Bulls yet to offer Luol a contract
[From the FanShots. -ed.]
Consider the source, but it includes this quote from Lu's agent:
"And his agent insists that Chicago remains his number one choice of destination.
He added: "I think part of that is Luol's determination to be part of a turnaround in Chicago.
"Part of it is feeling excited about the new coach and his team mates and, also, part of it is that he has not been exposed to any other teams.
"But there are other opportunities for Luol, it is just a question of the right fit because Lu is such a talented player and such a unique athlete and individual. It has to be the right fit.
"Part of the process is educating Luol about other situations.""
11 months ago
wjb1492
222 comments
0 recs |
Comments
What are the Bulls thinking?
I think they should go ahead and offer 5 year/ 50 mil or mabey more than that. I know they are waiting for 2010 but they have to do something for the teams immidiate future. He was the best player on the team. Wht are they waiting for. You would think someone else also would have offered him a contract too…
by knickknack7450 on
Jul 15, 2008 9:54 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
What is everyone waiting for?
Why are the Clippers after every restricted, Josh Smith, Emeka, AI2, but Luol? Why didn’t Golden State make a run at Luol? Maybe he’s not worth what you think he is. The market speaks louder than fans.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 15, 2008 10:26 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
from
According to NBA front-office sources, L.A. has expanded its list of restricted candidates beyond Smith and Charlotte’s Emeka Okafor to Chicago’s Luol Deng and, yes, Philadelphia’s Andre Iguodala.
but it’s not like the clippers have made any offers anyway.
by Jaina on
Jul 15, 2008 10:30 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But the Clippers have spoken with the other restricteds
except Luol, at least according to the reports I’ve read on ESPN and RealGM. Hell, reports are that they’ve even discussed Z-Bo for a second round pick.
All I’m saying is there is no reason for the Bulls to be the team to set the market for this guy or to acquiese to his terms. Play hardball, next year everyone will be holding out for 2010 anyway unless they’re one piece away that’s doesn’t have to be a #1 or #2 option from legitimately contending.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 15, 2008 1:26 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think it's that same article where
Stein says that out of Josh Smith, Andre Iguodala and Luol Deng, the player considered the most moveable is Smith, followed by Iguodala. The player considered least moveable is Deng.
He doesn’t really go into why that is, but it seems (and this is just a guess) that there’s a conventional wisdom out there that the Bulls really, really, really like Luol, and therefore teams are not anticipating prying him loose.
Interesting strategy point, though, as Stein points out, is the driving up of the price to keep Iguodala. You’d think that they’d do that with Deng, if they liked him enough—simply offer the max that they could offer for him in order to drive up the cost of the Bulls holding on to him.
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
by bullhockey on
Jul 15, 2008 9:39 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Probably nobody's happier about the Camby deal than Paxson.
Unless it’s Reinsdorf.
There are now no serious threats left to challenge the Bulls for Deng and Gordon.
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on
Jul 15, 2008 9:44 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The Clippers haven't made an offer to anyone yet.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 10:53 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
They may also be more concerned with the Bulls matching on Lu
than they are about other teams with their RFA. I don’t recall where, but I was reading an article about the offer to Turiaf that did a great job of pointing out you generally have to overpay for RFA to the point that the original team can’t seriously consider matching, or you’ve done that team a huge favor by nailing down the contract for them.
If nothing else, taking Rose will at least piss off Pat Riley.
by wjb1492 on
Jul 15, 2008 11:27 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That sums up
what Chicago should have done with Noc. a year ago.
by kingj41 on
Jul 15, 2008 12:00 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This very well could be the case
so don’t acquiese to his terms. Either you determine the fair price or let the market speak for you.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 15, 2008 1:27 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Keep in mind that "letting the market speak"
means summing up all the inputs, including (as Matt has pointed out more than once), how the Bulls would gauge Gordon’s or Deng’s mental state should either be forced to capitulate on his salary (let’s call it a soft) demand.
It’s not at all a straightforward negotiation, and (as someone here mentioned earlier) with Reinsdorf being a professional negotiator, it’s not out of the question that he would enjoy being part of the process.
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on
Jul 15, 2008 1:48 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't get the idea that the Bulls have great leverage
Nocioni and Hinrich are not fallback plans. If Gordon and Deng walk, either this year or next, this team’s starting over. And despite the romantic idea of ‘full scale rebuilding’, there’s no way the team wants to do that.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 1:51 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Agreed.
The Bulls are actually very close to being in a salary cap bind—and rather than Noc and Kirk being the solution, they are the cause.
To pay Gordon and Deng what they are “worth” (which, by definition, Reinsdorf eventually will, one way or another), the Bulls (if they decide to keep G&D), will probably have to inch into luxury tax territory.
For a team that will still be some distance away from championship contention, I’d think that’s bitter broth for Reinsdorf to swallow.
But again, it’s a stew of his own making—the Kirk and (especially) Noc contracts are impossibly far out of line to be easily compensated for with the upcoming payments due to the team’s real talent.
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on
Jul 15, 2008 2:04 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
they don't levee the next tax until next July
so they can be over as long as they pare back some salary between now and then.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 2:10 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
*the actual cut-off is the end of the regular season.
but….yeah.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 2:14 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Don't forget Larry Hughes contract by-way of Ben Wallace
hurts more than (k&n).
by exult463 on
Jul 15, 2008 2:56 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yah, btu if they walk...
they’d be taking a huge risk…who is gonna offer them more money or more long term security than the bulls? If a team has cap sapce next year, would they make such a big commitment instead of waiting it out for 2010/2011?
by Jbonelli on
Jul 17, 2008 11:00 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Fall back plans
But Thabo, TT and Gooden are
by hlac on
Jul 17, 2008 2:02 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
disagree
The Bulls gauging BG’s or Lu’s interest would be part of their own discounted valuation of those players’ fair value, their own pricing, not the market’s.
It’s not a straight forward negotation at all, and perhaps I’m taking too hard of a stance as a fan, but I’d rather lose both of those guys for nothing than to overpay for them and be stuck with their bad contracts, especially since I hold out some delusional hope that the Bulls would have a legit shot at signing D Wade in 2010 if they have the cap space and a healthy Derrick Rose, BG and Lu or not BG and Lu.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 15, 2008 3:40 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
nutty
I guess it’s a matter of opinion, but I definitely don’t agree with it.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 3:42 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
so what happens
on the other side of the coin? What if they lose both guys for nothing and they go on to become great players, all-stars, and help their respective teams to win a championship??
I guess we would still have Noce’s “heart” and “intensity” as a consolation prize…
by NormVanBeer on
Jul 15, 2008 3:45 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
AND they don't sign Dwyane Wade who stays in Miami...
...when LeBron comes down to hang w/ Wade and Beasley.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 15, 2008 3:50 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There are risks either way
and admittedly I’m taking the Sonny Corleone approach rather than the Michael Corleone approach. This would also explains why I’ve only had shorter term relationships with women.
I just don’t think those guys are worth what they’re asking for, nor will be worth what they’re asking for. I’d love to have them back, but at a cost those two guys would probably turn their noses at (i.e. Lu at $50/5, BG at Kirk Hinrich money).
by messwiththebull on
Jul 15, 2008 3:53 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
All teams have "bad contracts".
It happens since talent evaluation isn’t perfect. Likely only one, not both, will end up being “bad.” So the Bulls will be losing one in 2010 in Larry Hughes. It’s a matter of getting rid of either Nocioni or Hinrich. I’d rather overpay some for BG or Deng than way overpaying for Nocioni or Hinrich.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 15, 2008 3:53 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Agreed, but what's done is done
doesn’t mean you have to do it again.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 15, 2008 3:54 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But it does.
It’s just how this stuff works. SOMEONE will be overpaid. Have that be the better players. I’d rather overpay Gordon by 10% than Nocioni by 50%. Further add: Hinrich really isn’t overpaid. On a team that could use a solid PG, he’s a good fit and worth the price. He’s only overpaid on this team as a backup or as a third-rate SG.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 15, 2008 4:03 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sure, SOMEONE will have to be overpaid
just let someone else overpay for them. Rashard Lewis is overpaid. I think OKC is happy they’re not the team overpaying for him, even with their crappy record and all.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 15, 2008 4:07 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
that's because OCK was strip-mining the team
and if the Bulls let Gordon and Deng go as to not overpay them, then they might as well do the same.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 4:15 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
partly agree
Yes OCK was rebuilding so had no trouble letting lewis go but that doesn’t mean Lewis isn’t overpaid. I do not think it would be worth that level of overpaying for the Bulls to get a player like Ben if they want to stay under cap and flexible. Just like you have said nobody wants Noc now at his price, if you overpay Ben its harder to trade him as well.
by NY Chicago Fan on
Jul 15, 2008 4:24 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Understand your point
but how different really is a 33-49 Bulls team from that OKC team? This Bulls team is younger, that’s one for starters. I am not saying lose these guys for nothing, because I don’t think that will be necessary. I’m just saying if things get draconian, let ‘em walk instead of overpaying them. You can recover from letting borderline all-stars walk easier than you can dealing with players who have bad contracts, unless they’re in the final year of that contract. Otherwise, you’re relegated to trading bad deal for bad deal and the flexibility isn’t there.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 15, 2008 4:27 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You did say lose those guys for nothing.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 15, 2008 4:36 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This is what I said
“I’d rather lose both of those guys for nothing than to overpay for them and be stuck with their bad contracts”. This does not mean “let’s lose these guys for nothing, just stop all negotiations now!”. Preferably we resign them to reasonably fair deals that still provide cap flexibilty to get a real superstar in here or we get something of value back in a sign-and-trade.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 15, 2008 4:46 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
and I'd rather overpay.
especially since the designation of being ‘paid’ and ‘overpaid’ is arbitrary, and a couple million bucks (yearly)
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 4:50 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And that is where our philosophies differ.
Hell, I could very well be wrong, BG goes out and averages 25PPG and Deng becomes a 20 and 7 guy. For some other team. That is the risk associated with my position.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 15, 2008 4:52 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
that's not the risk at all
the risk isn’t what they’d do on some other team, it’s that on the Bulls you’d have Hinrich average 12PPG and Noc become a 14 and 4 guy.
The object of building a team isn’t to win negotiations, it’s win games.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 5:17 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Right.
Mess’s assessment doesn’t even begin to address the real risk.
The point is that the Bulls must pay—regardless of whether or not they get Deng & Gordon under contract.
Huh?
Unless they want to perpetually suck, eventually the Bulls will have to pay to get top-notch players—and when that day comes, if the team’s overall talent has dropped off to the Kirk/Noc level, the amount the team will have to pay will likely be MUCH more than what they’d have to the guys they already have now.
And—they’ll have royally sucked the whole time in between.
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on
Jul 15, 2008 6:25 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well
I think it’s to win champioships and you can’t commit cap dollars to two players who won’t be primary catalysts, rather complimentary players to support whoever will be the primary catalysts. The Bulls need to earmark those dollars for those catalysts, even if it means losing out on complimentary players who can help you win games, but won’t get you past Round 2.
and Hinrich and Noce have put up your listed numbers with BG and Luol, so my risk is the status quo?
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 9:29 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I won't attempt to speak for Matt,
but he’s had a consistant message about this since I’ve been reading his blog, and I may be slowly coming around to his point of view.
The way I read his point is that he’s saying the Bulls stand a better chance of getting over the top if they start from higher ground.
Yes, there is a cost in attaining and maintaining that higher ground…but the NEXT step, the one that finally gets us over, will need to be much less of a long shot.
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on
Jul 16, 2008 9:51 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
alec, I may hate you
but that comment about sums it up.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 16, 2008 9:52 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Right... what's better?
An emerging “great” Rose w/ a breakout Thomas, Noah and Josh Childress and maybe having cap space.
—or—
minus Childress + Deng and using Gordon as part of a sign-and-trade?
Which team would more entice Wade? Well, Deng is a better player than Childress and has slightly more room for growth.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 16, 2008 12:53 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think Childress is a fantastic player
not that far away from Deng. I know I’m in the minority here, I won’t pretend otherwise. I’d rather have Deng, sure, but not at twice the cost.
I think all you would need to entice D Wade is a crap ton of money, a blossoming Rose, and the opportunity to return home to Chicago. A stud Rose and a stud Wade + the Bulls remaining assets looks good to me.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 2:27 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well, if Deng's better....
...don’t you want the better team? I think most of us should believe that if everything were in place, Reinsdorf would have no problem going into luxury tax territory for bringing Wade to Chicago. Do you honestly think he would? Reinsdorf turning down Wade due to cost? Seriously? So, if cost isn’t a problem, why not have the better team?
by tyger1147 on
Jul 16, 2008 2:37 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The danger with that, however
is if that “higher ground” you allude to is actually a plateau.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 2:28 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
exaclty...how good do you
really think a long term Gordn & Deng gonna be??? And for all the trade proposal rants around the site, Paxson is not exactly a wizard when it comes to trades….or signings for that matter
by Jbonelli on
Jul 17, 2008 11:06 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Right
Like when Detroit didnt panic and just put out a really solid team until they caught a break and landed rasheed wallace. Oh wait, would they have been able to do that at the time if they had paid both hamilton and billups 10-12M each?
by TheMoon on
Jul 18, 2008 2:53 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
so
traditionally stingy detroit would have paid 12-13M/year for Rasheed plus 10M for the lux tax, and handled a perpetually sulking Ben Wallace who would have likely had a hard time with how much more all the other starting veterans were making than him.
by TheMoon on
Jul 18, 2008 5:08 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
God you're a genius.
Glad you found this site to share your wisdom.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 18, 2008 7:35 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Now Bunny,
don’t pout. It may be you have a good point, and its not fair for you to withhold your good reasons in order to treat us to your sighing-eyerolling-sarcasm.
by TheMoon on
Jul 19, 2008 12:45 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
tygers more of an agressive sarcastic type
or merely a jerk.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 19, 2008 4:10 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
the latter
you kind of should be funny to be sarcastic. i’m not.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 19, 2008 9:33 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
so how many times have
the spurs overpaid?
by Jbonelli on
Jul 17, 2008 11:04 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Fine follow their model of success
Assume Rose will be as important or as great as Tim Duncan has, then we can surround him with marginal players who will become great.
I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)
by Ozzie Montana on
Jul 17, 2008 2:46 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
By far my favorite argument here.
Don't call me doughboy!
by Khalid El-Amin on
Jul 20, 2008 1:30 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Makes as much sense as the other ones on this site
I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)
by Ozzie Montana on
Jul 20, 2008 12:54 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
this is also completely ridiculous
because if we let our 2 best two players walk, what all star super free agent is going to want to sign with the bulls anyways? we let deng and gordon go, we suck hardcore and no one will want to sign with the bulls. don’t you remember when ron mercer was our free agent catch? come on.
by Jaina on
Jul 15, 2008 5:27 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
plus I don't like what it could do to Rose's development
especially since he was picked in part because he can make very good players great (or whatever adjectives you wish)
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 5:34 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Don't sign the Ron Mercers then
I’d rather get Josh Childress at half price of what Luol costs me if Luol wants unreasonable $. Flexibility is the key to building around superstar talent, which we presumably have in Rose. You can’t sacrifice that flexibility by overpaying complimentary, but very good players, not when you’re more than one piece away from legitimately contending for a title.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 9:32 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If you overpay for two players
how will you be able to sign that superstar free agent in the first place? You also have other players you will need to resign.
Again, I’m not saying “let’s end negotiations now and tell these guys to beat it!”. This is all draconian case hypothesizing. If it comes down to it, which I don’t see why it would have to, I’d rather let them walk than overpay.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 9:38 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sign and trade involving whom?
BG and Deng whom you’ve already signed two years earlier (this being 2008 vs. 2010)? I guess you’re suggesting that the Bulls offer these guys two year deals then.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 2:25 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
with whomever they want to bring in
Why is a sign-and-trade okay for Ben Gordon, Luol Deng, Josh Smith, Rashard Lewis, whomever right now or in the past, but a complete impossibility for Dwyane Wade, LeBron James or Chris Bosh two years from now?
by tyger1147 on
Jul 16, 2008 2:38 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What is your "number" for unreasonable.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 16, 2008 12:42 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Ball park figures
Deng gets no more than $10m per on average and BG gets Hinrich money. Anything more would be uncivilized.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 2:24 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I declare you unreasonable.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 16, 2008 2:28 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Uncivilized would have worked just as well.
I’ve been called worse.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 2:29 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What position player is a big free agent draw?
Last I heard everyone wants to play with a stud playmaking PG and if Rose is what we think he is, the Bulls won’t “suck hardcore” by the time the big FAs are out there. Again, I also have this admittedly delusional idea that D Wade is there for the Bulls taking assuming Miami doesn’t have a title contender in place by 2010.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 9:41 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
if you think the bulls are only winning 40 games next year
watch what happens when you let deng and gordon walk.
hardcore suckage.
by Jaina on
Jul 16, 2008 9:58 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
For the last time
Draconian case = worst-case scenario that preferably would be avoided at all costs! Let’s either sign these guys to reasonable deals or get something of value back for them.
And I think this Bulls team in its current state would struggle to win 40 next year. I don’t even know if I’d favor them to finish ahead of the Bucks.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 9:59 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But again, why would Wade leave Miami?
If it’s Derrick Rose and Josh Childress (who is at best a 6th man) you’re building around? He has Beasley, Chalmers, and a ton of cap space when Marion’s contract expires this season. If anything, him staying put in Florida makes the Heat a far more attractive option to other free agents. What if Chris Bosh decides he’s tired of the cold Canadian winters and wants to party on South Beach? Building a team with a FA in mind 2 years down the road is just crazy, you have no idea what is going to happen.
I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)
by Ozzie Montana on
Jul 16, 2008 12:39 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
because he wants to come play at home?
Have you read any of his comments when Fred Mitchell asked him about the trade rumors to Chicago? Wade did not at all seem against the idea. This is no gauge, of course, but I’m not the only one who thinks this is a possibility.
"I’m sure it annoys Cleveland about LeBron James and I’m sure it annoys Miami about Dwyane Wade going back to Chicago," O’Connor said. "I mean, I’m sure all of those things would annoy you, but what do you do? If I respond to every one of them, then I can’t work."—The Salt Lake Tribune
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 2:15 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I consider it flimsy
LeBron is AT home, how’s that working?
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 16, 2008 2:29 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
LeBron also wants to be a billionaire.
I don’t think i’d compare the two from an agenda standpoint but I can’t say, I’ve never hung out with either.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 2:30 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If Wade wants to "come home"...
...what’s stopping him? Cap space? You’ve yet to give any sort of rebuttal to the possibility of a sign-and-trade.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 16, 2008 2:41 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's because
Pfund and Riley haven’t returned the voicemail I left them at lunch regarding your question in terms of what they’d accept back in a sign-and-trade. I don’t know if they’d want an overpaid BG and Lu yet.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 4:16 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But Paxson has talked to you?
You know what he’d take? Or what the Clippers would want?
And maybe the Heat won’t think Gordon’s abilities will be overpaid. If Hinrich is for the Bulls but not for other teams, why does this not work for someone else?
Your logic and thinking is inconsistent.
Furthermore, you act as if $10 million is “reasonable” for Gordon (or whatever you said) or Deng, yet $1 or $2 million more per year is a worst-case scenario. We’re saying if it takes one or two million more to sign him, fine—that’s not going to be roadblock to bringing in a superstar in 2010. You’re in a very black-and-white mindset regarding this and that’s just not how this works.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 16, 2008 5:19 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
$1 - $2m can be huge in terms of cap effect
have you not noticed the benefit of clearing up as little as $3m, what it did for a team like Philly just last week? Hell, but it’s only $1-$2m more (which it doesn’t sound like would even be good enough), let’s just give it to them!
My logic and thinking is quite consistent. Just because Kirk may have gotten more money than he should have doesn’t mean BG should get $5m more, but that’s how BG seems to be thinking. That seems to be why BG is referencing deals like Kirk’s, Ben Wallace’s, and probably Hughes if he and his agent are indeed asking for $13m per because he deserves to be paid more than his current and former teammates. It don’t work that way. To quote William Munny from The Unforgiven: “Deserves got nothing to do with it.”
by messwiththebull on
Jul 17, 2008 12:33 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And you can also see...
...how easy it is to clear that space. As in: trade Hinrich, VOILA!
by tyger1147 on
Jul 17, 2008 12:41 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes because a team
would certainly be jumping at the chance to trade an expiring deal/cap relief for Hinrich rather than sending us similarly undesirable contracts. Do you know what you’re even hypothesizing here?
by messwiththebull on
Jul 17, 2008 12:42 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm hypothesizing that Hinrich has value
by tyger1147 on
Jul 17, 2008 12:43 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You said you'd trade him for cap space
you’re terrible at backpedaling. You should get a stationary bike and practice at home.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 17, 2008 12:44 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Marcus Camby had value.
He was also traded for cap space! Magic? Not really. A player can both have value and be traded for cap space.
by Prevenge on
Jul 17, 2008 10:48 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But
Camby was given away not for cap space but to get under the cap. The difference is big. For cap space camby is worth 10M. if he gets you under the cap then he is worth 10M plus the luxury tax which, according to Hollinger, would add up to about 20M.
But Hinrich has value; after all, he makes what Boozer and Nash make. If Seattle ccould turn Szczerbiak’s abominable deal into Adrian Griffin and Donyell Marshell then surely Chicago could get….? Tyger’s strategy: create inflated contracts and then trade those contracts for 60-80 cents on the dollar so that we can make room for more swollen contracts. Logical Isiah1147.
by TheMoon on
Jul 18, 2008 3:19 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
one team had the motivation of stripping the team
the Bulls don’t.
whether you think they should or not is a different question (I don’t think they should).
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 4:38 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
And the Bulls grossly underperformed last year.
If you think the 33-49 record is really the level of talent on the team, then yes, I can see why you’re in “rebuilding” mode. I, and Matt and others, disagree w/ that. I think they’re closer to 49 wins than 49 losses.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 15, 2008 4:39 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Did they really?
See, that’s something the team has to prove to me, I don’t see it as an automatic as some fans seem to. If this team as it is currently constituted can get 38-40 wins next year, I will be borderline surprised.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 15, 2008 4:47 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Again
I don’t understand why everyone seems to think the Bulls are closer than they showed last year. There seems to be this hive mind mentality that the Bulls are a 50 win team just waiting to happen in 08-09. I see marginal improvement over last year, especially with a rookie PG and a first time head coach leading a 33 win team.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 9:39 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes, you don't understand a lot here.
And not many people “understand” your line of thinking. I think it’s quite crazy to think a 38 wins would be any sort of surprising. I think it’s quite ridiculous, actually. Hive mindset and all.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 16, 2008 12:54 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well, I think it's quite crazy
to think a team coming off a 33-win season with its major acquisition being a 19-year old rookie PG and a first time rookie head coach to be on the cusp of a 50 win season. You think I’m crazy, I think you’re crazy. Are we even now?
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 2:13 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Except you're making stuff up.
Where have I said anything of a 50-win season?
by tyger1147 on
Jul 16, 2008 2:42 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
oh, "closer to 49 wins than..."
...that means 42-45, not 50.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 16, 2008 2:43 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I rounded up.
Sorry if I misrepresented the high end of your range by one win.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 4:17 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
heh
On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, Bullshooter, and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light....
by piccolomair on
Jul 17, 2008 1:27 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
lol..."closer to 49"
means 42-45…nice math…do you work in investment banking?
by Jbonelli on
Jul 17, 2008 11:12 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Midpoint of 33 & 49 is????
God, why are people so damn effin’ stupid?
by tyger1147 on
Jul 17, 2008 12:42 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
stop backpedaling
you screwed up, we all do. GO BULLS!
by messwiththebull on
Jul 17, 2008 12:43 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
he didn't screw up
you did.
tyger, i got your point.
by Jaina on
Jul 17, 2008 12:44 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I recall the quote
“closer to 49 wins” and I don’t recall him saying “Between 33 and 49 wins” but let’s just move on because we all look like children now. He’s right, you’re right, he’s wrong, Hulk would kill Superman.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 17, 2008 12:45 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
if you're going to quote something
please do it right. the full quote was “closer to 49 wins than 49 losses” which insinuates somewhere between 42 and 48 wins.
you’re the one picking fights with people.
by Jaina on
Jul 17, 2008 12:48 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Fine.
Then let me also conveniently rephrase my argument: “I will be surprised if the Bulsl come anywhere remotely close to 48 wins.” Now we can all get back to arguing Hulk vs. Superman.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 17, 2008 12:49 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I guess when you stop making sense
it’s best just to go off the deep end? sorry, couldn’t resist. i’ll remember that for the next time i realize i’m wrong (and i’ve admitted that plenty of times on here) but…: don’t admit it, just make outrageous comments to divert the discussion!!!
by tyger1147 on
Jul 17, 2008 12:52 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
thank you
we were discussing which of the past two records we thought was more indicative of the level of talent on the team. in that context “closer to 49 wins than to 49 losses” has a distinct meaning.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 17, 2008 12:50 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You win.
Superman would beat the Hulk, I concede.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 17, 2008 12:52 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i said closer to 49 than 33
how is this possibly backpedaling? you admitted you rounded up to make your argument
hell, is it not obvious that “closer to” does not mean “exactly”
by tyger1147 on
Jul 17, 2008 12:48 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You must've not watched Boylan coach.
It was pretty hilarious. Maddening if you made yourself into too much of a fan.
by Prevenge on
Jul 15, 2008 9:22 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
how many games have you watched?
In the last 5 + years?????
by gman2849 on
Jul 16, 2008 12:56 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Probably as much or more than you
are we here to measure each other’s basketball e-penises or to discuss our opinions?
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 2:12 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
just curious about
your assesment of this team.
it seems a bit far fetched and pessimistic in comparison to what these players have accomplished in the last 4 years. Opinions are great, but they should be precluded with some semblance of logic. not stubborn emotion.
You sound like someone who got on the Bulls bandwagen a year and a half ago and has not seen the progress this team has made up to last year.
A jaded Bandwagoner is and Angry Bandwagoner I always say.
You don’t know how many games I’ve seen to declare that you’ve seen more then me. that’s an assinine statement, but it seems to go along with much of what you’ve already posted.
by gman2849 on
Jul 17, 2008 10:40 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
now you're calling the guy
a bandwagon fan because he has a different opinion?
Yah we had some good years, but we were still bounced in the first round for two consectuive years…beat Miami and lost to Detroit, and then the debacle of last year….
but now we’re supposed to be great because we add Rose & VDN…c’mon….the east is tougher, the west is even tougher….
by Jbonelli on
Jul 17, 2008 11:16 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think you just owned yourself
with you post, thanks for saving me the effort.
GO BULLS!
by messwiththebull on
Jul 17, 2008 12:24 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
49 wins?? by adding a rookie PG...
are you serious? just because we got the #1 pick doesnt change the fact that we still dont have a low post threat, we still don’t have a dominant scorer (no, ben gordon is NOT a dominant scorer) and we have a rookie coach with no experience….
by Jbonelli on
Jul 17, 2008 11:11 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So they're going to win 30 games?
Are they going to get worse? If you bring back the same roster with the addition of Rose, and an improved Thabo, Tyrus, and Noah, how can this team not win over 40 games? The East isn’t THAT much better, there are simply more teams with talent compared to 4-5 seasons ago.
I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)
by Ozzie Montana on
Jul 17, 2008 2:48 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Also I disagree with this
“You can recover from letting borderline all-stars walk easier than you can dealing with players who have bad contracts”
Trading ‘borderline all-stars’ who are under contract (if overpaid) seems more likely way towards success than relying on free agency, not to mention relying on all the things that go into getting under the cap for free agency.
That, or keeping your borderline all stars with their ‘bad’ contracts.
Heck, one of the main constraints for Paxson in the trade market is that everyone was on a rookie deal and therefore he couldn’t effectively match salaries in trades.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 4:40 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
AND
what’s the meaning of ‘recover’.
I’d say if the Bulls got draconian and shooed away Gordon and Deng, this team next year SUCKS. Even if they are better prepared for the future (which I won’t concede, but say it was).
I think the Bulls cannot afford to have their team suck next year. Or to put it better, I think the Bulls think they cannot afford to have their team suck next year.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 4:43 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Don't disagree but what the Bulls can afford
even less, and what I think is more likely (which apparently no one else on BaB does) is that the Bulls overpay for those guys and get 35 wins next year. Now things aren’t looking so hot.
I understand your point in the differences between that OKC team’s motivation, but one more year like last year and the Bulls are that OKC team (who themselves were two years removed from that 50+ win season before selling off).
by messwiththebull on
Jul 15, 2008 4:50 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't see how having their two of their best players
is negligible on the W-L record.
I’m not arguing the current status of the Bulls and OKC, but their motivation for what they want to be. OKC wanted to strip the team. The Bulls want to build one (you’d think).
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 4:52 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But why did OKC want to strip the team?
To build around Durant, whom they had just drafted. Their intent was to build just as much as the Bulls intent is to build around Rose.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 15, 2008 4:53 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
To get supercheap because they're cheap.
They were doing the Memphis thing before Memphis was. And Rashard Lewis and Ray Allen were much older and on the decline (in their contracts) than Deng and Gordon.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 15, 2008 5:06 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
even if you take the cheapness/moveability out of it
it’s, like Tyger said, because of the relative ages of their ‘established’ players as opposed to Rose.
While the Bulls want to build around Rose, they also have to be careful not to re-start from the bottom. I think it’s a crappy strategy anyway, but who they’d be really pissing off would be the season ticket holders.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 5:22 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
*as opposed to Durant
in that example, not Rose.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 5:22 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Why would they get rid of Lewis if they wanted to build around Durant?
He’s 28 years old, and wasn’t coming off serious surgery like Ray Allen. They were trying to trim the salary of the team. The intent to move to OKC was already in motion last summer, the franchise was desperate to cut costs. Instead of fast-tracking Durant to success like Oden seems destined to, it will take years for Seattle to have anything that even amounts to a playoff contender.
I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)
by Ozzie Montana on
Jul 15, 2008 5:22 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
he's 28 and Durant was 19
Lewis was still young but that’s a pretty big gap.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 5:35 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But still, Lewis was no aging star like Allen
It’s largely irrelevant though. He was a UFA, and the money Orlando threw at him was insane. The point I’m trying to make is not every franchise has to clear out their roster in order to build around a star.
I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)
by Ozzie Montana on
Jul 15, 2008 5:39 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It was a sign and trade
that got him to Orlando.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 9:46 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well Orlando would have signed him outright
But Seattle could tack on an extra year via sign and trade.
by kingj41 on
Jul 16, 2008 9:49 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Would have, could have, but didn't
and Seattle got a $9m trade exception out of it on top of a 2nd round pick.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 9:55 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well, I could have inluded all of that, but
they got something instead of letting a guy go for nothing. You’re arguing against yourself now.
by kingj41 on
Jul 16, 2008 10:03 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No, I'm not
the point was that Seattle didn’t lose an UFA, they got something in return for him. There is a big difference between “letting someone go” as was described above and getting something of value back in return.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 10:21 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Shots and opportunities
that’s why
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 9:35 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Borderline all-stars
can win championships (see the pistons) and become plain old all-stars with an elite pointguard (see David West).
The poster formerly known as Freethefro.
by MPG on
Jul 16, 2008 8:53 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Last I saw David West had a reasonable contract
I’d be happy paying Deng David West money. Was that your point? If so, I completely agree.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 9:57 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
West was a 2003 draft pick
His extension came a couple of years ago, had he had this breakout season and been up for an extension now, you can bet he’d be demanding more than 9 million a year.
I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)
by Ozzie Montana on
Jul 16, 2008 12:42 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
exactly....
but Deng and Gordon did NOT have breakout seasons last year..
by Jbonelli on
Jul 17, 2008 11:19 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
They actually regressed
both from a pure numbers and PER standpoint. Let’s give them higher offers than what we presented last year!
by messwiththebull on
Jul 17, 2008 12:27 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yep
my point is those “pretty good” guys are actually championship level players when they’re in the right situation. One of those “right situations” is having an elite point guard.
The poster formerly known as Freethefro.
by MPG on
Jul 16, 2008 12:48 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't disagree
and I think an elite PG is one hell of a free agent draw. How many times have you heard all-stars say they’d love to play with a Jason Kidd? You think guys want to play with a Chris Paul? A Deron Williams? An elite PG + a legit superstar is a deadly, deadly combination. I wouldn’t pass up the opportunity to accomplish this just because BG and Deng think they’re worth Baron Davis money.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 2:19 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
having an elite pg
IS a free agent draw. but rose is going to need the next two years (at least) to develop into that elite pg, and in the case that we take away deng and gordon, his improvement is probably going to be slower given those are our two best guys.
i still maintain that letting them go is a mistake. yes you say that’s the extreme case, but you seem much more content to do so than even paying them just a little more than they’re worth. i’m willing to give them a little extra dough if it means they’re happy (which will lead to a better performance, probably).
also, i’m not advocating overpaying them by a lot. and if they find someone to give them a ton of money, so be it, try to work a sign and trade so we can at least get something back.
by Jaina on
Jul 16, 2008 2:23 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think we're generally on the same page
I’d rather sign-and-trade if the parties can’t come to an amicable agreement. I don’t want to see the Bulls lose these guys for nothing, but not at the expense of having to be stuck with this team and hoping it will be enough, like the situation the Wizards seem to have committed themselves to. They’re not winning a title with what they have, but they’ll win their 40+ games. Woo.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 2:33 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The Wiz wouldn't mind 40 wins
if they had the opportunity to improve off of it.
The Bulls could be ‘stuck with’ Gordon/Deng/Rose, and still have Hinrich to deal, and actual young prospects like Thomas, Noah, Thabo. Heck they even have Gooden as an expiring contract.
The Wizards aren’t stuck with Butler/Arenas/Jamis, they’re stuck with Thomas/Haywood/Daniels/Songaila.
There will be no value in a sign and trade, the Bulls will just get mediocre prospects and maybe some cap flexibility. Now that’s deserving of a sarcastic ‘woo’.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 16, 2008 3:19 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
*Jamison
not Jamis.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 16, 2008 3:19 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Was there value in the sign-and-trades
involving Crawford and Curry? If the Wizards core of A/B/J isn’t enough to contend for a title, then they’re stuck with them and will have to find a taker in the trade market. They’re not stuck with them right at this moment because that core hasn’t yet been evaluated as incapable of winning a title by management, though I’d disagree.
I think the Wiz would be disappointed with 40 wins considering the cash they just shelled out and the resulting cap inflexibilty that accompanied it. Aside from trading one of the core guys they just signed, how else will they improve on it? Lottery pick? The worst thing to be in the NBA is mediocre and old/overpaid.
What if the Bulls would like to resign Noah and/or Ty and/or Thabo? What if they’d rather have those guys than the guys they just signed, you know, kinda like the situation we’ve pegged Hinrich at now? Now imagine if we overpaid Hinrich (some would say we have, but teams seem receptive to his contract)? Would we still have him to deal (for legitimate value, not a bad contract swap)? At some point what you have is what you’re going to have to go with.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 4:34 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Folly
Josh Howard makes 9.5M, Caron Butler makes 8.4, if deng makes more his contract is bad. Tiny parker, rip hamilton, billups, and ginobli make 10M per year, if gordon makes more than that that is a bad contract.
Your strategy sounds like “stockpiling assets,” which, if you remember was the favored strategy of one Isiah Thomas (right down to the turbid contracts), and erstwhile punchline Danny Ainge before his friend McHale bailed him out. Bad contracts are useful and something you seek in trades. No one goes out of their way to make them and expects to design a winning team.
by TheMoon on
Jul 18, 2008 12:33 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i think butler's a fair comparison
butler’s 4th year:
MPG: 36.1 FG%: 0.455 3P%: 0.342 FT%: 0.870 RPG: 6.2 APG: 2.5 SPG: 1.7 BPG: 0.2 TO: 2.33 PPG: 17.6
deng’s past season:
MPG: 33.8 FG%: 0.479 3P%: 0.364 FT%: 0.770 RPG: 6.3 APG: 2.5 SPG: 0.9 BPG: 0.5 TO: 1.90 PPG: 17.0
and butler was 25 at the start of his 4th season, deng 22. i also don’t know when butler was extended or signed a new contract.
however, one can argue that market value for these types of players have changed, given the type of contract rashard lewis was given, who is less productive than butler is currently, and on par with how deng is performing. and deng is on the upswing of his career, unlike lewis. so while i’m not advocating in the least that deng deserves a rashard contract, he’s going to get more than butler.
and the other thing about that is that that is very encouraging for me. it was really in years 5 and 6 that butler started rising (particularly in playmaking with 4.9 apg) and i believe that deng could at least match that.
by Jaina on
Jul 18, 2008 12:54 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i should add
not necessarily in the assists category, but just in general, i think deng can take it up a notch.
by Jaina on
Jul 18, 2008 12:56 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But
One could make that argument, but would one want to go on record as having made it? The market on shoot first point guards was not changed by Marbury’s 20M/year contract, at least not for smart teams. The market for trigger happy power forwards who do not play defence did not go up when Szczerbiak signed for 13M/year, at least not for smart teams. If this were the case, then since Jermaine O’Neal makes 22M/year, it follows that Dwight Howard should soon make… um… whats 20 times 50? Most people thought Lewis was a good pickup for Orlando but laughed at how much and for how long Orlando committed their resources to him. Smart teams do not often get laughed at when they deal.
by TheMoon on
Jul 18, 2008 3:33 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
my point was
not that i expected most players of that type to get a rashard lewis-like deal… i laugh at the deal too.
but that i see maybe the market’s changed enough that instead of 9 a year, the going rate is 12 a year.
by Jaina on
Jul 18, 2008 10:56 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes, I see your point
Except that I do not see a league-wide trend to give huge contracts to small forwards. I think you are right insofar as the market on Rashard lewis went up the second Orlando made their bid (although it turned out to be a pretty small market), but I just do not see that the value of small forwards has one up. Point guards, yes. Additionally, it should be noted that no other team has made any kind of offer to Deng much less a 12M/year deal. Now I have heard something to the effect that teams have been reluctant to make offers to Deng because they believe that Chicago loves him too much. But just for fun, if you were Memphis, and 12M/year was a good deal for Deng, wouldn’t you make him an offer like that now, if anything, just to piss Chicago off and force their hand. And if you get them, who cares if you already have Gay? its memphis. they can just start conley, mayo, deng as sf gay as pf and warrick as c. what a fun lineup. they’ll lose for sure but they might put asses in the seats.
by TheMoon on
Jul 19, 2008 4:35 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah
but memphis is cheap as hell.
also, the market was kinda set by that lewis deal. no one was offering that money to butler whose production was similar at the time of his new contract (again i don’t know exactly when he was extended, but if we take his 4th year stats)... but the minute lewis gets that kinda contract, deng, who is just as productive, looks and that and goes i deserve just as much. market gets changed by just one contract.
by Jaina on
Jul 20, 2008 9:34 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There is no flexibility when you're a crappy team
Teams that are continually horrible remain horrible in this league, unless you are given the gift of a true franchise-changing player via the lottery. Rose will be a great player, but there’s no way I would want the Bulls to put all their hopes for the future in 1 player in order to save some money now.
Teams that refuse to spend on their own players can and will develop a reputation. When Miami signed Brand in 2005, no one assumed Sterling was going to match. It was a huge shock to everyone that the legendary tightwad Sterling gave Brand the money. Not surprisingly at all, their most successful season in years was that year.
I understand your concerns about overpaying for players who seem to max out and 2nd options at best, but the reality is you can’t get away with not overpaying players in this league. When a team’s collective roster gets older and the rookie contracts are gone, it becomes virtually impossible to actually sign a player for a fair market value. That’s why it’s so important to re-sign Deng and BG to good deals now.
I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)
by Ozzie Montana on
Jul 15, 2008 5:35 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Good deals, yes, the deals they want, no.
1. “Teams that are continually horrible remain horrible in this league, unless you are given the gift of a true franchise-changing player via the lottery.”
Like Boston, right? Or like the mediocre Lakers, right? How did those guys do it? With an established superstar and tradable assets, either in the form of young talent that wasn’t overpaid or via cap relief.
2. “Not surprisingly at all, their most successful season in years was that year.”
Sam Cassell had something to do with that, too. Look at the dropoff in the team once his game declined.
3. “That’s why it’s so important to re-sign Deng and BG to good deals now.”
Good deals, yes. I’m not arguing against signing these two to good deals. Good deals from an organizational perspective, not from placating the egos of BG and Lu.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 12:28 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Regarding your first point
The Lakers and Celtics are extreme cases. They got franchise-altering players for next to nothing. Ray Allen was one thing, but getting KG for essentially Al Jefferson is ridiculous in the short-term.
I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)
by Ozzie Montana on
Jul 16, 2008 12:45 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Extreme, yes
but “next to nothing” is wrong. Cap relief comes at a premium in this league, how many times do we have to see a deal that further proves this? I’m not trying to explain it to you because I know you get it, I’m just saying.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 2:20 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
better to overpay for BG and Deng?
Does anyone know what they’re asking? I heard BG wanted $65/5 and Luol wanted considerably more. Is that what anyone would be willing to pay?
"To a man with a hammer, every solution looks like a nail." SLC
by WayOldGuy on
Jul 16, 2008 11:01 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I just spit out my coffee
I can’t allow myself to believe BG is asking for $65/5 and that Lu asked for considerably more. I will pretend that you made that up unless you have some semblance of a source.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 17, 2008 9:32 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That makes no sense...
No team is going to offer them anything in that range. (OK, maybe the Knicks.)
If they are asking for those terms, let them sign the QO, play out the season, then part ways. Both asking for those terms are way too selfish for me to accept.
by kingj41 on
Jul 17, 2008 9:43 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
someone else on here
reported that luol wanted to see something in the 70s… over 6 though, not 5. something like 12.5 a year.
65/5 is way too much for gordon.
by Jaina on
Jul 17, 2008 9:54 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I like these guys as players for this team
and I know the NBA has a screwy, skewed contract structure, but these guys have not proved they are worth those numbers. There is no Lebron talent, or Dwight Howard talent there.
I do see the ‘potential’ in Deng more than Gordon, but injuries and inconsistency make it harder to justify an 8 figure salary, despite whatever talent you have around you.
I feel they’re both worthy of getting theirs, and Kirk’s and Noc’s contract make it difficult to accept not extending them offers north of $10mil per, but you can’t put the franchise in cap hell.
by kingj41 on
Jul 17, 2008 10:24 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yeah, it does suck
since i’d pay gordon more than hinrich but i’d only pay like 10/year, max. but since that’s pretty much what hinrich earns i understand why gordon feels he deservers more.
luol i’d extend a 72/6 deal. but yes, the hinrich and noc contracts make this stuff pretty difficult.
by Jaina on
Jul 17, 2008 10:33 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Deserves got nothing to do with it
and that is why I believe the negotiations with BG and Deng are going so slowly. These players (and agents) think they are entitled to get more than a less productive teammate is getting, a la the Anderson Varejao argument. It don’t work that way. You sign for the current market value at the time your deal is up. Kirk wouldn’t get that same contract today.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 17, 2008 12:39 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
just saying
i understand gordon’s sense of entitlement. as i said, i don’t think he’s worth more than 10 a year.
varejao wanted 10 a year for a 6pt/6reb career. a lot different from a 20 pt scorer with other shortcomings.
by Jaina on
Jul 17, 2008 12:42 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
and "hustle" defense
in that view I think Nocioni was a steal ; )
by gman2849 on
Jul 17, 2008 1:22 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Apparently I'm not the only one who's delusional
“I’m sure it annoys Cleveland about LeBron James and I’m sure it annoys Miami about Dwyane Wade going back to Chicago,” O’Connor said. “I mean, I’m sure all of those things would annoy you, but what do you do? If I respond to every one of them, then I can’t work.”—The Salt Lake Tribune
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 10:26 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Also, look at the poll on Bulls.com
I voted for Deng
by knickknack7450 on
Jul 15, 2008 9:55 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Just for your information, the exchange rate is just about exactly 2:1.
LUOL Deng’s hopes of signing a long-term £30 million-plus deal with the Chicago Bulls are fading.
Which means he’s looking for a $60 million deal and that goes right in line w/ most of what we’ve heard. I can understand not coming to an agreement yet, but not even putting out an offer? What’s this w/ Reinsdorf negotiating contracts? Or w/ wanting to get this wrapped up so they can pursue other players?
My own speculative take: they want to get Gordon wrapped up first thinking he’s the bigger “ego”. If they give Deng $XX then maybe they think Gordon will want that, too. Or if Gordon turns them down flat-out (or in a sign-and-trade or whatever), they might be willing to throw in an extra million or two a year to keep Luol around.
I’m not amazed at how slow things are going (knowing this organization and just the process in general), but I am amazed at how absolutely little information there is.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 15, 2008 10:17 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
That's not a bad theory.
Especially if the rumors about Jerry liking Kirk better than BG are true. Because he could be expecting a sign and trade with Ben, which would change our roster, which would change how Deng fits with our roster.
But, I would tend to think, Deng is a good small forward with a good (decent?) attitude and he is very young. He is the kind of guy that I don’t ever think I will mind having on this team, and he is good enough to start for the next decade. I say give him something in the 55mil range, and work on clearing Nocioni’s deal off the books.
Here’s a question for the salary cap’ers out there… can we sign Deng to a deal that didn’t pay much in 2010? So that we would have more cap room to sign free agents that year? So Deng would make like 12mil a year, except 2010-11 he would make like 8 mil. It seems we could give him a little more yearly and then sell him on the idea that we are hoping to make a big splash that year.
That seems a little too easy, so I’m doubting we are allowed.
by kidronmusic on
Jul 15, 2008 10:52 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Here's the Heat's plan...
It took creative accounting between Heat Vice President Andy Elisburg and agent Joel Bell to add James Jones to the roster and also preserve the Heat’s goal of significant cap space in the 2010 offseason, when Dwyane Wade as well as LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Chris Bosh and Amare Stoudemire could be free agents.Jones’ deal, which could be worth as much as $23 million over five years, essentially starts as a two-year contract worth in excess of $8 million. Should the Heat drop the 6-foot-8 forward from the roster before the July 1, 2010 start of free agency, Jones would become a free agent and collect roughly $2 million for each of those remaining three years. —South Florida Sun-Sentinel
I realize that Deng is of (and is aware that he is of) a higher caliber than Jones, but I do think it will be interesting to watch what teams do with the contracts they are giving out right now. Particularly the major market teams, because they are already more attractive to free agents. I am pretty curious to watch everybody prepare for the greatest free agent signing period ever.
by kidronmusic on
Jul 15, 2008 11:15 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
more on Deng and Gordon salary demands
I should have read all the way down. Now I only need to read what Gordon’s demand is. I still seem to remember it was $65/5 but I may be wrong. I heard the 30M pounds sterling but I thought a pound sterling was worth more than the 2 to 1 ratio that it is.
"To a man with a hammer, every solution looks like a nail." SLC
by WayOldGuy on
Jul 16, 2008 11:14 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Maybe someone around here has a good idea of Reinsdorf's net worth.
I checked Google and was sent to HoopsHype, which listed Forbes and USA Today as its source. http://hoopshype.com/owners/jerry_reinsdorf.htm
According to these sources, Reinsdorf owns a “controlling interest” in the Bulls (which he took on during the early Jordan years). It lists the Bulls as being worth $500 million, and Reinsdorf personally as having a net worth of $280 million.
If true, this strikes me as rather odd. It would put Reinsdorf’s non-Bulls related net worth at less than $30 million. Something else to factor into the net worth equation is that Reinsdorf’s non-Bulls business interests are primarily in real estate…and what have real estate heavy portfolios done in the last year or so?
I wonder if Reinsdorf might actually be feeling the economic pinch? I think it’s been pretty well established that he’s not “cheap” per se. Going all the way back to the Albert Bell contract and MJ’s $30 million per year deal, Reinsdorf has a history of paying top dollar for talent.
So it’s not as if he’s Carl Polhad—a $2 billionaire who’s just not willing to open his check book.
But one also has to consider the story of Cleveland Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert, whose Quicken Loans empire is teetering, along with many other mortgage and real estate related businesses.
Is it possible Reinsdorf just can’t afford the money to risk being a player in this market?
If, nationally, real estate is still priced 30% above its long term trend, and the stock market officially signalled a recession last week, does that put Reinsdorf in the position of having to ride out this economic downturn…and hope that 2 years from now he’ll have the liquidity to get back in the game?
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on
Jul 15, 2008 10:49 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
you need your own blog.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 10:53 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah... that can't be right.
His non-Bulls money has to be pretty decent. I hate the Sox, but they have to be pulling in a hell of a lot more than 30 mil. They just won it all in 2005. Plus whatever he is involved in besides sports.
I assume if Jerry was broke, the Chicago media would be all over it right now.
by kidronmusic on
Jul 15, 2008 10:56 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Don't know how much income
Jerry actually derives from his percentage of the White Sox ownership syndicate.
I don’t know how available the specifics are, but I do wonder if Reinsdorf isn’t currently among the poorest in the American sports ownership scene.
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on
Jul 15, 2008 11:07 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Me like basket-ball
it fun to watch, and more fun to play!
The poster formerly known as Freethefro.
by MPG on
Jul 15, 2008 10:59 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
it doesn't.
don’t feed the beast.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 11:58 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Right.
What we really need are more posts speculating on who has the bigger ego between Gordon and Deng.
Once we get that satisfactorily established, we can work out the finer points of ego impact vs how much (in dollars, of course) each should be offered…compare that to a waiting vs instant gratification calculus, eventually coming up with a nice round equation with nice simple (not to mention reliable) ego-based inputs…et voila—payment schedules for Gordon and Deng!
Yes, a much more reasonable line of inquiry.
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on
Jul 15, 2008 12:28 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's a laugh!
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on
Jul 15, 2008 12:37 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
who are you referring to, exactly?
you’re the one who became convinced in a matter of hours that Gordon was ready to leave based on ego speculation. I’d provide a more specific recollection, but I skip most of what you write.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 12:49 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Nah...it took me a lot longer than that.
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on
Jul 15, 2008 12:51 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It matters a lot...
I think Alec raises a good point. Doesn’t everyone love to say “oh, it’s a business”. well then if it’s a business, current economic conditions matter and Reinsdorf’s economic condition is very relevant. Basketball cannot be totally immune from the current downturn (to put it mildly).
by bullsfaninbigapple on
Jul 15, 2008 12:45 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
if there was anything substantial on Reinsdorf's economic condition...
but no, it’s just alec-speak on nothing.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 12:47 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I would tend to believe
that Reinsdort pays for salaries out of revenues, not out of his own pocket.
And season tickets are like fixed income streams. Committed dollars.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 15, 2008 1:31 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Im not looking through all the old diaries, but
didn’t the Bulls net 27 million last year or two years ago. Somebody posted a link.
by Jesse07 on
Jul 15, 2008 3:15 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Um, that would be me.
Are you suggesting that I at one time argued a case for how MUCH money Reinsdorf had?
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on
Jul 15, 2008 7:08 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Reinsdorf isn't withdrawing money from Harris Bank to pay the Bulls
I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)
by Ozzie Montana on
Jul 15, 2008 2:44 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Interesting speculation
but (a) I doubt those numbers are accurate and (b) its not like he’s paying salaries out of his own checking account.
John Paxson has been like family to me. I can no more disown him than I can disown my white grandmother, who also was unable to pull off any deals for superstar free agents or hire a top-notch coach.
by preverbal on
Jul 15, 2008 1:51 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I wonder what does Paxson do all day if there's no contract negotiations?
Does he simulate the season in NBA Live? Does he rig the Dunkin Donut races?
It makes sense that they would want to sign BG first because they don’t want to be paying him equal or greater value than Deng, at least it feels like that.
I don’t think the Bulls are in any danger of the Clippers coming in and swooping Deng away. They have enough money to throw at Josh Smith where it will be very hard for Atlanta to match (where reports are they will only go as high as 55 million). A lot would have to go wrong (Sixers can’t sign Iggy, Smith stays, Okafor stays, negotiations become ugly) for Deng to leave Chicago.
I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)
by Ozzie Montana on
Jul 15, 2008 11:19 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
And that's probably the other part of it.
They think Deng wants to be in Chicago long-term much more than Gordon, and they probably want Deng in Chicago long-term much more than Gordon. You’d think they’d want to get that deal over and done with, but you can also understand why they might think they can be more patient w/ Deng.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 15, 2008 11:30 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I know the situation is not like last year
Because of them being restricted free agents this year, but I still see this lasting for a couple months.
Maybe not till October but still a while.
by Option27 on
Jul 15, 2008 11:46 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not surprised by how long this is taking.
Remember a few years ago when Tyson Chandler was a RFA. The Bulls didn’t sign him until just before training camp. Its a leverage thing. Scare every possible team away, then offer a contract below what he wants. Its basically says, look noone else wanted you so take it or leave it. Honestly though, I don’t think that any team has enough cap space to make Chicago not match the offer. Deng turned down a 5 year 57 million dollar deal last year. He won’t get much better from any one because no team has more then 12-13 million left. The same is true with Ben Gordon. But Gordon’s value is limited to Chicago only. Noone else is going to pay 10+ million per year for a small SG, unless they already have a big PG. None of the teams with cap space have a PG big enough to offset Ben’s lack of size.
by Bigred15 on
Jul 15, 2008 11:52 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
unfortunately
Paxson’s put a freeze on the roster in the meantime. Might as well go on vacation.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 11:59 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
heh
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Jul 15, 2008 3:43 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Tyson's summer
Don’t forget that summer was the Eddy Curry summer too. A lot was going on with Eddy’s heart drama . When Eddy was traded, they had to pay Tyson because he was the last tall guy on the roster. I think he got what he wanted. I remember Scott being pretty pissed about that contract.
by Jesse07 on
Jul 15, 2008 3:21 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Tyson was overpaid on the Bulls because
the Bulls just didn’t have a PG who could get him his shots and make the game easier for him. Do you think New Orleans thinks Tyson is overpaid? Maybe they do.
by messwiththebull on
Jul 15, 2008 3:59 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
They Should since
he is no better now then when he played for the bulls.
by gman2849 on
Jul 16, 2008 1:10 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
he's better
than his last season here, which is when he was getting the big bucks. when he was producing well for the bulls, he was still on his rookie contract.
by Jaina on
Jul 16, 2008 1:36 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
we've gone thru this in previous posts...
by gman2849 on
Jul 16, 2008 1:50 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yes
and i’m not saying he’s really playing much better than he did as a bull, however he was overpaid in his first year of the mega-contract because he played so poorly that particular season. since he was able to get back in his groove, he’s not really overpaid. i’d rather pay him 10 mil than pay larry hughes 12 mil.
by Jaina on
Jul 16, 2008 2:00 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
sadly because of were salaries are concerned
I couldn’t agree with you more.
he still sux in my 5 years of watching him play for the bulls frustration opinion
by gman2849 on
Jul 17, 2008 11:39 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
understandable
watching him foul out in less than 5 minutes of play (iirc) was pretty frustrating. unbelievable, actually. but i’m happy for him that he’s been able to come into his own a bit. fouling was always a big limiting factor with him so i’m glad he’s been able to control it better now.
by Jaina on
Jul 17, 2008 12:26 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think NO defensive
sets have more to do with that then anything Tyrus has done
by gman2849 on
Jul 17, 2008 1:23 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
His production is better and that cannot be questioned
the results are hard to argue with
by messwiththebull on
Jul 16, 2008 2:21 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Exactly right. And here's some context (and some unsubstantiated rumor):
The Bulls organization was pretty cutthroat with Pippen’s and Grant’s contract situations as well.
Pippen’s feuds with management are legendary, and the Bulls underpaid him as well. He signed for long-term security and also had a back surgery, but he was clearly worth much more than his contract, and it led to serious acrimony, and apparently, he was almost traded before the last championship. But bad publicity aside, Reinsdorf and the other owners were merely enforcing a contract that Pippen signed. And eventually, the Bulls got him his money in that sign-and-trade with the Rockets, not to mention the golden parachute that Pax gave him just before he retired.
Before Grant ended up going to the Magic, Grant was in some pretty heated negotiations with the Bulls as well. His negotiations are famous for the handshake deal, where Reinsdorf approached Grant in a practice, while his agent was not around, and discussed very specific terms with him. The conversation apparently ended with the two men shaking hands.
But when it came time for Grant to sign, he said he didn’t have a deal with Reinsdorf, and Reinsdorf was indignant, giving press interviews about how the two had a gentlemen’s agreement on that handshake (the Mike D’Antoni saga seems to have some of these same elements).
My point in all of this is that for 2 of the key players in recent Bulls history, the Bulls played hardball in terms of negotiations. And that’s not even beginning to address how they treated Phil Jackson’s negotiations, especially in the final years.
And now the unsubstantiated rumor: a friend of mine met a co-owner of the Bulls in 1999 and was casually talking to him about the breakup after the 2nd 3-peat. The co-owner apparently told him that one of the main reasons for the breakup was that the owners, as a group, wanted to recoup their investments, essentially take profits on the team. That meant letting famous and high-priced the pieces go, so that the owners could make money off of the continuous sellout crowds while paying a bunch of rookies and unknowns. If they’re willing to let the best team ever break up because of money, then they’ll have no problem whatsoever stringing Deng and Gordon along.
So my prediction is that they’ll string Deng along and play hardball, pulling every tactic to save a penny. They’ll eventually re-sign him at the last minute, but along the way, they’ll take undue advantage of his reasonable disposition, and they’ll probably really piss him and his agent off. For Gordon, they’ll be just as tough in their negotiations, but they’ll have a lower threshold for his demands, and they’ll be shopping him around for a sign-and-trade the whole way.
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
by bullhockey on
Jul 15, 2008 11:42 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
1 recs
That's an unsubstantiated fact, not an unsubstantiated rumor :)
by Sports2 on
Jul 16, 2008 12:47 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
By definition, a rumor is an unsubstantiated fact.
Now, for us, there is a “rumor” of what he said.
by tyger1147 on
Jul 16, 2008 12:57 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
All your Bulls history is valid
Except you forget that those negotiations were done under the power of Jerry “everything is personal” Krause. We know well enough that Krause hated Jackson’s guts, and that made for some uneasy negotiating. The Grant fiasco was Reinsdorf’s fault, handshake deals are stupid and not how you conduct business in pro sports, especially when Grant was going to obviously take that offer and run it by his agent before officially signing.
Just because an organization is trying to be financially responsible doesn’t mean they are “cutthroat.” I doubt Paxson makes his negotiations as personal and vicious as Krause was rumored to have done. Reinsdorf isn’t some vindictive asshole, he’s the owner who doesn’t want to spend a lot of money if the results won’t be successful.
I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)
by Ozzie Montana on
Jul 16, 2008 12:59 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, true. I guess the question is how much
of this has changed with Pax coming on board in place of Krause. The money they threw at Ben Wallace seems like some sort of an indication that the Bulls are a little more lenient and a little less cutthroat. Same for the generous (overly so) contract given to Noc.
But the take-it-or-leave-it, one-time limited offer that took place with Deng and Gordon last summer showed more of that Krause style. And we’re continuing to see it, at least a little bit.
There’s nothing wrong with being fiscally responsible; no one wants Reinsdorf to run this organization into the ground, financially.
But it seems he’s not really a risk taker with contracts. Higher risk could mean higher rewards, and by that I mean that Riensdorf could stand to be a little more like other owners who make the calculation that player x could increase our payroll a lot, but it could also virtually guarantee winning a playoff series, resulting in a net gain to the organization financially.
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
by bullhockey on
Jul 16, 2008 1:29 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs












