How Bad are AKME?

[MikeDC]

Every NBA team counts insurance payments as part of its calculus for team cost, so from a team building perspective, so should you.

The NBA does not. I am speaking about the league, not the individual decisions about how various owners may or may not allocate cash, but their behaviors also all back my opinion on the topic, which is that they also won't exceed the tax threshold without a chance to win in the playoffs.

The NBA sets rules for spending. Those rules do not account for insurance paybacks. It's explicitly defined as not counting as cap relief. There are structural rules in place for spending and penalties for various thresholds. Insurance is not counted there.

Duh. Insurance does count in profit though.

If the insurance money were counted as cap relief and not just as cash in hand, do you think we would have spent more money in FA? I think we would have done so.

Again, they likely could have accomplished this by trading Lonzo for an active player. They chose not to. They decided the likelihood of it leading to much additional revenue was low, but the extra $16m of cost was bug and certain.

Which is my point. We are guided by the league cap rules, not the cash rules. The amount of profit is not determining the spend, the cap and league thresholds are. If we lose a 20M dollar marketing deal tomorrow, we won't lop off 20M in roster costs, we'll still spend up to the tax threshold even though profits are worse

The Bulls, when they do not expect to win, spend less. Well below the luxury tax threshold. The expected profit absolutely determines the spend. This is exactly what the Bulls do. When they xpect revenues to be down, they maintain profits by cutting expenses. Thats why the Bulls often operated far below the LT line for several years.

I really don’t understand you circumlocuting around this. Ever hear of the phrase Cash Considerations? I know you have. How did that become a punchline and the name of a Bulls podcast?

Well, because the Bulls gave away a high second rounder for Cash Considerations, right there at the outset of their rebuild. When thngs like high second round picks are useful to rebuilding basketball teams. But wait, you say, they always spend right up to the luxury tax threshold. How can this be!?!

Here, let me let John Paxson explain it to you. Moves like this…

[quote=“John Paxson”]build equity within the organization for future decisions.[/quote]

He laid it out for you in black and white. He’s literally saying, “Hey, we’re going to be cheap today, so that when we ask to spend more tomorrow, Jerry will let us”.

Of course, its BS, like Charlie Brown trying to kick that football, tomorrow never comes. But they’ll definitely spend less today.

[SHO'NUFF]

I just listened to his press conference regarding the trade deadline. AK is **** lost. He hasn’t got a damn clue of wtf he’s saying or planning to do. It was shocking to listen to.

[Chi town]

Does AK get fired if we lose the play in???

[dougthonus]

Duh. Insurance does count in profit though.

Which doesn't give them more ability to cross the apron or remove structural limitations does it?


In the end, we can agree to disagree. I look at roster costs in accordance with the salary cap rules and think team's make their plans based on their position relative to the salary cap line, the luxury tax line, and the two apron lines. There are rule changes at each of those lines that heavily influence strategy and may cause you not to want to cross, but once you do, there is a lot less reason to avoid going up to the next line.

I think those cut offs is what influence front office spending, not total P&L of the team, at least up to the luxury tax line, cost definitely becomes more a factor after it because that's the penalty for crossing. I think that's true of everyone, and that generally speaking all owners know spending up to the tax line is a cost of doing business. You may not spend up to it because you're trying to get cap space for signings/trades, room for future signings under the line, or because structurally you can't jump from under the cap up to the tax line due to restrictions, but spending up to that line isn't something I think is an ownership barrier for anyone.

If you think teams manage to P&L instead of to the structural lines, don't let me stop you, but I disagree.

[MikeDC]

If you think teams manage to P&L instead of to the structural lines, don't let me stop you, but I disagree.

I've pointed this out a couple times, but it's not an "either/or" situations. There's no "instead". It's not one or the other, it's both. Because every GM (especially those who work for Jerry Reinsdorf) understand they need to...

build equity within the organization for future decisions.

Anyhoo, your point originally seemed to be that the Bulls had the 10th highest cap figure in the league, but a much worse record. By your preferred methodology, post-trade deadline, they're now ranked 16th. Last year they were ranked 17th. Going backwards, 14th, then 21st in AK's first year.

Their true payroll hardly ever comes up to the LT line. Other teams' do. Over the last 8 years, the LT threshold has averaged $134M. The Bulls average payroll has been $119M. Their average cap hit as been... $123M.

I'm not saying this to glorify them or anything, but the gist of your argument seemed (and continues to seem to be) that Jerry Reinsdorf or anyone evaluating these guys, should think their record is underperforming spending. They were 10th in resource allocation (as measured by cap space) but only 19th in the standings (at this particular moment).

If that were true, most likely they'd be fired already. What I'm trying to explain to you is why Jerry Reinsdorf probably sees things quite differently. To him, he sees that his actual expenditure is has been well below average. He's paying $136M/year in player costs over AKME's tenure. The average luxury tax line over the same period is $146M.

AKME is delivering mid-level results at rebuild-level costs.

Why is Reinsdorf willing to rebuild? Well, because they manage to maintain a high profit level. If they rebuild, AKME will further reduce team salary, just like their predecessors did. In the rebuild period, the Bulls took massive profits this way. They dropped team salary and averaged about $20M/year less than the LT threshold.

And that's not even counting how they went about rebuilding buy selling good picks for cash.

[DuckIII]

I just listened to his press conference regarding the trade deadline. AK is **** lost. He hasn’t got a damn clue of wtf he’s saying or planning to do. It was shocking to listen to.

After he defended himself last year by telling us there were “too many buyers” when it was obvious he should have been selling I stopped listening to his press conferences.

[dougthonus]

I just listened to his press conference regarding the trade deadline. AK is **** lost. He hasn’t got a damn clue of wtf he’s saying or planning to do. It was shocking to listen to.

After he defended himself last year by telling us there were “too many buyers” when it was obvious he should have been selling I stopped listening to his press conferences.

[Mk0]

I can write a novel, and have before, and was one of the original machinists of the 'AKME are t'rbl' train, but the best comparison is that they're the VDN of front offices. Brought the 'play book', sold ownership on how awesome they are... but they are just out of their depth. And it shows.

Most comparisons I see on the Internet are bad, I feel this one is pretty apt. Very slick but they are as you said, out over their skies. Maybe learning at our expense will make them better in the future

AK inheriting Vinny Del Negro's ninja scroll of incompetence is my new favorite thing

[GusFring]

A D after 3 trade deadlines of doing nothing? You guys are stockholmed. I hated this team. Only an F will suffice.

[GoBlue72391]

A D after 3 trade deadlines of doing nothing? You guys are stockholmed. I hated this team. Only an F will suffice.

Tbf, most of the votes came before the trade deadline had passed. I voted D when this thread was made, but I'd change it to an F if I could.

[GusFring]

A D after 3 trade deadlines of doing nothing? You guys are stockholmed. I hated this team. Only an F will suffice.

Tbf, most of the votes came before the trade deadline had passed. I voted D when this thread was made, but I'd change it to an F if I could.

I never bought the narrative bulls HAD to max lavine. No.

[MikeDC]

Duh. Insurance does count in profit though.

Which doesn't give them more ability to cross the apron or remove structural limitations does it?

This is like tut-tuting someone getting the ability to fly by pointing out that they're still mortal and going to die.

Another way to put it is that Insurance removes a specific fundamental "structural limitation" of the NBA system. One of the basic points in the cap system is that contracts are mostly guaranteed. If you are paying a guy $20M, then (outside of trade exceptions and a couple of other rare situations) you generally have to take back a guy making about $20m.

Insurance creates something akin to a trade exception. Instead of having to pay a guy $20M, you can trade him for a guy you only have to pay $4M.

This kind of thing is valuable in a league where Kyle Korver Was Once Traded for a Copy Machine.

But... it's valuable to the Bulls too. The same logic that says the marginal benefit of adding another guy that will push us over the luxury tax is the same logic that says the marginal benefit of trading $4M of dead money for a $20M player is a not worth doing. Even though it won't affect there cap position one bit.

[dougthonus]

This is like tut-tuting someone getting the ability to fly by pointing out that they're still mortal and going to die.

Another way to put it is that Insurance removes a specific fundamental "structural limitation" of the NBA system. One of the basic points in the cap system is that contracts are mostly guaranteed. If you are paying a guy $20M, then (outside of trade exceptions and a couple of other rare situations) you generally have to take back a guy making about $20m.

Insurance creates something akin to a trade exception. Instead of having to pay a guy $20M, you can trade him for a guy you only have to pay $4M.

This kind of thing is valuable in a league where Kyle Korver Was Once Traded for a Copy Machine.

But... it's valuable to the Bulls too. The same logic that says the marginal benefit of adding another guy that will push us over the luxury tax is the same logic that says the marginal benefit of trading $4M of dead money for a $20M player is a not worth doing. Even though it won't affect there cap position one bit.

I think the idea is interesting, but I doubt it could be executed this year:
1: Best case you're still paying Lonzo 8M (4M this year and 4M next year)
2: Worst case, Lonzo comes back and plays some games next year (likely really badly) and now you're on the hook for his 20M next year.

So who is the team that wants to give you a player for that? It has to be someone that makes 20M per year, has multiple years on their deal, and the team wants to just get out of their contract, and we think the player helps us enough that it's worth paying them whatever their deal is.

But again, you can think whatever you want. I believe teams act in accordance with the cap rules and that they don't factor non cap income streams towards their spending limits and instead view the hard lines where there are rule changes as what makes up 95%+ of their decision making.

I don't think any other team in the NBA with the Bulls record with their roster would spend 6M more into the tax to cap at the apron to bolster this squad due to an insurance payment. If you do, go ahead. I think every single team in the league would halt spending at the tax when they know they don't have an above .500 caliber team.

[PaKii94]

A D after 3 trade deadlines of doing nothing? You guys are stockholmed. I hated this team. Only an F will suffice.

Tbf, most of the votes came before the trade deadline had passed. I voted D when this thread was made, but I'd change it to an F if I could.

I never bought the narrative bulls HAD to max lavine. No.

The reason I bought into it is because I thought it was market value and we would be able to flip him when needed. Even though I wasn't a fan, I still thought he had value since he had the all star label and you don't let assets walk for nothing.

Didn't think it would be handled like it has been this year. And didn't think NBA FO thought similarly to me but maybe I should have. Numbers are pretty clear on Lavine.

[GusFring]

Tbf, most of the votes came before the trade deadline had passed. I voted D when this thread was made, but I'd change it to an F if I could.

I never bought the narrative bulls HAD to max lavine. No.

The reason I bought into it is because I thought it was market value and we would be able to flip him when needed. Even though I wasn't a fan, I still thought he had value since he had the all star label and you don't let assets walk for nothing.

Didn't think it would be handled like it has been this year. And didn't think NBA FO thought similarly to me but maybe I should have. Numbers are pretty clear on Lavine.

Fair enough, I guess the nba is too rooted in advanced stats to get fooled by a player like lavine now on a max. Except the bulls of course but they're not in the quality basketball business.

[Senor Chang]

Another thing that’s sad is that with AKME we lost the identity of “bulls basketball”. the heat took it and renamed it “heat culture” :puke: our next front office needs to understand what bulls basketball is because this current iteration of the bulls isn’t it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Box Office]

D grade is suitable just because we're missing the playoffs.

- Bringing in Lonzo Ball was a terrible idea. I'm one of the few who didn't want him here because he had a lot of injuries. Time proved us right.

- LaVine should have been dealt years ago when his perceived trade value was high.

- I thought we acquired Nikola Vucevic to deal him later on. I didn't think AKME would hold on to him for 3 years. Vooch has been a model citizen, steady performer, and healthy. The time is now to deal him.

- Pat Williams is trade filler. Trade him. Now.

- Coby White's emergence is shocking. Keep him around. But I would never build a team around him. For the crowd who wants to bring Atlanta's Trae Young here, we're here to say that Coby White is fine. Trae Young doesn't make us into a winner because he didn't turn Atlanta Hawks into a winner.

- DeMar DeRozan is fine. He's been great for us within the past 3 years. He's reliable and healthy. His All Star days are probably over, but his current 24 points, 5 assists, 4 rebs, and 1.1 steals are nothing to dismiss. Demar proved that he's not an injury filled guy sitting on the bench in street clothes.

- Alex Caruso is worthy to keep. He has too much defensive expertise to just trade away. He's our best defensive player. Why trade that away, fam?

- Ayo is a keeper. For now. He has to retool his identity to become a defensive specialist to stick around. We need another one like that on the perimeter anyways.

- Billy Donovan should leave. The team reached its' zenith with him. There is nothing left he can show.

[sco]

I'm more positive on AK, in that he came in with a clear model. He went after a big, who had similar characteristics as Jokic. He nabbed Demar on a great deal. He nabbed an elite 3-D PG in Ball too. The team he built, arguably had legs (until Ball lost one of his and Vuc proved to be an illusion).

I fell of his bandwagon after he doubled-down on his mistake in trading for Vuc. It's that mistake that worries me that he will fall for the usual NBA GM trap and keep doubling-down on bigger and bigger risks until the org has a bunch of old guys on bad deals and no picks. Then they'll fire him and hire someone else who will soon get fired because he has nothing to work with. Better to cut bait on him and bring in someone who won't become desperate for a few years.

[Am2626]

Just as we praise Krause for getting an all-nba and all-star in a trade. We should bash AKME for following move that lost ours.

We had big hole in our PF rotation after losing Niko and Bobby Portis. We tripled down on it by letting go of the last one Lauri.

I give them a C even with championship contention franchises there’s still screw ups. Lakers with Zubac. Philly choosing keeping Simmons and Harris over Jimmy. Miami netting Kyle Lowry in free agency.

Good luck recovering from that.

People here legitimately think Krause was a bad GM. It's mind boggling to me.

To answer your question, AKME is horrendous. I don't see how you can give them anything better than an F. They've ruined the Bulls present and future. There's not much to be hopeful about.

This is all relative. From a decision making standpoint Krause was good but he still made some mistakes post Dynasty. He gave up on the first rebuild too quickly. You don’t trade away your best player in Elton Brand for an unproven high school prospect unless it is a LeBron Caliber Prospect which Tyson Chandler wasn’t. If he were a little more patient he could have built a formidable core with Brand, Artest, and Brad Miller.

Also part of being a good GM is creating a strong culture which was a fail. You don’t make enemies with the greatest to ever play the game. Krause’s ego broke up a dynasty prematurely.

[Michael Jackson]

Just as we praise Krause for getting an all-nba and all-star in a trade. We should bash AKME for following move that lost ours.

We had big hole in our PF rotation after losing Niko and Bobby Portis. We tripled down on it by letting go of the last one Lauri.

I give them a C even with championship contention franchises there’s still screw ups. Lakers with Zubac. Philly choosing keeping Simmons and Harris over Jimmy. Miami netting Kyle Lowry in free agency.

Good luck recovering from that.

People here legitimately think Krause was a bad GM. It's mind boggling to me.

To answer your question, AKME is horrendous. I don't see how you can give them anything better than an F. They've ruined the Bulls present and future. There's not much to be hopeful about.

This is all relative. From a decision making standpoint Krause was good but he still made some mistakes post Dynasty. He gave up on the first rebuild too quickly. You don’t trade away your best player in Elton Brand for an unproven high school prospect unless it is a LeBron Caliber Prospect which Tyson Chandler wasn’t. If he were a little more patient he could have built a formidable core with Brand, Artest, and Brad Miller.

Also part of being a good GM is creating a strong culture which was a fail. You don’t make enemies with the greatest to ever play the game. Krause’s ego broke up a dynasty prematurely.

Brand wanted out... He hated Krause talking about his Mom's hands and that is real. Krause creeped him out and he was offended from day 1. Artest... well he kinda needed to go. His first game after coming back from a broken hand he punches the scorers table, naked pullups in the locker room, best buy etc... That group had the talent but seemed they weren't going to mesh and Floyd was an issue too he wanted out of there by the end for sure, he looked like he welcomed a firing. Now the Artest Miller trade was poor value. Krause was desperate to get a name after his Big "3" plan failed in the most spectacular way. Hell it was a good idea and had he not alienated the Dynasty and just let them retire by attrition (likely would have happened after 98 especially with the strike) it very well may have worked. His damn hubris is what ruined him. He had great ideas, was a hard worker but his ego was just so out of control.