Consistent with my thoughts on the season, I see three sorts of trades that make sense and have some likelihood of working out for the Bulls. 1. Trade for a FA target if their team falls apart. That'd be Wade (very unlikely since the Heat look good), James (pretty unlikely, but we're hearing rumblings of unhappiness), or Bosh (They're 3-4, and looking better but not outstanding). This really doesn't need any analysis in basketball terms. The only relevant fact is if one of these guys tells his team he wants to be traded and he wants to come here. Otherwise, a deal like this ain't getting done because a team won't trade a superstar unless he is holding a gun to their head. Still, this is the sort of deal in which I'd consider trading Luol Deng and/or, since we'd both get an upgrade in talent and offset most of the salary of the incoming star. That would allow us to, potentially, add that star (say Bosh) and then go out and make a pitch to a guy like James that he could and should come join up with a Rose, Bosh, Noah trio. Example: Deng, Tyrus, JJ, Pick for Bosh. That, I think, still leaves us with enough cap space to make a realistic pitch for Lebron or Wade. Dynasty baby. 2. Trade for a player that combines short-run help and an expiring contract. The goal here is to clear additional cap room (by offloading Salmons and maybe punting on our "Tyrus Problem") and getting back a guy who is obviously better than those guys. Example: Trade James/Salmons/Tyrus for Tmac. I'd be willing to throw in James Johnson too. Another idea would be the much mentioned Boozer for Jerome James + Salmons/Tyrus idea. I'm a little iffier on that since I think we're weaker on the wings than up front (who'd replace Salmons in the backcourt?), but it'd probably be an upgrade. 3. Trade Trade for a younger player on a rookie deal we can afford to keep without giving up on FA dreams. And oh yeah, the youngster needs to really be able to play. Tyrus, who we can't afford to re-sign, would be the obvious bait, but if we found a team willing to take on salary next year too, that would be ideal (That is, Salmons or Kirk, perhaps). Example: I think the early returns on James Harden are looking pretty good, but I don't see that the Thunder have immediate plans for him, and they look like the stereotypical team that is just a veteran or two away. Kirk + Tyrus for James Harden, Sean Livingston and Etan Thomas works in the trade machine. I think this would be a calculated risk, because we remove a veteran at a time we need to make a playoff push, but I strongly believe Harden would contribute immediately and we'd cover two others bases. We both create more cap space for next year (Harden will make several million less than Kirk) and we cover our SG position in the long run since it's unlikely we actually fill it in free agency next summer
I like #3. Although Kirk/Salmons and Tyrus is a lot to give up, but it would be worth if they got a young player who panned out.
How's about Salmons and Johnson for Mike Miller. Gives us guaranteed max contract room next year, and Miller seems like an obviously better fit than Salmons. Neither are stars, but Miller's strong spot up shooting ability seems like an obviously good match for the rest of the team.
I'd only do that if I knew that there was a big free agent waiting. Johnson might be a keeper in his own right, and Miller isn't even a starter. That'd be a big hit if there wasn't anybody waiting to take that money.
I like all of the ideas in concept. I do highly doubt that Thunder would trade Harden. His +/- is great and his A/TO is leading the league. He is perfect for a 3 guard rotation with Westbrook and Thabo. They have him locked in at a nice salary for the next 3 years after this one. Kirk and TT are going to take up a lot of cap next year. I'm sure they would rather have Harden and the cap space.
Call me crazy... If Memphis releases Iverson, he may be worth consideration for the Bulls if they have the flexibility to fit him in at the vet minimum. Granted he's a head case and his ego may not let him fill the role where the Bulls need him. I would approach him like this: "You are basically through in this league if you don't wise up. You have value to us in a diminished role from what you're used to. We need your offensive spark in games, but you're not likely to start and you may not even play 24 minutes. We need you to mentor Rose and take some of the pressure off him so he's not double teamed all the time. If, somehow, you are still an all-star caliber player, you'll be able to EARN appropriate minutes." Under no other circumstances would I go anywhere near the guy. Consider it a one-year rental until we have the cap space to sign LeBron and Wade. And consider that if we can make it work with Iverson, it'd go a long way towards making the Bulls appear to be a good environment to play basketball to those FAs.
Although i would approach him in the same way, I just don't see it happening. Donnie Walsh is talking about signing him, hell I bet the Knicks will let him start...
Miller looks like a starter to me on most teams. At least, he's one of the five best players on most teams. JJ... I dunno about JJ. That ought to be a whole other topic. He certainly seems to be underachieving at this point, especially if you think, like me, he's got a world of skills and talent. Of course, the ability to make use of your talent is a talent itself, and he's been a serial underachiever in the past, so maybe this is what we're getting.
Yeah. I think the Bulls have a legitimate problem here. When we’re talking about signing a player to a eight figure a year contract, we start to have obvious effects on how the rest of the team is built, and both the team and the player need to demonstrate that they're going to work hard to that end. Owners and players are both playing a game of credibility here. Players want to be paid, but they generally also want to win. So they angle for the most money, but they also angle to play on teams that have demonstrated they’ll pay a player a high salary and still go out and spend in other areas to get over the top. In fact, if a player doesn’t exhibit this behavior, and he appears to not give a shit about anything but the size of his checks and his individual stat sheet, he tends to be maligned. Zach Randolph or Elton Brand, for example. The unknown, when it comes to players, is how badly they want to win. That’s the same unknown we have with teams and owners, but the dynamic is a little bit different. Owners want to win while, other things being equal, limiting payouts. Owners have lots of possible strategies they can employ to get this done. And they’ve got differing levels of credibility (as far desire to win) to start with. Hence, a team like the Atlanta Hawks might have to spend a lot on an unproven (at the time) player like Joe Johnson to demonstrate its desire to win. On the other hand, signing an expensive player and then following it up with an immediate salary dump (ahem… Ben Wallace, PJ Brown) or following through on an Emeka Okafor for Kenny Thomas dump demonstrates pretty clearly that you don’t value winning at that cost. At the end of the day, that sort of track record is another bargaining chip when it comes to signing or re-signing a player, especially at the high end of the spectrum (ie max players). Because every team can offer about the same salary, the competition for the player falls along the lines of winning, and what else a team will do. Suppose, for example, the Bulls, Clippers and Cavs all call up Lebron and make a pitch to him when he becomes a FA. What’s their pitch? * The Bulls will say they’ve got a good team to put around him. MJ’s winning tradition. And of course, they offer the max contract. Will they say they’ve got a blank check from ownership? * The Clips will say they’ve got a good team to put around him, the bright lights of LA, the chance to put a franchise on his back (hell, sell it as a positive). And of course, they offer the max and a blank check from ownership. * Now, if you’re the Cavs, of course you offer Lebron everything he wants. And you point out he’s had a good team the last couple years. But you also point to those other teams and say “Look, those guys are giving you a nice talk, but have they been walking the walk? You know we spent unlimited amounts of money over the last couple years to bring in players to put around you”. The last time the Bulls signed a player, they dumped him as soon as they hit a rough patch. Their bester player last year, they let go for nothing instead of paying him. And the Clippers’ owner is an inveterate slum lord who’s never spent much on his basketball team. The number of teams that should inspire confidence on the part of players that the owner will pay him and still spend to the hilt in order to win is really very small, Lebron. And we, the Cavs, have shown we’ll do that. Please keep it in mind when you make your decision.".
Noah looked like a bust after 10 games into his first season, too. I'd give it a little more time before I made any trades. Miller is a nice player, but I wouldn't say he's better than Salmons at this point. He's not a starting 2. He'd be a great sixth man, but I don't think he can play defense like the bulls would need.
And the last time the bulls had a player as good as LeBron, they pulled out all of the stops. Jordan is still the highest paid player ever. And they took care of all of the guys on those championship teams. Management isn't the problem.
Umm...actually no....Bulls management refused to pay Pippen after the 6th championship. Hell, after the 5th championship, Krause told PJax he was gone at the end of the year even if the Bulls won every game the next season.
They signed and traded Pippen with a very good deal, and they did even better for Kerr and even Luc Longley. Breaking up the team was probably a little premature, but they took care of the players at the end, nobody left empty handed. And PJax was as ready to leave as anyone. He didn't want to come back for the 6th, Jordan had to talk him into it. And Reinsdorf would have signed him if he had changed his mind. So in conclusion, you're wrong.
Selective memory, it seems. PJax said he was willing to come back if the team were kept together. That was still up in the air when our miserable excuse of a human being owner hired Pink Floyd to be the coach, knowing PJax wouldn't have anything to do with that. So in conclusion, you're wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jackson Regardless of the success Jackson shared with his team, the tension between Jackson and Bulls general manager Jerry Krause grew. Some believed that Krause felt under-recognized for his work in building the Bulls up into a championship team, being envious of the attention received by Jordan and Jackson. In particular, Krause believed that Jackson was indebted to him because Jackson received his first NBA coaching job from Krause. Some examples of the tension include: During the summer of 1997, Krause's stepdaughter got married. All of the Bulls assistant coaches and their wives were invited to the wedding, as was Tim Floyd, then the head coach at Iowa State, whom Krause was openly courting as Jackson's successor (and who would eventually succeed Jackson). Jackson and his wife at the time, June, were not even told of the wedding, much less invited, only finding out about the event when the wife of assistant Bill Cartwright asked June what she would be wearing to the reception.[5] After contentious negotiations between Jackson and the Bulls in that same period, Jackson was signed for the 1997-98 season only. Krause announced the signing in what Chicago media widely considered to be a mean-spirited manner, emphasizing that Jackson would not be rehired even if the Bulls won the 1997-98 title. That triggered an argument between Jackson and Krause in which Jackson essentially told Krause that he seemed to be rooting for the other side and not the Bulls. At that point, Krause told Jackson, "I don't care if it's 82-and-0 this year, you're fucking gone."[5] Krause publicly portrayed Jackson as a two-faced character who had very little regard for his assistant coaches, a perception that certain Krause associates in the Bulls organization had sought to spread about Jackson. At the height of the hard feelings in the spring of 1998, one of Krause's scouts went to press row in Chicago's United Center to explain to a reporter the insidious nature of Jackson's ego. (excerpt from the Phil Jackson biography Mindgames)
Selective memory? You're talking about a guy in Krause who hasn't been a part of the organization for almost 10 years. Reinsdorf still signed off on everybody else's deals and helped them out, which he didn't have to do. And I believe he still offered Jackson a deal but Jackson turned him down. What does any of that have to do with the current GM? And that was all between Krause and the team, not Reinsdorf. Your logic is something else..
Nobody was ready to leave, they were all pushed out the door and don't let it hit you in the fanny on your way out. The Bulls were played by free agents to get better deals elsewhere. Remember TMac? If the Bulls treated their players so well, even in parting, you'd think those FAs would want to come to Chicago. The acrimony between management and players hasn't changed with Krause gone. We'll see if max caproom and some solid role players are enough to attract a quality FA this summer. I know Chicago would by my last choice, and that I'd take a couple $million less to sign elsewhere where there's a commitment to good relationships with the players and to winning.
Look...you are ignoring history if you think that despite the Bulls track record at the end of the championship teams, the Bulls' ownership will be a positive to a free agent mega-super stars like LeBron James. For example, Bulls got a 2nd round draft pick out of the Pippen S&T and Pippen got an extra $8M or so than just signing with Rockets outright. That makes the Bulls more attractive? Because of the Bulls alltruism?That's how they"took care of all of the guys on those championship teams"? Sounds to me like it was a good business move. I think a player might be more inclined to think that if one of the NBA's top 50 players has helped you to 6 championships, that a team should be willing to pay the guy market value. If you wanted to say "that was a long time ago & it may not be a big deal anymore", fine, but the above is fantasy.
I fully expect Derrick Rose to sign for the league minimum when his rookie contract is up. Back to Mike Miller, why is he inferior to Salmons (now or ever)?
What about Rudy Fernandez? With the way he's been playing, we might be ale to snag him away from Portland.
Take a look at the last two seasons. Salmons is getting better. Miller is getting worse. Miller was definitely better before that, but I don't think Miller's a starting shooting guard in the league anymore, or ever was.
