Simmons: Reinsdorf Runs Bulls Like Small Market Team

[coldfish]

No..the 2006 reset didn't make much sense in hindsight. In fact, I still view that as a black eye to Paxson's tenure. However, this reset makes perfect sense at is obvious that this team as constructed is not a real contender and wont be. And then when you look at the fact that there are players there that meet a specific need, having money this summer was very important.

I think you miss my point. The Bulls started this reset before they really thought Melo was going to be available. Outside of him, the free agent class is horrible. They could have turned over the roster without shedding salary. Trade Deng's expiring for someone who is under contract, for example. I am not objecting to changing faces.

If the Bulls get Melo, that's great but I kind of think it would be Noah-based luck. They were going to shed salary and rebuild and the shedding of salary is what I am pointing at.

[Mech Engineer]

The problem with being in the market for a Tier 1 Free Agent(s) every 4 years is you have to plan 2 or 3 years in advance to go 15-20 million under the cap. If the Bulls are in the market for a big free agent every 4 years, this also means they are always emptying their roster 2 or 3 years before that to get under the salary cap and their payroll is never going to be high.

I don't know what to say...either it is incompetence in building the roster/attracting the right FA or they are looking for the perfect player(s). The problem is most players are not perfect and most of them including the stars are terribly flawed to be added on marginally talented rosters.

Thus, the Bulls appear to spend like a small market team. If the Bulls don't excel in all three phases of a front office responsibility of trades, free agents and drafting one time or the other, they will keep struggling.

Miami got Shaq through a trade, LeBron/Bosh through free agency and Wade through drafting. Lakers got Shaq through free agency, Kobe through the draft and Gasol through a trade.

[Rerisen]

The problem with being in the market for a Tier 1 Free Agent(s) every 4 years is you have to plan 2 or 3 years in advance to go 15-20 million under the cap. If the Bulls are in the market for a big free agent every 4 years, this also means they are always emptying their roster 2 or 3 years before that to get under the salary cap and their payroll is never going to be high.

I don't know what to say...either it is incompetence in building the roster/attracting the right FA or they are looking for the perfect player(s). The problem is most players are not perfect and most of them including the stars are terribly flawed to be added on marginally talented rosters.

Thus, the Bulls appear to spend like a small market team. If the Bulls don't excel in all three phases of a front office responsibility of trades, free agents and drafting one time or the other, they will keep struggling.

Miami got Shaq through a trade, LeBron/Bosh through free agency and Wade through drafting. Lakers got Shaq through free agency, Kobe through the draft and Gasol through a trade.

Thus the strategy description of a team that doesn't 'go for it' money wise unless its absolutely guaranteed (via MJ or other multiple superstars) that the team is going to recoup the money spent via massive winning.

In which case its not even really 'spending for a winner' so much as just a smart business decision to spend more to make more when given a surefire chance to do it.

We have probably been kidding ourselves about what the "I'll spend for a winner" comment meant all along.

[coldfish]

Thus the strategy description of a team that doesn't 'go for it' money wise unless its absolutely guaranteed (via MJ or other multiple superstars) that the team is going to recoup the money spent via massive winning.

In which case its not even really 'spending for a winner' so much as just a smart business decision to spend more to make more when given a surefire chance to do it.

We have probably been kidding ourselves about what the "I'll spend for a winner" comment meant all along.

Reinsdorf was very clear in that interview. He said that he would pay the tax for a conference finalist. That is to say a team that already made the conference finals. Even then, Reinsdorf followed up with comments about "why should I have to?" He brought up San Antonio and Detroit and made it pretty clear he would not be happy about paying tax.

I think Reinsdorf's view is pretty close to what you said. He basically will pay the tax to create a likely super team but outside of that, no. He basically isn't going to take financial risks.

[Rerisen]

I wonder if we are overlooking the part that finances may play in this summer's decisions.

For instance everyone wants to keep Taj because of how he obviously helps immediately winning. But he's a big paycheck. And we have Butler to re-sign in a year and we have Mirotic coming onboard in a year at worst to play PF. GarPax might not get the ok to add such a salary as Melo unless other future committed money (like Taj) is sent out to prevent the future payroll from escalating into undesirable territory.

This would be the kind of cunning cost cutting Kelly Dwyer talked about in his article a few years back.

[coldfish]

I wonder if we are overlooking the part that finances may play in this summer's decisions.

For instance everyone wants to keep Taj because of how he obviously helps immediately winning. But he's a big paycheck. And we have Butler to re-sign in a year and we have Mirotic coming onboard in a year at worst to play PF. GarPax might not get the ok to add such a salary as Melo unless other future committed money (like Taj) is sent out to prevent the future payroll from escalating into undesirable territory.

This would be the kind of cunning cost cutting Kelly Dwyer talked about in his article a few years back.

For next year, all the realistic plans cost about the same. 70-75M. Even if the Bulls go the capspace route it means they are paying Boozer amnesty money. They would have to do something pretty obvious to avoid that, like trade Boozer for Melo THEN dump Taj. . . . or trade Taj at the draft for salary relief and then trade Boozer for Melo.

This is something we should watch. If the Bulls find a way to have a total player cost significantly less than $70M, Chicago pulled a fast one.

If the Bulls are being reasonable, getting rid of Taj just means they can spend the MLE in 2015 as far as finances.

[Rerisen]

If the Bulls are being reasonable, getting rid of Taj just means they can spend the MLE in 2015 as far as finances.

It may be impossible to keep him and land Love or Melo, then it again it may not too, we don't know. But Taj is going to be better than any MLE and it could also come down potentially to Taj vs a couple of draft picks. The draft picks are going to be cheap value players for several seasons but obviously unlikely to help us win near as much.

If we are able to keep Taj even if we don't intend to keep him forever once Mirotic develops say, Taj might be able to be turned into an Afflalo like wing player that would mean continuing to push his salary level forward congruent with a guy like Melo, and we can see where the payroll could end up super high in this scenario.

They might just head that off at the fork and not even try to acquire Melo or Love while holding on to him.

[the ultimates]

Although this is much harder to do somebody make a list of the trades or free agents that were available from 2000-2013. You'll see a gigantic amount of bad contracts and trades just to move around salary that the Bulls for the most part tried to avoid. People don't want to hear that though they want to just spend and spend and then be upset when the Bulls end up footing the bill for the Ron Mercer's and Jalen Rose's of the league.

[coldfish]

If the Bulls are being reasonable, getting rid of Taj just means they can spend the MLE in 2015 as far as finances.

It may be impossible to keep him and land Love or Melo, then it again it may not too, we don't know. But Taj is going to be better than any MLE and it could also come down potentially to Taj vs a couple of draft picks. The draft picks are going to be cheap value players for several seasons but obviously unlikely to help us win near as much.

If we are able to keep Taj even if we don't intend to keep him forever once Mirotic develops say, Taj might be able to be turned into an Afflalo like wing player that would mean continuing to push his salary level forward congruent with a guy like Melo, and we can see where the payroll could end up super high in this scenario.

They might just head that off at the fork and not even try to acquire Melo or Love while holding on to him.

My point wasn't about Taj's value on court but finances.

Let's say we go the old capspace plan:
Year 1 = $62.9M (sal cap) + $2.5M (room) + $13M Booz amnesty = 78M
Year 2 = $60M (Melo, Rose, Noah, 2014 rookies) + $6M Butler + Biannual + MLE + filler = 77M

Or if the Bulls trade Boozer and picks for Melo and then use the MLE and dump Snell or Dun to get under the lux tax
Year 1 = 75M
Year 2 = 67M (Melo, Rose, Noah, Taj, Mirotic) + $6M Butler + part of MLE + filler = 79M?

There really isn't much monetary gain to any of the real plans being discussed as long as the Bulls use their options and exceptions. Where the Bulls make a fortune is by dumping taj and trading Boozer . . . which is something that is rumored.

[Michael Jackson]

The problem with being in the market for a Tier 1 Free Agent(s) every 4 years is you have to plan 2 or 3 years in advance to go 15-20 million under the cap. If the Bulls are in the market for a big free agent every 4 years, this also means they are always emptying their roster 2 or 3 years before that to get under the salary cap and their payroll is never going to be high.

I don't know what to say...either it is incompetence in building the roster/attracting the right FA or they are looking for the perfect player(s). The problem is most players are not perfect and most of them including the stars are terribly flawed to be added on marginally talented rosters.

Thus, the Bulls appear to spend like a small market team. If the Bulls don't excel in all three phases of a front office responsibility of trades, free agents and drafting one time or the other, they will keep struggling.

Miami got Shaq through a trade, LeBron/Bosh through free agency and Wade through drafting. Lakers got Shaq through free agency, Kobe through the draft and Gasol through a trade.

Thus the strategy description of a team that doesn't 'go for it' money wise unless its absolutely guaranteed (via MJ or other multiple superstars) that the team is going to recoup the money spent via massive winning.

In which case its not even really 'spending for a winner' so much as just a smart business decision to spend more to make more when given a surefire chance to do it.

We have probably been kidding ourselves about what the "I'll spend for a winner" comment meant all along.

I personally have zero issue with not paying for mediocrity. As a fan what issue is it to me? If we are a middling playoff team with or without paying the tax meh. It is an issue if it prevents us from going after a star, but that hasn't been the problem either. Getting a star sure has been. There is only so much of that one can take.


I also don't mind the Korber or Asik things if it works to an advantage, this is the last time that claim can be made though. GarPax is sooooooo bad at trading, ughhhh. I am also really realistic that almost most the scenarios out there weren't real but they have to make a real scenario. Like Asik, if Houston can't trade him omg the inept Bulls can't.

Maybe Michael can step in like Rocky did and change the perception of the franchise?

[League Circles]

I don't understand the talk of a 4 year cycle pattern. Does something happening twice qualify as a pattern?

I think the more important take away is that the Bulls spend all the cap space they have, then evaluate the team and either ramp up to try to win in following years or move salary to reload ASAP. Seems like a lot of people want one extreme or the other - either never clear cap space and resign everyone and try to win through drafting and trades - or never signing anyone to anything but value deals and maintaining max flexibility to always be ready for the miracle free agent like Lebron or Shaq.

I prefer the middle ground of the Bulls and I think it's more likely to result in more winning over the years.

[kyrv]

Thus the strategy description of a team that doesn't 'go for it' money wise unless its absolutely guaranteed (via MJ or other multiple superstars) that the team is going to recoup the money spent via massive winning.

In which case its not even really 'spending for a winner' so much as just a smart business decision to spend more to make more when given a surefire chance to do it.

We have probably been kidding ourselves about what the "I'll spend for a winner" comment meant all along.

Reinsdorf was very clear in that interview. He said that he would pay the tax for a conference finalist. That is to say a team that already made the conference finals. Even then, Reinsdorf followed up with comments about "why should I have to?" He brought up San Antonio and Detroit and made it pretty clear he would not be happy about paying tax.

I think Reinsdorf's view is pretty close to what you said. He basically will pay the tax to create a likely super team but outside of that, no. He basically isn't going to take financial risks.

They've paid the tax though already.

[musiqsoulchild]

Really good offensive help added to Derrick includes:

1) Carlos Boozer
2) Kyle Korver
3) Marco Bellinelli
4) MDJ

You're joking right?

Carlos Boozer had one pretty good offensive year here, but none in the playoffs. Korver was good. Marco had one of his worst seasons here in a role over his head, very inefficient and eventually got benched in the playoffs for Rip Hamilton. MDJ just finished one of his worse offensive seasons as a pro.

None of them were 'really good'. Really good is Chris Bosh, or Afflalo, or someone that actually scores efficiently and can do multiple things on offense. Not players that just take shots because someone on the team has to do it.

And none were better than Ben Gordon who was the comparison player we lost to hunt bigger fish in 2010.

It's been so long since we've had a great offense I don't know if we even recognize what really good offense is anymore. For three point shooting, its over 40%. For scoring role players, its over .570 TS% or so. For a go-to guy, its probably .550 TS%+, ability to draw double teams, and can actually abuse a mismatch and present matchup problems to a defense.

Do you know how good a closing lineup of Rose/Marco/Deng/Taj/Noah lineup would have been?

Or a closing lineup of Rose / Kirk / Dunleavy / Deng / Noah?

Thats why Rose is the big variable of the past 3 seasons. However, I see that you quoted my post in comparision against BG. Thats not the point I was making.

[d boy gentleman]

So, what Bill(and I guess others on this board are saying is that Reinsdorf should spend like the Knicks and Nets, overpay mid-level free agents, be over the tax limit thus having no cap flexibility and no draft picks for a non contending team and that would make the team big market? Doesn't make sense.

Persons can point to profit, but that's what every business is in business for. Reinsdorf has said the would pay for a contender. Since 1998, this team has been in contention only once and that was in the 2010/11 season. After that, Rose got hurt and has been for 2/3 years. Doesn't make sense paying the luxury tax for a non contending team. Like I said, see Knicks and Nets.

[coldfish]

So, what Bill(and I guess others on this board are saying is that Reinsdorf should spend like the Knicks and Nets, overpay mid-level free agents, be over the tax limit thus having no cap flexibility and no draft picks for a non contending team and that would make the team big market? Doesn't make sense.

Persons can point to profit, but that's what every business is in business for. Reinsdorf has said the would pay for a contender. Since 1998, this team has been in contention only once and that was in the 2010/11 season. After that, Rose got hurt and has been for 2/3 years. Doesn't make sense paying the luxury tax for a non contending team. Like I said, see Knicks and Nets.

I would prefer that he spend like the Mavs and Lakers have over the past 15 years, if we are going to bring up team names.

Spending creates its own flexibility. You have more trade assets. You can make more moves. Take on salary in trade. It would be nearly impossible to go back to 1999 and project what the Bulls would have looked like if they had spent their money at a level proportionate to their market level in an intelligent fashion.

Many people here bash GarPax for never making a really good upgrade trade. Maybe the blame should be up a little higher in the org. Maybe GarPax is limited financially to the point where they can't make these deals. This isn't random speculation either. That's specifically what Heisley said years ago about what went on.

[Michael Jackson]

So, what Bill(and I guess others on this board are saying is that Reinsdorf should spend like the Knicks and Nets, overpay mid-level free agents, be over the tax limit thus having no cap flexibility and no draft picks for a non contending team and that would make the team big market? Doesn't make sense.

Persons can point to profit, but that's what every business is in business for. Reinsdorf has said the would pay for a contender. Since 1998, this team has been in contention only once and that was in the 2010/11 season. After that, Rose got hurt and has been for 2/3 years. Doesn't make sense paying the luxury tax for a non contending team. Like I said, see Knicks and Nets.

I would prefer that he spend like the Mavs and Lakers have over the past 15 years, if we are going to bring up team names.

Spending creates its own flexibility. You have more trade assets. You can make more moves. Take on salary in trade. It would be nearly impossible to go back to 1999 and project what the Bulls would have looked like if they had spent their money at a level proportionate to their market level in an intelligent fashion.

Many people here bash GarPax for never making a really good upgrade trade. Maybe the blame should be up a little higher in the org. Maybe GarPax is limited financially to the point where they can't make these deals. This isn't random speculation either. That's specifically what Heisley said years ago about what went on.

JR never really put those handcuffs on Krause and he surely hasn't with Kenny. I fully agree he is conservative but I don't think he gets in the way as much as is thought. I just think Pax is pretty ultra conservative. Ie Paxson might be afraid to spend JR's money where Williams was bolder and just did. That being said it is way easier to do it in the MLB and that may be far from a fair comparison. I just don't think the FO is really good at the aggressive splash, that being said they are good at putting together a competent team.

[sonny]

Or a closing lineup of Rose / Kirk / Dunleavy / Deng / Noah?

That lineup isn't that good.

If Kirk has a substantial role on the team next year, especially one in which he's on the court as the 2 guard in our closing lineup, there were some major failures that took place.

I would prefer that he spend like the Mavs and Lakers have over the past 15 years, if we are going to bring up team names.

People always bring up the teams with incompetent management as a reason not to spend, as if spending more makes management dumber.

You give a smart guy 1M and an idiot 1M, the idiot blowing the money isn't proof that having 1M is bad.

The teams you gave as examples, the Lakers and Mavs are examples of teams with competent management that have spent money with success.

Seems like most feel that Pax/Gar are good GMs, not sure why giving them more resources would somehow lead to the team's destruction.

[d boy gentleman]

I would prefer that he spend like the Mavs and Lakers have over the past 15 years, if we are going to bring up team names.

Don't really know about the Lakers and their spending habits but, I was referring to the luxury tax era when I referenced those two teams. Both the Mavs and Lakers made cost cutting moves as well. The Mavs didn't keep that championship team together in what was a cost cutting move by Cuban. The Lakers have been fortunate to sign Shaq, get Pau Gasol for Kwame Brown when the Grizzles wanted more than that from the Bulls. They also amnestied Ron Artest(OK, he sucks now) in a cost cutting move.

OK, let's bring up Korver and Asik. Say, for example the Bulls signed him to the 4yr/24mill deal he signed w/ Atlanta and kept Asik at what he's getting now. Both contracts would be unmovable as nobody would take on Korver for the years left on his contract and even though Asik is an expiring, hardly any team wants to take on that 15million.

[musiqsoulchild]

Or a closing lineup of Rose / Kirk / Dunleavy / Deng / Noah?

That lineup isn't that good.

If Kirk has a substantial role on the team next year, especially one in which he's on the court as the 2 guard in our closing lineup, there were some major failures that took place.

Thats funny...you just jumped in mid-post because you saw the word Kirk somewhere in there.

I was talking about this season...if Rose were healthy, we would have closed with Rose / Kirk / Dunleavy / Deng / Noah.

And your conclusion about having Kirk on the team next season somehow being a failure is incorrect. If we get Melo, that exactly who your closing 2 guard will be...especially if you trade Taj in order to acquire Melo.

Rose/ Kirk / Butler / Melo / Noah.

[d boy gentleman]

It will be interesting to see what the Bulls do this Summer. I honestly see them going after Melo via the Boozer amnesty. If we have to take on Felton or JR, we still do the trade and still keep Taj. If they don't do anything, then I'd agree that the Bulls group doesn't care at all about putting a winning team together.

I just don't want to spend foolishly and be capped on a mediocre team...