DuckIII wrote:Here is my view of doug's article. Which is a dim view, though doug knows I respect him immensely as a sports writer.
Regarding his take on the Bulls' theoritical 2014 plan, even if you accept the theory of it (which is that the 2014 plan even exists, and if it does, means using the money on free agency rather than to facilitate trades, which are two very big assumptions), the numbers he uses to establish an absence of max capspace aren't even consistent with the existence of the plan. Here is his premise:
The theory goes that the Bulls will be maximum room under the cap in order to make a bunch of moves, however, it's unlikely to work out nearly so well in practice.
Here is the conclusion:
They'll have less than max cap room to fill out the team.
Here are his assumptions to reach it (with a presumed cap of $62 million):
That puts them at 39 million. Let's assume they keep Taj Gibson, now the salary is back up to 48-50 million.
(a) If the plan is to actually go after free agents, and get as much possible to do so, why would I assume the Bulls will retain Gibson at all rather than trade him for a cheaper asset (like a mid-first round pick, which he's presumably worth, or another young player with more years on his rookie deal yet to come)?
(b) Or, if that is is the plan, why would I assume that Taj's deal would be in the $10-$11 million range in that year (or in any year, frankly). For starters, that likely exceeds his market value. Which is admittedly a guess. But more importantly, if the Bulls are actually attacking a 2014 plan, they won't pay him that since it harms the plan.
(c) Or he gets $9 mil per (far more reasonable) and then the Bulls have $14 mil under the cap, which brings me to this:
Butler
Teague
2 rookies
Why am I assuming these contracts will all be on the books? The Bulls, if max space is their actual plan, will simply dump the next two first round picks, or Teague or Butler or some combination thereof, to reach their goal. They did this before when they packaged Hinrich and dumped a first to the Wizards. Prior to 2010, teams dumped first rounders to keep those salaries off the books. Its a standard strategy.
Again, its doug's assumption this is the plan, not mine. I'm just showing that if it IS the plan, the hurdles doug jumps to reach the conclusion that there will not be max space are, in my view, invalid and inconsistent with the assumption of the plan's existence.
Then doug names off possible free agents and says, essentially, "who knows?" Always a valid point regarding any plan. Such as with regard to the following supposedly superior plan:
Now instead of this, let's say the Bulls dumped Deng for Richard Jefferson and Harrison Barnes, a deal that was reportedly on the table. The Bulls would add Barnes and about four million in salary to this current core. All of a sudden things look a lot better. Maybe they also dumped Noah for Thomas Robinson, a deal that may have also been on the table, and they don't keep Taj Gibson and amnesty Boozer immediately.
The "who knows?" assumptions: (1) The first deal was even on the table at all, as reported; (2) that deal, if available, was completely without regard to who was going to be available when GS picked (i.e., if Barnes was there, as he was, GS still would have done it); (3) even more tenuously, the completely unrumored Noah for Robinson deal was available; and (4) most importantly, that Robinson and Barnes are equal to or better than Noah and Deng (which is a huge leap, given the statistical likelihood of success for any lottery pick) or that they even pan out as players of value at all.
Moreover, this speculative plan includes the use of capspace, which doug's criticism of the alleged current plan claims is not valuable because we likely won't get anyone. And if we won't get anyone, as an assumption, I'd rather have Deng and Noah at that stage than Barnes and Robinson, plus a 2013-14 plan that doesn't intentionally waste one fully healthy year of Rose's career (which doug's plan requires).
Final assumption:
If you were really playing for 2014 which of those situations is really better? The second one, it's not even close.
Which is that the "2104" plan completely ignores trying to win in 2013-14, which it obviously is not. Which is why the Bulls aren't trading Noah and Deng for lottery picks. It is not only illogical for the Bulls to burn 2 years of Rose's career, but it is also clearly not the plan. And you'd have to assume it to be the plan for any of this to make sense. Yes, the Bulls appear to have a plan that involves 2014, but it is not one geared to completely sacrifice Rose's next fully healthy year when all indications are that they will still be in a position to field a contending team that year.
In short, the 2014 plan is equivalent to the underwear gnome plan
1: Make it to 2014
2: ????
3: Championship
Which renders it identical to Doug's plan, only with less question marks, since Noah and Deng are known commodities.
