# Bidding for Big Ben just one of Paxson’s many tough decisions



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Not much in the papers these days, but Mike has a column what Pax may and may not do:

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/beatwriters.asp?column=mcgraw



> Should the Bulls deliver a huge free-agent offer to Detroit center Ben Wallace?
> 
> Most NBA observers expect Wallace to stick with the Pistons, with whom he turned into a star after coming aboard as a bargain free agent (six years, $30 million) in 2000.
> 
> ...


Much more at the link.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

I highly doubt that the Pistons let Ben walk for nothing or that he leaves in the first place.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I highly doubt that the Pistons let Ben walk for nothing or that he leaves in the first place.


Anything is possible. Dallas let Nash go for nothing, Hughes left Washington after being insulted by their first offer.



> The most obvious solution for the Bulls would be to go ahead and make an offer, but keep the window small. If Wallace doesn’t jump right away, move on.


Definitely the best course of action.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

EVen if we only drive Ben's cost up for the Pistons it is worth us getting in the negotiation IMO. If we somehow come away with Ben then thats obviously a huge bonus.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

I like Ben, but I just dont see how he is going to be effective for much longer.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> I like Ben, but I just dont see how he is going to be effective for much longer.



I think we should expect him to be effective for about the next 3 years, his main tool is his his strength anyway, and after that he would probably still be a great mentor/role player.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I think we should expect him to be effective for about the next 3 years, his main tool is his his strength anyway, and after that he would probably still be a great mentor/role player.


I'd argue that. I think his main tools are his strength and his athleticism.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> I think we should expect him to be effective for about the next 3 years, his main tool is his his strength anyway, and after that he would probably still be a great mentor/role player.


If he really has 3 years of high quality performance in him, I'm all for it. However, we've been burned too many times on the "well, at least he can be a mentor" road. I don't want to spend $16M/year of our budget for a guy who will be a star for a year and then an expensive spot minute guy for the next 2.

But by all means, if we legitimately think he can go strong for the duration of a contract, I'd love to have him.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> If he really has 3 years of high quality performance in him, I'm all for it. However, we've been burned too many times on the "well, at least he can be a mentor" road. I don't want to spend $16M/year of our budget for a guy who will be a star for a year and then an expensive spot minute guy for the next 2.
> 
> But by all means, if we legitimately think he can go strong for the duration of a contract, I'd love to have him.


I feel the same way. Ben could probably teach Tyson a thing or two, but I wouldn't like to see the two of them on the floor together for too many minutes in game situations. We would be awesome on the offensive boards, but our low post offense would be almost non-existent.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Big guys who can play defense and rebound have nice graceful ends to their careers. Five years from now Ben Wallace will still be able to get rebounds and play great positional defense. His great court vision (basketball IQ) will also be intact. His ability to block shots, make steals and take charges will decline as he loses a step; but his playoff experience and leadership abilities will only improve.

Antonio Davis made Chicago, New York and Toronto better teams when he played for them in his declining years. Mutumbo is a valuable member of Houston and Zo is a strong contributor to Miami. Ben Wallace will have a similar, but even stronger, effect on the teams he plays for in his late 30s. He'll still be a valuable teamate, albeit an expensive one.

A max offer to Wallace will have been worth it if the Bulls put him in a position to anchor a championship contender for the next five years. Together with the good draft choices the Bulls have this year and next and internal improvement, Wallace could be just enough to make the Bulls legitimate title contenders for the rest of this decade.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Personally, I think its a no-brainer. Throw everything we have at Ben for 5 years. Use the draft picks. 

Ben plays at a high level for another 2.5-3 years and then ease down his minutes the last 2 season as our young bigs progress. 

We contend in the East immediately and throughout his contract and retain a very young core. I see no downside as long as we only leave the offer on the table for a little while, like McGraw suggests.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I think Ben has 3 good years in him at least , and will stay affectice.

we should Bid for him. He's the kind of players that brings the team things that noone else can bring.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

LegoHat said:


> I feel the same way. Ben could probably teach Tyson a thing or two, but I wouldn't like to see the two of them on the floor together for too many minutes in game situations. We would be awesome on the offensive boards, but our low post offense would be almost non-existent.


In general I get the feeling that low post offense is a little over-rated while rebounding, interior defense and shot-blocking tend to relatively underrated.

Great rebounding and shot blocking teams have many more opportunities to trigger fast breaks; particularly if the guards do not need to be preoccupied with helping on the defensive boards. One of the reasons why the Bulls did not have many fast break opportunities last year is that they had to keep their guards back to help on the defensive boards.

So when I think of what I want from a center. I first think of Bill Russel, Wes Unseld and Wilt Chamberlain (when he was with the Lakers). These guys defended the middle of the floor, passed the ball effectively to their teammates and could trigger the fast break with accurate long passes. Tom Boerwinkle and Dennis Rodman were Bulls interior players who had this capability.

IMO the ability to dominate the boards and block shots is much more important than a low post offense. Dominance of the boards and block shoting reduce opponents possessions and shot opportunities and lead to easy baskets via fast breaks and put backs. 

Low post scoring by centers or power forwards is increasingly problematic now that the rules allow collapsing defenses and zones. The only thing that keeps the two man post-up game useful in the NBA is the defensive 3 second call (a last vestage of anti-zone rules that IMO should be eliminated); the unimaginativeness of NBA coaches, who only slowly are beginning to take advantage of the rule changes; and the propensity of referees to allow clear-outs with the off-hand on inside plays. 

There are good reasons why the NBA should have had an interest in legislating a reduction in the role of the two-man post-up play. It's a crashing bore to watch. The plays develope at glacial speed, and produce game-slowing foul shots more than anything else. The outcome is determined primarily be arbitrary decisions made by referees who are forced to adjucate ostensibly illegal interactions between big men on every play.

Anyway, I'd much rather see Ben Wallace or even Przy clear the boards, block shots and play good team ball than some player whose value depends on executing a back-to-the basket offensive move that is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Big guys who can play defense and rebound have nice graceful ends to their careers. Five years from now Ben Wallace will still be able to get rebounds and play great positional defense. His great court vision (basketball IQ) will also be intact. His ability to block shots, make steals and take charges will decline as he loses a step; but his playoff experience and leadership abilities will only improve.
> 
> Antonio Davis made Chicago, New York and Toronto better teams when he played for them in his declining years. Mutumbo is a valuable member of Houston and Zo is a strong contributor to Miami. Ben Wallace will have a similar, but even stronger, effect on the teams he plays for in his late 30s. He'll still be a valuable teamate, albeit an expensive one.
> 
> A max offer to Wallace will have been worth it if the Bulls put him in a position to anchor a championship contender for the next five years. Together with the good draft choices the Bulls have this year and next and internal improvement, Wallace could be just enough to make the Bulls legitimate title contenders for the rest of this decade.


 I for the most part agree. I mean, how old was Kevin Willis? 72?


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> I for the most part agree. I mean, how old was Kevin Willis? 72?


and rodman was 35-37 during his stint with the bulls. 
wallace could be effective for the next 5 years, it's just with each passing year the rest of the team will have to learn, mature, and step up.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

McBulls said:


> In general I get the feeling that low post offense is a little over-rated while rebounding, interior defense and shot-blocking tend to relatively underrated.
> 
> Great rebounding and shot blocking teams have many more opportunities to trigger fast breaks; particularly if the guards do not need to be preoccupied with helping on the defensive boards. One of the reasons why the Bulls did not have many fast break opportunities last year is that they had to keep their guards back to help on the defensive boards.
> 
> ...


 :clap:


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Let's not forget that Ben is in unbelievably - almost Herculean - good shape and is a good bet to work his arse off to stay at or near his athletic peak for as long as he possibly can. While it's only reasonable to expect him to start dropping off in the next 2-3 years, I really don't think it'll be that severe of a dropoff until he's in his late 30s. By then his contract will be ending.


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

I lets not forget that Ben is a vet who has a title ring something that our team misses.The Bulls have youth but at times lacks a leader imo Ben can bring that to this team.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

McBulls said:


> In general I get the feeling that low post offense is a little over-rated while rebounding, interior defense and shot-blocking tend to relatively underrated. ...


McBulls, you are so money and you don't even know it. :rock:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

McBulls said:


> In general I get the feeling that low post offense is a little over-rated while rebounding, interior defense and shot-blocking tend to relatively underrated.
> 
> Great rebounding and shot blocking teams have many more opportunities to trigger fast breaks; particularly if the guards do not need to be preoccupied with helping on the defensive boards. One of the reasons why the Bulls did not have many fast break opportunities last year is that they had to keep their guards back to help on the defensive boards.
> 
> ...


Um. What he said.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Anyway, I'd much rather see Ben Wallace or even Przy clear the boards, block shots and play good team ball than some player whose value depends on executing a back-to-the basket offensive move that is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.


Whoa, a thing of the past? Hardly.

I'll agree that a lot of teams are eschewing traditional back-to-the-basket post play in favor of something else -- but only because they don't have the personnel to carry it off. I still see Shaq and Tim Duncan firmly entrenched in the lane, playing the way big men always have. I'm fairly sure that whoever drafts Greg Oden is going to ask him to do the same. 

I'm not sure whatever additional offensive spark Wallace would provide via blocked shots and defensive rebounds triggering fast breaks would offset his limitations in the half court. The other thing to consider is the Bulls aren't exactly well-suited for fast-break basketball. We have plenty of people who can start a fast break, but not many who can finish one.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I think we should pass on ben. We should be taking it slow seeing what develops and step in when we se a bargain. If there are none, draft smart and wait until the trade deadline if nothing happens that excites us we wait until summer of 07 and look configure ourselves for the long haul whether its through resigning our own players or making moves to move us into the upper echelon teams . Gambling on Big ben who is probably throwing everything he has trying to make it to his show me the money payday should not be what we are looking at. I say pass on Ben Ben aka Rod Tidwell.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> I think we should pass on ben. We should be taking it slow seeing what develops and step in when we se a bargain. If there are none, draft smart and wait until the trade deadline if nothing happens that excites us we wait until summer of 07 and look configure ourselves for the long haul whether its through resigning our own players or making moves to move us into the upper echelon teams . *Gambling on Big ben who is probably throwing everything he has trying to make it to his show me the money payday should not be what we are looking at. I say pass on Ben Ben aka Rod Tidwell.*


Thing is, signing Ben Wallace doesn't hinder us from doing any of the things you mentioned. 

As for the bolded part, I think that is probably more than a little unfair. Ben Wallace is not a "contract year" type of guy. He's been bringing it night in and night out his entire year. This isn't an Eric Dampier/Ike Austin type of scenario.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Thing is, signing Ben Wallace doesn't hinder us from doing any of the things you mentioned.
> 
> As for the bolded part, I think that is probably more than a little unfair. Ben Wallace is not a "contract year" type of guy. He's been bringing it night in and night out his entire year. This isn't an Eric Dampier/Ike Austin type of scenario.


Hey, no dissing on my mate Ike Austin. I played with him for a year. There was alot happening there that wasnt purely basketball related.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

badfish said:


> McBulls, you are so money and you don't even know it. :rock:


I do believe that's a Swingers reference?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Whoa, a thing of the past? Hardly.
> 
> I'll agree that a lot of teams are eschewing traditional back-to-the-basket post play in favor of something else -- but only because they don't have the personnel to carry it off. I still see Shaq and Tim Duncan firmly entrenched in the lane, playing the way big men always have. I'm fairly sure that whoever drafts Greg Oden is going to ask him to do the same.


Shaq and Duncan scare me more for their rebounding, passing and defensive abilities than their post-up game. They would be great players without their post-up games, although they would probably draw fewer fouls. The advantage of a high post offense like the triangle is that it opens up the lane and enables pick and roll, pick & pop plays and weaves to be emphasized. The high post offense is less predictable and less dependent on the kindness of strangers wearing striped shirts. Duncan usually plays the high post for that reason. It's rare to see him backing down an opponent in the paint. 

On the other hand, Shaq is an example of a dinasaur whose low post game is endangered by current and future rule changes and by effective coaching and team defense. A team of Bulls midgets kept him under control for most of the series games; admittedly by giving up 3 point shots to Walker et al. When the great man was called for the offensive fouls he routinely commits while establishing low position and in making his power move to the basket, his low post offense was not decisive. If the defensive 3 second rule were discontinued, he would find his path to the bucket an inconvenient one on nearly every possession. 



> The other thing to consider is the Bulls aren't exactly well-suited for fast-break basketball. We have plenty of people who can start a fast break, but not many who can finish one.


I dunno. I'd love to see Gordon, Deng, Nocioni and Hinrich fast breaking more often. The best finish to a fast break is a layup or a short jumper. I think they're more than capable of those shots. They do need a little more practice passing the ball on the run, which is something that will come only when the Bulls have better rebounding so they can run more.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

LegoHat said:


> I do believe that's a Swingers reference?


Right you are!

Though the chances are slim that we can pry Big Bad Ben Wallace from the Pistons. I think we have to try. This is the year we have a chance to land an impact player with winning cred, WITHOUT giving up any of our core assets. We can still do a consolidation trade down the road. 

Also, I didn't take McBulls post to mean that low-post scoring is worthless. It's overrated/underated kind of thing. A rotation of:

Wallace, Chandler, Songaila (or Allen), Aldridge/Bargnani/Gooden/Harrington 

gives us plenty of offense and defense.


----------



## JayRedd (Jan 2, 2006)

ScottMay said:


> Whoa, a thing of the past? Hardly.
> 
> I'll agree that a lot of teams are eschewing traditional back-to-the-basket post play in favor of something else -- but only because they don't have the personnel to carry it off. I still see Shaq and Tim Duncan firmly entrenched in the lane, playing the way big men always have. I'm fairly sure that whoever drafts Greg Oden is going to ask him to do the same.


Couldn't agree more. 

If I'm not mistaken, out of the six teams still alive (I've said farewell to NJ and CLE already), the Spurs, Heat, Clippers and to a lesser extent the Pistons all rely heavily on a back-to-basket "dinosaur" type of players. And I believe it just so happens that those could be the last four teams playing this season. Could just be a coincidence I guess though. But I doubt it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Shaq and Duncan scare me more for their rebounding, passing and defensive abilities than their post-up game.


I don't disagree about what they bring to the table in terms of defense and rebounding. But offensively, you can't seriously dispute that what opens up the game for Shaq and Duncan is the damage they can do in the low post. People don't double-team Shaq and Duncan because they're afraid they'll burn them with 10-foot jumpers or sweet passes to teammates; they double-team them because if they don't, Shaq and Duncan will overwhelm their defenders in the low post. 



> On the other hand, Shaq is an example of a dinasaur whose low post game is endangered by current and future rule changes and by effective coaching and team defense. A team of Bulls midgets kept him under control for most of the series games; admittedly by giving up 3 point shots to Walker et al. When the great man was called for the offensive fouls he routinely commits while establishing low position and in making his power move to the basket, his low post offense was not decisive. If the defensive 3 second rule were discontinued, he would find his path to the bucket an inconvenient one on nearly every possession.


I wouldn't let Shaq's declining physical condition confuse me into thinking the power low post game is on the way out. Shaq isn't as quick as he used to be, he's not as strong as he used to be, and he's not as fit as he used to be. A 1998-vintage Shaq would have taken this Bulls team over his knee and spanked it silly (as it was, Shaq kind of did this anyway, at least when it mattered). 



> I dunno. I'd love to see Gordon, Deng, Nocioni and Hinrich fast breaking more often. The best finish to a fast break is a layup or a short jumper. I think they're more than capable of those shots. They do need a little more practice passing the ball on the run, which is something that will come only when the Bulls have better rebounding so they can run more.


I think the best finish to the fast break is a resounding, unblockable, absolute sure-thing slam dunk (this is the NBA, after all). I agree that the four guys you listed have good fast-break potential, but I wouldn't categorize any of them as above-average fast break *finishers* at the present.

The Bulls already have pretty darn good rebounding, too, all things considered -- 10th in the league this year in differential (+1.1). Ben Wallace's team had a -0.4 differential. I'm sure that the Bulls would rebound the ball better if Wallace was on the team and Chandler got himself together to the extent that he could play 35 minutes a night, but it's pretty hard for me to project how great the difference would be, and whether or not it could be used as a springboard for a new offense that was predicated on lots of easy fast-break opportunities.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> If he really has 3 years of high quality performance in him, I'm all for it. However, we've been burned too many times on the "well, at least he can be a mentor" road. I don't want to spend $16M/year of our budget for a guy who will be a star for a year and then an expensive spot minute guy for the next 2.
> 
> But by all means, if we legitimately think he can go strong for the duration of a contract, I'd love to have him.


Ben's in great shape and he's gonna be 32.



How old was AD last year?








:bsmile:


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Ben Wallace's greatest strength is the way he allows his team to defend. He allows the perimeter defenders to play aggressive without fear of being burned for uncontested layups. He plays the pick and roll/pop with the ability to cover the small and being able to recover against the big. He out runs most other bigs through sheer effort not just athleticism. He doesn't need his number called on offense and allows the truly gifted offensive players more chances. He changes so much for his team. He is actually underrated for what he allows the Pistons to do. Much like Marion in Phoenix. He is worth bidding on if for nothing else to drive up the price for Detroit which has Billups coming up for a deal also or to steal him away and become an instant favorite for the Eastern Conference finals.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

MemphisX said:


> He doesn't need his number called on offense and allows the truly gifted offensive players more chances.


The Bulls don't have "truly gifted" offensive players on the level of Chauncey Billups or Rip Hamilton or Rasheed Wallace or Steve Nash. On any given night, yes, Hinrich and Gordon and Deng and Nocioni are capable of a big game. Consistency, though, remains a huge problem.

Ben Wallace is currently averaging 3.3 ppg in nine playoff games on 33% shooting from the field and 32% shooting from the FT line. Maybe I'm wrong that it'll be a no-brainer for Dumars.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I'll start by saying I'm in favor of offering a big deal to Big Ben. Either we get a DPOY or we manage to help screw up the Pistons' salary situation. That seems like a win-win.

However, my biggest worry with Ben, and to a lesser degree some of the other Pistons, is that they seem to be a team where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. They have such fantastic chemistry. Players who were not elite at other destinations became elite in this elixir that Detroit seems to have made. I do worry that some of Ben's shortcomings might be more obvious if he were playing for a different team. I'd still make him the offer, but that's what I'd be scared of.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'll start by saying I'm in favor of offering a big deal to Big Ben. Either we get a DPOY or we manage to help screw up the Pistons' salary situation. That seems like a win-win.
> 
> However, my biggest worry with Ben, and to a lesser degree some of the other Pistons, is that they seem to be a team where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. They have such fantastic chemistry. Players who were not elite at other destinations became elite in this elixir that Detroit seems to have made. I do worry that some of Ben's shortcomings might be more obvious if he were playing for a different team. I'd still make him the offer, but that's what I'd be scared of.


Excellent point. Hell, Wallace may have _defensive_ shortcomings that the Pistons help him to hide. The rest of the Pistons sure as hell aren't slouches defensively. I think Hinrich is a better defender than Billups (regardless of All-Defense voting), but outside of that, their starters are better defenders than ours across the board imo.


----------



## r1terrell23 (Feb 11, 2006)

We need to get rid of Chandler and his 60mil contract before we can think about signing Ben.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> However, my biggest worry with Ben, and to a lesser degree some of the other Pistons, is that they seem to be a team where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. They have such fantastic chemistry. Players who were not elite at other destinations became elite in this elixir that Detroit seems to have made.


I have never read a better description of jib in its purest form. It is that type of base, primal, core of the universe ur-jib we should be striving for.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

I say you offer Ben, and if you don't get him you just pack it in for next year's free agent class. And people will reply, "well to sign so and so or so and so you have to have more cap room than we'll have in 2007 anyway, even if we spend nothing this summer." Ok, so then you unload some payroll to teams under the cap. I don't see the problem with that. 

The logic on signing someone this summer and getting locked into someone just to get someone is flawed. The logic is "ok we took a step back after the Curry trade, so let's get someone as quick as we can to bump that win total up and look like we are over the trade." Now that Big City is gone, I'd rather just be patient. You have two draft picks. Unless you get a dream free agent, incorporate those two draft picks into the mix and see what you end up with. We'll probably take another step back. Because even if Aldridge or Thomas is more talented than Malik Allen, they are young and inexperienced, so for a year or two it's a tradeoff. Get your two picks, win your 37 games, and then wait until after next season and you'll have REAL flexibility. Say you end up with Thomas/Aldridge and Ager for example... now you have this as a starting lineup:

Chandler
Thomas
Nocioni
Ager
Hinrich

With Deng and Gordon both coming off the bench early and for heavy minutes. But now you have even more flexibility, because you have one more year to figure out who is who. What if you sign Al Harrington, and then figure out that your best lineup is the one above. Now you're locked into Harrington. Honestly, I criticize Pax all the time for stagnation and unwillingness to take risks, but if he held pat this summer, I'd support the move. Once Wallace is gone, I just don't see the point. 

The fact is, I'll concede that this team could be the beginnings of a champion, IF we pick the right time to make our move. Because the next guy we add with free agent money needs to be a #1 player, not a good #3 or #4 player.


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> I say you offer Ben, and if you don't get him you just pack it in for next year's free agent class. And people will reply, "well to sign so and so or so and so you have to have more cap room than we'll have in 2007 anyway, even if we spend nothing this summer." *Ok, so then you unload some payroll to teams under the cap. I don't see the problem with that. *


That easy, huh?

In order to unload payroll, you'd also have to give up an attractive piece. Plus, what contract on our team is there to unload? Our team has been cut down to players on their rookie deals or relatively short contracts. It's not like we have an unwanted piece to unload. Simply dumping any of our contracted players would be a loss, not a gain like getting rid of a Jalen Rose or an Eddie Robinson would be.

So yes, well to sign so and so or so and so you have to have more cap room than we'll have in 2007 anyway, even if we spend nothing this summer.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

HINrichPolice said:


> That easy, huh?
> 
> In order to unload payroll, you'd also have to give up an attractive piece. Plus, what contract on our team is there to unload? Our team has been cut down to players on their rookie deals or relatively short contracts.


Do you always have to throw in an attractive piece? What did Indiana do when it came to Al Harrington? I don't remember another attractive player or draft pick going with Harrington to Atlanta. I could be wrong though. Unload Chandler if you have to. If you have a chance at someone very good (and I have yet to look at that class again) or a number of someone's who are very good, you do what you have to do. I know what you're saying. You're getting ready to play the "why show restraint when you don't know who will be available next year, people could sign extensions, we'll never get this guy, we'll never get that guy" card. I'd rather take that chance than lock myself into Al Harrington, sorry. Al Harrington isn't what this team is missing to put us on the inside track to a title if we just get some experience.


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> Do you always have to throw in an attractive piece? What did Indiana do when it came to Al Harrington? I don't remember another attractive player or draft pick going with Harrington to Atlanta. I could be wrong though. Unload Chandler if you have to. If you have a chance at someone very good (and I have yet to look at that class again) or a number of someone's who are very good, you do what you have to do. I know what you're saying. You're getting ready to play the "why show restraint when you don't know who will be available next year, people could sign extensions, we'll never get this guy, we'll never get that guy" card. I'd rather take that chance than lock myself into Al Harrington, sorry. Al Harrington isn't what this team is missing to put us on the inside track to a title if we just get some experience.


First off, I don't know how Chandler slipped my mind when thinking of Bulls with bad contracts, even though I still have faith that he'll revert back to the player he was when he earned his contract. I forgot what happened in the Indiana/Al Harrington transaction, but Al Harrington was never considered a player that needed to be unloaded. He had a reasonable contract, topping out at just below 7 mill/year this past season. Harrington himself was the attractive player that was given up. I can't remember the exat motivation for Indiana to trade Harrington for Jackson (maybe they wanted a more perimeter oriented player next to Artest and Jermaine), but they certainly didn't unload Harrington for cap space to sign a marquee player.

Any unused capspace from this summer will not translate over to next summer, as has been talked about and discussed. The only time we have to utilize our capspace is to sign players this summer. What's wrong with continuing to collect attractive pieces? Just because there's no franchise player to sign this summer doesn't mean that our cap space can't be used on valuable players. As long as we're not overpaying for a free agent, they become an asset that can be used in the future to consolidate with other talent/assets for a marquee player.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

HINrichPolice said:


> First off, I don't know how Chandler slipped my mind when thinking of Bulls with bad contracts, even though I still have faith that he'll revert back to the player he was when he earned his contract. I forgot what happened in the Indiana/Al Harrington transaction, but Al Harrington was never considered a player that needed to be unloaded. He had a reasonable contract, topping out at just below 7 mill/year this past season. Harrington himself was the attractive player that was given up.


1. If I recall they unloaded Harrington so that they could sign Stephen Jackson outright. I could be wrong. I know there have been cases of unloading salary to teams under the cap without having to add a key youngster or first round pick.

2. If Chandler reverts back to that player, and we could get someone better, you'd think he'd be pretty attractive as a salary dump. I don't think he'll revert back to THAT player without two players like Davis and Curry with him upfront, as I still feel that gave him a LOT of freedom. However I do think he'll end up somewhere in between.


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> 1. If I recall they unloaded Harrington so that they could sign Stephen Jackson outright. I could be wrong. I know there have been cases of unloading salary to teams under the cap without having to add a key youngster or first round pick.
> 
> 2. If Chandler reverts back to that player, and we could get someone better, you'd think he'd be pretty attractive as a salary dump. I don't think he'll revert back to THAT player without two players like Davis and Curry with him upfront, as I still feel that gave him a LOT of freedom. However I do think he'll end up somewhere in between.


FYI, I added to the post you quoted. 

But I really can't think of an example of your proposal of, "hey, if there's a really good free agent in the summer of '07, then all we have to do is dump salary to get them."

Essentially, in a round about way, we'd be in effect trading for that "good free agent."

Think about it...

We covet franchise player A.
We don't have the money to sign them.
We unload what I consider, attractive pieces (with the exception of Chandler) to create cap space.
We use created cap space to sign coveted franchise player A.

We could avoid this roundabout way by simply offering up a package of assets/talent via sign and trade of coveted franchise player A.

So why not use our capspace NOW so that we'd have more assets/talent to offer up in the summer of '07?


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

HINrichPolice said:


> First off, I don't know how Chandler slipped my mind when thinking of Bulls with bad contracts, even though I still have faith that he'll revert back to the player he was when he earned his contract. I forgot what happened in the Indiana/Al Harrington transaction, but Al Harrington was never considered a player that needed to be unloaded. He had a reasonable contract, topping out at just below 7 mill/year this past season. Harrington himself was the attractive player that was given up. I can't remember the exat motivation for Indiana to trade Harrington for Jackson (maybe they wanted a more perimeter oriented player next to Artest and Jermaine), but they certainly didn't unload Harrington for cap space to sign a marquee player.
> 
> Any unused capspace from this summer will not translate over to next summer, as has been talked about and discussed. The only time we have to utilize our capspace is to sign players this summer. What's wrong with continuing to collect attractive pieces? Just because there's no franchise player to sign this summer doesn't mean that our cap space can't be used on valuable players. As long as we're not overpaying for a free agent, they become an asset that can be used in the future to consolidate with other talent/assets for a marquee player.


Because what if you collect unattractive pieces? Pieces that are attractive this summer may not be by next fall. Mehmet Okur looked like a decent free agent when he was signed. Good luck using that as a "piece" in something else. 

I know. Geniuses are reminding you left and right that "any unused capspace doesn't translate to next summer." I know that. You can remain close though. If we're at 40 mill (or whatever number we end up at) if we dont' spend, and we need to get to 32 or 28 to get the guy we want next year, I'd rather be at 40 than 54 with Al Harrington. That's just me. You want to add pieces that are attractive if you're looking to fully get locked in as the Cleveland Cavaliers of the early 90s? Great.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

HINrichPolice said:


> FYI, I added to the post you quoted.
> 
> But I really can't think of an example of your proposal of, "hey, if there's a really good free agent in the summer of '07, then all we have to do is dump salary to get them."
> 
> ...


Look man, you can argue day and night for us to sign someone who just isn't the answer, just to use the space since we "won't have it if we don't use it," but that to me is how teams get locked above the cap for a decade. One move like that after another. I'll never be in favor of signing someone just because we'll go without that capspace anyway. This team needs a number one. Not a decent number 3 or 4 player. We need a number one, or at least a good #2. If you differ on that account fine.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> Look man, you can argue day and night for us to sign someone who just isn't the answer, just to use the space since we "won't have it if we don't use it," but that to me is how teams get locked above the cap for a decade. One move like that after another. I'll never be in favor of signing someone just because we'll go without that capspace anyway. This team needs a number one. Not a decent number 3 or 4 player. We need a number one, or at least a good #2. If you differ on that account fine.


We could get way under the salary cap for 2007 if we were willing to do some drastic stuff. Here are our obligations:

BG -- team option for 4.8
LD -- team option for 3.3
KH -- QO of 4.1
TC -- 10.2 (ouch)
2006 #2 pick -- 4.0 (give or take)
2006 #16 pick -- 1.5 
2007 #7 (best guess) pick -- 2.5

If we only sign FAs to 1-year deals this offseason and renounce KH, AN, LD, and BG, we could be 30-35 million under the cap. 

In the real world, though, we're going to pick up those options, and sign Kirk and Nocioni to deals that probably total 12-16 million in year one. That puts us right at about 40 million, which would be just about enough room to offer a max contract to a restricted free agent. 

Unfortunately, one of these years Paxson's fear that the East is getting better will be realized. I think the Bulls would basically be treading water if they went through a season with just the draft picks and no meaningful FA help (think of the caliber of FAs who are willing to sign one-year deals). It'd be an interesting strategy, but I doubt this administration would pursue it. There's going to be a lot of competition for FAs in 2007, and we've gotten so badly burned before.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

My opinion is that we throw every dollar we have at Ben Wallace. He's far and away the biggest impact player in free agency. I've considered this to be a no-brainer move for the past 1-2 years, ever since we realized he'd be an unrestricted FA. He'll make our frontcourt so much better, and he'll be a great veteran leader who fits the mentality of this squad. When you throw in our top 5 pick/probable young big man to groom as a backup (part of me wants this to be Patrick O'Bryant, but that's for another thread) it makes just perfect sense.

For the longest time, I didn't think we had a chance in hell of prying him from Detroit. But on second thought, there is precedence for popular free agents being lured somewhere else: Nash and Hughes in recent years, and Kobe was very close to leaving LA. I could see Big Ben leaving if he thinks Chicago has the brighter future. If Detroit doesn't win it all this year, that only adds to his decision.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> We could get way under the salary cap for 2007 if we were willing to do some drastic stuff. Here are our obligations:
> 
> BG -- team option for 4.8
> LD -- team option for 3.3
> ...


Mr. May you make great points as usual, but... I know I can count on you to at least see my concerns. You do realize that aside from Wallace, we have a HUGE free agent pool as far as likelihood that we could lock ourselves into the wrong guy. And that's all I'm worried about. Like I said, I wouldn't hold it against Pax if he waited. There will be competition for guys like Wade (and I know you won't say this, but to everyone else, I don't need a lecture as to why Wade has 0 chance of ever leaving Miami under any circumstance), and all the other free agents, but to build a champion you have to be willing to compete and win.


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> Look man, you can argue day and night for us to sign someone who just isn't the answer, just to use the space since we "won't have it if we don't use it," but that to me is how teams get locked above the cap for a decade. One move like that after another. I'll never be in favor of signing someone just because we'll go without that capspace anyway. * This team needs a number one. Not a decent number 3 or 4 player. We need a number one, or at least a good #2.* If you differ on that account fine.


Agreed that this team needs a number 1 or 2, and not a decent 3 or 4. The fact is that barring some miracle blockbuster deal for KG, we're not acquiring our star player this off-season. You build assets to put yourself in position to eventually get that star player, not give assets away to set yourself in a mediocre to poor position to eventually get that star player (being slightly under the cap).

I stand by my word that as long as we're not overpaying for any FAs this summer, it'll only be good for our team in both the short term and long term. I almost think that you expect any FA signing this summer to result in overpaying for said FA. Considering the number of teams that have cap space this summer, we have a shot at not having to overpay for at least 2 solid free agents. 7 mill/year to Harrington? Sounds reasonable to me. 4 mill/year to Nazr? I'll take it. 5 mill/year to Gooden? Go for it.

The point is signing FAs to tradeable contracts. If we have to offer up 9 mill/year for Harrington, then I'll pass. If we have to offer up 7 mill/year to Nazr, then I'll pass. 7 mill/year to Gooden? Pass. 

Maybe my expectations are too great and we really would have to, what I consider, overpay for FAs this summer. In that case, I understand your concern with being locked over the cap while being stuck in mediocrity.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

HINrichPolice said:


> Agreed that this team needs a number 1 or 2, and not a decent 3 or 4. The fact is that barring some miracle blockbuster deal for KG, we're not acquiring our star player this off-season. You build assets to put yourself in position to eventually get that star player, not give assets away to set yourself in a mediocre to poor position to eventually get that star player (being slightly under the cap).
> 
> I stand by my word that as long as we're not overpaying for any FAs this summer, it'll only be good for our team in both the short term and long term. I almost think that you expect any FA signing this summer to result in overpaying for said FA. Considering the number of teams that have cap space this summer, we have a shot at not having to overpay for at least 2 solid free agents. 7 mill/year to Harrington? Sounds reasonable to me. 4 mill/year to Nazr? I'll take it. 5 mill/year to Gooden? Go for it.
> 
> ...


You talk about assets like they are chips that you cash in to someone who is willing to give you equal value for those chips. OR you could sign guys that turn out to be bad signings, and nobody wants to make the mythical franchise-saving consolidation trade and then you are stuck over the cap, out of the lottery, and about 10 wins below the level of a serious contender. And you're stuck. I call it the Cleveland Cavaliers (early 90s) or "mediocrity trap." Krause actually had us sucking as bad as we did to avoid this. This is worse than sucking. Once you hit the mediocrity trap (not a contender, no mobility, no one willing to save your butt with a magical beanstalk trade), it's FAR worse than sucking for a few years, or one extra year. FAR worse!


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

Pippenatorade said:


> You talk about assets like they are chips that you cash in to someone who is willing to give you equal value for those chips. OR you could sign guys that turn out to be bad signings, and nobody wants to make the mythical franchise-saving consolidation trade and then you are stuck over the cap, out of the lottery, and about 10 wins below the level of a serious contender. And you're stuck. I call it the Cleveland Cavaliers (early 90s) or "mediocrity trap." Krause actually had us sucking as bad as we did to avoid this. This is worse than sucking. Once you hit the mediocrity trap (not a contender, no mobility, no one willing to save your butt with a magical beanstalk trade), it's FAR worse than sucking for a few years, or one extra year. FAR worse!


We're not disagreeing about the suckiness of a mediocrity trap. We're disagreeing on how to get out of it and/or surpass it.

I fail to see how being only several million dollars under the cap (at best) in 2007 is going to put us in better position to acquire a big-time player than would adding assets this summer by signing FAs this to reasonable and more importantly, tradeable, contracts. 

Just so I have a better idea of where you're coming from, tell me this:

If you could sign Ben Wallace to 7 mill/year, Harrington to 5 mill/year, and Przybilla to 3 mill/year, would you do it? Obviously, these aren't reasonable expectations, but would you sign off on those contracts in the name of "gathering assets"?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

HINrichPolice said:


> Agreed that this team needs a number 1 or 2, and not a decent 3 or 4. The fact is that barring some miracle blockbuster deal for KG, we're not acquiring our star player this off-season. You build assets to put yourself in position to eventually get that star player, not give assets away to set yourself in a mediocre to poor position to eventually get that star player (being slightly under the cap).
> 
> I stand by my word that as long as we're not overpaying for any FAs this summer, it'll only be good for our team in both the short term and long term. I almost think that you expect any FA signing this summer to result in overpaying for said FA. Considering the number of teams that have cap space this summer, we have a shot at not having to overpay for at least 2 solid free agents. 7 mill/year to Harrington? Sounds reasonable to me. 4 mill/year to Nazr? I'll take it. 5 mill/year to Gooden? Go for it.
> 
> ...


I think this team needs some quality bigs, some height & atheleticism in the backcourt, and continuity. I don't know that we need a superstar as much as we need guys that will provide the things our team is lacking and be good team players that buy into Skiles approach. That being said, we could trade of a star this season, we may draft a guy like Aldridge who ends up being the next Tim Duncan, there are always possibilities. 

I do think your expectations are unrealistic in terms of paying or overpaying free agents. If we could get Harrington for 7mil, Gooden for 5mil, and Nazr for 4 mil we would be stupid not to. Bottom line is you can tack on 2-3 million to each of those figures because thats what they will end up getting.

I do agree though that there is no need to trade off assetts in some sort of effort to have cap space for 2007, I find it highly unlikely that we would be able to accomplish this without losing important pieces.


----------



## Pippenatorade (Dec 29, 2005)

HINrichPolice said:


> We're not disagreeing about the suckiness of a mediocrity trap. We're disagreeing on how to get out of it and/or surpass it.
> 
> I fail to see how being only several million dollars under the cap (at best) in 2007 is going to put us in better position to acquire a big-time player than would adding assets this summer by signing FAs this to reasonable and more importantly, tradeable, contracts.
> 
> ...


I think those contracts are highly unrealistic, but yeah I would do that. What I fear is the kind of deal that Mehmet Okur got. The whole overpaying for bigs thing. I mean, yeah, if Paxson could sign guys to insane bargain deals, that would be treat, however I was thinking the minimum Harrington would go for would be 8. 

I just look at the Sacramento Kings when they had a bunch of very good players. They had assets like we probably couldn't dream of at one time, and they fell into the high end of the trap. And no one was there to trade them like Duncan for Webber (when he didn't blow; which to me is never), Peja, and another player.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Pippenatorade said:


> I think those contracts are highly unrealistic, but yeah I would do that. What I fear is the kind of deal that Mehmet Okur got. The whole overpaying for bigs thing. I mean, yeah, if Paxson could sign guys to insane bargain deals, that would be treat, however I was thinking the minimum Harrington would go for would be 8.
> 
> I just look at the Sacramento Kings when they had a bunch of very good players. They had assets like we probably couldn't dream of at one time, and they fell into the high end of the trap. And no one was there to trade them like Duncan for Webber (when he didn't blow; which to me is never), Peja, and another player.



What did Okur get? He has played ridiculously well for the Jazz this year I find it hard to imagine he is being overpaid.


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> What did Okur get? He has played ridiculously well for the Jazz this year I find it hard to imagine he is being overpaid.


His contract averages ~8.5 mill/year over 5 years. He played like a superstar against the Bulls. At 18 ppg, 9.1 rpg, and 2.4 apg, with mediocre to poor defense, I'd say he's slightly overpaid but is still valuable/tradeable.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> What did Okur get?


I believe he got $50M for 6 years


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Put on your Cavs hat, and start rooting for a 6 game series win for the Cavs!


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Put on your Cavs hat, and start rooting for a 6 game series win for the Cavs!


Cavs up by 6 in the 4th for Game 5. Sheed seems to be a non-factor again.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Guys, correct me if I'm wrong, but that 16.5 million starting contract or whatever I keep seeing thrown around, Detroit is the only one that can offer him that, correct? The most we can offer him to start is like 12.5 million? At least thats how it worked under the old CBA.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Guys, correct me if I'm wrong, but that 16.5 million starting contract or whatever I keep seeing thrown around, Detroit is the only one that can offer him that, correct? The most we can offer him to start is like 12.5 million? At least thats how it worked under the old CBA.


I believe he can get the 16.8M starting salary from any team that has the required cap space to do so.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

Sam Smith in The Tribune: Lately, Pistons' play has been far from formidable 

On Ben Wallace:



> All this raises an interesting question for the Pistons with the Bulls wondering about the answer: Should they re-sign Ben Wallace?
> 
> It generally has been assumed they will, but the free agent Defensive Player of the Year again has played in spurts as the Cavs have gone to the basket for layups and dunks. He has been boxing out and rebounding inconsistently.
> 
> ...


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Ben Wallace certainly has not been a dominant factor in the Cleveland series, although he showed up in the fourth quarter of the 6th game. Not sure what the problem is, but it's unlikely that old age onset suddenly began two weeks ago. If the Pistons are ousted from the playoffs while he is playing uninspired basketball, it's going to cost him many millions of dollars.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> If the Pistons are ousted from the playoffs while he is playing uninspired basketball, it's going to cost him many millions of dollars.


Most definitely, with the way he's playing I doubt I'd offer him more than a front-loaded Chandler sized contract.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Sam's suggesion of a 3 year Max, or near max deal for Big Ben sounds good to me.

I don't worry about the Cavs series. Maybe he just needs a change of scenery to recharge his batteries. I seriously doubt its a sign tht he is slipping long term.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Sam's suggesion of a 3 year Max, or near max deal for Big Ben sounds good to me.
> 
> I don't worry about the Cavs series. Maybe he just needs a change of scenery to recharge his batteries. I seriously doubt its a sign tht he is slipping long term.


To lure him away from Detroit, I think we need to blow him away with a take it or leave it offer right from the get go. Which also makes sense from our standpoint, b/c then we don't lose our chance to acquire other FA's. If we don't want to go the full 5 years, then you at least have to offer 4 years IMO, probably starting at $14M. Folks can debate whether he's worth the price, but that's what I think it would take to pry him from Detroit. Might even take more than that, i.e. 5 years, starting at $15-16M.

Personally, I think Ben Wallace is cut from the same cloth as guys like Karl Malone and Dennis Rodman, who both stayed in prime physical condition until the age of 38-39. For that reason, I'm in a favor of a bloated 5 year deal. I heavily value what Ben brings to the table, and he's the #1 reason for the Pistons becoming a championship level team.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Maybe he just needs a change of scenery to recharge his batteries. I seriously doubt its a sign tht he is slipping long term.


This is probably true, and if he left I'd hope we'd involve him in the offense moreso than Detroit have. Brown had that thing right, involve him at the start and he'll get his groove on defensively.
I must be in a paranoid mood tonight, because I'm looking at it the situation and wondering will JR pay to keep the team together (providing it's successful).


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Yeah, we need to give a balls out, 5 year max contract to Ben (starting at 12.5 I think). We are a good team right now, we had a lot of close losses, and Ben is a player that can help that. At the end, when say a guy like Arenas is driving, he's not getting a layup, and which means he'll have to put up a floater, and with a guy like Ben, that floater has to have a high arc not to get blocked, which usually results in a miss, which results in a Bulls win. 4 DPOY's in the last 5 years, and the guy that got that other one, Ron Artest, isn't exactly what you call a slouch.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

4 year 65 million dollar deal is what will make Ben Wallace come to Chicago. I dont think Dumars will match that ( I hope)


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

sloth said:


> Yeah, we need to give a balls out, 5 year max contract to Ben (starting at 12.5 I think). We are a good team right now, we had a lot of close losses, and Ben is a player that can help that. At the end, when say a guy like Arenas is driving, he's not getting a layup, and which means he'll have to put up a floater, and with a guy like Ben, that floater has to have a high arc not to get blocked, which usually results in a miss, which results in a Bulls win. 4 DPOY's in the last 5 years, and the guy that got that other one, Ron Artest, isn't exactly what you call a slouch.




Just an FYI, a max contract for Ben Wallace would start at 16.5mil per.


----------

