The rest is smaller change.

In fact, Give them Shump and we'll take another pick. WE can take some one year contracts back as well.

Its just my opinion but I think all things being equal teams should be encouraged to not screw each other over but work on trades that make sense.

We should help Bulls win a chip and get back what suits our objective and what we value.

I'll never root for the Bulls and I only accepted MElo because he became a knick. If we are good forward then I hope Melo gets what he seeks. We sink in the abyss and we get nothing in return its MElOHATE and while I don't wish him ill, I hope he can just be satisfied being a really rich dude but a legacy below Barkley, Malone and Ewing!!!

His job was to come and make the knicks better. Lets not reboot that arguement.

NardDogNation wrote:

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.

Umm, that is wrong. Melo told Denver get me to the Knicks. How did that leverage work for the Knicks? We gutted the team.

Melo better not and most likely will not hose the city he loves. He may leave for a chance at a ring, but he will make sure we get a good deal in return, like he did for the Nuggets.

This Affalo thing only confuses matters more. Seems they may be moving on from dealing with us or obtaining Melo.

People assume the Bulls are so ready to win a ring. Huge question mark in Rose, concerning question mark with Noah, get rid of Boozer, maybe Taj too. As good as Thibs is, that doesn't guarantee a healthy roster, nor that Melo will blend into the team chemistry. As good as they have been the past 3 years, they fail in the playoffs due to a gimpy talented roster. Melo probably won't get them over the hump regardless.

We can count on those things more, thank the Bulls being this super adaptable team ready to win it all with Melo, and also having this great leverage on the Knicks. Phil can tell anyone, take a walk and let Melo just leave. The Bulls are better off trading to get Melo, than to make all these moves to get him for so-called free. The free scenario, is just a mirror image of what the Knicks id to get Melo, depleted team depth. Rose will most likely never be 100%, so Melo and maybe Noah will have to carry the load. Just like he did in NY with whoever was healthy that week, JR, Chandler, or Amare. It isn't enough to be the best, period.

P.S. I agree with NardDog, the Rockets would have a deeper team, if they can unload Asik & Lin. The Bulls are moving key components to their past success to get the same Melo, while Houston gets rid of bench fodder.

NYStateOfMind wrote:That's not up to the Bulls or us, though. Melo will decide if he wants to go to Chicago or Houston (or elsewhere). And then once he picks the destination, that place has all the leverage.

Umm, that is wrong. Melo told Denver get me to the Knicks. How did that leverage work for the Knicks? We gutted the team.

VCoug wrote:What everyone needs to remember is that there are other ways to dump Boozer's contract without dealing with us or using the amnesty. If we demand too much in a S&T then Chicago could theoretically trade Boozer, Dunleavy, and their two 1st rounders to Philly, Orlando, Utah, Cleveland (maybe), and LAL (maybe) without taking any salary back and then Chicago would be able to sign Melo outright. We hold some power in negotiations but if we start demanding both 1st rounders, Mirotic, Butler, and Taj they can fairly easily make a deal with another team for cap space leaving us with nothing.

Yeah, I think the reason they feel comfortable dealing Gibson is because they've comfortable Mirotic is coming over this year. Mirotic is no longer on the rookie scale though, so they'll need a decent amount of cap space available for his buyout and contarct.

VCoug wrote:What everyone needs to remember is that there are other ways to dump Boozer's contract without dealing with us or using the amnesty. If we demand too much in a S&T then Chicago could theoretically trade Boozer, Dunleavy, and their two 1st rounders to Philly, Orlando, Utah, Cleveland (maybe), and LAL (maybe) without taking any salary back and then Chicago would be able to sign Melo outright. We hold some power in negotiations but if we start demanding both 1st rounders, Mirotic, Butler, and Taj they can fairly easily make a deal with another team for cap space leaving us with nothing.

It's not a matter of dumping the contracts because they can do that easily. The issue is whether they can afford to gut their team and retool around Derrick Rose, Melo and Noah effectively because that is all they'd be left with. And since they would create cap space, they'd have to waive the Bird Rights to all their free agents from last season as well as forego their mid and lower exceptions. Why do all of that when they could simply trade the very same guys you mentioned to the Knicks and preserve the Bird Rights to their free agents and the midlevel exceptions? They also have two trade exceptions they'd be able to keep from the Deng and Teague trades to further augment their supporting cast.

NardDogNation wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:Have people really looked at the numbers of this?

Let's say the amnesty Boozer and trade Dunleavy plus Toney Snell; that puts there cap around 41.4M. Those moves alone create space.

That saves them $21.2 million and puts the cap at the $41.4 million you're suggesting. BUT, you're not factoring in the cap holds for their vacant roster spots and the cap hold for their 1st round picks. With Carlos Boozer, Mike Dunleavy and Tony Snell gone, the Bulls would only have 5 guys under contract; each vacant spot is $500,000 and there are 10 vacant roster spots which would result in a $5 million cap hold. On top of that, the 16th and 19th picks should each make about $1.75 million in their first year, times 2, would be a little more than a $3 million cap hold. You add those two cap holds together and deduct it from the $21.2 million that they are below the cap and the Bulls would only have $13 million to offer Melo in his first year. The worst part is that after they sign him, they'd only have a $3 million exception to sign a player of consequence. And you think that's realistic?

I think my previous post was a starting point. The 2 drafts picks can easily be moved for futures so that's not a hang up.

knickscity wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

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.

That's not up to the Bulls or us, though. Melo will decide if he wants to go to Chicago or Houston (or elsewhere). And then once he picks the destination, that place has all the leverage.

Just because you keep repeating that same point over and over again doesn't mean that it'll suddenly become true. I've talked ad nauseum about why that isn't the case, if he picks the Bulls. If the Rockets move Lin and Asik, however, I think you'd have a point because the rest of their supporting cast are all locked into contracts that are less than $2 million/yr. With the cap space they'll have, they'd even be able to hold onto Chandler Parson to sign and trade him at a later date. Fortunately, the Bulls are the ones reported to be frontrunners.

If melo picks the Bulls, unless he changes his mind, it wont matter what the Rockets do.

The leverage falls strictly into the hands of the free agent star player and once he picks his team, that leverage is transferred to them.

As far the frontrunners go, melo hasnt said anything, hasnt officially opted out or anything, so there's no way to determine who is in "front".....it's laughable to even take that seriously.

Congrats on not making a point.

VCoug wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

VCoug wrote:What everyone needs to remember is that there are other ways to dump Boozer's contract without dealing with us or using the amnesty. If we demand too much in a S&T then Chicago could theoretically trade Boozer, Dunleavy, and their two 1st rounders to Philly, Orlando, Utah, Cleveland (maybe), and LAL (maybe) without taking any salary back and then Chicago would be able to sign Melo outright. We hold some power in negotiations but if we start demanding both 1st rounders, Mirotic, Butler, and Taj they can fairly easily make a deal with another team for cap space leaving us with nothing.

It's not a matter of dumping the contracts because they can do that easily. The issue is whether they can afford to gut their team and retool around Derrick Rose, Melo and Noah effectively because that is all they'd be left with. And since they would create cap space, they'd have to waive the Bird Rights to all their free agents from last season as well as forego their mid and lower exceptions. Why do all of that when they could simply trade the very same guys you mentioned to the Knicks and preserve the Bird Rights to their free agents and the midlevel exceptions? They also have two trade exceptions they'd be able to keep from the Deng and Teague trades to further augment their supporting cast.

The only free agents Chicago has of any not are Hinrich and Augustin, both of whom are very replaceable. A lot of the trade proposals I'm seeing on this thread would gut Chicago. I'm saying that if we're going to S&T Melo to Chicago expecting the two 2014 1sts and maybe Mirotic is a a reasonable return. Expecting that plus Taj and Butler is crazy.

Taj? Absolutely. Butler? I don't think so. The dude shot 39% from the field last season. I think he is very replaceable. We could send back Shumpert for him, if it came down to that.

Bonn1997 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

yellowboy90 wrote:Have people really looked at the numbers of this?

Let's say the amnesty Boozer and trade Dunleavy plus Toney Snell; that puts there cap around 41.4M. Those moves alone create space.

That saves them $21.2 million and puts the cap at the $41.4 million you're suggesting. BUT, you're not factoring in the cap holds for their vacant roster spots and the cap hold for their 1st round picks. With Carlos Boozer, Mike Dunleavy and Tony Snell gone, the Bulls would only have 5 guys under contract; each vacant spot is $500,000 and there are 10 vacant roster spots which would result in a $5 million cap hold. On top of that, the 16th and 19th picks should each make about $1.75 million in their first year, times 2, would be a little more than a $3 million cap hold. You add those two cap holds together and deduct it from the $21.2 million that they are below the cap and the Bulls would only have $13 million to offer Melo in his first year. The worst part is that after they sign him, they'd only have a $3 million exception to sign a player of consequence. And you think that's realistic?

Cap holds are used only up to the 12th roster spot, not the 15th. Teams are required to have 12 players on their rosters. It looks like they could give Melo a 4 year deal starting at around $18 mil if they took the approach Yellowboy was suggesting. With annual raises, I think that would be around 4 years, $80 mil.