According to Forbes, the Bulls have averaged $55M/year in PROFIT the past 5 seasons. That would be $275M. Roughly (almost) 1/3 of all the Luxury Tax paid since 2002/2003.
And this: http://www.blogabull.com/2012/7/26/...rf-the-luxury-tax-and-the-2014-plan?ref=yahoo Too fucking spot on.
Well, you've gotta give credit where credit is due. From an ROI standpoint, Uncle Jerry knows what he's doing. From the perspective of a business owner is there anyone better at squeezing out dollars than Reinsdorf?
The Spurs paid the tax 5 times and won championships. The Lakers paid $84M in taxes over the years and won championships. We paid $0 and won none and competed for none.
Thonus has been pounding this point home for months now. He is right. JR could spend some of his profit and still make a nice profit every season. He wont do it.
I'm pissed at the Bulls FO right now for not going for it this upcoming season (by matching Asik). Still, I find the Gee, "the Bulls are one of the few teams that have never paid the tax" to be fodder for the stupid. The 2012-13 season is the first season that it has made sense to me for the Bulls to pay the tax and that meant matching Asik. Right now, they're looking to be in tax territory, but since they've decided that they're really not making a run at it this season, I hope they avoid it by trading Hamilton at the trade deadline to dodge the repeater tax. Of course, those who love calling Reinsdorf cheap will go crazy if this happens. For me, if you're not serious about winning a championship in a season, and I don't believe the Bulls are serious about winning one in 2012-13, then the smart thing to do is avoid paying the tax.
It's not fodder for the stupid for a couple of reasons. First, teams that win have paid the tax all through the building to championship level, then to maintain it. Second, the Bulls could have paid the tax for just one season in the Pax era and would have replaced one of those big salaried stiffs who weren't very good with one of the guys we let go - Chandler and Gordon come to mind.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I completely stand by my statement. When they signed Ben Wallace, I immediately hoped they'd be able to get something useful for Chandler. It would be stupid to keep him...and very bad for Chandler. I completely supported letting Gordon walk. While seemingly every Bulls' fan seems to believe that the Bulls' FO is risk averse, they went all-in to be able to sign two max FAs in 2010. They were unable to lure a Wade-Lebron, Wade-Bosh, Wade-Boozer or Lebron-Bosh combo, but they couldn't have even attempted any of these combinations had they re-signed Gordon. And of course, as everyone knows, Gordon proved to be a bad signing for the Pistons. We could argue about this, but to no fruitful end. It's just my opinion, which of course is no better or worse than yours. Had the Bulls matched Asik, 2012-13 would have been the first season where paying the tax made sense to me. Since the Bulls didn't match Asik, the FO isn't going for it this season (IMO) and to me it doesn't make sense to me for them to pay the tax this season. If one more season of being "one one of the only teams to have NEVER paid the tax" disturbs some fans, I believe those fans are idiots. Seriously, that's how I feel. You can, and obviously do, disagree, but I honestly don't care. I'm not trying to be an asshole...I'm just trying to be clear.
What was the point in letting Chandler go? So we could watch PJ Brown play! Gordon may have been so so for Detroit, but he wasn't for us. A Gordon/Boozer duo was doable and cheap enough we could still sign a CJ and maybe Korver.
Try to keep an open mind, Denny. There are other POVs that may be legitimate that differ from your own. I seem to consistently possess these. The idea of moving Chandler, who had maturity issues, from the starting center to a 13mpg backup to Ben Wallace, was a recipe for disaster. Even Chandler admitted that he needed to be given the boot to help him grow up. Besides that, once they signed a pure-defense center in Wallace, they needed a starting PF much more than they needed a 13mpg backup center. Hence the trade of Chandler for P.J. Brown. The team they put together was the first since the dynasty to advance to the 2nd round of the playoffs. Gordon had to go in order to have the cap space to sign two premier FAs in 2010. So did Hinrich. Both were ditched on a gamble...ironic since everyone moans about Bulls' management being risk-averse. Being as the Bulls had the best regular-season record in the league for the two seasons following this decision, it's hard to say that the gamble was a failure, but it actually was...they didn't get two premier FAs. Still, among failures, this has been one of the easier to take ones I can think of.
Wallace should have been our PF with Chandler at C. You act like we actually got that starting PF when instead we got PJ. He started 49 games for us, and when he wasn't in the game, we had a bonehead (Tyrus) instead. Chandler ended up scoring more than Tyrus and PJ combined, and he grabbed 12.4 rebounds that season. I'm not sure if what you describe was a gamble, or stupidity, or just a way to cut salary to right at the salary cap (instead of between that and the LT). It's surprising that Boozer signed with us, the bench mob was paid probably more than they'd get elsewhere. I mean, since the days of TMac and Brand (wanting the hell outta here), we're not exactly the premier destination for the top FAs.
Sign a veteran to a 4yr/$60M contract and then play him out of position? Might have been interesting. Actually, Nocioni started most of the games at PF when Brown didn't. If Chandler hadn't had such a poor season in 05-06, the Bulls could have saved some money and avoided the Wallace fiasco entirely. In the past 10 years, the Bulls were only seriously in the free agent market twice. They got Wallace who at the time was the top FA (weak year) and a couple years ago they got Boozer who was generally considered the 3rd most sought-after FA who actually changed teams (behind James and Bosh).
I generally agree with Transplant and will add that paying lux tax is not a benchmark of any real significance. Sure a couple of teams have won it all in lux tax spending but the overwhelming majority of teams paying tax did so for naught. Those Knicks rings sure looked shiny when the contracts were signed... Y
Paying the LT doesn't assure a championship, but championship teams seem to pay it. It's a sign the team is at least trying to win it, and that's the significance.
