# FA Watch/Players you'd like the Bulls to go after



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I thought this was interesting so I split it off from the Curry thread.



Ron Cey said:


> Also, John Salmons might be a free agent to keep an eye on. He might be a nice "big guard role player" solution for the Bulls down the line.
> 
> Finally, Iguodala looked like a complete and utter stud last night. I've always been on the "Hey, Gordon and Iggy are both excellent in different ways so Paxson didn't make a mistake" bandwagon when it comes to Iggy. But if he keeps playing like that, or better, Gordon is going to have to absolutely explode to have been the better pick for Chicago.


Couldn't agree more about both of these guys. Salmons is a guy I've had my eye on for a year or so and who always seems to look very good when I see him play. I kept trying to throw him in trade ideas . I would have loved to figure out how to get ahold of him when he was buried on the bench behind McKie, Iggy, Korver, and Willie Green. Now that a couple of those guys are gone I think he's going to get his shot and be unattainable except as a FA.


----------



## BenDengGo (Feb 1, 2004)

nene and pryzbilla


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

Nene would be interesting.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I think Nene and Przybilla are the obvious ones to watch, but I'm (as usual) keeping my eye on Tayshaun as well. The Pistons have not been able to sign him to an extension yet, which would allow him to become a RFA next summer.

Paxson has certainly acquired enough first-round picks to do a sign and trade for a RFA like Nene or Tayshaun, if Denver and Detroit decide not to meet their salary demands.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Is this about FAs exclusively?

If so, Nene for sure. 

Pryzbilla is garbage. 

Peja is worth a call. 

Maybe Dunleavy if he cant get a deal done with GS.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Can I also add that I think Pax, if he cant get Nene or Dun Jr, should not add anyone next summer? Keep his powder dry for the following summer and take advantage of what could be an interesting situation when unpolished gems like Darko and Pietrus are FAs as well as established stars like Bibby (I believe)


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I forgot about Peja, he's no go-to guy down the stretch but we seem to have Gordon for that job. Peja would be a nice 1st thru 3rd quarter scorer, but unless he shows a little more production in the playoffs I'm not sure how much money I would spend on him.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I don't see much out there in 06. I guess I would keep an eye on Posey, Brian Grant, Jason Hart (though we probably won't need a pg), Ndubi Ebi (team option), and Maceij Lampe (team option).

My understanding on Nene is that he will basically be in a situation like Chandler and be an rfa next year. Won't Denevr be able to keep him? If not he certainly bears looking into as does Nazr Mohammed and Ben Wallace though it is doubtful they will leave their respective teams.

In 07 there are a lot more high profile free agents like Paul Pierce, Gerald Wallace, Vince Carter....


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

I still think we are looking at a trade for a big but if not definetely Nene or Nazr(who I think possibly could leave SA). Trade potential target not mentioned in a while--how about Gasol? Him and Chandler would be interesting.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> In 07 there are a lot more high profile free agents like Paul Pierce, Gerald Wallace, Vince Carter....


That's when Jalen's deal expires, right?




Salmons seems OK but I don't think we need another SF on the team, right? Its also interesting that he prides himself on taking it to the hole, but 73% of his shots were jumpers and that he averages 2.3 FTA per 48.

Nene is a guy I'd like to go after. 

I'd also like to try and cut a deal for Maglorie if healthy, considering that he wants a trade from the Hornets and the Hornets are a team that should be looking to go cheap. The TT and Pike contracts along with a pick or two could be very tempting for them, given that the revenues are not going to be rolling in from NO and Oak City, if we take some of their bigger deals like PJ and Claxton.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> That's when Jalen's deal expires, right?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Salmons is a pg...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I know its the boring response, but Nene, Nene, Nene and then Nene. He needs to be priority #1 and I think he is obtainable. Not a lock of course since he is restricted, but worth spending a lot of time and attention on. 

Nene's agent had to be salivating when the Bulls traded Curry. A young up and coming team with money, minutes, market size, and a starting spot just waiting to be filled.

Recently, Kiki expressed a desire to have Nene remain in Denver for the long term, but who knows what they'll be willing to pay considering that K-Mart is maxed out and Camby has a hefty contract as well. And they know they're going to have to max out 'Melo in 2 years. 

My goal for Paxson this season is to evluate Nene closely and, if he looks good, start making offers for him during the season. If that doesn't work, overpay him in the offseason in the hopes that Denver won't match, or will relent to a sign and trade. 

Here's to hoping that Camby and K-Mart stay healthy and play big minutes. An unhappy Denver Nene is a good Nene.

EDIT: Magloire is my back-up plan for Nene as far as in-season trades are concerned.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

IMO, Przybilla is not garbage at all. The Bulls need size, and this guy has it. He's proven to be a monster on the boards, and defensively his size will give us what we need; in several ways, he's an upgrade over Curry. My only worry about him is that he becomes a chronically injured big man with bad knees. 

Nene is still my #1 choice...and with K-Mart/Camby in Denver, I feel like he's attainable as a RFA in some form or another. We may have to part with our own draft pick to get it done, but I think it'd be worth it. 

Even though Peja might not fit here, we'd be foolish not to look into it. When he's healthy, he's a proven 22-24 ppg scorer and can spread the floor for everybody with his insane range. I don't know why anyone wouldn't want that on their team, especially when he's done this for 50+ win teams every single season. 

There's also, of course, Al Harrington. If we let Sweetney go, Harrington could take the starting PF slot. He's a good inside-out player. The only downside is that we don't get much bigger, and Chandler is still stuck playing C full-time. I'd rather find a PF/C type like Nene who can switch off and on with Chandler at center when needed.

Those are the more expensive options, most likely (still not sure how much Przybilla will cost though). If we go the cost-effective route, there are guys like Salmons or Chris Wilcox; each fills a need. 

But there's also the possibility that we use our 2 first-rounders as bait to move up in the draft. That could land us just about anybody. It should be very clear that we have too many options to list, many of which we'll never think of until the opportunity arises. That's why I'm not setting my sights too hard on 1 specific player.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Obviously this guy is no solution but for depth purposes I like a backup center like Jarron Collins. Nene and Chandler together makes me wonder. Also do not forget about Chris Wilcox. Another intriguing possiblity.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Salmons is a pg...


Everywhere I see him listed he's a small forward or guard/forward. 

I only looked on yahoo, ESPN and nbadraft.net though.

Do we really need a G/F with some PG skills? Given that we have Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon, Deng and Basden?

If Paxson pulls of a consolidation trade this season then maybe.

I'm more interested in landing a big man.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Everywhere I see him listed he's a small forward or guard/forward.
> 
> I only looked on yahoo, ESPN and nbadraft.net though.


He was a point guard at Miami and he played mostly point guard last night against the Knicks. But he does play 1 through 3 for Philly.



> Do we really need a G/F with some PG skills? Given that we have Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon, Deng and Basden?


Yes, we do. 



> If Paxson pulls of a consolidation trade this season then maybe.
> 
> I'm more interested in landing a big man.


Signing a player like Salmons is not mutually exclusive with landing a big. The Bulls have more than enough assets and capspace to land a big and another backcourt player, which is exactly what I'm hoping they do. Though if Basden emerges, then that becomes less pressing. But for now, I'm taking an "I'll believe it when I see it" approach as to Basden's significance to the backcourt rotation.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

At the 4, 1 of these 3

-Al Harrington is an upgrade at the 4 though he's a little bit of a tweener
-Chris Wilcox is stuck behind Brand, Sterling probably won't match a good offer
-Nene- similar scenario to Wilcox
-------------------
At the 2, maybe ( 2005 FA's was the year for 2's)

-Bonzi Wells would be an upgrade talent wise at the 2, but he might not be a "right way" player to Pax and Skiles. he also has a team or player option, not sure which one though
---------------
At the 5, depth and size, but not real talent

- Lorenzo Wright or Nazr Mohemad may add a little now much needed size- though neither of these two or Przy will be any thing special
- Nene could also play some 5 (and Wright some 4)
==========================

best group of 2006 FA's seem to be three's, and now all of the sudden this is where the Bulls have the most depth.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Does anyone see Sweets being here beyond this season? A Nene(or Nazr or Wilcox)/Chandler/Sweets/Songalia frontcourt is loaded.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Yes, we do.


OK, then who goes or does not play?

Break down the minutes... and give Noc around 10 minutes at the 3 as well.


----------



## ztect (Jun 12, 2002)

Salmons had a good game. he's a decent player, but I was watching him since Miami. He's okay, but nothing to go so ga ga after just one game.
Tony Delk put up big numbers in a season game once too.

He's either a point forward ala Pippen or a large PG, though like most players on the team during the regualr season with AI playing doesn't get to shoot that much.

Iggy's scoring numbers on the Bulls would be much better too. Do you really think BG would get the 4th quarter opportunities if he played on the 76er's with a player like AI?

Though BG's a really nice player, team would have been better balanced for the future with Iggy aka AI2 at the 2, leaving Kirk to man his more natural 1 spot.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> OK, then who goes or does not play?
> 
> Break down the minutes... and give Noc around 10 minutes at the 3 as well.


Basden doesn't play. Deng doesn't play the 2. I don't care what Paxson and Skiles say publicly, I can't envision Deng playing meaningful minutes at the shooting guard position based on what I've seen of him so far (and he's my boo for crying out loud :biggrin: ). Salmons gets his minutes at the 1/2 with virtually no minutes at the 3. 

I would envision Hinrich/Gordon/Duhon/Salmons as the back court rotation with Salmons interchangeable at the 1 and 2 as a back-up. Basden and Pargo go bye-bye.

Deng/Noc hold down the 3 with Noc getting some minutes at the 4. It works.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> Can I also add that I think Pax, if he cant get Nene or Dun Jr, should not add anyone next summer? Keep his powder dry for the following summer and take advantage of what could be an interesting situation when unpolished gems like Darko and Pietrus are FAs as well as established stars like Bibby (I believe)


There is no waiting for next summer. If we don't use the cap space this summer, it's lost because the summer after we'll be negotiating an extension for Kirk. Sweetney and Nocioni are also potentially in the picture. Also Chandler's contract will be expanding in amounts at a higher rate than the cap expands, which means it'll take up a proportionately larger share and leave less actual cap space.

In short, we won't have much, if any cap space to work with in 2007 even if we do nothing with it in 2006.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> There is no waiting for next summer. If we don't use the cap space this summer, it's lost because the summer after we'll be negotiating an extension for Kirk. Sweetney and Nocioni are also potentially in the picture. Also Chandler's contract will be expanding in amounts at a higher rate than the cap expands, which means it'll take up a proportionately larger share and leave less actual cap space.
> 
> In short, we won't have much, if any cap space to work with in 2007 even if we do nothing with it in 2006.


That has always been my understanding as well, but I'm not a cap guru. Have any of the cap experts actually broken this down for us yet? It'd be interesting to see. 

But as far as I'm concerned, and the way I've been looking at it, its 2006 or its gone forever.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

On Salmons, the reason he would be valuable to the Bulls would be as a 2 guard, which he can definitley play, he has size and atheleticism and would be a nice addittion, that being said, I agree with the poster who said he isn't anything to go ga ga over.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Basden doesn't play. Deng doesn't play the 2. I don't care what Paxson and Skiles say publicly, I can't envision Deng playing meaningful minutes at the shooting guard position based on what I've seen of him so far (and he's my boo for crying out loud :biggrin: ). Salmons gets his minutes at the 1/2 with virtually no minutes at the 3.
> 
> I would envision Hinrich/Gordon/Duhon/Salmons as the back court rotation with Salmons interchangeable at the 1 and 2 as a back-up. Basden and Pargo go bye-bye.
> 
> Deng/Noc hold down the 3 with Noc getting some minutes at the 4. It works.


OK cool.. I just can't see him playing much more than 12-15 minutes a night.

Hinrich: 36
Duhon: 25
Gordon: 25

That only leaves around 10 minutes for Salmons and whatever other guards we have. 

Don't get me wrong, he seems like a sound defender and having those PG skillz out there at the 1, 2 or 3 is an advantage..... does not seem like much of a scorer/shooter though… I think we’re gonna need to bring on some offense at some point as well. 

I'd have no objection to bringing him on... I just don't see him making much of an impact.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> OK cool.. I just can't see him playing much more than 12-15 minutes a night.
> 
> Hinrich: 36
> Duhon: 25
> ...


Role player, I agree. But I think *some* of that capspace may very well be used on a role player or two (think: Songaila). The capspace isn't just there to get "a guy". Its there to be used to improve the team. There are a variety of ways it can be used to that end.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Summer of 2007:

Tyson $10 million

Kirk $8.5 million (that's 5 years and $51 million)

Ben-Deng-Duhon $11.5 million

2006 picks $4 million (assuming 2 picks both around #14)
-------------------

That's only $34 million for 7 young players, add in ~$2 million for the empty roster spots and we should have ~$13 million in cap space.

That's enough to add a max player or two above-MLE players to 7 good young talents, so it's certainly do-able.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

bullsville said:


> Summer of 2007:
> 
> Tyson $10 million
> 
> ...


Interesting, thanks.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> There is no waiting for next summer. If we don't use the cap space this summer, it's lost


I agree with Bullsville. This "Use it or lose it" is less of a factor now that we did not commit to Curry.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

OMG, why are we still discussing bring in someone decent at the 1/2/3 position, if we aer gonna get somoene at the 1/2/3, it better be a big name. it's obvious that the biggest need this team is a young big. Nene would fit in well. young bigs are expensive in this league, but we have to make it happen. make Nene an offer of 5/55-60mil range and see if denver matches.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Sith said:


> OMG, why are we still discussing bring in someone decent at the 1/2/3 position, if we aer gonna get somoene at the 1/2/3, it better be a big name. it's obvious that the biggest need this team is a young big. Nene would fit in well. young bigs are expensive in this league, but we have to make it happen. make Nene an offer of 5/55-60mil range and see if denver matches.


We will see. Right after the Clips, Paxson and Reinsdorf seem like the last management team in the NBA that would bid the highest on an RFA. I guess Krause went after eRob so Pax could convince JR but Pax MLE choices have been very conservative. And he seemed so reluctant to pay Chandler.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> We will see. Right after the Clips, Paxson and Reinsdorf seem like the last management team in the NBA that would bid the highest on an RFA. I guess Krause went after eRob so Pax could convince JR but Pax MLE choices have been very conservative. And he seemed so reluctant to pay Chandler.


This is the type of crap that gets to me. You think you've had enough of an opportunity to evaluate what PaxDorf will spend that its fair to compare them to Donald Sterling as it relates to free agency? How much capspace have PaxDorf had to play with in their two seasons together with the Bulls? Oh, thats right. None. 

Pax's MLE choices have been "conservative"? What does that even mean? The either spend the MLE or they don't. What does conservative have to do with it? Nocioni, Pippen, Duhon, Songaila. Plus they've been using the LLE as well.

"Reluctant" to pay Chandler? You mean because PaxDorf negotiated instead of just cutting a check? Did PaxDorf pay Chandler? Christ, based on his actual production they overpaid him. His contract is based more on faith than anything else at this point. It was a good idea, don't get me wrong. But his contract can hardly be used as a way to SUPPORT an argument that PaxDorf is cheap.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That has always been my understanding as well, but I'm not a cap guru. Have any of the cap experts actually broken this down for us yet? It'd be interesting to see.
> 
> But as far as I'm concerned, and the way I've been looking at it, its 2006 or its gone forever.


I don't know if I qualify as a "cap expert", but I know the rules, the salary amounts for the Bulls (reliable and rule based estimates for a couple, but the margin for error is quite small), and the estimated cap, and it's pretty clear.

The cap will be a couple of percentage points over what it is now - at $50-51M. 
The Bulls have the following contracts for 07, assuming they don't take on any additional obligations before then:

Chandler $10.04
Gordon $4.88
Duhon $3.25 
Deng $3.32
06 #1 Pick (Bulls) est. $1.5
06 #1 Pick (Knicks) est. $1.5

Total of $23.79M

+ Guys whose bird rights we hold, and thus inflict a "hold" on our salary cap unless we renounce them (the percentage increase of the cap hold depends on whether the guy was making at or below the average salary - I think all of our guys are below it).

Nocioni (UFA) cap hold is 200% of previous salary ($4.08M * 2 = $8.16M)
Hinrich (RFA) cap hold is 250% of previous salary ($3.06M * 2.5 = $7.66M)
Sweetney (RFA) cap hold is 250% of previous salary ($2.7M *2.5 = $6.74M)

+ 2 minimum salary roster slots (if you have less than 11 guys under the cap, minimum salaries for these guys get tacked on) = $854k

That's $47M in obligations vs. a $50M cap.

Of course the important thing here is how much wiggle room there is. We could, of course, renounce our rights to Kirk, Sweets, and Noc, or sign them up to long term deals that reduce this amount.
* If we renounce a guy, it's sort of a pyrric victory because yes we get more cap space, but we've got another hole to fill.

Realistically the best we might do is to re-sign all three of those guys pretty quickly to good contracts. Just as a ballpark figure, lets imagine Nocioni and Sweetney would command $5M and Kirk would command $6M. That's give us another $6.56M to work with, which in addition to the $3M or so to start, gives us a total of $9M in cap space.

That sounds pretty good, except we figure to have about $14M for summer 06 under the same assumptions. In short, we lose $5M in cap space if we don't spend next year. Plus, as outlined above, it relies on us either successfully negotiating these deals or letting these guys go prior to us signing anyone else. 

While I don't doubt this _can_ be done, there are a lot of factors that are outside the Bulls' control in order to do it. The tendency is for the big FAs changing teams pretty early or get locked up. That means the Bulls need to lock up their own FAs pretty quickly (preferably next summer) and experience has shown that even when a deal is in sight it can still take quite a while to get done.

Thus, I think what I said is mainly true. There is the potential for cap space, but after you figure in the realities of contract negotiation, the salaries our own FAs will command, and the requirement that we not take on any additional salary before then, I don't think it's very likely.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> This is the type of crap that gets to me. You think you've had enough of an opportunity to evaluate what PaxDorf will spend that its fair to compare them to Donald Sterling as it relates to free agency? How much capspace have PaxDorf had to play with in their two seasons together with the Bulls? Oh, thats right. None.
> 
> Pax's MLE choices have been "conservative"? What does that even mean? The either spend the MLE or they don't. What does conservative have to do with it? Nocioni, Pippen, Duhon, Songaila. Plus they've been using the LLE as well.
> 
> "Reluctant" to pay Chandler? You mean because PaxDorf negotiated instead of just cutting a check? Did PaxDorf pay Chandler? Christ, based on his actual production they overpaid him. His contract is based more on faith than anything else at this point. It was a good idea, don't get me wrong. But his contract can hardly be used as a way to SUPPORT an argument that PaxDorf is cheap.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ron Cey again.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Kevin Garnett!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> I don't know if I qualify as a "cap expert", but I know the rules, the salary amounts for the Bulls (reliable and rule based estimates for a couple, but the margin for error is quite small), and the estimated cap, and it's pretty clear.


Based on that post, you most certainly qualify as a "cap expert" in my estimation.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Summer of 2007:
> 
> Tyson $10 million
> 
> ...


As I said, it's "do-able", but you aren't mentioning the difficulties involved in doing a lot of this stuff.

Basically, you are either trading Nocioni and Sweetney for a a max level guy or for two just above MLE level guys.

*If you're doing the latter, you really aren't getting much of an upgrade. If you're doing the former, you might be, but it's still not a very good outcome vs. using the cap space in 06, because if we use it then we get a max level guy and don't have to give up Nocioni and Sweetney to do it*

That's a big difference. Sign a guy next summer to a max deal and keep your team depth. Sign a guy the summer after and it comes at the cost of a couple of other guys.

Edit: From this perspective, the optimal strategy (for building the best team) is to be willing to overpay to get a guy in 06, because using our cap space then doesn't require us to sacrifice other players to do it. We can have cap space in 07, but at that point we get it only by giving up someone we've already got. It's no longer pure addition.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> This is the type of crap that gets to me. You think you've had enough of an opportunity to evaluate what PaxDorf will spend that its fair to compare them to Donald Sterling as it relates to free agency? How much capspace have PaxDorf had to play with in their two seasons together with the Bulls? Oh, thats right. None.


How about a little analysis instead of all the mud slinging? 



Ron Cey said:


> Pax's MLE choices have been "conservative"? What does that even mean? The either spend the MLE or they don't. What does conservative have to do with it? Nocioni, Pippen, Duhon, Songaila. Plus they've been using the LLE as well.


Paxson has used his MLE a two year deal, a three year deal (using only 60% of the MLE) and a 1 year deal. He has used it on role players. He didn't use it on big upside guys. He didn't sign guys to six (now 5) year deals.

I realize that baseball is different, but when has Reinsdorf gone out and gotten the high-paid player? Or really rolled the dice.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> That's a big difference. Sign a guy next summer to a max deal and keep your team depth. Sign a guy the summer after and it comes at the cost of a couple of other guys.


You can always add depth later. See the Miami Heat that gave up three rotation guys for Shaq. One year later they have more depth than ever before.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> I don't know if I qualify as a "cap expert", but I know the rules, the salary amounts for the Bulls (reliable and rule based estimates for a couple, but the margin for error is quite small), and the estimated cap, and it's pretty clear.
> 
> The cap will be a couple of percentage points over what it is now - at $50-51M.
> The Bulls have the following contracts for 07, assuming they don't take on any additional obligations before then:
> ...


Good post.

While we lose $5 million in cap space, we balance that out somewhat by adding two mid-first rounders that we can include in a trade using our cap space. Not to mention that Deng and Gordon and Duhon should have higher trade value by then if we care to include one or more of them in a trade.

Because the way I see it, there will have to eventually be a consolidation of talent if the Bulls plan to add a max free agent. Assuming that BG and CD and KH and LD and TC continue to develop, and if we keep Nocioni and Sweets, plus the 2006 picks and the 2007 pick, I don't think there are enough minutes to go around if you add a max free agent.

And one more thing, we both forgot to figure our 2007 1st-rounder into the cap figure. Since it will be the better pick between us and the Knicks, IMO we're looking at ~#15-20, so that's another ~$1.5 million off the possible cap space.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> You can always add depth later. See the Miami Heat that gave up three rotation guys for Shaq. One year later they have more depth than ever before.


Only because they had a big chip in Eddie Jones' big contract to trade away for a couple of worse but more middling contracts.

In the 07 situation we've outlined, we won't have a Tim Thomas or an AD on the roster we can throw into a trade.

And of course, there's the obvious point that such things are easier said than done. The Pistons tried it last year by signing up drafting Carlos Delfino, signing Antonio McDyess and trading for Carlos Arroyo, and those moves appeared to fall flat. And we don't know that the Miami move will work out.

I'd argue a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and that we shouldn't simply assume that if we let a guy like Nocioni walk we'll automatically be able to turn around and find an adequate replacement.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Good post.
> 
> While we lose $5 million in cap space, we balance that out somewhat by adding two mid-first rounders that we can include in a trade using our cap space.


Just as a minor point, that's true for 2006 as well. We could get more cap space next summer by trading away our picks then, so you really have to add that to both sides when making the comparison.



> Not to mention that Deng and Gordon and Duhon should have higher trade value by then if we care to include one or more of them in a trade.
> 
> Because the way I see it, there will have to eventually be a consolidation of talent if the Bulls plan to add a max free agent. Assuming that BG and CD and KH and LD and TC continue to develop, and if we keep Nocioni and Sweets, plus the 2006 picks and the 2007 pick, I don't think there are enough minutes to go around if you add a max free agent.
> 
> And one more thing, we both forgot to figure our 2007 1st-rounder into the cap figure. Since it will be the better pick between us and the Knicks, IMO we're looking at ~#15-20, so that's another ~$1.5 million off the possible cap space.


Totally agree with the consolidation point. I think the most likely outcome is that the money isn't used for free agency but rather is used to make an unequal salaried trade. That being said, the longer we wait, the more costly it appears to become.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> How about a little analysis instead of all the mud slinging?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Reinsdorf did sign Albert Belle to what was reportedly at the time the largest single-season salaried contract in major league history, but IIRC there were lots of asterisks (deferred payment, incentives, etc.). 

He will pay a guy if it's necessary to stave off fan insurrection. Belle was that kind of signing -- everyone knew that Reinsdorf played a big part in the labor stoppage, and he needed to do something to keep backlash to a minimum (attendance numbers for the last 11 years suggest that it didn't work). I would put the Chandler signing in the same general category.

I have extreme doubts that Reinsdorf will ever successfully lure a premium max-salary free agent away from another team. For every feel-good "Kobe wanted to play here!" and "Eddie Jones/Tim Thomas/Tracy McGrady/Glen Rice was ours!" story, there's a Grant Hill or Tim Duncan not returning phone calls or Kevin Garnett's personal vendetta. There's the Jordan shadow. There's the Chicago weather. There's the income tax. Even if I did believe that Reinsdorf was willing to throw around big bucks, we've got a steep uphill climb.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> How about a little analysis instead of all the mud slinging?


Did I not provide enough analysis in response to your as-yet-baseless comparison of PaxDorf to the Clippers?



> Paxson has used his MLE a two year deal, a three year deal (using only 60% of the MLE) and a 1 year deal. He has used it on role players. He didn't use it on big upside guys. He didn't sign guys to six (now 5) year deals.


But he still used the MLE. For those years the team has still had to spend the MLE. That is a CHOICE that PaxDorf made to SPEND that money. It has not been used cheaply by virtue of the fact that it has been used. The type of player it is used on is irrelevent. You might say the MLE was spent stupidly (though with the exception of Pippen, I'd disagree with that as well), but that isn't the point you were trying to make.

And the length of those MLE deals was specifically calculated towards maximizing the available capspace for this coming summer. That is good GM'ing and planning, not cheapness. Spending the maximum MLE on 5 and 6 year deals every summer is something teams like the Knicks, who have no hope of getting under the cap, do to try to improve a team. 

Unless, of course, you think we should have signed all these guys to longer term deals than we did, which really serves no purpose other than to eat up this coming summer's capspace preemptively. And I have trouble seeing how that would be a good idea. 



> I realize that baseball is different, but when has Reinsdorf gone out and gotten the high-paid player? Or really rolled the dice.


I don't know because I'm not a big baseball fan, and what attention I do pay is towards the National League. But it does seem to me that the Sox will be playing in the World Series on Saturday, while the $350 million *annual* dollars worth of players employed by the Yankees and Red Sox will be fishing.

What I do know is that under Paxson, the team has been over the cap (which in itself suggest actual spending) and has largely, if not entirely, committed additional monies through the exception based resources available to it. And I also know that PaxDorf most certainly did "role the dice" on Chandler. And rightly so.

Time will tell if PaxDorf is willing to spend for a winner. We'll see what they offer and to whom next summer (because when it comes to cheapness, and only cheapness, its the offer and not the actual signing that matters). We'll also see what PaxDorf does with Hinrich, Gordon, and Deng. 

In short, time may provide you with the ammunition to assert that PaxDorf = Clipperdom. By virtue of the existence of capspace and the number of young, talented players on rookie contracts this team has, we'll get our answer one way or another.

But that time has not yet come.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't know because I'm not a big baseball fan, and what attention I do pay is towards the National League. But it does seem to me that the Sox will be playing in the World Series on Saturday, while the $350 million *annual* dollars worth of players employed by the Yankees and Red Sox will be fishing.


I think some of the sting of that fishing trip will be lessened by the fact that those two jumbo-payroll teams have won 5 of the last 8 World Series and make the playoffs every year. 

Don't get me wrong -- the lack of real revenue sharing is at the heart of what's ailing baseball. But it's silly to criticize the Red Sox/Yankees approach, because it works. This postseason, or the fact that some high-salary teams like the Mets or Dodgers fail, doesn't change that.

Put another way -- forgetting about odds, if you had to bet your life on either the Yankees or White Sox making it to the Series NEXT year, where are you placing your chips?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> Just as a minor point, that's true for 2006 as well. We could get more cap space next summer by trading away our picks then, so you really have to add that to both sides when making the comparison.


Sorry, what I meant was that in 2007, our 2006 picks will be actual players who have at least been in the league for a year to somewhat prove themselves. Of course, that can be a good thing OR a bad thing, depending on how well Paxson drafts next summer. I was assuming Pax continues to draft well and it's a good thing.




> Totally agree with the consolidation point. I think the most likely outcome is that the money isn't used for free agency but rather is used to make an unequal salaried trade. That being said, the longer we wait, the more costly it appears to become.


Well it all depends on who we can sign for how much in 2006. I haven't really looked at the 2007 class, but I keep reading that next summer's class is not good at all, so I would have to look at 2007 and see who is available.

Obviously I agree that we'll have less cap space in 2007 even if we don't spend any next summer, but it could be worth it if we can't sign (or trade for) anyone next summer who will improve the team enough to rationalize his salary.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Regarding the cheapness issue, I don't think it's a matter of spending in absolute terms, it's more the tickytackness of how things seem to be done a lot of the time, and how reaching agreement on even seemingly inconsequential points appears to be difficult when it shouldn't be.

Often it ends up working to the Bulls advantage, but I think quite often it doesn't.

The best analogy I can make is to buying a used car (buying and selling NBA contracts actually has a lot of similarities to the used car market, I think). You go to CarMax and pay an up front price, the car may or may not turn out to be worth it.

You go to Slick Jerry's Used Cars, and you may or may not get a good deal. Some guys get screwed, either because they're bad negotiators or because they got a lemon. Some guys are good negotiators and/or get good cars. Some guys just come at the right time of the month when the inventory is high and the manager needs to clear things out. Some guys come at the wrong time and will get charged a high price for a car that's in steep demand. But no matter whether you get a good deal or a bad one, negotiating with those guys is usually an absolute chore and not a lot of fun at all. And more to the point, you don't see those guys making more money than CarMax. They're boom and bust- making some really good deals and some really bad ones that even out, as opposed to making a small but steady profit on most every deal.

Obviously there has to be negotiation in basketball contracts, but the Jerry Method seems to be asking for quite a bit more sales of special rustproof undercoating than I find necessary.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I think some of the sting of that fishing trip will be lessened by the fact that those two jumbo-payroll teams have won 5 of the last 8 World Series and make the playoffs every year.
> 
> Don't get me wrong -- the lack of real revenue sharing is at the heart of what's ailing baseball. But it's silly to criticize the Red Sox/Yankees approach, because it works. This postseason, or the fact that some high-salary teams like the Mets or Dodgers fail, doesn't change that.
> 
> Put another way -- forgetting about odds, if you had to bet your life on either the Yankees or White Sox making it to the Series NEXT year, where are you placing your chips?


That wasn't my point. Baseball is f-ed up, no doubt. But I'm not critical of either the Yanks or the Bo-Sox for the way they spend. 

I was simply trying to point out that, whatever his baseball spending habits, his team is doing very well. There was no "big picture" intent behind that sentence I wrote. For all I know about the White Sox, they've got a Devil Rays type payroll and Reinsdorf is a cheap SOB. I dunno. 

None of it has any bearing on what PaxDorf may or may not do next summer though, I don't think.

Personally, I think Reinsdorf will pay for a winning Bulls team. I have faith in that. Yes, faith. I also believe, speculating of course, that if Paxson thinks Reinsdorf is undermining, through cheapness, his plan to build a highly competitive team, he'll pack it up and quit.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Did I not provide enough analysis in response to your as-yet-baseless comparison of PaxDorf to the Clippers?


It's an opinion. But educated by watching Reinsdorf owned basketball team for 20 years. The type of guys that are being talked up on the boards (Al Harrrington and Nene) are inferior to guys that Bulls have let slip away in part because they don't want to pay them (Grant, Brand, Miller). Now next summer is different from a strategy standpoint, but doesn that mean a leopard can't can't their spots. I don't think so.

Sorry if this doesn't align perfectly with your worldview.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Summer of 2007:
> 
> Tyson $10 million
> 
> ...



So we technically could wait another summer and bid on Darko and Pietrus?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That wasn't my point. Baseball is f-ed up, no doubt. But I'm not critical of either the Yanks or the Bo-Sox for the way they spend.
> 
> I was simply trying to point out that, whatever his baseball spending habits, his team is doing very well. There was no "big picture" intent behind that sentence I wrote. For all I know about the White Sox, they've got a Devil Rays type payroll and Reinsdorf is a cheap SOB. I dunno.
> 
> ...


As johnston has intimated, there are actually a lot of similarities in how Reinsdorf runs the clubs, so I think it's not unreasonable to use what's happened with the Sox as a predictor of what might happen with the Bulls. The basic script is that Jerry is pathologically reluctant to flex his big-market, high-revenue advantage. This is particularly hard to swallow on the baseball side -- yes, his team is doing well this year, but a single pennant in 20 seasons at the helm of a major market team that's had a state-of-the-art stadium for almost 15 years is practically the definition of underperforming.

I have never advocated spending for spending's sake when it comes to players. Where I think the Bulls fall woefully short is spending outside the lines to give their team every possible advantage. A Hall-of-Fame-level player like Moses Malone or Jack Sikma should be paid whatever it takes to come to Chicago and shadow Tyson through every practice and game, e.g.

It's hard for me to imagine Paxson walking away from the job -- maybe if Jordan's purchased a team by then. But I have no doubt whatsoever that he felt hamstrung a bit by Jerry during the Skiles and Curry negotiations. I can't possibly believe that Paxson would have risked nuclear winter over $2-3 million in the Skiles deal. That doesn't jibe with what we know about their relationship, not to mention the fact that Skiles's deal is so run-of-the-mill by NBA standards.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> There is no waiting for next summer. If we don't use the cap space this summer, it's lost because the summer after we'll be negotiating an extension for Kirk. Sweetney and Nocioni are also potentially in the picture. Also Chandler's contract will be expanding in amounts at a higher rate than the cap expands, which means it'll take up a proportionately larger share and leave less actual cap space.
> 
> In short, we won't have much, if any cap space to work with in 2007 even if we do nothing with it in 2006.


I'm not sure this is entirely true.

It was certainly true if we'd signed Curry to a big deal.

As RFAs, guys like Hinrich and Sweetney might put a cap hold on us at the QO level, but that won't be enough to totally kill our cap space.

I haven't done the math, but I suspect we might have enough cap space to sign a near-max FA. But certainly nowhere near the flexibility this coming summer.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> It's an opinion. But educated by watching Reinsdorf owned basketball team for 20 years. The type of guys that are being talked up on the boards (Al Harrrington and Nene) are inferior to guys that Bulls have let slip away in part because they don't want to pay them (Grant, Brand, Miller). Now next summer is different from a strategy standpoint, but doesn that mean a leopard can't can't their spots. I don't think so.
> 
> Sorry if this doesn't align perfectly with your worldview.


Premature criticism does not align with my worldview, that is true. You were referring to Paxson and Reinsdorf together. I've tried to address the merit of your opinion, and explain in detail why I think it is premature. If you'd like to address any of those points, I'd be more than happy to continue discussing it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> As johnston has intimated, there are actually a lot of similarities in how Reinsdorf runs the clubs, so I think it's not unreasonable to use what's happened with the Sox as a predictor of what might happen with the Bulls. The basic script is that Jerry is pathologically reluctant to flex his big-market, high-revenue advantage. This is particularly hard to swallow on the baseball side -- yes, his team is doing well this year, but a single pennant in 20 seasons at the helm of a major market team that's had a state-of-the-art stadium for almost 15 years is practically the definition of underperforming.
> 
> I have never advocated spending for spending's sake when it comes to players. Where I think the Bulls fall woefully short is spending outside the lines to give their team every possible advantage. A Hall-of-Fame-level player like Moses Malone or Jack Sikma should be paid whatever it takes to come to Chicago and shadow Tyson through every practice and game, e.g.
> 
> It's hard for me to imagine Paxson walking away from the job -- maybe if Jordan's purchased a team by then. But I have no doubt whatsoever that he felt hamstrung a bit by Jerry during the Skiles and Curry negotiations. I can't possibly believe that Paxson would have risked nuclear winter over $2-3 million in the Skiles deal. That doesn't jibe with what we know about their relationship, not to mention the fact that Skiles's deal is so run-of-the-mill by NBA standards.


I get the sense that reinsdorf is a sox fan first.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> It's hard for me to imagine Paxson walking away from the job -- maybe if Jordan's purchased a team by then. But I have no doubt whatsoever that he felt hamstrung a bit by Jerry during the Skiles and Curry negotiations. I can't possibly believe that Paxson would have risked nuclear winter over $2-3 million in the Skiles deal. That doesn't jibe with what we know about their relationship, not to mention the fact that Skiles's deal is so run-of-the-mill by NBA standards.


Don't get me wrong, I don't think Paxson would quit over a dispute over one move (unless it was a huge move). I just consider Paxson to be highly competitive. I also believe that he has a very, very strong desire to build a contending team. If Reinsdorf sits on capspace when it should be spent, or refuses to re-up the talented young players that Paxson considers critical, then I can't imagine Paxson wanting to keep the job in the face of such cheapness that refuses to pay for a winner. But thats just me. Thats my opinion, which is purely subjective and speculative, of John Paxson. 

And it seems to me that, so far at least, Paxson has been able to get Big Jerry to spend, including buying out some players and then pay some additional monies to the guys who took those bought out roster spots. 

In short, I believe that Reinsdorf will be inclined by pay for a winner, *in part*, because John Paxson will expect it. I suspect that when Paxson agreed to take over this mess, he did so with the understanding that Jerry would work with him in rebuilding the team to its former status as a contender.

Some of my Paxson man-love is shining through here, but this is my estimation of him. If the Bulls refuse to spend *when they should spend*, and this solid foundation is permitted to crumble in the name of penny-pinching, I'll be crushed as a fan. And if Paxson stands for it, then my opinion of him will change considerably.

And then, Scott, I'll join your club advocating that Jerry sell the team. :biggrin:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Anyway, I've contributed significantly in this thread going far afield of what players the Bulls should be looking to acquire over the next 12 months. Sorry about that.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Anyway, I've contributed significantly in this thread going far afield of what players the Bulls should be looking to acquire over the next 12 months. Sorry about that.


Me too (although it's not really that far off-topic, when you think about it).

I strenuously disagree about Pax's having changed the culture of penny-pinching, even incrementally. It's encouraging that he persuaded the Chairman, for the first time in 14 years, to re-sign one of our own free agents coming off his rookie deal. But every other significant move Paxson has made has saved the Bulls money/been a salary dump, and that includes ERobbery's and Jay Williams's buyouts.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I'm not sure this is entirely true.
> 
> It was certainly true if we'd signed Curry to a big deal.
> 
> ...


No, a restricted free agent's cap value is a percentage of their previous year salary, not the QO.

For example, Eddy's contract last year was like $4M. His cap hold over the summer, while the Bulls held his rights but he wasn't technically under contract, was either 250% or 300% of this amount, depending on whether it was above or below the league average salary (I don't know).

This value is in place against the cap until the player is renounced or actually signs a new contract. Thus, the only way Curry (or any other player) would count for the QO is if he actually agreed to play for it. Merely having the offer extended isn't enough.

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#27


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Me too (although it's not really that far off-topic, when you think about it).
> 
> I strenuously disagree about Pax's having changed the culture of penny-pinching, even incrementally. It's encouraging that he persuaded the Chairman, for the first time in 14 years, to re-sign one of our own free agents coming off his rookie deal. But every other significant move Paxson has made has saved the Bulls money/been a salary dump, and that includes ERobbery's and Jay Williams's buyouts.


Yes, but those were payments made for nothing in return, especially in E-Rob's case. Jerry could have just as easily told Paxson "I'm not paying Robinson $10 million just to make him go away. I expect at least some return, so you need to make it work." Its something. Its not earth-shattering, but its something.

Anyway, time will tell. The team is set up in such a way right now that we should learn one way or another how committed management is to paying for a winner. An answer is unavoidable unless guys start getting career ending injuries before their deals come up.

And, not to nitpick, but we re-signed two of our former rookies this summer, not one.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> And, not to nitpick, but we re-signed two of our former rookies this summer, not one.


I should have said "first-round draft picks coming off a rookie deal." I am pretty sure the Bulls have re-upped several second-rounders since 1992, but in the grand scheme of things, the amount of money laid out to do this probably didn't amount to much more than a few homestands' worth of giant foam finger sales.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Yes, but those were payments made for nothing in return, especially in E-Rob's case. Jerry could have just as easily told Paxson "I'm not paying Robinson $10 million just to make him go away. I expect at least some return, so you need to make it work." Its something. Its not earth-shattering, but its something.
> 
> Anyway, time will tell. The team is set up in such a way right now that we should learn one way or another how committed management is to paying for a winner. An answer is unavoidable unless guys start getting career ending injuries before their deals come up.
> 
> And, not to nitpick, but we re-signed two of our former rookies this summer, not one.


In ERob's case, however, the alternatives appeared to be 
1. Pay him $13-15M (I can't remember now exactly what he was owed) to go away but continue to take a roster spot.
2. Pay him $10M to go away and not take a roster spot.

As it turned out, he couldn't pass a physical after we waived him, so even if we wanted to play him we could have.

Interestingly, since he couldn't pass his physical, I wonder now (being more steeped in the insurance rules) why we didn't try to get him to retire officially and file an insurance claim on his contract. That would have saved the Bulls several million bucks in any case.

For ERob too, it would have saved money. He left $3-5M on the table. Maybe he thought he was going to make that up from another team, but still it wouldn't make much sense to expect more than the league minimum (coming off his bad press, an injury, and the fact he wasn't released until training camp), the absolute best he could hope for was to break even.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Premature criticism does not align with my worldview, that is true. You were referring to Paxson and Reinsdorf together. I've tried to address the merit of your opinion, and explain in detail why I think it is premature. If you'd like to address any of those points, I'd be more than happy to continue discussing it.


Ron, you really didn't make any points that need to be addressed. You just made excuses for the orgainization per usual. 

I notice that you didn't care to address why you think the Bulls were happy to send Horace Grant packing but now will overpay to get a lesser talent like Nene or your boy Al Harrington into town. Especially with a roster full of guys like Hinrich, Deng and Gordon that need to get paid.

Or explain why Paxson has more control over JR than previous GMs which would appear to be your conjecture above?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I should have said "first-round draft picks coming off a rookie deal." I am pretty sure the Bulls have re-upped several second-rounders since 1992, but in the grand scheme of things, the amount of money laid out to do this probably didn't amount to much more than a few homestands' worth of giant foam finger sales.


I agree. I just didn't want Du to feel left out of our discussion.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Ron, you really didn't make any points that need to be addressed. You just made excuses for the orgainization per usual.


Okay, if thats what you think. I thought I was being pretty specific. 



> I notice that you didn't care to address why you think the Bulls were happy to send Horace Grant packing but now will overpay to get a lesser talent like Nene or your boy Al Harrington into town. Especially with a roster full of guys like Hinrich, Deng and Gordon that need to get paid.


John Paxson wasn't the GM when Horace Grant was sent packing. And I think that during the Championship years, the Bulls were spending quite a bit of coin on the roster in any event. Horace Grant is not relevant to what the Paxson-managed Bulls will do. And Horace Grant certainly doesn't render the Bulls a Clipper-like organization, which is what you compared it to.



> Or why Paxson has more control over JR than previous GMs?


I've already speculated why I think Paxson will have an influence on the team's willingness to spend and what I think he'll do if he is obstructed by an unfairly tight wallet. And from what I've seen, Big Jerry appears to be buying into what Paxson is doing. 

Spending $3 million dollars for the right to draft Luol Deng (thereby obligating the team to spend, at a minimum, another additional $8 million or so on the 3 guaranteed years of a rookie lottery pick contract; a $$ figure that will be even higher as the Bulls' exercise their 4th and 5th year rights under that contract) seems to be another bit of evidence that Paxson has Big Jerry's ear when it comes to spending to improve. And I don't think that one can be categorized as a salary dump.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I cannot think of any other team that has traded away its leading scorer in three consecutive seasons. That IS very clippers-like.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I cannot think of any other team that has traded away its leading scorer in three consecutive seasons. That IS very clippers-like.


When have the Clippers done it?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Spending $3 million dollars for the right to draft Luol Deng (thereby obligating the team to spend, at a minimum, another additional $8 million or so on the 3 guaranteed years of a rookie lottery pick contract; a $$ figure that will be even higher as the Bulls' exercise their 4th and 5th year rights under that contract) seems to be another bit of evidence that Paxson has Big Jerry's ear when it comes to spending to improve. And I don't think that one can be categorized as a salary dump.


As to the $3M, it can easily be argued that it was needed to forgo spending $40-50M on Crawford. They were spending the $8M anyways although they paid a portion of it one year early - but see the previous sentence.

I'm not sold.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> When have the Clippers done it?


The clippers have let a lot of their best talent get away.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I cannot think of any other team that has traded away its leading scorer in three consecutive seasons.


I can't either. 



> That IS very clippers-like.


Not sure about that one. I'm not a Clippers historian by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't remember the Clippers trading a leading scorer, and then more than doubling their win total to achieve the 3rd best record in the West the very next season. 

As for the leading scorer preceding that one, he, in fact, is a Clipper. And he hasn't seen one solitary minute of the post-season except from his couch.

Like I said, we're all going to get our answers about PaxDorf. Stay tuned.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> As to the $3M, it can easily be argued that *it was needed * to forgo spending $40-50M on Crawford. *They were spending the $8M anyways although they paid a portion of it one year early * - but see the previous sentence.


You're going to have to spoon feed that to me. I don't understand.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

It took me about 5 seconds to find this out. In the past three seasons, the Clippers have lost:

Bobby Simmons (16.4 PPG)
QRich (17.2 PPG)
Lamar Odom (14.6 PPG)
Andre Miller (14.6 PPG)

Their record:
2003: 27-55
2004: 28-54
2005: 37-45


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> I notice that you didn't care to address why you think the Bulls were happy to send Horace Grant packing but now will overpay to get a lesser talent like Nene or your boy Al Harrington into town. Especially with a roster full of guys like Hinrich, Deng and Gordon that need to get paid.


As I remember, the Bulls weren't "all-too Happy" to send Grant home, and that he didn't sign with the Magic for much more than what was offered by the BUlls.

That aside, I do think Reinsdorf does have some cheapskate tendencies.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> As johnston has intimated, there are actually a lot of similarities in how Reinsdorf runs the clubs, so I think it's not unreasonable to use what's happened with the Sox as a predictor of what might happen with the Bulls. The basic script is that Jerry is pathologically reluctant to flex his big-market, high-revenue advantage. This is particularly hard to swallow on the baseball side -- yes, his team is doing well this year, but a single pennant in 20 seasons at the helm of a major market team that's had a state-of-the-art stadium for almost 15 years is practically the definition of underperforming.
> 
> I have never advocated spending for spending's sake when it comes to players. Where I think the Bulls fall woefully short is spending outside the lines to give their team every possible advantage. A Hall-of-Fame-level player like Moses Malone or Jack Sikma should be paid whatever it takes to come to Chicago and shadow Tyson through every practice and game, e.g.
> 
> It's hard for me to imagine Paxson walking away from the job -- maybe if Jordan's purchased a team by then. But I have no doubt whatsoever that he felt hamstrung a bit by Jerry during the Skiles and Curry negotiations. I can't possibly believe that Paxson would have risked nuclear winter over $2-3 million in the Skiles deal. That doesn't jibe with what we know about their relationship, not to mention the fact that Skiles's deal is so run-of-the-mill by NBA standards.


Nice post.

Just as a post-script to the whole Eddy situation, you know I've given Paxson some degree of a pass on it because of the difficulty of the situation. However, if Curry had no heart complications but we still hadn't resigned him this summer, I would have been furious.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Mike was spot on .. except that I don't think we will have the opportunity of tying Sweetney and Nocioni up for $5M 

I put the FMV of these players with the type of production I expect ..at least at the MLE mark - which if that is all they have on parity elsewhere they are not leaving Chicago if we want them 

Nocioni is part of the long range plan IMO because his identity so clearly is part of the building blocks of this regime's culture

Sweetney will stay as he is one of the few developing pure post players in the league

Duhon, Songaila..4 year college players with role player skills that come cheap, good jibs and add to depth.. they are staying

Chandler..clearly staying. 1st part of the inner core

Deng. 2nd part of the inner core

Hinrich... for the same reasons as Nocioni..and then some ... staying. The 3rd part of the inner core

Which leaves question marks over Ben Gordon and the draft picks we have accrued 

Whilst we don't have to blow our wad next summer in 2006...we will have the following season in 2006/2007 to get a trade done given our capacities to take salaries back if we don't spend it in the summer of 2006

So - in a nut shell folks , we have 1 x summer of free agency and assets within our cap structure and draft picks + one player ( perhaps our most tradeable asset ) to get a deal done as we will have capability in doing for the next two (2) trading deadlines

And Mike's right, after that its gone - assuming the core and the supporting jibettes are the annointed ones 

What to do ?

I have advocated Nene as much , if not more , than anyone for several years

But... I believe in Mike Sweetney and I believe that Mike Sweetney is going to be a fit for this team and be a pretty valuable player

So I say no Nene ( with the caveat being seeing what Sweetney shows this season )

Pryzibilla will be agressively bid - but I honestly see him as a nice reserve big to have and I don't know whether it makes much sense to acquire him , notwithstanding we need to add size upfront

*I think Jared Jeffries is the guy to get *

He has the length to bother offenses and is a smart player 

He really has some nice offensive versatility at Indiana with a nice looking inside/outside game. But with Arenas and Jamison dominating the ball so much ..he ( nor any of the Washington bigs ) have ever really been integrated into the offense.

I think he's value at $5M to $6M starting and would complement Chandler, Sweetney and Songaila very well

I'd use one of our draft picks to acquire size and spend short term money ( say up to $6M ) on a vet big with size ( Like Lo Wright )until the draft project is ready

Outside of that .. I agree Salmons is a guy that makes sense , but we can get all those things - plus I believe more ( defensively ) possibly for cheaper cost in Jiri Welsch who has long been a target of mine

So..for me guys - nothing more glamourous then Lorenzen Wright , Jared Jeffries and Jiri Welsch for $16M 

Which leaves us $4M under in cap space + say Ben Gordon + a lottery pick to possibly pull off a trade for a bigger swinging dick guard stud should one become available this season or next..... of course if Kirk and Ben undoubtedly works and Ben develops into a true superstar in his own right then all bets are off

But as much as I love Ben and believe in him ..I have been saying all along that he and Kirk are another Horace and Oak waiting to happen ( in that a trade will ultimately be made when one presents itself that works and which better balances us )

Residual Cap Space and say Ben though at $8M allows us trade capacity up to a max stud around $12M if we wanted to drag in a different option with Kirk at the starting guards

But for the time being..for next year 

*

Chandler
Sweetney
Deng
Gordon
Hinrich

bench

Wright
Jeffries / Songaila
Nocioni
Welsch / Basden
Duhon

Our 2006 lottery pick 
The Knicks 2006 lottery pick ( when they miss the playoffs this year )
The 2007 Knick lottery pick ( given when they miss the playoffs and we make it and swap our draft picks

*

Quality . Depth, 3 lottery picks filling spots 12 to 15 on the roster to take it away from short termers like Wright, Songaila, Basden, Welsch

Nothing flashy . But if Pax can put something like this together ..this team could be consistently competing at the top end of the Eastern Conference for a long time (IMO)


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Jared would be a score. Count me in.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Jared would be a score. Count me in.


I trust pax has his sights set a bit higher.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

I just think that if the window is next summers free agency we're not going to hit a home run with any big swinging dick stud 

The only way to up the ampage on the studly scale is to get lucky in the lottery in the next 2 years ( where we'll be ) and/or pulling off a trade with some of our pieces, cap space and draft picks 

The latter is IMO more likely 

We're not going to soil ourselves via free agency as the prospects just aren't there

Has to be trade or draft at this stage 

Therefore modest role playing depth for modest cost is the order of the day


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801715.html


Good read on Jared Jeffries and why Eddie Jordan rates him

Not that it means a bunch , but I think its still noteworthy anyway, in 24mpg this preseason he's averaging 10 and 5 with 3 assists

Shooting on 52% and 3 offensive boards a game


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

He may be a little better than I thought. His scoring rate in the pros is horrendous. 10 ppg per 40. So if he really can up this substancially, he might be a solid first guy off the bench. I don't think he is 4 as listed earlier in this thread. 



WashPost said:


> The Wizards have until Oct. 31 to extend Jeffries' contract for the 2006-07 season


Now this is flat out wrong, right. If not and the new CBA means that teams get an extra year to extend rookie contracts, then this off-season FA market will be dreadful. ok - it must be a mistake.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> He may be a little better than I thought. His scoring rate in the pros is horrendous. 10 ppg per 40. So if he really can up this substancially, he might be a solid first guy off the bench. I don't think he is 4 as listed earlier in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is flat out wrong, right. If not and the new CBA means that teams get an extra year to extend rookie contracts, then this off-season FA market will be dreadful. ok - it must be a mistake.


Yeah..he just hasn't been used as a scorer

He blew his medial ligament in his first season 

And then latterly got holed up in a role with Arenas and Jamison being the guys that took the majority of the offense 

he can score though..at least he had some real versatility in college 

I just think he is a smart guy that has done what he has needed to do to create a niche for himself and people think he can't score or isn't one 

Not so. I just think he's a very adaptable player 

Has elements of a young Cliff Robinson about him ( not so much as a scorer per se ..but moreso in Cliff's overall versatility as a lengthy and quick defender )


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

I thought Jared Jefferies wouldnt make it in the pros when he was in college. And he hasnt. But that might not be because of his game but rather where he is. He fits into the rlucas prototype of tall versatile athletes who can defend multiple spots and bring different things offensively to a team. He isnt a go to player but he gives you some options you might not already have. The question with him is can he hit the 3 point shot? If he can, then add him to the list. If not, then put him on the watch list at a minimum because he can do other things and do with length, height, athleticism. Throw him in there with Darko, Pietrus and perhaps someone like Dunleavy as potential restricted FA types to look at over the next 2 summers.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> I thought Jared Jefferies wouldnt make it in the pros when he was in college. And he hasnt. But that might not be because of his game but rather where he is. He fits into the rlucas prototype of tall versatile athletes who can defend multiple spots and bring different things offensively to a team. He isnt a go to player but he gives you some options you might not already have. The question with him is can he hit the 3 point shot? If he can, then add him to the list. If not, then put him on the watch list at a minimum because he can do other things and do with length, height, athleticism. Throw him in there with Darko, Pietrus and perhaps someone like Dunleavy as potential restricted FA types to look at over the next 2 summers.


He almost came near a triple double last night in preseason play..


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> He almost came near a triple double last night in preseason play..


He is a player I blessed


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

I want to throw in another name who we should watch this season, Zoran Planinic. Looks like the Nets is not going to pick up his option. He's going to be an unrestricted FA next summer.



> "Zoran Planinic returned from a three-game absence due to a sore back and hamstring and scored 18 points. The reserve guard made six of seven shots and scored 16 of his points in the final 12:46 of regulation to help the Nets overcome a 20-point deficit and force overtime. That will give the Nets more to think about when deciding whether to exercise the $1.8 million option on the fourth year of Planinic's contract by Monday's deadline. A source said the team was leaning toward not picking up the option, which would make Planinic an unrestricted free agent next summer."
> 
> -New York Daily News


Planinc has been receiving a lot of praises from his teammates. Read this thread:
http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=205681

And his great performance in practice carried through the pre-season games. He's having a solid pre-season so far averaging 9.8 ppg 2.3 rpg 1 apg .75 spg along with .560 FG% in 18 MPG. The only problem is his FT Shooting and 3 point shooting. He flourished despite a stacked Nets lineup at both guard and forward position (Jason Kidd, Vince Carter, Richard Jefferson, Jeff McInnis, Antoine Wright). I remember he made some buzz too during his rookie season. But Byron Scott thought Zoran was not ready. And Last season he was struggling because of his injury (broken arm/hand).

Why I like him? so far he looks like the 6'7" version of a poor man Kukoc. Able to play 3 positions (1,2, and 3). solid passing ability. create mismatch when he played 1 and 2. He's an aggressive player. Our Guard rotation this year is: Hinrich, Gordon, Duhon, Basden, Pargo, and Pike. Next year I don't expect Pargo and Pike to come back. If we can replace both with Planinic, I think it will be a very good signing.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

So nobody agrees with me that Zoran worth a look?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

RSP83 said:


> So nobody agrees with me that Zoran worth a look?



I do, he has size and he has looked pretty good, nice call.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

No harm in giving him a look. He seems like a perpetually hurt guy though :|


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

I think my fellow cro could fit into the rotation nicely.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

I think Zoran is a good call, but again our main focus should be Nene . . . That guys is athletic, a solid defender, and I think he can be a pretty good scorer to offset the ineptitude of Chandler's offensive game. I hope a sign and trade can be worked out with Denver so we give up some of our pieces for him.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> No harm in giving him a look. He seems like a perpetually hurt guy though :|


First of all, I propose we put sticky on this thread. Since we're obviously looking to sign FA next summer with the cap space we have and our need of players with size. It would be easier to post about possible FA signing throughout this coming season on this thread. It's more convenient, we don't have to keep making new threads to post about possible FA signings.

Zoran's rookie season it's mostly DNP-CD that keeps him off the court. When he was a rookie he only suffered a strained neck injury which keeps him out for 13 games. Last season he was out for 31 games due to broken left hand. Nothing catastrophic. Plus I don't think it's his dominant hand. But, yeah, we should see how he look this season.

As for Nene, I love his potential. He has more offensive game than Tyson. That's probably because Nene has a way stronger body than Tyson and bigger hands. But, his low post move still is not as good as Eddy Curry or Michael Sweetney. What I like about Nene is his athleticism, footwork, and quickness. But, he's not a Center. He's a PF. If we're counting on him to become our C of the future, I'm not sure if can develop into a full time center. His game is more suitable for PF. But, if we can also sign Lorenzen Wright for a cheap contract to backup Nene at C. That would be great.

C - Nene/Wright/Harrington
PF - Chandler/Sweetney/Songaila

Now the problem is we're a stacked at PF position. I don't know how the minutes or going to be divided. I see Harrington as Davis' successor being one of the team leader, Sweetney is our best post scorer, Songaila is our best mid range shooter at PF. Someone gotta go? Wright is the only player that has experience in playing C full time (eventhuogh he was initially a PF then converted into playing C).


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I haven't been brought up to speed on this thread, but let me once again throw out Chris Wilcox as a darkhorse signing next summer. I'm keeping an eye on him this season to see if he breaks out how I know he's capable. His per-minute averages have been solid in his 3 years so far. And he's had a good pre-season:

25 min/game, 10 ppg, 6.6 reb, 56% FG, 67% FT, 1.0 turnovers. 

You've gotta be intrigued by his great combination of size, strength, and athletic ability. I'm hoping he breaks out with his increased role this season as the primary big man off the bench. It'd be nice if he stayed healthy for once too.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

yodurk said:


> I haven't been brought up to speed on this thread, but let me once again throw out Chris Wilcox as a darkhorse signing next summer. I'm keeping an eye on him this season to see if he breaks out how I know he's capable. His per-minute averages have been solid in his 3 years so far. And he's had a good pre-season:
> 
> 25 min/game, 10 ppg, 6.6 reb, 56% FG, 67% FT, 1.0 turnovers.
> 
> You've gotta be intrigued by his great combination of size, strength, and athletic ability. I'm hoping he breaks out with his increased role this season as the primary big man off the bench. It'd be nice if he stayed healthy for once too.


Wilcox started off like gangbusters last year when the Clippers had some frontcourt injuries, lost a little PT when they got healthy again, and then took up lodging in Mike Dunleavy's doghouse. The stats say he could put up some nice numbers if he gets any kind of playing time.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

yodurk said:


> I haven't been brought up to speed on this thread, but let me once again throw out Chris Wilcox as a darkhorse signing next summer. I'm keeping an eye on him this season to see if he breaks out how I know he's capable. His per-minute averages have been solid in his 3 years so far. And he's had a good pre-season:
> 
> 25 min/game, 10 ppg, 6.6 reb, 56% FG, 67% FT, 1.0 turnovers.
> 
> You've gotta be intrigued by his great combination of size, strength, and athletic ability. I'm hoping he breaks out with his increased role this season as the primary big man off the bench. It'd be nice if he stayed healthy for once too.


This has me thinking, I wonder if we couldn't somehow get Wilcox. His numbers are pretty similar to Nene's, he'd cost far less, and the Clippers' coaching staff apparently hates him. With Kaman and Brand there he's never going to start. He's really a 4, but he did start 24 games as the 5 next to Brand last year. His RPG and BPG are substandard for a guy of his size and athleticism, still I like him. Hmm.


----------

