# McGraw and Banks weigh in on the latest with the Jamal saga



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Jamal Crawford's agent, Aaron Goodwin, is trying to finalize a deal that would send his client from the Bulls to the New York Knicks, but it doesn't appear imminent.
> 
> Goodwin was attempting to lure Knicks operations chief Isiah Thomas and Bulls general manager John Paxson into the same room this weekend. But Paxson is in Salt Lake City for the Rocky Mountain Revue, where the Bulls are 5-1.
> 
> ...



http://www.suntimes.com/output/bulls/cst-spt-bull241.html




> "I think we can get something done by all getting together," Goodwin told several New York papers. "I proposed we get together. They both received it well. Isiah is ready any time. I expect to hear from Paxson (Friday).
> 
> .....
> 
> ...




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


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

At this point, a live meeting shouldn't make a difference. The potential deals are already on the table. It's just a matter of IT or Paxson caving in to the other side. I don't see that happening.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Aesop</b>!
> At this point, a live meeting shouldn't make a difference. The potential deals are already on the table. It's just a matter of IT or Paxson caving in to the other side. I don't see that happening.


Agreed. Goodwin is acting a bit odd. I've tried to land deals that were the longest of long shots. It was in those situations that I tried the same type of stuff that Goodwin is trying to pull. It didn't work.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

At this point Goodwin and Crawford are just pissing me off. 

Leaving IT out of it, if I'm Pax, I sit Goodwin and Crawford down in my office for a face-to-face. These are the options:

*1* Accept the QO, play your *** off for a year, and then flip us the bird when you sign with another team.

*2* Accept the offer we've presented.

*3* Sign someone else's offer and we'll match.

*4* Don't sign anywhere and go **** yourself, because you don't have a usefull career option other than playing ball and we've got you by your balls.

Finally, I mention that if you keep your damn mouth shut, we'll trade you as soon as there is an option that benefits the team. You can play like garbage in a little hissy fit if you like -- we've got players to take your place -- or you can prove to the other GMs in this league that you're worth what you're asking.

Of course, that would be me taking it personally, which Pax clearly isn't.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> At this point Goodwin and Crawford are just pissing me off.


Isn't Goodwin just doing his job?

Why be upset with Crawford... his agent is trying his hardest to get him the best deal. What's wrong with that? It does not seem he's acting unethical or anything.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I think it's the fact that Goodwin is bringing all of this down on the media. Not a very respectable way to negotiate IMO.


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

Goodwin might be doing all he can for Jamal (which I agree is his job), but the point is that he's making ridiculous claims through the media.

The direct quote from Goodwin that IT is ready to fly anywhere to get a deal done and that they're just waiting on Pax is plain dumb. Of course IT is ready to go anywhere - all the deals he's offered so far are in NY's favor.

Pax should decline the invitie to join the same room with Goodwin and IT (it's hard to tell which one is more delusional at this point) and just reiterate the Bulls' offer. If Mutombo is included in the deal instead of Norris, Pax is all for it. If not, then IT and Goodwin can go fly a kite. It seems like Pax has made that point pretty clearly. The only two people on the planet who either refuse to listen or don't get it are IT and Goodwin.

IMO, that's why Goodwin is so annoying - even if he's just doing his job. If he really wanted to do his job, he'd threaten to shop Jamal somewhere besides NY and make IT agree to include Mutombo so he doesn't lose Jamal.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Why would Pax even consider this sort of sitdown. It's like sitting down with the car salesman and his manager. The absolute best that can happen is Pax can tell them to get ****ed... which shouldn't call for a meeting. But there's at least some chance that they talk a blue streak around him and get him to agree to something.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Crawford had fired Goodwin earlier I believe. I wonder what kind of promises and/or guarrantees Goodwin made JC to convince him to rehire him once again? Makes you wonder if Goodwin somehow convinced Jamal that he could get him a top dollar, long term contract. And now that he's failing on his promises he's got to pull out all the stops or risk having his reputation as an agent who delivers damaged. If I were a betting man I'd say Crawford was seriously misled by his agent. And all that bluster in the press from Goodwin early in July about demanding more than the MLE has painted the two of them in a corner. 

If such is the case, then the only one who's desperate to broker a deal is Goodwin. Neither Paxson or Thomas appear nearly as anxious as Goodwin to get a trade done. In the long run though the real loser in this whole fiasco may turn out to be Crawford who mistakenly believed Goodwin could make him a very rich man.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

"One trade the Bulls are willing to accept is Shandon Anderson, Dikembe Mutombo, Othella Harrington and Frank Williams for a re-signed Crawford, Eddie Robinson and Jerome Williams."


It has been reported many times that Paxson would accept this trade, and IMO it just isn't worth it. I hate this deal. 

Take out either ERob or Jerome from our side and replace Shandon with Trybanski from their side and it makes more sense. 

ERob and Jerome are both better players than Shandon with smaller contracts. Adding Shandon to this team goes against everything Paxson has said regarding getting back "short term contracts and financial relief." 

The best news I've heard is Goodwin talking with other teams. :yes:


----------



## FrankTheTank (Jun 25, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> At this point Goodwin and Crawford are just pissing me off.
> 
> Leaving IT out of it, if I'm Pax, I sit Goodwin and Crawford down in my office for a face-to-face. These are the options:
> ...


brilliant. i totally agree.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SALO</b>!
> "One trade the Bulls are willing to accept is Shandon Anderson, Dikembe Mutombo, Othella Harrington and Frank Williams for a re-signed Crawford, Eddie Robinson and Jerome Williams."
> 
> It has been reported many times that Paxson would accept this trade, and IMO it just isn't worth it. I hate this deal.
> ...


And who should we get to replace Crawford in the guard rotation? Remember, he should have some size, be productive, and presuming Nocioni signs his 3 year, $10 million dollar deal, he'd better be willing to play for less than $2 million.

You see, getting rid of a player like Robinson who's failed to provide any kind of a return on the free agent contract he signed in '01 would be an achievement, especially since we've probably got two more years of non-production at a cost of $14 million to look forward to if he stays.

As for JYD, he's a PF who's owed $25 million over the next four years. Then you've got Shandon Anderson, a SG/SF who's owed $23.7 million over the next three years. For the sake of arguement lets call their contracts a wash. With Crawford gone and with PF Othella Harrington and his ending contract arriving as part of the package, doesn't Anderson become a more valuable player to the Bulls than Jerome Williams?

If we do the trade and take back ending contracts exclusively our guard ranks become very thin. Frank Williams is a PG and at 6'3" he's also a redundancy to what we already have. Somehow, with Crawford gone, we'd have to add a good sized SG most likely through free agency. And as I said before, with money committed to Nocioni, there's not much left to offer a competent FA shooting guard.

As for Shandon Anderson...is he everpaid? Absolutely. But so is JYD. With Crawford gone Anderson becomes a much more valuable player to the Bulls than J. Williams. And let me add this about Anderson as well. He's a career 46%/32% shooter during the regular season. In 53 playoff games he's a 46%/36% shooter which suggests he doesn't blink in pressure situations. And at 6'6" he give the Bulls a nice compliment as a bigger defender to offset Hinrich (6'3") and Gordon (6'2").

If Crawford does end up having to be traded and Pax is able to include both JYD's and ERob's contracts as part of the deal, then IMHO, Anderson and ending contracts isn't a bad exchange.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Paxson is missing the most obvious choice of what to do. Tie a cinderblock to Goodwins feet and push him off a bridge above water. Then he lands in the 6 inch water and lets see how he gets out of that one.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> As for JYD, he's a PF who's owed $25 million over the next four years. Then you've got Shandon Anderson, a SG/SF who's owed $23.7 million over the next three years. For the sake of arguement lets call their contracts a wash. With Crawford gone and with PF Othella Harrington and his ending contract arriving as part of the package, doesn't Anderson become a more valuable player to the Bulls than Jerome Williams?


I'm fairly certain JYD is only guaranteed $19-20M (including his trade kicker), so yes, we are talking about taking a worse contract back in Anderson than any we're giving up in the deal.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Crawford had fired Goodwin earlier I believe. I wonder what kind of promises and/or guarrantees Goodwin made JC to convince him to rehire him once again? Makes you wonder if Goodwin somehow convinced Jamal that he could get him a top dollar, long term contract. And now that he's failing on his promises he's got to pull out all the stops or risk having his reputation as an agent who delivers damaged. If I were a betting man I'd say Crawford was seriously misled by his agent. And all that bluster in the press from Goodwin early in July about demanding more than the MLE has painted the two of them in a corner.
> 
> If such is the case, then the only one who's desperate to broker a deal is Goodwin. Neither Paxson or Thomas appear nearly as anxious as Goodwin to get a trade done. In the long run though the real loser in this whole fiasco may turn out to be Crawford who mistakenly believed Goodwin could make him a very rich man.


Well, maybe you can explain something to me... how is it that Goodwin is doing such a bad job and yet it appears at least somewhat likely he's going to get his client an above MLE deal? 

That's the bottom line, isn't it?

(Yes, it is.)

And he's moved Paxson from a position of holding a "final say" to a position where, in as you've put it, he may be worried about NOT making a deal to get Jamal out of town. 


Guys, you can ***** about the how annoying he is, and it's hard for a lot of guys to have the stomach for high stakes and high risk negotiations, but that's what agents get paid to do. At this point, it appears to me that Goodwin is likely to get Jamal to New York which is a better situation, and he's likely to get him more than the Bulls will offer. That looks to me like a pretty good job on Goodwin's part. He's getting more than the Bulls were willing to offer, and he's got them willing to give up their right to match any offer and bring him back.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I'm fairly certain JYD is only guaranteed $19-20M (including his trade kicker), so yes, we are talking about taking a worse contract back in Anderson than any we're giving up in the deal.


Do you get some kind of perverse pleasure out of contradicting some aspect of every one of my posts?

*Jerome Williams...7/18/01, 7yrs., $40.8 million, p&t-opt '07.*

http://www.nationwide.net/~patricia/contracts.

Unless I'm mistaken his contract includes an option in '07 that requires the mutual consent of both parties. That means Jerome's 07/08 salary is guarranteed if that's how he wants it.

*03/04 Salary: Jerome Williams ............ $5,987,500*

http://www.nationwide.net/~patricia/misc/salaries04.txt

I'll let you do the math.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

If Pax' motivation to do a sign and trade is indeed cap relief, the offers on the table are underwhelming. 

If Goodwin wants to complete a NY/Chicago deal, he needs to show Pax the bling. Where is the cap relief he wants? If the bling is not there, there is no reason to do a deal. If a deal isn't done, Pax doesn't "win." Which surely is the card Aaron is trying to play. However, if a deal isn't done that gives Pax what he wants, he doesn't "win" either. 

In order for Jamal to get to NY on a big, fat contract, Pax needs to be put into a winning position. If he doesn't get the win, there is no reason in the world for him to do anything.

If one of the few teams left with space to offer an over MLE deal was even remotely interested, Goodwin would have them in the mix already. You think he hasn't worked the phones trying to drum up a bidding war already? There is nobody biting other than NY. Its NY or bust. Anyone else interested is only interested at a dollar level the Bulls would match.

If this deal is going to work, Goodwin needs to start twisting Zeke's nipples to get this done -- not, as has been his focus, to continue to work Johnny P. If cap relief is what Pax wants, it is cap relief that needs to be put on the table. 

Otherwise, Jamal knows fully well, his options are to take the QO or work out a long term deal with the Bulls. There will be no offer the Bulls wouldn't match. Absent a S&T with the Knicks, those are the only two choices left. And given the uncertainty of what next season will bring in terms of JCraw's opportunities, taking the QO and testing the market as a UFA next season probably doesn't seem all that appealing at the moment. Who will be out there next season with a big bucks offer who wasn't even willing to get in the running this year? 

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Jamal should be swinging a baseball bat in front of his agent's head and threatening to kill him if he can't get Pax exactly what he wants in a S&T. Otherwise, Jamal is going to be eating crow more ways than Forrest Gump's pal Bubba can think of ways to cook shrimp.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you get some kind of perverse pleasure out of contradicting some aspect of every one of my posts?


No need to get paranoid... you're a great poster here, and perhaps that's all the more reason why, when I see something you say that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, I think it's worth commenting on. 

In this case, you might not like it, but it's a pretty key aspect of your post and the larger issue I'm calling into question. That's not at all unfair of me to do, is it?



> *Jerome Williams...7/18/01, 7yrs., $40.8 million, p&t-opt '07.*
> 
> http://www.nationwide.net/~patricia/contracts.
> 
> ...


Well, to be technical, "mutual consent of both parties" seems a bit redundant (now that would be an example of contradicting you out of perverse pleasure  ). But generally speaking, the common meaning of "mutual consent" would be that both parties must agree to the additional year. Hence, JYD's 07/08 salary if guaranteed only if that's how BOTH he and the Bulls want it.

Obviously I don't have the contract in front of me, but based on everything that I can see, my interpretation seems to be the more intuitive one. I mean, if it were only up to JYD's option, it wouldn't require any consent by the Bulls and therefore wouldn't be mutual. The "team" option would be meaningless.

Further, I am guessing Patricia's 04 salary for JYD includes the pro-rated share of the trade kicker he received, which (compared to the Hoopshype # which doesn't include the kicker, puts his pro rated kicker amount at about 380k, about 200k less per year than I was thinking it was.

Thus, my math shows the bulls are on the hook for 
04/05: $5.99
05/06: $6.46
06/07: $6.81
Total: $19.26


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you get some kind of perverse pleasure out of contradicting some aspect of every one of my posts?
> ...


Sounds like either party can opt out of the contract. Hence, 07 is not guarenteed and Anderson does have the worst contract in the bunch.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Sounds like either party can opt out of the contract. Hence, 07 is not guarenteed and Anderson does have the worst contract in the bunch.


*p*layer *&*(and, not "or") *t*eam. 

That, to me would be the literal interpretation. If the option was at the choosing of either party don't you think it would have read "player _or_ team?"


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> *p*layer *&*(and, not "or") *t*eam.
> ...


No 

To me at least, "player _or_ team" would seem to signify the situation you're describing. Either the playor *OR* the team can make the last year enforceable.

The way I'm looking at it, P&T means both the player *AND* the team must agree to make the last year enforceable.

If it's as you say, why would the parties drawing up the contract bother to put such an option in there in the first place. I mean, if either party can activate the last year unilaterally, they ought to have saved themselves the attorney's fees and just made it a straight guaranteed year. No matter what the situation, you can bet it will always be in one side's interest to activate the last year... why go through the summersaults to make that happen?

Using the logic of marriage, one side is bound to want to stick with it and one side is likely to feel they're paying too much or receiving too little. What you're saying is one spouse can force another year on the other.

In contrast, if it's as I (and I think Johnson are saying), both sides have to agree to activate the last year. The marriage only moves ahead if it's in everyone's interest.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> No
> ...


Well, we seem to be going in circles here. If both sides had to agree to extend one more year, isn't that the same as calling it a team option? I mean, how many players at the age of 34 are going to agree to blow off the last year of their contract that calls for them to be paid approximately $7 million? No one that I know of. Given the circumstances he'd be nutz to not want the last year guarranteed.

Maybe someone who's familiar with these types of arrangements will step up and clear things up once and for all. I'm just trying to interpret the logic of a mutual option. And logic tells me that no player on the downside of his career would ever give up $7 million to enter the free agent market...especially a guy like JYD who will never be mistaken for a top tier player. What you're telling me is that both sides have to agree to extend which means that even if JYD wants to, the Bulls can terminate the contract anyway...which means its really a _team option_...so why didn't they just write the contract with the last year a team option year?

I give up.


----------



## Dan Rosenbaum (Jun 3, 2002)

FWIW, my source lists JYD as being owed $19.9 million over the next three seasons with only a team option for $7.05 million in 07-08.

It lists Shandon Anderson as being owed $23.7 million over the next three seasons.

Anderson strikes me a younger version of Kendall Gill, and his 03-04 stats are eerily similar to Gill's 02-03 stats. Solid offensive player, solid defender - the kind of veteran who in past years was available for the veteran's minimum.

I suspect JYD on the open market could fetch a little more, because he is a very good rebounder for a SF/PF, while Anderson is just OK at a bunch of things. He also is a fan favorite with his public displays of hustle.

And it was interesting to see the Gordon-bashing begin already in summer league - despite the Bulls winning all but one game. Just imagine the abuse Gordon might have to endure on a Crawford-less team in the midst of one of its many losing streaks when he is unable to match up well defensively and still is struggling to find his game on offense.

Throw in a little frustration and the bad behavior that might result from that as Gordon struggles with being "the man," and things could get ugly.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, we seem to be going in circles here. If both sides had to agree to extend one more year, isn't that the same as calling it a team option? I mean, how many players at the age of 34 are going to agree to blow off the last year of their contract that calls for them to be paid approximately $7 million? No one that I know of. Given the circumstances he'd be nutz to not want the last year guarranteed.
> ...


In practice, yes, you're right... it effectively becomes a team option.

But I think what needs to be kept in mind is that the terms of the contract aren't being set now, but were set like what, 3 summers ago when by JYD and the Raptors. projecting forward several years, from *that point*, there was a lot more uncertainty involved. Does $7M sound like a lot now for a guy who would be a 34 year old PF? Yeah, but at the same time they were signing JYD up they were signing up Davis to an even bigger deal, so it's hard to imagine a scenario where they could have considered him worth it.

That is, in a slightly different reality, JYD might more than $7M in his last year. AD did. Plenty of other joe sixpack PFs have too. Point is, way back when the contract was written it was unclear how the market would turn out. On one hand, it's conceivable (although unlikely now) that JYD would get more and thus want to opt out. Imagine if everything had worked out the way the Raptors thought it was going to work out when they signed all these guys up after they were seconds from getting to the EC Championship a couple years back. If Vince had developed a Killer instinct, AW had stayed healthy... maybe they'd be a different team. On that team JYD might take over the PF role as AD slowed down, and he might not look so bad playing next to Vince. Say he puts up 9 points and 10 boards like he did when he started most of the season 2 years ago. In that case, some team might look at him as a missing piece to the puzzle. Also, it's worth keeping in mind that revenues were going up faster when that contract was made, I think. They may have estimated... and they still might not be far off... that in 07-08, $7M might be about the MLE.

It was about $5M this year and about $4.5M next year. It's very possible that it may go up at about the same level, in which case we'd see:
05/06: $5.5
06/07: $6
07/08: $6.5

OK, that doesn't quite get them to $7M, but thinking everything through it's feasible.

Of course, it could have just been a kind of "respect" clause on the contract that makes the numbers sound bigger to everyone (as it appears many of this summers' contracts have).

Both sides have a veto (at least, if it's a P&T... Dan could be right that it's only a "T"... that's what Hoopshype shows it as). I'm sorry if I've done a bad job of explaining it, but it's pretty clear to me at least that the Bulls absolutely do not have to pay JYD in the final year unless they want to.

---------------

As far as Anderson, I'm relatively certain we could get about the same or better performance out of Dion Glover or Bob Sura for the remainder of our MLE if we so chose.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Dan Rosenbaum</b>!
> FWIW
> And it was interesting to see the Gordon-bashing begin already in summer league - despite the Bulls winning all but one game. Just imagine the abuse Gordon might have to endure on a Crawford-less team in the midst of one of its many losing streaks when he is unable to match up well defensively and still is struggling to find his game on offense.
> 
> Throw in a little frustration and the bad behavior that might result from that as Gordon struggles with being "the man," and things could get ugly.


Dan,

As one of those who has playfully expressed concern....it is alot about this point. Who are people on the boards gonna blame when Crawford is gone and Gordon struggles.

We've all read the warm fuzzy stories, watche d the ESPN piece and all of us want him to be a basketball All-Satr....but that is not likely this year....or maybe at all if he's playing SG.

Sorry guys, he's gonna get eaten alive this year on Defense. Even if you believe he can Guard PG's and SG's remember ref's don't give rookie's the call. So you can expect atleast one or two bad calls to go against him all season....think not???? Ask Hinrich lovers.

Bottom line is, we need someone who can defend SG's. Crawford's not a defensive stopper, but who can we get to be the guy to stop runs when Gordo has to sit?

As for the offensive side, Gordon will struggle to score like all rookies do. Who do we turn to for more offense? The twin contract extension seekers? Deng? Hinrich? We may need to keep a guy like Pargo for instant offense purposes if we get rid of Crawford and only get Anderson back.


But, let's hope these guys surprise us like Hinrich did. They certainly have the talent, if not the height or athleticism.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>chifaninca</b>!
> 
> As one of those who has playfully expressed concern....it is alot about this point. Who are people on the boards gonna blame when Crawford is gone and Gordon struggles.


I'm with Dan on this one... they're gonna blame Gordon. Gordon's role is going to be to score, and like every perimeter scorer we've had for the last six years, he's gonna get **** for "jacking up bad shots", "hogging the ball", "poor shot selection", and being "selfish".

Why? Basically because he's going to be the guy taking the most shots and because we're going to lose a lot. The natural (but not necessarily right) thing is to look at that situation and say "Gordo's not leading us there, other guys should be shooting it". Kind of how the backup QB is always the guy most popular with Bears fans, the guys not getting shots will be popular. Players X, Y, and Z "should be getting more shots". They should be the "focal point" of the attack, people (likely myself included at some points, out of shear frustration) will say. Since they aren't the focal point thouse, we won't see just how un-ready Deng is or how limited Curry is, and we'll complain that the Ball just isn't being turned over to them enough.

I mean ****... look at our team last year. If Jamal was shooting too much, who wasn't shooting enough? Lint? Dupree? Gill? Curry you might say, but it appeared to me that giving Curry the ball in the first place was somewhat of a challenge for the team, and then his ability to do something good once he did get the ball was below average (meaning, yeah, he scored a lot, but he also turned it over a lot).

And Gordon is going to face a similar criticism that Jamal (and Kirk) faced in that they monopolized the ball. Well, it's hard not to when the guys you're on the court with absolutely can't be trusted to 1) move to the right places and 2) have good enough ball handling skills to involve them as more than end points in the offense.

Let's look for a second at who we're projecting to start next year if Jamal leaves (even if he stays, we aren't in great shape).

Kirk
Jamal 
Noicini (No Handle according to most reports)
Chandler (Salad Tongs for Hands)
Curry (black hole TO machine)

You've got three guys out there with little in the way of movement and ball handling skills. It's almost axiomatic in that situation that the two guys who do are going to spend a lot of time with the ball in their hands, lots of time dribbling aimlessly while their teammates do nothing, and inevitably lots of time heaving the ball in desperation.

I think our greatest hope here can be that Deng will be better and more ready than advertised. He's not a "point forward" type of player, I think, but he should be fairly capable of being a part of a real NBA offense. That will help immeasurably.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm with Dan on this one... they're gonna blame Gordon. Gordon's role is going to be to score, and like every perimeter scorer we've had for the last six years, he's gonna get **** for "jacking up bad shots", "hogging the ball", "poor shot selection", and being "selfish".
> ...


I think the big difference, though, is that Gordon really is a rookie. What made people piss and moan about Crawford was his inconsistency that persisted into his fourth year. 

What is more, according to the reports, what Paxson liked best about Gordon was not his athleticism, etc., but his ability to carry his team when Okafor was out during (what, the Big East championships?) The point being, he's not as fragile an ego as Crawford was and has been. When things got tough, Gordon buckled down and lifted the team up. This is what Paxson and Skiles are looking for from somebody, anybody, on this team. 

So, I think that Gordon will be cut some slack, as JC was in his rookie and second (effective) year campaigns, and he will not react to negative or adverse situations in the same way as JC did. Same situations, perhaps (though I think you are right that Deng might prove to be a bigger difference maker than we first thought) but different outcomes are possible (and I think likely) because they are different people.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Good Hope</b>!
> 
> 
> I think the big difference, though, is that Gordon really is a rookie. What made people piss and moan about Crawford was his inconsistency that persisted into his fourth year.
> ...


This is really good stuff. They are different people in so many ways. And you're right about rookies being cut more slack than the vets. Excellent post.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Good Hope</b>!
> 
> 
> I think the big difference, though, is that Gordon really is a rookie. What made people piss and moan about Crawford was his inconsistency that persisted into his fourth year.
> ...


I think this is a good point... I mean, everyone will cut Gordon some slack because he's a rookie. But at the same time, it seems to me that what you're really boiling things down to is you think Gordon is going to be able to pick this team up and carry it.

Don't you think that those are some majorly unrealistic expectations to have of *ANY* rookie?

In other words, you sort of admitted it was unrealistic to expect a rookie to do this, but then you went on to say that you think Ben will be able to do it, and you assert that you think Ben will and Jamal wasn't is because of attitude.

Listen, I agree that I like Ben's attitude better (at least from what I've seen of it), but I think it was unrealistic to expect Jamal to lift a crappy team on his back, and I think it is just as unrealistic to expect Ben to.

It's not "attitude", it's talent. The Bulls last year were a bad team, and they're going to be a bad team this year as well. 

The "attitude" thing is wishful thinking on our parts to a large extent. The biggest single factor holding us back was the fact we put a lot of bad basketball players on the court. 

I mean, how much "better" would Jamal's "reaction to adversity" have to have been to make significant improvements in the Bulls last year? Would having a positive outlook magically make other teams stop exploiting Lint, Dupree, Gill, Chandler, and Curry the way they were routinely exploited? Is Ben's attitude that much better?

I guess the bottom line I see is that to be able to "carry a team" in the NBA, you have to have the talent to carry a team. I think Ben's going to be a really nice player, but I don't see how he can live up to those expectations. And if there's anything that we ought to have learned over the past several years, pride goes before a fall. Hell, we've repeatedly brought in guys who's "great attitudes" were going to lift up the franchise. *We relied on attitude*. Elton Brand, Jay Williams, those guys were both brought in with absolutely stellar attitudes. Those guys were "leaders" and exceptional workers, and yet their "reaction to adversity" was pretty strongly questioned upon leaving (in Brand's case) or mid-way through his only season (in Jay's case).

Hell, even his first season here, doesn't everyone remember how ERob's infectious enthusiasm and high-flying style was going to lead us? How brave sounding his words were about wanting to get back out on the court when he had his mysterious toe problem? But injuries and losing turned him into a big-league malcontent.

Enough with the idea that "attitude" is going to make up for talent when you don't have much talent to work with. Losing eats up good attitudes and spits it out. If our expectation is that on attitude alone Ben is going to be the rising tide that floats every ship, we are gravely mistaken.

If we expect he's talented enough to make us that much better by himself, that's at least a bit more realistic, although I think it would require him to a star caliber player from day 1, which I think is grossly unfair to expect.

I think if Chandler's healthy this year, coupled with adding Deng and Noicini we're a somewhat better team no matter what. But I think it will be largely unfair to attribute improvement or decline to Ben when we've added those three more talented guys to the roster. If we fail to improve, it will largely be because those three guys didn't bring us much. If we do improve, it will largely be brought on by the improvement of those three guys. Making out Ben to be the savior... which you seem to be doing to me even when you say you aren't... seems to me to be setting the expectations level to a dangerously high one.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I think this is a good point... I mean, everyone will cut Gordon some slack because he's a rookie. But at the same time, it seems to me that what you're really boiling things down to is you think Gordon is going to be able to pick this team up and carry it.
> ...


Whoa! The only dangerous expectations around here are the ones you have about my previous post  

Just kidding. Seriously, I had written this team off. I didn't see any hope for it, not because there was no talent, but there was no one who, in response to disappointments and trials, showed their willingness to really pay the price to turn things around. They were all too concerned about getting what they wanted, first. 

I don't expect Gordon to be a savior -- and certainly not in his first year. But in order for me to follow this team, at least there needs to be a willingness on the players' part to take whatever beatings they're going to have to take as a young team like men, work on what needs to be worked on, show consistent effort and improvement (not just in individual skills but also in understanding of the team concept), etc. My point about Gordon is that he demonstrated that "dig deeper" approach in this previous year at Connecticut. 

Brand, Artest and Miller could have been a good team nucleus, as we now know, but JK was afraid that they wouldn't be championship good, so he swung the pendulum toward athleticism. Paxson swung the pendulum back toward work ethic and team work. This year, he's brought the team's talent level up a notch, without compromising that commitment to work and team. Will it work? I don't know.  

But I really don't think Bulls fans are looking for a savior, right now. We are looking for a team that plays basketball together, will fight through thick and thin (hey, isn't that the slogan?) and grow up into something we can really enjoy watching. Crawford, for all of his talent, represents that "I want to get mine, first" attitude. Gordon seems to have comparable talent, but also seems to have a "for the team" attitude. It might be just appearances, I know. But I'll pin my hat on that hope, thank you very much.:sigh:


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> *p*layer *&*(and, not "or") *t*eam.
> ...


Looks like Dan, MikeDC and I are in agreement here. So this is probably a dead horse.

But let's look at this:

Interpretation 1: Either the player or the team can OPT OUT of the contract. Therefore, BOTH the team and the player must agree to the last year at the pre-determined price.

Interpretation 2: Either the player or the team can OPT IN to the last year of the of the contract making it guarenteed. *Therefore, BOTH the team and the player must agree to WAIVE the last year of the contrat.*

Interpretation 2 doesn't make sense b/c at any time a player and a team could agree to buyout. This is in effect a $0 buyout. So why have a special clause when this action can be taken at any time for any player for any contract?

So, therefore, Intrepretation 1 must be right and the last year is not guareteed.

p.s. The SF Giants sign a lot of players to 2 year contracts with a player and team option for the last year. This almost never gets activated b/c either the player or the team think the price is wrong.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

Thanks for the clarification on this subject. I thought JYD's 4th year wasn't guaranteed, but McGraw said it was a few weeks ago so that kind of threw me off. I e-mailed him on it, but never got anything back. Good to know.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Good Hope</b>!
> 
> But I really don't think Bulls fans are looking for a savior, right now. We are looking for a team that plays basketball together, will fight through thick and thin (hey, isn't that the slogan?) and grow up into something we can really enjoy watching. Crawford, for all of his talent, represents that "I want to get mine, first" attitude. Gordon seems to have comparable talent, but also seems to have a "for the team" attitude. It might be just appearances, I know. But I'll pin my hat on that hope, thank you very much.:sigh:


OK, I don't so much disagree with the "attitude thing", I just think it's superceded by the "talent thing" 

Two things though:

1. I guess I don't see how Crawford represents the "I want to get mind, first" attitude? Why, because he's up for a contract negotiation? He's doing exactly what he should do, given his circumstances. He's trying to get the most $$$ and the best situation. Is that selfish? Well, I suppose, but it's no more selfish than the Bulls trying to get the best deal they can for themselves... which they're trying to do as well.

On the court and in interviews, Jamal has always seemed to be a popular and well liked teammate who speaks well of the guys he plays with, even in difficult circumstances. Despite not having what I'd consider a high basketball IQ, he's without a doubt worked very hard as a Bull. By all accounts he worked his *** off last summer, and he obviously his *** off to get back from his ACL. He's improved quite a bit on the court.

You can say he might be gambling too much on the big payoff by pushing the Knicks deal too hard, and you can say he's still got big flaws as a basketball player and he's not a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" guy, and I'd agree- but that doesn't mean he's not a guy who can't fit in and be a strong player on a winning basketball team. Jamal has seemed to be mostly "for the team", and in fairness I'm not sure the team has always been that much "for Jamal". Ideally that shouldn't matter, but in the real world real people don't deal with such things ideally.

2. Perhaps most importantly, I don't see why it has to be an either/or. How about we make Jamal a slightly above MLE offer, such as is probable he's getting from the Knicks and then bring him back. How about we say everything he wants to hear. The Bulls have it totally in their power to do all of that, and yet they are looking for excuses and ways out. In bringing Jamal back, they don't have to "pin their hat on hope". They can still groom the guy who they think is going to be the "team guy" while still keeping the "talented guy" around. Even if you think the "talented guy" isn't that much of a team guy, we aren't talking about Isaiah Rider here. We'll live, and we'll be a tangibly better and more flexible team if we have Jamal here in addition to Ben.

When we start to have real talent accumulated like that, then we start to be in a position where a critical mass of hard charging guys - Ben, Kirk, Luol, Tyson, Andres - then they might really start making a difference.

When you have those hard charging, "team first" guys and put them in a crappy, no-win situation, however, you run the risk of destroying their enthusiasm and leadership capabilities. Did we not hear such quotes from Kirk last year? From Jay the year before? From guys like Elton before that? Yes, yes, and yes.

If you want these guys to be "team first leaders", first give them a real team to lead!  To a large extent, keeping Jamal would be protecting the investment we're making in everyone else.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> OK, I don't so much disagree with the "attitude thing", I just think it's superceded by the "talent thing"
> ...


Whew! Your posts are exhausting.

I'll try to keep it brief. 

I don't disagree with keeping Jamal at all. He has talent, and he fills a need for the Bulls. But *if* the reports are true that he doesn't want to stay if he's part of a three guard rotation, then I think he is putting himself ahead of the team. 

I honestly don't think Jamal is a leader type. That doesn't mean he hasn't worked hard in the past, and that he doesn't care. But he's not the guy who rallies others around him, puts himself on the line, sends a signal to the others to suck it up, etc. He is fragile, not so much in body but in spirit. He is a talent that needs to be coddled, soothed and protected. That's okay in the right environment. But I don't think it has worked for the Bulls. Blame the Bulls. But they are looking for someone who will stand up and take charge and find a way to make it work. From the Bulls' point of view, Jamal will never be that guy. They've presented him a scenario in which he could still fit and be an important team member. He's too blinded by Isaiah's praise, up til now, to accept it.

P.S. I think Ronnie Artest could have been that guy, if only they'd been more patient with him -- of course, he also could have gone off the deep end.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Good Hope</b>!
> 
> 
> Whew! Your posts are exhausting.
> ...


Sorry  I've found that every year of schooling beyond about year 14 has made it harder for me to write clearly  Oh well, I'm heading into year 20 next month 



> I don't disagree with keeping Jamal at all. He has talent, and he fills a need for the Bulls. But *if* the reports are true that he doesn't want to stay if he's part of a three guard rotation, then I think he is putting himself ahead of the team.


I'll just comment on this part - I agree that this looks like a big sticking point, but it's hard to really say that when the most every published report I've seen suggests the Bulls aren't offering the same kind of money the Knicks are. The Bulls appear to have offered $37-$38 over 6 years, and I've not heard of any incentives (such as those put in the MLE contract for Q, I think). I don't think they even offered the higher level raises they could have offered.

The Knicks, on the other hand, best as I can tell, are offering 6-7 year deals that range from $40-57M (the wide differences coming in whether Jamal starts at something like $5.5M or $6M, whether there's a seventh year, and how much the raises would be.

I've looked at the differences pretty closely, and I think it's in the Bulls interest to match a deal up to about $6M starting, regardless of years on the contract. Jamal should have decent value in that range throughout his contract.

Anyway, my point is that it's hard to say Jamal's putting himself ahead of the team when it appears significantly more money is within his grasp. He'd be a pretty ridiculous to turn down and extra $5-10M dollars. Until the Bulls make a _competitive_ offer in that regard, all the talk about "accepting roles" appears to be needless complication. $5M bucks will buy you lots of acceptance  (it certainly has with prior RFAs, who were "dissatisfied" with their old teams when they received an offer and "wanted to leave" but got with the program pretty quickly when the offers were matched or exceeded.



> I honestly don't think Jamal is a leader type. That doesn't mean he hasn't worked hard in the past, and that he doesn't care. But he's not the guy who rallies others around him, puts himself on the line, sends a signal to the others to suck it up, etc. He is fragile, not so much in body but in spirit. He is a talent that needs to be coddled, soothed and protected. That's okay in the right environment. But I don't think it has worked for the Bulls. Blame the Bulls. But they are looking for someone who will stand up and take charge and find a way to make it work. From the Bulls' point of view, Jamal will never be that guy. They've presented him a scenario in which he could still fit and be an important team member. He's too blinded by Isaiah's praise, up til now, to accept it.
> 
> P.S. I think Ronnie Artest could have been that guy, if only they'd been more patient with him -- of course, he also could have gone off the deep end.


I completely agree with your assessment here, except that I don't think it's just praise he's blinded by. The Knicks appear to have offered significantly more money than the Bulls, and it's hard for me to overlook that.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Everybody talks about what the Knicks are offering Crawford. I have a simple question: _*What offer?*_

I can offer someone double the value of their house. But if I insist on taking 60 years to pay it off instead of 30 and I refuse to pay interest, is it really an offer? When the day comes that Isiah Thomas makes a palpable, reasonable trade offer to Chicago, then we'll know what he's really willing to pay Crawford. Until then its all just talk.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Everybody talks about what the Knicks are offering Crawford. I have a simple question: _*What offer?*_
> 
> I can offer someone double the value of their house. But if I insist on taking 60 years to pay it off instead of 30 and I refuse to pay interest, is it really an offer? When the day comes that Isiah Thomas makes a palpable, reasonable trade offer to Chicago, then we'll know what he's really willing to pay Crawford. Until then its all just talk.


I've tried to make this point several times this summer. It falls on deaf ears. How can what IT "offers" be considered Jamal's market value if IT cannot offer it?

I would like to offer $5 million to the most beautiful woman in the world to marry me. I can't (it's all tied up in investments.....  ), therefore I get laughed at or slapped for making the proposition in the first place.

Why has no one *****-slapped Isaiah yet?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Everybody talks about what the Knicks are offering Crawford. I have a simple question: _*What offer?*_
> 
> I can offer someone double the value of their house. But if I insist on taking 60 years to pay it off instead of 30 and I refuse to pay interest, is it really an offer? When the day comes that Isiah Thomas makes a palpable, reasonable trade offer to Chicago, then we'll know what he's really willing to pay Crawford. Until then its all just talk.


Er... aren't you the guy who's been intimating that some of these deals are pretty close to palpable and reasonable?  And haven't you voiced quite a bit of concern that a "divorce" might be in order, rather than having an unhappy Jamal here?

Honestly, I could see things getting to the point where Paxson, fearful of having an unhappy player and unwilling to offer a penny more than the MLE, will simply renounce Jamal, who would sign for the MLE for the Knicks.

You really have to admire the manner in which Isaiah has moved things to the point that's actually a possibility. He'll get Jamal for a discount over what he was willing to pay. Of course things could change, but he looks like he's making chicken salad to me.

Jamal, for his part, appears no worse for that. He gets the MLE from the Bulls or the MLE from the Knicks. With equal money, the Knicks are pretty clearly the better place for him.

I don't think that point should be understated. Since the Bulls aren't offering anything over what the Knicks can, it's actually in Jamal's interest to be as loud and annoying as possible, and to attempt to goad Pax into renouncing him. 

In that case, Paxson will be faced with costing Jamal a big chunk of money, which will make him even more likely to pout. My opinion of Paxson (and I think Goodwin/Crawford's opinion too) is that he can be pushed in this direction to the point of renouncing Crawford entirely if he can't be pushed into makeing a sign and trade. In either scenario, it's in their interest to push as far in that direction as they can. That is, of course, a harsh negotiating strategy that's very little fun for anyone, and very annoying for most fans, but it also appears to be the best strategy for making Jamal the most money. And, in Pax's own words (on a couple of occasions last year) this is a business and sometimes you have to do things that aren't much fun to get the best deal you can for yourself.

Of course, there's a second way... Paxson could make his own above MLE offer and say everything he can to sooth Jamal's ego, in which case Jamal is more likely than not happily going to accept. The bottom line through the whole thing is that money talks


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> I've tried to make this point several times this summer. It falls on deaf ears. How can what IT "offers" be considered Jamal's market value if IT cannot offer it?
> ...


Unfortunately (for some), Wynn, acceptance of this observation cuts the foundation right out from under many of the "here's what the Bulls ought to be doin' with Jamal" posts.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> I've tried to make this point several times this summer. It falls on deaf ears. How can what IT "offers" be considered Jamal's market value if IT cannot offer it?


Well, the whole idea of "market value", upon closer inspection, is pretty complex due to the CBA. I think it's being (consciously) mis-used by both sides in the Jamal negotiations.

The Bulls are know damn good and well that "market value" and even making an offer to Jamal is very restricted by the CBA. Many teams don't want to tie up their money and/or waste time negotiating with a player they won't get. 

And of course, the market value the Bulls are trying to get is what exactly? Some form of contract relief? It's all pretty disingenuous to say he hasn't gotten an offer. From Jamal's perspective, he has gotten offers. He got a bare-bones MLE offer from the Bulls, and he's got either the same from the Knicks or possibly better if a S&T can be worked out.

It's in Jamal's interest to work his *** off to get all he can get, and there's no criticism due for that.

At the same time, it's clear he's spinning the "market value" thing too. It's unclear (and dependent on the trade parameters) just how much over the MLE the Knicks would go, and it's clear that Jamal/Goodwin are playing that for all its worth, trying to get the biggest offer they can.



> I would like to offer $5 million to the most beautiful woman in the world to marry me. I can't (it's all tied up in investments.....  ), therefore I get laughed at or slapped for making the proposition in the first place.
> 
> Why has no one *****-slapped Isaiah yet?


Because reality is more complex than that 

There is a chance that Isaiah will actually come through with the $6M for the beautiful woman. And if nothing else, if he convinces the beautiful woman that he would give $6M if he could, but he really only can give $5M (which is all the other suitor is offering), he can get the woman to spurn the other suitor so entirely that he'll withdraw the offer and willingly let her go.

All in all, it's a total no lose situation on Isaiah's part, and there's little likelihood of loss on Crawford's part, since he'll probably get the MLE from the Knicks if he complains loud enough that Pax caves and renounces him.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Unfortunately (for some), Wynn, acceptance of this observation cuts the foundation right out from under many of the "here's what the Bulls ought to be doin' with Jamal" posts.


exactly.
*see above*. lol. mikedc as if on cue!


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> All in all, it's a total no lose situation on Isaiah's part, and there's little likelihood of loss on Crawford's part, since he'll probably get the MLE from the Knicks if he complains loud enough that Pax caves and renounces him.


I agree that it's no-lose on Isaiah's part. This is why he can negotiate with Dampier, Walker, and Jamal all at the same time. I disagree about Jamal, though. Players get reputations. Agents get reputations. Those reputations affect future contracts and endorsement deals. These guys may be pushing for the most they can get out of THIS summer, but are also showing what it will be like to work with them in negotiating a contract. Will Jamal step up his play this year after such a loud campaign for more money? He may make a little more in the short-term, but is lowering his career earning potential by going about it this way.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Er... aren't you the guy who's been intimating that some of these deals are pretty close to palpable and reasonable?  And haven't you voiced quite a bit of concern that a "divorce" might be in order, rather than having an unhappy Jamal here?


The deal that would include Anderson, Mutombo, Harrington and Williams for Crawford, Robinson and Williams would, IMO have been a reasonable offer. However, the only proposal we're aware of that reached Paxson's desk included Norris and not Mutombo...and that is _not_ palpable for a number of reasons. Oh, and I almost forgot all the concessions Thomas was willing to make...like throwing $3 million into the Norris deal, or asking for Pippen's ending contract instead. Each one was more absurd than his previous offer. As for Jamal's state of mind, what in the hell does that have to do with what Thomas has or has not put on the table?




> Of course, there's a second way... Paxson could make his own above MLE offer and say everything he can to sooth Jamal's ego, in which case Jamal is more likely than not happily going to accept. The bottom line through the whole thing is that money talks


And what makes you think Paxson hasn't made that kind of offer to Crawford, and in his and Goodwin's mind it _still_ wasn't enough? How can you be so damn sure he didn't offer him a contract starting at $6 million...or maybe $7 million but for a shorter term? Maybe Crawford just doesn't want to play here. Isn't that just as likely a possibility as your conclusions that the Bulls haven't shown him enough love or respect? Or do those possibilities just not suit your presumptions?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> There is a chance that Isaiah will actually come through with the $6M for the beautiful woman. And if nothing else, if he convinces the beautiful woman that he would give $6M if he could, but he really only can give $5M (which is all the other suitor is offering), he can get the woman to spurn the other suitor so entirely that he'll withdraw the offer and willingly let her go.


Sounds like Isaiah is asking three girls to the prom. Can he take them all? Jamal -- "Isaiah WAS going to take me to the prom, but mean old daddy-Pax....".

In the end, will Isaiah even have one date, let alone all three?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> Unfortunately (for some), Wynn, acceptance of this observation cuts the foundation right out from under many of the "here's what the Bulls ought to be doin' with Jamal" posts.


That would seem ok, except that I don't accept his observation as being correct.

Note that I've at least bothered to try and explain _why_ I think it's not correct, rather than sling a "me too" out there. When I see stuff like that, I'm having a pretty hard time squaring it away with yesterday's complaint that I was posting just to take "perverse pleasure in contradicting you".

That's not the case at all, but I'm damn sure not going to blindly accept an observation that appears patently wrong to me. Just as yesterday your observation on JYD's contract appeared to be patently wrong to me, I disagree with Wynn's assertion that Pax has all the cards and Zeke has jack ****.

It'd be nice to think that, and I can understand why one would think that, but I simply don't think it's the case, and therefore the "foundation" of what I'm saying appears to be intact.

In a nutshell, my conclusion is that Pax doesn't want to eat a year of having an unhappy player, and he's not willing to offer what Zeke is willing to offer to Crawford. Even if no trade is consumated, Zeke is willing and able to offer as much to Crawford as Paxson. The final analysis there is that Crawford's every interest is to ***** as much as possible; at best he gets more than the MLE and at worst he gets the MLE- which is as much as the Bulls appear to be offering.

Of course there is risk, and of course a large amount of it centers on negotiating ability. But you yourself, Kismet, has pretty strongly implied that Paxson doesn't want a "negative attitude situation". *For as much as you're saying Wynn's point undercuts my argument, it's ironic that your speculations and conclusions about what the Bulls are thinking and trying to do have pretty strongly influenced my own conclusions about what they're willing to do and not do regarding Jamal*.

Hence, I have to ask... what is your opinion? If push comes to shove, will Paxson force the QO on Jamal, and force him to be here no matter how much he kicks and screams? Or, will Pax (or can Pax) offer something that's competitive to what he would get in a sign-and-trade to the Knicks?

My impression is that the answers to those questions are no and no. And if that's the case, I (unfortunately) think the rest of my assessment of the situation is pretty sound.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree that it's no-lose on Isaiah's part. This is why he can negotiate with Dampier, Walker, and Jamal all at the same time. I disagree about Jamal, though. Players get reputations. Agents get reputations. Those reputations affect future contracts and endorsement deals. These guys may be pushing for the most they can get out of THIS summer, but are also showing what it will be like to work with them in negotiating a contract. Will Jamal step up his play this year after such a loud campaign for more money? He may make a little more in the short-term, but is lowering his career earning potential by going about it this way.


Well, I suppose it could affect his reputation, but as far as I understand, it hasn't really affected the reputation of other guys who's tried to influence their existing teams- Mo Taylor, Corie Maggette, Elton Brand, Lamar Odom, Jason Terry, Rashard Lewis, etc. There's a pretty good sized list of players who have been in this situation now, and the script seems pretty clear.

I also think it's worth noting that if Jamal signs a six year deal, it's not exactly a short-term affair we're talking about. 

If Jamal plays six years in New York and does pretty well, I have a pretty hard time imagining that people are going to look back on this situation and avoid him like the plague. Hell, last year Lamar Odom was begging the Clips to let him go, then had one good season and everyone forgets he's a year away from a year long drug ban. Jamal hasn't done anything that *****ly. In short, I see where you're coming from, but I disagree.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Hence, I have to ask... what is your opinion? If push comes to shove, will Paxson force the QO on Jamal, and force him to be here no matter how much he kicks and screams? Or, will Pax (or can Pax) offer something that's competitive to what he would get in a sign-and-trade to the Knicks?
> 
> My impression is that the answers to those questions are no and no. And if that's the case, I (unfortunately) think the rest of my assessment of the situation is pretty sound.


This is some kind of debate...you ask me questions and then you answer them for me too. 

What's the point? You're going to push and shove and browbeat everyone into submission until you're the last man standing. So guess what? You win! You're absolutely right on all points. Your conclusions are completely logical and the premises they're based on are flawless. I'm going to take my lil ol' self to a cool, dark place and lick my wounds.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I think this is a good point... I mean, everyone will cut Gordon some slack because he's a rookie. But at the same time, it seems to me that what you're really boiling things down to is you think Gordon is going to be able to pick this team up and carry it.
> ...


a 5 star post if there ever was one.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> And what makes you think Paxson hasn't made that kind of offer to Crawford, and in his and Goodwin's mind it _still_ wasn't enough? How can you be so damn sure he didn't offer him a contract starting at $6 million...or maybe $7 million but for a shorter term? Maybe Crawford just doesn't want to play here. Isn't that just as likely a possibility as your conclusions that the Bulls haven't shown him enough love or respect? Or do those possibilities just not suit your presumptions?


Sure, but given that the Bulls did broadcast it when they actually made an offer, (which appeared to be not a penny over the MLE), I think there is some solid foundation to my presumptions. Hell, you yourself came on here and pointed out the article that pointed out the Bulls made an MLE offer. Why on earth would they make that (underwhelming) offer public, but then not disclose that they made a better offer in the face of questions about whether they really want him back.

Look, I'm not the smartest guy in the entire world, but telling everyone that they did, in fact, make a bigger offer seems to be a no lose move on the Bulls' part.

I also think that while a shorter term deal is maybe good, it's still perhaps not as good from Jamal's perspective. I mean, if you were going to get $6M for 3 years or $6M for 6, and you were concerned about being set for life, $6M for 6 is a better deal.

Thus, even if they had made such an offer (and there is no evidence they have), it's hardly fair to immediately conclude it's a better offer for Jamal. I can understand why Jamal (and most any player, it seems) would want longer-term deals when given the choice. Again, there's no evil intent in that, it's just the way things are. Players like to be secure, and they like to think they're part of the long-term plans. Six year deals typically say that and three year deals typically don't.

Thus, even if the Bulls offered a bigger deal but for lots fewer years, I'm not sure it constitutes a better offer to Jamal. Such an offer, however, would be a clear signal to him though, that the "three guard rotation" is at best, a short-term solution and Jamal is not truly a part of the long-term plan. Otherwise, why wouldn't they offer a longer deal? That's what I'd be asking if I were Jamal, and I'd be very hesitant to take a such a shorter-term deal when a longer-term and comparable (in annual salary) and bigger (in total) deal from the Knicks appeared to be in reach.

In short, I'm not sure that such an offer, were it to exist, would change my thinking much if I were Jamal.

In any case, the contract terms I'm working with in my assumptions are ones that have at least been talked about in the press, and they're ones that would be necessary to work a sign and trade. Thus, they seem to be better founded than simply making them up. If I see papers reporting on an offer like this, I'll of course update my thinking, but my first take is that the Jamal camp would think through a shorter-term offer and turn it down if they thought a longer-term deal was within their reach.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

It appears I've stepped soundly into an ongoing argument between you two, *Mike!* & *Kismet!* that I didn't intend to be in. I hope neither of you sees me as the guy "piling on" here. You both make valid points.

I guess my disagreement, *Mike!*, is with the form of the negotiation, not the negotiation itself. If Pax were to turn around and negotiate in the press the same way Goodwin is, we'd all think he was being harsh to Jamal. Frankly, I think it's just in poor taste on Goodwin's part. When all is said and done, if Pax caves to this sort of snow-job from Goodwin, then I'll lose a lot of respect for Pax. It's Goodwin and Jamal that are making this business process personal. Comments about not wanting to play in Chicago anymore etc. are below the belt ammo in real negotiations.

I'm already on record as to how I feel about Isaiah. I care less about how poorly he's been handling himself this summer. Anyone wonder why Isaiah, who has no money to spend and no leverage is getting more play this summer than anyone else? IT is all about IT. This is his wet dream. When it all blows up, he'll be out the door and on his way to his next failed venture.

Let's leave all of the negotiating tactics aside, then, and look at the actual offers. Has there been an offer yet that is better for the Bull than just signing Jamal outright for the MLE? In my mind there has not been. There hasn't been because Isaiah does not have the resources to improve OUR club. I'm not naive enough to think that Pax's only motivation is to broker a deal to get Jamal more money, but it appears that some on this board want him to do just that. It appears Jamal and Goodwin want him to do just that. It appears IT wants him to do just that. When push comes to shove, and its time for Isaiah to actually pony up, he comes up with Moochie Norris and Shandon Anderson?! Why would we want either when we can have JC for less and he is better than both?

It appears some parties in this negotiation process have been disingenuous. I think Pax, for his part, has clearly stated what needs to be in place for it to be an acceptable deal from the Chicago Bull.

Now, back to the question of *market value*. The offers being bounced around are very public at this point. Others have claimed that teams are not negotiating with Jamal because of his RFA status. The negotiation with NY has made pretty clear what Pax, Isaiah, and Goodwin all think Jamal is worth. If more teams put Jamal's value in the area that Goodwin does, then we'd have other GMs calling and offering alternative packages to Pax to lure Jamal away from the Knick. Witness TMac. Witness Kobe. Witness Shaq. Other teams saw the asking price and came in with their own counter offers.

Now, Jamal is no TMac, Kobe, or Shaq, but where are the counter-offers? If any other GM was as sure as mony posters here that we were lowballing Crawdaddy, why wouldn't they be bidding against Isaiah? Why is no team with cap space offering the same contract Isaiah is trying to trade for?

Sure, if the market sets the price of a t-shirt at $5, there will still be some jackass down the street trying to by that same shirt for $10. If he's the only one paying that price, is it really the market value?

Isaiah's got a wardrobe full of $10 t-shirts.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> 
> 
> This is some kind of debate...you ask me questions and then you answer them for me too.
> ...


That's relatively unfair of you  

I asked a legitimate question because I wanted to hear your answer. I gave you my belief about what the answer is, but it's only my belief. I remain interested in what your thoughts are though.

As far as pushing, shoving, and browbeating, I don't see how I'm guilty of that. I'm not calling anyone names, I'm not insulting anyone, and I'm trying to keep things friendly and on the issue at hand. Obviously no one is _forced_ to reach the same conclusions I reach, and I'm not calling anyone an idiot for not reaching them. That being said, I'm perfectly entitled to state my opinions and argue why I think they're the right ones. I apologize if I've not done so very well or done so too repetitively, but it does appear that there is some new ground and new aspects to cover . Doing so was certainly not my intent, and I'd like to emphasize that though I disagree with you guys, that doesn't mean I don't respect your opinions. I simply don't hold them myself


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> 
> Sounds like Isaiah is asking three girls to the prom. Can he take them all? Jamal -- "Isaiah WAS going to take me to the prom, but mean old daddy-Pax....".
> ...


That's the million dollar question, isn't it?

My guess is that he gets at least 1, but probably 2 out of 4 of Dampier, Crawford, Vince, and Walker.

My guess at the moment is that Crawford is a Knick and then he'll get either Dampier or Walker. I think most of that will be gotten on sheer cajones, which I have to grudgingly respect, no matter how distateful the approach may be.



> It appears I've stepped soundly into an ongoing argument between you two, Mike! & Kismet! that I didn't intend to be in. I hope neither of you sees me as the guy "piling on" here. You both make valid points.
> 
> I guess my disagreement, Mike!, is with the form of the negotiation, not the negotiation itself. If Pax were to turn around and negotiate in the press the same way Goodwin is, we'd all think he was being harsh to Jamal. Frankly, I think it's just in poor taste on Goodwin's part. When all is said and done, if Pax caves to this sort of snow-job from Goodwin, then I'll lose a lot of respect for Pax. It's Goodwin and Jamal that are making this business process personal. Comments about not wanting to play in Chicago anymore etc. are below the belt ammo in real negotiations.


Well, I'll cut my browbeating short to simply say
1) Of course there are no hard feelings on my part, with you or Kismet.

2) While I somewhat agree that it's distateful, I think it somewhat goes with the territory. I see a lot of it as a byproduct of the restricted free agency thing. In such situations, there's little recourse for an RFA to do but to exercise over bit of leverage they possibly can.

Of course, both sides want to keep things above a certain level, on the off chance that the situation changes, but I don't think any major lines have yet been crossed. Nor do I think Pax saying he's made another offer would cross them. These kinds of negotiations have been happening for a couple of years now, and they seem to typically not result in hold-outs or hard feelings, even though things have been said on both sides.

3) I agree that Zeke is a douche. It's just that in this case I think he's got more cards than we'd like to think.

4) I agree with quite a lot of what you're saying about *market value*. Clearly teams aren't beating down the doors to offer more for Jamal (although if the conditions being set are taking back JYD and ERob, that may have something to do with it to  ). But yeah, I agree there. I do think more teams might look if he was unrestricted, but as things stand it's a two horse race.

When I disagree is with the *t-shirt analogy*. One t-shirt is as good as another, but there is an absolute monopoly in the sale and production of Jamal Crawfords. There's only one, and it only takes one team to offer more in order to break the monopsony (a single buyer- as opposed to monopoly, a single seller) power that the Bulls had. Thus, I agree with you that it's indicative of something that Jamal isn't getting many other offers, but unfortunately I have to conclude that all there needs to be is one other offer to upset the apple cart.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> It appears I've stepped soundly into an ongoing argument between you two, *Mike!* & *Kismet!* that I didn't intend to be in. I hope neither of you sees me as the guy "piling on" here. You both make valid points.
> 
> I guess my disagreement, *Mike!*, is with the form of the negotiation, not the negotiation itself. If Pax were to turn around and negotiate in the press the same way Goodwin is, we'd all think he was being harsh to Jamal. Frankly, I think it's just in poor taste on Goodwin's part. When all is said and done, if Pax caves to this sort of snow-job from Goodwin, then I'll lose a lot of respect for Pax. It's Goodwin and Jamal that are making this business process personal. Comments about not wanting to play in Chicago anymore etc. are below the belt ammo in real negotiations.
> ...



Bravo..well said!


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> I'll just comment on this part - I agree that this looks like a big sticking point, but it's hard to really say that when the most every published report I've seen suggests the Bulls aren't offering the same kind of money the Knicks are. The Bulls appear to have offered $37-$38 over 6 years, and I've not heard of any incentives (such as those put in the MLE contract for Q, I think). I don't think they even offered the higher level raises they could have offered.
> 
> ...


Sorry again, not as diligent as you in keeping up the discussion.  

I appreciate your points, and I fully agree that Jamal is within his rights to seek the best deal for him. That's today's NBA. And the Bulls haven't shown any particularly great loyalty toward him, that he somehows owes the team any loyalty. 

But I think I still agree with Wynn and Kismet in that Jamal hasn't actually received an offer from the Knicks, and therefore, you cannot really say that the Bulls are obligated to match it, just to indicate to Jamal that we "love" him as much or almost as much as Isiah does. 

I think that what Paxson has said is, we have an idea of how to incorporate you into our plans and what we want to accomplish as a team. In the light of our plan, we can reasonably allocate so much money for you, and still accomplish our other goals. I think he has kept in mind a kind of minimum (the MLE) that the market has forced him to meet. Will he go over that for a shorter term contract? We don't know. It would make sense, but, and here's where Jamal's desires come into play, if Jamal has said that he doesn't want to make any commitment to the Bulls in the context of a three guard rotation, then in some sense, John has a disincentive to bid against Isiah's offer, because Isiah has promised something in terms of "love" or playing time, that the Bulls don't think is prudent for them to match. And they don't have to match it, or be forced to meet Isiah's "offer" except to avoid the threat of having a disgruntled Jamal playing out the QO and losing him for nothing. 

So, I see John's point as: 
we will trade Jamal to another team if it benefits us in our goals of gaining assets or flexibility to add assets. 
We will sign him within the budgetary and team vision, ie, as a part (lead part, mind you) of a three guard rotation.
We will not trade him if the trade is in fact a burden to us, and rather, will let him walk.

I know you say that money is what talks and communicates love, but when I say that Jamal is blinded by praise, what I mean is that Isiah has indicated to Jamal that he sees Jamal as a player how Jamal sees himself as a player, and that makes Jamal unwilling to accept the more limited vision that John has of him as the fruit of seeing him play with the Bulls for the last four years. (Honestly, I think John would match or go close to Isiah's offer, if Jamal was ready to accept the role he has for him. But that's speculation on my part.)

I think that John is being true to what he thinks about Jamal as a player, and what the Bulls need from their guards. Jamal is a good player, maybe better than both Hinrich and Gordon at this time. But clearly in Paxson's point of view, he's not the kind of guard as a player and personality that the Bulls can depend on as a starter and leader for the team. Maybe Paxson is wrong in that view, and maybe Isiah's vision is right...But at least Paxson is trying to be honest with his vision and with Jamal about where things stand. I guess that some people are irritated with Isiah because he's "playing" Jamal. I don't know if that's true. Maybe Stephon is really the kind of guy Jamal needs to play along side to succeed. 

But I don't look for Paxson to violate those three guidelines he has set for himself and the team through his comments to the press.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Good Hope</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorry again, not as diligent as you in keeping up the discussion.
> ...


No, I don't think we're obligated to match it, but if Jamal thinks (as I believe he is right to think) that he has *little to lose* by pushing as hard as possible, then the Bulls are obligated to either match the offer or live with the consequences of not doing so (by taking back 1 year player who is at least threatening to be unhappy).



> I think that what Paxson has said is, we have an idea of how to incorporate you into our plans and what we want to accomplish as a team. In the light of our plan, we can reasonably allocate so much money for you, and still accomplish our other goals. I think he has kept in mind a kind of minimum (the MLE) that the market has forced him to meet. Will he go over that for a shorter term contract? We don't know. It would make sense, but, and here's where Jamal's desires come into play, if Jamal has said that he doesn't want to make any commitment to the Bulls in the context of a three guard rotation, then in some sense, John has a disincentive to bid against Isiah's offer, because Isiah has promised something in terms of "love" or playing time, that the Bulls don't think is prudent for them to match. And they don't have to match it, or be forced to meet Isiah's "offer" except to avoid the threat of having a disgruntled Jamal playing out the QO and losing him for nothing.


I think we are in complese agreement here about the Bulls' beliefs.

The only part I would add, and I could be wrong, is that I don't think the Bulls have much stomach for a(nother) disgruntled player playing out the string and going for nothing.

The part where I disagree is with the Bulls seeming unwillingness to consider a larger long-term offer. I don't understand the logic behind being willing to offer a guy 37.5M over six years but then not being willing to offer him $42 or 45M over six. Given the Bulls' position (at the bottom), and Jamal's value to the team as one of the few players with significant experience and offensive ability, he appears to have more value to us than just the MLE. All of those variations of the deal start at like $5-6M, so over the next couple of years they really aren't adding much in team salary, and they certainly won't push Jamal's salary over a level at which he becomes untradeable.

If he's tradeable at $5M starting, he's probably still tradeable at $6M starting. Less tradeable, perhaps, but still an asset. If he takes the QO, however, he's no asset at all.

Thus, I see two rationales for making an above MLE offer.
* 1st, Jamal has long-term value on the court to the Bulls. They've already admitted that he is worth the MLE for six. Is going over that but another $6M or so (over six years but generally back loaded) really that much worse? Given the rest of the Bulls roster and our need to improve, I think he's worth it. I also don't care about adding a seventh year to a six year deal. That's a relatively marginal change at this point. On the court, he represents a significant short-term upgrade to Gordon and a significant long-term upgrade to anyone else that would be backing up Gordon and Kirk. And of course, I think it's far from clear that both of those guys will beat him out in the long-run, but that's another discussion entirely.

Now, if Jamal is insistent upon a contract much beyond $6M to start for 6 to 7 years, I would begin to think differently, but so far it does not appear that that is the type of deal being discussed, even with the Knicks.

* 2nd, doing so preserves the Bulls assets and keeps a good environment. On one hand, the Bulls will certainly lose Jamal for nothing if they force him to sign the QO. And they run the risk (although I think it's largely a bluff) that he will be a malcontent (that is, I'm sure he won't be happy playing for the QO, but I think he would at least be professional). So, by paying a bit above the MLE, they preserve a tradeable asset and they avoid potential contraversy and an unhappy player.

Given that they've already offered a six year deal at $37.5M, going the extra distance at the margin doesn't appear to be an issue to me.

(Of course, I somewhat suspect that the Bulls only made the bare bones, six year no team-maximum raise MLE offer because they knew it would be rejected).



> (Honestly, I think John would match or go close to Isiah's offer, if Jamal was ready to accept the role he has for him. But that's speculation on my part.)


I disagree here, but and I think that's really where we come down on the issue. I think if John was going to do that, he would have done it already and this would be over. But like you say, it's speculation at this point.



> But I don't look for Paxson to violate those three guidelines he has set for himself and the team through his comments to the press.


I dunno... I think when push comes to shove he's not going to be happy with the prospect of Jamal here at the QO. It just doesn't seem like the kind of situation Paxson wants to invite, given his focus on the "good attitude" things. Some guys would just take it in stride, play the guy for a year, and be done with it, but I'm not sure that would be Pax's outlook.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Let's consider something for a moment-

The Bulls offered a 6 year, $37.5M contract that starts the Jamal out at $5M a year.

If the Anderson, Mutombo, Harrington, Trybanski, FWill for JYD, ERob, and Jamal deal that Pax has intimated he finds acceptable goes through, word is that Jamal will receive a 7 year $53M contract from the Knicks (this seems also seems logical since it fits the parameters of the deal). This would start Jamal at $5.5M dollars.

I would like to see the Bulls match that offer. Whne I compare the two, I really don't see any reason the Bulls shouldn't be competitive with it. 

* The major difference is the 7th year of the deal, so first let me ask. If the Bulls are willing to pay Jamal 6 years out, at age 30, is there a major reason they shouldn't be willing to pay him 7 years out, at age 31? Not that I can see.

* Once you account for the extra year, the Bulls really aren't paying that much more in years 1-6 as they would be under the deal they've reportedly offered. In the deal the Bulls offered, they were talking about an average of $6.3M per year over 6 years. The Knicks' offer is $7.6M over 7, but that's pretty heavily back loaded due to the raises he'd receive. Given that there's a good possibility he's traded before then, it doesn't look like a huge problem to me. Over years 1-6, for example, the prospective Knicks deal comes out ot $7.2M on the average, or less than a million more than the Bulls deal.

* Is the deal so much larger that no one would trade for Jamal? Maybe the extra year on the deal affects his tradeability somewhat, but it doesn't seem enormously worse than what he could be traded for under a six year deal. 

It's, of course, very hard to look six or seven years into the future and have a solid guess about what's going to be a good deal, but if salaries continue to grow at anything like what they've grown over the past 6-7 years, then more likely than not Jamal will still not make a huge amount over the MLE, even at the end of his contract.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> I dunno... I think when push comes to shove he's not going to be happy with the prospect of Jamal here at the QO. It just doesn't seem like the kind of situation Paxson wants to invite, given his focus on the "good attitude" things. Some guys would just take it in stride, play the guy for a year, and be done with it, but I'm not sure that would be Pax's outlook.


Mike,

In a number of posts, you make it seem as if you feel that Isiah's actions are making it more likely that Pax will just cave in and withdraw his QO.

I really, really, really doubt this. If pax looked at the history of the league, this type of negotiation is par for the course for RFAs. The less of a max talent, the longer the negotiation. 

So I am very sure that Pax decided to match or not match an MLE deal a long time ago and whether or not he was happy to have Craw here on the QO. Now, for example, he may have decided not to match a MLE offer and is just playing bluffing.

If anything has changed, I suspect that Pax would be more steadfast to keep Craw b/c the market for a medioce guard (Fisher, etc) is stronger than you would expect and Gordon showed that he is going to need some time to adjust to the pro game.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Well, if Pax wants to give Jamal a deal and lock him up rather than force him to take the QO, with the expectation he'll walk after next season, what about offering him a 6 year deal worth somewhere in the low to mid 40M range, with a non-guaranteed 7th year, team option, at say, 10M for the last year?

That way, if Jamal is living up to potential, and is worth 10M/year in year 7, he's on board, and will make within 3M of what NY is supposedly willing to pay him. 

If he doesn't develop into a player worth 10M/year by year 7, the we are only 3M over the MLE offer we've already made, and that 3M is spread out over 6 years.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Mike,
> ...


I'm not sure if it's Isaiah's actions (except that he won't put an offer on the table acceptable to Pax) per se, but more likely Goodwin/Crawford's. Does it make sense... after preaching so much about building the "right attitude" that Pax will bring back a disgruntled Jamal on a QO?

Of course you could be right, but I suspect there's at least a temptation there for Pax to simply cut bait and move on.

Tom, 

I think that's a totally fair proposal, except that, if you were Jamal, wouldn't you push as hard as you could to work a deal? When in doubt, go for the guarantee and the extra 3M 

I do think, however, that an increased offer on our part (perhaps that matches the prospective Knicks offer except with a partially guaranteed TO for the last year), coupled with an emphatic "get lost" bargaining stance to Thomas might get the job done. Another compromise would be to offer a six year deal starting at $5.75M, which would take the Bulls up to a $45M offer besting the Knicks' offer over the 1st six years. They could still include a TO in the seventh year of this too, which would cost the Bulls nothing they didn't want to spend and give Jamal a bit more face.

If I'm running the Bulls, that's a perfectly acceptable deal. They still have room too then to pawn off Jefferies send Duhon overseas to create some room under the tax threshold and still get them enough room to sign Noicini. They may also be able to negotiate a deal to buy out the retiring Pippen for a slightly lower amount in return for some form of future consideration.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I'd do what I, RLucas and others have suggested. Give Jamal a three or four year deal starting at around $6 mil with raises. A four year deal at around $28 - $30 mil. Jamal gets his "love". Goodwin gets his commission and Pax gets his asset. It would be a decent comprimise. Pax could move Jamal in a year or two and his salary would be reasonable (around $6.5 to $7 mil) relative to expected production. Jamal doesn't get the long term security that his camp says he wants but then again, beggars can't be choosers. He can re-up when his contract expires and if he's worth it, he'll get it in free agency. Also, if he stays around for the full four years, he's easier to sign and trade as he would, in all likelyhood, no longer be a BYC player or restricted.

Thomas can keep his crap contracts and we'll keep ours. Pip and Williams come off the books after this comming season and E-Rob and Davis the year after that. Reinsdorf just has to weather the storm.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Tom,
> ...


Of course, Jamal can ask for and "push" for anything he wants, but unless Goodwin does indeed broker a deal between Zeke and Pax, The Bulls are the only game in town for Jamal. At least this year. 

So it is the Bulls who get to "push" an offer, leaving Jamal with a choice of taking security, even though it is slightly less than his demand, or taking no security and accepting the QO.

As I, and others have said, the paucity of teams beating a path to Jamal's door this season should give him pause about testing the FA market again next season. He'd have to look long and hard at an offer that would, if he plays to potential so the Bulls pick up the year 7 TO, give him within 5-6% of the bucks he was looking for.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course, Jamal can ask for and "push" for anything he wants, but unless Goodwin does indeed broker a deal between Zeke and Pax, The Bulls are the only game in town for Jamal. At least this year.
> ...


 Which just leaves us with the questions we started with 

Will Pax call the bluff and enforce the QO?

Will Pax give a middle-ground six year offer at slightly above the MLE?

Or would Jamal cave and accept a 3-4 year offer for more or a no frills MLE deal for 6?

It seems like at this point those are, as Donald Rumsfeld would say, the "unknowables", and we've reached the point where we've said pretty much all we can say. My sense is that the answer those questions is No, No, and Probably not.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I bet Jamal wouldn't have to think too long and hard about not accepting the QO.

His history of injuries, coupled with his ACL tear...

My bet is that Goodwin is trying to get something done, else Jamal will accept the Bulls offer (or a revised version). I just don't see him being so money hungry to accept the QO, when he could get limited playing time based on what Gordon does this year.

Too many factors weighing against Jamal IMO.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

HMMM. Awfully quiet on the Jamal watch...

I wonder if IT and Aaron did actually fly in and visit the Berto today, and if so, what was said.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> HMMM. Awfully quiet on the Jamal watch...
> 
> I wonder if IT and Aaron did actually fly in and visit the Berto today, and if so, what was said.


Awfully quiet = lack of leverage.

After all trails have been explored, growing up young and rich can have its challenging months too.

and...

Pax waits...

Its one of lifes little lessons.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TomBoerwinkle#1</b>!
> HMMM. Awfully quiet on the Jamal watch...
> 
> I wonder if IT and Aaron did actually fly in and visit the Berto today, and if so, what was said.


well according to a "well placed source" over on that "other board"...IT is in Chicago today and is, and i quote, not returning unless he has jamal. go over there and check it out. i can't bring myself to cross-pollinate/pollute.

oh and apparently, according to the sister, jamal spoke with KC Johnson today so maybe we'll get his perspective in the Tribune tomorrow.

stay tuned....


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>mizenkay</b>!
> 
> 
> well according to a "well placed source" over on that "other board"...IT is in Chicago today and is, and i quote, not returning unless he has jamal. go over there and check it out. i can't bring myself to cross-pollinate/pollute.
> ...


IT not returning without Jamal huh ?

I guess that means that IT will be a Bull next year too then


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>F.Jerzy</b>!
> 
> 
> IT not returning without Jamal huh ?
> ...


_*Another*_ freaking point guard?! :grinning:


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> _*Another*_ freaking point guard?! :grinning:


IT has beefed up a little since his playing days. He may need to play PF. God knows we don't have enough of them!


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

I just can't see Paxson renouncing Jamal. The biggest reason IMO is the precedent it sets. If you want out bad enough, take Paxson to the mat. He'll fold, you'll get what you want. Is that the kind of history Paxson wants in his FIRST negotiation? Nah, Jamal will NOT be a free man this year. What Paxson also sees is a one year insurance policy at the very least. He's protected against Gordon not performing up to expectations or a key injury to Hinrich or Gordon. As far as Jamal being a cancer/unhappy player, why would he? That argument if coming from Goodwin has no more value than anything else being said and dismissed as a part of normal negotiations. If he accepts the QO he better stay out of the doghouse and on the court to improve his FA standing for next years market. Don't blame me - it's written in NBA for Dummies and Pro Sports Economics 101


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>No Excuses; No Vision</b>!
> I just can't see Paxson renouncing Jamal. The biggest reason IMO is the precedent it sets. If you want out bad enough, take Paxson to the mat. He'll fold, you'll get what you want. Is that the kind of history Paxson wants in his FIRST negotiation? Nah, Jamal will NOT be a free man this year. What Paxson also sees is a one year insurance policy at the very least. He's protected against Gordon not performing up to expectations or a key injury to Hinrich or Gordon. As far as Jamal being a cancer/unhappy player, why would he? That argument if coming from Goodwin has no more value than anything else being said and dismissed as a part of normal negotiations. If he accepts the QO he better stay out of the doghouse and on the court to improve his FA standing for next years market. Don't blame me - it's written in NBA for Dummies and Pro Sports Economics 101


I hear what you guys are saying, but then I read stuff like Bulls management acknowledges that Crawford, the team's leading scorer last season, is the best talent in the deal. But he is viewed as a poor fit in the culture Paxson is trying to establish. (in the article Kismet just posted).

I hope you guys are right, I really do, but I'll believe it when I see it


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fl_flash</b>!
> I'd do what I, RLucas and others have suggested. Give Jamal a three or four year deal starting at around $6 mil with raises. A four year deal at around $28 - $30 mil. Jamal gets his "love". Goodwin gets his commission and Pax gets his asset. It would be a decent comprimise. Pax could move Jamal in a year or two and his salary would be reasonable (around $6.5 to $7 mil) relative to expected production. Jamal doesn't get the long term security that his camp says he wants but then again, beggars can't be choosers.


Like Smoky said, Jamal is a choosy beggar.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

I've just been throwing around numbers again because I hate the idea of taking back Anderson's ugly UGLY contract. And I've stated many times I'd rather get rid of JYD over Erob b/c of the extra year on it. With Dikembe coming over also, we don't need JYD to play the 4 b/c AD moves there and Harrington can also get some minutes. I still prefer keeping Jamal but here goes.

Crawford + JYD

for 

Dikembe, Harrington, Trybankski, and Frankie. 


A 2 for 4 trade kinda sucks since we need a few roster spots to get Duhon or Pargo and Johnson in here too, but due to Jamal being a BYC player, this is extremely difficult to do without taking back a terrible NY contract. 

We get all of the expiring deals from NY with Frank and this starts Jamal off at $6,200,000 and a 6 year deal with 12.5% increases, totals 50.9 million dollars. If there was a 7th year, the deal could total 63.5 million dollars. *Edit* Jamal needs to start literally a hair under that salary to make this work. Seeing as how he doesn't have another offer close to this, I don't see how Goodwin can decline. 

Just say no to Shandon Anderson Pax.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> I've just been throwing around numbers again because I hate the idea of taking back Anderson's ugly UGLY contract. And I've stated many times I'd rather get rid of JYD over Erob b/c of the extra year on it. With Dikembe coming over also, we don't need JYD to play the 4 b/c AD moves there and Harrington can also get some minutes. I still prefer keeping Jamal but here goes.
> 
> Crawford + JYD
> ...


Absolutely brilliant!

If Pax can pull this off, there's still a nice chunk of the MLE left and the Veteran exception with which they can target and acquire any number of players out there who can do everything Anderson can do at a fraction of the price (a la Sura, Glover, Peeler, etc). 

While I still don't like the cheapness of letting Jamal go, this is an enormously superior deal.


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

Thanks. We also give away around 1.5 million dollars more in salary so there should be no reason we can't spend the rest of that MLE money.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Absolutely brilliant!
> 
> While I still don't like the cheapness of letting Jamal go, this is an enormously superior deal.


This deal was discussed in the paper.

Not sure why this is considered so much better. But then I would trade eRob straight up for Anderson. Is eRob for Anderson really so bad?


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> This deal was discussed in the paper.
> ...



Anderson _might_ be a better player, but is he worth taking on one extra year of an equally terrible contract just b/c E-rob is a bum? The guy is owed 23 million dollars over the next 3 years vs E-rob's 14. IMO it's not even worth discussing.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson _might_ be a better player, but is he worth taking on one extra year of an equally terrible contract just b/c E-rob is a bum? The guy is owed 23 million dollars over the next 3 years vs E-rob's 14. IMO it's not even worth discussing.


And ERob's 14 comes over 2 years, so we're off the hook earlier.

Anderson's deal is so bad that it pretty much wholly absorbes the "savings" we get in the other deal.

Given that we can get a similar player for maybe $1M, we're absolute morons if take on a $9M obligation and less cap flexibility.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> Given that we can get a similar player for maybe $1M, we're absolute morons if take on a $9M obligation and less cap flexibility.


If we can get as good a player as Anderson for $1M right now, let's do it.  

If you can do this, it will still cost $3M over 3 years. 

So it's really a "slighthly more of a scrub than Anderson " SG and Erob for $17M total compared to $23M and an extra roster spot for the next 2 years.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> If we can get as good a player as Anderson for $1M right now, let's do it.
> ...


Not really... for one we're close to the luxury tax threshold, so we stand to save more money.

Second, you'd at worst be signing the $1M guy for a year. In the second year, you've opened enough room up to not worry about the luxury tax and sign up a better player.

Thus, I think tactically it's a better move, even though you're losing the roster spot. Plus $6M is still a pretty significant chunk of change... especially considering the penny-pinching extents the Bulls seem to be going to.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Not really... for one we're close to the luxury tax threshold, so we stand to save more money.
> ...


I don't follow your logic at all at this point. Especially if the lux tax is the main factor.

If we do the big Craw S&T, we save the money that we would have to Craw. So that's a big savings. We would also have eRob off the books which is a nice savings next year. This pushes $12M off the payroll for next year. In the S&T, we get hurt a little bit in the third year but only by the difference of SA - JYDs contract. Chump change. (edit: actually we are ahead in year 3 b/c we are not paying Craw).

If you just do the Anderson for eRob deal, you lose out in the third year but AD's huge deal expires so lux tax is probably not a concern.

Now if you were trying to sell future cap flexibility, not lux tax concerns, I might buy that.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't follow your logic at all at this point. Especially if the lux tax is the main factor.
> ...


I'm confused at this point too 

I guess the main point I was trying to make is that either way you cut it, you've got greater savings by not taking on Anderson.

Let's see if we can clarify things by defining the scenarios:
1. We take back Shandon and give ERobbery and JYD.
2. We keep ERobbery and give JYD.
3. We keep JYD and give ERobbery.

In scenario 1, we pay an extra $.53M, $.61M, and $8.5M in salary this year, next, and the year after when compared to scenario 2.

In scenario 1, we pay an extra $1.11M, $1.24M, and $1.49M in salary over three years compared to scenario 3.

In scenario 3, we get an extra $.58M, and $.62M in year 1 and 2, but we are obligated an extra $7M in year three when compared with scenario 2.

Thus, we save $9.64M if we send JYD or $5.81M if we send ERob vs. if we send both JYD and ERob but take back Anderson.

That's significant money in my book, and if we're going to make this god forsaken deal, I'd rather have that additional flexibility.

We suffer about a $3.83M penalty by keeping JYD over ERob, but there is some level of benefit in that it shaves another 600k off the next two years' cap, but at a cost of $7M in the third year.

Yuck. I guess I think that if we're going to save money, we might as well do it right and save the most money we can. Given that it's an issue, we're better off saving as much as we can.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ChiBulls2315</b>!
> I've just been throwing around numbers again because I hate the idea of taking back Anderson's ugly UGLY contract. And I've stated many times I'd rather get rid of JYD over Erob b/c of the extra year on it. With Dikembe coming over also, we don't need JYD to play the 4 b/c AD moves there and Harrington can also get some minutes. I still prefer keeping Jamal but here goes.
> 
> Crawford + JYD
> ...


Good call!


----------



## ChiBulls2315 (Aug 11, 2002)

Thank you Sir.  I might have Fed up the #s a hair, but oh well.


----------

