Omer Asik and Rockets agree to deal 3 years 25 million

JDRochholz · Post #361 » by **JDRochholz** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:40 am

We need to match....BASKETBALL DECISIONS GAR!

WAYSA · Post #362 » by **WAYSA** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:41 am

Red Larrivee wrote:
JohnnyTapwater wrote:I always find it funny when a players contract changes the fans perception on the players impact on the court, like the money is coming from your pocket. Be a fan.

How is someone not a fan because they don't want to see their team **** their salary cap for a backup center?

It's easily going to be one of the worst moves of the Paxson Era if the matches. Easily.

This is Nocioni all over again. It's uncanny.

I am going to be sick to my stomach if this contract gets matches.

And if they do not match, they need to realize that a mini rebuild is in order with Rose out.

EastBayFJ · Post #363 » by **EastBayFJ** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:41 am

@DanTown

Not sure how it's a $100m cash team in 3 years time and that's after you lose one of Noah or Deng ( when Deng's contract is off the books in 2 years )

Post #364 » by **Tommy Udo 6** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:42 am

it is better to match

he can be traded within 2 years

no law says we have to keep him for the 3rd year - and there is a lot of interest in him

Red8911 · Post #365 » by **Red8911** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:42 am

2 days ago Forman said he would match any offer for asik..Tho This may be too much to match,bulls have to find a way to somehow trade him instead to get either scola or martin..

EastBayFJ · Post #366 » by **EastBayFJ** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:42 am

WAYSA wrote:
Red Larrivee wrote:
JohnnyTapwater wrote:I always find it funny when a players contract changes the fans perception on the players impact on the court, like the money is coming from your pocket. Be a fan.

How is someone not a fan because they don't want to see their team **** their salary cap for a backup center?

It's easily going to be one of the worst moves of the Paxson Era if the matches. Easily.

This is Nocioni all over again. It's uncanny.

I am going to be sick to my stomach if this contract gets matches.

And if they do not match, they need to realize that a mini rebuild is in order with Rose out.

Great

Nocioni got us Brad and Johnny Jab Step

Post #367 » by **kingkirk** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:42 am

Has Asik even proven he can be a 35mpg centre on a consistent basis?

How long can you have him out there before his offensive game negates what he brings on the defensive end?

He is valued so highly by us at the minute because he comes on for brief periods and crushes teams momentum, but can he do that for 35 mins?

Can he stay on the court that long without fouling out?

How many turnovers will be have in that period because he can’t catch the ball?

These questions need to be answered if we intend to keep him, particularly if he is making an NBA starters money whilst playing 15 mins here.

DanTown8587 · Post #368 » by **DanTown8587** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:43 am

If the idea is to keep Omer around because you want to trade him because he is an asset, he has to be on a contract that is actually an asset. NO ONE wants to pay Omer $15 million in crazy luxury tax times and no one is going to risk that they can't move that deal for something more appropriate. I don't get why people want to re-create the Knicks where the idea was to keep taking bad contracts, wait until they were expiring, then flip them for average players on bad contracts. Why is this the way people want to build a team?

JDRochholz · Post #369 » by **JDRochholz** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:43 am

Tommy Udo 6 wrote:it is better to match

he can be traded within 2 years

no law says we have to keep him for the 3rd year - and there is a lot of interest in him

Exactly this! He will be a HUGE trade asset in two years. The team must match. We will see if Gar is a man of his word.

Future Coach · Post #370 » by **Future Coach** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:43 am

Match it. This is the going rate for big, physical players of his size. Can't just let quality assets go for nothing.

Also, are sign & trades no longer legal?

U boj · Post #371 » by **U boj** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:43 am

2012/2013.

Rose, Teague, Rip, Butler, Deng, Noah, Asik, Gibson, Boozer-very close to $69M, with holes at SG and PG position.

We will pay the tax if we keep Asik.

2013/2014.

Rose, Teague,Butler, Deng, Noah, Asik, Gibson(let's say $8M), Boozer- very close to $68,no starting SG, 2013 draft pick

Tax once again.

2014/2015.

Rose, Teague,Butler,Noah, Gibson, Asik-close to $56M-Mirotić and more than a half of roster to fill. Probably not paying the tax because of Boozer's amnesty but no real room to improve.

So basically, 2 years of paying the tax for a worse team than the last two season and one year of paying big money to pretty incomplete roster.

FACTS.

ChicagoLegend · Post #372 » by **ChicagoLegend** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:44 am

Bulls need to choose between Noah and Asik.

That contract will be killer for the bulls in 3 years.

I hope they have a sign and trade in the works.

bullsnewdynasty · Post #373 » by **bullsnewdynasty** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:44 am

Why are people against matching acting like the Bulls will keep the same exact roster for the next 3 years? It isn't like we're locking in the roster for the next 3 years at their salaries and we can't make any moves. The Bulls can and will make transactions between now and 2014.

Post #374 » by **fleet** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:44 am

EastBayFJ wrote:@DanTown

Not sure how it's a $100m cash team in 3 years time and that's after you lose one of Noah or Deng ( when Deng's contract is off the books in 2 years )

Simply put, the best plan for Deng is to trade him for savings and or prospects if possible, or let Mirotic replace him if he becomes a FA. Mirotic replaces Deng no matter what actually. Sad but probably true. Its the sad situation this team has gotten into. They have not been able to win with this team, and that means eventual change.

Red Larrivee · Post #375 » by **Red Larrivee** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:45 am

Ron Harper wrote:Matching has much more impact than not.

It's not like the money saved is going to magically be used to bring over a $5mil a year scorer. 5 million a year gets you a player like kyle korver.

Sign Asik and continue to explore trade possibilities down the road while continuing to rely on your strong defense and rebounding to win games.

I don't understand the logic of matching "just because." Not matching is a better solution than matching because it'll at least allow the Bulls to not have to worry about **** their cap up because of a $14M toxic year in 2014-15.

If we can get a first round pick for Asik in a S/T, awesome. If we get nothing for Asik? Oh well, sucks, but it's better than not having to pay that last year.

organix85 · Post #376 » by **organix85** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:45 am

Helix wrote:I honestly don't see how this is even a question.

You really don't? I can see why you'd want to keep him... but not even a question?

red222 · Post #377 » by **red222** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:45 am

this isn't an asset its a liability prohibiting us from finding more offense why cant people see that?

Red Larrivee · Post #378 » by **Red Larrivee** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:46 am

Future Coach wrote:Match it. This is the going rate for big, physical players of his size. Can't just let quality assets go for nothing

We did for Ben Gordon. Why turn the other way because a significantly worse player could be let go for the same compensation?

boogydown · Post #379 » by **boogydown** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:46 am

Kurt Thomas played 22.7 MPG with the Bulls. Prior to this season, Noah missed a combined 52 games in 2 seasons. I doubt Asik plays 12 MPG.

Trading Noah makes sense if Asik can play 30 MPG and we can get a 2nd option back in return. I don't see a 2nd option available right now. Noah hitting a reliable jump shot could put Noah and Asik next to each other as well. Noah made progress on that last year and then it fell apart after he had that surgery.

Either way, the Bulls already made their decision to resign him a while ago, they feel he can be a DPOY and then the Bulls would be looking like idiots then letting him walk. Most people just haven't accepted reality yet but the way I see it is Boozer isn't part of our future and they'll continue to focus ways to get rid of him.

We should have kept Ben Gordon.

U boj · Post #380 » by **U boj** » Mon Jul 2, 2012 1:46 am

bullsnewdynasty wrote:Why are people against matching acting like the Bulls will keep the same exact roster for the next 3 years? It isn't like we're locking in the roster for the next 3 years at their salaries and we can't make any moves. The Bulls can and will make transactions between now and 2014.

Like what?