Thread Tools

Display Modes

**ace20004u** · 06-07-2005, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhyder

I think I have finally digested the entire Skiles contract situation and have finally formed my own opinion. From gathering the facts, this is how it seems to me that it played out.

---------------

1. Bulls organization approaches Skiles with a contract extension offer (Skiles agent indicated that the Bulls came to him first)

2. Skiles did not accept and came back with a counteroffer (perfectly within his rights)

**Here is where the divergence comes into play**

3a. Skiles and Glass figured that they would meet in the middle as normal contract negotiations go.

3b. The Bulls organization has the rights to Skiles for this offseason and are treating this as a normal extension. Their offer is firm and are unwilling to budge. Skiles can take it for job security or not take it and prove his worth on the open market next year. They aren't moved by threats of Skiles walking.

4. Since this isn't going the way Skiles figured it would, he decided to make it public opinion to leverage the media towards his side.

5. Chicago leaked the contract offer in response.

6. Now Skiles is spinning it as he feels mistreated by the organization.

---------------

All of that said, remember the Curry extension talks last summer where Chicago gave him an offer and Curry responded that he wanted a max extension? The Bulls offer was firm. They said take it or leave it and nothing got done. The situation worked itself out just fine and there wasn't any (reported) bad blood.

I think this is exactly the same thing they are doing with Skiles. Pax and Reinsdorf worked out an offer that Skiles could take or leave. Skiles countered with a higher offer figuring they would meet in the middle. What he did not count on is that the Bulls were making a firm (unnegotiable) offer as Paxson's short history at GM might indicate he handles such extensions.

My spin on the entire situation that Skiles does want the long-term security and is trying to get the most out of the Bulls organization (as it is his right to do).

Skiles could be using the media in one of two ways in my opinion:
1. He is taking this personally and is doing this to create a stink so that the Bulls will not pick up the option he has.
2. He is simply posturing for next year, so he can come back and say I told you so, thereby inflating his worth to the Bulls organization.

As to who is in the wright and who is in the wrong. I think both parties have acted well within their rights. If they offered a non-negotiable contract extension from the get go that Skiles could simply take or leave, there should be no bad blood and both parties certainly have acted within their rights about everything that has taken place. However, if the Bulls went in to negotiate and said after the fact that it was non-negotiable, then I understand Skiles mistreatment card.

That said, we will never know. I am not on Skiles side or Bulls management side on this one. I will simply wait until this all plays itself out. If Skiles option is not picked up (without a better replacement already on deck), Skiles was definately using the media to get out of Chicago. If it is, then I think both sides were simply posturing as goes on in any negotiation.

I think offering a "non negotiable" extension would be extremely bush league in the NBA. EVERYTHING is negotiable...so to start off a negotiation like that in this way would set the tone entirely wrong.

**ScottMay** · 06-07-2005, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankensteiner

Yes, Michael Jordan's record setting salary was paid for by some other owner.

But my point was that even the Mavericks let money play a part in their personnel decisions, something you said doesn't happen in Dallas.

Reinsdorf paid Jordan his record-setting salary only after lots of bitter *****ing and moaning, and only because the CEO of the Knicks was ready to sign Jordan to an even higher salary, and only because not doing so would have essentially destroyed the franchise.

When Reinsdorf was presented with an out to NOT sign Jordan -- the advanced age of the key members of the dynasty, Phil Jackson's insistence on Krause being removed, the lockout, etc. -- he dropped MJ like a bag of dirt.

As John Hollinger exhaustively pointed out, Dallas's decision not to re-sign Nash worked out pretty well for both Phoenix AND Dallas. I have no problem with sensible financial decisions that translate into success on the court. Most of Jerry's decisions don't seem to even take on-the-court success into account. Breaking up the dynasty, e.g., was a great financial decision, but it was also the worst basketball decision in the history of the league, or at least since Milwaukee gave away Kareem.

After six-years of garbage ball, the Bulls have temporarily regained respectability and appear to have a solid future, Curry's status notwithstanding. Reinsdorf's first major financial decision with this group once again doesn't seem to take on-the-court success into account. Hell, I don't think Phil Jackson could have coached *this team* as well as Skiles has.

**Rhyder** · 06-07-2005, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace20004u

I think offering a "non negotiable" extension would be extremely bush league in the NBA. EVERYTHING is negotiable...so to start off a negotiation like that in this way would set the tone entirely wrong.

It is much better than backtracking if that is their intent. If non-negotiable sound too harsh for you, try this:

"Here is an contract extension offer for you Mr. Skiles that we as an organization have determined to be fitting. We would more than love to rip up your old contract, give you a salary increase next year, add on an additional two years of security for you and your family with a team option for a fourth year. The term of the contract is as follows...

If you want to test your value after next season on the open market, then we will gladly just pick up your option for this year. Just know that we want to see you as the head coach of the Bulls for a long time. We really appreciate your help and hope that this extension is a sign of our good will. Take the extension or we can pick up our player option. The choice is yours."

To this Skiles could have responded YES, NO, or how he currently is with the media

Point being, I'm not "blaming" anyone. We will probably never find out intentions by either side without some privy information leaking.

yodurk · 06-07-2005, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace20004u

I think offering a "non negotiable" extension would be extremely bush league in the NBA. EVERYTHING is negotiable...so to start off a negotiation like that in this way would set the tone entirely wrong.

While I see nothing wrong with making a take-it-or-leave-it offer with little wiggle room (fyi, I'm pretty sure the Bulls wiggled in this case), I think you nailed it. "Setting the wrong tone for negotiations" is what I keep hearing from Glass and Skiles. Perhaps it was that "non-negotiable" extension offer that irked them from the get go. And once that happened, it became irreconcilable. It would make some sense of this madness. Though I'm still not ready to take Skiles side on this. He says he understands that this is business, but he's sure not acting like it.

**BealeFarange** · 06-07-2005, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yodurk

He says he understands that this is business, but he's sure not acting like it.

While ScottMay has swayed me to believe that the organization is a bit too ambivalent about their coach's contract status, I could not have put my problem with Skiles' behavior any more eloquently than this.

Frankensteiner · 06-07-2005, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottMay

As John Hollinger exhaustively pointed out, Dallas's decision not to re-sign Nash worked out pretty well for both Phoenix AND Dallas. I have no problem with sensible financial decisions that translate into success on the court.

Ok, so if you're judging Dallas letting go of Nash based on hindsight and how things worked out in the end, then why not let things play out with the Bulls and see how the team performs next year? Maybe you can at least wait until a new coach is hired? It's either that or contributing more posts to the 5 or 6 circle jerk threads already on this board re: Reinsdorf being the worst person on the planet.

Frankensteiner · 06-07-2005, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottMay

I have no problem with sensible financial decisions that translate into success on the court.

One other point about this. Wasn't your presence in the Fire Skiles a club, at least as it was described in the latest version of your diatribes, a supposed shot at the Bulls for hiring a cheap coach? Wouldn't you call that a sensible financial decision that translated into success on the court? Some consistency would be nice.

**ScottMay** · 06-07-2005, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankensteiner

Ok, so if you're judging Dallas letting go of Nash based on hindsight and how things worked out in the end, then why not let things play out with the Bulls and see how the team performs next year? Maybe you can at least wait until a new coach is hired? It's either that or contributing more posts to the 5 or 6 circle jerk threads already on this board re: Reinsdorf being the worst person on the planet.

A. The case that Nash wasn't worth what he wanted Dallas to pay him is far, far more compelling than the case that Skiles isn't worth what he wants from the Bulls. Before you get all up in arms over that and start howling about how Nash is the MVP, I don't think it's any secret that I feel Nash is far and away the weakest MVP in league history. The fact that Phoenix was pretty easily beaten in a conference final doesn't help his case.

B. Why should I wait until a new guy is hired? The carrot that ownership repeatedly dangled the past six godawful years was "we'll pay to keep together a winner." Right?

**ScottMay** · 06-07-2005, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankensteiner

One other point about this. Wasn't your presence in the Fire Skiles a club, at least as it was described in the latest version of your diatribes, a supposed shot at the Bulls for hiring a cheap coach? Wouldn't you call that a sensible financial decision that translated into success on the court? Some consistency would be nice.

Read what you've written and explain to yourself how exactly this is supposed to trip ME up on the issue of consistency.

LIBlue · 06-07-2005, 11:14 AM

A very confusing situation indeed. I see a few issues:

1) It appears the 4 year/$16MM contract details are pretty accurate. It would have made him one of the top five paid coaches in the league. That was not good enough, or rather "money" was not the issue. Somehow, he felt disrespected. This disrespect is odd, as the team was the one to approach Skiles about an extension - somehow, that is a sign of respect in my book. And wasn't it Skiles camp who said they would not negiotiate during the season? That is setting a deadline.

2) Unfortunately, the issue is now Scott Skiles. Scott Sklies is done as the Bulls coach. The way he and his agent torched the franchise in the media leaves little room. Negiotiations can be testy, but to act like a petulant child in the media backed the Bulls into a corner. Hell, with Skiles background, I guess I should not be surprised he "quit" again.

3) Skiles and Glass say they repect Paxson, but the actions speak otherwise. Paxson is the GM, and Reinsdorf has stated that he is staying out of direct negiotiations. That is why owners hire GMs. To express anger that the GM, and not the owners, is doing the contract discussions, slams Paxson. Apparently, Paxson is not deemed wothy enough to negiotiate with on contracts. Glass wants to go around him and deal directly with Reinsdorf.

Find a new coach, because it is obvious Skiles does not want to be a part of the Bulls, and the Bulls have concerns with Skiles.

- Maybe it was concerns of a four year deal for a coach with a shaky past.
- Maybe it was the disrespect of the owner not dealing directly with the coach's agent.
- Maybe the GM felt pissed on by the agent/coach for trying to go around him in negiotiations, and Skiles greatest supporter lost interest in the coach.
- Maybe the Bulls feel Skiles did a great job this year, but is not the coach to take them into the future.
- Maybe the Buls were not sure, and did not want to pay guaranteed long-term, top five money for a one-year wonder.
- Maybe the Bulls thought $16MM was fair, while Skiles assumed to two parties would just meet in the middle. I offer you $16MM, but you want $20MM, so lets meet at $18MM.

Whatever the case, the Skiles team turned this into a ugly public incident. For all the "leaks" claimed by Skiles, none were even close to the hatchet job done by Glass. It is obvious he wants out, and feels he is one of the top two or three coaches in the league. Only time will tell. I would not be surprised to see the Bulls wait until June 30th to decline the option, leaving Skiles with few choices next year. When you piss on a man in public likes Skiles and Glass just did to Reinsdorf, one must remember pissing matches can go both ways.

Frankensteiner · 06-07-2005, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottMay

A. The case that Nash wasn't worth what he wanted Dallas to pay him is far, far more compelling than the case that Skiles isn't worth what he wants from the Bulls. Before you get all up in arms over that and start howling about how Nash is the MVP, I don't think it's any secret that I feel Nash is far and away the weakest MVP in league history.

Only in your mind, I guess. This is quite strange since I seem to remember right after Game 6 of the Wizards series, in response to your own concocted Skiles v. Gordon feud, you stated your preference for choosing the player in that case. It's curious then that you now say Nash, a much better player than Gordon (no matter how much mud you now throw at Nash), is worth less to his team than Skiles is to the Bulls.

Quote:

The fact that Phoenix was pretty easily beaten in a conference final doesn't help his case.

The fact that Phoenix wasn't even in the playoffs last year and ended the season with the best record in the NBA speaks to Nash's value. There's also the conference semi-finals in which the Suns w/Nash beat a Dallas team w/o Nash. Whatever suits your argument, I guess.

Quote:

B. Why should I wait until a new guy is hired? The carrot that ownership repeatedly dangled the past six godawful years was "we'll pay to keep together a winner." Right?

Well, you just said you were a fan of sound financial decisions that produce results on the court. So why are you concerned with how much money Reinsdorf pays the new coach as long as the Bulls improve or continue to play at their current level. And you had no problem judging Cuban's decision based on hindsight; this is a similar type of case. Point here is, if the Bulls hired a cheap coach and their record improved, wouldn't you then be a fan of that decision? That's why you should wait and quit whining, or at least get a position and stick to it.

Frankensteiner · 06-07-2005, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottMay

Read what you've written and explain to yourself how exactly this is supposed to trip ME up on the issue of consistency.

I'm entrusting you to connect the dots. You do far more with far less when the Bulls and Reinsdorf are concerned.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes