Dichotomy Of The Bulls
by Coach Van Lier on Aug 4, 2008 6:35 PM CDT
Email
Print
There seems to be a sentiment among fans, media and anyone else who cares about the Chicago Bulls that certain guys need to go and certain need to stay in order for this 08-09 incarnation of the Bulls to have success. I'm not here to suggest that a big move won't be made. In fact, even though I'm a huge Kirk fan as most of you know, I would not be against a move that would ship him and his contract out. I would be fine with sending him or any other number of players to another team in a salary dump. See I have a little theory about the Bulls as they are currently constituted. I call it the "2 generation" theory. The team right now basically consists of 2 generations: the young, potential-filled generation; and the older, already hit their peak generation. Here is a breakdown:
Young Generation
Thabo (24)
Rose (19)
Tyrus (21)
Noah (23)
Deng (23)
Gray(23)
Old Generation
Gooden (26)
Gordon (25)
Hinrich (27)
Hughes (29)
Nocioni (28)
Now some people are going to look at this and say "why is 24-25 the arbitrary cut off point?" Three reasons. The first is that statistically and historically speaking, most players peak is age 26-30 (though there are obvious exceptions). The second reason is contractual. By this I mean to say that most players are coming off their rookie contracts around 24-25, like Deng and Gordon now, so the guys in the "Old" group have bigger contracts. The third reason is purely from my gut, meaning that I feel like the guys in the "Old" group have peaked or just plain suck.
So what's the point? Well the point is that Paxson should be looking to move the people in the old generation and develop the guys in the new generation. No one in that old generation will be better than they are now. And none of the old guys is good enough to be worth their contracts ranging from 6 mil/year-13mil/year. Build around the young generation. Keeping the guys around from the old generation will only hinder our cap flexibility AND hinder the development of the young 'uns.
So in the final analysis, the discussion about whether to move Hughes or Gordon or Hinrich is really not the issue. Personally, I think we should keep BG and move Kirk. But either way I'll be happy. We need to move the older, bigger contract guys and free up minutes for our kids.
*Side Note: Gordon and Deng interestingly enough buck the trend, since Deng has a fat contract and is in the young group; and Gordon has no contract and is in the old group. While this is a discussion for another day, it is important to note that Deng may have a higher ceiling than we've seen. As opposed to BG, who may or may not improve on his defense (I'm guessing not). I'm not a scout, but that's just how it seems.
I've posted this on my blog, www.notqualifiedtocomment.blogspot.com but I wanted to run it by the BaB community and see what you guys think.
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.
240 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
very interesting
way of looking at this. i especially found it surprising that kirk is that old. i mean just 2 years younger that larry and he’s older than drew? wow. i guess it adds up since he played all 4 four years at kansas.
Rose lobs it up for the alley oop... and it's caught and put down by Rose
Yeah, when you look at the ages...
It really surprises you. I wasn’t trying to pass judgment on any of these guys either. The more I look at it, in fact, the more I think Gooden is fine at 6-7 mil/year and hes only 26. It just comes down to letting the kids get minutes though.
by Coach Van Lier on Aug 4, 2008 6:51 PM CDT up reply actions
I basically wrote the same thing earlier this summer
though Gordon was in the younger group. Which makes more sense considering Gooden is 27, and then you have 2-year gap between ‘generations’.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 4, 2008 6:51 PM CDT reply actions
I must have missed it, but I agree with you
I guess if the “2 generation” theory is agreed on, the only issue is where you put BG and Deng. I obviously felt that Deng was in the young group, but only because I feel like he has room to grow. I put BG in the old group because I think he has hit his ceiling. But that is just my opinion, the main point is we have to move the old guys, it doesn’t matter which one or how many (gordon possibly excluded from that)
by Coach Van Lier on Aug 4, 2008 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions
Maybe, but
you should more think about with whom you can build a contender around Rose ! Even if Gordon has peaked (which could be true or not), he’s already pretty good and a great (and still young) piece to put next to Derrick Rose.
So yeah, Kirk, Noce, Gooden (not even talking about Hughes) are the ones who PaxDorf should try to move to improve the team and add pieces to make it a contender in a few years. Which doesn’t mean they should all be moved (you could imagine keeping Gooden, at lease until his contract ends, as he may provide some much needed frontcourt scoring in the meantime, and even keep him further than that if he proves to work with the rest).
The Game chose him !
I actually think Gordon is a BAD fit with Rose...
Gordon has worked as a SG largely because the Bulls could hide his defensive liabilities. Hinrich and Duhon always guarded the tougher defensive matchup, which generally meant guarding the SG. So Gordon was allowed to play SG on offense and PG on defense.
Well, the Bulls should not put that same pressure on their new franchise PG. They should be careful to let him develop in a good situation. That means Gordon would have to guard bigger SG. That’s not a good situation.
Further, I’m not sure that offensively Gordon is any better off with Rose than he was with Hinrich/Duhon. Gordon has never been big on moving without the ball. He’s always been a guy who did his scoring as a lead guard, creating his own shot.
With Rose in place, I think Gordon’s best fit becomes a Vinnie Johnson type of 6th man – coming off the bench and gunning. That way, if he’s hot, he scores in bunches. If he’s not, he comes back out. If we had a big PG I could see Gordon starting at SG. His defensive issues would be less evident. But I can’t see a championship team being built around two small guards, one of whom is an extreme streak scorer.
by SouthernCub on Aug 5, 2008 8:03 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Good points
The fact that Gordon can’t guard the position he plays and can’t play the position he guards is why he’s been coming off the bench and why that is probably the role he is destined to fill.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 9:22 AM CDT up reply actions
Actually, when you said
Further, I’m not sure that offensively Gordon is any better off with Rose than he was with Hinrich/Duhon.
my first thought was that the entire Skiles offense was premised upon drive & dish and precision passing. But once the league defenses figured out that Hinrich was no threat to actually get to the rim on his drives, the entire offense sputtered. Duhon was a little better in this regard, but still, the opposing defenses simply crowded the lane to keep Bulls’ guards out.
All of which is a long way of saying that the Bulls will be a dramatically different team with Rose at point, since he’s a threat to penetrate and score every time he touches the ball. Thus, his quickness will cause seems to open for others and create outside shots for people like Ben to knock down. Ben Gordon has the perfect type of game to fit beside Rose.
Also, you may be overstating his tendency to create his own shots as opposed to moving without the ball to an open spot for a jumper.
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
You may or may not be right about their fit on offense...
I disagree, but I’m more than willing to agree to disagree. I definitely disagree with the assessment that I’m overstating Gordon’s tendency to create his own shot rather than move without the ball, though.
And the biggest issue I have with a Gordon/Rose backcourt is that I don’t think you can compete for a champioship with a backcourt that small, especially when one of them is known as a defensive liability to begin with.
Hinrich is just as small
with his standing reach similar to Gordon’s. Unless neck height helps your defense that is. If Gordon isn’t tall enough Hinrich is also too small and on top of it too offensively challenged to be paired with Rose. They need to be shopping for someone else entirely if size is the issue.
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.
I agree...
I think Hinrich is ALSO a bad fit on this team. This is by no means a Hinrich vs Gordon thing. I think they’re both bad fits (assuming Gordon is going to hold out for the big money).
That’s my argument – if you’re going with Rose, you need to scrap Hinrich and Gordon and shop for a better fit at SG.
I don't think anyone would disagree that
if you can find a tall superstar SG who is a good defender and able to move without the ball on offense and knock down perimeter jumpers, you get him.
Unfortunately, there are only a small handful of those guys in the league. You’ve got to go with what you’ve got in the meantime.
My concern is that if they give up Gordon and, as you say, take their lumps in the short term, then that’s not quite a healthy environment to put Derrick Rose in, either. As we saw with the pre-BabyBulls Krause rebuilding program, losing can become ingrained too easily.
It would make much more sense to not give up Gordon’s scoring for now. If we can get a LeBron-type (or more realistically a Jason Richardson type) of course you go out and get him.
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
That's why it's a gamble...
By signing Gordon, I think you write off that possibility for the next 4-5 years. You are banking on Rose/Gordon/Deng to get it done. I personally don’t think that will work.
By not signing Gordon, you’re gambling that you can find that guy to fill the void via free agency or the draft. It’s a gamble, admittedly. It’s just a gamble I’d prefer to take rather than what I consider to be certain mediocrity without the flexibility to make the moves necessary to jump to title contention.
Your concerns are valid, for sure. It’s not a fool-proof plan. I just think it’s worth that gamble personally.
gah
stop saying ‘certain mediocrity’. There are trades, you know.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions
I know...
and that’s what I want to do. I just want to trade Gordon as well.
I’m saying what I think. I think that siging Gordon SIGNIFICANTLY prohibits our chances of winning a championship, and that when we do compete for a championship I think it will happen without Gordon, Hinrich, or Nocioni being a part of it. I’d like it if you stopped telling me not to say what I think.
huh?
I didn’t mean literally stop saying it. Just calling it annoying, especially after repetition.
That line about Gordon with the caps is stupid. Agree to disagree, unless you also think it’s stupid.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions
Agree to disagree
And your friendly tone has been much appreciated.
Don't hold your breath
For a long time, the buzz words were “superstar talent”. The Bulls were waiting for a superstar talent, and they were in the lottery multiple years in a row, and with free agency and trade possibilities thrown into the mix, the thought was that they’d find that one transcendant star to build around. Well that didn’t work.
The next time the Bulls had one piece missing it was the low-post scorer. The Skiles era came and the Skiles era went, and still, no low-post scorer.
I agree that it’s going to be a judgment call either way with Gordon, and really, we’re assuming that one of the choices on the table will be to hold on to Gordon. But there are a couple of thoughts that make me hesitent to give up on Gordon. The first is that as with the “superstar” and the low-post scorer, the Bulls may simply never have the chance to get that tall, two-way SG. They could be waiting for a long time.
The second thing is that this team is not built for front line scoring. It’s built for perimeter scoring (I’m including Deng’s scoring here), otherwise, we’d see a lot more offense from our front line. Given that fact, the Bulls could be really, really bad without Gordon’s scoring from the backcourt.
Also, as pointed out by others (fundamentallysound, I think it was), Gordon’s numbers are not those of a limited, 3rd tier SG. They’re actually really, really good—he’s as good or better than his two UConn predecessors (Rip H. and R. Allen) at his age. So I agree it is a gamble, and as long as we’re talking about this gamble, I think it’s important to acknowledge how valuable this bird-in-the-hand is.
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
I mentioned it in this thread, but the Gordon / Ray comparisons
are copyright of Scotter, I believe :-P.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions
They certainly are similar
It just seems that Gordon needs to dominate the ball to be effective. I don’t think the same can be said for Allen. My biggest concern with a Rose/Gordon backcourt is they would essentially be fighting over the ball.
actually statistically speaking,
it’s more likely that if Ben used possessions less often he would be even more efficient, and thus, effective. The idea is that having a (should be) elite PG will help with this. So an even more effective BG, a better PG, Luol being healthy and the dropping of the Corpse from the roster should all translate to a much better offense next year, but you have to bring Ben back, otherwise it all goes to hell.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions
Gordon's usage rate
is almost exactly the same as Rip’s through their first four seasons.
It’s a little higher than Allen’s, but not by a lot.
wrong
it’s a full 4% higher than Ray Allen’s. That’s enough to make a 5 point per 100 possessions difference, which is coincidentally the exact difference between Ray and Ben’s ORtg’s through year 4 of their respective careers.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions
here
read this and you’ll understand what I’m talking about.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Interesting
I simply meant that usage rates for the two weren’t what I’d consider dramatically different. They were in a range that you could expect the two to end up overlapping at some point.
The study was really neat, thanks. It really puts into numbers the common sense premise that putting together good offensive players makes for team better than the sum of its parts. And if you have good offensive player and a bunch of crummy ones you shouldn’t be surprised when he, and everyone else looks like less than the sum of their parts.
yeah
decreasing marginal returns in terms of efficiency when increasing usage and vice versa increasing marginal returns in efficiency when you decrease usage burden.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 6, 2008 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions
And Rip's game is totally different than Ben's
Rip comes off screens to hit open jumpers. That is how he is most effective. Ben is most effective having the ball at the top of the 3 point line and dribbling for his own shot. Although they use the ball technically just as much, that style leads to totally different offensive mindsets. Now if instead we could trade for Hamilton…
Hamilton?
Set up a cage match and watch Hamilton and Tyrus go at it? We almost had that during a game.
Could be fun though.
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.
I hate Hamilton and his stupid Rhino-masky
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions
I love how your previous 3 posts
are well researched and documented, then you follow it up with ” I hate Hamilton and his stupid Rhino-masky”
I do that from time to time
I like objectivity and facts, but at the same time, I’m a fan and I hate guys for irrational reasons sometimes. I always hated Hamilton and his mask, couple that with him being a Detroit guy and the fact that he attempted to fight Tyrus? Yeah, he’s one of my least favorite players.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 6, 2008 8:07 AM CDT up reply actions
salary cap problem
The issue I see when people talk about this is that with the salary cap it is hard to stay under the cap if you have some many players that go from rookie to 1st contract at the same time. You can’t pay Rose, Tyrus, Deng, Gordon, Noah all good contracts and have much left over. (assume Rose, T2, Noah are starters they will all ask for $s like Deng and BenG just did) The salary cap makes it easier to have 3 great players with some rookies and moderate paid vets mixed in
That is a good point, but
I’m not saying to sign all the ‘Young’ guys to big deals. We still have some time to see more of them and then decide with a bigger sample size which ones we want to pay. The ‘old’ guys already have their money. That is why we need to move those old guys so we can sign the young ones we want when their deals come up.
by Coach Van Lier on Aug 4, 2008 7:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Almost everyone in the older group had potential too
It just seems to me that this is arbitrarily assuming that what you have as your younger generation will unequivocally be better than what we have as the older generation given the minutes to develop.
But everyone in the older generation, at some point in the past, was given more credit than they were due. Someone gave them their big contracts based on their potential, not just because they were entering their prime.
Everyone seems to think that we should stick with our younger guys and develop them. Not realizing that if they are half good and maintain potential we will have to pay them a lot. If they are real good and realize their potential, we will have to pay them too much.
I agree that it takes a combination of veterans and rookies to make it work financially. The trick is in the distribution of money. If one of the Bulls guards that makes $10M+ was a center of the same ranking at his position, we would not be having much discussion. We goofed when we made the Ben Wallace move, did damage control with Larry Hughes, and it will still have ramifications until the contract purges from the system two years from now.
Derrick Rose Derrick Rose Derrick Rose
This is the answer to your question/argument. He’s 19 and should be better than anything else the Bulls currently have (all-star, superstar hopefully). Build around him, and of course age (early in this process) is a factor when deciding who to keep or not.
The Game chose him !
What's the point of this strategy
Recycling the roster every 4 or 5 years to maintain the core players under 25 years who are rarely capable of making the playoffs in a strong conference? (as we now have in the East.)
This basically seems to be Paxson’s strategy. Boston gave up on this failed strategy because it doesn’t work in the present NBA, maybe the NCAA.
A balance amount of veterans mixed with youngings win NBA Championships. Chemistry and the strong desire of motivated veterans messed together in a positive environment and commitment to win by the management sets the tone. Bulls Mgmt. strategy is basically a farm system for the rest of the NBA, giving youngings NBA playing time while maintaining excitement for fans with young potential to keep attendance high.
PaxsDorf strategy: unrealized potential sells and is profitable too, who really needs NBA championships?
What's the focus down the road?
Since I am probably one of the few in this group who paid to go see Norm play, I’m glad to see him posting here. What many Bulls fans don’t realize is that over a 5 year period his Bulls were tied with the Knicks for winning the most games in the NBA. They were a great team that never got the credit they deserved.
Enough of that, I also agree with his assessment. And, I like Hinrich and some of the others in the “older” group BUT you can’t get a better team by overpaying the players you have. Personally, I see Ben Gordon as a Vinnie Johnson type of player who could be a valuable 6th man but you can’t pay him Lebron James or Dwayne Wade money because Cleveland overspent and we misjudged a certain center’s desire to play for us.
Right now we’re in a pinch trying to pay Gordon and stay under the cap. What happens if Tyrus Thomas and/or Thabo Sefolosha have breakout seasons this year? What do we pay them? And Noah the following year. And Rose the year after that.
Given the game today has the salary cap and how you structure your team is not only based on talent but talent that you can afford, these are important questions you have to answer. And I agree that you shouldn’t be willing to go over the cap unless you are very close to winning it all.
"To a man with a hammer, every solution looks like a nail." SLC
Either the NBA salary caps is too low or GMs paying certain Players too much?
Are these bad decisions, typical market value, or combination of both for;
1) Kirk 5/47 million
2) Noc 6/38 million
3) Wallace 4/60 million
4) Deng 6/71 million
5) Chandler 5/60
I imagine the profitability and market growth of NBA organizations would also need to take part in this equation. It seems that the Spurs would been a model franchise to weight against?
Paying players too much...
The Bulls have wasted their salary cap space on mediocre players. Some of the deals you mentioned look bad now, but that’s because of hindsight:
1) At the time, Hinrich was a very promising PG. He played great defense, could score, and could pass. He seemed to have great leadership skills. And he was making a name for himself, making the US National Team. Unfortunately, he hasn’t progressed since then. In fact, he’s regressed. So now he appears more like an overpaid role player.
2) This was a bad deal, unless the Bulls were committed to starting him at SF or at PF. But as a sixth man, he’s making way too much.
3) This was a bad deal. In his prime, Wallace was a force on defense and on the boards. But even then, he wasn’t useful on offense at all. And we got him after his prime. So we paid him superstar money and got declining role player quality.
4) This is market value for a 23-year-old who has shown the promise he’s shown. It only looks questionable because he didn’t improve last year and because we’re already overpaying a lot of guys.
5) This was market value for young big men. No one would say Chandler is overpaid now after the season he had last year. He just was underutilized in Chicago.
Part of the key to salary cap is knowing your team’s needs and knowing how the player fits. It is the reason that you can’t keep a bunch of pretty good players. Hinrich, Nocioni, Deng, and Gordon are all pretty good, but not great, players. The NBA is going to overpay for these type of players. As such, it is very important to find your key pieces, pay those guys, and then build around them with cheaper (or short-term) parts.
This is what Paxson did wrong in my opinion. He stockpiled a bunch of assets when they were cheap, which was a good thing. But rather than trading some of those assets for a star to build around, he just kept those assets until they were no longer cheap. He overvalued the future of those players, expecting them to become franchise players when none were. Now he has a bunch solid but not great players who are (or are soon to be) highly-paid. The team as is has no chance of competing for a title, and little chance of improving those odds via trade.
Hopefully they can figure out how to fix the mess without locking us into mediocrity for another 5 years. By the time Rose is an elite NBA PG, we need to have surrounded him with the right pieces and have the financial flexibility to keep him and build around him. Maybe Thomas and Deng will turn into superstars, which would help. We have to hope so with Deng, because he’s locked in for several years. And we should hope so with Thomas, because he’s still cheap.
Derrick Rose
should be the one the Bulls expect to turn into a superstar.
Then you hope Deng develops as the all-star second best player, and you surround them with great 3rd, 4th, 5th options (hopefully Tyrus, Noah, Gordon) and very good but not too expensive role players off the bench (Thabo, Noce who unfortunately was overpaid, Gooden).
The Game chose him !
I don't think you win with an undersized backcourt...
and a backcourt of Gordon and Rose is very undersized.
I agree that Rose is the guy we’re expecting to be the superstar. I think you probably need more than the one superstar, or you need to be very lucky. I think we build around Rose, and we’re forced to build around Deng so hopefully he develops. But I don’t think you win championships these days with a backourt of a 6’1”/6’2” point guard and the shortest 6’3” shooting guard I’ve ever seen.
Jason Terry and Devin Harris made it to the finals
Having an undersized backcourt is a problem, but having one of the worst offenses in the league is a bigger one.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions
You say that as if we'll permanently have a terrible offense...
We’ll probably suffer greatly next year if we sign-and-trade Gordon. If we keep him for the QO, we’ll probably be mediocre. Then, we let him walk, and we trade some of the other dead weight. Depending upon what we get in return, we may be weak the following year.
But then we have cap space and probably a high draft pick to reload quickly. I’d much prefer that than to try to sneak to the Finals with an undersized backcourt – an approach that works extremely rarely – for the next five or six years.
Yes, the approach I suggest may involve taking some lumps early. But I think the payoff comes down the road.
Yeah... Actually, D-Wade and Jason Williams isn't a tall backcourt, either.
J.W. is listed at 6’1, Wade at 6’4.
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
Wade plays SUBSTANTIALLY bigger than Gordon...
and is not a liability defensively.
Gordon is the shortest 6’3” ever (I’m pretty sure he measured at under 6’2” without shoes at the NBA draft camp), and plays just as small. Wade plays substantially bigger than his height would suggest.
really?
Wade isn’t a liability on defense?
Your ‘plays bigger/smaller’ is about as flimsy as chgobr’s relative-height scale.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions
If you say so...
I disagree. If you think Wade plays similar to Gordon, then I can’t help you much. I think it makes perfect sense.
I think your idea of paying Gordon to be a streaky shooter and liability at SG defensively makes no sense, however.
streak shooter is just a cliche people throw out there to dismiss players
that they don’t like. It’s a weak argument point especially when Gordon has shot over 40% from 3PT every year of his career. That’s consistency that you don’t get from “streak” shooters.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions
Wade is a poor defender, like Gordon
I don’t know who plays taller, and don’t care.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions
You know fully well who plays bigger...
it just doesn’t suit your argument, so you have written it off as nonsense.
Slight edit..
I should say “I think you know fully well…”
I don’t want to make assumptions of your thoughts. I apologize for appearing to have done so.
Wade may play bigger by blocking more shots
and gambling and getting more steals, but the net effect is the same they both give up a lot of points on defense. Also, why are we comparing Gordon to one of the best players in the league and someone we have almost no shot of landing ever? I love Wade, he’s my favorite player in the league to watch, but the likelihood, despite what Marrioti wants, of him being a Bull is very, very small.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions
Wade IS bigger.
not plays bigger. Also, he plays BETTER (though not much so on defense).
I am looking forward to your pamphlet: “shortest 6’3” people on earth”
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions
Again, I find your snarkiness unnecessary
We have a difference of opinion. I prefer to discuss it without the snarky tone.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on all things Gordon.
Snarkiness comes with the territory at BaB
you get used to it.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions
Not something I'm excited about getting used to...
but point taken. Sorry to hear that that’s the general tone of the board.
yeah, it's a bummer sometimes
but people are passionate and some of them are pretty quick to strike with a jab or three. But, they mean well and everyone here genuinely cares about this team. Everyone just believes their armchair-GM assessment is better than everyone else’s. I try to avoid the snark, but I know I slip into it at times.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions
it's better than cliches, hyperbole, strawmen
or worse, explaining that we’re having a disagreement on top of the actual disagreement.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions
Yup...
I definitely prefer rudeness to overstating the obvious. You’re absolutely right. My bad.
is this how things go at the cubs site?
‘agree to disagree’, ‘valid opinions both’, ‘we don’t make the decisions anyway’.
I consider that ruder than some biting (or not so biting) sarcasm.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions
dude, I think you're being sarcastic
I therefore don’t accept your apology.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 12:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Yeah, I hate the cliches
which is why I’ve been attacking the “OMG BG is too short!!” line of thinking for most of this thread, because it’s wrong. Hinrich and Ben are about the same size (Ben is bigger in the most important measurements) and Kirk is a good defender (although not this year) and Ben is a not-so-good defender (but not awful).
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions
Wade isn't a great defender
but it’s not due to physical limitation, so his liabilty isn’t an intrinsic one, maybe it’s an issue of effort, desire, positioning, injury, etc., who knows? The guy is long enough and borderilne tall enough (6’ 4.75” in shoes) to be able to guard any 2 in the league, at least to the point that they can’t automatically just shoot over him or post him up due to some inherent physical disadvantage. This means you can let him guard 2’s because physically he is able to guard them. That’s fine, BG’s been in the league long enough for anybody to know you don’t have him guard 2s at all, but the problem is that the Bulls’ best option to compensate for this has been to have yet another undersized guard defend the 2 rather than having a guy like Thabo fill that role because Skiles hated him and buried him on the bench in favor of continuning to give Kirk 30+ MPG.
Can BG guard 1s is the real question? Or I should say “was” the real question because now that’s Rose’s job and because of this BG is a bench player.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 10:49 AM CDT up reply actions
well our other option is to start Hinrich at the 2
and he’s even smaller than Gordon (in the things that matter, like wingspan, leaping ability, and strength / bulk) or Thabo (who can’t play offense at this point at all really).
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 10:37 AM CDT up reply actions
I didn't say we had in-house solutions...
I think Hinrich needs to go and I don’t think Sefalosha will develop offensively enough. But just because we don’t have the answer in-house doesn’t mean we should lock ourselves in to Gordon.
Gordon measured in at 6'1" without shoes and 6'2.25" with shoes
according to DX’s numbers, so no he’s not really even 6’3” but height is not a proxy for ability. Gordon is an ok defender (better than Michael Redd and Ray Allen at the same point in their careers). If it makes you feel better to think about, just pretend the Bulls are trying to sign Ray Allen from the 1999-2000 season when thinking about Gordon; they’re extremely similar.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions
also, BG's wingspan for his height is huge. 6'8.5"
that makes a big difference. Wingspan is a lot more important when looking at a players size than his height.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions
I can't believe
there’s even a discussion on who’s a better defender. Gordon or Hinrich/Wade. We all should know that Gordon is a poor defender. He may have a bigger wingspan than Hinrich and similar to Wade but defensive is all about effort and wanting it. Gordon has demonstrated that he has neither on the defensive end. So even with Gordon’s physical advantages he’s still a poorer defender than Hinrich. In regards to Wade, he is also better defender than Gordon. He’s not a very good defender, but you don’t have to be a good defender to be considered better than BG. It’s really a silly arguement to have. Gordon is a very poor defender. We all should know that.
his defensive deficiencies are vastly overstated here and elsewhere
I’ve been guilty of it from time to time, but if he was so egregiously bad there’s no way our defense could have been 2nd in the league in defensive efficiency with both him and Eddy Curry getting major minutes. Curry doesnt’ defend the paint at all and if Gordon was so awful, there’s no way that team is that good defensively. He’s not a world-beater defensively, but he’s not Michael Redd,who is truly an awful defender, out there either.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions
I think a big part of that...
is that, when we had those great defenses, we had Hinrich and Duhon sharing the assignment of handling the tougher guard matchup. With Rose, that no longer is going to be the case (unless you want to really throw Rose to the wolves).
That’s obviously just a theory, though. Unlike baseball (where the matchups are basically one on one and you can largely measure a player’s isolated ability) it is much harder to test that theory.
using Duhon as your example of great defenders that make up
for Ben completely destroys the height = defense line of argument that you’re advancing. Hell, even using Hinrich destroys it because Ben is bigger than Kirk in every important way (standing reach, vertical, weight and strength).
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions
Fine, then replace undersized with..
“completely incapable of guarding SG.” The crux of my argument remains the same in either case.
It's a semantic thing, but it's an important distinction
to be made here. Too many people have lazily thrown out the “BG is too short to guard anyone lulz” argument for it to be taken seriously. The assessment that he is incapable of guarding 2s just because he’s not that great of a defender is a more palatable way to express that opinion. My counter to that is that Ben simply isn’t THAT bad of a defender and his offense more than makes up for it.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions
He's an awful defender!
Except he mysteriously appears as a pretty ok with the (admittedly limited) measures we have for defense.
It’s a conspiracy I tell ya!
I blame George W. Bush!
(I agree 100% with you, fundamentally).
As best I can tell from observing the games, the idea of throwing Kirk or Duhon on the toughest defensive assignment is generally oversold.
From what I’ve seen I think Deng usually got the toughest perimeter player, and the guards very frequently switched up. I think they were for the most part use interchangeably.
Does no one stop to consider that our perimeter defenders all started to look worse when our interior defense fell apart? Ben certainly wasn’t a worse defender than Kirk last year. They were all about the same. And the reason was that most perimeter defenders will look bad with a bunch of complete softies (Wallace, Smith) or newbies (Thomas, Noah) behind them.
Getting a guy to help there would make the guards look the way they looked when we were leading the league in defense.
Say what you will
but it’s why the previous coaching staff and nearly every analyst out there advocates BG off the bench. It’s certainly not because of his offense.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions
well the analysts just parrot the coaches
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions
and some of the analysts are Sir Charles and Mark Jackson
not exactly spreading a high-quality brand of analysis. “Momma there goes that man” and “The Bulls got a midget backcourt and they need a low-post presence” blah blah blah
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 11:39 AM CDT up reply actions
I certainly was not referring to those two jamokes
especially Mark “I will paraphrase everything JVG just said and claim it as my own point” Jackson. Someone was going to make that guy a first time head coach?!
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions
I'd also trust some of the posters
on this site much more with analysis of Bulls players than I would the analysts on TV. Those guys have to know a little bit about each team and they stick to the cliches and the generalizations about each team. (“Gee whiz the Suns sure are fast, but they don’t play any D,” “The Hornets love to fast break” (not true, they play one of the slowest paces in the league but I’ve heard it advanced by “analysts”, and finally my least favorite “the Bulls need a low-post presence and they’re too short and jumpshooty”. Gimme the opinions of the invested folks here and my own opinions from watching the games over the “analysis” of guys that need to stick to a few talking points during a broadcast for each team.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions
LOL @ "Momma there goes that man"
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
seriously,
what does that even mean?! It drives me nuts whenever he says it.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions
Let's not forget the ultimate
Leon Powe=Dr. J comparison during Game 2.
I’d love to have a Fanpost where all of us can just bash every announcer we hate (not just Red!)
I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)
by Ozzie Montana on Aug 5, 2008 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions
oh god, that was awful
I live in Boston and am best friends with an unabashed Celtics homer and even he laughed out loud at the ridiculousness of that comment when Jackson made it. That was so dumb.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, some of them are former coaches so that would make sense
this could have been a non-issue had the Bulls let BG guard 1s and had a regular sized 2 (cough – Thabo) guard 2s. BG gets the blame because the Bulls decided to throw another undersized guard out there to guard 2s.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 11:43 AM CDT up reply actions
I'd consider Gordon an average defender.
Not poor. He puts in the effort unlike the truly poor defenders in the league. If anything he has difficulty getting the footwork right to be a great defender and that coupled with the size deficiencies do keep him from being better than average. But average isn’t bad in a team environment. He plays good team defense and wasn’t a liability back when we were a top defensive team in the league not too long ago with him playing lots of minutes. I have seen absolutely terrible, disinterested defenders out there with every physical advantage yet still don’t put the effort out and he is not one of those.
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.
I would've said he's improving as a defender
but last season he went back to terrible. I’ll blame that coach we had near the end, whatever his name was.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions
D Wade is not a inherent physical mismatch, however
Teams have won with SGs who aren’t 1st or 2nd team all NBA defenders. Teams have won with SGs who aren’t even good defenders. This is not the same thing as having a PG sized player guard 2s.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions
DWade is a gambler, he gambles for weak-side blocks and steals
by jumping into passing lanes. That’s why he gets beat much of the time, but he’s not an abysmal defender either, he was actually pretty good before his injury problems started piling up.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions
inherent physical mismatches are only important
in making you feel good. I fail to see how it makes a difference if both defenders are poor, short or not.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions
agreed,
I said it before, I’ll reiterate. Height =\= ability.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions
A bad defender
is one thing, but a bad and undersized defender is another. Right off the bat the opposing 2 will be able to shoot over BG or post him up, two things you will have to compensate for, that may not be immediately available when facing a normal sized 2, poor defender or not. Compensating for this can put a tremendous amount of pressure on the D and reduce an already small margin for error. There is a reason why there are preferred, even prototypical, sizes for each position. It doesn’t have to be that way, sure, but it’d make life easier.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions
This is why I wanted to see a BG-Thabo backcourt last year
at least in the second half after the season was pretty much charted out. We could have seen if BG could suffice defending 1s, Thabo could guard the 2s and handle more of the ball handling duties. For all the cries about Thabo’s offense, he easily put up Hinrich numbers as a starter last year and warranted more opportunites earlier in the season to see if he could produce beyond that.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions
Would've been worth a look in a lost season...
I personally don’t think Sefalosha’s game (offensively) is developed enough to be a PG, but it may have been worth the experiment in what was already a lost season.
Not be a PG, just that he's shown
he’s a capable ball handler but certainly not to the point you’d make him the primary.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions
that's silly
a bad defender is a bad defender is a bad defender. It doesn’t matter if he’s short. I’d rather have BG out there D-ing up his man than Michael Redd despite the fact that Redd has good 3 inches on Ben. Height isn’t the problem. If you want to make an argument for not keeping BG make it on the fact that he can’t guard his position regardless of his height (a point I’d say is debatable given what he contributes on the other end) and that him being unable to guard his position would put too much unneccessary pressure on Rose. That’s a legitimate concern. Throwing out Ben’s height as indicative of anything regarding his defensive prowess is dumb and wrong. Hinrich is smaller in every meaningful way vis-a-vis Ben, but is a better defender. It’s about ability and effort. I’d argue, though, that Ben’s offensive contributions far outweigh his defensive shortcomings.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions
Bad defenders aren't all the same
some have bad lateral movement, some don’t have the motor, some don’t have the focus, some just can’t reach high enough to get a hand in someone’s face. There are a myriad of reasons why a player can be a bad defender. If those reasons are inherent, however, that is a problem you will always have to compensate for in some fashion.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions
Honestly. You think a man with a 6'8 reach
is not able to get a hand in someone’s face?
If that someone is Yao Ming, you may have a point there. But he’s guarding guys who are pretty much in the 6’3-6’7 range.
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
When the SG he is guarding
is already taller and has at least the same reach and is taking a jump shot, yes, I think BG will have a hard time disrupting that man’s shot.
The problem with physical limitations on defense is that they can generally be exploited by every NBA 2 guard (that is “normal” sized) while other defincies may only be exposed depending on how good the opposing 2 guard is. With BG’s template, he is at a mismatch against nearly every 2 guard in the league physically. Physical mismatches are very difficult to overcome and compensate for.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 11:57 AM CDT up reply actions
yeah, I'm just saying
no one expects BG, or any other SG, to get up there and actually block a jump shot. So all you have to do is contest it. All that means is get a hand in the guy’s face, which Ben Gordon can do as well as any other normal (as in not elite) shooting guard. Think C Mobley, J Terry, S Jackson.
Gordon’s got some physical tools that make up for his lack of height. He has a long reach. He has a great vertical. He’s very strong.
Yes, if you’re looking for someone to intimidate a jump-shooting SG to the point that he thinks his shot will be blocked, you definitely are talking about elite defending SG’s. But if you want someone to put in an honest effort to play good D, even if it turns out to be ‘normal’ or less than elite defense, then Ben Gordon does just fine.
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
Not block a shot, but challenge it
at every level of organized basketball I’ve played, a hand in the face – as bad a theory as some pro-Gordon BaBers say it is – was preached. At every level of organized basketball I’ve played, I preferred to take shots without a hand in my face. I would suspect it has some effect on increasing the degree of difficulty on the shot. If I insisted on blocked shots, that would require more than a hand in the face.
Gordon may have a very long reach for a guy under 6’ 3”, but does he have long reach in comparison to the 2 guards in the league?
I find it surprising so many are advocating BG as a passable defender of 2s. The problem is that BG should never have been put in that position.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions
There's that passion again
I’ll remember you as the guy who doesn’t belive in getting a hand in a shooter’s face.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 1:26 PM CDT up reply actions
I never said that.
Your theory that Gordon is incapable of it because of his height (while the implication that Hinrich, Iverson or DWade can) is stupid.
What's even "stupider"
is that I never said Iverson could defend 2 guards, stated my preference for Hinrich being benched last year for Thabo to defend 2 guards allowing BG to guard 1s, and have stated that D Wade is a poor defender but supported his size with his actual measurements that are clearly notches above BGs.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions
Of course not...
...but we’ve just listed three people who’s height has little to do w/ them being poor defenders.
You’ve painted yourself into a bad corner here. The hand-in-the-face, compared to playing defense as a whole, is a very, very, very small part of it. For one, what if you’re a half-second too slow? You negate whatever height you have.
Painted myself into a corner?
well, I guess it’s my turn to feel the heat of the tough guy talk then. The hand-in the face was just one deficient aspect of BG’s 2 guard defense, certainly not the only one. I realize this.
The man should not be put in a position to guard 2 guards. It’s not fair to him, it’s not fair to the team. If you are advocating that he should start because he can capably defend 2 guards while still providing his offense, then I hope you’re right should that be the case and then I’ll come to realize that I’ve been misinterpreting what I’ve been watching over the past few years.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't know
I also didn’t think my comments were tough-guy either but they were interpreted as such.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions
actually Ben does have a longer than average
wingspan than the average (and thus, most) SGs in the league. Check it out. Gordon’s wingspan is a 6’8.5” and his standing reach is 2” shorter than the average SG (he’s a 8’3” and the average is 8’5”), however his vertical jump is 2.6 inches taller than the average SG which more than makes up for his reach “shortness.” It’s not that hard to find this stuff, really.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 1:31 PM CDT up reply actions
That's great info
But I see BG being 2.67” shorter in height, 0.2” “wider” in wingspan, and 2” behind in standing reach.
The vertical jump applies in certain situations, sure, but I don’t necessarily want my guys jumping out at shooters because that would lead me to believe they need to make up too much ground to even get to that defender. I’m not asking for blocked shots.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions
height doesn't matter
standing reach and leaping ability are the things that matter for a player’s “true height”. I don’t know how many times it has to be said. A player’s height has nothing to do with their ability or the size that they really play at. Height was only ever useful as a proxy for size before they started measuring these things that are more accurate in determining what guy can do. In terms of his being 2” behind in standing reach, I don’t think that that’s making that big of a difference, especially when you consider that Hinrich’s standing reach is even shorter and he’s supposedly a “good” defender.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions
Height matters when you're trying to see over the defender's hands
and I think we can drop the Hinrich cross-referencing now.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions
There's also a reason
BG developed that step back jumper.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions
ok
well then BG should be lauded for his ability to be a relatively effective defensive SG (he’s really not so bad look at his DRtg – aka points allowed per 100 possessions – over the course of his career) given that “his hands don’t go as high as the other guys.” He’s effective enough that his offensive contributions more than make up for his slight defensive deficiencies.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't get the hands thing at all.
How often are shots blocked anyway? Seems like Gordon has enough of a reach to get his hands up to “bothering the shooter” height. And typically he is in the shooters face and has his hands up when he defends. There are some tall SG who can get jump shots and fade away and get a good look, but wouldn’t that be something they would be successful at doing against anyone at that point. The elite SGs out there will give anyone trouble, not just Gordon. That’s why they are elite. They can make the difficult shots, you just have to be a good enough defender to force them to take those instead of the easy shots. And IMO Gordon can get his hands up as good as anyone.
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.
No one's asking for blocked shots
rather to make it hard for the jump shooter to actually get a clean look at the rim. I’d rather the defender not go for the blocked shot or leave his feet most times, in all honesty.
The numbers seem to back up BG being a capable defender of 2s even though my eyes disagree. I take these two into consideration, call it a wash, and am done making the “too short” argument.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions
hooray
I think an angel just got his wings, or something.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Just curious
if you have something for the average height + wingspan + standing reach of starting NBA 2 guards. I’ve tried to find it but to no avail. I’m curious to see a smaller sample than the 132 to see if there’s more than a marginal difference.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions
Regardless of the findings, however,
I’m done with the “too short” argument.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions
thanks for that
it’s a really tired cliche and it gets many riled up around here (as you can, I’m sure, tell).
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions
Well, when it comes down to it
As much as I seem to disagree with many of you guys, I’ve never learned anything from someone whom I’ve completely agreed with.
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't but you can
narrow it down based on where they were drafted on the DraftExpress page. I’d guess that Top 15 picks are more likely to be starters than those that are lower, so that might help a little bit. I checked into it and it wasn’t a huge difference.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions
I may just do it the manual way
too curious
by messwiththebull on Aug 5, 2008 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions
that's a passionate b-ball fan
and I can always support that, let me know if you find anything interesting, especially if it makes our points here seem less valid.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 2:40 PM CDT up reply actions
The "hand-in-the-face" theory...
...is one of the worst I’ve ever seen. I think, the more one needs to make up outlandish theories to support their arguments, the more they should take that as an indication they might be barking up the wrong tree. Or something.
My point is
I don’t care why someone’s a bad defender, I care about production. Ben’s defensive production has been solid his whole career. He works on the defensive side of the ball and does a lot to overcome his “size issues” (which really aren’t that important when you have a 6’8.5” standing reach and a 37.5” vertical). He’s not a great defender or even a good one, but he’s not so bad and his teammates have been able to make up for his deficiencies as has his ability to use a lot of possessions efficiently and effectively.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions
The key to masking it is a strong wing defender
either at the 2 or 3. I believe the Heat used Posey in that role. Unfortunately, Deng isn’t that type of player either.
Posey came off the bench, fatty 'Toine still started for a championship team
If we’re talking about defensive minded role players, well Thabo certainly fits that bill, no?
I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)
by Ozzie Montana on Aug 5, 2008 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions
Remember what happened in Children of the Corn?
You start killing off the adults, and the kids aren’t smart enough to survive on their own.
I think the idea is to bring in cheaper vets as alternatives to the current
Chicago Veterans on Bloated Contracts that we currently are set to trot out for next year.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions
A-Drain worked out so well and all....
If nothing else, taking Rose will at least piss off Pat Riley.
not those kind of cheap vets
not all veterans that sign for cheap are terrible, you know. We just don’t seem to be so good at finding them, probably because we overvalue grit and determination over talent and production, which would be the only reason for keeping Hinrich over BG at the 2 spot. If that happens, I’ll have to re-evaluate the amount of time I invest following this team, because we will be heading to another dark age.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions
that's true
however Joe Smith was a bad pickup in that he took away development minutes from Tyrus and provided a crutch for Skiles and B%&$ after him to fall back on rather than giving TT his damn minutes. So ultimately, it was kind of a wash. Hopefully though, a Joe Smith-type signing in the future will be a positive because we’ll have a coach, in VDN, who hopefully will be committed to developing the young guys rather than playing old guys who should be stop gaps and aren’t in our future plans huge minutes.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions
but Derrick Rose is a smart child
like, that hilarious baby from look who’s talking!
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't remember the baby's name.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 1:02 PM CDT up reply actions
Baby named Mikey
Actually voiced by Bruce Willis.
tyger is wrong, hell has frozen over!! ;)
I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)
by Ozzie Montana on Aug 5, 2008 1:04 PM CDT up reply actions
I know.
As soon as I posted it, I realized I was wrong and thought, “I hope no one knows ‘Look Who’s Talking’ inside-and-out to contradict me.”
Wikipedia is always a good friend of the basement-dwelling blogger
I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)
by Ozzie Montana on Aug 5, 2008 1:22 PM CDT up reply actions
I refuse to believe that it wasn't a real baby talking.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions
My question to all the BG advocates
is do you feel that a team consisting of Rose, BG, and Deng can win a championship in the next 3-4 years? Assuming the Bulls don’t land a Tim Duncan quality post player.
Rose is obviously going to be our PG. Now with Deng’s new 6 year deal, he’s locked into the equation. That means Pax and Co need to decide if they think BG can help lead them to become a title contending team. I personally don’t think he can. Not with Rose and Deng. What they would be is a playoff team. But IMO not a true contender. Ben Gordon is what he is. He’s a good NBA scorer who is a little streaky. He doesn’t offer much else. The Bulls would definately be worse off next season without him, but in the long run I don’t think it’s wise to lock up another good not great player to a long term deal that pays him starter type money.
At some point the Bulls are going to have to lure an All Star player away from another team, package a trade for one, or get lucky and draft another one. I don’t see Tyrus or Deng becoming those type of players. They can be very good players but not at the level of Wade, Pierce, or Bosh.
First question.
Yes & No.
In the “best-case” scenario, last year turns out to be a total fluke for BG & Deng, both play incrementally better than they did in ‘06-’07; Thomas and Noah take huge steps forward and Rose becomes a superstar in his third year. In their fourth year, they have a chance. Rose will be 23, Gordon 28, Deng 26, Thomas 25, Noah 26. In the best-case scenario, the team is hitting “championship-caliber” w/ 4 of 5 starters hitting its peak.
In the average scenario, I don’t think there’s anyway this team wins no matter who you bring in. Chris Paul and Deron Williams were in their third year before they made significant leaps. They also were in college 1 & 2 years longer (respectively) than Rose. And neither were “championship-caliber” this year. They were close, especially the Hornets, but I think they were just one step below the Lakers and Celtics. Due to his rawness, I’d be surprised if Rose is as good in his third year as Williams and Paul were in theirs. So bring in your superduperstar in 2010, and I still think you have 1-2 years, at minimum, before the team is ready.
Can they win a title?
Probably not, but they could, if they manage their finances skillfully, re-sign Gordon, have a good team for the next 2 years, and have enough cap space to throw at a free agent in 2010.
Deng $11,374,000
Gordon $11,374,000
Hinrich $9,000,000
Rose $5,546,160
Noah $2,607,110
2009 Pick $1,500,000
2010 Pick $1,500,000
Cap Holds $2,000,000
Team Salary $44,901,270
Estimated Cap $63,500,000
Est Cap space $18,598,730
That’s just a hypothetical, of course, I think we can probably re-sign Gordon for less than I’m putting in here. But the point is that the Bulls, if they play their cards right, could have a very solid team and still be far enough under the cap to make a maximum offer to star free agent.
Of course the Bulls will have choices to make before then.
1. They absolutely have to move Nocioni to open up cap room.
2. Hinrich’s $9M, and maybe a $1M or so of the money I’ve assigned to Gordon represents their flexibility. If they want to keep Thabo, Gooden or Tyrus, it probably means Kirk has to go. I’m cool with that. I’m pretty tempted to say they could re-sign Thabo and Gooden with $10M instead of having one Kirk, but maybe that’s a stretch.
I dislike pulling all from one source, but at ESPN
their “experts” seem down on the idea of paying Gordon. That includes the statty Hollinger and not so statty Chad Ford.
Hollinger in a recent chat:
“Brent : Any updates about Ben Gordon? Do you think he’ll resign or are they trying to get a sign-and -trade thing to happen? Thanks.
John Hollinger: (3:34 PM ET ) Supposedly he wants Deng money, which is just laugh-out-loud nuts on his part. At this point I think they're at a real impasse and almost anything's possible. Actually, his Q.O. is so high that he might as well play out the year and become unrestricted next summer, but of course he's going to use every option to get himself long-term security before settling for the Q.O. "And Chad Ford on top available free agents:
“Of all the players who turned down lucrative contract extensions last summer, Gordon made the most mind-boggling decision. He turned down a five-year, $50 million deal that seemed above market value after a down season.
For him to recoup that money this summer seems almost impossible. Now that the Bulls are paying Luol Deng a starting salary of $9.5 million this year, they can’t afford to pay Gordon that much without hitting the luxury tax. And now that the Bulls have added Derrick Rose and Larry Hughes to the mix, it’s no longer clear where Gordon fits into the picture.
There isn’t a huge market for undersized 2-guards who have streaky jump shots. Gordon might be better off taking the Bulls’ one-year tender offer or looking to Europe for a similar deal to Childress’. “
Links:
http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=21810
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=ford_chad&page=FreeAgents-080629
Wasn't
Gordon coming off a good season last summer and wasn’t the players main problem with their offers the fact the Bulls wouldn’t negotiate with them at all? I find it hard to fault either player if the Bulls were giving them a take it or leave it offer last year.
They say Hughes is some kind of asset? Gordon is a streaky shooter? If Gordon is a streaky shooter Hughes is a ten year drought.
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.
Hear, hear!
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
So what.
The point of my post was looking at the finances a couple years down the road and demonstrating that even if we paid Gordon “Deng Money” we could still grab ourselves a superstar free agent if we played our cards right.
And of course, having one of the league’s best shooters would make us a more attractive destination for a superstar free agent.
Just noting
no one seems to think Ben is worth the money except you and a few other BABers. I sense perhaps some homer blinders on your eyes. Sorry, that’s the best term I could come up with.
I sense perhaps you're a fucking dolt
Sorry, that’s the best term I could come up with. Because this argument is lame coming on the heals of a post where I explicitly say I think Gordon can be signed for less than I put in here.
Not to mention the whole “what’s he worth to me” argument has been beaten to death here. But jeez, by all means, carry on.
It's ok, you wanted to make your point.
You just chose to go a little over the top to refute mine. I just read around other sites, etc. No one seems to be clamoring for Ben to get paid but Ben and the people here. Didn’t mean to target you specifically.
I think people should look more objectively around the league to wonder if we don’t overvalue Ben here. No one seems rushing to sign him or complete a sign-and-trade. That includes the Bulls as well. Maybe they realize something people here seem not to.
feels more like Josh Childress everyday
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
we overvalue him relative to the rest of the league
because we struggle to do what he is good at, i.e. score efficiently. The rest of the league, for the most part, is better at scoring efficiently than the Bulls. Hence, Ben has more value to our team than most others and so we overvalue him. Other teams also don’t offer him anything because we have the right to match, which we presumably would.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 6, 2008 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions
All value is relative
so there’s really no way to objectively look around the league and consider if we “overvalue” Ben.
Doing so inevitably will get a team talking in circles. For example, take the Cleveland Cavaliers. Would they prefer to pay Ben Wallace $13M/yr for the next two years or Ben Gordon? Certainly if the Bulls called up and offered to take back Wallace in a sign and trade, they’d jump at the chance.
On the other hand, take Memphis. They could pay Gordon but would have to give up their cap space to do so, and they’ve already got a plethora of guards.
If you’re looking at those two situations and saying “jeez, they’ve got nothing in common with each other” that’s the whole point. They don’t. So trying to line up what teams “value” Gordon at as if they are transitive doesn’t work.
As far as me, I look at Gordon and think of what to pay him in the following terms:
1) How much can we pay him without hamstringing (my) plans for the future. I think, as I wrote here, we probably could pay him what we’re paying Deng without totally screwing ourselves. Obviously I want to pay him the minimum, but consider that an upper limit.
2) How much do we have to pay him to make it worth his while to sign with us? That’s the lower limit, and it’s an expected value. What can Gordon expect to get over the next few years if he takes the QO and then walks, goes to Europe, or can find an acceptable sign and trade (because there are plenty of teams that will offer S&Ts that the Bulls would find unacceptable, obviously). That’s tough to guess. If I had to I’d say:
1% he gets seriously hurt and never plays again. He gets the $6.4M QO.
35% he plays for the QO and gets something in the $6M range the following year. I think the QO is a horrible option for him because the Bulls will have every incentive to put him on the bench to close out the season.
32% he plays for the QO and gets about an $8M to start offer (that’s $39M over the first four years).
32% he plays for the QO and gets about an $10M to start offer (that’s $46M over the first four years of his contract).
Of course I’m just guessing those probabilities, but add them up and it’s an expected value of $ about $43M to take the QO.
Unlike Deng, this doesn’t seem to be a very good option to Gordon if the Bulls can offer more than that, and they can.
3) The wildcard is the the Bulls already had $50M on the table, and I, at least, am the sort that wouldn’t be happy working for someone who pulled that money off the table. I just think that makes for a bad working relationship and I probably wouldn’t do it unless the money were a whole lot worse everywhere else.
But it’s not a whole lot worse. Last I heard the Bulls were offering $45M or so, and so if I expect I can get $42M elsewhere, I’m probably going to spend a few million on pride and take the QO.
However, as i pointed out, the Bulls, would seem to be in a position to offer a more face-saving option to Gordon, where the Bulls wouldn’t be hamstrung and everyone would be happy. So I’d do that. If i’m the Bulls, I offer something like $8.5M to start. That’s 5yrs and $51.5M over a longer term contract, a figure that shouldn’t kill the Bulls but should add enough to the offer to let Gordon feel ok about playing here.
But then Jerry Reinsdorf and the Bulls would "lose"...
...(while actually winning games?) and that’s just not acceptable.
I think Rose
BG and Deng are the Best players on this team. (and Rose makes them both better)
I believe that we are now on year 2 of the second rebuild. That is Hinrich, Deng, Gordon and Noc were brought in to complement Curry and Chandler. (even IF there weren’t better picks available anyhow)
With the Rose pick, we have a better chance of winning if Gordon is here then if he’s not. (how many better SG’s are realistically available?)
With Rose’s Penetrating and Passing upgrade, our need for a highly skilled inside scorer has also diminished.
I think that Tyrus and Noah’s Defense will also develop consistency against the better bigs in the league.
We have a pretty decent 4/5 guy in Noah. and Tyrus hasn’t played enough, but if they develop some inside scoring, then I think they will complement this trio very well.
Rose makes this team different in a significant way: speed, penetration, inside easy scores will become a big part of our identity and should compliment one of the top defensive teams in the league.
The league will take a while to adjust correctly to our new offensive identity. It took them a year and a half to figure out we were an outside shooting team and to double/triple team gordon.
Let's be clear here about evaluating individual defense
It’s extremely difficult to say whether someone is a “good or bad” defender. The consensus among Bulls fan would be “BG bad Kirk good.” But, Matt and others can probably recount the amount of times Kirk was beaten by smaller, quicker PGs this year (like the almighty Kyle Lowry). Reputation plays a crucial role when it comes to someone’s defense, thus why Nocioni is valued as a good defender when he’s actually a liability a lot of the time on that end.
Now, BG isn’t a great defender, we can see that watching any Bulls game over the past 4 years. But, he isn’t THAT bad, really. In fact, if he was that bad, the Bulls would not have been a top defensive team 3 years in a row. He’s flawed, but not so hopeless that the team cannot pick up his slack. That’s the point of having 4 other guys on the floor, BG isn’t supposed to shut down his man 1-on-1 every time down the floor, no on does that in this league save for the Bowens or Artests of the world.
People (not just on this site) are talking like BG is always going to be guarding the starting 2 on the other team. That just isn’t the case. There are always matchup ploys going on in a game. For those afraid of BG getting destroyed by Kobe or TMac, well what the hell is Thabo or Kirk going to do on them anyways? There’s a reason why we have a head coach, it’s his damn job to make adjustments. BG screwing up too much on D? Then bench his ass and play Thabo, it’s not rocket science.
People are saying “why pay someone who is a streak shooter and is a liability on D.” My friends, you just described almost half of the perimeter players in the NBA!! We are not a unique case here, just because Gordon is smaller than other guards doesn’t mean he’s automatically worse. Individual defense is being vastly overrated on this board. We should be more concerned with how Del Negro is going to get these young guys to believe once again in playing aggressive as a unit. Who is going to lead that attack? For a while Skiles was that guy, then it seemed like Corpse. I fear there is no one on this team to step up and get the guys motivated to play hard defense every night. So, everyone can lament that BG is a “bad” defender, but if the rest of his teammates don’t play hard on that end either, then it doesn’t really matter.
I was a multiple time all star throughout my little league career. Won 5 championships- 4 in a row- thats more in a row than MJ… (kenwo4life@aol.com)
I agree with the sentiment that individual defense doesn't matter nearly as much as
some are attempting to make it seem. Team Defense is what matters and the Bulls have been an elite team defensively in 3 out of the last 4 years, aka the years Ben Gordon has been a Bull, (admittedly the off year was the most recent which is a bit troubling). If the Bulls can return to elite defense and Derrick Rose is who we think he is, then our offense becomes that much better, but that’s only if you keep Ben Gordon. This offense has been mediocre to bad for a while. Replacing Hinrich with Rose helps that, but that’s mitigated a great deal, if not completely, if you let Ben go. His USG% is between 28-30% and he’s extremely efficient with those possessions, letting a guy like that go not only hurts you because his efficiency is lost a replaced by a less efficient player, but it also forces less efficient offensive players that surround him (TT, Noah, and even Deng) to increase their usage of possessions which hurts their efficiency. Losing Ben should not be an option, he’s too important to this offense’s ability to get better.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions
For BG-haters, Kirk-lovers....
...here’s a question to ponder (oh, and the rest of us, too, since it’s hardly been said): how good would Kirk’s defense if he were going against lightning-quick, ball-handling PG’s like Tony Parker, Derron Williams and Chris Paul every night? Is it possible that his defensive deficiencies were masked as well in the PG/SG defensive switch?
What say you, peanut gallery?
Fine. Kirk can play the 2
and Ben can go play in Memphis or wherever :o)
Does he really?
Last season was a down year for both Hinrich and Gordon. More so for Hinrich. So let’s look in the not so distant past of the season before. The 06-07 season when both of them had there best seasons of their career.
Hinrich 80 80 35.5 5.9-13.3 .448 1.8-4.2 .415 3.0-3.5 .835 1.3 0.3 2.4 3.4 0.4 3.0 3.4 6.3 16.6
Gordon 82 51 33.0 7.4-16.3 .455 1.9-4.6 .413 4.6-5.4 .864 0.8 0.2 3.0 3.1 0.4 2.7 3.1 3.6 21.4
FG% are very close. 3P% is very close. Same with FT . Gordon scored about 5 pts more per game while Hinrich had 3 more assits. And the years before Hinrich FG wasn’t as good but either was BG’s and his scoring was only around 16 pts per game. While Gordon is a better offenisive SG, Hinrich is a better defensive SG and more of a combo guard. Gordon is not a real combo guard. He’s a undersized SG. Hinrich has a better handle, better defender, and can guard two positions. Gordon is a better scorer. I really don’t think Hinrick pales in comparision as a SG as you say. He had a very bad year, but almost everyone on the team had a bad year.
that's misleading
unless you’re using position-split data. including hinrich’s stats at pg isn’t accurate to say how well he plays SG.
those stats don't mean a whole lot, look at their advanced statistics
to get a better idea of what kind of players they really are. Also, cherry-picking Kirk and BG’s best season’s isn’t fair because Kirk has had much lower lows than Ben has. Ben has consistently shot that well from deep and Kirk had one year when he shot well from deep.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 1:49 PM CDT up reply actions
OMG
I should have known better than to put any stats out here with all the, and no offense, but stat geeks that are on BaB. They both had career years the same year and I am well aware that Hinrich is not as good of shooter as BG is. I just don’t think that BG is that much better of a all around basketball player than Hinrich is. I measure talent by watching the games, not looking at their 36 per. My bad for going that route. I’ll stick to analysing games played on the court as opposed to the games played on paper or spreadsheets.
you can do both, which is what I do. Stats provide context. But my eyes
and the numbers agree. BG >>> Hinrich.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions
Instead of "career-years", how about...
....career as a whole?
Hinrich 41% 37.7 3fg% 3.0 FTA 6.5 Ast 2.4 TO 14.5 pts 3.3 PF 52 TS% 50 eFG
Gordon 43% 41.6 3fg% 4.8 FTA 3.5 Ast 2.9 TO 21.5 pts 3.4 PF 55 TS% 48 eFG
BG only averages 18 pts per game for his career.
Seems your fudging the numbers to prove your point.
oh come on
even though i realized it was per-36, you can’t expect everyone to assume as much and act all snotty when someone questions you.
I use per-40 :-p
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions
oh, now that's an interesting argument. what's that you say? it was a symbiotic relationship and
not a parasitic one in which BG sucked the life force from Kirk? I’ll buy it. Kirk’s not as quick as Ben and he certainly would be destroyed by the guys listed. I mean look at what Chris Quinn (!!!!) did to him this year.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions
I agree that Kirk struggles against quicker point guards.
That’s just not the class of people he should be defending. Hopefully Rose can. Hinrich is known for not giving up easy baskets to SGs and various combo guards. The good news is combo guards are more popular than ever.
I'd say
BG doesn’t and hasn’t guarded the likes of Parker, Williams, and Paul everynight. In fact he would have only had an opportunity to guard them a whooping total of 6 times last year. I’d say that in the Eastern Conference there are more good SGs than there are good PGs. And I’d say that Hinrich generally ends up guarding whichever position of the two is the most difficult to defend. Hinrich would guard whomever BG couldn’t, not the other way around. And Hinrich may not be as athletic as BG, but he is just as quick at staying in front of guys as BG is. In fact I’ve noticed BG doesn’t exactly have great foot quickness. You may notice it more when he drives offensively and his upper body seems to often get ahead of his lower body and he loses balance. BG doesn’t have as good of foot quickness as Hinrich does. Let’s give Hinrich some credit for being a pesky tough nosed defender. It’s not like he can in to this league with that reputation. He earned it.
Really... ? I thought that Kirk's claim to fame was that
he guarded the other team’s best guard on offense. I know he did pretty well against Deron Williams toward the end of the season, for example.
"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris
he earned by harrassing D-Wade a few times during the playoffs and regular season
and he’s been living off of it ever since. Historically speaking, Hinrich has a negative influence on the team by adjusted +/, in 2004-05 and 2005-06 he was a -1.7 both years. In 2006-07 (his best year) he was a -.62, this year he was a -4.12. He’s negative influence on the team every single year. Historical adjusted +/ is significant and by that measure, Hinrich does harm to the team, not good.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 1:24 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not saying
that Hinrich is the answer at SG for the Bulls future. What I’m saying is BG is not either. And since Hinrich is already signed, why sign another player who is flawed and isn’t the answer at that position. Get rid of both of them, but for the love of God don’t over pay BG again like they did with Hinrich and Noc. Just because BG may be the best option at SG next season doesn’t mean he’s the best option in the long term. He’s not!!! The Bulls will do more harm to themselves by locking themselves into another long contract with a player that they’ll want to rid themselves of in a couple years. I personally would like to start building a championship quality team and BG is not the quality of player they need to do that. They already have a third option in Deng. If Rose developes into a superstar then the Bulls need another superstar to add to Deng and Rose. Thomas will not be that guy. Nobody on the current Bulls roster will be that guy. They can’t win a championship with a one possible superstar player. And you need cap flexability to make that happen. You need at least two so why send $60-70 mil on a guy you know won’t be that guy??? WHY???? I just doesn’t make any damn sense. BG is a bandaid to the Bulls problems. Suck up a couple mediocre years and get a superstar in place for when Rose is ready to be one himself. It’s not rocket science.
who do you see being available that's better than Ben, honestly?
he’s an elite scorer and solid defender. He has his issues, but so does every player in the league. Cut down the amount of possessions that he has to use by giving the ball to Rose more than we gave it to Kirk and you’ll see his productivity go up even further. There just aren’t going to be better options out there; it’s not that easy to get superstar 2s.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions
First of all
BG is not an elite scorer. A good scorer yes. The best scorer on the Bulls, yes. But that’s not saying much. He ranked 39th in the league in scoring last season. In his best season he was 14th which is good, but again that was his best season. And it wasn’t like he averaged 25. It was 21.6 or something. And please don’t tell me his per was so awesome. Maybe there’s a reason he’s not playing 36+ mins. And don’t tell me Skiles was a terrible coach. A hard ass that wore on his players, yes but not a bad head coach and not stupid. Plus he’s not a guy that get to the line much. He lives and dies by his outside shooting. That’s why his scoring is inconsitant from night to night. And it’s not all about scoring. I think the Bulls can and need to get a better basketball player. If I want a better scorer I’d advocate Michael Redd. Similar player who scores a bit more and can do it inside, outside and gets to the line more. I think the Bulls have a realistic shot at Wade. If BG wants to come back on a two year deal. Great, I’ll welcome him with open arms but not the 5-6 year highest paid Bulls deal he is asking for. If that’s the case which it seems to be, trade him, get some value, and use that value as cap flexability or move those pieces in a bigger trade to bring in a true All Star. Get rid of Kirk too while your at it. I’m not a BG hater nor a Kirk lover. I’m just tired of all the “BG is the best we can do so we can’t lose him or we’ll be eternally bad” crap I read on here.
Michael Redd is worse at basketball than Ben. He's an absolutely atrocious defender.
If you thought Ben’s defense was bad then watch out for Redd. Also Redd is way overpaid and he’s 4 years older than Ben (he’s hit his cieling, whereas Ben is still climbing). As far as getting Wade goes, that’s a pipe dream and BG should be the contingency against it. Miami will be able to offer him more money, there are no state taxes in Florida, and there’s the lure of South Beach. Also, if you really want Wade chances are Miami would force a sign and trade and having BG as an asset in a trade with them is a great option because he’d give us a big contract to send and something they would actually value in return for Wade (a very very good SG in Gordon). But anyway, the Wade pipedream is an infinitely small chance and to think otherwise is just fooling yourself. I love the guy and wish he was a Bull, but it’s just not very likely.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions
No Michael Redd
In no way am I saying I want M. Redd. I was just stating that he’s a better scorer than BG and in general I believe he’s a bit of a better player right now. As far as Wade goes, he’s going to be a unrestricted free agent in 2010, right? So the Bulls wouldn’t have to sign and trade with the Heat. They offer him the max and a chance to play in one of the biggest markets in the NBA. Not to mention it’s his home town team. Yes, the Heat can offer more money but I’m guessing it comes down to who provides the best chance to win another title. And if the Bulls are smart they can put together all the right pieces to lure him up north. He’ll have a player option for one more season in Miami, but if Miami hasn’t built a title contender I believe the Bulls would be the next team on his list. He’d have to love playing along side Rose. Chances are he won’t end up in Chicago but there not as remote as you make them seem. And if not Wade they Bulls can package some young talent and expiring contacts to get a All Star talent. At this point it’s impossible to speculate who may be available but big names become available every year so why would that change. Like I said, sign BG to a 2-3 year deal but not a 5-6 year deal at $11-13 per. That’s what he’s apparently asking and he’s just not worth that. And if you think he is then you’re grossly overestimating his value.
Maybe what you say makes sense,
but I wouldn’t know, because it hurts my eyes too much to look at your posts.
Maybe it’s just me, and maybe it’s just my eyes…but I’d find it a whole lot easier if you broke your stuff down into bite-sized pieces—rather than mouthfulls.
Thanks…no sarcasm, I mean it. Thanks.
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
No problem
Reading back now is even difficult for me. I just was so jacked about what I was writting I didn’t think to break it up.
The reason we'd deal with Miami is because of the extra money
and years they can add to Wade’s contract which is something I’m sure he’d be interested in. If he tells him he’s going to walk, but wants to negotiate a sign and trade so that he can get extra years of security and more cash – something that happens all the time and seems likely in this case, since it’d likely be his last big contract, he’ll be 28 at that point- a package built around Gordon and some of our other young pieces is going to be more attractive to the Heat than a lot of what they’re going to get offered and certainly more palatable than letting Wade walk for nothing. That’s why you sign BG now and worry about the rest later. Keep your best assets and find ways to get rid of the other ones that aren’t as valuable (Hinrich, Nocioni, Hughes).
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions
Can someone name the last sign and trades?
It’s extremely rare. The only one I could come up with is Joe Johnson. And it almost cost the Hawks a high lottery pick.
If miami doesn’t want Gordon though, you’re screwed with him. And it sure seems like Gordon the SG version of beasley. Don’t know if they’d want two of those type.
And last max-superstar to switch teams is...?
Hell, Rashard Lewis was even a sign-and-trade, technically.
That's a very poor example
The Magic had the room to sign him, they just wanted to give him another year. They didn’t have to match salaries like the Bulls would. Lewis told the Sonics I’m signing with them either way, you can get something out of this or not (turned out to be a simple trade exception/2nd round pick). That’s far different from a team that’s over the cap and needs the other team to complete the trade.
That was my point.
That could have been an outright signing, but the sign-and-trade helped make it even more lucrative.
FURTHER, the “technically” I put on there was for a purpose. Lewis’ contract is the closest thing to an outright superstar-in-his-prime-changing-teams-max-deal that’s happened recently. And he’s not near as good as Wade or Bosh or James.
He’s more like Jason Richardson or Josh Howard. If you’re ready to bank the franchise on one of those guys coming in 2010… well then.
Now, again I ask...
...can you name the last superduperstar that switched teams, outright, in a max deal, in-or-entering, his prime?
The last ones was probably Hill, only if you figure superduperstar
But this is a different era and situation. When was the last time players took less than a max deal while re-signing with their team? Lebron,Bosh, and Wade all did that. The reason was in case their situation didn’t improve, they could move. All 3’s teams don’t have the brightest futures as currently constituted. That combined with Wade’s Chicago connections have led to speculation. Same for LeBron and NY. I still personally think it’s doubtful, but there hasn’t been a superduperstar so willing to leave since:
1. Shaq leaving Orlando – he did
2. Duncan leaving San Antonio – he didn’t
3. Grant Hill leaving Detroit- he did
4. Kobe Bryant leaving LA – he didn’t
So even under these conditions it’s 50/50. And to prepare for it by overpaying role players doesn’t seem to get you there any easier.
my contention has always been
“sign and trade BAD. Under the cap Good.”
Should I make that my signature to help you out?
That point didn’t change that. This is a very unique free agent class, unlike any we’ve ever seen potentially. That’s why a third of the league is scrambling to get under the cap.
which is another
reason why gambling that we can sign one of these guys and letting our actual good players leave is a bad, bad idea. We’re going to be competing with a LOT of teams for these superstars’ services.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 7, 2008 9:28 AM CDT up reply actions
I just thought of this
The reason that trio is coming due in 2010 is because they signed 3 year extentions. The reason they signed 3 year extensions is because the CBA will be renegotiated that year, and they might be able to get a pot full of money as a result of the new CBA—something that, heretofore, no one at BaB has considered.
Depending on the new CBA all the posturing and positioning that’s been going on could be for naught
Any other time I would have disagreed
but with all this Europe talk, the max salary might actually be increased. I don’t think Lebron etc. foresaw that happening 3 years ago when they re-signed. They were thinking about freedom knowing they could get the max no matter what. If they wanted to leave they wouldn’t get caught like KG.
that was part of my point initially
the odds of Wade coming here at all are very slim, so why act like they are good? Gordon’s going to be our best option at the 2 and acting like we have a shot at the superstars in the 2010 class, when so many teams are angling for that class is naive and reckless. Sign Gordon and you give yourself another asset to either consolidate later or to win basketball games with. Ben Gordon wins basketball games.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 6, 2008 8:10 AM CDT up reply actions
Not naive and reckless - necessary
The fact a bunch of teams are going to be under the cap means that, even if we don’t get one of the biggest names there are still a lot of reasons to be under the cap and flexible.
It looks as if there’s going to be an unprecedented amount of turnover and if we don’t have some flexibility we’ll likely miss out on plenty of other players. If everyone else is going to be naive and reckless it’s a good time to have the ability to go in and take advantage of them.
The new CBA is a good point to consider too. Going into the new situation, if anything, you probably want to have a more flexible structure, not a less flexible one. The last two CBAs have generally favored ownership.
I agree that having cap space is nice and important even
but letting Gordon go to create it is dumb. You get rid of the bad players on your team to create flexibility, not the good ones. More talent = good, less talent = bad.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 7, 2008 9:30 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't want to overpay for BG.
Cap space is one of the benefits, not the reason.
I don't think anyone wants to overpay him
the question that differentiates us is how much do you think he’s worth? I put his value at somewhere between 10 and 11.8 million (what Deng got) per year. He’s certainly not worth as much as Deng, but he’s definitely very valuable and worth more than Hinrich. I’d personally like to see him get $10.5 million per year for 6 yrs. / $63 million (starting salary at 8.3 million). I think that’s fair value for him and I even wrote another fanpost detailing why I think so.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 7, 2008 1:57 PM CDT up reply actions
Right but Hinrich is overpaid. Why is he your benchmark?
He’s also better than Larry Hughes. Should we give him 14 million now?
no
I don’t want to pay him more than Hughes. Hughes is grossly overpaid whereas Hinrich is only overpaid because of the way we got lucky in the lotto. He’s overpaid for his new role on this Bulls team, you don’t pay a bench guy 9-10 million a year (I think BG is a starting quality player, which is I know a point of contention for you). So you don’t pay Gordon more than Deng, but you definitely pay him atleast 10 million a year, probably more.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 7, 2008 4:41 PM CDT up reply actions
So why not pay Gordon like similar players
The two that come in to mind who have recently signed contract are Monta Ellis and Leandro Barbosa. Yes neither is a great shooter, but both are young, offensive based combo guards
Ellis signed 6/67
Barbosa signed 5/33
So you have 6-11 mi range. So the Bulls starting at 8 and escalating 15% annually sounds pretty fair.
but that's not what they're offering
they are offering starting at 7.7 or so. which makes a big difference because of the escalation. Also, you can’t escalate the contract 15%, the most you can do is 10.5% of the first year salary annually. I’m advocating 8.3 million this year escalating 10.5% which would lead to 6 years 63 million. 10.5 million per year, which is on the high side of your range, but I think Ben is closer to Monta Ellis than Barbosa (also, Monta and Ben are more important to their teams than Barbosa is to his, plus they are both better than Leandro). We’re really not advocating drastically different solutions, honestly.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 8, 2008 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions
Barbosa
I agree with everything you say about Ben and how you value him, but I think Barbosa is an enormously good deal on his contract. I’d rather have Barbosa on his deal than Gordon on the deal I’d be willing to give him.
Of course, we can’t get Barbosa on his deal, so it’s a bit of a theoretical point.
Not a good idea
to do something now and worry about it later. That’s bad business. Believe me I’ve made that mistake with my own business. Planning ahead for all possilbe outcomes is the best approach. And I’m all for keeping our best assets but not at bloated salaries that make a good player look overpaid and hard to move.
In light of the other good by not great signed to contract players
it will hurt greatly to lose Ben Gordon. Still a reasonable contract is understandable. After hearing arguments a Rose and Ben backcourt, somewhat small could have some potential? Isiah and Dumars weren’t that bad in their day, with the help of the mean nasties “bad boys” to back them up.
That being said.
SouthernCub comment below is edgy, has been discussed on BaB much, has merit, yet no sign of any strategy change with mgmt.
He (Paxson) stockpiled a bunch of assets when they were cheap, which was a good thing. But rather than trading some of those assets for a star to build around, he just kept those assets until they were no longer cheap.
Next Round: Noah and Thomas? Similiar production, I think one or the other needs to be traded, the question is which one and Mgmt needs to get some value in return while they are still cheap and valued. Yet, it seems Thomas is dropping like an out of spotlight stock everywhere except BaB.
Which is why some of us believe having Gordon and Deng is a good idea.
Part of the reason it was so hard to trade the young players was because the better ones were making more money and salaries had to match. The only players the Bulls had to match salaries were old and horrible, neither of which Gordon and Deng will be.
Combine a Tyrus Thomas or Joakim Noah w/ a 1st-round pick to go along w/ Deng or Gordon, and you have a very, VERY tradeable package.
clarification for the first sentence:
rookie salaries don’t match FA superstar salaries. Those sorts of trades (established star for potential) has to have filler. I’m firmly convinced teams would rather have Gordon or Deng than Nocioni or Hinrihch as filler.
Depending on Bulls win-loss in 08-09
Trading future 1st-round pick & Noah (or TT) & Kirk (or Noce) for KG (or Duncan or someone else).
Sounds very attractive, especially if Kirk, Noc, (TT or Noah) have great starts in 08.
yuck,
and remind me why Boston would deal KG or why the Spurs would deal Duncan (answer: they wouldn’t because it’s dumb).
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions
I would prefer D. Howard
but the magic won’t let him go. Amare (no D) might be an option with (Kirk & reasonable contract ) to replace Nash aging.
Also no need to wait until 2010, some teams may trade in 2009 because they know they won’t be able to resign these glut of superstars. Chris Bosh, etc, etc
Amare and D Howard are going nowhere
the idea that Kirk would be enough as a centerpiece for an Amare deal is laughable.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 5, 2008 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Days of NBA Lives: Wherein Roy Hibbert tap-dances to Maine
- Grizzlies Valentine’s Day cards are the key to love
- Kevin Love would like the NBA to take the MLB’s approach on All-Star games
- Kobe Bryant fires a few hilarious salvos at Jeremy Lin
- Brandon Jennings states the obvious regarding his 2014 free agency, everyone goes nuts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
