I'm addressing people that think the Bulls would be "giving up too much" in a trade with the Sixers, where the Sixers would receive both of their 2014 first round picks. Let's assume they want to clear cap space for Carmelo Anthony.
I give you no greater salary dump precedent than the Golden State Warriors in their pursuit of Andre Iguodala. They had to clear a massive amount of cap to sign Iguodala, who at the time was an unrestricted free agent after exercising his early termination option. The Utah Jazz stepped up and said give us your tired, your sick, and your shitty to the tune of Andris Biedrins, Richard Jefferson, and Brandon Rush. A combined 24 million dollars.
So what did 24 million dollars worth of cap relief cost the Warriors? The Jazz received FOUR picks, 2 first rounders and 2 second rounders. The first rounders were also both UNPROTECTED, one coming this year and one in 2017. Two unprotected first round picks and 2 second rounders was the premium paid by the Warriors to sign their target, Andre Iguodala. The Jazz ended up with pick number 23 this year. Who knows what will happen in 2017 with the Warriors. Some of their key players are injury prone, aging, or both. If they don't get another impact guy they so covet (KLove, etc.), they could be losing a higher than expected 2017 draft pick. I love the Warriors roster. If they're completely healthy, I believe they're a championship contender. That would make their pick lower. But they're never completely healthy, so I don't want to hear anything like "so what they gave up 2 first rounders, they'll be like super low and stuff." 16 and 19 is clearly better than 20-27, but they're not "these situations aren't comparable" better.
The framework of the Bulls-Sixers deal would be:
Boozer and whoever else they want to include to clear as much cap as they want + BOTH of their 2014 first rounders (picks 16 and 19) in exchange for whatever they need from the 76ers to get the deal done. Maybe a second rounder or two, I don't know.
I'd be open to people thinking this isn't the best deal for our cap space. However, if you think this is a good route to go but think the Bulls are giving up too much...I implore you to reconsider. I also think you're a bad person. What logic goes behind thinking Chicago should only give up 1 first rounder in this kind of deal? THIS IS WHAT IT COSTS TO GET YOUR GUY (Melo). Look no further than the Iguodala trade for evidence. Even if that trade never happened, this would be how the deal would go down.
I don't know what the business term is, I've heard "opportunity cost" thrown around lately, but this situation is a simple business transaction concept. Forgoing the right of amnestying Boozer and still being able to get a superstar in free agency in Melo, and possibly reaching the finals as a result after years of injuries and anemic offenses: you have to pay up for that. That payment is both your first rounders. I'm completely piggybacking off of this post, where poster Buckko reinforces the idea that the Bulls need to give us both their first rounders for the simpler reason of needing every bit of cap they can get to sign Carmelo.
The 2014 draft is deep, and the addition of 2 middle first round picks would be very exciting. This gives us a shot at guys like Payne, Young, McDaniels, Adams, Hairston, Warren, you get the picture. It also would allow other options like packaging picks, players, or both to move up or get some more picks in the coming years because we may lose some (improbable but still possible).
Again, if you want other deals, fine. Throw your hypotheticals out there and justify them. Just don't scoff at this Bulls Sixers trade on behalf of Chicago. It's just silly.