Dailey Herald<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Of course, most stories that forecast Bryant playing for the Bulls go on to suggest the Bulls could send Ben Gordon, Luol Deng, Tyrus Thomas and the No. 9 pick to the Lakers. The Bulls would not seriously consider such a lopsided deal.Since trading Shaquille O?Neal, the Lakers are 121-125 over three seasons, so acquiring Bryant is certainly not a ticket to the NBA title.The Bulls already have a glaring need for more height on their front line. It?s hard to imagine how the team would improve by trading several key pieces for Bryant and ignoring the interior issues.</div>LinkIt's true. I don't see how trading key pieces for Kobe will help them out. All they need is a big man, and Kobe does not fit that roll. This team is close to be title contenders if they aren't now. They don't need Kobe. Plus, it would only draw more Kobe/MJ comparisons.*Can a mod or someone edit the "hlp" in my topic title?
It depends what Chicago gives up. IMO, the Bulls will only trade for Kobe if it's a no-brainer type of deal; I.e. they rip of the Lakers. It makes no sense for us to make a lateral move which will only make the team worse in the future. So if it's one of Hinrich/Gordon/Deng + fillers and picks, then the Bulls will do it. Anything more and they'll just stick to what they have.
I agree. No need for Kobe. He is a self-centered son of a bi*ch. If they ever got a great big man anyway, Kobe would probably demand they be traded. (ex. Shaq)
I disagree kobe could fit very well. As I said in my other post, we have enough depth to give them a great deal and evolve from a great team to perhaps an overnight dynasty.Tyrus+Gordon+Noc to LAKobe Bryant to CHI= pg-hinrichsg-bryantsf-dengpf-hawesc-wallacetell me how that doesn't make our team much better?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jun 18 2007, 08:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I disagree kobe could fit very well. As I said in my other post, we have enough depth to give them a great deal and evolve from a great team to perhaps an overnight dynasty.Tyrus+Gordon+Noc to LAKobe Bryant to CHI= pg-hinrichsg-bryantsf-dengpf-hawesc-wallacetell me how that doesn't make our team much better?</div>For starters, I think a deal for Kobe will almost have to include Wallace, to match contracts. Also, Hawes isn't a guarantee shot for the Bulls as I have been hearing the T-Wolves are very interested in him. So, getting Kobe would mess up the Bulls frontcourt, which is what they are lacking the most.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GrizzFanTaylor @ Jun 18 2007, 10:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>For starters, I think a deal for Kobe will almost have to include Wallace, to match contracts. Also, Hawes isn't a guarantee shot for the Bulls as I have been hearing the T-Wolves are very interested in him. So, getting Kobe would mess up the Bulls frontcourt, which is what they are lacking the most.</div>So your worried about losing a 33 year old no offense center instead of getting the best player in the NBA?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jun 18 2007, 09:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So your worried about losing a 33 year old no offense center instead of getting the best player in the NBA? </div>It doesn't make sense to me. The Bulls are one big man away from being serious contenders. They are forming loads of chemistry because they've had the same core for a while. They're perfectly fine at SG. Why mess up the chemistry and pull in a player with no concept of team chemistry? Why trade away your only lowpost prescence, even if he is just defense (one of the best defenders in the NBA). It makes no sense to me.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (GrizzFanTaylor @ Jun 18 2007, 10:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It doesn't make sense to me. The Bulls are one big man away from being serious contenders. They are forming loads of chemistry because they've had the same core for a while. They're perfectly fine at SG. Why mess up the chemistry and pull in a player with no concept of team chemistry? Why trade away your only lowpost prescence, even if he is just defense (one of the best defenders in the NBA). It makes no sense to me.</div>Either way we will be a great team but if we had Kobe we would be a MUCH better team. Its not like we would be trading our entire team either. like I said look at the two roster scenarios, those would both be dynasty teams. I would much rather have a dynasty than just a great team. if we dont get kobe we will still be a great team though. either way, now is a great time to be a bulls fan.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jun 18 2007, 09:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So your worried about losing a 33 year old no offense center instead of getting the best player in the NBA? </div>It's not about giving up a 33 year old with no offense, it's the fact that trading Wallace leaves us with no big man. As great as Kobe is, he can't win with nobody in the frontcourt.Beyond that, a Kobe trade can be done without giving up Wallace; tough it would have to be done after the draft. Kobe's salary is $19.5 million next year; the Bulls would have to come within 125% of that, meaning about $15.6 million:Gordon - 4.9Duhon - 3.2Khryapa - 2Griffin - 1.5That's about $11.5 million right there; add in either Nocioni or Sweetney in a sign and trade and it could be done. Of course the Bulls would have to add a number of picks.Now would the Lakers go for that? Most likely not. But if I'm the Bulls; I don't offer a lot more than a deal like that. The Bulls don't need Kobe. They would take him if it made them automatic title contenders; trading Gordon and Deng does not do that. That might just make us this years Cavs. Might as well stick it out and see what kind of growth we can get from within.
I see no reason why the Lakers wouldnt bait on Tyrus+Gordon+Nocioni which is what I originally said. That still leaves us to draft hawes and complete the frontcourt and we dont downgrade at any position and add kobe bryant to the mix. of course with cap we'd have to probably add sweetney but thats no big thing. its a win-win situation.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jun 18 2007, 09:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Either way we will be a great team but if we had Kobe we would be a MUCH better team. Its not like we would be trading our entire team either. like I said look at the two roster scenarios, those would both be dynasty teams. I would much rather have a dynasty than just a great team. if we dont get kobe we will still be a great team though. either way, now is a great time to be a bulls fan.</div>You're not going to have a dynasty with Kobe. It's proven that Kobe needs another big man downlow. If the Bulls make a deal like the ones proposed, they are in the same position as the Lakers almost. Plus, Kobe may not stick around for more than 2 years. He said he wants to go back to the Lakers if the team is better when his contract runs out.It makes no sense for the Bulls to do a deal for Kobe to me. They will have absolutely no inside game and all the team chemistry the Bulls have been working up for the past 4-5 seasons will be washed away and it will shift from team chemistry to Kobe.And you keep saying you can draft Hawes, but it's not guaranteed he will be avliable. In fact, I don't think he will be.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jun 18 2007, 10:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I see no reason why the Lakers wouldnt bait on Tyrus+Gordon+Nocioni which is what I originally said. That still leaves us to draft hawes and complete the frontcourt and we dont downgrade at any position and add kobe bryant to the mix. of course with cap we'd have to probably add sweetney but thats no big thing. its a win-win situation.</div>Because that doesn't work under the CBA. Nocioni is a free agent, meaning we would have to sign him to a big deal; making him BYC, which essentially makes him impossible to trade.
Also, you're throwing around the dynasty word; but if you're giving up Wallace then we're left with no froncourt. And that team wound not even win a championship; yet alone become a dynasty. Kobe is good, but he's no Jordan. And there is no Pippen or Rodman on this team.
That trade idea is obviously retarted....Unless the Lakers and the Bulls could come to a more reasonable deal, the bulls will never do it. They are giving up way too much future for a team that is already a legitimate contender in the east.
I say it like this if we cant get a big weneed by trading noc the pick and filler then you offerGordon Noc Who ever we draft and thaboto trade noc we have 2 wait a while after the draft...NO way I trade gordon AND deng 4 anyone in the nba.. and paxson wont either.I mean kobe would help us..gordon cant defend NO1 kobe cankobe and kirk would be great defenders.. then we would have deng tyurs and wallace who can also defend.and if we can get a 3rd team that is tryin to trade a badcontract thats soon ending.. maybe that can happen.a lineup ofkirk kobedengtyurswallace is a sure ring.........kirk can goto a full time PG again
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Thabo @ Jun 18 2007, 08:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Also, you're throwing around the dynasty word; but if you're giving up Wallace then we're left with no froncourt. And that team wound not even win a championship; yet alone become a dynasty. Kobe is good, but he's no Jordan. And there is no Pippen or Rodman on this team.</div>Add that the Lakers wouldn't want Wallace's big contract. He's old and his career as a useful player is almost done. The Lakers need to rebuild so I don't see them going after Wallace and without Big Ben, the Bulls would have to give up too much. It won't happen.
The only team I see Kobe going to is the Knicks. They have a lot of big contracts, so it would be easier for them to workout a deal. Plus, they have some good young talent that they wouldn't mind trading away as much as the Bulls would. New York is looking for a new identity to get fans happy about basketball again, and I can see Kobe being that player. He's mentioned the Knicks as a team he would like to go to along with the Bulls.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jun 18 2007, 09:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I disagree kobe could fit very well. As I said in my other post, we have enough depth to give them a great deal and evolve from a great team to perhaps an overnight dynasty. Tyrus+Gordon+Noc to LA Kobe Bryant to CHI = pg-hinrich sg-bryant sf-deng pf-hawes c-wallace tell me how that doesn't make our team much better?</div> First of all, the salaries would not come anywhere near close to matching up, and you don't have any big salaries to move in a deal for Kobe except Hinrich/Ben (which you obviously wouldn't include). Also, Spencer Hawes can not play the 4. He's too big an sluggish.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Jun 19 2007, 01:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>First of all, the salaries would not come anywhere near close to matching up, and you don't have any big salaries to move in a deal for Kobe except Hinrich/Ben (which you obviously wouldn't include). Also, Spencer Hawes can not play the 4. He's too big an sluggish.</div>Im not sure on salaries but im pretty sure Sweetney makes 8 mil and I suppose Gordon+Nocioni+Tyrus collectively at least make 8 mil. Kobe makes around 16 mil so why wouldnt that work out?Even if Spencers Hawes is to be our center, we can move Ben Wallace to PF since hes getting older AND since hes really only the height of a sf-pf anyway and it wouldnt hurt the team at all.I think most people posting are scared of change but I cant see how you dont want a guy who scored 81 points in one game. Especially in CHI where the echoes of jordans past are everywhere why would you not want that kind of player again?
Ben Gordon - 4 milMichael Sweetney - 3 milKobe - 18 milNocioni is probably getting a new contract, so I don't know how much he will be getting, but for this deal to work, he will have to be getting about 8 mil next year,which he was a 4 mil this year. It doesn't exactly workout. Wallace or 2 more players would most likely have to be involved in the deal.I just don't see any point in taking a team one big man away from seriously contending for a championship, to bring in a player with no concept of team chemistry, who is just looking for a quick fix to get talent in LA, then re-sign with them in two years when his contract is up. (Or atleast that's the latest rumor on what he has been quoted as saying.) I could be wrong about the whole entire trade situation though. It's just my opinion.
