Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Everything Bargnani

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Stein: 25 percent. If the Raptors hadn't already acquired Rudy Gay, this figure would be a lot higher, because Chicago's interest in Andrea Bargnani has not waned ... and Toronto doesn't have a long list of teams willing to take Bargnani on. But the Raps, eager as they are to ship Bargnani out, have understandable concerns about the luxury-tax implications of having both Gay and Boozer on their payroll. And Chicago likewise doesn't have a long list of teams prepared to absorb Boozer's contract. So if there's no Boozer deal to Toronto, I'm not sure that I see one.

    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/...gets-get-moved
    Luxury tax is owed based on the payroll on day of last regular season game played.

    It will be interesting to see what happens.

    I would do this trade no questions asked from a talent perspective. Of course the issue is the new CBA and that makes things a bit dicey. If the Bulls were desperate enough to throw in a 1st rd pick then do it..... now.

    I believe the plan would be for Gibson to start and Bargnani to come off bench. This is interesting because Bargnani's departure in Chicago would likely coincide with the arrival of Mirotic.

    Comment


    • I'm just glad Casey has the short leash on Bargnani now.

      Comment


      • Man can this guy just get the hell out of dodge already?

        Comment


        • Have you been doing your part?

          #tradeBargnani

          Comment


          • Matt52 wrote: View Post
            Have you been doing your part?

            #tradeBargnani
            Sadly, I don't think it's going to happen. If anything, waiting until his shoulder recovered has shown rival GMs exactly why they don't want Bargnani.

            Comment


            • Matt52 wrote: View Post
              I would do this trade no questions asked from a talent perspective. Of course the issue is the new CBA and that makes things a bit dicey. If the Bulls were desperate enough to throw in a 1st rd pick then do it..... now.
              Totally agree from a production perspective (contracts ignored).

              At the end of the day, both Gay and Boozer's contracts expire in 2015. That gives us 2 years to make a run, and if it doesn't work, we've got $36 million coming off the books.

              With the current ownership group, tanking is clearly not a realistic option. I think it's low-risk move assuming Boozer stays healthy.

              Comment


              • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                Have you been doing your part?

                #tradeBargnani
                He's back to the old Bargnani.

                Comment


                • TheGloveinRapsUniform wrote: View Post
                  He's back to the old Bargnani.
                  He's not "the old" Bargnani. He's simply, Bargnani.

                  Comment


                  • Nilanka wrote: View Post
                    Totally agree from a production perspective (contracts ignored).

                    At the end of the day, both Gay and Boozer's contracts expire in 2015. That gives us 2 years to make a run, and if it doesn't work, we've got $36 million coming off the books.

                    With the current ownership group, tanking is clearly not a realistic option. I think it's low-risk move assuming Boozer stays healthy.
                    Unfortunately, health is often the biggest part of risk in sports...and Boozer has a fuzzy track record there and is only getting older....

                    Obviously there are worse options than this deal, but I understand why BC and co don't like it as a primary choice. I think you're somewhat right, and that if they end up getting something like a 1st round pick thrown in (and nothing better is out there), they'll probably take it. I'm still not sure how I feel about it though.

                    Comment


                    • white men can't jump wrote: View Post
                      I don't now. I was big on this deal a few days ago. I think it was just initial excitement because I feared BC would end up sticking us with a knucklehead like Tyrus Thomas.

                      Boozer certainly has some things that we need, but I just don't trust his health, and do believe despite his strong season, he's very clearly on the decline. If we're goign to screw ourselves with a big contract, it either needs to be for a guy like Gasol (though with the injury this is not urgent) who can be shed quickly and also be a big contributor, or for a guy like Millsap or Jefferson, who can grow with this team....I'm not a big Smith fan...I think he's a guy who's production overstates his value on the court. That said, if he's your cup of tea, it still makes more sense to pay him than Boozer.

                      No, if we're going to trade Bargnani for a big money PF, it has to maintain flexibility, or be a piece for the future...Boozer accomplishes neither of these things. He helps the team on the court a bit now, at least we ahve to assume he would, but is just a 2-year rental, and doesn't really put us over the top in that time. And we have to assume his trade value is not going to go up.
                      Boozer is only 31 and his stats have been consistent throughout his career....if Chicago wants to dump his salary and bell and Rogers will pay I say do it. We are very close to being a really good team and this move could solidify us.

                      Comment


                      • I say do it. I say it's better to have boozer on court contributing than to have $11 million sitting on the bench.
                        @Chr1st1anL

                        Comment


                        • psrs1 wrote: View Post
                          Boozer is only 31 and his stats have been consistent throughout his career....if Chicago wants to dump his salary and bell and Rogers will pay I say do it. We are very close to being a really good team and this move could solidify us.
                          His stats have been pretty consistent, his health, focus and leadership have not. Is he an upgrade over Bargnani? Sure, but so is my left nut right now the way Bargs is playing.

                          I do not think that getting Boozer makes us a significantly better team. Boozer is not that 'missing piece' type player in my mind. Getting him would turn us from a playoff team into a slightly better playoff team...he does not make us a contender.

                          Now, if you just want a slightly better team to cheer for, that's fine, but I wouldn't expect the team's fortunes to improve that much with his acquisition. If Boozer was that missing piece type of player, a team that added him for that reason wouldn't be so eager to trade him simply to dump money (which is basically what they're doing if they trade for Bargs).

                          Why invest in such a player when we're almost certainly a playoff team without him? I think if Bargs can't bring back flexibility and/or a piece for the future, they should trade him for depth, not a washed up all-star.

                          Comment


                          • New bargnani was when he was injured and we could speculate as to whether or not he had a glimmer of hope.

                            old bargnani, or just plain bargnani, sucks donkey balls and proves it day in day out.

                            Comment


                            • white men can't jump wrote: View Post
                              His stats have been pretty consistent, his health, focus and leadership have not. Is he an upgrade over Bargnani? Sure, but so is my left nut right now the way Bargs is playing.

                              I do not think that getting Boozer makes us a significantly better team. Boozer is not that 'missing piece' type player in my mind. Getting him would turn us from a playoff team into a slightly better playoff team...he does not make us a contender.

                              Now, if you just want a slightly better team to cheer for, that's fine, but I wouldn't expect the team's fortunes to improve that much with his acquisition. If Boozer was that missing piece type of player, a team that added him for that reason wouldn't be so eager to trade him simply to dump money (which is basically what they're doing if they trade for Bargs).

                              Why invest in such a player when we're almost certainly a playoff team without him? I think if Bargs can't bring back flexibility and/or a piece for the future, they should trade him for depth, not a washed up all-star.
                              I agree. I don't think Boozer is a big enough upgrade worthy of making us a luxury tax team. Is Boozer worth loosing all financial flexibility for, including loosing the option of signing free agents in the offsease using the various exceptions? I don't think so.

                              Comment


                              • I actually see a Lowry, Gay, Boozer trio being a fairly well-balanced attack. If gelled quickly, they could push for 50 wins next season.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X