NBA Trade Thread

[drosereturn]

Arci is basically a waste of time. We should draft a PG.

I am 200% focused on not drafting for need. If it's a PG, I'm cool. That said, as a back-up PG, Arci is as good as most, and cheap. I think the kid is underappreciated. He's not a starter, but he is smart tough, an ok playmaker and distributor, and an improved shooter.

Keeping guys like Arci, Shaq is why the Bulls suck. They arent bad to have but the problem is the Bulls have half the roster like those and when the other half are injury prone, now they become the starters. You want them in a championship team as the 15th man, not on a rebuilding team.

[sco]

Arci is basically a waste of time. We should draft a PG.

I am 200% focused on not drafting for need. If it's a PG, I'm cool. That said, as a back-up PG, Arci is as good as most, and cheap. I think the kid is underappreciated. He's not a starter, but he is smart tough, an ok playmaker and distributor, and an improved shooter.

Keeping guys like Arci, Shaq is why the Bulls suck. They arent bad to have but the problem is the Bulls have half the roster like those and when the other half are injury prone, now they become the starters. You want them in a championship team as the 15th man, not on a rebuilding team.

Gotta disagree, specifically about Arci and Shaq. I think it is too easy to paint these guys with the Felicio brush. I think both are decent bench players. The good teams are the ones who can find guys who others discarded for the reasons you noted, who can contribute in bench roles for near minimum $$$ so they can spend that money and nab another difference maker. The worst teams are the ones full of "near-starter" talent (like Sato and Thad) paid $10M/yr at the cost of that extra great player. BTW, I am ok with Sato and Thad, because they are decent pros and our young guys needed some non-selfish role models around with Lopez gone.

[TheSuzerain]

Arci and Shaq are not even close to our problem in all honesty.

But we desperately need some actual higher ceiling guard and wing talent.

[drosereturn]

Arci and Shaq are not even close to our problem in all honesty.

But we desperately need some actual higher ceiling guard and wing talent.

They are not the probem judging by their cap% (Otto, Lavine, Young is) but when your wasting two roster spots on players who dont even have starter ceiling, you failed as GM. A top GM would never do that esp on a rebuilding team.
If the Bulls were contenders, I would welcome them with open arms but they need to keep handing out two way contracts every week to find the next Nunn, whiteside and save roster spots for those players.

You witness the Nets have their entire lineup going down and they are still competitive by signing ballers like Crawford.
Props to their executives and staff members for being diligent.

[sco]

Arci and Shaq are not even close to our problem in all honesty.

But we desperately need some actual higher ceiling guard and wing talent.

They are not the probem judging by their cap% (Otto, Lavine, Young is) but when your wasting two roster spots on players who dont even have starter ceiling, you failed as GM. A top GM would never do that esp on a rebuilding team.
If the Bulls were contenders, I would welcome them with open arms but they need to keep handing out two way contracts every week to find the next Nunn, whiteside and save roster spots for those players.

You witness the Nets have their entire lineup going down and they are still competitive by signing ballers like Crawford.
Props to their executives and staff members for being diligent.

I know it's a bit of semantics to argue about bench guys when you have 2 guys on the roster who are proven starting talents in Lavine and Otto (who is injury prone and likely gone after a year). I am a believer in the notion that teams can't develop more than 3 young guys at a time, due to the combination of needing to surround them with experienced guys to learn from (and keep down team mistakes which are inevitable with young players) and available minutes. So getting back to my Arci and Shaq point...these guys know how to play and won't dilute the development of guys like Coby by being on the floor with them.

[MikeDC]

I can see this with Shaq, who has moments of being an effective NBA player, but if we are getting down to brass tacks, that contract we foolishly guaranteed Arci would have payed for 3 Shaqs this year and 2 Shaqs next year. That's not a good deal.

Likewise, it's not a good idea to tie up multiple years of money in guys like this. Getting Shaq or Arci for the minimum on a one year deal is fine to fill a roster spot. Paying Arci 3x what you're paying Shaq and guaranteeing his deal for an extra year isn't useful in the least.

[Pax for Prez]

I can see this with Shaq, who has moments of being an effective NBA player, but if we are getting down to brass tacks, that contract we foolishly guaranteed Arci would have payed for 3 Shaqs this year and 2 Shaqs next year. That's not a good deal.

Likewise, it's not a good idea to tie up multiple years of money in guys like this. Getting Shaq or Arci for the minimum on a one year deal is fine to fill a roster spot. Paying Arci 3x what you're paying Shaq and guaranteeing his deal for an extra year isn't useful in the least.

Agreed, 3rd string players should not have long term contracts unless they are 1st rd picks. Roster should have min 4 players who's contracts are up each year to allow drafting BPA and keeping roster balance.

Pax

[MrSparkle]

I can see this with Shaq, who has moments of being an effective NBA player, but if we are getting down to brass tacks, that contract we foolishly guaranteed Arci would have payed for 3 Shaqs this year and 2 Shaqs next year. That's not a good deal.

Likewise, it's not a good idea to tie up multiple years of money in guys like this. Getting Shaq or Arci for the minimum on a one year deal is fine to fill a roster spot. Paying Arci 3x what you're paying Shaq and guaranteeing his deal for an extra year isn't useful in the least.

Agreed, 3rd string players should not have long term contracts unless they are 1st rd picks. Roster should have min 4 players who's contracts are up each year to allow drafting BPA and keeping roster balance.

Pax

I actually think Shaq is the one guy from the 'gauntlet' of Bulls scrubs who I would've kept. He offers Dunn's defense with an extra gear, and he has shown the ability to score, and he costs nothing towards the cap.

Arci has some good all-around skills and plays around. I just don't get why they figured they need to lock him up after drafting Coby and signing Sato, and keeping Dunn. Totally non-sensical.

Either way, it's a stupid problem to have. Having 4 reserve-ceiling PGs you are in love with (including Sato). What the hell? I can safely say not one has an all-star hope-in-hell like Dinwiddie, although if you had to make that stretch hope, Dunn or Shaq adding a consistent 3P shot (38%+ let's say) would be the easiest path to that long-shot scenario.

First thing I do after the draft is I trade/release two of them. Probably Sato and Dunn. I will regretfully admit those two will play better elsewhere, but frankly they just have no purpose here unless you trade Zach (which I would seriously consider, but I totally get why you'd keep your most talented scorer).

[sco]

I can see this with Shaq, who has moments of being an effective NBA player, but if we are getting down to brass tacks, that contract we foolishly guaranteed Arci would have payed for 3 Shaqs this year and 2 Shaqs next year. That's not a good deal.

Likewise, it's not a good idea to tie up multiple years of money in guys like this. Getting Shaq or Arci for the minimum on a one year deal is fine to fill a roster spot. Paying Arci 3x what you're paying Shaq and guaranteeing his deal for an extra year isn't useful in the least.

Agreed, 3rd string players should not have long term contracts unless they are 1st rd picks. Roster should have min 4 players who's contracts are up each year to allow drafting BPA and keeping roster balance.

Pax

I actually think Shaq is the one guy from the 'gauntlet' of Bulls scrubs who I would've kept. He offers Dunn's defense with an extra gear, and he has shown the ability to score, and he costs nothing towards the cap.

Arci has some good all-around skills and plays around. I just don't get why they figured they need to lock him up after drafting Coby and signing Sato, and keeping Dunn. Totally non-sensical.

Either way, it's a stupid problem to have. Having 4 reserve-ceiling PGs you are in love with (including Sato). What the hell? I can safely say not one has an all-star hope-in-hell like Dinwiddie, although if you had to make that stretch hope, Dunn or Shaq adding a consistent 3P shot (38%+ let's say) would be the easiest path to that long-shot scenario.

First thing I do after the draft is I trade/release two of them. Probably Sato and Dunn. I will regretfully admit those two will play better elsewhere, but frankly they just have no purpose here unless you trade Zach (which I would seriously consider, but I totally get why you'd keep your most talented scorer).

I get the logic behind wanting to trade Sato, but not Arci who makes $3m. Shedding Sato will be easier next offseason as his contract is only guaranteed for $5m (vs $10 this season). Also, his versatility has some value given our wing depth issues. You could play him at SF with Coby and Zach at the guard spots, and at either guard spot while resting Zach or Coby.

[MrSparkle]

Agreed, 3rd string players should not have long term contracts unless they are 1st rd picks. Roster should have min 4 players who's contracts are up each year to allow drafting BPA and keeping roster balance.

Pax

I actually think Shaq is the one guy from the 'gauntlet' of Bulls scrubs who I would've kept. He offers Dunn's defense with an extra gear, and he has shown the ability to score, and he costs nothing towards the cap.

Arci has some good all-around skills and plays around. I just don't get why they figured they need to lock him up after drafting Coby and signing Sato, and keeping Dunn. Totally non-sensical.

Either way, it's a stupid problem to have. Having 4 reserve-ceiling PGs you are in love with (including Sato). What the hell? I can safely say not one has an all-star hope-in-hell like Dinwiddie, although if you had to make that stretch hope, Dunn or Shaq adding a consistent 3P shot (38%+ let's say) would be the easiest path to that long-shot scenario.

First thing I do after the draft is I trade/release two of them. Probably Sato and Dunn. I will regretfully admit those two will play better elsewhere, but frankly they just have no purpose here unless you trade Zach (which I would seriously consider, but I totally get why you'd keep your most talented scorer).

I get the logic behind wanting to trade Sato, but not Arci who makes $3m. Shedding Sato will be easier next offseason as his contract is only guaranteed for $5m (vs $10 this season). Also, his versatility has some value given our wing depth issues. You could play him at SF with Coby and Zach at the guard spots, and at either guard spot while resting Zach or Coby.

Well, you add up the "G-League" weight and it's kind of alarming:

Felicio $8m
Valentine $4.5m
Arci $3m
Kornet $2.5m

That's $18m on 4 deep reserves / vet. min. types.

Sato and Thad add up to $23m next season.

Over $40m guaranteed for low-ceiling reserves. It's absurd. Thad and Sato are 8-9th men on a 5-8 seed playoff team. I think Arci plays in a scenario where Lebron and Davis are on a team and their guards get injured.

[MikeDC]

I think Sato and Thad are probably borderline starters/6-7th men on most playoff teams. This makes them somewhat overpaid, but in specific context of the Bulls, they're pretty far down the list of concerns. I'd happily trade them, but I don't imagine there'd be any takers.

If I were running the Bulls, I'd look at it like this:
* I'm looking to trade Lauri now, while it's conceivable that a team will offer up a lottery pick for him. Time to shuffle that deck.
* Because of that, I see value in keeping Thad as a placeholder capable player.
* Sato's value is that he can capably play 1-3. Especially 3. He's legitimately a 3 in size in today's league, and is fine, perhaps even better playing there. That's our weakest position, and to put it charitably, Sato is a flat out better player than Chandler Crutchison.

So as I look to build the team for next year, what I see is 6 guys in our rotation, and I want to add two draft picks and because we're currently a trash team, we're going to pencil them in to the rotation at whatever their position is. That gives us an 8 man rotation already.
1- White
2- LaVine
3- Porter, Sato
4/5- Carter, Young
+ Our own draft pick
+ Draft pick from trading Lauri

Filling out the bottom of the team is not something I'd want to invest much money on. Our second rounder usually makes the team, so that only leaves 5 more spots.

Felicio, Kornet, Arci, Crutch, and Gafford are already under contract.

Now, in the abstract, I'd be fine with cutting Arci and/or Felicio to bring back Shaq and/or Denzel, or signing someone completely different. But I'd also admit that we're talking about the Bulls here, and we're talking about the end of the roster, so it's just as likely we keep those guys around. Especially given the current financial climate where Reinsdorf and everyone else is losing money. In that situation, eating Arci's contract to pay another $1.5M to bring back Shaq or Val (or a FA from another team) seems kind of unlikely.

[Revenged25]

I think Sato and Thad are probably borderline starters/6-7th men on most playoff teams. This makes them somewhat overpaid, but in specific context of the Bulls, they're pretty far down the list of concerns. I'd happily trade them, but I don't imagine there'd be any takers.

If I were running the Bulls, I'd look at it like this:
* I'm looking to trade Lauri now, while it's conceivable that a team will offer up a lottery pick for him. Time to shuffle that deck.
* Because of that, I see value in keeping Thad as a placeholder capable player.
* Sato's value is that he can capably play 1-3. Especially 3. He's legitimately a 3 in size in today's league, and is fine, perhaps even better playing there. That's our weakest position, and to put it charitably, Sato is a flat out better player than Chandler Crutchison.

So as I look to build the team for next year, what I see is 6 guys in our rotation, and I want to add two draft picks and because we're currently a trash team, we're going to pencil them in to the rotation at whatever their position is. That gives us an 8 man rotation already.
1- White
2- LaVine
3- Porter, Sato
4/5- Carter, Young
+ Our own draft pick
+ Draft pick from trading Lauri

Filling out the bottom of the team is not something I'd want to invest much money on. Our second rounder usually makes the team, so that only leaves 5 more spots.

Felicio, Kornet, Arci, Crutch, and Gafford are already under contract.

Now, in the abstract, I'd be fine with cutting Arci and/or Felicio to bring back Shaq and/or Denzel, or signing someone completely different. But I'd also admit that we're talking about the Bulls here, and we're talking about the end of the roster, so it's just as likely we keep those guys around. Especially given the current financial climate where Reinsdorf and everyone else is losing money. In that situation, eating Arci's contract to pay another $1.5M to bring back Shaq or Val (or a FA from another team) seems kind of unlikely.

Just curious, what would you think of #2 from Cleveland for Lauri and #7?

[MikeDC]

I think Sato and Thad are probably borderline starters/6-7th men on most playoff teams. This makes them somewhat overpaid, but in specific context of the Bulls, they're pretty far down the list of concerns. I'd happily trade them, but I don't imagine there'd be any takers.

If I were running the Bulls, I'd look at it like this:
* I'm looking to trade Lauri now, while it's conceivable that a team will offer up a lottery pick for him. Time to shuffle that deck.
* Because of that, I see value in keeping Thad as a placeholder capable player.
* Sato's value is that he can capably play 1-3. Especially 3. He's legitimately a 3 in size in today's league, and is fine, perhaps even better playing there. That's our weakest position, and to put it charitably, Sato is a flat out better player than Chandler Crutchison.

So as I look to build the team for next year, what I see is 6 guys in our rotation, and I want to add two draft picks and because we're currently a trash team, we're going to pencil them in to the rotation at whatever their position is. That gives us an 8 man rotation already.
1- White
2- LaVine
3- Porter, Sato
4/5- Carter, Young
+ Our own draft pick
+ Draft pick from trading Lauri

Filling out the bottom of the team is not something I'd want to invest much money on. Our second rounder usually makes the team, so that only leaves 5 more spots.

Felicio, Kornet, Arci, Crutch, and Gafford are already under contract.

Now, in the abstract, I'd be fine with cutting Arci and/or Felicio to bring back Shaq and/or Denzel, or signing someone completely different. But I'd also admit that we're talking about the Bulls here, and we're talking about the end of the roster, so it's just as likely we keep those guys around. Especially given the current financial climate where Reinsdorf and everyone else is losing money. In that situation, eating Arci's contract to pay another $1.5M to bring back Shaq or Val (or a FA from another team) seems kind of unlikely.

Just curious, what would you think of #2 from Cleveland for Lauri and #7?

Probably not, but it's gonna depend on how the draft order and evaluations shape up. I can only speak for myself, but my philosophy is that 1) the draft is really important and 2) specific evaluations are really important, and 3) The Bulls are closer to needing a 1 for 2 trade than a 2 for 1 trade.

Based on where things stand today, I think I'd rather have #6 and #7 (for example, we'd get by trading Lauri) than #2. That could change though if the guys I really want in the draft aren't going to be there at our pick.

[Revenged25]

I think Sato and Thad are probably borderline starters/6-7th men on most playoff teams. This makes them somewhat overpaid, but in specific context of the Bulls, they're pretty far down the list of concerns. I'd happily trade them, but I don't imagine there'd be any takers.

If I were running the Bulls, I'd look at it like this:
* I'm looking to trade Lauri now, while it's conceivable that a team will offer up a lottery pick for him. Time to shuffle that deck.
* Because of that, I see value in keeping Thad as a placeholder capable player.
* Sato's value is that he can capably play 1-3. Especially 3. He's legitimately a 3 in size in today's league, and is fine, perhaps even better playing there. That's our weakest position, and to put it charitably, Sato is a flat out better player than Chandler Crutchison.

So as I look to build the team for next year, what I see is 6 guys in our rotation, and I want to add two draft picks and because we're currently a trash team, we're going to pencil them in to the rotation at whatever their position is. That gives us an 8 man rotation already.
1- White
2- LaVine
3- Porter, Sato
4/5- Carter, Young
+ Our own draft pick
+ Draft pick from trading Lauri

Filling out the bottom of the team is not something I'd want to invest much money on. Our second rounder usually makes the team, so that only leaves 5 more spots.

Felicio, Kornet, Arci, Crutch, and Gafford are already under contract.

Now, in the abstract, I'd be fine with cutting Arci and/or Felicio to bring back Shaq and/or Denzel, or signing someone completely different. But I'd also admit that we're talking about the Bulls here, and we're talking about the end of the roster, so it's just as likely we keep those guys around. Especially given the current financial climate where Reinsdorf and everyone else is losing money. In that situation, eating Arci's contract to pay another $1.5M to bring back Shaq or Val (or a FA from another team) seems kind of unlikely.

Just curious, what would you think of #2 from Cleveland for Lauri and #7?

Probably not, but it's gonna depend on how the draft order and evaluations shape up. I can only speak for myself, but my philosophy is that 1) the draft is really important and 2) specific evaluations are really important, and 3) The Bulls are closer to needing a 1 for 2 trade than a 2 for 1 trade.

Based on where things stand today, I think I'd rather have #6 and #7 (for example, we'd get by trading Lauri) than #2. That could change though if the guys I really want in the draft aren't going to be there at our pick.

With Lauri needing a new contract extension, which I'm guessing will about about 20/yr AAV, I dont' think you'll get anything higher than maybe the #10 or #11 pick for him, though I completely understand the 2 for 1 rather than 1 for 2 trade. I was just thinking that he would be a good replacement for Love in the long term and with the Bulls likely to move on from him this might've worked out for both teams. But thanks for your response!

[sco]

Just curious, what would you think of #2 from Cleveland for Lauri and #7?

Probably not, but it's gonna depend on how the draft order and evaluations shape up. I can only speak for myself, but my philosophy is that 1) the draft is really important and 2) specific evaluations are really important, and 3) The Bulls are closer to needing a 1 for 2 trade than a 2 for 1 trade.

Based on where things stand today, I think I'd rather have #6 and #7 (for example, we'd get by trading Lauri) than #2. That could change though if the guys I really want in the draft aren't going to be there at our pick.

With Lauri needing a new contract extension, which I'm guessing will about about 20/yr AAV, I dont' think you'll get anything higher than maybe the #10 or #11 pick for him, though I completely understand the 2 for 1 rather than 1 for 2 trade. I was just thinking that he would be a good replacement for Love in the long term and with the Bulls likely to move on from him this might've worked out for both teams. But thanks for your response!

I don't think the new FO is in a hurry to move on from Lauri. I think they value the "option" to get a good luck at a "healthy" Lauri as more valuable than the difference in this draft between any 2 lotto picks.

[Revenged25]

I don't think the new FO is in a hurry to move on from Lauri. I think they value the "option" to get a good luck at a "healthy" Lauri as more valuable than the difference in this draft between any 2 lotto picks.

Good to know. I've just seen a lot of reports, as well as Bulls here fans being open to it, talking about the Bulls possibly looking to move on from Lauri. I'll go ahead and let that idea go then. Thanks again for your guys' responses, very helpful.

[sco]

I think Sato and Thad are probably borderline starters/6-7th men on most playoff teams. This makes them somewhat overpaid, but in specific context of the Bulls, they're pretty far down the list of concerns. I'd happily trade them, but I don't imagine there'd be any takers.

If I were running the Bulls, I'd look at it like this:
* I'm looking to trade Lauri now, while it's conceivable that a team will offer up a lottery pick for him. Time to shuffle that deck.
* Because of that, I see value in keeping Thad as a placeholder capable player.
* Sato's value is that he can capably play 1-3. Especially 3. He's legitimately a 3 in size in today's league, and is fine, perhaps even better playing there. That's our weakest position, and to put it charitably, Sato is a flat out better player than Chandler Crutchison.

So as I look to build the team for next year, what I see is 6 guys in our rotation, and I want to add two draft picks and because we're currently a trash team, we're going to pencil them in to the rotation at whatever their position is. That gives us an 8 man rotation already.
1- White
2- LaVine
3- Porter, Sato
4/5- Carter, Young
+ Our own draft pick
+ Draft pick from trading Lauri

Filling out the bottom of the team is not something I'd want to invest much money on. Our second rounder usually makes the team, so that only leaves 5 more spots.

Felicio, Kornet, Arci, Crutch, and Gafford are already under contract.

Now, in the abstract, I'd be fine with cutting Arci and/or Felicio to bring back Shaq and/or Denzel, or signing someone completely different. But I'd also admit that we're talking about the Bulls here, and we're talking about the end of the roster, so it's just as likely we keep those guys around. Especially given the current financial climate where Reinsdorf and everyone else is losing money. In that situation, eating Arci's contract to pay another $1.5M to bring back Shaq or Val (or a FA from another team) seems kind of unlikely.

I don't think Lauri has lotto value via trade right now.

Also, cutting guys doesn't do anything regarding cap space (although it frees up a roster space). We have our biannual exemption and MLE to use and that's it. If we really wanted another roster spot, we could probably unload Kornet for nothing.

[MikeDC]

I think Sato and Thad are probably borderline starters/6-7th men on most playoff teams. This makes them somewhat overpaid, but in specific context of the Bulls, they're pretty far down the list of concerns. I'd happily trade them, but I don't imagine there'd be any takers.

If I were running the Bulls, I'd look at it like this:
* I'm looking to trade Lauri now, while it's conceivable that a team will offer up a lottery pick for him. Time to shuffle that deck.
* Because of that, I see value in keeping Thad as a placeholder capable player.
* Sato's value is that he can capably play 1-3. Especially 3. He's legitimately a 3 in size in today's league, and is fine, perhaps even better playing there. That's our weakest position, and to put it charitably, Sato is a flat out better player than Chandler Crutchison.

So as I look to build the team for next year, what I see is 6 guys in our rotation, and I want to add two draft picks and because we're currently a trash team, we're going to pencil them in to the rotation at whatever their position is. That gives us an 8 man rotation already.
1- White
2- LaVine
3- Porter, Sato
4/5- Carter, Young
+ Our own draft pick
+ Draft pick from trading Lauri

Filling out the bottom of the team is not something I'd want to invest much money on. Our second rounder usually makes the team, so that only leaves 5 more spots.

Felicio, Kornet, Arci, Crutch, and Gafford are already under contract.

Now, in the abstract, I'd be fine with cutting Arci and/or Felicio to bring back Shaq and/or Denzel, or signing someone completely different. But I'd also admit that we're talking about the Bulls here, and we're talking about the end of the roster, so it's just as likely we keep those guys around. Especially given the current financial climate where Reinsdorf and everyone else is losing money. In that situation, eating Arci's contract to pay another $1.5M to bring back Shaq or Val (or a FA from another team) seems kind of unlikely.

I don't think Lauri has lotto value via trade right now.

Also, cutting guys doesn't do anything regarding cap space (although it frees up a roster space). We have our biannual exemption and MLE to use and that's it. If we really wanted another roster spot, we could probably unload Kornet for nothing.

I didn't say it had anything to do with cap space. But from a pure finance perspective, in terms of money paid out, if you cut a player, you eat most of his contract. So if you cut Arci, you still have to pay him the $3M you owe him, and now you have to pay another $1.5M for Shaq.

Current contracts are basically sunk costs. It costs the Bulls nothing to simply keep Arci and let Shaq guy. It costs an extra $1.5M or so to cut Arci and keep Shaq. Not in terms of cap space, but in terms of money no longer in Reindorf's pocket.

[sco]

I think Sato and Thad are probably borderline starters/6-7th men on most playoff teams. This makes them somewhat overpaid, but in specific context of the Bulls, they're pretty far down the list of concerns. I'd happily trade them, but I don't imagine there'd be any takers.

If I were running the Bulls, I'd look at it like this:
* I'm looking to trade Lauri now, while it's conceivable that a team will offer up a lottery pick for him. Time to shuffle that deck.
* Because of that, I see value in keeping Thad as a placeholder capable player.
* Sato's value is that he can capably play 1-3. Especially 3. He's legitimately a 3 in size in today's league, and is fine, perhaps even better playing there. That's our weakest position, and to put it charitably, Sato is a flat out better player than Chandler Crutchison.

So as I look to build the team for next year, what I see is 6 guys in our rotation, and I want to add two draft picks and because we're currently a trash team, we're going to pencil them in to the rotation at whatever their position is. That gives us an 8 man rotation already.
1- White
2- LaVine
3- Porter, Sato
4/5- Carter, Young
+ Our own draft pick
+ Draft pick from trading Lauri

Filling out the bottom of the team is not something I'd want to invest much money on. Our second rounder usually makes the team, so that only leaves 5 more spots.

Felicio, Kornet, Arci, Crutch, and Gafford are already under contract.

Now, in the abstract, I'd be fine with cutting Arci and/or Felicio to bring back Shaq and/or Denzel, or signing someone completely different. But I'd also admit that we're talking about the Bulls here, and we're talking about the end of the roster, so it's just as likely we keep those guys around. Especially given the current financial climate where Reinsdorf and everyone else is losing money. In that situation, eating Arci's contract to pay another $1.5M to bring back Shaq or Val (or a FA from another team) seems kind of unlikely.

I don't think Lauri has lotto value via trade right now.

Also, cutting guys doesn't do anything regarding cap space (although it frees up a roster space). We have our biannual exemption and MLE to use and that's it. If we really wanted another roster spot, we could probably unload Kornet for nothing.

I didn't say it had anything to do with cap space. But from a pure finance perspective, in terms of money paid out, if you cut a player, you eat most of his contract. So if you cut Arci, you still have to pay him the $3M you owe him, and now you have to pay another $1.5M for Shaq.

Current contracts are basically sunk costs. It costs the Bulls nothing to simply keep Arci and let Shaq guy. It costs an extra $1.5M or so to cut Arci and keep Shaq. Not in terms of cap space, but in terms of money no longer in Reindorf's pocket.

The main value, IMO, of cutting a guy or two will be roster spots. Right now, IIRC, they have 12 guys under contract next season. If they keep both their 1st and 2nd round picks (which I hope they find a way to get their 2nd rounder stashed), they only have 1 roster spot to add a FA. They have the ~$10M MLE and ~3M Biannual exemption to use on FA's (plus vet mins).

[MikeDC]

So as I look to build the team for next year, what I see is 6 guys in our rotation, and I want to add two draft picks and because we're currently a trash team, we're going to pencil them in to the rotation at whatever their position is. That gives us an 8 man rotation already.
1- White
2- LaVine
3- Porter, Sato
4/5- Carter, Young
+ Our own draft pick
+ Draft pick from trading Lauri

Current contracts are basically sunk costs. It costs the Bulls nothing to simply keep Arci and let Shaq guy. It costs an extra $1.5M or so to cut Arci and keep Shaq. Not in terms of cap space, but in terms of money no longer in Reindorf's pocket.

The main value, IMO, of cutting a guy or two will be roster spots. Right now, IIRC, they have 12 guys under contract next season. If they keep both their 1st and 2nd round picks (which I hope they find a way to get their 2nd rounder stashed), they only have 1 roster spot to add a FA. They have the ~$10M MLE and ~3M Biannual exemption to use on FA's (plus vet mins).

I'm not a fan of penny pinching or the Reinsdorfs, but this is not even something I would do if I were them.

1. There's that whole issue of "9 figure losses" to provide context. Within that framework, the Bulls ain't going to eat $8M to create a roster spot. They're just gonna go with the guy they've already paid.

2. The MLE gets you an MLE level player. Another Sato or Young. Is there playing time for that guy? Nope. Does it improve our results tangibly? Nope.

It's just not a value proposition. When you figure that the Bulls already have an 8 man rotation (a "core"... although not a very good one), I don't think there's a value to adding another player. It'd be smarter to keep the powder dry and spend on something else. For example, buy a pick or two from one of the many teams that are going to lose even more money and be more desperate than the Bulls.