Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: eddog2 Jan 31 2007, 01:05 PM

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/ian_thomsen/01/30/nba.thomsen.deal0205/index.html

Ian Thomsen suggests that the Bulls should trade P.J. Brown for Bonzi Wells & Sura. Sura won't play for us but is only guaranteed $1 million next year. Basically we'd be trading Brown for Wells. Wells has a post up game that is second to few guard/f's in the league.

What does everyone think about this trade?

I think it would improve the Bulls offense by freeing up Gordon and other players on the perimeter. However, I don't think Skiles would get along with Wells. It might also leave us extremely vulnerable at the PF/C position where we would have to rely on Sweets/Allen as back-ups at Center & as part-time back-ups to Nocioni at PF.

I like Bonzi and his game but I don't think the Bulls would make this deal b/c they are all about "character".

Posted by: steve9347 Jan 31 2007, 02:15 PM

man, edwin, youve been talking about bonzi for weeks... now you'll never shutup!

Posted by: sport1016 Jan 31 2007, 03:12 PM

we can't trade our starting pf for a backup SG

i don't think we'll move PJ for anyone who's not a big

i like bonzi, but PJ is more valuable to our vertically challenged team

Posted by: eddog2 Jan 31 2007, 03:40 PM

That's exactly why I think we won't do it. If we had more size like the Nuggets we would probably do a trade like that. Bonzi is a better player than P.J. at this point in his career. I personally have always like Bonzi. He gets a bad rap b/c of his attitude but he is a hell of a player.

He gets injured quite a bit but he is a great post player. Last year he stepped up huge in the playoffs. He averaged 23.2 ppg, pulled 12 rpg, & shot 60.9% from the field. He dominated the post in that series and was one of the few reasons Sacramento made the series competitive against San Antonio.

I like his game and it would give the Bulls a good post player even though he is not a F/C. He actually creates more matchup problems than a F/C post player b/c guard/f's have a difficult time stopping him in the post.

However, for the reasons addressed in my first post I doubt the Bulls would touch him, yet alone trade a big to get him.

For all of you who have no idea what Well's is capable of here is his highlights from last years playoff series vs the Spurs (one of the best defensive teams in the league)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uca66cK-WrA

and as for you Steve, you'll be hearing more about Bonzi in the coming weeks.

Posted by: ZoomSlowik Jan 31 2007, 04:28 PM

Trade Gordon for Gasol, then deal Brown for Bonzi.

I'm half kidding on that, mostly because Brown's contract would be key to the Gasol deal. However, that's why I'm not quite as desperate to keep Gordon as a lot of people, you can get reasonably good SG's for fairly low prices (though I obviously don't endorse giving Gordon away either).

I don't really have anything against Bonzi outside of his attitude at times. I worry about guys like that when combined with Skiles, that just seems like a recipe for disaster. He's become notorious for not giving a full effort all the time, especially on defense. He's the kind of big, serviceable guard I'd like to see us get if we were to deal Gordon, though preferrably with better defense.

However, as sport said, I don't see us dealing any of our post depth unless we're getting another big back either in the deal or from another source.

Posted by: Chisoxfn Jan 31 2007, 04:46 PM

There is no way we make that deal. As you pointed out we would be putting the team in a major hole if any other big went down for any time period what-so-ever. If we deal Brown we need to be getting back a big in return (or getting a big in a seperate deal or signing).

I wouldn't be opposed to Bonzi if I didn't think he'd have attitude issues playing behind people like Gordon/Deng/Noc.


Now that is an interesting idea. I wonder if we could work out some sort of deal where after acquiring Gasol w/a package of Gordon/Brown you than deal someone like Sweets/Duhon (financially I don't know if this would work) for a 2 guard (maybe a Bonzi Wells or Stephen Jackson...basically some sort of guy that you could pick up that could help fill that void, the problem with both of those guys are the attitude problems they have.

Posted by: eddog2 Feb 1 2007, 10:26 AM

Please don't ever mention Stephen Jackson as a potential Bull. That would be worse than E-Rob. Besides Kobe, I don't think there is a player I like less in the NBA.

I like the idea of trading Gordon to get Gasol if we did have deal lined up to bring us a good SG. However, I would want a SG that can hit the 3. Although Wells can make the shot he will never be a 40%+ 3 shooter.

Posted by: southsider2k5 Feb 1 2007, 12:52 PM

If you trade for Bonzi without moving a guard, who do you bench to get him PT? It wouldn't help the team that much, because you would be taking another important player out to get him in.

Posted by: eddog2 Feb 1 2007, 01:13 PM

That's also another reason I am against doing the trade. Not that I don't like Bonzi but b/c we can't use another GF. (especially if we had to trade a 4/5 to get him)

Posted by: steve9347 Feb 1 2007, 02:22 PM

Nothing is worse the E-Rob.

Thank you Jerry Krause. Oh yeah, thanks for trading Elton Brand for Tyson Chandler too... well done.

Posted by: Chisoxfn Feb 3 2007, 01:03 AM

I think the key is that this would be a deal or the type of deal the club makes after it acquires Gasol or that type of big and obviously Ben Gordon would be the key piece of that deal.

Posted by: AirScott Feb 3 2007, 11:40 AM

you know the worst part about that? Brand has always been a 20-10 guy in the NBA...what the hell did Krause expect Chandler would develop into? how much better does it get for a power forward?

wait, here's the worst part about it...what type of player has this team been rumored to make a move for? a scoring PF with an inside presence? (KG, Pau Gasol)...um, that's Elton Brand. it's been six years, that trade just keeps getting worse in my eyes.


(on an unrelated note, I just spent the last 15 minutes trying to decide on a new username, then I remembered I already registered here...so does anyone have a problem with the AirScott username? I know it's been 9 years since MJ, but this is my SoxTalk username as well. I don't know where I'm going with this, really. I also tried bullstalk.com before this, but there's no message board there and the scroller at the top said our top scorer was Jamal Crawford. does anyone care?)

Posted by: CryptViLL Feb 3 2007, 11:42 AM

haha. thats an un-updated board..
glad to have you here on talkbulls, Airscott's a very nice name

and agreed with you on the whole elton brand thing.

Posted by: ZoomSlowik Feb 3 2007, 08:10 PM

The only problem with that is that there is no guarantee Brand would have stayed. In fact, at the time he was very pissed about the losing and it seemed likely that he would have left in another year or two as a free agent. It was still a terrible trade, but it's very possible that we wouldn't have had Brand anyways...

Posted by: AirScott Feb 4 2007, 11:48 AM

there's never any guarantee anybody will stay, anyway. welcome to the age of free agency. there are always better moves to improve a team than trading its centerpiece for a guy who, at best, is hopefully going to develop into the centerpiece.

Posted by: ZoomSlowik Feb 4 2007, 10:34 PM

I'm not arguing that, but assuming he'd still be here is a bit of a stretch, and that was your entire second point. Plus if he were Wallace probably wouldn't be, though that might not be that big a loss.

Posted by: eddog2 Feb 5 2007, 07:01 PM

It would have been nice to keep Brand, but by doing so we might have won a handful more games each year. That means that we wouldn't have been able to draft both Gordon & Deng and we almost certainly wouldn't have been able to get Sefolosha.

However, by not trading Brand, we still might have Eddy Curry and that would be the best front court in the league.

Posted by: Chisoxfn Feb 6 2007, 06:05 PM

Good to have ya back here. I think the username is pefectly fine and I think you bring up some valid points about Brand. In hindsight it was a horrid move but Krause was taking a risk and shooting for the ultimate greatness (two dominate bigs) and both definitely had the talent to be one of the greatest big men duo's of all time (too bad it didn't pan out).

I also must say that had we kept Brand we really have no idea how things would have worked out and whether we would have picked up guys like Deng/Hinrich/Gordon/Noc etc.