If Deng was able to stay healthy and put up his kind of per game numbers consistently while being healthy, he'd be in the discussion for "very good".
He is an 18 and 7-caliber player (per about 38 minutes), so even though I ..try to stay away from subjective words like "good," it is very fair to say he is very good. He's definitely in the upper half of NBA SFs or maybe even the top 1/3rd of starting three-men.
The thing is, he can't stay healthy, and thus can't put up those kinds of numbers consistently.
I understand that, but at the same time, I'm not weighing injury-probability very heavily...and the term "injury prone" is a cliche so I like to look at each indivual cases. I think Deng's minutes were too high, and he was breaking down as each season progressed. He's still only 26, so I'm optimitic that he can play near 80 games if he only plays around 30 min/game next year.
What's more, you have to consider his contract: him making the kinds of salaries he is due for the coming years does not match up with his production. There's no debate that the Bulls are overpaying Deng for what he brings to the team on a consistent basis, yet they are paying him what I would consider "very good player" money.
Yes, undoubtedly, Deng is overpaid by most NBA standards. It doesn't change that, in my opinion, he is a very good player, but yeah... he's limiting the Bulls for sure. Most teams have 1 or 2 good overpaid players, but I agree that it's a bad thing for the Bulls... never could say it isn't.
Deng is much like Kirk Hinrich: Kirk was a very good NBA 2-guard, but when you view his worth alongside the context of his salary, he wasn't a very good player for the team. So like Kirk, Deng has the skills to be a very good NBA forward, his night-in-night-out production and overall salary prevent him from attaining that level.
I'm going to disagree with you there. I believe Hinrich was way more overpaid, for the things he brought to the table, than Deng, for what Deng brings. Hinrich is more like a 1-2 tweener who is best suited for a bench role. Deng is definitely starter material... Hinrich... not so much. Don't bite my head off though- it's just my opinion.
As for Noah, fine, he's "very good", I will concede that. However, let us remember that "very good" in no way compares to "top-10 NBA player".
haha, yeah, I think that Playoff series with Cleveland proved that Noah can play pretty well... I appreciate you conceeding that point.
Yeah, I never said otherwise. If it was Noah for Anthony, straight-up, I'd drive Joakim to Denver myself. I believe the Bulls will win about 50 games next year with enough upside to make a push for 60. I believe if the Bulls are lacking the #2 rebounder in the NBA next year, that they will most likely be a lock for being a "hovering-around-47-win-esque" team, with not much of an upside because rebounding and turnovers are a fundamental part of a winning team.
To which specific points have I yet to respond to? Maybe I missed a few, because your stance and argumentative points have been in flux ever since people (i.e. me) were forced to show you exactly why what you were saying at any given point in time was foolhardy at-best and impossible/stupid at worst.
I appreciate your input, and thanks for correcting me on my mistakes about the Bulls' cap availability. And you pretty much responded to all my points now, since you brought up my "wait for Denver to get desperate and see what they actually want from us" argument.
At first your response to this trade proposition was best summed up as a flat "no" in which you proceeded to in any way imply that Joakim Noah is at least as valuable than Carmelo Anthony.
I think that is a little bit simplistic... when you use the word "valuable" it could refer to many different things having to do with any given basketball team. If we are talking about on a purely next season basis then having Deng and Noah certainly beats having Carmelo and neither of the other two. But, yes, in the broad scheme of things, obviously it sucks that Noah and Deng are
both going to become incredibily expensive contracts.
Here is what I'd like to point out to you:
1) The Bulls don't need to re-sign Noah until May/June of the year 2012. By then, the new CBA will be in-effect, and we can assume that it will only hurt Noah's efforts to get paid that $75/5-yr deal. By next summer, the Bulls should be able to re-sign him to a fair amount.
2) Luol Deng's contract may be hefty, but plenty of teams may easily be willing to part with an expiring hefty contract of their own in order to acquire an 18-7 guy. Teams like Portland, or boderline contenders, looking to make that final addition may definitely seek Luol Deng. It may not happen, right away- but then again- maybe it will. And by the year 2014 (assuming for this instance he's still with the Bulls), he will become extremely valuable, because teams are going to be drooling for that $15,000,000 expiring contract. And, to top it off, they wouldn't be getting back Raef LaFrentz... Deng is a pretty good player in the very least.
3) Even if the Bulls made that trade (Noah, Deng for Anthony) you already explained that the Bulls would still have their hands pretty much tied, because their pay-roll is still going to be near, or above, the cap. Sure, the cap will be lower than having Deng and Noah (assuming he does do that hefty deal) in Melo's place.... but... the Bulls lose big-time trade leverage when you substitute two good players (regardless of how good they are) for one. Then, the Bulls wouldn't be able to even trade away any of their large contracts if they ever wanted to dump salary, because they will only have 2-3 big contracts (Boozer, Anthony, Rose) and none of them would/should be movable. Generally, teams aren't going to want to trade away cap-room/expiring players for an abundance of role players (Watson, Bogans, Thomas, Brewer, Asik, Johnson, etc). If the Bulls are able to keep Deng and Noah, they definitely retain a lot more trade leverage than if they executed that trade.
4) (since the new CBA isn't here yet) If we did a sign-and-trade for Melo now, he would be making max money.. and that figure is going to be a huge amount. That ties into what I said (in #3) about the Bulls' hands being tied financially if they made that Noah-Deng-Carmelo trade.
5) Let's just see what Denver wants from us, and how desperate they get as the deadline approaches.
your argument shifted to "well, if they really want him they should just wait until next summer to go after him in free agency". Then after having it pointed out to you that doing this is simply impossible given the Bulls' contract situation and how the NBA salary cap works, you have since arrived at your current stance of "well, they should at least wait to the deadline, because then Denver might be desperate and accept less than what they want now for Anthony."
Again, thanks for your input and information you gave before.
And yeah, I definitely still feel as though the Bulls need to wait and see what happens with Denver/Melo drama. Let Denver keep sweating for now, because their situation is getting increasingly grim (the longer Melo doesn't sign/the closer it gets to February).
But what you again fail to consider (for at least the second time, by my count) is the NBA salary cap and the composition of the Bulls' payroll. The Bulls are only $5 million under the cap, and any deal not involving Deng and Noah for Melo's $17 million contract would be impossible unless the Bulls traded away almost half their roster in exchange for Melo. Would trading Taj Gibson and James Johnson for Melo be nice? Yes, of course, but David Stern isn't going to grant a trade exception to the Bulls that allows them to go some $10 million over the cap in a single trade, especially after what happened this summer.
I don't know where you are getting this... because I've known, all along, that a trade for Anthony wouldn't work without Deng involved. I mentioned a "team C" before (back when I was believing the Bulls could acquire Anthony next summer) but you corrected me.
For the 3rd time: if the Bulls are going to get a top-10 player to play alongside Derrick Rose and Carlos Boozer, they are going to have to send some value to the Nuggets in return, and the best value piece they have that is earning a salary that befits the trade rules is Joakim Noah.
Agreed, but the Bulls will see what Denver is willing to accept. Maybe they would rather have Gibson than Noah. It's all speculation, at this point.
Furthermore, waiting to pull the trigger (or even propose) a deal like this would give Noah more time to bluster about getting the mega extension he seems to want
I agree that the Bulls should NOT give Noah that money... they need to wait until he either accept less than 60ish million or wait until the CBA kicks in... or... wait until he's an unrestricted free-agent (it likely won't come to that) in 2 years.
, something that could turn the Nuggets off on the prospect of wanting Noah for the long-haul, which could in turn nix the deal before it even gets going.
I understand that. That is one good reason the Bulls shouldnt give Noah that money until the new CBA. If the Nuggets trade for Noah, they should already know that he is going to eventually demand big bucks. It all depends on what Denver actually wants. They may prefer Gibson, just because he has a cheap, guaranteed (team option) contract next season. Noah may be pricey (even though he is merely a restricted free-agent next year) and they always stand a chance of a team signing him for more than they are willing to pay.
But, in essense, the Bulls should wait until the new CBA to extend Noah (assuming they are going to trade him, and not include him in a deal for Anthony.) And, also, that way the Bulls would keep their options open if the Nuggets demanded him in a trade for Anthony (should they accept? debatable. They would be screwed over next season, and their hands would still be tied financially- as I said before.)
Would I do the trade? It depends... that's what I'll say. And after all the piece fall into place, it will still be something in-need of deep contemplation.
