Bulls.com reports Gordon takes QO
[From the FanPosts. It sounded like there could've been some 11th hour negotiating, but after the weekend this was expected.]
9 months ago
houstonbull
179 comments
4 recs |
Comments
Disaster for both sides.
I hate that this is overshadowing the arrival of D-Rose and now all year we’ll be talking about what’s going to happen with BG when the season ends. Unbelievable.
When I watch NBA games I often call the fouls before the referees do. Sometimes it’s a gift. Most of the time it's troublesome. - NBA Observer
by Illini15 on
Oct 1, 2008 11:10 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
No we dont( have to talk about Ben all year)...
Two things will happen either he signs with another team or he resigns with the Bulls…Simple
CHICAGO MANE!!!!
by YEP on
Oct 2, 2008 11:00 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What do you mean disaster for both sides!
Gordon hit the JACKPOT!
by silentpete on
Oct 2, 2008 2:08 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
ha!
nice find.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 2:15 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hardly a disaster
A disaster would have been to have Gordon go out in a sign and trade alongside someone like Tyrus or Noah for AK47, Zach Randolph etc.
How quickly folks forget that Gordon is a solid player.
I know I would have preferred keeping him longer, but then again I think this is great for the Bulls in that we can see just how well a Gordon and emerging Rose backcourt works in stretches, before we lock up Gordon for a 6 yr $59M, and are more cash strapped than ever if say Tyrus Thomas erupts this year, or the Rose/Gordon tandem doesn’t work because of height issues….
Gordon’s a SOLID player, keeping him 1 more year to further see how he meshes—and possibly then resigning him for a similar or potentially higher contract would be great…….it’ll be easier to do both with Hughes’ albatross contract waiting in the wings.
Gordon will have to perform because he wants the big pay day, if he doesn’t, we still have 4 other starting caliber guards on our team. If he does, then the Bulls can renegotiate to keep Gordon at or near a salary he wants….we’re still in the driver’s seat.
Plus we now can focus on maybe trading a combo of 2 of the following (or I guess just Hughes, which likely ain’t happening) Hinrich/Hughes/Thabo at some point this year for a PF.
by majoyenrac on
Oct 2, 2008 4:06 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
At least we should get some other stories out of practice the rest of the week.
Wish the deadline had been earlier today – I’m going to be dead tomorrow.
Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!
by wjb1492 on
Oct 1, 2008 11:19 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Not much of a statement tonight from either side, looks like...
He’s very happy to be able to go back and play basketball," agent Raymond Brothers said. "He looks forward to talking to the Bulls next summer about an extension.
Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!
by wjb1492 on
Oct 1, 2008 11:32 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Damn.
I wish this was just an elaborate hoax to make KC Johnson look stupid, but… ouch.
by Sports2 on
Oct 1, 2008 11:30 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I think we both read that report wrong. KC intended to say they were releasing a statement tonight at 11pm.
His article came out shortly before then.
When I watch NBA games I often call the fouls before the referees do. Sometimes it’s a gift. Most of the time it's troublesome. - NBA Observer
by Illini15 on
Oct 1, 2008 11:36 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Uggh
I think this is just awful news. I always believed that the Bulls would sweeten the deal just slightly at the end and a compromise would be made. For me this really puts a sour twist on the season and we haven’t even started yet.
Awful.
by dogra on
Oct 1, 2008 11:41 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Two words.....
LUXURY+ TAX= no long term deal
CHICAGO MANE!!!!
by YEP on
Oct 2, 2008 11:01 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You can replace those two words, actually,
with Bad and Management. Seriously, there are trades that would allow us to shave points off and get under the luxury tax if that’s what you’re really worried about.
I think Paxson is setting up a ‘let Gordon leave for nothing because we think his contract demands are too large for how good he is, and we’re never going to play him as a starter’ scenario. Which, frankly, makes me a bit sick.
by Prevenge on
Oct 2, 2008 1:43 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
what are those trades?
you do realize the other team has to agree as well, right?
by CJ Bulls on
Oct 2, 2008 4:10 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Moved Fanpost
Now What?
I believe that this wasn’t as much about money as it was about playing. Ben wants to start. Ben wants to play. Ben is the leading scorer on this team and he can’t seem to figure out the mystery of why there are so many guards that will want or deserve minutes. The Bulls have until the trade deadline to make a move and prove to Ben that they want to give him minutes. And as far as I’m conserned, trading for a dud would be better than having Hughes complaining about wanting to start, let alone taking minutes from everyone else. I’d rather have Kenyon Martin or Joel Przybilla. Add a big body that will either not complain about playing time or get hurt and not be able to play! Win-win!
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 1, 2008 11:38 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
What?
Hughes is an egg…he is always hurt. I don’t understand that quote in the context of this thread what so ever…what I take from that quote is that Ben wants his interests in front of the team’s interest…and is willing to sacrifice $53 million to that end…that is not a good thing.
"The whole leverage thing, it's a difficult thing to gauge" -Paxson
by Dionysus2.0 on
Oct 1, 2008 11:47 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Being hurt was mostly tongue in cheek
The real problem is Hughes saying he should start last year and that once he had a training camp with the Bulls he would be able to move into that role.
But my comment had nothing to do with Ben being selfish. He is a top athlete because he believes he is the best, which gives him a lot of confidence, which is why he has the balls to take clutch shots that the other players won’t. So, as a confident player, who has always been a winner (until last year), and with the fact that he is looking at the team and he is the leading scorer, he’s like, “why am I coming off the bench when I’m the leading scorer? Why is Larry Hughes here? He’s messing with my minutes.” (This is not a real quote, just what I think he is thinking based on his responses to questions in the media). And he is not saying this because he doesn’t care if the team is good or not as long as he gets his. He IS the leading scorer. He thinks if he played more, they would win more. We should hope that all the players feel this way. And the way he is not demanding in the media that he start and that he get 35-40 minutes a game should be commended. People talk bad about players when they say these things, but no one praises them when they work hard even though they feel like they deserve more.
BTW, I am not some Gordon honk that loves him and thinks he should start. I think he is a great scorer who drives me nuts when he loses the ball in the last seconds! Hopefully VDN’s new approach (i.e. not being Skiles), and D. Rose will help him not have to be double teamed like last year at the end of games.
by Unrealcity on
Oct 2, 2008 12:11 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hughes and Gordon are peas in the same pod.
Both believe they should be starting, yet neither will. The biggest difference is Hughes is guaranteed $26M on his contract, while Gordon is guaranteed just about $6M. Which one of those players do you think will be trying to play for a contract next season? Neither player has a future with the Bulls.
I expect that Hughes should want to start. So should Gordon. So should Noc. In fact, every player on the roster should strive to be good enough to be a starter. But, they also have to understand their roles when they do not win the starting job. Fortunately, Ben and Noc have been able to embrace those roles. I don’t see how Hughes has a choice.
"The whole leverage thing, it's a difficult thing to gauge" -Paxson
by Dionysus2.0 on
Oct 2, 2008 8:35 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
i guess if you try to look on the bright side
This will give us another year to evaluate things and try to solve the front court glut I still doubt at the end of the year anyone is going too be able/willing to offer more, so maybe then, if he has been gien the minutes he is after and the Bulls get the output they are after an extension will be worked out.
Maybe i’m just hoping for the best lol, I dunno
by rquinsee on
Oct 1, 2008 11:44 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
I see the local media isn't wasting any time getting on his case
KC keeps harping on the “said he’d practice Wednesday” thing – is he afraid it hurt his credibility or something for reporting BG said he would?
And Hanley dug up the old quote where BG said no way he’d take the QO. But Hanley’s also saying the LTD was pulled, which makes no sense to me.
Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!
by wjb1492 on
Oct 1, 2008 11:56 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Seriously, what the hell?
From Hanley’s article – he has to have this wrong, doesn’t he?
But by Wednesday, the Bulls had pulled what was believed to be a six-year contract worth about $58 million that Gordon had shunned since July.
That left Gordon with the tender offer that needed to be agreed to before the league’s 11 p.m. deadline.
Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!
by wjb1492 on
Oct 2, 2008 12:01 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I've been in the Bulls camp all along
of not overpaying Gordon. I wasn’t even thrilled with the 6/59 offer (six years is just too long). But seriously, what’s the point of pulling the offer with a few days left? That is a slap in the face to Gordon. By his quotes in the last 24 hours, he was considering signing a long term deal. Is there any good reason to just pull the offer other than tell Gordon you’re not interested in bringing him back?
by CJ Bulls on
Oct 2, 2008 8:00 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
that tells me two things...
1) they pretty much KNEW he wasn’t going to take the 6/59 offer, so why leave it there?
2) they didn’t sweeten the deal ANY
It would make more sense if the 6/59 deal had been pulled and then REPLACED with a slightly better one, but that wasn’t the case.
This negotiating session seemed to go a lot like last year’s. Both Ben and Lu said last year that they were offered a “take it or leave it” type of deal. It looks like the same thing happened here. Once Ben lost all his leverage, the Bulls did what was expected…they didn’t budge. It sucks all the way around.
Ben and his agent showed their hand too quick and it cost them. Bulls mgmt pretty much called their bluff down to the very end and won the pot.
I would have to think that if a 6/$66 deal was offered on Tue or Wed that Ben would’ve taken it.
I’ll say the same thing that I said last year. How is it a “negotiation” if you are only given one option? That’s not really fair.
by NormVanBeer on
Oct 2, 2008 8:09 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
last year was a take it or leave it offer
since they figured if they didn’t want the security then, they could negotiate the following year.
i’m not actually defending this, but that was their logic, which i think is pretty stupid.
i figure that the bulls probably threw out both of those offers as slightly lower than how they valued them, figuring great, if the guys took them, if not, prepared to negotiate with them this summer.
since it was a down year, deng came away only slightly better than even with the offer (if the 57/5 offer was real). it was ben who got hurt. after thinking about it, i kind of have an idea of what happened:
the roster was supposed to be joe smith and wallace, not gooden, hughes, and simmons. as pointed out in the post WAY back when the trade first happened, we are spending 2mil+$ more on these 3 players in 08-09 which would have been able to go to gordon and deng’s salaries.
when faced with this conundrum, they probably knew they couldn’t equal both offers of last summer, and essentially screwed themselves. and since deng was a surer bet not only to take a similar offer to what he was given last year, but as pointed out by many, is younger, and in most eyes (including mine) has more all star potential. but with the extra 2 million dollars, we could have at least given gordon the courtesy of equaling and slightly surpassing last year’s deal.
by Jaina on
Oct 2, 2008 8:35 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Pax said Gar Forman
was handling the negotiations with Deng this Summer after the standstill.
Do we know if Forman was the negotiator of the “take it or leave it” deals in 2007?
by NBA Observer on
Oct 2, 2008 1:09 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
All is not lost
This will give Pax the certainty he needs to talk to other teams between now and the trade deadline. Especially with teams that are looking for “one more player” or to replace an injury. Now we really can move Hughes, etc. and get something more in return than “an expiring contract.”
by hlac on
Oct 2, 2008 12:24 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
an expiring deal would be quite the haul
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 9:23 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
SSSSWWWEEEEEETTTTTT!!!!!!
Goodbye Ben!! I’m just happy he’s not signed. If we committed that kind of money to BG, it’d be over for us for a while. We’ve got too many contracts around already. This guy flat-out can’t do anything well except shoot, and that’s been a bit off anyway. He can dribble the ball off his foot somewhere else. It’s a shame we couldn’t rip someone off in a trade or just waived him off to Europe, but at least a financially non-fictional result was to be had.
The Bulls organization realize no high seed contender will ever have Ben Gordon on their starting five. Picture the spurs with Ben Gordon watching people score and then receiving a gut-wrenching rejection. Tim Duncan would demand a trade at that point.
Seriously though, he’s not much better than Jamal Crawford, if at all. All Bulls fans should appreciate Paxson and Rheiny not folding to the greedy demands of a bad agent and a confused player who cant drive or play D. Thanks Pax, I would have lost all faith in you and Rhein if you guys payed BG superstar money.
We all know Ben’s not worth those kind of dollars. We won’t win with a defensive liability that severe on the court. So give management some love everyone, and let’s hope Ben has a decent career because he’s a good guy. Sorry Ben, I want the Bulls to win though…..
by JayDangles on
Oct 2, 2008 12:35 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Yes
How did this JayDangles dude read my thoughts and post them?
by kmatus on
Oct 2, 2008 8:22 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
lol
Because you are all part of the same wing of the institution?
Failing to sign Gordon is just that – a failure. There shouldn’t be any praise going around about the results of this situation.
Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.
by cranscape on
Oct 2, 2008 8:29 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Because....
our goal is to have a player who would not start on any playoff team in league start on ours, right?
sigh
by ridindirty on
Oct 2, 2008 11:43 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Our goal
should have been to either sign Gordon or trade him for something. What we got instead is zilch. And for the kind of player Gordon is that result is a failure. Now had we managed to make Hughes vanish then be happy. He is the kind of player you want to go away. Hinrich, Thabo, Gordon – any of those guys should either be assets to be played or to be assets traded. The fact Gordon gets us nothing is bad. Go on and sigh all you want. You just don’t get it. I would have been happy if a last minute trade had been found. Perhaps Gordon wasn’t the best for our team, but he is gone and we got nothing. Woo. Put on the party hats.
Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.
by cranscape on
Oct 2, 2008 11:55 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It's difficult to trade a guy
when zero teams want to match his price. It was a failure, but it’s Ben’s fault just as much as it is the Bulls fault.
by CJ Bulls on
Oct 2, 2008 12:03 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If there is no deal to be had....
that nets us assets we wants, be them contracts or players, then you do not make a deal. Is this that hard to understand? A deal just so you can spin it that you received “something” for BG is the worst deal of all. Basketball decisions made for the media/fans are the worst of all.
by ridindirty on
Oct 2, 2008 12:05 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I see your point but all the nba execs know BG isn't worth a whole ton...
if you trade him for something less-than-good, then you’re stuck with less than good for a while. We don’t have alot of space on the roster and opening up BG’s spot puts in a better position. You might be thinking, “there’s no free-agents worth paying for anyway…” but don’t forget the Bulls can offer extra cash along with players in a trade situation. Hinrich and some cash sounds alot better than just Hinrich. This might not happen, but at least there’s a higher ceiling to the situation. We all know Gordon played his best off the bench and he’s not happy there. No one wants him at this price either!
I know everyone hates Larry Hughes, but I’m not sure his career is completely done. He was terrible and his attitude was worse in Cleveland, but the Hughes of the Wizard days was very good. I remember wishing the bulls had a guard like him when they brutalized the Bulls in the playoffs some years back, and he’s here. Yeah we get the beat-up, villainous, and lethargic Hughes, but there’s still a small chance he can rebuild his attitude with the right coach and leadership around him.
This is almost surely the last chance for Hughes to be a starter in the NBA so let’s see what he brings this last time. I honestly feel if Hughes tries at all, he’s gonna outshine Gordon’s last few seasons. Hughes has monstrous defensive abilities and with a point guard like Rose who can’t shoot well and likes to pass anyway, he might be able to play strong role offensively, although he’s very inconsistent. I’ve seen flashes of great offense from Hughes on the Wizards…..
…….Hughes will probably suck though, lol.
It’s time to let go of Gordon though, we tried it for hundreds of games and the more responsibility was placed on Gordon the worse he did, period. That’s not what we need from a shooting guard. Maybe it’s okay to take a chance on a big man like that longterm, but the 2 position requires alot more than what Gordon’s got, and other teams know too.
by JayDangles on
Oct 2, 2008 8:28 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Man, this is sad
Even after last season I still thought this team would do something together. But without Ben it is going to be tough. Not to mention we will be stuck with Hinrich even if Rose plays great
by JustAnotherFan on
Oct 2, 2008 6:22 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Well I guess we won't be stuck with Gordon...
since they pulled the six year offer. Can’t leave a good taste. Now we have a wasted spot at $6.4 for this year and uncertainty for the next!
Great job!
by hhirb on
Oct 2, 2008 6:24 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
The bigger waste:
number 3 pick in the draft. Like Paxson wasted a number 2 pick (Chandler). And there’s another pseudo-number 2 pick who hasn’t done so much…
Paxson hasn’t distinguished him much, no?
The poster formerly known as Freethefro.
by MPG on
Oct 2, 2008 6:57 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Look at what we have for all those high picks!
Maybe we make the playoffs!!
by hhirb on
Oct 2, 2008 7:57 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
thought Krause
drafted Chandler/Curry
B.J. for three.... KABOOM!
by chibullsfan03 on
Oct 2, 2008 8:03 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
thank goodness
Chandler IS a buster.
he just gets to play less defense and more minutes now that he fouls out less.
oh and he has a great passer to get him the ball now.
Chandler is still a buster.
by gman2849 on
Oct 2, 2008 9:00 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
never hated chandler
but it’s true, the only thing he really improved was his fouls, which allows him to be on the court more. the first year of his big contract he sucked, but his play now isn’t elevated much above what he was producing the year before that.
by Jaina on
Oct 2, 2008 9:05 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
12 and 12
is pretty damn good. And much better than any big on our roster.
Trading Chandler remains a huge mistake.
The poster formerly known as Freethefro.
by MPG on
Oct 2, 2008 10:04 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Trading Chandler...
Was not the best long term move, I agree. I was not happy about the trade at the time. However, we (management) wanted a player like Chandler who could also pass and more importantly remember an offensive set, and then run it correctly! Skiles called a set play 9/10 times down the floor. The trade definitely worked out to our advantage when we wiped the floor with Miami in the playoffs. I think it is unfortunate that he broke down so quickly. You cannot entirely blame Pax/Reins for that, he is still one of the best conditioned players in the league. I do not think most people would have envisioned him dropping off so quickly.
I am curious, are the same people pissing on Pax for trading Chandler and signing Wallace that are pissing on Pax again for giving BG more money? Ironic, because both moves are not what was/is best for the long-term goals of the team.
Almost everyone on this board forgets hindsight is 20/20.
by ridindirty on
Oct 2, 2008 11:51 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I meant he was the one
who traded him for nothing.
The poster formerly known as Freethefro.
by MPG on
Oct 2, 2008 10:03 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Jay Williams?
"The whole leverage thing, it's a difficult thing to gauge" -Paxson
by Dionysus2.0 on
Oct 2, 2008 8:25 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I meant T2 as the pseudo #2
The poster formerly known as Freethefro.
by MPG on
Oct 2, 2008 10:06 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I wish people would stop referring to BG being a lost #3 pick
Do the Bulls lament Fizer being lost as a #4 pick? Crawford as a #7? Curry as a #4? chandler as a #2? Draft position shouldn’t be factored into the subtraction, rather the actual quality of the player should be the referenced loss. BG has not lived up to that #3 pick and while I’m not saying that to downplay the signficance of his apparently inevitable loss, that draft status does not compound or lessen his loss. I’d say the Bulls in some form had already wasted that #3 pick by drafting a player who did not live up to that slot’s expectations, though that does not mean that BG is not a borderline all-star. It just means there’s no way he’d be drafted #3 in that same draft class today.
by messwiththebull on
Oct 2, 2008 8:56 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
so it's his fault he got drafted at #3?
“It just means there’s no way he’d be drafted #3 in that same draft class today.”
Uhhh ok. Using hindight, you could say the same thing about 50% or more of the rest of the players in the league. Him living up to being the 3rd pick means absolutely nothing. Pay him for what he has done and what he will do.
Paxson kept saying that they value Gordon…yeah that may be true, but only up to a point obviously.
by NormVanBeer on
Oct 2, 2008 9:09 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
right, that's dumb
there’s bigger busts than gordon at #3. look at darko. kwame. (i know they are 2 and 1 respectively but they’d still be considered busts at the 3rd position.)
that said, i feel the same way the bulls do. i like gordon, but not for a price tag much more than what the bulls were offering.
by Jaina on
Oct 2, 2008 9:13 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm not blaming him at all, not sure where you got that from
All I’m saying is that we should stop referring to him as a lost #3 pick. That is irrelevant at this point in time.
by messwiththebull on
Oct 2, 2008 9:55 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
as hhrib says below
it’s not irrelevant in the context of the guy who drafted him.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 9:56 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
But you also should factor in
who else was picked that year (by the Bulls and other teams), before labelling him a bust for a #3 pick, and ripping Pax for it.
Who should Pax have drafted ahead of Ben that year ? (and guys please don’t say Iggy, because the Bulls drafted Deng instead of Iggy, and not Gordon)
The Game chose him !
by Diabolo on
Oct 2, 2008 10:11 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
or trade him before this 'impasse'
The Bulls completely screwed this up, whether Gordon’s screwing himself or not.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 10:43 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Not sure I know what you meant by what I meant
or what I meant but thanks for the comment!
It just seems we should have more to show for all those picks since Jordan left.
by hhirb on
Oct 2, 2008 10:24 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It actually is irrelevant
we’re not saying “You have to keep Ben because he was a #3 pick!” just as we weren’t saying “Keep Fizer because he was a #4 pick!”. We’re saying keep Ben because of what he brings to the team, not because of when he was drafted. The fact that BG was picked #3 should not affect what his value is right now or going forward. It is irrelevant to the decision making process of making him the offer he wants next year or losing him to another team. That’s the Jerry Angelo way of thinking.
by messwiththebull on
Oct 2, 2008 10:58 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sounds like a pretty good littany of screw-ups!
Who is doing this poor drafting? That’s the point.
by hhirb on
Oct 2, 2008 9:15 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
1 recs
He's a lost #3
not because he wasn’t a good player, but because he’s a resource that we’re evidentally resigned to losing for nothing. And I don’t lament Paxson-with-regard-to-Fizer because a) it was a historically awful draft b) Paxson had nothing to do with drafting him.
Curry is a case in point. Was he a “wasted” pick? No, just the opposite: he may not be a good player, but Paxson used him to net Noah, Tyrus, and capspace. We got something for him, whereas we’re going to get nothing for BG, just like we got zilch for Chandler.
The poster formerly known as Freethefro.
by MPG on
Oct 2, 2008 10:10 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
We got Larry Hughes and Drew Gooden
for Chandler.
Looks bad because of Hughes and the glut of guards, but without a Bulls perspective, that’s not that bad.
The Game chose him !
by Diabolo on
Oct 2, 2008 10:14 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
We'll get five total years out of Ben at the least, quality years
In other words, we’ve already gotten more out of Ben than other draft picks and whatever spoils they brought in exchange
by messwiththebull on
Oct 2, 2008 11:51 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Krause drafted Curry #4 and traded Brand for #2 pick Chandler....
and Chandler with the Bulls wouldnt be nowhere near as good as Chandler with the hornets…hopefully TT can get as good with a great point guard at the helms….
Paxson’s Picks
03’ Kirk Hinrich(#7)
04’ Ben Gordon(#3) and Luol Deng(#7)
05’ no picks
06’ Tyrus Thomas(#2)
07’ Joakim Noah(#9)
08’ Derrick Rose(#1)
CHICAGO MANE!!!!
by YEP on
Oct 2, 2008 11:11 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Best case scenario: Playoff contenders
Worst case for Paxson:
Paxson’s Picks
03’ Kirk Hinrich(#7) …………………………………………………..aborted development due to the big “L”
04’ Ben Gordon(#3)…………………………………………………..loss for nothing
04’ and Luol Deng(#7)………………………………………………expensive, cheaper version Rashad Lewis
05’ no picks
06’ Tyrus Thomas(#2)………………………………………………..Bust (big "B")
07’ Joakim Noah(#9)………………………………………………….bust (little "b")
08’ Derrick Rose(#1)………………………………………………….another shoot first combo guard or damaged goods
by exult463 on
Oct 2, 2008 11:30 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hey. We're the Clippers!!
Midwest style!
by hhirb on
Oct 2, 2008 12:22 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah think about that
Well if you at Thabo . . . that’s 7 players who will be an integral part of this years team.
Losing one outta those 7 isn’t the end of the world. If anything, it’s expected.
Not many times do teams keep everyone they’ve drafted over 6 years.
PS . . . Why do so many people always forget to add Thabo when it comes to Bulls drafts? He was a huge pick. And I don’t wanna hear about how it wasn’t a lottery pick
by Option27 on
Oct 2, 2008 11:33 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Thabo was a lottery pick - #13.
And Thomas was not drafted #2!!! He was drafted #4. And its too early to call Tyrus, Noah or Thabo a bust…they are still on rookie contracts. That means they are still developing. Its also not fair to say Gordon has been lost for nothing when he was just signed to a contract. It remains to be seen if he will be lost at all.
"The whole leverage thing, it's a difficult thing to gauge" -Paxson
by Dionysus2.0 on
Oct 2, 2008 11:38 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Thabo wasn't a Bulls lottery pick
I guess that’s what I kinda meant.
by Option27 on
Oct 2, 2008 11:40 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Technically he is
While the Sixers did draft Thabo at #13, they were selecting him FOR the Chicago Bulls.
This is a wiggle room debate where everybody can be right.
by NBA Observer on
Oct 2, 2008 1:48 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'll still call Tyrus a #2
they had the #2 pick, they wound up with Tryus. The Veektor era was negligible.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 12:28 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
looking back at the 2006 draft - entire first round
only a few players have distinguished themself’s as non-bust or good nba players!
by exult463 on
Oct 2, 2008 3:38 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
If pulling the offer is true then there is something I do not understand that occurred.
This may indicate that Paxson does not feel he is in the Bulls future. Something could have happened in the negotiations that turned the Bulls against him. I cannot believe Gordon did not take their offer. I think he is going to regret this come next summer. The only good thing I see from this is that the Bulls have a year to evaluate him and the team before making a decision. Gordon and Rose may be terrific together and the Bulls will want to sign him. They may not mix well and the Bulls will let him go. Gordon has put himself in a very difficult situation.
by chgobr on
Oct 2, 2008 8:34 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
BG changed agents
before last season I believe. Looks to me like his new agent didn’t have BG’s best interests and that could be BG’s worst mistake.
by sue369 on
Oct 2, 2008 9:49 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I wouldn't want to work for Raymond Brothers right now
The Boseph Randolph negotiation was a good one. That’s pretty much it.
I don’t know though. I think Ben Gordon does deserve 6 years, 75 million in a free market and the controlled NBA market.
by NBA Observer on
Oct 2, 2008 1:51 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
There's no way
I can agree with your last paragraph.
by sue369 on
Oct 2, 2008 3:17 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
6/75? Are you actually Isiah Thomas?
When I watch NBA games I often call the fouls before the referees do. Sometimes it’s a gift. Most of the time it's troublesome. - NBA Observer
by Illini15 on
Oct 2, 2008 3:25 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He's not Isaiah Thomas!
Thomas would give him the max[6~120], and also trade his next three first-round draft picks for him.
It was a good try, though, but we are no closer to finding out NBA Observer’s secret identity.
by Prevenge on
Oct 2, 2008 6:37 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
BG is a midlevel contract waiting to happen.
10/year is certainly the absolute most he can hope for.
He’ll regret not taking the 6/59 this time next year…
by BAB-Bass on
Oct 3, 2008 5:55 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
damn it
we better hope thabo develops a jumpshot sometime before the start of next season..
by smegmatic on
Oct 2, 2008 6:46 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
The question is
How will we know if he can shoot if we never see him play? Gordon, Kirk, and Hughes, are in front of him at the sg position and Deng and Noc are ahead of him at the sf.
by Jamaicanpi on
Oct 2, 2008 6:53 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Noc at 4
shudder
But it will get Thabo minutes at the 3.
by NBA Observer on
Oct 2, 2008 1:51 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't care as much about the long-term future with(out) Ben
as I do about screwing up this season. Do they play someone who they know is leaving, or try to develop Thabo, who might develop long term?
The poster formerly known as Freethefro.
by MPG on
Oct 2, 2008 6:55 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Try to develop Thabo
If that doesn’t work they still can play Gordon. This seems to limit the Bulls flexibility making a trade since they have no certainty that Gordon will be here next year. They cannot trade Hinrich under these circumstances.
by chgobr on
Oct 2, 2008 8:47 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I believe Kirk can be
traded under any circumstances, unless your’re Paxson. Who makes statements similiar to:
“I wouldn’t want to be in this position being responsible for losing/trading both Gordon and Hinrich”
“No Guts” (no more balls jokes)… make a trade! From what I remember when you trade you are suppose to get something back? I guess Paxson is using his past and most recent trading experience to guide his thoughts and decisions. Get this guy out of here ASAP!
He’s delusional, he thinks those two are like “Scottie and Michael” because he envisions they will win so many championships for chicago?
by exult463 on
Oct 2, 2008 11:44 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Paxson drafts a 1st pick player to replace Kirk? Very soon?
Likely moving him to the bench, yet delusionally thinking Kirk can be bona-fide starting SG in the NBA.. but reality will set in quickly and Paxson will then be the last to know, as usual, that he really can’t trade him for any real value?
Only in Paxsdorf World…
The band wagon will be screaming Paxson’s firing but December 2008, Jerry’s hands will be forced by summer 2009. Jerry’s hands are influenced by $$, which will be spent discretionaly by fans when given the option to view a losing ball club.
by exult463 on
Oct 2, 2008 1:06 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Here is what I think.......
I don’t think the Bulls really wanted to re-sign Ben Gordon. They just had the 6 year 59 million deal out there so that Gordon would maybe agree to a deal with Miami. They were supposed to have agreed to 4 different deals with miami that BG didn’t go through cause of the money BG wanted. As the deadline approached, Gordon was leaning towards taking the Bulls offer. At this point there wasn’t going to be enough time for him to negotiate with the Heat, so Paxson removed the offer for Gordon at the last minute.
Also, I think Gordon was thinking he would stay a bull but he wants to start and get his money so he may have even through a teammate under the bus, KH, by saying they should trade the teammate.
by Ibleedbullsred on
Oct 2, 2008 9:19 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Hard to say
Bulls are crazy if they aren’t willing to pay Gordon 9 mil per. That’s a very fair deal and is definitely not a “cap killer”. Plus you can easily move him as long as Gordon doesn’t just go into the tank. That being said, I could see the Bulls looking down the road and seeing Gordon never filling their prototypical starting shooting guard role and therefore had no intention of budging from their offer.
by RogersPark Kris on
Oct 2, 2008 9:24 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No Gordon is crazy for thinking he's worth 14 MIL per
CHICAGO MANE!!!!
by YEP on
Oct 2, 2008 11:14 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This is good news!
Gordon wasn’t a long-term answer anyway, so it doesn’t matter if he leaves after this season. And for those (me included) who still think we can make a free agent run in 2010, it’s not a bad thing to have Gordon’s contract wiped off the books.
But it was crucial that Gordon played this year. We need another scorer to complement Rose, and Gordon should have no problem scoring 20+ ppg with Rose driving and kicking to Ben for the open 3s. After Rose develops for a year and hones his scoring ability, the hope is that we can find a better, cheaper SG complement a year from now than the 6’1" guy who plays marginal defense that we currently have. That better complement may be Thabo, depending on how much he’s improved his jumper.
The goal in mind, as always, is to set ourselves up to win a title. To get there, we need a developed Rose, and Gordon will help guide that along this year. But we aren’t winning anything with a backcourt of <6’2" guys that aren’t defensive studs. Thanks for one more year, Ben, but after that, it’ll be time to cut the fat.
by YaoPau on
Oct 2, 2008 9:30 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Ben's anything but fat !
The Game chose him !
by Diabolo on
Oct 2, 2008 9:51 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
No franchise with championship aspirations
can believe that Thabo Sefolosha is any kind of answer, ever.
I think NBA fans completely disregard a middle class (or in Gordon’s case: upper middle class) player. Either you get your 3 ‘superstars’ and if you have them fill the roster with rookie contracts and vet minimums. So it somehow becomes a twisted conclusion that since Gordon will never be a max player he doesn’t deserve long term money at all.
A title team can have Ben Gordon as a $10-11m player. I don’t have any faith that Thabo even gets to 75% of the player Gordon was last year (a bad year). He just has little offensive skills beyond finishing on a fast break, and it hasn’t really changed in two years. That is the player we are developing as the long-term complement to Rose?
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 10:48 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
exactly
i’m sorry, but there should be no time put in trying to “develop” Thabo. He’s not the answer now, nor will he be.
by NormVanBeer on
Oct 2, 2008 10:51 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The long term compliment
is not on our roster right now, and I’m pretty sure Pax knows that. Hopefully Thabo can develop into a nice swing man off the bench, but Rose’s backcourt partner of the future is going to have to be drafted or found on another team. Period.
by kig on
Oct 2, 2008 10:54 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I still think Gordon can be a long-term complement
he won’t be perfect, but pretty good and likely the best the Bulls can aspire for.
One good thing about the QO as opposed to a trade is that we’ll at least get to see how it can work, or not.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 11:03 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Question is
Would Gordon have accepted 10 or even 11 per. The long term numbers have been kept under wrapts since day one. Unless you count the “Gordon wants to be highest paid” etc rumors. Would you pay Gordon 13/14 per?
by RogersPark Kris on
Oct 2, 2008 10:57 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
we'll never know
because of the Bulls ‘negotiating’ tactics.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 11:00 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I concede that we don't KNOW
but you’d think that if the Bulls upped their offer from 6/$58-59 we’d have heard about it, accompanied with how Gordon isn’t looking at the american economy enough.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 11:02 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
We did hear alot of
“we’re not anywhere NEAR a close deal” from Pax
by RogersPark Kris on
Oct 2, 2008 11:05 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
the biggest mistake was
offering less than last year. That’s just an awful decision and it likely just set everything off on a shitty foot. If Gordon started off demanding to be the highest-paid player, that’s bad as well.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 11:06 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Demanding to be the highest paid player is out of context.
No one has provided the quote…here is the best I got for you.
asked Monday if he believed he is the team’s best player, Gordon said, ‘’I think I am.’’
[…]
So the best player should be paid the most money?
‘’What do you think?’’ he said. ‘’If the worst guy on the team is making more than the best guy on the team, does that make sense?’’
That was in the context of 2007’s negotiation…There are no other quotes that I could find that suggest Ben Gordon was that delusional. Though, its possible he is…
"The whole leverage thing, it's a difficult thing to gauge" -Paxson
by Dionysus2.0 on
Oct 2, 2008 11:44 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
as i explained above
i think they got themselves in a bind with the wallace trade. they were expecting smith + wallace on the roster, whose combined salaries are 2$mil+ less than hughes, gooden, and simmons this season, which left them significantly less dollars to split between deng and gordon this season. deng came away about even, so gordon lost.
i’ll also point out again that i think because of this “nowhere near a deal” impasse they seemed to be at, and that deng was more attainable, was why he got his deal. if they had to “choose” one to pursue more heavily first, they chose the one they felt they could get the deal done with. unfortunately they didn’t have enough dough because of their self imposed rule. however it’s not a bad one, this team isn’t a championship contender yet. and i also don’t think gordon is worth much more than 10 mil a season, if that. i would have been willing to go a little above if i thought he would sign. i agree that they should have at least offered what they offered last season, but the extra 2 mil cost their flexibility to do so.
by Jaina on
Oct 2, 2008 11:59 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I don't think Thabo is meant to "replace" Gordon
They have scorers at the 1 and 3 (Rose, Hinrich, Deng, Noc), they just wanted a defender to help out at the 2. Thabo will also cost significantly less on the cap than Gordon. They just want to allocate more money to the bigs.
I’m in the camp Thabo can/hopefully should become a Doug Christie type player. He played very well for a championship-like Kings team.
by CJ Bulls on
Oct 2, 2008 12:08 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hinrich is a scorer?
and their bigs already can’t score. You’d think SG would be the place they could invest in offense.
Again, only a true Bulls fan would feel like you can only have a couple above average offensive players like Deng (and Rose I guess) and the rest can play D and stay out of the way. It’s like we’ve been conditioned to think scoring is selfish and unimportant, when in reality it’s just more expensive.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 12:31 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think it's a commitment to salaries
Big $$ are invested in Hinrich, Rose (even #1 pick makes a lot) Deng, Nocioni etc. Those are all at the 1/2/3. They want to invest more money in bigs and can’t if so much of the cap is taken up by those players. Thabo is a much cheaper alternative and it gives them something they don’t have in those players, a true defensive stopper.
Obviously you can argue Hinrich’s contract looks better on Gordon, but Hinrich signed his, Gordon didn’t. And we all know Gordon wasn’t accepting 5 yrs 47.5.
by CJ Bulls on
Oct 2, 2008 1:09 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
so punt Hinrich
and if the Bulls didn’t think Gordon would accept that offer, they would’ve been better off not offering it.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 1:11 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think Pax/Gordon said as much
But if Gordon truly demands 14 million next year and someone else is willing to pay, they don’t want to get stuck without either one.
by CJ Bulls on
Oct 2, 2008 1:17 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm actually not sure about that
if your goal isn’t winning, but getting under the cap, why keep Rose’s backup at $10m?
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 1:32 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
because he's not a true backup
he’s a combo guard as well. He can play minutes at either position. He’s “probably” the starting 2 guard, even with Gordon there. And that 10mm contract declines every year from here.
by CJ Bulls on
Oct 2, 2008 4:15 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
even as a 3rd guard
that’s fairly pricey. Hinrich starting at the two is only by default.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 4:41 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
That's what makes the QO potentially a benefit
Gives the team one more year to decide. Is Rose/Hinrich/Thabo enough? Or should they trade Hinrich and pay a little extra to keep Gordon.
by CJ Bulls on
Oct 2, 2008 6:29 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
It all hinges on Rose
Without Deron Williams, the Jazz would have Ronnie Brewer, Andrei Kirilenko, Carlos Boozer, and Mehmet Okur. That’s one above-average first option, a good complement, and two guys who mostly score around the hoop.
Without Chris Paul, the Hornets would have Mo Peterson, Peja, David West, and Tyson Chandler. There’s no go-to option there. West isn’t an efficient scorer, and Peja can not longer consistently create their own shot.
But both teams are contenders. And if Rose becomes the scorer+playmaker that we hoped for when we drafted him #1 overall, then Hinrich, Deng, Tyrus, Noah could be enough to win a playoff series. Add a 2010 free agent, and we give ourselves a chance at the title.
by YaoPau on
Oct 3, 2008 3:39 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Vinny the Black likes Thabo
I guess two years of development with Scott Skiles and Jim Boylan is a bullet proof data set.
Patience. It’s an option pickup season.
by NBA Observer on
Oct 2, 2008 1:55 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
there's a difference between getting your minutes clipped
yet producing in those minutes, and Thabo who has gotten limited minutes and hasn’t done much.
And I’m not saying they have to deal him, just that if he can’t play well in 12 minutes, why should he get 30? One school of thought is that the Bulls have to at least find out about Thabo, but my stance is that he hasn’t shown enough (plus, he’s 24) to sacrifice those minutes that could go to Gordon and Hinrich.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 2:01 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
To be fair
Thabo did play quite well the only time he received significant minutes for a few games in a row (January/February 08). Not Ben Gordon good scoring good though.
I really think it all comes down to how far Thabo can still improve his shot. That would help the rest of his game a lot (slashing game). If he does improve it to the point of gaining respect and drawing the defender close to him, then Thabo has the abilities (and will) to develop into a 12-15 points, 6-7 rebs, 4 assists per game player.
The positives, from having seen him play since he was 14-15 y.o., is that he has improved his shot constantly since he was about 19 (he did not really work on it that much before, the game was too easy for him and he was not in a professional structure in Switzerland). That includes those past two years with the Bulls, although the results have not been that visible on the court.
He had never (I think) worked on his shot as well (he had worked a lot before, but not as intelligently) as he did this summer (in any other offseason), so we’ll see if it improved or not.
The Game chose him !
by Diabolo on
Oct 3, 2008 2:50 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
From what I've seen this summer in Switzerland,
he’s finally added arc to his shot. That doesn’t mean it will translate into better %age though, he’ll probably go through frustrating stretches until it becomes second nature (and replaces his old too flat shot).
The Game chose him !
by Diabolo on
Oct 3, 2008 2:54 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hope this is true.
I’d like Thabo to replace BG next year if possible. Liked what I saw when he got minutes.
Matt clearly has predeceived nocion(i)s about him… :P
by BAB-Bass on
Oct 3, 2008 6:15 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well, Matt is clearly not far off either.
As much as I would like Thabo to do great, he’s not at the player level Ben Gordon is and probably never will be. So I understand where Matt is coming from.
I just thought I had to point to him that Thabo had actually produced better when given minutes.
The Game chose him !
by Diabolo on
Oct 3, 2008 7:41 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'd actually rather have a better player than Gordon.
Gordon’s worth is, obviously, on offense. And while a really good Thabo might come close to the same level of worth as Gordon (both offensively and defensively), I’d rather go for some clearly better.
Now, of course, if Thabo can at least approach Gordon’s ability, and the Bulls could get someone better (like Wade or whomever), then you’re talking about another really good bench player, w/ someone starting ahead of him that is actually better (unlike Gordon’s situation).
by tyger1147 on
Oct 3, 2008 12:50 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
no fair offer
(keep in mind everything that I’m getting ready to say is all NOT LUXURY TAX withstanding)
Pax & Co completely dropped the ball on this. But where was the fair offer from the Bulls? It’s still yet to be seen.
Even last year’s offer to BG was slightly better.
The Monta Ellis contract was the market rate. All along Paxson kept his stance that he would let the market dictate their offer. Well what happened?
I can understand if they didn’t want to offer him Deng-type money, but to pretty much be offered less than Kirk, I’m pretty sure he viewed that as an insult, to which he should have (Gordon is going to/has already won more games by himself than Kirk has or ever will).
As has been stated from almost day 1…the whole “we’ll be over the luxury tax” thing was a complete farce. As long as the team is under the tax at season’s end, it makes no difference.
I’m not going to pretend that I know what happened at the actual “negotiating” table, so I won’t even attempt, but as I stated above, one would have to assume that if the Bulls upped their offer from the 6/58-59 offer, it would’ve been accepted.
This whole things just stinks.
by NormVanBeer on
Oct 2, 2008 11:06 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
There were multiple fair offers.
Gordon just chose not to take them.
While you contend the market was set by Monta Ellis, I will contend it was set by JR Smith and Boobie Gibson…but that is neither here nor there…
I do think the trade talks with Miami (and others) helped the Bulls to gauge the market value of Gordon. In other words, when trying to sign and trade him, they found out what the other team wanted to pay Gordon, and it was likely close to or less than what the Bulls were offering. Those conversations set his value, more so Ellis, Deng, Maggette, Smith, etc.
"The whole leverage thing, it's a difficult thing to gauge" -Paxson
by Dionysus2.0 on
Oct 2, 2008 11:47 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
multiple fair offers?
where? when?
There were two official offers that we knew of
2007 – 5/$50M
2008 – 6/$58-59M
Have you heard of any others?
I will say that last year’s offer was better. But that still doesn’t mean it was market value or fair value.
by NormVanBeer on
Oct 2, 2008 11:54 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Those are the multiple to which I am referring.
It just seems we disagree in their fairness.
"The whole leverage thing, it's a difficult thing to gauge" -Paxson
by Dionysus2.0 on
Oct 2, 2008 12:13 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
fair offer
You’re correct. It was not fair. The Bulls would have gotten totally screwed on that deal. 5 years, $50 million for a short backup shooting guard who can’t dribble, pass, or play D – man, that would be crazy. That would be the Knicks, but Oh, I forgot they finally dumped Thomas, so maybe they wouldn’t even do that.
I still don’t understand why you guys want to go over the salary cap for a team that won’t break .500. Are you that satisfied with mediocrity? Time to start over, …..again. Letting BG go is the best for the team. If BG really has some value (I think you’ll see next summer how little value he has), then it will be the best for him as well. This will free the hands of the next GM. Paxon will be let go during this season, don’t you think?
by kmatus on
Oct 3, 2008 6:02 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Gordon would be the best player on the Knicks whole team
It’s not a fair comparison to say just because a team overpays for a guy they’re the Knicks. The Knicks overpaid for everyone, and worse yet they’re all bad at basketball.
If you’re saying that the Bulls should completely rebuild and fire Paxson, well you have different motives heading into this season. From that perspective they shouldn’t even have given Gordon the QO.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 3, 2008 11:26 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
"I will contend it was set by JR Smith and Boobie Gibson"
::rolls eyes::
Where’s that dude who liked JJ Reddick?
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 12:32 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
::raises hand::
I’d take JJ for the role of sharpshooter coming off the bench (ala ex-Bulls Kerr, Rice, Piatowski…)
In the least, his contract should be reasonable after his break-out years in Orlando. I think that Noce believes that he fills that role now.
Reddick has to have to have a better shot selection (and shooting percentage) than Crawford and plays a similar style of defense (or lack thereof) as BG.
"It is not the same to talk of bulls as to be in the bullring." ~Spanish Proverb"
by VivaLosToros on
Oct 2, 2008 12:58 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
In fairness.
The offer Gordon signed is closer to Smith and Gibson than Ellis, Maggette or Deng…
"The whole leverage thing, it's a difficult thing to gauge" -Paxson
by Dionysus2.0 on
Oct 2, 2008 1:12 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Stay classy
May I borrow your shovel?
by NBA Observer on
Oct 2, 2008 1:57 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
KC says
that Ben practiced with the team this morning
by NormVanBeer on
Oct 2, 2008 11:39 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
sour apples
I will buy a sour apple for 80 cents, but I won’t buy it for 81 cents.
And, if the seller won’t sell me the apple for 80 cents, then I won’t buy it.
That’s because the apple is only worth 80 cents to me, and not a CENT MORE!
can anyone believe that Gordon is only worth $59MIL to the bulls? and not worth $60MIL?
If some knucklehead wants to drop 81 cents on that sour apple, go ahead…but it won’t be me.
by chicago-homesick-blues on
Oct 2, 2008 11:40 AM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
what if the alternative is starving?
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 12:33 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Well, then
I will starve by principal!
…
[one season from now]
Where’s our food?
by Prevenge on
Oct 2, 2008 1:49 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
heh
at least you wouldn’t be a knucklehead!
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 1:51 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
response
if the alternative is starving, then I’d buy that apple for an inflated price, yes. But, I am not starving. And neither are the Bulls. Ben Gordon isn’t the last apple on earth. If he was, then it’d be different.
Ben Gordon’s market value is undetermined. It’s undetermined because, essentially, no one but the Bulls were willing to pay for him. No one was willing to match the Bulls offer. It brings me to believe that the Bulls offer is therefore TOO HIGH. Putting the lovey-duby thing aside, let’s be practical.
I am at a fruit auction with 29 potential bidders. I bid 80 cents on the sour apple, and then no other bidder matches or out bids me. I am going to have a sour apple in my hand, and a feeling that I overpaid. If I was a CEO of a corporation, and millions of people were going to critize me for my sour apple / short SG purchase, I’d get ready to be brusied.
by chicago-homesick-blues on
Oct 3, 2008 10:57 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
This has been a case of how to not negotiate for a contract...
Gordon on taking the QO on Aug. 15
’’I’m definitely not taking it,‘’ Gordon told New York media Aug. 15. ’’I’ve already expressed that to them. I mean, that’s not an option.’’
Ridiculous. But we got him.
by swede2287 on
Oct 2, 2008 12:18 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
well every quote about wanting to win
from the Bulls can be tossed too. They both look dumb.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 2:15 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Now let's all pretend this never happened and hold hands on our magical journey together!
"I’m gonna rise up, gonna kick a little ass. Gonna kick some ass in the USA. Gonna climb a mountain, gonna sew a flag, gonna fly on an eagle. I’m gonna kick some butt, gonna drive a big truck. I’m gonna rule this world. I’m gonna kick some ass. I’m gonna rise up, gonna kick a little ass. Rock, flag, and eagle!"
by Ozzie Montana on
Oct 2, 2008 1:06 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Hey, you've got the Vinny Inspirational Talks on CD, haven't you!
Just $8.99 plus s/h.
Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!
by wjb1492 on
Oct 2, 2008 1:09 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
1 recs
VDN is no Tony Robbins
I just listened to the first track…
“If you do what you’ve always done, obviously, you’ll get what you’ve always gotten.” ~VDN
“Welcome to Obvious Inspiration. This is, obviously, Vinny Del Negro, head coach for the Chicago Bulls and, obviously, a motivational expert. Obviously, you purchased this seminar because you, obviously, have problems. In this series of compact discs I am, obviously, going to share obvious strategies to, obviously, help you succeed in today’s global marketplace. Obviously, if we want to direct our lives, we must obviously take control of our consistent actions. It’s not what we do once in a while that shapes our lives, but what we do obviously…..”
"It is not the same to talk of bulls as to be in the bullring." ~Spanish Proverb"
by VivaLosToros on
Oct 2, 2008 1:41 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
1 recs
Move over "everything's relative"
There’s a new sheriff in town. He’s says “Everything’s obvious.”
by NBA Observer on
Oct 2, 2008 2:32 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
VDN says "Obviously" Ben
“if you only signed the QO, obviously don’t think you will get the minutes that you obviously thought you should get”
“And furthermore obviously, you were the Bulls highest scorer the last three years, but things have a way of changing just like Skiles is no longer the obvious coach of the Bulls”
by exult463 on
Oct 2, 2008 7:21 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
What we don't know yet...
Why pull the LTD off the table as confirmed today? Why make that a take it or leave it situation? Why create a situation where they can’t trade Heinrich for frontcourt help? And they can’t trade Gordon either. This just has all the appearances of incompetence….such as the Chandler deal which seemed to be lacking a whole lot of finesse and GM smarts…just try to get the Chandler salary off the books anyway possible…and then get nothing for JR Smith…
So what was the long term goal in this deal with Gordon? What was the thinking? I like “ibleedbullsred” attempt at guessing there was a lot of dealing with Miami in the background… but really, we are in the dark on this whole thing at the moment.
by Cholla on
Oct 2, 2008 2:34 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
Has Pax spoken about this yet or did he go into hiding?
When I watch NBA games I often call the fouls before the referees do. Sometimes it’s a gift. Most of the time it's troublesome. - NBA Observer
by Illini15 on
Oct 2, 2008 3:27 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs
yes
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 3:31 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yeah, Gordon didn't want to be here.
“I don’t regret any decisions. Anytime I make a decision, I always try to make the right one. I have my own set of reasons why I make decisions that may be different than anyone else’s. After looking at how everything went down, I definitely made the right decision.”
Maybe the extra million or two wasn’t because he thought he was worth more, but because he wanted that much money to “deal” w/ being on the Bulls. No, I’m not saying that sarcastically.
by tyger1147 on
Oct 2, 2008 3:47 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Sadly
Even if he goes anywhere else, I would guess that other fanbases will probably treat him the same way. Such is the life of an undersized 2-Guard in today’s NBA game.
When I watch NBA games I often call the fouls before the referees do. Sometimes it’s a gift. Most of the time it's troublesome. - NBA Observer
by Illini15 on
Oct 2, 2008 4:03 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Not if he started lighting it up
surrounded by actual talent who’d take the pressure off him.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 2, 2008 4:42 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
He'll still be labeled as an undersized "shooter."
But I see your point.
When I watch NBA games I often call the fouls before the referees do. Sometimes it’s a gift. Most of the time it's troublesome. - NBA Observer
by Illini15 on
Oct 2, 2008 4:49 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I have a hard time believing (doesn't mean I'm right)...
…that if Bayless and Rudy somehow fall flat on their faces this season and they throw money at Gordon for a 3 years, that Blazers fans would dislike him in any way. And I have a hard time believing Miami fans care enough to boo anyone.
by tyger1147 on
Oct 2, 2008 6:23 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
if he was a Blazer?
he’d have the anointment of Pritchard, and would therefore be untradeably awesome.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 3, 2008 11:27 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
The Bulls could pay him more money than any other NBA team in the league
Thus, this statement. The agents know this. Players should know this as well.
The team that drafts you can pay you more than anyone else.
by NBA Observer on
Oct 2, 2008 5:01 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Even when unrestricted ?
The Game chose him !
by Diabolo on
Oct 3, 2008 3:12 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
yes
they can offer 6 years instead of 5, and higher raises (i believe)
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 3, 2008 11:29 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I think it's more the fact that there's a glut
of guards on the Bulls, and Ben may have been a lot more willing to sign for around 6/60 if the Bulls had shown him (this summer but also before this summer) that they are ready to remedy this situation and thus ensure that he will have starter status.
The Game chose him !
by Diabolo on
Oct 3, 2008 3:17 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'd definitely agree w/ that.
Hughes is obviously not in the future plans of this team. The fact that anyone publicly talks about him getting minutes in regards to Gordon being on the Bulls is ridiculous.
Thabo is clearly inferior (currently) to Gordon and he could/should get time at the 3.
Hinrich can and will get 18-20 minutes at PG. There’s no reason he can’t get 10-15 minutes at SG, too, if this coaching staff desires. That should leave 33-38 minutes to divvy up between Gordon, Thabo and Hughes.
And again, Hughes shouldn’t be in the equation, and one of Nocioni or Hinrich should be traded for a 2010-expiring contract, either getting rid of the ‘guard glut’ or creating more time for Thabo at the 3. So I’d definitely buy what you’re selling on that point.
by tyger1147 on
Oct 3, 2008 1:00 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Yep,and the irony of the situation
is that the Bulls won’t want to trade Hinrich now, because Gordon may leave in the next offseason (while they probably would prefer to have Gordon, for the right price, instead of Kirk next to Rose), and on the other hand trading Kirk may be the best thing to convince Gordon to resign.
The Game chose him !
by Diabolo on
Oct 4, 2008 10:03 AM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
I'm starting to think
if you let Gordon walk, why even keep Hinrich? Clearly the team will be rebuilding and needing cap room and the cash to send Benny the Bull to greet Dwyane Wade at the airport.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 4, 2008 1:20 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
So you're saying Hinrich should be gone no matter what?
Heh. Too bad Reinsdorf apparently disagrees.
Although… if they draft a SG next year, they’ll be able to afford keeping Hinrich as the backup combo guard.
by tyger1147 on
Oct 5, 2008 7:21 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
should that position be at $10m?
yeah, basically Hinrich should be gone because Derrick Rose will be here awhile.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on
Oct 6, 2008 4:22 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
Hughes
If Gordon is going to run like hell on July 1, 2009 (and I sure would if I were him), then I’d think you’d actually want to keep Hughes around. If were really going to lose Gordon, who’s our SG?
Is Kirk really a better option than Hughes at SG? I’d like to see him play quite a bit better than last year before I say for sure.
Especially once it’s further established that Thabo’s not the answer.
by Sports2 on
Oct 4, 2008 1:38 PM CDT
up
reply
actions
0 recs
You gotta look at it from the right perspective
I would hate to lose Ben. Except that he can’t be had right now for less than HUUUUUGE money and I thought the original offer last year was a bit high. After watching last season play out I now believe he’s worth slightly less even.
I think alot of us are looking at it like there was some chance to keep him at real-world value and it was blown by Pax, but I suspect Ben’s just trying to overstretch his potential value, and Pax was unwilling to look like an idiot again after Noce and Hinrich’s signings. It has hung over his head lately and Deng’s contract value was questioned a bit too because of those. I am sick of the Bulls overpaying average talent. I regret that it has to end with Ben but it shouldn’t have started and now Pax knows a lot better.
by JayDangles on
Oct 2, 2008 8:48 PM CDT
reply
actions
0 recs













