# Detroit Free Press: Bulls offer Wallace 4yrs/52 million



## LuolDeng (Feb 22, 2004)

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/14954410.htm


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: ESPN1000 reporting Pax will offer "the kitchen sink" to Wallace at midnight tonight!!*

Bulls offered Ben 4 years/52 mill. 

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/14954410.htm


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: ESPN1000 reporting Pax will offer "the kitchen sink" to Wallace at midnight tonight!!*

i think this needs it's own shiny new thread.

that other one went someplace weird.



> DETROIT - As other NBA free agents came to quick conclusions and signed new contracts over the weekend, Ben Wallace pondered the two deals on his plate and waited to see if others would top it.
> 
> The Pistons have offered a four-year deal worth approximately $48 million to keep their defensive-minded center in Detroit. *And the Chicago Bulls, who sent coach Scott Skiles and vice president of basketball John Paxson to Detroit, have started bidding at closer to $52 million for four seasons.*
> 
> ...


----------



## LuolDeng (Feb 22, 2004)

*Re: ESPN1000 reporting Pax will offer "the kitchen sink" to Wallace at midnight tonight!!*

Obviously just a starting point of negotiations, but this will in all likelyhood not get it done. Just 1 mil more per year than the Pistons initial offer. Will be interesting to see where it goes from here.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Good thing you guys didn't offer 70 million like some were saying. That'd just be stupid to do.


----------



## paxman (Apr 24, 2006)

wish they would specify what it starts at. this is 13 per. 
i'm assuming it has annual 8 percent increases.

anyone know the exact figure we have under the cap?
i heard 15 and i heard 17


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

Nene has not proved anything. He got $60M.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

I sort of thought he would try to price the Pistons out of it right away and offer around 4/60. I just hope he doesn't waste a week or so trying to ink Ben, not get him, and then turn around and all the other guys are already gone. We'll see...


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

Ballscientist said:


> Nene has not proved anything. He got $60M.


He's still young though, isn't he?


----------



## LuolDeng (Feb 22, 2004)

madox said:


> I sort of thought he would try to price the Pistons out of it right away and offer around 4/60. I just hope he doesn't waste a week or so trying to ink Ben, not get him, and then turn around and all the other guys are already gone. We'll see...


That's what I figured he would do to. Give Ben his best offer right off the bat to try and get a quick agreement. With this as his starting offer he is risking this dragging on and taking the Bulls out of the running for the other big men.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

What candy *** offer is this? Fire Paxson!


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

Ballscientist said:


> Nene has not proved anything. He got $60M.
> 
> Bonz Wells will play for Pistons if he can get $10M a year contract.


Nene's was over 6 years though for 10/year. Bulls offered Wallace 13/year.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

If you don't overpay stars, you will never win Championship. Go ahead to give him 4 years $60M, there is a age 36 rules.

It is not easy to sign stars.


----------



## Dissonance (Jul 21, 2004)

sloth said:


> What candy *** offer is this? Fire Paxson!



What if he accepts? I think it's reasonable though. I wouldn't pay him too much, you'll just regret it later.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

There's supposedly a $10M upfront bonus if Paxson can have the distributing rights to his DNA.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

That's actually a very reasonable offer.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

sloth said:


> What candy *** offer is this? Fire Paxson!


I agree that it is a candy *** offer. But the article describes it as a starting point to negotiations, not a drop dead offer. 

And in all fairness, when it comes down to the benjamins, it comes down to Reinsdorf and the ownership group. Not Pax.


----------



## LoyalBull (Jun 12, 2002)

Remember, too, that this is the Detroit free press and not from the desk of John Paxson.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

This is the contract if he refuses to take the mandatory DNA test, right?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

plus we don't know _any of the details_ of how it's structured, in terms of how _front loaded etc.._ it could be.

cause looking at it on paper, that's not exactly the "kitchen sink".


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

If I was GM (and owner ) Ben Wallace would already be in a Bulls uniform. Unfortunately my net worth right now is under 500 dollars.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

Uh didn't they just say Detroit offered him 48 mill yesterday? Seriously some of you need to think logically and not have short-term memories. 

This is a good move. Pax is playing it safe and wise. If Detroit ups, we still have somewhere to go, as far as offering Ben more.

Wouldn't it be stupid offering him 70 million and then finding out Detroit wasn't going to pay him more than 48 mill anyway? We would have wasted 18 mill. This way we can play hardball with Dumars if he really wants to play it, which I sincerely doubt.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...02bulls,1,608510.story?coll=cs-home-headlines




> Ben Wallace has to decide whether he wants to stay comfortable in Detroit or try to make a splash with the up-and-coming Bulls.
> 
> The 6-foot-9-inch center reportedly has an offer from the Pistons that would pay him an estimated $48 million over four years. A source close to the Bulls confirmed they also had made a four-year offer.
> 
> ...


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

i think 13 mil a year is way too much. I love Ben Wallace but lets face it the guy is a 6'8 center with no post game. He is great on defense and rebounding but so is chandler. I think we should just save the money and make sure we resign everyone. If Chandler or TT pans out this year we would have little use of him anyhow.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

So Marlen's reporting that the Bulls are offering him rougly 4 years 60 million.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

Are 8% max raises compounded over the contract? If so, a $13M first year salary would total 4/59.

EDIT: sloth just answered my question.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

madox said:


> Are 8% max raises compounded over the contract? If so, a $13M first year salary would total 4/59.


No, so for starting at 13 million, its roughly 58 million over 4 years, and roughly 61 million over 4 years starting at 13.5.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The Bulls are not serious. This is the "kitchen sink"?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Does Paxson have to step away and let the men negotiate again?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

McBulls said:


> The Bulls are not serious. This is the "kitchen sink"?


If Sloth and Madox are correct, which requires that Garcia be correct (hardly a given), then I'd say 4 years at $59 million - $11 million more than the Pistons are offering - is a pretty strong offer. I'd be willing for them to pay more. But its a strong offer.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> If Sloth and Madox are correct, which requires that Garcia be correct (hardly a given), then I'd say 4 years at $59 million - $11 million more than the Pistons are offering - is a pretty strong offer. I'd be willing for them to pay more. But its a strong offer.


but according to marcia, it's about _a career path_.

and i agree, if it's true this is a strong offer and nothing to sniff at. 

however in this case, i believe the agent. and that's saying alot.


----------



## OziBull (Nov 7, 2004)

kind of OT-
I love pax, seriously the way he is going i am going to personally fly to chicago and create a shrine for him!
Classy smart move to offer him that much first
I wonder what Zeke would have offered him in Pax's situation :clap:


----------



## Plush4life (May 26, 2006)

Agreed, the bulls made the right offer..for now.

IF wallace stays with pistons and they dont win the grand dance next year, he will be shaking his head as and he slowy watches the team he could have played for climb up the ladder year after year.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Plush4life said:


> Agreed, the bulls made the right offer..for now.
> 
> IF wallace stays with pistons and they dont win the grand dance next year, he will be shaking his head as and he slowy watches the team he could have played for climb up the ladder year after year.


No, if its the one his agents saying, then its a bad offer.

John Paxson gets an F from me as a GM during the offseason (not draft).

2003: Scottie Pippen....how'd that turn out?

2004: Andres Nocioni....cancels out the Pippen thing.

But! We never end up offering Jamal Crawford a offer. We set him out there in restricted free agency, and tell him to go fetch an offersheet, which he never actually does because his first option was to resign with the Bulls.

2005:

First off, Duhon. Can't give anything on negotiating with Paxson on this, since Duhon went through the process and got a cheap offersheet, just going through the motions.

Where to start. Well first this is the summer of being proactive? So what, wait until a month after free agency opens to get Tyson under contract, and then with all the other players, you wait until they fetch an offersheet, but no, gotta overpay Tyson.

Oh, but then lets move on to move #2. Well, we lowball Curry with a deal thats less than the MLE for 3 years. Then somehow we end up in a huge DNA standoff, a first in sports history. Then the night before training camp, we trade him to the Knicks, which messed up our team a bit. We're just lucky that things didn't workout in New York, with all that talent, they probaly should have been a top 4 seed, so the #2 pick and pick swap didn't seem too unlikely at the time of the trade, luck on a crapshoot.

2006:

Well, lets lowball the best free agent on the market, and don't pad his contract with an extra 5-10 million for a shot at a championship?

Well move #2, we probaly overpay stiff Przbilla.

Move #3, end up in a DNA standoff with Hinrich.

2007:

Deny Gordon his max extension after he puts up 25 ppg.

2008: 

Trade Deng to the Knicks for a 2nd round pick.

I wouldn't want him to be my hostage negotiator.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> plus we don't know _any of the details_ of how it's structured, in terms of how _front loaded etc.._ it could be.
> 
> cause looking at it on paper, that's not exactly the "kitchen sink".


Just as we want to frontload to the contract to soften the blows of re-signing our future core, I think frontloading Wallace's contract to a team that is flirting with the luxury tax would be beneficial to them as well. The large, downward scaling contract balances out the rest of the traditionally upscaling contracts.

I'd actually ink this to a more typical contract to give us higher chances of nabbing him away assuming no S&T.

(edit for clarity)


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> Just as we want to frontload to the contract to soften the blows of re-signing our future core, I think frontloading Wallace's contract to a team that is flirting with the luxury tax the same benefit as a large downward scaling contract balances out the rest of the traditionally upscaling contracts.
> 
> I'd actually ink this to a more typical contract.


A frontloaded contract starting at about 15 million (our max contract limit probaly) is 52 million over 4 years. What about a no load contract, just 15-15-15-15?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Knowing Paxson, we'll sign the poor man's Ben Wallace (number 91) to the max.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nxk7m6psPxU"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nxk7m6psPxU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Detroit doesn't have to do much here.

Bulls can offer whatever they want. Until Wallace actually signs something, the numbers aren't meaningful. And when he does sign something, Detroit can match or refuse to match. 

Detroit may as well bid it all the way up to max and bail if they don't really want to go above $48M and are willing to let him walk.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Detroit doesn't have to do much here.
> 
> Bulls can offer whatever they want. Until Wallace actually signs something, the numbers aren't meaningful. *And when he does sign something, Detroit can match or refuse to match*.
> 
> Detroit may as well bid it all the way up to max and bail if they don't really want to go above $48M and are willing to let him walk.


Huh? He's unrestricted. If he signs a deal with us, that's it. He's ours. Detroit doesn't have the ability to match an offer once it's signed.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.mlive.com/pistons/stories/index.ssf?/base/sports-1/115189081334530.xml&coll=1




> AUBURN HILLS -- Contract talks between the Detroit Pistons and Ben Wallace's agent, Arn Tellem, continued on Sunday and are expected to resume today.
> 
> The Pistons have offered Wallace a four-year deal worth about $48 million, which would make him the highest-paid player in franchise history.
> 
> ...


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

If we're at $60M he's ours given he's already been dissed by Pistons at $48M


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

so 4 years, $15 mil it is, then?


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

sloth said:


> A frontloaded contract starting at about 15 million (our max contract limit probaly) is 52 million over 4 years. What about a no load contract, just 15-15-15-15?


It SHOULD be frontloaded so we will have enough in the future to extend/resign Tyrus if he turns out to be great and then Oden if we get him. Then we can trade Ben as an expiring contract as his replacement(s) will be set.

For Pax to draft two young guys who are excellent and then sign the Fro without looking to the future wouldn't make sense. Keep this in mind. I still think 4 years 52 mill will get it done. Dumars is not going to overpay Ben Wallace at the expense of the rest of his team, or at the least, Saunders. For him to flinch and pay ben 60 million in response to our 52 mill offer will be a slap in the face to Flip, at the least. 

But if Detroit wants to play hardball, then yeah we will.

Pax is being patient. You should follow his lead and do the same, instead of freaking out and declaring this offseason an F and such.


----------



## UMfan83 (Jan 15, 2003)

sloth said:


> This is the contract if he refuses to take the mandatory DNA test, right?


Wish I didn't have to spread the rep around more...


But regarding this: PAX WHAT ARE YOU DOING? I TRUSTED YOU! 4/52? That ain't gonna get er done! Nene has signed, Pryz, Wilcox and Harrington will be right around the corner. Whats that going to leave you after you lowballed Wallace?

The only way anyone was going to sign Wallace is with a shock and awe offer, and that is certainly not it. If that offer is indeed the truth, have fun watching Ben Wallace and the pistons torment us for more years


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Agree that it should be frontloaded - also given the long term salary commitments to Kirk , Luol , Ben and Andres coming up over the next 4 years


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

I may be either not paying enough attention or I'm just not understanding this at all. How specifically does hinder us from re-signing our "core" down the line? Pax seems very intent on doing so.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

If you guys are complaining about Pax "only" offering him $52M, then what does that say about Detroit's offer? 

Remember when Larry Hughes signed with the Cavs... He said he knew he wasn't going to re-sign with Washington as soon as he saw their initial offer. He felt their initial offer was insulting and instead left for Cleveland. Washington tried to raise their offer at the last minute, but it was too late. The damage was done and Larry was leaving no matter what.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

SALO said:


> If you guys are complaining about Pax "only" offering him $52M, then what does that say about Detroit's offer?
> 
> Remember when Larry Hughes signed with the Cavs... He said he knew he wasn't going to re-sign with Washington as soon as he saw their initial offer. He felt their initial offer was insulting and instead left for Cleveland. Washington tried to raise their offer at the last minute, but it was too late. The damage was done and Larry was leaving no matter what.


Different circumstances, and totally different people. Hughes had no sense of loyalty towards Washington since he only played for them over a year or so. Also he is much younger than Wallace, and his young enough to get another contract in his playing career whilst Wallace this is his last chance to probably get as much money and garenteed money as possible now. So im guessing Wallace goes to whomever gives the most cash out.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

How can you lowball someone, when at the same time offering more than all alternatives?


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

Greg Ostertag! said:


> How can you lowball someone, when at the same time offering more than all alternatives?


Thank you. 

It seems most people here, when they don't get news/results right away, just decide to start blaming everything on Pax, instead of thinking logically.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

kulaz3000 said:


> Different circumstances, and totally different people. Hughes had no sense of loyalty towards Washington since he only played for them over a year or so. Also he is much younger than Wallace, and his young enough to get another contract in his playing career whilst Wallace this is his last chance to probably get as much money and garenteed money as possible now. So im guessing Wallace goes to whomever gives the most cash out.


depends on whether he wants to finish his career with the most amount of money and also on a better team 

And yes we will be a better team than the Pistons with Ben Wallace in 2 years from now 

I do think we can be contending for the East amd therefore for a championship within 3 years 

We're moving toward it and Detroit is falling away from it

I mean look at who they got upfront with Ben gone 

Dale Davis , Rasheed , McDyess , Cato - all 32 and up except for Davis who is 37

Prince at the 3 and no one recognised behind him 

Hamilton and Delfino ( still largely unproven ) 

Billups - the 35 year old Lindsay Hunter and a #60 2nd round pick in Will Blalock

Rasheed is too fragile without Ben and doesn't have any real supporting cast with any spring in their legs 

Pistons are due to start dying a slow death ala the Rockets when time started catching up with Dream , Clyde and Charles ..they were still semi competitive but they were beginning to get passed by 

That's where the Pistons are right now 

If Ben is smart - he'll take more money and go young and funky with an up an comer 

Chicago is that up and comer


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

If we're one of the only suitors, then we do only need to offer marginally more than Detroit. And if they are forced to match or beat our offer (not match RFA style, but just to up their bid), then we'll have achieved some small success in cap-strapping the Pistons.

The Pistons starting Big Ben at $13 mil this year will put them near $60 mil on their books. Billups is due for an extension probably as soon as next year. That will have their five starters in place for the next three years (Sheed's last year is 2009).

I think the Pistons will have to step up their money to make it happen, but I think we can basically stand on this offer, or increase it only very marginally. I don't think we'll throw $60 mil at him; it would really kill our books for years to come and pose a serious threat to the profit margins Uncle Jerry has been reaping in these past years. If he doesn't think Big Ben will be that big a part in the Bulls potential Championship Formula, he'll take the cash savings.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

kulaz3000 said:


> Different circumstances, and totally different people. Hughes had no sense of loyalty towards Washington since he only played for them over a year or so. Also he is much younger than Wallace, and his young enough to get another contract in his playing career whilst Wallace this is his last chance to probably get as much money and garenteed money as possible now. So im guessing Wallace goes to whomever gives the most cash out.


If Wallace is so loyal to Detroit, then that just makes a lowball offer from them even more insulting. He probably expects a lot more from them considering he was severely underpaid the previous five seasons.


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

kulaz3000 said:


> Different circumstances, and totally different people. Hughes had no sense of loyalty towards Washington since *he only played for them over a year or so.* Also he is much younger than Wallace, and his young enough to get another contract in his playing career whilst Wallace this is his last chance to probably get as much money and garenteed money as possible now. So im guessing Wallace goes to whomever gives the most cash out.


three years. he, arenas, and jamison were their core for years to come. they had been together in GSW and now in washington. i'd say he had a considerable amount of loyalty considering those three were supposed to be the face of the franchise and he was embracing that role.

and Ben is less loyal to detroit now because he's at odds with Flip.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

draft tyrus said:


> three years. he, arenas, and jamison were their core for years to come. they had been together in GSW and now in washington. i'd say he had a considerable amount of loyalty considering those three were supposed to be the face of the franchise and he was embracing that role.
> 
> and Ben is less loyal to detroit now because he's at odds with Flip.


Agree with this 

And don't forget the Wizards overpaid him ( at the time - MJ did actually ) when no one else was biting 

He had legit loyalty issues to consider 

I think he just saw a much better chance to win championships with Lebron then with Sold Out Arenas and Big Brows


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

I want the Bulls to sign Wallace, but I can hardly call Detroit's offer low ball. 

They are offering 48 mil for 4 years to a 32 year old who is declining. 12 mil a year is not lowball when your best years are behind you and you score 7 a game and 40% on free throws.

Walllace is a game changer and a warrior, and I think he is worth 12 mil a year. I would even go up a little bit if that brings him to Chicago. He will fit in great with the team and help us tremendously. But I can't call 12 mil a year for 4 years lowballing. It looks like a fair offer to me.


----------



## STUCKEY! (Aug 31, 2005)

draft tyrus said:


> three years. he, arenas, and jamison were their core for years to come. they had been together in GSW and now in washington. i'd say he had a considerable amount of loyalty considering those three were supposed to be the face of the franchise and he was embracing that role.
> 
> and Ben is less loyal to detroit now *because he's at odds with Flip*.


If you knew what ben wallace was all about, You would know that he bickers with every coach he has ever had. So if he does indeed signs with the bulls its not because of flip, I guarnteed that.


----------



## CARL_oBLAZE (Jun 17, 2006)

i'm thinking this will get resolved today hopefully, arn is going to tell pax he wants more than the 52 million deal or wallace stays in detroit. c'mon pax!


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

It doesn't even sound like Wallace WANTS to come here. He's probably just trying to force Detriot's hand.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

Paxson needs to make a final offer, give him 24 hours to decide, and move on.


----------



## FireCartwrightNow (Oct 30, 2003)

The ROY said:


> It doesn't even sound like Wallace WANTS to come here. He's probably just trying to force Detriot's hand.


He doesn't. He definately wants to stay in Detroit. Fine with me because I don't want him.

Let's just sign two of the 3 from Gooden/Wilcox/Pryz and call it an off-season barring any trades.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

The ROY said:


> It doesn't even sound like Wallace WANTS to come here. He's probably just trying to force Detriot's hand.


 Bingo. That's why we aren't reading about an agreement. I'll bet this may have been all to drive up his contract price. I hate free agency.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Which is why we Pax is smart not to just blindly give him whatever he wants, and then just get a guy who's reluctantly coming here because he got an offer he couldn't ignore.

Still it sounds like he's unhappy with Detroit's offer though, which is the big deal. That's what'll get him here if he's coming.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Which is why we Pax is smart not to just blindly give him whatever he wants, and then just get a guy who's reluctantly coming here because he got an offer he couldn't ignore.
> 
> Still it sounds like he's unhappy with Detroit's offer though, which is the big deal. That's what'll get him here if he's coming.


Well, I don't know that it would be so bad if he just "reluctantly" came. Honestly, Ben would still play his heart out regardless of how "reluctant" he was.

So making him an offer that he couldn't refuse wouldn't have been a huge strike against Pax in my book, but I'm glad he's trying to make a more moderate offer.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

> "I ain't looking for more than four years," said Wallace, who will turn 32 on Sept. 10.
> 
> Wallace said he expects to hear from several other teams, including Washington, New York and Cleveland, as early as today. Those teams don't have the salary cap space to sign Wallace, but would be looking to facilitate a sign-and-trade in case the Pistons and Wallace reach an impasse.
> 
> ...


http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060703/SPORTS0102/607030342/1127


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

GB said:


> http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060703/SPORTS0102/607030342/1127


Now that is a wild article. 

No offer from the Bulls?

Reinsdorf convinced Paxson to go after Wallace?

And Tyson aggressively shopped for Murphy or Boozer?

Hmm.

Some things there don't sound quite right, but Wallace did speak to the press, and though he's quoted about being unhappy with Det's offer, he's not quoted about his meeting with Chicago except that it was "real good." 

Lots of conflicting information out there.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> Now that is a wild article.
> 
> No offer from the Bulls?
> 
> ...


Hope this turns out as well as when Reinsdorf reportedly convinced Krause to acquire Jalen Rose. :clown:


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Hope this turns out as well as when Reinsdorf reportedly convinced Krause to acquire Jalen Rose. :clown:


That thought crossed my mind. Anyway, I'm not going to take any report too seriously. 

One would get the impression from this article that Paxson was about to visit Przybilla when he gets a call from Reinsdorf:

JR: "John, I've got 52 million (or 60 million, I forget) just burning a hole in my pocket. Why don't you go visit Wallace instead? Arn's a good friend of mine..."

JP: "Hey, I hadn't thought of that...I'll do it right away, sir!"

I'm not buying it. But who knows.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Hmm, there's a bit of conflicting info out there, but we do know that we have thrown more dollars at him than Detroit. That much is encouraging. 

My big concern is letting this drag out much longer. Ben's visit is here is done, the numbers have been exchanged, so what's the hold up? We need a decision, b/c we need to pursue other options if it's a nay.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Hopefully we will accomplish one of two things. A.) Hopefully we can outbid the Pistons by enough without overpaying TOO much to bring Wallace to the Bulls, or, B.) We can force Detroit into paying way too much hamstringing future flexibility. We should be able to do one of these two things at least.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Hopefully we will accomplish one of two things. A.) Hopefully we can outbid the Pistons by enough without overpaying TOO much to bring Wallace to the Bulls, or, B.) We can force Detroit into paying way too much hamstringing future flexibility. We should be able to do one of these two things at least.


I agree...the only thing that would screw this up is if Ben Wallace takes less money to re-sign with Detroit. But judging from his comments, that isn't going to happen.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i'm confused with this latest detroit article. didn't tellem say he had an offer that was in the 52 million range? then marcia speculated it could be even more? why would this writer conclude the bulls didn't make an offer. i call BS on that.

also - could we _PLEASE_ stop with the troy murphy stuff. a more "defensive minded player" than tyson? really? that's all tyson does. and troy murphy is defensive minded? really? 






i feel like i'm taking CRAZY PILLS!


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> My big concern is letting this drag out much longer. Ben's visit is here is done, the numbers have been exchanged, so what's the hold up?


Teams and players can't put pen to paper till the 12th and after Boozergate a players word can only go so far.


> We need a decision, b/c we need to pursue other options if it's a nay.


If he's only contacted Tellem so far, Paxson should be fired.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> also - could we _PLEASE_ stop with the troy murphy stuff. a more "defensive minded player" than tyson? really? that's all tyson does. and troy murphy is defensive minded? really?


It says he's more *offensive-minded*, actually.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

PC Load Letter said:


> It says he's more *offensive-minded*, actually.


 oh. it helps to read. thanks.


:clown:

still, just say no to troy murphy? right? _right?_


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> oh. it helps to read. thanks.
> 
> 
> :clown:
> ...


1. Always remember: reading is FUNdamental!
2. Agreed, please no Troy Murphy, especially with that contract. I'd rather just keep Songaila for much less and get almost equal production.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Well, if Paxson's not the one going after Wallace, than once again, I'll say, Paxson needs to ste[ aside and let the men do the negotiating so something can get done.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

If Boozer can stay healthy, I can see him being motivated for our team. Granted, Skiles and him could fued, but we are in a better situation than Utah. Plus we got an up and coming team. I will give up Tyson for Boozer in a second. 

Imagine going into the regular season with this lineup: Wallace, Boozer, Noce, Gordon, Hinrich. You got a defensive force, a solid all around player in Boozer. You get Tyson's rebounding #s from him, but an additional 16-18 points.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I stil can't see Pax going after Boozer, especially since that move more than likely got his brother fired.

But

C Wallace
F Boozer / Thomas

very, very tough frontline.


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

Its hard for any of us to call these offers "low ball" offers.Below the belt offers seem to make a little more sense!Just kidding, all jokes aside I think Pax offered 52mill because thats all he feels Ben is worth.He don't want to destroy our team's cap space and get another guy that can't score.I believe he still wants to sign more players.Geeeezzz what more does Paxson have to do to convince us that he's a good GM? Look at how long it took Krause to put together a championship team!Please be patient. :clap:


----------



## nybullsfan (Aug 12, 2005)

52 mill "lowball'"? than pistons offer of 48mill must be "groundball" or something seriously if we offred him something like 60mill or 70mill after pistons 48mill we look like the losers in the end. lets play russian roulette lol


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Nah, he's gonna offer more than 52 Mill. The pistons offer isn't their bottom line though.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

*Article from Halloween 2005*

Monday, October 31, 2005<!--/date--></FULLDATE><MULTIPIX name="top" multitemplate="standard"></MULTIPIX>

<!--kicker--><!--/kicker-->

<!--head-->*It might be a bull market for Wallace*<!--/head-->

<!--deck-->Chicago will have the money and could target Pistons' burly center as free-agent acquisition.<!--/deck-->

<STORYTEXT><!--byline-->By Chris McCosky / _The Detroit News_<!--/byline-->

<!--columnsig-Chris McCosky--><TABLE class=lightrail cellPadding=6 width=170 align=right border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=lightrail><MULTIPIX name="right1" multitemplate="standard"><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=250 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>







*<!--CR-->Clarence Tabb Jr. / The Detroit News<!--/CR-->*​
*<!--CA-->Ben Wallace, the Pistons' big man in the middle, could be at the center of some intense free-agent bidding next summer.<!--/CA-->*







</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>​</MULTIPIX><!--startsidebar--><!--endsidebar--><SECTIONLINKS></SECTIONLINKS><RELATEDLINKS></RELATEDLINKS><MULTIPIX name="right2" multitemplate="standard"></MULTIPIX><MULTIPIX name="right3" multitemplate="standard"></MULTIPIX><MULTIPIX name="right4" multitemplate="standard"></MULTIPIX><MULTIPIX name="right5" multitemplate="standard"></MULTIPIX><!-- INSERT NAME OF AP INCLUDE IN THE LINE BELOW AND REMOVE COMMENT TAG <table><script language=\"JavaScript\" type=\"text/javascript\" src="http://customwire.ap.org/lineups/###PUT NAME OF AP INCLUDE HERE###-rich.js?SITE=MIDTN&SECTION=HOME"></script></table> INSERT NAME OF AP INCLUDE IN THE LINE ABOVE AND REMOVE COMMENT TAG -->Comment on this story
Send this story to a friend
Get Home Delivery 








</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!--START COPY-->



Keep your eyes on the Chicago Bulls. 

Not so much during the season, because they are going to struggle. Losing Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis has left them barren in the middle, and that's death in the newly fortified Central Division. 

But keep your eyes on them next July, when they take the $20 million in cap space they will have and start wooing free agent Ben Wallace. 

The Bulls were a playoff team with Eddy Curry in the middle. With Wallace, they could be a title contender. 

That's how intense things are getting in the Central Division these days. Maybe it's not quite as loaded as the Southwest Division, where the Spurs, Rockets, Mavericks and Grizzlies reside, but the Central has to be considered a close second. 

What used to be a two-team race between the Pistons and Pacers has a couple of formidable new entries -- the Cavaliers and Bucks. 

And Chicago, as the fifth team, even this year, isn't exactly a cupcake. 

What other division can boast three all-star centers? Residing in the Central Division now are Wallace (Detroit), Zydrunas Ilgauskas (Cleveland) and Jamaal Magloire (Milwaukee). 

"I think it's great," Pistons coach Flip Saunders said of the beefed-up division. "I think what it shows is that a lot of teams have made changes to their rosters to try and catch us." 

The addition of Donyell Marshall certainly helps the Cavaliers deal with the presence of Rasheed Wallace, and the acquisition of Magloire makes the Bucks a playoff contender, assuming he is properly motivated to play. 

That brings us to the Bulls, who are desperately trying to get back to the top of the NBA world. And with $20 million to play with, and Wallace an unrestricted free agent in July, they could do it. 

The Bulls and the Atlanta Hawks, the franchise closest to Wallace's home in Alabama, will be the two teams that come after Wallace the hardest. 

But rest easy for now. The Pistons aren't going to let their foundation, the face of their organization, simply walk out of the door. 

The Pistons have been prudently preparing for Wallace's eventual free agency the past few years. They should be in a position to reward him with the most lucrative contract offer in Pistons history.

http://www.detnews.com/2005/pistons/0510/31/D04-366359.htm


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Article from Halloween 2005*

on the front page of the espn NBA section:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/index

_Pistons Offer Irks Wallace

Jul 3 - The Detroit Free Press reports the Pistons have offered a four-year deal worth approximately $48 million to free agent Ben Walllace, while the Chicago Bulls have started bidding at closer to $52 million for four seasons.

According to The Detroit News, negotiations between Wallace and the Pistons have gotten off to a rough start.

"It was disappointing," he told the newspaper. "It was not at all what I expected."_




i think the latest report that states the bulls haven't made an offer was wishful thinking on the part of that writer.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Article from Halloween 2005*

How is signing Wallace to a 16 million a year contract going to destroy our cap more than a 13 million a year contract? Either way we don't have capspace, and we'll avoid the luxury tax unless all our young players explode next year and put up 25+ ppg, and all end up with 80 million dollar raises....which isn't likely.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Article from Halloween 2005*



Chris McCosky said:


> Not so much during the season, because they are going to struggle. Losing Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis has left them barren in the middle, and that's death in the newly fortified Central Division.
> 
> 
> The Bulls were a playoff team with Eddy Curry in the middle. With Wallace, they could be a title contender.


Someone should email this McCosky at let him know he's full of poop.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

You know, I was thinking. If this is the only huge move that Pax makes in the FA market (and it may well be, with all the cash we're about to spend), *I think I'd be happy.* The truth is, Wallace is an All-Star four-time DPOY that has seen very little decline in his game and will continue to play at a high level for two or three seasons, after which he'll still be a beastly force off the bench a la Alonzo Mourning.

We're going to go over the cap next year but we still have one more potentially very POSITIVE piece to add in next year's draft pick. Thabo and Tyrus are really bolstering to the roster, although we have to see the proof in the pudding first, and then we'll see what trades are available as well. If we thought we had a lot of "assets" available to trade before, we've got a veritable plethora now.

Hinrich, Duhon, Gordon, Thabo, Deng, Nocioni, Tyrus, Chandler... every single one of them a young talent and the NBA has yet to see their best basketball. With the exception of Duhon and Chandler, each one of them has the potential to approach that "near-All-Star" level. 

Add Ben Wallace and a few role players to fill in the gaps, and you've got a really serious basketball team.

Adding Thabo, Ty, and Ben Wallace will directly address the needs we have (interior defense, athletic finisher and length in the backcourt) and should directly translate into wins next season. There won't be surprises, like watching our starting frontcourt depart, and there will be much more offseason improvement (because Deng doesn't have a broken wrist and Chandler isn't waiting to sign a contract). If the only thing we do in free agency is add the best frontcourt defender this league has seen since Dennis Rodman, I won't complain.

Speaking of Rodman, he gave us three of the prime years in his career during his 11th-13th seasons. If we were to acquire Ben, we'd also be getting his 11th-13th seasons.

So let's go with the kitchen sink. Why not?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Hell yah.

I'm totally behind signing Wallace.

Being a cheapskate and only doing it if you dump Chandler for an expiring deal is the issue IMO.

Wallace, Chandler, Tyrus, Malik, Sweets. That's solid. Sure, Chandler and Wallace are somewhat redundant... but jeez, what insurance to have. Also can help in making deals. Some teams seem interested in Chandler, if NO really wants to take on his deal. 

Wallace will be the perfect big man leader that AD was, except Wallace still has some top notch game left in him.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Whatever happens, I expect this to be over with by Wednesday simply because Pax will need to move on if Ben wants to stay in Detroit. I have a feeling JR may have got involved because Tellum asked, and Tellum is a pretty powerful agent. Ben loves Detroit itself and that's going to make it hard for him to leave.


----------



## babybulls23 (May 16, 2005)

SHEED! said:


> If you knew what ben wallace was all about, You would know that he bickers with every coach he has ever had. So if he does indeed signs with the bulls its not because of flip, I guarnteed that.


Is that another GuaranSHEED? 

But his problems with Flip are different from the bickerings he had with Carlisle and Brown. He didn't buy into the offensive minded Saunders as much as he did the defensive minded Brown and Carlisle, and this led to him, IMO, feeling underappreciated because he didn't "score." (leading to his comments about wanting to have the offense run through him more). I think he will really buy into Skiles and Pax because they are on the same page, the team is on the same page, and Wallace is also on this same page, the biggest difference this time is that he has his money now.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

As much as I like Wallace, when a 32 year old on the decline 7 pts a game player is "irked" with an offer of 12 million plus per year, calling it not fair when he becomes the highest paid player in the history of the team, you just have to wonder what this world is coming to. 

Wouldn't it be nice to have an offer to play basketball for 4 years and get paid 50 million dollars and be upset because you think you are being lowballed? I smell a rat here. Guy is trying to use the Bulls to drive the Pistons price up. Tellem gets a bigger commission so of course he is trying to get the Bulls to bid.

I say 24 hours Pax. Give him 24 hours and pull the plug. Then he has no one to use as a lackey to get more cash. Remember Krause and how he played it with marching bands, Benny the Bull, throw out the first pitch at Wrigley nonsense? Then Krause sat there praying while one by one each free agent (Eddie Jones, McGrady, Tim Thomas, Rice, did I forget someone?) used and abused then walked away. We ended up in the end with a useless scrub (Mercer). 

24 hours and walk away Pax, before we lose someone who really would like to play for the Bulls. Hope it is Wallace, but I now think not.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Hell, I'd be happy just picking up Wilcox & Butler.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

You forgot Duncan in 2000 too, although he was very very unlikely to leave the Spurs.

And there is no one really on Wallace's level in this free agency, Peja was the closest, and he's gone already. We'd probaly be better off not signing anyone major than signing some of the schmoes. No 24 hour deadlines, there isn't anyone else in this free agency that its worth pissing off Wallace, and losing out on him to get. I'd like for us to offer some more money to speed things along though.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

draft tyrus said:


> I may be either not paying enough attention or I'm just not understanding this at all. How specifically does hinder us from re-signing our "core" down the line? Pax seems very intent on doing so.


Figuring in annual 8% raises on every player, as players come off their rookie deals and theoretically re-sign with us, it will push us closer and closer to the luxury tax threshold. We know that Reinsdorf and crew won't pay the luxury tax on anything but a contender (which shouldn't be assumed with the addition of Wallace)

Frontloading a large contract like this would help offset the luxury tax effect down the line, because as most contracts are going up, we'll see Big Ben's going down.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

Salvaged Ship said:


> As much as I like Wallace, when a 32 year old on the decline 7 pts a game player is "irked" with an offer of 12 million plus per year, calling it not fair when he becomes the highest paid player in the history of the team, you just have to wonder what this world is coming to.
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice to have an offer to play basketball for 4 years and get paid 50 million dollars and be upset because you think you are being lowballed? I smell a rat here. Guy is trying to use the Bulls to drive the Pistons price up. Tellem gets a bigger commission so of course he is trying to get the Bulls to bid.
> 
> ...



Wallace is irked because Dumars has said in the past that Wallace was going to 'get his reward.' Since Ben has been underpaid for a long time I'm sure he thought that the Pistons would give him the max or something close to it, to compensate for the Pistons getting him on the cheap all these years. 

Think Pippen getting paid less than Kukoc. Players don't like being underpaid.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Article from Halloween 2005*



kukoc4ever said:


> Someone should email this McCosky at let him know he's full of poop.


Yeah, theres no way Ben Wallace would lead us in scoring, minutes played and FG%.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> 24 hours and walk away Pax


What would walking away in 24 hours achieve, nothing. There is still a week to be had before players can actually sign, so why give up now.

One thing about the Boozergate scenario is that we can easily replicate it if we're unable to sign Wallace. If I remember correctly Utah offered something near $20M more, one can easily understand why he reneged on his word.



> before we lose someone who really would like to play for the Bulls.


Quick, go sign Harrington and Przybilla! Oh wait, they really don't improve this team much at all.



> I smell a rat here. Guy is trying to use the Bulls to drive the Pistons price up.


It's not like people don't do this everyday, just in reverse. Unless you're one of the few who pay the advertised price for your car, television, house etc.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: Article from Halloween 2005*



GB said:


> Yeah, theres no way Ben Wallace would lead us in scoring, minutes played and FG%.


This is actually a valid point.


----------



## STUCKEY! (Aug 31, 2005)

babybulls23 said:


> Is that another GuaranSHEED?


no. Those dont work :curse: :biggrin: lol.


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

sloth said:


> No, if its the one his agents saying, then its a bad offer.
> 
> John Paxson gets an F from me as a GM during the offseason (not draft).
> 
> ...


So I take it you would rather have Jerry Krause still running this team huh?My how fast people forget what Pax has done for this team in such a short time.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

My effort to avoid work is so great right now that I actually read Sloth's entire post.

Other than taking a risk on Pippen's knee that didn't work out and overpaying Tyson, I don't see a bad move in the bunch, up to present.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Overpaying Tyson was a horrible move.

No other team even made an offer.

It always seemed to me that an under the table deal had been reached, and Tyson agreed not to show interest in any other teams. Don't know for sure though. Never made sense.


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> Overpaying Tyson was a horrible move.
> 
> No other team even made an offer.
> 
> It always seemed to me that an under the table deal had been reached, and Tyson agreed not to show interest in any other teams. Don't know for sure though. Never made sense.


True Pax overpaid Tyson but would you rather have Krause who traded Brand for Tyson still running this team? :eek8:


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> My effort to avoid work is so great right now that I actually read Sloth's entire post.
> 
> Other than taking a risk on Pippen's knee that didn't work out and overpaying Tyson, I don't see a bad move in the bunch, up to present.


The point was that Paxson has a difficult time making a smooth free agent signing.....Crawford, Curry, Skiles, rocky rocky rocky.


----------



## chromekilla (Aug 21, 2005)

*good news for bulls fans*

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/41266/20060703/pistons_initial_offer_irks_wallace/
Detroit News - Ben Wallace isn't happy with the Pistons initial offer, the Detroit News is reporting. 

"It was disappointing," he said. "It was not at all what I expected." 

The Pistons' initial offer was a four-year deal starting at $11.5 million and would pay him $49.6 million over four years. It would make Wallace the highest-paid player on the team next season, eclipsing Rasheed Wallace's salary by $100,000. 

Pistons president Joe Dumars, reached by e-mail, said he didn't want to negotiate through the newspaper and declined comment. 

"No, the door's not closed (on the Pistons)," Wallace added. "I know it's a business and they have to run their business." 

Wallace met with Chicago Bulls general manager John Paxson and coach Scott Skiles in Detroit on Saturday. He characterized the meeting as "real good" but added that no official offer was extended. 

Reports of the Bulls offering a contract starting at $13 million or $14 million were overstated, as were reports of the Bulls offering a five-year deal.


Merged. TB#1


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Overpaying Tyson was a horrible move.
> 
> No other team even made an offer.
> 
> It always seemed to me that an under the table deal had been reached, and Tyson agreed not to show interest in any other teams. Don't know for sure though. Never made sense.


 Is Tyson really that overpaid. Nene just got six years for sixty million. Dalembert is six years fifty-eight million. Tyson's six year sixty-four million doesn't look all that unreasonable for a young big man. And if the trade rumors are true (ie. offer on the table) we could trade him for an expiring contract and come away with some value. Chandler's contract is not that far above market value.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

TheDarkPrince said:


> True Pax overpaid Tyson but would you rather have Krause who traded Brand for Tyson still running this team? :eek8:


You mean the Krause who found Scottie Pippen playing Div2 ball? Who acquired Bill Cartwright to anchor the team? Who drafted Horace Grant? Who scouted and drafted Toni Kukoc when hardly anyone was paying attention to Euro ball at all?

Lets not get too caught up in Krause-bashing for a couple of moves that didn't pan.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

sloth said:


> The point was that Paxson has a difficult time making a smooth free agent signing.....Crawford, Curry, Skiles, rocky rocky rocky.


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

Tom Boerwinkle#1 said:


> You mean the Krause who found Scottie Pippen playing Div2 ball? Who acquired Bill Cartwright to anchor the team? Who drafted Horace Grant? Who scouted and drafted Toni Kukoc when hardly anyone was paying attention to Euro ball at all?
> 
> Lets not get too caught up in Krause-bashing for a couple of moves that didn't pan.


Pip was a great find,Grant was solid,Cartwright was so-so Toni good scorer couldn't do much else and hasn't since he left Chicago.But his main goal(And he said it himself) was to rebuild the Bulls without Jordan and how well did he do at that?


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

such sweet thunder said:


> Is Tyson really that overpaid. Nene just got six years for sixty million. Dalembert is six years fifty-eight million. Tyson's six year sixty-four million doesn't look all that unreasonable for a young big man. And if the trade rumors are true (ie. offer on the table) we could trade him for an expiring contract and come away with some value. Chandler's contract is not that far above market value.


Tyson is very overpaid. So are Dalembert and Nene.

There you go.


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: good news for bulls fans*

about overpaying Tyson--think of how he was two years ago. He was a rebounding machine and a great defensive presence with all of his offensive deficiencies covered up by Eddy and his backside protected by AD, and looked as though he'd be another, ironically, Ben Wallace. The only misjudgement Pax made there is that he thought Tyson could thrive on his own without guys like Eddy and AD to do the scoring and dirty work, respectively.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

draft tyrus said:


> Tyson is very overpaid. So are Dalembert and Nene.
> 
> There you go.


 Kwame Brown -- 3 years, 25 million.
Eddy Curry -- 6 years, 60 million.
Eric Dampier -- 7 years, 73 million.
Marcus Camby -- 6 years, 57 million.
Sheed Wallace -- 5 years, 60 million. 
J O'neal -- 7 years, 126.6 million.
Shaq -- 5 years, 100 million.
Jerome James -- 5 years, 30 million.
Z. Randolph -- 6 years, 84 million.
Brad Miller -- 7 years, 67 million.
Tim Duncan -- 7 years, 122 million.
A. Davis -- 5 years, 60 million.
Zydrunas Ilgauskas -- 5 years, 55 million.

These are the post-players in our league. Are they all overpaid (with the exception of Camby) or do you have to pay more for a center? Also, you haven't answered my original question: if Tyson is so overpaid, why does he still have trade value?


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: good news for bulls fans*



draft tyrus said:


> about overpaying Tyson--think of how he was two years ago. He was a rebounding machine and a great defensive presence with all of his offensive deficiencies covered up by Eddy and his backside protected by AD, and looked as though he'd be another, ironically, Ben Wallace. The only misjudgement Pax made there is that he thought Tyson could thrive on his own without guys like Eddy and AD to do the scoring and dirty work, respectively.


Boy, it's always something management did or didn't do. Gimme a break.

First off, I don't think Chandler is overpaid. As too often happens, Chandler, in his free agent offseason, made avoiding injury as his #1 priority. He wasn't ready to start the season and never caught up. Whether he's with the Bulls or someone else, this season I believe he will pick up the 0.7 rebounds he dropped from his "rebounding machine" year.

Offensively, Chandler's a mess and we all know it. If the Bulls choose to keep him, let's hope he graduates to "semi-mess." I won't hold my breath for more than that.

An athletic 7-footer who can give you 10-10 and makes $9MM or so isn't overpaid. That's market.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Overpaying Tyson was a horrible move.
> 
> No other team even made an offer.


I remember when it was fashionable to rip Pax for making players go out and get offers. Now he gets ripped for not making them do it?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> Kwame Brown -- 3 years, 25 million.
> Eddy Curry -- 6 years, 60 million.
> Eric Dampier -- 7 years, 73 million.
> Marcus Camby -- 6 years, 57 million.
> ...


Well done. The real problem is that the demand for big men is so darn high that teams pay so much compared to what guards and swing players receive. Even if their overall production is worse, they get paid more. That's just the way it is.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

The list helps me contextualize why Wallace is so pissed at the Piston's offer. 4 years at 12 million per? That's less than Atonio Davis and only slightly above the the Curry/Dampier/Ilgauskus range. Wallace is a little older than that group, but Curry had a bum ticker, Ilgauskus has no ankles, and Dampier has . . . well . . . no game.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Ben Wallace is going to be on Around the Horn, and PTI, I'll give you guys updates.


----------



## LuolDeng (Feb 22, 2004)

sloth said:


> Ben Wallace is going to be on Around the Horn, and PTI, I'll give you guys updates.


Those shows won't know jack.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

KHinrich12 said:


> Those shows won't know jack.


Yeah, but when there's 50+ posters currently lurking this forum, I'm sure we want to hear whatever is spit out about the matter.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Around The Horn*

Question: The bidding for Ben Wallace has begun, 4 over 48, the Bulls offered slightly more, should he leave.

Tim Colinshaw: Buy. He should take the Bulls money and run. Its a good move for him. They got Tyrus, the guards, and their up and coming.

Richard Justice: Sell. He should stay because they're close to winning a championship.

Jay Marriotti: Sell. Would love to see Ben in Chicago, doesn't see why Chicago didn't add a 5th year to put it over the top, but he should stay in Detroit for a better chance of winning the championship. 

Woody Paige: Sell. Why would Ben go to Chicago where he'd have to put up with Jay Marriotti? The Heat won't dominate next year, and him and Chauncey will come together.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> Is Tyson really that overpaid. Nene just got six years for sixty million. Dalembert is six years fifty-eight million. Tyson's six year sixty-four million doesn't look all that unreasonable for a young big man. And if the trade rumors are true (ie. offer on the table) we could trade him for an expiring contract and come away with some value. Chandler's contract is not that far above market value.


No, I agree, its the going rate.

Its just that there were no other teams really in the running for his services.

Perhaps Paxson could have signed him for less. It wasn't "go find an offer and we'll match it." No other offer was made and the Bulls still gave him a fat payday.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Parden The Interruption*

Detroit Pistons allstar center Ben Wallace is an unrestricted free agent right now. Some people say that he's the #1 free agent. Detroit offered him 48 million over 4 years, the Bulls offered 52 million, and the 76ers are interested.

Doesn't think that the 4 million difference won't make Detroit. Kornheiser thinks the 4 million dollar will make it difference. But then the fat guy goes on and on about how Ben's hearts in Detroit, and that he wouldn't leave Miami to write for the NY Times for 4 million more.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> No, I agree, its the going rate.
> 
> Its just that there were no other teams really in the running for his services.
> 
> Perhaps Paxson could have signed him for less. It wasn't "go find an offer and we'll match it." No other offer was made and the Bulls still gave him a fat payday.


Dalembert was signed for 60 million that summer, and Chandler wasn't going to accept less. Chandler had just had a terrific season, and it was very possible that another team was going to offer him more.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> No, I agree, its the going rate.
> 
> Its just that there were no other teams really in the running for his services.
> 
> Perhaps Paxson could have signed him for less. It wasn't "go find an offer and we'll match it." No other offer was made and the Bulls still gave him a fat payday.


You don't mean to say that the Bulls should have lowballed Chandler, forcing him and his agent to press the marketplace hard, do you? If that is what you mean, is this the right way to go about negotiations, even when the team thinks it can cut a fair deal?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I am surprised Ben is looking for a four year deal. That being the case, I'd up the rate that we pay him a little more. I'd probably go up to 4/60 if needed, although I still think we will need one more decent big, especially if we trade Tyson.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

transplant said:


> You don't mean to say that the Bulls should have lowballed Chandler, forcing him and his agent to press the marketplace hard, do you? If that is what you mean, is this the right way to go about negotiations, even when the team thinks it can cut a fair deal?


No, we just don't know if another team would have made a large offer and for how much it would have been for. I don't know what Chandler's or the Bulls BATNAs were.

I don't mind that they locked up Chandler. Its more the inconsistency between Crawford, Curry and Chandler that bothers me.

It seems that if you let the market set the price, and you think that price was going to be low, which it seemed like it would have been last season given the lack of teams, that's a good starting point from the orgs perspective.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Dalembert was signed for 60 million that summer, and Chandler wasn't going to accept less. Chandler had just had a terrific season, and it was very possible that another team was going to offer him more.



See, that's the thing... it didn't seem that another team would have.

If I remember correctly, the only other team that we were nervous about was the Hawks.... and they were hardly giving him the full court press.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> See, that's the thing... it didn't seem that another team would have.
> 
> If I remember correctly, the only other team that we were nervous about was the Hawks.... and they were hardly giving him the full court press.


But if we don't give Chandler a "fair" offer, by his standards, then he feels insulted and perhaps signs a one year tender to become a UFA. Chandler knew that if Dalembert could get 60 million, then he could get 60 million from another team-- this year or next. After trading Curry, we couldn't risk losing our other big man. 

The situation is somewhat similar to Olowokandi and the Clippers a few years back. Kandi had just put up 12 and 10 and wanted a 60 million contract, but Sterling refused to give in. We all know what happened next. 

In retrospect, we should have let Chandler sign a one year tender, but nobody knew that Chandler was going to have such a disastrous season. He had contributed to a 47 win team that we wanted to keep together. At the time, I thought it was a fair deal, and I'm guessing you did, too.


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

such sweet thunder said:


> Kwame Brown -- 3 years, 25 million.
> Eddy Curry -- 6 years, 60 million.
> Eric Dampier -- 7 years, 73 million.
> Marcus Camby -- 6 years, 57 million.
> ...


nice list. I would say that compared to players at other positions, big men do make too much money, which is partly due to the lack of players with both size and potential in the NBA. If something like skilled big men is a rarity, it's also bound to be more expensive. Compared to other big men then, no, Tyson isn't overpaid, but compared to other players at different positions, and relative to what he's actually done, then yes, he is.

For the 2nd part--He has natural skills and/or attributes that teams would like to acquire in hopes they could turn him into something productive. Not too hard to figure out.


----------



## draft tyrus (Jun 29, 2006)

*Re: good news for bulls fans*



transplant said:


> *Boy, it's always something management did or didn't do. Gimme a break.*
> 
> First off, I don't think Chandler is overpaid. As too often happens, Chandler, in his free agent offseason, made avoiding injury as his #1 priority. He wasn't ready to start the season and never caught up. Whether he's with the Bulls or someone else, this season I believe he will pick up the 0.7 rebounds he dropped from his "rebounding machine" year.
> 
> ...


?

we were discussing whether Pax erred in signing him to that huge deal. what's wrong with that?

for the second part--Tyson will hardly ever average 10 ppg, much less 10-10 consistently.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

*Re: good news for bulls fans*

I would have been fine letting Tyson just take the QO. Hell, we all know, no one could have been that stupid to pay Tyson $70million or so. He would have had trouble getting $60 million. Few teams would have had capspace for a large contract. And, out of those teams, few would waste big bucks on a guy who can't even average 6 pts, let alone who is afraid of touching the ball. 

Random Question: Would we still have 'bird' rights on a player, even if he becomes an UFA? I naturally want to say no, but it doesn't make sense that we wouldn't. 

I hope Tyson proves me wrong, and becomes at least somewhat worthy of his contract by becoming a strong defensive presence. But, I will not think he justifies his contract (or any other big man), until they can prove to be capable on both ends of the floor. That is just an extremely sorry excuse for a sport made for guys who are tall, and especially if you are 7'+. You give guys like Earl Boykins and Mugsy a few more inches in height, and with their hearts, they'll make guys like Tyson (Foyle, etc, any worthless big man) realize they are playing the wrong sport.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

sloth said:


> *Around The Horn*
> 
> Jay Marriotti: Sell. Would love to see Ben in Chicago, doesn't see why Chicago didn't add a 5th year to put it over the top


There he goes with his cheapskate schtik again...


----------

