# Songaila pays Bulls a visit (merged)



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



> Sacramento forward Darius Songaila visited the Berto Center on Wednesday to meet with Bulls general manager John Paxson and the coaching staff
> Songaila is a restricted free agent and it’s unclear whether the Bulls plan to sign him to an offer sheet or try to negotiate a trade with the Kings. Complicating matters is the fact that Sacramento’s payroll is already above the luxury-tax threshold, so the Kings do not want to take on any players in return.
> 
> “We’re going to pursue this (the Bulls’ interest) and hopefully it will work itself out,” said Songaila’s agent, Mark Bartelstein.
> ...


http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp



> By adding Songaila to the roster, the Bulls would have extra depth in case center Eddy Curry is unable to play *or decides to retire * because of a heart condition. For now, the Bulls expect Curry to play next season. The team could also cut down the workload of Antonio Davis, who turns 37 on Oct. 31.


I assume it will take more than a 1 year grtd contract , but still I say for what we can offer (2.2 mil tops) he's worth cutting into our cap next year a little since he's defenitely worth that kind of money , a solid guy to have of the bench for our rotation.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



> “We’re going to pursue this (the Bulls’ interest) and hopefully it will work itself out,” said Songaila’s agent, Mark Bartelstein


Let's hope Bartelstein helps it work itself out in the Bulls favor. He seems good at getting trades done for his clients. Songaila would give the Bulls a lot of flexibility.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

I heard the Bulls were going to take him to a Destiny's Child concert, but he booked home early. :uhoh:


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

If yesterdays rumor is true (Allen getting the 3 year 7.1 mil from the remainder of our mle ) *it only leaves us with the LLE for Songaila* which might mean we must do this via some kind of trade , since I don't think it will be enough...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

BTW: Props to Mike McGraw for once again out-classing the competition, and actually following what is going on at the Berto Center. You know, like a Bulls beat writer might expect to do.


Maaaaaaaarlennnn...where AAAAAAARE yoooooouuu?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



bullet said:


> If yesterdays rumor is true (Allen getting the 3 year 7.1 mil from the remainder of our mle ) *it only leaves us with the LLE for Songaila* which might mean we must do this via some kind of trade , since I don't think it will be enough...


3 years guaranteed for that guy?

Ugh. :krazy: 

So much for next year's cap space.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



Mikedc said:


> 3 years guaranteed for that guy?
> 
> Ugh. :krazy:
> 
> So much for next year's cap space.


I'm guessing only the first year is guaranteed.

But if you are right? Double-ugh.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



Mikedc said:


> 3 years guaranteed for that guy?
> 
> Ugh. :krazy:
> 
> So much for next year's cap space.


Since only the daily southtown has reported any numbers, I'm waiting to see what the other news sources come up with. It's possible they over-reported, which as we've seen this summer happens alot with undisclosed contracts. There also might team options in there somewhere. (Hoping at least)

I trust that Pax will leave enough room under to cap to make some noise next summer. It's been part of his plan for a long time, and he's not foolish enough to throw it away for run of the mill type players. It's also possible that the Bulls know something we don't know about Eddy Curry, which would have a direct impact on the cap situation as well.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



bullsville said:


> I'm guessing only the first year is guaranteed.
> 
> But if you are right? Double-ugh.



I guess Pax knew that those photos of he and the Alsation would come back and haunt him one day


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



> By adding Songaila to the roster, the Bulls would have extra depth in case center Eddy Curry is unable to play or *decides to retire* because of a heart condition.


I hope I hope I HOPE McGraw's just been reading the boards and that this is an infrequent lapse into discredibility, and not something that he's picked up on his own from his fairly reliable sources.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

Maybe McGraw is Tech 9?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

OK, I just noticed this in Ladewski's "report"-

*Meanwhile, indications are that unrestricted free-agent forward Othella Harrington will be re-signed by the Bulls later in the week.*

Uh, hello, Paul- all you need is MyBulls free email to know that the Bulls have already announced that Harrington has already signed.

I don't think I'll put any stock at all in that "article"...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



Mikedc said:


> 3 years guaranteed for that guy?
> 
> Ugh. :krazy:
> 
> So much for next year's cap space.


If guaranteed I agree, but the article doesn't say that. 

It would surprise me very much if Paxson put a $2+ million dent in next season's capspace for Malik Allen. I find it highly unlikely that anything beyond the first year is guaranteed.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



bullet said:


> If yesterdays rumor is true (Allen getting the 3 year 7.1 mil from the remainder of our mle ) *it only leaves us with the LLE for Songaila* which might mean we must do this via some kind of trade , since I don't think it will be enough...



mcgraw speculates the bulls have 2.2 to spend on songaila in his article. 

i would believe him before i would believe the daily southtown guy who is, as scottmay said, not exactly plugged in. yesterday when i went to click on the malik allen article link, a story about a golf course appeared. (obviously they fixed the link but it was up most of yesterday).

and as bullsville points out they are way behind on the inking of othella which was officially announced _by the team yesterday_, but the news of the deal appeared on MONDAY in the tribune. 

i think the southtown article is wrong.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



bullsville said:


> Maybe McGraw is Tech 9?


Nope, not the same guy.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



rlucas4257 said:


> Nope, not the same guy.


Yeah, I know, I was just kidding.

UNLESS, of course, McGraw comes on the internet representing himself as a teenager?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



bullsville said:


> Yeah, I know, I was just kidding.
> 
> UNLESS, of course, McGraw comes on the internet representing himself as a teenager?


I think Tech is no longer a teenager but just barely.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



rlucas4257 said:


> I think Tech is no longer a teenager but just barely.


Yeah, but he was only 17 or 18 when he started posting as Tech.

Who knows, maybe McGraw cruises the internet looking for hot teenage (18 and older) chicks? Not that there's anything wrong with it...


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



mizenkay said:


> mcgraw speculates the bulls have 2.2 to spend on songaila in his article.
> 
> i would believe him before i would believe the daily southtown guy who is, as scottmay said, not exactly plugged in. yesterday when i went to click on the malik allen article link, a story about a golf course appeared. (obviously they fixed the link but it was up most of yesterday).
> 
> ...


The Southtown article would be very wrong if we have 2.2 million available for Songaila. If Allen's deal came as part of the LLE, and I think we all hope it did (and for only one year), then Allen's deal could only be a maximum of two years. 

Gosh, I hope we didn't give Allen a multiyear guaranteed deal out of our MLE. I would be scratching my head at that. However, I am glad we grabbed a big man as insurance. We still haven't signed either of our twin towers.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> The Southtown article would be very wrong if we have 2.2 million available for Songaila. If Allen's deal came as part of the LLE, and I think we all hope it did (and for only one year), then Allen's deal could only be a maximum of two years.
> 
> Gosh, I hope we didn't give Allen a multiyear guaranteed deal out of our MLE. I would be scratching my head at that. However, I am glad we grabbed a big man as insurance. We still haven't signed either of our twin towers.




i just emailed mcgraw about this. hopefully he answers and clears up the confusion. stay tuned.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

*the reply from mcgraw:*




> Paxson would not tell us which exception they gave to Allen. At this point, I'm not sure what he got, but I'm sure I'll figure it out soon. The Southtown has a 50 percent chance of being right, but I can't confirm it right now. I doubt if they gave Allen more than one year guaranteed since that's all Othella got.
> 
> By the way, it's nice to know there is at least one woman on those message boards. I was actually wondering about that recently. I like the message boards because they keep up on all the news I don't have time to check. For instance, I wouldn't have known Ric Bucher mentioned Songaila to the Bulls during his chat if I didn't see it on the boards. I had asked Paxson about Songaila a couple days earlier and he downplayed it.
> 
> ...






:biggrin:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

Manly, yes, but I like it too!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



DaBullz said:


> Manly, yes, but I like it too!



are you this passive-aggressive in your real life?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

Hey, it was McGraw who was surprised there'd be a woman basketball fan, or enough of a fan to find a msg board.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



DaBullz said:


> Hey, it was McGraw who was surprised there'd be a woman basketball fan, or enough of a fan to find a msg board.


I'm telling you, McGraw usually cruises the internet as Tech, so he can hit on teenage girls (over 18, of course).

Most "ladies" on the basketball boards are no longer teenagers, so McGraw didn't see them. :biggrin:


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

Back on topic, I appreciate the effort to contact McGraw, mizenkay. And I doubly appreciate McGraw's speedy response. He seems to share very similar thoughts as most of us regarding Allen's contract, in that it is likely (or should be) 1 year guarenteed. But honestly, I'm not ready to go ballistic if it's more than 1 year, because we may still have enough room under the cap next summer to make an offer starting at $10-12M. It's hard to tell until this off-season is over and done with.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



yodurk said:


> Back on topic, I appreciate the effort to contact McGraw, mizenkay. And I doubly appreciate McGraw's speedy response. He seems to share very similar thoughts as most of us regarding Allen's contract, in that it is likely (or should be) 1 year guarenteed. But honestly, I'm not ready to go ballistic if it's more than 1 year, because we may still have enough room under the cap next summer to make an offer starting at $10-12M. It's hard to tell until this off-season is over and done with.




thanks yodurk, i appreciate that.

so mcgraw says that pax _declined to say_ which exception allen got, yet the southtown says: *According to industry sources, the deal is believed to be for three years at a total of $7.1 million.*. 

(nitpick: isn't it "league sources" not "industry sources"? weird.)

hmm. while mcgraw says it's a 50-50 proposition as to who is right, i am still betting on him, and not southtown paul. 

just call it feminine intuition.


:smilewink


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

Wait a minute....Mizenkay is a woman?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



Aesop said:


> Wait a minute....Mizenkay is a woman?


Yes, and a very attractive woman at that, I might add.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

[so mcgraw says that pax _declined to say_ which exception allen got, yet the southtown says: *According to industry sources, the deal is believed to be for three years at a total of $7.1 million.*. 

(nitpick: isn't it "league sources" not "industry sources"? weird.)[/QUOTE]

It would be "league", basketball isn't an industry. Accuracy is important!

Has anyone ever heard what the FAs and Paxson and Skiles talk about during the mutual sales pitches? I heard Paxson quoted as saying they liked what Malik had to say, and Malik liked what they had to say......I'd like to know what they all said.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



bullsville said:


> Yes, and a very attractive woman at that, I might add.


That's a plus, considering she's a sports fan (extra good company).


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

I will note that the last couple of times I e-mailed Mike, I got no response.
Sometimes being a woman in a man's environment (sports wonk message boards, for instance) pays off. Show'm a l'il leg, Miz! 

:laugh:



Thanks for the follow up. Interesting to see how Pax played coy about this deal, both before and after the fact.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



Aesop said:


> Wait a minute....Mizenkay is a woman?




Holy Shiznit Batgirl...........They found out your secret identity........


Wait a second, MIZ IS A WOMAN????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Somehow balance in the world just shifted..................


And somehow, it seems like a much ebtter place..........

Work your magic Miz. Allen at the remaining 2.2 was not a good deal At the LLE, it was a good deal.


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



chifaninca said:


> Holy Shiznit Batgirl...........They found out your secret identity........
> 
> 
> Wait a second, MIZ IS A WOMAN????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...


The most amazing thing about Miz being a woman is the commendable behavior of this board. When a woman is identified on other sports message board I've visited, the amount of condescension or flirting by the majority of posters has been nauseating. The fact that I have been a frequent lurker (and sporadic poster) on this board and not realized her gender speaks volumes about the character of the posters on this board.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



Aesop said:


> The most amazing thing about Miz being a woman is the commendable behavior of this board. When a woman is identified on other sports message board I've visited, the amount of condescension or flirting by the majority of posters has been nauseating. The fact that I have been a frequent lurker (and sporadic poster) on this board and not realized her gender speaks volumes about the character of the posters on this board.


True, but the amazing thing is that Miz is a very attractive woman who posted her picture, and she still doesn't get hit on.

If she looked like the Fabulous Sports Babe and posted her pic, nobody would care. But in the picture I saw, she's got the Lisa Loeb thing going on, which makes all of our restraint commendable.

Well, and I'm married and my wife sometimes reads the board, that makes a difference too.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

edit: never mind


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

How come Miz gets the royal treatment from Mike McGraw?

I've been emailing Mike McGraw for months about him doing an exclusive interview with me. He never responded. Well he lost his chance. Recently I signed a contract with ESPN for my own sports show. It will air this Winter!


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



sloth said:


> How come Miz gets the royal treatment from Mike McGraw?
> 
> I've been emailing Mike McGraw for months about him doing an exclusive interview with me. He never responded. Well he lost his chance. Recently I signed a contract with ESPN for my own sports show. It will air this Winter!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalomania


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

^^^^^^^^^
l l l l l l l l l l l l 

Sloth, you know I'm just busting your chops. :cheers:


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

Another day has passed, and still no article in the Tribune, as they release their Friday sports articles Thursday night. Come on Marlen, figure this **** out and tell us the deal: how much did Allen really sign for, and what's the deal with Songaila?


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

*McGraw: Kings won't match Songaila!!*



> The Sacramento Kings will not match an offer sheet given to restricted free agent Darius Songaila, according to numerous league sources.


http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=87143

He also mentions the possibility of a trade, but then says a trade is not likely. Get it done Pax!!


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*McGraw sources say Songaila won't be matched*



> *The Sacramento Kings will not match an offer sheet given to restricted free agent Darius Songaila, according to numerous league sources* .
> Kings general manager Geoff Petrie even suggested to the Sacramento Bee that his team’s roster is complete, except for the future addition of a low-cost 13th man.
> 
> “The roster we have at the moment, the way it’s comprised, are the guys who will play all the minutes,” Petrie said.
> ...


Thats in case we offer him a contract...

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull261.html



> Sacramento Kings forward Darius Songaila met for a second day with Bulls general manager John Paxson on Thursday. A restricted free agent, Songaila toured the Berto Center and met with some of the coaching staff Wednesday. He is scheduled to leave town today.
> 
> "It was like a recruiting visit,'' said Mark Bartelstein, Songaila's Chicago-based agent. "There is a lot of interest from both sides.''
> 
> ...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



sloth said:


> How come Miz gets the royal treatment from Mike McGraw?
> 
> I've been emailing Mike McGraw for months about him doing an exclusive interview with me. He never responded. Well he lost his chance. Recently I signed a contract with ESPN for my own sports show. It will air this Winter!


:rotf:

Now that was freaking funny


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

The Kings couldn't match if they wanted to, since they've used their MLE, so I don't think that's the issue.

However, a sign and trade would still be beneficial for us since a) We wouldn't have to pay both Pike and Songaila, b) we'd still have a fair amount of our MLE left, or a trade exception.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> The Kings couldn't match if they wanted to, since they've used their MLE, so I don't think that's the issue.
> 
> However, a sign and trade would still be beneficial for us since a) We wouldn't have to pay both Pike and Songaila, b) we'd still have a fair amount of our MLE left, or a trade exception.


Right. The key to a S&T is to preserve our ability to outright sign somebody. It's not a huge deal to have Pike sitting around on our books, but as his contract is expiring, a team would be more than willing to take it on and get a 3-point specialist for a year. Songaila would get paid more. The Bulls would keep their spending cash.

It's the more ideal way to go. 

I'm sorry to hear in the article that Pargo is now all but completely out of the picture. He'll do another team well.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

> "The Sacramento Kings will not match an offer sheet given to restricted free agent Darius Songaila, according to numerous league sources. Kings general manager Geoff Petrie even suggested to the Sacramento Bee that his team’s roster is complete, except for the future addition of a low-cost 13th man." Arlington Heights Daily Herald
> 
> "If that’s the case, Songaila appears headed to the Bulls. Before finishing a two-day visit to the Berto Center on Thursday, the 6-foot-9 forward spent time checking out real estate, according to one source. The Bulls could sign Songaila to an offer sheet using their remaining salary-cap exception (worth either $1.7 million or $2.2 million) but may spend a few more days trying to orchestrate a three-team deal that would allow them to pay Songaila a higher salary." Arlington Heights Daily Herald
> 
> "Sacramento Kings forward Darius Songaila met for a second day with Bulls general manager John Paxson on Thursday. A restricted free agent, Songaila toured the Berto Center and met with some of the coaching staff Wednesday. He is scheduled to leave town today." Chicago Sun-Times


Appears to be headed to the Bulls! Sounds good to me. I wouldn't mind having to pay for Pike and Songaila and would actually prefer to have both on our team next year, after all it's not coming out of my pockets.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I personally think we could do without pike...

he didn't do much last season...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Enrico Fermi, when asked if he believed in aliens, said "where are they?"

Where is he?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



Darius Miles Davis said:


> Another day has passed, and still no article in the Tribune, as they release their Friday sports articles Thursday night. Come on Marlen, figure this **** out and tell us the deal: how much did Allen really sign for, and what's the deal with Songaila?



_The Bulls' pursuit of restricted free agent Darius Songaila continues, and it hardly will be a surprise if the 6-foot-8-inch power forward gets an offer soon from general manager John Paxson.

Songaila visited Paxson at the Berto Center on Wednesday, but several teams remain interested in the Lithuanian who averaged 7.5 points and 4.2 rebounds last season for Sacramento.

The Kings are unlikely to match an offer._


whoohoo!

that, folks, is the extent of the tribune's coverage on this. not even a byline.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...6bulls,1,2967812.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


interesting that the sun-times thinks we still have the 2.2 to spend, while mcgraw hedges his bets (like in his email to me) and says they either have 2.2 or 1.7 million. either way it looks like darius songaila is headed to the bulls. the bit about shopping for real estate is encouraging.



oh, and sloth, that picture is hilarious. 

don't know what to say about "the royal treatment" except to say that whatever i wrote to him musta _worked like a charm_

:smilewink


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> The Kings couldn't match if they wanted to, since they've used their MLE, so I don't think that's the issue.
> 
> However, a sign and trade would still be beneficial for us since a) We wouldn't have to pay both Pike and Songaila, b) we'd still have a fair amount of our MLE left, or a trade exception.


The Kings can match if they want to, the Early Bird Exception allows teams to match up to the MLE.

They won't do a sign and trade because they don't want to take back any salary. They are right at the Luxury Tax, which they have said they don't want to pay.

If we can get Songalia to agree to a deal for our trade exception, though, we would still have the rest of the MLE left. Our TE would allow us to pay Songalia 3 years and $6.1 million, he just might take that.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.sacbee.com/content/sports/story/13473705p-14314430c.html

article in the sacramento bee (registration required, so here are the relevant bits)






> The Kings' president of basketball operations also is expecting another paper to arrive he'll likely let sit, an offer sheet for his other restricted free agent, forward Darius Songaila.
> 
> *Wednesday, the soon-to-be former King visited Chicago and, according to the Arlington (Ill.) Daily Herald, is browsing the area's real estate market, apparent indicators he's close to joining the Bulls.* The delay in his negotiations, however, has raised some questions as to whether a more complex deal is on the horizon.
> 
> ...





get it done pax!


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

It's starting to look like being Reactive was a pretty gosh-darned good strategy by Pax.

Patience, as they say, is a virtue.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Since we would need to get a 3rd team involved for a S&T, do you think Miami would be interested? They are pretty shallow in the backcourt, and with Shaq manning the low-post, a 3-point specialist like Pike could really have some value for them. The expiring contract makes it equally as attractive. Thing is, I don't know what Miami would be able to send Sacramento. Miami isn't under the cap, so they can't simply absorb Pike's contract in exchange for a 2nd rounder. Do they have a trade exception perhaps?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



sloth said:


> I've been emailing Mike McGraw for months about him doing an exclusive interview with me. He never responded. Well he lost his chance. Recently I signed a contract with ESPN for my own sports show. It will air this Winter!












Just kidding, sloth, but you set yourself up. Btw, that picture is right up there with the Othella macaroni as possibly the funniest thing you've ever posted. :laugh:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*

Almost OT: I don't think so, but could Petrie be sending out a bogus message? Maybe he would be happy to match a $2M deal.

Sounds like Songaila's agent is hoping to swing a S&T and get Songailia more like $3M a year.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullsville said:


> It's starting to look like being Reactive was a pretty gosh-darned good strategy by Pax.
> 
> Patience, as they say, is a virtue.


The offseason all hinges on whether we get Curry back as a *player* or not. Losing him is a step backwards for the franchise, a big one. I'm not even going to mention Chandler because I'm assuming he is a lock to be back as a player. We know Eddy Curry will be back in some form with the franchise though, whether its John Paxson's Special Assistant (replacing BJ), Assistant Coach (Big Man), Player (Starting Center), or concessions (peanuts). If Eddy has too much fear to come back and risk it, it is just genious. Eddy is one of the most popular players in the league, and he could attract a lot of players if he was one of the guys the players visited during a visit. Also Eddy might be able to help Tyson a lot with his offensive game. But anyhow, none of that will do anything compared to what Eddy back in uniform will do. I like what Paxson has done with bringing in Malik Allen, Darius Songaila, Eddie Basden, and bringing back Othella and Duhon. Jay Williams may be back as the third point guard this year, especially since Pargo is destined to lose. But I think the team will be a fringe playoff team without Eddy, and a 50 win team with him. Hopefully Paxson can bring all back all the important players from last year with the exception of Pargo.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Songaila pays Bulls a visit*



johnston797 said:


> Could Petrie be sending out a bogus message?
> 
> Maybe he would be happy to match a $2M deal.


Great question, which is why Pax would love to do a sign and trade, you don't have to wonder that way. 

I am inclined to believe Petrie, however- the Maloofs don't want to pay the Luxury Tax this season, and they are right at the limit now. A $2.2 million deal will cost them twice that since they would have to pay LT on the salary.

So let's just trade our Trade Exception for him and get it over with...


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

sloth said:


> We know Eddy Curry will be back in some form with the franchise though, whether its John Paxson's Special Assistant (replacing BJ), Assistant Coach (Big Man), Player (Starting Center), or concessions (peanuts).


Lets just hope Eddy is able to play. His public pouting shows he has no understanding of the business of basketball, which rules out special assistant. He lacks fundamental skills, so he can't coach. And if he isn't worrying about getting into or staying in game shape, I'm not letting him near the peanuts.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

sloth said:


> Eddy is one of the most popular players in the league.


Ugh, no he's not


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Shouldn't somebody warn Songalia about JR and Pax?

You know, how they always low-ball their free agents and disrespect them? How they drink blood in secret meetings where they plot how to squeeze every last cent they can out of a player? How they sacrifice children at the alter of the salary-cap gods?

And what's with Bartelstein? He's sending *two* of his clients to NBA front-office hell? What's with that guy?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

The ROY said:


> Ugh, no he's not


Yeah he is. Player wise. He could be crucial in helping us land Lebron.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

sloth said:


> Yeah he is. Player wise. He could be crucial in helping us land Lebron.


Unless Lebron turns into Vince Carter, he's not going anywhere.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> Unless Lebron turns into Vince Carter, he's not going anywhere.


QO and jump ships. The one year of getting about 6 million less won't bother him with that 200 million dollar Nike endorsment.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Shouldn't somebody warn Songalia about JR and Pax?


JR doesn't mind paying market for players from other teams. See eRob, Harper, Barry, etc. Failed attempts at Eddy Jones, Tim Thomas and others.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

sloth said:


> QO and jump ships. The one year of getting about 6 million less won't bother him with that 200 million dollar Nike endorsment.


The one year of making 6mil less + taking a smaller 5-year deal than he could get re-signing with the Cavs without having to take the QO. Plus, he is a hometown boy. He has always indicated as long as the Cavs surround him with players he is staying in Cleveland. I can't imagine much will change in the next two years.

Assuming you can acquire LeBron in FA is like assuming you can acquire Yao, Amare, Wade, etc... i.e. those players that are going to make the max and deserve it, especially as a RFA.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> JR doesn't mind paying market for players from other teams. See eRob, Harper, Barry, etc. Failed attempts at Eddy Jones, Tim Thomas and others.


Yeah, I know that.

I'm talking about when their current contracts are up- shouldn't someone warn them that JR holds his gun to players' heads during contract negotiations? Isn't it well known across the league that they will be disrespected and ripped in the press and have their health questioned?

If they haven't heard of Satan Reinsdorf and Lucifer Paxson, shouldn't someone warn them?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Yeah, I know that.
> 
> I'm talking about when their current contracts are up- shouldn't someone warn them that JR holds his gun to players' heads during contract negotiations? Isn't it well known across the league that they will be disrespected and ripped in the press and have their health questioned?
> 
> If they haven't heard of Satan Reinsdorf and Lucifer Paxson, shouldn't someone warn them?


It's really the fans that are in harm's way. If you were Songalia would you be that concerned? He needs to get PT and $$$ now. So what if JR will be very cheap when it's time to renew or have him traded him away a bit prior to that. See Horace Grant. Brad Miller. Tyson Chandler. Etc. 

Songailia can just move on to another team


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Yeah, I know that.
> 
> I'm talking about when their current contracts are up- shouldn't someone warn them that JR holds his gun to players' heads during contract negotiations? Isn't it well known across the league that they will be disrespected and ripped in the press and have their health questioned?
> 
> If they haven't heard of Satan Reinsdorf and Lucifer Paxson, shouldn't someone warn them?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> It's really the fans that are in harm's way.


I know. 

The Paxson/Reinsdorf experiment has done substantial harm to me as a fan. 47 wins? Please. When Jordon was around the Bulls had that by the allstar break. I realize 72 wins will be hard to duplicate, but I don't see any reason why the Bulls shouldn't at least have threatened 70 in Paxson's second season as GM. I mean, how much time does management need?

If I was Songaila, I'd get Bartlestein off his rump and try to get me traded to the Hornets or Clippers or some other organization with an ownership group that is actually committed to winning.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I know.
> 47 wins? Please. When Jordon was around the Bulls had that by the allstar break. I realize 72 wins will be hard to duplicate, but I don't see any reason why the Bulls shouldn't at least have threatened 70 in Paxson's second season as GM. I mean, how much time does management need?


Why would you expect that? Last season, the Suns won 62, for best record in the league. The year before that, the Pacers won 61. The year before that the Mavs and Spurs won 60 each.

If threatening 70 in the second year rebuilding a team out of the gutter is what it takes to satisfy you, you are setting the bar impossibly high for Paxson.

And if the records of the '72 Lakers and the '97 Bulls are what it takes to gain approval, you must have a pretty frustrating overall experience as a basketball fan.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Why would you expect that? Last season, the Suns won 62, for best record in the league. The year before that, the Pacers won 61. The year before that the Mavs and Spurs won 60 each.
> 
> If threatening 70 in the second year rebuilding a team out of the gutter is what it takes to satisfy you, you are setting the bar impossibly high for Paxson.
> 
> And if the records of the '72 Lakers and the '97 Bulls are what it takes to gain approval, you must have a pretty frustrating overall experience as a basketball fan.


Okay. 68 wins. Is that too much to ask?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


>


Ooooh, a sarcasm-meter. Now there's a useful invention...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I know.
> 
> The Paxson/Reinsdorf experiment has done substantial harm to me as a fan. 47 wins? Please. When Jordon was around the Bulls had that by the allstar break. I realize 72 wins will be hard to duplicate, but I don't see any reason why the Bulls shouldn't at least have threatened 70 in Paxson's second season as GM. I mean, how much time does management need?
> 
> If I was Songaila, I'd get Bartlestein off his rump and try to get me traded to the Hornets or Clippers or some other organization with an ownership group that is actually committed to winning.


I agree that our ownership group did great with MJ. It's ugly otherwise so far. Clearly, last year was a pleasant surprise. Are they going to build on it or be short-sighted?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> Ooooh, a sarcasm-meter. Now there's a useful invention...


Is that a joke?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> It's really the fans that are in harm's way. If you were Songalia would you be that concerned? He needs to get PT and $$$ now. So what if JR will be very cheap when it's time to renew or have him traded him away a bit prior to that. See Horace Grant. Brad Miller. Tyson Chandler. Etc.
> 
> Songailia can just move on to another team


Ho? We had the best season and best consecutive seasons in NBA history with Ho's cheaper replacement, I don't think we missed him.

Miller? Man, how great would it be to have kept Brad and traded away Curry instead? Their salaries were similar at the time, and Indy could have afforded to keep Eddy longer. Ouch.

Tyson? Last time I checked, he's still a Bull.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Shouldn't somebody warn Songalia about JR and Pax?
> 
> You know, how they always low-ball their free agents and disrespect them? How they drink blood in secret meetings where they plot how to squeeze every last cent they can out of a player? How they sacrifice children at the alter of the salary-cap gods?
> 
> And what's with Bartelstein? He's sending *two* of his clients to NBA front-office hell? What's with that guy?


You’re absolutely right. Reinsdorf’s green-lighting these two monster contracts clearly makes a fool out of anyone who’s criticized the Chairman for his withering “I’m going to regret this” offered to Jordan back in 1997; his premature dismantling of the dynasty; his presiding over the most profitable six-year stretch in NBA history while his team bumbled and stumbled to the worst six-year W/L record the league has ever seen (and probably ever will); his blustery, counterproductive brinksmanship that “rewarded” the coach integral to their lone successful season since 1998 with a messy, embarrassingly public contract dispute; or his zero-sum style of negotiating that’s contributed to the team not re-signing a first-round pick since B.J. Armstrong (!) and essentially squandered the advantage Chicago should have when pursuing free agents.

P.S. I couldn't care less if an agent thinks Chicago's a good place to park his two-bit, low-impact clients. Overpaying for those guys while refusing to commit salary to high draft picks gets you 166-376 over seven years.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> You’re absolutely right. Reinsdorf’s green-lighting these two monster contracts clearly makes a fool out of anyone who’s criticized the Chairman for his withering “I’m going to regret this” offered to Jordan back in 1997; his premature dismantling of the dynasty; his presiding over the most profitable six-year stretch in NBA history while his team bumbled and stumbled to the worst six-year W/L record the league has ever seen (and probably ever will); his blustery, counterproductive brinksmanship that “rewarded” the coach integral to their lone successful season since 1998 with a messy, embarrassingly public contract dispute; or his zero-sum style of negotiating that’s contributed to the team not re-signing a first-round pick since B.J. Armstrong (!) and essentially squandered the advantage Chicago should have when pursuing free agents.
> 
> P.S. I couldn't care less if an agent thinks Chicago's a good place to park his two-bit, low-impact clients. Overpaying for those guys while refusing to commit salary to high draft picks gets you 166-376 over seven years.



:clap: 

I think i am just going to save this for times that posters go trolling with their "oh, here is proof JR ain't Satan after all" crap.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Ho? We had the best season and best consecutive seasons in NBA history with Ho's cheaper replacement, I don't think we missed him.


We sure missed him in 1995. 

Glad you agree that we could use Miller.

As for TC, I sure would be a lot happier to see any concrete sign that Bulls are willing to pay him the same as a less worthy FA (Dalembart) got. Then maybe I will let up on JR a bit.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> :clap:
> 
> I think i am just going to save this for times that posters go trolling with their "oh, here is proof JR ain't Satan after all" crap.


I disagree, JR won't be proven to not be Satan IMHO until the Bulls win Championship number seven.

Until then, ScottMay is pretty much right about the results- outside of the MJ era (and the 1994-95 season), the Bulls have a pretty bad winning percentage. 

JR didn't want to become perennial #8 seeds stuck in mediocrity, and the Bulls did skip right past that stage. BUT, unless the Bulls continue to improve and eventually win a championship or three, then JR will have failed in his mission.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> You’re absolutely right. Reinsdorf’s green-lighting these two monster contracts clearly makes a fool out of anyone who’s criticized the Chairman for his withering “I’m going to regret this” offered to Jordan back in 1997; his premature dismantling of the dynasty; his presiding over the most profitable six-year stretch in NBA history while his team bumbled and stumbled to the worst six-year W/L record the league has ever seen (and probably ever will); his blustery, counterproductive brinksmanship that “rewarded” the coach integral to their lone successful season since 1998 with a messy, embarrassingly public contract dispute; or his zero-sum style of negotiating that’s contributed to the team not re-signing a first-round pick since B.J. Armstrong (!) and essentially squandered the advantage Chicago should have when pursuing free agents.
> 
> P.S. I couldn't care less if an agent thinks Chicago's a good place to park his two-bit, low-impact clients. Overpaying for those guys while refusing to commit salary to high draft picks gets you 166-376 over seven years.


Two-shay


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I disagree, JR won't be proven to not be Satan IMHO until the Bulls win Championship number seven.
> 
> Until then, ScottMay is pretty much right about the results- outside of the MJ era (and the 1994-95 season), the Bulls have a pretty bad winning percentage.
> 
> JR didn't want to become perennial #8 seeds stuck in mediocrity, and the Bulls did skip right past that stage. BUT, unless the Bulls continue to improve and eventually win a championship or three, then JR will have failed in his mission.


If the Bulls didn't win another championship in my lifetime, I wouldn't complain, so that's not my measuring stick.

I've said repeatedly that this offseason would be my ultimate litmus test. Chandler and Curry -- heart problem or no heart problem -- simply have to be retained. There is simply no alternative player(s) or strategy that is a better option than they are. They have yet to enter their primes -- in fact, their primes may be yet another contract away. We have been told through four mostly terrible years and two salary dumps that if the team ever won, Chandler and Curry would be rewarded and the team kept together. Seeing them thrive on another team would be an impossible pill for me to swallow.

It doesn't get more cut-and-dried than that, imo. I'll reserve the right to criticize Reinsdorf -- he'll still be what he is, a very fan unfriendly owner -- no matter whether he pays for Chandler and Curry. But if he doesn't retain them, I don't know how any defense or appreciation of Reinsdorf and his tactics can be considered intellectually or logically honest.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I've said repeatedly that this offseason would be my ultimate litmus test. Chandler and Curry -- heart problem or no heart problem -- simply have to be retained.


Totally agree as to Chandler and, in March, would have agreed as to Curry. But now things are different. They are. Athlete's heart, or what have you, we all know there are question marks. No insurance, etc.

So my question is, solely with regard to Curry, retain Curry as a "must" under what terms Scott? I assume since you didn't qualify it, that you believe a 6 year, $90 million fully guaranteed contract should be given to Curry if demanded.

I want to see Curry back too, but that preference has reasonable boundaries.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> If the Bulls didn't win another championship in my lifetime, I wouldn't complain, so that's not my measuring stick.
> 
> I've said repeatedly that this offseason would be my ultimate litmus test. Chandler and Curry -- heart problem or no heart problem -- simply have to be retained. There is simply no alternative player(s) or strategy that is a better option than they are. They have yet to enter their primes -- in fact, their primes may be yet another contract away. We have been told through four mostly terrible years and two salary dumps that if the team ever won, Chandler and Curry would be rewarded and the team kept together. Seeing them thrive on another team would be an impossible pill for me to swallow.
> 
> It doesn't get more cut-and-dried than that, imo. I'll reserve the right to criticize Reinsdorf -- he'll still be what he is, a very fan unfriendly owner -- no matter whether he pays for Chandler and Curry. But if he doesn't retain them, I don't know how any defense or appreciation of Reinsdorf and his tactics can be considered intellectually or logically honest.


Championships are my measuring stick, so we have different "agendas" (for lack of a better word). That's why I don't post on any Patriots' message boards any more- what do I really have to complain about? Or like my brother the Jet fan says, a "fandom of faith", since their moves have been so damned gold over the last 4 years.

I agree about Chandler 100%, we need him back pretty much no questions asked. I'm not as sold on Eddy (yeah, I know...) but I certainly at least want to see him back next season for the QO- I will be highly peeved if we let Eddy walk without getting value in return. If I were as confident as you that he is healthy, my opinion would be different, but I'm not.

As for JR, we'll always disagree. As you said, you'll always consinder him to be "very fan unfriendly" even if he pays for Tyson and Eddy. Well IMHO, if the Bulls win a championship in the next several years, that is about as "fan friendly" as I want a GM and/or Chairman to be.

And if by some strange chance he doesn't retain Tyson (and a healthy Eddy), I won't crucify him as long as we win a championship without them. I'll still be as happy about the winning without them, and I'll still be peeved if we don't win a title with them.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Is that a joke?


It is a quote from this man:


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Totally agree as to Chandler and, in March, would have agreed as to Curry. But now things are different. They are. Athlete's heart, or what have you, we all know there are question marks. No insurance, etc.
> 
> So my question is, solely with regard to Curry, retain Curry as a "must" under what terms Scott? I assume since you didn't qualify it, that you believe a 6 year, $90 million fully guaranteed contract should be given to Curry if demanded.
> 
> I want to see Curry back too, but that preference has reasonable boundaries.


Well said, Ron Cey.

Allow me to add 1 thing on Curry, though. Depending on how the roster shapes up in exactly one year from now, letting Curry go for nothing wouldn't necessarily be failure (obviously it might, though). If the cap space it opens up allows us to sign 2 or even 3 really solid players - maybe Peja, Al Harrington, and Nazr Mohammad - it's possible this is better than anybody we can get in return by trading Eddy away. If that's the case, let him walk. If not, then obviously we want to get somebody valuable back.

NOTE: This is under the assumption that we have approximately $24M under the cap by letting Curry walk next season.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Well said, Ron Cey.
> 
> Allow me to add 1 thing on Curry, though. Depending on how the roster shapes up in exactly one year from now, letting Curry go for nothing wouldn't necessarily be failure (obviously it might, though). If the cap space it opens up allows us to sign 2 or even 3 really solid players - maybe Peja, Al Harrington, and Nazr Mohammad - it's possible this is better than anybody we can get in return by trading Eddy away. If that's the case, let him walk. If not, then obviously we want to get somebody valuable back.
> 
> NOTE: This is under the assumption that we have approximately $24M under the cap by letting Curry walk next season.


But why let Eddy walk when we can get Peja, Al Harrington, and Nazr. We'd be better off keeping Curry and not getting Al Harrington imo. We already have built a relatively deep frontcourt, so why the need for Harrington, Nazr should be cheaper, and he'd be a real backup center. I'd be content with this:

PG-Kirk Hinrich/Chris Duhon
SG-Luol Deng/Ben Gordon
SF-Peja Stojakovic/Andres Nocioni
PF-Tyson Chandler/Darius Songaila
C- Eddy Curry/Nazr Mohammed

We'd be 2 deep at every position with players that could possibly start on other teams in the league. I am certain that Kirk, Luol, Peja, Tyson, Eddy, Nazr, Andres, and Ben can find starting spots on most teams in the league, and Duhon and Songaila could find a starting spot on a few teams. Al Harrington would be icing on th ecake, but if it came down to Eddy Curry/Al Harrington, every gm in the league will take Eddy over Harrington next offseason unless Curry's heart stops him from playing. A natural 5 or a guy that plays the 4? Songaila, Tyson, Nocioni, Deng, Othella, Davis, Allen they all can play powerforward. Tyson is the only one on our current team that could play center outside of Eddy, and with Tyson moving over to center, that takes away from our overall front court depth imo, the other option under this scenario is Nazr Mohammed, and we don't want him starting center, he's a backup, simple as that.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Totally agree as to Chandler and, in March, would have agreed as to Curry. But now things are different. They are. Athlete's heart, or what have you, we all know there are question marks. No insurance, etc.
> 
> So my question is, solely with regard to Curry, retain Curry as a "must" under what terms Scott? I assume since you didn't qualify it, that you believe a 6 year, $90 million fully guaranteed contract should be given to Curry if demanded.
> 
> I want to see Curry back too, but that preference has reasonable boundaries.


Even inasmuch as I'm positive (with the usual qualifier -- that the reports on his condition have been mostly accurate) Eddy's health isn't going to be an ongoing issue, I recognize the novelty of his situation and the reality that he'll have to bring down his asking price. I'd say something in the 3 year, 24-30 million range would be fair and equitable for both sides. 

It's all academic at this point, though. I'd actually be shocked if Eddy doesn't play for the qualifier and leave next year.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I'd say something in the 3 year, 24-30 million range would be fair and equitable for both sides.
> 
> It's all academic at this point, though. I'd actually be shocked if Eddy doesn't play for the qualifier and leave next year.


You see the problem with this as it is linked to your "must sign" Curry mandate though, don't you? I agree that this is a reasonable offer for both sides. But there is absolutely no indication, and in my opinion contra-indications, that Curry would ever accept such an offer. That can hardly be pinned on Reinsdorf with any "intellectual honesty" to use your term.

I agree on the latter point, for the most part. I'm convinced he's QO at this point. Whether the Bulls are outbid (I realize the Bulls can still pay more than anyone) next summer or Curry is simply so frustrated that he leaves on "principle" remains to be seen. But its certainly a possibility. 

My point is that while I can appreciate your original position regarding the resigning of these players, I think at this point it can only be rationally applied to Chandler absent some information that Curry is willing to sign a short term deal and it is the Bulls who are balking.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/272sd3.htm


southtown paul is sticking with the idea that allen got the MLE and all that's left for darius is the LLE. even though pax declined to tell reporters who got what. maybe his "industry" sources are pretty good? who knows.

and the bits about eddy curry are just disturbing. total speculation. 





> The Bulls' frontcourt could get even more crowded with the addition of restricted free-agent forward Darius Songaila in the next few days.
> 
> Such a move would make center Eddy Curry even more expendable. Indications are the New York Knicks still may want to take Curry, a restricted free agent, off the Bulls' hands.
> 
> ...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> You see the problem with this as it is linked to your "must sign" Curry mandate though, don't you? I agree that this is a reasonable offer for both sides. But there is absolutely no indication, and in my opinion contra-indications, that Curry would ever accept such an offer. That can hardly be pinned on Reinsdorf with any "intellectual honesty" to use your term.
> 
> I agree on the latter point, for the most part. I'm convinced he's QO at this point. Whether the Bulls are outbid (I realize the Bulls can still pay more than anyone) next summer or Curry is simply so frustrated that he leaves on "principle" remains to be seen. But its certainly a possibility.
> 
> My point is that while I can appreciate your original position regarding the resigning of these players, I think at this point it can only be rationally applied to Chandler absent some information that Curry is willing to sign a short term deal and it is the Bulls who are balking.


Can you identify some of the indications that Curry wouldn't sign an offer in the range I've proposed, or can you point to any signs that Curry's even been offered anything other than a qualifying deal?

Last I checked, the Bulls had shouldered Curry with the tasks of getting medical clearance and (subsequently) finding someone to insure a (hypothetical) deal.

I'm asking honestly, because I haven't seen anything. You just threw out the 6-year, $90 million expectation randomly, right?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Can you identify some of the indications that Curry wouldn't sign an offer in the range I've proposed, or can you point to any signs that Curry's even been offered anything other than a qualifying deal?
> 
> Last I checked, the Bulls had shouldered Curry with the tasks of getting medical clearance and (subsequently) finding someone to insure a (hypothetical) deal.
> 
> I'm asking honestly, because I haven't seen anything. You just threw out the 6-year, $90 million expectation randomly, right?


As far as I know, there's been absolutely nothing reported regarding Curry's take on a possible deal in the 3 year, $24-27M range. He may like it, he may not. We're just speculating either way. But seeing how he turned down a considerably larger extension last summer, and how he has downplayed his heart issues from day 1 hoping to score a good-sized contract, I would think he wouldn't take this deal if it were on the table. 

There was, however, a rumor in one of the area news sources that Pax and Leon Rose had discussed a possible 5-6 year deal, where only the first 2 years are guarenteed; and if the option was picked up, then the rest of the deal kicks in. This wouldn't be a bad option either, but again, it probably goes back to Curry wanting a large guarenteed sum. Personally, I think he's risking way too much by taking an all-or-nothing approach (i.e. accepting the QO and proving he is worthy of a big, and insured, contract). With his supposed financial problems, I think he's best served to get as much money as he can right now. But hey, what do I know. :whoknows:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Can you identify some of the indications that Curry wouldn't sign an offer in the range I've proposed, or can you point to any signs that Curry's even been offered anything other than a qualifying deal?
> 
> Last I checked, the Bulls had shouldered Curry with the tasks of getting medical clearance and (subsequently) finding someone to insure a (hypothetical) deal.
> 
> I'm asking honestly, because I haven't seen anything. You just threw out the 6-year, $90 million expectation randomly, right?


Those indications are simply his past conduct with regard to his value, much like what yodurk mentions. I did note that it was my opinion. Curry has talked about the "sour taste" this has left in his mouth and has openly complained that he was told he would be given a big long term extension but has not been. He also talks about why he, naively, doesn't understand what the problem is. 

These things all suggest to me that he would rather go QO and try to get the big payday than take the reasonable 3 year deal you described, if offered. 

Of course I threw out the $90 million at random. Your "must sign" mandate had no boundaries and I was trying to make the point, that you subsequently agreed with, that there are limits and particularly so with regard to Curry.

I was simply trying to get you to define your expectation of the organization, which you have done. And I largely agree with you.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I was simply trying to get you to define your expectation of the organization, which you have done. And I largely agree with you.


Does this mean you have some expectations regarding the organization, vis-a-vis Curry yourself?

Because I haven't seen any evidence that they have, or are willing to make any offer similar to the one you're opine Curry would turn down.


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/272sd3.htm
> 
> 
> southtown paul is sticking with the idea that allen got the MLE and all that's left for darius is the LLE. even though pax declined to tell reporters who got what. maybe his "industry" sources are pretty good? who knows.
> ...



I would probably go with southtown Paul 

Maybe Allen was given the rest of the MLE and at this moment Pax doesn't want to concede that for whatever reasons 

Which leaves Songaila the superior player who should have got that money up poo creek without a paddle 

Maybe the deal with Allen was ( who I fail to see where the need was to pay him with th rest of the MLE ) that it was 2 years worth of cost rolled into one rather than let him danle with a team option on him . Who knows maybe he had a multiyear deal ( 3) at $3M total 

So we pay him i for $2.2M and enable him to go earn some more dollars next summer 

But if it compromises us to complete a deal for Darius Songaila I'll be pissed 

I mean Songaila is worth more than $1.6M ..and it may be that someone outbids us or he may go play in Europe for a year or so earn some money and come back to have another crack at the NBA

The reason why a trade is being attempted is to try and facilitate him to what he's reasonably worth rather than pinch him at $1.6M 

This would lend weight to Ladewski's assertion on how Pax has spent the exception


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Does this mean you have some expectations regarding the organization, vis-a-vis Curry yourself?
> 
> Because I haven't seen any evidence that they have, or are willing to make any offer similar to the one you're opine Curry would turn down.


I think Curry should get a fairly substantial ($8-9 million per year) deal guaranteed for two seasons, with or without insurance. I think there should be a team option after that for 2-3 more seasons with standard salary increases. Based on the information we have, I think it would be a mistake to play hardball with Curry on the insurance issue such that the team refuses to go beyond a 1 year guaranteed deal. 

I think a second year, guaranteed, is a showing of good faith and, if it backfires, its a financial hit that isn't really too substantial. The real downside is the cap hit, and I consider that a huge downside. But its one worth taking, I think. 

My biggest concern right now as that there is something else going on with his heart that hasn't been revealed yet. But anyway, those are my "expectations". Here's the thing, though, with Curry I won't be terribly upset if he does play for the QO. I'm not as high on him as some.

Chandler's is the situation that I'm watching most critically. If they don't get him signed, I will consider it a Layden-esque mistake.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> My biggest concern right now as that there is something else going on with his heart that hasn't been revealed yet.


I agree with most all of that, but especially this.

I'm not too sure about making the option year a team option - If I were Curry, I'd quite rightly see that as the Bulls taking advantage of the situation and argue to make an option or buyout contingent upon health, not solely at the team's discretion. 



Machinehead said:


> Maybe Allen was given the rest of the MLE and at this moment Pax doesn't want to concede that for whatever reasons.


I can think of several million reasons I wouldn't want to concede that.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> I can think of several million reasons I wouldn't want to concede that.


 :laugh:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I think Curry should get a fairly substantial ($8-9 million per year) deal guaranteed for two seasons, with or without insurance. I think there should be a team option after that for 2-3 more seasons with standard salary increases. Based on the information we have, I think it would be a mistake to play hardball with Curry on the insurance issue such that the team refuses to go beyond a 1 year guaranteed deal.
> 
> I think a second year, guaranteed, is a showing of good faith and, if it backfires, its a financial hit that isn't really too substantial. The real downside is the cap hit, and I consider that a huge downside. But its one worth taking, I think.
> 
> ...


Your proposed deal for Curry is more than fair. If you and I can agree on that, then maybe there's hope for Paxdorf and Kamp Kurry.

But if you have your doubts about Eddy's heart (and who knows -- the Bulls' beat writers don't seem to realize that news happens outside the parameters of games, practices, and official press conferences), I have my doubts that Paxson has offered anything even slightly resembling your deal. He could be dragging his heels, hoping to get Eddy to panic and sign a four year, $15 million low-ball, e.g.

Training camps convene in 32 days. I can't see too many net positives from dragging this on any longer (to say nothing of Chandler, who should have been signed three weeks ago).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Your proposed deal for Curry is more than fair. If you and I can agree on that, then maybe there's hope for Paxdorf and Kamp Kurry.


Scott, if you and I can agree on something, then its gotta be right. :banana:


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

To anyone wondering what Malik Allen got, and also what we can offer Songaila, I believe the questions have been answered. MikeDC (and several others), you can rest easy. Looks like "Southtown Paul" was flat-out wrong:



> The Bulls are expected to make an offer soon to Darius Songaila, a restricted free agent with Sacramento. They will use the remaining $2.2 million from their midlevel exception on Songaila, and the Kings are unlikely to match.


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...bulls,1,4147463.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines



> Before re-signing either of their own free agents, the Bulls are expected to sign restricted free agent Darius Songaila, a 6-9 forward, to an offer sheet.
> 
> The Sacramento Kings would have the right to match any offer, but reports out of Sacramento say that is unlikely. The Kings might be interested, however, in working out a sign-and-trade deal with the Bulls if they can get a draft pick.
> 
> ...


http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull30.html


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

yodurk said:


> To anyone wondering what Malik Allen got, and also what we can offer Songaila, I believe the questions have been answered. MikeDC (and several others), you can rest easy. Looks like "Southtown Paul" was flat-out wrong:


That's a start at least. I do want to hear that the second year isn't guaranteed. If it is it's still a wicked bad deal for the Bulls. If not then I don't really care.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> That's a start at least. I do want to hear that the second year isn't guaranteed. If it is it's still a wicked bad deal for the Bulls. If not then I don't really care.



in his email reply to my question, mcgraw did say he thought the deal was only one year guaranteed based on the fact that othella's deal is only one year guaranteed. 

and yup, looks like "southtown paul" was not well informed by his "industry" sources and the nickname "southtown paul" is likely to stick.

:smilewink


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*update* of sorts in the southtown today:

_ The addition of restricted free agent Darius Songaila was expected to be announced this week.

Sacramento has seven days to match the offer for the veteran forward. If the Kings do so, it most likely will be to execute a sign-and-trade move.

"That will play out sometime (this week)," Paxson said. "I won't go so far as to say it's a done deal, but I'm hopeful. The interest is mutual."

Songaila, 27, averaged 7.5 points and 4.2 rebounds per game last season._



http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/082sd2.htm


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> *update* of sorts in the southtown today:
> 
> _ The addition of restricted free agent Darius Songaila was expected to be announced this week.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Miz,

I had been wondering about him.

Interesting article about the increased expectations from Tyson, too.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

aBullz imitation with wry grin:

Is it today, yet?

Does Curry's situation have any impact on this, do you suppose?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> Does Curry's situation have any impact on this, do you suppose?


No, no impact.

Pargo's signing is the hold-up. Songalia's agent is holding out hope that Bulls can work out a S&T to get Songalia more money.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> No, no impact.
> 
> Pargo's signing is the hold-up. Songalia's agent is holding out hope that Bulls can work out a S&T to get Songalia more money.


Not sure I understand. Would Pargo be signed and traded to Sacramento in a package for Songaila? Do they want him?

Or is it just that Pargo would take some of the remaining MLE for himself?

Thanks for the help, by the way.

Edit: I realized that there 8 pages of this thread that I ought to read...Pretty good stuff. 

I'm still not sure I understand how Pargo impacts the negotiations.


----------

