Trade idea from a Bulls fan....?

Future Coach · Post #1 » by **Future Coach** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:11 pm

First let me say that I understand you don't really need to make a trade as you are overachieving considering your injuries, but if the chemistry issue with tmac is legit a trade could be useful to you.

so how about this...
Rockets get:
- Brad Miller - Expiring, former Adelman player, and you are thin at center right now.
- Salmons - Not too expensive, expires in 2011 with battier unless Salmons decides to opt-out after this season.
Jerome James - Expiring, not going to play, so no more of a threat at ruining chemistry then tmac is.

Bulls get:
- Tmac
- Joey Dorsey - Body to replace miller and will likely be cut after the season for cap space.

I wanted to include Tyrus for Landry but I saw in another thread you guys seem to have little-to-no interest in that. While I understand that given Landry's favorable production, but I do think Tyrus's athleticism would be nice to pair with a slower Yao. So that's an option to include if you feel like being generous towards the Bulls.
Regarding Salmons, I think him + Ariza + Battier makes for a nice rotation on the wings and it is not for too much $$ at all. Then after 2011 you'll be able to give pretty good money to pair someone with Ariza, or maybe sooner if Salmons opts-out after this season.

anyways, any thoughts? Rockets fans like this or dislike this and for what reasons?? Bulls fans would love to move Hinrich and Deng but I don't think the Rockets are interested in Deng's contract to go with Ariza or Hinrich taking the ball out of Brooks hands so they will have to be moved elsewhere.

Post #2 » by **TMACFORMVP** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:27 pm

This is the best package we've been offered, so it's something we'd have to consider, especially if we really do have no intention of playing McGrady. And yea, Tyrus for Landry would kill the deal.

DumbyTheWizard · Post #3 » by **DumbyTheWizard** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:36 pm

I dont think Chicago does this trade. They get a player who didnt play for 8 monthes and lose a player who his contract is paid by insurance (Jerome), their only backup big (Miller) and their scoring swingman (Salmons) even though he didnt perform good this year but he is capable of playing much better.

Hell yeah for the Rockets for all the reasons CHI wont...

Future Coach · Post #4 » by **Future Coach** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:45 pm

I agree it leaves the Bulls very thin upfront and thats why I would like to get Landry also but that doesn't seem possible. I'm not sure if adding in Cook, and thus adding in another player from the Bulls is entirely possible as who else would the Rockets take for Cook, understanding that no one else of real value would be included. And is James contract completely covered?? As a Bulls fan I should know but I thought I remembered hearing something about how the insurance wasn't taking care of it for some reason, maybe I'm wrong though. If in fact insurance is paying for it then Bulls might not move him as Reinsdorf is fairly "cost conscious" lets say.

After doing this deal I wouldn't be done. I'd try to move Hinrich and maybe Deng as well. I think the Sixers could use hinrich and if we traded miller away in this deal I wouldn't be opposed to taking Dalembert from the sixers, or maybe try to get Haywood from the wizards as they opted to not resign him. Maybe this deal could expand into a larger 3-way with one of those teams, would the rockets be interested in any not too major pieces on the Sixers or Wizards?

YaoZaii · Post #5 » by **YaoZaii** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:49 pm

finally a deal which no one needs to drink.

Rendezvous · Post #6 » by **Rendezvous** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:51 am

YaoZaii wrote:finally a deal which no one needs to drink.

Yeah seriously,

Post #7 » by **Mr. E** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:25 am

YaoZaii wrote:finally a deal which no one needs to drink.

DAMMIT!!!!

But yeah, I like this one a lot. It makes a ton of sense from Houston's side, and I think that it makes sense from Chicago's side as well.

Good move leaving Landry out, dude!

RoxFan08 · Post #8 » by **RoxFan08** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:06 am

Yeah, Landry is probably untouchable for anything that didn't include Rose (or possibly Noah). The Bulls just don't have much else of serious value on their roster right now, and Landry has been nothing short of a beast this season.

Post #9 » by **The J Rocka** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:13 am

Bulls do this if 1. they are confident they will sign Wade + another guy like Stat or CB4
2. They tank this season ad try to get a guy like Xavier Henry or Wesley Johnson

Smash3 · Post #10 » by **Smash3** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:47 pm

If we really have to let tmac go this trade sounds reasonable better then the others atleast

ARodr21 · Post #11 » by **ARodr21** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:05 pm

As a Bulls fan i am not to quick to make this deal. Mainly because we are already a thin team depth wise and we are giving up 2 guys who play right now for a guy I dont know how healthy he is.

If TMac came to the Bulls he would be playing big minutes. Can his body hold that up right now?

whonka · Post #12 » by **whonka** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:46 pm

I am a Bulls fan and hell yeah sign me up.

anorexorcism · Post #13 » by **anorexorcism** » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:58 pm

As a Bulls fan I would be all over this deal, as soon as Tyrus Thomas came back from injury.

Pretty much, because it frees us of the John Salmons poison pill contract that is the difference between us having enough cap space to get a max FA. Right now, we just don't have it.

Crackfool · Post #14 » by **Crackfool** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:37 am

Hell no, the only acceptable trade for McGrady is a package of Eddy Curry, Cuttino Mobley, and Larry Hughes for McGrady, Landry, Lowry, and Hayes (as filler).

Teckon · Post #15 » by **Teckon** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:26 am

Crackfool wrote:Hell no, the only acceptable trade for McGrady is a package of Eddy Curry, Cuttino Mobley, and Larry Hughes for McGrady, Landry, Lowry, and Hayes (as filler).

Are you sure your liver can survive such trade? Quick go to the nearest hospital to save your liver :lol:

xingjianma · Post #16 » by **xingjianma** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:34 am

Crackfool wrote:Hell no, the only acceptable trade for McGrady is a package of Eddy Curry, Cuttino Mobley, and Larry Hughes for McGrady, Landry, Lowry, and Hayes (as filler).

You forgot Jeffries.

Future Coach · Post #17 » by **Future Coach** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:09 pm

it's good to see that you all seem to be down with this trade, although that may mean it might be a little lopsided in your favor.
Word from the Bulls board is that getting Dorsey wouldn't really cut it in comparison to trying to get Chuck Hayes or even Brian Cook instead. The only difference with those two is that their salary is bigger but the trade would still work i believe cap wise....

This really should be the trade. The only way this should not be the trade is if it is expanded to include more teams with Tyrus, Hinrich, or maybe even Deng going somewhere (to the 3rd team). Deals need to be made though, and these figure to be two of the teams making deals

Future Coach · Post #18 » by **Future Coach** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 1:51 am

Guy986 · Post #19 » by **Guy986** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:16 am

Word has it that Salmon is probably not going to opt out of his current deal. Meaning he's not an expiring. In that case... FK this deal.

boogydown · Post #20 » by **boogydown** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 7:22 am

Guy986 wrote:Word has it that Salmon is probably not going to opt out of his current deal. Meaning he's not an expiring. In that case... FK this deal.

Source?

Only article I found as of recent is that he will weigh his options at the end of the season. It says nothing about him opting in.

Regardless, Salmons is on a fairly reasonable deal, and I'd say around 10 to 20 teams would take him for some kind of package.