MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: tower912 on June 13, 2016, 07:49:26 PM
-
Marc Stein is reporting they are offering the #5 pick for JFB.
-
Heard that too.
-
Also rumored they are interested in Walking Jockstrap too
-
If Jimmy goes and Rose stays, it will be the last time I will ever support the Bulls in any way.
-
If Jimmy goes and Rose stays, it will be the last time I will ever support the Bulls in any way.
+1
-
Minnesota is reportedly willing to part with the #5 overall pick in a deal to get Jimmy B from the Bulls.
-
Lenny, see other thread on this topic, bro.
-
Lenny, see other thread on this topic, bro.
My bad. Thanks, chili.
-
Towns, butler, Wiggins. Good start.
-
The number 5 pick? Lol. In this draft? Might as well trade Butler to the Cavs for Richard Jefferson then.
-
Yeah, that's not for Paxson to give up his prized possession
-
What package would the Bulls say yes to, if you're looking at these options?
#5
Lavine
Shabazz
Dieng
2018 1st
-
What package would the Bulls say yes to, if you're looking at these options?
#5
Lavine
Shabazz
Dieng
2018 1st
5, Lavine, Dieng, and 2018. But I have zero faith in GarPax making any intelligent decision.
-
Makes a whole lot of sense for the TWolves. Not so much for the Bulls, who must be thinking "addition by subtraction" in jettisoning JFB because he has criticized Hoiberg.
Then again, choosing an in-over-his-head former Iowa State coach over great players has worked so well historically for the Bulls.
-
Might actually get me up to some TWolves games.
-
They'd have to give them the #5 pick and a front line player. The only reason this is even being reported is because Tom T is there now. The Celtics are also interested and have the #3. They don't need to get of him, so the price is going to be really high, as it should be.
-
Right now, the word out of Chicago is that it would take the #5 and Andrew Wiggins. Not sure Minnesota would give up that much, but especially in this weak draft, it will probably take more than just tossing enough crap at Chicago and hoping they eventually give up Butler. Ironic that Dieng is mentioned as Thibs wanted him bad in 2013 when the Bulls took Tony Snell one pick earlier. I would be surprised to see Minnesota give up Dieng.
I really hope to see Butler traded, whether Chicago or Minnesota is irrelevant. The whole Rose/Butler thing is really tired and while I have zero respect for Rose, Jimmy constantly complaining to the media and sniping at his teammates and coaches has gotten old. The "aw shucks" humility he got from Buzz has clearly worn off and between the inept front office, the in-over-their-head coaching staff, the crystalline point guard, and the bluster and bravado of Butler, Chicago is just a massive clusterf**k and he'd be better off getting a fresh start.
-
Agree that JB needs a fresh start. Bulls are headed over the cliff.
-
See I love that Jimmy and Noah are complaining to the media. Screw GarPax, Bulls players have every right to complain especially since Rose has gotten the best treatment imaginable from the front office and local media even though he hasn't done crap in 5 years. It's completely undeserved.
Drafting Snell, giving up two first rounders for McFlopper not trying everything in their power to cut ties with Rose, it's ridiculous.
-
See I love that Jimmy and Noah are complaining to the media. Screw GarPax, Bulls players have every right to complain especially since Rose has gotten the best treatment imaginable from the front office and local media even though he hasn't done crap in 5 years. It's completely undeserved.
Drafting Snell, giving up two first rounders for McFlopper not trying everything in their power to cut ties with Rose, it's ridiculous.
I'm in your camp on this one, Chitown. Jimmy is right to call out the morons who screwed up the franchise.
-
If Jimmy goes and Rose stays, it will be the last time I will ever support the Bulls in any way.
You would get over it eventually. Most fans do.
-
See I love that Jimmy and Noah are complaining to the media. Screw GarPax, Bulls players have every right to complain especially since Rose has gotten the best treatment imaginable from the front office and local media even though he hasn't done crap in 5 years. It's completely undeserved.
Drafting Snell, giving up two first rounders for McFlopper not trying everything in their power to cut ties with Rose, it's ridiculous.
I'm in your camp on this one, Chitown. Jimmy is right to call out the morons who screwed up the franchise.
What do you expect GarPax to do with Rose? They got screwed, and there was literally nothing they could do about it.
Not defending GarPax (they both need to go, but won't) at all, but to say there was an alternative path with Rose is awfully easy to say now, but you wouldn't have said it 2012.
-
They should trade Rose and build the team around JFB. Duh.
-
They should trade Rose and build the team around JFB. Duh.
No one is giving up anything for Derrick Rose.
-
Doesn't matter. Dump him and let the stench clear. I'll bet the Knicks or someone would take him.
-
No one is giving up anything for Derrick Rose.
Maybe not now. But once the season gets going, he will be "an expiring contract," and trading partners love those.
I agree it will be difficult to impossible to dump him now, but if the Bulls play poorly again before the calendar turns to 2017, Rose will be a prime bargaining chip.
-
Maybe not now. But once the season gets going, he will be "an expiring contract," and trading partners love those.
I agree it will be difficult to impossible to dump him now, but if the Bulls play poorly again before the calendar turns to 2017, Rose will be a prime bargaining chip.
The expiring contract era is over in the NBA, teams aren't in demand for cap flexibility anymore as they all have cap space with the rising salary cap.
-
I don't think this is just about Rose. It's about a poor relationship with Hoiberg.
-
No one is giving up anything for Derrick Rose.
I'm aware, and that's perfectly fine. I'd take a bag of basketballs and a hand pump at this point, or Ty Lawson.
-
I'm aware, and that's perfectly fine. I'd take a bag of basketballs and a hand pump at this point, or Ty Lawson.
Seeing it the same as you.
-
no brainer-bring back thibs, trade rose to brooklyn or philly
-
Thibs has total control in Minnesota. He coming back and the Bulls shouldn't want him back.
-
what could the buck s offer if if if...no not the greek freak. i'd love to see him back in milwaukee!
-
5, Lavine, Dieng, and 2018. But I have zero faith in GarPax making any intelligent decision.
Rejecting that would be an intelligent decision.
The #5 pick in this draft is far from a sure thing. LaVine is a backup on a decent team, Dieng is thoroughly mediocre, and next year's #1 in Minnesota will be 15-20+ if they have Jimmy.
In a star-driven league, that's a pitiful return for an all-star two-way player in his prime and under contract for four more years.
Wiggins or bust, and that's not likely.
-
The MN offer is nowhere near enough for Butler. Regardless of whether Butler stays or goes the Bulls need to rebuild. Unfortunately I don't have the confidence in the front office to do so successfully.
-
Drafting Snell, giving up two first rounders for McFlopper not trying everything in their power to cut ties with Rose, it's ridiculous.
If you look at who else was taken in that first round, i.e. who the Bulls could have had instead of McDermott, that actually looks like a decent trade.
You'd prefer Jusuf Nurkic and Gary Harris (the two players selected with the picks the Bulls gave up)?
-
If you look at who else was taken in that first round, i.e. who the Bulls could have had instead of McDermott, that actually looks like a decent trade.
You'd prefer Jusuf Nurkic and Gary Harris (the two players selected with the picks the Bulls gave up)?
Players aren't selected by a draft spot. They're selected by a team. If the Bulls are drafting in those spots those probably aren't the 2 players that go with those selections.
-
Rejecting that would be an intelligent decision.
The #5 pick in this draft is far from a sure thing. LaVine is a backup on a decent team, Dieng is thoroughly mediocre, and next year's #1 in Minnesota will be 15-20+ if they have Jimmy.
In a star-driven league, that's a pitiful return for an all-star two-way player in his prime and under contract for four more years.
Wiggins or bust, and that's not likely.
It'd have to be the 2018 pick, which would assumedly be even weaker with another year of development for the young guys. Can't trade your #1 in consecutive years.
-
The expiring contract era is over in the NBA, teams aren't in demand for cap flexibility anymore as they all have cap space with the rising salary cap.
You say this with such certainty. All I'll say is "we'll see."
-
You say this with such certainty. All I'll say is "we'll see."
Uhhh...Google it? There's no market for clearing cap space when teams are going to be given a brand new shiny amount of cap space.
-
Uhhh...Google it? There's no market for clearing cap space when teams are going to be given a brand new shiny amount of cap space.
Are you saying that for this coming year or for the foreseeable future in the NBA?
If you are saying next year, we agree. If you are seeing expiring contract trades are dead forever we may have to violently disagree. The cap space will get chewed up just like it always does even though it skyrockets. Someone is going to max contract a bunch of mid-level players because they can meaning in the new era that mid-level players for a time could be making more than all-star players (there is an argument to be made that after this off-season that Harrison Barnes could be making more money on GSW than Steph will be). So max contracts are going to be handed out like candy until they spend up the cap and when the true superstars come onto the market space will need to be cleared.
It ain't dead, just hibernating.
-
Players aren't selected by a draft spot. They're selected by a team. If the Bulls are drafting in those spots those probably aren't the 2 players that go with those selections.
OK, fine.
The point is, that draft was at best mediocre after the top 10 and nobody who would have been available and likely for the Bulls with their original picks (#16, 19) is looking like any more solid of a player than McDermott.
There are lots of valid reasons to be unhappy with the GarPax reign, but that trade isn't one of them.
-
It'd have to be the 2018 pick, which would assumedly be even weaker with another year of development for the young guys. Can't trade your #1 in consecutive years.
Good point.
Thanks
-
Uhhh...Google it? There's no market for clearing cap space when teams are going to be given a brand new shiny amount of cap space.
All I'm saying is let's see how this all shakes out.
The cap exists basically to protect owners from each other and themselves. History has shown that whenever the cap rises, there still are many, many teams that push right up against it -- and even go over it.
Those teams, especially, might still find expiring contracts to be valuable.
Now, you might be very right about Rose because teams might be so flush with money for the upcoming season that the timing won't work for the Bulls to use his expiring contract in creative trades.
But, long-term, I have little doubt that many owners won't be able to help themselves as they pursue a championship.
As always, I will continue to use my favorite two words when trying to project future results or scenarios:
We'll see.
-
Uhhh...Google it? There's no market for clearing cap space when teams are going to be given a brand new shiny amount of cap space.
So with the new cap space, what will the new max be? Is it safe to assume Butler will turn down his player option in '19?
-
Are you saying that for this coming year or for the foreseeable future in the NBA?
If you are saying next year, we agree. If you are seeing expiring contract trades are dead forever we may have to violently disagree. The cap space will get chewed up just like it always does even though it skyrockets. Someone is going to max contract a bunch of mid-level players because they can meaning in the new era that mid-level players for a time could be making more than all-star players (there is an argument to be made that after this off-season that Harrison Barnes could be making more money on GSW than Steph will be). So max contracts are going to be handed out like candy until they spend up the cap and when the true superstars come onto the market space will need to be cleared.
It ain't dead, just hibernating.
Hibernating, yes. In terms of DRose, dead.
-
All I'm saying is let's see how this all shakes out.
The cap exists basically to protect owners from each other and themselves. History has shown that whenever the cap rises, there still are many, many teams that push right up against it -- and even go over it.
Those teams, especially, might still find expiring contracts to be valuable.
Now, you might be very right about Rose because teams might be so flush with money for the upcoming season that the timing won't work for the Bulls to use his expiring contract in creative trades.
But, long-term, I have little doubt that many owners won't be able to help themselves as they pursue a championship.
As always, I will continue to use my favorite two words when trying to project future results or scenarios:
We'll see.
Someone may bite, I think Rose will fill sheets next season. Not sure if he can trick anyone into believing it.
-
So with the new cap space, what will the new max be? Is it safe to assume Butler will turn down his player option in '19?
If Jimmy keeps being Jimmy, there's going to be a new market for him, even if thats staying with the Bulls.
There will be a lot of teams in basketball hell looking to make the league minimum in salary
-
The expiring contract era is over in the NBA, teams aren't in demand for cap flexibility anymore as they all have cap space with the rising salary cap.
I only half agree. There's 24 teams with max cap room this year and about the same next year. However, the era isn't dead. This contracts will add up and teams will need space in the future after blowing max money on guys like Harrison Barnes.
-
Bulls would rather trade Rose than Butler.
You don't say?
http://nba.nbcsports.com/2016/06/16/report-bulls-prefer-trading-derrick-rose-to-jimmy-butler/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
-
I only half agree. There's 24 teams with max cap room this year and about the same next year. However, the era isn't dead. This contracts will add up and teams will need space in the future after blowing max money on guys like Harrison Barnes.
Exactly. When guys like Whiteside end up getting max deals and Barnes gets $100M+, we'll have a dozen or more teams pushed right up against the new, higher salary cap. It happens every time the cap is raised.
-
Hibernating, yes. In terms of DRose, dead.
(http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/01d/b47/17a/resized/business-dog-meme-generator-gentlemen-i-think-we-have-an-agreement-b511b5.jpg)
-
I'm a Wolves fan and I'd love to see Butler here. However, I would not trade #5, Lavine, Dieng and a 2018 first rounder to get Butler. It makes more sense for them to package Rubio with the #5 pick and either the 2018 pick or a role player like Shabazz. If it is with Lavine or Dieng they should at least get the Bulls #14 pick in return.
-
I'm a Wolves fan and I'd love to see Butler here. However, I would not trade #5, Lavine, Dieng and a 2018 first rounder to get Butler. It makes more sense for them to package Rubio with the #5 pick and either the 2018 pick or a role player like Shabazz. If it is with Lavine or Dieng they should at least get the Bulls #14 pick in return.
Yep, you're a Wolves fan alright.
-
I'm a Wolves fan and I'd love to see Butler here. However, I would not trade #5, Lavine, Dieng and a 2018 first rounder to get Butler. It makes more sense for them to package Rubio with the #5 pick and either the 2018 pick or a role player like Shabazz. If it is with Lavine or Dieng they should at least get the Bulls #14 pick in return.
Sure, it makes more sense for the T-Wolves to give up less but why would the Bulls want to make that trade?
-
Sure, it makes more sense for the T-Wolves to give up less but why would the Bulls want to make that trade?
Even GarPax wouldn't be stupid enough to make that trade.
-
Sure, it makes more sense for the T-Wolves to give up less but why would the Bulls want to make that trade?
Giving up less by trading Rubio rather than Lavine or Dieng? Not sure I would agree, although Rubio's contract becomes problematic if you bring on Butler.
-
Giving up less by trading Rubio rather than Lavine or Dieng? Not sure I would agree, although Rubio's contract becomes problematic if you bring on Butler.
The Bulls have no incentive to make a deal unless Wiggins is involved. I highly doubt the Wolves would consider including Wiggins. It's hard for me to see a realistic match between the two teams.
-
Sure, it makes more sense for the T-Wolves to give up less but why would the Bulls want to make that trade?
if, and i said IF JB is a problem on that team, that's why they would want to make a trade. and then if, and i said IF it makes sense for them(da bulls), make the trade. what i mean by problem is, does JB think he has more power than he has? hmmmm, sounds kinda familiar heyn'a... sounds like a mosquita you can't have one of your players sitting around the locker room undermining the coach and doing it publicly nonetheless. stick to what ya know jimmy-put the ball in the hole
-
Pleeeeeeease!!
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/16287776?ex_cid=espnfb
-
Pleeeeeeease!!
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/16287776?ex_cid=espnfb
I have my doubts but if one team were to trade for Rose, it would be the Knicks.
-
I have my doubts but if one team were to trade for Rose, it would be the Knicks.
This would be bittersweet.
-
I wonder if Sacramento would remove or relax the restrictions on the conditional first round pick from the Deng trade in exchange for Rose. Collison recently had off the court issues, Rondo is a free agent, and it sounds like Sacramento wants to win this year.
Probably highly doubtful but if I were the Bulls front office I would at least inquire about this possibility (assuming nothing comes to fruition with NY).
-
I have my doubts but if one team were to trade for Rose, it would be the Knicks.
them or the raiders, 'ey?
-
This would be bittersweet.
Why? He is over paid, under performs and is most likely leaving after this season as a free agent. Get rid of him if you can. He had a couple great years, he is no longer that player.
-
There were people in the comments of the article saying that even Melo wouldn't be enough, and some people on Facebook were like. "Chicago doesn't deserve you anyway"
Hell, Jose Calderon would be enough for me. I'd even package Tony Snell in with Rose if that means the Bulls could get rid of him. Bulls fans are the absolute worst in the city.
-
Why? He is over paid, under performs and is most likely leaving after this season as a free agent. Get rid of him if you can. He had a couple great years, he is no longer that player.
Teal
-
Teal
Not even close man. Rose is done, he may be serviceable if he can stay healthy, but hes not a superstar or even a number 2 option anymorw. He's a cancer for this Bulls organization, with a terrible contract by an inept GM. It's time to let go.
-
Why? He is over paid, under performs and is most likely leaving after this season as a free agent. Get rid of him if you can. He had a couple great years, he is no longer that player.
Bittersweet because at one point Rose appeared on his way to becoming a hall of famer while playing for his hometown team. If the Bulls can get something of value for him, then by all means they should, but there's nothing wrong with being wistful for what might have been.
-
Not even close man. Rose is done, he may be serviceable if he can stay healthy, but hes not a superstar or even a number 2 option anymorw. He's a cancer for this Bulls organization, with a terrible contract by an inept GM. It's time to let go.
Not sure what you're going for, we agree.
-
Not even close man. Rose is done, he may be serviceable if he can stay healthy, but hes not a superstar or even a number 2 option anymorw. He's a cancer for this Bulls organization, with a terrible contract by an inept GM. It's time to let go.
I'm not saying our front office isn't somewhat inept but you can't blame the contract on them based on when he signed it (December 2011). Anyone would have signed him to a max deal pre-injury.
-
Not sure what you're going for, we agree.
Mis understood your teal.
-
Mis understood your teal.
Got it.
-
Bye Derrick, go save your knees for your kids graduation elsewhere.
https://twitter.com/KCJHoop/status/745696405860270081
-
So Butler wins the power struggle in Chicago. Derrick Rose to the Knicks for spare parts.
-
Today is an amazing day. I cannot even start to explain how happy I am to be wrong.
-
But I'm just Skip Bayless and hate all things Chicago sports and Derrick Rose and Jay Cutler have done some incredible things for Chicago sports...
-
Doesn't matter. Dump him and let the stench clear. I'll bet the Knicks or someone would take him.
Quoting myself from 8 days ago....the Knicks? BAM!
-
This is more than I thought they'd get for him. Two serviceable vets to play a role and a young PG.
-
But I'm just Skip Bayless and hate all things Chicago sports and Derrick Rose and Jay Cutler have done some incredible things for Chicago sports...
You're not?
Quoting myself from 8 days ago....the Knicks? BAM!
Well fricking done.
-
Does the Lopez acquisition close the door on what already seemed like an unlikely return for Noah?
-
Does the Lopez acquisition close the door on what already seemed like an unlikely return for Noah?
Pretty much my thought. They're blowing the old roster up!
-
Man, Bulls fans are the worst. Everyone on my facebook is bitching that Rose is gone and that Noah is the next one out. Do they not understand what the Cubs literally just did to become the best team in the majors?
-
Man, Bulls fans are the worst. Everyone on my facebook is bitching that Rose is gone and that Noah is the next one out. Do they not understand what the Cubs literally just did to become the best team in the majors?
Not just that, but complaining that they sent him away for nothing. Don't get me wrong, GarPax is a disaster right now, but this was a swindle. Nobody wanted Rose really. Shell of himself, terrible contract, and created friction. Not only did they move him before the season, they got a good C on a VERY favorable deal as well as a solid talent at guard in Jerian Grant who is young and could grow into a really nice player. Excellent trade IMO.
-
If I'm the Bulls, I'm trading Butler immediately. It's much easier to trade Butler now that Rose is dealt.
I doubt Boston would do it, but my offer would be Butler & 11, for Bradley, Zeller, Young, 3, and Brooklyn's 1 next year.
If I'm the Bulls, that'd give me a chance to bottom out, and have 2 high picks in the loaded 2017 draft. I'd be PG heavy in 2016 with Calderon, Grant, Bradley, but whatever. Lopez is a steal with his contract, and at 3 this year, I can get Chriss or Murray. Next year, a chance at Giles and Josh Jackson. I'd also have a ton of cap room in 2017. Sign me up for that plan.
-
Not just that, but complaining that they sent him away for nothing. Don't get me wrong, GarPax is a disaster right now, but this was a swindle. Nobody wanted Rose really. Shell of himself, terrible contract, and created friction. Not only did they move him before the season, they got a good C on a VERY favorable deal as well as a solid talent at guard in Jerian Grant who is young and could grow into a really nice player. Excellent trade IMO.
+1
-
Lost on no one is that the day hometown hero LeBron enjoys a parade another hometown hero is given a bus ticket out of town. ;D
-
Not just that, but complaining that they sent him away for nothing. Don't get me wrong, GarPax is a disaster right now, but this was a swindle. Nobody wanted Rose really. Shell of himself, terrible contract, and created friction. Not only did they move him before the season, they got a good C on a VERY favorable deal as well as a solid talent at guard in Jerian Grant who is young and could grow into a really nice player. Excellent trade IMO.
Agreed.
Some people just don't want to recognize how bad Rose has been since 2012.
His value over replacement player was -0.7 last season, tied with Tony Snell for worst on the team. He's a shell of his former self who consistently hurt the team with poor shot selection and decision making.
-
If I'm the Bulls, I'm trading Butler immediately. It's much easier to trade Butler now that Rose is dealt.
I doubt Boston would do it, but my offer would be Butler & 11, for Bradley, Zeller, Young, 3, and Brooklyn's 1 next year.
If I'm the Bulls, that'd give me a chance to bottom out, and have 2 high picks in the loaded 2017 draft. I'd be PG heavy in 2016 with Calderon, Grant, Bradley, but whatever. Lopez is a steal with his contract, and at 3 this year, I can get Chriss or Murray. Next year, a chance at Giles and Josh Jackson. I'd also have a ton of cap room in 2017. Sign me up for that plan.
I assume the Brooklyn pick is unprotected? Even if it is I'm not sure I do that.
-
Everything said, Knicks could be good if Rose decides to play for a max contract.
-
Everything said, Knicks could be good if Rose decides to play for a max contract.
True, I guess, I just don't believe he has that level of play in him anymore. If he does, man, that would actually be infuriating.
-
If only the Brewers would pull this off with Braun...
-
Everything said, Knicks could be good if Rose decides to play for a max contract.
...and steps into a DeLaurean and gets out at 2011.
-
Everything said, Knicks could be good if Rose decides to play for a max contract.
Rose has a $185M deal with Adidas. Assuming Reggie hasn't spent that money already, I'm not sure Derrick is going to put his body on the line for 82 games to go for a max deal. I'm also not sure he understands that he'd need to do that in order to get a max deal.
Latest rumor: Miami is attempting to acquire Butler. Dragic, Wade, Butler, Bosh (if he can play) and Whiteside, with Deng and Winslow off the bench. That's a pretty good team.
-
Rose has a $185M deal with Adidas. Assuming Reggie hasn't spent that money already, I'm not sure Derrick is going to put his body on the line for 82 games to go for a max deal. I'm also not sure he understands that he'd need to do that in order to get a max deal.
Latest rumor: Miami is attempting to acquire Butler. Dragic, Wade, Butler, Bosh (if he can play) and Whiteside, with Deng and Winslow off the bench. That's a pretty good team.
Can't see how they'd be able to put together a package for Jimmy that doesn't include Winslow. Heck, even with Winslow, I can't imagine they could put together such a deal. They have no draft picks this year, no second in 2017 and no first in 2018.
-
Can't see how they'd be able to put together a package for Jimmy that doesn't include Winslow. Heck, even with Winslow, I can't imagine they could put together such a deal. They have no draft picks this year, no second in 2017 and no first in 2018.
Yeah. And you're already paying Dragic and Bosh and you'd have to pay Deng, Wade and Whiteside, and then you'd be adding Butler's contract.
-
If I'm the Bulls, I'm trading Butler immediately. It's much easier to trade Butler now that Rose is dealt.
I doubt Boston would do it, but my offer would be Butler & 11, for Bradley, Zeller, Young, 3, and Brooklyn's 1 next year.
If I'm the Bulls, that'd give me a chance to bottom out, and have 2 high picks in the loaded 2017 draft. I'd be PG heavy in 2016 with Calderon, Grant, Bradley, but whatever. Lopez is a steal with his contract, and at 3 this year, I can get Chriss or Murray. Next year, a chance at Giles and Josh Jackson. I'd also have a ton of cap room in 2017. Sign me up for that plan.
Butler's contract isn't a poor one. He is an all-star and a very good two-way NBA player. The only way I trade him is if they think the relationship with Hoiberg is not salvageable.
-
Yeah. And you're already paying Dragic and Bosh and you'd have to pay Deng, Wade and Whiteside, and then you'd be adding Butler's contract.
I heard something yesterday suggesting Whiteside might be going west.
-
Butler's contract isn't a poor one. He is an all-star and a very good two-way NBA player. The only way I trade him is if they think the relationship with Hoiberg is not salvageable.
Yes, it is a very good contract, and will be viewed even better in the new salary cap era.
You need superstars to win in the NBA, and I'd take a big gamble that by netting the Nets first rounder, and tanking 2016-17, I'd get two shots at high picks next year. Josh Jackson is going to be a superstar. If Giles stays healthy this year, he as well. It's a risk, but it also nets me the third overall pick tonight. I love Butler, he's very very close to being a superstar, but I'd take the risk here.
-
Can't see how they'd be able to put together a package for Jimmy that doesn't include Winslow. Heck, even with Winslow, I can't imagine they could put together such a deal. They have no draft picks this year, no second in 2017 and no first in 2018.
Good point on Winslow. He'd almost definitely have to be shipped out, although there's talk of a potential 3-team deal which would result in the Bulls getting picks from a third team.
-
Man, Bulls fans are the worst. Everyone on my facebook is bitching that Rose is gone and that Noah is the next one out. Do they not understand what the Cubs literally just did to become the best team in the majors?
I'm all for the trade. I think it's a great one, but you can't necessarily rebuild in the NBA with picks short of getting a dominant #1, so I don't think the Cubs situation is the same.
-
If I'm the Bulls, I'm trading Butler immediately. It's much easier to trade Butler now that Rose is dealt.
I doubt Boston would do it, but my offer would be Butler & 11, for Bradley, Zeller, Young, 3, and Brooklyn's 1 next year.
If I'm the Bulls, that'd give me a chance to bottom out, and have 2 high picks in the loaded 2017 draft. I'd be PG heavy in 2016 with Calderon, Grant, Bradley, but whatever. Lopez is a steal with his contract, and at 3 this year, I can get Chriss or Murray. Next year, a chance at Giles and Josh Jackson. I'd also have a ton of cap room in 2017. Sign me up for that plan.
I don't get trading Butler at all. With any top pick you get, you'd be thrilled if they turned out like Jimmy, and there's no guarantee. It's hard to get all-stars under contract, so when you have one in your prime, I think you stick with him.
I understand the whole rebuilding thought, but that's easier said than done in the NBA.
-
I'm all for the trade. I think it's a great one, but you can't necessarily rebuild in the NBA with picks short of getting a dominant #1, so I don't think the Cubs situation is the same.
The Cubs rebuilt via trades and free agency. Bryant is Theo's only draft pick who's currently a key contributor to the team. The NBA doesn't work that way. Teams basically need to draft a franchise player and typically that's done by getting a top 2-3 pick.
-
I don't get trading Butler at all. With any top pick you get, you'd be thrilled if they turned out like Jimmy, and there's no guarantee. It's hard to get all-stars under contract, so when you have one in your prime, I think you stick with him.
I understand the whole rebuilding thought, but that's easier said than done in the NBA.
What are the Bulls going to be this next year? Arguably the same or worse as last season one could strongly argue. They'll most likely be picking late lottery again next year. Butler has 3 seasons before he'll opt out, so they will waste another year in basketball hell. They have no one under 25 who is a dynamic player. Bulls have one outstanding asset in Butler, and that's it. They are going to have to bottom out at some point in the next 5 years. Why not do it right now, with one of the premier draft classes coming up next year? I love Jimmy Butler, but as a Bulls fan, why prolong the inevitable?
-
What are the Bulls going to be this next year? Arguably the same or worse as last season one could strongly argue. They'll most likely be picking late lottery again next year. Butler has 3 seasons before he'll opt out, so they will waste another year in basketball hell. They have no one under 25 who is a dynamic player. Bulls have one outstanding asset in Butler, and that's it. They are going to have to bottom out at some point in the next 5 years. Why not do it right now, with one of the premier draft classes coming up next year? I love Jimmy Butler, but as a Bulls fan, why prolong the inevitable?
While this is true, a teardown and rebuild by trading Jimmy is just a perilous and unlikely to succeed as trying to build around Jimmy. Primarily because, as Rushmore points out, having high draft picks in no way guarantees future success.
I mean, just look at Philly. Six lottery picks in the last six drafts, and they've been by far the worst team in the league in that span.
Between 1999 and 2008, the Bulls added 11 top 10 draft picks, and had one winning season over that decade.
The lottery and the luck of which years you win it (see: 1998 Clippers, 2006 Raptors, 2013 Cavs) guarantees that gutting a team and rebuilding is far from a sure thing.
The Bulls are better off trying to build around a 26-year-old all-star than trading him away and hoping they 1) get lucky in the lottery and 2) their pick is more Anthony Davis than Anthony Bennett.
-
While this is true, a teardown and rebuild by trading Jimmy is just a perilous and unlikely to succeed as trying to build around Jimmy. Primarily because, as Rushmore points out, having high draft picks in no way guarantees future success.
I mean, just look at Philly. Six lottery picks in the last six drafts, and they've been by far the worst team in the league in that span.
Between 1999 and 2008, the Bulls added 11 top 10 draft picks, and had one winning season over that decade.
The lottery and the luck of which years you win it (see: 1998 Clippers, 2006 Raptors, 2013 Cavs) guarantees that gutting a team and rebuilding is far from a sure thing.
The Bulls are better off trying to build around a 26-year-old all-star than trading him away and hoping they 1) get lucky in the lottery and 2) their pick is more Anthony Davis than Anthony Bennett.
I understand all this, tough to argue against it. But you have potentially the best draft class since 2003 next year. If way back then, one had the chance to get two top 5 picks, look how that would have turned out. If it was this year's draft class...no way. To me, it's the knowledge of knowing what is going to be available next year, and taking advantage of it. Not just getting lottery picks to say you got them.
-
I understand all this, tough to argue against it. But you have potentially the best draft class since 2003 next year. If way back then, one had the chance to get two top 5 picks, look how that would have turned out. If it was this year's draft class...no way. To me, it's the knowledge of knowing what is going to be available next year, and taking advantage of it. Not just getting lottery picks to say you got them.
I remember when the 2014 draft class was thought to be one of the best ever. Obviously still early, but outside of Wiggins, there's no one in that class appears likely to develop into a perennial all-star (and even he's got a ways to go).
I wouldn't make any major decisions for my NBA franchise based on a hope that a bunch of kids who aren't even in college are going to become the next LeBron/Carmelo/Bosh/Wade.
-
The only reason you trade Butler is if you think he can't coexist with Hoiberg. If you think he can't, you trade him tonight. He's very good. Not elite.
-
What are the Bulls going to be this next year? Arguably the same or worse as last season one could strongly argue. They'll most likely be picking late lottery again next year. Butler has 3 seasons before he'll opt out, so they will waste another year in basketball hell. They have no one under 25 who is a dynamic player. Bulls have one outstanding asset in Butler, and that's it. They are going to have to bottom out at some point in the next 5 years. Why not do it right now, with one of the premier draft classes coming up next year? I love Jimmy Butler, but as a Bulls fan, why prolong the inevitable?
Assuming he stays healthy, and now that his usage and numbers will likely go up now that Rose is gone, Butler can easily be traded next year as well for potentially a better package.
I'm of the mind that you keep him for now regardless but there shouldn't necessarily be a rush to deal him unless the offer is so overwhelming that you can't turn it down.
-
I remember when the 2014 draft class was thought to be one of the best ever. Obviously still early, but outside of Wiggins, there's no one in that class appears likely to develop into a perennial all-star (and even he's got a ways to go).
I wouldn't make any major decisions for my NBA franchise based on a hope that a bunch of kids who aren't even in college are going to become the next LeBron/Carmelo/Bosh/Wade.
I understand all this, I know my side is a big time gamble. I'm looking at a year from today, and seeing what we all think. I could be wrong certainly, be a far more interesting discussion then with where Bulls are and how next year's draft looks.
-
Oops. Nevermind.
-
What are the Bulls going to be this next year? Arguably the same or worse as last season one could strongly argue. They'll most likely be picking late lottery again next year. Butler has 3 seasons before he'll opt out, so they will waste another year in basketball hell. They have no one under 25 who is a dynamic player. Bulls have one outstanding asset in Butler, and that's it. They are going to have to bottom out at some point in the next 5 years. Why not do it right now, with one of the premier draft classes coming up next year? I love Jimmy Butler, but as a Bulls fan, why prolong the inevitable?
Is next year's draft deep or are there just more top tier players? If it's deep, that helps a team that may finish mid-range.
Despite all your concerns, I think the Bulls may still be easily in the lottery despite keeping Jimmy.
-
Bucks pick was garbage
-
Is next year's draft deep or are there just more top tier players? If it's deep, that helps a team that may finish mid-range.
Despite all your concerns, I think the Bulls may still be easily in the lottery despite keeping Jimmy.
Depends what happens in free agency. The bottom of the East is weak. If the Bulls can add a player or two in FA (Conley? DeRozan?), they can be better than last year. Remember, despite all the injuries and turmoil, the Bulls needed a pretty epic collapse last year to miss the playoffs.
Now, whether it's a good thing to squeak into the playoffs as a 7-8 seed (aka NBA hell) is another discussion.
-
Bucks pick was garbage
Disagreed. Bucks got a guy who will contribute right away in round 2 and a guy who has one of the top 3 highest ceilings, and possibly the very highest, in the entire draft at 10. There were no sure fire All Star players in the 10 range in this draft, so taking a chance on a home run/strikeout pick isn't the worst thing you can do. Only problem with it was if they didn't try to trade down with their #10 pick to the early 20s. But I'm pretty doubtful that any teams were really looking for an opportunity to jump up to number 10 in this draft.
Thon today is better than Giannis was the day after he was drafted. I don't expect Thon to progress like Giannis has, but the potential is absurd.
-
Is next year's draft deep or are there just more top tier players? If it's deep, that helps a team that may finish mid-range.
Despite all your concerns, I think the Bulls may still be easily in the lottery despite keeping Jimmy.
The top of the draft is loaded. When I was at the McD AA festivities this year and got to talk to the players, the people from Adidas, and some scouts, they all reiterated how loaded the top 4-6 will be from this class, assuming most come out. I think there's depth beyond that if guys like Allen, Ferguson, Monk play well. For me as a pure basketball fan, any Duke, Kansas, Kentucky game will be must watch. Josh Jackson is the real deal.
-
Thon today is better than Giannis was the day after he was drafted. I don't expect Thon to progress like Giannis has, but the potential is absurd.
Also, Thon today may be 4-5 years older than Giannis was the day after he was drafted.
Some teams had a second-round grade on him.
It may pay off for the Bucks, but it's a major risk.
Sports Illustrated:
Milwaukee Bucks: F
As inexplicable as the Papagiannis pick was, the Thon Maker pick was worse. The Kings are always going to be the Kings as long as Vlade and Vivek are in charge, but the Bucks could actually be good. You can't just throw away top–10 picks like they're nothing.
There's a way to see Maker as a case of the Bucks doubling down on the weirdness of their roster and putting together the most science–fiction lineup possible, and maybe that's how it'll play out, but I don't see it. Maker should have been a second rounder, not a top 10 pick. He has raw tools, but not many skills, and this week there were allegations that he's three years older than he claims. These are not good signs. Really, almost every move Milwaukee's made since drafting Giannis and Jabari—trading for MCW, signing Greg Monroe, trading for Grievis Vasquez, inexplicably drafting Rashad Vaughn—has been a failure. Worse, most of these moves were clearly bad ideas at the time.
Mostly, it bums me out because Giannis is absolutely for real, and Milwaukee should be one of the most entertaining teams in the league. But whoever is running things is screwing this up.
http://www.si.com/nba/2016/06/24/nba-draft-team-grades-lakers-bucks-76ers-celtics-timberwolves
-
Also, Thon today may be 4-5 years older than Giannis was the day after he was drafted.
Some teams had a second-round grade on him.
It may pay off for the Bucks, but it's a major risk.
Sports Illustrated:
Milwaukee Bucks: F
As inexplicable as the Papagiannis pick was, the Thon Maker pick was worse. The Kings are always going to be the Kings as long as Vlade and Vivek are in charge, but the Bucks could actually be good. You can't just throw away top–10 picks like they're nothing.
There's a way to see Maker as a case of the Bucks doubling down on the weirdness of their roster and putting together the most science–fiction lineup possible, and maybe that's how it'll play out, but I don't see it. Maker should have been a second rounder, not a top 10 pick. He has raw tools, but not many skills, and this week there were allegations that he's three years older than he claims. These are not good signs. Really, almost every move Milwaukee's made since drafting Giannis and Jabari—trading for MCW, signing Greg Monroe, trading for Grievis Vasquez, inexplicably drafting Rashad Vaughn—has been a failure. Worse, most of these moves were clearly bad ideas at the time.
Mostly, it bums me out because Giannis is absolutely for real, and Milwaukee should be one of the most entertaining teams in the league. But whoever is running things is screwing this up.
http://www.si.com/nba/2016/06/24/nba-draft-team-grades-lakers-bucks-76ers-celtics-timberwolves
It could also be that some teams in the mid to late 1st round were "leaking" that they "wouldn't touch Thon" because he might be "3 years older than what he says" so that teams above them wouldn't touch Thon...and then they can snatch them up. Teams typically don't give out their thoughts on individual players before the draft without some kind of motive behind it.
And I'm not willing to put a whole lot of stock into SI's grades. While that individual writer may think he was against the Monroe signing, that same site gave the Monroe signing an A and we all know how that went.
At 10 in this year's draft, what pick would there be that doesn't have some major risk? It's not like we were passing up on a bunch of sure fire studs. There are a lot of guys in this draft who could be something...or could be absolutely nothing.
-
At 10 in this year's draft, what pick would there be that doesn't have some major risk? It's not like we were passing up on a bunch of sure fire studs. There are a lot of guys in this draft who could be something...or could be absolutely nothing.
It's disingenuous to claim the risk involved with Maker is just like any other guy they could have had at 10. There were many, many guys available that had stronger bodies of work, more polish and no questions about their age and backgrounds.
Sabonis and Ellenson, for example.
Add to the fact that a skinny, raw athlete with questionable skills is just about the last thing the Bucks needed, and this pick is highly, highly dubious.
-
It could also be that some teams in the mid to late 1st round were "leaking" that they "wouldn't touch Thon" because he might be "3 years older than what he says" so that teams above them wouldn't touch Thon...and then they can snatch them up. Teams typically don't give out their thoughts on individual players before the draft without some kind of motive behind it.
And I'm not willing to put a whole lot of stock into SI's grades. While that individual writer may think he was against the Monroe signing, that same site gave the Monroe signing an A and we all know how that went.
At 10 in this year's draft, what pick would there be that doesn't have some major risk? It's not like we were passing up on a bunch of sure fire studs. There are a lot of guys in this draft who could be something...or could be absolutely nothing.
It's easy for analysts to say that a pick was bad but who should the Bucks have taken in that spot? Sabonis? Ellenson? Baldwin? It wasn't exactly a who's who of can't-miss prospects at that point. On top of that, Milwaukee isn't exactly a top choice for big name FAs so they need to take some risks. Why not take a chance on a guy who has arguably the most potential outside of Simmons and Ingram?
Sidenote: SI.com gave the Bucks a C+ when they drafted Giannis and called him "a reach" at pick 15 (different writer than this article).
-
It's disingenuous to claim the risk involved with Maker is just like any other guy they could have had at 10. There were many, many guys available that had stronger bodies of work, more polish and no questions about their age and backgrounds.
Sabonis and Ellenson, for example.
Add to the fact that a skinny, raw athlete with questionable skills is just about the last thing the Bucks needed, and this pick is highly, highly dubious.
Honest question, have you ever seen Thon play?
If this kid puts on weight/strength, watch out.
Yes, his floor is lower than there were some other players out there. But his ceiling is soooooooo much higher than Hank's and Sabonis's. This is the exact kind of draft where you can take a huge risk and if it doesn't work out, chances are the alternatives weren't a ton better. My guess is that a couple players from the late 1st or even 2nd round hit and are better than expected, but it's not like you can point to the guy that it's going to be today with certainty.
-
It's easy for analysts to say that a pick was bad but who should the Bucks have taken in that spot? Sabonis? Ellenson? Baldwin? It wasn't exactly a who's who of can't-miss prospects at that point. On top of that, Milwaukee isn't exactly a top choice for big name FAs so they need to take some risks. Why not take a chance on a guy who has arguably the most potential outside of Simmons and Ingram?
Sidenote: SI.com gave the Bucks a C+ when they drafted Giannis and called him "a reach" at pick 15 (different writer than this article).
Exactly. If there was a guy who is just about a sure thing at a position of need like a Devon Booker from last year then yes, picking a guy with huge potential but also huge bust possibility is a bad idea. But there wasn't that guy for the Bucks this year.
-
Hammonds reached for Thon, no doubt. But, he's ether gonna hit it big or crap his trousers, ai na?
-
Hammonds reached for Thon, no doubt. But, he's ether gonna hit it big or crap his trousers, ai na?
Unless a team was trying to get #10 (highly doubtful in this draft), it's not a reach. Obviously the Bucks valued Thon more than any other player available and didn't feel confident that he would be around by their next pick.
-
It's easy for analysts to say that a pick was bad but who should the Bucks have taken in that spot? Sabonis? Ellenson? Baldwin? It wasn't exactly a who's who of can't-miss prospects at that point. On top of that, Milwaukee isn't exactly a top choice for big name FAs so they need to take some risks. Why not take a chance on a guy who has arguably the most potential outside of Simmons and Ingram?
Sidenote: SI.com gave the Bucks a C+ when they drafted Giannis and called him "a reach" at pick 15 (different writer than this article).
great points! and, so what if he's a few years older. it's not like he played running back for the NFL prior to this. how many years does one expect out of these guys? not everyone plays 18-20 years like dirk or kareem. who else could they have gotten? pay the man, give him all the incentive to improve. the guy looks like he will be able to contribute just by accident. i think he's got plenty of rubber left on the tires