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

...

 

Deng was traded for $6M in profit.

They could have let him walk after the season if he wouldn't accept their offer. The team would have been better for the rest of the season, they'd still have had all the cap space advantage if he walked.

Teams that REALLY want to keep their players work something out, not a "take it or leave it" offer.

 

http://www.blogabull.com/2014/1/7/5283442/luol-deng-trade-bulls-save-money-gain-spending-flexibility

Luol Deng trade: Bulls save money, gain spending flexibility

...

But they do save pure cash. A lot of it. Based on calculations of their payroll and tax obligations prior to the trade, after waiving Bynum (oh, right: they're gonna do that as to not guarantee the rest of his season's salary) the Bulls will save $20.6m this season. Dipping under the luxury tax also means they'll get the yearly payout from New York and other high-payroll owners which is another $2-3m.

(PROFIT)

 

So...
We all agree that the Bulls are a for profit business. That is ok.
We all agree that rings lead to long term max profits.
We all agree that a shrewd businessman does not skimp on spending short term at the expense of long trrm profits.
We all agree that Reinsdorf, despite his supposed preference for his other team is a typically ego-driven sports owner and does crave championships.
We all agree that The Bulls don't tank and don't intentionally dump championship shots over money (the likelihood of making a move or not leading to a championship or not is open for speculation I guess but I think we can agree there is no Maccavellian intent).
We all agree that the Bulls won't pay tax or spend for a team not likely to get a ring.
We all agree the Bulls are unusually active this off-season and seem to be acting like a serious push is in play.

Right?

 

Reinsdorf does not crave championships for the Bulls.

We disagree on that point.

The last bit of the article I linked above is rather astute as well:

This is what made this Bynum contract a unique opportunity that wasn't available from any other team at any other time this season. Not mere cap flexiblity or perhaps a young player on a cheap deal, but immediate savings. KC phrased the Cavs including these picks as 'meeting the Bulls demands', but I'd have to think it's the Bulls that blinked: the deal had to be done by today for Bynum to be cut before his contract was guaranteed.

We've kind of begrudgingly accepted (via Stockholm Syndrome) that the Bulls will always behave like a mid-market team, so making this particular deal to under the tax threshold is important. Getting that much money (plus some more Derrick Rose insurance payouts!) is important too, especially if it makes Amnesty for Carlos Boozer more palatable this offseason. There's also the tertiary benefit of simply making the current team worse, and thus having their own pick be more valuable in the upcoming draft.

But overall, this isn't much return for Luol Deng. Again, we kind of accept this at this point, but it's possible to have made a deal where better assets were gained instead of savings. Making any deal now is something the Bulls should receive credit for even doing at all given our expectations of their deliberateness. But given the return we probably shouldn't have been surprised.

 

It's hard arguing with an absolutist when you're not one yourself.

The Reinsdorf ownership group wants their teams to win, but not "at all costs." Yeah, money is a consideration. It is seldom the main consideration, but it's a consideration.

The Cavs offer of Bynum meant significant 2013-14 savings for the team. Ownership didn't want to see those savings slip away without good reason. The Bulls knew Deng well enough to know that he wasn't a "hometown discount" kind of guy so when he turned down the $10mil it was a signal to management that it was unlikely that they'd be able to re-sign Deng. They saved the money and traded Deng, getting some draft pick assets for their trouble. The team then turns around and proves willing to lose up to $16mil by amnestying Boozer.

Bulls ownership aren't absolute bottom-line businessmen nor are they absolute carefree sportsmen.

I like the team the Bulls will field this coming season. That's really the most important thing.

 

Yet MJ won his 6th championship and wasn't paid to try for #7.

Hard to fathom that "basketball" decision.

 

Interesting article by a professional writer at SI.com. The last paragraph is a doozy.

http://www.si.com/nba/point-forward/2014/01/06/bulls-could-part-ways-luol-deng-carlos-boozer

 

Can't make a guy play when he doesn't want to. I know, I know, management's behavior pretty much forced MJ out...or something like that.

 

As I remember it...

Krause wanted to rebuild even though we were defending champions. He publicly said he didn't want us to become like the Celtics, who had stuck with their superstars until they were very old and no longer even contenders. Ironically, the Celtics rebuilt and won since those days, so we never did become like the Celtics even in that regard.

Jordan's huge salary was an issue for the team as far as the then salary cap is concerned. However, the players seemed willing to take pay cuts to keep the team together. Rodman, for example, offered to play for free (a price even the chairman would love), though they'd have to pay him the league minimum of about $250K.

The big three, PJax/Jordan/Pippen were contemplating a way to make it work for another season.

Krause had a hardon for Tim Floyd and was hell bent on installing him as coach before PJax had made up his mind. Floyd was hired as director of basketball operations or some other similar position that was sure to piss off PJax and make him leave. And leave he did. Jordan wasn't going to play for anyone else. He retired. Pippen wanted no part of Krause so he left as a FA; at least the Bulls did an S&T so he could get paid more. Krause didn't want him back anyway.

I don't know if the three would have returned. I do know they weren't given every opportunity to do so.

Thonus wrote a pretty good article about it in 2010.

http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-b...me-for-bulls-to-bury-the-hatchet-with-krause/

Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Jerry Krause told Phil Jackson in 1998 "I don't care if you go 82-0, you're not coming back next year".

Why should Jordan and Pippen ever get over that? Why should any Chicago fan ever get over the fact that Krause was more interested in breaking apart a dynasty than keeping it together?

Why should we get over the fact that Krause absolutely ran this franchise into the ground after the dynasty fell apart?

As a fan, it's hard to forgive Krause for those things, but if you're Pippen or Jordan? Impossible.

If you were at the absolute peak of your profession, and had some cheeseball manager trying to end it, because he was jealous of your personal fame and wanted to prove he could do it without you, and then he booted you out the door, would you ever get over it?

(note, after said cheeseball was successful in kicking you out the door he was a complete unmitigated disaster in trying to recreate something great).

Why should you get over that ever?

Should fans appreciate Jerry Krause some? Yeah, of course.

Did Krause contribute to the dynasty? Absolutely. Whatever you want to say about his hits and misses in terms of personnel, he did enough to win six titles. He certainly didn't screw that part up. He traded up to get Scottie Pippen, he plucked Phil Jackson out of no where. He found Toni Kukoc in Europe. He made some really all-time great moves as GM.

He was basically gifted multiple titles when he took over a team that starts with the greatest player in the history of basketball. At the same time, he didn't leave much on the table in terms of titles achieved either. However, when we had the best thing in the history of basketball going not only did Krause make sure to end it in 98, but he wanted to end it in 97.

 

I don't think my phrased my question correctly.

Succinctly, its what is the logical reason that the room MLE is less than the non-taxpayer MLE? It makes sense that the taxpayer MLE would be less than the non-taxpayer one, since the idea is to penalize the higher spending teams.

But the room MLE being lower than the non-taxpayer MLE seems to penalize the lower payroll teams, which seems counter to how they penalize teams in these matters. Why would a team that ends up 1 million under the cap have less exception money than a team that ended up 2 million over the cap? Why would an over the cap team be able to go more over the cap than a team that was under the cap?

(I imagine the Bulls renounced their regular MLE to get under the cap enough to sign Gasol/Mirotic, but it just still seems odd to me)

 

Will you at least concede that it appears likely that after Deng turned the Bulls down, that the trade the Bulls made for Bynum and then his release combined with all those odd vet min contracts down the stretch primarily revolved around getting under the tax threshold?

After he said no, he was effectively dumped (what else could you call trading a 2-time all star for a player you immediately release) in order to not pay luxury tax last season.

Since you are the cap expert, what harm would have befallen the Bulls if they just held on to Deng until the end of the season, other than paying some tax?

If they decided they wanted to keep Deng, they could have made him an other offer or let him walk. If they amnesty Boozer and let Deng walk, is there significantly less Cap Space to sign Gasol and Mirotic?

I believe they got some middling draft picks, but we saw how much the Bulls valued those in the trade we just made with Orlando.

----

If I'm Deng, I'm not that upset with how the situation turned out. Sure, he would like to have landed a richer deal, but given that he didn't, he's making the same amount this season as he would have made with the Bulls, is in a seemingly pretty good situation in Miami to shine, and can get out for a bigger payday next off season when the FA class is less competitive.

 

Nice!

Source: Bulls targeting scoring point guard Aaron Brooks

http://www.csnchicago.com/bulls/source-bulls-targeting-scoring-point-guard-aaron-brooks

He'd be a good fit here and likely have a DJ/Nate type season I bet if healthy.

 

I wonder what it would take to get JLIII from the Jazz. They have like sixteen young scoring point guards who all need minutes in front of him. I might offer a second rounder to get him back.