# Paxson schedules press conference for Thursday.



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Hmmm...according to Chicago Tribune (from realgm). I'll see if I can find a link somewhere.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...sbrite,1,6317074.story?coll=cs-home-headlines



> General manager John Paxson, who is scheduled to address the media Thursday, continues to explore ways to land Bryant. But as has been mentioned frequently, he won't gut his roster to do so, and he doesn't want to part with Deng.


----------



## BeZerker2008 (Jun 29, 2006)

I would more or less think it would be to end the Kobe trade talks rumors so that it won't be a distraction to the team. I hope it's different but I just think it's to squash it once and for all.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

lougehrig said:


> Hmmm...according to Chicago Tribune (from realgm). I'll see if I can find a link somewhere.
> 
> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...sbrite,1,6317074.story?coll=cs-home-headlines


Pax was planning to talk to the local guys after the deadline for the contract extensions passed. Nothing new here.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> As expected, general manager *John Paxson* *made each player one offer -- five years and about $50 million -- and didn't deviate from it all the way to the deadline Wednesday.*
> 
> ''It was never really a negotiation,'' Gordon said. ''It was kind of like, take it or leave it. I didn't sign it, so I guess it's safe to say I never considered taking it.
> 
> Deng said ''nothing really changed'' once the Bulls made their offer. ''It's hard [not signing] knowing that I want to be here. At the same time, I'm trying to make the best decision for me.''


A ridiculously poor negotiation by Pax.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> A ridiculously poor negotiation by Pax.


Paxon can't possibly offer them anything other than what he gave them under the current Kobe fiasco. Paxon can't possibly tie his hand by extending Ben and Deng and say goodbye to Kobe trade.

This is exaclty what he should have done and he did what he has to for the best interest of Bulls. Now all he has to do is to sit and wait till Kobe forces LA to take the lopsided trade (in favor for Bulls, of course). If that happens, that's great for Bulls. If that doesn't happen, that is fine too. We can still keep both of them next summer.

I don't get this general trend on this board blaming Paxon for not extending their contracts.

This summer's situation is totally from Kirk's case from the last summer. ALL BECAUSE OF the possible, possible trade for Kobe.

I am glad that Paxon didn't extend their contracts even though I really appreciate both Ben and Deng's game as Bulls. Thanks to Paxon's reluctance, we are still in the Kobe trade scenario.

Now, we just sit and wait.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I think this is a smart set of moves by Paxson. 

1. We can't extend Gordon because we need him to be available for a consolidation (Kobe) trade. 
2a. The same is true with Deng. 
2b. Or, say #2a is false. Say we offered Deng 55-60 million and never bumped Gordon's offer - I imagine Gordon would feel far worse that he does presently. That's the kind of slap in the face that could prompt someone to take a one-year tender and opt for UFA. 
3. We can always resign them next summer if need be. 

They certainly sound miffed right now, but I think that will pass with time. Neither seem the type to hold a grudge, and a larger extension offer next summer will erase any ill will.


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

I bet 10 bucks he says the trade for Kobe is dead.........


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> Paxon can't possibly offer them anything other than what he gave them under the current Kobe fiasco. Paxon can't possibly tie his hand by extending Ben and Deng and say goodbye to Kobe trade.


Pax has Deng off the table in talks for Kobe, so if he wanted to really make him off the table, he'd have made a real effort to lock him up. Instead he gave an insultingly low offer... which is now juxtaposed by his insistensence of not even considering trading Deng for Kobe Bryant.

I also don't understand how he couldn't possibly offer them anything else. If he wanted to keep them both open for trade then the obvious thing be to not offer them anything.

Especially with respect to Deng, who nobody (Paxson, Deng, Kobe) wants to trade, it makes **** all sense.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Mike: You're scaring me.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Mike, consider rwj333's point 2b. I think that is valid.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I think this is a smart set of moves by Paxson.
> 
> 1. We can't extend Gordon because we need him to be available for a consolidation (Kobe) trade.
> 2a. The same is true with Deng.
> ...


I think 2b would blow over, or at least not take it personally. It's business, and the truth of the matter is that everyone seems to feel Lou is a better fit with Kobe. Ben knows that, and he knows if he's extended he can't be traded. He has to know at this point there are active discussions going on that involve his being traded.

I think in those circumstances, it'd be pretty silly to blow smoke up Ben's you know where and act like it's not the case. I think the honest thing to do, since negotiations are clearly pretty serious, is just to be honest and say hey, we might have considered offering more to you, but we feel a trade is close. 

It's not going to make Ben feel any worse because hey, he's not being told anything he doesn't know already.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

All I see right now on this board is the same old, same old.

Please, don't post about other posters. k4e


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

To put it differently, 2b (Gordon gets PO that we didn't make the same offer to him that we made to Deng) ignores the fact that we're in the middle of a trade situation in which pretty much everyone has agreed Deng is off the table and Ben is going. Suggesting Ben's _not_ going to get POed at these facts, but that he would get POed at not getting the same offer seems backwards. The underlying facts (Ben in trade, Deng off the table, deadlines at hand) are what would be driving the offer. Ben and his agent, just like Lou and his agent and everyone else, aren't dummies. That's how the business works.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Pax immaginary press conference summary:*

We are not actively pursuing deals, but will listen to deals that make us better. This includes Kobe.

We highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, highly value Deng and Gordon but just couldn't agree on terms now. We still can Match any offers and will _(Pax now shaking his finger at the camera)._ And I mean it. Really.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

I find this board's reaction to Deng's extension situation ironic.

The worst case scenario now is that if there will be no Kobe trade, we will probably pay both Ben and Deng much more thanwhat we would come next summer. For the last couples of years, you guys cry foul and want Jerry and Paxon's head for not spending money. Now it looks like they will have to pay more than they wanted come next summer. 

ANd now you guys are blaming them for not getting Ben and Deng in the bank for lower contract. Hilarious. You guys blamed them for not opening their wallet in the past. And now you guys will blame them for putting themselves in the position where they have to open their wallet come next summer. Ironic.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> *Pax immaginary press conference summary:*
> 
> We are not actively pursuing deals, but will listen to deals that make us better. This includes Kobe.
> 
> We highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, highly, highly value Deng and Gordon but just couldn't agree on terms now. We still can Match any offers and will _(Pax now shaking his finger at the camera)._ And I mean it. Really.


It's going to be interesting to see how the tenor of the organization's relationship with Deng and Gordon changes over the course of the season. 

I bet dollars to donuts Fluck got a memo at 12:01 last night with orders to kill any future web features about Ben hoisting iron at 3:30 in the morning and Deng making gourmet five-course dinners at the local homeless shelter.

Bottom line is that not extending these guys is a move with absolutely no upside. The Kobe deal is most likely dead, and Deng or Gordon will play one year under a qualifying offer and walk before signing a 5 year, $50 million deal. And though the landscape looks favorable to us now in terms of other teams having the cap room and/or need to pursue Gordon or Deng, situations are very fluid around the league.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> I find this board's reaction to Deng's extension situation ironic.
> 
> The worst case scenario now is that if there will be no Kobe trade, we will probably pay both Ben and Deng much more thanwhat we would come next summer. For the last couples of years, you guys cry foul and want Jerry and Paxon's head for not spending money. Now it looks like they will have to pay more than they wanted come next summer.
> 
> ANd now you guys are blaming them for not getting Ben and Deng in the bank for lower contract. Hilarious. You guys blamed them for not opening their wallet in the past. And now you guys will blame them for putting themselves in the position where they have to open their wallet come next summer. Ironic.


Penny-wise and pound-foolish. It's really not hard to understand. *The goal is to spend money to get where we need to go without spending any more than we need to.* Pay enough, but don't put yourself in a position where you have to overpay. Not even making a reasonable offer now puts us in a position to overpay later, and probably angers our players to boot.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> I find this board's reaction to Deng's extension situation ironic.
> 
> The worst case scenario now is that if there will be no Kobe trade, we will probably pay both Ben and Deng much more thanwhat we would come next summer. For the last couples of years, you guys cry foul and want Jerry and Paxon's head for not spending money. Now it looks like they will have to pay more than they wanted come next summer.
> 
> And now you guys are blaming them for not getting Ben and Deng in the bank for lower contract. Hilarious. You guys blamed them for not opening their wallet in the past. And now you guys will blame them for putting themselve in the position where they have to open their wallet come next summer. Ironic.



When and *IF* they pay Deng and Gordon more money, they will have less money for the rest of the roster. Didn't like jettising TC for nothing. Didn't like JR and Krause letting Horace Grant to for nothing after 3 championships. You ain't seen nothing yet.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

lgtwins said:


> I find this board's reaction to Deng's extension situation ironic.
> 
> The worst case scenario now is that if there will be no Kobe trade, we will probably pay both Ben and Deng much more thanwhat we would come next summer. For the last couples of years, you guys cry foul and want Jerry and Paxon's head for not spending money. Now it looks like they will have to pay more than they wanted come next summer.
> 
> ANd now you guys are blaming them for not getting Ben and Deng in the bank for lower contract. Hilarious. You guys blamed them for not opening their wallet in the past. And now you guys will blame them for putting themselves in the position where they have to open their wallet come next summer. Ironic.


+1

I wonder how the board would have reacted if they had both been extended large contracts. 

"With Gordon and Deng extended, we are locked into a 50 win team."

"Hello Chicago Grizzlies!"

"Officially no consolidation trade - that ship has sailed."

I'm bothered that we didn't extend Gordon and Deng. But I would be more upset if the Lakers decided to trade Kobe for pennies on the dollar (something like Gordon + Ben Wallace) and we couldn't make a deal because of the Poison Pill Provision.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I'm bothered that we didn't extend Gordon and Deng. But I would be more upset if the Lakers decided to trade Kobe for pennies on the dollar (something like *Gordon + Ben Wallace*) and we couldn't make a deal because of the Poison Pill Provision.


Guess what?? That deal with some fodder would work fine even with the Poison Pill Provision.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> The Kobe deal is most likely dead


Really? Link? 



> And though the landscape looks favorable to us now in terms of other teams having the cap room and/or need to pursue Gordon or Deng, situations are very fluid around the league.


This is a great FA class, but a team would have to be pretty stupid to trade away valuable assets for expiring contracts in hopes of signing a restricted free agent. 



> Guess what?? That deal would work fine even with the Poison Pill Provision.


What kind of contract are you assuming Gordon has signed? It works with any value? 50 million, 60 million, 70 million? What if they want Thabo, too? 

The bottom line is one contract is much, much easier to trade.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I can see the mantra of "well, we still can do a consolidation trade" will replace last year's mantra of "PJ Brown's contract will be soooo valuable at the trading deadline".

It's especially brillant given that one of the two guys in unavailble to trade anway due to his apparent value. I'm as confused as Deng on this one.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> What kind of contract are you assuming Gordon has signed? It works with any value? 50 million, 60 million, 70 million? What if they want Thabo, too?


You need one really big contract to offset a poison pill contract. Wallace qualifies. It's easy to make a Wallace + Hinrich trade work on the ESPN trade widget. 

And I'm assuming that Gordon would sign for around $55M. Perhaps a bit more. Of course, we will never know since Bulls never got off their *** and negotiated.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> +1
> 
> I wonder how the board would have reacted if they had both been extended large contracts.


Not speaking for anyone else, but I would have been extremely happy and felt the Bulls had finally walked the talk. Deng and Gordon are still young enough, productive enough, and have enough upside to be extremely liquid assets even if they'd gotten max extensions.

Instead, we've added the element of chance that we'll lose them, and there's a 100% chance they'll cost more to re-sign next year than they would have now.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> I can see the mantra of "well, we still can do a consolidation trade" will replace last year's mantra of "PJ Brown's contract will be soooo valuable at the trading deadline".


Well, in one situation we are losing the asset (PJ's expiring contract) and in the other situation the asset will be a RFA during an offseason where no teams will have cap space. 



> It's especially brillant given that one of the two guys in unavailble to trade anway due to his apparent value. I'm as confused as Deng on this one.


I posted this in the other thread, but if you think Gordon and Deng sound upset now, think about how upset Gordon would be if Deng signed a 5 year 60 million contract and the Bulls never went higher than 50 million for his offer.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

It's sad, isn't it?

Just try to see everyone as a Bulls fan. It's more fun that way.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I posted this in the other thread, but if you think Gordon and Deng sound upset now, think about how upset Gordon would be if Deng signed a 5 year 60 million contract and the Bulls never went higher than 50 million for his offer.


Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have one of the two signed and the other upset than both somewhat upset *and* available to get inflated offers from other teams next July. You don't run businesses (including proffessional sports teams) to make everyone happy.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Well, in one situation we are losing the asset (PJ's expiring contract) and in the other situation the asset will be a RFA during an offseason where no teams will have cap space.


I will bet you a beverage of your choosing that the cap space landscape at the start of free agency in 2008 will be different than it is now. This happens every single year. 



> I posted this in the other thread, but if you think Gordon and Deng sound upset now, think about how upset Gordon would be if Deng signed a 5 year 60 million contract and the Bulls never went higher than 50 million for his offer.


Uh, that would be highly favorable to the current situation. AT least one of the guys would be locked in on a reasonable contract, not saying "I don't know even know how to answer that question" and getting ready to text message Kobe Bryant.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have one of the two signed and the other upset than both somewhat upset *and* available to get inflated offers from other teams next July. You don't run businesses (including proffessional sports teams) to make everyone happy.


Pretty much.


----------



## O2K (Nov 19, 2002)

not extending them is not good for the bulls right now, but it's not terrible. worse case scenerio the bulls match offers. Pax probably knows he's going to have to pay them both the max if he wants to keep them, so he'll keep them right now as trade assets, and if he doesn't trade them then in the offseason he'll match offers.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Well, in one situation we are losing the asset (PJ's expiring contract) and in the other situation the asset will be a RFA during an offseason where no teams will have cap space.


In both cases, an expiring contract and an ability to match, it's a asset with an expiration date that could ultimately be worth nothing.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

O2K said:


> not extending them is not good for the bulls right now, but it's not terrible. worse case scenerio the bulls match offers. Pax probably knows he's going to have to pay them both the max if he wants to keep them, so he'll keep them right now as trade assets, and if he doesn't trade them then in the offseason he'll match offers.


No, the worst-case scenario is that a team that at the present time has no cap space to make a big offer to Deng and Gordon clears that cap space between now and July 1, 2008, and the Bulls blink; or

Deng and Gordon, both of whom seem pretty confident of their futures and willing to risk injury for a long-term payoff, take umbrage at the way Paxson handled these negotiations, play for the QO in 2008-09, and hit the bricks the year after.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I will bet you a beverage of your choosing that the cap space landscape at the start of free agency in 2008 will be different than it is now. This happens every single year.


I think chances are quite small that a team would opt for cap space since the free agents that are worth big paydays are restricted. The Bulls are taking a calculated risk, sure. 



> Uh, that would be highly favorable to the current situation. AT least one of the guys would be locked in on a reasonable contract, not saying "I don't know even know how to answer that question" and getting ready to text message Kobe Bryant.





> Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have one of the two signed and the other upset than both somewhat upset and available to get inflated offers from other teams next July. You don't run businesses (including proffessional sports teams) to make everyone happy.


Given Gordon's comments on wanting respect and how he is the team's best player, I think it's 99% certain that he would walk if that happened. I know I would, just to say **** you to the Bulls. 

I know Deng and Gordon sound disappointed right now, but I still don't there's any serious risk that will take the one year tender. Plenty of other great players from the 04 class haven't resigned either - Biedrins, Iguodala, Josh Smith, Okafor... Not just Deng and Gordon. There's precedent. 

So I prefer the current situation.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I don't really care whether we sign them now or sign them later, as long as we sign them. The reason it strikes me as foolish is that I anticipate both players could command higher than 5/$50M after this year, so the Bulls will end up shelling out more dough for them. I can understand not extending Ben if you're still working with the Lakers or otherwise analyzing consolidation trades this year, but if Luol is really off-limits, not locking him up doesn't make sense. Could Pax really have not locked up Luol in order to somehow not make Gordon jealous? That doesn't seem like a big enough concern to me.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> No, the worst-case scenario is that a team that at the present time has no cap space to make a big offer to Deng and Gordon clears that cap space between now and July 1, 2008, and the Bulls blink; or


Okafor, Iguodala, and Josh Smith will be just as attractive to that team. Most people regard them just as highly as Gordon and Deng. 



> Deng and Gordon, both of whom seem pretty confident of their futures and willing to risk injury for a long-term payoff, take umbrage at the way Paxson handled these negotiations, play for the QO in 2008-09, and hit the bricks the year after.


Okay, so like I said if you extend just Deng, this scenario becomes even more likely with Gordon, right?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Given Gordon's comments on wanting respect and how he is the team's best player, I think it's 99% certain that he would walk if that happened. I know I would, just to say **** you to the Bulls.


I replied to this earlier and you didn't respond, but this doesn't seem likely to me. Why would Gordon be so upset? He knows the trade talk is ongoing, if he's upset, it's going to be over the reality that the trade talk is showing the Bulls value Deng more highly. But he knows if he's re-signed, he can't be traded, so the lack of another extension offer would just reflect the facts he already knows.

Maybe Gordon is already pissed about the fact the Bulls will trade him but not Lou for Kobe or maybe not. But that's what he's gonna be pissed about, not the contract.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> Okafor, Iguodala, and Josh Smith will be just as attractive to that team. Most people regard them just as highly as Gordon and Deng.


I can think of a lot of reasons why Deng and Gordon would be more attractive than those guys, particularly Smith (uncoachable, bad habits) and Okafor (major injury risk). 

And if the logic on the part of Bulls management is that Deng and Gordon aren't as good as those other prospective RFAs, then why in the world are we putting them off-limits in trades?



> Okay, so like I said if you extend just Deng, this scenario becomes even more likely with Gordon, right?


I have no idea. But the upshot is that right now neither of them are extended and neither of them is probably feeling all that warm and fuzzy about management. I fail to see how it's preferable to have both of them feeling that way than having one of them locked down and the other not.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

lgtwins said:


> The worst case scenario now is that if there will be no Kobe trade, we will probably pay both Ben and Deng much more thanwhat we would come next summer.


Why is paying basketball players on your favorite team a worst case scenario for the fans? I'd prefer if they paid Deng and Gordon $70M. It's not my money. I want them to get as much as they can and still play for the Bulls.


----------



## ballafromthenorth (May 27, 2003)

lougehrig said:


> Why is paying basketball players on your favorite team a worst case scenario for the fans? I'd prefer if they paid Deng and Gordon $70M. It's not my money. I want them to get as much as they can and still play for the Bulls.


But as fans who obviously care a lot about the team, we know that giving them too much money may result in an inability to bring new players in to make us even better.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I replied to this earlier and you didn't respond, but this doesn't seem likely to me.


I guess I missed it, sorry. 



> Why would Gordon be so upset? He knows the trade talk is ongoing, if he's upset, it's going to be over the reality that the trade talk is showing the Bulls value Deng more highly.


I'm not sure any of that is the reality for him yet. I'm not sure he knows that the Bulls value Deng more highly. He thinks he is the best player on the team and his agent is telling he is worth 70 million. He's one of the best scorers in the league. Why would he think that the Bulls value Deng more? 

Rumors are just rumors. The rumor yesterday had Hinrich and Wallace going out. 

Or maybe he thinks the Bulls are trying to save money. 

There's still an air of uncertainty around the trade issues and contract negotations right now, and that allows Gordon to believe what he wants. 

Signing Deng for 60 million and not making a comparable offer would make things absolute, and I think it would engender some pretty hard feelings.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I can think of a lot of reasons why Deng and Gordon would be more attractive than those guys, particularly Smith (uncoachable, bad habits) and Okafor (major injury risk).


That's true. But we don't know the makeup of the team. Maybe that team really needs a big man. Maybe that GM is in love with ultra-athletic players. 



> And if the logic on the part of Bulls management is that Deng and Gordon aren't as good as those other prospective RFAs, then why in the world are we putting them off-limits in trades?


I don't know, didn't one article say that the only reason Deng isn't a Laker is that Kobe won't allow it? It's not clear whether Deng is off limits or not.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I don't know, didn't one article say that the only reason Deng isn't a Laker is that Kobe won't allow it? It's not clear whether Deng is off limits or not.


Yeah, I read that one too. I hope it's the case he's off the board because Pax won't allow it, not because Kobe won't. That's a whole separate discussion, but Kobe as GM would be unfortunate.

But I've reached the conclusion I don't want Deng traded for Kobe.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

ballafromthenorth said:


> But as fans who obviously care a lot about the team, we know that giving them too much money may result in an inability to bring new players in to make us even better.


We are going to be capped out anyways whether we sign these guys for $50M or $70M. The only person it impacts is Reinsdorf who has to pay luxury tax.

It will be like this offseason where we can only sign guys using the MLE.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

lougehrig said:



> We are going to be capped out anyways whether we sign these guys for $50M or $70M. The only person it impacts is Reinsdorf who has to pay luxury tax.
> 
> It will be like this offseason where we can only sign guys using the MLE.


Yeah, but there will be a real question about whether we use it. Or whether we re-sign players on shorter contract (Duhon, Thabo, Thomas, Smith). Or even if we sign up guys for the vet minimum instead of rookie free agents or leaving roster spots open. The opportunity cost of a million or two a year to a team that's going to be on the cusp of the luxury tax is a pretty serious one.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

The Kobe thing aside, this was the Bulls chance to get Deng and Gordon signed _for the price the team thinks makes sense_. This offseason it's the market's turn to speak. If the market says that both players are worth significantly more than the extension offers, Paxson will have made a mistake...actually 2 of them. 

Every time you make a tough decision, a potential mistake is born, but so is a potential success. Yesterday, both sides made a decision. At this point, I don't see any mistakes.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Nice thinking. Don't know if I agree, but...nice.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

transplant said:


> The Kobe thing aside, this was the Bulls chance to get Deng and Gordon signed _for the price the team thinks makes sense_. This offseason it's the market's turn to speak. If the market says that both players are worth significantly more than the extension offers, Paxson will have made a mistake...actually 2 of them.
> 
> Every time you make a tough decision, a potential mistake is born, but so is a potential success. Yesterday, both sides made a decision. At this point, I don't see any mistakes.


The team also gets the benefit of signing them for 6 years (next offseason) instead of 5 (this offseason), which means another huge contract for both. So maybe it'll be a push.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

transplant said:


> The Kobe thing aside, this was the Bulls chance to get Deng and Gordon signed _for the price the team thinks makes sense_. This offseason it's the market's turn to speak. If the market says that both players are worth significantly more than the extension offers, Paxson will have made a mistake...actually 2 of them.
> 
> Every time you make a tough decision, a potential mistake is born, but so is a potential success. Yesterday, both sides made a decision. At this point, I don't see any mistakes.


So it will be a success if the market dictates both players are worth the same or less?

I've been reading a lot on negotiations in other contexts lately and I'm not sure I believe the decisions are "impact free" until there's a resolution in a year or two. The thing about negotiations that's pretty key is you're dealing with human beings in a process. Decisions along the way inevitably affect the way the process goes because it affects the way people interact.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Whatever Pax was selling, Deng and Gordon weren't buying. Not surprising because it simply is a tough sell. "Take less so we can maintain cap flexibility" is goofy when Reinsdorf et al are pocketing the kinds of profits everyone knows they are.

Otherwise, Pax did maintain the flexibility to deal for Kobe (or someone else). I agree with rwj333 that it's a dicey situation to offer Deng more than Gordon (or vice versa), but I'd add that Hinrich's contract is equally dicey (how does Kirk feel if Gordon gets 1.5x the contract he did?).

Those who say that we're at risk of losing either or both are right as well.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> So it will be a success if the market dictates both players are worth the same or less?
> 
> I've been reading a lot on negotiations in other contexts lately and I'm not sure I believe the decisions are "impact free" until there's a resolution in a year or two. The thing about negotiations that's pretty key is you're dealing with human beings in a process. Decisions along the way inevitably affect the way the process goes because it affects the way people interact.


If I can get the same talent for the same or less money, yeah, I guess I'd say I made a good decision.

I wasn't involved in the extension situations, so I'm not even sure it was a negotiation. Maybe Paxson just made the offer and said (in a nice way, of course), "take it or leave it," which, if you don't want to pay any more or less, is perfectly OK by me as long as you're willing to live with the consequences of the other side "leaving" it.

If it was a negotiation, I still don't know enough to place blame on either side. I know you and others think 5-$50 is insulting. I don't. If I make an offer I'm convinced is reasonable and the other side counters with something I think is unreasonable, I'm not going to move until the other side proposes something that's in the ballpark. If both sides viewed the other side's position as patently unreasonable, and there's no immediate significant consequences to a failure to reach agreement, it's a short negotiation.

A month or so ago I wrote that it was very possible that neither Deng nor Gordon would be extended and that I was OK with that. Still am.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

None of this surprises me, though it does disappoint me. I am especially disappointed, because I really think Deng was willing to sign for a bit less than he would get next year, to focus on being a Bull.


Oh well. I gotta believe that this trade happens now (before the trade deadline), or Paxson will have essentially cost the franchise a lot of additional money. If it means even uglier LuvaBulls, I'm gonna pissed. LOL.

Go Deng and Gordon! Get what you can!


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Yeah, I read that one too. I hope it's the case he's off the board because Pax won't allow it, not because Kobe won't. That's a whole separate discussion, but Kobe as GM would be unfortunate.
> 
> But I've reached the conclusion I don't want Deng traded for Kobe.


I remember reading a quote from Pat Riley last year after we beat them in the playoffs. 

He said something to the effect of "I don't need to surround Wade with outside shooters, I need to pair him with a really good slasher. Someone who can get to the bucket through the open lanes that he creates." 

Having posted that, I would still trade Deng straight up for Kobe. But I wouldn't include Noc, Hinrich, or Gordon.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

It's Thursday, 2:23 CT. When's the press conference, and what was it about?


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

DaBullz said:


> It's Thursday, 2:23 CT. When's the press conference, and *what was it about*?


I'm sure he is going to pull a Mark Cuban and say that they are not persuing Kobe anymore.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

The One said:


> I'm sure he is going to pull a Mark Cuban and say that they are not persuing Kobe anymore.


Close.

And of course, Bernstein just said all those scenarious are coming out of LA - not directly, but by saying Pax didn't know what the lakers were putting in front of Kobe.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

chifaninca said:


> None of this surprises me, though it does disappoint me. I am especially disappointed, because I* really think Deng was willing to sign for a bit less than he would get next year, to focus on being a Bull.
> *
> 
> Oh well. I gotta believe that this trade happens now (before the trade deadline), or Paxson will have essentially cost the franchise a lot of additional money. If it means even uglier LuvaBulls, I'm gonna pissed. LOL.
> ...


I think that's the thing that bothers me. I mean, it's not a sure thing or anything, but I do remember reading a couple of quotes from/articles about Lou that made it sound like he was leaning that way and just waiting for a bit more to pull the trigger.


----------



## Fred (Sep 18, 2007)

Paxson addressed the rumors. Pax said there is no deal done and there is not going to be a deal done. Said its was a complicated thing and put to rest now. FOcus on the guys they have now. And said there wasn't a deal that was close to being done or ever was going to be done.

BTW, this is from ESPN 1000 that just played pax talking


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

The One said:


> I'm sure he is going to pull a Mark Cuban and say that they are not persuing Kobe anymore.


It seems silly to me that Paxson would wait until the day AFTER the 10/31 extension deadline for Deng and Gordon and their first game to announce this. It would have made sense to announce he's not interested in Kobe last week and then resigned one or both of those guys at decent rates.


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

lougehrig said:


> It seems silly to me that Paxson would wait until the day AFTER the 10/31 extension deadline for Deng and Gordon and their first game to announce this. It would have made sense to announce he's not interested in Kobe last week and then resigned one or both of those guys at decent rates.


true


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Fred said:


> Paxson addressed the rumors. Pax said there is no deal done and there is not going to be a deal done. Said its was a complicated thing and put to rest now. FOcus on the guys they have now. And said there wasn't a deal that was close to being done or ever was going to be done.
> 
> BTW, this is from ESPN 1000 that just played pax talking


Wow...what now?


----------



## Fred (Sep 18, 2007)

Now everyone just focuses on the season and quit talking about Kobe to the Bulls I guess lol. which i'm very happy to do. two games in the next 3 days shoudl help.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Pax just sent a message to his players so they can calm down. IMO, talks will go on. I think, ideally all three parties want a deal done by this weekend. This will let them all move on. But if it doesn't, talks will die till December, then kick back up till February.

It will be interesting. I think Kobe though, may save our butts from overpaying for him due to PaxDorf. Especially 'Dorf.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Fred said:


> Now everyone just focuses on the season and quit talking about Kobe to the Bulls I guess lol. which i'm very happy to do. two games in the next 3 days shoudl help.


I hope. I wish it would be settled one way or another. I just want to have our team set and settled for the next 5 years.

I actually heard Paxson said that he is done talk "For Now".


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

What the ****.


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

Fred said:


> Paxson addressed the rumors. Pax said there is no deal done and there is not going to be a deal done. Said its was a complicated thing and put to rest now. FOcus on the guys they have now. And said there wasn't a deal that was close to being done or ever was going to be done.
> 
> BTW, this is from ESPN 1000 that just played pax talking


Damnit, I was right.


----------



## Fred (Sep 18, 2007)

ya "for now" being the key word. i think like someone said its just to calm the players and the situation.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> What the ****.


Yeah exactly. Paxson calming influence is usually a great benefit to this team, but this waffling is only going to drive everybody (players, fans, coaches, tv announcers!) crazy for the next 3 months.

Maybe Paxson is trying to get the perfect trade. Has Paxson ever pulled off a major trade like this? He hasn't, has he. Hmmm.......


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Fred said:


> ya "for now" being the key word. i think like someone said its just to calm the players and the situation.


I think if anything is gonna get done it needs to get done. Pax can make all the calming speeches he wants from his end, but when you've got an unhappy Kobe and the Lakers on the other ends (and god knows how many other teams that have been contacted), this isn't gonna go away unless he literally says something to the effect of "**** it, no, we don't want the guy and we're not looking". And given that the Bulls appear to be pretty far beyond the "just looking" stage, I think it's a little late to be putting that genie in the bottle.

So I dunno what's going on myself.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Next time to think about trades is in January. Bulls should go with the team they have for now. Let LA stew in their juices. My guess is that they'll have a hard time winning half of their games as currently constituted. By January, both Kobe and LA management may be more realistic about trades.

Frankly I find the rumors that Kobe insisted on including Hinrich in the trade and not including Deng or Wallace obnoxious and arrogant. If the Bulls let him get away with it, we'll be dealing with episodes emitted from this drama queen for years in the future.


----------



## moldorf (Jun 29, 2007)

I understand about the 'attraction' for getting Kobe and what he could do if the trade didn't gut the Bulls. Of course, it always looked like Chicago would have to give up a lot to get him.

My question would be, wouldn't it make more sense for the Bulls to have gone after a low post scorer? For instance, if chicago was willing to part with Ben Gordon, Tyrus Thomas, and some draft picks, it seems like targeting players like Al Jefferson or David West would have been more logical. A couple of low-post players from the Western Conference so what the Bulls gave up wouldn't haunt them as often. Or even somebody like Chris Wilcox who supposedly the Sonics would have considered trading.


----------



## Fred (Sep 18, 2007)

at this point i dont think anyone does other than paxson and the other GMs involved. we can only go by what he says at this point.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Fred said:


> Paxson addressed the rumors. Pax said there is no deal done and there is not going to be a deal done. Said its was a complicated thing and put to rest now. FOcus on the guys they have now. And said there wasn't a deal that was close to being done or ever was going to be done.
> 
> BTW, this is from ESPN 1000 that just played pax talking


Told ya so.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=68887

Solid article


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=68887



> "The only way I would ever consider a deal is if I could go to (Bulls chairman) Jerry Reinsdorf and say, 'We're a better basketball team from top to bottom.' and on top of that, say to him, 'This is a financially responsible move to make" Paxson said. "I know sometimes that doesn't want to be part of a discussion. People think the owner should throw out money like its nothing. But that's not the reality in our business.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=68887


Basically, from this point forward, I'm going to lump in people who think Reinsdorf isn't cheap along with people who don't believe in dinosaurs. 

It wasn't Deng's untouchability that's been scotching these deals, it's the fact that Reinsdorf won't pay a dime of luxury tax. When the owners are clearing $40-50 million year after year and could realize an enormous sum of money if they simply decided to sell out and reap the return on their initial investment.

It's absolutely sickening and disgusting.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

theanimal23 said:


> http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=68887


As much as I don't like Kobe, bringing him to Chicago would increase our fanbase and national exposure 10 times. All of which would pay any luxury taxes Reinsdorf would have to pay.

Also, Kobe has a 15% trade kicker to his contract in case people didn't know.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> absolutely sickening and disgusting.


Theres the paradox of sports. Fans are in it for wins, owners are in it to get rich(er).


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

lougehrig said:


> As much as I don't like Kobe, bringing him to Chicago would increase our fanbase and national exposure 10 times. All of which would pay any luxury taxes Reinsdorf would have to pay.


Exactly. But at the same time, I can see us not grabbing a key Vet through the MLE and LLE for any lost depth in trade due to the Tax.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> As much as I don't like Kobe, bringing him to Chicago would increase our fanbase and national exposure 10 times. All of which would pay any luxury taxes Reinsdorf would have to pay.


I don't think the Bulls fanbase has shrunk from when MJ was here. Maybe casual viewers, sure.

But everywhere I went yesterday, everyone was talking about catching the first game of the year.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

GB said:


> I don't think the Bulls fanbase has shrunk from when MJ was here. Maybe casual viewers, sure.
> 
> But everywhere I went yesterday, everyone was talking about catching the first game of the year.


I'm assuming you are from Chicago. I am not, and I don't know any other Bulls fan anymore. You see random guys with Bulls apparel, but they were all MJ fans, not Bulls fans.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

"Another good trade idea for me to poop on."


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

GB said:


> I don't think the Bulls fanbase has shrunk from when MJ was here. Maybe casual viewers, sure.
> 
> But everywhere I went yesterday, everyone was talking about catching the first game of the year.


I agree with that. Our fan base (from the MJ era) is huge. I think Kobe has his own fan base with is also huge.

Other interesting points from Paxson in the dailyhearld article:


> "It's not about not being interested. It's about there's not a deal to be done," Paxson said. "We talked a lot about parameters. We never got down to the nuts and bolts of it because there was never a deal to be done. That's the reality of it."


That tells me as soon as the parameters become plausible (which could be anytime), a deal could still happen. Paxson probably wasn't okay with Kobe vetoing deals. Once this aspect is worked out with LA, Chicago and Kobe, everything will be back on the table. Frustration on Paxson's part. Maybe this move is a power play to get more leverage.



> "I've never thought we were at a point where you say anybody's off limits,"


Again, a deal could happen with any mix of players. Contradicts the statement that he never "talked about nuts and bolts".


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

lougehrig said:


> I agree with that. Our fan base (from the MJ era) is huge. I think Kobe has his own fan base with is also huge.


Yeah kinda like the Nets forum two years ago when Vince came over.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

The One said:


> Yeah kinda like the Nets forum two years ago when Vince came over.


Nothing like it.

It was unreal yesterday. On the train, in the elevator, at work. Everyone is really hyped up for this season.

Chicago likes it's Bulls.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

McGraw:

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=68887



> Bulls general manager John Paxson decided it was time to put the rumors to rest.
> 
> He announced Thursday that a Kobe Bryant trade is not going to happen and was never close to happening. The Bulls will compete with their current roster until further notice.
> 
> ...


LUX TAX LUX TAX LUX TAX LUX TAX

If they weren't even willing to go to the lux for Kobe, forget it. Now you see why they stood at 5/50.

Gordon AND Deng will probably be gone in two years.

The second quote disgusts me. "Oh they'll probably find out through the media." Way to go Pax. Way to go.

I really think Reinsdorf threatened to fire Pax, the more we find out about this. This is totally uncharacteristic for Paxson to be doing this kind of stuff.


----------



## Bullsky (Jun 11, 2006)

Thank god Pax! So glad Kobe isn't coming!


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

anorexorcist said:


> McGraw:
> 
> http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=68887
> 
> ...


Is it uncharacteristic for teams to say they won't pay the LT? If so, Paxson isn't acting out of character. Why do you think he got threatened to be fired? I really don't see where you are coming from.

As per the media quote, I feel he thinks the press conference called today to dispel the Kobe trade rumors would be sufficient.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

paxson said:


> "In this case, if you've got to give up so much to get one player, that's something I'm not going to do."


A consolidation trade ain't gonna happen kids.



mcgraw said:


> The Bulls were also wary of having to pay a hefty luxury tax bill if their payroll soared beyond the $67-million limit.


Shocking.

---

Perhaps things will get awful in LA and the Lakers and Kobe will become less picky. The problem with that is that the Lakers and Kobe will become less picky (bulls won't be the only horse in the race anymore). And, even if Kobe and the Lakers are busy stewing in their juices... yah take that!.... Uncle Jerry still isn't going to pay the tax.

Jib it up!


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Bulls operating income (revenue minus expenses before taxes) last year was $48.5M. Their 2006 revenue was $149M.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/32/biz_06nba_Chicago-Bulls_321267.html

Since 2000 their operating income has been the following:
2000: $48M
2001: $52M
2002: $39M
2003: $49M
2004: $37M
2005: $35M
2006: $49M
Total: $309M before taxes

That included alot of terrible teams, yet made Reinsdorf a huge pile of cash. That's where the money to go into the luxury tax will come from. Owners like Cuban lose about $25M a year to field a high payroll. Is that worth it to Jerry? The fans hope so.

I think Reinsdorf can spend a little on a team that he bought for $16M and has increased in value by 2800% and generates $50M in profits for him.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

theanimal23 said:


> I'm assuming you are from Chicago.


I'm from Chicago and I can tell you that its hard to find people to talk Bulls basketball with. Its a football town and then a baseball town. Not a lot of Bulls buzz.

I do think the fan base is growing though. And in my informal straw poll the newer Bulls fans I know didn't want Kobe to come here (they like the jib).

The UC is packed with this group. It may not win much of note, but its a feel good story.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I'm from Chicago and I can tell you that its hard to find people to talk Bulls basketball with. Its a football town and then a baseball town. Not a lot of Bulls buzz.



Me too. But I heard people talking about game 1 everywhere I was yesterday.

I was downtown. You?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

KC Johnson weighed in:

http://www.basketballforum.com/chic...hread-formerly-trade-week-36.html#post5054117


----------



## BeZerker2008 (Jun 29, 2006)

If what Pax says is true it shows that the Bulls will be stuck in mediocrity. Don't get me wrong, the Bulls have a good deep team and I like just as many players as anyone but when they struggle as much as trying to beat a non-elite team in New Jersey, this doesn't bode well for them.

It might very well be to calm the players down but if they don't get kobe and someone else (in the East) does, that's another team the Bulls will have to get through the East suddenly gets more and more a difficult road. If it's also because of the Lux Tax then how the hell are we going to get better down the line, when they don't want to up the price a little for Deng & to a lesser extent Gordon let alone other possible good free agents? 

I hope it was all just talk to calm the storm but we've all heard this before regarding Gasol/KG.


----------

