I've read two (dubious?) sources say that the Spurs are interested in a deal involving Taj, Boozer, and Dunleavy. Coming back would be Bonner and Diaw. The basketball reasoning makes sense, sorta. The Spurs need some help due to age and injuries. They're able to get best record, but not advance in the playoffs. The Nulls struggling to hit .500 may not justify hurting the bottom line, and more cap space helps retool. CBA? Bonner and Diaw make $8.6M combined. Not enough to ballast Boozer's deal. Works for Taj, and we'd improve profitability by taking back that much expiring. We'd have our 13th man in the 2-for-1 deal. Trade machine says we'd be $680K under LT. Ginobili, Diaw, and Bonner for Boozer works. I'm not seeing enough benefit vs. amnesty, though. Dunleavy for Bonner or Diaw works and gets us out of his contract for next year.
One of my favorite posters at RealGM, DuckIII, colorfully referred to trading Taj Gibson for expiring contracts as the "canary in the coal mine" with regard to the Bulls believing that they'll be able to bring Carmelo Anthony to Chicago. Meanwhile, Mark "Sham" Deeks at shamsports.com recently wrote a very interesting and informative article on the problems Gibson's All-Defensive Team contract incentives could cause the Bulls this season vis a vis the LT. According to Deeks's article, the Bulls are currently $678,595 under the LT line. Bonner and Diaw combined make about a mil more than Gibson, eating into the Bulls' LT cushion. However, as you point out, trading for Bonner and Diaw for Gibson eliminates the 13th player issue. It also removes the Bulls' exposure to Gibson's incentive clauses. Interesting stuff. I'm a big Taj Gibson fan, so if the Bulls trade him for expirings, Anthony better end up a Bull. At this point, I have no confidence in the Bulls being able to trade Boozer for expirings without sweetening the deal with future draft picks. I'd rather just amnesty him this summer...it's not my money. As for Dunleavy, he's sort of a collateral damage kind of guy. If they need to trade him, c'est la vie.
Gibson has come of age this season. I love him as a player as well. Ya, me too transplant. If this trade happens, Melo had better be coming to for next season.
Boozer should have value to a contender that needs a PPG/RPG guy and who has a big contract to exchange.
As I'm sure you agree, if the Bulls could trade Boozer for an expiring(s) without having to sweeten the deal with future picks, they'd do it. Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk 2
That seems to be fans' wishful thinking. The flip side is our PF/C position is manned by Noah, Taj, Nazr, and Murphy.
As you like to say, look at the money. Bulls management gave up on this season the moment Rose's diagnosis came in. They don't care if the PF/C positions are a little thin for the remainder of this season. Boozer is scheduled to make $16.8mil next season. Many believe that he'll be amnestied. He is having his weakest season as a pro and will be 33 in November, so if he's amnestied, the Bulls would have to eat nearly all of that $16.8mil. This could be avoided if he could be traded now for expirings. Of course they'd trade him if they could.
The other choice, and a likely one as I see it, is no amnesty. They'll be under the LT, and profits will be good. The Chairman might do another "we're mediocre" interview, but he's laughing all the way to the bank. Don't have to "eat" Boozer's salary. They'll at least play him at backup C.
If Boozer is amnestied, it'll be hard to sell that Bulls' ownership is "cheap" (though I'm sure die-hard haters will step up their creativity and persevere). As I see it, there's no way Boozer, Gibson and Mirotic are all on the roster. I think the Bulls would love to have Gibson & Mirotic at PF. If the pursuit of Anthony is serious, it's possible that none of the 3 will be retained. Sent from my GT-P1010 using Tapatalk 2
It's not a "cheap" thing. If they spend $100M and make $500M vs. spending $10M and making $50M, they'll do the former. It's about profit.
Maximizing PROFIT is what they're about. $500M in, $100M out, $400M profit. Who cares if we win, when the Chairman gets to pocket the dough. $50M in, $10M out. "Cheaper" because $10M is less than $100M. I NEVER say the Chairman is cheap. He's out to maximize his profits even at the expense of trying to win for real. It isn't "cheap" to keep Boozer. It is more profit than using amnesty on him. It is worse for the bottom line to pay him $13M (or whatever) to play elsewhere AND pay his replacement or replacements. It's the difference between $60M in profit and $47M. The Chairman's got to eat!
