J.R. Smith is not a market maker for Ben Gordon. He is taller, though.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 24, 2008 10:29 PM CDT Comment 30 comments

As far as I can tell, nobody quite knows what J.R. Smith signed for, but the general guess is in the $5-7m range for 3 years. [3yrs $16.5m -ed.]

And as it further dwindles the list of significant unsigned 2004 draftees to pretty much Ben Gordon (with apologies to Delonte West)...the comparisons have come out.

Matt Watson at Fanhouse:

He's only 22 years old, but I doubt he'd want to agree to a longer deal, especially considering the only thing stopping him from getting Ben Gordon money (ie, $10 million plus a year, which Ben Gordon may or may not even get) is minutes. Smith averaged 23.0 points per 36 minutes last year; Gordon, just 21.0. And considering Smith is three inches taller and just as dangerous in the lane as behind the three-point line, there's no question he has loads more long-term upside.

Tom Ziller at Sporting Blog:

Ben Gordon will still be sitting at home, waiting for someone to offer him 175% what the Nuggets guard—younger, taller, more explosive, and increasingly reliable—got. If this doesn't hammer home the concept of "market value" to Gordon, really, nothing will.

J.R. Smith is certainly taller than Ben Gordon! Doesn't quite help him be a better defender, draw more fouls, or rebound more effectively than Gordon, but...taller, sure.

And they do have similar numbers. But Smith is no comparison to Ben Gordon, or pretty much anyone. The reason why a 3-season near-MLE deal isn't particularly raising eyebrows is Smith's off-court and on-court combustibility.

As much as I enjoy a good perception-shattering through better analysis (though that's a bit much to ask considering the format of Fanhouse and TSB), the issue with Smith is purely his issues.

I wouldn't personally group Smith's attitude and maturity problems with the easily overvalued 'character' attributes that the Bulls usually fawn over, like the adulation of Nocioni's game-face. And I don't even mind a few slightly dirty off-court incidents on my basketball team. But in terms of what actually effects a player and his team on the court, such as preparation, hard work, coachability...Gordon and Smith are not just divergent, but on complete opposite sides of the spectrum.

It can be said that just looking at cost/benefit, it's worth the risk to pay less for J.R. Smith to hope he puts up similar numbers (getting more minutes to do so, naturally). Smith is 2 years younger, and that certainly matters.

But to me, there's no price that makes Smith a bargain (and though it's increasingly not turning out to be great company, at one time the Bulls agreed, dealing Smith to the Nuggets for two 2nd-round picks). It's like saying it's worth the risk to flush some cash down the toilet because some day you may find it in some sewer-alligator's insides.

0 recs | Comment 30 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

3 yrs worth $16.5 million

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3548705

There’s you link Matt. Or maybe I’m just making it up?

by ronmexibull on Aug 24, 2008 11:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

zinger

thanks.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 24, 2008 11:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that JR Smith does not set the market for Gordon, but it does show you where the current market slots a player like BG. Gordon is somewhere between JR Smith and Monta Ellis in terms of quality. Smith is like a knucklehead version of Gordon and Ellis is a “more complete player” version of Gordon. Viewing those two signings together, I’d say that the market rate for Ben is somewhere in the middle.

Ben’s better than Smith, so he should get more than $6MM or so a year. He’s not better than Ellis, who is making $11MM and change a year. It’s been reported that the Bulls offered Ben about $9.8MM a year for 6 years— a number that fits into the range set by those two players, so nobody (except Ben’s agent) can be mad at the Bulls about their offer. If I’m the Bulls, the only way I really increase that offer is if I genuinely believe that BG will walk for nothing in a year. If that’s the case, you have to consider the value of wasting a few million bucks on Gordon over the course of 5 or 6 seasons versus losing Gordon for nothing next summer.

by Stay Chisel on Aug 24, 2008 11:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

losing gordon for nothing

i think, in the end, the Bulls aren’t gonna get anything for Gordon, whether he walks now or next year. if the Bulls are really as deep in talent as everyone says they are, you gotta figure at some point one of these guys is gonna leave as a free agent. i mean, can a franchise realistically be constantly pulling trades and such to get return for EVERY player that comes and goes through the franchise? i guess they could, but that is a lot of roster turnover. players leave as free agents all the time. i think eventually they’ll be able to get return for guys like Noc and Hinrich, maybe even Tyrus, if he can’t raise his game.

they still have a lot of other tradable pieces. Gordon might just be that guy that walks because the Bulls wanna save cap space.

by BULLieving in Miami on Aug 25, 2008 2:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

My first impression

whistling in the dark.

If Gordon takes the QO (which I hope and pray he does) he will be lucky to smell $7.5M next year.

by hlac on Aug 25, 2008 12:28 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

In terms of worth, compare JR to Nocioni (not Gordon)

Yes, I know the positions are different. For bench players that are fringe starters, the Nuggets are getting JR for: fewer years, less money, (and if he sucks horribly) a contract that can be traded in two years as an expiring deal.

Plus JR is younger than Nocioni.

Isn’t Nocioni’s contract for the Bulls more “poison” than a crazy JR for the Nuggets?
Especially if it prevents the Bulls from resigning one of the “core” Gordon.

The only thing more stupid than Noc’s contract is Tyrus getting limited minutes on last year’s non-playoff making team.

by KentuckyBullsFan on Aug 25, 2008 1:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

i wonder if the bulls org. and the gordon camp have explored a shorter contract?

3 years, 30 mill sounds reasonable. if gordon does not like the current market, let him do his thing for a couple of years with the bullies and see what happens happens to his value- there is no way his value is gonna go down and a shorter contract has got to be better than the QO, right?

by jocrucial on Aug 25, 2008 10:26 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Problem is...

The problem is that 3 years and 30 million puts us over the cap. We’re able to offer ~58mill over 6, which is 9.66 mill avg. But we can’t offer 29 over 3 (same average) because we cannot back load the contract enough. I am sure shorter contracts have been discussed, but if the bulls don’t want to go over the luxury tax, then Gordon’s average salary would decrease for each of the fewer years of the contract.

by Jamaicanpi on Aug 25, 2008 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

which is why they hired Del Negro

Young coach + young/raw talents = learning year. Fortunately in the East, that could stil = playoff year.

Regarding contracts, I think the Dwyer article referenced previously sums up the Bulls position — there is no objective value for BG, only market value, and the market has spoken. It also says alot about the Bulls’ priorities moving forward — rarely do successful teams pay more than three core players over $10M per:

KG $25M Pierce $18M Ray $17M
Kobe $21M Pau $15M Odom $14
Duncan $21M Parker $11.5 Ginobili $10M

Pistons basically have 4 big-but-not-max salaries in Sheed $13.8M, Billups $11M, Rip $10.5M, and Prince $9.5M

If the Bulls are trying to structure their payroll like the Pistons, which four guys do they commit to as the building blcoks for their championship team? If Ben is one of them (and Deng and Rose are two more), then it might be touch to get Tyrus and Noah their piece, and even if you do, are you contending like Detroit did? Do you always have to find a bargain-price guy to guard the opposing SG?

I prefer the Rose-Deng-Tyrus nucleas (ala Kidd-Jefferson-Martin), filling the gaps with medium deals and a few key rookie scale guys (ala Rondo, Stuckey, Farmar, etc). I think Ben is worth Monta money, but I’m not sure you build a contender with that combination of contracts…

by abb on Aug 25, 2008 10:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

"at one time the Bulls agreed, dealing Smith to the Nuggets for two 2nd-round picks"

This is why Pax needs to be held accountable. We traded Chandler for J.R. Smith and P.J. Brown. Then turned those assets into 2 second rounders. What were we thinking??? Before this season I thought the bulls would structure Ben’s and Lu’s contract around the 6 66 million mark both more than Kirk but without the luxury tax implications. If we lose BG after having dealt away JR for nothing how can fans still say Managements doing a great job.

by Blacknight23 on Aug 25, 2008 11:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Remember the coach

Skiles woud have run Smith right out of the league. You might think Pax should’ve gotten more for him, but that would have been ugly if he’d stayed. And yes, I just implied Skiles makes George Karl look like the picture of calm patience.

by ziffle on Aug 25, 2008 11:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He may not be a marker, but he is a guidepost.

I wouldn’t personally group Smith’s attitude and maturity problems with the easily overvalued ‘character’ attributes that the Bulls usually fawn over, like the adulation of Nocioni’s game-face. And I don’t even mind a few slightly dirty off-court incidents on my basketball team. But in terms of what actually effects a player and his team on the court, such as preparation, hard work, coachability…Gordon and Smith are not just divergent, but on complete opposite sides of the spectrum.

There is a big difference between comparing the intangibles of a kid from renowned basketball powerhouse UConn, who spent three seasons in college and a high school to pros player who learned his game in spot minutes riding the pine behind veteran players…Imagine how much better JR Smith would be if had actually attended NC and played on the team that won that ’05 championship…

I tend to agree with Stay Chisel on this one, his salary should slot somewhere between Smith and Ellis…I would prefer a 3 year deal like Smith, for around $24 million…its a small raise and gives him a shorter window to his next (presumed larger) payday.

by Dionysus2.0 on Aug 25, 2008 2:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The J.R. Smith contract

should have no bearing on the BG negotiations or his market value. J.R. Smith should be paid comparably to Leandro Barbosa and I believe he is now (without looking at Barbosa’s contract details). I think we all agree BG is worth noticably more than Leandro on any team.

by messwiththebull on Aug 25, 2008 9:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Is he?

Leandro didn’t have a great year this past season but he’s pretty awesome. He may not be able to create his own shot as much as Ben but he drives to the basket and finishes, is a better ball handler, and has made some game winning shots of own….against us if memory serves

by The90sBullsRevival on Aug 25, 2008 10:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Looking into it more

Both guys are very, very similar. Ben’s a bit better scorer, they’re comparable 3-PT shooters, and Leandro shoots a much higher FG% and seems to play more PG, but otherwise, these two guys are very comparable.

I recant my defense of BG.

by messwiththebull on Aug 26, 2008 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, we all don't agree

by hlac on Aug 25, 2008 11:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uh, no

by sue369 on Aug 26, 2008 6:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Why does it seem...

that everyone’s indication of BG market value/worth or whatever you want to call it is around $10mil per year except for BG?

by CubFan81 on Aug 26, 2008 9:35 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

That is the million dollar question

by chgobr on Aug 26, 2008 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

careful

a million dollar question can put the Bulls over the tax!

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 26, 2008 11:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Probably

because it is his career and future on the line and, y’know, not yours for example. If you were getting paid significantly less than your under talented coworkers at your job and were negotiating a new contract you’d want to get locked into the best price, especially if you were the most productive in your company. These guys are not working for a charity. When everyone you consider to be your peers are getting their pay day when you do the same work or better it is against human nature to agree to less. Especially in a rich organization like the Bulls who are pretty much asking you do do a favor for them and get paid less when they’ve historically done squat for you and benched you for the likes of Duhon.

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 26, 2008 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Human nature is underrated

Whenever the average person looks at the salaries of athletes doing these types of negotiations, they usually feel like the athlete is wrong. The human aspect of feeling undervalued by your employer is still a factor no matter how many millions these guys make. I believe this is the most significant factor in this negotiation with Ben. From his perspective he seems to feel like the Bulls are lowballing because the gave Hinrich his $10 mil and Deng his $13 mil or so, when he has been leading the team in scoring and carrying them through stretches where those two seem to disappear. Just knowing that (at least seemingly) less productive co-workers are making more than you would bother a lot of people. Pax needs to play to the human side on this one. The hardball stuff isn’t going to lead to a positive outcome.

by bigballa10 on Aug 27, 2008 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I bet tons of people

feel undervalued by their employer and think they are worth more than they are. Should the employers sympathize with these people and overpay them? Sometimes people are just delusional about their worth. You have to draw the line somewhere. If most people thought Ben Gordon is the most productive player on this team, then they would side with Ben. But he’s not.

by Parrotman on Aug 27, 2008 1:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because

Ben Gordon overrates himself. He’s the leading scorer of an offensively inept team, and that’s pretty much all he can do.

by Parrotman on Aug 26, 2008 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

man

im just waiting for the day that hes traded. im really tired of this now.

Rumor has it Rose wanted to buy BGs pad because it was for sale. BGs house is worth 4 mil but when Rose went to go make an offer of 3.9 Ben said he wanted 10.

by Yibs on Aug 26, 2008 4:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

'Ben Gordon' is explicitly in the title of the post

if you’re so tired of it, kindly move on to something else.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 26, 2008 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Smith IS the market maker, because both him and BG are ideal 6th men

Neither seems like starter material to me. But Smith being taller is important. It allows him to finish in traffic more than BG. I think both players are actually very similar though. They both have ridiculous shooting range. Both can get their shots off against anyone. Both are useless on defense (although Karl did get Smith to play some defense the second half of last year). BG is a much better team player, but Smith can finish near the rim with the big boys. Neither is an accomplished passer. Both could use some work on their handles.
Now I am not saying Smith would be better than Gordon for the Bulls. He needs to be on a veteran club that can curb his immaturity (spurs, celtics, suns, pistons, etc.). On a young leaderless team like the Bulls, I would take BG over Smith anytime. That being said, I think both are very similar players who should be paid similar money, where ever they end up.

by shoryuken on Aug 26, 2008 8:13 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs