Blakely: C's look to deal Wallace & Humphries

[sofutomygaha]

The question isn't why we would trade them, or even what we could get back.

The question is whether there are even less desirable contracts, held by even more desperate teams, out there that we could take on in exchange.

The answer is maybe

1. I would THINK that the knicks would do most anything to get out from under the Stoudemire contract. We could take him off their hands and give them two useable bench players, all for the price of a future draft pick.

... but who the heck knows what the knicks are doing. They just doubled down by trading two useful role players on reasonable money and two picks in order to pay 3 yrs/30 million to Bargnani.

... so maybe the knicks, but the knicks probably don't know what's good for them.

2. Chicago is an analytics team, and their owner is a cheapskate. The analytics say that they are better with Boozer off the floor and the accountant says that they owe him another 30 million. Would they make it worth our while to trade him in for Humphries and Bass/Lee?

3. Oklahoma- would you like to get Perkins off your books, give his minutes to the more productive Nick Collison, save 5 million bucks, and free up some cap for next year? Probably not, because you haven't made a single good decision since you drafted Westbrook. Still, we could use Hump to help you with that.

[hwangjini_1]

can we not amesty him?

i believe the nba rules state that you cannot amnesty a player unless the contract was signed PRIOR to the current cba; and, the team amnestying (is that word?) the player must have been the team that originally signed him. that is, traded players cannot be amnestied.

[guava_wrench]

There is no difference between a 49 win team and a 19 win team next year for us.  NONE!

A 19-win season probably means that most of the rookie and second-year players on the team are worthless or over-rated.  A 49-win season probably means at least some of those players are or will be above-average NBA starters.

Assuming the same players, you are correct. If Phil was referring to the lack of value of fielding vets with no future on the team to chase and 8th seed, then he has a point -- though I think the difference between 19 and 49 is too large for that point. Make the comment too hyperbolic.

[Yogi]

The question isn't why we would trade them, or even what we could get back.

The question is whether there are even less desirable contracts, held by even more desperate teams, out there that we could take on in exchange.

The answer is maybe

1. I would THINK that the knicks would do most anything to get out from under the Stoudemire contract. We could take him off their hands and give them two useable bench players, all for the price of a future draft pick.

... but who the heck knows what the knicks are doing. They just doubled down by trading two useful role players on reasonable money and two picks in order to pay 3 yrs/30 million to Bargnani.

... so maybe the knicks, but the knicks probably don't know what's good for them.

2. Chicago is an analytics team, and their owner is a cheapskate. The analytics say that they are better with Boozer off the floor and the accountant says that they owe him another 30 million. Would they make it worth our while to trade him in for Humphries and Bass/Lee?

3. Oklahoma- would you like to get Perkins off your books, give his minutes to the more productive Nick Collison, save 5 million bucks, and free up some cap for next year? Probably not, because you haven't made a single good decision since you drafted Westbrook. Still, we could use Hump to help you with that.

If by analytics you mean your unfounded opinion then yes Chicago is better without Boozer.  If you mean actual data then you should provide a link.

Edit: Don't call others opinions unfounded. This is your warning

-Fafnir.

[sofutomygaha]

The question isn't why we would trade them, or even what we could get back.

The question is whether there are even less desirable contracts, held by even more desperate teams, out there that we could take on in exchange.

The answer is maybe

1. I would THINK that the knicks would do most anything to get out from under the Stoudemire contract. We could take him off their hands and give them two useable bench players, all for the price of a future draft pick.

... but who the heck knows what the knicks are doing. They just doubled down by trading two useful role players on reasonable money and two picks in order to pay 3 yrs/30 million to Bargnani.

... so maybe the knicks, but the knicks probably don't know what's good for them.

2. Chicago is an analytics team, and their owner is a cheapskate. The analytics say that they are better with Boozer off the floor and the accountant says that they owe him another 30 million. Would they make it worth our while to trade him in for Humphries and Bass/Lee?

3. Oklahoma- would you like to get Perkins off your books, give his minutes to the more productive Nick Collison, save 5 million bucks, and free up some cap for next year? Probably not, because you haven't made a single good decision since you drafted Westbrook. Still, we could use Hump to help you with that.

If by analytics you mean your unfounded opinion then yes Chicago is better without Boozer.  If you mean actual data then you should provide a link.

If you want a link it's easy enough to ask without being ****.

According to 82games, the Bulls were -4.9 with Boozer on the court, versus +5.5 with Taj Gibson, last season. They also rated Boozer below replacement level in their omnibus SIMPLE rating system.

The Bulls most effective 5-man unit last year was Robinson-Belinelli-Butler-Gibson-Noah, by a large margin.

According to wagesofwins, Boozer was also a subpar rotation player, at -1 points-over-par-per-48-minutes. They rate Gibson, who is makes far less money, a slightly superior -0.8.

[SHAQATTACK]

Isn't Blakely just stating the obvious?

Man, I'd love to get from underneath Wallace's deal especially.

yeah .....me too

he can't disappear fast enough to suit me

[BballTim]

The question isn't why we would trade them, or even what we could get back.

The question is whether there are even less desirable contracts, held by even more desperate teams, out there that we could take on in exchange.

The answer is maybe

  Why on earth would we trade them for even less desirable contracts?

[Celtics18]

Man, I think we got to chill on Gerald Wallace.  I don't think desperation is ever the best way to operate as an NBA franchise. 

Yes, Gerald Wallace is making a lot of money for a long time relative to his age, recent production, and injury history.  Is he tradeable? Probably.  Everyone is tradeable for something. 

I doubt we find a deal for him that makes it worth it, though.  In the meantime, I actually think he can be valuable on the court for us over the course of the next couple of seasons.  My guess is that Gerald Wallace stays.

Humphries, on the other hand,  I would like to see moved.  He doesn't make any sense on a roster that is trying to develop both Kelly Olynyk and Jared Sullinger and will also have minutes for Brandon Bass.  The fact that Hump is an expiring contract--which not only makes him attractive from a cap clearing perspective, but also means he's likely to have a good season next year playing for his next paycheck--means that we might get some decent value for him. 

If we can get a better deal for Brandon Bass, that would be even better.  Then, we can just keep Mr. Humpty and let him expire at the end of the season. 

[More Banners]

Man, I think we got to chill on Gerald Wallace.  I don't think desperation is ever the best way to operate as an NBA franchise. 

Yes, Gerald Wallace is making a lot of money for a long time relative to his age, recent production, and injury history.  Is he tradeable? Probably.  Everyone is tradeable for something. 

I doubt we find a deal for him that makes it worth it, though.  In the meantime, I actually think he can be valuable on the court for us over the course of the next couple of seasons.  My guess is that Gerald Wallace stays.

Humphries, on the other hand,  I would like to see moved.  He doesn't make any sense on a roster that is trying to develop both Kelly Olynyk and Jared Sullinger and will also have minutes for Brandon Bass.  The fact that Hump is an expiring contract--which not only makes him attractive from a cap clearing perspective, but also means he's likely to have a good season next year playing for his next paycheck--means that we might get some decent value for him. 

If we can get a better deal for Brandon Bass, that would be even better.  Then, we can just keep Mr. Humpty and let him expire at the end of the season.

Got to agree here.  Trading Bass as good/better than trading Crash, though not as cheap.

Bass was pretty good on Melo, but that was his career-best defense in that series, guaranteed.

The big SFs have a place on every roster right now, and we have JGreen, Crash, and Kris Joseph back on 3rd string to throw against the quick 2-SF lineups. 

Crash has more value on the court than Bass, possibly, on any team right now.

On ours, he can at least back up a starter, which is more than Bass should be doing for us.  He should be 3rd string, behind Sully and KO.

Humphries we could indeed keep and let expire, or trade for the next big Celtic star.  If we keep him, I'd consider starting him at Center.

Here's what I'm thinking, and both Hump and Crash figure in this year:

ROndo/Pressey?
Bradley/Lee
Green/Crash
Sully/KO (if Sully s ready)
Hump/Iverson/Melo-hahahaha/Other Guy?

Hope by the ASB that Sully and KO start looking good together...Rondo/Green start looking good together...Rondo/Green/KO star looking good together on offense...and Hump gets eased out of the rotation toward FA.

[Yogi]

If you want a link it's easy enough to ask without being ****.

According to 82games, the Bulls were -4.9 with Boozer on the court, versus +5.5 with Taj Gibson, last season. They also rated Boozer below replacement level in their omnibus SIMPLE rating system.

The Bulls most effective 5-man unit last year was Robinson-Belinelli-Butler-Gibson-Noah, by a large margin.

According to wagesofwins, Boozer was also a subpar rotation player, at -1 points-over-par-per-48-minutes. They rate Gibson, who is makes far less money, a slightly superior -0.8.

1.  If you are going to make outrageous claims you should back them up with data, otherwise they are unfounded by definition. 
2.  You should read the warning they post on the SIMPLE rating page.
3.  The data you posted is extremely misleading without being backed up by proper analysis. 
a. Boozer was the number one option on the Bulls offense with a high usage rate.  Gibson was useless on offense other than dunking and put backs. 
b.  Boozer played heavy minutes in the starting line-up guarding while Gibson played around 20 min with the second units. 
c.  Boozer has a higher PER and greater win shares.  They have similar WS/48 but since Boozer plays an extra 10 min a game as a much higher usage tougher competition against there is little reason to believe these numbers will translate. 

Because you didn't provide a link, I found the wins produced article.  http://wagesofwins.com/how-to-calculate-wins-produced/

There is obviously a problem in this metric when dealing with bench players.  It has Landry Fields over Rondo, Humphries over Durant and Rose.  Ronnie Brewer over Russell Westbrook.  Is this a proper statistic to compare Boozer and Gibson?

Statistically, Boozer out produces Gibson VASTLY in almost every category.  Gibson averages more turnovers and fouls as well.  Shot blocking is the only stat where Gibson is much better.  Posting poor and misleading statistics are worse than unsupported opinions. 

[SparzWizard]

Blakely is thinking like a Celtics fan. Congrats!!!

Nothing new, move along.

[tarheelsxxiii]

The question isn't why we would trade them, or even what we could get back.

The question is whether there are even less desirable contracts, held by even more desperate teams, out there that we could take on in exchange.

The answer is maybe

  Why on earth would we trade them for even less desirable contracts?

Good point. I've seen lateral moves suggested that serve no purpose. Agree with C18 re: the respective values of Humphries and Bass, as well. Moving them will be largely opportunistic, particularly if trade occurs at/near the deadline.

Re: Boozer - this is subjective, I'm probably not going to hunt through data to support this, but I imagine others can attest... he did work in the playoffs. Just a bit more (anecdotal) evidence to highlight the importance of context when considering stats. This point gets lost in discussions re: Rondo's value seemingly often as well.

[JBcat]

The question isn't why we would trade them, or even what we could get back.

The question is whether there are even less desirable contracts, held by even more desperate teams, out there that we could take on in exchange.

The answer is maybe

  Why on earth would we trade them for even less desirable contracts?

IMO cap space can be overrated. 

This link is a little old in 2007 but it shows that in a 10 year period 47 NBA all stars were traded, 43 were obtained via trade, and 9 via free agent as a result of clearing salary cap space.   We've seen a team grab a Dwight Howard in free agency but often than not it seems teams strike out, or overpay during free agency.   

I don't think we have enough assets just yet to attract a star in free agency, so by trading Humphries for a player with a year longer on his contract may be way to extract another draft pick. 

Also this link here shows the 2014 free agent class could be overrated. 

http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?827685-The-2014-NBA-free-agent-class-is-extremely-overrated

 http://www.cosellout.com/2007/10/03/131/

[sofutomygaha]

If you want a link it's easy enough to ask without being ****.

According to 82games, the Bulls were -4.9 with Boozer on the court, versus +5.5 with Taj Gibson, last season. They also rated Boozer below replacement level in their omnibus SIMPLE rating system.

The Bulls most effective 5-man unit last year was Robinson-Belinelli-Butler-Gibson-Noah, by a large margin.

According to wagesofwins, Boozer was also a subpar rotation player, at -1 points-over-par-per-48-minutes. They rate Gibson, who is makes far less money, a slightly superior -0.8.

1.  If you are going to make outrageous claims you should back them up with data, otherwise they are unfounded by definition. 
2.  You should read the warning they post on the SIMPLE rating page.
3.  The data you posted is extremely misleading without being backed up by proper analysis. 
a. Boozer was the number one option on the Bulls offense with a high usage rate.  Gibson was useless on offense other than dunking and put backs. 
b.  Boozer played heavy minutes in the starting line-up guarding while Gibson played around 20 min with the second units. 
c.  Boozer has a higher PER and greater win shares.  They have similar WS/48 but since Boozer plays an extra 10 min a game as a much higher usage tougher competition against there is little reason to believe these numbers will translate. 

Because you didn't provide a link, I found the wins produced article.  http://wagesofwins.com/how-to-calculate-wins-produced/

There is obviously a problem in this metric when dealing with bench players.  It has Landry Fields over Rondo, Humphries over Durant and Rose.  Ronnie Brewer over Russell Westbrook.  Is this a proper statistic to compare Boozer and Gibson?

Statistically, Boozer out produces Gibson VASTLY in almost every category.  Gibson averages more turnovers and fouls as well.  Shot blocking is the only stat where Gibson is much better.  Posting poor and misleading statistics are worse than unsupported opinions.

It wasn't really my intention to start a searching argument on the true value of Carlos Boozer. I'm also hesitant because I kind of get the impression that you want a piece of me.

Boozer is certainly a better offensive player than Taj Gibson (although as a #1 scorer he isn't very efficient). He obviously bests Gibson in win shares by volume. It's a fair point that he is was also forced to create offense this season and Gibson not. Of course, the Bulls don't *want* Boozer to be their go-to scorer. They want Rose to be. The Bulls offense with Boozer playing the role of go-to was a very, very bad offense indeed.

But the main point is that Gibson is one of the best defenders in the NBA and the Bulls are a defense-first team. Boozer is not a good defender. The synergy stats seem to back up this claim, with Boozer in the lower third of all players on that end while Gibson ranks in the 90th percentile.

Boozer's efficiency is probably more of a concern considering that it has been on the decline over the last few years. While he is not old by any means (he's 31), he is past his prime whereas Gibson is squarely in his. The Bulls clearly like Gibson- they locked him up this last winter for a four year extension. That move has led to endless speculation about the Bulls using their amnesty on Boozer. Maybe that's just speculation... maybe the Bulls value Boozer and his contract more highly than the sports talk world implies. I guess we will see.

[danglertx]

I was really hoping Danny already had a few trades in place and we were going to get some things done Saturday.  Apparently not.