Wallace to Phoenix Rumor?

Post #1 » by **DuckIII** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:16 pm

Don't get excited. A poster on another board is asking if this rumor is out there today: Wallace for Diaw and Bell.

He said a friend of his called him and said that discussions of this basic deal were being reported on the radio. Has anyone heard anything about this on the radio this afternoonl?

I'll delete this thread shortly if I don't get any affirmative responses.

lostonbase · Post #2 » by **lostonbase** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:21 pm

Phoenix already traded a couple of 1st rounds picks and a defensive center in Kurt Thomas, to stay under the luxury tax. Why would they consider bringing in Wallace?

kyrv · Post #3 » by **kyrv** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:24 pm

DuckIII wrote:Don't get excited. A poster on another board is asking if this rumor is out there today: Wallace for Diaw and Bell.

He said a friend of his called him and said that discussions of this basic deal were being reported on the radio. Has anyone heard anything about this on the radio this afternoonl?

I'll delete this thread shortly if I don't get any affirmative responses.

Oh, how you tease.

kyrv · Post #4 » by **kyrv** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:24 pm

lostonbase wrote:Phoenix already traded a couple of 1st rounds picks and a defensive center in Kurt Thomas, to stay under the luxury tax. Why would they consider bringing in Wallace?

Diaw and Bell both make cash and I think (?) one is up for a new payday as well? Not sure.

Good question though, Phoenix is frugal.

Ralphb07 · Post #5 » by **Ralphb07** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:25 pm

It doesnt work under the cap either. Is your friend from PHX or CHI? I've been listening to 670 the score all day, and they haven't said anything.

But if it was true, that would be pretty nice, it would also give us more assets to trade and would clealry indicate another deal. Noc,Tyrus,Diaw,Smith, too many guys to play the 4

Post #6 » by **DuckIII** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:27 pm

lostonbase wrote:Phoenix already traded a couple of 1st rounds picks and a defensive center in Kurt Thomas, to stay under the luxury tax. Why would they consider bringing in Wallace?

Diaw/Bell are owed a combined $42 million over the life of Wallace's current deal, with Diaw being owed another $18 million for 2 more years after that.

Wallace is owed $44 million over that time.

His contract would then expire at the same time as Steve Nash's giving them massive capspace to rebuild around Amare.

Again, I'm just asking if anyone else is hearing this on the radio. I'm at work and live in downstate Illinois anyway with patchy Chicago area radio reception.

Leslie Forman · Post #7 » by **Leslie Forman** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:30 pm

DuckIII wrote:Don't get excited.

Then change the title. :wavefinger:

I feel like that waitress that got a toy Yoda.

Ralphb07 · Post #8 » by **Ralphb07** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:34 pm

It would have to be Diaw,Bell and Banks in order to work. Which Banks has 4 more yrs left at 3.9mil.

If this was true, other deals will have to be done.

Post #9 » by **DuckIII** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:34 pm

Ralphb07 wrote:It doesnt work under the cap either. Is your friend from PHX or CHI? I've been listening to 670 the score all day, and they haven't said anything.

Its not my friend and I don't know the answer. A poster on another board said his friend called him and said these discussions were being reported on the radio. Since I have no means of investigating this myself via the radio, I thought I'd ask in here.

Sounds like its probably bogus. I'll take this down in the next hour or two if nothing comes up.

Post #10 » by **Three34** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:36 pm

Bloody hate Boris Diaw. Not very good, way overpaid. But I'd take the deal anyway.

Post #11 » by **DuckIII** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:36 pm

tong po wrote:Then change the title.

I feel like that waitress that got a toy Yoda.

I'm not going to change the title. The title accurately reflects the post with the word "rumor" and a "?".

I.e., I'm asking if anyone is hearing this rumor.

Cliff Levingston · Post #12 » by **Cliff Levingston** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:38 pm

lostonbase wrote:Why would they consider bringing in Wallace?

- They could really use more interior defense if they want a legit chance at winning the title before Nash is done.
- Wallace's deal is one year shorter than Banks' and 2 years shorter than Diaw's.
- As Duck noted, Wallace's deal expires at the same time Nash's does, giving them oodles of cap space that could possibly be spent on LeBron, Wade or Bosh.

BullSoxChicago'sFinest · Post #13 » by **BullSoxChicago'sFinest** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:38 pm

All these teams that run as rumored as interested in Wallace, doesn't make sense to me

Could care less about losing Wallace, but don't see how the deal improves us, doesn't come close to being 'an over the top' type deal, I hate Raja Bell too

Post #14 » by **kulaz3000** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:39 pm

Seems a little pointless of a trade to me, even if it were true. It would tie us up even more salary-wise for the future, when we would possibly have to re-sign Tyrus and Noah to near 10 million per contracts if they pan out. Then of course you have the pending contract extensions of Deng and Gordon. It just doesn't seem like a very feasiable thing to do, considering it wouldn't make us significantly better, though i do like Bell, but not a big fan of Diaw.

molepharmer · Post #15 » by **molepharmer** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:46 pm

kulaz3000 wrote:Seems a little pointless of a trade to me, even if it were true. It would tie us up even more salary-wise for the future, when we would possibly have to re-sign Tyrus and Noah to near 10 million per contracts if they pan out. Then of course you have the pending contract extensions of Deng and Gordon. It just doesn't seem like a very feasiable thing to do, considering it wouldn't make us significantly better, though i do like Bell, but not a big fan of Diaw.

Agreed. Seems like the easiest thing to do with Wallace is sit his butt down. No sense making matters worse for the future of the Bulls by trading for second tier players on longer contracts.

Cliff Levingston · Post #16 » by **Cliff Levingston** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:49 pm

molepharmer wrote:Agreed. Seems like the easiest thing to do with Wallace is sit his butt down. No sense making matters worse for the future of the Bulls by trading for second tier players on longer contracts.

Ditto. If we're to trade Wallace, it should only be for a star player (which has a 0% chance of happening) or for something that provide salary relief as early as this year. Otherwise we'd just be better off Tim Thomas'ing him and waiting til his expiring contract can be used to facilitate a big trade.

Wingy · Post #17 » by **Wingy** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:51 pm

molepharmer wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Agreed. Seems like the easiest thing to do with Wallace is sit his butt down. No sense making matters worse for the future of the Bulls by trading for second tier players on longer contracts.

...and I concur from the salary perspective. We'd be smart to try to create the boatload of cap room for ourselves (see the doug plan thread).

I do not agree with the Wallace part. That selfish a-hole will ruin team chemistry. Dump Wallace's butt...I'd much rather have him traded for someone like Mr. Glass aka Larry Hughes.

Leslie Forman · Post #18 » by **Leslie Forman** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:54 pm

Am I the only one who thinks Diaw would fit in really well here? He'd be a great point forward-type coming off the bench with Ben, and unlike Noc he can actually defend and pass.

He is quite overpaid though.

HeavyC · Post #19 » by **HeavyC** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:58 pm

tong po wrote:Am I the only one who thinks Diaw would fit in really well here? He'd be a great point forward-type coming off the bench with Ben, and unlike Noc he can actually defend and pass.

He is quite overpaid though.

He's not as overpaid as Wallace. You could at least package Diaw with some of our other players in deals to get someone else. Or you can package someone with Noc and keep Diaw.

This trade wouldn't be an end game type of move. It would give Pax much more tradeable contracts to pair with the younger talent. And in the meantime, Bell and Diaw would be good additions.

I don't think Pax can do better then this for Wallace.

Ralphb07 · Post #20 » by **Ralphb07** » Thu Jan 10, 2008 9:00 pm

DuckIII wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Its not my friend and I don't know the answer. A poster on another board said his friend called him and said these discussions were being reported on the radio. Since I have no means of investigating this myself via the radio, I thought I'd ask in here.

Sounds like its probably bogus. I'll take this down in the next hour or two if nothing comes up.

It could be coming from PHX and hasnt hit in CHI yet, that's why I was asking.