When talking about cap space this summer to pursue a max FA, it's always been widely assumed that John Salmons would opt out. He was playing on an underpaid deal and with all the teams far under the cap, he seemed poised to be able to get a raise, or at the very least break even with a lot more years added on. Given Salmons' age, 30 in December, the earlier he gets that next contract the better. His next signing will likely be his last multi-year agreement. It's likely his last chance at the big money. Deciding whether to take that chance this off-season or next seemed like a no brainer, due to the fact that teams are likely more willing to sign a guy long term who's a year younger, and presumably his performance is likely to stay the same or recede as he ages.
In other words, all things being equal, Salmons would probably prefer to opt out and get that big contract this summer. Obviously, he will opt out if he thinks it helps him in the long run, and there are two primary factors which will decide his fate.
First, the NBA economy went in the toliet, and it's not likely anywhere near hitting rock bottom. That means the pie for everyone shrunk considerably and will continue to shrink. We know next summer's cap is expected to drop 3-7 million from this year's cap. The question is "What happens in two years?" How the league forecasts the cap and the FAs and total money available could play a large factor in choosing which pool Salmons wants to get paid out of.
Unfortunately, whether Salmons gets paid out of the pool this summer or next summer is largely irrelevant if he's not playing at a level worthy of being paid a big multi-year contract. Right now, he isn't.
Salmons' performance has tanked this year. There's plenty of time for a rebound, and seriously, he could suck all year and have a good playoffs and then it'd be good enough to get a massive contract. It always amazes me how teams overrate the most recent data. Recent data is more valuable than old data, but not when you confine it to one month of play.
That being said, Bulls fans have to open themselves up to the possibility that Salmons simply isn't going to get a multi-year deal that comes close to compensating him his present pay rate of 5.7 million. If he could sign for four years and 16 million then I think he'd take it even with the first year costing him some initial cash, but if he's only going to get three years nine million why not risk next year's free agency instead?
If Salmons doesn't play well enough to get a multi-year MLE type deal out of a team, then I think he opts in, if he opts in, then the Bulls just lost their ability to offer a max contract. A S&T could still potentially allow them to work out getting a max player [and might have been required anyway], but now they're absolutely forced to get the consent of the former team.
The Bulls negotiating power and leverage would drop tremendously in this scenario, and our odds of seeing LeBron, Wade, Amare, or Bosh in a Bulls uniform would drop tremendously. Root a little extra hard for John this year, his good play is critical to the Bulls future even if it ultimately lands him with someone else.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Tags: 2010 plan, chicago bulls, john salmons, opt in, opt out, salary cap
The Bulls could make Salmons decision a non-factor if they trade Kirk Hinrich for mostly expiring deals. Kirk is the other Bull whose play has been abyssimal (although not as bad as Salmons yet).
I would hate to see the Bulls with Kirk & John next season and all the top Free Agents playing elsewhere.
The Bulls reportedly shopped Hinrich in the offseason and there was apparently little interest. I recall the story where David Kahn of the TWolves offerred expirings for Kirk but Pax/Gar turned him down. Pax gets miffed when he feels that other teams don't offer sufficient value for his players, which is an understandable human feeling, but this is the NBA. The failure to move Kirk was just one of the reasons IMO Gordon is with Detroit. It is just another example of Pax putting his money on the wrong horse.
"Salmons' performance has tanked this year"
THANK YOU DOUG! I have been pointing out this guy is mediocre at best...and I have no faith in him improving.
Im gonna mention this again, at the risk of getting berated, butbut what financial implications would there be if the Bulls considered getting AI...
The bottom line is, this season is going to be very frustrating (while I still think they can win games), I cant sit here and watch them give away games in the fourth because we have no one who can step up and finish games...there is nothing worse than playing 3 good quarters and then fading away...that has been happening for years here.
Doug,
I don't know how optimistic I am anymore, when it comes to landing a top free-agent, like Wade, Bosh, Johnson or Amar'e. I hope the Bulls have a nice secondary plan in place (Kelenna Azubuike, Anthony Morrow, David Lee or the draft).
In retrospect, I think the 1 year Boozer rental would have been nice. What was it, Tyrus + Hinrich for Booz or something? I know he's not our ideal player, but he would have been a 20/10 option to take some heat off of Rose / Deng / Noah. And with (oh hindsight) Thomas being hurt now, it would have been nice to have Boozer in his place, then do a sign and trade for Bosh / Labron / Wade etc etc...
As it stands right now, our offense is just terrible. Rose looks so passive its sickening. Salmons has been a complete flop. Kirk circle dribbles and hoists bad shots..Deng dissapears in the 4th...
I agree, Salmons waking up and making a bucket or two is VITAL for our FA next summer. You'd figure in a somewhat / sorta contract year he'd get his act together. Oh well, theres always next game...
Technical question: If Salmons opts in, can he be traded right away? On a one-year deal at reasonable by NBA standards money, it shouldn't be hard to dump him off to a team that can absorb at least part of his deal.
they need to trade hinrich and salmons for T-mac.
Yeah, all things considered we've done far better then expected. Its easy to get frustrated when you consider we could have won against Miami, and were .1 away from denver.
We were almost a 6 and 2 IMO (and won 3/4 of the game last night as well)...
It'd be nice if the Bulls didn't pick back up the roll over in the 4th habit from last year again though.
Apart from last nights 4th qt roll over and die...The only team thats really whooped us was Boston. Even then, I fealt that was more of a complete no show on the road than anything. Hard to be the C's when we are shooting attrociously bad at open looks alnight, meanwhile they may as well have been hoisting them behind their back at 1/2 court and sinking them they were shooting so well.
Bulls terrible shooting + celtics magical shooting = dominated.
Still, I feel we have been in every game except that one, and could easily be 6-1 if the cards were turned, so good start I guess considering how poooorly the offense has been doing.
Doug:
Can you please tell me why Hinrich is not accountable for his play? Why a 32% shooter is giving 29 minutes per game?. I mean, Salmons is terrible too, but Hinrich is a 10 mil guy. The way he is playing I am not sure he belongs. I don't see reporters complaining or writing articles based on Hinrich ugly performance. Is there a reason for this?
You are right that the market is limited, but just to entertain the idea, there are a lot of cash-strapped teams in this economy who might be hesitant to sign on for long-term free agents on the mediocre level (think our Noc signing; how often do those deals look bad two years in?). Salmons at one year is less risky than a long-term commitment to an OK player.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't be shocked to see Salmons moved this season if the roster dynamic allows it, but as this thread suggests, it is somewhat difficult to see how the team dynamic allows it. I dunno, maybe move him, alone or in a package, to a team that doesn't look to have cap room in '10 who can send us an ending deal, even if its a parallel move or perhaps if the player isn't quite as good as him but is a better outside shooter. Another alternative is to dump Kirk to a team that doesn't have cap room before free agency begins, sweetening the deal if we have to. More important the the junk I'm throwing against the wall, whatever we think of Bulls management, they have been unbelievably careful to make deals that protect their 2010 interests. I can't believe they'll be anything other than proactive to protect these interests as we approach the 11th hour.
Regarding AI, I realize he has issues...I just thought it would be interesting to consider, given he "seemingly" would solve some issues for us and we could steal him away..
I am certainly thrilled with the way the season has started, but your points about the fact that we "should be 5-3 or 6-1", etc, just underscore the common theme of not being able to close games. Until they solve that problem, they will continue to frustrate us...simply by losing games they shouldnt.....
Edit the Kirk suggestion. That would have to happen before the deadline and isn't a move that would help our playoff chances.
Has Salmons made any official comments on this subject? Another thing I do think that is not in the Bulls favor is the potential lockout in a couple years. I'm sure agents are advising clients to get as much money as they can get right now in case an unpaid year is forthcoming. So even a 4/16mil deal may not sound as good to Salmons as a 1 yr/5.7 mil deal. Or, who knows, maybe he's more inclined to sign a long-term, short-money deal out of fear of the lockout? Maybe he fears playing for one year, then being locked out and having to be a free agent again when he's 32 or 33 instead of 31. Thoughts?
That's exactly right. The Bulls pulled defeat out ot the jaws of victory after Gordon accepted that deal after the so-called "deadline." Typical Reinsdorf. Now some of you will talk about the sanctity of deadlines in a business environment. As a retired corporate attorney for over 30 years I can tell you that this is complete BS. There is no such thing.
True.
"It'd be nice if the Bulls didn't pick back up the roll over in the 4th habit from last year again though."
I merely mention this because it happened last night and it brought back bad flashbacks of last year where it was a common ocurrance (esp. the first 3/4 of the season).
They have played much tougher in closing this season, except for Miami / Toronto I've been fairly impressed with their late game resolve. Im not accusing them of being guilty of this yet this year, just saying I hope it doesn't happen...
Hinrichs's shot has been dreadful, however it IS very noticeable that his D is usually very good. He's a pesky defender and seems to poke balls free a lot. Tough to validate the contract w/o more scoring though. You're right about Portland.
Wether Rose becomes a top tier or not, we still need another one on the court to compliment them or Rose's slashing / scoring skills are always going to be compromised. (I do think Rose is playing very un-agressively though. He passes out on his drives constantly now, rarely gets to the line..Id prefer the attacking Rose vs the jumpshot Rose, though it is nice to see his shot seems to be falling more consistently of late)
Anyone else agree that the Toronto announcers were complete garbage? How annoying. And I thought I hated the Lakers announcers.
In the big picture, though, I dont know if Hinrich and Salmons playing to thier career averages is really going to help this team that much anyhow...
I mean, my thing with Salmons is, he's had 2 really good years....but, we cant realistically expect him to be a 20PPG kind of guy...historically, that just isnt realistic. Same goes with Kirk's shooting...yes, it can and will improve, but the guy is never going to shoot lights out...he never has...never will...
The 2 guard position has to be upgraded....if not this year, next year without question. Neither of those guys are a long term solution, which to Doug's point, is why Salmons Opting in is devastating....
If they are 7-8 after Nov that'll be the best start in years.
Doug,
Correct me, if I'm wrong here, but don't the Bulls have close to $13 million coming off the books, even if Salmons doesn't opt out? Not too mention another $6 million, if they denounce Tyrus Thomas' contract option. I heard that the max contract will be around $17 million next year, so they should still have the space for a top free-agent.
Is that correct?
Here's the article I saw.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dime-091030-31
Its still to early to tell if he will opt out. However if his play continues to faulter I dont see him opting out.
"I think part of the problem is that the Bulls are simply not a championship team. They're a team most people should have been expecting about 40 wins for, and people are making complaints about them not doing things that really great teams do. "
You nailed it there. However, I personally think if we can just add 1 true superstar, the core of this team is actually very very good...sure, I still dont think we can compete with the top level teams, but in a few years, I honestly think we will be, again, if we can add that guy.
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-bulls-confidential/2009/10/bulls-wont-give-tyrus-an-extension.html
I believe that they would have to renounce Tyrus, denouncing him is what happens on all the blogs, and when the Bulls do so it causes him to pout
Every analysis that I have seen suggests that we have to elimanate 2 out of 3 contracts between Tyrus, Salmons and Hinrich in order to have enough cap space to make a max offer.
If we only renounce Tyrus we will be 13-15 million under depending on the cap #, unless it magically goes up and not down, not enough to sign a max guy. Pretty much what Doug said.
While everyone has been acting as if Salmons opting out is a forgone conclusion, his opting in has always been my biggest fear regarding the 2010 plan. His play to date only exascerbates my fear.
This is quite a quandry... either Salmons stays and we get no Max FA, or he leaves and we have Hinrich starting sg with absolutely no depth (no, we're not getting dwade). this = no championship for the bulls. but actually, and bear with me here, the answer is staring us (or me, at least) right in the face.
Hear what's going on in GS? They gotta ship Stephen Jackson pronto and Stephen Curry just got benched....... hold your breath guys... trade Hinrich and Salmons for Jackson and Curry right now and put 3.5 Mil in our pockets next year (4.5 this year). We get an upgrade at sg in Jackson (and the 4th quarter scoring that has been lacking) and a sharp shooter in Curry who will spread the floor. We have just enough for the max FA and a back-up center and some real depth in the back court, while avoiding the catch-22 above. GS would have to bite because we are offering too much talent and teams aren't in a mood to trade their expiring contracts right now. We would be a better team now and Perfectly poised for 2010!
Is Jackson a prototypical new millenium bulls player? no. He plays with a whole lot of heart (aggresiveness) and he shouldn't 've gone public w/ the trade talks... but he's a 31 yr old player who took a contract for less than he could have gotten because he believed GS would try to compete... he now realizes (too late) that that's not the case at all and doesn't want to finish his career on a bottom dweller. A lot of GS fans are tired of his antics, but more fans know that he is the heart and soul of the team and just desperately wants to win.
Yes, Jackson has and can excel at sg. are you kidding? i don't want to get in a back 'n forth on whether jackson's an upgrade because that's just kind of silly. and he's a mil and a half cheaper than hinrich and half a mil next year.
stephen curry is what everyone expected. a scrawny rookie and a deadly shooter. sorta what the bulls desperately need. needs a year to develop as a back-up is all. i think he fits his role well and gets paid accordingly and has a great future. he'll grow into the next john paxson.
that 3.5 mil back in our pocket and depth in the back court is just enough to entice a max FA... check the math again (by the way, if we mess up getting bosh next year, it's really purely out of our own stupidity). otherwise we're back where we started, hoping and praying instead of being proactive, and that's just NOT what championship teams do. we all need to accept this basic law of 'nature.'
oh, and even with what the nba said, the 52M cap number just looks too absurdly low. my best guess, and that's all we can do, is 53.5M
next years championship contending lineup:
-rose
-jackson
-deng
-bosh
-noah
I am usually the typical cynical Chicago fan, but for some reason that I cannot justify, I truly believe that we will end up with one of the big 3 or 4 free agents next summer.
And maybe just maybe, we get crazy creative and sign and trade our way into 2 of them.
Call me crazy, but for some reason, I believe.
So, if Tyrus Thomas's contract is denounced they would have close to $20 million to spend, right?
well then guess you're right...... we might be screwed?
well said.
so the Bulls have no chance at a 2010?
This team with Ben Gordon would still suck like we did the past 2 seasons(pre trade)because we would still be playing the same lousy defense we played the past 2 years with Gordon.
Until the trade last season, I had pretty much lost any interest in watching the Bulls play, because they played with no passion or hustle, due almost entirely to the cancer that is Ben Gordon.
We are winning because of a commitment to defense and to each other as teammates.
This would not be possible with Gordon because he is a self centered ego maniac who only cares about getting "his", shots and money. When one guy quits on every play the rest of the guys eventually give up also.
Sure we would be scoring more, but giving up way more also. We didn't win any defensive stuggles last season, did we?
Newsflash, this just in, in every sport you win with defense, (pitching which is defense in baseball).
gordon not only sucks individually(basically he is like Rose with a bad attitude), he completely sucks the life out the team because of his style of play(essentially complete lack of effort when not shooting).
The Bulls players have all but acknowledged this all preseason and into the season.
If Salmons and Rose were playing at last years levels we would be 7-1 right now and scoring at a reasonable rate. Take a look at Detroit, they look like the Bulls did the past 2 seasons, and will be lucky to finish .500, a typical Ben Gordon season.
Finally, if we had kept Gordon at $9 million per, we would need to get rid of Salmons, Hinrich and Thomas for nothing to have usuable cap space next summer.
Is watching Gordon jack up shots, grab his crotch and quit on every play that doesn't invovle him shooting really worth losing the chemistry that this team has and 3 of our top 6 players for nothing.
Does anybody really think that Lebron, Wade, Bosh or any other superstar looking to win a championship is thinking that he has to go to a team with Ben Gordon, give me a break.
Our offense is painfully bad, but this team lost every close game last season until the trade, and lost all kinds of games, especially at home to teams that we should have beat.
With the exception of the Boston game we have been in every game despite how ugly it has been, and we weren't exactly an offensive juggernaut last season either, especially before the trade.
You Gordonophiles are simply delusional, with him we certainly would have lost every game that we have so far this season. We would have lost the Milwaukee game, the San Antonio game and every other game that we won with our defense down the stretch(Charlotte). In other words we would likely be 2-6 or 1-7.
This team with Gordon is not a top 4 team in the east, and becomes the team that we are stuck with through at least 2011. Count me out.
Gordon deserved to have the deal pulled out from under his nose because he acted like a jackass in negotiations(someone who had no interest in being in Chicago). So you know what, I say F-him, let him rot in Detroit, the first post apocalyptic city in America.
Sorry Doug, nothing personal, I thought that we were done discussing Ben Gordon, but unless/unitl our offense comes around, I guess we won't be until after this season is over and the summer of Lebron plays itself out.
What is the difference between A.I. and Gordon other than A.I. has more talent and more mouth.
I have always hated A.I. and consider him to be one of the most overated players in NBA history, but if I had to choose between Gordon and A.I. I wouldn't have to think twice, I take the talent and the mouth over the Mope a Dope, either way I am left screaming at the TV.
Spot on, so why moan about Gordon
After the intro, I will gladly take
Sentence #1
Sentence #2 and
Sentence #4
and take my chances with everything else
Like Del Bimbo actually allowing James Johnson to play a few minutes in both halves of a game.
Now you have hit the nail on the head.
Factually, we were an elite defensive team, only in his first 2 years when everyone bought into the Skiles system. That belief in the system was killed by players like Gordon and Wallace. Proving that Chemistry matters, a lot.
We stopped being an elite defensive team the year that Skiles got canned. And if anyone thinks that we were elite last season then I have nothing to say that could alter that delusion.
We were an absolutely disgusting team(for lack of a better word) until after the trade, and really until the Celtic series.
I care about winning, and winning requires great defense, anyone who doesn't commit to that can't play on my team.
The Jordan Bulls won all six champinships with defense, not a one with offense despite having the greatest offensive player in the history of game this side of young Wilt. That is all the proof that I need.
Gordon only works on one thing, shooting in an empty gym. If worked that hard on anything else, defense, ballhandling, being a great teammate then I would agree that he is one of the hardest working guys in the league. The game of basketball is not a game of horse, something that Ben Gordon will never get.
Uh...the pistons are 4-4. Just like the Bulls. They have also played a MUCH easier schedule with Philly, Memphis, OKC, Charlotte and Milwaukee in their first 8 games (and they lost to OKC and milwaukee). How you can possibly say they are the 2nd best team in the Eastern conference is beyond me. The pistons aren't evem the 2nd best team in the division.
I like Gordon. He has a skill that is always in demand. However, he constantly turns the ball over, doesn't even bother defending and ruins team chemistry with his poor shot selection. Guaranteed, the pisons will regret their decision.