League Circles wrote:Doug makes good points but I'd say there have been negative trades as well:
Taking on the longer term salary of Grant and Lopez in the Rose trade was really bad IMO. Really limited our ability to actually build around Jimmy. If that was the best we could do we should have kept Rose even if only to let him expire the next summer.
The Niko trade was bad IMO. IMO we could have found better ways to tank with Niko, and Chandler Hutchison was a very poor return for a good starting caliber player like Niko as he entered his prime on a fair deal. Especially since we had to take on Asik as well.
Tyson Chandler trade was bad in real time IMO.
I agree on the Rose trade, it would have been better to clear out more cap room, though if you look at FAs available, it seems unlikely we would have done anything good with it based on who changed teams.
Forgot about the Chandler trade, I agree, that one was bad. It was kind of like the Korver trade though, a pure ownership move to avoid the tax. Chandler wouldn't have raised his value here given he had Noah and Wallace to compete with and couldn't play with either, but they should have looked for a value trade for him (maybe that wasn't possible).
Niko wasn't a bad trade IMO, he was a bad signing. If you knew you weren't going to keep him then you were better off just letting him go in FA. He probably added 3-4 wins that year, and if you could remove those wins the Bulls would have had better draft position in a great draft. He's not the type of player you sign while going through a rebuild (good but not great player that takes up a lot of cap room over a period you're not trying to win and isn't a long term piece).