Blog a Bull: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: NHL Free Agency Coverage: NHL Rumors, NHL Signings & Trades


Digging in

Paxson has said that he will not make any moves without knowing the team's status with Ben Gordon.

The Bulls have also used the Luxury Tax threshold as a cap for Gordon's contract offer: that of 6 years and around $59m.

Considering that this is an offer that is less (annually) than what was offered last season, I doubt Gordon accepts it. The first year of that deal isn't much more than he can make with the qualifying offer.

So do the Bulls truly dig in at this figure for the rest of the summer? Does Paxson have the license to make deals in order to reduce this year's payroll number and therefore offer Ben more? Or, better yet, an understanding with ownership that there's always opportunity to get the team under the tax by the time it's assessed (at the end of the regular season)? Or would any increase in an offer be viewed by the team as 'losing' the negotiation?

Though even disregarding the license to do so, has Paxson ever shown to be the proactive sort to pull such a thing off? Except getting Nocioni signed before the dreaded Memphis offer sheet, of course...

And just how long do they stay at this stalemate? In the interest of eliminating 'distractions' for the upcoming season, I can see the team giving Gordon a timeline (but Paxson hates those!) to accept the deal or the QO. Now, being on the QO itself will be a huge distraction all season anyway (and don't forget Hinrich's kid!), but it'd be a nice excuse for the team to put more pressure on Gordon. And though I'm not too pleased with yet another example in an entire career of the Bulls devaluing Gordon, if it works it'll be a job well done by the team.

0 recs | Comment 276 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Kirk is having a kid?...

Good for him…But I hope he doesn’t get distracted and suck worse than last year.

I am really hoping that now that Deng is locked up long-term, Pax is looking for somebody to take Nocioni in exchange for a smaller, and or, shorter deal.

I’m hopefull that that’s why Gordon’s deal is taking so long, because they are waiting to see what the team cap picture is like after they move Noc.

by kidronmusic on Aug 11, 2008 12:14 AM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That's what I've been hoping, too.

I highly, highly doubt it, though. I give that about a 3% probability of actually being the case. I’m convinced, in an alec sort of way, that the Bulls don’t want to reduce salary to get more room to offer Gordon more money. They would clearly see this as a loss. They think Gordon is worth more than what they’re offering, otherwise why offer exactly up to the luxury tax? (the other two options? it’s an amazing coincidence or they’re so inept that they had they let the salary “situation” determine Gordon’s worth)

by tyger1147 on Aug 11, 2008 8:38 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If they've actually offered Ben 6 years and $59M

And he turns them down, I don’t blame the Bulls at all for the inability to sign BG to a contract. Josh Smith got less than that, and based on on-court contributions he is far more deserving (2 years younger, higher PER, clearly improving year-over-year, much higher defensive capabilities). I love BG for his work ethic and off-court demeanor, but it doesn’t override on-court performance, not in the least.

Again, that’s an IF – I haven’t seen anything solid to indicate that the 6/$59M offer was made, but if it was … Ben has delusions of grandeur, and I hope we can obtain something of value for him.

Parental Advisory - Explicit Content

by Jivas on Aug 11, 2008 12:40 AM CDT reply reply actions actions   1 recs

Okay...I'm too tired to look up

If that offer is more than what Smith got (on a per-year basis), but the point remains valid that based on on-court performance, BG doesn’t deserve to be in the same ballpark as Smith.

Parental Advisory - Explicit Content

by Jivas on Aug 11, 2008 12:42 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Smith's deal was for 5 years, so more than the alleged BG offer

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

by wjb1492 on Aug 11, 2008 1:30 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

At this point I really don't care

It’s just tiring to argue the same 10 points about Gordon on this blog, when there is seemingly no end in sight. With Deng, we knew they would eventually lock him up. Ben has always been at the brink of what the franchise deems their “core.” For those that think a reserve spot up shooter can replace Ben, well methinks we will find out soon enough.

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 Aug 11, 2008 12:49 AM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I agree

We have pretty much exhausted all the +/- of resigning Ben Gordon to the point where it’s all just regurgitation. Its up to one of the sides to bend. I don’t see how Ben could get the money amount he desperately wants anywhere else, but again, we shall see. Bulls don’t see next year as a must win year so they are willing to ride this out as long as possible. If I would have to guess, it would be that Gordon cracks first.

by RogersPark Kris on Aug 11, 2008 7:32 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I don't see why we don't move Gooden to sign Ben

We’re obviously not gonna give Gooden an extension, I doubt we pull off a deal at the deadline.
So why not trade Gooden to a team for a draft pick or something?

I like Gooden as a player, but I rather have Gordon on the team.
And why lose Gooden for nothing.

by Edicus2288i on Aug 11, 2008 1:47 AM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Gooden, Nocioni, Hinrich, Hughes...

All make enough that a trade to reduce the team salary is possible w/in the 125% rule, and none should figure into the teams long-term solutions.

by tyger1147 on Aug 11, 2008 8:45 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You're forcing Noc to the 4

and cementing his place on the roster.

Can Kenny Thomas hit threes?

by NBA Observer on Aug 11, 2008 9:29 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

What? Do you not know who Tyrus Thomas is?

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 Aug 11, 2008 10:56 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Can he play 48 minutes every night?

Moving Gooden means you need a legit 4 coming back. if you don’t get one it will force Noc to the backup 4, Thabo to the backup 3, but it will open backcourt minutes for Gordon.

by NBA Observer on Aug 11, 2008 1:38 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Noah can back up the 4.

Give Tyrus ~36, Noah the remainder. I don’t see any problem with that; plus, I don’t think it’d be hard to bring in a veteran big to soak up fouls/minutes if necessary.

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 Aug 11, 2008 1:59 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If Thomas and Noah play 36 min/game each, that leaves 24 min/game to be filled at the PF/C positions

by Nocioni, Gray, and/or Simmons. Even if Gooden doesn’t fit into the long term plans of the team, he’s still going to be needed, or a replacement found, for the current iteration.

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

by snley on Aug 11, 2008 2:10 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hence, my latter comment:
plus, I don’t think it’d be hard to bring in a veteran big to soak up fouls/minutes if necessary.

I personally think Gray could play ~8 or so and, like I said, I don’t think it’d be too hard to bring in a cheap, veteran big to cover the rest. Or, we could always play small ball (blech).

I realize that if Gooden is gone we need someone to replace at least a portion of his minutes, but I felt that NBAO’s “OMG World-is-Ending, Noc is Now Invaluable to the Team”-type statement seemed a bit over the top. Or maybe I was just read into his statement wrong.

The point stands, though: Give Tyrus 3/4 of the minutes at the 4, no questions asked.

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 Aug 11, 2008 2:20 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

sure...

while we’re at it, let’s GIVE gray 36 minutes at center and GIVE hughes 36 minutes at shooting guard—no questions asked. why? because both have shown spurts of being able to have a good game, wrapped around 10 sh*tty games.

by leeac on Aug 11, 2008 4:30 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

::head in hands::

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 Aug 12, 2008 8:55 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well...

I would say your exaggerating NBAO’s comment…

And I would say he’s right, I don’t love Noc at the four, but he’s probably better than some cheap veteran big that we could sign in a hurry and for cheap.

by kidronmusic on Aug 12, 2008 1:43 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You're probably right.

But, it’s not the end of the world if the latter option needs to be done; meanwhile, Tyrus will finally be getting minutes to show what he can do because there won’t be too many other guys on the team to help out at that position. That’s one of the most vital things that needs to occur in this upcoming season, in my humble opinion. Get Tyrus his minutes in a year where even if we make the playoffs, we’re not doing much damage. This year should be all about the future and regaining lost, valuable time that was partially spent stunting growth of the young guys on the team over the last two seasons.

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 Aug 12, 2008 9:00 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

...

I’m hopeful that with the new staff, Tyrus will get a chance to develop even if we don’t send away our other qualified power forwards.

I’d like to see him and Gooden split the PF minutes pretty evenly.

by kidronmusic on Aug 12, 2008 4:23 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I wouldnt say that...

I don’t think we’re obviously not giving Gooden an extension.

Sure, we would all love for Tyrus to have a break-out year. But if he doesn’t, and if Gooden is willing to return for a reasonable price, then I don’t see why we would let him walk.

by kidronmusic on Aug 11, 2008 2:27 AM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i think

we’ve learned by now that no one is ever willing to return for a “reasonable price” so unless something drastic happens, i don’t think there’s any way gooden’s going to be here after next year. of course, that doesn’t mean that is necessarily a bad thing, just that i don’t think gooden is going to be back

"PS: This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated." - Mitch Hedberg

by kite on Aug 11, 2008 4:41 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think a lot of veterans,,,

,,, understand what their market value means. And if Gooden signs with us, for the same price that other teams offer him, I’d say that’s reasonable.

Unless of course somebody offers him 10mil a year or something insane.

by kidronmusic on Aug 11, 2008 10:05 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It pretty much depends on who else they can get rid of

Assuming Gordon comes back they’ll likely still need to dump Noc in order to pay Gooden and avoid the tax. Or at least swap him for a cheaper player.

by Sports2 on Aug 11, 2008 6:54 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I guess what the biggest factor

for resigning ben appears to be the cap. But as Matt points out, the bulls are just a trade away from being under and they have the full season to do so. Given this argument, I would think that the bulls are just plain negotiating with Ben and will continue to do so for the rest of the summer

by gman2849 on Aug 11, 2008 8:42 AM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Whatever Paxson always looks great in spring.

It’s the summers he has trouble with. And to think I was all in on the in Pax we trust love. After watching the Bulls make the playoffs in 2005 most fans agreed the bulls CORE (Assets) consisted of One potential all pro- Deng and Two potential all stars-Hinrich and Gordon. How does drafting a 6’9 athlete, a 6’11 stringbean, and a 19 yr old potential point god change that? What makes you wanna lowball the guy your organization spent so much time building up? If Ben wasn’t in the plans we should have ALREADY traded him when Garnett, Gasol and so many other players were available leaguewide. Why is it we keep defending the organization that reaped the benefit of running Mike, Scottie and Phil out to the tune of sellout crowds with no REAL winning until Deng and Gordon got here. Everyone keeps saying Ben doesn’t have leverage realistically what can get for Gordon in a s&t? We drafted him, We coached him, We developed him, Now we wont pay him. Something doesn’t add up and its Paxson’s ability to Genarally Manage a basketball franchise.

by Blacknight23 on Aug 11, 2008 9:22 AM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The story up till now

Wallace: Paid.
Hinrich: Paid.
Nocioni: Paid.
Deng: Paid.
Gordon: Screw you. You’re last. The luxury tax is your enemy, but seriously the Chairman can pay Gordon whatever the heck he wants. He just won’t do it.

by NBA Observer on Aug 11, 2008 9:36 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

agreed

bg is already a lame duck (not necessarily all management’s fault). even if he signs the qo or the 6/59, he’s a disgruntled player. bg’s time on the bulls is drawing to a close as the damage may already be irreversible (sans a miraculous $11m a year offer from the bulls).

by leeac on Aug 11, 2008 1:18 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think the last straw

in Reinsdorf’s mind was when BG would play “hurt” last year and others (Duhon) did.

by hlac on Aug 11, 2008 1:29 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm sure it didn't help when BG flew to watch a UCONN game and returned late for practice

the next day only to insinuate it didn’t matter because he wasn’t starting.

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

by snley on Aug 11, 2008 1:53 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   1 recs

Hah!

I see what you did there! Clever!

by BAB-Bass on Aug 11, 2008 4:22 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yes, it's clever

and perhaps I should have said “duhon amoung others,” but I notice the central point wasn’t addressed, which was “BG not playing hurt was a big deal for Reinsdorf.”

by hlac on Aug 11, 2008 5:15 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Not exactly true...

Eddy Curry: Unpaid
Jamal Crawford: Unpaid

Gordon is not the first player the Bulls let walk.

Both of those players were similar to Gordon. One dimensional scorers. Although I would argue Gordon is the best of those 3. Some people at the time would have argued Eddy was better though potential/size wise.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 11, 2008 3:03 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You kind of fail to mention

That Eddy Curry had a keg of uneasiness wrapped around him with his heart condition. He wasn’t traded for nothing, we got Tim Thomas, Sweetney (a per minute duplication of Curry), and 2 future lottery picks.

Jamal Crawford was traded because the team was moving in a different direction, and needed to shed salary, thus why Crawford was sign and traded. Besides, Ben Gordon was drafted in 2004 as Jamal’s replacement. There is no adequate replacement for Gordon, and there is no dipshit GM out there where we can trade Gordon to for such a nice package.

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 Aug 11, 2008 4:17 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

What's your point?

Both were traded. The Bulls would trade Gordon too if they got the chance right now. But no one else wants him either at the price he’s asking.

Tim Thomas they cut, Sweetney wasn’t playing on the knicks and was significantly smaller, and 2 future picks weren’t expected to be great because it was before the Knicks fully collapsed. I believe it was the year they added Larry Brown.

The team was moving in a new direction with Crawford, but aren’t right now????? They didn’t draft a replacement no, but they have Hughes and Thabo (former draft pick). In fact, if Gordon does come back, there are many concerns for how the minutes will be spread around.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 11, 2008 4:27 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

My point is you're comparing completely different scenarios

Gordon is not a fat and lazy and refuses to work hard. He is not linked with a previous GM who had screwed up the team’s future multiple times. BG was drafted and has had fine success under Paxson.

The Curry deal was still good even before the Knicks sucked. If there was a sign and trade that good involving Gordon, it would have been done by now. Moving BG for a strictly salary dump like Crawford is idiotic and hypocritical when Nocioni, Kirk, and Hughes are all bench players at this point.

There aren’t that many concerns. Hughes is a non factor, he isn’t that good, and at best he’s a backup PG if Kirk got traded. Kirk is the current backup PG, and will have duties at both spots because of his defensive abilities. Thabo will have chances to show he’s something more than just an energy player at the 2 and 3.

If the Bulls were in a complete rebuilding mode, then why just trade BG, why not get rid of Noce, Kirk, etc? The point of adding Rose was that the current roster would improve by playing alongside him to the point they would be a playoff threat in a few years.

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 Aug 11, 2008 4:40 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Your using a little hindsigt logic

At the time, Curry was the team’s only scoring big man and there was a lot of concern that the offense would struggle without him. While he was considered lazy, he was still young and many thought he could grow out of it. He also was playing for a team that made the playoffs for the first time since Jordan, so there was EXTRA pressure to keep him and not break up the positive headway.

If there was a sign and trade that good? You mean any sign and trade was even available. No team is paying what Gordon wants, it isn’t just the Bulls. That is the reason why there has been no sign and trade. I’m sure the Bulls would prefer to have this over with so they can shape the rest of the roster.

While I agree that Hughes isn’t that good, he is a servicable 30mpg SG, not backup point. If Kirk is a combo guard, then Hughes is a center. Sure he can handle the ball, but he doesn’t have the vision or attitude to play the point. He only did in Cleveland because Lebron controlled the ball.

If the Bulls just had Rose, Hinrich and Gordon on the roster, there wouldn’t be any minutes for Thabo. He only gets a shot if one of them leaves the picture. And that still leaves out Hughes.

There have already been rumors of moving Hinrich and Noc this summer. The only reason they haven’t is because their value is low right now, there is no point to moving either one. At least not while BG isn’t signed. If he is, I think it’s been mentioned that one of them will most likely be gone, if not both.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 11, 2008 6:11 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The whole "screw you" think only applies if you think the Bulls haven't offered

BG something in the reasonable range. A lot of people here, and even more elsewhere, think last year’s offer was imminently reasonable, and BG opted to turn it down in hopes of getting more. That’s his right, but it’s also a risk. (See, Wells, Bonzi, Spreewell, Latrell, etc.)

And if last year’s offer was reasonable (and if reports are true, this year’s isn’t that far off although it isn’t quite as good), then the whole situation is partly of BG’s making. There is no screw you in there.

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

by wjb1492 on Aug 11, 2008 4:35 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   1 recs

Couldn't agree more.

Good luck Shawn Johnson, Lolo Jones and Doug Schwab. Bring home the gold!!!

by sue369 on Aug 12, 2008 8:55 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I guess that does suck for BG...

But somebody has to be last, and it isn’t the Bulls fault that he turned down a better offer from them last summer.

Personally I won’t lose any sleep over a guy that might have to settle on 9 million a year to play basketball when he could have made 10. When people bring up the fact that lesser players make more as his motivation to not sign I really have to question his value system. I really hope that’s not the case.

This whole situation makes me sick.

Don't call me doughboy!

by Khalid El-Amin on Aug 11, 2008 10:49 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Some would say we only did 2 out of 3...
We drafted him, We coached him, We developed him,

I think we have done a terrible job developing players… which is one of the reasons that Ben could theoretically get better. Especially if, in addition to spending more time on player development, the new regime tailors our offense to the players we have.

by kidronmusic on Aug 11, 2008 10:10 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I dunno about that

Yes, the Bulls have choked when developing Tyrus, and were certainly not doing any favors to Tyson when he was here. But, Gordon doesn’t have much room for improvement. He hasn’t peaked, it’s just that the way he can get better is by scoring more efficiently and taking the ball out of his hands in crucial moments of the game. Improving on defense is another thing he could do, but again that’s probably a long shot and would probably remain a below average to middling defensive player.

Whatever your thoughts on Gordon are, it’s pretty comical how guys like Corpse and Noce can get their due, but when it’s time for BG, ohhhh he’s small, selfish, an asshole, and killed Bruce Wayne’s parents. He’s not helping anything with his delusions of getting paid more than 9-10 million a year, but I think everyone can agree the stupidity is prevalent on both sides.

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 Aug 11, 2008 12:10 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

They haven't finished developing Tyrus

Therefor, I don’t see how they’ve choked.

He’ll be 22 next week.

They have time.

by Option27 on Aug 11, 2008 12:19 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Wasting two years to develop someoe as athletically-gifted and raw as Thomas...

...is choking. He could still become an All-Star; I suppose he could still fulfill all of his potential… But they could have been better last year and they would be better this year had they played him more and developed him more. Maybe “choking” is a bad word, but they’ve clearly wasted an opportunity.

by tyger1147 on Aug 11, 2008 12:30 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You said it best . . .

“As raw as Thomas”

I think most of us agree that when he did play last year, he played fairly well.

This despite being in the doghouse most of the year.

With a new coaching staff in line to actually suit the skills of Tyrus, let’s just put the words “Wasted” and “Choking” to bed for at least this year

by Option27 on Aug 11, 2008 12:36 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah....but 2 years of wasted development means something

And we saw it with Tyson as well. When I look at Aldridge getting tons of praise and improving his numbers, it pisses me off that Tyrus just can’t get that bump in the minutes. Maybe choke is a strong word, but they have certainly mishandled how to turn him into a very good player. Having him play out Stromile Swift’s career just damages all their credibility in my eyes.

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 Aug 11, 2008 12:49 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If it's delusional of BG to expect more than $9-10M a year,

and that’s the range that the Bulls have offered, how is BG not getting his due? It sucks to be the last guy in line, but shouldn’t we all want the Bulls to have learned their lesson from overpaying for Wallace and Noc?

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

by wjb1492 on Aug 11, 2008 4:41 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That's why this is such a bad situation

Matt and others will argue it’s ok to overpay Ben a couple million annually, and I’m ok with him making Monta Ellis money. However, he hasn’t accepted that kind of offer, nor have the Bulls offered anything in that range either. They are now offering less, and I feel it’s unfair to him. Deng got his due despite a lackluster year. BG has been just as important to this Bulls team, giving him 11 mill annually isn’t that big of a stretch.

But, then you read all these accounts that Gordon is hell-bent on being the highest paid Bull, and they bring my hopes down of a deal getting finalized. I can’t tell if he’s being insanely stubborn, or just trying new negotiation ploys.

It boils down to an acceptable level of overpaying (66 over 6) either not being offered, or being rejected by Ben.

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 Aug 11, 2008 4:49 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well, since it hasn't been offered in the first place

I’m going to withold saying Gordon is unreasonable.

by Sports2 on Aug 11, 2008 7:12 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

He can't accept it

if they don’t offer it. Perhaps he would accept it. He might have it in his head not to accept anything until they offer as much as last time, which they have not. And if it is just a few million off it would be a shame they don’t go for it. With as much money that gets thrown around in contracts in the NBA these days it is odd that the Bulls would suddenly go stingy with Gordon. I’d understand it if he was lazy or a troublemaker or was dramatically off of where he should be as far as production goes, but not offering at least the same deal as last year strikes me as pointedly nasty. Like they are determined to put him into his place (as they’ve done with his sixth man benching in favor of Duhon. Hard to say which is the worse insult here).

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 Aug 11, 2008 8:25 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

INSULT? when you can't do the job, why should you play?

BG has never been able to run an offense. This is why Duhon was in there. There is no insult. BG is a proto-typical sixth man and is out of place at either point guard or shooting guard (too short and not motivated enough to play defense). He does shoot really nice but the reason no one is rushing out to do a sign and trade is that you can’t pay someone with as many shortcomings as BG has, big time money.
Also, for those saying paying him the extra couple of millions. What will you be saying next year if TT or Thabo or both have break out seasons. Do you let them walk because you locked into a really good sixth man? What about the year after that?
While it would be nice if this were a fantasy league and there was no cap and you could tell ahead of time who was going to get better, it isn’t and you have to put together a whole team.

"To a man with a hammer, every solution looks like a nail." SLC

by WayOldGuy on Aug 14, 2008 7:16 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Come on now,Tyson is exactly an all-star...

He’s only ballin’ right now cause he has CP3 serving it up to him all day. If Tyrus had that (and maybe he will soon with Rose) he would be ballin’ too.
Chandler can’t create his own offense. I think a better word for Tyson is “over-rated.”
TT can hit a jumper, he showed that the year before last.

by scottie33 on Aug 11, 2008 1:06 PM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Tyson's stats

I agree that playing with CP3 makes him look good. But check his stats with the added minutes in OKC and with the Bull’s. If you project the Bull’s stats to the increased minutes you get the same numbers.

by Fastbreak on Aug 17, 2008 11:12 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeppppppp

Shockingly enough, we have a player just like that on our roster yet again…..time will tell if Del Negro is not a douchenozzle.

"I’m gonna rise up, gonna kick a little ass. Gonna kick some ass in the USA. Gonna climb a mountain, gonna sew a flag, gonna fly on an eagle. I’m gonna kick some butt, gonna drive a big truck. I’m gonna rule this world. I’m gonna kick some ass. I’m gonna rise up, gonna kick a little ass. Rock, flag, and eagle!"

by Ozzie Montana on Aug 17, 2008 1:33 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

hit reply when replying.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 11, 2008 1:27 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

ur the boss....

i just wasnt sure if it was an actual reply or a general statement. but next time i will, i see ur point. my bad.

by scottie33 on Aug 11, 2008 1:33 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Freeing up space

According to my calculations, the Bulls have approximately $7.1M under the luxury-tax threshold with their current roster. Obviously a starting salary of $7.1M would not result in a contract anywhere close to what Gordon is willing to settle for (which I suspect is in actuality much closer to Deng’s $71M deal then his claims for $80M guaranteed). If the Bulls simply found a taker for Cedric Simmons’ contract of $1.7M (either Memphis or any host of teams with small trade exceptions) they would be able to offer Gordon a starting figure around $9M. Considering that Deng’s deal starts at $9.3M that would mean a deal worth around $70M over 6 years (with the possibility of incentives, of course). That sort of offer I would think Gordon would have the sense to accept, of course the depths of his ego may not be fully understood yet. In terms of plausibility of dealing Simmons, I think there has to be some team out there willing to take a chance on a 21 year old PF with a ton of athleticism with a small one year deal with a team option for a second.

by smashbrickley on Aug 11, 2008 2:22 PM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

you dont even have to release anyone to offer him that

As has been said many times they don’t actually calculate the tax until after the season. Unless NOCE or Deng can play the two can anybody tell me what are we doing??

by Blacknight23 on Aug 11, 2008 2:58 PM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

They do have Hughes and Thabo.

Not to mention Hinrich. The 2 guard spot has quite a few candidates if Ben is lost.

If anything, I’m at a loss for what the Bulls are doing at the center position? I mean Noah shouldn’t be a full time C at this point in his career and Gray seems unlikely to be playing 20 minutes a game so I don’t know what they’re thinking. Gooden is awfully undersized to be playing center.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 11, 2008 3:07 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Don't forget Nocioni at the 5

Not saying he should be there but the Bulls tried all kinds of wacky stuff last year.

by RogersPark Kris on Aug 11, 2008 3:09 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

He has an 8'10.5 standing reach

That is the exact average of all PF drafted according to Draft Express. The average drafted center is 9’1.5. So he’s 3 inches off already and his 29/33” vertical isn’t helping.

Other standing reaches from that year:

Amare Stoudemire 9’0.5
Nene 9’1
Jared Jeffries 9’1
Melvin Ely 9’3
Chris Wilcox 8’11.5
Marcus Haislip 8’11

All of these are considered PFs/undersized C (except Jeffries but he played PF in college). And he’s smaller than all of them.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 11, 2008 3:50 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Gooden's only an inch shorter while being about 20lbs heavier than Noah

Not sure how that makes him “awfully undersized.”

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

by snley on Aug 11, 2008 3:12 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

What are we doing?

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

by alec on Aug 11, 2008 3:09 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Protecting the Chairman

from paying a million or so in luxury taxes.

by NBA Observer on Aug 11, 2008 3:14 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Love it Live!

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 11, 2008 3:15 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Oops. Didn't mean to post.

I’ll take a stab at what we’re doing.

Matt’s metaphirical title for this post implies a sort of trench warfare.

Trench warfare is usually characterized by the opposing forces lobbing hand grenades back and forth at each other.

So far, only team Ben Gordon appears to be lobbing quotes, which leads me to believe that the Bulls are not yet dug in.

In going on two years of negotiations, we’ve not yet heard a single defensive quote uttered from the Bulls camp. To me, this means the Bulls are attempting to maintain some flexibility in the negotiations…and that they plan on eventually coming to terms.

Unless Gordon gives up prematurely, I expect the Bulls to move significantly in Ben’s direction to get a deal done.

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

by alec on Aug 11, 2008 3:18 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

There was the chairman's

“one of them regrets passing on the deal last summer” quote.
And the various info put out through the beat writers.

But I actually agree with your underlying conclusion. The Bulls moved slowly to reach a reasonable number with Deng, and I don’t see a lot of difference here except that the Bulls have the added LT leverage and a bunch of reports that Reinsdorf doesn’t have a hard on for Ben.

I don’t see much difference between Gordon’s behavior and Deng’s either for that matter. Deng was supposedly asking for quite a bit more than he got and he ended up making the QO ultimatum, so maybe that’s what the Bulls need to quit screwing around.

by Sports2 on Aug 11, 2008 7:18 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Assuming the Bulls have the same level of concern over keeping BG that they did

over keeping Lu, there’s still plenty of time before the season starts. I’m just not convinced the team cares as much. BG “digging in” so to speak makes more sense, with him currently not having a contract to play next year and needing to get paid and play somewhere. Given that the Bulls do have plenty of guys to put on the floor (regardless of what anyone thinks of the quality), and if they in fact aren’t all that concerned with it, they may not care enough to jump into a media war.

I know Pax keeps saying signing BG is a priority, but given the team’s actions I just don’t see that purported attitude reflected very much. They sort of seem like Clay Bennett standing there saying he wanted to keep the Sonics in Seattle when every action shouted an imminent move to OKC. A billion thoughts on ways to massage the cap numbers and avoid the luxury tax have been offered by non-Bulls-org people, yet the team appears to be sitting there with arms folded saying this is what we have to offer and we won’t pay the tax – and I’m not sure why people are so convinced the team doesn’t mean it.

I have no inside sources with anyone, anywhere, at any level. This could all turn out with some trade out of the blue to open up room or the team magically deciding to pay the l.t. for a year or two. It’s just when I look at what is out there, I personally am not seeing it.

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

by wjb1492 on Aug 11, 2008 8:08 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

if hes gone...

hes gone.
we’ll just have to move on and get new leading scorers. like in coach carter…

Rose lobs it up for the alley oop... and it's caught and put down by Rose

by Yibs on Aug 11, 2008 3:37 PM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

haha

well said

Rose lobs it up for the alley oop... and it's caught and put down by Rose

by Yibs on Aug 12, 2008 10:13 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Don't Sign Him For More!!!

As has been discussed ad nauseum, we don’t want to have so much money tied up for so long. I’m not even talking about the ‘magical’ summer of 2010. I just think in general the difference between having 20 million/yr tied up in deng/gordon and 23-24 million/yr in them is significant. Especially since it will be for the next 6 years! No one else is going to offer him more than 9, so I don’t think we should either.

www.notqualifiedtocomment.blogspot.com

by Coach Van Lier on Aug 12, 2008 7:38 AM CDT reply reply actions actions   1 recs

20 vs. 23-24

I find completely insignificant.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 9:07 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Over 6 years?

It matters. Especailly since no one else is offering that for him! Would you offer 500,000 for a house that nobody is biting on at 450,000? No. You would pay 450k, and maybe even less if you could. Its a business, and a few million dollars can translate into a lot of felxibility when rose, tt, noah come up.

www.notqualifiedtocomment.blogspot.com

by Coach Van Lier on Aug 12, 2008 1:50 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Exactly!

I don’t get why people bash the noc contract when he’s paid like 7mil annually. Even if he is overpaid, it’s only by like 2 million a year. Yet they want to give gordon whatever he wants over what he’s worth and chalk it up to insignificance.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 2:36 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

because the difference between Noc and his replacements

aren’t that vast. And possibly preferable.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 2:39 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Who's his preferable replacement?

Who signed for the midlevel or less this year that is preferable?

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 2:42 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

huh?

Noc’s minutes are replaced by Thabo and Tyrus

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 2:57 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I thought you meant in a general sense of the NBA, not on the roster.

Well you just chose two non SFs to take his minutes. Tyrus who’s better suited to play the 4 and Thabo who is, dare I say it, undersized to play significant minutes at the 3.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 3:21 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think Thabo can play the 3 just fine

especially since it’s like 10 non-Deng minutes.

And because of Deng, Noc gets a lot of his minutes at the 4, that would go to Tyrus instead.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 3:41 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

He's LISTED at 6'5 215

That seems awfully small for a team that’s already very small at the 2. His numbers seem to dip a little at the 3 as well.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 3:47 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

he's a bench player

again, this is the 5-10 minutes a game that Deng doesn’t play. Can’t go small for that time? And again, he’s a quality rebounder and strong defender, so don’t get too strung-up on height. Yes, Ron Artest would maul him.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 3:49 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

As Jeff van G has said (and you, too, Matt),

in an unequal matchup, it’s better to be quicker than bigger.

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

by alec on Aug 12, 2008 3:53 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I likely just stole it from him

but, exactly.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 3:59 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

In truth, I read it from you here first.

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

by alec on Aug 12, 2008 4:05 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I believe the quote was

When you can’t decide what position a player should play, match up the quickness.

Meaning Thabo is better suited to the 2 than the 3. It’s a compliment that he has that level of quickness.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 4:13 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

no, he should play the 3

because he’s quick for a 3, but not that quick for a 2.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 12, 2008 6:25 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

No his quickness is equal to 2s

so he should play the 2. Under your logic Derrick Rose should play the 5 because he’d be the quickest 5.

I’d argue Thabo’s quickness puts him closer to 1s than 3s.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 7:15 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'll put the Van G comments in context.

The discussion was about tweeners.

If you have a player that’s a little small for a 3, are you better off moving him down to the 2, where he’ll have a size advantage but be slower than his opponent, or should you play him at the 3, where although he may be small, at least he’ll have a quickness advantage?

Van Gundy stated that you should put your player at the three, because his superior quickness would be more of an advantage than would be his superior size at the 2.

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

by alec on Aug 12, 2008 8:05 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well I remember the quote

And that’s not what he said. He said match up based on quickness, not height in the case of tweeners. Thabo’s quickness matches up more closely with 2s.

It’s petty to argue but I specifically remember. Every player would then play a position up as a tweener which doesn’t make sense.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 10:54 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I clipped and sent

the two views to JVG c/o espn.

If he ever responds I’ll post it.

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

by alec on Aug 13, 2008 9:52 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

yes, CJ is right

it was about matching up their quickness… not about speed advantage. for instance noc is a tweener but since he is slower he matches better with 4’s despite losing out on height. and by this logic thabo is quick enough to match up with 2’s so he’s better suited there than to play the 3. just because he is faster than 3’s doesn’t mean he should play there if he’s giving up a size advantage.

however, i really took this to mean that this should be looked on as the primary position of the player: play most of thabo’s minutes at the 2, and noc’s at the 4 then, but that they can spot the other position (in this case for both of them, the 3) in some minutes given different matchups.

by Jaina on Aug 13, 2008 9:59 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

a move to the 3 is for his offense

you’re correct, the Noc comparison doesn’t apply because Thabo can match up quickness-wise with opposing 2s.

But CJ said he couldn’t play the 3 because he was small, which I disagree with since Thabo’s strengths are in rebounding, defense, and finishing, and he could carry them over ‘up’ a position to the SF in nearly all cases.

Moving Thabo to the 3 isn’t because he can’t play 2, but there are minutes to be had there (if Noc was punted) and it could mask his shooting a bit.

I don’t really care about maximizing what Thabo can do, I see his status as more what he can do for the team. They’d need a backup 3, as well as somebody to NOT play guard.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 13, 2008 10:08 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   1 recs

Nail meet head.

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 Aug 13, 2008 10:33 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

When did Thabo get small?

Not you, but CJ.

Thabo is 6’7” 215lbs with a terrific wingspan. What else do you need to play the 3?

by NBA Observer on Aug 13, 2008 10:44 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Thabo is listed at 6'5 215.

That was on basketball reference. I did see that he’s 6’7 on NBA.com. So my guess is he’s somewhere in between.

He’s pretty thin and would struggle against bigger SFs like Paul Pierce, Lebron, etc. He’s much better as a defender against players when his length and quickness can be combined.

PER allowed by position:
SG – 15.5
SF – 19.2

I guess the point is some people view Thabo as merely a backup. I think of him more as solid starter (30mpg) in the Doug Christie mold at the 2.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 13, 2008 11:03 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

when we get Webber, Peja, Bibby, Vlade

agreed.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 13, 2008 11:11 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Baby Steps

They’re working on this.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 13, 2008 11:21 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i was only defending him

in that that’s the argument that van gundy made. van gundy didn’t say “speed advantage over height advantage” the way the other side of the argument here was trying to say.

i actually like thabo fine as a backup 3. also it’s as matchups dictate – he’s probably not going to be on the floor against pierce or lebron (given among other reasons that luol has almost always done very well against pierce), but there are definitely SFs he can matchup with.

by Jaina on Aug 13, 2008 11:32 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Noc is overpaid by 2 million a year and 2 years.

That adds up. But then it’s multiplied or exponentiated/powered (this guy will tell you the right word) because he shouldn’t be getting more than 15-20 mpg. It’s more tolerable to overpay for good players than not-as-good players.

by tyger1147 on Aug 12, 2008 2:40 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I actually believe the money is right but they years just aren't

6 year contracts are a joke unless you’re talking Dwight Howard or Lebron.

And it is true you would prefer to overpay your better players. But Gordon just isn’t in that class of much better player that deserves to be overpaid because the team can’t live without him. He’s not the final piece of the puzzle so why wreck potential future pieces for him?

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 2:48 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Because they won't be wrecking them.

Lay out your specific plan with and w/o Gordon to where one is wrecked and the other isn’t. I’ve done this numerous times.

by tyger1147 on Aug 12, 2008 2:56 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I don't think I quite understand what you mean.

But I’ll give it a try, and keep in mind I kept this very simple. This is a rough estimate:

But with Gordon, based on everything written, I’m going to assume he wants 12 mil a year for 6 years. That is equal roughly to Dengs contract. That means 24 million is locked up in those players. DRose under the best case scenario is a max player. So if he is as great as we want him to be, he’ll be making roughly 15 million per. So now the salary is up to 39 million with a 60 million cap. They have 21 million remaining to fill out the whole rest of the roster with no money for another “big time” player.

This assumes they move Hinrich, Noc, let Gooden go, do not resign Noah or Tyrus or Thabo. Now they can bring all those guys back and battle the luxury tax. So unless you love the roster as currently constructed, Gordon hamstrings the cap.

My point is i’d rather fill that 12 million dollar salary spot with a better player and work from there.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 3:32 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Teams over the cap can't add players!!

That’s the point. The roster is done if you’re over the cap. You have to hope there are good trades out there. Under the cap leaves open the possibility for trades and free agency, the easiest way to add players.

Look no further than the Camby for a 2nd round pick deal if you want further evidence. Cap room can have just as much value as a player like Gordon, especially if he’s overpaid.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 4:16 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

No, the easiest way to add players is through the draft

Cheapest too.

Adding impact players through free agency rarely happens, and big trades aren’t that common either.

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

by Mike Prada on Aug 12, 2008 4:20 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The Bulls aren't getting that high of a pick again

This year was a complete fluke. Impact free agents happen every year. Brand and Baron Davis just moved this year. And if you can’t land a free agent, it’s 100x easier making trades when you are under the cap.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 4:30 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Sure, if you're under enough to take back that salary.

It’s like being 3 million under allows them to trade for someone costing 10 million.

by tyger1147 on Aug 12, 2008 4:32 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Over the cap

Gives you the MLE (mid-level exception), perhaps the best and most common way to add good vets.

I get what you’re saying though; if Rose is Rose then you’ll have a lot of money locked up and it’ll be hard to get good role players if the team won’t go into luxury tax mode.

However, a lot can happen between now and Rose’s next deal, and the salary cap will only keep going up. You can make moves over the cap, and in many ways being over the cap is better than just barely under it. You gotta be more than 7 million UNDER the cap for it to mke a real difference, except for when trades are involved (since you don’t got to match salaries).

MLE lets you add new players each year, and you can pay them up to 6/7 million a year with it (it also raises each season).

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Aug 12, 2008 4:20 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

And let's not forget...

...the Bulls have locked up Deng is more than just a role player. Thomas and Noah have every potential to become “role players” (and locked up easier). Thabo still has a chance to be a decent role player. Nocioni and Hinrich are, at worst, overpaid role players. This team’s problem is hardly adding role players.

by tyger1147 on Aug 12, 2008 4:26 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I agree they have enough role players

They need an all-star. I see that salary spot being filled by gordon and it shouldn’t be as far as I’m concerned.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 4:31 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That displays a poor understanding of the salary cap

(Outsider jumping in)

For one, Rose isn’t getting that max contract until after his third season at the earliest, and it won’t take effect until after his fourth season. By then, Deng and Gordon have two years left and the cap is going to be higher than 60 million (I’d guess 65-67). Hinrich is off the books by then, and Nocioni could be too if the Bulls exercise the team option that Sham says they have. If you replace those salary slots with Thomas and Noah (adding on a few extra, say combined 20 million between), you’re still under the salary cap at 59 million.

But being over the salary cap doesn’t preclude you from making more moves to improve the roster. You still have all your exceptions, plus your future draft picks to fill up the roster. Let’s assume the luxury tax is something like 78-79 million. That’s 20 million dollars to fill up the rest of your roster with guys that are going to be role players anyway. Re-signing Thabo won’t cost much of that money (4-5 million), and adding on first-round picks in each of the next four years (assuming you keep all of them) will probably cost you like 5-6 million. That still provides enough room for a mid-level contract (6-7 million) and space for roster filler.

As far as getting another impact player, tyger’s point is that it won’t happen through free agency anyway. You’re going to have to trade someone good, and having Gordon’s salary slot (assuming he keeps up this production) makes it easier to make that trade. That’s what hurt the Bulls earlier..all their best players were on rookie contracts.

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

by Mike Prada on Aug 12, 2008 4:17 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That last point is key

this is exactly the problem when the Kobe deal was being rumored. The Bulls had to lump a half-dozen guys together just to get to Kobe’s salary. Shaq was able to be had (not the same bounty, I admit) because the Heat had a good young player (Butler) but also Odom and Brian Grant on mega-deals.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 4:23 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

So we should overpay Gordon

so that he can be the albatross contract we move in a big trade?

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 4:32 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

::guffaws::

uh, no. He’s more the Lamar Odom in that example, actually. Hughes can be the Brian Grant.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 4:36 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The problem with the Kobe deal was not the salaries

If they wanted to deal they could have. The problem was the Lakers didn’t want to trade Kobe and the Bulls didn’t have the players the Lakers would want anyways. They wanted a star back, remember? Gordon’s bloated contract won’t help you get a superstar in the future.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 7:18 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You've just unintentionally proved our point

The Lakers wanted a “superstar,” which is really just another way of saying they wanted the other team’s best player (hence, the weird Gilbert Arenas for Kobe rumors). The only “superstars” that are ever on the market are ones that have big contracts (except for Ron Artest, but he’s crazy). None of these “superstars” on the market have rookie contracts, because presumably if a “superstar” is on a rookie contract, their team has no intention of giving them up because they want to build around them. Derrick Rose, for example, would never go on the market until after he signed a max contract (if at all). At the same time, a “superstar for superstar” swap would have been easier for both teams because neither had to give up too many players from their roster right before the season. They wouldn’t have had to scramble to fill five, six, seven roster spots.

The Bulls, at the time, had a weird salary situation. Arguably their two best players at the time (Deng and Gordon) were on rookie contracts. Another, Kirk Hinrich, was a Base Year Compensation Player, so you can use only half of his salary at the time. The only big salary the Bulls had was Ben Wallace, a mid-30s player with three years remaining. Andres Nocioni couldn’t be traded until December 15 because he just signed his new deal.

So you tell me, how do you get enough salary over to LA to match up to Kobe’s 20-million or so contract? The only options were to trade a ton of small contracts and depleting your roster, beg the Lakers to take on Ben Wallace, or somehow sign P.J. Brown just to be traded (which was discussed at the time).

Now, let’s say Gordon made 12-million dollars, or somewhere close to “superstar” money. All of a sudden, you can send him, Tyrus, Hinrich and his BYC contract and P.J. Brown to LA for Kobe and Jordan Farmar or something. That’s a lot easier and more conceivable than any offer made in November 2007.

Honestly, you’re making a very simple point of view exceedingly complicated based on a false or at least incomplete premise of how the cap works. You don’t believe Ben Gordon is good enough to make 11-12 million dollars. IMO, that’s a fair and debatable point, though I don’t agree with it. You don’t think Gordon will ever be “superstar” enough to be that type of salary that makes it easier to trade for a max guy (as explained above, you need those types of contracts) . You think, for some odd reason, that Gordon means the end of “flexibility,” and are cherrypicking selected, faulty cases of “impact” free agents that move.

(Anyway, would you rather have Rashard Lewis on a max contract? Is signing 29-year-olds like Baron and Brand, both with injury history, to five-year contracts, really the most prudent of strategies long-term? Hell, would you dump Gordon for the chance to overpay someone like Larry Hughes?).

Who is the last max-contract-worthy player to switch teams via free agency or a sign-and-trade? Grant Hill? Penny Hardaway? Tracy McGrady? You’d have to go all the way back to Shaquille O’Neal 12 years ago for a slam-dunk case. And what everyone is trying to say is that if the best way to acquire a max-contract worthy player is through a trade, then you need salary in order to match up. Andre Miller and his “bloated” contract was in the Iverson trade. BOTH Steve Francis and Cuttino Mobley were in the T-Mac trade. Devin Harris and his long-term contract was in the Kidd trade. The only exception to the rule is the Garnett trade (and if you consider Gasol a worthy max-guy, then him too), and Boston had ample time to fill the roster void in the offseason.

So really, your argument boils down to that you don’t think Ben Gordon is good enough. Fine. But don’t complicate things, because you’re way off base with the salary cap objections.

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

by Mike Prada on Aug 12, 2008 8:07 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

How am I off base?

Ben Gordon will never be good enough and overpaying him now with the hopes of trading him later is so flawed. Just re-read that statement because that is what you are proposing.

The Bulls would never have juice to take on Kobe. But if they wanted to make an attractive offer, the lakers would rather have PJ Brown signed to a 1 year-12 million dollar contract than a Ben Gordon at 6-75. That way with their youth (at the time Farmar, Bynum, Crittenton etc.), they could get a head start on the rebuilding process. They too realized Gordon at that price wasn’t winning them any championships.

Well everything I’ve read about the 76ers this offseason is how they’re prepared to contend in the Eastern Conference. All I hear about the Bulls is IF they re-sign Gordon they’ll be in the running to make the playoffs. So in their case the gamble made sense. You can’t have all 24 year old all-stars. It isn’t that simple.

Your trade values of players seem very off. Andre Millers bloated contract was only 3/28. Not 6/75 like Gordon. And he’s a PG. And he was so bloated the 76ers refused to trade him despite demand at every trade deadline from multiple teams.

McGrady was traded for an All-Star in Francis, who was coming off his 3rd straight year in the All-Star game. Mobley was an above average SG.

Devin Harris was in the 2nd year a 5/43 extension. That was a fair contract, the kind of contract Gordon should be agreeing to.

As noted, Boston traded no big salaries nor did the Lakers in the Gasol deal. In fact in both deals, the overriding factor was getting OUT FROM UNDER THE CONTRACT OF THE STAR. THIS MEANS THEY DIDN’T WANT BIG CONTRACTS IN RETURN. IN FACT, THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THE BULLS DIDNT GET GASOL!!! MEMPHIS WANTED EXPIRING CONTRACTS AND THE BULLS DIDN’T WANT TO SIGN AND TRADE PJ BROWN BECAUSE THEY’D BE IN THE LUXURY TAX.

So the final question is this. Right now, for the next 5 years, you can have Ben Gordon at 12, Baron and Elton at 15 or Rashard Lewis at 17 who would you pick and in what order. Starting a team from scratch. To have Gordon anywhere but 4th on the list is either a lie or utter stupidity.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 11:22 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The point was to illustrate

free agents that moved the last 2 years. It was said on here multiple times that free agents never leave. If we get under the cap, there are all-star caliber players available.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 13, 2008 11:05 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Again, your premise is simple

Jeez, calm down.

Your entire point of view is based on the premise that Ben Gordon is as good as Larry Hughes circa 2005.

Don’t assume that point is so cut and dry. In fact, to answer your last question, if I was John Paxson, I’d probably rather have Gordon than any of those guys. Davis would be blocking Rose, Lewis plays Deng position and isn’t as good and Brand blocks Thomas and is coming off an injury. Thinking that isn’t stupid, it’s just different from what you believe.

My point is, if you don’t think Ben Gordon is a part of this team’s future, don’t sign him at all, whether it’s 6/59 or 6/75. You might as well keep that extra money and somehow hope for something better (even though that “something better” rarely comes along).

But if you think Gordon is a part of the team’s future, or even if you think he’s sorta-maybe-possibly part of your future, you don’t risk losing him outright over a couple million dollars. The difference between a contract that’s worth 9 million/season and 12 million/season for one of your “core” guys is negligible and can easily be made up by signing a guy for 3 million a season to fill a bench spot over one making 6 million a season. Moreover, a 12-million dollar contract is hardly untradeable if the person is good, or at the very least, it’s not much more untradeable than someone with a 9-million dollar contract.

Bringing up Francis, Miller, Mobley, Harris etc. indicates that teams will take on long-term contracts of good, but not great players (Francis was coming off an injury in 2004 and wasn’t as good as he used to be). By the time you’d want to s/t Gordon, he won’t be a 6/75 contract, he’ll be a 4/47 or a 3/36. That puts him right on line with the two long-term contracts swapped in the Shaq trade, for example.

Gordon’s contract only becomes an albatross if he sucks. That’s the debatable point. If he doesn’t suck or he just turns out to be just below all-star level (basically, where he is now), the difference between 9 million and 12 million is negligible and not worth haggling over because of the risk that you lose him. It’s not the same as the difference between 3 and 6 million for a seventh man, because you rely more on someone like Gordon than your seventh man.

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

by Mike Prada on Aug 13, 2008 10:07 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The point is

a couple of million dollars means a lot, even if you don’t believe so. It’s not cut or dry, pay Gordon 12 million or let him go. He’s a good player who adds value to the team, but only at the right price. At 5/43 which is what Devin Harris signed for, he becomes a very good contributor who doesn’t bog down the cap. It may seem like that’s not a big deal now, but it adds up later.

You remind me of a car salesman that wants you to trade up models. “It’s only a few dollars more a month. Your payments go from 300 to 400 a month but now you have a sunroof and CD changer.” 9 to 12 million is a 33% raise.

I’m not even going to address the fact you’d turn down a trade of ben gordon for Brand/Lewis/B Davis. Add talent now, fill out the roster later. I guess you too would have taken Sam Bowie.

Lastly, your right I shouldn’t get all riled up over this. The rest of the league and the Bulls have spoken. Gordon isn’t worth the money. And he will have to figure it out the hard way next year.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 13, 2008 11:16 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

tough guy talk!

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 13, 2008 11:23 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

How does Gordon's contract make it easier?

He’ll have 2 years left at 13-14 million and he’ll be 30 years old. What is good about that. That’s the equivalent of Larry Hughes now. The player has no value. In fact, they have negative value.

Why do we dismiss free agency when players move every year despite very few teams even being under the cap? This year alone was Brand and Baron Davis. The year before was Rashard Lewis. And before you bash those players, all 3 have made all-star teams unlike the BAB superstar Ben Gordon who hasn’t even been close. Just because the Bulls missed once doesn’t mean every team does. And even if you get no one that way, the best trading asset is cap room, not overpaid players.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 7:24 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Right. Baron Davis and Elton Brand...

...would be like “settling” for Joe Johnson or Tracy McGrady. Sure, they’re good, but are you going to be happy if the Bulls end up signing those guys to $90-$100 million deals in two years?

You should read this article.

by tyger1147 on Aug 13, 2008 8:12 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Once you think your team is set,

go crazy about going over the cap. I have no problem with it. Orlando felt essentially Lewis was the final piece. I disagree because they had so many holes to fill but whatever.

However if you can get under the cap, you can’t afford overpaid players. You just can’t. If the Bulls said, “This is our team. We’re set, now we just need to develop this roster.” I would then say pay Gordon whatever to keep that team together. But there’s still time to change and shape things differently. As long as that’s the case and they still feel they need another great player, you can’t bog down your cap.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 13, 2008 11:19 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Honestly,

I’m starting to think that BG realizes that no other team in the league will offer him more than 8-9 mil per, and he feels like his best chance to top that is here in Chicago. While fairly delusional in its own right, it has certainly been a valiant push on his part to see what he can get the Bulls to up their offer to. If I were a betting man, though, I think that he will settle on a shorter deal (say, 3 years) that gets him almost 30 million. The QO would be disastrous for him, and if he goes to Europe, does he really want to come back to restricted free agency with the same franchise that he’s had so much trouble negotiating with? Doubtful.

Also, for those of you who don’t think the QO would be a terrible option…I’d like to see why you think that way. Why in the world would we play the guy consistent minutes this year when we’re in rebuilding mode and he’s obviously not going to be a part of the team’s future?

Seems to me that he has more or less backed himself into a situation that’s tough to get out from, so if I’m him, I take a shorter deal (which will at least guarantee him minutes, unlike the QO) and then in 2011 and in my prime, see what’s out there for me.

I really hope he at least takes a shorter deal because I’d like to see what he can do with Rose. It would be an exciting backcourt to watch and something that all of us fans need after suffering through last season’s on-court display of mundane suckitude.

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 Aug 12, 2008 9:10 AM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Did BG write the rules?
I’m starting to think that BG realizes that no other team in the league will offer him more than 8-9 mil per, and he feels like his best chance to top that is here in Chicago. While fairly delusional in its own right, it has certainly been a valiant push on his part to see what he can get the Bulls to up their offer to.
Gordon is playing the cards he was dealt. The CBA empowers a team to pay their own draft selections more money than other NBA clubs. They can bust the cap, the luxury tax threshold, whatever, to retain their own draft selections.

You may not think Gordon is worth more than 9 mil per, but the CBA makes Gordon worth more than 9 mil to the Chicago Bulls.

by NBA Observer on Aug 12, 2008 9:33 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Heh.
You may not think Gordon is worth more than 9 mil per, but the CBA makes Gordon worth more than 9 mil to the Chicago Bulls.

This is a ridiculous statement. Sure, if Gordon’s production and overall value to the team are actually worth more than 9 mil to the Bulls, the CBA allows them to offer him a contract above the current ~9-10 mil range. Just because the CBA is structured that way, though, does not inherently make BG deserving of 11-13 mil per. Why throw wasted money at someone just because you can? That’s just bad business and financial irresponsibility.

And you say Gordon is playing the cards he was dealt, well, uhh…that’s not working out too well for him right now, is it? I’m not a big proponent of the YEAH, LET’S STICK IT TO HIM!!! type of thing, but I think it would be silly to overpay him when even what he’s being offered is more than what any other team in the league would pay him, as it is. If he has actually realized that, I think in end he begrudgingly takes a deal with the Bulls.

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 Aug 12, 2008 9:45 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The Bulls overpaid

for Nocioni and Wallace. They may have overpaid for Hinrich. We’ll see how that turns out. None of these players are capable of averaging 20ppg in a 36 minute stretch.

How the hell do you overpay for roles on the roster and not do so for your leading scorer? Because your leading scorer is last on the “due for extension” lists?

The club is seriously damaging its reputation. Raymond Brothers may not be the smartest agent, but others are paying attention to the Bulls’ bean counters. The most profitable team in the NBA according to Forbes won’t pay their leading scorer the money he deserves.

Hoorah. Can’t wait for 2010 UFA’s to get this intelligence briefing from their agent.

by NBA Observer on Aug 12, 2008 10:11 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You confuse me

First…

How the hell do you overpay for roles on the roster and not do so for your leading scorer?

And then…

The most profitable team in the NBA according to Forbes won’t pay their leading scorer the money he deserves.

So, you’re saying he deserves to be overpaid because the Bulls were stupid enough to overpay guys that weren’t as good as him? That’s flawed logic, in my opinion.

Just because they botched those Noc, Kirk, and Corpse contracts doesn’t mean they should continually keep handing out overly-rich contracts that will eventually bite them in the rear.

Sure, if anything, BG deserves to be overpaid moreso than the previous three, but…where does it all end? They’ve already dug themselves in a few different holes with these crappy contracts they’ve given in the past, so why give out another one when it only hurts them economically in the long run? Where does it all end?

Just because the Bulls have apparently learned from past idiotic contract antics doesn’t mean that they’re intentionally screwing over BG. I mean, they’ve made it pretty clear with the latest offer that they do value him more than the rest of the league and would like to keep him here, but it’s not worth strapping the organization with another overly-rich contract that not many (if any) other teams around the league would ever want to take on.

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 Aug 12, 2008 10:29 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

a response
So, you’re saying he deserves to be overpaid because the Bulls were stupid enough to overpay guys that weren’t as good as him?

I’m saying you have to pay Gordon and be willing to pay the luxury tax because you’re still correcting your mistakes.

If you fail to pay Ben Gordon what he is worth – 11-13 mil per – you will make yet another mistake that will hurt your chances for acquiring UFAs in 2010.

The club has failed to move one of the two contracts they have to move now that they have Rose and Deng locked in. Either Hinrich or Nocioni has to go. They have to go to protect your leading scorer and pay him for what he will do for the club over the next few years OR what player/contracts he will yield in a trade market.

The Chicago Bulls without Ben Gordon’s scoring will compete night in and night out to reach 30 wins.

they’ve made it pretty clear with the latest offer that they do value him more than the rest of the league

The club didn’t do this. The CBA did combined with Gordon’s draft position.

by NBA Observer on Aug 12, 2008 12:10 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm all for

dumping Kirk or Noc to pay Gordon, but I’ve been posting under the assumption (this entire time) that they, and their bad contracts, are still on the team’s roster/payroll. This whole BG thing is a completely different matter to me if those guys are rightfully dumped, as they should be. I’d much rather overpay for BG than either of those two, but we can’t afford to overpay all three. It would be financially unintelligent to do so.

And…

The club didn’t do this. The CBA did combined with Gordon’s draft position.

Yes, the club did do this. They could how lowballed him and offered him even less than what they did, which is slightly above his market value.

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 Aug 12, 2008 12:29 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm not a CBA expert

But if you pay Gordon 11-13 mil per, bust the luxury tax in the process, do you not still have time between the date of signing and the opening of camp/lux tax dry cement date/whatever the hell they call it to move the contracts that have to be moved?

by NBA Observer on Aug 12, 2008 3:30 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yes, but

getting a bunch of other teams to take on extra salary isn’t exactly easy. It usually costs you 1st round draft picks.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 3:38 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

we'd have to pay tax on those picks anyway.

(I’m only half-joking)

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 3:42 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Who else besides you and Ben

think he’s worth 11-13 million per year?.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 12:59 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think

11 mil isn’t unreasonable. Especially if they unload either Noc or Kirk. If they offer that and Gordon accepts it I’d be happy. I don’t think they should go much higher than that, but since they’ve not even gotten their numbers back up to last years I’d say the Bulls have a little more to go as far as their offer is concerned.

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 Aug 12, 2008 1:11 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

11 is stretching reasonable

on a 2-3 year deal. More years, I say much less money per year.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 7:25 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I don't think the QO is that disasterous

he’s missing out on about a million for next season. Next year he’ll have more leverage as an unrestricted FA.

The disaster is if he’s mismanaged and underused this year because on the QO….but they’ve been doing that his whole career anyway.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 9:57 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Sure,

for next season, it’s monetarily no big deal.

What happens, though, when he’s buried on the bench and his production is non-existent because he’s never on the floor? Why would the Bulls play him if he’s not in the long-term plans? Do you think either party will want to come to an agreement next summer after BG has turned down two long-term contracts worth ~10 mil per year? No way; hence, he’ll be “underused” this year, but deservedly so for this year when the team isn’t going to be doing much damage as it is. I’d rather see what Thabo can do in extended minutes at SG if I know BG is bolting a year from now.

So, how would taking the QO give him any leverage as UFA? I’m seriously asking, because I just don’t see it. If he’s not on the court this year, his value is going to tank…I don’t think that can really be disputed. It’s pretty obvious that the rest of the league already values him even less than the Bulls do, so I don’t see how going out on the open market helps his cause at all. His best option is to take the reported 6/59, even if he’s pissed about it. In my opinion, it’s the best business decision he could make right now even if he’s not 100% saving face after this whole ordeal.

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 Aug 12, 2008 10:10 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If BG has offers to play in Europe

he darts for the old country. It won’t be in his interest to play for the Bulls on a QO with the current backlog of players in the backcourt.

by NBA Observer on Aug 12, 2008 10:13 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I could see him doing that

but, again…you do realize that when he comes back, he’s probalby not going to find anything better than 6/59, right? He’s running in circles at this point and he’s going to keep coming back to the Bulls’ (read: best) offer, whether he likes that or not. It’s a shame that it has played out like this for him, but such is the current market in the NBA.

I personally think he’s biding his time, hoping to somehow coerce the Bulls into the 62-63 mil range so he can feel that, at the least, his offer was upped from last summer. If this doesn’t happen, I do think he’ll take the 6/59 and move on with things. It’s just too much money to turn down when he won’t be able to recover from that a year from now.

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 Aug 12, 2008 10:36 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

there'd have to be an offer from Europe

that’s more than $6.2m. Probably a lot more.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 10:48 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Isn't Childress getting like 3/32?

Ben could definitely get more than $6.2 mil over there, me thinks.

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 Aug 12, 2008 10:53 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

there's only so many teams with that kind of scratch

Earl Boykins is now the highest paid player in Italy, at like $2m.

I guess the one rumored team from TrueHoop, Dynamo Moscow, could do it. They’ve been in talks with other cheaper guards though, like Janerro Pargo.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 11:13 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

he has more leverage as a UFA

because he doesn’t have the spectre of the Bulls matching an offer, and thus the UFA’s get the offers first when teams still have cap room to blow.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 10:49 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I can see it now

Pax and Reinsdorf: “Ben signed a contract with the Indiana Pacers. We expected him to give us time to match the offer, but he did not and we needed more time. We’re disappointed in that, but we will move on with the process of the processing”

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 10:50 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Spare me the Paxdorf speak for a moment

Noc, Kirk, and Corpse contracts aside: Do you really think this current offer to Ben is unfair just because they refuse to overpay him?

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 Aug 12, 2008 10:58 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

But you have to take those contracts into account

Overpaying is a precedent when it comes to their own players, especially since Paxson’s rebuilding plan has come into fruition. The deal is not unfair, what’s unfair is that they are treating Ben differently than they have treated all their other FAs for the past few years. Tyson, Corpse, Kirk, Noce, and Deng have all gotten their due within the organization. That Ben Gordon is the guy who causes some restraint within the front office confuses me.

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 Aug 12, 2008 11:02 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah, it bothers me too.

But for the good of the franchise, this seemingly never-ending streak of over-paying needs to stop at some point. It’s just plain bad management.

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 Aug 12, 2008 11:27 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Bad management

is booking 30 million in profit, according to Forbes, and then dragging on negotiations with your starting SF.

The Chairman is losing it.

by NBA Observer on Aug 12, 2008 12:13 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

They can afford to, though.

That’s the point you’re missing. And if Gordon turns out to be way overpaid, Hinrich and Nocioni should be long gone, meaning both: it is shown that even overpaid guys are tradeable and Gordon’s contract will be the only “bad” on the books.

by tyger1147 on Aug 12, 2008 12:50 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm sure the Bulls were thinking something very similar

when they were signing Noc. Point is that its never a good idea to have a bad contract because it always ends up hurting the team in the end.

by RogersPark Kris on Aug 12, 2008 12:53 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah,

well the point you’re missing is that it’s stupid to overpay Ben Gordon and just because we’ve done it in the past with even less-deserving players doesn’t mean we should continue this irresponsible trend.

And of course overpaid guys are tradeable…if you want someone awful in return. That’s not the path we need to be going down when we’re not winning big for at least a few years anyways.

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 Aug 12, 2008 1:01 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

there's different degrees of overpaid

you can overpay good or overpay suck.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 1:02 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

and we are winning big in a few years

otherwise why care?

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 1:02 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

of course

but one is stupid, and the other is really stupid.

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 Aug 12, 2008 1:03 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

can't bring in good/great ones when you're financially strapped

and spare me the “BUT WHO ELSE CAN THEY GET???” argument for now. it’s transparent when it’s tough to predict the fluidity of free agency and trades. i’d still much rather take a chance on bringing a bonified great player to Chicago than severely overpaying a merely “good” one. it’s hard to bring the great ones in when you’re overloaded with albatross contracts, though.

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 Aug 12, 2008 1:49 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

He's BONAFIED!!!!

Now it’s severely?

As I’ve stated several times, now that they’ve signed Deng, paying Gordon, even over-paying, makes it easier to acquire a bonafied great player. When it comes to bringing in Dwyane Wade, LeBron James or Chris Bosh (the only real bonafieds), being $2 million under or $15 million over the cap matters naught.

by tyger1147 on Aug 12, 2008 2:00 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

What you still don't get is

that just because those teams are losing superstars doesn’t mean they’ll want BG in return when they have to pay him 12 mil/yr for another 4 years. That equates to a bad contract. Not exactly what they want when they’ll presumably be in rebuilding mode after losing a superstar. We have a plent of other assets we could offer and you could always throw Deng into the equation if necessary. Overpaying BG in hopes that he can be included in a sign and trade is dumb.

And yes, 12-13 per (or whatever similar value he wants) is severe.

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 Aug 12, 2008 2:08 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Toronto and Miami won't be in rebuilding mode.

Especially when the Bulls can offer them two starters. Don’t think Toronto wouldn’t mind pairing Tyrus and Gordon w/ Calderon? Or that Gordon and Noah wouldn’t look good w/ Beasley and Chalmers? Yes, I think they would like those guys.

But more importantly, Gordon gives the Bulls options. Without him, the only option they have of getting one of those top-tier talents is in a sign-and-trade using Deng (because if you don’t think those teams don’t want Gordon, they certainly won’t want Hinrich and Nocioni at that point). You’ll still have to throw in Thomas or Noah, too. That leaves the Bulls w/ one less starter and one more big hole to fill. Simply having a superstar doesn’t make them anymore contenders than they are now.

The Bulls gain flexibility for 2010 (if that’s what they’re going for) by signing Gordon. They don’t lose it.

And which teams that are good don’t have at least one or two players that are severely overpaid by a whopping 20%? It’s the nature of the game.

by tyger1147 on Aug 12, 2008 2:32 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Said the Cavs fan when they originally inked Larry Hughes

“You think teams won’t want Larry Hughes in a sign-and-trade 2 years from now. Pair him with Drew Gooden and we can get any player we want!!”

Flash forward two years and it got them Ben Wallace. Congrats to the Cavs!!!

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 2:40 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

So you dismiss other arguments as hindsight?

But this one makes perfect sense?

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 Aug 12, 2008 4:00 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

No the point is

You can’t assume gordon at 4/48 left on his contract will be a valuable commodity to the Heat. I used hindsight as an example of why that thinking was flawed.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 4:14 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hughes had one good year?

Gordon had one bad? You are trying, though. I give you credit for that.

by tyger1147 on Aug 12, 2008 4:15 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Hughes PER

the three years leading up to the deal

15
17.5
22.5

The Cavs weren’t exactly stupid for signing him. It just didn’t work out, and these long expensive contract can be very tough to move.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 12, 2008 4:18 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

He had a good season--

—right before the signing, but I remember people saying it wasn’t smart back then because his game was so similar to Lebron.

Bad shooter, slasher, took a lot of shots. He’s a homeless man’s Lebron, but a Lebron-type of wing game nonetheless.

But yeah, 20/20 hindsight and all.

The Cavs made a bunch of dumb signings that offseason to prove to Lebron they were serious about winning. None of them worked.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Aug 12, 2008 4:25 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Waitttt

So tying up 100 million dollars in Gooden, Hughes, Ilgauskus, Eric Snow, and Donyell Marshall was a BAD thing?

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 Aug 12, 2008 4:27 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Talk about financial flexibility!

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 Aug 12, 2008 4:28 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It sounds crazy

But it might have been, from a certain point of view, not the best use of Quicken’s money.

Who coulda’ thought though? Marshall made 12 three pointers in a game the season before he got signed. 12!!!! What if he did that every game?!?

HE’D BE UNSTOPPABLE!!

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Aug 12, 2008 4:29 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

tangential rumor-myth

the story goes that Paxson could’ve moved up to #4 (Toronto) in the ‘03 draft to select Dwayne Wade but didn’t want to give up Marshall.

Then he wound up trading Marshall there months later in the Jalen/AD crap-swap

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 4:37 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I never heard that one

I still like the rumor of Pat Riley being talked out of taking Chris Kaman in favor of Wade.

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 Aug 12, 2008 4:45 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Flexibility in personnel, sure.

But flexibility financially? Not so much.

Just because BG is a good player and would help ease the loss of a Bosh or a Wade doesn’t mean that either of those teams would want his overly-large contract in return. We have plenty of other assets to get a deal done with.

Plus, the roster wouldn’t be nearly as barren as you think. You’re forgetting about Rose, it seems. If this kid develops like he should, we have a budding superstar to go along with a bonified superstar, along with at least a couple of complimentary pieces out of the Kirk/Thabo/Noc/Tyrus/Noah group (whichever are left after the S/T). It wouldn’t be too difficult to bring in some veterans to fill out the roster if we could get something like this done.

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 Aug 12, 2008 3:00 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Rose won't be that good that soon.

You’re putting too much faith in him, it seems. Williams and Paul weren’t great until their third year. Both spent more time in college than Rose and Rose is considered more raw. And neither one of them made it to the Western Conference Finals.

We’re talking at least the fourth year until this team is ready for “real” championship talk, at the earliest. That puts Hinrich and Nocioni out of the picture as anything significant. And I can only imagine that one of Thomas and Noah will be traded in a sign-and-trade for a superduperbonafiedstar. So you’ll be left w/ Rose, SDBS, and Thomas/Noah and then “some veterans” that grow on trees, apparently. The Joe Smith variety, I assume you’re talking about.

championship all the way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by tyger1147 on Aug 12, 2008 3:10 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You're especially insufferable right now

but for some reason I’ll at least try to continue to be civil here without retreating to your uppity level of snark. (Hint: I respect your knowledge and you generally bring good discussion to the table, but your angry, high-horse shtick is wearing thin, and it doesn’t make you look cool.)

Anyways, when I called Rose a “budding superstar,” I was referring to the fact that 3-4 years down the line is when I expect him to start performing at an all-star level. I realize he came in the league younger than the other two guys, but that’s about when I think he’ll start hitting his stride. He’s also a very different player than either of them, so at this point I don’t even like comparing him to those two all that much. Don’t you think one of the league’s superstars would love to play with a guy like Rose who is on the verge of stardom? Did you read Dwight Howard’s comments on his play in the exhibition games? The guy is going to be the most attractive force when it comes to attracting these players…and for a reason. Even if in 2 years he’s still slightly inconsistent and growing into the NBA game, I think he’s still a huge piece of the puzzle.

And really, veterans aren’t hard to find. Guys like Kurt Thomas, Sam Cassell (lol?), PJ Brown, etc. aren’t hard to find, assuming you have a GM who does more than play Solitaire on his laptop all day.

A realistic prediction would be that in year 2 of SDBS tenure with the Bulls, they are a legit title contender. I don’t think that’s out of the realm of possibility at all, given that it would be Rose’s 4th year in the league at that poitn.

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 Aug 12, 2008 3:25 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Rose in 4th year + SDBS + PJ Brown...

... and Sam Cassell or the like are hardly a championship-contending team.

by tyger1147 on Aug 12, 2008 4:18 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

So

you don’t think any of Hinrich, BG, Tyrus, Noah, Thabo, Noc, etc. are going to be around? We’re trading our entire roster sans Rose for a SDBS? No.

I also don’t get how you can be so in favor of trying to work a S/T, but then ignore the possiblity of bringing in future free agents and making other trades that could help reinforce our roster around Rose/SDBS/whoever is left on our team.

Keep twisting my thoughts, though, if you want.

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 Aug 12, 2008 4:21 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

How will they get under the cap...

...ENOUGH to sign the SDBS if all of those guys are still around?

by tyger1147 on Aug 12, 2008 4:34 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm referring to the (probably) ~2 out of 6 that are left, hypothetically

You must be skimming all of my posts today, because that’s the second time I’ve mentioned this.

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 Aug 12, 2008 4:43 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

and really,

this post sums up everything that’s wrong with your attitude on here

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 Aug 12, 2008 4:23 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

And please, tell me, how "not so much."

Points aren’t automatically dismissed because you say so.

by tyger1147 on Aug 12, 2008 3:11 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If Hinrich, Noc, and Gordon

are still around, and we still have to pay Tyrus, Thabo, and Noah…we’re not exactly going to have tons of leeway when it comes to signing a big-time free agent.

If S/Ts were as plausible as you seem to think they are, though, I guess it wouldn’t be a problem since we would have so many assets. Who knows, though, it’s nothing that any of us can predict anyways.

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 Aug 12, 2008 3:27 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yet that's what we're trying to do.

Dismissing my argument like that is poor form.

by tyger1147 on Aug 12, 2008 4:16 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I didn't dimiss your argument

I’m just saying it’s not nearly as surefire of an option as you seem to think it is. And this is coming from someone who thinks that a S/T would be a good idea.

Your the one who’s always firing off with the hostility in here, so please spare me the “boohoo, you’re ignoring my argument” spiel when you well know that’s not the case at all.

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 Aug 12, 2008 4:18 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

None of them are surefire.

But there’s “what’s easiest” and “what’s harder”. Signing one of the best players in the league outright as a FA is perhaps the hardest (or least likely) transaction to make in the NBA.

And forgive me for thinkin you’re not ni fvaor of a sign and trade since you think paying Gordon 12 million is severely overpaying.

by tyger1147 on Aug 12, 2008 4:40 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well, I'm pretty sure

almost every single league executive would say that’s severely overpaying as well. You’re in the minority here.

I just think an S/T involving BG would be a lot easier if he comes with a more manageable contract considering we already have a lot of other pieces we can toss in the deal to make something happen.

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 Aug 12, 2008 4:45 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

also

a case can be made that both Baron Davis and Elton Brand are overpaid.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 4:47 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

it's fair, it could be fair-er

:-)

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 11:13 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Economically fair, but egotistically and interpersonally unfair.

That I will agree with.

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 Aug 12, 2008 11:35 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Too bad for Ben, though,

no other teams will be offering him ~10 mil per, like the Bulls are. I’ll eat a nice, hefty crow sandwich if they do.

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 Aug 12, 2008 10:55 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

And not to mention

the fact that he wants more than that, so…I just don’t see how being a UFA is going to work out very well for him. The Bulls’ offer is the best there is, and in all likelihood, will continue to be the best. Turning it down twice will most likely prove to be a large mistake.

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 Aug 12, 2008 10:56 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

big deal

he doesn’t have to be a Bull anymore, that’s worth a couple-mil. He’s a confident guy and thinks he’ll have a fine season, and teams always make head-scratching offers with they have cap-room burning a hole in their pocket.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 11:14 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

point is I don't think it's correct to assume he'll never get another offer as good.

It’s a risk on his part, of course.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 11:15 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That's the other thing

the guy wants an offer more than one that would be “as good.” To channel my inner Mortimer: That ain’t happenin’. So, if he decides to enter UFA next year on the grounds that he’ll take a similar offer to what the Bulls’ is, then maybe…maybe he’s getting that. Even if that happens, he’s going to be on an absolutely terrible team in all likelihood.

If he truly thinks he’s getting much more than what’s on the table right now, then I’m sorry, but he must be mentally insane the worst gambler in American history.

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 Aug 12, 2008 11:33 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Or Paul Allen arrives at his doorstep with a big sack o' money

and Gordon, the Blazers, and Mortimer (BE readers can convince themselves) are all happy.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 11:51 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Just what the Blazers need...

another combo guard! Really though, the ensuing interaction between BaB/BE would be about as epic as any the NBA blogosphere has ever seen. Can you imagine the terrifying amount of diatribes being spewed left and right (on both boards) if that actually happened?

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 Aug 12, 2008 12:24 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think Roy/BG would work fine

plus, BG can challenge Aldridge in the rebounding department (bwahaha)

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 12:34 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well, them getting Bayless

virtually negates any need for Gordon. Plus they have Rudy as well.

And we’ve all concluded that Aldridge is basically a longer Joe Smith, right?

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 Aug 12, 2008 12:39 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I was just using an excuse to rip Aldridge

Portland will likely have a good season and want to make moves to win, not just stockpile guys on rookie contracts. So they’d likely be OK upgrading from Bayless to Gordon.

just an excuse to rip on the Bulls

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 12:53 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

That wasn't meant to be bolded

just starred….and then the star pointed to that second line. Damned auto-formatting.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 12:55 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'll wait until Bayless can shoot like Gordon.

He might be good, but the Blazer’s “window” isn’t five years off like the Bulls. The Blazers should be looking to compete for a championship in 2010 and beyond. Bayless might be “ready”, might not be. Gordon will be in his prime. Of course, they’ll have to take Bayless’s performance this year into consideration.

I could also see Pritchard not minding to spend 11-12 million per year on one of the best shooters in the NBA, even for a sixthman.

by tyger1147 on Aug 12, 2008 12:55 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'd say

Atlanta signing BG to pair with Joe Johnson in the backcourt would be more likely, although that would require Atlanta doing something proactive.

by JSlakov on Aug 12, 2008 12:42 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah Atlanta doing something right will never happen

The Josh Smith signing was pretty much done for them. Maybe Pax is waiting Memphis to offer Gordon 6/60?

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 Aug 12, 2008 12:48 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

yup

although they could only offer a 5 year deal. too bad they already have Mayo or I’d be hoping for that just to get this over with.

by JSlakov on Aug 12, 2008 1:00 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

the only way I see it is if you believe in an agent conspiracy

but it’s so much of a risk for the Griz in case the Bulls didn’t match that I can’t see that happening.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 12, 2008 1:03 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs