RockRaines Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 09:25 AM) One source insists that, with the Kings trade, Bulls GM John Paxson felt his team had made enough moves. If thats true he wont have his job for very long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JorgeFabregas Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Hollinger's take: Chicago: This is an outstanding deal for the Bulls, who dump one bad contract in Nocioni and get a big boost for the playoff run with Salmons and Miller. Of course, the Bulls were hoping to strike richer with their combination of Drew Gooden's expiring contract and the $5 million exception from the Joe Smith trade, but once Chris Bosh and Amare Stoudemire were off the table this was the next best option. The moves set the Bulls up for a nice free-agent run in 2010, especially if Salmons opts out of his contract that year. And since Chicago is enough of a major league city to be a free-agent lure despite its blustery weather, the Bulls stand a decent chance of ending up with Bosh or Stoudemire via that route a year and a half down the road. In the short term it helps too. In Miller, the Bulls get a physical interior player who can shoot and pass, and one who may be rejuvenated by playing on a better team. He should be an excellent complement to the Bulls' more athletic but less skilled combo of Tyrus Thomas and Joakim Noah. Certainly he's better than Aaron Gray. As for Salmons, he's quietly become among the most productive two-way wing players in the league and should supplant Larry Hughes and Thabo Sefolosha in Chicago's guard rotation. If the Bulls' discussions to move Kirk Hinrich pan out, it seems Salmons' role will be nearly as large in Chicago as it was in Sacramento. Certainly he's a major upgrade over Nocioni, who had taken to hoisting wild shots, and could put the Bulls over the top in their quest for a playoff berth. However, if I'm wrong and the Bulls can't carve out playing time for Salmons, there could be trouble. The one negative about Salmons is his reputation as a me-first guy who gripes if he's not getting lots of minutes and shots. Grade: A-minus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shipps Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 That one negative he has to say about Salmons I dont like hearing. Griping about playing time is in abundance on this Bulls team already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 There is talk that the NBA recently sent out a warning about the luxury tax and salary cap levels going down, next year, not up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBAHO Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 12:08 PM) There is talk that the NBA recently sent out a warning about the luxury tax and salary cap levels going down, next year, not up. Yep hence why so many teams are desperate for expiring contracts right now. The Nets would probably trade Vince Carter for Raef LaFrentz right now if they could. That's how bad things are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 QUOTE (DBAHO @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 11:10 AM) Yep hence why so many teams are desperate for expiring contracts right now. The Nets would probably trade Vince Carter for Raef LaFrentz right now if they could. That's how bad things are. Looks like you're spot on. Report: Nets trying to 'give Carter away' With today's trade deadline looming, the Nets are believed to be doing all they can to unload Vince Carter, with ESPN citing two league executives who said the team is trying to "give Carter away." Carter is guaranteed $33 million over the next two seasons, which could be more than teams are willing to dole out in this economy, but it will be interesting to see if some team gets him for pennies on the dollar. The Rockets and Blazers have been among the teams talking to the Nets. Feb. 19 - 10:08 am et Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Bulls are about to make another deal. Hughes for Tim Thomas and Jerome James. Why get a guy we sent home previously just to get rid of a guy we are sending home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo's Drinker Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 11:38 AM) Bulls are about to make another deal. Hughes for Tim Thomas and Jerome James. Why get a guy we sent home previously just to get rid of a guy we are sending home? The NBA confuses me in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JorgeFabregas Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Got a link? That just seems to be one of the many rumors floating around out there--among other deals involving Hughes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 01:14 PM) Got a link? That just seems to be one of the many rumors floating around out there--among other deals involving Hughes. Chad Ford had it in his chat. Marc Stein also has it. Says its awaiting league approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Link KC has it officially at the Tribune. The Bulls finally found a home for Larry Hughes. Amusingly enough, it took bringing back formerly banished Bull Tim Thomas to do so. Multiple league sources confirmed that the Bulls traded Hughes to the Knicks for Thomas, seldom-used big man Jerome James and Anthony Roberson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 Link KC has it officially at the Tribune. The Bulls finally found a home for Larry Hughes. Amusingly enough, it took bringing back formerly banished Bull Tim Thomas to do so. Multiple league sources confirmed that the Bulls traded Hughes to the Knicks for Thomas, seldom-used big man Jerome James and Anthony Roberson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 12:33 PM) Link KC has it officially at the Tribune. What does this do for the salary cap implications in a couple of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 QUOTE (JorgeFabregas @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 12:14 PM) Got a link? That just seems to be one of the many rumors floating around out there--among other deals involving Hughes. I only report them as done deals if they will be done deals son! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 10:37 AM) What does this do for the salary cap implications in a couple of years. Took me a minute to do the subtraction and I posted it first at Talkbulls Cap implications: Both James and Thomas expire at the end of 2010. Hughes's contract has $13,655,268 on it for 2010. James has $6.2 million this year and $6.6 million on it next year, Thomas has $6 million this year and $6.45 on it next year. Roberson makes $797k this year and has an $850k team option next year. Bulls take on 220k in salary this year, take on $267k next year if they pick up Roberson's option, save $589k if they don't. That's assuming no one has a trade escalator clause in their contract. No change in 2010 unless someone is extended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 I don't understand this trade at all unless Tim Thomas was a Scott Skiles problem and not a Bulls problem (I wouldn't see the team eating as much money as it did if it was) or they are going to move Thomas along somewhere else, or they are going to tell him to stay home again and are somehow saving some money. They were close to the luxury threshold. I don't know where they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 01:41 PM) Took me a minute to do the subtraction and I posted it first at Talkbulls Cap implications: Both James and Thomas expire at the end of 2010. Hughes's contract has $13,655,268 on it for 2010. James has $6.2 million this year and $6.6 million on it next year, Thomas has $6 million this year and $6.45 on it next year. Roberson makes $797k this year and has an $850k team option next year. Bulls take on 220k in salary this year, take on $267k next year if they pick up Roberson's option, save $589k if they don't. That's assuming no one has a trade escalator clause in their contract. No change in 2010 unless someone is extended. James is done. Thomas, I can't see them playing, are they going to pay him to go home again? I want his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 12:41 PM) Took me a minute to do the subtraction and I posted it first at Talkbulls Cap implications: Both James and Thomas expire at the end of 2010. Hughes's contract has $13,655,268 on it for 2010. James has $6.2 million this year and $6.6 million on it next year, Thomas has $6 million this year and $6.45 on it next year. Roberson makes $797k this year and has an $850k team option next year. Bulls take on 220k in salary this year, take on $267k next year if they pick up Roberson's option, save $589k if they don't. That's assuming no one has a trade escalator clause in their contract. No change in 2010 unless someone is extended. So it was totally to get rid of Hughes. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 10:41 AM) I don't understand this trade at all unless Tim Thomas was a Scott Skiles problem and not a Bulls problem (I wouldn't see the team eating as much money as it did if it was) or they are going to move Thomas along somewhere else, or they are going to tell him to stay home again and are somehow saving some money. They were close to the luxury threshold. I don't know where they are now. I'm not sure it makes sense on its own either. Thomas is the Ugh we already know, I'm sure he's looking forwards to playing with the Bulls. James hasn't played since December and is out for the rest of the season with a Ruptured Achilles tendon, and I doubt he has a Contreras like work ethic to come back before next season starts. This move seems like rearranging parts that will never play for us unless it's tied to some other move that needed a smaller salary than Hughes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MurcieOne Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 12:44 PM) I'm not sure it makes sense on its own either. Thomas is the Ugh we already know, I'm sure he's looking forwards to playing with the Bulls. James hasn't played since December and is out for the rest of the season with a Ruptured Achilles tendon, and I doubt he has a Contreras like work ethic to come back before next season starts. nicley done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 01:44 PM) I'm not sure it makes sense on its own either. Thomas is the Ugh we already know, I'm sure he's looking forwards to playing with the Bulls. James hasn't played since December and is out for the rest of the season with a Ruptured Achilles tendon, and I doubt he has a Contreras like work ethic to come back before next season starts. This move seems like rearranging parts that will never play for us unless it's tied to some other move that needed a smaller salary than Hughes. Maybe its just a trade to have some cold bodies on the bench in case of emergency. James will never play again supposedly. Thomas can stay home and be like Hughes. Roberson could be the extra body. I hope Pax makes another move today although I doubt it. I don't see the benefit of the Bulls squeaking into the playoffs this season except for the extra gate the team would like to have. Miss out and see if a miracle can happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 12:44 PM) I'm not sure it makes sense on its own either. Thomas is the Ugh we already know, I'm sure he's looking forwards to playing with the Bulls. James hasn't played since December and is out for the rest of the season with a Ruptured Achilles tendon, and I doubt he has a Contreras like work ethic to come back before next season starts. This move seems like rearranging parts that will never play for us unless it's tied to some other move that needed a smaller salary than Hughes. I am guessing if they brought back Thomas, that was all about Scott Skiles. We all know the guy had issues with players, and especially ones he felt weren't working hard enough. Thomas also fits right into the rotation, as he can score a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 01:50 PM) I am guessing if they brought back Thomas, that was all about Scott Skiles. We all know the guy had issues with players, and especially ones he felt weren't working hard enough. Thomas also fits right into the rotation, as he can score a bit. Seems your right: I played with Tim for a couple years and had him in Phoenix. I didn't have any problem with him. I enjoyed playing with him," Bulls coach Vinny Del Negro said. "That was a long time ago. I'll sit down and talk to Tim, tell him what I expect from him, what his role is. I expect him to be professional and go do his job. He has the ability to help us." I'm fascinated they ate all that money because Skiles didn't like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) Seems your right: I played with Tim for a couple years and had him in Phoenix. I didn't have any problem with him. I enjoyed playing with him," Bulls coach Vinny Del Negro said. "That was a long time ago. I'll sit down and talk to Tim, tell him what I expect from him, what his role is. I expect him to be professional and go do his job. He has the ability to help us." I'm fascinated they ate all that money because Skiles didn't like him. The trade really wouldn't have made sense at if there wasn't a reason Thomas was willing to come back here. They aren't gaining any cap room, so they must have thought Thomas was better than Hughes. If the choice was keep Hughes or someone else disgruntled, they would have been better off to just buy Hughes out. As it turns out they got a guy who helps them out right away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 19, 2009 Share Posted February 19, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 19, 2009 -> 11:06 AM) As it turns out they got a guy who helps them out right away. Plus they get another guy to take minutes away from Tyrus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts