OK... since it's probably not gonna happen, and we've got a month to the deadline, why not analyze and figure out who the targets should be, and then figure out why they won't happen. My personal favorite would be Andre Iguodala. Why we should want him Because he's a very good player who, although he doesn't do everything the Bulls would like, fits the profile of the sort of guy you'd want to add to this team very well. To win, the Bulls need to win the defensive and rebounding contests. Iggy is a guy that can and routinely does defend the best players in the league at a high level and is a good rebounder. Offensively, he's another guy who can score on the floor, and he's got a very good handle and passing skills. Despite being on weak Philly teams, he's never actually monopolized the ball, and doesn't use too many possessions. Having him as an option to kick the ball to (whether for a drive of his own or a mid-range shot) will keep defenses more honest on Rose, and give the Bulls an additional way to set up and run a play. Problems, and why they're not big enough to stop us from wanting him He's not a lights out shooter. On the other hand, he's a dramatically better shooter, with more range, than Ronnie Brewer. Still, he's so quick with the ball that he gets a lot of his points by simply driving by guys when he starts on the perimeter. He's one of the few guys around that can do that. His salary is pretty high. If the Bulls want to really contend and upgrade their SG position, they're going to have to get someone that costs money. Good players do. Because of the set of core guys the Bulls have locked in already, there's no option, or reason, to actually get under the tax and rebuild. So if they want to add talent, they're going to have to do it by adding payroll. Is he gettable? Well, I think the best sort of offer the Bulls could make (and still have enough to make a go at it themselves) is something like Iggy, Tony Battie for Asik, Brewer, JJ, Bogans, 2 first round picks. But I'm skeptical that two picks, a prospect like Asik, and cheaper contracts coming back would be enough. I've heard Iggy's name mentioned as far as being available at various points, but I have to think the Sixers would be reluctant to give him up. The earlier reports seemed to be premised on the idea that Evan Turner was going to come in and be much cheaper and much better. But so far he's been a pretty dramatic flop. I think the Sixers would certainly trade him if the other team took a player like Elton Brand too, but I don't see how the Bulls could do that without giving up a core player like Deng too. Which would be two steps forward and one step back IMO. We probably need a two steps forward trade. So I'd rate the chances of this sort of trade as pretty unlikely. Not outlandishly unlikely, because I think better contracts + picks is a fair return for a highly paid player on a struggling team, but it's not an obvious win for the Sixers, so why would you do if if you're them?
What I've seen and read is Philly might consider dealing Iggy if the other team took Elton Brand's contract in the deal.
Nobody, to be completely honest. Management is sticking to their common lines about the all elusive cap space (or cap positioning, really) and how this team isn't a contender -- which is kind of a kick in the nads. I think they're pretty darn content to have an almost-contender for three or four years, and aren't really concerned about winning a championship.
I like Iggy. As far as other candidates, I saw some of today's game and don't think OJ Mayo is a great fit unless it's a real fire sale.
I'm not a huge fan of mgmt but I think they would go for it if they found the right piece right now. I don't see any signs *currently* that they are mostly focused on profit. (Now with that said, wasn't the catch phrase that it all can change in the blink of an eye?)
I can understand your argument, but at some point, doesn't the fact that, since Krause resigned, the Bulls have never made an aggressive play to contend indicate that they are refusing to make aggressive plays to contend. It's proving something by using a negative, which can always change, but I feel relatively safe in my assessment. The only arguably aggressive move the franchise has made was the signing of Ben Wallace, but that was really a lateral move considering they let Chandler go at the same time. If the team was determined to contend they would have signed them both. I don't think that necessarily would have been the right move in retrospect, but it's hard to argue that they are putting themselves out there with a commitment to winning it all.
Actually they did sign Chandler the year before. They traded his big contract for PJ Brown's big expiring contract. The Bulls had at least $20M in cap space that season. They signed 32 year old Ben Wallace for $16M, matched Seattle's offer to Chris Duhon for about $3M more, signed Adrian Griffin for $1.5M, took on Viktor Kryhapa's $1.2M salary in the draft day deal where we gave up LeMarcus Aldridge for Tyrus, and we had the cap holds for that #2 pick in the draft. An aggressive set of moves with the same cap situation would have been to sign Al Harrington for $7M, Drew Gooden for $6M, kept Chandler (who had a breakout type season at C for New Orleans), matched Duhon, and kept Aldridge. With Wallace, the team won 49 games. The lineup was: Hinrich, Duhon, Gordon at guard Wallace, Brown at center Deng, Nocioni, Tyrus, and Malik Allen at the forwards In my scenario, we'd have had: Hinrich, Duhon, Gordon at guard Chandler, Aldridge at center Deng, Harrington, Gooden, Nocioni at forward Better than 49 wins? I think so. The Bulls finished 3rd in the central that season behind Detroit and Cleveland and finished 33-49 the following (Wallace bobblehead doll with a headband on it and no headband team rule) season. At the very least, they could have signed Gooden or Harrington to go along with Wallace. Or kept Aldridge and Chandler to go with Wallace.
Or a ballsy move would have been to trade up from 16 (where we took Rodney Carney and traded him for #13 Thabo) and maybe got a Brandon Roy.
I pretty much agree. In fact, we've seen several articles suggesting the Bulls know they're a move away and want to make that move. The evidence is obviously on your side, but I'd submit that Derrick Rose (mostly) and Joakim Noah (a little) make it a very different situation now. I could be wrong, but I think 1) Those guys are extremely profitable for this franchise long-term and 2) They both want to win and might rightly complain if they conclude the Bulls ownership don't share their desire. And on general grounds, the team is a lot better. I'm actually of two minds. One thought is if the Bulls get an opportunity for a truly difference-making player, they'll take it now. The other is that they're going to see how the CBA negotiations play out this summer. For instance, if existing salaries get crammed down across the board, taking a guy like Iggy or Joe Johnson would be less risky. But if there's some kind of hard cap, it could be more risky. I tend to think that's the obvious consideration the Bulls are making with respect to trades. They'd much prefer cheaper/shorter contracts in any case, but the added element of the CBA changing introduces a "wait and see" aspect.
While the wait and see attitude due to a new CBA makes some sense, it sure would be insane to implement a hard cap and not grandfather in teams already over it. Are they really going to have a new CBA that makes the Lakers cast off several players to get under the cap? Or the Mavericks even?
