Bulls are Cheap - Paxson Comes Clean Again

Addicted123 · Post #1 » by **Addicted123** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:20 pm

"......it's happened to me all the time when I've talked to teams. Sometimes ownership will come in and say that's not the direction we want to go (or), financially, that doesn't make sense."

http://stations.espn.go.com/stations/espnradio1000/

Paxson better watch out or he will be the next one to go after Skiles if he keeps going after the big man. Paxson seems to want the media to understand that his hands are tied with many decisions concerning the Bulls' roster. I'm sure it drives him crazy when he hears himself get blamed for falling in love with his team and not pulling the trigger on certain deals when he was likely forced into the decision by Rein$dorf and his money-making pals.

I hope it is no longer a debate about Rein$dorf's role in roster decisions. Many liked to argue on this board that he was a hands-off owner and simply acted as the leading chairman for the ownership group.

What is most telling from the interview is the "that's not the direction we want to go" comment. So even if Paxson found a deal that was acceptable under Rein$dorf's strict financial terms, Paxson's hands were still tied b/c ownership determined "that's not the direction we want to go." :nonono:

I think the Bulls have created one of the worst ownership cultures in the entire NBA. I have railed against Paxson for many of his moves and non-moves, but the bigger blame is with ownership. In many ways, I sympathize with the position Paxson is in. It is no wonder why it looks like he has aged 20 years since taking over the GM position.

Post #2 » by **Ben** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:26 pm

I have long maintained that Pax has had his hands tied, or his moves forced, by ownership. The Chandler salary dump was just one example. Pax has his own mistakes to answer for, such as passing over LA and Brewer, but he's also made a bunch of good moves within the parameters available to him.

The Bulls ownership reminds me a bit of the way the Cubs used to be (but are no longer): they were assured of selling out their games and making lots of TV and cable revenue so they didn't care about spending the extra $$ it'd take to build a winner.

The Cubs now spend; they just can't overcome the Curse. :lol:

bentheredengthat · Post #3 » by **bentheredengthat** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:28 pm

I didn't listen to the interview, but even out of context it sounds like he's talking about the OTHER teams ownership.

TB#1 · Post #4 » by **TB#1** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:28 pm

"Doesn't make financial sense" isn't the same thing as cheap. The Bulls may indeed be cheap, but what Paxson ways there isn't any evidence of anything. It is pretty much an answer you would expect from any GM who is willing to discuss what they talk about with other teams.

And as always, the "replace the 's' in Reinsdorf's name with a dollar sign" running gag is more annoying than funny.

bentheredengthat · Post #5 » by **bentheredengthat** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:33 pm

Where did that quote come from - now that I commented, I might as well read the source.

JeremyB0001 · Post #6 » by **JeremyB0001** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:33 pm

bentheredengthat wrote:I didn't listen to the interview, but even out of context it sounds like he's talking about the OTHER teams ownership.

That's what I was thinking.

kyrv · Post #7 » by **kyrv** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:33 pm

TB#1 wrote:"Doesn't make financial sense" isn't the same thing as cheap. The Bulls may indeed be cheap, but what Paxson ways there isn't any evidence of anything. It is pretty much an answer you would expect from any GM who is willing to discuss what they talk about with other teams.

And as always, the "replace the 's' in Reinsdorf's name with a dollar sign" running gag is more annoying than funny.

Agreed.

Wait, you mean the Bulls have a budget and are trying to be fiscally responsible?

No way!

You mean there is a salary cap, so move X can make move Y impossible?

No way!

Magilla_Gorilla · Post #8 » by **Magilla_Gorilla** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:35 pm

Sounds like he is talking about the other teams ownership. But what do I know?

kyrv · Post #9 » by **kyrv** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:37 pm

Ben B. wrote:I have long maintained that Pax has had his hands tied, or his moves forced, by ownership. The Chandler salary dump was just one example. Pax has his own mistakes to answer for, such as passing over LA and Brewer, but he's also made a bunch of good moves within the parameters available to him.

The Bulls ownership reminds me a bit of the way the Cubs used to be (but are no longer): they were assured of selling out their games and making lots of TV and cable revenue so they didn't care about spending the extra $$ it'd take to build a winner.

The Cubs now spend; they just can't overcome the Curse.

The Curse of bad ownership/management?

Addicted123 · Post #10 » by **Addicted123** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:37 pm

TB#1 wrote:"Doesn't make financial sense" isn't the same thing as cheap. The Bulls may indeed be cheap, but what Paxson ways there isn't any evidence of anything. It is pretty much an answer you would expect from any GM who is willing to discuss what they talk about with other teams.

No, it is basically the same thing because he prefaced it by saying that AFTER he would reach a point in a deal, ownership would come in and say that doesn't make financial sense. The question is, does anything except filling the rosters with the cheapest contracts possible make financial sense to the #1 earning franchise in the NBA?

This is about as much as Paxson can say without getting into trouble with Rein$dorf. He cannot comment on specific deals struck down, but I'm sure there have been a few. What more can a GM say? Paxson is limited in how he can comment on ownership so having made these little hints in various interviews about "limitations" is very telling. Note, Paxson was never directly asked about financial limitations. It is always Paxson who brings it up. It must be killing him inside.

TB#1 wrote:And as always, the "replace the 's' in Reinsdorf's name with a dollar sign" running gag is more annoying than funny.

It's not meant to be funny. The Bulls' ownership headed by Rein$dorf is anything but funny to me.

kyrv · Post #11 » by **kyrv** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:39 pm

Lol, well that's quite a liberal translation there.

musiqsoulchild · Post #12 » by **musiqsoulchild** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:45 pm

This is one of the reasons why I dont blame Pax for this seasons debacle.

Its soleley on management. But from their POV, they are sitting pretty with league leading profits etal.

Post #13 » by **DASMACKDOWN** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:48 pm

I dont have a problem with being financially responsible. No one wants to have the Knicks type payroll.

Friend_Of_Haley · Post #14 » by **Friend_Of_Haley** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 4:51 pm

Ah, this isn't all that exciting. I was hoping to hear definitively that we could or couldn't spend the luxury tax, ever. I'm really starting to wonder if it is a strict limitation or if we can go slightly over.

Addicted123 · Post #15 » by **Addicted123** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:47 pm

Friend_Of_Haley wrote:Ah, this isn't all that exciting. I was hoping to hear definitively that we could or couldn't spend the luxury tax, ever. I'm really starting to wonder if it is a strict limitation or if we can go slightly over.

The better question is can the Bulls even go slightly BELOW the luxury tax. How many times in the last decade post-Jordan have the Bulls even been close to the luxury tax?

I believe ownership would spend over the luxury tax, but it would have to be an incredible series of events where they are basically backed into a corner in the face of public perception...... kind of like how ownership was forced to cave into Jordan's salary. Just think, some of the most die-hard fans are on this board and ownership still has been able to convince them that the Chandler trade was "responsible" and not an ill-advised salary dump in order to avoid risking going over the luxury tax in years to follow.

Bulls69 · Post #16 » by **Bulls69** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:03 pm

Ben B. wrote:I have long maintained that Pax has had his hands tied, or his moves forced, by ownership. The Chandler salary dump was just one example. Pax has his own mistakes to answer for, such as passing over LA and Brewer, but he's also made a bunch of good moves within the parameters available to him.

The Bulls ownership reminds me a bit of the way the Cubs used to be (but are no longer): they were assured of selling out their games and making lots of TV and cable revenue so they didn't care about spending the extra $$ it'd take to build a winner.

The Cubs now spend; they just can't overcome the Curse.

Please leave my Cubbies out of it lol....

NLK · Post #17 » by **NLK** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:50 pm

I've always felt that Reinsdorf was the guy pushing for Ben Wallace not Pax or Skiles. Reins needs to hurry up and pass on. He's more concerned about winning world series championships with the white sox (well, money is first objective actually).

The Evidence · Post #18 » by **The Evidence** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 6:58 pm

So should I prepare for a boycott of the Bulls in hopes of diminishing their profitability, which in turn, would force Reinsdork and his cronies to sell?

Post #19 » by **Ben** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:00 pm

kyrv wrote:The Curse of bad ownership/management?

That's just it. The Cubs haven't always had bad ownership. They've been spending big money in the past few years and they've had some good managers over the years, too. The Bartman debacle was not ownership's fault, and the Marlins went on to beat the Yankees.

I don't want to get into a big Cubs thing here, since we have a board for that, but I'll just say that it's nigh well impossible to blame THAT many years of futility simply to bad ownership/management, especially when for some of the time their ownership has spent liberally.

Back to the Bulls' ownership: I don't know how you can take a refusal to pay luxury tax when you're one of the most lucrative franchises in all of basketball as anything but cheapness. It's beyond fiscal responsibility. I think that JeremyB001 made this point a while back and I agreed with it: to me, sports ownership is at least as much of a privilege, that comes with duties, as it is a simple business enterprise. With a car dealership you don't have thousands or millions of people eating their hearts out over your business' fortunes. A sports team is tied to a city's (and many of its citizens') identity, and if you treat it simply as an instrument with which to maximize your private profits then IMO you're something like an emotional vampire.

I don't know the full details of Reinsdorf's and the rest of the Bulls owners' attitude toward spending, of course, so part of what I'm saying is at the level of general principle.

babblin-on · Post #20 » by **babblin-on** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:36 pm

Does anybody else feel kind of lied to as a fan when the prospect of losing valued players for nothing comes up in the name of "fiscal responsibility"?

Wasn't Pax's line during 04-05 that we would resign Chanlder and Curry(I support the Curry trade for the record), keep the rest of the young core, and sign a big free agent come summer of 06'? That they'd pay for a winner?

Then when summer of 06' came around, we sign the big free agent, but salary dump Chandler, because all of a sudden we couldn't , sign a big free agent and keep Chandler around while signing the other young guys.

Then, when this season's Kobe talks break down, Pax possibly makes reference to how finances might have played a role in deal not going down.

Now, there's rumors of Nocioni and Sefolosha being traded, with the main result seemingly(to me at least) being dumping Nocioni's salary.