All Hunger Team - Paxson persuaded JR

[charity stripe]

Ric Bucher article

General Manager
John Paxson | Bulls
Retirment is beckoning after 24 years with the Bulls, but sources say he persuaded owner Jerry Reinsdorf to make a pricey trade-deadline deal to solidify the team's playoff chances. Reinsdorf did, a source says, with one mandate: Make the second round.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4087391

If he persuaded JR on this trade, he can persuade JR on paying Gordon.

 

[??? ??????]

Jerry Reinsdorf: "You can sign Ben Gordon, with one mandate, that is win six championships."

 

[??? ??????]

Btw, if Paxson persuaded Reinsdorf to make this trade, it would seem that they already decided to keep Ben, as if they were planning on just letting Ben walk, the financials of the trade really aren't all that bearing.

 

[Basghetti80]

The deal added money to next year because of Miller coming here and Gooden being gone. That is where he had to persuade JR. It had no bearing on Gordon. I firmly believe they know signing Gordon is a longshot and I would guess that JR does not agree to a BG contract unless Paxson can move the Deng contract for a significantly lesser deal like Outlaw or Webster from Portland.

 

[maq25060]

i wanted to post a thread about the players putting the onus on JR and getting themselves to the ECF after i heard KG was out but i dont like posting threads all that much

this is exactly what it sounds like...JR: You guys make the 2nd round, we can keep this team together

 

[dunkside.com]

charity stripe wrote:

Ric Bucher article

General Manager
John Paxson | Bulls
Retirment is beckoning after 24 years with the Bulls, but sources say he persuaded owner Jerry Reinsdorf to make a pricey trade-deadline deal to solidify the team's playoff chances. Reinsdorf did, a source says, with one mandate: Make the second round.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4087391

If he persuaded JR on this trade, he can persuade JR on paying Gordon.

So if the Bulls won't make the 2nd round, Gordon is gone.
Bye bye, Ben. It's been nice knowing you.

BTW, if they let Gordon walk, can I get a refund on my #7 Bulls jersey ?
And no, I don't want to exchange it for a #12.

 

[dougthonus]

??? ?????? wrote:

Btw, if Paxson persuaded Reinsdorf to make this trade, it would seem that they already decided to keep Ben, as if they were planning on just letting Ben walk, the financials of the trade really aren't all that bearing.

If you look at it that way, then the "make the second round" would be the mandate to keep Gordon.

 

[??? ??????]

dougthonus wrote:

??? ?????? wrote:

Btw, if Paxson persuaded Reinsdorf to make this trade, it would seem that they already decided to keep Ben, as if they were planning on just letting Ben walk, the financials of the trade really aren't all that bearing.

If you look at it that way, then the "make the second round" would be the mandate to keep Gordon.

I wonder if Jerry told Paxson, make the second round, and you get to keep Gordon. (The extra round in the playoffs should pay the luxury tax amount for Gordon).

It's sick, if that is Reinsdorf's thinking, as Gordon is our best player right now, and it would be dumb to let him go, even if it meant a one year hit.

 

[Morten Jensen]

If there's one thing we should have learned by now, it's that playoff, and regular season earnings, means squad when it comes to the luxury tax. At least in the eyes of Reinsdorf. The luxury tax payments are split up and given to the teams not in the tax. It's basically a few million dollars directly into the pocket of JR.

It's crazy that he doesn't seem to comprehend the fact that a good team (which he will have to pay for) have the potential to gather even more money from merchandise and going further into the playoffs, posibly winning a ring at one point. The future possibility of financial gain outweighs his current tight pockets by a mile. For a man who has been through this before, it's downright weird he doesn't look at it that way.

 

[dougthonus]

I think Reinsdorf comprehends very well that a good team could potentially make him more money and be worth paying some luxury tax.

I'm surprised how few fans really appreciate the risk of going into the luxury tax though, especially in a very down economy where renewal rates will probably not be very good.

The Bulls will likely have revenues drop 10-30 million next year regardless if the team finishes in the same spot, but you think that Reinsdorf isn't being reasonable when saying he's not going to add another 7 million to pay roll in tax money on top of those losses for a team that doesn't look built to go any farther than the 2nd round at best next season.

He has a fiduciary responsibility to the board, and a lot of these guys are probably getting killed on all their other investments and don't want to see their Bulls profits cut down to 1/3rd of what they were if even for only one year when times are tough everywhere else that year.

I understand all the fan arguments about how they 'owe' us or whatever, and it's fair to make those points, and if this was a good economy then I think there would be a good chance because it would only be a 7 million or so hit for only one year. In this economy probably not.

 

[Morten Jensen]

Wow, slow down there. $7 million?

I never implied that, nor would I want to be $7 million deep in luxury tax. That's $14 million out of his (and the Bulls') pockets. The only way I'd be willing to lose out $14 million was if I had a championship team who easily could make up the difference. I'd be willing to go $3 million over tax at most. Making it $6 million total.

I've implied since the start of the season that I want Gordon and not Hinrich. Ergo, I'm only working under the assumption that Ben is kept if we move Hinrich to a team that will absorb a good chunk of his salary. If that proves impossible, I don't see the Bulls even trying to re-sign Ben. Though, I'd feel horrible about that.

Also, back in early 2008 we had a chance at Gasol. Paxson found common ground with Memphis and JR vetoed due to luxury tax implications. A Pau Gasol trade would have improved us, gathered more national interest and obviously given us a PR advantage. Granted, we got Derrick Rose, but since that was 1.7% chance, I don't feel quite right using that argument.

It left a very bad taste in everyone's mouth when JR vetoed that deal. We had a chance at getting a huge player, using PJ Brown as a sign and trade tool (much like Van Horn and Aaron McKie) and possibly Nocioni, who Memphis had shown interest in. Luol Deng and Ben Gordon would both be RFA the following summer, which obviously would have made the payroll larger. But in that case, you could have moved pieces in order to stay close to the luxury tax barrier. Tyrus Thomas could have been used a trade pieces along with Wallace and probably fetched us an expiring contract. We could have looked for deals involving Duhon, Sefolosha, Hinrich etc. Bottom line; Moves could have been made.

I understand and appreciate the financial situation. But given the Bulls have been the most profitable team in the NBA for a long time, I grow tired of defending them when good moves are not made as a result of saving money. This is the team who increased ticket prices after a losing season. The team who couldn't even buy a lousy red t-shirt to offer their fans in a 'Let's go RED' campaign they created.

At some point, fans do get nervous about the future when signs like this appear. It doesn't really scream red carpet treatment.

Overall, I understand the current economy has put things in a bad situation. It's also a valid point that during these times we can't expect them to pay. I just hate seing them 'get away' with it, after years and years of pinching pennies in a good economy.

Minor point, not related to the Bulls: The NBA has earned millions this year by making ILP (International League Pass) it's roughly $100 for a regular season pass and $40 for a playoff pass. There's an incredible amount of users for their first year, and evern more than they anticipated. Their live support (based in the US) told me that during a mid-season analysis, they had 35% more users than they thought they would have before opening. I won't be surprised if the NBA has received such a strong financial support from ILP that it could affect the cap.

 

[dunkside.com]

I can confirm that they were not prepared for the number of users they had.
At times LP still works like crap (and I figure it's NBA's fault since my network connection works just fine on other sites/services) and in the first day of the playoffs their servers were down for quite a lot of time, clearly not being able to handle the massive amount of requests.

For about 2 years I've been sending emails asking them why the hell don't they want to make money by making LP available outside US. Seems that they finally did something about it.

I still can't understand how they could miss such a revenue stream - for all the talk about the globalization of the game, they still seem to think very US centric. And I think they got all these users without any advertisement in the local media, so presumably there could be more customers that don't know that LP is now available internationally.

 

[??? ??????]

dunkside.com wrote:

I can confirm that they were not prepared for the number of users they had.
At times LP still works like crap (and I figure it's NBA's fault since my network connection works just fine on other sites/services) and in the first day of the playoffs their servers were down for quite a lot of time, clearly not being able to handle the massive amount of requests.

For about 2 years I've been sending emails asking them why the hell don't they want to make money by making LP available outside US. Seems that they finally did something about it.

I still can't understand how they could miss such a revenue stream - for all the talk about the globalization of the game, they still seem to think very US centric. And I think they got all these users without any advertisement in the local media, so presumably there could be more customers that don't know that LP is now available internationally.

International League Pass was available before League Pass Broadband in the United States. Although ILP had a smaller host of countries included when it first came out.

 

[Morten Jensen]

Do you mean this year? Because this is the first year ILP has been available, and I believe League Pass Broadband have been available the past 3-4 years.

 

[dougthonus]

Wow, slow down there. $7 million?
I never implied that, nor would I want to be $7 million deep in luxury tax. That's $14 million out of his (and the Bulls') pockets. The only way I'd be willing to lose out $14 million was if I had a championship team who easily could make up the difference. I'd be willing to go $3 million over tax at most. Making it $6 million total.

I mean an extra $7 million total in revenue. $3 million over is $6 million in salary difference + $2-3 million in missed payouts which is $8-$9 million in total revenue droppage.

Also, back in early 2008 we had a chance at Gasol. Paxson found common ground with Memphis and JR vetoed due to luxury tax implications. A Pau Gasol trade would have improved us, gathered more national interest and obviously given us a PR advantage. Granted, we got Derrick Rose, but since that was 1.7% chance, I don't feel quite right using that argument.

This is not true to my understanding, nor have I've never heard this reported anywhere. I reported that Memphis and Chicago found common ground, but the Memphis owner vetoed the deal due to not wanting to take back Nocioni's contract as part of the package. Not only was the package vetoed, but the Bulls didn't have a chance to change their package, Memphis just took the Laker deal right away.

It's quite possible that the Bulls wouldn't have done a luxury tax deal at the time, and they could have done one with PJ Brown on a S&T, and Sam Smith said that Gasol wasn't worth paying the tax for. However, I don't think the Bulls ever had a deal in place that Reinsdorf vetoed. Also, it's worth noting that asking your owner to pay luxury tax for a team on pace to win 30-35 games is probably a stretch.

 

[TheStig]

dougthonus wrote:

I think Reinsdorf comprehends very well that a good team could potentially make him more money and be worth paying some luxury tax.

I'm surprised how few fans really appreciate the risk of going into the luxury tax though, especially in a very down economy where renewal rates will probably not be very good.

The Bulls will likely have revenues drop 10-30 million next year regardless if the team finishes in the same spot, but you think that Reinsdorf isn't being reasonable when saying he's not going to add another 7 million to pay roll in tax money on top of those losses for a team that doesn't look built to go any farther than the 2nd round at best next season.

He has a fiduciary responsibility to the board, and a lot of these guys are probably getting killed on all their other investments and don't want to see their Bulls profits cut down to 1/3rd of what they were if even for only one year when times are tough everywhere else that year.

I understand all the fan arguments about how they 'owe' us or whatever, and it's fair to make those points, and if this was a good economy then I think there would be a good chance because it would only be a 7 million or so hit for only one year. In this economy probably not.

That makes plenty of sense but is their excuse for the previous 5 yrs when they had the highest net income in the league? They have enough in the bank to do whatever they want and I wouldn't give them an excuse. And when companies are struggling for profits, the bulls should be happy to solidify their product for years to come and still get a profit.

 

[mlewinth]

Morten Jensen wrote:

Minor point, not related to the Bulls: The NBA has earned millions this year by making ILP (International League Pass) it's roughly $100 for a regular season pass and $40 for a playoff pass. There's an incredible amount of users for their first year, and evern more than they anticipated. Their live support (based in the US) told me that during a mid-season analysis, they had 35% more users than they thought they would have before opening. I won't be surprised if the NBA has received such a strong financial support from ILP that it could affect the cap.

I would be absolutly floored if they are making anything from ILP that is even remotly significant enough where it would have any bearing on NBA $$$.

 

[dougthonus]

And I understand the fan that wants the Bulls to be run to win championships regardless of cost and not as a business, but it is a business and will be run like one. Risks will be weighed on whether they will generate a good dollar return. Fortunately, a good dollar return is highly related to winning basketball, so we do have incentive to take risks.

We're just not going to take stupid risks. Paying the luxury tax for a non all-star probably is going to qualify as "stupid risk", as in, the rewards are unlikely to match the risks.

However, Gordon is an iffy proposition. If we believe we're one round deeper in the playoffs with Gordon than without then it's a good risk given that the tax will only be one year.

 

[Morten Jensen]

mlewinth wrote:

I would be absolutly floored if they are making anything from ILP that is even remotly significant enough where it would have any bearing on NBA $$$.

They didn't have this last year, so total income: $0

This year, they have offered it, and 35% more clients joined that they anticipated. They created ILP due to constant growing NBA interest by Europeans. Given that it's $140 per person, it would take just 10,000 subscriptions to earn $1.4 million. Given that in Denmark (only 5.5 million people) there is more than 2000 subscriptions (and that's low balling it) I imagine you can find 200,000 or more subscriptions - So roughly, the NBA could have earned $28 - $30 million give and take the few millions they invested.

David Stern came out recently and said league income wasn't as bad as originally believed. To that extend, $25 million plus from a completely new source (Europe) could possibly, not certain, affect the cap number.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying it will affect the cap situation. But it sure won't hurt it.

 

[Morten Jensen]

dougthonus wrote:

This is not true to my understanding, nor have I've never heard this reported anywhere. I reported that Memphis and Chicago found common ground, but the Memphis owner vetoed the deal due to not wanting to take back Nocioni's contract as part of the package. Not only was the package vetoed, but the Bulls didn't have a chance to change their package, Memphis just took the Laker deal right away.

I must confess I don't remember you reporting this. But this scenario makes more sense than what was reported on one of the Chicago papers websites.

It's quite possible that the Bulls wouldn't have done a luxury tax deal at the time, and they could have done one with PJ Brown on a S&T, and Sam Smith said that Gasol wasn't worth paying the tax for. However, I don't think the Bulls ever had a deal in place that Reinsdorf vetoed. Also, it's worth noting that asking your owner to pay luxury tax for a team on pace to win 30-35 games is probably a stretch.

True, but if the income potential is greater than the current one, you should take it. The odds of gathering a solid team around Gasol, Gordon, Hinrich and Deng wouldn't seem far fetched (at the time at least, which is what we're going for. No one had any idea Deng would suffer with injruries to this extend)