Figure out how to keep Ben Gordon game
by dougthonus on Feb 21, 2009 7:39 AM CST
Email
PrintRules:
1) You must keep the team under the luxury tax, and not cheat by sending huge amounts of cash to a team to keep us under the tax that effectively have us paying the same as if we paid it.
2) We'll use an estimated luxury tax o 68.5 million since that's what Chad Ford's expert predicted, and I have no better guess
3) NBA minimum roster is 13, so you have to add four players total to the presently guaranteed contracts
4) NBA minimum salary for a player with 0 experience next year is $457,588
5) I will assume our draft picks are 16 and 25 for the sake of argument. Pick #16 costs $1,593,600 assuming we pay the 120% rookie scale contract which everyone gets. Pick #25 costs $1,039,800
Present salaries:
Joakim Noah $2,445,680
Tyrus Thomas $4,743,598
Derrick Rose $5,184,480
John Salmons $6,274,400
Tim Thomas $6,466,600
Jerome James $6,600,000
Kirk Hinrich $9,500,000
Luol Deng $10,365,000
Brad Miller $12,250,000
Total: $63,829,758
Total with rookie contracts and one min level contract (leaving one roster spot): $66,920,746
A sample base salary: 6/50, year 1 salary 6.6 million
Contract Calculator can be used to figure out year 1 salary for Gordon based on total contract size, just enter the total salary and years and hit submit.
If you assume that 6.6 million base salary (which could be low if he gets a better offer from Oklahoma) and that we keep our rookie deals then we need to free up aproximiately 5.03 million in salary to squeeze him in under the tax.
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.
103 comments
|
7 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Jerome Jame's Salary
If James qualifies for early retirement medical exemption, his salary doesn’t count against the cap, right? I believe that is determined in December, right?. Finally, the salary cap is deteremined at the end of the season, right?
Sign Ben to deal between 7-9 million for the first season, but a reasonable contract overall. Hope and pray Jerome James’ contract doesn’t count against the cap. If James doesn’t qualify for the medical retirement, the Bulls will have to make a decision which player to move BG of Kirk. Both players have value and there will be teams under the cap next year. (Portland for Kirk or NY for BG.)
Oooops - can I delete my above post?
Teams are not allowed to trade for disabled players and then apply for this salary cap relief. Only the team for which the player was playing when he was disabled may request this relief.
Great topic - this is definitely on my mind particularly after last night
I am assuming the salaries you listed are for 2009-10 not this present year. Why do we have to use mid-level contract? Without the rookies I calculate we would be at $62.2 mil for 2009-10. If the cap is 68.5 we could trade the the two first rounders for one good 2010 1st round pick. This allows a base salary of $6.3 which we could extend out to 6 years that would be hard for another team to beat. My hope is that this is a uniquely difficult year for free agents. I truly believe the economy is forcing a change in the salary landscape. Most teams are trying to figure out how to cut salaries, not add a huge deal for an undersized 2 guard. Okay, Okay yes you are right it only takes one team to make some absurd offer and we lose Gordon. I do not deny that. If ever there was a year this may not happen it will be this summer. You think Oklahoma, a small market is going to want to lock Gordon in for $10 mil per year for 5 years? I don’t think so.
My scenario may have some Bull’s magic dust sprinkled on, but I really believe Gordon may be the poster-child for a new economic reality for the NBA. A 5 year $35 mil or if necessary a 6 year $43 mil could keep BG. If that is BG’s best deal. then we should find a way to keep him and still be under the cap.
I think you misread my post, I didn’t use a mid-level. I used a min-level (minimum) contract. I am guessing your calculation of 62.2 million doesn’t take into account John Salmons trade kicker of 15%. You don’t seem to be considering the roster minimum either. Gordon can’t take all the room from the base salary to the tax or else the other guys we’re forced to sign push us over it.
Check out the Bullsbeat Podcast at www.bullsbeat.com
I've got
$64.5M for 9 players including Salmons (with Kicker) at an estimated $6.9M (See fanpost on calculating his kicker).
Add in $2.6M for the draft picks and $457K for a second rounder and we’ve got 12 players at $67.6M, or only $900k under the estimated $68.5M luxury tax.
That $900k will just be enough to cover signing a minimum salary player to get our roster to the required 13. Once again, we’ll have absolutely no room to operate.
Exactly. :|
The big variable, of course, is the luxury tax. At this point we just don’t know where it’s going to end up. It’s worth considering though, that we’re so close to the most recent estimate that guessing too optimistically could really hurt us.
That’s probably true for lots of other teams too, which means getting a deal done is going to be harder. Teams are going to be less willing to take on uncertain salary in these conditions.
The Bulls do not have a second round pick this year.
Omer Asik deal…
" I've looked at these numbers and decided the #1 problem
is that Ben Gordon is selfish..." -your friendly bulls blogger
I figure since they look to be so close, they'll buy one
Because that’ll knock a few hundred K off their cap value.
Hinrich for Stackhouse/Barea
Kirk gets to replace Kidd, or if the Mavs bring Kidd back, would work well with him and Terry. The Mavs would only be on the books for $1M more in salary/luxury tax. Stackhouse is only guaranteed $2M next season, savings come out to about $5.5M. This would only be a start, but I think it’s the most obvious starting point and even if it’s not used to resign BG, just a great move from a financial perspective.
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
by snley on Feb 21, 2009 8:57 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
Step 1
Trade James and 2 second round picks to a team under the cap for a future 2nd.
Step 2 – Sign Ben
Since James’ salary is being paid by insurance, it is not going to cost the receiving team anything, so it shouldn’t cost much, a wild guess be a second round pick. I would include the 1st we just picked up if necessary.
by JeffD on Feb 21, 2009 8:58 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
Tyrus Thomas too.
Tyrus is up for extention too. I can see him signing the 1 year tender like BG because it appears the light is going on, and he think he is going to get paid.
Ty is up for an extension
but he doesn’t have to sign anything for this following season. in ’10 he is a RFA, not this year.
"They should. They better. I'm Vinny Del Negro!"
Not only that, but even if they do sign him to an extension, his salary for next year is the same.
The extension doesn’t kick in until the 2010-2011 season, even if he does sign it this summer.
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
by tyger1147 on Feb 21, 2009 1:01 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
right i knew that
but there’s no 1 year tender for tyrus this year. if he wants to wait it out and not sign an extension since he thinks he’s going to get paid, that’s way different than the QO. if he continues to play well, he’ll earn a good contract as a RFA (I hope).
"They should. They better. I'm Vinny Del Negro!"
A couple points
1. Sending massive amounts of cash isn’t the same as paying the LT. Because if we pay the LT, we miss out on the several million in escrow and tax payments the league doles out. So $3M spent getting under the luxury tax could be a net gain of $6-8M or more.
2. There’s basically two ways to dump salary.
- The first way is to make a trade for non-guaranteed salary players after the playoffs. Players can be traded again, and several notable (in the sense of being rumored to the Bulls) players have non-guaranteed contracts for next season. Effectively we could trade for them and then not pick up their option for the season. Jerry Stackhouse, Steve Blake and Travis Outlaw fit this category.
- The second way is to trade with a team under the cap. The only team under the cap is Memphis until July. Afterwards we’ve got the Thunder, TWolves, Griz, and potentially the Hawks and Blazers. Maybe another couple that escape me.
I have a really hard time imagining this happens though. Why? Because any team in its right mind that’s under the cap is going to try and explore all its options for using that cap space. Like, why would they hurry up and trade for Kirk make a million in cash by taking Jerome James when they could explore the options of signing for Paul Milsap or Carlos Boozer or… um… Ben Gordon?
Imagine how that conversation goes.
Gar Paxdorf: Hi, <Sam Presti, Chris Wallace, Kevin Pritchard, etc>!
Under cap team: Hey Amalgam of Process Oriented Decision-making!
Gar Paxdorf: Have I got a deal for you! I’m going to make you a million dollars! I’ve got Jerome James under contract for $6.6M next year, but get this- insurance is going to pay $5.3M of that. He actually only costs you $1.3M. And I’m going to give you $2.3M to take him off my hands. So that’s right, you make a cool million bucks!
Under cap team: Sounds interesting, let me get back to you when I see if I can do any better with my cap space.
Gar Paxdorf: Well, see, I’d like to get a deal done sooner rather than later, I really need this deal so I can re-sign Ben Gordon.
Under cap team: Yes, that’s quite a pickle. I’ll be sure to mention it to Raymond Brothers, who’s on line two. And Paul Millsap’s agent, who’s on line three. See ya!
————————
You get the point. trading an insured Jerome James would be the easy way to do it, but who’s going to take him when at best it just increases their competition for another player? Maybe if you up it to $3M and throw in a pick or something, but it seems like a pretty tough sell. Perhaps Memphis, where they’ve already got lots of scorers, are cash starved, and will be so far under the cap taking on James might not matter.
The same sort of thing applies to trading Hinrich to a team under the cap. A team might have interest in him, but they might have interested in lots of guys too, and will probably be looking at others first, because the big opportunities (like Millsap or Boozer) probably come off the board pretty quick. And likewise, the Bulls won’t be able to wait around forever since Gordon, presumably, will be out there fielding offers for other teams.
by Sports2 on Feb 21, 2009 9:02 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
They dont have to shed the salary until the end of the year
I’m sure someone would do it at the deadline.
If you're Jerry Reinsdorf, do you take take that chance?
Probably not. And beyond that, you know good and well that if another thing thinks we’re over the barrel and desperate the asking price will go up significantly.
I hope other markets give Ben a nice phat contract
If thats what he wants, he should get it, but not from the Bulls
On the first point...
…that was the same thing that first popped into my head. I think the point (at least for me) is that staying under the luxury tax is to put money into Reinsdorf’s pocket. If they’re poised to receive $5 million in luxury tax revenues, but to do that, they have to pay $3 million to get someone to take a player, then Reinsdorf is only pocketing $2 million. At least, that’s how I’m seeing the “net gain”.
Or, let me think this through very simply (maybe too much so): If the Bulls have a $67 million payroll and no Gordon and they can get $5 million in luxury tax, they’re paying out $62 in salaries.
However, if they pay someone $3 million to take someone, and re-sign Ben Gordon to say, put them right at $67 million, and they still get back $5 million, they’re paying $65 million out. That’s still $3 million less that Reinsdorf gets to keep.
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
So ok
The better way, I think, is to try and grab a couple players who are on NG deals.
- Hinrich to Portland for Blake and Outlaw. Perhaps we throw in our second pick if we need to? Saves $9.5M
- The deal Snley mentions with Kirk for Stackhouse/Barea makes pretty good sense. Saves $6M
- The Mavs were reportedly interested in Salmons. If we sour on him quick, he could be traded straight up for Stackhouse, saving us $4.8M
- Here’s another idea. Jerome James for Stackhouse. Why? You can trade the two straight up for each other. James will cost $1.3M next year and have a $6.6M cap hit. Stackhouse will cost $2M and have a $2M cap hit. The cap hit won’t matter much to the Mavs, but actual expense might. So we could trade them James straight up, save them some money, and generate a $4.6M cap savings for ourselves when we don’t pick up Stack’s option.
by Sports2 on Feb 21, 2009 9:13 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
Mavs will be in the tax next year
so the final bullet doesn’t work
question on the "cap-hit" to the mavs.
you say it doesn’t matter because they’re already over, but it is “official salary” right? So aren’t they still paying tax on that? So even though that $5.3 is being paid by insurance, are the Mavs still responsible for the dollar-for-dollar tax on that?
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
by tyger1147 on Feb 21, 2009 1:23 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
meaning, that they might only have to pay $1.3 million to a player instead of $2 million.
But in the tax, they have to pay $6.6 to the league instead of $2, right?
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
One other useful thing to remember is that we probably would only do a deal that can be done at the time we sign Gordon. I doubt the Bulls dump Hinrich or Deng for cap relief (or possibly even Jerome James) before we agree to a deal with Gordon.
If we dump them prior to that, then Gordon could spurn us and we make a move that hurts us to generate salary flexibility that we won’t need.
I’d also point out that a move like Jerome James + our 1st to Memphis for cap room (makes a lot of sense to free up space for Gordon) would really hurt our ability to trade for someone like Chris Bosh later, so moves sacrificing long term cheap assets or contracts that are extra favorable in trading for a star are dicey to make and could hurt us long term.
Still plenty of good ideas here.
Check out the Bullsbeat Podcast at www.bullsbeat.com
by dougthonus on Feb 21, 2009 9:38 AM CST reply actions 1 recs
It's an impossibility in practice.
Ben is gone. Further, I see no way to even do a sign and trade that gets anything of use back for him (since that would entail taking back salary we can’t take back).
There are simply too many problems to coordinate.
1. Do we dump a guy and then risk Ben not re-signing? That favors us waiting to dump.
2. But Ben will be out fielding offers. Why should he wait to sign? That favors dumping soon.
3. Why would another team help us in this climate without first exploring their other options? That means we probably can’t “dump first”.
The only real counterargument I can make to that is that if I were the Bulls, I’d be trying to dump Hinrich irrespective of re-signing Gordon, because I just don’t see the logic of paying him $9.5M to be a backup to Rose.
Agree - you do not want to pay Hinrich a salary consistent with a starter who will be a backup to Rose!
Some team may see his salary as reasonable to be their starting point guard. This could be a good deal for the team that gets Hinrich and for the Bulls. If I have this correct, in order to make this work to avoid assuming salary, we would get something like a draft pick for Hinrich.
I'm not a big Hinrich supporter, but there is some logic to it.
Rose is on his rookie deal, so it’s not like Kirk is backing up a 10 or 15 million dollar contract. His contract expires before Rose gets paid so it’s basically a holding space for Rose’s extension. Hinrich sucks as a starting SG, but I don’t have a problem with him backing up there for 10-15 minutes per game. So that’s 9.5 million for a guy playing 25-35 minutes. I’d like to keep Derrick’s minutes under 35 per game the next couple of years to keep him focused and reduce wear and tear. I’d like a viable alternative for when Derrick is killing the team on defense. We’ll see what happens the rest of the season, that should make what Paxson has to do clearer.
by Scotter on Feb 21, 2009 11:45 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Kirk is an ideal sixth man
who is comparable to Ginobili in ability and salary
There’s very little ability dropoff when he comes in for Rose
When he’s at SG, he defends well and shoots adequately
Excellant leadership.
We should be so lucky to keep Kirk as a sixth man
Way to undermine your point by comparing
Kirk to Ginobili. Manu is on a completely different level than Kirk. He’s the 3rd best SG in the league.
by Scotter on Feb 21, 2009 1:06 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
They are comparable
When Manu has a broken ankle.
Vinny Del Negro interviewed for the job today. I mean come on! Nobody else thinks this is nuts?
by Juiceboxjerry on Jun 6, 2008 4:21 PM CDT actions actions 0 recs
by Ozzie Montana on Feb 21, 2009 1:48 PM CST up reply actions
Flagged
for comparison to Ginobli. I actually agree that Kirk is a net positive, but you lost everyone right there.
*I didn’t actually flag you, but you should get a warning card or something.
I recognize that Kirk and Ginobili have different skill sets
so aren’t strictly comparable. But as far as value to their respective teams as to the skills they bring and the results they achieve, I think they are comparable. Ginobili has much better skills as a SG; Kirk is more versitile.
It's not a comparison in style that everyone was mocking
It’s that Ginobili is a far, far more valuable player than Kirk no matter what team situations you put them in.
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
They're comparable..
In the way a stack of 100 dollar bills is comparable to a stack of 1 dollar bills.
Check out the Bullsbeat Podcast at www.bullsbeat.com
Are you fucking nuts????!!!!!!!!!
He’s comparable to Ginobili in ability?? WTF?? Manu has hit big shots in his career. Kirk has not! Manu has a much higher basketball IQ + he is a much better talent than Kirk. Simple as that! There’s very little dropoff when he comes in for ROSE? WTF again!!!! LOL. Rose is 100 times the player Kirk could ever dream of being! You must not watch the NBA much or you must have a very low NBA IQ! Kirk Hinrich is not a good player. Very very average at best!
Chicago Bulls Fan Since 1984
by Johnny"B"ull on Feb 23, 2009 12:41 AM CST up reply actions
Bye Bye to Both Hinrich and Gordon
Rose pick and Salmons trade is a bye bye to both Hinrich and Gordo.
That’s the most likely scenario by far for those two in the summer.
We know they would have traded Hinrich already if other team would have agreed to deal on table.
We know they don’t want to, and basically can’t ,pay Gordon what he wants.
Recent Pax talk about Gordon was just talk having more to do with staying away from trouble with Gordon for the rest of this season than anything else…he clearly thinks, and has said in so many words, that Salmons gives the team what he wants from a starting SG.
And clearly per this thread and others: the writing is on the wall salary cap/luxurycap/2010 free agency wise.
Only way this changes is if Salmons flops as Bull.
To tell you the truth I think that is what is going to happen.....
Gordon and Hinrich are gone and If Deng doesn’t improve I can see him being shipped too. A new core will be built around Derrick Rose now. IF Salmons flops they will get another BIG guard.
GOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gordon, Hinrich, Deng = FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chicago Bulls Fan Since 1984
by Johnny"B"ull on Feb 23, 2009 12:43 AM CST up reply actions
Is that really the case?
Deng I certainly agree with. But the risk of dumping Kirk to try and sign Gordon is much less. Not to mention there is a (delayed) contingency plan there, Pax all ready basically declared dumping Kirk would set them up nicely for 2010. Even if that isnt his first objective, its not a bad place to end up.
Also, these players w/ non guaranteed contracts dont have to be cut right away? Or are they options that must be picked up by a certain date? Hinrich for Blake/Outlaw, for example, would leave us in very solid shape whether we keep the players or cut them for BG space.
Just sign him to what it takes.
We all know that the Bulls made like $55 million in profit last year. Don’t let Reinsdorf get away with using that BS luxury tax excuse.
Chicago Bulls Blog anf Forums. NBA Power Rankings.
If only it were that simple
JR likes his $$$ and probably doesn’t care what we think until ticket sales start dropping significantly
the Chicago Bulls: Where Aaron Gray Travelling Slightly Back in Time on Every Possession Happens
A second round playoff surge led by Gordon would help.
I think Gordon is poised to have a big postseason this year. Especially if we play the Hawks in the first round, and get the Cavs in the 2nd.
But at the end of the day, you have to just sit there and hope our front office isn’t dumb enough to choose Brad Miller or John Salmons over their top scorer for the past 4 years.
Chicago Bulls Blog anf Forums. NBA Power Rankings.
Guys who
score 18-20ppg are very replaceable in the NBA, and NBA championships aren’t won w/ undersizes backcourts
can you please go away
your posts are pointless and annoying
http://awsomepeoplesearch.com/
by NormVanBeer on Feb 23, 2009 6:16 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
he's gone
http://www.blogabull.com/2009/2/21/767263/ask-and-i-shall-receive-jo#12445644
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 Feb 23, 2009 7:30 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars and Vinnie Johnson were all huge.
Sheesh!
Maybe we can?
by Granny Waiters on Feb 23, 2009 6:53 PM CST up reply actions
Ideally
Step 1: This years team, maintains the spirit of last nights win. Grabbing ideally a 4/5th seed, but making the playoffs by a clear margin.
Step 2: At least make round 1 interesting
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit JR pays the tax and signs BG
hmm…think I dozed off there, must have been dreaming.
Otherwise, Cheer for Thabo!. OKC is a great place for him to be, if he has some success Sam Presti may prefer to allocate his resources elsewhere. There offense isn’t good, but they do have the weapons in house. There defense isn’t good either and Thabo is now their best perimeter defender(ya?).
Now to think of some more trades…
Ask every BG supporter to donate 50 bucks to Reinsdorf
And Andrew7 can sell his internal organs, maybe some skin tissue he doesn’t need so we can hear how Gordon is really just the next avatar of Vishnu playing SG for the Bulls.
Vinny Del Negro interviewed for the job today. I mean come on! Nobody else thinks this is nuts?
by Juiceboxjerry on Jun 6, 2008 4:21 PM CDT actions actions 0 recs
by Ozzie Montana on Feb 21, 2009 1:49 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Convince the Blazers to sign Ben Gordon
then trade Hinrich to them (for Ben of course) during the season. Voilà.
The Blazers don’t really need Ben (Roy, Bayless), but would love to have Kirk. And the Bulls would rather have Ben than Kirk. Could this be done ? Or is it against the rules of the NBA ? (I know it’s a long shot, but that’s the only way I see the Bulls could end up with Gordon unless they pay the tax).
Of course the best would be to pay the tax in 09, by signing Ben. You trade Kirk for an expiring at the deadline next year to make sure you don’t pay the tax another year after that.
The Game chose him !
Sounds good to me.
I don’t see why it wouldn’t be possible to trade a guy then re-acquire him, we just did it with Tim Thomas (and Brad Miller) didn’t we? Why would the be time constraints? The hardest part would be convincing Ben to do it…why would he trust the Bulls at this point?
"The Zen philosopher Basho once wrote: 'A flute with no holes is not a flute, And a doughnut with no hole is a Danish.' He was a funny guy."
by Ugh It Live! on Feb 21, 2009 4:16 PM CST up reply actions
i don't know rules on time constraints
but gordon would be BYC i assume, so trading him could be messy.
"They should. They better. I'm Vinny Del Negro!"
I don't think you become BYC if you get signed by another team.
BYC defines the salary that’s used to compare players for compliance under the Traded Player exception (see question number 68 for more information about the Traded Player exception). Usually the salary used for comparison is the player’s actual salary. But under either of the following circumstances, a different salary is used when comparing salaries for trading purposes:
* The team is over the salary cap, used the Larry Bird or Early Bird exception to re-sign the player, and the player received a raise greater than 20% (unless it’s the minimum salary).
* The team is over the salary cap, it extended the player’s rookie scale contract, and the player received a raise greater than 20%.
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
If he is BYC
Portland picked up a $3.3ish? exception via the Ike Diago trade @ the deadline. That would go a long way toward covering the difference between the BYC.
Can you sign and trade for your own FA during the off season? o_0
"How do you, uh..
how do you play this game, Mr. Morton?"
“It’s very simple. As long as you use your head, you never lose.”
"As a basketball player gordon is a useless as tits on a a whore" - BigWay (Dec 2, 2008). BigWank, I'll miss you more than all the others. This song is for you, my brother!
scene @ 5:29 line @ 9::22
but it needs to be seen in totality. to understand, but also because it’d be a great use of 2 1/2 hours of your life.
"As a basketball player gordon is a useless as tits on a a whore" - BigWay (Dec 2, 2008). BigWank, I'll miss you more than all the others. This song is for you, my brother!
ALSO SPOILER ALERT
you might want to hit “pause” immediately, ’til it loads. sorry.
"As a basketball player gordon is a useless as tits on a a whore" - BigWay (Dec 2, 2008). BigWank, I'll miss you more than all the others. This song is for you, my brother!
What if we trade our 1st round picks for 2nd round picks
won’t that save cap space, since there is no cap hold?
"The Zen philosopher Basho once wrote: 'A flute with no holes is not a flute, And a doughnut with no hole is a Danish.' He was a funny guy."
Trade them for future firsts!
Think like 2013, unprotected crap.
Chicago Bulls Blog anf Forums. NBA Power Rankings.
cap space isn't the concern
it’s space under the tax. So the cap holds are meaningless. Trading the picks saves money only in the sense that you wouldn’t have to sign those players to a contract.
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 Feb 21, 2009 5:31 PM CST up reply actions
And to that end...
We could just draft foreign players who will stay overseas for a couple of seasons…they will not count as salary…but we would still need to fill those roster spots.
" I've looked at these numbers and decided the #1 problem
is that Ben Gordon is selfish..." -your friendly bulls blogger
I thought of that, too.
But I really don’t think it’d save enough money if they still have to sign someone to the spot since those draft picks don’t really make that much. If it looks like it might make a difference, they should do it, but there would have to be other moves made first.
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
If anyone thinks that Ben Gordon is staying with the Bulls past this season....
then you are drinking some serious Ben Gordon KOOL AID.
Ben is like a woman scorned. He still is leading the Bulls in scoring and in his mind he is thinking. HOW IN THE HELL IS DENG MAKING MORE THAN ME and he plays well once every three or four games?
When Deng got that contract and Gordon did not I think that sealed it for him. In the clutch he is getting the ball, not Deng. Deng is not even the second option behind him. Deng sometimes is not even on the floor with him.
Ben feels cheated. Ben is being quiet and playing well this year to prove and make a point to Bulls Management. YOU NEED ME TO WIN GAMES. Once the end of the year comes I will be surprised if Ben Gordon speakes with the Bulls.
He will immediately begin talking to teams that he wants to play on and whoever will pay him well, everyone except the BULLS. This off season Ben is an unrestricted free agent and does not have to concern himself with whatever the Bulls are doing.
Another team will pick him up. I hope it is in the western conference somewhere although I saw a thread that said that Joe Dumars may pursue Ben Gordon which would be just great. Ben on the damn Detroit Pistons of all teams he could be on.
Ben has set himself up to leave the Bulls and though he may have said that money has always been an issue, I think it has went beyond money and now is personal.
Ben has been going back and forth with Bulls Management for several years now over this and the deal with Deng pushed him out IMO.
He said forget it and I will play one more year here, give the fans a good show and behave well, increasing my value and leverage for the off season. Once the off season arrives there will be teams that are willing to pay for my services because every team needs a Ben Gordon on it in order to win a championship.
And like I said earlier, other teams are ready and waiting for Ben Gordon. Ben will sign with someone else. He is tired of the Bulls and the back and forth. In his mind his play speaks for itself and the Bulls are not willing to pay him what he thinks he deserve.
I doubt that he will get what he thinks he deserve from any team, but since he may get resigned on the cheap then it will be on the cheap with another team.
It will be a hot day when we have to play against Ben Gordon next year. He will be inspired to perform his best against us, to prove the a point to Bulls Management.
That was one season. This summer it will be the third go around. Bulls Management and
Ben Gordon have been dancing this dance for a while and I think Ben is tired, especially if he agreed to a deal and Bulls Management took it off of the table.
You seem to have been drinking some Ben Gordon Kool-Aid yourself.
In fact, perhaps he may need a restraining order, you’ve obviously been reading his diary.
by reprisal on Feb 21, 2009 7:50 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Ben will follow the money..
What makes you think he won’t?
Check out the Bullsbeat Podcast
http://www.bullsbeat.com
What type of contract you think teams are willing to offer Ben?
If any team offers Ben big money, its a huge mistake
you think so?
you’ve been really vague and subtle with your comments.
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 Feb 23, 2009 4:03 PM CST up reply actions
I agree... in part
I think he will demand Deng money. And he is right to think he should because of the reasons you said. But the point is: will anyone offer him that much. If other team does he is gone. If not, well he might stick around.
by JustAnotherFan on Mar 2, 2009 11:02 AM CST up reply actions
Oh, I think can do this!
Step 1 (to narrowly get under the tax): Trade Jerome James, one of the first round picks and $1.5 million to the Grizzlies for a second round pick.
Why Memphis does it: They get a 1st rounder in exchange for a 2nd rounder. James is effectively free and, judging from recent history, they have no intention of spending all their money under the cap. They would still be in position to take on a salary dump to make the team better if they chose to do so.
Step 2 (to make things easier): Trade Hinrich to the T-Wolves for Brian Cardinal and, if necessary, Bobby Brown.
Why everyone does it: Kinda goes without saying. Wolves get a PG upgrade with a declining contract. Bulls save a couple million bucks, and they also bring to fruition the triumphant reunion of Brad Miller and Brian Cardinal.
by from the window to luol on Feb 23, 2009 12:45 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
D'oh. "I think I can do this!"
Is there no way to edit posts?
by from the window to luol on Feb 23, 2009 12:48 PM CST up reply actions
I was just reading John Hollinger's PER Diem from today about
all of the big name contracts that were not dealt at the deadline that were expected to be dealt so their teams could get under the luxury tax. This got me to thinking, these teams are now going to have to deal with other teams under the cap in order to dump these salaries and they are going to have effectively no bargaining power if they really want to avoid the tax. So we’re going to see a lot of guys dumped like Camby for what amounts to cap space. With that in mind, it appears that a lot of teams with cap space would be better served by going after a guy like Amare or Tyson Chandler or Shaq or Caron Butler or Vince Carter than they would be by trying to sign someone like Ben Gordon. Also keep in mind, there are not very many teams that are going to have cap space to begin with. So what I’m getting at is…what is the market for Ben Gordon really going to look like in that situation? Also, and this cuts the other way, which of those teams with capspace is really going to pass on getting a steal on someone like Tyson Chandler or Vince Carter for capspace are really going to pass up that opportunity to get someone like Kirk Hinrich (which would free up the space for us to re-sign BG to a decent deal)?
Vinny discovers frontcourt by accident. Someone re-smash Gooden’s groin!
- your friendly BullsBlogger
by fundamentallysound on Feb 23, 2009 6:26 PM CST reply actions
See, I look at it completely the opposite
Vince Carter vs. Gordon, for example.
Carter’s contract is huge and was negotiated a couple years ago. So you’ve got like 2 years of Vince for $30M.
Given how the free agent market is shaping up, why would a team go after him when they’ve got a once in a long time chance of locking in several players at below (typical) market rates. Suppose you can go out and sign Sheed, Marion, Gordon, Millsap, or someone like that for a longer term MLE or just above deal.
In short, why pick up a guy whose contract was negotiated in a seller’s market, and who you only have for a couple years, when you could potentially lock down a guy for 5 years at a price the player would have scoffed at a couple years ago?
You have to hope, a couple years down the road, that the economy will pick up, and then you’ll have a player locked in on great deal.
That's also, of course, why I think no team is going to trade its cap space for Hinrich
I mean, ok, Kirk is going to cost $9M next year. Suppose you’re OKC and you’re $12M under the cap. Do you want to use it all on Kirk, or do you go out and offer $6M to Ben Gordon and $6M to Paul Millsap knowing that if the Bulls and Jazz match those offers, they’re going over the luxury tax?
And knowing that if the players take those deals, you’ve got them locked in at a fraction of what people would have lined up to pay them a year ago. Eventually the market will come around, but they’ll still be locked in to very reasonable deals.
Even if it's not 5 years, it's going to be at least 3 years so those players can have bird rights
I wonder if the players will push for one years in hopes of landing in as leftovers for that 2010 class. It wouldn’t seem like they’d get that much more money, but the “market” will be set at a different level. You take four or five max contracts and throw in a few just under max like Joe Johnson, Tracy McGrady, and Gordon would have an argument he’s not too much worse. Just depends who still has the cap space then.
I wonder if the best course for him (and NYK) still won’t be a 3-year MLE from New York.
Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!
Also trade bargins don't have to only consume space under the cap.
Imagine a team like Portland. They could sign a FA @ a bargin like Sports2 suggested. Then steal someone with their non-gaurenteed contracts. Then steal someone for $2mil immediate relief(via scale) and more long term savings. Dunno if they have the goods to pull off all 3, and they probably wouldnt want to make that many moves. Just point out there’s lots of ways to tango.
Also, even if the market for BG is TERRIBLE we still have to make space or pay the tax anyways.
How many draft picks do the Blazers have?
We could probably trade them Deng for draft picks. Maybe a guy on their rookie deal too and still have enough money to sign Gordon? I dunno, someone figure it out.
There’s no question Gordon is more valuable to this team than Deng and we know Portland wants him. If we can get some decent assets for him, I say do it.
If we can trade Hinrich for enough in NGC's, it's fine.
I don’t see any way to do it otherwise.
"You remember the first time you picked up a basketball video game and you had no idea how to run plays, so you just gave the ball to your shooter and you ran around the court aimlessly until a defender was far enough away and then you jacked up a shot? THAT IS LARRY HUGHES!"
-Anonymous fan letter, heylarryhughespleasestoptakingsomanybadshots.com
One scenario that could play out.
Is that the NBA could suspend the luxury tax for next year.
I don’t think the NBA wants their owners taking huge losses in these economic times as a reslt of the luxury tax, because the cap decreased suddenly and unexpectedly.
Chicago Bulls Blog and Forums. NBA Power Rankings.
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
- Dwight Howard picks a strange time to ask for more fourth quarter shots
- Spike Lee texts to thank the coach that cut Jeremy Lin before seeing him play
- LeBron threatened to beat up a heckler. You gotta problem with that, tough guy?
- Jason Whitlock apologizes for his unfunny Jeremy Lin comment on Twitter
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
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.
