Cheap free agent scoring guards/guards to fill up roster spots.

I'm not following your math. Boozer and Deng got you Gasol and Mirotic. Assuming Boozer does get amnestied.

Championship teams do pay the LT. The Spurs, a much smaller market than the Bulls, paid it 5 of 10 seasons between 2002-03 and 2012-13.

Of course it's profit motive.

 

Right. I misspoke.

The Heat still look like our ECF team with Bosh at PF and Anderson at C.

 

I'm still not following your math. NOT paying Deng $10M and not having Boozer's $16M on the books make those deals possible. You sort of have it right that we couldn't have signed Gasol. Mirotic would have been signed with the MLE.

Who would you rather have, by the way, Deng or Gasol?

I think it's a close call, but Deng doesn't clog our PF rotation.

 

Deng turned down $30M for $10M and a sure $40M more. Pretty smart on his part. He's seen the "go get your best offer and we'll match it" schtick before.

You talk about the $10M like it is his market value. Was Bogans' $5M contract his market value?

I don't think so.

 

Deng said he was not against rejoining the Bulls. He just wanted to test free agency. Similar to Melo.

It turns out the 3 year, 10 million per offer was the best one he received, at least in terms of years and $. If the Bulls were willing to pay that in the winter, one would think they would be willing to pay that in the summer, and thus they would not be letting him walk for nothing.

 

The series of moves the Bulls made to avoid the luxury tax last season, especially the vet min deals down the stretch, were nothing short of brilliant. Its amazing what they can accomplish when the motivation is tax avoidance.

Your point about the Bulls perhaps paying the tax again last season seems sound. Denny's point about the FO finding another way to get under seems like a likely scenario as well, if not last season, then going into this season.

I prefer Gasol over Deng when both were in their primes. Given that we have Gibson and Noah at the 4 and 5 and nothing sound opposite Butler at this point, I think it could be argued that Deng would be a better fit for this roster. And Deng is in his prime vs Gasol winding down his career.


Listen Bullsville, I guarantee you that you have spent more hours banging away on the boards and studying the CBA than I have over the last 6 years. So I totally appreciate your expertise. There's no way I could pull off a kukoc4ever.net, a kukoc4ever blog and a kukoc4everTV channel. So thanks for putting up with me. If you could educate me as gently as possible, I would appreciate it.

 

[TWEET]488193670198624258[/TWEET]
Got it...thanks.

 

Just to belabor this point, if the Bulls didn't trade Deng, they very well could have paid the tax again (unless they found some other even more creative way to get under it) and then got under this off-season. That's a good point.

Once the Bulls decided that they didn't want to let Deng test free agency, ala Melo, they went about executing a complex series of transactions over the rest of the season that were less winning basketball related (dumping Deng) and more tax avoidance related. Deng of course would have been an asset to the Bulls last season and in the playoffs.

Once again, Luol Deng is a 2 time all-star in his prime. Dumping him for basically nothing isn't a step in the right direction.

As it turns out, the Bulls were willing to pay Deng 3 years, 30 million and that was the best offer Deng received from the years/$ standpoint, so they very well were likely to retain him, given that Deng never mentioned to my knowledge that he was looking to leave the Chicago Bulls or holds any animus towards them.

 

Well, I can't very well disagree with this since I've written similar things many times in the past. You just seem to believe that Reinsdorf is a lot more absolutist about it than I do.

Reinsdorf hates what he sees as irresponsible spending on the part of teams. He believes that it keeps potentially good ownership from wanting to own franchises (leaving those franchises to be bought up by goofy Russians who will spend everything on anything). I believe that he's right to feel this way.

Reinsdorf doesn't want to pay the tax, but he will and he has. That whole, "Reinsdorf will never..." thing should by all rights be as dead as Julius Caesar. And say what you will, had Rose stayed healthy and the team was performing as expected, they'd have paid the LT again this past season. In fact, until the Cavs offered to take Deng for an immediately-expiring Bynum, an almost impossibly delicious luxury tax "get out of jail free card," paying some LT was considered a fait accompli for 2013-14. I know at least one person is convinced that, had they not traded Deng, they would have done something else to get under the tax line, but there simply weren't any realistic "something else" scenarios available.

 

Reinsdorf will only pay the tax the one time.

Until proven otherwise. It's been decades of proof that he avoids the tax at nearly all cost.

I guess the Reggie Rose brouhaha made him realize that you have to please star players some of the time.

 

And Carlos Boozer isn't gone until he's gone.

The tax started in 2003, so it's pretty much one decade and since they've paid it once, not so much proof.

Sound reasoning there, Tex.

 

Carlos Boozer is gone? I keep looking for the news, and no official announcement.

We've gone over the LT issue more than once. Since he paid it once, it's true you can say he's paid the tax. I don't think it was willingly, as numerous articles like this substantiate (Tex):

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/outside-shot/NBA-Releases-Bulls-Luxury-Tax-Bill-214926141.html

It was long believed that the Bulls would trade Hamilton at last season's deadline to avoid having to pay the luxury tax, but because of his age and history of injury, the team could find no takers, which kept them in luxury tax territory for the remainder of the season.

...

It won't happen again.

 

I do not want anyone who would not want to trade THAT Richard Hamilton in THAT season in order to save $4mil doing anything that is important to me.

 

It's not your $4M.

And they miscalculated and got stuck. Otherwise no tax ever.

 

In both 2012-13 and 2013-14, the Chicago Bulls entered each season with the hope that they would be serious contenders. Because of this, they also entered each season with a willingness to pay the tax and an expectation that they'd be required to pay the tax. In each season, Rose's injuries made it clear that they could not seriously contend and they attempted to make moves designed to avoid paying the tax. They were successful in 2013-14, but not in 2012-13.

 

"Willingness" is a lie to sell tickets.

Talk is cheap.

You have no idea if the Bulls would have maneuvered under the cap this past season with a healthy Rose. I do have an idea, because past behavior matches their talk of not paying the LT.