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

Now you're just being weird.

Teams that don't spend lose, period. That you find exceptions to teams that do spend and also lose doesn't change the fact that teams that don't spend lose.

http://mybreakfastsurreal.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/nba-payrolls-mo-money-mo-championships/

Let me start of by saying, money does not always equal talent or championships.

...

However, the exceptions that I mentioned span the last 4 champions suggesting a trend in recent history that the payrolls of champions are increasing significantly higher than the average league payroll. A projection of the payroll for the 2013-14 champions shows that this trend is most likely to continue, increasing faster than the league average, yet not reaching the highest amount.

...

While the top payroll rarely wins, the bottom payroll never does.

...

A team must spend wisely, but mustn’t be afraid to spend either, because in the words of method man…

Scared money don’t make money.

 

This profit over team thing has a real tough time getting over the Boozer amnesty bump, particularly when the chief spokesman for the profit over team side assured us unequivocally (I tried giving him an out and he didn't want it) that THE BULLS WILL NOT AMNESTY CARLOS BOOZER.

As we all know, the Bulls did amnesty Boozer. In doing so, they potentially reduced their profits by $16mil to improve their team, IMO, only by a moderate amount. It is foolishness to make a case that the amnesty of Boozer and the additions of Gasol and Mirotic will increase revenue significantly.

It's been a bad summer for the profit over team crowd. It's time for the argument to shift...again.

 

This is entirely out of character for the team. They've paid guys $15M in one season to not play, but they were part of the cap equation and translated into future cap space. Boozer's amnesty is unlike anything this team has done since MJ/Pip/PJax were sent packing.

The last time management talked about paying the tax, it was to keep Asik, no matter what someone else offered, and we know how that turned out.

Someone must have slipped something into management's gatorade.

I do like Gar Foreman. He's gotten the Chairman to pay the LT once and now to pay a huge amnesty bill.

If the bulls didn't improve the team only by a moderate amount, yet they are one of three teams with the best chance to advance from the East to the finals, then everyone else must suck.

Don't get me wrong, I am happy the Bulls amnestied Boozer, I just didn't believe they would.

 

$5M plus tax more profit in letting Asik go.

They said they'd match any offer. How'd that turn out? They lied.

 

What Jerry has said is "if we're in a position to compete, that we would consider going into the tax". Obviously we've been in a position to compete the last couple of years. Then when I talk about our long-term window, we feel we're going to be in a position to compete. I'm really confident that we will go into the tax if it makes basketball sense, as far as our long-term vision with this team. If it does, I think we'll go into the tax. I don't think we'll go into the tax for a short-term plug-in. But we're going to protect our assets, we're going to continue to build this thing for the next 5-7, 10 years built around Derrick and some of our young pieces.
-- Gar Foreman, after Rose was known to miss most or all of the season.

 

Asik was a young asset to be protected.

The following season, Noah suffered with plantar fasciitis and missed 16 games. Asik's replacement was Nazr.

The basketball decision is to have the best bench player of the lot, in this case Asik.

Asik's salary was $5M, not $8M. The third season, it jumped to $15M. There's your salary cap expert information.

They might have traded him for a shooting guard at least.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/slideshow/sports-mostleastprofitableNBAteams/2/
Most Profitable: 1. Chicago Bulls
5-year Average Profit: $55 million

The Bulls' average profit dwarfs other NBA teams thanks to the league's best home game attendance in three of the last five years. Chicago, however, was out-earned the last two seasons by the New York Knicks.

 

Asik really wasn't all that when he walked. Granted bigs in general and Euro bigs in particular take time and his first season gone he had a terrific season -- followed by an ok year.

 

Don. Sending PM.

 

I think these PGs haven't been signed yet:

- Jameer Nelson
- Ramon Sessions
- Aaron Brooks
- Mo Williams

We might be able to grab one of them for whatever we can muster, even if it's vet minimum.

 

A few things.

Spending money on payroll clearly matters. All else being equal (including skill of GM / scouts), I think it’s reasonable to expect a team that spends 100 million on payroll to beat a team that spends 10 million on payroll and for that team to usually beat a team that spends 1 million on payroll.

It’s also true that none of the non-tax paying teams have won a NBA championship, during the tax era.

The tax threshold is the self-imposed budget that Uncle Jerry puts on the franchise.

The Bulls are one of the richest franchises in the NBA. They have paid the luxury tax in one season during the tax era. The one season they did pay it, they were scurrying around trying like hell to not pay it. Now, it is heartening it wasn’t so important that it was worth giving up a first round pick, but that tax line is still *very* important to the organization and they are loathe to spend over it.

This last season is a good example. The trade of Luol Deng for Bynum, who was immediately cut and then keeping the roster size low and playing all kinds of games with vet min contracts shows how important that the tax line is and this season it affected the basketball product. You can’t just dump a 2 time all-star in his prime and expect the team to get better. Now, the Bulls still grinded out some regular season wins once the Thibs got the team to gel, but that was exposed in the playoffs. One would think that a major market team like the Bulls would field a full roster.

Now, you might think the team didn't miss Deng or whatever, but I don’ think it can really be disputed that the Deng dump wasn't luxury tax related.
The Bulls run the payroll side of the house tighter than they should, IMO. They are a lower payroll team in a major market and one of the richest franchises. This is a disconnect. They are not this way in other areas (arena, practice facilities, etc) but when it comes to the luxury tax payroll line, they are pretty rigid. And it doesn't have to be that way. That’s a decision that Uncle Jerry makes.

As we saw with the JWill settlement and the amnesty of Boozer, the Bulls don’t mind throwing millions around. Why not throw a few of those millions towards fielding the best possible roster. Why can’t this organization be hell-bent on bringing another title here? Uncle Jerry is entitled to run his business however he wants, but the penny pinching when it comes to payroll from one of the richest teams in the land gets to be frustrating.

"THE TAX" is just something the owners dreamt up to keep player salaries low, by harming owners that spend too much financially. When a guy like Cuban said F it I’m rich I want to win a title they added repeater penalties to make it even more punitive. Who knows what they will do to try and stop the oligarch. Jerry is a big supporter of this, so he tries to practice what he preaches, and is certainly hell bent on keeping his organization under the tax line, except for rare cases. I would prefer an owner that is more hell bent on winning a NBA Title, but he’s the owner we have, so whatcha gonna do, it’s his business.

 

K4E,

The new CBA is really harsh on tax paying teams, though. I understand the Bulls not wanting to be repeat taxpayers, but I don't see why they always avoided paying the tax when the previous CBA wasn't so harsh and the team was raking in so much in profit.

I've seen Adam Silver say things like the Tax is meant to force "player sharing" among teams; to restrict all teams' ability to form super teams like the Heat did. The Heat were willing to spend, but still were limited to taking on aging players chasing rings at discount prices or draft picks. It seems to be working - even the Nets who have the spendy $billionaire owner is cutting down on his tax bill. It seems to be working, too, as evidenced by LeBron going back to Cleveland and Houston losing Parsons.

The Salary Cap itself is a significant hindrance. The first year of the Heat's super team, they were completely limited to the big 3 and whoever they could sign at vet minimum. They had no exceptions to use. Building around the big 3 was tough because they'd only have MLE, BAE (every other year), draft picks, and vet minimums to add depth. The Bulls window to beat them was only there before the Heat did add depth and more talent. Four straight finals appearances and two championships. Teams can also sign their own players to bigger contracts using Bird type exceptions. The Heat paid $14M more in salary than the Bulls did last year while making the Finals, paid luxury tax.

Unless I'm not factoring in some CBA tricks the team may have up its sleeve, the Bulls are so close to the Cap that they're now only able to use vet minimum to add anyone else. They had to use an exception to bring back Hinrich, it wasn't cap space.

With all the FA activity this season and likely next, the inability to trade Boozer is a rather stunning FAIL! Complain about his contract and production all you want, but he's still a 14/8 guy in limited minutes who can contribute (and will as a bargain for someone who claims him), and most importantly is a giant expiring contract. A team right at the cap that traded for him would be almost $17M under after the season, making it not too hard to offer an elite FA a MAX contract (something the Bulls did not do). A team over the Cap would lose $17M of salary counted toward the cap, allowing them to extend their own players (rookies, etc.).

If the Bulls paid JWill $3M, it cost them $2M and the other $1M was covered by the tax write-off (ordinary expense). The settlement was beneficial to the Bulls because they freed up a roster spot, and it saved the Bulls roughly $2.5M since the remainder of his contract was roughly $5.5M. They could have tried to get out of the contract, but that would have been a lawsuit that could have moved slowly in the courts.

 

Bullsville, when I'm saying non tax paying team I mean teams that never have paid the tax. There are some teams who are comfortable having a high payroll and some teams that are going to operate with having a medium to low payroll. The Bulls are a major market team that is one of the richest in the league that chooses not to have one of the higher payrolls.

If you do agree that money spent on payroll does matter, then all else being equal, the teams that spend more are at an advantage over the teams that don't. The 80 million dollar team has an advantage over the 70 million dollar team, assuming that both organizations are equally skilled at acquiring quality players and building winning teams. Yes, its less of an advantage than the 100 vs 10 example, but its an advantage. And when the difference between winning the title and not winning the title is razor thin, every $ does matter, IMO.

It depends on who you work for. The Mavericks didn't operate like for 9 seasons in the tax era. The Spurs didn't operate like that for 5 seasons during the tax era. The Heat didn't operate like that for 6 years during the tax era. The Lakers didn't operate like that for 9 seasons during the tax era. The Celtics didn't operate like that for 7 seasons during the tax era.


They don't seem to have the myopic focus to stay under the tax line that the Bulls do.

Those guys have pretty much all the rings during the tax era. Getting rings is a good thing, IMO.

(and in the above example, i'm not even looking at the salary cap line, i'm looking at the luxury tax line)


And yes, once your payroll gets over the tax threshold and especially the apron threshold things get more punitive, even from a talent acquisition standpoint, especially for multiple years, so I feel its reasonable for an organization to try and stay out of repeater land. But, also keep in mind that all of these punitive rules are fought for very hard BY THE OWNERS. They want it that way for a reason. And its to make sure that payroll costs don't get out of control and a couple of free spenders can't make the others look bad.

 

Lebron is an interesting case. Lebron hasn't made THE MAX for his entire lifetime with the Heat and isn't making it with Cleveland.

I read an article where he said something "i'll never make what i'm worth on the basketball court" (which would be MUCH higher than a MAX salary. So he's happy negotiating for other things, like short contracts with early exits.

If your best players are choosing to make less than THE MAX, it kind of diminishes the effectiveness of having a MAX, at least from a competitive balance standpoint.

Here's a question I have for the Cap Experts here. It seems like where the Bulls are at right now, just below the Cap line, is a really miserable place to be from a talent acquisition standpoint. The Bulls only had the "Room" MLE to work with and now that's gone and they can't really add any players for significant money.

It seems like there is a penalty to being, say 200K below the cap vs 200K over the cap in terms of the MLE. The over the cap teams get more $$$ to play with. What is the logic behind that? Why penalize the more "fiscally responsible" teams?, ie, why is the Room MLE less than regular MLE?

 

As I see it, there are thee types or levels of fans.

First is the kind that really cares about the product on the court and nothing else. That's pretty much all of the ones who buy tickets to the games and NBALP. All but a few hundred or maybe a few thousand who post on message boards and dig through the CBA FAQ. These are the ones that really make teams money. They buy 99% of the tickets and merchandise.

Second is the kind that fancies themselves to be armchair GMs. They really follow the trades and draft, but also dig through the CBA FAQ and fancy themselves to be some sort of expert because of this. Very few end up being more than windbags on WWW sites though. Dan Rosenbaum ended up getting hired by an NBA team, for example. Others might runt heir own blog (the BlogABull guy) or get paid to write for some big site (not sure I know of any for sure). This kind of fan will buy tickets and/or NBALP.

Third is the kind that recognizes that basketball is a BUSINESS. What comes with BUSINESS is a lot of things that the second type of fan doesn't like to think about (apparently). BUSINESSES have financial statements: P&L, Balance Sheet, and Statement of Cash Flows. This type of fan sees the big picture. Why is there a CBA in the first place? Labor-Management relationships are common in the BUSINESS world. This type of fan knows the CBA and likes the team so they'll buy tickets and/or NBALP. BUSINESS is the big picture.

I urge you to see the big picture.

Labor-Management relationships often result in collective bargaining agreements. General Motors is contractually obligated to pay its workers certain wages and benefits, much as the CBA does. General Motors is not a charity, they are in business to profit and return that profit to the shareholders. They are so motivated by profit that they hid knowledge of dangerous defects in their vehicles from the pubic, all to maximize profit. It is what business is about.

Reinsdorf is a baseball fan, not a basketball fan. He owns the baseball team and operates it like an owner/fan would. He spends on free agents, even this year when the team is not winning. He is on record as saying (roughly) the Bulls are such a great cash cow that he wants to pass it on to his kids to assure they'll never want for anything.

http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-b...or-unwilling-to-devote-the-time-to-the-bulls/

Anyone who's objective about things in general will recognize that John Paxson was a terrible GM. He got lucky in one draft year and the rest of his moves were terrible (draft LMA, trade him for Tyrus?). His altercation with coach Vinnie Del Negro is a classic labor-management kind of lawsuit in the making. Executive creates a hostile work environment and got physical with the employee. Whatever the Chairman paid to make the lawsuit go away we'll never know, or maybe Vinnie was classy enough that he just wanted to move on. In any case, Paxson got promoted for it all because of one main thing. He simply is a great NBA CEO. He delivers like nobody in the league does when it comes to the bottom line: profit.

All the business stuff doesn't matter to most teams, though. Few teams are actually in business for business sake. Rather than to make the owners money, they are playthings of the uber wealthy (Cuban, for example) and losses get to be write-offs on their income tax returns. Or the ownership is committed to being great to the community at the expense of maximizing profits (in the GM analogy, they'd not only recall the cars to fix dangerous defects, they'd change the windshield washer fluid in your car regularly).

Clearly, the difference is seen in the on-court product. Cuban goes to the games. He is pals with his players. He is deeply involved in the team's operations. He is deeply committed to winning (and has, recently). The Lakers didn't offer Kobe Bryant a $10M/season extension, take it or leave it. Maybe they're way overpaying him and maybe they're going to suck for a couple years more. But that organization has rebuilt and won championships in every decade since the 1960s.

The Lakers are a team that were Jerry Buss' sole business. He made plenty of money. He knew when enough was enough. He didn't try to win any #FinancialChampionship. Instead, he paid his players, went out and got Shaq and Gasol, continuing the ways of winning teams (they had acquired Wilt and then Kareem before Buss).

See the big picture.