# Dalembert stays for 75mil.; Sets market value for Chandler



## C3Dreaming (Apr 18, 2003)

http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_a...dalembert_to_re_sign_for_$75_million_dollars/

Too much, but hard to argue that Chandler is not worth the same. Waiting for the market to set value has risks and in this case I think we got hurt.

I would have expected Chander to get around 60mil over six years. He will get a bit more now!


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*

omg 75?? for dalembert?? chandler is going to get the max. or at least 75mil. i agree the bulls hurt them themselves by letting the market set their values. chandler could have been had for 65mil.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*

Dalembert, 8 pts 8 rebounds over 1.5 blocks last year. 

Wow. 

Well we know what Chandler will get. 

Chandler 8 pts 9.7 boards and slightly more blocks than Dalembert. His shooting pct is lower. He may get more!


----------



## Coatesvillain (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*

Paxson's a better GM than King, so we'll see what happens.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*



truebluefan said:


> Dalembert, 8 pts 8 rebounds over 1.5 blocks last year.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> ...



Makes me wonder how much we can realistically be setting ourselves up for big '06 caproom.


----------



## thekid (Apr 3, 2003)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*

Wow. Chandler is going to get paid.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*



jnrjr79 said:


> Makes me wonder how much we can realistically be setting ourselves up for big '06 caproom.


 If we resign Curry and Chandler for a combined 20 million each (and it's definitely going to be around that number, likely more), we'll still have around 20 million in cap room. All we need is around twelve million to offer someone the max-- not that there's anyone to offer the max to next year.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*



rwj333 said:


> If we resign Curry and Chandler for a combined 20 million each (and it's definitely going to be around that number, likely more), we'll still have around 20 million in cap room. All we need is around twelve million to offer someone the max-- not that there's anyone to offer the max to next year.


Exactly. No one seems worth the Max next year. I rather use the cap room we will have, by trading our expiring contracts for a star if possible. Lets not bother with the Free Agency market.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*

with Dalembert signing, that's one less big man for Atlanta to throw money at.....

the remaining 2? 

Tyson & Eddy..

one will get a big offer from the Hawks esp. with the reduced to 7 day matching RFA period.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*

Once again proving my point that young skilled big men get big paydays and so should the Bulls free agents...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*

I know that in Pax's mind "market value" for Chandler and Curry equals what another team is willing to pay them, but in my mind, this Dalembert deal, if confirmed, is pretty much going to be the benchmark for Chandler.

You can argue about who has the better upside -- I think Dalembert's a slightly better offensive player on the basis of his hands, but that Chandler's a more-than-slightly better defender and rebounder. Chandler is becoming an elite team defender, and best of all, a player who excels when the game is on the line.

This is a great example of how it would have actually been a good idea for Paxson to follow through on his "proactive" bluster. It seems to me that he could have wrapped Tyson up with a 6 year/60-70 million offer made at 12:01 on the first day of free agency. That's not going to happen now, not without pulling teeth and public rancor and brinksmanship -- as reported yesterday by Chad Ford, Tyson is perfectly willing to play for the qualifying offer this year and fly the coop next summer.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*



ScottMay said:


> This is a great example of how it would have actually been a good idea for Paxson to follow through on his "proactive" bluster. It seems to me that he could have wrapped Tyson up with a 6 year/60-70 million offer made at 12:01 on the first day of free agency. That's not going to happen now, not without pulling teeth and public rancor and brinksmanship -- *as reported yesterday by Chad Ford, Tyson is perfectly willing to play for the qualifying offer this year and fly the coop next summer.*


Come on, Scott. Chad Ford did not report that "Tyson is perfectly willing to play for the qualifying offer". I'm not saying Chandler wouldn't do it, but lets not make it sound like its a position he's already taken.

The deal you are saying Paxson didn't make isn't that much below the rumored deal that Dalembert got. Public rancor and brinksmanship? The high end of the deal you are talking about ($70 mil) is exactly the same as the low end of the rumored Dalembert deal. Now, if you were saying the Bulls could have gotten him for $40 million, then you'd have something.

Bottom line is, another team still has to offer Tyson a $70-75 million deal for the rumored Dalembert deal to actually "set the market". 

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that Tyson would play for the QO if offered a $65-70 million deal. 

Anyway, I don't have any problem with the Bulls paying Chandler the equivalent of the Dalembert deal. I'll agree with you, Scott, that if Chandler does take the position you suspect, and if the Bulls don't pony up, I'll be disappointed. 

Chandler must be retained.

EDIT: It should also be noted that this Dalembert rumor comes from a guy at realgm named Dan Fox (admittedly, though, realgm broke the KT for Q trade). It is a rumor in its infancy.


----------



## hirschmanz (Jun 3, 2005)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*

This makes the Gadzuric deal look like a steal. :banana:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*



Ron Cey said:


> Come on, Scott. Chad Ford did not report that "Tyson is perfectly willing to play for the qualifying offer". I'm not saying Chandler wouldn't do it, but lets not make it sound like its a position he's already taken.


Here is the quote from Ford. Hopefully it's short enough to not warrant removal:



> Meanwhile, Chandler continues to wait for the Bulls to make a big offer. He is hoping that Dalembert will cut a lucrative deal, setting the market. As it stands right now, both remain in limbo.
> 
> If the Bulls' offer does not rise significantly this summer, look for Chandler to sign his one-year tender offer and become an unrestricted free agent next summer.





> The deal you are saying Paxson didn't make isn't that much below the rumored deal that Dalembert got. Public rancor and brinksmanship? The high end of the deal you are talking about ($70 mil) is exactly the same as the low end of the rumored Dalembert deal. Now, if you were saying the Bulls could have gotten him for $40 million, then you'd have something.


Well, that $10 million dollar difference is meaningful in an absolute sense -- you, the champion of Cap Space, should realize that. And what if Chandler decides to use Dalembert's deal as a lowpoint for his deal (not an unreasonable position for him to take), not a midpoint? 



> Bottom line is, another team still has to offer Tyson a $70-75 million deal for the rumored Dalembert deal to actually "set the market".


I disagree with this -- it's a disingenuous stance at best, given that the "market" for restricted free agents is hardly a free one, and it doesn't really take into account what Tyson's thoughts on the matter might be. 

No other team offered Dalembert $75 million dollars. Philadelphia gave him that contract of their own free will. Tyson is at worst an equivalent player to Dalembert, and there is nothing contractual or financial preventing the Bulls from offering Tyson the same deal, or more. That's how Tyson's going to see it.



> I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing that Tyson would play for the QO if offered a $65-70 million deal.


It really depends on what the Bulls offer him. If they lead with a lowball, I think Tyson's just confident and dumb enough to do it. His health issues have always been completely overblown, and he knows that there's almost assuredly an $80-90 million payday at the end of the rainbow.

All I'm saying is that if Paxson had walked the "proactive" talk, he likely could have had Tyson under wraps with an offer that now, following this Dalembert deal, Tyson will view as borderline insulting.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*



> Here is the quote from Ford. Hopefully it's short enough to not warrant removal:


I know what the quote was. I'm glad you posted. It most certainly is not something that is attributed to Tyson Chandler or anyone affiliated with him. It is Chad Ford saying that we should "look to" it. A throw away comment, like many of Ford's statements. 

My point is simply that you misrepresented, unintentionally I would think, what Ford reported by saying that "Tyson is perfectly willing to . . ." Because that has never been reported.



> Well, that $10 million dollar difference is meaningful in an absolute sense -- you, the champion of Cap Space, should realize that. And what if Chandler decides to use Dalembert's deal as a lowpoint for his deal (not an unreasonable position for him to take), not a midpoint?


Oh, I agree with that. I still firmly believe that all of our players need to be signed to the minimum possible deal. If you are right, then that most certainly is a mistake on Paxson's part. I would totally agree with that.

I was trying to focus more on the "public rancor and brinksmanship" part of the contract disparity. 



> I disagree with this -- it's a disingenuous stance at best, given that the "market" for restricted free agents is hardly a free one, and it doesn't really take into account what Tyson's thoughts on the matter might be.


Well, I think this argument is a semantic one. To me, when it comes to restricted free agents, the competing offer for that particular player sets the market. That is how I, personally, define the phrase.



> No other team offered Dalembert $75 million dollars. Philadelphia gave him that contract of their own free will. Tyson is at worst an equivalent player to Dalembert, and there is nothing contractual or financial preventing the Bulls from offering Tyson the same deal, or more. That's how Tyson's going to see it.


Lets be clear, we don't know if Philly even made that offer or what other offers may have been made to Dalembert informally. As for how Tyson "sees it", I can't really speak to that and neither can you. 

Haslem took a reported $10 million less to stay in Miami rather than go to Cleveland. Who knows, at this point, what a player's thought process is?



> It really depends on what the Bulls offer him. If they lead with a lowball, I think Tyson's just confident and dumb enough to do it. His health issues have always been completely overblown, and he knows that there's almost assuredly an $80-90 million payday at the end of the rainbow.
> 
> All I'm saying is that if Paxson had walked the "proactive" talk, he likely could have had Tyson under wraps with an offer that now, following this Dalembert deal, Tyson will view as borderline insulting.


Maybe. There is no way to know. And for now, I don't think we should be talking in absolutes about Dalembert's "deal". Again, as with most things debated on here, I think we need to wait and see how all this plays out before we start judging the effectiveness of the strategy.

Certainly, Paxson's plans still have plenty of time to backfire.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Chad Ford must live in a vaccuum. He never talks to players or agents or owners or GMs or coaches face to face. He never talks to anyone on the phone.

So when he says "look for chandler to sign the QO" it must be something he made up out of thin air.

END SARCASM


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

Chandler: $66M/6 yrs
Curry: $60M/6 yrs with team option 3rd,4th,and 5th year. 
Marshal $28M/5yrs.

We are set with our big men.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Chad Ford must live in a vaccuum. He never talks to players or agents or owners or GMs or coaches face to face. He never talks to anyone on the phone.
> 
> So when he says "look for chandler to sign the QO" it must be something he made up out of thin air.
> 
> END SARCASM


Yup. Here's another fabrication from that same article:



> While Paxson maintains that the team wants to re-sign Curry, the GMs Insider spoke with all believe the Bulls are posturing. The Bulls don't want him back if he's going to command a big salary and are hoping that they can work out a sign-and-trade that gets them something back in return.


I'm not an expert on either the NBA or the English language, but I have to say that "hoping" is not a verb I normally associate with things "proactive."


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I'm not an expert on either the NBA or the English language, but I have to say that "hoping" is not a verb I normally associate with things "proactive."


Looks like the obvious, regarding Curry.

I see three possibilities:
1) The bulls hope he's OK and want him to play for them for years
2) The bulls talked down his value to get him on the cheap
3) The bulls truly want no part of him, but want to maximize the loss through an S&T.

To be honest, it looks to me like Curry's career is through. The fourth option. Some team may want to take a flyer on him, but without the insurance policy, it'll be the owner himself doing the insurance. Could be costly.

We're not talking about bad wheels here. If Curry couldn't fulfill his end of a new contract, it could be for the worst possible reason. That's some kind of guilt for a GM or owner to carry around.

The good news is that if Pax can pull of an S&T, there's plenty more Frank Williams and Piatkowski types out there we can get back.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

It's all still just a rumor (supposedly started by the NY Post at that).

King is an idiot if he does this. The Sixers are going nowhere fast.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Chad Ford must live in a vaccuum. He never talks to players or agents or owners or GMs or coaches face to face. He never talks to anyone on the phone.
> 
> So when he says "look for chandler to sign the QO" it must be something he made up out of thin air.
> 
> END SARCASM


Chad Ford also infuses his own opinions and predictions into his articles. I very clearly said that this is something Chandler could do. He may very will consider it an option. I'm not discounting it as a possibility.

But if Scott, or anyone esle, is going to post a reference to an article and represent that it said "X", then make sure it says "X" and not "Y".

I'm not trying to beat up on Scott or anything, DaBullz. In fact, I think I was pretty darn polite about it and acknowledged that he probably misrepresented it unintentionally. I'm just trying to make sure we are dealing in accurate information, not inaccuracies. 

Thats fair, isn't it? I would think you would agree that its fair.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Yup. Here's another fabrication from that same article:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not an expert on either the NBA or the English language, but I have to say that "hoping" is not a verb I normally associate with things "proactive."


Hey look. I'm trying to be nice about all this. I didn't say that Chad Ford fabricated anything, I said that your summary of the article was inaccurate, which it was. 

Whats the big deal? Why are you guys getting all hot and bothered just because I clarified the contents of Chad Ford's article?

I don't get you guys sometimes.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Looks like the obvious, regarding Curry.
> 
> I see three possibilities:
> 1) The bulls hope he's OK and want him to play for them for years
> ...


Is there anything theoretically that would prevent Curry from purchasing his own insurance on his health, with the beneficiary being the team? For instance, could he insure himself for, say, $2 million per year on a $12 million salary? So basically, Curry puts up his own money in order to drive his market value up, figuring his increased salary would more than offset him paying the insurance out of his own pocket. It would be an interesting statement of confidence in his own physical condition, to be sure, but I'm not sure if that's feasible.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Chad Ford also infuses his own opinions and predictions into his articles. I very clearly said that this is something Chandler could do. He may very will consider it an option. I'm not discounting it as a possibility.
> 
> But if Scott, or anyone esle, is going to post a reference to an article and represent that it said "X", then make sure it says "X" and not "Y".
> 
> ...


What did I say that was inaccurate?

Me: " . . . as reported yesterday by Chad Ford, Tyson is perfectly willing to play for the qualifying offer this year and fly the coop next summer."

Chad Ford: "If the Bulls' offer does not rise significantly this summer, look for Chandler to sign his one-year tender offer and become an unrestricted free agent next summer."

Do you split those hairs with the help of a microscope?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Chad Ford also infuses his own opinions and predictions into his articles. I very clearly said that this is something Chandler could do. He may very will consider it an option. I'm not discounting it as a possibility.
> 
> But if Scott, or anyone esle, is going to post a reference to an article and represent that it said "X", then make sure it says "X" and not "Y".
> 
> ...


On a broad scale, guys like Ford actually do know more than we do. If these things influence his opinions, his opinions should carry a lot more weight than yours or mine or ScottMay's.

On a narrow scale, I would suggest that Dan Rosenbaum knows more about statistics, economics, and many other facets of the NBA that require a lot of study.

As for what Ford wrote, I think it's the obvious. Look for Chandler to sign the QO unless Paxson offers him a deal he wants. Judging from what is going on, Paxson isn't close to offering him a deal he wants (he hasn't offered anything, in fact). It can't get any more basic and stupid-simple than that.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

1. Why does anyone think that Chandler is worth anything less than $75 mil? Who says that he would have taken a 6-year $60 mil contract?

Philly was pretty smart in setting their price that high, and making it public early. Chandler wouldn't have to take or turn down anything if he was offered anything right now; even if they DID offer 6-year $60 million, a deal can't be signed right now anyway, and he could have sat on his hands this entire time, waiting for the market to be set by Sam D.

2. Chad Ford usually tries to qualify, or overqualify, everything he says. "A GM Insider confirmed", etc. etc. The language of "look for Tyson to sign the QO" is pretty speculative-sounding, to me. It's something where his credibility wouldn't be too tarnished if it didn't happen. 

It may sound like mincing words, but journalists are always careful like that, especially when reporting rumors.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I would keep in mind that RealGM reported this as merely an "internet rumor", which means it may or may not be true. Personally, I'm waiting for a more reliable source to break this story. 

But if it's true, then this is one of the worst instances of overpaying for a center that I've ever seen. This is practically the max for a guy that's never averaging double figures in anything; rebounds or points. In other words, a role player. I'd be sick to my stomach if I'm a Sixers fan.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Is there anything theoretically that would prevent Curry from purchasing his own insurance on his health, with the beneficiary being the team? For instance, could he insure himself for, say, $2 million per year on a $12 million salary? So basically, Curry puts up his own money in order to drive his market value up, figuring his increased salary would more than offset him paying the insurance out of his own pocket. It would be an interesting statement of confidence in his own physical condition, to be sure, but I'm not sure if that's feasible.


I think the team is exploring all the insurance options. If they can't buy it, then Curry can't on his own.

Curry may as well just sign for a significant bargain to entice a team to sign him. The risk is still there.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

My favorite example of sports journalism, from our favorite NY reporter:



> 1999: The Knicks take 7-foot-3 French star Frederic Weis with the No. 15 pick, the funniest pick of the last five years. Bonjour, Latrell! Bonjour, Marcus! Flustered by the pick, Johnson swings it to a startled Vecsey, who's completely out of info. Vecsey makes up a "Steve Smith for Isaiah Rider" trade rumor on the spot.


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/050628&num=0


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> What did I say that was inaccurate?
> 
> Me: " . . . as reported yesterday by Chad Ford, Tyson is perfectly willing to play for the qualifying offer this year and fly the coop next summer."
> 
> ...


"Look for" is clearly a prediction for something that could happen in the future.

"Perfectly willing to" is a statement of a presently existing state of mind. This is not hair splitting. You are obviously a bright man with an excellent command of the English language. Personally, I think you can appreciate the difference. 

If you think I'm splitting hairs, then so be it. But I consider it a pretty significant distinction. 

I'm not suggesting that you did anything deliberately wrong and I'm not trying to start anything or sidetrack this thread. I'm just making sure its all clear.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Judging from what is going on, Paxson isn't close to offering him a deal he wants (he hasn't offered anything, in fact). It can't get any more basic and stupid-simple than that.



I don't think this is a fair leap to make. Just because Paxson has yet to offer a deal does not mean that he will not ultimately offer a deal that Tyson wants. If "judging from what is going on" means that Pax is waiting to see what Tyson's market value is, I don't understand your logic. It may or may not be wise to let Tyson test the waters, but that certainly doesn't mean that Pax won't make an offer Tyson finds appealing.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> My favorite example of sports journalism, from our favorite NY reporter:
> 
> 
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/050628&num=0


A. I believe Simmons's account is fictional/humorous.

B. Smith WAS traded for Rider later that summer.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I think the team is exploring all the insurance options. If they can't buy it, then Curry can't on his own.
> 
> Curry may as well just sign for a significant bargain to entice a team to sign him. The risk is still there.



Right. This is what the Trib said:

"The league's policy allows the Bulls to seek coverage for Curry from another carrier if Trustmark passes, but it's not as though companies will line up eagerly to assume such a risk."

What I'm saying is, it may turn out that nobody will insure Eddy. But, if someone will, but it's going to be very expensive for some team due to the high risk, is this something Eddy could do himself, as sort of a vote of confidence in his own well-being? Anyway, it probably doesn't matter, as it's a pie in the sky idea in the first place.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I don't think this is a fair leap to make. Just because Paxson has yet to offer a deal does not mean that he will not ultimately offer a deal that Tyson wants. If "judging from what is going on" means that Pax is waiting to see what Tyson's market value is, I don't understand your logic. It may or may not be wise to let Tyson test the waters, but that certainly doesn't mean that Pax won't make an offer Tyson finds appealing.


It sounds to me like Tyson (and Ford) has a good idea what Pax is willing to offer. That's what I mean by "judging from what is going on." We're reading about an RFA in Tyson's exact same position being signed by his team (rumor, whatever). Please tell me you're reading we're doing the same with Chandler... Or are close!

Tyson would be testing the waters as a UFA. There is no real testing of the waters as RFA, unless there's some loophole in the CBA that can be exploited by some other team (see Arenas, Brad Miller, and I don't think they were even RFAs at that).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Right. This is what the Trib said:
> 
> "The league's policy allows the Bulls to seek coverage for Curry from another carrier if Trustmark passes, but it's not as though companies will line up eagerly to assume such a risk."
> 
> What I'm saying is, it may turn out that nobody will insure Eddy. But, if someone will, but it's going to be very expensive for some team due to the high risk, is this something Eddy could do himself, as sort of a vote of confidence in his own well-being? Anyway, it probably doesn't matter, as it's a pie in the sky idea in the first place.


I'd think that Trustmark would insure him at some cost. Obviously they'd do it if the premiums equalled the size of the contract (can't lose, can really win).

There may be more at stake than just the insurance on the contract. If Curry were to die on the court, maybe Trustmark sees themselves in the position of being sued for 10x the size of the contract by Curry's family.

This actually is a big part of my reasoning why Curry may be through. We've seen guys with serious medical conditions (and heart ones) play in the league for years, and excel. But nobody seems to want to go near Curry in this situation.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> A. I believe Simmons's account is fictional/humorous.
> 
> B. Smith WAS traded for Rider later that summer.


good one.

:biggrin:


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I would keep in mind that RealGM reported this as merely an "internet rumor", which means it may or may not be true. Personally, I'm waiting for a more reliable source to break this story. But if it's true, then this is one of the worst instances of overpaying for a center that I've ever seen. This is practically the max for a guy that's never averaging double figures in anything; rebounds or points. In other words, a role player. I'd be sick to my stomach if I'm a Sixers fan.


Well, a couple things to add to this. First off, a deal look big until we know if there are any team options in the last few years of the deal. Also, yes, we will have to wait for a final number. Hopefully it's a bit less than reported.

But yes, King has overpaid by far again. The only difference is that he has finally done it for someone worth keeping.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

..


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> It sounds to me like Tyson (and Ford) has a good idea what Pax is willing to offer. That's what I mean by "judging from what is going on." We're reading about an RFA in Tyson's exact same position being signed by his team (rumor, whatever). Please tell me you're reading we're doing the same with Chandler... Or are close!
> 
> Tyson would be testing the waters as a UFA. There is no real testing of the waters as RFA, unless there's some loophole in the CBA that can be exploited by some other team (see Arenas, Brad Miller, and I don't think they were even RFAs at that).



I'm just saying I have no idea. I don't know what Pax is going to offer Tyson. Frankly, I don't think Chad Ford knows either. I also think a comment like, "look for Chandler to..." just means that a smart player in that position would take the QO and get a big payday the year after. I at least think that is just as likely as Ford having some inside info on the situation where somebody in the Chandler camp has told him that that is what Tyson would do. 

What I would express is that while I can understand the hesitancy in dealing with the Curry situation, since nobody really knows how his medical stuff is going to play out, I don't understand dilly-dallying on Tyson. I would say that at least by the time players can actually sign, I would like to see a sizable offer made to Tyson.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'm just saying I have no idea. I don't know what Pax is going to offer Tyson. Frankly, I don't think Chad Ford knows either. I also think a comment like, "look for Chandler to..." just means that a smart player in that position would take the QO and get a big payday the year after. I at least think that is just as likely as Ford having some inside info on the situation where somebody in the Chandler camp has told him that that is what Tyson would do.
> 
> What I would express is that while I can understand the hesitancy in dealing with the Curry situation, since nobody really knows how his medical stuff is going to play out, I don't understand dilly-dallying on Tyson. I would say that at least by the time players can actually sign, I would like to see a sizable offer made to Tyson.


I think there's a lot of gossip at various levels. We're at one level, and Ford is at a higher level. The gossip we get from above is filtered to a great degree.

It's like this. Think of any newspaper article with quotes. Either the reporter took notes and wrote down a bunch of quotes, or he used a tape recorder. Either way, he surely had way more quotes than ended up in the story. So the story is filtered. And we don't know about those other quotes and what was said. Aside from just the quotes, there's also the banter back and forth that leads the writer to write what he does (for example, Curry feels like a pawn, though the article doesn't quote him saying that).

As for taking the QO, I do NOT think that is a good strategy. It's a HUGE gamble. If Chandler just signed it expecting free agency, he could reinjure his back tomorrow and his UFA offseason wouldn't be so profitable. And that's just one scenario of many that make it risky.

On the other hand, it becomes good strategy to take the QO if you can't get offers from outside ("Pax says he'll match all offers") and what Pax offers is an insult. If it's an obvious difference of many $10s of millions, it's much less a risk. Like if Pax offers MLE dollars, when next season it's LIKELY chandler would get MAX - that's $7M to $10M difference PER SEASON.

regards,


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

Criminey! We're mincing the words of Chad Ford here guys. My god. He's up there with Sham Smith when it comes to column filler.

Besides, the fact that Chandler will take the QO if Paxson doesn't offer him the deal he wants is a statement of the obvious. Standard journalism. This does not mean, however, that Chandler's camp will not negotiate. Both sides are quite capable of posturing I think.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*

"If the Bulls' offer does not rise significantly this summer, look for Chandler to sign his one-year tender offer and become an unrestricted free agent next summer."- Chad Ford

Chad, how can the Bulls offer "rise significantly" if they haven't made one yet?

And if Tyson has been made an offer, why is everyone complaining that Pax is sitting on his hands and doing nothing?

Something doesn't add up there.

People, you can't believe half of what Chadrick writes and blow off the rest of it. Well, unless you want to be a hypocrite, which is certainly everyone's God-given right. Personally, I believe about 1/2 of 1% of what he "reports" as a "scoop", the rest of his "Insider info" is nothing more than obvious statements of fact.

And it certainly didn't take an 'Insider' to figure out that if Tyson doesn't get an offer that he wants, he could certainly take the QO. I could have told you all that the day he was drafted, that's the way restricted free agency works. Anyone with the ability to read and a link to Larry ****'s site could have told you that as well.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*



bullsville said:


> "If the Bulls' offer does not rise significantly this summer, look for Chandler to sign his one-year tender offer and become an unrestricted free agent next summer."- Chad Ford
> 
> Chad, how can the Bulls offer "rise significantly" if they haven't made one yet?
> 
> ...


Dude, 

I negotate contracts all the time. Having an offer in writing, as in contract, is the LAST step of the negotiation process.

It would be incredibly naive to think Pax hasn't talked to Chandler and his agents about dollar figures. In fact, it was surely done within days of the Bulls' playoff exit.

There's absolutely no point in Paxson writing up a contract for $6M per season if Chandler wants $12M. (Yeah, I'm making up numbers, but to illustrate the point).

The negotiations can go on in public or private. Dalembert seems to have gone in private. Paxson seems to like the public ones (see Crawford as an example). 

Paxson and/or Chandler and/or Chandler's representatives could say anything they want about the negotiations to anyone, including members of the press. They can reveal the dollar amounts (we seemed to know what Crawford was talking about with the bulls and knicks), or they can just say "the bulls have to come up significantly to get us to sign."


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I think there's a lot of gossip at various levels. We're at one level, and Ford is at a higher level. The gossip we get from above is filtered to a great degree.
> 
> It's like this. Think of any newspaper article with quotes. Either the reporter took notes and wrote down a bunch of quotes, or he used a tape recorder. Either way, he surely had way more quotes than ended up in the story. So the story is filtered. And we don't know about those other quotes and what was said. Aside from just the quotes, there's also the banter back and forth that leads the writer to write what he does (for example, Curry feels like a pawn, though the article doesn't quote him saying that).



Point taken. I definitely agree we are on a lower rung than most sports writers. My only point is that one has to recognize the inherent unreliability and inaccuracy in the system. You yourself describe it as "gossip." To me, that term refers to something that has a certain appreciable chance of being untrue. Does Chad Ford generally have better information than I do? Sure. Is he above tossing in throw-away sentences and speculation in his articles because he's got to fill column inches? No, he's not. 

I would say that I would be quite surprised to see Chandler take the QO. It is a big risk. You never know what's going to happen, health-wise. Also, potentially unlike Eddy, I think Chandler will get a big enough offer from some team that he will be able to sign an offer sheet and guarantee a big payday if the Bulls do not step up and offer it on their own first. It just seems highly unnecessary to me to have it progress to the point of playing for the QO.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Point taken. I definitely agree we are on a lower rung than most sports writers. My only point is that one has to recognize the inherent unreliability and inaccuracy in the system. You yourself describe it as "gossip." To me, that term refers to something that has a certain appreciable chance of being untrue. Does Chad Ford generally have better information than I do? Sure. Is he above tossing in throw-away sentences and speculation in his articles because he's got to fill column inches? No, he's not.
> 
> I would say that I would be quite surprised to see Chandler take the QO. It is a big risk. You never know what's going to happen, health-wise. Also, potentially unlike Eddy, I think Chandler will get a big enough offer from some team that he will be able to sign an offer sheet and guarantee a big payday if the Bulls do not step up and offer it on their own first. It just seems highly unnecessary to me to have it progress to the point of playing for the QO.


As I was saying in my previous post...

In order to do a S&T, the offer sheet can't be signed. If it were to be, then the bulls could only match, and the player would be stuck with the bulls. In order to really do the S&T, the player has to come to the bulls with the amount, the bulls contact the other team and work out the details of the trade, it would be the BULLS who sign the player and then trade him. That's why it's called "sign and trade" ;-)

While the details of these kinds of things are being worked out, the reporters are calling the GMs, players, agents, etc., and they're not getting hung up on (if you know what I mean).

So, what would be your best guess at what the Bulls made as first offer to Chandler, and what his first demand was?

I think $7M offered, > $10M demanded. That is a guess, of course.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> As I was saying in my previous post...
> 
> In order to do a S&T, the offer sheet can't be signed. If it were to be, then the bulls could only match, and the player would be stuck with the bulls. In order to really do the S&T, the player has to come to the bulls with the amount, the bulls contact the other team and work out the details of the trade, it would be the BULLS who sign the player and then trade him. That's why it's called "sign and trade" ;-)


I don't know why you're explaining this concept to me. Nothing in my post addresses this. I did not mention, anywhere, doing a sign and trade for Chandler. I don't expect, at all, a sign and trade to be done for Tyson. I was saying I don't expect him to play for the QO, because one of three things will happen:

1. Chandler will sign a big offer sheet, the Bulls will not match, and Chandler will go make big money for someone else.

2. Chandler will sign a big offer sheet, the Bulls will match, and Chandler will make big money for us.

3. Chandler will sign a big contract with the Bulls before signing an offer sheet from any other team.



DaBullz said:


> While the details of these kinds of things are being worked out, the reporters are calling the GMs, players, agents, etc., and they're not getting hung up on (if you know what I mean).
> 
> So, what would be your best guess at what the Bulls made as first offer to Chandler, and what his first demand was?
> 
> I think $7M offered, > $10M demanded. That is a guess, of course.


Yeah, I have no idea what the difference is, but I think your numbers are definitely in the right ballpark, assuming they've talked specifics. I could see the Bulls having gone as low as a deal starting at $6M as their first offer, but they'd have to know how unrealistic an offer that would be. If Tyson's agent started at $10M, I'd be pretty pleased right now. I'd almost guess more like $11-12. I'd be perfectly content to end up with a deal starting at $10M for Tyson, though I'd like to see him more in the $8-9M range. 

If $7M vs. $10M is really what the initial difference was, hypothetically, I'd feel pretty darn good abou the chances of getting a deal done. I'd also be more inclined to not let Tyson test the free agent waters too much, because there's always a chance Atlanta or someone would offer him an $11-12M deal and then we'd have to overpay to keep him.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*



DaBullz said:


> Dude,
> 
> I negotate contracts all the time. Having an offer in writing, as in contract, is the LAST step of the negotiation process.
> 
> It would be incredibly naive to think Pax hasn't talked to Chandler and his agents about dollar figures. In fact, it was surely done within days of the Bulls' playoff exit.


Dude,

Who is talking about putting anything in writing? I'm talking about negotiating and verbal offers being made, and some posters here act as if Pax has made no offer to Chandler, when as you admit he surely has talked $$$ already.

That's all I was saying, either Pax is negotiating with Tyson, or he isn't. Talking to Tyson about dollar figures is negotiating, plain and simple.

Like you say in a later post, your guess is $7 million offered, > $10 million demanded. That's an OFFER, and nothing can be put in writing until July 22nd, so why are some people saying that Pax is "doing nothing"?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*

The problem I have is that sometimes it seems Pax just can't win with people. First, it's Paxson is screwing everything up because he keeps negotiating these deals in public by leaking things to the media. Then, when there are no reports by the media on negotiations with a particular player, Pax is screwing everything up because clearly he isn't being "proactive" and hasn't made an offer yet. You can't have it both ways, people.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*



jnrjr79 said:


> The problem I have is that sometimes it seems Pax just can't win with people. First, it's Paxson is screwing everything up because he keeps negotiating these deals in public by leaking things to the media. Then, when there are no reports by the media on negotiations with a particular player, Pax is screwing everything up because clearly he isn't being "proactive" and hasn't made an offer yet. You can't have it both ways, people.


Some people have been wrong about so many things involving Paxson the last year or so that they desparately need to be proven right about something. 

That desparation tends to reveal itself through inconsistent and highly speculative arguments. Most significant is the staggeringly illogical refusal to wait for results before condemning them.

Frankly, I think it would make for a fascinating psychological study.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*



jnrjr79 said:


> The problem I have is that sometimes it seems Pax just can't win with people. First, it's Paxson is screwing everything up because he keeps negotiating these deals in public by leaking things to the media. Then, when there are no reports by the media on negotiations with a particular player, Pax is screwing everything up because clearly he isn't being "proactive" and hasn't made an offer yet. *You can't have it both ways, people*.


LOL, you haven't been paying attention, have you? 

Some people will be ripping Pax (and JR) until the Bulls win another championship- and after that, there will be a few who somehow aren't happy with the way they won it...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*



Ron Cey said:


> Some people have been wrong about so many things involving Paxson the last year or so that they desparately need to be proven right about something.
> 
> That desparation tends to reveal itself through inconsistent and highly speculative arguments. Most significant is the staggeringly illogical refusal to wait for results before condemning them.
> 
> Frankly, I think it would make for a fascinating psychological study.


Almost as interesting as a study of "some people" who seldom (fast approaching never) post thoughts of their own on the Bulls, just puffed-up, self-important, amusingly mother-hen-ish responses to those who question the Bulls regime would be.

Put another way, there've already been plenty of psychological studies about fans of teams. There aren't, to my knowledge, any psychological studies about fans of owners and general managers.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

badfish said:


> Criminey! We're mincing the words of Chad Ford here guys. My god. He's up there with Sham Smith when it comes to column filler.
> 
> Besides, the fact that Chandler will take the QO if Paxson doesn't offer him the deal he wants is a statement of the obvious. Standard journalism. This does not mean, however, that Chandler's camp will not negotiate. Both sides are quite capable of posturing I think.


IMHO, Chad Ford is one of the best sportswriters out there. I don't think anyone works harder than he does. I have seen him working and he is constantly talking to people, either in person or on the phone. And he has a law degree, to boot. I think we all underappeciate how difficult it would be to be in his shoes - to let the public know what he knows without overstepping. I think he does a very good job at that. IMHO, I think we should thank our lucky stars that it is Chad Ford (and not someone else) that is in the "insider" position at ESPN.com.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

As I have said before, Chandler isn't worth MAX money but it's only a matter of time before Curry and Chandler sign MAX offers.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*



ScottMay said:


> Almost as interesting as a study of "some people" who seldom (fast approaching never) post thoughts of their own on the Bulls, just puffed-up, self-important, amusingly mother-hen-ish responses to those who question the Bulls regime would be.
> 
> Put another way, there've already been plenty of psychological studies about fans of teams. There aren't, to my knowledge, any psychological studies about fans of owners and general managers.


Was it the part about "some people have been wrong so many times" that got you all frothy, Scott?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*



ScottMay said:


> Put another way, there've already been plenty of psychological studies about fans of teams. There aren't, to my knowledge, any psychological studies about fans of owners and general managers.


They should do one, because right now I am a huge freaking fan of Robert Kraft, Scott Pioli and Bill Belichick (the front-office guy, not the coach). :biggrin: 

Personally, I don't see how the two can be exclusive. If you are a fan of the team and you want the team to do well, the owners and general managers had mostly certainly better do damned well also.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Dalembert stays for 75mio. Sets market value for Chandler*



Ron Cey said:


> Was it the part about "some people have been wrong so many times" that got you all frothy, Scott?


Was it the "mother hen" part that reduced you to inarguably the weakest comeback you've had since you stumbled into our midst, Ron?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

scott and ron, you guys want "frothy" and "motherhen"? you got it:


*take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard. now!*

let's try and keep it about basketball. even if we agree to disagree. 

thank you. 

:smilewink

this public service message brought to you by miz.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> IMHO, Chad Ford is one of the best sportswriters out there. I don't think anyone works harder than he does. I have seen him working and he is constantly talking to people, either in person or on the phone. And he has a law degree, to boot. I think we all underappeciate how difficult it would be to be in his shoes - to let the public know what he knows without overstepping. I think he does a very good job at that. IMHO, I think we should thank our lucky stars that it is Chad Ford (and not someone else) that is in the "insider" position at ESPN.com.


***thanking my lucky stars....

:gopray: 

Just kidding. I haven't seen him in action, I'll admit. The fact that you think highly of him does count for something in my book. No kidding.

However, that doesn't mean I'm going to take everything any sports jounalist says as truth. Not when they are being paid for entertainment. That said, I am a paying subscriber of Insider and he is the "Insider" I read the most. Almost exclusively. Since he has a "rumor mill" column, I would expect that if there is a scenario that can be dreamt up and is somewhat plausible, it wouldn't surprise me that he would include it. No harm no foul. I take it for what it is.

I just find it hard to swallow that some posters take conjecture and use it as a reason to slam Paxson. Call me a Pax/Skiles guy. I don't care. I'm on their ship since I think they've done an outstanding job so far on the whole.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Quick Thoughts:

1. 75 million is a lot for Dalembert, but I wouldn't put it past Billy King. I think he's right up there with Isiah Thomas as the league's top numbskulls. And if this deal is correct, I don't think there's anyway Tyson gets signed for less.

2. I have a hard time believing Tyson would take the QO. I think it's pretty much guaranteed that (disregarding the Dalembert rumor) he can get atleast 60 million, and if what's rumoured is true, then atleast 75 million. Would you pass that up?

3. Does anyone else begin to worry that perhaps this offseason might be in danger of slipping away from us? I know everthing is still in the preliminary stages, and it's still to early to draw conclusions since we don't have an intimate knowledge of what's going on, but from how I saw it, we had about a 2 week sweet spot to really grab the Bull by the horns and take care of things, and right now, it's hard to tell if any progress is being made, which worries me. I'm not trying to bash Paxson, because like I said, it's still too early to draw conclusions, and who knows what both sides are actually doing, but from a view as a fan, it seems like things could POSSIBLY be in the beginning stages of slipping away a little bit. We don't seem to have any sort of agreement with any of our free agents, which I find a little troublesome.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> 3. Does anyone else begin to worry that perhaps this offseason might be in danger of slipping away from us? I know everthing is still in the preliminary stages, and it's still to early to draw conclusions since we don't have an intimate knowledge of what's going on, but from how I saw it, we had about a 2 week sweet spot to really grab the Bull by the horns and take care of things, and right now, it's hard to tell if any progress is being made, which worries me.


Given that Paxson has done next to nothing this off season (basden)... yah... it concerns me as well.

Other teams are landing pretty good players with the MLE... players like Larry Hughes are changing hands.... and we're doing nothing. When asked about player X or player Y Paxson seems to say "we're not in the market for him."

Thinking about Cap Space is fun... but I'd like to get out of the 1st round of the playoffs.

And... none of our current FAs are signed... which increases the risk of being worse than last season. Yuk!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> We don't seem to have any sort of agreement with any of our free agents, which I find a little troublesome.


I totally agree. Jeez, I would even feel better if Duhon was locked up. It seems like a team or several teams might just go into Bulls rip off mode.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

badfish said:


> ***thanking my lucky stars....
> 
> :gopray:
> 
> ...


Oh, my defense of Ford does not imply that he gets everything right or that everything he says should be taken as gospel. It is always good to be skeptical of what anyone writes, including me.

But the point I was trying to make is that there is a world of difference between somebody like Chad Ford who will go to all ends of the earth for a story and Sam Smith, who appears to me to be one of the laziest sportswriters in the business. Smith is a talented writer, but that makes his laziness all the more frustrating.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

Dan Rosenbaum said:


> IMHO, Chad Ford is one of the best sportswriters out there. I don't think anyone works harder than he does. I have seen him working and he is constantly talking to people, either in person or on the phone. And he has a law degree, to boot. I think we all underappeciate how difficult it would be to be in his shoes - to let the public know what he knows without overstepping. I think he does a very good job at that. IMHO, I think we should thank our lucky stars that it is Chad Ford (and not someone else) that is in the "insider" position at ESPN.com.


Bravo, Dan! I agree. Chad Ford works VERY hard...and I don't even need to see him in action to know that. He covers every NBA team for ESPN and tries to report on every single deal or rumor out there...and finds time to scout European players more thoroughly than anyone else, too. On top of all that, he's a very good writer who remains both readable and insightful. 

Yeah, he's wrong a lot but he's working with rumors out there and nothing more. This Insider feels served, at least...it's all about being entertained. If I wanted the "real" scoops I'd get a job with an NBA team (not that I'm not trying that...)


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Given that Paxson has done next to nothing this off season (basden)... yah... it concerns me as well.
> 
> Other teams are landing pretty good players with the MLE... players like Larry Hughes are changing hands.... and we're doing nothing. When asked about player X or player Y Paxson seems to say "we're not in the market for him."
> 
> ...


What players are you referring to, who are being taken for the mid-level exception? Jerome James, maybe? I hope you're joking.

And furthermore, what did you really expect the Bulls to do this off-season? You're making it sound like Pax is blowing opportunities to land prime-time players. Larry Hughes took a big chuck of cap space for Cleveland to nab him, of which the Bulls have none. Pax made it very clear that the plan all along is to re-sign our own guys which we still have plenty of time to do. Other than that, we are quite limited. You can't honestly expect us to make a huge splash in free agency armed solely with a MLE and LLE, can you? Especially when one of our major contributers last season (Duhon) may need to come out of the MLE. I want Abdur-Rahim or Marshall as much as the next guy, but it just isn't realistic. And this shouldn't be news to anyone...Pax obtained an incredible number of assets last summer knowing that we would be limited this summer. Was it worth it? I think the results speak for themselves.

Besides, who's been locked up so far? Off the top of my head, there's Ray Allen, Michael Redd, Bobby Simmons, Larry Hughes, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Cuttino Mobley, Raja Bell, and Jerome James. *All of these players are unrestricted*, and all of these players demanded attention from the start of free agency. There was a big rush for teams to go after these guys; I fail to see the rush for our restricted free agents. Until it's all said and done, you really can't properly judge our off-season. By the way, I don't see anyone jumping down Bryan Colangelo's back (reigning GM of the year) to re-sign Joe Johnson, who is also a restricted free agent. What's wrong with him, I wonder.


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

yodurk said:


> By the way, I don't see anyone jumping down Bryan Colangelo's back (reigning GM of the year) to re-sign Joe Johnson, who is also a restricted free agent. What's wrong with him, I wonder.


I agree with you. The only difference I see is that most people believe that PHX will truly match a max offer for Johnson. In this case, there's really no risk to letting him play the market.

In the Bulls case, Paxson is risking our guys getting a ridiculously high deal from ATL (or others) possibly when he could have potentially signed them to lesser but fair deals. 

Now, I have no idea if this is true at all - I suspect that it's not for a few reasons. First, I think Chandler and Curry were/are hoping to get a bigger deal from someone (which would force the Bulls to match) and would not have agreed to a mediocre/fair offer from Pax. Second, players can't technically SIGN anyway for another week or so - the Bulls perceived laziness in attacking this offseason is therefore appropriate IMO.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

onetenthlag said:


> ...The only difference I see is that most people believe that PHX will truly match a max offer for Johnson. In this case, there's really no risk to letting him play the market.
> 
> In the Bulls case, Paxson is risking our guys getting a ridiculously high deal from ATL (or others) possibly when he could have potentially signed them to lesser but fair deals. ...


I fail to see the distinction.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

yodurk said:


> What players are you referring to, who are being taken for the mid-level exception? Jerome James, maybe? I hope you're joking.
> 
> And furthermore, what did you really expect the Bulls to do this off-season? You're making it sound like Pax is blowing opportunities to land prime-time players. Larry Hughes took a big chuck of cap space for Cleveland to nab him, of which the Bulls have none. Pax made it very clear that the plan all along is to re-sign our own guys which we still have plenty of time to do. Other than that, we are quite limited. You can't honestly expect us to make a huge splash in free agency armed solely with a MLE and LLE, can you? Especially when one of our major contributers last season (Duhon) may need to come out of the MLE. I want Abdur-Rahim or Marshall as much as the next guy, but it just isn't realistic. And this shouldn't be news to anyone...Pax obtained an incredible number of assets last summer knowing that we would be limited this summer. Was it worth it? I think the results speak for themselves.
> 
> Besides, who's been locked up so far? Off the top of my head, there's Ray Allen, Michael Redd, Bobby Simmons, Larry Hughes, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Cuttino Mobley, Raja Bell, and Jerome James. *All of these players are unrestricted*, and all of these players demanded attention from the start of free agency. There was a big rush for teams to go after these guys; I fail to see the rush for our restricted free agents. Until it's all said and done, you really can't properly judge our off-season. By the way, I don't see anyone jumping down Bryan Colangelo's back (reigning GM of the year) to re-sign Joe Johnson, who is also a restricted free agent. What's wrong with him, I wonder.


I'm not going to complain about the job Pax has done because he has done a very good job. I do think that we shouldn't let signing Duhon interfere with signing someone with the MLE like Marshall.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Kneepad said:


> I fail to see the distinction.



I think he's arguing that Phoenix was going to have to pay max no matter what for Johnson, so it doesn't matter if they let him pursue an offer. He thinks it might be a mistake, though, for the Bulls to let the twin towers test the market, b/c they might find a higher ceiling than they suspected, forcing the Bulls to match a higher price than if they had just offered contracts before their market value was ascertained.

At least, that's my understanding of the argument.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I do think that we shouldn't let signing Duhon interfere with signing someone with the MLE like Marshall.


That would be one very tough decision to make. If we got a promise from Donyell to come back for the full MLE, would it be smart to let Duhon walk? I'm not sure I could choose one or the other with 100% confidence.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

6 years 75 mil.

isn't that the amount the chandler camp asked for in october?

to which he was quickly told to play for a deal.

well he did , i dont see the big problem...but i guarentee pax is haggling possibly to the point it alienates Tyson.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> 6 years 75 mil.
> 
> isn't that the amount the chandler camp asked for in october?
> 
> ...


You must be thinking of the Curry camp, who asked for about that much.

I could be wrong, but I don't recall any kind of negotiations with Chandler last October since he was coming off the back injury. I'm pretty sure both parties wanted him to prove he could stay healthy first, which he did.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

We do know that Paxson offered Duhon the LLE and Duhon turned it down. We do know that Paxson and Duhon are talking about a deal near $2M per season. Why is that?

Why don't we know about what Paxson offered Chandler?

This is the fuel of speculation. It seems to me Paxson and Chandler surely exchanged figures, but they must be far apart or we'd be hearing similar kinds of things with Chandler's situation as with Duhon's.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> We do know that Paxson offered Duhon the LLE and Duhon turned it down. We do know that Paxson and Duhon are talking about a deal near $2M per season. Why is that?
> 
> Why don't we know about what Paxson offered Chandler?
> 
> This is the fuel of speculation. It seems to me Paxson and Chandler surely exchanged figures, but they must be far apart or we'd be hearing similar kinds of things with Chandler's situation as with Duhon's.


In order to make offers to free agents this summer, we'll only know how much we can offer once Duhon's contract is completed because Duhon will probably be re-signed from the MLE (not the case with Curry and Chandler). Hence, Duhon is the priority right now and that's probably why we know more about his contract offers. There's my speculation.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I think he's arguing that Phoenix was going to have to pay max no matter what for Johnson, so it doesn't matter if they let him pursue an offer. He thinks it might be a mistake, though, for the Bulls to let the twin towers test the market, b/c they might find a higher ceiling than they suspected, forcing the Bulls to match a higher price than if they had just offered contracts before their market value was ascertained.
> 
> At least, that's my understanding of the argument.


That seems bass-ackwards to me.

If Johnson is going to command max, then if you're the Suns why not just offer it and not risk "offending" yet another pampered NBA athlete? Why make your guy go through the motions of visiting other teams and entertaining offers when you fully expect to match at the max?

And, conversely, if you're the Bulls, you're operating under the hope that the player's market value is not as high as the player thinks it is. Therefore, allowing said player to entertain offers allows the Bulls to match at a lower price than if they agreed to the player's original asking price. Of course, that sword cuts both ways.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

yodurk said:


> That would be one very tough decision to make. If we got a promise from Donyell to come back for the full MLE, would it be smart to let Duhon walk? I'm not sure I could choose one or the other with 100% confidence.


I think Duhon is more valuable to the Bulls than most Bulls fans think.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Kneepad said:


> I think Duhon is more valuable to the Bulls than most Bulls fans think.


And I think the opposite. The fact that his arrival in the starting lineup coincided with our ascent from the 0-9 sadness doesn't mean as much as Bulls fans give it credit for. He's a good player, and a good starter for us, and he does a lot that doesn't show up in the stat line. But is this guy a "point guard" for the future? I don't know. Can we afford to let BG grow into a true SG while putting Hinrich back at the PG position? I don't know.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I totally agree. Jeez, I would even feel better if Duhon was locked up. It seems like a team or several teams might just go into Bulls rip off mode.


Sometimes I worry that Pax is going to overplay his hand. It seems as though Pax is dead set on having capspace next year, and he's doing his absolute best to whittle down everyone's contract demands so they can fit into his ideal financial picture. While there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, it can backfire if you take it too far, and possibly backfire a lot. 

Nothing's actually happened yet, so I'm not going to pass judgement, but unfortunately, this is a scenario that seems pretty plausible if things continue to run on the apparent course that they're on.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

A six page thread on a completely unsubstantiated and unconfirmed rumor... Nothing corroborated from any other source other than a blurb in the Post.


wow.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> A six page thread on a completely unsubstantiated and unconfirmed rumor... Nothing corroborated from any other source other than a blurb in the Post.
> 
> 
> wow.


Hey, what are message boards for?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Duhon seems pretty low-risk with a chance of a high reward. I don't really see the point in using the MLE this year. Let's save the money - let the core grow - and really be in an awesome position next year.

If we sign Donyell Marshall to the MLE, itsn't there a good chance that we might want to get a better power player with the cap space next year? 

Locking in Duhon and Hinrich really solidifies our PG positiion. I like that.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> By the way, I don't see anyone jumping down Bryan Colangelo's back (reigning GM of the year) to re-sign Joe Johnson, who is also a restricted free agent. What's wrong with him, I wonder.


That might have something to do with the fact that this isn't the Suns board.

There's a laundry list of other reasons -- the Suns tend to re-sign the players they've drafted and cultivated; they already have two max/near-max players on the payroll and are about to add one or two more; unlike the Bulls, they don't have unlimited financial resources as they play in a middle-sized market and carry an enormous amount of debt; they have a pretty good track record of doing whatever it takes to win, not dumping salaries, not suffering through the worst seven-year stretch in NBA history, etc.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> That might have something to do with the fact that this isn't the Suns board.
> 
> There's a laundry list of other reasons -- the Suns tend to re-sign the players they've drafted and cultivated; they already have two max/near-max players on the payroll and are about to add one or two more; unlike the Bulls, they don't have unlimited financial resources as they play in a middle-sized market and carry an enormous amount of debt; they have a pretty good track record of doing whatever it takes to win, not dumping salaries, not suffering through the worst seven-year stretch in NBA history, etc.


Of the 14 players on the suns final regular season roster, only three of them were actually drafted by the suns - Amare, Marion and Barbosa. Of those three, only one has actually remained on the team beyond their rookie contract. Shawn Marion is the longest tenured Sun with six years. No other player on that team has been there longer than three years. This is something of a telling summer for them also as they've traded Q and may be looking at matching a max offer for Johnson. I wouldn't qualify that as "re-signing players they've cultivated and drafted", but that's just me.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Of the 14 players on the suns final regular season roster, only three of them were actually drafted by the suns - Amare, Marion and Barbosa. Of those three, only one has actually remained on the team beyond their rookie contract. Shawn Marion is the longest tenured Sun with six years. No other player on that team has been there longer than three years. This is something of a telling summer for them also as they've traded Q and may be looking at matching a max offer for Johnson. I wouldn't qualify that as "re-signing players they've cultivated and drafted", but that's just me.


Fair point . . . and good to see that you don't disagree with any of the rest of what I wrote regarding the Suns. They draft well, they pay top dollar for their talent, and they act decisively and do whatever it takes to win.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> A six page thread on a completely unsubstantiated and unconfirmed rumor... Nothing corroborated from any other source other than a blurb in the Post.
> 
> 
> wow.


Not only that, but more blasting of Paxson. We have not lost 1 player yet. Speculations run rampent!


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Fair point . . . and good to see that you don't disagree with any of the rest of what I wrote regarding the Suns. They draft well, they pay top dollar for their talent, and they act decisively and do whatever it takes to win.





> they have a pretty good track record of doing whatever it takes to win, not dumping salaries


They also traded an all-star caliber guard for what some around here would call "nothing"...



> KNICKS ACQUIRE MARBURY, HARDAWAY & TRYBANSKI FROM PHOENIX. Eisley, Lampe, McDyess, Ward Traded To The Suns


http://www.insidehoops.com/marbury-trade-010604.shtml

Even the best franchises pull salary dump trades to facilitate long-term success, apparently.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> What players are you referring to, who are being taken for the mid-level exception? Jerome James, maybe? I hope you're joking.


James would be a fine backup center for our team. Everyone wants Marshall back, who Paxson traded away for AD. Are we going after him? Does not sound like it. Are we in the market for any of the guys who may move via S+T? Rahim? Walker? What is Paxson doing to make our team better? Anything? I agree the Duhon situation complicates matters. What’s the holdup?



> And furthermore, what did you really expect the Bulls to do this off-season? You're making it sound like Pax is blowing opportunities to land prime-time players. Larry Hughes took a big chuck of cap space for Cleveland to nab him, of which the Bulls have none. Pax made it very clear that the plan all along is to re-sign our own guys which we still have plenty of time to do. Other than that, we are quite limited.


What's preventing Paxson from going after these guys via S+T? We have a guard problem on this team and Pax is doing nothing about it. Do you think that the Duhon/Hinrich/Gordon combo is enough to get us where we need to be? Is he exploring any other options? The only noise I hear from the Berto is "we're not in the market for player X." Why not? We're far from ready to make a serious run and Paxson does have options.



> You can't honestly expect us to make a huge splash in free agency armed solely with a MLE and LLE, can you? Especially when one of our major contributers last season (Duhon) may need to come out of the MLE. I want Abdur-Rahim or Marshall as much as the next guy, but it just isn't realistic.


Why not? S+T is an option. We effectively have Cap Space this year if we wanted it.




> And this shouldn't be news to anyone...Pax obtained an incredible number of assets last summer knowing that we would be limited this summer. Was it worth it? I think the results speak for themselves.


We're a nice average team that could not beat the Wizards in the playoffs. 

Last season was more fun than losing.... but we're also going to be out of lotto picks. What we see now... plus whatever the Cap Space brings us next year in an unimpressive free agent market... is what we'll have for a while. 




> Until it's all said and done, you really can't properly judge our off-season. By the way, I don't see anyone jumping down Bryan Colangelo's back (reigning GM of the year) to re-sign Joe Johnson, who is also a restricted free agent. What's wrong with him, I wonder.


I'm not judging the end result. All I'm saying is that.... as of now... we've accomplished very little. Other teams have made moves.

We're only sitting on our hands because Paxson has chosen to.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> They also traded an all-star caliber guard for what some around here would call "nothing"...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right . . . and they use the money at the earliest possible opportunity to sign All-Star caliber players.

I'm still waiting for the Bulls to spend the money they saved by dumping Elton Brand, etc. 

See the difference? Or are you that easily placated by the prospect of Cap Space next year and a bunch of crappy unrestricted free agents?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not judging the end result. All I'm saying is that.... as of now... we've accomplished very little. *Other teams have made moves.*
> 
> We're only sitting on our hands because Paxson has chosen to.


Two teams in our division have made probably the biggest moves in the league this summer. Other than that, not many teams are scaring me with their off-season transactions. Just to name a few...

-I believe Washington took a step back by losing Hughes and Brown while only really getting Caron Butler back in return. 

-Orlando had a terrible draft IMO and hasn't done anything thru free agency either; other than Dwight Howard's internal improvement, I don't see how they're any better. 

-Boston appears to be losing Antoine Walker for nothing, they apparently want to trade Paul Pierce, they're considering a buyout of Raef LaFrentz, they drafted a raw high school project, and they haven't made even the slightest splash in free agency either.

-New Jersey is trying to lure Abdur-Rahim with a low-paying contract, in the hope that he'll take a paycut to play with talent.

It's far too easy to look at who's improving, when there are just as many teams falling behind. Seems there are plenty of teams in far worse shape than the Bulls this off-season. At least we're not losing critical parts of our core like many other teams are.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> It's far too easy to look at who's improving, when there are just as many teams falling behind. Seems there are plenty of teams in far worse shape than the Bulls this off-season. At least we're not losing critical parts of our core like many other teams are.


I'm not content to just stay even with the other mediocre teams.

Like I said... being in the middle but in the end a non-factor is more fun than getting your head bashed in... but I'd like to get to the top again.

I don't see the Bulls becoming better this off season as of now.... and I don't think its enough to just hope a year more of seasoning will do the trick.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm not content to just stay even with the other mediocre teams.
> 
> Like I said... being in the middle but in the end a non-factor is more fun than getting your head bashed in... but I'd like to get to the top again.
> 
> I don't see the Bulls becoming better this off season as of now.... and I don't think its enough to just hope a year more of seasoning will do the trick.


I'm not content either...but this isn't the summer to strive for the gold; next summer is. If we fail to further strengthen the roster next summer, then I think we all have something to be upset about. If we're able to take 1 giant leap forward in 2006, then I think a small step backward in 2005 won't hurt us too much. Besides, it would take ALOT to leapfrog Detroit and Miami next season; more than is humanly possible IMO. I think 2 seasons from now it's a whole different story as Shaq beings to slow down, Ben and Rasheed start showing their age, etc.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Fair point . . . and good to see that you don't disagree with any of the rest of what I wrote regarding the Suns. They draft well, they pay top dollar for their talent, and they act decisively and do whatever it takes to win.


To an extent. I'll say this, the suns certainly are one of the more active franchises around. They seem to be constantly making deals and trying to improve their team. I'd also say that almost all the deals they make are good ones. Unlike the Knicks who seem to just sign players because they can, the suns are always looking to better themselves.

Their salary situation is going to get interesting tho. You've got marion signed thru 08/09 (i believe). Nash is also. Next season, those two alone will take up $25 mil. The suns are looking at possibly matching a max offer to Johnson and then you've got Amare who should be a no-brainer max extension after next summer. Kurt Thomas is signed thru the 07/08 season too. If the suns match Johnson and max out Amare, that's five players getting around $50 - $60 mil. That's some high-priced talent with next to nothing to build a decent bench around.

I do give the Suns a lot of credit for being proactive (a term that some like to use around here now). They don't wait around for things to happen and I like that approach.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> James would be a fine backup center for our team. Everyone wants Marshall back, who Paxson traded away for AD. Are we going after him? Does not sound like it. Are we in the market for any of the guys who may move via S+T? Rahim? Walker? What is Paxson doing to make our team better? Anything? I agree the Duhon situation complicates matters. What’s the holdup?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Everyone wants Marshall back, who Paxson traded away for AD. Are we going after him? Does not sound like it.


Am I missing something? Has Marshall signed some place else? Every thing I read gives me the impression that Chicago is in the running. All Pax has has said was we may not be able to afford him but that does not mean no, as far as I am concerned. 



> What is Paxson doing to make our team better? Anything?


This is not a team that missed the playoffs. We sign out players back, we will be ok. This is not a older veteran team. We had 4 rookies last year. The stats tell us they will improve going into year two. That IS making the club better. 

You also mentioned Walker, Reef, etc: Well, Chicago is not the only team not going after these guys. We are deep at pf! AD, Chandler, Harrington, Nocioni. Do we need these players? 



> The only noise I hear from the Berto is "we're not in the market for player X." Why not? We're far from ready to make a serious run and Paxson does have options.


We are? We were #3 in the east last season. We got there by the defense we played. As long as we play that type of defense we will be in serious contention. 

Also, something else not mentioned. Teams waive their players on Oct 1. If I were a betting man, the same people questioning Paxson now would be the very same ones blasting him come oct for not having the MLE available for some of the players waived then...Thank god Paxson has the patience of Job. 

It is going to be ok! If he does nothing, this is still a nice young team that will improve. 

FA of 2006 not impressive? I beg to differ. If paxson has a plan he has someone in mind for 2006 or else he would not be as patient as he is. Could be a trade or could be a player or two he is high on. One way or the other he knows things we do not know.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Some people thought we got worse last summer as well...


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Some people thought we got worse last summer as well...


I remember. Last summer was brutal on all Bulls messageboards. It was a eerie negative tone. 

This summer has been quiet for the most part, but the negative tone is there but not as bad. And this comes off of a 47 win season and playoff appearence.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

truebluefan said:


> Am I missing something? Has Marshall signed some place else? Every thing I read gives me the impression that Chicago is in the running. All Pax has has said was we may not be able to afford him but that does not mean no, as far as I am concerned.


Maybe Pax is working on a trade that sends Eddy to ATL, Al to TOR and Donyell to Chicago? Maybe he is working on a deal of Eddy for Radmanovic? NOBODY KNOWS yet, but let's go ahead and crucify Pax like we did with the Skiles contract, that makes a lot of sense. 



> This is not a team that missed the playoffs. We sign out players back, we will be ok. This is not a older veteran team. We had 4 rookies last year. The stats tell us they will improve going into year two. That IS making the club better.
> 
> You also mentioned Walker, Reef, etc: Well, Chicago is not the only team not going after these guys. We are deep at pf! AD, Chandler, Harrington, Nocioni. Do we need these players?
> 
> ...


Great point about having the MLE available on Oct 1st. Pax may very well be able to steal a good veteran for a few years for only the MLE, I certainly hope he still has it available then.

And we WERE the #3 team in the East last year, with 4 rookies and several other young players on the roster, if we stand pat we'll get better just on experience (and not losing Deng and Eddy for the final 20 games and the playoffs).

And even if (when?) we see Eddy leave, I have confidence that Pax will replace him with a player (or two) who will contribute just as much to the team's success.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

So then in the last year, one can conclude nothing has changed. There are still people who will support Paxson no matter what...and there are still those who won't...no matter what.

I was wondering how my posting became reduced so significantly over the past year. Now I remember.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Some people thought we got worse last summer as well...


That would be most of the NBA and nearly every fan (judging by preseason win predictions).


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> That would be most of the NBA and nearly every fan (judging by preseason win predictions).


Really? 

Out of curiosity, I did a google search for "nba predictions 2004-2005" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=nba+predictions+2004-2005
and here are all the predictions linked to on the first page of the results:


http://www.mikegallay.com/nba20pred1.html

Chicago Bulls -- 40-42 -- Very tough to predict with this team. Classic "rebuilding for too long" squad. Ton of talent, way too young, and haven't been learning a team game because everyone around is another good young player who can score. However, with their depth they should be able to make the deals that allow them to compete all year for one of the bottom postseason invites.

*This guy had us improving by 17 games.*

------------------------

All of these are from this Pistons message board.

http://www.d12world.com/board/archive/index.php/t-116307.html

EAST
1. Detroit
2. Miami
3. New York
4. Indiana
5. Philadelphia
6. Boston
7. Chicago

EAST
1. Indiana
2. Detroit
3. Miami
4. Cleveland
5. Philadelphia
6. Milwaukee
7. New Jersey
8. New York
9. Chicago



EAST
1. Indiana
2. Miami
3. Detroit
4. Boston
5. Milwakee
6. Cleveland
7. New Orleans
8. Orlando
9. Philly
10. Chicago

EAST
1.Pistons
2. Heat
3. Pacers
4. Bucks
5. Celtics
6. Cavs
7. Knicks
8. Bulls

East :
1. Miami
2. Detroit
3. Boston
4. Washington
5. Chicago 

*All 5 of these people had us improving, and 3 of them had us in the playoffs.*

------------------------

http://www.fanbay.net/nba/projected/eastern.htm

13. Chicago Bulls Scott Skiles
Record last season: 23-59 (-7)
Problems: Very young and inexperienced.
Recap: The Bulls have a great cast of exciting, young players. No matter what happens this season, the Bulls will be fun to watch. How good can Gordon be? Can Hinrich be as good or better this season? Will Curry mature into a threat? Can Chandler put it together? So much potential, but too young to expect too much. 

*This fantasy site had us being worse.*

-------------------------


The rest of the links were for gambling sites and there were no 'win' predictions that I could find.

My conclusion: based on a rather small sample of 7 absolutely random predictions from non-Bulls fans, 6 of them had us improving, and 3 of them had us in the playoffs (which is a *major* improvement from 23 wins). The other 3 had us for 40 wins and 9th and 10th in the conference, right around 35 wins.

At least those sampled Pistons fans knew we would be much improved, that's for sure.

Time to do the same search on jeeves and yahoo and see if I can get some different links. Very, very interesting so far though.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

The 'Ask Jeeves' links all sucked, here's the page http://webk.ask.com/web?q=nba+predictions+2004-2005&qsrc=0&o=0
but there are no good predictions.

One link takes you to a message board where several people pick the top-8 in each conference and some (maybe 20%) have the Bulls in the playoffs, but no win predictions or 9-15 predictions so the Bulls weren't mentioned much.

Sigh.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

On Yahoo:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=nb...Search&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8

--------------------------

http://probasketball.about.com/library/weekly/bl_200405seasonpredictions.htm

*This guy had us winning 25 games, an improvement but not by much.*


http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/tank/nba/nba2005.html

*This one had us with 28 wins.*


-------------------------


Well, on the top-3 search engines, I found 9 predictions, and 8 of them had us NOT getting worse, but getting either slightly better, a lot better, or a hell of a lot better.

Maybe there were some other random of sampling of fans and media that had us getting worse, but I can't find them. In fact, my quick research actually shows that "most of the NBA and nearly every fan (judging by preseason win predictions)" had the Bulls getting BETTER, not worse.

Seems like you were way off, K4E. I was as fair and unbiased as I could be in my search, maybe someone could come up with something else?


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> So then in the last year, one can conclude nothing has changed. There are still people who will support Paxson no matter what...and there are still those who won't...no matter what.
> 
> I was wondering how my posting became reduced so significantly over the past year. Now I remember.


Word.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Seems like you were way off, K4E. I was as fair and unbiased as I could be in my search, maybe someone could come up with something else?



Yeah, that post didn't reflect what I was trying to say... which was basically that things were not looking up going into last season.

I think I predicted around 27 wins so I guess I was in the sunny camp as well.

I would think the majority of people thought the Bulls would be better than 23 wins.


But.... very few predicted success (winning and playoffs).

Here's some quick links I found to back that up.

http://www.hoopshype.com/predictions_2005.htm

http://www.nba.com/preview2004/gmsurvey_east.html

http://probasketball.about.com/library/weekly/bl_200405seasonpredictions.htm

http://nbadraft.net/2004-05NBAseason.asp

(yeah, even the games were negative)
http://www1.gamespot.com/sports/journal_entry.html?id=17244881


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> James would be a fine backup center for our team. Everyone wants Marshall back, who Paxson traded away for AD. Are we going after him? Does not sound like it.


Marshall is going to have to take like 3 million a year to come here with Duhon not taking the the LLE. Not happening. 

But just caught this. According to this, Donyell is coming for a visit tomorrow. 

http://www.hoopshype.com/free_agent_visits.htm

And we do not essentially have capspace this year if we wanted it. :|


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Yeah, that post didn't reflect what I was trying to say... which was basically that things were not looking up going into last season.


Well, that was my point- that *some* people thought that, but certainly many also thought that the Bulls would be improved, even much better, even much, much better.

And, for some people, "things are not looking up going into this season" either. That may very well be as false as it was last summer.

That's all I was saying.

And thanks for the links, even though they all backed up my side of the story I know there is no way in hell that nobody had the Bulls for less than 30 wins, some people most certainly did.

And it's not like I took a stance either way last summer- with little Tyson being born in November of 2003, I saw basically zero college basketball that season and had never seen Gordon or Deng play. So I really didn't know what we had and didn't predict either way because of that uncertainty.

I do know that I trusted Pax's decision, and he definitely got an "A" with all 3 of his picks (including Duhon).


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> That's all I was saying.
> 
> And thanks for the links, even though they all backed up my side of the story I know there is no way in hell that nobody had the Bulls for less than 30 wins, some people most certainly did.


Yeah, I agree with "our" side of the story as well. Like I said.... mistyped post.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ChiBulls2315 said:


> And we do not essentially have capspace this year if we wanted it. :|


Why couldn't Paxson *attempt* to negotiate a sign and trade with teams?

I realize that it takes three to tango.... but if there is a player that Paxson wants that could help the team... why wait until next off-season?

And yah... we don't know what's going on behind the scenes.... but we don't have to wait until next off season to make a move on an impact veteran.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

http://www.realgm.com/src_freeagents/2006/

This list of free agents (especially the unrestricted ones) is far from exciting.

Who from the unrestricted list that has a chance of actually moving would be an impact player on our current roster?

Harrington? Terry? Would they even be starters?

How about the restricted list that would not be matched?

Nene? Gooden? I would think DET would match offers for Prince. Dunlevey? Wilcox?

Caron Butler? (did wash give him a new deal?)

Some of these names would help. Would any start? Is it worth 3 years of careful planning to wait to be a part of this FA market?

AD should be a tradable commodity over the course of this season. Perhaps that is the route to go.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Al Harrington 
Keith Van Horn
Ben Wallace
Micheal Olowokandi
Tim Thomas
Toni Battie
Jake Voskuhl
Joel Przybilla
Nazr Mohammed
Loren Woods

There are several big men out there who can help, but none of them are max-type players (except maybe Wallace, but he'll be almost 32 by then). Pax has to be looking at it from that point of view, he has the same list we have- so I'm assuming he's looking to add 2 *good* players instead of one *max* player. 

If you could pay over-the-MLE for two players on that list, you could have a pretty good 4/5 rotation of Chandler, Przybilla, and Thomas? Or TC, Nazr and Van Horn?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Bump.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2110901



> *It looks like negotiations between the Philadelphia 76ers and restricted free agent Samuel Dalembert took a turn for the worse on Monday.*
> 
> The two sides have been negotiating for three weeks but have been *unable to come to terms on a new contract.* Over the course of the last week, there has been a great level of frustration on both sides.
> 
> ...


Doesn't sound like $75 million dollar offer to me - yet. Sounds like Philly is playing a little hardball of their own.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Is a S&T with the Hawks dangerous?*

So OK, Pax decides to take Al Harrington off the Hawks hands for Curry. 

At this point, Hawks would have still have in excess of $25M. Why wouldn't they take a shot a Chandler at that point. The two are Ying and Yang. Or how about a shot at Duhon. 

Pax may need to be careful here.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

"A number that someone else sets" could go as high as $75 million, though.

Assuming a $50 million salary cap, the most another team can offer Sam is 5 years and $72.5 million. If the cap gets to $52 million, that's 5 years and $75.2 million, so it's still possible. 

But, as Sam's agent pointed out, "There is a huge gap between Philadelphia's offer and what other teams under the salary cap can offer." 

Yet some people on this board were pointing to Sam's deal as an example of "We should lock Tyson up early for less money", which is ridiculous of course. Just think how this board would look right now if we substitued Tyson's name and exact situation for Sam?

It would be fun to read, no doubt.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Is a S&T with the Hawks dangerous?*



johnston797 said:


> So OK, Pax decides to take Al Harrington off the Hawks hands for Curry.
> 
> At this point, Hawks would have still have in excess of $25M. Why wouldn't they take a shot a Chandler at that point. The two are Ying and Yang. Or how about a shot at Duhon.
> 
> Pax may need to be careful here.


Great point- if Pax decided to sign and trade Eddy to Atlanta, he would be much better off getting their first round pick next summer plus the huge trade exception, that way he's not helping ATL clear another ~$7 million in cap space right now.

At least with the new CBA, the Hawks can only offer Duhon the MLE which the Bulls can match if necessary. But if the Hawks wanted to give Duhon that much, I could see Pax letting him go in exchange for Childress. My thinking is that Kirk would play most of the PG minutes, and if Ben can't handle 10-15 minutes/game at PG yet we pick up a veteran who can pass and defend (Brunson?) to handle the role for this season.

IMHO, a trade of Eddy and Duhon for Childress, the Hawks 2006 first-rounder and a trade exception of ~$15 million is pretty good for the Bulls, assuming Pax doesn't want to pay Eddy the max and Atlanta does.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Does anyone else really get the impression that the Hawks are looking a lot like the 2000 version of us? It seems like it's almost becoming a standard procedure this offseason to use them as a merry-go-round to help drive up your value.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

There is no use in trading Eddy Curry. He is better than any free agent we will land next year, and thats just on what he can do right now, he still has a lot of improvement to do. He has the best work ethic on our team, and he is the best offensive player. He just needs to jump on his rebounds, and slow down on offense to get less turnovers.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

sloth said:


> There is no use in trading Eddy Curry. He is better than any free agent we will land next year, and thats just on what he can do right now, he still has a lot of improvement to do. He has the best work ethic on our team, and he is the best offensive player. He just needs to jump on his rebounds, and slow down on offense to get less turnovers.


 best work ethic on the team? c'mon sloth, that's no good...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

King Joseus said:


> best work ethic on the team? c'mon sloth, that's no good...


Lets see Tyson put on 30 pounds in muscle like Eddy lost in fat.

Lets see Tyson add something to his game.

How come Eddy always improves something, yet Tyson has hardly improved any since coming into the league (he was good late rookie year on).

Don't tell me that Tyson has a better work ethic than Eddy, its just not true.


----------



## Bron_Melo_ROY (Apr 12, 2004)

I just hope that the Bulls can keep both Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler but who knows what would will happen. I think that they are perfect compliments for eachother.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

sloth said:


> He has the best work ethic on our team, and he is the best offensive player. He just needs to jump on his rebounds, and slow down on offense to get less turnovers.


Doesn't sentence #2 disprove sentence #1?


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

sloth said:


> Don't tell me that Tyson has a better work ethic than Eddy, its just not true.


Tyson has a better work ethic. It shows on the court.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

What a world we live in when a guy who averages 8 points a game is being discussed as a 75 million dollar man. The guy is not worth that. Neither is Dalembert, Curry, or almost any other player in the league. Chandler may get that, but he is not worth it.

His forte is supposedly defense and rebounding. I just don't see him as this all world defender. He does get from the weak side and block some shots. He also gets torched frequently by the guy he is defending, pushed around like a rag doll from the likes of such NBA stars as Etan Thomas and Michael Ruffin, and draw fouls at an alarming rate because he doesn't move his feet like he should. 

People sometimes get brainwashed.

I like the kid. We need to keep him. He may get 70 mil. He is not worth it. 

I must say, it does appear Pax has taken some kind of prolonged vacation this summer. His off season of "proactivity" has produced absolutely zero so far while other teams seem very active. The garbage left over to chose from via free agents will not fill many needs. A summer of resigning our guys plus Basden will likely amount to less wins next year. We got very lucky last year. It is doubtful you will continually find surprise gems from nowhere. 

I have faith in Pax, but waiting until next year to do something when the free agents look lousy dosen't appear smart.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

spongyfungy said:


> Tyson has a better work ethic. It shows on the court.


I'm pretty hard pressed to find it in our winning statistics, actually.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

spongyfungy said:


> Tyson has a better work ethic. It shows on the court.


Not to mention, Kirk, Ben, Luol, Andres, Pargo, Reiner, Duhon, AD........

You want to talk about proof of work ethic, look at AD's body. Don't give Eddy too much credit for getting into basketball shape. Eddy naturally has an outstanding body for a center.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Salvaged Ship said:


> What a world we live in when a guy who averages 8 points a game is being discussed as a 75 million dollar man. The guy is not worth that. Neither is Dalembert, Curry, or almost any other player in the league. Chandler may get that, but he is not worth it.
> 
> His forte is supposedly defense and rebounding. I just don't see him as this all world defender. He does get from the weak side and block some shots. He also gets torched frequently by the guy he is defending, pushed around like a rag doll from the likes of such NBA stars as Etan Thomas and Michael Ruffin, and draw fouls at an alarming rate because he doesn't move his feet like he should.
> 
> ...



Exactly, all Chandler can do is rebound and be a weak side defender. Eddy is the better defender on the ball, Tyson gets banged around without Eddy in there while rebounding, evident of the Wizards series. Without Eddy there to set the tone of the games, the Bulls were in shambles downlow, so much of shambles they couldn't win despite Kirk stepping up. Ben fell apart on the road.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

People keep bringing up the Whiz series, well the statistics certainly don't bear out that we got killed inside.

Look at the scoring and rebounding for Tyson, AD and Othella vs Haywood, Etan, and Ruffin, not a big difference- in fact, if I remember correctly they are almost identical.

We got outrebounded for the series (and outscored) by Arenas and Hughes, *not the bigs*, for those of you who are bringing up 'statistical' differences...

And FWIW, Tyson's scoring went up 25% over the last 13 games of the regular season (after Eddy went down), and it went up another 25% in the Whiz series. FWIW.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Hey, let's just bring both guys back. It's not like we have to choose between Tyson and Eddy. We do have the power to bring both back. 

If this team was meant to be built on one of the guys, Eddy would have been kept with Brand, or else Eddy traded for Tyson on Draft Day.


----------

