SB Nation User Blog: Sports2

Larry Hughes' silly contract incentive

Sports2 — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:31:37 -0000

OK, I think it's a little bit unlikely we win 49 games, but we've exceeded expectations in this early part of the season. We've had a pretty brutal schedule and are 8-9. If we can go 41-24 over the remaining games, we'll end up 49-33.

And what happens if we win 49 games?

Larry Hughes gets $2M I think. And the Bulls pay the Luxury Tax.

Hughes arguably had his best playoff performance since scoring 33 points in Game 5 of the Wizards' first-round series against the Chicago Bulls in 2005. It was the type of show the Cavaliers -- and perhaps that angry fan -- expected from Hughes when he bolted Washington that summer to sign a five-year, $60 million contract with the team. (The contract could be worth up to $70 million with easily attainable incentives; Hughes got a $2 million bonus this season because Cleveland won at least 49 games.)

So he's got $10M in total incentives, with $2M being earned in a given year. So I'd guess it's the same sort of incentive for each year, and that if the Bulls win 49 or more games, they'll have to pay him another $2M.

So what, you say? Jerry Reinsdorf is probably interested in this because if the Bulls have to pay out that additional $2M, they'll be over the luxury tax threshold. So they'll have to pay $2M to Hughes, about $2M to the league in luxury tax fees, and they won't get a share of the tax revenues collected against other teams (which has historically been another couple million). At the moment, it looks like teams will pay, in total, about $90-100M in tax, which amounts to $4M to $4.5M per team. The league has the option to not distribute all of this money back to the teams, but it's a big chunk of money.

So in total, winning more than 49 games and having Hughes on the roster could result in an additional $8M expense for the Bulls. That's a lot of freaking money. More than half the teams in the league, for example, claim as operating income. And while the Bulls made about $58M after their basic expenses last year, $8M isn't exactly a drop in the bucket.

So what does this mean for those of us who mostly care about the on-court product? I dunno, but I find it interesting as an example of how poorly structured incentives (I wonder what Deng's are) can create perverse outcomes.

Suppose, for example, it looks like the Bulls are going to be close to 49 wins or more as the trade deadline approaches. Do the Bulls just suck it up? Do they make a trade they know will make them worse in the short run? How hard do they work to trade Hughes? If they don't make a trade, do they start "resting" their starters and try to lose their last few games?

And how much harder is he to trade? Generally when you trade a guy, the team is taking him on because they want to get better. But if they trade for Hughes and get too much better, they're out a couple million more bucks

Trade idea #394 (Bulls-Blazers)

Sports2 — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 01:54:39 -0000

Bulls trade Kirk, Noc and Simmons

Blazers trade Raef, Martell Webster and Channing Frye

Martell Webster just signed a relatively cheap extension, and I think he can be traded by the deadline. He's big, athletic, only 21, on a solid contract, and is a very good shooter. Put it all together and he could be the right guy to put next to Rose. And if he's not, he doesn't kill us because he's still moveable.

Raef LaFrentz is an expiring contract. By trading away our two guys for the Blazers guys, we net about $12.5M in additional room under the luxury tax threshold next year. That makes it possible for us to resign both Gordon and Gooden if we choose, or take back salary in sign and trades.

Frye will be an RFA next year, and might constitute a cheap(er) big man to replace Gooden should we feel the need.

In short, this is a trade that opens a lot of options for us while closing few off.

For the Blazers, I'm reading they want more veterans, and their biggest areas of need are at PG and SF. So our guys might make sense for them.

Jeff Hornacek on the Bulls Coaching Job

Sports2 — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:42:35 -0000

The Chicago situation was different.

The Bulls offered their job to ex-Phoenix coach Mike D'Antoni, who turned them down and signed on with the Knicks.

After missing out on the high-profile D'Antoni, Chicago GM John Paxson went in the opposite direction and hired Vinny Del Negro, who did not have any coaching experience.

"I don't know what exactly happened," Hornacek said. "I called Paxson after that and he said, 'Yeah, we'll get together some day and talk about it.' Personally -- and I'm just guessing -- I think they wanted a big-name guy and if he did great, they would probably keep him [long-term]. But I think they offered [Del Negro] only two years and the lowest [coaching] salary in the league. To me, that's a sign they were not looking too far into the future."

Of course, Hornacek grew up in suburban Chicago. So to return as coach of the Bulls would have been special, from a personal standpoint.

"It would have been a good opportunity, but that's why you go talk to them," Hornacek said. "You never know what's going to happen. When they called, I said, 'Sure, I'll go talk to them.' And we had a great meeting. [Paxson] even called me back and said, 'We're going to bring three or four guys back a second time and, when you come back I want you to talk about how you would use the rookies, [Michael] Beasley or [Derrick] Rose.' But they didn't call back. He indicated he was going to have me come back, but ..."

Hornacek laughed.

"Maybe someday I'll hear the story and get a clue," he said.

Who would like to piece together exactly what the hell went on here?

Gaaahh!!! Bulls interested in Zach Randolph!?

Sports2 — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:05:37 -0000

Gaaahh!!! Bulls interested in Zach Randolph!?

A league executive said that the Chicago Bulls have interest in New York Knicks forward Zach Randolph to solve their low-post scoring problems, but don’t have a package that would interest New York.

LOL, yeah, that'd quash those pesky, stupid "2010 Plan" thoughts. And my spirit.

Preseason Open Game Thread #5: Bulls vs Utah Jazz

Sports2 — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 00:35:09 -0000

Since there isn't a topic yet, here's one. It's on WGN Superstation so I get to see it without resorting to weird internet tricks.

The pre-planned Gordon plays the last game/Hughes plays this game thing confuses the hell out of me.

I wish Ben were playing tonight and Hughes were not. Who'l be starting for the Bulls? Kirk or Hughes? Or Kirk and Hughes?

Anyone still want to debate Ronnie Brewer vs. Thabo? I didn't think so. :(

Trade idea of the day: Gooden for Battie

Sports2 — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:15:03 -0000

This trade is so good it's already happened. Back in July of 2004 the Magic traded Gooden to the Cavs for Tony Battie. To be precise it was Gooden, Steven Hunter, and the rights to Anderson Varejao going to Cleveland for Battie and two second round picks (no one of note... Martinas AndroclesandtheLionuswiththereallylongneckus and Brad Newly). Pretty good trade for the Cavs who netted two starting quality bigs for Battie.

Four years later and Gooden would be a very solid player to put next to Howard to shoot and create some space. They don't need Battie because he does the same things Howard does, just much much worse. Not because Battie is awful, but because Howard is just that good.

For us though, Battie is our best interior defender, and a veteran who'll make our perimeter defenders better look that much better. It'll make it put up or shut up time for Tyrus, but we've still got (ugh) Noc as a sort of back up plan... I guess. And oh yeah, he's signed to a very reasonable deal for this year and next, which gives us a bit more trade flexibility for the rest of this year and some continuity for next year.

We still, of course, need to trade Kirk and Noc in the worst possible way, but it's at least a step in the right direction. For that matter, Noc or Hinrich for Battie and change would really float my boat as well.

Bulls Trade and Financial Outlook for 2008/2009

Sports2 — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:07:10 -0000

Premise

OK, this is a little more technical, and at the same time a little more abstract than your average season preview, but I think it touches on the underlying factors that we're likely to see drive the Bulls this year than just talking about how much we hate Larry Hughes. Basically I just want to take a hard look at the finances, because we know damn good and well they drive everything, and see where the Bulls need to go.

Guaranteed money

The Bulls $69.84M in salary heading into the year, with 12 players under guaranteed contracts and $100,000 of “dead money” paid to the waived JamesOn Curry. This gives them $2.01M remaining in salary before they hit the luxury tax threshold (of $71.15M)

Final Roster Spots

NBA Rules require that the Bulls keep 14 players on their roster, so they will keep around at least two of the following guys on non-guaranteed contracts:

Michael Ruffin ($798k)

Demetris Nichols ($712k)

Roger Powell ($712k)

Darius Washington ($712k)

Elton Brown ($442k)

At a minimum, they could keep Brown and one of the $712K guys and they would remain $859k below the luxury tax threshold.

At maximum, they can keep 15 players, but if they do so, one of them must be Brown in order to stay under the tax (they could keep and two of Ruffin, Nichols, Powell, and Washington) and then Brown and stay under the tax by a mere $61k (that’s close since it’s quite possible our guesses at other players’ salaries might be off by that much). So at most they can keep two out of Ruffin, Nichols, Powell, and Washington. Keeping three of them would put the Bulls over the luxury tax threshold.

Hence, finances affect the decision here, but not by a whole lot.

Trade thoughts for this season

While the Bulls have significant questions regarding personnel going forward (and not just about Michael Ruffin), there’s probably not a lot that can be done about it. Finance is going to dictate personnel.

No matter how the final roster spots shake out, the Bulls will be pretty close to the LT threshold. In effect, this will impose a pretty strict limit on the Bulls if they try to make a trade. While the NBA rules will allow a team to take back up to 125% + $100k of the salary they trade away, the requirement (to avoid the LT) on the Bulls will mean they basically have to take back less salary than they give out if they make a trade. Or work hard to make the numbers as close as possible.

This could make some otherwise appealing trades unfeasible. For example, suppose the Clippers agreed to a Marcus Camby for Andres Nocioni swap. While the Bulls could use a defensive big like Camby (under contract for this year and the next) and they would benefit to unload Noc’s long-term deal, Camby makes $10M while Noc makes $8M. Doing this trade would increase the Bulls’ team salary by $2M and push them over the luxury tax threshold.

Hence, it probably ain’t gonna happen. This isn’t to push for that particular trade, but simply to give an example of how close the Bulls are to the tax threshold and how much it could potentially effect them (going over the tax last year cost a team a minimum of $7M, so that would appear to be a good estimate for what going over this year would mean).

These trade restrictions are made more difficult by the fact that there are several reasons the Bulls might want to trade.

Next Summer’s cap position

If the salary cap continues to grow (it traditionally does), the cap for the 2009/2010 season will be approximately $61M and the luxury tax threshold will be nearly $74M. The Bulls currently have about $58.8M in salary commitments to 9 players. This could decline if the Bulls don’t exercise team options on Cedric Simmons ($2.67M) and/or Thabo Sefolosha ($2.75M). They will also have to figure in the value of their first round pick next year (guess around $1.5M) and various minimum salary players to fill out the roster (perhaps another $2M).

At a minimum then, the Bulls will have about $62.3M in salary heading into next year. That’s about $11.7M under the luxury tax threshold If Thabo is extended, that will become $65.05M ($9M under the LT) and if Thabo and Simmons are both extended it becomes $67.7M ($6.3M under the LT). The decisions on Thabo and Simmons must be made in the next couple of weeks, and are important because for a couple of reasons. First they change the nature of the players’ current trade value.

Second, they change how much leeway we have to make offers to our impending free agents; Gordon, Drew Gooden, and Aaron Gray. Even under the most favorable circumstances it would appear unlikely that, with our current salary structure, we can afford to keep and Gooden and Gordon. Simply adding their current salaries without a raise to next year’s team would push the Bulls into the tax threshold. Decisions must be made, or circumstances will make them.

Impending Free Agents: Ben Gordon, Drew Gooden, and Aaron Gray

Gordon’s situation presents the biggest problem for the Bulls. It’s a problem because he’s a guy they were ready to commit a big, long-term contract to (and hence, a guy the Bulls clearly value) but who is poised to leave as an unrestricted free agent next year after two years of mutual unhappiness. As with last year, Gordon’s future with the Bulls threatens to prevent them from making other decisions.

If the Bulls operate under the assumption he can be re-signed, they’ll still need to move other players if they want to keep Gooden or simply play it safe. There are several potential problems in the estimate I gave above. It’s a best guess, but there’s no certainty. For example, suppose the cap doesn’t increase by the expected amount, Gordon players better than expected, or the Bulls get a surprisingly high draft pick that makes more than $1.5M. Any of those circumstances could cause a couple million dollar swing in the salary cap that would wipe out the ability to keep him.

On top of this problem is the fact that Gordon agreeing to come back to the Bulls after two acrimonious negotiations seems improbable. Should the Bulls risk declining the option on Thabo, or trading Nocioni for a non-productive player on a shorter contract, for example, in order to free up as much room as possible, only to have Gordon leave anyway?

The prospects for trading Gordon are likewise bleak. He must agree to any trade, and by doing so, he loses his Bird rights. This means that the team he’s traded cannot exceed the salary cap to sign him the way most returning players can be resigned. He would either have to agree to a MLE contract, leave for another team, or be traded to a team that’s significantly under the salary cap (thus allowing them to avoid the Bird Rule in the first place). Thus, I expect the potential trade candidates for Gordon are very limited. I would suspect:

1. Miami and OKC, which both project to be under the salary cap by enough to resign him to a significant contract,

2. Portland, which is in a similar situation, but which has several younger, similar players (Jerryd Bayless, Rudy Fernandez)

3. Perhaps a championship contending team that cannot hope to re-sign Gordon, but would like a quality player for this season (Boston, Houston, New Orleans, San Antonio?).

In all of these cases, the return the Bulls could expect is… not good. Unlike this summer, when teams like Miami and New York reportedly offered to take a bad contract off the Bulls hands, teams could not offer this, since doing so would compromise their ability to re-sign Gordon. Realistically, a player on a rookie contract or a draft pick seems like the best sort of return we might realistically expect.

A final possibility might be to arrange a trade that both gives Gordon to another team and clears significant cap room for that team as well. For example, pairing Gooden, Gordon and Cedric Simmons in a trade with the Clippers for Marcus Camby, Tim Thomas, and Eric Gordon would probably give the Clippers enough room to resign Gooden and Ben Gordon if they wished to do so, while giving us a more traditional center and a replacement SG prospect (however, this trade still runs into the luxury tax problem talked about above).

In short, there are some possibilities for trading him, but they are all very complicated and it’s likely we won’t get much return. On the other hand, there’s some possibility for keeping him in the long run, but they’re similarly complicated and hold the potential we lose him for nothing.

In either case, we seem to run a risk even by sitting on our hands. If we do nothing this season, then Gordon is likely to leave at the end of the year for nothing. It’s pretty questionable whether we could afford to re-sign him even if he allows the Bulls the opportunity to match an offer he receives from another team.

Drew Gooden’s situation is somewhat tied to Gordons, as well as the performance of Tyrus Thomas and Joakim Noah. Even if both of those young players fare well, Gooden is our only well-experienced and somewhat offensive-minded frontcourt player. Even if they do well, it’d be a shame to see him walk for no return at the end of the year. Some team out there, I’d think, would give up a draft pick or two if we don’t have him in our future.

Although it’s certainly possible Aaron Gray is a non-factor, with the reports he’s lost significant weight, he might become a worthwhile player. As the only true center on the roster, he’ll probably command some playing time. And even if he’s not great, big strong seven footers command money. So looks consistent, productive, and improving this season, it’s certainly possible some other team could make him a significant offer (in my mind I think up the MLE). Whether it’s important to keep him in that case is something else that should be considered. Especially in the context if limited funds available before we hit the luxury tax threshold next season.

The Old Regime: Andres Nocioni and Kirk Hinrich

Probably the quickest way to free up finances would be to trade one or both of these players for expiring contracts (or a team under the cap). In the case of Nocioni, I frankly can’t understand why this hasn’t been done. While I value his manic style, there are over a hundred million reasons he shouldn’t be here (Luol Deng’s got $71M of them, Noc holds another $29M of them). It just doen’t make sense to be paying Noc that kind of money when we’ve got our best player playing his primary position and several better and/or cheaper options at power forward.

Further, he’s likely to lose whatever value he might have if he’s forced to rot on the bench. If he’s played significant minutes… well, it means a better player, or one more important to our future is sitting on the bench. He should have been traded already.

The logic for trading Hinrich isn’t as emphatic as that for trading Nocioni, but at the same time I don’t think anyone should look at Kirk and see him as anything more than a short-term solution at SG and backup PG to Rose while he gets his feet wet. Sure, having Kirk as a somewhat proven PG and decent all-around guard makes it easier on Rose at some level. There’s simply no logic to him as a long-term member of the Bulls with Rose here. Not with his abilities or with his salary.

So what to do?

I suppose I’ve given away my answers in discussing Nocioni and Hinrich. I don’t understand how Gordon’s contract situation prevented the Bulls from trading Nocioni if there were an opportunity to do so. So that’s trading chip number one.

A lot of folks, John Paxson amongst them, have opined that gee, the Bulls couldn’t possibly risk trading Hinrich and then turning around and losing Gordon for nothing, thus depriving them of their two best guards besides Rose. That made sense on the surface, but after thinking it out, I’m not seeing the logic of it.

First, if you keep Hinrich until the “situation” with Gordon is settled, it makes it more likely to “settle” it by Gordon simply walking away from a continued logjam that’s uncomfortable for everyone. If, on the other hand, you trade Hinrich, you make it more likely Gordon stays because you create a workable environment.

Second, Hinrich isn’t that good at SG (or possibly at all any more, to my somewhat surprise). His best value is as a PG, and it’s fairly obvious Rose is going to play big minutes from the beginning. So Hinrich’s only real value to us is what he brings as a SG, and his value there really isn’t all that high.

Third, if you’re worried about this problem from a perspective of losing both Hinrich and Gordon, why not use one of those guys (or both, or in some combination with others) to try trading for a better pure SG prospect to pair along with Rose? I think everyone can agree Kirk’s best value is at PG. We need a SG. Some team around the league probable needs a PG and has a SG to give. Making a trade in that direction would kill two birds with one stone.

Finally, consider the “worst case scenario” of trading Hinrich for a pick or a frontcourt player today, playing Gordon big minutes, and then having him want to leave town this summer. Well, that’d suck because it leaves us without a long-term answer at SG. Which is exactly where we’d be if Kirk was our primary SG. All we’d be is a season later in coming to that realization and trying to do something about it.

Planning for the long-run and the 2010 Free Agency season

I see three immediate needs for this team in addition to one long-term priority priority. The long-term priority is to open up room to sign a maximum salary player in 2010. That’s two offseasons from now. The fact that three of our projected starters by then (Noah, Deng, Rose) will be locked in to rookie deals or at a reasonable price makes it feasible to lock down one more starter, a couple role players, and still have legitimate salary to offer a difference-making free agent like Chris Bosh or Dwyane Wade. Plus, because Tyrus and Thabo will be restricted free agents that summer, they provide some “backup capability” in that they can be resigned in the event we don’t attract a max-worthy player (or Tyrus himself comes close to that). At worst, keeping that option open unless a clearly spectacular deal comes along should be a priority.

To do this, we can make a basic assumption that if the salary cap continues to grow at historic rates, we can expect the cap to be something like $63M. If we need to have $18M in cap space to give to a free agent, that gives us a maximum of $45M in salary commitments for the season. Figure in $2M for minimum salary players/cap holds and another $3M for our 2009 and 2010 first rounders. That gives us about $40M to spend. Currently we’re slotted to give Deng $11.4M, Rose $5.5M and Noah $3.1M. That’s five players counting the draft picks, and we’ve got $20M left to spend on some combination of Hinrich ($9M), Nocioni ($7M), Gordon, Gooden, Gray, Tyrus, Thabo and/or someone else who enters the picture between now and then. That seems like plenty of options to me. If you figure your average quality NBA starter is going to make $10M/yr, we can probably afford (if we trade away Noc and Hinrich as we should) one very good player (a Michael Redd or Joe Johnson type) or two middle of the road types (a Mike Miller or Ben Gordon at SG and a Tyrus Thomas or Drew Gooden at PF).

In the shorter run, there are two things I’d like to see happen so long as they don’t actively impede that long-run goal. First, Bulls fans shouldn’t underestimate what good interior gets you. That was a big part of our collapse last year, and turning some combination of Drew Gooden and his expiring contract (not an intimidating interior defender!) and guys in the backcourt into a guy that actually inspires some fear up front over this year and next would give us a lot of help as Noah and hopefully Thomas gain strength, learn the game and turn their significant defensive potential into reality. A guy like Marcus Camby (who I made obvious my desire for above) wouldn’t be bad at all). A completely unheralded guy to take a look at would be the good Collins twin, Jarron, who waists away on the Jazz bench despite being a charge taking machine.

The final thing is simply to resolve the SG mess. One way or another, resolution of the situation would be good in and of itself.

Mike McGraw's QO Post Mortem

Sports2 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:46:51 -0000

[From the Fanposts. Very interesting, especially the statement that it wasn't the case that 'no team' would pay Gordon what he wanted. This makes it look extremely bad from the Bulls. -ed.]

The best Bulls beat reporter writes:

The fifth-year shooting guard insists he doesn't regret turning down the Bulls' offer, now believed to be worth around $54-55 million over six years. Clearly, though, the qualifying offer carries a significant risk. Gordon will be paid $6.4 million this season and cannot be traded without his consent.

The list of players who have opted to sign the qualifying offer is short and includes Michael Olowokandi, Stromile Swift, Vladimir Radmanovic and Mickael Pietrus. All of those players changed teams after becoming a free agent and none has been paid more than the mid-level exception (currently worth $5.6 million).

Asked if there's still a chance he could re-sign with the Bulls next year, Gordon was noncommittal, but general manager John Paxson kept the door ajar.

"This does not mean that Ben won't be here long-term," Paxson said. "It means that we didn't get something done right now."

During the final hours before Wednesday's 11 p.m. deadline, Gordon's camp pressed for a long-term solution and his agent, Raymond Brothers, flew here to plead his case in person. The Bulls called in legal counsel Irwin Mandel to see if anything could be done to backload the deal so the team could still avoid paying the NBA's luxury tax. No solution was found.

"At the end of the day, Ben shouldn't sign a deal he's not comfortable with," Paxson said. "Because then you sign something and if you're not totally happy with it, you're always thinking about that. He's a Bull for now, which is great for us, because we need his ability on the floor."

Many NBA observers have questioned why Gordon would turn down the Bulls' offer. He's been an explosive scorer during his pro career, but as an undersized shooting guard most teams likely view him as a sixth man who would not command a contract worth $12 per season or beyond.

Perhaps Gordon's representatives were thrown off by the sign-and-trade potential. Some teams were willing to meet Gordon's asking price in a sign-and-trade, but only if the Bulls would accept multiple bad contracts in return. The Bulls were never close to a trade agreement involving Gordon, according to team sources.

"I can go into a long list of things I'm surprised about that didn't happen, but that's neither here nor there," said Gordon, the team's top scorer for three years running. "I'm just going to go out and play."

Lots of stuff to digest there, most of which makes me further question the Bulls' competence.

1. $54-55M over six years is obviously (h/t to Vinnie Del Negro) even further below last year's 5/$50M offer on an annual basis than the speculated $58/59M deal. Further reason for Gordon to tell them to go jump in a lake.

2. Other teams were willing to pay Gordon a salary he'd accept. The stuff I'd heard otherwise didn't pass the sniff test to me, and this is further confirmation. Other teams (principly Miami, I spose) wouldn't be bothering with the continued interest they showed unless they had some agreement with Gordon.

3. Gordon still wanted to be a Bull and get a long-term deal done despite all this nonsense.

3. The part about the Bulls calling up Irwin Mandel is sort of laughable, since it's not exactly rocket science to calculate NBA contracts, but it does show the Bulls actually wanted him too.

4. And it points to, again, a complete inflexibility when it comes to dealing with paying the luxury tax. I mean, the Bulls actually want to get a deal done (at least if you take seriously the notion they're bringing in guys to think about the problem), but they don't because they're unwilling to take the chance they can't pawn off a couple million in salary? That doesn't make sense. That is, like someone's sour apples post earlier today, a stand on principle. Reinsdorf saying "not a penny over the tax, even for a second, and no worming your way around it". Puke.

Rumor Press Update on Gordon

Sports2 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:28:49 -0000

Update 10/1/08 - After initially saying he would take the 1 year qualifying offer, it appears Ben Gordon is still weighing his options. Gordon is mulling over taking the 1 year deal or a long term extension that is on the table.

Tech9 is a pretty consistently biased source, but he's still a source, and I note that his language here is "a long term extension that is on the table". Perhaps I'm parsing too much, but that's different than "the long term extension that has been on the table".

Maybe the Bulls have sweetened their deal a bit?

Mike North (yes, Mike North) Interviews Paxson

Sports2 — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:33:50 -0000

Pax: We haven't changed a lot, but we want to feel "fresh".

What the hell is that? Mike North is doing podcasts and he gets to talk to Paxson despite pooping on him a few months ago, and then North getting fired?

I'm picturing something like the plot from Airheads with Paxson held hostage while North tries to get his his career jump started. Somehow, nude pictures of Bea Arthur are involved.

More substantially, Paxson is asked if there's a philosophical difference between D'Antoni and Del Negro. They'd just talked about defense, and I think North was giving him the opening to say Vinnie will be "D'Antoni with defense". Pax said the biggest difference is that D'Antoni has proven it and Vinnie's ideas are conceptual and unproven.

I dunno what to make of that.

The word accountable is used.

On Rose, North doesn't want him compared to Paul and Williams out of the gate. Pax says they are unique, and that while Rose has unique speed and strength and potential to be special, he needs to work on his shot and learning the game.

On Noah "the reality is we don't have a lot of size".... "we need to see him grow as an individual".