WT- Nate unlikely to be back (WAIT! + instagram pic pg 81!)

[ChiCitySPORTS#1]

keeping nate and adding a good big like brand or whoever might make this the best Bulls team of all time IMO.

You mean under Thibs...

[League Circles]

keeping nate and adding a good big like brand or whoever might make this the best Bulls team of all time IMO.

You mean under Thibs...

No, I don't.

[Jvaughn]

keeping nate and adding a good big like brand or whoever might make this the best Bulls team of all time IMO.

You mean under Thibs...

No, I don't.

Then you mean in recent history (the last decade).

[League Circles]

You mean under Thibs...

No, I don't.

Then you mean in recent history (the last decade).

Nope. All time.

[Big White Stiff]

replace the word 'the' with 'many' in the above quote and it becomes true

No it does not. The rich pay a large sum of money in taxes to the government on a yearly basis.

Corporations and hedge-fund managers do not.

Corporations are not individuals and i believe that you might be partly correct on hedge fund manager. I believe the cost associated to managing the fund is tax as typical income but growth uncentives are taxed at Capital Gains rates. Something that i hope they remedy some day. I am not even clse to an expert on hedge funds as they are a different animal

[barn34]

No, I don't.

Then you mean in recent history (the last decade).

Nope. All time.

then i think you need to check your temperature...may be running a fever. if not, i recommend you have your overall mental health examined.

[Jvaughn]

No, I don't.

Then you mean in recent history (the last decade).

Nope. All time.

Apparently something is getting lost in translation through the language barrier.

[RastaBull]

Another suitor out of the mix. Golden State is who I feared most.

Who are the other viable suitors left?

Really not sure any legit contenders out there are looking for what he offers (or have cap space/exceptions left).

One team I'm worried about would be the Jazz. They need some veterans and have 20 mil they HAVE to spend (team salary minimum is around 49 mil and they only have 28 mil right now). They could easily offer 2-3 million for Nate to back up Burke.

Philly maybe? Again, they have the cap space to give him at least 2-3 million...Carter-Williams could use a veteran back-up.

Toronto still has a MMLE right? Not sure a team with high salary and not ready to compete for the playoffs would spend that on Nate though.

Dallas? They need something exciting...they need something off the bench even with the Calderon signing. Have the cap space for 2-3 million, but can't imagine them doing anything more than a year (waiting for FA again in 2014).

Would Orlando use some of their MLE on him? Again, already a high salary with not much too compete for (they picked up E'Twaun again anyways on the cheap).

I think teams I'm gonna be watching out for are Philly and Utah. Both probably are seeking to be high lotto teams, but both need to spend to get to the minimum team salary. Nate will bring excitement to hold some fans in the stands, but won't make so much of an impact to lift them high from the bottom of the league. Both have very little money invested in PG (rookies) so they may be willing to even grant Nate a multi-year deal at 2-3 mil (it would allow them to assess other needs in the draft and with cap space they'll have in 2014).

Good list. The teams that scare me most of the ones you mentioned are Toronto (if they do indeed have their MMLE) and Utah.

Dallas already gave Devon Harris $9 mil/3 years, so I don't think they'd offer Nate more than the minimum if anything at all.

And I don't know why rebuilding teams like Philly or Orlando would offer Nate a multi-year contract. Especially ORL, who already has Jameer and plans on giving Oladipo a lot of minutes at the point.

Toronto is genuinely interested in making the playoffs, and Utah could use a competent PG as an insurance policy for Burke.

All that said, I just know some team is going to come out of nowhere and crush our dreams. Nate isn't a minimum guy. It just takes on GM to see that.

Forgot Dallas got D Harris, I knew there was a reason I didn't think they were feasible but couldn't remember. I didn't really think Orlando was a huge possibility either, especially if they're serious about Oladipo at the point.

Still think Philly would be viable. They need some proven NBA vet to help with the MCW growing pains. A multi year deal for Nate wouldn't hurt there cap that much since they currently have nothing guaranteed but Young, MCW, Bebe for 2014 (J-Rich would probably opt in and they might get away with Turner at the QO of 8 mil).

But yes, Utah is who scares me the most. Nate would be good both as a back-up to Burke and playin alongside him occasionally as a 3P weapon.

I don't think it would be wise of Toronto to go after Nate. They got lots of offensive weapons but not much to speak of for perimeter d. New GM is likely to make much wiser decisions than the previous regime.

[BahamaBull]

No, I don't.

Then you mean in recent history (the last decade).

Nope. All time.

You forgot the green font buddy...

[League Circles]

Then you mean in recent history (the last decade).

Nope. All time.

You forgot the green font buddy...

No I genuinely think with Nate and a quality big and good health, this year's Bulls team MIGHT be the best team of all time.

[Jvaughn]

Nope. All time.

You forgot the green font buddy...

No I genuinely think with Nate and a quality big and good health, this year's Bulls team MIGHT be the best team of all time.

[pad300]

Completely agree.

i think we have already offered the 20% raise. no reason not to. it's peanuts

Well, it's however many peanuts, DOUBLED!

Nope, more than doubled. The 20% raise is non-bird rights, which would make Nate a non-vet min contract for the salary cap. 1) the Bulls pay the full value (whereas with a vet min, they pay $854,389 and the league pays the rest), and 2) IIRC, with a vet min, they on pay lux tax on $854,389; with a 20% raise, they pay it on the full amount...

[Jvaughn]

Nope. All time.

You forgot the green font buddy...

No I genuinely think with Nate and a quality big and good health, this year's Bulls team MIGHT be the best team of all time.

I think we'll be a really good team, but I find it hard to believe the difference in us being good (all-time) and elite is Dunleavy, Brand, and Nate.

[D_GoLow]

The longer Nate waits, the better I like our chances of the Bulls retaining him.

[BahamaBull]

Nope. All time.

You forgot the green font buddy...

No I genuinely think with Nate and a quality big and good health, this year's Bulls team MIGHT be the best team of all time.

I respect your opinion but cant understand...How come Nate Robinson makes this Bulls team the GOAT?? A minimum salary player? I love him and want him back but come on...

We had Jordan the goat playing with Pip and Rodman...This years Bulls doesn't even have a top 30 all time player...

[pad300]

Ok, I haven't read all of this, but apparently, y'all see Nate's role as 3ed PG (behind Rose & Teague/Hinrich) - but he wants a) more money and b) a bigger role. So, would CHI consider a S&T for a 3ed PG?

SAS out Mills
CHI out Nate (S&T - vet min +20% salary, 2 years guaranteed)

It's not a lot of value for CHI, but I understand that Nate doesn't really want to be back (and you kind of owe him a solid after last year)... Mills is a good 3ed PG, and has no problems with a small minutes/bench role. Nate, meanwhile, gets 2 guaranteed years, a 20% raise, and a serious shot at the Spurs backup PG role - he has to beat out Cory Joseph, and he has the O to do it...

We don't have Nate's bird rights so we can't do a sign and trade.

I don't think you are right about that. The requirements for a S&T are here:
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q89

You'd be using the non-bird exception, here
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q25
which can allow a contract of up to 4 years. So as far as I can tell, this trade is legal within the CBA.

[League Circles]

I think we'll be a really good team, but I find it hard to believe the difference in us being good (all-time) and elite is Dunleavy, Brand, and Nate.

It's not. The difference between being damn good (2010-11) will be an improved Rose and Noah, and having the much better players Nate, Dunleavy, Jimmy, and Brand over the relative scrubs (outside of Asik) they replaced.

I think you could argue that almost every player outside the top 4 on the 95-96 Bulls couldn't make our roster this year.

[JackFinn]

...

[AAU Teammate]

keeping nate and adding a good big like brand or whoever might make this the best Bulls team of all time IMO.

GarPaxdorf I will support you when I can, but not on this one my man. Oooooh boy.

[bullsnewdynasty]

keeping nate and adding a good big like brand or whoever might make this the best Bulls team of all time IMO.

Oh Lord have mercy