vxmike wrote:The Bulls have a hole at SF and need a 3rd combo guard who can backup Jimmy and Rose or play starter PG minutes when Rose gets hurt. Snell might be starter material (maybe...) but McDermott has shown nothing even suggestive of the role thus far. I'd rather have a Wilson Chandler at SF backed up by Doug/MDJ with Snell backing up Jimmy.
Wilson Chandler's isn't available as a FA. He might be available in trade, but I wouldn't go way out of my way to grab him given that he's a dicey fit since he's not a shooter and is a FA at the end of the season.
I wouldn't mind getting an upgrade to McDermott either, but if the Bulls have seen enough in him, I'd also be willing to have faith based on their past success that they can get good value out of him on the floor too.
I guess in the end it depends who is available, and how they fit into the long term and short term vision of the team, and how confident the team is in building for the short term vs long term as well.
They can go over the cap to resign MDJ if necessary. Using the MLE on him is totally unnecessary and using it on Brooks silly IMO. Guys like Brooks are always out there for vet min. If they're going to spend the MLE they need an actual floor general.
That's true, I had thought they couldn't go over on MDJ because they didn't have bird rights, but they have early bird rights, and his next contract won't exceed what they can pay him based on those. I'm not tied to Brooks, but I'd potentially be willing to give him two years four million total vs just replacing him with the next random guard and hope to get lucky again.
That said, I wouldn't go nuts about doing that if I felt I could get someone great for the MLE.
I think they need to spend the entire MLE if available (they'll be very close to apron depending how everything shakes out) on an impact player. Splitting it for two guys who are marginally better than whoever is available for the vet min is a bad move. For capped out teams like the Bulls who want to contend it's the only way to net an impact player unless you have expendable trade pieces on movable contracts which they do not.
Almost every player who signs a full MLE deal ends up being a bad contract. You almost never get impact players for the MLE. On the other hand, teams who split it very frequently get very good deals. You're typically getting two guys of perceived slightly lower caliber on better deals, and frequently one of them turns out better than the full MLE guy you could have had.
Granted, this year, the MLE is a better risk because of the contracts expanding the following year. I'm not opposed to using the full MLE, however, I think you're mistaken in the concept that overall this is the best way to go. You rarely get an impact player for the MLE. If you could, then go for it, of course.
I would argue that trading Noah or Taj for wing/guard depth and replacing either one with an MLE 4th big would be more effective than paying all four current bigs real money and playing the same vet min guys at backup SG and PG.
Not necessarily a bad idea, but it depends what you get. I don't know of anyone whom you're likely grabbing for Taj/Noah that helps you as much as Taj/Noah, but it does depend on the trade.
Mirotic's ability to play the three as displayed recently might solve a bunch of the problems you outline though. I'm not convinced that's the right thing to do, but it might be something you do as a stop gap.
