http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insider/col...Deadline-080212 <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>• The Chicago Bulls are being described as "all over the map" in their trade talks. In addition to trying to move Ben Wallace, one source said the Bulls are now "as open as they've ever been" to trading Ben Gordon. Discussions recently broke down between the Bulls and Hornets over a deal that would have sent shooter Rasual Butler to Chicago.</div>
I wonder why Paxson is, to the best of my knowledge, suddenly very keen to shop Gordon? Is Paxson upset that BG is allegedly nursing an injury? Has Paxson decided that Thabo's emergence makes BG expendable? Does he think Gordon is going to take the QO? Is he reading too much Sam Smith? I can't see any team besides Portland (they have Jack, Rodriguez, Fernandez (next year), Blake, and Roy at G) making a sensible offer.
Have you been reading my blog posts? The Bulls are realizing they're going nowhere fast and might have to pay the tax if they keep Gordon and Deng. You always have to look at a deal from a couple perspectives. 1. Fit. Going after a guy like Lowry makes some sense in that we need a backup PG going forward. Duhon is expiring and Lowry would by cheaper and probably better. Especially if we're looking to move Gordon his size wouldn't be an issue. And Butler is a backup SF who's a shooter. If you're planning to get rid of your primary backup SF (Noc?) it makes sense to be looking at another one. 2. Talent and price. It's one thing to say these guys are good fits, it's another to say they're good. Lowry... I've liked him for a while. Butler... not so much. To speculate a bit further, the Hornets sort of make sense as a team to try and send Noc to. They could send back Butler to fill the gaping hole. I've read a few articles suggesting the Hornets want depth. Another shooter like Noc wouldn't be bad for them, and I doubt they're close to the tax threshold, though I haven't looked. For example, here's a trade idea with the Hornets: Bulls trade: Noc, Curry, Nichols Hornets trade: Rasul Butler, Bernard Robinson, Julian Wright, Melvin Ely Basically it'd reduce our 5 year commitment to Noc and the $8M we owe him next year to a 3 year committment to Butler and 1 year commitment to Wright (with two team option years) that has us paying out only $5.5M next year. That gives us a little more leeway in re-signing Ben and Lou. It's not a home run of a trade, but it's a solid base hit from a long-run perspective. I think Wright is a a bust as an NBA player, but there's always the chance he turns into something too. With Lowry, I don't know how that deal works. I think several teams would like to get their hands on him. And again, with Gordon, I think the only smart sort of trade is one that brings back a guy on a rookie deal or a pick, a la Rudy Fernandez or the Knicks pick this coming year (Gordon's a New York guy, who knows... maybe that's how we induce them to take the Corpse?).
I'm guessing that Pax has hit the point of desperation and is hell bent on making a move to make a move. The Denver FO really like Hinrich. That is who Pax should be trying to deal with
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 12 2008, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm guessing that Pax has hit the point of desperation and is hell bent on making a move to make a move. The Denver FO really like Hinrich. That is who Pax should be trying to deal with</div> Why? I don't see Hinrich as dramatically overpaid or anything, and although he's down this year (like every other Bull) he's still a quality young player. What does Denver have to offer of value for that? Nothing I can tell.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Feb 12 2008, 02:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 12 2008, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm guessing that Pax has hit the point of desperation and is hell bent on making a move to make a move. The Denver FO really likes Hinrich. That is who Pax should be trying to deal with</div> Why? I don't see Hinrich as dramatically overpaid or anything, and although he's down this year (like every other Bull) he's still a quality young player. What does Denver have to offer of value for that? Nothing I can tell. </div> You don't consider Hinrich making over 11 million dollars to be dramatically overpaid?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 12 2008, 02:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Feb 12 2008, 02:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 12 2008, 02:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm guessing that Pax has hit the point of desperation and is hell bent on making a move to make a move. The Denver FO really likes Hinrich. That is who Pax should be trying to deal with</div> Why? I don't see Hinrich as dramatically overpaid or anything, and although he's down this year (like every other Bull) he's still a quality young player. What does Denver have to offer of value for that? Nothing I can tell. </div> You don't consider Hinrich making over 11 million dollars to be dramatically overpaid? </div> I consider payment over the life of the contract. It's frontloaded so it goes down as other guys' go up. And you can't really compare it to guys on rookie deals either... they're all paid at dramatically less than their market value. So if you look at other PGs who aren't on rookie deals any more, he falls out about where I'd think he should. player Pos AvgOfannual_salary Jason Kidd PG 20,550,000 Mike Bibby PG 14,000,000 Gilbert Arenas PG 12,377,200 Steve Nash PG 12,250,000 Tony Parker PG 12,037,500 Chaun Billups PG 12,000,000 Andre Miller PG 11,088,333 Steve Francis PG 10,810,000 Jason Terry PG 9,940,000 Kirk Hinrich PG 9,500,000 Jason Williams PG 8,937,500 T.J. Ford PG 8,250,000 Devin Harris PG 8,400,000 Eric Snow PG 7,007,813 Jamaal Tinsley PG 6,937,500 Jameer Nelson PG 7,600,000 Leandro Barbosa PG 6,850,000 Luke Ridnour PG 6,500,000 Antonio Daniels PG 6,200,000 Earl Watson PG 6,200,000 Sam Cassell PG 6,150,000 Mike James PG 6,049,400 Bobby Jackson PG 5,880,000 Speedy Claxton PG 5,757,818 Steve Blake PG 4,590,000 Damon Stoud PG 4,500,000 Derek Fisher PG 4,375,000 Carlos Arroyo PG 4,100,000
A bit off topic... but WOW! Looking at that list, see why Cuban is not interested in Kidd. Seeing Terry & Harris on that list, could you imagine them adding Kidd without moving either? 40M tied up in 3 PGs. LOL That would be awesome. -Petey
Hey Mike, there is a major problem with your formula. Your calculation of average annual salary only looks at the remaining salary, not the life of the contract
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 12 2008, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Hey Mike, there is a major problem with your formula. Your calculation of average annual salary only looks at the remaining salary, not the life of the contract</div> That's a feature, not a bug I mean, I agree that if you're looking at Kidd (for example) over the life of his contract, then yeah, it's nowhere out of place to what he brought to the table. But we're only paying guys going forward. So if I've got a choice between today's JKidd (who reportedly wants another year at $20M or so) or today's Hinrich and his contract going forward, then yeah, I'm taking Hinrich under most circumstances. Similarly, I'm a little concerned the Bulls are going to trade him for a guy with a shorter contract like Bibby or Miller. I don't see what they'd get out of that. Bibby's average over the life of his contract might be $12M or so, but that doesn't affect my decision-making if I'm considering a trade for him.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Feb 12 2008, 05:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 12 2008, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Hey Mike, there is a major problem with your formula. Your calculation of average annual salary only looks at the remaining salary, not the life of the contract</div> That's a feature, not a bug I mean, I agree that if you're looking at Kidd (for example) over the life of his contract, then yeah, it's nowhere out of place to what he brought to the table. But we're only paying guys going forward. So if I've got a choice between today's JKidd (who reportedly wants another year at $20M or so) or today's Hinrich and his contract going forward, then yeah, I'm taking Hinrich under most circumstances. Similarly, I'm a little concerned the Bulls are going to trade him for a guy with a shorter contract like Bibby or Miller. I don't see what they'd get out of that. Bibby's average over the life of his contract might be $12M or so, but that doesn't affect my decision-making if I'm considering a trade for him. </div> If that is what you are attempting to do, than you to properly evaluate this, you need to have separate columns for average over next 2 seasons, 3 seasons etc. I know you know what opportunity cost is and your "feature" completely leaves that out of the analysis. Yes in 4 or 5 years, Hinrich might be a better deal than some of those others, but not over the next 2 seasons.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 12 2008, 05:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Feb 12 2008, 05:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 12 2008, 03:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Hey Mike, there is a major problem with your formula. Your calculation of average annual salary only looks at the remaining salary, not the life of the contract</div> That's a feature, not a bug I mean, I agree that if you're looking at Kidd (for example) over the life of his contract, then yeah, it's nowhere out of place to what he brought to the table. But we're only paying guys going forward. So if I've got a choice between today's JKidd (who reportedly wants another year at $20M or so) or today's Hinrich and his contract going forward, then yeah, I'm taking Hinrich under most circumstances. Similarly, I'm a little concerned the Bulls are going to trade him for a guy with a shorter contract like Bibby or Miller. I don't see what they'd get out of that. Bibby's average over the life of his contract might be $12M or so, but that doesn't affect my decision-making if I'm considering a trade for him. </div> If that is what you are attempting to do, than you to properly evaluate this, you need to have separate columns for average over next 2 seasons, 3 seasons etc. I know you know what opportunity cost is and your "feature" completely leaves that out of the analysis. Yes in 4 or 5 years, Hinrich might be a better deal than some of those others, but not over the next 2 seasons. </div> Well, that's not really what I'm attempting to do, but OK, it's also a fair amount of work Beyond that, the remaining contract is all there is to consider from a team's perspective. A team doesn't get the choice of cherry picking Kirk Hinrich for the last two years of his contract and Devin Harris for the first two years of his. Moreover, the numbers don't change that much do they? Hinrich's contact is what, $10.5M over the next two years? That puts him at the least advantageous comparison possible, especially since he's played like garbage for the first 2 and a half months of the season. So lets assume he's on a 2yr $10.5M contract. I'd rather have him than Bibby, Miller, Terry or TJ Ford or most of those guys. I consider Hinrich a slightly better player than, say, Devin Harris, but I guess if you're saying Hinrich at $10.5 vs. Harris at $7.25 for this year and next then I guess iI might prefer Harris. But that's pretty irrelevant because I wouldn't trade for Harris since I know the directions the disparities are going in (Harris is getting more expensive, Hinrich less).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Feb 12 2008, 01:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Have you been reading my blog posts? The Bulls are realizing they're going nowhere fast and might have to pay the tax if they keep Gordon and Deng.</div> No, I didn't realize it was going to be a regular thing. It's now in the bookmarks. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And again, with Gordon, I think the only smart sort of trade is one that brings back a guy on a rookie deal or a pick, a la Rudy Fernandez or the Knicks pick this coming year (Gordon's a New York guy, who knows... maybe that's how we induce them to take the Corpse?).</div> Portland fans uniformly think their GM is very, very high on Fernandez. I doubt Pritchard would trade him for Gordon, especially since Portland will have cap space in 2009 and will be able to sign BG without giving anything up. I'm thinking the best deal the Bulls can get is something like Webster + Jack + Rodriguez. They're not great, but they are young and on their rookie deals for 1 or 2 more seasons. And I agree that that sort of package is preferable to players like Mike Bibby or Mike Miller who will too old to contribute when Noah and Tyrus and Deng hit their prime.
If Gordon does leave the Bulls I expect it will be in the 2009 offseason. Paxson is too conservative to make a trade when the situation is this hazy and I do get the feeling he'd prefer to hold on to Ben as long as Ben accepts a reasonable contract.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 12 2008, 11:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ben Gordon is of no use to Portland</div> I don't see why that would be so. Gordon is a good fit beside Roy because he's an elite shooter and good scorer. Is Steve Blake going to shoot 43% from 3 forever?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rwj @ Feb 12 2008, 11:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 12 2008, 11:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ben Gordon is of no use to Portland</div> I don't see why that would be so. Gordon is a good fit beside Roy because he's an elite shooter and good scorer. Is Steve Blake going to shoot 43% from 3 forever? </div> Ben is a poor PG and can't play the 3, therefore, he is a horrible fit. Additionally, Ben isn't going to be happy being at best a 3rd option on offense. The Blazers plan to pair Roy and Rudy in the backcourt when Rudy comes over. The position the Blazers want to improve is SF. They are interested in Deng, not Gordon.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 13 2008, 12:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rwj @ Feb 12 2008, 11:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 12 2008, 11:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ben Gordon is of no use to Portland</div> I don't see why that would be so. Gordon is a good fit beside Roy because he's an elite shooter and good scorer. Is Steve Blake going to shoot 43% from 3 forever? </div> Ben is a poor PG and can't play the 3, therefore, he is a horrible fit. Additionally, Ben isn't going to be happy being at best a 3rd option on offense. The Blazers plan to pair Roy and Rudy in the backcourt when Rudy comes over. The position the Blazers want to improve is SF. They are interested in Deng, not Gordon. </div> Why do the Blazers need a pure PG when they have Roy who does most of the ball-handling anyway? Ben is great off the ball and really spreads the floor. Ben's unhappiness as a 3rd/4th option would be balanced out by the joy he gets from playing on a championship contender. Deng would obviously be a nicer player to have, but the Bulls are going to resign him no matter what. He is not going to become an UFA. For that matter, I doubt that Okafor, Smith, or Iguodala are going to reach UFA either. Gordon is likely going to be the best young player available that summer. I can't see the Blazers just ignoring him.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rwj @ Feb 13 2008, 12:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 13 2008, 12:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rwj @ Feb 12 2008, 11:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 12 2008, 11:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ben Gordon is of no use to Portland</div> I don't see why that would be so. Gordon is a good fit beside Roy because he's an elite shooter and good scorer. Is Steve Blake going to shoot 43% from 3 forever? </div> Ben is a poor PG and can't play the 3, therefore, he is a horrible fit. Additionally, Ben isn't going to be happy being at best a 3rd option on offense. The Blazers plan to pair Roy and Rudy in the backcourt when Rudy comes over. The position the Blazers want to improve is SF. They are interested in Deng, not Gordon. </div> Why do the Blazers need a pure PG when they have Roy who does most of the ball-handling anyway? Ben is great off the ball and really spreads the floor. Ben's unhappiness as a 3rd/4th option would be balanced out by the joy he gets from playing on a championship contender. Deng would obviously be a nicer player to have, but the Bulls are going to resign him no matter what. He is not going to become an UFA. For that matter, I doubt that Okafor, Smith, or Iguodala are going to reach UFA either. Gordon is likely going to be the best young player available that summer. I can't see the Blazers just ignoring him. </div> The Blazers don't need a pure PG, but they already have someone lined up to play the other guard position that isn't undersized. The Blazers don't have a starting spot available for Ben so why would they waste money on him? I can't see the Blazers going after him.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 13 2008, 12:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rwj @ Feb 13 2008, 12:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 13 2008, 12:07 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (rwj @ Feb 12 2008, 11:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Feb 12 2008, 11:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Ben Gordon is of no use to Portland</div> I don't see why that would be so. Gordon is a good fit beside Roy because he's an elite shooter and good scorer. Is Steve Blake going to shoot 43% from 3 forever? </div> Ben is a poor PG and can't play the 3, therefore, he is a horrible fit. Additionally, Ben isn't going to be happy being at best a 3rd option on offense. The Blazers plan to pair Roy and Rudy in the backcourt when Rudy comes over. The position the Blazers want to improve is SF. They are interested in Deng, not Gordon. </div> Why do the Blazers need a pure PG when they have Roy who does most of the ball-handling anyway? Ben is great off the ball and really spreads the floor. Ben's unhappiness as a 3rd/4th option would be balanced out by the joy he gets from playing on a championship contender. Deng would obviously be a nicer player to have, but the Bulls are going to resign him no matter what. He is not going to become an UFA. For that matter, I doubt that Okafor, Smith, or Iguodala are going to reach UFA either. Gordon is likely going to be the best young player available that summer. I can't see the Blazers just ignoring him. </div> The Blazers don't need a pure PG, but they already have someone lined up to play the other guard position that isn't undersized. The Blazers don't have a starting spot available for Ben so why would they waste money on him? I can't see the Blazers going after him. </div> I'm confused. Did Paul Allen suddenly start caring about the luxury tax?
