Blog a Bull: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
New Blog: Sounder At Heart for Seattle Sounders Fans!

Mike McGraw's QO Post Mortem

[From the Fanposts. Very interesting, especially the statement that it wasn't the case that 'no team' would pay Gordon what he wanted. This makes it look extremely bad from the Bulls. -ed.]

The best Bulls beat reporter writes:

The fifth-year shooting guard insists he doesn't regret turning down the Bulls' offer, now believed to be worth around $54-55 million over six years. Clearly, though, the qualifying offer carries a significant risk. Gordon will be paid $6.4 million this season and cannot be traded without his consent.

The list of players who have opted to sign the qualifying offer is short and includes Michael Olowokandi, Stromile Swift, Vladimir Radmanovic and Mickael Pietrus. All of those players changed teams after becoming a free agent and none has been paid more than the mid-level exception (currently worth $5.6 million).

Asked if there's still a chance he could re-sign with the Bulls next year, Gordon was noncommittal, but general manager John Paxson kept the door ajar.

"This does not mean that Ben won't be here long-term," Paxson said. "It means that we didn't get something done right now."

During the final hours before Wednesday's 11 p.m. deadline, Gordon's camp pressed for a long-term solution and his agent, Raymond Brothers, flew here to plead his case in person. The Bulls called in legal counsel Irwin Mandel to see if anything could be done to backload the deal so the team could still avoid paying the NBA's luxury tax. No solution was found.

"At the end of the day, Ben shouldn't sign a deal he's not comfortable with," Paxson said. "Because then you sign something and if you're not totally happy with it, you're always thinking about that. He's a Bull for now, which is great for us, because we need his ability on the floor."

Many NBA observers have questioned why Gordon would turn down the Bulls' offer. He's been an explosive scorer during his pro career, but as an undersized shooting guard most teams likely view him as a sixth man who would not command a contract worth $12 per season or beyond.

Perhaps Gordon's representatives were thrown off by the sign-and-trade potential. Some teams were willing to meet Gordon's asking price in a sign-and-trade, but only if the Bulls would accept multiple bad contracts in return. The Bulls were never close to a trade agreement involving Gordon, according to team sources.

"I can go into a long list of things I'm surprised about that didn't happen, but that's neither here nor there," said Gordon, the team's top scorer for three years running. "I'm just going to go out and play."

Lots of stuff to digest there, most of which makes me further question the Bulls' competence.

1. $54-55M over six years is obviously (h/t to Vinnie Del Negro) even further below last year's 5/$50M offer on an annual basis than the speculated $58/59M deal.  Further reason for Gordon to tell them to go jump in a lake.

2. Other teams were willing to pay Gordon a salary he'd accept.  The stuff I'd heard otherwise didn't pass the sniff test to me, and this is further confirmation.  Other teams (principly Miami, I spose) wouldn't be bothering with the continued interest they showed unless they had some agreement with Gordon.

3. Gordon still wanted to be a Bull and get a long-term deal done despite all this nonsense.

3. The part about the Bulls calling up Irwin Mandel is sort of laughable, since it's not exactly rocket science to calculate NBA contracts, but it does show the Bulls actually wanted him too.

4. And it points to, again, a complete inflexibility when it comes to dealing with paying the luxury tax.  I mean, the Bulls actually want to get a deal done (at least if you take seriously the notion they're bringing in guys to think about the problem), but they don't because they're unwilling to take the chance they can't pawn off a couple million in salary?  That doesn't make sense.  That is, like someone's sour apples post earlier today, a stand on principle.  Reinsdorf saying "not a penny over the tax, even for a second, and no worming your way around it". Puke.

FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.

3 recs  |  Comment 203 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

sounds about right

I wonder if the Bulls had an open dialogue with Gordon all season, or if they dropped the lowball on him without warning. I’d be embarrassed to bring an offer like that to someone.

by hscs on Oct 2, 2008 9:08 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

It seems like a lot of fans view the Bulls as a not for profit.

Paying the tax is not a smart way to run the Bulls business. In addition to the dollar for dollar penalty the team incurs exceeding the tax, they also forfeit the rebate payed to teams below the tax.

I was surprised to hear for the first time that the Bulls offer was 6 years, $55M. I think that is a statement of how little our Beat writers know of the inner workings of the team…we had all assumed 6 years, $58-$59M.

I am happy the Bulls did not take multiple bad contracts back in sign and trades…that would not be best for the team.

Overall, I feel like no one is truly happy with this outcome…Ben Gordon is taking a tremendous risk playing a lame duck season with the Bulls, and the Bulls are taking a tremendous risk of losing him for nothing. At least Ben has remained professional throughout this ordeal and will likely not be a distraction to the team this season. Well, at least an off the court distraction.

"The whole leverage thing, it's a difficult thing to gauge" -Paxson

by Dionysus2.0 on Oct 2, 2008 11:09 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I think many here

not only know that the Bulls are for profit but that they are making a league record of profit and have been for a long time despite no results on the floor. That’s why some would think their fixation on the tax is a bit ridiculous. They are quibbling over a hand full of millions when they churn such a profit. How about they put some extra money into the team and see if that gets us anywhere. I am not talking NY sized over charge. If we know we are pushing for a three year plan with Rose then I am fine with them going over a bit. Because it is just a few million here or there for a business where that is just a blip in the budget. If they were not for profit that million would be a big deal. So it is kind of the opposite.

Also, the same people that claim the Bulls are right for quibbling over those few millions are the ones saying Gordon should not quibble over the millions that were off in his expectations. Apparently a few million mean a lot to the Bulls and a lot to Gordon.

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 PM CDT up reply actions   2 recs

That's the truth

On another note, it also looks like a matter of pure principle rather than actual profit seeking on the part of the Bulls. Profitable companies normally don’t see the profit logic in dumping long-term assets to cover sunk costs. Of course, most profitable companies lose customers very quickly if their product sucks. Unfortunately the Bulls won’t and don’t care.

by Sports2 on Oct 3, 2008 7:01 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Reading your bullet points...

If you ran the Bulls your team would look like ohhh let’s say the Knicks. Why take on bad contracts just to get rid of a player? It’s not the end of the world who knows what plays out. He may resign next summer; he may not. Who cares at long as we stay competitive I’m happy.

by J Theory on Oct 3, 2008 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Reinsdorf appreciates your business.

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 9:55 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

When you commented:
Very interesting, especially the statement that it wasn’t the case that ‘no team’ would pay Gordon what he wanted. This makes it look extremely bad from the Bulls. -ed.

Were you talking about this quote in the article?

Perhaps Gordon’s representatives were thrown off by the sign-and-trade potential. Some teams were willing to meet Gordon’s asking price in a sign-and-trade, but only if the Bulls would accept multiple bad contracts in return. The Bulls were never close to a trade agreement involving Gordon, according to team sources.

by smash! on Oct 4, 2008 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

"some teams were willing to meet Gordon’s asking price in a sign-and-trade"

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 4, 2008 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

So you chopped the sentence in half...

and only highlighted the part that helped you make fun of the organization? Eek.

I’m pretty sure the second half of that sentence is more crucial to the larger point. I’m sure a ton of teams were willing to pay BG what he wanted if they could get rid of their bad contracts. I’m sure if BG was on another team, we’d trade Larry Hughes for him and pay him $12m/yr.

So yeah, I completely disagree that “This makes it look extremely bad from the Bulls.” And judging by the comments below I think alot of people agree. Maybe it’s time for a poll to see what the majority thinks.

by smash! on Oct 4, 2008 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Very good idea

A simple who’s more wrong poll would be good.

by California Al on Oct 4, 2008 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

the original emphasis was sports2's, though

even though matt clearly agrees with the emphasis.

i do not (considering i was the first one who brought this up below).

by Jaina on Oct 4, 2008 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

exactly

it’s a direct debunking of everyone who said “the Bulls were willing to pay Gordon more than anyone else”

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 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Crappy offers

that require a Noah throw-in and bad (worse than over-paying BG) contract(s).

‘Course some might say there’s no such thing as going too high on BG?

by marionette on Oct 4, 2008 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm talking as a base starting point

agreeing on a contract at all is a significant step, no? A step that some claimed was unreachable.

Even if it was with the benefit of getting rid of contracts or getting a prospect like Noah, it’s still saying a team is willing to pay Gordon. No matter what the sweetner in a sign/trade, this would likely be a 6-year deal, nobody’s going to intentionally wildly overpay, so clearly he was within some kind of ‘market value’.

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 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don't forget

that in the various deals we heard rumored, the Bulls were also unloading a bad contract of their own (Hughes).

So on that basis alone it’s pretty iffy to say it reflects on Gordon at all.

by Sports2 on Oct 4, 2008 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

in fact the Bulls would HAVE to include somebody

to blunt Gordon’s BYC status.

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 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

But doesn't the order

of bad contracts go: Noc, Kirk, Hughes?

Gooden’s contract isn’t good IMO, but it’s potentially good for this year. Like Hughes’ will be next.

by marionette on Oct 4, 2008 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

And I gotta say,

I never had anything against Gordon until you two continued on this endless, repetitive commentary.

I’m sure I’ll still enjoy BG in the upcoming season. But I have to remind myself not to be reactionary.

by marionette on Oct 4, 2008 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

With that post...

… you’re off to a flying start. :P

by Sports2 on Oct 4, 2008 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was talking abotu the very top bold line...

of the post by the editor, which I thought was Matt, no?

by smash! on Oct 5, 2008 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The full wording makes the Bulls look just as bad as the partial wording

It’s stupid for two reasons.

First, the Bulls seem to have spent the entire summer putting out through various sources that no one was willing to pay Gordon and that no one was even offering him a contract. That was clearly dishonest.

Second, the Bulls spent the last few years telling restricted players to go get offers from other teams to prove their worth. The fact that everyone is now pointing out the offers a player is going to get are going to be premised on the fact of his restricted free agency is proof of how dumb it was.

Restricted free agency means as a player is obviously going to be more limited in the offers he gets, but when he does get an offer it’s going to be at the bleeding edge of bad for his current team.

The Bulls kept playing the former aspect of RFA to the hilt, and now want to pretend the second part didn’t exist.

The Bulls were happy to use RFA as a contractual bludgeon. “Hey, go get offers and we’ll match! See, no offers! You’re worth the league minimum and consider yourself lucky I’m doing you a favor by offering you $54M!”.

So player goes and gets an offer.

“Oh, but you see, you’re a restricted free agent, so that offer doesn’t count!”

It’s a lame and ham-fisted strategy that reflects poorly on the Bulls. And the fuller context makes this clear. Following the paragraph above it (which lays out the problems facing Gordon), it actually seems to be saying Gordon was “taken aback” that he was getting better offers than he expected.

That is, he said, “OK, the Bulls said go out and get an offer”, so I went out and got a surprisingly good one. The fact it was a really crummy one for the Bulls doesn’t change the fact that it was in line with their stance.

by Sports2 on Oct 4, 2008 12:27 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

ugh
Why take on bad contracts just to get rid of a player?

Ben Wallace is still the shadow enforcer on the team you know. I heard Ben Gordon and Raymond Brothers negotiated the contract.

by NBA Observer on Oct 3, 2008 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Because teams in the NBA don't stay competitive without continuity in the roster

As messed up as the salary structure is in the NBA, it’s still set up so that each team has the distinct advantage of keeping their best up and coming players. You can’t just have interchangeable parts coming in every 2-3 years unless there’s some uber-franchise star on the roster.

"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 3, 2008 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Correct.

And it looks like all along that UFA would be the only way that BG could remain a Bull anyway. BG needs that concrete offer from another team to see what his market value is in comparison to the Bulls’ offer. This is a workable situation. We have BG around for D Rose Year 1 and still have an opportunity to sign him next year if it makes sense to.

by messwiththebull on Oct 3, 2008 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

actually

most sports teams don’t operate with a year-to-year profit. They’re the playthings for millionaires, and their investment gets paid off by the increase of franchise value.

I believe the Bulls were one of only a few teams in the whole league that turned an operating profit.

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 4:33 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

ahhh.... that's true.

Most billionaires make their real money off of the teams when they go from buying them for $20 million and selling them for $900 million (as the Tribune sort of did w/ the Cubs).

It’s the same w/ any franchise. If one holds onto it long enough, as the economy grows (and it will, over time), in a big city, a billionaire owner will be able to sell a franchise for tons more than whatever 5 or 6 million he/she lost in a single year.

That’s partly why Dolan can operate as he does. He knows that whenever he sells the Knicks, he’ll be able to sell them (and their television right presumably) for ghastly amounts of money.

by tyger1147 on Oct 3, 2008 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You need to read "The Business of Sports"

edited by Brad Humphreys and Dennis Howard

by hlac on Oct 3, 2008 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly.

Why take Marion’s contract in for Gordon? OF COURSE THE HEAT WOULD DO THAT!

by RogersPark Kris on Oct 3, 2008 8:01 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Glad someone pointed that out

It would be like saying the Bulls wanted and were willing to pay Larry Hughes

by Parrotman on Oct 3, 2008 9:50 AM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Well said

I was going to go with the Nuggets happily paying 12mil if we would take Kenyon Martin.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 3, 2008 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yep.

This doesn’t make the Bulls look bad. It makes them look smart.

by messwiththebull on Oct 3, 2008 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

That's what

I took from the article too.

by sue369 on Oct 3, 2008 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

It makes them look smart for not going through with the sign and trade

They still look dumb for not finding a way to secure the rights to one of the team’s best players for the long term.

We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan

by snley on Oct 3, 2008 10:51 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

my whole point

was to refute point #2, because it’s totally misleading to emphasize “Some teams were willing to meet Gordon’s asking price in a sign-and-trade,” but not “but only if the Bulls would accept multiple bad contracts in return” since that bit of information is very important.

do i wish they could have found a way to avoid the QO? sure, but i’d rather have that than some shitty contracts from another team.

by Jaina on Oct 3, 2008 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions   2 recs

I wouldn't read too much into that as historically teams offer little in S/T's

We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan

by snley on Oct 3, 2008 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

my guess is

that they’d be able to find something more valuable from those only willing to pay him the 10 the bulls were offering. the ones who were willing to pay him more were only willing to do so if they could dump more.

by Jaina on Oct 3, 2008 12:23 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Xactly! Why add more junk?

If they could have traded Huges for junk and kept Gordon that would have been good (I think).

by hhirb on Oct 3, 2008 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

heh
‘’But I’ve always said — and Jerry [Reinsdorf] is with me on this — we’re going to match offer sheets. We’re not going to lose a player for nothing. I don’t believe we’re in a position where we can do that. And we still believe that we’re in a position financially where we’re in good shape.’’

Paxson – July 3, 2007

by NormVanBeer on Oct 3, 2008 8:27 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Nocioni's agent

is fist pumping from another hemisphere.

by NBA Observer on Oct 3, 2008 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'd bet he negotiated himself

flew to Arizona, him and Reinsdorf had a good cry, contract signed.

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 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

This can be a blessing is disguise.

I’m the Pollyanna looking for the unexpected silver lining. The character of this team is changing pending the impact of D Rose. We do not know the extent Rose is going to shape this team. TT/ Noah/Gooden can blossom a la Chandler with Paul. We could all of a sudden have a dominant inside presence we didn’t expect. Gordon may not be as important a factor as we all think he is on this team. Or, Gordon can mesh with Rose to make both of them better. Gordon sees a unique opportunity playing with Rose. The Bulls see what a powerful combination they are and he is resigned. This was going to be a year of uncertainty even if Gordon signed. Gordon not signing may be a blessing is disguise providing flexibility in uncertain times.

by chgobr on Oct 3, 2008 8:27 AM CDT reply actions   2 recs

in the

seventh paragraph of the beat writer’s story he wrote “most teams likely view him as a sixth man who would not command a contract worth $12 per season”… poor ben went down from millions and isnt even worth 12 dollars.

It aint easy bein' Piatkowski

by Yibs on Oct 3, 2008 9:21 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Context

Remember to take everything that is happening here in context. I think that the worst thing a team can do is to overpay for talent a la Larry Hughes. The Bulls did all they could in offering an above market value contract.

I don’t think the Bulls are getting a Hughes type player, but they also aren’t getting a multi-faceted star. Just take a look at a team like the Wizards who threw huge money at a collection of players who just can’t get it done. I think it is always best to remain as flexible as possible and take big bets on the closest you can find to a ‘sure thing.’ Ben is a dynamic scorer and has worth in this league but lets not berate management for doing the right thing and offering a mutually fair contract.

In the end it is going to be on Ben to prove his worth. I understand his competitive nature ‘drove’ him not to take this contract. That is great and all, but if you absolutely can’t objectively assess yourself, it really isn’t a good quality. In fact, I worry that it will lead to another season of chemistry problems and rotation quibbles on and off the court. The organization did right by him and he, ultimately, should have done the same.

by Jud Buechler on Oct 3, 2008 10:32 AM CDT reply actions   1 recs

I am a bit worried that

Gordon pressing will cause a distraction. We already went through ‘Kobe-Trade-gate’ last year.

by RogersPark Kris on Oct 3, 2008 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

As Sam Smith put it, "What's he going to do to hurt the team, pass more?"

He’s already performed well while in a situation to force shots in less than ideal circumstances. If VDN can make the appropriate changes to the offense, BG should continue to be an asset to the team.

We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan

by snley on Oct 3, 2008 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

He can hurt the team

the same way he hurt the team last year. Terrible defense

by Parrotman on Oct 3, 2008 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions   2 recs

He's far from the only one who needs to improve from last year in that regard

We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan

by snley on Oct 3, 2008 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sure

but he arguably hurt the team more on that end than any other player on the roster

by Parrotman on Oct 3, 2008 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

you've got to be kidding

I seem to remember someone named Nocioni who played on the team as well. He’s the epitome of bad defense.

by NormVanBeer on Oct 3, 2008 2:59 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

and he plays PF

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 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

gordon did have the worst

net +/- of any of our major players last season, though.

by Jaina on Oct 3, 2008 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

yes

he did. It remains to be seen whether (if) a VDN re-energized defense will mean better for Gordon individually. He was actually getting better as a defender until last season.

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 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

just backing up the point that he hurt us the most on the defensive end

he also had the worst on court +/- of the major players other than gooden, who has a smaller sample size anyway.

no, i think gordon could be fine, and obviously we dealt with him the previous seasons. still doesn’t mean i want to pay gordon much more than 10 mil a year.

and also i wasn’t really defending noc either, since i hate watching him on the defensive end of the floor. at least ben tries. noc either flops, giving the opponent a clear path to the basket, or doesn’t rotate quickly enough on the perimeter.

by Jaina on Oct 3, 2008 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes

And even amongst the 13 players with over 15 % PT.

Basically worst of anybody whose name you know on the team

by BAB-Bass on Oct 7, 2008 8:37 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

82games.com

Go there and look at the stats. No one had a more negative impact on defense statistically than Ben Gordon.

by Parrotman on Oct 3, 2008 3:50 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

How do

the other guards rate on negative impact on offense?

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 3, 2008 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Let's see

Surprisingly, Hinrich and Duhon are pretty close to Ben Gordon’s impact last year. Hughes had the best impact in his limited sample size. Thabo had the worst impact but not nearly as bad as Gordon’s negative impact on defense.

by Parrotman on Oct 3, 2008 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

which is why you use NET +/- per 100 pos..

So you don’t single out defense or offense.

Someone tried to make a case about how it was bad to have Chris Paul on the floor for NO last year because they gave up more points with him. (Serious paraphrasing, don’t remember the exact wording.) (6,2 p100) The article neglected to mention that they also were + 15,4 on offense for a np100 of 9,3… Think this was someone in the Kobe-camp when Paul and Bryant were neck to neck in the MVP-race.

by BAB-Bass on Oct 7, 2008 8:43 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

uhh that makes no sense

We are talking about offense and defense separately, that’s why you bring up the offensive and defensive stats. If you want to talk about them both, well, Gordon did terribily statistically if you factor in both. Chris Paul does extremely well if you factor in both. I don’t see what point you’re trying to make.

by Parrotman on Oct 7, 2008 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The point was in the example.

You can make some strange arguments when you pick only the offensive or defensive stat. Not saying your argument was on the strange side so my comment was more of a general post and not directly aimed at you.

My opinion is that the more useful stat is the difference (net) between offensive and defensive production per 100 pos.

I think we agree on the main point, though. Goron’s negative impact on D.

by BAB-Bass on Oct 8, 2008 6:43 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

he's only helping prove the point

that gordon was arguably the worst defender last season. noc didn’t have as much of a negative impact (though his defense does suck). since someone specifically brought him up.

by Jaina on Oct 7, 2008 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't see that the statistic you're using means what you think

I went back and looked at the net +/- numbers for previous years and I don’t see how what you’re saying makes any sense.

Let’s take Noc. Starting with this past year and going backwards, his net +/- numbers were 1, -6.1, -6 and -9.2.

Does anyone think that has much to do with how much effort or how much success Noc had as a defender or as an overall player?

I can’t see much of that. I think it has a lot more to do with the Bulls being better, in seasons past, with their starters in the game (mostly because of better big man play. Thus, when Noc was in the game in the past, he was out there playing against teams that were coming back, and he was taking a good defensive big off the court, which caused problems for the team defense.

This year, for most of the season, we had shitty bigs (or they weren’t played much till too late) and thus no anchor for team defense. So taking one of those guys out and putting Noc in didn’t have much negative effect.

Gordon’s stat, on the other hand, suffered disproportionately because of this. In past years, with strong defenders behind him, he had a strongly positive net.

This past season, he played the bulk of his minutes earlier in the year when we were getting wiped out and playing Wallace, Smith and Noc a lot up front.

Later in the year, after trading those guys and playing Noah and Tyrus, and to a lesser extent Gooden more minutes, our interior defense improved a bit. However, those were also minutes where Gordon was increasingly off the court due to Pax and Boylan’s fucking around.

So the stat says what it says, but it leaves open the explanation for why, and the idea taken here, that Gordon just suddenly played worse (as did Deng) while Hinrich and Nocioni were suddenly better on defense (than in previous years) doesn’t seem very sensible.

On the other hand, it seems pretty easily explained by looking at the poor quality of the guys Deng and Gordon were on the court with.

by Sports2 on Oct 7, 2008 1:13 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know if I buy that

First of all, I think Noc’s defensive numbers look better because Deng was worse at defense last year. Secondly, I don’t think our defense improved enough later in the season to explain why Gordon’s numbers look so bad. Check out Hughes’ and Gooden’s defensive numbers compared to Smith and Wallace’s. They were worse. The Bulls used to be among the elite in the NBA in terms of defense and was only average last season. Obviously, some players played worse defense last year. I don’t see why that’s so hard to believe.

by Parrotman on Oct 7, 2008 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I am mostly concerned with predicting the players performance for next season.

That’s why I use the stats only for last season. How many of the players from four years ago are still here? And do you think there’s a chance any of the players have developed? Let alone how many new players have been added. It’s just not the same team as four years ago.

I find it interesting you’re blaming other players for BG’s bad +/- when there’s not even anyone remotely near him in this stat. That really makes no sense.

You bring up Wallce, Smith and Noce as the culprits. Their respective stats are: -2.4, -0.6 and +1.0. And they’re supposed to bring BG down?

Regarding your idea of the explanation why BG and Deng played worse: I think a more likely cause of their bad play is teams had them figured out. After being a scrappy team that no one took seriously for the last few seasons they suddenly were predicted by many to come out of the East. This added a nice bullseye to their jerseys and were probably extra motivation for anyone playing them. But the biggest reason was teams just had them scouted and figured out.

But let’s look ahead. This should be an exciting season no matter how it turns out with several subplots.

by BAB-Bass on Oct 9, 2008 4:30 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

you and i agree mostly, i think.

but i think it was kinda funny you and parrotman were kinda arguing even though you were agreeing. :)

by Jaina on Oct 8, 2008 7:39 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

diagree

the worst thing is to have no talent

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 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

um, no they don't

David Lee’s alright.

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 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

sour apple

My sour apple analogy was not based upon Principle. It was based upon practicality. A priest or teacher is prinicipled- a business man is practical. Market value is practical.

there’s other f*cking apples, man. And they’re sweeter apples, too!

by chicago-homesick-blues on Oct 3, 2008 11:01 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

yeah but

those sweet apples have a worm living in the middle :-)

by NormVanBeer on Oct 3, 2008 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

other people have those apples.

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 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Right

name me those that are definitively better than Gordon, will not be over 30 by the time 2011 comes around and the Bulls have a realistic shot of acquiring.

That lists consists of what? Two, three players at most?

by tyger1147 on Oct 3, 2008 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I like sour apples

with peanut butter. In fact, sweet apples with peanut butter don’t taste very good. Sour is the way to go.

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 3, 2008 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

current price of gas, and the Yankees' payroll.

The current price of gas is inflated because the demand is greater then the current producing supply. Rich companies who don’t want a bottle neck are willing to pay a higher price for the gas in order to own it because they need to sustain their production.

The Yankees do the same thing. The Yankees organization has the money and (seemingly) spends carefree to get what they feel they need to sustain themselves. The yankees have stopped being Practical, and started being Principled. “We’re the Yankees, we get the best players, no matter what cost.”

I agree that the salary cap restriction that the Bulls place on themselves is PRINCIPLED. But the principle only exists as an excuse. If Ben Gordon was Kobe Bryant, that salary cap would mean nothing. At that point, the Bulls would get practical.

by chicago-homesick-blues on Oct 3, 2008 11:11 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

ben is far away from being kobe

even strictly speaking offensively

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, Bullshooter, and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light....

by piccolomair on Oct 3, 2008 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good Post.

"The whole leverage thing, it's a difficult thing to gauge" -Paxson

by Dionysus2.0 on Oct 3, 2008 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Gordon just

stalled. He’ll try the market next year. If the market was bad this year why should he let it lock him into a long term contract? Next year could be completely different.

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 3, 2008 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Perhaps if Ben Gordon could rebound

we’d pay him 15 million per season.

by NBA Observer on Oct 3, 2008 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Unless, of course, he does get that money.

Or he is a perfect fit next to Rose. Then the Bulls will have been played.

by tyger1147 on Oct 3, 2008 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nailed It!

The one sentence in your post, which is excellent, that in retrospect, that definitely applies to Ben Gordon is:
“The longer an asset is on the market without selling, the lower its perceived value.”
All of us here who have been watching the situation and waiting for developments these past months, can attest, there was little interest by other teams in BG, and less as it wore on.
I know, I know, nobody had the cap space.
Doesn’t explain the absence of any S&Ts though.
I also liked the part that says, “confusing their own internal valuation (potential) with actual value (the reality of the market).”
EXACTLY, if you owned an asset that was currently in a down market, that’s not the time to try to sell it for the old sentimental value one assigns it. BG/Agent IGNORED the market.
Nobody else CARED what BG/Agent THOUGHT that he was worth.
Lastly, the Monta Ellis signing was sort of a, “He’s worth it, you’re not” to BG. Lots of people said BG was as good as or better than Ellis, however, the MARKET did NOT agree.
It’s still a business, not a popularity contest, or sentimental experience.
Just look at how many guys who got big bucks did nothing after.
It is probably a blessing. BG can shoot, but doesn’t warrant SuperStar money.
Save that for 2010.
Great post Cannoli!

by rtblues on Oct 4, 2008 3:21 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

In all fairness

the unrestricted free agent market would be more indiciative of the open auction and we’ll see that next year.

by messwiththebull on Oct 4, 2008 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Huh?
that definitely applies to Ben Gordon is:
"The longer an asset is on the market without selling, the lower its perceived value."

Nonsense. Try selling your interest in a house with a serious property dispute or some other encumbrance. It’ll sit on the market for a long time and you’ll get shitty offers. Now resolve the property dispute and try to sell it again. Now it’s just another house and it gets the same sort of pricing as other similar houses.

Doesn’t explain the absence of any S&Ts though.

Err… the article is pointing out there wasn’t an absence of S&Ts.

by Sports2 on Oct 4, 2008 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Obviously

I was referring to assets which were not otherwise impaired or encumbered. Although I suppose that you could choose to look at restricted free agency as an encumbrance of sorts. I see it more like another class of stock, altogether, but you have a point. In general, though, I stand my my assertion that assets grow stale when on the market too long. The main point of the post is that it rarely pays to pass on a legitimate fair offer, even if you believe that you can scrape the last nickel off the table by hangin’ tough. Just ask Spreewell. Or Bonzi Wells, Or a legion of other unsophisticated athletes who confuse(d) fame and/or athletic skill with business savvy. Gordon’s agent led him down the primrose path on this one.

by Cannoli on Oct 4, 2008 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The main point of the post is that it rarely pays to pass on a legitimate fair offer, even if you believe that you can scrape the last nickel off the table by hangin’ tough. Just ask Spreewell. Or Bonzi Wells, Or a legion of other unsophisticated athletes who confuse(d) fame and/or athletic skill with business savvy.

Or Andre Iguodala. Or Emeka Okafor. Or Gordon’s teammate, Luol Deng.

Oh, wait.

You know you'll get devoured by Cheaney, Wallace, and Juwan Howard.

by Mike Prada on Oct 4, 2008 7:14 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good post, but your house analogy is flawed.

I currently have my house on the market. I am about to lower the price, just like you said. But I do have one other option. I can rent my house out for 1 year and hope that after the election and the financial bailout that our economy returns to normal and banks start lending again. If so, my house could potentially not only sell much faster, but for much more than I am asking now. Is there a risk that the bailout doesn’t work and the market still sucks next year? Of course, but there is a good chance that it could all turn around. I believe this is exactly what Ben thinks. OK, I think I’m worth X, but there aren’t any teams this off season that really need me that have the money. If I take the one year QO, there is a decent chance that the market gets better. Is there risk involved? Yes! But Ben obviously thinks it is worth the risk.

by Unrealcity on Oct 5, 2008 1:31 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Except that the bail out and the real estate market

aren’t encubered by the CBA. BG and the NBA are. So nothing is going to change for him between now and next summer. He won’t want to play for the teams that do have cap space next year. The other teams (contenders) don’t need a one dimentional player for more than the MLE. He is going to be trapped between the MLE and hoping that the Bulls would be willing to do a sign and trade that his agent (not the Bulls) can find.

by hlac on Oct 5, 2008 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Prediction

BG signs his next contract for less than $6.4 million/year

by hlac on Oct 5, 2008 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'll put it in the file

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 5, 2008 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Apparently he has realized his true value...

and is now looking for a contract at around 12$ a year. :P

by BAB-Bass on Oct 7, 2008 9:06 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

In the NBA

It generally pays to hold out for more money. I think if you go down the list, the number of guys who got more by waiting is quite a bit higher than the number of guys who got less.

Looking at this summer’s guys I think that’s obviously borne out. Of the other major RFAs: Deng, Iguodala, Okafor, Childress and Smith, I believe all of them got the same or more than they were offered last year.

The sole exception is Gordon, and the article actually indicates that he’ll probably be better off as a couple teams were willing to pay him more than he was offered by the Bulls. And the Bulls, themselves, were looking for a way to offer him more, indicating that they were willing to pay but for the luxury tax.

So, I guess at the end of the day, I think this is the sort of advice that might make fans of Bulls management (as opposed to fans of, more broadly, the Chicago Bulls) happy, but is pretty much completely at odds with the way the NBA usually works.

by Sports2 on Oct 3, 2008 12:14 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

they were old and headcase-y

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 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sure

But like I said “the number of guys who got more by waiting is quite a bit higher than the number of guys who got less.” :)

I keep coming back to Corey Maggette who got $10M/yr. People on message boards across Bulls fandom have spent the last 3 years saying they wouldn’t trade Gordon for Corey Maggette.

by Sports2 on Oct 3, 2008 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Very true

but at the time Gordon was only 22/23 and the team was winning. And Maggette, until this contract, has only been paid about 7mm per year. His signing was more of a case of GSW saving face after losing Baron. They were criticized for the signing at the time.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 3, 2008 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

So what... next year it'll be another team that needs to "save face"

or is simply desperate. Or will lose their cap space if they don’t use it anyway, so they figure “what the hell”.

The collection of individual rationales (sometimes smart, sometimes dumb) that generally drive up the market for good NBA players is nearly limitless. But at the end of the day, if you look around, guy’s keep getting paid. If the Bulls didn’t want to pay Gordon then they had the last several years to work a trade.

by Sports2 on Oct 4, 2008 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

They did have years

but there haven’t been good offers. I still remember Memphis wanting Deng and Gordon just for Gasol. So i don’t see what studs the Bulls were pulling down with just Gordon.

I am in the camp that says Gordon could potentially get 10-11 million next year from another team if things fall correctly (to me Portland makes a lot of sense). But there’s also a significant chance that doesn’t happen at all and Gordon has to take even less than 6/55-59 from another team/the Bulls.

I think that’s why the Bulls are ok with the QO. Either they can smile as another team overpays for Gordon, or get Gordon back at a discount. The only way they lose is if Gordon signs 6/55-59 from another team.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 5, 2008 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

"they can smile as another team overpays for Gordon"

huh? How is that smile-inducing? They can’t even claim they’re fiscally responsible, given the other contracts on the roster.

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 5, 2008 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I guess that smile wasn't well described.

Not exactly out of happiness, but more of a smirk that Ben was actually right all along.

The worst part about Ben and the NBA salary cap is he’s just good enough to get overpaid. Those are the worst types of players to have. They aren’t great, but they are pretty good. And in an open bidding market, those are the players who can make out the best. If you look at most of the bad contracts in the NBA, it’s full of these types of players.

As for the “other contracts”, those are sunk costs. The Bulls can’t let past contracts control their future contracts. Reminds me of Isaiah Thomas trying to dig himself out of his hole by adding Marbury, then Jalen Rose, then Francis etc.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 5, 2008 5:30 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Letting the past control the future

Seems that’s exactly what the Bulls are doing. If they had another few million before they hit the luxury tax, the evidence I’ve seen suggests to me they’d happily lock Ben into a long-term deal.

Why don’t we have that money to spend? Because of the sunk costs of bad contracts given to Wallace and Noc.

Hell, dropping going concerns to cover sunk costs seems to be the Bulls primary business plan these days.

by Sports2 on Oct 5, 2008 6:21 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I disagree.

I think they knew how much money they had to split between Deng and Gordon. That’s how they felt that remaining money should be allocated. 6/55-59 while not 5/50 is still pretty close. Both sides agree they are very far apart so I don’t think it’s 100% about the cap. The cap was just used as an excuse to not overpay Gordon.

And they offered him 5/50 last year. After that, Gordon had a worse year for a worse team. Why were the Bulls going to top that offer, cap or otherwise?

by CJ Bulls on Oct 5, 2008 6:59 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

again

that first offer was admittedly (by the Bulls) low because it offered early security.

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 5, 2008 7:04 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Security, as in

take this money now while you’re playing well, because if next year you don’t play as well and the team goes 33-49 the offer will go down.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 5, 2008 8:10 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

right, but then that logic doesn't hold for deng

i think if they had the 2mil$ they were supposed to have with wallace and smith (vs hughes gooden and simmons), the offer would have been a little higher. at least matched last summer’s offer.

by Jaina on Oct 5, 2008 10:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

True.

But there have been several articles written since stating that numbers are inflated and Deng received a similar, or even slightly less of a deal vs last year. Sorry I don’t have any links at the time.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 6, 2008 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

right

i didn’t see anything stating it was less, but it is not a whole lot more than 57.5/5 or whatever he was offered last year. just more incentives.

by Jaina on Oct 6, 2008 1:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

But

Pax said

Paxson’s stance is that the team should get a salary discount on any extension agreed to now, given that the Bulls are offering long-term security for the players a year earlier than necessary.

‘’If we sign these guys to an extension, and this season they go out and have some catastrophic injury, they’re still getting the money,‘’ Paxson said. ’’I try to make it sound logical, but I don’t know if it comes across that way. It’s an extension; we feel like it’s the one time in a contract negotiation that, for the security that they’re going to get, we should get something in return.

by Sports2 on Oct 6, 2008 12:09 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree, but part of the security includes if you don't continue to play so well.

It’s not just injury. Although I’ll agree Gordon had a worse season last year, it wasn’t that much of a dropoff. It was just a downgrade over the up trend he had showed. But let’s say for instance he had Hinrich like dropoff. Then should the Bulls still offer 5/50?

And Hinrich is a great example. Had he not signed his early contract, would he still have gotten 5/47.5? I think it’s safe to assume the offer would be lower. But he took the “safe” deal and came out ahead because of it.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 6, 2008 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, Kirk had his best year right after signing the extension.

But I agree with your general point – BG had every right to refuse the offered extension, but he had no guarantee the Bulls’ offer would be better the next year.

Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!

by wjb1492 on Oct 6, 2008 11:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

And then they'll balk when Miami wants to do a sign-and-trade...

…for a max-salary Wade in 2010, and the Bulls don’t have the contracts… or have to throw in Thomas or Noah along w/ Nocioni or Hinrich and draft picks to make the deal work.

by tyger1147 on Oct 5, 2008 6:44 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The great news is

without Gordon on the roster they’d be under the cap to sign wade out right!

by CJ Bulls on Oct 5, 2008 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

not exactly

Mike McGraw says to “keep dreaming”

Even if Gordon and Drew Gooden leave in free agency, the Bulls have $55.9 million committed to eight players in 2009-10, and this year’s salary cap is $58.68 million. Add in next year’s first-round draft pick, along with enough players to fill out the roster and there’s no room left.
As of now, the Bulls have $35.8 million in salary commitments for 2010, which would leave them at least $20 million in cap room. But, that’s only if Gordon and Gooden leave while bringing nothing in return and the Bulls renounce Tyrus Thomas and Thabo Sefolosha, who would be restricted free agents that summer if they do not sign an extension next year.

by NormVanBeer on Oct 6, 2008 7:54 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly.

Once they re-signed Deng, they threw the 2010 free agent class out the window. If they do nothing except “create capspace” for 2010/2011, this will be the team:

Rose
Hinrich (30 years old)/2010 draft pick (?)
Deng/Nocioni (31 years old)
2009 draft pick (?)
Noah

Plus James, Wade or Bosh or whomever. That team could be really good, but not likely a “true contender”. If they can trade Nocioni for an expiring deal, they might be able to Thomas. But even that’s doubtful to me w/o a more serious analysis.

I’d rather keep Gordon, be good in the interim and do a sign-and-trade.

by tyger1147 on Oct 6, 2008 9:30 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

any 2010 plan with/without Gordon

means no Nocioni (NOcioni?). And likely no 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 6, 2008 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

There's no point to getting under the cap without Deng

Along with money, you need to have talent to attract free agents. Dumping Deng would hurt more than dumping the money on him.

I’m all for the sign and trade but feel it is way too unrealistic to discuss. Teams would rather lose a superstar outright than be the team that traded him, especially when they don’t have to. I feel like you and I have argued about this before and neither is bending.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 6, 2008 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh yeah.

And I agree about having talent. I’m for the more sure thing and just keeping the best talent around. There are four players worth going after in 2010. Wade, Bosh, Amare and James. I guarantee one stays w/ his current team. That leaves 3 players for what will probably be at least 7 or 8 teams.

And I agree that teams would let a player leave outright… but not for your reasoning. They wouldn’t be “just” trading him so there’s no public backlash. The player is signing w/ another team. He wants to leave.

Like in McGraw’s example: Wade can say to the Heat he’s leaving no matter. he wants to go to his hometown Chicago, but he’ll go somewhere else just as well. The Heat can get nothing and he’ll go to NYC, NJ, etc., or they can oblige and get Gordon, Noah, two 1st round draft picks and cash from Chicago. I’d love to see an example of a team that has ever done the former.

by tyger1147 on Oct 6, 2008 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think it would be difficult to convince your team that you have 2 preferred options

You can use the extreme example of Lebron. Let’s say the Knicks don’t make it under the cap by 2010. And they want to sign Lebron and he wants to go there. If I’m the Cavs, I say F U the minute he approaches me about a S&T. Why do I want to help him out? I’d rather call his bluff to see if he’ll really sign with New Jersey since it’s at best, his #2 choice. It’s not worth it just to take back Gallinari and Eddy Curry in a S&T.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 6, 2008 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Gordon, Noah, 1st-rounders...

…are better than Curry and Gallinari. If you can give something to a team that actually makes them better, they’re more willing to trade.

by tyger1147 on Oct 6, 2008 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Right, but most teams won't want Gordon

if signed to a 12mm a year contract like he wants. I just see that as too many ifs:
If
1)superstar wants to leave team
2)chicago is his top destination
3)city X is his second choice destination
4)superstars old team isn’t stubborn on trading him away/agrees he is not bluffing about signing with city X
5)superstars old team wants the bulls prospects/doesn’t ask for too much in return

by CJ Bulls on Oct 6, 2008 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sure, it's a lot.

And if none of those happen, the Bulls still have a pretty good, competitive team. And you’d agree the first two are the most important and relevant to outright signing of Free Agents, right? And if those two aren’t satisfied, considering the salaries they’ve had to clear to get the space, you’re looking at a mediocre team. At least my contingency plan is has an above-average team.

(and if we’re talking about Wade, James, etc., I’m not sure there is anything considered “too much”.)

by tyger1147 on Oct 6, 2008 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I totally understand where you're coming from

If I had to choose, I’d probably be in the camp of re-sign Gordon (at a fair offer, not what Gordon wants) and then hope to deal Hughes expiring, hinrich, and Tyrus for an all-star player next year as teams trip over themselves to get under the cap.

But I would not sign Gordon to his terms with the plan of a S&T, that’s all. And I think the odds of them getting a FA via an over the cap S&T are like 10/1.

I guess I’d like to see how this year plays out, but I’ve slowly moved away from the whole dump everyone and pray Amare, Bosh, or Wade come here. I just believe it’s the much easier way to get one of those guys. By planning on a S&T, you just lower your odds of getting those players dramatically.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 6, 2008 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

20 million in cap room if they renounce Tyrus/Thabo

Or they can also deal Hinrich/Noc to create more room. The opportunities are still there to get under the cap if they want to.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 6, 2008 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not really.

You’re forgetting the two 1st-round draft picks in 2009 & 2010. That’s likely another $5 million. And that leaves the team w/ 7 players:
Deng – 11
Hinrich – 9
Nocioni – 6.8
Rose – 5.5
Noah – 3.1
1st 2009 – 2.5
1st 2010 – 2.5
Superstar – 18

Sign Superstar that puts them at 58. You have to sign five more players w/ no cap space. Or getting rid of Hinrich, Noc:

Deng – 11
Rose – 5.5
Noah – 3.1
1st 2009 – 2.5
1st 2010 – 2.5
Superstar – 18
Superstar2 – 18

Best starting five ever, but where’s the bench?

How likely is any of this?

by tyger1147 on Oct 6, 2008 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

This is pretty much what the Celtics did

Once you sign players and get over the cap, you still have the mid level, which can be split up into two players. Plus from there you have the veterans exception to sign some older guys to fill out the roster. I don’t think it’s ideal, but worth it to add someone from the Bosh, Amare, Wade contingent.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 6, 2008 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not a sign and trade

Their situation was extremely unique. Pretty much the first time in the history of the NBA this has happened.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 7, 2008 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Showing how rare it is....

My point being: they didn’t outright sign anyone.

What’s most common here:
trading for superstars (you said it’s the first time ever)
signing away superstars as FA (last one was…)
sign-and-trades

I know which is most common, thus, most likely to happen.

by tyger1147 on Oct 7, 2008 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

None of those were sign and trades?

I am all for making a trade. I just said that counting on a sign and trade is the least likely scenario, that’s all.

Last time guys were signed includes Shaq, Nash, Grant Hill, TMac, Scottie Pippen, Elton Brand, Baron Davis, Ben Wallace. All might not be your definition of superstar, but all were multiple time all-stars.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 7, 2008 8:07 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

And we saw how Wallace turned out.

The only guys I’ll be interested in in 2010 will be superstars like Wade, Bosh, James or Stoudemire. That’s the likes of Shaq (90s), Hill, T-Mac… It hasn’t happened for awhile. It will happen in 2010, but counting on it is just as foolish as a sign-and-trade.

There will be those other types available (like Nash, Brand, Davis, etc.). Those will be T-Mac, Nowitzki, Josh Howard, etc. Those guys might actually switch teams because they’re cheaper (like Nash et al.), but I’m not sure I’ll be willing to sign up post-31-year-olds to 5 or 6 year deals to play w/ a 22-year-old. Seems like a worse allocation of resources than to pay Ben Gordon another $2 million.

by tyger1147 on Oct 8, 2008 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The only thing I don't get is

if you agree they’ll be out and available, why do you say it’s a longshot? Is it because you don’t think they would sign with the Bulls outright? If they’ll sign and trade with the Bulls, why wouldn’t they sign outright?

by CJ Bulls on Oct 8, 2008 8:16 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was worried about the sign and trade situation.

Over the past month, when I’ve been silent, I’ve wondered if the Bulls had Gordon’s best interests in mind. Of course not. Why should they?

There’s no reason to to think Gordon couldn’t have agreed w/ another team in principle to that short, 3yr/~$33+ million deal a lot of us thought would be acceptable if not for the luxury tax.

And I really have no reason to think that if Paxson weren’t presented w/ a sign-and-trade scenario where the Bulls clearly come out the WINNER, he would reject it out of hand. Why not? He knew he could keep Gordon around for another year for “evaluation” and still offer him the most money and years next summer. Why agree to a sign-and-trade if it only makes the team “break even”?

by tyger1147 on Oct 3, 2008 12:22 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

You're back!

I thought you got banned or something while I wasn’t looking. Turns out you just spent your summer doing better things than rehash the Gordon issue. Good for you.

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 3, 2008 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

::wonders where his own life went::

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 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Along these lines

Matt, What’s happened to Alec?

by hlac on Oct 3, 2008 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

who?

see for yourself. I didn’t ban him if that’s what you’re asking.

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 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

basically

I came here every other day or so to keep up on news, but told myself I’d wait to discuss anything until the Gordon deal was done. Did some vacationing, some moving, etc. too.

by tyger1147 on Oct 3, 2008 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think i agree with you

unless i completely read that wrong, i think you are sort of implying that the bulls are gonna try to come up with a better offer for gordon next year after examining him and value vs the market. I think this idea was proposed before too, but after we gained more knowledge of how the qo works, it was decided that the plan was way risk-ay. Perhaps during that long night together on wednessday the bulls and gordon came to a conclusion that was something like, if gordon bounced back better than ever in the upcoming season, the bulls would make room both in capspace and on the roster for gordon, and give him what he deserves.

I wouldnt put this decision past paxson, he afterall, sent khrapy home by buying out his contract. It sure did piss viktor off that he did nothing in the nba, but paxson to me seemed like a real nice guy for doing something like that. I think if gordon really wanted to remain a bull, he might just agree to such a deal, while at the same time telling the bulls that if he got a better offer while he was in free agency he wouldnt hesitate to take it.

I think the ball is now completely in the bulls court, its up to them to figure out if gordon works long term, if he does, then they have to clear the logjam both financially and roster wise. Gordon gets to go into this season and put everything he has on the table…he does want to win afterall…and he can decide where he wants to go next offseason. I can see this being benneficial for both parties actually…but maybe im the only one.

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, Bullshooter, and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light....

by piccolomair on Oct 3, 2008 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't see how the Bulls have any advantage in unrestricted free agency

Hell, Gordon could be on his way to OKC while the Bulls are putting in calls to their capologist.

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 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Did he mean "in [their] court" as in advantage...

…or that they now have to pony up if they want to keep him?

by tyger1147 on Oct 3, 2008 3:18 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

They don't have an advantage in UFA

but there is an advantage of having an extra year to evaluate your roster before signing a guy to a 6 year deal.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 3, 2008 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

true

though is it worth the risk of forfeiting the ability to match deals? Maybe.

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 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

But they can still match

I just don’t see Gordon passing up more money from the Bulls just to spite them. And I dont mean that as an indictment that Gordon is greedy.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 3, 2008 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I do

if it’s comparable. As many have said before, what’s a couple million?

The situation I see is that he takes an offer while the Bulls are waiting for everyone to file out of the clown-car before preparing to possibly maybe consider an offer.

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 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Unless it's Portland or some great situation

I don’t see Gordon leaving to play in many other cities (of those available next year). Fighting for shots with the Heat, or playing bball in Minny/Indy/ just don’t seem that appealing for the same or less money.

And although I am concerned after this year’s offseason, I’d like to believe the Bulls front office isn’t a complete bumbling mess as they appear to be from the outside.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 3, 2008 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Do you really think he cares about "fighting for shots" w/ the Heat.

With Wade and Beasley, he’ll be among a three that will be one of the most explosive offensive trios in the league.

by tyger1147 on Oct 3, 2008 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

yeah i think he won't want to fight with those two.

he wants to be known as a great/leading scorer. On the Heat, he’d easily be 3rd fiddle. His offensive numbers would shrink, although his percentages could shoot up.

Plus I just don’t see the Heat wanting him either. He dominates the ball too much, and they already have two of those in Wade/Beasley. They need more of a Deng/Marion type to score without the ball. But that’s just me.

Big offensive trios never seem to make it over the hump either as a team. I don’t know if Gordon would think that far ahead though.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 3, 2008 7:22 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Would the Bulls be able to talk to Brothers during the season?

That would be the only benefit I could see. Even if they can’t sign a deal, if they can at least get a head start on negotiating with BG before the free agency period begins, maybe the could still take their time and bring him back.

We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan

by snley on Oct 3, 2008 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I didn't read all of that (I'm lazy).

but you did read mine right.

Gordon’s the type of person that won’t rock the boat this season on a one-year qualifying offer. He also knows the Bulls are still his best chance to make a bunch of money. He’s not going to rock the boat, ruffle feathers, burn bridges, etc.

Paxson, knowing this about Gordon, knowing his boss’s repulsion of the luxury tax, and his own ability to shed salary from the 2009 payroll, knew that if Gordon proved capable, he could probably offer him a substantial increase next summer. If warranted. There’s no reason for Paxson to at least give up that opportunity if it only breaks the team even. Of course, if he thought Gordon were someone like Hughes and would cause trouble on the team, or he knew for a fact he would never want him back, then he’d do a sign-and-trade.

At least, that’s my take.

by tyger1147 on Oct 3, 2008 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

What really gets me is that all the talk about the Bulls showing Gordon what he's 'worth'

is bunk.

They weren’t offering a contract based on anything to do with Ben Gordon. The calls to their cap lawyers means that they were offering what was under the luxury tax. No more, no how.

So what does it even matter how Gordon performed last season, or how he projects, or his ability to fit with Rose, or anything? That just shows how unlike an actual market dealing with RFAs (and the cap and the tax) is.

As has been speculated before, the fact that they’re so inflexible with the tax and offered a contract less than last season could mean that they really don’t ‘value’ Gordon at all, and knew he’d turn down the offer.

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 3:15 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Or they "value" him for more but wanted to get him on the cheap.

And knew he’d take the QO and will offer him big money next summer to keep him.

I’m hoping here!

by tyger1147 on Oct 3, 2008 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree and disagree

with you last point. Perhaps the market changed, or the value of BG changed. I’d argue a little of both.

I still don’t see a big picture plan here, and that’s my real concern. Signing BG to a long term deal just because it’s his time would be pointless. That’s not to say I agree with the way Pax handled this summer. But until the Bulls develop a plan, I’d don’t mind the lack of a long term commitment. I don’t see a future successful team with Rose, BG, and Hinrich as the top 3 guards (not to mention the $25mil or so a year they’d be earning). Hughes’s contract complicates things some.

In an ideal world, the Bulls would have found a reasonable sign and trade for Gordon. I like him, but I recognize his limitations and don’t think he’s “worth” more than the MLE, or in this case the QO, to the current version of the Bulls.

(I’m kinda all over the place here, but it’s the first time I’ve given serious thought to the Bulls in a while. I’ll think about them even more next week when I get my season tickets.)

by Moses Taylor on Oct 3, 2008 4:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

if they signed Gordon long term

Kirk would eventually be dealt (if not immediately). You’re correct that you can’t have that much money tied up into those 3 guys given their collective deficiencies.

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 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Since I didn't follow them much this summer

Was this discussed or rumored at all? Is it as simple as that? I understand Jerry didn’t want them to go over the tax line at any point, but was this a realistic option?

by Moses Taylor on Oct 3, 2008 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm just figuring with common sense

Hinrich would be the odd man out if Gordon was re-signed. They’d likely look for a cheaper option as the 3rd guard.

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 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

sounds about right
Paxson used Gordon’s contract uncertainty to defend his decision not to trade a guard. Trading, say, Hinrich, he explained, and then losing Gordon to free agency “would’ve been a very bad play.”

“Next summer, if we’re able to get Ben signed to a long-term deal, then I can look comfortably at that option,” Paxson said.

by NormVanBeer on Oct 3, 2008 7:35 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

thats like a callout to kirk

no more mopy iowan or im giving bg ur job. btw, ive been playing 2k9 and hinrich is big on winning and money and less on loyalty, whereas bg is big on all 3

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, Bullshooter, and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light....

by piccolomair on Oct 4, 2008 3:25 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

How'd you get 2k9 already?

If some store is selling it, I want it too.

I saw on their ratings, that they didn’t penalize Hinrich at all for having a bad year.
It’s also crazy how much Beasley is better than Rose, even though Rose went first.

by runningman on Oct 4, 2008 10:32 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

im a cheater ;/

my cuzin hooked me up. cant go online and it seems laggy, makes me think its a beta version or something

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, Bullshooter, and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light....

by piccolomair on Oct 4, 2008 12:35 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

rose is crazy quick

faster than paul, and his pass ratings high enough that you can do things at the last minute. Actually with him you can do alot of things at the last minute in terms of scoring, passing, or driving to the lane. They made the altering shot animations alot more fluid, while playing defense is alot harder, thus its really important to have players with high defensive ratings on the floor. If you play a quick game they show you actual nba clips of key players while the game loads with some commentary about the players. Sadly they dont have the same caliber halftime report (its pretty much the 2k8 one). After every quarter they show you clips from the game thus far with alot of this tv action news music playing.

Gooden is solid in the post, noah a great rebounder but not much of a shot blocker, hinrich is alot harder to shoot with, his shot seems delayed for whatever reason, they got his free throw routine down pat, just slower than it usually is. Deng is money whenever he is 15 feet an in, whether you’re shooting or attacking the rim. Gordon doesnt miss from beyond the arc unless he is d’d up real well.

The association mode is pretty cool thus far, they dont give you numerical stats right off the bat, you have to actually scout your own team players (and other team players) to know what they can do, which adds a bit or realism so you can just grab better players because you can tell if you got a better player without scouting first.

I havent tried beasley yet, mainly just used the bulls, kobe is hard to stop as is wade and durant.

On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, Bullshooter, and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light....

by piccolomair on Oct 4, 2008 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Pax had already

called Kirk and Thabo out right after Vinny was hired. Sounds like Kirk answered that call by working hard this summer at the Berto. Hopefully that transfers into a great season for him.

by sue369 on Oct 4, 2008 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm just happy he changed his hairstyle

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 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Not according

to K.C. He was on CTL Friday night and when asked if one of the guards would now be traded he said no. Then he was asked if BG had signed a long term deal during the summer would one of the guard have been dealt and again he said no.

I know you have such disdain for anyone who disagrees with your point of view so I await your snarky comments.

by sue369 on Oct 5, 2008 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

wait is over

KC’s a turd?

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 5, 2008 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm glad K.C. is that dialed in he knows exactly what the Bulls plans are...

…considering the Bulls probably don’t have much of one themselves, other than “wait to see how this rookie player and rookie head coach work out.”

by tyger1147 on Oct 5, 2008 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

To you only

when his comments differ from yours.

by sue369 on Oct 5, 2008 7:11 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

As much as I would like Gordon to sign a fatter contract...

I don’t agree with all comments. First “the luxury tax specialist” was to find ways to reduce luxury tax using incentives rules – which very close to rocket science
Second: going into luxury tax would indeed be absurd. Gordon is VERY GOOD but not a 15 million player (12 + 3 of lux tx)
There could be a happy ending next year: if because we can get rid of Gooden’s contract and give Gordon a better one. (that of course if TT does not have a great year and cost us another bunch of millions…)

by JustAnotherFan on Oct 3, 2008 5:52 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Gordon is listed as 6' 3" on Bulls.com. I think he is closer to 5'9"

I talked to him for about 10 minutes in a mall. He was very nice. I gave him a play-by-play of his heroics against the Knicks, particularly the .1 second game winner at MSG. I am 5’9" and Gordon seemed exactly the same height as me. There is no way he is 6’ tall. He is in Nate Robinson territory re his height. That is a severe limitation in the NBA.

by chgobr on Oct 4, 2008 12:05 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Seriously?!?

When he’s standing next to Kirk during games he looks to be just a little bit shorter than Kirk.

by sue369 on Oct 4, 2008 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's precisely right.

Hinrich measured in a little over 6’3" in shoes (they could probably list him at 6’4" if they wanted); Gordon measured in a little over 6’2".

by tyger1147 on Oct 4, 2008 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You've already been called out on this.

Why do you not learn? It’s one thing to have differing opinions on things. It’s completely another to be wrong on facts. There are people who invested millions upon millions of dollars in Gordon who measured him at just over 6’2" in shoes.

by tyger1147 on Oct 4, 2008 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

heh

draftexpress may have their ‘measurements’. But we have the chgobr relative height index.

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 1:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I do remember thinking he was shorter than I thought. Most of time when you meet

one of the players they are taller than you think. I remember seeing BJ Armstrong, Micheal, Scottie and Grant and they seemed to tower over me. I know we are talking about 6’ 2", 6" 6" for Michael and up. Gordon seemed to be at eye level. BJ seemed noticeably taller than Gordon. I certainly could be wrong. I don’t want to ruin the franchise because of my perception. I still can’t believe he is 6’ feet tall.

by chgobr on Oct 4, 2008 5:54 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why?

I mean, I understand your view. I’m 6’2" and I’ve been around college athletics. I’ve been measured and I know others who have. I’ve stood next to guys 6’6" and 6’7" and thought “there is no way they are that tall.” You get a poor perspective standing next to someone. That’s why, when you were a kid and you argued about who was taller w/ a friend, you actually stood back-to-back and had someone else look at it.

Not that I should “care” what you think, but on this one, you should just accept that in shoes, he’s around 6’2" or more.

by tyger1147 on Oct 5, 2008 6:52 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Every photo of Gordon seems to indicate he's somewhere in the 6'2 range.

Not to mention Nate Robinson is 5’9 and Gordon towers over him. I’d just chalk it up to a poor perspective at the time. Either that or he spoke with some Gordon imposter.

by CJ Bulls on Oct 5, 2008 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Do you have the

picture you took with him? Unless there is a picture it is hard to tell. Just looking at a guy you are standing near doesn’t work. I’ve stood next to people I thought I was the same height as but got the film back later and I was clearly much shorter.

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 4, 2008 5:56 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good point - but no picture.

He did like hearing my replay of the Knick game. It was a fantastic moving fade away that won the game.

by chgobr on Oct 4, 2008 7:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Chicago Bulls.
Start posting about the Bulls »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
The Bulls and Young Talent
Blogabull_s_small
Sign up for BlogABull game previews

Recent FanPosts

Small
Interesting Trade Idea: S-Jax & Anthony Randolph
Small
Kudos Bulls. You've surprised early.
Bolo_picture_small
What about Iverson?
Sports
I'm Happy to Have a Break From Tyrus. He's gone anyways.
Small
Game Preview # 6: Bulls vs Charlotte Bobcats
Small
Why isn't there more talk of LeBron...
Small
Contract/Cap Question for BAB
Jayhawk_small
Game Preview # 5: Bulls at Cleveland Cavaliers
Small
We've Got To Rescue D. Wade

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Guy who does everything

Blogabull_s_small your friendly BullsBlogger