To Mediocrity! Now, and...no, not forever.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 9:01 PM CDT
139 comments
One of the common arguments against signing Ben Gordon to a long-term deal (and to a lesser extent, doing the same with Luol Deng) is the idea that the Bulls will become "locked in" to a salary structure, with talent not sufficient to win a title.
It's bolstered by the lame "studies" that say there's only one way to win a title (and that MVP votes are somehow useful...I've always been annoyed that bloviating thing). I've heard Simmons on a recent podcast (he's given up column-writing for an NBA book that's likely to entertain me while also pissing me off) deride the Deng signing already with similar reasoning.
These are two separate issues, so to not go on two rants, I'll handle the first quickly: You need a really good team to win a title, and the Bulls likely don't have it, even with everyone at their primes.
Now the bigger point concerning Deng, Gordon, and the rest of the team: are the Bulls guaranteeing themselves mediocrity by resigning these players for the long term?
Sure they are. I'll take mediocre over decline of the Krause era, and the pitiful display we had to watch last season. But they would not be locking themselves into that mediocrity, or keeping themselves from acquiring a talent upgrade that gets them to title contention.
Gordon is 25 and even a 6 year deal pays for his prime. Even if overpaid, he'll be good, valuable, and tradeable, which puts him in common with a majority of the roster.
The other route, stripping the roster and getting under the cap, is a romantic, yet silly, idea. Paxson has already spent 5 years accumulating lottery picks. This is not the time to rebuild, considering he's not even done building what he started. Maybe it's almost more fun to see a team strip and get real young, than the next (and harder) part. But while it can be intriguing to imagine an even younger team with more picks and more rookie contracts, the odds are against them even getting players as good as the ones they have, let alone better. There's only so many truly outstanding players in the league.
If this was a team of vets who'd run their course, than the worry of being consistently average is more intense. However, if you have players that are young and good, that's an asset worth holding on to. And while they're being held on to, and the team stays competitive (and - gasp - mediocre), the team can look to make an upgrade if needed.
I still believe the better shot of upgrading this roster is packaging the talent that exists, as opposed to stripping it and hoping to acquire one great player through the draft or free agency (plus I'm not sure Benny can afford those drives to the airport anymore). Heck, getting a max free-agent is possible in 2010 even if they signed Gordon. But think of how free agency works: since players can make more money signing with their own teams, the Heat and Dwyane Wade (for instance) would both benefit dealing him to the Bulls rather than a straight free agent defection.
That'd be a longshot, but it always is when talking about acquiring truly great players. And in the meantime, the Bulls can win, be entertaining, and show Rose, Thomas, Noah, etc. how to win instead of how to count cap holds and tax thresholds.
2 recs |
139 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Gordon 2010 Sign-n-Trade FTW!
sounds good to me, he’ll have shed that pesky ‘base-year’ player nonsense by then, right?
by E-Grizzle on Aug 5, 2008 9:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
yup
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 5, 2008 9:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a silly distinction
It doesn’t have to be either/or. The Bulls can afford to pay several core guys and still get well under the cap in 2010.
by Sports2 on Aug 5, 2008 9:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
That's the other thing.
If they can somehow magically (and it’d have to be a huge stretch of good luck) get rid of both Nocioni and Hinrich for 2010 expiring deals, they’ll still be under the cap, no?
by tyger1147 on Aug 5, 2008 10:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe that they are both
good players and a lot of teams would love to have them on their bench
by gman2849 on Aug 6, 2008 7:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the closer we get to 2010 the more likely those deals are to happen I think
because those guys are talented and their deals are decreasing, so their value should go up. Moving both this year for expirings in 2010 seems less likely, but during the season before the trade deadline or even after this year? A lot more likely, I think.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 6, 2008 8:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
When you have to use the word magically,
it’s probably not the best idea. I think if they dropped everyone and only kept deng gordon noah, rose and next years #1, they will be under. But they have to move all contracts in a market where everyone is trying to do the same thing. So they’d probably have to move tyrus, just to get rid of noc. And the same for Thabo just to move Hinrich. Then if free agency doesn’t work, you’re *#@!$%.
If they do sign Gordon and go over the cap, they might be better off working as sellers. That Hughes contract could become very valuable.
by CJ Bulls on Aug 5, 2008 10:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
But is it any less feasible than than getting
than getting a player to come during FA outright to a crappy when he could get more money/more years in a sign-and-trade?
by tyger1147 on Aug 5, 2008 11:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I don't have a problem if the Bulls go one of two ways
1. Go for broke and get under the cap as much as you can. Then go for Bosh, DWade, or Lebron etc. in free agency.
2. Build for now, go all out and take advantage of the expiring contracts to acquire talent. Then, when 2010 hits, use the sign and trade as a backup strategy if your team still isn’t good enough.
But to build your team under the assumption of a future sign and trade is a big mistake. Then you have no backup when it doesn’t work AND you’re over the cap, you have a whole new problem. You’re only a few years away from people stackpiling cash to lure DRose away.
by CJ Bulls on Aug 6, 2008 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Counting on acquiring a superstar free agent a couple years down the road to solve all your problems,
whether it’s via sign and trade or being under the cap, is a terrible strategy. The most reasonable approach is number 2, keep acquiring as much talent as possible while maintaining financial flexibility. That is why keeping Gordon now is imperative, Paxson needs to focus on making this team into the best it can be in current composition and make further moves as opportunities arise and needs become even more clear. Right now, the greatest need on this team is scoring and Gordon is the best available option to help fill that need.
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
by snley on Aug 6, 2008 2:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ding ding ding
we have a winner.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 6, 2008 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So by that logic...
If a team’s greatest need is rebounding, they should offer the farm to pick up Reggie Evans? You can’t single out one thing and overpay, that’s how you dig holes for yourself. If they wanted to give gordon a one year 12 million dollar contract I would be happier with that than 6 years, 60-72 depending on what Gordon wants.
by CJ Bulls on Aug 6, 2008 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Noone said anything about offering up the farm
The issue with trying to improve this team is it’s youth. As noone can possibly know exactly how each of the players on the roster will develop over the next couple years, it is to the team’s benefit to retain those with demonstrated value at reasonable cost. I think the major issue is what’s perceived to be a reasonable cost for Gordon. Depending on the number of years, I don’t see $10M-$12M a year as an unworkable range.
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
by snley on Aug 6, 2008 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gordon is better at scoring than Evans is at rebounding.
by tyger1147 on Aug 6, 2008 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Besides...
...you’re creating yet another straw man argument.
Why is it that the only way to logically debate this argument is to fudge it into something it’s not? AS snley is saying, no one is stating in giving up the farm.
by tyger1147 on Aug 6, 2008 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Evans was in 8th in the NBA in rebound rate
Gordon was 17th in scoring per 48. If you were a bad rebounding team and about to lose Reggie Evans, would you give him 8mm a year just to keep him? How about when there is no one else even offering him a contract?
I think paying what Gordon is asking for is giving up the farm.
by CJ Bulls on Aug 6, 2008 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
scoring vs rebounding
scoring is a lot more important than rebounding, as the games are decided by which team has more points.
by kite on Aug 6, 2008 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's still overpaying for a one dimensional player
The numbers are just different. Gordon wants 12-15 mm for his scoring. Evans wants 8mm for his rebounding. Both are ridiculous requests.
by CJ Bulls on Aug 6, 2008 5:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
One dimensional rebounders are also
undervalued around the NBA so you can typically find them for much cheaper than you can for scorers. Also, Ben isn’t one dimensional, he rebounds the ball solidly for his position and size, he has a decent Ast%, and he plays decent defense. He has a midrange game, is one of the best three point shooters in the game, and gets to the line about 6 times a game. He’s not one dimensional despite what your eyes might tell you.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 7, 2008 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Disagree disagree disagree
He’s a well rounded scorer (that covers the free throws, mid range, free throws etc), but where else is he helping? He ranks 63 out of 67 shooting guards in rebound rate and his defense is a tremendous question mark.
No matter what stats you pull to say otherwise, he clearly is put on the worst offensive player every game for a reason. And that doesn’t change no matter who is on the court with him, whether it’s Duhon, Hughes, Thabo, Hinrich and now Rose. In fact, I don’t know if I can think of a player in the NBA he could play with where he would take the better player. Maybe Earl Boykins, but he just went to Europe so I don’t know who that leaves.
I must say though, I am pretty surprised by his a/to ratio and assist rate. Never caught that before, assumed he was a much higher turnover player. Maybe he’s becoming a more capable combo guard than I realized. So that adds a little value, maybe now he’s worth the 8 million the Bulls have left under the luxury tax.
I
by CJ Bulls on Aug 7, 2008 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
there's some fancy pants
stats, devised by a couple of guys much smarter than me, in a spreadsheet linked in my newest fanshot that sat that Gordon this year (a down year) was worth over $9,000,000. He should get atleast what he was worth this year and probably a little more (he was only 24 this year, he’s going to get better).
by fundamentallysound on Aug 7, 2008 3:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How is he getting better.....
The number one way players improve is by reducing TOs. Ben has already reached that stage as noted in my post above. Players don’t suddenly become better rebounders. And he’s not jumping from a 40% 3pt shooter to 50. So where is the improvement coming? The only way is if he became a PG (and in turn dramatically approving his assist rate) which we don’t need and I don’t really see happening.
And how can you say there is any number you can assign to a player based on his stats? Very little statistics are kept on defense so most overall statistics like this one and PER overvalue offense. And Gordon’s strength is clearly offense. He’s designed to look better under these circumstances.
by CJ Bulls on Aug 7, 2008 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"The number one way players improve is by reducing TOs."
This can’t be true.
In fact, I can easily imagine a case where the best way for an overly cautious ball-handler to improve would be to actually risk MORE turnovers.
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on Aug 7, 2008 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not true
Check historical records. Just superstars, but it applies to everyon. Players reduce TOs over their career. Particularly in the first 3 seasons.
by CJ Bulls on Aug 7, 2008 5:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wondered...
if it were really true that the number one way players improve is by reducing TOs, where, of all places, would it be the most certain to show up?
Where? Where else but in the per 36 stats of the Most Improved Player Award Winners on B-R.
So I looked.
Admittedly, I only went back through the last ten award winners—but there was such an obvious trend that I saw no need to go further.
Of the last ten MIP winners, only two had seen even the most minute, incremental decrease in their turnover rates.
Most of the other eight winners had actually seen huge swings the opposite way—some averaging nearly two more TO’s per 36 than in the year previous to their MIP year.
How to explain it?
It seems to me the best explanation is the one I already offered, which is that to improve significantly, a player must make the shift into a more aggressive mindset…and to do that it almost always means being willing to risk making more turnovers.
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on Aug 7, 2008 11:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
correct
players usually reduce their turnovers over the first 3 or so years, then they hit a low point of TOs, then they start to go in the other direction, as they are now improving the other parts of their game and taking more risks, TOs go back up, but not to the previous rookie levels, because they’ve improved.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 8, 2008 9:05 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it uses DRtg, which is one of the best measures we have
for individual defense. It’s not perfect but it’s one of the best things we have. Also, historically Ben makes positive contributions when looking at adjusted plus minus, so it indicates that he’s either so good that he outweighs his negative defense with great offense or that his defense simply isn’t that bad (which DRtg suggests). Either way he’s very valuable.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 7, 2008 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you rely to heavily on stats...
I still have yet to hear why Gordon, the solid defender, gets put on the worst offensive player EVERY time, without fail and especially in clutch situations where he is even removed from games.
What’s funny is the reason why people can comfortably say DRtg is not perfect is because Gordon scores well on it.
by CJ Bulls on Aug 7, 2008 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BG's an average defender at best
on a team that’s otherwise had above average defenders at the guard position. Of course he’s going to be put on the lesser offensive threat, doesn’t mean he must be terrible. I’ve yet to hear anyone explain how Gordon can be a terrible defender and yet the Bulls have finished no worse than 11th in defensive efficiency while giving him large amounts of minutes.
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
by snley on Aug 7, 2008 8:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about despite playing the worst player on Defense
The Bulls allowed 111.9 points per 48 when he’s on the court and 103.4 when he’s off the court.
by CJ Bulls on Aug 7, 2008 11:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's play a game from Sesame Street
Which one does not look like the others? I would say 04-05 because it’s a negative, but that 07-08 really sticks out.
Gordon’s defensive on court/off court over the course of his career.
07-08 +8.5
06-07 +3.5
05-06 +2.1
04-05 -2.6
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
by snley on Aug 8, 2008 8:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah,
again if you just simply look at his body of work over his career, he’s not a millstone on defense. he’s not even that bad, most offensive minded two guards are gonna hurt your D atleast a little, because they’re expending so much energy on O. Especially in BG’s case where he’s the only real shot creator on this offense (or he was until we got Rose).
by fundamentallysound on Aug 8, 2008 9:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it may hurt the defense
but a good 2 guard should be good enough at defense to still have a net positive when they are the floor. even if more points are allowed, they should score more points to outweigh what they give up.
by Jaina on Aug 8, 2008 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You see an outlier, I see a pattern
Do you see the direction this is heading in? Gordon’s defense is declining as the seasons pass.
by CJ Bulls on Aug 8, 2008 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah but i'll defend gordon's defense a little
here and say that his offensive productivity also dropped which would also cause a bigger on/off court difference – so if his defense and offense both got worse the gap increases even more.
if he’s able to get his offense back or higher than it was in 06-07, we still may have a net positive but it may not be quite so high.
by Jaina on Aug 8, 2008 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Still tells us more than by just looking at last season
At least there’s confirmation that he used to be not that bad defensively and, presumably, could return to that level.
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
by snley on Aug 8, 2008 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can keep spinning it positively,
but it doesn’t change the fact it was significantly worse last year and has gotten worse every year. If he scored 10, 14, 17, and then 22 pts/40 his first 4 years, would you expect those numbers to regress back to 15?
by CJ Bulls on Aug 8, 2008 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not necessarily trying to spin positive
The constant regression is worrisome while at the same time counter intuitive. You rarely see a player of Gordon’s age get worse at something every year, especially with such a dramatic drop in performance twice now. Honestly, I would expect some regression to the mean in this case.
We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look.
Ronald Reagan
by snley on Aug 8, 2008 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's getting rather funny to read this debate over and over
One side keeps saying the Bulls must lock of up Gordon for the scoring, the other side to not overpay. With the exception of a few outliers who either want BG gone or think he’s a max guy, I think everyone is saying the same thing – it’s just which side of the issue you approach the argument from. Then someone throws a “reasonable range” out there, and we find out that a lot of people are actually in agreement. Yet we’re on what # of post with 100s of comments having the same damn argument again.
Ah, offseason…
If nothing else, taking Rose will at least piss off Pat Riley.
by wjb1492 on Aug 7, 2008 12:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
My bad
sorry i didn’t hit the reply button.
by CJ Bulls on Aug 5, 2008 10:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I think it's only Noc
Look at it this way. To put it simply, I think if they get rid of Noc, and choose how to spend $10M or on Hinrich, Gooden, Thabo, Tyrus, and/or other players.
That gives them Deng, Gordon, Rose, Noah, 09 pick, 10 pick, plus 1 or 2 other guys. That’s 7-8 guys, which is the primary rotation a team is gonna play.
I don’t think that’s a tremendous amount of work. The only move it actually requites is moving Nocioni.
by Sports2 on Aug 5, 2008 10:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Isn't Rose supposed to be the superstar?
The Bulls won 49 games and made the second round of the playoffs two years ago with pretty much this same core. If Rose ends up becoming as good as everyone thinks he can be, who’s to say this can’t be a championship-caliber team in 3-4 years? Obviously there’s a lot of wishcasting involved there, but there always is when you’re trying to put together a championship team. It certainly beats blowing everything up and resting the entire hopes of the franchise on signing a free agent in 2010, especially since seemingly half the teams in the league have that same plan. If Rose becomes as good as he’s supposed to be, any team with him, Deng, and Gordon is going to be better than mediocre, at least. And if Rose isn’t that good, the franchise is probably screwed anyways.
by Big D on Aug 5, 2008 11:24 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Rose will be a superstar
He has all of the tools and most importantly the attitude. You are right i think he (Rose) will lead the charge, but he and Deng will need help.
Homecoming
by illwill on Aug 5, 2008 11:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Basketball Is An Ever Changing Sport
Ive heard people say this before, about how the bulls won 49 games two years ago and that it only makes sense that with rose, the superstar, the bulls are in line to win 50+ games easy. But its not that easy at all. Rose WILL BE a superstar one day, but its highly unlikely it will be next year. Even if that wasnt the case, you still wouldnt be able to think that the bulls would win 50+ games because teams that we beat before have gotten better, and teams that we couldnt beat have gotten worse. Its not like we are going into the same season as two years ago. It would be nice to win 49 games again, but like matt said, right now this team is just trying to keep making the playoffs until they have all the pieces needed to compete. Its still a ways away.
On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, Bullshooter, and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light....
by piccolomair on Aug 6, 2008 4:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
teams in the east have improved, but I think
the bulls have as well.
it sounds like your implying that winning 49 games 2 years ago was a fluke.
The fact is that these core players (Deng, Gordon, Hinrich and Noc) had 3 winning season’s in a row before last years debacle.
and:
Deng missed a lot of games last year
Gordon missed games as well.
I don’t have a clue what the hell happened to Hinrich, but with Rose on our team, I LIKE what hinrich will bring to this team next year without having to RELY on him as our team leader. (Picture Duhon playing point and driving in then throwing it out to hinrich for a shot… NOW think of what it will be like with Rose driving)
Noc was playing very well last year without much help until he hurt himself late in the second half. I remember a tv anouncer mention after the first miami heat/bulls playoffs that after D Wade, Noc had been the best player in the series. (I still have a picture of Noc elbowing Shaq in the throat as he goes up for a layup and a free throw)
by gman2849 on Aug 6, 2008 7:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im not saying it was a fluke
But im saying the teams are not the same way they were two years ago. It would be easier to consider that we could get to 49 this year or improve if we had done it last year. Right now our best player is still a newb, our coach is a newb, our team has yet to establish a playing style, and we are all hoping that the way the players presented themselves on the court last year on the court was a real fluke. I would like to see the bulls go back to being respectable, but realistically, its hard to do so for the upcoming season.
Consider that when we lost to the wizards in the playoffs, the goal became to make it back to the playoffs, then we lost to the heat in the playoffs, and the goal became make it out of the first round. Last years goal seemed like it should have been push the envelope and try to become eastern conference contenders much like the pistons have done year after year. We took a few steps back and i think this year the goal is to just make the playoffs. Right now we are not at that level of achieving 49 wins. The seasons still not here, and not having ben gordon might ruin those 49+ win chances even more. Then again, maybe we make some blockbuster trade and get an allstar back, and 49+ wins becomes a guarantee, im just saying with the roster pretty much the same but with one more individual (albeit, an incredible one) its hard to believe we will impact the nba the way we did two years ago.
On Behalf of Sue, Wjb, Bullshooter, and all the other Hinrich fans...Ill keep the Hinrich Hope coming...There will be light....
by piccolomair on Aug 6, 2008 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We will be fine
Gooden’s contract is about 8 million and expires after next year, Hughes deal of about 13 million expires next 2010 and if we can trade Noce and Hinrich’s contract for expiring deals (we can) we would be able to re-sign Gordon, Thomas, Noah as well as Rose while giving a superstar (D-Wade) a max-deal.
Lets say we give Gordon 11 mill a year and we are over the luxary tax bu 2-3 mill. Goodens 8 mill would come off the books and we would be 6-8 mill under the tax. Hughes deal would take another 13 mill of the books for 2010. If we trade Noce and Simmons for Miller that would be another 10 mill, not to mention if we trade Kirk for a expiring deal.
Gooden and Hughes deals are about 21 million a year, so even if we give Gordon 10-11 million we would be under the cap at least 18-19 mill for 2010. We would still have a roster of Rose, Hinrich (if no trade), Deng, Gordon, Thabo, Noce (if no trade), Thomas and Noah. Someone like Wade can look at that roster with a max deal of about 20 million and jump Miami’s ship. All of the above is dependent on Rose, Thomas and Noah emerging by 2010.
Homecoming
by illwill on Aug 5, 2008 11:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
2010 strategy
Why is the goal not taking advantage of the 2010 class of FA’s and intentionally plan on exploiting the fact that more teams want those players than spots are available.
Planning on future events occurring outside of your control seems like wishful thinking to me.
The goal should be to deal with teams trying to make moves for 2010 and come out winners in those deals. The Wade dreams only come true if Miami still stinks and Chicago is a better option at the time.
by bullschwaa on Aug 6, 2008 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions 2 recs
I understand
but under my proposal we would keep Deng, Gordon, Rose, Thomas, Noah and Sefolosha. All we would have to do is find a veteran back-up PG and we can trade Hinrich for a expiring deal and Noce as well. This would put us significantly under the cap while retaining top talent. With Rose here Kirk has no future on the Bulls. We all agree that Noce’s contract is bad and Gooden’s ans Hughes are going to expire by 2010.. We keep our top scorers (Deng/Gordon) under this proposal so we should stay playoff contenders with a bootload of cap room.
Homecoming
by illwill on Aug 6, 2008 12:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No it would not
The cap holds on Tyrus and Thabo would technically put the Bulls over the cap. They’d need to release those guys to be under.
by CJ Bulls on Aug 6, 2008 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
they can negotiate
first and then release them if a deal is agreed upon with a star player
by kite on Aug 6, 2008 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right
but they can’t sell Wade on, come and play with Tyrus and Thabo without mentioning they’ll actually have to release them in order to sign him.
by CJ Bulls on Aug 6, 2008 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think they can sell wade on "come and play with Tyrus and Thabo".
Period. Or anyone else.
by Sports2 on Aug 6, 2008 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No but they are assets
And that is a selling point. If you tell wade, we have Rose, Deng and the D League All-Stars, he might think twice.
by CJ Bulls on Aug 6, 2008 10:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've been mixed on how we should handle Gordon.
But I like this post.
My biggest problem with our recent moves – and potentially signing Gordon – is that I don’t think that we have the pieces to win a championship after signing him.
But I can see your point….not signing Gordon may not get us any closer to winning a championship either.
We’ve endured years and years of mediocrity, so it isn’t too realistic to think we can turn it all around in a season or two.
Rebuilding definitely isn’t the route we should go.
But…...because we aren’t going to win a championship with our current pieces…...we need to rid ourselves of players. I hate an inactive GM, and Paxson has no excuse to not improve the roster….by ridding us of our roster glut (I’d think maybe Hinrich, Noc, Hughes, Gooden).
I can be realistic and expect mediocrity with our current roster. But Paxson shouldn’t get a pass – watching a mediocre team is especially excruciating when you have to see ‘awful players, salaries’ on the team.
by swede2287 on Aug 6, 2008 12:54 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Well said, swede2287
The only thing that I would add is that I would not place Gooden in the same group as the others you mentioned getting rid of. He’s a serviceable big, and by that I mean, he’s good enough to be an average big man in the NBA on both ends of the court, something that the Bulls just have not had the best luck with.
I know that a lot of people since the start of the Skiles era has been saying we need a low post scorer, and preferably someone who can get you 20 & 10, but as the venerable Sam Smith pointed out, Gooden getting you 15 and 8 isn’t bad either.
That being said, he’s also one of the most attractive trading chips of the Bulls, since his contract is such a bargain. That’s great, if it’s going to land us a superduperstar. In that case, you do what you have to do.
But all of those other guys, Hinrich, Noc and Hughes, are “just” perimeter players and not guys that play down low, and therefore they should be the first to go.
"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
by bullhockey on Aug 6, 2008 1:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah okay
maybe we should keep Gooden.
My only thing is if we’re mediocre, then we’re mediocre. I can just see Pax saying things this season like, “We’re just not playing as a unit like we can.” Or “Kirk Hinrich and Noc are good players, they’re just not playing to their potential.”
If we have a lot of players who simply aren’t very good, admit it Paxson. If the rest of the league only covets let’s say Rose, Deng, Tyrus, and Noah on our roster (Just possible examples) then that does speak of the value of our players. Perception is often reality.
I can think of examples in the NFL where inept players with little potential are just dropped and released. Contract and all. This is tougher in the NBA with guaranteed contracts and such. And obviously I’d prefer to get something for a Hinrich, Noc, Hughes, whoever.
I like someone saying on here saying “Pax is still stick with his initial blueprint for the team – the Bulls can be similar to the Pistons.” Well our team is very little like the Pistons. How many players do the Pistons have who the rest of the League doesn’t value? Tough to find….maybe McDyess and now Kwame. And yet both of these guys don’t take up close to the salaries of Hinrich, Noc, Hughes, etc.
by swede2287 on Aug 6, 2008 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Pax...
is still sticking with his initial blueprint for the team. He believes the Bulls can be a team similar to the Pistons. You can’t label Rose as a star(yet). Tyrus is still raw. Deng is the closest person the Bulls have resembling an all-star. Noah might turn out to be a Camby-esque player in the future. Can the Bulls with all these guys at their prime become a team similar to the Pistons? In a way the current players we have parallel the players Detroit has, potentially.
Rose is expected to do big things for the franchise similar to what was expected of Billups when Boston picked him up. Like Billups, Rose can be a true star for the team if everything works out well. Someone who can lead the Bulls.
There wasn’t much hype when Deng was picked, quite similar to Prince. There wasn’t real expectations but both proved that they can play in the league and both are borderline all-stars.
Thomas. A very raw player that seems to be misunderstood. Everyone can see he has the tools but can he get it together? Sheed isn’t exactly raw but he’s in a way misunderstood. He plays with his heart in his sleeve and like Tyrus tends to be part of controversy. If he really can be a player similar to Kemp…that would just be nice.
Noah and Wallace(when he was a Piston). Their styles are similar and despite having a Billups and a Rose, I believe they are the faces of their teams. They serve as the anchor of the team.
Now if we can only combine Gordon, Hinrich, and Thabo into one person.
I get it. A lot of people want the big names. Stars that can push the team. I can’t really blame anyone, we were spoiled for almost a decade. But I still believe that a team can win without any.
by Wake on Aug 6, 2008 1:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Nice
I think the analogies go a bit far :), but that’s a good point. There seems to be a bit of ledge jumping going on, when the group we have now doesn’t look that bad. If we manage to get Noc and maybe Hinrich outta the way, 2010 looks really promising: some free cap space and hopefully Deng/possibly Gordon/Rose/Noah/Tyrus all considerably better. Or, if Gordon doesn’t work out, we could definitely trade him that year as well.
by rea5661 on Aug 6, 2008 2:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The worst thing to be in this league
is the combination of being both mediocre and lacking roster flexibility. Youth can distort this reality by offering up hope and potential, but should that not come to fruition, a team will have to rely on expiring contracts or the Greater Fool theory to get them out of this jam. In other words, the team will need a bail out of sorts.
It’s a fine line to walk and the only way to really tell is through hindsight. I’m not saying that this is the situation the Bulls are painting themselves into because I can’t yet tell.
by messwiththebull on Aug 6, 2008 7:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Meh?
But you have been saying it, no? And no, they won’t have to rely on the Greater Fool theory, or whichever crazy theory you make up next.
by tyger1147 on Aug 6, 2008 7:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't make up the GFT
but regardless, the one unique out the Bulls have is that Rose is only 19. Even if the Deng and presumably Gordon deals are disastrous, they’re over by the time he’s 25-26 and still yet to hit his prime. In other words, if these end up being bad deals, at least they won’t waste Rose’s prime.
I am leaning towards the Bulls placing themselves in the situation I allude to but I can’t say that they’re in that situation until the results prove it. I am speculating on their future no more or less than anyone else here.
by messwiththebull on Aug 6, 2008 9:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
no, the worst thing in this league is to be bad and badly managed
the Bulls aren’t bad, but you could argue they haven’t been very well managed during the Pax era. However, there are certainly much worse GMs out there, and I think it’d be foolish to say the Bulls don’t have flexibility, they have a lot of pretty valuable pieces, the trick is consolidating them into something MORE valuable.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 6, 2008 8:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And what is the by product of poor management?
Mediocrity at best and the lack of roster flexibility, no?
I’m not saying that’s where the Bulls are now and agree, ideally they’d consolidate these pieces into something more impactful on winning.
by messwiththebull on Aug 6, 2008 8:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And at least when a team is "bad"
it gets a more probable shot at a high draft pick, which can be used to select a potential team changer or be packaged in a trade to provide improvement or cap relief. Mediocrity is when a team is truly in limbo unless they luck out and win the lottery.
by messwiththebull on Aug 6, 2008 9:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
except they often don't land a high draft pick
look at the Grizzlies the last few years. They’ve been awfully managed and had horrible luck in the lotto. They got Rudy Gay, who’s tremendous, but they still suck. I’d rather watch a middling team that could get better (these guys are still young), then a horrible one praying that they get lucky in the lotto (which, hey, we just did!).
by fundamentallysound on Aug 6, 2008 9:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jerry West wasn't that bad
but I’d rather have the core they have now in Conley, Mayo, Gay and with assets like Lowry, Crittenton, and perhaps Arthur than that mediocre playoff (better than average, admittedly) team they fielded with Gasol, Battier, & Co. that was good enough to get into the playoffs but that was about it. That team was going nowhere, but at least they were able to get value for Gasol (arguable) and Battier once that was confirmed.
Still need luck on your side, acknowledged.
by messwiththebull on Aug 6, 2008 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ha! They got "value for Gasol" like my name is Bill Gates. That's the most ridiculous
thing I’ve heard all week.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 6, 2008 11:29 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It wasn't enough
Regardless, that’s not what I’m arguing.
by messwiththebull on Aug 6, 2008 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most teams are badly managed
One reason I’ve lost some interest in the NBA over the last year is I’ve come to the conclusion it’s the least well managed and most heavily gamed (in favor of management, which in turn makes them lazy) of the major sports.
To break it down simply:
1. NBA and MLB managers have a vastly more complex and difficult job. They manage much bigger teams and thus have to manage much larger and more complex scouting and financial dealings.
2. At the same time, the CBA has stacked the deck in many ways to make the job of the GM very easy. There are a whole lot of things that are negotiated in other leagues that are pretty well set in stone in the NBA.
When I really look at it, I think there are a few NBA GMs who probably sit at their desk playing tetris for most of their days. And if they’re not, it’s hard to tell based on their performance.
In respect to the Bulls in particular, we’re not at the complete bottom of the barrel, but I don’t see that as a relevant metric. There are a whole lot of bad GMs and a few good ones. I haven’t seen much to think we’re consistently good.
by Sports2 on Aug 6, 2008 10:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Way too many NBA GMs have their jobs simply because they were ex-players
I think Billy Beane and Kenny Williams are the only MLB GM’s left who were former players (and they’re two of the best GM’s in the game). MLB has moved away from hiring ex-players as GM’s in favor of hiring guys who actually have a brain in their heads, but that trend doesn’t seem to have trickled down to the NBA. Obviously, there are exceptions like Joe Dumars, who was successful in business before he became a GM, but how many ex-players are actually qualified to negotiate multi-million dollar contracts?
by Big D on Aug 6, 2008 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
If the Bulls find a way to sign Gordon for 8/9 mil per year, it's a good signing
If the Bulls end up giving in to Gordon’s demands of 12/13 per year, then they would pretty much be locked in from signing any big time free agents over the next 5 years and are pretty much reduced to being mediocre and the obligatory first round exit/trounces that will follow.
Plus, I don’t agree that the Bulls can simply “trade” Gordon if the team structure didn’t work out. If the Ben You-know-Who fiasco taught the Bulls anything is that having any albatross contract for an under performing player is hard as nails to move. The best you can do is exchange crap for crap.
by RogersPark Kris on Aug 6, 2008 8:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
except that Wallace was well past his prime and everyone knew he was a millstone
and his skills had completely deteroriated to nothing. Little Ben on the other hand will be playing in his prime and even at 12 million a year, he’s only slightly overpaid. You can move guys like that for value, you can’t move washed up players on 13 million a year contracts for value. It’s completely different.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 6, 2008 8:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
im still
not a fan of all the wade talks untill he plays this year. if he can play all of this year. it seems to me that hes injured during the season(espcially a losing one), but hes ok to play in all star games and usa games.
Rose lobs it up for the alley oop... and it's caught and put down by Rose
by Yibs on Aug 6, 2008 8:24 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
usa
you must not have been watching Wade in the pre-olympic games. he looks REAL good.
There are really only two plays: Romeo and Juliet, and put the darn ball in the basket.
-- Abe Lemons
by cakezula on Aug 6, 2008 11:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yea
but i look at all the pre-games as not a big deal. i will be watching when the real stuff begins. but i dont know, i just have my doubts and want to see him play out this coming season.
Rose lobs it up for the alley oop... and it's caught and put down by Rose
by Yibs on Aug 7, 2008 9:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jerry, Jerry
It seems to me that Paxson loves collecting assests and then waiting for the right oppurtunity to make a move. If it was up to Paxson Gordon would be signed and then he would figure out what to do after that. But it looks like Jerry is becoming more involved this summer and we all know Jerry will try and save money where ever or how ever he can.
by J Theory on Aug 6, 2008 9:00 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Collecting Assets
Everyone laughed at Danny Ainge, too. He collected “assets” for years.
by Cannoli on Aug 6, 2008 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ainge also worked into a perfect storm
of talent collection, timing, and terrible decision making from other organizations. To count on that is pretty foolish. So far our collected talent coulnd’t land us Gasol, Garnett or Bryant.
by CJ Bulls on Aug 6, 2008 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
to be fair our offers for KG were much better than what the Celtics offered
we just didn’t ask them at the right time; they weren’t desperate enough yet up in Minnesota.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 6, 2008 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
So stockpiling talent is a crapshoot. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don’t.
And I might debate that point. The one point where the Celtics offered Al Jefferson, Gerald Green (I know he sucks now, but he’s not that far off on the potential meter than Tyrus even as much as a year ago) and the #5 is pretty strong. In trades, you generally want the best player in the deal. Jefferson is better than Deng, Chandler, or Tyrus. Chandler was also considered an overpaid bust at the time of the deal.
by CJ Bulls on Aug 6, 2008 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And hoping a player comes to a crappy chicago team, just "cuz"...
...is far better?
by tyger1147 on Aug 6, 2008 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but....
the Chairman doesn’t want to sign him for what he’s worth and definitely not over that value. My guess is he’ll take the QO and walk next year. Maybe the Bulls should change their team colors to white and black for him to show them some love.
by FAQ on Aug 6, 2008 11:27 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Remind me
Is everybody here assuming Gordon starts at the 2? With Rose? Doesn’t that leave us with the same size problems in the backcourt that we’ve been lamenting the last few years?
This is the part of the whole Gordon saga I keep getting hung up on. I still think the best use of a player like Gordon is instant offense off the bench a la Vinnie Johnson (say 12-15 ppg in ~20 mpg). Gordon’s play over the last few seasons has only served to reinforce this impression. So if he’s really more of a top reserve than a bona fide starter, why would anyone want to pay him 5-6 mil more than Nocioni, whose contract most people seem to think was a mistake. I think the biggest problem here is that Gordon refuses to accept what (to me) is clearly the role to which he’s best suited.
I know the guy has an amazing ability to score, but he also has an amazing ability to over-dribble and fall down, over-dribble and get blocked by Nate Robinson, etc. I don’t think I can take another year with him as the focus of the offense, which he will be unless Rose develops much faster than anyone expects.
I still hold out hope that Thabo will develop in to a legit starting 2. In the meantime Hinrich’s offense should stand to improve with Rose creating shots. Which Rose will have more opportunity to do (and thus develop) without Gordon constantly looking for his own shot. Find a way to move Hughes for a similarly overpriced big, start Rose and Hinrich, develop Thabo (to possibly start later this year, making Hinrich an ideal backup PG), and Gordon as Microwave 2008. That to me sounds like a backcourt.
Wishful thinking, I know, as Gordon will never go for it. Can somebody convince me that we really want Gordon starting at the 2?
by DLRoth on Aug 6, 2008 12:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Start Hinrich?
If you are worried about a short back court Hinrich has to go too. He is just as short as Gordon in terms of reach with less of an offensive upside. This has been hashed out repeatedly in recent posts. The back court doesn’t get any larger by putting Hinrich in there. Thabo would be good if you are worried about height, but as far as shooting goes I wouldn’t want to pair him with Rose. Both wouldn’t be much of a threat from outside and teams will catch on to that fast.
Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.
by cranscape on Aug 6, 2008 1:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Starting BG
would put Rose in the same difficult position the Bulls have put Hinrich in for the last 3-4 years. Which is, run the offense, guard the opposing teams best guard, and have enough energy to be good at both. That was a lot to as of an undersized Hinrich and will be equally difficult to ask of our golden Rose. People keep pointing out that Hinrich is just as undersized at the two and even smaller than BG in terms of length. Then answer me this. Why is it that whenever BG and Hinrich were on the court together was it Hinrich’s responsibiltiy to guard the opposing teams best and usually bigger guard? Huh? What that tells me and should tell anyone with half a brain is that BG is not capable of guarding his own position and he’s a defensive liability when playing with another smallish guard WHICH ROSE IS. I’m shocked nobody seems to notice that. And please don’t give me the “who’s going to score if BG isn’t here?”. Assuming everyone isn’t as bad as they were last season…Deng and Hinrich should bounce back and Rose’s addition should help them just like it would help BG. Hughes will still suck but he’s the only guard who can get to the rim and free throw line consistantly, including BG (he’s more of a jumpshooter…he falls down when he drives to the basket). By the way what happened to his Giant Killer? Anyways, Thabo should continue to improve with more mins. Tyrus better improve! And we’ll have a solid PF in Gooden who can score in the post a bit all year. They should be able to make up for BG’s absense. Plus BG isn’t going to be the guy with the ball in his hands at the end of games anymore anyways. Rose should take over that role soon and get other people open shots. And yes, I understand BG’s very good outside shooting will be missed but his below average defense, poor ball handling, and lack of playmaking won’t be.
I love what DLRoth wrote. Gordon would be a perfect instant offense guy off the bench, but not a guy you pay $10-13 mil per year and give him 33+ mins. I want Gordon to stay, but I doubt he’ll accept the role he’s best suited for. So where does that leave him and the Bulls. Send him somewhere where he can play with a bigger guard and get some value in return. Hopefully another big, one that can play center. It seems to go unnoticed that the Bulls are very thin at C (no pun intended, Noah). Gray is the backup for god sake! Gooden can play there but he’s better suited at PF. Now I don’t know what bigs are available via trades so I’m not going to speculate but someone has to be available.
For now a Rose/Hinrich backcourt would be somewhat offensively challenged no doubt, unless Kirk can find his 06-07 shooting stroke again. But they match up better defensively, both can handle the ball, and both at least give 100% defensively. Assuming Deng rebounds from last season and Rose creates more open shots for our midrange wonderboy then his scoring should creep up past 20ppg to help offset BG’s scoring if he should go. And moving BG hopefully would strengthen our front court which fails to get mentioned in here.
Would somebody please convince me that going the itty bitty backcourt route again for the next few years is the best idea. Because I remember when that was a big concern of a lot of Bulls fans. Along with no inside scoring of course.
by ronmexibull on Aug 6, 2008 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair comparison
for BG IMO would be JR Smith minus the attitude problem. In terms of on court production though they are similar. Both are below average defenders, regardless of size. And both are streaky, but good outside shooters. When those two get hot they can both light it up! Smith actually scores more per 36 mins than BG does. BG is a better 3pt shooter but Smith can get to the basket and finish. Nobody in there right mind would give Smith 5-6 years starting at $10+ million. So why should the Bulls give that to BG?
by ronmexibull on Aug 6, 2008 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
this has been discussed after I threw out that theory
based on a Kevin Pelton article (it’s a few fanshots back), but I was convinced that JR Smith and BG are not as similar as their stats would seem to indicate. For one, JR is a terrible disinterested defender, whereas BG tries and is somewhat effective. JR has no midrange game and cherry picks a lot of layups (hence his ability to “finish inside”) and JR plays alongside AI and Melo so he gets many more open looks than BG does (since BG faces many more double and triple teams). Ben Gordon is much better than JR Smith and also doesn’t have the attitude problem. I don’t know how much better in terms of dollars and cents he is worth than JR, but it’s fairly substantial I’d think.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 6, 2008 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Somewhat agree
that BG is a better player. But how much better is debatable. I’m sure you’ve seem Smith play before and his ability to finish has nothing to do with cherry picking. His ability to finish has to do with the fact that he’s 6’6, athletic, and can go up and dunk on drives and even alley oops. Ben Gordon, due to his size, player under the rim. Being able to play above the rim is obviously an advantage that Smith has over BG. But again I did concede that BG is a better shooter. And I’m not sure where people get the idea that BG is fighting through double and even triple teams. It’s just not true the vast majority of the time. Yes, he gets double and occasionally tripled when the defense knows he’s going to shoot, but it’s in large part due to the fact they also know he won’t pass the ball regardless of how many people they throw at him. Or his lack of playmaking ability makes it easy to double team him. I don’t hate BG I just don’t have a man crush on him like man people in here do. He’s replacealbe IMO.
by ronmexibull on Aug 6, 2008 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Did I even say
to start Gordon over Hinrich? All I said was that Hinrich isn’t going to help you at all if you are worried about height in the back court. Hinrich is not only short but offensively challenged for a SG. We were called midgets before, we’d be called midgets still if we started Rose/Hinrich. And all that talk about Hinrich getting worn out by being forced to guard the taller one…you suggest we do another season of that? Hinrich would be right back in the same situation of guarding someone taller than him and getting worn down, but now he’d also have the burden of being a replacement for Gordon’s outside shooting as well (since Rose isn’t going to be expected to have a good outside shot for a long time and Deng is the only other guy that can shoot out there well right now).
Rose/Hinrich = itty bitty backcourt with no good outside shot.
And I don’t appreciate the “half a brain” throw in. Leave the theatrics, please.
Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.
by cranscape on Aug 6, 2008 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
First of all
I was not directing that “half a brain” comment at you persay. It was just a general comment about everyone dismissing what Hinrich had to do defensively. He took the difficult assignment largely due to Gordon’s lack of ability to defend his own position. So if it offended you, I apoligize, it was not my intent. My intent was to point out that playing Rose and Hinrich together would cause a lot less matchup problems. Not because Hinrich would have to always guard the bigger player. But instead because with Rose/Hinrich you have two good defenders as opposed to one. Yes, Hinrich and Rose would be undersized togther, but being that Hinrich is a combo guard and the fact we’ll still have Hughes and Thabo playing the 2, then it allows Hinrich to play as Rose’s backup as well as playing the 2 spot when needed. I’m not going to get into all the posible PG/SG combos that I believe would work. Let’s just say that Hinrich allows for more flexabiltiy and is more versitile than BG. I KNOW BG IS A BETTER OFFENSIVE PLAYER THAN HINRICH, BUT AT WHAT COST? $10-13 MILLION FOR 5-6 YEARS IS RIDICULOUS!!!.
Like I’ve posted before, move Hinrich also if you can get a cheaper quality backup PG for Rose. And sign BG to a reasonable contract in terms of years. My whole point, and everyone can dance around it and pick out other things in my post to bash, is that BG is not worth what he’s asking for and he’s better suited as a instant offense guy coming of the bench. That allows him to maximize his true talents and limit his weaknesses. He’s a shooter, not a great all around scorer. Let him come in and just shoot…not run the offense…not handle the ball…not ask him to defend quicker or bigger guards for long periods of time…come in and light it up. Look back at past seasons. When he’s off which he is more than you best player should be, what does he do. Become a playmaker…no. Rebound…no. Lock down on defense…no. He just keeps shooting and missing. In his defense he hasn’t had many other guys to defer to offensively but he won’t next year either.
I’m not trying to make this a Hinrich vs Gordon debate. I’m just pointing out that Hinrich, since already under contract and has poor trade value now due to a bad season, is already on the team and capable of playing the 2 and backup up Rose. BG is not under contract, want’s to be paid like the best player, is not a suitable backup for Rose, and will cause a log jam at the guard position. So I would rather keep Hinrich, at least until his value is back up, and move BG for help down low. Where the Bulls really need help.
So please, people, find one sentence or phrase in my post. And focus on that and write me a long post about why Rose is not undersized for the PG position. Which I never said and wasn’t even the point of my post. I’ve made it very clear what I mean in this post. So yawn…I’m getting bored of this over analysis of who has longer arms. I don’t give a shit what Gordon’s measurements where at the pre draft camp. Fact is he plays small, is small for a SG, and is not as good of defender as Hinrich. It blows my mind that most of you don’t realize BG is way undersized for the SG position!!! I mean really have you watched the Bulls play? Do you not realize he was guarding the smaller less talented guard for a reason. And don’t you think there’s a reason Pax doesn’t want to pay him Deng type money. It’s because he’s not worth it. I really used to like BG, but all this Hinrich hate and BG love is starting to make me hate him. Aaarrrgggg!
by ronmexibull on Aug 6, 2008 4:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with what you
are saying.You’ve explained well what some of us see too. Eveyone in here has their ideas of what they want to happen. Fact is it will all get hashed out this fall when practice starts and the coaching staff will make the decision of who will start in the back court. Some will be happy and others will not.
Good luck Shawn Johnson, Lolo Jones and Doug Schwab. Bring home the gold!!!
by sue369 on Aug 7, 2008 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're right
I’m shutting down the blog. I’ll see everyone at Bulls.com in November.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 7, 2008 8:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To Thank You Isiah!
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 7, 2008 9:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yawn
Rose is not an undersized point guard. He’s taller than the average PG drafted in the top 15 (that is to say PG’s who probably end up as starters), by .14 inches (not much), his standing reach is a full inch longer than the average PG drafted in the top 15 and his vertical leap is a full 4 inches higher than the average PG drafted in the top 15. So no, Rose is not a small guard, he’s very big for his position and as was noted around draft time, he might be the most explosively athletic player at his position, ever. Here are Rose’s measurements and here are the average measurements for PGs drafted in the top 15 (players we can reasonably use as proxies for starters in the NBA). There is some concern about having Rose guard in a backcourt with Ben who is slightly undersized (though if you look at Ben’s measurables, using the same site, relative to others at his position his standing reach and excellent vertical more than make up the difference for his shortness). However, Rose is not undersized, he’s very large and incredibly strong for a point guard and to say otherwise is foolish.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 6, 2008 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ummm.....duh
Ya, I agree he’s a good sized PG, but do you want him to have to guard bigger SGs? Because if he’s playing with BG he’ll have too. Hinrich’s a good sized PG also and so is BG…IF HE WAS A POINT GUARD…TO BAD HE’S A SHOOTING GUARD! Did you even read my post before writting that?
by ronmexibull on Aug 6, 2008 4:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gordon is okay-sized for a SG.
Your theory falls flat. You lose.
by tyger1147 on Aug 6, 2008 5:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No. He's undersized.
And this really can’t be disputed.
When I watch NBA games I often call the fouls before the referees do. Sometimes it’s a gift. Most of the time it's troublesome. - NBA Observer
by Illini15 on Aug 6, 2008 11:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You must've been away from the site for a month or so.
Simply under the average height isn’t “under-sized”.
by tyger1147 on Aug 7, 2008 12:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, that's certainly some new logic.
Appreciate the snark as usual, though.
When I watch NBA games I often call the fouls before the referees do. Sometimes it’s a gift. Most of the time it's troublesome. - NBA Observer
by Illini15 on Aug 7, 2008 10:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
So anyone over the average size is "over-sized".
Is there not some acceptable deviation from the average that doesn’t net one under-sized, over-sized or exactly average? “Under-sized” conveys a definition of “too small to adequately do his job”. Over the past few weeks, this has been shown time and again to NOT be the case w/ Ben Gordon. Not only has it been shown that Gordon is an acceptable defender, but even if one disagrees w/ that, it’s been shown that A) his top-of-head-height is not a true indication of his “playing height” and B) others w/in his playing height have been acceptable-to-good defenders. This indicates that his height is not the factor.
He’s not Allen Iverson and certainly NOT Earl Boykins.
So what’s my new logic?
by tyger1147 on Aug 8, 2008 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd say, "Yes"--if we were talking about gymnastics or ballet...
but for purposes of this discussion I’d say, “No.”
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on Aug 8, 2008 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
it's true
that someone his height can be a good defender. but how many of those are SGs? if we are considering “his job” it should be matching up with the SG on both offense and defense. as it is he can’t guard opposing SGs because of his height and lack of defensive ability and we have to pair him with someone who can take the team’s best guard. hinrich is not much bigger (and as has been proven, doesn’t have a better standing reach than gordon) yet can guard bigger guys.
part of the reason we have to cover his tracks is because of his size, so i don’t dispute the notion he is an undersized 2 guard. he’s not a good defender even on smaller guys.
by Jaina on Aug 8, 2008 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
what tyger said
BG is decent sized for a SG in all the important measures (reach, wingspan, and leaping ability). Height simply doesn’t matter that much. Ben has been a decent defender and Rose should be a good defender in the league eventually given his physical tools (he wasn’t such a great defender in college, likely because he didn’t need to be). Also, a BG and Rose backcourt would be so deadly offensively that their average to slightly below average D (which should be partially mitigated by the fact that Deng, TT, and Noah are all above average defenders) would more than be made up for. This isn’t rocket science. You don’t have to be exceptional on both ends of the court, most players aren’t. The ones who are make max money (KG, Duncan, Lebron, Kobe, etc.) BG isn’t gonna get max money. He’ll likely get about 2/3 of a max contract. He’s a top-notch offensive player and a serviceable defender. Rose is going to be an elite offensive PG and should be a decent defender early on and eventually be above average atleast. You can win with that backcourt because they will be very prolific offensively (especially when you consider Deng will out there with them) and they will have a strong frontcourt making up for whatever errors they do make. It’s a team sport, and our team is and has been built so that our best defense is played mostly by the interior guys.
by fundamentallysound on Aug 7, 2008 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perimeter defense is in the process
of getting legislated out of the league anyway.
To me, this means that we should lower its importance in evaluating perimeter players…and commensurately raise the value of offense from perimeter players.
Kirk Hinrich is a good case in point. His stock in trade used to be tight, physical defense. Last season, more than once he nearly went ballistic about the fouls that were being called aginst him.
Kirk’s value has diminished…in large measure because the league no longer supports what he’s good at. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on Aug 7, 2008 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The only problem...
Gordon is worse at lateral movement than Hinrich. I think that’s Gordon’s worst defensive attribute, it isn’t effort or height. He just can’t seem to stay in front, and then when beaten doesn’t have the length to really challenge.
by CJ Bulls on Aug 7, 2008 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why not just play Gordon at the 2 and Rose at the 1?
See what happens.
by tyger1147 on Aug 6, 2008 4:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
a whole lotta points!
is what’s gonna happen!
by gman2849 on Aug 7, 2008 12:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Given up or scored?
That’s the question!
by CJ Bulls on Aug 7, 2008 1:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Any Reason We Can't Trade Hughes for An Expiring 4 or 5?
So we can sign Gordon and let the guards we drafted develop as well as Noah and Thomas?
by hhirb on Aug 6, 2008 1:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I like that idea
but I’m guessing other teams would rather have a big with and expiring contract than a guard with an expiring contract. So that deal may be difficult to find.
by ronmexibull on Aug 6, 2008 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you had Ben Wallace you could trade him for Larry Hughes!
I thought we were smart to do that.
by hhirb on Aug 6, 2008 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
we should hang onto Hughes because he is a gigantic expiring contract in the summer of 2010
he’ll be valuable as a trading chip later this year and next and if we don’t move him and just park him on the bench (the right thing to do) then we get the cap savings in 2010 for a potential superstar run or to just resign TT (and Thabo, if he shows he’s worth re-signing).
by fundamentallysound on Aug 6, 2008 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A 4 or 5 with an expiring contract would also be a trading chip
and wouldn’t clog up the backcourt while assisting the development of Noah and Thomas.
by hhirb on Aug 6, 2008 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you trade Hughes
for a big guy you will be getting trash like Wallace, not someone to mentor young bigs or get any playing time. Trash in trash out. If there is a team willing to take Hughes it is because they are wanting to get rid of something they view as worse. There might be a team willing to get rid of a handful of smaller contract players to free up room…but I doubt you’d be getting anything terribly good from that either. Hughes isn’t going to get us anything good. Either hide him on the bench or trade him for someone else to hide on the bench. The fact he expires is pretty much is only upside.
Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.
by cranscape on Aug 6, 2008 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is a way around the "trash in trash out" problem:
Change the expiration date of the incoming contract.
If the Bulls send out a 2010 and take back something else, they’ll almost certainly get a better player (to balance out the worse expiration date).
Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky
by alec on Aug 6, 2008 8:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I officially hate Ben Gordon!
He has been removed from my friend’s list on myspace…lol! For some reason Duhon is still on there?
by ronmexibull on Aug 6, 2008 4:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You have a myspace page?
Everything I post is speculation. I have no insider information nor ideas deemed concrete enough by those who are self-elected to regulate post content.
by cranscape on Aug 6, 2008 6:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not really surprising, lololololololol
me, all my friends are right here.
management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces!
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 6, 2008 9:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Stupidty
Stupidity usually comes with low income, sometimes with age.
by buhajzrogiem on Aug 6, 2008 9:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Or hairstyle
or dental health, or zodiac sign, or genes/jeans. And its has absolutely nothing to do with intellectual capacity. Most of all, stupidity is a matter of personal choice. You have to really wanna be stupid. It takes a real commitment and lots of practice. There is a dearth of genuine stupidity on this site, which is either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how bent you actually are.
by Cannoli on Aug 7, 2008 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know plenty of rich people
that qualify
by gman2849 on Aug 7, 2008 1:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
was that supposed to be a reply?
i bet that comment was deep and meaningful. i would love to hear a brief explanation
by kite on Aug 8, 2008 9:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
