I forgot to mention he's a decent clutch shooter and can shoot the 3. You guys would really benefit from a C who can make 3's.
Oh, you mean discuss a trade proposal that is nothing close to the one Mixum posted (adding Howard and Joel)? So you agree that we shouldn't address his posts. And that his posts add nothing to the board or intelligent conversation, and thus are closer to trolling than they are good intentions. I'm glad we agree.
That's a pipedream. Bulls do not want Andre. Bulls do not want to trade Deng and Salmons and have Martell as their only SF. Outlaw, Blake, Joel for Miller and Salmons works for the bulls because they get 3 expiring deals in exchange for one.
Except Joel isn't an expiring deal, like Salmons, he has a player option. With Salmons playing shitty, maybe he stays in his deal as well, but Joel is probably more likely to, with his injury. So the Bulls would add a tiny bit of salary to next season with that deal. If it was treated specifically as an expiring, then I would want more for 14 million in expirings than Miller and Salmons.
Discuss whatever you'd like is fine, but discussing another poster doesn't do anyone any good. And I don't think that adding Howard and Joel in as cap filler makes the trade markedly different. Outlaw and Blake are the only two guys who would play for the Bulls. He added value by posting a link that I hadn't seen. That's more value than I (and most people here) have done today. It doesn't make sense to me that he's "merely" a troll, and it makes even less sense that someone who really thinks he is would even be posting in this thread. Ed O.
Sorry. Again, where I am from and where I grew up, we handled punks that pissed us off. I am not used to not being able to handle my shit. Maybe you are a PapaG... but not me buddy.
I think that was a little uncalled for. Not sure why you are defending MIXUM so much. Are you the defender of the weak? *in case you didn't notice, I am just playing Don't get mad* but i dont think you had to call posters out and say MIXUM is contributing more when he OBVIOUSLY isn't
Y'know, I often bristle at MIXUM posts, and I periodically wish he would go away, but he has a valid point in this thread--that point being that had any other "respected" poster started an identical thread, the merits of the proposal would have been discussed. Instead however, the majority here chose to focus on the poster instead of the post. BenDavis, you tell Ed to take his "mod goggles" off, but perhaps you could remove your MIXUM blinders and evaluate his post on its merits...just a thought. We talk about "honorable intentions", but where is the honorable intent in simply assuming a detrimental purpose for a thread in which none exists. IMO, if we are to exhibit the ideals which we espouse and theoretically value, we would address the content of a post rather than inferring some sort of malicious intent from it.
Regarding the primary post, I think Miller is a better option than many of us are giving him credit for. Reviewing his game log, his median GmSc for the season is 5.0, and he's had several productive games (obviously not including the last 4). Given our dearth of bigs, he would get decent minutes, and he would help spread the floor (as Denny suggested). 18M incoming (Miller + Salmons) requires 14.4M outgoing--Blake/Outlaw + either Joel or Miller would get there. Would we want to do either version of that deal? Would Chicago?
I got pretty excited when I read this first post. I thought the proposal was Brad Miller and John Salmons, for Andre Miller, Steve Blake and Travis Outlaw. Makes some sense to both teams, swaps talented players that are having down seasons. Perhaps Chicago would get a 3rd team involved such as Miami to take Blake. Very little cap implications as Andre Miller and Salmons make about the same next year and the other contracts expire. I think the Blazers would still have a strong shot at signing Blake or Travis in the offseason. But it was a fresh look on Blazer roster ideas I had never previously considered. As I prepared to read the comments I was interested to see what pro's and con's different posters would contribute. Generally I think our forum over values our own assets, but there are always a couple realists that have a fairer balanced view and these are the comments I'm interested in. I'm mildly annoyed that so many good posters had to resort to name calling Mixum. He did provide value to me so I appreciate it. If you think he's a troll then just ignore him, I personally believe he is quite passionate, only he is overly concerned with the possibilities of negative outcomes.
Salmons is the Bulls' starting 2. If he were not on the team, the starting 2 would be Hinrich and the first two guards off the bench would be Pargo and Lindsey Hunter. Both those guys have PER under 10 and Hunter's is like -2. Yes, MINUS TWO.
I want to speak up on the "honorable intentions" part of our site rules. The intent of the rule is to keep out spammers and the like. To have honorable intent simply means a person wants to be part of the community for the long haul. A guy can be irritating as all hell, but can still have honorable intentions. A guy who's only intent is to be irritating doesn't have honorable intentions. Make sense? I prefer we don't have to make such judgments, and when we do, we start with the belief the poster is honorable.
