The Chicago Bulls 2007 Offseason Thread

[ChiCubsFan]

If we had to give up too much of the core, though, we'd just be an Eastern Conference version on the Lakers.

The Bulls would need to gut the core to make it happen. Kobe will be paid $19.5M next season. That's more than the combined salaries of Hinrich, Deng and Gordon next year ($11M, $3.3M and $4.9M).

 

Would it be possible to first sign Gordon and Noc to extensions and then trade both, along with the 9th (and the expiring contracts of Duhon and/or Khrypa if necessary) to the Lakers for Kobe? I think both teams would benefit from something like that. The Lakers are going nowhere with what they have now. Adding a young scorer in BG and a solid contributor with Noc and someone like Hawes at 9 would be a good start at rebuilding. Having a starting lineup of Hinrich, Kobe, Deng, Thomas, and Wallace would be sick. Sefolosha as the 6th man.

[Exile on Waveland]

Guys, we're talking about Kobe Bryant. First, the Lakers aren't going to trade him. Second, it's going to cost a fortune. The proposed deals wouldn't come close to getting it done. The Bulls would have to build a package around Deng. Even then, I'm not sure the Bulls could come up with a deal that wouldn't completely gut their team.

[ChiCubsFan]

Guys, we're talking about Kobe Bryant. First, the Lakers aren't going to trade him. Second, it's going to cost a fortune. The proposed deals wouldn't come close to getting it done. The Bulls would have to build a package around Deng. Even then, I'm not sure the Bulls could come up with a deal that wouldn't completely gut their team.

 

Well then he's not going to get traded and the Lakers are going to suck forever. Sounds good to me.

[Exile on Waveland]

Guys, we're talking about Kobe Bryant. First, the Lakers aren't going to trade him. Second, it's going to cost a fortune. The proposed deals wouldn't come close to getting it done. The Bulls would have to build a package around Deng. Even then, I'm not sure the Bulls could come up with a deal that wouldn't completely gut their team.

 

Well then he's not going to get traded and the Lakers are going to suck forever. Sounds good to me.

 

The former is certainly true. The latter very well may be too (if you consider losing in the first round of the playoffs sucking). The Lakers do have a couple movable pieces that could net a player that would push them to the upper tier of the NBA. Hope it doesn't happen, though.

[ChiCubsFan]

Guys, we're talking about Kobe Bryant. First, the Lakers aren't going to trade him. Second, it's going to cost a fortune. The proposed deals wouldn't come close to getting it done. The Bulls would have to build a package around Deng. Even then, I'm not sure the Bulls could come up with a deal that wouldn't completely gut their team.

 

Well then he's not going to get traded and the Lakers are going to suck forever. Sounds good to me.

 

The former is certainly true. The latter very well may be too (if you consider losing in the first round of the playoffs sucking). The Lakers do have a couple movable pieces that could net a player that would push them to the upper tier of the NBA. Hope it doesn't happen, though.

 

I do consider losing in the first round of the playoffs for 2 straight years and the year before that not even making the playoffs sucking. I'd like to see the Bulls get Kobe, but not if it costs giving up Gordon, Deng, and others.

[1908]

I do consider losing in the first round of the playoffs for 2 straight years and the year before that not even making the playoffs sucking.

A little strong. Did you think the Bulls sucked after they were eliminated by Miami last year?

[Flames24Rulz]

I do consider losing in the first round of the playoffs for 2 straight years and the year before that not even making the playoffs sucking.

A little strong. Did you think the Bulls sucked after they were eliminated by Miami last year?

 

No, but the Lakers seem to have regressed. Bynum hasn't improved at all and all the Lakers consist of (besides Kobe and Odom) are a bunch of role players. I can see why Kobe is upset. That current team is not going to go anywhere besides the first round. Don't forget, they nearly missed the playoffs completely this year as well. And as of right now, I'd rate that the Warriors and Clippers will be better than them in 07-08 (doesn't really mean much right now).

[1908]

If we had to give up too much of the core, though, we'd just be an Eastern Conference version on the Lakers.

The Bulls would need to gut the core to make it happen. Kobe will be paid $19.5M next season. That's more than the combined salaries of Hinrich, Deng and Gordon next year ($11M, $3.3M and $4.9M).

Would it be possible to first sign Gordon and Noc to extensions and then trade both, along with the 9th (and the expiring contracts of Duhon and/or Khrypa if necessary) to the Lakers for Kobe? I think both teams would benefit from something like that. The Lakers are going nowhere with what they have now. Adding a young scorer in BG and a solid contributor with Noc and someone like Hawes at 9 would be a good start at rebuilding. Having a starting lineup of Hinrich, Kobe, Deng, Thomas, and Wallace would be sick. Sefolosha as the 6th man.

Hinrich, Gordon, and Thomas would be my floor if I were the Lakers GM.

[1908]

Gordon, Ben W, and Tyrus?

Maybe if Wallace's contract were expiring at the end of next season.

[1908]

I do consider losing in the first round of the playoffs for 2 straight years and the year before that not even making the playoffs sucking.

A little strong. Did you think the Bulls sucked after they were eliminated by Miami last year?

No, but the Lakers seem to have regressed.

Injuries played a large role. They were on pace for a much higher seed. No doubt Kobe's path to another Championship would be much easier in the East, though.

[Flames24Rulz]

I do consider losing in the first round of the playoffs for 2 straight years and the year before that not even making the playoffs sucking.

A little strong. Did you think the Bulls sucked after they were eliminated by Miami last year?

No, but the Lakers seem to have regressed.

Injuries played a large role. They were on pace for a much higher seed. No doubt Kobe's path to another Championship would be much easier in the East, though.

 

The first 1/4th of their schedule was also the easiest in the entire NBA where they had something like 2/3's of those games at home. It wasn't that surprising that they fell off, but considering they nearly missed the playoffs completely was a surprise. There's no doubt the injury to Odom slowed them down. But I feel that Odom should easily be more involved in the offense, much more than he currently is, if the Lakers want to win games.

[ChiCubsFan]

I do consider losing in the first round of the playoffs for 2 straight years and the year before that not even making the playoffs sucking.

A little strong. Did you think the Bulls sucked after they were eliminated by Miami last year?

 

That's not comparable. The Bulls lost to the eventual NBA champs and put up a good fight against them. They also showed a lot of improvement that season when compared to the previous 2. Also, there was a lot of optimism surrounding the Bulls because they were a young team that was going to get better, had a high draft pick, and played in the much weaker Eastern conference. None of that could be said about the Lakers.

[1908]

That's not comparable.

Ah, so there's more to sucking than losing in the first round of the playoffs for 2 straight years and the year before that not even making the playoffs then.

[ChiCubsFan]

That's not comparable.

Ah, so there's more to sucking than losing in the first round of the playoffs for 2 straight years and the year before that not even making the playoffs then.

 

Of course. Don't be so pompous. For a team with the best player in the league, what the Lakers have done the past 3 years, I would consider sucking. I was talking about the Lakers. Not the Bulls, whose oldest player last year (that was a major contributor) was probably around 25 years old.

[1908]

That's not comparable.

Ah, so there's more to sucking than losing in the first round of the playoffs for 2 straight years and the year before that not even making the playoffs then.

Of course. Don't be so pompous. For a team with the best player in the league, what the Lakers have done the past 3 years, I would consider sucking. I was talking about the Lakers. Not the Bulls, whose oldest player last year (that was a major contributor) was probably around 25 years old.

Grow a thicker skin. The Tiberwolves fit your description. They have a top five player on the roster and they suck year after year. The Lakers are not an elite team by any means, but they don't suck, and it's hyperbolic to suggest they do.

[ChiCubsFan]

That's not comparable.

Ah, so there's more to sucking than losing in the first round of the playoffs for 2 straight years and the year before that not even making the playoffs then.

Of course. Don't be so pompous. For a team with the best player in the league, what the Lakers have done the past 3 years, I would consider sucking. I was talking about the Lakers. Not the Bulls, whose oldest player last year (that was a major contributor) was probably around 25 years old.

Grow a thicker skin. The Tiberwolves fit your description. They have a top five player on the roster and they suck year after year. The Lakers are not a elite team by any means, but they don't suck, and it's hyperbolic to suggest they do.

 

Well then explain the definition of "suck". I don't know why you brought up the T-Wolves, but yeah, they suck as well.

 

Edit: Maybe you meant to show how the TWolves have a top player but suck more than the Lakers. The reasoning behind that is that the Lakers suck less. Nonetheless, they still suck.

[1908]

Well then explain the definition of "suck".

My definition is two or more seasons in a row with a sub .400 winning percentage. I reserve the term for the truly atrocious teams. Missing the playoffs in back to back seasons seems like it should be the bare minimum but that seems harsh to me. I wouldn't say the Hornets suck, for instance.

 

I don't know why you brought up the T-Wolves, but yeah, they suck as well.

I brought it up in response to your best player in the league rationale for evaluating the Lakers and Bulls identical results differently.

[ChiCubsFan]

Well then explain the definition of "suck".

My definition is two or more seasons in a row with a sub .400 winning percentage. I reserve the term for the truly atrocious teams. Missing the playoffs in back to back seasons seems like it should be the bare minimum but that seems harsh to me. I wouldn't say the Hornets suck, for instance.

 

I don't know why you brought up the T-Wolves, but yeah, they suck as well.

I brought it up in response to your best player in the league rationale for evaluating the Lakers and Bulls identical results differently.

 

Did you even read my post? I evaluted those seasons differently for a bunch of reasons, none of which had to do with Kobe Bryant. To sum up my previous post, the Bulls were a much younger team and played against a much better team. Yeah, the Suns are very good, but the Heat were the NBA champions. Also, the Bulls had more optimism heading into the future, not only because of the youth, but also because of a high draft pick and being fortunate enough to be in the Eastern Conference.

[1908]

Well then explain the definition of "suck".

My definition is two or more seasons in a row with a sub .400 winning percentage. I reserve the term for the truly atrocious teams. Missing the playoffs in back to back seasons seems like it should be the bare minimum but that seems harsh to me. I wouldn't say the Hornets suck, for instance.

 

I don't know why you brought up the T-Wolves, but yeah, they suck as well.

I brought it up in response to your best player in the league rationale for evaluating the Lakers and Bulls identical results differently.

 

Did you even read my post? I evaluted those seasons differently for a bunch of reasons, none of which had to do with Kobe Bryant. To sum up my previous post, the Bulls were a much younger team and played against a much better team. Yeah, the Suns are very good, but the Heat were the NBA champions. Also, the Bulls had more optimism heading into the future, not only because of the youth, but also because of a high draft pick and being fortunate enough to be in the Eastern Conference.

I'm not arguing Bulls versus Lakers. I only brought it up because of your original statement that missing the playoffs one year followed by two consecutive exits in the first round means a team sucks. We've since learned that's not always the case, and it turns out there are lots of reasons you're down on LA. That's great. I agree with some of them. I'm done arguing semantics with you. I provided my definition of an NBA team that sucks per your request in my previous post and you ignored it. I think it's a fair one, and the Lakers don't come close to fitting it. Will they end up sucking if they don't sell off their best player for less than his full value? I suspect we'll get to find out.

[ChiCubsFan]

Well then explain the definition of "suck".

My definition is two or more seasons in a row with a sub .400 winning percentage. I reserve the term for the truly atrocious teams. Missing the playoffs in back to back seasons seems like it should be the bare minimum but that seems harsh to me. I wouldn't say the Hornets suck, for instance.

 

I don't know why you brought up the T-Wolves, but yeah, they suck as well.

I brought it up in response to your best player in the league rationale for evaluating the Lakers and Bulls identical results differently.

 

Did you even read my post? I evaluted those seasons differently for a bunch of reasons, none of which had to do with Kobe Bryant. To sum up my previous post, the Bulls were a much younger team and played against a much better team. Yeah, the Suns are very good, but the Heat were the NBA champions. Also, the Bulls had more optimism heading into the future, not only because of the youth, but also because of a high draft pick and being fortunate enough to be in the Eastern Conference.

I'm not arguing Bulls versus Lakers. I only brought it up because of your original statement that missing the playoffs one year followed by two consecutive exits in the first round means a team sucks. We've since learned that's not always the case, and it turns out there are lots of reasons you're down on LA. That's great. I agree with some of them. I'm done arguing semantics with you. I provided my definition of an NBA team that sucks per your request in my previous post and you ignored it. I think it's a fair one, and the Lakers don't come close to fitting it. Will they end up sucking if they don't sell off their best player for less than his full value? I suspect we'll get to find out.

 

Fair enough.

[Banedon]

Mike and Mike had Tim Legler on this morning and they were talking about this as a possible trade (they admittedly came up with this on their own, so it's not even really a legitimate rumor, just some radio speculation).

 

Bulls get: Kobe Bryant, Andrew Bynum

 

Lakers get: Ben Wallace (for salary reasons), Ben Gordon, Luol Deng

[Keener98]

Mike and Mike had Tim Legler on this morning and they were talking about this as a possible trade (they admittedly came up with this on their own, so it's not even really a legitimate rumor, just some radio speculation).

 

Bulls get: Kobe Bryant, Andrew Bynum

 

Lakers get: Ben Wallace (for salary reasons), Ben Gordon, Luol Deng

 

The Lakers are not going to trade Kobe. I dont understand why all these sportswriters think its a possibility. If they trade Kobe they set that team back big time. As for that deal suggested, Id prob do it since in it we get to keep our 9th pick as well.

[Banedon]

Mike and Mike had Tim Legler on this morning and they were talking about this as a possible trade (they admittedly came up with this on their own, so it's not even really a legitimate rumor, just some radio speculation).

 

Bulls get: Kobe Bryant, Andrew Bynum

 

Lakers get: Ben Wallace (for salary reasons), Ben Gordon, Luol Deng

 

The Lakers are not going to trade Kobe. I dont understand why all these sportswriters think its a possibility. If they trade Kobe they set that team back big time. As for that deal suggested, Id prob do it since in it we get to keep our 9th pick as well.

 

Apparently Kobe talked to Stephen A Smith and was on the radio yesterday just laying into the Lakers...that's what prompted this conversation...

 

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/stephen_a_smith/20070530_Stephen_A__Smith____Bryant_fires_back_at_Lakers.html

[Derwood]

i can't see it happening, but just for fun:

 

PG: Hinrich

SG: Bryant

SF: Nocioni/Rookie

PF: Thomas

C: Bynum

 

i'd buy that for a dollar!

[jersey cubs fan]

Can somebody explain to me the reason behind the NBA's rule where salaries have to match up in order for a trade to happen? It's obviously not just because of the salary cap, since teh cap itself is routinely circumvented.

 

It seems to me that the only purpose it serves is to give teams a reason to pay some worthless veteran $10m for one year and hope they can use him in a trade.