# Tyson asked for 75 mil over six years!!!



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Tyson Chandler didn’t agree to contract terms during a face-to-face meeting with Bulls chairman Jerry Reinsdorf and general manager John Paxson on Tuesday in Pasadena, Calif.
> 
> But Paxson remained *optimistic* that a long-term deal for the 7-foot-1 forward will get done.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Unique (Apr 13, 2005)

wow....75....hmmm well i love how last years team played they were very fun to watch in there playoff run ...i was pulling 4 them....i think chandler was an important piece to the team so i hope he gets resigned


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

As Paxson said, you don't pay that kind of money for potential.

I like Chandler, but that money request is a joke. A guy who averaged 8 pts and 9 rebs is worth that? I don't care what Dalembert got. The Sixers management needs a labotomy for paying that much.

Chandler has proven zero. He is one dimensional. He can block a few shots, but were not talking Mutumbo here. These agents are a joke.

Show you can do more than dunk and flex your puny muscles on the offensive end, stay on the floor more than a few minutes without picking up excess fouls, not get muscled around in the post by powerhouses like Etan Thomas and Michale Ruffin, put some muscle on that toothpick frame, and become a player that deserves money like that.

The contract should be mo more than 6 mil a year loaded with incentives to motivate the kid to become a complete and more intelligent player.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

According to the Sun-Times:



> As usual, the major obstacle is money. *According to a source close to the negotiations, Chandler is seeking a deal in the six-year, $60 million range, and the Bulls are willing to go that high only if the deal includes incentives* .


So I guess we're somewhere in between there. Probably end up at 65-67 mil per six with some incentives.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull18.html


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Salvaged Ship said:


> As Paxson said, you don't pay that kind of money for potential.
> 
> I like Chandler, but that money request is a joke. A guy who averaged 8 pts and 9 rebs is worth that? I don't care what Dalembert got. The Sixers management needs a labotomy for paying that much.
> 
> ...


I don't know that this approach lets you keep y our free agents and build a team.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Daily Hearld said:


> Chandler’s camp has asked for $75 million over six years


The key question is when they asked for this. Did they ask for this on the first day of Free Agency? Did they ask for this on Tuesday? I would bet on the former, not the latter.

Keep in mind that there are no quotes from unamed sources about Chandler and $75M. Let's look at another article.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull18.html



> The Chandler negotiations aren't nearly as complex as the Curry talks, but complicating matters is the six-year, $64 million deal that forward/center Samuel Dalembert signed with the Philadelphia 76ers earlier this summer...
> 
> ''The market is what it is,'' a Bulls source said. ''It's hard to make a case of paying him a lot less than that. But at the same time, what do you do if you think that contract is out of whack with other deals? It doesn't mean you have to pay it because another team overpaid.''


It looks like the Bulls have been under Dalembert's six-year, $64 million deal. And are probably still under. I put more weight in this than the throw-away about $75M.


----------



## white360 (Apr 24, 2004)

Tyson Chandler is not woth $75m


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Salvaged Ship said:


> As Paxson said, you don't pay that kind of money for potential.
> 
> I like Chandler, but that money request is a joke. A guy who averaged 8 pts and 9 rebs is worth that? I don't care what Dalembert got. The Sixers management needs a labotomy for paying that much.
> 
> ...


:laugh:

:Bulls Internet Emergency Response Team Alert:

If you are honestly suggesting that Tyson sign a contract for LESS than the MLE, and if the prospect of his getting more than Dalembert is really just that unsettling to you, then you should probably just quit following the NBA, period. I'd recommend Division III wrestling. Or maybe WNBA/Arena League Football, where salaries are fixed.

Note: I'm just assuming it's the money that's troubling you. Because you're flat-out wrong in your basketball analysis of Chandler. He's not one-dimensional, and he was as important to the Bulls' success last year as any player on the roster.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

What gets me is that we've known all along that Curry and Chandler were going to demand max kinds of deals and we accepted it and expected it.

So what is the big deal? Is the 22 year old Chandler going to retire before the contract is up? Is he going to be an aging veteran with diminishing skills before the deal is up?

''The market is what it is,'' a Bulls source said. ''It's hard to make a case of paying him a lot less than that. But at the same time, what do you do if you think that contract is out of whack with other deals? It doesn't mean you have to pay it because another team overpaid.''

Wake up bulls organization. The market value for players is a lot higher than you want it to be. You learned it with Crawford and his $6M paycheck, then with Duhon and his $3M paycheck, and now you're faced with paying Chandler. And Curry, too.

When Pax took over as GM, didn't he call Curry and Chandler the cornerstones of the franchise? I guess cornerstones of franchises don't figure into your projections as max contracts all along...


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

The thing I don't understand is how people say "Who cares about what <insert other team's player's name here> got paid? Just because someone else got more money than they deserved doesn't mean <insert Bulls' player name here> should!" It's called market value, something that is the standard way of figuring appropraite compensation in almost any industry. Add to that the fact that you're dealing in an industry where the employees have their own union and you're pretty much forced to pay market value, or else you will NEVER sign your own free agents, let alone other teams'. 

The Bulls organization can't make their own rules all of a sudden and expect their players to go along with it when every other player in the league isn't. The business doesn't work that way. You'd have to get very lucky to get your own free agent to sign for less than their market value (i.e. no other teams have enough money to make an offer), but even then, you're going to end up with an unhappy player who won't forget that, when it came down to it, his employer didn't show much desire to keep him happy. Getting that repuation around the league will bring your organization's chance of success down very quickly.

Paying Tyson, or anyone else for that matter, a ridiculous amount like $75 mil is one thing, but paying him market value is just normal business.

I hate to say it, but this is starting to smell like what many of the "Anti-Pax/Reinsdorf brigade" have been insinuating would happen (and getting ripped for) for the last two years.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> So what is the big deal? Is the 22 year old Chandler going to retire before the contract is up? Is he going to be an aging veteran with diminishing skills before the deal is up?


Is he going to be Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett?


Well, the Bulls made an offer, and Tyson countered. Hopefully, there is at least a little room for compromise. Neither side has told the other to take a hike, yet.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Is he going to be Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett?
> 
> 
> Well, the Bulls made an offer, and Tyson countered. Hopefully, there is at least a little room for compromise. Neither side has told the other to take a hike, yet.


Is he going to be Dalembert? Seems to me he already is at least as good...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Is he going to be Tim Duncan or Kevin Garnett?
> 
> 
> Well, the Bulls made an offer, and Tyson countered. Hopefully, there is at least a little room for compromise. Neither side has told the other to take a hike, yet.


Tyson's average salary in a 6 year, 75 million deal: $12.5 million

Kevin Garnett's average salary on his current deal: $20.0 million

Tim Duncan's average salary on his current deal: $17.4 million


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Tyson's average salary in a 6 year, 75 million deal: $12.5 million
> 
> Kevin Garnett's average salary on his current deal: $20.0 million
> 
> Tim Duncan's average salary on his current deal: $17.4 million


A right to the jib. That's got to hurt.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Is he going to be Dalembert? Seems to me he already is at least as good...



Yeah but just because Philadelphia paid Dalembert a ridiculous, out or proportion contract does that mean it is the Bulls responsibility to do the same to Chandler? What about other players like Z or James that aren't getting the kind of money Dalembert is? If Dalembert is making 64 mil a year, and you base Tysons salary on that, how much is Tyson worth? His stats are slightly better, he is taller, isn't he slightly younger? So how much does he get? 70 million over 6 years? Thats an awful lot for someone averaging less than a double double. I think Philly messed up when they paid Dalembert that much myself.


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

I sure hope Tyson has been working on his game this off season and not just compiling a wish list of things to buy w/ all the extra jack. If the Bulls are going to be paying him 10 million + a season, we better see better offensive numbers. 

BTW tb#1, 

Where did you find the avatar of Steve Nash playing w/ Jerry?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Yeah but just because Philadelphia paid Dalembert a ridiculous, out or proportion contract does that mean it is the Bulls responsibility to do the same to Chandler? What about other players like Z or James that aren't getting the kind of money Dalembert is? If Dalembert is making 64 mil a year, and you base Tysons salary on that, how much is Tyson worth? His stats are slightly better, he is taller, isn't he slightly younger? So how much does he get? 70 million over 6 years? Thats an awful lot for someone averaging less than a double double. I think Philly messed up when they paid Dalembert that much myself.


If Chandler were UFA today, what kind of paycheck do you think he'd be taking home from now on?


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

As Teddy KGB once said, "He bleat me, stlaight up. Payee that mian heese mee-oney."

Try for a comprmise, Pax, but ultimately realize that Tyson has out-flopped you.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> If Chandler were UFA today, what kind of paycheck do you think he'd be taking home from now on?



He's not a UFA so it doesn't really apply. If he were there would probably be some stupid team out there willing to do a 5 year 60-65 million dollar deal.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

jnrjr79 said:


> I don't know that this approach lets you keep y our free agents and build a team.


Aye, there is the rub. 

Is $75 million too much to pay for Tyson Chandler? Of course it is, *in a vacuum.* But the Bulls aren't negotiating this deal in a vacuum. There is more to consider here than the isolated worth of Tyson Chandler. And the Bulls will no doubt be forced to pay for those considerations. 

Like it or not, the Dalembert deal does have a significant impact on Chandler's market value. 

Look, Chandler isn't going to get $75 million. But he's also obviously not going to take a $60 million deal based on incentives either. 

As a fan, I can live with splitting the difference and throwing out the incentives even though Chandler, on an island, isn't worth it. He is, however, the beneficiary of being the first significant step towards perpetuating the roster of an extremely young and talented playoff team. 

Chandler must be resigned and the reasons for doing so go far beyond his individual play on the court. This is a turning point.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ace20004u said:


> He's not a UFA so it doesn't really apply. If he were there would probably be some stupid team out there willing to do a 5 year 60-65 million dollar deal.


Actually, it would depend on how many teams have cap space, and who else is a UFA at the time IMO.

Each summer, there are usually only 3 or 4 teams have enough cap space to pay another team's free agent the max. And they are usually either bottom-feeders or teams who would have to let their own free agents walk in order to clear out max cap space.

Who, besides ATL, had that cap space this summer? Seattle did, but they couldn't have gone after Tyson unless they let Allen walk for nothing. Cleveland did, but they instead decided to resign their own big man. And ATL decided to go after a RFA with their money.

The reality is that only one or two players sign max deals with new teams each summer- and usually those guys are much more proven than Tyson.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Ace, I agree with you. But the thing is, the Bulls obviously have no choice to bring Chandler back in order to stay competitive. I see no problem with the way negotiations have gone so far. Chandler wants a huge figure, probably more than he's worth, while the Bulls intially throw out low-ball figures, probably slightly less than he's worth. Seems natural and harmless enough at this point. It's from this point on where things get interesting. All it takes is one side's refusal to budge for this to get ugly, which could result in Tyson signing for the Qualifying Offer.

In hindsight, I really wish that somebody did sign Tyson to an offer sheet, b/c then this whole thing could be done with. At least Pax has an optimistic tone about the negotiations. That normally means something eventually will get done.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Actually, it would depend on how many teams have cap space, and who else is a UFA at the time IMO.
> 
> Each summer, there are usually only 3 or 4 teams have enough cap space to pay another team's free agent the max. And they are usually either bottom-feeders or teams who would have to let their own free agents walk in order to clear out max cap space.
> 
> ...


I guess better questions than what would Tyson command as a UFA, and what teams could have paid him max type dollars this summer is what Tyson may command next year and what teams are likely to be able to pay him max dollars if he snubs the Bulls and takes the QO?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I guess better questions than what would Tyson command as a UFA, and what teams could have paid him max type dollars this summer is what Tyson may command next year and what teams are likely to be able to pay him max dollars if he snubs the Bulls and takes the QO?


True, but that takes a lot more work and speculation than a simple "what if he were unrestricted right now?".


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Ace, I agree with you. But the thing is, the Bulls obviously have no choice to bring Chandler back in order to stay competitive. I see no problem with the way negotiations have gone so far. Chandler wants a huge figure, probably more than he's worth, while the Bulls intially throw out low-ball figures, probably slightly less than he's worth. Seems natural and harmless enough at this point. It's from this point on where things get interesting. All it takes is one side's refusal to budge for this to get ugly, which could result in Tyson signing for the Qualifying Offer.
> 
> In hindsight, I really wish that somebody did sign Tyson to an offer sheet, b/c then this whole thing could be done with. At least Pax has an optimistic tone about the negotiations. That normally means something eventually will get done.



True. You raise a very valid point that it IS a negotiation and figures will fly for both sides. I guess I was just rather shocked to hear Tyson even jokingly suggest a 6 year 75 mil deal as that just seems ludicrous (although what isn't in todays athlete salaries?). I can see maybe a 6 year 65 mil deal being worked out with some of that being incentivised. Still, the money we are talking about is an awful lot for a guy who doesn't average a double double and doesn't start for his team. Of course, I am a Tyson fan and I do think he deserves a nice payday..I just don't want it to get ridiculous. If Tyson wants a penny over a 6 year 65mil deal I would have him play out the QO. That way if he plays well and doesn't hurt his back this season he can see what other teams are willing to pay him next offseason and the Bulls can decide if they want to pay him that much or not.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> If Tyson wants a penny over a 6 year 65mil deal I would have him play out the QO. That way if he plays well and doesn't hurt his back this season he can see what other teams are willing to pay him next offseason *and the Bulls can decide if they want to pay him that much or not.*


Thats part of the problem, though. The Bulls might decide they want to pay him whatever "that much" turns out to be, but Tyson can simply walk if he wants. 

In my post I mentioned other "considerations" that the Bulls will be paying for. This is one of them. Bird in the hand.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> True. You raise a very valid point that it IS a negotiation and figures will fly for both sides. I guess I was just rather shocked to hear Tyson even jokingly suggest a 6 year 75 mil deal as that just seems ludicrous (although what isn't in todays athlete salaries?). I can see maybe a 6 year 65 mil deal being worked out with some of that being incentivised. Still, the money we are talking about is an awful lot for a guy who doesn't average a double double and doesn't start for his team. Of course, I am a Tyson fan and I do think he deserves a nice payday..I just don't want it to get ridiculous. If Tyson wants a penny over a 6 year 65mil deal I would have him play out the QO. That way if he plays well and doesn't hurt his back this season he can see what other teams are willing to pay him next offseason and the Bulls can decide if they want to pay him that much or not.


Do you realize how insignificant the difference is between the deal you can live with and the deal that you can't tolerate? Assuming the incentives you want put in the 65 million deal are reasonable, that is.

EDIT: If the Bulls let Tyson play for the QO this year, I guarantee he'll bolt next year, even if the Bulls end up offering the most money.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

If I were tyson and offered incentives, I'd go QO. That's one year of incentives with the maximum of rewards. It beats 2 or more years of incentives. Maybe he gives up $4M in salary the 1st year, but he'll make $20M back when he signs as a UFA.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Do you realize how insignificant the difference is between the deal you can live with and the deal that you can't tolerate? Assuming the incentives you want put in the 65 million deal are reasonable, that is.
> 
> EDIT: If the Bulls let Tyson play for the QO this year, I guarantee he'll bolt next year, even if the Bulls end up offering the most money.


Exactly.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Do you realize how insignificant the difference is between the deal you can live with and the deal that you can't tolerate? Assuming the incentives you want put in the 65 million deal are reasonable, that is.



IMO 65 million is the absolute most Tyson should make for a 6 year deal. The high ceiling, tops. I realize that paying him 75 mil over 6 years would only be 10 million more and less than 2mil a year but where do you draw the line? I mean, we could pay him 85 million and it wouldn't cost that much more too right? The point is you have to have a cut off point or else you can nickel and dime yourself to death. 

And in response to Ron Cey's post, thats true, he can walk. Of course, the Bulls are the only ones who can offer him a 6 year deal and they can also offer him more than any other club if it comes to that. I think they would be just as likely to save money signing him this way as oppossed to signining him to some ridiculous contract this season. Of course an awful lot will depend on how Tyson plays...


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> If I were tyson and offered incentives, I'd go QO. That's one year of incentives with the maximum of rewards. It beats 2 or more years of incentives. Maybe he gives up $4M in salary the 1st year, but he'll make $20M back when he signs as a UFA.


I understand your point, but that is a drastic oversimplification. First and foremost, you have no idea what percentage of the maximum possible salary is tied to incentives. 

Second, while it is only "one year" of incentives, that "one year" does not have the additional 5 years of guaranteed non-incentive based salary included in the Bulls deal.

Last, there are absolutely no guarantees that Chandler will get a bigger or better salary offer next offseason (let alone that he stays healthy). Ask Swift and Kandi about that. Its a far more complex situation for Chandler than you suggest. 

Both sides have HUGE incentives to get something done, and I think the end result will be a long term deal that overpays Chandler. Under the circumstances, thats an overpayment I can live with.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I understand your point, but that is a drastic oversimplification. First and foremost, you have no idea what percentage of the maximum possible salary is tied to incentives.
> 
> Second, while it is only "one year" of incentives, that "one year" does not have the additional 5 years of guaranteed non-incentive based salary included in the Bulls deal.
> 
> ...


I'd expect that if Tyson signs the QO, he will see diminished playing time and a lot of rhetoric coming from management about him being in bad shape, bad ethic, etc., to try to drive his value down. That's the only way you can compare Chandler with Kandi. 

Call me cynical, if you like, but the proof WILL be in the pudding.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I'd expect that if Tyson signs the QO, he will see diminished playing time and a lot of rhetoric coming from management about him being in bad shape, bad ethic, etc., to try to drive his value down. That's the only way you can compare Chandler with Kandi.
> 
> Call me cynical, if you like, but the proof WILL be in the pudding.


You're theory will never be tested as to Tyson. And it doesn't meaningfully respond to my post at all. You throw out "playing for the QO" as if its some no-brainder decision in comparison to accepting a longer term $10+ million a year deal with incentives. Its not. Its a complex situation for both sides. 

As to what you think Bulls management would or would not/should or should not do, your success rate on that subject is, shall we say, well-established.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> You're theory will never be tested as to Tyson. And it doesn't meaningfully respond to my post at all. You throw out "playing for the QO" as if its some no-brainder decision in comparison to accepting a longer term $10+ million a year deal with incentives. Its not. Its a complex situation for both sides.
> 
> As to what you think Bulls management would or would not/should or should not do, your success rate on that subject is, shall we say, well-established.


My last two posts absolutely addressed the issue you raised in your post.

Chandler would be sacrificing a guaranteed long-term deal laden with incentives for a chance in a year for a guaranteed long-term deal that is bigger in dollars and without the incentives.

I see no logic in accepting a 5 or 6 year deal with 5 or 6 years' worth of incentive clauses in it.

I do see logic in taking the QO, which appears to be what Tyson has been leaning towards all along.

I don't see that there's any long-term guaranteed $10M+ contract been offered to Chandler that he's turned down.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I think Tyson would be crazy to take the QO, because as I said earlier there are usually only a few teams who even have max cap space, and usually they are the worst teams in the league.

I'm sure Tyson is familiar with Kandi turning down an extension from the Clips to take the QO, putting up career-highs of 12/9/2 that season, and still only being able to get the MLE.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I do see logic in taking the QO, *which appears to be what Tyson has been leaning towards all along.*
> 
> I don't see that there's any long-term guaranteed $10M+ contract been offered to Chandler that he's turned down.


Where do you even come up with this stuff? Tyson has "appeared" to be "leaning towards" taking the QO "all along"? Based on what, that Chad Ford *opinion* from over a month ago? Or do you simply assume this based on the fact that a deal is not yet done?

But you are right that there have been no reports a "guaranteed" $10 million a year. The reports are that the Bulls are believed to have offered an incentivized $10 million per year. 

I'm not saying Chandler can't take the QO or even that he shouldn't when its all said and done. I'm just saying it isn't the no-brainer option that you suggest based on the mere existence of incentives when you don't have the first idea what those incentives are, how easy they are to achieve, or how large a portion of the contract $$ they represent. 

In other words, as with most things, more information is needed to support taking the QO as a reasonably preferable option. Its not like the Bulls are offering him a 3 year $18 million dollar deal here.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

I am absolutely in favor of locking up Tyson to a LT deal.

He had better be careful about using the QO as absolute leverage in his negotiations. His representation has yet to get him any offers or significant interest during the FA signing period. Yes, Sammies deal is a big yardstick, but his injury history is less of a concern. 

Methinks this gets done for between 60-65 all guarenteed. The Bulls have simply lost too many high draft picks recently to lose another asset, and Chandler cannot assume that much risk with his back condition.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=7369
> The agent for Sonics F Vladimir Radmanovic has hinted that his client might sign the qualifying offer, and with no teams rushing to extend offers to Bulls F Tyson Chandler and C Eddy Curry, they, too, could be forced into taking qualifying offers.
> 
> But most teams don't want to engender the kind of bad feelings that can come from forcing a player into such a corner. ...



Of course, this is stating the obvious.

I've seen no reports the bulls have offered Chandler anything beyond the QO. 

For bullsville:

Being signed outright as a FA isn't the only way a UFA has left a team. Kenyon Martin comes to mind.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I'd expect that if Tyson signs the QO, he will see diminished playing time and a lot of rhetoric coming from management about him being in bad shape, bad ethic, etc., to try to drive his value down. That's the only way you can compare Chandler with Kandi.
> 
> Call me cynical, if you like, but the proof WILL be in the pudding.


Yes, I will call you cynical. Jeez.

BTW all, what if the Bulls offer Tyson a deal somewhere in the Dalembert range as a base price with incentives that will take it to approaching 70 million or maybe slightly beyond? That might be some sort of compromise. We don't even know if Dalembert's deal has incentives, especially as we've seen two figures, 58 and 64 million, used often.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Of course, this is stating the obvious.
> 
> I've seen no reports the bulls have offered Chandler anything beyond the QO.


Was that supposed to be a response to my post? Because that sure as heck doesn't do anything to support your contention that Tyson has been "leaning towards" taking the QO "all along". 

I'm starting to think that you just aren't very precise with your word choices and that I make too big of a deal out of the actual meaning of the words you inadvertently use. If thats the case, I apologize. Seriously.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Yes, I will call you cynical. Jeez.
> 
> BTW all, what if the Bulls offer Tyson a deal somewhere in the Dalembert range as a base price with incentives that will take it to approaching 70 million or maybe slightly beyond? That might be some sort of compromise. We don't even know if Dalembert's deal has incentives, especially as we've seen two figures, 58 and 64 million, used often.


To be honest with you, if it came down to Tyson playing for the QO or paying him the $75 million, I'd probably relent and pay him that amount as well. To me, if the Bulls are going to play chicken, do it with Curry not Chandler. Even if this deal means that Curry ultimately walks, its worth it in my mind.

My only fear with Chandler's demands is what happens when Hinrich, Gordon, and Deng are up for their extensions? Because they will almost certainly have shown more than Chandler did when he signs his deal.

Very complicated. Very troubling as a fan.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> For bullsville:
> 
> Being signed outright as a FA isn't the only way a UFA has left a team. Kenyon Martin comes to mind.


Horrible example.

1- KMart was *restricted*, not unrestricted.

2- The Nuggets had maximum cap space, that's how they traded for KMart without sending any salary back to the Nets.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Very complicated. Very troubling as a fan.


Hard to see ...the free agent market is


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Maybe I'm just feeling pretty placid right now, but nothing has happened so far with the Tyson negotiations that has really made me flinch.

Yes, it would have been nice if we could have locked him up right away so we all could've had a nice warm feeling, but on the contrary, nothing has really happened yet to make me think that anyone has hit the panic button either. 

And concerning the negotiations, nothing substantial has happened. Period. Tyson (to the best of my knowledge) hasn't visited any other teams, nor has he recieved any official offers, and the Bulls haven't offered one, officially. You could probably interpret that situation to either be good or bad, but to me, it still resides in a grey area, where you can't yet tell. It seems like management's biggest goal this offseason was just to try and retain the core with marketable contracts, and so far, I can't see anything that's happened to suggest that this goal still isn't attainable. 

If these rumoured numbers being thrown out are true, I guess the biggest issue concerning the negotiations is how serious each side feels about its 'demands.' If both feel like their offers are fair, and aren't willing to budge too much from them, then the situation could ultimately conclude with Tyson taking the QO, which would be a failure, IMO. However, if the 60 and 75 million dollar offers are just being thrown out with the expectation that they'll both serve as preliminary steps in the negotiation process, then there's not a whole lot to worry about, and I imagine both sides will end up meeting somewhere in the middle.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Each summer, there are usually only 3 or 4 teams have enough cap space to pay another team's free agent the max. And they are usually either bottom-feeders or teams who would have to let their own free agents walk in order to clear out max cap space.


What's happened plenty is that the FA gets a bottom feeder to make a big offer. A capped out contender also makes it clear they are willing to pay full-wage. FA goes back to team and says S&T me to the contender (for less than full value) or I go to the bottom-feeder.

This is how Brad Miller got to the Kings. Eddie Jones got the Heat with Bulls as the Bottom feeder. Etc.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> What's happened plenty is that the FA gets a bottom feeder to make a big offer. A capped out contender also makes it clear they are willing to pay full-wage. FA goes back to team and says S&T me to the contender (for less than full value) or I go to the bottom-feeder.
> 
> This is how Brad Miller got to the Kings. Eddie Jones got the Heat with Bulls as the Bottom feeder. Etc.


Who was the bottom feeder with Miller's contract? I can't remember.


----------



## bulls (Jan 1, 2004)

if TC wants 12.5 a year and pax wants to give 10 per then just give and take 11-11.25 per and get it over with.i for one think 10per is tomuch to pay for someone with a stat line of 8-9-2 but if tc could get that up to 12-15-3 then it wouldnt be so bad.

as a fan i just want to see the bulls win at any cost,but pax and JR so far have been really penny pinchers and i could see them siting on next years cap space insteed of useing it to improve the team.

to me if i were pax i would make up my mind right now if i wanted to keep KH,LD,EC,TC,BG altogether,if not then make some trades now,if so then i get all the FA's and rooks that i can now because once KH,LD,BG come off their rook deals and have proved them selfs like we think they can we could be looking at 60mil+ just for our startin 5 and no cap space in sight(outside of the mle).


----------



## Ragingbull33 (Apr 10, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> :laugh:
> 
> :Bulls Internet Emergency Response Team Alert:
> 
> ...



actually for the most part he is the definition of one dimensional...

6 mil is above the ml and i think hey may have implied guranteed 6 mil


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Well, despite other descrepencies about what Tyson is actually asking for, it's pretty clear that the Bulls are offering to get in that range only with incentives, and were offering significantly less than the Dalembert range before that contract got done.

The direct quote from the Bulls source in the Sun Times is pretty solid evidence here, as Johnston points out, that the Bulls were significantly under the Dalembert range to start, and not very happy about it. The Daily Herald's article, which says the Bulls revised their thinking upon hearing of Dalembert's offer, seems to confirm this view.

Taken together, it seems pretty strong evidence to me that the Bulls didn't make a very competitive offer.

The reasoning behind that is pretty simple. For their quoted exasperation at Dalembert's contract, that contract certainly doesn't seem out of line with the contracts offered to other players this summer (Illgauskas, Swift, SAR, Gadzuric). Looking back at this thread, *I looked at those guys and projected a 6 year, 64.4M deal was realistic for Chandler.*

*Dalembert, whose potential, stats and game are quite similar to Chandler's, appears to have gotten precisely that.* He got slightly less, per year, than Illgauskas, and slightly more, per year, than Kwame Brown. The other guys get a bit less owing to being smaller, older, etc.

The bottom line is that young, talented seven foot tall players are rare commodities that command a premium. Hell, if you look around the league, guys like Rasho Nestorovic and Memo Okur are making 6-7.5M bucks, and you gotta figure that's with them signing contracts a couple years back. Who would you rather have long term? Memo for $7.5M this year, or Tyson for $8.5M?

Come on Bulls. The rates for guys like this is pretty much a known commodity. If you didn't think they were worth it, your window of opportunity to trade them was last summer and the summer before that. You made the choice then... now is only the conclusion of the path you decided to walk. So quit *****ing and do it.


----------



## Ragingbull33 (Apr 10, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> What gets me is that we've known all along that Curry and Chandler were going to demand max kinds of deals and we accepted it and expected it.
> 
> So what is the big deal? Is the 22 year old Chandler going to retire before the contract is up? Is he going to be an aging veteran with diminishing skills before the deal is up?
> 
> ...



wow, first off crawford got double from the knicks what anyone was offering so what do we learn from this. nothing because we already know the knicks are one of the 5 worst orgs in bball...


second, king is a horrible gm who offers ridiculous contracts so dalembert being overpaid isnt our fault and id tell chandlers agent that as soon as he opens his mouth. think about it, is there a difference between this contract and the grob contract when he was taken first? not much, huge contracts base don talent so a hs player coming out can essentially blow the rookie scale to **** if we do this. cmon man he didnt even start...


----------



## Ragingbull33 (Apr 10, 2005)

PC Load Letter said:


> The thing I don't understand is how people say "Who cares about what <insert other team's player's name here> got paid? Just because someone else got more money than they deserved doesn't mean <insert Bulls' player name here> should!" It's called market value, something that is the standard way of figuring appropraite compensation in almost any industry. Add to that the fact that you're dealing in an industry where the employees have their own union and you're pretty much forced to pay market value, or else you will NEVER sign your own free agents, let alone other teams'.
> 
> The Bulls organization can't make their own rules all of a sudden and expect their players to go along with it when every other player in the league isn't. The business doesn't work that way. You'd have to get very lucky to get your own free agent to sign for less than their market value (i.e. no other teams have enough money to make an offer), but even then, you're going to end up with an unhappy player who won't forget that, when it came down to it, his employer didn't show much desire to keep him happy. Getting that repuation around the league will bring your organization's chance of success down very quickly.
> 
> ...



im sorry but one overpaid sixer does not a market make...


----------



## Ragingbull33 (Apr 10, 2005)

PC Load Letter said:


> The thing I don't understand is how people say "Who cares about what <insert other team's player's name here> got paid? Just because someone else got more money than they deserved doesn't mean <insert Bulls' player name here> should!" It's called market value, something that is the standard way of figuring appropraite compensation in almost any industry. Add to that the fact that you're dealing in an industry where the employees have their own union and you're pretty much forced to pay market value, or else you will NEVER sign your own free agents, let alone other teams'.
> 
> The Bulls organization can't make their own rules all of a sudden and expect their players to go along with it when every other player in the league isn't. The business doesn't work that way. You'd have to get very lucky to get your own free agent to sign for less than their market value (i.e. no other teams have enough money to make an offer), but even then, you're going to end up with an unhappy player who won't forget that, when it came down to it, his employer didn't show much desire to keep him happy. Getting that repuation around the league will bring your organization's chance of success down very quickly.
> 
> ...


since stoudamire is getting a max deal at slightly higher than this, will chandlers numbers increase at the same rate? not in ur wettest dream


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Looking back at this thread, *I looked at those guys and projected a 6 year, 64.4M deal was realistic for Chandler.*












As an aside, I agree completely with everything you just wrote. Get the damn deal done. I'm not saying don't negotiate a little bit more because every dollar counts towards next summer's capspace, but the bottom line is that when the dust settles, Chandler needs to be under contract as a Bull for the next 6 years. Even if it means "overpaying".


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Why is Tyson's "market value" based solely on what Dalembert is going to make?

Swift put up 10.1/4.6/1.53 in only 21.3 minutes and he signed for the MLE. Project his stats over Tyson's minutes and they would be 13.6 and 6.2 and 2.06. 

Pachulia put up 6.2 and 5.1 in only 18.9 minutes and he signed for less than the MLE. Project his stats with Tyson's 28.7 minutes and they become 9.4 and 7.7, pretty similar to Tyson's numbers- and he is more than a year younger than Tyson with 2 fewer years in the league. 

Now I have no doubt that Tyson is worth more than Zaza or Stro, but I just cannot understand how anyone can say that Dalembert *alone* set Tyson' market value when he wasn't the only free agent forward/center on the market.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Why is Tyson's "market value" based solely on what Dalembert is going to make?
> 
> Swift put up 10.1/4.6/1.53 in only 21.3 minutes and he signed for the MLE. Project his stats over Tyson's minutes and they would be 13.6 and 6.2 and 2.06.
> 
> ...


That's what I was pointing out in the older thread I brought up; it's not simply Dalembert's deal alone.

Before Dalembert got his deal, I would figure he and Chandler would get about the same sort of deal. 

And by looking at what guys like Stro, Kwame, SAR, and Illgauskas got, you could sort of estimate the range for Chandler.

Dalembert falling in that range only seems to be confirmation.

A big part of the difference between a guy like Chandler and a guy like Swift, I think, comes in size. There are a lot of 6'9 guys out there. There are a lot fewer 7'1 guys out there with similar skills.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> That's what I was pointing out in the older thread I brought up; it's not simply Dalembert's deal alone.
> 
> Before Dalembert got his deal, I would figure he and Chandler would get about the same sort of deal.
> 
> ...


I hadn't read that, but very nice post. 

I really don't see the problem with giving Tyson 6 years and $60 million without incentives- Pax has often mentioned wanting to sign guys to "tradeable" contracts, and Tyson at that money is certainly still very, very tradeable.

I know Pax has said he doesn't want to pay for potential, but IMHO 6 yr/60 mil is pretty fair based on his 4th quarter and Crunch Time play last season.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> What's happened plenty is that the FA gets a bottom feeder to make a big offer. A capped out contender also makes it clear they are willing to pay full-wage. FA goes back to team and says S&T me to the contender (for less than full value) or I go to the bottom-feeder.
> 
> This is how Brad Miller got to the Kings. Eddie Jones got the Heat with Bulls as the Bottom feeder. Etc.


The bulls would themselves be under the cap, so the 125% rule wouldn't apply to them.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> What's happened plenty is that the FA gets a bottom feeder to make a big offer. A capped out contender also makes it clear they are willing to pay full-wage. FA goes back to team and says S&T me to the contender (for less than full value) or I go to the bottom-feeder.
> 
> This is how Brad Miller got to the Kings. Eddie Jones got the Heat with Bulls as the Bottom feeder. Etc.


Brad Miller didn't use any bottom feeders to get to the Kings- the Pacers traded him because they didn't want to pay the Luxury Tax. Plus, they were able to unload Mercer in the deal, and they picked up what they thought would be a solid "replacement" in Scot Pollard. They only had to pay Pollard and Jeff Foster combined ~$2 million more than what Miller got paid.

But that deal was about the Pacers not wanting to pay the LT, plain and simple. And of course, unloading Mercer's deal at the time had a lot to do with it.

Eddie Jones "forced" a trade, but the Heat had to give up Jamal Mashburn (and PJ Brown) to get him (and Anthony Mason)- and before he got hurt, Mashburn was certainly the better player after the trade. So the Hornets certainly got "full value" for Jones.


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

> What's happened plenty is that the FA gets a bottom feeder to make a big offer. A capped out contender also makes it clear they are willing to pay full-wage. FA goes back to team and says S&T me to the contender (for less than full value) or I go to the bottom-feeder.
> 
> This is how Brad Miller got to the Kings. Eddie Jones got the Heat with Bulls as the Bottom feeder. Etc.


The Los Angeles Clippers will be able to get very close to MAX cap room next season. That alone is enough. You don't want to go into next summer with Chandler an UFA and have to compete with an offer from his hometown team that will have a good, young nucleus and the ability to come close to your dollars.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

MemphisX said:


> The Los Angeles Clippers will be able to get very close to MAX cap room next season. That alone is enough. You don't want to go into next summer with Chandler an UFA and have to compete with an offer from his hometown team that will have a good, young nucleus and the ability to come close to your dollars.


True, the Clips will have $36.2 million tied up in Brand, Maggette, Mobley, Kaman and Livingston. They would have to renounce Wilcox, but with the roster spot charges they would be at about $38.5 million, which would leave them ~$10.5 million in cap space.

That means they could offer Tyson 5 years and ~$60 million while the Bulls could offer 6 years and $90 million. Personally, I think Tyson wants to win more than he would want to play at home for a perennial loser (for quite a bit less money). The Clips have had a solid young nucleus for many years, but Sterling is more interested in making money than he is in winning.

But you are correct that it's not a situation that I want to see the Bulls get themselves into.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bullsville said:


> True, the Clips will have $36.2 million tied up in Brand, Maggette, Mobley, Kaman and Livingston. They would have to renounce Wilcox, but with the roster spot charges they would be at about $38.5 million, which would leave them ~$10.5 million in cap space.
> 
> That means they could offer Tyson 5 years and ~$60 million while the Bulls could offer 6 years and $90 million. Personally, I think Tyson wants to win more than he would want to play at home for a perennial loser (for quite a bit less money). The Clips have had a solid young nucleus for many years, but Sterling is more interested in making money than he is in winning.
> 
> But you are correct that it's not a situation that I want to see the Bulls get themselves into.


If it gets to that, however, it'll mean Tyson has played this year for the QO. If that happens, I doubt he's left with much faith that the Bulls are going to pay whatever it takes to be a winner. We'd be pretty indistinguishable from the Clips on that front.

Or would a Chris Wilcox for Tyson sign and trade start looking palatable? That's why you have those extra guys around. The Clips could use him as compensation to the Bulls, who likely wouldn't want Chandler back if it were clearly for mercenary reasons only.


----------



## Miamiballer2k5 (Jun 29, 2005)

If Brian Grant got a max contract putting up 10 and 10 at 28 i dont think giving 22 year old Tyson a max is that bad of an idea if it comes to that. It would expire when he is 28 so he would be in his prime during the length of the contract.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Mikedc said:


> If it gets to that, however, it'll mean Tyson has played this year for the QO. If that happens, I doubt he's left with much faith that the Bulls are going to pay whatever it takes to be a winner. We'd be pretty indistinguishable from the Clips on that front.
> 
> Or would a Chris Wilcox for Tyson sign and trade start looking palatable? That's why you have those extra guys around. The Clips could use him as compensation to the Bulls, who likely wouldn't want Chandler back if it were clearly for mercenary reasons only.


As for Tyson's attitude, IMO it depends on what the Bulls are offering right now. Nobody knows for sure, but if they were to offer 6 years and $60 million before incentives, I don't see how Tyson could think that the Bulls aren't willing to pay for a winner. But if it's more like 6 years and $40 million plus $20 mil in incentives, I'm sure he would feel that way. And I'm sure I would feel like a Clippers fan.

But IMO it's still a huge gamble for Tyson to take the QO, I doubt that he wants to go that route- and his agent probably doesn't, either.

And I have absolutely no interest in trading Tyson for Wilcox, but that's just me. I'm sure you're right that Pax wouldn't want Tyson back if it's just to be a mercenary, though. If the Clips would be willing to give Tyson 6 years and $60 million and Tyson says "do the SAT or I take the QO", Pax might very well do it.


----------



## rynobot (Oct 10, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Eddie Jones "forced" a trade, but the Heat had to give up Jamal Mashburn (and PJ Brown) to get him (and Anthony Mason)- and before he got hurt, Mashburn was certainly the better player after the trade. So the Hornets certainly got "full value" for Jones.



The Hornets also included Ricky Davis in that trade.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

rynobot said:


> The Hornets also included Ricky Davis in that trade.


Yeah, I know- the Hornets also included Dale Ellis and the Heat included Tim James, Rodney Buford and Otis Thorpe. 

But I was only referring to the main players in the deal- Davis had barely played in his 2 seasons in Charlotte, and he barely played in his one season in Miami after the trade.

He didn't "blow up" (and I use that term loosely) until he went to the woeful Cavs the next summer. And he didn't even start playing until his 2nd season in Charlotte.

In other words, he was a throw in, the Heat only took him to make the salaries match up. The Heat traded him for Chris Gatling- nuff said.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Who was the bottom feeder with Brad Miller's contract? I can't remember.


Offers from Denver and Utah made Miller too expensive for the Pacers' taste. So they shuffled off to Kings for fodder.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Ragingbull33 said:


> actually for the most part he is the definition of one dimensional...
> 
> 6 mil is above the ml and i think hey may have implied guranteed 6 mil


That is what I meant. 6 mil a year with loaded incentives seems fair. Of course he won't take it, but in terms of what he is worth for what he gives on the court, yes that is fair. The Swift comparison is valid. Heck, Curry will ask for 12 mil a year even with his condition if Chandler gets it. He at least is a starter and get 15/6.

Remember, we are talking about 12 million a year for a guy coming off the bench. He will probably still come off the bench this year.

12 mil a year off the bench, foul prone, one dimensional, no offense. What will all these other players ask for when their contracts are up?


----------



## Cyanobacteria (Jun 25, 2002)

*Serenity now!*

Even if all of the numbers on this thread are right, they don't look so far apart that a deal doesn't get done eventually. I don't think this situation is anything like TO in his driveway or Spree feeding his family.

and everybody take it easy on poor Samuel "I had to crash the draft" Dalumbert. Instead blame Jon "contract" Koncack and Jim "whatever happened to" McIlvane.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> Offers from Denver and Utah made Miller too expensive for the Pacers' taste. So they shuffled off to Kings for fodder.


I certainly don't remember it happening that way- and if Miller was too expensive for the Pacers, why didn't they just let him walk instead of taking back Scot Pollard in a sign and trade?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Salvaged Ship said:


> That is what I meant. 6 mil a year with loaded incentives seems fair. Of course he won't take it, but in terms of what he is worth for what he gives on the court, yes that is fair. The Swift comparison is valid. Heck, Curry will ask for 12 mil a year even with his condition if Chandler gets it. He at least is a starter and get 15/6.
> 
> Remember, we are talking about 12 million a year for a guy coming off the bench. He will probably still come off the bench this year.
> 
> 12 mil a year off the bench, foul prone, one dimensional, no offense. What will all these other players ask for when their contracts are up?


It doesn't matter that Tyson came off the bench, he was still 3rd on the team in min/game last season, behind only Kirk and Eddy (behind Eddy by only one minute, and it was Tyson who was on the floor in the 4th quarter, not Eddy).

That means he averaged more minutes per game than 3 of our 5 starters, and he was always on the floor in Crunch Time. 

So while Tyson doesn't start, he's certainly not a "bench" player.

And Curry can ask for whatever he wants, but nobody is going to pay that much money to a guy who can't even get his contract insured (so far). And seeing as how it has been about a month since the league refused to insure Eddy, I'm definitely thinking that he can't get insured at all.


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

It doesn't matter who starts, it matters who is on the floor at the end of the game.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Salvaged Ship said:


> That is what I meant. 6 mil a year with loaded incentives seems fair. *Of course he won't take it, but in terms of what he is worth for what he gives on the court, yes that is fair.* The Swift comparison is valid. Heck, Curry will ask for 12 mil a year even with his condition if Chandler gets it. He at least is a starter and get 15/6.


Is it?

Are we a better team over the next six years with Tyson Chandler or Stromile Swift? 

Not factoring in salaries or anything, just asking what sort of difference swapping one for the other would make.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I certainly don't remember it happening that way- and if Miller was too expensive for the Pacers, why didn't they just let him walk instead of taking back Scot Pollard in a sign and trade?


They also got Danny Ferry who they immeadiately waived. And Pollard's remaining years left on his deal was much shorter than the 7 year deal Miller signed. As well as less money per year.

Interesting enough, I think this deal for the Pacers is a lot like the projected Curry for Mimh deal for the Bulls. They get back a backup that has been almost as productive per minute. Just played a bit less per game. Maybe is as good or better on D. Just a few years older. A more cap friendly deal.

Turned out to be a bad and cheap move in retrospect.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/m/millebr01.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/p/pollasc01.html


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> They also got Danny Ferry who they immeadiately waived. And Pollard's remaining years left on his deal was much shorter than the 7 year deal Miller signed. As well as less money per year.
> 
> Interesting enough, I think this deal for the Pacers is a lot like the projected Curry for Mimh deal for the Bulls. They get back a backup that has been almost as productive per minute. Just played a bit less per game. Maybe is as good or better on D. Just a few years older. A more cap friendly deal.
> 
> ...


I think that with Miller out of the picture, Indy still needed a big to fit their scheme and Pollard was a worthwhile gamble in that regard. It didn't pan out, though.


----------



## Deke (Jul 27, 2005)

75 mil over 6 years like 12 mil a year, Antonio Davis gets that much so why not Tyson Chandler get that much since he actually does something


----------

