Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Gift Of The 2003 Tigers

A Comprehensive Plan to Re-Sign Ben Gordon, Stay Under the Luxury Tax, and Stay Competitive


The Bulls would be a better team next year if they didn't lose Ben Gordon.  They can afford to lose John Salmons and his ball-stopping offense and overrated defense -- he's a horrible team defender, which is what matters at the NBA level.  The first part of this plan would be to trade John Salmons for non-guaranteed contracts.  The Spurs reportedly had interest in Salmons around the trade deadline last year.  Here's a no brainer deal for the Spurs.

Salmons for the non-guaranteed contracts of Fabricio Oberto and Bruce Bowen.  The Spurs desperately need wing scoring, especially given Manu's recent proclivity for injury.  The Bulls would then waive Bowen and Oberto as their deals are non-guaranteed -- so sayeth Sham's numbers.  The Bulls instantly clear all $ 6,429,151 of Salmons' salary for next year off the books.  The Spurs get wing scoring help and a solid one on one defender who they can -- maybe -- mold into a good team defender through Popovich's wizardry, at the very least they could hide him on defense.  On top of that, after the Bulls waived Bowen and Oberto's salaries, the Spurs are perfectly welcome to re-sign them to cheaper deals.  So the Spurs get Salmons essentially for free.

Now, initially -- given Deng's own proclivity for injury -- you might scream that this is nuts.  That's where the second deal comes in to play. I'd offer Hinrich for Outlaw and Blake straight up.  This saves the Bulls an additional $1.9 million and allows them to replace Salmons with Outlaw --a younger, better player-- and replace Hinrich with Blake -- a cheaper and therefore, better, option at backup PG.

After making these deals and before signing Gordon or the draft picks -- assuming they signed Demarcus Nelson and Roberson, but let Linton Johnson's non-guaranteed contract go, and brought Aaron Gray back on the QO,  the Bulls would be at  $57,246,997 in salary for the season.  According to this article by Marc Stein, the luxury tax line is estimated to decline this year from $71.15 million this year down to $69.4 million.  Assuming the Bulls signed their draft picks at the customary 120% of the rookie salary scale, the 16th pick ($1,594,080) and 26th pick ($1,039,800) would total $2,633,880 in salary. Adding this to the salary already on the books, the Bulls would be at $59,880,877.  To offer Gordon a 5 year, $50 million dollar contract, the Bulls would have to offer him $8,264,463 in year one.  This would put the Bulls at $68,145,340 or $1,254,660 under the luxury tax -- which would give the Bulls a bit of room to offer Gordon more if 5 years $50 million isn't quite enough.  I'd go as high as 5 years $55 million, but I wouldn't go any higher, and I don't think the Bulls could really afford to -- at 5 years, $55 million the Bulls would be right up against the luxury tax with only $428,214 of wiggle room -- not nearly enough if the injury bug strikes and they need to pick someone up.  Okay, so now that the finances are dealt with, here's how I'd draft.

I'd target Tyler Hansbrough, Dejuan Blair, or James Johnson at #16, whomever is there and if more than one is, the BPA.

Then with the 26th pick, I'd select a SG that can shoot, someone like Chase Budinger, Wayne Ellington, or Danny Green.

If the Bulls went this route, they'd have a lineup that looked like this next year:

PG: Derrick Rose, Steve Blake, Demarcus Nelson

SG: Ben Gordon, #26 pick , Anthony Roberson

SF: Luol Deng, Outlaw, Tim Thomas

PF: Tyrus Thomas, #16 pick PF , Tim Thomas

C: Noah, Brad Miller, Aaron Gray (re-signed to the QO)

They'd also have Jerome James's expiring deal.

That's 15 players right there, and it's a pretty good rotation.  I think that team is better than the one we finished this year with, because Outlaw is better than John Salmons and all the other real contributors, save for Hinrich, are still here.

As an alternative, prior to draft day the Bulls could give the Raptors the following offer for Chris Bosh:

Luol Deng ($9,385,000)

Tyrus Thomas ($3,749,880)

#16th pick

Jerome James's expiring deal ($6,200,000)

Salary sent out: $19,334,880

for

Chris Bosh ($14,410,581)

Marcus Banks' terrible deal ($4,260,000).

Salary coming back: $18,670,581

The Bulls would then have to select a wing with the 26th pick to back up Outlaw --who would move into the starting SF spot with Deng's departure-- possibly Chase Budinger or Sam Young or DaJuan Summers.

That would leave the Bulls looking at this roster:

PG: Derrick Rose, Steve Blake, Marcus Banks, Demarcus Nelson

SG: Ben Gordon, Chase Budinger, Anthony Roberson

SF: Travis Outlaw, Chase Budinger, Tim Thomas

PF: Chris Bosh, Brad Miller, Tim Thomas

C: Joakim Noah, Brad Miller, Aaron Gray (on the QO)

That's a very good starting 5, but the bench -- outside of Brad Miller -- isn't that strong, unless Budinger turns out to be better than expected, and Tim Thomas should be capable off the bench as he has been in the past.

They could also wait and trade for Bosh at the trade deadline depending on the finances -- having the salaries of the draft picks to work with and potentially throw into a trade might be more or less desirable from the Raptors end, I'm not really sure.

What I've come with seems very, very doable and would put the Bulls in the best scenario to recreate their success from last year and stay under the luxury tax.  Assuming the Bulls didn't make a Bosh deal, they'd have Brad Miller, Travis Outlaw, Steve Blake, Jerome James, Tim Thomas all coming off the books in the 2010 summer.  They'd have money committed to Luol Deng ($11,345,000), Ben Gordon ($9,132,231), Derrick Rose (team option: $ 5,546,160), Joakim Noah (team option: $3,128,536), and Tyrus Thomas (qualifying offer: $6,256,806) for a total of $ 35,408,733 plus the two draft picks from this draft -- #16 ($1,713,600) and #26 ($1,117,680) -- for a grand total of $38,240,013 in committed salary for the 2010-11 season and loads of cap space to go after a max contract level superstar and pieces under contract to make a sign and trade, if necessary, possible.  Under the proposed doomsday scenario from the Stein piece, the salary cap in 2010-11 would be at $56,500,000.  A max level free agent would be able to sign for about $17 million in the first year under such a situation.  The Bulls, under this salary arrangement, would be able to sign a max level free agent and still come in under the cap!  Then they would have the space underneath the luxury tax to pursue players with the LLE, MLE, and veteran's minimum and league minimum contracts.  Keeping the starting 5 of this current team together while acquiring two (hopefully) productive pieces in this draft along with a max contract level superstar would be huge.  It's the dream scenario, and the very plausible steps I've outlined make it possible.  It's important to note that in this scenario getting Gordon to sign for 5 years, $50 million is imperative, because if he signs for much more than that it ruins the Bulls chances of getting under the cap enough to offer a max contract -- unless they were to renounce the rights to Tyrus and not sign him to the qualifying offer, which is another option if you're bringing someone like Bosh in, but it's a dicey one, because you'd have to let Tyrus go before you knew for sure that you could sign Bosh or Amare.

Anyway, that's my big plan for the Bulls to keep the core of this team together while getting parts that better fit around Derrick Rose and then to potentially make a run at Chris Bosh and still field a competitive team with what's left over.  Sports2 and others that are good at the financial side of things, let me know if I've made any egregious errors in calculation or anything. 

 

 

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.

Comment 165 comments  |  6 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Replacing Salmons with Outlaw is an incremental improvement.

Outlaw’s 2 year APM is 2.3, not -3.87, and he’s younger than Salmons and expires for sure after this year - no worrying about whether or not he takes his player option as there is with Salmons. Also, Gordon’s 2 year adjusted plus minus is 4.95. I don’t know where you got your numbers, but they are clearly different than those listed on basketballvalue. Oh, I just checked - you’re looking at their playoff adjusted numbers which are markedly different in some instances than their regular season numbers—which are more trustworthy due to the larger sample size.

Gordon and Outlaw are both better than you give them credit for. So too for Salmons who was only a -7.05 this year as opposed to the -8.48 you listed him at.

It’s not about keeping Gordon versus Salmons, and it’s partly my fault for the language I chose to open the post, it’s more about getting an upgrade for Salmons while keeping Gordon. Outlaw is an upgrade (nearly 5 points difference by their two year APMs), and Blake makes more sense for the Bulls than Hinrich does as a backup PG (and by their 2 year APMs is about the same as Hinrich).

The defensive concerns are legitimate, but I expect Derrick to get better on defense, because if he doesn’t well then the Bulls are screwed anyway, now aren’t they?

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions  

wtf? not sure why those strikethroughs occurred, but that should read

“Outlaw’s 2 year APM is -2.3 not -3.87, and he’s younger than Salmons and expires for sure after this year . . .

Gordon’s 2 year adjusted plus minus is -4.95. I don’t know where you got your numbers, but they are clearly different than those listed on basketballvalue. Oh, I just checked, you’re looking at their playoff adjusted numbers. . ."

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions  

Ahh you're right, I was looking at the playoff #s

I meant to look at the 2008-2009 numbers, but the playoff ones are usable because they’re actually a larger sample size – they include regular season numbers but they also include playoff numbers, which are counted double.

I wrote before how I think Salmons’ APM this season was a result of noise, his raw plusminus with the Bulls was +0.9. Assuming Salmons can put up a year close to his 2008-2009 season, there’s nothing to make the argument that he’s worse than Outlaw, a sub-.500 TS% three of the past four years who can’t pass and seems mediocre defensively.

But it’s more than that, since Salmons will be playing SG on the Bulls, a position where his man-only defense won’t hurt the Bulls as much, as actually makes him a more effective complement to Rose than Gordon is. Breaking it down by position:

Backup PG: sub Blake in for Hinrich… wash
SG: sub Gordon + #26 in for Salmons…wash
Backup SF: Outlaw in for Salmons… wash

Where’s the upgrade that makes signing Gordon longterm worthwhile? The easiest solution to “put the Bulls in the best scenario to recreate their success from last year and stay under the luxury tax” is to do nothing. Replace Gordon with Deng, insert a couple first round picks as needed, and go back with the same team with Salmons moved to SG. With your plan, we’re marching out the same team AND adding another longterm crappy contract.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions  

Hm, while your logic makes sense, I disagree with the notion that Salmons shitty APM was the result of noise.

He has sucked his whole career by APM — his 5 year APM from 2007-08 was a rather horrid -5.55 (3rd worst in the league among players playing 2000 minutes or more). So, I don’t think it’s crazy to assume that he was pretty awful this year, too.

I think that Gordon’s numbers this year are actually more encouraging because his one year APM from this year was actually a +2.88 and the primary reason his 2 year numbers are so bad is because he had a bad year by basketballvalue’s APM last year (-8.84). I think Gordon is young and improving and continues to get better.

I think the defensive concerns are legitimate, but again, like I said, Derrick has to become an average to good defender for things to be as great as we hope anyway and Gordon is an average to slightly below average team defender — whereas Salmons is just an awful team defender.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

You liked my "Salmons' APM = result of noise" argument in that previous thread

here.

The 5-year APM argument doesn’t apply, I think, because his numbers have improved so much in recent years. From the previous thread:

The -3.47 makes sense for a 5-year APM, because Salmons was downright horrible offensively from 2004 to 2006, with EOPMs of -2.87, -3.29, and -2.50. Factor in my estimate that EOPM overrates ballstoppers by 1.5-2.0pts, and -3.47 seems spot-on, even with the heavier weightings for recent years. But his EOPMs in 2008 and 2009 were -0.74 and +1.55. Adjust it for ballstopping and he was +0 offensively this season. There’s no way he was -7 on the defensive end.

Gordon was +2.66 this year, but that’s with a 3.79 standard error. Reduce the error to 2.73 over two years, and his APM goes to -4.95. That means there’s an 84% chance his actual APM is worse than -2.22 over the past two seasons. And considering Gordon’s numbers have been consistent throughout his career, there’s no reason to believe he’ll improve dramatically in the future.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 12:37 PM CDT up reply actions  

Using your own EOPM, Gordon was better than Salmons. Even if you're really nice to Salmons and only include

his time on the Bulls -when he was significantly better than he was for the Kings - his EOPM is only a 1.41. Gordon’s EOPM from this year? 2.0.

I just see no reason to keep Salmons over Gordon, especially if you can upgrade with Outlaw and sub Blake for Hinrich.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions  

wtf is going on with the strikethroughs? honestly.

I do a little dash and all of a sudden the website thinks I want to strikeout every thing I’ve just written, ugh.

should read “when he was significantly better than he was for the Kings”

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions  

Haha I can read through them

I didn’t disagree that Gordon’s better than Salmons. EOPM, APM, box score stats, whatever… they all give Gordon a slight edge.

But Salmons has a cheap 1 year contract. Keeping Gordon likely involves a 5-6 year deal, tying up a bundle of cash for a player who only has a slight edge on the crappy Salmons.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions  

"Salmons has a cheap 1 year contract"

and then…

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 Jun 8, 2009 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

Upgrades of Salmons/Gordon can come cheap

Hey, if Salmons and Gordon had the basketball IQ of Manu Ginobili, maybe they’d be 3/4 players. Hell, if Gordon just stuck himself at the 3-point line and only caught and shot threes, he’d probably help our team more, especially going forward alongside Rose. But he doesn’t do that, neither does Salmons.

Anthony Parker is a free agent. He had a -0.15 five year weighted APM and a +1.61 APM the last two years. He’s made 41.5% of his threes career, his 15.7 AST% this year is good for a SG, and at 6’6" he can handle the bigger scoring guards. He’s also an unrestricted FA we could probably get for the MLE, and I think he helps us more than Gordon or Salmons.

There’s a couple of these guys in free agency every year. I’m not worried about what will happen when we lose our negative-impact player.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 2:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

+1.61 APM the last two years...

I don’t think we need to find The Longterm Replacement as soon as possible. Short term options are always there. Can Anthony Parker be better than -3 for two more seasons? I think so.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions  

I don't.

His knees, ankles, etc. are going to be shot soon. It’s tough to move your feet on defense when your legs completely betray you. It’s also a killer for the jumpshot that is his only weapon on offense.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions  

Huh?

Parker’s the 9th best 3pt shooter of all time. The others atop the leaderboard who played past 33:

Kerr was hitting 40% until he retired at age 37
Nash shot 44% this year at age 34
Brent Barry’s been hitting 40% since 33 (he’s 37)
Dale Ellis hit over 40% from ages 33-39 (when he retired)
Jeff Hornacek hit 45% from ages 34-36

We’re getting away from my original point anyway, which is servicable SGs who can shoot are available every year. “What will we do without Gordon/Salmons” doesn’t hold up to me, because they’re the types of players you can replace with a 34 year old.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions  

But those guys didn't do anything else. Did any of them play defense?

If much of Parker’s value is derived from his defense and he can’t keep up anymore because he’s slow as molasses because he’s old then it won’t make a lick of difference if he can still shoot because his defense is crud.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

Evidently Parker's not a great defender

His -1.36 defensive five-year APM is just a tad below average for a SG. Maybe he drops down to Gordon level (-3.47) with age.

I don’t see any reason why his offensive numbers would drop though. He gets by with good passing and a good 3 point stroke, both of which should hold up. At worst he’s a -3.5 overall, which is around equal replacement to Gordon/Salmons, answering the “how to we replace Gordon/Salmons” question.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

Parker's 3p%

‘06-’07 – .441
‘07-’08 – .438
‘08-’09 – .390

If these trends continue…

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 Jun 8, 2009 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions  

Really? .441 to .438 was the start of a "trend"?

Looks like two identical years and one slightly lower one to me.

"You ain’t as hot as I is / all of these false prophets is not messiahs /
You don’t know how high the sky is / the square mileage of earth or what pi is." - Nas

by Jivas on Jun 9, 2009 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions  

well, not really

that was somewhat tongue in cheek. But it’s more worrisome than if it wasn’t going down…

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 Jun 10, 2009 11:32 AM CDT up reply actions  

You're better off just citing his age

A drop in 3pt% (even though 39% is still pretty damn good) when the entire team took a nosedive offensively doesn’t do him much justice.

That Steve Nash is exactly the same as Kirk Hinrich, but worse.
by NBA Observer on Apr 8, 2009 12:23 PM CDT

by Ozzie Montana on Jun 9, 2009 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions  

I love that you hate on BG

But keep pleading for old man Parker, who even when he was young man Parker wasn’t much more than an almost 1 year wonder.

Ask the Celtics and the rest of the league if Salmons and BG were terrible, and aside from this blog on this site (not all of BaB) 99.9999% would disagree with your basic assessment.

I’m fine trading both, but let’s not trade them for crap or think that Anthony Parker, etc can just come in and make us better….or that BG just shooting 3’s and not moving would help us improve.

4/30/2009 GAME 6: Joakim Noah is God.

by majoyenrac on Jun 8, 2009 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions  

That's fine

then explain why Gordon’s and Salmons’ APMs are so low. Why is it over the course of the last six years, when they’re on the court their lineups tend to get outscored, accounting for opponent strength? Anthony Parker comes out neutral, and I don’t think it’s by dumb luck.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

You go then

Pay Anthony Parker the full MLE and watch as the Bulls flounder…

I think you’re a bit too heavy on the stat here my friend.

4/30/2009 GAME 6: Joakim Noah is God.

by majoyenrac on Jun 8, 2009 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

That's not really an argument

I’m not saying “look only at stats”, but Gordon didn’t randomly get a -3 APM, just like he didn’t randomly get 20ppg this year. His actions caused both to happen, and just disregarding them and saying “he’s a great scorer” leaves a lot out.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions  

I just think

All too often folks focus on the stats….

I mean Darryl Morey gets all this espn and other love and to a degree that’s great, but you can’t forget that a lot (ahem) much of the success of that team is because he was given Yao Ming and until thi syear Tracy McGrady to deal with.

I know I know, Shane Battier is a better stat guy that he looks on the court (I like Battier a bit), but nobody would be talking much of the Hayes’s, the Battier’s, etc if it weren’t for Yao….and even with all the help around them, the Rockets really haven’t gone anywhere.

I don’t know if you can say, well Salmons had a negative APM the last few years so he’s no good, or that BG is the same, as they’ve played on teams with significant holes…..and they haven’t played together while both healthy too often. THe only time they did was during our big pre playoff run, although we did play against some poor teams, we did still dramatically improve in that stretch.

I am worried about the my turn sensibilities of both players….and part of me thinks it might be nice to trade on the high Salmons….though the other part of me also would like us to just live with Salmons (who i think has proven to be quite good when healthy of late, though it might be a 1.5 year wonder)….

But yeah to trade both of them and not target a really good player would be devastating.

BG I think too is often made to suffer in stats because of the lack of help on O from those around him and the role he’s oft forced to take in that scenario.

But no bother. Trade one, ok, trade both ok (if we got a superstar)….even if that star wasn’t part of these trades….

But losing both and getting Parker to fill in. SOmething tells me that will only make us worse.

4/30/2009 GAME 6: Joakim Noah is God.

by majoyenrac on Jun 8, 2009 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

Ultimately I also think

That I like all the guys on our team (all the major guys): Rose-Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Salmons-Thomas-Noah and if we had a more consistent big (or if Pax-Gar and crew were ready to call Tyrus that and have the coaches call him that) I’d be fine rolling the dice again with what we have.

I think of the 5 guys we are most likely to consider dealing (Salmons-BG-Deng-Tyrus) that Luol perhaps is the first one we should try to part with. Not because he isn’t good, but because I think he struggled to learn to play with Rose this year, he makes more money than the rest, he’s younger than the rest (sans Tyrus) and doesn’t have near the upside of Tyrus Thomas…..

I do like that Salmons’s salary for his recent production is low and that Salmons was a vital key to improving our team post trade…..and think he should be the #2 to go.

I think Kirk’s a 3rd option to go, a really nice luxury to have who’s salary declines (unlike Luol). Kirk’s #3 here because he’s younger than Salmons, a bit more proven than John and well I still think if we trade him, chances are we’re still trading him low, esp with that declining salary and that he can guard 2.5 positions (he can guard SF’s in limited spots)….

Then I think I’d be happiest letting Gordon walk if that was the move we had to do as the other 2 went nowhere.

And I only want to still trade Tyrus if and when we get a superstar in return…..he’s still young and while he didn’t keep up that Feb and March stats, he had 2 ridiculous from the chair at least months in there….whcih with his athleticism and age, I think screams keep unless it’s abs necessary….

And I think if we trade for one of the 2 that we keep hearing about, I’d much rather go for D. Wade over Bosh, because while Bosh better fits the “need” on paper, Wade is probably more explosive around the rim and having that athleticism paired to Rose seems like the potential to be the toughest matchup for our opponents for a long time coming…..

And I think with our still retained depth, we’ll be better suited to not have Wade have to force all the pounding he’s had of late in Miami…..

But yeah….interesting times.

I just think if we let BG go, we let him go and focus on 2010…..but he’s on my personal 4th to go.

4/30/2009 GAME 6: Joakim Noah is God.

by majoyenrac on Jun 8, 2009 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions  

I agree with you that fit could make a difference

Maybe Gordon forces more shots than he would as a #2 or #3 option, I can see that.

The Rockets are a great example of stats working, though. Yao’s obviously a good player, but even with Yao and McGrady and Mutombo out, the Rockets took the Lakers to seven games because they filled their roster with Battier/Artest/Hayes/Wafer/Landry/Scola at bargain prices.

Some guys are undervalued, some are overvalued, and I think a 20ppg who was absolutely on fire in the playoffs is way overvalued at the moment. If we bring him back for a year or two, who cares, we aren’t winning anyway. But if we’re going to make a longterm commitment, we better be sure he’s helping us, and there’s reason to believe Gordon’s not.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions  

I guess

You could also say they could have won had Artest not been a jack em up, jack em up type.

But I still don’t think they’d sniff the playoffs this year without Yao…..

And I think a combo of great coaching (Adelman), smart play (Battier), some luck (Landry was ridiculous in at leat 2 of those games and Brooks couldn’t have faced a better personal matchup) and poor Laker play definitely helped in that series.

I don’t know if Gordon’s 20PPG during the playoffs indicates that he was just on fire then. He was pretty consistently scoring for us, really all of the last 3 years (besides the Nov and first weeks of Dec horrible slump last year that harmed his avg’s…)

He’s pretty consistent on that end of the ball….

4/30/2009 GAME 6: Joakim Noah is God.

by majoyenrac on Jun 8, 2009 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions  

BTW

I totally think BG’s stats are off because he’s a good #2 or #3 forced too often to always be the #1 man.

4/30/2009 GAME 6: Joakim Noah is God.

by majoyenrac on Jun 8, 2009 4:56 PM CDT up reply actions  

Just in terms of the Rockets.

I think it’s a mistake to discount the guys that the Rockets have collected. It’s because of those guys that the Rockets have weathered all the injuries to McGrady and Ming out. They’ve won 50 plus games in the west three straight seasons with one of those two missing at least 32 games in each of those seasons. But, of course it is a lot easier to build a team and find bargains if you already have your star in Yao.

by Scotter on Jun 8, 2009 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yeah

But they haven’t won those 50+ games with BOTH of them out at the same time….and it’s not like a healthy TMAC and a healthy Yao aren’t (or in TMAC’s case weren’t) amongst hte top 1-5 at their positions).

I like what they’ve done, I think they’ve done a much better job getting role players around those stars than say Cuban and Nelson have done in Dallas…..and that should be rewarded, but I don’t think if you had Yao and TMAC out together the entire year that the Rockets would be anything.

TMAC had the ability to play in the Kobe-lite stratopshere for several years—and who knows if he gets healthy and gets back in shape given his age there’s some hope, though he’s been on the decline for a few.

And Yao when healthy is so freaking dominant because of his size and ability to shoot…..

I think it’s easier for a Yao or a TMAC to step up more individually with those role players to make the loss of the other not so rough on them.

But until they really get consistent wins, I think it’s also a bit too early to champion Morey as the greatest statistician in history (exaggerating) but pretty much the Hollinger take.

Stats are helpful, but they also can be misleading.

I enjoy stats, I’m a analyst by trade, but on a team sport, I think an overreliance on stats can cause issues….

I think the Rockets have for now succeeded using the stats, but I think the luck of the TMAC-Yao marriage and separation was more critical to that success than the stats.

4/30/2009 GAME 6: Joakim Noah is God.

by majoyenrac on Jun 8, 2009 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Find a Celtics fan as intelligent as some people on this blog...

And that goes for 99.9999% of the rest of the league, too.

People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett

by tyger1147 on Jun 8, 2009 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm not saying fan

I’m saying Celtic player and GM.

And in no way am I ever calling out YaoPau or Scotter as not intelligent. I respect them.

You on the other hand? I like your points, but you tend to attack….

I just like to post my opinions.

4/30/2009 GAME 6: Joakim Noah is God.

by majoyenrac on Jun 8, 2009 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions  

Where did I attack.

Don’t be a LaMarcus Aldridge.

(i.e. ninny)

People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett

by tyger1147 on Jun 8, 2009 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions  

Not this post

Tyger but in general.

I’ve offered amends, to which you don’t say, ok to disagree.

And then you’ll wait until posts die to pick a stupid blog b.s. fight and purposely discredit me for lying about something or arguing with others when I’m not arguing with them—stating and opinion ain’t arguing, when someone comes back strongly and starts on the name calling circuit—like you tend to do that’s arguing. I don’t argue and like I said I respect others posts and folks on this site….

I even dare I say it think you add a lot of good insight and was wrong to say otherwise 3-4 months ago….but then again giving you an opinion is for naught since you just want to be a dick towards me on here.

Oh well.

4/30/2009 GAME 6: Joakim Noah is God.

by majoyenrac on Jun 8, 2009 4:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

Like I've said the point isn't keeping Gordon over Salmons

it’s acquiring a Salmons replacement and upgrade for one year (Outlaw), keeping Gordon as a valuable piece, and replacing Hinrich’s 4 year deal with the expiring deal of Blake.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 2:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

why do you love strikethroughs?

kidding

(it’s because of the dashes, btw)

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 Jun 8, 2009 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think that looking at Ben as strictly negative player isn't the right approach.

Almost all of Ben’s value is scoring, which makes his value highly variable game to game. He can be a huge positive or huge negative game to game. A volatile asset can be a lot more valuable than one that is consistently average because the volatile asset is more often able to be the difference maker between wins and losses. When the Bulls were great at defense they had Ben surrounded by consistent performers, but unspectacular performers and Ben could be the difference maker. It was similar to win the 76ers were good with Iverson, they surrounded Iverson with consistent mistake free players, and then took advantage of Iverson’s good nights, squeaked out wins on the average nights, and lost on his bad nights. Shift Iverson to a team with more volatility in performance and the outcome isn’t nearly as good.

Gordon basically a neutral player in my eyes, but his high variability actually makes him more valuable than a consistently mildly positive player. Having Rose and Gordon together in the back court is basically starting two Ben Gordon’s right now in terms of probability. You’re starting two high variability players in the backcourt, and I don’t think that works well.

by Scotter on Jun 8, 2009 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions  

no chance Rose develops more consistency over the course of a Gordon contract?

I mean really don’t we have to hope Derrick becomes one of those guys you can count on every night. Because if not, then well, fuck. We’re screwed. Bank on Derrick getting better and more consistent, it’s the only way the Bulls have a shot at being a real contender anyway, so we might as well assume it’s going to happen.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm with you

this is why I can’t buy into the ‘Rose will always be a terrible defender’ mantra too. If he is never going to be a two-way player, we’re boned.

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 Jun 8, 2009 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions  

There's a huge gap between terrible and the next Gary Payton.

I think Derrick will eventually defend point guards better than Ben Gordon currently does. Considering that most point guards are bad defenders anyway, you can win with that if he’s paired with a strong defender in the backcourt, and develops as expected on offense. But, expecting him to be the kind of defender that can carry Ben Gordon in the backcourt is expecting to much from on defense.

by Scotter on Jun 8, 2009 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

If Rose improves enough defensively though

Then BG and Rose can dramatically outgun their opponents on the other end…..

Yes BG and Rose can be a really spectacular offensive duo, it’s just that rookie Rose’s D made BG look like the 2nd coming of the glove….

Rose should be a better defender than Gordon. If that comes quicker, given how good he already is offensively, a BG-Rose tandem is a tandem to follow…

4/30/2009 GAME 6: Joakim Noah is God.

by majoyenrac on Jun 8, 2009 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

Rose should become better than Gordon, but just being better than Gordon isn't enough.

Rose profiles exactly like Ben Gordon as a defender. Physically, Ben has a 1/2 inch advantage in wingspan and standing reach. They’re similar in terms of strength. Derrick despite his blazing speed isn’t blessed with tremendous lateral quickness. Physically Derrick has a bit more upside as a defender. His frame is a bigger and he can probably add a little more strength. He’s a more explosive jumper, and has the potential to challenge a few more shots and rebound better. But, he’s not that different in the physically from Gordon as it pertains to defense.

Statistically Derrick profiles just like Gordon as well. Defensively their rookie seasons were very similar. Only Juan Carlos Navarro and J.R. Rider played at least 2000 minutes as rookies and had a steal rate as low as Derrick’s.

Derrick can certainly become as good a defender as Ben Gordon is on point guards if he works at it, but there isn’t a huge likely hood he’s becomes much better than that. If Derrick’s offensive impact is much greater than Gordon’s as expected that level of defense is acceptable, especially at point guard. But, it’s not acceptable to have two Ben Gordon in you’re backcourt, regardless of their potential for offensive outbursts.

by Scotter on Jun 8, 2009 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions  

Rose should be better

Just by virtue that he is stronger, like you say and can play and will play the PG positon.

If Rose is as good a defender as BG (or better) and his offense improves to be far better than BG (who’s already very goodo n that end).

I come from the minority I guess in CHicago that thinks offense wins games….if our post defense was more stable and consistent, we can afford to have 2 avg defenders at the guard spots.

I think a Rose-BG offense could be a dynamic duo rarely seen in the NBA…..

I also think/hope that as Noah bulks up and Tyrus continues to learn his positioning, that we’re close…..

I also think unlike BG, who is a good defender (skill wise) but takes plays off to make some of his d useless, Rose seems to want to play and succeed in the whole spectrum, and that want and desire will help him surpass BG on that end more than we’d think.

But it’s all conjecture right now…..small rookie sample size for Rose (What will he be we don’t know, but think at least really good if not great) and what will Tyrus, Noah, etc be….

I think we know BG, and I for one think a talent like him if we add the right post player or well any post O player could be senastional.

I’m also of the mindset that the “defenseless” Suns could have and should have won but not for an Amare suspension….and that a play here or there by the Spurs over the Mavs in some of those series, would have changed the landscape of who won….as those 3 teams out West were all pretty dominant and at their time more consistently better than the East. It’s just that the Spurs won more and had a little play here or there fall in their favor.

4/30/2009 GAME 6: Joakim Noah is God.

by majoyenrac on Jun 8, 2009 4:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

Rose is not stronger than Ben Gordon.

I quit reading after that. Your observations of things are just plain retarded.

(that was an attack)

People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett

by tyger1147 on Jun 8, 2009 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

I meant quicker and more athletic

and stronger for his position.

I should quit reading after I see it’s Tyger, but I digress.

Why you insist on being an ass is besides the point. No reason for it either

4/30/2009 GAME 6: Joakim Noah is God.

by majoyenrac on Jun 8, 2009 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

Gordon vs. Hinrich

Is basically a Rudy Gay vs. Shane Battier decision in my mind. Right now I trust the idea that Battier helps a team win more than Gay.

by Scotter on Jun 8, 2009 5:32 PM CDT up reply actions  

WOOT WOOT!!!

(sorry)

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!

by piccolomair on Jun 8, 2009 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions  

LOL piccolo.

I needed that laugh, man.

The poster formerly known as Freethefro.

by MPG on Jun 8, 2009 9:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

hmmm

where have I misplaced my “Kirk Hinrich’s great lockdown-defensive performances” DVD…

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 Jun 8, 2009 6:28 PM CDT up reply actions  

well, he did a fairly good job of locking up Pierce especially give the size disadvantage

he can lock up most perimeter players besides the guys that are of the Aaron Brooks speedy PG variety or even the Luke Ridnour variety.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 6:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

have you notice ...

everyone seem to lockdown Pierce in this years playoffs.. including himself.

So much credit shouldn’t be given to Delonie West, and Kirk. Pierce is “was” slumping bad …

man up!

by exult463 on Jun 9, 2009 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions  

I agree Delonte shouldn't get any credit

Since he didn’t guard him in the playoffs.

Hinrich did a good job on Pierce, as did Salmons. If you don’t want to believe that, then frankly no one is ever going to be good at defense for your standards.

That Steve Nash is exactly the same as Kirk Hinrich, but worse.
by NBA Observer on Apr 8, 2009 12:23 PM CDT

by Ozzie Montana on Jun 10, 2009 12:00 AM CDT up reply actions  

Kirk plays good defense on occassion

during a game, much like most good/great defenders. “that’s a compliment”

But in regards to Pierce, in this year playoffs he reverted back to a pre-Garnett Celtic with also slowness, unbelieving and aging added to the equation.

Therefore praises of great defense on Pierce by anyone in this years playoffs, like you said in my opinion, are taken as a grain of salt.

man up!

by exult463 on Jun 10, 2009 10:12 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'd put Battier's defensive value far ahead of Hinrich's

to the point where he’d be one of the few worth paying as a specialist (a dicey and subjective proposition, especially since a lot has to do with how the refs like your ‘rep’ on that end).

And he’s paid $14,218,700 for the next two seasons, whereas Hinrich is paid $26,500,000 for three.

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 Jun 8, 2009 7:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

cuz hes taller

or has longer arms…? I think if hinrich was 6’8 he would be a battier clone…..

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!

by piccolomair on Jun 8, 2009 7:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

well, that's sort of my point

the range of who Battier can guard gets him that status. I don’t put Hinrich on that level. Though not that he contributes in ways Battier doesn’t as well…

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 Jun 8, 2009 7:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

Id argue

battier can guard 2’s and 3s and maybe some 4s…hinrich can guard 1s, 2s, and some 3s. Battier has had yao ming to back him up and an organization thats been stressing defense for awhile, even when guarding kobe this year he had another steller per. defender in artest with him and yao ming or mutumbo with help defense waiting, hinrich is usually left out to dry when guarding perimeter players.

The guys that get passed hinrich would just as easily get passed battier, id say hinrich was a better offensive player mainly cuz he can handle the ball. Apart from kobe or joe johnson, i dont really see how you can get a much defender on your perimeter than hinrich.

Maybe get thabo back?

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!

by piccolomair on Jun 8, 2009 7:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

they'd better get

someone useful with that #26! dammit!

"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!

by marionette on Jun 9, 2009 12:25 AM CDT up reply actions  

Hinrich's contract expires right when it needs to though.

Until then just pretend Rose is making an extra 2 million per year.

I don’t think they’re that different in terms of defensive value. And they’re basically the same type of defender, they’re good at irritating scorers. And Kirk can handle a bigger offensive role than Battier.

by Scotter on Jun 8, 2009 7:17 PM CDT up reply actions  

It actually would need to expire July 1st

to be really swell.

I guess all defenders are the same type, since it’s not like anybody is ‘stopping’ the best wings in the league. I’d say Battier ‘bothers’ much more effectively than Hinrich. Speaking purely about ‘bothering’ opponents, of course.

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 Jun 8, 2009 7:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

I guess I'm saying

I don’t think Michael Lewis is writing a feature on Kirk Hinrich any time soon.

Granted, that’s more ‘hype’ than substance, but I don’t have a much better way to evaluate defense. That and anecdotal evidence Kirk Hinrich defensive suckage, which happens too often to make him elite in that area.

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 Jun 8, 2009 7:32 PM CDT up reply actions  

when you find it

can i borrow it?

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!

by piccolomair on Jun 8, 2009 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think Jamaal Tinsley wiped his ass with it.

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 Jun 8, 2009 7:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

ouch....

u gotta take better care of your stuff man…

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!

by piccolomair on Jun 8, 2009 7:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

Except

That Gordon and Hinrich are both better and more consistent at least through the first 3 years of Rudy Gay….but who knows if Gay gets it, his future could be bright….

4/30/2009 GAME 6: Joakim Noah is God.

by majoyenrac on Jun 8, 2009 11:17 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think Rose can become decent defensively

When trying to make a defensive statistical plusminus, I noticed that block rate is the only category that correlates strongly with a point guard’s defensive APM. It’s weird, I know.

2007-2008 point guard ranking by BLK%, with their 5-year defensive APMs:

1. Anthony Carter, -3.16
2. Baron Davis, +1.46
3. Jason Kidd, +0.49
4. Kyle Lowry, +1.23
5. Kirk Hinrich, +1.26

5thw. Antonio Daniels, -1.79
4thw. Steve Nash, -3.24
3rdw. Jameer Nelson, -0.94
2ndw. Chris Paul, -4.54
worst. Jarrett Jack, -2.42

Even with Anthony Carter screwing up the stat, the blk% coefficient was 5 (!!). Rose’s .4 block rate puts him slightly below average, in the Devin Harris/Chauncey Billups area that nets around a -1/-1.5 defensively. Of course it’s just one factor, but there’s at least some sign/hope of defensive ability in Rose’s box score. Anybody with a clue why blk% → good overall defense for a point guard, I’d like to know why.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

For a point to be blocking shots there has to be a pretty good

combination of size, athleticism, and defensive aggressiveness.

by Scotter on Jun 8, 2009 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions  

Interesting.

Chris Paul was credited with improving his defense this season, and his block rate was a career high this year. It’s the difference between 10 blocks and 4 blocks over 82games, but maybe it means something.

by Scotter on Jun 8, 2009 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions  

some would say that the variability makes him less valuable

and pray to the altar of consistency. (Not me.)

I thought Bill Simmons had an interesting take on Gordon that sort of jives with what you’re saying:

Only a few current players can win two games per playoff series by themselves, and he’s one of them. If the goal is to win the title and not just compete for one, then I want Ben Gordon on my team.

No word on how this is effected if the actual goal is to not pay the luxury tax.

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 Jun 8, 2009 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions   2 recs

I agree here

Not that I don’t think Gordon deserves his payday, I just feel if the Bulls finally dole out what is deserved to him, they will not be as aggressive in 2010, and use BG, Deng, and the upcoming Tyrus and Noah extensions as a rationale, like “Ah well we had to keep our young talent, and the superstar was asking for too much money.”

I want to see a real offense. With Gordon on the team, Vinny is always going to have the option of just giving him or Derrick the ball and let them do whatever they want without any rhyme or reason. Because they’re so talented it works out sometimes, but the results can be ugly. Hinrich to Portland is a trade that should happen because it does offer some key depth at the SF/PF position with Outlaw, and Blake may very well be the best backup PG in the league.

We need to see changes in how our team plays fundamental defense and offense. I’m willing to see Gordon leave if that forces Vinny to realize his players are capable of running a more sophisticated schemes

That Steve Nash is exactly the same as Kirk Hinrich, but worse.
by NBA Observer on Apr 8, 2009 12:23 PM CDT

by Ozzie Montana on Jun 8, 2009 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

I guess I'm just over Gordon at this point.

I still don’t see how development happens to the degree it needs to on offense if he’s around, whether it’s Vinny or someone else. I’d rather see other players have to take those shots. If Gordon does sign, I really do hope it’s a one year thing and he’s traded come the summer of 2010. This season squashed nearly all of my initial enthusiasm for the Rose-Gordon backcourt.

by Scotter on Jun 8, 2009 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions  

"I’d rather see other players have to take those shots."

nobody currently on this team. Can we fit ‘cap space 2010’ in a jersey (for Reinsdorf to retire)?

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 Jun 8, 2009 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

"This season squashed nearly all of my initial enthusiasm"

I realize this is a multi-yeared and millioned gamble….but I don’t think Rose in a rookie year and Gordon in a contract year and both playing under a non-coach is the best representation of what a Rose/Gordon backcourt combo could be.

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 Jun 8, 2009 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions  

oh no...

et tu, McGraw?

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 Jun 8, 2009 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions  

Keeping a very talented player

who’s also a negative-value player is the reason the cellar-dwellers of the NBA are where they are every year. Think Clippers, Knicks, etc. A low basketball IQ is a low basketball lQ.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions  

negative value is yet to be determined :-p

I don’t trust your trust in APM, especially since you disregard when Gordon’s APM is positive for years…

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 Jun 8, 2009 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

But you're looking at 1-year APMs

Some of these 1-year wonder seasons come with such high standard errors that they can be negated by a slightly below average the next season. Case in point: Jamal Crawford was +10.57 last season, -1.90 this season, and his two-year cumulative is +0.54. So I don’t trust 1-year numbers, but I can begin to trust multiple year APMs.

Gordon’s two-year from the past two seasons is -4.95 with a 2.73 error, meaning there’s a 96.5% chance he’s had a negative impact over that span. His weighted 5-year from 2004-2008 is -3.37 with a 1.55 error, meaning there’s a 98.5% chance he’s been negative.

So I guess he’s not absolutely without-a-doubt negative, but to me those percentages are pretty damning.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions  

What's Gordon's 3 year APM

It seems like Gordon’s down year was the outlier here, not one of his good years.

by tuluse on Jun 11, 2009 9:34 AM CDT up reply actions  

this:
Backup PG: sub Blake in for Hinrich… wash
SG: sub Gordon + #26 in for Salmons…wash
Backup SF: Outlaw in for Salmons… wash

is a false premise because (1) you can’t have Salmons be your starting SG and also have him be the primary backup for Deng at SF unless you have a really good backup SG to eat up minutes, (2) Blake for Hinrich is wash for this year, but it’s a huge win for subsequent years and building for the future if you have Blake because he’s an expiring contract, so is Outlaw. It wipes Hinrich off the books, which needs to be done.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yeah I left Hinrich off that little chart

1) It should’ve read SG: sub Gordon + #26 in for Salmons/Hinrich, Backup SF: Outlaw in for Salmons. And Hinrich is that really good SG to eat up minutes.

2)

it’s a huge win for subsequent years and building for the future if you have Blake because he’s an expiring contract, so is Outlaw.

I don’t agree, because you’d be replacing Hinrich’s contract with Gordon’s, so that too is a wash.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

You think Hinrich's 3 years, $26.5 million remaining

to play backup PG and SG is a better value than Gordon starting at SG at 5 years, $50 million or as Matt proposes 6 years, $48 million?

Hinrich is a better APM contributor than Gordon, but I don’t know that you can play him full-time at SG, which under your plan you’d have to do after Salmons’s deal expired. You’d need to bring in another SG come 2010 and are you going to find one out there better than Gordon that will leave you with enough cap space to still go out and sign a player like Bosh which you’d be able to do under this plan?

If you’ve got ideas about that, I’d love to hear them.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

Of course

3 years, $26.5 mil for a +0 player is much better than 5 years, $50 mil for a negative impact player. And Hinrich fits so much better with Rose. Better passer, better defender, will just stand at the 3 point line and let Rose do his work, etc.

First, Hinrich can play SG full-time. That was his position in college, he’s shown he can guard bigger guards, and the majority of his minutes came at SG this year. When Hinrich played SG alongside Rose this year, the Bulls were +5. When Gordon played SG alongside Rose, the Bulls were -3. Obviously, differences in opponent strength neutralize the difference, but Rose/Hinrich can work.

But even still, I’d let Hinrich go and try to sign someone cheaper. Maybe we can get Anthony Parker from Toronto in a double-sign-and-trade for Ben Gordon? Raja Bell is an unrestricted free agent after next season, he’d be good for a 1-2 year pickup. It’s really not hard to replace a guy who’s had a -3 or worse APM over the past six seasons.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions  

Your mancrush on Anthony Parker is noted, but he and Raja Bell are both way on the wrong side of 30.

Parker’s 34 and Bell is 32. To expect either of them to continue to produce well is a fool’s errand.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions  

um, I'm sorry. Age is not the 'A' in APM

and YaoPau is therefore uninterested. :-p

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 Jun 8, 2009 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

especially defensively

that’ll slip before the jumpshooting.

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 Jun 8, 2009 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions  

yeah 32+ year old knees tend to get real creaky which isn't conducive to moving the feet

laterally or jumping up and down for jumpshots.

I’d stay far, far away from both of those two, even for short deals.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions  

Also with respect to Salmons, if we're talking about who fits best with Rose, these numbers might interest you

it’s all of Derrick Rose’s lineups arranged by adjusted +/- for this year.

The one constant in all of the positive lineups? There’s no John Salmons. BG, on the other hand, makes many appearances on positive lineups with Derrick. Now the sample sizes are really small and not ideal [thank Vinny for not playing our best lineups many minutes together], but the trend is certainly there.

Interestingly enough, there’s also some support for your Hinrich at starting SG contention because the number one Derrick Rose lineup was Rose, Hinrich, Deng, Tyrus, and Noah.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions  

woops, Salmons makes an appearance on one lineup (but BG is also in it as well) -

Rose, Gordon, Salmons, Noah, Miller

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 2:44 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'd say that page says the opposite

These are adjusted for opponent strength. His biggest minute lineups:

319.9 minutes, -8.57, with Gordon
289.9 minutes, -6.17, with Gordon and Salmons
92.0 minutes, -6.96, with Gordon
85.0 minutes, -4.57, with Gordon

Rose/Salmons was -4 this year in 490 minutes, Rose/Gordon -3 in 1963 minutes. Maybe Salmons/Rose doesn’t work, but there’s a better case that Rose/Gordon hasn’t worked.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions  

where did you get the player pairs stuff? from 82games? those numbers are unadjusted

and as you and Scotter pointed out to me in the Tyrus thread, not that I didn’t already know, should be taken with a grain of salt.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions  

The biggest minute lineups

were from the page you linked to, and those are adjusted. The player pairs are unadjusted, which is why I didn’t make definitive conclusions.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think Hinrich would be the worst offensive starting big-minute 2 in the league.

somehow his ‘torrid’ stretch to end this season has turned into a curse.

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 Jun 8, 2009 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions  

I think the key is that if you have Rose and bring Hinrich off the bench you don't need a true

starting SG, you just need a guy who can play solid defense and knock down open shots for 20-30 minutes each night. You can find that guy. If Henderson were to fall to 16 the Bulls might be able to get that guy in this draft.

by Scotter on Jun 8, 2009 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions  

Do you think Danny Green can be that guy?

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions  

haven't the Bulls spectacularly not found that guy for 5 years?

and don’t they cost a bit? what’s the difference in that guy and instead paying Gordon, who you already have and can REALLY knock down open shots (among other things…perish the thought of having players besides Rose being able to do something with the ball)…and downgrade to a less-solid defense.

Or better yet, get that guy you’re talking about to play behind Rose and Gordon.

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 Jun 8, 2009 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions  

ah yes, the fabled M2GwcDaS.

the search continues. . .

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions  

The guy they were looking for during the Hinrich/Gordon period

had to have a fairly unique skill set. Tall and a good defender. But, offensively good enough to play with Hinrich. But, also had to be able to play PG with Gordon on the floor. So you end up taking a chance on Thabo Sefolosha because he’s the guy who potentially could do all of that. Where with Rose and Hinrich, you simplify the job description and it’s easy to just take a Ronnie Brewer. If you have Gordon and Rose, you’re likely back to looking for the next Doug Christie.

by Scotter on Jun 8, 2009 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions  

If Hinrich is gone

you don’t need someone who can play PG, because Rose is playing PG for nearly the entire game. And then let Gordon have a few possessions of fun. And then find the next great backup PG Kevin Ollie

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 Jun 8, 2009 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

That's the likely the better choice and probably the Bulls should have done

with Hinrich and Gordon, but Rose is still going to be off the floor 20% of the time and the team can lose the game in those minutes. But, the big thing is that I have very little faith in the viability of Rose and Gordon playing together in playoff series.

by Scotter on Jun 8, 2009 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions  

Or Brandon Roy...

Who our GM passed on…

" I've looked at these numbers and decided the #1 problem

is that Ben Gordon is selfish..." -your friendly bulls blogger

by Dionysus2.0 on Jun 8, 2009 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

ouch

dont remind me….

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!

by piccolomair on Jun 8, 2009 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

A backup SG won't help if we're signing Gordon longterm

A Rose/Gordon backcourt is a terrible fit. Two isolation scorers, two bad defenders, and both incapable of guarding bigger guards.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions  

"Two isolation scorers, two bad defenders"

meh, for now.

To me, Gordon earned his spot as the primary complement to Rose. If it turns out not to be the case in a couple years, he’ll still be young enough to be an asset. Salmons is likely off the team regardless after next season, and isn’t a long term answer either.

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 Jun 8, 2009 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

Alright...question

It seems like BaB on the whole wants Gordon and Tyrus back. But if that’s the answer, then why did our starting lineup get torched by the Rondo-Allen-Pierce-Davis-Perkins lineup in the playoffs, which isn’t even that good.

I’m all for keeping a lineup (Rose-Gordon-Deng-Tyrus-Noah) intact, as long as that lineup can eventually get you to contender status. I don’t see it.

by YaoPau on Jun 8, 2009 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions  

they're young?

Vinny sucks?

I’m not married to that starting lineup. But I keep them to troll for upgrades instead of letting players walk.

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 Jun 8, 2009 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions   2 recs

torched?

they lost in 7 games to a team that eventually took the Orlando Magic to 7 games. So even without Garnett, that Boston team was one of the the top 6 or 7 teams in the NBA. People were saying the Boston-Chicago series was one of the closest, most exciting playoff series in years? I don’t know how how you can claim the Bulls were torched.

by Basketball Smurf on Jun 10, 2009 7:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

They did get torched

Boston couldn’t defend any better, thus a thrilling 7 game series.

That Steve Nash is exactly the same as Kirk Hinrich, but worse.
by NBA Observer on Apr 8, 2009 12:23 PM CDT

by Ozzie Montana on Jun 10, 2009 8:06 PM CDT up reply actions  

i guess it depends on how you define "torched"

but since YaoPau referenced their status as “contender” I thought he was talking about overall competiveness.

The Lakers are by no means a great defensive team, and just got “torched” by the magic. But they are also two games from winning a championship. There is more than one way a team can become a contender.

by Basketball Smurf on Jun 10, 2009 8:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

Like it more if the Bosh stuff works

I really enjoyed reading this post and don’t want to ruin it by reverting back to a keep Gordon or not arguement. So I’ll assume keeping Gordon is the correct thing to do and look at the team is left.

without Bosh- The backcourt scares me to death. By taking away Hinrich/Salmons you have left the Bulls with the worst defensive backcourt starters/subs in the NBA. There is also no scoring off the bench at the 1 or 2 ( Blake can back up Derrick but won’t be as good playing alongside Derrick when Ben takes a break). If Derrick or Ben ever gets in foul trouble or misses a month losing Hinrich takes away the chance to survive without one of them.
 As far as the difference between Outlaw and Salmons I agree Outlaw is a better SF but the great thing about Salmons was he could play the 2 or 3. Can Outlaw or Deng guard an NBA 2 or drive to the the basket as a 2 like Salmons did? (answ- Deng cant. )

with Bosh- This is basically the team I would like to see by February 2010. Sure there is some work to be done…a better defensive guard then Budinger and a banger once Brad Miller contract is up…. but this is the direction I hope the Bulls go in this offseason.

by Jscho316 on Jun 8, 2009 11:57 AM CDT reply actions  

yeah, if you have Rose/Bosh/Gordon/Deng

the rest is the easy part, relatively.

I think they’d still be in a flexible enough position without Bosh to fill some of the mentioned holes. Shouldn’t bench wing athletes be the easiest to pick up?

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 Jun 8, 2009 12:26 PM CDT up reply actions  

Athletic bench wings are always floating around, it seems.

Tony Allen and Kelenna Azabuike are both UFA in the 2010 summer and those types of guys are always floating around in the draft or as unsigned free agents after college ends.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions  

If you have a superstar front court player

like a bosh or an amare, then doesnt one of gordon or deng become very much expendable. Having rose gordon deng and then a superstar front court player…well….are there enoug basketballs. Gordon’s greatness isnt just hitting his shots, but the ability to create his shot and basically just score. Deng (if healthy) is a great 3rd option on a team who can score and rebound efficiently. Rose isnt a steve nash like playmaker but a “if your defense doesnt collapse on me im gonna score, and if your defense collapses on me im gonna hit an open man” more of a scoring point in my eyes. If you have all those players together, someone is going to to be getting limited touches, and will look lost in the offense, much like deng at the begining of this year. I cant think of how simply coaching could solve such a problem, rose gordon and deng could all work well together if there is no bosh or amare, if you are adding bosh or amare, then one of gordon and deng will have to go

And id think toronto would gladly accept gordon and tyrus for bosh since A) they need a sg, B) They need defense in the post C) Bosh probably wants out in 2010. Id then try to trade deng for gerald wallace, and hinrich to portland,

Rose
Salmons
Wallace
Bosh
Noah

….yea…thatd be nice…

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!

by piccolomair on Jun 8, 2009 6:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

You're trading Gordon because he needs the ball, but you're

keeping Salmons and adding a SF in Wallace that needs the ball more then Deng?

by Scotter on Jun 8, 2009 6:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

Gerald Wallace

IS AWESOME ON DEFENSE, and on offense he can do the slashing game…..
We could trade for a backup sf and keep kirk….

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!

by piccolomair on Jun 8, 2009 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

Deng is both those things, but without the need to be a ballhog.

People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett

by tyger1147 on Jun 8, 2009 6:33 PM CDT up reply actions  

u measure ball hogs by usg% right?

Gerald Wallace career-21.1
Luol Deng career-21.7

and….

Luol Deng (assist block steal per 36)-2.4|1.1| 0.6
Geral Wallace (ditto)-2.5 |1.9| 1.2

It seems that wallace is less of a ball hog, more likely to pass, and is a bit better on defense. Deng is a more efficient scorer however, however wallace did play on a pretty crappy all around bobcats team so his usg would be alot less naturally and since he is more of a dunker and guy who attacks the rim his efficiency should still be up. His defense is what i like, one of the best one on one defensive players in the league.

However, he has his flaws mainly being two things, his age, and like scotter noted below his injuries. His play is pretty exciting but hes a racecar, sometimes goes to fast and crashes (hence his nickname crash). Hes had two concussions already which i hear isnt a good thing at all, and i think he messed up his ankle last season… still he has a shorter contract than deng and makes a little bit less. But the real reason i mentioned this was because im having a great time using him 2k9 ( ten bucks says u use that last remark against me in ure reply back)

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!

by piccolomair on Jun 8, 2009 7:06 PM CDT up reply actions  

I refuse to believe that you used stats to refute me!!!

I’m kidding. Good points. Now we just need to get you to start linking.

I do think, when talking ‘ballhogs’, there’s a difference between a catch-and-shoot usage play and a dribble for 5 seconds usage play. I don’t have the time to look that up right now.

And yeah, the injuries. He doesn’t have huge ones, but he never plays a full season.

People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett

by tyger1147 on Jun 8, 2009 7:12 PM CDT up reply actions  

the site you gave me

basketball reference.com…i just did player stats, i didnt want to link to the page cuz theres alot of numbers there, i also am still lazy and didnt want to format the tables and put them on here…..heh

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!

by piccolomair on Jun 8, 2009 7:25 PM CDT up reply actions  

what?

only two concussions…and a bad ankle, and a few sprains….

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!

by piccolomair on Jun 8, 2009 7:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

Concussion prone players scare the hell out of me

Especially a guy who attacks the rim just as much Gerald. He also suffered a partially collapsed lung and broken ribs this season.

That Steve Nash is exactly the same as Kirk Hinrich, but worse.
by NBA Observer on Apr 8, 2009 12:23 PM CDT

by Ozzie Montana on Jun 8, 2009 11:08 PM CDT up reply actions  

having even one concussion

from what i understand is pretty bad…..having two means you better develop one hell of a jumper…

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!

by piccolomair on Jun 8, 2009 11:53 PM CDT up reply actions  

HA

u guessed me! :)

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, majoyenrac, Bullshooter and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light!

by piccolomair on Jun 8, 2009 7:07 PM CDT up reply actions  

Doesn't look like the Spurs deal would be the financial windfall you thought

http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/notes/spurs.htm

Signed a 2 year, $8 million extension in November 2007. Only 50% of final year guaranteed.

Fabricio Oberto: Re-signed to a 3 year, $10.9 million contract in July 2007. Final year is only 50% guaranteed until July 1st 2009.

So after both were waived, it’s about $3.2m still on the cap, so ~$3m savings from Salmons’ 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 Jun 8, 2009 12:31 PM CDT reply actions  

Bah! That ruins my plan. Unless the Bulls could swing Salmons to the Mavs for Jerry Stackhouse's $7.6 million non-guaranteed contract (only 2 million

of which is guaranteed). That would save the Bulls about 4.4 million on Salmons’s deal. Which makes the math a bit more tricky for resigning Gordon. You could then not resign Aaron Gray to the QO and renounce Roberson’s non-guaranteed deal which is fully unguaranteed. This would free up around $1.856 in salary cap space on top of the 4.4 million savings, which would mean that the Bulls could probably still offer Gordon his deal for 5 years, $50 million, but they’d be right up against the luxury tax, and they’d have to pray for health because they’d only be carrying the league minimum 13 players on their roster.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

Camby Treatment

In your plan, Salmons could be traded for a 2nd round pick like what happened to Marcus Camby last year. Straight salary dump.

by Jesse07 on Jun 8, 2009 1:10 PM CDT up reply actions  

I guess they could do that to the Raptors (though that's counter-productive to then trade for Bosh)

I would like to mention that I’d be nervous of the Bulls pulling off these kind of moves in succession, or anything that requires timeliness or organization (not the Bulls strengths when considering ‘process’). If it’s all done on one magical draft day, fan-tastic. Else I’d be real nervous if players are dumped and then risking the subsequent moves to make those dumps sensible.

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 Jun 8, 2009 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

Considering Paxson is still calling the shots

and apparently more nervous than you about making moves in plan for subsequent moves, probably don’t have anything to worry about.

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 Jun 8, 2009 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions  

fundamentallysound, all of your contract offers to Gordon are for 5 years

are you ‘fundamentally’ (oh, I slay me) opposed to offering a 6 year deal? I’d figure maybe he’d take less on the yearly figure if it meant another guaranteed year.

I’d still be surprised if Gordon is offered above the 6/$48 he accepted (past the deadline!!!!) last summer, and the Bulls will accidentally win the contract war. But it just takes one ‘dumb’ team, I guess.

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 Jun 8, 2009 12:37 PM CDT reply actions  

I don't know why I arbitrarily picked 5 years. I guess I figured that Ben might want one more chance to get a big payday

which is more likely at 30 versus 31? I’m not really sure why I chose those numbers. Your option might actually make the best one for the Bulls if they can convince Gordon to sign for longer but for less per year.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions  

woah, woah, woah, what if I told you the Bulls could keep Ben Gordon without giving up Salmons without doing ANYTHING?

Interested?

via RealGM

I was wondering about JJ’s salary. I know that if he is medically unfit to play & retires, his salary counts against Bulls cap.

However, I wondered if the salary can be excluded from Lux Tax.

I asked – and got a personal response from Larry Coon!! Yay!!

I dont know if you guys knows that he posts here on RealGM

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=911819

Larry says: the Board of Governors can exclude the salary of disabled players from the luxury tax, and typically does so.

Seems like Paxson really got a heck of deal in exchange for Hughes

OK, JR – sign Ben…no Lux Tax excuses from you!/blockquote>

Via poster Tommy Udo 6

Pax, you beautiful genius. :)

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 3:09 PM CDT reply actions  

crap, the formatting didn't work quite right on on the quote, should look like this:
I was wondering about JJ’s salary. I know that if he is medically unfit to play & retires, his salary counts against Bulls cap.

However, I wondered if the salary can be excluded from Lux Tax.

I asked – and got a personal response from Larry Coon!! Yay!!

I dont know if you guys knows that he posts here on RealGM

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=911819

Larry says: the Board of Governors can exclude the salary of disabled players from the luxury tax, and typically does so.

Seems like Paxson really got a heck of deal in exchange for Hughes

OK, JR – sign Ben…no Lux Tax excuses from you

Via poster Tommy Udo 6

Pax, you beautiful genius. :)

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions  

even if they save some money by James' salary not being 'taxed'

they still miss on the payout (it comes in Knicks-themed wrapping paper), right?

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 Jun 8, 2009 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions  

no, I think they still get the payout. The only thing is that they would still have to pay James his 6.6 million - it just wouldn't

go against the cap. If I’m understanding what’s been written correctly.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

not against the cap, against the tax, I mean.

"Tact is the art of making a point without making an enemy." --Newton

by fundamentallysound on Jun 8, 2009 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

they wouldn't even have to do that much

insurance pays 80%.

Anyway, the way I read it, is that while his salary is excluded from the tax, it wouldn’t be excluded from the cap. The cap figure is what ‘triggers’ the tax.

So they’d be over the tax threshold, but wouldn’t have to pay the dollar-for-dollar overage for James’ salary. This actually also applies to veterans (10 years?) on the minimum…their salaries aren’t taxed (to encourage teams to sign those old folks. Unions, what can you say…)

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 Jun 8, 2009 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions  

I've been curious too

I thought that insurance would pay the 80% regardless of us hitting the tax or not….which is why I think having James on the roster in a trade talk could be great, esp in this economy.
But I defer to yfbb….

4/30/2009 GAME 6: Joakim Noah is God.

by majoyenrac on Jun 8, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions  

you and fundamentallysound are talking about two different 'payouts'

James’ salary is ‘paid out’ 80% by insurance, no matter what.

my question in what fs is relaying is the ‘payout’ that goes from the tax-paying teams to the non-tax-paying teams. What I’m suggesting is that even though there’s a scenario where the Bulls wouldn’t pay any tax on James, they would still be considered a ‘tax paying team’ due to their cap number being over the tax threshold, and therefore miss out on a few million from the tax-paying teams.

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 Jun 8, 2009 4:13 PM CDT up reply actions  

and when reading that RealGM thread

TommyUdo6 says this:

(per Larry Coon) salaries of players who are forced to medically retire are typically excluded from Lux Tax total.

But that’s not exactly what Larry Coon says:

the salary counts. It doesn’t matter whether insurance is paying it…the Board of Governors can exclude the salary of disabled players from the luxury tax, and typically does so.

That says to me that the salary is still counted in the luxury tax total, but the Bulls would not have to actually pay a luxury tax on James’ salary.

(this is so much more fascinating than real work!)

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 Jun 8, 2009 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

Jumped in late

And didn’t read the whole thread….so I thought and was surprised that he was thinking otherwise. my bad.

4/30/2009 GAME 6: Joakim Noah is God.

by majoyenrac on Jun 8, 2009 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm saying the tax IS triggered

but you only have to pay the tax on the salaries over the tax…which would be James, except they’d exempt him under this scenario. Say, for example, without James included (and Gordon signed) in that tax-trigger calculation they’d have some margin to sign somebody else and stay under, for $1m. Would THAT player’s salary then not be taxed? I’d say yes it would, because even though James’ salary wouldn’t be taxed, his number still counts on the cap figure, which is what’s used to determine to see if a team is over the tax threshold.

I admit I’m guessing at this point…but that’s how I understand it.

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 Jun 8, 2009 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions  

so fun, I made a new thread

http://www.blogabull.com/2009/6/8/903037/jerome-james-and-the-luxury-tax

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 Jun 8, 2009 7:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

Great plan fundamentallysound

Gordon is 26 & will probably avg. 20+ points/gm for next 5 years on or off the bench. Rose will get better each year. Get rid of all players with no upside and hugh salaries. 10mil/yr backup pg Hinrich should be gone. He does not compliment Rose well. One season wonder and Injury-prone Deng will be a hard decision. If he insist on playing 4 Britain I said trade him. Drop both Deng and Hinrich, then Bulls only have potentially 30 million in guaranteed salary for 2010. That’s leave 40 mil to sign players and hopefully a new GM and coach to recruit new talent.

by sadafan on Jun 8, 2009 8:47 PM CDT reply actions  

good to have priorities...

in (noted) order:

re-sign ben.

stay under luxury tax.

stay competitive.

:-)

"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!

by marionette on Jun 10, 2009 3:09 PM CDT reply actions  

As a Blazer fan, I love this deal

Steve Blake and Travis Outlaw for Kirk Hinrich is a very good trade for both teams. The Blazers need a solution at point guard and Hinrich is the kind of guy that would be perfect along side Brandon Roy. He is a Kansas guy, so Kevin Pritchard would love to get him. This helps you guys because you get two very good backups in Blake and Outlaw. We’d hate to lose those two guys, but this is the only trade I want the Blazers to make, other than picking up backup power forward.

"Sasha? That's a sissy name." -Mike Rice

by koyote on Jun 11, 2009 2:35 PM CDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Chicago Bulls.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

112_small
Bulls at Boston Celtics: Game Preview #30
Small
Making a Play for Pau

Recent FanPosts

Blogabull_s_small
Around the NBA 2/11: Lin vs. Rubio
Drose2_small
Bulls at Charlotte Bobcats: Game Preview #29
Monkey_small
Bulls at New Orleans Hornets: Game Preview #28
Nba-media-day-2011-12_small
Sad Bogans
Hinrich_rose_small
Throwing Shit At the Wall or Its Trade Machine Season
Zack_ryder_small
Around the NBA Thread 2/5; I Don't Care About The Super Bowl.
Small
Kyle Korver: The Importance of Warming Up the Hot Sauce
Small
Bulls at Milwaukee Bucks: Game Preview #26

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Links

"Best NBA Blogroll"
-- Dan Shanoff

The Essentials:
Bulls.com
NBA.com
HoopsHype
BallHype
ESPN.com NBA

Workin' the Beat:
KC Johnson - Tribune (blog)
John Jackson - Sun-Times (blog)
Mike McGraw - Daily Herald (blog)
Nick Friedell -  ESPNChicago.com
Sam Smith - Bulls.com
Aggrey Sam - CSNChicago.com


More Bulls Blogs/Forums:
Thank You Isiah
Chicago Bulls Podcasters
Bulls Confidential
By the Horns
Bullish Thoughts
Chicago Bulls KY
Pippen Ain't Easy
RealGM Bulls Forum
SportsTwo Bulls Forum

Blogging the Association:
(League Wide)
True Hoop
HoopsAnalyst
Give Me the Rock
The Basketball Jones
NBA Fanhouse
Hoops Addict
SBNation.com - NBA
ProBasketballTalk
ShamSports
Ball Don't Lie
The Painted Area


(Team-Centric)
Queen City Hoops

Bobcats Baseline
Knickerblogger.net    
Sixers' Shots
Forum Blue and Gold
SuperSonicSoul
Hornets247.com 
SonicsCentral.com 
ClipperBlog.com  
The Nugg Doctor
Loy's Place
Reds Army
Need4Sheed
THE WIZZNUTZZ
RaptorsForum.com
TWolvesBlog.com
Spurs Dynasty
David's Memphis Grizzlies Blog
The Bratwurst
Sixers Journal
Sixers 4 Guidos 
3 Shades of Blue  
CavsNews.com
RaptorTalk
Deceptively Quick
TheLakersNation.com
Utah Jazzer Blog
KnicksDefense.com
T. Jose Caldeford
Hoopinion
RaptorBlog.com
Suns @NBAWeblog.com
The Cowhide Globe
Stepien Rules
Project Spurs
Raptors Republic
Dino Nation Blog
Lake Show Life
Valley of the Suns
The KnicksBlog.com
Big Lakers Fan
Roundball Mining Company
Cavs: The Blog
48 Minutes of Hell
Daily Thunder
Piston Powered
The Two Man Game
PistonsNationBlog.com
Cowbell Kingdom.com
Hot Hot Hoops
NetsAreScorching
Celtics Hub
Orlando Magic Daily
Philadunkia
Truth About It
Always Miller Time
Slippery When Nets
Eight Points Nine Seconds
Howlin' T-Wolf
Red 94

MSM NBA blogs:

Ira Winderman (Heat)
Jason Quick (Blazers)
IndyStar.com (Pacers)
Michael Cunningham (Hawks) 
Full-Court Press (Pistons)
Jonathan Feigen (Rockets)
Rick Bonnell (Bobcats)
Jazz Notes
Chris Herrington (Grizzlies)
Orlando Sentinel
Michael Lee (Wizards)
Alan Hahn (Knicks)   
Doug Smith (Raptors)
Marc Berman (Knicks)
Al Iannazzone (Nets)

For the Statheads:
Basketball-Reference.com
APBR Discussion
Knickerblogger's Stat Page
82Games.com
Doug's Stats
Popcorn Machine
HoopData


Other Resources:

HoopsHype Salaries
SportsTwo Salaries
ESPN.com Trade Machine
RealGM: NBA Draftpicks Owed
ShamSports.com Salaries
DraftExpress

 


Guy who does everything

Blogabull_s_small your friendly BullsBlogger