Simmons: Reinsdorf Runs Bulls Like Small Market Team

[organix85]

Well, for one, none of those are repeater tax. Secondly... who does the bolded affect? What would keeping Deng have prevented us from doing?

Trading Deng:

1: $20-$30 million more dollars in savings potentially (if you factor in luxury tax and future repeater tax)
2: Potential Kings pick
3: Potential Cavs pick swap

Keeping Deng:
1: Potentially better showing against Washington in playoffs.
2: Option to extend Deng this season.

I think the "trading Deng" box is better personally by a pretty considerable margin.

I actually stated that... I even mentioned the picks. You took my stuff out of context. I specifically asked what about not paying the repeaters tax did Deng help us with OTHER than the money. I was specifically addressing this comment:

"You do realize that exceeding the cap, and the luxury tax, and the repeater tax all also carry restrictions on your ability to even participate in free agency, as well as how you can structure your trades, right?"

[Pnjguy]

-Teams above the apron cannot use the Bi-Annual exception

-Teams above the apron have a smaller Mid-Level exception Teams above the apron can offer contracts no longer than three years, while other teams can offer four. The starting salary is also lower (for example, in 2011-12 it is $3 million for teams above the apron, versus $5 million for other teams).

-Taxpaying teams can acquire less salary in a simultaneous trade

-Starting in 2013-14, teams cannot receive a player in a sign-and-trade transaction (see question number 90) if their team salary is above the apron at the conclusion of the trade.

-Teams above the apron do not have the same protections under the Gilbert Arenas provision Under the Arenas provision other teams can offer restricted free agents salaries starting at the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception. If a team with the right of first refusal does not have Early Bird rights to the player and is over the apron, it will have only the smaller Taxpayer Mid-Level exception at its disposal, and cannot match an offer for the full Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception.

First of all, the repeater tax is purely financial, but the tax (or being over the apron) is not. All the above applies to the Deng trade, on top of the $20 some odd million they would of had to pay in tax payments in order to keep him. Maybe that's nothing to you, or because the Bulls are profitable that they should pay it, i wouldn't pay it. I would rather save the $20 some odd million and reinvest it to keep a championship team together. Something the team was not at the time. You couldn't let Deng just expire because what determines a team to be above or below the tax is what their team salary is on the last regular season game.

I bolded the above because that directly affects the Bulls chances of getting Carmelo Anthony in the preferred sign and trade. If they kept Deng, they could only get Melo in free agency, and they would also be limited in getting other players to surround him by the other restrictions of being over the tax.

Fine... I'll play along. Let's go line by line.

* What good was the Bi-Annual exception?

* What good was the MLE differences?

* What good was the ability to acquire more salary?

* What sign and trade are we doing?

* What restricted FA might we have lost?

If it's just the 20 million... just say that. That was my point all along.

Uhhh, we haven't had free agency yet....... I just got through saying the Carmelo Anthony sign and trade. On top of it you're going to need those exceptions to build a team with Melo. Instead of saying, "ok, i see what you're saying" you're just digging yourself a deeper hole.

[Muizha]

wow I can't believe the Simmons hate here... it's not like he wrote something that's not true

[Stratmaster]

-Teams above the apron cannot use the Bi-Annual exception

-Teams above the apron have a smaller Mid-Level exception Teams above the apron can offer contracts no longer than three years, while other teams can offer four. The starting salary is also lower (for example, in 2011-12 it is $3 million for teams above the apron, versus $5 million for other teams).

-Taxpaying teams can acquire less salary in a simultaneous trade

-Starting in 2013-14, teams cannot receive a player in a sign-and-trade transaction (see question number 90) if their team salary is above the apron at the conclusion of the trade.

-Teams above the apron do not have the same protections under the Gilbert Arenas provision Under the Arenas provision other teams can offer restricted free agents salaries starting at the Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception. If a team with the right of first refusal does not have Early Bird rights to the player and is over the apron, it will have only the smaller Taxpayer Mid-Level exception at its disposal, and cannot match an offer for the full Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level exception.

First of all, the repeater tax is purely financial, but the tax (or being over the apron) is not. All the above applies to the Deng trade, on top of the $20 some odd million they would of had to pay in tax payments in order to keep him. Maybe that's nothing to you, or because the Bulls are profitable that they should pay it, i wouldn't pay it. I would rather save the $20 some odd million and reinvest it to keep a championship team together. Something the team was not at the time. You couldn't let Deng just expire because what determines a team to be above or below the tax is what their team salary is on the last regular season game.

I bolded the above because that directly affects the Bulls chances of getting Carmelo Anthony in the preferred sign and trade. If they kept Deng, they could only get Melo in free agency, and they would also be limited in getting other players to surround him by the other restrictions of being over the tax.

Fine... I'll play along. Let's go line by line.

* What good was the Bi-Annual exception?

* What good was the MLE differences?

* What good was the ability to acquire more salary?

* What sign and trade are we doing?

* What restricted FA might we have lost?

If it's just the 20 million... just say that. That was my point all along.

Ahhh... so when you ask a question, and someone answers it in detail, you just say "those things don;t matter". So let's agree (I don't but lets anyway) that all trading Deng did was save Reinsdorf 20 million. What would Reinsdorf have gotten for that 20 million that he didn;t get without Deng. And more importantly from your approach that a club owner should be a benevolent and generous provider of joy to us regardless of financial impact, what would WE as fans have gotten for Jerry's 20 mil?

[organix85]

So you went from "they should have traded Deng earlier because they got nothing for him" to... "they should have just not re-signed him". The Bulls didn't trade Deng earlier because they believed they still had a chance at a title or at least a very deep and exciting run at a title which would increase excitement in the fan base and therefore increase revenues. When Rose went down, and those chances were dust, they traded him for what value they could get instead of losing him for nothing.

If you are truly interested in understanding what would have happened otherwise, take a look at this article, because I sure can;t explain it here:

http://www.sbnation.com/2013/11/21/5126 ... cago-bulls

But I know, it is easy to say Reinsdorf should just pull 10 mil a season out of his pocket and pay 9 figures a year out of the kindness of his heart just to keep a player who wasn't going to win him anything this season or next.

EDIT: i should add that article also how the Bulls willingly paid the luxury tax when Rose went down to acquire Hinrich to keep some semblance of a quality product.

I'm not saying they should have done anything. What don't you get about it? Trading Deng didn't create space. It's not like right now we wouldn't be able to go after any free agent if we hadn't traded Deng. What's the complication here?

Lol, a link... I completely expected that type of answer... You can't explain it cause you don't know or have any. That's exactly why I asked the question I asked. You are throwing around threats that sound bad and you can't even name one you are concerned about. Before you make blanket statements, be prepared to defend it.

So, you want me to explain the CBA to you to prove that moving Deng for something and saving millions and millions of dollars was better than just releasing him at the end of the year? And my letting someone who is more of an expert than me and has already documented the examples explain it means I don't know and am thrwoing around threats. Sounds like the hyperbole of someone who has their back against the wall to me.

You are right about the cap space. The clearing cap space was relevant as compared to keeping and re-signing Deng. Sure, they could have just let him walk at the end of the season. I KNOW you would have supported that decision vs. trading him. are you kidding, you and everyone else would be raking the FO over the coals and talking about how only idiots would let Deng walk for nothing while paying 10's of millions of dollars in penalty taxes that would hamstring the Bulls efforts this offseason.

Sorry but you can't in one breath claim they should have traded him earlier because they didn't get enough for him and then when it is clearly explained why they didn't trade him earlier come back with "they could have just waited and let him walk". Can't have it both ways.

It's not hyperbole. I already know the restrictions and I know you don't have a good answer besides the money. It's why I asked.

And no, I wouldn't have been "raking the FO over the coals". My stance on the Deng trade is documented. I repeated that I supported the decision in this very thread actually. Unlike most people, I don't just flip flop my position when convenient and I will admit if I was wrong.

[organix85]

First of all, the repeater tax is purely financial, but the tax (or being over the apron) is not. All the above applies to the Deng trade, on top of the $20 some odd million they would of had to pay in tax payments in order to keep him. Maybe that's nothing to you, or because the Bulls are profitable that they should pay it, i wouldn't pay it. I would rather save the $20 some odd million and reinvest it to keep a championship team together. Something the team was not at the time. You couldn't let Deng just expire because what determines a team to be above or below the tax is what their team salary is on the last regular season game.

I bolded the above because that directly affects the Bulls chances of getting Carmelo Anthony in the preferred sign and trade. If they kept Deng, they could only get Melo in free agency, and they would also be limited in getting other players to surround him by the other restrictions of being over the tax.

Fine... I'll play along. Let's go line by line.

* What good was the Bi-Annual exception?

* What good was the MLE differences?

* What good was the ability to acquire more salary?

* What sign and trade are we doing?

* What restricted FA might we have lost?

If it's just the 20 million... just say that. That was my point all along.

Uhhh, we haven't had free agency yet....... I just got through saying the Carmelo Anthony sign and trade. On top of it you're going to need those exceptions to build a team with Melo. Instead of saying, "ok, i see what you're saying" you're just digging yourself a deeper hole.

Explain how having Deng all of last year would prevent us from getting Melo in a sign and trade please.

[organix85]

Fine... I'll play along. Let's go line by line.

* What good was the Bi-Annual exception?

* What good was the MLE differences?

* What good was the ability to acquire more salary?

* What sign and trade are we doing?

* What restricted FA might we have lost?

If it's just the 20 million... just say that. That was my point all along.

Ahhh... so when you ask a question, and someone answers it in detail, you just say "those things don;t matter". So let's agree (I don't but lets anyway) that all trading Deng did was save Reinsdorf 20 million. What would Reinsdorf have gotten for that 20 million that he didn;t get without Deng. And more importantly from your approach that a club owner should be a benevolent and generous provider of joy to us regardless of financial impact, what would WE as fans have gotten for Jerry's 20 mil?

My reason for asking him is to see himself dig a deeper hole. You could dig the same hole if you'd like as well.

[Pnjguy]

Fine... I'll play along. Let's go line by line.

* What good was the Bi-Annual exception?

* What good was the MLE differences?

* What good was the ability to acquire more salary?

* What sign and trade are we doing?

* What restricted FA might we have lost?

If it's just the 20 million... just say that. That was my point all along.

Uhhh, we haven't had free agency yet....... I just got through saying the Carmelo Anthony sign and trade. On top of it you're going to need those exceptions to build a team with Melo. Instead of saying, "ok, i see what you're saying" you're just digging yourself a deeper hole.

Explain how having Deng all of last year would prevent us from getting Melo in a sign and trade please.

Because we would be over the tax line at the end of the year.

[organix85]

Uhhh, we haven't had free agency yet....... I just got through saying the Carmelo Anthony sign and trade. On top of it you're going to need those exceptions to build a team with Melo. Instead of saying, "ok, i see what you're saying" you're just digging yourself a deeper hole.

Explain how having Deng all of last year would prevent us from getting Melo in a sign and trade please.

Because we would be over the tax line at the end of the year.

Try again... I'll help you with the exact language you posted:

"Starting in 2013-14, teams cannot receive a player in a sign-and-trade transaction (see question number 90) if their team salary is above the apron at the conclusion of the trade."

[Pnjguy]

Explain how having Deng all of last year would prevent us from getting Melo in a sign and trade please.

Because we would be over the tax line at the end of the year.

Try again... I'll help you with the exact language:

"Starting in 2013-14, teams cannot receive a player in a sign-and-trade transaction (see question number 90) if their team salary is above the apron at the conclusion of the trade."

read my previous posts and you try again. If you want to enlighten me about something, the floor is yours.

[organix85]

Because we would be over the tax line at the end of the year.

Try again... I'll help you with the exact language:

"Starting in 2013-14, teams cannot receive a player in a sign-and-trade transaction (see question number 90) if their team salary is above the apron at the conclusion of the trade."

read my previous posts and you try again. If you want to enlighten me about something, the floor is yours.

Let me help you then... you can start by determining if trading for Melo would put us over the "apron" this summer and how in the world having Deng on the roster last season would have affected that.

[Stratmaster]

I'm not saying they should have done anything. What don't you get about it? Trading Deng didn't create space. It's not like right now we wouldn't be able to go after any free agent if we hadn't traded Deng. What's the complication here?

Lol, a link... I completely expected that type of answer... You can't explain it cause you don't know or have any. That's exactly why I asked the question I asked. You are throwing around threats that sound bad and you can't even name one you are concerned about. Before you make blanket statements, be prepared to defend it.

So, you want me to explain the CBA to you to prove that moving Deng for something and saving millions and millions of dollars was better than just releasing him at the end of the year? And my letting someone who is more of an expert than me and has already documented the examples explain it means I don't know and am thrwoing around threats. Sounds like the hyperbole of someone who has their back against the wall to me.

You are right about the cap space. The clearing cap space was relevant as compared to keeping and re-signing Deng. Sure, they could have just let him walk at the end of the season. I KNOW you would have supported that decision vs. trading him. are you kidding, you and everyone else would be raking the FO over the coals and talking about how only idiots would let Deng walk for nothing while paying 10's of millions of dollars in penalty taxes that would hamstring the Bulls efforts this offseason.

Sorry but you can't in one breath claim they should have traded him earlier because they didn't get enough for him and then when it is clearly explained why they didn't trade him earlier come back with "they could have just waited and let him walk". Can't have it both ways.

It's not hyperbole. I already know the restrictions and I know you don't have a good answer besides the money. It's why I asked.

And no, I wouldn't have been "raking the FO over the coals". My stance on the Deng trade is documented. I repeated that I supported the decision in this very thread actually. Unlike most people, I don't just flip flop my position when convenient and I will admit if I was wrong.

Well, you have been given about a half dozen good answers... actually 20 million and a half dozen good answers. And I cry BS that you would have been just fine with the Bulls just letting Deng walk at the end of the season. Maybe before Rose went down that could be justified. Not after. If you are saying thatw as fine with you and then I have more incredulous responses for you.

[Pnjguy]

Try again... I'll help you with the exact language:

"Starting in 2013-14, teams cannot receive a player in a sign-and-trade transaction (see question number 90) if their team salary is above the apron at the conclusion of the trade."

read my previous posts and you try again. If you want to enlighten me about something, the floor is yours.

Let me help you then... you can start with determining if trading for Melo would put us over the "apron" this summer and how in the world having Deng on the roster last season would have affected that.

No, being over the apron at the end of this past season (with Deng) wouldn't allow us to acquire a player in a sign and trade.

[Pnjguy]

You couldn't let Deng just expire because what determines a team to be above or below the tax is what their team salary is on the last regular season game.

Reading is a skill.

[dougthonus]

I actually stated that... I even mentioned the picks. You took my stuff out of context. I specifically asked what about not paying the repeaters tax did Deng help us with OTHER than the money. I was specifically addressing this comment:

My apologies, I wasn't attempting to take your stuff out of context. I agree, not paying the repeater tax only saves you money. It likely helps you in the future in that there is probably a total amount of money you are willing to spend. Not spending it now theoretically allows you to spend it later. That said, I agree, there is no rule about that, only the apron really matters, and it only matters for the year you were over it, not the following years.

[organix85]

So, you want me to explain the CBA to you to prove that moving Deng for something and saving millions and millions of dollars was better than just releasing him at the end of the year? And my letting someone who is more of an expert than me and has already documented the examples explain it means I don't know and am thrwoing around threats. Sounds like the hyperbole of someone who has their back against the wall to me.

You are right about the cap space. The clearing cap space was relevant as compared to keeping and re-signing Deng. Sure, they could have just let him walk at the end of the season. I KNOW you would have supported that decision vs. trading him. are you kidding, you and everyone else would be raking the FO over the coals and talking about how only idiots would let Deng walk for nothing while paying 10's of millions of dollars in penalty taxes that would hamstring the Bulls efforts this offseason.

Sorry but you can't in one breath claim they should have traded him earlier because they didn't get enough for him and then when it is clearly explained why they didn't trade him earlier come back with "they could have just waited and let him walk". Can't have it both ways.

It's not hyperbole. I already know the restrictions and I know you don't have a good answer besides the money. It's why I asked.

And no, I wouldn't have been "raking the FO over the coals". My stance on the Deng trade is documented. I repeated that I supported the decision in this very thread actually. Unlike most people, I don't just flip flop my position when convenient and I will admit if I was wrong.

Well, you have been given about a half dozen good answers... actually 20 million and a half dozen good answers. And I cry BS that you would have been just fine with the Bulls just letting Deng walk at the end of the season. Maybe before Rose went down that could be justified. Not after. If you are saying thatw as fine with you and then I have more incredulous responses for you.

If he was let go for Melo... yea, I have no problem.

See... you are again avoiding what you claimed. You said we'd be restricted by the repeaters tax in free agency and in trades and all that. I asked you how and you can't answer. Don't make statements you can't back up. If all along your contention was that you wanted to save 20 million bucks, then you could've said that at the beginning and moved on.

[organix85]

You couldn't let Deng just expire because what determines a team to be above or below the tax is what their team salary is on the last regular season game.

Reading is a skill.

Well, you're wrong if you think this summer is affected by Deng being or not being on the roster last year. So maybe you should go do some reading.

[organix85]

read my previous posts and you try again. If you want to enlighten me about something, the floor is yours.

Let me help you then... you can start with determining if trading for Melo would put us over the "apron" this summer and how in the world having Deng on the roster last season would have affected that.

No, being over the apron at the end of this past season (with Deng) wouldn't allow us to acquire a player in a sign and trade.

During that season... sure... in that case, yes.

[Pnjguy]

You couldn't let Deng just expire because what determines a team to be above or below the tax is what their team salary is on the last regular season game.

Reading is a skill.

Well, you're wrong if you think this summer is affected by Deng being or not being on the roster last year. So maybe you should go do some reading.

So, in other words, you just don't care about facts right? Just tell me that now so i can move on with my life.

[Trm3]

We're getting mad at what Simmons said but he IS spot on...we seriously got rid of Kyle Korver to save $500,000...didn't want to re-sign Nate cause he'd cost too much and I'm pretty sure we'll let DJ go, cause he'll cost too much...we'll take care of our own, but when it comes to getting FA's or players we need..we are cheap until proven otherwise.

So the Bulls are a small market mentality because they wouldn't and/or won't pay 2 bench players who nobody else wanted? But they aren't a big market spending team for paying Rose 20 mil, Taj 9 mil, Boozer 16 mil, Deng whatever he was making, Noah his salray etc.

This board is crazy sometimes. We have whined for years about Boozer, Taj and Deng being overpaid. We have 20 mil being spent on a player who hasn't played in the playoffs for 3 straight seasons, and we whine about our front office being misers. Crazy. Batsh** crazy.

I did say we'll take care of own..maybe u should read it again. I'm saying there's guys we've had that would help a lot with OFFENSE which we struggle with but we chose to let them go cause we were cheap.

There's a reason Rose is blowing out his knees..he feels he has to do it all and he does cause he knows he has no help offensively.

I'm not saying we should spend money like the Nets..I'm saying there's been guys we should have kept.