KC: Bulls Would Have Pulled BG Offer Regardless of Deadline

[DuckIII]

I'm not understanding the people invoking a legal defense for the Bulls' actions here.

I don't think you understand my point. I'm not "invoking a legal defense." I'm simply saying that, as a practical matter, what KC says the Bulls "would have done" in a fictional world, they could not have done even if they would have wanted to. Its just an observation.

I then go on to say that its basically irrelevent since the subtext is that the Bulls decided they didn't want Gordon to take the offer. Which is something that we all already know, because Uncle Jerry told us it was true. And because, you know, they did end up enforcing the deadline, which they didn't have to do and could have extended if they wanted, or just made the offer again.

I am pretty sure the offer they made to Gordon was a verbal one, or maybe written down on a scrap of paper or in a memo. That's not the same as handing him an offer sheet or a blank check. If Gordon had accepted the offer, there was still the formal paperwork to sign, and thus a gap wherein the Bulls could have said, no, sorry about that, we've changed our mind.

That's all speculation on your part, and I tend to believe that business contract offers worth in excess of $50 million, with a precise dollar amount attached and with express deadlines for acceptance, are traditionally tendered in writing.

Regardless, I was just making a meaningless observation. Its not intended to make anyone look better or worse on either side of the negotiating table.

[Scott May]

His smartest move came at Phoenix's incompetence.

Actually, the point of that trade was to get Al Harrington. So even that wouldn't have really been that great a move unless Indiana hadn't screwed up.

It wasn't incompetence on Phoenix's part

No, it really was. The chances of getting Kobe were between fat and none. They ended up blowing half of it on Que…Qui…QRich instead, which was what they were always gonna end up doing.

And the other half was spent on the guy who won the following two MVP awards, right?

[Leslie Forman]

And the other half was spent on the guy who won the following two MVP awards, right?

They sure as hell didn't need the room from the 7th pick's salary to do that.

[coldfish]

As a practical legal matter, if an offer is pending and accepted, you can't "pull it". The only reason the Bulls were able to avoid the Gordon offer was because a set deadline expired. They could have preemptively pulled it, I suppose, but evidently didn't - which seems incongruous with KC's report.


Although I suppose the real point is that the Bulls decided they didn't want Gordon to take the offer. Which we already knew and have discussed thousands of times.

Nothing new here.

That was my thought.

Just the other day, you were disagreeing with someone based on the fact that Gordon didn't accept an offer within the specified time limit. Now KC is saying that the time limit wasn't a factor and that Chicago wasn't going to let Gordon take an offer regardless of when he did it. Basically, KC is undercutting your take on that previous debate.

......

SM brings up a good point. Chicago can back out up until any time where they present Gordon a contract that they have already signed. To the best of my knowledge, even presenting him a framework of a deal that he signs up to is not a binding contract until the Bulls formally agree on their side.

.......

Regardless of the legalese of this. Chicago made a mistake. They mis valued Ben Gordon and its costing them. Does anyone disagree at this point?
- This is speculation (albeit with a lot of supporting comments), but they could have dumped Hinrich for an expiring or even better, traded him to Portland for capspace, meaning that keeping Gordon had no impact on 2010.
- Even if Gordon didn't fit long term, he is a good value at 6/54. He would have improved the team this year and been tradeable in the future.
Its not the end of the world, but I really don't see the debate and my primary concern is how this impacts the team going forward and what it says about Chicago's player valuation skills.

[Scott May]

And the other half was spent on the guy who won the following two MVP awards, right?

They sure as hell didn't need the room from the 7th pick's salary to do that.

They didn't, true -- that's one of the great value contracts of all time.

But my point is that 2004 was their 2010. We know now that Kobe is an incontrovertible flirt and probably shouldn't be taken seriously, but back then he was possibly going to the Clippers, he loved the Suns, etc. I can't fault the Suns for clearing the space needed to make a full-boat offer to Kobe. I just can't.

[Scott May]

That's all speculation on your part, and I tend to believe that business contract offers worth in excess of $50 million, with a precise dollar amount attached and with express deadlines for acceptance, are traditionally tendered in writing.

An NBA offer sheet is an actual form that's used to formalize agreements and gets sent to the league office to generate the player contract. I doubt very, very much that the Bulls simply generate a copy of this formal offer sheet, hand it to the player or his attorney, and tell them "have this back by 11:59 on July 15th if you accept." That doesn't pass the simplicity/laugh test.

An official letter on Bulls stationery outlining the terms of the offer and the time-frame? Sure. But the contract / offer isn't binding until that one particular form is transmitted to the league.

[ccbfan]

Not signing Gordon for 54/6 is a bad move and will always be a bad move.

Gordon at 9 mil a year average while increasing each year (so it'll be like 7 million first year and 11 last year) is absolutely an amazing bargain.

1. Its low early on so its doesn't hurt the cap for 2010 much at all. Heck its pretty much the same as Hinrich.
2. Gordon at the price will keep this team competitive which OMG looks good to 2010 free agents. If money was the only issue then why not just resign with current team and make even more money in the current CBA.
3. Gordon help Rose tremendously by taking defensive pressure off of him plus he's fantastic at spreading the defense because he's so fears at the 3 point line and for his clutch shots. Help Rose trust his teammates and not get bad MArbury/Francis habits.
4. Gordon would be a value expiring at the end of his contract (if he did suck) when you know it actually starts getting high.
5. Gordon at 9 mil a year like Coldfish mentioned is a valued contract. You can send him to any near contending team either as a starter or super 6th man (something all contending teams need) for young propects and draft picks.

We lost him for nothing zilch and some of you are happy about that?

[Magilla_Gorilla]

As a practical legal matter, if an offer is pending and accepted, you can't "pull it". The only reason the Bulls were able to avoid the Gordon offer was because a set deadline expired. They could have preemptively pulled it, I suppose, but evidently didn't - which seems incongruous with KC's report.


Although I suppose the real point is that the Bulls decided they didn't want Gordon to take the offer. Which we already knew and have discussed thousands of times.

Nothing new here.

That was my thought.

Just the other day, you were disagreeing with someone based on the fact that Gordon didn't accept an offer within the specified time limit. Now KC is saying that the time limit wasn't a factor and that Chicago wasn't going to let Gordon take an offer regardless of when he did it. Basically, KC is undercutting your take on that previous debate.

Actually no. I've said for the past year that the Bulls changed their minds over the summer about Ben, and only kept the offer on the table because they made it and had put a deadline on it (and as Duck says - I'm assume it was in writing). Regardless of what KC says, I seriously doubt if the Bulls would have pulled the offer if Gordon had tried to sign it before the deadline.

And what I said in the thread was that if you were going to blame the Bulls for the Gordon situation - don't do it because they decided to let the deadline be the deciding factor - they made a player evaluation decision based on not thinking they needed Ben.

Here is what i wrote in that thread -

People that are pissed that Jerry didn't allow Ben to sign after the deadline are off base anyways - the whole point is that some time during that summer the Bulls decided they didn't want him. They were probably thrilled that he let the deadline pass. So if someone is going to be pissed about something - be pissed that the Bulls personell evaluation allowed them to believe Ben wasn't worth it. Not that they imposed a deadline and stuck to it.

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=965956&start=15

Seems pretty consistent to me.

[coldfish]

You neglected to mention that the Bulls had set a deadline on the offer and that Ben came back after the deadline expired, but don't let that get in the way of your rant. Carry on.

That's the line I was referring to.

[madvillian]

So much fail here. First, everything JR does with regards to the Bulls is second rate to the White Sox. The Sox operate like a middle and large market team (even if it dips into profits). IMO it's because JR trusts his management team on the South Side. KW and Hahn are top notch management that consistently deliver a competitive (and occasionally very good to great) team.

Compare that to the circus he has running the Bulls: Paxson and Gar, who are essentially setup as yes men in charge of keeping the team profitable without actually having the brains or the leeway to make tough decisions. Their marching orders (and again, given their track record I understand if not agree with JRs decision making here) are to play it close to the vest, keep the team from being an embarrassment off the court and basically maintain a "business as usual" atmosphere.

This is why we are endlessly subjected to guys like Gray, Gibson, Hunter, etc. Those guys aren't going to pull an Artest or a Stephen Jackson. Now forget the fact that fans will pay to see a team full of felons as long as they are winners. JR doesn't trust his management team enough (and again, perhaps rightfully so given their horrible track record) to allow them to acquire higher risk (and higher upside) guys like say, JR Smith. The few times they did decide to gamble (Tyrus) they've been burned horribly.

I'm sure JR sees a guy like Aldridge blossom in Portland and immediately thinks what a mistake it was letting Paxson make that call.

Now, I'm not absolving JR of any of the blame, in fact, all the blame lies at his feet. It's clear that as he's aged he's put the vast majority of his time and effort into building a consistant winner on the South Side. He's instructed his management team with the Bulls to play for safe easy returns. As long as he puts a mediocre product out there and keeps relatlively good image off the court the fans will show up in large enough numbers.

Why mess with this highly profitable BAU approach? Reinsdorf would rather gamble on a winner with the White Sox (which is why he allows KW to basically run the show carte blanche in trades and acquisitions) then gamble on a winner with the Bulls.

So yea, it sucks is pretty much the end result of all this analysis. The Bulls have an owner interested almost completely in his bottom line. He's structured the management team in order to preserve his profitable status quo.

As fans, we are in the worst possible position.

[Tommy Udo 6]

i am on vacation in Las Vegas and have not read all 8 pages (just page 1). However, I have written before that in my opinion the Bulls were shocked that BG accepted their contract at the time.

Because of Gordon's & Brothers' comments at the time, management felt that BG would never accept a lesser amount. However, Gordon seems to have overruled his agent & wanted to accept it.

Since it was after the "deadline", the Bulls had an excuse to reject him - but then they had to do a different set of "spin control". It was no longer "greedy, unrealistic Ben" and instead became "well, he had a deadline"

I also feel it is primarily JR. Paxson has always praised Ben's work ethic & he almot certain would have kept Ben if he had the final say

[Luke NOT Luc]

As fans, we are in the worst possible position.

That's what gets lost way too much, all the time with this team, we are the ones that always lose.

That came out sounding pretty deep

[DuckIII]

That's all speculation on your part, and I tend to believe that business contract offers worth in excess of $50 million, with a precise dollar amount attached and with express deadlines for acceptance, are traditionally tendered in writing.

An NBA offer sheet is an actual form that's used to formalize agreements and gets sent to the league office to generate the player contract. I doubt very, very much that the Bulls simply generate a copy of this formal offer sheet, hand it to the player or his attorney, and tell them "have this back by 11:59 on July 15th if you accept." That doesn't pass the simplicity/laugh test.

An official letter on Bulls stationery outlining the terms of the offer and the time-frame? Sure. But the contract / offer isn't binding until that one particular form is transmitted to the league.

Due to the CBA, I suppose traditional notions of contract law might not apply. As I said, it was just an aside.

[Hangtime84]

The problem with re-signing Ben was that his cap-space would define your team for the next 5 years or so. I still think the flexibility is preferred even if that means a worse team for the next year or 2.

Agreed. Ben Gordon's a good player, but he's not special or an all star or anything.

you keep the good player and trade the trash for expirings cough Hinrich!

[DuckIII]

You neglected to mention that the Bulls had set a deadline on the offer and that Ben came back after the deadline expired, but don't let that get in the way of your rant. Carry on.

That's the line I was referring to.

That is still what happened though, isn't it? I just don't see what KC's e-mail comment about what he heard might happen if things were different adds to the discussion.

Everything everyone is saying about the Bulls' stupidity applies just as much to what did happen as it would to what didn't but theoretically could have happened.

[Luke NOT Luc]

Earlier, with all this Tiger Woodsness going on right now, I compared JR, the Bulls and the White Sox to the Bulls being the wife that supports him and provides for him and gives him everything and then he blows all his money on his stupid mistress White Sox and gives us no credit or support. Too much? I think I need to get fresh air more often

[bulletbill]

I don't buy it. Yes its obvious JR was never a huge BG fan (while loving Kirk), but that doesn't mean you can't acknowledge who the superior player (to keep) is, hence, the 2 offers.

As a hater JR was probably looking for a reason to get out of the deal, and BG gave it to him by waiting too long. So its no surprise JR talks trash after the fact, because not only did BG "win" getting more money than the Bulls offered from being patient, but he went over to our classic rival Pistons.

Gordon made JR look silly and cheap, and that whole "BG wouldn't have got playing time because of the stellar Kirk/Salmons" is just the classic angry BF that his GF left because he wouldn't commit long term.

[Neusch23]

I have said for a long time that he doesn't fit what we are trying to do.

This isn't about favorites, or who was the best, it is about the plan for the future, and how we are going to get there.

Now, many of us wonder what that plan is, but it is a business, and while Gordon is a good basketball player I am very confident that they had major concerns on defense, especially once BG got older.

The orginal poster pointed out a few of the times he was pulled from the starting line up. This is done for a reason. If you break down the tape, you will see that while he isn't a horrible defender, having a player of that size, who isn't half as much agressive on D as he is on O, who is no where near the average for size causes a problem.

It did even before we had rose here. It is a double edged sword. He is far and away our best scorer. We needed him out there to make baskets. However, he is a nightmare for a defensive plan, because he is the weak link. However he creates a mismatch on the other side as well.

Most of us know we have generally always been more about D, than O. Which was a major factor behind trading Aldridge....Even though we KNEW we needed a post player who could score.

On BG, I have to say that I agree with the Bulls. I believe it was the right choice to let him walk. Looks crazy now, but in the long run I hope we can bring in the right mix of players, get a starting line up and bench crew that we don't have to constantly shuffle. It would be nice.

Gordon is actually fine for a SG size wise because he was stronger than almost all the SG's out there. Teams would try to post him up and back him down and fail. Then throw up a fadeaway 15 footer and miss as some fans rail "LOOK THEY ARE POSTING UP GORDON!!!" while ignoring the fact that they weren't doing it successfully. A lot of people said this regarding the defense and it was ignored. Now that the Bulls defense is no better without Gordon, this has been validated beyond rational disagreement. Point blank, Gordon didn't hurt the defense. The Bulls were #1 in defense with Gordon at times and bad with him too. Now they are bad without him.

Here is the most important thing that the anti-Gordon people just don't get. Gordon at $9M per year is a value contract. You weren't married to him at 6/54. If it turns out that you can get Wade in 2010 or something, you could immediately trade Gordon. It wouldn't be just for expiring contracts either. You could actually get players that contribute for Gordon on that contract. This fact seems to be completely lost on people.

If the Bulls continue losing the way they are, they are going to blow 2010. No elite player is going to come to a team this bad. By handling the Gordon situation the way they did, the Bulls may not have just lost Gordon for nothing, they may blow a chance at a max contract guy too.

So yeah, Gordon may not have fit in the long term, but by creating such an unbalanced roster, the management destroyed the long term anyways.

First off, I have to disagree with you on the defense. Unless he was a complete ass behind closed doors, you're not moved to the bench and shuffled in and out if there isn't an issue. Gordon was not an aggressive defender. He just wasn't. Was he a major liablity? No. But he wasn't a good fit either.

I wanted to respond to this right away, but instead pull out some old tapes. I watched parts of 3 different games that I had and he did well with the post up because we brought week side help over. Fact was, he was still posted up. He held his ground well enough, but the player still got a 10 to 15 foot jumper over him. That shot is a fairly high % for the bigger guards in the NBA.

Bigger issue that I saw was that he was that teams would consistantly set picks on him to then create mismatches else where. He was the picker, then we got the switches to generally hang Deng out to dry. I watched this in 2 of the 3 games. I wish I had labled them better to know the dates.

One game was the Milwaukee game where he went off for around 50, as did Michael Redd. We put many different on Redd, who was untouchable, but Gordon was very bad at fighting though screens. Our offense was also only Gordon. Players seemed to not want the shot. We should have put them away in regulation.

I can't think of any other team though that shuffled someone to the bench, then to the starting line up, then back to the bench as much as gordon was and then still to have him be SO important to the team any many posters here claim he was. Closest thing is Manu. I don't follow the spurs very close, but isn't he a combo guard as well? Not sure.

I agree with you on that it was a value contract. I agree that we could have easily traded him if we brought in a max. I disagree that we are going to do our work in FA. I don't think we take that chance. I believe our player will come in via trade this year. Wether it is Amare, Bosh, or Boozer. I think we trade for him and work to then sign him. Just my opinion. I don't think we take any chances on FA. But you're right, if we don't swing a trade, no FA is going to want to come here if we are crap. IT would have to be a trade, IMO. BUT, the NBA witht he right mix can turn things around in a hurry. Look at the celtics.

[Magilla_Gorilla]

I don't buy it. Yes its obvious JR was never a huge BG fan (while loving Kirk), but that doesn't mean you can't acknowledge who the superior player (to keep) is, hence, the 2 offers.

As a hater JR was probably looking for a reason to get out of the deal, and BG gave it to him by waiting too long. So its no surprise JR talks trash after the fact, because not only did BG "win" getting more money than the Bulls offered from being patient, but he went over to our classic rival Pistons.

Gordon made JR look silly and cheap, and that whole "BG wouldn't have got playing time because of the stellar Kirk/Salmons" is just the classic angry BF that his GF left because he wouldn't commit long term.

The Bulls didn't want Ben. They made that clear when they didn't allow him to sign, and then when they didn't even make an offer when he became a FA. I really don't think Jerry cares what Ben got - they weren't going to pay him anything once the deadline passed.

[dougthonus]

You neglected to mention that the Bulls had set a deadline on the offer and that Ben came back after the deadline expired, but don't let that get in the way of your rant. Carry on.

That's the line I was referring to.

That is still what happened though, isn't it? I just don't see what KC's e-mail comment about what he heard might happen if things were different adds to the discussion.

Everything everyone is saying about the Bulls' stupidity applies just as much to what did happen as it would to what didn't but theoretically could have happened.

Really? It's pretty obvious that it changes the discussion some.

There was an argument (one I consider foolish and inconsequential) that "The Bulls aren't at fault because Gordon let the deadline pass". My view has been the Bulls didn't want Gordon, and that was a mistaken in talent evaluation and the deadline was meaningless and arbitrary.

There have been a great number of people who made the argument that the Bulls did the right thing because of the deadline. Now those people may have just not wanted Gordon here regardless, but the fact that Gordon let a deadline pass seemed to have meaning to some people as a rational as to why the Bulls shouldn't be judged harshly for their decision.