Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

The cap is set at $63 million and the Bulls payroll is exactly that, with only 7 players under contract. If they amnesty Boozer's $17 million contract, that takes their payroll to $46 million. BUT, there is a $500,000 cap hold allotted to each vacant roster spot: 8 vacant roster spots, $500,000 a pop, yields a $4 million cap hold. So deduct $4 million from the $17 million cap space and that would only leave them with only $14 million to spend on Melo, not factoring in the salaries that need to be paid to the 16th and 19th picks. They could move them and Gibson's contract to create enough room for both Melo and Mirotic but why do all of that when they could simply trade those assets to us and avoid having to haggle with teams looking to exploit their situation?

Thanks for the explanation. The only nagging thought I have is why do the Bulls have to deal Boozer to us? Why can't they trade those assets elsewhere then just sign Melo?

they easily could they also could trade their draft pick holds for protected future picks instead of handing them over to the Knicks for nothing.

The Bulls would be getting an All-NBA player. I'd hardly consider that to be "nothing".

Its nothing if you can sign him as a FA. Why couldnt the Bulls amnesty Boozer trade their draft picks "If they really want that cap space" for future picks or at least early 2nd rounders . Trade Hinrich or a combination of players for nothing bam cap space.

I hope you guys are right 2 2014 1st rounders for Melo and an expiring deal would be an outstanding get for Melo considering he can just walk. Trade Chandler than as well and we are getting a nice nucleus of young players to build on.

I would rather this happen then keeping Melo . I want this team to be very bad next season so we can go into 2015 flush with cap space and a top 5 pick.

I've broke down the financials at least 3 times in this thread. NO! THE BULLS CANNOT SIGN MELO OUTRIGHT UNLESS THEY AMNESTY BOOZER, MOVE THEIR PICKS AND TRADE GIBSON. But if they do all of that and get rid of Gibson, what team would they really be left with that Melo would want to join? Why do all of that when the Knicks could assume Boozer's contract, the very same draft picks they'd have to give up anyway and a player that becomes redundant with Melo on the team (Jimmy Butler)?

The official deal would need to be Carmelo Anthony, Iman Shumpert, Toure Murry, Jeremy Tyler and Cole Aldrich for Carlos Boozer, Kirk Hinrich, Jimmy Butler, Jimmer Fredette, the rights to Nikola Mirotic and the 16th and 19th picks. That not only allows the Bulls to keep Gibson but it preserves their ability to use their full MLE, instead of the $3 million one; it preserves their two trade exceptions that they could use to get additional players; AND it preserves their ability to re-sign their very own free agents without having to risk additional assets e.g. DJ Augustin, Nazr Mohammed. All the benefits I mentioned, are things they'd lose if they look to sign Melo, which would leave them with no flexibility to add other players of worth. Like I said before, the Bulls need to trade, every bit as we'd want to trade (if Melo wants to go there).

If they amnesty Boozer and trade Gibson...they'd still have all of their starters minus Boozer, but I'm not sold they'd have to do that.

Boozer packaged with both those picks for nothing in return would be good for any team with cap space.

Gibson is a quality player for sure, and I'd like to think if he were traded, the Bulls could get a cheaper player and.or more picks.

Or they could also trade those 16, 19 picks in this draft for future picks to clear more space, or just draft overseas players and dont bring them over this season.

Yeah, the Bulls might prefer to trade with us but they're definitely not as desperate as we are. What they have in terms of leverage is the fact that even if they amnesty Boozer and trade Gibson, they still have a much better team with a better future than we do. They'd *prefer* to trade with us for him. We *need* to trade with them unless we want to lose Melo for nothing.

The Bulls competition isn't just us, it's the Houston Rockets with James Harden and Dwight Howard. That duo is better than anything the Bulls currently have, so they'd have to be able to sell Melo on being able to build a team after acquiring him. If they sign him, they will not be able to do that. If they trade for him, they would preserve several mechanisms designed for teams over the cap to add pieces after the fact. And let's not also forget that they'd be able to keep their 2nd best player in the process. They certainly do not have the degree of leverage you think them to have.

Bonn1997 wrote:

knickscity wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

The cap is set at $63 million and the Bulls payroll is exactly that, with only 7 players under contract. If they amnesty Boozer's $17 million contract, that takes their payroll to $46 million. BUT, there is a $500,000 cap hold allotted to each vacant roster spot: 8 vacant roster spots, $500,000 a pop, yields a $4 million cap hold. So deduct $4 million from the $17 million cap space and that would only leave them with only $14 million to spend on Melo, not factoring in the salaries that need to be paid to the 16th and 19th picks. They could move them and Gibson's contract to create enough room for both Melo and Mirotic but why do all of that when they could simply trade those assets to us and avoid having to haggle with teams looking to exploit their situation?

Thanks for the explanation. The only nagging thought I have is why do the Bulls have to deal Boozer to us? Why can't they trade those assets elsewhere then just sign Melo?

they easily could they also could trade their draft pick holds for protected future picks instead of handing them over to the Knicks for nothing.

The Bulls would be getting an All-NBA player. I'd hardly consider that to be "nothing".

Its nothing if you can sign him as a FA. Why couldnt the Bulls amnesty Boozer trade their draft picks "If they really want that cap space" for future picks or at least early 2nd rounders . Trade Hinrich or a combination of players for nothing bam cap space.

I hope you guys are right 2 2014 1st rounders for Melo and an expiring deal would be an outstanding get for Melo considering he can just walk. Trade Chandler than as well and we are getting a nice nucleus of young players to build on.

I would rather this happen then keeping Melo . I want this team to be very bad next season so we can go into 2015 flush with cap space and a top 5 pick.

I've broke down the financials at least 3 times in this thread. NO! THE BULLS CANNOT SIGN MELO OUTRIGHT UNLESS THEY AMNESTY BOOZER, MOVE THEIR PICKS AND TRADE GIBSON. But if they do all of that and get rid of Gibson, what team would they really be left with that Melo would want to join? Why do all of that when the Knicks could assume Boozer's contract, the very same draft picks they'd have to give up anyway and a player that becomes redundant with Melo on the team (Jimmy Butler)?

The official deal would need to be Carmelo Anthony, Iman Shumpert, Toure Murry, Jeremy Tyler and Cole Aldrich for Carlos Boozer, Kirk Hinrich, Jimmy Butler, Jimmer Fredette, the rights to Nikola Mirotic and the 16th and 19th picks. That not only allows the Bulls to keep Gibson but it preserves their ability to use their full MLE, instead of the $3 million one; it preserves their two trade exceptions that they could use to get additional players; AND it preserves their ability to re-sign their very own free agents without having to risk additional assets e.g. DJ Augustin, Nazr Mohammed. All the benefits I mentioned, are things they'd lose if they look to sign Melo, which would leave them with no flexibility to add other players of worth. Like I said before, the Bulls need to trade, every bit as we'd want to trade (if Melo wants to go there).

If they amnesty Boozer and trade Gibson...they'd still have all of their starters minus Boozer, but I'm not sold they'd have to do that.

Boozer packaged with both those picks for nothing in return would be good for any team with cap space.

Gibson is a quality player for sure, and I'd like to think if he were traded, the Bulls could get a cheaper player and.or more picks.

Or they could also trade those 16, 19 picks in this draft for future picks to clear more space, or just draft overseas players and dont bring them over this season.

Yeah, the Bulls might prefer to trade with us but they're definitely not as desperate as we are. What they have in terms of leverage is the fact that even if they amnesty Boozer and trade Gibson, they still have a much better team with a better future than we do. They'd *prefer* to trade with us for him. We *need* to trade with them unless we want to lose Melo for nothing.

And might need to add Noah as well as he's showing signs of breaking down as well.

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

The cap is set at $63 million and the Bulls payroll is exactly that, with only 7 players under contract. If they amnesty Boozer's $17 million contract, that takes their payroll to $46 million. BUT, there is a $500,000 cap hold allotted to each vacant roster spot: 8 vacant roster spots, $500,000 a pop, yields a $4 million cap hold. So deduct $4 million from the $17 million cap space and that would only leave them with only $14 million to spend on Melo, not factoring in the salaries that need to be paid to the 16th and 19th picks. They could move them and Gibson's contract to create enough room for both Melo and Mirotic but why do all of that when they could simply trade those assets to us and avoid having to haggle with teams looking to exploit their situation?

Thanks for the explanation. The only nagging thought I have is why do the Bulls have to deal Boozer to us? Why can't they trade those assets elsewhere then just sign Melo?

they easily could they also could trade their draft pick holds for protected future picks instead of handing them over to the Knicks for nothing.

The Bulls would be getting an All-NBA player. I'd hardly consider that to be "nothing".

Its nothing if you can sign him as a FA. Why couldnt the Bulls amnesty Boozer trade their draft picks "If they really want that cap space" for future picks or at least early 2nd rounders . Trade Hinrich or a combination of players for nothing bam cap space.

I hope you guys are right 2 2014 1st rounders for Melo and an expiring deal would be an outstanding get for Melo considering he can just walk. Trade Chandler than as well and we are getting a nice nucleus of young players to build on.

I would rather this happen then keeping Melo . I want this team to be very bad next season so we can go into 2015 flush with cap space and a top 5 pick.

I've broke down the financials at least 3 times in this thread. NO! THE BULLS CANNOT SIGN MELO OUTRIGHT UNLESS THEY AMNESTY BOOZER, MOVE THEIR PICKS AND TRADE GIBSON. But if they do all of that and get rid of Gibson, what team would they really be left with that Melo would want to join? Why do all of that when the Knicks could assume Boozer's contract, the very same draft picks they'd have to give up anyway and a player that becomes redundant with Melo on the team (Jimmy Butler)?

The official deal would need to be Carmelo Anthony, Iman Shumpert, Toure Murry, Jeremy Tyler and Cole Aldrich for Carlos Boozer, Kirk Hinrich, Jimmy Butler, Jimmer Fredette, the rights to Nikola Mirotic and the 16th and 19th picks. That not only allows the Bulls to keep Gibson but it preserves their ability to use their full MLE, instead of the $3 million one; it preserves their two trade exceptions that they could use to get additional players; AND it preserves their ability to re-sign their very own free agents without having to risk additional assets e.g. DJ Augustin, Nazr Mohammed. All the benefits I mentioned, are things they'd lose if they look to sign Melo, which would leave them with no flexibility to add other players of worth. Like I said before, the Bulls need to trade, every bit as we'd want to trade (if Melo wants to go there).

knickscity wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

The cap is set at $63 million and the Bulls payroll is exactly that, with only 7 players under contract. If they amnesty Boozer's $17 million contract, that takes their payroll to $46 million. BUT, there is a $500,000 cap hold allotted to each vacant roster spot: 8 vacant roster spots, $500,000 a pop, yields a $4 million cap hold. So deduct $4 million from the $17 million cap space and that would only leave them with only $14 million to spend on Melo, not factoring in the salaries that need to be paid to the 16th and 19th picks. They could move them and Gibson's contract to create enough room for both Melo and Mirotic but why do all of that when they could simply trade those assets to us and avoid having to haggle with teams looking to exploit their situation?

Thanks for the explanation. The only nagging thought I have is why do the Bulls have to deal Boozer to us? Why can't they trade those assets elsewhere then just sign Melo?

they easily could they also could trade their draft pick holds for protected future picks instead of handing them over to the Knicks for nothing.

The Bulls would be getting an All-NBA player. I'd hardly consider that to be "nothing".

Its nothing if you can sign him as a FA. Why couldnt the Bulls amnesty Boozer trade their draft picks "If they really want that cap space" for future picks or at least early 2nd rounders . Trade Hinrich or a combination of players for nothing bam cap space.

I hope you guys are right 2 2014 1st rounders for Melo and an expiring deal would be an outstanding get for Melo considering he can just walk. Trade Chandler than as well and we are getting a nice nucleus of young players to build on.

I would rather this happen then keeping Melo . I want this team to be very bad next season so we can go into 2015 flush with cap space and a top 5 pick.

I've broke down the financials at least 3 times in this thread. NO! THE BULLS CANNOT SIGN MELO OUTRIGHT UNLESS THEY AMNESTY BOOZER, MOVE THEIR PICKS AND TRADE GIBSON. But if they do all of that and get rid of Gibson, what team would they really be left with that Melo would want to join? Why do all of that when the Knicks could assume Boozer's contract, the very same draft picks they'd have to give up anyway and a player that becomes redundant with Melo on the team (Jimmy Butler)?

The official deal would need to be Carmelo Anthony, Iman Shumpert, Toure Murry, Jeremy Tyler and Cole Aldrich for Carlos Boozer, Kirk Hinrich, Jimmy Butler, Jimmer Fredette, the rights to Nikola Mirotic and the 16th and 19th picks. That not only allows the Bulls to keep Gibson but it preserves their ability to use their full MLE, instead of the $3 million one; it preserves their two trade exceptions that they could use to get additional players; AND it preserves their ability to re-sign their very own free agents without having to risk additional assets e.g. DJ Augustin, Nazr Mohammed. All the benefits I mentioned, are things they'd lose if they look to sign Melo, which would leave them with no flexibility to add other players of worth. Like I said before, the Bulls need to trade, every bit as we'd want to trade (if Melo wants to go there).

If they amnesty Boozer and trade Gibson...they'd still have all of their starters minus Boozer, but I'm not sold they'd have to do that.

Boozer packaged with both those picks for nothing in return would be good for any team with cap space.

Gibson is a quality player for sure, and I'd like to think if he were traded, the Bulls could get a cheaper player and.or more picks.

Or they could also trade those 16, 19 picks in this draft for future picks to clear more space, or just draft overseas players and dont bring them over this season.

Exactly someone will be willing to take the Bulls 16th and 19th pick for at the very least 2nd rounders.I think a team will be more then willing to give the Bulls a lottery protected first to get their 16th or 19th pick

knickscity wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

The cap is set at $63 million and the Bulls payroll is exactly that, with only 7 players under contract. If they amnesty Boozer's $17 million contract, that takes their payroll to $46 million. BUT, there is a $500,000 cap hold allotted to each vacant roster spot: 8 vacant roster spots, $500,000 a pop, yields a $4 million cap hold. So deduct $4 million from the $17 million cap space and that would only leave them with only $14 million to spend on Melo, not factoring in the salaries that need to be paid to the 16th and 19th picks. They could move them and Gibson's contract to create enough room for both Melo and Mirotic but why do all of that when they could simply trade those assets to us and avoid having to haggle with teams looking to exploit their situation?

Thanks for the explanation. The only nagging thought I have is why do the Bulls have to deal Boozer to us? Why can't they trade those assets elsewhere then just sign Melo?

they easily could they also could trade their draft pick holds for protected future picks instead of handing them over to the Knicks for nothing.

The Bulls would be getting an All-NBA player. I'd hardly consider that to be "nothing".

Its nothing if you can sign him as a FA. Why couldnt the Bulls amnesty Boozer trade their draft picks "If they really want that cap space" for future picks or at least early 2nd rounders . Trade Hinrich or a combination of players for nothing bam cap space.

I hope you guys are right 2 2014 1st rounders for Melo and an expiring deal would be an outstanding get for Melo considering he can just walk. Trade Chandler than as well and we are getting a nice nucleus of young players to build on.

I would rather this happen then keeping Melo . I want this team to be very bad next season so we can go into 2015 flush with cap space and a top 5 pick.

I've broke down the financials at least 3 times in this thread. NO! THE BULLS CANNOT SIGN MELO OUTRIGHT UNLESS THEY AMNESTY BOOZER, MOVE THEIR PICKS AND TRADE GIBSON. But if they do all of that and get rid of Gibson, what team would they really be left with that Melo would want to join? Why do all of that when the Knicks could assume Boozer's contract, the very same draft picks they'd have to give up anyway and a player that becomes redundant with Melo on the team (Jimmy Butler)?

The official deal would need to be Carmelo Anthony, Iman Shumpert, Toure Murry, Jeremy Tyler and Cole Aldrich for Carlos Boozer, Kirk Hinrich, Jimmy Butler, Jimmer Fredette, the rights to Nikola Mirotic and the 16th and 19th picks. That not only allows the Bulls to keep Gibson but it preserves their ability to use their full MLE, instead of the $3 million one; it preserves their two trade exceptions that they could use to get additional players; AND it preserves their ability to re-sign their very own free agents without having to risk additional assets e.g. DJ Augustin, Nazr Mohammed. All the benefits I mentioned, are things they'd lose if they look to sign Melo, which would leave them with no flexibility to add other players of worth. Like I said before, the Bulls need to trade, every bit as we'd want to trade (if Melo wants to go there).

If they amnesty Boozer and trade Gibson...they'd still have all of their starters minus Boozer, but I'm not sold they'd have to do that.

Boozer packaged with both those picks for nothing in return would be good for any team with cap space.

Gibson is a quality player for sure, and I'd like to think if he were traded, the Bulls could get a cheaper player and.or more picks.

Or they could also trade those 16, 19 picks in this draft for future picks to clear more space, or just draft overseas players and dont bring them over this season.

What's the difference if we S+T Melo for Boozer and both picks? They get what they want for the same compensation. I'm sure melo will have a say--I do not think he wants to stick it to us--he could *force* Chicago to make that move. EASILY as in you do that or Im not coming.

knickscity wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:

knickscity wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

The cap is set at $63 million and the Bulls payroll is exactly that, with only 7 players under contract. If they amnesty Boozer's $17 million contract, that takes their payroll to $46 million. BUT, there is a $500,000 cap hold allotted to each vacant roster spot: 8 vacant roster spots, $500,000 a pop, yields a $4 million cap hold. So deduct $4 million from the $17 million cap space and that would only leave them with only $14 million to spend on Melo, not factoring in the salaries that need to be paid to the 16th and 19th picks. They could move them and Gibson's contract to create enough room for both Melo and Mirotic but why do all of that when they could simply trade those assets to us and avoid having to haggle with teams looking to exploit their situation?

Thanks for the explanation. The only nagging thought I have is why do the Bulls have to deal Boozer to us? Why can't they trade those assets elsewhere then just sign Melo?

they easily could they also could trade their draft pick holds for protected future picks instead of handing them over to the Knicks for nothing.

The Bulls would be getting an All-NBA player. I'd hardly consider that to be "nothing".

Its nothing if you can sign him as a FA. Why couldnt the Bulls amnesty Boozer trade their draft picks "If they really want that cap space" for future picks or at least early 2nd rounders . Trade Hinrich or a combination of players for nothing bam cap space.

I hope you guys are right 2 2014 1st rounders for Melo and an expiring deal would be an outstanding get for Melo considering he can just walk. Trade Chandler than as well and we are getting a nice nucleus of young players to build on.

I would rather this happen then keeping Melo . I want this team to be very bad next season so we can go into 2015 flush with cap space and a top 5 pick.

I've broke down the financials at least 3 times in this thread. NO! THE BULLS CANNOT SIGN MELO OUTRIGHT UNLESS THEY AMNESTY BOOZER, MOVE THEIR PICKS AND TRADE GIBSON. But if they do all of that and get rid of Gibson, what team would they really be left with that Melo would want to join? Why do all of that when the Knicks could assume Boozer's contract, the very same draft picks they'd have to give up anyway and a player that becomes redundant with Melo on the team (Jimmy Butler)?

The official deal would need to be Carmelo Anthony, Iman Shumpert, Toure Murry, Jeremy Tyler and Cole Aldrich for Carlos Boozer, Kirk Hinrich, Jimmy Butler, Jimmer Fredette, the rights to Nikola Mirotic and the 16th and 19th picks. That not only allows the Bulls to keep Gibson but it preserves their ability to use their full MLE, instead of the $3 million one; it preserves their two trade exceptions that they could use to get additional players; AND it preserves their ability to re-sign their very own free agents without having to risk additional assets e.g. DJ Augustin, Nazr Mohammed. All the benefits I mentioned, are things they'd lose if they look to sign Melo, which would leave them with no flexibility to add other players of worth. Like I said before, the Bulls need to trade, every bit as we'd want to trade (if Melo wants to go there).

If they amnesty Boozer and trade Gibson...they'd still have all of their starters minus Boozer, but I'm not sold they'd have to do that.

Boozer packaged with both those picks for nothing in return would be good for any team with cap space.

Gibson is a quality player for sure, and I'd like to think if he were traded, the Bulls could get a cheaper player and.or more picks.

Or they could also trade those 16, 19 picks in this draft for future picks to clear more space, or just draft overseas players and dont bring them over this season.

What's the difference if we S+T Melo for Boozer and both picks? They get what they want for the same compensation. I'm sure melo will have a say--I do not think he wants to stick it to us--he could *force* Chicago to make that move. EASILY as in you do that or Im not coming.

the difference is simple, the bulls dont have to sign and trade with us, and it's totally debatable whether an S&T really benefits them.

The bottom line is the Bulls are going nowhere if Rose and Noah arent 100% in form, and Thibbs has shown year in and year out he can get more out of less. basically losing taj wont be the end of the world, just like when they traded Deng and actually got better.

And if Melo says I want the Knicks to have picks 16+19 with Boozer or no deal?

Jmpasq wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

The cap is set at $63 million and the Bulls payroll is exactly that, with only 7 players under contract. If they amnesty Boozer's $17 million contract, that takes their payroll to $46 million. BUT, there is a $500,000 cap hold allotted to each vacant roster spot: 8 vacant roster spots, $500,000 a pop, yields a $4 million cap hold. So deduct $4 million from the $17 million cap space and that would only leave them with only $14 million to spend on Melo, not factoring in the salaries that need to be paid to the 16th and 19th picks. They could move them and Gibson's contract to create enough room for both Melo and Mirotic but why do all of that when they could simply trade those assets to us and avoid having to haggle with teams looking to exploit their situation?

Thanks for the explanation. The only nagging thought I have is why do the Bulls have to deal Boozer to us? Why can't they trade those assets elsewhere then just sign Melo?

they easily could they also could trade their draft pick holds for protected future picks instead of handing them over to the Knicks for nothing.

The Bulls would be getting an All-NBA player. I'd hardly consider that to be "nothing".

Its nothing if you can sign him as a FA. Why couldnt the Bulls amnesty Boozer trade their draft picks "If they really want that cap space" for future picks or at least early 2nd rounders . Trade Hinrich or a combination of players for nothing bam cap space.

I hope you guys are right 2 2014 1st rounders for Melo and an expiring deal would be an outstanding get for Melo considering he can just walk. Trade Chandler than as well and we are getting a nice nucleus of young players to build on.

I would rather this happen then keeping Melo . I want this team to be very bad next season so we can go into 2015 flush with cap space and a top 5 pick.

I've broke down the financials at least 3 times in this thread. NO! THE BULLS CANNOT SIGN MELO OUTRIGHT UNLESS THEY AMNESTY BOOZER, MOVE THEIR PICKS AND TRADE GIBSON. But if they do all of that and get rid of Gibson, what team would they really be left with that Melo would want to join? Why do all of that when the Knicks could assume Boozer's contract, the very same draft picks they'd have to give up anyway and a player that becomes redundant with Melo on the team (Jimmy Butler)?

The official deal would need to be Carmelo Anthony, Iman Shumpert, Toure Murry, Jeremy Tyler and Cole Aldrich for Carlos Boozer, Kirk Hinrich, Jimmy Butler, Jimmer Fredette, the rights to Nikola Mirotic and the 16th and 19th picks. That not only allows the Bulls to keep Gibson but it preserves their ability to use their full MLE, instead of the $3 million one; it preserves their two trade exceptions that they could use to get additional players; AND it preserves their ability to re-sign their very own free agents without having to risk additional assets e.g. DJ Augustin, Nazr Mohammed. All the benefits I mentioned, are things they'd lose if they look to sign Melo, which would leave them with no flexibility to add other players of worth. Like I said before, the Bulls need to trade, every bit as we'd want to trade (if Melo wants to go there).

Because they can trade the picks for future picks cant they . You keep saying they have to get rid of the picks for cap space but that doesnt mean u have to just give them to the Knicks you can get a 2015 first or a 2016 first for it

And if they use the picks to get rid of Boozer's contract and then trade Gibson and Dunleavy for more cap space, what are they left with? You think Melo plays for that team, who'd have no other means to add salary for the upcoming season? The reality is that Houston is every bit in the hunt for Melo, as are the Bulls so the Bulls need to convince Melo that he'd have a better opportunity to win there than elsewhere. It'd he hard to do that when you've traded away 3 rotation players that were integral to the team's success, one of them having been the 2nd best player on the team, and then have no one to replace them with.

knickscity wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

knickscity wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

H1AND1 wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:People expecting a great haul do not understand that Chicago has all the leverage if Melo wants to leave. They do not have to get rid of Gibson. They do not have to even trade Boozer. All they have to say is take Boozer, Dunleavy, and a pick or two. You either take what we want or we amnesty Boozer and work around you.

Exactly. Boozer, both picks, Butler and Mirotic is a pipe dreams. The best case scenario is another team emerges but even then once Melo decided hell only sign in X city our leverage goes out the window.and yes I understand dealing with us is the best option for the Bulls. But at the end of the day once Melo picks Chicago can simply give us a lesser deal than what he'd fetch on the open trade market.

It's unfortunate but true: The Bulls being able to sign Melo outright is a huge weapon in these negotiations and while it's not preferable for either team and at the end of the day a deal will likely be reached but we have to temper our expectations. This isn't a player forcing a trade while still under contract.

Dude, Melo isn't signing with the Bulls for $17 million per because that is all they'd have to offer him after amnestying Boozer. They need to trade with us to get him at the salary he wants or face gutting their team, which would nullify the point in him going. We don't have great leverage but we certainly have good enough leverage to get multiple assets back from the Bulls.

Wait, so the Bulls can only offer $17 mill AFTER amnestying Boozer and trading Gibson? Also, OK, I thought it was simply that they preferred not to pay Boozer (which they'd have to do if he were amnestied) and dumping him on us was the only downside to not doing a sign and trade.

Ok, i gotcha now. I thought Houston was the squad who had to make several major moves to even get close to paying his salary. Guess I haven't been paying close enough attention to the suitors' situations!

Let's bend em over a barrel then! Fu c k the bulls!

The cap is set at $63 million and the Bulls payroll is exactly that, with only 7 players under contract. If they amnesty Boozer's $17 million contract, that takes their payroll to $46 million. BUT, there is a $500,000 cap hold allotted to each vacant roster spot: 8 vacant roster spots, $500,000 a pop, yields a $4 million cap hold. So deduct $4 million from the $17 million cap space and that would only leave them with only $14 million to spend on Melo, not factoring in the salaries that need to be paid to the 16th and 19th picks. They could move them and Gibson's contract to create enough room for both Melo and Mirotic but why do all of that when they could simply trade those assets to us and avoid having to haggle with teams looking to exploit their situation?

Thanks for the explanation. The only nagging thought I have is why do the Bulls have to deal Boozer to us? Why can't they trade those assets elsewhere then just sign Melo?

they easily could they also could trade their draft pick holds for protected future picks instead of handing them over to the Knicks for nothing.

The Bulls would be getting an All-NBA player. I'd hardly consider that to be "nothing".

Its nothing if you can sign him as a FA. Why couldnt the Bulls amnesty Boozer trade their draft picks "If they really want that cap space" for future picks or at least early 2nd rounders . Trade Hinrich or a combination of players for nothing bam cap space.

I hope you guys are right 2 2014 1st rounders for Melo and an expiring deal would be an outstanding get for Melo considering he can just walk. Trade Chandler than as well and we are getting a nice nucleus of young players to build on.

I would rather this happen then keeping Melo . I want this team to be very bad next season so we can go into 2015 flush with cap space and a top 5 pick.

I've broke down the financials at least 3 times in this thread. NO! THE BULLS CANNOT SIGN MELO OUTRIGHT UNLESS THEY AMNESTY BOOZER, MOVE THEIR PICKS AND TRADE GIBSON. But if they do all of that and get rid of Gibson, what team would they really be left with that Melo would want to join? Why do all of that when the Knicks could assume Boozer's contract, the very same draft picks they'd have to give up anyway and a player that becomes redundant with Melo on the team (Jimmy Butler)?

The official deal would need to be Carmelo Anthony, Iman Shumpert, Toure Murry, Jeremy Tyler and Cole Aldrich for Carlos Boozer, Kirk Hinrich, Jimmy Butler, Jimmer Fredette, the rights to Nikola Mirotic and the 16th and 19th picks. That not only allows the Bulls to keep Gibson but it preserves their ability to use their full MLE, instead of the $3 million one; it preserves their two trade exceptions that they could use to get additional players; AND it preserves their ability to re-sign their very own free agents without having to risk additional assets e.g. DJ Augustin, Nazr Mohammed. All the benefits I mentioned, are things they'd lose if they look to sign Melo, which would leave them with no flexibility to add other players of worth. Like I said before, the Bulls need to trade, every bit as we'd want to trade (if Melo wants to go there).

If they amnesty Boozer and trade Gibson...they'd still have all of their starters minus Boozer, but I'm not sold they'd have to do that.

Boozer packaged with both those picks for nothing in return would be good for any team with cap space.

Gibson is a quality player for sure, and I'd like to think if he were traded, the Bulls could get a cheaper player and.or more picks.

Or they could also trade those 16, 19 picks in this draft for future picks to clear more space, or just draft overseas players and dont bring them over this season.

Dude, Gibson was their 2nd best player beside Noah. You're not going to become a better team by dealing him, not to mention that the guy's defensive versatility makes him a perfect fit next to Melo. You couldn't even replace him with a warm body because that would eat into the barely $20 million cap space they'd have for Melo, who is expected to make $23 million in the first year of his new contract. Add to the fact that using their cap space, forces them to renounce all the other free agents that were in their rotation, renounce the rights to the $2.1 million and $1.1 million trade exception and to renounce the right to the Full MLE, it simply makes no sense for them to go this route. Trading for Melo preserves all their team building options AND keeps a player that was integral to their success the year before. Your option doesn't make any sense unless the Bulls primary agenda is to spite the Knicks and screw themselves over in the process.

One thing thibbs has shown is that players production can be replaced whether collectively or individually.

They'd be fine without Taj, the Bulls success doesnt rely on him but the guys who are injured and nursing themselves back in Rose and Noah.

So let me get this straight: Derrick Rose, who has basically missed 2 full NBA seasons is an engine for "the Bulls (current) success" but Taj Gibson, the guy who was their 2nd best player for the team during that stretch is a guy the Bulls would be "fine without". That doesn't seem a bit ridiculous to you?

knickscity wrote:If melo sign with Chi, he is joining Noah Rose and Thibbs. i seriously doubt in the back of his mind he's concerned if Taj is still there.

But I actually think the Bulls do amnesty boozer now that it's only one year of salary.

And there are plenty of players that can be just as productive if not better than taj at a lower rate such as faried from Denver, which I'm positive those two first get that done.

taj can then be moved to a team with space for future picks.

The Nuggets are trying to move Kenneth Faried as we speak because they don't want to pay him 8 figures annually on his next contract. Needless to say, the Bulls are not going to get him on the cheap.

As for the Bulls, one man didn't make their success because no one man can be an entire team. Just ask Melo last season. Yes, the Bulls have had a few moving parts that have played a big role for them in the past but make no mistake, they've had a core that entire time. You break up that core and you won't have the same team that produces the same results. Taj Gibson has been a huge part of their success, whether Melo knows or not. If they follow your plan, they'd be making the same exact mistake we made when we acquired Melo because they'd have no flexibility to bring in players of consequence after the fact. Why not keep your core and add Melo at the expense of a few expendable assets? It certainly costs LESS in both the short and long run, which is a point you are continually ignoring.

All this 'what about their depth" really holds no water, they've always gotten production from newly acquired players, no matter who they were.

That trend will likely continue.

But they need Rose and Noah at full strength no matter what.

knickscity wrote:The Bulls have been on plug and play for the last two seasons, but it all comes down to their inability to score, which is where melo would help the most automatically.

All this 'what about their depth" really holds no water, they've always gotten production from newly acquired players, no matter who they were.

That trend will likely continue.

But they need Rose and Noah at full strength no matter what.

The Bulls have gotten stellar play from three minimum salary walk-on's over the past 4 seasons: Nate Robinson/Marco Bellinelli and then DJ Augustin. And let's be honest here: These 3 guys were not some pre-Linsanity caliber scrubs before they got to the Bulls. DJ Augustin was a lottery pick that assumed the starter's mantle for the Bobcats by supplanting another lottery pick. Meanwhile, Nate Robinson was a guy recognized as a sparkplug off the bench, which is why he was earning $4.5 million just the year before. His only real problem has been his short fuse and immaturity which has worn his welcomes thin with teams. As for Bellineli, his only real problem in this league has been the fact that he has played for teams stacked at the 2 guard position (e.g. Monta Ellis, Mikael Pietrus and Jason Richardson in Golden State; Danny Green and Manu Ginobli in San Antonio). The fact is that these guys had proven they could play before coming to Chicago but circumstances detracted from that fact.

The rest of the Bulls' "plug and play" players have ALL been acquired via the draft (e.g. Taj Gibson, Jimmy Butler, Tony Snell, Omer Asik, etc.) or have been signed/traded for exception level money (e.g. Mike Dunleavy Jr at $4 million, Kirk Hinrich at $4 million, Richard Hamilton at $5 million, Ronnie Brewer at $4.7 million, etc.). What you're advocating for not only robs them of the picks that allowed them to be successful, it is also hurting their ability to add players via sign and trades by ridding them of valuable assets. This is NOT the formula the Bulls have followed all these years and will NOT have the same success they've had in the past.