# McGraw: Deng deserves all credit for thwarting Gasol trade



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

> The national analysts who blasted Bulls general manager John Paxson for failing to complete a trade for Memphis power forward Pau Gasol are not wrong.
> 
> Logically speaking, this could go down as a missed opportunity that will haunt the Bulls for years to come. The team suffers from a glaring lack of height, and Paxson passed on a chance to acquire a 7-foot former all-star in his prime.
> 
> ...


The rest here: http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/story.asp?id=285733


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Good article on Deng. He really is a good person. Good thing Pax kept him!!!:yay:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

For Deng and filler, we could have had Pau Gasol on the roster for the next three-and-a-half seasons?

I think I'm going to be sick.

No, wait, I thought about how great a guy Deng is and it went away.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

For ****'s sake.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Great guy. Best player on the team. My favorite player on the Bulls. Second favorite Bull ever. My boo. 

All totally irrelevent. This is a trade that should have happened. I don't care if he matured from obstacles in Egypt, East St. Louis, or Wichita. I don't care about his smile. And I don't care about his popularity. 

This was a mistake. A huge mistake. Unless "filler" means Tyrus Thomas and the Knicks' pick unprotected - which I very much doubt - there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that deeming Deng a trade killer was foolish. 

This is still a very good young team with a lot of promise. But its not as good and not as promising as it could have been. God damnit this article pisses me off.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I doubt very much that "filler" was not in fact valuable assets. At the very least it included PJ Brown's contract with $8 million in salary relief equal to the cost of full LLE and MLE exceptions. No doubt it also included a first round draft pick (? Splitter). And maybe more, say Sefolosha.

Deng, Splitter, Sefolosha, MLE, LLE ... pretty soon we're talking real assets in return for a 7 footer who could bring down 6 or 7 rebounds per game.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

But Brown's contract was not an asset for the Bulls. Because they never used it. It was only an asset for Memphis.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> But Brown's contract was not an asset for the Bulls. Because they never used it. It was only an asset for Memphis.


Not true. It's still money in Cheapskate Jerry's pocket that he now might make available for at least an MLE free agent this summer. No way he opens the wallet with Gasol's contract on board. So as I see it, we keep PJ for the rest of this year, and maybe next year as well (LLE?) if he plays well in the playoffs. And we pick up a quality free agent (say Chris Mihm) with the MLE. That "filler" could prove to be pretty handy to have.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

McBulls said:


> Not true. It's still money in Cheapskate Jerry's pocket that he now might make available for at least an MLE free agent this summer. No way he opens the wallet with Gasol's contract on board. So as I see it, we keep PJ for the rest of this year, and maybe next year as well (LLE?) if he plays well in the playoffs. And we pick up a quality free agent (say Chris Mihm) with the MLE. That "filler" could prove to be pretty handy to have.


Yeah, I'm hoping we can keep P.J. for one more year so that he can continue mentoring the young guys and all the intangibles he brings.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

McBulls said:


> Not true. It's still money in Cheapskate Jerry's pocket that he now might make available for at least an MLE free agent this summer. No way he opens the wallet with Gasol's contract on board. So as I see it, we keep PJ for the rest of this year, and maybe next year as well (LLE?) if he plays well in the playoffs. And we pick up a quality free agent (say Chris Mihm) with the MLE. That "filler" could prove to be pretty handy to have.


The MLE will *not* be used this year on a long term contract. Bank on it. Reinsdorf is.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

I'm glad we didn't do the trade. I don't think swapping Deng for Gasol would put us over the top for a championship, and keeping Deng positions us well for the future.

I guess I'm just drinking the kool-aid.

Feel free to pile on.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

The Truth said:


> I'm glad we didn't do the trade. I don't think swapping Deng for Gasol would put us over the top for a championship, and keeping Deng positions us well for the future.


I don't understand the "doesn't put us over the top" thought. Which Pax himself said. How the hell could any trade put us over the top? 

The Shaq trade didn't put the Heat over the top. They had holes when they traded Odom and Butler. They still needed to get Walker, Posey and Jay Williams. And a year of internal development from Wade.

If you don't trade Deng and filler for Gasol, isn't the only logical reason that it's because of a belief that Deng will be significantly better than Gasol down the road as 7 footers that can play are rare. Is Pax this stupid or is he trying to avoid putting a ton of pressure on Deng?


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I don't understand the "doesn't put us over the top" thought. How the hell could any trade put us over the top? If you don't trade Deng and filler for Gasol, isn't the only logical reason that it's because of a belief that Deng will be significantly better than Gasol down the road as 7 footers that can play are rare. Is Pax this stupid or is he trying to avoid putting a ton of pressure on Deng?


Quality power forwards aren't any rarer than quality small forwards. 

I think Deng will be significantly better in the future. I may be wrong.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

The Truth said:


> Quality power forwards aren't any rarer than quality small forwards.
> 
> I think Deng will be significantly better in the future. I may be wrong.


Very good point.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Quality power forwards aren't any rarer than quality small forwards.


They absolutely are rarer on the Bulls.



The Truth said:


> I think Deng will be significantly better in the future.


Fine, perfect justification of no-trade. Why not just say this in the first place?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

narek said:


> Deng has been blessed with maturity, wisdom and a strong work ethic.


Good article...just a nitpick...

I think maturity and wisdom can come from being blessed with a good strong environment while growing up.

But even if you grow up surrounded by the Hard Work All-Stars...I think that a strong work ethic is something you decide to have, not something you inherit or are blessed with.

Like I said: a nitpick.


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

I am confused. I have read numerous reports that the "filler" included one additional player from the core, plus PJ Brown, plus the Bulls first round pick. Now McGraw states otherwise. So which "insider" do I believe. Was the deal:

Gasol = Deng + Gordon/Hinrich/Nocioni + PJ Brown + 2007 1st Round Pick

or was it

Gasol = Deng + PJ Brown + filler (whatever that means - Sefalosha, Tyrus Thomas, 1st round pick). Those three options seem like more than filler.

Also, since Gasol is the second coming of Christ, why didn't other teams come after Gasol hard? I looked at the 2006/07 stats, and Gasol is outperforming Deng, but only slightly. One is 21 and 6-9, and the other is 26, and is 7-0. Gasol has a maximum contract, and Deng will be coming up to contract renewal soon.

*Luol Deng *
Chicago Bulls 
Position: F-G 
Height: 6-9 Weight: 220 
College : Duke 
Player file | Team stats 

2006-07 Statistics 
PPG 18.8 
RPG 7.2 
APG 2.2 
SPG 1.22 
BPG .56 
FG% .521 
FT% .771 
3P% .250 
MPG 37.3 


*Pau Gasol *
Memphis Grizzlies 
Position: C 
Height: 7-0 Weight: 260 
From : Spain 
Player file | Team stats 

2006-07 Statistics 
PPG 20.3 
RPG 9.3 
APG 3.2 
SPG .37 
BPG 2.26 
FG% .527 
FT% .729 
3P% .250 
MPG 35.5 


Gasol clearly fills a need, but if it was Deng plus Gordon or Hinrich or Nocioni, you filled one need by openning up one or two more needs. Nocioni (when healthy) could fill the Deng spot, but I see nobody ready to replace the all-around game of Hinrich or the scoring of Gordon. If it was both Deng and Noc, you have no small forwards. Plus, with Crawford out for the year, hopefully the Bulls pick will be in the 7 to 10 range in a very deep draft.

I wanted Gasol, but not at the expense of one lottery pick, two core players, and financial inflexibility. If it was just Deng + financial inflexibility + filler (not including the lottery pick), then I probably would have made the deal.

We will never know what the actual offer was, or why no other team made a serious offer.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

The Truth said:


> Quality power forwards aren't any rarer than quality small forwards.
> 
> I think Deng will be significantly better in the future. I may be wrong.


Let's not forget that Deng is 21 and Pau is 26. I posted the stats as well. Trading Luol for Pau gives us at most 2 more points, 2 more rebounds, and 2 more turnovers a game. Add to the fact we'd be losing Tyrus or a 1st Round Pick and yea I'm glad Paxson didn't make this deal. [edit - baiting -vf]


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> They absolutely are rarer on the Bulls.


Like I said, Gasol doesn't put us over the top for a championship immediately. I think the Bulls should try to make another deal in the offseason for a big, whether it's a different deal for Gasol or another post player.



> Fine, perfect justification of no-trade. Why not just say this in the first place?


I thought I said as much in my first post in this thread when I said that Gasol doesn't put us over the top and Deng positions us well for the future. I aplogize if I was unclear.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> The MLE will *not* be used this year on a long term contract. Bank on it. Reinsdorf is.


I agree. I thought McBulls might be referring to a short MLE deal though.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Like I said, Gasol doesn't put us over the top for a championship immediately. I think the Bulls should try to make another deal in the offseason for a big, whether it's a different deal for Gasol or another post player.


You seem to be saying that any deal with Deng was a "bad value", but you would pull it if it put the team over the top. Yes? Has there ever been a trade that was "bad value" but put a team over the top? 

Somewhat unrelated to the point, but would you trade him and filler for Garnett?


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I like talking Bulls basketball, but the blissfully optimistic, hypocritical, self-deceiving, rigid views of Paxson supporters are the problem (if there is one) IMHO.


Do you think that T. Shock's assertion that Deng could be average 24 and 8 and Gasol average 20 and 10 in 3 years is unreasonable?

Do you think that my assertion that Deng will be better than Gasol in the future is unreasonable (even if you disagree)?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> This was a mistake. A huge mistake. Unless "filler" means Tyrus Thomas and the Knicks' pick unprotected - which I very much doubt - there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that deeming Deng a trade killer was foolish.


I can't rule it out. Filler in my mind would be players like P.J., Duhon, Sweetney, Victor, etc. and I suspect McGraw is referring to more substantial assets than that.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

Love Deng. Still should have made the trade. I hope Pax has an alternative plan to bolster our frontcourt this offseason because I'm having a real hard time envisioning a plausible scenario. Mihm? Brzec? Good God Almighty. 

My confidence is shaken (not stirred).


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> You seem to be saying that any deal with Deng was a "bad value", but you would pull it if it put the team over the top. Yes? Has there ever been a trade that was "bad value" but put a team over the top?


This is how I feel about the trade. 

I think that trading Deng and filler for Gasol would probably make the Bulls better in the short-term, but wouldn't put them on a championship level. I believe that in the long-term (2-3 years when Deng reaches his full potential) that the trade would be in the Grizzlies favor.

Look at the Heat, they sacrificed the long-term in favor of the short-term for Shaq. Shaq put them over the top for a championship, but trading away Odom and Butler will certainly hurt the team in the long-term. If I thought that Gasol would put us over the top for a championship like Shaq did for the Heat, I would have been absolutely in favor of the trade. However, it seemed to me that the Bulls would have been only marginally better in the short-term and probably worse off in the long-term (not saying that they would be worse than they are now, but that they would be worse than they would have been if they kept Deng).



> Somewhat unrelated to the point, but would you trade him and filler for Garnett?


If the filler was minimal, yes.

[edit - just pruning out the baiting stuff -vf]


----------



## ChiSox (Jun 9, 2004)

If the Bull could just add Gasol without giving up much like the Pistons did with Rasheed then it could put them over the top. 

Adding Gasol and trading away Deng and one or two assets doesn't put us over the top. IMHO Deng in two years will be a better player than Gasol. 

Deng should/will get stronger and gain more experience. I believe when this occurs his game will go to the next level.

I believe Paxson made the correct decision.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

The Truth said:


> This is how I feel about the trade.
> 
> I think that trading Deng and filler for Gasol would probably make the Bulls better in the short-term, but wouldn't put them on a championship level. I believe that in the long-term (2-3 years when Deng reaches his full potential) that the trade would be in the Grizzlies favor.
> 
> Look at the Heat, they sacrificed the long-term in favor of the short-term for Shaq. Shaq put them over the top for a championship, but trading away Odom and Butler will certainly hurt the team in the long-term. If I thought that Gasol would put us over the top for a championship like Shaq did for the Heat, I would have been absolutely in favor of the trade. However, it seemed to me that the Bulls would have been only marginally better in the short-term and probably worse off in the long-term (not saying that they would be worse than they are now, but that they would be worse than they would have been if they kept Deng).


Do you plan on building around Hinrich? He's 26 years old and one year younger than Gasol. If Gasol doesn't fit the Bulls' long-term plans, then I don't think Hinrich does either. Gordon is 24 in 2 months. Unless he loses weight, he's going to decline sharply after he hits 30. Does he fit the Bulls' long-term plans? 

Deng is 21 and Thomas is 20. I think it's wise to plan long-term if you have a franchise player like Oden, Lebron, Dwight Howard, etc. I don't think Deng and Thomas are that.

Trading for Gasol wouldn't be like the Shaq trade or the Wallace signing. He has 5 full prime seasons left. After 5 seasons, he would reach the age that Wallace and Shaq were at.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Does keeping Deng put us over the top?


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Do you plan on building around Hinrich? He's 26 years old and one year younger than Gasol. If Gasol doesn't fit the Bulls' long-term plans, then I don't think Hinrich does either. Gordon is 24 in 2 months. Unless he loses weight, he's going to decline sharply after he hits 30. Does he fit the Bulls' long-term plans?


In keeping Hinrich and Gordon we don't necessarily have to give up a rapidly improving 21 year old.

FWIW, I came around to the Gasol trade if Gordon--rather than Deng--was the key component.



> Deng is 21 and Thomas is 20. I think it's wise to plan long-term if you have a franchise player like Oden, Lebron, Dwight Howard, etc. I don't think Deng and Thomas are that.


But Gasol doesn't put us over the top in the short-term, so how does it make since to sacrifice Deng's future potential for only marginal improvement in the short-term? If you don't think that Deng will be better than Gasol in the future, that's a different argument.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Does keeping Deng put us over the top?


No, and I never said it did. But I believe keeping him versus trading him and another player/pick positions us better for the future.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Does keeping Deng put us over the top?


No it doesn't. This roster staying put doesn't put us over the top.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> No, and I never said it did. But I believe keeping him versus trading him and another player/pick positions us better for the future.


Why use the "put us over the top" justification for one player but not the other?

Do you suppose that if we wanted to trade for KG in the offseason that Gasol might be a good part of what's required? This speaks to "position for the future" FWIW. How would you envision the Bulls going after KG (or Kobe, or any other guy with a big contract who's too good to not want on the team) as the roster and finances are now?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Does keeping Deng put us over the top?



No...but it keeps us on the path to the top we were on. We'll never know whether we would have under achieved, achieved, or over achieved with Gasol.

But various pundits seem to think the franchise is on the right path too. Lots of fans do too.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

The Truth said:


> But Gasol doesn't put us over the top in the short-term, so how does it make since to sacrifice Deng's future potential for only marginal improvement in the short-term? If you don't think that Deng will be better than Gasol in the future, that's a different argument.


Hinrich and Gordon's prime years coincide with Gasol's- the next 5-6 years. If trading for Gasol sacrifices Deng's future potential, then keeping Hinrich and Gordon sacrifices Deng's future potential. 

Deng has a much longer prime - the next 11-12 years. If he is the foundation, then the Bulls should trade Hinrich and Gordon while their value is still high in favor of younger players and draft picks and build around Deng. 

I guess it depends on how highly you think of Deng.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Why use the "put us over the top" justification for one player but not the other?


I think I've explained that. I don't think we should sacrifice the future for the present if the move will not put us over the top for the present.



> Do you suppose that if we wanted to trade for KG in the offseason that Gasol might be a good part of what's required? This speaks to "position for the future" FWIW. How would you envision the Bulls going after KG (or Kobe, or any other guy with a big contract who's too good to not want on the team) as the roster and finances are now?


Do we know that Garnett and Kobe are going to be available in the offseason?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> No...but it keeps us on the path to the top we were on. We'll never know whether we would have under achieved, achieved, or over achieved with Gasol.
> 
> But various pundits seem to think the franchise is on the right path too. Lots of fans do too.


You're right. We'll never know. But if a change of scenery is good for players, it might be really good for Gasol, don't you think?

And I'm not particularly a proponent that we screwed up by not getting Gasol, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning at this point behind certain statements.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Somewhat unrelated to the point, but would you trade him and filler for Garnett?


I'm not sure I would... is this a hypothetical where salaries don't matter? 

Garnett is fairly old and I fear he's going to decline very soon. Too many seasons, too skinny.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

rwj333 said:


> Do you plan on building around Hinrich? He's 26 years old and one year younger than Gasol. If Gasol doesn't fit the Bulls' long-term plans, then I don't think Hinrich does either. Gordon is 24 in 2 months. Unless he loses weight, he's going to decline sharply after he hits 30. Does he fit the Bulls' long-term plans?
> 
> Deng is 21 and Thomas is 20. I think it's wise to plan long-term if you have a franchise player like Oden, Lebron, Dwight Howard, etc. I don't think Deng and Thomas are that.


I think people often mistake the argument Deng's extreme youth shouldn't be parted with easily as an argument that Gasol not young enough for this team. Gasol is 26 and should be in his prime for three or four more seasons so he's exactly the type of player the Bulls should be targeting to pair with a young core. However, that still doesn't negate the fact that Deng is five years younger. It's hard to deny that Deng should be worth at least four or five more good to great seasons in a Bulls uniform than Gasol. The question is whether the value of Gasol's time with the Bulls would justify favoring quality over quantity. In my mind to do that you need to make a convincing argument either that swapping out Gasol for Deng gives the Bulls a good chance of a title in the next several seasons, that the latter half of the 12+ seasons Deng can conceivably play for the Bulls barring serious injury will be wasted becuase the team will be forced to rebuild, or that Deng is replaceable.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> I think I've explained that. I don't think we should sacrifice the future for the present if the move will not put us over the top for the present.
> 
> 
> 
> Do we know that Garnett and Kobe are going to be available in the offseason?


You didn't answer the question. If you say Deng isn't the piece that puts us over the top, then maybe Kevin ("thank god for opt out clauses") Garnett might be. What kind of package can we put together given the current and future circumstances to get him?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

[edit - bait -vf]



> But if a change of scenery is good for players, it might be really good for Gasol, don't you think?


Yes. But here is a question: Does Gasol has oodles of talent, of potential, that is as of yet un-tapped like Curry and Chandler had?

I think that they are different cases. Chandler and Curry were acquired for their potential...we'd expect Gasol to come in and continue doing what he's done before.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> In my mind to do that you need to make a convincing argument either that swapping out Gasol for Deng gives the Bulls a good chance of a title in the next several seasons, _that the latter half of the 12+ seasons Deng can conceivably play for the Bulls barring serious injury will be wasted because the team will be forced to rebuild, or that Deng is replaceable._


That's exactly what I'm trying to argue, especially the second part. I also think that Gasol is absolutely better than Deng but that part has been argued to death. Great post!


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Hinrich and Gordon's prime years coincide with Gasol's- the next 5-6 years. If trading for Gasol sacrifices Deng's future potential, then keeping Hinrich and Gordon sacrifices Deng's future potential.
> 
> Deng has a much longer prime - the next 11-12 years. If he is the foundation, then the Bulls should trade Hinrich and Gordon while their value is still high in favor of younger players and draft picks and build around Deng.
> 
> I guess it depends on how highly you think of Deng.


But I'm not thinking just in terms of the number of prime years they have left. My argument is that Gasol will not put us over the top for a championship in the next 2-3 years. In 2-3 years I believe Deng will be a better player than Gasol (not because Gasol will be past his prime, I just think that Deng will develop into a better player). So in 2-3 years I think we're better off with Deng and Gordon and Hinrich (assuming we keep them) because Deng will be a better player than Gasol.

I am no means against trading Hinrich and/or Gordon, though, depending on the deal. Like I said before, I was in favor of the Gasol trade if Gordon was the key component.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

The Truth said:


> But I'm not thinking just in terms of the number of prime years they have left. My argument is that Gasol will not put us over the top for a championship in the next 2-3 years. In 2-3 years I believe Deng will be a better player than Gasol (not because Gasol will be past his prime, I just think that Deng will develop into a better player). So in 2-3 years I think we're better off with Deng and Gordon and Hinrich (assuming we keep them) because Deng will be a better player than Gasol.
> 
> I am no means against trading Hinrich and/or Gordon, though, depending on the deal. Like I said before, I was in favor of the Gasol trade if Gordon was the key component.


Well, okay.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

rwj333 said:


> Hinrich and Gordon's prime years coincide with Gasol's- the next 5-6 years. If trading for Gasol sacrifices Deng's future potential, then keeping Hinrich and Gordon sacrifices Deng's future potential.
> 
> Deng has a much longer prime - the next 11-12 years. If he is the foundation, then the Bulls should trade Hinrich and Gordon while their value is still high in favor of younger players and draft picks and build around Deng.
> 
> I guess it depends on how highly you think of Deng.


I think it all depends on your philosophy. Do you take three or four years and go for it then tear down and rebuild or do you try to retool while remaining competitive? If you go with the former approach Gasol is a no brainer. If you go with the latter approach it's not so simple because the team still wouldn't be expected to win a Championship right away and in four seasons Gasol, Gordon, Hinrich, and Noc are all starting to exit their primes with Thabo, Tyrus, and the NY pick representing the only young players (and at least one of them are likely included in any Gasol deal. I think that's where a lot of the "over the top" language comes into play. If a Gasol deal makes you one of the four or five best teams in the league every year then four or so years is a really long time and you have to pull the trigger. If not you're likely rebuilding in five or six years with no hardware.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> You didn't answer the question.


I feel that I have. 



> If you say Deng isn't the piece that puts us over the top, then maybe Kevin ("thank god for opt out clauses") Garnett might be. What kind of package can we put together given the current and future circumstances to get him?


Actually, I think Deng would be more valuable to the Wolves than Gasol.

Granted, there would be contract matching issues that would have to be worked out, but I don't think the Wolves would be interested in starting from scratch with Pau Gasol as the key component of a Garnett trade. Gasol is a very good player, but if you're trading your franchise away, you're going to want more than Gasol in return. Gasol is a very good player, but we've all seen where a team built around Gasol gets you. I would assume that the Wolves would be interested in young, high potential players and draft picks (with big vet contracts to make it work).

If Paxson had dealt Deng for Gasol, he would have also most likely dealt Thomas or Thabo and a first round pick, which could all be valuable components to use in a trade for Garnett.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

[edit - pruning out bait -vf]


> Yes. But here is a question: Does Gasol has oodles of talent, of potential, that is as of yet un-tapped like Curry and Chandler had?
> 
> I think that they are different cases. Chandler and Curry were acquired for their potential...we'd expect Gasol to come in and continue doing what he's done before.


People said the same things about Brand, and he was able to bring his game up to an even higher level. I wouldn't assume that Gasol has hit his ceiling yet - he's shown improvement in each of his seasons so far.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

We should start scouting for the next Lebron who is coming out of middle school, so when Deng hits his prime we will be instant contenders.

Seriously, why plan for the franchise 6-7 years from now. I can understand if that was an issue if we signed a player for a Max contract who might not be worth it. But, to not make the team better for the next 5 years to win it all b/c Deng is 21 is confusing as hell. Is having a window for the championship for the next several years too short? 

Various reports claim different things about what it took Pax to get Gasol. But one article I believe to be the most accurate: Deng, PJ, and Thabo/Tyrus would have done it. The fact is, West wanted Deng more than anything. I'm sure if you offer Deng, the price for the 'filler' drops considerably unless you were offering two of the core (Kirk and Ben).

It'll be fun having several years of first and second round losses and people here complaining about a low-post scorer but do not want to trade their Boo's. People need to take off their Homer-glasses, put down the Kool-Aid and realize there is a reason why we were the team mentioned for Gasol. We need him probably more than any other team. I think Memphis made the better move by not trading him. You end up with their pick, Gasol, Gay, Miller, and get a PG somewhere, and you'll be solid for the next several years. And, yes, Gasol can play through his prime despite the young age of Rudy and Memphis's pick. When did 26 become old? Might as well ship out Kirk and Noce.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

People who had an issue of giving up some value to get back value, should have no complaints about a lack of post scoring. They should raise their chin and stand proud that we have guys like Sweetney, and could go after Ely in free agency. You can keep your Boo, and say, I have my post-scorer while keeping my beloved core intact. 

I think people get confused with Lebron, Wade, Bosh, and D12 with Luol. Which one of the five doesn't have the athletic ability to absolutely DOMINATE the league? Gasol might not dominate the league, but he would allow the team to take a considerable step toward dominating in the playoffs and helping us win it all.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

[edit - pruning bait -vf]




> People said the same things about Brand, and he was able to bring his game up to an even higher level.


With the exception of last year when his ppg went up 4.7 points (its back down this season) Brands statistics have been remarkably stable across the whole of his career.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> I feel that I have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do the excerise of the contract matching. That's where my head is at these days.

I like Deng a ton, but I agree with you that he's not going to put us over the top. The next step in my way of thinking is "who does?" The next step is "how do we acquire that piece?"

Garnett will be making $22M next season. You mention Deng as someone the Wolves would want, he makes $3.3M next season. Thomas makes $3.5M, and Thabo $1.8M. There's your starting point.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> You can keep your Boo, and say, I have my post-scorer while keeping my beloved core intact.


Actually, according to 82games.com, Gasol shoots 44% of his shots from "inside." Deng shoots 41% of his shots from "inside."


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

The Truth said:


> Actually, according to 82games.com, Gasol shoots 44% of his shots from "inside." Deng shoots 41% of his shots from "inside."


You're right. We don't have low-post scoring issues.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Pax has fallen in love too much with the character of this team. He drafted his guys for his reasons and won't be able to give them up. I am not saying to become the JailBlazers or Cincy Bengals, but you don't win without a superstar talent, or the 'Pistons Model'. 

A *should* be made, but the question is, will Pax ever have the Guts unless it was stealing candy from a baby.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Do the excerise of the contract matching. That's where my head is at these days.
> 
> I like Deng a ton, but I agree with you that he's not going to put us over the top. The next step in my way of thinking is "who does?" The next step is "how do we acquire that piece?"
> 
> Garnett will be making $22M next season. You mention Deng as someone the Wolves would want, he makes $3.3M next season. Thomas makes $3.5M, and Thabo $1.8M. There's your starting point.


You are absolutely correct. The opportunity to move PJ Brown was our last real chance to get a big name, big dollar player without completely gutting the team to make contracts match -- unless we involve Ben Wallace in a trade and someone is willing to part with a younger superstar for him -- and at this point, I have to say that is unlikely.

PJ Brown remains a Bull for a few more months before (presumably) riding off into the sunset and we are pretty much out of the blockbuster trade market for the forseeable future.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Actually, according to 82games.com, Gasol shoots 44% of his shots from "inside." Deng shoots 41% of his shots from "inside."


Are you using these statistics to suggest that Deng gets points in the post at something near the rate Gasol does?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You are absolutely correct. Moving PJ Brown was our last real chance to get a big name, big dollar player without completely gutting the team to make contracts match -- unless we involve Ben Wallace in a trade and someone is willing to part with a younger superstar for him -- and at this point, I have to say that is unlikely.


Exactly. You and DaBullz said it perfectly. Failure to deliver. Can't wait till he goes on the Radio and says its hard to find a low-post scorer. Just like the Simmons article pointed out, look at how many low-post guys are labeled untouchable. In a league where guys who are labeled untouchable b/c they are young (Al Jeff), how easy does Pax think it'll be to find one? And when he is available, and you don't take him? What the hell do you call that.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

theanimal23 said:


> Seriously, why plan for the franchise 6-7 years from now. I can understand if that was an issue if we signed a player for a Max contract who might not be worth it. But, to not make the team better for the next 5 years to win it all b/c Deng is 21 is confusing as hell. Is having a window for the championship for the next several years too short?


It all depends on how you feel about rebuilding. You don't need to plan six or seven years in advance but I think you should be thinking about whether you believe you can successfully retool on the fly or whether trying to do so means you're just treading water without high draft picks. 

The league has undergone a drastic metamorphisis over the last decade that people don't address enough. Free agency has taken a massive hit from the last few CBAs. High quality young players simply do not change teams anymore because they are not willing to accept less money and accept the risk of playing longer without a big long term deal. Whether or not Deng can be a franchise player is a difficult question because it involves both Lu himself and your definition of a franchise player. It's a critical question though because the unless the Bulls get extremely lucky they won't have an opportunity to draft a franchise player again for five or six years. On the trade market Gasol is the best case scenario. 26 is quite young but it's not a LeBron, Melo, Bosh, or Howard who can be the face of your team for a decade.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Do the excerise of the contract matching. That's where my head is at these days.
> 
> I like Deng a ton, but I agree with you that he's not going to put us over the top. The next step in my way of thinking is "who does?" The next step is "how do we acquire that piece?"


As I look at the contract situations now that the trading deadline has passed, it's hard to imagine a trading scenario that could net us Garnett. Also, it's hard to imagine a trading scenario that would net us Garnett had we traded for Gasol. Really, the only way I can see it is if the Gasol trade had given us Cardinal in return. Then Gasol and Cardinal could be packaged for Garnett, but I can't imagine the Wolves wanting Cardinal (and his contract).

If you have any suggestions of what could have been packaged for Garnett had we traded for Gasol I'm willing to listen.

To me it seems pretty clear that if we were interested in trading for Garnett, it could only be done before the deadline, and all indications are that he wasn't available.

Unless I'm missing something here.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Are you using these statistics to suggest that Deng gets points in the post at something near the rate Gasol does?


Are you suggesting that coconuts MI-GRATE?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> Are you using these statistics to suggest that Deng gets points in the post at something near the rate Gasol does?


Well Deng has been here for 3 years, and the past two, we have not had any low-post scoring issues. The guy couldn't freakin take Eric Snow in the low post.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Are you using these statistics to suggest that Deng gets points in the post at something near the rate Gasol does?


I'm using these statistics to suggest that Deng takes 41% of his shots from "inside" and Gasol takes 44% of his shots from "inside" according to 82games.com.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Actually, according to 82games.com, Gasol shoots 44% of his shots from "inside." Deng shoots 41% of his shots from "inside."


Dig a little deeper.

39% of Gasol's "close" attempts are assisted.
62% of Deng's "close" attempts are assisted.

59% of Gasol's "jumper" attempts are assisted.
81% of Deng's "jumper" attempts are assisted.

(Interestingly, Gasol shoots an eFG% of .431 on jump shots, a skosh higher than the so-called "automatic" Deng.)

A whopping 45% of Deng's attempts come with 10 seconds or less off the shot clock (i.e., 14 or more seconds left on the clock -- early offense)

26% of Gasol's attempts are with 10 seconds or less off the clock.

See any patterns? Which player is shouldering a greater offensive burden?


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> The thing I love about this board is that in 3 years when Deng is averaging 24/8 and Gasol is still turning in his 20/10, people will either still be *****ing about not getting Gasol or saying how they knew trading Luol was a bad idea (even though they lambasted Paxson for trading him).


Yes people will still be talking about it if Deng put up 24/8 (or even 30/10) and we still haven't win a championship. Even if we become a very good team that makes it to the final three years in a row but we can't manage to win a championship, the talks will go on.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> Well Deng has been here for 3 years, and the past two, we have not had any low-post scoring issues. The guy couldn't freakin take Eric Snow in the low post.


Hey, that's not fair. I have been reassured by the highest authorities that Deng will develop a full interior arsenal that will withstand anything playoff-level defenses can throw at it. Just because you haven't seen it in games doesn't mean anything.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Are you suggesting that coconuts MI-GRATE?


I'm suggesting it's a good idea to not be under the coconut tree when the coconuts are ripe.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Dig a little deeper.
> 
> 39% of Gasol's "close" attempts are assisted.
> 62% of Deng's "close" attempts are assisted.


I don't find that surprising. I'm not saying that their offensive games are similar, I'm simply pointing out that Deng takes a similar percentage of his shots from the "inside." I'm not really sure that these percentages would drastically change if these two players would swap teams.



> 59% of Gasol's "jumper" attempts are assisted.
> 81% of Deng's "jumper" attempts are assisted.


I'm not sure what this indicates. Maybe that Gasol holds onto the ball longer before taking a jumper? I don't think that anyone would argue that Gasol is taking jumpers after taking his man off the dribble.



> (Interestingly, Gasol shoots an eFG% of .431 on jump shots, a skosh higher than the so-called "automatic" Deng.)


I would assume that this is a result of a majority of Gasol's jumpers coming from about 15 feet, whereas Deng shoots a significant amount from 18-20 feet. That still doesn't change that they shoot a similar percentage of their shots from "inside."



> A whopping 45% of Deng's attempts come with 10 seconds or less on the shot clock.
> 
> 26% of Gasol's attempts are with 10 seconds or less on the clock.


I'm not sure what that demonstrates.



> See any patterns? Which player is shouldering a greater offensive burden?


Do you think that Gasol would score more if he had more help? Do you think that Deng would score less if traded to the Grizzlies?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> As I look at the contract situations now that the trading deadline has passed, it's hard to imagine a trading scenario that could net us Garnett. Also, it's hard to imagine a trading scenario that would net us Garnett had we traded for Gasol. Really, the only way I can see it is if the Gasol trade had given us Cardinal in return. Then Gasol and Cardinal could be packaged for Garnett, but I can't imagine the Wolves wanting Cardinal (and his contract).
> 
> * If you have any suggestions of what could have been packaged for Garnett had we traded for Gasol I'm willing to listen.*
> 
> ...


Gasol + $3M is enough to make the contracts balance out.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

T.Shock said:


> Let's not forget that Deng is 21 and Pau is 26.


Five years may not seem like much, but it means Deng will be playing in the NBA about twice as long as Pau from here on out. 2 seasons of Deng for every 1 you get from Gasol. Another one of those features of the trade that West would rather not emphasize.

Let's summarize.

Deng -- lower salary (for at least the next two years
-- comparable productivity to Gasol at this time
-- higher upside potential than Gasol
-- better health history (and probably better genes) than Gasol
-- better attitude (has never complained, much less asked for a trade) than Gasol
-- great practice player
-- outstanding community service (what else can you say about a guy that gives away half his salary to charity)
-- young and still growing
-- never played for a losing team
-- but remarkable maturity, both on and off the floor

Yeah, Deng is the kind of young player you dump for the nearest gimpy, shoots-a-lot, no-D 7 foot stiff from a losing team so you can add balance to the team. NOT


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> I don't find that surprising. I'm not saying that their offensive games are similar, I'm simply pointing out that Deng takes a similar percentage of his shots from the "inside." I'm not really sure that these percentages would drastically change if these two players would swap teams.


No, of course they wouldn't. The thing that these numbers vividly illustrate is that Deng's strength is finishing other people's plays. Gasol's strength is having an offense run through him.



> I'm not sure what this indicates. Maybe that Gasol holds onto the ball longer before taking a jumper? I don't think that anyone would argue that Gasol is taking jumpers after taking his man off the dribble.


Like everything else in this series of numbers, it means that Deng gets to finish a lot of plays set up by others, while Gasol is getting his own. He takes a fairly effective ~15 footer when facing up his man along the left baseline, usually.



> I would assume that this is a result of a majority of Gasol's jumpers coming from about 15 feet, whereas Deng shoots a significant amount from 18-20 feet. That still doesn't change that they shoot a similar percentage of their shots from "inside."


I don't care a wit about the distance, and neither does the scoreboard. I've heard a billion times in the last month that Deng is flat-out automatic on jumpers, and yet here is a 7-footer with a supposedly ungodly jumper converting them more efficiently than Luol. 



> I'm not sure what that demonstrates.


It demonstrates that Deng's getting much more of his shot attempts -- indeed, nearly half -- in fast-break situations, in situations where the defense isn't fully set, etc. Much more of Gasol's attempts come in a half-court setting with the defense geared to stop him.



> I'm not really a fan of the "offensive burden argument." Do you think that Gasol would score more if he had more help? If not, I'm not sure I understand the point of the argument.


The thing these numbers show is that while there may be similarities in the raw output Gasol and Deng produce, there is a considerable difference in how it gets done. One guy is unquestionably the hub of an offense, the other is a finisher/safety valve. 

I don't think Gasol would have scored more than 18-20 ppg if he'd been traded here. He'd give us a guy who opposing defenses would have to account for, he'd give us a viable half-court (playoff) back-to-the-basket option, and he'd give our shooters more room as defenses sagged to double-team him.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

Hmm... now I wonder how the majority of posters here will react if Deng one day becomes a superstar who put up 27/10 every year and we still fail to win a championship. I mean some posters are going to be right saying that Deng is going to better than Gasol. But, then.... so what? we still fail to win a championship. Now I'm not saying Gasol will guarantee us championship. But don't you think we're overrating Deng's impact here? Deng is a very nice talent. But Gasol is closer to a solution than Deng. And Gasol is not that old, so he fits the long term plan too. Gasol might not have Deng's work ethic. But, he's going to add whole new dimension to our team. I mean we're really going to be a different team. With all due respect to Deng, but I think we're going to be better off building a team with Gasol than with Deng.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

RSP83 said:


> Hmm... now I wonder how the majority of posters here will react if Deng one day becomes a superstar who put up 27/10 every year and we still fail to win a championship.


I wonder what will happen if Gasol, Curry, Chandler, Jamal, Trenton Hassell or Jerry Krause are ever part of a championship organization...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> I wonder what will happen if Gasol, Curry, Chandler, Jamal, Trenton Hassell or Jerry Krause are ever part of a championship organization...


Surely that's not possible.
:biggrin:


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Gasol + $3M is enough to make the contracts balance out.


Actually, I think it would take $4M. What do you think we would have been able to offer Minnesota (and that they would accept) had they traded for Gasol?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Actually, I think it would take $4M. What do you think we would have been able to offer Minnesota (and that they would accept) had they traded for Gasol?


2007 and 2009 picks might be a good start.

If we give up the 2007 to get Gasol, then 2008 and 2010 picks.

Now, in two years, Hinrich's big deal isn't BYC anymore so he could be part of a package. If we sign Nocioni to a big deal in the offseason, he could be used in a trade for a big contract, too. Hinrich would be 28 then, Nocioni 29.

The season after, Wallace's deal is an expiring one. Gordon and Deng won't be BYC after signing their new deals.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> No, of course they wouldn't. The thing that these numbers vividly illustrate is that Deng's strength is finishing other people's plays. Gasol's strength is having an offense run through him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Scott, I agree with most of what you said. I absolutely agree that Deng and Gasol have much different offensive games. My question is how does Gasol's offensive output make us significantly better than Deng's?

With Gasol we would undoubtedly have a player with more effective low post scoring moves. But we would also lose Deng's fastbreak ability (as you mentioned above), his mid-range game, and his versatility. Along with whatever other components were to be included in the trade.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> 2007 and 2009 picks might be a good start.
> 
> If we give up the 2007 to get Gasol, then 2008 and 2010 picks.
> 
> ...


What kind of value would the Bulls picks in 2008 and 2010 have for the Wolves?

Let's assume that the Grizzlies trade would have been Deng + Tyrus + 2007 pick. What trade scenario do you think would then allow us to get Garnett in the upcoming offseason?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Scott, I agree with most of what you said. I absolutely agree that Deng and Gasol have much different offensive games. My question is how does Gasol's offensive output make us significantly better than Deng's?
> 
> With Gasol we would undoubtedly have a player with more effective low post scoring moves. But we would also lose Deng's fastbreak ability (as you mentioned above), his mid-range game, and his versatility. Along with whatever other components were to be included in the trade.


Gasol would give us a much more diverse offense (he is hardly a slouch of a fast-break player, particularly for a big man), one that is better suited for the playoff game (which is, inexorably and inevitably, slower than regular season basketball), and he is the perfect person to open up shooting space and driving lanes for our outstanding corps of guards.

I think Deng's mid-range game is a tad overstated, and one of my biggest arguments all along is that he's actually FAR from versatile offensively.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> What kind of value would the Bulls picks in 2008 and 2010 have for the Wolves?
> 
> Let's assume that the Grizzlies trade would have been Deng + Tyrus + 2007 pick. What trade scenario do you think would then allow us to get Garnett in the upcoming offseason?


If he can opt out after next season, the Wolves might be interested in less than you think. He's also going to be 31 or 32, so his real value is to a team that does want to make a real run for the ring now.

To square this whole thing...

We keep Deng for "the future" but have no flexibility to make a blockbuster kind of deal for anyone with a big contract who might put us over the top. We trade for Gasol, we at least have a trading chip. Not to beat a dead llama, but if we still had Chandler, his contract would be useful for big salary trade matching purposes...

There are other kinds of players who are most likely untouchable that aren't big contracts. Like LeBron or Wade.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> Scott, I agree with most of what you said. I absolutely agree that Deng and Gasol have much different offensive games. My question is how does Gasol's offensive output make us significantly better than Deng's?
> 
> With Gasol we would undoubtedly have a player with more effective low post scoring moves. But we would also lose Deng's fastbreak ability (as you mentioned above), his mid-range game, and his versatility. Along with whatever other components were to be included in the trade.


Did you see the Magic game? Stacey King was diagraming our defense and showing how we had to triple team Howard to negate his post presence. Gasol isn't as strong as Howard, but even demanding a double team would mean we'd see less double teams of Gordon or Hinrich or any of our other wing players.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> If he can opt out after next season, the Wolves might be interested in less than you think. He's also going to be 31 or 32, so his real value is to a team that does want to make a real run for the ring now.


I agree that they may settle for less if they are convinced that Garnett will opt out; however, I think settling for less means expiring contracts, lottery picks, and young, high potential players. 




> We keep Deng for "the future" but have no flexibility to make a blockbuster kind of deal for anyone with a big contract who might put us over the top. We trade for Gasol, we at least have a trading chip. Not to beat a dead llama, but if we still had Chandler, his contract would be useful for big salary trade matching purposes...
> 
> There are other kinds of players who are most likely untouchable that aren't big contracts. Like LeBron or Wade.


I think that it may be easy to say that if we traded for Gasol we would be in a better position to trade, and if that's a stance someone is going to take, I think it's at least reasonable to ask who you think we could then trade for.

As to Chandler, I think that's irrelevant to our conversation, though I do agree.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Did you see the Magic game? Stacey King was diagraming our defense and showing how we had to triple team Howard to negate his post presence. Gasol isn't as strong as Howard, but even demanding a double team would mean we'd see less double teams of Gordon or Hinrich or any of our other wing players.


I agree that Gasol would open up some jump shots for our wing players, but I still don't think that he makes the team significantly better. 

I think that our offense currently works best when it's running up-tempo, something that would take a significant hit if we were to lose Deng.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> I agree that Gasol would open up some jump shots for our wing players, but I still don't think that he makes the team significantly better.
> 
> I think that our offense works best when it's running up-tempo, something that would take a significant hit if we were to lose Deng.


Our offense is what it is. In games when we're making the outside shot, we're good. When teams play zone against us, we tend to suck (drive and kick doesn't work so good).

The idea of getting a post player isn't to keep the offense as-is, but to diversify it. Of course Gasol isn't going to get out on the break and score like Deng does, but Deng isn't going to be the post player that Gasol already is.

Again, I'm not necessarily a proponent that we should have traded for Gasol. However, letting PJ Brown's contract expire does put a serious hurt on our ability to trade. If we're going to play the cap space and flexibility game, it seems that is what we really lost. If Pax had traded PJ Brown and some throwin(s) for a deal that expires next season, we'd be in a better situation.

It's always a possibility we strike it rich in the draft, or we can add a quality guy who gets bought out by his team.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Friends, things have gotten a little contentious board-wide lately. Please keep the snipes about agendas and "the other side" out of what is otherwise excellent basketball discussion. Don't let ideological differences overwhelm the fact that we're some of the most loyal Bulls fans around. If you have issues or questions, PM one of us. The tinkling contests that seem to break out in too many threads lately are annoying all of us, regardless of faction, so let's try to avoid it.

carry on. :biggrin:


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Our offense is what it is. In games when we're making the outside shot, we're good. When teams play zone against us, we tend to suck (drive and kick doesn't work so good).
> 
> The idea of getting a post player isn't to keep the offense as-is, but to diversify it. Of course Gasol isn't going to get out on the break and score like Deng does, but Deng isn't going to be the post player that Gasol already is.


I agree. With Gasol we would gain a low-post scorer, but we would lose Deng's ability on the fastbreak.



> Again, I'm not necessarily a proponent that we should have traded for Gasol. However, letting PJ Brown's contract expire does put a serious hurt on our ability to trade. If we're going to play the cap space and flexibility game, it seems that is what we really lost. If Pax had traded PJ Brown and some throwin(s) for a deal that expires next season, we'd be in a better situation.


I absolutely agree with this. While I didn't like the idea of trading Deng + young player + draft pick for Gasol, I think it was a big mistake to not trade PJ. 



> It's always a possibility we strike it rich in the draft, or we can add a quality guy who gets bought out by his team.


DaBullz, you better watch it, you're starting to sound like one of those crazy optimism guys! :smile:


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Hey, that's not fair. I have been reassured by the highest authorities that Deng will develop a full interior arsenal that will withstand anything playoff-level defenses can throw at it. Just because you haven't seen it in games doesn't mean anything.


Wow! What a coinky-dink. I have it on the highest, utmost, incontravertable authority that Deng will never develope a post game because at the ripe old age of 21 he hasn't exercised Shaq-like dominance in the post and as such will never amount to any type of post player.

[edit - read my above plea for civility -vf]


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

The Truth said:


> I think that our offense currently works best when it's running up-tempo, something that would take a significant hit if we were to lose Deng.


It absolutely does work best running uptempo. That is great in and of itself for winning in the regular season, but it's a huge problem come playoff time.

I mean, you have to go back a long, LONG way to find a team that uptempoed its way into multiple years of contention. I actually can't even come up with a good example. The Celts and Lakers loved to run, but when push came to shove, they had some of the greatest half-court players ever -- Bird, McHale, Kareem.

I think it's important to remember that Gasol would have a fast-break advantage over his counterpart at least 75% of the time. He hasn't scored a lot on the break in his career because he's played for coaches who try to strangle the life out of the game, not because he doesn't like to run. I sure didn't see him lollygagging for Spain this summer, at any rate.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> The tinkling contests that seem to break out in too many threads lately are annoying all of us, regardless of faction, so let's try to avoid it.











Circle Jerks -- Golden Shower of Hits


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Are you suggesting that coconuts MI-GRATE?


I have incontravertable proof that, with assistance, they do:










It is not clear to me whether this is an African or European swallow.


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

First, it was not Gasol for Deng even up. Outside of McGraw, most reports mentioned two of the core.

Second, if Gasol is the man to take teams to greatness (obviously excluding Memphis), why was there not more demand for Gasol from across the league?

Third, if Jerry West is considered a great judge of talent by many, why was he was willing to trade a 7 ft dominant inside player for Luol Deng? That makes no sense, unless he sees great potential (actually 18.8 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 2.2 apg, and a 20.08 EFF at age 21 are well beyond potential) in Deng.

Plus, why does everybody discount the potential of Sefolosha or Thomas, and the potential value of a lottery pick in a very deep draft?

Would you trade Deng, Hinrich, PJ Brown and this first round pick for Gasol? Yes or No? I would vote no.

Would you trade Deng, Gordon, PJ Brown, and this years first round pick for Gasol? Yes or No? I would vote no.

Would you trade Deng, Tyrus Thomas, PJ Brown, and this years first round pick for Gasol? Yes or No? This deal may work, and I probably would have made the deal, but it is close. That is alot for a player who has All-Star appearance in five years, and who never never won a playoff series.

We can debate al we want, but anybody that knows what actual offer would have worked is being disingenuous.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I don't think you can compare Deng and Gasol's stats. It's comparing Apples to Ornages. ScottMay did a good job explaining the difference. 

They have two totally different games, and their impact on offense is vastly different. You can't compare 20 points from Gordon and from Bosh. It's just not the same. Both give it to you, but the way they impact their team and the way defenses face the Raptors/Bulls is completely differnt. Thats the same with Gasol and Deng. There is more to it than numbers and stats. It's deeper than that.

I just wanted to say that regarding Deng putting up similar numbers right now. I know, if 20 pts is 20 pts, but for our team, 20 pts from the post is one thing we need.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

So, there's no way I just read all that. I think I just messed up on another bar exam. Maybe not.

But I read some of it. Deng + PJ + Khyrapa + Sweetney for Gasol? I'd do it in a flash.

The biggest problem was not Deng vs. Gasol. I think Deng will be worth it, in time, and although Gasol might still get better, I think he's much nearer to his ceiling. Back when we first drafted Deng, even as much of a Gordon fan as I am, I think I started a thread about how Deng is probably the most likely candidate to hit All-Star status. The guy can do it all, he's growing in his defensive game, he looks like he's been adding muscle since he came back from the wrist injury, and he can handle and pass and shoot.

So what's the problem? Pardon my winding path a bit: one of the random things I picked up while I was studying for this ridiculous exam was that a corporation is not allowed to commit waste. Shareholders can bring derivative suits and actually get a court to butt in injunctively and essentially freeze a corporation that's committing waste. It's a duty of care that the board of directors has to be careful with assets that aren't theirs (if they are theirs, that's another problem).

Anyway, so no corporate waste. Got it.

*Keeping PJ, Sweetney, and Khyapa's contracts constitutes corporate waste.*

The argument that it will make JR less of a cheapskate and spend the MLE this offseason isn't a good one, IMO. Maybe we could use SOME expiring deals, but the only big contracts we have on the books are really Wallace and Hinrich. Everyone else important is expiring or in need of an extension. And as much as we need the spare cash to extend everyone, they've proven they're worth it, and if they're worth it, then some other team will be willing to trade for them later, and thus they haven't lost their trade worth (DaBullz has made this argument every few months or so for the last four years).

We couldn't swing a deal for ANYONE with those guys? USING that filler was the expected action that DID NOT HAPPEN. This is my problem. You don't trade Chandler for PJ's expiring contract just with the expectation that he'll add "professionalism" and help "tutor young raw Tyrus" and "be AD". No. He was a valuable trade asset, and by doing nothing, the value of our assets has decreased.

Ok ok, what's the big deal? So now we have the cap space to extend our core, is that so bad? The problem is that WE COULD HAVE EXTENDED OUR CORE ANYWAY.

Bottom line: Deng + filler for Gasol? Not the trade I love the most, but it makes sense at least, and I might have made it not because of Deng, but because of FILLER.

I don't completely blame Pax; it's definitely been a No Balls Association, as Simmons will tell you. But something terrible has happened when the trade deadline comes and goes, and our expiring contracts just expire.

Also, we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq, and Bird > Magic, and Scarlett Johannsen > Jessica Alba, and I fart in your general direction.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Showtyme said:


> So, there's no way I just read all that. I think I just messed up on another bar exam. Maybe not.


I hope you haven't messed up the obigatory post-bar-exam liver toxicity capacity test.

As a longstanding shareholder of various public corporations, including several that have gone suddenly bankrupt ater enriching their managers, I must say the concept of liability for resource waste by management is attractive, but rarely invoked. 

One man's waste is another's prudent usage of resources. Consider the Chandler trade. It was prudent move, given his apparent redundancy with Thomas and Wallace. The value of this player was going to to down due to the fact that he would have less playing time -- best to turn him into cash.

Your thoughts on the Gasol trade would be better reconsidered after the liver toxicity test has run its course.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Showtyme said:


> *Keeping PJ, Sweetney, and Khyapa's contracts constitutes corporate waste.*
> 
> The argument that it will make JR less of a cheapskate and spend the MLE this offseason isn't a good one, IMO. Maybe we could use SOME expiring deals, but the only big contracts we have on the books are really Wallace and Hinrich. Everyone else important is expiring or in need of an extension. And as much as we need the spare cash to extend everyone, they've proven they're worth it, and if they're worth it, then some other team will be willing to trade for them later, and thus they haven't lost their trade worth (DaBullz has made this argument every few months or so for the last four years).
> 
> We couldn't swing a deal for ANYONE with those guys? USING that filler was the expected action that DID NOT HAPPEN. This is my problem. You don't trade Chandler for PJ's expiring contract just with the expectation that he'll add "professionalism" and help "tutor young raw Tyrus" and "be AD". No. He was a valuable trade asset, and by doing nothing, the value of our assets has decreased.


Increasingly, it all comes back to the luxury tax. If you look back, it's played a role in most of Pax's moves in the last year or so (frontloading Ben and Kirk's deals, moving Chandler) so I feel that I for one was naive for not considering it even more than I did. From all accounts we could've had SAR for expiring contracts and improved the team this season but were forced to weight minor improvement this season against the long term tax ramifications of adding another $6 or 8 million a year to the books and decided it wasn't worth it.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Increasingly, it all comes back to the luxury tax. If you look back, it's played a role in most of Pax's moves in the last year or so (frontloading Ben and Kirk's deals, moving Chandler) so I feel that I for one was naive for not considering it even more than I did. From all accounts we could've had SAR for expiring contracts and improved the team this season but were forced to weight minor improvement this season against the long term tax ramifications of adding another $6 or 8 million a year to the books and decided it wasn't worth it.


Sure, the salary cap and lux tax barrier is a factor. Pax still decided to commit to Wallace and eject Chandler despite the higher cost over this year ($7M) and each of the next 3 years. And use another $8M ($15M total) of cap this year on PJ Brown. Not a good use of the limited funds.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> You are absolutely correct. The opportunity to move PJ Brown was our last real chance to get a big name, big dollar player without completely gutting the team to make contracts match -- unless we involve Ben Wallace in a trade and someone is willing to part with a younger superstar for him -- and at this point, I have to say that is unlikely.
> 
> PJ Brown remains a Bull for a few more months before (presumably) riding off into the sunset and we are pretty much out of the blockbuster trade market for the forseeable future.


Pax can resign PJ for a 1 year contract at 125% of what he is making this season with no trade restrictions on PJ. Even if PJ doesn't play, he could become an expiring contract again rather easily


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

cpawfan said:


> Pax can resign PJ for a 1 year contract at 125% of what he is making this season with no trade restrictions on PJ. Even if PJ doesn't play, he could become an expiring contract again rather easily


Wouldn't that look fishy to the rest of the league?


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

theanimal23 said:


> Wouldn't that look fishy to the rest of the league?


Nah, they'll just assume Pax will screw up again


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Pax can resign PJ for a 1 year contract at 125% of what he is making this season with no trade restrictions on PJ. Even if PJ doesn't play, he could become an expiring contract again rather easily


If this is true, the Bulls have more flexibility that I thought they did going into the summer. Thanks for the info.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> If this is true, the Bulls have more flexibility that I thought they did going into the summer. Thanks for the info.


Agreed that it's a good theory. I doubt the Bulls will use any of these exotic techniques. But hope I am wrong.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> If this is true, the Bulls have more flexibility that I thought they did going into the summer. Thanks for the info.


Well yeah, but it will cost them $10M or so.

I wrote about this in the thread I started the other day as well, but I think the issue is whether the Bulls would face the certainty of a $10M charge vs. the uncertainty of pulling a trade.

If they don't pull a trade (again), then it's just wasted money.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

cpawfan said:


> Pax can resign PJ for a 1 year contract at 125% of what he is making this season with no trade restrictions on PJ. Even if PJ doesn't play, he could become an expiring contract again rather easily


The flaw in this idea is that it includes the assumption that Cheapskate Jerry really would like to expand his salary overhead by $10 million not only next year but for the duration of the contract of whoever the Bulls trade the expiring contract for. Bad assumption.

Still, if Garnett is on the market, the Bulls could offer Hinrich, PJ, and a draft pick or two for his services rather than their entire roster to match salaries. Maybe even that offer will be a little too high. After all, Garnett himself will be in the drivers seat next February. If he demands a trade to Chicago, there's not much McHale can do about it, since he could just go there on his own five months later, leaving Minn with zip in return. 

The Bulls should make some discreet inquires about Mr Garnett's plans.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I say good deal. Tyrus is coming along, so we already have our PF. Gasol isn't tough enough to play C from what I've seen, so we're best off sticking with what we have. If we'd have traded Deng, we'd go backwards big time on the wing, and in a year or 2, Tyrus should be a defensive beast, and if you look at his stats, he is actually a pretty efficient scorer already. The last few games I looked at his stats on (where he got reasonable minutes) and he was shooting a good % at both FG and FT. Last night if I remember right, he was 5-7 from the field, 4-6 from the FT line. Not too bad. Combine that with 2 steals, 6 rebs, 1 block, and only 2 TOs...that's not too bad, only bad stat he had was 5 PFs. (these might not be 100% accurate stats, just trying to remember what I saw last night). I don't buy into the whole age argument either. Deng and Gordon are probably our 2 best players, and they're what, 21 and 23 years old? Hinrich is 25, Tyrus is 20. Those are our 4 core players now, that we go into the future to build with. If we get lucky and get a good scoring big in the draft this year (shouldn't be too hard to come by IMO if the Knicks tank now that our old boy is gone), that's a pretty complete team right there. I don't consider Wallace when assembling a team, because quite frankly most nights he isn't worthy of it. He's way older than the rest of the team (that counts), and has a lot of games where he's no better than your average post player. He's had a few monster games, but most are average. So to me, here's the future of the Bulls (key players)

Hinrich
Gordon, Sefolosha
Deng, Nocioni
Thomas
rookie/fa

I wouldn't trade any of those guys, with the exception of Nocioni, and that's simply because we already have Deng at that position.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> Sure, the salary cap and lux tax barrier is a factor. Pax still decided to commit to Wallace and eject Chandler despite the higher cost over this year ($7M) and each of the next 3 years. And use another $8M ($15M total) of cap this year on PJ Brown. Not a good use of the limited funds.


I don't think the salary cap is a huge factor at this point since we don't figure to see cap space again for a very long time. Even this summer we had pretty limited options: throw all the cap space at Big Ben, sign a starting calliber role player or two like Pryzbillia or Nazr, overpay Gooden or another RFA, or just not use the space.

In my opinion the luxury tax is the big issue because it's always a consideration whereas the cap space only comes into play in the rare seasons where teams have cap space. Pax made the determination that Wallace was a considerable upgrade over Chandler and represented the one piece necessary to make the team a serious contender. Most people agreed with that judgment though myself and apparently a number of other posters did not. He was wrong. Regardless, the luxury tax was a major consideration when that deal went through. It was the main reason Chandler was subsequently traded and the reason Wallace's contract was frontloaded. The luxury tax leaves a much smaller margin for error in basketball decisions. If the tax was not an issue maybe Chandler stays on board. Either way the decision to sign Wallace is final, his contract can't be moved without taking a bad deal back. Pax now has to work within the financial situation the team is faced with and that means that no brainer basketball decisions such as trading non-contributing players for someone like SAR to improve the front court are complicated by the financial end of things.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Tyrus should be a defensive beast, and if you look at his stats, he is actually a pretty efficient scorer already. The last few games I looked at his stats on (where he got reasonable minutes) and he was shooting a good % at both FG and FT. Last night if I remember right, he was 5-7 from the field, 4-6 from the FT line. Not too bad.


14 points in 17 minutes sure make the question of whether or not he can ever become an adequate scorer look silly.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I don't think the salary cap is a huge factor at this point since we don't figure to see cap space again for a very long time. Even this summer we had pretty limited options: throw all the cap space at Big Ben, sign a starting calliber role player or two like Pryzbillia or Nazr, overpay Gooden or another RFA, or just not use the space.
> 
> In my opinion the luxury tax is the big issue because it's always a consideration whereas the cap space only comes into play in the rare seasons where teams have cap space. Pax made the determination that Wallace was a considerable upgrade over Chandler and represented the one piece necessary to make the team a serious contender. Most people agreed with that judgment though myself and apparently a number of other posters did not. He was wrong. Regardless, the luxury tax was a major consideration when that deal went through. It was the main reason Chandler was subsequently traded and the reason Wallace's contract was frontloaded. The luxury tax leaves a much smaller margin for error in basketball decisions. If the tax was not an issue maybe Chandler stays on board. Either way the decision to sign Wallace is final, his contract can't be moved without taking a bad deal back. Pax now has to work within the financial situation the team is faced with and that means that no brainer basketball decisions such as trading non-contributing players for someone like SAR to improve the front court are complicated by the financial end of things.


WHEN would the luxury tax have kicked in had we kept chandler?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

JeremyB0001 said:


> 14 points in 17 minutes sure make the question of whether or not he can ever become an adequate scorer look silly.


Second.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

JeremyB0001 said:


> 14 points in 17 minutes sure make the question of whether or not he can ever become an adequate scorer look silly.


Exactly. I didn't see that game, but the game before, he had a few really nice offensive moves. Don't know if he got lucky or if he's been practicing them, but I was very pleasantly surprised when he pulled them off. Then again, one of the first games of the season he had a nice spin move to the hoop which showed he had the speed and quickness to do the move, just needed to refine it a bit. (He missed on that play, but he sure blew past his guy with ease...ever since then I've been thinking he could really turn into something special, even on offense, if he keeps working at it hard and grows into his body....also haven't wanted him traded unless it was a steal either).


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> WHEN would the luxury tax have kicked in had we kept chandler?


I'm no master with the numbers. I just know we didn't take SAR because his $6 or 8 million a season would cause problems down the line and that we supposedly had to include a member of the core in a Gasol deal because it would pose cap issues. It would seem to follow that at some point in the next few years if we had an additional $9 million in salary that would push us over the threshold.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Exactly. I didn't see that game, but the game before, he had a few really nice offensive moves. Don't know if he got lucky or if he's been practicing them, but I was very pleasantly surprised when he pulled them off. Then again, one of the first games of the season he had a nice spin move to the hoop which showed he had the speed and quickness to do the move, just needed to refine it a bit. (He missed on that play, but he sure blew past his guy with ease...ever since then I've been thinking he could really turn into something special, even on offense, if he keeps working at it hard and grows into his body....also haven't wanted him traded unless it was a steal either).


This board may have to apologize for its criticism of Skiles ability to develop players if Tyrus joins Deng and Gordon (and possibly Thabo) as players.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> 14 points in 17 minutes sure make the question of whether or not he can ever become an adequate scorer look silly.


We're really going to put an end to that argument on the basis of a good performance vs. the second-worst road team in the NBA, one that trotted out a tiny front line, one that was playing its fourth road game in five nights, and one whose coach has basically quit on his team?

Wow.

Tyrus also committed 20 -- TWENTY! -- personal fouls per 48 minutes last night. I guess it's also out of the question that he'll be able to play meaningful minutes in this league. Oh, well.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> We're really going to put an end to that argument on the basis of a good performance vs. the second-worst road team in the NBA, one that trotted out a tiny front line, one that was playing its fourth road game in five nights, and one whose coach has basically quit on his team?


Not to mention the fact that injuries left them suiting up only nine players.

I'll take the win, but lets not get carried away by the blowout.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> We're really going to put an end to that argument on the basis of a good performance vs. the second-worst road team in the NBA, one that trotted out a tiny front line, one that was playing its fourth road game in five nights, and one whose coach has basically quit on his team?
> 
> Wow.
> 
> Tyrus also committed 20 -- TWENTY! -- personal fouls per 48 minutes last night. I guess it's also out of the question that he'll be able to play meaningful minutes in this league. Oh, well.


My post was about whether or not Tyrus has the skills to ever be an adequate scorer in the NBA.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> My post was about whether or not Tyrus has the skills to ever be an adequate scorer in the NBA.


And my point was that last night shows us that he has the skills to be an adequate scorer vs. a crappy undersized team that isn't really trying.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> And my point was that last night shows us that he has the skills to be an adequate scorer vs. a crappy undersized team that isn't really trying.


Are you arguing that he has no reasonable chance to scale those skills up to compete against properly sized _good_ NBA teams?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> Are you arguing that he has no reasonable chance to scale those skills up to compete against properly sized _good_ NBA teams?


Nope. I was arguing against the lunacy of claiming last night's performance ought to put an end to that particular discussion.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Nope.



Cool. Then we agree.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Soulful Sides said:


> Cool. Then we agree.


Not to belabor this, but we don't agree -- you seconded the opinion that last night's game put the discussion to bed, remember?


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

Sure we agree. Last night was a sign of what he can do, and that its possible for him to scale his game up to do it against good teams with regular or big sized lineups.

We're practically blood brothers.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> And my point was that last night shows us that he has the skills to be an adequate scorer vs. a crappy undersized team that isn't really trying.


I think that'd be a better argument if I claimed he would perform that well on a regular basis. I wasn't claiming he's a 25 or 30 PPG scorer down the line, merely refuting the argument often made earlier this season that Tyrus would likely be a (prior to the last month or two) Tyson Chandler or Ben Wallace type offensive player who had no idea what to do with the ball and can't average double digit points. I think it's hard for a player that terrible on offense to have an offensive stretch the way Tyrus did last night even against a decimated, disinterested team. For instance, Ben Wallace played 4 seasons averaging over 34.5 MPG before he scored his career high of 22. Of course, I was also look at the situation in context, the moves he makes, the way he looks with the ball, the way he gets to the line, the fact that he averages 14 points per 40, the fact that he's scored 14 once before, etc.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

ScottMay said:


> Tyrus also committed 20 -- TWENTY! -- personal fouls per 48 minutes last night. I guess it's also out of the question that he'll be able to play meaningful minutes in this league. Oh, well.


Lets not exaggerate EDIT . He committed 14 -- FOURTEEN! -- personal fouls per 48. Don't be ridiculous here. He fouls, but you exaggerated that # by damn near 50%. (He played 16:48 minutes, 5 fouls) EDIT?

Besides that, PJ played a whopping 7 minutes, and none of our other post players were very big (aside from Sweet-tooth). Also, a lot of the time that Tyrus was out on the court, NONE of our starters were with him. The point here is that he was scoring, and scoring efficiently. If he was as offensively inept as people talk about, with NO hope of being a good scorer, he still would've had worse stats than he did there against poor competition.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I'm no master with the numbers. I just know we didn't take SAR because his $6 or 8 million a season would cause problems down the line and that we supposedly had to include a member of the core in a Gasol deal because it would pose cap issues. It would seem to follow that at some point in the next few years if we had an additional $9 million in salary that would push us over the threshold.


Not this year.

Not next year.

Maybe the next year.

Gosh, though, if you look at the roster from 2 or 3 years ago, there's no certainty that anyone is particularly going to be around, or that the finances are going to remain static.

So why worry about some impending cap or luxury tax hit so far down the road when you could use the dollars to have a better roster now?

That's my line of thinking on it.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

From someone who spoke directly with SAR's agent, he said the Bulls contacted the Kings about trading for SAR. Being that the case, it's silly to assume that his salary was the only thing holding us back. If so, why did we ever make contact in the first place? I suppose it's possible that we asked the Kings, "Hey we'll give you an expiring deal for SAR, are you itnerested?" then they said "Hell yeah!", and we said "Oh wait, nevermind", but really, that doesn't strike me as a very reasonable scenario.

I think it's more likely that Sacramento either wanted to ship something else out with SAR, or they wanted something back for him other than expiring deals. Heck, it may have only been a 2nd round pick though, and we could have said, nah, we're not giving you anything for his bad contract, but clearly (to me) there was something else that was required in the deal other than just expiring contracts.

It still could have been mostly about money, but I think if the Kings would have given up SAR for just Allen/Sweetney (or some other combo of expiring deals) that we woudl have done it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Lets not exaggerate EDIT . He committed 14 -- FOURTEEN! -- personal fouls per 48. Don't be ridiculous here. He fouls, but you exaggerated that # by damn near 50%. (He played 16:48 minutes, 5 fouls) EDIT?
> 
> Besides that, PJ played a whopping 7 minutes, and none of our other post players were very big (aside from Sweet-tooth). Also, a lot of the time that Tyrus was out on the court, NONE of our starters were with him. The point here is that he was scoring, and scoring efficiently. If he was as offensively inept as people talk about, with NO hope of being a good scorer, he still would've had worse stats than he did there against poor competition.


I did calculate incorrectly -- an NBA game is 48, not 64 minutes long. My apologies.

Regardless, 15 fouls/48 is a number that even Mike Sweetney can point to and laugh.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Not this year.
> 
> Not next year.
> 
> ...


There's pretty much nothing worse than managing your finances poorly and being forced to let go of a good player when you don't want to. If Pax found himself in a situation three years from now where he had to let a highly productive TT or Thabo walk because he acquired a now useless SAR in a late season deal a few years earlier it would most likely cost him his job.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

dougthonus said:


> From someone who spoke directly with SAR's agent, he said the Bulls contacted the Kings about trading for SAR. Being that the case, it's silly to assume that his salary was the only thing holding us back. If so, why did we ever make contact in the first place? I suppose it's possible that we asked the Kings, "Hey we'll give you an expiring deal for SAR, are you itnerested?" then they said "Hell yeah!", and we said "Oh wait, nevermind", but really, that doesn't strike me as a very reasonable scenario.


I don't think acquiring the contract was completely unfeasible. There was probably internal debate about whether or not it was worth losing such financial flexibility down the line so they figured "What's the point of debating this if the Blazers wouldn't even pull the trigger" so they called to see if he was available.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> There's pretty much nothing worse than managing your finances poorly and being forced to let go of a good player when you don't want to. If Pax found himself in a situation three years from now where he had to let a highly productive TT or Thabo walk because he acquired a now useless SAR in a late season deal a few years earlier it would most likely cost him his job.


Why would he have to let TT or Thabo walk?


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> I don't think acquiring the contract was completely unfeasible. There was probably internal debate about whether or not it was worth losing such financial flexibility down the line so they figured "What's the point of debating this if the Blazers wouldn't even pull the trigger" so they called to see if he was available.


I don't know whether they considered if feasible or not, but I don't think they would have called if they had already decided they wouldn't give up the minimum possible that they could have.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I agree with DaBullz. You worry about luxury tax when you're actually close TO it.

And you can't just say, "we'll wait for that one move that will put us over the top and THEN be ready to spend" because no one ever knows what that one move will be.

Is SAR's contract that bad? I was under the impression he's not making that much over the next two seasons, and I can't imagine that we're going to find a lot better in the MLE crop. To me, free agents this summer look like this:

FULL MLE OR NEAR IT (this category is growing more extinct)

Desmond Mason (should get the full MLE, might price a little more than that if he can)
Mo Williams (probably get re-upped, but who knows, he's unrestricted)
Darko (should sign for a tiny bit more than the MLE, just to price into the cap space teams)
Chris Webber
Smush Parker (teams will pay for this guy who still improves every season)
Matt Barnes (guy can seriously score in bunches, showed to be an all-around player for a streak this year)

ABOUT HALF THE MLE
Pietrus
Pavlovic
Walton (did they re-up him?)
Magloire (based on this year)
Ruben Patterson (having his best year but probably won't get paid)
Mihm (would be a full MLE guy if he wasn't injured)
Mo Pete (poor guy, could have been a star if he correctly really unleashed)
James Posey


MULTI-YEAR SIGNINGS BELOW THE MLE BUT ABOVE THE VET MINIMUM
Bonzi Wells 
Jerry Stackhouse
Travis Outlaw (ready to bust out soon, if not re-upped)
Mikki Moore (NJ might re-up him, if they get bored)
Andray Blatche (semi-productive and Washington might be willing to let him walk)
Devin Brown (playing well, still)
Scot Pollard (does what he does, but doesn't stay healthy)
Austin Croshere (veteran talent to play for peanuts)
Ime Udoka (good 9th man, belongs in the league)


So what, exactly, are we saving our money for? To pay our own players and not incur tax? To what end? To save JR money? Why do we care about saving JR money?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> So what, exactly, are we saving our money for? To pay our own players and not incur tax? To what end? To save JR money? Why do we care about saving JR money?


There seems to be this belief that JR won't go over the luxury tax threshold or that Paxson is somehow avoiding it like the plague. I'm not quite sure where this comes from in the first place. Something Pax was quoted as saying 3+ years ago? Maybe.

Realize this is a team that spends tens of $millions on big contracts for not so good players - AD, Tim Thomas, PJ, ERob buyout, Pip, etc. I'm just not seeing where taking a $2M LT hit for a year or even two is that big a deal or that it would mean we'd have to walk from players we want to commit to long-term.

Even if JR gives Pax this mandate to stay under the LT threshold, I don't see the point in staying $8M or $4M or $2M under it for a couple of years. Not when the team made $48M in profit last season. The "financial flexibility" angle simply doesn't make sense if we're over the salary cap - unless we're going to walk away from players we currently assume the team will commit to anyhow.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> There seems to be this belief that JR won't go over the luxury tax threshold or that Paxson is somehow avoiding it like the plague. I'm not quite sure where this comes from in the first place. Something Pax was quoted as saying 3+ years ago? Maybe.


I think the Chandler trade greatly re-enforces this view.



> Realize this is a team that spends tens of $millions on big contracts for not so good players - AD, Tim Thomas, PJ, ERob buyout, Pip, etc. I'm just not seeing where taking a $2M LT hit for a year or even two is that big a deal or that it would mean we'd have to walk from players we want to commit to long-term.


No offense, but this argument makes no sense:
AD cost less than Rose, so we saved money by acquiring him.
Tim Thomas was salary neutral to AD.
PJ Brown was a massive salary savings over Chandler
Buying out Erob saved us money, and the guy never played again did he?
Signing Pippen to a 2 year MLE deal was cheaper than signing anyone else to a longer MLE deal.

None of these things show a commitment to take on salary, and several of them show the reverse.



> Even if JR gives Pax this mandate to stay under the LT threshold, I don't see the point in staying $8M or $4M or $2M under it for a couple of years. Not when the team made $48M in profit last season. The "financial flexibility" angle simply doesn't make sense if we're over the salary cap - unless we're going to walk away from players we currently assume the team will commit to anyhow.


The point of staying under the tax short term is so that you aren't stuck in it long term and the need to resign players. Deng and Gordon will both require huge raises, and adding long term salary that pushes us close this year will obviously push us well over after they are signed.

I'm not saying the Bulls definitely won't go into the luxury tax, but clearly if they want to avoid it they can't bring on long term salary, because the long term cost of the current roster will push them to the brink of it later on down the road.

I personally think we would have paid for SAR, if we woudln't why would we ask if he's available. WE couldn't offer less than expiring contracts for him because we have no bad contracts, so if it was just salary I think we would have taken him or we woudln't make the call.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Showtyme said:


> FULL MLE OR NEAR IT (this category is growing more extinct)
> 
> Desmond Mason (should get the full MLE, might price a little more than that if he can)
> Mo Williams (probably get re-upped, but who knows, he's unrestricted)
> ...


Well, if JR allows it, of the guys on that list, I'd like to have Mihm -- regardless of who is drafted in June. After the experience of the last two years, I don't think you can have too many seven footers.

Maybe we should keep Marty and Malik or PJ as well.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> I think the Chandler trade greatly re-enforces this view.
> 
> 
> No offense, but this argument makes no sense:
> ...


No offense taken.

We're nearly 4 years into the Pax regime and at no time have we not had some stiff on a big contract. To shine that on as if it isn't reality doesn't make sense. The great big elephant in the room is a certain $60M contract that is a commitment to take on salary, no? It's also hard to picture Wallace in 2 years not being something like AD or PJ or Thomas - a player not worth the bucks he's earning.

Meanwhile, the opposite is true for the young guys. So far, every young guy we've had that was due more than MLE kind of bucks at renewal time isn't here. Only one of them made it with the team for as long as a year.



> The point of staying under the tax short term is so that you aren't stuck in it long term and the need to resign players. Deng and Gordon will both require huge raises, and adding long term salary that pushes us close this year will obviously push us well over after they are signed.


Deng and Gordon get huge raises. Right! They get extended next season and the payroll hit doesn't come until the season after that. Counting this season, that's 2 seasons and 2 offseasons and 3 trade deadlines to dump salary. That's 2 seasons we could have had chandler, someone of a similar sized contract as chandler, two MLE type guys, or whatever.

New Orleans was willing to take Chandler off our hands this past offseason. Think some team somewhere wouldn't do it after this season or after next? (Considering his performance, indeed, considering if he played like last season, even so).

And the worst possible case is we keep Chandler for his 4th season, pay a couple $mill for ONE YEAR in luxury tax, and then we have a big expiring contract with the added bonus of the player being halfway decent and young.

The points being:
1) The LT for the one year is a pittance in comparison to all those stiffs' contracts listed above. 
2) You don't have to dump 3 years ahead of time to stay under the cap
3) "Just in time" means you actually get a good player to contribute to your attempts to win playoff games and series.



> I'm not saying the Bulls definitely won't go into the luxury tax, but clearly if they want to avoid it they can't bring on long term salary, because the long term cost of the current roster will push them to the brink of it later on down the road.
> 
> I personally think we would have paid for SAR, if we woudln't why would we ask if he's available. WE couldn't offer less than expiring contracts for him because we have no bad contracts, so if it was just salary I think we would have taken him or we woudln't make the call.


I won't bore you with my opinion of SAR other than to say we could have done better under a number of scenarios.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

ScottMay said:


> I did calculate incorrectly -- an NBA game is 48, not 64 minutes long. My apologies.
> 
> Regardless, 15 fouls/48 is a number that even Mike Sweetney can point to and laugh.


If it was an honest mistake my apologies. But yeah, 14 fouls per is still ridiculous, but at least we see he has real ability. 

I actually got warned for that post you quoted here. Docked a point and all. Talk about ridiculous. :curse:


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> We're nearly 4 years into the Pax regime and at no time have we not had some stiff on a big contract. To shine that on as if it isn't reality doesn't make sense.


If you actually look at any of the moves rather than just looking at the salaries it makes perfect sense.

You are ignoring all the points:
Trading for AD, we saved 17 million dollars
Bringing on on Thomas: broke even
Buying out Erob, we saved whatever the buyout was
Paying Pippen was 15 million+ cheaper than using the full MLE
PJ Brown saved us 45 million over Chandler

The examples you lised were something like 75 million cheaper than the alternatives.



> The great big elephant in the room is a certain $60M contract that is a commitment to take on salary, no? It's also hard to picture Wallace in 2 years not being something like AD or PJ or Thomas - a player not worth the bucks he's earning.


Wallace is one example of a player we went out and spent a lot of money on, but we moved Chandler's deal to accommodate Wallace's deal. Had we signed stuck with Chandler and used our cap room, it would have meant a long term commitment of 100 million dollars more than doing those 2 signings in conjunction.



> Meanwhile, the opposite is true for the young guys. So far, every young guy we've had that was due more than MLE kind of bucks at renewal time isn't here. Only one of them made it with the team for as long as a year.


Well Williams has never played again, should we have payed him?

Fizer never got another big deal and I believe is now out of the league, should we have payed him?

Crawford is still in the league, and is overpayed, I can see why some would have argued for paying him, but I wouldn't be one of them.

Curry had a heart condition, and we would have payed him over 60 million had he taken and passed the DNA test, and whatever you think about the whole heart thing, the fact that the world's leading athletic cardiac specialist recommended the test is probably good enough that you have to respect Paxson's decision there even if you don't agree with it.

Chandler we payed, and he promptly screwed over the franchise by completely quitting on the team. So we shipped him out to allocate his money elsewhere.

If we let Gordon, Deng, or Hinrich go, then I will agree a lot more with your point though. Though this also points to us being more salary conscious rather than less. We again have let go of guys (some of them talented) in order to maintain solid salary structure. 



> Deng and Gordon get huge raises. Right! They get extended next season and the payroll hit doesn't come until the season after that. Counting this season, that's 2 seasons and 2 offseasons and 3 trade deadlines to dump salary. That's 2 seasons we could have had chandler, someone of a similar sized contract as chandler, two MLE type guys, or whatever.


I agree, the fear is that we wouldn't be able to dump Chandler if he didn't improve.



> New Orleans was willing to take Chandler off our hands this past offseason. Think some team somewhere wouldn't do it after this season or after next? (Considering his performance, indeed, considering if he played like last season, even so).


If Chandler did not improve from the past season, the no. No one would have taken him off our hands. Last year he played like a 3 million dollar a year player, and if he didn't improve this year, then he'd have been completely untradeable. Obviously, he did improve this year, and that's no longer true. Granted, I wish the Bulls franchise took such a risk. However, there unwillingness to do so is strong evidence to me that they are demanding to keep payroll at certain levels especially considering the risk wasn't that large.



> And the worst possible case is we keep Chandler for his 4th season, pay a couple $mill for ONE YEAR in luxury tax, and then we have a big expiring contract with the added bonus of the player being halfway decent and young.


It would have been 2 years we'd be in the tax not just one. Just because he was expiring in year 5 doesn't mean we wouldn't have to pay it, and if we traded him in that year we'd still have to take on similar salary. I'm not saying that I think this situation would have been horrible, quite the opposite, I wish we took that chance right now. However, it's also clear (to me) that the Bulls weren't willing to do take that financial risk.



> The points being:
> 1) The LT for the one year is a pittance in comparison to all those stiffs' contracts listed above.
> 2) You don't have to dump 3 years ahead of time to stay under the cap
> 3) "Just in time" means you actually get a good player to contribute to your attempts to win playoff games and series.


Point 1: It still makes no sense, because all those other stiffs saved the Bulls around 75 million in cash.

Point 2: I agree with to an extent, but if you are scheduled to be in the luxury tax and then need to get out of it, you usually have to give something up to do so. I think I would have hoped we'd have tried, because as it turns out Chandler would have been easy to deal later.

I'm not sure what you really are driving at with point 3.

So, I don't know, I don't entirely disagree with your view of financials, but it strikes me that you are discussing how it could have been and not how it seems to be. You seem to be saying these financial risks aren't that big, or should be taken. While I'm saying the Bulls are very financially conservative, and didn't want to take them. I think both views can be true at the same time as they aren't speaking to the same points.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> So, I don't know, I don't entirely disagree with your view of financials, but it strikes me that you are discussing how it could have been and not how it seems to be. You seem to be saying these financial risks aren't that big, or should be taken. While I'm saying the Bulls are very financially conservative, and didn't want to take them. I think both views can be true at the same time as they aren't speaking to the same points.


The other 800 lb gorilla (to mix metaphors) in the room is the question of whether the luxury tax is at all a consideration. Who says it is, you? Paxson? Reinsdorf? 

Of the three, you do. While I have seen lots of stuff about financial "flexibility" in recent months or even over the past couple of seasons, I haven't seen that Paxson or Reinsdorf want to avoid the LT like the plague.

Find me a citation, if you like.

"Financial flexibility" could just as well mean the ability to sign "the right" players well exceeding the LT threshold (as the Knicks do, but not with "the right" players one might argue).

As for the rest, I was clear to say that it could be Chandler or other options (2 MLEs or whatever) that could be helping us right here and now. I'd also point out that when the Deng and Gordon extensions kick in, Wallace will be an expiring deal, too.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> I won't bore you with my opinion of SAR other than to say we could have done better under a number of scenarios.


At the deadline? Who do you think?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> At the deadline? Who do you think?


In no particular order, other than the obvious ones first:
Gasol is obviously a better player than SAR is. 
Zach Randolph.
I'd rather have kept Chandler than sign SAR, too. 
Harrington was traded, so he was available shortly before the deadline. Like him or not, with Nocioni out, he'd help a LOT.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> The other 800 lb gorilla (to mix metaphors) in the room is the question of whether the luxury tax is at all a consideration. Who says it is, you? Paxson? Reinsdorf?
> 
> Of the three, you do. While I have seen lots of stuff about financial "flexibility" in recent months or even over the past couple of seasons, I haven't seen that Paxson or Reinsdorf want to avoid the LT like the plague.


It's my opinion based on the moves the Bulls have made. It fits the facts better than anything else I can come up with. I hope that I'm wrong, because it will be much harder to be successful as a franchise with a spending limit (obviously most have to do this, but it would have been a big advantage to not have to)



> As for the rest, I was clear to say that it could be Chandler or other options (2 MLEs or whatever) that could be helping us right here and now. I'd also point out that when the Deng and Gordon extensions kick in, Wallace will be an expiring deal, too.


I would hope (and expect) we are willing to use the MLE this year. Paxson was pretty vague when saying he didn't want to take salary at the deadline. I think that may have been a case of wanting to save the MLE for this summer rather than to pick up a contract that might have prevented us from using it on a questionable guy.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> In no particular order, other than the obvious ones first:
> Gasol is obviously a better player than SAR is.
> Zach Randolph.
> I'd rather have kept Chandler than sign SAR, too.
> Harrington was traded, so he was available shortly before the deadline. Like him or not, with Nocioni out, he'd help a LOT.


I misinterpreted what you meant. I was thinking you meant guys we could have got primarily by taking on salary. 

I'd rather have those players than SAR, but I don't think any of them were available for an offer close to expiring deals.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> It's my opinion based on the moves the Bulls have made. It fits the facts better than anything else I can come up with. I hope that I'm wrong, because it will be much harder to be successful as a franchise with a spending limit (obviously most have to do this, but it would have been a big advantage to not have to)


It fits the facts as well as suggesting he's simply (overly) conservative. Avoid overpaying to the degree you do overpay but only for expiring contracts. i pointed out that nobody with a big contract but those expiring deals has stayed on the team for more than a year. Looking at the Chandler deal, it could just as easily be panic ("oh my god, I signed a guy to $10M/year, I may get stuck with a long term deal")



> I would hope (and expect) we are willing to use the MLE this year. Paxson was pretty vague when saying he didn't want to take salary at the deadline. I think that may have been a case of wanting to save the MLE for this summer rather than to pick up a contract that might have prevented us from using it on a questionable guy.


I would hope so too. But to date, most of my hopes have not been met and my expectations are pretty low. For example, it was my hope that Pax would get us another quality player before the season started, not at the deadline - and "not at the deadline" didn't even happen.

*shrug*


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> I misinterpreted what you meant. I was thinking you meant guys we could have got primarily by taking on salary.
> 
> I'd rather have those players than SAR, but I don't think any of them were available for an offer close to expiring deals.


I'm having fun with metaphors tonight. So I'll mix a couple.

If you have a gaping wound, you don't put a bandaid on it. If you need an arterial graft, the doctor usually takes it from somewhere else on the body (e.g. the leg)


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I think we've thrown the baby out with the bath water, but there's no use crying over spilt milk. To that end, the grass is always greener on the other side but it's greenest where no one lives, and you better not be a fence-sitter, because if it looks like a duck, who's calling the kettle black?

Silly rabbit, trix are for kids.

ILLUSIONS, Michael, tricks are what a whore does for money... or candy.

Yikes, I think my brain's still stir-fried.

Listen, I think DB is right in the sense that they aren't scared of bad contracts, but I think doug is right in saying that they keep trying to avoid the tax. I think that BOTH positions aren't inherently good ones for a GM or owner to have. You SHOULD be afraid of overpaying washed up players. You SHOULD NOT be afraid of the luxury tax.

But those are corollaries to the bottom line: you SHOULD do what it takes to present a good basketball team.

I wonder if JR is less involved with Pax's decisions than we think. That's a rational explanation, right? What if Pax-JR work on a fairly need-to-know basis? Because nothing really explains all of Pax's moves unless you apply a certain logic that looks like this (it's ONE rational explanation)

Pax: Jerry, I need to pay Hinrich. We owe him big time.
JR: Johnny, I need a bullpen and a big bat. How close are you to the Finals?
Pax: About halfway there. I want to sign Ben Wallace.
JR: Pay Hinrich X amount, and make your big signing, but just keep things reasonable.
Pax: Will do.

Armed with this knowledge, Pax guns for Wallace to bring in some interior defense, cuts Chandler in what everyone agrees looked like a good deal AT THE TIME, and now can balance the salaries to pay Hinrich. (Signing Griffin for JR Smith was a huge disappointment; we could have at least gotten another useful player out of it, a purely financial move when I'm pretty sure that we could have gotten Najera or even Kleiza out of the deal.)

But now he's got his big signing, he's extended his best player, and he's kept things reasonable. He wanted to upgrade Chandler. There's really only one free agent who could do that this year, and there's only one way to clear the salary to have any leverage with Hinrich. Pax is no genius, but I don't think we're talking about paranoia about the luxury tax OR a certain openness with the purse. We're just talking about some simple guidelines. Can't extend Hinrich, sign Ben, and keep Chandler. Two out of the three's the best we could do. Most think we chose the wrong two. It may be true.

That leads me to the final point: you can say a lot hasn't gone right, but I think a lot HAS gone right. I think Deng, Gordon, Duhon, Hinrich and to some extent Noch have developed under Skiles' watch pretty well. That's the right man for the job for most of this team. Can't blame Pax for being a little hesitant to change things, and to continue to give Big Ben a chance to do his job.

So we can complain about how not everything has gone perfectly right, but I'm content not having a meteoric rise. I still think we're the favorites in the East to make it to the EC Finals, probably against the Pistons, and that we have a chance to beat them too. I think we'll see more of Sweetney, and PJ will come through for us in at least half of our postseason games. I hope we haven't lost Noch for the rest of the season, but could be a blessing in disguise: more minutes for Tyrus (could be a good thing, not sure), and less cash to extend Noch (not that I care if he gets paid well, but if it means that we'll be financially enabled to improve this team, ok).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> That leads me to the final point: you can say a lot hasn't gone right, but I think a lot HAS gone right. I think Deng, Gordon, Duhon, Hinrich and to some extent Noch have developed under Skiles' watch pretty well. That's the right man for the job for most of this team. Can't blame Pax for being a little hesitant to change things, and to continue to give Big Ben a chance to do his job.


Terrific post. What is your take on Pax stuttering about re-signing Skiles when his contract was up? Maybe the JR/Pax conversations went more like this:

JR: You have the job now pax, you whined about getting it from the announcer's booth. Don't screw up or else.
Pax: I dunno what to do about Skiles.
JR: I'll take this one by the short and curlies.

JR gets involved, Skiles is inked in a few minutes.

The convsersation could have gone like this, too:

JR: I don't care about winning. if you stumble onto the next jordan, I'll pay. In the meantime, just make me money. Maintain the market value of the franchise. Be good for the shareholders.
Pax: OK, if I can't really go after and pay the best players possible, at least we'll play hard.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

As long as I'm on the metaphor kick (and it is meant for amusement purposes)...

When life gives you lemons you make lemonade. No need to plant a lemon tree, too


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Why would he have to let TT or Thabo walk?


If the team was under the luxury tax threshold by say only $5 million, one of them signed an offer sheet for say $9 million a season, and say SAR's untradeable is on the books for $6 million the next season.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

dougthonus said:


> I don't know whether they considered if feasible or not, but I don't think they would have called if they had already decided they wouldn't give up the minimum possible that they could have.


That was my point. They might have thought it a poor waste of time to sit around debating whether or not SAR was worth bringing aboard for Sweetney if the asking price was Thabo and they weren't willing to pay that.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Showtyme said:


> I agree with DaBullz. You worry about luxury tax when you're actually close TO it.
> 
> And you can't just say, "we'll wait for that one move that will put us over the top and THEN be ready to spend" because no one ever knows what that one move will be.


That sounds to me like someone who's unemployment blowing their savings on a plasma TV and then saying "I'm not worried whether or not I'll be able to pay my rent in two months, there's no point in worrying about it until I'm actually close to it."


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> It fits the facts as well as suggesting he's simply (overly) conservative. Avoid overpaying to the degree you do overpay but only for expiring contracts. i pointed out that nobody with a big contract but those expiring deals has stayed on the team for more than a year. Looking at the Chandler deal, it could just as easily be panic ("oh my god, I signed a guy to $10M/year, I may get stuck with a long term deal")


Okay.. 

It could be that John Paxson is an ultra conservative or a panicker. Either or both might be true, but both only make sense if he has tight salary constraints to meet. Why would he panic or get salary conservative if Reinsdorf said "Spend whatever you want!"? It makes no sense, but either way, the actions that result from the view of a rigid salary structure or the belief that Paxson is ultra conservative or panicky with large salaries end up being the same. It's just one opinion blames Reinsdorf (for putting in the salary structure) and one blames Paxson for being a panicky conservative idiot who refuses to spend money despite the owner not minding.



> I would hope so too. But to date, most of my hopes have not been met and my expectations are pretty low. For example, it was my hope that Pax would get us another quality player before the season started, not at the deadline - and "not at the deadline" didn't even happen.


Well we spent the MLE on Pippen one year, Noc one year, Duhon + Songaila one year, and didn't have it the next year. We've basically spent it every year, and getting Duhon and Noc in 2 of 3 years isn't too bad relative to how many MLE players end up. However, I agree, we haven't been willing to go after the top end 5 year contract MLE guys so far.



> I'm having fun with metaphors tonight. So I'll mix a couple.
> 
> If you have a gaping wound, you don't put a bandaid on it. If you need an arterial graft, the doctor usually takes it from somewhere else on the body (e.g. the leg)


I hate speaking in metaphors because in general, the metaphor is crafted in such a way that it only makes any sense whatsoever if I already agreed with your point. It's not really related in any way, and it's purpose is to make your side of the argument look blindingly obvious without providing any evidence whatsoever. 

I would have been fine getting any of the players you mentioned at the right cost though.



> JR: I don't care about winning. if you stumble onto the next jordan, I'll pay. In the meantime, just make me money. Maintain the market value of the franchise. Be good for the shareholders.
> Pax: OK, if I can't really go after and pay the best players possible, at least we'll play hard.


So do you think Reinsdorf has imposed a really strict salary structure on the Bulls or not? It seems like you are arguing with me that he doesn't, but then you post this which implies he does.

I don't know, I get the impression that you are just pissed off at the Bulls organization and will use anything you can to try and bash them as a group whether it is consistent with your previous thoughts or not:
Previously, you've basically said that Paxson does not have a strict spending limit, but that he is just panicky and conservative.
Here, Reinsdorf is just cheap and the Bulls do have a spending limit.
We won't spend money on top tier players and should get some just in time players
We wasted 60 million on Ben Wallace who fits the above description to a tee.

It seems like your primary agenda is to just bash the Bulls ownership/management group as that's the lone constant in your arguments since you seem willing to jump sides on everything else.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> As long as I'm on the metaphor kick (and it is meant for amusement purposes)...
> 
> When life gives you lemons you make lemonade. No need to plant a lemon tree, too


Or as Sarah Silverman says: "When life gives you AIDS, you make lemon-AIDS."


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> I think we've thrown the baby out with the bath water, but there's no use crying over spilt milk. To that end, the grass is always greener on the other side but it's greenest where no one lives, and you better not be a fence-sitter, because if it looks like a duck, who's calling the kettle black?
> 
> Silly rabbit, trix are for kids.
> 
> ...


That sounded very George Carlin-esque.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Showtyme said:


> Armed with this knowledge, Pax guns for Wallace to bring in some interior defense, cuts Chandler in what everyone agrees looked like a good deal AT THE TIME, and now can balance the salaries to pay Hinrich.


Everyone does NOT agree that trading Chandler looked like a good deal AT THE TIME. I thought it was a terrible mistake based on specious "balance the salaries" considerations at the time. Since Chandler has developed pretty much as I expected he would, the deal goes down as one of the worst ever made in Bulls history. 

Trading Chandler was a betrayal of the many fans who steadily supported this team over the last decade and enriched Bulls ownership in the process. The Bulls had made several unfavorable trades prior to the Chandler trade to build up the cap space to pay Wallace. So Wallace's signing had nothing to do with the Chandler salary dump per se. The Wallace acquisition was simply used as camoflage for a greedy sale of human capital. 

A team made rich by it's fans like the Bulls should be as close to top of the league in salary instead of near the bottom year after year. There was absolutely no need to dump Chandler's salary at the time of the trade. It's not even clear that the eventual, hypothetical resigning of Gordon and Deng in the future would have brought the Bulls over the luxury tax threshold. Even if it had, this team has had the steady fan support for a decade of losing and mediocrity to support that luxury for a couple of years. 

Reinsdorf is treating the Bulls as if they were a Baseball team, but Basketball is not Baseball. NBA rules do not allow teams to reshuffle their rosters on nearly a yearly basis by choosing from a rich menu of free agents. When you trade an asset like Chandler for nothing, you compromise the long-term future of the franchise.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> Okay..
> 
> 
> So do you think Reinsdorf has imposed a really strict salary structure on the Bulls or not? It seems like you are arguing with me that he doesn't, but then you post this which implies he does.
> ...


I think that DB's position is that JR runs it like a business. 

I think that many other voices in this thread think that Reinsdorf has a lot to do with what moves are made on this team. But something that we've lost sight of is that an owner wants to stay PROFITABLE. That's the primary purpose of ownership. Can't fault him. The City of Chicago doesn't pay the Bulls with our taxes.

And sorry, I didn't mean to speak for you, McBulls. I didn't mean EVERYONE thought the Chandler trade was great. Several on this board, and in the press (notably Bill Simmons has been against it since before the season started). But it at least made some reasonable sense. Our deficiency was in the frontcourt, big time. It still is, but Paxson signed the most elite big man free agent on the market. I don't hold him against that. Also consider how insanely good Detroit would be with Ben Wallace right now. Maybe Webber is the better fit, but I don't think so.

You can't extend Hinrich, keep Chandler, and sign Big Ben without mortgaging the future of the franchise. We wouldn't be in luxury tax territory, but we'd be RIGHT there. And I think Paxson was trying to AVOID a huge mid-season trade of anyone that might be of importance to the team. He's a bigger fan of offseason trades, if we look at his history (S&T's for Craw and Curry; he traded Rose midway through but can you blame him).

I fault him only because we didn't get more back in the trade for Chandler, or that we didn't turn JR Smith into something better. If you don't to keep Smith, fine. But don't trade him away for a bag of Cape Cod kettle cooked.

But I think the buck stops with GM, for the most part. We've bought into a lot of high profile ownerships, like Cuban, the Maloofs, Steinbrenner, Paul Allen, etc. But the truth is, most owners are pretty hands off, I think, as long as things stay profitable.

And that's just the way it is, I think. Reinsdorf puts a priority on winning only to the extent that it's profitable. Basketball IS a business. Ownership has a distinct separation from fanship, unless you're Mark Cuban and you're willing to bleed money all over the place to make your franchise your passion.

That's what makes a great owner, in my opinion (hey, look at how Dallas is since he's been there). But we don't have it, and we can't do anything about it.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Showtyme said:


> But we don't have it, and we can't do anything about it.


We can't?

Man, that's pretty defeatist. If attendance and merchandise sales dropped off, I am positive Reinsdorf would react to it. 

Unfortunately, from what I've seen in the United Center years, what happens between the lines seems practically secondary to lots of the fans. They want some loud music, funny stuff on the scoreboard, a 5000-calorie "snack", a parking spot close to the arena, and quick exit to beat traffic on the Eisenhower/Kennedy/Edens/whatever.

I would never begrudge an owner his or her profits, although I'd hasten to point out that the best way for an owner to make money is to flip the team. But it's obscene for the Bulls to lead the league in profits year after year after year and refuse to entertain even the concept of paying the luxury tax for a season or two. The Bulls could go on a massive spending spree and still make money on a year-to-year basis (to say nothing of the quarter billion-plus they've socked away since 1998).


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I would never begrudge an owner his or her profits, although I'd hasten to point out that the best way for an owner to make money is to flip the team. But it's obscene for the Bulls to lead the league in profits year after year after year and refuse to entertain even the concept of paying the luxury tax for a season or two. The Bulls could go on a massive spending spree and still make money on a year-to-year basis *(to say nothing of the quarter billion-plus they've socked away since 1998)*.


Don't forget the quarter billion in appreciation of the franchise to boot. I wish my own stock portfolio had near that return.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> I hate speaking in metaphors because in general, the metaphor is crafted in such a way that it only makes any sense whatsoever if I already agreed with your point. It's not really related in any way, and it's purpose is to make your side of the argument look blindingly obvious without providing any evidence whatsoever.


I think my metaphors expressed MY view, and perhaps in a way that others will understand. The gaping wound is our lack of post presence. The graft from the leg would be trading from someplace that's our strength.



> So do you think Reinsdorf has imposed a really strict salary structure on the Bulls or not? It seems like you are arguing with me that he doesn't, but then you post this which implies he does.


No, I wasn't a fly on the wall in the room. I'm throwing out what I see are equally possible "conversations" that may have come up.



> I don't know, I get the impression that you are just pissed off at the Bulls organization and will use anything you can to try and bash them as a group whether it is consistent with your previous thoughts or not:
> Previously, you've basically said that Paxson does not have a strict spending limit, but that he is just panicky and conservative.


I've been a fan of the team since the 1960s and through thick and thin. i didn't just start following them when they won championships. I think I've paid for league pass just to watch them for the past 10 years. My agenda is for the Bulls to win championships, first and foremost. 

I also have every right to be cynical, having lived in Chicago for near 25 years of my life and being a fan of all the teams in the city then and now. Through thick and thin. Just for loving the cubs I have every right to be cynical. Championships aren't entitlements, you have to be agressive and go after them.

Chicago also has a tradition of being a great place when it comes to loyalty to its great players. Ernie Banks retired a Cub. Walter Payton retired a Bear. And so on. If I have a bone to pick with the Bulls organization, pre and post Paxson, it's their lack of loyalty to the fans and players in this same way.

I also met Reinsdorf in the mid-80s and the guy was an outright jerk. Hardly the best face for any franchise. So I have no particular interest in patronizing the team for his benefit. I wasn't a fan of Krause, either. So any hostility toward the team's management didn't start with this new regime.

The wrigleys owned the Cubs for about the entire time I lived in Chicago. I didn't meet anyone who'd say "Wrigley is interested in making the Cubs a winner" but rather "wrigley owns the chewing gum company and uses the cubs as a tax write off." 

I also don't underestimate the value of winning championships. When Portland won a championship in the Bill Walton days, it meant a huge influx of money capital for the team and city; it lasted for several years. When the Bulls won championships, they built a new stadium and state of the art workout facilities; they paid the most famous man on the face of the earth $34M (tho he made several times that from his shoe contract alone) and complained about it. 

In the course of winning those championships (and paying for them), the Bulls franchise (the stock in the company) has gone up something like 20x making Reinsdorf all kinds of money. The team's bottom line has been in the black to the tune of near half a BILLION dollars. When the sellouts at the stadium stopped happening like clockwork, we got a management change.

I've really wanted to see and hear only one thing from Paxson - "We're going to do whatever it takes to become a champion." Instead it was "we're going to play the right way." I could actually buy ito the former, but I've been around the block and know that the latter is not at all the same thing.

Basketball teams are not exactly a business; few sports franchises are. They are the toys of $billionaires who have more money than they need. In a big sense, the franchises also belong to the fans; We talk about the team as We, We buy the tickets, We buy the jerseys, and so on.

So pardon me if I see $1B in profit and market cap increase going to the owners and don't buy into $4M of luxury tax for ONE YEAR being a big deal. Especially when the team does spend its precious $millions of budget on AD, Tim Thomas, and PJ Brown type of players. Especially when if the White Sox need to sign a big FA, it doesn't seem to be a problem.

I'm a fan. I measure the team's successes in Wins and Losses and more importantly championships. Not in the book value or market value of the franchise or its overwhelming profitability. I am thrilled after a team win, and hate it when the team loses.

Why shouldn't I point it out if I see moves intended to maximize profit instead of wins? Why shouldn't I point it out if I see that to maximize profit the strategy seems to be to promise "wait until next year" and do just enough to keep the fans filling the seats until they figure it out?

I can understand if a $billionaire like Mark Cuban starts seeing the team burning through his net worth and talking about fiscal responsibility. That's not the situation here.

Nothing Pax has done has changed my consistent view of how it's been playing out (and had been since the 80s). I actually though I might have been very wrong when the Bulls signed Ben Wallace, but like clockwork and predictable, out went Chandler.

/Rant

You asked for it, you got it


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> I think my metaphors expressed MY view, and perhaps in a way that others will understand. The gaping wound is our lack of post presence. The graft from the leg would be trading from someplace that's our strength.


Yes, they express your view in such a way that makes it look brilliant (and the opposing view look stupid) without providing evidence or relevance. The purpose of the metaphor in this argument is to set up a situation where you'd say "no kidding, of course I'd do that!" and then relate it to your point. However, as I said, the metaphor is only appropriate if someone already agrees with your point. I've said a few times I'd have loved to trade for Gasol depending on the cost. If it was just Deng, then I think we'd have been foolish not to, but it's always we wouldn't add Deng to another package of players/picks, and that I think is had to judge without knowing the rest of the package. If we actually outlined all the possible trade scenarios, I would guess that as 2 intelligent people that we'd agree on most of them, and we'd agree that the ones we disagreed on were probably pretty close. Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe you'd do Deng and Gordon for Gasol (which to me isn't close).



> No, I wasn't a fly on the wall in the room. I'm throwing out what I see are equally possible "conversations" that may have come up.


Yes, conversations which go against your previously stated view that the Bulls shouldn't have to worry about 2 years of luxury tax. I actually agree that the fictional conversation is probably pretty close to what Reinsdorf has directed Paxson to do. Get as good a team as you can while maintaining a high level of profitability. If the team lucks into a situation where it's a legit contender, then sure, we'll pay, but we're not going to pay for 1st round exits.



> I've been a fan of the team since the 1960s and through thick and thin. i didn't just start following them when they won championships. I think I've paid for league pass just to watch them for the past 10 years. My agenda is for the Bulls to win championships, first and foremost.


I agree. Winning championships is the most important thing. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.

As for the rest of your long discussion about the Bulls, I agree with almost all of it.

I want us to win championships. I have season tickets, and I go to at least 35 games a year (we always miss some due to lack of babysitters or whatever). I want us to say "We'll do whatever it takes to win", not "We need to remain financially prudent when we're pocketing $50 million a year". 

However, I don't see how you can at one time acknowledge that the Bulls have salary constraints that almost certainly come from the owner, and then rip on the GM for working within those salary constraints. It does not make sense to me. I am not happy that Reinsdorf hasn't stepped up and given Paxson more rope to go out and make moves, but I place that blame on Reinsdorf. I'm also fine with criticizing the moves Paxson has made that haven't worked out, but I think it's worthwhile to examine the known alternatives. 

Believe me, I don't have blind love for the Bulls, I used to try and start up a fire Floyd chant every time I went to the games when he was there, and I still think he's perhaps the worst NBA coach I've ever seen. I hated Jerry Krause's post Bulls moves and was cheering when we got rid of him (finally). I hated almost everything Paxson did early on as GM only to be proven wrong later (however I was initially critical). 

My point is not that the organization shouldn't be criticized. My point is that in that criticism your points should be consistent within a view of the team and how you perceive the events happening. To me it seems like your points are not consistent. You can't say the Bulls won't go into the tax because Reinsdorf is cheap and then rip on Paxson for not following your off season plan which calls for 2 years of luxury tax if we resign our good players.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I've been a fan of the team since the 1960s and through thick and thin. i didn't just start following them when they won championships. I think I've paid for league pass just to watch them for the past 10 years. My agenda is for the Bulls to win championships, first and foremost.
> 
> I also have every right to be cynical, having lived in Chicago for near 25 years of my life and being a fan of all the teams in the city then and now. Through thick and thin. Just for loving the cubs I have every right to be cynical. Championships aren't entitlements, you have to be agressive and go after them.
> 
> ...


OUTSTANDING rant. Truly excellent.:clap2: 

As you know, we disagree on a lot of things. However, we agree on how to judge owners, GMs and head coaches/managers...it's all about winning. Ironically, I like Reinsdorf because in my 40 or so years as a Chicago sports fan, my teams have won 9 championships...and Reinsdorf has been the owner of 7 of those teams.

Again, great post.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> However, I don't see how you can at one time acknowledge that the Bulls have salary constraints that almost certainly come from the owner, and then rip on the GM for working within those salary constraints. It does not make sense to me. I am not happy that Reinsdorf hasn't stepped up and given Paxson more rope to go out and make moves, but I place that blame on Reinsdorf. I'm also fine with criticizing the moves Paxson has made that haven't worked out, but I think it's worthwhile to examine the known alternatives.
> 
> My point is not that the organization shouldn't be criticized. My point is that in that criticism your points should be consistent within a view of the team and how you perceive the events happening. To me it seems like your points are not consistent. You can't say the Bulls won't go into the tax because Reinsdorf is cheap and then rip on Paxson for not following your off season plan which calls for 2 years of luxury tax if we resign our good players.


My points are perfectly consistent if you look at my actual points and not ... something else. 

Like yesterday I asked you if you could cite a source that says anything at all regarding the bulls having some mandate (other than the words of the CBA) to stay out of the LT.

I agree that I've suggested a handful of possible "consversations" that may have taken place, but I haven't said which I believe to be true.

So I will venture to say that it's more likely Reinsdorf is mostly interested in profit and team valuation than avoiding the luxury tax.

It occurs to me that the Bulls could make $100M in profit and be $500M into luxury tax land, in theory. The revenue side of the P/L equation would have to be enormous. This an extreme example, deliberately so to illustrate that fear of luxury tax is silly.

My observations about conservatism seem quite accurate. To squeeze $2M more profit this season and $5M next season is the agenda of the GM. He's focused on the expense side of the P/L equation which does not translate to wins.

You don't win games by having PJ Brown making $8M. You increase profit by $2M by paying Brown $8M instead of Chandler $10M. That's the expense side.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> My points are perfectly consistent if you look at my actual points and not ... something else.
> 
> Like yesterday I asked you if you could cite a source that says anything at all regarding the bulls having some mandate (other than the words of the CBA) to stay out of the LT.


To which I still respond, from all evidence I have seen the team is acting that way. I'm open to discussing other alternatives. You brought up the alternative that maybe Paxson is just ultra conservative or panicky. I don't think this makes sense unless the owner has given him explicit instructions that would cause him to be so though which brings us back to an avoid the luxury tax by proxy argument IMO.



> So I will venture to say that it's more likely Reinsdorf is mostly interested in profit and team valuation than avoiding the luxury tax.
> 
> It occurs to me that the Bulls could make $100M in profit and be $500M into luxury tax land, in theory. The revenue side of the P/L equation would have to be enormous. This an extreme example, deliberately so to illustrate that fear of luxury tax is silly.
> 
> ...


You increase profit by 45 million by trading Chandler for Brown not 2 million. However, otherwise, in general I agree that the most profitable way to run an organization is to win games. 

I agree the best way to make money in the NBA is to become a legit contender, especially in a big market, because demand will skyrocket and you can shoot the prices of tickets way, way up. However, I don't think there has yet been a move on the table that we left there due to money that changes which round of the playoffs we'd lose in. Maybe if there was such a move we would have said screw it to the salary scale and gone for it. I certainly hope we would have, because if we wouldn't that really sucks.

Maybe that's just where our the difference lies. I think we both believe (or at least hope) the Bulls would pay some tax for a title. Maybe you just believe that we could have accomplished that goal had we spent more aggressively, and thus not had to worry about the tax. I think the moves we've left on the table due to finances for the most part would not have made us championship contenders.

My biggest complaint right now (which was a concern at the time, but I would have probably still done it) was that by basically swapping Wallace and Chandler's contracts we'd lose long term production for short term production when we aren't ready to win in the short term. It may be that Chandler's problems with the coaching staff would have made this a good move though (which brings into question our staff though).


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

I should add, prior to this off season, I thought the Bulls would be willing to do whatever it took to win. This season proved to me that finances were more important than wins to ownership.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> I think my metaphors expressed MY view, and perhaps in a way that others will understand. The gaping wound is our lack of post presence. The graft from the leg would be trading from someplace that's our strength.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sweet baby Jesus that's a good post! + Rep.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> To which I still respond, from all evidence I have seen the team is acting that way. I'm open to discussing other alternatives. You brought up the alternative that maybe Paxson is just ultra conservative or panicky. I don't think this makes sense unless the owner has given him explicit instructions that would cause him to be so though which brings us back to an avoid the luxury tax by proxy argument IMO.


I agree with you here or at least I think I do. The weight of the evidence suggests as much. But personally I think it's probably something more complicated.

I think it's quite possible that Reisdorf hasn't said much at all explicitly about it, but Pax simply took a look at Jerry Krause's tenure. It appears to me it wasn't the losing or the series of poor choices he made per se, but finances.
1. Rapidly escalating salary
2. Stagnating revenues... even though it took an amazingly terrible string of seasons to even slow revenues noticeably.

I mean, I think that's basically why Krause was finally shown the door. It's probably a valid reason, but it's also probably valid reason #647.

The new guy, coming in that context, probably doesn't need a lecture. He may very well conclude that if he keeps his head down, manages costs above all, and is even marginally respectable on the court, he really doesn't have to worry about anything else.

Not saying he won't try to win within that context, but it's quite plausible to me that the context is somewhat self-imposed. 

Suppose Reinsdorf would pay for a winner but make Pax pay for a costly loser. Faced with that risk, Pax is inclined to play it safe.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

> Not saying he won't try to win within that context, but it's quite plausible to me that the context is somewhat self-imposed.
> 
> Suppose Reinsdorf would pay for a winner but make Pax pay for a costly loser. Faced with that risk, Pax is inclined to play it safe.


Possible, but I find it hard to believe that Paxson hasn't had a lot of discussions with Reinsdorf about where he wants the payroll to be. This just seems like common sense, it would be one of the primary directives the ownership would need to give him. Especially considering that Reinsdorf has been at least somewhat involved in player acquisition (he visited with Wallace).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> Possible, but I find it hard to believe that Paxson hasn't had a lot of discussions with Reinsdorf about where he wants the payroll to be. This just seems like common sense, it would be one of the primary directives the ownership would need to give him. Especially considering that Reinsdorf has been at least somewhat involved in player acquisition (he visited with Wallace).


Are we sure that Pax and Reinsdorf talk much at all?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

He did visit with Wallace... and Chandler the year before.

And was quoted at mid-season that year Harrumphing about how much Curry might get


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Perhaps he's more involved now than he was with Krause? Of course, there was also plenty of speculation that he pushed for the Jalen Rose deal too, along with his buddy Arn Tellem.

Speaking of that, what the ****? I keep hearing about our "good relationship" with Arn Tellem every once and a while. After taking Rose and giving up a second rounder and 2 spots in the draft to take Viktor Krappy and let LaMarcus Aldridge go to the Blazers, who were obviously desperate for him, doesn't he actually owe us a favor? If a good relationship is solely based on a one-way reach around, I'm not inclined to call it a good relationship for both sides.


How about a little harder push on the Gasol deal, dude?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Perhaps he's more involved now than he was with Krause? Of course, there was also plenty of speculation that he pushed for the Jalen Rose deal too, along with his buddy Arn Tellem.
> 
> Speaking of that, what the ****? I keep hearing about our "good relationship" with Arn Tellem every once and a while. After taking Rose and giving up a second rounder and 2 spots in the draft to take Viktor Krappy and let LaMarcus Aldridge go to the Blazers, who were obviously desperate for him, doesn't he actually owe us a favor? If a good relationship is solely based on a one-way reach around, I'm not inclined to call it a good relationship for both sides.
> 
> ...


The only indications I get from reading the press is that JR stepped in and got the Skiles re-signing done, and he and Pax flew to california to sign Chandler to his big contract.

Really active owners seem to get at least some press. Cuban gets tons.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

I don't think that Reinsdorf is really active. However, I think he's certainly active enough that I can't imagine him not giving Paxson his basic breakdown on what type of salary Paxson is allowed to spend.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> I don't think that Reinsdorf is really active. However, I think he's certainly active enough that I can't imagine him not giving Paxson his basic breakdown on what type of salary Paxson is allowed to spend.


I suspect Pax prepares a budget proposal and gets it approved. Like in any company of decent size.


----------

