KOTB: NUGGETS BULLS

torotoe · Post #1 » by **torotoe** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:17 am

If you believe all teams would accept this trade, vote yes. If you believe otherwise, vote no. Please explain your vote.

Joakim Noah has been playing well, and in my opinion he is a very good player. He has two major warts, he is injury prone and he is incredibly ugly.

Chicago out/ Denver in: Joakim Noah, R. Hamilton

Denver out/ Chicago in: W. Chandler, J. Hamilton, C. Brewer, T. Mozgov, 2013 1st, 2015 1st

Chicago is over the tax, and this deal drops them under while giving then a few prospects. It hurts to give up Noah, but this is a future oriented move. Hamilton could be the SG Chicago is looking for. He has a sweet stroke, he's big, a great rebounder and extremely cheap. Chandler would be a nice addition to Chi's bench. Koufos would start at C. Mozgov and brewer would fill in the bench, and their 7.5m would expire.

Denver consolidates and takes on some salary. Noah is the best player in the deal. He is an injury risk, but what really matters is if he is healthy during the playoffs. Rip is a good shooter, and he has a 1m buyout next year. Joakim would make the nuggets very good.

Post #2 » by **Trader_Joe** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:06 am

Vote: No

Simply not near enough value for Chicago.

However it seems like there is potential there.

Americafkya · Post #3 » by **Americafkya** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:16 am

No

Not enough value. Other than Chandler, no realy good players are coming back. The bulls are still in win now mode with Rose coming back. They should not be looking to shed salary and downgrade talent to look to the future. Noah is too good to let go.

bullsnewdynasty · Post #4 » by **bullsnewdynasty** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:27 am

No

Terrible trade. Bench players for arguably the best C in the East right now? No way.

HornetJail · Post #5 » by **HornetJail** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:45 am

Essentially Wilson Chandler for Noah. I think you know the answer to this. I'm with everyone else on this.

SalemStoner · Post #6 » by **SalemStoner** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:26 am

Definitely a no. This clearly undervalues Noah, or overvalues most of the table scraps that the Nuggets are sending out.

torotoe · Post #7 » by **torotoe** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:31 am

CHA_77_Bobcats wrote:Essentially Wilson Chandler for Noah. I think you know the answer to this. I'm with everyone else on this.

You have to vote.

Not sure how it's 'essentially wilson chandler for noah'. J.Hamilton, two 1sts, Brewer, Mozgov and cap relief dont count?

On the back end, chandler makes about 45% less than Noah, giving a bit more cap space in 2014-15 after deng's contract expires and boozer is amnestied. If they wanted to trade him that offseason it would be easy- he would be an expiring in the same sense that Rip Hamilton is an expiring now. then they would have an extra 6.7m.

It would be nice for chicago to have three 2013 1sts, although the 'cats may or may not deliver. Having Rose, Taj, Chandler, Hamilton, teague, butler, four 1sts and max cap room if my math checks out. Then, add in Mirotic after everyone else is signed.

BR0D1E86 · Post #8 » by **BR0D1E86** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:57 am

torotoe wrote:
CHA_77_Bobcats wrote:Essentially Wilson Chandler for Noah. I think you know the answer to this. I'm with everyone else on this.

You have to vote.

Not sure how it's 'essentially wilson chandler for noah'. J.Hamilton, two 1sts, Brewer, Mozgov and cap relief dont count?

Not really, no.

torotoe · Post #9 » by **torotoe** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 3:34 pm

BR0D1E86 wrote:
torotoe wrote:
CHA_77_Bobcats wrote:Essentially Wilson Chandler for Noah. I think you know the answer to this. I'm with everyone else on this.

You have to vote.

Not sure how it's 'essentially wilson chandler for noah'. J.Hamilton, two 1sts, Brewer, Mozgov and cap relief dont count?

Not really, no.

Seriously? ugh. The ign'nce. :wink:

Joking aside, I dont understand how J. Hamilton and 2 1sts dont count.

bullsnewdynasty · Post #10 » by **bullsnewdynasty** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:37 pm

Random bench players, C level prospects, and mediocre draft picks don't really make the trade any more appealing.

PistolP · Post #11 » by **PistolP** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:49 pm

Absolutely horrible value for the Bulls. Voting No. Chandler is the only player of value in the deal and he is redundant behind Deng. Bulls may need to retool but this trade is more like a rebuild.

inquisitive · Post #12 » by **inquisitive** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:56 pm

No...especially for Bulls

zapatasblood · Post #13 » by **zapatasblood** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:21 pm

No

Bad for the Bulls

BR0D1E86 · Post #14 » by **BR0D1E86** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:14 pm

torotoe wrote:
BR0D1E86 wrote:
torotoe wrote:You have to vote.

Not sure how it's 'essentially wilson chandler for noah'. J.Hamilton, two 1sts, Brewer, Mozgov and cap relief dont count?

Not really, no.

Seriously? ugh. The ign'nce.

Joking aside, I dont understand how J. Hamilton and 2 1sts dont count.

Bench players and middling to low firsts aren't real assets. They're throw ins to make the trade appear meatier than it is. Wilson Chandler is the only real "asset" in the trade.

lakerhater · Post #15 » by **lakerhater** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:21 pm

Obvious no for Chicago. Are there any standards on the KOTB page? Some of the deals I've seen thrown out to the regular trade board, including this one, are just nowhere near being realistic offers.