Bulls/Grizzles/Mavs Blockbuster... Gasol to Chicago

WizardsWorld · Post #1 » by **WizardsWorld** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:42 pm

Bulls receive: Pau Gasol, Mike Miller, Brian Cardinal, DeSagana Diop, Jerry Stackhouse
Bulls trade: Ben Wallace, Kirk Hinrich, Ben Gordon, Tyrus Thomas, Viktor Khryapa

Bulls:
C: Diop/Noah
PF: Gasol/J.Smith
SF: Deng/Nocioni
SG: Miller/Stackhouse
PG: Duhon/Thabo
*** Bulls blow it up here... pick up superstar Gasol to build with Deng. They can then make a follow up trade for a PG since I know Thabo isnt PG.

Grizzles receive: Kirk Hinrich, Ben Gordon, Tyrus Thomas, Viktor Kryhapa, Trenton Hassell
Grizzles trade: Pau Gasol, Mike Miller, Brian Cardinal

Grizz:
C: Darko/Swift
PF: Ty Thomas/Warrick
SF: Gay/Hassell
SG: Hinrich/Gordon
PG: Conley/Lowry
*** Grizz start the rebuilding here, more flexibility to make other moves with new acquisitions.

Mavs receive: Ben Wallace
Mavs trade: Jerry Stackhouse, Trenton Hassell, Desagana Diop

Mavs:
C: Wallace/Dampier
PF: Nowitzki/Bass
SF: Howard/George
SG: Jones/Terry
PG: Harris/Barea
*** Mavs make a playoff push here bringing in Big Ben. He has 2 years and a lot of money left on his deal but they dump two guys that also have 2 years on their deals.

RoxFan08 · Post #2 » by **RoxFan08** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:54 pm

No WAY Dallas does that deal. Money may not be an object to Cuban, but he isn't stupid. Havin good/mediocre players on small deals is MUCH better than having bad players on huge contracts.

Rand10 · Post #3 » by **Rand10** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:08 pm

Diop > Wallace

WizardsWorld · Post #4 » by **WizardsWorld** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:12 pm

RoxFan08 wrote:No WAY Dallas does that deal. Money may not be an object to Cuban, but he isn't stupid. Havin good/mediocre players on small deals is MUCH better than having bad players on huge contracts.

Maybe I'm just not watching enough Bulls games this year but is Wallace really "THAT" bad this year ??? Everyone on this board is absolutely trashing him... I must still be thinking of Big Ben two years ago ripping down 15 boards a game with Detroit. I guess he cant do that anymore?

RoxFan08 · Post #5 » by **RoxFan08** » Sat Jan 12, 2008 7:28 pm

His offense has regressed, his defense has regressed, his rebounding has obviously regressed. He has an albatross of a contract. Diop is outplaying him for 1/5th (maybe less) the money. Plus they lose a solid bench player in Stackhouse. Not happening for Dallas.

dirkforpres · Post #6 » by **dirkforpres** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 5:44 pm

If Dallas does this trade, is there any way that you can include somewhere in the deal that somebody has to walk up to Mark Cuban and Donnie Nelson and kick them in the nuts?

ecuhus1981 · Post #7 » by **ecuhus1981** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:12 pm

I think this is a very promising proposal, but is a bit misguided, to say the least. My list of quibbles is as follows:

1) Hinrich is not a SG. He can moonlight there when Skiles goes small, and is good enough of a defender to guard SGs, but his true position is PG. I'd like to see if there is a way to do this without him, because CHI obviously hurts at PG after this, while MEM wants to build the Conley/Lowry foundation. Also, Gordon would make an awfully expensive gunner off the bench at season's end...

2) Dallas has too little incentive. Would DAL rather have Ben than Erick? IDK.

I'll try to figure out something...

tclg · Post #8 » by **tclg** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:20 pm

Lowry or navarro should go to the bulls if they are going to blow up the back court they need something at pg.

Cliff Levingston · Post #9 » by **Cliff Levingston** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:23 pm

ecuhus1981 wrote:1) Hinrich is not a SG. He can moonlight there when Skiles goes small, and is good enough of a defender to guard SGs, but his true position is PG. I'd like to see if there is a way to do this without him, because CHI obviously hurts at PG after this, while MEM wants to build the Conley/Lowry foundation. Also, Gordon would make an awfully expensive gunner off the bench at season's end...

Cliff Levingston disagrees totally. Hinrich's ideal situation would be to play off the ball next to a guy who can get into the lane and make things happen. He's a good spot up shooter, not so much off the dribble and he has a lot of trouble getting into the lane and finishing. He also has trouble making creative passes and usually can't spot the open man quickly when he's doubled.

Other than he's a couple inches short of ideal height, his best position would be off the ball, which is usually the 2/SG position.

ecuhus1981 · Post #10 » by **ecuhus1981** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:24 pm

Lowry and Navarro aren't "something." I agree that this deal is unbalancing all three teams from a lineup standpoint, but it is simply too good for CHI, for them to ask for anything more without giving up something major.

I just can't see the mechanics of this deal working out...

ecuhus1981 · Post #11 » by **ecuhus1981** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:32 pm

Cliff Levingston wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Cliff Levingston disagrees totally. Hinrich's ideal situation would be to play off the ball next to a guy who can get into the lane and make things happen. He's a good spot up shooter, not so much off the dribble and he has a lot of trouble getting into the lane and finishing. He also has trouble making creative passes and usually can't spot the open man quickly when he's doubled.

Other than he's a couple inches short of ideal height, his best position would be off the ball, which is usually the 2/SG position.

This coming from the guy who says Gordon is a PG... :roll:

Let's see, playing "off the ball next to a guy who can get into the lane and make things happen"... hey, Duhon can do that! Wait a minute, he DOES do that! Say, CL, how's that working out for the Bulls, having two "midgets" (Pippen's description, not mine) running the backcourt? :rofl:

Seriously, you don't know your team if you think Kirk is better off at SG. He's barely had any time to play PG at both ends of the court, but whenever he does (like at the WCs), he shines both as a defender and a distributor. Your lovefest with Gordon may be clouding your vision, as I notice in most of your trades you like to move Hinrich and bring in a full-sized SG to pair with Gordon.

As a KU fan who has seen our Jayhawk grow and follows Hinrich to this day, I can tell you Kirk is best when creating opportunities on the ball, but excels off the ball as well due to his versatility.

tclg · Post #12 » by **tclg** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:37 pm

So the grizzlies are going to have this in the backcourt after this trade

hinrich/gordon/lowry/navarro/conley at pg and you dont think that they should be giving up a guard?

JES12 · Post #13 » by **JES12** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:55 pm

mavfan33 wrote:Diop > Wallace

True numbers wise per min and per game before Dampier came back. However, Ben Wallace has that name reputation and gets called block or steal for the same plays Diop would get calld foul on. And there are a lot of non-calls on Wallace that Diop would definatly get called for. Because of that name reputation, I would do a Diop-Wallace trade, but I would do the following:

Diop + Hassell + S&T KVH at 6 mil for Wallace

Until we do something about our 2 guard spot, Stack is not leaving.

tclg · Post #14 » by **tclg** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:57 pm

I dont think you can sign and trade kvh any more

JES12 · Post #15 » by **JES12** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:10 pm

tclg wrote:I dont think you can sign and trade kvh any more

And why would you assumme that? We never renounced his rights and we have not passed the deadline to sign player yet, have we?

ss1986v2 · Post #16 » by **ss1986v2** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:15 pm

JES12 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

And why would you assumme that? We never renounced his rights and we have not passed the deadline to sign player yet, have we?

wasnt kvh last season the '05-'06 season? if thats the case, you would have only retained his rights until june 30, 2007, or one year from the end of his last contract.

JES12 · Post #17 » by **JES12** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:17 pm

ss1986v2 wrote:wasnt kvh last season the '05-'06 season? if thats the case, you would have only retained his rights until june 30, 2007, or one year from the end of his last contract.

Link? Last I heard we retain his rights until he is renounced, signed ro officially retires.

hermes · Post #18 » by **hermes** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:18 pm

mavs don't want wallace

tclg · Post #19 » by **tclg** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:19 pm

Thats what I thought as well, This was being discussed on the bulls board regarding pj brown and when we could use him in a sign and trade and under what parameters would satisfy the CBA

JES12 · Post #20 » by **JES12** » Tue Jan 15, 2008 7:23 pm

On Larry Coon CBA, the only thing remotly close is this:

33. What does renouncing a player mean?

As detailed in question number 30, free agents continue to be included in team salary. By renouncing a player, a team gives up its right until the following June 30 to use the Larry Bird, Early Bird, or Non-Bird exceptions (see question number 19) to re-sign that player. A renounced player no longer counts toward team salary, so teams use renouncement to gain additional cap room. After renouncing a player, the team is still permitted to re-sign that player, but they must either have enough cap room to fit the salary, or sign the player using the Minimum Salary exception. The exception to this is in the case of an Early Bird free agent who is coming off the second season of his rookie scale contract. Such players, when renounced, are treated as Non-Bird free agents. After renouncing a player, a team can still trade the player in a sign-and-trade agreement (see question number 76).

But that is only after renouncing a player and then using the bird rights afterwards. If we never renounce, we still have his bird rights until he officially retires.