NBA Offseason Thread

[southsider2k5]

The reluctance towards a hypothetical Carmelo trade is reminiscent of the hand-wringing over sending Gordon/Deng for Kobe. It's quite silly. Keep in mind that Carmelo is less than a year older than Noah. I think that Noah has just about maxed out his potential.

 

Edit: Not that the Kobe trade was going to happen. I don't know if this one is any more likely.

 

The big problem is that if you have nothing to surround stars with, you still have nothing. If we don't defend or rebound, we aren't going anywhere anyway.

[Steve9347]

This is the Bulls. They have the money to spend, so spend it. Noah is one of the top 5 centers in the league and he's entering his what, 4th year? Young, skilled, energetic and all about the team. I dunno if there's any player in the league like him, let alone a center. Plus, he's becoming a fan favorite.

 

I say sign him for what he wants and make him happy.

Sure, if you ignore stats and reality. You can chop off a few guys like Oden, Marc Gasol, Mohammed who we know are not as valuable, at least right now, but that was quite the sweeping, inaccurate statement. Joakim might be a top 10 center in the league.

 

 

And I love how the entire argument spawns from the possibility of acquiring Carmelo f***ing Anthony while only adding Deng and a pick or two. Deng has NEGATIVE value. But who cares? Why nab the 26-year old arguably top 10 player and easily top 5 scorer in the league to pair with the up-and-coming Derrick Rose and start legitimate NBA Championship discussion? Who wants to do THAT?

 

 

Of course, the Bulls are going to screw this up, and stupidly hold onto Noah, and then sign him for way too much. (How can you not if you refuse to trade him for CARMELO ANTHONY!?)

 

And then repeat the cycle the Bulls have been on since Jordan left and overpay undeserving players and refuse the luxury tax. HOORAY!

Edited September 23, 2010 by Steve9347

[Balta1701]

I don't have time to type my reply before a seminar but I want to leave with this point:

Remember the good old days, when a player was simply either good or bad? The contract never really mattered, but the salary cap era has changed all that. Now, we turn around and say "_____ is overpaid" to describe 90% of the league. We often dismiss what a player is good at simply because his salary is off putting.

 

I'm going to let you in on a secret. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. When you think the whole league is overpaid, you're wrong. You just haven't accepted the market rate. The reason why teams make the "overpayment mistake" over and over is because it's not a mistake. It's the better than the alternative of letting guys leave for another team and being left with crap.

 

Look, I'll freely admit, I've been as guilty of it as the next guy. In fact, I've led the movement in the xyz is overpaid camp largely because I've been planning for the Bulls to hit 2010 free agency for two seasons and wanted to make sure they had cap space. However, that era is over, that time has passed. It's time to go all in.

 

Fans often get upset when teams sign good players to high paying deals and lock themselves into mediocrity. They nod their head in agreement to the "tank to get lottery picks and a superstar" theory even though the odds of it ever working are minuscule, and they won't go out and pay to watch those 20 win seasons while the process is on going.

 

The owners all want to win, but they also all have a bottom line agenda to feed, and quite frankly, being locked into the first round is more exciting than being locked into the pursuit of a lotto pick when it comes to ticket sales, merchandise sales, and advertising revenue.

 

Take Atlanta for instance, they "overpaid" Joe Johnson. What were they going to do if they didn't overpay Joe Johnson though? Lose Joe Johnson for nothing. Go from a second round playoff team to a lottery team, and watch their fledgling fan base get cut to 1/2 it's size. It's a high stakes gamble for owners, because in most sports towns, it's easy to lose tons of money by having a such a decline. Does Joe Johnson generate 126 million in revenue for the Hawks over the life of his deal? I'm not sure, but as long as he doesn't go Gilbert Arenas on them it's not as ridiculous as you think.

 

The balance between winning and profit and how one drives the other is difficult for general managers and owners to balance. Even when you're fairly sure a guy is going to disappoint you later on, if you want to commit to trying to win, you often need to sign that guy and hope for the best. The alternative is to sign someone considerably worse, who's even more likely to disappoint you, and if Atlanta didn't sign Joe Johnson they would have signed someone considerably worse or no one at all.

 

Part of the problem is the soft cap and bird rights. Teams have little flexibility to switch out players. The Hawks could keep Joe Johnson, an all-star, at a superstar price tag, or they could let him go for nothing and use their MLE on someone like Ronnie Brewer or Kyle Korver. They didn't have the luxury of playing the full market of FAs and trying to lure someone else in at 12 million, it's Johnson at 6/126 or some guy at the MLE.

 

This brings us to Luol Deng. Many people seem to have forgotten that Luol Deng is actually pretty good at basketball. The zeros on his contract seem to have blinded us to the fact that he averaged 17.6 points, 7.3 rebounds, 2 assists, almost a steal and block a game, on only two TOs and less than two PFs.

 

If we trade Luol Deng, we won't replace him with another player who can make 12 million a season. We'll replace him with someone on the MLE. We don't have the salary flexibility to do something else. Which is why at the point we were trying to free up cap space, I was a fan of trying to move Luol Dengs contract. When we needed to build room for two star players (or even three star players), then dumping Deng would have been a viable plan. We are no longer at that point.

 

We are now at the point where we're trying to win, and unless you can trade Luol Deng in a package for an upgrade (hi Carmelo), then it's foolish to start talking about trading him for expirings. We won't be under the cap, we won't utilize that money in a better way, we will be a worse basketball team.

 

Luol Deng won't prevent us from signing Derrick and Noah in the future. Management and ownership won't let that happen. The worst case scenario, worst case mind you, is that Deng will prevent us from signing Taj Gibson or keeping Brewer, Korver, Watson, or guys in that category of skill. I hope that's not the case. I hope this team is good enough that the tax isn't an issue and the check book is opened in the future.

 

 

...

As such, stop trading poor Luol Deng. There was a time for that, but that time has passed. It's no longer time to dump anyone. The days of addition by subtraction are over, the days of addition by addition are here.

[Steve9347]

Argument is invalid, as the player who WILL be overpaid and a player who IS overpaid can be traded for a player you CAN'T overpay. Let alone, the argument there certainly cannot be referencing the Carmelo Anthony talk, because he's not a MLE player, and the Bulls don't have a MLE anyway.

 

Bad, bad, bad (but long, so it must be good!) article.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Steve9347

[witesoxfan]

Sure, if you ignore stats and reality. You can chop off a few guys like Oden, Marc Gasol, Mohammed who we know are not as valuable, at least right now, but that was quite the sweeping, inaccurate statement. Joakim might be a top 10 center in the league.

 

 

And I love how the entire argument spawns from the possibility of acquiring Carmelo f***ing Anthony while only adding Deng and a pick or two. Deng has NEGATIVE value. But who cares? Why nab the 26-year old arguably top 10 player and easily top 5 scorer in the league to pair with the up-and-coming Derrick Rose and start legitimate NBA Championship discussion? Who wants to do THAT?

 

 

Of course, the Bulls are going to screw this up, and stupidly hold onto Noah, and then sign him for way too much. (How can you not if you refuse to trade him for CARMELO ANTHONY!?)

 

And then repeat the cycle the Bulls have been on since Jordan left and overpay undeserving players and refuse the luxury tax. HOORAY!

 

don't hate the player, hate the game

[Balta1701]

Argument is invalid, as the player who WILL be overpaid and a player who IS overpaid can be traded for a player you CAN'T overpay. Let alone, the argument there certainly cannot be referencing the Carmelo Anthony talk, because he's not a MLE player, and the Bulls don't have a MLE anyway.

Actually the article was referencing more the "Dumping Deng to a team with cap space because his contract overpays him" talk more than the Anthony talk.

 

At this point though I think it's correct. Once you get to a certain level in the NBA, you have 2 choices; either you overpay people to stay where you are, or you decide to let them walk or trade them and decline. At this point, overpaying someone by $2 million over what they might be worth in an ideal system isn't going to kill the Bulls.

 

Hopefully...if the NBA owners have an ounce of functioning brain matter...they find a way to change this problem next CBA. This part of the system is what has rendered it impossible to both turn a profit and to run a competitive team for the long-term.

[ZoomSlowik]

That line of thinking is exactly why there is likely to be a lockout. Teams would rather grossly overpay decent but not stellar players like Joe Johnson, Rudy Gay or Andre Iguodala than drop from mediocre to bad. It's even worse in the east because if you're even close to .500 you're in competition for the playoffs. Just look at teams like the Blazers, Sonics/Thunder or Bucks, they shed expensive contracts like Wallace, Randolph, Allen, Lewis, Jefferson and Villanueva and are in better shape now than they were before. But inept GM's and owners keep signing expensive vets chasing wins even if they aren't remotely close to contending.

 

They talk themselves into it because it kind of makes sense for the first year or two, but then three years later they're stuck paying the player an increasing amount of money due to the salary structure. You're already getting less and less value for the same guy as the contract progresses, then it gets even worse if the player starts to decline (very likely for someone like Johnson that's 29 and signed for 6 years) or the team tanks. Then you're stuck paying this guy you can't move for any value while your team wins 30 games and you can't add any significant free agents because he's taking up all of your cap space, while simultaneously spending your MLE on mediocre players chasing a contender and spending beyond your means.

 

It becomes an even BIGGER problem when you pay random scubs like Andres Nocioni or Amir Johnson $7 mil a year, which isn't all that uncommon and is a popular practice for bad teams that have to overpay to add free agents. There is basically no way that contract will ever make sense, and yet teams keep signing them.

 

If you're a big-money team like the Lakers or Bulls you can get away with it if your owner is willing to pay the luxury tax (that remains to be seen). But for most of the teams, they keep digging deeper in the hole while making little progress.

Edited September 23, 2010 by ZoomSlowik

[Balta1701]

That line of thinking is exactly why there is likely to be a lockout. Teams would rather grossly overpay decent but not stellar players like Joe Johnson, Rudy Gay or Andre Iguodala than drop from mediocre to bad. It's even worse in the east because if you're even close to .500 you're in competition for the playoffs. Just look at teams like the Blazers, Sonics/Thunder or Bucks, they shed expensive contracts like Wallace, Randolph, Allen, Lewis, Jefferson and Villanueva and are in better shape now than they were before. But inept GM's and owners keep signing expensive vets chasing wins even if they aren't remotely close to contending.

You're 100% right...this is the key problem that will drive the lockout...over-competitition and therefore over-pricing of role players. Hell, you could easily argue that Boozer's contrat is the same way.

 

At least IMO, the only way around it will be NFL style, partially-guaranteed contracts, but I'm open to better ideas if others have them.

 

Either way...I'd hate to set up the team with the idea it's going to be competitive for 1 year and then start letting people go post lockout because of money.

[ZoomSlowik]

You're 100% right...this is the key problem that will drive the lockout...over-competitition and therefore over-pricing of role players. Hell, you could easily argue that Boozer's contrat is the same way.

 

At least IMO, the only way around it will be NFL style, partially-guaranteed contracts, but I'm open to better ideas if others have them.

 

Either way...I'd hate to set up the team with the idea it's going to be competitive for 1 year and then start letting people go post lockout because of money.

 

I don't think it's possible to come up with a rule that prevents bad management. Even if their contracts were partially guaranteed, your team is still screwed for 3 years or so if you overpay someone like Baron Davis, Elton Brand, Charlie Villanueva, ect.

 

3-year deals with say 2 or 3 mutual option years would help, but teams would still make bad signings and probably stupidly pick up a lot of the option years. Plus when they inevitably lower the max deal to try to protect themselves, teams will probably talk themselves into giving it to someone like Mo Williams a lot more easily (I do kind of wonder sometimes if there would be fewer contracts in the $12-14 mil range if there were no max. Okay, guys like Lebron and Wade get their $20 mil, but does that $12 mil for someone like Deng still seem reasonable if you're not thinking to yourself "well, at least it's not the max"?)

 

If someone could somehow convince owners/GM's that maybe 10 players are really worth max money, not all big men with a pulse are worth $10 mil, and that just because you have a $6 mil MLE doesn't mean you have to give all of it to a marginal starter/bench player, the system would be fine. Unfortunately, I don't know how one would do that.

Edited September 23, 2010 by ZoomSlowik

[Balta1701]

If someone could somehow convince owners/GM's that maybe 10 players are really worth max money, not all big men with a pulse are worth $10 mil, and that just because you have a $6 mil MLE doesn't mean you have to give all of it to a marginal starter/bench player, the system would be fine. Unfortunately, I don't know how one would do that.

It's not just convincing them that they're not worth it...it's convincing them that they can win without it. And the reality is...they can't. If the Bulls let Noah walk for nothing in 2 years...they're not replacing his production cheaply. If the Bulls trade Noah before he becomes a FA, they're not likely to replace him cheaply. If the Bulls trade Deng for salary cap relief, they're not going to find a SF as good as Deng for less money.

[Jenksismyhero]

Sure, if you ignore stats and reality. You can chop off a few guys like Oden, Marc Gasol, Mohammed who we know are not as valuable, at least right now, but that was quite the sweeping, inaccurate statement. Joakim might be a top 10 center in the league.

 

 

And I love how the entire argument spawns from the possibility of acquiring Carmelo f***ing Anthony while only adding Deng and a pick or two. Deng has NEGATIVE value. But who cares? Why nab the 26-year old arguably top 10 player and easily top 5 scorer in the league to pair with the up-and-coming Derrick Rose and start legitimate NBA Championship discussion? Who wants to do THAT?

 

 

Of course, the Bulls are going to screw this up, and stupidly hold onto Noah, and then sign him for way too much. (How can you not if you refuse to trade him for CARMELO ANTHONY!?)

 

And then repeat the cycle the Bulls have been on since Jordan left and overpay undeserving players and refuse the luxury tax. HOORAY!

 

Meh, I don't care about PER numbers. They're skewed to offensive stats and they don't take into consideration intangibles. Noah is the most energetic guy in the league. He's not a me-first kind of guy. He fits perfectly with the team as-is. He's Rodman of this Bulls team - tons of rebounds, can give you the garbage buckets, a defensive presence, hustle, heart, and drive, etc. (and I used to hate him with a passion, but the Celtics series and all of last year forever changed my opinion of him).

 

And, in the east i'd prefer to have a top 3 front court instead of a top 3 back court. Denver had a better pg in Billups and reached the conference finals once in 3 years. But to each his own I guess.

[Soxbadger]

I dont consider Billups a better PG than Rose.

 

And I think that you can find high energy selfless guys to play Center.

 

Finding legitimate superstars can be more difficult.

 

With a core of Boozer, Melo and Rose, the Bulls will be able to grab guys with MLE, etc to play a defensive center position. And if Noah wont sign, he isnt really the team player everyone is making him out to be. If he wants to be a Bull, sign the contract and end the talk of being traded.

[Balta1701]

With a core of Boozer, Melo and Rose, the Bulls will be able to grab guys with MLE, etc to play a defensive center position. And if Noah wont sign, he isnt really the team player everyone is making him out to be. If he wants to be a Bull, sign the contract and end the talk of being traded.

This of course assumes that things like the veterans exemption, Bird rights, and the MLE actually do survive the CBA renegotiation.

 

Just for scale while we're talking about replacing Noah with the MLE...Brad Miller got the full MLE ($5 million) for 3 years (3/$15) from the Rockets. So...the level of center you're talking about for the MLE on the FA market...is someone like Brad Miller.

 

I'm not going to say it can't be done and I'm not going to say that moving Noah is the wrong move...but replacing Noah with a MLE level Center would be a substantial downgrade in the current market.

[ZoomSlowik]

It's not just convincing them that they're not worth it...it's convincing them that they can win without it. And the reality is...they can't. If the Bulls let Noah walk for nothing in 2 years...they're not replacing his production cheaply. If the Bulls trade Noah before he becomes a FA, they're not likely to replace him cheaply. If the Bulls trade Deng for salary cap relief, they're not going to find a SF as good as Deng for less money.

 

Several points...

 

1) At some point, a team has to have good/expensive players to win. That doesn't mean spending money for the sake of spending money is smart for the long term health of your franchise. Money doesn't equal wins unless you spend it well, and in many situations it's better to have cap flexibility than numerous cap commitments.

 

2) Not all teams are equal. For teams like the Lakers, Bulls and Celtics that are competitive and in the upper tier of revenue, it's really not that big of a deal. For someone like Utah or Denver that's good but lower revenue and probably not a real title threat, it'd probably make sense to sacrifice a player or two, especially if they're relatively expendable. If you're someone like Memphis or Sacramento, you should probably be trying to trade a guy before he gets expensive if you're fairly confident he's not going to be the best player on a team that's solidly in the playoffs (that's a little harder out east, but I digress).

 

3) There's a big difference if you're above or below the cap. Obviously trading someone like Deng or Noah for just cap relief doesn't make sense assuming Jerry is going to pay the luxury tax. However, that's not really important at the moment since we're talking about trading them for Anthony, not cap space.

 

4) Most players aren't that hard to replace. Sticking with the Bulls, they've lost/replaced Tyson Chandler, Ben Wallace, Ben Gordon, Kirk Hinrich, Tyrus Thomas and John Salmons without having a significant impact on their win total. That's well over an entire team's cap space that they're no longer paying, and the only guy they could really use right now is Gordon.

 

The same goes for Deng (Noah would be harder to replace cheaply as a big man, though perhaps Gibson and Asik can fill in reasonably). If they really had to, they could find a reasonably priced SF that can do a lot of the same things. It's not like Deng is a star, he doesn't create his own shot, hit 3's, or post-up. I would say "above average" fits him fairly well.

 

How much would they really lose if they replaced him with someone like Martell Webster? No, Martell isn't going to score 17 a game, but Luol probably won't either on a deeper team where he's not the #1 or #2 scoring option. However, he makes about $8 mil less than Deng, was relatively easy to acquire (IIRC Minnesota gave up a mid-first for him), and he could give you 10 PPG and respectable D with a better jumpshot than Deng has.

 

You can't do that at every position on the floor, but once you have guys like Rose, Noah and Boozer you can mix and match a lot more.

[Steve9347]

INTANGIBLES!!!

 

 

And why do people so quickly compare Noah to Rodman?? Rodman was in another stratosphere!

Edited September 23, 2010 by Steve9347

[MHizzle85]

Argument is invalid, as the player who WILL be overpaid and a player who IS overpaid can be traded for a player you CAN'T overpay. Let alone, the argument there certainly cannot be referencing the Carmelo Anthony talk, because he's not a MLE player, and the Bulls don't have a MLE anyway.

 

Bad, bad, bad (but long, so it must be good!) article.

Okay Steve, from a fellow Carmelo fan let me throw this out there.

 

Would you be okay with trading Noah for Melo if Melo doesn't sign an extension with the Bulls? Meaning he'd more than likely go to New York or wherever.

 

IMO, you don't trade a piece of your core for a rental. Unless you're damn sure you're bringing home a championship.

[Steve9347]

Okay Steve, from a fellow Carmelo fan let me throw this out there.

 

Would you be okay with trading Noah for Melo if Melo doesn't sign an extension with the Bulls? Meaning he'd more than likely go to New York or wherever.

 

IMO, you don't trade a piece of your core for a rental. Unless you're damn sure you're bringing home a championship.

No. All this argument is PURELY based on the fact that "league sources" say the Bulls don't want to trade Noah in a deal for Melo. If Melo won't sign an extension, you do NOT make the trade. I thought that was too obvious to point out.

 

I agree 100% there.

[MHizzle85]

No. All this argument is PURELY based on the fact that "league sources" say the Bulls don't want to trade Noah in a deal for Melo. If Melo won't sign an extension, you do NOT make the trade. I thought that was too obvious to point out.

 

I agree 100% there.

Just making sure we were on the same page is all.

[Soxbadger]

The Melo trade presupposes that Melo would sign a contract before the trade was agreed.

 

Melo signed > Noah unsigned

 

 

[Steve9347]

Just making sure we were on the same page is all.

Yeah, for sure. If Melo won't sign an extension, he's of little use to us. I see Melo at 28 and Rose at 25 just dominating.

[SleepyWhiteSox]

His foot problems kinda worry me, and if he's looking to be overpaid than trading him for a superstar seems like a no-brainer.

[Felix]

You're a T-Wolves fan? The bright side is, their uni's are less horrific. And they got a decent player in the draft. I still see them in the lottery. And that's honestly what they need. They need to load up on young good talent so they don't get stuck in mediocrity again.

My money is on the Wolves winning 25-30 games this year, which is probably still the lottery. Cousins would have been a much better pick than Wes Johnson, but such is life. We're just biding time until Rubio comes over next year anyway. Either way, we'll be much better than the trainwreck that was last year.

Edited September 24, 2010 by Felix

[Kyyle23]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5610989

 

4 way trade being discussed that would send Anthony to New Jersey, contingent on Anthony signing an extension which apparently he isnt too interested in.

 

The proposed deal, sources said, also would involve the Utah Jazz and the Charlotte Bobcats. It would deliver Nets rookie forward Derrick Favors, Jazz veteran Andrei Kirilenko and multiple first-round picks to Denver in exchange for their franchise player, potentially bringing a resolution to Anthony's uncertain future before the Nuggets hold their first practice of the new season.

 

Sources told ESPN.com that the deal, which has yet to be finalized, also would send former All-Star point guard Devin Harris to Charlotte, with Bobcats forward Boris Diaw moving to Utah.

[SexiAlexei]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=5610989

 

4 way trade being discussed that would send Anthony to New Jersey, contingent on Anthony signing an extension which apparently he isnt too interested in.

 

Wouldn't that make them worse?

 

I don't know much about the Nets, but I thought Harris and Lopez were their "stars" and Favors was a very high draft pick. They would be left with Lopez and Anthony?

 

Just looking at their roster, it doesn't seem like they'd have close to enough to compete with their new roster, what am I missing?

[SoxAce]

4 way trade being discussed that would send Anthony to New Jersey, contingent on Anthony signing an extension which apparently he isnt too interested in.

 

I wouldn't be either going to a team that won 12 games last year. Then your losing Devin Harris? I mean whats the point? Not a good way to sell Melo to re-sign with you.