Jerry Reinsdorf (and the Ben Wallace signing)

What a scoop!

Even without a hyperlink (like I would have listened to the Sports Dood's whiny voice) I find it hard to believe Jerry Reinsdorf is in charge of the Bulls, and knows a sports agent.

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on Jun 22, 2007 7:29 AM CDT reply actions

I know there is a lot of Bill S hate on here, but I listened and thought that was interesting too. Seems werid for Rick to make that up so long after a fact and while BigBen is not really the topic of any discussion if he just wanted to cause a stir.

If it was Jerry's idea and Pax had some doubts, it does make sense for Pax to not say anything once it happenned, as that that would only harm things

by NY Chicago Fan on Jun 22, 2007 7:47 AM CDT up reply actions

I heard it, too.

It was in a segment where they were talking about Mitch K in LA, and how GMs basically are the face of the organization as far as business decisions go, and they must take the heat even for things they weren't responsible for.

Pax & Wallace came up as an example. It was a very brief mention, with no details given, other than the Wallace signing was Reinsdorf's idea and deal.

Kind of makes you wonder, though, with all the talk about the "coming to my house in jeans" meetings and stuff between Paxskiles and Ben.

by mruntouchable on Jun 22, 2007 8:55 AM CDT up reply actions

the jeans stuff still could've happened.

Even if the signing was Reinsdorf's initiative, doesn't mean that the PaxSkiles bluejean barnstormin' tour didn't have to sell Wallace on the idea too.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 22, 2007 9:07 AM CDT up reply actions

Yeah

I thought of that, too.

Jerry initiated deal and told Pax to get it done, Pax made it happen.

by mruntouchable on Jun 22, 2007 9:15 AM CDT up reply actions

Right...

But I really think the 60 million dollars sold it to Wallace. Not Skiles or Pax it was 60 million dollars! If Reinsdorf told Pax to offer him the max and Paxson said no, would Pax even have a job right now? If it wasn't for the Wallace signing we would Have Tyson still and that would have been a great piece to trade for Kobe, Gasol, or KG right now.

by Wade.Jones on Jun 22, 2007 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions

eh, maybe

or Tyson could've had another shitty season and be of no trade value.

I think all of us refer to the Pax/Skiles in Jeans thing as tongue-in-cheek. Of course it was about the money.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 22, 2007 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions

I agree completely

I was just thinking more or less along the idea if this wasn't a Pax idea what this team would have been. I guess we should all be grateful that the Maloof Bros aren't the owners, or we would be screwed more than we could imagine.

by Wade.Jones on Jun 22, 2007 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions

No making fun of whiny voices

Here's the link:

http://espn-mp3-od.andomedia.com/espnpod2/espnradio/sportsguy/sportsguy070621.mp3

It came from Ric Bucher sticking up for Mitch Kupchak and saying that the moves for Bynum and Brown weren't necessarily his and were the ideas of Jim Buss. And similarly that the Ben Wallace signing was forged by Reinsdorf and Arm Tellem, and wasn't Paxson's idea.

Although he wouldn't speculate further as to say that Pax didn't like the decision or anything, Ric was making the point that a lot of times these GMs are falling on the sword for what their owners wishes were.

I prefer that Reinsdorf keeps out of basketball business, but I won't pretend he has no say when he's the guy writing checks. I would hope that if PaxSkiles had a huge problem with it Reinsdorf wouldn't force things.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 22, 2007 9:11 AM CDT up reply actions

I don't know why

you guys hate Simmons so much. Sure the Boston thing gets a little tiring, but it's his schtick. He's no worse than a lot of guys. Some of his stuff, like the NBA trade hierarchy stuff is interesting.

What would be interesting to know is if the Wallace deal was completely Reinsdorf's deal, would Pax have kept Chandler?

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 22, 2007 8:32 AM CDT reply actions

Thats what I was thinking.

They seem like the same player. Well now atleast.

Sam Smith is a tool.

by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on Jun 22, 2007 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions

I'm not anti-Simmons either

I still enjoy a lot his stuff, actually.

But I am getting tired of his recent arrogance about how much better of a GM he'd be than actual NBA GMs. Not that it isnt' likely true (there are some BAD GMs out there), but he shits on every single team, even the Spurs, and then proposes trades that make little sense only to conclude with "who would be against this?", without actually being thoughtful about who WOULD be against it and why.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 22, 2007 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions

wouldn't he be a better gm

then isiah thomas and kevin mchale?
i mean, i'm not complaining about the job thomas has done... but a two year old (and i honestly believe this) could have done better then isiah.

by peterbredenberg on Jun 22, 2007 5:46 PM CDT up reply actions

If Simmons had no limitations the way

Isiah did? Probably not. An endless budget seems like a great thing, but the budget provides necessary limitations for GMs. If Dolan had been like most owners and set limitations on the budget, Isiah wouldn't have been able to give out at least half those contracts. Which is why McHale is alot worse than Isiah as a GM. He had the financial limitations and still over payed mediocre after mediocre player. I doubt Simmons would be any better than Isiah. If he can fall in love with the crap on the Celtics, he can give Jared Jeffires millions.

by Scotter on Jun 22, 2007 6:13 PM CDT up reply actions

whiny voice

They can get very whiny I agree.

Sam Smith is a tool.

by joejoeEnglish94bulls4ever on Jun 22, 2007 9:53 AM CDT reply actions

uncle jerry

One would think that if pax had a problem with it; we would have heard about it sooner, or he would have tried to sabtoage it somehow.

Furthermore, I doubt uncle jerry was the source behind it all. Remember, Jerry is probably the 'poorest' of all NBA owners. Lord knows he was already paying tyson 60M....would he be willing ot pony up 60M for big ben; like espn said, we were already selling out the UC...so he would have just been flushing what little money he had down the toilet

by milesgmsu on Jun 22, 2007 10:14 AM CDT reply actions

Uncle Jerry

Reinsdorf doesn't own that much of the team. But the Bulls franchise is one of the RICHEST in the NBA, and one of the few that make money nearly every year.

All indications are that unlike most NBA owners, Reinsdorf is willing to pay the luxury tax.

So I don't know what you're getting at unless it's WhiteSoxFan-angst.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 22, 2007 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions

Cut Jerry some slack...

Completely agree. As a Sox fan, I was burned by him too in 1994, and again in 1997, but he's not a cheapskate. He'll pay for the premiere talent.

by Rick S on Jun 22, 2007 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions

they sure are rich

Team Value1 $ 368 mil (#5)

The Chicago Bulls are owned by Jerry Reinsdorf, who bought them in 1985 for $16 mil.

1-Yr Value Chg. 3%
Ann. Value Chg.2 18%
Debt/Value3 14%
Revenue $123 mil
Operating Income4 $36.8 mil
Player Expenses5 $57 mil
Gate Receipts6 $35 mil

*note, these figures are from 2004...I got them from here

by ScottieCartwright on Jun 22, 2007 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions

While on the subject...

I'm pretty sure this deserves a link too...

http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/32/2004/LIR.jhtml?passListId=32&passYear=2004&passListTy pe=Misc&uniqueId=322952&datatype=Misc

The red and white

by Scott 9 on Jun 22, 2007 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions

money

reisndorf is worth $280M....i would do an avg of networth of all nba owners, but im on dialup and im not into s&m (info on hoopshype for you interested)

In terms of luxury tax; uncle jerry (i think its a funny term at least) said he would be willing to pay the tax if a contender was put on the court....

roughly 2/3 of the teams in the nba are at; or withing 1 - 2M of the luxury tax with a solid 1/3 of the teams over the luxury tax

and the fact remains that in the realm of sports ownership reinsdorf is one of the lesser wealths; which i merely point to as a piece of evidence against the claim that reinsdorf would be all for huge deals

by milesgmsu on Jun 22, 2007 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions

he isn't the sole owner

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on Jun 22, 2007 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions

what %

i coudlnt find it anywhere online

by milesgmsu on Jun 22, 2007 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions

I have no idea,

but not many people remember Reinsdorf was paying the highest paid player in basketball, and in baseball at the same time. The United Center is privately owned as well. His teams aren't cheap or poor.

by Paxson Jackson @ Blog a Bull on Jun 22, 2007 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't think that's public info

there's a big list of owners and Jerry's the chairman. But I don't think you can find the percentages and Reinsdorf won't disclose even what percentage he owns.

so no, your point that he's poor isn't valid.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 22, 2007 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions

The person who held the largest amount

of the Bulls was Lamar Hunt - he was one of the the ten original investors, and he held something like 17% individually.

Reinsdorf's ownership group bought over 50 percent of the team back in the 80s, and Hunt was part of that, along with one of the other original owners. A reasonable guess is Jerry owns between 10 and 15 percent of the team outright.

He's not the majority owner in the White Sox either.

by KT on Jun 22, 2007 6:24 PM CDT up reply actions

Interestingly

George Steinbrenner was a part of Jerry's original ownership team. I am not sure he still is though.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Jun 22, 2007 6:49 PM CDT up reply actions

At the time

It was reported that Tellum, who has a good relationship with Reinsdorf, let Jerry know that Ben was unhappy enough with things in Detroit that he'd be open for an offer. Pax didn't think he'd leave Detroit, but he was interested in Ben so they made the pitch and was happy when Ben said yes.

I thought then, and still think now, that it was a good signing.

by KT on Jun 22, 2007 10:41 AM CDT reply actions

I don't trust Ric

According to Wallace, Paxson himself, and several other media reports, Paxson himself was very involved in the Wallace signing. The way Paxson defends the signing anytime its criticized, I believe that he was all in on that signing whether the idea was hatched by Jerry or not.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Jun 22, 2007 10:45 AM CDT reply actions

If that's true, then Reinsdorf was correct

If they hadn't signed Wallace, there's a good chance Pax would have spent that cap room on Nazr Mohammad and/or Joel Pryzbilla instead. The Wallace contract might come back to haunt the Bulls in a few years, but at least they're getting something out of him. Mohammad and Pryzbilla, on the other hand, are already salary cap albatrosses for their respective teams after only one year.

by Big D on Jun 22, 2007 10:45 AM CDT reply actions

Not quite

Nazr and Pryz make less than half what Wallace makes. But they also produce less than half.

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 22, 2007 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions

I don't think they'll ever regret it.

Two-and-a-half years from now, February 2010 trading deadline, that $14 mil will look awfully nice as salary cap relief. And I think Wallace will at least provide reasonable production until then. It's not like it's a 7 or 8-year beast we see in baseball.

Yes, of course.

by tyger1147 on Jun 22, 2007 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions

That guy...

Just a reminder that in the series against the Pistons Wallace was terrible. Definitely did not earn his new contract. If the Lake Show wants a big name give em big ben.

by Zac23 on Jun 22, 2007 10:50 AM CDT reply actions

yeah...

I don't think they'd go for that.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 22, 2007 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions

I don't hold the Detroit series against him

Regardless of what Big Ben consciously thought was going to happen playing against his old team in the playoffs, it's still kind of an emotional place to go. Even allowing for the normal deterioration that comes with aging, I expect/hope that being with the team a second year will counteract it and we'll see at least the same production out of him. And if the face of the Detroit team does end up changing through trades/free agency, it won't be the same as Wallace facing "his" old team.

"They had me do a psychology test and I asked Coach Skiles if that affected his coaching. He laughed and said, `No way.'" (Joakim Noah)

by wjb1492 on Jun 22, 2007 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions

I think he was just hurt.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jun 22, 2007 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions

Yeah, I should have included his back

I was thinking more about all the people who were blaming his attitude, but obviously there's the injury issue, too. It was my overly awkward way of saying that I don't think it's fair to judge the Wallace signing by his play during that one series.

"They had me do a psychology test and I asked Coach Skiles if that affected his coaching. He laughed and said, `No way.'" (Joakim Noah)

by wjb1492 on Jun 22, 2007 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't think he was 100% either.

He just came off a series guarding Shaq taking a lot of elbows to the face and hitting the deck regularly. I would imagine that took its toll on Wallace.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Jun 22, 2007 6:53 PM CDT up reply actions

even if we're going to base an entire year on that

seires let's remeber what a bangup job he did on shaq...

and for fairness, det is a bad matchup team for us up and down....including big ben....he's supposed to guard wallace/webber....both players that dont like to bang and draw him away from the hoop....

by milesgmsu on Jun 22, 2007 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions

I think that is likely an exaggeration.

Tellem and Reinsdorf did have discussions which facilitated the deal, but those discussions took place after Bulls' basketball management had already vetted the idea.

The Wallace signing was not something concocted by Reinsdorf and imposed on Paxson.

by 1958ChiTown on Jun 22, 2007 12:01 PM CDT reply actions

What benefit

does Bucher get for blowing this out of proportion, if it was Paxson's idea okay, but Ric doesn't get anything out of it by saying it was Reinsdorf's idea.

by Wade.Jones on Jun 22, 2007 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions

I didn't say he has a secret agenda.

I think he just has bad info.

by 1958ChiTown on Jun 22, 2007 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions

I'm curious

Who are your sources?

And with the 9th pick the Bulls select...

by bullshooter on Jun 23, 2007 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions

Two contacts from

law school who are both sports agents at preeminent west coast agencies. Additionally, someone from my law school's board of trustees is also among those who manage CAA's relatively new sports division. I sometimes get indirect info from him (though he didn't give me any info on this story).

They aren't always in the know, but they have a pretty good feel for industry scuttlebutt, especially as it pertains to Chicago teams.

by 1958ChiTown on Jun 23, 2007 2:51 PM CDT up reply actions

Could be bad sources

Isn't this the same dude that a few days ago said the Bulls and Lakers were talking about a Kobe trade only to have both teams adamantly deny it?

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Jun 22, 2007 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions

Yes

that's him.

by bu11s on Jun 22, 2007 7:57 PM CDT up reply actions

Maybe Reinsdorf opened the door...

I could've sworn there was an article last summer in which Pax said he was talking w/ Jerry about a more modest acquisition (Pryzbilla, I think) when Reinsdorf asked him who the "big-ticket" free agents were. Pax mentioned Ben, and Reinsdorf said something like, "Well why don't we go after him?" I'm paraphrasing, but the gist seemed to be Pax hadn't seriously considered Ben initially, but once Reinsdorf said he'd pony up the $ that encouraged Pax.

by T Maple on Jun 24, 2007 5:48 PM CDT reply actions