Zach for Ben Wallace?

RHODEY · Post #1 » by **RHODEY** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 4:44 pm

It Works Sary wise.

Ny does this to free up Eddy Again. They also save a year on Zach's contract. Ben would add a degree of Toughness and may actually look decent again next to Eddy.

Chicago does this because they need scoring in the post. Zach is young and can ball.

What do you guys think?

fimslim3 · Post #2 » by **fimslim3** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 4:47 pm

I don't think the Bulls agree to that deal.

BrooklynBocker · Post #3 » by **BrooklynBocker** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 4:52 pm

Hasn't Ben been sucking since he left Detroit? Ben simply isn't worth it right now.

fimslim3 · Post #4 » by **fimslim3** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 4:54 pm

BrooklynBocker wrote:Hasn't Ben been sucking since he left Detroit? Ben simply isn't worth it right now.

And Zach Randolph is worth it? Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

nynixlive · Post #5 » by **nynixlive** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 4:58 pm

It meets the shorter contract rules. So I am in. Bulls wont.

knicksNOTslick · Post #6 » by **knicksNOTslick** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 5:07 pm

We give them Eddy Curry back. They give us Big Ben and one young'n.

Hardaway 10 · Post #7 » by **Hardaway 10** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 5:33 pm

Zach to Cavs for Drew Gooden and Donyell Marshall.

Two shorter contracts for Zach that end with Marbury.

Give Gooden 30 mins a game and he'd be a happy camper than can hit the boards.

RHODEY · Post #8 » by **RHODEY** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 5:34 pm

fimslim3 wrote:I don't think the Bulls agree to that deal.

I cant see why not. They get to move a bad contract in decline while filling a Huge scoring need in the post. We get to save a year in contracts and enable Curry to play @ Pre Zach Levels. Do you really think Chicago thinks they can get a better post player in return for Ben Wallace? If so who?!

VirginiaKnickFan · Post #9 » by **VirginiaKnickFan** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 5:40 pm

This trade only is possible from the Knicks standpoint if Isiah is no longer the GM...otherwise he's not about to admit failure and ship out Zach after less than one season.

Slimpack · Post #10 » by **Slimpack** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 6:04 pm

Zach Randolph isn't making Curry play badly. He's just not dedicated to the game. Anyway good deal for the Knicks, but the Bulls probably say no, they don't like players with certain kinds of attitudes and Zach is signed for a long time.

Cliff Levingston · Post #11 » by **Cliff Levingston** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 6:28 pm

Slimpack wrote:Zach is signed for a long time.

That'd be the biggest detourant for the Bulls (probably). Zach starts making more than Wallace starting next year and continues to get raises for an extra year compared to Wallace's deal. That would really complicate matter when it comes to re-signing Deng and Gordon, then possibly Tyrus.

If the Bulls trade Wallace, it'll be either as a consolidation trade that brings backs a star (highly unlikely this year) or for shorter, less expensive contracts in a salary dump.

Eli1005 · Post #12 » by **Eli1005** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 6:48 pm

I was wondering if Chi would do a deal like this. I actually don't see Chi making this trade, but not because of the salary issues. I just don't think they'd want to make this big a trade within the division. I know they did it for Curry, but that was different, no one wanted him cause of his heart issues.

That being said, I think this is a no-brainer. If NY can make this deal, I say make it, only because Wallace's contract is shorter. Is he the type of dominating defensive player he used to be - no. But he's 100x better than anyone we have now.

Post #13 » by **moocow007** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 7:03 pm

I would think that the Bulls would rather Eddy Curry back.

Curry for all his weaknesses doesn't carry the baggage that Randolph does. He's also cheaper and really would fit in better with the Bulls 2 young defensive oriented POWER FORWARDS.

Plus, they know what Curry does already and the reason they moved Curry wasn't the same reason that the Blazers moved Randolph (i.e. not because they wanted to get Curry away from their young players).

Moving Randolph, a POWER FORWARD, would leave the Bulls with Aaron Gray as the only real CENTER and 3 PF's who should be getting time (in Randolph, Tyrus Thomas and Joakim Noah).

As far as Curry for Wallace? Not without something additional in return from the Bulls to the Knicks. I do strongly believe that the Knicks can "force" Curry to opt out after next season if they want to trim their cap and Wallace doesn't come with that option since his contract doesn't have an opt out clause.

fimslim3 · Post #14 » by **fimslim3** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 7:14 pm

RHODEY wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I cant see why not. They get to move a bad contract in decline while filling a Huge scoring need in the post. We get to save a year in contracts and enable Curry to play @ Pre Zach Levels. Do you really think Chicago thinks they can get a better post player in return for Ben Wallace? If so who?!

Have you seen Randolph's contract? It's worse then Ben Wallace's deal.

SoCalKnickFan · Post #15 » by **SoCalKnickFan** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 7:17 pm

Why help the Bulls undo a huge mistake? Noone comes around to bail us out of ours, have you been watching the Bulls? Wallace looks lost, uninspired, and he bricks layups left and right. We don't have a Sheed to compliment him. If were gonna find a crutch for Curry, get a Reggie Evans type on a short contract. I don't want to tie up someone like Ben and THEN realize at some point Curry has to go. Getting Ben would be like putting a Band Aid on a gunshot wound and stall the inevitable RE-rebuilding.

Cliff Levingston · Post #16 » by **Cliff Levingston** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 7:41 pm

Here's the best deal for the Bulls:

Wallace for Malik Rose and Jerome James

You get Big Ben for nothing while the Bulls save a little money and clear room for the young guys to play. Paxson would never do it, but it makes sense, ICLO.

BrooklynBocker · Post #17 » by **BrooklynBocker** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 7:56 pm

fimslim3 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

And Zach Randolph is worth it? Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

It's not a matter of whether Zach is worth it or not. Ben has been worthless and bringing him here does not improve the team. That'd be a trade for the sake of trading, which is 80% of the reason why we're in the situation we're in.

cmaff051 · Post #18 » by **cmaff051** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 8:00 pm

BrooklynBocker wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

It's not a matter of whether Zach is worth it or not. Ben has been worthless and bringing him here does not improve the team. That'd be a trade for the sake of trading, which is 80% of the reason why we're in the situation we're in.

Big Ben doesn't improve our team? Huh? How about the simple fact that our help defense will be much better without McCurry or Z-hole in the paint?

god shammgod · Post #19 » by **god shammgod** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 8:03 pm

cmaff051 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Big Ben doesn't improve our team? Huh? How about the simple fact that our help defense will be much better without McCurry or Z-hole in the paint?

i have to agree, he's not the ben wallace of old but we need defenders. if we could do this and an artest trade, you'd have two good defenders to surround curry. it would make the team a lot more balanced.
i know people would rather rebuild completely but i just don't see it happening under dolan's watch. even if isiah is gone.

BrooklynBocker · Post #20 » by **BrooklynBocker** » Thu Jan 3, 2008 8:04 pm

Have you been watching Ben play this year? He's not the same level player he was two years ago. Even though he's somewhat better defensively that what we have, his overall play on both sides of the ball isn't really a measurable upgrade.