# Bulls Control The Draft



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

*"The Bulls really control the draft," one general manager said. "We know who the top two guys are (Emeka Okafor and Dwight Howard), so the draft really begins at three. A lot of teams are wondering what they'll do."*

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...olumn,1,7747456.column?coll=cs-home-headlines

_The Bulls get some benefit from losing Fizer, a $3.7 million trade exception that could help facilitate a deal.

They have had talks with several teams, one believed to be Phoenix, about acquiring a second draft pick, perhaps to deal to the Pacers.

Meanwhile, if that No. 7 pick from Phoenix isn't in play, there's a chance the Bulls could move down to Atlanta's Nos. 6 and 17 picks for their No. 3.

A deal like that could get the Bulls a player—many general managers say the talent level doesn't drop that much in this draft from 10 to 20—and a veteran.

It would also put a team like the Pacers in position to address a need, like point guard, with point guards expected to be three of the top five or six selections.

Moving into next season with a veteran starter and a good draft pick would be a coup, though difficult, for general manager John Paxson._

One more thing about Ben Gordon. KC Johnson reports: Add former Bull Steve Kerr to the *growing list* of people touting Gordon's ability to contribute as a rookie. In a column for a national Web site, Kerr compliments Gordon's athleticism, shooting ability, strength and ball-handling skills and compares him to Denver's Carmelo Anthony in terms of first-year impact.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...llbits,1,3828963.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> _The Bulls get some benefit from losing Fizer, a $3.7 million trade exception that could help facilitate a deal._


this could be the key to making a Crawford sign-and-trade work. 

if JC signs a deal for, say, $6.5 to $7.5 million, the Fizer trade exception could be added to half of JC's salary ($3.25 million to $3.75 million) and make a BYC deal work. 

(i'm not saying it _will_, merely that it _could_.)


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: Re: Bulls Control The Draft*



> Originally posted by <b>thunderspirit</b>!
> 
> this could be the key to making a Crawford sign-and-trade work.
> 
> ...


Thats very interesting thunderspirit , I did not know that...

And I really hope it's Boston that is controlling this draft


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> *"The Bulls really control the draft," one general manager said. "We know who the top two guys are (Emeka Okafor and Dwight Howard), so the draft really begins at three. A lot of teams are wondering what they'll do."*
> 
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...olumn,1,7747456.column?coll=cs-home-headlines
> ...


I like what I am reading. If we can get a second pick, trade with indy, things are looking up! I cannot wait for thursday.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...olumn,1,7747456.column?coll=cs-home-headlines
> 
> _The Bulls get some benefit from losing Fizer, a $3.7 million trade exception that could help facilitate a deal._


As far as I know the Bulls never extended a qualifying offer to Fizer, but even if they did, I have never heard of a team getting a trade exception for losing a restricted free agent to whom they had extended a qualifying offer.

Sam Smith is a very lazy sportswriter who repeatedly does not do his homework on this kind of stuff, so I highly doubt that the Bulls get a trade exception for this.

Now if Mike McGraw had written this, I would feel the need to go to Larry **** and others to verify my suspicions. But Sam Smith just is not credible enough on this stuff to make it worth the trouble.

But the teams who had players under contract for 2004-05 who got selected in the expansion draft will get trade exceptions.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

Dan, I remember reading somewhere that you don't get a trade exception if you had a restricted free agent selected, you only get one if the guy selected had a guaranteed contract. Unfortunately I can't drag that post up because searching is disabled, but I know it came from a good source.

The problem is that as usual Sam Smith is writing garbage, you are correct.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

_Meanwhile, if that No. 7 pick from Phoenix isn't in play, there's a chance the Bulls could move down to Atlanta's Nos. 6 and 17 picks for their No. 3._

What if...

Ok, so the Bulls make the trade with Atlanta. What next? Do they trade #6 to Indiana for Harrington Or do they hang on to it in the hopes that Gordon, Childress, Iguodala or Jackson are there for the taking?

And what about #17? It wouldn't surprise me to see the Bulls draft Kris Humphries and trade Chandler for an established perimeter player. 

There are so many possibilities. Pick one!!!


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

Beat me to it NC or Dan. I'd love it if it were true but I don't think it is.

Also, thunderspirit; the CBA does NOT permit what you are suggesting. Dan or NC will remember 2 summers ago in a long drawn out thread about Rashard Lewis and his BYC status that FJ, NC, etc. learned this.

4th pararaph explains that it's not permitted. Even though it doesn't address a BYC player, the principal is the same.
Trade exceptions


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>ArtestFan</b>!
> Dan, I remember reading somewhere that you don't get a trade exception if you had a restricted free agent selected, you only get one if the guy selected had a guaranteed contract. Unfortunately I can't drag that post up because searching is disabled, but I know it came from a good source.
> 
> The problem is that as usual Sam Smith is writing garbage, you are correct.


Here's the rule according to Chad Ford and ESPN Insider:

*If a team has a player selected by the Bobcats, the team receives a trade exception equal to the player's '04/'05 salary. This allows teams to replace a player lost in the expansion draft with another player of comparable salary.*

Now, please don't kill the messenger. But that's Insider's statement, word for word. So if Sam Smith is guilty of not knowing his facts I guess you'll have to charge Ford with the same offense.

I don't know if extending a qualified offer means anything at this point. Fizer was still viewed as a restricted free agent which means that the Bulls had not recinded their rights to him.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

I still don't buy it.

How can a TRADE exception be gained for a player who is NOT ELIGIBLE to be traded? He wasn't under contract for next year. He couldn't by rule be traded under this years contract since it was an ending contract and it's past the trade deadline.

If they made special rules and this is true, then I withdraw my membership in the fire Paxson club immediately. I just joined last night. :laugh:

As usual, sorry for being such a negative poster. Go Bulls.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Regarding "qualified offers"...here's information from Larry ****'s summary:

*In order to make their free agent a restricted free agent, a team must submit a qualifying offer to the player by June 30. The amount of the qualifying offer for players on rookie "scale" contracts is based on the player's draft position (see question number 38 ). The qualifying offer for all other players must be for 125% of the player's previous salary, or the player's minimum salary (see question number 9 ) plus $150,000, whichever is greater. The qualifying offer must be for one season. The team automatically gets an exception in the amount necessary to make this qualifying offer if they are over the salary cap.*

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#38

In other words, it appears the issue of qualifying offers is moot since they don't have to be made until 6/30 anyway.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Here's the rule according to Chad Ford and ESPN Insider:
> ...


The key phrase here is "equal to the player's 04/05 salary." Fizer does not have an 04/05 salary, so the Bulls do not get a trade exception for losing him.

So what Chad Ford says is right, but I am about 99% certain that Sam Smith is wrong. Again, if it was Mike McGraw saying it, I would only be about 75% certain that he was wrong, but Sam Smith has repeatedly not been very careful about these kinds of things.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Dan, Dan, Dan. 

http://www.nba.com/bobcats/news/draft_central_expansion_rules_summary.html

A team with a Team Salary above the Salary Cap will receive a Trade Exception to replace a player (other than a restricted free agent) selected from its unprotected list.


----------



## thunderspirit (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lusty RaRue</b>!
> Beat me to it NC or Dan. I'd love it if it were true but I don't think it is.
> 
> Also, thunderspirit; the CBA does NOT permit what you are suggesting. Dan or NC will remember 2 summers ago in a long drawn out thread about Rashard Lewis and his BYC status that FJ, NC, etc. learned this.
> ...


mea culpa; i'd forgotten that a trade exception can't be used to complete the 115% + 100K rule.

however, in the S&T condition, a player like Jamal _would_ be able to be traded after signing the S&T contract, provided that contract lasted longer than one year.

from everything i've read, including Chad Ford, the Bulls _do_ appear to get a trade exception for the value of Fizer's deal last year, as do the other teams who had a player picked in the expansion draft, if that team was over the cap. (Phoenix, for example, probably doesn't get a trade exception, though they do get White's deal off their cap figure.)


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

*The Bulls also had preliminary talks with several teams about front-line starters.* 

Now if this i s true and TEchn9ne's post at Realgm indicates that the Bulls & Celtics are close to a deal we could possibly see these trades going tdown.

No.3+Tyson+Erob

for PP and 

No.7+JYD
for Al Harrington+No.29

and have Harrington as Tyson's replacement.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> Dan, Dan, Dan.
> 
> http://www.nba.com/bobcats/news/draft_central_expansion_rules_summary.html
> ...


And now I am 100% sure that Sam Smith was wrong. The Bulls do NOT get a trade exception for Fizer.

Thanks, DaBullz.

(Note, however, that Chad Ford was a bit imprecise, but basically right.)


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>unBULLievable</b>!
> *The Bulls also had preliminary talks with several teams about front-line starters.*
> 
> Now if this i s true and TEchn9ne's post at Realgm indicates that the Bulls & Celtics are close to a deal we could possibly see these trades going tdown.
> ...


What would it take to get PHX's 1st round pick? Our unconditional 2005 first round pick? 

A team like Curry, Harrington, PP, Jamal, Kirk should be a playoff team. 

I echo the sentiments of Trueblue..i cant wait until thursday!!

Hopefully, some of you members of the Fire Paxson club will tear up your membership card after draft day.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> What would it take to get PHX's 1st round pick? Our unconditional 2005 first round pick?


I guess so.

But I don't know if Phoenix would do it though.

I think what should happen first is the Paul Pierce trade.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

funny how this "we control the draft" thread turned into a discussion about CBA/expansion draft/Fizer issues...


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> And now I am 100% sure that Sam Smith was wrong. The Bulls do NOT get a trade exception for Fizer.
> ...


Although, since the deadline is not yet passed, maybe we should extend the qualifying offer to Marcus now! 

Sure would have been nice to get the exception, but I think *Dan!* is right. Fact is, had we extended the QO, Charlotte would not have picked Marcus. The fact that we didn't extend it before the expansion draft means we've lost the right to do so.

This is simply a case of *not* having our cake *or* eating it too.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Oh, and I just noticed one other thing. Fizer's 03/04 salary (not his 04/05 qualifying offer) is $3.7 million. Sam Smith certainly cemented his reputation as one of the laziest and most careless sportswriters anywhere. It is a shame too, because he has some talent. He could be so much better.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> Oh, and I just noticed one other thing. Fizer's 03/04 salary (not his 04/05 qualifying offer) is $3.7 million. Sam Smith certainly cemented his reputation as one of the laziest and most careless sportswriters anywhere. It is a shame too, because he has some talent. He could be so much better.


Thats for sure, I caught that the moment I read his article and I knew it was wrong. Heck, I don't even get paid to write, it seems like at least he could fact check himself occasionally.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

LLOL..u folks kill me..ya'll swear marcus fizer is a savior or some ****.

he was a joke #4 pick...he never fit on this team to begin with....he does NOTHING for this team...stop crying over that b.s

it's a shame chicago bulls fans expectations got SO LOW that signing marcus fizer is a MUST

LOL


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I don't know where you got that impression, Chi_Lunatic. I don't see that on this thread...judt questions about whether we get anything at all in return, and it looks like we don't.

BTW, I e-mailed Sam Smith and asked him for the basis of his statement that we'd get a 3.7M exception for Marcus, a RFA.

I'll let you know how he answers.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> I don't know where you got that impression, Chi_Lunatic. I don't see that on this thread...judt questions about whether we get anything at all in return, and it looks like we don't.
> 
> BTW, I e-mailed Sam Smith and asked him for the basis of his statement that we'd get a 3.7M exception for Marcus, a RFA.
> ...


i'm not talkin about u..i'm talking about alot of posters on here in general..believe for some strange reason we shoulda resigned marcus fizer when he's dun NOTHING for this team since he's been here..


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> And now I am 100% sure that Sam Smith was wrong.


No Way! :grinning: 

I respected him when I was in Junior High til I saw the light. He's just throws out crazy, improbable stupid ideas. When has a Sam Smith idea come true? Does he have any contacts, insider info that he can spit into the rumor mill?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> And now I am 100% sure that Sam Smith was wrong. The Bulls do NOT get a trade exception for Fizer.
> ...


What date did/does Fizer become an RFA? Don't we have to give him a qualifying offer for him to become an RFA?

If he's NOT an RFA until, say, June 30, then why don't we get the exception?

It's confusing to me, I can see why you may be right or Smith might be right.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> What date did/does Fizer become an RFA? Don't we have to give him a qualifying offer for him to become an RFA?
> 
> If he's NOT an RFA until, say, June 30, then why don't we get the exception?
> ...


I threw out the qualifying option scenario as one farfetched way in which a trade exception might have made sense. But even if we had extended a qualifying offer, I don't think we would have gotten a trade exception. The League does not go out of its way finding ways to allow teams to increase their team salaries.

The rule you quoted from NBA.com hit the nail on the head.
http://www.nba.com/bobcats/news/draft_central_expansion_rules_summary.html

"A team with a Team Salary above the Salary Cap will receive a Trade Exception to replace a player (other than a restricted free agent) selected from its unprotected list."

The only way in which Fizer is not a restricted free agent is if the Bulls chose to not make him a qualifying offer. In that case there surely would be no trade exception, because there would be no salary to replace.

This is a technicality that Sam Smith might not have known, but as someone writing for a paper with a huge circulation like the Tribune, it speaks volumes about Smith that he does not care enough to get on the phone to call someone to find out the facts.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> What date did/does Fizer become an RFA? Don't we have to give him a qualifying offer for him to become an RFA?
> ...


#34 
In order to make their free agent a restricted free agent, a team must submit a qualifying offer to the player by June 30.

Edit:
Here's what Larry **** says: "If a team loses a player to Charlotte, they will recieve a trade exception equivalent to the selected players salary." #93

He needs to clear this up. It's too general unless it really does cover ALL players.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> I threw out the qualifying option scenario as one farfetched way in which a trade exception might have made sense. But even if we had extended a qualifying offer, I don't think we would have gotten a trade exception. The League does not go out of its way finding ways to allow teams to increase their team salaries.
> 
> The rule you quoted from NBA.com hit the nail on the head.
> ...


I'm not sure you have it right.

Fact: Fizer was unprotected by the Bulls, not a FA, when the Bobcats drafted him.

Fact: The Bulls did not make a QO, so Fizer was not an RFA

Fact: Bulls lost Fizer to the draft, he was NOT an RFA (not offered QO), so the bulls ARE entitled to the trade exemption. 

Is it fact the Bulls are over the cap? If not, they are NOT entitled to the trade exemption.

Interestingly, the trade exemption Smith claims happens to be exactly Fizer's salary for last year, which probably counts for the Bulls until June 30.

Again:

"A team with a Team Salary above the Salary Cap will receive a Trade Exception to replace a player (other than a restricted free agent) selected from its unprotected list."

Since Fizer is NOT a restricted FA, and he was chosen from the Bulls' unprotected list, it sure looks to me like we're due the exception. How could the bulls choose to protect him or leave him unprotected, either way, if he's a UFA?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you have it right.
> ...


During the expansion draft they referred to Fizer as an RFA. I think that the matter of the date he officially becomes an RFA is only a mere technicality. The Bulls won't be getting an exception.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> The only way in which Fizer is not a restricted free agent is if the Bulls chose to not make him a qualifying offer. In that case there surely would be no trade exception, because there would be no salary to replace.


I am nearly 100% certain that Fizer is considered an RFA. His status would have changed from an RFA to a UFA * IF* the Bulls had not made the QO by the end of the month. 

It's moot now. He is an UFA and we have an additional restriction that we can't sign him.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> I'm not sure you have it right.
> 
> Fact: Fizer was unprotected by the Bulls, not a FA, when the Bobcats drafted him.


I suppose it could be incorrect, but the simple interpretation of what's going on is that for purposes of the expansion draft, an RFA is any player that was due to be an RFA, whether a QO had yet been made or not.

Basically, any player with an expiring contract and 4 or fewer seasons of experience, under this understanding, would be an RFA, whether their QO had yet been picked up or not.

Although this isn't spelled out anywhere I can see, to do it any differently would turn the expansion draft rules on their head. For example, if that were the case, it would seem to mean that the Bobcats, by assuming the contract (that's what they have to be doing, in the technical sense) of a guy like Fizer, would have the option to extend him the QO themselves, and thus keep him around for a year or hold an right of first refusal over him themselves. 

I've heard nothing that suggested that was a possibility regarding any of these "RFAs to be". And you would think that it's the kind of thing that would be mentioned by someone.

Thus, I think the only real solution is a blanket rule that modifies all player contracts of those players that are selected in the Exp Draft but have ending deals and 4 years or less of tenure. Otherwise, we'd be seeing discussion on other fronts.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

#34 

"In order to make their free agent a restricted free agent, a team must submit a qualifying offer to the player by June 30."


=========================== 

"If a team loses a player to Charlotte, they will recieve a trade exception equivalent to the selected players salary." 

#93


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> http://www.nba.com/news/Free_Agents-109163-571.html
> 
> The following players are eligible to become free agents <B>as of July 1, 2004</B>:
> 
> Marcus Fizer Chicago Restricted


July 1 is 8 days from today, as I write this. As near as I can tell, those with RFA status for purposes of being exlcuded from the exception would have been made QOs before the season, or before the draft.

Fizer is in sort of a limbo status. He's technically under his current contract until July 1. Technically the Bulls could have made him a QO before the draft and made him an RFA, but didn't. He's not a UFA, either, because the Bulls had to either protect or unprotect him for the draft.

I hate arguing that Paxson actually got us $3.7M to use for cap purposes, but it is the way things look to me.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

Dan(NC) could you use some of your contacts(Larry **** etc.) to clear this up? The **** reference in #93 seems to cover all players but I'm still skeptical.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lusty RaRue</b>!
> Dan(NC) could you use some of your contacts(Larry **** etc.) to clear this up? The **** reference in #93 seems to cover all players but I'm still skeptical.


I have one more question to be cleared up.

Can the Cats make a QO to Fizer before June 30 and keep him as a RFA for one year?

It seems to me they CAN, along the same lines as they get bird rights.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> I have one more question to be cleared up.
> ...


Actually, it seems better than that. *We* would have had to extend the (too large for Fizer's worth) QO in order to retain his Bird rights, but Charlotte has them w/o the QO. They can go $1 over any bidder and retain his services. The drawback is that Mr. Fizer, Sr. also has the option to sign reject Charlotte's offer. This is an option he didn't have as an RFA.

Regardless, looking at the expansion draft and the way Charlotte seems to be running their affairs, there's no way in hell Bickerstaff is going to offer more than a million and a half for the services of Mr. Fizer. Fizer can likely get more elsewhere, and will probably never play a minute for Charlotte.

Here, also, is the real answer to the question of Fizer's value. What will he sign for? This is a true market now, with no one having any leverage on this UFA. Will he get the $4.5 million the Bull would have had to offer? I think there's very little chance of that.

Likely he'll sign for $2 million or less.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Actually, it seems better than that. *We* would have had to extend the (too large for Fizer's worth) QO in order to retain his Bird rights, but Charlotte has them w/o the QO. They can go $1 over any bidder and retain his services. The drawback is that Mr. Fizer, Sr. also has the option to sign reject Charlotte's offer. This is an option he didn't have as an RFA.
> ...


I think you may be absolutely correct, even if you're lying about being under the bed waiting for the sexy day nurse to show up.

Though there is one team that would be an ideal fit for Fizer who might bid up his price. That'd be the Lakers.


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

Hoopshype agrees. They make mistakes though.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> I think you may be absolutely correct, even if you're lying about being under the bed waiting for the sexy day nurse to show up.


I knew that confession would come back to haunt me! 



> Though there is one team that would be an ideal fit for Fizer who might bid up his price. That'd be the Lakers.


Hard to tell what would be a good fit for the Laker right now. All we know for certain is that Payton is coming back. Given his disappearing act in the finals, I'm not sure that's a good thing. Mitch Kupchak is definitely going to have a busy off-season with Shaq's demands, finding a coach, and hoping Kobe avoids prison.

I'm not sure how Fizer would be a help there, except that I think anyone would be better than Mark Madsen.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lusty RaRue</b>!
> Hoopshype agrees. They make mistakes though.


It's hard to tell what that table means, though, *Sicky!* Are they saying that Charlotte would have to make a QO? The expansion rules are pretty clear about the fact that any RFA selected by the Bobcat immediately becomes UFA.

All this because Sam Smith can't do his own homework!

Ugh!

He's probably reading the board right now to see if we can come up with a definitive answer to this question for him.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> Hard to tell what would be a good fit for the Laker right now. All we know for certain is that Payton is coming back. Given his disappearing act in the finals, I'm not sure that's a good thing. Mitch Kupchak is definitely going to have a busy off-season with Shaq's demands, finding a coach, and hoping Kobe avoids prison.
> 
> I'm not sure how Fizer would be a help there, except that I think anyone would be better than Mark Madsen.


I make the following assumptions:
1) Payton did not fit the triangle, or like it. 
2) Rudy T, or whoever is hired to coach won't run the triangle
3) A young PF who can put up 40+ double doubles a season would be a terrific addition for the Lakers.
4) The Lakers would be willing to let Fizer get healthy because they don't have many better alternatives.
5) Fizer would complement Shaq quite well.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> It's hard to tell what that table means, though, *Sicky!* Are they saying that Charlotte would have to make a QO? The expansion rules are pretty clear about the fact that any RFA selected by the Bobcat immediately becomes UFA.


What's not clear is whether Fizer was a RFA at the time he was drafted.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

I am not sure how Larry **** is going to be very helpful here. He is just another guy like me interpreting what is out there. And the rules at NBA.com clearly state that trade exceptions are not handed out for restricted free agents selected in the expansion draft.

Another way to think about this is the way ABull at RealGM explains it. We _are_ getting a trade exception for Fizer for the amount we were obligated to pay him in 2004-05 - $0.

And according to NBA.com (who should know), Fizer was a restricted free agent and now is an unrestricted free agent.

http://www.nba.com/features/expansion_draft2004.html

This really isn't all that hard, so I do not understand why folks are making this WAY more difficult than it needs to be.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> I make the following assumptions:
> 
> ...


Am willing to stipulate the above.



> 3) A young PF who can put up 40+ double doubles a season would be a terrific addition for the Lakers.


I'd stipulate the above, but the underlying implication is that Mr. Fizer Sr. is that PF. I'm not sure where to find a log of all of his career games, but I did find this at NBA.com:

_"(Fizer) Scored 20+ points 17 times, with 10+ rebounds on 22 occasions in four-year NBA career"_

Even if he paired each of his 22 double-digit rebounding nights with double digit scoring, that's still only 22 double-doubles in four years. I'll grant you injury, and I'll grant you player development. I think assuming 40 double-doubles out of Mr. Fizer Sr. is a huge leap. Especially given that in each of the last three seasons fewer than 10 players have accomplished this feat.



> 4) The Lakers would be willing to let Fizer get healthy because they don't have many better alternatives.


Stipulated



> 5) Fizer would compliment Shaq quite well.


If by "compliment" you mean "Shaq, you really have pretty hair", then I'll agree. If you mean they will play well together, I disagree. They'd be bumping asses all season long in the paint. Only time they wouldn't be is when Marcus does his patented "look at the basket for 10 seconds, swing the ball above his head two or three times in a row and then charge or drop the ball" move.

I generally respect your views, and as much as it pains me, you are right more than just about anyone else on this board (pains me because your views are generally not good for the Bull). I just wonder why your so enamoured of this guy who has shown so little as a Bull.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Wynn,

Two seasons ago, people ragged on Fizer for being one-dimensional and not using his fat arse to grab boards. And then he became a contender for 6th man award because he WAS grabbing rebounds, and scoring double digits.

A key thing is whether Fizer's healthy, of course. If he can recover from his injuries, and returns to form, AND gets minutes (he was buried behind first Brand and then Chandler), he'll be a regular double double guy.

In January, two seasons ago, he averaged 14.3 PPG and 6.1 reb in just 24 minutes/game. In December, he averaged 13.1 PPG and 6.8 rebounds in 23.1 minutes. Not only that, he was a high % shooter and could be counted on regularly to score.

For the month of April, this past season, after Skiles gave him a chance, he averaged 13.2/9.7 (for the month). He put up monster games of 30 pts/20 rebounds and 21 pts/16 rebounds.

Shortly after Skiles took over, he played Fizer 30+ minutes 3 games in a row (2 wins, 1 loss). 19/5 (30 mins), 15/15 (37 mins), and 10/11 (30 mins). These were his only 30 minute games until the end of the season (he had 30 on 3/27 and 47+44 in the final two games).

Heck, even for the season, he was 7.8/4.4 in just 16 minutes/game (close to double double <B>average</B> per 32 minutes).

On any team where he's healthy and given 36+ minutes/game, he's going to put up a LOT of double doubles.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

I had any doubt regarding Fizer's skill to produce offensively given enough playing time. He proved that two seasons ago very strongly up until he blew his knee. But Still that doesn't mean I like his style of basketball.

Everything about his offensive game is awkward. Effective when he was healthy, yet still very raw. More than anything what I don't like about his game was the fact that once he got the ball, that ball was never coming back. He touches the ball, he shoot the ball no matter what. So when he was healthy, he was putting up good numbers. But there was no team offense whatsoever while he was on the floor.

So it was more of whether his style of game was fit to the Bulls style rather than his talent per se.

I am sure that he is going to fit into someone else's system and produce, but clearly he and Bulls weren't right fit. The only thing I am pissed is the fact we are going to waste 4th pick for nothing, but even so I can't totally blame it on Paxon when clearly nobody want to buy him when Paxon tried.

So, so long Fizer.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> Heck, even for the season, he was 7.8/4.4 in just 16 minutes/game (close to double double <B>average</B> per 32 minutes).


That was before 2 knee surguries. 

And you have to consider he was giving up about 8.9/5.6 in just 16 minutes/game (better than a double double <B>average</B> per 32 minutes).


----------



## Lusty RaRue (Sep 9, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> I am not sure how Larry **** is going to be very helpful here. He is just another guy like me interpreting what is out there. And the rules at NBA.com clearly state that trade exceptions are not handed out for restricted free agents selected in the expansion draft.
> 
> Another way to think about this is the way ABull at RealGM explains it. We _are_ getting a trade exception for Fizer for the amount we were obligated to pay him in 2004-05 - $0.
> ...


Well then that "guy" needs to explain how MF became a RFA WITHOUT a QO being offered. At present his CBA FAQ's clearly say that a QO offer is necessary to MAKE a teams FA restricted. Nothing passive about it, the ACT of making the offer is required. No offer -> no restriction of free agency, no restriction of free agency then there is a trade exception.

By definition, can a player under contract be a FA of any type? I don't think so. It seems to me that midnight June 30 is when a player changes from being under contract to becoming a free agent. If a QO was made he becomes restricted, if not then he's unrestricted. In either case he's not a FA(of either type) before then. He may be on the path to becoming one but he isn't one(yet).

#17

#34

(1st sentence of 4th paragraph)

==========================

Furthermore; regarding Sam Smith using $3.7 mil.(salary of 2003/2004) instead of $4.9 mil. QO for 2004/2005, I think that IF there is a trade exception that he used the correct amount. Any trade done now uses 2003/2004 figures, so why shouldn't this "trade"?

===========================
I think the league should have said that players SCHEDULED to potentially become RFA's would be eligible to be drafted/"traded", instead of calling them RFA's prematurely.

It appears to me that the league made a special provision that permits otherwise untradeable players "tradeable"(by virtue of being drafted) for the expansion draft. 

MF wasn't eligible to be traded under normal rules and that's why I thought Smith to be wrong. I now am inclined to believe him.

Thank you for your input.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The answer can be found by calling the Bulls tomorrow between 9 and 5 CST at 312.455.4000


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> The Bulls, according to several league insiders, appear to be trying. They have had talks with several teams, one believed to be Phoenix, about acquiring a second draft pick, perhaps to deal to the Pacers.


Well I'm eating crow. He reported this right. and I guess they are dealing with the Pacers or using that as leverage for dealing for PP.


----------

