Page 1 of 2
Ok! I'll fix the Bulls...Stop bugging me!
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:33 pm
by Shinky
How about this?
Now hear me out...
I just heard that Indiana is going to be without Jermaine O'Neal for the remainder of the season. Indy can make some noise in the playoffs. They are doing ok. How about this deal? It works, btw
Ben Wallace/Duhon for Jermaine O'neal.
Why for the Bulls?
It gives our kids much more needed playing time, and get's rid of a mouthy pain in the ass in Wallace. And the contract length of JO is the same as Wallace's. So the risk is minimal. And if he comes back healthy next year? The dividends could be outstanding. It's a risk, but what are our other options? Sticking with Wallace? Euwww
Why for Indy?
Because they are right there, still in the mix of things. And they may feel the need to replace JO with a veteran type player like Wallace. Duhon is a bonus to them. I might even throw in a pick, top 8 protected.
Thoughts?
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:37 pm
by Cliff Levingston
Inflates our payroll further for a guy who's really not all that good offensively but very good defensively... when he's healthy... which isn't all that much anymore.
Cliff Levingston passes. We'd be better of just buying out Wallace or sending him home.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:39 pm
by Zeb
You'll fix them... you'll fix them good!
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:41 pm
by DakMan
I like it quite a bit. Like you said it allows our young bigs to play out the remainder of the season and it gives us something to hope for next season (a healthy JO). Of course, since we may miss the playoffs by doing this I would like to keep our pick.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:43 pm
by Shinky
Cliff Levingston wrote:Inflates our payroll further for a guy who's really not all that good offensively but very good defensively... when he's healthy... which isn't all that much anymore.
Cliff Levingston passes. We'd be better of just buying out Wallace or sending him home.
JO puts up better numbers than Wallace does. Honestly? What's our risk? A slightly larger contract, but the same amount of years?
Big frigging deal! The reward/risk factor tips in our favor, IMO.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:43 pm
by emperorjones
Throw in a little green font and they'll take it too.
With our luck, JO would find his way into the doghouse.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:49 pm
by lupa
This trade means we're losing either Gordon or Deng, we won't have enough space to resign them both. No thanks Shinky
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:52 pm
by BrooklynBulls
I think this is a deal the Pacers may go for, if you sweeten it a bit. JO is a huge injury risk, and is amazingly innefficient. That said, Wallace is a huge injury risk (he just goes ahead and plays anyway, that SOB), and is simply amazingly awful. I'd rather keep Duhon, since he adds no value for them, throw them VK instead and a protected 08 1st. I believe its a trade I proposed quite early in the season.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:54 pm
by Three34
Indiana gets the worst player and the worst contract. What bit did I miss?
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:54 pm
by Cliff Levingston
Shinky wrote:Honestly? What's our risk? A slightly larger contract, but the same amount of years?
Slightly larger? Try
much larger Shinkster. Here's the difference between Wallace and O'Neal's contracts that we'd be taking on:
'08-'09: +$6.8 million
'09-'10: +$9 million
Shinky wrote:Big frigging deal!
Big frigging deal indeed. Which player do you kiss goodbye too; Deng or Gordon?
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:54 pm
by Shinky
lupa wrote:This trade means we're losing either Gordon or Deng, we won't have enough space to resign them both. No thanks Shinky
We can still sign them both. They ARE our own free agents after all.
But, to be honest with you? I wouldn't get my hopes up of seeing Ben Gordon in a Bulls uni next year anyways.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:55 pm
by BrooklynBulls
Sham wrote:Indiana gets the worst player and the worst contract. What bit did I miss?
The bit where its the worse contract. How is it worse?
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 5:59 pm
by Shinky
Sham wrote:Indiana gets the worst player and the worst contract. What bit did I miss?
They trade a player that is doing NOTHING for them due to injuries, for someone that can help them right now. Sorry it's not Lebron James, but hey? Beggars cant be choosers. Sucks to be them.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:01 pm
by Three34
BrooklynBulls wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
The bit where its the worse contract. How is it worse?
O'Neals is much bigger
, but they end the same season. And O'Neal has one advantage over Wallace in that he can play the game of basketball to the NBA standard.
With talks going on involving names like Carter and Marcus Williams, how is offering the two worst starters in the league even in the running in any potential bidding?
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:02 pm
by Three34
They trade a player that is doing NOTHING for them due to injuries, for someone that can help them right now
No, they're trading for Ben Wallace and Chris Duhon. Who sure as aren't helping anyone right now.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:04 pm
by BrooklynBulls
Sham wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
O'Neals is much bigger
, but they end the same season. And O'Neal has one advantage over Wallace in that he can play the game of basketball to the NBA standard.
With talks going on involving names like Carter and Marcus Williams, how is offering the two worst starters in the league even in the running in any potential bidding?
So you factor in the quality of player being traded when you have already mentioned he's the better player?
You can involve any names you like, but it doesn't make the tradetalk true. I would never even think of trading Vince Carter for JO. Would you?
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:09 pm
by Three34
So you factor in the quality of player being traded when you have already mentioned he's the better player?
I don't get what you're saying here. O'Neal and Carter are both much better than Wallace. Much, much, much better. If they're going to trade O'Neal, I'm pretty sure they'd like to get as good of a player back as is possible.
I would never even think of trading Vince Carter for JO. Would you?
As Indiana? Not really. But everything about trading for Carter is more desirable than it would be if you traded for Ben Wallace.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:10 pm
by Shinky
Why would NJ trade Carter for a player that is injured and out for the remainder of the year?
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:12 pm
by Jordan45822
The Carter/JO deal has died due to luxury tax for nets and JO's healh. Indiana is better off keeping him this season unless they really want to get ripped off.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:13 pm
by Three34
You wrote:Why would NJ trade Carter for a player that is injured and out for the remainder of the year?
You also wrote:The dividends could be outstanding.