When villifying Jerry Reinsdorf, bear three things in mind

[Sham]

1) Jerry Reinsdorf is not the owner of the Bulls. He is AN owner of the Bulls. He is one of many. He is a minority owner. He serves as the spokesperson for all of them, but this doesn't mean tacit agreement from all parties on all ownership matters.

2) Rich people like being rich. Rich people are rich for their money management abilities - they spend on what they deem to be worth it, and they avoid spending on what they deem to be not worth it. Their judgement on such decisions in the business world is good enough for them to be able to part-own one of the most profitable sports franchises in the world. They're good with money, even if we don't agree with their prioriy lsst. (If you were worth 9 figures, yours might change too.)

3) Nowhere in the ownership manual does it say that you have to be a raging philanthropist to own an NBA franchise.




If you hate the fact that the Bulls take in a lot more than they spend on the on-court product, then you've missed the point. If it bugs the crap out of you that the Bulls earn 400 cajillion dollars worth of profit every year and still won't pay the tax for Pau Gasol, fine. I'm not enthralled with the idea, and I can't imagine that anybody is.

But what you've overlooked is that......it's just like this. It just is. It always will be this way, with nought but the rarest exceptions. The NBA goes to great lengths to level the playing field when it comes to expenditure, and people then play within those rules, even if they can afford not to.

Why do they do this?

Because they can. You CAN win titles without paying the tax, and this has almost always been the case. Even when the Spurs won it while paying luxury tax, they desperately tried to avoid it, even if their moves to do so were to the detriment of their on-court product.

If you don't like the fact that rich people would rather accumulate money than spend it in the ways that we desire, you'll have a problem with sports in general, because this is just how it is.

This isn't a defense of Reinsdorf et al, for there remains a middle ground that they don't seem to want to give. But it is some context - in the world of sports ownership, you just don't get philanthropists willing to incur massive losses on the off-chance that it all works out. It just doesn't happen. Even the Atlanta Braves and New York Knicks cut back.

It really doesn't happen. If you are angry that the Bulls have not chosen to be one of the few exceptions to this long established rule, then fine, but you'll be angry for the rest of your life. If you clamor for Reinsdorf to sell the Bulls, remember that they'd only sell to someone who would then do exactly the same. This is just how it is. If you want to enjoy sports, accept it.



Additionally, remember that the Bulls have never really turned down the opportunity to overpay to acquire a "sure thing", because such opportunity has never presented itself. (D'Antoni is not a sure thing. Nor was Pau.) They did overpay once on what was deemed to be a 'sure thing' - Ben Wallace - but that turned out to be just a crappy basketball decision that we'll just have to live with.

Again, it''s just context.

[Scott May]

4. He's not going to hire random strangers from the internet just because they slavishly defend his decision-making.

[Sham]

4. He's not going to hire random strangers from the internet just because they slavishly defend his decision-making.

This isn't a defense of Reinsdorf

Also. I don't "do" ties.

[Sham]

it is some context

[fudgie]

Do any of those things change the fact that Uncle Jerry is cheap?

[TB#1]

I was interested in, but not enthralled by D'Antoni

He got a very fair, very reasonable deal in NY.

I do hope the fact that the Bulls didn't make a similar reasonable deal to The Chip was a basketball related decision.

Some will simply conclude that it was the Bulls being cheap, not the Bulls not extending an offer to a lukewarm candidate, since they didn't extend the offer and someone else did.

We'll see how it all unfolds.

[Sham]

The Bulls made a fair offer for a decent candidate. They didn't overspend - and overslurp - the guy that they wanted, just because they faced some competition for his services.

When you do that, you end up giving Andres Nocioni 6 years.

[TB#1]

Do any of those things change the fact that Uncle Jerry is cheap?

No, but it does re-affirm that the blanket accusation, while there is some element of truth, is a gross over-simplification.

[fudgie]

-= original quote snipped =-

You probably should have included this link then.

http://www.forbes.com/home/business/200 ... _land.html

[Sham]

Oh no! The Bulls made a huge profit! If only I'd thought to include that in my original post that apparently you didn't read!

[fudgie]

-= original quote snipped =-



No, but it does re-affirm that the blanket accusation, while there is some element of truth, is a gross over-simplification.

Perhaps it is an oversimplified blanket statement (I don't particularly care) but there is a lot of evidence that Reinsdorf is cheap. The only evidence that he isn't is that he paid MJ and he once said he would "pay" the luxury tax for a "winner".

[Sham]

Snake, don't make me quote for the 84th time a piece from my own post. Go and read the damn thing.

I am not arguing against Reinsdorf's cheapness.

[coldfish]

OK, fine, I'm your huckleberry.

Lets say I agree with every single point you made. For the most part, I do.

Since that's the case, the Bulls have managed themselves terribly over the past few years. Many teams in many sports win on a limited or fixed budget. They do it with a plan though.

Teams like Oakland A's, New England Pats, Detroit Pistons have handled their finances very well.

- You don't overpay players. Chicago has knowingly done this multiple times. Tyson Chandler, Ben Wallace, Andres Nocioni, etc. In every case, the Bulls basically bid against themselves and ended up regretting it.
- You maintain flexibility. The Pats are always in a position, despite the cap, to take advantage of situations. By siging Joe Smith last year, the Bulls eliminated any salary flexibility.
- You don't give big contracts to older players. Again, see Ben Wallace. Teams like the Pats (and the Pistons) know when to cut their losses with a player. Even when it isn't popular at the time.
- You try to have the best possible staff you can. Assistants are cheap. Even good ones. They can make a big difference in that they can get players to contribute at a level much higher than their contract.

As time passes, the turning point for this organization becomes more clear. I have always thought it, but days like today exacerbate the pain. Ben Wallace for Tyson Chandler was bad, real bad.

Look back at Chicago. They are on a limited budget. However, for *YEARS* now, they have managed to have a huge amount of dead money on the roster.

Antonio Davis and JYD
Tim Thomas
PJ Brown
Ben Wallace / Larry Hughes

This is a team with a limited budget who has still found a way to pay massive amounts of money to people who were borderline contributors. I'm sure people will make excuses, but given 4 years of doing it, it becomes a pattern.

[fudgie]

Snake, don't make me quote for the 84th time a piece from my own post. Go and read the damn thing.

I am not arguing against Reinsdorf's cheapness.

Yes, I know you're providing context.......

For the record it's not the fact the the Bulls take in an obscene profit that bugs me, it's that they take in so much more than other NBA franchises that it really makes you pause and say, "huh?"

[kyrv]

Thank you Sham. I nominate for a sticky.

Just my opinion, but it gets a little old when a large portion of our posts are just complaining about the JR and/or the Bulls being cheap.

The freaking out today is a bit much but as I mentioned in another thread, it's one thing leave but please reconsider the staying and parroting the same line. Perhaps if we get a petition and all sign it, it can be assumed and not restated every thread. Just a thought.

Again, super job Sham. Shamtastic.