According to ESPN's Weekend Dime (scroll down to the middle of the page), Reinsdorf was willing to go into the luxury tax if the Bulls were able to land Gasol, and he's willing to do the same if we can get Howard. Quote below.

Continue reading this post »

TOP 10 PROSPECTS:

1. Martin Perez, lhp
2. Jurickson Profar, ss
3. Tanner Scheppers, rhp
4. Robbie Erlin, lhp
5. Engel Beltre, of
6. Michael Kirkman, lhp
7. Mike Olt, 3b
8. Luis Sardinas, ss
9. Jake Skole, of
10. Miguel de los Santos, lhp

BEST TOOLS:
Best Hitter for Average Jurickson Profar
Best Power Hitter Mike Olt
Best Strike-Zone Discipline Chris McGuiness
Fastest Baserunner Leury Garcia
Best Athlete Jordan Akins
Best Fastball Tanner Scheppers
Best Curveball Tanner Scheppers
Best Slider Michael Kirkman
Best Changeup Miguel de los Santos
Best Control Robbie Erlin
Best Defensive Catcher Jose Felix
Best Defensive Infielder Jurickson Profar
Best Infield Arm Leury Garcia
Best Defensive Outfielder Engel Beltre
Best Outfield Arm Engel Beltre
 
PROJECTED 2014 LINEUP:
Catcher Kellin Deglan
First Base Mitch Moreland
Second Base Jurickson Profar
Third Base Mike Olt
Shortstop Elvis Andrus
Left Field Nelson Cruz
Center Field Josh Hamilton
Right Field Engel Beltre
Designated Hitter Ian Kinsler
No. 1 Starter Martin Perez
No. 2 Starter Tanner Scheppers
No. 3 Starter Robbie Erlin
No. 4 Starter C.J. Wilson
No. 5 Starter Derek Holland
Closer Neftali Feliz

 

I have a Strat-o-Matic draft coming up, and one of these two should fall to me.  Since it's Strat (not fantasy), stuff like defense, arm, and splits matter.

For the next 10 years, who would you rather have on your team, Colby Rasmus or Brett Anderson?  I know both are pretty darn good, and I'm having trouble deciding.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that I need both.  Thanks for your advice!

While I love this blog, the constant cries of "start Gordon!" are only slightly less annoying than the weeks of "give Gordon a huge deal!" we had to live through during the summer.

The truth is that Gordon is a poor fit for this team.  A 6'0" shooting guard is not an ideal fit for any team, but his height is a bigger problem when you're starting a 6'2" rookie point guard who can't guard NBA shooting guards.  Gordon can't guard SGs either, so we have to play him with Hinrich or Thabo.  As long as Rose starts, we can't start Gordon.

(more after the jump)

Continue reading this post »

[UPDATE. Dan Bernstein from 670AM's midday show has his own sources and claims that a deal is actually on the table. Read below. -Matt]

Last night, on TNT, Magic Johnson said that "A deal can't get done because they won't include Deng, and without Deng, a deal can't get done."  (For full details, check out
the story about it in the Sun-Times).

Unless Tyrus Thomas emerges this season (unlikely, given the reports we're hearing about his inconsistent effort), it looks like we won't be able to get Kobe without giving up Deng unless the Lakers get a lot more desperate.

Pretty much everyone on this forum would give up Gordon, Thomas, and assorted scraps for Kobe.  I've always hated Kobe too, but that would be a steal.  Kobe is a sure-fire superstar now, Gordon's ceiling is borderline All-Star, and Thomas may never turn into anything.

But more and more, I'm thinking that we should make the deal for Kobe even if it means giving up Deng, as long as we can keep the deal to Deng+Gordon without giving up much else.

Right now, our team lacks direction.  We have a lot of great pieces, but we don't have enough to contend for a title -- even if we do get out of the East, no one seriously thinks we have a chance in hell against the Spurs, Mavs, or Suns.

Yes, our team is young.  But do we have any hope of turning into a contender with the pieces we have now?  I don't see Hinrich, Gordon, or Nocioni getting much better than they are now.  Deng can and should make a leap, but it's no guarantee that he'll ever be a MVP-caliber player.  Even if he turns into an All-Star, that's not enough for us to win a championship.

At this point, our hopes of becoming a championship team rest on Deng making a huge leap and Thomas turning into a star.  Plus some luck.  That's a lot of "ifs".

I think that if we want to win an NBA championship, as opposed to just coming out of the East, we need to take some chances.  I was more excited about getting Pau Gasol for relatively cheap, but that ship has sailed.  Right now our only chance of getting an MVP-caliber player is Kobe.

Kobe gives us a player that would alter other team's gameplans.  He's probably the best closer in the game.  And when he isn't shouldering the whole offensive burden, he can be an amazing defender, as he showed for Team USA this summer.

Obviously Kobe is older, since he's 29 with a lot of mileage.  But he has at least 3-4 good years left in him.  We would have Kobe and Ben Wallace in their primes, Kirk Hinrich, and Nocioni (yes he's overpaid, but he's underappreciated here), Tyrus, and Noah at the forward spots.  Thabo would provide some backcourt depth.  That's a team that just might win a championship.  At the least, we would be one piece away, and we might be able to get that by trading young-for-old.

Yes, trading Deng for Kobe isn't a guarantee that we'll win a championship.  And we'll have maybe a 3-4 year window.  But at least we'll have a legitimate shot at a championship.  If we don't pull the trigger on a trade for a dominant player and take a shot at a title, we might be stuck paying four borderline All-Star players (Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, and Wallace) $10 mil+ a year without much flexibility to turn a good-but-not-great playoff team into a real championship contender.

[From the Diaries. This is a couple days old, but basically says it all, and definately worth a read. Although I have a minor disagreement with the last two points, I think that if Pax does see the need to make a trade for an impact player, he won't be too attached to Tyrus Thomas. Losing all the cap space will make things tricker though. I'm still holding out until the trade deadline. -Matt]

Adopted from my post on Sweetdue:

I know, we're all giddy about the Wallace deal.  We finally got the big-name free agent we've been waiting for since Krause struck out in 2000.  But smart folks on this blog have already started asking the tough questions -- does this signing really fill a need?  Didn't we pay too much?

I think the answer is that signing Wallace wasn't the right move, but it was the best move we could make, given the options we had.

WHY WALLACE WASN'T "THE RIGHT MOVE":

Wallace is not at all what the Bulls need right now.  We need a top-flight scorer in the worst way ... at crunch time, we rely on Ben Gordon and Andres Nocioni to score.  'nuff said.  We also need some sort of presence in the post.  Wallace provides us with none of that.

In fact, what big Ben gives the Bulls is more of what we already have.  The Bulls were the best defensive team in the NBA last season, and picked up its top defender.  At a certain point, there begins to be diminishing marginal returns to more defense.

In fact, the NBA is evolving away from players like Ben Wallace.  A few years ago, the Pistons were the right model to use to build a team.  Tough, bruising interior defense won championships.  But the rules changes have made the game more scorer-friendly, more guard-friendly, and more slash-to-the-basket friendly.  In the playoffs, big Ben was often on the sidelines and wasn't a dominating force.  In fact his weak shooting made him a liability at times.

And, of course, we overpaid for him.  He's not worth $15+ million a season.  And he's already 31, so he'll be 35 in the last year of his deal.  Not good.

The bottom line is that in a vacuum, the Wallace deal is not the right move for the Bulls to make.  He's not what we need, he's too expensive, and he's aging.  The "smart" move would have been to sign Pryzbilla and wait for the right trade.

Why, then, was this the "best move" for the Bulls?

WHY WALLACE WAS "THE BEST MOVE":

1. We didn't have a better alternative.  Our cap room would have been worth a lot less next season, because we will have players to re-sign and couldn't keep our cap room open forever.  If we didn't get Wallace, we would have had to sign Pryzbilla or Mohammed and hope we could use the rest of our cap room to work out a trade.  Wallace is by far the best player available--there isn't a better player on the FA market, and it is increasingly clear that no one like Garnett, Jermaine O'Neal, or Marion is available via trade.  Wallace is the best we could get with that cap room.
2. We got an impact player.  Yes, the game has changed.  But there's no doubt that Wallace is a very good basketball player, no matter how you slice it.  His PER was 17.54 last season, his "fair salary" rating was $14.26 million, and he was worth 32 win shares.  He's won the Defensive Player of the Year award four of the last five seasons.  He's been to the All-Star Game each of the last four years.  Getting an impact player through the draft is a gamble, and getting one in trade usually means giving up a lot in return.  We added one for "free."  Maybe worth overpaying for.
3. Because he's a big, we didn't overpay as badly as it seems.  Big players often command a premium.  Nene just signed a six-year, $60 million deal.  The Bulls signed Tyson Chandler to a six-year, $63 million deal just a season ago.  Since this is only a four-year deal, the hope is that he'll have some value in seasons three and four (with a soon-to-expire contract) if things don't work out as planned.
4. We cripple a division rival at the same time.  It's hard to believe that the Pistons will be able to compete for the East crown without Wallace, given that they already were pretty thin.  On pure Win Shares alone, going from Wallace to Mohammed should mean six fewer wins.
5. Wallace has great intangibles.  The Bulls are all about intangibles nowadays.  They only will draft hard workers, gym rats, etc.  They were willing to sit Tim Thomas and lose him for nothing rather than have a lazy player ruin their team persona and chemistry.  By all accounts Ben Wallace fits right into the Bulls' mold.  Plus his veteran leadership and character should help the Bulls develop.  As icing on the cake, he should help us get better calls from the officials.  (We can only hope.)

So given the context, I think this was a good move overall.  The rumor is that Paxson wanted to get Pryzbilla but Reinsdorf pushed him to go all-in for Wallace.  I like the move and I think it was the best alternative we had, given that players like Garnett weren't available.  So what does this mean for the Bulls?  A few thoughts:

1. Wallace makes Chandler expandable.  Now the Bulls have to find a buyer for Chandler.  Yes, his value has never been lower, but we're going to need some money to re-sign our young guys and it's unlikely that we would ever play two no-offense players like Chandler and Wallace together.  Hopefully the Bulls end up getting more than P.J. Brown and J.R. Smith, but I'd take that deal if nothing else materialized.
2. We're keeping Tyrus Thomas.  There was a lot of speculation that the Bulls took Thomas in order to package him to the T-Wolves for Garnett.  He certainly seemed redundant on a team that already had Chandler, Nocioni, and Deng competing for minutes at the 3 and 4.  Now that we have no cap space, and with Chandler gone, it looks more likely that we'll keep Thomas.  That makes me happy, because I think he will be by far the best player in the draft long-term.  He can handle the ball like a guard, he's a tough and brutal defender, he's extremely athletic, and he plays like a seven-footer.
3. We won't make a trade for another impact player.  Despite ridiculous reports to the contrary, the Wallace signing makes a Garnett trade far less likely.  Now that the Bulls are capped out, we have to match salaries with the T-Wolves in any trade.  I hope the Bulls make a deal for a post player or a big guard, and I expect they will, but it will more likely be someone like P.J. Brown than Kevin Garnett.

All in all, the Bulls' future still looks as bright as it did before draft night.  With two lottery picks and Ben Wallace joining a playoff team that is young and still developing, this team could make noise in the East next season.  Talk of contending for the East crown is too optimistic, in my opinion, but this season will be a disappointment unless the Bulls have home court in the first round and make it into the second round.

From Chad Ford's chat today on ESPN Insider:

They've talked to a number of teams about moving Murphy and have included Pietrus as a way of sweetening the deal. They had that offer on the table with Chicago for Chandler, but the Bulls decided to go with P. J. Brown because of the cap flexibility it gives them next summer.

Although I understand why we didn't want to take on Murphy's contract, I'm more excited about Pietrus than Smith.

Anyone else agree?