Knicksfan wrote:I think it has been counter-reported that after acquiring Lin, the Lakers can't make this Boozer trade.

They say that Gasol is leaving LA for the Spurs (Bulls if a sign and trade cannot be sorted out). If that is true, the Lakers would have plenty of cap space to acquire Boozer.

fitzfarm wrote:Lol no one wants boozer and even if they did they still would need a sign and trade with us

They'd give up assets to move Boozer. Those are assets we could use in a rebuild. And quite frankly, it seems like Melo has one foot out the door as it is. We might as well shove him out completely and oblige the Bulls with his services. Better that, than to be stuck with him at $129 million OR him growing a charitable spirit and taking a paycut to join the Bulls, free of charge from us.

knicks1248 wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

fitzfarm wrote:Lol no one wants boozer and even if they did they still would need a sign and trade with us

They'd give up assets to move Boozer. Those are assets we could use in a rebuild. And quite frankly, it seems like Melo has one foot out the door as it is. We might as well shove him out completely and oblige the Bulls with his services. Better that, than to be stuck with him at $129 million OR him growing a charitable spirit and taking a paycut to join the Bulls, free of charge from us.

What these assets your talking about?

Any and everything that has value on the market e.g. picks, prospects, vets on cheap contracts.

smackeddog wrote:Their owner is beyond tight- I think he will eventually trade Boozer with draft picks, rather than just eat the salary via the amnesty.

yellowboy90 wrote:

VDesai wrote:Would they take Bargnani and Shumpert for Gasol?

Only if there is a way we take back Nash which I think is impossible.

The one thing about Nash is that he signed after 2011, so perhaps we could use the stretch provision on him.

But the problem is you can't package another player in a sign and trade. It would have to be two separate trades.

smackeddog wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

smackeddog wrote:Their owner is beyond tight- I think he will eventually trade Boozer with draft picks, rather than just eat the salary via the amnesty.

Yeah. It amazes me how that team manages to stay on top with him being so cheap. The dude was rumored to be unwilling to pay to keep Jordan's Bulls together.

can't believe Pippen was on only $2.5 mil per year svn during the last couple of championships! The owner has no shame!

I remember reading the owner claimed he was losing money during MJs last year, plus he refused to pay Phil as much as Calpari had just been given to coach the Nets. On top of that the Bulls GM had a big ego and though he himself was the main reason for all the championships, and that he wasn't getting enough credit- he was therefore happy to push MJ & Co out the door so he could do a quick rebuild and prove how great he was- and we all know hop that ended- ha!

Yeah, those guys, save for MJ, were grossly underpaid. I know that they must be bitter because they barely missed the Gold Rush era for the NBA. But from what I've read, Pippen is to blame for his salary being what it was. He went for security just before the new CBA kicked in, when both his agent and Jerry Krause advised him against it. Jordan on the other hand had been playing on one year contracts for years, which allowed him to have the ultimate leverage against the Bulls.