DeRozan to Sacramento; Bulls get Duarte, two seconds

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Of course Barnes isn't the prize. The Spurs almost certainly don't want him either. He won't be part of their future and in the mean time he'll take opportunities from younger guys who could be, and increase their win total which doesn't help them. The pick swap is their compensation for taking Barnes, and the 2 seconds are the Bulls compensation for simply saying yes.

The pick swap might have incredible value or it might very well have zero value. It's not as if we can accurately predict how good either team will be in 7 years. That's an eternity in the NBA now.

This isn’t difficult to figure out.

Barnes is better than Duarte.
An unprotected pick swap is better than 2 random seconds.


If you disagree with either of these statements, it puts in the very small minority. Which you’re entitled to, but I’m inclined to assume you’re a see red Fred over that being an unbiased, intelligent take.

The same issues with minutes allocation would apply to Duarte and the Bulls young guards. And the bulls are under no actual obligation to play either Barnes or Duarte FYI.

The only reason why the Bulls don’t have Barnes and the pick swap is financial reasons. There isn’t anything more to discuss.

Probably not accurate to simply equate Duarte with Barnes with regard to the roster impact and pressures. It is more complex to not play a respected veteran like Barnes than a guy like Duarte who never made it in the first place and is likely on his way out of the NBA soon. That kind of stuff is not COMPLETELY irrelevant.

But regardless it’s certainly at least 95% financial so it doesn’t really matter.

And I don’t care. I get why you do. But I don’t expect other NBA teams to take on an otherwise non-existent tax obligation 2 weeks into a completely unknown rebuild to get a pick swap 7 years out. So I don’t expect my team to do it either.

Now, if we were in this exact scenario but had a rookie contract guy that pretty clearly projected as a significant franchise player and the way forward was more clear, I might expect that. But we are a team in search of the people to build around. Those people aren’t on the roster right now (Matas being a complete unknown I guess).

I don’t hold the Bulls to different standards. That might sound weird but it’s how I do it.

Vets fade out with playing time all the time. Maybe not completely irrelevant, but not even worth discussing IMO.

Now I’d find playing time for him and there is playing time for him as the Bulls probably have a bottom five SF/PF unit in the league (may be worst in the league actually), but that poster seemed to want 48 MPG for Pat and Matas.

But he also becomes a trade asset in a year. I have no doubt the Spurs will make him available at the deadline for a playoff team and next summer.

As for league standards, I don’t know how many teams make the deal the Bulls could have made. I bet it’s well above zero though. Roughly a third of the league pays the luxury tax every year, it’s not some inescapable boogey man.

But this is the common thing you’ll see from financial defenders. A specific situation wasn’t “perfect”. And then the next situation isn’t “perfect”. So all of these situations can be talked out of making deals.

So what is your standard for the team that has been top 5 in profit for the last 2 decades? What is your standard for their luxury tax place on the league?

[DuckIII]

And how on earth does anyone know whether a pick swap 7 years from now will be worth ANYTHING? I don't even need to know which two teams are involved. If it's a pick swap and it's 7 years out, there is a very decent chance it's literally worth nothing.

Ok. But there’s literally a fifty percent chance it’s worth something.

But a less than 50% chance that it is a swap of any significance. I wrote a pretty long explanation of that and how it plays into my opinion but the site blanked it out and I’m on my phone so I’m not retyping the whole thing.

[Jvaughn]

Obviously he's just a filler, but wanted to post his highlights against Greece a few days ago.

Watch on YouTube

[Tetlak]

Don't see the problem with Duarte. He's not gonna clammor for minutes. He's probably an upgrade from Bitim for that roster spot. Most importantly, he's a $5M expiring that can be worked into a deadline deal.

Absolutely not. Bitim has more tools and upside.

[The Force.]

People complaining about some damn 2031 swap meanwhile AKME already proved his ineptitude when he refused to trade any of these guys at peak value, which would have brought back multiple firsts.

If you still hold on to faith that AKME/Reinsdorf will make prudent trades then you may want to re-think your perspective.

[RedBulls23]

Read on Twitter

?t=6XR6-1TpZGnbmys32bPVZg&s=19

My thoughts on DeMar as above.

[League Circles]

Barnes isn’t the prize of the deal, it’s the pick swap. An unprotected pick swap has incredible value. It may not work out, or you may get the 1st pick in the draft. The Spurs seem to think so.

And Barnes is a great locker room guy for young players, and the Bulls could play him instead of Craig. Matas is too small right now for the 4.

Of course Barnes isn't the prize. The Spurs almost certainly don't want him either. He won't be part of their future and in the mean time he'll take opportunities from younger guys who could be, and increase their win total which doesn't help them. The pick swap is their compensation for taking Barnes, and the 2 seconds are the Bulls compensation for simply saying yes.

The pick swap might have incredible value or it might very well have zero value. It's not as if we can accurately predict how good either team will be in 7 years. That's an eternity in the NBA now.

This isn’t difficult to figure out.

Barnes is better than Duarte.
An unprotected pick swap is better than 2 random seconds.


If you disagree with either of these statements, it puts in the very small minority. Which you’re entitled to, but I’m inclined to assume you’re a see red Fred over that being an unbiased, intelligent take.

The same issues with minutes allocation would apply to Duarte and the Bulls young guards. And the bulls are under no actual obligation to play either Barnes or Duarte FYI.

The only reason why the Bulls don’t have Barnes and the pick swap is financial reasons. There isn’t anything more to discuss.

I don't disagree with either of the statements. What you're missing is that neither the Bulls nor the Spurs are prioritizing winning next year at the expense of the future.

And no, Duarte isn't an issue because he sucks and won't deserve minutes over anyone that matters. In fact he may be released possibly. Barnes would legit deserve minutes, and therefore the coach may very well play him a lot, which wouldn't be to our long term advantage.

[GoBlue72391]

Don't see the problem with Duarte. He's not gonna clammor for minutes. He's probably an upgrade from Bitim for that roster spot. Most importantly, he's a $5M expiring that can be worked into a deadline deal.

Absolutely not. Bitim has more tools and upside.

Bitim was horrible outside of like 2 or 3 games.

[League Circles]

This isn’t difficult to figure out.

Barnes is better than Duarte.
An unprotected pick swap is better than 2 random seconds.


If you disagree with either of these statements, it puts in the very small minority. Which you’re entitled to, but I’m inclined to assume you’re a see red Fred over that being an unbiased, intelligent take.

The same issues with minutes allocation would apply to Duarte and the Bulls young guards. And the bulls are under no actual obligation to play either Barnes or Duarte FYI.

The only reason why the Bulls don’t have Barnes and the pick swap is financial reasons. There isn’t anything more to discuss.

Probably not accurate to simply equate Duarte with Barnes with regard to the roster impact and pressures. It is more complex to not play a respected veteran like Barnes than a guy like Duarte who never made it in the first place and is likely on his way out of the NBA soon. That kind of stuff is not COMPLETELY irrelevant.

But regardless it’s certainly at least 95% financial so it doesn’t really matter.

And I don’t care. I get why you do. But I don’t expect other NBA teams to take on an otherwise non-existent tax obligation 2 weeks into a completely unknown rebuild to get a pick swap 7 years out. So I don’t expect my team to do it either.

Now, if we were in this exact scenario but had a rookie contract guy that pretty clearly projected as a significant franchise player and the way forward was more clear, I might expect that. But we are a team in search of the people to build around. Those people aren’t on the roster right now (Matas being a complete unknown I guess).

I don’t hold the Bulls to different standards. That might sound weird but it’s how I do it.

Vets fade out with playing time all the time. Maybe not completely irrelevant, but not even worth discussing IMO.

Now I’d find playing time for him and there is playing time for him as the Bulls probably have a bottom five SF/PF unit in the league (may be worst in the league actually), but that poster seemed to want 48 MPG for Pat and Matas.

But he also becomes a trade asset in a year. I have no doubt the Spurs will make him available at the deadline for a playoff team and next summer.

As for league standards, I don’t know how many teams make the deal the Bulls could have made. I bet it’s well above zero though. Roughly a third of the league pays the luxury tax every year, it’s not some inescapable boogey man.

But this is the common thing you’ll see from financial defenders. A specific situation wasn’t “perfect”. And then the next situation isn’t “perfect”. So all of these situations can be talked out of making deals.

So what is your standard for the team that has been top 5 in profit for the last 2 decades? What is your standard for their luxury tax place on the league?

The Bulls also might be able to be active in free agency next summer depending on what happens with Zach and Vuc. That's another reason you don't want Barnes' deal on the books. And I disagree that he'll be much of an asset. Nobody in the NBA is trying to drop good players just cause they're expensive, so if Barnes is included in a deal for one, it's for matching purposes, not his direct value. And the Bulls already have plenty of actual expiring contracts right now in the form of Ball, Terry, Craig, Bitim.

[League Circles]

People complaining about some damn 2031 swap meanwhile AKME already proved his ineptitude when he refused to trade any of these guys at peak value, which would have brought back multiple firsts.

If you still hold on to faith that AKME/Reinsdorf will make prudent trades then you may want to re-think your perspective.

I think Giddey was a better return than "multiple firsts". And it's not particularly close, even though I'm not a huge Giddey fan.

[ChettheJet]

I think this has worked out just fine.

What I remember of Duarte with the Pacers was a pesky on ball defender, hustle guy, good shooter, or I'm wrong.

What I see next is either a Carter trade or him and Terry being added to a deal to a tanking team,

This deal might eliminate SAC from the Lavine plans but doesn't shut the Bulls out from moving him and Vuc

I think more players go in motion once teams finalize all the agreed upon signings, drafted players included and chart out who they want to play and who they need to move out.

[League Circles]

Putting a Harrison Barnes on the roster for 2 years would be defeating the entire purpose of letting Demar Derozan walk.

For better or worse, the Bulls are trying to develop something new with their talented young players.

There is a time when you'd like a guy like Barnes on his deal with a young group, but it's not now for the Bulls. They would rather give all of these guys those minutes at the 3/4:

Patrick
Matas
Phillips
Giddey
Terry
Bitim

Bulls are (somewhat widely) positioning themselves so that IF they win their way out of keeping their protected 2025 draft pick that they owe the Spurs, it will be directly because their young players prove worthy.

I'm very anti-tank, but very pro-future minded in situations like this. The Bulls have a strong chance to be a pretty bad team and keep their pick and possibly use it to select a very good or even great player. The only way that's OK to miss if if guys like Giddey, Patrick, Matas etc prove to be very good very early.

[DuckIII]

Roughly a third of the league pays the luxury tax every year, it’s not some inescapable boogey man.

That’s really doesn’t mean much though for two reasons: (a) it does not consider whether it is smart or stupid for them to being paying it; (b) it does not consider the context for why they are paying it.

So what is your standard for the team that has been top 5 in profit for the last 2 decades? What is your standard for their luxury tax place on the league?

I don’t consider the historical data at all. I know you use it as your North Star in these situations, but to me it means literally nothing.

My standard is simple: In the specific context in which “a team” finds itself, would I expect - not want, not could they, but would it be logically expected - a team to pay the tax? If the answer is no, I don’t have a different standard for “my team.”

My expectation for a team to pay the tax is linked to whether there is a direct connection to an identified path to contention. Or to preserve contention that already exists.

I’ll give an example. Orlando paid Wagner in excess of what I think he is objectively worth as a player, ignoring context. But in their specific situation I expected them to do so. And when Banchero and Suggs come up for theirs, and if the team is still projecting as a legitimate up and coming team with an identifiable path to contending in the East, if paying the tax is necessary for them to retain the core I “expect” them to pay it. If they don’t and it makes their team worse, that would be cheap.

Our team is not in a situation like that (or any of the other situations in which I would expect incurring the tax - that was just one example). We are a rudderless soup of young hoped for talent and the tax incursion here is nothing more than a blind dart throw into the abyss that won’t hit the board for 7 years. And may very well miss the board altogether.

In that situation, I do not expect any team to pay the tax. So I don’t expect it of the Bulls. That’s about as complete an explanation as I can offer.

I find the DDR trade to be fully adequate.

[DuckIII]

People complaining about some damn 2031 swap meanwhile AKME already proved his ineptitude when he refused to trade any of these guys at peak value, which would have brought back multiple firsts.

Exactly. But better late than never I guess. Cold comfort though.

[League Circles]

Purpose of letting Demar Derozan walk instead of keeping arguably our best player at half the max salary:

1. give young talented forwards more opportunities
2. Avoid over-committing salary for multiple years to an irrelevant team

Taking on Harrison Barnes and his 2 years creates the same two problems that keeping Demar would. It's that simple.

[HomoSapien]

And how on earth does anyone know whether a pick swap 7 years from now will be worth ANYTHING? I don't even need to know which two teams are involved. If it's a pick swap and it's 7 years out, there is a very decent chance it's literally worth nothing.

Ok. But there’s literally a fifty percent chance it’s worth something.

But a less than 50% chance that it is a swap of any significance. I wrote a pretty long explanation of that and how it plays into my opinion but the site blanked it out and I’m on my phone so I’m not retyping the whole thing.

I’ll add more of my thoughts on the pick swap but I’ll preface by saying this is an overall good trade for the Bulls. They recouped some draft capital, they created a large trade exception that they can take advantage of at some point if they are inclined, and they did DeRozan a favor which can only help their rep. All good things, even if they end up being insignificant.

Here’s why I think the pick swap had a good chance of being a good gamble. Cyclically speaking, playoff teams typically don’t last too long these days. Seven years from now, the Kings are probably either rebuilding or fading out. DeRozan will be retired, Sabonis will be like 35, and Fox will be 33. The Kings also are historically a franchise that has struggled to build winners and attract free-agents. On the flip side, one would hope that we’ll be further along seven years from now than we are today but certainly that’s not a given.

As for Barnes, I think there’s a solid chance that he could be a positive trade chip at the deadline that could warrant another first round pick at the deadline. It wouldn’t shock me if we see the Spurs cash on in him this season.

Now, is it fair to ask the Bulls to pay the luxury tax for a team that’s chasing Cooper Flagg? Normally, I would say no but we’ve paid the luxury tax way less than most teams. Paying it once to gain a potentially valuable asset would ideally be an option for a team trying to return to contending but we all know it wasn’t. That sucks.

So again, I don’t think it’s a bad trade. The Bulls are in a better place today than they would be if they let DeMar simply walk. But I get the criticism.

[League Circles]

Ok. But there’s literally a fifty percent chance it’s worth something.

But a less than 50% chance that it is a swap of any significance. I wrote a pretty long explanation of that and how it plays into my opinion but the site blanked it out and I’m on my phone so I’m not retyping the whole thing.

I’ll add more of my thoughts on the pick swap but I’ll preface by saying this is an overall good trade for the Bulls. They recouped some draft capital, they created a large trade exception that they can take advantage of at some point if they are inclined, and they did DeRozan a favor which can only help their rep. All good things, even if they end up being insignificant.

Here’s why I think the pick swap had a good chance of being a good gamble. Cyclically speaking, playoff teams typically don’t last too long these days. Seven years from now, the Kings are probably either rebuilding or fading out. DeRozan will be retired, Sabonis will be like 35, and Fox will be 33. The Kings also are historically a franchise that has struggled to build winners and attract free-agents. On the flip side, one would hope that we’ll be further along seven years from now than we are today but certainly that’s not a given.

As for Barnes, I think there’s a solid chance that he could be a positive trade chip at the deadline that could warrant another first round pick at the deadline. It wouldn’t shock me if we see the Spurs cash on in him this season.

Now, is it fair to ask the Bulls to pay the luxury tax for a team that’s chasing Cooper Flagg? Normally, I would say no but we’ve paid the luxury tax way less than most teams. Paying it once to gain a potentially valuable asset would ideally be an option for a team trying to return to contending but we all know it wasn’t. That sucks.

So again, I don’t think it’s a bad trade. The Bulls are in a better place today than they would be if they let DeMar simply walk. But I get the criticism.

If Barnes is actually good and helpful (and I think he probably is), he may very well prevent us from keeping our pick. That's enough of a reason.

And the general projection of the Kings and Bulls 7 years forward isn't unreasonable, but so much can change -- both teams may have risen and fallen multiple times by then. For example the Kings may very well trade Fox or Sabonis at the right time and retool on the fly. I don't really buy into the predictable cyclical nature of teams over time spans like that.

[jump]

Roughly a third of the league pays the luxury tax every year, it’s not some inescapable boogey man.

That’s really doesn’t mean much though for two reasons: (a) it does not consider whether it is smart or stupid for them to being paying it; (b) it does not consider the context for why they are paying it.

So what is your standard for the team that has been top 5 in profit for the last 2 decades? What is your standard for their luxury tax place on the league?

I don’t consider the historical data at all. I know you use it as your North Star in these situations, but to me it means literally nothing.

My standard is simple: In the specific context in which “a team” finds itself, would I expect - not want, not could they, but would it be logically expected - a team to pay the tax? If the answer is no, I don’t have a different standard for “my team.”

My expectation for a team to pay the tax is linked to whether there is a direct connection to an identified path to contention.

I’ll give an example. Orlando paid Wagner in excess of what I think he is objectively worth as a player, ignoring context. But in their specific situation I expected them to do so. And when Banchero and Suggs come up for theirs, and if the team is still projecting as a legitimate up and coming team with an identifiable path to contending in the East, if paying the tax is necessary for them to retain the core I “expect” them to pay it. If they don’t and it makes their team worse, that would be cheap.

Our team is not in a situation like that (or any of the other situations in which I would expect incurring the tax - that was just one example). We are a rudderless soup of young hoped for talent and the tax incursion here is nothing more than a blind dart throw into the abyss that won’t hit the board for 7 years. And may very well miss the board altogether.

In that situation, I do not expect any team to pay the tax. So I don’t expect it of the Bulls. That’s about as complete an explanation as I can offer.

I find the DDR trade to be fully adequate.

I agree 100%. I think that this board suffers a bit from "group think" when it comes to ownership and the FO. It's understandable, because of the failure to act since Lonzo went down. But there comes a time when you have to judge current decisions realistically. The above explanation is a great example of objective thinking. We could use more of that.

[dougthonus]

Barnes isn’t the prize of the deal, it’s the pick swap. An unprotected pick swap has incredible value. It may not work out, or you may get the 1st pick in the draft. The Spurs seem to think so.

And Barnes is a great locker room guy for young players, and the Bulls could play him instead of Craig. Matas is too small right now for the 4.

FWIW, the Bulls couldn't have done this trade in its entirety either way. Harrison Barnes would have put them over the 1st apron, and they are hard capped at the apron by using the MLE on Jalen Smith. They could have theoretically taken Barnes if the Kings could have found someone else to take Duarte.

That said, we'd have paid 48M or so for that pick swap, doubt management would have signed off on 48M in cash to get a pick swap in 7 years that may or may not result in something.

A move that makes way more sense for the Spurs that can use Barnes short term in this role and wouldn't pay the tax penalty on his deal and also may feel more confident in the pick swap being valuable for them based on their collection of assets.

[DuckIII]

Barnes isn’t the prize of the deal, it’s the pick swap. An unprotected pick swap has incredible value. It may not work out, or you may get the 1st pick in the draft. The Spurs seem to think so.

And Barnes is a great locker room guy for young players, and the Bulls could play him instead of Craig. Matas is too small right now for the 4.

FWIW, the Bulls couldn't have done this trade in its entirety either way. Harrison Barnes would have put them over the 1st apron, and they are hard capped at the apron by using the MLE on Jalen Smith. They could have theoretically taken Barnes if the Kings could have found someone else to take Duarte.

That said, we'd have paid 55M or so for that pick swap, doubt management would have signed off on 55M in cash to get a pick swap in 7 years that may or may not result in something.

A move that makes way more sense for the Spurs that can use Barnes short term in this role and wouldn't pay the tax penalty on his deal and also may feel more confident in the pick swap being valuable for them based on their collection of assets.

Thanks Doug. I didn’t even realize the tax penalty was that punitive at the first apron. Yikes.

That’s a great dynamic for the NBA at large and parity.