# Should The Bulls Have Paid The Luxury Tax For Chandler



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

I wonder if the board doesn't agree more than people realize. I'm sure people will quibble with my wording ("Less than dominant?! How about worthless!") but I think those roughly represent the three camps people would fall into as far as whether or not the Tyson should have stayed around while removing from the equation Pax's likely decision of how to proceed without being able to pay the luxury tax (I've yet to hear anyone argue that if Pax was told he could not cross the tax threshold he should have kept Chandler at the expense of being unable to resign Gordon, Deng, and/or Noc down the line).


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Two words: **** NO!!!!!!!


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

I think the question should be "would you rather have your GM ensure maximum talent flexibility or lux tax flexibility?" 

Lots of things could be done down the line.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> I think the question should be "would you rather have your GM ensure maximum talent flexibility or lux tax flexibility?"
> 
> Lots of things could be done down the line.


No one has yet presented a scenario that shows how ditching Chandler gives the Bulls more flexibility once the luxury tax is removed from the equation (obviously luxury tax is removed from the equation here because the question is whether or not it should be incurred is the issue). The only way I can see that Chandlers contract would affect "flexibility" is if it prevented the team from going significantly under the cap and signing a player for more than the MLE. Since with Wallace's deal, Hinrich's extension, and the presumed extensions of Gordon, Noc, and/or Deng the Bulls figure to be nowhere near the cap for the next four of five years, the cap doesn't come into play with or without Chandler.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

20 Million on top of Chandler's deal are you insane? Whoever voted yes is some middleschooler or needs to be smacked. Ticket prices are bad enough now...


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I wonder if the board doesn't agree more than people realize. I'm sure people will quibble with my wording ("Less than dominant?! How about worthless!") but I think those roughly represent the three camps people would fall into as far as whether or not the Tyson should have stayed around while removing from the equation Pax's likely decision of how to proceed without being able to pay the luxury tax (I've yet to hear anyone argue that if Pax was told he could not cross the tax threshold he should have kept Chandler at the expense of being unable to resign Gordon, Deng, and/or Noc down the line).


I've pointed out several times that the Bulls could probably have kept those guys and Chandler without paying the luxury tax, so I'm having trouble understanding this line of thought. 

I've also argued, I think, that in the long run Chandler is probably a more valuable piece to this team than Nocioni.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

BullSoxChicagosFinest said:


> 20 Million on top of Chandler's deal are you insane? Whoever voted yes is some middleschooler or needs to be smacked. Ticket prices are bad enough now...


That's the point. Ownership is likely making a lot more than $20 million a year in profits. I think they should spend more money on payroll and have a slimer profit margin.

I'm not sure about the accuracy of the "around $20 million" figure. Technically the luxury tax is a dollar for dollar tax so Chandler's deal would be about nine times two or eighteen million. I upped that a bit because apparently crossing the threshold generates a ceratain amount of additional costs for teams (people have been throwing around the number $25 million a year for Chandler's contract so apparently it's about $7 million a year after the new CBA). 

There's a problem with applying the tax solely to Chandler's contract and no one elses though. Even if we were to assume Chandler stuck around and the Bulls were over the tax this season (it would be next season at the earliest) and even if we assume the team is over the threshold by Chandler's salary and no more or no less (if the team was only over by $3 million it would only be that $3 million times two plus the $7 million in costs incurred by being over the threshold or if the team eventually ends up paying the tax anyways the $7 million isn't because we kept Tyson) the number is still theoretical. Applying the cost of paying the tax only to Tyson's contract (while calculating Kirk's as only the $10 million a year in salary he'll get) assumes Tyson is the only reason the team is paying the tax and he's the only waste of payroll on the team. But let's say Wallace gets injured and misses an entire season and Chandler fills in admirably. It'd be pretty ridiculous to calculate Tyson's cost as $25 million for a $9 million dollar salary and to calculate Wallace's as only $14 million dollars. If anyone represents the excess salary that's forcing you to pay the tax in that situation it's the guy who's not even playing.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

NW!!!








(No way.)


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> I've pointed out several times that the Bulls could probably have kept those guys and Chandler without paying the luxury tax, so I'm having trouble understanding this line of thought.
> 
> I've also argued, I think, that in the long run Chandler is probably a more valuable piece to this team than Nocioni.


Yeah sorry, I couldn't fit that in there. It kinda pans out as a seperate issue. As far as I've understood it that would only apply for next season until Noc, Gordon, and Deng's extensions started to come up. As far as I can tell, on that issue no one would have had a problem keeping Chandler this season and then trading him to resign Noc, Deng, and/or Gordon in a year. 

The debate is over whether or not it would have been possible to trade him for an expiring contract if he had a sub par season. So I guess what I'd say is, assuming they can't keep him for more than one season without paying the tax, and if he stays around another season there's a chance his contract can't be moved, is keeping him one more season worth the risk of paying the luxury tax during the last three years of his deal? Unfortunately that would've been tough to fit into the poll and it also relies heavily on how good a season he would've had with the Bulls this year and how much other teams value him in genearl which is seperate from whether or not ownership should pay the tax. The reality is that the different issues can't be seperated as neatly as I'd like.


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

If it was going to cost us some of the other players such as Deng Noc and Gordon then I think the Bulls made the right move. I like TC but I like the other three better


I also like the job PJ Brown is doing. At his age though I would worry about injuries


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Bulls figure to be nowhere near the cap for the next four of five years, the cap doesn't come into play with or without Chandler.


Agreed. Not only that, the Bulls are no where near the Lux Tax boarder this year. And certainly could be under by Chandler's deal next year (assuming Sweetney is let go.). 

So another better question than the one listed in the poll is this: *Given that the ownership group's has made 100 million plus in appreciation and makes millions each year, is it reasonable to ask them to possibly pay the lux tax for 1 or 2 years and forego a bit of profit to keep a core together that has the best chance of winning?*


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Another question.....

Is anyone scared of the idea of the Bulls facing Tyson? I for one am not in the least bit


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Hustle said:


> Another question.....
> 
> Is anyone scared of the idea of the Bulls facing Tyson? I for one am not in the least bit


Huh? NO. 

For that matter, is there any team among NBA teams scared of facing Chandler? Highly unlikely. 

It will be Tyson vs. Big Ben and the winner is.....? Do I have to say it out loud?


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Merk said:


> If it was going to cost us some of the other players such as Deng Noc and Gordon then I think the Bulls made the right move. I like TC but I like the other three better


That's what I was trying to get at with the poll. There are two different decisions being made from two different perspects: 1) John Paxson - Presumably told by ownership the luxury tax threshold cannot be crossed. Had to decide whether to move Chandler's salary or risk being forced to let Deng, Noc, and/or Gordon walk away to stay under the threshold. 2) Ownership - Whether or not to agree to pay the luxury tax to accomodate the resigning of the core (Hinrich, Gordon, Noc, Deng), sign Wallace as a free agent, and retain the players who had already been extended (Chandler, Duhon).

It seems everyone agrees that the right decision for choice #1 was to trade Chandler so that at least two of the three of Noc, Deng, and Gordon can be resigned. I started the poll because it is a lot less clear where people stand on decision #2. Is there any problem asking ownership to overpay a boatload of money to keep a solid young player with some upside? Or is the money irrelevant and we're better of ditching Chandler because Brown will be valuable for a year (but considering that he's signed for one season versus four for Tyson, the question is really more how many people somehow think that losing Tyson is addition by subtraction)?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I don't know what to vote for. Both of the first two choices I like. Could you combine them in your poll, like Choide D: A and B.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

theanimal23 said:


> I don't know what to vote for. Both of the first two choices I like. Could you combine them in your poll, like Choide D: A and B.


That's a good idea. I never thought of that. I can't edit the poll choices can I?


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

The thing about this thread is that it asks a question that has no rational answer.

1. There is no way the Bulls would ever have to pay $20 million per year for Chandler's contract. See MikeDC's sticky.

2. If you think Chandler is only worth 2 2nd round picks a year from now... well I have a bridge to Brooklyn to sell you.

3. Surely Chandler's services are worth twenty dollars per year; particularly since the Bulls could easily afford to pay $20 million in luxury tax for Chandler or whoever one could get in trade for him with a comparable salary indefinitely -- particularly since they lead the league in profits and have already raised ticket prices.


----------



## BeZerker2008 (Jun 29, 2006)

Hustle said:


> Another question.....
> 
> Is anyone scared of the idea of the Bulls facing Tyson? I for one am not in the least bit


I'd be interested in seeing how TC does against us but I'm not scared of the idea of him playing us, why? because of when guys like Brendan Haywood & other teams backup centers would just school him and curry when we had them. Against Big Ben? When TC puts the ball down, Wallace will either strip him or get a jump ball resulting in chandler getting into an argument with the refs and getting tossed.


----------



## HINrichPolice (Jan 6, 2004)

I'm glad this topic is brought up (even though it has been talked about before). 

Quite frankly, this is a subject that can be looked at in so many different ways that it's hard to tell what exactly people agree or disagree with - which was the point of the thread.

I think there's another adverse affect of Chandler's contract being under our payroll that hasn't been talked about too much.

Imagine that we still had Chandler and we were paying him $10 mill a year. When a player like Nocioni is averaging more points and rebounds, he has a pretty easy argument that he should earn MORE than Chandler. In a less explicit way, Deng, Gordon, and other players like Khryapa or Tyrus could use the same argument in the future.

Having Chandler off our books sort of gives a clean slate on where to set the precedent. Luckily, Hinrich's extension is just about as reasonable of a contract as we could have hoped for.

So for my 2 cents, I think it was a salary dump that sacrificed talent for cost effectiveness, but also eliminated a compound (can't think of the right word) effect on future extensions.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

McBulls said:


> The thing about this thread is that it asks a question that has no rational answer.
> 
> 1. There is no way the Bulls would ever have to pay $20 million per year for Chandler's contract. See MikeDC's sticky.
> 
> ...


 $20 is quite a steal!

Anyway, I think one thing Jeremy might be thinking, which is not correct, is about how the NBA's escrow system works.

Basically (for those of you who don't know) CBA requires that a portion (up to 10%) of player salaries be held in escrow. If the total amount of player salaries is too high compared with total league revenues, then some or all of this amount is returned to the teams. Essentially each team got an equal share of this distribution.. 

Now here's the thing. Under the old CBA, this distribution of escrow funds was not given to teams that exceeded the luxury tax. Hence, it was an effective addition to the luxury tax. If a team went over the luxury tax limit (let's say by $1M), not only would it have to pay $1M to the league,it would not get its share of the escrow distribution, which was (at the time) probably another $4-5M. 

Under the old CBA then, going over the tax by even $1M would effectively be a $5-6M expense.
*
This is not so under the new CBA!* Every team gets a share of the escrow distribution (if it occurs) even if it is over the tax threshold. So if a teamis $1M over the tax line, it only pays $1M more.

This is crucially important, because given the Bulls' other salary needs, it's evident that they wouldn't have to pay anything like $10M in taxes to keep around Chandler's salary and still resign the core guys.

It's also important to understand this because it underscores just how hollow the "don't pay the luxury tax at all costs" line is. The total luxury tax paid (not just for one year but several) by keeping around Chandler and re-signing everyone else, even under a worst case scenario
, would probably be well less than the money we've paid any of Pip, ERob, Tim Thomas or even Michael Sweetney to sit on their duffs.

The other thing that's related to this is that the question isn't whether it's worth paying an additional couple million to keep Chandler (or anyone else) as an individual player around. The question is what is the total value of the team with that guy. If you add Chandler to this team in a couple years, let's suppose it costs you, at most, a total of $6M in luxury tax to get there (that's probably close to the worst case scenario). 

Without Chandler in a couple years, this team is quite possibly not a contender. With Chandler in a couple years, it quite possibly is a contender. For, I'd imagine, several years. So what's the value of contention? A contending team seems to draw quite a bit more revenues for TV, ticket sales, merchandise, everything. My guess is that paying the $6M in tax would end up as a profitable investment for the Bulls, because they'd make it back (and more) through additional revenues in the long run.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Thanks for the clarification Mike. As I was trying to explain before I got the $20 million figure from the $25 million a year figure that some posters (who have suddenly dissapeared apparently) were throwing around quite a bit. I racheted it down to $20 million because I had the impression the number might've been exagerated based on the posts and for the reasons I mentioned in the other post explaining why I don't think it's accurate to attribute all luxury tax costs the Bulls incur solely to Chandler simply because trading him likely allows them to stay under the threshold.

I knew there was a legit reason crossing the threshold (even by a dollar as they said) was considered to incur millions of dollars beyond the dollar to dollar tax but the reason had slipped my mind. The escrow was the explanation, thanks for jogging my memory. I remember red flags going up the first time I saw the article (which claimed $12 or $15 million in escrow lost by paying the tax) linked from Dan Rosenbaum (is that the right name?) because it predated the new CBA. I do remember whoever linked the article being called on that. It was apparently decided that the $12 or $15 million incurred for going over was dialed down to around $7 million with the new CBA. I had the impression this was based on actual analysis of the escrow under the current CBA but based on your analysis it sounds like a number someone pulled out of thin air and is now (unsurprisingly) in no hurry to defend.

I think this only strengthens the arguments I made before regarding how to assess which contracts are responsible for exceeding the luxury tax. Sure keeping Tyson versus moving him might be the difference between whether or not we cross the luxury tax but that doesn't mean he will always be the least efficient source of salary on the roster. Even if he is he's somewhat worthwhile as insurance for an injury. Saying he alone would be the reason we're paying the luxury tax is saying he won't ever serve more of a purpose than other players on the roster (who make more than the minimum) over the next four years and that can't be entirely true.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Many have mentioned Tyson wouldn't get the minutes here to gain trade value because of Wallace, which I agree with. But also when you look at the bigs in nexts years draft aside from Hawes, you have a bunch more guys that Tyson would play behinde for similiar reasons, add Thomas on to that, he could be a real expensive 4rth big in a year or 2.

Tyson still has 4 years on his contract, and everyone is talking about fitting the core and TC under the cap. Within that 4 years Paxson will get a chance to spend that money elsewhere now, why wrap it up in a guy that may be a fourth big for 2 or 3 of those years. 

I questioned the Chandler trade when it happened too, but it's the only move by Paxson I have questioned, and so far he has came out on the better end plus some on every move he's made.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Hustle said:


> Many have mentioned Tyson wouldn't get the minutes here to gain trade value because of Wallace, which I agree with. But also when you look at the bigs in nexts years draft aside from Hawes, you have a bunch more guys that Tyson would play behinde for similiar reasons, add Thomas on to that, he could be a real expensive 4rth big in a year or 2.
> 
> Tyson still has 4 years on his contract, and everyone is talking about fitting the core and TC under the cap. Within that 4 years Paxson will get a chance to spend that money elsewhere now, why wrap it up in a guy that may be a fourth big for 2 or 3 of those years.
> 
> I questioned the Chandler trade when it happened too, but it's the only move by Paxson I have questioned, and so far he has came out on the better end plus some on every move he's made.


Check out post #14 if you haven't already. The assumption which has not been refuted so far is that keeping Chandler would have no effect on the Bulls cap situation, they'll be over the cap no matter what. The luxury tax threshold only affects which players the Bulls can retain in terms of how much money ownership is willing to pony up. Since we're discussing how much it is reasonable to ask ownership to pay, there's really no relationship between keeping Tyson and what other players will be on the roster as far as the issues discussed in this thread. The discussion is more should ownership have paid the luxury tax to keep Chandler because he is worth the money, because the increased depth/insurance against injury is worth the money, and/or because ownership is swimming in money they made from the fans in the down years and should now be willing to vastly overpay to keep players.

I would say that even if Tyrus becomes an All-Star Tyson could still find 20+ MPG. More importantly Big Ben is a little older and it is not entirely unlikely he will get hurt or become ineffective before Tyson's deal is up in four years. If Tyrus looks well on his way to be a high calliber starter and a semi-polished big who looks like a future All-Star/superstar fell to us in the draft, that'd probably be a good time to start thinking about moving Chandler.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

I don't think the Bulls should've paid the tax for Tyson because of the Wallace, TT, next years pick thing. I might be alone but I feel pretty strongly TT will be better than Tyson by next season. 

The Bulls now have more flexibilty in terms of trade(none of the big names mentioned play for teams that would be willing to take on multiple large contracts at this point) and could spend the MLE 2 of those years. I actually think Varejao will available next year, Clevland would be better off spending their MLE on a decent point(Mo Williams) and getting a big in the draft.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

For me, it's a combination of options 1 & 2.

I think PJ Brown is a far better fit for the team we have. I also think PJ Brown is still a better player, right now, than Tyson Chandler. That's just my opinion. Of course I fully realize Tyson has better stats, but PJ is a better all-around defender and contributes alot more offensively (most notably with intangibles). And it's not unreasonable to think we could keep PJ Brown beyond this season, if he thinks this is a good place for him.

I like Tyson Chandler as much as the next guy, but I think it's a bit far-fetched to think he could fit next to Ben Wallace. 

And it'd be nice if people could realize what a perfect situation Tyson was traded into. He has the best young PG in the league giving him easy dishes a few times each game. He has one of the better young post-scorers to take the offensive pressure of him. And there are several other offensive weapons (Peja, B-Jax, Mason) that basically allow Tyson to not even touch the ball on the offensive end, unless it's a dump off near the basket. Add it all up, and it makes sense that he's doing what he does best. I'm not so sure he'd have the same kind of production here in Chicago. We'd probably be calling for his head (you know, like we were last season).


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> *I've pointed out several times that the Bulls could probably have kept those guys and Chandler without paying the luxury tax, so I'm having trouble understanding this line of thought.*
> 
> I've also argued, I think, that in the long run Chandler is probably a more valuable piece to this team than Nocioni.


How is that?

Your own salary projections have the Bulls under the tax by $5.84 million next season, by $4.33 million in 2008-09, and by $5.26 million in 2009-10.

Now since we all know that Tyson makes more money than that, how would the Bulls have avoided paying the tax while keeping him on the team?


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

I think that these posts will continue to appear as long as NOK stay undefeated. They will come back to earth. As they do, more people will realize that it's the same old Chandler. Nobody denies his height. Nobody denies he's a good rebounder. I am going to deny, right now, his ability to understand what's expected of him. The guy is just not a very smart player. Please understand that I don't think he's a dumb guy, just not very aware of what's going on on the court. Once the Hornet shows that it is once again an average NBA squad, Tyson's currently inflated value will come back to where it belongs.

I wouldn't mind having Tyson as a back-up PF/C.... third guy in a three man rotation. How sweet would an Oden, Wallace, Tyson triumverate at PF/C look? Unfortunately, Pax had to overpay to keep Tyson last summer, and he's just not worth that salary slot. Add to that his disappearing act in the play-offs and you have a recipe for disaster. As is, I am among those who feel that Tyrus will be outplaying Tyson by the end of this season, and am glad to have him get those minutes. I also feel that despite naysayers, having Ben and PJ manning the frontline really will help keep this team on an even keel. Consistent players who play smart ball are what we need. Not necessarily gifted athletes who have yet to learn how to set a pick.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I think this thread and those like it really come down to your assessment of Tyson Chandler as a player. In this thread I've seen "Tyson is more important than Nocioni" and "With Tyson, the team is probably a contender. Without Tyson, it probably is not." 

I disagree sharply with those assessments. I feel like those who are high on Chandler tend to think about "with it" Chandler. He's the guy who is skying for rebounds, blocking shots, dunking put-backs, pounding his chest and screaming. I loooooved that player, too. I think that player could have been the heart and soul of this team. However, it seems to me that over the past couple seasons, we saw a lot more of totally disappearing from the game entirely, getting 4 fouls in 10 minutes, ball bouncing off his hands, showing signs of mental weakness Chandler.

I know they're the same guy, but you never know which one you are going to get. I wouldn't be surprised if "with it" Chandler makes more appearances in NO than he did here. I think that's because Tyson is a mentally fragile player and he probably is in an easier/less stressful environment in his new environment.

So again, even if Tyson thrives, I don't know that it means he would have done so here. I do wish he was still with the team sometimes, but the role I would envision him in right now would be the 9th or 10th man, and I don't know that that would have worked out for him.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I wouldn't be surprised if "with it" Chandler makes more appearances in NO than he did here. I think that's because Tyson is a mentally fragile player and he probably is in an easier/less stressful environment in his new environment.
> 
> So again, even if Tyson thrives, I don't know that it means he would have done so here. I do wish he was still with the team sometimes, but the role I would envision him in right now would be the 9th or 10th man, and I don't know that that would have worked out for him.


Ditto...that's precisely the point I've been trying to make. Not only has Tyson gotten out of the big market and live up to the #2 pick in the draft type of expectations, but he really has a fantastic cast of players that he compliments really well (starting with CP3).

And Wynn, I normally agree with you 99% of the time, but I think the Hornets are for real this year. They have an excellent starting lineup that Tyson fits right into. My only concern with them is depth. Any injuries to their starting 5 could be detrimental. A little production from their rookie big men (Simmons and Armstrong) wouldn't hurt either.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

jnrjr79 said:


> I think this thread and those like it really come down to your assessment of Tyson Chandler as a player. In this thread I've seen "Tyson is more important than Nocioni" and "With Tyson, the team is probably a contender. Without Tyson, it probably is not."


I think those type of statements are pretty rare and might even be recognized as exagerations by the posters who made them. 

I do agree with you though that it seems to come down to how you feel about Tyson as a player which surprises and to some degree frustrates me. The reason I started this thread is that I personally find it extremely difficult to make a reasonable argument that getting rid of a reasonably productive 23 year old with considerable potential is either addition by subtration or worth doing if you can add a 37 year old role player. If you walked up to a fan of another team and asked "Salary is not a consideration, would you rather have Chandler for the next four years or Brown for this season?" I think the answer would be Chandler almost every single time. Somehow if you ask Bulls fans the same question they seem to be split at best.

If you're not getting equal talent in return and it is in no way eliminating the possibility of resigning or acquiring players, it has to come down to whether or not it is reasonable to ask ownership to pay up to keep the player. Either people find it much more enjoyable to debate players than ownership's willing to spend or more likely, Tyson Chandler (as with all of the 3 C's) has become very polarizing amongst Bulls fans who are now unable to evaluate the move based on anything other than their feelings of him as a player. From the beginning I've been shocked that people argue in favor of the trade by pointing out how Tyson is a dissapointment or didn't work hard enough during the offseason when these considerations have nothing to do with whether or not his production is worth keeping. People seem to have a very strong emotional opinion about Chandler which strongly affects their opinion of the trade.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

the way this poll was conducted has been flawed. therefore, i am destroying my polling machine in anger.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Wynn said:


> I wouldn't mind having Tyson as a back-up PF/C.... third guy in a three man rotation. How sweet would an Oden, Wallace, Tyson triumverate at PF/C look? Unfortunately, Pax had to overpay to keep Tyson last summer, and he's just not worth that salary slot.


In otherwords, you're saying it's not fair or reasonable for fans to expect ownership to commit that sort of money to a player of Chandler's calliber, right? Why? A lot of what I was hoping for with this thread was to get people to defend that argument. I'm very curious about people's views about what the fans should be able to expect from ownership at this point.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I feel like those who are high on Chandler tend to think about "with it" Chandler. He's the guy who is skying for rebounds, blocking shots, dunking put-backs, pounding his chest and screaming.


Yep, I would agree.



jnrjr79 said:


> However, it seems to me that over the *past couple seasons*, we saw a lot more of totally disappearing from the game entirely, getting 4 fouls in 10 minutes, ball bouncing off his hands, showing signs of mental weakness Chandler.


IMHO, the disconnect isn't the "with it" crowd, but the "lost it" crowd. *Past couple seasons?????*
He stunk most of *last season* (but still with a positive net +/-). But Chandler was HUGE in 04-05. The season before last. His best season. 

How do you come up with him disappearing for the *past couple seasons?*


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

He wasn't that much huger in the 04-05 season. 2.5 points a half board, half block more. There was still plenty of inconsistancy and games where he dissappeared.

I think it is reasonable for fans to expect ownership to commit that sort of money to a player of Chandler's calliber, but just not Tyson. Like I already said he's would've been potential 4rth big for some of those years. Management would be better off finding players who fill a need through free agency with that money.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Hustle said:


> He wasn't that much huger in the 04-05 season. 2.5 points a half board, half block more. There was still plenty of inconsistancy and games where he dissappeared.


OK, let's re-write history. Our god-like GM Paxson must have had a temporary embolism when he signed TC to that big deal.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> IMHO, the disconnect isn't the "with it" crowd, but the "lost it" crowd. *Past couple seasons?????*
> He stunk most of *last season* (but still with a positive net +/-). But Chandler was HUGE in 04-05. The season before last. His best season.
> 
> How do you come up with him disappearing for the *past couple seasons?*



I don't think the difference is as dramatic as people make it out to be.

2004-2005
80 games played, 27.4 MPG, 9.7 RPG, 8.0 PPG, 1.8 BPG, 3.4 PF

2005-2006
79 games played, 26.8 MPG, 9.0 RPG, 5.3 PPG, 1.3 BPG, 3.8 PF


It was a big of a dropoff in '05-06, but not hugely so.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I don't think the difference is as dramatic as people make it out to be.
> 
> 2004-2005
> 80 games played, 27.4 MPG, 9.7 RPG, 8.0 PPG, 1.8 BPG, 3.4 PF
> ...


Wrong question... How was 04-05 a dropoff? That's what you appeared to be claiming, no?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Who are all of these people saying "hell no?" Do they not realize that Chandler is the 5th leading rebounder in the NBA and his team is undefeated? dee de dee...

ACE


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> Who are all of these people saying "hell no?" Do they not realize that Chandler is the 5th leading rebounder in the NBA and his team is undefeated? dee de dee...
> 
> ACE


And Hornets defensive FG% has gotten much, much better.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> In otherwords, you're saying it's not fair or reasonable for fans to expect ownership to commit that sort of money to a player of Chandler's calliber, right? Why? A lot of what I was hoping for with this thread was to get people to defend that argument. I'm very curious about people's views about what the fans should be able to expect from ownership at this point.


it's not about what the fans expect out of ownership. i think every fan wants ownership to pay up, regardless of profit or not. i think fans could care less if we gave the max to everyone on the team.

it's fans recognizing that ownership may be putting a limitation to what paxson can do. 

it sucks that reinsdorf + co may be doing this, but if it was YOUR money would you pay the lux tax for an average nba team? maybe the pursestrings will loosen once they get past the first round. i know that unknown is making me anxious.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

RoRo said:


> it's not about what the fans expect out of ownership. i think every fan wants ownership to pay up, regardless of profit or not. i think fans could care less if we gave the max to everyone on the team.
> 
> it's fans recognizing that ownership may be putting a limitation to what paxson can do.
> 
> it sucks that reinsdorf + co may be doing this, but if it was YOUR money would you pay the lux tax for an average nba team? maybe the pursestrings will loosen once they get past the first round. i know that unknown is making me anxious.



It seems to me that theoretically speaking a refusal to open the purse strings could lead to them remaining an average NBA team.


ACE


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> OK, let's re-write history. Our god-like GM Paxson must have had a temporary embolism when he signed TC to that big deal.


What does that have to do with Tyson dissappearing in some games? Many big guys dissappear in some games and still get the big contracts. Saying he didn't disappear in some games would be like saying you didn't watch many Bulls games.

Tyson was very important to the team last year, the dropoff/ no sign of improvement is what made him a dissapointment.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> I've pointed out several times that the Bulls could probably have kept those guys and Chandler without paying the luxury tax, so I'm having trouble understanding this line of thought.





McBulls said:


> 1. There is no way the Bulls would ever have to pay $20 million per year for Chandler's contract. See MikeDC's sticky.


I had never looked at MikeDC's excellent sticky regarding salary projections (it is excellent, seriously). But after reading these two quotes and Bullsville's post questioning the accuracy, I took a look. I have some questions about the notion that the Bulls with Chandler wouldn't be in tax land (even assuming the accuracy of MikeDC's projections that I think are very reasonable). 

Like Bullsville points out, for the next three seasons, the chart has us at $5.8, $4.3, and $5.2 under the tax threshhold - this is without Chandler. *Adding Chandler's contract means the tax threshold would be breached.* Right?

Moreover, during those three years the calculated salaries - including an assumed first round pick each year - puts the roster # at 12, 11, and 10 respectively. There are 15 roster spots. Presumably then, *there are still 3, 4, and 5 more salaries to be added to those seasons* in which, it appears, we would already be over the cap with Chandler. This would push us higher and higher over the cap.

This also assumes that the *Bulls forego all free agency options for the next 3 years* due to Chandler's presence on the roster. Because no LLE, VE or MLE contracts (or any contracts in between) have been factored into the chart over those three years.

Based on MikeDC's chart, it appears to me that with (and even possibly without) Chandler, the Bulls are significantly over the tax threshold for, at a minimum, the 3 years following the conclusion of this season.

Admittedly, I'm not much of a numbers guy and don't know a whole hell of a lot about the CBA or the salary tax. So if I'm am interpreting all or any of this incorrectly, please let me know.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

ace20004u said:


> It seems to me that theoretically speaking a refusal to open the purse strings could lead to them remaining an average NBA team.
> 
> 
> ACE


agree, but how spendy reinsdorf gets depends on the success of the bulls this year (as a team). at least advancing past eh first round gives the leverage to the resignees. if the bulls end up with another first round exit, then all the leverage goes to reinsdorf come negotation time. as a fan that sucks for sure, but that's how reinsdorf has operated over the years.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Hustle said:


> What does that have to do with Tyson dissappearing in some games? Many big guys dissappear in some games and still get the big contracts. Saying he didn't disappear in some games would be like saying you didn't watch many Bulls games.
> 
> Tyson was very important to the team last year, the *dropoff/ no sign of improvement* is what made him a dissapointment.


TC was more consistent in 04-05 than any year. He was hurt and/or bad in 03-04 so I am still scratching my head as to how anyone could call 04-05 a disappointment, drop off or an inconsistent year.

Speaking of not watching games, how could any Bulls fan say that 05-06 wasn't a droppoff for Chandler?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Like Bullsville points out, for the next three seasons, the chart has us at $5.8, $4.3, and $5.2 under the tax threshhold - this is without Chandler. *Adding Chandler's contract means the tax threshold would be breached.* Right?


MikeDC has options down as well. Sweetney's option will not be picked up. Voila, an extra almost $4M is added the $5.8M. 

MikeDC is also conservative on new deals for Noch, Gordon and Deng.

Lastly, we are not going to be seeing many MLE signings from here on out. I venture zero if we are retaining all the guys in Mike's chart

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

So, all in all, no lux tax this year. Little or none next year. And in no year would TC's contract be entirely over the lux tax. Unlike the poll.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

he's been paid, so now he'll suck. not a brand new story.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

johnston797 said:


> MikeDC has options down as well. Sweetney's option will not be picked up. Voila, an extra almost $4M is added the $5.8M.


Tyson makes over $10 million next season, so that still puts the Bulls over the tax threshold. Simple math. 





> MikeDC is also conservative on new deals for Noch, Gordon and Deng.


I'm not sure what that means- if it means he is conservative on the high end, then we would have more room under the LT. Obviously, if he is conservative on the low end, we'll have less room under the LT.





> Lastly, we are not going to be seeing many MLE signings from here on out. I venture zero if we are retaining all the guys in Mike's chart


I disagree with that, we are under the tax by right around the MLE going by Mike's chart, so why not use it if there is a player out there who will make the team better? They've paid guys to NOT play in an effort to make the team better, why wouldn't they pay a guy to actually play if it will make the team better?





> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> So, all in all, no lux tax this year. Little or none next year. And in no year would TC's contract be entirely over the lux tax. Unlike the poll.


No LT this year, with or without Tyson (PJ's salary almost matches his).

Simple math tells us there will be some next year with Tyson (although "little" is accurate, "none" doesn't enter into the equation).

The last part is right, it would take a lot of spending to get all of TC's contract over the LT.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> MikeDC has options down as well. Sweetney's option will not be picked up. Voila, an extra almost $4M is added the $5.8M.


There is only one "option" in that chart - Sweetney. Its singular, not plural. And it only addresses 1 season of the next 3. Moreover, if he's not picked up, that puts our roster at 11. That means 4 spots to fill with that $9.6 million ($5.8 + Sweets' $3.8) *with no Chandler*. *Add Chandler, and the $9.6 is gone* (he makes $10,050,00 next season) and we are in breach of the tax threshhold with 3 more roster spots yet to fill. 



> MikeDC is also conservative on new deals for Noch, Gordon and Deng.


Conservative in that they could be higher? I agree. Otherwise I consider them very realistic as a whole. And if we aren't assuming their accuracy, then the chart has absolutely no value in this discussion. 



> Lastly, we are not going to be seeing many MLE signings from here on out. I venture zero if we are retaining all the guys in Mike's chart


And we'd be seeing even less if we retained Chandler. Chandler means salary tax *and* severe limitations on free agency acquisitions no matter how desirable they might be. This is being overlooked here, in my opinion. 



> So, all in all, no lux tax this year.


Undeniably true. 



> Little or none next year.


Based on the chart, I'd say this is very much not true. 



> And in no year would TC's contract be entirely over the lux tax. Unlike the poll.


I don't care about the poll. I'm addressing some posts in this thread, not the poll.

It has been repeatedly stated the last few days that the retention of Chandler does not = luxury tax. My reading of Mike's chart suggests the opposite of that statement. Plus, it requires the Bulls essentially abandoning free agency for 3 years just to mitigate Chandler's impact on the luxury tax. 

Forget that. With Ben Wallace on the roster, its simply not worth it. 

This thread has cemented in my mind that trading Chandler was the right thing to do. Unless, of course, Mike or McBulls (who both have a far greater grasp of the $$ and how it works than I do) can correct an error I'm making in my analysis. 

P.S. - I like Chandler as a player and, as to him, I don't begrudge any of you opinions to the contrary of mine. Unlike Crawford/Curry, I consider this an argument that is very much subject to rational disagreement. I just want to make sure we are getting our facts straight in the process. And it appears to me that with regard Chandler's impact on the luxury tax, some of the asserted "facts" aren't accurate.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

bullsville said:


> The last part is right, it would take a lot of spending to get all of TC's contract over the LT.


Not really. It appears to me that it would take one MLE contract. Just one.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> There is only one "option" in that chart - Sweetney. Its singular, not plural. And it only addresses 1 season of the next 3. Moreover, if he's not picked up, that puts our roster at 11. That means 4 spots to fill with that $9.6 million ($5.8 + Sweets' $3.8) *with no Chandler*. *Add Chandler, and the $9.6 is gone* (he makes $10,050,00 next season) and we are in breach of the tax threshhold with 3 more roster spots yet to fill.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course even without Chandler all we should have to spend is around the MLE, true?

ACE


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bullsville said:


> How is that?
> 
> Your own salary projections have the Bulls under the tax by $5.84 million next season, by $4.33 million in 2008-09, and by $5.26 million in 2009-10.
> 
> Now since we all know that Tyson makes more money than that, how would the Bulls have avoided paying the tax while keeping him on the team?


If you read what I wrote along with the projections,there are several reasons. 
* First, in the projections I'm assuming only a 1% growth in the cap/tax levels. This is very conservative as the actual annual increase historically is around 5%.
* Second, I'm being very generous with the projected salaries, especially for Nocioni and probably Gordon. Both of these guys seem to be in a minutes crunch that projects to only get worse over the course of the season. Something will give there, and at least one of these guys, perhaps both won't get the sort of deal I outlined. The projection is just a ballpark figure.
* Third, the projection includes QOs for Sweetney (almost certainly won't be picked up) and Khyrapa (maybe won't be picked up).
* Fourth, remember that without the trade, we couldn't have signed Adrian Griffin, so he wouldn't be on the books the next two seasons.

Add those things into the equation in various measures, and it appears pretty unlikely we'd pay the tax, or at least much of a tax (perhaps we pay a couple hundred k in one season, but that's hardly significant for a team that's paid upwards of $30M in dead money out to players in the last few seasons.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Actually, I read all of what you wrote... I just figured that if we are going to have a discussion based on the numbers, we would use the actual numbers since I figured that's why they are there.

Maybe you should do a chart with 5% increases in the tax level as well? If we are going to be discussing hypotheticals, it just seems to me that we should be discussing the most realistic set of hypotheticas.

If not, it seems like you are putting a chart out there and stickying it that shows one thing while you are basing your posts on completely different numbers, which makes it hard to have a civil, honest discussion.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Not really. It appears to me that it would take one MLE contract. Just one.


That is correct, thanks.

Of course, now I find out that we're not supposed to even use these numbers as they are more than likely not accurate, and it kind of takes any seriousness and fun out of the discussion IMHO.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Actually, I read all of what you wrote... I just figured that if we are going to have a discussion based on the numbers, we would use the actual numbers since I figured that's why they are there.
> 
> Maybe you should do a chart with 5% increases in the tax level as well? If we are going to be discussing hypotheticals, it just seems to me that we should be discussing the most realistic set of hypotheticas.
> 
> If not, it seems like you are putting a chart out there and stickying it that shows one thing while you are basing your posts on completely different numbers, which makes it hard to have a civil, honest discussion.


Sheesh. :no:

I don't see much need to start bringing up civility and honesty in this context. The number in the stickied post are what they are because, I think they are they are close what the Bulls probably use. As a base, it's my impression they'll take the most conservative outlook possible and go from there. And there are legitimate reasons to use this as a baseline.

But that doesn't mean they'll actually always follow the most conservative approach. It's like the expiration date on your milk. By and large, you don't want to drink milk past the expiration date. But you know the date is usually a bit conservative, and if your milk is a day past the date and still smells fine, you'll take a swig.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> There is only one "option" in that chart - Sweetney....


A couple points:
1. As I just wrote in the other post, the projected contracts are conservative in the sense they could and likely will be lower. If you're on about fiscal responsibility in Chandler's case, how would you justify paying Nocioni $7M when you've got Deng, Thomas and perhaps Khryapa? More likely than not, there will be savings there.

2. Khyrapa also has a QO.

3. Adding minimum salary guys to the end of the bench is a pretty de minimus expense

4. The valuable point I think you raise is that yes, we wouldn't be using our MLE with Tyson on board and now we will have the ability to add one or two MLE level players. So one way to look at it is we traded Tyson for the use of the MLE. 

Well, ok, but what are we going to buy with the MLE? Our roster is already jam packed at every place but up front. So what we'll really be doing is looking for a quasi Ben Wallace replacement with the MLE in a couple years (just as the Pistons did with Nazr Mohammed this year). I'd rather have just kept the Ben Wallace replacement we already had than do that. My perception of MLE level bigs is that they don't turn out to be all that effective. So I guess I don't see this as a very severe limitation.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

RoRo said:


> it's not about what the fans expect out of ownership. i think every fan wants ownership to pay up, regardless of profit or not. i think fans could care less if we gave the max to everyone on the team.
> 
> it's fans recognizing that ownership may be putting a limitation to what paxson can do.
> 
> it sucks that reinsdorf + co may be doing this, but if it was YOUR money would you pay the lux tax for an average nba team? maybe the pursestrings will loosen once they get past the first round. i know that unknown is making me anxious.


If that's true then no one should have answered yes to option one. Again, check out post #14. The entire idea of this thread is to evaluate the limits imposed by ownership not Pax's decisions in light of those restrictions.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> TC was more consistent in 04-05 than any year. He was hurt and/or bad in 03-04 so I am still scratching my head as to how anyone could call 04-05 a disappointment, drop off or an inconsistent year.
> 
> *Speaking of not watching games, how could any Bulls fan say that 05-06 wasn't a droppoff for Chandler*?


That's what I was saying, you misread my post.

04-05 was his most consistant year but he still dissapeared sometimes.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

Is Chandler worth this much of discussion? Really? Especially with Wallace on our roster?

LT or not, I will take financial flexibility down the road over Chandler at $10M a year. Even if it is still a question mark whether that financial flexibility will become realized in the form of competitive player or not.

I wouldn't say good riddance but I have seen enough of Chandler for the past couple of years and I highly doubt he will become a different player in the future in Bulls uniform or not (although I do think Hornet is better fit for him as of now). 

Chandler, the player that I have known, isn't worth this much of discussion. 

His impact on Bulls team is replaced nicely by Wallace already and come next year Tyrus will negate it further.

Losing Chandler, even for 37 year old PJ, wasn't and isn't big deal.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> Of course even without Chandler all we should have to spend is around the MLE, true?
> 
> ACE


I don't understand. 

Regardless, I have one point: It appears the notion that keeping Chandler would not have violated the luxury tax threshhold is a myth (assuming the accuracy of MikeDC's projections). 

Chandler = tax (and likely an even more restrictive approach to free agency for years to come). So lets just remove arguments to the contrary from the discussion. 

There are still plenty of other things to discuss, like the premise of the poll in this thread: Should the Bulls have been willing to exceed the tax? Clearly, that is fair game. 

I'm not trying to make a larger point here.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Hustle said:


> you misread my post.


This post?



Hustle said:


> Tyson was very important to the team last year, the dropoff/ no sign of improvement is what made him a dissapointment.



So "dropoff / no sign of improvement" = "dropoff"


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> _re: little or no lux tax year._
> Based on the chart, I'd say this is very much not true.





bullsville said:


> No LT this year, with or without Tyson (PJ's salary almost matches his).
> 
> Simple math tells us there will be some next year with Tyson (although "little" is accurate, "none" doesn't enter into the equation).
> 
> The last part is right, it would take a lot of spending to get all of TC's contract over the LT.


We could end up with TC and under the lux tax for next year. Noch is not guarenteed of making $7M for one. Griffen could be traded. Salary and Lux tax go up by more than 1%. There were lots of scenarios.

Of course, there were more scenarios when this happened. Griff not signed. Hirnrich not frontloaded. Ect.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> A couple points:
> 1. As I just wrote in the other post, the projected contracts are conservative in the sense they could and likely will be lower.


Or higher. 

Deng: 5 years/$48 million
Gordon: 5 years/$50 million
Nocioni: 6 years/$53 million

Nocioni's might be a bit high (though it was reported during training camp that he was looking for a $10 million per year deal). But I don't think Deng's or Gordon's are out of whack at all. Taking them all together as one total, I suspect you are right in the ballpark. 



> If you're on about fiscal responsibility in Chandler's case, how would you justify paying Nocioni $7M when you've got Deng, Thomas and perhaps Khryapa?


Because Nocioni can play with those guys whereas I don't believe that Chandler can play with Wallace to the best advantage of the team. Also:



> More likely than not, there will be savings there.


In the sense that I think Nocioni or Deng will be traded, I agree with that. But I think that, if traded, it will be part of a larger trade that brings back just as much or more salary to be plugged into the chart. 



> 2. Khyrapa also has a QO.


Unlike Sweets, I don't think we can assume that this won't be picked up. 



> 3. Adding minimum salary guys to the end of the bench is a pretty de minimus expense


It still counts and adds up though. Especially when we are talking about 4-5 of them each year. If we are going to discuss it, lets discuss all of it. 

But who says they all need to be "minimum salary guys"? Why won't the Bulls be in the market for valuable veteran free agents looking to help a winner? It happens all the time. Or youngish power forwards who want that MLE? 

Assuming that 4 or 5 whole roster spots not included in your calculation will consist of the Andre Barrett's and Eddie Basden's of the world isn't realistic, in my opinion. 



> 4. The valuable point I think you raise is that yes, we wouldn't be using our MLE with Tyson on board and now we will have the ability to add one or two MLE level players. So one way to look at it is we traded Tyson for the use of the MLE.


Thanks. I definitely think that should be part of the discussion. 



> Well, ok, but what are we going to buy with the MLE? Our roster is already jam packed at every place but up front. So what we'll really be doing is looking for a quasi Ben Wallace replacement with the MLE in a couple years (just as the Pistons did with Nazr Mohammed this year). I'd rather have just kept the Ben Wallace replacement we already had than do that. My perception of MLE level bigs is that they don't turn out to be all that effective. So I guess I don't see this as a very severe limitation.


Donyell Marshall and Shareef Abdur-Rahim both signed for the MLE. They are both scoring power forwards who would fit along with Ben Wallace on this team better than Chandler would. I put about 0.5 seconds of thought into coming up with those two names. I'm sure there are other examples. 

Also, and this relates more to the issues raised in the poll, I believe that the Bulls aren't just saying "no luxury tax no matter what". I think they were saying "*Chandler* isn't worth incurring the luxury tax". Thats a pretty important distinction in my opinion.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> We could end up with TC and under the lux tax for next year. Noch is not guarenteed of making $7M for one. Griffen could be traded. Salary and Lux tax go up by more than 1%. There were lots of scenarios.
> 
> Of course, there were more scenarios when this happened. Griff not signed. Hirnrich not frontloaded. Ect.


Obviously all kinds of things can happen. Chapu might go back the pampas never to return. 

Hinrich might demand a trade. 

They might all be bundled up in a package for Garnett. Who knows? 

I'm dealing only with the chart and the projections it appears we are all accepting as reasonable for purposes of the discussions. Those projections lead to a conclusion different than what some have expressed. I'm just making it clear.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

johnston797 said:


> This post?
> 
> So "dropoff / no sign of improvement" = "dropoff"


Yeah that post, thanks for setting me straight.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Also, and this relates more to the issues raised in the poll, I believe that the Bulls aren't just saying "no luxury tax no matter what". I think they were saying "*Chandler* isn't worth incurring the luxury tax". Thats a pretty important distinction in my opinion.


So far no one has given a single reason why there should be any restrictions at all on payroll from the fans point of view. I still don't understand why people care about ownership's bottom line. No one has argued that ownership would lose money by paying the salary tax to keep Chandler so what that means to me is that 17 people think "It is more important to me to maximize ownership's profits than to keep Chandler on the team." If you're one of those 17 people I would find it enlightening to know why you feel this way. Why do you value maxizing the profits of ownership at all? Not to be selfish or demanding but it's the reason I started the poll and so far I've had very little added clarity.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

JeremyB0001 said:


> So far no one has given a single reason why there should be any restrictions at all on payroll from the fans point of view. I still don't understand why people care about ownership's bottom line. No one has argued that ownership would lose money by paying the salary tax to keep Chandler so what that means to me is that 17 people think "It is more important to me to maximize ownership's profits than to keep Chandler on the team." If you're one of those 17 people I would find it enlightening to know why you feel this way. Why do you value maxizing the profits of ownership at all? Not to be selfish or demanding but it's the reason I started the poll and so far I've had very little added clarity.


So far no one has given a single reason why there should be an obligation at all on payroll over luxury tax from the owner's point of view. 

After all, no matter what we want to believe or demand them to comply, to them NBA is a business venue, no?


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

JeremyB0001 said:


> So far no one has given a single reason why there should be any restrictions at all on payroll from the fans point of view. I still don't understand why people care about ownership's bottom line. No one has argued that ownership would lose money by paying the salary tax to keep Chandler so what that means to me is that 17 people think "It is more important to me to maximize ownership's profits than to keep Chandler on the team." If you're one of those 17 people I would find it enlightening to know why you feel this way. Why do you value maxizing the profits of ownership at all? Not to be selfish or demanding but it's the reason I started the poll and so far I've had very little added clarity.


Well I think your right on point and there isn't much that can be added to that except for this, we are just being realistic because we know who the owner is. I don't think anyone likes him.

Reason why I think trading Tyson gave the team more flexibilty, not many teams are going to want to pay Tyson what he's owed(expiring contract for this season better), the guys he likely would've been traded withs salary along w/ Tyson's would't save any money for the small market teams with the stars that have been talked about(which is probably a need considering their salary situations).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> So far no one has given a single reason why there should be any restrictions at all on payroll *from the fans point of view.*


That is because "from the fans' point of view", there is no reason. Its not our money. If I were visiting Mr. Rork and Tatoo on Fantasy Island, I'd expect my Bulls to have a $95 million payroll. 



> I still don't understand why people care about ownership's bottom line.


I don't care about their bottom line. Not in the least. But I am willing to accept the fact that *they* care about it. 



> *No one has argued that ownership would lose money by paying the salary tax to keep Chandler* so what that means to me is that 17 people think "It is more important to me to maximize ownership's profits than to keep Chandler on the team."


What? If they pay the salary tax to keep Chandler, they are by definition earning less. Or when you say "lose" money, do you mean to actually "lose" $ - like at a casino? 

As for the rest of it, thats silly. Fans are realistic, thats all. Its not that they get giddy with anticipation thinking about how peachy it will be when the owners make a nice profit. 

If


> you're one of those 17 people I would find it enlightening to know why you feel this way.


I can't speak for everyone. But I've tried to explain what I think it is in this post. 



> Why do you value maxizing the profits of ownership at all?


I really don't think any of us personally value it at all.



> Not to be selfish or demanding but it's the reason I started the poll and so far I've had very little added clarity.


Then I hope this post helped.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Hustle said:


> I don't think anyone likes him.


Not true at all -- there are posters here who have argued that Reinsdorf is the greatest owner Chicago has ever seen.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Not true at all -- there are posters here who have argued that Reinsdorf is the greatest owner Chicago has ever seen.


Do you know where I can go to get a list of the owners of the Bulls and their respective interest in the enterprise? I've seen you mention what I assumed were minority owners in the past.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Now here's the thing. Under the old CBA, this distribution of escrow funds was not given to teams that exceeded the luxury tax. Hence, it was an effective addition to the luxury tax. If a team went over the luxury tax limit (let's say by $1M), not only would it have to pay $1M to the league,it would not get its share of the escrow distribution, which was (at the time) probably another $4-5M.
> 
> Under the old CBA then, going over the tax by even $1M would effectively be a $5-6M expense.
> *
> ...


See : Donald Sterling paying up for Brand, Maggette, Kaman, Cassell, Mobely and Thomas 

See : George Shinn paying for Chandler , Stojakovic and why he will pay decent money for David West and probably Desmond Mason when he's due..certainly for Chris Paul when the time comes

The notoriously frugal Sterling and Shinn have the incentive taken away for them to play the economic cost / profit opportunity card and well...gulp..actually be a responsible owner and put a competitive team on the floor



> It's also important to understand this because it underscores just how hollow the "don't pay the luxury tax at all costs" line is. The total luxury tax paid (not just for one year but several) by keeping around Chandler and re-signing everyone else, even under a worst case scenario
> , would probably be well less than the money we've paid any of Pip, ERob, Tim Thomas or even Michael Sweetney to sit on their duffs.
> 
> The other thing that's related to this is that the question isn't whether it's worth paying an additional couple million to keep Chandler (or anyone else) as an individual player around. The question is what is the total value of the team with that guy. If you add Chandler to this team in a couple years, let's suppose it costs you, at most, a total of $6M in luxury tax to get there (that's probably close to the worst case scenario).
> ...


Excellent post Mike 

I do believe however that it wasn't so much about the luxury tax issues for the reasons you have explained so well but more a case of they didn't see Chandler's value over time like some of us do.

Perhaps their view is that he is a poor man's Marcus Camby with poor IQ and questionable judgement

And then where is he going to fit over time if you have Deng, Thomas and Nocioni on the forward line a new big man draft pick and a couple of vets like Wallace and Brown ( or whatever older vets replace them when they are done ) to "season" / blend the mix of the front line 

That's 6 players across 3 spots that you have to find minutes for and I just don't see how Chandler fits 

And yes I would think Mgt values Nocioni more than Chandler


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Not true at all -- there are posters here who have argued that Reinsdorf is the greatest owner Chicago has ever seen.


I know, drugs are a big problem in our society.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Do you know where I can go to get a list of the owners of the Bulls and their respective interest in the enterprise? I've seen you mention what I assumed were minority owners in the past.


The media guide has a list of the partners, including 4-5 Estates of __________ .

I don't know how much each partner holds. Reinsdorf does hold more than any other partner, but it's far from a majority share -- something like 12 or 15%, IIRC.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> The media guide has a list of the partners, including 4-5 Estates of __________ .
> 
> I don't know how much each partner holds. Reinsdorf does hold more than any other partner, but it's far from a majority share -- something like 12 or 15%, IIRC.


And I went and copied from the Media guide from 2005-2006:

Carmont Blitz
Neil Bluhm
Fred Brzozowski
The Estate of Alvin Cohn
Lester Crown
Louis Duman
The Estate of Eugene Fanning
Marvin Fink
The Estate of Jack Gould
Lamar Hunt
Norma Hunt
Norman Jacobs
Robert A. Judelson
The Estate of Charles Lubin
Ann Lurie
Judd Malkin
Allan B. Muchin
Carol P. Norton
David H. Orth, M.D.
Bruce V. Rauner
Jerry Reinsdorf
William Roberts
Irving Stenn
Richard Stern
Sanford J. Takiff
Burton Ury
Charles Walsh
William W. Wirtz
Sam Zell

Wirtz has owned a part of the team from the beginning, as have a few of the other people on the list.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> That's 6 players across 3 spots that you have to find minutes for and I just don't see how Chandler fits
> 
> And yes I would think Mgt values Nocioni more than Chandler


It's not unreasonable for the Bulls to have traded Chandler for any number of reasons. What's disturbing is that they traded a 23 year old 7 footer with demonstrated hops, rebounding prowess, shot blocking, and defensive ability for a 37 year old expiring contract and two 2nd rounders.

I'm sure Paxson could have done better if he were not instructed to keep payroll low in 2008-9,10 & 11. The frontloaded structure of the Wallace and Hinrich contracts confirm management's concern about those years. 

The only thing we don't know is just how low he has been instructed to keep the payroll (Never pay luxury tax? -- probably. Keep total salary below top 10 in the league -- probably. Insure year-year dividend growth by avoiding salary risks? Maybe) 

It's baseball mentality applied to a sport that has a salary cap and revenue sharing.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> The media guide has a list of the partners, including 4-5 Estates of __________ .
> 
> I don't know how much each partner holds. Reinsdorf does hold more than any other partner, but it's far from a majority share -- something like 12 or 15%, IIRC.


Thanks. I found last season's on line and have printed it out.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> So far no one has given a single reason why there should be any restrictions at all on payroll from the fans point of view. I still don't understand why people care about ownership's bottom line. No one has argued that ownership would lose money by paying the salary tax to keep Chandler so what that means to me is that 17 people think "It is more important to me to maximize ownership's profits than to keep Chandler on the team." If you're one of those 17 people I would find it enlightening to know why you feel this way. Why do you value maxizing the profits of ownership at all? Not to be selfish or demanding but it's the reason I started the poll and so far I've had very little added clarity.


The Bulls organization has pretty clearly indicated that they will not go over the luxury tax threshold unless it is to pay for a winner--which I think they would define as a team that can make it at least to the ECFs. Like Ron Cey explained, keeping Chandler on the payroll would probably hurt us from signing future FAs based on the owner-created restrictions for spending. Yes, we still theoretically _could_ sign someone to the MLE and go over the luxury tax threshold. The likelihood of that actually happening unless we are winning is close to zero. Most of us "realist" armchair GMs go with the assumptions we believe to be true and use that to form our opinions on player movement.

I don't see how an organization that tries to make its investments wisely gets so criticized. Outside of the draft, all player movement revolves around player contracts already guaranteed with the team. If you sign a guy to an unreasonable contract, you won't get as much in return if you try to move said player. If you want to sign a good FA, you have to be under the cap. All of this means the organization has to be fiscally responsible in order to add talent to the roster. There are only so many Mark Cubans, and Cuban even admitted that his pay for a winner strategy didn't work and has been correcting on this strategy in recent years.

I don't really care if Uncle Jerry and co squeezed out $1mil over the course of Kirk Hinrich's 5-year extension in order to buy their wives $50,000 pieces of jewelry. They are all making so much (guaranteed) money, it really has no impact on anything to anyone outside of pride and prestige. For those of you that hate management's profit margins, stop buying tickets to the games. Or buy the cheap seats and sneak in your own food & drink.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> Or buy the cheap seats and sneak in your own food & drink.


done and done

Even as a huge Bulls fan, it's just bad business for me to pay for expensive seats, drinks, bad food or buy Bulls merchandise that I will rarely ever wear, I feel no obligation to support the team in that way and prefer to watch the games on tv for free. You have to look out for your own interests.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

narek said:


> And I went and copied from the Media guide from 2005-2006:
> 
> Carmont Blitz
> Neil Bluhm
> ...


Thanks. I was about ready to do that myself. 

JeremyB0001, here is something to consider from ownership's perspective. Just consider it. 

There are 25 individuals and 4 estates listed there. The estates are run by trustees who likely have numerous beneficiaries that must be appeased. And, frankly, many of the individuals may have beneficiaries as well in the form of family members or silent partners with vested interests. In other words, there may be numerous sub-groups within this group containing more and more members. But maybe not. I don't know. It certainly would be the norm, though. 

The point is this. The team is a business venture for most (probably not all) of these folks. Its revenue. Just like investing in IBM or, god help them, Pets.com. They expect a return on that investment. And whatever the bottom line is for the Bulls (and I know its good), it has to then be divided up among all of these folks. The smaller your share and the lesser your wealth, the more you care about maintaining that bottom line. And your partners, and Reinsdorf in particular, have fiduciary obligations to you as well. 

In my experience, it appears that the owners who are typically willing to say "damn the torpedoes" when it comes to spending are the Paul Allen, James Dolan, and Mark Cuban types. Owners who are richer than Midas, treating this as a fun thing to do as much as a business venture. Though there are some, like Jerry Buss, who don't fit this mold and insist on avoidance of the luxury tax. 

The vast majority of owners/ownership groups in the NBA avoid the luxury tax threshhold and they do so for business reasons. *As it relates to Tyson Chandler*, the Bulls appear to be one of those teams. I can live with that because it is the nature of the business and if a player is to be sacrificed on the alter of taxation, better it be Chandler than Deng. 

I cannot just say "they're rich, they should pay damnit". Wealth is, in many ways, relative. I don't begrudge them their profits much like I don't begrudge Stephon Marbury his $19 million dollar salary. 

And certainly not over Tyson Chandler. When Reinsdorf has a chance to sign Dwight Howard in free agency at age 22 but refuses due to luxury tax concerns, maybe I'll get on board with your line of reasoning. But not under the current circumstances. 

Like I said before, I don't give a damn about the profits of those folks. But I can accept and understand that they do.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> That is because "from the fans' point of view", there is no reason. Its not our money. If I were visiting Mr. Rork and Tatoo on Fantasy Island, I'd expect my Bulls to have a $95 million payroll.
> 
> What? If they pay the salary tax to keep Chandler, they are by definition earning less. Or when you say "lose" money, do you mean to actually "lose" $ - like at a casino?
> 
> Then I hope this post helped.


So if everyone who voted for option felt that way then we could say most of the posters on the board (everyone who chose option A and everyone who chose option C) are dissapointed we couldn't just keep Chandler, right? It's just a difference between some people accepting the reality of ownership more than others.

Sorry about that losing money comment. It was unclear. I meant lose money as in the team would take a loss and end up in the red for the season. That ownership would have to pay money instead of making money off the team.

That was absolutely helpful. Thanks.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> For those of you that hate management's profit margins, stop buying tickets to the games. Or buy the cheap seats and sneak in your own food & drink.


I don't hate their profit margins, I just resent it when they give away players who are rather hard to come by to guarantee a bigger dividend two years down the road.

First it was Phil Jackson ("management win championships, not coaches or players")
Then followed the disposal of Jordan, Pippen, Rodman et al for peanuts or nothing ("time to rebuild before we become as bad as the Celtics" Or, we've got a 3 year waiting list for season tickets -- we don't need these aging egomaniacs to make money.)
Then it was Tony Kukoc ("he'll be over the hill in few years anyway" -- Few=8, as it turns out.)
Then it was Elton Brand ("He probably won't agree to sign for what we'll offer him")
Then it was Brad Miller ("We can't afford to keep two top centers -- let's give his minutes to Curry")
Then it was Jamal Crawford ("We need expiring contracts to keep cap space available")
Then it was Eddie Curry ("We're really worried about his heart" Uh-huh.)
Then it was Tyson Chander ("Look we just used the Crawford/Rose/Curry cap space on Wallace, so give us a break!")

Next up is Nocioni at an overstocked position. I have a bad feeling about this. :whatever: 

Anyway, how do you sneak in food & drink when they frisk you at the door and inspect every package? :cheers:


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Thanks. I was about ready to do that myself.
> 
> JeremyB0001, here is something to consider from ownership's perspective. Just consider it.
> 
> ...


Would you like to join my sig club, Ron? It seems to me you're concluding that the Bulls' ownership situation is preventing the team from acting 100% entirely in its best basketball interests.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> The Bulls organization has pretty clearly indicated that they will not go over the luxury tax threshold unless it is to pay for a winner--which I think they would define as a team that can make it at least to the ECFs. Like Ron Cey explained, keeping Chandler on the payroll would probably hurt us from signing future FAs based on the owner-created restrictions for spending. Yes, we still theoretically _could_ sign someone to the MLE and go over the luxury tax threshold. The likelihood of that actually happening unless we are winning is close to zero. Most of us "realist" armchair GMs go with the assumptions we believe to be true and use that to form our opinions on player movement.


Yeah that makes perfect sense. The assumptions I've been operating under, some of which have been called into question by some posts in this thread were that 1) Trading Chandler will allow the team to resign the core players, pushing payroll very close but not over the threshold. 2) ownership will approve any payroll up to the threshold but not a dollar over. So basically I was under the impression that moving Tyson's salary would not allow us to sign a player to the MLE because that would put us three or four million over the threshold (assuming we're only one or two million under it after the extensions) which ownership has prohibited. It is true though that some of the posts in this thread suggest by moving Tyson's salary we could stay $6 million under the threshold compared to $3 million over the threshold and sign a player for $5 million who we would not be able to sign with Tyson's contract on the books. Personally I'm skeptical that we could get an impact player with that money considering the depth of the roster but I realize others disagree.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

McBulls said:


> I don't hate their profit margins, I just resent it when they give away players who are rather hard to come by to guarantee a bigger dividend two years down the road.
> 
> First it was Phil Jackson ("management win championships, not coaches or players")
> *Then followed the disposal of Jordan, Pippen, Rodman et al for peanuts or nothing ("time to rebuild before we become as bad as the Celtics" Or, we've got a 3 year waiting list for season tickets -- we don't need these aging egomaniacs to make money.)
> ...


I thought the part in bold was mainly on Krause after Jordan's retiring. The "win now" theory that Pippen and co couldn't win another championship.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Yeah that makes perfect sense. The assumptions I've been operating under, some of which have been called into question by some posts in this thread were that 1) Trading Chandler will allow the team to resign the core players, pushing payroll very close but not over the threshold. 2) ownership will approve any payroll up to the threshold but not a dollar over. So basically I was under the impression that moving Tyson's salary would not allow us to sign a player to the MLE because that would put us three or four million over the threshold (assuming we're only one or two million under it after the extensions) which ownership has prohibited. It is true though that some of the posts in this thread suggest by moving Tyson's salary we could stay $6 million under the threshold compared to $3 million over the threshold and sign a player for $5 million who we would not be able to sign with Tyson's contract on the books. Personally I'm skeptical that we could get an impact player with that money considering the depth of the roster but I realize others disagree.


FWIW, I wanted to see us keep Tyson this year and see how he played with Wallace. If it didn't work out, I wanted him shipped out by the trade deadline or next offseason.

I don't mind giving Paxson the benefit of the doubt proven his track record. If he wasn't planning on making a consolidation trade this season, then it didn't really make sense to keep Chandler around. Especially if he thought adding another vet big would help moreso this season than having Chandler and his ups and downs. And yes, that is based on the "financial flexibility" argument, which I think is true given what likely is Paxson's spending budget.

I have followed P.J. for many years and thought there wasn't much better out there in terms of a vet expiring contract. He certainly hasn't shown that as of yet for sure. The trade is not fair value in terms of raw talent, but I thought it might help "win now" in addition to creating some "financial flexibility," both of which I viewed as attractive after the Wallace signing (which I did not expect).

Owners did pony up some cash to make sure we drafted Sefolosha this season. I don't think spending money is really the issue with mangement. I think that the owners view paying the luxury tax penalty as wasted money.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I think this thread and those like it really come down to your assessment of Tyson Chandler as a player. In this thread I've seen "Tyson is more important than Nocioni" and "With Tyson, the team is probably a contender. Without Tyson, it probably is not."
> 
> I disagree sharply with those assessments. I feel like those who are high on Chandler tend to think about "with it" Chandler.


Not at all. Your paraphrase of me is a little out of context, because the point isn't just whether I like Tyson better than Noc or I think Tyson is more important now. Rather, we've got two old frontcourt players. Tyson is a quality young frontcourt player. As those guys age, Tyson would be relatively more valuable. Noc is a quality player at a position we're positively stacked at with young talent. I can make the case in my head of paying Tyson something like $10M/yr because in two years he fills a vital and hard to fill role. I have a harder time making the case for paying Noc $8-9M/yr to be the team's 4th forward with no long-run chance of being the starter. Even the third forward is a stretch at that money.

Couple those realities for this team with the underlying general scarcity of big guys and the greater availability of 3/4 type guys and it seems pretty clear to me.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

JeremyB0001 said:


> I wonder if the board doesn't agree more than people realize. I'm sure people will quibble with my wording ("Less than dominant?! How about worthless!") but I think those roughly represent the three camps people would fall into as far as whether or not the Tyson should have stayed around while removing from the equation Pax's likely decision of how to proceed without being able to pay the luxury tax (I've yet to hear anyone argue that if Pax was told he could not cross the tax threshold he should have kept Chandler at the expense of being unable to resign Gordon, Deng, and/or Noc down the line).


If we had an unlimited payroll like the old Blazers and Knicks paying $10m for Tyson would be great. He could be the backup C and play some 4. Considering we had to sign Hinrich, Noc, Deng, Gordon (all players who contribute far more than Chandler ever will), it's crazy to say we should have kept him. Who cares how many boards he has now. I doubt you have watched many of his games in person, so you are merely going off the box scores.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

McBulls said:


> First it was Phil Jackson ("*management win championships, not coaches or players*")


Who ever said that?


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

McBulls said:


> I don't hate their profit margins, I just resent it when they give away players who are rather hard to come by to guarantee a bigger dividend two years down the road.
> 
> First it was Phil Jackson ("management win championships, not coaches or players")
> Then followed the disposal of Jordan, Pippen, Rodman et al for peanuts or nothing ("time to rebuild before we become as bad as the Celtics" Or, we've got a 3 year waiting list for season tickets -- we don't need these aging egomaniacs to make money.)
> ...


An excellent observation my friend. . :clap: 

They never believed that Bulls could win a title without MJ, they never believed that Bulls could win a title when Shaq was playing for Lakers, they never believed that Bulls could win a title when Shaq and Wade play for Miami, etc ….they just don't have any trust in that team. So why JR should be wasting an extra money ?… just to keep us happy ? No way…they will start spending when they see that our numbers (Bulls Fans) are growing, so WE can carry an extra expenses. 

I hate to be cynical, but I can handle the truth


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Would you like to join my sig club, Ron? *It seems to me you're concluding that the Bulls' ownership situation is preventing the team from acting 100% entirely in its best basketball interests.*


No thanks. :smile:

Yes, that is my conclusion. There is no doubt in my mind that at times ownership makes decisions based more on business than basketball when the weight is on the scale. Not that I consider this unique to the Chicago Bulls though.

There are worse owners and there are better. Who knows what we'll get? Its like when I get assigned to a judge that I'm lukewarm on. I don't necessarily move for a change of judge. Because while I know there are some that might lean a little bit more towards my client's case, I know there are just as many that would screw me three ways from Sunday (what heck does that phrase mean, anyway?).

I find this ownership group to be acceptable. Not exactly glowing praise, I realize. But I've seen this group spend money and, call me gullible, believe that they will spend it again if the circumstances reasonably dictate it. 

I believe that based on the input of Skiles and Paxson, they deemed that Tyson Chandler was not one such circumstance.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Thanks. I was about ready to do that myself.
> 
> JeremyB0001, here is something to consider from ownership's perspective. Just consider it.


Good post. I think you highlighted a lot of the reason many sports owners feel justified treating ownership as a business. It would certainly be an oversimplification to say that the owners are all rich so none of the money they make serves a legitimate purpose. For example, both the Bulls and White Sox do a lot of great charity work.

The tough thing about having a conversation like this is that there is no right answer because we don't know that much about the team's finances and more importantly, it's almost entirely a moral question about sports ownership. My two cents coming from a not-so-capitalistic perspective is that sports are somewhat sacred. If you're looking for a profitable investment, explore the stock market. Maybe there are a shortage of people willing and able to treat ownership like Mark Cuban but I believe you should own a sports team for fun, competitiveness, and to live out your childhood dreams. Earning even just $50,000 to operate a sports team would be a dream come true to most people so I don't have much sypathy if Reinsdorf refuses to pay the luxury tax so he can make $17 million instead of $14 million this season.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

JeremyB0001 said:


> Good post. I think you highlighted a lot of the reason many sports owners feel justified treating ownership as a business. It would certainly be an oversimplification to say that the owners are all rich so none of the money they make serves a legitimate purpose. For example, both the Bulls and White Sox do a lot of great charity work.
> 
> The tough thing about a conversation about this is that there is no right answer because we don't know that much about the team's finances and more importantly, it's almost entirely a moral question about sports ownership. My two cents coming from a not-so-capitalistic perspective is that sports are somewhat sacred. If you're looking for a profitable investment, explore the stock market. Maybe there are a shortage of people willing and able to treat ownership like Mark Cuban but I believe you should own a sports team for fun, competitiveness, and to live out your childhood dreams. Earning even just $50,000 to operate a sports team would be a dream come true to most people so I don't have much sypathy if Reinsdorf refuses to pay the luxury tax so he can make $17 million instead of $14 million this season.


Fair enough. It certainly explains your theories about Chandler. And, for what its worth, I think the vast majority of sports fans in America would agree with you on this point, and not with me.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

lougehrig said:


> If we had an unlimited payroll like the old Blazers and Knicks paying $10m for Tyson would be great. He could be the backup C and play some 4. Considering we had to sign Hinrich, Noc, Deng, Gordon (all players who contribute far more than Chandler ever will), it's crazy to say we should have kept him. Who cares how many boards he has now. I doubt you have watched many of his games in person, so you are merely going off the box scores.


Sure. I just think we should have an old Blazers or Knicks payroll. 

I spent the last five years living out of state and I'm not all that well off so I haven't seen a lot of games in person but I've watched Tyson on T.V. countless times over the past five seasons. I don't think you can just talk about watching the games in person and render his impressive rebounding totals (not just from this season) irrelevant.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Ron Cey said:


> Who ever said that?


Just a paraphrase of Krause's famous quote "Management wins championships, not players." 
The fact that Bulls management was reluctant to pay PJ a salary that would have convinced him to stay (say something close to what he got a year later in LA), implies that they had the same attitude about coaches as they did players.

When the failed to sign PJ, they lost the chance to convince Jordan to play for another few years -- which history proves he would have.

Pippen, Rodman, Kukoc and even Harper still had gas in the tank at that time. With an aging Jordan, they were still the best team in the NBA until someone proved they were not. Even without Jordan they were still a damn good team. They were disbanded because Bulls management didn't want to pay their salaries, were fat & happy with long-term media contracts, and had a long waiting list of fans who wanted season tickets. So they cut salaries to the bone and made huge profits while losing for the next 6 years and collecting NBA dole.

The Bulls ownership appears to me to have forced Krause and Paxson to dump (include in lopsided trades) Brand, Miller, Curry, AD and Chandler in large part for salary reasons. So today we cry about a lack of size and scoring on the front line. Good big men are hard to come by, but the Bulls have come across more than a few, and have discarded them because of the fiscal cowardice in the face of the large salaries they inevitably command. 

The disappointing thing is that the profits of a winning team would more than compensate for salaries expended. But management has clearly been afraid to dare to be good when the alternative was a safe profit.

It's time for the fans to demand a little playback. If they don't remember the past and don't complain they deserve the Cubs-like financial low-risk mediocre future that is being currently programmed.

No excuses -- sign Nocioni next summer or be Cubbed. :curse:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

They could have kept Chandler around this season without paying any tax.

And, as we've seen, you can trade him away for expiring deals.

And, as many people agree, we need a consolidation trade, if we're trying to win now. I still think that Chandler would help in this effort, since we're going to be trying to trade for a PF ( i would think ). If this fails, we've seen that you can dump Chandler if you need to. He is an all-NBA rebounder and a competent, young 7 footer. Most NBA teams like this type of player.



If we're not trying to win the title now, then I'd rather have a 23 year old all NBA rebounder than Ben Wallace.

If we're not "win now" and the plan is to win 3-4 years from now when the Knicks picks are ready to lead us... then Chandler would be the better option.

The Bulls are likely making a sikkkkkkkkkk profit margin. FAT big market revenues from the luxury boxes. Usually in the top 3 in attendance. Top third in Fan Cost Index.

There is no reason the Bulls should not be in the top quarter in payroll each and every year. The Bulls are likely making money hand over fist, relative to other NBA teams. Uncle Jerry and his partners own the freaking United Center!!!! This likely is a benefit to the return on investment for the owners, allowing for more control of cost structure. 

I don't begrudge a business for turning a profit by any stretch. But, as a large market team with FAT revenues, they should be near the top in spending as well, IMO (as a fan).

Keeping Chandler is not foolish spending. Locking yourself into a bad contract is something to be avoided. Chandler is a 23 year old, athletic 7 footer who has already shown he can alter games and is one of the best rebounders around. That's not a bad contract. You can liquidate that contract into other players or expiring deals, as we have already seen, if you decide you want to dump it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

McBulls said:


> Just a paraphrase of Krause's famous quote "Management wins championships, not players."



That's not the quote. From Wikipedia:

It was during the 1997-1998 season that Krause was quoted by the media uttering the statement "Players don't win championships, organizations win championships", which raised the ire of Michael Jordan. Later, however, Krause said that his original statement was "players and coaches alone don't win championships; organizations win championships"


Krause's point was that the entire organization plays a role in winning titles, not just the players themselves. I'm sure it's due to the fact that he wasn't Phil and he wasn't a player, but still wanted his due. He was NOT arguing that players or coaches have no role in winning championships or that they are somehow irrelevant.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

McBulls said:


> I don't hate their profit margins, I just resent it when they give away players who are rather hard to come by to guarantee a bigger dividend two years down the road.
> 
> First it was Phil Jackson ("management win championships, not coaches or players")
> Then followed the disposal of Jordan, Pippen, Rodman et al for peanuts or nothing ("time to rebuild before we become as bad as the Celtics" Or, we've got a 3 year waiting list for season tickets -- we don't need these aging egomaniacs to make money.)
> ...



The problem with analysis like this is that it mixes the actions attributable to the owners and the actions attributable to the GMs. 

Brand wasn't a financial move, at least not entirely. There were rumors that Falk was telling Elton not to resign. But I believe that move was much more Krause trying to show his brilliance and strike it rich with two phenoms.

Miller was probably a mix of finance and development. Plus, Miller HATED Chicago as a place to live.

Crawford - good move in my opinion, but not great. He wouldn't really have a place here.

Curry - 1. I think it's crappy when people think Paxson wasn't genuinely concerned about his heart. 2. Paxson completely robbed Isaiah on that deal from a basketball perspective, so that criticism is entirely moot.

Tyson - Obviously, we're debating the validity of that move here.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> 2. Paxson completely robbed Isaiah on that deal from a basketball perspective, so that criticism is entirely moot.


Given that I've seen Tyrus Thomas play a total of 22 minutes of NBA basketball, we don't know what kind of draft pick we're going to get from the Knicks and that the Bulls regressed when Curry left the team, I'm stunned that you consider it a robbery.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I think the one thing we can all conclude from this is that trading Tyson had absolutely nothing to do with "avoiding the Luxury Tax".

Let's get real, over the last few years ownership has paid ERob and Tim Thomas over $10 million each to just go away, because it made the Bulls a better team.

Do you really think they are that worried about exceeding the LT by $3 million? That would mean a $3 million LT payment, and not getting a LT payout of ~$3 million.

I'm not going to explain the math, because anyone can do the research and do it for themselves, but keeping Tyson would have cost us TOTAL (in LT payments and loss of LT payouts) just about the same amount as it cost us to pay ERob and TThomas to go away. 

Seriously.

Getting rid of Tyson was a *basketball* decision- people can argue whether PJ will be a better fit this season than Tyson would have been, but the whole "Tyson was traded to avoid the LT and make the owners more money" arguement seems like a good ole' case of strawmanism and red herringism.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Getting rid of Tyson was a *basketball* decision- people can argue whether PJ will be a better fit this season than Tyson would have been, but the whole "Tyson was traded to avoid the LT and make the owners more money" arguement seems like a good ole' case of strawmanism and red herringism.


I disagree.

If Chandler only had one year left on his deal, I think the decision making process would be different from the Bulls.

Money almost always enters into the decision making process, especially with Uncle Jerry.

And, I think the failed relationship between Skiles and Chandler had a lot to do with it as well. If that falls under the umbrella of "basketball decision" then cool.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Given that I've seen Tyrus Thomas play a total of 22 minutes of NBA basketball, we don't know what kind of draft pick we're going to get from the Knicks and that the Bulls regressed when Curry left the team, I'm stunned that you consider it a robbery.


I've seen more than 22 minutes. There was a preseason. I've also seen him play in college.

And we've had the debate before about the Bulls' supposed "regression." Bounced in the first round one year, bounced in the first round the next. The record dropped off, but I don't see a major, long-term shift.

So, even if you're stunned, I still think it's a robbery, and I think I'm being objective about it.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> If Chandler only had one year left on his deal, I think the decision making process would be different from the Bulls.



If he only had one year left, it would change the basketball equation in addition to the financial equation.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> it would change the basketball equation


How so?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I disagree.
> 
> If Chandler only had one year left on his deal, I think the decision making process would be different from the Bulls.


I disagree.

We signed Big Ben to replace Tyson IMHO.





> Money almost always enters into the decision making process, especially with Uncle Jerry.


Like when he paid ERob and TThomas over $10 million each to NOT play for the Bulls?

:sigh:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> And we've had the debate before about the Bulls' supposed "regression." Bounced in the first round one year, bounced in the first round the next. The record dropped off, but I don't see a major, long-term shift.


There is no debate about it. The Bulls were worse by 6 wins, 4 spots in conference standings and 3 spots in playoff seeding. That's huge.

And, you are ignoring, for whatever reason, that Deng and Curry were not playing for us two years ago in the playoffs. I know you'll agree that at least one of those players is an asset to a NBA basketball team.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> There is no debate about it. The Bulls were worse by 6 wins and 4 spots in conference seeding. That's huge.


the way the Bulls were playing against Miami at the end of last year -- the best this franchise has been since Jordan. you've dissed that performance in order to make your points, but D. Wade disagrees with your assessment of that series.

by the end of the year, our core had grown together. each of those guys improved big time since 04-05. turnovers killed us 04-05; we were able to get by with that because of the weak conference then.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Like when he paid ERob and TThomas over $10 million each to NOT play for the Bulls?
> 
> :sigh:


EROB was clearly more trouble than he was worth. He was not going to play under Skiles.

Neither was Tim Thomas.

Given that Skiles was the coach, those guys were not going to contribute.

Therefore, might as well dump them. Sunk cost.

Uncle Jerry has given Paxson tremendous leeway. But, Paxson inherited EROB and "had" to bring TT onto the roster since Curry was likely going to perish from playing NBA Basketball.


As long as the payroll does not exceed a certain number, and the attendance remains at the top of the league, and long term contracts are kept to a minimum, I think Uncle Jerry is happy.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> How so?



I knew you were going to ask this. I don't mean to be coy, but would you mind trying to play Devil's advocate with yourself on this question? I bet you could answer it for me.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> There is no debate about it. The Bulls were worse by 6 wins, 4 spots in conference standings and 3 spots in playoff seeding. That's huge.
> 
> And, you are ignoring, for whatever reason, that Deng and Curry were not playing for us two years ago in the playoffs. I know you'll agree that at least one of those players is an asset to a NBA basketball team.



Clearly there's debate, because we're debating it.

Even if it was "huge," it didn't matter in the end result. It was exactly the same.

Yes, Deng and Curry are assets. Would it have won us the series? I have no idea. I certainly can't bank on it.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Clearly there's debate, because we're debating it.


I guess we could "debate" that 1+1=2 as well. There was a regression. In regular season wins, conference standings and playoff seeding. Its a fact.



jnrjr79 said:
 

> I have no idea.


You have to admit that the Bulls would have a better chance of winning that series with Curry and Deng playing, yes?

And, that series was a very, very close one.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Therefore, might as well dump them. Sunk cost.
> Uncle Jerry has given Paxson tremendous leeway. But, Paxson inherited EROB and "had" to bring TT onto the roster since Curry was likely going to perish from playing NBA Basketball.
> 
> 
> As long as the payroll does not exceed a certain number, and the attendance remains at the top of the league, and long term contracts are kept to a minimum, I think Uncle Jerry is happy.



Are you exaggerating when you say "tremendous leeway?" I can't imagine you truly believe that. Isn't your premise that Reinsdorf functions as a tremendous limiting factor in what his GMs can do?


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> And, that series was a very, very close one.


lets fear the Wizards


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> You have to admit that the Bulls would have a better chance of winning that series with Curry and Deng playing, yes?
> 
> And, that series was a very, very close one.



It was a close series, even though the Bulls lost 4 straight. So was the Heat series.

I absolutely agree that chances of taking the series were greater with Curry and Deng. I just don't know if that would or wouldn't be enough to tip the balance in the Bulls' favor.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I guess we could "debate" that 1+1=2 as well. There was a regression. In regular season wins, conference standings and playoff seeding. Its a fact.



But not in playoff performance, which is where the buck stops. It's a fact.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Would you like to join my sig club, Ron? It seems to me you're concluding that the Bulls' ownership situation is preventing the team from acting 100% entirely in its best basketball interests.


If there is a team operated just like what you said (100% entirely in its best basketball interests), please let me know.

Oh, except Knick of course.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Are you exaggerating when you say "tremendous leeway?" I can't imagine you truly believe that. Isn't your premise that Reinsdorf functions as a tremendous limiting factor in what his GMs can do?


I think the payroll number Paxson has to play with, Uncle Jerry's bad relationships with certain agents and his aversion to the long term contract limits the team

I'm not sure how many owners would sign off on buying out Tim Thomas simply because we have a stern taskmaster of a coach who disliked his practice habits / attitude. That being said, it was only a 1 year deal and we had a decent team. I think Paxson has leeway to pretty much do whatever he wants from the basketball standpoint, as long as he operates under certain financial constraints.


More often then not in the NBA, the player is king, if you are good, which Tim Thomas is. That's why there were so many owners clamoring to sign him for the playoffs last season.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

lgtwins said:


> If there is a team operated just like what you said (100% entirely in its best basketball interests), please let me know.
> 
> Oh, except Knick of course.



I can think of just one: Dallas.

Mayyyyybe Portland for a while.

Basically, teams owned by billionaires who don't care about whether the team turns a profit.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think the payroll number Paxson has to play with, Uncle Jerry's bad relationships with certain agents and his aversion to the long term contract limits the team
> 
> I'm not sure how many owners would sign off on buying out Tim Thomas simply because we have a stern taskmaster of a coach who disliked his practice habits / attitude. That being said, it was only a 1 year deal and we had a decent team. I think Paxson has leeway to pretty much do whatever he wants from the basketball standpoint, as long as he operates under certain financial constraints.
> 
> ...



How do you explain the White Sox's payroll recently?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> How do you explain the White Sox's payroll recently?


Uncle Jerry *will* pay for a winner, if its a World Champion.

And, everyone knows Uncle Jerry's heart is with the White Sox. The Bulls are mostly just an investment.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Uncle Jerry *will* pay for a winner, if its a World Champion.



Do you find that unreasonable?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I'd add that I'd love to see us have a Mark Cuban as an owner. That would be fantastic. I wish that the fans were all that mattered and money didn't. But that's fantasy land. Nearly every pro sports team is run to do one thing, which is make a ton of money. 

Accepting that truth, I just want a franchise that can build a contender within the confines of that system. 

Also, even with Cuban's happiness to spend, spend, spend, how many championships have the Mavs won? Don't get me wrong, they're close, but dollars aren't a guarantee. 

I mean, the Knicks? Money is important, but it's not everything.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Do you find that unreasonable?


Of course that's reasonable.

Its also reasonable as a fan to expect your major market, top 3 in attendance, top 8 in cost NBA Basketball team to be towards the top of the payroll list. World champion or no World Champion.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Of course that's reasonable.
> 
> Its also reasonable as a fan to expect your major market, top 3 in attendance, top 8 in cost NBA Basketball team to be towards the top of the payroll list. World champion or no World Champion.



Agreed.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'd add that I'd love to see us have a Mark Cuban as an owner. That would be fantastic. I wish that the fans were all that mattered and money didn't. But that's fantasy land. Nearly every pro sports team is run to do one thing, which is make a ton of money.


No need to spend like Mark Cuban used to or have a payroll like the Knicks. That's not what I'm asking for. 

Just to be in the top quarter, given that they likely are near the very top in revenue.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

bullsville said:


> I think the one thing we can all conclude from this is that trading Tyson had absolutely nothing to do with "avoiding the Luxury Tax".
> 
> Let's get real, over the last few years ownership has paid ERob and Tim Thomas over $10 million each to just go away, because it made the Bulls a better team.
> 
> ...


Hmm. It's an interesting theory. It would shift the evaluation back to Pax instead of ownership. Also the reports the NO deal was in place would lend credence to the idea.

However:


> Paxson also talked about keeping the Bulls' young core together and made it clear he doesn't want the team's salary-cap situation to incur the league's punitive luxury tax.


http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...nrich,1,1971030.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

It's possible Pax is just trying to kiss his boss' *** in which case he would be to blame. That seems unlikely though considering that ownership and not management generally set the team's budget. Pax has be working very intelligently and carefully to avoid paying the luxury tax. He frontloaded the deals for Wallance and Kirk to the maximum extent possible and he saw a potential albatross of a contract of a contract in Chandler and promptly moved him for an expiring contract. Why else would you trade Tyson for pennies on the dollar while he was playing major minutes and Tyrus was not yet acclimated to the league?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No thanks. :smile:
> 
> Yes, that is my conclusion. There is no doubt in my mind that at times ownership makes decisions based more on business than basketball when the weight is on the scale. Not that I consider this unique to the Chicago Bulls though.


But their business *IS* basketball. I wonder how many, if any, of these guys look at their expenditures as investments, the way people in real business do. Obviously just spending willy nilly over the luxury tax and getting no results isn't a smart business or basketball decision.

But in practice, winning championships (and even getting consistently close) seems to result in higher revenues as well. 

This is why horror that NBA team owners manifest at idea of spending over the luxury tax threshold strikes me as odd. A business person should be looking at it as any other investment. If it significantly improves your chances of winning, it improves your chances of increasing revenues. Jerry Reinsdorf famously saying he might regret giving Jordan a big contract seems pretty emblematic of this. It strikes me as extremely short-sighted when MJ (and a dynasty's worth of championship he led the way to) turned the Bulls into one of the league's biggest cash cows.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

McBulls said:


> It's not unreasonable for the Bulls to have traded Chandler for any number of reasons. What's disturbing is that they traded a 23 year old 7 footer with demonstrated hops, rebounding prowess, shot blocking, and defensive ability for a 37 year old expiring contract and two 2nd rounders.
> 
> I'm sure Paxson could have done better if he were not instructed to keep payroll low in 2008-9,10 & 11. The frontloaded structure of the Wallace and Hinrich contracts confirm management's concern about those years.
> 
> ...



Or PJ Brown could be viewed as an investment in the development of Tyrus Thomas . 

Y'know surround the kid with quality vets


----------



## synergy825 (Apr 28, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> But their business *IS* basketball. I wonder how many, if any, of these guys look at their expenditures as investments, the way people in real business do. Obviously just spending willy nilly over the luxury tax and getting no results isn't a smart business or basketball decision.
> 
> But in practice, winning championships (and even getting consistently close) seems to result in higher revenues as well.
> 
> This is why horror that NBA team owners manifest at idea of spending over the luxury tax threshold strikes me as odd. A business person should be looking at it as any other investment. If it significantly improves your chances of winning, it improves your chances of increasing revenues. Jerry Reinsdorf famously saying he might regret giving Jordan a big contract seems pretty emblematic of this. It strikes me as extremely short-sighted when MJ (and a dynasty's worth of championship he led the way to) turned the Bulls into one of the league's biggest cash cows.


Yea, but look at it from Reinsdorf's perpesctive, why would he agree to go over and pay the luxury tax when this team hasn't done much. 2 years ago, they were #3 seed and were eliminated in 1st round. Last year, they were even a lower seed with a .500 record and were once again eliminated in the first round. So there was no improvement at all. Hence, Reinsdorf won't pay it. That's how it works. After all it's his team......he will pay if he sees improvement.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

bullsville said:


> Let's get real, over the last few years ownership has paid ERob and Tim Thomas over $10 million each to just go away, because it made the Bulls a better team.


This sounds really impressive, until reality intrudes and you realize that the Bulls had to pay those two players what they were owed on their contracts whether the Bulls played them 48 minutes a night or launched them deep into outer space.

Let's get real indeed.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> This sounds really impressive, until reality intrudes and you realize that the Bulls had to pay those two players what they were owed on their contracts whether the Bulls played them 48 minutes a night or launched them deep into outer space.
> 
> Let's get real indeed.


I noticed ERob modeling his new sweater:


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> The problem with analysis like this is that it mixes the actions attributable to the owners and the actions attributable to the GMs.
> 
> Brand wasn't a financial move, at least not entirely. There were rumors that Falk was telling Elton not to resign. But I believe that move was much more Krause trying to show his brilliance and strike it rich with two phenoms.


Brand was coming up for free agency soon while Chandler was just starting his rookie contract. So within 2 years the move had big financial consequences. We don't know how much this bad decision was influenced by the "need to maintain flexibility" which is the euphanism for "the organization will be saving a lot of money a couple years from now".


> Miller was probably a mix of finance and development. Plus, Miller HATED Chicago as a place to live.


It's amazing how a nice contract can change your opinion about where you live. It's hard to consider the Rose trade without concluding that the Bulls wanted to dump Artest and Miller before they had to resign them at fairly steep prices or lose them to free agency. Even Krause was not that stupid.


> Crawford - good move in my opinion, but not great. He wouldn't really have a place here.


I don't disagree with the move, but there is no question that the Bulls saved a lot of money in the years intervening between that trade and the acquisition of Wallace. The move did require expending a top three draft choice on a shooting guard.


> Curry - 1. I think it's crappy when people think Paxson wasn't genuinely concerned about his heart. 2. Paxson completely robbed Isaiah on that deal from a basketball perspective, so that criticism is entirely moot.


1. One has to wonder how the Curry heart business would have played out if he had not been a restricted free agent with a big contract looming. I suspect both sides would have brought less emotion to the issue.
2. By his own account, Paxson got lucky. We hoped, but hardly forsaw, the Knicks/Brown implosion last year. Curry for Sweetney, a mid-round 1st and two 2nd rounders would have been a bad trade. Not to mention the AD for Thomas swap was clearly in NY's favor from the start.

In each case the details of the trade appear to have been strongly influenced by financial considerations. To sacrifice talent in order to save money. The use of cap space to obtain Wallace was some compensation to the fans, but the good feelings were ruined by the Chandler trade.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

synergy825 said:


> Yea, but look at it from Reinsdorf's perpesctive, why would he agree to go over and pay the luxury tax when this team hasn't done much. 2 years ago, they were #3 seed and were eliminated in 1st round. Last year, they were even a lower seed with a .500 record and were once again eliminated in the first round. So there was no improvement at all. Hence, Reinsdorf won't pay it. That's how it works. After all it's his team......he will pay if he sees improvement.


Phil Jackson wins 6 championships and he won't pay.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Or higher.
> 
> Deng: 5 years/$48 million
> Gordon: 5 years/$50 million
> ...


Taking your oft expressed frustration for Gordon and your perception of Pax's opinion of him, would you really feel good paying $10M/yr for Gordon? You think Paxson would?



> Donyell Marshall and Shareef Abdur-Rahim both signed for the MLE. They are both scoring power forwards who would fit along with Ben Wallace on this team better than Chandler would. I put about 0.5 seconds of thought into coming up with those two names. I'm sure there are other examples.


Those guys are sort of scoring tweener forwards. I don't think those are the sort of guys we'd target. We've got Tyrus, Noc, Deng and Khyrapa who more or less have similar games. 

If we wanted a guy like that, we would have done better to go after him this summer because that role will be increasingly covered as our younger guys develop.

The guys I'm thinking of are actual bigs. Replacements for Ben and PJ. Guys who are more 4/5 or pure 5 than 3/4 or pure 4. We need to be looking at a PJ replacement in the next year, and having someone in the pipeline to replace Ben obviously makes sense as he's not getting any younger.

So one of those is likely the pick next year, but even optimistically you'd like to give a drafted big (unless we get really lucky) a couple years before he's expected to fill a big role on a championship level team. He might be able to step in and play, of course, but you wouldn't plan for it.

That means to me that the only targets that really make sense with the MLE are true big type players. A SAR or a Marshall would make pretty good sense this year for us, but less so as TT develops.



> Also, and this relates more to the issues raised in the poll, I believe that the Bulls aren't just saying "no luxury tax no matter what". I think they were saying "*Chandler* isn't worth incurring the luxury tax". Thats a pretty important distinction in my opinion.


I think I've mentioned it before, but this is a matter of ex post perspective. The tax is incurred based on the entire team's salary. In two years if Ben falls apart and we're hurting for help in the middle, having Chandler could be the difference between being in contention or not. At that point it'd be the same logic to say Chandler is worth incurring the tax for and Ben isn't. In reality, the decision can't be attached only to the player's value... it's the player's value in the context of the current team that's important.

Obviously I agree that Chandler's value to the Bulls this season was much lower than in the past. That's not the issue. My point is that if one takes a longer time horizon, his relative value could be expected to go back up. Ben and PJ's will likely only decrease (the latter, obviously, much sooner than the former).


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> I'd add that I'd love to see us have a Mark Cuban as an owner. That would be fantastic. I wish that the fans were all that mattered and money didn't. But that's fantasy land. Nearly every pro sports team is run to do one thing, which is make a ton of money.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

So why do we have this thread? Because Chandler is averaging 12 rebounds per game? What else is he doing? 0.4 blocks per game? Points? I don't understand. You can pay Danny Fortson to do what Chandler is doing if he isn't going to be a shot blocker / changer. They have David West at the four position, no wonder Chandler is getting all the rebounds.

Is Chandler the reason the Hornets are 4-1? Probably has nothing to do with Chris Paul or Peja or Bobby Jackson.

Is Chandler > Ben Wallace? No. Okay end of story.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Is Chandler the reason the Hornets are 4-1? Probably has nothing to do with Chris Paul or Peja or Bobby Jackson.


The four wins are because of Paul, Peja and West.

The loss is Chandler's fault.

Or, hey, maybe basketball is a team game.

To this point, Chandler is outproducing Ben Wallace.

This is both stunning and troubling. I thought it would be a year or two until this happened. Of course, the Chandler of two seasons ago on the Bulls produced at the same clip as Wallace did for the Pistons last season, although Wallace played more minutes.

If Chandler is going to keep playing this way for the Hornets, it really sucks. We could have gone after Gooden and Wilcox and had a younger version of Wallace in the middle, both this season and in seasons to come.

I hope Big Ben gets his act together. So far he's been very average. I hope its just a slow start, and not the result of age regression or seeing Wallace play in an environment other than the Pistons.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> The four wins are because of Paul, Peja and West.
> 
> The loss is Chandler's fault.
> 
> ...



As I have tried to point out a million times in this thread already, it is totally unrealistic to think that Chandler's performance this year in Oklahoma City would be identical to his performance in Chicago. It doesn't wash. There are many, many reasons why Chandler could thrive down there when he still would have struggled here.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> As I have tried to point out a million times in this thread already, it is totally unrealistic to think that Chandler's performance this year in Oklahoma City would be identical to his performance in Chicago. It doesn't wash. There are many, many reasons why Chandler could thrive down there when he still would have struggled here.


I can't believe you think that poorly of the Bulls organization's ability to create an environment where a quality player can thrive. :clown:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> As I have tried to point out a million times in this thread already, it is totally unrealistic to think that Chandler's performance this year in Oklahoma City would be identical to his performance in Chicago. It doesn't wash. There are many, many reasons why Chandler could thrive down there when he still would have struggled here.


He played just as well as he is now with the Bulls in 2004-2005. Hinrich, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, Duhon were all key members over that team. Skiles was the coach. Paxson was the GM. 

"Identical?" Well, yah, not "identical." Chandler is a good basketball player though, and there is no reason he would not do well here. We've already seen him do well here. There is no reason to believe that he would not do well here, IMO, if you think his poor play to start the season last year was due to poor off-season conditioning to prevent injury in his contract summer. His play improved the 2nd half of the year. Its why we made the playoffs.

If the reason that Chandler could not play here is due to inability to get along with Skiles, then just put Chandler in the Jason Kidd/Tim Thomas bucket and move on. 

To this point, I'll take Chandler/Gooden/Wilcox. I'm hoping I see the 16 million dollar man start to earn his paycheck.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> To this point, Chandler is outproducing Ben Wallace.


What is this comment based on? Rebounds per game? Or overall game?

Wallace has more blocks, more assists, more steals, less turnovers than Chandler. And that doesn't even include individual defense and help defense.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> What is this comment based on? Rebounds per game? Or overall game?
> 
> Wallace has more blocks, more assists, more steals, less turnovers than Chandler. And that doesn't even include individual defense and help defense.



Tyson has a better TS%, rebound rate, usage rate and PER. Tyson is 4th in the NBA in rebounding (Drew Gooden is 5th, Ben Wallace is 25th)

Tyson's team is 4-1. The Bulls have a losing record. 

If Paul, Peja and the gang are really that much better than Paxson's hand picked gang, then we have some major issues.

Wallace should be dominating Chandler production wise. He's the DPOY. He's paid 16 million this season to Tyson's 9.

Wallace should be much, much better than Chandler. He's paid accordingly.


----------



## Sleep520 (Nov 6, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> To this point, I'll take Chandler/Gooden/Wilcox.


The interior D would be atrocious...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Sleep520 said:


> The interior D would be atrocious...


Do you think its been good to this point?


----------



## Sleep520 (Nov 6, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> Do you think its been good to this point?


Good but not great, and I fully expect it to get better. Certainly much, much better than having those guys that you mentioned.

And I find it funny that people claim Pax let go of tyson to "save money" when he paid so much for Ben (too much for my liking) while cheaper options ( nazr mohammed, vanilla gorilla, who knows who else) could have been attained. Clearly a basketball move to make the team better...


----------

