Simmons: Reinsdorf Runs Bulls Like Small Market Team

[Betta Bulleavit]

Was Bill lying though?

That's exactly what I thought to myself when I saw it live, and exactly what I thought when I watched the youtube clip here a year later. Bill said nothing wrong in this statement.

Before that night, Bill Simmons stated that Doc Rivers "quit" on the Celtics; sensationalizing what had actually happened. It was the Celtics FO that had effectively quit on that unit as it was constructed (with good reason) and wanted to start the rebuild. Doc didn't want to be a part of that and the two parties mutually went their separate ways. That's much different that the message that Simmons was trying to push. He started a smear campaign on Doc based on a situation that was set in motion by the organization.

[musiqsoulchild]

Arguably the four most successful franchises in the NBA today are San Antonio, Miami, Indiana, and Oklahoma City. How big of markets are they? Compare that to the three biggest markets in the NBA - Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York. Of the four teams in those markets, two didn't even make the playoffs and neither of the two playoff teams even made it to the Conference Finals.

What does "small market" even mean anymore? Is San Antonio a huge market? They don't even have an NFL team. How about Oklahoma City? One of them will make it the Finals. Maybe we should operate like a small market considering the league's most successful franchises are from small markets.

Simmons has become increasingly annoying.

Yes and yes.

Also, something about Simmons is not sitting right with me. I think he has developed serious hemorrhoids in the last few months.

You can see it on TV...he appears to be seething with rage and angst....its comical

[sonny]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g12tzdqCRHM[/youtube]

Like what Doc said, Simmons is an idiot.

Was Bill lying though?

That's exactly what I thought to myself when I saw it live, and exactly what I thought when I watched the youtube clip here a year later. Bill said nothing wrong in this statement.

Doc's story on what actually happened kept changing and they didn't match up with Boston's side.

The idea that Boston didn't want to pay a coach 7M to rebuild is ridiculous.

[HomoSapien]

It's interesting to me that about 60% of the board shares that same opinion that the Bulls are run like a small market team, but that when Simmons says it everyone calls foul and yells conspiracy!

[MAQ]

It's interesting to me that about 60% of the board shares that same opinion that the Bulls are run like a small market team, but that when Simmons says it everyone calls foul and yells conspiracy!

I think it's because Bill is trying to pry our coach away from us too...That story + this one gets no one to listen to him around these parts.

[HomoSapien]

It's interesting to me that about 60% of the board shares that same opinion that the Bulls are run like a small market team, but that when Simmons says it everyone calls foul and yells conspiracy!

I think it's because Bill is trying to pry our coach away from us too...That story + this one gets no one to listen to him around these parts.

People keep saying that, but what power does Bill have in actually souring the relationship between Thibs and the FO? I get how a smear campaign could affect Melo and Love, but Thibs is either under contract or he's not. That's not going to change because of Simmons.

[Betta Bulleavit]

It's interesting to me that about 60% of the board shares that same opinion that the Bulls are run like a small market team, but that when Simmons says it everyone calls foul and yells conspiracy!

I am of the opinion that the Bulls are run like a business..not a small market team. There is a difference between the two. And that is why I disagree with Simmons. That along with the fact that he seems to be making a name for himself at the moment by constantly poking at a large market team that happens to be more relevant than the one that he typically roots for.

[Betta Bulleavit]

It's interesting to me that about 60% of the board shares that same opinion that the Bulls are run like a small market team, but that when Simmons says it everyone calls foul and yells conspiracy!

I think it's because Bill is trying to pry our coach away from us too...That story + this one gets no one to listen to him around these parts.

People keep saying that, but what power does Bill have in actually souring the relationship between Thibs and the FO? I get how a smear campaign could affect Melo and Love, but Thibs is either under contract or he's not. That's not going to change because of Simmons.

It makes a difference when you root for a team that could conceivably have a chance at putting a package together that could lure one of those players to your team. Does it not help to get on a national stage and do everything possible to make a perceived competitor of your team look like a horrible..poorly run organization?

[HomoSapien]

I think it's because Bill is trying to pry our coach away from us too...That story + this one gets no one to listen to him around these parts.

People keep saying that, but what power does Bill have in actually souring the relationship between Thibs and the FO? I get how a smear campaign could affect Melo and Love, but Thibs is either under contract or he's not. That's not going to change because of Simmons.

It makes a difference when you root for a team that could conceivably have a chance at putting a package together that could lure one of those players to your team. Does it not help to get on a national stage and do everything possible to make a perceived competitor of your team look like a horrible..poorly run organization?

I share the opinion that we are an average to poorly run organization, so it's hard for me to blame Simmons for pointing this out.

Question: Are small market teams not run like a business?

[sonny]

That's exactly what I thought to myself when I saw it live, and exactly what I thought when I watched the youtube clip here a year later. Bill said nothing wrong in this statement.

Before that night, Bill Simmons stated that Doc Rivers "quit" on the Celtics; sensationalizing what had actually happened. It was the Celtics FO that had effectively quit on that unit as it was constructed (with good reason) and wanted to start the rebuild. Doc didn't want to be a part of that and the two parties mutually went their separate ways. That's much different that the message that Simmons was trying to push. He started a smear campaign on Doc based on a situation that was set in motion by the organization.

From Doc:

http://greenstreet.weei.com/sports/bost ... ton-media/

“We had a lot of success there, and I had a great run, an absolutely fantastic run in Boston, but sometimes you just feel like your gig is up. And I really felt that. My gig was not up with the city or with the fans. I just thought it was time to make a change team-wise. My feelings have never changed with the fans there.”

“That was my intention, and I don’t know what changed. It wasn’t anything that Danny or Wyc or ownership did or anything the players did. It clearly wasn’t the city. I just felt like I needed to change my voice.”

“I just thought that, after nine years, I didn’t know if my job had run its course in Boston. That’s where the change came. Honestly, I thought I would be a coach there forever, but it got to a point with me that I just felt strong about it. It was nothing that anyone did. It was nothing that Danny did. I thought what may have irritated Danny at some point was that I just couldn’t give him an answer.”

“I didn’t know the answer, and I told him that. I said I didn’t know if I was coming back. This is what started everything. I said, ‘What can I do to help you?’ And he said, ‘Well, you can make a decision or there are other teams that we can possibly make a deal with, and then we can get something for you, because just leaving doesn’t help us.’”

“But I can tell you it had nothing to do with their age. I told Danny, ‘Man, I just don’t know if my heart’s in the rebuilding, but I don’t know if it’s not.’”

“I just needed time to just get through losing this year, and I just needed more time. We hadn’t been knocked out this early in a while, and it just kind of rocked me a little bit. I just wanted time, so it’s funny — I never thought about Paul, Ray, Kevin, where they were at in their careers or anything.”

I just wanted to make sure I was ready and into doing the job. Again, Danny and I talked about it, and I can’t do something if my heart’s not right. I can’t do it. And I wasn’t sure yet.

From Boston's management:

http://greenstreet.weei.com/sports/bost ... vers-saga/

Ainge scripted a clear timeline of what led to The Indecision this past week, when discussion with the Clippers about compensation for allowing Rivers to walk from the three years and $21 million left on his contract heated and cooled several times. Ultimately, Ainge landed an unprotected 2015 first-round pick for Rivers.

May 3: The Celtics lost to the Knicks, and to Ainge’s surprise Rivers expressed concern about returning.
May 8: Ainge approached a still hesitant Rivers, who asked what his options might be moving forward.
May 9: The Celtics sent Rivers a letter alerting the coach they expected him to fulfill his contract.
“In subsequent weeks”: A still uncertain Rivers expressed to Ainge his interest in the Clippers’ opening.

Doc’s going to a great situation — a place he chose to go and a place he wants to be. It’s not a place that I chose for him to go or a place that I want him to be.

“I’ve been around this game long enough to know that we’re all replaceable,” added Ainge. “I think Doc’s grateful for his nine years here, and he’s looking for a new chapter. He felt like it was time for a change. I think he felt like, in his opinion, we all needed a change. That was his rationalization or justification of him going to the Clippers.”

“Doc felt that a change would be good for our current players,” said Ainge, “that maybe a new voice would be better.”

“When we signed Doc to the highest-paid coaching contract in the NBA a couple years ago, we knew the ages of our players, and we knew that we would be at a phase — maybe it would’ve been last year, maybe this year, maybe next year — that a time for rebuild would be in store, and we talked about that,” said Ainge. “At that time, before it hit him, he was all on board, and I thought like I did do a very good sales job on Doc at that time. Maybe he did a sales job on me. We knew that this time was coming. Everybody knows.”

[Rerisen]

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.

[musiqsoulchild]

I am excited to hear Simmons thoughts on money management of big market teams like the Nets and the Knicks.

That is a fair comment. A good one. The Bulls are superior in that respect. At the same time, I am not sure about the win first then pay approach either. Some kind of compromise has to be made, otherwise you are not making things happen. You are waiting for things to happen like kismet. No, I think you might also have to be willing to make a trade that projects you over the cap, or even way over and into the lux tax before you actually win first in a big market where your profit and support is built in no matter what. Or, instead you can keep dumping salary overboard year after year and hope Jordan Grant Oakley and Pippen are going to fall from the sky into your lap.

The ONLY reason a business spends more money is to make more money. There is no other reason. Nor should there be. Even Mark Cuban, the ultimate fanboy GM/owner scaled down payroll dramatically, AFTER winning a championship.

Thats the first responsibility --- making a profit. This is not just a Bulls mandate; its an NBA fiduciary responsibility. Thats why there are revenue-sharing and LT-sharing clauses in the NBA.

Contrast that sharply with what motivates you and me as it relates to the Bulls, Fleet. We want our team to win. Thats it....and to a storied franchise like the Bulls, we want it all. We want the chips, the banners, the accolades, the bragging rights on these boards. We want all of these things.

Only some of these things translate into revenue for the ownership though. And that too at a diminishing returns scale. The 75th million we spend is not going to make us better than if we spent 74 Million.\

My major complaint with the Bulls financial-roster decisions is that we tend to over-pay safe assets and let go of risky assets. In theory that's a good principle, but sometimes (rarely) you have to let the risk play out.

[Betta Bulleavit]

People keep saying that, but what power does Bill have in actually souring the relationship between Thibs and the FO? I get how a smear campaign could affect Melo and Love, but Thibs is either under contract or he's not. That's not going to change because of Simmons.

It makes a difference when you root for a team that could conceivably have a chance at putting a package together that could lure one of those players to your team. Does it not help to get on a national stage and do everything possible to make a perceived competitor of your team look like a horrible..poorly run organization?

I share the opinion that we are an average to poorly run organization, so it's hard for me to blame Simmons for pointing this out.

Question: Are small market teams not run like a business?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter but I just don't see how this organization is anywhere near poorly run. Sure, better decisions could have been made. But generally speaking, I feel like the Bulls have been very well run.

To address your second question, yes and no. Small market teams tend to make personnel decisions based on dollar savings where as business like teams make such decisions based on profit maximization. What that means is that they will spend money but they are very selective about how they do it. Again, there is a subtle difference between the two. The Bulls tend to act more like the latter.

[Rerisen]

It's interesting to me that about 60% of the board shares that same opinion that the Bulls are run like a small market team, but that when Simmons says it everyone calls foul and yells conspiracy!

People are holding out hope on this summer, Homo, its the true test of all the mumbo jumbo about paying for a winner, or reinvesting from the Deng trade, etc.

If they fail to achieve anything of note, then his words will be cemented much more. But its premature for him to rail about Deng, or conclude we are ditching Thibs because we are cheap and dumb.

[DJhitek]

It's interesting to me that about 60% of the board shares that same opinion that the Bulls are run like a small market team, but that when Simmons says it everyone calls foul and yells conspiracy!

I came in here to post this very thing....

[Peelboy]

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.

How about "we didn't want to pay Nate because we knew we could find similar production cheaper?" I.e. DJ. Same for DJ - Bulls have shown that under Thibs they can take undervalued guys and make them productive. That makes it SMART, not cheap to continue to do so rather than dumping a ton of money into what for them is an easily replaceable player. Have they lost games because they didn't have Nate but instead DJ - I don't think so (and that ignores the fact that part of letting Nate go was having a healthy Rose eating up the minutes, changing the needs and minutes available and making investing in other areas more valuable).

As for Korver, they didn't get rid of him to save $500K, IIRC that was the guaranteed portion of his contract but had they kept him he'd have cost $5M. The $500K was just what they'd owe him if they cut him. (Correct me if I'm wrong here.) If the choice was "trade him or cut him and pay him $500K," then they would have been stupid to keep him. A choice being "keep him at $5M or use $5M elsewhere" is a resource allocation question not a "being cheap" question and given Rose being out for the year/the team likely struggling to make the playoffs it makes a lot of sense to build not for 2012-13 but for 13-14 when Rose was supposed to be back.

Bulls salaries bing at or near the top of the league tells you a lot more than these individual moves. It's definitely cheap to take a team that can/should contend and dump salaries without reinvesting the savings in other assets/players. It's not cheap to direct assets to more productive uses or to hoard assets (maximize flexibility) for a team that isn't contending. All of the "cheap" complaints assume that a)there's an unlimited pot of money/no salary cap restrictions and b)that management should have forseen that even without Rose the Bulls could/would have contended (although contend for what I still don't know - even beating Washington we weren't going to get past Miami and maybe even not Indiana).

[Rerisen]

Re: Korver/Asik

Rose was actually expected back before the end of 2013, apparently by March via some rumors.

Yet Jerry also was one of the guys that was ok with Rose sitting out the whole year, in fact, almost seeming to endorse it with his comments about MJ.

You have to wonder if Rose missing the year was really all decided at the very top before the season when Korver and Asik were lost.

We always say they were let go because Rose got hurt, but Rose was expected to be there before the playoffs based just on the medical timetable and words from Gar, Pax, & Thibs - thus if he did come back, we could have used Kyle and Omer.

So, was Jerry the one that scuttled the season, and in doing so, green lighted Rose's super cautious comeback, realizing they had decided the team was not going for it long before? And then que Reggie's rant in response. Reggie never initially wanted his brother to miss the season, in fact, said he definitely wasn't the day after the surgery.

Makes you think.

[Betta Bulleavit]

Before that night, Bill Simmons stated that Doc Rivers "quit" on the Celtics; sensationalizing what had actually happened. It was the Celtics FO that had effectively quit on that unit as it was constructed (with good reason) and wanted to start the rebuild. Doc didn't want to be a part of that and the two parties mutually went their separate ways. That's much different that the message that Simmons was trying to push. He started a smear campaign on Doc based on a situation that was set in motion by the organization.

From Doc:

http://greenstreet.weei.com/sports/bost ... ton-media/

“We had a lot of success there, and I had a great run, an absolutely fantastic run in Boston, but sometimes you just feel like your gig is up. And I really felt that. My gig was not up with the city or with the fans. I just thought it was time to make a change team-wise. My feelings have never changed with the fans there.”

“That was my intention, and I don’t know what changed. It wasn’t anything that Danny or Wyc or ownership did or anything the players did. It clearly wasn’t the city. I just felt like I needed to change my voice.”

“I just thought that, after nine years, I didn’t know if my job had run its course in Boston. That’s where the change came. Honestly, I thought I would be a coach there forever, but it got to a point with me that I just felt strong about it. It was nothing that anyone did. It was nothing that Danny did. I thought what may have irritated Danny at some point was that I just couldn’t give him an answer.”

“I didn’t know the answer, and I told him that. I said I didn’t know if I was coming back. This is what started everything. I said, ‘What can I do to help you?’ And he said, ‘Well, you can make a decision or there are other teams that we can possibly make a deal with, and then we can get something for you, because just leaving doesn’t help us.’”

“But I can tell you it had nothing to do with their age. I told Danny, ‘Man, I just don’t know if my heart’s in the rebuilding, but I don’t know if it’s not.’”

“I just needed time to just get through losing this year, and I just needed more time. We hadn’t been knocked out this early in a while, and it just kind of rocked me a little bit. I just wanted time, so it’s funny — I never thought about Paul, Ray, Kevin, where they were at in their careers or anything.”

I just wanted to make sure I was ready and into doing the job. Again, Danny and I talked about it, and I can’t do something if my heart’s not right. I can’t do it. And I wasn’t sure yet.

From Boston's management:

http://greenstreet.weei.com/sports/bost ... vers-saga/

Ainge scripted a clear timeline of what led to The Indecision this past week, when discussion with the Clippers about compensation for allowing Rivers to walk from the three years and $21 million left on his contract heated and cooled several times. Ultimately, Ainge landed an unprotected 2015 first-round pick for Rivers.

May 3: The Celtics lost to the Knicks, and to Ainge’s surprise Rivers expressed concern about returning.
May 8: Ainge approached a still hesitant Rivers, who asked what his options might be moving forward.
May 9: The Celtics sent Rivers a letter alerting the coach they expected him to fulfill his contract.
“In subsequent weeks”: A still uncertain Rivers expressed to Ainge his interest in the Clippers’ opening.

Doc’s going to a great situation — a place he chose to go and a place he wants to be. It’s not a place that I chose for him to go or a place that I want him to be.

“I’ve been around this game long enough to know that we’re all replaceable,” added Ainge. “I think Doc’s grateful for his nine years here, and he’s looking for a new chapter. He felt like it was time for a change. I think he felt like, in his opinion, we all needed a change. That was his rationalization or justification of him going to the Clippers.”

“Doc felt that a change would be good for our current players,” said Ainge, “that maybe a new voice would be better.”

“When we signed Doc to the highest-paid coaching contract in the NBA a couple years ago, we knew the ages of our players, and we knew that we would be at a phase — maybe it would’ve been last year, maybe this year, maybe next year — that a time for rebuild would be in store, and we talked about that,” said Ainge. “At that time, before it hit him, he was all on board, and I thought like I did do a very good sales job on Doc at that time. Maybe he did a sales job on me. We knew that this time was coming. Everybody knows.”

First, thanks for posting that as it contained some information that I wasn't really aware of. Based on that, I could see how Simmons may have gotten the idea that Doc had given up on the Celtics. However, I still feel like his departure was due more to not wanting to be a part of a rebuild rather than quitting on the team as it was constructed.

[dougthonus]

The last one being 4 seasons ago.

In a world of perfect parity, you'd win a title once every 30 years, so the Lakers winning four years ago hasn't exactly been a poor achievement, five titles in the past 13 years sets the up to have won their allotment of titles for the next 150 years.

the financial climate in the NBA is spectacularly different now than it was then.

Okay....

I'm not the one who brought up the Lakers as a loser franchise who's sucks despite spending lots of money. You are. It was a ridiculously false statement to make. I don't know why you said it. The Lakers are probably in the top 10 in total wins over any five year period in the history of the NBA, probably top five in most five year periods.

p.s. i think some guy named Kobe had more to do with that than the front office throwing money around.

Sure, so did some other dudes named Shaq, Gasol, Odom, Bynum, and a host of other role players that they were able to assemble and keep together because they were willing to spend huge amounts of money.

I'm not saying that spending = winning. You need good decision making too. However, good decision making at 90 million will probably trump good decision making at 70 million most times. There are obviously some caveats to that when you bring in guys who are artificially underpriced (like LeBron on a 15 million dollar deal or something).

[Stratmaster]

It's interesting to me that about 60% of the board shares that same opinion that the Bulls are run like a small market team, but that when Simmons says it everyone calls foul and yells conspiracy!

People are holding out hope on this summer, Homo, its the true test of all the mumbo jumbo about paying for a winner, or reinvesting from the Deng trade, etc.

If they fail to achieve anything of note, then his words will be cemented much more. But its premature for him to rail about Deng, or conclude we are ditching Thibs because we are cheap and dumb.

To some extent I agree. However, the thought that if the Bulls don't get Melo or Love (not what you said, i know) they are failures is as misguided as thinking that they were failures for not getting LBJ/Bosh/Wade.

In the case of Love, it takes three to Tango, and in the case of Melo, I still don't really believe he plans on leaving NY... but of course I have no way of knowing ... just my guess.