# Bulls not close on extension for Skiles



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,7887606.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

Close to four weeks since the Bulls' surprising season ended, little or no progress has been made to extend coach Scott Skiles' contract. And the mood surrounding the negotiations is becoming one of increasing frustration on both sides.

"I'm not optimistic," said Keith Glass, Skiles' adviser.

Far harsher words have been spoken in the history of contract negotiations, followed shortly by smiling faces and plenty of zeroes after the dollar sign.

But Skiles' camp has rejected the first formal offer, which featured Paxson offering to rip up next season's $2.75 million option and pay him a higher salary as the start of a multiyear deal.

A new proposal made Tuesday featured more incentives but little change in terms of dollars and years, according to someone familiar with the negotiations. That, too, Skiles' camp is likely to reject.

Neither Skiles nor Glass has commented publicly about an asking price, but coaches such as Boston's Doc Rivers and Houston's Jeff Van Gundy (four years, $20 million) have both long-term security and big-money deals.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp

According to a league source, the Bulls have offered Skiles $4 million over three years, with a partially guaranteed fourth season. Glass is said to be asking for $5 million over four years.

The status of negotiations could change today when Skiles returns from vacation for the start of a three-day, free-agent minicamp.

While Skiles is almost certain to coach the Bulls next season, his leverage in these negotiations is similar to restricted free agents such as Tyson Chandler or Eddy Curry — meet my price now or I may play out the option and get the same amount or more on the open market next summer.

“He’s just trying to do his job,” Glass said of Skiles. “We didn’t initiate talks. The Bulls came to us. If we can work something out, great. If not, it’s not the end of the world.”

Of course, what Skiles could get on the open market is anyone’s guess. No team has asked Paxson for permission to contact Skiles.

Some of the NBA teams with coaching vacancies have turned to low-cost, low-profile replacements such as Mike Brown in Cleveland and Brian Hill in Orlando. San Antonio assistant P.J. Carlesimo and Phoenix assistant Marc Iavaroni have been linked to openings in Minnesota and Portland, respectively.

...Scott’s willing to stay in Chicago. He likes the team, likes the players, likes the city, the whole package. Scott’s not trying to get out of Chicago.”


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

This is ridiculous...sign the guy already!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Market value. What a concept.

Four years, twenty million is more than fair. The Brown hiring in Cleveland takes away one of his options, and I guess McGraw's point about Portland and Minnesota is well-taken, but Skiles's stock is high enough now that he could easily take time off, do TV or consulting for a year, and snap up the next high-profile job that comes around.

This just all looks real bad, especially when the Chairman is willing to hand out an extension to Ozzie Guillen mid-season.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Market value. What a concept.
> 
> Four years, twenty million is more than fair. The Brown hiring in Cleveland takes away one of his options, and I guess McGraw's point about Portland and Minnesota is well-taken, but Skiles's stock is high enough now that he could easily take time off, do TV or consulting for a year, and snap up the next high-profile job that comes around.
> 
> This just all looks real bad, especially when the Chairman is willing to hand out an extension to Ozzie Guillen mid-season.


Mike Brown to Cleveland takes away one option.
Larry Brown to Cleveland opens up Detroit.

Do you have your Cleveland Browns confused?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Mike Brown to Cleveland takes away one option.
> Larry Brown to Cleveland opens up Detroit.
> 
> Do you have your Cleveland Browns confused?


No, I just don't think Detroit's a realistic option for Skiles. Whatever traits of Carlisle's rubbed Dumars and ownership the wrong way, Skiles has them and then some.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Skiles Not in the Land of Oz

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/columns/arvia/x01-ard1.htm



> Clearly, Scott Skiles is no Ozzie Guillen.
> 
> His agent hinted Thursday the Bulls coach is preparing to serve out his option and test the open market in 2006-07. Thus, the Bulls will almost certainly have to deal with at least one uncomfortable subplot next season — attempting with a lame-duck coach to duplicate their astonishing success in '04-05, when they compiled the third-best record in the Eastern Conference.
> 
> ...


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> No, I just don't think Detroit's a realistic option for Skiles. Whatever traits of Carlisle's rubbed Dumars and ownership the wrong way, Skiles has them and then some.


 I have no idea what you mean by this. I'm not sure you do either or you would have specified.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> I have no idea what you mean by this. I'm not sure you do either or you would have specified.


Carlisle was supposedly shown the door because he was too intense and didn't like to play nice with VIPs in the front office (remember, this was a COY coming off back-to-back 50-win seasons). I get the sense Skiles is cut from the same cloth as Carlisle, and I simply can't see Dumars going in that direction. 

Does that make more sense?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Carlisle was supposedly shown the door because he was too intense and didn't like to play nice with VIPs in the front office (remember, this was a COY coming off back-to-back 50-win seasons). I get the sense Skiles is cut from the same cloth as Carlisle, and I simply can't see Dumars going in that direction.
> 
> Does that make more sense?



Skiles has drawn a lot more comparisons to Brown than Carlisle. I think Detroit will be in hot pursuit of Skiles if the chips fall as they appear to be falling.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

The Guillen signing does make me really nervous...I'm thinking of joining ye olde fire Jerry club if Skiles isn't re-upped soon...this is ridiculous!


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

More stuff from Arvia in the southtown article:



> Paxson has to see the value of Skiles' many contributions. And Skiles, who has worked for less-understanding management and players in the past, has to see the value of knowing his skills are truly appreciated.
> 
> Ultimately for management, however, the Bulls have to consider their fans' happiness as well. Those fans have been, against all logic, exceedingly loyal.
> 
> ...


A pretty balanced article, I thought. It's hard to know what Skiles is thinking, just yet. I mean, the guy is stubborn enough to fight through the Erobs, etc. and get this team on the same page. And he may think that he didn't sit out for some two years from coaching just to "be happy" with a job. But, he's got to realize the kind of commitment that Paxson made to support him, and his style of coaching. You'd think that would count for something....

Well, for the agent to say that he's not optimistic, it means that he's not going to settle for just anything. He wants a very favorable contract, or else he'll stick with the option year, and see what the next year brings. It's a dangerous game, as he risks introducing a selfish mentality to his team, and, along with Curry's health, he might be looking at a team that does significantly worse than this past year. But maybe he's testing the organization, to see if they're really willing to make the commitment to win..?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

What better way for the Bulls to show they have changed as a franchise and are serious about winning than to step up to the plate and signing Skiles hard and fast ?It shows the players that if you put out you will get back what you put in and then some .

But alas just more dealings with a team ran by


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> More stuff from Arvia in the southtown article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with just about everything you say here, but I would like to point out that no one on last year's team seemed to be miffed with Antonio Davis making $14mil.

Character and attitudes are what brings in selfishness. Contract negotiations should be an aside to the team concept. Outside of the obvious endorsement deals, I think players use agents to take the heat/pressure off of themselves (Skiles included) in negotiations.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Is Paxson and/or Reinsdorf an unofficial member of the Fire Skiles club?

All joking aside, as much as anyone can like Skiles, there were 9 other coaches who won 47 games this year, or last year. There were guys like Karl on the sideline who can win 47 games, too.

It seems to me that Skiles isn't asking for a ridiculous contract, and extending any negotiations at this point can only hurt things in the grand scheme.

:whoknows:


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Carlisle was supposedly shown the door because he was too intense and didn't like to play nice with VIPs in the front office (remember, this was a COY coming off back-to-back 50-win seasons). I get the sense Skiles is cut from the same cloth as Carlisle, and I simply can't see Dumars going in that direction.
> 
> Does that make more sense?



Fair enough, I've always wondered why carlisle was dismissed like he was, after so much promise. The Pistons won a championship so it's hard to question the move, but it makes one wonder. 

I view Brown as the ultimate premadonna -- if Dumars could handle him he could hanlde anybody. A vetran blue-collar team like the Pistons seem like the perfect fit for Skiles to me. . .


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

On a slight tangent, what the hell is Reinsdorf's refusal to deal with any agent regarding management all about?

I'd venture to guess that when *he* goes into a negotiation he's up to the gills in professional advice. Pressuring your employees to do something you, yourself would not do is bad management.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> On a slight tangent, what the hell is Reinsdorf's refusal to deal with any agent regarding management all about?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Market value. What a concept.
> 
> Four years, twenty million is more than fair. The Brown hiring in Cleveland takes away one of his options, and I guess McGraw's point about Portland and Minnesota is well-taken, but Skiles's stock is high enough now that he could easily take time off, do TV or consulting for a year, and snap up the next high-profile job that comes around.
> 
> This just all looks real bad, especially when the Chairman is willing to hand out an extension to Ozzie Guillen mid-season.


Guillen's contract is peanuts compared to what Skiles is asking:

*Guillen:* I will be the same guy," Guillen said Monday after agreeing to a new deal in which *the Sox picked up his option for 2006 and added two more years plus a team option for 2009.

The average value of the contract is believed to be slightly less than the two-year, $1.95 million contract the Los Angeles Dodgers gave Jim Tracy after he won his first division title in four seasons.*

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...len,1,380932.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines

*Skiles:* *According to a league source, the Bulls have offered Skiles $4 million over three years, with a partially guaranteed fourth season. Glass is said to be asking for $5 million over four years.*

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp

Skiles wants the equivilent of what Jeff Van Gundy received from the Rockets and what Doc Rivers got from Boston. Skiles has most of the leverage, and he knows it. I have little doubt he'll get what he's asking for, 4 years and $20 million. But to compare Ozzie's contract situation with Scott's in terms of dollar value and length is absurd. Three years with a team option for a fourth at something under $2 million per year vs. 4 guarranteed years at $5 million per...c'mon, who you kiddin'?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Kismet said:


> Guillen's contract is peanuts compared to what Skiles is asking:
> 
> *Guillen:* I will be the same guy," Guillen said Monday after agreeing to a new deal in which *the Sox picked up his option for 2006 and added two more years plus a team option for 2009.
> 
> ...


They are actually very comparable situations . . . all that what you've posted shows is that the market value for a baseball manager is significantly less than the market value for a basketball coach.

There's no genuine reason for hand-wringing and dillydallying on the Chairman's part. Methinks the delay isn't so that the Chairman can talk Skiles down from his number, but it's so the Chairman can figure out what kind of NBA coach he can get for Guillen money (the Floyd / Cartwright type).


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> They are actually very comparable situations . . . all that what you've posted shows is that the market value for a baseball manager is significantly less than the market value for a basketball coach.
> 
> There's no genuine reason for hand-wringing and dillydallying on the Chairman's part. Methinks the delay isn't so that the Chairman can talk Skiles down from his number, but it's so the Chairman can figure out what kind of NBA coach he can get for Guillen money (the Floyd / Cartwright type).


 Also, Guillen and Skiles are different level coaching prospects. Skiles is a veteran, coming off a brilliant season. Guillen is with his first team and while they're playing well, does anyone really believe he would get the same level of offers on the open market?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Methinks the delay isn't so that the Chairman can talk Skiles down from his number, but it's so the Chairman can figure out what kind of NBA coach he can get for Guillen money (the Floyd / Cartwright type).


Yeah, and we could see Ben Gordon dunk. That'd be pretty cool.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

BealeFarange said:


> The Guillen signing does make me really nervous...I'm thinking of joining ye olde fire Jerry club if Skiles isn't re-upped soon...this is ridiculous!


It sounds to me like Ozzie wasn't being nearly as steep nor picky about his asking price. The two situations seem very different.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2073683


complete with skiles' quotes from today at the berto:



> DEERFIELD, Ill. -- Nearly a month after leading the Chicago Bulls to their first playoff appearance in seven years, coach Scott Skiles still doesn't have a contract extension.
> 
> The organization reportedly offered to tear up its $2.75 million option for next season and reward Skiles with a multiyear deal. But no agreement is in place.
> 
> ...




_memo to skiles:

maybe? maybe??? if it's $5 a year for four years, you better take that!! geez. you've "repaired" your rep, yes, and helped turn the team and culture around, but the players did have something to do with it, no? 

sign the damn offer. you're not gonna get a five year deal from jerry. 

the miz_


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2073683
> 
> 
> complete with skiles' quotes from today at the berto:
> ...



To me, it sounds like the Bulls are at 3 years and a bit less than $12M guarenteed.

Skiles wants 4 years and $20M.

I don't see Reinsdorf blinking.... I wonder if Pax wants to see how much he has to pay for his players.

Does Curry's health play into this at all? Does Skiles have less leverage if Curry gets total clearance? Because a lot of coaches would want to coach our young core.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Paxson can say all he wants to about being confident in the franchise bringing everyone back, but the proof is in the pudding. Every GM should be salivating for the opportunity to extend offers to our free agents becuase their is no guarantee any of our players will be resigned.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

such sweet thunder said:


> Paxson can say all he wants to about being confident in the franchise bringing everyone back, but the proof is in the pudding. Every GM should be salivating for the opportunity to extend offers to our free agents becuase their is no guarantee any of our players will be resigned.



yup.










this one is all on jerry.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> When asked whether he would prefer to go into next season with an extension, Skiles said "maybe" after a lengthy pause.
> 
> "What if it's $5 a year for four years?" he wondered, after being asked to elaborate.


If he's willing to work for half a sawbuck a year, thank God he has an agent...



:angel:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> yup.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Get Jerry an extension. I bet he could use one...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

I wonder if Paxson would stick his neck out for Skiles?

Does Paxson appreciate Skiles enough or value him enough to do what it takes to convince Uncle Jerry to sign him? Does Paxson have a general operating budget to work with or does each transaction have to be approved by Uncle Jerry? 

A good manager knows how to convince the purse holder to pay what it takes to better the firm.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> _sign the damn offer. you're not gonna get a five year deal from jerry.
> 
> the miz_


Don't we want our coaches and players to be content and to make the money they deserve -- money that other teams, who don't have anything close to the revenue stream the Bulls do, would gladly pay them?

I just don't understand the mindset. Four years and twenty million dollars is pretty much a run-of-the-mill contract for a coach with Skiles's experience and proven track record. Why should he be expected to settle for anything less? 

The pro-Reinsdorf crowd will say that this embarrassing process (and yes, it is embarrassing) is just "good business." Well, it's not. It's bad business to make your top performers beg and grovel and grind to get what they're worth. 

The pro-Reinsdorf crowd will say that "Jerry is trying to hold down costs so the team's financial future is flexible." Well, that's bunk. There's no salary cap for coaches and front offices, so all Reinsdorf is doing here is protecting the financial interests of the Bulls' owners. Fair enough, but don't act all stunned when the fans call bull****.

The pro-Reinsdorf crowd will say "man, why can't Skiles be like Ozzie Guillen and take Jerry's offer and just be thankful to be alive?" Well, Ozzie did what Ozzie did. Skiles is going to do what he needs to do. And, it needs to be said again, Ozzie "settled" for a deal commensurate to his accomplishments, a deal that compares favorably to managers with similar resumes. That's all Skiles wants, too: forget about the dollar totals, or the folly of comparing what MLB managers make to what NBA coaches make.

And here's the thing I really don't get: doling out the payroll needed to run a successful NBA team obviously gets Reinsdorf's panties into a huge, sweaty, angry bunch, and he's said thousands of times that compared to White Sox, he basically doesn't care about the Bulls. Why not sell out, take home a 3000% return on your initial investment made 20 years ago, and leave the business of "overpaying" ingrates like Michael Jordan, Phil Jackson, and Scott Skiles to someone else?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> And here's the thing I really don't get: doling out the payroll needed to run a successful NBA team obviously gets Reinsdorf's panties into a huge, sweaty, angry bunch, and he's said thousands of times that compared to White Sox, he basically doesn't care about the Bulls. Why not sell out, take home a 3000% return on your initial investment made 20 years ago, and leave the business of "overpaying" ingrates like Michael Jordan, Phil Jackson, and Scott Skiles to someone else?


LOL. :clap: :cheers: :clap:


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Don't we want our coaches and players to be content and to make the money they deserve -- money that other teams, who don't have anything close to the revenue stream the Bulls do, would gladly pay them?
> 
> I just don't understand the mindset. Four years and twenty million dollars is pretty much a run-of-the-mill contract for a coach with Skiles's experience and proven track record. Why should he be expected to settle for anything less?
> 
> ...



i agree. too many articles left me confused as to the amount of money years being offered. god. part of my little rant was in thinking that in fact 5mil/4yr had been offered when in fact it's considerably less money and years. my bad, can't read (and/or type) sorry. i agree that skiles is worth that. 

i also hate that this isn't settled yet. jerry's being very cheap.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I wonder if Paxson would stick his neck out for Skiles?
> 
> . . . .
> 
> A good manager knows how to convince the purse holder to pay what it takes to better the firm.


Hopefully, Paxson is willing to stick his neck out at least this much:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Hopefully, Paxson is willing to stick his neck out at least this much:


TB#1,

I can't figure out what exactly the connection is, but something tells me your repeated use of this saucy graphic and your possible impending move to Florida are somehow related.

You'll tell us when you're ready to tell us, of course.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Has anyone ever read Robert Ringer's "Winning through intimidation"?

Highly entertaining read and rather pertinent Papa Jerr


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Hopefully, Paxson is willing to stick his neck out at least this much:



of course if you look closely you'll see what this really is.

:angel: 

so appropriate tb#1.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

The Chicagosports.com site is saying the Bulls offered 4 years, 17 mil. Man, that sounds more than fair to me if that is true. Skiles is upset with this??

I wouldn't wan't to sign the guy any longer than 4 years. He had a great first year in Phoenix, then year 2 he was gone. He has one great year with the Bulls and thinks he deserves 5 years? Sorry, I don't think 5 years is reasonable with his limited experience. This is not Phil Jackson, Pat Reilly. He is not proven enough over a long period to warrant too long a deal. If the Bulls regress next year and players start to tune Skiles out, he may melt down like he did in Phoenix. Half way through next season we may be moaning to replace him and realize we are stuck because he just signed a 5 year deal and Reinsdorf won't let him go regardless of performance.

I say make that 4 year, 17 mil deal the final offer. It is generous in my opinion with Skiles limited experience. If he says no, keep him next year and see what happens. If we can't re-sign him next year, might be time for Phil to return. Phil and Pax are buddies.

People, don't let one season make you believe Skiles is definitely a long term solution. He did a great job, but don't lock him up so long that Reinsdorf keps him as coach no matter what happens. We could be stuck.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Don't we want our coaches and players to be content and to make the money they deserve -- money that other teams, who don't have anything close to the revenue stream the Bulls do, would gladly pay them?
> 
> I just don't understand the mindset. Four years and twenty million dollars is pretty much a run-of-the-mill contract for a coach with Skiles's experience and proven track record. Why should he be expected to settle for anything less?
> 
> ...



I'm definately not pro-Reinsdorf, but I really don't see a problem with what is being done here regarding the Skiles situation. He's offering Skiles financial security when he does not have to (since we still have the option on Skiles for this year).

I might be feeling this way because I'm not a fan of contract extensions anyways. Anyone who signs a contract should be expected to play out the term of that contract and then see what the future brings. I hate it when players cry about being underpaid. You signed the darn contract in the first place. You should be happy that you have improved yourself and your value and realize your hard work is going to get you paid when the contract you already signed is up. Imagine if this were the NFL and your contracts were non-guaranteed. You certainly would see a lot less whining about the ability to feed your family.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> of course if you look closely you'll see what this really is.
> 
> :angel:
> 
> so appropriate tb#1.


Except that the number does not go past 11


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I agree with Salvaged Ship. This isn't Phil Jackson or Pat Reily we're talking about. I like Skiles' fit with this team, but he is not the experienced coach that some of you are making him out to be. He coached 1.5 seasons in Phoenix, right? And another 1.5 seasons in Chicago?

The Tribune reported today that 4 years, $17 million is the Bulls' current offer, with $14 million of that being guarenteed. That seems like a very fair offer to me. But here's what baffles me more than anything:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...ontract,1,898317.story?coll=cs-home-headlines



> Skiles' camp denies it is asking $20 million guaranteed over four years.
> 
> In terms of numbers, the sides are closer than the pessimistic comments would indicate. Nobody, however, can predict what kind of effect respect—or a perceived lack of it—will play as the saga continues to hurtle toward the artificial deadline of June 30.


So again I ask, what the hell is the problem here?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> So again I ask, what the hell is the problem here?


Perhaps Skiles' hard-nosed, black-and-white, "right way" attitude extends to other areas of his life, contract negotiations included.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I agree with Salvaged Ship. This isn't Phil Jackson or Pat Reily we're talking about. I like Skiles' fit with this team, but he is not the experienced coach that some of you are making him out to be. He coached 1.5 seasons in Phoenix, right? And another 1.5 seasons in Chicago?
> 
> The Tribune reported today that 4 years, $17 million is the Bulls' current offer, with $14 million of that being guarenteed. That seems like a very fair offer to me. But here's what baffles me more than anything:
> 
> ...



maybe the problem is KC to jumping to conclusions? and yes, i could have SWORN i read somewhere yesterday that he wanted 5 years - so thanks skinking ship. i thought i was losing my mind. (no snide comments from the peanut gallery)

i think three years guaranteed and a partially guaranteed 4th year in the 17 million ballpark is more than fair. according to the figures in the article it would make him one of the highest paid coaches in the nba. so again, i ask what's the problem?

and yes jerry has said he will pay for a winner, but what has skiles really won so far? most coaches would have been canned after starting 0-9. 

i think he is the right coach for this team - for right now - but for him to expect more than 4 years is crazy.


sidenote: LOL rhyder!

:smilewink


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> So again I ask, what the hell is the problem here?


The problem is that Skiles and his agent are disgusted by how Reinsdorf is "negotiating" with them.



> "But I also think anybody in this profession would like to see a certain amount of excitement and their team be genuinely excited about retaining someone's services. Sometimes that's true. You see that from some teams. Other teams, you see more reluctance."


We've seen it all before. Bulls players and coaches do their jobs, their contract comes up for negotiations, and all of a sudden their flaws and shortcomings are put under a microscope and things get acrimonious and dicey real quick.

I've said before and truly believe that Skiles is well within his rights to ask for 20 million guaranteed over five years. But it looks like at this point it's not even about money. It's about a guy wanting to hear that he's done a great job, not hearing stuff like "I don't acknowledge the existence of coaches' agents" and "I'm going to regret paying you this." 

Pretty simple, basic, human, real-world stuff. I guess it's "good business" to hold down Skiles's cost by grinding him down to a nub if you're a Bulls' shareholder. It's really bad business in just about every other respect, but it's going to be par for the course as long as Jerry Reinsdorf is running things.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> The problem is that Skiles and his agent are disgusted by how Reinsdorf is "negotiating" with them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your point is taken, and I understand what you mean. But to my knowledge, I didn't think Reinsdorf is the one conducting/mediating contract negotiations. That's Pax's job, and Pax has given Skiles plenty of praise & respect over the past several months. As Uncle Jerry says, "John Paxson makes the decisions; I only have veto power." I don't know how true that statement is (though I've read something like that in the Tribune fairly recently), but I can't imagine how much face-to-face contact Reinsdorf and Skiles have had with each other. Uncle Jerry is just there to write checks and earn profits, right? 

Regardless, Skiles doesn't exactly seem like the type who really wants to be hugged and kissed evey time he doesn't something well. He seems to have plenty of respect from the organization, particularly from Pax. Is there any tangible evidence that Reinsdorf has had any negative influence on these contract negotiations?


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

I think Skiles has proven himself worthy of a contract extension and he deserves one.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull021.html




> *With negotiations on a new contract or extension for Bulls coach Scott Skiles having broken off, Skiles and his agent, Keith Glass, are resigned to Skiles playing out his contract and perhaps signing to coach elsewhere after next season.*
> 
> The Bulls have until June 30 to pick up the option on Skiles' contract for 2005-06. If they do, Skiles has said he will not negotiate an extension during the season and will become a free agent next summer.
> 
> ...



have talks actually BROKEN OFF??

this is getting ridiculous.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

If I were a cheap *******, I'd be looking at an impending lockout/strike and wondering if signing Skiles now makes sense. Maybe I'd wait until the situation is cleared up. That way I wouldn't have to shell out as much as $14M for a guy NOT to coach.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Perhaps this is the detail ScottMay was referring to...it's a detail I had not heard until just now:



> Perhaps the main quirk in these negotiations between Glass and Bulls operations chief John Paxson is the refusal of Bulls chairman Jerry Reinsdorf to meet with Glass. Reinsdorf is on the record saying he will not negotiate with agents for coaches or managers.


But then there's this, which indicates Reinsdorf has not had a negative impact on the situation:



> But Skiles says Glass, *who denies that Reinsdorf's refusal to meet with him is preventing an agreement*, will remain his agent.


I'm still not understanding what the problem is. Skiles and his agent seem upset with something, and I'm just not seeing it. Pax repeatedly has said he wants Skiles back and has bombarded him with praise for most of the season. Reinsdorf has stayed out of negotiations (which is a good thing IMO), and has allowed for a perfectly fair offer. And yet there is something which is not money-related preventing a contract from getting done. I'm at a loss, really.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=56516




> Speaking after the first session of a three-day free-agent minicamp at the Berto Center, Skiles gave Glass his full support.
> 
> “Absolutely. I’ve been represented by the Glass family going on 20 years now,” Skiles said. “They’re part of my family, really. So nothing will come between us.”
> 
> ...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

As Bulls fans, we have to ask ourselves how important was Skiles to the success of the team last season. I'm of the opinion that he was pretty much the MVP of the team... and is essential to what we are trying to do going forward. I don’t think replacing him with a “veteran” NBA coach would be a good idea.

Given that, they should pay him. Screw fair. Pay him lavishly if need be. There is no salary cap and the Bulls are fat with profit.

This type of nickel and dime **** is what helped to piss off Jordan, Pippen and Jackson as well.

I don't really care about paying him an extra 1 million a year or giving him an extra year and the Bulls should be able to do it. Given the Pippen signing, it sure would not be the biggest waste of company $$$ on Paxson's watch.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/021sd8.htm




> After the start of a three-day free-agent minicamp at the Berto Center on Wednesday, Skiles responded to questions about his uncertain future with several short and even one-word answers.
> 
> Then again, that's all that was necessary.
> 
> ...


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> As Bulls fans, we have to ask ourselves how important was Skiles to the success of the team last season. I'm of the opinion that he was pretty much the MVP of the team... and is essential to what we are trying to do going forward. I don’t think replacing him with a “veteran” NBA coach would be a good idea.
> 
> Given that, they should pay him. Screw fair. Pay him lavishly if need be. There is no salary cap and the Bulls are fat with profit.
> 
> ...


The thing is, I'm not even sure these problems are money-related. KC Johnson said that the two parties are pretty close number-wise. And yet, a deal isn't even close to being reached. There is something else underlying the situation, it seems.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> The problem is that Skiles and his agent are disgusted by how Reinsdorf is "negotiating" with them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is the quote that stuck out for me as well. 

But I'm not sure I'm so willing to take Skiles' side 100% on this. The money issue is not that far off. So this is going to come down to Skiles' not being appreciated enough by the upper management? 

I don't know. K4E is right, Skiles is negotiating just like he would be telling Eddy to jump. But he's not dealing with a kid who needs guidance. He's dealing with a successful businessman who runs the team the way he knows how, and has been, pretty successful doing it. 

To me, the main thing Skiles has got to be worried about is commitment to back him up in the face of the * inevitable * conflicts that are going to arise as the team gets more successful and different players' agendas become more pronounced. He's no dummy. He knows it will happen. He was able to pull off this past year in large part because Pax was behind him 100%, so there was no doubt that in a conflict, it was the player who would go. Maybe Skiles feels he needs that kind of support. Kind of like a HS teacher who knows that without support from the principal, there ain't no way he's going to be able to control or discipline his class the way he'd like. 

The Bulls are probably greatly concerned about burn out. There is a history of it (phoenix). Their way of dealing with it is to limit their commitment to Skiles. Skiles proposed solution is that the Bulls maximize their commitment to him, so that he is always dealing from a position of strength. He thinks he's proved that his way works, and expects the Bulls to help him coach that way to the end...? 

I'm not sure I have a clear idea of what is going on. I'm just putting out some ideas. 

But it does seem to me that the issue is one of how to maintain a coach's authority to coach in an increasingly younger league.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

> The Bulls are probably greatly concerned about burn out. There is a history of it (phoenix). Their way of dealing with it is to limit their commitment to Skiles. Skiles proposed solution is that the Bulls maximize their commitment to him, so that he is always dealing from a position of strength. He thinks he's proved that his way works, and expects the Bulls to help him coach that way to the end...?


I like Skiles as much as anyone, but I would be lying if there's wasn't any concern about burnout or players tuning him out at some point. Yes, he did a fabulous coaching job last year, however, the "give him what he wants, when he wants" sentiment is about as knee-jerk as it gets (especially from a certain few who were ready to fire him a few months ago).

Fact is, the NBA is full of "successful turnaround - to - burnout" cases. Hubie Brown was last year's version of Skiles, how did that work out for him this season?

As far as the comparisons to Van Gundy and Doc Rivers thrown out by ScottMay, I would be curious to see where their contracts rank among all coaches?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> As far as the comparisons to Van Gundy and Doc Rivers thrown out by ScottMay, I would be curious to see where their contracts rank among all coaches?


Both Van Gundy and Rivers are among the highest paid coaches in the league (both are top 5, I think), except both of those guys have a better track record than Skiles IMO. Both proved they're willing to stick with a team (5+ year tenures). Van Gundy even coached a #8 seed to the Finals. And Rivers mostly had success in Orlando before being fired amidst last year's mess. Judging from their track records, they both seem to be pretty safe investments. Skiles resigned in less than 2 years with Phoenix, and it's been less than 2 years in Chicago. Take it for what it's worth.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

yodurk said:


> Both Van Gundy and Rivers are among the highest paid coaches in the league (both are top 5, I think), except both of those guys have a better track record than Skiles IMO. Both proved they're willing to stick with a team (5+ year tenures). Van Gundy even coached a #8 seed to the Finals. And Rivers mostly had success in Orlando before being fired amidst last year's mess. Judging from their track records, they both seem to be pretty safe investments. Skiles resigned in less than 2 years with Phoenix, and it's been less than 2 years in Chicago. Take it for what it's worth.


Ok, that's sort of where I was going (although I do believe Rivers is grossly overpaid). Skiles does not deserve to be one of the top 5 highest paid coaches in the league, and him asking for that type of money would be as egregious as Reinsdorf offering a $2M per year extension.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Ok, that's sort of where I was going (although I do believe Rivers is grossly overpaid). Skiles does not deserve to be one of the top 5 highest paid coaches in the league, and him asking for that type of money would be as egregious as Reinsdorf offering a $2M per year extension.


Does anyone know a link to a page with all the coaches' salaries?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Does anyone know a link to a page with all the coaches' salaries?


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2005-salary-coaches.htm

The Gastonia (NC) Gazette also publishes an annual survey that is supposed to be even more accurate than this, but it's not available online.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2005-salary-coaches.htm
> 
> The Gastonia (NC) Gazette also publishes an annual survey that is supposed to be even more accurate than this, but it's not available online.


Thanks for the list, Mr. May.

Hmm, looking at that list, I'm thinking Skiles hasn't really done enough to command more than 4 mil per, has he?

Phil Jackson may be tipping the scales for coaches after this summer, though.


----------



## FreeSpeech101 (Jul 30, 2004)

Frankensteiner said:


> I like Skiles as much as anyone, but I would be lying if there's wasn't any concern about burnout or players tuning him out at some point. Yes, he did a fabulous coaching job last year, however, the "give him what he wants, when he wants" sentiment is about as knee-jerk as it gets (especially from a certain few who were ready to fire him a few months ago).
> 
> Fact is, the NBA is full of "successful turnaround - to - burnout" cases. Hubie Brown was last year's version of Skiles, how did that work out for him this season?
> 
> As far as the comparisons to Van Gundy and Doc Rivers thrown out by ScottMay, I would be curious to see where their contracts rank among all coaches?


 :clap:


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

The list of coaches' salaries is a good piece of info (I didn't realize Adelman is far and away the highest paid in the league!). It seems obvious where Skiles belongs on that list...somewhere in the $4M per year range over 3-4 years. That's a standard contract for someone with his qualifications, experience, and track record. I mean, does he really think he deserves more than a Popovich or Carlisle? Because that's precisely what each of them are making.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Thanks for the list, Mr. May.
> 
> Hmm, looking at that list, I'm thinking Skiles hasn't really done enough to command more than 4 mil per, has he?
> 
> Phil Jackson may be tipping the scales for coaches after this summer, though.


Well, several things.

First of all, if you factor out interim guys, Skiles is just about the lowest-paid coach in the league -- only Mitchell, Porter, and D'Antoni make less on their current deals on an annual basis (and D'Antoni is obviously in line for a huge raise). So it stands to reason that Skiles is trying to compensate for that a little bit.

Second, you're right about Jackson. When his name is (probably pretty realistically) being floated as a $10 million/year guy and Flip Saunders is said to be asking $8, all of a sudden $5 seems pretty reasonable. That has an upward drag on salaries, which leads me to . . . 

. . . accounting for "inflation." Maybe if you look at Skiles's accomplishments, you think that $4 million / year sounds about right. But the $4 million/year coaches you're comparing him to signed their deals one or two or more years ago. Skiles wants the LAST year of his deal to be competitive with his peers, not just the first.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2005-salary-coaches.htm
> 
> The Gastonia (NC) Gazette also publishes an annual survey that is supposed to be even more accurate than this, but it's not available online.


Thanks for the list. If true, the Bulls 4yr./$17 M offer reported in the Tribune is more than fair IMO.

Looks like Skiles and his agent are using the media quite nicely in all this. It's so easy to paint "honest, hardworking" Skiles as another victim of the "money-hungry" Reinsdorf. Now if the Bulls don't cave into his demands, fans will be upset that Skiles does not have the 3rd highest coaching salary in the league coming off his one good year with the Bulls.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> however, the "give him what he wants, when he wants" sentiment is about as knee-jerk as it gets (especially from a certain few who were ready to fire him a few months ago).


Not surprisingly, I find it equally curious that so many Skiles supporters now want to low-ball the guy.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Thanks for the list. If true, the Bulls 4yr./$17 M offer reported in the Tribune is more than fair IMO.
> 
> Looks like Skiles and his agent are using the media quite nicely in all this. It's so easy to paint "honest, hardworking" Skiles as another victim of the "money-hungry" Reinsdorf. Now if the Bulls don't cave into his demands, fans will be upset that Skiles does not have the 3rd highest coaching salary in the league coming off his one good year with the Bulls.


For you and Yodurk: you have to look past this year. If Skiles signs a 4 year, $20 million dollar deal, in two years he probably will be nowhere near the third-highest paid coach in the league.

And all outward signs are that this isn't as much about money as it is Skiles and Glass thinking Reinsdorf is a raging, unappreciative a-hole that they don't want to be tied to for the next four years.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Not surprisingly, I find it equally curious that so many Skiles supporters now want to low-ball the guy.


4yr./$17 M is a lowball offer?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Not surprisingly, I find it equally curious that so many Skiles supporters now want to low-ball the guy.


As I said, making $4M per year puts him right where he should on the list of coaches salaries. But your previous post was very convincing, so I think a 3-4 year deal worth $5M per year is reasonable....but there is absolutely no reason for Papa Reinsdorf to shell out any more than that.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> For you and Yodurk: you have to look past this year. If Skiles signs a 4 year, $20 million dollar deal, in two years he probably will be nowhere near the third-highest paid coach in the league.
> 
> And all outward signs are that this isn't as much about money as it is Skiles and Glass thinking Reinsdorf is a raging, unappreciative a-hole that they don't want to be tied to for the next four years.


But the point is, even with inflation facotred in, he probably should not be making more than Popovich and Carlisle, two coaches who already had much greater qualifications (as compared to Skiles) before they signed those deals. So when you factor that in, $4 M per is reasonable enough.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> 4yr./$17 M is a lowball offer?


Yup, 3.5 million of GUARANTEED money over 4 years is a lowball offer. IMO.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> And all outward signs are that this isn't as much about money as it is Skiles and Glass thinking Reinsdorf is a raging, unappreciative a-hole that they don't want to be tied to for the next four years.


If by "all outward signs" you mean your own pure, fact-less conjecture then you're probably right on.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Yup, 3.5 million of GUARANTEED money over 4 years is a lowball offer. IMO.





> Sources say the Bulls' four-year offer is for $17 million, with the first three years averaging $4 million and an "option" year at $5 million with $2 million guaranteed.
> 
> That translates to Skiles collecting $14 million to $17 million, *an average salary of $4.67 million if he coaches three seasons, or $4.25 million if he coaches four*. That would place him among the NBA's highest-paid coaches.


You're math is a bit off.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> But the point is, even with inflation facotred in, he probably should not be making more than Popovich and Carlisle, two coaches who already had much greater qualifications (as compared to Skiles) before they signed those deals. So when you factor that in, $4 M per is reasonable enough.


It's funny that the Reinsdorf fans always like to tell the story about the sage Chairman warning Scottie Pippen not to sign the contract the Bulls were offering him back in 1989 (IIRC). The Chairman warned him that it was for too long a term, and that he wouldn't reward him with an extension if Pippen proved to be worth far more than the contract.

Here's Skiles attempting to protect himself from that, and he's getting ripped for it. I simply don't understand.

What bearing does an extension that Popovich got in 2003 have on Skiles's situation now? If Skiles signs a 4 year, 20 million extension this year, he'll make more than Popovich for a season. Then Popovich will sign a 4 year, 32 million dollar extension and make a lot more than Skiles. Then Phil Jackson will land a job somewhere and make more than Popovich. And so on. That's how these things work.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> If by "all outward signs" you mean your own pure, fact-less conjecture then you're probably right on.


No conjecture -- this is straight from Skiles:



> "But I also think anybody in this profession would like to see a certain amount of excitement and their team be genuinely excited about retaining someone's services. Sometimes that's true. You see that from some teams. Other teams, you see more reluctance."


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It's funny that the Reinsdorf fans always like to tell the story about the sage Chairman warning Scottie Pippen not to sign the contract the Bulls were offering him back in 1989 (IIRC). The Chairman warned him that it was for too long a term, and that he wouldn't reward him with an extension if Pippen proved to be worth far more than the contract.
> 
> Here's Skiles attempting to protect himself from that, and he's getting ripped for it. I simply don't understand.
> 
> What bearing does an extension that Popovich got in 2003 have on Skiles's situation now? If Skiles signs a 4 year, 20 million extension this year, he'll make more than Popovich for a season. Then Popovich will sign a 4 year, 32 million dollar extension and make a lot more than Skiles. Then Phil Jackson will land a job somewhere and make more than Popovich. And so on. That's how these things work.


I think we're all pretty much in agreement as to about how much money Skiles should command, right? We're not all over the map here.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> And all outward signs are that this isn't as much about money as it is Skiles and Glass thinking Reinsdorf is a raging, unappreciative a-hole that they don't want to be tied to for the next four years.


That could be true...

Just how much does Skiles have to deal with Reinsdorf again, once a fair contract is signed?

But if you mean that JR will severely handcuff Paxson and hinder him from signing the players they need to be successful, that's a possible concern. And in that case, it might be worth Skiles' while to wait and see just how JR will handle the three core guys up for contracts this year. 

However, I don't buy it, because Skiles is making it about himself, and being appreciated, and having people enthusiastic about him. You have an opinion about JR, and it might be shared by SS. But I don't see Reinsdorf's relationship with SS being the controlling factor here in how Skiles will view his time here. 

I think its a basketball and management philosophy issue. Skiles said he's been thinking about this forever. He's got an idea of how to make things work for him as a coach, and for his team. Paxson is hedging his bets, because Skiles is still an unknown quantity in the long term. 

Anyway, I gotta believe there is a lot more to this issue than a personal distrust of JR as an owner. Skiles may well be that sensitive that he can only work for a "caring" owner -- however, it just doesn't seem that's the real story, given how he conducts himself with his own players. Time will tell.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> It's funny that the Reinsdorf fans always like to tell the story about the sage Chairman warning Scottie Pippen not to sign the contract the Bulls were offering him back in 1989 (IIRC). The Chairman warned him that it was for too long a term, and that he wouldn't reward him with an extension if Pippen proved to be worth far more than the contract.
> 
> Here's Skiles attempting to protect himself from that, and he's getting ripped for it. I simply don't understand.
> 
> What bearing does an extension that Popovich got in 2003 have on Skiles's situation now? If Skiles signs a 4 year, 20 million extension this year, he'll make more than Popovich for a season. Then Popovich will sign a 4 year, 32 million dollar extension and make a lot more than Skiles. Then Phil Jackson will land a job somewhere and make more than Popovich. And so on. That's how these things work.


So are you saying Skiles isn't signing now b/c the Bulls are giving him a lowball offer or he isn't signing because he'll make more if he waits another year?


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> It's funny that the Reinsdorf fans always like to tell the story about the sage Chairman warning Scottie Pippen not to sign the contract the Bulls were offering him back in 1989 (IIRC). The Chairman warned him that it was for too long a term, and that he wouldn't reward him with an extension if Pippen proved to be worth far more than the contract.
> 
> Here's Skiles attempting to protect himself from that, and he's getting ripped for it. I simply don't understand.
> 
> What bearing does an extension that Popovich got in 2003 have on Skiles's situation now? If Skiles signs a 4 year, 20 million extension this year, he'll make more than Popovich for a season. Then Popovich will sign a 4 year, 32 million dollar extension and make a lot more than Skiles. Then Phil Jackson will land a job somewhere and make more than Popovich. And so on. That's how these things work.


It's a 4 year contract, he'll still be in the top half of highest paid coaches when that last year rolls around. And if he's successful by then, they're likely to re-sign him to another contract after 3 years without using the option year. Are you that convinced that coaching salaries will spiral out of control in the next 3 years?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> So are you saying Skiles isn't signing now b/c the Bulls are giving him a lowball offer or he isn't signing because he'll make more if he waits another year?


I don't know if he's thinking about his income potential. I think he's thinking about . . . 

A. How his initial offer (or counteroffer) was received by the Bulls. 

B. Whether or not he wants to cement a long-term relationship with an organization that reacts to offers/counteroffers in such a manner, doesn't want to deal with agents, etc.

C. Whether or not this is a good basketball situation -- I said this after the Washington meltdown, that the way the series ended may have given Skiles second thoughts about this team's ceiling.

And for the record, I have no doubt that at this point Paxson is basically like a third party to these negotiations. I'm sure Paxson would like to have Skiles back and he would like to make him happy and reward him for a history-making season, but the decision is completely and utterly out of his hands.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> No conjecture -- this is straight from Skiles:
> 
> 
> > "But I also think anybody in this profession would like to see a certain amount of excitement and their team be genuinely excited about retaining someone's services. Sometimes that's true. You see that from some teams. Other teams, you see more reluctance."


Yeah, but maybe in his mind, if the Bulls don't offer him a $5M per year deal right off the bat, he's sees that as some sort of insult. Plus, as I mentioned, he could just be using the media to paint Reinsdorf and the Bulls in a bad light. So it is conjecture because it could very well be tied to money.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> C. Whether or not this is a good basketball situation -- I said this after the Washington meltdown, that the way the series ended may have given Skiles second thoughts about this team's ceiling.
> 
> And for the record, I have no doubt that at this point Paxson is basically like a third party to these negotiations. I'm sure Paxson would like to have Skiles back and he would like to make him happy and reward him for a history-making season, but the decision is completely and utterly out of his hands.


Point C is interesting. True enough. No superstars. Not clear where one will come from. (Amare is making the two C's look pretty ordinary.) Doubt this is definitive, but could be a factor.

However, IF you are right about your statement for the record, then Skiles has every right and reason to back out. In such a case, Paxson is like a clown who is being left out to dry by Reinsdorf. 

I, for one, don't buy it. But what do I know?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Yeah, but maybe in his mind, if the Bulls don't offer him a $5M per year deal right off the bat, he's sees that as some sort of insult. Plus, as I mentioned, he could just be using the media to paint Reinsdorf and the Bulls in a bad light. So it is conjecture because it could very well be tied to money.


Or it could be that Skiles tried to have his agent do his job, a role that 29 other NBA owners don't seem to problem with, and Reinsdorf refused his calls. Or it could be that Skiles himself had discussions with Reinsdorf, and Reinsdorf took the angry "I'm going to regret paying you this" route and it really put off Skiles. Who knows? 

I've got no illusions that Skiles is an angel -- as I said, I'm not ruling out the possibility that Skiles wants to wriggle out of Chicago. But this is just another example of why it's ludicrous for people to tell me all year, "Oh, don't worry about Chandler/Curry/Player X; Paxson has promised to re-sign him." There are no "promises" or no-brainers when the Chairman's involved.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Sources say the Bulls' four-year offer is for $17 million, with the first three years averaging $4 million and an "option" year at $5 million with $2 million guaranteed.

That translates to Skiles collecting $14 million to $17 million, an average salary of $4.67 million if he coaches three seasons, or $4.25 million if he coaches four. That would place him among the NBA's highest-paid coaches.*


if he doesn't take this, imo, he is being delusional as to his worth and verging on being greedy. i think the issue isn't so much the money, but the length of contract. 

like yodurk said earlier in the thread, what exactly has skiles proven or won? the fact that he downplayed the players contributions to this past season (in the herald article) make me think his ego is run a bit amok.

i'm not buying the "my feelings are hurt" thing. if he coaches out next year without a deal in place i think it could backfire on him big time. we are not the sonics with proven all-stars. we have a still very young and impressionable core who, despite the dramatic and surprising turn around of this season, still have not accomplished very much. 



just my :twocents:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I've got no illusions that Skiles is an angel -- as I said, I'm not ruling out the possibility that Skiles wants to wriggle out of Chicago.



In favor of where? That's my only question right now. Where would Skiles potentially see a better situation for himself? Detroit, if the Brown to Cleveland rumors are true? Lord knows Skiles would probably love that situation.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://chicago.comcastsportsnet.com/multimedia.asp

skiles at the berto yesterday.


doesn't look that tan to me :smilewink


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

yodurk said:


> Both Van Gundy and Rivers are among the highest paid coaches in the league (both are top 5, I think), except both of those guys have a better track record than Skiles IMO. Both proved they're willing to stick with a team (5+ year tenures). Van Gundy even coached a #8 seed to the Finals. And Rivers mostly had success in Orlando before being fired amidst last year's mess. Judging from their track records, they both seem to be pretty safe investments. Skiles resigned in less than 2 years with Phoenix, and it's been less than 2 years in Chicago. Take it for what it's worth.


You cannot compare Skiles with Van Gumby, it's not even close.

"Prior to joining the Rockets, Van Gundy compiled a 248-172 record in seven seasons as the head coach of the New York Knicks. Van Gundy stands third in Knicks history in coaching wins, trailing only Red Holzman and Joe Lapchick. In Knicks history, Van Gundy’s winning percentage of .590 ranks second behind Pat Riley’s franchise record of .680.

New York advanced to the playoffs in each of Van Gundy’s first six seasons, moving past the first round five times. In Knicks history, he trails only Holzman and Lapchick for number of playoff berths. Van Gundy’s most successful playoff run with the Knicks came in 1999, when he became the first coach in NBA history to guide an eighth-seeded team to the NBA Finals. The following season, the Knicks continued their postseason success with a trip to the Eastern Conference Finals."

http://www.nba.com/coachfile/jeff_van_gundy/index.html?nav=page

Sorry Scott, but you aren't in Jeff's league when it comes to experience and success.

Rivers is a different story, it's fairly close except that Doc has won a Coach of the Year.

"The 42-year old Rivers spent four plus seasons as the Head Coach of the Orlando Magic. His first year at the helm in Orlando he led a team predicted by most to finish near or at the bottom of the league that included four starters who were not drafted. (my add- the 5th starter was Mercer) Rivers guided the team to a 41-41 record, and for his efforts, Rivers was named the 1999-2000 NBA Coach-of-the-Year.

Overall he compiled a 171-168 record (.506) in his four-plus seasons as Orlando's Head Coach, advancing the team to the playoffs three times."

(Skiles' current record is 178-162 I believe)

But since the dynasty was "broken up so we wouldn't become the Celtics", I'm not sure their coach is a good example. :biggrin:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/2005-salary-coaches.htm
> 
> The Gastonia (NC) Gazette also publishes an annual survey that is supposed to be even more accurate than this, but it's not available online.


The thing is, that list doesn't show what monies are guaranteed. For example, Skiles is shown to have signed a 3 year, $6 million deal with the Bulls, but since the last season was a team option, it's really on 2 years and $4 million guaranteed.

I am assuming that there are other coaches who don't have their entire contract guaranteed. I am going to do some research and see what I can find.

But since that list obviously shows team options, by their standards the Bulls are offering a 4 year, $17 million contract. Unless Skiles is still a toker and thinks he can get Popovich or Brown or Sloan type money, it seems like a pretty fair deal to me.

And nobody has really pointed out that the Bulls are giving him an unnecessary raise for next season, willing to tear up the contract to give him more money. For a career .500 coach who is coming off a 45-win season and first-round playoff loss, that's a pretty damn nice move IMHO.

And Scott, we all know that you won't be happy until JR is on his knees in Daley Plaza with Skiles in front of him, and spitting is not an option. :wink:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

OT: I was doing some Google searches to prepare a response to some of the Van Gundy comments on this thread.

In the process of doing so, I came across this terrific SI Q&A. Even though its a couple of years old, its a GREAT read.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/QandA/2003/0113/


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Re: Skiles vs. Van Gundy and others

I don't really pay too much attention to longevity on these matters. I can't think of very many young coaches that I thought of very highly that didn't match the test of time.

Skiles performed at a very high level last year. Reinsdorf *SHOULD* give Pax a ton of lee-way in signing him to a very healthy extension if Pax wants too. It's not Pax's fault that Jerry had to pay Cartwright and Floyd not to coach. Skiles is miles ahead of that bar.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Link 

"It was Danny Ainge who elected to trade Antoine Walker in favor of Raef LaFrentz in the middle of training camp last October, who foolishly moved forwards Tony Battie and Eric Williams for Ricky Davis, prompting the resignation of now-Sixers coach Jim O'Brien.

*Ainge's questionable moves, in part, are the reason Doc Rivers is in Boston right now with a $20 million contract*."

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

"We can assume that coach Doc Rivers is safe, *even though he now is 0-4 in playoff series and saw his team deliver a truly odious Game 7 performance, probably the worst in the history of the franchise."*

Link 

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

Just because others are overpaid, doesn't mean JR should overpay IMHO.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Re: Skiles vs. Van Gundy and others
> 
> I don't really pay too much attention to longevity on these matters. I can't think of very many young coaches that I thought of very highly that didn't match the test of time.
> 
> Skiles performed at a very high level last year. Reinsdorf *SHOULD* give Pax a ton of lee-way in signing him to a very healthy extension if Pax wants too. *It's not Pax's fault that Jerry had to pay Cartwright and Floyd not to coach.* Skiles is miles ahead of that bar.


Technically, it IS Pax's fault when it comes to Mr Bill, since Pax is the one who fired him... :biggrin:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Technically, it IS Pax's fault when it comes to Mr Bill, since Pax is the one who fired him... :biggrin:


Good one....

I just re-read the article and Skiles quotes are definetely aimed directly at Jerry. I bet the chairman is :curse: .


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Fair value is one thing... but we also have to consider how much he is worth to the Bulls.

Are we willing to support losing Skiles just to avoid him being "overpaid?"

I don't care if he's paid 5 mil a year or even 5.5.... the work ethic and team play he instilled turned the Bulls around. I think we have to keep him. That's why Skiles is going for it all on this one. He's in a good position. I really don't think this organization can afford to lose Scott Skiles if they want to keep moving forward. And they can't afford to have a lame duck head coach next year with so many still young players. There are going to be a lot of young bucks hungry for playing time... and a man without a contract may have a hard time keeping control of the situation.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

How come that no matter what happens with this organization it always comes back around to $$$$$$$.

I truly belive the game has passed Reinsdorf by and he doesnt realize this is 2005 not 1995 .


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Skiles puts together another season like the last one on his option and he is going to have much greater leverage to have the organisation over a barrell and ultimately they may have to pay him more 

If I'm Skiles though I think a look at Chicago as rehab and burn them at the end of 2 years and look for a Fat Cat veteran contending team spot


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Skiles puts together another season like the last one on his option and he is going to have much greater leverage to have the organisation over a barrell and ultimately they may have to pay him more
> 
> If I'm Skiles though I think a look at Chicago as rehab and burn them at the end of 2 years and look for a Fat Cat veteran contending team spot


Agreed. You think Nate McMillan is happy that he didn't sign an extension last summer? And it certainly didn't hurt the Sonics on the court this season, and outside of Ray Ray they are pretty much a young team just like the Bulls.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Fair value is one thing... but we also have to consider how much he is worth to the Bulls.
> 
> Are we willing to support losing Skiles just to avoid him being "overpaid?"
> 
> I don't care if he's paid 5 mil a year or even 5.5.... the work ethic and team play he instilled turned the Bulls around. I think we have to keep him.


Good point. You see lots of people saying we have to match any offers for Curry or Chandler, even if it means overpaying them. You'd think these people would also believe we need to do whatever is necessary to keep Skiles, since comparatively the amount of $ you'd have to pay over and above what he is really "worth" would be much less.

Personally, I don't think you screw around too much. Skiles doesn't count against the cap. This team is ridiculously profitable. I'm not saying you pay him Phil Jackson money, but I wouldn't be haggling viciously over a couple of million bucks over the term of his deal. There's something to be said for having happy employees.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Hmmm. How's this for an interesting (and speculative) analogy:

'04/'05 Scott Skiles = '88/'89 Doug Collins

and

'05/'06 Phil Jackson = '89/'90 Phil Jackson.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lsbits,1,2517122.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


_Skiles update

Agent Keith Glass is flying to Chicago on Wednesday for the NBA predraft camp and expects a resolution—positive or negative—to Scott Skiles' contract extension by then. Skiles added on Thursday that he expected the issue to be resolved "fairly quickly."

Despite Chairman Jerry Reinsdorf's claim he won't negotiate with agents for coaches or managers, sources familiar with the negotiations insist Glass is playing a major—and calming—role in talks with Paxson. "People may assume that with a representative it's harder to do a deal when actually I may be harder to deal with," Skiles said.

*Skiles voiced displeasure that management's four-year, $17 million offer appeared in Thursday's Tribune, $14 million of which is guaranteed. "Apparently, the organization wants to make that public," Skiles said. "I won't discuss money. That's not how I … conduct my business."*

But Skiles also laughed during a post-mini-camp conversation with Paxson and spoke positively of his situation in Chicago, pointing to how his father, Rick, who suffered a stroke last year, is 80 miles away in Indiana. Skiles' two sons also live in Indiana._


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> You're math is a bit off.


I missed this earlier. Regardless of how it breaks down by year, you're talking about the Bulls offering $14 million of no-strings money vs. the $20 million that Skiles wants. That is a very significant difference, especially in the event that Skiles is fired.

And while my $3.5 million figure is fuzzy, I don't think it's necessarily wrong. We can assume the option in the fourth year is a team option. We don't know what conditions are attached to it. But let's say the Bulls drag their heels and decide, say, in September that they don't want Skiles back. They give him his $2 million, for a total of $14 for the deal, but it's way too late for Skiles to get a head coaching gig. He heads back to Bloomington to wait for next summer, and has effectively made $14 million over four years.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Kismet said:


> Hmmm. How's this for an interesting (and speculative) analogy:
> 
> '04/'05 Scott Skiles = '88/'89 Doug Collins
> 
> ...


Well, unless '05/'06 Jerry Reinsdorf is an entirely new model, I wouldn't count on the '05/'06 Phil Jackson getting $10 million to coach the '05/'06 Chicago Bulls.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Sorry, but that offer is more than fair. As I said before, if he is given too long a contract and too much money it is a big risk for Bulls fans. If he loses the players, and it has happened before, Reinsdorf won't be letting a guy go he owes so much money to. This isn't like the cheapo contracts Floyd and Cartwright were on. 

Is everyone so sure the Bulls won't regress next year? Are we so sure Skiles will still get away with his hard nosed approach? If the Bulls stink next season and the players turn on him, everyone will want him gone. If he signs a ridiculous contract there is no way Reinsdorf will let him go. 4 years and 17 mil is very generous.

And far be it for me to side with Reinsdorf. I don't like the guy. But if Skiles is upset because of how negotiations are going, he should remember how he got here. He was being mentioned for no jobs. You weren't even hearing about him. He had a lousy rep with former players. He had a meltdown and walked away from his previous job. He had a reputation of a volcano who could erupt or lose it at any time. Pax rescued this boy from the scrap heap. I doubt he would be a head coach somewhere else if Pax didn't hire him. College maybe. So Skiles owes the Bulls a huge debt of gratitute. He definitely repaid the debt with last seasons performance, but he should remember where he would be if not for Pax.

Take the offer and shut up Skiles. Don't forget your record with the Bulls the last half of last season and the first nine of this season. If the Bulls stink next year and you have another meltdown, you could be getting no offers next summer if you take a chance and not sign now.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Salvaged Ship said:


> Sorry, but that offer is more than fair. As I said before, if he is given too long a contract and too much money it is a big risk for Bulls fans. If he loses the players, and it has happened before, Reinsdorf won't be letting a guy go he owes so much money to. This isn't like the cheapo contracts Floyd and Cartwright were on.
> 
> Is everyone so sure the Bulls won't regress next year? Are we so sure Skiles will still get away with his hard nosed approach? If the Bulls stink next season and the players turn on him, everyone will want him gone. If he signs a ridiculous contract there is no way Reinsdorf will let him go. 4 years and 17 mil is very generous.
> 
> ...


Great post. Outstanding.

The loyalty thing goes both ways, the Bulls are willing to rip up a contract that would pay him 2 million dollars next season to give him twice that...


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

There has been a lot of speculation about why a contract hasn't been signed when the numbers are relatively close. I see two mistakes being made.



First, the negotiated numbers are actually not that close. Miz made the comments that Skiles is being greedy -- bargaining for extra seasons. I doubt he's bargaining for extra seasons but instead being realistic about his chances of surviving until the contracts forth year. 

I keep going back from this interesting quote from the herald:

Skiles pointed out that contracts are meaningless when just four of 30 NBA head coaches have been on the job for more than two years

I'll bet Skiles is relatively convinced, and rightfully so, that he isn't going to make it over 3 years. The above figure is staggering, and actually makes the Bulls offer look disingenuous. Perhaps this explains why Skiles is so upset the numbers were leaked. If you look solely at the 17 million dollars figure, the franchise's offer looks respectable. Skiles has almost no chance of actually earning that figure. 

This situation reminds me of how footbal GM's endload declining stars salaries in the NFL. The player still gets the cache of having a contract with a huge dollar figure even if he has no chance of actually making that number. 

The bottom line has to be guaranteed money with length a distance second since it is most likely going to be irrelevant. Under the franchise's proposal Skiles makes a guaranteed 14 million -- significantly short of the 20 million for which he is asking. Thats a large gap that may not be bridgeable. 




Secondly, I want to disagree with the point last made by Salvaged Ship that Skiles "should remember how he got here." 

Skiles got here through a life long dedication to the game of basketball. He's probably glad Paxson hired him, but it's not like Paxson made him. Paxson didn't buy him a lottery ticket and say, "shoot the wind." Paxson merely made the wise decision that Skiles was the appropriate coach for the team. Both have benefited from his hiring. I'm sure Skiles feels that his rep was ill-tarnished after his stint in Phoneix and that he was going to prove himself in another gig in the league. . . be it with the Bulls, or some other franchise.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

I have no doubt about Skiles work ethic, and I think he is the man for us. He did an outstanding job. He works as hard or harder than anybody. 

As you said Thunder, Pax simply did make a wise decision.Saying that, I still say he should remember his situation before Pax hired him. His rep from Phoenix was that of a time bomb. He was getting bad mouthed by some players. He was mentioned for no job openings when there were many available while he was unemployed. Pax took a chance on him, and yes Skiles produced the goods last season. He proved Pax right, and I do think he is the right guy for us. But would he be an NBA coach today, negotiating a big contract if not for Pax? Probably not. He needs to reflect on his reputation and job prospects before Pax hired him. That doesn't mean he should accept a bad offer.

But.......

The offer the Bulls have put forward seems to be a very fair offer. Skiles is not Phil Jackson, Pat Reilly, or even Van Gundy in terms of experience and success in this league. His last job, he had a meltdown in the middle of year 2. The fact that 10 percent of NBA coaches don't do more than 3 years and he hasn't done 2 full seasons with a team at this point makes a 4 year deal very fair in my opinion. 4.25 mil a year for his experience and success thus far is a good offer. Has a Skiles team won a playoff series yet? Not his fault, but this points out his standing in terms of league experience.

He should look at the fact he has a GM who took a chance on him and it paid off big time. He should be appreciative, yes. He should also realize the offer is a good one. If he doesn't sign and the Bulls stink next year, he loses the team like he did in Phoenix, he will not get nearly the same kind of offer next season from another team.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> But let's say the Bulls drag their heels and decide, say, in September that they don't want Skiles back.


C'mon on, you know you're reaching here. Any team run by a semi-competent GM would likely fire and hire coaches before the June draft. Sure, it's possible the Bulls may want to screw Skiles over by firing him late in the offseason period and thereby making sure he has no other coaching prospects. But I'm betting the Bulls also wouldn't want to wait around while they see the best candidates hired by other teams. It works both ways in that regard IMO. [I'm pretty sure you're likely to point out Floyd and Cartwright at this point]


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lsbits,1,2517122.story?coll=cs-home-headlines
> 
> 
> _Skiles update
> ...


Miz,

I liked this piece for a number of reasons. I'm glad that there will be a resolution soon. I can live with Skiles being a "free agent coach" next year, if that's the route he wants to take. But let's resolve it, and agree to focus on basketball. 

Secondly, he does actually seem to want to get something worked out. And the comment about Glass being a calming influence, while Skiles is the tough SOB who isn't easily placated is an interesting dynamic for negotiations. They are pushing as hard as they can to get the best deal they can. Good for them. But it sounds like they also are willing to adapt to the reality.

Thirdly, I really like the way the Bulls are handling the media. Paxson makes no comment, but Bulls sources reveal that an offer is out there that is more than fair in a majority of peoples' eyes. Skiles says, "I don't negotiate like that in public..." but what he's really saying is, "shoot, I lost a chance to leverage public opinion in the negotiations."

I also liked how Pax handled the Curry situation. I think he's getting more sophisticated with the media. Good for Pax. Let's get something worked out, and move on the bball!


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

such sweet thunder said:


> I'll bet Skiles is relatively convinced, and rightfully so, that he isn't going to make it over 3 years. The above figure is staggering, and actually makes the Bulls offer look disingenuous. Perhaps this explains why Skiles is so upset the numbers were leaked. If you look solely at the 17 million dollars figure, the franchise's offer looks respectable. Skiles has almost no chance of actually earning that figure.


Coaching contracts are guaranteed. He earns that money even if fired.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Coaching contracts are guaranteed. He earns that money even if fired.


That is not true at all. It completely depends on what's negotiated for each individual contract -- some have fully guaranteed money, some have buyouts based on time served, and so on. 

This could be one of the sticking points in the current discussion.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

mizenkay said:


> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...lsbits,1,2517122.story?coll=cs-home-headlines
> 
> 
> _Skiles update
> ...


I thought Skiles' comments were pretty funny considering him and his agent have had absolutely no trouble using the media to their advantage during these negotiations. Of course he's upset about the actual $$$ contract figure being leaked. Most will probably consider that a fair offer, disputing the "I've been wronged by the Bulls" stance floated out there by Skiles.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/031sd6.htm



> Indications are the team might agree to tack on the $2.75 million that Skiles was to be paid next season to his four-year, $14 million request, but only if the first three years were guaranteed.
> 
> Wednesday, Skiles said he would not negotiate while the 2005-06 regular season was in progress. He indicated he had no firm deadline in mind at this point.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Fair value is one thing... but we also have to consider how much he is worth to the Bulls.
> 
> Are we willing to support losing Skiles just to avoid him being "overpaid?"
> 
> I don't care if he's paid 5 mil a year or even 5.5.... the work ethic and team play he instilled turned the Bulls around. I think we have to keep him. That's why Skiles is going for it all on this one. He's in a good position. I really don't think this organization can afford to lose Scott Skiles if they want to keep moving forward. And they can't afford to have a lame duck head coach next year with so many still young players. There are going to be a lot of young bucks hungry for playing time... and a man without a contract may have a hard time keeping control of the situation.


This is what I'm feeling as well. The only thing I could see as something that he is truly unhappy about other than the money is if he wants more personnel control than upper management is willing to give him.

I don't think Skiles is necessarily "upset" like he is telling the media. It all seems like contract posturing to me. He knows how valuable he is to the Bulls and is going for a big payday.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

KC's article today was a bit of a "calming influence" for myself, and a little more optimistic from what we've seen. I'm content letting Skiles become a free agent coach...I just don't want this to affect the upcoming season and be a distraction. Nate McMillan and Scott Skiles are cut from a similar mold, and I could see Skiles having the same success McMillan had as a "lame duck". Set June 30th as the deadline to get something done, and if nothing happens then move on and figure that there's always next summer to work out an extension. As we will see with McMillan and also Rick Adelman, being a lame duck coach does not automatically mean you're on the way out the door (although obviously that is sometimes the case). 

I agree with Salvaged Ship...Skiles owes alot to the Bulls organization for reviving his coaching career which was in the gutter just two years ago. Skiles needs a sense of loyalty; without Pax, he would still be on the unemployment line. That SHOULD count for something...maybe values like that are lost in this day and age, but it meshes with my own ideals at least.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

such sweet thunder said:


> First, the negotiated numbers are actually not that close. Miz made the comments that Skiles is being greedy -- bargaining for extra seasons. I doubt he's bargaining for extra seasons but instead being realistic about his chances of surviving until the contracts forth year.


for the record, my point was that he was _ on the verge of appearing greedy_ if he didn't take what i, and many here at least, feel is a fair and generous offer.

i didn't outright accuse him of this....not yet.

he is upset that the figures were leaked cause it is a fair offer and if he refuses it then he doesn't look so good. let's see if he accepts it first. 

and if he is upset about how this is now being negotiated in the media, then he should have a word with the trusted advisor mr. glass. he was the one who said that things weren't going well and that he was not at all optimistic. of course the press is going to be all over that like a cheap suit. the agent knows exactly what he is doing.

the comment yesterday in the daily herald where skiles downplayed the contributions of the players to last season's success really rubbed me the wrong way too. 

like i said, i am not buying this "my feelings are hurt" angle. jerry is normally the tightwad boss straight outta central casting, and with this offer he is being more than fair, and some could say, out of character. heck what do i know anyway. i think he should sign it and lets' just move on.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

If the Bulls dont feel Skiles is worth that money of the commitment then why not turn him loose now and jump into Phil or other top coach sweepstakes ?

You hear all this credit being given to Skiles all the way up until its time to get paid and now its well he really didnt do anything that special . 

I have some serious reservations about the Bulls keeping this team together as I think they are driven by profits not the need to be a title contender.

I hear the "JR has said he will pay for a winner " comments being thrown around all the time but what should be said is that JR will pay what he thinks a winner should be paid .


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> If you believe the Bulls, they're bellying up with a four-year deal at $4 million annually for the first three seasons and a potential $5 million for the final season. By Reinsdorfian standards, that is surprisingly fair...


from mariotti today (posted by tb#1 in another thread)...that skiles rejected this offer in "ten seconds flat".

verging, he's verging!!


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Salvaged Ship said:


> The fact that 10 percent of NBA coaches don't do more than 3 years and he hasn't done 2 full seasons with a team at this point makes a 4 year deal very fair in my opinion. 4.25 mil a year for his experience and success thus far is a good offer.


My main point is that a per year figure is irelevant. You have to look at the guaranteed offer of 14 million, not the money Skiles would make annually because there is almost no way he reaches four seasons. 

We don't have much of a clue how this offer compares to the other coaches in the league. That online list is worthless because it does not break down guaranteed v. optional. All I know is that the Bulls offer is manipulative in that it appears larger then it actually is -- whether this is a standard industry practice, I have no idea.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

http://www.suntimes.com/output/mariotti/cst-spt-jay03.html

from Mariottis column 



> It takes uncommon guts to leave up to $17 million on the table out of principle. But Skiles apparently is going for the jugular in this saga, not a bad idea given Reinsdorf's dubious history of slipping mysterious clauses and deferred-payment demands into the contractual fine print of his servants.





> Why must Reinsdorf turn a marvelous story into a migraine headache? Skiles wants to be loved by his bosses like anyone else, but it's amazing how the love erodes when money becomes a sticking point.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

$4M + $5M guaranteed for 2 years.

Get it done.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> All I know is that the Bulls offer is manipulative in that it appears larger then it actually is -- whether this is a standard industry practice, I have no idea.


Partial guarentees are not unusual. And the article spelled out what was guarenteed and what isn't.

Not sure why this would be labled manipulative.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Salvaged Ship said:


> I have no doubt about Skiles work ethic, and I think he is the man for us. He did an outstanding job. He works as hard or harder than anybody.
> 
> As you said Thunder, Pax simply did make a wise decision.Saying that, I still say he should remember his situation before Pax hired him. His rep from Phoenix was that of a time bomb. He was getting bad mouthed by some players. He was mentioned for no job openings when there were many available while he was unemployed. Pax took a chance on him, and yes Skiles produced the goods last season. He proved Pax right, and I do think he is the right guy for us. But would he be an NBA coach today, negotiating a big contract if not for Pax? Probably not. He needs to reflect on his reputation and job prospects before Pax hired him. That doesn't mean he should accept a bad offer.
> 
> ...


Let's not kid ourselves -- a huge reason Paxson came looking for Skiles was that he was given a tiny (by NBA coaching standards) budget by Reinsdorf and he had to think creatively. Paxson obviously felt that Skiles was the best guy he could get for the money.

Skiles has more than lived up to his end of the bargain. If you think that Skiles's "dark side" will rear its ugly head, you are tacitly admitting that hiring Skiles was a mistake in the first place.

And to take that line of thinking further, if you are going to use Skiles's lack of experience, checkered past, and fire/quit risk as reasons not to give him $20 million, how do those same risks not apply to the $14 million contract? 

Just out of curiosity -- when, in your mind, is Skiles allowed to stop acting grateful and get paid the way a coach of his ability ought to? After winning a playoff round? A title or two? After he's put in a decade with the same team? 

Personally, I think deducting $ from Skiles's deal because of what happened in Phoenix or his 19-month exile would be like the Suns only offering Amare Stoudemire a $50 million dollar deal because they still have lingering fears over the fact that he went to five high schools. At some point, you look at what the guy does in the here and now, and you reward him appropriately.

Finally, I have to say again that I am genuinely confused by the 180 made by the (formerly) pro-Skiles camp. For two years, I've been hearing how important he is to the Bulls and how he'd restore us to glory. Now, many of the same people are saying his demand for an extra $6 million will paralyze the Bulls and bring the organization to its knees. Truly bewildering.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Finally, I have to say again that I am genuinely confused by the 180 made by the (formerly) pro-Skiles camp. For two years, I've been hearing how important he is to the Bulls and how he'd restore us to glory. Now, many of the same people are saying his demand for an extra $6 million will paralyze the Bulls and bring the organization to its knees. Truly bewildering.



In the end, that camp is seemingly pro-management more than anything.

Its OK to lose a coach so the organization can save some money. Maybe that makes sense from a business perspective, although I think Skiles is important enough to keep, but I sure don't get it from a fan's perspective. 

After years of suffering as fans we seem to have cobbled together a dynamic that works. Now many are willing to see that dynamic harmed so our coach won't be "overpaid" or because the coach "owes" the Bulls. I don't get it either.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I missed this earlier. Regardless of how it breaks down by year, you're talking about the Bulls offering $14 million of no-strings money vs. the $20 million that Skiles wants. That is a very significant difference, especially in the event that Skiles is fired.
> 
> And while my $3.5 million figure is fuzzy, I don't think it's necessarily wrong. We can assume the option in the fourth year is a team option. We don't know what conditions are attached to it. But let's say the Bulls drag their heels and decide, say, in September that they don't want Skiles back. They give him his $2 million, for a total of $14 for the deal, but it's way too late for Skiles to get a head coaching gig. He heads back to Bloomington to wait for next summer, and has effectively made $14 million over four years.



Let's say Skiles loses his team sometime during the second season of his contract and is fired mid-sesaon. He then goes on to sign with a different team the next season at $4.5 mil per season. So, in his thrid and fourth seasons he's effectively made around $15 or $16 mil for two seasons worth of work.

Have you figured out yet that there are two sides to a coin? Seems to me that Skiles knows full well that he probably won't last beyond two more years here and yet he's crying foul because he wants more guaranteed money even though there's nothing that prevents him from earning a wage from any of the other 29 teams while still being paid for not working for the Bulls. I'm in the wrong line of work because that's one hell of a severance package!


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Let's say Skiles loses his team sometime during the second season of his contract and is fired mid-sesaon. He then goes on to sign with a different team the next season at $4.5 mil per season. So, in his thrid and fourth seasons he's effectively made around $15 or $16 mil for two seasons worth of work.
> 
> Have you figured out yet that there are two sides to a coin? Seems to me that Skiles knows full well that he probably won't last beyond two more years here and yet he's crying foul because he wants more guaranteed money even though there's nothing that prevents him from earning a wage from any of the other 29 teams while still being paid for not working for the Bulls. I'm in the wrong line of work because that's one hell of a severance package!


First of all, we don't know what the fine print of the deal is. I would be absolutely shocked if it doesn't contain language that signficantly reduces Skiles's payout if he goes on to land another head coaching job within the term of the deal signed with the Bulls. That is pretty standard stuff, and I'm sure even Skiles and Glass have no problem with it.

Second of all, yes, I know about the flip side of the coin. If you are that bothered by the possibility, however likely or remote, of a player or coach not living up to the worth of his contract, you would probably be a lot better off not following professional sports.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> First of all, we don't know what the fine print of the deal is. I would be absolutely shocked if it doesn't contain language that signficantly reduces Skiles's payout if he goes on to land another head coaching job within the term of the deal signed with the Bulls. That is pretty standard stuff, and I'm sure even Skiles and Glass have no problem with it.
> 
> Second of all, yes, I know about the flip side of the coin. If you are that bothered by the possibility, however likely or remote, of a player or coach not living up to the worth of his contract, you would probably be a lot better off not following professional sports.


The exact type of a reply I expected from you.

So. It's all well and good for you to speculate on the motivations of evil owners and their wanting to screw their employees, the fans and anybody and eveybody but it's not alright for others to speculate on the motives of the employees? The Good Lord knows you already have all the answers and heaven forbid if someone should take into question your view on things. 

Perhaps you should not follow professional sports if you're that bothered by the possibility, however likely or remote, of an owner not wanting to simply cowtow to the demads of a player or coach when it comes to the value of their contract.

Oops! There's that other side of the coin again.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> In the end, that camp is seemingly pro-management more than anything.
> 
> Its OK to lose a coach so the organization can save some money. Maybe that makes sense from a business perspective, although I think Skiles is important enough to keep, but I sure don't get it from a fan's perspective.
> 
> After years of sufferng as fans we seem to have cobbled together a dynamic that works. Now many are willing to see that dynamic harmed so our coach won't be "overpaid" or because the coach "owes" the Bulls. I don't get it either.


Well, I can only speak for myself on this matter since I am in the "former pro-Skiles camp taking a 180 degree turn" which ScottMay referred to. It's really quite simple...I like Skiles, I think he's a solid coach with a brilliant basketball mind, and I very much want him back next season. Where I have a problem is that Skiles is trying to "get his" while his stock is high (probably higher than it will ever be). The Bulls gave him what I find to be a perfectly reasonable offer. The $4M per year is right on par with other coaches who are widely considered better than Skiles, namely Carlisle and Popovich. And yet he seems offended with such an offer. Heck, I'm fine with him declining such an offer, but for him to be offended with that offer seems ludicrous.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Partial guarentees are not unusual. And the article spelled out what was guarenteed and what isn't.
> 
> Not sure why this would be labled manipulative.


I see the contract as manipulative because people naturally cling to the higher number, or else calculate the money on a per-year basis. It makes the figure seem larger then it actually is. Thats not to say that other coaches contracts aren't also larger then they seem -- I haven't paid enough attention to this issue in the past to know whether this is common, and the online list is not helpful.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> The exact type of a reply I expected from you.
> 
> So. It's all well and good for you to speculate on the motivations of evil owners and their wanting to screw their employees, the fans and anybody and eveybody but it's not alright for others to speculate on the motives of the employees? The Good Lord knows you already have all the answers and heaven forbid if someone should take into question your view on things.
> 
> ...


 I have never read a quote from Skiles saying that he would be unwillingly to talk to Reinsdorf if an agent was involved.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> The exact type of a reply I expected from you.
> 
> So. It's all well and good for you to speculate on the motivations of evil owners and their wanting to screw their employees, the fans and anybody and eveybody but it's not alright for others to speculate on the motives of the employees? The Good Lord knows you already have all the answers and heaven forbid if someone should take into question your view on things.
> 
> ...


Right. Well, I've yet to see anything resembling an adequate defense of the "Skiles can screw Reinsdorf" theory, so don't stamp the other side of that coin just yet.

And I'm puzzled -- you seem to have done a complete 180 from your stance of about six weeks ago. What's changed?



> Reinsdorf has said he'd pay for a winner. In the past, this team was anything but that. Now he's got something here that can be special. I'm like Scott May - I'm going to wait to see if he's true to his word. I've got no problem with Pax or Skiles. I think they've done their part. Now it's time for The Chairman to do his and keep this team together.


http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2149424&postcount=7


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Well, I can only speak for myself on this matter since I am in the "former pro-Skiles camp taking a 180 degree turn" which ScottMay referred to. It's really quite simple...I like Skiles, I think he's a solid coach with a brilliant basketball mind, and I very much want him back next season. Where I have a problem is that Skiles is trying to "get his" while his stock is high (probably higher than it will ever be). The Bulls gave him what I find to be a perfectly reasonable offer. The $4M per year is right on par with other coaches who are widely considered better than Skiles, namely Carlisle and Popovich. And yet he seems offended with such an offer. Heck, I'm fine with him declining such an offer, but for him to be offended with that offer seems ludicrous.


As stated (almost ad nauseum to this point) earlier --

A. It's very likely that Skiles's and Glass's biggest issue at this point is HOW Reinsdorf is negotiating (or not negotiating) with them. That's what they might be offended with, rather than the numbers being discussed.

B. The here and now comparison with Skiles and Carlisle and Popovich can't be viewed in such black and white. Skiles is not only compensating for the fact that he's been underpaid the last two seasons, but he wants his deal to remain competitive in its third and fourth seasons, when Carlisle, Popovich, and a whole host of others will have signed deals that push his $5 million a year back to the middle of the pack. And it stands to reason that if Skiles is coaching the Bulls three years from now, they will be a candidate to go deep into the postseason every year, all the more reason for Skiles to price himself aggressively.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> As stated (almost ad nauseum to this point) earlier --
> 
> A. It's very likely that Skiles's and Glass's biggest issue at this point is HOW Reinsdorf is negotiating (or not negotiating) with them. That's what they might be offended with, rather than the numbers being discussed.
> 
> B. The here and now comparison with Skiles and Carlisle and Popovich can't be viewed in such black and white. Skiles is not only compensating for the fact that he's been underpaid the last two seasons, but he wants his deal to remain competitive in its third and fourth seasons, when Carlisle, Popovich, and a whole host of others will have signed deals that push his $5 million a year back to the middle of the pack. And it stands to reason that if Skiles is coaching the Bulls three years from now, they will be a candidate to go deep into the postseason every year, all the more reason for Skiles to price himself aggressively.



I would disagree with the assertion that Skiles has been underpaid the past two seasons. He was fortunate the Bulls gave him the gig because a lot of folks weren't too confident in his abilities after the meltdown in Phoenix.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Chicago-based Marty Burns's take:



> According to the Chicago Tribune, the Bulls have offered to tear up the final year and give him a new four-year deal worth $17 million, of which $14 million would be guaranteed. That would appear to make him one of the highest-paid coaches in the league. Those reports should be taken with a grain of salt, though, since it's unclear how much of the money is guaranteed up front and how much of it is dependent on Skiles lasting until the end of the deal.
> 
> Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf is known for not paying big salaries to coaches. He battled Phil Jackson during the Bulls dynasty days, and has had a succession of first-time managers and coaches (read: inexpensive) for his White Sox and Bulls teams. Just this past week he got Sox manager Ozzie Guillen to sign a reported three-year, $3 million extension, probably below market value by Major League Baseball standards. It might be smart fiscal policy on Reinsdorf's part. It might be foolish. But it's a good indicator where the owner stands on such matters.





> Skiles noted Wednesday that Glass has been representing him for 20 years and that he was "family." Glass, who hasn't spoken to Reinsdorf, said he didn't think it would be an impediment but admitted to being puzzled. "Scott has a right to representation just like any citizen," Glass said. "Find me another NBA coach who doesn't have representation. It's standard operating procedure.
> 
> "I don't know if their plan is to get between me and Scott. But all I can say is, good luck. Scott's like my little brother."


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/writers/marty_burns/06/03/skiles/index.html


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I would disagree with the assertion that Skiles has been underpaid the past two seasons. He was fortunate the Bulls gave him the gig because a lot of folks weren't too confident in his abilities after the meltdown in Phoenix.


I agree with you on this Ace.

Neither party owes the other party anything in the upcoming negotiation. If Skiles had a better rep at the time he negotiated his first contract he would have been paid more at the time. Now he should take every opportunity availabel to him to exploit his position of power.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Let's not kid ourselves -- a huge reason Paxson came looking for Skiles was that he was given a tiny (by NBA coaching standards) budget by Reinsdorf and he had to think creatively. Paxson obviously felt that Skiles was the best guy he could get for the money.
> 
> Skiles has more than lived up to his end of the bargain. If you think that Skiles's "dark side" will rear its ugly head, you are tacitly admitting that hiring Skiles was a mistake in the first place.
> 
> And to take that line of thinking further, if you are going to use Skiles's lack of experience, checkered past, and fire/quit risk as reasons not to give him $20 million, how do those same risks not apply to the $14 million contract?


So why not just give him $100 million over 4 years, it's the same risk? It doesn't count against the salary cap, and it's not our money. Why not $1 billion over 30 years? It's not our money, and it doesn't count against the cap.

Where do you draw the line?



> Just out of curiosity -- when, in your mind, is Skiles allowed to stop acting grateful and get paid the way a coach of his ability ought to? After winning a playoff round? A title or two? After he's put in a decade with the same team?
> 
> Personally, I think deducting $ from Skiles's deal because of what happened in Phoenix or his 19-month exile would be like the Suns only offering Amare Stoudemire a $50 million dollar deal because they still have lingering fears over the fact that he went to five high schools. *At some point, you look at what the guy does in the here and now, and you reward him appropriately.*
> 
> Finally, I have to say again that I am genuinely confused by the 180 made by the (formerly) pro-Skiles camp. For two years, I've been hearing how important he is to the Bulls and how he'd restore us to glory. Now, many of the same people are saying his demand for an extra $6 million will paralyze the Bulls and bring the organization to its knees. Truly bewildering.


And you also look at a guy's history, at least the successful organizations do. They don't reward guys with 5-year guaranteed deals after one good season. You have to look ahead and decide if the player or coach is going to be worth the contract in a few years.

I'm just extremely grateful that my favorite teams have proven, financially responsible owners like JR and the 28 partners and Robert Kraft. In no small part because of them, I have seen my 2 favorite teams win NINE championships in 14 years, which is unbelievable really.

Unless you believe that owners only deserve *blame* for the bad and get no credit for the good.

I remember the summer of 1994, the Bulls didn't want to pay Ho Grant what he wanted, so they let him walk. If that would have happened nowadays in the internet era, JR and the 28 other owners would have been skewered much worse than they were. Skewered with the same "just pay him" argument.

Well, we all know that about one calender year later, JR and the other 28 owners brought in some Rodman guy and Ho was quickly forgotten. 

And ask the Magic how many rings Ho's 5 years and $50 million helped them win?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> I would disagree with the assertion that Skiles has been underpaid the past two seasons. He was fortunate the Bulls gave him the gig because a lot of folks weren't too confident in his abilities after the meltdown in Phoenix.


Yeah, if Skiles felt he was "underpaid", why the hell did he take the job? Why the hell did he sign a 3-year deal? 

Which, by the way, is turning into a 2-year deal because the Bulls are willing to rip up the 3rd year and almost double his salary for next season.

If Skiles had sucked and was still getting paid after he got fired, people would be peed off at Jerry and the other 28 owners. 

People scream "just pay the guy" until ownership turns out to be right. Then people slink away and give the ownership zero credit when the moves work out. Funny.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> As stated (almost ad nauseum to this point) earlier --
> 
> A. It's very likely that Skiles's and Glass's biggest issue at this point is HOW Reinsdorf is negotiating (or not negotiating) with them. That's what they might be offended with, rather than the numbers being discussed.
> 
> B. The here and now comparison with Skiles and Carlisle and Popovich can't be viewed in such black and white. Skiles is not only compensating for the fact that he's been underpaid the last two seasons, but he wants his deal to remain competitive in its third and fourth seasons, when Carlisle, Popovich, and a whole host of others will have signed deals that push his $5 million a year back to the middle of the pack. And it stands to reason that if Skiles is coaching the Bulls three years from now, they will be a candidate to go deep into the postseason every year, all the more reason for Skiles to price himself aggressively.


Your 2nd point was definitely taken ad nauseum by now...but isn't that what his next contract extension is for? His current extension should follow current market value, which will place him comfortably in the top 10 of today's coaches. And if by 2009 he is "middle of the pack", then he becomes a free agent again and can negotiate a new contract that puts him back where he belongs. 4 years is not a long time...this isn't like those crazy 7 year extensions that the players sign.

As for how Reinsdorf is negotiating/not negotiating, I was under the impression that he steps away from those matters and let's the GM do his job. Is it really that absurd for a team owner not to deal with agents? I would think it happens with many teams in professional sports. The owner sets a budget, let's the GM make the decisions and negotiations based on said budget, and owner can veto if need be. Am I really that wrong here?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> So why not just give him $100 million over 4 years, it's the same risk? It doesn't count against the salary cap, and it's not our money. Why not $1 billion over 30 years? It's not our money, and it doesn't count against the cap.
> 
> Where do you draw the line?


So why just not have a team and coaching staff comprised entirely of people on rookie-scale contracts or bargain-basement deals? Why ever re-sign one of your own? Where do you draw THAT line?



> And you also look at a guy's history, at least the successful organizations do. They don't reward guys with 5-year guaranteed deals after one good season. You have to look ahead and decide if the player or coach is going to be worth the contract in a few years.


First, Skiles has had more than one successful season as an NBA coach, and the one unsuccessful season he did suffer was with a roster that was by jsut about everyone's admission not NBA-worthy. Second, do you honestly think that Skiles won't be worth $5 million a year two or three years from now? If so, again, what you REALLY should be arguing is for Paxson to fire Skiles.



> I remember the summer of 1994, the Bulls didn't want to pay Ho Grant what he wanted, so they let him walk. If that would have happened nowadays in the internet era, JR and the 28 other owners would have been skewered much worse than they were. Skewered with the same "just pay him" argument.
> 
> Well, we all know that about one calender year later, JR and the other 28 owners brought in some Rodman guy and Ho was quickly forgotten.
> 
> And ask the Magic how many rings Ho's 5 years and $50 million helped them win?


I remember the spring of 1995, when Horace Grant flat-out killed the Bulls and the Magic bounced them from the playoffs. I remember Grant playing at a very high level through the end of his Magic contract -- same great team defender, good rebounder, and very reliable offensive player who developed a deadly mid-range jumper. 

I remember Rodman being a huge distraction for the Bulls in the 1997 and 1998 playoffs, arguably more of a hindrance than a help. I am fairly certain that the Bulls would have won titles from 1996-1998 with Grant as the power forward as opposed to Rodman, and I sure as hell would have enjoyed the experience much more as a fan. 

(And Grant left for $30 million, not $50.)


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> As for how Reinsdorf is negotiating/not negotiating, I was under the impression that he steps away from those matters and let's the GM do his job. Is it really that absurd for a team owner not to deal with agents? I would think it happens with many teams in professional sports. The owner sets a budget, let's the GM make the decisions and negotiations based on said budget, and owner can veto if need be. Am I really that wrong here?


Yeah, you're wrong here. As Glass says, none of the other NBA owners operate this way. It's a perfectly normal, consistent, appropriate thing for an NBA player or coach to have his agent present for anything contract-related. 

Imagine dealing with a realtor who insists that people buying or selling a house cannot have an attorney present at a closing. Or the IRS saying you can't bring an accountant or attorney to an audit. Reinsdorf's policy is just that preposterous, imo -- mind-bogglingly ignorant and arrogant all at once.

And Glass/Skiles are NOT dealing exclusively with Paxson. Reinsdorf is the main man on these sorts of deals. Back in Krause's day, they'd play good-cop / bad-cop. Krause would start off with insane low-ball offers and not budge off them, then he'd turn it over to Reinsdorf to seal the deal with a higher low-ball.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Bulls owner Jerry Reinsdorf is known for not paying big salaries to coaches. He battled Phil Jackson during the Bulls dynasty days, and has had a succession of first-time managers and coaches (read: inexpensive) for his White Sox and Bulls teams. Just this past week he got Sox manager Ozzie Guillen to sign a reported three-year, $3 million extension, probably below market value by Major League Baseball standards. It might be smart fiscal policy on Reinsdorf's part. It might be foolish. But it's a good indicator where the owner stands on such matters.


The thing is, we have the current numbers right in front of us...a guarenteed $14M with the potential for $17M, and as reported in the Tribune today that sum may have increased to $16M guarenteed. What Reinsdorf is "known for" regarding paying coaches is irrelevent here...the contract on the table places Skiles among the top 6 or 7 coaches right now. And by 2009, considering the inflation issue discussed, it's hard to imagine him dropping any further than 14 or 15 on the list, which is where experienced coaches like George Karl and Mike Dunleavy rank right now. We can talk all day about what Reinsdorf's position on matters have been in the past. But regarding the here and now, I see an offer that places Skiles right at his market value.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> So why just not have a team and coaching staff comprised entirely of people on rookie-scale contracts or bargain-basement deals? Why ever re-sign one of your own? Where do you draw THAT line?


Why not? Where do you draw either line?



> First, Skiles has had more than one successful season as an NBA coach, and the one unsuccessful season he did suffer was with a roster that was by jsut about everyone's admission not NBA-worthy. Second, do you honestly think that Skiles won't be worth $5 million a year two or three years from now? If so, again, what you REALLY should be arguing is for Paxson to fire Skiles.


If Skiles will be worth $5 million a year two or three years from now, why doesn't he just sign a 2-year deal? He'd be getting a hell of a deal, since the Bulls are already going to tear up his contract for next season and almost double his salary.

It goes both ways, do you want the most possible money you can get paid right now or long-term security?




> I remember the spring of 1995, when Horace Grant flat-out killed the Bulls and the Magic bounced them from the playoffs. I remember Grant playing at a very high level through the end of his Magic contract -- same great team defender, good rebounder, and very reliable offensive player who developed a deadly mid-range jumper.
> 
> I remember Rodman being a huge distraction for the Bulls in the 1997 and 1998 playoffs, arguably more of a hindrance than a help. I am fairly certain that the Bulls would have won titles from 1996-1998 with Grant as the power forward as opposed to Rodman, and I sure as hell would have enjoyed the experience much more as a fan.
> 
> (And Grant left for $30 million, not $50.)


I only mentioned the financial aspects of the deal and the lack of rings.

In 1996, 1997 and 1998, Ho made $31.905 million while Rodman made $16 million. We *may* have still won 3 titles with Ho, but we *definitely, positively 100% DID* win 3 titles with Rodman, and we also set NBA records for best season and best 2 seasons.

And Rodman cost half the money, not to mention the money left on Ho's contract after 1998.

Sometimes, you don't overpay the guy, and it works out just fine for the organization. That's all I'm saying.

Horace and Scottie both *****ed and moaned that they were underpaid and underappreciated by the Bulls, then after they got the big money they combined for zero championships. Interesting.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I only mentioned the financial aspects of the deal and the lack of rings.
> 
> In 1996, 1997 and 1998, Ho made $31.905 million while Rodman made $16 million. We *may* have still won 3 titles with Ho, but we *definitely, positively 100% DID* win 3 titles with Rodman, and we also set NBA records for best season and best 2 seasons.


As Scott said, it's very clear by not having Grant it cost us a nice shot at the title in 1996 and put a great deal of pressure on the GM to replace him. Krause did it but this type of success is far from assured.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Right. Well, I've yet to see anything resembling an adequate defense of the "Skiles can screw Reinsdorf" theory, so don't stamp the other side of that coin just yet.
> 
> And I'm puzzled -- you seem to have done a complete 180 from your stance of about six weeks ago. What's changed?
> 
> ...




You're funny. I've yet to see you put up anything on your part other than completely speculative suggestions. Apparently my speculative suggestions are of no substance and yours are authoratative and accurate and not to be brought into question. It's a strange world we live in, isn't it?

As per my "stance". I don't think you even know what it is. You're a curious poster. I enjoy reading your stuff although 99.9% I don't agree with. That's fine. This would be an awfully dull place if everyone agreed and there was no debate. The .1% I do agree with is holding Reinsdorf accountable now that this team seems to have a direction and plan and the pieces to carry out that plan. That includes Skiles.

With respect to this particular issue (Skiles and his contract) I feel that the offer on the table (if this is an accurate offer which when reported by the media has to be taken with a grain of salt) is pretty darned fair. You make claims of his being underpaid his two seasons here. Was he? Seems to me his options were gettting paid $2 mil per year with the Bulls or sitting in Indiana watching the paint peel. I'm not sure how you arrive at his pauper status while getting paid $2 mil per versus nothing. Now the Bulls are willing to double his pay and bring it in line with other coaches of his experience/ability. He's proven his worth. His internship is over. Reinsdorfs' offer does this. Apparently Skiles is insulted. What the sticking points to this whole negotiation is are anybodies guess and pure speculation on my part, your part or anybodies part.

I don't begrudge Skiles and his camp the right to get as much as they can for as long as they can. It's the nature of the process. I admit, I tend to fall on the side of ownership. I own a business myself and so I view things with that mindset. My problem with this particular situation is the perceived notion that Skiles is somehow insulted by the offer. It's a good deal and without knowing much more than anybody else, it seems to me that Reinsdorf was trying to make as fair a deal as possible.

I really can't say as I've changed my tune or anything. I, like you, want Reindsorf to pony up. He's gotten by with the mantra of paying for a winner while giving us losers and now he may have gotten what he wanted sooner than he planned. I, personally, think his offer to Skiles was a move in that direction. Skiles rejection of that offer, while natural and perfectly within his rights, seems to be taken as yet another reason to rail on Reinsdorf by you and others. I haven't read a single word from the 180-degree club that claims that this contract will cripple the Bulls as you so bluntly put it. From what I can gather, most think this a pretty fair offer and most are just wondering what more could Skiles want? Is it so much to want to see the equity in a situation? Judging by your writing, Reinsdorf should simply hand Skiles the Corporate checkbook and let him have at it. I'm all for Uncle Jerry loosening the purse-strings but I'm not for that at the loss of an equitable transaction.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> As Scott said, it's very clear by not having Grant it cost us a nice shot at the title in 1996 and put a great deal of pressure on the GM to replace him. Krause did it but this type of success is far from assured.


I know you meant 1995, but IMHO it was MJ's rustiness that cost us that series. While Grant was certainly outstanding, MJ was totally outplayed by Nick Anderson in the clutch, finally letting him steal the ball on a simple bring-the-ball-up-the-floor play that clinched our loss.

But you are right, this type of success is far from assured. Just like it is far from assured that Skiles will continue the success of last season without melting down.

And I guess maybe it's just me, but I have faith in ownership when that same ownership has a pretty outstanding track record of that type of success.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> The thing is, we have the current numbers right in front of us...a guarenteed $14M with the potential for $17M, and as reported in the Tribune today that sum may have increased to $16M guarenteed. What Reinsdorf is "known for" regarding paying coaches is irrelevent here...the contract on the table places Skiles among the top 6 or 7 coaches right now. And by 2009, considering the inflation issue discussed, it's hard to imagine him dropping any further than 14 or 15 on the list, which is where experienced coaches like George Karl and Mike Dunleavy rank right now. We can talk all day about what Reinsdorf's position on matters have been in the past. But regarding the here and now, I see an offer that places Skiles right at his market value.


At least two writers, Mariotti and Burns, have implied that the Trib report might not be all that it seems, given the fine print and possible conditions attached to the guarantees.

FWIW, it should be pointed out that Karl and Dunleavy coach for teams with much, much smaller revenue streams than the Bulls (the Clippers are White Sox-esque in that they don't take full advantage of their market). And both have much bigger personal fortunes than Skiles from their earlier coaching/GM'ing gigs (Karl was paid nearly $10 million / yr at the end of his tenure with the Bucks).


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> And I guess maybe it's just me, but I have faith in ownership when that same ownership has a pretty outstanding track record of that type of success.


Huh? 

Ownership has bumbled and stumbled to a 254-435 record sans MJ. Let's not get carried away here.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> At least two writers, Mariotti and Burns, have implied that the Trib report *might* not be all that it seems, *given the fine print and possible conditions attached to the guarantees.*


And the contracts we are comparing Skiles' to also *might* not be all they seem, *given the fine print and possible conditions attached to the guarantees*.

Unless, of course, JR and the 28 partners are the only owners among the 30 in the league who don't fully guarantee every penny of their coach's contracts. 

And IMHO Skiles certainly hasn't proven enough to demand a fully-guaranteed, long-term contract. 



> FWIW, it should be pointed out that Karl and Dunleavy coach for teams with much, much smaller revenue streams than the Bulls (the Clippers are White Sox-esque in that they don't take full advantage of their market). And both have much bigger personal fortunes than Skiles from their earlier coaching/GM'ing gigs (Karl was paid nearly $10 million / yr at the end of his tenure with the Bucks).


Maybe Denver and the Clips could pay their current coaches more if they weren't still paying coaches who they gave bad contracts to in the past? I don't know if that's the case, just speculating (like Mariotti and Burns), if anyone knows the status of that I would be very curious.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> I don't begrudge Skiles and his camp the right to get as much as they can for as long as they can. It's the nature of the process. I admit, I tend to fall on the side of ownership. I own a business myself and so I view things with that mindset. My problem with this particular situation is the perceived notion that Skiles is somehow insulted by the offer. It's a good deal and without knowing much more than anybody else, it seems to me that Reinsdorf was trying to make as fair a deal as possible.


As a business owner, don't you normally want your employees to be as happy -- and productive -- as possible? And doesn't that -- sometimes -- entail giving them what they ask for?



> I really can't say as I've changed my tune or anything. I, like you, want Reindsorf to pony up. He's gotten by with the mantra of paying for a winner while giving us losers and now he may have gotten what he wanted sooner than he planned. I, personally, think his offer to Skiles was a move in that direction. Skiles rejection of that offer, while natural and perfectly within his rights, seems to be taken as yet another reason to rail on Reinsdorf by you and others. I haven't read a single word from the 180-degree club that claims that this contract will cripple the Bulls as you so bluntly put it. From what I can gather, most think this a pretty fair offer and most are just wondering what more could Skiles want? Is it so much to want to see the equity in a situation? Judging by your writing, Reinsdorf should simply hand Skiles the Corporate checkbook and let him have at it. I'm all for Uncle Jerry loosening the purse-strings but I'm not for that at the loss of an equitable transaction.


I'm not saying that about Skiles at all. I just think a four-year, fully guaranteed contract for $20 million (with the normal stipulations that the Bulls are off the hook for some or all of the severance if Skiles is fired and lands a similar job during the term of the original deal) is absolutely fair. I would not support Skiles if he asked for $30 million, or a piece of the team, or for a seven-year deal. 

I think that if you consider the possible conditions and asterisks in the Bulls' best offer as reported by the Tribune, it's not a great one for Skiles. He played a pretty big role in stopping the worst six-year period of futility in NBA history. I wonder if the people who are complaining about the possibility of Skiles making more than Popovich and Carlisle are looking at what kinds of players all three got to coach last year.

Even though you don't agree with just about everything I write, I hope you can agree that I'm usually pretty consistent. I have long believed that Reinsdorf's reluctance to pay people was a big part of making the Bulls bad. I was told not to worry; that he'd pay people once they won. Well, Skiles won. He shattered everyone's expectations of how long it would take to right the ship. And here he is, having to fight and claw and grind to get what he deserves. 

Let's imagine a worst-case scenario -- Skiles is a nut, a burnout, a quitter. He bails on the team midway through next season, leaving the Bulls on the hook for a big chunk of his contract. Surely, as a business owner, you can see how between deferred compensation, a $200 million + annual revenue stream, and $30-50 million in annual operating profits, it'd be pretty easy to swallow that loss, yes?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> And the contracts we are comparing Skiles' to also *might* not be all they seem, *given the fine print and possible conditions attached to the guarantees*.
> 
> Unless, of course, JR and the 28 partners are the only owners among the 30 in the league who don't fully guarantee every penny of their coach's contracts.
> 
> And IMHO Skiles certainly hasn't proven enough to demand a fully-guaranteed, long-term contract.


I have no idea what all the bolding is supposed to signify. You should probably go bold K.C.'s report on the value of the offer, too, because it's speculation as well. 



> Maybe Denver and the Clips could pay their current coaches more if they weren't still paying coaches who they gave bad contracts to in the past? I don't know if that's the case, just speculating (like Mariotti and Burns), if anyone knows the status of that I would be very curious.


I don't think the Clips and Nugs owe Gentry and Bzdelik anything anymore; even if they did, those two were the two lowest-paid head coaches during their tenures.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Huh?
> 
> Ownership has bumbled and stumbled to a 254-435 record sans MJ. Let's not get carried away here.


Ownership has bumbled and stumbled to a 254-435 (.369) record sans MJ * and Pippen and Rodman*, just to be clear.

The Celtics were 218-324 (.402) and 2-6 in two playoff appearances the first 7 seasons sans Bird.

The Lakers were sub-.500 the first 4 years sans Magic.

Horace Grant's Magic are a sub- .500 team sans Shaq.

The Spurs won 20 games sans The Admiral.

The difference is, JR and the 28 partners put enough players around MJ for the Bulls to win 6 titles, and it very easily could have been 8 if MJ hadn't voluntarily retired for almost 2 years in his prime. Bird and Magic combined for only 8 rings in 11 combined Finals trips (they faced each other in the Finals 3 times).

It took the Lakers 9 years after Magic retired to win another title, and landing Shaq is the reason for it. I don't know if the Bulls can win a title in the next 2 years, but it's certainly possible.

I just don't see how JR and his 28 partners can be held to a higher standard than the 2 greatest franchises in the history of the NBA. I think just being at that level speaks for itself as to JR and the 28 partners' competence.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> I have no idea what all the bolding is supposed to signify. You should probably go bold K.C.'s report on the value of the offer, too, because it's speculation as well.


Mariotti and Burns are speculating as well, that's what the bolding was supposed to signify. What they said about Skiles' contract also applies to the contracts of the coaches that are being used to "justify" Skiles' salary demands.



> I don't think the Clips and Nugs owe Gentry and Bzdelik anything anymore; even if they did, those two were the two lowest-paid head coaches during their tenures.


Thanks, you're right about that, I'm sure Gentry and Bdzelik aren't retiring off what they are owed by the Clips and Nugs respectively.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> As a business owner, don't you normally want your employees to be as happy -- and productive -- as possible? And doesn't that -- sometimes -- entail giving them what they ask for?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First of all, yes you have been extremely consistent in your opinion of JR. Maybe that's why fl_flash enjoys conversing with you even though he disagrees with most of your opinions? I know that's why I enjoy conversing with you.

But as for the last part, having been a business owner (obviously on a much smaller scale), I wouldn't want to be paying out 10% of my yearly pre-tax profit to a guy who is just sitting home and contributing nothing to my business.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> But as for the last part, having been a business owner (obviously on a much smaller scale), I wouldn't want to be paying out 10% of my yearly pre-tax profit to a guy who is just sitting home and contributing nothing to my business.


Of course you wouldn't want to do that. But the possibility of needing to fire and/or buy out coaches and players is a pretty well-known cost of doing business in the NBA. It happens multiple times each and every season.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> As a business owner, don't you normally want your employees to be as happy -- and productive -- as possible? And doesn't that -- sometimes -- entail giving them what they ask for?


Of course I want my people happy and productive. I don't know if you have children, but if you do (or will), would you give them everything they asked for if it made them happy? If they wanted to eat candy 24/7 and play on the x-box all day long but not complain and cry... Would you do that? Any business owner has limits. Just like any parent, just because a kid wants candy to make them happy, that may not be in their best interest in the long run. If a business owner gives its' employees everything they wanted in order to make them happy, pretty soon there won't be any business left to take from. In any situation like this, there's always give and take between the haves (owners) and the have-nots (employees). The trick, as always, is to find that common middle-ground that's acceptable (or at least not completely unfair) to both sides.





> I'm not saying that about Skiles at all. I just think a four-year, fully guaranteed contract for $20 million (with the normal stipulations that the Bulls are off the hook for some or all of the severance if Skiles is fired and lands a similar job during the term of the original deal) is absolutely fair. I would not support Skiles if he asked for $30 million, or a piece of the team, or for a seven-year deal.


I'd have to agree with ya here. Ultimatly, if Reinsdorf inks Skiles to such a deal, that's fine by me. I've got a feeling it's Skiles camp, not Reinsdorfs', that would not agree to the above type of contract. Too many out-clauses for the Bulls and not enough guarantees for Skiles. I think both sides are still trying to get that little bit extra (Skiles in terms of years/guarantees, Papa R in terms of non-guarantees) and hopefully they'll come to some common ground. They really don't seem that far apart.




> I think that if you consider the possible conditions and asterisks in the Bulls' best offer as reported by the Tribune, it's not a great one for Skiles. He played a pretty big role in stopping the worst six-year period of futility in NBA history. I wonder if the people who are complaining about the possibility of Skiles making more than Popovich and Carlisle are looking at what kinds of players all three got to coach last year.


Eh. I've never been a big proponent that a coach greatly improves a team. Maybe he gives a team 5 or so more (or fewer) wins a season by virtue of his game management skills and X's and O's abilities - or lack thereof. Overall I still believe it's the level of talent of the team that decides games. Last season was our best collection of talent and that's why we won the most games since The Dynasty. Skiles aided in that and he rightfully deserves to be compensated for his part in it.




> Even though you don't agree with just about everything I write, I hope you can agree that I'm usually pretty consistent. I have long believed that Reinsdorf's reluctance to pay people was a big part of making the Bulls bad. I was told not to worry; that he'd pay people once they won. Well, Skiles won. He shattered everyone's expectations of how long it would take to right the ship. And here he is, having to fight and claw and grind to get what he deserves.


Hey! You have to be consistant if 99.9% of what you write I don't agree with! In all seriousness, that's why I enjoy your stuff. Ying to my Yang and that sort of thing. Skiles does deserve a pay increase and I hope it gets done. I'll leave it up to he and Reinsdorf to determine what that ends up being. I think the fighting and clawing reference is a bit over the top but I get your meaning. 





> Let's imagine a worst-case scenario -- Skiles is a nut, a burnout, a quitter. He bails on the team midway through next season, leaving the Bulls on the hook for a big chunk of his contract. Surely, as a business owner, you can see how between deferred compensation, a $200 million + annual revenue stream, and $30-50 million in annual operating profits, it'd be pretty easy to swallow that loss, yes?


As a business owner, I'd rather not have to swallow that loss. If it is within my power to avert such a situation, I'd have to do it. If I have a choice between my bottom line being $30 mil and it being $35 mil, I'll choose the latter. It's not just about that $5 mil either. There are opportunity costs involved. I'm much rather have the flexability to use that $5 mil to invest back into the business, to provide for other things that might be of benefit or otherwise simply save it over paying someone not to work for me. Call me crazy in that way.

Anywho. I enjoy going back and forth with you.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Of course you wouldn't want to do that. But the possibility of needing to fire and/or buy out coaches and players is a pretty well-known cost of doing business in the NBA. It happens multiple times each and every season.


Just because it's an anticipated possibility, it doesn't mean you don't want to minimize the risk. And the successful franchises don't let it happen very often, that's why they are successful franchises. 

JR and the other 28 owners are making money, hell even lots of money. But that income flow isn't limitless, and if you make enough bad investments pretty soon you won't be making money. 

Portland and New York have certainly not benefitted from wild, limitless spending, and the Mavs are better since Cuban took over but he bought a team that already had Nowitzki, Finley and Nash, so all they needed was some tweaking.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

bullsville said:


> It goes both ways, *do you want the most possible money you can get paid right now or long-term security?*












What-choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> JR and the other 28 owners are making money, hell even lots of money. But that income flow isn't limitless, and if you make enough bad investments pretty soon you won't be making money.


It would take a hell of a lot of squandering to even begin to put a dent in the profit the Bulls have pocketed the last six years, to say nothing of the 3000%-4000% return the Bulls owners would get if they sold the team (and it could have been much more if they hadn't sucked so bad the last six years and slowed the appreciation of the franchise's value).

If the Bulls' ownership is truly that worried about the risk of having to pay Skiles an extra 3-4 million spread out over 10-20 years (again, a lot of severance pay is both highly conditional and highly deferred), then A. they should get out of this "risky" business ASAP and B. fire Skiles today and hire a coach they feel more comfortable with.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Finally, I have to say again that I am genuinely confused by the 180 made by the (formerly) pro-Skiles camp. For two years, I've been hearing how important he is to the Bulls and how he'd restore us to glory. Now, many of the same people are saying his demand for an extra $6 million will paralyze the Bulls and bring the organization to its knees. Truly bewildering.


By the same token, it's quite interesting that the person most critical of Skiles' offensive game plan and his use of the 3 guard lineup, as well as the same person residing on the "Fire Skiles" list as recently as a couple of months ago, is now somehow his biggest cheerleader for a top coaching contract in all of basketball. Funny things happen when there's a chance to hammer Reinsdorf and Bulls managment.

By the way, I posted this on 2-20-05 in the _Curry: "It's Me or Skiles"_ thread:


> I love Skiles, but am of the opinion that his act will eventually wear thin with this team (ala Doug Collins) and a change will have to be made. It's still too early for that at this point.


I think I've been consistent with my long-term concerns.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> By the same token, it's quite interesting that the person most critical of Skiles' offensive game plan and his use of the 3 guard lineup, as well as the same person residing on the "Fire Skiles" list as recently as a couple of months ago, is now somehow his biggest cheerleader for a top coaching contract in all of basketball. Funny things happen when there's a chance to hammer Reinsdorf and Bulls managment.
> 
> By the way, I posted this on 2-20-05 in the _Curry: "It's Me or Skiles"_ thread:
> 
> ...


The Bulls could be coached by a committee of John Wooden, Coach K, Phil Jackson, Red Auerbach, Pat Riley, Larry Brown, and Jesus and I'd still second-guess them from time to time. That's just how I am. I think most fans are like that.

And I didn't like the Skiles hire from the onset because I saw it in another line of penny-pinching moves -- a stance which, it turns out, everyone here seems to agree with. But he has more than earned the chance to remain coach of the Bulls. Whether or not he can adapt to his team as they mature and improve remains to be seen, but I think the Bulls would make a huge mistake not to find that out.

So there's nothing "funny" about any of it. My "agenda" from the jump has been to see the Bulls become competitive again. That's all.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> The Bulls could be coached by a committee of John Wooden, Coach K, Phil Jackson, Red Auerbach, Pat Riley, Larry Brown, and Jesus and I'd still second-guess them from time to time.












What-choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Its funny as hell how important Skiles is to the teams success until money becomes involved and then hes just a average joe who should be lucky to be in the league. 

So much drama over a coach that took the worst team in the league to playoffs for the first time and years and we have many thinking positive about the Bulls maybe going after a big ime free agent next year ? WOW !!


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> It would take a hell of a lot of squandering to even begin to put a dent in the profit the Bulls have pocketed the last six years, to say nothing of the 3000%-4000% return the Bulls owners would get if they sold the team (and it could have been much more if they hadn't sucked so bad the last six years and slowed the appreciation of the franchise's value).
> 
> If the Bulls' ownership is truly that worried about the risk of having to pay Skiles an extra 3-4 million spread out over 10-20 years (again, a lot of severance pay is both highly conditional and highly deferred), then A. they should get out of this "risky" business ASAP and B. fire Skiles today and hire a coach they feel more comfortable with.


We really agree on that last one, and I'm sure JR and friends agree. If they aren't comfortable with Skiles and his salary, he'll be gone.

And just because they have made a lot of money over the last 6 years, I understand if they want to continue to make money. My only investment in the Bulls is emotional, and just because we won 6 titles doesn't mean I will be happy if we don't win any more.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Its funny as hell how important Skiles is to the teams success until money becomes involved and then hes just a average joe who should be lucky to be in the league.
> 
> So much drama over a coach that took the worst team in the league to playoffs for the first time and years and we have many thinking positive about the Bulls maybe going after a big ime free agent next year ? WOW !!


Nobody's calling Skiles an average joe here, but he should consider himself lucky that he got a 2nd chance as a head coach. If not for Pax, there's a very high chance that he's still sitting home in Indiana with a soured rep. But bottom line here is that Skiles and the Bulls have done alot *for each other* and there's been a considerable amount of mutual gain. That's how it should be. Which is why it is crazy that something has not gotten done. It seems to me that the Bulls are bending over just a little more than Skiles at this point in time, which is why I'm leaning toward their side.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Its funny as hell how important Skiles is to the teams success until money becomes involved and then hes just a average joe who should be lucky to be in the league.
> 
> So much drama over a coach that took the worst team in the league to playoffs for the first time and years and we have many thinking positive about the Bulls maybe going after a big ime free agent next year ? WOW !!


Actually, the opinions I keep reading are that Skiles should be happy with a contract that would put him in the top-10 paid coaches in the league.

I also believe that if Skiles were to walk away right now, there are a lot of coaches out there who would jump at the chance to coach our young talent who could be just as successful as Skiles was.

I don't understand the entire "pay him whatever he wants" idea, while he's no average Joe he's not exactly a long-term proven winner yet.

This is a players league, while I am a huge fan of what Skiles did for the team, I was also a huge fan of what Doug Collins did for the Bulls, but he got fired as well. Coaches always get fired, even ones with 9 Championships.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

yodurk said:


> Nobody's calling Skiles an average joe here, but he should consider himself lucky that he got a 2nd chance as a head coach. If not for Pax, there's a very high chance that he's still sitting home in Indiana with a soured rep. But bottom line here is that Skiles and the Bulls have done alot *for each other* and there's been a considerable amount of mutual gain. That's how it should be. Which is why it is crazy that something has not gotten done. It seems to me that the Bulls are bending over just a little more than Skiles at this point in time, which is why I'm leaning toward their side.


 :clap:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> And I didn't like the Skiles hire from the onset because I saw it in another line of penny-pinching moves -- a stance which, it turns out, everyone here seems to agree with. But he has more than earned the chance to remain coach of the Bulls. Whether or not he can adapt to his team as they mature and improve remains to be seen, but I think the Bulls would make a huge mistake not to find that out.


So you hated the Skiles hiring, but now you are ready to pay him whatever he asks for? 

At least you admit that what you saw as a "penny-pinching move" turned out to be the perfect move.



> So there's nothing "funny" about any of it. My "agenda" from the jump has been to see the Bulls become competitive again. That's all.


And now we are, enjoy it. If JR and the other owners don't think he's worth what he's asking for, have a little faith that maybe they are right once again, just like when they hired Skiles.

Every ownership group in every sport can be criticized- although it's hard for me to criticize anything the Patriots have done over the last 4 years- but I think they should also be given some credit when they have 6 championships and now an outstanding young core that they rebuilt from nothing.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> So you hated the Skiles hiring, but now you are ready to pay him whatever he asks for?


If you can show me where I've said that, that'd be cool.



> At least you admit that what you saw as a "penny-pinching move" turned out to be the perfect move.


If you can show me where I've said that, that'd be cool as well. The perfect move, to me, would have been to spend top dollar to land a Larry Brown or a Rick Carlisle or a Jeff Van Gundy. You agree with this, obviously, as you've argued repeatedly that Skiles isn't worth what those guys are.



> And now we are, enjoy it. If JR and the other owners don't think he's worth what he's asking for, have a little faith that maybe they are right once again, just like when they hired Skiles.


The problem is that at the reasonable numbers Skiles is proposing, I don't see the drawbacks of ownership being "wrong". Having to pay Skiles severance doesn't affect anything that the Bulls would need to do to run a successful basketball team. If Chicago was a small market, or hadn't made gobs of money the last X number of years, I'd feel differently about this. It's not some sort of blind anti-owner position.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Nobody's calling Skiles an average joe here, but he should consider himself lucky that he got a 2nd chance as a head coach. If not for Pax, there's a very high chance that he's still sitting home in Indiana with a soured rep. But bottom line here is that Skiles and the Bulls have done alot *for each other* and there's been a considerable amount of mutual gain. That's how it should be. Which is why it is crazy that something has not gotten done. It seems to me that the Bulls are bending over just a little more than Skiles at this point in time, which is why I'm leaning toward their side.



Why would Skiles be sitting at home ? Its amazijg how people are potraying Skiles as this guy who couldnt get a job and Pax saved him kinda like gene hackman and keanu reeves in the replacements.

Skiles was not on any blacklists and Colangelo his former employer recommended him .Thats not the scenario of a guy who couldnt work but of a guy who chose not to work. 

Is Skiles lucky or are the Bulls lucky he took the job ?Are there any other guys who were on pax lists at the the time that couldve gotten similar results or who wouldve sat through that first year with the dupress and lynton johnsons ?

Im not a huge Skiles fan but lets be real here hes the main reason the organization has turned around as quickly as it has .Now if the Bulls believe inhim like they were saying they do 7 months ago then pay him and keep the good vibes going if not let it be known and go after someone who they do believe in.

This entire thing really sucks the wind out of any good feelings that I have had about keeping this team together .

Whats weird is that Ive yet to see a player outside of Mj that didnt have a huge difference in what they thought they were worth and what the Bulls thought they were worth.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Why would Skiles be sitting at home ? Its amazijg how people are potraying Skiles as this guy who couldnt get a job and Pax saved him kinda like gene hackman and keanu reeves in the replacements.
> 
> Skiles was not on any blacklists and Colangelo his former employer recommended him .Thats not the scenario of a guy who couldnt work but of a guy who chose not to work.



If you are going to complain about that perception of Skiles, show me an indication any other org gave him any serious consideration at any time between when he and Colangelo parted ways and when Reinsdorf hired him.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> If you are going to complain about that perception of Skiles, show me an indication any other org gave him any serious consideration at any time between when he and Colangelo parted ways and when Reinsdorf hired him.



Maybe he wasnt looking for work ?Maybe he wasnt actively pursuing jobs lets not forget his father is in Indiana and his kids attended school there before he even took the Bulls job.Maybe if it was in Charlotte he says no thanks .

I guess we should consider that because Steven A. Smith or David aldridge didnt say he was on a teams list on espn I guess it means he couldnt get a job .


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I found this interesting tidbit from when Floyd was hired.



> The Bulls also interviewed NBA assistants Scott Skiles, Ron Rothstein, Paul Silas and Rick Carlisle, but the job was thought to be Floyd's to turn down



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/news/1998/07/22/floyd_final/


:laugh: oh boy the Jerrys


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Maybe he wasnt looking for work ?Maybe he wasnt actively pursuing jobs lets not forget his father is in Indiana and his kids attended school there before he even took the Bulls job.Maybe if it was in Charlotte he says no thanks .


Or, uh, maybe nobody was looking to hire him...

Sitting at home playing Mr. Mom doesn't seem like the first choice course of action for a man idnetified with The Right Way.



> I guess we should consider that because Steven A. Smith or David aldridge didnt say he was on a teams list on espn I guess it means he couldnt get a job .


I've never heard Smith or Aldridge mention MY name for any team's coaching A List either. So I'm sitting by the phone waiting for the call with an offer.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> I found this interesting tidbit from when Floyd was hired.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL Oh my God, that's hilarious. :clap:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Sam Smith said:


> Skiles-Bulls tiff
> 
> Ah, yes, like Brown, Skiles often allows hubris to put a hard screen on his reason.
> 
> ...


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...hcolumn,1,1451401.column?coll=cs-home-utility


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

If Jerry really has some balls he'll not take up Skiles's option and let him go to free agency this year 

This be the better path rather than insert a lameduck Coach ahead of free agency 2006

A move like this however is not without serious ramifications

The thing is -Skiles is every part of the mental symbolism of this team as much as what Kirk , Duhon, AD, Deng, Nocioni and Chandler are 

You cut Skiles adrift .. or let the propensity for that to occur 12 months from now and what does that say about the players you've put in place in your efforts to rebuild the culture ?

To me .. Skiles and the current composition of this team in the image that has been endeavoured to be crafted , go hand in hand 

With the uncertainty created , you may well see Tyson Chandler do the runner in free agency if the Clips come calling .. Chandler and Brand backed by Kaman and Wilcox ? Damn.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I just posted similar concerns about the coach situation interfering with the '06 FA period. I think you are right -- the Bulls either need to get this extension done, or simply not pick up the option and get a new staff in place pronto. We need a stable situation when we are wooing top players to come to Chicago.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> There's an old saying around the NBA: "Once a player always a player."
> 
> It's why Skiles talks about the appropriate behavior for players and how greed is ruining the NBA and then complains about not being appreciated and being disrespected because some coach is paid more.



say what you want about mr. smith, but he nailed it with this one i think.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> say what you want about mr. smith, but he nailed it with this one i think.


i must say that I thought that Sam Smith more than earned his keep with this column. One of his best written for quite some time.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I don't think it's even close to a 100% certainty that the Bulls pick up Skiles' option for next season if they don't come to an agreement on an extension.

If JR and/or Pax are of the opinion that Skiles will eventually go Larry Brown or Doug Collins, they might just go ahead and get a new coach for next season instead of waiting a year. 

Depending on who exactly is out there when the option deadline day comes around, of course.


----------



## Squirrel (Jul 25, 2002)

Skiles has been mistreated by the Bulls-HOW? The organisation is slandering him in the press? Seems hypocritical when he's the one chirpping most. I don't get it, why is he so bitter all of a sudden?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I think Sam Smith nailed it for the second straight day (never thought I'd say that):



> And the Bulls have a rising young executive in John Paxson, who offered to make Skiles one of the highest-paid coaches in the NBA at an annual salary extension well above $4 million per year.
> 
> Read that slowly: More than $4 million!
> 
> ...


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

Dear God, merge the threads! Merge the Skiles threads for the love of all that is sacred...!


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I think Sam Smith nailed it for the second straight day (never thought I'd say that):


Smith is notorious for ignoring the fine print on finances and for slanting things.

Yet suddenly he's offering nothing but sage advice?

Doesn't that strike you as rather strange that a guy who's shoveled nothing but bull**** is suddenly giving you a ham sandwich?

If it were me, I'd take a really close look at that ham sandwich before taking a bite.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Smith is notorious for ignoring the fine print on finances and for slanting things.
> 
> Yet suddenly he's offering nothing but sage advice?
> 
> ...


At the very least, it's interesting to me how Sam Smith and Reinsdorf seem to find one another in turbulent times. 

Like when you need some smoothing over done when you're trading Elton Brand for a high-schooler, or a sympathetic explanation of why you're dealing Brad Miller and Ron Artest for Jalen Rose, or when you need a hatchet job done on an outgoing coach.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> At the very least, it's interesting to me how Sam Smith and Reinsdorf seem to find one another in turbulent times.
> 
> Like when you need some smoothing over done when you're trading Elton Brand for a high-schooler, or a sympathetic explanation of why you're dealing Brad Miller and Ron Artest for Jalen Rose, or when you need a hatchet job done on an outgoing coach.


I know those were merely examples, but the Jalen Rose trade was proposed by Sam Smith months before it happened. It was no surprise that he supported it WHEN it was happened...it allowed him to say "I told you so" afterward. And if I recall, Smith was on the "Elton Brand isn't a franchise player" bandwagon well before we got Tyson and Eddy, so again, it made him look competent. 90% of Smith's stuff is a little on the looney side, but once in a while he make some deep thoughts...it's [barely] enough to keep me reading his articles.


----------



## YearofDaBulls (Oct 20, 2004)

I don't knwo what to think about this. I always thought Paxson was a resonable person and would be skeptical if he was to blame for this. two people come to mind though. Skiles and Reinsdorf. One side of me says that Skiles is being unreasonable because it was the Bulls who gave him a shot to bring him back into coaching. And then the other says that Reinsdorf is being a cheap ***. Something tells me though that Skiles is asking for at least 5mil.


----------

