Did Paxson REALLY want Ben Wallace for $15 mil per?

[Cliff Levingston]

According to Sham's site, we have $48.65 million in committed salary next season. The luxury tax this season (according to sportscity.com) is $67.85 million.

Assuming the luxury tax goes up another $2 million (as it did from last year to this year), that wouldd mean that we've got about $20-21 million to spend next offseason on Deng, Gordon and any other free agents/draft picks we might need to pick up.

[anorexorcism]

According to Sham's sit, we have $48.65 million in committed salary next season. The luxury tax this season (according to sportscity.com) is $67.85 million.

Assuming the luxury tax goes up another $2 million (as it did from last year to this year), that wouldd mean that we've got about $20-21 million to spend next offseason on Deng, Gordon and any other free agents/draft picks we might need to pick up.

12 million Gordon
12 million Deng

(which is what they will demand, especially if we go back to the playoffs) alone puts us over the lux. Unless we can magically pull off a backloaded contract for both, we are going to lose one of them for sure.

Unless we can convince LA to give up Kwame's expiring for Big Ben, I'd put my money on the Bulls do a S/T with BG7, as he won't be sticking around here if we're not paying him what he wants.

And Luol is not taking below 60 million. Not anymore. Unless he plays like he did early on.

[Cliff Levingston]

12 million Gordon
12 million Deng

(which is what they will demand, especially if we go back to the playoffs) alone puts us over the lux. Unless we can magically pull off a backloaded contract for both, we are going to lose one of them for sure.

Unless we can convince LA to give up Kwame's expiring for Big Ben, I'd put my money on the Bulls do a S/T with BG7, as he won't be sticking around here if we're not paying him what he wants.

And Luol is not taking below 60 million.

But that would be an average salary per year. With annual raises, the value of those contracts in '08-'09 would probably be somewhere around $9-10 million, which makes it do-able.

And besides, Paxdorf probably didn't offer any more this offseason than they did because they know that the market sucks right now. There's not a lot of team that can step up to the plate with a big enough offer to pry either guy away, so you might as well let the market decide. ICLO, both will be disappointed with what they are offered and eventually sign for somewhere in the vicinity of $10-11 mil per year average.

[Friend_Of_Haley]

-= original quote snipped =-



12 million Gordon
12 million Deng

(which is what they will demand, especially if we go back to the playoffs) alone puts us over the lux. Unless we can magically pull off a backloaded contract for both, we are going to lose one of them for sure.

Unless we can convince LA to give up Kwame's expiring for Big Ben, I'd put my money on the Bulls do a S/T with BG7, as he won't be sticking around here if we're not paying him what he wants.

And Luol is not taking below 60 million. Not anymore. Unless he plays like he did early on.

Most contracts are backloaded, what are you talking about? We can give them 10.5% pay increase each year of the deal.

[Red Larrivee]

-= original quote snipped =-



12 million Gordon
12 million Deng

(which is what they will demand, especially if we go back to the playoffs) alone puts us over the lux. Unless we can magically pull off a backloaded contract for both, we are going to lose one of them for sure.

Unless we can convince LA to give up Kwame's expiring for Big Ben, I'd put my money on the Bulls do a S/T with BG7, as he won't be sticking around here if we're not paying him what he wants.

And Luol is not taking below 60 million. Not anymore. Unless he plays like he did early on.

I think this team is eventually going to have to be willing to go over the Luxury Tax. But I honestly think that atleast one of Hinrich, Nocioni, or Wallace will be gone. To me Gordon/Deng are way more important long-term than anyone here, and it's just a matter of putting the right mix of players with them. People can bag on BG all they want, but if you put this guy around a taller guard who can bring it up, or a really good PF/C, you'll have a monster on you're hands.

I could see Gordon taking the 5 Yr./50 Million, and I could see Deng taking 5/53.

[Cliff Levingston]

I don't feel as bad about the decision to bring in Wallace as I do about how poorly it has turned out if that makes sense. I can see the logical reasons for it, especially given how Chandler absolutely whithered his last season here. If we were going to play moneyball (which it seems that we are) then it was a bad move regardless though. You don't overpay a 33 year old guy if your franchise is ultra cheap. You can't make signings like you're the Yankees if your payroll is really in the Tampa Devil Ray range. It seems apparent in retrospect that the Bulls did this. They knew they were cheap, and they knew they needed to save money for Gordon/Deng, but they didn't do it.

I never believed it would happen before, but Ben Wallace will likely cost us Ben Gordon in the off season.

Cliff Levingston agrees with you on all the above comments regarding how the move turned out from a player standpoint. Had Ben Wallace been able to give us consistent effort like he has the last couple games then it's not a huge deal. Yea we would've still overpaid but that's what it took to get him away and we can deal with it so long as he's not a complete liability as much as he has been.

Cliff Levingston has more of a problem with the Nocioni and Joe Smith signings this past offseason and voiced his opinion about it at the time. When it came to re-signing Nocioni, Cliff Levingston was in favor of finding a sign-and-trade partner for him cause Noc is an expendable piece not worth an average of $7.5 mil to us (to come off the bench). Cliff Levingston won't tell you all he told you so.

But once we signed Nocioni to the front loaded deal, that was fine. We could go into the season with a front court rotation consisting of Noc, Deng, Wallace, Thomas and Noah and not have a log jam. But then, along comes Joe Smith for the full MLE over 2 years.

Nocioni and Smith will combine for just under $13 million in salary next season compared to Big Ben's $14.5. Had we not signed Joe, we would have an extra $5 million to use this offseason in being able to completely assure ourselves of retaining Deng/Gordon. Not only that, but the issue with PT for the youngsters might not even be an issue.

Now, we've got the potential to lose one of our two best players in free agency and have also created a log jam in the front court which prevents us from adequately developing our youth. As it is now, even if we can retain both Deng and Gordon, Duhon is a definite goner (which Cliff Levingston doesn't have a problem with, though it creates a need in the back court).

[BrooklynBulls]

-= original quote snipped =-



I think this team is eventually going to have to be willing to go over the Luxury Tax. But I honestly think that atleast one of Hinrich, Nocioni, or Wallace will be gone. To me Gordon/Deng are way more important long-term than anyone here, and it's just a matter of putting the right mix of players with them. People can bag on BG all they want, but if you put this guy around a taller guard who can bring it up, or a really good PF/C, you'll have a monster on you're hands.

I could see Gordon taking the 5 Yr./50 Million, and I could see Deng taking 5/53.

I don't think this team really does ever have to go over the tax. Its pretty remarkable, that even when we're playing three players 32+ million a year in Noc, Wallace, and Hinrich, and about to play 20+ million a year for 2 more, that we're going to be able to squeeze by. I believe that Gordon and Deng's starting salaries will be no more than 10 million each, since they're likely going to get max raises in an ascending contract. Since we have 3 rookie contracts, a couple of second rounders, and an unguaranteed contract in Nichols, and a 1.7 million dollar cheerleader in Griffin, thats basically 11 players for 62 million. Joe Smith is an expiring we could give away to any below-the-cap team without having to add any sweetner besides maybe some cash. Duhon likely won't be resigned. Add our new 10-20 draft pick, and we're probably at a little less than 70 million, right below the predicted threshold.

Even with Wallace's deal, this team's salary is well managed.

[sonny]

I think you are wrong. Paxson never said this publically. If no Ben or FA signing, we would have kept Tyson.

Well I probably got it mixed up with something else

[Kneepad]

It has turned out to be one of the worst free agent signings in recent memory. It has been an absolutely, atrociously, horrible, awful move.

It was a bad signing, but I don't think it has been quite that bad.

Especially given how clear it is that the Bulls are going to be a penny pinching franchise. If they were going to spend money in a fair ratio to the amount of money they make vs the rest of the league then it wouldn't be magnified so much.

I don't know that I'd go to the extreme of calling the Bulls "penny-pinching". No, they don't have the highest payroll in the league, but they are far from the lowest as well. And the fact remains-- as long as you are a team that is still attempting to acquire assets to become competitive for an NBA championship-- which I believe is a position the Bulls are most certainly in-- then it behooves you to remain as financially flexible as possible.

I never believed it would happen before, but Ben Wallace will likely cost us Ben Gordon in the off season.

I don't believe it will come to that. Please feel free to bring this up again if it does.

[BrooklynBulls]

Just a note, since we're talking about the salary cap. A 10 million dollar first year salary, with max raises, is basically a 5 year, 62.7 million dollar deal, or a 6 year, 79 million dollar deal. I sincerely doubt either Deng or Gordon go for such a dear price, let alone both of them.

[dougthonus]

It was a bad signing, but I don't think it has been quite that bad.

Having Ben Wallace at this point, in my opinion is a detriment to our future even if he was being paid 5 million per year. He has not played well, and has stopped our coaching staff from developing younger players.

His contract could become detrimental to us keeping far better players whether that ends up being true or not we'll find out this summer.

When you use up an asset like 15 million in cap space and come up with a negative asset that could potentially be a very negative asset then you have made one of the worst moves imaginable IMO.

Granted, some people may like Wallace and view him as a positive outside of his contract. I'm not one of those people. I think he's a negative for our franchise regardless of his contract, and his contract only makes it worse.

I don't know that I'd go to the extreme of calling the Bulls "penny-pinching". No, they don't have the highest payroll in the league, but they are far from the lowest as well. As the fact remains-- as long as you are a team that is still attempting to acquire assets to become competitive for an NBA championship-- which I believe is a position the Bulls are most certainly in-- then it behooves you to remain as financially flexible as possible.

Their financial flexibility vs their revenue is probably the lowest in all of professional sports.

I don't believe it will come to that. Please feel free to bring this up again if it does.

I hope it doesn't either, and if it does happen then it won't be the only reason it happened. I'm sure if it happens the board won't need me to bring it up.

[kyrv]

I tend to agree with Doug for the most part.

I will say, I think the Ben Wallace signing did have benefits outside just wins and losses and I think the Heat sweep was a big deal, a big accomplishment for the post-Jordan era.

I also felt that when they signed Ben, they were keeping Tyson and were going to spend.

Anyway, I don't want too much to put the signing under the micrscope as that has been done enough I think.

My main concern is, what do we do now? If Wallace were playing well, I would want to save him for the playoffs. As it is...the high number of minutes is very odd. Lots of bad fallout.

[ATRAIN53]

At the time of the Wallace signing, the Bulls were in dire need of a solid big man.

Tyson Chandler was NOT the player he is today for the Hornets.

The Bulls were getting killed in the post.

Fans were clamoring for the Bulls to acquire an established big man.

Ben Wallace was clearly the best free agent big man that season (if not the best free agent outright).

The Bulls had cap space they were going to lose if they didn't use it that summer.

Signing him was a chance not only to improve your team but also severely hurt a division rival.

The only downside, really, is the one that it turns out has bitten the Bulls in the backside-- the aging of Wallace and subsequent decline in his play.

that is the most accurate assessment of the Wallace signing i've seen.

well put kneepad.

i'd only add that the Pistons having Maxiell factored a lot into the passing on Wallace too.

but if only Wallace looked to score instead of passing the ball every time. the number of times i've screamed "take the shot" or "dunk the ball" at him makes me hoarse some nights.

[MrSparkle]

I do think the guy needs to play smarter. He's playing like an idiot.

[Red Larrivee]

I do think the guy needs to play smarter. He's playing like an idiot.

I wouldn't say that. For the most part of this season it was just Wallace playing with 0 passion and 0 desire. He's always played smart, but he just has to maintain his interest in this game, and want to be a big part again.

[Kneepad]

Having Ben Wallace at this point, in my opinion is a detriment to our future even if he was being paid 5 million per year. He has not played well, and has stopped our coaching staff from developing younger players.

Wow, Doug-- I knew you were anti-Wallace, but I don't think I realized until just now just how strongly you feel about it.

I have to take issue with you contention that having Wallace has stopped our coaching staff from developing young players. a) I believe that the NBA season is a time when a team should be doing everything it can to win games, b) I believe player development occurs primarily during practice and the off-season, not during NBA games, and c) I believe the young bigs have been and are benefitting from playing against guys like Wallace in practice, and d) If management and the coaching staff were to decide that the young bigs should play more, all they have to do is sit Wallace down and play the young guys. Wallace's mere presence on the roster need not be stopping anything.

His contract could become detrimental to us keeping far better players whether that ends up being true or not we'll find out this summer.

Yes, we will. Keep in mind also, I believe I read here that the summer Wallace's contract expires is the same summer there is a pretty strong crop of UFA's. So even if Gordon is lost for nothing (which I still do not think will happen), it might not be the end of the world.

Their financial flexibility vs their revenue is probably the lowest in all of professional sports.

I realize that has been a topic of discussion on this board, and I, for one, just don't get it. Financial decisions get made all the time in pro sports. The Dallas Mavericks, owned by Mark Cuban (one of the richest owners in the league) let a subsequent league multiple league MVP player leave in free agency for financial reasons. The Phoenix Suns have literally given away their last several first round draft picks rather than have to pay them. The Detroit Pistons rolled the dice and let the face of their franchise walk away in free agency for financial reasons (do the Pistons beat the Cavs and maybe the Spurs last year with Ben Wallace?).

Since John Paxson became GM, the Bulls, to my knowledge, have not lost a single player they truly wanted to keep. The only situation that is even debatable is the Chandler trade, and there is split opinion on whether that was strictly a salary dump or was more of a basketball related move (or probably a little of both).

[bullzman23]

It was a bad signing, but I don't think it has been quite that bad.

Having Ben Wallace at this point, in my opinion is a detriment to our future even if he was being paid 5 million per year. He has not played well, and has stopped our coaching staff from developing younger players.

His contract could become detrimental to us keeping far better players whether that ends up being true or not we'll find out this summer.

When you use up an asset like 15 million in cap space and come up with a negative asset that could potentially be a very negative asset then you have made one of the worst moves imaginable IMO.

Granted, some people may like Wallace and view him as a positive outside of his contract. I'm not one of those people. I think he's a negative for our franchise regardless of his contract, and his contract only makes it worse.

I think that says more about our coaching staff than about Wallace or Paxson. There is most definitely a way to develop our players while giving both Wallace and Thomas PT. I don't think Noah should be an issue. He's a rookie and it should have been expected that he wouldn't get playing time. Gray was a surprise so we can't really be upset with the coaching staff being unprepared to give him minutes.

I don't agree with Kneepad's notion that most of the development comes from practice. Obviously practice is important, but you really learn from actually getting experience. You don't learn to drive by watching others doing it. You learn by actually getting on the road and driving yourself. Basketball is the same.

Anyway, Wallace playing shouldn't = No PT for youngsters. I've come up with depth/minute distribution charts in the past. There's a way to play Thomas at least 20 minutes while giving Wallace, Smith, and Noce minutes.

[ptpablo]

It is a detriment when the young players are just as productive and need eevelopment and he gets entitlement minutes. Noah, Gray, and TT are more active and better players at this point in all of their careers. Let them play and call this signing a loss.

[dougthonus]

I have to take issue with you contention that having Wallace has stopped our coaching staff from developing young players. a) I believe that the NBA season is a time when a team should be doing everything it can to win games,

I agree, but I don't think we are doing what we can. Ben Wallace has the lowest PER of any big man on the team. He sucks balls almost every game. When he leaves the game, the team plays notably better, but our coaching staff sticks with him.

The younger players would give us a better chance to win and develop if they were used, but they aren't because we have Ben Wallace. Our coaching staff is too driven to pound out mistakes that t he young guys make to appreciate the total impact that they have on the court. If Tyrus Thomas makes 2 athletic ally oop dunks and misses a defensive assignment, he'll get pulled. If Wallace picks up his assignment, bu this man scores on him anyway, then misses 2 layups in the flow of the offense, he'll stay in the game.

b) I believe player development occurs primarily during practice and the off-season, not during NBA games, and

I've argued this point with a few others, but I disagree. I've talked with people who have been to NBA practices, and they said in general, the amount of learning you do during the season is very minimal in practice. Teams don't really have that much time to practice and are usually focused on their opponents.

c) I believe the young bigs have been and are benefitting from playing against guys like Wallace in practice, and

I've seen no evidence of this. Wallace does not seem like the 'take a guy under his wing' type. He certainly isn't testing them defensively in any way because he has no offense.

d) If management and the coaching staff were to decide that the young bigs should play more, all they have to do is sit Wallace down and play the young guys. Wallace's mere presence on the roster need not be stopping anything.

It doesn't need to stop anything, but it has anyway. If we had a coach who felt rewarded playing time based on total impact rather than purely adding up mistakes (where missed shots do not count as mistakes) then having Ben Wallace on the roster would be no problem at all. We don't have such a coaching staff.

[Bulls_MIT]

I'll take it a step further: IMO Ben Wallace is a cancer to this team.

He's supposed to be our leader, at least our defensive leader. He's a mope. He's like Eddy Curry all over again.

There's no energy, no heart, no spirit, no life. And it's contageous.