Bulls offseason

[davell]

Going forward, whats expected in the off season now?

 

I saw a rumor we may cut Rondo and then try to resign him lol. Hopefully that's complete BS.

 

If we actually attempt to buy assets, what do we have?

 

Rondo- He can be cut and just count 3 mill against the cap. There's lots of teams that have cap issues, I'd like to hope we can move him to a team in need of cap space, for something of value. Taking on a shitty contract of theirs.

 

15 mill TPE- I guess we created this in the Jimmy deal. But, it can be used on its own, or with Rondo, to help acquire something of use.

 

Lopez- In one of Paxson's interviews, he kind of made it sound like he wanted to keep him around, for veteran leadership. If not, I'd guess he could probably net a heavily protected future 1st? Something like that anyway.

 

Wade- Are we going to cut him loose? He opted in, we can do what we want, whatever that is. It seems like our reputation can't get much worse, so could we trade him for a bad contract or two, as well? At 23.8 mill, you could definitely find some bad contracts with him. Or you can keep him, if you think he'd be a good influence on the youngsters, but it seems like Rondo was the guy they all liked.

 

Between Grant, Payne, Zipser, Portis, Valentine.....Maybe you can find a team interested in one of them? Portis is the only one of that group I think that has any shot of becoming a starter for anyone.

 

Now that they've gone down this path, I really hope they add assets in some way, shape, or form, since they're obviously trying to finish as bad as possible.

[Cubswin11]

I'm underwhelmed by the trade but I don't really understand the Zach Lavine hate aside from the injury. A 22 year old who averaged 18 points a game while being a good three point shooter is pretty good.

He's a horrifically, awful defender too by almost all accounts and they are going to have to decide to give him like 3-4 years at $12 mil+ a year after the season as well.

 

Holy horsefeathers, do you look at NBA contracts? What the hells wrong with giving him THAT lol?

He's coming off a knee injury, whatever value he has is largely based on his athleticism and also the cap just shrunk more than people thought it would. Committing 1/5 of your cap to Zach horsefeathering Lavine is horsefeathering stupid.

[davell]

He's a horrifically, awful defender too by almost all accounts and they are going to have to decide to give him like 3-4 years at $12 mil+ a year after the season as well.

 

Holy horsefeathers, do you look at NBA contracts? What the hells wrong with giving him THAT lol?

He's coming off a knee injury, whatever value he has is largely based on his athleticism and also the cap just shrunk more than people thought it would. Committing 1/5 of your cap to Zach horsefeathering Lavine is horsefeathering stupid.

 

Aren't you a Lakers fan? You just gave one fifth of your cap for LUOL horsefeathering DENG. Free agency prices are high. Ask Mosgov lol.

 

For a team in rebuild mode, you can give LaVine that type of money and not think twice. You don't do it next week, when you're able to, but you see how he performs this year and go from there. But, 4/70 or whatever is not even a bad deal, if he comes back and plays as he did last year. Its the market. And I'd much prefer giving it to a young guy with plenty of upside, to giving it to run of the mill, busted ass vets.

 

What's horsefeathering stupid is paying old guys that type of money. A rebuilding team can take a shot on a young guy and it doesn't affect their long term outlook at all, even if it didn't work out.

 

Seriously, go look at salaries.

[Sammy Sofa]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/breaking-down-the-jimmy-butler-trade/?ex_cid=538fb

[Cubswin11]

 

Holy horsefeathers, do you look at NBA contracts? What the hells wrong with giving him THAT lol?

He's coming off a knee injury, whatever value he has is largely based on his athleticism and also the cap just shrunk more than people thought it would. Committing 1/5 of your cap to Zach horsefeathering Lavine is horsefeathering stupid.

 

Aren't you a Lakers fan? You just gave one fifth of your cap for LUOL horsefeathering DENG. Free agency prices are high. Ask Mosgov lol.

 

For a team in rebuild mode, you can give LaVine that type of money and not think twice. You don't do it next week, when you're able to, but you see how he performs this year and go from there. But, 4/70 or whatever is not even a bad deal, if he comes back and plays as he did last year. Its the market. And I'd much prefer giving it to a young guy with plenty of upside, to giving it to run of the mill, busted ass vets.

 

What's horsefeathering stupid is paying old guys that type of money. A rebuilding team can take a shot on a young guy and it doesn't affect their long term outlook at all, even if it didn't work out.

 

Seriously, go look at salaries.

I know where salaries are going and paying middle class players max deals or near max (which I think what Lavine is/can be) can get you in trouble. Those Laker contracts were awful at the time and are even worse now with the cap not going up as much as projected, they also led to multiple FO/ownership people losing jobs. They just had to give up a recent #2 overall draft pick to shed one of those. Giving big money to washed up/not elite players in FA gets you in trouble in the NBA and think doing a Deng type deal for Lavine is a bad move, rebuilding or not. If the Bulls are looking to spend they should do what the Nets just did with the Lakers, take a bad contract with a young/cheap player and/or first round picks attached.

[SpongeWorthy]

What's this taking on bad contracts strategy all about?

 

Like the Nets did where you take on a bad deal like Mozgov that is coupled with a young asset like Russell?

[Derwood]

What's this taking on bad contracts strategy all about?

 

Like the Nets did where you take on a bad deal like Mozgov that is coupled with a young asset like Russell?

 

The theory is you take a bad (expiring) contract off someone's hand in order to get a younger player or pick as well, and then that contact walks and you have cap space. Trouble is no one wants to play here, so that cap space isn't that valuable.

[davell]

He's coming off a knee injury, whatever value he has is largely based on his athleticism and also the cap just shrunk more than people thought it would. Committing 1/5 of your cap to Zach horsefeathering Lavine is horsefeathering stupid.

 

Aren't you a Lakers fan? You just gave one fifth of your cap for LUOL horsefeathering DENG. Free agency prices are high. Ask Mosgov lol.

 

For a team in rebuild mode, you can give LaVine that type of money and not think twice. You don't do it next week, when you're able to, but you see how he performs this year and go from there. But, 4/70 or whatever is not even a bad deal, if he comes back and plays as he did last year. Its the market. And I'd much prefer giving it to a young guy with plenty of upside, to giving it to run of the mill, busted ass vets.

 

What's horsefeathering stupid is paying old guys that type of money. A rebuilding team can take a shot on a young guy and it doesn't affect their long term outlook at all, even if it didn't work out.

 

Seriously, go look at salaries.

I know where salaries are going and paying middle class players max deals or near max (which I think what Lavine is/can be) can get you in trouble. Those Laker contracts were awful at the time and are even worse now with the cap not going up as much as projected, they also led to multiple FO/ownership people losing jobs. They just had to give up a recent #2 overall draft pick to shed one of those. Giving big money to washed up/not elite players in FA gets you in trouble in the NBA and think doing a Deng type deal for Lavine is a bad move, rebuilding or not. If the Bulls are looking to spend they should do what the Nets just did with the Lakers, take a bad contract with a young/cheap player and/or first round picks attached.

 

 

I think you're putting too much emphasis on cap room for the Bulls right now. Seriously, its not even that important right now, because they know they're going to flat out suck for this next period of time. Its just an unfortunate fact. There's honestly not a player on the roster currently that's a guarantee to be around the next time the Bulls are in contention.

 

Its POSSIBLE LaVine can be. But, giving him a fifth of your cap isn't that important, because that leaves you 4/5 of it to operate off of, knowing you're not signing max guys or even solid, long term guys for the next few years.

 

If in 3 years time, there's enough semblance of players that it looks like you can add long term contracts.....Then LaVine is very likely to be a big reason why thats the case.....If he's just an average guy at that stage, he's still tradable.

 

The KEY is keeping cap space open right now. But, having one long term deal on a young guy isn't going to hamper ANYTHING, because the rest of your roster is cheap, young players and hopefully a few salary dumps that get you other assets......

 

Do one of those moves a year, maybe two, if THEY don't stay on the books TOO long. That's where you actually need to be careful. Don't just add 35 mill in bad deals immediately, that clog up your cap for 3 years. Add guys sporadically, to where they fall off the books at different points.

 

Meaning, if we take Deng, as an example, don't take any MORE guys that still have 3 years left on their deal too. Personally, I like Portland as a team for us to target. But, I'm sure there's plenty of them out there....Because, as you said, there's lots of teams with bad contracts. The difference is they're trying to make the playoffs, we're not. We can extend LaVine and see what he develops into, because there's nobody else on the horizon we will be paying outside of bad contracts and LaVine, who obviously is a solid player and worth seeing if he can turn into more.(again, you don't give him big money until AFTER he's back from injury)

[davell]

What's this taking on bad contracts strategy all about?

 

Like the Nets did where you take on a bad deal like Mozgov that is coupled with a young asset like Russell?

 

 

Yeah, that's the general idea. Add young guys or picks, by taking on bad contracts and freeing up cap space for teams trying to contend.

 

Its NOT about getting flexibility to add max guys right now at all. The only way we can get to that point is to draft or trade for enough young talent to where we eventually become a desirable spot. Until, then, you basically just keep adding assets, to get you closer.

[Derwood]

Rondo and Canaan waived

[davell]

They'll bring back Mirotic and Felicio. I just hope they use the rest of their 20+ mill of cap room to acquire some picks and/or young guys.

[davell]

Felicio gets 4/32. Wonder if that opens up a trade of Lopez now? If Rubio netted a1st, I'd think he would too.

[WrigleyField 22]

Felicio gets 4/32. Wonder if that opens up a trade of Lopez now? If Rubio netted a1st, I'd think he would too.

Didn't really want him at 4 years, but that's a good deal. Hopefully front load it as much as possible.

[MarkR]

Bulls sign Justin Holiday from the Knicks. I think there's some hindsight that needs to be seen here after the turd return for Paul George as well. Quite simply, the offers we all WANTED weren't there. Who really Garpax is dumb enough to turn down two (or hell, even 1) studly picks for a guy who is not likely going to be here the next time the Bulls will be competitive. I get the frustration with Dunn, but he's going to get a chance to play here. You'll get a much better indicator of him than what we saw in Minnesota. Might he be awful? Sure, there's a chance of that.

 

But Dunn played in Minnesota and was drafted to be a point guard on a team that already had a well-established guy ahead of him on the depth chart. Thibs' disdain for rookies is well-documented. Dunn would have had to be off the charts good to buck that trend. How many rookies come in and make that kind of impact immediately? Point is, he'll get a chance here and I'm stoked for it. IIRC, he was universally loved coming out of Providence. Zach Lavine could definitely be a quality piece (not saying he's going to be the alpha dog on a future championship) that contributes to the success in the future.

 

I didn't like selling the second round pick, but honestly think its getting more and more criticism than it really merits. Teams sell picks constantly in the second round. If you loved Jordan Bell, great. He was a great high energy guy that could thrive in a team where he just has to be a pest. The Bulls need guys with skill. That's not him. He would get no run here. Not after they re-invested in Felicio and (hopefully not...) Mirotic.

 

I think their offseason has been really good thus far with a clear and concise direction, but I think that much of the angst comes from what we all perceived Jimmy was worth and bought into the rumors about what teams with serious assets like Boston would offer. They're a chickenshit organization who's about to have to pony up for their quality role players or let them go. They've blown it. They could've had Jimmy and tried to de-throne LeBron but they're taking the 10 year approach. Good for them. I hope it bites them in the ass, but their unwillingness to deal to date shows they weren't serious contenders for Jimmy anyways.

 

Go Bulls. Love this direction they're heading. I feel like I might be the only one...

[UMFan83]

Here are my issues regarding Dunn:

 

-He was the absolute worst shooter in the league in terms of eFG%. I'm sure he won't be as bad with a lot more PT but that's 300 shots of sample size.

-He was a redshirt junior meaning he was in college for 4 seasons meaning he was old for a rookie, particularly a lottery pick. He's older 9 months older than Giannis and roughly the same age as guys like Marcus Smart, Elfrid Payton, Gary Harris. it's not like he's some 20 year old one and done guy with lots of development to go. Sure he has room to improve but I don't see a lot of evidence of there being a star hiding in there. We'll see

[David]

If that's the best offer out there for Butler, you do not trade him.

[UMFan83]

If that's the best offer out there for Butler, you do not trade him.

 

Member of Team Tank speaking to say that I agree

[MarkR]

If that's the best offer out there for Butler, you do not trade him.

 

His value isn't going to go up from a trade perspective. By bringing back the same group of players, you're staring at a team that is going to be too competitive for any sort of meaningful impact player in the draft next season. Now Jimmy would be 1 year away from free agency and his value is going to be lower. Paul George, a superior player to jimmy, just netted a horsefeathers package that ties up a ton of money to a decent nba starter and no draft picks for any future hope for the pacers.

 

Their trade was bold and while I wish they hadn't included 16, I don't think the trade gets done without it.

[David]

If that's the best offer out there for Butler, you do not trade him.

 

His value isn't going to go up from a trade perspective. By bringing back the same group of players, you're staring at a team that is going to be too competitive for any sort of meaningful impact player in the draft next season. Now Jimmy would be 1 year away from free agency and his value is going to be lower. Paul George, a superior player to jimmy, just netted a horsefeathers package that ties up a ton of money to a decent nba starter and no draft picks for any future hope for the pacers.

 

Their trade was bold and while I wish they hadn't included 16, I don't think the trade gets done without it.

 

Trades in which you receive significantly less value than you give up are not good trades.

 

And Jimmy Butler is better than Paul George.

 

George, even prior to his injury, has never had a season as good as the one Butler just had.

[Andy]

If that's the best offer out there for Butler, you do not trade him.

This should be the title of the thread.

[UMFan83]

My whole reason for trading butler was to acquire future picks and assets that could land a superstar along with usable assets instead of just the superstar 2 years from FA. I recognize we might not get the superstar but we had to do something because we were painted in a corner imo.

 

We got some assets in a good young player with no chance of being as good as Butler whose best trait is athleticism but is coming off a torn ACL and is a year away from making more money than Butler. Then a 23 year old PG who was the worst shooter in the league last year as well as the 7th pick whose comp is Niko Mirotic. Has a higher ceiling but not a superstar ceiling imo. We got no future picks, in fact gave up a first, we have no assets that could be as good as Jimmy. Yes we are now bad enough to make our future 1st round picks high enough for a superstar but bottom line is that I don't think we gave up enough to justify trading a top 12 player. I also don't necessarily agree that we were not going to get as much in the future for him. Teams in the past have given up a premium at the deadline for a missing piece and you can probably get lotto picks at a better value because it's pre-draft lottery.

 

Anyways if this was the best we could get for butler I would have held on to him for now at least

[MarkR]

My whole reason for trading butler was to acquire future picks and assets that could land a superstar along with usable assets instead of just the superstar 2 years from FA. I recognize we might not get the superstar but we had to do something because we were painted in a corner imo.

 

We got some assets in a good young player with no chance of being as good as Butler whose best trait is athleticism but is coming off a torn ACL and is a year away from making more money than Butler. Then a 23 year old PG who was the worst shooter in the league last year as well as the 7th pick whose comp is Niko Mirotic. Has a higher ceiling but not a superstar ceiling imo. We got no future picks, in fact gave up a first, we have no assets that could be as good as Jimmy. Yes we are now bad enough to make our future 1st round picks high enough for a superstar but bottom line is that I don't think we gave up enough to justify trading a top 12 player. I also don't necessarily agree that we were not going to get as much in the future for him. Teams in the past have given up a premium at the deadline for a missing piece and you can probably get lotto picks at a better value because it's pre-draft lottery.

 

Anyways if this was the best we could get for butler I would have held on to him for now at least

 

How valuable are future picks from a team that you're dealing a superstar for? The Nets trade is obviously the best example of a team that got beyond desperate and forfeited 10 years of viability for 1 year of a potential run. That trade is looked at as the biggest deal of buffoonery ever.

 

Look at the Demarcus Cousins deal. The Kings got a future first round pick in this draft and it ended up being number 10. A good spot to draft a quality player, but not a franchising changing position. Who's the star talent traded at the deadline in the last five years that yielded an amazing return? Again, looking at the Cousins deal, people thought the return was pretty weak. That's the nature of deals in the NBA. Star players aren't going to be bring back what we think they're worth. Again, would I have preferred a package that SSR said he would have done for Butler a couple pages ago? Of course. The Bulls would have too, but if its not there, its not there. And you're seeing what the market will offer you for a top 15 player (George) in their year before FA and its not pretty. Then, if you still want to keep Butler, is he, as a 29 year old, going to be worth a supermax deal? The Bulls clearly didn't love Jimmy enough to offer him that years down the road and look at him as the franchise cornerstone for the next Bulls Championship run.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

If that's the best offer out there for Butler, you do not trade him.

 

Yuuuup.

[David]

My whole reason for trading butler was to acquire future picks and assets that could land a superstar along with usable assets instead of just the superstar 2 years from FA. I recognize we might not get the superstar but we had to do something because we were painted in a corner imo.

 

We got some assets in a good young player with no chance of being as good as Butler whose best trait is athleticism but is coming off a torn ACL and is a year away from making more money than Butler. Then a 23 year old PG who was the worst shooter in the league last year as well as the 7th pick whose comp is Niko Mirotic. Has a higher ceiling but not a superstar ceiling imo. We got no future picks, in fact gave up a first, we have no assets that could be as good as Jimmy. Yes we are now bad enough to make our future 1st round picks high enough for a superstar but bottom line is that I don't think we gave up enough to justify trading a top 12 player. I also don't necessarily agree that we were not going to get as much in the future for him. Teams in the past have given up a premium at the deadline for a missing piece and you can probably get lotto picks at a better value because it's pre-draft lottery.

 

Anyways if this was the best we could get for butler I would have held on to him for now at least

 

How valuable are future picks from a team that you're dealing a superstar for? The Nets trade is obviously the best example of a team that got beyond desperate and forfeited 10 years of viability for 1 year of a potential run. That trade is looked at as the biggest deal of buffoonery ever.

 

Look at the Demarcus Cousins deal. The Kings got a future first round pick in this draft and it ended up being number 10. A good spot to draft a quality player, but not a franchising changing position. Who's the star talent traded at the deadline in the last five years that yielded an amazing return? Again, looking at the Cousins deal, people thought the return was pretty weak. That's the nature of deals in the NBA. Star players aren't going to be bring back what we think they're worth. Again, would I have preferred a package that SSR said he would have done for Butler a couple pages ago? Of course. The Bulls would have too, but if its not there, its not there. And you're seeing what the market will offer you for a top 15 player (George) in their year before FA and its not pretty. Then, if you still want to keep Butler, is he, as a 29 year old, going to be worth a supermax deal? The Bulls clearly didn't love Jimmy enough to offer him that years down the road and look at him as the franchise cornerstone for the next Bulls Championship run.

 

So trade for a star instead of trading one.

[davell]

My whole reason for trading butler was to acquire future picks and assets that could land a superstar along with usable assets instead of just the superstar 2 years from FA. I recognize we might not get the superstar but we had to do something because we were painted in a corner imo.

 

We got some assets in a good young player with no chance of being as good as Butler whose best trait is athleticism but is coming off a torn ACL and is a year away from making more money than Butler. Then a 23 year old PG who was the worst shooter in the league last year as well as the 7th pick whose comp is Niko Mirotic. Has a higher ceiling but not a superstar ceiling imo. We got no future picks, in fact gave up a first, we have no assets that could be as good as Jimmy. Yes we are now bad enough to make our future 1st round picks high enough for a superstar but bottom line is that I don't think we gave up enough to justify trading a top 12 player. I also don't necessarily agree that we were not going to get as much in the future for him. Teams in the past have given up a premium at the deadline for a missing piece and you can probably get lotto picks at a better value because it's pre-draft lottery.

 

Anyways if this was the best we could get for butler I would have held on to him for now at least

 

How valuable are future picks from a team that you're dealing a superstar for? The Nets trade is obviously the best example of a team that got beyond desperate and forfeited 10 years of viability for 1 year of a potential run. That trade is looked at as the biggest deal of buffoonery ever.

 

Look at the Demarcus Cousins deal. The Kings got a future first round pick in this draft and it ended up being number 10. A good spot to draft a quality player, but not a franchising changing position. Who's the star talent traded at the deadline in the last five years that yielded an amazing return? Again, looking at the Cousins deal, people thought the return was pretty weak. That's the nature of deals in the NBA. Star players aren't going to be bring back what we think they're worth. Again, would I have preferred a package that SSR said he would have done for Butler a couple pages ago? Of course. The Bulls would have too, but if its not there, its not there. And you're seeing what the market will offer you for a top 15 player (George) in their year before FA and its not pretty. Then, if you still want to keep Butler, is he, as a 29 year old, going to be worth a supermax deal? The Bulls clearly didn't love Jimmy enough to offer him that years down the road and look at him as the franchise cornerstone for the next Bulls Championship run.

 

So trade for a star instead of trading one.

 

 

With what lol? Oladipo and Sabonis beats the horsefeathers out of anything we could have offered for George.