Patrick Williams next deal discussion with poll

[dougthonus]

QO.

We'd probably be better off letting him walk than signing him to the QO. He's likely to be hampered by injuries next year and has a good chance of being a bad contract on the QO, also gets a no trade clause, and it's highly likely he leaves afterwards so we get no optionality on the upside.

[DuckIII]

QO.

We'd probably be better off letting him walk than signing him to the QO. He's likely to be hampered by injuries next year and has a good chance of being a bad contract on the QO, also gets a no trade clause, and it's highly likely he leaves afterwards so we get no optionality on the upside.

There’s no way the Bulls are going to simply let him walk. But if a team offers too large a deal a sign and trade is certainly an option.

Due to AK’s nearly comprehensive mismanagement of the Bulls assets, the team is not in a position to simply let him walk without at least offering the QO and hoping for the best. It’s only one year and we all know it’s going to be another meaningless year anyway.

[dougthonus]

QO.

We'd probably be better off letting him walk than signing him to the QO. He's likely to be hampered by injuries next year and has a good chance of being a bad contract on the QO, also gets a no trade clause, and it's highly likely he leaves afterwards so we get no optionality on the upside.

There’s no way the Bulls are going to simply let him walk. But if a team offers too large a deal a sign and trade is certainly an option.

Due to AK’s nearly comprehensive mismanagement of the Bulls assets, the team is not in a position to simply let him walk without at least offering the QO and hoping for the best. It’s only one year and we all know it’s going to be another meaningless year anyway.

I would be highly surprised by any outcome other than a new long term deal for Pat. Just saying the QO is a disaster.

[League Circles]

QO.

We'd probably be better off letting him walk than signing him to the QO. He's likely to be hampered by injuries next year and has a good chance of being a bad contract on the QO, also gets a no trade clause, and it's highly likely he leaves afterwards so we get no optionality on the upside.

Wouldn't we still retain his bird rights and the option to offer him a 5 year deal with larger annual raises than another team could offer over a max of 4 years? If I'm right, I still think that's a lot better than just letting him walk, unless we also clear other salary and actually use real cap space to sign some impact player but that's unlikely.

[League Circles]

This year Detroit has been an all-time losing team, which is a big reason why I don't think he'd want to go there. Yes, he's not winning in Chicago either, but he's been here a few years and might feel better about turning things around rather than go to another losing situation.

Detroit would have to offer him a max contract. Detroit isn’t winning 30 games next season. He will get $25 million per from the Bulls and be happy. He would already be gone if they didn’t have a handshake deal,

Reply to both these things at once. I don't think the marginal benefit of Chicago vs Detroit is worth more than $1M a year or so. Missing the playoffs is missing the playoffs. DDR going to Detroit, if he's even remotely worth 25M would also considerably increase their odds of winning.

I'm not saying DDR has to max every dollar, but if he's taking a meaningful discount, it isn't to play on a the 19th best team in the league. Also not saying Detroit would be interested in him either, but if they are, I don't think they have to outbid us by 30M to get him.

However, it's possible that money sways him and he picks Detroit, but keep in mind that after this season he made 257 million for his career.

Also, there has been talk about DDR going to LA (where he's from) for awhile now so maybe he takes less to go there?

It's certainly possible he gives up a lot of money for a location he wants to live in or a chance to win a title. Effectively, that's just choosing a different value prop other than money and completely shifts the topic.

My feeling (which may not be true but is how I look at it)

Probably 98% of contracts can be explained by maximizing money or maximizing chances to win. There are some arbitrages around preferred location due to weather, city, friendships, family, hometown etc.. or opportunity on the team (ie, maybe the Nuggets have the best chance to win but if I'll never see the floor I don't really care, I want to contribute not be the 15th man), but the vast majority of stuff is either money or titles.

Usually if you choose money, you are always taking the most and all the other factors are only tie breakers between two relatively similar offers. In the case where there is a huge gap in those other factors maybe it can have more than tie breaker effect, but that's often not the case, because the 2nd factor is usually winning and typically the teams with massive winning gaps are stuck at the exception level contracts and often at TMLE or below and the teams with money are WAY above that, so if you go to that team, money becomes basically a non factor.

Using this framework, it's unlikely Chicago is a meaningfully better destination than Detroit if money is the primary motivating factor. It's a better city and he probably has friendships here because he's been here, and that probably accounts for something, but probably not more than 10M in total over the life of his deal would be my guess, and if Detroit offers 10M more over 3 years, and we refuse to match, it leaves such a bad taste in his mouth that it starts to poison the well. There's a fair chance he also figures I probably stand a good chance of getting traded anyway, so why take less?

If he uses the winning framework, Chicago is just going to lose to any of the top 8 teams in the league who could bid on him.

Maybe the real wild card is Philly. If Philly were to bid because they have cap room and bid like say 15M or something, their chance to win and quality of city overall might be a compelling thing where it breaks the mode of purely chance to win vs money because the money is still really good and perceived chance to win isn't maximized but is certainly reasonable and might be one of the rare cases with a compromise is possible.

I think people wildly overrate the weight of projected team performance in the decisions players make, at least in competing for a title. Players and their agents are smart enough to know that no matter who they sign with, they are probably ending the season with disappointment. But for roughly 8 teams each year, which certainly includes Detroit for example but not us, virtually the entire season is a disappointment because they never seem like they have a chance.

Money is obviously a big factor, but role and lifestyle are really huge too IMO. I think the vast majority of players in the league would rather have just even a realistic chance to earn a starting role or 6th man on a .500 team than to be a 10th man on a title favorite, even at the same money. Role is the #1 factor affecting their NEXT contract, so guys almost never want to sign up for limited roles until they have no other options.

Another thing about players IMO is that they ALL think they themselves can substantially improve a teams chances of winning games. They're irrational competitors like that.

[eierluke]

We should not offer anything. In a perfect world we would not do the second step (signing role players long term) before having accomplished the first step (having an nba all teamer aboard), otherwise we'll never reach a conference semifinal.
We however should not communicate this plan, in order to make a sign and trade.

[dougthonus]

Wouldn't we still retain his bird rights and the option to offer him a 5 year deal with larger annual raises than another team could offer over a max of 4 years? If I'm right, I still think that's a lot better than just letting him walk, unless we also clear other salary and actually use real cap space to sign some impact player but that's unlikely.

You keep his bird rights, but what is the value of being able to offer him the most money possible? His value is a player has zero chance of being worth so much that the gap between larger raises and an extra year is something you'd want to execute on. He'll be a UFA and typically guys are so disenfranchised by the QO that they rarely stay afterwards.

I wouldn't be like besides myself in anger if we kept Pat on the QO or anything, but you are probably better off just negotiating a longer term deal now or moving on emotionally and roster wise and bringing in a replacement than having the lame duck year where he has a no trade clause.

[dougthonus]

I think people wildly overrate the weight of projected team performance in the decisions players make, at least in competing for a title. Players and their agents are smart enough to know that no matter who they sign with, they are probably ending the season with disappointment. But for roughly 8 teams each year, which certainly includes Detroit for example but not us, virtually the entire season is a disappointment because they never seem like they have a chance.

Money is obviously a big factor, but role and lifestyle are really huge too IMO. I think the vast majority of players in the league would rather have just even a realistic chance to earn a starting role or 6th man on a .500 team than to be a 10th man on a title favorite, even at the same money. Role is the #1 factor affecting their NEXT contract, so guys almost never want to sign up for limited roles until they have no other options.

Another thing about players IMO is that they ALL think they themselves can substantially improve a teams chances of winning games. They're irrational competitors like that.

Well, I don't have any way to validate my opinion on the topic (nor do you), but man I really don't think guys drawing the line of "I don't want to be on a bottom 5 non playoff team, but I wouldn't mind being on a bottom 10 non playoff team". I agree there might be different tiers there, but in terms of how much money you'd give up to climb from one to the other? I'd guess that's a real low number.

You could go to Denver and may not win the title, but you'd feel really good about at least making a deep playoff run and having a chance. You'd give up a lot of money for that if you are really passionate about that.

I don't think sports culture has people that really are passionate about being on a better team that still misses the playoffs, but I'm not in DeMar's mind, so I don't know.

I do know his quote was that he'd like to stay in Chicago if the money works out which sure didn't sound like a guy who would give up any cash to stay here.

[HoopsterJones]

Coby White got a 3 year $36m contract last season based on his production the previous 4 years.

P Will is worth no more than that IMO. That would be the most I’d offer him.

[League Circles]

Wouldn't we still retain his bird rights and the option to offer him a 5 year deal with larger annual raises than another team could offer over a max of 4 years? If I'm right, I still think that's a lot better than just letting him walk, unless we also clear other salary and actually use real cap space to sign some impact player but that's unlikely.

You keep his bird rights, but what is the value of being able to offer him the most money possible? His value is a player has zero chance of being worth so much that the gap between larger raises and an extra year is something you'd want to execute on. He'll be a UFA and typically guys are so disenfranchised by the QO that they rarely stay afterwards.

I wouldn't be like besides myself in anger if we kept Pat on the QO or anything, but you are probably better off just negotiating a longer term deal now or moving on emotionally and roster wise and bringing in a replacement than having the lame duck year where he has a no trade clause.

Not sure if I'm missing something, but the value is that if we can't agree on a long term deal this summer, because let's say we won't budge from 13 mil/year and he wants 25, and then he has a great year and clearly shows he's worth the 25, then we can offer an extra year and larger raises than everyone else, and thus likely keep him for the same year 1 cap hit as the next highest bidder. Of course this doesn't happen a lot because most guys after 4 years are either out of the league or overpaid. For the few that take the QO, I'm guessing most of them then prove to not even be worth the QO they just played on, and they move on to play for peanuts elsewhere. I just don't see Patrick on a 12.9 mil deal next year as being some terrible thing. If he doesn't improve, we then let him walk for whatever or resign him for like an Ayo type deal possibly. If he does improve, then he's a good player that we want and we're in an objectively better position to keep him than anybody. The reason you offer the QO if because most guys won't improve much and then you cut your losses. I'd be interested to know if there has ever been an NBA player who played on the QO, proved to be a real building block asset, and then left anyway if his old team was offering him the most money still.

[League Circles]

I think people wildly overrate the weight of projected team performance in the decisions players make, at least in competing for a title. Players and their agents are smart enough to know that no matter who they sign with, they are probably ending the season with disappointment. But for roughly 8 teams each year, which certainly includes Detroit for example but not us, virtually the entire season is a disappointment because they never seem like they have a chance.

Money is obviously a big factor, but role and lifestyle are really huge too IMO. I think the vast majority of players in the league would rather have just even a realistic chance to earn a starting role or 6th man on a .500 team than to be a 10th man on a title favorite, even at the same money. Role is the #1 factor affecting their NEXT contract, so guys almost never want to sign up for limited roles until they have no other options.

Another thing about players IMO is that they ALL think they themselves can substantially improve a teams chances of winning games. They're irrational competitors like that.

Well, I don't have any way to validate my opinion on the topic (nor do you), but man I really don't think guys drawing the line of "I don't want to be on a bottom 5 non playoff team, but I wouldn't mind being on a bottom 10 non playoff team". I agree there might be different tiers there, but in terms of how much money you'd give up to climb from one to the other? I'd guess that's a real low number.

You could go to Denver and may not win the title, but you'd feel really good about at least making a deep playoff run and having a chance. You'd give up a lot of money for that if you are really passionate about that.

I don't think sports culture has people that really are passionate about being on a better team that still misses the playoffs, but I'm not in DeMar's mind, so I don't know.

I do know his quote was that he'd like to stay in Chicago if the money works out which sure didn't sound like a guy who would give up any cash to stay here.

You're forgetting the difference in vibe for the majority of the year. When a guy is on a bottom dwelling team, the entire year sucks. He never feels hope and excitement because his team is not showing any chance of even making the playoffs, which is a prerequisite for success. When a guy is on a middling team like ours, his experience throughout the year is actually much, much more similar to a being on a true contender than it is to being on a bottom 5 team. The difference is that if we get knocked out in the play-in (as opposed to the finals or whatever), his disappointment starts a few weeks earlier than it would if he's on a contender. But something like 4-5 months after it does on a bottom dwelling team, because every day sucks for those guys from like December to April or whatever. Make no mistake, these guys mostly all have delusional confidence and as long as they're in the race, they believe they are turning a couple of switches away from being a contender, and recent history kinda proves them right with teams like the Heat and Lakers making the conference or nba finals from the 8th seed.

Also 22 year olds care faaaaaar more about money than guys in their mid 30s who have made 9 figures already. See Drummond opting into his deal last summer. He probably trivially could have made 2-3 times as much on the open market. But he probably figured hey, I have a role, we're competing, I don't hate anybody here and Chicago is a good city to play in.

I don't think Demar or Patrick are in any way passionate about staying in Chicago, but I believe that they and most players are passionate about not playing for a terrible team especially in a garbage city unless it's the only way to get close to as much money as they can.

Same reason most non athletes prioritize their pay, role, location etc way way ahead of the company strength of their prospective employers when deciding where to work. Same reason people live in shoeboxes in NYC doing any random job instead of move to where a strong company is offering them a role.

Also, players never think like objective fans or vegas. They really always believe that they can single handedly make a difference. They're often wrong (see Wade, Gasol on the Bulls), but that's irrelevant.

[League Circles]

I think people wildly overrate the weight of projected team performance in the decisions players make, at least in competing for a title. Players and their agents are smart enough to know that no matter who they sign with, they are probably ending the season with disappointment. But for roughly 8 teams each year, which certainly includes Detroit for example but not us, virtually the entire season is a disappointment because they never seem like they have a chance.

Money is obviously a big factor, but role and lifestyle are really huge too IMO. I think the vast majority of players in the league would rather have just even a realistic chance to earn a starting role or 6th man on a .500 team than to be a 10th man on a title favorite, even at the same money. Role is the #1 factor affecting their NEXT contract, so guys almost never want to sign up for limited roles until they have no other options.

Another thing about players IMO is that they ALL think they themselves can substantially improve a teams chances of winning games. They're irrational competitors like that.

Well, I don't have any way to validate my opinion on the topic (nor do you), but man I really don't think guys drawing the line of "I don't want to be on a bottom 5 non playoff team, but I wouldn't mind being on a bottom 10 non playoff team". I agree there might be different tiers there, but in terms of how much money you'd give up to climb from one to the other? I'd guess that's a real low number.

You could go to Denver and may not win the title, but you'd feel really good about at least making a deep playoff run and having a chance. You'd give up a lot of money for that if you are really passionate about that.

I don't think sports culture has people that really are passionate about being on a better team that still misses the playoffs, but I'm not in DeMar's mind, so I don't know.

I do know his quote was that he'd like to stay in Chicago if the money works out which sure didn't sound like a guy who would give up any cash to stay here.

Also, it's not about bottom 10 vs bottom 5. It's about whether or not you're in the race for the majority of the year. We happen to be in the race. As long as you're within a couple of games of the 10th spot in your conference there is hope. And we are the 12th worst team at the moment in the league fwiw, not bottom 10. But again, it's not about that. There could be 11th place teams in their conferences in some years that have little chance at the 10th seed play-in for a long team towards the end of the year, and maybe they had a terrible start and actually spent most of the year as quite a bad team. That's why the play-in was so good for the league. You now have a bare minimum of 20 teams out of 30 that should and do care throughout the entire season. Right now, 24/30 teams probably believe they are in it. What I'm trying to say is that the guys on the 9th-12 seeds in each conference right now probably feel a lot more like guys on the 5 seeds than they feel like the guys on the 13th seeds, cause those guys know their seasons are over.

[dougthonus]

Not sure if I'm missing something, but the value is that if we can't agree on a long term deal this summer, because let's say we won't budge from 13 mil/year and he wants 25, and then he has a great year and clearly shows he's worth the 25, then we can offer an extra year and larger raises than everyone else, and thus likely keep him for the same year 1 cap hit as the next highest bidder. Of course this doesn't happen a lot because most guys after 4 years are either out of the league or overpaid. For the few that take the QO, I'm guessing most of them then prove to not even be worth the QO they just played on, and they move on to play for peanuts elsewhere. I just don't see Patrick on a 12.9 mil deal next year as being some terrible thing. If he doesn't improve, we then let him walk for whatever or resign him for like an Ayo type deal possibly. If he does improve, then he's a good player that we want and we're in an objectively better position to keep him than anybody. The reason you offer the QO if because most guys won't improve much and then you cut your losses. I'd be interested to know if there has ever been an NBA player who played on the QO, proved to be a real building block asset, and then left anyway if his old team was offering him the most money still.

The overwhelmingly likely outcome if he's worth 25M next year, someone else pays him because he's now a UFA instead of a RFA and is pissed off at us and it's rare for guys in that value range at that age to be available as UFAs.

That said, it's fine, I'm just saying the long term outcome from a practical perspective with QO guys is they don't stay, even if they prove worthy of a good deal, and so I'd assume any QO guy isn't likely to come back and in that circumstance would prefer to have just moved on a year earlier.

And again, like I said, I won't be like shaking my fist at the org if he's back on the QO, it's just highly unlikely to yield any good outcome for us. It's almost certainly going to be the case that he's simply gone after that, and so the value of one year of Pat where he's highly likely to not be 100% at 13M doesn't seem particularly enticing to me.

[League Circles]

Not sure if I'm missing something, but the value is that if we can't agree on a long term deal this summer, because let's say we won't budge from 13 mil/year and he wants 25, and then he has a great year and clearly shows he's worth the 25, then we can offer an extra year and larger raises than everyone else, and thus likely keep him for the same year 1 cap hit as the next highest bidder. Of course this doesn't happen a lot because most guys after 4 years are either out of the league or overpaid. For the few that take the QO, I'm guessing most of them then prove to not even be worth the QO they just played on, and they move on to play for peanuts elsewhere. I just don't see Patrick on a 12.9 mil deal next year as being some terrible thing. If he doesn't improve, we then let him walk for whatever or resign him for like an Ayo type deal possibly. If he does improve, then he's a good player that we want and we're in an objectively better position to keep him than anybody. The reason you offer the QO if because most guys won't improve much and then you cut your losses. I'd be interested to know if there has ever been an NBA player who played on the QO, proved to be a real building block asset, and then left anyway if his old team was offering him the most money still.

The overwhelmingly likely outcome if he's worth 25M next year, someone else pays him because he's now a UFA instead of a RFA and is pissed off at us and it's rare for guys in that value range at that age to be available as UFAs.

That said, it's fine, I'm just saying the long term outcome from a practical perspective with QO guys is they don't stay, even if they prove worthy of a good deal, and so I'd assume any QO guy isn't likely to come back and in that circumstance would prefer to have just moved on a year earlier.

And again, like I said, I won't be like shaking my fist at the org if he's back on the QO, it's just highly unlikely to yield any good outcome for us. It's almost certainly going to be the case that he's simply gone after that, and so the value of one year of Pat where he's highly likely to not be 100% at 13M doesn't seem particularly enticing to me.

Again, see if you can find even a single example of a guy coming off the QO, receiving the biggest offer from his existing team, and turning it down out of spite to go play for less elsewhere. What would he be so pissed about? Pissed at the team that reached for him at #4 in the draft and then gave him many chances and paid him 45 million dollars over 5 years to play like a bench player, and then offers him the most when he finally proves he's worth it????

I agree the QO is unlikely to result in a great outcome, but it won't be because Patrick gets pissed IMO. It will be because he probably won't improve much for the 4th summer in a row. Same thing as almost all draft picks. They won't likely become a positive asset in the league, but that doesn't mean you don't draft them and give it a try. The QO for Patrick is simply the prudent course of action if we can't agree on a long term deal, which we shouldn't above a certain reasonable price point - about 14 million/year. This is why you sign guys like Niko and Jabari Parker to 1+1 (team option) deals. It's cause neither you nor anyone else knows whether they'll prove themselves. But if they do, like Niko, you can keep them. If they don't, like Parker, you let them go.

[dougthonus]

You're forgetting the difference in vibe for the majority of the year. When a guy is on a bottom dwelling team, the entire year sucks. He never feels hope and excitement because his team is not showing any chance of even making the playoffs, which is a prerequisite for success. When a guy is on a middling team like ours, his experience throughout the year is actually much, much more similar to a being on a true contender than it is to being on a bottom 5 team. The difference is that if we get knocked out in the play-in (as opposed to the finals or whatever), his disappointment starts a few weeks earlier than it would if he's on a contender. But something like 4-5 months after it does on a bottom dwelling team, because every day sucks for those guys from like December to April or whatever. Make no mistake, these guys mostly all have delusional confidence and as long as they're in the race, they believe they are turning a couple of switches away from being a contender, and recent history kinda proves them right with teams like the Heat and Lakers making the conference or nba finals from the 8th seed.

That's fine. You just made all that up, and it's entirely based on nothing except your mental thought process about something you have absolutely 0 experience or knowledge in. Which was the first sentence of what I said that you replied to, but I'll shorten it up:

I don't know and neither do you.

What I can say is that I don't think my watching of the NBA backs your opinion. I do not see guys taking less money to avoid bottom dwellers in order to go to slightly better, but still non playoff teams. I think that would be especially true when that non playoff team has gotten worse for three consecutive years and you've been on it for that long. People generally do not likely slowly declining situations.

Also 22 year olds care faaaaaar more about money than guys in their mid 30s who have made 9 figures already. See Drummond opting into his deal last summer. He probably trivially could have made 2-3 times as much on the open market. But he probably figured hey, I have a role, we're competing, I don't hate anybody here and Chicago is a good city to play in.

I don't think Drummond could have trivially got 2-3x more money, and if he could, he'd have probably taken it. His role here is very small and again, our team is the 19th best in the NBA, and we were 20th last year. That's less competitive than the vast majority of other teams that could have signed him.

I don't think Demar or Patrick are in any way passionate about staying in Chicago, but I believe that they and most players are passionate about not playing for a terrible team especially in a garbage city unless it's the only way to get close to as much money as they can.

Not sure what your point here is, but that's exactly what I just said. So it sounds like you're agreeing with me. They're not taking a discount to play here. If a terrible team pays them more, they will go there. Not for like $5, but it won't take much, $2-3M a year is probably enough for either.

Also, players never think like objective fans or vegas. They really always believe that they can single handedly make a difference. They're often wrong (see Wade, Gasol on the Bulls), but that's irrelevant.

DeMar already knows exactly what this will be like. He's just lived it three straight years and will likely see it get worse for consecutive years at the end of this season. To the extent this is a factor, it's DeMar thinking that me on Detroit will be the same as me here because I'll lift Detroit so much and Chicago will fall off a cliff without me.

But I do find it particularly hilarious how much AKME's competitive drivel seems to have sunken in here and fans here actually think that being a the 20th best team in the league is a competitive advantage where players will want to come here for our level of play.

[League Circles]

If the Bulls offer a 5 year deal with max raises (8%) starting at 20 mil, it's 117 mil total vs 86 mil for another team offering 4 years staring at 20 mil with their max raises (5%). It's a 31 million dollar difference in guaranteed money, including a 4 million dollar difference in guaranteed money over the first 4 years. So it's obviously a huge advantage for the Bulls even if he plays on the QO. It also carries the huge benefit that we can part ways with him entirely if he sucks, doesn't progress, is hampered by injury, or we find a better player to take his spot. The only time the QO sucks is when it's taken by a player who is obviously good already. Patrick is far from that.

[League Circles]

You're forgetting the difference in vibe for the majority of the year. When a guy is on a bottom dwelling team, the entire year sucks. He never feels hope and excitement because his team is not showing any chance of even making the playoffs, which is a prerequisite for success. When a guy is on a middling team like ours, his experience throughout the year is actually much, much more similar to a being on a true contender than it is to being on a bottom 5 team. The difference is that if we get knocked out in the play-in (as opposed to the finals or whatever), his disappointment starts a few weeks earlier than it would if he's on a contender. But something like 4-5 months after it does on a bottom dwelling team, because every day sucks for those guys from like December to April or whatever. Make no mistake, these guys mostly all have delusional confidence and as long as they're in the race, they believe they are turning a couple of switches away from being a contender, and recent history kinda proves them right with teams like the Heat and Lakers making the conference or nba finals from the 8th seed.

That's fine. You just made all that up, and it's entirely based on nothing except your mental thought process about something you have absolutely 0 experience or knowledge in. Which was the first sentence of what I said that you replied to, but I'll shorten it up:

I don't know and neither do you.

What I can say is that I don't think my watching of the NBA backs your opinion. I do not see guys taking less money to avoid bottom dwellers in order to go to slightly better, but still non playoff teams. I think that would be especially true when that non playoff team has gotten worse for three consecutive years and you've been on it for that long. People generally do not likely slowly declining situations.

Also 22 year olds care faaaaaar more about money than guys in their mid 30s who have made 9 figures already. See Drummond opting into his deal last summer. He probably trivially could have made 2-3 times as much on the open market. But he probably figured hey, I have a role, we're competing, I don't hate anybody here and Chicago is a good city to play in.

I don't think Drummond could have trivially got 2-3x more money, and if he could, he'd have probably taken it. His role here is very small and again, our team is the 19th best in the NBA, and we were 20th last year. That's less competitive than the vast majority of other teams that could have signed him.

I don't think Demar or Patrick are in any way passionate about staying in Chicago, but I believe that they and most players are passionate about not playing for a terrible team especially in a garbage city unless it's the only way to get close to as much money as they can.

Not sure what your point here is, but that's exactly what I just said. So it sounds like you're agreeing with me. They're not taking a discount to play here. If a terrible team pays them more, they will go there. Not for like $5, but it won't take much, $2-3M a year is probably enough for either.

Also, players never think like objective fans or vegas. They really always believe that they can single handedly make a difference. They're often wrong (see Wade, Gasol on the Bulls), but that's irrelevant.

DeMar already knows exactly what this will be like. He's just lived it three straight years and will likely see it get worse for consecutive years at the end of this season. To the extent this is a factor, it's DeMar thinking that me on Detroit will be the same as me here because I'll lift Detroit so much and Chicago will fall off a cliff without me.

But I do find it particularly hilarious how much AKME's competitive drivel seems to have sunken in here and fans here actually think that being a the 20th best team in the league is a competitive advantage where players will want to come here for our level of play.

I guess I start from a place of believing that players are like most people. How they feel on a day to day basis throughout most of the year probably impacts their decisions a lot more than how they feel for a few weeks in the early summer. And the guys whose season ends because they got knocked out in the play-in, round 1 or even round 2, while they are pissed to be watching the other few teams that remain in the playoffs, are still finally getting some much needed rest and relaxation during those few weeks. This is why true bottom dwelling teams often easily become cancerous and players want out. It's cause they feel out of the loop from roughly December to april instead of may to june.

As for guys taking less from middling teams (notice how I'm deliberately not adopting your conveniently drawn line in the sand at "playoff team") to avoid playing for terrible teams, is that even a choice that is seen enough to draw any type of conclusion on? Like who are these terrible teams that are signing free agents by slightly outbidding significantly better teams? When we were terrible, we couldn't even get like our 5th choice Tim Thomas despite offering him the most. Instead IIRC he went to mediocre Bucks team for slightly less. When we were mediocre, Wade signed here for...... Slightly less than what Denver offered (who I think was trash at the time). I might be wrong on these details from off the top of my head, but if you have any examples I'd be happy to reconsider. If I understand you, you're arguing that most money wins unless it's for a title shot, that non contenders are basically all the same. I'm saying most money usually only wins for younger players, and that there are several secondary factors more important for most guys than pure winning (like most humans), and that avoiding bottom dwelling is far more important for most guys (and humans generally) than seeking high end winning.

Drummond decided to opt in before he could even listen to other offers.

[dougthonus]

I guess I start from a place of believing that players are like most people. How they feel on a day to day basis throughout most of the year probably impacts their decisions a lot more than how they feel for a few weeks in the early summer. And the guys whose season ends because they got knocked out in the play-in, round 1 or even round 2, while they are pissed to be watching the other few teams that remain in the playoffs, are still finally getting some much needed rest and relaxation during those few weeks. This is why true bottom dwelling teams often easily become cancerous and players want out. It's cause they feel out of the loop from roughly December to april instead of may to june.

I disagree with the underlying assumptions you have. I don't think normal people would address the situation this way either on the whole or think that the normal day to day is necessarily better here than in Detroit.

As for guys taking less from middling teams (notice how I'm deliberately not adopting your conveniently drawn line in the sand at "playoff team") to avoid playing for terrible teams, is that even a choice that is seen enough to draw any type of conclusion on? Like who are these terrible teams that are signing free agents by slightly outbidding significantly better teams? When we were terrible, we couldn't even get like our 5th choice Tim Thomas despite offering him the most. Instead IIRC he went to mediocre Bucks team for slightly less. When we were mediocre, Wade signed here for...... Slightly less than what Denver offered (who I think was trash at the time). I might be wrong on these details from off the top of my head, but if you have any examples I'd be happy to reconsider. If I understand you, you're arguing that most money wins unless it's for a title shot, that non contenders are basically all the same. I'm saying most money usually only wins for younger players, and that there are several secondary factors more important for most guys than pure winning (like most humans), and that avoiding bottom dwelling is far more important for most guys (and humans generally) than seeking high end winning.

Tim Thomas went to a different team for the same money, we didn't offer more. I don't recall Denver offering to pay Wade more than us. Fred VanVleet and Dillon Brooks just signed with the worst team in the NBA last year.

Anyway, somewhat irrelevant. I doubt Detroit is chasing DeMar either way. DeMar's statements about staying here implied pretty strongly he won't stay here for less money though, he said he'd stay if the money works out.

[League Circles]

I disagree with the underlying assumptions you have. I don't think normal people would address the situation this way either on the whole or think that the normal day to day is necessarily better here than in Detroit.

Tim Thomas went to a different team for the same money, we didn't offer more. I don't recall Denver offering to pay Wade more than us. Fred VanVleet and Dillon Brooks just signed with the worst team in the NBA last year.

Anyway, somewhat irrelevant. I doubt Detroit is chasing DeMar either way. DeMar's statements about staying here implied pretty strongly he won't stay here for less money though, he said he'd stay if the money works out.

Detroit might be the the worst team in nba history and nobody likes the city of Detroit more than Chicago other than people from Detroit. Meanwhile every game Demar has played here has mattered. Hard to know how to otherwise address the notion that the day to day isn't better here.

Denver was 33-49 and offered Wade a little north of 50 mil for 2 years but he signed with us instead for 47 mil.

Did Van Vleet and/or Brooks turn down slightly less offers from play-in caliber teams to play for Houston (and Rockets still weren't as bad as Detroit this year or last fwiw)? If so, your example is good. If not, it's irrelevant.

As for Demar, not only do his words obviously mean nothing (negotiating 101), but all he said was "if the money works out". He didn't say "if they're the high bidder". We shall see, though the Bulls will likely be the high bidder so maybe we won't.

[nekorajo]

His next bulls deal should be $0.00

Sign and trade him, if possible. He can't stay healthy, and he doesn't play hard when he is healthy. I don't know which is worse. If this injury is something that can linger, cut bait.