Sham: When villifying Jerry Reinsdorf, bear three things in mind

This isn't a defense of Reinsdorf et al, for there remains a middle ground that they don't seem to want to give. But it is some context - in the world of sports ownership, you just don't get philanthropists willing to incur massive losses on the off-chance that it all works out. It just doesn't happen. Even the Atlanta Braves and New York Knicks cut back.

It really doesn't happen. If you are angry that the Bulls have not chosen to be one of the few exceptions to this long established rule, then fine, but you'll be angry for the rest of your life. This is just how it is. If you want to enjoy sports, accept it.

almost 4 years ago hscs 11 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

what, me worry?

I already declined my (partial) season plan for next year. So tough for me to be angry. I’m sure people here will make up for that though.

I don’t think the Bulls are cheap, they’re ineffective whatever their constraints may be. And Paxson just continues to sound like he’s not cut out for the job, which is the real kicker.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 11, 2008 12:19 PM CDT reply actions

Meh

Write a long screed defending the guy and then claim it’s not a defense. I’m sure this article sounded a little more sensible before the various information came out that made it clear that a big bidding war and money was, at best, a secondary issue. But as it stands, what a bunch of dreck.

Sure, I agree, it’s not about philanthropy. It’s about competence, and the Bulls have again shown a lack of it. If you think that’s unfair, you can go strum up the fiddle for John Paxson, who apparently also thinks life is pretty unfair today.

Dreck! Dreck, I say!

by Sports2 on May 11, 2008 12:51 PM CDT reply actions

bah

Reinsdorf is averse to taking risks (for a pro sports franchise owner), and I’ve never had a problem with that. D’Antoni’s flaky negotiation strategy of not negotiating really doesn’t speak to his supposed desire to coach the Bulls, nor did he have the smarts to further maximize his value. There really isn’t one party to blame, and I have hard time blasting the Bulls for being 24-48 hours too patient. Relinquishing a lot of personnel control, and paying big money to one person isn’t a snap decision. Pax should have had a plan, but it’s impossible to say when D’Antoni’s availability was known to NBA GMs, and whether or not the Knicks would be interested in a coach like him.

by hscs on May 11, 2008 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions

what I don't get

is why Pax then comes out and says how much they bonded philosophically. Then again maybe they did but Reinsdorf didn’t. By all accounts the Knicks job is the better choice for him (more power, lower expectations, more money) so why wait for a Bulls match when they say they won’t be in a bidding war.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 11, 2008 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions

Bleh

Having gone through a few job interview processes, both as the interviewer and interviewee, I don’t see anything flaky about D’Antoni’s negotiations. It wasn’t waiting 24-48 hours, it was a good week from the time the first interview to the time D’Antoni took the Knick’s job.

If I interview three times with one company, and they seem lukewarm, meddlesome and untrusting, and I interview with a second company, who seems on the ball and gives me a strong offer, I’m not thinking too long about it.

Frankly I’d be pretty surprised, were I in that situation, to have the first company accuse me of “unfairness” for not waiting for them.

By the way, how would the Bulls have to drastically change personnel to suit D’Antoni. One of the big selling point I saw in him was that he would seem to make pretty good use out of the guys we’ve got?

by Sports2 on May 11, 2008 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions

and there's a difference between philanthropy

and refusal to pay luxury tax or top-dollar for coaches (if that’s indeed the case).

I don’t know how far the Bulls season ticket renewal rate is dropping, but spending some now to make more later could’ve been an option as well. If it’s all about business, then at least trick the fanbase into being excited about something.

That said, neither D’Antoni or Gasol are examples of ‘attractions’ to the general public. I believe a chicagosports.com poll from last week had Avery Johnson as the clear favorite amongst those who voted.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 11, 2008 1:46 PM CDT reply actions

Avery would be an "attraction"

I caught the Mavs here playing the Pacers and he was the star of the show. Calling all the plays, yelling, screaming, and eventually running out to mid-court to upbraid a ref and getting tossed out of the game.

The Mavs have always had good complainers, but he definitely reinforced that tendency in them with guys like Nowitski.

Kirk and Noc are already pretty annoying complainers… I shudder to think what they’ll be like under him.

And hey, he’s a great quote.

If he survives the Pax/Reinsdorf internet gauntlet and concludes he actually wants to work for them I’d be shocked.

by Sports2 on May 11, 2008 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions

I'd say with Avery it'd definitely be money

because he has all the reason to just chill out and cash Cuban dollars for a year.

Sometimes I think this place is a limited cross section of Bulls fandom, and a majority would actually like a screamy coach getting at the young punk players, as they’ve been told all season through the beat writers what kind of crappy group of professionals they are.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on May 11, 2008 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions

Actually a good amount of them would love it

Because, like it or not, a lot of “basketball” fans in Chicago are merely people who need something to watch because the Bears suck, and the Sox and Cubs aren’t in season.

Rusty Longley v 2.0

by Ozzie Montana on May 11, 2008 11:32 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't think it's even about the money so much for Reinsdorf

He’s cheap, but not because he necessarily cares about the money. I think he just gets his rocks off on outnegotiating people. That might be a great strategy in real estate, but it’s not always a good strategy in sports. In sports, if you “win” a negotiation, you often have to deal with the unhappy player (we sure saw that this season – maybe the Bulls didn’t “give in” to Deng and Gordon, but we’ll never know if they might have played better with new contracts).

And please spare me the references to “philanthropy,” considering that the Bulls have been the most profitable team in the NBA for the past decade.

by Big D on May 11, 2008 10:58 PM CDT reply actions