Before I trundle slowly to my point, I think we should all agree on something.
This should be the last time we ever discuss Derrick Byars.
Agreed? Awesome. And now for some Derrick Byars-related trivia.
In October 2005, the Bulls signed three players for training camp; Randy Holcomb, Omar Cook and Kasib Powell. At the time they signed, the Bulls already had fourteen players under contract; Malik Allen, Eddie Basden, Tyson Chandler, Eddy Curry, Antonio Davis, Luol Deng, Chris Duhon, Ben Gordon, Othella Harrington, Kirk Hinrich, Andres Nocioni, Jannero Pargo, Eric Piatkowski and Darius Songaila. There wasn't a lot of room there.
Derrick Byars; the new Kasib Powell
A few days into camp, the Eddy Curry trade went down, and Curry and Davis became Tim Thomas, Michael Sweetney and Jermaine Jackson. All three incoming players had guaranteed contracts, including Jackson, but Jackson was only signed and traded in the deal as salary filler. The Bulls didn't want him as a player, and he was quickly waived along with Cook, who drew much appreciation from Scott Skiles for his pass-first nature but who was never going to win a spot on a guard heavy roster. The roster now stood at 16.
Holcomb was next to go, waived just before the deadline for setting opening night rosters, and the Bulls now had the maximum legal roster size of 15. However, even though they now had the space to keep him, John Paxson announced that they were also going to waive Kasib Powell, whom had played well enough to win a spot (and who has been NBA calibre for the last five years), but whom the Bulls couldn't afford. They wanted to keep him, for he had the talent to help the team, but the Bulls just didn't have the financial incentive to do so, and so they didn't.
But what they did do is give him a little parting gift. I mention this for one reason, and one reason only; the exact same thing just happened to Derrick Byars.
Like Powell, Byars was brought into training camp not expected to make the team. Like Powell, Byars had enough talent to make the arse end of an NBA roster, but he had consistently lost out in the numbers game and had not yet played in the NBA. Like Powell, Byars impressed sufficiently in training camp and preseason that the Bulls were eager to keep him. But like with Powell, they eventually decided that they couldn't.
However, like Powell, the Bulls kept on Byars longer than they had to. By keeping him on for a few more days before waiving him, the Bulls were able to get Derrick Byars some money. Players on unguaranteed contracts are paid per diem for every day that they are on the roster, as well as for their time spent on waivers. So by waiving Byars yesterday, rather than at the same time they waived Chris Richard, Derrick Byars got himself some money. Just like Kasib Powell did.
Powell was waived on opening day, and Byars was waived on the second day of the season. Inseason waivers last 48 hours, and as mentioned above, players are paid for their time on waivers; this meant that Powell got three days worth of salary, and Byars got four. There are 170 days in an NBA regular season, and Byars was due to earn the rookie minimum of $457,588. Therefore, by waiving him today and not last Thursday, the Bulls ensured that Byars got a paycheck of $10,767, which is 4/170ths of his unguaranteed contract. That money is charged against the Bulls cap - and $19,423 is charged against the Bulls luxury tax calculations, for reasons I'll explain in a later post - and yet all of it is cash that they didn't have to give him. That's pretty generous of them.
Of course, Byars won't see a lot of that money; taxes will chew up a share of it, as they are wont to do, and 9% of it will be held in a league-wide escrow account that he'll never see again. But it's still a few thousand dollars in Byars' pocket, money that the Bulls did not have to give him. It's not quite the act of generosity that keeping him on would have been, but it's still a nice little parting gift.
Even though he didn't make the team, Derrick can't feel too hard done by.
There's one extra point of interest surrounding the 2005 training camp story.
Once 10 day contracts became allowed on January 5th, the Bulls immediately jumped in there and re-signed Holcomb to one, filling the fifteenth roster spot on the cheap and even letting him appear in three games. Once Holcomb's contract expired, the Bulls kept signing, bringing in Stephen Graham for one 10 day contract, and James Thomas for two. After that, they bought up Tim Thomas, thereby opening up two spots, and used them for yet more ten day contracts for Luke Schenscher and Randy Livingston. Those latter two eventually signed for the rest of the season and for the playoffs, giving Chicago a bit of extra depth down the stretch.
The roster and salary flexibility that the Bulls had saved by not keeping Powell out of training camp had enabled them to maximise their options, try out other fringe NBA talents, and eventually find two they liked. The on-court help of Schenscher and Livingston can be measured, and it wasn't much, but such is the way of most deep bench signings. It doesn't change the point; the Bulls maintained their roster and cap flexibilities, and even though the two things sound like mere meaningless clichés, there is some inherent value in them after all. They were able to use this new room to bolster their team when they needed it the most, and add some reinforcements for an important playoff run. (The same could be said of Linton Johnson and DeMarcus Nelson last season, too.)
There's nothing stopping the same from happening to Derrick Byars. By waiving him now, the Bulls facilitate the possibility of bringing him back later, at a time when they might actually need him. And even if it's not him that they bring in, they're opening up the possibility of bringing someone in. If they had kept Byars, they could not have done that. Now, if we suffer a crippling injury crisis mid-season, the Bulls can afford the reinforcements.
Maybe they could give Kasib Powell a call.
88 Comments
Justin said:
This could easily get into a debate about how ownership is evil, and that isn't my intention. Having said that, this makes me wonder if all teams are this conscientious about taking care of fringe NBA talents. It's nice that the Bulls do this. They even seem to take care of former players or people that were once part of the organization like Randy Brown. Is what the Bulls did with Powell and Byars the norm or are they kind of different in this regard?
Mark Deeks said:
Put it this way; the only players not drafted this year to sign for training camp that got some guaranteed money were as follows;
Mike Harris (Thunder) - $10,000
Sun Yue (Knicks) - $10,000
Stephen Graham (Bobcats) - $100,000 (made the team)
Curtis Jerrells (Spurs) - $75,000
Malik Hairston (Spurs) - $50,000 (made the team)
There were about 70 other camp signings, yet none of them got any money for it. And the only other players waived late enough to get some money in the same way that Byars did were Linton Johnson (Magic) and Marcus E. Williams (Spurs).
Justin said:
Nice. It's a small gesture, but I think it's a good example of something the Bulls regularly do to take care of their players that other teams don't. I know we're only talking about a few thousand dollars, but the fact that not every team does it is nice. Well, except for that whole Corie Blount waiving after the playoff roster deadline accident thing.
Doug Thonus said:
Mark, does Byars technically have on year of service in the NBA now as well?
Will he command the 2 year vet minimum if he were to make a roster in the future? Does he get a year in the pension plan?
I'd assume the answer to both questions is yes. Which could be a double edged sword for him. Going up to the 2 year minimum making him less desirable next year, but higher paid if he makes it.
Mark Deeks said:
Yes, he gets a year of experience. Any one day on a regular season roster, both the active and inactive lists, counts as a year.
Doug Thonus said:
If Byars does realize his dream of sticking in the league for a year then the Bulls will have ended up giving him a hell of a lot more than 10 grand for the day.
Of course if the 300 grand difference in the 1 year minimum and 2 year minimum stops a team from taking him next year then they'll have completely screwed him over.
What an odd thing.
Doug Thonus said:
Of course, making it this far through training camp and making an opening day roster probably gives him a lot more cache when arguing for a contract with an international team.
Mark Deeks said:
It seems like something that they would have consulted him on.
Doug Thonus said:
I'm sure they did.
Mark Deeks said:
Byars has played two years in the D-League, and the D-League pays about as well as this blog does. He was probably willing to take the small risk of the second year player minimum's increase if it meant that he got some money right now. His career earnings so far have been really small, entirely unbefitting of a player so close to the NBA.
MrHappy said:
The Bulls management is CHEAP and PETTY...simple as that.
It's funny how Gar Forman and John Paxson can talk about ACCOUNTABLILITY, but when it comes down to setting the final roster, they cut the wrong guy loose. Until the Bulls get better management, they will stay MEDIOCRE.
Mark Deeks said:
How many other teams in the league this month have waived a guaranteed contract just so that they can keep an unguaranteed one? Because I count precisely 1: Houston with Brent Barry. And they were going to waive him anyway, because he's retiring.
Dallas threatened to waive Shawne Williams to keep Jake Voskuhl; they didn't. Boston threatened the waive Tony Allen to keep Michael Sweetney; they didn't. The Lakers were ifnatuated with Tony Gaffney and wanted to keep him; they didn't.
Etc.
MrHappy said:
Did Derrick Byars play good enough to EARN a spot on the Bulls roster, yes or no?
MrHappy said:
Lindsey Hunter shot 21% in the preseason. Jannero Pargo shot 34% in the preseason. Luol Deng shot 38% in the preseason. Derrick Byars shot 44% and 50% from the 3 point-line. That alone was reason enough to keep him.
The Bulls management is CHEAP and PETTY. Until they leave this organization, the Bulls will stay MEDIOCRE!!!
Mark Deeks said:
Are you going to play along with the new game I invented in the first two lines of this post?
MrHappy said:
Answer the original question!!!
Mark Deeks said:
No he didn't. He did not play well enough to overcome the financial difficulties of his situation.
MrHappy said:
Did you watch the preseason?
If you are going to write on a Chicago Bulls blog, it might be a good idea to actually watch the games.
Yes he did EARN a spot on the team. He CLEARLY out-performed Lindsey Hunter. He also would be of more value to the Bulls roster then Jerome James and Aaron Gray.
Know your basketball and stop hating on D-League players!!!
Mark Deeks said:
The question was never whether he would or could outplay Lindsey Hunter, and thus the answer to that question is not relevant. You might want it to be, but it isn't. The question was whether he'd so good that the Bulls wouldn't be able to waive him, in spite of the financial repercussions that keeping him would bring. And he wasn't. He was good, but not that good. That's all we ever said, and it's still right.
You know how you denied insulting people earlier? Well, you're doing it again.
Also, given that I'm the owner and sole proprietor of one of the primary websites on the internet for the tracking of fringe NBA players, including but not limited to the D-League, then maybe I'm not the D-League hater that you want me to be.
MrHappy said:
Extra money or a full roster of 15 didn't matter to the Spurs when they kept Malik Hairston.
Did it?
Mark Deeks said:
Nope. Because they have different priorities. Because they're in a different position. Because they're way better than us. And because that thus gives them a bigger budget.
MrHappy said:
Because they have better management and evaluation skills.
Mark Deeks said:
They should have signed Derrick Byars, then.
MrHappy said:
Yes, they should have.
clancy said:
Why do you keep ignoring 75% of the facts in this case? It doesn't matter who he outplayed this preseason - they have guaranteed contracts. Mark wrote a great post explaining why it's not just a question of having money right at this moment, but a question of needing financial flexibility later in the season. None of the guys on guaranteed contracts play into that equation because they're money is going to count no matter what, unless they magically agree to accept less money for the privilege of going elsewhere - and we don't have guys in that position.
Derrick had a quote in one of the papers when someone asked him about making the team, and he said the Bulls hadn't promised for how long. In retrospect, I think they told him exactly what they were doing. Sure, he'd rather make the team, but it's an awfully nice gesture from the Bulls considering he wasn't going to either way.
And I don't see this as an issue of Bulls cheapness at all - it's a structural thing set up by the cap/tax rules and the nature of fully guaranteed contracts in the NBA.
MrHappy said:
He EARNED a spot on the Bulls roster and that is what should matter most.
The Spurs weren't PETTY and CHEAP when they kept Malik Hairston, but the Bulls were when they waived Derrick Byars.
clancy said:
Then when you start a basketball league, you can do it without guaranteed contracts so every team can dump anyone they want and keep whomever they wish.
That's not the world the Bulls play in.
MrHappy said:
Don't be naive.
There is a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things.
The Spurs didn't have to take on the extra money or roster spot to keep Hairston, but they did it anyway because he EARNED it.
The Bulls could learn a few things from them.
clancy said:
I find it ironic that you'd call me naive, when you've been on about Jerome James volunteering to give up money he's been guaranteed or the Bulls to throw money at a player despite the financial incentives not to do so.
MrHappy said:
I absolutely LOVE the ARROGANCE of Gar Forman and John Paxson to say they will travel with the team, so they can hold these current players ACCOUNTABLE with next July's free-agency bananza in mind.
Well, I guess that didn't mean the preseason because Derrick Byars EARNED a spot on the Bulls roster, while players like Lindsey Hunter, Jerome James, and Aaron Gray did not.
MrHappy said:
Where's the ACCOUNTABILITY?
clancy said:
Hunter, Gray, and James did not have to make the team - they're already on it.
And I don't read Gar's statement like that at all. How long are you going to project your frustration over the Byars thing onto every move the org makes?
MrHappy said:
Talk is CHEAP and apparently so is the Bulls bank account.
The Bulls mangement shouldn't come out and talk about ACCOUNTABLILTY when they make PETTY and CHEAP roster decisions, not based on merit but money.
MrHappy said:
If John Paxson and Gar Forman actually knew how to run a professional sports team, they would have called up Jerome James (who is USELESS to the team) and his agent and offered to buy him out for $6 million dollars. The purpose of that would be to give Derrick Byars his roster spot and the other $600,000 in salary.
Now, if Jerome James and his agent turn down the $6 million dollars to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, then they are A-holes. I would let them know that too.
John Paxson and Gar Forman need to stop sharing a brain, get some courage, and grow some balls. Derrick Byars could have helped and added to the Bulls roster, while Jerome James won't. The Bulls management is PETTY and CHEAP. Either Paxson and Formam need to be FIRED or they need to start making smarter decisions on basketball personnel. Until either one of those things happen, the Bulls will stay MEDIOCRE!!!
Mark Deeks said:
Would you rather have $6 million to do absolutely nothing, or $6.6 million dollars to do absolutely nothing?
Me too. Them too.
MrHappy said:
I'd rather have Derrick Byars on the Bulls for $457,588.
Mark Deeks said:
Dodge the question, why don't you.
Jerome James has no reason to sacrifice any money. You know it and I know it. And if you don't know it, start knowing it.
Because he has no reason to give up any money, he's not going so. And so your decision to hold this against the Bulls is really quite childish.
MrHappy said:
It's not about Jerome James and him sacrificing money. It's about the Bulls management having COURAGE to make the SMART decision. It's about them keeping a guy, who EARNED a spot on the roster.
Mark Deeks said:
And that's the bit you're simply refusing to understand; it's EXACTLY about the salaries other people are making.
When you learn to understand this, you'll understand why Derrick Byars was just waived.
If it's not about Jerome, don't bring him up.
MrHappy said:
Who has the bigger payroll, the Spurs or the Bulls? You may want to go look that up. You are losing this arguement badly.
Mark Deeks said:
The Spurs have one of the biggest payrolls in the league. Why? Because they're championships contenders taking one final shot at glory before one of the greatest players of all time retires. They decided that thatw as worth paying luxury tax for.
The Bulls, meanwhile, are not going to pay the luxury tax. They weren't going to pay it for Pau Gasol, and so they're not going to pay it for Derrick Byars either.
No one ever denied this. Indeed, in everything I've ever written about Derrick Byars, I have cited this as the sole - nay, the ONLY - reason why Derrick Byars wouldn't make the team. And guess what? It's exactly why he didn't.
You still haven't read it, though. In fact, you haven't read a single word anyone other than yourself has said. Well, you've looked at them, and responded to him, but they just simply haven't registered. And that's a pity.
Let the shutters down. Let us into your life. You don't have to fight forever.
MrHappy said:
The wouldn't have paid the luxury tax for Derrick Byars. Get your facts straight.
MrHappy said:
By the way, how much is Malik Hairston really going to contribute to a DEEP team like the Spurs?
Your arguement is weak. The Spurs have NO REASON to keep Malik Hairston, except the fact that he EARNED a spot on the team.
Mark Deeks said:
Your logic kind of falls down here. If a player's going to contribute nothing on the court, there's not a lot of reason to keep him, is there?
The Spurs kept Hairston because they could. The Bulls could have kept Byars, but only just, and they didn't think it was worth it. They're probably right.
Sorry if that upsets you.
MrHappy said:
My arguement doesn't fall apart at all.
There is a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things.
I applaud the Spurs for keeping Hairston, despite the fact he will most likely have a non-essential role with the team.
They gave him the money and the extra spot on the roster because of MERIT.
They didn't have to take on the extra money or roster spot, but they did it anyway because he EARNED it.
The Bulls management should take some lessons from the Spurs management on how to run a NBA franchise.
MrHappy said:
The Bulls need Derrick Byars more then the Spurs need Malik Hairston.
Mark Deeks said:
At this point, I'd like to refer you back to the article at the top of this page. The one you didn't read or respond to.
MrHappy said:
That makes no sense what you just said.
Mark Deeks said:
Alrighty. Because I like you, I'll rephrase:
Would YOU sacrifice $600,000 when you don't need need to??? Would you hold yourself ACCOUNTABLE and give away $600,000 that you're never going to get back with another team???? If you were COMPLETELY USELESS, would you take a discount from your guaranteed contract and take RESPONSIBILITY??????
Justin said:
LOL... sometimes you just have to speak their language.
Mark Deeks said:
Did we ever have tantrums like this about Kasib Powell? I don't think we did. Ironic, really, since he's a better player than Derrick Byars.
MrHappy said:
He's not a better player. If you watched more basketball, you would know that.
Mark Deeks said:
No one's better than Derrick Byars. That much, I know.
MrHappy said:
Derrick Byars is a solid player. He has the resume to back that up. Don't be naive.
Mark Deeks said:
If only I'd said that Derrick Byars was a solid player before!
Oh wait, I have. Here.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bulls-confidential/2009/10/derrick-byars-chances-of-making-the-team.html#more
And here.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bulls-confidential/2009/09/who-are-derrick-byars-steven-hill-chris-richard-and-curtis-stinson.html
And here.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bulls-confidential/2009/10/derrick-byars-the-new-kasib-powell.html
MrHappy said:
I never said you didn't say good things about Derrick Byars. This arguement is about whether or not he EARNED a spot on the roster.
Myself, You, Doug, Sam Smith and Chuck Swirsky all think he played well enough to EARN a spot on the roster, but money clearly got in the way. I understand that.
However, that doesn't change my opinion that the Bulls management is PETTY and CHEAP, especially when I look at how the Spurs handled Malik Hairston.
Mark Deeks said:
HE GETS IT! HE FINALLY GETS IT!
Oh man. This is a good day.
MrHappy said:
Here's the difference between a TOP-NOTCH organization (the Spurs) and a MEDIOCRE organization (the Bulls).
San Antonio has 15 players on their current roster. Now, they didn't have to keep Malik Hairston, especially considering they have Manu Ginobilli, Richard Jefferson, Michael Finley, Keith Bogans and Roger Mason Jr ahead of him. They could have waived him, like the PETTY and CHEAP Bulls did to Derrick Byars. However, they did the SMART and COURAGEOUS thing by keeping him on the roster because he EARNED IT.
Mark, go look up Malik Hairston, the position he plays and the stats he put up in the preseason. You'll find they are very similar to what Derrick Byars did for the Bulls. San Antonio gets how to run a pro sports team, while the Bulls obviously don't.
They Spurs don't make excuses. They know how to draft and they know how to evaluate talent. The Bulls could learn a few things from them.
Mark Deeks said:
The Spurs have also waived Hairston twice in the past. Including once before he ever played a game before the team.
But I'm sure you'll overlook that because it doesn't suit.
I'm also fairly sure you'll overlook the fact that Hairston scored 7 more points per game than Byars in the D-League.
MrHappy said:
Is he on the Spurs current roster, yes or no?
Your arguement is weak.
Mark Deeks said:
Righty-o. My argument is weak. Your multi-pronged argument - that the Spurs kept a totally unrelated player, that Jerome James should accept a buyout, that Byars is better than Lindsey Hunter, that Byars was really good in the SEC, that I hate the D-League and don't watch any basketball, and that the Bulls are petty for not wanting to risk the luxury tax for Derrick Byars - is overpoweringly strong.
Got it. Good. Bye.
MrHappy said:
Run and hide.
It's better that way, because you lost this argument...BADLY!!!
The Malik Hairston/Derrick Byars comparison is dead on. The Spurs handled it right, while the Bulls handled it wrong, despite having more salary and roster spots.
By the way, it is appropriate to bring up Jerome James because he is USELESS to the Bulls roster. I'd rather see Derrick Byars on the team, who can contribute, then an over-paid stiff who can't.
clancy said:
You realize you're the only one who thinks you're winning?
Head, meet brick wall. Ow. Ow. Ow....
MrHappy said:
I am winning this arguement. Don't be so shallow and narrow in your view of it.
Mark Deeks said:
DUDE. FOR CHRIST SAKE. WE ALL PREFER DERRICK BYARS AS A PLAYER TO JEROME JAMES. UNFORTUNATELY, IT WAS NEVER ABOUT THAT. AND THAT'S WHY BYARS WAS WAIVED. DO YOU SEE THAT?
MrHappy said:
I know why he was waived. I have acknowledge that. All I'm saying is that it was a PETTY and CHEAP move on the Bulls part, especially given how the Spurs handled Malik Hairston.
Is he really going to contribute to that team, given all the DEPTH on their roster? It's not likley. However, they kept him because he EARNED it. They weren't PETTY and CHEAP in their thinking, like the Bulls.
MrHappy said:
Did they need the extra roster spot filled or salary expense? There's a right way to do things (the Spurs) and their is a wrong way to do things (the Bulls).
MrHappy said:
Derrick Byars held his own in the D-league and in college. Last I checked, he was the 2007 SEC Player of the Year and an All-Star in the D-League last year. He also had equal stats to Malik Hairston in the preseason.
The bottom-line is Derrick Byars played well enough to EARN a spot on the Bulls roster and Malik Hairston played well enough to EARN a spot on the Spurs rosters.
Unfortunately, the Spurs management knows how to run a pro sports organization and evaluate talent, while the Bulls management doesn't.
clancy said:
The Spurs were already going to be in the tax, and decided on that presumably for one more shot at a title. Being already in the tax, keeping a guy on a minimal salary doesn't have the same impact (they aren't sharing in the below-tax dollars anyway). Also, their shot at a title is fairly realistic. The Bulls - even with mighty Derrick Byars - are not competing for a title this season. To borrow your tactic - IT'S NOT THE SAME!
MrHappy said:
Malik Hairston is insignicant to the Spurs roster. It's really a matter of principle, not money.
MrHappy said:
Besides, wouldn't San Antonio want to have the flexibilty and/or extra roster spot more than the Bulls, especially if they are title contenders?
clancy said:
It's a different approach being all-in on a championship run versus have a goal of not breaching the lux tax line.
I'm not disagreeing with you that the Spurs are a great organization. That doesn't mean the Bulls are a bad one for choosing to do things differently. Because of the guaranteed nature of most NBA contracts, bad contracts are a part of daily life. Derrick Byars is far from the only young kid trying to break into the league who's shot is crushed by some ridiculous contract riding the bench. I liked Byars, and I feel bad for him individually. But the Bulls gave him a shot, both at making this team and at showing what he can do for other teams, and gave him some money they didn't have to. This is just reality.
I have no doubt SA considered both keeping and waiving Hairston and settled on the course of action that will best benefit their team this season. For them, chasing a championship, they decided it was better to keep him. I also have no doubt the Bulls did the same with Byars and concluded for this team the best thing to do is to maintain as much financial flexibility under the tax as possible. What is best for the team overall has to be their primary concern, not what is the most fair thing for Byars as an individual.
I don't disagree with anyone who wants to argue that financial issues play a huge role in Bulls' decision making. I'd love to have an owner that felt money was no obstacle - but I also realize it's not fair to expect that of another person. It's a whole hell of a lot easier to go on about principle and the right thing to do when it's not your money that's getting tossed around.
Mark Deeks said:
I think we've reached the middle of this conversation.
MrHappy said:
It's a matter of principle.
There is a right way to run an organization and a wrong way. The Spurs showed the right way to run an organization by keeping a guy, who EARNED his spot on the roster. The Bulls showed the wrong way to run an organization by waiving a guy, who EARNED his spot on the roster.
This arguement and my frustration is bigger than Derrick Byars being waived.
Justin said:
LOL
MrHappy said:
Mark and Clancy,
You guys should go to the Spurs website and listen to Greg Popovich's interview on 10/26/09. He talks about Malik Allen and EARNING a roster spot. That's what is all about, not money.
http://www.nba.com/spurs/video/originals/
MrHappy said:
Malik Hairston, not Malik Allen...my bad.
Justin said:
Turned out the first sentence of my first post in this thread actually had some relevance.
MrHappy said:
Justin,
Aint that the truth.
MrHappy said:
Good Luck Derrick...I tried. (serious-laughter)
Mark Deeks said:
If your beef has always been with the Bulls deciding not to spend money like some of their peers have done, and not with us, why did you choose to get all personal about it? And why did you get especially personal about it once you thought Byars had made the team and you'd been vindicated?
No, wait, don't answer that.
Me and Doug called it as we saw it, and we called it right. In response, you've called us laim [sic], ignorant, and the owners of weak arguments. But we're not even arguing points. We're just relating facts.
Ricky Sobers said:
Mark,
Good background on this situation, especially the breakdown on daily salary. The way I see it, the Bulls preserved some flexibility, but ONLY if they plan on taking on salary, in a trade, before February. As far as having the flexibility to "try out" other players, as they did in the Powell situation, I think that's a red herring. Since the contracts of Powell and Byars wouldn't become guaranteed until January, they would have the same flexibility simply by keeping them until then, and then cutting them. They could've signed people to 10-day contracts in January 2006 if they'd kept Powell for 3 months and then cut him, no? In fact, they could get a better look at a guy like Powell or Byars for 3 months that way -- and insurance against having to watch fellas like Lindsay Hunter.
The only cost is half a year's minimum salary. Though it's true that's not nothing -- and COULD push them into lux tax, depending on what trades they ended up making before February -- it probably wouldn't. And if it did, it wouldn't be by much. (Which is a pet peeve of mine. People treat the luxury tax threshold like it's a firing squad. C'mon. If you go over by a dollar, you pay a dollar -- not 4 million dollars. And, yes, it is my money, because they're currently using my cash from last year's season tickets. :))
Given all of the foregoing, if Byars was really a guy who could help the team, I think he should've been signed. Was he such a guy? It's not totally clear, I suppose. But I do think it's insane that the Bulls are carrying a roster replete with guys who are presently and completely incapable of playing -- Gray, James, Hunter (realistically). And Byars did show that could play a little.
Mark Deeks said:
"they would have the same flexibility simply by keeping them until then,and then cutting them."
Not exactly, because they would have had to pay him for time served. Had the Bulls kept Byars until just before the guarantee date and waived him, they would have to pay him 75 days worth of pay, a total of $201,877 ($364,190 on the tax calculations). That's quite a chunk out of our already-tight spending limits, and they clearly didn't think Byars was worth it. The positions he plays are the only positions where we don't have any injuries, so it's understandable.
Mark Deeks said:
" C'mon. If you go over by a dollar, you pay a dollar -- not 4 million dollars."
All money paid in luxury tax is put into a pot and divided up amongst the teams that didn't pay it. So if a team were to go as little as one dollar over, they could lose several million in rebates. The amount of tax paid this year in the NBA is going to be the biggest ever by miles (more on this later), and so if there's any year to dodge it, it's this one.
Ricky Sobers said:
This I didn't know. I'm looking forward to hearing more on how this works -- and the situation you've referred to above. Again, your posts are highly informative, and I appreciate them.
Ricky Sobers said:
Actually, that was my point. It's half a year's minimum, and the limits are only tight if you're super-concerned about the lux tax when it comes time to trade. (But that raises a whole bunch of other issues, like matching up for cap purposes. Maybe it would be better to have his salary under those circumstances . . .)
Mark Deeks said:
I half agree with you, but we don't need Derrick Byars right now. If we need him or someone like him due to a midseason injury crisis, one will always be available.
Mark Deeks said:
Here's another thing to consider; remember when Paul Shirley's insides exploded all over Austin Croshere's knee? Well, at the time, he was on his second ten day contract. The Bulls had told him that they would re-sign him for the rest of the season before he got injured, but once he got injured, they didn't need to. They would have been paying him only to stay in hospital. But they did it anyway, and Shirley got three weeks of salary for doing nothing at all.
Call the Bulls cheap for not paying tax, but they'll willingly give a few grand to a brother in need.
Leave a Comment?
What your comment will look like:
said: