Blazers, Bulls Discussed Aldridge For Noah During Offseason

[Rerisen]

If you amnesty Boozer and trade Noah, Mirotic & Cat's Pick for LaMarcus.

We have no definitive proof that this was the offer required. According to the quotes Red posted, it sounds more like just the Deng/Pau situation all over, where the Bulls valued Noah higher flat out more and wouldn't trade him.

sound equally speculative to me

I find KC Johnson to usually be more informed than random Johnny fan doing toss the dice speculation.

I've heard no scenario in which the Bulls will trade Noah. Even if they did come to the conclusion they'd part with him--and let me stress here again, I've heard exactly the opposite, that they won't.

Aldridge:

According to a report by K.C. Johnson of the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Bulls have made it clear that All-Star center Joakim Noah will not be included in any trade talks with the Portland Trail Blazers for All-Star forward LaMarcus Aldridge. Johnson's article goes as far as to say that any Noah for Aldridge talk is a "non-starter" for the Bulls.

[JordansBulls]

If we were considering this then we should have given up Noah in a Dwight Howard type deal.

[kingkirk]

We have no definitive proof that this was the offer required. According to the quotes Red posted, it sounds more like just the Deng/Pau situation all over, where the Bulls valued Noah higher flat out more and wouldn't trade him.

What is more speculative, that we wouldn't listen to a Noah for Aldridge swap because Noah was untouchable or that if a deal were to be struck, it would involve the Bulls moving more than one piece?

Throughout this whole thing, there has been different variations of the deal for Aldridge.

KC Johnson was the guy that said we weren't using the MMLE, no?

[DanChee33]

In Chicago he is a back up - until FO trade Noah.

Yes, I would use Noah as a trade asset to get a 2nd option next to Rose.
Everybody - I mean everybody - knows what Im sayin except you. Sorry.
So there was a point in keeping him.

You're under the assumption that just because the Bulls retained Asik, they were immediately going to trade Noah.
...
There's nothing stopping the Bulls from trading Noah other than themselves. You don't decline a Noah for Aldridge swap in theory because of a hole at center after the trade. You do the deal because Aldridge is a better player. A center can be found after the trade.

1. No, because the Bulls would have 3 years to trade either Noah or Asik. And the first 2 years Asik would make about 5 mil...

2. Yes, a center can be found after the trade, but not sure a center like Asik can be found on a 8mil/year average salary.

[bullsnewdynasty]

now it's up to you to name a trade the bulls didn't do because they "overvalued" their players. you can't.

Of course it's impossible to say because none of us are privy to private trade discussions between general managers. But don't twist that in rumors involving Kobe, Gasol, Melo, Aldridge, etc. in the past, the Bulls have reportedly made guys like Deng and Noah untouchable over and over again. Not hard to put two and two together.

nor have they given an obscene contract to keep one of "their players." witness ben gordon

"Obscene" is very subjective and has an extreme connotation. There have been plenty of instances where the Bulls bid against themselves to re-sign their own drafted players and handed out questionable and arguably undeserved extensions.

[Red Larrivee]

In Chicago he is a back up - until FO trade Noah.

Yes, I would use Noah as a trade asset to get a 2nd option next to Rose.
Everybody - I mean everybody - knows what Im sayin except you. Sorry.
So there was a point in keeping him.

You're under the assumption that just because the Bulls retained Asik, they were immediately going to trade Noah.
...
There's nothing stopping the Bulls from trading Noah other than themselves. You don't decline a Noah for Aldridge swap in theory because of a hole at center after the trade. You do the deal because Aldridge is a better player. A center can be found after the trade.

1. No, because the Bulls would have 3 years to trade either Noah or Asik. And the first 2 years Asik would make about 5 mil...

2. Yes, a center can be found after the trade, but not sure a center like Asik can be found on a 8mil/year average salary.

$8 million average salary with a $15 million cap hit in 2014-15 as a backup. That's not valuable and the Bulls know that. They would essentially be breaking their necks to accommodate that contract. For a player who was 9th in minutes on the team, it's not worth it.

He's a good player but the Bulls did not miss out on acquiring a legitimate second option by not matching his offer sheet. They can deal Noah at any time if they are willing. Aldridge would have been good incentive to do so.

Sent from my HTC0P3P7 using Tapatalk

[dice]

now it's up to you to name a trade the bulls didn't do because they "overvalued" their players. you can't.

Of course it's impossible to say because none of us are privy to private trade discussions between general managers. But don't twist that in rumors involving Kobe, Gasol, Melo, Aldridge, etc. in the past, the Bulls have reportedly made guys like Deng and Noah untouchable over and over again. Not hard to put two and two together.

there is simply no evidence of this and is indeed quite far-fetched

nor have they given an obscene contract to keep one of "their players." witness ben gordon

"Obscene" is very subjective and has an extreme connotation. There have been plenty of instances where the Bulls bid against themselves to re-sign their own drafted players and handed out questionable and arguably undeserved extensions.

such as? i think they overpaid a bit for deng at the time, but that's the only instance i can think of that they even arguably overpaid. if they were "bidding against themselves" noah would be making more money, that's for sure

just admit that you love the knicks

[DanTown8587]

now it's up to you to name a trade the bulls didn't do because they "overvalued" their players. you can't.

Of course it's impossible to say because none of us are privy to private trade discussions between general managers. But don't twist that in rumors involving Kobe, Gasol, Melo, Aldridge, etc. in the past, the Bulls have reportedly made guys like Deng and Noah untouchable over and over again. Not hard to put two and two together.

You mean besides the fact that Deng was offered for both KG (along with Chandler and the #2 pick) and Kobe and the fact that Noah was indeed talked about going to Toronto (along with Deng) for Chris Bosh.

Or the fact that the Bulls wanted to sign LeBron and then trade Deng for cap space. You're right, there's a history of the Bulls telling people no on Luol Deng. I think the only guy that is true of is Gasol and considering what Memphis ended up trading Gasol for, I think it'd be fair to say that Luol Deng would have been an overpay.

The Bulls FO is screwed either way with people like you. They go all-in in 2010 and sign a guy who just posted a double-double season in Boozer (remember how much people said that if the Bulls just got a scoring PF that they'd be set?), Korver, Asik, Brewer, and Watson. Team is too deep (that team today would have a payroll similar to the Nets) so the Bulls make tough choices on Asik and Korver (the latter someone I didn't agree with trading).

People selectively judge the FO and just casually ignore times the Bulls take large risks (Tyrus, going all-in 2010, letting Gordon walk for 2010) to slam them for not taking risks.

[bullsnewdynasty]

You mean besides the fact that Deng was offered for both KG (along with Chandler and the #2 pick) and Kobe and the fact that Noah was indeed talked about going to Toronto (along with Deng) for Chris Bosh.

Or the fact that the Bulls wanted to sign LeBron and then trade Deng for cap space. You're right, there's a history of the Bulls telling people no on Luol Deng. I think the only guy that is true of is Gasol and considering what Memphis ended up trading Gasol for, I think it'd be fair to say that Luol Deng would have been an overpay.

Okay, now it's up to you to explain if the Bulls made these supposed offers, then why did they fail to land either of these players? Something clearly doesn't add up when the players ended up getting traded for much less.

The Bulls FO is screwed either way with people like you. They go all-in in 2010 and sign a guy who just posted a double-double season in Boozer (remember how much people said that if the Bulls just got a scoring PF that they'd be set?), Korver, Asik, Brewer, and Watson. Team is too deep (that team today would have a payroll similar to the Nets) so the Bulls make tough choices on Asik and Korver (the latter someone I didn't agree with trading).

I'm not following your argument.

People selectively judge the FO and just casually ignore times the Bulls take large risks (Tyrus, going all-in 2010, letting Gordon walk for 2010) to slam them for not taking risks.

2010 wasn't much of a risk. You act like that 2008 team was a championship contender. Mark Cuban breaking up a championship team to try to sign CP3/Howard was a risk. Jerry Krause breaking up the Jordan Bulls was a risk. Letting some players go from a first round exit team to try to sign LeBron James? Not really.

[bullsnewdynasty]

now it's up to you to name a trade the bulls didn't do because they "overvalued" their players. you can't.

Of course it's impossible to say because none of us are privy to private trade discussions between general managers. But don't twist that in rumors involving Kobe, Gasol, Melo, Aldridge, etc. in the past, the Bulls have reportedly made guys like Deng and Noah untouchable over and over again. Not hard to put two and two together.

there is simply no evidence of this and is indeed quite far-fetched

Sure, I guess there's no evidence if you ignore countless media reports. If you're looking for private audio footage of John Paxson I'm afraid I can't provide that.

such as? i think they overpaid a bit for deng at the time, but that's the only instance i can think of that they even arguably overpaid. if they were "bidding against themselves" noah would be making more money, that's for sure

just admit that you love the knicks

Yes, Deng was mega overpaid following a disappointing season, where Reinsdorf stepped into the negotiations and basically bowed down to Deng. Also, Chandler, Hinrich, and Nocioni were all overpaid and subsequently dumped shortly after signing their contract extensions.

[chadrucf]

You mean besides the fact that Deng was offered for both KG (along with Chandler and the #2 pick) and Kobe and the fact that Noah was indeed talked about going to Toronto (along with Deng) for Chris Bosh.

Or the fact that the Bulls wanted to sign LeBron and then trade Deng for cap space. You're right, there's a history of the Bulls telling people no on Luol Deng. I think the only guy that is true of is Gasol and considering what Memphis ended up trading Gasol for, I think it'd be fair to say that Luol Deng would have been an overpay.

Okay, now it's up to you to explain if the Bulls made these supposed offers, then why did they fail to land either of these players? Something clearly doesn't add up when the players ended up getting traded for much less.

Garnett wasnt traded the season that was offered. It's not surprising the return was different.

Bryant nixed any trade involving Deng. That's common knowledge.

2010 wasn't much of a risk. You act like that 2008 team was a championship contender. Mark Cuban breaking up a championship team to try to sign CP3/Howard was a risk. Jerry Krause breaking up the Jordan Bulls was a risk. Letting some players go from a first round exit team to try to sign LeBron James? Not really.

Really now? Losing your starting PG and SG, losing your 1st round pick, and trading away quality players for expiring contracts isn't a risk? That's insane.

[chadrucf]

Yes, Deng was mega overpaid following a disappointing season, where Reinsdorf stepped into the negotiations and basically bowed down to Deng.

What was Deng worth in your mind at the time?

[bullsnewdynasty]

Garnett wasnt traded the season that was offered. It's not surprising the return was different.

Bryant nixed any trade involving Deng. That's common knowledge.

Probably because the Bulls took Deng off the table after his breakout season.

Really now? Losing your starting PG and SG, losing your 1st round pick, and trading away quality players for expiring contracts isn't a risk? That's insane.

I really don't think the Bulls had that much to lose by going after 2010 free agents. Some people talk about breaking up a first round exit team like they just won a three peat or something.

[bullsnewdynasty]

Yes, Deng was mega overpaid following a disappointing season, where Reinsdorf stepped into the negotiations and basically bowed down to Deng.

What was Deng worth in your mind at the time?

Maybe you can explain why the Bulls offered Deng a 5 year 57.5 million deal in 2007, which Deng declined, and then increased that offer to 6 years 80 million the next year after Deng had a disappointing season. If that's not bidding against yourself then I don't know what is.

[ChicagoStrong]

Deng, signed for 71 million over 6 years.

Which is 11.8 per when you break it down.

57.5 over 6 is 11.5 per. An 800K per year difference isn't a big deal.

[DanTown8587]

You mean besides the fact that Deng was offered for both KG (along with Chandler and the #2 pick) and Kobe and the fact that Noah was indeed talked about going to Toronto (along with Deng) for Chris Bosh.

Or the fact that the Bulls wanted to sign LeBron and then trade Deng for cap space. You're right, there's a history of the Bulls telling people no on Luol Deng. I think the only guy that is true of is Gasol and considering what Memphis ended up trading Gasol for, I think it'd be fair to say that Luol Deng would have been an overpay.

Okay, now it's up to you to explain if the Bulls made these supposed offers, then why did they fail to land either of these players? Something clearly doesn't add up when the players ended up getting traded for much less.

Simple, the Bulls made their offer to KG in 2006 and he wasn't traded until 2008. Regarding Pau, the issue was also the Bulls reluctance to go into the luxury tax (trading PJ Brown's expiring contract) to get him. They didn't get Bosh because the Raptors were waiting to see what Bosh did and thought that they could convince him to stay if they had a good year (they had just signed Hedo, acquired Bosh's friend in Jarret Jack).

The Bulls FO is screwed either way with people like you. They go all-in in 2010 and sign a guy who just posted a double-double season in Boozer (remember how much people said that if the Bulls just got a scoring PF that they'd be set?), Korver, Asik, Brewer, and Watson. Team is too deep (that team today would have a payroll similar to the Nets) so the Bulls make tough choices on Asik and Korver (the latter someone I didn't agree with trading).

I'm not following your argument.

You chastise the Bulls for lack of move making while not acknowledging they turned the entire roster over for the summer of 2010. The Bulls have made moves; some worked and some haven't. This isn't a team that has sat on it's hands and draft picks.

People selectively judge the FO and just casually ignore times the Bulls take large risks (Tyrus, going all-in 2010, letting Gordon walk for 2010) to slam them for not taking risks.

2010 wasn't much of a risk. You act like that 2008 team was a championship contender. Mark Cuban breaking up a championship team to try to sign CP3/Howard was a risk. Jerry Krause breaking up the Jordan Bulls was a risk. Letting some players go from a first round exit team to try to sign LeBron James? Not really.

2010 was a risk in that the Bulls traded basically a solid part of their rotation (Salmons, Kirk, Gordon, a first). People talk about Gordon walking to this day, imagine if the team missed on Boozer and had to settle for Al Harrington or something. There was of course risk there, there was also reward and that's why the Bulls went for it. Again, the argument you made was the Bulls don't go after things, they did in 2010 and they got plan C instead of A or B.

[DanTown8587]

Yes, Deng was mega overpaid following a disappointing season, where Reinsdorf stepped into the negotiations and basically bowed down to Deng.

What was Deng worth in your mind at the time?

Maybe you can explain why the Bulls offered Deng a 5 year 57.5 million deal in 2007, which Deng declined, and then increased that offer to 6 years 80 million the next year after Deng had a disappointing season. If that's not bidding against yourself then I don't know what is.

Because the Bulls gave him an extra year and then deferred the money so that they didn't really pay that much of the deal. While Deng got paid 71 million on the cap, 15% of that is deferred so there was a cost to the Bulls deferring him money. That cost was likely the sixth year.

[bullsnewdynasty]

Simple, the Bulls made their offer to KG in 2006 and he wasn't traded until 2008. Regarding Pau, the issue was also the Bulls reluctance to go into the luxury tax (trading PJ Brown's expiring contract) to get him. They didn't get Bosh because the Raptors were waiting to see what Bosh did and thought that they could convince him to stay if they had a good year (they had just signed Hedo, acquired Bosh's friend in Jarret Jack).

I understand that, but I believe the Bulls exited the KG and Gasol discussions primarily because they took Deng off the table.

Garnett was traded in the summer of 2007, by the way.

You chastise the Bulls for lack of move making while not acknowledging they turned the entire roster over for the summer of 2010. The Bulls have made moves; some worked and some haven't. This isn't a team that has sat on it's hands and draft picks.

2010 was a risk in that the Bulls traded basically a solid part of their rotation (Salmons, Kirk, Gordon, a first). People talk about Gordon walking to this day, imagine if the team missed on Boozer and had to settle for Al Harrington or something. There was of course risk there, there was also reward and that's why the Bulls went for it. Again, the argument you made was the Bulls don't go after things, they did in 2010 and they got plan C instead of A or B.

I think you're actually hurting your own argument given that you're talking about 2010 as the last time the Bulls made a significant move when it's almost 2014.

[DanTown8587]

Simple, the Bulls made their offer to KG in 2006 and he wasn't traded until 2008. Regarding Pau, the issue was also the Bulls reluctance to go into the luxury tax (trading PJ Brown's expiring contract) to get him. They didn't get Bosh because the Raptors were waiting to see what Bosh did and thought that they could convince him to stay if they had a good year (they had just signed Hedo, acquired Bosh's friend in Jarret Jack).

I understand that, but I believe the Bulls exited the KG and Gasol discussions primarily because they took Deng off the table.

Garnett was traded in the summer of 2007, by the way.

You chastise the Bulls for lack of move making while not acknowledging they turned the entire roster over for the summer of 2010. The Bulls have made moves; some worked and some haven't. This isn't a team that has sat on it's hands and draft picks.

2010 was a risk in that the Bulls traded basically a solid part of their rotation (Salmons, Kirk, Gordon, a first). People talk about Gordon walking to this day, imagine if the team missed on Boozer and had to settle for Al Harrington or something. There was of course risk there, there was also reward and that's why the Bulls went for it. Again, the argument you made was the Bulls don't go after things, they did in 2010 and they got plan C instead of A or B.

I think you're actually hurting your own argument given that you're talking about 2010 as the last time the Bulls made a significant move when it's almost 2014.

When you sign Carlos Boozer to a five year deal, you're kind of locked in, especially when over the course of that deal you gave substantial raises to Noah, Rose, and Gibson. The fact you think four years is a long time (especially when Rose has missed 3-4th of those playoffs) is kind of perfect.

In fact, the Bulls roster (if they keep Deng and get rid of Boozer) will only have four holdovers from 2010 on the roster: Rose, Noah, Deng, and Gibson and only three guys if they get rid of Deng. That's called changing your team especially when you're against the cap.

[bullsnewdynasty]

When you sign Carlos Boozer to a five year deal, you're kind of locked in, especially when over the course of that deal you gave substantial raises to Noah, Rose, and Gibson. The fact you think four years is a long time (especially when Rose has missed 3-4th of those playoffs) is kind of perfect.

In fact, the Bulls roster (if they keep Deng and get rid of Boozer) will only have four holdovers from 2010 on the roster: Rose, Noah, Deng, and Gibson and only three guys if they get rid of Deng. That's called changing your team especially when you're against the cap.

There has been roster turnover but very little has been geared toward improving the team in any significant way.