Don't Compare Bulls and Clippers...

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Well that is the difference between me and you, you want to do what 13 other playoff teams do...I want to do what the championship teams do. Those teams have a legit player to build around. We didn't have that. So we would have to acquire him. That is why they went after the players they went after and though they failed...they tried. Why go after Kobe or Garnett in trades and free agency (Kobe twice) if they felt that the Bulls were a cash cow and no championship was needed for profits? What is the purpose? I think the Bulls front office is more along the lines of my thinking then yours...get a player who makes this team a championship contender. Gasol and Boozer don't do that. Lebron and Wade can though. They need to pursue those type of players...franchise players. So why spend to get "better" when better is not even close to beating the Cavs, Celtics or Magic? Better only puts you in playoff hell, where Atlanta has been the last few years...I don't want to go there.

But all of those championship teams that you talk of are all at the top of that LT list. The only exception was the spurs and even now they are paying the LT. EVERY contender this year is playing the LT. But not the bulls. And teams without stars still build and and make a run for it. The pistons a few years back proved it. There are only 3 maybe four guys that can carry you to that ring, do you want to wait another decade to try to get one? Despite Kobes temporary madness or Kareem or Shaq, 99% of the time those guys don't change teams, they are drafted. Kirk and deng are just enough to keep us from getting those types of picks.

 

[houheffna]

If MJ hated Krause so much then Krause should have been gone. That would have been a start. Just like when Magic wanted Westhead gone, he was gone. And Magic was only a 2nd or 3rd year player and that happened.

Westhead was a coach, not a GM. Players don't get GMs removed, GMs remove players. Krause's job was to put personnel on the court that won championships...he did that. Why would they get rid of him? That would be like him getting rid of Phil because Phil and he didn't get along.

If MJ was "chased out of town" by Reinsdorf, playing for the Birmingham Barons doesn't exactly even things out. The fact remains that he respects Reinsdorf. His behavior doesn't quite support your claims.

Its interesting that when I bring up that Barkley thinks the Bulls suck and that Ben Gordon is not a starter, he is dismissed as a clown, but when he talks about his buddy MJ, his word is golden. I think Barkley heard one side to that story.

What Sam Smith wrote was reporting, not commentary, he didn't interject his personal feelings into that article like Mariotti and Telander did. Mariotti especially gets dismissed because he had ulterior motives.

Non of them give a detailed, accurate account of what happened behind the scenes except one, Sam Smith. Why did he write it in 2004? Ask him...doesn't make it any less accurate. He said he had nothing to gain, just telling the truth. I heard all of this on the radio after everything happened. People who were in the know went against popular opinion and said that this was not a one sided affair. That no one person was to blame and that Jordan's just as much in the wrong as either Jerry. So after reading those articles, and they are good reads, I see Lacy Banks interview with Reinsdorf as the closest to reporting on the issue and not commentary. And what Reinsdorf says is pretty much in lock step with what Smith wrote.

You yourself called the Toni Kukoc situation (what situation?) and other situations petty. And that is true, they were petty. Horace Grant made a mistake in leaving. Reinsdorf held a press conference at night, totally pissed because Horace had agreed to a deal with Reinsdorf. But who cares? They won the 6 titles they were going to win? Its not like they would have won more. People back then looked at Horace as one of the enemy when he left, I wish people still had that mentality now. But at the end of the day you should celebrate because King Michael didn't like Horace...

Upset with the drafting of forward Horace Grant in 1987, Jordan said to Krause: “What the hell? You took that dummy!?” “And for years, he called Horace dummy. To his face. Dummy. Right to his face. Unbelievable,” says Krause.

Krause didn't listen to Jordan on personnel decisions and we all know how accurate Jordan is concerning personnel...one of the main reasons Jordan didn't like Krause. I think there are two sides to this story...you just refuse to accept that, or so it seems.

You get an A for research...good reading

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

The fact is that I believe Jerry Reinsdorf is as commited to putting winning teams out on the field and the court as anyone else in sports. He won’t sign random players to huge contracts just to appease the fans in the offseason a la the Knicks or Mets, but if he sees a viable plan to winning from one of his general managers, he will fully make the necessary financial commitment. At the same time, while Reinsdorf isn’t the most charismatic person with the media, you can count on one hand the number of owners that have won world championships in two different sports while setting both of his franchises up for extended success. So, it’s time that Chicago sports fans to forget about what was conventional wisdom for over a decade and reassess the world we live in now. Mark Cuban might the most fun owner out there, but it’s hard to argue against Jerry Reinsdorf as being the best.
http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2006/07/07/jerry-reinsdorf-best-owner-in-sports/

Let alone all the p&l stuff I posted about the nba teams and sox. Which you still haven't acknowledged that there is a fundamental difference in p&l between two teams that have very similar gross revenues and hugely disproportionate salary expenditures. OR the FACT THAT THE BULLS MAKE MUCH MORE MONEY THAN THE AVERAGE NBA TEAM AND ITS JR'S EXCLUSIVE DECISION ON PERSONNEL AND SPENDING, WITH NO REPRECUTIONS FROM A BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

Reinsdorf's personal net worth is $280 million dollars....

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/41431812.html

The White Sox are worth $450mil,
The Chicago Bulls are worth $500mil...

Lets say his total income is from his teams (as you all seem to figure), he is worth 30% of the combined value of his teams. Comparing him to George Steinbrenner who is personally worth well over 1Billion dollars makes no sense. Steinbrenner has the net worth of 5 Reinsdorfs. The point is he runs BOTH as a business if they are his basic source of income for him and his family. He has standards on both sides of town. For the Bulls, you don't spend lux tax on Gasol or Gordon, who are not worth it...on the other hand you don't give long term deals to pitchers, or you don't deal with agent Scott Boras which are some of his credos for managing the White Sox. Why wouldn't you give pitchers 8 year deals? Its a hobby...right? Wrong...dead wrong. To the Steinbrenners, the Yankees are serious business, a billion dollar business. It is the same with Reinsdorf for the Sox and Bulls.

Comparing the two sports' luxury tax he has not paid the lux tax for EITHER team...


What you are suggesting is that he spend over 60% of his revenues on players for the Bulls as he has done with the White Sox. That would make it a hobby, like it is with the White Sox...in your opinion.

That is some dumb ass shit...

He offered his players huge deals, for which many of you gripe about daily because 2 of the 3 took the deals. He did it with the Sox too. One pitcher took his offer, the other didn't. He overspent in free agency (Wallace (Bulls), Albert Belle (Sox)). He has pursued top free agents (Alex Rodriguez (White Sox), Kobe Bryant (Bulls)).

And if you knew how the sports worked, maybe you wouldn't be so quick to adopt someone else's questionable opinions.

Here is a rebuttal to the ChicagoNow article...

http://www.mouthpiecesports.com/blo...ke-peavy-to-ben-gordon-is-apples-and-oranges/

This line of thinking is sad and misinformed...upset because the White Sox got a premiere pitcher and legitimate ace and Cy Young winner. Who has accomplished MUCH more in his sport relative to Ben Gordon...who is the reason for this baseless argument.

I believe you are mistaken. First, this is ALL a business to Reinsdorf. His number one business concerning the Sox...Win Championships, same goal as he has with the Bulls. Championships make money. Witnessed by the growth in revenue since the World Series win. He has an idea as to what it takes to win. Signing Gordon would have mired the Bulls in mediocrity in his opinion. In my opinion, you were no closer to a championship. Which is why he made the moves he made. No one is taking into account competition either. The Sox struggle to sell tickets comparable to the Cubs. He doesn't want his team to be an "also ran". The other team in the city. He worked hard to make the White Sox a premiere franchise. And he is succeeding. He put in as much work to make the Bulls a great franchise, he succeeded there too. But people say he "ran Jordan out of town"...if I am not mistaken, wasn't Reinsdorf invited to that Hall of Fame speech Jordan gave? I think he respects Reinsdorf. And since Jordan can do no wrong at all in some of your eyes, you should follow his example.

So you can say I am full of shit, but this is my opinion...you borrow others opinions and make them your own. You call Sam Smith articles fluff but hold on to Doug's columns like its the holy grail. I am sorry but Sam Smith has earned credibility over the years I am sure Doug would agree that Sam Smith is one of the best basketball journalists there is.

Hopefully, you learn the truth over time. Two different sports, two different ways to operate. Equating them on mere numbers without at all acknowledging the huge difference in the economic culture in both sports is just plain negligent. And I won't buy into it.

BTW all of these articles are just as jacked up as Sam Smiths work, there is a lot of false statements within them. How can JR's networth be 250 million if he is the majority owner of two franchises that are worth over 450 mill each as well as generated a income of 50 mill a year on the bulls. the article further makes no sense as the bulls have not had 23 playoff appearences or 16 division titles. Niether of these figures are close to correct.

The second article doesn't even spell dougs last name right. It furthermore doesn't even address the main crux of my arguement. It only address two players. Which, I never argued, Jake Peavy is worth more than BG. But the idea that Alex Rios is more important to the sox than BG is assine. Maybe I don't know enough about baseball, I don't follow it enough but BG seems like a better player and a basketball starter has more impact than a starting player in baseball just based on the fact that there are 9 postions verus 5 in basketball. Furthermore the article makes it sound like its BG veruses a 2010, BG doesn't take the entire salary cap and you could still fit BG's salary and 2 max contracts on a roster, its the rest of our trash that prevented us from resinging him. Prior mistakes shouldn't be held against BG alone. Deng is a worse contract as well as Kirk. Furthermore they speak almost entirely in generalities. Yes its easier to complete a trade in baseball due to non matching contracts and paying a piece of the salaries but lets not pretend you can't do similar things in the nba. Look at the Jason kidd trade, they traded a prospect, 2 1sts and a non guarnteed empty contract in kvh to make it work. The trade worked under the cap and still got NJ instant cap space, prospect and picks. Your articles are very poorly written and very overly general. Furthermore, lots of facts are just wrong. To assume JR is worth half as much as they spell out on paper or be completly off in playoff appearences is just bad journalism. Furthermore, despite writing a response to doug's article, he simple explains the payroll as easier to dump and temporary. SO would paying the LT for BG for a year. It would be easy to dump and only one year. They are just very poorly written.

 

[Kush77]

houheffna wrote:

If MJ hated Krause so much then Krause should have been gone. That would have been a start. Just like when Magic wanted Westhead gone, he was gone. And Magic was only a 2nd or 3rd year player and that happened.

Westhead was a coach, not a GM. Players don't get GMs removed, GMs remove players. Krause's job was to put personnel on the court that won championships...he did that. Why would they get rid of him? That would be like him getting rid of Phil because Phil and he didn't get along.

If MJ was "chased out of town" by Reinsdorf, playing for the Birmingham Barons doesn't exactly even things out. The fact remains that he respects Reinsdorf. His behavior doesn't quite support your claims.

Its interesting that when I bring up that Barkley thinks the Bulls suck and that Ben Gordon is not a starter, he is dismissed as a clown, but when he talks about his buddy MJ, his word is golden. I think Barkley heard one side to that story.

What Sam Smith wrote was reporting, not commentary, he didn't interject his personal feelings into that article like Mariotti and Telander did. Mariotti especially gets dismissed because he had ulterior motives.

Non of them give a detailed, accurate account of what happened behind the scenes except one, Sam Smith. Why did he write it in 2004? Ask him...doesn't make it any less accurate. He said he had nothing to gain, just telling the truth. I heard all of this on the radio after everything happened. People who were in the know went against popular opinion and said that this was not a one sided affair. That no one person was to blame and that Jordan's just as much in the wrong as either Jerry. So after reading those articles, and they are good reads, I see Lacy Banks interview with Reinsdorf as the closest to reporting on the issue and not commentary. And what Reinsdorf says is pretty much in lock step with what Smith wrote.

You yourself called the Toni Kukoc situation (what situation?) and other situations petty. And that is true, they were petty. Horace Grant made a mistake in leaving. Reinsdorf held a press conference at night, totally pissed because Horace had agreed to a deal with Reinsdorf. But who cares? They won the 6 titles they were going to win? Its not like they would have won more. People back then looked at Horace as one of the enemy when he left, I wish people still had that mentality now. But at the end of the day you should celebrate because King Michael didn't like Horace...

Upset with the drafting of forward Horace Grant in 1987, Jordan said to Krause: “What the hell? You took that dummy!?” “And for years, he called Horace dummy. To his face. Dummy. Right to his face. Unbelievable,” says Krause.

Krause didn't listen to Jordan on personnel decisions and we all know how accurate Jordan is concerning personnel...one of the main reasons Jordan didn't like Krause. I think there are two sides to this story...you just refuse to accept that, or so it seems.

You get an A for research...good reading

With Barkley, I don't think I ever called him a clown in regards to Ben Gordon. That's someone else. I would disagree with him that BG should be a bench player, but that's another story.

But when it comes to issues regarding MJ, I would listen to Barkley because they are good friends. Basically Barkley is more in tune to situations regarding MJ than BG.

The Toni Kukoc "situation" I posted in another thread so we can talk about it there.

As for the drafting of Grant. MJ is over the line for calling him a dummy. What can I say there.

But I guess when you already had Charles Oakley, why did you draft Grant? It worked out, but I think a lot of us would question that move at the time. just like Krause drafted Stacey King when we had Grant.

Thanks for the A grade. Let me know if you, or anyone here, wants to read an old article. I can go back to 1986.

 

[houheffna]

http://hoopshype.com/owners/jerry_reinsdorf.htm

You have to read more carefully, it says 18 division, conference and league titles...not just division. The playoff appearances are off...

But the idea that Alex Rios is more important to the sox than BG is assine. Maybe I don't know enough about baseball, I don't follow it enough but BG seems like a better player and a basketball starter has more impact than a starting player in baseball just based on the fact that there are 9 postions verus 5 in basketball.

Is BG more important to the Bulls than say Orlando Pace is to the Bears? No...because as bad as Pace has played, there is no one to take his place. And the position he plays if vital to a team's success. How many players are on the roster has nothing to do with how expendable a player is.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

http://hoopshype.com/owners/jerry_reinsdorf.htm

You have to read more carefully, it says 18 division, conference and league titles...not just division. The playoff appearances are off...

But the idea that Alex Rios is more important to the sox than BG is assine. Maybe I don't know enough about baseball, I don't follow it enough but BG seems like a better player and a basketball starter has more impact than a starting player in baseball just based on the fact that there are 9 postions verus 5 in basketball.

Is BG more important to the Bulls than say Orlando Pace is to the Bears? No...because as bad as Pace has played, there is no one to take his place. And the position he plays if vital to a team's success. How many players are on the roster has nothing to do with how expendable a player is.

What do I have to read more carefully, its a horrible written article ridden with factual mistakes. Its an insult to journalism. Almost all the numbers are off and make no sense. To write the acomplishments of 6 years to equal out 18 is a bit misleading and they aren't just a little off on the playoff appearences.

I don't follow other sports enough to know Pace's importance but two players of equal importance to different teams in differenct sports have inhereant differences in value. If Arod is the best player does he have the same importance as Lebron James. If Arod is sorrounded by average players can he take them deep in the playoffs? No, thats why if you take james off the cavs they are a lottery team, if you take arod off the yankees they are still a playoff team and contender. with more players playing you have more to cover. In basketball you only have 5 guys and they do everything, they aren't more specialized like a pitcher or offense/defense/special teams. Inhereantly, the basketball player has greater value as you have less total players on the field of play. Loosing a star can destroy a basketball, not so much with baseball or football.

 

[houheffna]

you are wrong about who is more important concerning football and baseball. you pick out the Yankees, that is not the team you should be referring to. They have a 200mil payroll.

The guys point was valid, because its against your views its "horrible journalism". The guy is right about the difference between baseball and basketball. You have a much better chance of dumping salary in baseball, and you don't have to take on matching salary.

Rios is a 2 time allstar who has underachieved of late. But he is heading into his supposed prime. In that author's opinion, there is no comparison. Especially with Peavy. When Reinsdorf has a chance to get a premiere player of that level, he tries to make the move. I would say for a lot of championship baseball teams, take away their #3 or #4 hitter in their lineup and replace him with an average guy, you will have a problem. You couldnt be more wrong about football. Some players are absolutely the center of their team. Think of guys like Peyton Manning and what he does, or how much the Bears defense struggles without Tommie Harris. One player can make a huge difference.

Your reasoning concerning who is more important is off base. If you don't think Peavy is more of a vital piece to a team than any Bull over the last few years to that franchise with the exception of Rose, you are very much mistaken.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

you are wrong about who is more important concerning football and baseball. you pick out the Yankees, that is not the team you should be referring to. They have a 200mil payroll.

The guys point was valid, because its against your views its "horrible journalism". The guy is right about the difference between baseball and basketball. You have a much better chance of dumping salary in baseball, and you don't have to take on matching salary.

Rios is a 2 time allstar who has underachieved of late. But he is heading into his supposed prime. In that author's opinion, there is no comparison. Especially with Peavy. When Reinsdorf has a chance to get a premiere player of that level, he tries to make the move. I would say for a lot of championship baseball teams, take away their #3 or #4 hitter in their lineup and replace him with an average guy, you will have a problem. You couldnt be more wrong about football. Some players are absolutely the center of their team. Think of guys like Peyton Manning and what he does, or how much the Bears defense struggles without Tommie Harris. One player can make a huge difference.

Your reasoning concerning who is more important is off base. If you don't think Peavy is more of a vital piece to a team than any Bull over the last few years to that franchise with the exception of Rose, you are very much mistaken.

Fine, the yankees are a bad example, find me contending baseball team that loses their best player and becomes a lottery team? It doesn't happen. Take Bron or Wade off their teams and they struggle to win 20 games.

Actually, I only called the article about the owners horrible journalism. I just disagreed with the mouthpiece article. I felt it spoke way too much in generalities and ignored the crux of doug's point. It didn't discuss the numbers or disparities just the impace of two players. Again, its easier to dump salaries in the mlb but its not nearly as hard as they make it out to be. I named an example in my post of a trade that would be a typical baseball salary dump. Its also not uncommon to trade bad contracts for expirings. If Zach Randolph could be traded for a much cheaper expiring, it isn't that hard.

Kinda sounds like Pau Gasol doesn't it? Wasn't he an allstar big in a bad year? But anyway if you bothered to read my responses you would notice I agreed with Peavy and questioned rios as he is questionable.

 

[houheffna]

It doesn't matter, dude was comparing the two sports, and how the economics work, how their respective CBA's work. I agree with him over the other guys column. You cannot compare the two. Reinsdorf's net worth is nothing compared to most of his constituents. The NBA has 10-11 billionaires! He is no where near that group, expecting him to go into the lux tax for mediocrity is too much. There is no proof that he uses Bulls money to fund the White Sox. That is just groundless, incessant whining and not facing reality.

* Teams below the salary cap may trade without regard to salary, as long as they don't end up more than $100,000 above the cap following a trade.
* Teams above the cap (or teams below the cap but would end up more than $100,000 over the cap following a trade) cannot acquire more than 125% plus $100,000 of the salary they trade away. There is no lower limit—teams may divest themselves of as much salary as they wish in a trade.
* No free agent signed in the offseason can be traded until December 15 of that year or until three months have passed (whichever comes later), a rule that prevents teams from signing free agents with the intent of using them strictly as trade fodder. For draft picks this moratorium lasts 30 days.
* If a team acquires a player in a trade, they are allowed to trade that player straight-up for another individual player immediately. However, if they wish to package that player with another and make a trade, the team must wait 60 days before doing so.

Since as you said most teams are over the cap...trading is difficult. You have to match salaries. There is no salary cap in baseball and there are no such restrictions. You can trade ARod for a 18 year old prospect no one has ever heard of and nothing in the CBA will stop you. That is what happens in baseball year round...

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

It doesn't matter, dude was comparing the two sports, and how the economics work, how their respective CBA's work. I agree with him over the other guys column. You cannot compare the two. Reinsdorf's net worth is nothing compared to most of his constituents. The NBA has 10-11 billionaires! He is no where near that group, expecting him to go into the lux tax for mediocrity is too much. There is no proof that he uses Bulls money to fund the White Sox. That is just groundless, incessant whining and not facing reality.

* Teams below the salary cap may trade without regard to salary, as long as they don't end up more than $100,000 above the cap following a trade.
* Teams above the cap (or teams below the cap but would end up more than $100,000 over the cap following a trade) cannot acquire more than 125% plus $100,000 of the salary they trade away. There is no lower limit—teams may divest themselves of as much salary as they wish in a trade.
* No free agent signed in the offseason can be traded until December 15 of that year or until three months have passed (whichever comes later), a rule that prevents teams from signing free agents with the intent of using them strictly as trade fodder. For draft picks this moratorium lasts 30 days.
* If a team acquires a player in a trade, they are allowed to trade that player straight-up for another individual player immediately. However, if they wish to package that player with another and make a trade, the team must wait 60 days before doing so.

Since as you said most teams are over the cap...trading is difficult. You have to match salaries. There is no salary cap in baseball and there are no such restrictions. You can trade ARod for a 18 year old prospect no one has ever heard of and nothing in the CBA will stop you. That is what happens in baseball year round...

So, some of the lowest networth owners have the highest payroll. SA's payroll is almost as high as its owners networth. The owner of the highest payroll in the league doesn't crack the top half. Networth and payroll have no correlation in the nba. AND AGAIN, I never said he funds the whitesox with bulls profits. I don't know where you are getting it from. I said, that the white sox are allowed to operate at a much lower profit on the same revenue as the bulls. The bulls run about 5to 10x the profit the sox do on a similar revenue. My complaint was the large discrepancy in the numbers.

It is not as hard as you say. Zbo, the worst contract in the league was moved for a lesser expiring, there are ways to circumvent the rules in the nba i have listed a couple of examples. If you chose to ignore them, you can repeat yourself till your blu in the face.