What level/type of veteran should we expect for #5? (Official campaign for Kirk)
by Evander holyfield on May 20, 2009 11:51 PM EDT
50 comments
In a much deeper (but not extremely deep) draft in 2004 we swapped Devin Harris at #5 and a couple horrendous contracts in Christian Laettner and Jerry Stackhouse for Antawn Jamison. At the time, it was a hell of a deal. Looking back, it was still a great deal, even considering how good Harris is now. This year should provide a pick at 5 who could have as much if not more expectation of impact than Devin Harris did coming out of college.
This year at #5, any combination of Hasheem Thabeet, James Harden, Demar Derozan, Jordan Hill or Brandon Jennings should be on the board. Even in a weak draft like this one, those options at #5 should entice at least a few teams. Add to that the fact we have expiring contracts in: 1) such a horrible state of economic affairs, and 2) the year before the all-time greatest free agent class hits the market, Ernie Grunfeld should have a few options available to him via trade. He said "it's not the draft pick, it's what you do with it."
The question I have is what type/level of veteran should we expect back in any trade for #5? I assume that we wouldn't have to include any of our core in most trade scenarios, simply because teams aren't usually willing to part with players good enough to warrant us giving up our #5 pick in addition to any of those guys (except players such as Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson, who I doubt we could get).
Some of the veteran guys we could target based on:
1) Our team needs (mainly defense, also luxury tax)
2) Other team needs (would they be looking to get younger, or could one prospect in particular help them at #5?)
3) Other team's intentions to shed salary (luxury tax related or 2010 FA signing related)
Here's the list:
Kirk Hinrich (target #1) - (Trade: #5 pick, Mike James, and Pech for Hinrich and Bulls #16 pick) This is the one that I think has a very good chance of going down. Makes sense for both sides. Gives the Bulls a high pick which they can use on Harden to make up for losing Ben Gordon. Also shed Hinrich's contract to make room for Bosh or Wade in 2010. This trade would give us our defensive ace in our backcourt. It also rids us of Pech's contract so we can sign our 2nd rounder. We stay in the draft at $16, where we draft Dejuan Blair for the sole purpose of him knocking Andray and JaVale on their asses and toughening them up. Hinrich immediately increases our defense, outside shooting, ball handling, fast break, and overall leadership/BBIQ. The risk is giving up a #5 pick that could turn into a star. Also we contribute to giving the Bulls the cap space that could lead to creating a dynasty if they end up signing Wade or Bosh.
...The guy who would fit best but would probably take more to get:
Tayshaun Prince (target #1A) - (Trade: #5 pick, Nick Young, Etan Thomas, Pech for Prince and Pistons #15 pick) This trade gives the Pistons a lot of options. I'm not completely sure the Pistons go for this, but the pieces are there, nonetheless. I am extremely wary of giving up NY, but if it gets us Prince, it might be the one case where we might have to pull the trigger. They put NY next to Stuckey and let Rip mentor him and that becomes a potent backcourt. The Pistons then draft Jordan Hill, giving them the banger they sorely lack, and become young and athletic. I barely need to explain why Prince helps us. He has been a winner his ENTIRE career, since before he was a senior at Kentucky. He stresses defense. Has a 7-foot wingspan. Can go in the post and can shoot the trey. Prince would be the perfect fit for our squad. We can still use the #15 pick on Blair to smack 'Dray and JaVale around, or pick up Tyreke Evans to make up for losing NY, who has as much upside and athleticism as anyone at #5.
James Posey (Trade: #5 pick, Etan Thomas, and Pech for James Posey and Hornets #21 pick) This is a trade that I have to ask myself the question: what impact can we expect from our #5 pick immediately? James Posey is one of the best defenders in the league, especially come playoffs, and is a clutch 3 point shooter. But this would be a trade about shedding contracts as much as anything. The Hornets have shown their interest in getting below the salary cap, and Thomas' expiring contract will help them with that. Getting rid of Pech will allow us to sign our 2nd rounder, and the with the #21 pick we would have options as well. Maybe Dejuan Blair is still there, but if not we can draft Darren Collison who is underrated in this draft. The #5 pick will help the Hornets get younger where they could find an impact player in Harden, Derozan, or Hill to grow with CP3, who is still only 24.
Other guys:
Gerald Wallace
Stephen Jackson
Josh Howard
Ron Artest (Sign and Trade)
David Lee (Sign and Trade)
These trades are meant to be ones that keep our core intact and add a proven player who brings an important skill set to our squad. I'll leave the blockbusters to Ernie Grunfeld, but if you all have any others that you could see happening, add them in the comments.
This represents the view of the user who wrote the FanPost, and not the entire Bullets Forever community. We're a place of many opinions, not just one.
0 recs |
50 comments
Email
Print
Comments
James Posey is nowhere near good enough for the fifth pick
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 12:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I’d be ok if it if it meant losing contracts as bad as the Laettner and Stackhouse ones, but we actually don’t even have any truly bad ones other than maybe Gilbert’s. I mean, Songaila’s usually considered are worst non-expiring contract, and that’s only for like four or five million a year for another two years. We’d need to get future draft picks back in return, too, I think, which we could flip down the road for another vet.
by pantslessyoda1 on May 21, 2009 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
Even if we can dump Etan and Pech, which would allow us to sign our 2nd rounder? Actually, with this draft being as incredibly weak as it is, a James Posey type might be the best we could hope for a #5 drafted player to develop to anyway.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on May 21, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Posey's going on 33 with an awful contract
He’s not worth any first-round pick in any draft, no matter how bad.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Weird
You seem to have gone back and forth on Posey the last couple of seasons. First you disregard him, then you take it back and say you really like him and he deserves the full MLE, now you seem to be saying he has a bad contract, even though he only makes the MLE. So I’m a little confused.
He may be 33, but that only means that he won’t need time to develop, like any other player we pick at #5 (with the possible exception of DeJuan Blair). Is his game in serious decline? I didn’t watch many Hornets games this season, so I’m wondering if that is why you are down on him again. Because if he’s as good as he was with Boston the season before last, then I’d gladly take my chances with Posey over the next 3 seasons than with one of these projects, who chances are won’t even be as good as Posey is now.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on May 21, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Posey was never worth the fifth pick in the draft
He’s a seventh man. A useful one on the right team, but you don’t trade the fifth pick for a 33-year old seventh man. And with the emergence of McGuire, we don’t need Posey anymore.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You Seem to Be Forgetting
That the 5th pick in this draft is not your typical 5th pick. Otherwise I would agree with you. I think most teams would be pleasantly surprised if any player they picked after Griffin and Rubio turned out to be as good as Posey. Even Blair will probably only amount to a good backup PF in this league when everything is said and done.
And I don’t think that McGuire fills all of the holes in our team that Posey would. McGuire’s outside shot is improving, but Posey could be our 3-point specialist that we have missed ever since Roger Mason left. Combine that with his stellar wing defense, and I still think he is worth the contract space that Etan Thomas currently fills.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on May 21, 2009 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea posey was grossely overrated coming out of Boston
From Richmond to the District
by pas493 on May 21, 2009 12:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Really?
I think most teams would be pleasantly surprised if any player they picked after Griffin and Rubio turned out to be as good as Posey.
So nobody in this draft will post a 10.8 PER? At age 32?
I can’t even believe we’re having this discussion about James Posey. Would you trade the fifth pick for Michael Finley? Darius Songaila? Eduardo Najera? All three of those guys were better than Posey this season.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 12:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
PER Doesn't Reflect Defense
You know that. So to say someone is “better” just because they have a better PER is too simplistic and not like you. Are all of those players you listed better than Bruce Bowen? Because you can make the same argument with PER, which is why your argument is invalid. Besides, most of those players you listed wouldn’t even fill a role for our team, other than Songaila, who already does.
And yes, I don’t think there are any sure-thing starters anywhere in this draft after Griffin and Rubio. There, I said it. And even if there was a starter to be found, he would probably be a sleeper that could still be had at #21. It looks like a draft full of role players after the first two picks, which is fine, because we need good role players. But I wouldn’t mind picking one up in a trade, especially because that player would come immediately ready to contribute. After all, we are planning a run for the title in the next 3 years, aren’t we? I believe that no one we could pick up at #5 is guaranteed to be any better than James Posey in his first 3 years.
Posey does look like his game declined a bit in New Orleans, but he still shot well from behind the arc (3-point specialist that we need), and he still had a 56.8% TS%, which we could really use off of the bench. Plus, assuming his defense is still as solid as it was in Boston, we could really use his help on the wing. Either Dominic or Posey could slide over to SG and play together at times, which would really help hide Dominic’s liabilities while on offense and allow him to focus on passing and grabbing offensive rebounds.
So yes, I am seriously having this discussion. Feel free to stop at any time. But I think you are a little too optimistic if you think we can garner a sure-bet starter from the junk in this draft after the first two picks.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on May 21, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Posey isn't that good on defense either
Too slow to guard top perimeter threats and not big enough to check post players. When he was younger, he could bother some perimeter players, but no longer. His defense in Boston looked better because he had Kevin Garnett and Kendrick Perkins behind him, which allowed him to play right in perimeter threats’ faces and hack away. If they got by him, there was a ton of help waiting. New Orleans didn’t defend better with him on the court this year. To compare him to a prime Bruce Bowen is crazy.
PER was obviously shorthand there. Posey can’t rebound like McGuire, dribble like McGuire or even play without the ball like McGuire. Posey’s only saving grace at this point is that he can hit a three-pointer. So can Michael Finley. So can Kelenna Azubuike. So can Anthony Morrow. So can Maurice Evans, Raja Bell, Kirk Hinrich, Daniel Gibson, Linas Kleiza, Brandon Rush, Daequan Cook, Bobby Simmons, Rasual Butler, Morris Peterson, Martell Webster, Andres Nocioni, Francisco Garcia, Jason Kapono, Anthony Parker and Kyle Korver. Would you trade the fifth pick in any draft for those guys? You’re treating the pick like it’s a second-rounder. It may be a weak draft, but it’s not that weak.
Posey’s exactly the type of player that we don’t need, because we can fill his current production with a guy worth half his price.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 1:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Think it is That Weak
I’m surprised you no longer think Posey can defend. On/off court statistics can be misleading, because it doesn’t take into account how well a player does in his individual matchups, nor does it reflect the quality of player that replaces him when he’s not on the floor. If you go by on/off statistics, then Posey’s defense in New Orleans was actually better than it was in Boston, so I won’t go by them.
Regardless, if Posey’s defense that made you covet him last offseason has mysteriously vanished now, then it is what it is. But to answer your question, I would trade the #5 pick in this terrible draft for the following players you listed:
Raja Bell
Kirk Hinrich
Daniel Gibson
Andres Nocioni
Jason Kapono
Kyle Korver
We will be lucky to get a player at #5 in this draft to produce what any of those guys can regularly produce, IMO.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on May 21, 2009 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
For #5? Really?
Raja Bell
Kirk Hinrich
Daniel Gibson
Andres Nocioni
Jason Kapono
Kyle Korver
This might not be the greatest draft of all time but I think you are seriously undervaluing our pick. I have heard that “upcoming draft will be the worst draft ever” more then once, and most of the time, it ends up being not as bad as previously thought.
I mean Daniel freakin Gibson for #5? Or an aging Bell?
You been hanging out with Chris Wallace?
by DT711 on May 21, 2009 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just Look at the 2000 Draft
Yes, there were NBA starters in there, but they were spread out all over the place. Jamaal Crawford at 8. Hedo Türkoğlu at 16. DeShawn Stevenson at 23. Michael Redd at 43. I expect the same thing to happen this year. The draft is so uncertain that I feel we have just as good of a chance of getting a quality player at 21 then we would at 5. So why not trade down and pick up a solid veteran who can immediately make our team better?
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on May 21, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, whatever
If you’d trade the fifth pick in this draft for those guys, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’m stunned, but I won’t talk you out of it.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 2:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why is it so Surprising?
This kind of thing has happened before. Admittedly, Mike Miller wasn’t too bad at #5, but what about Marcus Fizer at #4? Would you trade him for those guys I listed? Would that be crazy?
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on May 21, 2009 3:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's too simplistic a way to determine a pick's value
We have no idea if Fizer was the target of the team picking. We don’t know how well Fizer would have developed if he was on another team. Chicago had Brand already and reportedly never wanted Fizer, drafting him to trade him. We don’t know how he could have developed elsewhere.
With the pick that netted them Fizer, the trading team could have drafted any of the guys below Fizer who have turned out better, and they also could have developed those guys better because they’d be better fits. The ability to pick from a wider selection cannot be understated; it’s a major portion of the pick’s value as well.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But That's the Point
In a weak draft, there is no way of knowing how to separate the wheat from the chaff beforehand. It’s a crap shoot. Would the Bulls have been any better off had they selected DerMarr Johnson (#6 overall)? What about if they went with Joel Przybilla (#9 overall), Keyon Dooling (#10 overall), or Jérome Moïso (#11 overall)? No one knew that those guys wouldn’t pan out when they got drafted. And I don’t think you can blame all of the problems with this draft on lack of development or not filling a team’s specific role. At the time, all of them were considered better prospects than Michael Redd or Hedo Türkoglu.
Of course it’s nice to have a wider selection. But in a terrible draft with so much uncertainty, being able to pick up a quality NBA veteran who you know will contribute to your team right away can be understated a lot less than picking #5 in this mess of a draft. And there is still a reasonable chance that you can pick up a quality player later on who every other GM slept on.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on May 21, 2009 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
So basically
Teams won’t want to move up in the draft because they’ll want fewer choices? I’m having trouble following your logic there. Nobody ever wants fewer choices.
Remember, when we’re talking about trading the pick, it’s how much the other guy values it that matters, not us.
And regardless, the pick isn’t worth an eighth man. Which Posey, Bell, Gibson, Kapono and Korver are. And it’s not really worth a sixth man either, which is what Korver is. I really can’t talk you off the ledge anymore on that subject, though. Applying a tit-for-tat approach (“but Kapono turned out better than Marcus Fizer”) misses the point.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The second Korver=Hinrich
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 3:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You Are Ignoring an Important Part of My Argument
And you are being silly. Of course you want more choices. If the choice is between more choices or fewer choices, then you would obviously select more choices. But if the choice is between more choices that give you a 30% chance of getting a quality player, and less choices that give you a 15% chance of getting a quality player plus a proven, sure-thing, immediate-contributor, veteran role player who fills needs your team has, then it is reasonable to select option B. That is what I’m saying.
In most other drafts, trading down would significantly reduce your chances of getting a quality player, it would be more like giving up a 70% chance for a 15% chance. But I don’t think that is the case in this draft. I believe there will be a few surprises, but those surprises won’t all come in picks 5 through 10. There will probably be as many NBA starters to come after pick 10 as there will be between 5 and 10, if the 2000 draft is any example.
Why would another team trade up? Maybe they really have a feel for guy, like the Knicks do for Curry (who we probably wouldn’t take anyway). Maybe a team would like to unload a player anyway, like the Bulls want to do with Hinrich, and would be willing to leverage him to increase their chances of filling a need in another area. Maybe a team is in the middle of a rebuilding project and thinks they can develop one of the raw prospects. Who knows? But my point is if a team is willing, and we don’t know exactly who we want, then we should use our asset to acquire immediate help that can help us make our run for a championship, which even you admitted has to take place in the next couple of years.
I still don’t see how that qualifies me for the loony bin, as you seem to suggest.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on May 21, 2009 4:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
But my point is if a team is willing, and we don’t know exactly who we want, then we should use our asset to acquire immediate help that can help us make our run for a championship, which even you admitted has to take place in the next couple of years.
We don’t disagree there. I lose you when you say James Posey and Jason Kapono qualify. Both those guys are no good anymore by practically any measure imaginable. I really can’t give you any more proof.
If the options are to trade down for James Posey or use the pick, then we should use the pick.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Basically
James Posey isn’t worth moving down 16 spots, and Jason Kapono and his crappy contract isn’t worth moving down four.
Forget “veteran” help. At some point, you need to acquire guys who can play.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 4:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I rate Posey as an excellent sixth man.
He’s the perfect type of role player — can play three positions, defend four positions. He’s a very good rebounder. He’s a good man-to-man defender and a very good team defender. He’s an excellent shooter who is highly efficient overall offensively. He plays within himself and rarely makes any mistakes.
Just about everything James Posey does adds a positive to his team, and his negatives are very rare. That’s valuable.
by NBR on May 23, 2009 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree — James Posey is not worth the fifth pick. He could be got for an expiring contract and another asset.
by NBR on May 23, 2009 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Does anyone know how committed to Hinrich the Bulls are?
He seemed invaluable in the playoffs, and if they lose Gordon, they might want to keep him as a kind of swiss army knife sixth man who can play three positions and do everything well. Then again, who else would give Ben Gordon more than seven or eight million a year?
by pantslessyoda1 on May 21, 2009 1:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
They need to move him this year
If their plans on trying to sign an impact FA next year are true. His contract is worth 9 million and declines annually, which is right at the threshold of a bad/decent/serviceable contract for a guard of his skill set.
He didn’t play a huge role in their rotation during the regular season, partly because of injury, but if they want to get value back I expect them to sell high after his play in the playoffs.
Dear Diary, JACKPOT!!!!!!!!!!
by Evander holyfield on May 21, 2009 6:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Makes sense
Plus, nine million is way too much to pay for, what the fourth guard in their rotation? If I were the Bulls, I’d keep him before I kept Gordon, but if they’re looking to deal, we’ve got to be there to take advantage of it.
by pantslessyoda1 on May 21, 2009 8:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Hinrich deal makes the most sense
But I had to jump in to correct the points about the Jamison deal. The Laettner and Stackhouse contracts were not bad ones. Laettner had one year left on his deal, so when the Wizards traded him, they were losing cap space the next off-season. Stackhouse, I believe, had two years left on his deal at the time, so there was cap space possibilities there, too, plus he was a really good player. Finally, recall that the Wizards drafted Harris, THEN traded him to Dallas. That’s because, to match Jamison’s huge contract, the Wizards needed to add together the THREE contracts of Harris, Stackhouse and Laettner. To say that the Laettner and Stackhouse contracts were horrendous just isn’t true.
by disgrunted on May 21, 2009 6:01 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Let's remember though
The Wizards drafted Harris SPECIFICALLY for Dallas. At the time, they didn’t need a PG as they already had obtained Arenas. If the trade had not gone through, the Wizards probably would have drafted Luol Deng.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 21, 2009 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True about those contracts in 05
But isn’t that the case for Etan’s and Mike James’ contracts this year? They have been horrible contracts thus far, and if we let them expire they will give us cap space. I think the consensus is we should turn those expiring contracts into veteran talent, just like we did with Laettner and Stackhouse.
Stackhouse has been a mistake of a trade since we traded away Rip Hamilton, and he was on a decline when we traded him away. Laettner was just a bum. Any trade in the lottery is contingent on a specific player being available for the other team, thus drafting and trading Harris to Dallas to replace Nash.
I think the scenarios are very similar.
Dear Diary, JACKPOT!!!!!!!!!!
by Evander holyfield on May 21, 2009 6:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hinrich is intersting
But I’m not sure he’s quite right or enough to make the trade.
I don’t think a small guard is what the Wizards need. Also I’m quite interested in seeing what McGuire brings to the table at SG alongside Arenas, Butler, Jamison and Haywood. Yes, we all know he’s not an outside shooter, but no lineup is absolutely perfect. He’ll play strong defense, is very good at ball distribution, and will provide some rebounding that will make up for the team being a tad smallish at the forward position.
There are likely better fits out there than McGuire so I’m all for testing the waters. But there’s gotta be a clear upgrade. And this player should be primarily a SG. I don’t think the Wizards should head into the season with two PGs in the starting rotation, unless the other one is really good, and big enough to play the 2.
by Johnnie Futbol on May 21, 2009 9:32 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This is what I was wondering
The expected value for our #5 pick.
I agree that McGuire’s emergence at G plays a huge role next year. But after Crittenton, who do we have to back up Arenas next year? Deshawn? Mike James doesn’t even count – he should not see the light of day next year. We are still thin at PG, and even if we do end up starting McGuire, we would still be getting a guy in Hinrich who gives us the things we lack the most in our backcourt who can either start or be a 6th man – a PG/SG who can handle, pass, drive, play defense, and shoot from outside.
Dear Diary, JACKPOT!!!!!!!!!!
by Evander holyfield on May 21, 2009 6:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even with Hinrich
and Arenas, and Crittenton – —
The Wizards still probably need to pick up a small lightning quick pure PG (like Dee Brown) – to put on the end of the bench…. It would be nice if they could draft Darren Collison – the kid can really play defense… and it would be nice to have someone like that on the bench to play solid Defense against some of those skidder-bug fast PG’s
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 21, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
But it would be nice to be able to draft Collison and get a PG who can run the team with Arenas out of the game immediately. That is why I threw Pech into the trade – to even the salaries and to give us a chance to use our 2nd rounder. Our PG spot is super thin right now, and EG needs to do something to fix that because Gil CANNOT play 40 minutes next year, and at this point, he will have to.
Dear Diary, JACKPOT!!!!!!!!!!
by Evander holyfield on May 21, 2009 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't mind the Hinrich trade too much
But I think we can get him without surrendering the fifth pick. He has a crap long-term contract and he plays the same position as Chicago’s best player, so it’s not like he has a ton of value.
You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.
by Mike Prada on May 21, 2009 11:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes, But
He would be a lot more valuable to other teams, and the Bulls realize that. I think Chicago would rather see him come off the bench for 20 MPG then give him up for nothing more than garbage. Without the 5th pick, we would be essentially giving the Bulls garbage in the proposed trade.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on May 21, 2009 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
to be precise, garbage (Pecherov) and a $6.4 Million expiring contract….
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 21, 2009 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
They gave up Larry Hughes
for garbage (Anthony Roberson), expiring contract (Jerome James) and Tim Thomas….
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 21, 2009 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I Think They Might Value Hinrich More Than They Did Hughes
And Tim Thomas gave them something, if I recall.
"It's OK for the Bullets to trade baskets, as long as they can score on their end." -- Words of wisdom from Phil Chenier
by cuppettcj on May 21, 2009 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is why
in my trade scenario, I included Blatche
Thomas ($6.8M expiring) + Blatche ($2.7M) + Pecherov ($1.7M expiring) + #5 pick
for
Hinrich ($10M) + #26 pick
Thomas gives Chicago a big body inside, even if it’s only one year… and Blatche gives them another young Big to groom…. (and gets his poor attitude and work ethic out of Washington)….
(it would be nice if Ernie Grunfeld could pry the #16 pick instead of the #26 – but I’d be happy just to stay in the 1st round and pick either DeJuan Blair or Darren Collison – whichever one was available)…
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 21, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In that trade we get shafted
We have all the leverage in negotiations for Hinrich.
The Bulls will not have enough cap space to sign a marquee FA next summer without trading Hinrich. They have extensions coming for Tyrus Thomas, Noah, and Rose. Their only other options are to trade Hinrich away in a package including Thomas or Noah, which I doubt they will do.
The #5 pick is as good as a prospect the Bulls could seek in a trade for Hinrich straight up.
We need to give Blatche one more solid year, because under a new coach and with Gil in there, it is pretty much the same as a change of scenery.
Dear Diary, JACKPOT!!!!!!!!!!
by Evander holyfield on May 21, 2009 6:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You CANNOT trade a draft pick for a player - straight up
Unless the team receiving the Player’s salary is under the Salary Cap (which the Wizards are NOT)
AND I think it’s the Bulls that get shafted in the deal….
They pick up Thomas’ terrible contract (albeit for only one year) – a terrible player (Pecherov) – another player with a terrible work ethic (Blatche)…. and the only real asset they get is a #5 pick in a Draft where all the experts say there are only two really good players.
Bullets Forever - where "Dagger ! " happens......
by Rook6980 on May 21, 2009 6:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually meant straight up as
- with an expiring contract (salary relief) for Hinrich. My fault for not specifying.
Even though the experts say there are only two good players, that just is not true. When is the last time you saw only two impact players come out of a whole draft? The #5 pick will give the Bulls a young talent who they can CHOOSE from the entire draft for their specific needs AND groom alongside Rose, something not a lot of other teams could give them.
Dear Diary, JACKPOT!!!!!!!!!!
by Evander holyfield on May 21, 2009 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Blatche deserves one more year
His contract alone gives us the luxury of giving him that. And, at his modest contract, even if he does not improve he should be a good role player (his role will be reduced and simplified with Gil and BH back).
If the Bulls don’t go for 16/Hinrich for 5/Etan/Pech …. we should be able to slide back to Hinrich and #26. Those two draft picks give them a lot of trade/negotiation flexibility.
Dear Diary, JACKPOT!!!!!!!!!!
by Evander holyfield on May 21, 2009 6:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think the Bulls value him that much right now
Only because of his contract. But other teams will value his skill set. We would have to give up some type of prospect in addition to an expiring. I’d rather give up our #5 pick than Nick Young or Andray Blatche at this point.
Dear Diary, JACKPOT!!!!!!!!!!
by Evander holyfield on May 21, 2009 6:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
