# Pax's Plan



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

He's going to resign Jamal Crawford to a max deal this summer, if need be. It is foolish to just let him walk, because Pax really can't find someone better than Crawford in the CBA or via FA/MLE. The rest of the team is currently so bad, there's NO trade possible/likely for a quality SF or a replacement for Crawford.

He's NOT going to tender offers to Curry and Chandler, putting them in the same position Crawford is in now. He'll then sign the cornerstones to max deals.

He's not going to trade the draft pick.

We're going to lose a lot of games in the near future, but hopefully by the time TC/EC are 27 or 28 years old, we'll be a winning team.

When Pax said it was going to take a couple of years to finish rebuilding, he probably meant that it's going to take that long for Curry and Chandler and Crawford to develop into NBA STARTING caliber players who play well enough 48 minutes/night and 82 games a year to maybe win 50% of those games.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

If Paxson signs Crawford to a max deal this summer it will effectively end my time as a Bulls fan.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

There is no way Crawford gets a max. contract offer from other team or the Bulls.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

If need be.

Pax has painted himself into this corner, and he's got no other real options.

To let Jamal walk will make this a worse team.

Jamal is so young that a Max deal would expire with him still being a young guy. Very unlike Rose or AD.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

He will not have to pay him the max because no team will offer that to him. They only have to match the highest offer which will not be anywhere near a max contract.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I agree that it's foolish to let Crawford walk for nothing. We don't have any other options but to keep him because we need him. Sign and trade is a very slim possibility. Letting him walk for nothing helps us not at all.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Pax won't pay the max for Crawford simply because no other team is going to even approach max dollars for him. What you're advocating is almost like an Allan Houston-type deal where the Knicks simply bid against themselves. Why would Pax offer a max deal to a player when he can get that same player, for the same number of years for what may well be substantially less?

Everything else I agree with. Curry and especially Chandler shouldn't be extended this summer and they'll become RFA's. Pax really should match Crawford's offer because there isn't much else better out there and if he does walk it does make us that much worse.

Really, I think a lot hinges on the complimentary players that Pax brings in this offseason. I think Hinrich, Crawford, Curry and Chandler are all going to be at least solid NBA players. Hopefully at least one of them makes it to the perennial all-star level. What will make or break this team are the vets that surrond these guys. Right now Pip has been a colossal disappointment as far as on court contributions. Gill has been decent but he's been hurt a lot also. Davis is nice but he really shouldn't be logging 30+ mins a game right now. Same with Williams. Blount was solid but he was up and down too with nagging injuries.

It's gonna be an interesting summer!


----------



## Philo (Feb 13, 2003)

When I look up pessimistic in the dictionary, I see a picture of DaBullz.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> Pax won't pay the max for Crawford simply because no other team is going to even approach max dollars for him. What you're advocating is almost like an Allan Houston-type deal where the Knicks simply bid against themselves. Why would Pax offer a max deal to a player when he can get that same player, for the same number of years for what may well be substantially less?
> 
> Everything else I agree with. Curry and especially Chandler shouldn't be extended this summer and they'll become RFA's. Pax really should match Crawford's offer because there isn't much else better out there and if he does walk it does make us that much worse.
> ...


Allan Houston has been what the Knicks wanted from him for the dollars. Eight seasons he's been there and I think he's earned his paycheck.

There's three reasons to sign Crawford to a max deal:
1) There's a HUGE advantage to being over the cap. You can trade max contracts for max contracts, and the players with max contracts tend to be pretty good (especially compared to what we now have).
2) If we play hardball with him and sign him to a lesser sized deal, he'll be in the same spot Pippen was and probably just as unhappy.
3) If someone offers him a max contract, we'd need to sign him a max contract to match.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Philo</b>!
> When I look up pessimistic in the dictionary, I see a picture of DaBullz.


I think you confuse pessimism with being realistic.

Peace!


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

You have really fallen off your rocker DaBullz, no way ANYONE offers JC a max contract! So if no one offers him one why in the hell do you give him one? That is just dumb!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> You have really fallen off your rocker DaBullz, no way ANYONE offers JC a max contract! So if no one offers him one why in the hell do you give him one? That is just dumb!


I think Dabullz is just kidding around. The point is that he thinks Pax is incompetent


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Terry got what like 8 million. My guess is JC is around 61/2 million and the teams with cap space i very unlikely to put up big money for JC based on potential alone. This has not really been a great year for him. He appears to be a combination guard that struggles running the team at point and lacks some size, weight and experience at SG. I jsut don't think any teams will invest 50 million on a 23 year old with some significant question marks.

He can look at free agency but i just don't see who he will sign with. Sea has a PG and SG, the clippers will never go 50 million for JC, hell they let odom go and Q is next. Alt, no way. NY is way over the cap. Den and Jazz i just don't see it.

JC is be back next year with a modest contract and hopefull a more mature and experienced game at SG with a new SF to take some of the load off him.

david


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I'm not kidding around.

For all his faults, Crawford is still the best player on the Bulls. It's not saying that much about Crawford, but it's still the absolute truth.

Pax would prove his incompetence by letting him walk and trying to replace him with an even lesser player.

If Pax were going to trade him, it would have been this season, before/at the trading deadline. His failure to do so would support my belief he's going to re-sign him, at all costs.

I remember watching Pippen play early in his career and being as frustrated with his game as I am with Jamal's. Pippen was too big to be playing like a guard, and they really needed him to help out on the boards (Corzine was the C with 6 RPG, along with Oakley and Grant as the main rebounders). And Pip just didn't have that great an outside shot in those days, though he forced it time and time again (his FG% was good because he scored a lot on the fast break/drives).

I'm willing to believe that Crawford is going to improve, as Pippen did.

I'm not saying that this is what I would do if I were Pax, it is merely what I perceive that Pax is thinking and is going to do.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I'm not kidding around.


I don't believe you. You're toying the line between "we should sign Crawford to the max even if another team doesn't offer him that" and "we should sign Crawford to the max ONLY if he's offered the max by another team and it is the only way to prevent him from leaving".

Which of those is actually your view. 



> I'm not saying that this is what I would do if I were Pax, it is merely what I perceive that Pax is thinking and is going to do.


And what would you do if you were Pax?


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

Crawford re-signs with the Bulls 6yrs, 42million.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Best I can tell, Jamal will get an offer of $5-6M per year if a long term deal is offered. If he goes for a shorter term deal (3 years) he might get $6-7M


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Philo</b>!
> When I look up pessimistic in the dictionary, I see a picture of DaBullz.


He says things you don't like to hear, and he took a lot heat this summer for saying we would suck this year . . . but he was right. And he usually is.

The main gist of the post that I picked up (this is not directed at you Philo) was that Pax will match any offer for Crawford this summer, not that Pax will come out and OFFER a max deal to Crawford. Dabullz has repeated that he will give Jamal the max IF NEED BE at least twice in this thread . . . so stop with the panick attacks.

We really can't afford to lose Crawford. He is one of our best players and losing him for no compensation would set this franchise even further back. He has improved his game this year while learning a new position . . . hopefully he can continue that into next year.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

For the sake of arguement if someone offers JC the MAX we should not match it.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Something that hasn't been talked about much is if we keep our pick and take a shooting guard because he's the best player available. Let's say we don't end up with pick 1-3 and we miss out on Deng and Okafor. If we're picking at 5-6, the best player out there might be Andre Iguodala, a guy I like a lot even though he's no great shooter yet (he reminds me a lot of Jason Richardson coming out of college without the questionable attitude and with more all court game). If he ends up being the player we draft, although he could probably play small forward at a slightly undersized 6'6" (he does board like a monster), if Paxson projects him as our shooting guard of the future, that may leave Crawford as the odd man out.

A lot of ifs in this theory, but I thought I'd add it to the list.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> There's three reasons to sign Crawford to a max deal:
> 1) There's a HUGE advantage to being over the cap. You can trade max contracts for max contracts, and the players with max contracts tend to be pretty good (especially compared to what we now have).


Given the HUGE advantage, perhaps we should MAX out Fizer and Blount as well this summer, perhaps Shirley too if he works out.

The only advantage to signing a player to player to a max contract that is above his market value is that it allows us to trade one bad contract for another. I am not sure how that is helpful other than giving us people here on message boards more to talk about.

That said, I would not be suprised if someone gave Crawford a lucrative offer this summer. With a lot of teams having room under the salary cap, the luxury tax being less of a concern, and a lack of top free agents this summer, I would not be surprised if Crawford got Arenas-type money if he ends up the year fairly strongly. And that would put Paxson into a very tough spot, because that would be overpaying for a player whose market price was inflated due to the circumstances noted above. On the other hand, right now we are a talent-challenged team, and it is hard to imagine us getting much better anytime soon if we let Crawford go for nothing. We just don't have any replacement for what he does.


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> Something that hasn't been talked about much is if we keep our pick and take a shooting guard because he's the best player available. Let's say we don't end up with pick 1-3 and we miss out on Deng and Okafor. If we're picking at 5-6, the best player out there might be Andre Iguodala, a guy I like a lot even though he's no great shooter yet (he reminds me a lot of Jason Richardson coming out of college without the questionable attitude and with more all court game). If he ends up being the player we draft, although he could probably play small forward at a slightly undersized 6'6" (he does board like a monster), if Paxson projects him as our shooting guard of the future, that may leave Crawford as the odd man out.
> 
> A lot of ifs in this theory, but I thought I'd add it to the list.


Interesting, but I would want to see how the guy actually performs on an NBA court before penciling him in as our SG of the future. From what I have heard this is not a draft of finished products (I don't know anything about Andre, so this may or may not apply), so it might be better to have him back up Jamal rather than just coming in as his replacement?


----------



## play hard (Jul 10, 2002)

Two things:

1) JC gets nothing close to a MAX deal, thats just foolish talk.
and
2) Pax matches any offer that JC signs. It doesnt matter if Pax loves him or not, we are not going to let him walk away for nothing. We are already hurting for talent.

My guess is 6 years, about 48 mil


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> Something that hasn't been talked about much is if we keep our pick and take a shooting guard because he's the best player available. Let's say we don't end up with pick 1-3 and we miss out on Deng and Okafor. If we're picking at 5-6, the best player out there might be Andre Iguodala, a guy I like a lot even though he's no great shooter yet (he reminds me a lot of Jason Richardson coming out of college without the questionable attitude and with more all court game). If he ends up being the player we draft, although he could probably play small forward at a slightly undersized 6'6" (he does board like a monster), if Paxson projects him as our shooting guard of the future, that may leave Crawford as the odd man out.
> 
> A lot of ifs in this theory, but I thought I'd add it to the list.


I dunno, that prospect doesn't bother me too much. What would Iggy bring to the table his first year? We probably wouldn't want him out there for 30 minutes. The best role I see for Jamal anyway is splitting time at SG and PG, so I think unless the new guy came in and really tore up the place (something we shouldn't expect to happen), there'd be no minutes crunch for at least the first year.


1- Kirk 35, Jamal 13
2- Jamal 22, Iggy 26

That also gives us some time to experiment with Iggy at the 3 to see if that can work enough to keep all three guys around. 

If that doesn't work but we see Iggy is coming along nicely as an SG, by the time he's ready for bigger minutes (maybe in a year), Crawford's BYC status will be relaxed and his trade value will likely be up due to his more secure contract status and (hopefully) better production. 

And of course, it could turn out that Iggy (or whomever) is a bust, and in that case it's still good to have Jamal around to hold the fort.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

1. Draft Okafur
2. Sign Chandler for 26 million/5 years
3.Sign Crawford for 42 million/7 years
4.Sign Curry for 100 million/10 years
5.Sign Kukoc for MLE
6.Try to trade Chandler

My plan


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> That said, I would not be suprised if someone gave Crawford a lucrative offer this summer. With a lot of teams having room under the salary cap, the luxury tax being less of a concern, and a lack of top free agents this summer, I would not be surprised if Crawford got Arenas-type money if he ends up the year fairly strongly.


I think Mike's dollar ranges (5-6M on a long term deal) are a lot more realistic.

Arenas deal is now largley seen as a mistake and Arenas was much more consistant last year than Crawford has ever been and he is younger.

Did Atlanta blow it up to sign a guy like Craw to a $10M a year contract. I don't think so. 

You could go team by team and outline why it doesn't make much sense.

Clips might be the one wild card in my mind.

Another issue is that a lot of the FA money will wait until Kobe signs so it may be a waiting game for all the other FAs out there. It will be very interesting to see if Crawford wants to jump into the first decent offer or really drags it out like Terry did last year.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> I think Mike's dollar ranges (5-6M on a long term deal) are a lot more realistic.
> 
> Arenas deal is now largley seen as a mistake and Arenas was much more consistant last year than Crawford has ever been and he is younger.
> ...


I agree that Arenas last year was a better prospect than Crawford will be this year. But the market this year will be more favorable to players and that is why I would not be suprised if one team pulls the trigger on a big deal for Crawford. And in next summer's player-favorable market, it only takes one crazy team to think that "in the right system a 6'5" point guard like Crawford will be . . ." and then Pax has a big decision to make.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> I agree that Arenas last year was a better prospect than Crawford will be this year. But the market this year will be more favorable to players and that is why I would not be suprised if one team pulls the trigger on a big deal for Crawford. And in next summer's player-favorable market, it only takes one crazy team to think that "in the right system a 6'5" point guard like Crawford will be . . ." and then Pax has a big decision to make.


Can't argue with this.

I also think that Pax has worked himself into a position such that we lose Craw for nothing if another team goes crazy. He won't match crazy.

Maybe he needs to re-think his approach this summer with Curry. Maybe Chandler too if he proves healthy and gets back to early season form before the end of the year.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree that Arenas last year was a better prospect than Crawford will be this year. But the market this year will be more favorable to players and that is why I would not be suprised if one team pulls the trigger on a big deal for Crawford. And in next summer's player-favorable market, it only takes one crazy team to think that "in the right system a 6'5" point guard like Crawford will be . . ." and then Pax has a big decision to make.


I had this fear as well, as posted in the thread I created about how Kobe wants to stay a Laker for life, and how that's bad news for JC.

But I have considered carefully the FA market, and there aren't any teams out there that REALLY want to throw serious money at JC.

1. He's a very different story than the Brand, Odom, etc. Those guys are proven talents, even if Odom has off-court issues. They are guys that can play some serious basketball, and have a lot of talent. They have proven this in past seasons.

2. He IS much more like a Jason Terry: a good talent with questionable upside and kind of a tweener that doesn't fit into any system particularly well. Terry doesn't have passing vision like Crawford does, yet JT still averaged more assists in his year slated at PG. 

3. The other guys in the market will get the max offers that Crawford won't get. I think the main concern is the Denver Nuggets and the L.A. Clippers. Between the two, one of them will be spending a good chunk of money to tie up Q-Rich, probably L.A., although he DOES fit in well in Denver's system and they may throw him a large deal. If it weren't for his injury record, he'd be worth every penny (17.5, 6.3 rpg, 2.1 apg shooting 36.5% from the arc... similar stats to Crawford except much more of a pure SG).

Steve Nash is going to be coming out, PO, and although Mark Cuban is likely to give him a lucrative offer like no other, the Clips will definitely throw money at him, and the Nugz might try to manufacture a S & T. It's hard to mess with a team that's working out so well, and Dre Miller has done a lot for them, but Nash is definitely an upgrade. He can do everything Miller can and he can shoot the ball way better.

Stephen Jackson is coming out. After a productive year in ATL, he's going to demand a lot more attention than last summer, but he's probably still only worth an MLE at the most. Heck, he might even be a Bull, and most of us don't think that would be too bad.

Look for DeShawn Stevenson to also make some noise, but he's also closer to the MLE than to a 6 mil deal. Still, if some team really believes in him, they'll take a look.

Mark Blount will also make some ruckus. He will command near the MLE as well. A legit 7-footer banger in the East is an asset that Toronto, New Jersey, Washington, and many other teams could use.

Guys like Rasheed, Kenyon, Dampier, etc. will demand much bigger money than Crawford.

If I were Denver, I'd be much more interested in a guy like Brent Barry, Stephen Jackson, or Eric Williams.

I don't really know what I'm saying anymore, but basically, there is no one sure team that will target Crawford. We say "He must be worthy of a big offer" but as I've gone through the list of teams in the money to give him something we can't afford, I can't think of any that would really invest in him more than a starting salary of 7 mil a year. I think the Bulls WILL match that, since as DB says, big contracts can be traded for other big contracts of value, and since Crawford seems to be growing a lot every single year. He may seriously come back next season a completely different player. I know we've been saying it for a while, but JC has let us down the least out of the young players we've got.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree that Arenas last year was a better prospect than Crawford will be this year. But the market this year will be more favorable to players and that is why I would not be suprised if one team pulls the trigger on a big deal for Crawford. And in next summer's player-favorable market, it only takes one crazy team to think that "in the right system a 6'5" point guard like Crawford will be . . ." and then Pax has a big decision to make.


This is all well and good, but the CBA is still in existance. My question to you is, how many teams will be far enough under the salary cap to be able to offer Crawford over say $7 - $8 million starting? Any team that is over the cap is still bound by the CBA and can only offer Crawford up to the MLE unless they do a sign and trade and even then it would be very difficult because of Base Year compensation issues.

I'm not seeing how this is such a player friendly offseason. The only teams that can pay over the MLE are those under the cap and I don't see a great number of teams far enough under the cap to offer Jamal big dollars. The Luxury tax doesn't really enter into the equation as those teams that are approaching the lux tax threshhold are already over the cap and as such couldn't offer more than the MLE anyways...


----------



## Bulls_Bulls_Bulls! (Jun 10, 2003)

Showtime, great post, you make a lot of good points. At this point, if Pax is reasonable and the money is reasonable, there's no reason why JC can't remain a Bull.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree that Arenas last year was a better prospect than Crawford will be this year. But the market this year will be more favorable to players and that is why I would not be suprised if one team pulls the trigger on a big deal for Crawford. And in next summer's player-favorable market, it only takes one crazy team to think that "in the right system a 6'5" point guard like Crawford will be . . ." and then Pax has a big decision to make.


I'm kind of torn on this one. In general no luxury tax should make it more of a players' market, but when I look around I don't see any specific teams that are obvious fits for Jamal.

Atlanta- Obviously able to offer the max, but has Terry and Boris Diaw. A Terry-Crawford backcourt seems like a nightmare defensively/ Also a pretty unattractive destination

Denver- Will have lots of money, but they've already got a pretty big ticket PG in Andre Miller (whose salary, by the way, represenents about the upward bound of what I think a team might "reasonably offer Jamal")

Utah- Will have a ton of money, but also seems relatively set at PG with Carlos Arroyo and Raul Lopez. Arroyo in particular might garner as much interest as Crawford.

Golden State- A real possibility but only if Van Exel opts out of his contract, but this seems unlikely to me since I don't think he gets $12M from anyone else.

LA Clippers - These look like the guys we might have to be scared of. They could theoretically re-sign Q Richardson and still make an Arenas-sized offer to Jamal. And oh yeah, they actually made an Arenas-sized offer to Arenas last year, so it's not out of the realm of likelihood that they do this. They also apparently expressed interest in Jamal in trade talks. Working in our favor, I think the Clips are (to say the least) very selective in who they offer money to, and Jamal looks more comparable to Andre Miller last season (who the Clips let walk) than to Arenas. They'll also take a stab at Kobe if they can, before looking at someone like Jamal Still, these guys seem the most likely to make Jamal an offer.


Charlotte- I suppose they could, but I don't know that they'd want to inaugurate their start by doling out a questionable max contract. Charlotte could also affect other teams by taking a big salary from then and opening up cap room, but that remains a pretty big uncertainty.

So what do we have. We've got one team out there, the Clippers, that look like real competition. And like Dan said, it only takes one team.

But at the same time, there's some cause to think maybe they won't make a huge offer... they've got bigger fish to fry with Kobe, they've got to re-sign Q, and they're the Clippers... it's just hard to imagine them throwing down $8-9 M for anyone, much less a guy who's shot poorly and not won very much.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

Will Craw get max? Nope
Will Craw get a lot more than most people think he's worth? Yep

WHY?????

Assuming $46 mill cap

Nuggets- 17 to 24 mil cap space (no real need for Craw)
Hawks- over $20 mil cap space (the ideal 1 with Terry at the 2?)
Charlotte Bobcats- around $24 mil (need anyone and everyone)
Clippers- approx $15 mil (if not Kobe, then Odom,...and Craw?)
Utah- $28 mil cap space (Craw upgrade for either the 1 or 2, though not really compatible with Sloan's offense)
Spurs - $9 to 12 mil (most of this space for Ginobilli)
Suns- $9 to 12 mil- (no need for Craw w. Barborasa and the Euro guy)


Lots of cap space to overspend on a player, aside
from Kobe, Sheed, and Kmart, not that many players
out there to spend it on.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't believe you. You're toying the line between "we should sign Crawford to the max even if another team doesn't offer him that" and "we should sign Crawford to the max ONLY if he's offered the max by another team and it is the only way to prevent him from leaving".
> ...


If I were Pax, I'd sign Crawford to a max deal.

If we don't want him after a year, his max deal could be traded for another player's max deal, and we'd likely get a pretty good player in return.

We're either stuck with him for another year (due to BYC) either way.

If I were Paxson, I'd fire Skiles and hire Paul Westhead.

-- You asked what <B>I</B> would do.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> Given the HUGE advantage, perhaps we should MAX out Fizer and Blount as well this summer, perhaps Shirley too if he works out.
> ...


I'd consider giving Fizer a max deal too.

However, I'm not suggesting you should give anyone and everyone a max deal. Blount at a max deal would not get us a Nick Van Exel, Antawn Jamison, Antoine Walker, or Rasheed Wallace in return, though a Fizer or Crawford might. Maybe not next season, but hopefully sometime after.

You also don't want 12-15 Max players - your payroll would be absurdly too high.

From the corner that Pax has painted himself in, we fans have little to do but hope the 3Cs and Hinrich improve dramatically over the next few seasons and that if/when we have lotto picks, we get more guys like Hinrich (or better).


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I still don't think Pax has a plan...


----------



## curry_52 (Jul 22, 2002)

Is that DaBullz??


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> 
> I had this fear as well, as posted in the thread I created about how Kobe wants to stay a Laker for life, and how that's bad news for JC.
> ...


Utah.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I fail to see how giving a player a contract in gross excess of what they're worth can make them MORE tradeable. Just because salaries line up doesn't mean teams will trade all-stars for Crawford or Fizer. Just because they're paid like that doesn't mean they're suddenly that good.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> I fail to see how giving a player a contract in gross excess of what they're worth can make them MORE tradeable. Just because salaries line up doesn't mean teams will trade all-stars for Crawford or Fizer. Just because they're paid like that doesn't mean they're suddenly that good.


How did the Mavs trade for Jamison and Walker?


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I thought I wondered into the twilight zone at first . :uhoh: 

Jamal Crawford=max deal ? no way !! 

Although I understand what Dabullz is saying in that having a young player with a large contract enables you to be able to trade for other players with large contracts without it being a 4-1 type of deal .

I think this is smart strategy if Pax really doesnt believe the Bulls will be winning for another couple of years .

I could easily see Crawford signing for a average of what the top 20 guards in the league make which will be close to or maybe more than Miller makes but less than Arenas or Hamilton .


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> I thought I wondered into the twilight zone at first . :uhoh:
> 
> Jamal Crawford=max deal ? no way !!
> ...


Look at the Bulls' roster. Which player actually deserves a max deal the most?

AD? Ok. Then who?
(Hinrich is 3 years away from a max deal, so he doesn't count).


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> How did the Mavs trade for Jamison and Walker?


How did Detroit trade for Rasheed Wallace?

BTW, Dallas patched three less than max deals in LaFrentz, Mills, and Welsch to get Walker and Delk. LaFrentz only counts $8.2 million this season (far less than the maximum), but if he had been paid just two million, the Mavs could have included Tariq Abdul-Wahad in the trade, as well. (And Boston could have just cut him and been no worse off.)

So I do not see how paying LaFrentz $8.2 million (rather than $2 million) helped Dallas out. If you don't mind, I suppose Mark Cuban wouldn't mind you paying the extra $6 million in luxury tax penalties.

Man DaBullz, I do not know if you are doing this on purpose, but you are way off on this one.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

like Dan pointed out, they didn't get Walker by doing a max-for-max swap, and LaFrentz being overpaid may have actually hurt their end of the trade. As far as Jamison/Van Exel, did they really make themselves better with that trade? I still view that as a lateral move at best and their record shows it. 

And your point still doesn't address the fact that no one will give us a good/great player for a maxed-out Jamal just because contracts match up. They'd rather get Jamal at his market price, PLUS another player with a fair contract and/or a pick. Now, if some other team maxed out a player whose abilities and production were similar to Jamal's, we could trade for him. But that would likely be a lateral move again.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Couple the Van Excel/Jamison deal with the fact that Van Excel's deal expires a lot sooner than Jamisons. Golden State was trying to get out from under Jamisons contract. I suppose you could use the thinking that we could trade a longer Crawford contract for a shorter "max deal" contract to save cap space. But if that is the case, why not just pay less for Crawford in the first place? Max or near-max contracts become enticing when they are in their last year or two because they represent potential payroll reductions. Those reductions have value. Jamal Crawford at a six or seven year max contract won't have value for five to six years.

Maxing out Fizer doesn't even deserve discussion.

Like I've said - some folk are really good at spending other folks' money.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Maxing out Fizer (or even considering it seriously) would pretty clearly make us a laughing stock of the league.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I'm not kidding around.
> 
> For all his faults, Crawford is still the best player on the Bulls. It's not saying that much about Crawford, but it's still the absolute truth.
> ...


Amen DaBullz.

Although, I don't think there is any reason to offer Crawford the MAX if we don't have to. I say wait to see what the market offers, and bump it 500K to make him happy.

I don't see the advantage to signing him for the MAX in terms of tradability. If we wanted to trade for a superstar MAX player, a team would be happier to get 2/3MAX Crawford and a couple of cheap, expiring contracts. 

I think the rule of thumb is to pay players the minimum you can and sign contracts for the minimum number of years that you can. This gives you the most flexibility.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Golden Bull 23</b>!
> 
> 5.Sign Kukoc for MLE
> 
> My plan


Oh Yah! (although, realistically, this may be pippen signing part II)


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> If I were Pax, I'd sign Crawford to a max deal.
> ...


NO NO NO NO!!!!
We end up trading for Antonio Davis...someone else’s MAX garbage. Pay them as little as you need to.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Maxing out Fizer (or even considering it seriously) would pretty clearly make us a laughing stock of the league.


Too late for that 

BTW , if I was an employee , union organiser / shop steward/ power to the people type and not a whitedevilslavemaster right winged capitalist pig that profits from the sweat of honest labour ..... I think I would want DaBullz as my paymaster 

Hell DaBullz would make a helluva Central Banker 

Death to Greenspan. 

Power to DaBullz


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> 
> Too late for that
> ...


:laugh: 

but so true. I wish I could get a max contract from my work, just to make me "more tradeable".


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Y'know everyone is talking about the slim pickings of this summer's free agency class 

Ztect also commented that for the fact that a lot of teams were dressed up with no one to blow ( of note ) may have a cascading effect down the line for the free agency minnows ( like JC ) OK .. maybe not a minnow .. let's say at least a pilchard 

Could it be that the teams with the cash this summer keep the powder dry for 2005 ?

2005 free agency could be where the real game is - there be a lot of bidding for young talent somewhere between the devil and the deep blue sea.. Brown, Chandler, Curry, Gasol , Jason Richardson, Jefferson , Randolph, Parker, and then Murphy,Dalembert, Jason Collins, Tinsley.. are all going to attract offers and fairly generous ones too 

A lot of this talent will likely be retained by their teams making teams with the money even more desperate and attracted to players that don't come with RFA encumbrances ( like Jamal if he goes UFA ) 

In this scenario and with another improving year behind him next year he really could get tenure and dollars in a great deal out in the open market .. the quong. 

And who are they going to be saving their money for the year after in 2006 via the RFA route ? Yao ? No. Jay ? No. Little Lord Faunterloy ?( otherwise known as Mike Jr ) Amare ? No . Nene ? No.

You look through the 2002 draft and you have either got studs like Yao or Amare that are not going anywhere or duds like Skita, Boston Snackbar, Jared Jeffries, Ely ,Haislip, Borchardt .. or marginal talents like Humphreys and Dixon and players where the jury is still out or they are still too far away in their development right now to justify keeping your powder dry in your purse strings to make a play for 2 years forward - players like Wilcox, Gooden, Wagner and Freddie Jones. and then there are the long term health issues over players like Butler and Jay ... then there are the role players like Rush and Welsh. The point being I don't think there will be much movement at all in the 2006 RFA market 

In this regard , and if you accept that 2005 is where the flux is , if I was Jamal's agent ( not the most secure job in thw world I acknowledge ) I would be advising him to take the qualifying offer this year and go to the market unrestricted in 2005 when there is an even wider market still and perhaps with more legitimacy behind him as he continues to improve to get the contract he deserves at that juncture.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>kukoc4ever</b>!
> I don't see the advantage to signing him for the MAX in terms of tradability. If we wanted to trade for a superstar MAX player, a team would be happier to get 2/3MAX Crawford and a couple of cheap, expiring contracts.


That's how we got Chris Jefferies. No thanks!



> I think the rule of thumb is to pay players the minimum you can and sign contracts for the minimum number of years that you can. This gives you the most flexibility.


That's just not true because of the CBA. It SHOULD be like you say, but it just isn't.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> 
> 
> Too late for that
> ...


Apparently the NBA players have a fine union already. Gets them max contracts that are guaranteed.

It surely is capitalism that prevents the Bulls from having a payroll to match their income. As long as the stupid fans go to the games and sell them out, the team has no incentive to even try to win. Or to bring in better players.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> Apparently the NBA players have a fine union already. Gets them max contracts that are guaranteed.
> ...


I agree with you about the fans lining JR and co's pockets despite the poor product being displayed and this making the desire to win less immediate, but that still doesn't somehow provide justification for paying a non-max-player a max-contract. We wouldn't suddenly be a better team just because Fizer and Crawford are being paid a lot better. And teams aren't going to give up good/worthy max players for them just because their contracts match up, especially if the duration of the contract they're receiving isn't notably shorter than the one they're sending away.

Having a Chris Jeffries on the roster isn't as much of a potential burden as having a guy making twice what he's worth for 6 more years on the roster.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> 
> 
> How did Detroit trade for Rasheed Wallace?
> ...


I guess I didn't make myself clear.

They could trade for Walker and Jamison AND KEEP Nowitzky/Finley/Nash because they were:
1) way over the cap
2) had $19M in contracts between LaFrentz and Van Exel.

How did paying LaFrentz $8M instead of $2M help out Dallas?

If they had to make up that $6M ($8M - $2M) difference for CBA purposes in the Walker deal, they'd have to throw in at least Bradley and Najera (or Nash) to make the 115% rule work.

On the other hand, if Cuban were simply interested in avoiding luxury tax penalties at all costs, he wouldn't be dealing for the kind of players that would look great in a Bulls uniform in the quantities he does.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with you about the fans lining JR and co's pockets despite the poor product being displayed and this making the desire to win less immediate, but that still doesn't somehow provide justification for paying a non-max-player a max-contract. We wouldn't suddenly be a better team just because Fizer and Crawford are being paid a lot better. And teams aren't going to give up good/worthy max players for them just because their contracts match up, especially if the duration of the contract they're receiving isn't notably shorter than the one they're sending away.
> ...


http://www.nba.com/playerfile/tariq_abdul-wahad/index.html?nav=page

2003-2004 salary $6.2M

Peace!


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

and that has what to do with what? You don't think Dallas would have rather unloaded Abdul Wahad AND LaFrentz if possible? Ainge probably would have bit on that too. But that was impossible because LaFrentz was THAT overpaid. 

why haven't we dealt Eddie Robinson yet? Because he's not worth a third of his salary. It's not because he's NOT making the max.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ViciousFlogging</b>!
> and that has what to do with what? You don't think Dallas would have rather unloaded Abdul Wahad AND LaFrentz if possible? Ainge probably would have bit on that too. But that was impossible because LaFrentz was THAT overpaid.
> 
> why haven't we dealt Eddie Robinson yet? Because he's not worth a third of his salary. It's not because he's NOT making the max.


LaFrenz+Wahad for Walker would have worked under the CBA. I don't know if it was discussed, though it probably was.

Re: ERob.

His $6.2M salary is worth Wahad. I bet Dallas would trade us straight up. Pax wouldn't do it, I bet. Would you?

Assume we wanted to trade for Antoine Walker, using ERob.

Bulls and Dallas are over the cap. 15% rule applies.

Walker's salary is $13.5M.
ERob's salary is $6.2M
Difference is $7.3M. 

So the deal fails the 15% rule. Bulls have to cough up around $7.3M in salary to make the deal work:

Chandler $3.8M
Fizer $3.7M

Maybe Boston would have done that deal. Maybe Pax wouldn't.

Or

Fizer $3.7M
Crawford $2.5M
Gill $1.1M 

(But Gill couldn't have bee traded at the time).

Or

Curry $3.1M
Crawford $2.5M
Blount $1.6M

(I'm not sure Blount could be traded at the time).

Antonio Davis's salary is $12M
Bulls would need to come up with $1.5M in salaries to make an AD/Walker deal work. 

And so on.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Wow DaBullz, this whole discussion has been quite a lesson for me. I am now convinced that once you have an idea in your head, there is no argument in the world that will convince you that you are wrong. It kind of makes the whole point of having a discussion kind of silly.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> If I were Pax, I'd sign Crawford to a max deal.
> ...


What kind of max deal player could we get by trading Crawford? Tim Thomas? I think most of the max guys around the league are better than Crawford, and I don't see many teams willing to give up those guys for a guy such as Crawford, unless Crawford greatly improves next season. And if Crawford improved to the extent that he could be used to acquire a good max player, why would we trade him?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

I think a lot of you guys undervalue guys like JC and EC and overvalue a guy like TC....


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

DaBullz, I think you're trying to defend an argument that is, indeed, difficult to crack.

But honestly, the MAX isn't what's required, is it? I mean, by saying that we can sign JC to the max, which makes him more tradeable for other max contracts later, you've taken out the TALENT factor, the primary thing by which the VALUE of a contract is decided.

Consider: JC continues to be a player that he is today. About 16.5 ppg, 5 apg, 1.2 spg and a few rebounds. He improves his shooting from range, but still takes way too many shots and doesn't always provide consistent defense. This is him responding to what is probably ideal coaching for him: a point guard coach that has mechanics and tactics wrapped around the fact that he gives JC the freedom to take a lot of shots.

We MAX him out. Now we have a MAXed out 16.5 ppg, 5 apg, 1.2 spg player. What are we going to get back in return for him?

I think you want to add value to a deal involving a max contract by packaging a hot young rookie or a high pick. So in the future, a trade like Crawford, Iguodala, and our 2nd rounder in 2006 for Lamar Odom would look like a good trade to you. And this trade only works because we've added the value of Crawford being paid a ton of money, and are banking on the fact that teams will want him AND want to unload their large contracts.

But Crawford wouldn't be tradeable if he wasn't WORTH his money. And we wouldn't WANT the kind of players that they are trying to UNLOAD.

In other words, if we sign Crawford to the max, we have either 1) made him available for trading to get contracts of other teams' undesirable players, or 2) paid him what he's worth, thus making him available on the trade market in exchange for what he is really worth.

Therefore, *because Crawford's trade value is less respective of the salary being paid to him and more contingent upon the value at which he earns the salary, it makes more sense to simply say:

"We can sign Crawford to the max if we think he's going to be a max player. Otherwise, we should sign him for what he's worth."*

So instead of saying, "We should sign Craw to a max deal because it would make him more tradeable" (which isn't really a true statement), we should say: "We should sign Craw to a max deal because that's what he's probably going to be worth, both to us and in the trade market."


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

Something else to consider about *Pax's Plan:*

Paxson all but stated Friday he won't draft someone directly out of high school, and three of the top four prospects are prep seniors. The Bulls (18-43) own the second-worst record in the league, so Paxson will have plenty of prep talent to consider. *If Paxson lands the top pick, Connecticut's Emeka Okafor is a lock.* "There is talent and potential in all of those [prep] kids,'' Paxson said. "But for franchises trying to get better _in a hurry_, those are risky propositions.''

"It's scary,'' Paxson said. "The guys we're counting on are so young -- I can't say never -- but it would be tough to throw somebody [right of high school] in the mix.''

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull063.html

If Okafor is a lock, then what's to become of Chandler or Curry? It's hard to see all three front court players wearing Bulls uniforms next season. Could we be looking at a scenario in which Paxson views Okafor as the only draftee worth keeping? If so, Okafor's addition would likely signal the departure of TC or EC, with TC being the more likely of the two to go. And if the Bulls can't draft Okafor, I think it might be safe to say that Paxson will package the Bulls draft choice as part of a trade.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I think Paxson wants Okafor in the worst way. I think he is praying for a #1 pick so he can take him. We may get him at #2 if someone like Atlanta gets the #1 and takes Howard but irregardless I think Okafor is his man. Then he ships Chandler out. Otherwise the pick is probably traded. Deng may be the only other draftee he considers taking that high.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

I'm trying to get excited about Okafor .. I really am

But To no avail 

He'll be a nice NBA player but I don't consider he has the same capacity for dominance at this level that Tyson and Eddy have .. even though the latter two still have some growing up to do 

We have a top 5 pick in the draft .. and they are all projects or no lock dominant studs .. that concerns me 

Maybe you keep Okafor if you get the #1 or #2 pick and deal one of the 3 at a later date .. or keep him as Insurance if Eddy or Tyson get offered something ridiculous next summer that you don't want to match 

Its just not a given that you draft Okafor and deal Tyson or Eddy straight away 

Draft Okafor if you must , don't deal any of the front line , have Davis provide the veteran back up to Curry , Okafor and Chander and have Williams play spot minutes at the 3 behind a MLE target like Eric Williams ( for half of the MLE ) and bring in Wesley Person for the other half of the MLE 

Cut ERob ( forget about his salary - its not an issue if your not paying him anyway ) , Cut Chris Jeffries, leave Fizer, payout Pippen and let Kendall Gill go free

Sign one of Anthony Johnson or Damon Jones as 2nd string back up for the vets minimum ( my preference - Anthony Johnson ) if Jay Williams can't make it back and beat them out

*

Curry
Chandler
E.Williams
Crawford
Hinrich

bench

Davis
Okafor
J.Williams
Person
Jay Williams

2nd rounder for the 3 spot ( preferably a college senior like Luke Jackson that knows how to play ) 
Ronald Dupree
2nd rounder for the point spot or Rick Brunson .. whoever wins the spot 

*

That could be the blue collar / work ethic team type of a team that Pax is looking to fashion with the onus being on the C - Eunuchs to finally step up once and for all ..starting with being responsible to themselves and their team over the summer and being committed to stay in primo conditioning


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>IntheBlinkofaDeng</b>!
> I think Paxson wants Okafor in the worst way. I think he is praying for a #1 pick so he can take him. We may get him at #2 if someone like Atlanta gets the #1 and takes Howard but irregardless I think Okafor is his man. Then he ships Chandler out. Otherwise the pick is probably traded. Deng may be the only other draftee he considers taking that high.


I think this is wishful thinking, whoever gets the #1 pick is taking Okafor...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> DaBullz, I think you're trying to defend an argument that is, indeed, difficult to crack.
> 
> But honestly, the MAX isn't what's required, is it? I mean, by saying that we can sign JC to the max, which makes him more tradeable for other max contracts later, you've taken out the TALENT factor, the primary thing by which the VALUE of a contract is decided.


The CBA determines the value of a contract. You talk about talent. Well, for argument's sake, assume Rose and Crawford are of identical talent. Can't trade equal talent for equal talent, because Rose has a max deal and Crawford gets paid about 1/4th that amount.



> Consider: JC continues to be a player that he is today. About 16.5 ppg, 5 apg, 1.2 spg and a few rebounds. He improves his shooting from range, but still takes way too many shots and doesn't always provide consistent defense. This is him responding to what is probably ideal coaching for him: a point guard coach that has mechanics and tactics wrapped around the fact that he gives JC the freedom to take a lot of shots.
> 
> We MAX him out. Now we have a MAXed out 16.5 ppg, 5 apg, 1.2 spg player. What are we going to get back in return for him?


A $11M 12.5 ppg, 4.3 apg, .58 spg PG/SG gets you Antawn Jamison (also $11M). On a TALENT basis, maybe Jamal is worth an Antawn Jamison, too (better stats than Van Exel, eh?)

A $3.5M Jamal Crawford who scores 33ppg, 10 apg, and 2.4 apg can't be traded for Jamison. We'd have to give up Curry and Chandler (or pick your $7.5M worth of players to make up the difference) AND Crawford to make an EVEN TALENT deal work under the CBA - and then the deal isn't even talent, anymore.



> I think you want to add value to a deal involving a max contract by packaging a hot young rookie or a high pick. So in the future, a trade like Crawford, Iguodala, and our 2nd rounder in 2006 for Lamar Odom would look like a good trade to you. And this trade only works because we've added the value of Crawford being paid a ton of money, and are banking on the fact that teams will want him AND want to unload their large contracts.
> 
> But Crawford wouldn't be tradeable if he wasn't WORTH his money. And we wouldn't WANT the kind of players that they are trying to UNLOAD.


I have no reason to think Crawford is going to perform at a lesser level for the next decade. It would be up to the GM to decide if we want the players other teams offer, but if they're like Jamison, we're not going to be utterly burned in the deal.



> In other words, if we sign Crawford to the max, we have either 1) made him available for trading to get contracts of other teams' undesirable players, or 2) paid him what he's worth, thus making him available on the trade market in exchange for what he is really worth.


If Crawford turns out to be a stinker of a player, then maybe 1) is true. But if the Rose/Marshall deal is an indication, we're likely to be on the receiving end of a player like Marshall to take other teams' undesireable players.



> Therefore, *because Crawford's trade value is less respective of the salary being paid to him and more contingent upon the value at which he earns the salary, it makes more sense to simply say:
> 
> "We can sign Crawford to the max if we think he's going to be a max player. Otherwise, we should sign him for what he's worth."*
> 
> So instead of saying, "We should sign Craw to a max deal because it would make him more tradeable" (which isn't really a true statement), we should say: "We should sign Craw to a max deal because that's what he's probably going to be worth, both to us and in the trade market."


I don't have any real disagreement about either statement you just made.


----------

