Simmons: Reinsdorf Runs Bulls Like Small Market Team

[transplant]

So the Bulls go over the luxury tax one time and people in this thread are acting like that's the rule and not the exception?

Give me a break.

Call them cheap or call them thrifty if it makes you feel better, but Simmons is dead on. Every decision they have made since the luxury tax has started has been based on finances.

Why sign Hinrich for $4mil per rather than take $4mil more profit?

Why re-sign Gibson, a bench player, to a $33mil contract?

Why sign Dunleavy for $3+mil/season?

Why didn't management at least make a mild attempt to get Rose for something less than the absolute max?

In general, why have the Bulls used every MLE, MMLE and BAE they've had in the past 15 years? You know, they didn't have to.

I've got more if you want 'em. The notion that "every decision they (Bulls management) have made since the luxury tax has started has been based on finances" is so mind-numbingly uninformed that I had trouble typing this response.

And besides, it's not like Simmons is the only one with this opinion. It's pretty much the national perception of the Bulls and Reinsdorf.

Nope, Simmons isn't alone and you may be right that his opinion syncs up with the national perception. If that's enough for you, then I guess there's no point searching for the truth.

[coldfish]

Up until now, the Bulls have frequently spent less than they could have and certainly less than their market. That doesn't necessarily make them small market but it does make them look cheap. The people who defend Jerry don't want to look at it from a macro viewpoint because that's pretty ugly. They want to break it up into a bunch of spending decisions which makes it look better, certainly.

We will have another such litmus test this year. The Bulls probably are not getting Carmelo or Love. That is going to leave them with an amnesty decision on Boozer. Amnestying him will only cost them a few million dollars net but there are reports that Reinsdorf really doesn't want to do it.

If the Bulls refuse to amnesty Boozer or even worse, give away a pick or something just to save the cost of doing it, it will be a rather large piece of evidence that the Bulls value profits far more than team value or other teams do.

I do think that Chicago's unique ownership structure hurts the team in this regard. It sure looks like a bunch of different partial owners use the Bulls as a cash cow where yearly profits are required. Other team owners look at the team as a long term asset, much like a growth stock and are just looking to maximize franchise value.

[Rusty Walrus]

Why sign Hinrich for $4mil per rather than take $4mil more profit?

Why re-sign Gibson, a bench player, to a $33mil contract?

Why sign Dunleavy for $3+mil/season?

Why didn't management at least make a mild attempt to get Rose for something less than the absolute max?

In general, why have the Bulls used every MLE, MMLE and BAE they've had in the past 15 years? You know, they didn't have to.

I've got more if you want 'em. The notion that "every decision they (Bulls management) have made since the luxury tax has started has been based on finances" is so mind-numbingly uninformed that I had trouble typing this response.

You missed the part about the luxury tax, but let's not pay attention to details right?

The Bulls have historically made pesonnel decisions based on avoiding the luxury tax. Is that better?

Should I be happy that the Bulls resigned Rose? Is that some proof of them acting like a big market franchise?

Here's some proof they haven't.

http://data.shamsports.com/media/luxurytax.jpg

[TheStig]

Up until now, the Bulls have frequently spent less than they could have and certainly less than their market. That doesn't necessarily make them small market but it does make them look cheap. The people who defend Jerry don't want to look at it from a macro viewpoint because that's pretty ugly. They want to break it up into a bunch of spending decisions which makes it look better, certainly.

We will have another such litmus test this year. The Bulls probably are not getting Carmelo or Love. That is going to leave them with an amnesty decision on Boozer. Amnestying him will only cost them a few million dollars net but there are reports that Reinsdorf really doesn't want to do it.

If the Bulls refuse to amnesty Boozer or even worse, give away a pick or something just to save the cost of doing it, it will be a rather large piece of evidence that the Bulls value profits far more than team value or other teams do.

I do think that Chicago's unique ownership structure hurts the team in this regard. It sure looks like a bunch of different partial owners use the Bulls as a cash cow where yearly profits are required. Other team owners look at the team as a long term asset, much like a growth stock and are just looking to maximize franchise value.

Quite the optimist.

[Red Larrivee]

Gimme a break, Simmons. This narrative is old, beaten, and still false. Move on.

It's not the first we've seen a writer or insider speak on it though. I would guess that within the NBA, there are a lot of people who feel the same way, but ultimately probably still respect Reinsdorf. There are only two owners in the NBA who've owned their franchise longer than Reinsdorf.

The fact that this has always been a stereotype about the Bulls isn't good. Worse is that we've never done anything to make people believe otherwise. Other agents and players are going to say "Why would you want to go to Chicago? They don't spend to win."

[transplant]

Up until now, the Bulls have frequently spent less than they could have and certainly less than their market. That doesn't necessarily make them small market but it does make them look cheap. The people who defend Jerry don't want to look at it from a macro viewpoint because that's pretty ugly. They want to break it up into a bunch of spending decisions which makes it look better, certainly.

Hmm. Sounds like what I just did in the post immediately before yours, fish.

"Macro viewpoint." That sounds pretty learned. Could you please expound on that macro viewpoint and what Bulls management should have/could have done to make it less, as you say, ugly? And yes, I want to get into spending details because I think that, when it comes to what the Bulls did when given the choice of spending or not spending, they've tended to spend when it made basketball sense to spend.

We will have another such litmus test this year. The Bulls probably are not getting Carmelo or Love. That is going to leave them with an amnesty decision on Boozer. Amnestying him will only cost them a few million dollars net but there are reports that Reinsdorf really doesn't want to do it.

If the Bulls refuse to amnesty Boozer or even worse, give away a pick or something just to save the cost of doing it, it will be a rather large piece of evidence that the Bulls value profits far more than team value or other teams do.

Ooh, thanks for reminding me. Remember when it was reported that the Bulls could have unloaded Hamilton's contract if they'd give up future picks and they refused? Please add that to the balance sheet of decisions where Bulls management favored the team over the bottom line.

As for Boozer, I'll be very surprised to see him on the 2014-15 Bulls roster, but I can foresee scenarios where not amnestying may be a good basketbll decision (there are worse backup PFs in the league).

I do think that Chicago's unique ownership structure hurts the team in this regard. It sure looks like a bunch of different partial owners use the Bulls as a cash cow where yearly profits are required. Other team owners look at the team as a long term asset, much like a growth stock and are just looking to maximize franchise value.

Just to make our disagreement complete, I think you badly misread what makes Bulls ownership tick. The one situation the Bulls ownership can't accept is a bad team that loses money. It offends their business sensibilities. They've proven to be OK with having the highest payroll in the league if the team is primo. After the dynasty ended, they showed that they could accept bad team performance and moderate profits, at least in the short term.

The group of multimillionaires who own the Bulls could each lose his entire Bulls investment tomorrow and we wouldn't be holding a tag day for any of them. No one is more aware of this fact than they are. It's fun to own a piece of the Bulls. It's decidedly more fun when the team is winning and really fun when the team is the talk of the town (right now they're envious as hell of the Blackhawks owners).

[transplant]

Why sign Hinrich for $4mil per rather than take $4mil more profit?

Why re-sign Gibson, a bench player, to a $33mil contract?

Why sign Dunleavy for $3+mil/season?

Why didn't management at least make a mild attempt to get Rose for something less than the absolute max?

In general, why have the Bulls used every MLE, MMLE and BAE they've had in the past 15 years? You know, they didn't have to.

I've got more if you want 'em. The notion that "every decision they (Bulls management) have made since the luxury tax has started has been based on finances" is so mind-numbingly uninformed that I had trouble typing this response.

You missed the part about the luxury tax, but let's not pay attention to details right?

The Bulls have historically made pesonnel decisions based on avoiding the luxury tax. Is that better?

Should I be happy that the Bulls resigned Rose? Is that some proof of them acting like a big market franchise?

Here's some proof they haven't.

http://data.shamsports.com/media/luxurytax.jpg

Words are important. There's a HUGE difference between you're original complaint and your new one.

Could you give me a specific or two on where the Bulls avoiding the LT ruined your day?

[Rusty Walrus]

Words are important. There's a HUGE difference between you're original complaint and your new one.

Could you give me a specific or two on where the Bulls avoiding the LT ruined your day?

Words are important indeed. As is as keeping things in context.

I'm not going to give you any specifics as providing such would be conjecture on my part.

I don't know who the Bulls could have or couldn't have signed and neither do you. What we do know is that Bulls didn't go into the luxury tax for at least the first 10 years of it. In that time period, they made the playoffs at least 4 times.

There's a correlation between spending money and winning and the ownership didn't do all they could to make sure that those teams were best equipped to win the most amount of games.

[Michael Jackson]

Goodness I love these debates.

[coldfish]

Up until now, the Bulls have frequently spent less than they could have and certainly less than their market. That doesn't necessarily make them small market but it does make them look cheap. The people who defend Jerry don't want to look at it from a macro viewpoint because that's pretty ugly. They want to break it up into a bunch of spending decisions which makes it look better, certainly.

Hmm. Sounds like what I just did in the post immediately before yours, fish.

"Macro viewpoint." That sounds pretty learned. Could you please expound on that macro viewpoint and what Bulls management should have/could have done to make it less, as you say, ugly? And yes, I want to get into spending details because I think that, when it comes to what the Bulls did when given the choice of spending or not spending, they've tended to spend when it made basketball sense to spend.

Yes, you did break it down to a bunch of individual decisions. That's something many, many people have done and like I said, it makes the situation look less ugly.

The macro situation is that the Bulls are the most profitable team in all of sports, according to Forbes, over the course of the past 10-15 years despite not being in the biggest market or biggest sports. They have paid the tax once, compared to the other large market teams which have paid it far more often.

We will have another such litmus test this year. The Bulls probably are not getting Carmelo or Love. That is going to leave them with an amnesty decision on Boozer. Amnestying him will only cost them a few million dollars net but there are reports that Reinsdorf really doesn't want to do it.

If the Bulls refuse to amnesty Boozer or even worse, give away a pick or something just to save the cost of doing it, it will be a rather large piece of evidence that the Bulls value profits far more than team value or other teams do.

Ooh, thanks for reminding me. Remember when it was reported that the Bulls could have unloaded Hamilton's contract if they'd give up future picks and they refused? Please add that to the balance sheet of decisions where Bulls management favored the team over the bottom line.

As for Boozer, I'll be very surprised to see him on the 2014-15 Bulls roster, but I can foresee scenarios where not amnestying may be a good basketbll decision (there are worse backup PFs in the league).

This summer is the culmination of Gar's "flexibility" efforts. If the Bulls completely strike out this summer on the big guys and then sell the idea that keeping Boozer improves "flexibility" I might laugh myself to death.

And yes, the Bulls not giving away a pick to give away Hamilton and save tax was a great sign. Definitely a litmus test that made the Bulls look good.

I do think that Chicago's unique ownership structure hurts the team in this regard. It sure looks like a bunch of different partial owners use the Bulls as a cash cow where yearly profits are required. Other team owners look at the team as a long term asset, much like a growth stock and are just looking to maximize franchise value.

Just to make our disagreement complete, I think you badly misread what makes Bulls ownership tick. The one situation the Bulls ownership can't accept is a bad team that loses money. It offends their business sensibilities. They've proven to be OK with having the highest payroll in the league if the team is primo. After the dynasty ended, they showed that they could accept bad team performance and moderate profits, at least in the short term.

The group of multimillionaires who own the Bulls could each lose his entire Bulls investment tomorrow and we wouldn't be holding a tag day for any of them. No one is more aware of this fact than they are. It's fun to own a piece of the Bulls. It's decidedly more fun when the team is winning and really fun when the team is the talk of the town (right now they're envious as hell of the Blackhawks owners).

I have to note that after the dynasty ended, the Bulls didn't have moderate profits . . . .they were rolling in more profit than any team in sports.

As far as them having the highest payroll in basketball . . . that happened for what, 2 years? That was for one of the greatest teams in sports history and Reinsdorf was on record about complaining about it and then the team broke up the dynasty. I'm sure that you are going to follow up with a series of post justifying the breakup of the dynasty and Reinsdorf saying that he is going to "regret this" and maybe you are right but the reality stands. This is not evidence of a team that spends normally.

[League Circles]

I've broken it down many times and the bottom line is that the Bulls have spent almost everything they could not-insanely spend for at least the past 10-15 years. The reason they didn't go into LT for quite a while was because they were drafting guys like Marcus Fizer,Eddy Curry, and Jay Williams instead of guys like Kobe.

The "macro view" is just generalization. The specific breakdowns show that the Bulls have routinely used all their exceptions, usually to just get a better bench player (Pippen, Smith, RIP, MDJ, etc), and have kept all good players leaving their rookie deals who could be readily tradable with the exception of Ben Gordon. I think that was a mistake - I think they should have kept Gordon, but most people would tell me that history shows I'm wrong.

[sonny]

If the Bulls refuse to amnesty Boozer or even worse, give away a pick or something just to save the cost of doing it, it will be a rather large piece of evidence that the Bulls value profits far more than team value or other teams do.

All that would mean is that the Bulls realize that Thibs doesnt play rookies, so why waste a pick on a guy that's not gonna play, if you can maintain flexibility for the 2015 plan and Aldridge?

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Spot on by Simmons. The bulls have lead the league in profit margins with the lakers year after year.

A couple of things I've noticed. Resigning star players doesn't prove you aren't cheap. It proves you aren't insane. Every team signs their stars, it's pr suicide if u don't. It's bad business.

Citing signings like Kirk hinrich and mike dunleavy as reasons you ARENT cheap is incredible, ands you'd only find someone like this on the bulls board. Step back and think if lakers fans and Knicks fans were having this internal argument, would those signings be examples of their organizations being cheap, or used as examples for why they're spenders? Gimme a break.

The Bulls are cheap, and they enjoy hiding it. They're clever about it.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

Anyone wanna guess who leads the league in profit margins over the last 5 years? Knicks and Bulls.

Paid the luxury tax once. There is no counterargument to this. A team with these profits should be signing and resigning multiple all stars, not letting Asik bellinelli and Deng go and replacing them with min guys.

Edit, looks like the Bulls are two in profit margins after being first for the majority of the 2000s.

[League Circles]

Every team signs their stars, it's pr suicide if u don't. It's bad business.

OKC didn't sign Harden. They still have huge fan support.

Citing signings like Kirk hinrich and mike dunleavy as reasons you ARENT cheap is incredible, ands you'd only find someone like this on the bulls board. Step back and think if lakers fans and Knicks fans were having this internal argument, would those signings be examples of their organizations being cheap, or used as examples for why they're spenders? Gimme a break.

Kirk and MDJ are cited as reasons by people who pay attention to details. Neither player was crucial to the Bulls, and both were expected to significantly increase the Bulls luxury tax payments. I think I calculated at the time of his signing that Dunleavy was projected to cost the Bulls over $8 million this year total, and that was to be added to a roster that already had Deng and Butler.

Meanwhile, the Lakers amnestied their starting SF Metta World Peace to save money, and the Knicks let Jeremy Lin walk and amnestied Chauncey Billups who had been starting at PG when healthy. The Knicks won 54 games last year and then didn't even use their MMLE this season like we did with Dunleavy. Why? Because they wanted to save money.

[League Circles]

Paid the luxury tax once. There is no counterargument to this. A team with these profits should be signing and resigning multiple all stars, not letting Asik bellinelli and Deng go and replacing them with min guys.

Edit, looks like the Bulls are two in profit margins after being first for the majority of the 2000s.

Which years do you think the Bulls should have paid the tax when they didn't? And which feasible transactions would you have advocated that would have put them above the threshold in those years?

Marco and Deng weren't replaced with minimum guys. Marco was replaced with a more expensive player - Dunleavy. Deng will be replaced by a non minimum player as soon as the CBA allows it this summer.

Which is it, should the Bulls be clearing cap space (by letting a guy like Omer walk) to sign all stars, or should they be resigning every decent player and thus never have any cap space to sign the all-stars that you want?

Profit margin doesn't change the rules of the CBA. The Bulls have historically usually spent all that the CBA and basketball sanity would allow.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

You're right OKC traded Harden. That's a good example of a small market team that couldn't afford to keep a player. And everyone knew it. Not a model the most profitable team in the nba should be using as reference.

Asik, Gordon, Deng, Chandler, were all cost cutting moves. Using single examples to prove a team didn't sign or trade for players is silly because we don't have all the information on what moves they could have made. All we have to work with in that regard is the bottom dollar.

[League Circles]

Asik, Gordon, Deng, Chandler, were all cost cutting moves.

Asik was let go so that we could be players in free agency this summer for guys like Melo, Kobe, Lebron, Bosh, Dirk, etc. Gordon was let go so we could make a play at 2 big FAs in 2010. Deng was let go because he wanted more money than he's worth and keeping him in a throwaway season was not worth the draft picks (and yes savings) we got by moving him. Chandler was traded because he was coming off of a bad season and we had just drafted a defensive PF with a top pick in Tyrus and signed the reigning 4 time DPOY C in Wallace to much bigger money than Tyson made. The Bulls didn't want to risk that he became an albatross. He had just averaged only 5 points a game with the Bulls and they had signed him for 6 years. He would have prevented the Bulls from being the players that they wanted to be in 2010 free agency also. I wanted to keep him but it was quite understandable to let him go after the season he had and being inked for 6 years with Wallace and Tyrus on board, plus Noc and Joe Smith.

Using single examples to prove a team didn't sign or trade for players is silly because we don't have all the information on what moves they could have made. All we have to work with in that regard is the bottom dollar.

You're bashing them for not paying the luxury tax based on imaginary trades. I'm looking at actual signings and available exceptions and seeing that they've mostly spent all they were allowed to. And when they didn't on rare occasions, there were sound basketball reasons for it IMO. You're basically mad because they didn't make trades to ramp up salary above the LT line more often which you admit you don't even know that they had the option to make.

[Chicago-Bull-E]

You and the bulls can cite 'future financial flexibility' all day as an excuse. The on court product got worse through all those moves. There is risk with every signing. Saying they shouldn't have signed someone due to the risk involved is the same cheap logic all front office apologists use. The on court product suffered with all those 'financial flexibility' moves. List whatever excuses you want, they dumped players cause they didn't want to pay them. And they got nothing to show for it. But profits.

[League Circles]

You and the bulls can cite 'future financial flexibility' all day as an excuse.

Of course we can, because it's true.

The on court product got worse through all those moves.

Chandler: Bulls improved by 8 games in the regular season and reached the second round the year after he was traded
Gordon: Bulls had the exact same record and lost in the first round again the year after he left, then used the flexibility they sought in letting him go to catapault to league #1 seed and ECF appearance the next year
Asik: Yes, on court product suffered, though it was through two years of no Derrick Rose
Deng: Bulls improved without Deng for the rest of the season. How they fare next year with a different roster is unknown.

You're totally wrong.

There is risk with every signing. Saying they shouldn't have signed someone due to the risk involved is the same cheap logic all front office apologists use. The on court product suffered with all those 'financial flexibility' moves. List whatever excuses you want, they dumped players cause they didn't want to pay them. And they got nothing to show for it. But profits.

So you have no comment about the Knicks and Lakers cost cutting?

What the Bulls have to show for the "cost cutting moves" you mention(which often coincided with increased team payroll) is success following those moves, as I've outlined.

Again, do you want to sign all-stars or keep tying up cap room with depth? You can't have both.