Tom Haberstroh: Bulls Among NBA's Next Potential Superteams

[rowseyna]

You don't know who on the list will be an All-NBA player and who won't... It's not a bad choice to sign FAs who won't be All-NBA players... And you don't know which players on that list will stay with their current teams or not, yet...

Obviously I don't know for certain. No one does. I'm making an educated guess as to how things play out.

Knowing that those players are restricted free agents, can earn more from their current teams and can be matched at any point, wouldn't you say it's far more likely that they never leave their incumbent teams until their next deal expires?

I mean, do you realistically see a situation where Embiid or Jokic become available, or that their current teams don't match an offer?

The most attainable names on your list are Smart and Payton, though they likely stay put too. I wouldn't pay either 8 figures for this team.

As for who will be All-NBA type players, again, I'm making a prediction. Of that list, which other guys you noted have a real shot at making an All-NBA team? Wiggins can if he can put it together, but his game is extremely limited. Who else?

Jokic and Embiid are the only game changers.

Yeah, generally speaking there is almost no functional chance to get a good value on a good RFA.

The only exceptions would be offering huge money to a guy who will likely be injured like Embiid, or offer medium money to a guy who looks bad and/or hasn't got a chance and then somehow he breaks out with you, and I don't know how to identify those players.

Last year the Memphis Grizzlies signed RFA Troy Daniels away from the Charlotte Hornets with a three year, $10M deal. They are getting good value.

The year before it was NYK stealing Kyle O'Quinn for four years for $16M.

Before that, DAL got Chandler Parsons from HOU for three years and $46.1M.

It's possible to get good value on a good RFA.

[rowseyna]

most every year a couple of good RFAs move teams.

Is this even remotely true? I'm struggling to think of a single genuinely good RFA EVER that has switched teams. Can you give some examples?

Tim Hardaway Jr., Langston Galloway, Troy Daniels, Kyle O'Quinn, Chandler Parsons, Tyreke Evans, Brandon Jennings, Chris Copeland, Omer Asik, Jeremy Lin, Landry Fields... That's some just from the past few off-seasons...

[Ben]

most every year a couple of good RFAs move teams.

Is this even remotely true? I'm struggling to think of a single genuinely good RFA EVER that has switched teams. Can you give some examples?

Tim Hardaway Jr., Langston Galloway, Troy Daniels, Kyle O'Quinn, Chandler Parsons, Tyreke Evans, Brandon Jennings, Chris Copeland, Omer Asik, Jeremy Lin, Landry Fields... That's some just from the past few off-seasons...

Genuinely good? Chandler Parsons was pretty good when he was signed away from Houston-- not great at all, but pretty good-- and last year was terrible. Asik was pretty good when he was signed away from us b/c our front office's stupidity, but he quickly turned mediocre and then bad. The other guys? It's a catalog of mediocrity, and for the most part they didn't come cheap.

Maybe one can sign a RFA once in a while, but it's difficult and usually an overpay, and-- here's the main point-- almost certainly not a primary way to build an excellent team, let alone a "superteam" (the title theme of this thread). That's what people are contesting. You can debate them as to whether their points are technically true-- one can get a RFA once in a while-- but their overall point is valid.

[League Circles]

Obviously I don't know for certain. No one does. I'm making an educated guess as to how things play out.

Knowing that those players are restricted free agents, can earn more from their current teams and can be matched at any point, wouldn't you say it's far more likely that they never leave their incumbent teams until their next deal expires?

I mean, do you realistically see a situation where Embiid or Jokic become available, or that their current teams don't match an offer?

The most attainable names on your list are Smart and Payton, though they likely stay put too. I wouldn't pay either 8 figures for this team.

As for who will be All-NBA type players, again, I'm making a prediction. Of that list, which other guys you noted have a real shot at making an All-NBA team? Wiggins can if he can put it together, but his game is extremely limited. Who else?

Jokic and Embiid are the only game changers.

Yeah, generally speaking there is almost no functional chance to get a good value on a good RFA.

The only exceptions would be offering huge money to a guy who will likely be injured like Embiid, or offer medium money to a guy who looks bad and/or hasn't got a chance and then somehow he breaks out with you, and I don't know how to identify those players.

Last year the Memphis Grizzlies signed RFA Troy Daniels away from the Charlotte Hornets with a three year, $10M deal. They are getting good value.

The year before it was NYK stealing Kyle O'Quinn for four years for $16M.

Before that, DAL got Chandler Parsons from HOU for three years and $46.1M.

It's possible to get good value on a good RFA.

I guess we must have drastically different definitions of what makes a good player. Parsons has had an OK career, but you're talking about guys who are mediocre bench players at best on mediocre or bad teams. Nobody wants or needs such players.

[League Circles]

most every year a couple of good RFAs move teams.

Is this even remotely true? I'm struggling to think of a single genuinely good RFA EVER that has switched teams. Can you give some examples?

Tim Hardaway Jr., Langston Galloway, Troy Daniels, Kyle O'Quinn, Chandler Parsons, Tyreke Evans, Brandon Jennings, Chris Copeland, Omer Asik, Jeremy Lin, Landry Fields... That's some just from the past few off-seasons...

OK now tell me the good players. The ones that cause you to win games over opponents.

[League Circles]

most every year a couple of good RFAs move teams.

Is this even remotely true? I'm struggling to think of a single genuinely good RFA EVER that has switched teams. Can you give some examples?

Tim Hardaway Jr., Langston Galloway, Troy Daniels, Kyle O'Quinn, Chandler Parsons, Tyreke Evans, Brandon Jennings, Chris Copeland, Omer Asik, Jeremy Lin, Landry Fields... That's some just from the past few off-seasons...

I mean seriously if those are all good players, then we already have enough good players and we should be all set. I feel like I just stepped into outer space.

[kingkirk]

Actually, unfortunately, the conversation may get dragged out for a minimum of a 3 day waiting period if we're lucky enough to even get a guy to sign an offer sheet. This is another big reason to not pursue most RFAs.

That assumes the RFA signs your offer sheet. In that sense, your space will be consumed until the other team matches, but I doubt very much the Nuggets don't come to Jokic on day 1 of free agency with a significant offer that negates any chance of him exploring the market.

[kingkirk]

Is this even remotely true? I'm struggling to think of a single genuinely good RFA EVER that has switched teams. Can you give some examples?

Tim Hardaway Jr., Langston Galloway, Troy Daniels, Kyle O'Quinn, Chandler Parsons, Tyreke Evans, Brandon Jennings, Chris Copeland, Omer Asik, Jeremy Lin, Landry Fields... That's some just from the past few off-seasons...[/quote]

It’s already been stated so I won’t harp on about this point, but that group of players aren’t good. Almost half of those guys aren’t in the league anymore, and if they’re, they’re not good.

How many of these guys actually proved to be value signings i.e. their production resembled their pay grade?

More importantly, though, this discussion about signing away RFAs started because you listed out several very nice young prospects that the Bulls should target in free agency. You then listed these guys as examples of RFAs that moved in free agency. Given the steep difference in talent between your initial list and the RFAs you just mentioned, doesn’t that effectively prove the point that someone like Jokic, Embiid, Wiggins or whomever aren’t going anywhere?

I do like the idea of the Bulls stealing a RFA who has upside but hasn’t been given a chance from some other team on a value deal, but making a play at an average player and paying them big dollars is how teams quickly get caught in the middle e.g. the Knicks.

[Stratmaster]

What teams have gotten their prized and preferred free agent in the last 10 years, other than re-signing their own?

Without thinking too hard:

Golden State
Cleveland
San Antonio
Boston
Miami
Houston

There have been other teams that have made signings that would be significant for them, but not necessarily the case for others e.g. Millsap to Denver, so I'll omit those.

In the case of GSW...ring chasing. I agree. The top 2 or 3 contenders will always have a play ion free agency if they have the cap space. Cleveland. LBJ? Coming home to repair his image. He was never going anywhere else at that time; probably still won't. and Cleveland has to be an example of the most inept management staffs in recent history.

Look at the circumstances around the signings. It is almost never "arbitrary player chooses arbitrary city". The"marquee" free agents that have moved in recent seasons are almost always chasing rings. But hey, the Bulls got Wade to sign and he knew he wasn't winning a ring. Oh, wait. He is from chicago. Never mind.

[League Circles]

I'm still laughing at the notion that Chris Copeland, who washed out of the league with the quickness, is a good player and the type of player we should target in RFA. SMH

[weneeda2guard]

the few things you mention is void because its not dealing with my post, its attempting to compare denver vs chicago as destination landing spots for free agents, when all i was simply doing was pointing out that before free agency, no one would have predicted milsap going to denver, and if they did pull the post, but i never saw it, and the reason he went to denver had nothing to do with roster, where they are in a rebuild imo, it was the fact they were one of the few standing teams that could give him 30 mill plus a year. period.

Except that's not true.

Denver were arguably the favourites to land Millsap for some time. They have tried trading for him before and he has a connection to the area. Obviously money had something to do with it, but overlooking Denver's roster and thinking it wasn't a significant factor is incorrect.

if the lakers would have offered 30 mill, milsap wouldnt have picked up the phone for denver.

major markets are always a bigger threat than small markets due to the money that can be made off the court in those areas. states like texas and florida compete due to no state tax. denver got milsap due to the lack of offers from others and no way can you think the roster means anything in that loaded west. if milsap was that coveted and it was about roster, and about winning, milsap would have stayed east. the only reason milsap is willing to spend the next few years fighting for a 8th seed in the west, is because he is getting 30 mill to do so. money talks. if the bulls can clear 60 mill and talk to 2 max stars, they can land 2 guys. if the front office is that unlikable where they wont come, then we need to fire them quick and find a front office personality to land the 2 guys. this is chicago, earning potential off the court here is enormous, jordan made a billion here. and its in the east. so you got money, max money, a major city, money off the court, endorsements and being able to own the east for years should be enough to land a couple guys.

[kingkirk]

In the case of GSW...ring chasing. I agree. The top 2 or 3 contenders will always have a play ion free agency if they have the cap space. Cleveland. LBJ? Coming home to repair his image. He was never going anywhere else at that time; probably still won't. and Cleveland has to be an example of the most inept management staffs in recent history.

Look at the circumstances around the signings. It is almost never "arbitrary player chooses arbitrary city". The"marquee" free agents that have moved in recent seasons are almost always chasing rings. But hey, the Bulls got Wade to sign and he knew he wasn't winning a ring. Oh, wait. He is from chicago. Never mind.

So ring chasing is a caveat now that somehow lessens the achievement. You asked for teams who signed marquee guys via free agency. There have been a few. If you want to apply caveats to it you can, but the fact remains.

Wade was a marquee free agent? Ain't that the guy who Miami didn't want to pay?

Comparing the Bulls signing Wade to a move that acquired LeBron James or Kevin Durant is, well...

They're not even in the same stratosphere.

[kingkirk]

if the lakers would have offered 30 mill, milsap wouldnt have picked up the phone for denver.

major markets are always a bigger threat than small markets due to the money that can be made off the court in those areas. states like texas and florida compete due to no state tax. denver got milsap due to the lack of offers from others and no way can you think the roster means anything in that loaded west. if milsap was that coveted and it was about roster, and about winning, milsap would have stayed east. the only reason milsap is willing to spend the next few years fighting for a 8th seed in the west, is because he is getting 30 mill to do so. money talks. if the bulls can clear 60 mill and talk to 2 max stars, they can land 2 guys. if the front office is that unlikable where they wont come, then we need to fire them quick and find a front office personality to land the 2 guys. this is chicago, earning potential off the court here is enormous, jordan made a billion here. and its in the east. so you got money, max money, a major city, money off the court, endorsements and being able to own the east for years should be enough to land a couple guys.

I never suggested money isn't a factor, but the Lakers, Knicks and Mavericks should be cautionary tales to a team like Chicago if it think it can scoot by using the market angle alone.

Players don't care about market size as they once did. It's still a factor, but it's become less relevant. If that weren't true, the Lakers would've signed a big name in the last several offseasons. They got nothing.

[League Circles]

if the lakers would have offered 30 mill, milsap wouldnt have picked up the phone for denver.

major markets are always a bigger threat than small markets due to the money that can be made off the court in those areas. states like texas and florida compete due to no state tax. denver got milsap due to the lack of offers from others and no way can you think the roster means anything in that loaded west. if milsap was that coveted and it was about roster, and about winning, milsap would have stayed east. the only reason milsap is willing to spend the next few years fighting for a 8th seed in the west, is because he is getting 30 mill to do so. money talks. if the bulls can clear 60 mill and talk to 2 max stars, they can land 2 guys. if the front office is that unlikable where they wont come, then we need to fire them quick and find a front office personality to land the 2 guys. this is chicago, earning potential off the court here is enormous, jordan made a billion here. and its in the east. so you got money, max money, a major city, money off the court, endorsements and being able to own the east for years should be enough to land a couple guys.

I never suggested money isn't a factor, but the Lakers, Knicks and Mavericks should be cautionary tales to a team like Chicago if it think it can scoot by using the market angle alone.

Players don't care about market size as they once did. It's still a factor, but it's become less relevant. If that weren't true, the Lakers would've signed a big name in the last several offseasons. They got nothing.

Just to note, while you guys have been going back and forth about market size among other things, I do think it is still appealing in a major way. It's no longer cause of local endorsements and stuff or even really exposure, so I agree with you there. It's about simply some cities are way more fun and have way more women for players to socialize with. On the very high end you have LA, Miami and NY, followed by a tier that includes Chicago, SF, Dallas, and Atlanta probably, with teams like OKC, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Cleveland etc on the opposite spectrum.

[kingkirk]

Just to note, while you guys have been going back and forth about market size among other things, I do think it is still appealing in a major way. It's no longer cause of local endorsements and stuff or even really exposure, so I agree with you there. It's about simply some cities are way more fun and have way more women for players to socialize with. On the very high end you have LA, Miami and NY, followed by a tier that includes Chicago, SF, Dallas, and Atlanta probably, with teams like OKC, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Cleveland etc on the opposite spectrum.

Market size will always be a factor, but winning has become more important to these guys than ever before. Suddenly, the Spurs have become an attractive free agent destination. That wasn't the case before. They couldn't get free agents, and had to develop their own guys for years to compete.

What I'm suggesting is that free agents won't choose the Bulls just because they open max slots and a big market if the team is ****, which it is.

Marquee free agents are not signing in Chicago to play with LaVine, Dunn and Markkanen, even if a max contract and the bright lights are on offer.

[Stratmaster]

In the case of GSW...ring chasing. I agree. The top 2 or 3 contenders will always have a play ion free agency if they have the cap space. Cleveland. LBJ? Coming home to repair his image. He was never going anywhere else at that time; probably still won't. and Cleveland has to be an example of the most inept management staffs in recent history.

Look at the circumstances around the signings. It is almost never "arbitrary player chooses arbitrary city". The"marquee" free agents that have moved in recent seasons are almost always chasing rings. But hey, the Bulls got Wade to sign and he knew he wasn't winning a ring. Oh, wait. He is from chicago. Never mind.

So ring chasing is a caveat now that somehow lessens the achievement. You asked for teams who signed marquee guys via free agency. There have been a few. If you want to apply caveats to it you can, but the fact remains.

Wade was a marquee free agent? Ain't that the guy who Miami didn't want to pay?

Comparing the Bulls signing Wade to a move that acquired LeBron James or Kevin Durant is, well...

They're not even in the same stratosphere.

What I am saying is that the issue isn't that players don't want to come to Chicago because the market isn't attractive; or because of the front office. You listed 6 teams out of 30. I'm not sure who the marquee free agent you are referencing is for a couple of them.

I didn't say anything about ring-chasing lessening the achievement. I started with "I agree", the top 2 or 3 contenders will have an advantage. You agree with me on this, right?

I brought up Wade because his circumstance was similar to LBJ...going back to finish his career in his home town. Only LBJ was actually good enough that it instantly made his team a contender. I guess you missed the sarcasm in my statement and where I said "never mind".

Actually, that is pretty typical for you. You have a bull in a china shop approach to reading and debating. Probably, like you said to Alcatraz...better if you just don't respond to my posts.

[weneeda2guard]

Just to note, while you guys have been going back and forth about market size among other things, I do think it is still appealing in a major way. It's no longer cause of local endorsements and stuff or even really exposure, so I agree with you there. It's about simply some cities are way more fun and have way more women for players to socialize with. On the very high end you have LA, Miami and NY, followed by a tier that includes Chicago, SF, Dallas, and Atlanta probably, with teams like OKC, Minnesota, Milwaukee, Cleveland etc on the opposite spectrum.

Market size will always be a factor, but winning has become more important to these guys than ever before. Suddenly, the Spurs have become an attractive free agent destination. That wasn't the case before. They couldn't get free agents, and had to develop their own guys for years to compete.

What I'm suggesting is that free agents won't choose the Bulls just because they open max slots and a big market if the team is ****, which it is.

Marquee free agents are not signing in Chicago to play with LaVine, Dunn and Markkanen, even if a max contract and the bright lights are on offer.

thing is, your making blanket statements without contexualizing the circumstances. lakers landed nothing, because money boomed and there were other options. what we have been suggesting, is that its not just clearing the max cap space, its the fact there are not many other options who can do the same, whereas in the past few years, everyone had money to spend.

its also, being in a easier path to the finals in the east, its also having the flexibility to get better past that season and not being locked into a roster.

[dice]

Asik was pretty good when he was signed away from us b/c our front office's stupidity, but he quickly turned mediocre and then bad.

wouldn't that make it houston's stupidity?

[Ben]

Asik was pretty good when he was signed away from us b/c our front office's stupidity, but he quickly turned mediocre and then bad.

wouldn't that make it houston's stupidity?

Houston could have been stupid in one way, but so were we. IIRC, early in Asik's Chicago tenure we could have signed him to a reasonable contract-- one that would have made sense, value-wise-- without having let him get to the point where someone else could poison-pill us. I think we could have given him a year longer contract the first time 'round, and also could have extended him in 2011 without him becoming a UFA. That's the stupidity to which I was referring.

[dice]

Asik was pretty good when he was signed away from us b/c our front office's stupidity, but he quickly turned mediocre and then bad.

wouldn't that make it houston's stupidity?

Houston could have been stupid in one way, but so were we. IIRC, early in Asik's Chicago tenure we could have signed him to a reasonable contract-- one that would have made sense, value-wise-- without having let him get to the point where someone else could poison-pill us. I think we could have given him a year longer contract the first time 'round, and also could have extended him in 2011 without him becoming a UFA. That's the stupidity to which I was referring.

i'm guessing that he gambled on himself by taking only a 2 yr deal. in exchange we got him cheap for those 2 years, during which he didn't play much

i think that morey paid so much for him in part so he could show the world that he was aware of the loophole in the CBA