Simmons: Reinsdorf Runs Bulls Like Small Market Team

[GetBuLLish]

Saw this on the reddit forums....

A lot of talk recently about Reinsdorf and if he's cheap, etc. Here are the facts. This is the Bulls Payroll Rankings vs. Other teams. Keep in mind the Bulls are in the biggest SINGLE team market in the NBA. It's a franchise that is worth the 3rd Most in the NBA (behind Knicks and Lakers).
1986: 9 out of 23
1987: No Data
1988: 19 out of 23
1989: 12 out of 25
1990: No Data
1991: 23 out of 27
1992: 3 out of 27
1993: 4 out of 27
1994: 12 out of 27
1995: 12 out of 27
1996: 15 out of 27
1997: 1 out of 29 -- by a WIDE margin
1998: 1 out of 29 -- again, by a WIDE margin
1999: 29 out of 29
2000: 28 out of 29
2001: 28 out of 29
2002: 27 out of 29
2003: 27 out of 29
2004: 16 out of 29
2005: 15 out of 30
2006: 19 out of 30
2007: 26 out of 30
2008: 21 out of 30
2009: 21 out of 30
2010: 13 out of 30
2011: 27 out of 30
2012: 10 out of 30
2013: 5 out of 30

http://www.reddit.com/r/chicagobulls/co ... reinsdorf/

Wow. Since 2000, the Bulls may easily be in the bottom half of spending in the entire league. Again, I'd love to see the total amount of money spent on salary and luxury tax since 2000 by all NBA teams.

[Sebastian]

Saw this on the reddit forums....

A lot of talk recently about Reinsdorf and if he's cheap, etc. Here are the facts. This is the Bulls Payroll Rankings vs. Other teams. Keep in mind the Bulls are in the biggest SINGLE team market in the NBA. It's a franchise that is worth the 3rd Most in the NBA (behind Knicks and Lakers).
1986: 9 out of 23
1987: No Data
1988: 19 out of 23
1989: 12 out of 25
1990: No Data
1991: 23 out of 27
1992: 3 out of 27
1993: 4 out of 27
1994: 12 out of 27
1995: 12 out of 27
1996: 15 out of 27
1997: 1 out of 29 -- by a WIDE margin
1998: 1 out of 29 -- again, by a WIDE margin
1999: 29 out of 29
2000: 28 out of 29
2001: 28 out of 29
2002: 27 out of 29
2003: 27 out of 29
2004: 16 out of 29
2005: 15 out of 30
2006: 19 out of 30
2007: 26 out of 30
2008: 21 out of 30
2009: 21 out of 30
2010: 13 out of 30
2011: 27 out of 30
2012: 10 out of 30
2013: 5 out of 30

http://www.reddit.com/r/chicagobulls/co ... reinsdorf/

Wow. Since 2000, the Bulls may easily be in the bottom half of spending in the entire league. Again, I'd love to see the total amount of money spent on salary and luxury tax since 2000 by all NBA teams.

While that's true, the Bulls during that early 2000s period aggressively sought FAs like McGrady and were constantly rebuffed. One of those kind of guys signs and these rankings look totally different.

[Nate3carp]

If today's Basketball Insider's report is correct and Reinsdorf would rather trade the #19 to get someone to take Boozer instead of Amnestying him, then this debate would be officially over.

[Betta Bulleavit]

Saw this on the reddit forums....

A lot of talk recently about Reinsdorf and if he's cheap, etc. Here are the facts. This is the Bulls Payroll Rankings vs. Other teams. Keep in mind the Bulls are in the biggest SINGLE team market in the NBA. It's a franchise that is worth the 3rd Most in the NBA (behind Knicks and Lakers).
1986: 9 out of 23
1987: No Data
1988: 19 out of 23
1989: 12 out of 25
1990: No Data
1991: 23 out of 27
1992: 3 out of 27
1993: 4 out of 27
1994: 12 out of 27
1995: 12 out of 27
1996: 15 out of 27
1997: 1 out of 29 -- by a WIDE margin
1998: 1 out of 29 -- again, by a WIDE margin
1999: 29 out of 29
2000: 28 out of 29
2001: 28 out of 29
2002: 27 out of 29
2003: 27 out of 29
2004: 16 out of 29
2005: 15 out of 30
2006: 19 out of 30
2007: 26 out of 30
2008: 21 out of 30
2009: 21 out of 30
2010: 13 out of 30
2011: 27 out of 30
2012: 10 out of 30
2013: 5 out of 30

http://www.reddit.com/r/chicagobulls/co ... reinsdorf/

Wow. Since 2000, the Bulls may easily be in the bottom half of spending in the entire league. Again, I'd love to see the total amount of money spent on salary and luxury tax since 2000 by all NBA teams.

What that says to me is that ON AVERAGE, the Bulls have been about middle of the pack in terms of salary payouts. And a good bit of that is heavily skewed by a stretch from 99-2004 where the Bulls were flat our horrible and had no business carrying a huge payroll. And like another person stated, it wasn't for lack of trying. The Bulls did make a play at some big free agents. They just failed hard and opted not to go throwing crazy money and 3rd and 4th tier players.

[AirP.]

While that's true, the Bulls during that early 2000s period aggressively sought FAs like McGrady and were constantly rebuffed. One of those kind of guys signs and these rankings look totally different.

Aggressively? The summer of 2000 Tim Duncan and Grant Hill didn't even visit Chicago, they did visit Orlando(both teams had cap room for 2 max signings). McGrady did show up, throw out the first pitch of a White Sox game and then signed with Orlando.... and Chicago used that cap space to overpay Ron Mercer.

If Chicago didn't have MJ their payrolls would have been middle of the pack to the lowest in the league. Middle of the pack is 13-15(the addition of teams to the league). There's what 15 years of at least half the teams in the NBA having a higher payroll? 10 times being the bottom 2/3s of the league in payroll. That's small market mentality. Will they pay for a winner, of course because you make a lot of money in the playoffs!

Now consider you make all the money from seats, food, merch for each playoff game plus last year's $13 million pool is distributed to teams as follows:


And heres how it worked for last year...


Info from http://heathoops.com/2013/06/2013-nba-c ... ize-money/

[AirP.]

What that says to me is that ON AVERAGE, the Bulls have been about middle of the pack in terms of salary payouts. And a good bit of that is heavily skewed by a stretch from 99-2004 where the Bulls were flat our horrible and had no business carrying a huge payroll. And like another person stated, it wasn't for lack of trying. The Bulls did make a play at some big free agents. They just failed hard and opted not to go throwing crazy money and 3rd and 4th tier players.

Also skewed by the stretch of having the best player of all time and being paid that way. Take out those MJ years and it's not so pretty!

Yes, it's a great financially not to pay a lot of money, but that's not putting the best basketball team on the floor or having the assets to make trades and it's not like all that money the organization pocketed in those lean years are saved up going towards future teams, it's just pocketed... it's not about building a team, it's about making the most money.

[AAU Teammate]

McGrady did show up, throw out the first pitch of a White Sox game

Who would be the better Sox pitcher. TMac or Chris Sale when this drunk http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_ior3ya9i/

[Pnjguy]

If Lebron came to Chicago in 2010, i wonder what the rhetoric would be now.

[RomeDaDome]

He's right and if I were Reinsdorf, I might do the same. Loyal fans keep going to games and as of the Thibs era, the Bulls are viewed as a solid defensive team but nobody is really concerned with them.

Thibs first year and the lockout season, the Bulls were elite but ever since the Rose injury, the team has been finding ways to stay relevant without actually having a chance of doing anything. Thibs and the team have worked hard for respect but the front office hasn't because they don't really need to because the team will always make good money.

[AirP.]

McGrady did show up, throw out the first pitch of a White Sox game

Who would be the better Sox pitcher. TMac or Chris Sale when this drunk http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_ior3ya9i/

Back then probably Tmac, Sale would have been 11, the years just fly by!

[organix85]

Wow. Since 2000, the Bulls may easily be in the bottom half of spending in the entire league. Again, I'd love to see the total amount of money spent on salary and luxury tax since 2000 by all NBA teams.

Here are preliminary numbers as I'm not sure if I'll look to review my work just yet... it would take some effort that I don't have time for at this moment. So if anyone spot checks this and notices a problem, please say so.

To be honest, people who don't want to buy into this won't be swayed by this anyway, so I didn't even want to do compile it and really don't know how much more time I want to invest. The results are so bad that I figured I have to review it now though to make sure I didn't have any typos. Note these figures are from the 02-03 season to the end of last season.

Before tax:
1 New York Knicks $1,015,789,167
2 Dallas Mavericks $936,328,027
3 Los Angeles Lakers $861,159,201
4 Portland Trailblazers $813,578,335
5 Boston Celtics $765,951,194
6 Philadelphia 76ers $758,506,582
7 Orlando Magic $737,332,189
8 Miami Heat $728,610,673
9 San Antonio Spurs $703,932,796
10 Minnesota Timberwolves $697,847,369
11 Houston Rockets $697,034,092
12 Indiana Pacers $696,849,229
13 Phoenix Suns $695,134,879
14 Brooklyn Nets $694,549,043
15 Toronto Raptors $689,409,394
16 Milwaukee Bucks $684,225,719
17 Memphis Grizzlies $683,711,148
18 Sacramento Kings $674,397,989
19 Cleveland Cavaliers $672,424,624
20 Denver Nuggets $671,925,118
21 Detroit Pistons $668,973,853
22 Golden State Warriors $666,567,829
23 Chicago Bulls $665,479,765
24 Utah Jazz $651,331,805
25 Atlanta Hawks $648,178,592
26 New Orleans Hornets $640,889,832
27 Washington Wizards $637,963,499
28 Oklahoma City Thunder $635,260,582
29 Los Angeles Clippers $613,228,204
30 Charlotte Bobcats $462,928,639

After tax:
1 New York Knicks $1,221,039,718
2 Dallas Mavericks $1,086,858,460
3 Los Angeles Lakers $974,836,193
4 Portland Trailblazers $902,630,809
5 Boston Celtics $813,227,047
6 Philadelphia 76ers $776,364,217
7 Orlando Magic $776,283,697
8 Miami Heat $764,624,903
9 Brooklyn Nets $722,553,073
10 Minnesota Timberwolves $722,504,911
11 San Antonio Spurs $716,530,350
12 Cleveland Cavaliers $715,550,745
13 Phoenix Suns $710,767,118
14 Indiana Pacers $705,738,316
15 Sacramento Kings $704,916,734
16 Houston Rockets $697,791,237
17 Toronto Raptors $696,181,230
18 Memphis Grizzlies $695,008,600
19 Denver Nuggets $693,082,557
20 Milwaukee Bucks $688,959,719
21 Detroit Pistons $669,730,480
22 Chicago Bulls $669,412,101
23 Golden State Warriors $666,567,829
24 Utah Jazz $659,435,424
25 Atlanta Hawks $652,560,791
26 New Orleans Hornets $640,889,832
27 Washington Wizards $637,963,499
28 Oklahoma City Thunder $635,260,582
29 Los Angeles Clippers $613,228,204
30 Charlotte Bobcats $462,928,639

Sources:
http://www.reddit.com/r/chicagobulls/co ... reinsdorf/
http://www.shamsports.com/2013/07/compl ... ments.html

[GetBuLLish]

Wow. Since 2000, the Bulls may easily be in the bottom half of spending in the entire league. Again, I'd love to see the total amount of money spent on salary and luxury tax since 2000 by all NBA teams.

Here are preliminary numbers as I'm not sure if I'll look to review my work just yet... it would take some effort that I don't have time for at this moment. So if anyone spot checks this and notices a problem, please say so.

Snip.

Wow thanks a lot for putting in the time to compile that. So according to those preliminary numbers, Bulls ranked 22nd/23rd in spending since 2002. IMO, that's basically the nail in the coffin in this argument. The Bulls are run like a mid-market/small market team and you're honestly just sticking your head in the sand if you disagree.

And also for those people who keep talking about how the Bulls didn't have good enough teams to justify higher payrolls, fine. If that's your argument, then please admit that in terms of competency, the organization is in the bottom half of the league. You can't have it both ways.

[Peelboy]

Here are preliminary numbers as I'm not sure if I'll look to review my work just yet... it would take some effort that I don't have time for at this moment. So if anyone spot checks this and notices a problem, please say so.

To be honest, people who don't want to buy into this won't be swayed by this anyway, so I didn't even want to do compile it and really don't know how much more time I want to invest. The results are so bad that I figured I have to review it now though to make sure I didn't have any typos. Note these figures are from the 02-03 season to the end of last season.

That data is skewed by how bad the Bulls were in the early 2000s with no stars available via FA. The alternative (as demonstrated by many of the teams near the top of the list) was to overpay for mediocrity with no real shot at a title. It's pretty much universally agreed upon that the Bulls refuse to pay for mediocrity. The question is whether they'll pay for a contender (IMO history says they will).

The Bulls may be cheap, it's just that this data doesn't prove it. And for those saying "take out MJ and payroll was lower," that's incorrect because you don't know what Bulls would have done with that salary. In the 2 years between MJ IIRC they signed some decent salaried guys (Harper, Kukoc, both of whom I thought made decent coin). So it's not like they replaced MJ's salary with min salaried guys - they spread it around and then when he returned they kept those guys and added him on top.

[organix85]

Wow. Since 2000, the Bulls may easily be in the bottom half of spending in the entire league. Again, I'd love to see the total amount of money spent on salary and luxury tax since 2000 by all NBA teams.

Here are preliminary numbers as I'm not sure if I'll look to review my work just yet... it would take some effort that I don't have time for at this moment. So if anyone spot checks this and notices a problem, please say so.

Snip.

Wow thanks a lot for putting in the time to compile that. So according to those preliminary numbers, Bulls ranked 22nd/23rd in spending since 2002. IMO, that's basically the nail in the coffin in this argument. The Bulls are run like a mid-market/small market team and you're honestly just sticking your head in the sand if you disagree.

And also for those people who keep talking about how the Bulls didn't have good enough teams to justify higher payrolls, fine. If that's your argument, then please admit that in terms of competency, the organization is in the bottom half of the league. You can't have it both ways.

Simmons says we run like the Bucks and Pacers and apparently we spend even less than them.

[Professor Frink]

Wow thanks a lot for putting in the time to compile that. So according to those preliminary numbers, Bulls ranked 22nd/23rd in spending since 2002. IMO, that's basically the nail in the coffin in this argument. The Bulls are run like a mid-market/small market team and you're honestly just sticking your head in the sand if you disagree.

And also for those people who keep talking about how the Bulls didn't have good enough teams to justify higher payrolls, fine. If that's your argument, then please admit that in terms of competency, the organization is in the bottom half of the league. You can't have it both ways.

Why not? You try to have it both ways.

[organix85]

That data is skewed by how bad the Bulls were in the early 2000s with no stars available via FA. The alternative (as demonstrated by many of the teams near the top of the list) was to overpay for mediocrity with no real shot at a title. It's pretty much universally agreed upon that the Bulls refuse to pay for mediocrity. The question is whether they'll pay for a contender (IMO history says they will).

The Bulls may be cheap, it's just that this data doesn't prove it. And for those saying "take out MJ and payroll was lower," that's incorrect because you don't know what Bulls would have done with that salary. In the 2 years between MJ IIRC they signed some decent salaried guys (Harper, Kukoc, both of whom I thought made decent coin). So it's not like they replaced MJ's salary with min salaried guys - they spread it around and then when he returned they kept those guys and added him on top.

This is such a cop out... you realize that is exactly Simmons' point? Bottom line is that we do spend like we're the Bucks or Pacers. That's the point of this whole thread.

And what team wouldn't be paying for a real contender? People love this contender angle, but apparently more than half the league found good enough reason to spend more than the Bulls. Is more than half the league consistently better than Chicago over the past decade?

Honestly, I don't even want to bother debating you cause I already knew there are plenty of people like you. You are the reason I wrote:

"To be honest, people who don't want to buy into this won't be swayed by this anyway, so I didn't even want to do compile it and really don't know how much more time I want to invest."

As for the MJ stuff, I didn't make that comment.

[AirP.]

The Bulls may be cheap, it's just that this data doesn't prove it. And for those saying "take out MJ and payroll was lower," that's incorrect because you don't know what Bulls would have done with that salary. In the 2 years between MJ IIRC they signed some decent salaried guys (Harper, Kukoc, both of whom I thought made decent coin). So it's not like they replaced MJ's salary with min salaried guys - they spread it around and then when he returned they kept those guys and added him on top.

Um... I'll go with what Chicago did WITHOUT MJ as being the norm, so yeah, you can know statistically. They did overpay players like Ron Mercer which a lot of fans were in disbelief, but then again they had to try to justify cutting salary for the previous year or 2.

This organization is acting like a small market team, if you don't have players fall in your lap(even through the draft) then you don't spend. You can acquire good players on good contracts(even lower costing players) to use as assets to make trades or.... you just don't utilize your payroll and save the money, that's something you do if you're not making TONS of money... 2007-2012 Chicago PROFITED on average 55 million a year(by far the most in the league per FORBES).

1. Chicago Bulls
5-year Average Profit: $55 million

The Bulls' average profit dwarfs other NBA teams thanks to the league's best home game attendance in three of the last five years. Chicago, however, was out-earned the last two seasons by the New York Knicks.

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45hl ... nba-teams/

If you want to say Chicago is winning the game financially that's fine, they are but if you're trying to win championships and not just looking for pure profits you're going to be at or above the luxury tax nearly every year which Chicago isn't. No you don't try to overpay(unless you have the space and it's one or very few years) but you can add solid players to make moves with, the problem with that, it cuts into profits.

[Michael Jackson]

Wow. Since 2000, the Bulls may easily be in the bottom half of spending in the entire league. Again, I'd love to see the total amount of money spent on salary and luxury tax since 2000 by all NBA teams.

Here are preliminary numbers as I'm not sure if I'll look to review my work just yet... it would take some effort that I don't have time for at this moment. So if anyone spot checks this and notices a problem, please say so.

To be honest, people who don't want to buy into this won't be swayed by this anyway, so I didn't even want to do compile it and really don't know how much more time I want to invest. The results are so bad that I figured I have to review it now though to make sure I didn't have any typos. Note these figures are from the 02-03 season to the end of last season.

Before tax:
1 New York Knicks $1,015,789,167
2 Dallas Mavericks $936,328,027
3 Los Angeles Lakers $861,159,201
4 Portland Trailblazers $813,578,335
5 Boston Celtics $765,951,194
6 Philadelphia 76ers $758,506,582
7 Orlando Magic $737,332,189
8 Miami Heat $728,610,673
9 San Antonio Spurs $703,932,796
10 Minnesota Timberwolves $697,847,369
11 Houston Rockets $697,034,092
12 Indiana Pacers $696,849,229
13 Phoenix Suns $695,134,879
14 Brooklyn Nets $694,549,043
15 Toronto Raptors $689,409,394
16 Milwaukee Bucks $684,225,719
17 Memphis Grizzlies $683,711,148
18 Sacramento Kings $674,397,989
19 Cleveland Cavaliers $672,424,624
20 Denver Nuggets $671,925,118
21 Detroit Pistons $668,973,853
22 Golden State Warriors $666,567,829
23 Chicago Bulls $665,479,765
24 Utah Jazz $651,331,805
25 Atlanta Hawks $648,178,592
26 New Orleans Hornets $640,889,832
27 Washington Wizards $637,963,499
28 Oklahoma City Thunder $635,260,582
29 Los Angeles Clippers $613,228,204
30 Charlotte Bobcats $462,928,639

After tax:
1 New York Knicks $1,221,039,718
2 Dallas Mavericks $1,086,858,460
3 Los Angeles Lakers $974,836,193
4 Portland Trailblazers $902,630,809
5 Boston Celtics $813,227,047
6 Philadelphia 76ers $776,364,217
7 Orlando Magic $776,283,697
8 Miami Heat $764,624,903
9 Brooklyn Nets $722,553,073
10 Minnesota Timberwolves $722,504,911
11 San Antonio Spurs $716,530,350
12 Cleveland Cavaliers $715,550,745
13 Phoenix Suns $710,767,118
14 Indiana Pacers $705,738,316
15 Sacramento Kings $704,916,734
16 Houston Rockets $697,791,237
17 Toronto Raptors $696,181,230
18 Memphis Grizzlies $695,008,600
19 Denver Nuggets $693,082,557
20 Milwaukee Bucks $688,959,719
21 Detroit Pistons $669,730,480
22 Chicago Bulls $669,412,101
23 Golden State Warriors $666,567,829
24 Utah Jazz $659,435,424
25 Atlanta Hawks $652,560,791
26 New Orleans Hornets $640,889,832
27 Washington Wizards $637,963,499
28 Oklahoma City Thunder $635,260,582
29 Los Angeles Clippers $613,228,204
30 Charlotte Bobcats $462,928,639

Sources:
http://www.reddit.com/r/chicagobulls/co ... reinsdorf/
http://www.shamsports.com/2013/07/compl ... ments.html

The Bulls really should be top 10. The Knicks prove the side that spending can really put you in hell. My beef is not spending I can care less on how much they spend, I care about winning. Spending guarantees what? Now if they were a more attractive destination the Bulls would have spent more ( and arguably after the top 5 the drop off is a lot less steep). What burns my biscuits is simply we can't get this second guy and we are going to spend money on Hayward, Lance or Meeks. I have no idea how they actually change that, you can't force guys to come here and you can't pay them more than other teams. Just frustrating overall.

[GetBuLLish]

Why not? You try to have it both ways.

I believe that the Bulls have an average front office with average to below average sized pockets (in terms of willingness to spend, not actual amount of money that can be spent). There is nothing logically inconsistent about this.

On the other hand, there are people who constantly boast about the Bulls having a top notch front office with an ownership group that behaves like a big market. That's idiotic when faced with facts.

[Rerisen]

It's not just about how much you spend, a better measure is how much % of profits you reinvest or spend into your players. Doug covered this a while back at his blog, and in this measure, the Bulls are exceedingly thrifty.

I.e. People bag on the Yankees in baseball for spending so much on their team, but the reality is they make such a massive profit that when you measure their payroll vs other teams as far as % spent on talent, they are nothing special or out of the ordinary.

The Bulls in the NBA are similar in that they bring in more than most, so should give us the advantage to spend more than others team while still being more profitable. But traditionally we have not.

That said, this summer is the biggest test yet of the rationales that have been used to excuse why we haven't done so. We have cap space, we have picks, we have young talent, we have established talent. The directions we could go are numerous if the team is truly interested in improving and trying to seriously compete.