Bulls Haven't Matched Last Summer's Offer to BG(?)
At least, that is what the author of this Sun-Times piece contends. The article also synopsizes the latest news (or lack thereof) regarding negotiations between the Bulls and Gordon.
Gordon states that he doesn't believe the negotiations should have been this protracted.
I didn't see this posted in any other thread.
about 1 year ago
1958ChiTown
32 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
It does sound like that is the case
and in this scenario, Gordon may actually be aided by the market setting contracts of Ellis and Okafor. If the Bulls are offering BG appreciably less than Ellis, then I can side with Gordon to an extent. His floor should be Kirk Hinrich money and his ceiling should be Monta Ellis money, in my opinion.
by messwiththebull on Jul 29, 2008 11:03 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
"it is believed the Bulls' best offer this summer hasn't matched that amount."
what the hell does that mean?
John Jackson stinks.
There was a report over the weekend saying the Bulls never gave Deng an offer matching last year’s either. If that were true, I’d advise both to ‘close communication’ and leave a dump in the Berto center stairwell.
The meanwhile Paxson can draft his letter to ticketholders of the ‘Chicago Perpetuating Rookie Contracts”
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 29, 2008 11:07 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
hahahaha @ "leave a dump in the Berto Center stairwell"
also, speaking of things that stink. This reeks of the Chairman. He’s trying to drive the negotiations and play hardball because BG and Deng turned down the offers last year (that were obviously below market value at the time and appear to be about market value now, given the down year these guys had). He doesn’t want to return to the previous numbers because that would be to “lose” the negotiations. It feels as though the guys just want these negotiations to be over with and I’d imagine they’d take the deals they were offered last year (with the extra year added on of course) if the Bulls would just simply offer them again. This is a lot of conjecture, but it’s just the way it seems to be playing out. Come on JR just get it done already!
by fundamentallysound on Jul 29, 2008 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll buy it.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 29, 2008 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree as well but...
Clearly the Bulls felt last year’s offer was “fair”. So if they regressed as most seem to agree they did, why would he match the same offer? The players played worse and the team played significantly worse. In my mind, if Jerry/Pax thought last year’s offer was fair, I don’t disagree with them not matching. Otherwise, it’s always in the players best interests to decline Bulls offers.
by CJ Bulls on Jul 29, 2008 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it was a fair offer
only in the context that the players would be taking less for long-term security.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 29, 2008 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And the Bulls are taking the risk they've maxed out on talent and won't improve
The players regressed this year and might never be as great as projected, therefore the Bulls should lower the contract. They still have another year under contract, so once again the Bulls don’t have to rush. The only year they’ll truly have to overpay is if the players reach unrestricted free agency. So why overpay before they have to? If Deng and Gordon have similar years this year to last and the Bulls miss playoffs, the Bulls will certainly look pretty foolish to overpay. You overpay to win, not lose. Hence, the Noc/Hinrich contracts. The Bulls were winning so it made sense to overpay to retain the winning core.
by CJ Bulls on Jul 29, 2008 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
In which you're claiming players maxed out their abilities and efficiency...
...at the ages of 21 (Deng) and 23 (Gordon). I’m sure there are exact numbers on it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s less than 1 in 100 players that do that. I’m willing to take that 99% chance. And no, it didn’t make sense for Nocioni to be overpaid. He was less a part of the core than Hinrich, Gordon and Deng ever were.
by tyger1147 on Jul 29, 2008 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, but they've clearly lowered their ceilings
Both players don’t look to have the same potential they had before, and yes they could have plateaued. Deng went from a #2 on a title team with outside potentional to be #1 to now looking like a #3 on a title with potential to be a #2. Gordon went from a good #3 to looking more like a 4 or 5 on a title team. So why overpay on that?
I still have heard no legitimate reasons why the Bulls should be offering the same amount as last year from anyone, other than because it’s the right thing to do or because we can’t lose them for nothing. That’s how teams get stuck in the middle of the pack.
How much should the 3rd best player on a title team make?
by CJ Bulls on Jul 29, 2008 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you do have to field a team, you know
and it’s harder to do so with guys you didn’t draft. I look forward to watching your Chicago Fiscally-propers, completely and appropriately slotted 1-12 in mythical title-team hierarchy.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 29, 2008 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand your point but the Bulls have 3 major issues
1) No stars
2) logjam at several positions
3) young players who need development time
Signing Deng and Gordon doesn’t solve any of those.
I would like to keep both players too, just not at the level that they’re probably asking. And the fiscally propers is how you win titles and stay on top. It’s the wild spenders that usually end up regretting it. If that means losing a player then so be it. Not to bring up bad memories, but that’s essentially what the Pistons did with Ben Wallace.
The Bobcats just overpaid for Emeka Okafor, do you expect to see them in the Finals any time sooner now than if they let him go? Now they’re just a better team this year with a marginal chance for improvement. And if they do, it’ll be someone other than Okafor stepping up their game to make that happen.
by CJ Bulls on Jul 29, 2008 5:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the fiscally propers get lucky
they have Rose, which is a start. So either it’s sign your already-good players, hope they improve or hope you can trade for someone better. Or it’s starting over with lottery picks and cap space and hoping you get players better than Gordon and Deng. No thanks.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 29, 2008 6:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How does not signing them solve those problems?
1) You still have no stars, but less fewer good players. So trading for a star is harder.
2) That’s sort of like saying there’s an open competition going into camp for the Bears. It’s not because you’ve got two good QBs, it’s because you have two bad ones. If we let Deng and Gordon go, yes, we’ve got options, but they don’t look like good ones to me. Do you really think we’re better off platooning Tyrus, Noc and Thabo at the 3? Well hey, people seem to have more faith in those guys than me.
3) Again, young players who need development time aren’t very good.
by Sports2 on Jul 29, 2008 7:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So if we have them on the team, who are we trading for?
You hear about trades almost as much as free agency, but when was the last time a legitimate star in his prime was traded? Gasol isn’t a star, and Garnett (yes, still great but only a few years left) and Shaq are way past their prime. And this was a true blockbuster trade season. So what are we getting for Deng/Gordon. When their trade value was at its peak last year the Lakers laughed at disgruntled Kobe for them two. You’re much better off with the cap room.
Not to mention the development time also leads to higher draft picks that have trade value. People also don’t trade star players for overpaid role players. That statement applies more to Gordon than Deng.
Young player who need development time aren’t very good? Just off the top of my head, Al Jefferson, Steve Nash, Joe Johnson, Jermaine O’Neal, Tracy McGrady come to mind.
by CJ Bulls on Jul 29, 2008 9:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
By EFFICIENCY do you mean PER?
If so, why don’t you look up Eddy Curry, Jamal Crawford, and Marcus Fizer off the top of my head? Clearly we are just unlucky in drafting that one out of 100 every year…
As much as i hope it happens, I see no reason to believe Gordon will grow or Deng will become a 3pt/ low post threat. More likely, ‘they are what they are’.
by Mr M on Jul 29, 2008 7:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This sounds like something I've posted.
You’re allright in my book, CJ.
by messwiththebull on Jul 29, 2008 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
See what I meant about the "all" of the Nocioni contract?
Didn’t even take half a day to get someone to say it’s not a bad contract.
by tyger1147 on Jul 29, 2008 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I disagree
unrestricted free agency means the Bulls have 2 full offseasons to negotiate with either player, and failed to do so. They’ll be looking for the quickest route away from the organization at that point.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 29, 2008 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And that's the risk Pax is taking, they could just walk away.
It’s like a big poker game. Each person is placing their bets. Pax just isn’t willing to go all in on this hand.
by CJ Bulls on Jul 29, 2008 4:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We wont
know if they’ll take the deals they were offered last year until they are offered them now, but I am astounded the numbers have not gotten that high yet. No wonder they are pissed. I guess the Bulls are enamored with their revolving door of young, inexpensive talent and are fine with letting them go when it is time to talk money. That is one reputation you shouldn’t want to get.
Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.
by cranscape on Jul 29, 2008 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Clippers have that rep
And they’ve had no trouble getting players (Baron Davis, Cassell, Mobley, Tim Thomas). And why should the Bulls get that rep? They’ve paid $$ for Ben Wallace, Hinrich, Nocioni. They’ll just be known as not overpaying. If anything, that will help in future negotiations when players realize the Bulls are serious about their offers when made.
by CJ Bulls on Jul 29, 2008 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
um
“not overpaying” and then look at the 3 contracts you listed?
by Jaina on Jul 29, 2008 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly! So how are the Bulls getting that rep?
And after the Bulls track record for overpaying, why is everyone so excited to extend these two. So far they’ve been wrong every time.
by CJ Bulls on Jul 29, 2008 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ah, sorry
i think i misunderstood the comment at first.
but regardless, maybe it is a good sign they are hesitating on these 2 then? that they aren’t going out of their way to outbid “opponents” when they have the right to match? (i’m looking at you, andres nocioni.) not that anyone has the money to offer now. but seriously. if you are looking at their track record… the two that may slip out of their fingers at this rate really ARE the best ones, huh?
by Jaina on Jul 29, 2008 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ok but they aren't gone this year.
They’ll have a chance to match next year without any risk. Do you think Deng/Gordon would leave $$ on the table just to leave the Bulls. Sounds like a stretch to me. This year alone, Baron and Brand gave their previous teams opportunities to outbid. But that’s just the risk the Bulls are taking. I’m ok with that if it means not overpaying.
by CJ Bulls on Jul 29, 2008 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not a track record for overpaying...
... it’s a track record of incompetence. Pay a fortune for guys that suck and then use that as an excuse to not sign guys that can play.
by Sports2 on Jul 29, 2008 7:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
They'll the get the "rep" of an organization willing to overpay...
...for grit and hustle than for talent and production. So if you’re Brian Cardinal, say HELLO!, but if you’re Josh Smith or Andre Iguadola or Chris Bosh or LeBron James, stay away!
This whole argument about rep is foolish anyway. If you’re a prospective free agent, if the Bulls have an offer, you’ll obviously listen (who doesn’t hear every single offer). At the point, the rep of the team matters little and the actual dollar amounts it offers matter greatly.
by tyger1147 on Jul 29, 2008 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was thinking internally
of having a rep for not dealing well with their high draft picks when it comes money time. Not so much free agency and the like.
Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.
by cranscape on Jul 29, 2008 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, and I agree to an extent. As a PR/fan issue.
But the actual dollars still talk. If they go in short-changing Thomas, Thabo, Noah, Rose, etc., then the rep really won’t matter anyway. If they offer them slightly under and then quickly come up to what those guys think they’re worth, they’ll take it, ya know?
by tyger1147 on Jul 29, 2008 5:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not talking about trading for players or getting players
I am talking about losing players who were originally high draft picks for the Bulls because of poor negotiating and other idiocy. It shouldn’t be this difficult to retain players. I’m not counting Hinrich because in this and Noc and Wallace are other matters entirely. Future high picks of ours will have to deal with all that bad air down the road. If the Bulls actually had a plan and got someone good in return for Deng or Gordon this wouldn’t be an issue. But not getting a contract signed and likely not getting anything back for losing them…that is incompetence in the extreme.
Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.
by cranscape on Jul 29, 2008 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
