Quickthoughts on the impending Ben Gordon negotiation of doom

Is signing Gordon a good long-term decision?

While one can say Gordon can’t get a $10m+ deal from any other team, the Bulls can’t get a player as good as Gordon, either.

I see your point with this. If we lose Gordon, then we will not have as good a shooting guard as him next season. There aren’t any shooting guards of his caliber that we could sign.

But you are at least somewhat implying that Gordon isn’t worth the money he’s asking for. He probably isn’t worth $10 m+ (if no other team would give him that.)

Losing Gordon would hurt the production from our shooting guard position…..for next year. But what about long-term? Do you think that he could be the starting shooting guard who helps us become title-contenders 3 or so seasons from now? (Rose’s presence makes this possible.)

I’m not a Gordon-hater at all. We’ll be a better team with him next year. But what about 2,3 years down the road? If you think he isn’t worth the 10+ million now, then he will only look worse years from now.

by swede2287 on Jul 30, 2008 10:56 PM CDT reply actions 2 recs

Ding ding ding

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 Jul 30, 2008 11:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

IMHO, it's continuing the legacy that Larry Hughes set

Paying too much for a SG that will never be a top-flight 2 guard.

"I tell you, Steve Blass, you pitch me inside, they never, never find that ball."
-Roberto Clemente

by cubbybear on Jul 31, 2008 12:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Washington let him walk for that same reason

and I think they recovered just fine with Stevenson and Caron.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

cleveland was offering almost the max

he was supposed to be robin to Lebron’s batman. Thats why Hughes got paid. They got lucky signing caron after LA let him go after an injury plagued season.

by Blacknight23 on Jul 31, 2008 9:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Duly noted

and guys like Joe Johnson and Michael Redd were taken off the market. And in no way am I intending to imply that BG is another Larry Hughes.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, wasn't there some speculation

that Skiles was looking to get rid of Michael Redd? Not that the Bucks franchise would deal him to Chicago, but I am just wondering…

"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris

by bullhockey on Jul 31, 2008 1:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the dangers of unrestricted FA....

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 31, 2008 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hughes wanted to stay in DC

The Wizards just didn’t want to pay him what it would take to keep him there.

Also, Stevenson was basically a lucky pickup. The Magic let him walk away for nothing, he then played for less than what he could have been paid, all to get more PT a secure a future for himself.

Caron Butler was acquired via trade with the Lakers for Kwame Brown, after they gave Brown a ridiculous contract extension.

The Wizards had a lot of luck and timing on their side to make up for the loss of Hughes.

by NBA Observer on Jul 31, 2008 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't disagree about the luck factor

and I may be wrong but I believe their first attempt at recovering from Hughes’ departure was Antonio Daniels, no? That didn’t work out well.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd take Daniels as a back-up point

in exchange for Nocioni…

by kingj41 on Jul 31, 2008 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

2 or 3 tears from now

In 2 or 3 years from now, Gordon will be in his prime, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Even if he signs a 6 year deal, he’ll still be good at the end of his contract.

by rb22 on Jul 31, 2008 12:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The question isn't "is he good?"

The question is “Is Gordon good enough?”

As an outsider I say Gordon’s obvious limitations are not worth the expense and trouble. He’s a great scorer, great shooter, but his size and lack of defense and the fact he will always be a player you have to compensate for doesn’t make him the likely starting SG for a championship team.

Rose needs people to pass to, and he needs to be developed along with good players or even the best playmaker won’t be successful. The problem is, most don’t think Ben Gordon is a championship caliber SG, and the deal he is looking for most likely locks him up and unless he improves greatly it’ll be another contract hard to trade.

It’s a tough problem, so I don’t envy the decision your front office has to make.

In my opinion, the shorter the deal the better, and the front office actively tries to move him for a player that’s a better fit for Rose. Gordon is good, but not great. He’ll put up good numbers and someone will want him as long as the deal is short—even if it’s 12, 13 million a year.

Since Rose is obviously very young, the next few seasons will have a lot of development (even if you guys are winning enough to make the playoffs, which I expect). There’s a reason there are extremely few PGs who come out after the freshman season. Having a shooter like Gordon around will help him during his developing years, but if the deal is too long you’re stuck with a mismatched player that Rose doesn’t need any more and another albatross contract.

Obviously, it would suck in the short term if you somehow lost Gordon for nothing, but you GOTTA know you can do better than him, right?

Ideally you re-sign him and are able to move him in a year. In time, you’ll find plenty of other people to score the ball and not have to be heavily compensated for.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jul 31, 2008 3:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Championship caliber?

I don’t understand this whole argument about Gordon not being a “championship caliber shooting guard.” WInning a championship has to do with how good your whole team is, and surely Ben Gordon is good enough to be one of the pieces of a championship team.

I think he’s a great fit for a team built around a point guard like Rose. Our offense will be uptempo and built around high ball screen action for Rose to come off and make plays. Gordon will be somebody the defense has to always pay attetion to on the perimeter and in transition, which is very valuable to have in that system. And since Rose is going to dominate the ball and do most of our playmaking, I think a guy like Gordon who doesn’t need to have the ball in his hands all the time to make plays will be a great compliment to him.

I think Rose and Gordon is definitely a “championship caliber” starting backcourt, but it depends on what the other pieces are to make it a “championship calibaer team.”

by rb22 on Jul 31, 2008 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

I think you're right about that.

The big assumption we all have to make right now is that Rose will be as good as we hope/think/pray he will be. If Rose falls short of expectations, everything about our vision for the futureof this team crumbles.

So, if Rose is who we think he is, the Bulls don’t necessarily need a dominating2guard—because they’ll be getting their domination out of the point guard position. And, just as you say, Gordon’s long-range shooting combined with Deng’s medium-range shooting should become incredibly effective offensive weapons.

One can see why Paxson has been pursuing offensive post production this off-season. It’s the main missing piece to a balanced offensive attack.

Will Tyrus be able to develop a well-rounded inside game? The message that Paxson and VDN delivered by “inviting” Tyrus to summer league to get some familiarity with Rose says that they at least hope he can.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree.

How “championship-caliber” SG’s are MoPete and Ronnie Brewer?

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How caliber was Paxson, Fisher, Harper, etc?

These guys aren’t superstars, no one is asking Gordon to be one either. On a team that will be dominated by the PG, you NEED guys who can shoot the lights out. The expendable pieces are up front. Tyrus, Noah, and Gooden need to show something this year that they can fit into a new offense, if not it’s time to re-build up there.

I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)

by Ozzie Montana on Jul 31, 2008 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Those guards you mention were in

A complete different situation. Paxson/Harper played with the best player ever (MJ) and Pippin who was a to 50 NBA player all time and probably only second to Bird as a SF. Horace Grant/Rodman were above average defensively. Cartwright/Brian William (Bison Dele)/Luc Longley were average to above average centers. The Bulls offense didn’t specify a PG as Pippin handled the ball so you essentially played with two SGs.

The Lakers with Harper/Fisher that won championships had Kobe one of the top 5 all time SGs/Shaq possibly the best center ever, two of the best players of their era also running the triangle.

So making comparisons to Gordon to those players is mute. The Bulls do not have that much talent even if Deng/Rose/TT live up to their potential. The certainly do not run the triangle. Lastly the jury is out on if VDN has the potential to become good as Phil Jackson.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Jul 31, 2008 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Those are all great role players

Do you want Gordon to be paid 10-13 million to be a role player?

Compensating heavily on the court for a role player is fine, because you are not relying on them to carry a team, only to help the main guys.

Clearly Gordon is a lot better than the good role players you mentioned, but he’s in that grey area where he’s not nearly good enough to be a star-type player.

Of course, that’s why this is such a conundrum. He’s stuck in between tiers, and wants to be paid like an upper tier. There has never been a player like that where a team was happy they overpaid them. It ALWAYS bites the franchise in their ass.

Don’t be thrown off by the names, but it reminds me of the mistakes Portland made with the Darius Miles and Zach Randolph monster contracts. Both were situations where the team was bidding against themself, for young players who had either shown flashes (Miles) or coming off a 20/10 season (Z-Bo). The normal threats about taking the QO and not signing were sent by the players, and because there wasn’t any other option for the team they got re-signed to big deals.

Those big deals instantly hamstrung the team (along with the Theo Ratliff deal the same summer), and saddled it with mediocre talent. Both players ended up with microfracture, but even before that they just weren’t upper tier players but were being paid like it because they were the best players on a bad team.

Obviously guys like Deng and Gordon are a LOT better, but it’s a similar situation. Neither are upper-tier players. Perhaps Deng can get there (I like him), but while Gordon is young I’m pretty sure Gordon is Gordon. Great shooter, bad ballhandler, bad defender. Getting paid won’t make him suddenly learn those skills that have evaded him all along.

Z-Bo still got 20/10, but he didn’t learn how to pass, how to defend. He’s stuck in-between big men tiers, even though his numbers are nice. I think Gordon is similar in that regard, and also shouldn’t be paid like he is top tier.

Just because there are no immediate alternatives, doesn’t make it the right decision next year or 3 years from now. You know very well what Gordon can’t do, and it isn’t likely to get better. There will always be another option, and staying moderately flexible is probably more important that locking up longterm 2nd tier talent with big money.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jul 31, 2008 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt he's going to be here for the long-term though

In my mind, I feel the deal will be a short term, albeit still giving Gordon a 9-10 million annual salary.

I know what you mean about not paying too heavily for your role players, but it’s near impossible these days to keep a roster stacked with good players on the cheap because once someone has a good season, they almost always jet for more money. It’s so easy with rookie contracts to envision a talented 10 man roster, but after those deals expire it soon becomes a reality how hard it is to actually build a contender for the long-term. I wish Gordon would be a part of the Bulls’ future, but I’m willing to see him go in a year if his financial demands are too high. It’s not his fault, it’s management’s stupid decisions that put them in this cash-strapped bind that is preventing an agreement from being reached.

I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)

by Ozzie Montana on Jul 31, 2008 10:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Brewer is that caliber defensively

So he could work, since his defense on the athletic scoring two guards of the NBA makes a big difference, but Mo Pete isn’t a championship caliber two guard.

And lemme clarify my personal definition of champ-caliber: a player who really helps you on both sides of the ball and you don’t have to heavily compensate for.

Gordon is not a good defensive player and never can be. He can’t guard PGs, he can’t guard SGs. What he can do is shoot, which is great.

If the Bulls face the Lakers in the Finals, is Gordon good enough to match up with Kobe? Even slow him down a little? Can he slow down Ronnie Brewer, for that matter?

I’m not saying every player has to be an allstar, because obviously that isn’t the case. You need dependable players who can go both ways or at least plays a role where his weaknesses aren’t exploited. As a starting SG, his weaknesses will ALWAYS be exploited.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jul 31, 2008 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Guys play roles

Every player on your team doesn’t have to be a good individual defender. You matchup accordingly and play team defense and make the other team try and exploit the best they can. I think if we played the Lakers from the past finals, Deng would start on Kobe. One of Gordon or Rose would play Fisher, and the other would guard Radmanovic. Sure he has a size advantage, but if they want to exploit that then they are running thier offense through him which means less playmaking for Kobe, which is a good thing. Things are much more complicated than just saying “he’s too short to guurd 2 guards” like everybody seems to say. It depends on the matchups and who you can help off of, etc.

by rb22 on Jul 31, 2008 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

nobody can guard kobe

there isn’t a single player in the association that can guard kobe. the celtics slowed him down, so it takes a team effort. any great player is like that. the offensive player always has the edge one-on-one, but thats why playing defense as a team is so important. and in the past, the bulls were a very good defensive team with gordon getting a lot of playing time.

by kite on Jul 31, 2008 2:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Right

Deng and Gordon are nice compliments to an offense built around Rose’s penetration. The missing piece is the big who becomes the screener on the high ball screen action that we’ll probably run. Hopefully this year we’ll be able to tell if Tyrus is capable of becoming that guy, or if we need to look elsewhere.

by rb22 on Jul 31, 2008 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's true you can be a championship team without a "championship sg"....

but we’ve already tied up deng with some serious dollars.

I like deng, but he’s no franchise player.

You give these big dollars to two players who aren’t necessarily “championship caliber” players – then you leave yourself with little room for error in creating a great team.

Yeah – MOPETE and Brewer are not great sg’s and yet there on great teams. But those teams have a front-line of West/Chandler and Boozer/Okur/Millsap.

That puts all-importance on Noah or Tyrus becoming “West, Boozer” players. While that is possible – there’s no real reason we should expect that. They haven’t shown that ability in their careers.

We could go the route of signing BG – but then we would have to have an All-Star frontcourt player. If not, it’s gonna be tough to be a title-contending team in 3 years….which would be a serious waste with Rose on our roster.

by swede2287 on Jul 31, 2008 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's really not too far-fetched to think...

...Gordon+Deng+Thomas+Noah could be greater than either
-Peterson+Peja+West+Chandler or
-Brewer+Kirilenko+Boozer+Okur.

Sure, it’s a long way off, but, um, so is Rose from ever being Deron Williams or Chris Paul. However, he has the potential, and I believe the Bulls foursome has the potential to be better than those other two. And, hell, that’s what path the Bulls are on right now, anyway.

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The huge question mark there is Tyrus....

does Tyrus have ability to be a West or Boozer.

Love the guy, but highly highly doubtful.

And actually that not necessarily the path the Bulls are on. Considering Gordon may not even be on the team next year – that may not be the path we’re on.

by swede2287 on Jul 31, 2008 11:36 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The rebuilding/potential path is definitely what they're on.

And even if Tyrus doesn’t reach those other PF’s, I think Gordon will be better than Peterson was this past year and Noah will be better than Okur was.

Damn, if only Paxson had drafted Brewer or Thabo had become what Paxson thought he would. Ugh.

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well you better pray it's Tyrus

How are you getting this other all-star big? And when you do, you already have Rose maxed out (if he meets BABers expectations), Deng at 12 and gordon at 12. That’s almost 40 mil on the cap right there. Where are you getting the money for the rest of the team and the all-star big?

by CJ Bulls on Jul 31, 2008 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How about the draft?

The draft got ya Rose, and that should work out nice.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’d rather be bad for a painful year and go back into the lottery, even with the complete crapshoot drafting can be (especially big men) and the lack of set knowledge of who would be available, over being sorta-good and locked into long deals.

Anything can happen of course, and maybe locking up Gordon longterm is the right decision.

How many teams with the top scorer being an undersized SG who isn’t a good defender have made it deep into the playoffs, aside from Dywane Wade, who Gordon isn’t as good as? And if he isn’t being signed to be one of the top scorers (or rather, THE top scorer) for the Bulls, what’s the point of signing him to big money?

In my opinion, you can get scoring much more easily than defense and playmaking out of the SG spot. What Gordon does, is replaceable.

I know there are no alternatives right now to Gordon, and next year would suck a bit, which is why I favor a 3 year salary just to benefit Rose’s development. After then though, you gotta find a better lead scorer than that.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jul 31, 2008 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why is Gordon not going to be the lead scorer still?

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That was referring to the counter-argument

Of, Gordon would be the top scorer now to help the team’s offense from not plummeting, but in the future he’d be the 3rd or 4th scorer on the team.

Or that Gordon would move into a sharpshooting ‘role player’ position, as Tyrus/Rose/Noah develop.

And I’m saying, if you’re paying him to be the top scorer, you sorta hope he remains worthy of being the top scorer or it’s a waste of money, since that is all he does well. Granted, he does it pretty well, but not as nicely as other no-defense but high-scoring players such as a Carmelo or Monta.

He is an efficient scorer, and will be a nice target for Rose. But, he’ll always hurt you otherwise. If your other players develop nicely, the need for a guy who just scores goes way down.

And then you’re paying a one-way player big money.

True, I’m assuming the Bulls other young players get better, but I don’t think that is too outlandish.

I’m not saying dump Gordon outright, I favor as short of a contract as possible to aid in the development of Rose. I just don’t see him in the longterm plans, if being all-round solid and contending is the goal (unless Gordon takes a lesser role).

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jul 31, 2008 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You asked

How many teams with the top scorer being an undersized SG who isn’t a good defender have made it deep into the playoffs, aside from Dywane Wade, who Gordon isn’t as good as?

A.I. and theoretically Gilbert Arenas (the Wiz didn’t make it deep into the playoffs, I would say, only because of injuries).

Also, historically, you’d have to consider the Pistons, even tho Isiah barely edges him out in terms of actual PPG. Of course, Dumars was an all-league defender, which BG is… not…

"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris

by bullhockey on Jul 31, 2008 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I thought of Dumars

But like you said, he was an amazing defender and could make plays for others.

A.I. made it to the Finals, but everything about him is an exception. He’s a huge gunner, but he has the ability to set up others as well.

If a guy is giving up something major, such as size, he has to be extremely exceptional in other areas to make it up. Gordon is a terrific scorer, but everything else is sorta lacking, no matter how hard he does try. I don’t think getting one-dimensional scorers is that tough to get, and locking those guys up longterm usually doesn’t end well.

I think your guys will mature past needing someone who only can score.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Jul 31, 2008 2:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Take Wade out as he's not really that undersized

6’ 4.75 in shoes with a 6’ 10.75” wingspan and 8’ 6” standing reach. Any defensive deficiency he has is not driven by a physical limitation unlike BG.

Gordon’s kind of a unique bird. He’s not Iverson-esque but he is a uniquely prolific scorer so I wouldn’t relegate him to just being the top scorer of a team status, rather the potential to be one of the top scorers in the league. The potential, in my opinion, lies in improving his ballhandling because that’s the biggest obstacle I see stopping Gordon from hitting that 25 PPG clip, but it’s also the most baffling because you’d think a guard his size that works as hard as he does would have developed that by now. He’s harder to replace than just a top scorer on a team. With Rose, BG’s exposure to ballhandling deficiencies can be somewhat masked which makes me reallly curious to see how he’ll fare in the new era, even if it’s only for one year. And if Rose is able to guard SGs this really opens up the BG value debate because his glaring weakness will be limited to PGs.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You don't know MoPete and Ronnie Brewer?

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bingo !!

“As an outsider I say Gordon’s obvious limitations are not worth the expense and trouble. He’s a great scorer, great shooter, but his size and lack of defense and the fact he will always be a player you have to compensate for doesn’t make him the likely starting SG for a championship team.”
Bingo – Bingo – Bingo !!!!
Mortimer, thank you for bringing unbiased perspective to the BAB community. I’ve been saying basically the same thing for a week now.

If BG wants the per year money, I offer him a 3 year contract of 10m / year with the third year being a team option. OR, a 6 year contract of no more than 8m / year with the 6th year being a team option.

Paxson (and Matt) are you listening?

by StephenAA on Jul 31, 2008 4:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Trust me,

Matt hears all.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 4:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I like the cut of your gib

Do you risk overcommitting to Gordon when if you don’t the real risk is a one year drop off from what was never a great offensive team (and one coming off a 33 win season) in the first place? I say “no”. What is more important for this Bulls team in the 2008-2009 season? And how important is a Ben Gordon to the Bulls in the 2008-2009 season?

I’m not saying don’t resign him, but I see no reason to overpay him because the team can’t get a SG as good as him for the 08-09 season.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 9:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Or for the 09-10 season.

Unless you’re hoping for McCants or a 34 year old Anthony Parker.

What you do is you hope that a new system, a better player and improvements from current players help take them to average to slightly-above average. Those are incremental improvements. Losing Gordon isa huge downgrade.

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 9:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You know who I'm hoping for

but I won’t beat that horse today.

I like BG and would like to at least see how he fares in the Rose – VDN era at something around $10m per on average and at as short a term contract (2 years?) as possible. If after that point he shows without a doubt he is worth more, then it will be the Bulls time to pay up and it may bite them at that stage. Right now I just have too much uncertainty about his worth to pay what I feel may be a premium, either in dollars or in years.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 9:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And I am equally as curious to see how Thabo fares in VDN's system

I realize I’m probably the only one. But VDN is high on Thabo and I’d like to see what he has planned for the man.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 9:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Thabo can be a lot better.

Just not as a 3-pt shooter. Unless he radically changed his shot this summer.

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Saw him workout, and shoot in a game last week in Switzerland,

he seems to have more arc in his shot now, but not yet great consistency. We’ll see how it goes at the end of training camp in October.

The Game chose him !

by Diabolo on Aug 1, 2008 8:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rose1 posted the idea on another thread

that the Bulls should offer Gordon a 2-year deal, which I think makes all the sense in the world. Not only does it give us the option to save cap room for the 2010 offseason, but if we offer any decent 2-year deal, Gordon will accept it because that means he won’t have to take the $6.4 mil QO.

by YaoPau on Jul 30, 2008 10:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm intrigued by a 2 year deal

For the team, because of 2010 – for BG, although there is some risk with not having more years security, he gets more money now and if he blows up gets another shot at the huge payday pretty soon.

On the other hand, I can see BG not wanting to sign a 2 year, because that absolutely shouts 2010 plan – why would he want to play in Chicago 2 more years, expecting they’ll let him walk after that, rather than getting out next year? His QO is higher than Lu’s, so the gap isn’t as big. He’d almost definitely want some assurances about PT and role on the team if he’s going to be needing to look for a deal in a couple of years. And chemistry wise it’s only marginally better than just playing the one year.

If nothing else, taking Rose will at least piss off Pat Riley.

by wjb1492 on Jul 30, 2008 11:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A two year deal would give Ben a lot more money

If we offer him a 2 year, $20 mil deal, that would be the equivalent of Ben making $6.4 mil this year, then getting $13.6 mil from another team next year, which is by no means a contract he’s guaranteed to get.

On top of that, under the new CBA, and with many teams under the cap, there would potentially be more dollars available for teams to throw excess money at Gordon. Not to mention his stats (and market value) should only improve by playing with Derrick Rose for two years.

by YaoPau on Jul 30, 2008 11:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm just looking at both sides of the argument

And that stats improving part is where he’d be needing assurances about PT and role on the team. So if the Bulls are taking their stance because they don’t value him, those assurances may not be there. And if they’re doing it solely because of the luxury tax, how high are they going to go even on a 2 year deal?

I’m good with him at $10M per – I thought what I’ve been reading about a shorter deal is more in the $12-13M range, the assumption being he would sign that. And I do realize that a 2 year deal is going to pay more than the QO and first year of a new deal, but I’m still not sure BG signs at $10M per.

If nothing else, taking Rose will at least piss off Pat Riley.

by wjb1492 on Jul 31, 2008 1:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Vote YES to 2 more years...

... of high percentage three point shooting.

I think a 2 year deal makes the most sense for everybody. The Bulls get the short term help from the 3 point arc that they will need next two years, Gordon makes more money that he can sign elsewhere for, and everybody gets to play the 2010 lotto. One of the teams opening up cap space for D.Wade or Joe Johnson might miss and be happy to give Gordon all-star money to save some face… and we might sign D.Wade or Joe Johnson… or if we miss, we might sign… Ben Gordon, and talk about how great his work ethic is.

This will be a little bothersome for BG, in that he won’t feel like (and rightly so) part of the teams long term plans, and he won’t have long term security, but I think he would be willing to risk it if his agents explained to him that he could really benefit from the big contract auctions of 2010. I see that as the only way that Ben will ever get the size contract that he thinks he deserves.

Give him 12 per year for two, and trade somebody at the deadline to get under the tax by year end, unless the team is playing well and winning, and then they should just suck it up and pay the tax.

by kidronmusic on Jul 31, 2008 4:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't believe you can offer a 2 year deal by league rules

The minimum extension is 3 years, but I believe the third year can be an option year. That’s what Varejao did, but the third year was a player option. I don’t know if the Bulls could change that to a team option or not.

by CJ Bulls on Jul 31, 2008 5:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This isn't an extension though.

This is a new contract. Last year was the extension. They could sign him for one year if the want because he is a free agent.

"Rest satisified with doing well and leave others to talk of you as they please"

by Bigred15 on Jul 31, 2008 7:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but Varejao had to sign his deal for 3 years last year

That was the minimum. I assume it’s to prevent teams from just overpaying the QO for one year and circumventing the Bird rights rule currently placed on restricted free agents.

by CJ Bulls on Jul 31, 2008 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here is the language

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#36

“When another team wants to sign a restricted free agent, it signs the player to an offer sheet, the principal terms of which the original team is given seven days to match. The offer sheet must be for at least two seasons (not including option years). If the player’s prior team also submitted a maximum qualifying offer, then the offer sheet must be for at least three seasons (not including option years). “

I am assuming the Bulls gave Gordon the max qualifying offer last season. Meaning they have to meet the min 3 year contract.

by CJ Bulls on Jul 31, 2008 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You mean...

You assume the Bulls gave Gordon the max qualifying offer this off-season. The QO is an RFA restriction; Gordon wasn’t a RFA until a few weeks ago. Last off-season they were talking purely about an extension of the original contract.

--Torch

by torch on Aug 1, 2008 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

we wiil not have cap space in 2010 without gordon

Lu Deng 10.5 mil (estimate)
hinrich 9 mil
noce 6.9 mil
rose 4.6 mil
Noah 2.6 mil

Restricted (still on cap)

Ty thomas 6.5 QO times cap hold 2.5=$16.25 mil
Thabo 3.8 mil times cap hold 2.5=9.5 mil

2010 total=59.35 million for 7 players

Where is the the full boat salary space we need to offer ?

by Blacknight23 on Jul 31, 2008 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly, why means a sign-and-trade!

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 10:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

sign and trade who?

tyrus or noah?

by Blacknight23 on Jul 31, 2008 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

if it's for someone special

anyone not named Rose (unless he turns out to not be point god) is then in play

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 31, 2008 10:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was thinking more along the lines of...

...having Deng and Gordon to move. But sure, Thomas and Noah, too. By signing Deng, the Bulls have indicated that they aren’t going to give up for the next two years in some dream scenario of easily being able to lure the best FA’s. Everyone is making cap space for their teams, which is great, but even teams without cap space will have a chance.

Look at this way, if DWade wants to come home to Chicago in two years, cap space won’t be an issue. The Bulls can still offer him a max contract in a sign-and-trade scenario. How about Deng and Hinrich plus a bazillion first rounders. Or Gordon and Nocioni plus… Or even Gordon and Deng plus… If you’re the Heat and your choice is to either lose Wade to a cap-empty team for nothing or to get back a starter and a very good reserve and 1st round picks, I think it’s obvious what they do. These guys (not Nocioni) will still be good players and their contracts won’t be SO ridiculous as to make make losing Wade for NOTHING so enticing.

Since I think, at minimum, Gordon will get back to his 06-07 form (I think he might be slightly better in a better offense), I’m willing to overpay a little for this very reason.

(I do acknowledge that the other option is NOT re-sign Gordon, to trade Hinrich and Nocioni for 2010-friendly contracts and then to go into the FA period w/o having to give anything up. However, w/ what we know about JR’s love for Hinrich and how many other teams will be wanting those 2010 contracts and how little I think of Nocioni’s value, I think my idea is far, far easier. Plus, my idea gives the Bulls a contingency plan (::gasp::) and makes the team more competitive over the short-term as well. The other options don’t do either of those.)

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's a lot more assumptions made in this plan

Chicago or Bust for Wade? Why would he be so hellbent on the Bulls. And why is Miami caring to get back some of the Bulls players. With Gordon being paid 10-12 million, you still have to find $4 more somewhere to get near the cap needed make the deal. So who else are you moving. The only guys left on the roster available are Noah, Hinrich, Noc and Deng. The Bulls wouldn’t give Deng so you think the Heat would take Hinrich and Gordon or Noah and Gordon for Wade, an overpaid Gordon as well. I think that’s crazy. The Heat would rather just keep the cap space and use it on another young star from that class to pair with Beasley.

by CJ Bulls on Jul 31, 2008 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is all my own speculation

but it coincides with Mariotti’s article today. Still reading my post?

D Wade isn’t just a guy who’s from here, he’s a guy who’s proud to be from here, who advertises that he’s from here. He bought his mom a church here. He openly acknowledged and welcomed a trade here when it was rumored in the offseason. This all means nothing, of course, but it makes guys like me think the Bulls would be his preferred destination if he does intend to leave Miami. Where else would he prioritize as a destination if he decides to leave Miami? Where the money is, sure, where he can win, sure, but I’m also assuming the Bulls will be able to offer both as well.

The Bulls would give anyone not named Rose up for Wade and you would, too. If Miami is going to lose Wade anyway, might as well get something back in return.

I beat this horse today when I said I wouldn’t.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well, you and I are in this camp together.

The Bulls either need the space completely to sign Wade outright, or they need the assets to do a sign-and-trade.

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wade was one example of a FA.

You can substitute any other for Wade and the Heat. It wasn’t an assumption, it was an example. So where are the other parts of “a lot”?

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As it is now, the heat are waaaaaay under the cap for 2010.

Especially if Wade leaves. So they can still sign Bosh or James (assuming, there ya go, they want to go there) or whomever and still get something back for Wade.

There are far fewer assumptions in any of my scenarios than that of assuming Chicago is where every FA will want to come in 2010.

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well I guess we'll just have to disagree

But what would the Bulls offer in a sign and trade that would be more valuable then the cap space Miami would have? I don’t see anything on this roster. And the players that do hold sign/trade value are untradeable (see Deng, Rose).

They’ll just say no to the sign/trade and tell Dwyane to find another team to sign and trade. What’s the worst he can do? He can’t go to the Bulls so he’ll move on. Sign with another team and they’ll have the cap room or they can find a better sign/trade partner.

It’s not like other teams won’t be offering a sign/trade package as well, not to mention the 10 teams already under the cap like the Knicks for example. He’ll just move on. Do you really think he wants to play for Chicago that bad? Or that Mariotti has any insight into this matter?

by CJ Bulls on Jul 31, 2008 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

linking tyger's comments to mariotti's column? Ouch!

That’s hitting below the belt.

But there is some definite allure to a Chicago born and bred back court.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mariotti?

I’ve read two Mariotti columns in my life and they were both baseball-related last year. I have no idea what he has to do with it.

And Deng is NOT untouchable in a sign-and-trade for Wade, James, Bosh, etc.. You made a HUGE assumption there.

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 2:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My mistake

Messwiththebull pulled Mariottis comments, not you. You’ll see them just above yours.

I do think Deng is untouchable. Only because Wade comes here to play with Deng and Rose, not Gordon and Rose. Otherwise, who is Rose excited about playing with here? Everyone else on the roster is a middling player. And he clearly can not fit on the court with Gordon and Rose.

by CJ Bulls on Jul 31, 2008 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thomas and Noah?

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Noah could maybe have value by then

But then who are the big guys on the team? IAnd he certainly doesn’t have enough value by himself and if I’m Miami I’m not taking his and the overpaid Gordon contract for him.

Tyrus is a restricted free agent so you’d have to sign/trade him which adds a whole nother set of obstacles into the picture (that assumes he wants to play in miami for whatever miami wants to pay him when he can sign anywhere). Tyrus will also have finished his 4th year by then. What if he’s the same player we have now? What is his value then?

With a sign/trade you are no longer in control. The player and their original team hold all the cards.

by CJ Bulls on Jul 31, 2008 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Considering that he would play the position that Gordon plays

I would think that would be more the reason why Gordon wouldn’t be a factor in his enthusiasm to play here.

I didn’t necessarily pull Mariotti’s comments either. I’ve been on the D Wade is coming to Chicago bandwagon for a while now. Mariotti just happened to write a similar opinion, but it’s no surprise as I suspect he reads BaB, too.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 4:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well,

Not where EVERY free agent will want to go, but I do see it as an attractive destination, and think that we would be foolish not to be players in 2010.

I think we should load up on 2010 expiring deals, we already have Hughes, if we can somehow turn Nocioni into Brad Miller… I think we have to do it.

If we don’t want to play the free agent derby ( I want too) then those expiring deals will become very valuable at the deadline.

by kidronmusic on Jul 31, 2008 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You're right.

Any trader will tell you you have to be prepared for known future events.

If you know the fed will cut/not cut interest rates at 1:15 pm, you don’t get stuck in a big bond position at 1:00. It’s just common sense.

The Bulls have to prepare themselves for 2010, no question about it.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes...

We are a major market team, with many young talented role players, and top ten small forward and hopefully, and top five(ish) point guard, I can’t see that many teams that offer a better package than we do.

1. New Jersey (for Lebron, we don’t have Jay-Z, and he has a love affair with NY)

2. New York (Madison Square, and the biggest market of all, plus Mike D’antoni might have patched the hole’s in the ship by then)

... then what? maybe…

3. Miami ( If D. Wade leaves, they will have oodles of cap room, a stud offensive player in Beasley, and South Beach)

We are at least a top four destination… and at least 4 all star level players should be changing teams that year…

I’ll take those odds. It seems like the at worst we would still walk with Joe Johnson…

by kidronmusic on Jul 31, 2008 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ugh

Cedric Simmons QO, too (assuming he’s still on the roster). I see why tyger1147 has been advocating a sign-and-trade but I also believe that a roster (moderate) overhaul will occur prior to that time as well.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

forgot about simmons

i totally agree about roster overhaul but it should start with Noce for a trade exception

by Blacknight23 on Jul 31, 2008 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Simmons has a team option

that will be declined.

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 31, 2008 10:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Best case scenario

I think the best case scenario for all parties is if Gordon can get a lucrative offer to play overseas for 1 year. We retain his restricted free agent rights and will have more cap space next year to resign him (maybe) and he gets to get paid more than 6.4 million this year. Thoughts?

by Jamaicanpi on Jul 30, 2008 11:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I'd even rather have him sign the QO...

I think he his short term value is better than his long-term value for us.

Our offense will struggle mightily next year if we don’t have him. But a few years down the road, I think we could have a better shooting guard than him.

Not saying the QO is ideal by any means – but I’d rather have that than him playing in Europe.

by swede2287 on Jul 30, 2008 11:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think a 2-3 year deal could be arranged

I’m sure Gordon is desperate for long-term security, but at this point he could be persuaded to sign a shorter deal with the promise that he would be the starting SG unless things went horribly wrong.

I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)

by Ozzie Montana on Jul 30, 2008 11:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

When we talk about a possible "better shooting guard than Ben Gordon",

who do we think we might possibly get?? Given the high level of Gordon’s play, if he were to leave, we’d probably be looking for a starter (despite the fact that Gordon has been shoved to the bench). But we need to keep in mind what this team already has. It already has a slasher in Rose, and somewhat in the other perimeter guys (Deng, Thabo, Hughes). It already has a guy who can hit mid-range jumpers all day long (Deng). So what we need is a deadly 3-point shooter at the SG position. That leaves a relatively narrow range of options:

Per ESPN’s stat page, only 6 guys in the league were better from 3 than Ben Gordon:
Hamilton
Parker
Vujacic
Carroll
Miller
Dunleavey

Hamilton’s going to be too old sooner rather than later, and although he hit a high percentage from 3, I’d characterize his game as pretty much duplicative of Deng’s in that he pretty much hits mid range jumpers off of screens all day long. Toronto’s not giving up Parker anytime soon; plus, he’s only at 12.5 ppg, and he doesn’t get to the line much. Vujacic just got re-signed to the finals squad Lakers, so he’s off the list. Matt Carroll is a “technician” type guy and my perception is that his game is too limited to be a starter on a championship level squad. Mike Miller has the height, but also has problems with his defense and, per other posts on BaB, is decidedly un-clutch. I like Dunleavey, but again, defensively challenged, and there’s some doubt, apparently, about whether he can continue to produce as well as he has recently.

As you move down the list on that same stats page, of the next 10 players or so, most of them are not even close to 18ppg scorers, which Ben Gordon is. Rashad McCants is younger, and comes in at about 15ppg, but he doesn’t get to the line. Leandro Barbosa can hit the 3-ball, but running off of screens is not really his game, as he typically handles the ball and pushes the pace, which is what Rose should be doing. And he’s undersized and not a great defender, so why give up on Ben Gordon to get him?

The way I see it, there are only 3 guys who can hit 3’s consistently who would interest me: Kevin Martin would be great, but there’s no way Sacramento’s giving him up.

Jason Richardson is a thought; he’s older than Gordon, and again, not known for his defense, but has shown glimmers of being that transcendant star that all championship teams need.

And Joe Johnson would intrigue me as well; my first impression is that the Hawks would never trade him or let him go, but on the other hand, they are the Hawks.

Unless the Bulls are going to get one of these 3guys, or unless they get a stop-the-presses type of offer for a truly transcendant talent (dreaming of Kobe; we’ve all been there before), then the Bulls need to stop all the posturing and find a way to pay Ben his money.

"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris

by bullhockey on Jul 30, 2008 11:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Trust me, we all want Gordon for a couple years

We could see video game type numbers from Gordon next year playing beside Rose. (50% from 3’s?)

It’s the long term commitment that I have concerns with. I don’t think Gordon is a championship-quality starting shooting guard, and against the better playoff teams he could potentially be taken out of the game completely like he was against the Pistons.

by YaoPau on Jul 31, 2008 12:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

However,if you think Derrick, Deng, Tyrus and maybe Noah will be better

And Hinrich will be gone eventually, then he’s the fifth starter, and maybe the third scoring option, for $10M. I’m against signing him for more than 2 years, but that’s me.

"I tell you, Steve Blass, you pitch me inside, they never, never find that ball."
-Roberto Clemente

by cubbybear on Jul 31, 2008 12:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why, though?

He won’t be worse than he is now, and if all the other starters are better than him, it means you have a great, great team. Even if you slot Tyrus, Noah and Rose in for max extensions (not likely), you’re still talking less than $60 million for your starters.

A few things:
A) Yes, that’s ridiculous.
B) However, if you consider Ben Gordon really darn good right now, and he won’t get worse, and you have four players better than him, you migh just have the best starting 5 in the league.
C) That’s worth it, isn’t it?
D) They can fill in the bench with draft picks.
E) JR will go into tax territory if he has the best starting 5 in the NBA.
.....

I’m too lazy to go on. Having Gordon make $10 mil and be the fifth best starter is about the best possible scenario.

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 8:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can skew the stats anyway you like...

but undersized one-dimensional undersized shooting guards are not in high demand around the league…

I think you are reaching to compare Gordon to Hamilton, that is apples and avocados. Gordon’s game is nowhere near the level of Rip Hamilton, nor has achieved anything close to what Rip has achieved…Gordon is more like a bad dribbling version Barbosa or Daniel Gibson with playing time…his contract should reflect that…You are interested in Martin, Richardson and Johnson, but none of their teams would trade those players straight up for Gordon, because they are all better basketball players than Gordon…Kevin Martin is the youngest and from the same draft as Gordon, his contract is 5 years, $55 million. So, Gordon should get less than that, because he is a lesser player. I am thinking 3 years, $24 million

I don’t think the Bulls would endorse any deal that puts them into the luxury tax. So there is no way he getting more than Luol or Hughes…but he doesn’t deserve it…If he gets resigned, the first year will be around $8 million.

by Dionysus2.0 on Jul 31, 2008 9:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

did you mention he's undersized?

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 31, 2008 10:09 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let's be fair

Gordon has a higher ceiling than Rip Hamilton, and it’s not just because he’s shorter and there’s more space between the top of his head and said ceiling. Gordon has shown he can take over a game even by going outside of the system.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 10:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's effin' hilarious.

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No way.

by swede2287 on Jul 31, 2008 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He’s kidding, right?

by ridindirty on Jul 31, 2008 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

About believing that Gordon has a higher ceiling?

Yes, I really do believe that, both literally and figuratively. I’m not saying he’s a better player today, although I’m sure that could be argued as well.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 12:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

First, Rip Hamilton was a castoff before going to the Pistons

He was kicked around the league until he found a home in Detroit. And it was only the fact that Dumars bet correctly on him and the other castoffs all working selflessly together at the right time in their careers that made Hamilton’s current reputation. He wasn’t an All-Star until well after the Pistons won their championship. So it’s a little silly to put him up on some pedestal. To quote Sam Smith, Rip Hamilton was not as good of a player in his first 3 years as Gordon was in his first 3.

Second, no one’s advocating a straight up trade of Ben Gordon for any of the 3 SG’s I mentioned above. My point was simply that if Ben Gordon leaves, who are you going to get who’s better? Because there are a lot of guys who are worse. Height or no height, a lot of the people who’d be taking Ben’s place would be just a lot worse.

And speaking of height, you can knock him all you want, but regardless of his height, he puts up great numbers. There are very few people in the world who can do what he can do at such a high level with such efficiency.

"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris

by bullhockey on Jul 31, 2008 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rip wasn't kicked around

He was a Wizard and Jordan sent him to the Pistons for their best (yet older) player in Jerry Stackhouse.

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 31, 2008 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I overstated that one...

It’s not a reach to compare Gordon and Hamilton.

"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris

by bullhockey on Jul 31, 2008 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What kind of SGs are on the Bobcats?

I’d like to help MJ make some more foolish moves.

by NBA Observer on Jul 31, 2008 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

was that meant to be

rhetorical?

Answer is Jason Richardson and Matt Carroll. (and I guess Adam Morrison)

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 31, 2008 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If BG went to UNC a J Rich trade would have happened already

I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)

by Ozzie Montana on Jul 31, 2008 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm sure he'd be happy to be reunited with Emeka :-D

by fundamentallysound on Jul 31, 2008 2:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

ummm...

JR smith …anyone??? Look at his minutes..then look at his stats…just crazy… and he would be cheaper…

by masputo on Jul 31, 2008 12:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

no

by Scotter on Jul 31, 2008 12:16 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

He's crazy

"I tell you, Steve Blass, you pitch me inside, they never, never find that ball."
-Roberto Clemente

by cubbybear on Jul 31, 2008 12:16 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

he's talented..

and young…..immature? yes…..but maturity comes with time..he will be surrounded by a lot of young guys who are mature and who have a good work ethic..minus noah….. that can be contagious… that risk with that upside for about 4-5 mill per year…..i say its worth taking the risk…..

by masputo on Jul 31, 2008 12:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's a reason he only plays 19 min per game

It’s not because he’s coachable…

If it weren’t for the attitude, and the fact that the Bulls gave him away the first time they had him, he might be a possibility. But I don’t see that as realistic at this point.

"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris

by bullhockey on Jul 31, 2008 12:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You posted this elsewhere, but I'll reply here

I doubt the Bulls have the team that can coax a headcase into working hard. There’s no one that will stand up and tell him “play hard or I will break you in half”, there’s no superstar who puts any kind of expectation on lesser teammates. Everyone works hard because that’s just how they were brought up as basketball players, and Paxson has tended to stay away from players who could be considered lazy. Smith is a good alternative if Gordon cannot be signed, but I just don’t have faith, and don’t want to see another malcontent screw up team chemistry for such a young group of guys.

I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)

by Ozzie Montana on Jul 31, 2008 12:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He has yet to get a call from an NBA for his services this summer.

I don’t hve the link, so believe me at your peril.

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 8:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Neither has Gordon.

...because other teams are convinced the Nugs will match.

by Dionysus2.0 on Jul 31, 2008 9:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But he's not even negotiating w/ the Nuggets.

Which is, um, a HUGE difference.

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well..

can it really get any worse than last year?? i mean, we missed the playoffs in the east..

by masputo on Jul 31, 2008 12:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

and yea..

i wasnt getting any action at the posting….sorry

by masputo on Jul 31, 2008 12:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gordon will re-sign

but it will probally be a 3-4 year deal.

Homecoming

by illwill on Jul 31, 2008 12:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

highest paid player on team...

i don’t believe that gordon wants to be the highest paid player on the team. especially the part about him wanting more than wallace last year and now wanting more than hughes. it just seems stupid. if he was demanding more than 15/per last year, and now has reduced it to just more than 13/per because hughes is now the highest paid player on the team and wallace is no longer on the team… i don’t know, it just seems stupid. it just doesn’t seem professional (not the “classy” kind of professional, but the “actually know what the hell you’re doing” professional). it makes me think that either gordon or his agent (or both) don’t really know what they’re doing. i don’t think they’d lower their asking price just because wallace got traded. either he still wants more than 15/per or the guy that wrote the article (hanley?) doesn’t know what he’s talking about (or is making it up)

by kite on Jul 31, 2008 2:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I think the negotiations with Gordon are basically over

As noted, the Bulls only have 8 million left before the luxury tax. And they’re not crossing the tax unless it’s for a championship. I think the Bulls, by signing Deng, have made their final offer. 8mm plus the 15% annual raise. Take it or leave it.

by CJ Bulls on Jul 31, 2008 5:52 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I need to point something out that is not being mentioned.

A number of us have said this, but maybe not quite so explicity: The Bulls created this situation themselves. A lot of Gordon’s value in this situation is relative to the Bulls. People continue to seem to deny this. However, in the other four future starters, the players are, at worst, defensive-minded (PF/C) and, at best, balanced (PG/SF). Not until you get to the 7th, 8th and 9th men in Hughes, Nocioni and Gray do you get offensively-minded players—an they all suck, to varying degrees.

The Bulls “made their bed” so to speak when they drafted Tyrus Thoms, Joakim Noah and then Derrick Rose instead of LaMarcus Aldridge, Spencer Hawes and/or Michael Beasley. If the Bulls had drafted one or all of three of those guys, they would have a brighter offensive future going forward. I’m not sure they would have a better future “overall”, but the offense certainly would. If they had Aldridge and Hawes up front, I’d be much more willing to let them develop their offensive games and let Gordon walk. I wouldn’t besurprised if right now, they were wishing they had drafted the younger Hawes instead of the older-than-Thomas/Deng/Rose-ready-contribute Noah.

But they didn’t. And the fact of the matter is that while Gordon has historically been one of the more efficient and semi-productive SG’s, the team has still been a below-average offense. If the team gets rid of him now, it becomes a bottom-rung offense. And even though some want to stick to Gordon’s “worth” in a vaccuum, he has a separate worth to this team.

As the economists have pointed out, is it worth possibly hampering Rose’s development just to “win” against Gordon? The Hornets had 811 3FGA at a 42% between Peja and Mo-Pete ONLY last year; The Jazz shot far fewer 3’s, but still had three guys who could hit 38%. If Gordon goes, you’re looking at guys that shoot 35-36%, and all three of those guys (Hinrich, Nocioni and Hughes) are the ones the Bulls need to get rid of.

No, Gordon is not irreplaceable. And if he had come up w/ New Orleans or Utah or Boston or who the hell ever, he’d be worth considerably less. But he didn’t. And Bulls have zero offensive-minded players that are any good. If Gordon leaves, one should expect the team to have one of he worst offenses in the league, one should not bitch about how bad Rose looks or how the other teams “pack the middle” or any other such nonsense. Gordon obviously isn’t the end-all, be-all to this team, but he is, thanks to the dealings of Paxson, a huge, huge part to half of the game.

(I’m sure that only partially makes sense. I was going to type something up last night but got distracted, and I thought I’d add on here. I didn’t proofread so please forgive me if my thoughts are muttled.)

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 9:04 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs

I'll also add...

...that somehow getting Brad Miller for back-ups would help this tremendously as well. If they got only Miller (and it was for Nocioni), I think I’d still want Gordon, but wouldn’t feel as desperate. Getting Miller and somehow an actual good back-up guard would make Gordon a lot more expendable.

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 9:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Love the guy (when he's streaking), but...

...am I the only one who thought it was painful to see him routinely dribble himself into a corner and then jack up an impossible, flailing shot instead of looking for the open man?

I think being the leading scorer is a little misleading, if he weren’t on the team someone else would wind up getting his touches and would score at least as many points as he did, maybe more. He isn’t the most consistent player on the team.

Funny that, for leading the team in scoring for three years, he’s still never been an All-Star…never even seriously considered.

I agree the Bulls put themselves in this position, but I wouldn’t be devastated to see him take his tender offer and leave.

by POSEYHATER on Jul 31, 2008 9:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gordon scores much more efficiently than anyone else, so yes someone might replace his points

but they would likely do it very inefficiently – i.e. taking a lot more shots to accomplish it – (I’m looking at you, Larry Hughes). And as anyone who knows anything about winning basketball getting points efficiently and preventing the other team from getting them efficiently is the way you win ball games. The Bulls will be very, very bad next year on offense if they don’t have Gordon dropping 18 points a game on 55% True Shooting percentage. It’ll be ugly. Seriously.

by fundamentallysound on Jul 31, 2008 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

anyone who knows anythign about winning basketball will tell you*

by fundamentallysound on Jul 31, 2008 9:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ditto, fundamentallysound,

My post (below) was frozen in “Posting…” mode just as yours appeared. Cheers!

"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris

by bullhockey on Jul 31, 2008 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If it's Larry Hughes who will be "replacing" BG

then pay the man his money yesterday. I am going to say that I expect a breakout year for Thabo next year. What that translates to, I don’t know, but I see no reason to mention Hughes name as part of any Bulls future unless it is in regards to a trade or we are cursing his name.

But after reading all these posts and calming down out of my recent tough guy/Hulk smash mode, I am warming up to the idea of resigning BG. However, let’s give the VDN offense a chance, especially as its being driven by Rose, before we automatically assume the Bulls will have a bad offense without BG. This is not the Skiles/Boylan offense and as much as that is etched in our minds, those days and that system are gone. Would we feel the same way with a D’Antoni led offense sans BG? Or would we be a bit more optimistic about the offense’s chances?

Hopefully this is all moot, the Bulls resign BG to a deal both parties are happy with, and we never have to mention Hughes name again unless it is regarding a trade or we are cursing his name.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thabo can break out

as Deng’s backup. I think that’s the tempered expectation I have of him. Also, it would mean the Noc is gone.

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 31, 2008 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

"the Noc"

hahaha

"I'm a Bulls fan," -Barack Obama

by Goostafer on Jul 31, 2008 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I realize the accepted wisdom

is that Larry Hughes is simply the new body in which Ben Wallace’s killer contract currently resides…but not that many years ago he was the pro version of Rose’s college team-mate Chris Douglas-Roberts.

Before Cleveland turned him into a 3 point line hugging chucker he was a pretty good slasher who fed off the drives of more talented team-mate Gilbert Arenas. Yes, Gilbert used to dominate the ball, but nothing like LaBron does in Cleveland.

As long as we’re compiling a list of players whose games will benefit from playing with Rose, perhaps we should offer the same courtesy to everyone’s favorite whipping boy. After all, the Bulls will definitely need another ball handler, and right now, after Rose, the next best guy just might be LH.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

always the contrarian, alec :-P

by fundamentallysound on Jul 31, 2008 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You gotta buy the dips and sell the rallies ;)

It’s much more fun than being a front-runner.

It’s also a good reason the Bulls should try to lock up Ben Gordon right now, while they have the chance. If his 2007-08 had built on his 06-07, the Bulls would be looking at much, much bigger dollars to retain him.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You could say signing BG is like buying the dips

or you could say it’s like trying to catch a falling knife. Or he trades sideways and the money would be better spent elsewhere.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mainly, you want to avoid getting killed, and I don't see paying Gordon

after an off-year as being anything like catching a falling knife.

Buying sideways is fine, because it allows you time to see if you can make him fit. If it doesn’t work out, you can always shuffle him along to someone else for a mutually better fit.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Indeed

Doesn’t anyone remember how promising his future was in Philly?

Different systems yield different results…

by POSEYHATER on Jul 31, 2008 11:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He wasn't that good in Philly, or in Golden State

His one true “good” year was in Washington, and it looks like that was an aberration considering how poorly he played in Cleveland. He may not be a spot-up shooter, but one would think you could adapt your style to play with LeBron James.

I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)

by Ozzie Montana on Jul 31, 2008 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He was good in the Finals with the Answer

by POSEYHATER on Jul 31, 2008 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He was not on the team that year

Their backcourt was Eric Snow and AI, and the backups were Aaron McKie and Raja Bell.

I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)

by Ozzie Montana on Jul 31, 2008 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Whoops!

My memory fails me yet again. Must stop growing old, this minute!

by POSEYHATER on Jul 31, 2008 12:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's fine except...

...he’s come w/ a me-first attitude that could be the same cancer Wallace was, and he doesn’t fit into the plans past 2010 so the who the hell cares anyway?

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...I, for one, plan on watching the Bulls

for the next two years.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But I do agree with your comment about his attitude.

It’s pretty hard to stomach.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

at best I see him

as close to a 15 PER. that’s not anywere near gordon territory

by gman2849 on Jul 31, 2008 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thabo... that is whom I am referring to.

by gman2849 on Jul 31, 2008 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sure it is

Gordon’s PER:

‘04-05 14.92
‘05-06 14.59
‘06-07 18.31
‘07-08 16.52

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

with all the above posts, from tyger1147’s and down. BG is our the most proficient scorer on the team and having KH at the 2 most of the time scares the hell out of me. All this being said, do you really think we should pay him more than 6 man money? The point I am trying to make is that while you are right on most, if not all your points, does that make it right to overpay him and decrease our future flexibility? A bad contract is a bad contract, whether you are forced into it or not. BG does not deserve Kevin Martin money, that is for sure, even if he fills that roll on this team.

by ridindirty on Jul 31, 2008 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I actually think it increases flexibility.

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

what type of contract are you envisioning?

by ridindirty on Jul 31, 2008 12:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I’d rather the Bulls find new ways to get scoring then to overpay for a limited player who’s salary will severely limit them in the long run.

by RogersPark Kris on Jul 31, 2008 9:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

how does gordons salary hamper the bulls cap.

by Blacknight23 on Jul 31, 2008 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

if he's demanding what's been reported

he would cripple our ability to sign someone better and/or extend guys like Tyrus and JoNo down the line, or so the argument goes.

by fundamentallysound on Jul 31, 2008 10:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

sorry for the repost

we wiil not have cap space in 2010 without gordon
Lu Deng 10.5 mil (estimate)
hinrich 9 mil
noce 6.9 mil
rose 4.6 mil
Noah 2.6 mil

Restricted (still on cap)

Ty thomas 6.5 QO times cap hold 2.5=$16.25 mil
Thabo 3.8 mil times cap hold 2.5=9.5 mil

2010 total=59.35 million for 7 players

Where is the the full boat salary space we need to offer ?

by Blacknight23 on Jul 31, 2008 10:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I see $15.9m that needs to be gone from that

but who’d give up expiring deals for those two? Can the Bulls benefit from the Greater Fool theory?

Blacknight23 could also have added Cedric Simmons’ QO to his list as well to paint a grimmer picture.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Take Hinrich and Gordon's proposed contract off the books in 2012

That’s a good 20 million in cap space that I’d rather have than an aging bench player that by then will be extremely hard to trade and put the Bulls out of the 15 mil plus free agents.

by RogersPark Kris on Jul 31, 2008 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

Above is cap space without Gordon. What does it say about Pax if he deemed two of his top ten picks busts? (hinrich 7 gordon 3) If Pax was thinking ahead he would have traded a couple of pieces from the bulls roster before this summer.

by Blacknight23 on Jul 31, 2008 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Release the cap holds, you lose guys but consider it like a trade

Hypothetically Gordon, Tyrus and Thabo for DWade/Bosh sounds good to me. And if you can move Noc, you can keep Thabo. Or you can use an exception to sign Thabo.

by CJ Bulls on Jul 31, 2008 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Then it is up whoever believes this...

...to offer at least a few specific possibilities. It’d benice if one is going to poo-poo a strategy to at least offer a reasonable one in return.

by tyger1147 on Jul 31, 2008 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

5 years is a long time

You’re telling me during that whole span that there won’t be any free agents that the Bulls could go after??

by RogersPark Kris on Jul 31, 2008 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

we wont have the cap space

by Blacknight23 on Jul 31, 2008 10:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

who's not limited and also limits the Bulls limits?

not really.

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 31, 2008 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Too late

They already resigned Nocioni!!!

by bigballa10 on Jul 31, 2008 2:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I don't think VDN will do Gordon Iso's with the game on the line.

But look at the two guys who did do that: Skiles had arguably quit on his team, and Jim B* was, um, how do I say this without sounding mean, he was coaching challenged. And really, in the worst down year of Bulls offense, who the hell was Gordon going to pass to anyway?

Suffice it to say that none of us expect to see a Gordon isolation with the game on the line.

Also, it seems you’re arguing that someone else would have gotten Gordon’s points if he wasn’t there. But who shot as well as he did from the floor, and especially from 3? Given the offensive anemia on this team, how can you assume that the shortfall would have just magically been made up elsewhere?

I think a stronger argument would be that with Thabo in Gordon’s place, the Bulls would’ve had better D, and therefore would have to score less. That’s a different argument altogether. But to say that

if he weren’t on the team someone else would wind up getting his touches and would score at least as many points as he did, maybe more. He isn’t the most consistent player on the team.

I mean, maybe it’s just me, but that just doesn’t sound right in terms of what assumptions you can reasonably make…

"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris

by bullhockey on Jul 31, 2008 9:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Good points all...

I guess I got a little carried away after my initial point, which was about the isolation plays mostly.

When he’s hot, he’s hot, and it’s hard not to like him. Replacing his scoring if he were gone wouldn’t (and won’t) be as easy as I first suggested. However, his reliance on isolation plays and lack of consistent defense, does make him about as useful as World B. Free (I was going to post a link, but I’ll let the young guys look him up).

by POSEYHATER on Jul 31, 2008 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rose is on the team now

and should be figured in when criticizing Gordon on the things he had to do with the absence of people who would spread the court out and handle ball. Gordon trying to do too much isn’t a pretty thing, but by taking half the responsibility away he won’t need to play so desperately. The ball will mostly be in Rose’s hands.

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 Jul 31, 2008 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

True

Just some thoughts, since we’re considering Gordon’s worth based on the Bulls’ new look with Rose and VDN:

1) A lot of people are going to look a lot better with Rose on the team (like Tyson Chandler looks a lot better now that he’s playing with CP3), couldn’t a cheaper 3-point specialist fill the same role Gordon would in VDN’s new offense?

2) Also, if Gordon’s success in a Bulls uniform will to a certain degree depend on Rose’s brilliance at point guard…what kind of contract is that worth? Should his contract be more than Dengs?

by POSEYHATER on Jul 31, 2008 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've been advocating the "cheaper 3-point specialist" for a long time.

But I don’t think most people here will take the idea seriously if/until BG is no longer on the team.

Rightfully so, the first choice would be to retain Gordon at an affordable price, but if that doesn’t work out, the Bulls will be forced to attempt to come up with a no-doubt even more limited alternative.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 11:51 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

As alluded to by others, Gordon is not actually just a 3-point specialist.

That would be more your Matt Carrolls, Jason Kaponos or Jannero Pargos.

Gordon actually brings more to the table, as he handles the ball a lot more than those guys, does get to the rack (though not nearly enough) and the line, and is stronger. He also brings volume of scoring, a clutchness and intangibles that those other guys do not bring. This is another way of saying that he’s won a lot more, has a particularly notable work ethic, and has actually won games for his team, often by shooting them back into those games when they were down big.

But where I agree with you is in the fact that the Bulls seem to want to push him to become a bench player. If they actually want a bench player in his roster slot, then maybe at that point they should abandon all of these other things he brings to the table and just bring in a 3-point shooting specialist, who is nothing more.

But to say that BG’s nothing more than a 3-point shooter is too simplistic.

"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris

by bullhockey on Jul 31, 2008 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with you.

When I was seriously (well…seriously?) advocating for a cheaper 3-point specialist, it was in conjunction with a better-rounded player than Deng at sf—Iggy.

Now that we’ve inked Deng long-term we have to get more than your basic long-ball specialist at sg. As I said above, retaining Gordon would be the first choice.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

His step back jumper is sick, too

from nearly anywhere on the court.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Slightly off topic, but not good enough for a fanpost...

If Gordon walks, we will at least want a 3 point specialist...

I realize that logic would dictate that if JJ Redick we’re good enough and healthy enough to be a Ben Gordon/Michael Redd type of player (sweet shot, shitty D), the Magic would probably be using him…

But the guy has such a great shot, and on our team, especially if we lose Gordon, I think that is all the reason we would need to get after him.

Not that we need guards, but we definitely need outside shooters…

by kidronmusic on Jul 31, 2008 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You aren't the only one

Carlos Zambrano and Rich Harden. Now that's a pair of Aces.

by sue369 on Jul 31, 2008 9:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

It’s just poor planning by Pax to let a marginal player feel like he commands a max salary. And he painted himself into a corner where there’s more pressure to keep Gordon around than should be.

by CJ Bulls on Jul 31, 2008 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Friendly BullsBlogger, I agree 100%

by JustAnotherFan on Jul 31, 2008 11:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Chris Paul and Chandler

last year was phenomenal and I see Derrick Rose and Tyrus Thomas duo as dido. Plus Gooden can give you that Davis West post presence.

by D.Rose23 on Jul 31, 2008 12:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Gooden doesn't equal West

West’s value isn’t as a post presence, it’s as the ball screener for Paul. He’s effective because he can score in alot of ways after setting the screen and his man and Paul’s man have to pay attention to him while also trying to contain Paul. Gooden isn’t the offensive threat to make this happen. I think what would be ideal would be to try and develop Tyrus as that guy. Amare has been that guy for Nash and used his athleticism but is now even more effective as he’s added a consistent jumper to about 18 feet or so. I think the Bulls need to work on this alot this year and see if Tyrus can become that guy. Noah is actually more of the Chandler type as somebody you don’t run plays for but contributes with offensive rebounds, being active around the basket, etc.

by rb22 on Jul 31, 2008 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, the perfect guy for the job is...

Michael Beasley.

But I think that Deng has the potential to become that guy, too.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

this will make you happy.

Here we can see that through the first 4 years of their careers Deng and West are already fairly similar players and that Luol is 4 years younger than West. Luol at age 23 is already much better than what West was when he entered the league at 23. Food for thought. Also, interestingly West had a “regression” season in his 4th year after breaking out in year 3. In his 5th year (this year), he returned to his high level of play.

by fundamentallysound on Jul 31, 2008 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, that almost makes me happy…

if only I’d gone all-in short the Euro on the opening…now that’d make me happy. ;)

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I could see Ty being an effective

pick-and-pop guy. At least the “pop” part.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Rose and Deng could develop a real nice two-man game,

very much along the lines of CP and West…all the way down to Tyrus playing the Chandler roll of lob-dunk specialist and around the basket all-everything.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's fine

If Deng becomes that guy, then that is fine, but I think it would be easier to guard since he’d usually have a quicker 3 on him who would be better defending the ball screens. Also with Tyrus and Noah as 2 off the ball guys, it loses its effectiveness, because the oppenents 2 bigs will be gaurding them and since neither can shoot, they can stay and clog the lane and protect the basket.

So, if we decided to make Deng the primary ball screener option, I think we need to re-tool our 4 or 5 to get at least one guy to space the floor. The other option is playing Deng at the 4, which could be effective on offense but would put him in some compromising defensive matchups.

I think the best bet is trying to see if Tyrus is the guy, so Noah can be the energy/garbage guy, while Deng and BG play their roles as off the ball scoring threats to space the floor and knock down shots.

The point of West vs Deng isn’t who is better, it’s about the role they play and how it fits the system of playing with a dynamic penetrating point guard in an offense based on high ball screens.

by rb22 on Jul 31, 2008 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There are several ways the Bulls could go.

Peja plays much further away from the basket than Deng. West likes the high post, and Chandler hangs around the basket. It’s good use of their personnel.

The corresponding positions on the Bulls are manned by completely different players.

Of all the guys in the DX recent database, only Greg Oden had a higher reach + vertical jump than Tyrus. Tyrus’s ability to jump over practically everyone in the NBA makes him a completely different player from West…and practically cries out for him to do his work in the low post.

Deng, though he lacks West’s ultra-sweet turnaround, excels in the same medium distance that West dominates.

The Hornets virtually ignore the sg position…where on the Bulls, Bg would essentially fulfill Peja’s offensive role.

But again, it all depends on Rose. Rose has got to be the key superstar that makes everything else work…or, in Matt’s words, pointgod.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is Tyrus suited to be a mix of Chandler and West?

I think he’s ideal to set up either the high post himself, or the high post screen. He can move to the center of the paint, screen, and roll to mimic the CP3-Chandler connection. Tyrus can shoot the basketball, especially in the 14-19’ range.

I think he really needs work on how he uses that range as bait, but needs the dribble move that gets him past the man coming out to deny a shot for a wide open lane to the rim.

by NBA Observer on Jul 31, 2008 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Mostly...I just want to see everyone's play

somehow relate to Rose, and by virtue of that relationship have everyone get to do what he does best, however that works out.

A small request, I’ll grant you…but why else did we draft Rose?

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I missed the 'pointgod' term

But I share similar feelings about Rose. I like the coinage.

by NBA Observer on Jul 31, 2008 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

Everything I wrote is all based on our most of halfcourt sets being high screen rolls with Rose and a big. Phoenix and New Orleans use this almost every possession with Nash/Amare and Paul/West.

Sure, there are some possessions that will be exceptions to get somebody else going (running BG off screens for a jumper, posting Deng a on a smaller player, Noah feeding Tyrus from the post, etc), but the majority of the possessions in halfcourt will probably be a big setting a ball screen for Rose and playing off that.

West isn’t as ahtletic as Tyrus but is more skilled and a better shooter. Amare though, has similar physical attributes in terms of size and athleticism. And now that he’s developed the outside shot to 18 ft or so, he is really hard to guard and makes their screen role even tougher to guard. I know that Tyrus will never be Amare, but that’s the type of game he’d have as the screener as long he he can develop a better feel and improve his jump shot. Maybe he’ll never get there and we need to go a different route, but I think we should use this year to figure out if he is going to be that guy. If he can’t, then we need to find another one, and the argument will then be between he and Noah for who fits best as the 5th guy/other big.

I think when looking to build our team and what roles people will play, most of it should be based on how they fit into the offense which is based in high ball screens for Rose.

by rb22 on Jul 31, 2008 6:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A thought

Are the Bulls stalling negotiations to prevent BG from playing for Team England in the European Qualifier?

BG should play. I’d like to see BG’s game against other talent. Do you think the Bulls want their RFA showcasing his talents in Europe for the month of August?

The Bulls need to move contracts to pay BG what he deserves and wants unless they want to break the luxury tax. They really shouldn’t care about the tax. They’ve accepted its rewards almost every year since it was instituted(thanks Dolan/Cuban). It’s about time the team was paying the tax and if they have to pay the tax to pay BG then it’s their own fault.

They paid Wallace too much. They extended Hinrich at a healthy rate. They extended Nocioni way beyond his market value. Now they’re going to stiff their leading scorer?

Stun me and wake me when this is over.

by NBA Observer on Jul 31, 2008 1:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I get the impression it's BG's call to sit out until his deal is done

perhaps to avoid the risk of injury.

Gordon, who also holds a British passport, this week publicly acknowledged that he would consider following the lead of Atlanta Hawks restricted free agent Josh Childress by accepting a lucrative offer overseas, although his preference is to stay with the Bulls.
“I would love to see Ben’s contract sorted out,” Deng told ESPN.com.

“He told me that he would play for Great Britain if his contract is done, depending how soon it is done. As a teammate and a friend, I would love to see him back here. He’s been playing with me since I got into the NBA. I’ve not been on the court without him and we all know what he is capable of doing.

“Now I’ve got my deal done, I think the Bulls will focus more on Ben and, hopefully, they will come to an agreement.”

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 1:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would to see the Bulls go after someone like Deandre Jordan of the Clips because he can give us defense and a player whom can run the court along with potential. I was glad for him in his performance during the summer league.

by D.Rose23 on Jul 31, 2008 1:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

ok

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 31, 2008 2:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Bulls could have drafted him...and rightly didn't bother tacking on another big man project to the team

Their track record of developing centers is spotty already, why bother with another raw player? And a rookie won’t instantly help on defense, since they are prone to making tons of mistakes. The Bulls need a backup center along the lines of Nazr Mohammed or Theo Ratliff, guys who’ve been around the league for years and realize all they’re supposed to do is play physical.

I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)

by Ozzie Montana on Jul 31, 2008 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Big Picture: Let's say we sign Gordon

Then we have added Rose and VDN and lost Duhon and Skiles and we’re supposed to be that much better than 33 wins?

by hhirb on Jul 31, 2008 2:12 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, you can say it's VDN vs Skiles

but really it’s VDN + Dell Harris + Bernie Bickerstaff vs Skiles and Boylan.

And Rose vs Duhon?—Um, what, exactly, are you getting at?

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A couple of small modifications make all the difference.

Remember, the team went from ‘Team on the Rise’ status and 49 wins (and owning Miami) to Biggest Disappointment by only replacing PJ Brown and Mallik Allen with Joe Smith and Joakim Noah.

"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris

by bullhockey on Jul 31, 2008 2:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

People laughed at me when I said the Bulls would be better simply by just being happier

It makes a huge difference for players when they transfer from one environment that was constricting and not helpful to a drastically different one.

I guarantee you we will see laughter on the bench, a sense of camaraderie that isn’t always publicly displayed by this team. Rose is going to bring everyone back together, he will heal all wounds, part the Red Sea, cast Jay Mariotti away, and various other fun things.

I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)

by Ozzie Montana on Jul 31, 2008 2:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The East is a lot tougher

The reality is that this is a team that will be fighting for a low playoff seed this year even with BG. Again, as I’ve said in other posts and seen mentioned above, Paxson’s poor management of the situation caused all of this. Ben has been a model citizen and is arguably the hardest working guy on the team from what I’ve read in the past from both Skiles and Paxson. He is a third fiddle being asked to be the main scorer and he has done a pretty good job at that. As I remember Matt lamenting about last year, Nocioni’s signing basically killed the chance of re-signing both Ben and Luol this year. At this point, I say, don’t compound your mistakes. Determine which pieces you want to keep and find a way to move the rest, even if we have to suck this year.

by bigballa10 on Jul 31, 2008 2:29 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Would you rather suck

with aging players with big contracts or young players with big contracts?

by NBA Observer on Jul 31, 2008 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Aging players?

Who said anything about aging players?

by bigballa10 on Jul 31, 2008 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

technically they're all aging.

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 31, 2008 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Did anyone catch USA vs. Turkey?

How did Omer Asik do?

by POSEYHATER on Jul 31, 2008 2:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Omer Asik

Didn’t play in that game. Is he even on the team?

by bigballa10 on Jul 31, 2008 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

They said he was out with an injury.

I didn’t stick around to get the details.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Jul 31, 2008 2:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

thanks

I recorded the game, but there isn’t much to watch since I know the outcome and Asik didn’t play.

by NBA Observer on Jul 31, 2008 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Quickthoughts," heh.

Thought Matt had been replaced by the HoopsAnalyst guy.

by paxson43 on Jul 31, 2008 7:40 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

you'd all be very lucky if that were the case.

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 1, 2008 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

We are all forgetting about Rose's offense

If he is who we think he is, by year 2, if not year 1, Rose should be a 15-18PPG guy, assuming he is on the level of Paul and D Will. Rose appears to have the tools to be as much of an offensive force and those two PGs themselves are capable of scoring 20-30 on a given night if they choose to be score first PGs. Can Rose not mitigate the loss in offense if BG is not on the team? Is Rose not expected to score like Paul and D Will anyway, who currently get you about 20 PPG without factoring their assists? Do Paul and D Will not get the majority of their scoring support from the frontcourt, in particular one frontcourt player? While the nature of that scoring will be different, does Deng not fill that role of the frontcourt scorer with the rest playing supporting roles? Are not Paul and D Will either the 1st or 2nd highest scorer on their respective teams? Do either Paul or D Will play with a high scoring, 1st option SG? Does Rose not have the expected potential to be an even more explosive scorer than BG? Do we not expect this from him? Are we being overly conservative with our expectations for the #1 pick, our franchise player? Is BG a luxury now with Rose?

The offense is going to come from Rose one way or the other, scoring or playmaking. Everyone who seems to say the Bulls will have a crappy offense without BG seems to automatically assume the team will get little to no scoring from Rose next year, if not the following year as well.

by messwiththebull on Jul 31, 2008 10:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Even only one person "filling in" for Gordon makes them a below average offense.

What I mean is, w/ Gordon, they were a bad offense. So if Rose is able to come and “replace Gordon”, they’re still a bad offense. Why not keep the good player you have (Gordon), and replace the bad player (Hinrich). Are you happy w/ just staying-the-same on offense.

How about, instead of constantly replacing good w/ good, they replace average w/ good? Like… replace Hinrich’s piss-poor offense w/ Rose? That might actually make them, you know, a good offensive team.

by tyger1147 on Aug 1, 2008 12:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs