Proposed hypothetical trade with the Bulls

[League Circles]

Hi all,

I'ma Bulls fans and was just wondering if Rockets fans would liek a deal sending out TMac (now - injured - physcial waived by the Bulls) for Brad Miller and John Salmons. Brad could help you a lot this season, and expires at the end of it. Slamons has a player option enxt year for only 5.8 mil. He's played liek garbage this year so far, not hitting his shots, but if he even remotely duplicates what he's been doing for the last couple of years we've all assumed he'd opt out, so he'd likely be an expiring as well. So this is basically expirings for expirings. TMac also happens to be a guy I'd be very happy with next year if the Bulls strike out on Lebron, Wade, etc with our FA money.

I don't know if you guys plan to bring back TMac, but for us, this season and what Miller and Salmons could help us do isn't worth missing the chance at a decent TMAc, as none of the three should be under contract next year anyway. The way I see it, even if Tracy doesn't really even play this year, we'd just get a higher draft pick. If he does, maybe we bring him back with a resinged Tyrus Thomas a opposed to losing both and signing a Joe Johnson or Amare (if we could get Lebron or Wade I think we'd forget about everyone else). Miller will sign with someone for a 2-3 year MLE type deal IMO, and Salmons should get a 5 year deal worth somewhere between MLE money and an overpaid - 5 year 50 mil deal depending on what he does the rest of the season. I doubt he'd start for you guy but he'd be a good addition for wing depth. Miller would help a lot this season and he;d good to watch with his great passing.

[luhbron]

If you advertise this as basically expirings for expirings, you might as well keep yours. What does it matter, right?

Also, our GM holds the cards with Tmac. Every team wants his contract. Not only is his contract valuable to us, but he is as well. The only trades that will get him to give up Tracy are those that include good, young, cheap talent or a superstar that can take us to the next level. We have no interest in trading expirings or taking on mediocre talent.

[League Circles]

If you advertise this as basically expirings for expirings, you might as well keep yours. What does it matter, right?

Also, our GM holds the cards with Tmac. Every team wants his contract. Not only is his contract valuable to us, but he is as well. The only trades that will get him to give up Tracy are those that include good, young, cheap talent or a superstar that can take us to the next level. We have no interest in trading expirings or taking on mediocre talent.

The reason I'd like to make the deal is to get Tmac in here, if even for only a month or two at the end of the season, to try him out in case he ends up being our best option available in FA after the season. Second, although it's highly likely Salmons will opt out, I don't want to take any chances, because if he opts in we no longer have anywhere near cap room for a max FA. Third, if TMac doesn't get healthy, it will probably still help us long term due to getting a higher pick (we certainly won't be as good without Miller and Salmons with a suit-wearing Tracy to replace them).

I don't know why you'd say your GM holds all the cards with Tracy. He is an UFA after the season, and as he will be 31 years old with a lot of injury history, it's unlikely any team will gie him a 6 year deal, or maximum raises, so the usual advantages that a team has with it's existing FAs are not present. Tracy is not really going to need the Rockets to do a S&T most likley because no one will give him a 6 year deal either way. He'll be lucky to get a 5 year deal, frankly.

Why would any team want his contract? He makes like 22 mil this year to not play the game. I think you be misunderstanding what it is that teams want. Teams desperately want to get rid of trash, and take back no long term commitment for the trash. Unless you're getting excited about trash coming back (and by that I mean a long term, large dollar contract for an overpaid player), there will be no trade. Why would a team give up good young cheap talent for a guy who is under contract for 5 more months who currently has no timetable for return? And a superstar? What?

This deal helps you guys on the court a lot, right now. Miller is instantly your best C, and Salmons is instantly your best bench player, backing up both Ariza and Battier.

I guess I just don't understand what you expect to get for TMac. I can understand if you think you'll want to resign him, AND you think he would want to resign because he particularly like sHouston, AND you think by trading him he'll be soured into not wanting to come back as a FA. Short of all three of those perceptions, I don't know why you wouldn't take two quality pros for a non-quality (due to injury) TMac. We just know that Miller and Salmons are done here, and we're not winning the title this year, so we'd rather get a sneak preview of TMac if he gets healthy as how he would be compatible with Derrick Rose would be paramount to how we'd value him this summer.

[xingjianma]

You can't say Salmons and Miller are better vets than T-Mac. No one has seen him play yet, and for all we know he could come back in prime shape.

You ask "Why would ay team want his contract?" If that's the case, why would you want his contract?To land Wade I presume? Because you don't want to risk Salmons opting in? In that case, why should we give up the chance to land a max FA for a slightly overpaid bench player?

In any case, if any deal happens it's before the deadline. No way we trade him right now. If he's in good form when he comes back, he will be much more of a help than either of the players you offered. If he plays like he did last year, we can then trade him. His value wouldn't have gone down at all, because most teams were only interested in him because of his gigantic expiring contract anyway.

[luhbron]

The reason I'd like to make the deal is to get Tmac in here, if even for only a month or two at the end of the season, to try him out in case he ends up being our best option available in FA after the season. Second, although it's highly likely Salmons will opt out, I don't want to take any chances, because if he opts in we no longer have anywhere near cap room for a max FA. Third, if TMac doesn't get healthy, it will probably still help us long term due to getting a higher pick (we certainly won't be as good without Miller and Salmons with a suit-wearing Tracy to replace them).

I'm calling BS on you guys considering Tracy as an option in free agency. You referred to him as trash many times in this post. Also, I hate to break it to you but John Salmons isn't opting out of anything and thats pretty much guaranteed. He got a very favorable contract a few years ago and at best, he is now an 8 million dollar/year player. If he opts out, he will be going into the toughest FA market in years. Not only are there TONS of better options for teams, but we are still in a recession and teams are still suffering losses...not to mention the expected drop in salary cap. So his 8 million dollar value is reduced to 5-6, which is what he is getting now. He would be an idiot to opt out and he (or his agent) knows it.

I don't know why you'd say your GM holds all the cards with Tracy. He is an UFA after the season, and as he will be 31 years old with a lot of injury history, it's unlikely any team will gie him a 6 year deal, or maximum raises, so the usual advantages that a team has with it's existing FAs are not present. Tracy is not really going to need the Rockets to do a S&T most likley because no one will give him a 6 year deal either way. He'll be lucky to get a 5 year deal, frankly.

Why does he hold the cards? Well, why are people from other forums always posting trades for Tmac on this board and why are we not really posting Tmac trades on other boards? Because we have the asset and we are in the dominant position. A good number of us still think he can come back and be productive. If he isn't, its 23 mil off the books for us. Its a win-win situation and to trade him would be to give that up. Thats why WE hold the cards with Tracy.

Why would any team want his contract? He makes like 22 mil this year to not play the game. I think you be misunderstanding what it is that teams want. Teams desperately want to get rid of trash, and take back no long term commitment for the trash. Unless you're getting excited about trash coming back (and by that I mean a long term, large dollar contract for an overpaid player), there will be no trade. Why would a team give up good young cheap talent for a guy who is under contract for 5 more months who currently has no timetable for return? And a superstar? What?

Why are you asking why any team would want his contract when you specifically said the reason that you do? It's about flexibility. You know the reason so don't play dumb. We aren't stupid around here, you know, and our GM is much smarter than anyone on this site too. Also, you referred to Tacy as trash multiple times here. By that alone, you have admitted the benefits of his contract. You talked up Miller and Salmons as being great options but you are willing to trade them both for 'trash'?

If a team really wants that cap relief for a chance at a star in free agency, some could potentially be willing to give up young, cheap talent for that chance. If a team is in a rut financially, they could also potentially be willing to give up a star for expirings in a cost cutting move. That is what we are looking for and if we don't get it, we are totally fine with that. We aren't giving up Tracy unless it truly benefits us.

[League Circles]

I'm calling BS on you guys considering Tracy as an option in free agency. You referred to him as trash many times in this post. Also, I hate to break it to you but John Salmons isn't opting out of anything and thats pretty much guaranteed. He got a very favorable contract a few years ago and at best, he is now an 8 million dollar/year player. If he opts out, he will be going into the toughest FA market in years. Not only are there TONS of better options for teams, but we are still in a recession and teams are still suffering losses...not to mention the expected drop in salary cap. So his 8 million dollar value is reduced to 5-6, which is what he is getting now. He would be an idiot to opt out and he (or his agent) knows it.

I think you've read me quite wrong. I never referred to Tracy as trash. What I referred to as trash is what teams probably want to give you for Tracy. If not, why did I see a thread complaining about all the Eddy Curry/Jared Jeffries hypotheticla offers? I can't imagine why a team would give up an asset for TMac - he's not healthy, and is under contract for 5 months, after which he can do whatever the hell he wants.. As neither Salmons, Miller or TMac are under contract next year, none are assets for anybody. They can help you on the court for the rest of the year, Tracy most-so if healthy. Reagrding Salmons opting out into a tough FA class - yes there are a lot of FAs, but many may stay with the teams they are with, and a lot of teams have money to throw at players that will not get their first choice - heck I've been asking Bulls fans to compare giving offers to TMac, Ray Allen, Manu, Salmons and Michael Redd (if they opt out) in the case where we miss out on our like top 6 or so options. You don't think some team will give Salmons at least a 5 year MLE deal? Obviously if he keeps playing like crap he won't, but but he's easily better than an MLE player based on his last two years, and getting into a new MLE next summer at age 30 is probably going to be better for him than whatever deal he could likely get at age 31 under a new CBA which is likley to be less favorable to players. And why would I BS about wanting TMac? Do you think by us agreeing to a fantasy trade that it's going to happen and I'm going to pull a fast one on the Houston fan base??? Among Bulls fans it's considered a given that Salmons will opt out - I just want to try out Tracy, and am admittedly afraid, based on Salmons poor shooting to start the season, that the 10% chance he opts in becomes a reality. Those are the two reasons I want to make the deal.

Why does he hold the cards? Well, why are people from other forums always posting trades for Tmac on this board and why are we not really posting Tmac trades on other boards? Because we have the asset and we are in the dominant position. A good number of us still think he can come back and be productive. If he isn't, its 23 mil off the books for us. Its a win-win situation and to trade him would be to give that up. Thats why WE hold the cards with Tracy.

Why is it a win-win to keep Tracy? It's entirely a possibility that he plays 20 games for you this season - a season I might add in which you are missing your best player due to a serious injury, and where your leading scorer was the 5th best player for a rval last season. Even if TMac comes back and makes noise, do you think you're going to win a title. Salmons is at least worth a 6 year deal unlike TMac with the injury history. And it's entirely possible if not likely that he will leave for a better situation next season. I'm not saying he;s decided to leave, but just ask yourself why he'd particularly want to stay in Houston. Unless you guys are planning to offer him a 6 year deal or max raises, you hold no advantage in keeping him, and frankly you hold a bit of a disadvantage compared to some other teams - you don't have the greatest talent surrounding him. What trades have you been offered for Tracy? I'm curious. Frankly I don't want our first next year either so as to maximize cap space so as far as I'm concerned, you can have Miller, Salmons and our first. Keep in mind that dropping Tracy's contract doesn't do anything special for you. He's already not on your books next year, so unless you replace him with new salary, there is no effect. You guys next year should have cap room without him, but not enough to sign a max FA eithe way.

Why are you asking why any team would want his contract when you specifically said the reason that you do? It's about flexibility. You know the reason so don't play dumb. We aren't stupid around here, you know, and our GM is much smarter than anyone on this site too. Also, you referred to Tacy as trash multiple times here. By that alone, you have admitted the benefits of his contract. You talked up Miller and Salmons as being great options but you are willing to trade them both for 'trash'?

If a team really wants that cap relief for a chance at a star in free agency, some could potentially be willing to give up young, cheap talent for that chance. If a team is in a rut financially, they could also potentially be willing to give up a star for expirings in a cost cutting move. That is what we are looking for and if we don't get it, we are totally fine with that. We aren't giving up Tracy unless it truly benefits us.

Here is where I was talking about trash. Name one good young cheap payer that you guys could get, without taking on a bad contract, for Tracy. Why would teams do that? This isn't 2007 where every team has like 3 bad deals on the books. The league has really been purged of those. I mean sure, you could get an AK47, Zach Randolph, etc type player, but why would you want to? What do you think someone will trade you a star player on w worthwhile contract for 5 months of an injured TMac? My point is that you are confusing so many people making fake trade offers for TMac with a genuine desire for TMac. It's what they want to get rid of that bring shtem here to ask about TMac. If I'm wrong please give mean example.

[Mr. E]

I'd say that the Rockets decline this one.

Yeah, Brad Miller may be an upgrade at Center, but it's not like the Truck is playing poorly, and I'd rather spend the season seeing how Andersen develops rather than put another veteran in front of him.

As for Salmons - I like him, but not as much as I like Ariza who is playing SG for us now. Yeah, Trevor's natural position may be SF, but as for right now I'll take Ariza and Battier with the chance of McGrady sending Batt-Man to the bench over Salmons and Ariza.

Bottom line is that this trade doesn't significantly improve the Rockets, but it does have the potential to cut into their cap flexibility. For these reasons I think that Houston is not interested.

[League Circles]

And just to summarize the reason I'm interestd in Tracy is that I think Wade, Bosh, and likely Amare and Dirk will not be options for us this offseason unlike many more optimistic Bulls fans. I think we have a shot at Lebron, but if we miss out on him, which odds say we will, I want to be ready to pounce on someone who can do what BG did for us - score the damn ball and open up the lane for Rose to drive. Tracy is a great passer, underrated shooter despite %s, and underrated defender. We may have to settle for him in FA. Since he's not winning the title for you guys, why not pick up a couple players that will help right now, AND who, with Salmons, having his right actually does put you at an advantage in terms of resinging to a lower per year amount or S&Ting him to another team. Tracy isn't getting a 6 year deal or max raises. The fact that he's with you guys now means absolutely nothing come July. Keep in mind that if you do this deal, and end p wanting Tracy back, you can sign him if you like as a FA. But you could also possibly get something for Salmons while you're at it, plus the pick from us.

[League Circles]

I'd say that the Rockets decline this one.

Yeah, Brad Miller may be an upgrade at Center, but it's not like the Truck is playing poorly, and I'd rather spend the season seeing how Andersen develops rather than put another veteran in front of him.

As for Salmons - I like him, but not as much as I like Ariza who is playing SG for us now. Yeah, Trevor's natural position may be SF, but as for right now I'll take Ariza and Battier with the chance of McGrady sending Batt-Man to the bench over Salmons and Ariza.

Bottom line is that this trade doesn't significantly improve the Rockets, but it does have the potential to cut into their cap flexibility. For these reasons I think that Houston is not interested.

You're right it could change your cap space from around 10 mil to aroudn 4, but that's unlikely as Salmons should opt out, AND I'd give you a #1. Not that it matters what I'd do, as I'm not exactly in charge of things, but I was just discussing what I value. See you guys can't have cap space to sign a max FA no matter what (short of dealding some of you rlong term salary for expirings), whereas the Bulls WILL have max space unless Salmons resigns. What I really want, if we striek out on Lebron, is to use the space we had plus the couple mil we'll gain from having no draft pick contract, to sign a guy like Tracy (or Ray Allen, Manu, Michael Redd, Azubuike or Salmons) AND resign Tyrus Thomas.

Of the top of my headm I'm guessing TMac's next deal (or best offer - which most players take), regardless of what team it's from, will be something like 2-3 years, 10-15 mil a season. Does that sound right to you guys?

[Mr. E]

I missed the pick!

Honestly, man - this is a fair offer and very realistic. If something like this were to go down I would not be surprised.

I do want to point out something I'm reading from your responses - here in Houston when we talk about Cap Room and the value of McGrady's expiring we aren't like the guys in NY, who are on a "LeBron or Bust" campaign. We refer to cap flexibility as just that: Flexibility. No one here is dreaming of LeBron; but we are all very interested to see what our GM could do with cap flexibility for the first time in his career here.

That could be trades; that could be free agents (most likely under-the-radar types); and that could be taking care of our own players. Yes, I understand the mentality that losing McGrady "for nothing" exists, but down here the extra room could be better than what we may pull in a trade.

Again - pretty fair offer, but I think that I'd rather go with the flexibility, or see what else is out there.

[Rendezvous]

If you want Tmac you gotta take cook with you

[YoungMoney23]

If you want Tmac you gotta take cook with you

What he said

[RoxFan08]

If you could also find a way to make the money work where Houston winds up being under the luxury tax after the trade (I'm not sure if it is already or not), then Houston might well look seriously at this.

We're a wealthy team, but every year some sort of move has been made to get us back beneath the tax, so I wouldn't be surprised to see that again.

[Iggyemu]

Stopped reading after the "Salmons is playing like garbage" line. And we would agree to a trade with a guy playing like garbage why? Brad Miller I can see but you been throw in Ros....errr...I mean Deng in that deal. Come on...you want the big expiring that is the McGrady contract you better pony up ppl that can actually help our team now and later b/c we have no reason to trade McGrady...

[Mr. E]

I think that Salmons is good, but in a bad situation.

Honestly, a deal like this where Houston gets a servicable center, a young player with some potential and a first round pick isn't that bad. If Cook is part of it then it's downright doable!

Of course, I'm saying this after reading the latest McGrady to NY trade proposal

[xingjianma]

er, who's the young player? Salmons will be 30 in December~ IMO a half decent McGrady would be better than Salmons.

Also, Salmons is a SF. They try to play him at SG next to Deng, but I've seen a couple of Bull games and he doesn't look very pretty at SG. He might be slightly better than Ariza right now offensively (especially dribbling), but he's a downgrade overall.

IMO it's just a bad idea to trade McGrady before we see what he can do. If he can play anything near the way he did during our 22 win streak, when we were missing Yao as well, then I could definitely see him taking us into the playoffs. If he doesn't do anything, then we can just trade him near the deadline, most teams won't care that he's bad with that contract.

BTW this deal is perfect for the Bulls. With Deng back and Gorden gone, they don't really need Salmons; what they need a true SG. Also, the way Noah is playing this season, Brad Miller isn't really seeing too much PT.

[Moreyball]

How would this move at all help the Rockets moving foward?

Taking a "garbage" bench player that will put us over the cap for next year and keep us from offering a max deal....Just so the Bulls can. LOL. And on top of that the Rockets have a super deep bench why block Budinger and Andersen's progression (who are making far far less money) for Salmons and Miller. Seems like a dumb idea.

Rockets would deal McGrady for good young and cheap talent and THAT'S IT! expiring contracts do nothing to help the Rockets.

Also I think dealing Brian Cook and his 3.5 mil put us under the luxury? I know we aren't too far above it.

[Mr. E]

Salmons is almost 30?

Wow, I thought that the dude was under 25!

[Rendezvous]

No he's pretty old^