I appreciate you continuing to bang this drum, but I just don't agree. I think you're equating a very small, but very vocal minority to the majority of Bulls fans. Most Bulls fans are either just fans because of the team's history or they're mostly just mildly interested in basketball and they've chosen the Bulls as their team for any number of reasons.
I obviously have no way of proving this, but I'd argue that the vast majority of Bulls fans have no idea this team is run by complete idiots or that the team is owned by a guy who would legitimately prefer the team not get deep into the playoffs if it meant he didn't have to think about entering the luxury tax.
They don't know those things and they don't care. They just want to watch fun players do fun things, and arguably this year's team is more fun than last year's because it plays at a much higher pace and scores more.
Pointing out that management is unlikely to make changes if the team stays at the top in attendance and keeps its profits up isn't problematic in my opinion. Is it going to change the minds of most of those not-that-invested fans? No, probably not. But at least some of them will see those stats and start to realize there are some problems.
You missed my point entirely, heh. Arena-goers will remain even if the Bulls were not run by idiots, they didn't do anything special to create a fun team, like you said they just want to see NBA basketball
Maybe I should have quoted the specific sections I disagreed with. I'll do that below:
"Bulls fans, including the ones that show up to games, are not dumb. They’re also not complacent or naive to the bigger NBA picture and how the Bulls have been reduced to simply a nostalgia brand now."
Bulls fans are not dumb, sure. But that doesn't mean they understand the business side of running an NBA team. The vast majority of fans have no idea how much of the cap Zach's contract takes up, and they also have no idea how the CBA affects a team's desire/limits their ability to trade for someone with his kind of salary. They're not dumb; they just don't know how that stuff works.
"It’s a misconception to think the fanbase has been placated, and asinine to attempt to shame arena-goers as ignorantly placated. It’s actually the opposite, they’ve been blatantly and obviously offended by AKME’s job performance."
First of all, pointing out that AKME/Reinsdorf are unlikely to make changes if their profits stay high and the UC stays full is not shaming the people who choose to go to games. It's just pointing out a fact and making a fairly logical conclusion.
Second, there's very little evidence showing that the vast majority of fans are offended by AKME's job. In fact, the vast majority of fans most likely don't even know who AK is, let alone how he's performing at his job. It goes back to the business side of the sport, which is kind of AK's whole job. Most fans don't understand that side at all, so they wouldn't know if AK was good or bad at what he does.
They don't have to be savvy enough to know the cap to know AKME isn't good, just look at the lack of playoff success. I think you are calling the fans dumb if you think they think this team is good. It's just there, and that's enough for a night of entertainment. And sure Reinsdorf is unlikely to care as a result, but it's just as much of 'a fact' that the fanbase is so big the team will do good attendance regardless, and any organized boycott would be impossible. They could make way way more if better ran.
I never said I think fans think this team is good, so I'm not sure why that's your argument here. I'll bite though.
Go check out Bulls Reddit. I'd consider most of the people over there to be at least slightly more engaged with the Bulls than the average fan, and even a huge percentage of the people over there think this team is somewhat good.
I think you underestimate the level of optimism most people watch sports with. Most fans watch a young team with some fun firepower and hold onto the highs while forgetting the lows. They see this team rattle off a couple nice wins and all of a sudden they're convinced maybe they could compete for a top 6 seed in the East.
I do want to clarify that I agree that this team would make more money if run better and that trying to boycott going to games isn't going to work. I should have included the specific paragraphs I didn't agree with in my original comment.
I consider that level of fandom to be mostly teens, of course they're going to be optimistic
And I think you're the one underestimating that level of optimism. You are saying it's dependent on being competitive and having Zach LaVine, I am saying they'd feel that way even if they had to be more desperate in their justification, like Pat being unlocked or Matas being the next big thing
I agree. The Bulls have long been at the forefront of the “control the media, control the narrative” train, and it still occurs today. Bulls writers are either too sympathetic to the team or are just not smart enough to see what seems obvious - or, blinded by their need to write about something interesting and relevant.
Elias Schuster just wrote about how it’s so confusing seeing what the Bulls are doing. He thought “they must be bad at their job!” Well, they are!!! But they also have different goals than “Winning the most games possible.”
But most of the Chicago writers write the same thing. And, just like politics, people who don’t care but just check in from time to time can be easily manipulated.
Keep “names” on the team, keep referring to Vucevic and LaVine as 2-time All Stars and be flabbergasted that no one wants them, make sure there’s enough talent to keep games close so even though they lose more than they win, at least the in-arena fans had fun.
Elias is basically the only Bulls writer I regularly read outside of Matt of course. I don't always agree with him, but at least he understands that treading the waters of mediocrity is pointless.
I get the feeling that since he writes for a smaller website, he's likely told to write a certain amount of articles a day/week, which results in some of his articles seeming like he's just writing for the sake of it. But overall I think he's generally worth the read.
But I do agree in general. The Bulls' insistence on controlling the narrative for decades now has left us with very few good Bulls writers and basically none of them are on the beat.
I think it takes a lot of self-honesty (or self-hate??) to do what Matt does. He knows what he’s writing about is about à cheap-ass owner who doesn’t care about the fans and à front office that is incompetent at best.
But I don’t think Elias - consciously or not - has that self-awareness. He knows what’s good - to an extent, but not always (he completely overrates how “good” Vucevic is and completely underestimates how bad LaVine’s contract is, especially in the new CBA) - but I don’t think he realizes yet that the team is driven by a greedy owner or by a completely incompetent front office.
I think it would be hard to write 10-20 articles a week if you believed that (which is what he’s doing in-season) I don’t think I could. I think he’s getting there.
Or he knows it, but is either a site directive or a personal decision to write in a more positive “they must have à vision” manner to keep up engagement.
Totally agree. I tend to think he knows it and is either choosing to keep a more positive tone or is being told to by his bosses. He seems to occasionally let things slip that makes me think he knows how bad things are with this team, but it's only every once in a while.
long ago I learned the concept (and think it's true) that online engagement is not driven by negativity, but instead positivity. Just think of 'grandma gets up at 4:30 and walks to her job until she was gifted this car!'
Elias's site is in the business of clicks. I can't hate, I am privileged to not need to do that. But that's why there's so many posts where it's just YOU GOTTA SEE THIS
I don't think that desire to produce more positive content drives his editorializing though. Confusion over what the Bulls are doing is likely more a lack of experienced-driven cynicism than trying to twist positivity
"online engagement is not driven by negativity, but instead positivity."
I wish that was true. I think inspiring anger or fear draws more clicks than positivity. It's why non-sports news headlines are predominantly negative, when, by virtually all measures, things are the best they have ever been almost everywhere.
The grandma posts are just to break up the monotony of constant negativity in the news.
It's true with sports as well... see what happens after an egregious reffing error or bad judging in boxing or mma.
The difference between sports and other news is that sports is voluntary and there's not enough variety to sports to have a steady stream of anger inducing articles without constantly repeating the same thing..
The other type of negativity is depressing. And you are right. That doesn't draw as many eyeballs as positivity. People don't follow sports teams because they want to be depressed. They follow teams because they want to celebrate something.
A bad, boring team will have 50 angry posts after every loss.
A good, interesting team will have 500 angry posts after every loss.
The main positivity comes from success. Being positive about an negative situation will capture you a share of a small "market" but only success will make the market bigger.
Disagree with the second statement. You merely stating it doesn’t make it true. I’ve seen enough Bulls and Cubs teams sign mediocre veterans with some “name” to believe they think it matters. And I’ve seen enough articles written about bringing in Trey Mancini or Jevon Carter off of “NBA Championship Bucks” to think writers take their direction and believe it matters, too.
As to the first part, I mean, you’ve written plenty about how the Bulls have hidden news or asked writers to bury stories to know that you can’t even believe that.
I believe they want to suppress coverage but part of that is by being uninteresting not explicitly telling (or buying) media. If they were more relevant that'd be less possible, people would write about the team even if it pissed off ownership because it'd have an audience.
lol, I disagree that fans don’t care about star power. The Bulls mention anytime someone does something good for a reason. That’s obvious. Saying someone is à 2-time All-Star is shorthand for saying “This player does good things!” It’s simple marketing.
To be fair, I think the normal casual person is very easily manipulated. And I also think marketing is about manipulating people. And I also wouldn’t be surprised if the Bulls have put more money (or effort anyway) into their marketing analytics than they have into their basketball analytics.
lol, I disagree Vuc and LaVine have star power. Do you think that's reason they aren't traded? They couldn't very easily have PR blast out Coby White's fun hair and making 9 threes?
See I don't think the Reinsdorf's goals for AKME, though certainly not 'win the most games possible' are even that specific otherwise
they don't want to be bothered. They give AKME a budget, and the only instruction is don't embarrass us. That is an extremely low bar, which they are clearing but it's tenuous, and not objectively measured like with attendance figures.
Attendance will always be fine, but it's maxed out right now. If they're not getting any playoff revenue, and the rest of the fanbase (outside of attendees) lets their displeasure continue to be known, that is when it can even potentially make a difference
> I obviously have no way of proving this, but I'd argue that the vast majority of Bulls fans have no idea this team is run by complete idiots or that the team is owned by a guy who would legitimately prefer the team not get deep into the playoffs if it meant he didn't have to think about entering the luxury tax.
I don't want to nitpick about this but my counterpoint: Reinsdorf has been boo'd every single time he's shown his face in his own stadium. They actually do it now when he's spotted in his luxury box on the big screen, and I've been told that they no longer show him for that reason. People know who he is and what he is.
Chuckleheads have blamed this on The Last Dance. Reinsdorf was boo'd not just during the '90s, but even during the championship celebration! In 1997 he was telling people that he carried a copy of the AA "serenity prayer" in his pocket, not because he had a drinking problem but because so many people hated his fucking guts:
> Wasn't it Reinsdorf who filed a lawsuit against the NBA in 1990 when the league tried to limit the number of Bulls broadcasts aired over superstation WGN? The suit, which was finally settled last December, cost the league an estimated $10 million in legal fees. Worse, evidence that came out during the case led to the discovery by the NBA players' association that some owners were underreporting revenues that determined the salary cap. "Jerry was looked upon very favorably prior to the WGN lawsuit," says Jerry Colangelo, the owner of the Phoenix Suns. "But the litigation put up a wall, there is no question. He is basically now inactive in the NBA."
Rose night was a reminder of what's possible in the Arena. I wonder if they saw an in-arena revenue bump for that game that could have opened some eyes about the money that they're missing. Or was it not even significant?
So long as they're owned by dead people, I don't think so. As fans we always want owners to take a financial risk because being great is a huge reward, both for us and them. But the Bulls' zombie committee is inherently anti-risk. Without getting into a critique of economic systems, the ownership structure Reinsdorf presides over is uniquely exploitative and small-minded, even in relative terms.
Ahh yes I remember when you wrote about stakes in the Bulls owned by estates rather than actual people, which was insightful. That's about opening pocket books though, and the Bulls don't just need to spend at a higher level, they need an asset acquisition mindset. This could be solved with an injection of competence.
Not quite what I mean. It's not about a margin call among owners (which I think is totally out of the question), but trusts existing for, and thus demanding, constant and regular returns for their beneficiaries.
The skim off the top of Chicago Bulls operating profits, luxury tax payments from big market teams like Milwaukee and rebates from Lonzo's contract is what gets distributed among the zombie corps. Could the Bulls be run differently — better — and still deliver the vig to them? I think that's Matt's argument, maybe yours, but this basic structure seems to make it VERY unlikely the team would ever take on bad contracts for picks, which is one of the most efficient ways to accumulate assets. Maybe not coincidentally, the Bulls never have done this, even when they were in seeming "asset acquisition" mode.
So if we rule that out, what do we get? More scouting, more cagey trades, steps back for steps forward? Or more like a half-ass reload gets replaced by a half-ass rebuild? Similar to Paxson having a team that at least got to the semis every year and cashing it in for 1 first and moving up 7 spots or whatever it was — trying to "build through the draft" having only your own picks (and even missing some of those).
We only have a sample of 2 regimes to draw info from but it doesn't seem a mistake in my mind that the same sleepiness, laziness and self-satisfaction we see now was a hallmark of Later Garpaxica. Is that coincidence or the result of a business watched over by 20 different executives overseeing trusts that don't want to hear about your "vision," just that the check arrives on time and for more than they promised? I don't know but I have my doubts.
yeah that would be pie in the sky thinking for them to recognize they could use their inherent economic advantage to be successful, and likely make more money as a successful team (but not without risk)
instead, they lobby for the league to crack down on such franchises and succeeded
but I'm saying more practically just the step of fire AKME and get new management. There's little downside risk, and relatively not much money required. Heck elevate Billy to president (think of the press conferences!) and hire a cheap coach
I thought I read an article a few years ago that indicated that Reinsdorf has slowly hoovered up many of the minority owners/estates, and that even for those that don't, he effectively holds full control because many of the minority partners are essentially "preferred stock" partners with a cut of the profits but no voting rights.
I can't find any verification about it at the moment though. :\
He's bought out a bunch of White Sox partners, I believe the number of Bulls partners has actually been stable. They are largely the same people (or, uh, what's left of them...) Like Jerry, the original investors seem to have left instructions to their heirs to "sell the White Sox, keep the Bulls."
Maybe the Bears and Chicago NBA Team #2 (fronted by a big money hedge funder) could get together and build a killer, privately-funded combo stadium complex along the lakefront. Hit Reinsdorf everywhere it hurts.
And another thing: the Bulls attendance is inflated because their home arena has the highest capacity in the league
As a percentage of capacity, the Jazz, Raptors, and Pistons (!) are also drawing very well. Are their fans told to boycott if they want things to improve? Is their fanbase considered uniquely naive?
Firing AKME is work for the owners. AKME trying to tank is a huge risk of embarrassment (fire AKME billboards). The owners will only work if embarrassed.
While I don't know if it's as simple as that, I do think the "Fire GarPax" billboards and the crowd at the UC chanting "fire GarPax" during the All-Star game definitely played their part in changes being made.
I think Josh Giddey is our new Patrick Williams. The problem is we also still have Patrick Williams...
Giddey and Pat were both lottery picks who haven't lived up to their hype. Neither have really shown much improvement at all since they came into the league. Both will have a few good games in a row where you go "If he could do this consistently, he'd be really good!", but then they follow that up with a ton of games where they're basically invisible and/or really bad. And worst of all, AK's likely to follow up his overpay of Pat last offseason with an even bigger overpay of Giddey this offseason.
I'm not trying to say Pat is better than Giddey, because he isn't, but at least Pat has some attributes that are in high demand. He's big, fairly athletic, shoots the three well on fairly low attempts, and he's a solid defender. All of those things are pretty highly sought after in the NBA. His problem is he's terrible at everything else. If he could just learn to dribble and become an okay finisher in the paint, he'd pretty much immediately be worth his $18 million a year. The problem is he hasn't shown any ability to improve those things since he came into the league.
Giddey is technically better at the things he does well than Pat is at the things he does well. The problem is the things Giddey does well aren't as useful in the NBA. I grew up idolizing pass-first point guards, so I actually enjoy watching some of what Giddey does, but being a good passer doesn't make you a good NBA player. It's just a nice bonus. He's a terrible shooter and a terrible defender. You're never going to be particularly good in the NBA if you're terrible at those things, especially if you play point guard.
The defense will likely never get better because he's horribly unathletic and I don't think he cares that much on defense. The shooting could theoretically get better, but it's unlikely to until he completely reworks his shot and it seems unlikely that's ever going to happen.
I think Giddey is eventually going to find his home coming off the bench somewhere and I think he'll be solid at it. The problem is that's never going to be in Chicago. He was brought in to be the starting point guard. AK traded his best trade asset for Giddey, so he's going to play him like the "star" he was hoping for when he traded Caruso. He's also likely to pay him like the "star" he's hoping Giddey becomes and then we're going to be stuck with a starting point guard who shouldn't be starting and is making $25 million a year or something ridiculous like that.
Quite a team. With Giddey I think everyone knew exactly what was wrong, at least if they were being honest about it. The idea that anyone — Josh Giddey, me — couldn't play with Shai because he was too ball dominant is hilarious in retrospect.
With Patrick, I never would have guessed we'd be saying "He might be a serviceable player if he didn't bounce the ball off his knee and could just hold on to the ball when he dunks."
Can the Bulls afford to give Giddey the big contract we're all dreading without going into the luxury tax? The mantra I've read for years is, "Jerry will only go into the tax for a winner" and a winner this team ain't. I know Lonzo is coming off the books this season, but I don't know what the rest of the salary cap situation looks like.
Yeah, I'm not amazing with cap stuff. Lonzo coming off the books obviously opens up a good chunk of change. I have a feeling a lot of that will be determined after the trade deadline is over. If AK can trade some large salaries and bring back expirings (unlikely), then a lot of cap room would be opened up.
But if AK does AK things and we see Torrey Craig get shipped out for a second round pick or two with nothing else happening, I do think the Bulls cap situation will be interesting this offseason.
This year the NBA salary cap is $140, the Bulls have a payroll of $166, the tax threshold is about $171.
Taking for granted some obvious moves (Jevon Carter exercising his option, etc.), the Bulls will be at around $134 million on July 1, before dealing with any of their own FAs. Giddey's cap hold is so large based on his draft position ($25 million) that it renders any talk of cap space pretty moot. But they won't be anywhere near the tax.
Side note, but it's pretty funny to note that the Bulls are way below the apron in comparison to other teams and have a pretty good mix of value contracts and cap ballast and yet aren't, and won't be, in any conversation whatsoever involving the huge salaried players being pushed around. Even in a facilitating role. Coby, Ayo and Vuc, for instance, get you to $40 million easily, at least two of those guys would be undervalued top 8 contributors on any team, two are young and none of their salaries go beyond 2026. But it seems other teams have "priced in" Karnisovas total disinterest and inactivity and agents know that using the Bulls as leverage would strain credulity.
> They're not trying to trade away all the veterans. That's just stuff dudes say on twitter. No one from the team has said anything like that at any point. I'm extremely annoyed by that at this point. The only thing that makes sense for the team is to keep Lavine, Vuc, and Ball. Stop with this nonsense, it's beyond annoying at this point.
After a brief and brilliant moment, Bulls reddit reclaims its God-given right to be Bulls reddit again.
I appreciate you continuing to bang this drum, but I just don't agree. I think you're equating a very small, but very vocal minority to the majority of Bulls fans. Most Bulls fans are either just fans because of the team's history or they're mostly just mildly interested in basketball and they've chosen the Bulls as their team for any number of reasons.
I obviously have no way of proving this, but I'd argue that the vast majority of Bulls fans have no idea this team is run by complete idiots or that the team is owned by a guy who would legitimately prefer the team not get deep into the playoffs if it meant he didn't have to think about entering the luxury tax.
They don't know those things and they don't care. They just want to watch fun players do fun things, and arguably this year's team is more fun than last year's because it plays at a much higher pace and scores more.
Pointing out that management is unlikely to make changes if the team stays at the top in attendance and keeps its profits up isn't problematic in my opinion. Is it going to change the minds of most of those not-that-invested fans? No, probably not. But at least some of them will see those stats and start to realize there are some problems.
You missed my point entirely, heh. Arena-goers will remain even if the Bulls were not run by idiots, they didn't do anything special to create a fun team, like you said they just want to see NBA basketball
Maybe I should have quoted the specific sections I disagreed with. I'll do that below:
"Bulls fans, including the ones that show up to games, are not dumb. They’re also not complacent or naive to the bigger NBA picture and how the Bulls have been reduced to simply a nostalgia brand now."
Bulls fans are not dumb, sure. But that doesn't mean they understand the business side of running an NBA team. The vast majority of fans have no idea how much of the cap Zach's contract takes up, and they also have no idea how the CBA affects a team's desire/limits their ability to trade for someone with his kind of salary. They're not dumb; they just don't know how that stuff works.
"It’s a misconception to think the fanbase has been placated, and asinine to attempt to shame arena-goers as ignorantly placated. It’s actually the opposite, they’ve been blatantly and obviously offended by AKME’s job performance."
First of all, pointing out that AKME/Reinsdorf are unlikely to make changes if their profits stay high and the UC stays full is not shaming the people who choose to go to games. It's just pointing out a fact and making a fairly logical conclusion.
Second, there's very little evidence showing that the vast majority of fans are offended by AKME's job. In fact, the vast majority of fans most likely don't even know who AK is, let alone how he's performing at his job. It goes back to the business side of the sport, which is kind of AK's whole job. Most fans don't understand that side at all, so they wouldn't know if AK was good or bad at what he does.
They don't have to be savvy enough to know the cap to know AKME isn't good, just look at the lack of playoff success. I think you are calling the fans dumb if you think they think this team is good. It's just there, and that's enough for a night of entertainment. And sure Reinsdorf is unlikely to care as a result, but it's just as much of 'a fact' that the fanbase is so big the team will do good attendance regardless, and any organized boycott would be impossible. They could make way way more if better ran.
I never said I think fans think this team is good, so I'm not sure why that's your argument here. I'll bite though.
Go check out Bulls Reddit. I'd consider most of the people over there to be at least slightly more engaged with the Bulls than the average fan, and even a huge percentage of the people over there think this team is somewhat good.
I think you underestimate the level of optimism most people watch sports with. Most fans watch a young team with some fun firepower and hold onto the highs while forgetting the lows. They see this team rattle off a couple nice wins and all of a sudden they're convinced maybe they could compete for a top 6 seed in the East.
I do want to clarify that I agree that this team would make more money if run better and that trying to boycott going to games isn't going to work. I should have included the specific paragraphs I didn't agree with in my original comment.
I consider that level of fandom to be mostly teens, of course they're going to be optimistic
And I think you're the one underestimating that level of optimism. You are saying it's dependent on being competitive and having Zach LaVine, I am saying they'd feel that way even if they had to be more desperate in their justification, like Pat being unlocked or Matas being the next big thing
I agree. The Bulls have long been at the forefront of the “control the media, control the narrative” train, and it still occurs today. Bulls writers are either too sympathetic to the team or are just not smart enough to see what seems obvious - or, blinded by their need to write about something interesting and relevant.
Elias Schuster just wrote about how it’s so confusing seeing what the Bulls are doing. He thought “they must be bad at their job!” Well, they are!!! But they also have different goals than “Winning the most games possible.”
But most of the Chicago writers write the same thing. And, just like politics, people who don’t care but just check in from time to time can be easily manipulated.
Keep “names” on the team, keep referring to Vucevic and LaVine as 2-time All Stars and be flabbergasted that no one wants them, make sure there’s enough talent to keep games close so even though they lose more than they win, at least the in-arena fans had fun.
Elias is basically the only Bulls writer I regularly read outside of Matt of course. I don't always agree with him, but at least he understands that treading the waters of mediocrity is pointless.
I get the feeling that since he writes for a smaller website, he's likely told to write a certain amount of articles a day/week, which results in some of his articles seeming like he's just writing for the sake of it. But overall I think he's generally worth the read.
But I do agree in general. The Bulls' insistence on controlling the narrative for decades now has left us with very few good Bulls writers and basically none of them are on the beat.
I think it takes a lot of self-honesty (or self-hate??) to do what Matt does. He knows what he’s writing about is about à cheap-ass owner who doesn’t care about the fans and à front office that is incompetent at best.
But I don’t think Elias - consciously or not - has that self-awareness. He knows what’s good - to an extent, but not always (he completely overrates how “good” Vucevic is and completely underestimates how bad LaVine’s contract is, especially in the new CBA) - but I don’t think he realizes yet that the team is driven by a greedy owner or by a completely incompetent front office.
I think it would be hard to write 10-20 articles a week if you believed that (which is what he’s doing in-season) I don’t think I could. I think he’s getting there.
Or he knows it, but is either a site directive or a personal decision to write in a more positive “they must have à vision” manner to keep up engagement.
Totally agree. I tend to think he knows it and is either choosing to keep a more positive tone or is being told to by his bosses. He seems to occasionally let things slip that makes me think he knows how bad things are with this team, but it's only every once in a while.
long ago I learned the concept (and think it's true) that online engagement is not driven by negativity, but instead positivity. Just think of 'grandma gets up at 4:30 and walks to her job until she was gifted this car!'
Elias's site is in the business of clicks. I can't hate, I am privileged to not need to do that. But that's why there's so many posts where it's just YOU GOTTA SEE THIS
I don't think that desire to produce more positive content drives his editorializing though. Confusion over what the Bulls are doing is likely more a lack of experienced-driven cynicism than trying to twist positivity
"online engagement is not driven by negativity, but instead positivity."
I wish that was true. I think inspiring anger or fear draws more clicks than positivity. It's why non-sports news headlines are predominantly negative, when, by virtually all measures, things are the best they have ever been almost everywhere.
The grandma posts are just to break up the monotony of constant negativity in the news.
It's true with sports as well... see what happens after an egregious reffing error or bad judging in boxing or mma.
The difference between sports and other news is that sports is voluntary and there's not enough variety to sports to have a steady stream of anger inducing articles without constantly repeating the same thing..
The other type of negativity is depressing. And you are right. That doesn't draw as many eyeballs as positivity. People don't follow sports teams because they want to be depressed. They follow teams because they want to celebrate something.
Think about it this way.
A bad, boring team will have 50 angry posts after every loss.
A good, interesting team will have 500 angry posts after every loss.
The main positivity comes from success. Being positive about an negative situation will capture you a share of a small "market" but only success will make the market bigger.
I don't think they're that diabolical, they do hate press coverage, but they control the message by being so boring it's not worth writing about.
Similarly, LaVine and Vuc do not drive interest 'manipulating' fans into going to the games. Merely playing an NBA game is enough.
these are all not achieved goals, but a missed opportunity.
Disagree with the second statement. You merely stating it doesn’t make it true. I’ve seen enough Bulls and Cubs teams sign mediocre veterans with some “name” to believe they think it matters. And I’ve seen enough articles written about bringing in Trey Mancini or Jevon Carter off of “NBA Championship Bucks” to think writers take their direction and believe it matters, too.
As to the first part, I mean, you’ve written plenty about how the Bulls have hidden news or asked writers to bury stories to know that you can’t even believe that.
I believe they want to suppress coverage but part of that is by being uninteresting not explicitly telling (or buying) media. If they were more relevant that'd be less possible, people would write about the team even if it pissed off ownership because it'd have an audience.
The idea of someone even caring Vuc is a two time all-star...that isn't a fan (even casual), that's AK! They're the ones flabbergasted
lol, I disagree that fans don’t care about star power. The Bulls mention anytime someone does something good for a reason. That’s obvious. Saying someone is à 2-time All-Star is shorthand for saying “This player does good things!” It’s simple marketing.
To be fair, I think the normal casual person is very easily manipulated. And I also think marketing is about manipulating people. And I also wouldn’t be surprised if the Bulls have put more money (or effort anyway) into their marketing analytics than they have into their basketball analytics.
But now I’m getting ridiculously cyclical.
lol, I disagree Vuc and LaVine have star power. Do you think that's reason they aren't traded? They couldn't very easily have PR blast out Coby White's fun hair and making 9 threes?
That scratch down the left side of LaVine's face ups his marketing/star power considerably.
Maybe he'll get back on New Balance ads
In fact Vucevic has anti-star power for me. I don’t care if he shoots 75% from three, I simply will not watch until he’s off the team.
Has there ever been jersey burnings for a player who *isn't* moved?
See I don't think the Reinsdorf's goals for AKME, though certainly not 'win the most games possible' are even that specific otherwise
they don't want to be bothered. They give AKME a budget, and the only instruction is don't embarrass us. That is an extremely low bar, which they are clearing but it's tenuous, and not objectively measured like with attendance figures.
Attendance will always be fine, but it's maxed out right now. If they're not getting any playoff revenue, and the rest of the fanbase (outside of attendees) lets their displeasure continue to be known, that is when it can even potentially make a difference
> I obviously have no way of proving this, but I'd argue that the vast majority of Bulls fans have no idea this team is run by complete idiots or that the team is owned by a guy who would legitimately prefer the team not get deep into the playoffs if it meant he didn't have to think about entering the luxury tax.
I don't want to nitpick about this but my counterpoint: Reinsdorf has been boo'd every single time he's shown his face in his own stadium. They actually do it now when he's spotted in his luxury box on the big screen, and I've been told that they no longer show him for that reason. People know who he is and what he is.
Chuckleheads have blamed this on The Last Dance. Reinsdorf was boo'd not just during the '90s, but even during the championship celebration! In 1997 he was telling people that he carried a copy of the AA "serenity prayer" in his pocket, not because he had a drinking problem but because so many people hated his fucking guts:
https://vault.si.com/vault/1997/06/30/is-jerry-reinsdorf-the-belligerent-union-buster-he-appeared-to-be-during-the-baseball-strike-the-turncoat-who-signed-albert-belle-to-a-55-million-contract-to-play-for-the-white-sox-the-lunatic-who-might-break-up-the-bulls-dynas
I liked this part, which I forgot about:
> Wasn't it Reinsdorf who filed a lawsuit against the NBA in 1990 when the league tried to limit the number of Bulls broadcasts aired over superstation WGN? The suit, which was finally settled last December, cost the league an estimated $10 million in legal fees. Worse, evidence that came out during the case led to the discovery by the NBA players' association that some owners were underreporting revenues that determined the salary cap. "Jerry was looked upon very favorably prior to the WGN lawsuit," says Jerry Colangelo, the owner of the Phoenix Suns. "But the litigation put up a wall, there is no question. He is basically now inactive in the NBA."
Rose night was a reminder of what's possible in the Arena. I wonder if they saw an in-arena revenue bump for that game that could have opened some eyes about the money that they're missing. Or was it not even significant?
So long as they're owned by dead people, I don't think so. As fans we always want owners to take a financial risk because being great is a huge reward, both for us and them. But the Bulls' zombie committee is inherently anti-risk. Without getting into a critique of economic systems, the ownership structure Reinsdorf presides over is uniquely exploitative and small-minded, even in relative terms.
Ahh yes I remember when you wrote about stakes in the Bulls owned by estates rather than actual people, which was insightful. That's about opening pocket books though, and the Bulls don't just need to spend at a higher level, they need an asset acquisition mindset. This could be solved with an injection of competence.
> That's about opening pocket books though
Not quite what I mean. It's not about a margin call among owners (which I think is totally out of the question), but trusts existing for, and thus demanding, constant and regular returns for their beneficiaries.
The skim off the top of Chicago Bulls operating profits, luxury tax payments from big market teams like Milwaukee and rebates from Lonzo's contract is what gets distributed among the zombie corps. Could the Bulls be run differently — better — and still deliver the vig to them? I think that's Matt's argument, maybe yours, but this basic structure seems to make it VERY unlikely the team would ever take on bad contracts for picks, which is one of the most efficient ways to accumulate assets. Maybe not coincidentally, the Bulls never have done this, even when they were in seeming "asset acquisition" mode.
So if we rule that out, what do we get? More scouting, more cagey trades, steps back for steps forward? Or more like a half-ass reload gets replaced by a half-ass rebuild? Similar to Paxson having a team that at least got to the semis every year and cashing it in for 1 first and moving up 7 spots or whatever it was — trying to "build through the draft" having only your own picks (and even missing some of those).
We only have a sample of 2 regimes to draw info from but it doesn't seem a mistake in my mind that the same sleepiness, laziness and self-satisfaction we see now was a hallmark of Later Garpaxica. Is that coincidence or the result of a business watched over by 20 different executives overseeing trusts that don't want to hear about your "vision," just that the check arrives on time and for more than they promised? I don't know but I have my doubts.
yeah that would be pie in the sky thinking for them to recognize they could use their inherent economic advantage to be successful, and likely make more money as a successful team (but not without risk)
instead, they lobby for the league to crack down on such franchises and succeeded
but I'm saying more practically just the step of fire AKME and get new management. There's little downside risk, and relatively not much money required. Heck elevate Billy to president (think of the press conferences!) and hire a cheap coach
I thought I read an article a few years ago that indicated that Reinsdorf has slowly hoovered up many of the minority owners/estates, and that even for those that don't, he effectively holds full control because many of the minority partners are essentially "preferred stock" partners with a cut of the profits but no voting rights.
I can't find any verification about it at the moment though. :\
He's bought out a bunch of White Sox partners, I believe the number of Bulls partners has actually been stable. They are largely the same people (or, uh, what's left of them...) Like Jerry, the original investors seem to have left instructions to their heirs to "sell the White Sox, keep the Bulls."
Maybe the Bears and Chicago NBA Team #2 (fronted by a big money hedge funder) could get together and build a killer, privately-funded combo stadium complex along the lakefront. Hit Reinsdorf everywhere it hurts.
If you build it, they will come.
And another thing: the Bulls attendance is inflated because their home arena has the highest capacity in the league
As a percentage of capacity, the Jazz, Raptors, and Pistons (!) are also drawing very well. Are their fans told to boycott if they want things to improve? Is their fanbase considered uniquely naive?
Firing AKME is work for the owners. AKME trying to tank is a huge risk of embarrassment (fire AKME billboards). The owners will only work if embarrassed.
While I don't know if it's as simple as that, I do think the "Fire GarPax" billboards and the crowd at the UC chanting "fire GarPax" during the All-Star game definitely played their part in changes being made.
I agree with you that it's a level of work, so they won't bother
But firing AKME has no risk of embarrassment either. Nobody is going to come to their defense. Heck, firing Billy is more likely to cause that.
Pacers game thread is up -> https://open.substack.com/chat/posts/babc2210-1ab5-4689-9258-6fb507c27e29
My blood is Boylen.
I think Josh Giddey is our new Patrick Williams. The problem is we also still have Patrick Williams...
Giddey and Pat were both lottery picks who haven't lived up to their hype. Neither have really shown much improvement at all since they came into the league. Both will have a few good games in a row where you go "If he could do this consistently, he'd be really good!", but then they follow that up with a ton of games where they're basically invisible and/or really bad. And worst of all, AK's likely to follow up his overpay of Pat last offseason with an even bigger overpay of Giddey this offseason.
I'm not trying to say Pat is better than Giddey, because he isn't, but at least Pat has some attributes that are in high demand. He's big, fairly athletic, shoots the three well on fairly low attempts, and he's a solid defender. All of those things are pretty highly sought after in the NBA. His problem is he's terrible at everything else. If he could just learn to dribble and become an okay finisher in the paint, he'd pretty much immediately be worth his $18 million a year. The problem is he hasn't shown any ability to improve those things since he came into the league.
Giddey is technically better at the things he does well than Pat is at the things he does well. The problem is the things Giddey does well aren't as useful in the NBA. I grew up idolizing pass-first point guards, so I actually enjoy watching some of what Giddey does, but being a good passer doesn't make you a good NBA player. It's just a nice bonus. He's a terrible shooter and a terrible defender. You're never going to be particularly good in the NBA if you're terrible at those things, especially if you play point guard.
The defense will likely never get better because he's horribly unathletic and I don't think he cares that much on defense. The shooting could theoretically get better, but it's unlikely to until he completely reworks his shot and it seems unlikely that's ever going to happen.
I think Giddey is eventually going to find his home coming off the bench somewhere and I think he'll be solid at it. The problem is that's never going to be in Chicago. He was brought in to be the starting point guard. AK traded his best trade asset for Giddey, so he's going to play him like the "star" he was hoping for when he traded Caruso. He's also likely to pay him like the "star" he's hoping Giddey becomes and then we're going to be stuck with a starting point guard who shouldn't be starting and is making $25 million a year or something ridiculous like that.
Fun times ahead, Bulls fans. Sorry for the rant.
I don't think there's a significant difference between Giddey and THT.
I think Marvin Williams is doing really well for it being his 20th year in the league.
One less difference between Giddey and THT as of today: they both have guaranteed contracts! Happy Contract Guarantee Day, Talen!
"do I get cake to celebrate?" - THT
Quite a team. With Giddey I think everyone knew exactly what was wrong, at least if they were being honest about it. The idea that anyone — Josh Giddey, me — couldn't play with Shai because he was too ball dominant is hilarious in retrospect.
With Patrick, I never would have guessed we'd be saying "He might be a serviceable player if he didn't bounce the ball off his knee and could just hold on to the ball when he dunks."
They're keeping it interesting anyway.
Can the Bulls afford to give Giddey the big contract we're all dreading without going into the luxury tax? The mantra I've read for years is, "Jerry will only go into the tax for a winner" and a winner this team ain't. I know Lonzo is coming off the books this season, but I don't know what the rest of the salary cap situation looks like.
Yeah, I'm not amazing with cap stuff. Lonzo coming off the books obviously opens up a good chunk of change. I have a feeling a lot of that will be determined after the trade deadline is over. If AK can trade some large salaries and bring back expirings (unlikely), then a lot of cap room would be opened up.
But if AK does AK things and we see Torrey Craig get shipped out for a second round pick or two with nothing else happening, I do think the Bulls cap situation will be interesting this offseason.
Quick back-of-the-envelope math:
This year the NBA salary cap is $140, the Bulls have a payroll of $166, the tax threshold is about $171.
Taking for granted some obvious moves (Jevon Carter exercising his option, etc.), the Bulls will be at around $134 million on July 1, before dealing with any of their own FAs. Giddey's cap hold is so large based on his draft position ($25 million) that it renders any talk of cap space pretty moot. But they won't be anywhere near the tax.
Side note, but it's pretty funny to note that the Bulls are way below the apron in comparison to other teams and have a pretty good mix of value contracts and cap ballast and yet aren't, and won't be, in any conversation whatsoever involving the huge salaried players being pushed around. Even in a facilitating role. Coby, Ayo and Vuc, for instance, get you to $40 million easily, at least two of those guys would be undervalued top 8 contributors on any team, two are young and none of their salaries go beyond 2026. But it seems other teams have "priced in" Karnisovas total disinterest and inactivity and agents know that using the Bulls as leverage would strain credulity.
Shoutout to this guy for such a good post. Maybe he saw Matt's articles on how bad this team's young players are. Lots of great data to look.
https://www.reddit.com/r/chicagobulls/comments/1hxr9uv/long_post_development_of_young_players_20242025/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
> They're not trying to trade away all the veterans. That's just stuff dudes say on twitter. No one from the team has said anything like that at any point. I'm extremely annoyed by that at this point. The only thing that makes sense for the team is to keep Lavine, Vuc, and Ball. Stop with this nonsense, it's beyond annoying at this point.
After a brief and brilliant moment, Bulls reddit reclaims its God-given right to be Bulls reddit again.
Yeah, probably should have clarified that some of the comments on the post were idiotic 😂