RealGM

I am listening to a Bill Simmons podcast from 2/22 with Houston Rockets GM Daryl Morey. Morey raises an interesting point to ponder. Here are a couple quotes:

We’re looking for elite talent. We could’ve gone the cap-room route or we could’ve gone the route of picking up players who can help us in the next season and also potentially set us up for acquiring a top guy going that route.

I think 8 teams are now under the cap where they can have max room, but I think there are only 4-5 guys to chase, and some teams are chasing two. We felt with going the other route, picking up a guy like Kevin Martin, and other assets in terms of draft picks for the future. That was the route we wanted to go.

Everyone was sort of zigging toward creating max contract room, and that’s why we decided to sort of zag a little bit and go this route.

With the Bulls being one of the “zigging” teams, does that raise any concerns for you guys? If Cleveland/Miami/Toronto/Phoenix/Utah know they are losing Lebron/Wade/Bosh/Amare/Boozer, obviously they would love to receive something in return. Also, the free agents would prefer a sign and trade because it would ensure them a higher maximum contract level.

Are the Bulls in a worse position than a team like Houston or Dallas? Note, Dampier’s contract in Dallas can be voided in August 2010. It’s a little wrinkle that might turn out to be an incredibly sign & trade asset.

Would the Bulls be in a better position to score a major free agent if they kept Gordon, Tyrus and Salmons on the team? Also, considering you have 10 teams (counting double max teams as separate) chasing 3-5 top guys, isn’t it a poor basketball decision to pursue the cap-room route with that much competition for the same players (most of whom are not even rumored to come to Chicago).

You mean teams won't wanna pay Deng 13M?

Who could the Bulls have landed though? I don't think they were interested in Amare, and the Jazz have been pretty good with Boozer in a contract year. Bosh was likely off-limits, so who were they going to target? David West? D. Lee? I think this is the only route management could really go if they want to build a true contender.

Cannot compare Houston to Chicago. Two totally different situations. Worst worst case scenario, we land no one. If that is the case, we can trade capspace (since we will be under) and a future pick for a player who is already on a contract i.e. Rip Hamilton, Troy Murphy, Paul Milsap, Jason Richardson

If Chicago end up with:

Noah/Miller
Milsap/Gibson
Deng/Johnson
Ginobili/Rookie
Rose/Hinrich

I would definitely enjoy the 2010-11 season. But Morey is right in many ways. A few teams will improve immensely, but many teams will look worse off next year.

Addicted123 wrote:Would the Bulls be in a better position to score a major free agent if they kept Gordon, Tyrus and Salmons on the team? Also, considering you have 10 teams (counting double max teams as separate) chasing 3-5 top guys, isn’t it a poor basketball decision to pursue the cap-room route with that much competition for the same players (most of whom are not even rumored to come to Chicago).

Yeah, that is interesting.

There's always a temptation to try something different when your competition is making a similar sales pitches. However, if you believe that you have a better pitch than your competitors, you don't back off it. Whether true or not, this is where I think the Bulls find themselves. The Knicks have NYC and cap space for 2 (or close to it) max players. Miami has Wade (maybe), warm weather and no state income tax. The Bulls believe that the young quality core they have, and to a lesser extent the Chicago market, is enough of a differentiator. We'll see.

I think what Houston did was smart for them. I don't know that they could have competed in the "capspace +" game with NY, Miami and Chicago because they don't have much of a "+"

Morey is one of the best GM's in the league, if not the best, so in regards to GarPax vs Morey, it's no contest. And this most recent trade deadline is just another example. Even just the way Morey managed to steal multiple draft picks and got better as a team this season, while the Bulls managed to give away multiple picks and got worse as a team this season.

I know, I know, our situations are completely different, from ownership on down. But when presented with different routes towards the future in regards to acquiring/dumping assets, Morey took a seemingly more creative route and managed to acquire assets and make the team better. GarPax took the painfully obvious route, exemplifying no imagination or creativity, and paid a premium in regards to assets and talent to go the route towards the free agent pool, a route which inherently brings uncertainty. Granted, we are a relatively big fish in that free agent pool, but the fact remains that we are not the only fish. The Rockets are the only fish in their own pool adding to an already decent team, which is waiting for their best player to return from injury. It's almost reminiscent of David Robinson going down for the season years ago, except this time the Rockets found their player via trade than draft (although kevin martin is no Duncan, of course.... but even Jordan Hill is looking decent now).

ok i kno this is irrelevant but how does houston not have a plus side we are the fourth biggest city in the u.s. and based on growth rates were going to overtake chicago as third in like 2 years...which means we have a huge market or at least as big as chicagos

Future Coach wrote:Morey is one of the best GM's in the league, if not the best, so in regards to GarPax vs Morey, it's no contest. And this most recent trade deadline is just another example. Even just the way Morey managed to steal multiple draft picks and got better as a team this season, while the Bulls managed to give away multiple picks and got worse as a team this season.

I know, I know, our situations are completely different, from ownership on down. But when presented with different routes towards the future in regards to acquiring/dumping assets, Morey took a seemingly more creative route and managed to acquire assets and make the team better. GarPax took the painfully obvious route, exemplifying no imagination or creativity, and paid a premium in regards to assets and talent to go the route towards the free agent pool, a route which inherently brings uncertainty. Granted, we are a relatively big fish in that free agent pool, but the fact remains that we are not the only fish. The Rockets are the only fish in their own pool adding to an already decent team, which is waiting for their best player to return from injury. It's almost reminiscent of David Robinson going down for the season years ago, except this time the Rockets found their player via trade than draft (although kevin martin is no Duncan, of course.... but even Jordan Hill is looking decent now).

I hope the trend continues with similar Morey-type hirings in thefuture. Why do we continue to think that former NBA players will make good GMs? Bill Simmons (and others) have wondered why owners don’t hire more smart guys that are simply fans of the game but have a lot to offer as GMs because…… well….. they are smart!!

How about more MIT basketball fanatics instead of Isiah Thomas, John Paxson, Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, Joe Dumars, Michael Jordan and Elgin Baylor? Not to say that former basketball players can’t be great, but I hope the fixation for them will start to decline. Are Baylor or Thomas REALLY the best people to be negotiating multi-million dollar contracts and planning a salary structure for the next 3-5 years for the team?

Taken straight from wikipedia:
His hiring follows the recent Moneyball trend of moving away from pure qualitative scouting in favor of more statistical-based analysis. Several teams have hired executives with non-traditional basketball backgrounds, but the Rockets are the first NBA team to hire a general manager in this vein.

Morey holds a bachelor’s degree in computer science with an emphasis on statistics from Northwestern University, as well as an MBA from the MIT Sloan School of Management. Morey also served as the professor for the MIT Sloan class, “Analytical Sports Management.” He continues to be the chairperson for the annual MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference.

jwise44 wrote:ok i kno this is irrelevant but how does houston not have a plus side we are the fourth biggest city in the u.s. and based on growth rates were going to overtake chicago as third in like 2 years...which means we have a huge market or at least as big as chicagos

Well, this IS a Chicago board so we have all convinced ourselves (whether right or wrong) that Chicago is a big selling point for free agents.

Does Texas have a state tax? I know their cost of living is lower. So even if Houston is still smaller than Chicago, it might have already surpassed it as a better financial destination.

Addicted123 wrote:
With the Bulls being one of the “zigging” teams, does that raise any concerns for you guys?

No, it's the 2010 plan. You must have heard of it?

Are the Bulls in a worse position than a team like Houston or Dallas?

Not sure what you mean. Dallas is really good. So, maybe they are in a better position?

Would the Bulls be in a better position to score a major free agent if they kept Gordon, Tyrus and Salmons on the team?

Adding those players on the team and the salaries (for Gordon and maybe Salmons), obviously - no.

They had to renounce Tyrus if they kept him - please tell me how that puts them in a better position?

kyrv wrote:

Addicted123 wrote:
With the Bulls being one of the “zigging” teams, does that raise any concerns for you guys?

No, it's the 2010 plan. You must have heard of it?

Wait, what? There’s a 2010 plan?!?!? Tell me more about this plan!

kyrv wrote:

Are the Bulls in a worse position than a team like Houston or Dallas?

Not sure what you mean. Dallas is really good. So, maybe they are in a better position?

Dampier’s contract can be voided in August. That might turn out to be an incredible trade asset if Cuban wants to use it.

kyrv wrote:

Would the Bulls be in a better position to score a major free agent if they kept Gordon, Tyrus and Salmons on the team?

Adding those players on the team and the salaries (for Gordon and maybe Salmons), obviously - no.

They had to renounce Tyrus if they kept him - please tell me how that puts them in a better position?

The same way that Houston might be in a better position because of sign & trade opportunities instead of just wiping out salary (the Rein$dorfian way as I like to call it). Could the Bulls have pulled off the Houston trade? I don’t see why they wouldn’t be in competition. Brad Miller & Tyrus Thomas in exchange for Jared Jeffries’ contract and a 1st rounder or two?

So that is what I am asking. With multiple “zigging” teams having enough cap room for at least 8 max players (while only 3 might be worth it), would it have been better to “zag” and opt to build assets instead…….. and still be in the running for a max free agent via sign & trade?

We won’t know for sure until next year, but here is what we could’ve had as a sure thing:

Rose/Gordon/Deng/Taj/Noah with Tyrus/Hinrich/Salmons/Johnson coming off the bench.

Or perhaps

Rose/Gordon/Deng/Taj/Noah with Jeffries/Hinrich/Salmons + future Knicks 1st rounders on the bench (or top lotto picks if the Knicks suck some more).

Plus, the Bulls gave up this year’s playoffs (while not keeping the better draft pick for missing the playoffs).

Add that all together, and the Bulls have taken quite the unknown/risky route for building the team’s quality. But, of course, the moves the Bulls made also nicely coincided with Rein$dorf’s conservative route of dumping salary.

I hope it all works out! But is the “2010 plan” the best route the team should have taken? Hmmmmm…………..

Addicted123 wrote:I hope the trend continues with similar Morey-type hirings in thefuture. Why do we continue to think that former NBA players will make good GMs? Bill Simmons (and others) have wondered why owners don’t hire more smart guys that are simply fans of the game but have a lot to offer as GMs because…… well….. they are smart!!

How about more MIT basketball fanatics instead of Isiah Thomas, John Paxson, Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, Joe Dumars, Michael Jordan and Elgin Baylor? Not to say that former basketball players can’t be great, but I hope the fixation for them will start to decline. Are Baylor or Thomas REALLY the best people to be negotiating multi-million dollar contracts and planning a salary structure for the next 3-5 years for the team?

I wouldn't say it's necessarily so black and white when it comes to retired players moving into the front office. I mean let's not forget about Jerry West and Pat Riley or even the likes of Otis Smith down in Orlando (he also played a big role in bringing the Warriors back to relevance, then he left and they suck again). Those are 3 ex players I thought of pretty quickly who I would trust running the team. But there is also Thomas, Paxson, Mchale, etc to detract from the credibility of retired players.

But it's not like non-players are any lock for success. Take lil Bobby Rowell over in Oakland, he's been Cohan's right hand throughout 2 decades of failures. He is a glorified lawyer/accountant who has done nothing but make the franchise worse since the moment he was allowed on the premises. The franchise didn't show any signs of life for over ten years until retired players like Mullin and Otis Smith got involved. Granted Mullin handed out some far too generous contracts (foyle, dunleavy, murphy, etc), but he was also there to trade for Baron and stephen jackson, to pick Gilbert and Monta in the 2nd round.

My point is that retired players may be bad at evaluating and handing out contracts as they may often be a little short sighted and generous, but they are more often better talent evaluators it seems. So in my opinion you need one of each, which we have, we just have the wrong talent evaluator in place I think (I suppose jury can still be "out" for Gar). Apart from lucking out with Rose, Paxson has never even really pursued a player who can make a difference on both ends and is more than a complimentary piece. Ben Wallace, Tyson Chandler and Tyrus could contribute on the defensive end but were never really thought to be offensive threats. Gordon could score but defensively he was never a good fit and all in all he was dealt with in a short-sighted fashion. Hinrich and Deng are decent on both ends, but they are the definition of complimentary players. So while Mullin was able to see the star talent in both Gilbert and monta in the 2nd round, Paxson more notice's complimentary talent like Deng and Hinrich.

We need someone looking for more impactful talent and paxson just doesn't seem to have that eye.

Chicago couldn't pull off what Houston did. Tmac's expiring contract was massive, allowing them to take on Martin, Jeffries, Jordan Hill, and getting NY's picks. It could be a good package, but it made much more sense for the bulls to go for the cap space route.

MrCheerios wrote:Chicago couldn't pull off what Houston did. Tmac's expiring contract was massive, allowing them to take on Martin, Jeffries, Jordan Hill, and getting NY's picks. It could be a good package, but it made much more sense for the bulls to go for the cap space route.

Brad Miller + Ty Thomas + Jerome James is enough to get anything done.

Or what about Jamison? He could've been had for an expiring contract and a draft pick.

Now you're looking at:

Rose/Gordon/Deng/Jamison/Noah with Hinrich/Tyrus/Salmons/Johnson on the bench. Pretty solid, no?

Plus the team would be stocked with talent for sign & trades over the summer. If D-Wade decides he wants to leave and chooses Chicago, the Bulls could've done a sign&trade with the Heat for Gordon (reasonable deal), Salmons (last year of deal @ bargain $6M with an opt-in), and throw in whoever else to make the trade work.

Now it's Rose/Wade/Deng/Jamison/Noah....... WOW!

Here's my thing, why clear max cap room if any of these superstars is going to have to be signed and traded?! None of those guys is going to sign a lesser deal, they'll sign the max deal with their team and be signed and traded. New York is banking on 2 superstars leaving money on the table, and that's never going to happen. I would think stockpiling assets to make the most attractive offer to the team the superstar is leaving is the best way to go. Watch for Dallas.

Addicted123 wrote:
Brad Miller + Ty Thomas + Jerome James is enough to get anything done.

You're right. But I don't think NY would ever give Chicago two potential lottery picks again, plus Jordan Hill. The fanbase would riot.

Or what about Jamison? He could've been had for an expiring contract and a draft pick.

He's too old to be a building block. Cleveland may regret being saddled with his massive contract as he declines.

jwise44 wrote:ok i kno this is irrelevant but how does houston not have a plus side we are the fourth biggest city in the u.s. and based on growth rates were going to overtake chicago as third in like 2 years...which means we have a huge market or at least as big as chicagos

HAHAHAHAHA. You better check your facts again kid. It's possible Houston might jump Chicago city proper in population, but the earliest it would happen is 2050. Sorry you don't just get 800,000 residents to move into your city limits in 2 years.

BTW, you might be the 4th biggest "city" in the US, but your not even the biggest metro in your state. Chicago's metro is almost double the size of Houston's.

Sorry for the derailment but I couldn't help myself.

Edit: Oh yeah I forgot to mention that the size of Houston's city limits are almost 3 times the size of Chicago's. So Chicago has 800,000 more people in their city than Houston in 1/3 the area, plus has around 4.5 million more people (aka 2 Houstons) in it's metro area.