Posted by SeatsBlue:

Posted by BlueSeats:

I happen to agree with SugarRay that the Bulls didn't make the trade to reduce payroll.

They did it to get our two consecutive draft picks (both lottery?) without having to add payroll.

I can agree with this statement to a degree but the argument wasn't that they got rid of Curry to reduce payroll. The argument was the benefits that were gained by making the trade with the Knicks for Curry. Primarily focusing on their cap situation after the trade.

How does trading him to us save them any more money than cutting him or letting his contract expire?

The point is, with his heart condition they knew they didn't want to give him a large, uninsured contract. So they were probably faced with three primary options:

A) trade him for equal value, which was low and probably on the expensive side, seeing as he was signing a new contract.
B) let him walk.
C) trade him to us, which had the same effect on their payroll as "B" but with the addition of the two draft picks.

So option A was probably their least preferable option. They likely wouldn't be getting as good a player via trade as they could thru under-the-cap free agency. Better to let the contracts expire and pursue FAs the following year.

And between B and C, they have virtually the same effect on payroll but C includes two first round draft picks.

So it's really the draft picks that won the day, not the payroll reduction, which would have been the same if they did nothing at all. Our option gave them the best of both worlds by giving them two "cheap" serviceable players in Sweets and TT (I only say TT was cheap because his contract was basically a wash with AD's), added little to hinder their quest to add a premium FA, and they got two first round picks.

Anyway, all I can say is Paxson knows what he wants and he's very patient in going about getting it. He's totally no-compromise with Isiah, and Isiah gives it up to him like a Tijuana stripper on a Saturday night.

[Edited by - blueseats on 12-14-2006 10:44 PM]

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by SeatsBlue:

Posted by BlueSeats:

I happen to agree with SugarRay that the Bulls didn't make the trade to reduce payroll.

They did it to get our two consecutive draft picks (both lottery?) without having to add payroll.

I can agree with this statement to a degree but the argument wasn't that they got rid of Curry to reduce payroll. The argument was the benefits that were gained by making the trade with the Knicks for Curry. Primarily focusing on their cap situation after the trade.

How does trading him to us save them any more money than cutting him or letting his contract expire?

The point is, with his heart condition they knew they didn't want to give him a large, uninsured contract. So they were probably faced with three primary options:

A) trade him for equal value, which was low and probably on the expensive side, seeing as he was signing a new contract.
B) let him walk.
C) trade him to us, which had the same effect on their payroll as "B" but with the addition of the two draft picks.

So option A was probably their least preferable option. They likely wouldn't be getting as good a player via trade as they could thru under-the-cap free agency. Better to let the contracts expire and pursue FAs the following year.

And between B and C, they have virtually the same effect on payroll but C includes two first round draft picks.

So it's really the draft picks that won the day, not the payroll reduction, which would have been the same if they did nothing at all. Our option gave them the best of both worlds by giving them two "cheap" serviceable players in Sweets and TT (I only say TT was cheap because his contract was basically a wash with AD's), added little to hinder their quest to add a premium FA, and they got two first round picks.

Anyway, all I can say is Paxson knows what he wants and he's very patient in going about getting it. He's totally no-compromise with Isiah, and Isiah gives it up to him like a Tijuana stripper on a Saturday night.

[Edited by - blueseats on 12-14-2006 10:44 PM]

Because they traded him, got something of great value for him and didn't add any future salary to their roster from the trade. Let's say they traded Curry, maybe a filler player in addition to Davis to the Knicks for draft picks, same players, plus Malik Rose added in the deal. You see the ramifications? They managed to trade Curry, maintain/save the cap space they were in line to receive.

Add cap space I can agree was the wrong terminology but nonetheless they made a very smart trade.

IMO it's no different than PHX giving Marbury and extension and then trading him a few months later. That cap space would have been available if they just let Steph's deal expire. But trading him landed them Steve Nash while gaining picks. If they hold onto to Steph with extension in hand sorry no Steve Nash.



[Edited by - SeatsBlue on 12-14-2006 11:07 PM]

big ben - 22 rebound through 3 quarters.

looks like the whole headband thing is all but forgotten.

ben should have quit on skiles, led a mutiny and had him run off the team. that's what leaders do.

Posted by BlueSeats:

ben should have quit on skiles, led a mutiny and had him run off the team. that's what leaders do.

Headband rules are for wimps.

Something tells me Ben is going to come out with a very expensive headband this off-season to target the suburbian kids and give them more street cred. The head ban will be Burbury custom fitted and cost about $100.00

As it stands right now....and the Knicks schedule is getting tougher...

Bulls get the #4 spot...Knicks at #20

Posted by bobs3304:

I think if we can keep the next pick to 10-14, the trade will most likely end up even for both teams.

Of course Isiah wins out on talent AGAIN....what a surprise, but the Bulls free up cap space to sign Big Ben to help anchor their defense and gain one high lottery pick role player in T2 and *HOPEFULLY* a low lottery pick who ends up being another talented role player.


I think we def. have a chance to be only the 10th worst team.

And if you project Chicago's wins from last year to this year, they'll probly end up being the 5th seed in the East, with probably the 20th pick in the draft (which we get swapped).




Eddy Curry
Renaldo Balkman
2007 20th Pick

~for~

Ben Wallace
Tyrus Thomas
2007 10th Pick


I omitted Sweetney b/c he's been only a footnote so far and Rose and Thomas b/c they already expired.

Thoughts?


[Edited by - bobs3304 on 12-15-2006 01:03 AM]

Talk about a RIDICULOUS spin on the trade. Tim Thomas and Antonio Davis were swapped to give the Bulls a larger margin to work with. Both players had expiring deals, so getting Davis in that trade had NOTHING to do with getting the #20 pick (Balkman). Not doing the trade, the Knicks could just have easily have used Tim Thomas in the Jalen Rose trade. Furthermore, you decide to omit Sweetney, who the Bulls haven't exactly omitted. You call Tyrus Thomas a roleplayer. Using your analysis, the real trade looks like this:

Eddy Curry
2007 Bulls pick (est. #20)

for

Ben Wallace
Mike Sweetney
Tyrus Thomas
2007 Knicks pick (est. #4)

...

Isiah won out on talent? OK.

[Edited by - Solace on Dec 16 2006 05:52 AM]

yeah but a real man would have quit on Skiles for that headband rule...

Posted by TrueBlue:

Posted by BlueSeats:

yeah but a real man would have quit on Skiles for that headband rule...

Is this an inside joke or something?

he's talking about marbury quitting on lb last season...