The Mind of Dorf
by YaoPau on Dec 3, 2009 5:59 PM CST
Email
PrintSoulEater linked to a video showing Reinsdorf talking about being from Brooklyn and making oodles of money. There's a small discussion going on at that fanshot, but I think there's more to this, as looking at things from Reinsdorf's perspective gives logical reasons for the ostensibly dumb decisions Bulls management has made. Thus, this.
First, a couple quotes from the video stuck out to me:
I came to Chicago to go to law school. After I graduated, I stayed in Chicago and worked as an attorney, then I became a tax lawyer at a private practice, then I got involved in making real estate investments for clients, and after that sport. I had a lot of luck along the way. I had a company that I built up and then sold, and then two years later the real estate business went south. So I'm glad I sold it when I did, I wouldn't have gotten nearly as much money as I did, so there's the luck of it.
Kenny Williams' job is to identify talent and evaluate talent. My job is to make sure he doesn't spend too much money on it.
It's easy to look at Reinsdorf as the idiot cheapskate who hired VDN (ha!), blew the D'Antoni signing (haha!) and lost Gordon (Haaaaaaa!) for nothing. But in reality, this guy's brilliant. According to his wikipedia, he wasn't born into money, but he got into GW undergrad, Northwestern Law, then after a few different jobs, he started a company he sold nine years later for $102 million. He bought the White Sox a year earlier for $19 million, then got a controlling interest in the Bulls by paying $9.2 million. Fast forward 25 years, and those teams are worth nearly $1 billion combined. Damn. And you know what that means...
We've got a self-made billionaire in charge!! And in most cases, that's a good thing! Except there's another quote from his wikipedia:
A life-long baseball fan who grew up in the shadows of Ebbets Field, Reinsdorf was in the stands the day Jackie Robinson debuted for the Brooklyn Dodgers, breaking the color barrier which prevented black players from serving on Major League teams.
Oops. Our self-made billionaire is a baseball fan. Remember him saying he'd trade all six of his Bulls championships for one White Sox championship? Years later, I think he meant it.
BULL MARKET
Forbes has ranked the most valuable NBA franchises each of the past five years, and notes their profit from the past season. And granted, Jerry has a huge metropolitan area all to himself, and having MJ's banner in the stadium helps mightily. But other franchises are in big markets too, and some have current superstars on their team. And even though the Bulls were mediocre last year and terrible over the past decade, Jerry pocketed $55 million last year. That's #1 in the NBA, ahead of the Lakers and well ahead of the Magic and Spurs and Celtics. 10 teams lost money last year. Not Jerry. Show 'em the stats!
$55 million profit in 2008 (#1 in NBA)
$59 million profit in 2007 (#1 in NBA)
$48 million profit in 2006 (#1 in NBA)
$35 million profit in 2005 (#3 in NBA)
$37 million profit in 2004 (#1 in NBA)
Who else can say THREEPEAT!??!
Huge profits, few wins. Reinsdorf is running the team like an investor. And when you view his transactions from that perspective more things start to make sense.
THE GORDON PROBLEM
Take the contract Gordon signed with Detroit: 5 years, $66 million. Seems like fair value for an efficient 20ppg scorer, right? Let's take the perspective of a financial investment.
First off, the payout side. Gordon's scheduled to make $10 million this year, but if you replace Pargo's salary with Gordon's, the puts our payroll at $77 million, or $8 million into the luxury tax. Add in the $3 million or so of luxury tax revenues we'd forfeit by leaping into the tax, and Gordon would've cost Jerry $10+$8+$3= $21 million this year, and at least $77 million over the five year contract.
Now for what Gordon brings in this year. If I'm reading the following linked article correctly, NBA teams already share TV and Merchandise revenue. Any extra jersey sales or TNT games that Gordon would bring in (admittedly relatively little) wouldn't factor into Reinsdorf's bank account. Therefore, the financial benefit of Gordon comes from:
(1) Increased Regular Season Ticket Sales ...except the Bulls lead the league in ticket sales this year, and have sold out most of the last ten years. Granted, there have been some 300-level discounts this year, but that likely wouldn't have changed with Gordon aboard.
(2) Playoff Home Games ... Each extra game brings in a packed house! Except, how much would Gordon actually add? On SoulEater's fanshot, I said that on July 1st, I would've guessed the Bulls could've expected 2.5 home playoff games this season without Gordon. We figured we'd be a #5/#6 seed, and probably lose 4-1, 4-2, or 4-3. That's between 2 and 3 home games. With Gordon, what would've been our expectations? 3 playoff home games? 3.5?
And playoff per game revenue might not be as high as you think. Here's a quote from a relevant article I found about the Jazz:
For years, it's been rumored that NBA teams pocket about $1 million for each home playoff game. But that figure, Rigby said, is high. For one thing, the NBA takes a 45-percent cut of each home gate during the playoffs (up from just 6 percent per home game during the regular season) to cover its annual expenses.
Even at $1 million per home game, having Gordon on board would only net an expected $1 million extra. Even with the crappiness of our current team, adding Gordon likely adds just $2-3 million.
I'm not an expert at this, and there's a chance I'm leaving something out. But from what I see, combine those two, and having Gordon this year probably adds just a small fraction of that $21 million to Jerry's bottom line. And yes, Gordon gives you a better chance at a superstar via sign and trade, providing what would be a long-term increase in revenue. But that's risky, and besides, there's a chance you could sign a superstar outright. Also, it's true Gordon can provide more regular season wins and playoff home games over the course of 5 years. But at a $77 million cost, that's a looooot of extra wins he'd need to provide, making it pretty damn improbable.
THE REST
Add in the immediate breakup of the dynasty, the cheap coaches, the trading of Brand and Artest before extension talks, the trading of Chandler for expirings, the trading of Curry for cheaper rookies, the loss of Gordon and probably Tyrus for nothing before their extensions, and it makes sense. Like sheep, Bulls fans (me included) continue to pack the stadium regardless of the product, giving Reinsdorf zero incentive to pay more than he has to to keep the media (which it seems like he has a hand in again (see: KC Johnson, ESPN radio, Comcast commentators who rarely say a bad word about him)) off his back.
That said, I don't think any of this makes him anything besides a good businessman. I as a fan couldn't give a crap about Reinsdorf the person, I just want him to spend his own money for my benefit. So why should he give a crap about me? He is what he is, and by nature he operates to earn.
If there's any good news, it's that I trust Jerry when he says he'll go into the luxury tax if he feels that would make the Bulls a final four team, because it makes financial sense. Take a team to the Finals, and season tickets and premium suites sell like hotcakes. The good advertising and branding alone is worth millions, the sponsorship deals tens of millions more. The problem is getting to that point.
And the solution, of course, is simple: empty seats.
FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.
58 comments
|
22 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wow
EXCELLENT analysis my friend. Take a rec. Although reading this just makes me feel even more righteously indignant about hating JR.
"This is not Vietnam, Smokey, there are rules here." - Walter Sobchak
by Rose Colored Goggles on Dec 3, 2009 8:02 PM CST reply actions
have I ever said he was an idiot?
more evil.
Though there is the inherent ‘stupidity’ in valuing character over talent, boner for Arn Tellem clients, etc. But it clearly isn’t effecting the bottom line.
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Dec 3, 2009 8:04 PM CST reply actions
No you had this nailed
for awhile. I’m basically just regurgitating the little snippets you’d drop here and there in game reviews that I didn’t pick up on until now.
yes
I’ve read little pieces of this over the past few months in different areas, great job compiling it into a good read.
don't let the bed bugs bite
Heh, I didn't see this fanpost before I responded in your other fanpost, so I'll repost that comment here
The NBA’s ownership is filled with guys who were self-made. So again, in that sense, most every NBA owner is a "shrewd businessman" compared to the average schmuck off the street.
However, it’s probably instructional to look at the business shrewdness that made his fortune and enabled him to buy his teams and contrast them to other guys.
Like I said, there are plenty of self-made NBA owners who made their fortunes by doing remarkable things. Mark Cuban and Paul Allen came from working or middle class backgrounds and developed computer software used by hundreds of millions of people. Jerry Colangelo was the definition of "sweat equity". He started in the basketball world as an assistant coach and worked his way up to owning the Suns and Arizona Diamondbacks. THAT is shrewdness.
In contrast, Jerry Reinsdorf didn’t really make a fortune inventing a great product people were willing to pay for, skillfully managing basketball teams, or even really managing and developing real estate (like Jerry Buss, who did a fair amount of actual development and management while starting out with very modest means). Instead, he became a millionaire by going to work for the IRS, learning how to take advantage of the tax code, and then setting up tax shelters to help folks dodge their earnings. Interestingly enough, the primary tax shelter vehicle by which he did this was made illegal by an act of Congress some 25 years ago. Factoring in the leveraged public funding he received for the White Sox and recently, the Phoenix Coyotes (itself part of a pretty large and shady set of govt subsidized real estate transactions, the safer conclusion about Reinsdorf is that he is, in fact, a government made man.
Again, this isn’t to say he’s stupid or anything. I never claimed he was. But the fact is he made his fortune largely by taking advantage of the system, not producing a damn thing of value to anyone else. So much so that the primary means by which he took advantage of the system has been outlawed.
Now, on to the NBA. I did a quick calculation of the basic ROI an investor could expect from the Bulls. I used 2000-2009 and took, as a rough guess, the sum of operating income and the starting and ending team values. That is, suppose you bought the Bulls, or X% of the Bulls under Reinsdorf’s ownership in 2000. They were valued at $314M. The 2008 value was $466M. Over those nine years, the Bulls generated $423M in operating income. So add together those "dividends" with the $190M in "capital appreciation" you’d get if you sold at the 2008 price, and you’ve got yourself a $613M gain on that initial investment of $314M. That’s $195% total, or an average increase of 22% per year.
Pretty cool, huh? It is. Again, I’m certainly not saying the man can’t turn a profit. But if we’re looking at the Bulls as an investment, we ought to look at other NBA teams as investments as well. And when I run the same calculations for other teams, I get pretty similar numbers. I didn’t bother to do them for all the teams, and I’d imagine they get smaller for the really small market teams, or really pathetically run teams. But anyway:
Pistons 22%
Clippers 20%
Lakers 17%
Celtics 20%
Suns 20%
Spurs 20%
Rockets 24%
Cavs 25%
Jazz 10%
Wiz 13%
Nuggets 10%
Heat 13%
Kings 14%
Knicks 8%
Mavs 10%
Yes, the Bulls have been a very good investment over the last several years. On the other hand, successful teams and lucky teams have been tremendously and similarly profitable. So has similarly close to the vest loser Donald Sterling and his Clippers. Even teams that have spent and occasionally lost outrageous sums of money have generated what we’d consider very good returns from the stock market.
Also, there’s one nit to be picked. Operating Income != profit.
by Sports2 on Dec 3, 2009 8:18 PM CST reply actions 7 recs
Rec'd
I like your point about Reinsdorf’s background. I’ll have to look up more about him, but for now I guess he’s always been in the business of helping himself while pissing off everyone else.
As for your investment point, that the Bulls are even in contention for Best Investment Since 2000 with teams that have landed superstars or titles is support for Jerry’s method, especially when the 2000 value of the Bulls was so high. It’s just going to happen that, in a revenue sharing system that appreciates across the board, the lower valued teams will generally appreciate at a faster rate. Dollar to dollar, I believe the Bulls are #1, and I’m not sure Jerry could’ve expected to compete in the interest game with every low-valued team that got lucky through the draft.
And you’re right about Operating Income, I screwed that up. But your percentages are high, aren’t they? I mess up interest calculations all the time, but I keep getting 13% for the Bulls, with similarly lower interest for the other teams.
Hmm, I'm not really doing any interest calculations
It’s not really an annualized return on investment calc, but it approximates that. It’s just (sum of operating income + value at end – value at beginning ) / value at beginning) / 9 (the number of years).
I’d interpret the evidence as saying, yes, obviously the Bulls can be successful (given their past) by being cheap. As I’ve been pointing out though, the Clippers have been successful using a very similar method but without building on past success.
But the big kicker is that the success of teams like the Pistons, Celtics, Spurs, Suns and Lakers suggests the Bulls could also be successful financially by actually, ya know, trying to field good basketball teams. The fact these teams, which also have fairly successful pasts, had financial success sort of undercuts the fact that lower valued teams tend to appreciate faster.
As investments you can compare some teams to growth stocks and some teams to dividend stocks. The Bulls are very much an expensive dividend stock with a long-track record of success. They’re something like Altria. Their principle business success was decades ago, and their continued payouts are result from, in many respects, expanding their existing product into markets where no one pays attention to the fact their product sucks, and in not attempting to do much new to improve their product.
A team like the Lakers or Celtics is sort of an Intel, Microsoft, Apple or AT&T. These are companies that are, fundamentally, have been around for a long time, have reinvented their products over time to provide something new and compelling, and have grown accordingly. Generally they don’t provide the same level of dividends as a company like Altria, but they often provide some and their stock price tends to grow a lot more quickly.
The downside to the growth model is growth is really hard. For every Apple, there are a couple of Commodores, companies that made great computers 30 years ago that couldn’t succeed.
Of course, the low growth, dividend model has some serious disadvantages as well. There are basically two issues. First, you’re missing out on even more profit if you refuse to leverage your past growth into even more growth. Second, and probably more importantly, you’re basically coasting, and eventually people will move away from your product. Now if you look at Altria or the Chicago Bulls, it seems that could be a long time coming, and it could. But the fact that failure is a long-time coming and the date is uncertain doesn’t mean it’s not coming at some point.
So I guess at the end of the day, I understand the Bulls business model, and I understand why it’s successful, but it’s pretty antithetical to everything we should want as fans. And oddly enough, it’s probably not what I’d want as an investor. If I were shopping for a big market team to buy into, I’d take the Celtics, Lakers, or Rockets, probably, well before the Bulls. Because I see their management delivering both growth and profitability. The Bulls, I see them coasting, and eventually that will erode their profitability.
by Sports2 on Dec 4, 2009 7:32 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Sam Zell
did similar tax tricks with the Tribune and the Cubs. I believe his entire business model is to evade taxes! Technically I believe he did a transfer of ownership that retained a 5% stake in the team so he didn’t have to pay the capital gains tax.
Great Analysis
…always nice to get perspective on our beloved franchise, for better or for worse.
The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.
Blaise Pascal, Bulls Fan
oh, rec'd by the way...
The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.
Blaise Pascal, Bulls Fan
Wow, Great perspective.. but not sure all of his investments were brillant....
How brillant was it to invest 60 million dollars in Ben Wallace…or 50 mil in Hinrick…..or 70 mil in (knock on wood) injury-prone Deng. I could go on. And, I will always thought the reason Gordon was let go was because they couldn’t unload Hinrick’s garbage contract. Bulls have shown false promise and profited despite bone-headed decisions but fans patient will run out soon.
That's why academia teaches you to look at your invetment(s) from a "portfolio" perspective
A “portfolio” (or team payroll) can still be managed if it has one or two bad contracts, particularly when there are one or two favorable contracts that end up outperforming (eg Gordon). For now, Rose and Noah are probably deemed the favorable contracts expected to outperform, but we all know their big payday is on the horizon.
The problem with this organization is they prefer to wait for the bad contracts to run their course before rewarding the guys who’ve outperformed. Teams like the Lakers (as yfbb has pointed out many times) are willing to reward or even seek guys who’ve outperformed anyway and just absorb the bad contracts. Low and behold, they’re still very profitable, but that shouldn’t be a surprise. They’ve mastered the other chapter of economics that says a good product (demand) allows you to raise ticket prices to pay for the bad contracts. I’ll take the prospects of a team who can afford to raise prices (good product) over a team forced to lower (or discount) them (mediocore product) any day of the week.
"Some people want it to happen, some wish it would happen, others make it happen." - Michael Jordan
I've always picture the payroll as a set of product lines
A big company usually has several product lines. Take a car company. Their portfolio will consist of a small car, mid-size, full-size, then a big SUV and a small SUV, and maybe a sports car.
Cars are good comparisons, because they require huge fixed cost investments. You spend a fortune to design a car, then more fortunes designing tools to make the thousands of specific parts, equipping the factory to produce it, etc. Then you sell it and find out whether it’s a success or not.
Very often, it’s not.
Picture Ben Wallace as a big shit-bomb of a car. Signing him was like GM’s decision to mass build Hummers. So you spend all this money, locking yourself into building Hummers, and then what?
Well, then you’ve got yourselves a lot of problems. For one, you’ve underfunded the other positions in your lineup. You can’t get back your R&D costs by selling Hummer. In fact, you can’t even get back enough to fund your other product lines. In Bulls terms, the decision to invest in your Ben Wallace and Andres Nocioni product lines came at the expense of investing in your Ben Gordon and Thabo Sefalosha product lines.
You're on fire the past two days!
Like business and economics much? (IIRC, that’s your background, no?)
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
Agreed, but...
typically, continued clunker output would eventually lead to a loss of market share, so maybe you dip into your reserves to invest in Gordon until you can finally wipe that poor Wallace investment (now made up of Jerome James, Tim Thomas and Miller) off the books after this year. You wouldn’t want to put out an entire product line that you know will suck before the model year even starts.
Luckily for Reinsdorf’s business model, an entire generation grew up loving pro basketball and Michael Jordan, so there is little erosion in market share. The tickets are for the most part sold, and you can sell hope for the future (Rose! Bosh! Wade! LeBron!!!) and get away with the dog of a product you put out there. And watch the profits roll in.
He really should hang banners in the UC for that profit title, like some of the pathetic teams used to do for leading the league in attendance. Those are the ones he takes the most pride in.
Great.....product life cycle and rationalization are also good examples
1. Emergence 2.Growth 3. Maturity and 4. Decline. Obviously, the Decline phase offers the least ROI and Growth phase the most ROI. Unfortunately for the last decade, the Bulls have given big money to players (Hinrick, Miller, Wallace, injury-prone Deng maybe???) close to or in the decline phase. And had to dump players (Gordon, Miller, Brand, Artest) still in the growth phase to maintain short term profit. You know, like most wall street companies have done lately. This will have to suffice until those bad contracts run out.
I think the Bulls have been selling a few things since Jordan left
- This is the organization of Jordan
- Hope that we’ll be great again
- Hustle and scrappiness, doing things the right way
You see it in their season ticket ads. I remember one that was like “In 1988, the Bulls made the playoffs and sold out the next season, beginning a sellout streak of 1858701 straight games. In 2006, the Bulls made the playoffs and sold out the next season. Will you be there the next time it happens?” They’ve always done enough to keep that hope.
- In 99 through 01, we sucked, but we had just won 3 in a row. Those years were the grace period, as people still had their season tickets and we led the league in attendance in 99 and 00 before falling to 2nd in 01. 2nd?!!
- 2002. Brand gone, Chandler and Curry in. 18 year old Twin Towers! It’s Duncan Robinson! Olajuwon Sampson! But attendance dropped like a rock. We needed a superstar, or at least someone that people thought was a superstar.
- 2002 to 2003: Artest, Miller gone, Jalen Rose in. Jay Williams drafted! We’ve got our star, we’ve got our PG, we’ve got our young bigs! Attendance rises to 5th the next year.
- 2004 season, we start 4-10. Jay Williams’ career over. Jalen Rose scores a lot, but people realize he sucks. Cartwright out as coach, new GM Paxson brings in Skiles, preaching a new culture of hustle! and scrappiness! Rose traded. Kirk Hinrich is your new golden boy. And did you forget, Tyson and Eddy are still just 21 years old? Attendance back up to 3rd.
- 2005 season, Deng and Gordon in. Two more big program guys without character issues. Andres Nocioni is signed, he’s another hustle player. Baby Bulls win 47 games, the entire core is under 25 years old! Attendance rises to 2nd.
- 2006, we start horribly, but catch fire late and make the playoffs. Attendance stays at 2nd. The Bulls are everyone’s hot pick to win the East in 2007. Hinrich extended.
- Jerry decides that a big free agent signing can take his Bulls to the Finals. He gambles with Ben Wallace. Attendance back to #1! Baby Bulls win a playoff series, primed to take the next step in 2008.
- 2008, bad start. Skiles gone. Wallace done. 33 wins and a lost season. Attendance back down to 2nd. People begin realizing that Gordon/Deng/Hinrich aren’t stars in the making, just solid players.
- 2009, we land the #1 pick and get Rose. Hallelujah! A month later, Jerry extends Luol. Attendance holds at 2nd, and ever since there’s been hope that Rose will become great and carry the Bulls to winning season after winning season. Oh, and 2010, which is pure hope and probably once again nothing more.
Looking back, the Wallace/Hinrich/Deng extensions weren’t pretty, but they made sense at the time. The Wallace and Hinrich signings sold the hope for a championship, the Deng signing sold the next generation with Rose and the continued belief of good guys who play right. And none of those signings forced Jerry into a luxury tax.
And really, could Reinsdorf have afforded not to sign Wallace? The Bulls were in prime position in 2007, and Wallace rumors were floating around. If he doesn’t sign Wallace, and the Bulls flopped a year later (they would’ve), everyone would’ve pointed fingers at the org for blowing an opportunity.
I think the loophole Reinsdorf has discovered is that, besides superstars, the best investments are prized rookies. Curry and Chandler (and later Kirk, Ben, Luol) sold tickets as well as Duncan and Dirk and McGrady, for a fraction of the price. The idea of drafting players from big programs makes some sense from an evaluation perspective, but it also makes sense from a marketing perspective. We saw Kirk, and Gordon, and Tyrus, and Noah in National Championship games. Their faces were on millions of tv screens across the nation, and they were the stars. And now they’re Bulls! For a cost of about $4 million a year, our big name rookies sold multiple times that in hope.
Overall, I’m sure Reinsdorf understands that winning can be profitable, but every transaction has to be measured. He’ll probably throw everything he can at LeBron/Bosh/Wade, but if not, who knows. The cycle might start again:
Midway through a disappointing 2002 season, we traded an up-and-coming defensive specialist with character concerns (Artest) for a 29 year old 20ppg scorer who was billed as a star (Jalen Rose). Midway through a disappointing 2010 season, we’re allegedly in talks to trade an up-and-coming defensive specialist with character concerns (Tyrus) for a 29 year old 20ppg scorer who will be billed as a star (Al Harrington).
by YaoPau on Dec 4, 2009 1:17 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
yeah, they still majorly boned themselves on Wallace
a decline could’ve been expected, sure. But being out-of-the-league bad and a coach-killer too?
USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Dec 4, 2009 2:10 PM CST up reply actions
since when is Tyrus a bad character guy? he wins community service awards all the time.
the difference between perception and reality on TT is astounding.
1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box
by fundamentallysound on Dec 4, 2009 2:50 PM CST up reply actions
It's amazing.
He said one stupid thing as a 19-year-old and isn’t happy with being drafted No. 2 (whatever) just to be a role player that they want “to tip offensive rebounds, run up and down the court, block shots, and score in transition and alley-oops”.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
Skiles said he wasn't hustling
This year Lindsey scolds him in front of the team, he said he joined the dunk contest to make money, he’s had the whole Entitled To Start idea that the press has bashed him for. Lots of little things which made Chicago okay with Taj starting.
The dunk contest money that he donated to charity? That he always planned to donate to charity?
He was just joking around about the free money thing, but apparently players aren’t allowed to have a funny bone or joke about how unimportant the dunk contest and other All Star Weekend Competitions are.
I don’t think he said he was entitled to start, I think he said his body of work showed what he could do and he thought he should be a starter.
It’s just ridiculous. He might not be the perfect character guy, but there are far, far worse and Tyrus is really unfairly maligned.
1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box
by fundamentallysound on Dec 4, 2009 7:42 PM CST up reply actions
Maybe they shouldn't say things sarcastically anyway.
I’m sure that’s something that most agents/agencies go over with their clients. If you’re sarcastic, you require the reporter to write “______ _ _ _______,” so-and-so said sarcastically. A lot of reporters might not put that because they just suck and don’t realize they need it, and others might have a grudge and not want to.
I wish athletes could be themselves. I like sarcasm, too. It just doesn’t come over well in print.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
He's had 2 incidents, both of them overblown like crazy.
The dunk contest comment, and when he skipped practice. Even when Tyrus was sick with the flu before the Cleveland game, our awesome sports town ripped the man to shreds.
The only other person who’s come out and said Tyrus wasn’t a great guy was Doug Thonus, so I’ll stick to believing Tyrus is a young guy who’s made mistakes but in no way conveys a bad attitude.
The 2009 White Sox....like a 40 degree day.
by Ozzie Montana on Dec 5, 2009 11:13 AM CST up reply actions
Excellent post
Rec’d! This latest Tyrus rumor just had me looking at Mark Cuban’s track record right before I saw this. It’s interesting to me that he bought the Mavs in January of 2000 and they have been a 50+ win team every year since. I bring this up not because I think he is the ideal owner (I think he meddles way too much and actually hurts his team sometimes with his antics), but from a player development standpoint. Cuban mentioned on Bill Simmon’s podcast how little teams seemed to be involved in player development when he first came on the scene. He thought it was strange that someone would spend millions of dollars on a product and then go on the cheap to develop that product. This is where the Bulls have been utter failures IMO. Why spend all this money on these players, then go on the cheap with the coaching staff you bring in to handle and develop these players?
"I'm in the Hall already, on the wall already, I'm a work of art I'm a Warhol already"-Jay Z
by bigballa10 on Dec 4, 2009 12:06 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
If this Tyrus rumor is true, it's interesting financially.
If this trade goes through, it will actually result in just under $4M in additional expense, for the season, on the part of the Bulls.
If the trade goes through, I conclude the Bulls think Harrington’s offense might be the difference between a significant level of winning and losing. Perhaps they believe they need more offense to make the playoffs, and Tyrus won’t get much for them.
The Bulls tried getting Harrington a few years ago
Maybe Jerry’s gut feeling is that Harrington is the star the Bulls need to get. Look at the basic resume: 6’9", super athletic, fearless, still in his prime, averaging 20ppg, can shoot 3s and score a bit inside. You can see why a team that uses gut feeling instead of stats would love him.
If you believe Tyrus has no future here, this trade is win-win. At worst you get a half-year increase in team interest with a better chance at the playoffs and the money that comes with it. And if you make the playoffs with Harrington scoring 18ppg and the media calling the Bulls the new hot team, the doors blow wide open. You can try to sign LeBron/Wade/Bosh. If you fail, you can re-sign Harrington and keep the fanbase happy for at least one more season.
if Al Harrington is 2010 Bulls signing, I am officially done with this team.
For serious.
1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box
by fundamentallysound on Dec 4, 2009 2:52 PM CST up reply actions
If it's not....
…Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, Chris Bosh, Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson, Yao Ming, Dirk Nowitski, Kobe Bryant, Tyrus Thomas*, David Lee, I’m gone as long as Reinsdorf is the owner.
If they somehow show a plan, I might stick around for… Anthony Morrow, Will Bynum, Luis Scola, Ronnie Brewer. (did he extend? maybe they get a redo with the M2GWCD&S)
Signings that will make my head explode: Al Harrington, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Manu Ginobili, Josh Howard (maybe)… as I walk out the door.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
That's pretty much where I'm at.
1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box
by fundamentallysound on Dec 4, 2009 7:43 PM CST up reply actions
This is the scariest thread ever.
by Super-Structure on Dec 4, 2009 2:22 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
It DOES make one pine...
…for the days when you followed sports solely for the games and performance-related articles.
Perhaps my dream of seeing a separate Sports Business section in the (sadly declining) dailies in addition to Sports would be less “scary” to some of us…
The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.
Blaise Pascal, Bulls Fan
I watch sports as an escape from the daily toils of advanced capitalism.
I would prefer to not stumble upon glorifying circle-jerks over some asshole’s maneuvering; that said, if this what people get out of the Bulls maybe its time I jump in the game and open a business men’s league where the compete in an imaginary system of attributed value. Oh wait, that is exactly what capitalism is.
by Super-Structure on Dec 4, 2009 2:56 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Crappy owners aren't a problem in the NBA
Almost every one is a fan who happen to have tons of money. And so the NBA as a whole works as an escape. It’s a bunch of really smart execs and all-world athletes engaged in a high-stakes battle for the Championship. Except a few owners refuse to take part.
In the past 10 years, just four team owners have not paid a luxury tax and are not on pace to pay one this year: Donald Sterling, Jerry Reinsdorf, Chris Cohen (Golden State), Bob Johnson (Charlotte).
Two owners’ teams averaged an operating income of over +$10 million per year while their teams have lost over 60% of their games: Donald Sterling and Jerry Reinsdorf.
I wanted to believe the Bulls were trying and just got unlucky, but I get frustrated when I see these numbers. It’s hard for me to support an owner who cares more about taking money from his team’s fans than winning games.
by YaoPau on Dec 5, 2009 12:21 AM CST up reply actions 6 recs
Wow, Reinsdorf is keeping some great company
I think I might have to make this quote my sig.
In the past 10 years, just four team owners have not paid a luxury tax and are not on pace to pay one this year: Donald Sterling, Jerry Reinsdorf, Chris Cohen (Golden State), Bob Johnson (Charlotte).
by Basketball Smurf on Dec 5, 2009 12:43 AM CST up reply actions
That says it all
"I'm in the Hall already, on the wall already, I'm a work of art I'm a Warhol already"-Jay Z
I like this quote better...
Two owners’ teams averaged an operating income of over +$10 million per year while their teams have lost over 60% of their games: Donald Sterling and Jerry Reinsdorf
The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.
Blaise Pascal, Bulls Fan
Awesome. Brilliant post
As bigballa says, it’s everything you need to know about the Bulls post-Jordan.
The Bulls stink but not YaoPau's post
I have been a strong supporter of Paxson. I still am hopeful our plan will yield value this summer. Signing Gordon without being able to trade Hinrich would have risked us being out of the free agent bonanza this summer. I stand by this strategy.
Last night is an example of going to war without guns. Toronto is clearly a better team than we are. We are likely to miss the playoffs this year. Despite my support of the Paxson-Gar-Dorf plan YaoPau wrote an excellent piece. It is better by far than all the garbage written by the beat writers. I am first and utmost a Bulls fan. My interest is the Bulls winning, not making money. The Wallace trade was a damn disaster for this organization. The Corpse is still in the building. I will wait until this summer to judge this plan. Meanwhile I suffer as my favorite non-work interest, the Bulls stink. I know there is a group that included YaoPau that I have differed on regarding losing Gordon. However, the above entry is excellent and definitely gets a “rec”.
They should have traded Hinrich on the day they drafted Rose. It never made sense that they didn't.
All the dominoes have fallen since then that lead to this sorry state of affairs.
1. Cut a hole in a box
2. Put your Kirk in that box
3. Make some team open that box
by fundamentallysound on Dec 6, 2009 1:06 PM CST up reply actions
I really thought Portland was the perfect fit for him
"I'm in the Hall already, on the wall already, I'm a work of art I'm a Warhol already"-Jay Z
It's not too late!
"Then you need a center so if the ball gets stuck between the rim and backboard he can reach up and knock it loose instead of having to spend 15 minutes trying to hit it with a broom stick." – Sam Smith
by Granny Waiters on Dec 6, 2009 5:44 PM CST up reply actions
Now that they signed Andre Miller
I don’t see them doing it now.
"I'm in the Hall already, on the wall already, I'm a work of art I'm a Warhol already"-Jay Z
I know
But who can they dump him on?
"I'm in the Hall already, on the wall already, I'm a work of art I'm a Warhol already"-Jay Z
I feel confident that if they really thought Hinrich was an upgrade...
…salary or buying out Miller wouldn’t be a problem. They wouldn’t give up talent to get Hinrich, though, is the problem.
In the past 10 years, just four team owners have not paid a luxury tax and are not on pace to pay one this year: Donald Sterling, Jerry Reinsdorf, Chris Cohen (Golden State), Bob Johnson (Charlotte).
Two owners’ teams averaged an operating income of over +$10 million per year while their teams have lost over 60% of their games: Donald Sterling and Jerry Reinsdorf.
And Portland lacks expiring crap to trade for Kurt. :(
"Then you need a center so if the ball gets stuck between the rim and backboard he can reach up and knock it loose instead of having to spend 15 minutes trying to hit it with a broom stick." – Sam Smith
by Granny Waiters on Dec 6, 2009 11:54 PM CST up reply actions
I thought Blake and Outlaw....
….had partially unguaranteed contract that went through this season that Portland ended up picking up. I thought the point of trading Hinrich for them last year was that they could get rid of them last year for Gordon or keep them on a year for 2010. Of course, the “partially” unguanateed part probably did the deal in.
In the past 10 years, just four team owners have not paid a luxury tax and are not on pace to pay one this year: Donald Sterling, Jerry Reinsdorf, Chris Cohen (Golden State), Bob Johnson (Charlotte).
Two owners’ teams averaged an operating income of over +$10 million per year while their teams have lost over 60% of their games: Donald Sterling and Jerry Reinsdorf.
Excellent again.. this one eluded me previously
Paxson is no Kenny Williams, tit’s apparent John Paxson isn’t a good talent evaluator because dollars spent on Kirk, Deng and Wallace-Miller could have been better spent on real talent, as I have always said regardless of Jerry’s cheap a…
Paxson is the real failure.
"I tried being reasonable, I didn't like it."
"Go ahead, make my day"
"We boil at different degrees"
"A good man always knows his limitations"
"You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
