The Bulls need Chris Paul

[kingkirk]

The only way that CP3 makes sense to bring in for any team is if they are a 3rd option scorer and a great PG away from contending. Like if Miami loses Dragic, it could make sense for them. IMO, we are a #1 option away from contending, that isn't CP3.

This team, even with a No. 1 option, isn’t remotely close to contending.

[Ice Man]

This team, even with a No. 1 option, isn’t remotely close to contending.

With improvement from the young pieces, this team plus a superstar wing could make some noise in the East. LeBron, Tatum, Butler, Durant, Kawhi that sort of player. Of course, we're not getting that sort of player, so the point is moot.

[DASMACKDOWN]

Getting CP3 right now wouldn't make much sense to us right now. I dont know about you, but most Bulls fans want to us to be in positions to win a title, not make a low seed.

For me, I want to be back to where we were when we had Derrick. Where we were at the stage of just tweaking the roster to have a chance to get to the finals.

[dougthonus]

Top 10 best reasons this idea is awful:

10: Maybe we'll get Giannis, you never know, why rule yourself out of it?

9: First rule of rebuilding, you don't trade away your draft assets.

8: The Rockets literally gave away multiple picks to get rid of this guy just 1 year ago.

7: This is has the upside of trading for Ben Wallace in 2006 except instead of shooting for the title, we're shooting for the 1st round.

6: In 3 of the last 4 years, Chris Paul has missed 25% of his games, at the age of 35 and 36, you expect a guy that has historically missed a lot of time to put together two healthy seasons.

5: Chris Paul actually limits our ability to see if Coby White can develop as a PG by keeping him off ball.

4: You can get long term assets with the cap room even if it isn't Giannis.

3: The 2021 draft class is stacked, why do you want to rush yourself into the playoffs when you are bad already instead of acquiring more picks in it?

2: The Thunder, also a rebuilding team with better players and draft capital than us and better positioned to make a leap, want to be on the other side of this trade.

1: You literally want one of the worst teams in the league to trade away its draft pick in a strong draft class to get a 34 year old player.

I’m sensing you’re mad.

Was really just trying to be funny, if you subtract the 1st round pick and make it just a cash savings move for OKC then I'm okay with it which isn't so far off from what you're suggesting. I wouldn't do it, but I'd understand it and wouldn't be real upset if it happened, instead I'd enjoy the ride for a couple years even if the end destination wasn't exciting the ride would be better for awhile.

In reality, the top 10 list was kind of a reach, it's really probably about 5 reasons and saying you don't give up draft capital when you suck to win now on an aging vet in 5 slightly different ways

[dougthonus]

We don't "need" him. Life goes on even if he's not here. We WANT him. I would have no problem with having Chris Paul here even in his golden years.

He has mega ton playoff experience and can still produce meaningful numbers. We need someone to attract Giannis and maybe Anthony Davis to come here. I would not give up our 4th pick for Paul though.

Getting Chris Paul here eliminates any hope of Giannis because you no longer have any room to sign him. Davis will sign an extension this year with LA (and already announced such intentions) so he's off the table either way already. Granted, there is no reasonable scenario where we get Giannis, it'd be like draft someone at #4 this year whom looks like the next Doncic, have LaVine / White / Carter take huge steps forward and be super studs (Lauri/Porter helping wouldn't matter as those guys would need to go if we bring in Giannis anyway).

[Southpaw]

I think old dudes like CP3 who had good seasons this year are fools gold. Guys over 30 who had historically faded in recent seasons looked tantalizingly good this season with the huge break to allow for rest/recovery that (optimistically) won't happen again.

I like CP3, and think he could really help White develop as a PG, but 2 years of mind-blowing cap costs comes with too much opportunity cost for me.

I wouldn't mind CP3 leading this young Bulls team but I agree with this. The long break due to COVID was great for the older players and it showed in the bubble, a lot of them looked refreshed. Add to that the fact that this upcoming season would most likely be condensed and it could be a disaster.

[ATRAIN53]

Good argument but hard pass tying up 40 mil in salary the next couple of years.

The CP3 that we wanted was the 9 FTA per game Hortnets era Paul but that guy is long gone.

I really, really wanted him to have some big moments and to see OKC knock of HOU
He been terrible in crunch time the last few years. I've sat there and begged him to beat the Warriors. Do somethign special.
He's not that guy anymore, he's an average NBA player now making huge $$$$.

The guy can't dunk the ball. I'm not paying a guy 40 million dollars who can't dunk.
Good mentor and maybe future coach.

Coby can dunk, he's a blur on the court and he is our future.
I'd rather have Coby and and Dunn running the point.

[UnFadeable21]

Cp3 is great and still a top 5 point guard but he’s too old for the Bull’s timeline and future.

[dumbell78]

If AK would entertain this idea, why are we so quick to assume that we would be sending draft assets in the deal? That contract is awful and Houston had to unload future capital to get rid of it just a year ago. Why wouldn't AK ask for something similar? Then the conversation may change.

I'm not advocating it, just asking the question to make it more digestible.

[dougthonus]

If AK would entertain this idea, why are we so quick to assume that we would be sending draft assets in the deal? That contract is awful and Houston had to unload future capital to get rid of it just a year ago. Why wouldn't AK ask for something similar? Then the conversation may change.

I'm not advocating it, just asking the question to make it more digestible.

It's widely believe that the Thunder will get a 1st for Paul. Also worth noting that while the Thunder received draft capital for Paul, they sent back Russell Westbrook, whom some people would of viewed as having significant positive value of his own and the draft capital was to compensate for that value.

At the time of the trade, I would have taken Paul over Westbrook straight up on their deals and still would, but I understand why someone would choose the other side. This was just hard core negotiating by Presti, Morey made this trade because he knew it was make or break time for him, the future draft capital didn't matter, just make the best trade he can to get the best player he can because if it doesn't end in a title, he's gone either way.

I would have never signed off on that deal if I was Houston's ownership, since he clearly vastly overpaid since he wouldn't have to face the outcome of overpaying unless it worked.

[TheStig]

If AK would entertain this idea, why are we so quick to assume that we would be sending draft assets in the deal? That contract is awful and Houston had to unload future capital to get rid of it just a year ago. Why wouldn't AK ask for something similar? Then the conversation may change.

I'm not advocating it, just asking the question to make it more digestible.

It's widely believe that the Thunder will get a 1st for Paul. Also worth noting that while the Thunder received draft capital for Paul, they sent back Russell Westbrook, whom some people would of viewed as having significant positive value of his own and the draft capital was to compensate for that value.

At the time of the trade, I would have taken Paul over Westbrook straight up on their deals and still would, but I understand why someone would choose the other side. This was just hard core negotiating by Presti, Morey made this trade because he knew it was make or break time for him, the future draft capital didn't matter, just make the best trade he can to get the best player he can because if it doesn't end in a title, he's gone either way.

I would have never signed off on that deal if I was Houston's ownership, since he clearly vastly overpaid since he wouldn't have to face the outcome of overpaying unless it worked.

I forget what ESPN podcast I heard it on but it was stated that Morey had to make this deal because the owner and Harden both were calling for it. He was the CP3 fan in the room.

[dumbell78]

If AK would entertain this idea, why are we so quick to assume that we would be sending draft assets in the deal? That contract is awful and Houston had to unload future capital to get rid of it just a year ago. Why wouldn't AK ask for something similar? Then the conversation may change.

I'm not advocating it, just asking the question to make it more digestible.

It's widely believe that the Thunder will get a 1st for Paul. Also worth noting that while the Thunder received draft capital for Paul, they sent back Russell Westbrook, whom some people would of viewed as having significant positive value of his own and the draft capital was to compensate for that value.

At the time of the trade, I would have taken Paul over Westbrook straight up on their deals and still would, but I understand why someone would choose the other side. This was just hard core negotiating by Presti, Morey made this trade because he knew it was make or break time for him, the future draft capital didn't matter, just make the best trade he can to get the best player he can because if it doesn't end in a title, he's gone either way.

I would have never signed off on that deal if I was Houston's ownership, since he clearly vastly overpaid since he wouldn't have to face the outcome of overpaying unless it worked.

With what we have now with the COVID shutdown/revenue loss and CAP implications going forward, I bet the list of teams is very short. Also think that 1st rounder has to be heavily protected it wouldn't be so enticing. I just dont see many teams in a position to take on that contract for two years and not make it worth their while.

Most teams that are competitive cant take on that deal I bet and most teams that are in our situation wont take that deal unless they get a sweetener. I just don't see anyone giving up solid future assets in order to pay 35 yr old CP3 a metric ton of money over two years.

**EDIT**

Also forgot to mention that the Rockets situation last year was unique and like you said ownership should have nixed that. Mostly everyone would agree with that. Morey had a lot of pressure on him.

[Am2626]

I like Chris Paul, always have, but how good is a Bulls team with him (and without OPJ + whoever else goes to OKC) next year? Is it actually worth it? I'd have to know what else happens in the offseason to upgrade the roster because I don't really see it.

One thing is for sure though: they're not getting a first from me. OPJ, Thad plus maybe a second is enough. If someone wants to pay more, so be it.

Do the Bulls really have to be good next year? I think getting a top 7 pick in next years draft would be more valuable. CP3 would be great for the young guys on this team but I would not give up any good assets for him. How many years are left on his contract? Also would he want to come to Chicago or try to latch on to a contender. He may get disgruntled quickly if things aren’t going well here.

[drosereturn]

Top 10 best reasons this idea is awful:

10: Maybe we'll get Giannis, you never know, why rule yourself out of it?

9: First rule of rebuilding, you don't trade away your draft assets.

8: The Rockets literally gave away multiple picks to get rid of this guy just 1 year ago.

7: This is has the upside of trading for Ben Wallace in 2006 except instead of shooting for the title, we're shooting for the 1st round.

6: In 3 of the last 4 years, Chris Paul has missed 25% of his games, at the age of 35 and 36, you expect a guy that has historically missed a lot of time to put together two healthy seasons.

5: Chris Paul actually limits our ability to see if Coby White can develop as a PG by keeping him off ball.

4: You can get long term assets with the cap room even if it isn't Giannis.

3: The 2021 draft class is stacked, why do you want to rush yourself into the playoffs when you are bad already instead of acquiring more picks in it?

2: The Thunder, also a rebuilding team with better players and draft capital than us and better positioned to make a leap, want to be on the other side of this trade.

1: You literally want one of the worst teams in the league to trade away its draft pick in a strong draft class to get a 34 year old player.

I’m sensing you’re mad.

Was really just trying to be funny, if you subtract the 1st round pick and make it just a cash savings move for OKC then I'm okay with it which isn't so far off from what you're suggesting. I wouldn't do it, but I'd understand it and wouldn't be real upset if it happened, instead I'd enjoy the ride for a couple years even if the end destination wasn't exciting the ride would be better for awhile.


In reality, the top 10 list was kind of a reach, it's really probably about 5 reasons and saying you don't give up draft capital when you suck to win now on an aging vet in 5 slightly different ways

No lottery team gets into contender right away without any transition like OKC did and Bulls will never become good just by tanking 2021 and 2022 unless they got rid of their core and properly tanked. Lavine is alone too good to net a top 5 pick so theres no reason to keep which is why I keep saying sub him for Paul who will net the same amt of win while bringing the best out of Carter, Lauri, White. I agree theres no point in bringing Paul if the Bulls cleansed the core and brought veterans but they have no direction. Last 3 yrs was a complete disaster dont want to repeat the same even if the draft was stacked without tank commander.
And bringing Paul is not rushing into playoffs. Its teaching this young kids how to be a pro as a veteran leader.

[SfBull]

This idea is completely wrong.Getting another Wade ?Please don't even think about that.Keep adding assets by draft, develop the young players and don't waste our picks and salary cap with Paul.Not another GarPax move .

[SfBull]

I like Chris Paul, always have, but how good is a Bulls team with him (and without OPJ + whoever else goes to OKC) next year? Is it actually worth it? I'd have to know what else happens in the offseason to upgrade the roster because I don't really see it.

One thing is for sure though: they're not getting a first from me. OPJ, Thad plus maybe a second is enough. If someone wants to pay more, so be it.

Do the Bulls really have to be good next year? I think getting a top 7 pick in next years draft would be more valuable. CP3 would be great for the young guys on this team but I would not give up any good assets for him. How many years are left on his contract? Also would he want to come to Chicago or try to latch on to a contender. He may get disgruntled quickly if things aren’t going well here.

Like another Thad.We don't need that.

[kingkirk]

This idea is completely wrong.Getting another Wade ?Please don't even think about that.Keep adding assets by draft, develop the young players and don't waste our picks and salary cap with Paul.Not another GarPax move .

This isn't another Wade because CP3 is actually good, like top-25 good, coming off an All-NBA season, while Wade was very much on a years long decline.

[League Circles]

I'm definitely interested and have been mentioning him as a trade target for the last year. I kinda doubt I'd give up what it takes though. I basically want Porter to be the best asset going out, unless you'd consider like a top 10 protected pick better. But only if we draft a ready SF like Deni.

Paul
Lavine
Avdija
Lauri
Carter

With Coby as 6th man, Young, Gafford, an MLE guy leading the way on the bench...

.....that team could win a title next year under Donovan.

[SfBull]

This idea is completely wrong.Getting another Wade ?Please don't even think about that.Keep adding assets by draft, develop the young players and don't waste our picks and salary cap with Paul.Not another GarPax move .

This isn't another Wade because CP3 is actually good, like top-25 good, coming off an All-NBA season, while Wade was very much on a years long decline.

I have followed Paul's career as closely as I could.Yes , he's a star and had a very good season but I can't stop remembering how Wade was still good when he came for the Bulls and how bad it ended for us.And I really liked Wade.
Paul could be a really good mentor for our young guards but the price should be better than giving up a top 1st round pick ( even in a supposedly weak draft)and eating cap space with his huge contract consuming more than $ 40 millions until 2022.We'd be going for maybe 2 years of first round exits which was what we got with the 3 alphas.Is it worth of such investment?I think not.

[TheStig]

This idea is completely wrong.Getting another Wade ?Please don't even think about that.Keep adding assets by draft, develop the young players and don't waste our picks and salary cap with Paul.Not another GarPax move .

This isn't another Wade because CP3 is actually good, like top-25 good, coming off an All-NBA season, while Wade was very much on a years long decline.

But he gets paid like the 2nd best player in the league and has seen a steep decline, which will continue to decline. He's a really good player. And a great fit for a contender.

If all it took was expiring and a first, why doesn't a team like LA grab him instead of us? I think when CP3 gets moved, it won't be to the Knicks or Bulls, it'll be to a legit title contender with an expiring to spare.