Q: With the uncertainty of Ben Gordon's and Luol Deng's contract situation and the limited restricted free agent market, might the Chicago Bulls be able to make some deals to help solidify their roster? Do you see any sign-and-trades happening?
— Andy, Chicago

A: I don't. I think the Bulls are again entering something of a rebuilding mode around Derrick Rose. Deng gambled in rejecting a $57 million deal last fall and it helped ruin his and the Bulls' 2007-08 season with Deng playing somewhat selfishly to protect his free agent value. He'll now sign for something around $70 million, so he won in the end. It's highly unlikely Gordon will re-sign. So they could lose Gordon after next season and probably will hold onto Kirk Hinrich, their best trade piece, for insurance with the team not committed to Larry Hughes. Look, they've got a coach who's never coached a game before and two lead assistants who appeared to be retired. Drew Gooden has some value as he enters the final year of his deal and a trade there is possible. But the Bulls, after a poor season, don't have many pieces in great demand, so I don't see them doing anything significant.

Q: What do the Milwaukee Bucks need to become a competitive team? Is trading Michael Redd the only way for them to move forward?
— Bucks fan, Chicago

A: Afraid to admit who you are, eh? Don't worry, you should at least have bragging rights in Chicago as I expect the Bucks to surpass the Bulls. I like the acquisition of Richard Jefferson and though they were moves for reserves, the pickups of Malik Rose and Ty Lue show that veterans will come to Milwaukee and play for Scott Skiles. Skiles is a Larry Brown-type coach in that he'll bring out the best in the players they have. He'll be demanding on defense, which could make a huge difference. They settled with Andrew Bogut, so have shown they'll spend money even being in a small market. I don't believe they need to deal Redd. They just need him to commit to playing more defense and moving the ball and they should be a solid playoff contender.

Q: Why does Kobe Bryant get the nod as the NBA's best player when LeBron James is clearly the more complete player?
— Michael, Greensburg, Pa.

A: Well, not clearly. I don't want to get too much into an analysis that would criticize James because he is such a terrific talent. But James is not nearly the finisher, which is the ultimate individual difference. James still doesn't shoot free throws consistently, and doesn't have as good a jump shot as Bryant's, two elements necessary to be a great finisher. James also isn't as good a defender, though Bryant has been overrated of late on defense as he has had to score so much more in recent seasons. Plus, Bryant has played for three championship teams — yes, with Shaquille O'Neal — and James hasn't won a game in the Finals. And winning counts. Or at least breaks ties. So there is no real debate because Michael Jordan wasn't considered the game's best until he began winning in the 1990s. James will have his chance for that mythical crown. But not yet.

MORE FROM NBA

NBA Section Front

LeBron, Shaq make Magic disappear LeBron says he’s done talking about free agency Celtics (8-1) looking like they did in ’07-’08 Jefferson leads short-handed Spurs past Mavs Suns start fast, buzz Hornets for West’s best record Bucks bounce Nuggets behind rookie Jennings Speights, 76ers sink winless Nets (0-8) Winderman: Boost or bust? Young season offers insight Fan ranker: Who will be MVP of the NBA? Celizic: Mavs’ Cuban is just what baseball needs NBA Section Front   Add NBA headlines to your news reader: