One of the things that folks, myself included, worry about with trading Hughes is screwing up our long-term cap position. We want to be rid of him, but we don't want to take back post-2010 salary to do it. And we want to be rid of him, but we don't just want to buy out his contract, because it could be a "useful trading chip" when it's expiring next year. Well, I think we've reached the point where we need to consider these options. A few days back, I compared Hughes to Jalen Rose. Many folks might not remember, but we didn't shed any salary in trading away Rose. In fact, it extended our obligations because Jerome Williams' contract ran a year longer than Rose's, and it cost the Bulls $5.8M in total additional salary obligations. In short, the Bulls both paid extra money and hurt their cap position to get rid of Rose. And a relatively productive player, Donyell Marshall. They were able to make it up later by taking advantage of Isaiah Thomas, and shed JYD in the Crawford sign and trade deal. I'm not saying that's what I prefer or that would definitely happen again, but it's a point the Bulls should consider. Suppose they take on a player with some 2010 salary. If it's not ridiculously huge (Darius Songaila, who'd been rumored as a Hughes exchange partner, for example) will make $4.8M. That's certainly not great, but it's the sort of thing we might be able to work around. We'd still have another year to try and shed him or other players. Again, that's not what I want to do. I don't even think it's what we have to do. I think, somewhere out there, is a way to get rid of Hughes that wouldn't take on that sort of space. But at this point, we probably should consider either that or simply sending him away and negotiating a buyout.
* Trade him for Jerome James and Malik Rose (this doesn't cost the Knicks that much, and they'd have an actual need for Hughes) * Trade him and Gooden for Marbury and buy Marbury out. That way we get more cap room next year, and while we pay Marbury to go away, the Knicks don't have to. They're turning a sunk cost into a bargain. * Trade him and $3M cash for Kenny Thomas or Bobby Simmons. The other teams consider it because they're getting a productive player for a non-productive one. * Trade him, and Gooden for Jason Hart, Ricky Davis and Marcus Camby. I read today (NY Daily News) the Clips are considering Q Richardson for Camby. Sounds wacky, but if there's a shred of validity, they'd probably at least consider Hughes. * Offer a three way trade I thought of the other day. Brad Miller + Hughes to the Mavs - who are supposedly interested in B Miller and need an SG, Gooden + Stackhouse to the Kings - expiring contracts, decent player in Gooden + Dampier and change to us. Or a trade with OKC such as Hughes + cash + Thabo if they want him for Watson, Wilkins and Petro. That's no investment for the Thunder, and they need some semblence of a SG... they don't have one at all, so everyone would be pleased with Hughes chucking away. All of those deals wouldn’t hurt anything long run (or actually help) and be massive addition by subtraction. The teams I'm talking about might actually be interested, for a variety of reasons. Get it done.
They could probably buy out Hughes more cheaply than Marbury with less headache. Deng for Lee is fair maybe as Deng could probably play some PF in D'Antoni's system. Plus, they are trying to get Stoudemire or Bosh, so Lee is expendable.
If I were the Knicks, I'd really want to hang on to their pick, because it's going to be a good one and they're gonna need guys on cheap deals to fill out their contract around the FAs they want. For that matter, if I wasn't going to keep Lee, I'd want a good player on a rookie deal for him too. Suppose they get a lottery pick for him. Would you rather have two quality lottery picks with a year of experience their rookie deals (probably about $5-6M total), or Deng at $11.2M? I'd take the picks.
http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_a...rces_blazers_getting_serious_for_david_lee/hu Lee is a hot commodity. Maybe the bulls can get involved in that deal. What does it say about how Portland feels about LMA?
I think it just says Portland would like Lee to be their third big guy. Most good teams need three. Once you get in the playoffs, especially, big guys will get in foul trouble with some regularity. And even when they don't, there's minutes for a third big guy, so having a guy like Lee who could probably play with either LMA or Aldridge would be pretty sweet. So I don't think it reflects much on LMA. It just reflects on Portland looking to put the glue in place around its main pieces. Incidentally, the idea that the Knicks would like Jerryd Bayless back, a lottery pick who'll only be on the books for $2.3M that year, and would seem a good fit for D'Antoni's system, sort of goes along with my thinking of what the Knicks should do. Holding out for Bayless plus a pick seems pretty greedy, but maybe if Portland really wants it they cough up some more. With all of Paul Allen's money, maybe the Knicks try to make them take back Jared Jeffries.
For the Bulls, I dunno about Lee. He seems like a great compliment for Oden and LMA. They're both bigger and stronger guys though. Lee can play with Oden because he can hit a jumper. He can play with LMA because in stretches he's decent inside and a strong rebounder. I don't see that good fit with our guys. I think he'd be an upgrade, obviously, but a Lee-Tyrus or Lee-Noah line doesn't really strike me as a great setup.
Larry Hughes is actively trying to get traded, and I think John Paxson will oblige if he can get an equal contract back, or better.
The Raptors are supposedly interested in trading Jermaine O'Neal. How's about Hughes, Noc and Gooden for O'Neal, Parker and Graham. That should keep both teams just South of the luxury tax and satisfy everyone's needs.
