Thread Tools

Display Modes

bullsville · 06-07-2005, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kukoc4ever

I forgot. How many years was that deal?

And... Jerry even said he may regret it... signing the greatest player ever.

And my point is that 1 or 2 such decisions are probably smart and necessary. Consistently making the same Jerry decision is bad news for the fans.

The difference between Dallas and Chicago is night and day. There is no debate.

You are correct. It's not even close.

Bulls 6 rings, Mavericks 0.

bullsville · 06-07-2005, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottMay

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.

I'm curious as to how the Knicks could sign Jordan to an even higher salary, since the cap that season was only $24.3 million and the Bulls paid MJ $30 million? I admit I'm not real familiar with what the cap rules were back then, but I'm pretty sure that with a $24.3 million cap the Knicks ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM offer to MJ was only 81% of what Jerry gave him.

And I'm sure that MJ was ready to go to NY to play with 11 minimum salary guys, because certainly All-Stars would have flocked to NY for the chance to play with MJ, even if they had to play for the minimum salary.

JR paid MJ 23.5% MORE than the salary cap for an entire team, I guess he should have been all $hits and grins?

MJ could have left after his rookie contract was up if Reinsdorf was so bad... he had been here for only 6 years and left after the 1990 season, Phil's first (MJ hated the Triangle then) and MJ's 6th in Chicago without even one trip to the NBA Finals.

I'm assuming JR was involved in the negotiations back then as well?

bullsville · 06-07-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yodurk

Perhaps it was that "non-negotiable" extension offer that irked them from the get go.

Well, that "non-negotiable" extension was either:

1- Accepted by Skiles, which means it must have been the "perfect" offer (in that it was enough to bring Skiles back);

or-

2- IT WAS NEGOTIATED!

What the hell is Glass' and Skiles' problems? They act like JR just picked up his business manners over the past 19 months since Skiles has been here. If they didn't like JR's business style, why the hell did they sign here, knowing they'd be negotiating a new contract in 3 years?

Quote:

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.

No, it was reconciled.

**johnston797** · 06-07-2005, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bullsville

I'm curious as to how the Knicks could sign Jordan to an even higher salary, since the cap that season was only $24.3 million and the Bulls paid MJ $30 million? I admit I'm not real familiar with what the cap rules were back then, but I'm pretty sure that with a $24.3 million cap the Knicks ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM offer to MJ was only 81% of what Jerry gave him.

Knicks made a huge offer and also "brought" some NYC-based endorsements with them. So net, to Jordon, going to NYC was worth more money.

So MJ's salary was market driven & then a bit less...just like anything JR has paid to date.

Scary with Chandler out there. Will JR let Pax pay top dollar?

bullsville · 06-07-2005, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnston797

Knicks made a huge offer and also "brought" some NYC-based endorsements with them. So net, to Jordon, going to NYC was worth more money.

So MJ's salary was market driven & then a bit less...just like anything JR has paid to date.

Scary with Chandler out there. Will JR let Pax pay top dollar?

LMAO, so MJ stayed for "less than market value"? What a moron, JR must have nude pics of the entire world to keep screwing people over the way he does. Yet they still continue to work for him and resign with him? I think I am confused.

Of course, there are all the superstars he let go for nothing, like MJ and Pip and Rodman and Brand and Artest and Miller and Crawford, those guys must have a lot of rings since they left the Bulls, right? [/RHETORICAL QUESTION]

So you are saying that MJ turned down more money from the Knicks to resign with JR? WOW, I really respect JR now, MJ could have gone to the Knicks for more money yet JR talked him into staying here for less money and we got 2 extra rings out of it? UNBELIEVABLE. WOW. I AM SPEECHLESS.

Great work, JR.

JR can get the "greatest of all time" to sign for below market value? Amazing.

JR can get the greatest players and greatest coaches of their eras to play for less than market value, plus he got us fans SIX championships paying everyone less than market value?

WHAT A GREAT OWNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

**johnston797** · 06-07-2005, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bullsville

Great work, JR.

Great, we can chant, "our balance sheet is better than your balance sheet".

I can's wait until another glorious 5-year period where we can have the worst record in the NBA but just make a ****load of money.

That's really as more of an anomaly than winning 6 times in 8 years.

**ScottMay** · 06-07-2005, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bullsville

I'm curious as to how the Knicks could sign Jordan to an even higher salary, since the cap that season was only $24.3 million and the Bulls paid MJ $30 million? I admit I'm not real familiar with what the cap rules were back then, but I'm pretty sure that with a $24.3 million cap the Knicks ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM offer to MJ was only 81% of what Jerry gave him.

And I'm sure that MJ was ready to go to NY to play with 11 minimum salary guys, because certainly All-Stars would have flocked to NY for the chance to play with MJ, even if they had to play for the minimum salary.

JR paid MJ 23.5% MORE than the salary cap for an entire team, I guess he should have been all $hits and grins?

MJ could have left after his rookie contract was up if Reinsdorf was so bad... he had been here for only 6 years and left after the 1990 season, Phil's first (MJ hated the Triangle then) and MJ's 6th in Chicago without even one trip to the NBA Finals.

I'm assuming JR was involved in the negotiations back then as well?

What Checketts was offering was all somewhat shady and would have been held up to a lot of scrutiny by the league, even inasmuch as they'd have loved to have him in NY. What he did was offer to sign Jordan to a modest deal until the Knicks had his Bird rights, then tear it up and pay him a huge, unprecedented deal. In the interim, he had arranged for Jordan's then-current endorsement deals to have huge premiums tacked onto them for Jordan being in the NY market, and a bunch of new endorsements on top of that.

Whatever the deal was, it was enough of a threat to the Bulls for them to offer, as you point out, a mammoth deal of their own, albeit only a one-year one.

Here's an interesting excerpt from David Halberstam's "Playing for Keeps" (which is where I thought I remembered reading about Checketts, but it's not; I'll keep looking) that does a pretty good job of explaining why Reinsdorf's approach to negotiation leaves poisonous fallout:

Quote:

[T]hose who thought there was something shortsighted about the Bulls in their negotiations could point their handling of Grant as an example. The special trademark of the Bulls in their business dealings was a certain toughness, a need to win, which was one thing in normal business but another thing in a world of talent, where if you won, you won at the expense of your own prime resources. There was a downside to that, some thought, a certain almost-inevitable long-term unhappiness on the part of their best players.

Reinsdorf's zero-sum approach works well in real estate, e.g., against opponents with competing interests. To me, a person who owns a sports team should be predominately interested in his team's winning, and this ought to be a no-brainer common interest between the owner and the people he is paying to play for him. Unlike any other owner, however, Reinsdorf chooses to set up a competitive dynamic between himself and the people playing for him.

And unlike you, I don't see how this way of doing business can be considered a success. Fine, he didn't mess things up when Jordan was around: well, except for the part about the ugly premature end to things. Beyond that, in thirty-odd years of owning the Bulls and White Sox, his victories have been few and basically insignificant -- a +.500 season here, a division title there, lots of mediocrity.

His failures, on the other hand, have been pretty notable: he's presided over the worst six-year record in the history of the NBA, he's played a enormous role in accelerating the destruction of baseball, both by orchestrating the lockout and making sure his puppet remains as commissioner (an absurdity that wouldn't be tolerated in any real-life business), and he built the least user-friendly and aesthetically pleasing major-league sports facility in the nation.

Great track record.

bullsville · 06-07-2005, 08:56 PM

Say what you will, but very few owners in the history of American professional sports have presided over more championships than Reinsdorf.

That's really all I care about, the rest of this stuff is all debatable, but I know I have seen 6 parades and JR was the owner, how bad can it be?

**ScottMay** · 06-07-2005, 09:41 PM

edited

kukoc4ever · 06-08-2005, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bullsville

That's really all I care about, the rest of this stuff is all debatable, but I know I have seen 6 parades and JR was the owner, how bad can it be?

I somewhat agree. Reinsdorf is my favorite owner of the Chicago three. He's not that bad. I feel the same way about Reinsdorf as I felt about Jalen Rose. He’s flawed, but you could do worse.

He's very reluctant to sign long term deals and I think his management style is more likely to produce a .500 team than a championship team. He gets in the way more than he needs to and it seems like he breeds confrontation. But, he did preside over the Jordan regime and that's really been the only bright light in my Chicago sports following career.

yodurk · 06-08-2005, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kukoc4ever

I somewhat agree. Reinsdorf is my favorite owner of the Chicago three. He's not that bad. I feel the same way about Reinsdorf as I felt about Jalen Rose. He’s flawed, but you could do worse.

He's very reluctant to sign long term deals and I think his management style is more likely to produce a .500 team than a championship team. He gets in the way more than he needs to and it seems like he breeds confrontation. But, he did preside over the Jordan regime and that's really been the only bright light in my Chicago sports following career.

You're definitely not the first to say Jerry gets in the way, but I actually think one of his strengths as an owner is that he generally stays OUT of the way. Seems to me that he has an attitude of, "Paxson and Ken Williams work for me, and I'll let them do the all the decision-making, provided they run major financial decisions by me first." In theory, that sounds like a very reasonable approach. Where I have problems is that he is incredibly stubborn in his dealings, and things go haywire if someone/something conflicts with that. Stereotypical business owner qualities.

kukoc4ever · 06-08-2005, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yodurk

You're definitely not the first to say Jerry gets in the way, but I actually think one of his strengths as an owner is that he generally stays OUT of the way. Seems to me that he has an attitude of, "Paxson and Ken Williams work for me, and I'll let them do the all the decision-making, provided they run major financial decisions by me first." In theory, that sounds like a very reasonable approach. Where I have problems is that he is incredibly stubborn in his dealings, and things go haywire if someone/something conflicts with that. Stereotypical business owner qualities.

Most of the major decisions that Pax/Williams have to make have financial implications though. But yah... you don't hear him talking much about trading player X for player Y... and that's a good thing. Also, that line from Jerry gets him off the hook on answering personnel questions.

When he does get involved... things get confrontational and ugly pretty quick.

I have a hard time seeing how people really blame Skiles for this... when so many of the Bulls/Sox negotiations have gone this way (ugly, leaks, bitterly confrontational) over the last decade or two. Skiles and Glass were stunned at the way Jerry wanted to do business. That was pretty clear. In the end… Jerry got his wish…. Skiles and Jerry did the deal themselves over the phone. Hooray.

Thread Tools Display Modes

Thread Tools

Display Modes