The myth of Reinsdorf's cheapness

[kyrv]

This is one of those cases where it's not worth arguing, because the POVs are already so strongly set that "truth" becomes meaningless.

This said, I need to state my POV (again) for the record.

Bulls management isn't and never has been "cheap," even using a relative standard. It disappoints me that there are some posters for whom I have a great deal of respect who clearly disagree with my position. I believe they are misguided.

In today's NBA, there's really only one wild-spending owner and that's Prokhorov. If you like his team's cap position and future, you need to re-think your position. Not being Prokhorov isn't being cheap. As a fan, you really don't want Prokhorov as your owner and if you don't understand why this is true, you shouldn't be in this discussion.

Reinsdorf hates what he considers stupid spending. He rightly believes that it hurts the game. He won't spend stupid and if this makes him cheap, then he's cheap.

But ask yourself when Reinsdorf's money let you down. Asik's the only one that comes to mind for me. If Asik's $15mil was on the Bulls books right now, would the team be better off?

Anyway, have at it, kids, but put my vote firmly in the "myth" column.

Great post.

They let Asik get away? /yawn

Cuban let Nash go and Nash went on to win two MVP's. He let him go because of money. *That's* a mistake because of money. I don't sweat guys like Asik and Benjamins. Sometimes you lose RFA's. That is a fact in the NBA. Doesn't make the Bulls special.

[coldfish]

But ask yourself when Reinsdorf's money let you down. Asik's the only one that comes to mind for me. If Asik's $15mil was on the Bulls books right now, would the team be better off?

Deng trade. Bulls traded Deng for salary relief instead of quality assets.

If the Bulls had more assets, like higher quality future 1st's, would the team be better off right now in trying to work out these acquisitions?

[GetBuLLish]

In the past ten years or so, the Bulls have spent about as much as the Milwaukee Bucks.

Enough said.

[dumbell78]

Not being Prokhorov isn't being cheap. As a fan, you really don't want Prokhorov as your owner and if you don't understand why this is true, you shouldn't be in this discussion.

With all due respect why is it that when someone says Jerry is frugal or cheap, they automatically get the "Prokhrov" response? Not one single Bulls fan would want insane silly spending just because, thats never been the point.

Calling Jerry cheap does not = wanting Prokhrov spending. Please stop that argument, its flawed. There are varying levels of being cheap, and being a spender. Donald Sterling was notoriously cheap, if I call Jerry cheap that doesnt mean Jerry=Donald. If we want willingness from Jerry to spend some (rationally) and not save $$ when given every opportunity imaginable, well that doesnt mean we want Prokhrov.

[Mech Engineer]

Semi-OT...Speaking of Prokhorov...I wish the Nets had got Dwight for Lopez when the Dwight drama in Orlando was going on. I think Billy King would have then taken Boozer at that time giving the Bulls a lot more flexibility than what they have now.

[Rusty Walrus]

This is one of those cases where it's not worth arguing, because the POVs are already so strongly set that "truth" becomes meaningless.

This said, I need to state my POV (again) for the record.

Bulls management isn't and never has been "cheap," even using a relative standard. It disappoints me that there are some posters for whom I have a great deal of respect who clearly disagree with my position. I believe they are misguided.

In today's NBA, there's really only one wild-spending owner and that's Prokhorov. If you like his team's cap position and future, you need to re-think your position. Not being Prokhorov isn't being cheap. As a fan, you really don't want Prokhorov as your owner and if you don't understand why this is true, you shouldn't be in this discussion.

Reinsdorf hates what he considers stupid spending. He rightly believes that it hurts the game. He won't spend stupid and if this makes him cheap, then he's cheap.

But ask yourself when Reinsdorf's money let you down. Asik's the only one that comes to mind for me. If Asik's $15mil was on the Bulls books right now, would the team be better off?

Anyway, have at it, kids, but put my vote firmly in the "myth" column.

Great post.

They let Asik get away? /yawn

Cuban let Nash go and Nash went on to win two MVP's. He let him go because of money. *That's* a mistake because of money. I don't sweat guys like Asik and Benjamins. Sometimes you lose RFA's. That is a fact in the NBA. Doesn't make the Bulls special.

That's not even close to being remotely true.

Their team salary actually increased from ~78 million to 91 million from Nash's last year to the following year.

They spent the money on Erick Dampier instead of Steve Nash.

They also happened to draft Devin Harris that year.

If you want to argue that they made the wrong move in trading for Dampier and drafting Harris instead of resigning Nash, I'm all ears.

But your point about Cuban and the Mavs does not stand.

[sonny]

That's not even close to being remotely true.

Their team salary actually increased from ~78 million to 91 million from Nash's last year to the following year.

They spent the money on Erick Dampier instead of Steve Nash.

They also happened to draft Devin Harris that year.

If you want to argue that they made the wrong move in trading for Dampier and drafting Harris instead of resigning Nash, I'm all ears.

But your point about Cuban and the Mavs does not stand.

Yup.

Cuban was concerned with giving a 30 year old pg a 6 year deal, especially with his back giving him problems.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1833028

According to sources, Nash brought the Suns' offer back to the Mavericks, but Mavs owner Mark Cuban declined to match it. Stein reports that the Suns' offer was nearly $20 million richer.

Mavericks sources said Cuban was reluctant to give Nash more than a four-year guaranteed contract because of fears the 30-year-old couldn't physically handle playing more than 32 minutes per game.

Two years ago:

https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b ... 33060.html

"I'll say it now, if you would have told me Steve would have been playing eight years later I would have bet any amount of money you'd be wrong.

"The thing about Steve is his discipline. I knew he was disciplined, but I thought he would fall apart before it mattered,'' Cuban said. "All the advice I got from everybody we had was that he was going to fall apart. He proved us wrong -- and more power to him.

"I give him a lot of credit. He proved me definitely wrong.''

The problem with killing Cuban here is that Nash proved everyone wrong. And anyone who tells you differently is lying. The Internet existed in 2004, young men in derby hats still churned out periodicals and newspapers on the reg, and plenty of people had a chance to destroy Mark Cuban for letting Steve Nash go to a terrible Suns team as a free agent following Dallas' misguided 2003-04 season. Nobody raised their voice when the Mavs passed, strange for an analytical community that too often values what happened three months prior way more than what will happen to a player 13 months later.

Nash, if you recall, needed until his third season as a Maverick to work out his various back, Achilles and ankle issues, and put together a fully healthy season in 2000-01. His game was so creaky at times that Cuban signed Utah Jazz reserve Howard Eisley in the summer of 2000, not to spell Nash, but to possibly beat him out in training camp for the starting gig. Again, not revisionist history, and a quick stroll through some of that fall's NBA preview mags will reveal some bylines as suggesting that a Mavs outfit with Eisley starting would lead Dallas to their first playoff berth in over a decade.

This wasn't Cuban being cheap.

Like Rusty said, the team's salary went up 12M the next year.

A month later they signed Erick Dampier to a 7 year 73M contract, he was supposed to be the big man to take them over the hump.

They traded for Jason Terry, Jason Stackhouse and Devin Harris.

[dcee101]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Bulls decide before the 2nd three-peat that they were going to break up for monetary reasons? That's what I recalled but maybe I'm off.

[Rusty Walrus]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Bulls decide before the 2nd three-peat that they were going to break up for monetary reasons? That's what I recalled but maybe I'm off.

IIRC, the reason it was broken up was because of the rift between Krause and PJAX. They actually tried to resign PJAX and Jordan after the 98 championship, but PJAX was done after proclaiming "the last dance" season. By virtue of Jackson leaving, everyone else did as well as they didn't want to play for Krause's guy, Floyd.

People can feel free to correct me but I don't recall money being the reason it went down.

[dcee101]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Bulls decide before the 2nd three-peat that they were going to break up for monetary reasons? That's what I recalled but maybe I'm off.

IIRC, the reason it was broken up was because of the rift between Krause and PJAX. They actually tried to resign PJAX and Jordan after the 98 championship, but PJAX was done after proclaiming "the last dance" season. By virtue of Jackson leaving, everyone else did as well as they didn't want to play for Krause's guy, Floyd.

People can feel free to correct me but I don't recall money being the reason it went down.

Always seemed so strange to me after all the success they had that they had a chance to 4peat or even 5peat with Jordan still playing at a high level.

[Rusty Walrus]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Bulls decide before the 2nd three-peat that they were going to break up for monetary reasons? That's what I recalled but maybe I'm off.

IIRC, the reason it was broken up was because of the rift between Krause and PJAX. They actually tried to resign PJAX and Jordan after the 98 championship, but PJAX was done after proclaiming "the last dance" season. By virtue of Jackson leaving, everyone else did as well as they didn't want to play for Krause's guy, Floyd.

People can feel free to correct me but I don't recall money being the reason it went down.

Always seemed so strange to me after all the success they had that they had a chance to 4peat or even 5peat with Jordan still playing at a high level.

They should've had a chance to 4 peat. Unfortunately egos got in the way.

[McBulls]

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Bulls decide before the 2nd three-peat that they were going to break up for monetary reasons? That's what I recalled but maybe I'm off.

IIRC, the reason it was broken up was because of the rift between Krause and PJAX. They actually tried to resign PJAX and Jordan after the 98 championship, but PJAX was done after proclaiming "the last dance" season. By virtue of Jackson leaving, everyone else did as well as they didn't want to play for Krause's guy, Floyd.

People can feel free to correct me but I don't recall money being the reason it went down.

Always seemed so strange to me after all the success they had that they had a chance to 4peat or even 5peat with Jordan still playing at a high level.

PJax didn't resign, in part because Krause low-balled his salary renewal. But that was certainly not the whole story.

Krause wanted to break up the team. Period. His excuse was that he didn't want the team to slowly decline like the '70s Celtics had. Instead, he wanted to blow the team up, tank the next season, and start over with a clean slate and a few more draft picks.

Of course JK OK'd this nonsense. The stadium was sold out for the foreseeable future. TV contracts were in place for a few more years. Money would roll in whether the Bulls won or not. So not winning was his eagerly embraced choice -- with the benefit of not having to pay PJax, Jordan or Pippen, all of whom had made their low opinion of Bulls management publically known.

At least that's my perception. I'd be careful about believing "sources" whose livelihood depends on maintaining good relations with the Bulls front office.

[organix85]

Does someone have the link to the Reddit page where a person showed the Bulls were 3rd in revenue and something like 22nd in spending?

I actually have an excel spreadsheet that confirms this. I posted it here maybe a month ago.

EDIT:

Here it is. Reddit link is there too.

[Mech Engineer]

The fact that Pax told the information about not selling off the second round pick this year without even being asked shows how worried the Bulls are about their "cheapness" perception. They have to realize the difference between them and the Hornets for example or even Miami.

Didn't MJ sell of Napier's contract to Miami? But, he is operating from a different set of financial standards compared to Jerry. Hopefully, Phil doesn't put stuff in Melo's head about all this even though Phil has praised Krause before.

[AKfanatic]

In the past ten years or so, the Bulls have spent about as much as the Milwaukee Bucks.

Enough said.

Did they not try to spend big in the past? Mcgrady+Hill+Duncan, Lebron+Wade+Bosh...they've went out and tried to spend when the true quality championship type players have been available. Being a smart spender doesn't make one cheap. Had the Bulls successfully ended up with a Rose, James, Bosh, Noah team I don't doubt that they'd of spent to keep that team together as long as it was contending for championships. It's funny how the Bulls are considered cheap and their competition isn't, even though their competition (minus the Nyets) are avoiding the same spending penalties the Bulls are. The Heat lost key players this past season (miller) being "cheap". Cuban was "cheap" with Nash and Chandler. Teams need to know when to spend and not just spend so fans don't call them cheap.

[ryan44]

In the past ten years or so, the Bulls have spent about as much as the Milwaukee Bucks.

Enough said.

Indeed. The Bucks management was truly pathetic. Spend as much as the Bulls to keep fighting for that 8th seed and 1st round blowout.

[coldfish]

In the past ten years or so, the Bulls have spent about as much as the Milwaukee Bucks.

Enough said.

Indeed. The Bucks management was truly pathetic. Spend as much as the Bulls to keep fighting for that 8th seed and 1st round blowout.

The bucks were like 21st in spending and the bulls were 22nd. Over the period being discussed, the bucks probably have a better winning percentage to boot.

[ryan44]

In the past ten years or so, the Bulls have spent about as much as the Milwaukee Bucks.

Enough said.

Indeed. The Bucks management was truly pathetic. Spend as much as the Bulls to keep fighting for that 8th seed and 1st round blowout.

The bucks were like 21st in spending and the bulls were 22nd. Over the period being discussed, the bucks probably have a better winning percentage to boot.

Perhaps, but at least the Bulls FO improved over time, whether it be drafting, or not blowing a ton of money in free agency on guys on the downswing like Ben Wallace. The Bucks spent to stay in the same place, borderline playoffs. Short of being constantly at the bottom of the standings, that's the stupidest thing possible.

[coldfish]

Indeed. The Bucks management was truly pathetic. Spend as much as the Bulls to keep fighting for that 8th seed and 1st round blowout.

The bucks were like 21st in spending and the bulls were 22nd. Over the period being discussed, the bucks probably have a better winning percentage to boot.

Perhaps, but at least the Bulls FO improved over time, whether it be drafting, or not blowing a ton of money in free agency on guys on the downswing like Ben Wallace. The Bucks spent to stay in the same place, borderline playoffs. Short of being constantly at the bottom of the standings, that's the stupidest thing possible.

But the point is: The Bucks haven't spent. They are among the lowest spending teams in the NBA. Right next to the Bulls.

And the last time the Bulls had money in free agency they gave $85 million dollars to an older and declining Carlos Boozer, the guy that Reinsdorf reportedly doesn't want to amnesty. Its not like Chicago has been particularly wise with the money it has spent.

Up until now, the front office does one thing well. Draft. They do it REALLY well. However, from trades to free agency, they kind of suck. Its a good thing that Obama saved the Bulls from themselves and got Thibodeau here or Chicago would still be a treadmill team.

[ryan44]

The bucks were like 21st in spending and the bulls were 22nd. Over the period being discussed, the bucks probably have a better winning percentage to boot.

Perhaps, but at least the Bulls FO improved over time, whether it be drafting, or not blowing a ton of money in free agency on guys on the downswing like Ben Wallace. The Bucks spent to stay in the same place, borderline playoffs. Short of being constantly at the bottom of the standings, that's the stupidest thing possible.

But the point is: The Bucks haven't spent. They are among the lowest spending teams in the NBA. Right next to the Bulls.

And the last time the Bulls had money in free agency they gave $85 million dollars to an older and declining Carlos Boozer, the guy that Reinsdorf reportedly doesn't want to amnesty.

I'd have to go look on a year-by-year basis, but as far as I can remember since the MJ glory days, the Bulls have been up near the luxury tax when I've felt it was warranted. That's basically a year or two after they got Rose. Nothing else. I have zero problem with the Bulls not committing to big payrolls (and I'm not even talking about going anywhere near the luxury tax, I'm just talking about being anywhere near the top of the league in spending) if the team isn't somewhat in the discussion for winning it all. I don't expect the Bulls to spend money just because it's there, or to minimally improve the roster in a year where winning the title is a complete long shot to begin with. I sure as hell wouldn't do that if I owned the Bulls outright since the idea of throwing away millions to lose in 7 games in the first round, or make the second round instead of getting bounced in the first round strikes me as a huge waste of profits, so I don't expect JR and Co. to do so either.