The Chicago Bulls 2007 Offseason Thread

[Soriano12]

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.

 

I disagree. In the NBA, sometimes you have to get really bad before you can get better. Right now with Kobe they are stuck in limbo. Good enough to make the playoffs each year, but no chance to make it deep in the playoffs, especially the Western conference. They should do this deal, stock up on some lottery picks and go from there.

[Derwood]

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.

 

try looking here

[1908]

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.

The majority of NBA teams are over the salary cap but under the luxury tax threshold. If a team is over the salary cap, the salaries of the traded players need to match up within 25% of each other.

[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.

The majority of NBA teams are over the salary cap but under the luxury tax threshold. If a team is over the salary cap, the salaries of the traded players need to match up within 25% of each other.

 

I understand that they need to, but my question is what's the purpose? I generally understand the rules of baseball's CBA and the reasons for specific rules. But I don't get the point of the NBA having this rule. The only goal, it seems, is to stop teams from making trades. Unless it was just a failed attempt to force teams to think twice before signing guys to bad deals in the first place.

[Derwood]

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.

The majority of NBA teams are over the salary cap but under the luxury tax threshold. If a team is over the salary cap, the salaries of the traded players need to match up within 25% of each other.

 

I understand that they need to, but my question is what's the purpose? I generally understand the rules of baseball's CBA and the reasons for specific rules. But I don't get the point of the NBA having this rule. The only goal, it seems, is to stop teams from making trades. Unless it was just a failed attempt to force teams to think twice before signing guys to bad deals in the first place.

 

perhaps it's their way of trying to create financial parity (by making rules that more or less force every team to spend the same amount of money on their teams)?

[1908]

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.

The majority of NBA teams are over the salary cap but under the luxury tax threshold. If a team is over the salary cap, the salaries of the traded players need to match up within 25% of each other.

I understand that they need to, but my question is what's the purpose? I generally understand the rules of baseball's CBA and the reasons for specific rules. But I don't get the point of the NBA having this rule. The only goal, it seems, is to stop teams from making trades. Unless it was just a failed attempt to force teams to think twice before signing guys to bad deals in the first place.

What would you suggest as the alternative?

[CubColtPacer]

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.

The majority of NBA teams are over the salary cap but under the luxury tax threshold. If a team is over the salary cap, the salaries of the traded players need to match up within 25% of each other.

 

I understand that they need to, but my question is what's the purpose? I generally understand the rules of baseball's CBA and the reasons for specific rules. But I don't get the point of the NBA having this rule. The only goal, it seems, is to stop teams from making trades. Unless it was just a failed attempt to force teams to think twice before signing guys to bad deals in the first place.

 

It keeps teams from having a firesale in order to free up cap room, and to keep good teams from being dominant. It's all about competitive balance and stability-the NBA would love to see most of their teams be with the team that drafted them, and that ends up happening more than it does in other sports. It's the same reason why if you are over the cap you can sign your own free agents to a max deal but you have heavy restrictions placed on what you can offer other teams fee agents. Less turnover on the roster means that there is more connection between fans and players. The fact that a good team over the cap has trouble improving means that the talent becomes more dispersed throughout the league.

[rawaction]

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

 

I'd rather have Wallace, Gordon and Deng.

[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.

The majority of NBA teams are over the salary cap but under the luxury tax threshold. If a team is over the salary cap, the salaries of the traded players need to match up within 25% of each other.

I understand that they need to, but my question is what's the purpose? I generally understand the rules of baseball's CBA and the reasons for specific rules. But I don't get the point of the NBA having this rule. The only goal, it seems, is to stop teams from making trades. Unless it was just a failed attempt to force teams to think twice before signing guys to bad deals in the first place.

What would you suggest as the alternative?

 

It's hard to suggest an alternative to a concept without knowing the desired goals.

 

It seems to me rather pointless and redundent to have these rules on trades. If you have a salary cap, and a luxury tax, you can enforce those to maintain a competitive balance. Artificially handicapping the teams by placing heavy restrictions on trades doesn't seem to serve any purpose whatsoever, accept for giving ESPN a reason to start that trade machine thing.

[Soriano12]

I agree with Jersey, I really don't care for the rule. IMO, it keeps alot of teams from improving themselves. Basically, when you have a lottery pick you better hit a homerun or your team will be bad for a long time.

[1908]

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.

The majority of NBA teams are over the salary cap but under the luxury tax threshold. If a team is over the salary cap, the salaries of the traded players need to match up within 25% of each other.

I understand that they need to, but my question is what's the purpose? I generally understand the rules of baseball's CBA and the reasons for specific rules. But I don't get the point of the NBA having this rule. The only goal, it seems, is to stop teams from making trades. Unless it was just a failed attempt to force teams to think twice before signing guys to bad deals in the first place.

What would you suggest as the alternative?

 

It's hard to suggest an alternative to a concept without knowing the desired goals.

 

It seems to me rather pointless and redundent to have these rules on trades. If you have a salary cap, and a luxury tax, you can enforce those to maintain a competitive balance. Artificially handicapping the teams by placing heavy restrictions on trades doesn't seem to serve any purpose whatsoever, accept for giving ESPN a reason to start that trade machine thing.

These trade rules only apply to teams that are over the salary cap, so the rule is enforcing the cap.

[jersey cubs fan]

These trade rules only apply to teams that are over the salary cap, so the rule is enforcing the cap.

 

The cap makes the rule unnecessary. If you already have a cap, the rule is just a pointless addition to make it more difficult to improve your team.

 

I still haven't heard anybody justify the rules existence. That is what I was asking. I'm not here to lay out my plans for the NBA. I just don't understand the point of a rule that only makes it harder to fix roster problems. All it has accomplished is create a market for overpaid veterans with one year left on their contract.

[1908]

These trade rules only apply to teams that are over the salary cap, so the rule is enforcing the cap.

The cap makes the rule unnecessary. If you already have a cap, the rule is just a pointless addition to make it more difficult to improve your team.

A hard cap would make the rule unnecessary. The NBA uses a soft cap.

 

I still haven't heard anybody justify the rules existence.

Did you read CubColtPacer's post?

[Derwood]

i do agree that it makes for some unnecessary trade scenarios. Looking way back to the Pippen-to-Houston trade, where the Bulls signed him, traded him for junk, then cut the junk....only because they had to take back salary under the rules. The Bulls should have been alowed to just trade him for whomever

[jersey cubs fan]

These trade rules only apply to teams that are over the salary cap, so the rule is enforcing the cap.

The cap makes the rule unnecessary. If you already have a cap, the rule is just a pointless addition to make it more difficult to improve your team.

A hard cap would make the rule unnecessary. The NBA uses a soft cap.

 

I still haven't heard anybody justify the rules existence.

Did you read CubColtPacer's post?

 

Yes, I just don't see how it's true.

 

It keeps teams from having a firesale in order to free up cap room, and to keep good teams from being dominant. It's all about competitive balance and stability-the NBA would love to see most of their teams be with the team that drafted them, and that ends up happening more than it does in other sports.

 

Obviously it hasn't kept good teams from being dominant, as the same teams keep winning. Not allowing teams to trade actually pretty much guarantees that bad teams will stay bad and great teams will stay great.

 

But I guess this is the closest anybody has come to supplying a reason for the rule. It's not like the NBA is the only league with foolish rules. It just seems to me that most leagues have these rules set up for a legit reason to benefit either the teams or the players.

 

If you have a salary cap and then tax every dollar spent above that cap, then why can't they just tax the added dollars that come via a trade? It's not like teams are just going to be giving away Kobe Bryant and Allen Iverson type players to the dominant teams and not take market value back.

 

It appears to me to be an unnecessary barrier to trade. A man-made inefficiency that doesn't help anybody. A lawyerly creation designed to look smart but in practice and in reality, without purpose.

 

The NBA is still a team dominated by the teams that win in the draft. It takes teams forever to get any good. More ability to trade would allow the better GMs to go from have nots to haves in a more timely fashion. The current system just seems to doom the bad teams to poisoning their home market.

[Derwood]

thankfully for us, the Bulls have a GM who has done exceptionally well in the draft

[1908]

If you have a salary cap and then tax every dollar spent above that cap

The NBA does not tax every dollar spent above the cap. That's what the NFL has, right? A hard cap. The NBA salary cap for the 2006-2007 season was $53.135M and the luxury cap threshold was $65.42M. Since they've decided to use a soft cap, they've created exceptions that allow teams to exceed it.

[1908]

The NBA is still a team dominated by the teams that win in the draft.

No doubt the league is dominated by teams that draft well. But that is different than it being dominated by teams with frequent high picks. There are dominant teams that are build through trades, though. Take the current Detroit Pistons, for instance.

 

EDIT: Also, many teams are created via free agency signings. Take the most recent Lakers dynasty, for instance.

[CubColtPacer]

These trade rules only apply to teams that are over the salary cap, so the rule is enforcing the cap.

The cap makes the rule unnecessary. If you already have a cap, the rule is just a pointless addition to make it more difficult to improve your team.

A hard cap would make the rule unnecessary. The NBA uses a soft cap.

 

I still haven't heard anybody justify the rules existence.

Did you read CubColtPacer's post?

 

Yes, I just don't see how it's true.

 

It keeps teams from having a firesale in order to free up cap room, and to keep good teams from being dominant. It's all about competitive balance and stability-the NBA would love to see most of their teams be with the team that drafted them, and that ends up happening more than it does in other sports.

 

Obviously it hasn't kept good teams from being dominant, as the same teams keep winning. Not allowing teams to trade actually pretty much guarantees that bad teams will stay bad and great teams will stay great.

 

But I guess this is the closest anybody has come to supplying a reason for the rule. It's not like the NBA is the only league with foolish rules. It just seems to me that most leagues have these rules set up for a legit reason to benefit either the teams or the players.

 

If you have a salary cap and then tax every dollar spent above that cap, then why can't they just tax the added dollars that come via a trade? It's not like teams are just going to be giving away Kobe Bryant and Allen Iverson type players to the dominant teams and not take market value back.

 

It appears to me to be an unnecessary barrier to trade. A man-made inefficiency that doesn't help anybody. A lawyerly creation designed to look smart but in practice and in reality, without purpose.

 

The NBA is still a team dominated by the teams that win in the draft. It takes teams forever to get any good. More ability to trade would allow the better GMs to go from have nots to haves in a more timely fashion. The current system just seems to doom the bad teams to poisoning their home market.

 

The NBA has just as much fluctuation from bad to good as any other league. You have your 5-6 teams at the top (where 1 team breaks in about every year) your 16-18 teams in the middle, and then your 6-8 teams at the bottom with terrible management.

 

Here are the teams in the NBA who have won at least 50 games in the past 5 years (good teams): Detroit, Cleveland, Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio, Houston, Utah, Miami, Seattle, Sacramento, Indiana, Minnesota, LA Lakers, Memphis, Portland.

That's half the league right there-and that doesn't include the Nets (who were in the NBA Finals during that stretch), the 76ers (who were in the finals in the 2000-2001 season and were good as recently as 4 years ago), the Bulls (who won 49 games this year after being bad 5 years ago), the Wizards (who were a tough out in the playoffs last year), the Bucks (who won 51 games 6 years ago and were in the playoffs 3 out of the past 5 years), Denver (who has been in the hunt for several years including winning 49 games one year), and several other examples.

 

It's not harder to go from bad to good or good to bad in the NBA-the only thing that makes winning championships harder than other sports is the best of 7 rule. In other sports, the best team doesn't win most of the time, but in pro basketball it does, and that's why you'll see less champions overall. There have been plenty of very good teams though.

[Soriano12]

The NBA is still a team dominated by the teams that win in the draft.

No doubt the league is dominated by teams that draft well. But that is different than it being dominated by teams with frequent high picks. There are dominant teams that are build through trades, though. Take the current Detroit Pistons, for instance.

 

EDIT: Also, many teams are created via free agency signings. Take the most recent Lakers dynasty, for instance.

 

Shaq had his mind set on signing with the Lakers the moment he entered the NBA. It is very hard rely on FA in the NBA considering the best young players are locked up early by the team that drafted them.

[1908]

Shaq had his mind set on signing with the Lakers the moment he entered the NBA. It is very hard rely on FA in the NBA considering the best young players are locked up early by the team that drafted them.

Just pointing out an example of a dynasty team that was build with FA signings (Shaq) and trades (Kobe). No doubt the draft is the most efficient way to acquire talent in the NBA and I don't see what's wrong with that. It's not like teams don't land all-star talents with late picks. The Spurs are masters at this. Dallas picking up Josh Howard is another example.

[1908]

Kobe Bryant fuming, demanding trade from Lakers

 

Let the trade scenario frenzy commence.

[Soriano12]

Losing Deng would hurt, no doubt..but Wallace, Gorden, and Deng for Kobe and Bynum...I would have to do that deal. I expect Julian Wright to be available @ 9. We could draft him to replace Deng(not that I think Wright will be as good as Deng), but

 

PG Hinrich

SG Kobe

C Bynum

SF Noc/Wright

PF Tyrus

 

 

That is looking pretty good..

[Derwood]

good for kobe. i've heard several reports this week that the whole "kobe demands shaq be traded" think was BS. My only hope now is that if he's not traded to the Bulls, that he stay in the Western Conference

[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!

 

Soriano12 doesn't read other people's posts methinks