The myth of Reinsdorf's cheapness

[johnnyvann840]

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.

.

You are scaring the living hell out of me. .. Mainly, because, deep down, I am still terrified that, somehow, he will still be on the roster when we open next season. Until he and his albatross contract is gone, this franchise cannot move forward.

[coldfish]

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.

So, basically you would be cheap too?

For the most part, you have to spend to win. You have to be willing to swallow costs to upgrade the roster. Reinsdorf really isn't willing to do that. With him, you win first then you spend. That's not how you grow an organization, that's how you milk it.

If you see my edit above, the Bulls front office is awful at trades. Just gawd awful. Maybe its not their fault. Maybe if ownership gave them more financial flexibility they would be able to add assets and make deals to upgrade the roster. Other teams do. Not Chicago though. They dump drafted talent for future flexibility.

Top 10 spenders and number of finals appearances over the span:
1 New York Knicks $1,015,789,167 0
2 Dallas Mavericks $936,328,027 2
3 Los Angeles Lakers $861,159,201 6
4 Portland Trailblazers $813,578,335 0
5 Boston Celtics $765,951,194 2
6 Philadelphia 76ers $758,506,582 1
7 Orlando Magic $737,332,189 1
8 Miami Heat $728,610,673 5
9 San Antonio Spurs $703,932,796 6
10 Minnesota Timberwolves $697,847,369 0
Total = 23 appearances

Bottom 10 and appearances
21 Detroit Pistons $668,973,853 2
22 Golden State Warriors $666,567,829 0
23 Chicago Bulls $665,479,765 0
24 Utah Jazz $651,331,805 0
25 Atlanta Hawks $648,178,592 0
26 New Orleans Hornets $640,889,832 0
27 Washington Wizards $637,963,499 0
28 Oklahoma City Thunder $635,260,582 1
29 Los Angeles Clippers $613,228,204 0
30 Charlotte Bobcats $462,928,639 0
Total = 3

People love to point to the Knicks as some definitive evidence that spending does not equal winning. Its just not true. While spending doesn't overcome stupidity, there is a strong correlation between investing smartly and heavily in your team and winning.

[Michael Jackson]

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?

Deng is so not a bad player but he isn't even on any FA list. Patty mills is higher. The bulls seem to have offered him an over payment. I don't think they were getting more for him. I might just be flat out wrong though.

[Michael Jackson]

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.

.

You are scaring the living hell out of me. .. Mainly, because, deep down, I am still terrified that, somehow, he will still be on the roster when we open next season. Until he and his albatross contract is gone, this franchise cannotly move forward.

I agree with that. Sadly I think we might replace it with another contract that is intolerable.

[ryan44]

So, basically you would be cheap too?

For the most part, you have to spend to win. You have to be willing to swallow costs to upgrade the roster. Reinsdorf really isn't willing to do that. With him, you win first then you spend. That's not how you grow an organization, that's how you milk it.

If you see my edit above, the Bulls front office is awful at trades. Just gawd awful. Maybe its not their fault. Maybe if ownership gave them more financial flexibility they would be able to add assets and make deals to upgrade the roster. Other teams do. Not Chicago though. They dump drafted talent for future flexibility.

Top 10 spenders and number of finals appearances over the span:
1 New York Knicks $1,015,789,167 0
2 Dallas Mavericks $936,328,027 2
3 Los Angeles Lakers $861,159,201 6
4 Portland Trailblazers $813,578,335 0
5 Boston Celtics $765,951,194 2
6 Philadelphia 76ers $758,506,582 1
7 Orlando Magic $737,332,189 1
8 Miami Heat $728,610,673 5
9 San Antonio Spurs $703,932,796 6
10 Minnesota Timberwolves $697,847,369 0
Total = 23 appearances

Bottom 10 and appearances
21 Detroit Pistons $668,973,853 2
22 Golden State Warriors $666,567,829 0
23 Chicago Bulls $665,479,765 0
24 Utah Jazz $651,331,805 0
25 Atlanta Hawks $648,178,592 0
26 New Orleans Hornets $640,889,832 0
27 Washington Wizards $637,963,499 0
28 Oklahoma City Thunder $635,260,582 1
29 Los Angeles Clippers $613,228,204 0
30 Charlotte Bobcats $462,928,639 0
Total = 3

People love to point to the Knicks as some definitive evidence that spending does not equal winning. Its just not true. While spending doesn't overcome stupidity, there is a strong correlation between investing smartly and heavily in your team and winning.

If your definition of "cheap" means "does not see the point in spending millions for a minor roster upgrade where a NBA championship is not realistically feasible" and/or "sees no need to be one of the top spenders in the league with a mediocre team simply because you are in a larger market and have a bigger revenue stream", then yes. I absolutely disagree that such a mindset is "cheap", but if that's your definition, there's nothing left to argue since we can't resolve that core issue.

[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?

Deng is so not a bad player but he isn't even on any FA list. Patty mills is higher. The bulls seem to have offered him an over payment. I don't think they were getting more for him. I might just be flat out wrong though.

Deng played himself out of a lot of money in Cleveland. He was much higher regarded out of Chicago.

Regardless, its speculation and I'll be the first to admit it. I'm just trying to point out that discussing individual moves and non-moves is not something we can do in this discussion. We simply don't know what the Bulls have turned down due to financial implications.

[GetBuLLish]

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.

What's funny is that in the past ten or so years, the vast majority of the competition has outspent the Bulls (21 out of 29 other teams).

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.

Interestingly enough, the Mavs and Heat have obliterated the Bulls in spending, especially the Mavs. Also, please read Sonny's post above which demolishes the idea that Cuban didn't resign Nash due to being cheap.

It seems like all that the people arguing against JR being "cheap" have going is a bunch of straw man arguments. "What, just because JR doesn't spend like Prokorov means he's cheap!?" "The Heat have also made cost cutting moves too!" "If the JR was actually cheap, he'd only sign, like, 5 players and all for the vet min!" That last one was an exaggeration but really not that far off from what keeps being posted.

Anyways, lets hope JR bucks the trend this summer. The optimist in me believes he will.

[coldfish]

If your definition of "cheap" means "does not see the point in spending millions for a minor roster upgrade where a NBA championship is not realistically feasible" then yes. I absolutely disagree that such a mindset is "cheap", but if that's your definition, there's nothing left to argue since we can't resolve that core issue.

That's not what is being advocated. You make moves to put yourself in a better position. There is no magic bullet out there that can take you all the way there. If you look all the stuff teams like the Lakers have swallowed to build their teams you see that is what it takes.

The "not spending for a minor move" is Reinsdorf speak for justifying his cheapness. He is creating a bar that he knows very few transactions can meet.

[RedBulls23]

Bulls ownership aren't cheap. They're frugal. They will spend money if there is a clear benefit to it.

[Michael Jackson]

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?

Deng is so not a bad player but he isn't even on any FA list. Patty mills is higher. The bulls seem to have offered him an over payment. I don't think they were getting more for him. I might just be flat out wrong though.

Deng played himself out of a lot of money in Cleveland. He was much higher regarded out of Chicago.

Regardless, its speculation and I'll be the first to admit it. I'm just trying to point out that discussing individual moves and non-moves is not something we can do in this discussion. We simply don't know what the Bulls have turned down due to financial implications.

I agree. I think jerry is is frugal. Your example of holding onto Tyson is valid from a separate thread. Very conservative no doubt. Only willing to pay for a winner no doubt. Cheap because of the implications though is wrong. IMHO. I am often wrong. I supported Krause in the new twin towers trade. Jerry is kinda home run or nothing I agree. He isn't a bad owner though. He is no Cuban ( who got smarter) , Dolan or Prokohov. I won't argue that. I just think the lack of understanding of the CBA which honestly I fully don't, makes many arguments invalid. You present fine arguments against JR though.

[coldfish]

The Bulls have not given any indication that they’re going to create the cap space for Anthony by using their one-time amnesty clause on Carlos Boozer. Inside the team’s executive offices, there was a genuine fear as of Friday that owner Jerry Reinsdorf won’t give his go-ahead to have Boozer’s $16.8 million lopped off the books. He’s as opposed to paying a player to walk away as he is to forking over even a dime in luxury tax.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/lawre ... -1.1847672

I would be pretty surprised if the Bulls refused to amnesty Boozer. Its not going to give them a massive player net cost. I suspect the Bulls will amnesty Boozer and people will point to it as an example of Jerry not being cheap without understanding the implications. If the Bulls amnesty Boozer, they lose the MLE and biannual exceptions. They can just spend up to the cap and the room exception. Also, Boozer will get bids for him that will partially offset Boozer's cost to the Bulls.

Man though, if the Bulls just outright refuse to amnesty Boozer and keep him on the roster next year . . . sheesh.

[TruthSerum]

I don't think anyone has ever argued that Jerry Krause wasn't cheap. Not sure where all this "myth" talk comes from. The guy blew up our dynasty after finally paying for it in '98. Those 5 other rings came cheap and everybody knows it.

He then went on to make money hand over fist for the better part of a decade because nobody would come play for our cheap owner but us fans kept filling the seats. JR got his welfare check from the league again this season after dumping Deng, would've gotten one the year prior but didn't want to give up a 1st round pick for a team to take rip's salary.

Still hasn't and won't amnesty Boozer. No incentive for him to do so without the luxury tax and he can stay below it by using MLE on Mirotic.

[sljdaddy]

The Bulls have had one of the fifth highest payrolls in the league over the past few years.

Them being cheap is a myth.

[Wingy]

Whether you agree or disagree, and whether it's true or false - the perception IS real and will play a big part as to why we won't get Melo and why we're always the bridesmaid.

For all those with their hopes up, sorry