Bulls and Gordon Playing Chicken

by Sports2 on Aug 28, 2008 8:58 AM CDT Comment 14 comments

OK, I know we don't really need another post, but I think it's useful to step back and look at the bigger picture of things with the Bulls and Gordon. I still really don't see that either side has been unreasonable. Instead, I see it as a big game of chicken, and folks shouldn't be too worried because it's dragging out. Of course it's going to drag out... the whole idea of playing chicken is to keep going and get the other guy to blink first.

If you look at both sides, the QO isn't very appealing for anyone. A sign and trade isn't very appealing for anyone. A holdout isn't very appealing for anyone. So it's in everyone's interest to blink, but it's also in everyone's interest to not be the one who blinks first.

If I'm Gordon, I'd be unhappy with 6/$59M because it's scaled down from the Bulls' offer last summer. That's a slap in the face, especially when the Bulls publicly justified that offer as being a low deal in the first place. I think it's human nature to have trouble swallowing that when he knows the Bulls could pay him 5/$52M or 6/$62M or something marginal like that and allow everyone to look like a winner.

On the other hand, if Gordon looks around, he ought to expect to get jerked around big time if he signs the QO (and they'd be sensible to limit his minutes beyond merit and "play for the future" late in the year), which will potentially hurt his value next season. So if I'm Gordon, I'm inclined to sign the Bulls deal even though I think they're being turds. So I think he should be willing to blink or "swerve his car out of the way" in the game of chicken. But there's no need to swerve yet, that's why it's chicken.

And if I'm the Bulls, I hold the line at 6/$59M because even though they can probably pull a deal to get under the LT if they offer Ben more than that, it's not a certain thing. And the LT will cost them something like $7M. And other things being equal, it's good to get a player for less money. On the other hand, I think it's very likely that Gordon on the QO will be a season long distraction (not necessarily b/c Gordon acts poorly, just because it'll cause every decision to be scrutinized differently... what a pain in the ass) and he'll end up walking with no compensation to me. And I think it's exceedingly likely I can pull a deal to get under the LT if I offer Gordon a little bit more money than what was offered last year. And even if they lock him in at a cut rate, it'll simply breed animosity later (Horace, Scottie, MJ, etc) that's not worth a couple hundred K a year. So if I'm the Bulls, my thinking is I should also "swerve" in the game of chicken. When push comes to shove, the right thing to do is to offer a bit more. But again, there's no urgency to do so now. Maybe Gordon will blink first.

So we either get to see things work out in the end, or a fiery crash of stupidity.

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

4 recs | Comment 14 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Good post.

I agree with pretty much everything you’ve said here. I think it’s mostly fair to say that 6/59 is more than probably any other team in the league will pay him, and you’ve got to think that BG realizes that. If not, he’s extremely clouded or he has the worst agent in sports. Maybe that’s why there’s rumors of him getting a new agent?

I really can’t see him taking the QO, because the financial insecurity of that decision would be off the charts bad, especially with the youth movement that this team is embarking on with Derrick Rose at the helm. Hopefully, Pax can make a trade that frees up some space under the LT threshold and we can get him signed for just over 10 mil/year. I think in that case, both parties would be sufficiently happy and our team would be better over the next few years.

I agree that this whole thing might drag out for a while – chicken is a great description – because like you said, there’s no reason for each side in this thing to not attempt to wait for the other to flinch. That’s just how these things go. Yeah, it sucks as a dedicated fanbase waiting for something like this to unfold, but I think in the end most of us will be happy with what happens. I realize this is a hunch, but I’m pretty sure that if he was going anywhere, he would already have been out the door.

I like the 5/52 proposition a lot, and I think he would consider it strongly. Let’s hope options like this one are being looked at so we can all move 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 28, 2008 10:10 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

good post

I agree, I think BG will be a Bull for quite some time. I do think it’s in the Bulls best interest to up the offer some to secure him. BG has been jerked around enough by this organization while practicallly living at the Berto center. Trade Kirk for a backup PG and some cap relief, start Thabo (I’d rather start BG) and bring BG off the bench. He averages 30+ min, so he’s not your normal 6th man. The offense will be horrible next year w/out BG.

I vote for Thomas to play, play more and play regularly.-Sam Smith

by tyrus4prez on Aug 28, 2008 11:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

quick question

why dont they offer him something like a 2-4 year deal? like something 3-30mill and then see what happens? i haven’t seen anything less than a 5yr deal talked about so i just want to know what u guys think?

by PTBALLER1523 on Aug 28, 2008 12:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Because a slighly larger sum than that

spread between more years gives the Bulls less of a money crunch per year. And I think they do actually want to lock Gordon in…they just want to do it all on their terms. They want to have Gordon for as little money per years as possible as well as for the next five years. And since Gordon can’t get a counter offer they can pretty much have their way with him, as highway robbery as it seems, since they are betting he won’t take the QO. A shorter deal isn’t going to work in this situation.

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 28, 2008 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not exactly highway robbery, but yeah, it's smart business tactics 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 28, 2008 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Since they are not

giving a productive, hard working, never been a problem guy like Gordon a way of saving face on this I am leaning the highway robbery route myself. They are using the tax line as an arbitrary wall in the negotiations when a little more (with a trade later on to keep them below the tax) might be all it takes for people to save face and be happy. Of course I actually want them to find a way to keep Gordon. Not everyone here wants that. I have my own list of guys on the team I wouldn’t mind seeing gone 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 28, 2008 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Face, what a joke

I wish there were more players out there that cared about winning and less about being the highest paid player. Now Stephen Jackson apparently wants more money because of the extensions for Monta and Biedrins, saying he “can’t be the fourth highest player on the team.”

WHY NOT?! Are the Warriors a lock for the playoffs? Players today would rather get an extra mil or two in order to “save face” or “be the man” and handicap their team from making moves to bolster their line up. I know the opposing arguement is that the teams often don’t return the “kindness” by making good moves or sometimes by making any move, but I wish there were more people willing to take a little less in order to win and not just when they are 33+ years old and want a ring before there knees blow up completely.

Sorry for the soapbox, but Ben is just pissing me off with his “I should be the highest paid player” lines. And I know we can’t verify them, but he is backing them up with his actions.

by Unrealcity on Aug 28, 2008 10:32 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

If wishes were horses

It would be great if it were all based on honor, but it is a business and it ultimately is about money as all business are and these basketball players know what money is coming in and out of the hands of the management (who are no more saints than the players when it comes to their own take home pay) and in that light the idea of being some kind of saint willing to be one guy to undervalue himself in a league that traditionally overvalues themselves to a fault and take one for the team is pretty ridiculous.

Perhaps the fact Gordon usually does fall in line in other ways makes this one time when he doesn’t take one for the team all the more noticeable. Gordon is no worse than the rest of them when it comes to the money. He just isn’t finessing it as well, is making noticeable blunders, likely has a bad agent, and didn’t have the opportunity to get on the gravy train that Hinrich and Noc and Deng recently hopped on. Half that isn’t his fault. It is probably enough to make him the bad guy in this situation though. This could easily be Deng last in line, but I think the Bulls believed Gordon, the guy who has taken a lot for the team in the past without protest, would be the easier one to dump the leftovers on.

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 28, 2008 10:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

But Ben is way overvaluing himself.

Ben is not getting crapped on here. He is simply not worth more then what they have offered. Here is what ESPN had to say about him after his best year, 06-07.

“… it’s unlikely Gordon will turn his scoring exploits into an All-Star berth unless he develops his game in other areas. He still has rough patches on defense and fills only one column on the stat sheet. Even though he’s the go-to guy for what may be the best team in the East, he still has a ways to go before becoming an elite player.”

Ben is not getting better. 25 year olds generally are what they are and Ben is what he is, an above average scorer who is willing to take big shots. I don’t discount that, it is definitely an x-factor that he steps up in the fourth, but he doesn’t contribute in other areas. Argue the minutia of other shooting guards who have to be compensated for on defense all you want, but Ben is one-dimensional and he has not shown any signs of changing that.

So no, I don’t think he needs to “take one for the team”, I think he needs to see his true value. Because something I haven’t seen discussed is what would happen if he got the contract he wants. All of a sudden he would be under even more scrutiny, like Deng is now, and expected to do more for the team as a leader, and he is a 6th man. Not because he was unselfish, but because that’s what he really is.

by Unrealcity on Aug 30, 2008 2:00 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

he is a 6th man. Not because he was unselfish, but because that’s what he really is.

What the heck does that mean? Neither the Bulls nor the fans who take this approach have ever given an explanation that makes a lick of sense why they should start a whole host of inferior players over Gordon. The only one that sort of made sense was to more or less hide Kirk’s deficiencies as a PG.

If it doesn’t make sense to have Gordon starting, why does it make sense to have him playing 30+ minutes and finishing games?

As far as what happens when he gets his new contract, I haven’t seen anything to suggest Gordon’s shies away from scrutiny. He’s been probably the most over-scruitinized and analyzed guy on the team for the past four years anyway, and he’s pretty much done everything asked without complaint. As far as his leadership, as best I can tell he’s always sounded intelligent and pushing in the right directions in his interviews. So, um, I’m not seeing the problem.

If the problem is that you simply think he’s “really” a sixth man, meaning he’s like an average sort of borderline starter/bench player who’s just a very average player, then you ought to be hopping mad the Bulls offered him $59M in the first place. Complaining about Gordon in that case seems horribly misplaced.

by Sports2 on Sep 1, 2008 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

A couple things to consider

Caring about winning is a two-way street. I mean, it’s one things to say “hey, I’ll take a couple million less if I know it’s going to be appreciated, understood, and "rewarded” with my teammates and management also “caring about winning”. On the other hand, if you care about winning and playing ball and then you see your team turn around and emphasize “fiscal responsibility” over winning or playing favorites with various players then that makes you… a sucker.

The other thing is that when I look at Gordon, I don’t necessarily think he’s that concerned about being the highest paid player. As I said in the initial post, the Bulls simply haven’t made an offer that I’d accept yet, if I were Gordon. Everyone’s holding out for the best deal they can get and all this stuff that comes out in negotiations is usually a product of that. It might not be much fun for fans, but another way to look at it is that at least our guys are competitive and think they can drive the best deal possible.

by Sports2 on Aug 29, 2008 6:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Gordon chickens out

He might chicken out on the court too. I’m ok with the idea of not giving BG want he wants – it’s too much. But if he gets less than he’s worthy than it will probably affect his game. But I agree with PTBaller. They should try to do a contract with shorter duration and talk later when Gooden’s huge contract is over.

by JustAnotherFan on Aug 28, 2008 10:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

A contract with a shorter duration

isn’t in the Bull’s interest and at the moment they have the upper hand. Why would they give Gordon the advantage when they already have it with their offer on the table as it is? They have to sign him…2 years 12.5 for it to fit their budget and Gordon wouldn’t agree to that. He’d be wanting more like 2 years 20 some and the Bulls won’t be shelling out that money either.

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 28, 2008 10:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think it's very simple

If there’s an honest disagreement about his worth, they should BOTH agree on the QO. Then, next year, the league sets his price tag, and either the Bulls agree with that price or don’t. Simple, solved. He’s a scorer, for sure, but is he an elite player. JR is a scorer, but didn’t get any more money than Turiaf, who’s an OK player. I don’t think there’s a big market for the $12m players any more; you’re either a max salary type, or $10m is a lot if you’re not.

by California Al on Aug 29, 2008 10:06 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs