Noah for Melo?

[Steve Kerr]

Joakim Noah had his 1st season last year where he barely scored double figures, so now he can get you double digit offense against any playoff defense? I don't understand where you get the idea he's such a reliable offensive performer.

This whole "you only have 1 player who's a liability" logic makes no sense. You don't win championships by just having a roster full of guys who "aren't a liability", the Bulls not having a franchise player will be exposed moreso than having a guy who can't create for himself at SG.

Of course if they can avoid giving Noah they should, but someone who will never be anything more than a role player shouldn't be the deal breaker for a franchise player.

[JamStone]

Not with that big gaping hole at the 2-guard. Brewer and Thomas are both bums, and no team is going anywhere not getting offensive production from 2 positions. Trading Deng for Melo has them competing for the EC. Trading Deng and Noah saves them a noose on the tree of woe.

Very inaccurate.

In fact, most of the championship teams this past decade have had weak offensive production from two positions. Think back to the early Shaq-Kobe Lakers with starters like Rick Fox and Samaki Walker, or the Spurs le teams with Bruce and Rasho or Bruce and Francisco Elson, or even Bruce and an older David Robinson. Look at the Miami Heat le team with Udonis and Posey and then the Celtics team a few years ago with Rondo and Perkins before Rondo had established himself offensively as a good scorer. Look at the Lakers two years ago with Ariza and Fisher starting. Before the playoffs, Ariza was only putting up 9 ppg.

As you see with many of those le teams, the scoring responsibility would largely rest on 2-3 starters and maybe another main guy off the bench. There are often "weak" offensive players at two positions on very good teams. And the potential line-up the Bulls would have with Rose, Melo, and Boozer feature three guys who all would put up around 20 ppg or more. And when Brewer was playing 30 minutes a game, he was a 10-12 ppg guy. Plus you have Korver backing him up, who would offset some of Brewer's lack of offense.

The Bulls would be fine having two weak offensive positions. That's not what the problem would be. It would be defensively they'd be pretty bad, and average at best. But that's why I said it would only be worth it if the Bulls were certain they could re-sign Melo. That first year would be a starting point, but they'd have to get some defensive depth especially at the center position in the following seasons. The first year, scoring wouldn't be a problem. It would be the fact that their defense would probably give up a lot of points on high percentage shooting.

[Sigz]

I love Noah. Wish we had him instead of t-rex arms Bonner.

[Zelophehad]

Boozer would never play center even if they trade Noah. They would play Gibson or Kurt Thomas at the 5. I don't know how you can be an NBA fan and not know that.

[HarlemHeat37]

This is a no-brainer..

I like Noah, but his ceiling is a high-end role player..if you can get a top 10 player in the NBA that is either in his prime or about to enter his prime, you obviously have to pull the trigger..

The Bulls aren't going to win a le this season no matter what they do..so they're thinking about the present AND future..if Anthony is going to sign an extension, of course you do it..

What would be better?..

Year 1: Keep Noah, which fills the hole at C and might make the Bulls a better team for this season..however, this team doesn't have as high of a ceiling, as they still only have 1 potential star player, and he plays the PG position, which hasn't been successful for championships as of late..

Year 1: Keep Anthony, have a hole at C, and maybe have a worse team than you would with Noah..however, for the future, you can have Carmelo Anthony, a top 10 player in his prime, AND THEN you can fill the C hole the next year, which obviously gives you a better team for the future..

I would definitely be willing to sacrifice a year and be a little worse for the sake of having Anthony for many years to come, since the Bulls could just fill the C hole the next off-season..granted they probably won't get a better player than Noah, but you just don't pass up a star wingman in this era..

[picc84]

Very inaccurate.

In fact, most of the championship teams this past decade have had weak offensive production from two positions.

Exactly. The past decade. The NBA is stronger now, especially going into the upcoming season. The early decade Lakers could get away with having two players because the league was weaker, and they were sporting a prime Shaq. And 2 out of 3 years, we barely got away with that. None of the contenders currently have anyone even close to him. The only team with an argument is the Heat. The Bulls, even with Melo, certainly don't.

the Celtics team a few years ago with Rondo and Perkins before Rondo had established himself offensively as a good scorer. Look at the Lakers two years ago with Ariza and Fisher starting. Before the playoffs, Ariza was only putting up 9 ppg.

Only Rondo wasn't an offensive liability, even back then. Neither was Ariza. And both of them were two-way players. 08 Rondo and 09 Trevor Ariza would both be HUGE upgrades over Ronnie Brewer and Kyle Korver, not to mention Kurt Thomas or Eric Dampier.

And when Brewer was playing 30 minutes a game, he was a 10-12 ppg guy.

And as soon as they met a good defensive team in the playoffs who could expose his vulnerabilities, he was scoring 10 points on 40% shooting, while crippling the offense with his lack of a 3-pointer (0% in the '09 playoffs). Which is exactly what will happen should the Bulls make the 2nd round or further.

Plus you have Korver backing him up, who would offset some of Brewer's lack of offense.

And who would present another set of equally bad problems on defense.

The Bulls would be fine having two weak offensive positions.

Sure they would. Up until the 2nd round. If you think they're going anywhere in this league carrying two dead weights in their crunchtime lineup, you're crazy.

[SomeCallMeTim]

The Lakers have gone back2back with virtually no center.

Say what?

Bynum and Pau are excellent centers. Saying the Lakers have had virtually no center is ridiculous.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Surprised and impressed by this thread. Fully expected it to be full of "Of course you trade Noah for Melo, Melo is a SUPASTAR!!!1!!" takes. Good to see people recognize that Noah is underrated and Melo overrated.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Exactly. The past decade. The NBA is stronger now, especially going into the upcoming season. The early decade Lakers could get away with having two players because the league was weaker, and they were sporting a prime Shaq.

How you can say having 2 offensively challenged players makes winning a le impossible? Lakers just won a le with Fisher and Artest starting and getting the bulk of the minutes at their positions.

[JamStone]

Surprised and impressed by this thread. Fully expected it to be full of "Of course you trade Noah for Melo, Melo is a SUPASTAR!!!1!!" takes. Good to see people recognize that Noah is underrated and Melo overrated.

Even if Noah were underrated (which I don't think is the case anymore) and Melo overrated (which he is but still a franchise player), if Melo were under contract for the next four seasons, I'd trade Noah for him in a split second without even blinking. Any hesitation I would have trading Noah for Melo would be almost exclusively due to the likelihood that Melo would still leave after only playing one year in Chicago.

[SomeCallMeTim]

Even if Noah were underrated (which I don't think is the case anymore) and Melo overrated (which he is but still a franchise player), if Melo were under contract for the next four seasons, I'd trade Noah for him in a split second without even blinking. Any hesitation I would have trading Noah for Melo would be almost exclusively due to the likelihood that Melo would still leave after only playing one year in Chicago.

I don't think Melo for Noah would be a terrible trade for the Bulls or anything. It's just not a slam dunk IMO. Big problem will be Melo's insistence on a max contract. So you could keep a valuable player in Noah who has a much more reasonable contract or overpay for Melo's production. I'm not saying overpaying for production is always a bad thing (the Lakers are now overpaying for Kobe and that's working out pretty well I'd say) but I guess I'm just not as high on Melo as many are.

[JamStone]

Exactly. The past decade. The NBA is stronger now, especially going into the upcoming season. The early decade Lakers could get away with having two players because the league was weaker, and they were sporting a prime Shaq. And 2 out of 3 years, we barely got away with that. None of the contenders currently have anyone even close to him. The only team with an argument is the Heat. The Bulls, even with Melo, certainly don't.

The NBA isn't all that much stronger now than in the early 2000s. Right now, there is the Lakers. Then you got potentially great team because of its talent in Miami. Every other team is either really good but old or second tier also-rans.

In the early 2000s, the Lakers and Spurs might have dominated but teams like Sacramento and Portland were really great teams. The Eastern Conference may have been really weak, but that doesn't mean the league right now is stronger. The Eastern Conference is stronger. But one could argue based on the strength of the Western Conference in the early 2000s, the league was more compe ive then. It just was all mostly in the West.

Only Rondo wasn't an offensive liability, even back then. Neither was Ariza. And both of them were two-way players. 08 Rondo and 09 Trevor Ariza would both be HUGE upgrades over Ronnie Brewer and Kyle Korver, not to mention Kurt Thomas or Eric Dampier.

The Rondo wasn't an offensively liability in 2008. He was 50 times worse as a jump shooter back then. And that's saying a lot because he still sucks as a jump shooter.

And Ariza was an offensive liability. How do you think he got all those open looks in the playoffs? Because teams didn't respect him at all and they collapsed on Kobe and Pau. Ariza got on a hot streak for about a month and a half. Good for him. Ask Houston fans if Ariza is an offensive liability.

The fact that they were good defenders is precisely why your initial comment was wrong. You said a team couldn't go anywhere with two positions being offensive liabilities. That's wrong because teams have done it. And it's wrong because if those two offensive liabilities are great defenders, they can make up for it at the other end.

The Bulls wouldn't go anywhere because their defense would be bad, not because of the offensive limitations of Brewer and Thomas.

And as soon as they met a good defensive team in the playoffs who could expose his vulnerabilities, he was scoring 10 points on 40% shooting, while crippling the offense with his lack of a 3-pointer (0% in the '09 playoffs). Which is exactly what will happen should the Bulls make the 2nd round or further.

And who would present another set of equally bad problems on defense.

That's why there are more than 5 players on a team. His lack of jumpshot gets exposed, play Korver more. Korver's weak defense exposed, play Brewer more.

It's why a team that has a human sieve at point guard like Fisher on the Lakers can still win games in the playoffs. It's why a team who has a guard who can't hit open three pointers like Rondo on the Celtics can still win games in the playoffs.

Sure they would. Up until the 2nd round. If you think they're going anywhere in this league carrying two dead weights in their crunchtime lineup, you're crazy.

Guess to you "going anywhere in the league" means championship or nothing at all. You're talking about a Bulls team that since Jordan retired has been to the playoffs only 5 times in 12 seasons, making it out of the second round only once. You're talking about a Bulls franchise that has had only 2 winning seasons in those 12 seasons. You're talking about a Bulls team that got rudely and embarrassingly handled in the first round last year.

Making it to the second round coming where the Bulls are coming from is going in the right direction. Lose in the second round, then try to fill some of those holes at center and shooting guard. It's better than what they've had the last 12 years.

[mountainballer]

IMO it's a no brainer to do it.
(without an extension there wouldn't even be talks)
Rose+Melo+Bozzer gives them to much potential to form one of the best one-two-three punch trios in the league and I don't even think about the financial implications. (Melo would net the Bulls multiple times the money Noah ever could)
the team would be pretty imbalanced after this trade, but Bulls do have some assets to get a Center in another trade.
(IMO they would need a third team anyhow, if Nuggets don't also take Deng, which they won't. Cavs and their extension. Deng would fit nice in Cleveland)

[kace]

Of course if they can avoid giving Noah they should, but someone who will never be anything more than a role player shouldn't be the deal breaker for a franchise player.

Noah is the kind of role player who can make a team win PO games and les.

Is Melo the kind of franchise player who makes his team win les ?

Noah, with his probable progression, for Melo is a very tough choice to make IMHO.

[mystargtr34]

You give up Noah for Melo in an absolute heart beat if thats the deal breaker... and then you fill the holes afterward.

[picc84]

The NBA isn't all that much stronger now than in the early 2000s. Right now, there is the Lakers. Then you got potentially great team because of its talent in Miami. Every other team is either really good but old or second tier also-rans.

In the early 2000s, the Lakers and Spurs might have dominated but teams like Sacramento and Portland were really great teams. The Eastern Conference may have been really weak, but that doesn't mean the league right now is stronger. The Eastern Conference is stronger. But one could argue based on the strength of the Western Conference in the early 2000s, the league was more compe ive then. It just was all mostly in the West.

Agree to disagree. Whole other discussion here.

The Rondo wasn't an offensively liability in 2008. He was 50 times worse as a jump shooter back then. And that's saying a lot because he still sucks as a jump shooter.

He ended the series with a 21 point, 8 assist game. Had a 16 assist game in game 4. He couldn't shoot but he could handle the ball well enough to get to the rim and finish, and was the best passer on the team. As an offensive player, he was still better than Ronnie Brewer and much harder to eliminate from a play.

As for Ariza, I don't know how you can say he was an offensive liability because he got open looks, when he was knocking all of them down. He shot 48% from 3 for the playoffs. Unless you think Bulls fans can reasonably rely on Brewer channeling Steve Kerr the way Ariza did that postseason, its not an apt comparison.

By the way. They can't. His last two years in the playoffs, Brewer has averaged 8% from downtown. 0% against the best defensive team they placed.

Either 09 Ariza or 08 Rondo would be a significant improvement on the Bulls over Ronnie Brewer. The two of them also being good defensive players at their positions is just icing on the cake. His complete lack of any jumpshot is the last thing a slashing guard like Derrick Rose needs against an athletic defense like Miami's or an experienced one like Boston's, and he doesn't have the dribbling or passing skills to contribute in other areas like Rondo did.

The Bulls wouldn't go anywhere because their defense would be bad, not because of the offensive limitations of Brewer and Thomas.

Yeah. We'll see.

That's why there are more than 5 players on a team. His lack of jumpshot gets exposed, play Korver more. Korver's weak defense exposed, play Brewer more.

That was my problem with the Bulls offseason. They needed a two-way player at shooting guard, and traded their only one away. With Korver and Brewer they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Korver will get next to no playing time against a team like Miami, with Wade and James on the other end. Against a team like Boston, he can chase around Allen but the same thing that happened to Vladimir Radmanovic and Derek Fisher in the 2008 finals is going to happen to him. The Boston defense rotates too quickly for a spot-up shooter to get consistent good looks. This year Derek Fisher was regularly taking 5-6 shots from behind the arc throughout the playoffs. We get to Boston and suddenly he's lucky to get 2 off, and registers donuts on 3 point attempts in a couple games.

Is Chicago good enough to survive losing Korver's offense against a good defensive team, and not getting any from Brewer? If Noah and his 15 pts on high % is on the team along with Melo, yes. If Kurt Thomas is manning the C position, no.

Guess to you "going anywhere in the league" means championship or nothing at all. You're talking about a Bulls team that since Jordan retired has been to the playoffs only 5 times in 12 seasons, making it out of the second round only once. You're talking about a Bulls franchise that has had only 2 winning seasons in those 12 seasons. You're talking about a Bulls team that got rudely and embarrassingly handled in the first round last year.

Making it to the second round coming where the Bulls are coming from is going in the right direction. Lose in the second round, then try to fill some of those holes at center and shooting guard. It's better than what they've had the last 12 years.

Dude if you're satisfied with the Bulls achieving 2nd round ecstacy, we're coming from two entirely different perspectives here. With Noah and Melo they could compete for a le. With just Melo they can't. Good center's don't grow on trees, they can't just wait for next offseason and try to get a new guy as good as Noah is - it won't happen. Not that easy. And they need a guy as good as him to get to the next level.

I'm not Denvers GM so I can't greenlight a Deng/Gibson trade for Melo. I'm just saying it would be in Chi's best interest to hold out on Noah as long as possible, and put some pressure on Denver. Trading Noah along with Deng should be an absolute last resort, its not something you hear and just go "pull the trigger".

[Cry Havoc]

Even if Noah were underrated (which I don't think is the case anymore) and Melo overrated (which he is but still a franchise player), if Melo were under contract for the next four seasons, I'd trade Noah for him in a split second without even blinking. Any hesitation I would have trading Noah for Melo would be almost exclusively due to the likelihood that Melo would still leave after only playing one year in Chicago.

Yep. This.

At the end of the day, if you don't have players who can put the ball through the hoop, you aren't going to win much. Right now the Bulls would still be good defensively without Noah, and they'd be great offensively with Melo. His at ude is a concern, though. Not sure how chemistry would fare between him and Rose.

[Cry Havoc]

The fact that they were good defenders is precisely why your initial comment was wrong. You said a team couldn't go anywhere with two positions being offensive liabilities. That's wrong because teams have done it. And it's wrong because if those two offensive liabilities are great defenders, they can make up for it at the other end.

You could make a pretty convincing argument that every team in the past decade+ has had a couple of less-skilled offensive players.

Name a championship team that has had more than 3 really, really good offensive players on the starting roster? Maybe the 08 Celtics with Rondo as a 4th, but I wouldn't have classified him as a "great" weapon, he was just decent at best.

[Steve Kerr]

Noah is the kind of role player who can make a team win PO games and les.

Is Melo the kind of franchise player who makes his team win les ?

Noah, with his probable progression, for Melo is a very tough choice to make IMHO.

Melo is potentially someone who will be either the star or co-star of a le team in the future. He has all the talent in the world, has finally figured out how to use his size just as well as he uses his athleticism, and still has more room to grow. People will bash Melo for his flaws, but he's no less flawed than any player in the league not named Kobe Bryant Lebron James or Dwanye Wade.

Noah meanwhile might have a little more room to grow but he'll never be anything more than a role player who's a defensive specialist in the starting lineup but with 3-4 other players around him who are better offensively. He's not the most athletic guy in the world, can't make a shot outside of 5 feet, is undersized for his position, and produces because of a high motor and high energy level.

For some reason people (fans and re ed GMs) seem to think that since the Carmelo Anthonys and Amare Stoudemires of the world aren't as good as Kobe or Lebron you're better off not trading for them and waiting until the next Lebron or Kobe falls into your lap. It's re ed logic that backfires 99.9% of the time.

[Steve Kerr]

I don't think Melo for Noah would be a terrible trade for the Bulls or anything. It's just not a slam dunk IMO. Big problem will be Melo's insistence on a max contract. So you could keep a valuable player in Noah who has a much more reasonable contract or overpay for Melo's production. I'm not saying overpaying for production is always a bad thing (the Lakers are now overpaying for Kobe and that's working out pretty well I'd say) but I guess I'm just not as high on Melo as many are.

O great more of this "he's not worth a max contract " mongoloid madness.

I guess all teams in the NBA that don't have either Lebron, Kobe or Wade should never give a max contract to someone who doesn't deserve it. Instead, they should build their team around role players with reasonable contracts. Hey, they might suck and have no way of closing games or contending for a championship, but at least they won't be overpaying anyone (). YOU HAVE TO OVERPAY IN THE NBA TO CONTEND. Why is this concept so hard to understand?

[Steve Kerr]

I just can't wait for Thibodeau to get fired a year from now because the Bulls are a ball offensive team and Scott Skiles will always blame coaches for that rather than blame himself for a roster that has no one who can get himself a shot at important points of the game.

[JamStone]

He ended the series with a 21 point, 8 assist game. Had a 16 assist game in game 4. He couldn't shoot but he could handle the ball well enough to get to the rim and finish, and was the best passer on the team. As an offensive player, he was still better than Ronnie Brewer and much harder to eliminate from a play.

In the 2008 playoff series against the Lakers, Brewer averaged 11 points on 53% FG shooting in roughly 24 minutes a game. You'd be hard-pressed to convince anyone that's deadweight offensively.

As for Ariza, I don't know how you can say he was an offensive liability because he got open looks, when he was knocking all of them down. He shot 48% from 3 for the playoffs. Unless you think Bulls fans can reasonably rely on Brewer channeling Steve Kerr the way Ariza did that postseason, its not an apt comparison.

You can be a poor three point shooter and not be an offensive liability. Just take your Rondo example. You can be a decent three point shooter and still be an offensive liability. Someone like Eddie House comes to mind, or JJ Re his first couple seasons in the league. No, Brewer is never going to get a hot streak from three point land, but that's not his function or his role and that doesn't make him deadweight offensively. Look at how Utah was built and you'd often have a line-up of Deron, Memo, Kirilenko/Harpring and all of those guys are capable three point shooters, and Boozer is a good midrange jumpshooter. Would it help if Brewer were a good three point shooter? Of course. Was he deadweight because he couldn't? Not necessarily. His lack of three point shooting would hurt the Bulls. Their lack of interior defense would. Putting a three point shooter at the 2-guard position on that hypothetical Bulls team doesn't change their lack of a defensive center.

Either 09 Ariza or 08 Rondo would be a significant improvement on the Bulls over Ronnie Brewer. The two of them also being good defensive players at their positions is just icing on the cake. His complete lack of any jumpshot is the last thing a slashing guard like Derrick Rose needs against an athletic defense like Miami's or an experienced one like Boston's, and he doesn't have the dribbling or passing skills to contribute in other areas like Rondo did.

Trevor Ariza and Rondo are better players than Brewer. I wouldn't argue otherwise. That doesn't change the reason why I challenged your initial comment. You're modifying your argument when what I challenged was your notion that a team can't go anywhere with two offensive deadweights. That's been proven over and over this past decade to be inaccurate. You modifying your argument to talk about other things those "deadweights" could contribute changes the argument.

That was my problem with the Bulls offseason. They needed a two-way player at shooting guard, and traded their only one away. With Korver and Brewer they're damned if they do, damned if they don't.

The Bulls pursued Dwyane Wade and LeBron. I'm sure they talked to Joe Johnson. It's not like great two-way shooting guards fall out of the sky. I'm not arguing the Bulls did good signing Brewer and Korver. I don't think they had a good off-season. That has nothing to do with me challenging your initial comment about two offensive deadweights...

Korver will get next to no playing time against a team like Miami, with Wade and James on the other end. Against a team like Boston, he can chase around Allen but the same thing that happened to Vladimir Radmanovic and Derek Fisher in the 2008 finals is going to happen to him. The Boston defense rotates too quickly for a spot-up shooter to get consistent good looks. This year Derek Fisher was regularly taking 5-6 shots from behind the arc throughout the playoffs. We get to Boston and suddenly he's lucky to get 2 off, and registers donuts on 3 point attempts in a couple games.

Is Chicago good enough to survive losing Korver's offense against a good defensive team, and not getting any from Brewer? If Noah and his 15 pts on high % is on the team along with Melo, yes. If Kurt Thomas is manning the C position, no.

This is more specific points when I challenged a general comment. To me, the Bulls wouldn't be championship contenders either way. But that has nothing to do with me challenging your initial argument...

Dude if you're satisfied with the Bulls achieving 2nd round ecstacy, we're coming from two entirely different perspectives here. With Noah and Melo they could compete for a le. With just Melo they can't. Good center's don't grow on trees, they can't just wait for next offseason and try to get a new guy as good as Noah is - it won't happen. Not that easy. And they need a guy as good as him to get to the next level.

The Bulls aren't my team. I don't give a how deep they go in the playoffs, much less feel satisfied or unsatisfied with how far they go. You're channeling your Laker fan bias once again with the "championship or nothing" logic. With most teams that grow and are being built to win championships, there is a progression. There are steps. You can't just make a couple major moves and then expect to win a le right away like Boston did in 2008. That's not how easy it's supposed to be. If you're the Bulls, you give up Noah for Melo with no hesitation if you know you have Carmelo longterm. You have the foundation of Rose, Melo, and Boozer. Then you go from there. You have holes in at C and SG but that's what you address the following off-season.

And I think you way overrate Noah. Even with Noah, to me the Bulls don't compete for a le, especially not right away. They'd have a nice starting line-up. But they also have a disjointed roster. Melo is a midpost scorer at the small forward position. Does he get in Boozer's way on offense and vice versa? Rose is at his best in an open court transition style offense. Boozer and Melo are better in the half court set to maximize their talents. And even with Noah, they'd still have plenty of exploitable mismatches defensively. Boozer can't guard any elite PFs or Cs. Noah still is light in the ass and gets manhandled by big, strong big men. Melo isn't a horrible defender, but he's not good either. The team can score but they'll still have problems defending. Even with Noah, they would still be a few moves away from competing for a le imo.

[Steve Kerr]

I don't even get the championship or nothing logic used here. They have a much better shot at a championship if they trade Deng and Noah for Melo than they do if they don't get Melo period. You're never gonna win a championship with D-Rose surrounded by borderline all stars like Boozer and Deng + a bunch of role players. Nothing Chicago does makes them a contender this year or a team capable of exiting the 2st round. The quickest route they have to being a contender is doing what it takes to get Melo and building around him + Rose. Even then I still think any team relying on Boozer to be one of its best players is destined to fail.

[TD 21]

This is a no-brainer..

I like Noah, but his ceiling is a high-end role player..if you can get a top 10 player in the NBA that is either in his prime or about to enter his prime, you obviously have to pull the trigger..

The Bulls aren't going to win a le this season no matter what they do..so they're thinking about the present AND future..if Anthony is going to sign an extension, of course you do it..

What would be better?..

Year 1: Keep Noah, which fills the hole at C and might make the Bulls a better team for this season..however, this team doesn't have as high of a ceiling, as they still only have 1 potential star player, and he plays the PG position, which hasn't been successful for championships as of late..

Year 1: Keep Anthony, have a hole at C, and maybe have a worse team than you would with Noah..however, for the future, you can have Carmelo Anthony, a top 10 player in his prime, AND THEN you can fill the C hole the next year, which obviously gives you a better team for the future..

I would definitely be willing to sacrifice a year and be a little worse for the sake of having Anthony for many years to come, since the Bulls could just fill the C hole the next off-season..granted they probably won't get a better player than Noah, but you just don't pass up a star wingman in this era..

Noah is a championship caliber role player and he's a perfect fit next to Boozer and on that roster in general. It's not as simple as "trade him for a top ten player and fill the center hole next year". With who (of quality)? And with what resources? They'd be stuck with ancient types, such as Dampier and Thomas. That's not going to get it done.

If I were running the Bulls, I'd stay the course. Rose has the potential to be a go-to guy on a championship team or at least a 1B type. They've got a quality front line, all they need is an SG who can get his own shot and be either their second or third option.

It may sound like it defies logic to not trade a role player center for a top ten player, but in this case, I wouldn't. I like the composition of that team.

That being said, I don't see a deal there that makes sense. I've got to believe the Bulls would be reluctant to give up Noah and the Nuggets would have to take back Deng as well, which they'd probably be reluctant to do even if they were getting Noah.

The Rockets are the team that makes the most sense. The deal someone proposed a while back that makes a lot of sense is Martin, Battier, Hill, Taylor and some combination of the Knicks picks for Anthony and Afflalo. The Nuggets get a nice mix of veterans and young assets, while theoretically remaining compe ive enough to still be a playoff team, while the Rockets get the elite player they've coveted and stocked piled assets to get for a while now.

[Steve Kerr]

Noah is a championship caliber role player and he's a perfect fit next to Boozer and on that roster in general.

Oh yeah he's a great fit. An undersized center who gets dominated by size next to a undersized PF who gets dominated by size. I'd say those two are a match made in heaven.