Thonus: Does the Bulls front office hang on to assets too long?

The NBA can be a world of buy low and sell high. One of the tricky things about running a team is knowing when to cut bait with a player and when to hang on to one. Some guys can be effective into their mid to late 30s while other guys lose value in their late 20s. Some players just have a lucky season while other guys whom look like they're having a lucky season develop into stars. How has Chicago done with asset management?

In the Paxson/Forman era, one complaint I've seen frequently about the front office is that they hang on to their players too long and some players are (wrongly) viewed as untouchable by the organization. Here's a look at the primary pieces the Bulls have gone through over that era and whether or not we could have/should have traded them away at a different time.

Eddy Curry 2001-2005

The Bulls traded Eddy Curry to the Knicks in what is probably the third best trade in Bulls history (behind Pippen for Polynice and Rodman for Perdue). The Bulls got Tyrus Thomas, Joakim Noah, and some second rounders for Curry which helped bring in Asik. That's effectively three big men better than Curry for Curry. Nice.

There's no way the Bulls could have done better here, and the only thing that gives you any pause about a round of backslapping is that the Bulls clearly didn't want to trade him except for his heart condition and refusal to do DNA testing.

Read more http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-b...ulls-front-office-hang-on-to-assets-too-long/

 

Wrong link

 

This was an interesting article.

The finest trade under the Paxson era turned out to be the Eddy Curry trade. Funny thing was, they didn't want to trade Eddy Curry. Then they did because they were nervous about a heart condition. Turns out the heart condition wasn't an issue.

Same thing with the Hinrich trade. Once again, they didn't want to get rid of him. The org gnashed their teeth over that in an attempt to land Lebron / Wade / Bosh. Once again, that move failed. But it turned out to work out for them.

The org has actually been pretty lucky over the years. The Curry trade, dumping Hinrich, landing the Rose pick. Just think if they had average to bad luck.

 

In hindsight, the Curry trade was awesome.

At the time, the Knicks looked like they were getting a baby Shaq and in theory their fortunes should have improved. If Curry hadn't eaten himself out of the league and the personnel decisions in NY been a bit better, that pick we got Noah with might have been much later in the first round. The gem of a pick, #2, was utterly wasted on Tyrus.

 

Yep. We seem to do really well when we trade with morons.

Who on earth would give a near sure-fire lotto pick for Tyrus after seeing him play for multiple seasons?

 

Not according to Paxson at the time. He said he was planning on keeping Curry and had to trade him since he would not submit to additional heart defect testing.

They are also very lucky that Ben Gordon didn't take them up on their rich contract offer when it was on the table. Thanks Ben!

 

lol ya, silly me

 

How about Deng as an example?

I can really like the guy and be realistic too, right?

So there have been several times his name figured in trade rumors, and the trigger wasn't pulled. Pau Gasol in his prime stands out, but there were others.

Here's the thing. He's been rather easy to replace when he's missed long stretches of games.

John Salmons outright outplayed Deng for a long stretch of games. Really good defense and seriously well rounded offense. Last year, it was Jimmy. The year before that, Brewer.

Winners, too, without him.

So now we're in the spot Orlando was with Howard. If Deng refuses to sign an extension with a team of the Bulls' choosing, they won't take the risk.

Case in point. Held onto him too long?

 

Heck with memory.

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/paxson_curry_051003.html

 

Luck comes in many forms. Were the Bulls lucky with Jay Williams?

How fortunate were the Bulls to happen to have cap space for a max free agent in the year when Ben Wallace was the best FA available?

While in hindsight, they did cut ties with Gordon and Hinrich at the right time, but were they that lucky to clear all that cap space only to get Boozer and some bench players?

Were they lucky to have their superstar blow out his knee in the very first game of the playoffs, ruining not one, but two seasons?

This stuff has a way of evening out.

 

No, that was bad luck.

Well, that was the end result of a multi year plan where if you looked at the free agent list for that off season, Wallace was one of the main guys. They chose to build Cap Space for an offseason that had a known weak free agent class. And they overpaid for a weak free agent.

What's the latest sales pitch, the 2016 plan? yah, let's hope it does. They are due to have one of their multi year, "win later" cap space building plans pay off. They are due.

 

Did Jay Williams really stand out as a great pick in the first place? When healthy, I saw one play that pretty much summed up his ability. He had a breakaway and went to dunk and hit the front of the rim and missed.

Looking back at that draft, we could have had any one of a number of players instead who turned out pretty good:

Drew Gooden, Nene, Amare, Caron Butler, Prince, Krstic, Salmons... our own Carlos Boozer went in the 2nd round (we picked Lonny Baxter!), as did Luis Scola, Matt Barnes, Juan Navarro, and our very own Rasual Butler.

Oh yeah, the guy picked after Jay was Mike Dunleavy Jr.

I don't see Wallace as being a bad FA signing at all. He turned us into a 49 win team that advanced beyond the 1st round for a change. What was stupid about the signing was selling or giving away the Ben Wallace bobblehead dolls with him wearing a headband and then making an example of him (no superstar gets even special headband treatment on this team!). The relationship went sour and then his performance with it. Like he went on strike, of sorts.

While hindsight tells us Ben Gordon's production dropped off after leaving the Bulls, so did his minutes and he ended up in a really lousy situation. I have a pretty good feeling that if he stayed with us as our starting SG, he'd have continued being the Ben Gordon we knew all along.

 

Hard to argue with that analysis.

Actually, Wallace wasn't allowed to wear a headband during the 2006-07 season which was his best as a Bull and was the season he helped them get to the 2nd round. Skiles allowed Wallace to wear the headband in 2007-08 and Wallace's game and attitude fell apart. I do not claim any cause and effect and feel kind of ridiculous even talking about headbands.

My point was that it was unfortunate that the Bulls max free agent window happened to occur in the summer of 2006 when Wallace was the best FA available. Most years there are better players out there.

What can I say? We all believe what we choose to believe. As for me, I'm very glad that the Bulls didn't have to pay Gordon big money to be mediocre and undersized. Considering that the Bulls had offered Gordon a sizable contract, yes, this was an example of where I believe the Bulls fortunately dodged a bullet.

 

So, when you read this direct quote from Paxson, what other interpretation is there other than he was planning on keeping Eddy Curry.

What do you think they were planning on keeping him for, if not to play NBA basketball? If he failed the test, he was done anyway and would be living large on that annuity, which probably would have been the best thing for the big lug in hindsight.