Blog a Bull: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:



Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Coyotes Ink Aucoin to One Year Deal


Bulls Beat #58

In the latest Bulls Beat podcast, Doug echoes a lot of what I've been saying the past few weeks. Namely, Gordon's better than what many may believe, and his loss will hurt the Bulls drastically. Also some interesting analysis on what a $10m/yr player really means in the league 'market'.

That all said, Doug also thinks Ben's full of crap when Ben says he won't take the QO and a sign/trade is imminent, because no teams can really offer the Bulls anything worthwhile (Doug has more faith in Paxson not taking back crap than I do).  Also supports the idea of just going temporarily into the tax to get a deal done.

Worth a listen (yes, sure, I'd consider it less worthwhile of a listen if he disagreed with my opinions).

0 recs | Comment 119 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

doug snaps on this podcast....

…i mean seriously, i´ve never heard his come off like this. everyone should listen to this…just to here hear other peoples opinion voice. and for the record, i´m going to accuse people of being, intellectually dishonest with themselves, tonight. wow, just, wow.

by jocrucial on Aug 18, 2008 8:19 PM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

uh, what?

I will second the remark on the ‘other peoples’ voice he does. But it’s more of a minor annoyance, not dishonesty. You ever read the RealGM board?

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 18, 2008 9:44 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It seemed like a normal podcast to me.

Not sure I can make out what you were talking about? You mean the voice he used to depict the opinions of the masses? That doesn’t bother me so much. It isn’t hard to get fed up with the masses after all.

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 18, 2008 11:52 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

doug accused people of being intellectually dishonest with themselves

when the claim is made that Ben Gordon is a bench player – thereby downplaying his impact.

by swede2287 on Aug 19, 2008 2:33 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

oh

that makes jocrucial’s comment make more (any) sense.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 19, 2008 2:37 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Nail on head:
Here’s what we have, ‘ere: Gordon’s nice guy, a nice player, and a hard-worker … who’s incredibly delusional.

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 19, 2008 10:03 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Man, this guy is my new hero. This should be a new fanshot...
This doesn’t mean the Bulls aren’t being cheap by not going into luxury tax territory. They are. But in this case, these lucky so-and-sos have made it so the absolute maximum offered under the tax is right in line with what a player like Ben should be making. I’m their biggest critic, but they’re right.

And Ben? He’s just stuck. And flailing.

DING DING DING!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!

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 19, 2008 10:10 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Money = Minutes

Ben Gordon isn’t an idiot and I don’t think he is doing a disservice to himself at all in behaving in this manner. He’s not flailing. His priority is simple, minutes.

What’s distressing to him is that if you concede that D Rose will start at PG then there are four candidates to start at SG including Hughes. FOUR! Hinrich will get burn because he’s Reinsdorf’s pet. Hughes will get burn because you can’t let money sit on the bench. Thabo will get burn because of needed development minutes and because of his situational defense (Wade in playoffs ’07). Gordon knows that minutes are based on money and he wants the organization to commit to him in a big way. Thats smart!

If Gordon signs for 8 mil this season then he’s third off the bench in some games. THIRD! Regardless of his relative merit across the league he’s a prime time player with room to grow. This isn’t a money decision as much as a career decision. Do you want to sign with a team that is going to play you less than 30 mins a game for the next six years? That would be stupid!

He’s a player constantly expanding his (offensive) game and he made some moves last season that were incredible. Massive Pump Fakes. Spinning Step Back Threes. Moves that were executed with a precision that can only come from practice and repetition. To have the the kind of career he envisions he needs to get 30+ minutes and that means getting payed more than Hughes.

He’s now firmly on the distraction course. He has seen athletes lower their trade value considerably just by being a distraction (Terrell Owens, Artest, Vince Carter). Its a calculated risk that will get him onto a team where he’ll get the room to take his game to a higher level. I’d consider him classy by just using a contract dispute to create the distraction and not a public QB feud, a major brawl, or obvious sub standard play. He’s doing exactly what he needs to do.

by JockstrapNoah on Aug 19, 2008 1:13 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

There's no way

that Paxson isn’t going to unload a couple guys to clear out the logjam if BG is signed for 6 years. They won’t be signing him for ~10 mil/year to only play him 20 minutes a night. I fully believe Pax won’t just sit on his hands if he gets this deal done; it would make no sense. At the least, you would think at least one of Hinrich/Hughes is gone, along with Nocioni. In this case, Thabo could take all the backup SF minutes and then Rose/BG/Hinrich or Hughes is your backcourt rotation. That would be the best case scenario here IMO.

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 19, 2008 1:40 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

This is pointed out in the podcast

Maybe Ben KNOWS exactly that, Paxson will clear out some ‘guard glut’, and potentially some luxury tax room. So why accept a deal now when there’s potentially more room under the tax later?

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 19, 2008 1:49 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

good point

This is a good point I had never thought of. I hope not, as I think 6/59 is fair. But it brings up a valid point, that BG may be trying to make the bulls pull off any deal, even if its not a sign and trade. This would paint the bulls into a corner and free up a bunch of leverage he could then use. I doubt this scenario develops, but good point nonetheless.

by ridindirty on Aug 19, 2008 2:19 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah, I could definitely see Ben thinking like that.

And if it doesn’t happen, I’d be willing to guess that he ends up taking the 6/59. It would be the last remaining option that makes any sense.

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 19, 2008 2:35 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Love the Dwyer article

what the Bulls are offering does seem right, luxury tax or no tax, I don’t think the offer should be any higher. Maybe smoothing out the cash flows a little better so that BG gets more than $6.4m this year, but the overall offer is fair in my opinion.

by messwiththebull on Aug 19, 2008 10:26 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

6.4 is the QO

he’d get over 8 (correct me if i’m wrong) if he takes the bulls’ offer.

by Jaina on Aug 19, 2008 10:28 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

This is when we need Sports2 to respond

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 19, 2008 10:31 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

it's like $7.5m

(off the top of my head)

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 19, 2008 10:36 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

How do you support "fair"

when the offer at 6/59 is toeing the luxury tax line?

by NBA Observer on Aug 19, 2008 4:01 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

From Dywer’s article:

"One problem with that. Ben doesn’t have any leverage. He has less than leverage. He has unleverage.

(Unless, of course, he wants to play international ball. And if he thought it were a viable option worth pursuing, with the money that is — or, was — available, don’t you think he’d be over there by now?) "

Precisely. As I have said repeatedly, Gordon has no leverage. He has no negotiating power. he has been beaten by circumstance.

If he has a brain in his head, he’ll take the Bulls offer, which is equitable.

This protracted delay is being driven almost exclusively by Gordon’s ego.

Also, any assertion that the Bulls will be drastically worse as a result of Ben’s departure is, in my view, reactionary dreck. You take the exact same lineup the Bulls had last year, then replace Wallace with Noah, Skiles with any coach that the players don’t despise, an injured Deng with a healthy Deng, and Gordon with the number one overall draft pick, and somehow the team is going to be worse? I don’t think so.

LSU 38 OHIO STATE 24 - LSU IS THE NATIONAL CHAMPION AND I AM THE KING OF BOURBON STREET!!

by 1958ChiTown on Aug 21, 2008 1:37 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

No one's saying they'll be worse than last season w/out Gordon

The argument is the Bulls would be worse without Gordon than they would be with him

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 21, 2008 1:39 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

And my point is that I don't think Ben Gordon is central to this team's long

term championship aspirations.

I don’t think he is an irreplaceable part who should command more than an average of $10 MM per season. He is a good player, who should be paid commensurate with his skills. That’s all.

LSU 38 OHIO STATE 24 - LSU IS THE NATIONAL CHAMPION AND I AM THE KING OF BOURBON STREET!!

by 1958ChiTown on Aug 21, 2008 2:49 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   1 recs

I think that's what most here have been trying to say

He’s not the key to the team, but he’s pretty damn valuable and not worth giving up on until a suitable replacement or upgrade is found

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 21, 2008 3:51 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It's easy to say about someone else

But how many of us would be happy going to work every day if you were offered a contract by their boss at Point A and then, at Point B, that offer was yanked and you were offered a smaller contract?

And how many of us would be happy if we went to a job interview at Company B and they offer you more money than you make at Company A. You kind of want to stay at company A, but they respond by not offering you any more. For every person I’ve ever talked to about it, that’s inevitably a long-standing grievance that makes it very likely you’ll be gone as soon as possible and not really happy until then.

You can talk all you want about leverage, or how it’s a lot of money and it shouldn’t matter, but it does. People are still people. And leverage, amounts, and “winning” the negotiation go out the window.

Well, they don’t completely go out the window, but it’s clear that you can win the battle by having leverage but lose the war because there are points at which you just can’t prosecute your advantage to the hilt against people you want to be happy and productive long-term members of your team.

by Sports2 on Aug 21, 2008 2:13 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well...

First of all, I am not certain that this analogy applies:

“And how many of us would be happy if we went to a job interview at Company B and they offer you more money than you make at Company A. You kind of want to stay at company A, but they respond by not offering you any more.”

So far as I know, no “Company B” has ever offfered Ben Gordon a more lucrative contract. That’s the problem, from Gordon’s pers[ective.

Second of, I don’t really see how Gordon can afford to act like a petulant distraction if, in fact. he signs with the Bulls. That will only further devalue him and damage his career.

The bottom line is that Gordon and his agents overestimated his value during the 2007 offseason, when they declined the Bulls initial offer. That miscalculation was followed by Gordon’s subpar season, which compounded the error. Gordon is now suffering the consequences of both his lack of business acumen and his poor play.

Finally, I don’t necessarily agree that the Bulls owe Gordon some sort of “pride premium.” That is, I don’t think the Bulls should necessarily offer Gordon more money simply so that his ego is assuaged and he feels as if he “won” the negotiation.

LSU 38 OHIO STATE 24 - LSU IS THE NATIONAL CHAMPION AND I AM THE KING OF BOURBON STREET!!

by 1958ChiTown on Aug 21, 2008 2:44 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   2 recs

It's not an analogy, it's an example.

And it was the second example, not the only one. Though it’s been said that several teams have inquired about Gordon in sign and trade. Those teams were probably offering garbage to the Bulls, but from Gordon’s perspective (the actual money he’d make) they were probably still offering more than the Bulls.

But I wasn’t really making analogies. Together with the experience of getting a better offer yanked, I’m simply pointing out that it’s human nature to not be happy in that situation and to look for a way out.

I don’t think it’s controversial to say that most people, if forced into accepting a lower offer than what had previously been made, will harbor some resentment and look for new employment. I think that’s simply common sense.

That doesn’t mean the player or the employee will “act like a petulant distraction”. There’s a pretty wide range of job satisfaction between “happy” and “petulant distraction”.

Which, again, ought to be proven time and again by observing things in our own places of employment. “Guy working in Office” isn’t going to go nuts and tell his boss off, but he might not skip lunch and come in every Saturday either.

I don’t know if that qualifies as a “pride premium” or not, but I do know that most people that give a shit, not just pro basketball players, take some pride in what they do. But most people can also get pretty turned off by slights, real or perceived.

So if you want to take the hard-ass approach, and say your employees should be thankful and that you were doing them “a favor” (a statement that, in this context, pretty clearly states you think they’re “ungrateful” and/or stupid), I’m not saying that never works. But what I am saying is it rarely commands much in the way of loyalty or anything more than the minimum amount of effort one might expect from self-interested effort in the first place.

Most employees skate by when that happens to them, and then leave at the first opportunity.

While the NBA rules are different than everyday employment rules, and while I don’t expect Gordon to completely flip, I see sticking to the hard-line as pretty silly when all we’re talking about is a couple million to make a face-saving, feel-good situation for all involved.

Be clear, I’m not talking about offering Ben $80M or anything. But if the Bulls are serious about having him back (and they’d better be if they’re offering him $59M or they’re ridiculously silly) then they really ought to consider what they’re getting for $59M vs. what they’d be getting for $63M.

At $59M, Ben is taking a smaller deal than what he was offered before. That’s the sort of thing that sticks in peoples’ craw whether they make $59M or $59K. So why go down that road when it’s so easy to avoid?

If it’s because you simply want to assuage your own ego and “win” the negotiation, and show him that he miscalculated last year, well, then who’s the one making it personal then? I’d say that’s a personal issue all around and you should re-consider whether you actually want the guy for what you’ve offered him in the first place.

by Sports2 on Aug 21, 2008 3:54 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Yeah

I agree with you. I think a slight increase in their offer would show good faith in Gordon, save face for everyone involved, and get Gordon to resign with little damage to the budget and future moves (assuming moving Hinrich and Noc were already on the to-do list anyway). And if Gordon doesn’t sign at that point then they would have legitimately done everything possible. I consider their offer at the moment a completely arbitrary luxury tax figure that has “not negotiable” written all over it. Wonder why negotiations are not working out? That would be the cause. A more flexible figure would at least give them something to talk about a few numbers one way or another. As it stands now I doubt there will be a positive outcome.

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 21, 2008 6:18 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

All I know is if my company offered me a contract at Point A

for 5 years 50 million, when I deserve 5 years, 40 million I would take it!

I’d only be mad at myself for turning down the original offer.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 22, 2008 12:57 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

so the difference is that you have lower opinion of yourself.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 22, 2008 1:01 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

No it's called maximizing your value

When you’re offered something great, you don’t risk it and then complain when your risk doesn’t pay off.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 22, 2008 2:35 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Pretty horrible...
He’s a guy who… 20 games a year can step up and win a game for you basically by himself

So BG is worth 20 wins now? That podcast was horrible. His arguments were weak and poorly thought out.

I really liked the Dwyer article. I like how he concedes the point that the bulls do have a need for:

a B-level Michael Redd, but that’s not the post we’re writing today.

But the teams need for this does not mean we should overpay Ben. He sees the contract negotiations for what they are, and lays out an objective argument: Ben has no leverage, so the team is smart not to overpay him. He does not let the teams needs nor past contracts cloud his judgment. Well done.

by ridindirty on Aug 19, 2008 12:02 PM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Redd will be making ~$15.8m this year

So what exactly do you think “B-Level” is without calling it overpaid?

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 19, 2008 12:52 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

pretty simple

What the market deems is correct. In this case, 59mill over 6 yrs seems to be the best offer.

by ridindirty on Aug 19, 2008 1:21 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

explain

I don’t understand why you guys want to compare contracts so often. What the maket for Redd was when he signed his contract is in no way indicative of what BG is “worth”.

This is an honest question, not a shot at anyone. I see a lot of people who are all for overpaying because of previous contracts, and I do not understand it.

by ridindirty on Aug 19, 2008 1:25 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

all ways are dicey when determining 'market value'

but I believe that one wrong way is to say: no teams with cap room giving no offers determines that market value.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 19, 2008 1:52 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

why not?

That is the market place, no?

by ridindirty on Aug 19, 2008 2:10 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It's not a free market, there's far too many rules, regulations and red tape

Therefore, there’s no true “market value” in the common sense of the term

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

by snley on Aug 19, 2008 2:21 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i disagree

There is a marketplace which vies for BG’s talents. They determine his value. Having a free market and value which is tied a marketplace are too vastly different things. Even the availability of a free market does not necessarily constitute fair market value being obtained… But I digress to my point that there is a market out there for Ben and it has been set, by the Bulls, at 6/59. I do not see anyone else willing to pay him more.

by ridindirty on Aug 19, 2008 2:48 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It's a market of one because of market conditions

Noone else appears willing to pay him more because there’s only one other team capable of outright paying him more and they are not in need of his services. Honestly, none of us have any more than a guess as to if there might be S/T’s available for him that would allow him to be paid more

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 19, 2008 2:51 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I concur.

I agree totally. I am advocating keeping our offer at what it is, because of this fact. Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

by ridindirty on Aug 19, 2008 3:09 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think the current offer is fair but would not be opposed to the Bulls upping it a little more

if that’s what it takes. I’m just weary and wary of people saying BG should accept “fair market value” without demonstrating they realize it’s a very limited market and in a more open market, like MLB, we would have a better sense of how he’s valued by other teams.

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 19, 2008 3:13 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

True

When Redd was a FA, Cleveland wanted him to play with Lebron. Hughes was their second choice. By having a viable suitor, Redd was then able to get the Bucks to bump his offer up to 15/yr or whatever it was. Gordon doesn’t have any other team desperate to get him.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 19, 2008 2:46 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

the Bucks were idiots

for offering that much regardless of what the Cavs were offering. It’s a bad contract, and Iots of Bucks fan wish the Cavs were paying it instead of the Bucks. Redd’s not that good, Hughes isn’t that good.

Redd’s badness is hidden in the awfulness that has been the Bucks the past few years.

by KT on Aug 19, 2008 3:34 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well Johnson was a restricted free agent

they always are addressed last because of the waiting period. You don’t want your cap in limbo while all the unrestricteds sign elsewhere.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 19, 2008 3:54 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I disagree...the Ellis contract was "market value" in my eyes

Why they can’t go to 6/66 for BG (not luxury tax withstanding) makes no sense. Ben even referenced the Ellis contract in one of his earlier interviews. THAT was the bar the Bulls could’ve and should’ve went for. It’s not Deng money, but it’s close enough to make him happy. Give him that, along with the “promise” that one or two of the guards will be moved and there’s your deal.

by NormVanBeer on Aug 19, 2008 2:47 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

He specifically referenced the Ellis contract? Link?

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 19, 2008 2:51 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

here

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/basketball/bulls/1078951,CST-SPT-bull29.article

‘’I don’t know if the team is waiting to see what the market is for other guys, but I see guys like Monta Ellis signed, [Andris] Biedrins is signed and a couple of guys are getting deals done. Hopefully, that’ll kind of propel things forward and we can get something done.’’

by NormVanBeer on Aug 19, 2008 3:04 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Interesting. Thanks.

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 19, 2008 3:06 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

no problem

So many times we’ve heard Paxson mention that he is waiting for the market to determine a player’s value…well…what happened here?? It was like they just totally acted like the Ellis contract never happened and hoped that nobody ever noticed it.

I can picture Paxson and Reinsdorf sitting in an office at the Berto with their fingers crossed and they eyes shut tightly, saying: “Just ignore it and it will go away…just ignore it and it will go away…”

by NormVanBeer on Aug 19, 2008 3:22 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

6/59?

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 19, 2008 1:40 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

6/59.....

not completely sure what you two are debating…..

6/59 is a number that puts him in the class of good, but not great, shooting guards.

That seems to be a fair number, and one that I would hope the Bulls are offering. From what we’ve heard – it seems the problem is that Gordon feels that he’s worth significantly more than that.

by swede2287 on Aug 19, 2008 1:45 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I wonder if they've bothered to offer him the Monta Ellis contract?

Ellis vs Gordon is another fanpost, but you could argue they are very similar players with similar pluses and minuses. If Gordon was offered 6/67, I wonder if he would accept it, as he should realize by now the Bulls organization doesn’t value him that much, if a good sign and trade was available it would have been done by now, and other teams aren’t making offers.

"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 19, 2008 1:50 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

or the Bulls won't even offer insignificantly more.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 19, 2008 1:50 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

yes...but an insignificant amount that would put them in the luxury tax

If Gordon really wants to be the highest paid Bull, then he sure won’t agree to an offer that is insignificantly more.

by swede2287 on Aug 19, 2008 1:53 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

They Should have done gordon first

have him settle on 60.5 million and then give deng his money….also does anyone know the maximum the bulls could offer before they hit the tax? I mean they could still go higher than 59/6 right?

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

by piccolomair on Aug 19, 2008 1:59 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

No. 6/59 hedges right up against the tax.

And this very issue is pretty much the whole crux of the debate (at this point).

When I watch NBA games I often call the fouls before the referees do. Sometimes it’s a gift. Most of the time it's troublesome. - NBA Observer

by Illini15 on Aug 19, 2008 2:39 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

...or both

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 19, 2008 2:38 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

debating

We are debating whether or not 6/59 is market value.

by ridindirty on Aug 19, 2008 2:15 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Is that a worthwhile debate?

At best it’s a heavily regulated market with products we have a very hard time judging.

by Sports2 on Aug 19, 2008 3:49 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Cleveland was courting Redd pretty hard, too

the chance to play with LeBron and back in his home state required a premium to be paid. But I think Redd is overpaid, too, and get the impression that Milwaukee would like to move him if it could get sufficient value in return.

by messwiththebull on Aug 19, 2008 2:32 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

If you overpay it makes it even harder to move the player.

Bulls don’t have a single all-star and no reason to destroy their flexibility for any of them.

by hhirb on Aug 19, 2008 2:37 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Sorry I added this above.

Didn’t scroll all the way down yet.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 19, 2008 2:48 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

This comment just doesn't work....
He’s a guy who… 20 games a year can step up and win a game for you basically by himself

A player’s ability to hit “key shots” doesn’t translate to 20 wins for a team. That’s absurd. Wages of Wins does a nice job of addressing this misconception in the case of Jannero Pargo.

by swede2287 on Aug 19, 2008 2:58 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I'm hoping

You realize I quoted the podcast in that remark. I in no way, shape or form agree with that. I found it absurd also.

by ridindirty on Aug 19, 2008 3:07 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I don't think

you’ve found anything not absurd yet. So it is safe to assume whenever you post it is about something being absurd.

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 19, 2008 3:34 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

When

arguments are logical and coherent, I rarely find them absurd :-)

Saying BG is good for 20 wins a yr is quite absurd.

by ridindirty on Aug 19, 2008 3:39 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I think the B-level stuff was weak

Redd’s a terrific shooter, but Ben’s a better defender and penetrator. And EVERYBODY scores on the Bucks – they just don’t win.

The poster formerly known as Freethefro.

by MPG on Aug 20, 2008 8:36 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Huh??

Redd takes more shots near the basket and scores at a higher percentage than Ben. I’ve seen Redd drive to the basket and dunk in traffic and do moves that i’ve never seen Ben do. Plus, I don’t think you can find many shooting guards in the league that is worse at defense than Ben.

by Parrotman on Aug 20, 2008 5:18 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i was with u...

Until that last sentence. Bg7 isnt a great defender, and possibly might be the worst defensive guard on this team, but there are alot worse defenders. I think redd actually is one of them, then theres jr smith, jj redick, monta ellis, hell i think gordon defends better than melo…

That said, i am not saying gordon isnt a bad defender, he is average, and if he was taller (here it comes) he would seem like a better defender. His height doesnt make him a bad defender technique or desire wise, but taller guys usually do try to shoot over, run over, or dunk over smaller guys…no matter how beefed they are.

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

by piccolomair on Aug 20, 2008 11:48 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well statistically

He isn’t just probably the worst defensive guard on the team but probably the worst defensive player on the team. Also are you saying he’s an average defender for an undersized shooting guard? The fact that he’s undersized at his position basically means he needs to be an above average defender for a person his size to be average at that position.

by Parrotman on Aug 21, 2008 2:18 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

average?

His height doesnt make him a bad defender technique wise, but his inability to react correctly to a screen, or be in correct position does. He also gives people the outside shot, which confuses me also for an undersized, and supposedly quick guard. I realize I am beating this into the ground, but in every close game the automatic move of the opposing coach is putting BG on the block vs his opposing SG…. It limits his effectiveness late in games. He is a hard player to hide on the defensive end.

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

Wow doug thinks that ben gordon is going to be much better on another team

than on ours.

I couldn’t disagree more. Because of our utter lack of good offensive players the last few years, Gordon had free rein to shoot for years. If anybody can make his argument make sense, I’d love to hear it.

by swede2287 on Aug 19, 2008 3:02 PM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ben will do better with other offensive players

because then there’s less pressure on him to not only shoot but take tough shots. Like the ones with his and Ben Wallace’s defender draped on him?

This is why getting Derrick Rose is a good thing for him? Right? Having more good players is good?

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 19, 2008 3:10 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

well okay he could be more efficient on another team

with better offensive players. Shoot a better percentage i suppose.

But he’s not going to be that 20 pt scorer from 06-07 on a team like the Blazers, Suns, Heat, whoever. Not that scoring points is the main indicator of how good a player is – but that is his specialty.

There have been few defensive-oriented teams that have given their undersized shooting guard, like BG, the shots and minutes he’s gotten the last few years.

by swede2287 on Aug 19, 2008 3:25 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Gordon needs Nellieball

to get “much better” with another club.

by NBA Observer on Aug 19, 2008 4:07 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

or 7 Seconds or Less Starring Mikey D!

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 19, 2008 4:10 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

It doesn't matter what team he's playing on

He just needs to shoot better and get to the line more. He’s a career 43% shooter. Maybe Rose could get BG back to his 45.5% form. And if BG can get to the line like he did that year, it is very reasonable to expect better than the 21 or so PPG he put up in 06-07. Despite my overall opinion of Gordon, I acknowledge the man has the ability to average 23-24 PPG over a season. I don’t think he’ll put up 28-29 PPG, but that’s Arenas, Iverson money.

by messwiththebull on Aug 19, 2008 7:13 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

well

as mentioned, good players make other good players better unless your team isn’t very functional. Even if you consider hinrich and deng to be very good players, they are both useless at creating offense or open shots for gordon. Gordon CAN by the way create his own offense but seemingly had to do so with no one else helping out throughout last season. You put gordon next to someone who can penetrate or post up and he will be a lot more dangerous. You put him in an offense that just runs around the perimeter passing the ball until the clock winds down and you have a Gordon thats trying to carry a team on his back. Even if gordon isn’t running the plays and creating shots he can still be a number one offensive option/weapon cause he is damn good at putting the ball in the basket.

He did score 21 points per game not so long ago in relatively average amount of minutes. It might have had to do with the offense functioning better and hinrich not sucking as much.

by Sambossanova on Aug 20, 2008 5:04 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Due to the logjam at the G position

the most accurate way to assess BG’s value is to look at his per 48 statistics.

BG averages about 28 per 48, and among guards that’s good enough for 7th. That puts him in the company of Redd and Jason Richardson.

BG is in a tough position; it’s a situation where he isn’t able to thrive. I can see why demanding Redd and Richardson type money isn’t ludicrous or delusional at all.

"I've hacked into your brain. You're throwing a party and no one's showing up."

by ignign*kt on Aug 19, 2008 4:06 PM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

if everyone's overpaid, nobody's overpaid

(or something)

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 19, 2008 4:33 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

also, both guys are 6'6"

Gordon’s looking for starter’s money and his tweener stature makes that a tough sell — Redd and J-Rich’s agents had an extra four inches to work with.

BG made one comment no one has really picked up on, about how last season was rough being in such a loaded backcourt where he wasn’t assured minutes — would he be more inclined to take the offer as it stands ($59M/6) if the Bulls cleared up his competition as an expression of his value? Jerry wants to keep Hinrich for the short term while Rose gets his bearings, but would moving Thabo as a gesture of good faith be worth closing the deal on BG? Or would trading the almost untradable Hughes for a longer untradable contract such as Kenyon Martin (since Denver’s cutting costs ala Camby) be worth it to keep Ben, even if it means no cap space in 2010?

by abb on Aug 19, 2008 5:17 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Their height doesn't make them better defenders than BG, and...

forget it. You can read what I’m about to say thousands of other places on this blog. Basically, you shouldn’t throw around height unless you can successfully link it to something else.

by potato0328 on Aug 19, 2008 6:19 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I didn't say it did

I said it makes it easier for their agents to get them better deals. The ‘tweener’ tag, however unfair, plays. ‘Prototype size’ is relevant in many GM’s and owners minds, beleiving it’s linked to what players are physically capable of. Believe it or not, J-Rich guarded Kobe very well his rookie year, something Ben Gordon isn’t physically capable of doing.

by abb on Aug 19, 2008 6:51 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

The only problem when you mention height....

Is,I am sure other teams are thinking the same thing,so if he was 6’5,would we even be talking about him having to play with another big guard,or would he had been offerred Deng type money last year?
So,height is very important…On what team could you DEFINITELY say he would start on?J.R could start on avout 25 teams,and if he was traded,most teams would just add him to the other wing spot if it was a team like Cleveland,La Lakers,or even Miami,just to name a few…but would Ben command a starting spot even over over O.J. Mayo or Cat Mobley….much debating those issues,but his best chance of getting a fair look is to stay with his current club,then,let Paxdorf handle all the other spots and just worry about being the best player he can be….

by dakidfromchitown on Aug 19, 2008 6:48 PM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Another thing that I disagree with that I don't see people mentioning

The guy in the podcast pretty much said don’t compare Ben Gordon with Jamal Crawford as a leading scorer that might leave. His reasoning was basically Crawford sucks and he needs to improve a lot of aspects in his game to be productive to a team. He also stated that Gordon has always been a good +/- guy except last year…but disregard last year because the team stunk.

Ok first of all…Crawford may not have as good of a FG% as Gordon…but check the stats and you’ll realize that Crawford had good oncourt/offcourt numbers with the Bulls. Him stating that Crawford was not a productive player with the Bulls and was nothing but a chucker while saying the opposite about Gordon seems ridiculous. I think he mentioned Crawford can’t play point. Gordon can? Crawford has a better assist/TO ratio than Gordon. How can you just ignore that Gordon had the worst onCourt/offCourt numbers and blame it on the team? Who exactly was dragging him down if he was the worst? It was more like he was dragging other people down than vice versa. You might as well say, “well since everyone overachieved the years before…Gordon’s positive onCourt/offCourt numbers should be disregarded since everyone did well.”

by Parrotman on Aug 20, 2008 4:37 PM CDT reply reply actions actions   1 recs

Yeah i heard that too....

He said Jamal Crawford was, and always will be just a chucker. A bum.

But Crawford’s not terrible – his PER was 15.99 last year, which is better than Barbosa’s and almost as good as Mike Miller’s.

Not saying he’s as good as Gordon, but Jamal Crawford is an above average NBA player (not just a chucker as Doug said).

by swede2287 on Aug 20, 2008 5:02 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

this is where numbers fell you...

because Jamal Crawford sucks, no matter the numbers. Crawford is incapable of playing in any type of system. He is only effective with the ball in his hands. He can’t catch and shoot, find his teammates, or run an offense. He is a terrible team defender who never forces his guy the right way or closes out on a shooter. So you may be able to compare Crawford’s per to good players, but Crawford is the type of player who doesn’t play well with good players because he can’t play team basketball.

If you wanted to paint a picture of what is “wrong” with American basketball, Crawford would be the guy sitting for the picture. (I put wrong in quotes because for the most part I think the NBA is fine). He simply has never and probably will never learn to play team basketball. And add to all that, the guy is a complete clown who simply doesn’t compete every night.

Far from D’Antoni bringing out the best in Crawford, I think Crawford is going to drive D’Antoni nuts. He is going to over-handle the ball, stall the offense, make poor decisions shooting and not even try to play D.

So in conclusion, no, Crawford isn’t as good as Ben.

by DangerMouse on Aug 20, 2008 6:08 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i sure didn't say that crawford was as good as gordon.

simply that crawford is better than just “a chucker” as doug described.

And also that a comparison can be made between crawford and gordon….not that crawford is better.

by swede2287 on Aug 20, 2008 6:24 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Crawford is ahead by a mile

in the undeserving scapegoat for being surrounded by completely shitty teammates category.

by Sports2 on Aug 20, 2008 7:16 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Wow his teammates must really have stunk

If he is supposedly everything that is wrong with American basketball and yet more often than not his teams do worse when he’s not on the court.

by Parrotman on Aug 21, 2008 2:21 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Rick Brunson

Ronald Dupree
Marcus Fizer
Trenton Hassell
Rookie versions of Tyson and Eddy
E-Robbery!

Need we go on?

Well, we could actually create a similar list during his time with the Knicks, so we could if we needed to.

by Sports2 on Aug 21, 2008 8:49 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Are you agreeing with me or what?

If all this criticism of Crawford is true, he would be on par with his shitty teammates

by Parrotman on Aug 21, 2008 10:52 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I can't believe we are arguing about Crawford

His teams do better when he is on the court? Proof? I know the Bulls did better when they got rid of him and the Knicks did nothing when they got him. Crawford is the guy who tried to freeze out Hinrich because they drafted him to play pg and Crawford thought that was his positioin.

And a list of Crawford’s teammates does nothing to change any of my criticisms. Which were – “He is only effective with the ball in his hands. He can’t catch and shoot, find his teammates, or run an offense. He is a terrible team defender who never forces his guy the right way or closes out on a shooter. So you may be able to compare Crawford’s per to good players, but Crawford is the type of player who doesn’t play well with good players because he can’t play team basketball.”

The guy has been in the league 8 years. How long does he get to blame his teammates for his shortcomings? The truth is Crawford is much more Abdur Rahim, than KG. He is a guy who consistently puts up good numbers on bad teams. He is a career 40% shooter, 35% 3pt shooter who not one coach, commentator or GM outside of Isiah Thomas can find 2 good words to say about him. But no Sports 2, you are right. His teammates are pulling him down.

by DangerMouse on Aug 21, 2008 1:02 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Feel free to quit arguing about him then

Since I have little better to do:

His teams do better when he is on the court? Proof?

Well, 82Games has 6 years of +/- data and he’s a net + on court in 5 of them.

I know the Bulls did better when they got rid of him and the Knicks did nothing when they got him.

Ya don’t say. I seem to remember they added a couple solid players that year too. And hmm… I seem to remember the Knicks team he went to sucking dick.

Crawford is the guy who tried to freeze out Hinrich because they drafted him to play pg and Crawford thought that was his positioin.

LOL.. Proof? It was pretty stupid of the Bulls to offer him a full MLE level contract then, wasn’t it.

LOL.. Proof? It was pretty stupid of the Bulls to offer him a full MLE level contract then, wasn’t it.

And a list of Crawford’s teammates does nothing to change any of my criticisms.

It never ceases to amaze me how folks will attempt to change what they say even when someone can scroll up and see what you actually said.

Weren’t “Crawford is incapable of playing in any type of system” and "He simply has never and probably will never learn to play team basketball. criticisms?

Obviously it’s pretty hard to validate these criticisms if he never played on a functional team or with competent teammates. Which he hasn’t.

And anyway, so what if I didn’t reply to the rest of your criticisms. I didn’t necessarily disagree with all of them, but on the other hand, I don’t see a need to reply to everything everyone says, especially when it’s patently silly and irrelevant to what I care about.

 … but Crawford is the type of player who doesn’t play well with good players because he can’t play team basketball."

Which, again, would certainly be provable if were on a team with good players capable of playing team basketball. Since he hasn’t been, it’s just a bunch of bloviating from you.

The guy has been in the league 8 years. How long does he get to blame his teammates for his shortcomings?

I guess as long as he’s the GM of those teams. He was the GM of the Bulls before Paxson took over, right? And the GM of the Knicks after he was traded there?

The truth is Crawford is much more Abdur Rahim, than KG

Oh, I see. In that respect, Crawford is much more like, oh, 98% of the other average players in the league and not like a Hall of Fame lock? Okie-dokie. No disagreement here. I’m glad we’ve had this conversation. :)

not one coach, commentator or GM outside of Isiah Thomas can find 2 good words to say about him.

Proof? I want a detailed bibliography of every statement regarding Crawford made by every coach, commentator and GM in the league over the course of his career, annotated with a showing that a maximum of one good word was said about him.

But no Sports 2, you are right. His teammates are pulling him down.

Thanks, I knew you’d see reason!

by Sports2 on Aug 21, 2008 1:50 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

you totally take most of the things I said out of context

to “win” an argument on a message board. hey big props to you. Have fun as the only member of the Jamal Crawford fan club. And like I said, you still haven’t addressed my criticisms of his play. Perhaps if Crawford was a good player himself, he would elevate the play of his teammates. Nah, its all their fault.

I wrote: Crawford is the guy who tried to freeze out Hinrich because they drafted him to play pg and Crawford thought that was his positioin.
You wrote: LOL.. Proof? It was pretty stupid of the Bulls to offer him a full MLE level contract then, wasn’t it.

Here is your proof: "And when Hinrich, at 6 feet 3 inches and 190 pounds, had an early-season game with more points and more assists than Jamal Crawford, then the Bulls’ starting point guard, Crawford was asked if he was being outplayed by Hinrich.

Crawford laughed sarcastically. “You trying to be funny?” he said"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/17/sports/basketball/17hinrich.html

There is much more in that vain from the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times but I don’t have time to look up every quote. They were definately competing when Hinrich first got here and Hinrich’s emergence is what made your guy expendable.

I wrote: And a list of Crawford’s teammates does nothing to change any of my criticisms.

You wrote: "It never ceases to amaze me how folks will attempt to change what they say even when someone can scroll up and see what you actually said.

Weren’t "Crawford is incapable of playing in any type of system" and "He simply has never and probably will never learn to play team basketball. criticisms?

Obviously it’s pretty hard to validate these criticisms if he never played on a functional team or with competent teammates. Which he hasn’t.

And anyway, so what if I didn’t reply to the rest of your criticisms. I didn’t necessarily disagree with all of them, but on the other hand, I don’t see a need to reply to everything everyone says, especially when it’s patently silly and irrelevant to what I care about."

It never ceases to amaze me when people don’t read carefully. Try to follow, Crawford inability to play in a system or play team basketball has a little to do with his teammates. Not being able to consistently do what the coach asks you – like make a simple entry pass into the post – has nothing to do with whether he is throwing the ball to Curry, Randolph or Chandler. Never rotating on defense isn’t his teammates doing, that is Crawford. Shooting a 3 with 20 seconds on the shot clock isn’t Marcus Fizer’s fault, that is Crawford’s. Those are some of the mistakes Crawford has consistently made for the last 8 years. Plenty of players manage to play team ball on bad teams. Kevin Martin is one example.

I wrote: The truth is Crawford is much more Abdur Rahim, than KG
You wrote: “Oh, I see. In that respect, Crawford is much more like, oh, 98% of the other average players in the league and not like a Hall of Fame lock? Okie-dokie. No disagreement here. I’m glad we’ve had this conversation. :)”

I obviously meant that Crawford isn’t a good player trapped on a bad team, but a bad players putting up numbers on a bad team. Wilfull ignorance does you know favors but, alas, it seems to suit you.

I wrote: not one coach, commentator or GM outside of Isiah Thomas can find 2 good words to say about him.
You wrote: “Proof? I want a detailed bibliography of every statement regarding Crawford made by every coach, commentator and GM in the league over the course of his career, annotated with a showing that a maximum of one good word was said about him.”

You are the one with all the free time on your hands. Go find some quotes of people praising Crawford as a good team ball player, who is instrumental in their teams chances of winning. But here is a pretty good breakdown of his game. Enjoy – http://www.cosellout.com/?p=229

Hey man, feel free to keep rocking that Jamal Crawford jersey. I’m sorry if his excellent play has been overshadowed by 8 years of losing. One day man, one day.

by DangerMouse on Aug 21, 2008 2:24 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

"Try to follow"

I suspect that’s why I was going in circles. I’ll stop now :P

by Sports2 on Aug 21, 2008 2:27 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

whatever

read the Cosellout link for a breakdown of Crawford. He basically says everything I’ve been harping on here. I just don’t want here people giving props to a guy who had the 56th highest shooting percentage of all NBA guards. http://www.cosellout.com/?p=229

by DangerMouse on Aug 21, 2008 2:41 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Ok honestly

All these faults that Crawford has…you can say the same about Ben Gordon to an extent. That’s why I still think they are comparable. Shooting-wise, Ben Gordon is superior…but other than that…what exactly is Ben Gordon really better at?

by Parrotman on Aug 21, 2008 3:45 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

I am no Crawford fan by any stretch...

But even though I value BG way more than I can ever imagine thinking about Crawford,I have to say that in a pinch,JC can play point,where no NBA team would trust BG with the keys to the team..he can’t dribble,he’s too clumbsy,and even though I don’t think Crawford has great court vision,BG can’t even see over the man sticking him to even act like he has court vision…..On a team that wants a combo guard that can play point,you take Crawford over BG,on a team that wants a sg that can’t guard his position but can shoot the lights out and has a killer instict,BG is your guy…For the Bulls…BG all day,for a team that has a need for a starting 2 and a part time PG,Crawford is your guy….

by dakidfromchitown on Aug 20, 2008 6:25 PM CDT reply reply actions actions   0 recs

crawford can handle the ball

that doesn’t qualify him to play the pg position.

by DangerMouse on Aug 20, 2008 6:30 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Agreed D'mouse....

But I am not giving Gordon the keys to any franchise I own if i am looking for a PG,but if i need someone to play the part while the starting PG gets a blow,I have,just like you have seen Crawford running the point..never have we seen that with BG unless you count a couple minutes in the playoffs when Kirk got into foul trouble and Ben deferred to Swiss boy after he brought the ball up against Miami….Not saying JC is your end all PG,but he is a much better option when it comes to him vs. BG…

by dakidfromchitown on Aug 20, 2008 6:48 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

We gave the keys to Rose already.

Regardless of signing or not signing Gordon. Now the real question is what kind of car are we giving Rose?

I’d rather Gordon be a part of the Bulls. A good faith move would be to offer Gordon a little big more. Not max, but something to show our confidence in him and put a dent in the iron wall that is up in the negotiations. If he doesn’t respond to that only then can you say the Bulls tried everything. As it is they’ve drawn an unmovable line and that will not sit well with a “negotiation”.

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 20, 2008 7:46 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Well said Cran!

I agree…a Monta contract is due for BG…if he doesn’t take that…even though he said he will not sign the QO,I ask him what he does now? QO on the table,6/66MM on the table,Europe in your ear,nobody has agreed to your terms for a S/T,you decide BG! There is your options…At that point,the Bulls can go forward and shape the roster the way they want to if they plan on moving some guys or picking up some scrubs out of what is left in the garbage pile known at this point of the year as free agency.

by dakidfromchitown on Aug 20, 2008 8:02 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

You summed it up well

I think this probably represents the state of the negotiations at this point.

Really, nobody has acted in what I consider an irrational way at this point.

1. The Bulls obviously shouldn’t risk the LT if they don’t have to, and saying they won’t is a credible bargaining position.

2. Gordon could sign the Bulls’ offer, which is not that much smaller than what he’d probably get in a sign and trade or next year, but why not wait and try to pressure the Bulls to upping it. They clearly want him back (or they wouldn’t be offering 6/$59), other teams have inquired about sign and trades, and there’s plenty of reason to expect the Bulls could still pull a trade to clear another million or two before they hit the tax. There’s, in fact, reason to expect the Bulls will do this any way.

Further, there are some credible non-monetary reasons. People are often pretty schizophrenic about players, I find. They complain because players are “all about the money” but in Gordon’s case they complain when he seems to want to ensure he’s got a role on the team. He should be concerned about that. Because he’s right, as we all know, we’ve got a lot of guards under contract, and Gordon has been very professional about being jerked around even before that. By maximizing his contract and looking to go to another team, I think Ben’s just being smart to protect his court time as well. And I don’t think there’s any downside to the Bulls for this, because they’ve done best, over his tenure, with him playing the most.

by Sports2 on Aug 21, 2008 9:03 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

i guess i don't get your point

because neither BG or Crawford ever play the 1. Last year the Knicks had Robinson, Marbury, and Mardy Collins to line up at the point. This year they have Duhon, Robinson, Marbury and Roberson. So there is obviously no intention to ever have Crawford play the pg in the knicks. Seeing as backup PG isn’t a pressing need on the Bulls, I just don’t see how Crawford’s ability to play the point very poorly makes him more valuable than BG’s ability to play the point very poorly.

by DangerMouse on Aug 21, 2008 1:08 PM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

ok.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 21, 2008 11:18 AM CDT to parent up reply reply actions actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

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

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

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

2f597263b71b32c9d2a85c1427a038ce_bigger_small
Thank You Ben Gordon
Jayhawk_small
A Brief History of Ben Gordon: the Quotes Version
Horace_20grant_small
To the Bulls' Front Office
Rose2_small
Optimistic view of BG leaving (I Hope)
Derrick_rose_1__small
An F.U. to the owner

Recent FanPosts

Aaron_scantlen-small-square_small
Trade idea: Kirk for Rudy
Small
Iverson to the Bulls in Gordon S/T?!?!
Small
Hinrich Vs. Gordon
-1_small
Could this be Dumar's post-signing-Gordon plan?
Small
Pistons vs. Bulls
Small
Looking back at the 26th pick now...
Small
Back Up Plan...

Post_icon New FanPost All FanPosts Carrot-mini

SPONSORS


Guy who does everything

Blogabull_s_small your friendly BullsBlogger

Official Partner of Yahoo! Sports