Asik Discussion. Pg 50 Sheridan: Bulls will match

[23-7]

I'm confused I thought the Bulls had 3 days to match. What's the hold up on info? One way or the other.

[Jordan45822]

I'm confused I thought the Bulls had 3 days to match. What's the hold up on info? One way or the other.

July 11 - July 14 is their time period to match

[Tommy Udo 6]

I'm confused I thought the Bulls had 3 days to match. What's the hold up on info? One way or the other.

No free agent can sign any contract until July 11. These reports in the media are just acknowledgments that they will eventually sign.

[dice]

I dont think they will match. I think they will go with a cheaper option at back-up center.

The Front Office is really playing this close to the vest. I also dont know what they will decide on the 3 non-guarantees.

Will the Bulls make a trade? It does not look likely.

Either that, or they will match with the intention of going with a cheaper option at starting center

the FO might very well be shopping noah right now. if they are able to get something decent for him, they'd match asik and start him. the problem is that noah is better and they'd then need a solid backup center who is able to play significant minutes (maybe received as part of the noah trade). but that backup center in all likelyhood wouldn't fill that role as well as omer. so it's an awful lot of shuffling talent around only to attain the same result: the bulls become weaker at the center position

[Bruteque]

yes it's so farfetched to think that some team who needs to clear cap space to lure in free agents won't have any incentive to take on his contract and give away something good for him.

Clear cap space by dumping superstars for an expiring? Tell me, who does that? Nobody does that. Yeah, we are in salary hell in three years, let's dump Rose for an expiring. Not going to fx#king happen. They might send you some assets to dump a really really bad Rashad/Carlos type albatross. Is that something that sounds like the Bulls will be willing to take on for Asik's flaming pile of used poo to get assets back at that point? F*&% no.

Any somewhat useful borderline stars their team no longer wants to pay will probably cost us an asset or two along with the expiring to acquire, and we are talking Iguodala/Johnson types. Are those the types of players Reinsdorf will pay $25m tax plus $15m Boozer amnesty for? Higher upside/value players will cost a truckload of assets along with the expiring to acquire, say an extended James Harden OKC no longer wants to keep. Why? Because lots of teams would love to have the chance to pay James Harden.

Flipping a flaming pile of used poo for positive value back is just daydreaming. That's something you can flip straight up for a contract nobody wants, and maybe get something out of it if it's a contract everybody wants to get rid of. Surely the Bulls would love to trade that "large expiring" and get stuck with a contract nobody wants or a contract everybody wants to get rid of at that point, eh? That's the value of a flaming pile of used poo.

[dice]

yes it's so farfetched to think that some team who needs to clear cap space to lure in free agents won't have any incentive to take on his contract and give away something good for him.

Clear cap space by dumping superstars for an expiring? Tell me, who does that? Nobody does that. Yeah, we are in salary hell in three years, let's dump Rose for an expiring. Not going to fx#king happen. They might send you some assets to dump a really really bad Rashad/Carlos type albatross. Is that something that sounds like the Bulls will be willing to take on for Asik's flaming pile of used poo to get assets back at that point? F*&% no.

Any somewhat useful borderline stars their team no longer wants to pay will probably cost us an asset or two along with the expiring to acquire, and we are talking Iguodala/Johnson types. Are those the types of players Reinsdorf will pay $25m tax plus $15m Boozer amnesty for? Higher upside/value players will cost a truckload of assets along with the expiring to acquire, say an extended James Harden OKC no longer wants to keep. Why? Because lots of teams would love to have the chance to pay James Harden.

Flipping a flaming pile of used poo for positive value back is just daydreaming. That's something you can flip straight up for a contract nobody wants, and maybe get something out of it if it's a contract everybody wants to get rid of. Surely the Bulls would love to trade that "large expiring" and get stuck with a contract nobody wants or a contract everybody wants to get rid of at that point, eh? That's the value of a flaming pile of used poo.

it certainly CAN happen that a team sends us decent players on longer term contracts for a larger expiring. but you simply can't count on having both a team willing to do so as well as receiving players who fit your long-term plans

[ChicagoTRS]

Didn't Atlanta just dump a large contract - Joe Johnson - for expiring contracts/crap?

Johnson is definitely an awful contract but he can still play just not worth the money owed. I would envision this is the type of player/contract the Bulls could absorb with an expiring Asik. A player like Johnson bad contract and all would surely look good in a Bulls uniform.

[Bruteque]

Didn't Atlanta just dump a large contract - Joe Johnson - for expiring contracts/crap?

Johnson is definitely an awful contract but he can still play just not worth the money owed. I would envision this is the type of player/contract the Bulls could absorb with an expiring Asik. A player like Johnson bad contract and all would surely look good in a Bulls uniform.

That's the point. What is the value of a large expiring? Trading for a bad contract nobody wants or terrible contract everybody wants to get rid of. Three years down the line when the Bulls are in nineth level of salary hell, they will be looking to take on Joe Johnson type awful $84m contract, assuming it will be one there, pay $40m in LT and $15m in amnesty because he can kind of play? Now tell me. How is that not daydreaming?

[imagge]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32ksYDlj5f4&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

I thought it was funny

[WookieOnRitalin]

Didn't Atlanta just dump a large contract - Joe Johnson - for expiring contracts/crap?

Johnson is definitely an awful contract but he can still play just not worth the money owed. I would envision this is the type of player/contract the Bulls could absorb with an expiring Asik. A player like Johnson bad contract and all would surely look good in a Bulls uniform.

That's the point. What is the value of a large expiring? Trading for a bad contract nobody wants or terrible contract everybody wants to get rid of. Three years down the line when the Bulls are in nineth level of salary hell, they will be looking to take on Joe Johnson type awful $84m contract, assuming it will be one there, pay $40m in LT and $15m in amnesty because he can kind of play? Now tell me. How is that not daydreaming?

By that time, Deng will be off the books and Boozer could be amnestied/traded (as an expiring himself).

If we match this offer, we have essentially 31 million in expiring deals three years from now. THAT is a huge bargaining chip in this league. It should not be ignored and can turn into a very lofty prize.

[HINrichPolice]

Haven't read the whole thread, but is anyone else really intrigued by how this board has spread around the votes?

It's interesting to me that out of the 4 choices, 1 is decidedly the least popular while the others are damn near even.

I think there's a reason for it, but I can't put my finger on it. Choices A and D are directly opposite of each other. I suppose B and C are also opposite of each other, but with way more votes going to "should not match but will". That's interesting to me because whoever voted for choice C is likely of the mindset of being really cost conscious, but they believe the Bulls will sort of break the trend and take on a not so cost conscious contract. If I were to have predicted before people started voting, I would have predicted C to get the least number of votes.

Choice B, the least popular, was chosen by voters likely saying that Asik is too important to give up, but the Bulls will make the financially conservative move. If I were to have predicted before people started voting, I would have thought that choice B would be popular amongst the the many posters who like to jump on every opportunity to say that the FO is "cheap". I guess I just expected a lot more choice B votes. Perhaps it being 1st or 2nd most popular.

Personally, I voted D but could be swayed to A if there exists a confidence that we can get rid of Asik's contract in year 3 OR net a more roster balancing, yet equally impactful player for Noah before year 3.

[ChicagoTRS]

Didn't Atlanta just dump a large contract - Joe Johnson - for expiring contracts/crap?

Johnson is definitely an awful contract but he can still play just not worth the money owed. I would envision this is the type of player/contract the Bulls could absorb with an expiring Asik. A player like Johnson bad contract and all would surely look good in a Bulls uniform.

That's the point. What is the value of a large expiring? Trading for a bad contract nobody wants or terrible contract everybody wants to get rid of. Three years down the line when the Bulls are in nineth level of salary hell, they will be looking to take on Joe Johnson type awful $84m contract, assuming it will be one there, pay $40m in LT and $15m in amnesty because he can kind of play? Now tell me. How is that not daydreaming?

The value is a player like Joe Johnson is still a pretty solid player (fringe all-star)...MUCH better than any 2 guard on the Bulls. In 3 years if the Bulls are competing for a title and need one piece JR has already said he would enter into LT land. If they need one player and are already near the cap or over the only way to add that player is in a deal like this and you may need to take on someone elses bad paper to do it. If the Bulls do not have a large expiring the option to take on a contract like this is not even an option. If the bad contract/good player helps you win a title...not really such a bad deal. Worst case scenario they just pay Asik the 3rd year and let him play out his contract.

imo matching the Asik contract allows you flexibility later and lets you keep an asset in Asik at a reasonable price for the next two seasons. It is really only that 3rd year that is bad paper...plenty of teams in this league with a lot of bad paper and it will likley only get worse as the impact of the LT is felt by a few teams. So I imagine there will be quite a few teams looking to shed contracts in the upcoming seasons. Would just hate to see a valuable asset like Asik walk for nothing...centers always have value in this league...and if Asik improves at all he will have even more value in 3 seasons. We are talking about one season of bad paper...even if things go poorly or they can't move the contract in that 3rd year...it still comes off the books after a season.

Boozer is going to get amnestied after this year or next regardless of what is done with Asik. They already plan to eat his money at some point. The only way I am against the deal is if they can't sign Gibson because of the Asik deal.

Johnson is an extreme example...because he is owed so much...but if you could get a player like JJ with only 2-3 seasons of bad paper and he is a difference maker to the team it could be well worth it.

[Ajosu]

It's interesting to me that out of the 4 choices, 1 is decidedly the least popular while the others are damn near even.

I think there's a reason for it, but I can't put my finger on it. Choices A and D are directly opposite of each other. I suppose B and C are also opposite of each other, but with way more votes going to "should not match but will".

A and D are votes that think the front office will make the correct choice. They just differ on what that correct choice is.

B and C are votes that think the front office will make the incorrect choice. Again, they just differ on what the incorrect choice is. I think it's fair to say Paxson has a history of placing high value on his own players. So it's reasonable to think that is they were to make a mistake, it is more likely to be one that over-values our guy (vote C), rather than one that under-values our guy (vote B).

[transplant]

It's interesting to me that out of the 4 choices, 1 is decidedly the least popular while the others are damn near even.

I think there's a reason for it, but I can't put my finger on it. Choices A and D are directly opposite of each other. I suppose B and C are also opposite of each other, but with way more votes going to "should not match but will".

A and D are votes that think the front office will make the correct choice. They just differ on what that correct choice is.

B and C are votes that think the front office will make the incorrect choice. Again, they just differ on what the incorrect choice is. I think it's fair to say Paxson has a history of placing high value on his own players. So it's reasonable to think that is they were to make a mistake, it is more likely to be one that over-values our guy (vote C), rather than one that under-values our guy (vote B).

Agree. The high "C" vote is most interesting to me. No way to separate those who just don't think that much of Asik from those who have espoused the "tank" strategy.

[Bruteque]

By that time, Deng will be off the books and Boozer could be amnestied/traded (as an expiring himself).

If we match this offer, we have essentially 31 million in expiring deals three years from now. THAT is a huge bargaining chip in this league. It should not be ignored and can turn into a very lofty prize.

Sigh. Once again, what is the value of large expirings? To trade for bad contracts nobody wants or terrible contracts everybody wants to get rid of. Does that at all sound like what the Bulls will be looking to take in return in three years? You think three years from now the Bulls will be looking to land the "very lofty prize" of $31m of bad/terrible contracts? F&%# no. They can barely afford good contracts by then with Rose/Noah/Taj on the books.

Let me attempt to pound this key point in here once again: Nobody has any reason to trade you good contracts for your expirings unless you are sending them additional truckloads of assets.

Seriously? That's y'all's plans? Flip the rotting corpses of Boozer/Asik contracts for "very lofty prize" of superstars?

[Ajosu]

The high "C" vote is most interesting to me. No way to separate those who just don't think that much of Asik from those who have espoused the "tank" strategy.

That was my vote. I know Asik is a good defender, and maybe I place too much emphasis on his lack of offense. But I think it is a bad deal, as in he is simply not worth that much money. Especially not on this team, as a backup.

I think we need to try to move towards a team that doesn't rely so much on it's bench advantage, as well as become a better offense team. Easier said than done, I know. And I don't have a clear path to get there. But I don't want to commit significant money to Asik long term, when we already have Noah as a starter.

We will be a worse team without him than with him next season, for sure. But if Houston is going to pay him that much, than I think we just have to let him go. I'm not saying we should tank. But with the new CBA (which I admittedly don't have an advanced understanding on), it seems more important than ever to be smart with your money.

[ChicagoTRS]

By that time, Deng will be off the books and Boozer could be amnestied/traded (as an expiring himself).

If we match this offer, we have essentially 31 million in expiring deals three years from now. THAT is a huge bargaining chip in this league. It should not be ignored and can turn into a very lofty prize.

Sigh. Once again, what is the value of large expirings? To trade for bad contracts nobody wants or terrible contracts everybody wants to get rid of. Does that at all sound like what the Bulls will be looking to take in return in three years? You think three years from now the Bulls will be looking to land the "very lofty prize" of $31m of bad/terrible contracts? F&%# no. They can barely afford good contracts by then with Rose/Noah/Taj on the books.

Let me attempt to pound this key point in here once again: Nobody has any reason to trade you good contracts for your expirings unless you are sending them additional truckloads of assets.

Seriously? That's y'all's plans? Flip the rotting corpses of Boozer/Asik contracts for "very lofty prize" of superstars?

"To trade for bad contracts nobody wants or terrible contracts everybody wants to get rid of."

Teams want to dump contracts for many reasons...the contract does not necessarily have to be terrible/bad...if a team is rebuilding or the roster is being blown up for whatever reason often teams are looking to dump high priced decent players to get under the cap to sign free agents.

A team like the Bulls with a nearly complete roster...who needs one difference making player...the options to add a significant player are very limited. What are the options?...the draft...which is generally not much of an option because good teams get late 1st round picks which are nearly never impact players. Free agency...not an option when you have no cap space. Trades...the only trades where you give up less talent than you receive are when you include expiring contracts or multiple draft picks. Or...dumping salary to get under the cap so you can sign free agents.

I just do not see an Asik match as ever much of a mistake...worst case it is one season of bad paper.

[Bruteque]

That's interesting to me because whoever voted for choice C is likely of the mindset of being really cost conscious, but they believe the Bulls will sort of break the trend and take on a not so cost conscious contract.

Alternatively, it may be the opposite in that they think matching means the Bulls are going cheap and starting Asik while sending Noah away for expiring and rookie-contract assets and they hate the idea. It's not so crazy an idea. Bulls are in dire need to good cheap players. Starting Asik saves some money in itself, and the cheap assets Noah brings back will further help offset costs.

[Bruteque]

Teams want to dump contracts for many reasons...the contract does not necessarily have to be terrible/bad...if a team is rebuilding or the roster is being blown up for whatever reason often teams are looking to dump high priced decent players to get under the cap to sign free agents.

A team like the Bulls with a nearly complete roster...who needs one difference making player...the options to add a significant player are very limited. What are the options?...the draft...which is generally not much of an option because good teams get late 1st round picks which are nearly never impact players. Free agency...not an option when you have no cap space. Trades...the only trades where you give up less talent than you receive are when you include expiring contracts or multiple draft picks.

I just do not see an Asik match as ever much of a mistake...worst case it is one season of bad paper.

When was the last time a team wants to dump a good $15+m contract to save money and sign free agents? I honestly cannot recall such an instance. Ever. A good $15+m contract is called a superstar. You have one of those, you don't dump it to rebuild or sign free agents. You have one of those, keep them until they are about to expire and then you try to re-sign them.

A high-priced decent player is called a bad contract. That's your Joe Johnson. A high-priced player who isn't decent is called a terrible contract. Do you think the Bulls will be looking to take on those types of bad/terrible contracts three years into the LT? I sure as heck don't and I certainly see any such attempt as a huge mistake.

[1rage]

Teams want to dump contracts for many reasons...the contract does not necessarily have to be terrible/bad...if a team is rebuilding or the roster is being blown up for whatever reason often teams are looking to dump high priced decent players to get under the cap to sign free agents.

A team like the Bulls with a nearly complete roster...who needs one difference making player...the options to add a significant player are very limited. What are the options?...the draft...which is generally not much of an option because good teams get late 1st round picks which are nearly never impact players. Free agency...not an option when you have no cap space. Trades...the only trades where you give up less talent than you receive are when you include expiring contracts or multiple draft picks.

I just do not see an Asik match as ever much of a mistake...worst case it is one season of bad paper.

When was the last time a team wants to dump a good $15+m contract to save money and sign free agents? I honestly cannot recall such an instance. Ever. A good $15+m contract is called a superstar. You have one of those, you don't dump it to rebuild or sign free agents. You have one of those, keep them until they are about to expire and then you try to re-sign them.

A high-priced decent player is called a bad contract. That's your Joe Johnson. A high-priced player who isn't decent is called a terrible contract. Do you think the Bulls will be looking to take on those types of bad/terrible contracts three years into the LT? I sure as heck don't and I certainly see any such attempt as a huge mistake.

because only one for one trades are possible