Clock Ticking on Big Ben

Discussion in 'Chicago Bulls' started by MikeDC, Jan 21, 2008.

  1. MikeDC

    MikeDC Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    5,643
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Professor
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    Whitebread Sammie says the clock is ticking:
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>First, Wallace isn't done.

    The notion is Wallace's contract, with two seasons after this totaling $28.5 million, is unmovable. (We always say things like that and then guys like Juwan Howard and Shawn Kemp are traded.) Wallace makes sense for the Lakers with Andrew Bynum's injury, and they can give the Bulls enough to make sense of a deal.

    You take Kwame Brown's expiring contact of $9 million and add Vladimir Radmanovic at $5.6 million and it's a deal. The Bulls wouldn't want to take on Radmanovic's deal, which goes through 2010-11, but it's much cheaper than Wallace and may be the best way to get out from under his deal.

    Wallace was supposed to be coming to a competing team; the Bulls were that last season. Wallace helped, no matter what revisionist history says. The Bulls are hardly dead, but they are in transition and Noah can play that defensive center position. And he's 7 feet tall. Wallace once played like he was. No more at 33.

    But Wallace can be effective in the right circumstances.

    Bynum is expected to return in two months, but the Lakers could fall badly in that time. Bynum was a legitimate second scoring option, giving relief to Kobe Bryant. Wallace doesn't replace that, but he's the kind of player Jackson likes.</div>

    This sort of kicks the can down the road a bit (for those of us who don't really want him around), because another deal would be needed at some point to get rid of Radmanovic contract, but I think that sort of deal is probably a little easier than a deal that gets rid of Wallace. At the same time, I'd probably take a deal that didn't have us taking on any worse contracts, even if it meant taking a worse player, rather than taking Wallace.

    Why? because I like the idea of having the flexibility to add a major free agent down the road, in addition to having our current guys locked up. It's a snowball's chance in hell, but it's better than no chance in hell, which is what we seem to have now.
     
  2. Moo2K4

    Moo2K4 NBA West Producer

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    11,768
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Alburnett, Iowa
    I don't foresee the Lakers doing this. At this point, they don't need Wallace. Plus, when he gets back, it creates a hell of a rotation issue. Why? Because they'd have both Wallace and Bynum to play the center, both wanting starting minutes. You COULD slide Wallace in to the 4 and slide Odom to the 3, but then what happens with Ariza, who is developing quite nicely for the Lakers? Beyond that, if both are in the starting lineup, you have no center depth. At that point, the Lakers would have to choose between the two of them, and whoever doesn't get chose probably wouldn't like the role of the 6th man, and beyond that, if you take Bynum out of the starting lineup, you lose your 2nd best scoring option and someone who has been somewhat of a safety blanket for Kobe. But, if you start Bynum and bring Wallace off the bench, that's a disaster waiting to happen. Wallace is very outspoke as a player and would probably not like the role. Plus, as a Laker fan, I don't want a guy making almost $15mil a year coming off the bench. So, while the trade makes sense for the Bulls and would be a temporary fix for the Lakers, it just creates too much turmoil down the line for the Lakers.
     
  3. such sweet thunder

    such sweet thunder Member Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,509
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    48
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Moo2K4 @ Jan 21 2008, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't foresee the Lakers doing this. At this point, they don't need Wallace. Plus, when he gets back, it creates a hell of a rotation issue. Why? Because they'd have both Wallace and Bynum to play the center, both wanting starting minutes. You COULD slide Wallace in to the 4 and slide Odom to the 3, but then what happens with Ariza, who is developing quite nicely for the Lakers? Beyond that, if both are in the starting lineup, you have no center depth. At that point, the Lakers would have to choose between the two of them, and whoever doesn't get chose probably wouldn't like the role of the 6th man, and beyond that, if you take Bynum out of the starting lineup, you lose your 2nd best scoring option and someone who has been somewhat of a safety blanket for Kobe. But, if you start Bynum and bring Wallace off the bench, that's a disaster waiting to happen. Wallace is very outspoke as a player and would probably not like the role. Plus, as a Laker fan, I don't want a guy making almost $15mil a year coming off the bench. So, while the trade makes sense for the Bulls and would be a temporary fix for the Lakers, it just creates too much turmoil down the line for the Lakers.</div>

    You may be correct that Wallace is not a superb fit for the Lakers, but I agree with Sam Smith's sentiments. I think Big Ben and contract have value for any number of teams trying to make the push to get over the top. Wallace's contract is reasonable in the most important dimension: years. Could the Mav's use him? Yup. Lakers, Celtics, Phoenix, Denver, New Orleans? I think so. One of these teams thinks they're close enough to a championship (and probably are) for investing in Ben Wallace to make sense at the trade deadline. For me, at least, the only thing that would hold up such a trade is what it might to do the Bulls. Things are bad, but shipping Wallace would be a lasting symbol -- a white flag trade-- showing that management doesn't believe this team could get it done.

    I think Paxson has a number of difficult decisions in front of him.
     
  4. Lavalamp

    Lavalamp Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,042
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Moo2K4 @ Jan 21 2008, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't foresee the Lakers doing this. At this point, they don't need Wallace. Plus, when he gets back, it creates a hell of a rotation issue. Why? Because they'd have both Wallace and Bynum to play the center, both wanting starting minutes. You COULD slide Wallace in to the 4 and slide Odom to the 3, but then what happens with Ariza, who is developing quite nicely for the Lakers? Beyond that, if both are in the starting lineup, you have no center depth. At that point, the Lakers would have to choose between the two of them, and whoever doesn't get chose probably wouldn't like the role of the 6th man, and beyond that, if you take Bynum out of the starting lineup, you lose your 2nd best scoring option and someone who has been somewhat of a safety blanket for Kobe. But, if you start Bynum and bring Wallace off the bench, that's a disaster waiting to happen. Wallace is very outspoke as a player and would probably not like the role. Plus, as a Laker fan, I don't want a guy making almost $15mil a year coming off the bench. So, while the trade makes sense for the Bulls and would be a temporary fix for the Lakers, it just creates too much turmoil down the line for the Lakers.</div>

    I wouldn't do it if I was the Lakers either, but rotation could work.

    starting line: Fisher, Kobe, Odom, Wallace, Bynum.

    Fisher, Farmar, J-Critt, Kobe and Sasha wouldn't have minutes affected.

    Ariza's minutes: 25 mpg SF, 8 mpg Walton
    Odom's minutes: 15 mpg SF, 20 mpg PF
    Wallace minutes: 15 mpg PF 18 mpg Center
    Bynum's minutes: 30 mpg Center

    Turiaf: 13 mpg PF

    Both would start, and it would be oriented around Bynum as starting center. Bynum plays first 8 minutes at center of 1st Q. Ben plays first 5 minutes at PF of 1st Q, and last 4 minutes of 1st Q at center. There would be some overlap between the two on the court, but when Bynum is off, Ben is always in at Center.
     
  5. SausageKingofChicago

    SausageKingofChicago Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2007
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Moo2K4 @ Jan 21 2008, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't foresee the Lakers doing this. At this point, they don't need Wallace. Plus, when he gets back, it creates a hell of a rotation issue. Why? Because they'd have both Wallace and Bynum to play the center, both wanting starting minutes. You COULD slide Wallace in to the 4 and slide Odom to the 3, but then what happens with Ariza, who is developing quite nicely for the Lakers? Beyond that, if both are in the starting lineup, you have no center depth. At that point, the Lakers would have to choose between the two of them, and whoever doesn't get chose probably wouldn't like the role of the 6th man, and beyond that, if you take Bynum out of the starting lineup, you lose your 2nd best scoring option and someone who has been somewhat of a safety blanket for Kobe. But, if you start Bynum and bring Wallace off the bench, that's a disaster waiting to happen. Wallace is very outspoke as a player and would probably not like the role. Plus, as a Laker fan, I don't want a guy making almost $15mil a year coming off the bench. So, while the trade makes sense for the Bulls and would be a temporary fix for the Lakers, it just creates too much turmoil down the line for the Lakers.</div>



    Bynum
    Wallace
    Odom
    Bryant
    Fisher

    <u>bench</u>

    Mihim
    Turiaf
    Walton
    Ariza/Vujacic
    Farmar



    What's the problem with this ?

    Seems perfectly balanced to me
     
  6. SausageKingofChicago

    SausageKingofChicago Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2007
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    And I would do it if I'm the Lakers.

    Wallace does have good interior passing ability ( something important for Big Chief Phil ) and it also greases Kobe's wheels better as well
     
  7. SausageKingofChicago

    SausageKingofChicago Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2007
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Wallace and Nachbar to LA

    K.Brown and Khyrapa to New Jersey

    Nocioni, Thomas , Duhon and a 2008 first from Chicago ( top 10 protected ) to Memphis

    Gasol, Jason Collins and Radmanovic to Chicago



    Collins
    Gasol
    Deng
    Sefolosha
    Hinrich

    6th : Gordon

    <u>bench</u>

    Gray
    Noah
    Smith
    Radmanovic
    Griffin
    Livingston ( from DL )
    Curry



    Can that team contend in the East ?
     
  8. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,944
    Likes Received:
    10,531
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Think Radman will get as much PT as Viktor?
     
  9. Moo2K4

    Moo2K4 NBA West Producer

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2003
    Messages:
    11,768
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Alburnett, Iowa
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SausageKingofChicago @ Jan 22 2008, 07:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Moo2K4 @ Jan 21 2008, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't foresee the Lakers doing this. At this point, they don't need Wallace. Plus, when he gets back, it creates a hell of a rotation issue. Why? Because they'd have both Wallace and Bynum to play the center, both wanting starting minutes. You COULD slide Wallace in to the 4 and slide Odom to the 3, but then what happens with Ariza, who is developing quite nicely for the Lakers? Beyond that, if both are in the starting lineup, you have no center depth. At that point, the Lakers would have to choose between the two of them, and whoever doesn't get chose probably wouldn't like the role of the 6th man, and beyond that, if you take Bynum out of the starting lineup, you lose your 2nd best scoring option and someone who has been somewhat of a safety blanket for Kobe. But, if you start Bynum and bring Wallace off the bench, that's a disaster waiting to happen. Wallace is very outspoke as a player and would probably not like the role. Plus, as a Laker fan, I don't want a guy making almost $15mil a year coming off the bench. So, while the trade makes sense for the Bulls and would be a temporary fix for the Lakers, it just creates too much turmoil down the line for the Lakers.</div>



    Bynum
    Wallace
    Odom
    Bryant
    Fisher

    <u>bench</u>

    Mihim
    Turiaf
    Walton
    Ariza/Vujacic
    Farmar



    What's the problem with this ?

    Seems perfectly balanced to me
    </div>The problem? Well, first and foremost, I'll point out the obvious one. We'd have absolutely no depth at center. Mihm is hardly reliable and with his health issues, he probably won't be able to play much due to conditioning, even if he does get healthy. The other thing to point out with center depth is that Turiaf is not a center, he's a PF.

    Beyond lack of center depth, I don't like the starting lineup. Sure the interior defense would be great, too bad the perimeter defense, aside from Kobe, would not be. Odom is a pretty bad defender and give his age, Fisher isn't that great anymore either. I'd much rather see a starting five that had Odom at PF and Ariza at SF. We don't lose much as far as defense goes on the inside since Bynum is still there to clog the lane, but we gain a whole bunch on perimeter defense. With Ariza out there, Kobe isn't forced to guard the best perimeter player on the opposing side, allowing him to focus a little more on the offensive end instead of having to expend a lot of energy not just being the focal point of the offense, but also guarding the best player on the other side.

    Lastly, the main problem with this has nothing to do with the rotation, more to do with salaries. We already have Kobe and Odom making a ton of money, with a huge extension for Bynum in the near future. If the Lakers were to bring in Wallace, they'd have a lot of salary wrapped up in a trio of players and might have to go way over the cap to bring back Bynum, something they might not want to do. Beyond that, Odom might very well be up for an extension here soon depending on where he falls into the Lakers plans.
     

Share This Page