# whoa... keith glass on the score 670am



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

glass=skiles' agent

did anyone else hear this?!

The skiles situation sounds AWFUL... He's not gonna resign guys....

did anyone else hear it?

wow....

i really am shocked


he doesn't expect skiles to be back with the bulls after next season... it's not about the money... he didn't say what it was but the guys on the radio speculate it's personel problems... he also said he has never talked to jerry reinsdorf...

when asked what the number% chance of skiles returning to the bulls after next season he responded with

"guys, this is not my happy voice here, I really don't think there is a number here"

"I honestly think this thing is done with guys"

jesus


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i wouldn't normally do this, but *shinky* who is a pretty reliable interview transcriber has the interview on the other board...

whoa is right.

i can't believe how far south this whole thing has gone.

his agent sounds like a jerk. 

i need to digest this before i comment further.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i wouldn't normally do this, but *shinky* who is a pretty reliable interview transcriber has the interview on the other board...
> 
> whoa is right.
> 
> ...


ok cool, cause I caught the interview in the middle, im gonna read that


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

I wouldn't even pick up skiles' option at this point... he is going to be a lame duck coach... I would be excited if we ditched him for PJax....


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mods: how do I go about changing my handle to "I Told You So"? 

I hate this freaking "organization."

EDIT: Although according to Shinky's transcript, Glass claims he's only dealt with Paxson, which kind of shocks me. I was wrong about that.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

This is awful news because I'm not sure another coach could get as much out of this team's roster as Scott Skiles and that includes guys like Phil Jackson. This team was built for Skiles...and that's exactly what he and Glass are using as leverage, I'm sure.

Sounds to me like our "Pax and Skiles are soulmates" assumptions are a little off...I have no doubt Paxson has the clout to spend Jerry's money when he's 100% sold on something or someone. Could be, though, that Jerry wants "star power" on the bench...I just don't see why Skiles can't be growing into that sort of coach right now. He's certainly a strong character. 

If he's NOT going to come back, cut ties without a doubt. Get a draft pick or pick up Musselman/Flip/PJax/Silas with my vote going to Musselman. Regardless, this news is bad news.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Scott Skiles=Larry Brown's Lost Twin

I know we are all talking about Phil Jackson being the head coach, but I have a gut feeling that Skiles' successor will be none other than.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

sloth said:


> Scott Skiles=Larry Brown's Lost Twin
> 
> I know we are all talking about Phil Jackson being the head coach, but I have a gut feeling that Skiles' successor will be none other than.



i'm not gonna lie sloth... I love this idea...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Mods: how do I go about changing my handle to "I Told You So"?
> 
> I hate this freaking "organization."


:none:

i guess you could PM tb#1 or tbf.

not very productive of the agent to go on the air and proclaim that skiles will not be in chicago after next season. 

so you really really think that the bulls should have just gone running after scott skiles with the combination to the safe after just one full year?

i mean i like the guy and have been an advocate for him, but if he doesn't see himself with the bulls after next year, i say call his bluff and tell the agent and skiles sayonara. sorry. it's just business, nothing personal.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

HAWK23 said:


> i'm not gonna lie sloth... I love this idea...


Pippen definitely fits one requirement -- he'd be one of the lowest-paid coaches in the league next season.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> :none:
> 
> i guess you could PM tb#1 or tbf.
> 
> ...


Sorry, miz, but Skiles was hardly asking for the keys to Fort Knox. It's a drop in the bucket, it's not an outlandish request for a guy who's done what he's done, it's a deal that all the non-bush-league teams in the NBA pay without blinking.

And if you don't think the Bulls had something to with the pieces published by Roman, McGraw, K.C., and Sammy the last few days, I've got a few acres of prime hill-top land in western Staten Island I'd be happy to sell you. So let's not pin the "not very productive" tail on just Skiles's ***.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

Yeah, I heard the interview. Unfortunately, Buffone and Mulligan seemed to be set so off-balance by what Glass said that they didn't do a very good job of decryption.

This much is clear. Glass has decided to take a very hard broadside at Reinsdorf:

- Glass says it's not about money.

- Glass says Skiles loves the team and working with Paxson.

- Glass says that Bulls' fans will understand because "they've seen this before." Mulligan did ask for further explanation and Glass said something about "that guy" (Reinsdorf) having not talked to him in 2 years.

Hawk23's description of the ENTIRELY pessimistic tone is balls-on accurate. Glass came on the SCORE to shoot up a flare that reads, "Skiles ain't gonna sign with that S.O.B."

I've done union negotiations for 20 years (management side), so when I hear sniping/posturing, I usually don't get too worked up. However, this one's got me scratching my head a bit. If what the local papers have reported is accurate, the length of the contract is not an issue, and Glass just said money isn't the issue. 

Clearly, Glass/Skiles don't like how they've been treated (by Reinsdorf), but there are no specifics.

If you take what Glass said at face value, Skiles wants out...now. Glass said that Skiles is prepared to coach out his option year, but if this sort of rhetoric continues from Glass/Skiles, the goal can only be to make keeping Skiles for next season a more distasteful alternative than letting him go now.

For me, this was out of the blue. We can all react as we choose, but I'm going to wait for comments from Bulls' management and Skiles himself before I draw conclusions. This said, Glass just laid a big ol' chunk of feces in the Bulls' swimming pool.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

If Skiles and the Bulls are done long term, lets not have him on the bench next season. Either it's a marriage or a divorce.

AND NO MORE FIRST ROOKIE COACHES! Give me Flip Saunders or someone like that.

Man, I've got that gross feeling that we may be taking a turn for the worse.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I should mention too that timing is not ideal for Skiles, as the Cleveland job just got scooped up. If he in fact isn't with the Bulls next year, will he have somewhere to coach next year?

Then again, with the season he's just had, he can sit around and rest on his laurels and wait for a plum job in 06-07.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> If Skiles and the Bulls are done long term, lets not have him on the bench next season. Either it's a marriage or a divorce.
> 
> AND NO MORE FIRST ROOKIE COACHES! Give me Flip Saunders or someone like that.
> 
> Man, I've got that gross feeling that we may be taking a turn for the worse.


If the Bulls aren't willing to pay Scott Skiles $20 million, do you honestly think they'd pay Flip $30? 

If things fall through with Skiles, sloth hit the nail on the head: you're looking at someone like Pippen, an assistant from outside the organization getting his first head-coaching gig, or a retread like Skiles who has done something to damage his rep and thus come at a deep discount (Bzdelik).


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Sorry, miz, but Skiles was hardly asking for the keys to Fort Knox. It's a drop in the bucket, it's not an outlandish request for a guy who's done what he's done, it's a deal that all the non-bush-league teams in the NBA pay without blinking.
> 
> And if you don't think the Bulls had something to with the pieces published by Roman, McGraw, K.C., and Sammy the last few days, I've got a few acres of prime hill-top land in western Staten Island I'd be happy to sell you. So let's not pin the "not very productive" tail on just Skiles's ***.


fair enough. 

but i pinned that tail on glass, not skiles. 

and it was the agent who initially vented in the press long before the beat writers went hunting for the scent from the bulls. i happen to think he did his client a huge disservice today with these comments.


and no, i don't think skiles is worth 5 million a year for four fully guaranteed years - as i recall you have expressed you think he should get. sorry.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> If Skiles and the Bulls are done long term, lets not have him on the bench next season. Either it's a marriage or a divorce.
> 
> AND NO MORE FIRST ROOKIE COACHES! Give me Flip Saunders or someone like that.
> 
> Man, I've got that gross feeling that we may be taking a turn for the worse.


I fully agree.

What about Glass' comment "We know about the Bulls?" This is why I've had the Fire Paxson club in my signature until now. I think Glass' comment really means "We know about Paxson." IT looks to me like Glass and Skiles are particularly upset about how Paxson (at JR's urging, perhaps) is handling the personal relationship; particularly taking it to the press/public. Similar to the treatment Crawford got last off-season, IMO.

Maybe ol' Cap Space will turn out to be a great coach, too. I doubt it, though.

Does Paxson have an issue with Skiles? Perhaps over what happened to Curry (diet pills after all)?

Or has Paxson determined that like Collins, the current coach needs to be fired so the REAL coach can be hired?

Questions, questions, questions.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> If the Bulls aren't willing to pay Scott Skiles $20 million, do you honestly think they'd pay Flip $30?
> 
> If things fall through with Skiles, sloth hit the nail on the head: you're looking at someone like Pippen, an assistant from outside the organization getting his first head-coaching gig, or a retread like Skiles who has done something to damage his rep and thus come at a deep discount (Bzdelik).


I'd be into Bzdelik honestly. I'd think differently of Scottie if he'd been an official bench coach this year, but no, he'd be just another rookie, just like Floyd, but with even less experience coaching.

Maybe Paxson and Reinsdorf just aren't 100% sold on Mr. Skiles...Jeez, I hope it's not just about money.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

Flip/*Musselman*/PJax sounds good to me...


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Interesting. Without actually hearing the interview and such it's hard to get a feel for this sort of thing. Was this just agent-speak? Was Glass trying to turn the tide of public opinion back towards Skiles because he was peeved about contract terms being leaked in the media? If there's any substance to what he said, it's probably best to cut ties now and go shopping for a new coach.

I'm kind of at a loss as to what "things other than money" could be at issue. If ever there was a coach who had the backing of his GM, this is the place. You've got a "right way" GM and a "right way" coach who have both been in unison with respect to not tolerating the wrong kind of play or player. Seems like a pretty decent working environment. Either there's more here than meets the eye or Glass is inelagently trying to use the media to his advantage.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I fully agree.
> 
> What about Glass' comment "We know about the Bulls?" This is why I've had the Fire Paxson club in my signature until now. I think Glass' comment really means "We know about Paxson." IT looks to me like Glass and Skiles are particularly upset about how Paxson (at JR's urging, perhaps) is handling the personal relationship; particularly taking it to the press/public. Similar to the treatment Crawford got last off-season, IMO.
> 
> ...



IMO, having heard the Glass interview, Skiles has nothing but love for Paxson. Glass was definitely painting Reinsdorf as the bad guy.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> fair enough.
> 
> but i pinned that tail on glass, not skiles.
> 
> ...


Again, if the extra $3 or $4 million that Skiles is asking for bothers you that much, then today's move is really what you've been wanting all along -- an excuse to get rid of Skiles altogether. 

I fail to believe that you honestly feel $16 or $17 million is a prudent investment, but $20 million is just all out of proportion to Skiles's worth and just not worth the risk.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

transplant said:


> IMO, having heard the Glass interview, Skiles has nothing but love for Paxson. Glass was definitely painting Reinsdorf as the bad guy.


I agree... Glass said he (skiles) "loves the city, loves john paxson, loves the team"


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Yikes. This got ugly pretty quick. Up until now, I was pretty optimistic that some sort of deal would (could) get done. Pax seems like a reasonable guy, and Skiles, although stubborn and boorish, seems honest and principled. And since it seemed like the two had a mutual liking for each other and the situation, they'd both inch toward some sort of common ground.

Normally, when an agent someone does something like this, I would normally guess that it's a strategic attempt to try and pressure the team or organization to step up with what they consider to be a reasonable offer. But if what Hawk and transplant said are true, I'm afraid they might be right. If Glass was as overtly pessimistic as advertised, it sounds like they're just trying to get Skiles the hell out of here.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Again, if the extra $3 or $4 million that Skiles is asking for bothers you that much, then today's move is really what you've been wanting all along -- an excuse to get rid of Skiles altogether.
> 
> I fail to believe that you honestly feel $16 or $17 million is a prudent investment, but $20 million is just all out of proportion to Skiles's worth and just not worth the risk.


Glass said that eveyone (media and fans) is misunderstanding that this is a money issue. He says that it's not. Appears to be a treatment issue, whatever that means.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

transplant said:


> IMO, having heard the Glass interview, Skiles has nothing but love for Paxson. Glass was definitely painting Reinsdorf as the bad guy.


From what I read, Glass said he never talked to Reinsdorf, so any ill feelings he must be getting can only be coming from Paxson.

I trust you, though. I only read a transcript, and didn't hear the actual interview.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Same old song and dance.

It would be shocking if it was not so consistent.

I'm not sure if its about the money or about disrespect.... but I do know that this team should have Skiles as the coach next season. Another off season. Another loss of talent. Maybe Paxson can continue plugging holes in the ****. Its hard to like this "organization." Classic Uncle Jerry.

Elton, Ron Ron, Miller and Jamal could not get paid. Add Skiles to the list.

But be happy about one thing Bulls fans. The organization will still have financial flexibility. That’s really what we care about as fans.

Reading between the lines... I think what is pissing off the Skiles camp are the media leaks and the cold shoulder from Uncle Jerry.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> From what I read, Glass said he never talked to Reinsdorf, so any ill feelings he must be getting can only be coming from Paxson.
> 
> I trust you, though. I only read a transcript, and didn't hear the actual interview.


he sounded pissed that he hadn't talked to reinsdorf in 2 yrs.... like he SHOULD have talked with him by now....


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Imo it has nothing to do with Paxson its all about JR and his refusal to speak with Glass.I can only what has been said behind closed doors now that the Bulls have had some success.I doubrt Jr believes Skiles is as big a part of the teams success as he is .He moret han likely feel its Pax and the players he brought in and that he can easily be replaced .

Its hilarious the amount of comments when dealing with the Bulls that respect somehow gets tossed into play if not that money .Its even more funny to read on here how for some reasons the Bulls offers are always fair and everyone else is always being greedy

I wouldnt be suprised if they are trying to add Scottie to the bench as Skiles right hand man this season in hopes of grooming him as head coach.Its getting to the point where you put nothing past this franchise.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Or has Paxson determined that like Collins, the current coach needs to be fired so the REAL coach can be hired?


This is a great point.

And I also want to rehash something I brought up in one of the other threads -- perhaps Skiles looked deep into the heart of his team during the four-game bed-soiling vs. the Wiz and didn't like what he saw. Maybe between that and Curry he feels this team has peaked for the short term, and isn't worth coaching in the long term. 

If I wanted to bolt, the Chairman's well-known obstinancy at negotiation time would be my greatest asset.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Guys, this doesn't sound like anything new really, does it? It's the same pessimistic mumbo-jumbo that's been reported in every sports page the past couple of weeks. The only line that really confused me was this...

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I understand that. I see how numbers are made to "look" in the paper" 

...because this suggests that someone in the Bulls organization flat out lied about the offer on the table; but then again, he doesn't say they 'lied", he says they made the numbers "look" a certain way. Hmmm.

Nothing about this interview really stuns me, to be honest, because it fails to answer the one question that I've been wondering about the situation: what the hell is Skiles and his agent upset about?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

transplant said:


> Glass said that eveyone (media and fans) is misunderstanding that this is a money issue. He says that it's not. Appears to be a treatment issue, whatever that means.


When I try to put this kind of sentiment into practicle contractual terms, all I can think about is number of years. Perhaps regardless of we've seen in the paper, Reinsdorf will only guarantee two years with a team option for a third, something like that. Maybe the money per year suits Skiles, just not the length of contract offered, which could be construed as a slap in the face.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Also, any chance anyone (spongy?????!!!!!!) could get some sort of clip of this interview posted on here so we could maybe hear some of it for ourselves?? Like flash said, it's to determine what exactly is going on here without hearing what was actually said. Tonality and implied meaning go a long way in stuff like this.


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Nothing about this interview really stuns me, to be honest, because it fails to answer the one question that I've been wondering about the situation: what the hell is Skiles and his agent upset about?


and glass responded with "i'm not going to go into details"....

he was honest and open the whole interview other than giving details on what they're upset about...


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> Yikes. This got ugly pretty quick. Up until now, I was pretty optimistic that some sort of deal would (could) get done. Pax seems like a reasonable guy, and Skiles, although stubborn and boorish, seems honest and principled. And since it seemed like the two had a mutual liking for each other and the situation, they'd both inch toward some sort of common ground.
> 
> Normally, when an agent someone does something like this, I would normally guess that it's a strategic attempt to try and pressure the team or organization to step up with what they consider to be a reasonable offer. But if what Hawk and transplant said are true, I'm afraid they might be right. If Glass was as overtly pessimistic as advertised, it sounds like they're just trying to get Skiles the hell out of here.


Rosenthall, this got really ugly in one presumably very calculated radio interview. Glass knew exactly what he was doing. This isn't to say that Glass didn't make a collossal error, just that what he said was "firing for effect."

If this was some sort of management role-play exercise and I had to guess the strategy from Glass's tactic, I'd say Skiles is looking to get out now.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Again, if the extra $3 or $4 million that Skiles is asking for bothers you that much, then today's move is really what you've been wanting all along -- an excuse to get rid of Skiles altogether.
> 
> I fail to believe that you honestly feel $16 or $17 million is a prudent investment, but $20 million is just all out of proportion to Skiles's worth and just not worth the risk.


but i haven't been wanting this "all along".

and no i don't think four *fully guaranteed years* at twenty million is worth it. partially guaranteed, ok. i'm sorry but he isn't one of the top 5 coaches in the nba. he hasn't won enough. 

mr. glass' tact today on the radio was probably approved by skiles - control freak over his own career as he is. if this is skiles saying he doesn't want to be here anymore i think he has an over inflated idea as to his worth. if it's not about the money, what is it about? oh that's right, THE MONEY!

like skiles always says "this is pro-sports" so how is it about "ooh my feelings are hurt you didn't respect me"?

(you and i will probably continue to respectfully disagree here scott, but that's cool, all in a day's posting i guess. i do respect your POV, just don't completely agree :wink


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Things get deeper & deeper. Sounds to me like Skiles really just doesn't want to coach the Bulls. Still, I have a feeling that we will pick up his option and he will be "lame duck" in a way, but then again, if he wants the big payday after next year he will need to have a successful season so he will be pushing the players to perform. Personally I like Skiles and want to keep him as the Bulls coach. The offer that he was made seems pretty fair, particularly if it was guaranteed as I read, plus no sense in quibbling over a mil a year that doesn't count against the cap seems counterproductive from a team standpoint. I hope that what SKiles agent is frothing at the mouth about today ends up being just posturing on his part and that some deal is still reached and relatively soon.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> From what I read, Glass said he never talked to Reinsdorf, so any ill feelings he must be getting can only be coming from Paxson.
> 
> I trust you, though. I only read a transcript, and didn't hear the actual interview.


DaBullz, thanks for the trust. Glass went out of his way to praise Paxson...did it more than once in the interview. Glass was looking to pick a fight with JR, perhaps because JR has decided to avoid a direct role in the negotiations.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> (you and i will probably continue to respectfully disagree here scott, but that's cool, all in a day's posting i guess. i do respect your POV, just don't completely agree :wink


It's never personal. It's always business.

N. Brown


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Looking deeper into the summer, you've got to wonder how some of the Bulls players are feeling about all this. Particularly the free agents to be, like Tyson, Duhon, Eddy, and Othella. Will the negotiations with Skiles frighten away these guys, will it have no effect, or could they even be a little happy deep down that drill sergeant Skiles seems on his way out? If things are what they seem to be, then I would have no problem releasing Skiles (i.e. not picking up his option), as much as I'd hate to lose such a brilliant basketball coach.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Looking deeper into the summer, you've got to wonder how some of the Bulls players are feeling about all this. Particularly the free agents to be, like Tyson, Duhon, Eddy, and Othella. Will the negotiations with Skiles frighten away these guys, will it have no effect, or could they even be a little happy deep down that drill sergeant Skiles seems on his way out? If things are what they seem to be, then I would have no problem releasing Skiles (i.e. not picking up his option), as much as I'd hate to lose such a brilliant basketball coach.


Hard to say.

Seems like Eddy and Tyson can have two schools of thought.

1.) Wow. Jamal didn't get paid. I guess that was because of losing. But Skiles was a main cog in turning around the franchise. And he can't get a long term deal either. Come to think of it... no one around here has a long term deal. Yikes!

2.) Wow. I'm proud to work for such a shrewd businessman. We may not win the title.... but I'm happy to resign a short-term, less money then I can get somewhere else deal for the most financially flexible team in the league. Those other teams that want to sign me for a long term, big money deal are making foolish decisions. Yeah!


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Hard to say.
> 
> Seems like Eddy and Tyson can have two schools of thought.
> 
> ...


:laugh:

So basically, you're leaning toward option 1?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

yodurk said:


> :laugh:
> 
> So basically, you're leaning toward option 1?



lol.

and per your post - i think somewhere in the northern suburbs, ben gordon is doing a secret happy dance.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> lol.
> 
> and per your post - i think somewhere in the northern suburbs, ben gordon is doing a secret happy dance.


I wonder what kind of dance he'll be doing three summers from now.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> This is a great point.
> 
> And I also want to rehash something I brought up in one of the other threads -- perhaps Skiles looked deep into the heart of his team during the four-game bed-soiling vs. the Wiz and didn't like what he saw. Maybe between that and Curry he feels this team has peaked for the short term, and isn't worth coaching in the long term.
> 
> If I wanted to bolt, the Chairman's well-known obstinancy at negotiation time would be my greatest asset.


I think this is on the money ... even though its not about the money

This team are a bunch of Dudley Do Rights but do they really have the talent ?

I mean ... Tyson , Nocioni and yes even Kirk ....they are the image builders of what this team represents ... but do they really have the requiste level of talent to be part of a key core to contend ?

Still some answers on Ben to be answered .. and Eddy's recent health issues aside ... he was a player of limited dimension and now may not be back

The expectations will be greater next year and there is only way Skiles's rep and negotiating power can go next summer... and that's south

His market value will never be higher than what it is now 

From the organisations perspective .. maybe they think Skiles limits their leverage in free agency next summer. Y'know - as they say its a player's league adn even though I think Skiles is a player's Coach the perception of him being a hard arse may deter some of the big swing dick free agents that may be on the radar

Maybe Paul Silas is the guy for the next couple of years to guide us through 2006 free agency

If Skiles does go... I'm predicting Chandler will as well

If Chandler's agent is smart he will recognise that with questions hovering over Curry 's health the Bulls will not want to lose both . And with the Skiles business and the instability that this creates , the organisation could be on the backfoot to retain free agents like Chandler and Duhon ( in what they have to pay for them to be retained )

If the player's agents paint JR into a corner it won't be JR that blinks

Be prepared to wave bye bye to Tyson Chandler and possibly Chris Duhon.. guys who will be chashing money and starter's minutes. Maybe Skiles knows a little bit about this which is playing into his decision making process


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Hard to say.
> 
> Seems like Eddy and Tyson can have two schools of thought.
> 
> ...


LOL

By all published accounts, Skiles was made a pretty reasonable offer, but his agent took a dump over the whole thing, with a special effort to take a leak on Reinsdorf.

The Bulls' free agents will be driven primarily by money. If Bulls' management thinks that any of them are going to take significantly less money to sign with the Bulls, with or without Skiles, they're crazy. 

I don't think they're crazy.

I'm very disappointed by these latest developments on Skiles' contract, but I don't see any significant extended consequences.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I wonder what kind of dance he'll be doing three summers from now.


I'll bet you anything that at least one beat writer for the Bulls makes a reference to those assault charges he faced at UConn, for starters.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

well I just started my job so I couldn't record for you guys. Maybe I'll catch the replay later tonight. I'm not buying what this Glass guy says and his only reason for coming on the radio was to agitate and already irritated JR.

new coach :









?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

let's all have a listen, shall we?


http://www.670thescore.com/audibles/


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

Why are we bringing up Tyson like he had some special bond with Skiles. Skiles had him coming off the bench.... I'm pretty sure Tyson would prefer to be a starter. No matter if Tyson is still getting lots of minutes, being in the starting lineup means a lot. 

This really says something about Skiles, that he would allow his agent to speak this garbage on air. How much money does Skiles expect? He is not one of the top coaches in the NBA.... he doesn't deserve more than 20 mill a year. Time to let him go if this is truly over. We can't have a guy coaching next year who we have no future with. 

If we aren't willing to bring in PJax, Flaunders, or a name such as that. Then maybe Jim Boylan should get some looks for the position.

Also... they're replaying the entire interview on the score at 5:00.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Make no bones about it:

*This is Skiles asking to be fired. Skiles, like all the posters here, knows whats going to happen if he goes into this season without support from management. *

We deserve a first class organization. We have supported this team through thick and thin, and now management cuts corners. Maybe this will work out for the best in the end. . . People on these boards always say, if such and such gets traded I'm leaving the team. Maybe this is the moment? I'm still tired from the last six years -- and now this could very likely turn south. I don't know how much more I can take.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

They'll replay the interview at 5 PM. I'll make sure to record it.

Edit: I guess you can just download the thing on their website. Thanks Miz.

A reminder of what JR said in the ESPN interview a few months back :

1) I don't deal with agents. I made a mistake dealing with PJax's
2) Skiles works for John Paxson.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

I'm just sitting here with my mouth open in awe of how the Bulls can F- this situation up. JR had an easy job this summer.

1) Re-sign Skiles
2) Pay Tyson
3) Pay Eddy
4) Enjoy the White Sox.

However, uncle Jerry has found a way to scrwe up this great thing that was created. I agree w/ Glass that says its not about money. Its about respect. It sure sounds like Skiles isnt getting any. First they leak the contract to try to make Skiles look greedy for turning it down, 2nd, JR doesnt meet w/ SKles and Co. 

I find it ironic that the people who were not big fans of Skiles methods are the ones defending him, while people who said they liked Skiles, basically want him to shut up and take the money.

Mabye JR can give another interview to Carmen and Silvy to explain his actions. 
I dont want to blame Paxson as i believe he is just JR's messenger boy and is following orders.

We thought it would be a boring summer, i guess we were wrong. Just wait until Eddy and Tyson are up for deals. Uncle Cheapy might not want to shell out top dollar for our bigs.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> Interesting. Without actually hearing the interview and such it's hard to get a feel for this sort of thing. Was this just agent-speak? Was Glass trying to turn the tide of public opinion back towards Skiles because he was peeved about contract terms being leaked in the media? If there's any substance to what he said, it's probably best to cut ties now and go shopping for a new coach.
> 
> I'm kind of at a loss as to what "things other than money" could be at issue. If ever there was a coach who had the backing of his GM, this is the place. You've got a "right way" GM and a "right way" coach who have both been in unison with respect to not tolerating the wrong kind of play or player. Seems like a pretty decent working environment. Either there's more here than meets the eye or Glass is inelagently trying to use the media to his advantage.


My best guess at this point is that Skiles was dead serious when he said he considered Glass family and that he didn't appreciate Reinsdorf's refusal to discuss things with him (and possibly other things Reinsdorf might have said?). Lots of people talk the talk with regard to that stuff, but my guess is that Skiles was serious and offended by Reinsdorf's back room, I'm the boss garbage and ham-fisted leaks to the media.

At this point, I don't think there is enough to draw hard conclusions, but I tend to think:

* No matter who's fault it is, the Bulls probably need to let Skiles go now.
* If they pick up a retread or first time guy, I'll puke.
* It was probably Reinsdorf's ultimate fault for ****ing this up so amazingly. Reading between the lines about everything that's been said, he's appeared to have the same sour, petty reluctance that led him to say he'd regret paying MJ. Never forget this guy is primarily a baseball owner, possibly the single most likely set of people on the face of the earth to cut off their nose to spite their face.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

IMo there were probabaly only 4 people who knew the amount offered to skiles 

JR
Pax
Skiles
Glass

Im sure pax has said he didnt do it and so now the Skiles camp is pissed because JR wont talk to them but will talk to the media and then release the numbers to try and make Skiles look bad.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Mods: how do I go about changing my handle to "I Told You So"?
> 
> I hate this freaking "organization."
> 
> EDIT: Although according to Shinky's transcript, Glass claims he's only dealt with Paxson, which kind of shocks me. I was wrong about that.



Done.

However, I'm not sure whether I'm blaming the org as much as I'm calling Skiles out for bailing on us.

All I hear is the Bulls making what seems to be a reasonable offer and Skiles' camp saying "Not good enough, we're done." 

Jerry may be out of line by his aversion to coach's agents, but that aside, what I'm hearing is Glass and Skiles just saying "foo on you, Bulls."

Get the extension done now, or cut bait and start bringing in coaches.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> My best guess at this point is that Skiles was dead serious when he said he considered Glass family and that he didn't appreciate Reinsdorf's refusal to discuss things with him (and possibly other things Reinsdorf might have said?). Lots of people talk the talk with regard to that stuff, but my guess is that Skiles was serious and offended by Reinsdorf's back room, I'm the boss garbage and ham-fisted leaks to the media.


I'm still pissed about that nugget, and I'm not even a party.

Saying you're not going to negotiate with counsel is akin to saying, "I want to screw you." I can't read it other way. It incredibly exploitive, especially when papa Reinsdorf was dealing with a coach who turned his franchise around. . .


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

such sweet thunder said:


> Make no bones about it:
> 
> *This is Skiles asking to be fired. Skiles, like all the posters here, knows whats going to happen if he goes into this season without support from management. *
> 
> We deserve a first class organization. We have supported this team through thick and thin, and now management cuts corners. Maybe this will work out for the best in the end. . . People on these boards always say, if such and such gets traded I'm leaving the tea m. Maybe this is the moment? I'm still tired from the last six years -- and now this could very likely turn south. * I don't know how much more I can take*


WELL SAID SUCH SWEET!

I have been w/ the bulls lock-step through those 6 miserable years and watched loss after loss after loss. THis season, we FINALLY see a light at the end of the tunnel. Now w/ the way things look now, we are back in the friggin tunnel.

We are at a crossroads right now.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

transplant said:


> DaBullz, thanks for the trust. Glass went out of his way to praise Paxson...did it more than once in the interview. Glass was looking to pick a fight with JR, perhaps because JR has decided to avoid a direct role in the negotiations.


I think it's clear from everything reported JR was playing a role in the negotiations at some point and refusing to meet with Glass. And so long as he's setting the parameters and wielding the real power (instead of simply letting Pax do his job of managing the team), JR's who the buck stops with.

That's something that should be pointed out. If it was merely Pax who was making the decisions here, all we would have heard about JR through this whole thing was that he's given authority to Pax and that's that.

His continual presence makes clear that he's really calling the shots, and thus, sending Pax out as his message boy is, if anything, demeaning.

Skiles probably concluded he doesn't need to work for a guy like that, and I can't say I blame him.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

after listening to the interview and trying to make notes, i find only one thing written down on my pad:

_persecution complex_

maybe one of our "hack" beat writers can sniff out why skiles seems to have such a large one.

17 million, no matter how you slice it, is very generous coin. 

i find myself amazed and very conflicted at my sudden turning against the man who was a vital part in bringing the franchise back. 

i am miztified.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Done.
> 
> However, I'm not sure whether I'm blaming the org as much as I'm calling Skiles out for bailing on us.


Skiles strikes me as a guy who would be happy just getting this contract done... nice and private like.

He seems like a principled guy... just like there is a "right way" to play basketball... there is a "right way" to handle contracts. The "right way" isn't through leaking to the media. Once the Bulls marketing machine started the leaks... I would suspect he was put off. When Uncle Jerry would not talk to his representative... he was put off again.

Just like Skiles benched EROB I think he's now benching the Bulls organization.... for doing things "the wrong way."

Chances are he'll have another gig lined up and at this point wants out.

And we as fans are worse off IMO.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

Skiles is going to Detroit if the Bulls don't pick up his option.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> I think it's clear from everything reported JR was playing a role in the negotiations at some point and refusing to meet with Glass. And so long as he's setting the parameters and wielding the real power (instead of simply letting Pax do his job of managing the team), JR's who the buck stops with.
> 
> That's something that should be pointed out. If it was merely Pax who was making the decisions here, all we would have heard about JR through this whole thing was that he's given authority to Pax and that's that.
> 
> ...


Mike, to take this a little off topic, your general take on Reinsdorf is precisely what I was worried about with regard to Stern and the CBA negotiations (I *think* it was you with whom I was discussing that a while back).

When you go into a meeting with an attitude of "I don't deal with agents" or "We are pushing through this age limit, it's not even up for debate", bad things happen.

I feel really badly for Pax. I didn't feel bad for Krause when he played the role of patsy, but all indications are that Pax busts his arse and absolutely loves the Chicago Bulls and the city. He deserves better than this.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> after listening to the interview and trying to make notes, i find only one thing written down on my pad:
> 
> _persecution complex_
> 
> ...


I know I sound like a broken record. . . but Skiles was never offered 17 million -- he was offered 14. This is what glass means by the franchise giving misleading numbers to the media. 

I can understand your feelings that Skiles has lost himself. But, your argument has to be, Skiles has bailed on this team and should have accepted less the fair market value to coach the Bulls. Not, Skiles is holding out for a marginal difference because he has an over-inflated ego.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> after listening to the interview and trying to make notes, i find only one thing written down on my pad:
> 
> _persecution complex_
> 
> ...


We'll likely never know the exact details of that $17 million dollar offer. "Guaranteed" is a real hazy word -- it may have been 1/4 was guaranteed if he lasted one year, 1/3 if he lasted two, and so on. And I am not implying that our beat writers are hacks, just that they are necessarily beholden to the organization for information. New York's the only town I know where the beat writers don't feed from the company trough.

What I am leaning toward thinking happened here is that Skiles had some reservations based on the way the team responded to pressure in the playoffs, and Reinsdorf's refusing to meet with his agent and his possibly insulting response to Glass's initial offer/counteroffer pushed Skiles's "get me the f*** out of here" button. 

Let the search for a new head coach begin! Even if it was just a radio interview, I consider this to be a burned bridge. And Seattle was the exception that proves the rule -- next season is shaping up as disaster enough even without a coaching fiasco.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> I think this is on the money ... even though its not about the money
> 
> This team are a bunch of Dudley Do Rights but do they really have the talent ?


Not Dudley Do Rights, but Dudley's horse. What was his horse's name, anyhow?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> after listening to the interview and trying to make notes, i find only one thing written down on my pad:
> 
> _persecution complex_
> 
> ...


Really? 

What's got everyone to Skile's side in the first place?

That he was a genuine guy who wasn't "all about the bling".

And you're turning against him why? Because $17M is a lot of bling. So are you really saying that we should pay lip service to the right way, but we should be willing to give it up for the right price?

It seems to me that now he's proving he's really not about the bling, and lots of people, even people who think it should be about "the right way" are suprised by the extent of his committment, finding it greater than their own (and hence, something to criticize).

That's just one possible interpretation :clown:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Mike, to take this a little off topic, your general take on Reinsdorf is precisely what I was worried about with regard to Stern and the CBA negotiations (I *think* it was you with whom I was discussing that a while back).
> 
> When you go into a meeting with an attitude of "I don't deal with agents" or "We are pushing through this age limit, it's not even up for debate", bad things happen.
> 
> I feel really badly for Pax. I didn't feel bad for Krause when he played the role of patsy, but all indications are that Pax busts his arse and absolutely loves the Chicago Bulls and the city. He deserves better than this.


:yes:


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

I'm guessing Glass was referring to the article Sam Smith wrote this morning. When Glass said "I think everybody knows what his leanings are", I was a bit puzzled. What are his leanings? The only agenda I'm aware of that he keeps pushing is dumping Eddy Curry for some player.

And he didn't say money wasn't a factor. He said it is a factor and it's "how you kinda send a message how badly you want the guy to be there or not be there" 

Glass did NOT deny the figures in the papers but instead he says _"that not everyone in Chicago is an agent, representative, a lawyer, an advisor so we don't tell everyone else what to do. We have to do whatever is best for him" _Skiles repeated those sentiments a couple days ago as well.

Umm. Mr. Glass we can say what a fair deal is by comparing Skiles' peers salary.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

spongyfungy said:


> They'll replay the interview at 5 PM. I'll make sure to record it.
> 
> Edit: I guess you can just download the thing on their website. Thanks Miz.
> 
> ...


1 and 2 are contradictory statements


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> 1 and 2 are contradictory statements


 yeah I guess they are.

*1) *Reinsdorf said he won't deal with agents for coaches or managers. He said he did that once, and it was a mistake. Silverman correctly inferred he was talking about Phil Jackson, then asked how that could have been a mistake considering Jackson won six titles with the Bulls.

''I'm not going to get into it,'' Reinsdorf said. ''The fact of the matter is it was a mistake.''

*2) *"Scott Skiles works for John Paxson, and Ozzie Guillen works for Kenny Williams," Reinsdorf said. "They have to make the decisions if they want them or not. I only have veto power. Neither Scott Skiles' nor Ozzie Guillen's contract is up. It's all very premature." 

4/05/05


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

spongyfungy said:


> I'm guessing Glass was referring to the article Sam Smith wrote this morning. When Glass said "I think everybody knows what his leanings are", I was a bit puzzled. What are his leanings? The only agenda I'm aware of that he keeps pushing is dumping Eddy Curry for some player.
> 
> And he didn't say money wasn't a factor. He said it is a factor and it's "how you kinda send a message how badly you want the guy to be there or not be there"
> 
> ...


On the contrary, you can't because the specific language in the contract could make a world of difference.

Couple that with Reinsdorf's seeming desire to have no professional representation present and you've got a *VERY* shady situation in the first place.

It's easy for us peons to look at $14M and say "how can i go wrong", but consider just what's being asked here. It'd be like some guy offering to sell you a house without doing a title search, deed, mortgage, inspection etc. Sure, that stuff is a pain in the ***, but would you spend several hundred thousand without it?

If not, why would you expect Skiles to deal under similar conditions for millions of dollars?


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

I thought this was interesting. Bulls still haven't picked up the optoin. 

Glass on Skiles' contract situation: Whatever happens, happens. Scott's got a contract. He is going to fulfill his contract, whatever that calls for. If they pick up his option, then he'll coach out his option. At this point they haven't done that. They haven't picked up the option. So we'll wait for that. I'm sure that will happen around midnight on the 30th of June.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> I thought this was interesting. Bulls still haven't picked up the optoin.
> 
> Glass on Skiles' contract situation: Whatever happens, happens. Scott's got a contract. He is going to fulfill his contract, whatever that calls for. If they pick up his option, then he'll coach out his option. At this point they haven't done that. They haven't picked up the option. So we'll wait for that. I'm sure that will happen around midnight on the 30th of June.


I wouldn't bet on it if I were him.

(and I think you're right, he's saying he doesn't want to come back)


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> Really?
> 
> What's got everyone to Skile's side in the first place?
> 
> ...


ok, really.

didn't really like the part in the interview where glass claims that skiles is bound to be persecuted by the bulls in the media for refusing the offer. like, you know, of course they'll bad mouth him at the first opportunity. he actually said that a few times. what an insult to pax. my god. 

i'm not at all saying we should pay lip service to the "right way" - and maybe we disagree as to what skiles' fair market value is - but i think it was the agent who brought the negotiations to the media in the first place and now he's the one crying foul. that's not the right way. 

sorry but it doesn't wash with me. 

this is not my happy voice!!!!!


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

I'm certainly not going to defend JR but I did listen to the interview and Glass did not dispute the contract offer in the paper and subtly confirmed it. And he did say that it is always about the money since that is how respect is shown. Skiles did a great job this year and I fully expected him to continue for years to come. But he and Glass over estimated his worth. Skiles will likely not be able to find a better situation that he had here. He is young enough to have many big contracts in the future. I doubt that an established team will want Skiles, his next job will be with a rebuilding team so for him it will be like starting over. We all loved Skiles but keep in miond where he ended up on the Coach of the year voting. I think by not being able to make this situation work, Skiles and Glass are going to put doubts into other organizations thinking. 

Skiles was saved by Paxson and he rightly deserves a 4 yrear contract at the average or slightly above the average coaches pay. He hasn't produced a body of work that justifies $5MM yet.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Just listened to the recording.

Some thoughts:

It definitely sounds like Glass was insinuating that most of this falls at the feet of JR. I thought that was pretty clear with the references he made throughout the interview. He made sure to point out that Skiles liked everything about the team, the city, Pax, and everything else about the situation. There's no definitive evidence of everything yet, but I would venture to guess that Skiles and Glass have been very turned off by Reinsdorf's negotiating tactics, which they seem to perceive as being cheap, petty, and manipulative.

Glass sounded like Skiles has been completely turned off to the situation, and wants out. And if that's really the case, it might just be best to cut ties right now, to give ourselves the best chance at a replacement. 

I think Mike DC's analysis is spot on. It seems pretty clear that ultimately, JR is controlling the negotiations from the organization's side, and sadly, that Pax is more or less the Queen of England in all this. He's more or less a figurehead, and doesn't seem to have any real say in all of this. Which, I think, is belittling to the job that he's done thus far.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Steering OT a little here, but still somewhat related, I think it's pretty clear that Pax is not the one to blame on much of this stuff. I'm getting the impression that it's essentially Skiles vs. Reinsdorf...so I think this is a good time to motion for the riddance of the "Fire Pax" club. If you wanna join a club, join ScottMay's "Reinsdorf sell the team" club.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

It sure did make a difference to actually hear the interview. Thanks to Miz!

A few things. It sure does seem like Glass was pretty much laying into Reinsdorf. I can't say as I necessarily blame him. Glass is Skiles agent and has been given the task of negotiating a deal for his client. Pretty standard stuff. Pax seems like the middle-man in this process because of Papa Jerry's refusal to deal with agents. If I'm Glass, I'd want to work directly with the decision-maker and not some lackey (Pax). I'm guessing this is where the "it's not the money" mantra comes to play. Like others have stated, I feel sorry for Pax. He really shouldn't be put in this situation. Either give him full authority to work a deal that he feels is in the teams best interest or work the deal yourself. You undercut Paxs' effectiveness by making him the owners mouthpiece.

I can just picture Pax running into Reindorfs' office ala a Seinfeld-esque George Steinbrenner. Papa R. with his back to the scene telling Pax... "Yea, yea yea. I don't speak to agents. You know that. Now, be a good GM and fetch me a canolli on your way out. I'm a maniac... maniac... I knoowwwww. Who used to sing that? Juice Newton? Why'd they call her Juice anyway?..."

I hold the opinion that nodoby, and I mean nobody is indisposable to an organization. That includes the coach of a professional basketball team as well as the owner. That being said, I'm guessing this process would have been an afterthought if Reinsdorf had simply excercised good management skills and worked with Skiles agent. He's a good coach and deserved to be handled with whatever respect he was looking for. I do have to look directly at ownership and place this impending fiasco squarely at the feet of Heir Reinsdorf.

As an aside, I don't buy the whole "it's not about the money" sphele that Glass is putting out there. It's all about the money and for some reason Skiles and Glass feel that there was some sort of Herculean effort that was accomplished by Skiles to turn this team around. While Skiles definatly helped, he was hardly the sole reason for this teams improvement.

It sure does seems like Skiles wants out, for whatever reasons. It's not like Glass made warm fuzzies with the organization in this interview.

At least this soap opera gives us something to talk about. And I thought this was going to be a really dull summer!


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Why doesn't Paxson go to JR and say "dammit, let's sign the guy" ?


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

Is it possible for this franchise to ever have a non combative contract negotiation? I'd be inclined to belive Skiles and Glass are the bad guys, if not for the fact that Reinsdorf always seems to get into these types of situations. 

The guy is a horrible sports owner.

Some might say, "how can he be a bad owner when he won 6 titles with the Bulls, and has made such money on the franchise?". I say " who had more to do with that Reinsdorf or Jordan, whom Reinsdorf played no part in aquiring?". Outside of the Jordan years and the loads of money it brought in and still does bring in to a large extent, I see an owner who presided over the losingest 6 years in league history, I see an owner who I've heard or read some accuse of heavily influencing the baseball strike, and owner whose baseball team is a big market team with a small market payroll because they can barely give away tickets.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Cager said:


> I'm certainly not going to defend JR but I did listen to the interview and Glass did not dispute the contract offer in the paper and subtly confirmed it. And he did say that it is always about the money since that is how respect is shown.


That's a good point, and a pretty nuanced one that hasn't really been pointed out thus far. You could be right, but I think there are two things to consider.

1.) Like others have said, it's hard to make any definitive conclusions without being able to look at the fine print of the contract. Maybe it really was as reported, but it's just as easy to imagine a scenario where there's a lot of fine print that really mitigates the value of the contract. Either way, we don't know, and hence, aren't really in a position to say it's one or the other.

2.) These contract negotiations seem to be a case of history repeating itself.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> ok, really.
> 
> didn't really like the part in the interview where glass claims that skiles is bound to be persecuted by the bulls in the media for refusing the offer. like, you know, of course they'll bad mouth him at the first opportunity. he actually said that a few times. what an insult to pax. my god.


I don't think it's an insult to Pax... there's more guys in the organization than him, and I strongly doubt that he's the guy who's been leaking stuff to the media the last year or two.

And no, it wouldn't be the first time the Bulls threw some mud at a guy headed out the door.

To a large extent, that's natural too. An organization, rightly or wrongly, isn't just going to let a guy widely considered a rising star walk away without blaming him for the breakup somehow. What else would they say- "yeah, we ****ed up?"



> i'm not at all saying we should pay lip service to the "right way" - and maybe we disagree as to what skiles' fair market value is - but i think it was the agent who brought the negotiations to the media in the first place and now he's the one crying foul. that's not the right way.
> 
> sorry but it doesn't wash with me.


Forgive me ignorance, I know I read someone's nice post about why Skiles was really the first guy to go crying to the media, but I forgot it and now I can't find it again. I'd like to re-read it before decide whether that's really the case or not (been really busy lately  ).

this is not my happy voice!!!!![/QUOTE]


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Cager said:


> *Skiles was saved by Paxson * and he rightly deserves a 4 yrear contract at the average or slightly above the average coaches pay. He hasn't produced a body of work that justifies $5MM yet.


he saved him ? from what ? was his life in danger ?was he and his family starving ,living in a shack ?

based on whats he did this last year I would say so .Hes not asking for a contract based on what he did before he arrived he wants one based on what he did as the Bulls coach. 

If what he did doesnt warrant him being rewarded then nothing does .What he did was not the work of a average coach.


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

I cant believe what i just heard. How did this happen? I have no doubt now that Eddy Curry will never play basketball again. The Bulls have a post jordan curse. We need advice from the current Red Sox people and quickly.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Why doesn't Paxson go to JR and say "dammit, let's sign the guy" ?


How do you know he hasn't?


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

I dont want to speculate what he has been offered. Though I will say this, he is not a 5 million a year coach. Only Brown, Jackson and Pop are worth that right now, and perhaps Riley if he came back to coaching. Skiles is a 4 million dollar man at the very best. As no coaches last very long in any organisations, I would say a 3 year 13 million dollar contract should be the best he could hope for, with incentives for making it to certain levels of the playoffs. 

I will reiterate, what the F*** is going on that it has got to this point?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

A couple of things. First, Glass is evasive as all get out. He spent most of the interview saying what the problem _wasn't_ instead of what it actually was. So, all assumptions about what is going on are implicit. 

First, it sounds like Glass is saying that the money isn't quite where they want it to be. Moreso, however, he seems to be upset that the Bulls are playing hardball. He seems to think that Scott got a lot done this year and that the Bulls should have been happy to acquiesce to his demands in order to get the deal done. He also seems quite offended that he has never spoken to Reinsdorf and implied strongly that the relationship with Pax is good but that the man behind the curtain who is controlling everything is really what's to blame here.

So, aside from a mere salary/years/guarantee equation here I think Glass wants to be able to represent Skiles in the way a normal agent should. I tend to agree. If Reinsdorf wants to refuse to deal with agents, fine, that's his prerogative. If that's the case, though, then he should give Pax the authority to get done what needs to get done. You can't have it both ways. You either need to be able to deal with peoples' agents as a normal businessperson does or you need to trust one of your employees to do it for you. Not dealing with agents sets such a stupid double standard that it's hard to believe JR thinks that's a good way to run a business.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

mgolding said:


> I dont want to speculate what he has been offered. Though I will say this, he is not a 5 million a year coach. Only Brown, Jackson and Pop are worth that right now, and perhaps Riley if he came back to coaching. Skiles is a 4 million dollar man at the very best. As no coaches last very long in any organisations, I would say a 3 year 13 million dollar contract should be the best he could hope for, with incentives for making it to certain levels of the playoffs.
> 
> I will reiterate, what the F*** is going on that it has got to this point?


I would say what Skiles did makes him every bit worth of what Pop is making to us .I read a suggestion where someone says we shouldve offered him a signing bonus and I think that may have been the way to to go. he may not have earned a 5yr 25 million dolar deal but he should be duly compensated on the turn around he helped the Bulls to achieve .


----------



## FreeSpeech101 (Jul 30, 2004)

Ben Gordon or Scott Skiles?


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I mean what does this essentially boil down to?

Let's say Skiles goes to a place like Detroit, but we bring in Flip Saunders or Paul Silas or another coach with great recognition. Silas, I think, would be a great choice, as he's always been let go or resigned due to the egos of certain star players. Silas won't have that problem with the Bulls. I always imagined Skiles coaching the Bulls, but the question must be asked? Can you see the Chicago Bulls keeping there core in tact winning a championship with Scott Skiles at the helm? I can't, honestly, and maybe that is the front office's thinking here. Pax prolly wants to give Skiles the 4/17 or 4/14 but Reinsdorf is thinking, this is a Collins situation like somebody mentioned. But who is our next-gen P-Jax? I don't know the answer to that question unfortunately.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> How do you know he hasn't?


If Pax wants Skiles, he should convince JR to sign him. That's his job, IMO.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

T.Shock said:


> I mean what does this essentially boil down to?
> 
> Let's say Skiles goes to a place like Detroit, but we bring in Flip Saunders or Paul Silas or another coach with great recognition. Silas, I think, would be a great choice, as he's always been let go or resigned due to the egos of certain star players. Silas won't have that problem with the Bulls. I always imagined Skiles coaching the Bulls, but the question must be asked? Can you see the Chicago Bulls keeping there core in tact winning a championship with Scott Skiles at the helm? I can't, honestly, and maybe that is the front office's thinking here. Pax prolly wants to give Skiles the 4/17 or 4/14 *but Reinsdorf is thinking, this is a Collins situation like somebody mentioned. But who is our next-gen P-Jax?* I don't know the answer to that question unfortunately.


But I think that may be the problem this is not 1988 anymore this is 2005.Ive always stated that the Bulls have not been in these situations in ages and the last time they were it was under different rules and different expectations .


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I'm very concerned about next year. How much does a team like this progress? Does Gordon improve, does Chandler? You need to have a philosophy. Paxson's seems to be the Detroit way of doing things. We have key questions right now.

1.Do we re-sign Chandler or Curry or both?
2.Who coaches this team next year?
3.Does Gordon become a bonafide borderline all-star or does he have a sophomore slump?
4.Do we try and trade for a superstar using our young pieces?

Would the T-Wolves accept a deal for KG that might not give them full value? Do we try and work out a S&T for Ray Allen? My guess is we don't get either. I honestly don't know and right now I'm of the opinion the Bulls won't make the playoffs next year, but so many things could happen, I'm just pessimistic everybody else is getting better while we are standing still.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> If Pax wants Skiles, he should convince JR to sign him. That's his job, IMO.


It's your job to force your boss to do what you want him to do? Umm, yeah, I wish that were the case. Don't get me wrong, I take your point that if Pax really believes in Skiles that he should make the best case possible to convince JR to pay up. However, I believe it's a little naive to say that it's his job to "convince" JR and that somehow if JR remains unconvinced b/c he doesn't want to commit himself financially to Skiles that this is Pax's fault. Give me a break.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> If the Bulls aren't willing to pay Scott Skiles $20 million, do you honestly think they'd pay Flip $30?
> 
> If things fall through with Skiles, sloth hit the nail on the head: you're looking at someone like Pippen, an assistant from outside the organization getting his first head-coaching gig, or a retread like Skiles who has done something to damage his rep and thus come at a deep discount (Bzdelik).


If the next retread like Skiles who has done something to damage his rep and thus comes at a deep discount does as well as Skiles did, I'll be pretty happy. :biggrin:


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> It's your job to force your boss to do what you want him to do? Umm, yeah, I wish that were the case. Don't get me wrong, I take your point that if Pax really believes in Skiles that he should make the best case possible to convince JR to pay up. However, I believe it's a little naive to say that it's his job to "convince" JR and that somehow if JR remains unconvinced b/c he doesn't want to commit himself financially to Skiles that this is Pax's fault. Give me a break.


Seems to me the GM's job is to manage the finances. If he needs to go over budget, then the owner gets involved. Does Cuban make the moves in Dallas, or does he just open his pocketbook when Nellie says he wants a player?


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> I'd be into Bzdelik honestly. I'd think differently of Scottie if he'd been an official bench coach this year, but no, he'd be just another rookie, just like Floyd, but with even less experience coaching.
> 
> Maybe Paxson and Reinsdorf just aren't 100% sold on Mr. Skiles...Jeez, I hope it's not just about money.


The 42-year old Rivers spent four plus seasons as the Head Coach of the Orlando Magic. His first year at the helm in Orlando he led a team predicted by most to finish near or at the bottom of the league that included four starters who were not drafted. Rivers guided the team to a 41-41 record, and for his efforts, Rivers was named the 1999-2000 NBA Coach-of-the-Year. 

---------

I believe that Doc Rivers also had zero assistant coaching experience when the 1999-2000 season began. 

We've all heard what a great leader and teammate Scottie was, I'm sure he can pull it off. And at least he was very close to the team this season- everyone kind of assumed it was a little bit of "give us something for the $5 mil we are paying you this season", but maybe Pax knew that once Skiles got the team confident and playing hard, he'd be gone ala Collins oh so many years ago.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Incentives...its my belief that the stumbling block is a list of incentives Skiles must meet as early as the end of year two of his contract for year four to become fully guarranteed. Think about it logically. The 06/07 season will mark the completion of Skiles' third full season as the Bulls head coach. Will the team have improved enough by then to compete for a spot in the Eastern Conference Finals? Or will they still be searching for ways to make it out of the first round?

In 2007, Curry and Chandler will be entering their 7th seasons as pros. Nocioni will be a free agent up for renewal. Heinrich will kick off the '07 season under a brand new contract. And Gordon and Deng will be entering the fourth year of their rookie deals primed and ready to begin negotiations on their own contract extensions.

The Bulls will be staring the 07/08 season in the face with a potentially huge payroll looking right back at them. It will also mark the beginning of Scott's fourth full year as the Bulls head coach. They'd better be a Finals contender by then or maybe it might be time to make some personnel decissions.

I see the completion of Skiles' third full season as the Bulls head coach as a make or break for him with Chicago as well. If the Bulls have spent all that money to lock up their player nucleus and the Skiles-led Bulls are still stumbling to make it past the first round, why shouldn't the Bulls have the freedom to begin searching for a new bench leader?

So maybe its Skiles who doesn't care for the expectations the Bulls want to set before him. Maybe he believes that after one full season of success he deserves the security of a four year guarranteed deal that doesn't have any strings (incentives) attached. Those are the kind of contract caveats fans may never learn about.

I doubt Reinsdorf has anything to do with what the Bulls and John Paxson are offering Skiles. I think Paxson may be adamant about having certain performance clauses included in his head coach's new contract. If Paxson won't budge then it makes sense for Glass to try to draw Reinsdorf into the negotiations picture. 

The flaw that exposes Glass' contention that Reinsdorf is holding up the deal over money is easily beaten down by JR's willingness this season to eat some very significant player contracts (Robinson and Pippen to name a few). If Pax was completely convinced that Skiles is really his long-term solution to lead the Bulls to their next championship, then a deal would have been struck some time ago. But IMO, Pax is telling Skiles that while he's very impressed with the team's turnaround this season and he's willing to tear up the option year of the original deal, he wants to see that progress sustained and built on before the Bulls start spending big bucks on a payroll that can't find a way to progress past the first round. 

Well, thats my opinion, for what its worth.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

such sweet thunder said:


> Make no bones about it:
> 
> *This is Skiles asking to be fired. Skiles, like all the posters here, knows whats going to happen if he goes into this season without support from management. *
> 
> We deserve a first class organization. We have supported this team through thick and thin, and now management cuts corners. Maybe this will work out for the best in the end. . . People on these boards always say, if such and such gets traded I'm leaving the team. Maybe this is the moment? I'm still tired from the last six years -- and now this could very likely turn south. I don't know how much more I can take.


Well, some fans only "supported" through the thick. I have certainly seen management and ownership get ripped left and right and up and down over the last 7 years, even now that we were the 3rd best team in the East this past season.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

Coming soon!


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Kismet said:


> The flaw that exposes Glass' contention that Reinsdorf is holding up the deal over money is easily beaten down by JR's willingness this season to eat some very significant player contracts (Robinson and Pippen to name a few).


Thats the biggest misconception on the Bulls board .Those guys would get there money anyway either sitting on the bench or sitting at home .

JR eating a contract would be trading for a player the Bulls coveted and taking on a albatross contract with it is eating *that* deal .

JR paying out guaranteed money proves nothing.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Thats the biggest misconception on the Bulls board .Those guys would get there money anyway either sitting on the bench or sitting at home .
> 
> JR eating a contract would be trading for a player the Bulls coveted and taking on a albatross contract with it is eating *that* deal .
> 
> JR paying out guaranteed money proves nothing.


Totaly agreed. Bulls lost nothing by paying out Pippen and eRob. It's not like they are even NBA players at this point in time. Unlike other guys (Morning, Payton, etc) that were cut with guarenteed contracts.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

^^^^^^^^^^

The Bulls did have to pay Pip's and ERob's and Trybanzki's and Wilks' replacements on the roster, so it did cost them over a million in salary. It's not a lot of money, but he could have kept Pip, et al on the roster and saved whatever he paid their replacements. So it's not ALL about the profits, assuming the Bulls make $50 million this season (a pretty high estimate), that's 3% of their profit. Seemingly not the "profits over winning" attitude I seem to be reading about.

Let's say it cost the Bulls about $1.5 million in salaries for one season to pay 4 extra players the minimum salary. Skiles wants 4 years, $20 million or $5 million per year. The Bulls are offering guaranteed 4 years, $14 million or $3.5 million per year. The difference is $1.5 million per year.

So one can easily draw the conclusion that it's not the $1.5 million at all, it's the 4 guaranteed years. Certainly one would think that Skiles was more important than the Bulls 12th- 15th men (FWill, Reiner, Funderburke, Griff)?

Sounds to me like he doesn't have much faith in Skiles being around a lot longer. 

And BTW, next season ERob will be getting paid for sitting out his second season. Isn't that "paying guys with guaranteed contracts" like Zo and Payton?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> The flaw that exposes Glass' contention that Reinsdorf is holding up the deal over money is easily beaten down by JR's willingness this season to eat some very significant player contracts (Robinson and Pippen to name a few).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Pip and ERob had to go for obvious reasons, but I wonder if we wouldn't have been better off keeping Wilks and losing FWill? And could Trybanzki have been any worse than Reiner?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Kismet said:


> Incentives...its my belief that the stumbling block is a list of incentives Skiles must meet as early as the end of year two of his contract for year four to become fully guarranteed. Think about it logically. The 06/07 season will mark the completion of Skiles' third full season as the Bulls head coach. Will the team have improved enough by then to compete for a spot in the Eastern Conference Finals? Or will they still be searching for ways to make it out of the first round?
> 
> In 2007, Curry and Chandler will be entering their 7th seasons as pros. Nocioni will be a free agent up for renewal. Heinrich will kick off the '07 season under a brand new contract. And Gordon and Deng will be entering the fourth year of their rookie deals primed and ready to begin negotiations on their own contract extensions.
> 
> The Bulls will be staring the 07/08 season in the face with a potentially huge payroll looking right back at them. It will also mark the beginning of Scott's fourth full year as the Bulls head coach. They'd better be a Finals contender by then or maybe it might be time to make some personnel decissions.


That's a crazy set of incentives to throw on a coach, however. What you're doing is saying *his* salary should be tied up in stuff like whether Eddy Curry ever plays again, whether the Bulls sign a decent FA next offseason, and whether they suffer any major injuries.

I think incentives may be right on. It would explain some of the implicit "fine print" talk coming from the Skiles side of the issue. More likely than not, such incentives make what's being advertised as a very lucrative deal through the Bulls' media leaks is somewhat more chintzy.

But I think your take on it is crazy. What do you think the likelihood is that Skiles is going to be the deciding factor in whether those incentives are met? Given the positively ENORMOUS number of things influencing those incentives that are completely out of his control and relevance to his coaching ability, he'd be stupid to take such a deal.



> I see the completion of Skiles' third full season as the Bulls head coach as a make or break for him with Chicago as well. If the Bulls have spent all that money to lock up their player nucleus and the Skiles-led Bulls are still stumbling to make it past the first round, why shouldn't the Bulls have the freedom to begin searching for a new bench leader?


Of course, they fire the guy just like everyone else does.



> So maybe its Skiles who doesn't care for the expectations the Bulls want to set before him. Maybe he believes that after one full season of success he deserves the security of a four year guarranteed deal that doesn't have any strings (incentives) attached. Those are the kind of contract caveats fans may never learn about.


Perhaps because those incentives are outlandish and largely out of his control.

Let's approach this another way. Do the Bulls think Skiles is the kind of guy who will coach any differently based on those incentives? If they did, they clearly wouldn't (and shouldn't) want him in the first place.

Thus, these really aren't incentives at all, they're means of making it appear (especially to the public) they're giving him an above average deal when they're giving him something pretty iffy and doing it in a somewhat underhanded way (the media leak of his contract value takes on a whole new dimension - one fully explaining Skiles' reaction - if such incentives were in place).



> I doubt Reinsdorf has anything to do with what the Bulls and John Paxson are offering Skiles. I think Paxson may be adamant about having certain performance clauses included in his head coach's new contract. If Paxson won't budge then it makes sense for Glass to try to draw Reinsdorf into the negotiations picture.


I think Paxson is a sharper guy than that. I don't doubt for a second Reinsdorf is heavily involved.



> The flaw that exposes Glass' contention that Reinsdorf is holding up the deal over money is easily beaten down by JR's willingness this season to eat some very significant player contracts (Robinson and Pippen to name a few).


As several other people (rightly) point out, this is just flat out wrong.



> If Pax was completely convinced that Skiles is really his long-term solution to lead the Bulls to their next championship, then a deal would have been struck some time ago. But IMO, Pax is telling Skiles that while he's very impressed with the team's turnaround this season and he's willing to tear up the option year of the original deal, he wants to see that progress sustained and built on before the Bulls start spending big bucks on a payroll that can't find a way to progress past the first round.
> 
> Well, thats my opinion, for what its worth.


So he's probably getting a below average salary with "incentives" that can make it a slightly above average salary contingent on things like whether Eddy Curry ever plays again and whether Bulls ownership is willing (*ha!*) to spend any "big bucks on a payroll". I'm sorry, maybe that's unfair. *Given these negotiations, I'm sure Skiles has no doubt at all that the Bulls are willing to spend a fair amount to give him a fighting chance of making his incentives.*

*Yeash.*

What a horrific undertone to negotiations. "Here, we'll give you a decent amount of money if we decide to keep trying to win. However, we may well decide to 'rebuild' again, in which case, we'll want to keep your salary at the bargain basement level. Now sign the contract, you ingrate!"

I'm a totally different person than Scott Skiles, I'm sure, but I grew up in basically the same area he did, and I went to the same college he did. Maybe something along the way taught me to have the same reaction as his (at least from what I can tell by reading and listening to reports): *I don't need this bull*****.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> > I doubt Reinsdorf has anything to do with what the Bulls and John Paxson are offering Skiles. I think Paxson may be adamant about having certain performance clauses included in his head coach's new contract. If Paxson won't budge then it makes sense for Glass to try to draw Reinsdorf into the negotiations picture.
> >
> >
> > I think Paxson is a sharper guy than that. I don't doubt for a second Reinsdorf is heavily involved.
> ...



you know mike, 

we have no proof the decision to low-ball skiles came from reinsdorf. sure this has papa reinsdorf's fingerprints alll over it, but kismet could be right. maybe paxson views skiles as 2004 versio of doug collins. 

paxson would adamently support his coach during the season even if he harbored doubts about whether he was a longterm selection. likewise, reinsdorf would take a bullet for his gm. 

we're frustrated because management's track record in these situations is dirt. do they deserve the benefit of the doubt? no. 

we could still be wrong.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Let's approach this another way. Do the Bulls think Skiles is the kind of guy who will coach any differently based on those incentives? If they did, they clearly wouldn't (and shouldn't) want him in the first place.


I see a simpler explanation: they want to keep him if things are good or find someone else if they're not (maybe just find another coach at that time, not necessarily rebuild the roster). 



Mikedc said:


> Of course, they fire the guy just like everyone else does.


This, however, is spot on to me. Do we really think we're going to get a quality coach in this market and sign him for less than four guaranteed years? Watch as all the other teams sign the big name guys for 4 or 5 year deals, except for perhaps Phil, who will probably sign a shorter deal for record breaking money each year.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> you know mike,
> 
> we have no proof the decision to low-ball skiles came from reinsdorf. sure this has papa reinsdorf's fingerprints alll over it, but kismet could be right. maybe paxson views skiles as 2004 versio of doug collins.
> 
> ...


You know, the thing that's a little iffy on this is that Skiles is Pax's boy. He just hired him less than two years ago, and it's not like the team hasn't progressed at a fantastic rate. Collins coached the Bulls only three seasons, but there was somebody named Michael ready to take the league over. What greater expectations could we have for these baby Bulls right now than the third best record in the Eastern Conference? We still don't have a superstar. Our roster is so far from championship ready that I don't think any coach is going to push us over the hump.

It just doesn't add up to me. I suppose Paxson may have soured on his boy Skiles, but somehow I doubt it, and Glass did nothing to dissuade my viewpoint in his radio interview.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Seems to me the GM's job is to manage the finances. If he needs to go over budget, then the owner gets involved. Does Cuban make the moves in Dallas, or does he just open his pocketbook when Nellie says he wants a player?


It seems to me the GM's job is to manage the roster _within the financial paramters set by the owner._ I agree that when Pax thinks he needs to go overbudget that it's his responsibility to make the case to the owner. But if you owner is a cheapskate, a hack, or a baseball fan first, I think it's unfair to lay the blame at Pax's feet when JR won't pay up. My point is that ultimately the buck stops with Reinsdorf, not Paxson. 

I take you point on Cuban, but I don't think he's really representative of a normal owner. Maybe he's the ideal to some people, but we've got to deal with the guy who actually owns the Bulls, not the guy we wish did.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> It seems to me the GM's job is to manage the roster _within the financial paramters set by the owner._ I agree that when Pax thinks he needs to go overbudget that it's his responsibility to make the case to the owner. But if you owner is a cheapskate, a hack, or a baseball fan first, I think it's unfair to lay the blame at Pax's feet when JR won't pay up. My point is that ultimately the buck stops with Reinsdorf, not Paxson.


True, but a principled businessman will walk if his ethics are compromised.

There is nothing worse than working for a patsy of a manager... spineless.... unwilling to go to bat for their valued employees against upper management. 

You're right... the blame won't stick to Paxson... just like blame does not stick to the thousands of spineless managers out there. CYA blame aversion is a science in many organizations.

Some people get up at walk when "the right way" is compromised. Other play the CYA game. "What canya do?"


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Reinsdorf is a tool.

Skiles is a tool.

Glass is a tool.

If you put together all the tools involved, the whole set would make a pretty good Fathers Day gift for dear old Dad. Unfortunately, these kind of tools are useless.

And to think I changed my name from sinkingship to salvaged ship a few weeks ago. After this summer it might change to shipwrecked.

Several factors I see in all of this. I do think there is some issue with money. Glass hinted there was some issue. It also seems Skiles wants it presented to him with some serious pat on the back from the chairman. Not Reinsdork's way. He never patted a six time championship winning coach on the back, what makes Skiles think he is going to be treated better. It is a shame, but hey Skiles, my boss wouldn't thank Pamela Anderson after she provided some serious servicing. My boss is a jerk and so is yours. MOST ARE. My boss could call me a jerk left right and center, but if he offered me 17 mil and a top salary among coaches when I have proven absolutely nothing long term I would be signing that contract in blood.

Skiles obviously has an ego. I do think he also needs to recognize the fact that Pax and the Bulls pulled him from the toilet. He did a great job, but likely the guy wouldn't of had any opportunities any time soon. Now he is a hot commodity. There should be some appreciation for the opportunity. If you combine that with what seems to be a fair offer, maybe the ego should be pushed aside. I think Skiles and his agent are trying to take a one year wonder and turn it into a long term jackpot. I would be hesitant to sign Skiles long term big money due to the Phoenix issue and the fact Reinsdink would not discard Skiles for years if things go pear shaped if the contract was too much. I am actually suprised the old man put forward the reported offer. How the heck could Guillen accpet the contract he signed? Wow.

That being said....

There is a major problem with Reinsdrip. If Skiles has an ego problem, this guys ego goes beyond planet Pluto. This is a little man who was blessed with the good fortune of MJ. The Bulls value increased over 20 times from the time Jordan came until the time he left. Reinsdrip and Krause and their pea brains and egos pushed the greatest sports commodity of all time to the Wizards. Lets face it, Reinsdork is in the Krause mold of all time liars. Add to this his ego about never speaking to agents. What exactly is this all about? Isn't there a mandatory retirement age for these kind of dinosaurs? They go on forever. Geez Reinsdorf, go to pasture with your billions and sell the club. Don't go to stud, though. We don't need any more owners like you.

I think the money issue can be worked out. It is quite possible the personality issues and egos cannot co-exist. Skiles and Reinsdork are used to dictatorships, and each expects to be treated a certain way. Both are stubborn beyond belief. And now both have hurt each others egos. It may not work out.

I think we should take Reinsdork, Wirtz, McCaskey, and the Tribune people, put them in a locked room together, then throw a penny in the middle of the room and let them rip each other to bits trying to get it. These people have played on the devotion and gullability of Chicago fans who continually pay hard earned money to support inferior product. Can't one Chicago team, just one, get an owner like Cuban or Steinbrenner? Guys who pay whatever it takes and stand for nothing short of excellence. Money is no object. I know there aren't many owners who own teams as hobbies and don't care about profit, but if any fans deserve this kind of owner we do.

Look at those 4 owners. Please tell me another city that comes close to those pathetic 4.

And one more thing. Skiles as coach of Detroit is a one way ticket to failure. They could be two time champions. Skiles has nowhere to go but down, following a legend in Larry Brown and possible back to back championships.

And Skiles with Rasheed??????? Yeah, that would work. He has a perfect situation with the Bulls and should be a man and make the first move to resolve this.

I just hope Pax isn't steamed about Reinsdorf. He could walk away as well, and in my opinion he is the biggest reason for our turnaround both on the court and image wise.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> you know mike,
> 
> we have no proof the decision to low-ball skiles came from reinsdorf. sure this has papa reinsdorf's fingerprints alll over it, but kismet could be right. maybe paxson views skiles as 2004 versio of doug collins.
> 
> ...


yes, we could, but where would that get us? (Back, in my case) to not having any faith at all in Pax and thinking he treats employees poorly?

I certainly agree its possible, but there's a whole lot, going back a long way, that implicates Reinsdorf, and nothing aside from the speculated idea that maybe he's not comfortable with Skiles in the long run that implicates Pax.

And as a motivation, that one doesn't ring true to me... he could have strongly supported Skiles without repeatedly alluding to the possibility of extending him. And the whole incentive thing is just plain cockeyed. I can't imagine that Paxson, as a guy who himself played and coached would think any coach in his right mind would go near something like that. I can certainly imagine Reinsdorf (think Chicago White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf) concocting something like that.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Salvaged Ship said:


> Reinsdorf is a tool.
> 
> Skiles is a tool.
> 
> Glass is a tool.


Smokin post


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> It seems to me the GM's job is to manage the roster _within the financial paramters set by the owner._ I agree that when Pax thinks he needs to go overbudget that it's his responsibility to make the case to the owner. But if you owner is a cheapskate, a hack, or a baseball fan first, I think it's unfair to lay the blame at Pax's feet when JR won't pay up. My point is that ultimately the buck stops with Reinsdorf, not Paxson.
> 
> I take you point on Cuban, but I don't think he's really representative of a normal owner. Maybe he's the ideal to some people, but we've got to deal with the guy who actually owns the Bulls, not the guy we wish did.


I guess it depends on how you value the job. If you think it's fine to have your boss handcuff you in doing your job, then I guess you just sit there and take it. Whatever it is.

I'm not in the camp that says Reinsdorf is a cheapskate. I do think that given losing and no profits vs. losing and big profits, he'd take the latter. The guy did pay Jordan $30M+, which isn't an indication of being a cheapskate, IMO. EDIT: He's been willing to pay really big bucks for baseball free agents, too.

At this point, and going back to the championship years, it's clear the organization (and that means Reinsdorf) isn't all that great to play for, even if you do get paid well.

But I can't get over that Paxson just doesn't come out and say "Skiles is MY guy. He's the only guy I want coaching the team right now." And say it in a way that convinces Reinsdorf.

Perhaps glass and skiles are indeed trying to parlay ONE "ok" season (playoffs, 1st round and out) into a much bigger deal than they deserve. Someone (Paxson) with a cool head needs to do a sales job - on Skiles, Glass, and Reinsdorf. Or risk losing Skiles over chump change.

Yes, chump change. I know it's easy to talk about $1M like it is chump change when it seems like a lot of money. But considering the size of the business (worth $400M, according to Forbes), it is. 

I just can't help but equate this situation to Crawford's. It didn't matter what Crawford wanted; a situation was contrived to assure he was out of town at the earliest opportunity. I see a situation being contrived to assure Skiles is out of town at the earliest opportunity. Performance be damned.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Kismet said:


> Heinrich will kick off the '07 season under a brand new contract.


I must admit that I'm absolutely taken aback by how quickly and intensely the pro-Skiles camp has flat-out bailed on the guy. So Kirk is going to be a huge litmus test. I can't wait to see how folks around here react when Kirk's agent throws out the words "max deal."



> why shouldn't the Bulls have the freedom to begin searching for a new bench leader?


Why wouldn't they have the freedom to hire a new coach? Is there a salary cap for coaches I'm not aware of? Are the Bulls a struggling mid-market team, or a very successful big-market team that clears 30-50 million in annual operating profit? I'm confused.



> Those are the kind of contract caveats fans may never learn about.


Kind of like the fact that the Bulls wanted to pay Skiles over twenty years if he didn't last the term of his contract?



> I doubt Reinsdorf has anything to do with what the Bulls and John Paxson are offering Skiles. I think Paxson may be adamant about having certain performance clauses included in his head coach's new contract. If Paxson won't budge then it makes sense for Glass to try to draw Reinsdorf into the negotiations picture.


Wow. Now I guess I see the value in the Chairman saying he won't deal with agents. It allows him to pin the blame for all his decision-making squarely on the GM. 



> The flaw that exposes Glass' contention that Reinsdorf is holding up the deal over money is easily beaten down by JR's willingness this season to eat some very significant player contracts (Robinson and Pippen to name a few).


Oh, dear. I hope this is just a misapprehension of how buying out an NBA player contract works, not a deliberate attempt to mislead people. I would say that Glass's contention is not at all easily beaten down when one examines Reinsdorf's longer-term track record: 

Jordan got his payday only after Dave Checketts showed up in a limo outside the United Center ready to offer him the sun, moon, and stars to play for the Knicks. Pippen had to get his payday from Les Alexander and Paul Allen. Elton Brand got his money from Donald Sterling (oh, the irony). The Simon brothers paid Ron Artest, the Maloof brothers paid Brad Miller, and the Dolan family paid Jamal Crawford. 

But the Skiles situation takes the cake, imo. The Bulls were the laughingstock of professional sports, mired in the worst six-year record in NBA history. Paxson and Skiles grabbed the team by the lapels, threw a bucketful of cold water on its face, stanched the bleeding, and put together a precedent-setting rags-to-riches season. Their approach was simple -- get coachable players and get them to play hard, and preach that playing hard and playing smart will reap rewards.

I can't imagine anyone else in the business coaching as hard and as smart as Skiles did this season. What he lacked in tactical skills he made up for in sheer grit and determination. That the team failed in the playoffs -- minus arguably its two best players -- doesn't tarnish the accomplishment.

The players aren't wide-eyed babies at this point and obviously they know that first and foremost the league is a business. Still, there's no doubt that they are looking at this turn of events and wondering about their future in Chicago. If a guy like Skiles is "rewarded" for his excellence with a gimmicky low-ball contract full of weird stipulations and incentives and a preposterous twenty-year payout if he's fired, what kind of message does that send? 

Sell the team, Jerry. Sell it to someone who doesn't go into a rage when faced with the prospect of handing out big-time, long-term dollars to a player or coach. Sell it to someone who's a fan, to someone who respects the game and the people who play it. Sell it to someone who realizes that the bottom line is wins and losses, not the ledger sheet. Sell it to someone who has at least one toe dipped into the pool of reality.

I've been a Bulls fan before I ever heard of Jerry Reinsdorf, and I'll be a fan long after he's gone. It's never been clearer to me, though, that the team isn't going to succeed for the long haul on his watch (unless they trip over themselves and luck into another Jordan).


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I have another thought on this, though not so much related to Skiles.

There's two edges to the "grow your own" strategy the Bulls have mostly employed since Jordan retired. As ScottMay pointed out, we've seen the revolving door effect when it comes time for the draft picks we've had (that panned out) to get paid more than rookie wage scale.

Which of these players deserve less than what Crawford got, if not more than what Crawford got:

Curry, Chandler, Hinrich, Deng, Gordon, Duhon, Nocioni

Look down the road just 3 years, after Cap Space makes his appearance.


----------



## dkg1 (May 31, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> If Skiles and the Bulls are done long term, lets not have him on the bench next season. Either it's a marriage or a divorce.
> 
> AND NO MORE FIRST ROOKIE COACHES! Give me Flip Saunders or someone like that.



When was the last time Reinsdork hired an established manager/coach? Terry Bevington, Jerry Manuel, Tim Floyd, Cartwright, Gene Lamont...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

dkg1 said:


> Darius Miles Davis said:
> 
> 
> > If Skiles and the Bulls are done long term, lets not have him on the bench next season. Either it's a marriage or a divorce.
> ...


This is why I just have to laugh at the dewy-eyed Reinsdorfians who are intimating that Skiles is a "Point B" coach and this is all just a prelude to bringing back Phil or some other high-profile coach.

You'd have to have the Chairman hooked up to a defibrillator so he wouldn't die from signing a deal like that.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I heard that Skiles is on the SCORE right now if anyone can listen in and keep us posted.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

ace20004u said:


> I heard that Skiles is on the SCORE right now if anyone can listen in and keep us posted.


monitor the site. they will probably post it.

in the meantime, comcast has posted the interview with glass last night.

http://chicago.comcastsportsnet.com/multimedia.asp


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> monitor the site. they will probably post it.
> 
> in the meantime, comcast has posted the interview with glass last night.
> 
> http://chicago.comcastsportsnet.com/multimedia.asp



unfortunately I do not have a soundcard in my work computer so I will have to wait and hope someone posts the basics of what was said.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Sell the team, Jerry. Sell it to someone who doesn't go into a rage when faced with the prospect of handing out big-time, long-term dollars to a player or coach. Sell it to someone who's a fan, to someone who respects the game and the people who play it. Sell it to someone who realizes that the bottom line is wins and losses, not the ledger sheet. Sell it to someone who has at least one toe dipped into the pool of reality.


Great post. Please add me to your club.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> True, but a principled businessman will walk if his ethics are compromised.
> 
> There is nothing worse than working for a patsy of a manager... spineless.... unwilling to go to bat for their valued employees against upper management.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but this is just inapplicable. A principled businessman will walk if he ethics are compromised? Paxson may be subject to a budget that he does not agree with. He is allowed to make an offer to make Skiles one of the 5 highest paid coaches in the league, but not being able to go above that requires him to compromise his ethics? Ridiculous. This is a normal business. Maybe it's unfair to the fans that such a profitable business won't go out and pay within the top couple of teams for a coach. But to somehow say that Pax should walk because of this condition is pure lunacy. The person at the top of the totem pole in the business has final say on the finances. That's the way it is. To act like Pax should be issuing some sort of ultimatem over this seems more than a bit unrealistic to me. 

Also, implying that Paxson is "spineless" and a "patsy" seems more than a bit unfair. First of all, you don't really know what's going on. Paxson may have lobbied hard for Skiles. He could have gone to bat for him and you wouldn't know at this point. It's also possible that Pax didn't go to bat for him because he thinks somebody else would be as good or better. Who knows? But attributing all this to the CYA game when there are no facts to support it merely shows your own bias and nothing else.




DaBullz said:


> I guess it depends on how you value the job. If you think it's fine to have your boss handcuff you in doing your job, then I guess you just sit there and take it. Whatever it is.


You call it handcuff. I call it being the boss. Reinsdorf, because he's the owner, gets to set limits. In your world, it seems that employees universally have the ability to dictate to their employers how the business is going to run. I don't think that's reality. Do I think it's possible JR is mishandling the situation and would I like to see him give Pax more freedom to spend money? You bet. Do I think though that allowing Pax to make an offer to put Skiles in the top 5 coaches in the NBA in terms of pay is handcuffing him? Hardly. Perhaps it's those nice little pink handcuffs with the feathers, but nothing else. 

Bosses get to set the limits. That's why they're the bosses. That's where the buck stops.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> *Skiles ends contract extension talks with Bulls
> *



lather, rinse and repeat.

the bulls didn't bail, skiles did. or is about to. i need a strong vodka drink right about now.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> lather, rinse and repeat.
> 
> the bulls didn't bail, skiles did. or is about to. i need a strong vodka drink right about now.


Too late to join the Fire Skiles club, it's gone.

:biggrin:


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> lather, rinse and repeat.
> 
> the bulls didn't bail, skiles did. or is about to. i need a strong vodka drink right about now.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

such sweet thunder said:


>



faaaaaabulous, dahlink. merci.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I don't care about the fact that Jerry wouldn't deal directly with Glass.

Skiles is bailing, no doubt about it.

Its time:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I accidently deleted DaBullz' posting of the press release.

Here is the Southtown story:

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/071sd9.htm




> The question no longer is whether the Bulls will have a lame-duck head coach in Scott Skiles next season, but whether he has reached the point of no return with them.
> With contract negotiations still at an impasse Monday, Skiles' adviser, Keith Glass, criticized team management, called off future talks and all but gave up hope the two sides could agree to an extension for his client.
> 
> "I called them today and said (the negotiations were) done," Glass told WSCR Radio. "Actually, it's Scott's deal, not mine. I'm just along for the ride, but in my opinion, I don't want to deal with it anymore. It's enough."
> ...


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Mods: how do I go about changing my handle to "I Told You So"?
> 
> I hate this freaking "organization."
> 
> EDIT: Although according to Shinky's transcript, Glass claims he's only dealt with Paxson, which kind of shocks me. I was wrong about that.


Bump.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Same old song and dance.
> 
> It would be shocking if it was not so consistent.
> 
> ...


Bump #2.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Why doesn't Paxson go to JR and say "dammit, let's sign the guy" ?


Bump #3


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Bump #2.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> [W]hy not let things play out with the Bulls and see how the team performs next year? Maybe you can at least wait until a new coach is hired?


BUMP


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> BUMP


You're bumping my attempts to try and talk you down from the ledge?

I think those are different than the self-congratulatory posts condemning Reinsdorf and Bulls managment.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

LOL, who needs a towel to wipe the egg off of his or her face?

I know a few people need much more than a towel, maybe a circus tent?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> You're bumping my attempts to try and talk you down from the ledge?


Nope, just bumping your praising the Chairman for not re-signing Skiles.


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Nope, just bumping your praising the Chairman for not re-signing Skiles.





> [W]hy not let things play out with the Bulls and see how the team performs next year? Maybe you can at least wait until a new coach is hired?


Maybe you should bump another post since that one does not have what you're looking for.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Frankensteiner said:


> Maybe you should bump another post since that one does not have what you're looking for.


I disagree. 

This a.m., when Skiles's departure seemed assured, even to the extent that the Bulls Emergency Cyber Response Team was telling us that negotiations with Phil Jackson were underway, you were asking me to withhold judgment of events until Skiles's replacement had had a year under his belt. 

Fast forward to this evening, when Skiles's new deal is announced, and you're asking me to eat crow. Seems to me that you're the one who should be digging in, not me. You had Skiles dead and buried and were convinced it was the right decision. Now it's a great decision that he's still here?

Which is it?


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Anyone done the "Keith Glass is a twat" club yet?


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Fast forward to this evening, when Skiles's new deal is announced, and you're asking me to eat crow.


Well, the whole theme of the Reinsdorf conspirators was that he'd never give out a fair payday to virtually anyone, which we heard over and over when the Skiles deal appeared to be dead in the water. But Skiles is under contract now, so he apparently thought the deal was fair, or else he wouldn't have signed it. So yeah, caw caw. :biggrin:



ScottMay said:


> Seems to me that you're the one who should be digging in, not me. You had Skiles dead and buried and were convinced it was the right decision. Now it's a great decision that he's still here?


He never said it would be great if Skiles left town; he just said maybe it wasn't the end of the world. There's no contradiction there, and I personally feel the same way.

But please, don't let that stop you from grasping at more straws. Hey, I hear Reinsdorf kicked a puppy yesterday morning. :wink:


----------



## Frankensteiner (Dec 29, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I disagree.
> 
> This a.m., when Skiles's departure seemed assured, even to the extent that the Bulls Emergency Cyber Response Team was telling us that negotiations with Phil Jackson were underway, you were asking me to withhold judgment of events until Skiles's replacement had had a year under his belt.
> 
> ...


What I was trying to point out had nothing to do with what I thought of Skiles's coaching ability. He's a good coach and I'll be curious to see where we stand in year 3 of the contract extension; my viewpoint has never changed. But that aside, my intention was to point out the classic stream of overreaction pegging the Bulls, Pax, and Reinsdorf as cheap and incompetent, and as the worst organization in the history of sports.


----------

