Simmons: Reinsdorf Runs Bulls Like Small Market Team

[dice]

trading deng was both a good basketball decision and a good financial decision

[organix85]

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.

They are facts? Why don't you ask a cap expert which of us two is correct? I mean, how incredibly stupid would it be to allow a team free range to do whatever they want during the season and penalize them for it the following season? What if the Bulls were over the tax and had a roster of expiring contracts and they all left... would they be limited the following offseason? Do you even understand what you are trying to insinuate?

[Pnjguy]

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.

They are facts? Why don't you ask a cap expert which of us two is correct? I mean, how incredibly stupid would it be to allow a team free range to do whatever they want during the season and penalize them for it the following season? What if the Bulls were over the tax and had a roster of expiring contracts and they all left... would they be limited the following offseason? Do you even understand what you are trying to insinuate?

That is exactly the way I interpret it. When else would you levy penalties?

[Rerisen]

Hey all, let's not head toward insulting back and forth.

[Stratmaster]

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.

Help me to understand something. The thread is that the Bulls operate as a small market team. My position is they don't. Is your position that they do? In fact, do you have a position or exactly what point are you trying to make? If you are saying the decision was mostly for financial reasons. Abso-fing-lutely it was. Is that what you wanted to hear?

So now that we have established that, do you think it was a wise decision? You have answered yes. But you qualified that by saying only because you wanted the team to tank. Which turned out to be a ridiculous idea and approach but I digress. Let's say the team couldn't possibly tank, which happened to be the truth. Is it your position that the Bulls should have then held on to Deng until the end of the season, paid 20 million out of pocket for that privilege, and then just let him walk? Because that appeared to be your line of logic.

Or are you just saying that you think Reinsdorf should blow that 20 million and othe rmoney just to reassure all of us fans that he isn't a miser?

Which brings me back to the question I asked you that you seem to refuse to answer. What is it that Reinsdorf or we Bulls fans would have gained by not trading Deng; or what did we lose by not keeping him?

[organix85]

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.

They are facts? Why don't you ask a cap expert which of us two is correct? I mean, how incredibly stupid would it be to allow a team free range to do whatever they want during the season and penalize them for it the following season? What if the Bulls were over the tax and had a roster of expiring contracts and they all left... would they be limited the following offseason? Do you even understand what you are trying to insinuate?

That is exactly the way I interpret it. When else would you levy penalties?

The penalties are in place to affect the season in which you are over the apron. It is why we were hard capped by using the MLE on Hinrich and Belinelli.

[Stratmaster]

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.

??? Kyle, Nate and DJ were/are "our own". I don't get it.

[transplant]

Bill Simmons wrote a truly wonderful book, The Book of Basketball, and is great in the role of basketball humorist.

He's now far more visible. He's on national TV surrounded by former NBA players and can easily be mistaken for a basketball or NBA expert. He's neither. Worse yet, he doesn't seem to be very funny in his new role.

Bill, the story of the Bulls' 2013-14 season isn't that Rose got injured, Deng got traded and yet Bulls' management still insisted that they were in it to win it. In fact, after the Deng trade, Bulls' management were mostly silent and occasionally apologetic. The story of the Bulls' 2013-14 season is that Rose got injured, Deng got traded and Thibodeau and his players surprised their employers and most of the NBA world by refusing to become a lottery team.

And Bill, as much as I think the whole "Bulls ownership is cheap" doesn't hold up to factual scrutiny, if you're going to play that tune to your national audience and don't want to embarrass yourself, I urge you to spend some time on this forum. We got guys who have been working on this narrative for decades.

[Pnjguy]

They are facts? Why don't you ask a cap expert which of us two is correct? I mean, how incredibly stupid would it be to allow a team free range to do whatever they want during the season and penalize them for it the following season? What if the Bulls were over the tax and had a roster of expiring contracts and they all left... would they be limited the following offseason? Do you even understand what you are trying to insinuate?

That is exactly the way I interpret it. When else would you levy penalties?

The penalties are in place to affect the season in which you are over the apron. It is why we were hard capped by using the MLE on Hinrich and Belinelli.

I'll ask again. If it is determined at the end of this past regular season if a team is a tax payer ( which is what the by laws say) when do the restrictions take place if not the very next off-season?

[organix85]

I don't normally split quotes but I think it's easier in this case.

Help me to understand something. The thread is that the Bulls operate as a small market team. My position is they don't. Is your position that they do? In fact, do you have a position or exactly what point are you trying to make?

My position is that they run similarly to a team like the Pacers as Simmons stated.

If you are saying the decision was mostly for financial reasons. Abso-fing-lutely it was. Is that what you wanted to hear?

Yea, actually, that is exactly what I wanted to hear. I said that much over and over and over.

So now that we have established that, do you think it was a wise decision? You have answered yes. But you qualified that by saying only because you wanted the team to tank. Which turned out to be a ridiculous idea and approach but I digress. Let's say the team couldn't possibly tank, which happened to be the truth. Is it your position that the Bulls should have then held on to Deng until the end of the season, paid 20 million out of pocket for that privilege, and then just let him walk? Because that appeared to be your line of logic.

I actually still contend that an all out tank (i.e. dumping guys like Dunleavy and not trading Teague or signing Augustin) would have been the way to go. I was a bit jealous that Cleveland got that top pick to be completely honest, but I didn't express that in these forums. I kind of thought we could've been around that 9th spot... anyway, I don't really feel any regret for being pro-tank whatsoever.

As for knowing what I know now, that the team didn't tank... I don't care one way or another really. It was a wasted season for me... kind of locked into that when Rose went down. I kind of hold out hope that the Sacramento pick will manifest into something even though there seems to be doubts by many for that. *shrug*

Basically, as far as that goes, I don't care. I just want rings, not meaningless regular season wins. However, I know a majority of fans do not share that view with me and I respect that.

Or are you just saying that you think Reinsdorf should blow that 20 million and othe rmoney just to reassure all of us fans that he isn't a miser?

No... not at all. We know what he is anyway. There's no one to kid.

Which brings me back to the question I asked you that you seem to refuse to answer. What is it that Reinsdorf or we Bulls fans would have gained by not trading Deng; or what did we lose by not keeping him?

See... this question means nothing to me cause you know how I feel about the Deng trade. You know I was one of the few saying he should've been traded the year GS was shopping the Barnes pick and there were rumors about the Sac pick with Evans? I've been wanting to gain young talent mostly cause I thought the window closed on this team a looooong time ago when Rose first got hurt. Am I mad they didn't? No... my view was extreme and very unconservative... but that was my view. To be perfectly blunt about it, I never saw us winning a ring with him on our roster after Rose first went down.

Buuuuuut... that's not the point of this thread and it's not relevant to my point. Deng was dumped primarily to save money. We have now agreed on that. Do I hate him for it? No... Search my name in some Reinsdorf threads and you'll see I never say he should be gone and I never say he's doing a poor job of this and that. I'm pretty neutral and leaning towards saying he's better than most. However, I'm not going to pretend this guy isn't primarily focused on profits. He, like most owners, operates like that.

[organix85]

That is exactly the way I interpret it. When else would you levy penalties?

The penalties are in place to affect the season in which you are over the apron. It is why we were hard capped by using the MLE on Hinrich and Belinelli.

I'll ask again. If it is determined at the end of this past regular season if a team is a tax payer ( which is what the by laws say) when do the restrictions take place if not the very next off-season?

I answered this... they take effect the season in which you are over. What is being missed by this statement? If that's wrong, I sincerely would like someone to show me proof of that.

For example, if we were over this summer (signed Deng to a nice big contract and didn't amnesty Booz), we couldn't complete a sign and trade. If we were over this summer, we couldn't use the full MLE, this summer.

Or let's say we are really close to the apron and want to do a S&T, but receiving Melo would put us over... we'd be prohibited from doing the trade per the CBA. Trading for Melo this summer will not put us over the apron. It is there in plain text that it is the rule. We are not slated to be over the tax next year so we will not be restricted by those items.

And, like the Hinrich/Belinelli stuff, you will be hard capped at the apron if you use items, like the full-MLE, which are not allowed if you are over the apron.

[Stratmaster]

I don't normally split quotes but I think it's easier in this case.

Help me to understand something. The thread is that the Bulls operate as a small market team. My position is they don't. Is your position that they do? In fact, do you have a position or exactly what point are you trying to make?

My position is that they run similarly to a team like the Pacers as Simmons stated.

If you are saying the decision was mostly for financial reasons. Abso-fing-lutely it was. Is that what you wanted to hear?

Yea, actually, that is exactly what I wanted to hear. I said that much over and over and over.

So now that we have established that, do you think it was a wise decision? You have answered yes. But you qualified that by saying only because you wanted the team to tank. Which turned out to be a ridiculous idea and approach but I digress. Let's say the team couldn't possibly tank, which happened to be the truth. Is it your position that the Bulls should have then held on to Deng until the end of the season, paid 20 million out of pocket for that privilege, and then just let him walk? Because that appeared to be your line of logic.

I actually still contend that an all out tank (i.e. dumping guys like Dunleavy and not trading Teague or signing Augustin) would have been the way to go. I was a bit jealous that Cleveland got that top pick to be completely honest, but I didn't express that in these forums. I kind of thought we could've been around that 9th spot... anyway, I don't really feel any regret for being pro-tank whatsoever.

As for knowing what I know now, that the team didn't tank... I don't care one way or another really. It was a wasted season for me... kind of locked into that when Rose went down. I kind of hold out hope that the Sacramento pick will manifest into something even though there seems to be doubts by many for that. *shrug*

Basically, as far as that goes, I don't care. I just want rings, not meaningless regular season wins. However, I know a majority of fans do not share that view with me and I respect that.

Or are you just saying that you think Reinsdorf should blow that 20 million and othe rmoney just to reassure all of us fans that he isn't a miser?

No... not at all. We know what he is anyway. There's no one to kid.

Which brings me back to the question I asked you that you seem to refuse to answer. What is it that Reinsdorf or we Bulls fans would have gained by not trading Deng; or what did we lose by not keeping him?

See... this question means nothing to me cause you know how I feel about the Deng trade. You know I was one of the few saying he should've been traded the year GS was shopping the Barnes pick and there were rumors about the Sac pick with Evans? I've been wanting to gain young talent mostly cause I thought the window closed on this team a looooong time ago when Rose first got hurt. Am I mad they didn't? No... my view was extreme and very unconservative... but that was my view. To be perfectly blunt about it, I never saw us winning a ring with him on our roster after Rose first went down.

Buuuuuut... that's not the point of this thread and it's not relevant to my point. Deng was dumped primarily to save money. We have now agreed on that. Do I hate him for it? No... Search my name in some Reinsdorf threads and you'll see I never say he should be gone and I never say he's doing a poor job of this and that. I'm pretty neutral and leaning towards saying he's better than most. However, I'm not going to pretend this guy isn't primarily focused on profits. He, like most owners, operates like that.

OK, I think we got off kilter as to what we were actually debating. And now that you mention the Bulls being like Indiana, i am going to modify my position. Not flip flop or change my opinion, but hopefully fine tune it.

Indy is in the ECF. The Bulls were in the ECF and probably would have been every season since without the Rose injuries. The Miami Heat are back to back champions pushing for a 3rd. Generally, I take "acting like a big market team" to mean acting like the Knicks or Lakers. Neither of their current front offices are having success. Do we really want to act like a big market team then?

So here is the refinement to my opinion i am offering. I reject the notion of acting like a big market or small market team out of hand. It is meaningless. I will embrace that there are two kinds of front offices. Smart (meaning successful) ones and not so smart (not so successful) ones. The Bulls, Indy and Miami have proven through their successful results to be pretty smart ones. And yet Miami took a totally different approach and route, acting more like what the author considers "a big market team"... and still can't get any fans in the damned seats. Lakers and Knicks don't seem so smart right now.

[organix85]

OK, I think we got off kilter as to what we were actually debating. And now that you mention the Bulls being like Indiana, i am going to modify my position. Not flip flop or change my opinion, but hopefully fine tune it.

Indy is in the ECF. The Bulls were in the ECF and probably would have been every season since without the Rose injuries. The Miami Heat are back to back champions pushing for a 3rd. Generally, I take "acting like a big market team" to mean acting like the Knicks or Lakers. Neither of their current front offices are having success. Do we really want to act like a big market team then?

So here is the refinement to my opinion i am offering. I reject the notion of acting like a big market or small market team out of hand. It is meaningless. I will embrace that there are two kinds of front offices. Smart (meaning successful) ones and not so smart (not so successful) ones. The Bulls, Indy and Miami have proven through their successful results to be pretty smart ones. And yet Miami took a totally different approach and route, acting more like what the author considers "a big market team"... and still can't get any fans in the damned seats. Lakers and Knicks don't seem so smart right now.

Well, I do think on some level he was implying that it is bad to run them like the smaller markets, but it's a bit odd to mention Milwaukee in the same sentence as Indiana... so I want to believe he mostly meant in terms of finances and not in decision making. I mean, those teams are on opposite ends of the spectrum and have been for a while. I haven't quite decided exactly all he was saying there to be honest. Part of me thinks he just said that for a sake of saying it.

With that being said, I don't think he's trying to say we should completely operate like the Knicks either. He would be too obviously wrong for taking that stance. I'm thinking he probably would say they'd be more ideally in line with the Lakers... and I still am not willing to knock down the Lakers. I think they are pretty much what you want in a franchise as far as prestige and success goes. They certainly messed up with DH which leaves them where they are now, but I respect the moxie. I blame a lot of that on a poor coaching decision though... But Lakers make way more good moves than bad ones. The Bulls will have their fall one day too. We'll see if they are able to put it all back together.

[KeithBoothfan]

Does anyone remember how funny and smart Simmons used to be many years ago when he just wrote the sportsguy column on espn.com page 2 I think it was called?

Seems like another lifetime. I swear he's become dumberer over time.

Grantland, which spun-off that era, is a great site, but not because of Simmons.

He's the entertainment side of it, writing the popcorn pieces. The best basketball coverage there is now the other writers, Lowe and Goldsberry.

And Simmons is certainly not fit for TV either. He's like pure 100% shlock now. Maybe all his funny stories, ideas and cultural relevance was exhausted on his book.

I don't think it's fair to say that Grantland's quality is "not because of Simmons" given that he's the managing editor of the entire place and, as far as I know, was the one who assembled their roster of contributors. I think he's done that job masterfully. I even like some of their pop culture writers.

But I do agree that his writing is not the reason I go to Grantland. I'll still read a lot of his stuff, and his mailbags are usually good for a few amusing witticisms, but his attempts at actual analysis are bush league compared to Lowe, Goldsberry, and Barnwell on the NFL side.

[Rerisen]

I don't think it's fair to say that Grantland's quality is "not because of Simmons" given that he's the managing editor of the entire place and, as far as I know, was the one who assembled their roster of contributors. I think he's done that job masterfully. I even like some of their pop culture writers.

I do read some of his stuff still, and the 30/30 stuff is good, though not sure how much he is hands on with it.

But without the harder stuff not sure I'd go there much. I even like Lowe's basketball podcast better than Simmons bball ones at this point, though its definitely less casual and more meat and potatoes. Simmons is so hit and miss, have to sit through a lot of ramblings to discover his few really thought provoking angles.

Bill and Jalen's podcasts are just about the perfect porridge for Simmons I think. Few other people are going to go over every team in depth like they did pre-season, and a few times during the year, and just have fun with it, when there is a drought of basketball talk.

Their 2 man act is smothered on the ESPN show though and Doug just sits there like a pull toy, allowed no more than 2 sentences to make a real basketball point, before Bill gets back on an out there tangent.

[Pnjguy]

I answered this... they take effect the season in which you are over. What is being missed by this statement? If that's wrong, I sincerely would like someone to show me proof of that.

But that tax determination is not determined until the END of the regular season. How can you retroactively put restrictions on a taxed team?

[Stratmaster]

OK, I think we got off kilter as to what we were actually debating. And now that you mention the Bulls being like Indiana, i am going to modify my position. Not flip flop or change my opinion, but hopefully fine tune it.

Indy is in the ECF. The Bulls were in the ECF and probably would have been every season since without the Rose injuries. The Miami Heat are back to back champions pushing for a 3rd. Generally, I take "acting like a big market team" to mean acting like the Knicks or Lakers. Neither of their current front offices are having success. Do we really want to act like a big market team then?

So here is the refinement to my opinion i am offering. I reject the notion of acting like a big market or small market team out of hand. It is meaningless. I will embrace that there are two kinds of front offices. Smart (meaning successful) ones and not so smart (not so successful) ones. The Bulls, Indy and Miami have proven through their successful results to be pretty smart ones. And yet Miami took a totally different approach and route, acting more like what the author considers "a big market team"... and still can't get any fans in the damned seats. Lakers and Knicks don't seem so smart right now.

Well, I do think on some level he was implying that it is bad to run them like the smaller markets, but it's a bit odd to mention Milwaukee in the same sentence as Indiana... so I want to believe he mostly meant in terms of finances and not in decision making. I mean, those teams are on opposite ends of the spectrum and have been for a while. I haven't quite decided exactly all he was saying there to be honest. Part of me thinks he just said that for a sake of saying it.

With that being said, I don't think he's trying to say we should completely operate like the Knicks either. He would be too obviously wrong for taking that stance. I'm thinking he probably would say they'd be more ideally in line with the Lakers... and I still am not willing to knock down the Lakers. I think they are pretty much what you want in a franchise as far as prestige and success goes. They certainly messed up with DH which leaves them where they are now, but I respect the moxie. I blame a lot of that on a poor coaching decision though... But Lakers make way more good moves than bad ones. The Bulls will have their fall one day too. We'll see if they are able to put it all back together.

historically for the Lakers I agree 100%. The current regime..not so much.

[Pnjguy]

For example, if we were over this summer (signed Deng to a nice big contract and didn't amnesty Booz), we couldn't complete a sign and trade. If we were over this summer, we couldn't use the full MLE, this summer.

There is no 'over this summer" it's "over at the end of the regular season"

[organix85]

I answered this... they take effect the season in which you are over. What is being missed by this statement? If that's wrong, I sincerely would like someone to show me proof of that.

But that tax determination is not determined until the END of the regular season. How can you retroactively put restrictions on a taxed team?

From the CBA FAQ:

They use a slightly different calculation for determining the team salary in relation to the apron -- the point $4 million over the tax line. This applies to the Bi-Annual, Non-Taxpayer Mid-Level, and Taxpayer Mid-Level exceptions (see question number 25), and for Sign-and-Trade transactions (see question number 90). For these purposes they use the team salary as defined above, with the following modifications:

* All unlikely bonuses are included for contracts and extensions signed under the current CBA.
* Amounts that could be included in team salary as the result of certain grievances are included.
* For rookies and players with one year of experience whose salary is less than the two-year minimum salary, the two-year minimum salary is used in place of their actual salary.
* For the team's restricted free agents, the amount of any outstanding qualifying offer or first refusal exercise notice (both including unlikely bonuses), whichever is greater, are included.
* The amount of any required tenders for the team's draft picks is included (80% of the scale salary for first round picks; the rookie minimum salary for second round picks).
* Cap holds for free agents are excluded.
* Cap holds for first round draft picks are excluded.
* Cap holds for the team's outstanding exceptions are excluded.

They do this because those exceptions and sign-and-trade transactions affect whether the team is subject to a hard cap (see question number 28), and these modifications to the team salary calculation ensure that subject teams remain below the apron.

[organix85]

For example, if we were over this summer (signed Deng to a nice big contract and didn't amnesty Booz), we couldn't complete a sign and trade. If we were over this summer, we couldn't use the full MLE, this summer.

There is no 'over this summer" it's "over at the end of the regular season"

I don't know how else to help you man... if you truly believe it is at the end of the season, that means a team can go wild while currently being over the apron as long as they weren't in the previous year. That makes no sense at all.