# Gordon has offer from Moscow, decision expected by Wednesday



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

> Greek news sources are reporting that Ben Gordon has been offered a $5.5 million contract with CSKA Moscow. That contract is the equivalent to an $8.9 million contract in the NBA, as European teams deal in net. Gordon is said to be demanding at least $7 million from CSKA Moscow, which would be the same amount that Josh Childress is making. That deal would be the equivalent of an $11.3 million NBA contract, and would provide Gordon great incentive to leave the NBA for Russia.





> The article says that Gordon will make his decision by Wednesday. This likely is just when Gordon will decide if he is going overseas or not. There is no indication that if Gordon turns down CSKA Moscow’s offer, that he will make a decision on what to do with the Bulls at the same time.



http://dabullz.com/2008/09/02/cska-moscow-offers-ben-gordon-55-million/


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

P to the Wee said:


> http://dabullz.com/2008/09/02/cska-moscow-offers-ben-gordon-55-million/


Sloth's site is not a legitimate news source.

EDIT: With regards to your reply, you should post the Real GM link.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

King Joseus said:


> Sloth's site is not a legitimate news source.


I read it on RealGm so I know he didn't make it up.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Just wait until the next year and the years after that, more and more players will leave the NBA. Our politicians have doomed this country economically, and it's only going to get worse. Sadly I think maybe superficial things such as basketball players leaving the USA may be a good wake up call to many Americans that do not realize the economic turmoil we face. The dollar's devaluation will get dramatically worse in the coming years, which means your standard of living is going to take a hit.

Watch Dr. Ron Paul speak now @, 

www.campaignforliberty.com
CSPAN2

and get to know the truth about our economy and the state of our government.

Google, youttube Ron Paul and the Federal Reserve.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

First, these numbers only apply if the Euro stays at 1.5 to the US dollar. And my guess is with a new president who will no doubt support a strong dollar we can all assume the Euro will slowly move to 1 dollar to 1 Euro. And if that happenes than BG will be screwed and the bulls will stil own his rights and he will still be in the same mess his is in now. That is BG thinks he should be making 12 mill a year but no other GM seems to agree.

davdi


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

giusd said:


> First, these numbers only apply if the Euro stays at 1.5 to the US dollar. And my guess is with a new president who will no doubt support a strong dollar we can all assume the Euro will slowly move to 1 dollar to 1 Euro. And if that happenes than BG will be screwed and the bulls will stil own his rights and he will still be in the same mess his is in now. That is BG thinks he should be making 12 mill a year but no other GM seems to agree.
> 
> davdi


I'm so glad I came to this site today. I am calling my financial advisor tomorrow to buy up put options on the Euro tomorrow. Thanks davdi.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

giusd said:


> First, these numbers only apply if the Euro stays at 1.5 to the US dollar. And my guess is with a new president who will no doubt support a strong dollar we can all assume the Euro will slowly move to 1 dollar to 1 Euro. And if that happenes than BG will be screwed and the bulls will stil own his rights and he will still be in the same mess his is in now. That is BG thinks he should be making 12 mill a year but no other GM seems to agree.
> 
> davdi


1 US to 1 EU? Not going to happen anytime soon.


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

giusd said:


> First, these numbers only apply if the Euro stays at 1.5 to the US dollar. And my guess is with a new president who will no doubt support a strong dollar we can all assume the Euro will slowly move to 1 dollar to 1 Euro. And if that happenes than BG will be screwed and the bulls will stil own his rights and he will still be in the same mess his is in now. *That is BG thinks he should be making 12 mill a year but no other GM seems to agree.*
> 
> davdi


Funny that it seems no Euro GM does either. He wants max (or near max) and can't get an offer as good as Josh Childress overseas. Maybe this will be a wake up call to him.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Well i agree not soon. But in the last six weeks the Euro has gone down from 1.6 to 1.45 and it looks like that trend is still in effect. In other six weeks it couls easily be 1.3. And if you look at the euro vs the dollar they values are very similar and i am just saying with bush gone (who stupidly pushed a weak dollar) the dollar will continue to gain.

I am just saying that by the spring the dollar and Euro could easily be equal. just one man's opinion.

david


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

I would prefer Gordon leaves for Europe for 2 years and we get him back in 2010. It already clears a logjam a bit.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I'd prefer to just S&T the dumb SOB already. Thoroughly sick of the worthless ******* already.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Where is the real link?Is it in Greek?I don't see anything I can comprehend beyond Sloth claiming that CSKA needs Ben Gordon to match up with Olympiacos.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> I'd prefer to just S&T the dumb SOB already. Thoroughly sick of the worthless ******* already.



Great post. Well thought-out and reasoned.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Hey good luck to Ben Gordon in Europe if some Euro team wants to pay Ben Gordon an absurd amount of money to play for them and Ben Gordon doesn’t mind putting up 20 ppg in front of 9,000 people while playing in a far inferior league then good luck to all the parties involved.

The truth is no NBA team is going to pay Ben Gordon the amount of money he wants, heck even if we dint have this strict salary cap nobody is willing to pay Ben Gordon 12 million a year!


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

R-Star said:


> 1 US to 1 EU? Not going to happen anytime soon.


Well it was almost on its way to 2 EU to the Dollar not too long ago but its plummeted to 1.44 now, with Russia screwing around in Europe I would not be surprised if in a year or two there will be no significant difference.

One thing to never bet on are economies.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

For the last 5 years the euro has been fairly consistently above 1.18 so parity with the dollar may be too aggressive of a call


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

Wow, Gordon is really doing all he can to chase every single dollar. Oh well, when a pint size shooting guard who can't play D can get a 59 million dollar offer and turn it down (and be insulted) you have to wonder what the world is coming to.

Hate to lose him, but bye bye turd...


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Hustle said:


> Just wait until the next year and the years after that, more and more players will leave the NBA. Our politicians have doomed this country economically, and it's only going to get worse. Sadly I think maybe superficial things such as basketball players leaving the USA may be a good wake up call to many Americans that do not realize the economic turmoil we face. The dollar's devaluation will get dramatically worse in the coming years, which means your standard of living is going to take a hit.
> 
> Watch Dr. Ron Paul speak now @,
> 
> ...


Don't forget Dennis Kucinich!!


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

jnrjr79 said:


> Great post. Well thought-out and reasoned.


Just keep it short baby!!


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Ben wants to get paid as much as he can... that doesn't mean he's greedy, just means he's trying to do business like anyone else would... 

I don't think he's made any outlandish demands or claims... he's just in the unfortunate circumstance of having a lukewarm market...

If you were his agent, what would you be doing?


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Ben wants to get paid as much as he can... that doesn't mean he's greedy, just means he's trying to do business like anyone else would...
> 
> I don't think he's made any outlandish demands or claims... he's just in the unfortunate circumstance of having a lukewarm market...
> 
> If you were his agent, what would you be doing?


His agent is doing his job, that is to somehow create competition for his services in what has been a lukewarm market. 

I will reserve judgement on this development, as far as leverage in the negotiation process, it seems to be too little / too late to sway JR. The chairman has been through too many of these to be swayed by perceived competition vs, real competition.

The wild card is Ben, he reminds me a little of Skiles in his deep-set of beliefs. If he feels unappreciated I would not be surprised to see him accept this offer even if it is not in his best interests long-term.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

"I would prefer Gordon leaves for Europe for 2 years and we get him back in 2010. It already clears a logjam a bit."

The Bulls wouldnt need him in 2 years, not with Wade wanting to come home to Chicago. Who would you want playing SG for your Bulls team, BG or D Wade? That cant be too hard to answer.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> The Bulls wouldnt need him in 2 years, not with Wade wanting to come home to Chicago.


has wade been quoted as saying he's coming to chicago? link please.



> Who would you want playing SG for your Bulls team, BG or D Wade? That cant be too hard to answer.


who would *you* want with the ability to *make shots *,create offense and keep defenses honest alongside DWade, BG or KH?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

WshflThinking said:


> The Bulls wouldnt need him in 2 years, not with Wade wanting to come home to Chicago. Who would you want playing SG for your Bulls team, BG or D Wade? That cant be too hard to answer.


Your name is fitting.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

WshflThinking said:


> "I would prefer Gordon leaves for Europe for 2 years and we get him back in 2010. It already clears a logjam a bit."
> 
> The Bulls wouldnt need him in 2 years, not with Wade wanting to come home to Chicago. Who would you want playing SG for your Bulls team, BG or D Wade? That cant be too hard to answer.


your dreams of Wade in a Bulls uni fits your screen name...


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

"who would you want with the ability to make shots ,create offense and keep defenses honest alongside DWade, BG or KH?"

Neither, Derek Rose. BG isnt a PG. He cant guard quick PGs and is too small to guard SGs. He is just a square peg in a round hole.

We are talking the 2010/11 season for Wade, not 2008/09. Hopefully neither KH or BG are Bulls by 2010/11.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> your dreams of Wade in a Bulls uni fits your screen name...


Haha...I beat you to it. :laugh:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

WshflThinking said:


> "who would you want with the ability to make shots ,create offense and keep defenses honest alongside DWade, BG or KH?"
> 
> Neither, Derek Rose. BG isnt a PG. He cant guard quick PGs and is too small to guard SGs. He is just a square peg in a round hole.
> 
> We are talking the 2010/11 season for Wade, not 2008/09. Hopefully neither KH or BG are Bulls by 2010/11.


Use the quote button.

Either way, the point remains. That poster has it right.

If Rose pans out anywhere near his potential, he can't play with Wade. They both need the ball in their hands to be effective. That isn't going to change.


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Use the quote button.
> 
> Either way, the point remains. That poster has it right.
> 
> If Rose pans out anywhere near his potential, he can't play with Wade. They both need the ball in their hands to be effective. That isn't going to change.



I am a little confused. If Rose and Wade cannot play together, why was Miami so intent on drafting Rose? Everything I read prior to the lottery was that Rose was # 1 on the Heat's board.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

Based on my meager understanding of this Gordon's getting offered less(or maybe the same) to play in Moscow on a one year deal.That is if you never intend to bring this money back to the United States as well.From what I can gather anything he or Josh Childress brings back to the USA is subject to US taxes.In that case this offer would be about 30% less than what the Bulls are offering.Of course I'm sure he could find plenty of things to buy over there,maybe he intends to blow it all.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

WshflThinking said:


> "I would prefer Gordon leaves for Europe for 2 years and we get him back in 2010. It already clears a logjam a bit."
> 
> The Bulls wouldnt need him in 2 years, not with Wade wanting to come home to Chicago. Who would you want playing SG for your Bulls team, BG or D Wade? That cant be too hard to answer.


What would you rather have, Rose along with Ben Gordon AND someone like Amare or Yao, or Rose with Wade without Gordon?


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

I'll take Rose and Wade thank you.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

"If Rose pans out anywhere near his potential, he can't play with Wade. They both need the ball in their hands to be effective. That isn't going to change."

Thats just plain insanity there. Rose plays PG and Wade plays SG. Besides Miami wanted to pair them together so the idea cant be crazy.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

WshflThinking said:


> "If Rose pans out anywhere near his potential, he can't play with Wade. They both need the ball in their hands to be effective. That isn't going to change."
> 
> Thats just plain insanity there. Rose plays PG and Wade plays SG. Besides Miami wanted to pair them together so the idea cant be crazy.


Wade doesn't have a great perimeter shot. Both Wade and Rose need the ball in their hands to be effective.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Diable said:


> Based on my meager understanding of this Gordon's getting offered less(or maybe the same) to play in Moscow on a one year deal.That is if you never intend to bring this money back to the United States as well.From what I can gather anything he or Josh Childress brings back to the USA is subject to US taxes.In that case this offer would be about 30% less than what the Bulls are offering.Of course I'm sure he could find plenty of things to buy over there,maybe he intends to blow it all.



It is true that the US taxes its citizens on their income earned anywhere in the world, after offsetting taxes paid in the foreign country where the income was earned, generally speaking. However, the common practice in Europe is to increase the actual salary in order to essentially pay the taxes for the player. I believe that's what's happening here, so it's not a matter of keeping the funds outside of the US. Moreover, even keeping the funds outside of the country would not avoid the tax liability. Assuming BG would still want to come into the states in the offsesaon, he'd need to pay those taxes.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

The Europeans don't pay the players taxes.They simply report the salary after local taxes have been acccounted for.The number they report is what you'll collect in Greece or Spain or Russia after you've paid the income taxes there.It does not include any tax obligations you might incur in your native country.If this contract is for 5.5 million that's 5.5 million after Russian taxes.You still owe US taxes if you come home.

I think you could have CSKA or whoever compensate you with stock or something.In that case I don't think you'd owe US taxes so long as you held onto the stock,but if you sold the stock the taxman's going to be there with his hand extended.

Regardless there's absolutely no way in which this alleged offer from CSKA makes any sense for Gordon unless he intends to become some sort of tax exile.The bulls offer is simply more money in his pocket.If he walked away from all that guaranteed money I think I'd be tempted to laugh my *** off.I really doubt that he ever gets anything better or maybe even close to 60 million$.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Diable said:


> The Europeans don't pay the players taxes.They simply report the salary after local taxes have been acccounted for.The number they report is what you'll collect in Greece or Spain or Russia after you've paid the income taxes there.It does not include any tax obligations you might incur in your native country.If this contract is for 5.5 million that's 5.5 million after Russian taxes.You still owe US taxes if you come home.



That's not an accurate description of US tax law. I haven't studied up on it since 2004, but assuming the law is still the same this is the deal:

The US taxes its citizens on all income earned worldwide. This is different than in many countries. However, this isn't the end of the story. First, there is a threshold of income of over about $80,000+ you must earn in order to be subject to US tax. For professional basketball players, this is obviously very overwhelmingly exceeded. Second, say your tax rate in the US based upon the amount you earn is 30%. The US will not tax you the 30% in addition to the tax you pay outside the country. Instead, if your tax rate in your country of income is 20%, but your US tax rate is 30%, then 20% goes to the foreign country, and the remaining 10% goes to the US.

Where this becomes interesting is that in much of Europe, your tax rate in the country in which you earn the income will be higher than the US. Say your tax rate in that country is 40%. Then, in that case, this totally offsets the tax you would pay in the US, so you owe nothing here.

Lastly, the "if you come home" reference you make isn't right. You owe the tax to the US regardless of whether you come home. You'd need to give up your US citizenship to stop being subject to the tax. Your taxes are payable to the US every year regardless of whether you re-enter the country or not.

Anyway, that's my understanding.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

HI,

I looked at a job in Singapore and had a long conversation with a international tax accountant and you are very correct.

david


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

giusd said:


> HI,
> 
> I looked at a job in Singapore and had a long conversation with a international tax accountant and you are very correct.
> 
> david



Thanks, David. I'm by no means an expert, but concentrated in international law and took international tax law when I was in law school, so I was hoping I still remembered ok.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

"Wade doesn't have a great perimeter shot. Both Wade and Rose need the ball in their hands to be effective."

His shot looked pretty decent in the Olympics and his defense was awesome.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

Gordon should consult with Mario Austin about Moscow.

Ben Gordon: Tell me about Moscow...









Mario Austin: WHAT!??!?
(Mario Austin screams in pain and kills himself)


----------



## theyoungsrm (May 23, 2003)

Man there are alot of tough talkers on this website when it comes to Gordon. 

Whether Gordon is or is not worth 59M, the fact remains that losing him outright or losing him for pennies on the dollar is a bad bad deal for the Bulls when it comes to talent. 

A Bulls team that has had trouble scoring doesn't seem like the best candidate to lose a near 20 point scorer with a nice shot and not feel the ill effects of it. Especially a team that isn't elite and would struggle to make the playoffs.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

What you say is true, nobody wants to lose a player for nothing, but even when BG comes back he wont be a UFA. The Bulls will still own his rights and a team desiring to sign him will have to compensate the Bulls first. What that compensation amounts to is conjecture at this time, likely cash or a #1 draft pick.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

theyoungsrm said:


> Man there are alot of tough talkers on this website when it comes to Gordon.
> 
> Whether Gordon is or is not worth 59M, the fact remains that losing him outright or losing him for pennies on the dollar is a bad bad deal for the Bulls when it comes to talent.
> 
> A Bulls team that has had trouble scoring doesn't seem like the best candidate to lose a near 20 point scorer with a nice shot and not feel the ill effects of it. Especially a team that isn't elite and would struggle to make the playoffs.


The thing is, we aren't trying to contend, we are rebuilding. I love Gordon, but it would be easier to clear the logjam if he weren't here for a season or two. I'm sure Reinsdorf wouldn't mind going a few million into tax if we were a contender.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> The thing is, we aren't trying to contend, we are rebuilding. I love Gordon, but it would be easier to clear the logjam if he weren't here for a season or two. I'm sure Reinsdorf wouldn't mind going a few million into tax if we were a contender.


can't say i agree here; has *anyone* in the bulls organization uttered the word "rebuild"? if they had, they'd be selling the message to the fans IN ADVANCE that they should expect losing while they figure out what kind of team they'll be in 2-3 years. i don't think the bulls think they are "RE-building" at all. they are still in the "building" process.

wallace clearly didn't pan out, and as per usual, when young players drafted by the team are looking for a payday, there are bumps in the business aspect of basketball. so at the end of the day, the bulls have replaced wallace with new young bigs, essentially the replacements for curry and chandler, yet still have hinrich, deng, gordon, nocioni (for better or worse), along with proven veterans in hughes and gooden that have established themselves as credible nba players.

whether or not you believe them to be ultimately "championship material" or not, isn't where the bulls are thinking. they know they have "pieces", determining which fit best and which are long term investments are all part of building a championship roster. they hadn't "built" anything yet, and i suspect they aren't going to use the excuse of, "well, we underachieved last year folks, so we're going to start from scratch".

lucking into the #1 is another reason why "rebuilding" isn't the order of the day; rose will be brought along as quickly as his play dictates; in other words, if he struggles, he'll watch a little; if he dominates, the bulls will be better for it and he'll rapidly ascend to the leader of the team. with established players like deng, gordon, gooden, and even hinrich, rose's game will make them all look better and ease his transition as "the guy" on the bulls. unless there's inherent jealousy within the exisiting ranks, rose has shown himself as a natural leader and i expect will "blossom" within the year.

"re"building, i don't buy it, and the fans shouldn't either. playoffs should be expected, and the second round should again be the goal. you don't go from lottery to finals in a year; winning it all is a process, steps in that direction are rarely ruler straight. waiting for 2010 is cool, but having a team poised and mature when that era comes along is a better attraction for the big name FA either way it goes.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

" I'm sure Reinsdorf wouldn't mind going a few million into tax if we were a contender."

Thats not what his policy is. Its contending for a championship. We will be lucky to contend for just a playoff spot not a championship, therefore he wont pay the luxury tax. Its why I dont see the Bulls come up from that 59 Mill offer. You can look at the 48 Mill contract of Maggette, interpolate the 6th year and you come up with what the Bulls are offering BG. So by your attitude are you saying that BG is better than Maggette? I dont think so. And there arent any takers for BG anywheres in the NBA.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Well, if Ben really did make a decision on Wednesday about a purported offer from Moscow, he sure has kept quiet about it.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Well, if Ben really did make a decision on Wednesday about a purported offer from Moscow, he sure has kept quiet about it.


Surely, it was this threat to sign with CSKA Moscow that got Paxson running back to the table with his tail between his legs. 

"Don't go, Ben! Please, please stay!"

Maybe Ben got the Russian mafia to make his case a little more strongly?

Is Ben really ready to just sit out?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

So Ben is willing to give up Chi Town for Moscow?
Deep Dish Pizza for Borsch!
Fireworks over Lake Michigan for Fireworks over Georgia!?
Admiral Theater for some creepy Discotech!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Good Hope said:


> Surely, it was this threat to sign with CSKA Moscow that got Paxson running back to the table with his tail between his legs.
> 
> "Don't go, Ben! Please, please stay!"
> 
> ...


Actually, I don't think this Moscow rumor was based on reality from the get-go.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Actually, I don't think this Moscow rumor was based on reality from the get-go.


But don't you think that Ben and his camp "promoted" it, even if it wasn't a real alternative?

His position seems soooooo desperate. Either he's got an ace up his sleeve, he's letting his pride get the best of him, or he was given a deadline by the Bulls -- "bring us something back against which we can bid, or we take the (long-term) offer off the table and you can sign for the QO or just sit," and he's just using all the time given him.

????


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

WshflThinking said:


> " I'm sure Reinsdorf wouldn't mind going a few million into tax if we were a contender."
> 
> Thats not what his policy is. Its contending for a championship. We will be lucky to contend for just a playoff spot not a championship, therefore he wont pay the luxury tax. Its why I dont see the Bulls come up from that 59 Mill offer. You can look at the 48 Mill contract of Maggette, interpolate the 6th year and you come up with what the Bulls are offering BG. So by your attitude are you saying that BG is better than Maggette? I dont think so. And there arent any takers for BG anywheres in the NBA.


I think the Bulls offer is fair but just because JR says he has a policy on the luxury tax doesn't mean that is not still being cheap. It's going to be very difficult to ever contend for a championship if he is not willing to go into luxury tax in the attempt to get to championship caliber. We do not have a superstar and without one it will be very difficult to compete at the highest level without taking some calculated risks along the way. Having this policy and holding firm on it is an excuse for making excessive profits.

Be honest Bulls fans. We have a cheap owner and a way too conservative management.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

The Bulls don't seem as if they would trade Kirk Hinrich(based on TechN9ne rumors), so if Gordon signs, what do you guys think will happen?


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

"I think the Bulls offer is fair but just because JR says he has a policy on the luxury tax doesn't mean that is not still being cheap. It's going to be very difficult to ever contend for a championship if he is not willing to go into luxury tax in the attempt to get to championship caliber. We do not have a superstar and without one it will be very difficult to compete at the highest level without taking some calculated risks along the way. Having this policy and holding firm on it is an excuse for making excessive profits.

Be honest Bulls fans. We have a cheap owner and a way too conservative management."

Concervative but not cheap. This is the same owner who paid MJ 32 Mill for one season. So you seem to be saying the only way he can prove he isnt cheap is by going into the luxury tax for a 30 win team? Absolutely absurd. No way do I pay the luxury tax for an overrated player on a 30 win team. Take a chance? Take a chance BG learns to play defense? Take a chance he'll still grow 3"? Please!

The only correct thing you said is this team doesnt have a superstar.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

I dont know who posted this, but who is saying this Moscow rumor has forced the Bulls back to the negotiating table? I dont believe that. Link please!


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

WshflThinking said:


> I dont know who posted this, but who is saying this Moscow rumor has forced the Bulls back to the negotiating table? I dont believe that. Link please!


I don't think someone said that was the case, but what he assumed.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

WshflThinking said:


> "I think the Bulls offer is fair but just because JR says he has a policy on the luxury tax doesn't mean that is not still being cheap. It's going to be very difficult to ever contend for a championship if he is not willing to go into luxury tax in the attempt to get to championship caliber. We do not have a superstar and without one it will be very difficult to compete at the highest level without taking some calculated risks along the way. Having this policy and holding firm on it is an excuse for making excessive profits.
> 
> Be honest Bulls fans. We have a cheap owner and a way too conservative management."
> 
> ...


Best scorer on a 49 win team, too.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

There was no offer - it was a put on job. Found this translation of a Russian article via blogabull:

http://www.google.com/translate?u=h...rticle-item/303751&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=ru&tl=en


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

P to the Wee said:


> I don't think someone said that was the case, but what he assumed.


Neither claimed nor assumed. It was a bad joke 

As TB #1 said, the rumor was just that. As I assumed, the rumor was promoted by Gordon's agent in some weird strategy in the negotiations.

By the way, in the article Narek posted there is a statement to the effect that Gordon is ready to go to any NBA team other than the Bulls. 

Also, the reference to the 2007/2008 championship is just a mistranslation. They referred to the season as the competition for the championship.

This is getting downright embarrassing for Gordon....


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

WshflThinking said:


> "I think the Bulls offer is fair but just because JR says he has a policy on the luxury tax doesn't mean that is not still being cheap. It's going to be very difficult to ever contend for a championship if he is not willing to go into luxury tax in the attempt to get to championship caliber. We do not have a superstar and without one it will be very difficult to compete at the highest level without taking some calculated risks along the way. Having this policy and holding firm on it is an excuse for making excessive profits.
> 
> Be honest Bulls fans. We have a cheap owner and a way too conservative management."
> 
> ...


Based on your response, I didn't communicate well. I'll try again. First of all paying MJ $32MM is not very relevant since there was no luxury tax then and MJ was worth at least that much. Remember that the Bulls fans fully supported the Bulls for all the years after MJ with a terrible team with very low overall salaries. To say the Bulls printed money from 1999-2004 would not be too far off. Two years ago the Bulls won 49 games and everyone talked about them being only a low post scorer from going to the championship series. The Bulls started very slow last year but they had the chance to get Pau Gasol for essentially nothing more than going into luxury tax territory this year. That is why I say JR is cheap because it was put up time and he and the organization blinked. Of course I wouldn't support having lousy team go into the luxury tax. However, it is true that at some point in the future the Bulls are going to have to step up before they are champions and I'm concerned they won't.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Oh, Ben. Now you're just embarrassing yourself with these made up stuff. Ugh.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Cager said:


> Based on your response, I didn't communicate well. I'll try again. First of all paying MJ $32MM is not very relevant since there was no luxury tax then and MJ was worth at least that much. Remember that the Bulls fans fully supported the Bulls for all the years after MJ with a terrible team with very low overall salaries. To say the Bulls printed money from 1999-2004 would not be too far off. Two years ago the Bulls won 49 games and everyone talked about them being only a low post scorer from going to the championship series. The Bulls started very slow last year but they had the chance to get Pau Gasol for essentially nothing more than going into luxury tax territory this year. That is why I say JR is cheap because it was put up time and he and the organization blinked. Of course I wouldn't support having lousy team go into the luxury tax. However, it is true that at some point in the future the Bulls are going to have to step up before they are champions and I'm concerned they won't.


I think it's worth noting that there is a VERY fine line between "cheap management" and "smart/tactical management". That line is often blurred when you have a player like Gordon, for whom the right price to be paid is very difficult to establish (i.e. fans of some teams are saying he's a MLE type of player, whereas others think he's worth the $11-12M per year).

The salary cap era makes it very hard to improve your team if you dedicate too much of your cap space to players who don't give you bang for the buck. We already locked in Hinrich, Noch, and Deng. We have several other players on the books for the foreseeable future. Unless we take a miraculous jump to contender status as we stand, it could be a nightmare trying to get out of our funk when all these guys are on large contracts. 

"Cheap" means you're obsessed with turning a profit, where as "Smart/tactical" means you try to avoid putting yourself in a vulnerable situation. And it's easy to get the 2 confused in the case of pro sports owners. In my opinion, Reinsdorf shows a little of both. He obviously will not let the Bulls suffer a net loss on his watch, but he also doesn't want his team getting tied to boulder (the boulder being large contracts).

Edit: By the way, in response to this comment:



> The Bulls started very slow last year but they had the chance to get Pau Gasol for essentially nothing more than going into luxury tax territory this year.


I'm fairly certain there was a direct quote from the Grizzlies GM, when he was getting hammered by the media for giving up Gasol for so little. His response was they were looking primarily for salary relief, and the Bulls didn't have expiring contracts to offer whereas the Lakers did. So, the issue with getting Gasol wasn't luxury tax, it was giving the Grizzlies what they wanted.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

The Bulls had PJ Brown to offer up. He could have been signed to whatever amount was necessary for the trade. The Griz would have then probably waived him. PJ's agent was hopin g the Bulls would have needed to us ePJ in that way.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

I cant tell you the countless times I have heard that line, "Yeah they could have signed PJ Brown" The problem with that is that the signing would have pushed them into the luxury tax which they werent going to do. And then the argument leads to the point, "but it was Pau Gasol" like God reincarnated MJ and NBA championships would have flowed like champagne. I dont see the Lakers sporting new rings. IMHO Gasol wouldnt have changed the complexion of the Bulls leading them to championship status. He wasnt the difference maker they needed. I am not knocking Gasol as an excellent player, he just kinda plays soft and thats typical of foreign players. And I have heard the argument that the Bulls were just too cheap to sign him. Well if he was the answer to their problems he would have been traded for. This was a Heisley stunt to embarrass Reinsdorf and he succeeded. Its just more crap. Another day another heap.


----------



## popeye12 (Nov 11, 2002)

I can't believe the Gasol thing has been brought up again, the BULLS made a great offer to Memphis, they simply wanted to get salary relief plain and simple. The idea about PJ Brown, how in the world do you know that he was not offered this option? He still had to accept it and who is to say that Memphis was going to release him, he wanted to play for Boston and thats that, unless people are able to quote that he was or wasnt given the option for this idea, lets leave it alone. The facts are the Bulls made an offer for Gasol (which i think was more than fair) and they declined.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

WshflThinking said:


> I cant tell you the countless times I have heard that line, "Yeah they could have signed PJ Brown" The problem with that is that the signing would have pushed them into the luxury tax which they werent going to do. And then the argument leads to the point, "but it was Pau Gasol" like God reincarnated MJ and NBA championships would have flowed like champagne. I dont see the Lakers sporting new rings. IMHO Gasol wouldnt have changed the complexion of the Bulls leading them to championship status. He wasnt the difference maker they needed. I am not knocking Gasol as an excellent player, he just kinda plays soft and thats typical of foreign players. And I have heard the argument that the Bulls were just too cheap to sign him. Well if he was the answer to their problems he would have been traded for. This was a Heisley stunt to embarrass Reinsdorf and he succeeded. Its just more crap. Another day another heap.


Are you a republican ? You use exaggeration and over the top responses like one. Did anyone say Gasol was the answer ? No but if you deny that he brings something the Bulls still don't have and something that helped the Lakers get to the championship series then you are a republican.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Cager said:


> Are you a republican ? You use exaggeration and over the top responses like one. Did anyone say Gasol was the answer ? No but if you deny that he brings something the Bulls still don't have and something that helped the Lakers get to the championship series then you are a republican.


Let's keep political riff raff out of this, por favor.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

" No but if you deny that he brings something the Bulls still don't have and something that helped the Lakers get to the championship series then you are a republican."

I wont deny Gasol would have helped the Bulls. He would have brought them maybe 5 more wins than they had between the trading deadline and the end of the season, but I doubt they would have made the playoffs or gotten out of the first round had they made it. Maybe with two or three Gasols they might have made it. The Bulls had no other superstar to match up with Gasol like the Lakers. I think you are grossly overestimating the impact Gasol would have had on the Bulls. And by the love you are throwing Gasol's way I would guess that you believe that if the Bulls needed 3 Gasols to win a championship again that Reinsdorf should increase the Bulls salary by 3 times Gasol's 15 Mill salary.


----------

