Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The players:

Bull:

Jamal Crawford,Eddie Robinson,Brick Runson,Jeff Chriseries,Marcus Fizer,Corie Blount

Hawk:

Alan Henderson,Boris Diaw,Jacque Vaughn,Travis Hansen,Nazr Mohammed

The combinations:

1. JC, ER, RB, CJ for A. Henderson, B. Diaw, J. Vaughn, T. Hansen and a swap of 2004 1st round picks if the Atlanta pick is better.

Bull: Lose the ER contract for the 1 year shorter AH contract. Get Diaw(who compared his own game(style not level) to Pippen), a mini upgrade at backup 1(Kansas connection), say bye bye to CJ for a rookie 2.
Get the better of the picks.

Hawk: Placate the whining Jason Terry with fellow Seattle guard JC. Still get a good pick.

2. JC, ER, RB, MF, CB for AH, BD, JV, TH, Nazr Mohammed & the Bull can exchange their 2 2nd round picks for any 2 of Atlanta's 3 if Atlanta's are better.

Similar to #1 but without Chris "lockdown" Jefferies & with MF, CB for N. Mohammed. Since I consider MF, CB for NM an upgrade for the Bull, the pick enhancement is less to compensate.

Bull: Same as #1 with less pick enhancement but they get a long term backup 5(Chicago guy right?).

Hawk: Keep their probably better pick but give up Nazr M..


Bull salaries
Hawk salaries

Would probably be done just before the trade deadline. At that point in time it could better be determined if the Bull were playoff bound(they're not) and the Hawk would have less time to improve their record which would be in the interest of the Bull to keep bad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
Originally posted by <b>L.O.B</b>!
How would this trade make the Bulls better? I kept looking at the players the Hawks would be giving up and wondered who is any good out of that mess?
Exactly. I get a kick out of people who propose trades for scrubs or with role players on teams that suck and expect the Bulls to benefit from it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
It all has to do with the value one places on Deng or a similar prime 3 candidate. I think it's more difficult to find a 3 of Deng's potential than a 2 of JC's reality.

1.
JC > Diaw
ER = AH
RB < JV
CJ < TH
Bull pick < Hawk pick
Bull shed $/Hawk add $

2.
JC > Diaw
ER = AH
RB < JV
(MF + CB) < NM
Bull improve picks/Hawk downgrade picks

Thank you all for the comments. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
Originally posted by <b>Lusty RaRue</b>!
It all has to do with the value one places on Deng or a similar prime 3 candidate. I think it's more difficult to find a 3 of Deng's potential than a 2 of JC's reality.
If we want a particular draft pick, we're better off trading after the draft order is assigned than just trying to lose as much has possible in order to assume a high pick.

The risks and obvious drawbacks of making a trade ahead of time to tank the season and get more lottery balls are incredibly obvious. It's a foolish strategy and I've yet to see it work.

Without going into the probabilities, it's pretty clear that losing just to gain more lottery balls doesn't affirm us a certain draft position. We have the worst record and we end up with the 4th pick two years in a row. We have a better record and then move get lucky and get the #2 pick. We'd have a slightly better probability of getting who we want, but at the cost of 1) a certainty of more losing and 2) huge risks owing to the significant probabilities that the guy you want now won't be the guy you'd want then, and that even if he is, you might not get him anyway.

That's no way to go about making decisions.

Not to mention how dumb it'd be to to do all this for a specific player and then find that he 1) suffers a major injury, 2) turns out to suck and his stock falls precipitously, 3) someone else wants him and trades ahead of us to get him at the last minute, leaving us screwed, or most laughably, 4) he doesn't even declare for the draft.

Any GM who seriously undertakes such a strategy should be immediately releived of his duties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
The Bull get the better of: their own pick or the Hawk pick. As the original post says it's CONTINGENT upon which is better.
This answers most of the bouncing ball concern. Not all but the odds are significantly better.

JC is the most likely trade bait.
How do the Bull trade him at draft time for better terms?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
Well, I'd imagine they just offer him (or whomever else) up with our pick.

Last year Marshall plus #7 was enough to move up to #4, so I wouldn't be too shocked to see Jamal worth something similar.

The contingency does nothing for me. Are our odds significantly better? Maybe. But at the same time, it's inescapable that we have a significant chance of failure in the lottery even if we had the very best odds. That is, it really does nothing to answer the bouncing ball concerns, because there is no possible way to answer them. There's inherently an unacceptably high risk built into such a strategy, topped off by the fact it puts us into the position of trying to lose again.

Does it never occur to anyone that for all the talk about the Bulls trying to teach kids like Curry and Crawford how to play hard, play to win, and in general have the right attitudes, their recent history provides a pretty pathetic example?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
70,380 Posts
Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
I don't think Atlanta will do anything that will hurt their chances of getting Dwight Howard(he's the one from Georgia right?). I think they are trying to pull a Cavaliers/Lebron James tactic.
Why? It isn't like we get JC and suddenly move out of the top 10 lol.... as long as yer in the top 10, u still get ping pong balls
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
Well, I'd imagine they just offer him (or whomever else) up with our pick.

Last year Marshall plus #7 was enough to move up to #4, so I wouldn't be too shocked to see Jamal worth something similar.

The contingency does nothing for me. Are our odds significantly better? Maybe. But at the same time, it's inescapable that we have a significant chance of failure in the lottery even if we had the very best odds. That is, it really does nothing to answer the bouncing ball concerns, because there is no possible way to answer them. There's inherently an unacceptably high risk built into such a strategy, topped off by the fact it puts us into the position of trying to lose again.

Does it never occur to anyone that for all the talk about the Bulls trying to teach kids like Curry and Crawford how to play hard, play to win, and in general have the right attitudes, their recent history provides a pretty pathetic example?
1. You're right this is risky and the talent deficit in these deals is greater than the Sun deals.

2. JC CAN'T be offered up with the pick at draft time without a salary relief valve like San Antonio was for Indiana this past summer. Poison pill/BYC issues. The third party(not the Bull) sets terms. Could a 3rd team be found? Would the gift required(SA got Turkoglu) be any less than than the talent deficit in the trade? How would it net out? Kind of risky.

3. The premium for moving up increases towards the top of the draft. The premium increase is not linear.

4. As the draft gets closer, the fog will clear and prices will firm up. There is greater risk in acting before then for the same reason but the price is usually lower too.

5. Even with the risk that the player desired goes higher than the pick there is certainty that the pick would be better than without these stupid deals. Having that better pick already in hand enhances the Bull chances of "getting their man" if the pick alone was not sufficient.

Is there a prohibition against post ball bouncing determination of who gets the pick in the CBA? If so then I agree with you(and the above isn't correct). I know of no such restriction but I'm ignorant and have never heard of such a deal.

If it's not allowed and the Bull get more balls but not a "guaranteed" better pick(post bouncing determination) then I wouldn't do this deal but think I'd still do the Sun one.

6. "Trying to lose"? I don't agree. Trades done around the deadline are calculated risks I can live with.

The players will have had ample opportunity to give reason to believe the Bull are legit or just pretenders by then. The quick trigger(my stupid opinion) Paxson used in the Rose for Davis deal makes another deal before the deadline involving an aquired player or players combined with others possible. Had he waited, they wouldn't be eligible(if combined with other players). If he does deal, I don't think he'll deal a young healthy player who has made the commitment to winning I think Paxson is now insisting on.

Committment to winning needs to be mutual. Would it be right to keep players not committed to winning?

AD,CB,KG have provided effort and actual performance but they're too old for me to not consider trading despite their commitment to winning. SP same thing or at least he's too old.

"J", offer to pay him for next year(Prorated) and I don't see the problem dealing this committed "winner".

It's nice to see that you are now open to dealing "J" and at least some of the "oldies but goodies". A welcome change. :)

JYD is committed but not important enough to say no to a deal although I wouldn't initiate one.

Fizer I might sign because he's dropped so low(cynical I know but BYC may not be an issue with him and if he ever recovered his iso "O" game of last season he could be dealt or kept) and is a bench player but he's available if I were GM and I don't see why he shouldn't be.

ER traded would breach a commitment to winning? :no:

CJ? RB? RD? :no:

EC likes to check with his union rep to see if extra work is permitted so I wouldn't call him a self starter committed to winning but I don't want to deal him because of his position, he's not due for an extension, he's had 1 less year than JC, he's not a tool(there's hope).

TC is committed to winning. I think his work habits are better but the health problems have held him back. I don't want TC traded.

KH? Well I wanted Paxson to draft a wing to complete the STARTING lineup instead of drafting a backup(his description if not the actual word) but he's here and I prefer him to JC at the 1.

That leaves JC. Why is JC talked about so much in trade deals? He's a starter with a deal due for an extension but his role has changed and he's been inconsistent. He's not a tool, he has talent so he has trade value. It's very difficult to deal him after the deadline relative to before it. That's all it is for me.

If a player who commits to Rucker Park in a summer when "No excuses" is the motto and shoots about .405 career and in his 4th year needs to be coached(yeah right as if he doesn't know) to elevate his arms on defense and drive if his shot isn't falling, who even very recently has been benched for failure to comply with what the coach wants(and I presume he agreed to carry out), who couldn't come to terms in the summer of '03(it was a -mutual- agreement to not extend) but would be difficult to trade after the deadline is traded from a team not going to the playoffs anyway(the Bull haven't won 3 in a row all season), I don't think that's "trying to lose" but as your signature says: there's no arguing about tastes.

Thank you and all the posters who responded. :)

I won't post trades anymore. I prefer to keep the peace.

Life is beautiful.:cool:
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top