# Daily Southtown: Eddy Feeling like a Pawn



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/121sd6.htm




> Months before center Eddy Curry was to take his first dip into the free-agent waters, he admitted to some uneasiness with the process.
> 
> Now, with the Bulls intent to have a third party determine his market value before they make a firm offer, Curry understands he has no choice except to play the high-stakes game.
> 
> ...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

> he could trade the 22-year-old Curry if he considers another team's offer to be an exorbitant one.


Clarification: if Curry's name ends up on another team's offer sheet, Paxson's only options are to match or to wave goodbye.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

In other words, massive backpedaling from the 
1) We're being proactive
2) We want our guys back
Stances

If Curry is so comfortable here, why don't we make him an offer slightly below what we think he'd get and then save everyone the hastle?


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

I doubt Eddy or Tyson wants to go to ATL, and would stay in Chicago for less $ for the following reasons

1) They will be losers, and lucky if the Hawks aren't the worst team in the league next year.
A)we may be the most up and coming team in the league and we've already whiffed success.

2) They will be hated in ATL eventually. We all know these guys are not worth the max or reasonably close and will not turn that organization around. And you know how overpaid, underacheiving guys get treated in this league. (but this may not be a factor due to ATL's attendance and the overall fan fair of the hawks)
B) We need these guys and the city is going to be pumped to see our team from last year back on the floor.

3) The rest of the league will look at these guys as all about the money w/ no heart because not matter what ATL offers the Bulls will offer something reasonably close. And they will get bashed daily in the papers.
C) In Chicago they could be overpaid as hell as long as we are contending they will get mostly praise(damn you Mariotti).

But let's face it money makes the world go round and we are at least going to have to come very close to whatever ATL offer's.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> In other words, massive backpedaling from the
> 1) We're being proactive
> 2) We want our guys back
> Stances
> ...


What would you offer Eddy? His market value is really up in the air.

How do you give near max money to a center that doesn't rebound?

Eddy can feel however he wants about this situation, who cares. He didn't go to college and obviously doesn't know how business works. What he wanted the Bulls to throw him a huge contract after being a dissapointment for his first 3 years. Other guys who got the RESPECT (or whatever you want to call it) Contracts like Redd and Allen are stars who in and of themselves sell tickets, Eddy does not do that. 

Raise your hand if you went to a game to go see Eddy :biggrin:

Max contracts are for guys who are great players and marketing tools. The only thing I think we should offer Eddy is slightly above the MLE, which is probably how Pax feels, and he doesn't want to make an offer like that if ATL offers 10 million a year, because Eddy is a baby........ Bull that is.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Hustle said:


> I doubt Eddy or Tyson wants to go to ATL, and would stay in Chicago for less $ for the following reasons
> 
> 1) They will be losers, and lucky if the Hawks aren't the worst team in the league next year.
> A)we may be the most up and coming team in the league and we've already whiffed success.
> ...




:biggrin: 

plus atlanta has that horrible cowbell section. who wants to listen to that noise night in and night out?


one thing that i find about this particular article is that nowhere does eddy actually say "i feel like a pawn". and i am confused about what big contract eddy could have signed "months ago". 

plus there are no pax quotes, so i am not sure how "backpedaling" is happening. oh wait, maybe it was eddy? i mean he schedules a visit, then finds out he has to have a doctors exam. then he says no visit. then, Z re-ups with the cavs and *poof* we have a rescheduled meeting in atlanta!!!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> In other words, massive backpedaling from the
> 1) We're being proactive
> 2) We want our guys back
> Stances
> ...


Absolutely agree that Paxson has backpedalled from his statements about being proactive. And to the extent folks want to criticize him for the inconsistency, I think that is fair and I even agree with that. 

But the end result is that Paxson is now doing the right thing. Being proactive with Curry (assuming no offer has already been made and rejected) and Chandler would have been a mistake. *The Bulls need to sign them for the least amount of money possible going into next summer when they will have capspace. I cannot reiterate that enough.* Letting the market dictate their value is likely the best way to ensure that.

So I think Paxson has definitely been inconsistent. But I also think that he has come to his senses. Were the Bulls going to be capped out next summer no matter what, I'd be more inclined to think Paxson should "show them the love". But that isn't the situation.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> In other words, massive backpedaling from the
> 1) We're being proactive
> 2) We want our guys back
> Stances
> ...


Pax doesn't seem to be proactive in Eddy's case...not that I blame him given the circumstances, but it is still backpedaling nonetheless. However, it was reported that we made initial offers to Tyson, Duhon, and Pargo already. That puts the ball in their court, and they have every right to visit other teams. I have also yet to see anything that suggest Pax doesn't want these guys back. From listening to Pax's radio interview, he seems to feel good about all our key free agents being restricted. In fact, I wonder why he even used the word 'proactive' at all, because it doesn't seem very plausible (at least not very smart) to be overly proactive when it comes to restricted free agency.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

yodurk said:


> In fact, I wonder why he even used the word 'proactive' at all, because it doesn't seem very plausible (at least not very smart) to be overly proactive when it comes to restricted free agency.


Exactly right.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Pax doesn't seem to be proactive in Eddy's case...not that I blame him given the circumstances, but it is still backpedaling nonetheless. However, it was reported that we made initial offers to Tyson, Duhon, and Pargo already. That puts the ball in their court, and they have every right to visit other teams. I have also yet to see anything that suggest Pax doesn't want these guys back. From listening to Pax's radio interview, he seems to feel good about all our key free agents being restricted. In fact, I wonder why he even used the word 'proactive' at all, because it doesn't seem very plausible (at least not very smart) to be overly proactive when it comes to restricted free agency.



Our "initial offer" has only been to do the qualifying offer thing. An offer hasn't been tendered to anyone other than Duhon thus far.


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Clarification: if Curry's name ends up on another team's offer sheet, Paxson's only options are to match or to wave goodbye.


If Atl signs Curry to an offer sheet, can't Pax just bluff that he's going to match it and force them into a S&T for Harrington (or someone else)? This happens all the time with RFA - at least I'm pretty sure that it does.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

onetenthlag said:


> If Atl signs Curry to an offer sheet, can't Pax just bluff that he's going to match it and force them into a S&T for Harrington (or someone else)? This happens all the time with RFA - at least I'm pretty sure that it does.


Nope can't happen, we either match or let him walk if he signs the offer sheet.


----------



## onetenthlag (Jul 29, 2003)

sloth said:


> Nope can't happen, we either match or let him walk if he signs the offer sheet.


Why?


----------



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

onetenthlag said:


> Why?


That's the rule... once you sign an offer sheet sign and trades aren't allowed


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

HAWK23 said:


> That's the rule... once you sign an offer sheet sign and trades aren't allowed


There is one other option -- if all three parties (the player, Team 1, and Team 2) agree, the offer sheet can be torn up. But this *CANNOT* be done to facilitate a sign-and-trade between the two teams.

EDIT: onetenthlag, if the Hawks wanted to pull off a sign-and-trade, they would talk to the Bulls about it directly before extending an offer sheet to Curry. But in their particular case, I see absolutely no incentive to do so -- they can sign Curry outright and use Harrington to obtain more assets at the trading deadline.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> In other words, massive backpedaling from the
> 1) We're being proactive
> 2) We want our guys back
> Stances
> ...



Thats what I was thinking as well .

It seems to me that all this JR would pay for a winner talk that we heard for months is BS because it seems that JR will pay only up til a certain point .

When you are telling these guys that we want you back and we are keeping our team intact that usually means you dont put them on the market andtake care of stuff quickly and cleanly ,You dont have them going to fish for offers from other teams .

Its starting to look to me that the Bulls have decided that their system is what won games last year and not really the players and wont pay anyone big bucks and take the old Grizzlies approach of trying to sign everyone to easily tradeable contracts while having a sum is greater than the parts approach .


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Thats what I was thinking as well .
> 
> It seems to me that all this JR would pay for a winner talk that we heard for months is BS because it seems that JR will pay only up til a certain point .
> 
> When you are telling these guys that we want you back and we are keeping our team intact that usually means you dont put them on the market andtake care of stuff quickly and cleanly ,You dont have them going to fish for offers from other teams .


If our free agents were unrestricted, Pax would be approaching this in an entirely different way. I would go so far to say that he would've came out with a huge offer right from the start and we would currently have them locked up. But when you have the advantage of matching ANY offer sheet, as we do, it's often in the best interest of both parties for the player to shop around. It sucks for us as fans, obviously, but it wouldn't be sound cap management to simply give Tyson, Eddy, and Chris what they want, without exploring more cost effective options first. The contracts that they sign this summer will have direct ramifications on our ability to sign players in the future. This process is set-up this way for a reason.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> Thats what I was thinking as well .
> 
> *It seems to me that all this JR would pay for a winner talk that we heard for months is BS* because it seems that JR will pay only up til a certain point .
> 
> ...


Don't you think a lot of that is a little premature? I mean, if Chandler is signed and Curry is signed (or signed and traded for talent if the contract is outrageous), wouldn't that negate everything you just wrote? 

The thing I don't get, and have never understood, is why do people jump to rip Paxson and Reinsdorf when this whole thing hasn't even played out yet? 

TH, if both Chandler and Curry are playing in Atlanta next year, I'll join ScottMay's anti-Reinsdorf club. Heck, if Chandler is re-signed and Curry is allowed to leave for nothing I might even join. But I'm going to wait and see what happens before I do and I don't understand why everyone doesn't feel that way.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

yodurk said:


> If our free agents were unrestricted, Pax would be approaching this in an entirely different way. I would go so far to say that he would've came out with a huge offer right from the start and we would currently have them locked up. But when you have the advantage of matching ANY offer sheet, as we do, it's often in the best interest of both parties for the player to shop around. It sucks for us as fans, obviously, but it wouldn't be sound cap management to simply give Tyson, Eddy, and Chris what they want, without exploring more cost effective options first. The contracts that they sign this summer will have direct ramifications on our ability to sign players in the future. This process is set-up this way for a reason.


yodurk, I don't understand why some folks don't see the obviousness of what you just wrote. You couldn't be more right and, frankly, I don't even consider it to be a matter of opinion.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Why is the obvious strategy to wait for another team to make an offer?

You have to keep in mind the strategic nature of the decisions being made. Another team is only going to bother making an offer if it's once crafted to be as difficult as possible for us to match and if the team thinks it has a reasonable chance of being successful.

Otherwise, there's no reason for that team to waste its time.

Wouldn't we be better off making a reasonable offer up front rather than waiting around for someone to offer our player a premium for joining their team? Yes, I know we can always "offer more" in terms of a 6 year deal over a 5 and bigger raises, but that is totally independent of what we want to or feel comfortable with paying. There are also incentive clauses and front loading cash payments to think of, which from a business perspective can end up being fairly important.

Suppose we offer Eddy and Tyson deals right now that are comparable with, although slightly less than we think they get offered by Atlanta. There's no harm in that. For a player like Curry, who clearly doesn't _want_ to leave, the offer may be attractive enough to let us sign him at a reasonable discount. 

If, on the other hand, we let him go off and get an offer from a team that knows it has to pay a premium to get him, we probably end up paying that premium to keep him.

- Example: I just bought a new house. The last thing I wanted was someone else coming in and making an offer on the house I was making an offer on.

- On the other hand, I wanted as many people as possible making offers on the house I sold.

The Bulls are buying the services of their R/FAs, not selling them.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

Its the same ole song everytime when it comes to this franchise all talk until its time to payout and then this long line of excuses pops up about how they are doing whats best for both parties.We are still waiting on the first bulls draft pick post dynasty to be signed and its looking more and more like they dont wan to pay anyone ever.

The Bulls know how much they think Curry is worth already but have yet to make an offer because they want to see what someone else thinks hes worth ?

Well If Im curry Im more worried about how much the Bulls think Im worth and if im as important to the team as they have made me believe that I am the past few months then you show it by paying me because thats how the nba is works. 

The Bulls have made claims about rewarding players for winning and hardwork but now that the team is winning they want to allow other teams to set the amount that they reward their own players.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

chad ford in today's insider thinks the bulls are "posturing" with regards to eddy. *if pax is forced to choose* btwn chandler and curry, he chooses chandler. if eddy is offered outrageous money, then a sign and trade could be in the works. ford thinks it would be for al harrington. and in regards to tyson, ford thinks pax will match - that pax really wants to keep chandler.
ford called curry a "listless defender" and ordinary rebounder. calls chandler a superior defender with a tremendous work ethic.


fwiw. 


http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&id=2105832


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Hustle said:


> I doubt Eddy or Tyson wants to go to ATL, and would stay in Chicago for less $ for the following reasons
> 
> 1) They will be losers, and lucky if the Hawks aren't the worst team in the league next year.
> A)we may be the most up and coming team in the league and we've already whiffed success.
> ...


I see Atlanta as the up and coming team, not Chicago. It's Atlanta who has two future potential superstars in Josh Smith and Marvin Williams. Players are gonna be wishing they signed with Atlanta in 2 years from now. Chicago just made the playoffs as a pretty big seed, how can they be up and coming..

If Atlanta's smart they won't give the max to either Chandler or Curry. Let Chicago overpay.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> chad ford in today's insider thinks the bulls are "posturing" with regards to eddy. *if pax is forced to choose* btwn chandler and curry, he chooses chandler. if eddy is offered outrageous money, then a sign and trade could be in the works. ford thinks it would be for al harrington. and in regards to tyson, ford thinks pax will match - that pax really wants to keep chandler.
> ford called curry a "listless defender" and ordinary rebounder. calls chandler a superior defender with a tremendous work ethic.
> 
> 
> ...


Whats sad about that is that there DOESNT have to be a choice because the Bulls could sign both ?Whats even sadder is that all they talked about every since the Bulls were able to offer Chandler and Curry extensions was how the cap wouldnt effect them when it came to signing both and and even said the trading of Crawford helps in that regard as it opened up dollars this summer .

You try to keep an open mind with this BS but I mean how many years do we have to wait before the Bulls become more about winning and less about the bottomline.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> chad ford in today's insider thinks the bulls are "posturing" with regards to eddy. *if pax is forced to choose* btwn chandler and curry, he chooses chandler. if eddy is offered outrageous money, then a sign and trade could be in the works. ford thinks it would be for al harrington. and in regards to tyson, ford thinks pax will match - that pax really wants to keep chandler.
> ford called curry a "listless defender" and ordinary rebounder. calls chandler a superior defender with a tremendous work ethic.
> 
> 
> ...


One very, very important nugget from Ford: he says if for whatever reason Chandler doesn't get an offer from a team under the cap, if he's unhappy with the offer the Bulls present as an alternative, he'll just sign the qualifying offer and look to score in unrestricted free agency next summer.

My problem with the "let the market determine their value" theory is twofold: one, Curry and Chandler aren't gold or oil futures, they're human beings. At some point contentment and a sense of appreciation have an impact on performance. Two, yeah, we need to manage our cap appropriately and have some money left to sign Deng, Gordon, and Hinrich. But I simply don't see a big free agent that's worth saving for next summer (or even an inclination on the organization's part to use their $).


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

TheATLien said:


> I see Atlanta as the up and coming team, not Chicago. It's Atlanta who has two future potential superstars in Josh Smith and Marvin Williams. Players are gonna be wishing they signed with Atlanta in 2 years from now. Chicago just made the playoffs as a pretty big seed, how can they be up and coming..
> 
> If Atlanta's smart they won't give the max to either Chandler or Curry. Let Chicago overpay.


Yeah, Bulls are the team up and coming to elite status.

The Hawks are the team DOWN and TRYING to come to PLAYOFF status.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Why is the obvious strategy to wait for another team to make an offer?
> 
> You have to keep in mind the strategic nature of the decisions being made. Another team is only going to bother making an offer if it's once crafted to be as difficult as possible for us to match and if the team thinks it has a reasonable chance of being successful.
> 
> ...


Given Eddy recent whining, I cartainly can't blame Pax for not extending a quick and early "up front" offer. Heck, with the comments that have become public, one has to wonder how much Curry is saying in private. Does Eddy really want to get "tied up" by the Bulls quickly, or is he looking for an offer to use as leverage in the FA signing period? Personally, when I read between the lines, its pretty clear to me that all the health concerns have given Eddy a case of Happy Feet, and he is more willing to test the market to try to maximize his deal than he might have otherwise.

The risk of offering an up front offer to RFA Eddy Curry is he can take that offer, THEN shop around in Atlanta or wherever, and get an offer sheet which the Bulls THEN have to match or let him walk. In that sense, the Bulls are sort of put in a position of being forced into bidding against themselves. 

For a quick and easy seal to go down, it takes two to tango, and I don't see evidence that either side is REALLY interested in that at this point, given both Eddy's and the Bulls' slightly different concerns about all that has gone on with the heart testing.

And I don't think this is "back peddling" on the part of the Bulls. When Eddy's health became a major concern, the situation changed -- for both sides.

The way I see it, both sides are dancing, and neither side really has cause to complain about the other. Eddy's heart condition is nobody's fault -- but it does change the dynamics a bit, for both sides of the issue.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

actually if i were paxson and was forced to choose between eddy and tyson, i would take eddy. hes a true center and most imporatntly he is a legit post offense threat. we can sign someone like swift, kwame brown and they will do as good of job as chandler. chandler is easily replaceable. 

back to the salary discussion, i actually think that it's better if paxson said" we are willing to let curry go if smoeone offers somethign like 5/60mil a year, but we will match any offers on chandler" instead of "we will match any offers on our guys". paxson's initial intention was to scare away other teams in pursude of curry and chandler. but it will increase the likehood of other teams offering big contract even max. if we said we might let them go at 5/60mil, given eddy's condition, teams might be willing to take a chance at curry at 5/60mil, and boom, we match that, and curry is ours. if we said we are gonig to match any offers, then teams are forced to put up a sizeable contract like 5/70 in hope of the SLIGHTest chance of getting curry. and we cant just say we will let them both go at 5/60mil, because then we will have 2 player's contracts to match instead of 1, so best is to "scare" away other tams from 1 player and match the other guy's offer.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Sith said:


> actually if i were paxson and was forced to choose between eddy and tyson, i would take eddy. hes a true center and most imporatntly he is a legit post offense threat. we can sign someone like swift, *kwame brown* and they will do as good of job as chandler. chandler is easily replaceable.




:eek8: 


:no: 


:dead:


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

I think Paxson knows that Atlanta is the only team who can offer him the contract and pretty much can estimate how much they can offer him. If Eddy was visiting 15 teams that'd be another story but he only has to match one teams offer and I have a hunch that Curry will be lowballed with a short term deal by the Hawks and Curry will come running back to the Bulls and accept the same offer.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

sloth said:


> Yeah, Bulls are the team up and coming to elite status.
> 
> The Hawks are the team DOWN and TRYING to come to PLAYOFF status.


You really think this group is a title winning team? You're out of your mind. Elite is championship level.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

HKF said:


> You really think this group is a title winning team? You're out of your mind. Elite is championship level.


So Gordon isn't a championship-level player, then?

I mean, I happen to agree with you about the Bulls, but what you're saying here doesn't square with most of your thoughts on Gordon.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

TheATLien said:


> I see Atlanta as the up and coming team, not Chicago. It's Atlanta who has two future potential superstars in Josh Smith and Marvin Williams. Players are gonna be wishing they signed with Atlanta in 2 years from now. Chicago just made the playoffs as a pretty big seed, how can they be up and coming..
> 
> If Atlanta's smart they won't give the max to either Chandler or Curry. Let Chicago overpay.


Man, I can understand supporting your home team but please. The Bulls are up and coming because they are young as hell and will continue to be a better team by just getting older not to mention future draft picks, next years FA money, and future MLE to backup and upgrade what we already have while ATL will have to overpay anyone to come there, but on the other hand you should get some nice draft picks. You are in, what we call in Chicago a rebuilding period, except your foundation is a lot smaller.

2 young teams, one 47-35, the other 13-69. You decide.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Given Eddy recent whining, I cartainly can't blame Pax for not extending a quick and early "up front" offer. Heck, with the comments that have become public, one has to wonder how much Curry is saying in private. Does Eddy really want to get "tied up" by the Bulls quickly, or is he looking for an offer to use as leverage in the FA signing period? Personally, when I read between the lines, its pretty clear to me that all the health concerns have given Eddy a case of Happy Feet, and he is more willing to test the market to try to maximize his deal than he might have otherwise.


If that's the case, why all the hesitation before even visiting the Hawks?



> The risk of offering an up front offer to RFA Eddy Curry is he can take that offer, THEN shop around in Atlanta or wherever, and get an offer sheet which the Bulls THEN have to match or let him walk. In that sense, the Bulls are sort of put in a position of being forced into bidding against themselves.


How so? If the Bulls are only making an offer they suspect Atlanta will make anyway it's not really giving Curry any leverage. The Bulls only "bid against themselves" in this scenario if Atlanta actually makes an offer. And if Atlanta actually makes an offer, they're not bidding against themselves.

The question is whether Atlanta's offer can be expected to be higher or lower if the Bulls have already put an offer on the table. I don't see any reason to think it'll be higher. As it stands, the Hawks already know they have to give a premium to get him there. If anything, if the Bulls made a strategically low opening offer, it might make the Hawks think they can get buy with offering _less_ than they otherwise would.

It _could_ go either way, but I still don't see the harm in making a reasonable offer up front.



> For a quick and easy seal to go down, it takes two to tango, and I don't see evidence that either side is REALLY interested in that at this point, given both Eddy's and the Bulls' slightly different concerns about all that has gone on with the heart testing.
> 
> And I don't think this is "back peddling" on the part of the Bulls. When Eddy's health became a major concern, the situation changed -- for both sides.
> 
> The way I see it, both sides are dancing, and neither side really has cause to complain about the other. Eddy's heart condition is nobody's fault -- but it does change the dynamics a bit, for both sides of the issue.


But it would seem to me that Curry's complaining (which are based on the fact that he expected an offer), his hesitation about even going to Atlanta, and his repeatedly stated desire to stay with the Bulls are signals that he wants to dance.

If he just wanted to get the best cash possible, he'd be knocking down the Hawks' door. Those things all suggest Curry might be willing to trade some cash for security, which brings him back to us.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

HKF said:


> You really think this group is a title winning team? You're out of your mind. Elite is championship level.


Well whats the next step that a top 3 team goes?

Not sure on the exact ages, but its something along the lines of.

Eddy- 22
Tyson-22
Ben- 22
Luol- 20
Kirk- 24
Andres- 26

That is a very young team that was able to be the 3rd best team in the league. If Atlien says that the Hawks are up and coming to be a playoff team after a Sub 20 win season, than certainly the Bulls are coming into elite status.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> One very, very important nugget from Ford: he says if for whatever reason Chandler doesn't get an offer from a team under the cap, if he's unhappy with the offer the Bulls present as an alternative, he'll just sign the qualifying offer and look to score in unrestricted free agency next summer.
> 
> My problem with the "let the market determine their value" theory is twofold: one, Curry and Chandler aren't gold or oil futures, they're human beings. At some point contentment and a sense of appreciation have an impact on performance. Two, yeah, we need to manage our cap appropriately and have some money left to sign Deng, Gordon, and Hinrich. But I simply don't see a big free agent that's worth saving for next summer (or even an inclination on the organization's part to use their $).


This is the most impressive post in this whole thread, Ron Cey's protestations duly noted.

HUMAN BEINGS. If Pax has the ability to make the guy feel good, instead of like a pawn, there's huge upside in that. I don't see the upside in treating him like a piece of meat (or cattle future, as I would put it).

Not only does the treatment of Curry mean a great deal to the morale of the team, it has to really make the rest of the guys wonder how they're going to feel (like a pawn, cattle future) when their time comes. 

Who gives a fark about Curry whining. The WHY he's whining is the story.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> How so? If the Bulls are only making an offer they suspect Atlanta will make anyway it's not really giving Curry any leverage. The Bulls only "bid against themselves" in this scenario if Atlanta actually makes an offer. And if Atlanta actually makes an offer, they're not bidding against themselves.
> 
> The question is whether Atlanta's offer can be expected to be higher or lower if the Bulls have already put an offer on the table. I don't see any reason to think it'll be higher. As it stands, the Hawks already know they have to give a premium to get him there. If anything, if the Bulls made a strategically low opening offer, it might make the Hawks think they can get buy with offering _less_ than they otherwise would.


I believe Eddy intends to shop any offer he would get from The Bulls. Therefore, any offer right now does nothing more than establish a floor (above the floor already established by the Q offer, of course). If that is the case, and Eddy does intend to shop, he takes the offer in his pocket and say to Atlanta: Here's what the Bulls think I'm worth. Make me another offer. That position also gives Eddy more leverage. You want more tests? Heck, I Already have a pretty good offer in my pocket. Do you want to talk about a deal, or not? Without that leverage of an upfront deal, the concept of testing the market and playing teams against each other, with the luxury of brushing off requests for further testing removed, becomes less attractive.

Eddy's right to expect the Bulls to just give him a max, or near max, offer on a proactive basis went out the window when everyone had to start worrying about whether he'd survive to the end of the contract. That's not Eddy's fault, and its not the Bulls' fault. It just is. And Eddy is being plain unrealistic if his expectations are unchanged given the reality of the situation.

Unless Eddy is _genuinely_ in a position where he will sit down with the Bulls and talk about a contract less that reflects the risks involved to the team in investing heavily in him as a cornerstone, the Bulls are absolutlely right in letting the RFA process do its work. Giving him an offer to present to other teams with a "will you beat this" attitude is just doesn't make sense, from the team's standpoint.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> Why is the obvious strategy to wait for another team to make an offer?
> 
> You have to keep in mind the strategic nature of the decisions being made. Another team is only going to bother making an offer if it's once crafted to be as difficult as possible for us to match and if the team thinks it has a reasonable chance of being successful.
> 
> Otherwise, there's no reason for that team to waste its time.


First, perhaps I should make one thing clear about my own beliefs. I do not believe that Paxson's strategy in permitting the market to dictate the contracts is pure. In other words, I absolutely believe that Paxson and the agents for Curry/Chandler have talked in generalities about contract terms and that the parties are far apart. 

Given that assumption, which I think is a reasonable one for someone like me who doesn't consider Paxson to be an incompetent moron, I believe it is right to let the market dictate value. That is why it helps secure the best possible deal.

Second, Mike, you talk about teams not bothering to make an offer unless it is substantial. You are right. But as we have seen very recently with Jamal Crawford and Stromile Swift, *sometimes teams never make that offer.* That then gives the "home team" an even greater advantage in negotiations because the only other option for the player is to take thr QO - something Curry in particular would be crazy to do. 



> Wouldn't we be better off making a reasonable offer up front rather than waiting around for someone to offer our player a premium for joining their team? Yes, I know we can always "offer more" in terms of a 6 year deal over a 5 and bigger raises, but that is totally independent of what we want to or feel comfortable with paying. There are also incentive clauses and front loading cash payments to think of, which from a business perspective can end up being fairly important.
> 
> Suppose we offer Eddy and Tyson deals right now that are comparable with, although slightly less than we think they get offered by Atlanta. There's no harm in that. For a player like Curry, who clearly doesn't _want_ to leave, the offer may be attractive enough to let us sign him at a reasonable discount.
> 
> If, on the other hand, we let him go off and get an offer from a team that knows it has to pay a premium to get him, we probably end up paying that premium to keep him.


I've addressed this above. I absolutely believe that Paxson had ballpark discussions with the Towers' agents that were unproductive and the result was to let the market dictate value. *Paxson would have to be utterly incompetent and lacking all business sense not to at least feel out his players' contract expectations before allowing the market to determine value. Based on what I've seen from him, I cannot incorporate that assumption into my analysis.*

Letting the market dictate value is, basically, step two. I think you agree, and this is what you are saying. But you assume step one never happened, while I assume it did. 

Shoot, it was even reported in the Tribune on the first day of free agency that Paxson and the players' agents had "general philosphical" discussions about the contracts. You don't think that involved ranges of $$?



> - Example: I just bought a new house. The last thing I wanted was someone else coming in and making an offer on the house I was making an offer on.
> 
> - On the other hand, I wanted as many people as possible making offers on the house I sold.
> 
> The Bulls are buying the services of their R/FAs, not selling them.


The analogy is false. The Bulls are, in effect, buying and selling them. It is a hybrid scenario. The only team in pure "purchasing" mode is the team who doesn't own their rights, like Atlanta. The Bulls are more like tenants with an option to buy under a right of first refusal.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

This whole let the market determine Eddy's value etc. crap is a result of John Paxson getting his feelings hurt during the Scott Skiles' negotiations. Paxson was doing it the human way, offering Skiles' a contract and expecting him to take it. But Skiles did it the bussiness way and as a result, Paxson's feelings were hurt. Skiles was the one portrayed as the villian during that. Now Eddy, he just wants to do it how Paxson initially tried to do it with Skiles. But this isn't happening, Paxson is doing blah blah blah, go fetch and offer and we'll match blah blah bull****. Eddy's not a Jamal Crawford or Vince Carter type, Eddy just wants to be wanted. Paxson has made a huge mistake in the negotiations with Eddy, and I think he will collapse as a GM this summer without BJ Armstrong's help.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> This is the most impressive post in this whole thread, Ron Cey's protestations duly noted.
> 
> HUMAN BEINGS. If Pax has the ability to make the guy feel good, instead of like a pawn, there's huge upside in that. I don't see the upside in treating him like a piece of meat (or cattle future, as I would put it).
> 
> ...


Yes, the guys are human. However, I think my point still is appropriate: if these human guys are really going to sit down and make a deal that is fair to everyone, fine. Do it. But if Eddy just wants to get an offer from the Bulls that he can shop to other teams, then come back to the Bulls to see if they'll match the offer they got in excess of the offer presented by the Bulls, there is no reason Pax (or Jerry) should be expected to play that game.

What is a "fair" deal in this case? A deal that takes into account the Bulls faith in Eddy as Center who could be a league impacting presence at some point (and in a limited way has already been) but also takes into account the health issues nobody was previously expecting and which everyone realizes could still have a substantial impact on his future health and his future ability to fulfill his side of the contract. Besides appreciation and a willingness to please and to reward Eddy, there is faith involved on the Bulls part. There is risk involved on the Bulls part. 

I don't want Eddy to end up having to take the qualifying offer, but I don't think the Bulls' concerns should be minimalized either. The fact that Eddy isn't "tied up" with a new deal yet does not relect poorly on the Bulls, at this point, IMO.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

sloth said:


> This whole let the market determine Eddy's value etc. crap is a result of John Paxson getting his feelings hurt during the Scott Skiles' negotiations. Paxson was doing it the human way, offering Skiles' a contract and expecting him to take it. But Skiles did it the bussiness way and as a result, Paxson's feelings were hurt. Skiles was the one portrayed as the villian during that. Now Eddy, he just wants to do it how Paxson initially tried to do it with Skiles. But this isn't happening, Paxson is doing blah blah blah, go fetch and offer and we'll match blah blah bull****. Eddy's not a Jamal Crawford or Vince Carter type, Eddy just wants to be wanted. Paxson has made a huge mistake in the negotiations with Eddy, and I think he will collapse as a GM this summer without BJ Armstrong's help.


No, I don't think any of this has to do with Pax' feelings getting hurt.

Its not personal. Its only business.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> This is the most impressive post in this whole thread, Ron Cey's protestations duly noted.


A couple of things here, DaBullz. I didn't protest anything about Scott's post, it came AFTER mine. Also, I agree with virtually everything in it. Everything he raised are legitimate factors in dealing with both Curry and Chandler. I don't think they are the only factors, but they certainly are important.

No one suggested Curry and Chandler should not be respected. I've even said that I think it was wrong for Paxson to first say he was going to be "proactive" and then turn around and let market dictate value. He never should have made the statement in the first place.

Do you ever NOT twist actual events into falsified versions of events in an effort to prove a point? You always take the cheap way out.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Yes, the guys are human. However, I think my point still is appropriate: if these human guys are really going to sit down and make a deal that is fair to everyone, fine. Do it. But if Eddy just wants to get an offer from the Bulls that he can shop to other teams, then come back to the Bulls to see if they'll match the offer they got in excess of the offer presented by the Bulls, there is no reason Pax (or Jerry) should be expected to play that game.
> 
> What is a "fair" deal in this case? A deal that takes into account the Bulls faith in Eddy as Center who could be a league impacting presence at some point (and in a limited way has already been) but also takes into account the health issues nobody was previously expecting and which everyone realizes could still have a substantial impact on his future health and his future ability to fulfill his side of the contract. Besides appreciation and a willingness to please and to reward Eddy, there is faith involved on the Bulls part. There is risk involved on the Bulls part.
> 
> I don't want Eddy to end up having to take the qualifying offer, but I don't think the Bulls' concerns should be minimalized either. The fact that Eddy isn't "tied up" with a new deal yet does not relect poorly on the Bulls, at this point, IMO.


How about an offer just big enough to make him feel appreciated? He could view that as a starting point for the negotiations, and so could Pax.

The problem is the pattern of how these things are working out for our players.

Even if the deal were incentive based...


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Its not personal. Its only business.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> A couple of things here, DaBullz. I didn't protest anything about Scott's post, it came AFTER mine. Also, I agree with virtually everything in it. Everything he raised are legitimate factors in dealing with both Curry and Chandler. I don't think they are the only factors, but they certainly are important.
> 
> No one suggested Curry and Chandler should not be respected. I've even said that I think it was wrong for Paxson to first say he was going to be "proactive" and then turn around and let market dictate value. He never should have made the statement in the first place.
> 
> Do you ever NOT twist actual events into falsified versions of events in an effort to prove a point? You always take the cheap way out.


Gosh, it was an "attack" on Paxson. I expect your normal knee-jerk jerk reaction.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Yes, the guys are human. However, I think my point still is appropriate: if these human guys are really going to sit down and make a deal that is fair to everyone, fine. Do it. But if Eddy just wants to get an offer from the Bulls that he can shop to other teams, then come back to the Bulls to see if they'll match the offer they got in excess of the offer presented by the Bulls, there is no reason Pax (or Jerry) should be expected to play that game.


You don't get it Tom. Only the players, not the organization, are permitted to treat this like a business without being castigated for it.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> How about an offer just big enough to make him feel appreciated? He could view that as a starting point for the negotiations, and so could Pax.
> 
> The problem is the pattern of how these things are working out for our players.
> 
> Even if the deal were incentive based...


right. This is what I'm talking about. Would Eddy take that offer that makes him feel appreciated and show his appreciation in return by making a deal? Or would he take that deal, shop around for other offers and come back to the Bulls and say, OK, you appreciated me _that_ much last week...do you appreciate me _this_ much now?

Shouldn't business "by appreciation" work 2 ways, or not at all?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> You don't get it Tom. Only the players, not the organization, are permitted to treat this like a business without being castigated for it.


Our posts crossed. You hit it on the head, Penguin.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> The problem is the pattern of how these things are working out for our players.


What pattern?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> right. This is what I'm talking about. Would Eddy take that offer that makes him feel appreciated and show his appreciation in return by making a deal? Or would he take that deal, whop around for other offers and come back to the Bulls and say, OK, you appreciated me _that_ much last week...do you appreciate me _this_ much now?
> 
> Shouldn't business "by appreciation" work 2 ways, or not at all?


It should work two ways. However, as far as we know, and despite any background discussion that has taken place, the Bulls have yet to make an offer. And that's after John Paxson proudly announced that the Bulls were going to seize the, err, bull by the horns and get off to a flying start this offseason.

Eddy's shopping for his NBA home for the next six-seven seasons, not trying to wrestle an extra $200 out of competing Honda dealers. I think that if you consider the psychological element, the Bulls could re-sign Eddy for a lot cheaper than they're assuming. 

They . Just . Have . To . Make . An . Offer.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> right. This is what I'm talking about. Would Eddy take that offer that makes him feel appreciated and show his appreciation in return by making a deal? Or would he take that deal, whop around for other offers and come back to the Bulls and say, OK, you appreciated me _that_ much last week...do you appreciate me _this_ much now?
> 
> Shouldn't business "by appreciation" work 2 ways, or not at all?


Of course he should go shop it. But if you're going to make any kind of non-monetary appeal, you can't make it about money in the first place. And you still set a precedent with the other players that they'll be "appreciated" too.

It's clear that Paxson has the upper hand. He can talk down Curry's value ("we'll match..." is VERY discouraging to almost any team). He can talk about S&T possibilities, which is also hugely discouraging to any team making an offer. In doing these things, and playing hardball on the negotation front, he's most likely to push Curry to accept the QO and go UFA. And like I said, he's showing the rest of the players how they can expect to be treated when it's their time. If chemistry is important, these distractions aren't good.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Do to my sources, Swift is getting offered the MLE from Houston which will be around 35 million over 5 years, but has received 5 year offers above the MLE from other teams.

Why not offer Eddy an offer starting at 8 million over 6 years. It would be about a 62 million dollar contract total, and then fill the contract that is already at 62 full of incentives so he can make extra money on top of that 62 million over 6 years.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> They . Just . Have . To . Make . An . Offer.


Why. Do. You. Think. Eddy. Will. Negotiate. That. Offer. In. Good. Faith. As. Opposed. To. Taking. It. And. Using. It. Against. The. Bulls. To. Squeeze. More. Money. Later.?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> It should work two ways. However, as far as we know, and despite any background discussion that has taken place, the Bulls have yet to make an offer. And that's after John Paxson proudly announced that the Bulls were going to seize the, err, bull by the horns and get off to a flying start this offseason.
> 
> Eddy's shopping for his NBA home for the next six-seven seasons, not trying to wrestle an extra $200 out of competing Honda dealers. I think that if you consider the psychological element, the Bulls could re-sign Eddy for a lot cheaper than they're assuming.
> 
> They . Just . Have . To . Make . An . Offer.


Lost in this discussion is that Paxson HAS . made . an . offer . to Duhon. I'm sure Duhon feels appreciated, even if the offer was lower than he wanted. It's looking like he's going to get a fair deal, and have a good feeling about it all, to boot.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> It's clear that Paxson has the upper hand. He can talk down Curry's value ("we'll match..." is VERY discouraging to almost any team). He can talk about S&T possibilities, which is also hugely discouraging to any team making an offer. In doing these things, and playing hardball on the negotation front, he's most likely to push Curry to accept the QO and go UFA.


Its not about that, but if push came to shove, Eddy has his own concerns about his future, and I don't think he has the Balls to play on the QO and take his chances in '06. Eddy wants to squeeze the Bulls and is upset they aren't playing into his plans. Can't feel sorry for him from that perspective. That's not about "being appreciated."




> And like I said, he's showing the rest of the players how they can expect to be treated when it's their time. If chemistry is important, these distractions aren't good.



You mean like all the good will the Bulls are reaping from how they handled the JWill situation?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Maybe I'm not remembering this properly, but was it not initially reported that the Bulls were "thought to have" made a shorter term, incentive laden offer to Curry? 

Granted, it was general stuff, but was that or was that not reported? I'm seriously asking, not trying to be a smart-***.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Why. Do. You. Think. Eddy. Will. Negotiate. That. Offer. In. Good. Faith. As. Opposed. To. Taking. It. And. Using. It. Against. The. Bulls. To. Squeeze. More. Money. Later.?



But with all the Bulls did during his inactivity i.e Jr visting him in the hospital and and the Bulls flying him around maybe he so happy feeling the luv that he signs quickly and gets it over with.Lets not forget Chicago is eddy's hometown and the pressure would be squarely on him if he the Bulls made a significant offer and he balked but since the Bulls havent really done anything hes left wondering if his situation will play out like all the Buls draft picks of the past 7 years .


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Its not about that, but if push came to shove, Eddy has his own concerns about his future, and I don't hink he has the Balls to play on the QO and take his chances in '06.


Maybe. Maybe not. If he doesn't have the balls, he probably should retire and not risk anything.



> You mean like all the good will the Bulls are reaping from how they handled the JWill situation?


I don't see this as a winning argument. They effectively cut him and made Cap Space. They didn't even give him what they gave Curry - doctors, rehab, etc. - he had to do that on his own dime and effort. How they handled JWill is no better than how they handled ERob or Pip, FWIW.

I don't know that the Bulls actually had a slam dunk case against JWill if they wanted to pursue legal action. Or if it may have cost more than the buyout. Or if they risked losing lawyer fees AND the contract amount.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Why. Do. You. Think. Eddy. Will. Negotiate. That. Offer. In. Good. Faith. As. Opposed. To. Taking. It. And. Using. It. Against. The. Bulls. To. Squeeze. More. Money. Later.?


It's just a hunch. I think his heart and financial conditions have left him a little bit desperate, and I think he also has been chastened by the relative lack of suitors. 

I also don't see that an offer gives Eddy much of anything to shop around. Well, on the other hand it could give Rose something to talk about to the teams that are over the cap. But presumably those are the teams that Paxson wants to talk to anyway -- they'd actually have to give him something to get Curry, unlike the Hawks. So to me it's a no-brainer -- extend an opening offer, Pax, just like you said you would.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TRUTHHURTS said:


> But with all the Bulls did during his inactivity i.e Jr visting him in the hospital and and the Bulls flying him around maybe he so happy feeling the luv that he signs quickly and gets it over with.Lets not forget Chicago is eddy's hometown and the pressure would be squarely on him if he the Bulls made a significant offer and he balked but since the Bulls havent really done anything hes left wondering if his situation will play out like all the Buls draft picks of the past 7 years .


Hit the nail on the head, to steal someone else's phrase.

(No offense intended)


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

sloth said:


> This whole let the market determine Eddy's value etc. crap is a result of John Paxson getting his feelings hurt during the Scott Skiles' negotiations. Paxson was doing it the human way, offering Skiles' a contract and expecting him to take it. But Skiles did it the bussiness way and as a result, Paxson's feelings were hurt. Skiles was the one portrayed as the villian during that. Now Eddy, he just wants to do it how Paxson initially tried to do it with Skiles. But this isn't happening, Paxson is doing blah blah blah, go fetch and offer and we'll match blah blah bull****. Eddy's not a Jamal Crawford or Vince Carter type, Eddy just wants to be wanted. Paxson has made a huge mistake in the negotiations with Eddy, and I think he will collapse as a GM this summer without BJ Armstrong's help.



you are a bit out of your depth here, imo.

paxson's feelings had/have nothing to do with any of this.

it's business.

and despite the ACTUAL heart issue, there are very serious work ethic considerations with eddy, and sorry, but a seven foot player who doesn't block shots shouldn't even sniff the max.

oh and btw, skiles and the slippery agent glass were the ones complaining about not feeling the love and having their feelings hurt. oooh poor babies.

oh and eddy never once uttered the words "i feel like a pawn"...the writer of the southtown article put those words in his mouth, or at the very least, the editor did with that headline.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> you are a bit out of your depth here, imo.
> 
> paxson's feelings had/have nothing to do with any of this.
> 
> ...


Or he said it but wasn't quoted directly.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I don't see this as a winning argument. They effectively cut him and made Cap Space. They didn't even give him what they gave Curry - doctors, rehab, etc. - he had to do that on his own dime and effort. *How they handled JWill is no better than how they handled ERob or Pip, FWIW.*
> 
> I don't know that the Bulls actually had a slam dunk case against JWill if they wanted to pursue legal action. Or if it may have cost more than the buyout. *Or if they risked losing lawyer fees AND the contract amount.*


Now this here, is one fine piece of irrational hatred toward the Bulls management. Wow. Well played, DaBullz. You've outdone yourself.

Seriously, I'm actually impressed by this.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Eddy should just take the qualifying offer. If he doesn't die next year, and plays like he was playing last year, then he'll make more money next year.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> you are a bit out of your depth here, imo.
> 
> paxson's feelings had/have nothing to do with any of this.
> 
> ...



I don't see why for most people the work ethic thing only goes for Eddy. What about Tyson. Tyson was asked to put on some muscle in his back to avoid injury every offseason since coming in the league, and only did it before a contract year. Who knows what most of the players are doing on this team, but from what I've read, I know 3 are working out in the summer. Kirk back at Kansas, and Chris and Eddy are working out with Tim Grover in Chicago. I suspect that Ben is playing pickup games at HOOPS with Jamal Crawford, Michael Jordan, and the regular company that plays there during the summer, Eddy used to be one of those but no more. 

But it comes back to the same point, thew Bulls will be much much worst off if they don't resign both these guys imo.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Maybe I'm not remembering this properly, but was it not initially reported that the Bulls were "thought to have" made a shorter term, incentive laden offer to Curry?
> 
> Granted, it was general stuff, but was that or was that not reported? I'm seriously asking, not trying to be a smart-***.


I think it was just "the Bulls will probably offer a shorter term, incentive laden contract to Curry" speculation rather than actual news. Of course, this was at about the same time we heard that Paxson was going to be proactive.

Chad Ford's column on the big guys today confirms that the Bulls have not made an actual offer to Eddy or Tyson.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Now this here, is one fine piece of irrational hatred toward the Bulls management. Wow. Well played, DaBullz. You've outdone yourself.
> 
> Seriously, I'm actually impressed by this.


I guess you don't understand that all three were bought out and the same CBA rules applied to each.

I guess saying that is irrational hatred towards the bulls management.

What an imagination!


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Now this here, is one fine piece of irrational hatred toward the Bulls management. Wow. Well played, DaBullz. You've outdone yourself.
> 
> Seriously, I'm actually impressed by this.


Yeah, I wouldn't even go that far to attack on the Jay Williams situation. We owed Jay no money, we could have just terminated his contract, but they chose to take the high road with him. Now it could be argued that we should have kept him, since we did have an empty roster spot already on our roster and hope for the best, but we gave Jay money we didn't have to give him. If I was Paxson I'd be angry with Jay a lot. Jay getting injured messed up Paxson's draft night plans of trading Crawford for what might have been Dwyane Wade in the end, or possibly Rashard Lewis, or Al Harrington. Its no mystery that Jamal was going to be traded UNLESS he broke out like a monster, but he didn't. Jay screwed this franchise a lot.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

sloth said:


> Yeah, I wouldn't even go that far to attack on the Jay Williams situation. We owed Jay no money, we could have just terminated his contract, but they chose to take the high road with him. Now it could be argued that we should have kept him, since we did have an empty roster spot already on our roster and hope for the best, but we gave Jay money we didn't have to give him. If I was Paxson I'd be angry with Jay a lot. Jay getting injured messed up Paxson's draft night plans of trading Crawford for what might have been Dwyane Wade in the end, or possibly Rashard Lewis, or Al Harrington. Its no mystery that Jamal was going to be traded UNLESS he broke out like a monster, but he didn't. Jay screwed this franchise a lot.


You think we didn't owe JWill money, but that isn't necessarily true. If the bulls declined to pay him, he'd have sued and potentially won. Or an arbiter may have ruled in his favor, if it went to arbitration. It was a risk the bulls had to consider.

Though you're right he'd have taken up a roster spot.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> You think we didn't owe JWill money, but that isn't necessarily true. If the bulls declined to pay him, *he'd have sued and potentially won. Or an arbiter may have ruled in his favor, if it went to arbitration.* It was a risk the bulls had to consider.
> 
> Though you're right he'd have taken up a roster spot.



not to take this off-track, but...

he brazenly, openly and defiantly violated his contract. how is it that the bulls owed him anything after the stunt he pulled?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I guess you don't understand that all three were bought out and the same CBA rules applied to each.
> 
> I guess saying that is irrational hatred towards the bulls management.
> 
> What an imagination!


The Bulls were under absolutely no obligation to buy J-Will out of anything. He did have a clause that forbade him from the activity that got him injured. *He also was on MTV's "Road Rules" on a motorcycle admitting on the air that he wasn't supposed to be riding it.* Believe me, attorneys' fees to win that case wouldn't cost anywhere near $50,000 let alone $3 million.

They basically gave the kid a gift in the wake of a career ending tragedy. And you think its the same as the E-Rob situation because the same "CBA rules applied".

Thats like saying rape = shop lifting because they both violate "criminal statutes".

So, yes, it is irrational hate. Its pretty pathetic, actually, and shows with finality just how jaded you are.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> You think we didn't owe JWill money, but that isn't necessarily true. If the bulls declined to pay him, he'd have sued and potentially won. Or an arbiter may have ruled in his favor, if it went to arbitration. It was a risk the bulls had to consider.
> 
> Though you're right he'd have taken up a roster spot.


But it was a violation of his contract, and due to my understanding the violation of stuff like that in the contract could result in the team terminating the contract. So based on the old CBA we would owe him nada, we could just terminate his contract.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Now this here, is one fine piece of irrational hatred toward the Bulls management. Wow. Well played, DaBullz. You've outdone yourself.
> 
> Seriously, I'm actually impressed by this.



OMG!

LOL!

I nearly fell out of my chair laughing so hard. 

This might have to become the new sig.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I believe Eddy intends to shop any offer he would get from The Bulls. Therefore, any offer right now does nothing more than establish a floor (above the floor already established by the Q offer, of course). If that is the case, and Eddy does intend to shop, he takes the offer in his pocket and say to Atlanta: Here's what the Bulls think I'm worth. Make me another offer.


But still, they only make him another offer if they think he's worth it. In that case, they could have been expected to make at least as much of an offer anyway...



> That position also gives Eddy more leverage. You want more tests? Heck, I Already have a pretty good offer in my pocket. Do you want to talk about a deal, or not? Without that leverage of an upfront deal, the concept of testing the market and playing teams against each other, with the luxury of brushing off requests for further testing removed, becomes less attractive.


Maybe I misunderstand what you're saying, but that seems to work in the Bulls favor in *this* circumstance.

If I'm the Hawks GM and a player with an unknown heart ailment says make me an offer with no testing or I'll sign the (somewhat below market) offer I've got on the table, I probably tell him to take a take a hike.

If it were solely a matter of contract size with a healthy player, then maybe. But given the questions surrounding Eddy (which the Bulls have largely answered and which other teams would require time to answer), an impatient stance from Curry seems likely to push teams away from making an offer, not towards it.



> Eddy's right to expect the Bulls to just give him a max, or near max, offer on a proactive basis went out the window when everyone had to start worrying about whether he'd survive to the end of the contract. That's not Eddy's fault, and its not the Bulls' fault. It just is. And Eddy is being plain unrealistic if his expectations are unchanged given the reality of the situation.


Right, but the questions regarding the probabilities that Eddy dies or can't play largely have been resolved. Wouldn't it be pretty foolish to think a doctor (let alone several, one of whom worked closely with the Reggie Lewis situation) would clear Curry to play if there was any significant chance he was going to keel over?

Now, I understand that the contract needs to be insured, and the cost of insurance needs to be factored in, but other than that, I don't see why it's so unrealistic to think Curry's value has changed that much.

*Put simply, his value should only have changed by the amount required to insure his contract. If his value had changed in other senses, I don't see how he'd be cleared to play in the first place.* 



> Unless Eddy is _genuinely_ in a position where he will sit down with the Bulls and talk about a contract less that reflects the risks involved to the team in investing heavily in him as a cornerstone, the Bulls are absolutlely right in letting the RFA process do its work. Giving him an offer to present to other teams with a "will you beat this" attitude is just doesn't make sense, from the team's standpoint.


It certainly does if we expect other teams not to try beating it. And it's more likely they won't try to beat it if they have only a short response time. 

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

Regarding Ron's post, I agree that things were probably discussed in generalities, but as time moves on it's important to keep talking. Curry seems increasingly impatient to sign a deal. Perhaps what seemed unreasonable to him before, with some reasonable modification, is more reasonable now that the prospect of going through another month of getting prodded and poked?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I think it was just "the Bulls will probably offer a shorter term, incentive laden contract to Curry" speculation rather than actual news. Of course, this was at about the same time we heard that Paxson was going to be proactive.
> 
> Chad Ford's column on the big guys today confirms that the Bulls have not made an actual offer to Eddy or Tyson.


Thanks. I think you are probably right about that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> not to take this off-track, but...
> 
> he brazenly, openly and defiantly violated his contract. how is it that the bulls owed him anything after the stunt he pulled?


What are the ramifications if the bulls use the clause on JWill when they don't cancel the contracts of other players who rode motorcycles and didn't have accidents? There is NOW a league-wide rule against riding motorcycles, but it was enacted after JWill's accident and because of it. I'm just scratching the surface, but I am confident JWill could have sued or gone to arbitration, mediation, or some other venue where the issue would be litigated.


----------



## bbertha37 (Jul 21, 2004)

And Jay's claim against the Bulls would be...?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> What are the ramifications if the bulls use the clause on JWill when they don't cancel the contracts of other players who rode motorcycles and didn't have accidents? There is NOW a league-wide rule against riding motorcycles, but it was enacted after JWill's accident and because of it. *I'm just scratching the surface, but I am confident JWill could have sued or gone to arbitration, mediation, or some other venue where the issue would be litigated.*


Of course he could have sued or gone to arbitration. I could sue you for intentional infliction of emotional distress. I'd lose, but I could still sue you for it. 

The league-wide rule means nothing. What matters is that Jay Williams' personal contract with the Bulls contained a prohibition against riding motorcycles that was accompanied by a default provision that gave the team the right to cancel the contract without penalty if materially violated. This was all disclosed after the buy-out.

If Williams filed a lawsuit, the contract would immediately be capable of use against him and it would be an absolute defense for the Bulls. The legal fees, and effort, required to win that case would be insignificant in comparison to their generous payment of $3 million. 

Really, even if they litigated the whole damn thing through to trial, I doubt the attorneys' fees and costs would exceed $100,000. And that is on the really, really high side for such a straight-forward dispute.

Look, you really just don't seem to know what you are talking about with regard to this issue.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Look, you really just don't seem to know what you are talking about with regard to this issue.


You don't.

Actually, if I ever lose my sig, this would be a good one. It seems to be your post to everyone.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

bbertha37 said:


> And Jay's claim against the Bulls would be...?


Breech of contract.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> You don't.
> 
> Actually, if I ever lose my sig, this would be a good one. It seems to be your post to everyone.


You didn't address any of the other stuff I said about the contract terms, or the fact that he was caught on national TV acknowledging he wasn't supposed to be riding a motorcycle, or anything. 

If I don't know what I'm talking about, then explain to me how what I've posted is wrong. 

If I'm wrong about the attorneys fees, why am I wrong?

You made a pretty strong statement about the Williams deal. So lets talk about it, back it up.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Maybe you've heard of Larry ****.

http://usenetsports.com/archive/index.php/t-866492.html



> Just an FYI, I asked someone official whether the UPC
> prohibition against motorcycling extended to doing so
> as transportation, and was told they couldn't comment.
> 
> ...





> Dave McNulla wrote:
> 
> > exactly. the passage i read said "athletic activity". that sounds more like
> > what kent (played for the sf giants at the time) did last year when he broke
> ...


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Why was a "settlement" required?

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/williams_waived_040217.html

Bulls and Williams Reach Settlement
*February 17, 2004* -- The Chicago Bulls today requested waivers on second-year guard *Jay Williams*. *This is required by league rules where a team and player make a settlement on their contract.*

As a result of the settlement the Bulls have agreed to pay Jay Williams a reduced portion of his salary for this season and next, which were the two seasons remaining on his contract at the time of his motorcycle accident.

“Jay’s accident was tragic and unfortunate. We look forward to watching the progress of Jay’s rehabilitation and remain hopeful he can some day rejoin our team. *But at the same time this allows us roster flexibility as we move forward*,” said Bulls Executive Vice President of Basketball Operations *John Paxson*.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Maybe you've heard of Larry ****.


Yes, I have heard of Larry ****. And this is what I'm talking about, at least you are trying to get some support for your speculative theory. 

The problem with what you have quoted is that it acknowledges that **** doesn't know what the terms of Williams' contract were. He is taking language from a uniform contract and extrapolating what it *may* mean *if* those terms are identical to those included in Williams' contract. 

He specifically states that these clauses are subject to modification and even uses an extreme example that the contract could allow "stunt crashing" if the parties wanted it to. 

In other words, he's guessing and so are you. 

As to the "settlement" quote, that term is used, because that is exactly what they did. It was not a strict "buy-out" because they did not pay him all of the $$ guaranteed under the life of the agreement. When a compromise is reached, it is, in effect, a settlement of terms. That article says nothing about actual or threatened legal action.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> In other words, he's guessing and so are you.


Yea, Ron, just like you are guessing, right?

As **** makes very clear, it's not necessarily straightforward or nearly as certain as you asserted earilier. Bulls owned about $6M in the worst-case scenerio. $0 in the best case scenerio. They got out for $3M.

Not a ticket for sainthood in my book.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> Yea, Ron, just like you are guessing, right?
> 
> As **** makes very clear, it's not necessarily straightforward or nearly as certain as you asserted earilier. Bulls owned about $6M in the worst-case scenerio. $0 in the best case scenerio. They got out for $3M.
> 
> Not a ticket for sainthood in my book.


No, I'm not guessing. I can find you 20 articles that say what Williams did was a violation of the terms of his contract. In fact, I posted one of them in the other thread I started devoted to this issue. 

Williams own agent is quoted in that article as stating that what Williams did was wrong and that the Bulls should be commended for how they handled the situation. Regardless, if I'm going to sling mud, I don't do it with guesses and speculation. And no one should.

**** is dealing purely in hypotheticals. He expressly states that he does not know the terms of Williams' contract. Its a nice try, and its a nice find by DaBullz to get some ammunition. But it does not change the purely speculative nature of this theory.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No, I'm not guessing. I can find you 20 articles that say what Williams did was a violation of the terms of his contract. .


Yes, you are guessing. You can find as many simplistic articles as you want. It's more complex that that.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> No, I'm not guessing. I can find you 20 articles that say what Williams did was a violation of the terms of his contract. In fact, I posted one of them in the other thread I started devoted to this issue.
> 
> Williams own agent is quoted in that article as stating that what Williams did was wrong and that the Bulls should be commended for how they handled the situation. Regardless, if I'm going to sling mud, I don't do it with guesses and speculation. And no one should.


Saying he was "wrong" isn't the same as saying he's breached his contract.

Similarly, as we've recently been talking about, we could probably find 20 articles that authoritatively state the incorrect maximum value Curry and Chandler could be offered.

It happens all the time. A journalist see something that sounds authoritative (like an expert speculating about whether the sporting provision of the stock language in NBA contracts prevents riding a bike), and report it as open and shut. Then journalists 2 through 20 build off what journalist 1 said, without researching it too closely.

That's the sort of stuff you're always pointing out, anyway 

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

I honestly don't find any of this discussion to be very indicative of anything, to be honest. That the Bulls did more than send Williams a christmas ham isn't any ringing endorsement of their charity. It's an endorsement of their pragmatic public relations sense. Likewise, the foolishness of JWill trying to sue on such shaky grounds is quite manifest.

Both parties recognized the situation for what it was and found a middle ground to a potentially delicate solution with no obvious right answer. But a middle ground isn't great charity and it isn't great stinginess either. It's business.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

Man, this is some funny, funny stuff. And we still have 10 days to go before anything can become official.

I should write the NBA and thank them for the extra week of negotiations this summer- this is all very entertaining reading. It's like people have no clue how the process works, some people downright act as if Eddy (and Tyson) are *un*restricted free agents. 

Eddy has been in the league for 4 years, and he's no All-Star, not really that close. Teams don't pay big bucks for that, even all the HS guys who are now stars (Kobe, KG, TMac, Amare) were stars in their 4th seasons.

The thing I still can't figure is why teams aren't beating down Pax's door with trade offers, there are only a few low-post scoring centers in the league, one would think that about 25 teams are interested in Curry.

And I really have to LOL at the people who talk about "respect" and "feelings"... these are multi, multi-million dollar business dealings we are talking about here, the negotiating process will be forgotten soon enough (except by those with an axe to grind against the Bulls' front office, of course).

Of course, I'm sure some of you expect Tyson to say "Well, they signed me for 6 years and $60 million, but they didn't do it quickly enough so I want to be traded" in November.

This ISN'T the WNBA, Eddy and Tyson are men, I'm sure they'll be fine. Well, except for Eddy, who is painfully learning that centers who rebound and block shots like an average SF aren't that highly coveted around the league, no matter how good of a low-post scorer they are.

I guess no other teams are showing Eddy any "respect" either, I haven't heard of even one sign and trade offer from a team over the cap who is interested in Eddy. I haven't heard of one team calling Pax to inquire about Eddy.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> Saying he was "wrong" isn't the same as saying he's breached his contract.
> 
> Similarly, as we've recently been talking about, we could probably find 20 articles that authoritatively state the incorrect maximum value Curry and Chandler could be offered.
> 
> ...


You are right. I was not. Not as entirely and definitely right as I stated, anyway

When I wrote my string of posts on this subject, it was before I left work. On the way home, I was thinking about the payment and came to the conclusion that it most likely had to have been a negotiated figure. Which means that Williams camp had to at least have put forth some basis for even asking for money at all. I doubt this basis was charity, and I doubt a right of first refusal is worth $3 million. It would be reasonable to assume that this basis could have been a threat to litigate or a threat of a poor public relations result. 

Therefore, I am going to back off of some (SOME) of what I wrote. Like you said, it is business. It was a business decision, not a purely charitable one. I was wrong to suggest otherwise with such certainty. 

That being said, to equate it to the E-Rob buyout goes entirely too far. Based on the circumstances and the amount involved, the Bulls could have canceled the contract and forced the litigation. And being that it is a contractual dispute, a declaratory judgment could have been sought without outrageous legal fees. But they didn't do that, and while it most likely was not charitable, it does count for something. It definintely should not be the basis for ridicule or doubt.

I went too far in my response to DaBullz notion.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That being said, to equate it to the E-Rob buyout goes entirely too far. Based on the circumstances and the amount involved, the Bulls could have canceled the contract and forced the litigation. And being that it is a contractual dispute, a declaratory judgment could have been sought without outrageous legal fees. But they didn't do that, and while it most likely was not charitable, it does count for something. It definintely should not be the basis for ridicule or doubt.


Who ridiculed anyone? All I did was point out that bringing up the JWill settlement isn't a good way to say the Bulls are altruistic.

As for E-Rob, he settled, too. Both settlements, according to CBA rules, gave Paxson the use of a freed up roster spot. 



> I went too far in my response to DaBullz notion.


Fair enough.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Eddy should just take the qualifying offer. If he doesn't die next year, and plays like he was playing last year, then he'll make more money next year.


I agree with this.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

...


----------

