# Bulls Optimistic About Posey



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

A face-to-face meeting between John Paxson and James Posey established interest on both sides, and the Bulls are optimistic they can outbid Houston for Posey, a restricted free-agent small forward, if necessary. 

"I know they think Posey is a perfect fit for their team, but there is a strong feeling for Scottie," Bartelstein said. "I understand that. They've got options. James has options. It's all part of the process." 

"Houston wants him back," Bartelstein said. "But they have problems with the luxury tax in terms of how far they can go [salary-wise]." 

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...8bulls,1,6077864.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

OK, so Pax is convinced that Pippin is the best man for the job. So we wait until Monday. But James Posey's no booby prize. He may not be much of a scoring machine, but he's athletic and he'll defend well against larger perimeter players. Paxson seems to have done a good job of creating options. And news of a productive meeting between Paxson and Posey may spur Pippin into making up his mind very soon.


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

Don't give Pippen anything beyond Monday to get his decision in order. Then, if we really want Posey - do the deal.

But are we sure we really need a SF? I mean, I know ERob hasn't been seen at the Berto working out this summer, but at least he's in Chicago based on the reports of him getting mugged at an area nightclub. And he did do that really nice story with Lacy Banks about the essential cell phone and pager technology that todays NBA player requires. I mean, what more do you want from the guy during a summer in which we're doing everything we can to replace him because he's a no account, lazy bum? Any thoughts on whether he's been able to get into shape while shopping for his bling, bling, essential technology or IR wardrobe?


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> Don't give Pippen anything beyond Monday to get his decision in order. Then, if we really want Posey - do the deal.
> 
> But are we sure we really need a SF? I mean, I know ERob hasn't been seen at the Berto working out this summer, but at least he's in Chicago based on the reports of him getting mugged at an area nightclub. And he did do that really nice story with Lacy Banks about the essential cell phone and pager technology that todays NBA player requires. I mean, what more do you want from the guy during a summer in which we're doing everything we can to replace him because he's a no account, lazy bum? Any thoughts on whether he's been able to get into shape while shopping for his bling, bling, essential technology or IR wardrobe?


My gut tells me he's burned his bridges with Paxson. JP seems determined to replace him one way or another. Depending on how JP spends his money this summer, I wouldn't be surprised to see Robinson modeling sweaters all year long. It's an expensive mistake by the previous regime. But if you can't squeeze blood out of a rock, why keep trying?


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> My gut tells me he's burned his bridges with Paxson. JP seems determined to replace him one way or another. Depending on how JP spends his money this summer, I wouldn't be surprised to see Robinson modeling sweaters all year long. It's an expensive mistake by the previous regime. But if you can't squeeze blood out of a rock, why keep trying?


If theres any fear this guy will turn into a cancer we ought to just make him a deal similar to what Sean Kemp took from Portland. Offer him say 75% of his remaining money to just get the hell out with the condition he can't play for another team. Either he takes it and goes off and fails at his record label or he decides he doesn't want to be out of the NBA despite the riches he's already been given and he gets his act together. To see a guy with his potential flush it all down the drain is just a total waste. We now have two guys on this roster (ERob and JWill) who were counted on for big things and will likely produce absolutely nothing.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Screw Scottie, give me Pippen........


Pippen is not the answer for E-Rob, E-Rob's the answer and the answer is no.

Pippen can provide leadership......isn't leadership what Rose, Curry, Chandler and Crawford are suppsed to develop? Pippen with his give me mine I'm one of the 50 greatest (cause Jordan carried my *** and the youth of tomorrow hadn't shown up yet).

I've been luke warm to Scottie returning and if we have a shot at posey and give it up for Pippen I will be pissed. Posey is another young vet who can play D, score enough to keep the opposing D honest.

Pippen should go to Dallas and go out on a contender.


Posey is the guy we need and I didn't think we'd have a chance to get him. 


PG - Crawford, Hinrich, Mason
SG - Rose, Crawford, Hassell, Hinrich
SF - Posey, E-Robbery, Marshall
PF - Chandler, Fizer, Marshall
C - Curry, Bagaric, Blount

IR - Williams, Smith or Austin or Baxter

I like it. Would start to feel alot better about this off-season and the future. Just wish we'd sign Crawford to a solid 6 year extension!


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

if he does for us what he did for houston last year then this guy will be a big addition for us. He wont have to worry much about his offense like he had to in denver so hell be able to practice shooting jumpers more and his shooting percentage should improve. His shooting percentage improved quite abit once he was traded to houston but it was still only around 43 percent and about 30 percent from 3 point range. So hopefully Hinrich can be a sharp shooter and crawford becomes more consistant and id say resign blount and another 3 pt specialist and we will be ready to go.


----------



## MJG (Jun 29, 2003)

It'd be just the kind of pickup you guys need; I think he'd be a better choice than Pippen/Newble/random other defensive SF. I would feel bad for the Rockets though -- it would mean that they essentially traded Kenny Thomas for nothing


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls/cs-030718bulls,1,6077864.story?coll=cs-


Well, I'm getting to a point where I'd question whether we should even keep Erob on the team based upon this story. He's out at the night club until 3:30am letting himself become a crime victim and the Bulls having trouble getting ahold of him this summer even though he's in town. I'd much rather cut him (or buyout his contract) and re-sign Hoiberg than to allow an overpaid cancer to reside on the team. My desired roster currently looks like this:

PG-Jamal Crawford-#1-6’6”
SG-Jalen Rose-#5-6’8"
SF-One of Pippen/Posey/Jumaine/Newble/DerMarr
PF-Tyson Chandler-#3-7’1”
C-Eddy Curry-#2-6’11”
-----------------------------------------
PG-Kirk Hinrich-#12-6’4”
SG-Trenton Hassell-#44-6’5”
SF-Donyell Marshall-#42-6'10"
PF-Marcus Fizer-#21-6’9”
C-Dalibor Bagaric-#14-7‘1”
SG-Fred Hoiberg-#20-6’4"
PF-Austin/Baxter
-----------------------------------------
*PG-Jay Williams-#22-6’2”
PG-Roger Mason-#31-6’5”
SF-Tommy Smith-#7-6’10"

I'd trade one of Austin/Baxter for a future 2nd rounder if possible. I'd also consider trading Tommy Smith if noone wants one of Baxter/Austin for a future 2nd rounder. Maybe Houston would take one of these 3 guys as a partial re-payment for the picks we owe them from that pitiful Bryce Drew deal.


----------



## MichaelOFAZ (Jul 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> A face-to-face meeting between John Paxson and James Posey established interest on both sides, and the Bulls are optimistic they can outbid Houston for Posey, a restricted free-agent small forward, if necessary.
> 
> "I know they think Posey is a perfect fit for their team, but there is a strong feeling for Scottie," Bartelstein said. "I understand that. They've got options. James has options. It's all part of the process."
> ...


You consider Posey and Pippen good options? Please! They're both booby prizes and considering them as anything else is simply overstating their worth to justify weak management. Chicago fans crack me up. No wonder it's taking the Cubbies and White Sox so long to get back to the World Series. Their fans are always willing to settle for mediocrity. If you're going to make a move, make one that will have some impact. A washed up vindictive free loader like Pippen and a marginal player like Posey will make an impact, at least not for the betterment of the team. I say, stay with Hassell and ERob, and give the extra cash to JC or Fizer.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Right now the Rockets have offered him a qualifying offer of 2.445 million. The Bulls will probably give him somewhere around $3.0 million to $3.5 million nothing more considering the big extensions they have to make next season. Doesn't seem like a big difference, but is for the Rockets, as it would push them over the luxury tax at $52.5. Les Alexander seems committed to pushing this team to the playoffs, and he has always dished out the money and brought in the stars when he had to, so I am pretty confident the Rockets will retain Posey.

Also, there is talk that the Rockets are going to sign Posey to a shorter deal -- since Rice's contract comes off next season, and then give him the idea that they will extend him.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

*Re: Re: Bulls Optimistic About Posey*



> Originally posted by <b>MichaelOFAZ</b>!
> You consider Posey and Pippen good options? Please! They're both booby prizes and considering them as anything else is simply overstating their worth to justify weak management. Chicago fans crack me up. No wonder it's taking the Cubbies and White Sox so long to get back to the World Series. Their fans are always willing to settle for mediocrity. If you're going to make a move, make one that will have some impact. A washed up vindictive free loader like Pippen and a marginal player like Posey will make an impact, at least not for the betterment of the team. I say, stay with Hassell and ERob, and give the extra cash to JC or Fizer.


Your disillusionment with the Bulls is coming across loud and clear this summer in all of your posts. I am sure you have said this before, but what else could the Bulls do other than go after players like Pippen, Posey, and Newble?

I don't think it is going out on a limb to say that Pippen is the only player who made a significant impact last year (starter on a playoff team, top three player on a non-playoff team) that we have any chance at. And I know some folks who are willing to argue that Pippen was not the best player on Portland last year, but he may have been the most valuable.

So why are you so disillusioned? You seem like a completely different guy than the MichaelofAZ that I remember.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Bulls Optimistic About Posey*

NCBullsFan,

Your theory that the salary cap may disappear even this year may discourage lots of teams from being able to pick up restricted free agents. If the Rockets don't have to worry about the salary cap, they would probably match any reasonable offer to Posey, right? 


Then again, they do have Nachbar waiting in the wings and one more year of Rice's big contract. Griffin may play PF, but he plays like a SF. 

Anyway, we shouldn't get our hopes up for James. I'd be excited if he wasn't restricted. He's still our third option.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

I am going to copy this to my thread about whether there will be a luxury tax next year. 

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=506107#post506107

I think it would be more appropriate for any replies to be there, since this thread is more about Posey than what I am talking about in this post.

Yes, this should make a team like Houston more willing to match on its restricted free agents. But I am not sure it will.

Remember I am saying next year is a 50/50 proposition. But I think a lot of teams do not deal with uncertainty very well. They simply assume the worst and plan all of their operations with that worst case scenario in mind. Thus, whether it is a 50/50 proposition (this year) or possibly even a 1 in 4 proposition (next year and years after), it doesn't matter to most teams. If there is any reasonable chance, they are going to treat it like a 100 percent chance.

It is hard to justify this kind of thinking, but there are lots of times when the assumptions that economists make about decision-makers just aren't what people do in reality. And I think this is one of those cases. Most people have a very difficult time thinking about things in a probabilistic manner, and so they adopt strategies, such as this "worst case scenario" strategy.

(Interestingly, I don't think teams adopt this "worst case scenario" strategy in their thinking about players. I think they go with "whatever their gut is telling them," large ignoring the possibilities that the player may end up much better or much worse than "whatever their gut is telling them.")

That kind of strategy may work well in lots of business settings, but in this setting, where with small changes in revenues or salaries, the entire system can change dramatically, I think it is a very flawed strategy.

By the way, I would guess the Bulls use this "worst case scenario" strategy in their thinking about the luxury tax. That just seems consistent with everything that we always hear in the press.

(One other thing. Until my views make their way into outlets like ESPN, which it might, I highly doubt teams have realized that the luxury tax may not be around next year or the year after. My impression is that very few teams do the types of analyses of the entire free agent market in the way I do. And even if my views end up at ESPN, I will be just one voice of many, so I doubt I will have much of an effect in changing the conventional wisdom among team executives.)


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

I do like Posey, and I'm tempted to say he'd be a better option than Pippen since the SF hole would be plugged long-term. But I'm just wondering if he's worth the whole MLE of nearly $5 million. On a 6-year deal with max raises, he'd get a contract for $36.75 million. I know to have any chance at Houston not matching, it would probably have to be for the full MLE long-term, but is he worth it? I'm well aware his numbers improved when put in a supporting role in Houston as opposed to trying to carry the awful Nuggets, but they were not spectacular, especially as a 4-year NBA vet.

I guess it might be overpaying a bit, but to me it's worth it to have the SF spot figured out once and for all.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Alot of time has been spent on this board talking about Jamal Crawford's performance over his last 20 games. So why don't we take a similar look at Posey's end of the season performance. For the months of March and April, a span of time that included 24 games, here's what he gave the Rockets:

*Minutes Per Game:* 30.1
*Field Goal Pct:* 50.3%
*3PT Field Goal Pct:* 39%
*Free Throw Pct:* 87%
*Points Per Game:* 11.5
*Rebounds Per Game:* 5

Playing with the Rockets, Posey only got off an average of 8 shots per game over those final two months. But his shooting percentages were about as good as they can get. If Posey chose March and April to come into his own as a well rounded player, the Bulls may find themselves sitting pretty even if Pippin says no.

From my perspective, this is turning into a win/win situation for our team. Pippin or Posey...both players will make the Bulls a better ballclub.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

I think Posey is the guy.......I don't think we need to offer 6 years, though it may be worth it if it's the difference between Houston matching and not matching.

Bottom line is the guy can play D, can hit shots (though needs to work on his consistency), can run with our young nucleus, grow with the team, he's been the focus of his teams, till Houston and was tring to fit in there and improved. We don't need a guy that is a scorer, we need someone to D up and keep the opposing teams D honest.

James Posey is that guy. Pippen, is a band-aid.......and not the flexible band-aid type. The stiff kind that look awful and you wish you didn't need.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

If Pippen does turn us down, then here is what I would consider offering Posey.

The Houston Chronicle says (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/bk/bkn/2001971):

The Rockets last month made Posey a qualifying offer of $2.445 million per season, the only offer they have made to any free agent. If Pippen does not choose a return to Chicago, the Bulls are expected to offer Posey between $3 million and $3.2 million. 

Because Posey is a restricted free agent, the Rockets could match that offer to keep Posey. But the Rockets have been hesitant to make any offers that could force them to incur too great a luxury tax. Before signing a free agent, the Rockets' payroll next season will be at $55 million. This season, the luxury tax penalizes a team a dollar for every dollar spent beyond $52.9 million.

Let's say the Bulls think a $3.5 million deal with maximum 12.5% raises is the maximum the Rockets would be willing to match for Posey. That adds up to about $22 million in a five-year deal. If I was the Bulls, I would offer $23 million over five years in the following manner, in order to make it as painful for the Rockets as is possible.

2003-04: $4.92 million
2004-05: $5.25 million
2005-06: $4.77 million
2006-07: $4.28 million
2007-08: $3.78 million


----------



## Spartacus Triumvirate (Jan 30, 2003)

NCBullsFan, just curious about an NBA like case of extortion. 

Say the Bulls wanted Posey, but could live without him. They're prepared to offer him more than Houston could pay without going into LT land or more than Houston is willing to pay pure and simple. So Houston says look, if you don't tender him this offer so that we can keep him you won't owe us the conditional Bryce Drew draft pick. It'd sure be an interesting way to keep our potential first rounder. However, theres no doubt in my mind that this can't be done because 

1) the players association couldn't allow something like this that would restrict the players earnings / movement

2) it could lead to all sorts of 'extortion' like attempts between clubs in the future

Do you know what in the CBA prevents such a situation from being allowed?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

Interesting, and I bet you are right.

But a trade of Mario Austin, Lonny Baxter, Roger Mason, or Tommy Smith to end our obligation probably could not be objected to, since the "collusion" wouldn't be so transparent.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> If Pippen does turn us down, then here is what I would consider offering Posey.
> 
> The Houston Chronicle says (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/bk/bkn/2001971):
> ...


How would this affect the Bulls' financial structure, though? Regardless of if the tax is triggered in the future, would we be over the threshhold and be faced with difficult questions in retaining any of our own guys?


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Spartacus Triumvirate</b>!
> NCBullsFan, just curious about an NBA like case of extortion.
> 
> Say the Bulls wanted Posey, but could live without him. They're prepared to offer him more than Houston could pay without going into LT land or more than Houston is willing to pay pure and simple. So Houston says look, if you don't tender him this offer so that we can keep him you won't owe us the conditional Bryce Drew draft pick. It'd sure be an interesting way to keep our potential first rounder. However, theres no doubt in my mind that this can't be done because
> ...


Or if Pax really wants Posey, how about lowering the protection on that pick in return for them promising not to match? Right now, it's top 20 protected for next year and becomes 2 2nd rounders if not conveyed. Maybe make it lottery protected or something else instead. That way, Houston has a better chance of benefitting from the Bulls' assumed better record as a result of getting Posey.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> If Pippen does turn us down, then here is what I would consider offering Posey.
> 
> The Houston Chronicle says (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/bk/bkn/2001971):
> ...


I need a little help here. Does all this data on Houston indicate that if Posey remains with the Rockets this season, whatever he plays for salary-wise will cost Houston double? In other words, lets say he remains with the Rockets and is paid the qualifying offer amount of $2.445 million. Because the Rockets have apparently already crossed the LT threshhold, Posey's contract will actually cost the Rockets $4.89 million? And if they want to match a Bulls offer of say $3 million the Rockets are actually assigning a value of $6 million to Posey? If that's the case, it doesn't seem like it will take much of an offer from Chicago to discourage the Rockets from matching.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Alot of time has been spent on this board talking about Jamal Crawford's performance over his last 20 games. So why don't we take a similar look at Posey's end of the season performance. For the months of March and April, a span of time that included 24 games, here's what he gave the Rockets:
> 
> *Minutes Per Game:* 30.1
> ...


That looks really good. I thought he was playing better than his season splits with Houston implied when I saw him a few times near the end of the season.

He looked really intense on defense, got out and ran the break well, and most importantly, he was the only guy I recall who made a conscious effort to get the ball to Yao. When they were struggling, he'd ask for the ball from Francis or Mobley just so he could dump it into Yao because he knew the other guys wouldn't. I don't remember much about his offensive game, but I know he can create on his own when needed, and as the percentages bear out, he can shoot effectively when not taking on too much.

We can't do much better. Someone tall and athletic that wants to play defense, can knock down the open shot, and is willing to feed our post players. After seeing how he finished the year, I want him over Pippen now.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

One thing I don't understand is why they only want to give him a short-term contract. How short? Rice and his $9.6 million salary comes off the books after this year, so can't they take a one-time hit if need be to secure the future of the SF position? The next extension comes in 05/06 when Griffin is up. Yao is the next year, but it appears to me that they have enough room for all of them.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> I need a little help here. Does all this data on Houston indicate that if Posey remains with the Rockets this season, whatever he plays for salary-wise will cost Houston double? In other words, lets say he remains with the Rockets and is paid the qualifying offer amount of $2.445 million. Because the Rockets have apparently already crossed the LT threshhold, Posey's contract will actually cost the Rockets $4.89 million? And if they want to match a Bulls offer of say $3 million the Rockets are actually assigning a value of $6 million to Posey? If that's the case, it doesn't seem like it will take much of an offer from Chicago to discourage the Rockets from matching.


From what I gather from Larry ****'s FAQ, it's actually worse than that. They'd be over the tax threshold, but under the cliff provision, so it might cost them as much as $3.80 on the dollar to retain him, although a team in that position can still be profitable.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Perhaps it's my ignorance, but I don't think I've ever seen a contract that actually DECREASES as the years go on. At least, not that much.

It makes a lot of sense, though.

What was being said earlier about Posey being a long-term answer at SF instead of a short-term patch is swift. I mentioned that in another thread.

Posey might be the final piece. We may be looking at the one-day-to-be championship roster of:

Crawford/Rose/Posey/Chandler/Curry

with

Hinrich/Fizer/Marshall/Jay Williams?/random FA's TBD at the time.

I doubt we could make a run at the Finals until after ERob's contract is up, which is fine with me, since I'd really hate to give him a ring when he's been something of a hindrance to the advancement of this ball club.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Perhaps it's my ignorance, but I don't think I've ever seen a contract that actually DECREASES as the years go on. At least, not that much.
> 
> It makes a lot of sense, though.
> ...


Bo Outlaw's is the only one that I know of off the top of my head. Hoopshype's data is gone from last year, but he'll make $5.955 this year and $5.355 next year. It was higher last year. But he's a vet nearing the end of his career, so it makes sense to decrease his price as his effectiveness presumably goes. I don't know how a 26 year old would handle that, but assuming he can either get a $23 million deal from Houston or Chicago but the Chicago deal is front loaded, Finance 101 tells you money today is worth more than money tomorrow. The only thing I'd worry about is the incentive effect where he'd be making less every year.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> I need a little help here. Does all this data on Houston indicate that if Posey remains with the Rockets this season, whatever he plays for salary-wise will cost Houston double? In other words, lets say he remains with the Rockets and is paid the qualifying offer amount of $2.445 million. Because the Rockets have apparently already crossed the LT threshhold, Posey's contract will actually cost the Rockets $4.89 million? And if they want to match a Bulls offer of say $3 million the Rockets are actually assigning a value of $6 million to Posey? If that's the case, it doesn't seem like it will take much of an offer from Chicago to discourage the Rockets from matching.


Right now, I am estimating next year's luxury tax threshold at $55.9 million, and I have the Rockets at about $54.6 million (the Houston Chronicle had them at about $55 million). Thus, the Rockets probably could stay under the luxury tax threshold if they didn't re-sign Posey. Counting luxury taxes and lost luxury/escrow tax distributions, I estimate that signing Posey to a $4.9 million first-year contract likely will cost the Rockets about $4.9 in salary, $4 to $4.9 in luxury taxes, and $7 to $10 million in lost distributions for a grand total of $16 to $20 million this year.

Even if the luxury tax is a 50/50 proposition this year, as I argue in another thread, they would lose part of the escrow distribution if the luxury tax does not kick in. Even in that case, signing Posey for $4.9 million likely would cost $7 to $10 million.

*So in summation, matching a $4.9 million first-year offer for Posey would have a 50 percent chance of costing the Rockets $7 to $10 million this year and 50 percent chance of costing them $16 to $20 million.* Posey's a nice player and all, but he is not that good.

In later years, the Rockets probably can stay under the luxury tax threshold, so I don't worry about those years. There is also a lower chance of a luxury tax in those years.

One thing that interests me though. What is it about Posey that makes him more attractive than Newble, other than the fact that he may still be available on Monday? To me, they seem like very similar players.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

NC,

I agree they appear to be similar.

My reason for preferring Posey - He just seems more athletic, more comfortable playing big, important minutes and has more experience playing minutes on this level.

At the beginning of the FA period (and today) - My choices in order of Preference:

1 - Magette (Knew he wouldn't be available and could only hope for S & T)
2 - Posey (heard even though a RFA he was attainable)
3 - Ira Newble 3-3.8 Million a season at most
4 - Stay Put and save the exception for a possible mid season trade (if that is possible)
5 - Scottie Pippen - one year only and then good bye


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Right now, I am estimating next year's luxury tax threshold at $55.9 million, and I have the Rockets at about $54.6 million (the Houston Chronicle had them at about $55 million). Thus, the Rockets probably could stay under the luxury tax threshold if they didn't re-sign Posey. Counting luxury taxes and lost luxury/escrow tax distributions, I estimate that signing Posey to a $4.9 million first-year contract likely will cost the Rockets about $4.9 in salary, $4 to $4.9 in luxury taxes, and $7 to $10 million in lost distributions for a grand total of $16 to $20 million this year.
> ...


Thanks very much for the explanation. I'll bet the players association never envisioned the LT becoming such a deterrant to teams locking up their better players. Negotiating the new CBA will be something to behold.

I can also understand why Paxson has reiterated his concern for the Bulls payroll status from year to year. Imagine drafting a player knowing his rookie contract could cost the organization up to three times as much as the salary itself. I can't think of any draftee worth that kind of risk.

From what you're saying, NC, Houston's between a rock and a hard place with Posey. I know you used the mid level max amout in your exhibit, but I presume any amount the Bulls offer, if matched, would have a comparable effect percentage-wise on the Rockets. So even a $3 million dollar salary in year one would cost Houston millions more if they matched.

The reality of the LT also means that teams are going to have to make hard choices from here on out. Most teams are going to have to cut loose some real talent to avoid the tax. San Antonio's process of paying two stars the big money while everyone else gets chump change may turn out to be the model for roster building from here on out. In other words, its conceivable that with 29 teams you'll end up with approximately 58 active max or near max contracts league wide while the rest of the players, 290 or so, will be playing for smaller and smaller amounts under shorter and shorter contracts.

I know thats an oversimplification and there will always be a few exceptions, but I see a real class system developing in the NBA on every roster between the haves and the can't haves.

But I digress. Sounds to me like Posey's ours if we want him. And if we do snatch him up long term, it may very well come at the expense of letting someone like Fizer walk next summer.


----------



## LuCane (Dec 9, 2002)

NC,

The only difference I see between them that should be taken into account would be that one turns 29 next season (Newble) and the other turns 27 (Posey).

Other than that, their respective skill sets are somewhat similar. They both are in the 6 7 to 6 8 range with the ability to play defense on the wing...I see Posey as having the ability to chip in offensively more than Newble, though their %'s from last year would indicate otherwise.

I guess the question, then, would be would you rather have a 26 year old signed for 4-5 years, or a 28 year old?


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Franchise</b>!
> Right now the Rockets have offered him a qualifying offer of 2.445 million. The Bulls will probably give him somewhere around $3.0 million to $3.5 million nothing more considering the big extensions they have to make next season. Doesn't seem like a big difference, but is for the Rockets, as it would push them over the luxury tax at $52.5. Les Alexander seems committed to pushing this team to the playoffs, and he has always dished out the money and brought in the stars when he had to, so I am pretty confident the Rockets will retain Posey.
> 
> Also, there is talk that the Rockets are going to sign Posey to a shorter deal -- since Rice's contract comes off next season, and then give him the idea that they will extend him.


I'm sure the Rox would like to retain him - for the $2.445M qualifying offer

And he is a guy that seems like a good fit for the Rox over time

Probably over 75% of the Rox's scoring output is going to come from Yao, Franchise and Cat. Rox forwards are going to need to be defenders first and foremost. Griffin has the most scoring potential on the forward line probably followed by Nachbar if he develops.

Therefore having a dedicated wing defender in Posey fits the Rox perfectly.

It is for the same reasons that I imagine the Bulls may have some interest as over say 60% of our offense will come from 3 players (we have a lower percentage in our key scoring nucleus of Curry, Rose and Crawford as we have more offensive firepower from our bench with Fizer, Marshall)

We have a strong similarities to the Rox in whatever mutual interest for Posey may be there. You guys have to shed salary so as not to transgress L Tax constraints before you offer him a long term deal with the money . So do we.

Our circumstances in this regard may not be as immediately pressing as yours but within 2 seasons they will be.

If we sign Posey and commit to term with him ( if that is what is motivating he and his agent ) you can almost put money on it that Fizer will be traded by midseason , or if not , by the next offseason , I would not expect the Bulls to try and keep him - I would expect them to withdraw his RFA status thereby triggering full free agent status so he and his agent can do the best they can for themselves wherever the best opportunity is for Marcus

Again , this is predicated upon Marcus not being shipped by midseason for a future 1st round draft pick ( ideally structured so it is targeted to be late lottery ) 

If Posey is signed to around $3M starting over a long term deal it would also suggest that Mgt has enough faith in being able to fill the back up Power forward spot with Lonny Baxter/Mario Austin types behind Tyson Chandler and that therefore, Donyell Marshall will likely be let go at the end of the remaining 2 years of his contract - IF , we are not a serious contender by then that he is materially contributing to - AND/OR if he does not resign for the $1.5M vets minimum at that time 

Posey's signing for the money and term being suggested would also suggest we will not make any other notable MLE signings for another 3 or 4 years if we keep Rose and ERob and extend Crawford to around $6M starting ( Gil Arenas type money ) and Curry and Chandler to max or 80% of max contracts.

Our free agency is likely to be relegated to minimum vet signings for 2nd and 3rd string role player types

IMO , if Posey truly wants to stay with the Rox , he should just take a 1 year deal and go back to the market next year - the Rox will either pony up some more with what they have available with Glen Rice money or he will still get his longer term deal starting at around $3M with another ball club.

True wing defenders with his type of size are not overly common - he and his agent should have faith . He'll eventually get an appropriate contract . It's just a matter of whether they want to give the Rox the benefit of the doubt in the short term with the opportunity for them to do the right thing next season .

Having said that if the Rox are sincere they should not give him unrealistic expectations ( see Shard and Sonics last summer ) they should tell him and his agent where they see his market now so as to avid the angst of next summer if he and his agent sit down to renegotiate with the Rox


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Thanks very much for the explanation. I'll bet the players association never envisioned the LT becoming such a deterrant to teams locking up their better players. Negotiating the new CBA will be something to behold.
> 
> I can also understand why Paxson has reiterated his concern for the Bulls payroll status from year to year. Imagine drafting a player knowing his rookie contract could cost the organization up to three times as much as the salary itself. I can't think of any draftee worth that kind of risk.
> ...


It is interesting that you buy my estimates of how much Posey will cost next year, but then completely ignore the fact that I don't think there will be a luxury tax in 2004-05 (and probably the next couple of years after). How come?

One other thing. For a smaller first-year offer, it is not exactly percentage-wise smaller total cost, but it is somewhat close. And with this particular signing, if the Bulls do not use a decreasing salary structure as I have suggested, I just do not understand what they are thinking. [strike]And I question how well they understand the luxury/escrow tax system.[/strike]


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> One other thing. For a smaller first-year offer, it is not exactly percentage-wise smaller total cost, but it is somewhat close. And with this particular signing, if the Bulls do not use a decreasing salary structure as I have suggested, I just do not understand what they are thinking. And I question how well they understand the luxury/escrow tax system.


I would not underestimate them at all

It just may mean that they have already resolved Fizer is either cashed in for a future 1st round pick that matures say 4 seasons forward , OR , he is made a URFA next summer - AND , Yell is not resigned to anything past the vets minimum, if at all, if Tyson is to earn his paydirt and the reserve minutes can be filled capably by Baxter and Austin types.

This means that the $5M'ish they would have to pay Posey when it hurts most 3 years forward , they are confident enough in spiltting this cost between Curry, Chandler and Crawford's contracts ( ultimately when they are re-upped )

Perhaps more significantly , it may also signify that Reinsdorf and the others with a proprietorial stake realise a moral obligation to the true stakeholder - the paying customers

Yes that's right. Poor useless sods like us that have lined these fatcats pockets and ultimately are the very reason why they have been so fabulously profitable

Sometimes it pays to pay . But I agree to the extent that it will have to be based on some degree of financial rationalism that directly relates to a satisfactory physical product ( that is ; a winning ballclub in the playoffs that does have room for growth ) 

The thing of it is NC , is that as much as all owners would want their cake and eat it too , it is more improbable than probable that you will ever be a contender with a genuine shot to win at all - and still be amongst the most profitable in the league at the same time

And also know this - there is ego in ownership with factors in commercial decision making that are not as cut and dried in more traditional "products" and accompanying business models that rely on harder line financial rationalism 

Sure if you are a marginal team that is not genuinely contending - more traditional harder line decision making processes based on the bottom line are bound to apply 

Why ? Because there is nothing there in the "product" to really inspire the patrons - and that's what true owners are like . Like art or entertainment patrons.

Because they are there for love . Its just that they also want to make money at the same time as well or this impulse may predominate if the "luuuurvve" factor - the inspiration factor is not there in being the best of the best

In this league at the moment there are probably only 4 maybe 5 teams out of 29 that are genuinely contending being the Lakers, Nets, Kings, Spurs and maybe Dallas ( but I am not convinced about Dallas as they are structurally flawed as a team )

Everyone else is just treading water

Each of those "contenders"exceed the L Tax with the exception of the Spurs . In their case I think it is fortune in circumstances more than anything else. I mean who would have though they would have yielded Parker and Ginobli with their late 1st and 2nd round picks respectively. Steve Jackson has been a marginal journey man at every other stop and shined under Pop.

Anyway the Spurs have had luck in their circumstances but they are real pros right through their organisation and have made the best of the circumstances. Good luck to them.

My point is if you want to contend you will pay for it and no one will be immune. Your profits will decrease. Fact of life.

There is no romance without finance


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> It is interesting that you buy my estimates of how much Posey will cost next year, but then completely ignore the fact that I don't think there will be a luxury tax in 2004-05 (and probably the next couple of years after). How come?


I'm not as deep of a thinker on that subject as you are...that's why I ask such rudimentary questions. 
:whoknows:

Actually, John Paxson has repeatedly raised the issue of the LT as a serious future concern for the franchise. One could then draw the conclusion that your projections and those of Irwin Mandel differ. Are you asking me to take sides over this issue?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Guys, I'll stay out of the finances, but I still think I'll have something to say.

As John Paxon set out our agenda, it is clear that his preferences are in this order:

1. Pippen
2. Newble
3. Posey

Posey clearly is option number 3. We could have been courting him the whole time should we have wanted. The fact that he remains restricted is what might have demoted him, say, behind Newble. But the fact is that Mr. Newble's agent, clearly hoping to force our hand by suggesting we were out of the running on Friday, has not finalized anything yet. No Cleveland deal, no Memphis deal. What's to stop him for waiting just one more evening, until Sunday, when we are suppoosedly getting the word from Scottie?

To me, if Scottie's not available, Ira still will be, and regardless of what Pax likes Newble or Posey better as a player, once Newble signs a contract, he's ours, and once Posey signs an offer sheet...well, maybe he's ours, maybe he's not.

So I say write it down: Pippen or Newble signs with us tomorrow night, or at least confirms their intention to sign.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> So I say write it down: Pippen or Newble signs with us tomorrow night, or at least confirms their intention to sign.


 You're good! But you need to calibrate the datestamp on your soothseeing just a bit.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Qwerty123</b>!
> 
> 
> You're good! But you need to calibrate the datestamp on your soothseeing just a bit.


I know...the news came down before I finished my post! Well, all's well that ends well.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>NCBullsFan</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry, FJ. I was making a much, much smaller point that the Bulls should offer a decreasing salary contract to Posey in order to maximize the probability that Houston would not match it (a moot point now).


Actually decreasing individual player contracts in order to manage payroll in the bigger picture is a very interesting concept

And I wonder why it has not been employed more in the current CBA - particularly over the last 2 seasons or so 

What exactly are the rules that make this possible . Does it have be tiered in the same way as increases on the way up?? I have had a quick scan through Larry ****'s document but I cannot seem to pinpoint anything definitive

The reason why I ask is because I am interested in the concept of : 

A. Securitising player contracts 

or 

B.Factoring the face value of the totality of the contract back to a Net Present Value ( after appropriate discounting takes place ) 

I just wonder :

A. If this is possible in the context of the current CBA as either option would necessitate the prepayment of a term contract after discounting had occurred - how would something like this get counted for against the cap ??

and

B. Under the assumption that it is not possible whether the players union would be interested in such a concept and take it forward in their considerations / future CBA negotiations

The basic concept basically surrounds time value of money ( in terms of benefit for the players ) IE a dollar in my hand is worth double today as opposed to waiting on future receipt of guaranteed payment - on the premise that money makes money 

What are your thoughts ?

Fancy expanding the think tank into labour reform as to how playes should get paid for the capacity for more immediate financial benefit ??


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

FJ-
Are you suggesting paying players in one lump sum or simply discounting the entire contract for determining how much a team can offer within cap constraints? The current system does seem a little arcane in that only the first year dollars count in determining if a team can sign a player, but maybe it's a necessary simplfying convention. I'm willing to bounce ideas around with you, but what do you have in mind?


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

From good old Larry ****'s site:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#44

*44. How about for the other players? Is there a limit to the length of a contract or the raise a player can receive?*

Yes. When the Larry Bird exception is used, a player can sign for a maximum of seven years with a maximum increase or decrease of 12.5% per year. For contracts signed using the Early Bird exception, it's a maximum of six years with 12.5% increases or decreases. For most other contracts, the limit is six years with a maximum 10% increase or decrease each year. 

I don't think we see many decreasing value contracts, because most teams usually are in a position of trying to maximize the value of their salary cap room or their exceptions, thus leading to maximum raises in many cases.

Also, financial creativity is not a great strength of many GMs. I just don't think they think of these things.

Now I will have to think more about the rest of your post, because you always make me feel how others must feel when they read some of my posts.

I have read it a half-dozen times and still don't quite understand what you are saying.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Qwerty123</b>!
> FJ-
> Are you suggesting paying players in one lump sum or simply discounting the entire contract for determining how much a team can offer within cap constraints?


They are both related 

For example :

Agent X has 5 sexy studs that have just all signed $100M contracts that have a life of 7 years . For the sake of simplicity let's assume they all get paid the same over the term 

Agent X approaches The Director of Capital Markets at Bonds R Us Investment Bank and says :

"Hey guy - I've got $500M of sexy stud sports contracts and my fellas want the money owed to them over the life of the contract paid to them now - how about it are you interested in underwriting a securitised issue ?"

Bud Fox ( Director of Capital Markets at Bonds R Us ) then arranges for the credit rating of the organisations that are responsible for future payments that the players ( and now the bond holders ) will receive under the contracts and it is on this basis of credit rating that a coupon rate will be determined relative to the assessed risk of such credit rating.

This coupon rate ( let's assume 10% ) effectively becomes the discount rate to the players contract as well as being the fixed interest income on the principal amount of the overall bonded issue.

So for every individual player in this bonded issue ( there are 5 of them for an overall issue of $500M ) there is a $100M contract over 7 years .

By securitising the series of future payments they are entitled to under their contract to a group of 3rd parties ( the holders of the bonds ) it is going to cost them :

*10M in interest payments ( which are discounted off the face value )

* Whatever Fees Bonds R Us Investment Bank charge in the process although their principal earn would be tied up as their "arb" ( arbitarge ) tied into the coupon rate - meaning, the credit rating may be there at 8% and they sell yield on the bonded issue into the capital markets at 10% and therefore pick up 2% ( $1M ) on the issue

This is a rudimentary explantion of securitisation.

*the real issue for the player is :

Is it better to receive $90M today ( less taxes ) or $100M over 7 years ( less taxes ) *

The real question is if I pay $10M off the top for the benefit of having that money now does the lump sum of $90M ( less taxes ) that I get paid now make me much more than my cost of $10M over a period of 7 years based on the benefit of having access to this resource ( yes cash is a resource ) that supposedly will make me more money now 

* Question *

Is there anything in the current CBA that prohibits such a practice?

If so is this somewhat restraining seeing as though it does not contemplate stressing the cashflow the owners ? They still pay at the same rate and frequency over time.

*Question*

If this was possible , how would you account for the counting of it against salary cap for the life of the individual player's contract given that he receives the entirety of his contract ( minus costs of securistisation ) upfront 

Do you average it ? Or does it stay aligned to the series of payments the owners would be obligated to make to the bondholders ?


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Actually its a securitised/factoring hybrid product as the item being bonded does not generate an annuity of its own like in bonded ( securitised ) real estate issues that generate rental income or mortgage payments to generate income to pay the yield to bondholders after the issue is rated

Therefore you have to discount the item/product being bonded to account for the yield due to the bondholders after the product has been rated by Standard and Poors or whoever

On this basis then its a securitised/factoring hybrid


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

Wow, you were talking about literally securitizing the contract into an asset backed security. I'm pretty familiar with the process. Interesting. Financial engineering gets weirder everyday.

The whole idea behind the process is to carve out risks from a stream of cash flows and distribute them to people who are willing to pay to take them on.

Some players might think they want all their money up front, but what happens when they've squandered all the money from a 7-year contract after 2?

For the investors, it's a lot like any other asset backed security. You could buy into cash flows with different durations. The unique risks that come to mind immediately are: contracts being voided, contracts being paid off or reworked, or changes in the CBA. Maybe the most alluring quality of such an asset would be the novelty of it--you can get a check from a pro sports team. Someone might be willing to pay for that.

This is probably going too far, but what if you could make options on players, where their "price" is based on their earning power over their career. You could buy an option on LeBron James, for example, where if he signs a max deal over the course of his career, the option writer would pay you based on a notional principal. This isn't really a financial option (you don't have a claim to LeBron's paycheck), but instead, think of it like the Saddam Futures that are basically a bet on when Saddam will be killed. This would be a way for fans/investors to bet on the success of players. Man I'm feeling nerdy today.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FJ_of _Rockaway</b>!
> They are both related
> 
> For example :
> ...


Let me respond here rather than in the PM, in case others just can't seem to find their sleeping pills.

Teams can pay out 25 percent of a contract in the form of a signing bonus and can accelerate 70 percent of each year's salary to be paid on the first day possible. So teams have some flexibility to push payments earlier.

However, the amount of money a player is paid in a given year and the amount he counts towards the salary cap/luxury tax are two different things which often do not resemble each other much. Signing bonuses are allocated back evenly to all of the years of the contract and for the accounting for salary cap/luxury tax purposes, the salary cannot rise or fall more than 10 percent of the first-year salary in any given year (12.5 percent if signing with your own team).

That said, teams rarely take advantage of these options to squeeze out more value from their exceptions, maximum contracts, room under the salary cap, etc. Thus, I am not sure how much interest there would be in the ideas that you are proposing, since they would be more in that direction.

And I don't believe this is due to lack of a market (at least not now). I believe that the League has received a huge line of credit that I suspect could be used by teams to do just the sorts of things you are proposing. (I have never taken a class in finance in my life, so all of your terminology is new to me.) So perhaps over time, teams will move more in that direction.

Hopefully, this is helpful, but I am treading a bit on thin ice here, since as I said before, the only bit of finance that I have ever seen is what I got in an undergraduate money and banking course, so I am hardly an expert on this kind of stuff. My research areas are primarily heavily empirical policy applications in the areas of labor and public economics, such as research on welfare and tax programs.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Most companies keep three sets of books:
1) Audited financial statements, registered with the SEC, according to GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles)
2) Income Tax returns
3) The books they use internally which actually make sense and have the information useful for making business decisions.

Looks like the NBA has FOUR sets of books ;-)

4) The books they present to the league for purposes of CBA calculations.

The set of books that is the only one that truly matters, in terms of a business' viability is #3. Which is why I take issue with those who only look at the #4 set of books, or the #4 and #1 set of books combined.

A player will consider his #3 set of books when looking at contract, though he may also have an ego issue. 

If a player can earn $1M in salary, but $130M in endorsments by playing for a specific team, he would be better off than accepting a $40M salary and $40M in endorsements. 

Makes sense. 

Now ego comes into play when a player is simply so competitive it is important to be the highest paid player. For example, Jordan was making so much in endorsements, his NBA contract at $40M was only a fraction of his earnings. If he put his ego aside, he might have accepted a tiny salary so the team could allocate $$$ to FAs or to Pippen, or whatever.

Another example(s) of ego would be the willingness of Karl Malone and Gary Payton to accept minimal salaries for the opportunity to be part of one of the better teams in NBA history.

Peace!


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Does anyone think Pax was right tochoose Pip over Posey with the emphasis he placed onwinning now .I think with pips injury history he wouldve went with Posey.I think with a fulltime defensive stopper and sf we couldve squeezed out 2-3 of the games that Pip missed at least .


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

OUCHHHHH


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

it was a dumb move takin pip over a younger guy.sure it wil be nice to have pip go out a bull but it didnt help the team at all...


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

Hindsight certainly suggests that Posey would have been the better choice.

However, at the time, Jalen Rose was still a member of the Bulls and Jamal Crawford was a 4th year player who was somehow going to have to get some serious floor time so that the organization could determine if he should be considered part of the Bulls future or not.

Adding Posey, a very nice role player, would have compicated matters minute-wise. Adding Pippen, who knew his minutes would be limited in Chicago, wouldn't have effected Rose's and Crawford's PT nearly as much.

At that time who would have known Rose would end up being traded, creating a void at the swing position that would have been better filled by a guy capable of playing full time minutes like Posey?

There's something else to consider. Posey's not the kind of player who can create his own offensive opportunities. As anyone can plainly see, beyond Hinrich and Crawford, the Bulls lack a creative wing player who can successfully go one on one when necessary.

Posey's a great fit in Memphis because he's surrounded by talented offensive players like Williams, Miller, Wells and Gasol. That means Posey can concentrate on doing the things he's best at without having to assume the role of a primary scoring option.

I'm still of a belief that Paxson's main objective between now and the summer draft is to locate and acquire a highly skilled wing player who can create for himself and his teammates and play competent defense at the same time. As solid as Posey's been for the Grizz, he'll never fit the bill as a consistent first, second or third scoring option.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> I'm still of a belief that Paxson's main objective between now and the summer draft is to locate and acquire a highly skilled wing player who can create for himself and his teammates and play competent defense at the same time. As solid as Posey's been for the Grizz, he'll never fit the bill as a consistent first, second or third scoring option.


How about Gasol?

Some think he's totally mis-used down on the blocks. The dude's got a three point shot we've never seen in the NBA, and is very quick.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I was for Posey getting signed all along. Hell, I wanted to trade for the guy before he was traded to Memphis!


----------



## C Blizzy (Nov 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> How about Gasol?
> ...


I don't know, Mike. His biggest shortcoming always seemed to be his defense. Can he guard on the perimeter? I could see him matched up with a Chandler or a Curry but not with both at the same time. With one or the other of our two bigs he'd be a very effective high/low player by being able to bring opponents PF's away from the basket with his ability to hit the outside shot. In Memphis he's been forced to post up just to give the Grizz some kind of inside power game. Without a doubt he's miscast in that role. But if Memphis can acquire a legitimate post threat then you'll really see Pao flourish as he starts to move his game outside more.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>C Blizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't know, Mike. His biggest shortcoming always seemed to be his defense. Can he guard on the perimeter? I could see him matched up with a Chandler or a Curry but not with both at the same time. With one or the other of our two bigs he'd be a very effective high/low player by being able to bring opponents PF's away from the basket with his ability to hit the outside shot. In Memphis he's been forced to post up just to give the Grizz some kind of inside power game. Without a doubt he's miscast in that role. But if Memphis can acquire a legitimate post threat then you'll really see Pao flourish as he starts to move his game outside more.


Defensively... I'm not too impressed, but I do think he's a very athletic guy. I wouldn't want him on TMac, but I could say that about most everyone in the league.

I wonder what Jerry West thinks of Curry. I'd imagine not much, but I'd also be intrigued by say, Curry and Fizer for Gasol and Miller or even Battier. They've been building up all those swing players to trade for a big, and Curry is a big.... and short of him, who else is out there they would even conceivably go after?

The Griz:
1- JWill, Watson, Bell
2- Wells, Jones
3- Posey, Battier
4- Wright, Swift, Fizer
5- Curry, (Wright), Jake Tonsilitis

That looks like a pretty good roster if Curry turns out... and Swift has been coming along very nicely.

The Bulls:
Kirk, Miller, Pau, AD, Chandler
or
Kirk, Jamal, Miller, Pau, Chandler

depending on matchups and whatnot


----------



## Zeus (Jul 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> I wonder what Jerry West thinks of Curry. I'd imagine not much, but I'd also be intrigued by say, Curry and Fizer for Gasol and Miller or even Battier. They've been building up all those swing players to trade for a big, and Curry is a big.... and short of him, who else is out there they would even conceivably go after?


no thanks. the Grizz don't get better with that trade. when the Fizer/Battier "rumors" were floating around last summer, Jerry said to the local media, "why would we want to trade one of our good guys for another team's trash?", and i totally agree.


----------

