# Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler (6 year, $75 million)



## onetwo88 (Jul 16, 2002)

Bulls officially re-signed Tyson Chandler today, says http://www.insidehoops.com on the front page


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

Great news! I didn't ever think he was headed elsewhere, but the possibility lingered in the back of my mind.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

If it's true (and I hope that it is), and the quotes by Paxson on InsideHoops are real, then where is the Chicago media on this?


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

Finally! Our first longterm commitment to a player that we drafted since forever :banana: 

now to get the other half of the twin towers to a minimum 3 year contract


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

No other hits when entering "Tyson Chandler" in Google News for today. Let's hope inside hoops is just quick. Someone's gotta break the story, I suppose.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

About time, now one more tower to go.


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

Strange....hoopshype quotes a story on bulls.com that doesn't seem to exist at this time...

http://www.hoopshype.com/rumors.htm


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

here it is on realgm 



> “I’m *ecstatic* that this contract is done,” said Chandler. “To know that I will be in Chicago for the next six years is definitely a dream. Since I’ve been in Chicago, the city has been my home and it feels so good to go home.”


Great news , very important step for Pax longturm...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

The Score just reported it.

probably came via press release from the team and insidehoops is the first to post it.

:rbanana:

this is GREAT news 

i wonder if chandler ended up taking the $64million/6yr deal?


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

Word


----------



## nybullsfan (Aug 12, 2005)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

great news for the bulls!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

PROACTIVE



:biggrin:


----------



## Fizer Fanatic (Jun 20, 2002)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

Excellent news! The off-season is finally starting to come together.
:banana: :gbanana: :bbanana: :vbanana: :rbanana: 
:clap: :cheers: :rock:


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

Outstanding! Will be interesting to see the terms. Come to think of it, how is it that we always know the terms of the contract when everyone always says "per team policy, terms of the agreement were not disclosed?"


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

Here it is on ESPN.com.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

All I'm seeing is this : (other than the insidehoops)

http://www.tsn.ca/nba/news_story.asp?ID=135242&hubName=nba



> CHICAGO (Ticker) - Seven-footer Tyson Chandler, a huge part of the Chicago Bulls' resurgence last season, will be a huge part of their future as well.
> 
> Chandler signed a six-year contract worth a reported* $75 million* Thursday, ending a long and curious free agency period.
> 
> ...


ESPN 1000 reported it an hour ago but they went to White Sox baseball....


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*



jnrjr79 said:


> PROACTIVE
> 
> 
> 
> :biggrin:



:worship:


I'm not going to comment on being PROACTIVE at this time.

(Coming soon, though)


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

$75 million?

Yikes! Reinsdorf and Co. took it on the chin. This might mean some of the Bulls' smaller partners have to hold off on buying that third summer home.

Anyway, this is a great, historic day for the Bulls' franchise. For some reason, he has more than his fair share of detractors, but as far as I'm concerned, Tyson is our key guy, and he's in the fold for a good long time.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

Tyson is definitely one of our two or three key guys. Rebounding and defense is very valuable in this league, and Tyson is top tier at both things. Glad we have him long term, now here is to hoping he keeps improving his game and stays healthy and motivated.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*



ScottMay said:


> $75 million?
> 
> Yikes! Reinsdorf and Co. took it on the chin. This might mean some of the Bulls' smaller partners have to hold off on buying that third summer home.
> 
> Anyway, this is a great, historic day for the Bulls' franchise. For some reason, he has more than his fair share of detractors, but as far as I'm concerned, Tyson is our key guy, and he's in the fold for a good long time.


Agreed, if you are building a team around defense, you absolutely, positively must have a Tyson Chandler on your team.

Is it just my cynical mind, or is it strange that this agreement seemingly came not long after Pax met with Eddy's agent and nothing at all got resolved? I wonder if Pax has decided that Eddy isn't a part of our future, and that without his salary on our cap next summer he could afford to pay Tyson a few million more per year? Or that without Eddy's presence on the floor, Tyson would have to do more work on offense and that he'll be "worth" the extra millions?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*$75 million?*


:jawdrop:





wasn't dalembert's deal initially reported to be larger than it actually ended up being?? i need to search for that.

maybe the value of all the INCENTIVES could add up to $75 million?

cause man, that's a ton of coin for chandler.

love him and love the fact that he's staying but, wow!


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

It's been a while since we had a franchise guy with a longterm deal. Brent Barry, Ron Mercer, Erob, scrubs scrubs scrubs

I wonder how this affects the malik Allen and Songaila's deal.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> *$75 million?*
> 
> 
> :jawdrop:
> ...


Why the shock and awe? I can't think of a single way this'll realistically affect your experience as a Bulls fan. Maybe ticket prices go up a bit, but that happens from year to year anyway. Cap Space 2006 is still in full effect, even if Curry gets a similar-sized deal. There are literally dozens if not hundreds of players in the NBA who are paid/overpaid much more than Tyson is relative to their production.

Just. Don't. Get. It.


----------



## DontBeCows (Apr 22, 2003)

75 mil?

That's the kinda money for a franchise player. 

Is Tyson Chandler a franchise player? I don't know. He could be someday, but now he definitely isn't.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

Paxson folded like a card table on this one. After this, Paxson really belongs as the third party for the election they had on South Park last night, his opponents, a giant dousche and a turd sandwich. Come on! Why surrender that extra 11 million to Chandler, he should have stayed stiff with the 64 million over 6 years. Why does Chandler deserve more money than Dalembert, their stats are very similiar, they are both young, and both their teams got bounced in the first round. Sorry, but Paxson should have stayed strong with this. This might prove to show that Paxson will offer Curry a little more than we are expecting. I expect Paxson to give Eddy a 5 year 60 million dollar contract, with the first 2 years garaunteed, or at the very least, a 3 year-27-30 million dollar contract after this. Now Paxson should get Songaila trade worked out or sign him to an offer sheet by the end of the week, and then after that, devote the rest of his time to Eddy Curry with workouts for Jay Williams and Dennis Rodman.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*



spongyfungy said:


> It's been a while since we had a franchise guy with a longterm deal. Brent Barry, Ron Mercer, Erob, scrubs scrubs scrubs
> 
> I wonder how this affects the malik Allen and Songaila's deal.


I could be wrong, but I believe the last player the Bulls extended off the deal they signed him to when he was drafted was B.J. Armstrong.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> *$75 million?*
> 
> 
> :jawdrop:
> ...


Yup. Dalembert's deal was later reported to be 58 or 61 million depending on which reporter you believe from the Philly Inquirer. I e-mailed both beat reporters for the Cavs a while back too and Z's contract was also "only" 52.5 million, not the 60 like was first reported. 

I don't think this deal is guaranteed 75 million dollars over 6 years. I would bet on that. 

Right now I don't really care though. FINALLY IT'S DONE! YES!!!:clap: :banana: :cheers:


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> *$75 million?*
> 
> 
> :jawdrop:
> ...


 Dalembert's contract was initially thought to be worth 58 million August 1st then on (Aug 3rd), 64 million but it actually came out to be worth 61 million.  Aug 17th

So it'll probably change.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*



ScottMay said:


> $75 million?
> 
> Yikes! Reinsdorf and Co. took it on the chin. This might mean some of the Bulls' smaller partners have to hold off on buying that third summer home.
> 
> Anyway, this is a great, historic day for the Bulls' franchise. For some reason, he has more than his fair share of detractors, but as far as I'm concerned, Tyson is our key guy, and he's in the fold for a good long time.


ya I agree. Its a great thing. 21st century modernfranchise type stuff. I feel like we're finally joining the rest of the league after so many years.

If Reinsdorf keeps resigning Bulls, I'll run out of anti-Reinsdorf ammo
I still want him to sell, and all the rest of the cabal. Too many wounds that will never heal for me. They are still playing catchup....what the hell has changed? do they believe that strongly in one John Paxson?


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

I'm not seeing it anywhere on the chicago tribune's sports webpage. 

That newspaper got so bad so quick. Bring back K.C. Johnson.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*

:frenchy:


sloth said:


> Paxson folded like a card table on this one. After this, Paxson really belongs as the third party for the election they had on South Park last night, his opponents, a giant dousche and a turd sandwich. Come on! Why surrender that extra 11 million to Chandler, he should have stayed stiff with the 64 million over 6 years. Why does Chandler deserve more money than Dalembert, their stats are very similiar, they are both young, and both their teams got bounced in the first round. Sorry, but Paxson should have stayed strong with this. This might prove to show that Paxson will offer Curry a little more than we are expecting. I expect Paxson to give Eddy a 5 year 60 million dollar contract, with the first 2 years garaunteed, or at the very least, a 3 year-27-30 million dollar contract after this. Now Paxson should get Songaila trade worked out or sign him to an offer sheet by the end of the week, and then after that, devote the rest of his time to Eddy Curry with workouts for Jay Williams and Dennis Rodman.


jesus Pax can't win with you guys. 
either he plays too much hardball..... or he's easily rolled like a drunk Gold Coast millionaire walking the street who got a flat tire on 47th and Indiana


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

just some perspective, until we know a confirmed dollar amount:

the intial report of dalembert re-upping with the sixers said $75 million. 

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=183419&highlight=dalembert

then espn speculated it was between 60 and 70 million.

turns out dalembert is getting a little over $60 million (according to salary info i just looked up on hoopshype salaries).

so again, just a little perspective on initial salary reports. 

but who knows, the agent did say they "got what they wanted" and wasn't that the figure chandler said he wanted????














$75 miiiiiilllllllion? well i did say i'd pay for a winnnnnnnnner. 



photoshop by squirrel, don't think he's gonna mind


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Why the shock and awe? I can't think of a single way this'll realistically affect your experience as a Bulls fan. Maybe ticket prices go up a bit, but that happens from year to year anyway. Cap Space 2006 is still in full effect, even if Curry gets a similar-sized deal. There are literally dozens if not hundreds of players in the NBA who are paid/overpaid much more than Tyson is relative to their production.
> 
> Just. Don't. Get. It.



hey, go easy on me today. i had a fake internet death scam to expose. 

i am just surprised is all. and per my post about initial salary reports sometimes being off, i think it's ok to question this amount.

i need more vodka.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

I imagine the deal could approach 75mil if Tyson meets all or most of the incentives included in the deal. I would guess the base is in the $65mil neighborhood, and as has been mentioned, the news outlets haven't had a sterling track record in accurately reporting the contract amounts on the first few days.


----------



## Blazer Freak (Jul 11, 2004)

Any final say on the total $$? If Dalembert gets around 60$ like mizenkay said, Chandler would probably make a little bit more than that, around $65 million I'm guessing. Still pretty good if he starts, because I think thats when we will see the real Tyson Chandler..


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*



fleetwood macbull said:


> jesus Pax can't win with you guys.


Exact thoughts. If some other team ended up paying him that much, we'd have a swarm of people saying Paxson is a coward for not paying Chandler that much to keep him.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*



fleetwood macbull said:


> :frenchy:
> jesus Pax can't win with you guys.
> either he plays too much hardball..... or he's easily rolled like a drunk Gold Coast millionaire walking the street who got a flat tire on 47th and Indiana


It's not a Pax issue, per se. There's a large faction of posters who seem to have some sort of deep-rooted emotional phobia when it comes to NBA players getting large salaries, which truly leads me to wonder why they like the NBA to begin with.

Here's a thought, though: let's say Chandler ends up getting 72 million, and that the Bulls wanted to give him 60. In either case, he is completely set for life financially. The argument that at 72 million he'll be a fat, pampered baby who'll let himself go to seed doesn't wash, nor does the assumption that at 60 million he'll be a rabid, hungry animal who plays like every minute is his last on earth.

I might be nuts, but maybe by giving Tyson something close to what he wanted, he'll feel appreciated and content and perform better for them than he would have otherwise. Maybe Tyson's a big enough of a person and good enough of a player to assume the challenge the Bulls are putting in front of him. 

Paxson seemed to think this, anyway. It's pretty nice to bring a guy back without rancor and bitterness and hurt feelings, too.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Great News and its about time :biggrin: 

No chicago outlet has it yet because the Bears have a preseason game today .


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*YAY Pax! YAY Chandler! Drinks for everyone!*


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*



ScottMay said:


> It's not a Pax issue, per se. There's a large faction of posters who seem to have some sort of deep-rooted emotional phobia when it comes to NBA players getting large salaries, which truly leads me to wonder why they like the NBA to begin with.
> 
> Here's a thought, though: let's say Chandler ends up getting 72 million, and that the Bulls wanted to give him 60. In either case, he is completely set for life financially. The argument that at 72 million he'll be a fat, pampered baby who'll let himself go to seed doesn't wash, nor does the assumption that at 60 million he'll be a rabid, hungry animal who plays like every minute is his last on earth.
> 
> ...


well said. perhaps the Bulls feel confident Tyson is the type who wants to go out and earn that money...perhaps he will.

even if overpaid, Tyson had the Bulls pretty much over a barrell if he said QO me, because I easily get this much next summer. And the Bulls are in no position to tell him to get lost. The Bulls did a good thing for once. I'm going to enjoy this while it lasts. because I'm not used to this


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

*Re: Bulls officially re-sign Tyson Chandler*



ScottMay said:


> It's not a Pax issue, per se. There's a large faction of posters who seem to have some sort of deep-rooted emotional phobia when it comes to NBA players getting large salaries, which truly leads me to wonder why they like the NBA to begin with.
> 
> Here's a thought, though: let's say Chandler ends up getting 72 million, and that the Bulls wanted to give him 60. In either case, he is completely set for life financially. The argument that at 72 million he'll be a fat, pampered baby who'll let himself go to seed doesn't wash, nor does the assumption that at 60 million he'll be a rabid, hungry animal who plays like every minute is his last on earth.
> 
> ...


nice post. I'd just mention that I don't think it's the "fat cat vs. hungry animal" argument so much in this case, as it's the hope that Pax can get Chandler signed for a $60m in order to maximize cap space/flexibility next year and beyond. I don't think that's so unreasonable, but Tyson's salary in any given year won't be catastrophically different if it's a 60m deal vs. 70m. It might be the difference between max space or not, but whatever, having Tyson back is worth it to me.

Maybe this is naive of me, but I think once you're making a certain amount of money (such as many millions per year), it's sort of all the same. Unless you buy a new yacht every week, you should have more money than you know what to do with, and should be thrilled to be in that position. I guess that's kind of OT, though. Let's keep this focused on how nice it is to have Tyson back for the forseeable future.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Im happy since its not my money, but talk about overpaying. Wow. 

Around 13M per for Chandler? Good luck to us.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Awesome. It's great to have Chandler locked up from the ages of 23 to 28. I would lay good money that this is seen as an excellent move down the line. Why not? Pax just did.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I am now more optimistic that something good comes out of the complicated Curry situation as well. Go Pax!!!


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Thank God Tyson will be back. I'm a firm believer that the only way we win a championship, is that our chances rest on the shoulders of Tyson and Eddy. 1 down, and 1 to go. The franchise was intended to be built around these two young guys, let keep them, and let them prove their worth. High Risk, High Reward. Starting this past year, the rewards are going to be shown after 6 long years of being awful.

Like other posters have said, lets overpay a little, and let them feel valued and play their heart out. I also think, it was too risky to be very stingy, and let them take the QO, and we either pay them the Max (using bird rights), or lose both our '01 picks (along w/'02-Jay), and be back to being lottery bound.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

sam is saying it's more like $63 million. oh and he wants to trade curry.

:biggrin:



> Yes, the NBA is on its way back with training camps opening in a month. Chandler will be among those present after agreeing Thursday to an *estimated $63 million, six-year deal* with the Bulls that starts at more than $8 million annually and makes the 22-year-old forward/center one of the principal figures in the team's West Side redevelopment plan


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...smith,1,3819777.column?coll=cs-home-headlines

the also have the AP story about chandler re-signing, but no actual report yet from a bulls beat writer.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

6 years for $63 million is very fair to both sides. Shows TC wants to be in Chicago and that Pax feels the same.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Like mizenkay said earlier, I would speculate the incentives can bump the contract *potentially* to $75M. As Crazy Sam says, the deal is $63M, so perhaps that's the fully guarenteed part, and the full incentives are worth an extra $12M. Just my best guess.

I share the good vibes that you all are feeling about this. I felt Tyson was the 2nd most important player on the Bulls last season, and we all knew it was crucial to get him back. I knew Pax wouldn't let us down on this one. 

The off-season is nearly done! Just figure out what to do with Big Edward, get Songaila to ink a deal, and we're basically set for training camp, give or take a few low-end free agents. (I guess there's Pargo, too, but I've almost given up on him with Basden on board.)


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Great! We needed chandler long term.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...andler,1,2916029.story?coll=cs-home-headlines




> Although Paxson declined to offer specifics Thursday night, a source familiar with the negotiations confirmed the sides agreed to a six-year deal worth about $63 million, a standard set by the contract Samuel Dalembert signed with Philadelphia earlier this summer. *The deal becomes more lucrative if Chandler meets incentives.*





> He may consider Chicago his home, but Chandler, who married in July, has spent nearly all off-season in his native California. Usually, this kind of behavior doesn't impress bosses, but Paxson didn't sound concerned.
> 
> Paxson said Chandler has been working out with Charlotte's Emeka Okafor, a rookie last season who made an impression with his work ethic.
> 
> "Tyson understands what [coach] Scott Skiles wants as far as conditioning," Paxson said. "I'm confident he'll be in good condition."



have a great and safe holiday weekend everyone!!!


----------



## Jesus Shuttlesworth (Aug 3, 2005)

Jesus Shuttlesworth's first post in this forum. (I've been here since the Cartwright er,a though unregistered, long time lurker...)

Re-Signing Chandler is the most important step towards a playoff seed next year till now. 
75 million/6 years (even with incentives) may be a little too much but I think that in long term time will tell that Paxson was right. 

Tyson will develop some offense. We all hope so. 

If not, he's an asset we can trade in the next years, and there are many coaches and GM's around the league that love is intensity in defense, no matter if he's a one dimensional player or not.

Let's wait for some good Curry news next days....


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Jesus Shuttlesworth said:


> Jesus Shuttlesworth's first post in this forum. (I've been here since the Cartwright er,a though unregistered, long time lurker...)
> 
> Re-Signing Chandler is the most important step towards a playoff seed next year till now.
> 75 million/6 years (even with incentives) may be a little too much but I think that in long term time will tell that Paxson was right.
> ...


nice post. I agree, Chandler, IMO, will never be an untradeable contract weighing us down unless he becomes plagued by injuries. He's a big man with solid defensive instincts now that he's stopped biting on every pump fake, and athleticism and desire that's awfully hard to find. If he could just add one or two decent interior/post moves and keep working on that elbow jumper, he should be worth every penny.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

What the hell?!!?!?

They give some guy who can't even dribble, pass or shoot close to $70 million to pay basketball?!?!!?

What the hell am I doing getting up every morning busting my freakin hump at work while some string bean is living like a king to dunk a freakin ball?!??!?!

ABSURD!!!


ok, j/k, nice job resigning the guy... although it was the obvious move, yes?

nice to see PAX has not completely squandered the uber-talented inheritance he was given.

a decent question would be .... did the long waiting pay off? Seems like we're still paying Chandler a pretty penny. Is it clear that Paxson conActiveness (new word!) paid off?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Jesus Shuttlesworth said:


> Let's wait for some good Curry news next days....


Going a bit OT here:

Welcome, Jesus. Excellent screen name.


And I agree. Bulls next step: Ish or get off the pot with The Tin Man issue.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> What the hell?!!?!?
> 
> They give some guy who can't even dribble, pass or shoot close to $70 million to pay basketball?!?!!?
> 
> ...


Well, at least the conActiveness didn't seem to hurt us, at least in regard to Chandler. Negotiations took longer than we would have liked, but they never got contentious, and Chandler got a deal he can be happy with, no matter what the final numbers are. Hopefully, Paxson too gained something in the process.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Sounds like it's 6/63M to me unless he meets significant incentives. It should be, given the high base salary, anyway. FYI, here's the rule on those counting against the cap:

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#59



> Performance bonuses (incentives) are allowed, but they are limited to 25% of the value of the contract. This removes yet another loophole that teams tried to use in the past.
> Incentives are included in team salary if they are "likely to be achieved." They do not count if they are not likely to be achieved. (Except in the first year of the contract, where the salary, likely bonuses and unlikely bonuses must all fit within the salary cap or exception.) The league office determines what is likely and what is not. Their general guideline is whether the criteria was achieved in the previous year. For example, if a player had seven assists per game the previous season, then an incentive based on seven assists per game would probably be classified as "likely to be achieved," but an incentive based on eight assists per game would probably be classified as "not likely to be achieved."


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Well, at least the conActiveness didn't seem to hurt us, at least in regard to Chandler. Negotiations took longer than we would have liked, but they never got contentious, and Chandler got a deal he can be happy with, no matter what the final numbers are. Hopefully, Paxson too gained something in the process.



pattern developing. Identify mode:

wherever Pax gets doubted he lays the smackdown. and they keep jumpin up for it


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

63 million guaranteed?

75 million if all incentives are met?

Sounds perfectly fair to me. Previous reports were Bulls offering between 60-64 million, Tyson asking for 75 million. :clap: 

Eddy, Malik, Darius are next... get it done Pax! :banana:


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

SALO said:


> 63 million guaranteed?
> 
> 75 million if all incentives are met?
> 
> ...


Yeah, it certainly sounds like the only thing they have been negotiating is the incentives.

Like I said a little while back, IMHO they were working to make them classified as "not likely to be achieved", but possible for Tyson to achieve. That has to be a very fine line- for example, the famous Juwan Howard to Miami FA signing was disallowed because Tim Hardaway had incentives in is contract that were classified by the NBA as "not likely". But with Howard on the team, the incentives changed to "likely", which increased Hardaway's salary, which gave the Heat less cap room to sign Howard, which led to him staying in Washington.

It's in the link MikeDC provided, in the same question.

But that just tells me how difficult it would be to give Tyson realistic incentives that wouldn't count against our cap space next season.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

fleetwood macbull said:


> pattern developing. Identify mode:
> 
> wherever Pax gets doubted he lays the smackdown. and they keep jumpin up for it


Just for the sake of completeness, I'll say that I would have a problem if it turns out to be $75M guaranteed or in patsy incentives. Coming on the day after Yao (a superior player) signed for that, it'd be downright lame. And while it's not *that* much different, it would be a couple million less we'd have to spend next summer and a couple more million that always get raised win discussions of who else we can sign or re-sign. And those dollars count for expectations too. So yeah, the overall amount is important.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Just for the sake of completeness, I'll say that I would have a problem if it turns out to be $75M guaranteed or in patsy incentives. Coming on the day after Yao (a superior player) signed for that, it'd be downright lame. And while it's not *that* much different, it would be a couple million less we'd have to spend next summer and a couple more million that always get raised win discussions of who else we can sign or re-sign. And those dollars count for expectations too. So yeah, the overall amount is important.


Just for the record, Yao signed an extension for 5 years, 75 million. Why he didn't get a six year extension is beyond me.


----------



## Thorgal (Feb 1, 2003)

:mob: 

:banana: :rbanana: :bbanana: :cbanana: :vbanana: :wbanana: :gbanana: 

:cheers:


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Here's the Sun-Times article 



> Chandler's six-year guaranteed deal is believed to be *worth about $64 million* , terms similar to the contract that the Philadelphia 76ers recently agreed to with Samuel Dalembert, 24, whose statistics compare to those of Chandler, 22.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Just for the record, Yao signed an extension for 5 years, 75 million. Why he didn't get a six year extension is beyond me.


The extensions signed by players entering their 4th year now can only be a max of 5 years. 

---
All 3 papers are reporting between 63 and 64 million over 6 years. I knew it wouldn't be close to 75. I'm surprised it's not 67 or so, 'tis all good. 

McGraw is saying now that Pax left an offer on the table for Curry on Tuesday that could potentially be worth 64 million if a bunch of incentives are met and it's only 1 year guaranteed. Wonder what Rose and Eddy think of that.


----------



## southpark (Jul 5, 2003)

ChiBulls2315 said:


> McGraw is saying now that Pax left an offer on the table for Curry on Tuesday that could potentially be worth 64 million if a bunch of incentives are met and it's only 1 year guaranteed.


Ehh...64 mil for 1 yr? u sure u typed it right?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

southpark said:


> Ehh...64 mil for 1 yr? u sure u typed it right?


He typed it right. You read it wrong.

http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/sportsstory.asp?id=89994


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Just for the sake of completeness, I'll say that I would have a problem if it turns out to be $75M guaranteed or in patsy incentives. Coming on the day after Yao (a superior player) signed for that, it'd be downright lame. And while it's not *that* much different, it would be a couple million less we'd have to spend next summer and a couple more million that always get raised win discussions of who else we can sign or re-sign. And those dollars count for expectations too. So yeah, the overall amount is important.


I'll get bashed for this, and probably legitimately, but I'm not sure Yao has that much more of an impact on winning basketball games than Chandler does. Especially not as long as he's expected to give blood, sweat, and tears to the Chinese national program every single offseason.

Is Yao a better basketball player? Unquestionably. A better draw? No doubt about it. Does he help Houston win games to the extent that Chandler does for Chicago? I don't think so.

:runs and hides from Mr. Roger's Cardigan:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

About time.

Now we know who's going to man the post in Q4


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

ChiBulls2315 said:


> McGraw is saying now that Pax left an offer on the table for Curry on Tuesday that could potentially be worth 64 million if a bunch of incentives are met and it's only 1 year guaranteed. Wonder what Rose and Eddy think of that.



Wow i doubt they accept that he could just sign for the QO and then just sign again next year if he wanted to stay .


health incentives + medical incentives + first year not guaranteed + first year QO + deferred payments = accepting the QO proving himself one way or another .He could get a 5yr deal worth 59 million next year if stays healthy throughout the year .


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Wow i doubt they accept that he could just sign for the QO and then just sign again next year if he wanted to stay .


It sounds quite reasonable to me. He gets more money guarenteed (always a good thing) and he is locked into a long-term deal making excellent money if he can stay out on the court. I expect Curry to sign.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

I'd like to know more about the guarantees and options in Curry's deal, but it sounds like a very good start.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> It sounds quite reasonable to me. He gets more money guarenteed (always a good thing) and he is locked into a long-term deal making excellent money if he can stay out on the court. I expect Curry to sign.


I dont know about that because if the article is correct and Curry can only stand to make with all the kickers what Chandlers base salary he would be coming up on the short end of the stick bigtime .

Chandler base salary is 63 mill ? + incentives equal 70+ mill

Curry base is 5.04 + incentives = 64 million add in the fact that the first year is not guaranteed and its basically Pax playing off of Currys desperation at getting big money.

If curry is healthy basically a 5 year 59 million dollar kicks in and thats only if he not only stays healthy BUT plays well  .

Without the performances clauses it would be a great deal for both sides but with the clauses if I was eddy I would have some serious reservations about accepting that offer.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> I dont know about that because if the article is correct and Curry can only stand to make with all the kickers what Chandlers base salary he would be coming up on the short end of the stick bigtime .
> 
> Chandler base salary is 63 mill ? + incentives equal 70+ mill
> 
> ...


Really, the article isn't at all detailed enough to make these kinds of assumptions.


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

I'm just glad son is signed finally . . . I would be surprised if the contract is actually worth $75 Million in guaranteed money, that's just alot for what Tyson brings us. I wonder how this impacts the Eddy situation now.


----------



## WhoDaBest23 (Apr 16, 2003)

I'm glad to see the Bulls finally extended Chandler. I wouldn'tve been able to stand it if he like signed with the Lakers or something next year. Great job Bulls and here's to Chandler averaging a double-double next year!


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Hey, it's kind of weird, though. Our first big rookie extension.

Look at most of our team. Duhon's playing for what looks like a rookie contract, and so is Nocioni (his salary looks like a higher pick in the draft). Hinrich is playing on his rookie contract, along with Gordon and Deng. Othella signed for under 3 mil as well.

After AD's contract is over, Tyson Chandler will be the most handsomely paid player on our team. I don't know if this would really be true, but I think when the rookie contract gets signed, it's a nice deal of money where they can start living big, but when they sign their extension, they've really made it big time. $64 million over 6 years? If he manages it right, Tyson Chandler will be worth more than most managing directors at New York's best investment banks.

After spending the year in New York, I've really realized the difference between being really wealthy (the top 0.1% of the nation), and being RIDICULOUSLY wealthy (being in the top .01% of the nation). And the difference is there.

Will this change how Tyson interacts with the team? Maybe everyone is driving a Cadillac Escalade customized and worth a quarter-mil; what happens when Chandler shows up to practice in a million-dollar Rolls? Everyone on the team has probably got high-rise penthouse condos or 6 br houses in some rich suburb; but what happens when they play a road game in L.A. and stay in his house in orange county, or they take a trip to New York and stay at his 10-room apartment on Park Ave.?

I really wonder what this might do, especially if Curry re-ups at around $7 mil a year starting for only three years or so? I mean, I expect Hinrich will demand near-max money, and Gordon and Deng as well, but that's all still a few years down the line.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

Most of the time when you see salary numbers fluctuate like this there is a player or team option involved.

Both sides want it to look like they got what they wanted and won at the negotiating table so to make the team look like it got the better deal they will leak info without the option year and the players camp will do the same with the option year to make it look like they won.

Considering how little money the Bulls currently have locked up in salaries for the next couple of years and their need for a big man in wake of the Curry situation as well the fact TC wouldn't have gotten this big of a deal if Curry was healthy, IMO, they both look like winners.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> It took two months of negotiations before the Bulls signed Tyson Chandler to a six-year, *$62.87-million * deal last week.


I'm not sure if it's old news , But McGraw gave an exact number. That's not bad...

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


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

bullet said:


> I'm not sure if it's old news , But McGraw gave an exact number. That's not bad...
> 
> http://www.dailyherald.com/sports/bulls.asp


That's certainly not bad. Once again, Paxson came out on top. I think at $75M/6yrs is a bit overpaying but $62 to $63/6 yrs is not bad at all. It's a very good deal given the situation. 

Here is what I thought of the Curry Deal:

$40M for 4 years starting at around $8M then go $10 the following year guaranteed and a team buy out starting the third year. If not, the following years would be guaranteed. Curry will be 27 or so once the contract is up. He could then sign a hugh one then if he is healthy and good.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

today it actually *is* official!

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/chandler_contract_050901.html


_
“We’re very happy that we have come to terms with Tyson and that he will remain a member of the Chicago Bulls. In this business, things don’t always happen at the pace you would like, but I knew from the onset that we would make this happen and [Chandler's agent] Jeff Schwartz played a key role in the negotiations,” said Executive Vice President of Basketball Operations John Paxson.

“Tyson’s play last season was an important factor to our success and we hope to take the next step forward with Tyson being a major contributor to our team. He is fully aware of our commitment to him and he understands his responsibility to the organization, our front office and his teammates.”_


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Bump (again).

"Bulls re-sign Chandler!"

Shorter thread. Everyone happy...a real "Kumbaya" moment on the board. No one claimed that Paxson was bidding against himself (that criticsm came later).


----------

