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).
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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
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.
]]>The Bulls management is CHEAP and PETTY. Until they leave this organization, the Bulls will stay MEDIOCRE!!!
]]>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.
]]>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!!!
]]>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!!!
]]>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.
]]>Me too. Them too.
]]>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??????
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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?
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>Your arguement is weak.
]]>Got it. Good. Bye.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>Head, meet brick wall. Ow. Ow. Ow....
]]>Oh wait, I have. Here.
And here.
And here.
]]>Did it?
]]>The Spurs weren't PETTY and CHEAP when they kept Malik Hairston, but the Bulls were when they waived Derrick Byars.
]]>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.
]]>Your arguement is weak. The Spurs have NO REASON to keep Malik Hairston, except the fact that he EARNED a spot on the team.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>That's not the world the Bulls play in.
]]>Oh man. This is a good day.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>Aint that the truth.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>Call the Bulls cheap for not paying tax, but they'll willingly give a few grand to a brother in need.
]]>