What is the purpose of that trade?

[hibachi_001]

I think that the Chicago lost their primary defensive rebounder and for now, what's the purpose on Hughes and Gooden on their line-ups?

There's Deng and Bulldozer so it's not a problem to get their back-ups like Hughes and Gooden

Also they have Nocioni, Noah and Duhon

Are they strengthening their line-ups or what?

[CMJ3]

Cavs were the only ones willing to take on Wallace's contract which is horrible. The Bulls had failed with Wallace and just wanted him gone so they could start fresh, the Cavs were the only ones who were willing to accept the contract so Chicago jumped at the opportunity.

[Elbeen]

Cavs were the only ones willing to take on Wallace's contract which is horrible. The Bulls had failed with Wallace and just wanted him gone so they could start fresh, the Cavs were the only ones who were willing to accept the contract so Chicago jumped at the opportunity.

However, Hughes has a similar contract but to me it's a high-risk-high-reward for both teams. Hughes could well be start playing the same level when he was in Washington and same with Wallace who could as well play like his Detroit days.

[shadowgrin]

Hughes may have a similar contract but his presence is a backup of the Bulls in case they lose Gordon and Deng.

[Andrew]

Ben Wallace wasn't exactly playing like the defensive beast he established himself as being in Detroit and there were questions about his commitment and attitude. It clearly wasn't working out so rather than wait out the full four years, the Bulls traded him away. Hughes has a similar contract so there's a risk there but perhaps he can be moved at a later date. In the meantime, he can provide some of the things that the Bulls lack (size in the backcourt, scoring) but he's by no means the answer to all their problems or a dependable long term solution. I'd like to see them hold onto Gooden though.

The bottom line is that Chicago didn't lose the Ben Wallace that Detroit let go or even the one that Cleveland just gained. They got rid of a player who wasn't living up to his contract and seemed to lack motivation. It wasn't a trade that solved all their problems but it at least addressed one of them.

[Sauru]

most basic answer? this trade was made as an attempt to save ones job

[Bruce]

This trade is all about money. I am looking forward to the Bulls being active in the summer as Deng and Gordon are threatening to walk if they do not receive max payouts. If Paxson can't make a deal work for the two, Hughes expiring $12M contract could become a ballast for a trade. Eventually, nobody sees Hughes staying longer than 2008. On the Cavs end, it almost seems to me like Ferry just needed to make a trade done to keep LeBron happy.

[Andrew]

Hughes' contract doesn't expire until 2010 though, meaning that both Gordon and Deng could sign the qualifying over and become unrestricted free agents in the 2009 offseason. Of course, as an expiring contract Hughes could be part of a sign-and-trade if it came down to that. In any case, the only way he's on his way out of town before then is a trade or buy out.

[Bruce]

My bad regarding the year, but I really think Hughes was never worth 12M. Probably 6-7M max.

[Andrew]

No question, and in making the trade the Bulls did get a bad contract for a slightly worse one. Still, given that Wallace was being paid more to be unmotivated and a disappointment, it was a worthwhile role of the dice. It's a shame Joe Smith had to be included though.

[Bruce]

Whatever the case though, I'd really like to see the Bulls to be able to keep Deng and Gordon, Hinrich and even Noah together for a couple of more years. I'd really hate it if Hughes contract would play a factor on why any on the 4 would have to leave.

[Andrew]

I agree, though Hughes has been doing a decent job in the meantime. Looking forward however, I'd much rather they keep Gordon and Deng.