Thanks to Bulls Beat (#38) for alerting me (sorry if this is old news to some, skip and grumble) to a pretty important fact when considering the Bulls options this offseason: a $5.2m trade exception resulting from the Wallace/Hughes crapswap.

How? You can read about it, courtesy of "Tommy Udo 6" at the RealGM board, here. Basically the Bulls structured that deal as two technically separate trades, with the 125% rule in outgoing/incoming salary creating a trade exception for the Cavs, then the Cavs using that exception in a separate transaction to acquire Joe Smith, giving Bulls a trade exception for the value of Smith's salary. At least that's how I think it worked out.

It's not that important how they did it, they do have the traded player exception, it's even 'reported' in the ESPN Trade Machine.

The exception can be used to acquire a player (or players) making up to that amount of money, for nothing in return. You can't combine an outgoing player with an exception, but this gives the Bulls an extra weapon in structuring deals by using that exception as part of a bigger deal (again, if you split deals up seperately). This is especially important considering the base-year compensation issues incurred when potentially sign/trading Deng or Gordon.

Per Doug's example on the BullsBeat podcast:

The Bulls can do a sign/trade with Ben Gordon (making $9m annually) going out, while taking in two players that total $9m.

From the Bulls perspective, the first such incoming player can have a salary that matches (within the 125%) Gordon's BYC amount ($4.5m). The second player, earning a salary up to the value of the trade exception amount ($5.2m), can be acquired with that exception.

So for the Bulls it's two separate deals, for the other team they're sending out the sum of the two players and acquiring Ben Gordon at his full new salary (per BYC trade rules).

That's just one example, and likely the simplest. The Bulls are in a bit of a roster crunch so any Deng or Gordon sign/trade likely won't be done in a two-for-one anyway. But this exception can be used in a mega-player deal to massage the salary matching in myriad scenarios.

The whole Bulls operation from top to bottom has been put into question over this past year, but one thing they've shown to be consistently good at is using the cap to their advantage. Getting this additional asset makes the Wallace trade an even bigger coup (if you needed a reminder, another team actually took Ben Wallace), and in the past they've pioneered cap tricks such as front-loaded contracts, and swapping first round draft positions in trades. So kudos to their cap wonk, Irwin Mandel.

(Now if some want to keep with the cynical and depressing theme of the offseason, we can say that all this cap massaging does is keep Reinsdorf happy with a lower payroll, and they'll never take back enough salary in a deal to go into the tax anyway. I won't feel that way, but I can't hold it against you. Maybe a little.)

I labled this Reinsdorf quote as amongst the 'good' portion of what he said regarding the coaching search:

But do the Bulls need to worry about perception?

(So far they haven't shown that they are worried (or they're bad at P.R.), as they have either sounded incompetent or impotent at every turn.)

Judging by the small (and admittedly odd) sample size that is this blog, most fans are either ambivalent or angry and some are questioning whether to keep their season tickets. I personally have declined to renew my partial ticket plan. Not that there is (or I'd advocate) some kind of mass boycott, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some dent in the season ticket renewals this offseason.

More important than merely this subset of fandom, there's some evidence out there (the Trib site had similar results) amongst the general public that Avery Johnson is now their favorite choice. I don't think that's the case here, but it makes sense for the fanbase (trust me, I know that a couple online polls is flimsy evidence but I'll speculate on all Bulls fans behalf just the same) since the list of assistant coaches is full of  relative unknowns, even if they may be better choices (as if I, or anyone, knows).

While I wouldn't go as far to say that any new coach would reinvigorate the fanbase like a star roster acquisition would, the organization has to have something to show for themselves to indicate that this season will be different, right? Sure, there's the thought that a lot of the roster just had a poor season and bringing the band back together is enough, but I don't know if there's enough goodwill anymore to pass it off to the city. This team didn't just disappoint last season, they were blasted by their own coaches and the media as losers and bad pros.

We know that a true roster shakeup is hard to do, and not very wise. So a hire like Avery Johnson accompanied with a lot of quotes about "discipline" and "work ethic" may be the more practical option with a similar result in perception. Not only could they emphasize those traits of Avery, but it'd signal that they won't be going with a rookie coach and the accompanying assumption that it comes with a development process.

I'm fairly convinced that the Bulls have no interest in development any more (some would ask if  they ever have been, heh), It's been too soon after the post-dynasty abyss to try it again. So whether it's the right way to go or not, I don't foresee any roster stripping to rebuild, and (while I won't rule it out) a reason not to hire a rookie coach.

UPDATE: Sam Smith with more from Reinsdorf and D'Antoni.

Kudos to KC for scoring this interview with the chairman:

Where to begin. First off, the 'we don't deal with coach's agents' edict seems strange. Especially since later there's a mention of Paxson dealing with D'Antoni's agent, in the form of begging him to have his client reconsider taking the Knicks job.

And I admit I don't know how these things usually go...but after two meetings with the GM, shouldn't the meeting with the owner be about contract terms? Why is the result of that Friday meeting Reinsdorf saying he has to again talk to Paxson, and "we'll get back to you"? Seems like they did move too slowly.

And of course: why keep trying to emphasize how much you wanted to hire him if you didn't get him? It makes things sound worse. Reinsdorf correctly shoots down the idea of how much D'Antoni wanted to be the next coach of the Bulls (as the national media has continuously said), with the evidence being this 'rudeness' in not listening to an offer. If he really wanted to be here he'd be here, right? He and Pax should stick with that story, and not the one where they emphasize the pursuit, as it only makes one question the effectiveness. Plus, saying how D'Antoni explicitly said he didn't want to coach the Knicks seems a bit unprofessional, but then again Reinsdorf earlier this season publicly said how one of Deng and Gordon told him they regretted not signing a contract extension...

All that said, there are some encouraging words as well:

It's true that this fiasco may turn out to be for the best. But a pleasant mistake is still a screw-up, and worse yet they can't wait to tell us more about it.

In the aftermath of Mike D'Antoni signing with the Knicks over the Bulls, I was a bit disappointed but not completely. I felt that D'Antoni would've been a good fit, but not a perfect one, and whatever reservations the Bulls braintrust had regarding him were justifiable. Especially when debating whether he should be made the 3rd-highest paid coach in the league.

From what's been reported, most coherently from Chad Ford, is that it wasn't merely money that had D'Antoni going to the Knicks, but also a commitment from their GM and ownership that assured him of little meddling and much spending. Paxson instead, as Ford reports, wanted assurances that D'Antoni would hire a veteran defensive assistant coach. Indications from Phoenix was that D'Antoni didn't like Kerr suggesting the same, so why would he want to deal with similar issues in Chicago, for potentially less money? Now he can go to New York with a roster he knows can be demolished and rebuilt in his image, with nearly no expectations, and some nice coin while striving to become the toast of basketball mecca. Heck, a win in the lottery and the Knicks could wind up being a better roster than the Bulls as well.

I don't begrudge the Bulls for not wanting to give D'Antoni such assurances. Or D'Antoni for going somewhere for such things.

But in classic "why don't you stop talking for a while, champ" mode, Paxson, instead of saying that it just didn't work out, instead whines that he in fact was willing to work with D'Antoni's demands, but didn't have the chance to make an offer:

Wow.

Like I said, to not want D'Antoni on such terms is fine. But to indeed be willing to concede any reservations and agree to 'go for it', only to find out you're too late...what kind of operation is being run here? I mean, did our GM just tell us that he's disappointed and it wasn't fair?

The problem, according to Marc Stein, is that it's one thing to retroactively say you were interested, and another to actually show it:

Again, I'm not even that upset about Reinsdorf getting involved and questioning the value of paying another coach long-term big money when he just gave a cash prize to the last one after he quit on his team (reciprocated, of course).

But Paxson (who may not deserve all the blame but who is the point man for this organization, and certainly says 'accountability' enough) while I get the need to cover your ass after letting your first choice get away, don't whine about the process(though, at least he didn't blame the internet misinformation). The Knicks were making offers while you were setting up meetings. Merely days after proclaiming (or leaking through sources, anyway) that the Bulls wouldn't get into a bidding war with the Knicks, don't be upset that you weren't able to get into a bidding war with the Knicks. Sheesh.

After the Boylan era went on for about 4 months too long, all I wanted in this coaching search is a return to competence. While there aren't any perfect candidates available, all that Pax's "process" has done so far is letting two at-least 'good' coaches, Carlisle and D'Antoni, go to other teams. And if we can believe these reports, he just lost out on his #1 choice.

Stein reports that the next candidates for the Bulls are Avery Johnson, Dwane Casey, and Tom Thibodeau. What if after interviewing each (and I believe Casey may have already been interviewed) none of them "connect as much philosophically" as D'Antoni did? Not even close?

It's as if Pax thinks he can wait to interview everyone he wants, and then go back and decide who's best. Clearly it's not working out that way.

[ed. note: From the fanposts. This is reported byJack McCallum, who's pretty plugged in to D'Antoni and friends. So it's about as official as it gets. I'll likely have some rationalizing to offer sometime this weekend, but overall I'm pretty disappointed. -Matt]

SI.com reports :

Walsh entered the picture last Monday when he interviewed D'Antoni at his home in Scottsdale, Ariz. That talk was sandwiched between D'Antoni's two interviews with Chicago Bulls general manager John Paxson, who spoke with the 2004-05 Coach of the Year on Sunday night and again on Monday morning in Phoenix. On Friday afternoon, at his home in Scottsdale, D'Antoni also talked to Bulls chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, who has a home about 200 yards away from D'Antoni's. But in the end, Chicago couldn't match the New York offer. Walsh also interviewed Avery Johnson, early favorite Mark Jackson and Rick Carlisle, who has landed the Dallas Mavericks' opening.

 

The honors today go to Mike McGraw of the Daily Herald:

A league insider believes the Bulls are comfortable choosing between D'Antoni and Johnson, two former NBA coach of the year winners.

If neither works out, they'll likely wait to talk to Boston assistant Tom Thibodeau and Detroit assistant Michael Curry, who are both busy with the playoffs. Thibodeau has been mentioned as a possible replacement for D'Antoni in Phoenix.

...

Once Skiles was hired by the Milwaukee Bucks, the Bulls should have been off the hook for his remaining salary. As it turned out, the Bulls will pay Skiles $3 million more than they needed to, but that in itself won't effect the current coaching search.

The Bulls don't want to sign anyone for five years because most NBA coaches don't last that long. Neither D'Antoni nor Johnson made it five full years with their previous teams, though D'Antoni could technically still return to the Suns.

D'Antoni is known for running a fast-paced offensive attack. The Bulls would mostly likely ask that he keep a veteran assistant coach on staff to focus on defense and recommend holdover Ron Adams for the role.

Good to know that at least in one reporter's eyes, the Skiles money isn't holding the Bulls back.  And not wanting to give a coach a 5-year contract is certainly reasonable. Marc Stein reports that the Knicks will offer 5 years, with the Bulls giving their proposal by "Sunday at the latest". Stein's e-buddy Ric Bucher says that D'Antoni's leaning towards the Knicks, yet "sources close to the process contend D'Antoni remains determined to go to Chicago as long as the Bulls assemble a quality offer."

So, whatever. What's more important to get to the bottom of is finding out what kind of spell Ron Adams has over this organization. Why have any holdovers at all?

Not that this hasn't been rehashed a-plenty over the past couple years, but seeing Tyson Chandler deservedly lauded by national TV coverage as a key cog on a title-contending team is bizarre.

Not that he didn't show the talent here, or is even performing that much better now than he was as a Bull (when he was at his best as a Bull). The incredible part is the change in perception. Someone who once was a key face in a regime that meant failure and unrealized potential, is now deemed someone we should know more about.Yes, playing with Chris Paul helps, not as much to make Tyson better but to make the team better, with winning serving as the cure for all ills.

Tyson was dealt after his steady career growth was stunted by an abysmal season. The same type of season that most of the current Bulls just went through. The postscript to Tyson's exit was that it was an irreparable rift between him and Skiles, and they needed to be separated for him to regain his confidence. This whole team is now getting separated from Skiles.

It's not guaranteed that Deng, Gordon, Hinrich, et. al will get back on track in terms of performance with a new coach. But one thing I don't like reading is the labeling of them as losers, the type who can never be a real part of a good team again. The same was once said about Chandler, and all it took for him was a better situation for him to 'magically' become a winner again.

(This isn't meant to go into the past and get into why dealing Chandler was a mistake. I never thought the deal was because of not believing in Chandler's talent. Just incorrectly figured that effectively replacing him with Ben Wallace was a good move because even a bounced-back Chandler wouldn't be as good as Wallace. I was wrong, of course, because Wallace was dead man walking.  A healthy lesson to consider when dreaming up any 'upgrade' trades.)

There's a pointless and fun tool that was posted amongst the SBNation brethren that allowed us to count comments by user on a post. Here's what's been produced in the weeks worth of D'Antoni talk:

Total Users: 74
Total Comments: 913
Total Threads: 3

Top 10 Commenters:
your friendly BullsBlogger 119
NBA Observer 105
alec 64
tyger1147 52
snley 52
Ozzie Montana 49
NormVanBeer 47
bullshooter 41
exult463 24
hscs 21

And after all that...still no real news. But more speculation!

Continue reading this post »