NBA Trade Thread #13

[Ccwatercraft]

Hopefully, after the Mavs get tired of the stupid "Cooper Flagg at PG" experiment, they realize they need to trade one of those good bigs for a guard. They started Flagg, Klay Thompson, PJ Washington, Anthony Davis, Derrik Lively, smh.

They really do need to rebalance, but they seem to like all of them.

[pipfan]

Booker would be high on my list of players to avoid. That contract is killer, for an AS player. Yes, he'll make the HoF for sheer numbers, but not a superstar in any way.

Lauri/Zion/Claxton/Turner are my targets as of now, depending on how Nov goes

In an ideal world, we add Lauri and move Matas to the 3. Would Utah want CWhite?

[Seccci]

Booker is on a franchise killing contract

Looks like it's $57M next year and $61M the year after. It's high, but not so high that we can't fill in a hole at C. If somehow Pat can be part of the deal, it becomes a decent deal (vs. $18M flushed every season).

It is rough contract and overpaid, im not going to lie, but so was Zach lavine at 40+ and soon to be Coby white at 35+ and ayo at 25mil a season.

That was actually the idea behind me looking through NBA teams for SG that might be better than these guys, not over 30 and in situation where we might not have to break the bank, send all picks to get him- so kind of landed on booker. He also went to finals and is clutch and can shoot game ending ft's, which right now we don't have anyone to do that. Everyone we send misses one out of 4 regurarly.

Sooo, instead of playing combined 70 mil to Coby,ayo- consolidate and get proven guy, even if overpaid. Their owner might even not push for a haul just to cut costs, so no need to send 3 first picks or something crazy.

But I get it, booker is not highly rated over here as i remember people thought lavine is even better than him. Kind of agree to disagree situation for me. Plus even though we have crazy depth now, lot of them are expiring and I don't see anyone want to pay them guys going rates next 2 years. Might as well convert 2/3 of them into one all star( sort of what cavaliers did with Mitchell, than the youth improving raises ceiling to deep playoff runs)- that's the idea

[WesPeace]

Booker is on a franchise killing contract

Looks like it's $57M next year and $61M the year after. It's high, but not so high that we can't fill in a hole at C. If somehow Pat can be part of the deal, it becomes a decent deal (vs. $18M flushed every season).

It is rough contract and overpaid, im not going to lie, but so was Zach lavine at 40+ and soon to be Coby white at 35+ and ayo at 25mil a season.

That was actually the idea behind me looking through NBA teams for SG that might be better than these guys, not over 30 and in situation where we might not have to break the bank, send all picks to get him- so kind of landed on booker. He also went to finals and is clutch and can shoot game ending ft's, which right now we don't have anyone to do that. Everyone we send misses one out of 4 regurarly.

Sooo, instead of playing combined 70 mil to Coby,ayo- consolidate and get proven guy, even if overpaid. Their owner might even not push for a haul just to cut costs, so no need to send 3 first picks or something crazy.

But I get it, booker is not highly rated over here as i remember people thought lavine is even better than him. Kind of agree to disagree situation for me. Plus even though we have crazy depth now, lot of them are expiring and I don't see anyone want to pay them guys going rates next 2 years. Might as well convert 2/3 of them into one all star( sort of what cavaliers did with Mitchell, than the youth improving raises ceiling to deep playoff runs)- that's the idea

LOL Ayo is not gonna get the same contract as Giddey.. White 35M not very likely either, unless he plays eyes out this season. I think AKME will re-sign Coby and Ayo to team friendly contracts. Jones and Giddey were good deals.

Just big fat NO to Booker, he isnt the guy! He is solid,but not someone who will lead you anywhere. His contract makes it even worse..

[Infinity2152]

OK, now people are going overboard, lmao! Booker's contract the next two years is not even crazy for a player at that level. It jumps two years from now, but the cap will be higher then too. Seems people think the key to winning championships is cost efficiency. We're so focused on getting good contracts. Nobody's trading a top tier talent without some warts (contract, age, injury history, trade demand, expiring). Salary is not stopping most teams from winning, not having high end talent does that.

Can't ignore the fact Booker was averaging 26 and 7, and 27 and 7 his last two years playing with Durant and Beal and he's still under 30. He'll be making around what Tatum or Brown are making. Not worried about him regressing at 28, his team was extremely mismatched the last two years.

We're likely to have a $50+ mill contract on this team if it's a vet with over 10 years anyway. Booker's likely in the top 5% (top 22) in the NBA. Matas starting on a rookie contract the next two years minimizes much of that cost impact. Maybe a team with little talent but about to clear maybe the most money in the league shouldn't worry about cap as much as getting ONE top 20 player.

Booker makes $53 mill this year. Players in his range or more: Kawhi Leonard, Paul George, Lebron James, KAT, Jaylen Brown, Jayson Tatum, Bradley Beal, Damian Lillard, Jimmy Butler, Anthony Davis, Giannis, KD, Jokic, Embid and Curry. Booker's 28, would take him right now over most of them.

Most of those guys making the same money are well over 30, many impossible to trade for without gutting the team. We're going to pay a max contract for an elite scorer, and we need an elite scorer, 7 assists per game isn't exactly trash either. He's still young enough and talented enough to build around for 5-6 years, Giddey and Matas would be a great start. If it costs mostly expirings and a few picks, he's by far the best talent we could add and Suns could be motivated to clear cap.

[MikeDC]

OK, now people are going overboard, lmao! Booker's contract the next two years is not even crazy for a player at that level.

It's not "crazy" in the sense that a stupid team with a stupid owner agreed to it. But it's a stupid thing to do.

Seems people think the key to winning championships is cost efficiency. We're so focused on getting good contracts. Nobody's trading a top tier talent without some warts (contract, age, injury history, trade demand, expiring). Salary is not stopping most teams from winning, not having high end talent does that.

A key to winning contracts if a Reinsdorf is the owner is absolutely cost efficiency.

Booker is neither cost efficient nor truly high end talent anymore.

Can't ignore the fact Booker was averaging 26 and 7, and 27 and 7 his last two years playing

I can ignore it just as easily as the rest of the league ignored it. And ignores every other goodish player putting up big numbers on **** teams.

Booker's likely in the top 5% (top 22) in the NBA.

Nope. That's an all-star, and that guy is not gonna be an all star again. But being an all-star is nice, but it's not what gets you titles. If your best player is the 22nd best guy in the league, you are very often out of the playoffs.

Paying the 25th-30th best guy in the league the supermax is a proven recipe for being trash. It's proven with owners willing to spend a lot. But if you know the team you root for, you know that is absolutely not the Bulls.

[Infinity2152]

OK, now people are going overboard, lmao! Booker's contract the next two years is not even crazy for a player at that level.

It's not "crazy" in the sense that a stupid team with a stupid owner agreed to it. But it's a stupid thing to do.

Seems people think the key to winning championships is cost efficiency. We're so focused on getting good contracts. Nobody's trading a top tier talent without some warts (contract, age, injury history, trade demand, expiring). Salary is not stopping most teams from winning, not having high end talent does that.

A key to winning contracts if a Reinsdorf is the owner is absolutely cost efficiency.

Booker is neither cost efficient nor truly high end talent anymore.

Can't ignore the fact Booker was averaging 26 and 7, and 27 and 7 his last two years playing

I can ignore it just as easily as the rest of the league ignored it. And ignores every other goodish player putting up big numbers on **** teams.

Booker's likely in the top 5% (top 22) in the NBA.

Nope. That's an all-star, and that guy is not gonna be an all star again. But being an all-star is nice, but it's not what gets you titles. If your best player is the 22nd best guy in the league, you are very often out of the playoffs.

Paying the 25th-30th best guy in the league the supermax is a proven recipe for being trash. It's proven with owners willing to spend a lot. But if you know the team you root for, you know that is absolutely not the Bulls.

Stupid team with stupid owner agreed to it? It's a max contract. Teams sign them every year. Most of the players who get them are not as good as Booker. Are you arguing he's not a max player, or max contracts are stupid?

We're cost efficient right now with little talent. Cost efficiency does not win. Top contenders were teams like Knicks, Celtics, Booker was playing with not one, but TWO max contracts. OKC just maxed two non-max players. Nuggets had Jokic and Murray and MPJ and Aaron Gordon contract.

Not going to argue the ignoring point, it wasn't to you personal and if you want to ignore his stats, that's totally fine. All he's done is average 26+ plus the last 7 years, with about 6 assists. If you think there are 22 players in that category, more power to you. Tired of arguing with people about how important scoring is, when games are literally determined by points scored. And ALL the top teams have elite scorers.

Most contenders have 2-3 max players. Dispute that. Now dispute that a supermax is a few percent more than a max.

And he might have been an All Star in the East averaging 26 and 7 almost every year, lmao! That award means little, since competition is much tougher in the West. Starting out competing at guard with Luka, SGA, Curry, and Ant Edwards. He could be the number 1-2 guard getting votes in the East. You're really underestimating how hard it is to average 27 playing with KD and Beal, imo.

How about this, name a max player worth adding to the Bulls besides Giannis, Luka or SGA. Assuming we'll add a max player, let's debate the alternative players for that contract.

[Infinity2152]

Correct me if I'm wrong people. There's no difference between supermax (35%) and the regular max for any player with 10+ years of experience (35%)? Most players 29 or older will be eligible for "supermax". Do teams with a bunch of cheap young players (like us right now) generally win much in the league?

In other words, most elite players can/will get what look like supermax contracts if they sign or extend past age 28, barring injury concerns.

[2weekswithpay]

All players with 10+ years of experience can be paid the supermax (35%) if that's what you're asking. The regular or vet max is just 30% of the cap.

You may have a different definition of elite, but I don't think Booker is an All-NBA level player. He might be closer to the 30th best player in the NBA than the 15th best.

[Infinity2152]

All players with 10+ years of experience can be paid the supermax (35%) if that's what you're asking. The regular or vet max is just 30% of the cap.

You may have a different definition of elite, but I don't think Booker is an All-NBA level player. He might be closer to the 30th best player in the NBA than the 15th best.

In other words, vet max and supermax are the exact same thing when the vet has 10+ years. When people keep saying supermax, it sounds like that's not the normal max any top player with 10+ years can get. Like the difference between 30% and 35% is team crippling as well.

You're right, I'm sure our definitions of elite differ. There are 450 players in the NBA. is elite the top 10%? That's top 45 player. If elite is top 5%, that's top 22. Booker is 28, he's younger than pretty much everybody who makes as much or more than him. Most have a far worse injury history as well. You don't think 27 and 7 is All NBA, please tell me what is.

Booker's a scorer who's been averaging 27pts playing with Durant and Beal. That's a lot of shot attempts taken. What All NBA player does it look like might be traded? Maximum contract Jaren Jackson Jr? Zion? Not Luka, SGA, Jokic, Tatum, Mitchell, Ant Edwards, etc.

People keep talking about Giannis, why the heck would Giannis want to come here when we're too cheap to pay for Booker/Lavine level players? We're not getting three Giannis's, lmao! If/when we finally do contend we likely have 2-3 max contracts, barring incredible draft luck. Why would ANY 1A want to come to a team that doesn't have a 1B/2A player?

Booker's better than any player we have on this team and would be a good fit with Giddey and Matas. The first step to improving is adding players way better than the players you already have. Not always waiting for the best future deal. The Bulls should jump on most deals for high end talent, imo. Only advantage Bulls have over many teams is a ton of expiring contracts (cap space), and that train is leaving fast.

[Dez]

Booker isn't worth the cost, outside of the finals year where Chris Paul pushed them forward and Ayton actually produced the Booker led teams go nowhere.

I'd rather just get LaVine back at the cheaper price if that's the move.

[Infinity2152]

Booker isn't worth the cost, outside of the finals year where Chris Paul pushed them forward and Ayton actually produced the Booker led teams go nowhere.

I'd rather just get LaVine back at the cheaper price if that's the move.

Might have suggested that, but there would be riots. He's actually a good fit on paper with Giddey. Don't think he got time to mesh with Lavine on the trade block, Giddey new on the team and finding his role, and no floor leader. Booker's a better playmaker, but we don't need that, want Matas to get some of that. Kings have a bad enough season, cost could be incredibly cheap. And I think Lavine is an upgrade from Coby, especially when Coby gets his new contract.

We still need a 1A, but we need that regardless. Just seems crazy the Bulls would turn down Devin Booker. We have no player better than Booker, and you can't win without good players. Every max player mentioned is not good enough for the Bulls, it seems. We're so concerned about money when that's all we have. Our only bad contract is Pat Wil, and that's only $18 mill. We need to accept we'll be adding max players not named Giannis. We have to work our way up to that. Right now, we're a team that might be able to attract Derozan/Vucevic level/age players. Would a star prefer to join Booker or Coby White?

Booker was just grouped with two max players for years. So clearly he can be on a team with two max players, we have Giddey at $25 mill and Matas on rookie. Why do we have to be the most frugal team in the league, we're one of the biggest markets?

[2weekswithpay]

I'm not on board with the mindset that the team should try to add talent, regardless of the cost or downsides. Booker has only made All-NBA twice, and even at his best, he was more of a fringe All-NBA player. He took a step back last season, and guards like Ant and Haliburton have already passed him.

Booker's 5 year supermax looks bad now and might be a bottom 5 contract in the NBA in a year or two. We shouldn't want that contract on our books. This team isn't capable of a deep playoff run, and adding Booker probably doesn't change that.

[coldfish]

I'll go in a different direction: Is there another Josh Giddey out there? A high draft pick that showed flashes but isn't going to get a new contract with his existing team.

One strength of the current team is that it is built with players in their early to mid 20's. Old enough to know the NBA but young enough to play hard. It would be interesting to just use that as a philosophy.

[MikeDC]

OK, now people are going overboard, lmao! Booker's contract the next two years is not even crazy for a player at that level.

It's not "crazy" in the sense that a stupid team with a stupid owner agreed to it. But it's a stupid thing to do.

Seems people think the key to winning championships is cost efficiency. We're so focused on getting good contracts. Nobody's trading a top tier talent without some warts (contract, age, injury history, trade demand, expiring). Salary is not stopping most teams from winning, not having high end talent does that.

A key to winning contracts if a Reinsdorf is the owner is absolutely cost efficiency.

Booker is neither cost efficient nor truly high end talent anymore.

Can't ignore the fact Booker was averaging 26 and 7, and 27 and 7 his last two years playing

I can ignore it just as easily as the rest of the league ignored it. And ignores every other goodish player putting up big numbers on **** teams.

Booker's likely in the top 5% (top 22) in the NBA.

Nope. That's an all-star, and that guy is not gonna be an all star again. But being an all-star is nice, but it's not what gets you titles. If your best player is the 22nd best guy in the league, you are very often out of the playoffs.

Paying the 25th-30th best guy in the league the supermax is a proven recipe for being trash. It's proven with owners willing to spend a lot. But if you know the team you root for, you know that is absolutely not the Bulls.

Stupid team with stupid owner agreed to it? It's a max contract. Teams sign them every year. Most of the players who get them are not as good as Booker. Are you arguing he's not a max player, or max contracts are stupid?

We're cost efficient right now with little talent. Cost efficiency does not win. Top contenders were teams like Knicks, Celtics, Booker was playing with not one, but TWO max contracts. OKC just maxed two non-max players. Nuggets had Jokic and Murray and MPJ and Aaron Gordon contract.

Not going to argue the ignoring point, it wasn't to you personal and if you want to ignore his stats, that's totally fine. All he's done is average 26+ plus the last 7 years, with about 6 assists. If you think there are 22 players in that category, more power to you. Tired of arguing with people about how important scoring is, when games are literally determined by points scored. And ALL the top teams have elite scorers.

Most contenders have 2-3 max players. Dispute that. Now dispute that a supermax is a few percent more than a max.

Our DNA is only a few % different from a chimpanzee. A few percent matters a lot.

Most max players are on teams that have no hope of being contenders. More importantly, the max players are a key reason their teams are hopeless or desperate.

How about this, name a max player worth adding to the Bulls besides Giannis, Luka or SGA. Assuming we'll add a max player, let's debate the alternative players for that contract.

Have you ever read about how DeAndre Ayton goes around saying he has nothing to prove because he's a "max player"?

Put it this way. If the guy is on his way to being a top 10 player, then he's worth the max. If he's not, particularly for this team, he's probably not worth the max.

Out of the 40 or so guys that get the max, I only see 8 that I'd clearly want
Jokic, SGA, Tatum, Giannis, Mobley, Luca, Ant, Haliburton. Maybe on Scottie Barnes, or Cade or Jalen Williams I'd have to look a lot harder.

Guys to want are the guys who are going to get maxes.
Wemby, Amen, or maybe VJ Edgecomb.

It's a really short list and it should be.

[Infinity2152]

Agree that theoretically you want all your max players to be top 10 players. It just doesn't work out like that in reality, imo. Max players are generally only traded if there are some flaws somewhere. It would be great to get max guys on non-max contracts. That usually only happens when you draft them, and only for a few years.

I'm not trying to fight with guys on here, just my opinion. My opinion is we need to stack talent, not money. Notice how we assume multiple picks would be needed to trade for Booker, regardless of salary? Talented players are more valuable than cap space. There are 30 teams in the league, there will always probably be 40 players getting max or near max, I agree. Of the eight Mike listed, Jokic, SGA, Tatum, etc, none are gettable. We don't have the resources to attract them or get them. The Bulls are currently a team that might have to overpay to bring in top talent, don't see any reason a top free agent or any of those 8 would want to come here.

Adding Booker does not prevent us from adding that 1A. It does make us more attractive if that opportunity arises. Like say we already have Booker, Giddey and Matas when a player like Giannis comes on the block. We can make the money work, other teams do it every year.

[leo921]

I understand the thinking of the AK trade for Okoro but think we can all agree it was a huge bust.
The other thing is that we have Okoro(11m) and Smith (9m) signed for next year taking up 20m of cap space that
can be used for trades/FA signings. One trade that I think can help this using our Port pick.

Bulls trade - Okoro/Smith/Port pick
Blazers trade - Thybulle/Williams

Blazers downgrade from Thybulle to Okoro in order to get there Port pick back. Williams has been/is injured and now get Smith
to be a playable backup 4/5 big for them.

For Bulls we upgrade to a much better defender and scorer in Thybulle, plus he is an 11m expiring but would be a good player to
resign. I think Thybulle and Matas would be crazy good together especially on defense. Williams is hurt as always, to me in this trade
Williams is just expiring money that we can but into good use as expiring salary/cap room.

[nomorezorro]

I'll go in a different direction: Is there another Josh Giddey out there? A high draft pick that showed flashes but isn't going to get a new contract with his existing team.

One strength of the current team is that it is built with players in their early to mid 20's. Old enough to know the NBA but young enough to play hard. It would be interesting to just use that as a philosophy.

2026 rfas: walker kessler, tari eason, mark williams
2027 rfas: ...this looks like a really bad class outside of the obvious top guys lol. maybe dereck lively ends up the odd man out in dallas's frontcourt? otherwise...cam whitmore? maybe okc doesn't bother re-signing cason wallace because they have a million other guys?