Trade Thread: Armchair GMs welcomed

logical_art · Post #1541 » by **logical_art** » Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:37 pm

Assume the Cavs interest in Garland is real. For those Garland fans out there, what kind of package are you willing to give up to go to 4 and grab him?

For reference, Dallas gave up a top 5 protected pick last year to move from 5 to 3 to take Doncic. I might be talked into giving up next years first with top 7 protection to move up from 7 to 4. Might. I'd rather piece together something like taking Hills contract, giving up Val (a much needed shooter) and a second round pick or 3, but that's unlikely to get it done.

sco · Post #1542 » by **sco** » Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:44 pm

I think anyone's interest in Garland is more of a statement about what they see in other draft picks that they don't like. There just isn't enough of a resume for him to be evaluated critically vs other top 10 candidates.

Nikola · Post #1543 » by **Nikola** » Mon Jun 17, 2019 9:52 pm

Would not give up a future first unless lotto protected, even then would have to think on it. Would give up 2ndrp's, Dunn,Val, or Hutch. I'd also pass on taking on Hill but I would be okay with Moore. The Bulls need vets that can play, Hill can not.

All and all I wouldn't give much. We just haven't seen enough. But the FO has more intel than us. If they are sold on him then they need to give more than I would be willing.

sco · Post #1544 » by **sco** » Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:33 pm

If Beal is out there, he's a guy I'd trade Zach for...would anyone do:

CHI in: #9, Beal out: #7, Dunn, Lavine

WAS in: #4, Ball, out: Beal, #9

NO in: #7, Lavine, Dunn out: #4, Ball

panthermark · Post #1545 » by **panthermark** » Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:32 pm

sco wrote:If Beal is out there, he's a guy I'd trade Zach for...would anyone do:

CHI in: #9, Beal out: #7, Dunn, Lavine

WAS in: #4, Ball, out: Beal, #9

NO in: #7, Lavine, Dunn out: #4, Ball

I would...but Ball and the #4 seems rough for the Wizards.

logical_art · Post #1546 » by **logical_art** » Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:51 pm

Bulls: Ball, # 9 pick
Wizards: Hart, Dunn, Hill, #4, #7, #38, future Lakers pick
Pelicans: Beal

panthermark · Post #1547 » by **panthermark** » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:16 am

I'm not a big enough fan to give up anything. No workout....a handful of games. Too much of an unknown for me. If he is there at #7 I would certainly take him.

Post #1548 » by **coldfish** » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:18 am

Dunn, Valentine and 2nd round picks. $3m of Jerry's cash.

Basically, nothing that I care about.

Bulls Fan 23 · Post #1549 » by **Bulls Fan 23** » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:22 am

Keep Lonzo on ther Pels

Trash

sco · Post #1550 » by **sco** » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:29 am

logical_art wrote:Bulls: Ball, # 9 pick
Wizards: Hart, Dunn, Hill, #4, #7, #38, future Lakers pick
Pelicans: Beal

IMO:
1) Pelicans are overpaying (3 1sts and an early 2nd for Beal) - I think they balk
2) I don't want Ball, and I still think #7 and #38 for Ball and #9 is underpaying...maybe if we took Hill's contract - it seems realistic.

logical_art · Post #1551 » by **logical_art** » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:34 am

sco wrote:
logical_art wrote:Bulls: Ball, # 9 pick
Wizards: Hart, Dunn, Hill, #4, #7, #38, future Lakers pick
Pelicans: Beal

IMO:
1) Pelicans are overpaying (3 1sts and an early 2nd for Beal) - I think they balk
2) I don't want Ball, and I still think #7 and #38 for Ball and #9 is underpaying...maybe if we took Hill's contract - it seems realistic.

1) Ball was a 1st round pick. Also the Lakers pick could be one of the upcoming ones which wont be good.
2) Yes it probably is an underpay, but it doesn't matter if the other parties agree right?

Does NO or Wash say no?

sco · Post #1552 » by **sco** » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:36 am

logical_art wrote:
sco wrote:
logical_art wrote:Bulls: Ball, # 9 pick
Wizards: Hart, Dunn, Hill, #4, #7, #38, future Lakers pick
Pelicans: Beal

IMO:
1) Pelicans are overpaying (3 1sts and an early 2nd for Beal) - I think they balk
2) I don't want Ball, and I still think #7 and #38 for Ball and #9 is underpaying...maybe if we took Hill's contract - it seems realistic.

1) Ball was a 1st round pick. Also the Lakers pick could be one of the upcoming ones which wont be good.
2) Yes it probably is an underpay, but it doesn't matter if the other parties agree right? Does NO or Wash say no?

NO says no. I would do it.

logical_art · Post #1553 » by **logical_art** » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:38 am

sco wrote:
logical_art wrote:
sco wrote:IMO:
1) Pelicans are overpaying (3 1sts and an early 2nd for Beal) - I think they balk
2) I don't want Ball, and I still think #7 and #38 for Ball and #9 is underpaying...maybe if we took Hill's contract - it seems realistic.

1) Ball was a 1st round pick. Also the Lakers pick could be one of the upcoming ones which wont be good.
2) Yes it probably is an underpay, but it doesn't matter if the other parties agree right? Does NO or Wash say no?

NO says no. I would do it.

No doesn't give up the 4, Ball and the Lakers 2021 pick (should be near the bottom of the first round) in order to get Beal and dump Hill's contract? I'm not so sure.

Ajosu · Post #1554 » by **Ajosu** » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:44 am

coldfish wrote:Dunn, Valentine and 2nd round picks. $3m of Jerry's cash.

Basically, nothing that I care about.

lol im pretty sure we should have a credit to spend in cash considerations

Post #1555 » by **HomoSapien** » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:48 am

Here's where not inflating Kris Dunn's stats and publicly killing his value hurts us. Dunn is capable of stringing together impressive games. I have no idea why we benched him with a fake injury to close out the season. The Bulls should have been lying to the public and talking about how high they are on him instead of openly talking about their disappointment in him. Ideally Dunn would be your trade chip to move up. Now that's not going to happen.

I suppose I would trade some combo of a protected future pick swap, cash, and Hutch.

Wingy · Post #1556 » by **Wingy** » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:49 am

coldfish wrote:Dunn, Valentine and 2nd round picks. $3m of Jerry's cash.

Basically, nothing that I care about.

Gasp!!

Not The Denzel Valentine...the hooper whose absence was always listed with the likes of Lavine/Lauri as a reason why we weren't winning!

Sarcasm aside, my first real reaction was "ba ba ba ba bingo!!!"

Jcool0 · Post #1557 » by **Jcool0** » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:49 am

Wingy · Post #1558 » by **Wingy** » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:54 am

HomoSapien wrote:Here's where not inflating Kris Dunn's stats and publicly killing his value hurts us. Dunn is capable of stringing together impressive games. I have no idea why we benched him with a fake injury to close out the season. The Bulls should have been lying to the public and talking about how high they are on him instead talking about how they were disappointed in him. Ideally Dunn would be your trade chip to move up. Now that's not going to happen.

I suppose I would trade some combo of a protected future pick swap, cash, and Hutch.

Well....that would require good asset management, and you see, outside of the Jimmy Butler trade* - this FO has sucked hard at that.

* Officially wasn't for trading Jimmy, wasn't psyched about the package we got, but I at least understood the thinking.

Ajosu · Post #1559 » by **Ajosu** » Tue Jun 18, 2019 12:55 am

Outside of Zion or Ja (and I suppose Barrett thought I'm not really that inspired), I don't see anyone else worth giving up much value to move up for, as I don't have a great deal of confidence in one prospect over a handful of others. While I've been pro-Garland, I'm not giving up much to move up for him, either.

Indomitable · Post #1560 » by **Indomitable** » Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:09 am

logical_art wrote:Assume the Cavs interest in Garland is real. For those Garland fans out there, what kind of package are you willing to give up to go to 4 and grab him?

For reference, Dallas gave up a top 5 protected pick last year to move from 5 to 3 to take Doncic. I might be talked into giving up next years first with top 7 protection to move up from 7 to 4. Might. I'd rather piece together something like taking Hills contract, giving up Val (a much needed shooter) and a second round pick or 3, but that's unlikely to get it done.

I would give them nothing.

In what world is Doncic and Garland even in the same sentence.

Doncic is a 6'8 pg with a good shot and great vision. He has potential.

Garland had NBA joirneyman wriiten all over him. He alrwady has a a bad knee. He is under size and struggled with generating assist in his limited time.

People grab a sf in this draft. They are all over the place and will be the best thing available. This is a crappy pg draft. Do not make the McDermott mistake again.

Always grab the best prospect in the top 10 in the lottery. Garland is small, not really athletic, and struggles going to the rim. No thanks.

If he is there at 7 and the Bulls draft him. I hope I am wrong.

In this draft of medicore prospects after 3. I want the one with a high ceiling and can defend.

The most valuable player type in the league is a 6'6 to 6'9. Get one on a rookie contract and you can trade for what you need if necessary.