Would you do it? My view is it's a consolidation trade for the Bulls. They give up a near all-star quality starter and two valuable subs for a guy who's been one of the best big-men in the league. We probably do have to do something. I'm not sure the team as constituted is truly a championship contender. Depth wins in the regular season, superduperstars win championships (or become goats in the bad sense of the word). Championships aren't typically won by superduperstar PG led teams. The offense is designed around Rose taking 1/3 of the shots. To do so, there's not a lot of great ball movement. There's no particular system I see other than set screens for Rose and the 3pt shooters for their catch and shoot plays. Boozer would be a lot better for us if he got 36 minutes a game and if they consistently passed the ball to him. Since that's not what the coach wants (he's not getting 36, they're not running plays consistently through him), getting a Pau for Boozer and subs might not be such a bad thing. But be warned, I don't see Pau living up to the expectations people have about him if they're similar to those we had for Boozer. He's 31 years and 8 months old. His reputation is that he goes soft in the playoffs. He is a better defensive player, but opposing PF PERs against him (82games.com) aren't much better than for Boozer. And they still will need to run plays through him for him to be effective. If you root for JR to make as much money as he can, the deal is good for him. Gasol's contract runs one year less than Boozer's, and there'd be no issue of having to re-sign Taj taking us into the LT. The truth is, I'm not convinced the trade helps us win a championship. What we need is a healthy and peak form Rip, or another SG who can spread the floor, do the catch and shoot thing, and make the entry passes to the bigs that Rose doesn't.
Yeah, it's an interesting trade, isn't it? I'm a big believer in length and I like the idea of running four bigs who can play center. I agree though that this would be rearranging the chairs to an extent and that Rip is the key to this off season. But that's besides the point: I think this trade would be primarily about the finances. LA is going to dictate the structure of any trade, and you have to ask what's their motivation. I would anticipate LA wants a deconsilidation trade that nets them a point guard, preferably with expirings that puts them under the cap. Boozer puts LA in a slightly better cap position, provided they're ready to let CJ Watson and the third player (Asik, Brewer?) walk this off season, but LA can do better. I'm guessing they're going to go with some package of expirings from Minnesota unless they can get Houston to give up Scola and Lowry.
I still haven't heard a good rationale for LA doing this trade. No talent upgrade, no cost savings, and it's not really a better "fit." So what's the reasoning, exactly? .........Bueller?
LA would be getting a starting PG, which they've lacked for years. They'd also be getting Taj, who many announcers have been saying would start for a lot of teams. They would be giving up, in theory, the best player in the trade. But Boozer's no slouch as a replacement for Pau.
Is Gasol a "superduperstar?" While Gasol clearly is better than Boozer, is he Gibson+Watson better than Boozer? IMO, this proposed deal is one Gibson too far value wise. No thanks.
Gasol is a champion. Kobe didn't win rings without him or Shaq... I don't think the bulls need to do something for the sake of it. I'd much rather see us go after Howard or some other proven young PF/C type if we're giving up two bigs. I like CJ, but I think a backup PG is easy enough to find. Heck, we found a decent one in the D League.
Gasol going to the Lakers was obviously a great thing for both Kobe and Gasol. Gasol was rescued from relative obscurity in Memphis. Gasol is worth Boozer + Watson.
I would probably do that trade, but a healthy rip does more for our title chances than this trade, by a long shot. We're probably going to lose one of Taj or Omer anyways. To me, CJ is not a starting PG in the NBA. If he is, then you're probably looking to replace him. He's really not that great at running an offense. I think Denny made good points about Gasol's performance here. Boozer's losing the expectations game, and I suspect Gasol would too, although I suspect it wouldn't be as severe because he's not a system player like Boozer. But he still would probably perform below his statistical capabilities.
I think this is right. The whole attraction about a Gasol trade is having two giant bigs in your starting lineup. But that advantage is marginalized if you're losing Taj. Sub in Brewer for Taj and I think it's a good deal talent wise for the Bulls. Sub in Omer and it's more problematic (unless Reinsdorf isn't ready to pay tax the upgrade). Sub in Taj and it's a no.
Unlike many (stupid) fans, I'm not in the "trade Boozer for whatever you can get" camp. He's not my be-all-end-all PF, but he's got some (offensive) game. Again, Gasol is only marginally better than Boozer IMO. Since I don't believe that a Boozer-Gasol trade is likely, I'm OK with Boozer.
I watched Gasol closely against OKC the other day. His game is surprisingly similar to Boozer's with the exception that Gasol's length makes such a difference. Gasol, like Boozer, can't guard quicker power forwards on the perimeter, and will give away easy shots. The thing is -- closer to the hoop -- Gasol is great at shutting down dribble penetration. Both players are excellent distributors. Boozer may be a slightly better shooter, with the qualification that I think Pau can get his shot off easier against quick defenses like Philly and Miami. Boozer chases boards a little bit better, but again, with Pau's height he's able to shut down offensive rebounding opportunities. Pau isn't perfect, but he'd be a noticeable upgrade. I still don't think I'd trade away Gibson for him. This is all likely beside the point though. I'm sure some other franchise will be able to put together a better package for him.
You know, I'm ready to hedge my answer. If it's Asik instead of Taj I think you have to do the deal. Running with three bigs instead of four isn't optimal, but you could do it with those three. You'd essentially have three players who could play center, and two who could play power forward -- I think that's enough depth.
