Source: Bulls stayed active in Howard talks

[97Bulls]

11 doesn't seem right let me check

 

[clonetrooper264]

Just because theyre over the cap now, doesnt mean they will be over the cap by this time next year. They may trade players to get under the cap. And understand this. The Bulls can be one dollar under the cap by the end of 2013 season and theyd be able to sign whoevers willing to play here. How? Because they could sign the player to a dollar the first year then 20 mill per the duration of the contract. Mind you this is just and example. Hell the Lakers just picked up jodie Meeks and theyre wayyyyy over the cap. Hell theyre wayyyyy over the luxury tax

I think if we had Kobe, Nash, Pau, and Dwight, we'd go out and sign whoever too.

 

[97Bulls]

According to this, they were 27th in 2011


http://thehoopdoctors.com/online2/2010/10/2010-2011-team-payrolls/

This one says 22nd

http://hoopshype.com/salaries.htm

 

[97Bulls]

I don't really think those first 6 years count...

Yeah our payroll was at the bottom in 99...we blew up the team! Jordan retired (30+M off the books right there), Pippen was traded, Rodman was let go...that's most of the salary they paid the year before gone. You look at the teams they fielded and it's not surprising their record was atrocious. Krause tried to build his own championship squad and failed miserably. That's not JR's fault...that's Krause all the way. Coaching situation didn't help either. Tim Floyd?

If you look, 2004 is where the Bulls' resurgence begins. Look at the spike in payroll. See the dip in 09? They gutted the team to prep for 2010 free agency. Look at the appropriate salary spike. Look at the correlation to our success and our payroll. The team went out and spent (can't deny that they spent money as it is now well documented that Deng, Boozer, and Noah are overpaid) and their quality of play went up accordingly. The only real outcast is the 11 season where they were apparently 27th in the league in payroll. That number...doesn't even seem right if you look at the surrounding years (13 and 10). You can't deny that the Bulls were almost a championship contender the past couple years. Their payroll was almost top 10 in the league (and for the Bulls, this is an accomplishment).

No offense bro. But you cant exclude six years of a franchises record. Especially when they chose to break up the Bulls, and were still tops in revenue and attendance.

 

[Crystallas]

Wow, still going at it. Page 19 full of complaints, but no specific solutions. LOL

 

[clonetrooper264]

No offense bro. But you cant exclude six years of a franchises record. Especially when they chose to break up the Bulls, and were still tops in revenue and attendance.

That says more about the fan base than ownership's desire to win. Generally if teams field crap like that for 6 years their profits drop. Their payroll was near the bottom of the league anyway so I'm not sure what you're even getting at. Their only real shot to get a star was in 2000...we all know how that went. I think their highest paid player was like Jalen Rose or Ron Mercer. I don't blame management for not wanting to spend a whole lot on that team is the point there. Now a team like the 2006 Bulls who were a legit dark horse for the title? Then I'd expect management to start spending a few bucks...and they did. On Luol Deng. :elephant:

 

[houheffna]

Just because theyre over the cap now, doesnt mean they will be over the cap by this time next year. They may trade players to get under the cap. And understand this. The Bulls can be one dollar under the cap by the end of 2013 season and theyd be able to sign whoevers willing to play here. How? Because they could sign the player to a dollar the first year then 20 mill per the duration of the contract. Mind you this is just and example. Hell the Lakers just picked up jodie Meeks and theyre wayyyyy over the cap. Hell theyre wayyyyy over the luxury tax

I take it you can't read...because if you could...you wouldn't say this dumb shit. You can't sign an NBA player for a dollar! If you could...Lebron and Bosh would have signed for $2! Good grief.

And while you copy and paste team salaries from google...you couldn't use google to find out that teams over the cap cannot sign players without using exceptions. I am sure you are going to ignore these statements and continue not making sense...have at it.

 

[houheffna]

That says more about the fan base than ownership's desire to win. Generally if teams field crap like that for 6 years their profits drop. Their payroll was near the bottom of the league anyway so I'm not sure what you're even getting at. Their only real shot to get a star was in 2000...we all know how that went. I think their highest paid player was like Jalen Rose or Ron Mercer. I don't blame management for not wanting to spend a whole lot on that team is the point there. Now a team like the 2006 Bulls who were a legit dark horse for the title? Then I'd expect management to start spending a few bucks...and they did. On Luol Deng. :elephant:

Which is why I don't understand the incessant whining. The Bulls have had low payrolls because they haven't had the caliber players or a championship caliber roster. They have gone out to get those types of players but have failed. Now is this because of Paxson's ineptitude? Most likely...but I remember saying that this roster wasn't a championship roster and getting attacked for it.

The Bulls are trying to acquire better talent...trying to save money to sign Mirotic in 2014, and are trying to maximize the assets that they have to make themselves better. The plan should be obvious. I don't understand what the whining is about.

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

Just because theyre over the cap now, doesnt mean they will be over the cap by this time next year. They may trade players to get under the cap. And understand this.

the bulls currently have a payroll of around 75 mil, i think(maybe 72 or 73 someone could give me an exact number but that's beside the point)...the cap is at 58 mil...do you see a problem here? the bulls would have to dump around 15 mil to get under the cap. Can you honestly tell me the bulls are just going to dump 15 mil?

The Bulls can be one dollar under the cap by the end of 2013 season and theyd be able to sign whoevers willing to play here. How? Because they could sign the player to a dollar the first year then 20 mill per the duration of the contract. Mind you this is just and example.

good grief...i get it's an example but it's a pointless one because it has no relevance...no team would ever do anything close to that

Hell the Lakers just picked up jodie Meeks and theyre wayyyyy over the cap. Hell theyre wayyyyy over the luxury tax

pretty sure they used the mini mid level exception on him...i dont see your point

 

[clonetrooper264]

One does not simply sign a player for a dollar. :smh:

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

i dont get complaining about that much about the payroll either

98-04 was basically just fall out from jordan and pippen and co. leaving and all the little details that came out of that

the bulls were not in a prime position to get free agents and really spend, they had to rebuild first

the spending went up in 04 once the team starting looking like it was in a better position

i see your constant complaining, but i dont see any formulated solution..you've given us players that the bulls could have gotten, but a majority of them were never coming to the bulls in the first place..and even those that might would have been acquired in trades, not by throwing money at them in FA

the lakers,heat, and knicks..those big market teams? yea they've all had mediocre stretches, especially the knicks and heat

the naive part is not really in the problem, it's in your solution, which showed you really dont have a clue about how the salary cap and finances work in the NBA

you're already backtracking by implying the bulls can get under the cap, which would mean they would cut 15 mil to try to make some moves...but that seems counterproductive to your original thesis, which was that the bulls need to make some moves by escalating spending, not cutting it

 

[97Bulls]

I take it you can't read...because if you could...you wouldn't say this dumb shit. You can't sign an NBA player for a dollar! If you could...Lebron and Bosh would have signed for $2! Good grief.

And while you copy and paste team salaries from google...you couldn't use google to find out that teams over the cap cannot sign players without using exceptions. I am sure you are going to ignore these statements and continue not making sense...have at it.

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap99.htm#26

Question 26. If you dont read it dont respond to it.

 

[clonetrooper264]

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap99.htm#26

Question 26. If you dont read it dont respond to it.

Well gee, why didn't we just sign OJ Mayo to a 2 year/10M contract? We'll pay him a dollar this year and the rest next year.

 

[97Bulls]

the bulls currently have a payroll of around 75 mil, i think(maybe 72 or 73 someone could give me an exact number but that's beside the point)...the cap is at 58 mil...do you see a problem here? the bulls would have to dump around 15 mil to get under the cap. Can you honestly tell me the bulls are just going to dump 15 mil?

By the end of thiis season, it will be roughly 72mill if nothing changes. The cap righht now is at 58mill, but more than likely will go next year. They have Hamilton (5mill), Gibson (3 mill) in final year contracts which are tradeable assets. Plus Mohammed, Rodbinson, Radmonovich, and Galinari comming off the books. They can and will be under the cap.


good grief...i get it's an example but it's a pointless one because it has no relevance...no team would ever do anything close to that

My point is they dont need to nor should they attempt to trade a core player in an effort to bring in another core player.


pretty sure they used the mini mid level exception on him...i dont see your point

The Bulls are in a position to be able to bring in a game changing player after this season. You asked and I gave an expample

 

[houheffna]

http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap99.htm#26

Question 26. If you dont read it dont respond to it.

That doesn't explain your dumb ass dollar theory. Of course teams sign players to a certain amount in the first year to fit the cap...but there is this thing called a veteran's minimum. Ever heard of it? Now please show me where the vet minimum is $1...and where is the precedence? Like I said, this would have been done before if it was possible to do.

I read the cbafaq...I sent you the link...remember???

 

[scottiepippen1994]

 

[Axl Rose]

97Bulls fan still goin?

c'mon man...we have no way of bringing any big names here unless its a trade....we wasted all our money on boozer

 

[CODE_BLUE56]

By the end of thiis season, it will be roughly 72mill if nothing changes. The cap righht now is at 58mill, but more than likely will go next year. They have Hamilton (5mill), Gibson (3 mill) in final year contracts which are tradeable assets.

what are they going to trade hamilton and gibson for? garbage and picks maybe? they would probably have to be packaged with someone like deng

they may release hamilton...they would be dumb to release gibson unless he is wanting a large contract

Plus Mohammed, Rodbinson, Radmonovich, and Galinari comming off the books. They can and will be under the cap.

confusing italians..bulls have belinelli

those 4 contracts equal 5 million dollars roughly...even with all of those contracts gone(including gibson, who wants to stay with the bulls)...the bulls are still around 1 million dollars above the cap...take out gibson and they are 4

the bulls still have to fill out their roster if they get rid of all these players, they only have so many exceptions to the cap

My point is they dont need to nor should they attempt to trade a core player in an effort to bring in another core player.

the point is supported by a ridiculous extreme that more hurts the point by making you look like you have no clue what you're talking about

and as hou said, there is a veteran minimum

The Bulls are in a position to be able to bring in a game changing player after this season. You asked and I gave an expample

what...bynum?

you do realize they STILL couldn't outright sign him even IF they were under the cap by a million or two(which they probably wont,barring some trades and some unlikely moves) because the first year of the contract would probably not fit within the cap...bynum would probably ask for 17 at least

and bynum is leaning towards re-signing with the 76ers, if you had read the rest of the thread

 

[97Bulls]

i dont get complaining about that much about the payroll either

98-04 was basically just fall out from jordan and pippen and co. leaving and all the little details that came out of that
Thats Bull and you know it. The Bulls basically started with a clean slate after 98. They were dead last in payroll


the bulls were not in a prime position to get free agents and really spend, they had to rebuild first
Sure they were. They went after Duncan, Tmac, and Hill. And they had Brand


the spending went up in 04 once the team starting looking like it was in a better position
Wow. Perinial bottom three payroll for multiple seasons, then get to middle of the pack. Big whoop


i see your constant complaining, but i dont see any formulated solution..you've given us players that the bulls could have gotten, but a majority of them were never coming to the bulls in the first place..and even those that might would have been acquired in trades, not by throwing money at them in FA
I gave a solutiion in another thread I made. You wanna see a surefire way to get the Bulls/Reinsdorf commited? Back wayyy off they support. Dont attend their games, dont watch them on TV. Dont buy their brand. Hit them where it hurts. Their Pocket.


the lakers,heat, and knicks..those big market teams? yea they've all had mediocre stretches, especially the knicks and heat
The Lakers and Heat have multiple championships over the timeframe in question. And while the knicks havent been as succesful, theres definately effort
the naive part is not really in the problem, it's in your solution, which showed you really dont have a clue about how the salary cap and finances work in the NBA

you're already backtracking by implying the bulls can get under the cap, which would mean they would cut 15 mil to try to make some moves...but that seems counterproductive to your original thesis, which was that the bulls need to make some moves by escalating spending, not cutting it[
Ive never waivered from my point. I dont want to see the Bulls bring in a key FA at the expense of a core player. That gets us nowhere. For instance, trading James Harden at the expense of Noah solidifies our SG/second scorer, but it hurts our defense, rebounding, and were gonna need another big.
/QUOTE]
I dont see how Im complaining, Ive more than made a strong case for how the Bulls can improve and why.

All ive heard from you and posters liike you, is excuses for failure

 

[nwfisch]

97Bulls, share your master plan how to get big free agents to sign. I've said numerous times it takes two sides to make a deal. If you don't believe that, then you probably have bigger problems than Reinsdorf being "cheap."