curry defending the lane. Wallace's defense, rebounding and basketball IQ was much more valuable than Curry's black-hole offense.

This year Brown was a better player to have than Chandler in the playoffs, both offensively and defensively. Next year is another matter -- but that would be caring about win-later.

I doubt that the Bulls would have beaten Miami with those two on the front line; never mind Detroit.

Two years from now we might regret letting these two bigs go if the draft picks and free agent that their departure produced fail to develop. But this year their absense was a net plus -- a small plus only, because the turnover was quite disruptive -- but a plus nonetheless.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

McBulls said:


> I cringe at the thought of what the Pistons or Heat would have done to a doughnut defense featuring Eddie Curry defending the lane. Wallace's defense, rebounding and basketball IQ was much more valuable than Curry's black-hole offense.


Wow, that's a different memory than the one I have.

He didn't even show up the last two games of the Pistons series. We would have beat the tired, depleted Heat either squad. That team was done.





> This year Brown was a better player to have than Chandler in the playoffs, both offensively and defensively. Next year is another matter -- but that would be caring about win-later.


Given that we didn't win now, win later would have been a much better strategy. We won nothing of note this season.





> I doubt that the Bulls would have beaten Miami with those two on the front line; never mind Detroit.


I disagree.





> Two years from now we might regret letting these two bigs go if the draft picks and free agent that their departure produced fail to develop.


I agree.



> But this year their absense was a net plus -- a small plus only, because the turnover was quite disruptive -- but a plus nonetheless.


Perhaps, but given we won nothing of note, who cares?


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

I don't care what might happen if we still have Curry or TC. We don't have them. Period. I'd rather talking about players that we have and players I'd like to see in Bulls uniform. 

I don't see any of JC, EC or TC wearing Bulls uniform in any near future (more likely ever) and so I don't particularly care about what they are doing while wearing other uniform. That's the end of story. 

If we have another GM (not likely. Paxon is one of best GM in all NBA) and if we are in the mode to get some of three C back to Chicago, then I might revisit this talk. I might. I don't see it happening as long as Paxon is here. So this will be my last say in any discussion of three C no matter how many time K4E brought their names back on this forum. 3C. Good riddance. I am done with talking about them.

As for Deng for Gasol, I won't do Deng for Gasol even 1 for 1. Now or ever.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Perhaps.
> 
> Over the last 2 years, the Bulls have clearly lost though.


correct me if i'm wrong, but weren't the bulls in the playoffs the last two years, while the knicks were in the lottery? since its a team game, i'm failing to see the "losing" end the bull has incurred since all curry's done is post empty stats on a losing and yet to show improvement team. is this tangent about stats? cause it's clearly not about wins.  



> Perhaps, but given we won nothing of note, who cares?


i'd surmise the initiator of this smelly red herring.......:naughty:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> "may well end up the ultimate winner"
> 
> Way to go out on a limb there.
> 
> OTOH, they may well end up not being the ultimate winner.



Well, OF COURSE! :biggrin:

The point is that you can't evaluate the Curry trade until at least seeing what the feakin' picks turn out to be. There were those on the board who have already declared the Bulls to be the "losers" of the trade. That's pure silliness. How could anyone know before the picks are made and have oh, I don't know, played a game or two in the NBA?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Perhaps, but given we won nothing of note, who cares?


That seems to fly in the face of the years of "47 wins, 3rd best team in the East" arguments you've put forth.


----------



## Orange Julius Irving (Jun 28, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> Well, OF COURSE! :biggrin:
> 
> The point is that you can't evaluate the Curry trade until at least seeing what the feakin' picks turn out to be. There were those on the board who have already declared the Bulls to be the "losers" of the trade. That's pure silliness. How could anyone know before the picks are made and have oh, I don't know, played a game or two in the NBA?



Ironically almost anywhere you look/hear most people already declared us (The Bulls) the winner of that deal, almost from the get go. The only place it seems there's a debate is on this board.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> That seems to fly in the face of the years of "47 wins, 3rd best team in the East" arguments you've put forth.


We were a good team this year. There is no denying that.

49 wins and 3rd best team in the east is a good year. 

I would never say that this year’s Bulls were “losers” or “fools gold” like many claimed about the Curry/Chandler 47 win Bulls. We were what we were. No reason to spin it lower than it was.

But it was not worth sacrificing the future (dumping a now very productive Curry/Chandler for crap and raw rookies) given that we didn’t win anything of note.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> We were a good team this year. There is no denying that.
> 
> 49 wins and 3rd best team in the east is a good year.
> 
> ...


That's fair.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> Well, OF COURSE! :biggrin:
> 
> The point is that you can't evaluate the Curry trade until at least seeing what the feakin' picks turn out to be. There were those on the board who have already declared the Bulls to be the "losers" of the trade. That's pure silliness. How could anyone know before the picks are made and have oh, I don't know, played a game or two in the NBA?


I generally agree with you jnr, but it bugs me a little bit when I see this argument used to defend the Curry trade. It ignores the time we need to spend waiting for these picks to be made, and to contribute. I'm not a huge Curry fan, but would he have helped us last season against Miami or this season against Detroit - (in that case, more so than Tyrus)? Yeah, he would have. That's an important opportunity cost to keep in mind when evaluating the trade, and one that the pro-trade people seem to forget or ignore. 

By the same token, the anti-trade people conveniently ignore the argument that Tyrus plus Hawes(?) could very well be much better for us than just Curry (at 10mil or so a year) in a couple years and set us up to have a nice, long window for contending. That does pivot back to the whole win now/later dilemma, but the anti-Pax view seems to ignore this aspect at times.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ViciousFlogging said:


> I generally agree with you jnr, but it bugs me a little bit when I see this argument used to defend the Curry trade. It ignores the time we need to spend waiting for these picks to be made, and to contribute. I'm not a huge Curry fan, but would he have helped us last season against Miami or this season against Detroit - (in that case, more so than Tyrus)? Yeah, he would have.  That's an important opportunity cost to keep in mind when evaluating the trade, and one that the pro-trade people seem to forget or ignore.
> 
> By the same token, the anti-trade people conveniently ignore the argument that Tyrus plus Hawes(?) could very well be much better for us than just Curry (at 10mil or so a year) in a couple years and set us up to have a nice, long window for contending. That does pivot back to the whole win now/later dilemma, but the anti-Pax view seems to ignore this aspect at times.



I agree that the loss of Eddy's services and the time it takes to develop new talent is a valid factor to consider. At the end of the day, though, I just ask myself the question "Which way is more likely to deliver a championship?"


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> I agree that the loss of Eddy's services and the time it takes to develop new talent is a valid factor to consider. At the end of the day, though, I just ask myself the question "Which way is more likely to deliver a championship?"


It's important to remember that a heart arhythmia caused the Curry trade in the first place. IMO this was probably caused by dieting aided by Phen-phen like compounds at the end of the previous summer.

Forgetting about the fact that he has an enlarged heart subject to arhythmia, the question still remains whether he can maintain a reasonable body weight for an NBA center as he ages. My guess, based on his current appearance, is that he will not. 

If he gains an additional 20 lbs or so, he will have the same defensive liability problems that Sweetney has. It helps that he's playing in New York, where officials make special efforts for the home team. But if he gets any bigger, the refs are probably going to start calling him for reaching fouls, just because that's the only way he can defend.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> I agree that the loss of Eddy's services and the time it takes to develop new talent is a valid factor to consider. At the end of the day, though, I just ask myself the question "Which way is more likely to deliver a championship?"


Me too. And I think the trade will help us more than not making it would have. I just think it's important to consider that angle.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I personally don't believe Paxson would trade him straight UP for Gasol


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Yes, it's your opinion. Opinion that most of us disagree. You will be hard to find another whose opinion is like you. You will find some who think that they wished Curry is still a Bull. But to find one who actually think we lost on that trade? That's probably impossible task.
> 
> So who else think We *lost* on Curry trade? Who else?
> 
> We all know where K4E stands on this matter for some time. Now who else think that we lost on Curry trade? I just want to know how many really think that so I can at least understand where they came from.


We obviously lost on the Curry trade.

Who, exactly, could we trade Thomas and the upgrade to #9 pick for who's equivalent to Curry? Think Thomas would take the pick swap and Thomas in return for Curry?

(Sweets is toast, we basically twiddled our thumbs till his contract expired).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> I cringe at the thought of what the Pistons or Heat would have done to a doughnut defense featuring Eddie Curry defending the lane. Wallace's defense, rebounding and basketball IQ was much more valuable than Curry's black-hole offense.
> 
> This year Brown was a better player to have than Chandler in the playoffs, both offensively and defensively. Next year is another matter -- but that would be caring about win-later.
> 
> ...


How'd teams do against the "donut" defense we had on the 47 win team? 2nd best defensive team in the league.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> How'd teams do against the "donut" defense we had on the 47 win team? 2nd best defensive team in the league.


The defensive prowess certainly wasn't any of Curry's doing. I give the lions share of credit to AD -- who was essentially left alone with Nocioni on the front line against Washington in the playoffs once they figured out what the Bulls weakness was. Chandler's contribution in the playoffs was not very memorable. 

I think the Bulls could have matched the 47 win total the next season if they had not included AD in the trade.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

I think the time for Gasol to Chicago has passed regardless of the desires of each fanbase.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> How'd teams do against the "donut" defense we had on the 47 win team? 2nd best defensive team in the league.


I probably shouldn't respond, since I've already asked and still hope to get the thread back on topic, but I have to ask -- did you watch the Knicks games post allstar break? Eddy was gassed every night by mid 3Q, and for as much praise as Clyde gave him for his first half scoring bouts, he slammed him game after game in the second half for the layup drills that ran past E-City once he huffed and puffed his way up court on defense.

Eddy continues to be frustrating in that his downside remains as extreme as his upside.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> We obviously lost on the Curry trade.
> 
> Who, exactly, could we trade Thomas and the upgrade to #9 pick for who's equivalent to Curry? Think Thomas would take the pick swap and Thomas in return for Curry?
> 
> (Sweets is toast, we basically twiddled our thumbs till his contract expired).


Honestly, I don't care about the players we got immediately in return. Clearly they weren't big contributors. However, I wouldn't trade Thomas for Curry straight up. And we have no idea what the #9 pick will turn into. The only way we could have "obviously" lost the Curry trade is if we missed out on a championship in the interim waiting for these picks to develop. Otherwise, it's ridiculous to call it one way or the other without having seen what these picks will end up being.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I probably shouldn't respond, since I've already asked and still hope to get the thread back on topic, but I have to ask -- did you watch the Knicks games post allstar break? Eddy was gassed every night by mid 3Q, and for as much praise as Clyde gave him for his first half scoring bouts, he slammed him game after game in the second half for the layup drills that ran past E-City once he huffed and puffed his way up court on defense.
> 
> Eddy continues to be frustrating in that his downside remains as extreme as his upside.


He played 35minutes/game for the knicks, about 29 for the bulls' 47 win team.

I simply think it's a fallacy that he provides something on the order of zero or even negative defense. The guy's big enough to take up a lot of the lane, and that Bulls team gave opponents a reason to take a more outside shots than they normally would - because of Curry (partially).

Shaq was younger back then, and he talked about how the bulls' 2 young bigs made it really tough for him to operate as he normally did. Just the height alone means opponents have to shoot over them if all they do is stand in the lane.

FWIW, last time New York played Detroit, Curry played 39 minutes, and Webber went 4-8, Sheed 3-7, Detroit shot .414.

Time before that, Curry played 53 minutes in 3 OT, and Sheed went 4-14, Mohammed 8-16, Detroit shot .439 even with Rip shoting 19-37.

I picked Detroit because... they have a lot of bigs and are obviously a quality team.

Point is, and I'm repeating myself, I don't see that he's some sort of donut (zero) on the defensive end.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Honestly, I don't care about the players we got immediately in return. Clearly they weren't big contributors. However, I wouldn't trade Thomas for Curry straight up. And we have no idea what the #9 pick will turn into. The only way we could have "obviously" lost the Curry trade is if we missed out on a championship in the interim waiting for these picks to develop. Otherwise, it's ridiculous to call it one way or the other without having seen what these picks will end up being.


Thing is, I don't think there's a GM in the league who'd trade Curry for Thomas straight up. OK, maybe Ainge.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Thing is, I don't think there's a GM in the league who'd trade Curry for Thomas straight up. OK, maybe Ainge.


Maybe so. But that isn't really dispositive of the value of the trade.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Maybe so. But that isn't really dispositive of the value of the trade.


Not only do I think no GM would make that trade, I don't see any taking the pick swap plus Thomas for Curry.

It is really dispositive of the value of the trade.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Not only do I think no GM would make that trade, I don't see any taking the pick swap plus Thomas for Curry.
> 
> It is really dispositive of the value of the trade.


So you don't think there is any GM who would trade Curry for Noah and Tyrus Thomas?

Wow. You do have a high opinion of this guy. But I don't believe that most GM's share it.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Not only do I think no GM would make that trade, I don't see any taking the pick swap plus Thomas for Curry.
> 
> It is really dispositive of the value of the trade.


I forgot where you stand. Are you from the camp that believes that Pax didn't truthfully feel that Curry's heart condition was serious, and just used it as an excuse to trade him?

(reply to this on the other thread)


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Not only do I think no GM would make that trade, I don't see any taking the pick swap plus Thomas for Curry.
> 
> It is really dispositive of the value of the trade.


I agree that that is an indicator of the value of the trade. I disagree that nobody would make it.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> He played 35minutes/game for the knicks, about 29 for the bulls' 47 win team.
> 
> I simply think it's a fallacy that he provides something on the order of zero or even negative defense. The guy's big enough to take up a lot of the lane, and that Bulls team gave opponents a reason to take a more outside shots than they normally would - because of Curry (partially).
> 
> ...


Generally he is indeed greater than zero as a defender. I agree. 

Except for his play in most of the second half of the Knicks games after allstar break, when he was heaving and gasping his way up and down the court, guards were flying by him for layups left and right and he couldn't even haul an arm up to try to stop them.

If he was in that same shape playing for us last year and he had to play a couple of rounds of playoff basketball, he'd have been leaving his lunch on the floor at best or be back in the hospital at worst.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> He played 35minutes/game for the knicks, about 29 for the bulls' 47 win team.
> 
> I simply think it's a fallacy that he provides something on the order of zero or even negative defense. The guy's big enough to take up a lot of the lane, and that Bulls team gave opponents a reason to take a more outside shots than they normally would - because of Curry (partially).
> 
> ...


The last time Chicago played Detroit,
Rasheed 7-14
Webber 2-6
McDyess 1-5
Detroit 42.1%

Time before that,
Rasheed 6-15
Webber 3-6
McDyess 5-9
Detroit 42.3%


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> The last time Chicago played Detroit,
> Rasheed 7-14
> Webber 2-6
> McDyess 1-5
> ...


What does that say about Wallace's defense and Curry's?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> What does that say about Wallace's defense and Curry's?


A non-mobile Ben Wallace's defense is as good as a healthy Eddy Curry???

Or more likely probably nothing, because a 2 game sample isn't indicitive of whether a guy is a good defender or not, let alone that he is not guarding 3 players or the entire team (when looking at team FG%) as used in the arguments.

It's entirely possible for a good defender to have a bad game, a good defender unable to stop an offensive player, or a good defender to have a bad defensive game, but the opponent can't hit a shot. That's more what I was getting at.

I do agree that Curry is better than 0 on defense, which I know was your point. I just didn't like the evidence you used.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Actually it would be:

Noah and Tyrus for Curry and Marcus Williams (Arizona).


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Honestly, this thread makes me pretty ill so I don't know why I read the entire thing and why I'm posting in it. I really need to just learn to not to post at all sometimes. 

Anyways, while I find it really disheartening that we're rehashing the Curry trade/Gasol non-trade for the umpteenth time, I want to interject that I find the entire premise of this thread to be completely flawed. We won 49 games last year with arguably the best young talent in the game so I don't think we're incapable of having success in the short term or that it's inconceivable that we can win a title with the assets we have right now. I don't consider Hawes to be a stiff and if we did end up with a very good player drafting at 9 we'd be far from the first team to do so. 

If we want to talk about ways to make the team better, that's always useful but I don't see the point of always coming at it from the angle of how to fix some horrifically flawed roster. I consider these great times to be a Bulls fan so I just don't see the need for that doom and gloom attitude.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Honestly, this thread makes me pretty ill so I don't know why I read the entire thing and why I'm posting in it. I really need to just learn to not to post at all sometimes.


Honestly, this post makes me pretty ill so I don't know why I read the entire thing and why I'm replying to it. I really need to just learn to not to post at all sometimes.

OK, I'm kidding about that!

Seriously though, I'm not trying to give you so much of a hard time as to point out this sort of rhetoric is, itself, kind of painful. It's reall easy to start a new thread if you don't like a particular topic. 



> We won 49 games last year with arguably the best young talent in the game so I don't think we're incapable of having success in the short term or that it's inconceivable that we can win a title with the assets we have right now.


Like you say though, it's arguable. While it's not inconceivable that we can win a title with the assets we have right now, I the only way I conceive of it happening is if weapons of mass destruction are unleashed upon the remaining several playoff teams.



> If we want to talk about ways to make the team better, that's always useful but I don't see the point of always coming at it from the angle of how to fix some horrifically flawed roster. I consider these great times to be a Bulls fan so I just don't see the need for that doom and gloom attitude.


Well, there's a couple things to consider. First, its not a matter of the roster, IMO at least, being horrifically flawed, it's a matter of it getting harder and harder as time goes on to correct the flaws. Build yourself a house and it's harder to add more space than it is when the house is being built. The NBA is the the same way. When your team is young, you've got more picks, more guys on rookie deals, and more flux, you've got more ability to change things. As you get only guys, fewer picks, and more complicated finances, it gets harder to add that "last piece".

As far as "doom and gloom", I think it's a matter of perception. To me it's nice, of course, to be back in the playoffs. It certainly beats the alternative. But I grew up watching a team that consistently played into late May and early June. I guess it's a matter of taste but I have a hard time being that excited when I don't see the upside to get back there.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> Honestly, this post makes me pretty ill so I don't know why I read the entire thing and why I'm replying to it. I really need to just learn to not to post at all sometimes.
> 
> OK, I'm kidding about that!
> 
> Seriously though, I'm not trying to give you so much of a hard time as to point out this sort of rhetoric is, itself, kind of painful. It's reall easy to start a new thread if you don't like a particular topic.


Fair enough. Just trying to show some candor. I don't see it as particularly harmful if I say that I like or dislike a thread but everyone may not feel that way. I get the impression that I'm not the only one that dislikes the fact that threads often veer off topic so that the same two or three transactions are rehashed on a routine basis.



MikeDC said:


> Like you say though, it's arguable. While it's not inconceivable that we can win a title with the assets we have right now, I the only way I conceive of it happening is if weapons of mass destruction are unleashed upon the remaining several playoff teams.
> 
> Well, there's a couple things to consider. First, its not a matter of the roster, IMO at least, being horrifically flawed, it's a matter of it getting harder and harder as time goes on to correct the flaws. Build yourself a house and it's harder to add more space than it is when the house is being built. The NBA is the the same way. When your team is young, you've got more picks, more guys on rookie deals, and more flux, you've got more ability to change things. As you get only guys, fewer picks, and more complicated finances, it gets harder to add that "last piece".
> 
> As far as "doom and gloom", I think it's a matter of perception. To me it's nice, of course, to be back in the playoffs. It certainly beats the alternative. But I grew up watching a team that consistently played into late May and early June. I guess it's a matter of taste but I have a hard time being that excited when I don't see the upside to get back there.


Hmm. Yeah, I just feel that for the reasons you've cited (internal improvement, draft picks, etc.) that the team can improve substantially. Considering our successes this season that would seem to mean that at a minimum, we'll make the ECF once or twice. Certainly everyone wants to do better than that but we would be playing late into the season. I guess part of me has a problem with the idea that this team is a failure if it doesn't win a championship in the next five years because most teams won't. If we can be one of the two or three best teams in the East for a five year stretch - and we seem to be there or at least awful close right now - that puts us within striking distance every year so while it's less than I'd like, I can't complain too much and I don't see it as grounds for a drastic shake up.


----------



## Bulldozer (Jul 11, 2006)

For me, this is not too complicated. Here's my *simple* approach on weighing this out:

Lesser bigs @ #9 + Luol Deng
Pau Gasol + abundance of 6'8+ wings @ #9

The draft situation, on top of the fact that 20 ppg scoring PF/C is > 20 ppg SF

Gasol for Deng + S&T ____, maybe future picks, but no other core player including Thabo or TT.

Then take your pick from all those wings that fall in your lap @ #9.

If Pax can get this done virtually straight up, then we can't get too emotional or sentimental about Deng, this is the right move, and you have to take Gasol in this scenario.


----------

