Realistic Hughes for expirings trade...

[League Circles]

If we get D'Antoni I'd like to keep exactly what we have with the exception of getting rid of Hughes for expirings. However, looking around the league at who might have a hole at the 2 and thus be able to use Hughes, there are only a couple of teams to consider.

I think NY would do this trade:

Malik Rose
Renaldo Balkman
Wilson Chandler
Mardy Collins

Outgoing Players
Larry Hughes
#9 pick

I know it's a lot to give up a lotto pick for nothing, but the reality is that whoever we would take at #9 would porbably be a 10th man for us. Not one of our players is within 6 years of the end of their careers, IMO, and Hughes is a potential problem, especially cause I want Thabo, Kirk and BG to be our sole guard rotation.

For NY, obviously they don't really WANT or NEED Hughes, but he is certainly better than the crubs they play at SG, and would fit their plan of going with guys who would have the precise worst chemistry possible with each other :)

No but seriously, they're giving up 4 scrubs for the two best players in the deal (LH and the #9), and only taking on LH's salary next year. It consolidates things a little better for them. They can draft a three with the #9, or put themselves in better position to make a big trade.

Thoughts?

Bulls:

PG: Kirk, Thabo, Collins
SG: BG, Thabo, Collins
SF: Deng, Noc
PF: Tyrus, Gooden
C: Noah, Gooden

I'd actually like to trade Gray and Chandler along with a number 2 pick for the best first rounder we can get and take the BPA also. I'd think a team without desire to take on a three year salary and in need of frontcourt depth would trade a pick between 15 and 25 for Chandler, Gray and a 2nd rounder.

[League Circles]

Also along with Gooden and Simmons we'd now have over 20 million in expirings this year to make a deal if needed.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

Adding a bunch of useless, crappy depth and giving away a top ten pick just to get out of one year?

No thanks.

[JimmyBulls]

Not realistic. MUTOMBO SWAT!!!

[kodo]

If we wait a year the contract will actually have value, whereas right now you'd have to give something for someone to take it on. I think Paxson is going to wait Hughes out.

[DanTown8587]

Yeah, we could add the nine pick to Hughes and actually get expiring contracts. But that does not make us any better. Unless the expiring contracts are also talented.

[coldfish]

I often read suggestions about what to do in the offseason. Many of the recommendations leave Hughes on the roster, usually as a back up.

Rerisen brought this idea up yesterday (and possibly Doug). Hughes will not accept a lesser role. He seems to think he is better than Kirk, Thabo and Gordon. He wasn't happy last year with minutes and he played the most out of the guards.

Unless you are running a system that is perfectly suited to Hughes' "skills" a team cannot expect to play him 30 minutes a game and do well. If Hughes does not play 30 a game, he *will* be a problem. I don't see the Bulls running a Wizards style offense this year (even with D'Antoni), so Hughes can't play for the Bulls.

IMO, high on the priority of roster moves has to be moving Hughes. Move him for nothing, it doesn't matter. I simply don't want to watch another season of some fool getting 65% of the minutes because the team is afraid of him.

I don't think we should underestimate the damage a guy like Hughes can do. Personally, I didn't see the selfishness ratchet up until Hughes came. Gordon in particular seemed to really start breaking out of the offense once Larry showed up, but others too.

Note, specific problems with Hughes:
- He can't shoot.
- Even worse, he thinks he can shoot. Not only does he take every shot available, he takes some that aren't.
- He has lost a step. He simply isn't the same guy he was in Washington. This affects a lot of his game on both sides of the court.
- In a teamwork dependent defensive scheme, he doesn't function well. He is basically playing by himself.

So, who can the Bulls send Hughes to? One LAC fan wants him on the trade board. Essentially, the Bulls are looking for $12M in contracts per year for players who won't play.

Some options (not necessarily good)
Cha: Carroll and Nazr
LAC: Mobley and Knight
LAL: Vlad and Fisher
Memp: Cardinal and Collins
Mia: Banks and Blount
Mil: Simmons and Bell
Min: Hudson (is he active?) and Howard
NO: James and Peterson
NY: Lots of options based on 2 of James, Jefferies, Rose and Qrich
Sac: 2 of Moore, SAR and KT
Tor: Kapono, Parker and Garbage

[coldfish]

congrats teamChitown. You beat me with a new thread idea by a few minutes. I merged my thread into yours because its the same idea.

I do not think that the Bulls can get expirings for Hughes. I would just like to see him traded for guys that won't mind not playing. Preferably of the same length contract. If not, I would take a few mill on an extra year with the hope of moving it within the next year.

[Tommy Udo 6]

Hudson was waived & signed by Golden State. He had to retire due to injuries & GS waived him before signing Webber (who was waived later also)

WASH: Daniels & Thomas
GSW: Harrington & filler

[coldfish]

Hudson was waived & signed by Golden State. He had to retire due to injuries & GS waived him before signing Webber (who was waived later also)

WASH: Daniels & Thomas
GSW: Harrington & filler

I thought Hudson was gone, but he showed up on hoopshype.

Harrington is an upgrade over Hughes, but I think he would want playing time, creating a problem. Perhaps a 3 way with Harrington going somewhere else?

[StutterStep]

I think NY would do this trade:

Malik Rose
Renaldo Balkman
Wilson Chandler
Mardy Collins

Outgoing Players
Larry Hughes
#9 pick

:
:
For NY, obviously they don't really WANT or NEED Hughes, but he is certainly better than the crubs they play at SG, and would fit their plan of going with guys who would have the precise worst chemistry possible with each other

No but seriously, they're giving up 4 scrubs for the two best players in the deal (LH and the #9), and only taking on LH's salary next year. It consolidates things a little better for them. They can draft a three with the #9, or put themselves in better position to make a big trade.

Thoughts?

Interesting but no -- we're not giving you chandler and balkman and collins: 3 young players for just the #9 pick, while we are in a rebuild.

More like Rose + QRich for Hughes + second rounder....

[coldfish]

-= original quote snipped =-



Interesting but no -- we're not giving you chandler and balkman and collins: 3 young players for just the #9 pick, while we are in a rebuild.

More like Rose + QRich for Hughes + second rounder....

Done. We'll even give NY its 2009 2nd rounder back.

[StutterStep]

-= original quote snipped =-



Done. We'll even give NY its 2009 2nd rounder back.

Yep. that clears Chandler to start at SF. No more Malik Rose sightings for us. QRich gets to play at home.

I'd rather start Hughes over Crawford at SG. When Starbury acts up, we can put Crawford/Hughes together in the backcourt.

Definitely a do-able trade.

[DanTown8587]

Love that trade because Q's best season came in phoenix. Hopefully he accepts the lesser role. Only problem then becomes we have to move Nocioni.

Noce to Milwaukee for Simmons, #2?

[coldfish]

Love that trade because Q's best season came in phoenix. Hopefully he accepts the lesser role. Only problem then becomes we have to move Nocioni.

Noce to Milwaukee for Simmons, #2?

Why? Simmons makes more and plays the same position.

IMO, Q sits.

[Rerisen]

This thread is really something that needs to be read by those in the know, that is if they don't know already. Larry has to go. Sooner rather than later.

Hughes really brings nothing that can help this team at this stage in his career I think. Outside of some steals in the passing lanes, his defense is really quite spotty, even reduced from how decent he played vs Detroit in the playoffs as a member of the Cavaliers. He does nothing that Thabo can't do on that end, but Thabo knows his limitations on offense.

The most disappointing thing about Larry's game that I had hoped would be a boon, was his ability to finish. He can still seemingly somewhat get to the basket, but once he is there he can't finish. He doesn't go up strong in traffic and sometimes prefers to manufacture some kind of half runner toss up from a few few out which is a very low percentage shot.

That was the one strength the team really could have used from Larry, getting to the rim and also drawing fouls. That would have made him even useful in a D'Antoni system.

Worse than lacking all these skills any longer, is like Coldfish said, he still thinks he has them. And has the mentality of a entitlement starter or even primary type player. His FGA were as close to Gordon as they were to Hinrich and he should not be shooting anymore than Kirk. Especially jumpshots. Even when he is wide open, his tendency to rush or shoot off balance makes every look an adventure.

It's not that he's soooo much worse than our other guards, or at least not at the level they were this year, but just that even if he is slightly worse, it is hurting the team to play him every minute over those guys when they are not tired or have no other reason to be sitting. We already have 3 guards quite capable and deserving of 25-33 minutes each.

Worse, if Larry starts looking decent on a given night his minutes are likely to be extended over our other guards. Unfortunately, he is a type of player whose high water mark is not to the level of Kirk or Ben simply because he shoots holes in his own good games by over reaching in his role until he is back to mediocre or worse percentages.

I'll leave the specific proposals to others, or hopefully to management. But I just want to cheer lead for his departure more than anything.

[Neusch23]

I believe that if we want to be players in the big 2010 FA class then you can't move him unless we get a expirings for the same summer.

while I am not a big fan of his play we could look to make a play for Michael Redd and send Hughes and a S&T'ed Ben Gordon for Redd and Gadz-how ever you spell his name or Bobby Simmons.

Basically we would be taking back the same amount of salary, getting back a normal sized two...but one who doesn't play a lot of D, but would play well in Pringles system.

The only way they do this is if they like Gordon enough to give him a deal, and the fact that they get out of both bad contracts.

We would probably have to give up our pick as well.

If we signed DanTony, a deal similar to this might make sense for both teams....

[coldfish]

Good post Rerisen. Your comment yesterday is what brought me to this.

Hughes must go.

The people who talk about Hughes staying invariably project him to play few minutes. That simply is not going to work. You just have to read all of his quotes.

[DanTown8587]

Hughes either has gotten minutes or been traded in crappy deals because the teams that traded him could see the cancer growing the locker room. He has to go, I just am not trading my first round pick to do it.

And to coldfish, if we are sitting Q then fine, but if we want his three point shooting or Mike D wants to play him over Noce, then that could get u g l y.

[Rerisen]

Michael Redd and send Hughes and a S&T'ed Ben Gordon for Redd and

The thing with the Bucks is they are looking at a very unworkable backcourt with Gordon, perhaps more so than they have with Redd already. Not because Ben is a worse defender than Mike, but his size is more of an issue.

Mo Williams 6'1" or Ramon Sessions 6'3", a bit bigger but certainly no better on D, if you remember him making Chris Duhon into a superstar.