My unfortunate outlook on the 2010 FA plan

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

Owners are business men, bean counters, they can't keep showing loss year after year.

No really, in general they're not. You don't make the huge investment on a sports team to make money, because even going in the owners know that the rate of return is pathetic compared with other ways they could spend the money. Guys buy sports teams for the fringe benefits, like the ability to live vicariously through the players. That means many of them will eat some monetary losses for some wins on the court. Their pockets may have limits, but I think the limit is a lot deeper than you're making out.

After all, even before the slump the average franchise was only breaking even (which given the opportunity cost for the owners, is as good as a loss).

How many moves have we missed so that we don't go over "budget" and thats with running a profit.

Somewhere between zero and one, IMO. I know you're a bigger believer in the rumour mill than I am though.

 

[Kush77]

postdiction wrote:

Here is something to think about:

2010 top selling NBA Jerseys:

1)Bryant
2)James
3)D. Howard
4) D. Rose

I don't know if market size matters or not but, it does show the popularity of the Bulls that D. Rose has more jersey sales than other up and coming stars like Durant etc....

I am hoping that these FA realize how much more $ they would make while winning in Chicago and make the smart decision to come here.

later

postdiction.

Interesting. As far as jersey sales, that's when market size would matter. But not in the way the author of the post was talking about. LeBron isn't getting any extra money because his jersey is selling the most. We know that.

But Rose playing in Chicago is the main reason his jersey sells more than Kevin Durant's playing in OKC. Plus the Bulls are a more prestigious franchise obviously. But good thought. Didn't know rose was ranked 4th.

I'm surprised he's ahead of Carmelo. I see those damn baby blue jerseys everywhere.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

No really, in general they're not. You don't make the huge investment on a sports team to make money, because even going in the owners know that the rate of return is pathetic compared with other ways they could spend the money. Guys buy sports teams for the fringe benefits, like the ability to live vicariously through the players. That means many of them will eat some monetary losses for some wins on the court. Their pockets may have limits, but I think the limit is a lot deeper than you're making out.

After all, even before the slump the average franchise was only breaking even (which given the opportunity cost for the owners, is as good as a loss).

Owners are bean counters in general otherwise you'd have more teams in the LT if they just wanted to field the best possible team. the bottom line is a nba team is a very good investment. All of them increase in value and usaully generate a operating income. The teams that don't are generally small market teams and even Sterling's crappy team generates a profit. You can argue if its their primary reason to own a team but they definitely usaully generate a healthy return on investment.

Somewhere between zero and one, IMO. I know you're a bigger believer in the rumour mill than I am though.

Shakes, I consider you a very intelligent poster but you have got to be kidding me if you really believe that. We have lost our last 3 leading scorers alone due to not wanting to pay them.

 

[houheffna]

Shakes, I consider you a very intelligent poster but you have got to be kidding me if you really believe that. We have lost our last 3 leading scorers alone due to not wanting to pay them.

Are you taking about Gordon, Crawford and Jalen Rose? I certainly hope not, if you are grading the competency of ownership based on those decisions, its definitely a plus for them not a negative against them.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Shakes, I consider you a very intelligent poster but you have got to be kidding me if you really believe that. We have lost our last 3 leading scorers alone due to not wanting to pay them.

Are you taking about Gordon, Crawford and Jalen Rose? I certainly hope not, if you are grading the competency of ownership based on those decisions, its definitely a plus for them not a negative against them.

What are you talking about? No one discussed the merits of the moves. The question was how many moves we missed because of financial reasons. We wanted each of those players and made contract offers to them, we didn't resign them strictly for financial reasons. BTW the third player I was referring to was curry not rose, we didn't trade rose for financial reasons.

 

[houheffna]

What are you talking about? No one discussed the merits of the moves. The question was how many moves we missed because of financial reasons. We wanted each of those players and made contract offers to them, we didn't resign them strictly for financial reasons. BTW the third player I was referring to was curry not rose, we didn't trade rose for financial reasons.

The Bulls traded Curry for financial reasons? I didn't know that....I thought it was because of medical procedures Curry didn't want to go through...I didn't know money was an option...learn something knew every day.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

What are you talking about? No one discussed the merits of the moves. The question was how many moves we missed because of financial reasons. We wanted each of those players and made contract offers to them, we didn't resign them strictly for financial reasons. BTW the third player I was referring to was curry not rose, we didn't trade rose for financial reasons.

The Bulls traded Curry for financial reasons? I didn't know that....I thought it was because of medical procedures Curry didn't want to go through...I didn't know money was an option...learn something knew every day.

Sure it was, they made him a contract offer. It wasn't a procedure at all, they wanted a ineffective dna test. They tried to kill his value with the medical testing but they still made an offer. The knicks made a much better offer.

Several prominent cardiologists cleared Curry to play, but Barry Maron, a world-renowned specialist in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, suggested the DNA test. During the team's media day, Bulls General Manager John Paxson said he understood the privacy issues involved but insisted the Bulls did not have an ulterior motive; they simply do not want a situation similar to those of former Boston Celtics guard Reggie Lewis or Loyola Marymount star Hank Gathers -- players with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy who collapsed and died. Paxson told reporters the Bulls had offered Curry $400,000 annually for the next fifty years if he failed the genetic test.

The test that Eddy Curry was required to take is called Predictive DNA Testing. It has an approximately 10% efficiency at detecting DNA irregularities which may signal the chance of a person developing a specific condition. The practice is illegal in 40 states. Such testing does not reveal the presence of a condition but rather seeks out irregularities which can be used to determine if a person may be susceptible to developing a specific condition. It is far from an established science and has also been known to produce as many false positives as true positives.

From the standpoint of an NBA player, if the test produced a false positive which you would be unable to determine until decades down the road when you would know whether or not the person actually did or did not develop the disease, you may have just ended the career of a pro player based entirely on a test that has a 10% efficiency.

In the end, even the very doctor that suggested the DNA test cleared Eddy Curry to resume playing, merely suggesting Curry take the test; he never actually demanded it. It has been suggested that the episodes he suffered could have been the result of a poor diet Curry was following in an effort to lose weight, as stipulated by the Bulls in order to obtain a new — and larger — contract. There is speculation Curry may have used ephedra to enhance his weight loss, which could potentially have compounded the situation.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

Shakes, I consider you a very intelligent poster but you have got to be kidding me if you really believe that. We have lost our last 3 leading scorers alone due to not wanting to pay them.

There's a difference between not wanting to pay someone because you don't want to spend money, and not wanting to pay someone because you feel you'd be stuck with a contract you can't move for 6 years. Surely any Bulls fan can see not paying Crawford or Curry was a good move. Judging by the way Gordon's contract is currently viewed (see the latest Bill Simmons overpaid list for example), I'm fairly confident it will prove to be a good move as well.

The only possible example that I can think of where a move cost us a player for non-basketball reasons is not using PJ's contract to get someone (and I said zero to one, because I don't know for sure if we could have gotten anyone worth getting with it).

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

Shakes, I consider you a very intelligent poster but you have got to be kidding me if you really believe that. We have lost our last 3 leading scorers alone due to not wanting to pay them.

There's a difference between not wanting to pay someone because you don't want to spend money, and not wanting to pay someone because you feel you'd be stuck with a contract you can't move for 6 years. Surely any Bulls fan can see not paying Crawford or Curry was a good move. Judging by the way Gordon's contract is currently viewed (see the latest Bill Simmons overpaid list for example), I'm fairly confident it will prove to be a good move as well.

The only possible example that I can think of where a move cost us a player for non-basketball reasons is not using PJ's contract to get someone (and I said zero to one, because I don't know for sure if we could have gotten anyone worth getting with it).

Common Shakes, every move we make is financially related. You can twist it how you like but even when we spend money (paying ben wallace) we end up cutting salary (dumping TC). I see for profit comapnies run with less financial emphasis than the bulls. If we didn't like any of those guys as basketball players, we wouldn't have held on to each of them for five years. They would have been moved long before. But the fact remains, each one got a contract offer, so we had interest in them. It came down to money, as it always does, we don't make basketball moves, we make financial moves and if we do spend money, its on a good ole boy or as part of a backhanded attempt to show we are.

 

[houheffna]

Common Shakes, every move we make is financially related. You can twist it how you like but even when we spend money (paying ben wallace) we end up cutting salary (dumping TC). I see for profit comapnies run with less financial emphasis than the bulls. If we didn't like any of those guys as basketball players, we wouldn't have held on to each of them for five years. They would have been moved long before. But the fact remains, each one got a contract offer, so we had interest in them. It came down to money, as it always does, we don't make basketball moves, we make financial moves and if we do spend money, its on a good ole boy or as part of a backhanded attempt to show we are.

You don't think trading Chandler when they got Wallace was a good move? I do...you don't need Chandler and Wallace on the same team or on the floor at the same time...that would've been painful. They got what they considered to be a better version of Chandler so they let him go, plus he didn't get along with Skiles. Whatever money Chandler would have made, it wouldnt have been 15mil per year which they paid Wallace...I think you got a serious mad on for management and its clouding your senses when analyzing their decisions. Because the Bulls like to spend their money sensibly is not just cause to say they are cheap. Frugal, okay but they spend money on who they feel is the right player.

 

[Shakes]

Well yes, given the CBA every move that every team makes has a financial element. The Chandler move was basically "We have Ben Wallace, Chandler wont play much and hence wont be worth his contract, he's useless to us and if we don't trade him now we'll actually have to give up something to get a team to take him".

I mean if you focus on the moves that worked out well financially then sure, any team can be made to look like they're just in it for the money. Funny how nobody mentions Kirk, Deng or Noc, three moves that would have improved the teams situation had they actually been cheap and not given the contracts they did.

 

[jsain360]

TheStig wrote:

Shakes, I think you will see the cap space teams start picking apart the cash strapped teams this summer. There are 1/3-1/2 of teams losing money this year, the nba is loosing 400 mill collectively. Even if teams can't hit a home run this season, they can offer a team pure cap space for a player. I wouldn't be surprised if a guy like Kevin Martin couldn't be acquired for cap space and a pick. You won't see superstars being moved in these deals but you'll see reasonably priced borderline stars moved. David West would be another guy I see getting moved. I mean Amare is being moved to save a few million in payroll and JJ Hickson. I think theres a shadow market of these types of guys out there.

JJ Hickson is Taj Gibson in a Cavs's uniform

 

[TheStig]

No, its not. Every NBA team doesn't make financial moves. Trading expiring contracts for Gasol was a terrible financial move. They lost everything financially and only gained on the court. For the lakers, it wasn't a financial move. For every team that dumps a player financially for an expiring their is a team that loses financially and only gains on the court. That statement is just false, the best teams in the league, almost always operate looking at the basketball side of moves before the financial implications.

I think its interesting that only the good ole boys got contracts. All of them kiss the ring and took what was given without much fight. I think Noah's contract negotiations will be really intresting to say the least.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Common Shakes, every move we make is financially related. You can twist it how you like but even when we spend money (paying ben wallace) we end up cutting salary (dumping TC). I see for profit comapnies run with less financial emphasis than the bulls. If we didn't like any of those guys as basketball players, we wouldn't have held on to each of them for five years. They would have been moved long before. But the fact remains, each one got a contract offer, so we had interest in them. It came down to money, as it always does, we don't make basketball moves, we make financial moves and if we do spend money, its on a good ole boy or as part of a backhanded attempt to show we are.

You don't think trading Chandler when they got Wallace was a good move? I do...you don't need Chandler and Wallace on the same team or on the floor at the same time...that would've been painful. They got what they considered to be a better version of Chandler so they let him go, plus he didn't get along with Skiles. Whatever money Chandler would have made, it wouldnt have been 15mil per year which they paid Wallace...I think you got a serious mad on for management and its clouding your senses when analyzing their decisions. Because the Bulls like to spend their money sensibly is not just cause to say they are cheap. Frugal, okay but they spend money on who they feel is the right player.

Actually I would have kept both. I was really mad when we didn't keep Aldridge but a TC/Wallace/Aldridge front court would have been really solid. I think Aldridge's scoring would have balanced out the other two defensive centers and Wallace and TC could have covered up Aldridge's defensive and rebounding short comings.

I have a "mad on for management" because I think they don't do everything they can to win. The bulls are treated much more like a business than a sports franchise. Most teams run at a small but modest profit, the bulls feel the need to not make basketball moves in order to protect their league leading profits. Normal NBA owners only cut costs on a loosing team to rebuild or when they run into financial trouble, we do it to save money. The bottom line is, if we didn't fall ass backwards into Derrick Rose, we would be a 20 win team now without him.

 

[houheffna]

Actually I would have kept both. I was really mad when we didn't keep Aldridge but a TC/Wallace/Aldridge front court would have been really solid. I think Aldridge's scoring would have balanced out the other two defensive centers and Wallace and TC could have covered up Aldridge's defensive and rebounding short comings.

I have a "mad on for management" because I think they don't do everything they can to win. The bulls are treated much more like a business than a sports franchise. Most teams run at a small but modest profit, the bulls feel the need to not make basketball moves in order to protect their league leading profits. Normal NBA owners only cut costs on a loosing team to rebuild or when they run into financial trouble, we do it to save money. The bottom line is, if we didn't fall ass backwards into Derrick Rose, we would be a 20 win team now without him.

Lets go back to 2006...your idea sounds really horrible man...it seems like I am talking to Isiah Thomas with that idea. Aldridge is not a small forward. He doesn't have the skill of a small forward. So for example...if you had a chance to get Noah's twin, you would try Noah's twin with someone like Aldridge as a frontcourt? No way...with Hinrich and Gordon as your backcourt? Chandler being moved was not only a good move but necessary, your idea is an argument for trading him more than it is for keeping him. You cannot have two players that inept offensively on the floor at the same time...I will just leave it at that...

The NBA IS a business, a multimillion dollar conglomerate...whose job is to entertain customers and make money, like any other business. The Bulls have made no moves that show me that they don't want to win, yet they have made several moves that show that they are going for the championship. Are you against them dumping salary now? If they can dump Hinrich and Deng's salaries, why not Chandler? Especially when he was replaced?

As far as the Rose situation...isn't luck a part of the game? The Bucks were lucky when they won the coin flip (over the Bulls) for Kareem. Orlando lucked up on the first pick 2 straight years in the 1990's. It happens in sports...its what they do with the luck that counts...

 

[Shakes]

Stig, we didn't have Wallace when the decision between Aldridge & Tyrus was made, so you're setting up a scenario that involves some hindsight (knowing who we'd be able to sign as a FA when deciding who to draft).

I'm saying that basketball decisions are by necessity financial decisions. You have to look at not only what players can do on the court, but how much they're being paid, because it affects your flexibility. Look at how hard it is to move guys who are considered overpaid, we're getting little interest for Kirk or Deng because of the contracts we've given. That is why you have to care about not overpaying players, it's not a matter of being cheap, it's a matter of being able to move players when they don't fit what you're trying to do any more.

As far as using the Lakers as a point of comparison, it's a bit easier when you have Kobe. You know what type of team you're trying to build and what sorts of players you need to bring in, so flexibility matters less. The Bulls haven't had that luxury, so of course the way they do business will have been different.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Actually I would have kept both. I was really mad when we didn't keep Aldridge but a TC/Wallace/Aldridge front court would have been really solid. I think Aldridge's scoring would have balanced out the other two defensive centers and Wallace and TC could have covered up Aldridge's defensive and rebounding short comings.

I have a "mad on for management" because I think they don't do everything they can to win. The bulls are treated much more like a business than a sports franchise. Most teams run at a small but modest profit, the bulls feel the need to not make basketball moves in order to protect their league leading profits. Normal NBA owners only cut costs on a loosing team to rebuild or when they run into financial trouble, we do it to save money. The bottom line is, if we didn't fall ass backwards into Derrick Rose, we would be a 20 win team now without him.

Lets go back to 2006...your idea sounds really horrible man...it seems like I am talking to Isiah Thomas with that idea. Aldridge is not a small forward. He doesn't have the skill of a small forward. So for example...if you had a chance to get Noah's twin, you would try Noah's twin with someone like Aldridge as a frontcourt? No way...with Hinrich and Gordon as your backcourt? Chandler being moved was not only a good move but necessary, your idea is an argument for trading him more than it is for keeping him. You cannot have two players that inept offensively on the floor at the same time...I will just leave it at that...

The NBA IS a business, a multimillion dollar conglomerate...whose job is to entertain customers and make money, like any other business. The Bulls have made no moves that show me that they don't want to win, yet they have made several moves that show that they are going for the championship. Are you against them dumping salary now? If they can dump Hinrich and Deng's salaries, why not Chandler? Especially when he was replaced?

As far as the Rose situation...isn't luck a part of the game? The Bucks were lucky when they won the coin flip (over the Bulls) for Kareem. Orlando lucked up on the first pick 2 straight years in the 1990's. It happens in sports...its what they do with the luck that counts...

I wouldn't have played Aldridge at SF. He would have been strictly a pf. Always playing with either Wallace and Chandler. I have no clue what the other stuff you are talking about is but Aldridge had good size and ability to play PF coming out.

I disagree, I am not going to rehash all the business moves the bulls have made and their pr spins. If you can't see them, I feel sorry for you. I have no problem cleaning house no for 2010. The only two players that are above average for their postions are on rookie deals and I personally feel that kirk and deng are a horrible liability for a team that is handicapped by the LT. It different with a once in a lifetime FA class. Personally, I though we should have rebuilt after drafting Rose, to me only Noah and BG fit. But back then, we were a playoff team that was looking to take a step forward. We took two step forward and one step back. They minimized their opportunity.

Sure it is but we can't forget the previous bad management because of dumb luck. Just remember it. Don't let them off the hook, they didn't do anything to make it better.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

Stig, we didn't have Wallace when the decision between Aldridge & Tyrus was made, so you're setting up a scenario that involves some hindsight (knowing who we'd be able to sign as a FA when deciding who to draft).

I'm saying that basketball decisions are by necessity financial decisions. You have to look at not only what players can do on the court, but how much they're being paid, because it affects your flexibility. Look at how hard it is to move guys who are considered overpaid, we're getting little interest for Kirk or Deng because of the contracts we've given. That is why you have to care about not overpaying players, it's not a matter of being cheap, it's a matter of being able to move players when they don't fit what you're trying to do any more.

As far as using the Lakers as a point of comparison, it's a bit easier when you have Kobe. You know what type of team you're trying to build and what sorts of players you need to bring in, so flexibility matters less. The Bulls haven't had that luxury, so of course the way they do business will have been different.

Shakes, I was for Aldridge all along. So it wouldn't have changed for me. Getting Wallace would have been the better fit with Aldridge but whoever we got would have worked and been a 2010 deal. But regardless, I though Aldridge was going to be a good player and questioned the TT pick from the beginning

Your taking a really small market approach. Teams like LA or NY, the three biggest franchises in the league only look at money when they are rebuilding. They don't have this small market approach. This type of reasoning sounds like what Memphis says not a major market that can generate the best revenue in the league in a 15 win season.

The Bulls were a good PF away from being a top ec team. You take your chances on the Gasols and see where the chips land. Your not going to be not profitable. Paying 10 mill into the LT and another 10 to double it still leaves the bulls as a top 5 earning team. Thats not even including the additional revenue that we would have generated in the playoffs. Boston doesn't like to pay the LT but they more than made it up with getting allen and KG.

 

[Shakes]

The Knicks free spending ways is the primary reason they haven't seen the playoffs in years. Big market teams have to be smart with money as well, because even if they can afford 120 million in payroll (or whatever the Knicks ended up with), most teams can't, and wont want to touch their overpriced players in trades.

I've already said I think we should have traded for Gasol, assuming we could. I don't know if it was ever on the table, you can say we could beat the Lakers offer, but half the league can say that, they seemed dead set on giving him to the Lakers for some reason.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

The Knicks free spending ways is the primary reason they haven't seen the playoffs in years. Big market teams have to be smart with money as well, because even if they can afford 120 million in payroll (or whatever the Knicks ended up with), most teams can't, and wont want to touch their overpriced players in trades.

I've already said I think we should have traded for Gasol, assuming we could. I don't know if it was ever on the table, you can say we could beat the Lakers offer, but half the league can say that, they seemed dead set on giving him to the Lakers for some reason.

The knicks had IT, lets not get into extreme examples. The bottom line is all but 3-4 playoff teams last year spent the LT this year. The ones who didn't were teams like Detroit and Portland that were banking cap space and had key players on rookie deals. Or a team like Atlanta who has ownership issues and struggle to run things. And then cheap teams llike us who let key pieces go. Also, almost every LT payers made the playoffs minus the knicks. So spending is a bit of a prerequisite.

We could have easily put together a more effective deal. We could have signed PJ Brown to a large unguarnteed contract and easily beat their offer. Thats what Memphis wanted from us but you can look at the articles after, we were giving them guys like Noc and not cap saving like they wanted.