Xplosive
In the Land of the Blind the One Eyed Fan Is Neggd
- Joined:
- Aug 15, 2013
- Posts:
- 4,606
- Liked Posts:
- 2,341
- Location:
- Chicago
My favorite teams
Honestly, I'm not good with how contracts work and what not, but unless that deal was very backloaded, it wouldn't have really worked out.How could they have paid him that much? The Knicks weren't willing to do a S&T and take back salary, and Carmelo was too wishy-washy to demand a trade to the Bulls and give them the necessary leverage. The Bulls were offering 2 years plus an extension(which would be after the new TV deal in 2016), I think that was a fair deal.
Carmelo said winning was his priority, and the Bulls made sure to talk about this in their meeting. Unfortunately, Carmelo weighed money and mediocrity more than winning. That's his decision. The Knicks could have offered him more money regardless.
They would have had to pay Boozer regardless of if they get Love or not unless they were able to ship off Boozer in a 3-way trade or something, which probably wasn't happening. And the 13 M(NOT 17, since the lakers put in a bid) doesn't count towards the salary cap or luxury tax. So,actually, the Bulls get a better player for about 10 million dollars cheaper on the salary cap. Sounds pretty good to me.
Maybe they should have taken a shot at Love earlier (after Melo flaked), but the issue is that they didn't want to lose out here. Gasol was expressing interest in the Bulls, and if the Bulls pursue Love instead, they don't get Gasol. What if they don't get Love either? Cleveland has Wiggins to offer and Golden State has a better deal in place.
If Gasol wants to sign for 7 mil a year with the Bulls, then sign him up. And look, even WITH Gasol, the Bulls are still in the mix(possibly) for Love. But they have Gasol at 7 M a year to fall back on if Love ends up going to the Cavs or something.
There were tons of posts about how the Bulls could come up with the cash to pay Carmelo, and of course the Knicks were going to say they wouldn't do a sign and trade but if the Bulls got Melo to agree to a certain dollar amount the Knicks would have changed their story like every other team that loses their star player. Instead of offering Melo a strong deal they gave him 2 year early termination options or 4 year less than Derrick Rose is paid options (according to all reports). The 2 year option was probably most appealing but then Melo would have to trust the Bulls to give him a max deal in two years or that another team would be lining up to give a 32yo free agent a max offer. Thus, Melo took the safer option and stayed where he was already happy, comfortable, and sure to get the most money.
I don't object to your "look at the bright side" perspective, I just don't agree with it at the moment. I felt the Bulls had enough options at SF with Butler and Mirotic coming over. I don't think Euro PF's easily turn into NBA PF's so from what I saw of Mirotic clips, he should play SF. Thus what sense does it make to give up 3 draft picks and take back a bad contract just to grab another SF?
The Bulls need/needed another ball handler and shot creator to take pressure off Rose in the 4th quarter when he is run down from playing long minutes. So far DMC has looked like a good shot creator so I can't honestly say I'm sure it won't work but I can still say I don't think it was the right move. Fire GarPax watch should still be in full effect if this team doesn't at least make the finals.