Any time you go under the salary cap to sign players, your payroll is going to be low that season. The only way it won't is if you have a Chandler Parsons-ish free agent who has a very low cap hold that you sign to a huge contract. The first year of the Big 3, the Heat's payroll was 23rd in the NBA.
The problem with that theory is that the Lakers blatantly and obviously didn't feel Deng was such a great fit for them. They had plenty of cap space to offer Deng any salary up to the max if they thought he was such a great fit for them. Instead, they spent their cap space on Jeremy Lin and Jordan Hill. And Carlos Boozer, of course.
Bingo! Of course, the weakness in your explanation is that it really doesn't shit on Bulls' management at all. I'm not sure that you're trying hard enough to fit in here.
Well I'm new here, I don't want to show off.... But it's obvious that instead of dumping Deng at the deadline for PROFITS!!!!! they should have traded him for Jordan Hill and Jeremy Lin, so they could turn around and trade Hill and Lin for Gasol in a sign and trade. Competent management would have known that the Lakers wanted Hill and Lin this summer. And they could have easily traded Deng for two players who were on different teams if they would have just tried, they just refuse to get creative. They never have a plan.
It seems the lakers expressed interest in Lu. http://fansided.com/2014/07/03/los-...rs-interested-luol-deng-trevor-ariza/#!bh0ttW http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ony-lebron-james-washington-wizards/11843593/ http://www.lakersnation.com/kobe-br...ee-agency-we-have-several-options/2014/07/09/
I am amazed at how a guy who claims to be the intelligent blogger consistently abuses strawman arguments. Piss poor logic. Someone pulled this trade for Lin thing out of their ass. The argument any of us made was that keeping Lu gave the team more options in the end. The possibility of a S&T, or renounce him.
The possibility of a sign and trade- to a team that didn't need to sign and trade for him, since they could have signed him with cap space if they really wanted him- or the three real, actual, draft picks the Bulls got for Deng. Yeah, are there certainly strawmen flying around... Articles stating that the Lakers were interested in Deng vs Reality, where the Lakers used their cap space on Jeremy Lin and Jordan Hill instead of Deng Uh, yeah, reality kind of proves that the Lakers were MORE interested in Jordan Hill and Jeremy Lin.
There are 28 other teams besides the bulls and lakers. 29 other than the bulls. We had zero flexibility to use him in a S&T with anyone. Getting $12M under the cap plus room is good. Getting a trade, over the cap, MLE and BAE gets you a higher payroll. If the money is spent wisely, higher payroll is a better chance to win. Period.
Downright shitty logic. By your reasoning, the bulls were MORE interested in Gasol than Melo. Reality - that's where they spent their cap space. Just nuts.
I'm a thankful for that too. Then again, I was beyond excited for the Curry and Chandler era. ... So.....
When, exactly, did the Lakers offer Deng a contract? I see three articles where they "are rumored to be interested". They spent more than the max in cap space on Jordan Hill and Jeremy Lin, where's the offer they made to Deng? Where did they try to sign Deng? When did they meet with Deng's agent? THEY DIDN'T. According to your articles, the Lakers showed as much interest in Deng this summer as the Bulls did.
No, the Bulls actually met with Melo and offered him a contract. When did the Lakers meet with Deng and offer him a contract. THEY. DID. NOT. Nice strawman work though, you're getting page views. PROFIT!!!!!!!!! PROFIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! PROFIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You don't know if they had multiple calls with Lu or not. You have no idea what they did or did not offer him. Yet you state with authority they were more interested in who they ended up signing. You are pulling crap out of thin air. The Bulls did not by any account offer Melo a contract. Just a vague, "we'll make it work if you want to be here."
I know that there's some sort of dispute, but i can't say that I understand what that dispute might be. In any event, good luck with it.
We've got a troll is all. Here is is, trolling the entire internet! I don't know where to begin, other than it's humorous. Two people found it worthwhile to comment on it. I'll start at the top and work my way down. Just wow. I don't know anyone who thinks the Bulls should have the highest payroll in the league because of their profits. Not a one. This is classic strawman. Set up the "highest payroll" thing that nobody has argued and argue against that. Just wow. Compounding one logical fallacy with another. If at first you don't succeed, keep on sucking until you do succeed. I guess. I have never in the past 15 years ever seen any Bulls fan suggest the Bulls should spend money "for the sake of it." He continues to confound. He is arguing the corollary and something else entirely. NOT SPENDING does not lead to winning. I cannot find a team in the past 15 years that won the championship that didn't also pay the luxury tax. Not a one. Even the Pistons paid it the one year they won the championship. Then he specifically trolls some poor slob on RealGM: He responds: OK, technically he's correct, but somehow the Nets got so far over the tax and accrued a 5 man starting lineup of Pierce, Garnett, Lopez, Williams, and Smith. It _can_ be done if there's a will. But of course, nobody's suggesting the Bulls go to the extreme that the Nets did. He goes on to cite another poster at RealGM who cleaned his clock with sound reasoning. Here's the post he cites: http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=39847049#p39847049 He decides to insult the guy via his blog: "this genius has no clue". That the blogger doesn't understand how a P&L and cash flows work explains who doesn't have the clue. You can tell because he makes this silly argument: Get this straight. Profit = Income - Expenses. Decreasing Expenses is just one way to increase Profit. Or taken to the logical extreme, if they had $0 in expenses (which is toward where the argument has been made), the Bulls will increase profits even more. The reality is they'd have $0 in income at that point. In his zealousness to further insult people who probably don't bother to read his blog: And previously he used a line he's used here at least once: Comical indeed. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/1...r-asik-new-orleans-pelicans-according-sources In exchange for Asik, the Rockets will receive the Pelicans' 2015 first-round draft pick. The Rockets also will include $1.5 million in cash as part of the deal.
A brilliant article by Kelly Dwyer at Yahoo! http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-b...eball-american-basketball-193854609--nba.html Read the comments, too.
