SB Nation User Blog: Sports2

The Pistons have reached deal in principle with Ben Gordon

Sports2 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 23:03:42 -0000

The Pistons have reached deal in principle with Ben Gordon

[From the FanShots. More later, count on it. -ed.]

The Pistons have reached deal in principle with Bulls guard Ben Gordon, a source with knowledge of talks tells Y! Sports Adrian Wojnarowski

My James Johnson Profile

Sports2 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:59:39 -0000

Good:

He's got excellent size and athleticism for both forward spots. He's a ridiculous 257lbs, but he's really athletic, posting good times in the sprint and agility drills, bench pressing a ton, and jumping out of the gym.

In short, he compares very well physically to plenty of successful players. The closest contemporary comparison might be Ryan Gomes, but with way more athleticism. Perhaps Lebron James if Johnson loses 10-15 lbs. Yes, really.

He's a trained martial arts expert, which suggests to me excellent body control and the potential for good discipline.

Productively, he's demonstrated good but not great returns to his unworldly physical abilities. First, Wake Forest played at an NBA Pace. That's something that's not generally noted, but it's pretty important when considering how guys adjust. For example, Blair and Pitt played a game that had something like 80 possessions per 48 minutes. The slowest paced NBA team, the Blazers, played 86.6. The Bulls played 93 I think. Wake Forest played about 90 possessions per 48 minutes. So he might be a bit more used to that sort of play from the get-go.

Within this background, he produced at good but not great levels. He's got range out to the 3 point line, he can rebound, and he finished pretty well. He appears to be able to pass the ball.

Bad:
The only physical negative I see is that weight. He's got 12% body fat in a world where the average successful NBA SF has 6-7% and the average PF has 8-9%. With proper conditioning, I'd guess his proper playing weight would be about 245lbs.

Statistically, he was right on the margin of "troubling" in two areas. First, he fouled quite a bit, though he's not a foul machine. Second, he was just under 70% as a free throw shooter, which isn't all that great, but marginally acceptable. Third, for a guy with his physical tools, he really didn't get to the line a lot compared to what really top notch guys do.

Other:
* He apparently annoyed Chris Paul so badly that Paul told the Hornets not to draft him if available. Usually good players want their college teammates, especially if they think they can be good pros. That's sort of annoying.
* He's talked about an MMA career if basketball doesn't work out. The upside of that is he's a bad ass. The downside is I don't want him thinking aobut what happens if basketball doesn't work out.
* He came to basketball a bit late. I think I read he only started playing a couple years into high school.

Conclusions:
James Johnson has the tools to be an absolutely spectacular player. His physical gifts are second to none, even for the NBA. And his skills are impressive. He's demonstrated every tool you'd want from a basketball player on the court. Except... an overwhelming commitment and drive to succeed.

That's the common theme.

Physically he's gifted, but he's not in the best shape he could possibly be in. Productively, he's demonstrated superb skills, but hasn't produced to the level one could imagine a player with his skills producing at. In short, it's all there, and even if he half-asses it, he can still be useful. But if he really commits and works his ass off, he could be amazing.

Draft Poll for pick #16

Sports2 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:32:38 -0000

So who do the Bulls actually draft with the #16 pick? For purposes of this poll, I mean who do we pick first. If you think we trade up or trade down with the purpose of targeting one of these guys, that's ok too.

My take: when push comes to shove, I think the Bulls take Gerald Henderson, because despite the manner in which we've discussed it here, the Bulls are planning for Gordon to play somewhere else. With Henderson's selection, that will become even more of a fait accompli. I've seen various rumors that he's their target (Givony at DX) and they are, in fact, willing to move up to get him (Ford).

Suffice to say I wouldn't move up to get him, but I do believe the Bulls will draft him based on the fact it will seal a non-deal with Gordon, and the fact that he seems to be exactly the sort of prospect they typically take. Solid but not great athleticism, good knowledge of the game, not a great shooter, from a big college program. He's the quintessential safe pick in a draft full of questions.

A look at the 26th pick and the 2nd round

Sports2 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:58:47 -0000

[Note by your friendly BullsBlogger, 06/24/09 1:27 PM CDT: Well, someone has to look at this part of the draft, right? For what it's worth (not much), in the couple mock drafts I participated in I selected Sam Young in one, and Chase Budinger (when Young was gone) in another -ed.]

Hopefully it's better than Stephen A. Smith's

Starting premises

1. Here's what I think about this draft. None of the guys we're likely to get at the #16 pick really excite me. Yet, it might have decent value in trade. I hope to god we can package the pick with players to get Bosh, Amare, or hell, even Kevin Love.

2. I don't see any realistic option James Harden or Blake Griffin, who are the only guys I'd be animated to move up to get.

Thus, in my ideal world, we'd be left with the #26 pick after trading the #16 pick.We haven't devoted as much thought about what to do there.

At #26, the best value I see left on most boards is Chase Budinger. He seems like an obvious fit for the Bulls. He's an excellent, floor spacing shooter, and not a terrible distributor. Compared to the other SG prospects we've talked about, he produced similar or better, but with less good teammates around him. He measures out quite well athletically. So he's the guy. If he's not there, I don't have a problem with Ellington or even Jermaine Taylor. But while Buddinger was probably overrated as a lottery pick, he seems to have fallen further than he should.

Next, I see several players that look worth a shot in the second round, and several reasons to pick up a second rounder to get them.

First, the Bulls need to fill out their roster and will be under the gun financially. Second rounders are the cheapest way to fill out your roster.

Second, there are several guys there who fit the profile for NBA success. My prime target would be Jeff Pendergraph. If you compare his size and athleticism to successful NBA players, he compares very well to guys like Okafor, Horford, and even Amare. That is, he's not as good as Amare, but he's definitely got and NBA body. Second, he's been talked about up and down as a tireless worker. He seems like the prototype 2nd round steal, and would be at a need position. Trade a future 2nd and get him. We'll need depth up front.

If, for some reason, we don't have the #26 pick, Danny Green and Jermaine Taylor both look like they may be there in the second round, and both look like they've got NBA bodies, athleticism, and skills. Again, the cost is very low, and, we need to fill the roster, and they appear to have (for second round picks) relatively good profiles.

So in summary, this might be a weak draft, but I see particular guys that are worth going and taking a flyer on, given that the cost of doing so is low.

If we come out of tomorrow night with

1. A trade of #16 + players for a better frontcourt

2. Buddinger to space the floor in a few minutes

3. A decent chance to make it cheapo like Pendergraph

So that's my thinking on what a successful (in somewhat realistic terms) draft would look like. Now if we can trade Lebrond for #26, I'm all for that too.

Sam Smith on the Radio this AM

Sports2 — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:16:25 -0000

Not a big deal, but Sammie was on the Steve Sczczczczcaben (however you spell that guy's name) show this morning on Fox radio, and when talking about Phil Jackson coming back, said Jackson has a great relationship with ownership and management in LA. Paraphrasing, he said the Lakers are one of the league's best run team. The ownership is top notch, he said, fair and willing to pay at all levels, and, along with management, is willing to give him a voice in making player decisions and running the team.

The kicker... Smith goes on "pretty much the opposite of the situation he had in Chicago". :D

Part of that, I'm sure, was a swipe at Krause, but Smith went to pretty great length talking about the (high) quality of Jerry Buss's ownership.

Gar Paxdorf regime already in place, to be official soon.

Sports2 — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:15:29 -0000

From ESPN on Friday

The assumption that Bulls executive vice president of basketball operations John Paxson is leaving the organization at season's end, after persistent speculation that he nearly quit after the trade deadline, is still out there. But it really shouldn't be.

Sources with knowledge of the Bulls' thinking indicate that Paxson, while still very eager to relinquish day-to-day duties in Chicago's front office in spite of the Bulls' recent return to semi-prominence, is expected to stay in the organization as its senior basketball voice without losing much (if any) influence in big-ticket decision making.

In a scenario relayed by a few of his peers, Paxson would move into a still-to-be-defined role as a top adviser to Bulls chairman Jerry Reinsdorf, with director of player personnel Gar Forman taking over as the every-day personnel chief.

Such an alignment -- similar to Michael Jordan's arrangement in Charlotte, where Rod Higgins handles the daily duties -- would allow Paxson to continue to participate in the major trade and draft matters he enjoys while relinquishing the management headaches that have increasingly unsettled him. Shifting those duties to Forman would continue the expansion of a role that began to take shape last summer when Forman was asked by Reinsdorf to step in for Paxson on a good chunk of the Bulls' negotiations to re-sign forward Luol Deng.

"The best way to describe it," one insider says, "is that John is going to be moving up, not out."

After a difficult run marked by the failed free-agent signing of Ben Wallace, preferring Tyrus Thomas over LaMarcus Aldridge in the 2006 draft and a string of trade frustrations that led to a steady stream of criticism after so many positive reviews early in his tenure, Paxson has been at the heart of the Bulls' rally this season. Using the No. 1 overall pick on Chicago native and eventual rookie of the year Derrick Rose wasn't exactly risky, but Paxson's trade-deadline acquisitions of John Salmons and Brad Miller are widely seen as the spark that sent the Bulls from eight games under .500 as late as March 13 to the East's No. 7 seed.

With follow up from KC Johnson

ESPN.com's Marc Stein is one of the more plugged in and respected NBA writers working. His online piece posted Saturday on John Paxson's future, however, is presented as if it breaks new ground when it actually rehashes details from a Feb. 13 Tribune report from All-Star weekend.

The Tribune piece ran in response to a Feb. 13 New York Post blog item claiming Paxson would resign as the Bulls' vice president of basketball operations as soon as the Feb. 19 trade deadline passed.

The Tribune first reported on Feb. 13 that Paxson had tired of many demands of the GM job such as scouting and dealing with player agents and had delegated most of those to Gar Forman, the team's director of player personnel. The piece also detailed a likely chain of events in which Paxson would give up his current title to Forman yet take something along the lines of "senior adviser to the chairman," Jerry Reinsdorf.

This plan is still largely intact, although no announcement will be made until after the Bulls' playoff run concludes. Paxson still will have major--if not final--say on all basketball operations decisions. And Forman will handle more of the day-to-day duties as GM, not unlike the Michael Jordan-Rod Higgins setup in Charlotte.

Stein first uses that analogy in his ESPN.com piece. It's a good one.

And Mike McGraw

These stories all pointed out that Paxson is anxious to get a break from the "day-to-day responsibilities" of being the team's executive vice president of basketball operations, and would be replaced in that role by player personnel director Gar Forman.

Here's the real story: The changes in the Bulls front office have already occurred and been well-documented.

Paxson shared news last summer that Forman took the lead role in contract negotiations with Luol Deng and Ben Gordon. That was simply because Forman's calm demeanor was well-suited for the task. Paxson admitted he can get too emotional during the process.

Paxson has cut down on his scouting over the years, and he included Forman on the coaching interviews the Bulls conducted last summer. All teams have more than one person involved in potential trades.

What other day-to-day responsibilities are there in running an NBA team? The job entails acquiring players, through the draft and trades; negotiating contracts, and hiring a coaching staff. This isn't a grocery store with inventory and payroll to monitor.

The bottom line is Paxson is not planning to take on a new role. He has simply received some help. When the season ends, Forman may be given a new title to reflect his increasing duties, but Paxson will continue to do the same thing he is now, which puts him in much the same situation as Detroit's Joe Dumars or Miami's Pat Riley when it comes to running a team.

Forman used to work with Tim Floyd at the college level, and he basically joined the Bulls as a scout on Floyd's recommendation. But he has continued to rise in the organization nearly eight years after Floyd's departure. That's the more interesting story.

All I can really say is that journalists and journalism sucks ass.

I'd also like to know when Karl Rove and David Axelrod are going to be officially listed as the Bulls media directors.

Van Lier Not Invited to Red Kerr's night

Sports2 — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:14:40 -0000

Christ.

From what I've pieced together, Kerr wanted Norm to be there on his night.

From the Trib

Kerr's sister, Joan, attended Sunday's wake for Van Lier and disputed the notion that Kerr did not invite Van Lier to be part of his special ceremony Feb. 10 at the United Center.

"Red loved Norm," she said of the mix-up. "He was on Johnny's list."

OK... mix up turns out to not quite be the right word, even if its the word the Bulls used:

A few days prior, the NW Herald reported:

Van Lier recently had not been on the best of terms with the franchise, which did not invite him to be part of Kerr’s halftime ceremony.

Bulls officials reportedly were upset by comments Van Lier made the month before to the Chicago Tribune. Van Lier said Bulls fans during his playing days were more passionate than today’s crowds.

Which got a response from, of all people, Neil Funk:

Van Lier was there that night. He stood in the wings among the masses watching the ceremony, trying to catch a glimpse of Kerr.

"I love Johnny like a brother," Van Lier said almost tearfully as he leaned over the press table. "I should have been out there with him."

Never afraid of speaking from his heart, Van Lier would repeat himself later on Comcast SportsNet.

Neil Funk, the master of ceremonies that night, said that in the rush to move Kerr's ceremony two months earlier in order to accommodate his failing health, he was certain the exclusion of Van Lier was a simple oversight.

"It wasn't intentional," Funk said. "Norm loved Johnny and Johnny loved Norm."

Yeah... they flew in dozens of guys from around the country, but somehow "forgot" about a guy who Kerr wanted there, and who was actually in attendence?

F that, and F this classless and incompetent organization.

Why the trades were bad for the Bulls

Sports2 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:32:31 -0000

Aside from the financial reasons I've discussed elsewhere, I'm getting discouraged by the on-court effects of the trades.

* Guys who in practice needed meaningful on-court development are losing it. That's Tyrus and Noah, but also Rose through the back door.

* They'd "earned" this time by gaining consistency and simply outlasting guys who sucked (Gray, Noc, Hughes) and guys who got hurt (Gooden).

* They've been rewarded for this not with security and PT, but by having those guys traded out and a fresh crop of veterans brought in. Timmy, Miller, Salmons, who are getting their PT simply because of their veteran-ness. Perhaps they're marginally better players at this point, but we've essentially re-created the problem we spent the first part of the year "solving"

* Feeding into this is the fact that Vinnie Del Coacho is likely playing for his job and for future jobs around the league. Which puts him in the time-tested coaching position of saying "screw the future, I'm here to win today". Which is, you know, the exact opposite of what actually needs to be done with a team full of Derrick Rose, Tyrus Thomas and Joakim Noah.

* I say Rose is getting it through the back door because, without the trades and the introduction of more vets up front, I'm guessing there'd be less pressure to sit Rose at key stretches since there's the illusion that, with a bunch of vets out there, you might actually be getting somewhere.

Rest assured that's just an illusion. I don't think we're really going to get anywhere with Miller, Salmons and Timmy that we weren't already capable of getting to. Perhaps we're a little bit more likely to sneak in the playoffs this year, but even if there's additional "development" value to getting into the playoffs, it doesn't seem that it's going to be all that great if it comes at the cost of "development" in getting to the playoffs.

Jerome James Mea Culpa

Sports2 — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 03:45:00 -0000

When the Hughes to the Knicks trade went down, I authored a couple posts speculating that James could be retired and come off our cap. After reading up more carefully, it looks like I was dead wrong about this so I wanted to make a straightforward post that folks would see.

Sorry to get anyone's hopes up.

The CBA FAQ Question 53, in full, reads:

How do retired players count against the cap?

Any money paid to a player is included in team salary, even if the player has retired. For example, James Worthy retired in 1994, two years before his contract ended. He continued to receive his salary for the 1994-95 and 1995-96 seasons, so his salary was included in the Lakers' team salary in those seasons. It is at the team's discretion (or as the result of an agreement between the team and player) whether to continue to pay the player after he has retired.

There is one exception whereby a player can continue to receive his salary, but the salary is not included in the team's team salary. This is when a player is forced to retire for medical reasons and a league-appointed physician confirms that he is medically unfit to continue playing. There is a waiting period of one year following the injury or illness before a team can apply for this salary cap relief. If the waiting period expires mid-season (on any date prior to the last day of the regular season), then the player's entire salary for that season is removed from the team's team salary. For example, in March 2003 the Knicks were allowed to remove Luc Longley's entire 2002-03 salary from their books (and since the luxury tax is based on the team salary as of the last day of the regular season, the Knicks avoided paying any tax on Longley's salary). This provision can also be used when a player dies while under contract.

If the player "proves the doctors wrong" and resumes his career, then his salary is returned to his team's team salary when he plays in his 10th game in any one season (including pre-season, regular season and playoff games). This allows a player to attempt to resume his career without affecting his team unless his comeback is ultimately successful. A team loses this salary cap relief even if the player later signs and plays 10 games with a different team.

Teams are not allowed to trade for disabled players and then apply for this salary cap relief. Only the team for which the player was playing when he was disabled may request this relief.

If a player retires, even for medical reasons, his team does not receive a salary cap exception to acquire a replacement player.

So yeah, that sucks. That means he won't come off our cap.and we've effectively taken on an additional $9.3M in guaranteed salary for next year. Bye Ben.

That leaves the following possible uses for James:

* Scrub our cap by trading him to a team under the cap. I'd imagine if the Bulls really wanted to they could pawn him to a team under the cap. Since insurance is going to supposedly pay 80% of his $6.6M contract, the receiving team would be liable for only $1.32M, which we could reimburse with cash (and add another million and a half or so for their trouble).

* As a trade chip. Like a mini Raef LaFrentz, we could include James in a trade to another team, who wouldn't have to pay most of his salary. Could help in round II of the Amare/Bosh talks. One can dream, right?

* As a multifaceted way for the Bulls to spend less. He's on the books for $6.6M, meaning they can't sign anyone else, but he actually only costs the Bulls $1.3M. Hurray for operating income.

Salmon's trade kicker and cap hit

Sports2 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:56:36 -0000

OK, I'm just sort of looking for someone to check my work.

Closely reading the CBA FAQ, I gather that if a player has an Early Termination option in his contract, the value of the ETO year IS counted when adding up the value of his trade bonus, but the value of the bonus IS NOT applied to his ETO year for salary cap purposes.

So here's how to calculate Salmons' cap value.

His current contract calls for him to be paid

08/09: $5.104

09/10: $5.456 (ETO for 2010/11 to be exercised at end of this year)

10/11: $5.808

Now, his season is about 65% over, so his remaining 08/09 salary is only about $1.805M. Thus is total remaining salary for adding up the trade kicker is $13.069M. 15% of this is $1.96M. That's the amount Salmons gets as a bonus for being traded.

He gets paid the $1.96M now, but it's applied over the remainder of his contract, excluding the ETO (if I understand it correctly). This means the trade bonus applies only to this year and next year's cap, in proportion to his salary.

I'm not sure if it applies in proportion to his annual or his remaining salary. Since it's calculated based on his remaining salary, I'm going to assume it's applied to the cap in the same way (if I'm wrong, someone speak up). That means his cap value goes up $487K this year and $1.473M next year, making his total cap hits:

08/09: $5.591

09/10: $6.929 (ETO for 2010/11 to be exercised at end of this year)

10/11: $5.808

So at the end of the day, that puts the Bulls cap position next year somewhat worse, but we pick up another million in 2010 vs. where we were with Noc. So that's a moderate improvement, I suppose.

SB Nation User Blog: Sports2

The Pistons have reached deal in principle with Ben Gordon

The Pistons have reached deal in principle with Ben Gordon

My James Johnson Profile

Draft Poll for pick #16

Who do the Bulls draft with the #16 pick (or if they combine picks and trade up, I suppose).

A look at the 26th pick and the 2nd round

Sam Smith on the Radio this AM

Gar Paxdorf regime already in place, to be official soon.

Van Lier Not Invited to Red Kerr's night

Why the trades were bad for the Bulls

Jerome James Mea Culpa

Salmon's trade kicker and cap hit