Rumor about Tyrus

Post #41 » by **Rerisen** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 8:31 am

WolverineBlood wrote:I agree. First: if this is the trade is truly on the table then the Bulls should either ask for a conditional 1at rd pick this yr (I would take Top 15 protected) or a conditional 1st rd pick next year (this time only Top 10 protected). No need to give up two players with still potential for a rental. Add a pick or this deal should not even be considered. I'm not against trading either JJ or Thomas, but not for some mediocre center.

Now as for why this rumor has popped up, I think this is the Bulls tipping their hand. This could be a sign that the Bulls are willing to dangle Noah in a trade for a soon-to-be-FA like Bosh. As I think a Bosh/Haywood tandem in the front court would work better on the offensive/defensive then a tandem of Bosh/Noah. JMO.

It certainly opens up possibilities for us. In the same way bringing Devin Brown here did, except in a more quality fashion.

As for JJ and those that are decrying us giving up on him, let's not forget Vinny and management see a lot more of this guy that we do. In practices and the like. Early in the year it was said he was doing silly things like being late for practice. Maybe they see another Tyrus Thomas in the making here, and this time don't want to spend 4 years to find out that he's just never going to "get it".

Luke NOT Luc · Post #42 » by **Luke NOT Luc** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 8:36 am

I support any deal that moves Joakim to PF because he can be a straight up beast at the 4. Oh, and no crying about JJ, we got our rookie and his name is Taj. JJ is going to do nothing but disappoint anyways, he doesn't take his job seriously enough

jStuNNa · Post #43 » by **jStuNNa** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 8:40 am

The combination of Haywood, Noah, Gibson, and possibly Miller (if he's not traded) would make the Bulls a nightmare to deal with inside come playoff time. I think it makes the Bulls better this season.

Including JJ in the deal lets the Bulls shed an extra 1.7 million in salary next season. Every bit counts in the 2010 Free Agent Sweepstakes.

tenritsu · Post #44 » by **tenritsu** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 8:43 am

Just wondering. If we shed JJ's contract and get rid of... say Kirk, do we have enough for 2 max FAs?

Luke NOT Luc · Post #45 » by **Luke NOT Luc** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 8:44 am

jStuNNa wrote:Including JJ in the deal lets the Bulls shed an extra 1.7 million in salary next season. Every bit counts in the 2010 Free Agent Sweepstakes.

Plus, if we're really going all the way and going to go for titles, a knucklehead like JJ only gets in the way. Waste of a pick, but it makes more sense to dump him as soon as we know it's not in our best interest to keep him. Plus, if he really does have that much trouble taking things seriously, I'd think the guys on the team that really want to win wouldn't want him around anyways

jStuNNa · Post #46 » by **jStuNNa** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 8:45 am

tenritsu wrote:Just wondering. If we shed JJ's contract and get rid of... say Kirk, do we have enough for 2 max FAs?

No, or it would have been done the first day of the season :wink:

Post #47 » by **HomoSapien** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 8:48 am

jStuNNa wrote: Including JJ in the deal lets the Bulls shed an extra 1.7 million in salary next season. Every bit counts in the 2010 Free Agent Sweepstakes.

It also lets us consider trading Hinrich for a package that only involves partially expiring contracts.

jStuNNa · Post #48 » by **jStuNNa** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 8:49 am

Luke NOT Luc wrote:Plus, if we're really going all the way and going to go for titles, a knucklehead like JJ only gets in the way. Waste of a pick, but it makes more sense to dump him as soon as we know it's not in our best interest to keep him. Plus, if he really does have that much trouble taking things seriously, I'd think the guys on the team that really want to win wouldn't want him around anyways

I was thinking along those same lines. I definitely see where Taj fits on a championship contending team, but JJ? No ... not yet at this point in his career.

Plus, if we get a superstar free agent this summer, or two (heh), will anyone actually care that James Johnson is not on this team? -- Even if he becomes a pretty good player?

logical_art · Post #49 » by **logical_art** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 8:56 am

The idea of a Bosh, Noah, Haywood, Gibson front line is pretty tempting, finances and egos aside.

Friend_Of_Haley · Post #50 » by **Friend_Of_Haley** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 8:58 am

Okay, I would like Haywood for the rest of this year, but why is there so much interest in keeping him beyond that. He'll probably require a sizable chunk of money that he won't be worth.

JackFinn · Post #51 » by **JackFinn** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 9:08 am

They only reason he'd sign with us is bc we can give this 30 year old a longer contract, or bc we could pay him more than the MLE. So iono.

Post #52 » by **Rerisen** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 9:14 am

I would rather give up JJ than Gibson right now. Taj looks like a glue type guy that can be a role player on a very good team for years to come. And he's cheap for years

BOBBA LUI · Post #53 » by **BOBBA LUI** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 9:16 am

Two young guys for an old. What a stupid idea and boring trade.

Are we getting rid of these guys because of Vinny's inept ability to utilize them?

Post #54 » by **Rerisen** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 9:20 am

BOBBA LUI wrote:Two young guys for an old. What a stupid idea and boring trade.

Young doesn't mean good or that they are going to get good.

If all young players developed, there would never be any poor players over 27. Just above average ones, All-Stars, and Superstars.

Average or poor old players were once average or poor young players. And that is looking to be the case with Tyrus (average) and James Johnson (Poor. Though admittedly he could get to average eventually - maybe).

Bulls want to go for it all in 2010 with big moves. Most championship teams are older teams. Rarely do you find teams with a young average age winning titles.

JackFinn · Post #55 » by **JackFinn** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 9:25 am

BOBBA LUI wrote:Two young guys for an old.

This doesn't paint the full picture.

Post #56 » by **Rerisen** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 9:28 am

JackFinn wrote:
BOBBA LUI wrote:Two young guys for an old.

This doesn't paint the full picture.

The Celtics traded four young guys for an old guy. And look where it got them. A title. Oh.

BOBBA LUI · Post #57 » by **BOBBA LUI** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 9:29 am

Rerisen wrote:
JackFinn wrote:
BOBBA LUI wrote:Two young guys for an old.

This doesn't paint the full picture.

The Celtics traded four young guys for an old guy. And look where it got them. A title. Oh.

gf2020hotmail · Post #58 » by **gf2020hotmail** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 9:43 am

This rumor doesn't make sense. Blazers and Rockets are both after Haywood. How is our offer any better than what those two stacked organizations with a greater need than us can offer?

tenritsu · Post #59 » by **tenritsu** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 9:46 am

gf2020hotmail wrote:This rumor doesn't make sense. Blazers and Rockets are both after Haywood. How is our offer any better than what those two stacked organizations with a greater need than us can offer?

Well, maybe it has to do with portland overvaluing everything and houston doing what ever. Eh, I dunno. It's probably just an option for both teams at the moment.

Friend_Of_Haley · Post #60 » by **Friend_Of_Haley** » Mon Feb 8, 2010 9:52 am

tenritsu wrote:
gf2020hotmail wrote:This rumor doesn't make sense. Blazers and Rockets are both after Haywood. How is our offer any better than what those two stacked organizations with a greater need than us can offer?

Well, maybe it has to do with portland overvaluing everything and houston doing what ever. Eh, I dunno. It's probably just an option for both teams at the moment.

Well I agree about Portland. They are apparently tough to deal with. Houston maybe isn't willing to part with a young player, or at least not one Washington wants.