No it wouldn't: Deng and Gordon's salaries barely make up a little more than a *quarter* of Garnett's twenty million dollar salary, and the Bulls don't have enough number-one draft picks to make up the difference.nbrans said:
In order to make the salaries match (which teams still need to do, unless I'm mistaken), any deal that the Bulls could do to get Garnett *has* to include Chandler and at least *three* other guys, or Chandler, two other guys *and* the #1 overall. Trades cannot be made until contracts roll over to 2006-07 (July 1st, or whenever it is), and Chandler is the only player that the Bulls currently have under contract through 2006-07 that's making even as much as $3.7M... If they wanted to keep Chandler, they would literally have to trade *their entire team* to get Garnett, as the Bulls payroll for 2006-07 currently stands at $27,292,392... Which means that, if you take out Chandler, then Garnett will make more next season *than the whole Bulls team combined*.
They are totally *not* competing in the Garnett "sweepstakes."
bozzwell
Starter
Mr. S£im Citrus said:
Bulls will be so far under the cap (15mil+) that they can absorb KG's salary in trade. In fact, if I am not mistaken about the rules, taking Deng, Gordon and #1 would work for Minny precisly because it gives them a lot of salary cap relief. Bulls can take on extra salary because they have all that cap space.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Actually don't think that's right according to the trade checkers -- the Bulls NEED to include Chandler.
The Bulls can take back more salary then they send out (as in my three way), but the Wolves cannot. So whatever package the Wolves get back is going to have to be within 25% of KGs salary. With an $18mil salary, means they will have to take back about 13.5mil (or more).
The Bulls can take back more salary then they send out (as in my three way), but the Wolves cannot. So whatever package the Wolves get back is going to have to be within 25% of KGs salary. With an $18mil salary, means they will have to take back about 13.5mil (or more).
R
Rome
Guest
BMiller52 said:
What do you mean he can't play center? Are you talking about his physical ability? If so, then your boy miller wouldn't qualify to be a center either. Garnett can do everything Miller does + rebound, play defense, block shots, score, draw double teams, pass, shoot, and almost anything else imaginable... Oh and did i mention play defense and rebound....
LPKingsFan
All-Star
Putting KG at center is a waste of his talent. He's 6'11", 220 lbs. Brad is 7'0" 260. Duncan plays center at times too because he's, well, built like one (6'11", 260). And if you bring up Boris Diaw, you're missing the point.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
nbrans said:
I am oddly fuzzy on this point, and my brief bit of CBA research did not answer it conclusively. I have seen it done in a sign and trade setting (Joe Johnson last year), but in the normal setting am struggling to recall a single capped out/non-capped out team trade where the non-capped team took on a large salary from the capped team without matching.
Last edited:
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
As an aside, and sticking to the theme of this thread, if that IS possible, you could try something simple and straightforward like this:
Brad
#19 pick
for
Bulls pick (from Knicks) (top 3 pick most likely)
And use that pick to go after Aldridge or Thomas or whatnot.
Maybe.
Brad
#19 pick
for
Bulls pick (from Knicks) (top 3 pick most likely)
And use that pick to go after Aldridge or Thomas or whatnot.
Maybe.
The problem with that is if the pick doesn't pan out we have an even huger hole than we do now. Even the big men who turn into studs usually take 2-3 seasons to mature which may be our window of opportunity with this current team.
R
Rome
Guest
Ok so if we can't have KG at center then put him at the PF spot and sign a cheap center. KG doesn't really need a "great" center next to him. Remember in Minni he had Ervin Johnson.
LPKingsFan
All-Star
I was still leaning against moving Brad because of his unique skillset, despite recent playoff struggles. But now with Rick gone, I don't see Brad really fitting in anymore. Now, let's not go trade him for Lorenzen Wright... but moving to a top pick in the draft doesn't sound all that bad.
LPKingsFan said:
Right, now that Rick and the assistant coaches are gone, we have to shake this team up some more. We are almost there, but not quite. We need to sign Bonzi and go from there, even before getting a new coach. A new coach however, with his thought process will determine what team we will be. Ron is 1 player who is extremely defensive, as is Bonzi to a varying degree. They are 2 players who teamed together have no equal in the NBA. What we do with the other pieces to the team is going to be interesting, do we keep expanding on this and getting rid of the soft Miller???? I sure hope so. It will be interesting what we do to this team, but we need to know who our new coach is going to be pretty soon to know what direction we are going in with free agents, draft pics, trades, team focus (defensive/offensive/hybrid).
The Princeton system looks to be dead, on with the Artest/Bonzi wrecking crew method.
LPKingsFan
All-Star
Troy said:
Most of your points are good and valid, but since the Kings can't do anything through free agency until July, I hope the coaching situation is resolved by then!
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
LPKingsFan said:
Brad fit in better with Indiana, and Rick Adelman wasn't the coach. Brad and his skillsets are what they are. ANY coach can use them. If he fits or not will be the decision of the new coach, Petrie, and the Maloofs.
LPKingsFan said:Most of your points are good and valid, but since the Kings can't do anything through free agency until July, I hope the coaching situation is resolved by then!
You are totally correct. As so many people are here...so into signing Bonzi after seeing how he was the best round 1 player in the NBA and did us proud almost singlehandedly allowing us to beat the Spurs when some other high paid players on our team....cough cough....choked big time. Once the coach is determined and we know his style or can somewhat determine it, we can go from there. I really don't see us going away from the defense Artest brings to the team and the post ups that Artest, Wells, and SAR do so well. We need some good spot shooting off the bench (like in Bobby signing with us cheap) and some others. Look at what the Spurs bench looks like, it's like what weapon do I chose???? They have so many proven players that have taken the big shot. Bobby could be our old snipper that still have plenty of spark left, he is a no brainer seeing how much people still love him and his ties to the Sac community. He would have to sign for under $3M or so to make it work, but what is $ anyways when you've played for so long right.....it's all about having fun in the end, you have enough to live off of right????
LPKingsFan
All-Star
Kings113 said:
I know. That was sarcasm, a reference to what I consider some ill-advised measurments of Brad's trade value that I've seen around here. I'm all about getting a defensive presence to man the paint, but a starting frontcourt of Artest, Francisco Elson, and Wright just doesn't do as much for me as it does for some others here, apparently.
Does anybody know if Jeff McInnis intends to invoke his player option? Because the way he's been playing defense in the playoffs, I have to say that I don't hate the sound of Jason Collins and McInnis for Miller. Collins doesn't give you numbers, but he plays solid defense, and is a load, and McInnis gives you a legitimate ball handler and a proven scoring option off the bench.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Oh, sorry, but...ugh.
Collins = the ultimate nothing, and McInnis is a cancer. Not only would I pass, I would PASS. Maybe even pass gas on the whole deal.
Collins = the ultimate nothing, and McInnis is a cancer. Not only would I pass, I would PASS. Maybe even pass gas on the whole deal.
