Blog a Bull: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Spencer Hall's Sports Meme Power Rankings

[From the FanShots. Ben really likes talking about leading the team in scoring, doesn't he? He has a case if there is indeed a team willing to do a sign/trade for him. But if there isn't...he will be here next year, at least on the QO. -ed.]

The quote that makes my stomach sink comes in response to whether or not he'll be a Bull next year:

"Right now, honestly, it doesn't look like it," Gordon said. "I think a decision is going to be made soon. ... I've had a great time here. I was fortunate enough to play on a team that made the playoffs; I led the team in scoring three of the four seasons I've been here. It's been a good experience, but we haven't been able to come to any common ground. It's just part of the business. You have to do what you have to do sometimes."

Damn it.

(Hat tip: RealGM poster 'Bullsville')

about 1 year ago Tiny fundamentallysound 229 comments 2 recs  | 

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

you can also see him sticking to the scoring talking points

making a point to mention he led the team in scoring in 3 of his 4 years.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 8, 2008 2:41 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Exactly, he emphasized it yet again

which makes me believe the rumors of his camp stressing his status as the team’s highest scorer as a justification for a > Larry Hughes/Luol Deng contract.

by messwiththebull on Aug 8, 2008 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I

thought we traded this guy to the Knicks? oh that’s right that was Jamal Crawford…

by J Theory on Aug 8, 2008 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

that's really unfortunate

especially since he has no basis if there’s not even a team that wants to start negotiating a sign/trade.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 8, 2008 3:26 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

In other news,

I think we may have figured out Ben’s well documented equilibrium problems. It appears his head is WAY too big.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 8, 2008 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

it certainly appears that way

if he ends up settling for a reasonable offer, you’ll have to find a crow and eat it. But in the meantime, it appears you’re right.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 8, 2008 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It could just be

the negotiations are beginning to heat up (or get heated).

Dire statements are often part of the process.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Aug 8, 2008 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

May just be a case of Gordon not fully understanding his impact to the team

Most athletes have a hard time evaluating the game they play, especially when it comes to themselves. I’m sure you could find plenty of people who overvalue PPG.

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 3:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

won't know until next season

Someone will pay him, and maybe it’s worth it not to be a Jerry’s kid.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 8, 2008 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

If

a team thinks he’s a big piece of their puzzle. Look at Rashard Lewis for example.

by J Theory on Aug 8, 2008 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

off the top of my head, Miami, Indiana and Portland will be under the cap

Ben fits in all those places, and there’s not much (unrestricted) competition besides an opted-out Boozer.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 8, 2008 3:53 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

of course

this season with the Bulls will be potentially ugly for him. (and the team! so glad I renewed my tickets!)

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 8, 2008 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Portland has (potentially) better, younger, cheaper options

they need help more at the 3 spot than the 2 guard. Miami could do it but they will likely be targetting Boozer and Indiana might be competition.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 8, 2008 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed.

Especially with the stocked free agent pools coming up the next two years…

by bosh on Aug 8, 2008 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

According to...

... Tech N9ne, from Real GM, that has a site called rumorpress.net

The Miami Heat, Phoenix Suns and New Orleans Hornets are the most recent teams trying to work out a sign-and trade for Gordon

He could be a great 6th man in New Orleans… Imagine him side by side with Paul. wow

Please Pax, don't trade Hughes! Just make sure that he stays injured until... 2010!!!

by bull83 on Aug 8, 2008 7:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I just don't see what we could get from NO

Please Pax, don't trade Hughes! Just make sure that he stays injured until... 2010!!!

by bull83 on Aug 8, 2008 7:14 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I thought the same

thing when they mentioned NO as interested back when FA started.

by J Theory on Aug 8, 2008 11:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think

Julian Wright and Mike James would work

by JSlakov on Aug 9, 2008 12:47 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't understand why

We get upset that he is using his bargaining chip. I mean he did lead the team in scoring for 3 of his 4 years, and you could say he was our most important offensive player all 4 years with his scoring on his rookie year coming at the most important times.

I know he’s a one trick pony, but we didn’t help his cause either by continuing to make the 4th quarter BG time and not requiring other guys to step up.

Gordon is a better version of Jamal Crawford…..

It’ll stink to lose him. I do agree that we shouldn’t overpay (especially now that we overpaid for Deng), but all this Gordon hate is a bit much. We don’t even know exactly what the Bulls are offering.

by majoyenrac on Aug 9, 2008 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

man i hate this.

Eddie Jones also led the Heat in scoring for like 4 years, but when Shaq got there, and D-wade, does he still deserve to be the highest paid?? i love BG. he’s a real good scorer, but he is obviously not the focal point of this offense. give it up already! i don’t see him getting more from anyone anywhere else, unless its some crap team thats desperate and will overpay. i don’t think BG would do that. he seems like the competitive type.

if its a sign-and-trade, well then nice knowing ya and lets move on. Rose-Deng-TT-Noah-Hinrich sounds good right now. lets see what happens.

by BULLieving in Miami on Aug 11, 2008 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

BBLLLLLAAAAAGGGGHHHHH!!!!!

If some damn superstars get here then Ben Gordon won’t be the highest-paid either. I’m still waiting for someone to give an example of a center-piece player to a championship team who makes less than 65% of the top 10 (or superstar) salaries…..........

by tyger1147 on Aug 11, 2008 6:12 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Manu, Parker

Prince, off the top of my head. Anyone who is good and on their second contract (hence, not the big money 20+ million deals). Gordon would be getting more than a lot of good(er) players, so I’m not sure why you’d argue that other good players get that money. You’re the only team that can pay him that money, so you’re competing against yourselves. I get that you still got to pay fair market value for your player, but he’s asking for more than that.

Your 65% of top salaries number is arbitrary.

And Gordon won’t be the centerpiece of a championship team, and if you still need him for scoring… oye.

You argue very strangely though, and it seems like you really get angry. You also seem to not always read what people are saying. For example, up above I’ve repeatedly said Gordon is likely you’re only and best option right now and I argued for a short term contract that gives him his money. You keep arguing as if I am saying he shouldn’t be a Bull any longer and that someone could replace him right this very second.

Since good SGs come into the league every draft and are much more likely to be available to the Bulls than the chances that Wade wants to go to Chicago after living in Miami and that Pat Riley will accept the Bulls poo-poo platter all the way in 2010, I find the draft to be a more viable option to find the successor to Gordon who will play alongside Rose when you’re becoming a contender.

Like I said, I’m not trying to get you to agree with me, which I would have figured would imply that you should also think you won’t get me to agree that Gordon is with 12/13 Million bucks and/or is a franchise player.

You remind me very much of the Blazer fans who argued till they were blue in the face that Z-Bo was worth a max extension because he was only 23 years old and already a 20/10 player. We’ll be playing for his prime years, he’ll only improve! Nevermind all he does was score, he’s got good numbers!

My original point was to say (in regards to Gordon maybe not re-signing) “that sucks, but you can do better”. Gordon is a good player. He’s not an allstar though, nor a top 10 SG. Compare him to Redd and Allen all ya want, he doesn’t score as much as them to offset his lack of other abilities. It would suck until you FIND that better SG if you lose Gordon, but c’mon… I think the Bulls will survive.

Now here’s a question I’ve never had answered: What does Gordon do besides score?

HOW is he different than Jamal Crawford? Just attitude? Less of a ballhog? Crawford seems like a more selfish player to me, but a similar streak shooter who is a much better ball handler. He can run an offense, for example, which makes up for his size.

What does Gordon do at the level of top SGs in the league, aside from score pretty good? Dribble? Pass? Leadership? Intangibles?

I’m not trying to be a complete dick in asking, because there has to be something I hadn’t seen before that makes him so valuable to you. And please don’t be snippy in your reply because that is sorta annoying.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Aug 11, 2008 6:59 PM CDT up reply actions   2 recs

Your long responses that deter me from reading are more annoying.

Sum up your thoughts and don’t repeat what you say three times and maybe your stuff would be read and the points addressed.

And wait, there can be more than one centerpiece? I was thinking along the lines of the “best player” as the centerpiece. Gordon’s absolutely fine as the 3rd highest paid player on the team if it’s competing for a championship, especially if he’s still the leading scorer. I’m pretty sure it’s a well-established fact that all of the players in San Antonio take less money so they can stay together. They compete for a championship every year. Their best player, a superstar, also takes less money. If the Bulls were the Spurs, you might have a point.

And no, 65% isn’t arbitrary. The Top 10 highest-paid players in the league (you know, max-contract guys) make about an average of $20 million. People act like $13 million (you know ~65%) is ridiculously overpaid because Gordon won’t be the centerpiece (which I read to mean—main player). The point is that’s incredibly rare, if not impossible, to find the best player on a team taking less than 65% (you can raise or lower it how you want) of what the best players in the league make.

When, or if, this team ever becomes championship-caliber, Ben Gordon will be making the 3rd or 4th most money on the team (this assumes the Bulls bring in a max FA and Rose gets a max extension). That’s 100% completely reasonable, especially if he’s still the leading scorer.

I didn’t address the shorter-contract, more-money comment because we went over that a month ago. When it was leaked or reported or whatever, that the Bulls were using the luxury tax this season as a reason for keeping Gordon’s 1st-year salary (and thus the whole contract) down. They’ve used that as their digging in tool. If they were to relent and say, “Fine, we’ll pay you more this year for a shorter deal.” Gordon’s agent will ask, “But I thought the luxury tax this year was a problem.”

Gordon’s different than Randolph because: a) he actually works hard to one where people can actually believe he’ll try to get better, b) he scores more efficiently than Randolph, c) he provides an area of basketball skill to a team that lacks it, d) there is no other alternative and not likely to be one (like a No. 2 pick), e) he’s never been in trouble w/ the law, f) he’ll make less, g) if the Bulls do get a replacement, Gordon might actually be a big part of that acquisition than being a mere salary dump, h) Randolph was paid on potential of getting better where Gordon would be paid on basically playing how he has

And I get frustrated (not angry) because of crap like this:

What does Gordon do at the level of top SGs in the league, aside from score pretty good?

Why pose that questiont? No one (well, as far as I can tell), is asking that Gordon be paid like a “top SG”. So why ask me to compare him to that standard? It’s an out-and-out strawman argument tactic. It’s crap. And frustrating. Why not compare him to his most statistically- and game-similar players like Michael Redd or Ray Allen? In which comes in at a bargain. Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and say he’s not as good: well, isn’t great then that I’m arguing he get paid significantly less than those guys? Or, if you’d like, Jason Richardson, Joe Johnson, Kevin Martin, Monta Ellis, Jamaal Crawford. In which he comes at about the middle. Isn’t that a more apt, and intellectually-honest question?

by tyger1147 on Aug 13, 2008 10:18 AM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Good

I can’t stand another season of this guy. To many falling down, losing the ball, and throwing the ball away from him at the end of games.

by J Theory on Aug 8, 2008 3:20 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

don't worry

Bulls won’t have many close games to blow.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 8, 2008 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

on the bright side

if he thinks he won’t be playing a 5th season with the Bulls as the article says, then that would mean he’d have to be gone in a sign and trade because thats the only way he would be gone before the season.

by JSlakov on Aug 8, 2008 3:22 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

yeah and at least we'd be getting some value for him

but who’d be crazy enough to want to take him on with his seemingly way too high salary demands?

by fundamentallysound on Aug 8, 2008 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

not that we paid too much for Deng

Deng and Smith are similarly productive players, last year Deng was much better than Smith, this year he regressed and Smith improved. They are also the same age and we signed Deng for basically the same money Smith signed for, but we locked up an extra year of his prime.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 8, 2008 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Smith got more per season than Deng.

Its the sixth season that gives Deng a larger overall number.

by Dionysus2.0 on Aug 8, 2008 10:47 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

how is 58/5

more than 71/6?

by Jaina on Aug 8, 2008 11:00 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

its true...

Especially if Deng hits any of his incentives.

by kidronmusic on Aug 8, 2008 11:14 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Also

I just love how he leaves Chicago to talk his nonsense….

by J Theory on Aug 8, 2008 3:24 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

he certainly is media savvy

goes home to whine about his inability to get his money, but in the Chitown papers it’s all “I hope to be back” and “hopefully we can get a deal done soon”, etc.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 8, 2008 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

funny

that all this coming out concurs directly with what my friend who was BG’s assistant said about Ben wanting max or near max.

by JSlakov on Aug 8, 2008 3:31 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I think BG looks at Michael Redd (overpaid) and Gilbert Arenas (overpaid) as his comparables in his mind

and not Monta Ellis and Barbosa. It’s just too bad he’s wrong and that both those guys are overpaid.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 8, 2008 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

that's not funny

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 8, 2008 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

guess

it depends on your point of view

by JSlakov on Aug 8, 2008 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well

Let’s see if we can get some kind of trade out of him. Either a sign and trade or a trade around the trading deadline if he signs the QO.

by J Theory on Aug 8, 2008 3:36 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

before

anyone says it, theres a chance he’d wave his Bird Rights since he seems consigned not to rejoin the Bulls anyway.

by JSlakov on Aug 8, 2008 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Waiving his Bird Rights would also mean that he could only sign with a team as a free agent

A sign and trade would pretty much be out of the question as whichever team acquires him would not be able to go over the cap in a sign and trade.

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 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's true

But there’s a chance the Bulls and his agent can work on that and find someone that will give him what he wants. Sounds impossible but hey we’ve seen stranger things happen.

by J Theory on Aug 8, 2008 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't know what Ben's talking about when he says "decision will be made soon"

the only way he can end talks is taking the QO…which means he WILL be here next season. Maybe he’s just fudging ‘be here’ and ‘be here long-term’

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 8, 2008 3:48 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

It could be

that a sign and trade is almost worked out. Either one of those two would make his statement true.

by J Theory on Aug 8, 2008 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

hey, if there is one

then the Bulls need to up their offer. You’d have thought we’d have seen it leaked by now though.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 8, 2008 3:54 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Teams

are getting sneaker, look at Memphis offering a contract to J. Smith. That came out of nowhere. :)

by J Theory on Aug 8, 2008 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Or maybe he's ready to throw on the yellow and blue

of Maccabi Tel-Aviv and be the 2 guard opposite Carlos Arroyo with none other than the Bulls formerly very own Marcus Fizer anchoring the interior.

by RogersPark Kris on Aug 8, 2008 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

True

Keep overlooking those Europeans. When is China going to pick up up, don’t they have leagues? :P

by J Theory on Aug 8, 2008 3:59 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Charity

How come everyone mentions Deng being this selfless super charitable guy while making Gordon look like a selfish bastard. I am from the area where Gordon goes to school and he is practically doing all he can to save Mt Vernon High School sports for the upcoming year. I am just surprised that no one mentions Gordon’s charitable work and great attitude/work ethic etc…intangibles. I guess Gordon scores “too much” to be considered as a high quality character type guy.

by Sambossanova on Aug 8, 2008 3:56 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

It's

more on the court than off. Off the court Gordon seems like a great guy and character

by J Theory on Aug 8, 2008 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I've never seen

Gordon be anything less than a great guy on the court either. He took getting knocked down to 6th man (with Duhon starting over him of all people) very well and he has great work ethic on his own time. He didn’t blow up or end up in the newspapers like a bunch of other guys did last year when everyone got stressed. Until someone shows me where he has been less than a great guy on the court I don’t believe it.

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 9, 2008 9:10 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't think that's a widespread perception

at least not here. I happen to agree. This doesn’t mean he’s a selfish or bad guy…just a bad negotiator.

Maybe I should just lean to what Dwyer said: Gordon is unfortunate in the fact that he isn’t the plucky Luol Deng. Jerry only pays certain guys.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 8, 2008 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Most of what people talk about is reputation, and once established it just seems to stick

Think about what we hear about the players, and you find it almost all fits within that players stereotype – BG the basketball-holic, Lu the charitable guy, Tyrus the athletic lughead, Noc the wild guy, Kirk the scrappy guy, etc. etc. How often do you hear anything that doesn’t fit with those reputations, regardless of the fact that most guys on the team are involved in charity and work hard and stay out of major trouble.

If nothing else, taking Rose will at least piss off Pat Riley.

by wjb1492 on Aug 8, 2008 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

charity

most nba players do pre-requisite standard charity work here and there. Gordon is holding tons of fundraisers and going out personally trying to do all he can. He’s always back in his hometown good work for the community and being involved.

Jerry really disgusts me. What an awful owner. At least Dolan pays when called upon. If anyone on the bulls organization is greedy, its Jerry.

by Sambossanova on Aug 8, 2008 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don't worry about Jerry

if Ben is worth what he thinks he is, some other team will gladly give him the money he’s looking for. It’s doesn’t begin and end with Jerry. He’s just one checkbook.

by messwiththebull on Aug 8, 2008 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

What if he only gets a million more?

Looks shittier, though, doesn’t it?

by tyger1147 on Aug 8, 2008 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Depends on how the Bulls replace him.

It is interesting though (assuming BG goes to europe, which I think is a fairly safe assumption at this point), that the two guys to leave were both borderline 6th men/starters who wanted to get paid like full-time starters (and in Gordon’s case, like an elite starter).

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Aug 8, 2008 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I could see that

if I’m BG, and unfortunately I am not, I would really consider a one-year deal overseas. He can make more than the QO there, and he would avoid a logjam in the backcourt with him potentially coming off the bench in favor of what should be a starting role, hell, a starring role, and all the minutes he wants.

by messwiththebull on Aug 8, 2008 5:16 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

He has euroroots, to boot.

I can see him signing for a lot longer than one year.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Aug 8, 2008 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It would also allow the Bulls to see...

...how crappy Thabo and Hinrich are as his replacements. He’ll still be the Bulls RFA if they don’t renounce his rights. There will be more teams w/ more cap space next year (I think). That would mean there might be more teams wanting his services and that the Bulls might see it as a mistake to have let him go.

by tyger1147 on Aug 9, 2008 2:43 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

No doubt about it

but i would be shocked if that’s what’s holding up a deal right now – a difference of one million

by messwiththebull on Aug 8, 2008 5:11 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Forgotten already?

Don’t remember the links, but the leaks that the Bulls are using the luxury tax as an excuse pretty much convinced me of that.

by tyger1147 on Aug 8, 2008 5:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I wasn't trying to suggest he doesn't do a lot

I actually read pretty much everything out there on the Bulls, not just local Chicago stuff. There are a lot of other Bulls that do more than the “NBA Cares” minimum, and there are little blurbs on quite a bit of it in the Chicago papers – but it doesn’t make it into other articles as often except in Lu’s case, because that’s the angle they play with his character.

Look at it this way – Tyrus gets the “who will be traded” or “athletic, but not all there” asides, even though they aren’t fair to him or completely accurate. At least BG gets “hardworking” and “dedicated” thrown in all over the place, instead of something negative.

If nothing else, taking Rose will at least piss off Pat Riley.

by wjb1492 on Aug 8, 2008 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Even Duhon was a charitable dude

He’s from Louisiana, so he was on the Katrina recovery machine from the beginning. How much did the Trib or Sun-Times mention this compared to his Rush and Division antics?

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 8, 2008 6:37 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I heard a lot about Duhon's charity work

And really, I didn’t know about his partying until I started reading here more often.

by kidronmusic on Aug 8, 2008 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

you don't even know the half of it....

i saw that cat on rush and division more times than i have fingers and toes

by chicagosports23 on Aug 9, 2008 3:18 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Maybe if Jerry

let his players throw a few truck parties and Paxson can sexually harass a female intern he would be just as good as Dolan. Dolan is a joke as an owner. Look at what the Knicks have become since he bought the team. They are the laughing stock of the NBA. They are the poster children for bad management and bad decisions.

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 9, 2008 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Gordon has seemed to show the most character on the team

From staying quiet on the 6th man flip flop to his noted timespent at the Berto Center. The only negative story I can remember on Ben is his put down of Dunkin Donuts. It’s just quick to lose that perception when you ask for more money than what you’re worth.

That, and the fact his game is offensive based. I think people tend to look at that subconsciously as selfish when Ben is just playing to his strengths. Truth is, if Thabo could score 20 a game his defense would slow down as well. Albeit not nearly to the level of Gordon’s.

by CJ Bulls on Aug 8, 2008 4:09 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

the 6th man thing bothers me

no doubt the Bulls blew smoke up his ass about how it’s for the good of the team and wasn’t a reflection on him as a player to go to the bench. Now they’re likely using it against him in negotiations.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 8, 2008 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It bothers me for this reason

not that I disagree with Ben being better suited as a bench player (unless he’s playing with a bigger guard), but the fact that he was so often benched immediately in favor of Hinrich, particularly last season. That is where the injustice would be moreso than in the actual benching.

by messwiththebull on Aug 8, 2008 5:21 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think the answer has something to do with

Larry Hughes and “He Who Must not be named” ::coughboylancough::...rather than bg or kirk…

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 9, 2008 1:47 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree with you

Ben plays to his strengths and there is nothing wrong with that but I don’t believe it helps this team. As a previous fanpost stats a team like Toronto would love to have Gordon.

by J Theory on Aug 8, 2008 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

right

the Bulls don’t need offense.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 8, 2008 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

A quick scan of B-R for the 10 games Gordon missed

the Bulls scoring did indeed go down by 6.5 points.

However, their points allowed also went down…by 6.6 points.

The sample size is a bit smallish to draw any major conclusions, but…

The Bulls improved their overall team +/- with BG out. Also, Thabo came in and scored 14.3 per game during those ten games…and while his assist numbers mirror Gordon’s, he outrebounded Gordon by 3 per 36.

As a team, the Bulls won 4 of the 10 games, which is right in line with their season winning percentage of .402.

Ben’s got a tough case to make if he wants the Bulls to pay him all-star money.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Aug 8, 2008 6:11 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I like Ben personally

but that has nothing to do with business.

by messwiththebull on Aug 8, 2008 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I was wrong...was Dynamo

“Dynamo has a reputation of an underarchieving team here in Russia. They spend CSKA-like money on their roster, yet the results are very different. This year they finally got a great coach in David Blatt and also signed Bostjan Nachbar to what would be again a $9 million NBA contract. They are rumored to be targeting Ben Gordon, now that it’s known that players of this caliber are available for the right money. Once again, it’s impossible to tell how far the team can go in terms of spending, because what’s happening now is unprecedented. For years, Dynamo has been the richest team that is not in the Euroleague, and they are desperate to get in the league.”

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/truehoop/0-33-150/An-Insider-s-View-of-Kobe-Bryant-or-LeBron-James-Heading-to-Europe.html

by bosh on Aug 8, 2008 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

legitimate(?) question

would the Bulls be better off with Gordon taking the QO? or going to Moscow? (assuming it’s not too hard to buy him back beyond the actual contract)

The Bulls (and me) lose either way. I have pretty much no interest in next year if Gordon isn’t re-signed. It’ll just be pseudo-rebuilding mess.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 8, 2008 4:10 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It all depends...

on how he plays overseas. I believe if he leaves to go to europe he is still considered a restricted free agent and the bulls still hold the rights. If he plays poorly overseas or makes an impact that is less then what is expected I believe it works to our favor. His value drops and we still have the right to match any offers when he returns. However, if his stock rises it may prove to have been a mistake not extending him this year…

although the same can be be said of the QO, however we won’t own the rights anymore…

by bosh on Aug 8, 2008 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

it would depend

on whether the Bulls kept his rights I’d think. He’d be better off taking the QO if he just wants to get to another team in the NBA because it’d be faster.

by JSlakov on Aug 8, 2008 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

um, it's not even a question if the Bulls don't keep his rights.

and they would keep his rights, they’re not getting under the cap with/without him

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 8, 2008 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

not even

after Gooden’s contract expires next year?

by JSlakov on Aug 9, 2008 12:46 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

and

it is a question if you think a year of BG will lead to 38 wins instead of 30 wins and less ping pong balls

by JSlakov on Aug 9, 2008 12:49 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

::groan::

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 9, 2008 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

not to mention

its a year’s waste of developing chemistry between Rose and Gordon. Is there any precedent for a player signing the QO and then resigning long term with the team afterwards? If he signs it, I’ll assume he’s gone so yes, I’d honestly rather him just go to Europe so that the players who are going to be on the team can play together. If it means we have less wins, fine, but we weren’t going to win the championship in that one year of Ben anyway.

by JSlakov on Aug 9, 2008 11:34 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I don't understand

all the doom and gloom if Ben Gordon leaves. He’s a nice player but he’s not Kobe, Lebron, Duncan, Nash, ect… Giving up on the season already? It’s Ben Gordon….he’s replaceable. He has always been a good soldier and always says and does the right things, but come on…it’s Ben Gordon! There isn’t a player on this team, excluding Rose, that the Bulls can’t go on without. It’s not like they had any realistic chance to compete for a title next year. By drafting Rose, the Bulls kinda put themselves in a mini rebuild mode. Only because it will most likely take Rose a couple years to really show what he can do. His scoring will be missed but it’s not like all 19 of the points he brings a game are gone. Other players can and will most likely pick up the slack. Though it would suck to lose a good player and not get anything back in return. That’s just bad business.

by ronmexibull on Aug 8, 2008 6:27 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Totally agree

Nice player, that’s all. Much more important than the evolution at the 2 is the play at the 4 this year. Only 4 possibilities: Gooden is good,TT bad; TT good, Gooden bad; both good; or both bad. Any way you slice it, the Bulls are going to be in the same contractual dilemna next year at a position in which they don’t have 4 viable options. Someone at another blog described BG as Iverson w/o the handles or the free throws. Not even sure if AI gets that money on my roster, let alone BG.

by California Al on Aug 9, 2008 12:04 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

With a 19 year old PG

Who you’re gonna build around, you’re kinda already rebuilding anyways, right?

Noah, Tyrus, Rose, all pretty raw or expected to be raw and learning on the job. I imagine the fun part of next season will be watching Rose show signs of being a top tier PG (and maybe become one already) and seeing Tyrus develop, Deng continue to grow, and not Gordon scoring 19ppg and the team still not being more than a possible playoff team.

Does Gordon being on the team really make the team that much more fun? I know you won’t probably be as good, but he doesn’t seem to be one of the more fun players to watch this season.

I get that you’d wanna surround Rose with decent players so he has plenty of help, but I’m surprised your possible interest in next season depends on Gordon.

I guess I underrate his value.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Aug 8, 2008 6:33 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well said Mortimer!

Seems we were thinking the same thing at about the same time. Matt, are you a Bulls fan or a Gordon fan? Obviously, you’ve dedicated a lot of time to being a great Bulls fan so I have a hard time believing you’ll lose interest in the Bulls if Gordon is not around next season. I’m assuming you have been a Bulls fan for a while. If you can get through what happened at the end of the chapionship run, I think you’ll make it through a year without BG.

by ronmexibull on Aug 8, 2008 10:38 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'll lose interest in this season

Gordon is one of the fun players, because he’s talented. Hinrich, Hughes, Thabo aren’t as much. I’d rather see Rose grow with good teammates, and watch a team interested in winning. I don’t want to watch a team claiming they’re developing by punting their 25 year old best offensive player.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 9, 2008 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Gordon is the team's most explosive scorer.

yes, that makes basketball fun. Do I really want to hear myself say, “It’s not all highlight reel dunks and passes.”

by tyger1147 on Aug 9, 2008 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes

As a Blazers/Brandon Roy fan I sure am about the highlight reel dunks and passes. He has a 40 inch vertical and dunks 4 times a year. I get there’s more than highlights.

He seemed like a streak shooter to me; great sometimes so-so-to-bad others. Like I said, I could be underrating him. I thought Tyrus and Rose and Friends were much more fun.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Aug 9, 2008 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well...

...you only need to watch him hit four 3-pointers and a a couple of deuces in a 5-minute period to realize how fun that is.

by tyger1147 on Aug 9, 2008 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Feast or famine?

What is he doing otherwise?

That sounds similar to overvaluing a player because he does cool dunks. Once in a while, Gordon explodes for 30-40 points, What is he doing in between that?

I watch the Bulls, but not every game of course. He just always seemed either on or very off. That’s not the sort of thing you can depend on and he needs shots to produce either way.

But really, I can’t argue over Gordon’s game beyond not seeming to be worth 60+ million. That’s core money, keeper money, and it appears everyone pretty much agrees that you’ll want to upgrade that spot sooner rather than later.

He’s more than good enough for now, but for the later? I dunno, and that might be part of the problem PaxDorf are having (beyond their other problems).

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Aug 9, 2008 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

Committment to excellence

To channel Al Davis (the young, good Al Davis, not the nutty old man he’s become), it’d be nice to see the Bulls commit to putting a really good team on the floor. This situation reminds me of two years ago with Ben Wallace.

They make this big splash and everyone proclaims them “contenders” but it was obvious to me, even then, that they needed at the very least to get an offensively inclined big man to pair with Wallace (the Sheed to the Ben) if we were going to take advantage of the limited window of opportunity Wallace gave us. Instead we dumped our young guy for an ancient defensive player, and were a good team that totally missed the bus when it came to reaching the next level.

Since then, we’ve been paying for various mistakes, and worse, letting them influence our long-term future.

by Sports2 on Aug 9, 2008 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Now that's a little extreme.

Who wants to watch Derrick Rose next year?

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 9, 2008 12:41 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

next year? meh

clearly the Bulls will be focused on a few years from now, and I guess I should follow suit.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 9, 2008 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

CBA Question

The Bulls would be better off with Gordon on the QO, because they can jerk him around and generally mis-utilize him for another year at $6.4M, then he walks.

If he goes to Moscow, then we don’t get to play him this year, but next year we’re right back in the same boat. Ben will be an RFA again, but the Bulls will be in what’s probably an even worse predicament next year regarding the luxury tax unless they pull off a trade or let Gooden walk for nothing. Next year they’ll have about $16.5M before they hit the tax threshold to accomodate Gooden and Gordon. Assuming we do nothing, things get even tighter.

by Sports2 on Aug 9, 2008 7:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Unless they just straight renounce his rights.

Doesn’t he have a cap hold as long as the Bulls maintain his RFA rights. And, IIRC from Childress, they can retain those for up to 3 years (2 more). Meaning, the Bulls can continue to play this game w/ Gordon, but it will be tough for them to get that “other, better SG”, or they can just renounce his rights and everyone go along their merry ways.

That might be completely wrong.

by tyger1147 on Aug 10, 2008 3:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Quiet on the set...

Luol Deng, Shooting Guard…Take Two!

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Aug 8, 2008 4:11 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

uh, no.

we have a ‘glut’, remember?

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 8, 2008 4:12 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh yeah, right...

Hamed Hadadi—welcome to Chicago!

If Gordon signs overseas, the Bulls will have some free money to spend.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Aug 8, 2008 4:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Jamal Crawford vs. Ben Gordon

I’m interested, from a purely statistical Hollinger-type evaluation, how much better Ben Gordon is than Jamal Crawford. They had very similiar PERs last year, and while Ben had a better PER the year before last than Crawford has even approached, it could be an outlier. After all, Larry Hughes had a huge year and hasn’t come close since.

The reason I ask is, while I wasn’t on a blog so I can’t be sure if it was a commonly held view, I was fine with the Bulls getting rid of Crawford for pretty much the Knick’s pu pu platter as it gave us future cap space and some moveable pieces. The sentiment around here seems to be that this would be unacceptable for Ben, but perhaps its the best we can hope for at this point?

by JSlakov on Aug 8, 2008 4:14 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

But don't forget, the team wasn't winning with Crawford

So stats be damned (even from a stat geek like me!).

Seriously, the situations are so different that I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. When Jamal got traded, the team wasn’t and hadn’t been winning, and there were a new coach and GM intent on changing the culture. BG has been part of moving the team into the playoffs, and it’s a little overblown to be questioning team culture after one weird year. So regardless of what the individual stats say about their similarities or differences, the team aspect of the question is totally different.

If nothing else, taking Rose will at least piss off Pat Riley.

by wjb1492 on Aug 8, 2008 4:27 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

well

regardless of what you think of last year (hopefully an aberration), the team is definitely moving in a different direction. The playoff teams went there with veteran front courts. Those are gone. They went there with Hinrich as the point guard. Now we have Rose. I’m not saying that this means Ben’s role will change or that he can’t return to where he was the year before last but certainly the team as a whole is changing, just as it was in the summer we got rid of Jamal.

by JSlakov on Aug 8, 2008 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ben had more success here

But of course, he wasn’t forced to play with Linton Johnson and Ronald Dupree at the 3 spot either. It always sort of mystifies me that folks, especially people who understand the statistics and the team nature of basketball, don’t consider this.

They both, however, were forced to play with generally terrible interior play (Ben last year and Jamal for pretty much the whole time he was here).

Finally, we pretty much paid for Jamal’s development. He was a pretty good player for his last season and a half, and a pretty terrible one before that. Ben his the ground running.

by Sports2 on Aug 9, 2008 7:29 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I wasn't trying to imply that Crawford was the reason the team wasn't winning

It was more a chain reaction thing – the team wasn’t winning – new GM – bad start to season – new coach – GM and coach want a “new culture” for the team – most of the team (with the exception of the young guys) gets dumped by the next season, but expectations were still pretty low. At that point, I don’t think Pax and Skiles had any interest whatsoever in keeping any of the guys who weren’t playing on potential and a rookie contract. Now, the team has been winning, last year can be looked at as an aberration, and expectations are to at least be competing in the East while at the same time making big improvements.

I see a big difference between the Bulls tinkering and trying to streamline the team, but generally liking the pieces they have, versus what was happening when Crawford got traded. BG is in this position because he doesn’t have a contract – if he were currently signed, I don’t think he would be the piece that it’s looking more likely won’t be here. Instead, Pax would be looking at who could bring the most in return. But, since there is a glut of guards and BG is the one without a contract in place, it leaves him hanging.

And with the situation so different, I just don’t see much point in comparing the two. It’s not like the team is trying to decide between which player to acquire or anything.

If nothing else, taking Rose will at least piss off Pat Riley.

by wjb1492 on Aug 9, 2008 11:02 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team.

-- Scottie Pippen

by Orlando Woolridge on Aug 8, 2008 4:26 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Were

you hitting “zzzzz” to read the comments or did you fall asleep? :D

by J Theory on Aug 8, 2008 4:51 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

just sick of all the Gordon drama

enough already, let’s play b-ball.

love BG, sick of his situation.

Sometimes a player's greatest challenge is coming to grips with his role on the team.

-- Scottie Pippen

by Orlando Woolridge on Aug 9, 2008 2:42 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

In the long run

I sorta said this before, but I kinda hope you guys don’t re-sign Gordon or that he takes the QO, because you can do a lot better. AT LEAST hopefully it’s a short contract…

He isn’t worth over 12 million, not even close. His best thing he does is scoring and it’s not like he’s THAT good of a scorer. He’s GOOD but he isn’t winning games with his offense alone.

You’ll probably be worse without him (unless Thabo explodes), but if you don’t gotta be hamstrung by paying him 60 million over 5 years, I think you’ll end up waaay ahead.

Just as a side note, I seriously doubt the Blazers would sign him with the cap space next year. Unless he can guard PGs (like Bayless seems to hopefully be able to do), we don’t got much room at the SG spot with Roy, Rudy, and Bayless all being combo-ish guards. Plus Martell, Blake, Sergio, etc etc—lotsa guards, and while Gordon is ‘better’ than most of them the Blazers won’t need scoring.

So, that’s one less team with cap space next summer who might try for him.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Aug 8, 2008 6:27 PM CDT reply actions   1 recs

Keep in mind that

sooner or later Portland will have to re-sign Roy, Albridge, and Oden (there main pieces). Getting suck on big contracts will not help them in the long run.

by J Theory on Aug 8, 2008 11:30 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's not a problem

Right now, the Blazers WANT to keep all of them. There is no flexibility lost if you want to keep the guy you’re signing; even most of Gordon’s supporters don’t think it’s a good idea to sign a player of that caliber to a LONG big contract. If you don’t think he’s the SG to build around along with Rose at PG, then you don’t want to hurt your flexibility by giving him 60 million.

The Blazers got cap space next summer, and then they’re back in luxury tax land for the next decade. They got the 3 they are building around. They’ll sign them for as much as they deserve with no quibbles over cost and whatnot.

Maybe when Bayless, Rudy, Outlaw, etc come due for contracts there will be haggles, but it won’t be over money as long as they are good. They’ll get what they deserve as long as they want to be a Blazer and are right for the team.

But since the Blazers know they are going to lock up their Big 3 for max/near-max money and want to keep them for the next decade, they don’t want flexibility with those players. They just want to make sure they lock them up.

There’s a difference between the two situations for that basic reason; you’re not sure you WANT Gordon for 6 more years (at least at 12+ million a year). Gordon is a good player who can help most any team with his scoring, but if he gets a deal that makes him the highest paid Bull he instantly becomes very hard to trade for a few years and if you guys don’t want to venture deeper into luxury tax land you won’t be adding good role players with the MLE.

That’s why I favor a short contract for Gordon, or saying screw it. If he remains stubborn over getting more money than he is worth, it’ll suck in the short term but I think you’ll be happy in the long run.

So, perhaps best case scenario is give him his damn money for only for 3 years. It helps Rose develop, keeps you competitive, and the deal is short enough to move even if he’s overpaid.

I’m totally fine overpaying guys that you want to keep for the long term. Keeps ‘em happy, locks ‘em up, everyone smiles. If you’re locking them up because you have no other options even though you know the player isn’t necessarily the player you want 3 years from now, you’re just shooting yourself in the foot.

ESPECIALLY if people envision a instant-offense 6th man role for Gordon in the future. If you’re gonna pay superstar money, you better be getting a superstar.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Aug 9, 2008 2:43 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Like Matt said

The biggest difference in all of this is Paul Allen is willing to pay the tax. KP doesn’t have walk that tight rope that Paxson is walking. What is Portland is doing is what a good basketball team should be doing. Accumulating as much talent via the draft as possible, clearing cap space for a big sign and going for broke he next decade or so.

We are already at a point where our young talent has to be signed to big contracts and now are going back to acclamation of young talent mode with an owner who doesn’t want to pay the tax. Furthermore he has a fruity bias of who he does and doesn’t want to keep.

Personally I am in favor of overpaying Ben for 08 and 09. 2 years at 36 is fine by me. Its not like we will have cap room this year or next to bring in anyone via free agency. DRose is 2-3 years away from being a dominate player and you preserve cap room for the ‘10 free agency boom.

But thats not realistic because we won’t bust the tax threshold.

Mort: will you all still have the cap room if Miles ends up playing 10+ games this season?

"If you're not going to compete, then I'll dominate you." MJ

by Rankdog on Aug 9, 2008 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah; ~15 million

If Miles plays AND after the review it is decided that Portland should still be on the hook for his deal because he is healthy—neither likely.

If he doesn’t play, between 25-30 million, depending on if they pick up the options/rights on guys like Steve Blake or Ike Diogu, etc.

Since the luxury tax problem was known by all participants in these negotiations, I’m not surprised Gordon is a lil’ miffed that Deng got so much, forcing his deal down because the Bulls “refuse” to go into luxury tax to sign him.

This stuff is a mess.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Aug 9, 2008 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Paul Allen will pay the tax.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 9, 2008 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

ask a blazers fan?

Martell Webster, Rudy Fernandez, whoever KPDeity picks…

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 9, 2008 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

lol,

thats messed up, and not true. Bens obviously better then marty, but nearly 3 times as expensive, and rudy has won several tournament and league mvps in europe, so he should be pretty good, but will be 1/10 the cost. We like ROY. he is the only 2 that i would say is A LOT better then gordon, our other guys, not even as good, but MUCH, MUCH cheaper.

"I love Sheed. I wish he’d write a children’s book. Maybe he’d call it - How to $&%# Cuss Like a Big Boy."
--- tominhawaii on May 29, 2008 6:29 PM PDT

Email Dave,
--- Mortimer --- for Blazers Edge Ambassador to the SBNations

by ptwnblzr on Aug 10, 2008 7:02 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You're correct; no other options

For NOW. But there will always be options later on, which is why I favor a short term, nice pay deal for Gordon.

If you lock him up longterm you shoot yourself in the foot at improving the position—unless the cap room in 2010 is good enough? I dunno the cap scenarios you guys got going in the future.

Just because he’s the only one out there doesn’t make him the best/right choice for the team. You’re the Chicago Bulls, big market, legendary franchise, you’ll either be able to lure someone there with cap room or draft someone. It’s not like you’re the T-Wolves or Memphis, desperate to keep whatever player is willing to play for you.

But again, you’re right: Gordon is the only option right now. But he won’t be in the near future, and he’ll be pretty untradeable if he has a deal that has 50+ million left on it after next season. He has good value, but he doesn’t have 12 million a year value league wide.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Aug 9, 2008 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

What options later on?

And you don’t remember the Benny Bull to the Airport fiasco to know that there is no “lure” to Chicago. It’s fucking cold in the winter.

Gordon will not be untradeable. He’s the 10th-best 3-pt shooter of all time that is able to carry an offense at times. Many contending teams would love to overpay for a guy like that if it meant sending back a lesser player or two.

by tyger1147 on Aug 9, 2008 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Draft, free agency, trade options

There’s always something opening up.

So you can get a lesser player back (or two) making similar money to Gordon—that helps your team in the long run?

I agree you can use him for now, but like I said, keeping the deal as short as possible opens you up to pouncing on trade scenarios later on. He has value, but if you pay him as much as he wants you’re not getting equal value back. Compared to other players making the 12 million range and in his age group, you won’t likely get that sort of player back.

Just because he’s the only option doesn’t make him the right option, especially when options ALWAYS open up each season and off-season.

Wasn’t Ben Wallace the best free agent that year that was gettable? That wasn’t the right option, was it? Just the only one (but please correct me if I remember it wrong).

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Aug 9, 2008 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Those are all long-shots.

I mean, real long shots.

Besides, how good do think Gordon is? Give me the list of players that score as efficiently and as much as he. Now narrow that down to shooting guards, and then narrow it down to those that are better than Gordon on defense. Now narrow it down to guys that aren’t more than two years older than Gordon (thus, won’t be 30 by the time Rose is 23 and is actually (hopefully, of course) approaching superduperstardom).

What’s that leave you with? How many of those guys are there and how many of them are freely easily attainable via trade or signing. (drafting doesn’t matter because if they do get someone better than Gordon through the draft then he’ll be young enough to be w/ the Bulls for longer than Gordon’s contract and cheap as hell and they could trade Gordon for virtually nothing if they really wanted).

Admittedly, I haven’t done this. If my criteria too restrictive, tell me why. You could take out the PPG or efficiency if you want to include young guys who are obviously better. Looking through this list, I see:

Kevin Martin
Monta Ellis
Brandon Roy
Maaaayybe Rashad McCants

I don’t see any of them moving. If you think you can fit them in at SG next to Deng, you could add:

Kevin Durant
Rudy Gay
Andre Iguodola
Danny Granger

Durant and Gay obviously aren’t going anywhere. Iguodola can’t shoot (which would leave the Bulls w/ no real 3-pt threats) I have no idea how good of defenders any of those guys are and if that latter group could move to SG. Maybe they can go after McCants or Granger. Those aren’t bad choices, but are they better than Gordon? Hmm…

Honestly, though, who else is there? (and that was quick, so I probably left someone off)

(Oh, and signing Gordon would actually make it easier to bring in Dwyane Wade, in my opinion.)

by tyger1147 on Aug 9, 2008 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

But it doesn't have to be at SG

If we improve at PF or C then we can get T Hassle to play SG

by hlac on Aug 9, 2008 4:14 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sure, but I was addressing a specific point.

And Gordon wouldn’t “hinder” the team from getting a better player somewhere else—at least, not on his own since it seems the Bulls are have four of their five possible starters situated. At least for the next two years.

by tyger1147 on Aug 10, 2008 5:00 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Granger is very good

I gotta get to bed and I wanna reply thoughtfully to your post, but quickly I’ll just say that both Granger and Iguodala are much better than Ben Gordon. Not only do they score more, they play great defense and do more on the floor than Gordon.

THAT is the sort of player you want at SG, not a guy who does role player stuff—instant offense and 3’s. Yeah, Iggy ain’t a good shooter, but you can get a good shooter easy and his offense won’t hurt your team. He’s a playmaking SG and can defend anyone—that’s more important than a good jumper that he could still develop.

And with Granger, it ain’t even close. He’s good and would fit very, very well with the Bulls but I hope my Blazers steal him first.

In case it takes a while for me to get back, I’ll try to sum up my thoughts: I think it’s much easier than you think it is to get a better SG in the draft or through free agency. Kevin Martin, Granger, both taken mid-1st round and Gay was taken at #9. Someone always slips and you guys could very well be back in the lottery and in prime position for a player of that caliber who also plays both ways.

I don’t think Gordon is bad, at all. He’s just more on the role player side of stardom and he wants a lot more money than better players than him get, from the same age group and position. He isn’t going to be the best player on a good team but he wants best player money. Drastically overpaying a player who isn’t worth overpayment never, ever, ever ends well.

Mortimer

Ps: You like McCants that much to even put him on this list? I know you made it quickly, but you must really like undersized SGs who only score if you like him. He’s got that dreaded bad attitude, thinks he’s a top dogg, and is EXTREMELY available. Minny been trying to trade him since last year.

Hell, if you lose Gordon and you think McCants is up there, you can get him for SCRAPS, easy. With Foye (his PG experiment won’t last), Mike Miller, Telfair, and the franchise not liking Rashad, he’s gettable but teams don’t like his attitude.

He can shoot though!

by Mortimer on Aug 10, 2008 5:15 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Correction:

Gay was drafted #8.

And one more thing: I know you say if you draft a SG better than Gordon you’ll just trade Gordon, but his contract doesn’t exist in a vacuum. You’ll have to pay someone that money and the ripple effect his deal creates seems to make it harder to improve the team with good role players because of the luxury tax until then.

But what you say is pretty much what I’m saying: SIGN HIM, but keep it short. Try to draft or somehow obtain a better SG. With a short deal, he is very tradeable to pretty much anyone. A long deal, and you’re getting a less-bad version of the Wallace for Hughes deal.

I guess I should just end by saying that I know I won’t convince you that signing Gordon to the money he wants is a bad idea, and that’s fine by me. You like the guy and I know I got my own favorites.

He is a very efficient scorer, but in my opinion scoring is easy to get from somewhere. He doesn’t do the rest of what a winning SG does (and neither do Redd, Ray Allen, Melo, Monta, etc—but they score more than he does, which still doesn’t make up for their inadequacies but is still sumthin’).

More importantly, he doesn’t seem to do the things a winning leader does, or a winning ‘best player on a team’. He’s very good, but within a limited skill set.

Overpaying scorers is a mistake repeated every year in the NBA.

But again, I ain’t here to convince ya really, just sharing my thoughts.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Aug 10, 2008 5:27 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

As you said, Gordon's contract doesn't exist in a vacuum.

For those players who become FA’s in 2010 how do they get the most money? It’s by re-signing w/ their own team, right? Because they get an extra year added on?

Let’s take my favorite example because it’s the most likely to happen (of any of them): Dwyane Wade coming to Chicago. He’s from here. Loves it here. Would probably love to play w/ another native Chicagoan in a backcourt.

The Bulls have two options to acquire him:

A) get enough cap space and sign him outright

-or—
B) acquire him in a sign-and-trade

A) is possible but very difficult now that they’ve signed Deng. They would have to find a couple of teams that would offer them 2010-expiring contracts and would take Hinrich and Nocioni. It’s possible, but very, very difficult. Plus, if wade really values security and that extra year more than coming to the Chicago, he could still do a sign-and-trade somewhere else. Plus, the Bulls will, undoubtedly, be a worse team in the interim. How much is up for debate, but that they would be worse isn’t.

B) OTOH, if the Bulls want to do a sign-and-trade for Wade, they’ll likely be offering a max contract and thus have to match salaries. If they don’t sign Gordon and keep Nocioni and Hinrich, they’ll have only three players to be able to trade to make up a large part of the salary: Hinrich, Nocioni and Deng (Thomas would still be a BYC, making it difficult to include him).

Deng would be the most attractive piece, of course. If the Bulls only want to give up one starter (not Thomas, Noah or Rose) then it would be Deng and Hinrich/Nocioni. That wouldn’t be horrible for either team, but only if Thomas and/or Noah turn into as a good of a player as Deng. Otherwise, they’d be saddled w/ trying to find a probably-expensive replacement to Deng. If Thomas/Noah turn out to be really, really good, then it works out for the Bulls. However, as much as I like Thomas, I hesitate to bank on the difference between the Bulls being a good team and a great team on Tyrus Thomas.

So let’s say the Bulls say “No” to trading Deng in their planning for the future “right now”. Does Miami want a 29 year-old Hinrich, a 30-year-old Nocioni and say, someone like Thomas and Noah and possibly a draft pick for Dwyane Wade? I suppose they could, but would the remaining two years of both of those players’ services be worth trading w/ the Bulls over the other teams? Of course, this also means the Bulls can’t trade Hinrich or Nocioni in the interim because then they wouldn’t have enough salaries to match.

In a third option, let’s say Gordon $12 million for 3 more years, age 27, Joakim Noah, whatever rookie they draft next year or the following, and a draft pick or two. I think it's possible, but really hard, to debate that Gordon for three more years at 12 is worse than Hinrich or Nocioni for two more years @ ~8.5 and 6.5, respectively. Especially if Chalmers turns into a legitimate PG. If Beasley does what everyone expects and Chalmers becomes a starter, the Bulls could hand the Heat two under-28 starters, just like that. I’m sure it’s possible, but it’s hard for me to imagine another team coming up w/ a better package in that context.

And, of course, this deal is also best for the Bulls. It allows them to trade Nocioni and Hinrich for better pieces in the interim—either in terms of talent, youth or length of contracts. It also allows the Bulls to be a better team in 2009 and 2010. And giving up Gordon and Noah while trading Nocioni and Hinrich for better or cheaper role players (or smaller contracts), is certainly better than giving up Gordon, Noah, Hinrich and Nocioni.

I’m sure there are mistakes and incongruent thoughts in there, but I don’t care that much to proofread and correct. So I apologize if something there doesn’t really make sense.

by tyger1147 on Aug 10, 2008 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Didn’t Wade, Lebron, and Bosh all sign shorter term deals last time they got extended… so that they could be free agents sooner and sign bigger deals.

I don’t think it’s crazy to assume they would make that decision again.

by kidronmusic on Aug 10, 2008 11:32 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

So you agree? There's basically only 1 or 2 guys out there...

...better than Gordon that should be somewhat available (we won’t know about Granger). Granger isn’t a shooting guard anyway. Iggy is better as a SF, but is adequate at SG. And those are the only two options?

And dismissing Iggy’s ability to shoot completely ignores Derrick Rose’s best ability. If all they have are non-shooting bigs and PG, SG, SF that are best at slashing to the hoop, the other team will simply “pack it in”. Yeah, you could bring guys like Hinrich or Nocioni or J.J. Redick in off the bench, but then how much are you playing them? And if those are your two guys (and 3-pt specialists like Kapono make pretty good change, too) you’re paying a whole HELL of a lot of money just to make up for short comings.

(And no, I don’t think McCants is that good. I actually only threw him on there because he shot well and he was younger, and I figured you’d throw something ridiculous like him out there.)

by tyger1147 on Aug 10, 2008 4:26 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I remember...
And you don’t remember the Benny Bull to the Airport fiasco to know that there is no "lure" to Chicago. It’s fucking cold in the winter.

I remember, but I think that also had a lot more to do with Krause and company running MJ out of town… whether that’s what really happened or not, that was the perception. And MJ was still around to badmouth Krause.

I don’t think anybody really cares about that any more. And I think our roster is much more attractive now. Even after last seasons debacle, it’s a lot more attractive than the days of Curry, Fizer, Basden, Crawford, Michael Ruffin, ... etc…

by kidronmusic on Aug 9, 2008 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

If BG was about 5 inches taller

this would not be a debate

Homecoming

by illwill on Aug 8, 2008 9:56 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

But his length

He’s got a 6’8” wing span or standing reach…something like that…so his actual height should have nothing to do with it. Or maybe it’s because he plays like he’s 6’2”.

by ronmexibull on Aug 8, 2008 10:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

He'd play the same way if he was 6'11

Height doesn’t directly correlate with the way one plays the game. Thus, why the Michael Redd/Ray Allen comparison holds weight with Ben Gordon.

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 8, 2008 11:21 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

And if my grandma had a weiner

I wouldn’t be attracted to her.

BG isn’t 5 inches taller, so it is an issue.

If, save for height, he’s comparable with Ray Allen or Michael Redd, can he average what they average over a 82 game season? Can he at least hinder opposing guard’s shots? I think he’s a terrific shooter and tries his best on defense, but physical limitations are real and he doesn’t seem to contribute a lot more than scoring—and is he an elite enough scorer to make his deficiencies worth it?

You guys know more about him than me, but bringing up stuff he isn’t and lamenting the fact people focus on what he is doesn’t do any good. If Larry Hughes didn’t suck he’d be awesome. In Ben Gordon had won the MVP last season no one would argue against re-signing him.

Mortimer

by Mortimer on Aug 9, 2008 2:50 AM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

The answer to those questions appears to be yes,

at least from what I’ve been reading here [which is probably biased, lol]. He tries, and his arms/jumping is enough so that he can get a hand in someone’s face if he is in correct position [which, to be fair, is the main problem for him: lateral movement on D]. He at least tries on D, unlike Redd.
Also, your relationship with your grandma seems kind of creepy. Eck.

by Prevenge on Aug 9, 2008 3:10 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Right. Maybe Gordon sucks on lateral movement...

...but maybe Redd and Allen are a split-second worse.

by tyger1147 on Aug 9, 2008 2:53 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Redd just doesn't try. His defensive problems seem more effort related than anything

which I think is worse. BG tries and is better on D than Redd. He also can score in a similar vein to Redd, but not quite so well.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 9, 2008 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The "production" on defense is similar.

If he doesn’t do it by the “hand-in-the-face” theory of excellent defense, then he does it by being stronger and bumping guys as they try to go around him. Or by slapping their hands. Or by anticipating slightly better than Allen or Redd on dribble-drives. How close to the ceiling one’s head is isn’t the only determinate of defense.

by tyger1147 on Aug 9, 2008 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well... look at Allen and Redd

At the same time you’re saying Allen and Redd seem to be more valuable, you should consider how little success those two players had over the past couple of years (obviously before Allen got traded to Boston).

Look at Allen’s last couple years in Seattle. Good stats, bad team. He wasn’t exactly being talked about as an MVP level player.

Most guys aren’t. But that doesn’t mean they can’t be very very good, and can’t play a key role in winning for you.

As the other guys have said above, I don’t see any practical difference in (quality) of play between Allen and Gordon when you look in depth. Allen’s older and takes more shots, but that’s about it.

IMO, the right way of looking at things would be to say that we can probably get player who’s every bit the player that Allen and Redd are for a fraction of what they cost.

by Sports2 on Aug 9, 2008 7:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Which just shows how dumb it is...

...that the distance from the ground to the top of one’s head as a measuring stick is.

by tyger1147 on Aug 9, 2008 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Doom and Gloom for Gordon>>ALREADY???

I wouldnt read into alot of what was quoted, i mean if i remember correctly didnt kobe make a similar quote “Get the Jersey Ready fellas” last year to indicate he was coming to chicago, yea…that panned out well. I th ink this is more of ben gordon saying what his agent told him to say to media, im sure thats how agents work. They tell thier clients to say certain things in media outlets to get management worried and hurry them to act. Id think it would be more logical to wait for some real official news that hits espn’s headlines before freaking out over a simple quote.

I kind of find it funny, some of the reactions on this thread, like some of matts comments. It sort of reminds me of the day we got the first pick of the draft, all the way until …well still. I think we are all bulls fans here so there should never be a question of if we are or not, but im sure we all have our favorites, and since we are bulls fans it makes sense that our top favorite players will probably be on this team, and so it is kind of painful when you come to a point when a player you think the team needs, is being tossed to the wayside (which isnt true yet). Of course im sure matt will probably think “its nothing like losing kirk, cuz ben is 1000x better” :)

Even if that worst case scenerio happens, and ben gordon is gone (really i dont think that will happen) i think this team will still be fine. I know ben gordons lack of presence will be huge next year. I remember going to the bulls v suns (in chicago and wasnt televised cuz it was sunday) and the game was real close, and hinrich did a decent job offensively however the bulls lost, and i remember turning to my friend and saying, “if ben gordon were here we wouldve won, larry hughes sucks ass and thabo is too raw.” I think those points will remain but at that time we were being coached by boylan and thats gotta be a negetive impact, not to mention almost every player was having a bad year (or at least the ones that are usually good). If deng remains healthy, and if kirk can be as effective as he was in the playoffs (the wizards series, both heat series, and game 5 of the piston series will show hinrich being at the very least a good defender, floor general (which is not the same as a leader) and good enough shooter to knock down big shots when the team needed them) and plus gradual improvement from thabo, noah, and some signs of superstar rose….i dont think we will be contending for anything, but i dont think the team will be offensively inept or unintresting.
I dont know what will take place this season, but its WAY WAY too early to be all gloomy before even preseason begins. Ive been holding onto it all offseason, and i hope every bulls fan finds some as well to hold onto. Its gonna be a bumpy ride, but we will eventually make it. Just hold onto it….that thing called hope.

And now just to meet all summer requirements a quote from the movie of this summer:
“They say its darkest just before dawn, well, I Promise you the Dawn is Coming!”-The White Knight

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 9, 2008 2:15 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

If Josh Smith is worth 58 mil for 5 years then Gordon is worth less.

No way is Gordon going o be paid more than what Josh Smith received. Gordon needs a shot of reality. Sign and trade? I can see the trade part but no one is going to sign him for more than what Josh Smith received. The QO will be a very risky thing for Gordon. If he signs for the QO the Bulls may really attempt to give Thabo more minutes. I thought Thabo played well when he got minutes last year. Gordon needs to listen to what the market is saying to him. Ben you are probably worth 8-9 mil a year. If you get a 5 year deal at that amount take it.

by chgobr on Aug 9, 2008 5:47 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I don't get the megalomaniac and big head stuff

People keep throwing around this crap like “he wants to make more than Larry Hughes” this season, but that’s mostly inference.

The Bulls are steadfastly offering deals that Ben would be wise to turn down because he’s likely to make at least as much somewhere else.

It ain’t Larry Hughes we’re talking about here. the Bulls are offering substantially less than they offered to Deng, substantially less than they offered to Hinrich, and basically the same amount they offered to Noc.

Consider a thought experiment:
1. Do we win more with Noc or Gordon this year?
I think we’d clearly win more with Gordon.

2. Do we win more with Hinrich or Gordon this year?
Again, I think Kirk can be replaced in the role he fills. I don’t see us maintaining our wins of we tried to “replace” Ben with Kirk and Hughes and Thabo.

3. Do we win more with Deng or Gordon this year?
I think we’re worse without either of them, but I don’t think we’d be totally hosed playing the year with Thabo/Noc/Tyrus at the 3. We’d still get fairly decent production out of that position. On the other hand, we’ll be in bad shape at the 2 with Hughes/Kirk/Thabo. I say worse without Gordon at the 2 than without Deng at the 3.

by Sports2 on Aug 9, 2008 8:57 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The labels are assuming the inference is correct

which Ben himself seems to be supporting with the constant references to himself as the team’s leading scorer. You get the impression that he himself places a premium on that designation, otherwise, why keep referring to himself as that?

1. Gordon, clearly, but that’s not the choice here. We’re not signing one or the other. And they’ve attempted to deal Noce in the past, but not necessarily to free up money for BG. Just because there may be available cap money doesn’t mean they feel BG is worth that extra cap money. If what is said is true, you don’t pay BG $12-$13m just because you have it and can. He has to be determined to be worth it.

2. Who will play the backup PG? What if Rose needs more time? Hinirich is currently the only other guard who can really play PG. So you keep Gordon and ditch Hinrich and you have one point guard and three shooting guards. If the Bulls can somehow swap Hinrich for Gordon and still get a backup PG, then this would work but now we’re throwing on scenario after scenario that has to happen. That backup PG would have to expect little to no minutes though otherwise the backcourt gets even more crowded.

3. If I could only realistically sign one of these two guys, it would be Deng, especially if it would be cheaper to sign Deng than BG, which by all accounts I’m hearing, is the case.

by messwiththebull on Aug 9, 2008 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

bring back Mike Wilks!

it does suck a bit that this Gordon thing means the free-agent PG market is dried up, but getting a backup PG is not that big of an issue. You only need someone for 5-10 minutes, and the emergency PGs are Ben and Thabo.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 9, 2008 11:24 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

they could even deal Hinrich for Haslem (who's being shopped again, for a PG no less)

take back Marcus Banks and send out Ced Simmons and they save money and have a backup PG who is clearly a backup to Rose and isn’t going to be competing for signifcant minutes, which is, in my view, the way it should be. The saved money from that deal helps the Bulls resign BG. This isn’t that hard, really it isn’t.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 9, 2008 3:38 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's so freakin' OBVIOUS!

Look at all the deals that have gone down, or didn’t so guys went to Europe. In spite of this, and the fact they the shopping season ended and there is no more money left out there, BEN GORDON just doesn’t get it.
Maybe in his heart-of-hearts he gets it, and he is sort of whistling in the dark. But realistically, he ain’t gonna ANYTHING CLOSE to what he said no to once already.
He can keep repeating his scoring stats like a mantra, but, if you wanna discuss everything about the guy’s game, ok, let’s do that:
Small, defensive-liability, can’t/doesn’t pass, gets pressured into turnovers with double teams too easily-especially late in games, cannot play PG position whatsoever, is either hot or not, when not, does little else than miss shots.
So, 50 Million for 5? That’s even TOO GENEROUS!
He is a role player, a 6th man, 7th on some teams.
Ben, STFU, and he BETTER NOT DOG IT, or play for stats to entice takers. If he does this, VDN should sit his butt down for a couple of MONTHS.
Big deal, Ben Gordon can get hot.
Remember Vinnie The Microwave Johnson?
Also, one-dimensional, role player. And, Gordon at 25 is basically what you see is what you get, he ain’t gonna kick up his D, or become a passer, no. He is what he is.
I feel ambivalent, if they sign him, ok, if he gets away, ok.
Why the press is on this story so much I don’t get. Like he was a franchise player. S L O W N E W S D A Y in hoops lately, I guess.
Lastly, WHY does PaxDorf insist that the BG must be “resolved” before looking at any other deals? Bulls miss out on every chance for any deal, WAITING FOR BG situation to “resolve”. Funny is, it is quite CLEAR that the Bulls could care less about whether he stays or goes. They are just playing a game with him, and using him as the reason no F/A deals or trades pursued.
But ain’t gonna give him Deng-Dollars. No way. It was a bit too much for Deng, but, at least he does more. And better do a BIT MORE now. Like defend, rebound, hit 3s for starters.
But in the end, I’d STILL rather keep BG than Hinrich, who I do not imagine having any better of a year this year, but, maybe worse actually.
Oh, and get rid of Nocioni as well. “spirited play” and “flopping” ain’t gonna take the Bulls anywhere. He is just a year older now too.

by rtblues on Aug 9, 2008 11:54 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

McGraw says

the Bulls are offering Gordon “a deal in the range of $59 million over six years”

Reached Friday, Gordon said the pessimistic tone of his quote was correct, but he still has no idea how his contract negotiations will play out.

This is turning into the ultimate game of chicken.

by NormVanBeer on Aug 9, 2008 12:16 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Griz: friends to agents 'round the world

I guess it’s at least a reputation.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 9, 2008 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Gordon isn't worth more than $10MM per year.

I am not sure how much more he is looking for.

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

by 1958ChiTown on Aug 9, 2008 4:01 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

He should have taken

the offer last year and he wouldn’t be putting himself through all of this.

Good luck Shawn Johnson, Lolo Jones and Doug Schwab. Bring home the gold!!!

by sue369 on Aug 9, 2008 6:09 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Deng should have as well.

In fact, only Bulls players should just take what they are offered without negotiation and be happy they are getting paid at all. God, this is getting so old.

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 9, 2008 9:16 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The BG drama

is getting old very fast.

Good luck Shawn Johnson, Lolo Jones and Doug Schwab. Bring home the gold!!!

by sue369 on Aug 9, 2008 11:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good but still not what they offered him last year.

They need to make at least 5/$51M to get him.
6/$59M is equivalent to 5/$47M. Which, again, is less than he was offered last year.

by Sports2 on Aug 9, 2008 7:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Can't they offer him more without bumping into the luxury tax, like, right NOW?

Offering him the same as last year makes sense here. Otherwise, it’s just being spiteful.

by Prevenge on Aug 9, 2008 8:02 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nope

If they offer him more they’ll hit the luxury tax threshold.

Of course, they only actually have to pay the luxury tax if they can’t unload any more salary over the course of the year.

by Sports2 on Aug 9, 2008 8:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

which should be fairly easy to do

teams do it all the time. but it would require Pax, you know, picking up the phone and being pro-active, so you know it’s not happening.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 9, 2008 8:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

One would think so

One idea I came up with the other day was Simmons and Hughes to New York for Malik Rose and Jerome James.

That saves us $722k in salary for this season, which would let us offer Ben a contract starting at $8.5M, which is 5yrs and $51.4M, so a little bit more than we offered him last summer.

I could see the Knicks using Hughes and they ain’t gonna use the guys they give up. It’s expensive for them next season however (they lose Rose’s expiring deal). We, on the other hand, could at least use a couple bigs who don’t blow over in a stiff wind. Of course, Jerome James is classically awful and Rose, while supposedly a good locker room guy, hasn’t played much in the last couple years.

Still, that solves our backcourt problem and

by Sports2 on Aug 9, 2008 9:12 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Even without Gordon, the Bulls will be better this year than last.

They won’t be coached by a tyrant they despise.

They won’t be coached by an incompetent lame duck.

They won’t have to deal with the distraction of a mid-season coaching change.

They won’t have Ben Wallace acting as a malignant tumor in the locker room.

Noah will start at center rather than an aging ex-Piston.

Tyrus will get more consistent playing time.

Noah and Tyrus will both be a year older and more mature.

Luol will (presumably) be healthy. And he won’t be pouting over failed contract negotiations.

Hinrich will (presumably) return to form.

And, if Gordon goes, he will simply be replaced in the backcourt by the number one overall draft pick, Derrick Rose.

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

by 1958ChiTown on Aug 9, 2008 4:06 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

i don´t understand why everyone is so obsessed with getting something for gordon...

...the bulls are tired of relying on streaky jumpers for point production and the fact that no team wants to sign him, or arrange for a sign and trade for him says it all. yes he was are leading scorer for 3 of the past 4 years, but where did it get us? the second round of the play offs, which is not good enough for me. ben has proved time and time again that he can not create his own shot of the dribble , he is pure spot shooter and that´s not what we need, because no one on the bulls gets doubled down low.

by jocrucial on Aug 9, 2008 5:34 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Rose will get doubled when he breaks down defenses. That's when spot-up shooters help

look at Peja and CP3 and Korver and Deron Williams. There’s more than one way to draw a double team. Also, Ben can create his own shot, he’s been doing it for 4 years and putting up an very efficient 18 ppg.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 9, 2008 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Then make an offer for Reddick

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Aug 9, 2008 6:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

and Gordon is more than just a spot up shooter,

but I was dismissing the notion that even if BG is just a spot up shooter, he still certainly would have a lot of value alongside Rose. Add to that that he’s much more than a spot up shooter and he has a lot of value.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 9, 2008 7:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think that'd actually be a decent idea,

trade someone like Cedric Simmons for Redick. He’s obviously not playing there.
This would not, however make Gordon expendable. You think Gordon needs to be subbed in and out because of defense? You haven’t seen anything yet …

by Prevenge on Aug 9, 2008 8:04 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

but

redick’s like 5 inches taller!

by kite on Aug 9, 2008 11:20 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Height's not a concern.

All I want is someone to hang around the 3point line and catch Rose’s bail-outs—like Hodges, Paxson and Kerr used to do.

Redick can play that role just fine…the Korver role. In fact, their per 36 stats are remarkably similar. Korver plays about 20 minutes, Redick so far about 10.

I don’t want some who thinks he’s the focal point of the offense. That’s gonna be Rose.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Aug 9, 2008 11:54 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

why not have a better player

I want the best possible guys out there and Gordon is way better than Redick. And if you can only play Redick like 20 minutes a game who are you giving the other 28 minutes to at the 2 spot?

by fundamentallysound on Aug 10, 2008 12:50 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Historically, the Bulls gain in +/- by playing Thabo.

I’d start with him.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Aug 10, 2008 12:52 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

historically,

you mean that ten game sample you came up with earlier in the thread? nothing like adventures in small sample size to prove a point. historically, BG’s been a net positive to adjusted +/- with the lone exception of this year. Thabo on the other hand has been a net negative this year and last.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 10, 2008 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

According to 82games.com

Thabo was a +1,9 net pp100pos last season while Gordon was -7,7 (by far the worst on the team. Gooden was second worse with -3,2)

It wont be so bad if we lose him.

by BAB-Bass on Aug 10, 2008 11:53 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

adjusted plus minus tells us more about players

than the 82games numbers and that was last year. Also Thabo played limited minutes and it’s unlikely that he’ll be able to sustain +1.9 net pp100 poss. over longer minutes. Also, his adjusted plus minus was 4 something. Ben’s has been historically been positive, with the exception of this year when he was -9.88 (an outlier which given how noisy an estimate adjusted +/ is indicates that it’s probably not accurate). Thabo was basically a wash when he was on the court his rookie year by adj. +/- around a 0 (league average), but slightly negative and this year he was like I said a -4. So chances are that he’s a negative out there.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 10, 2008 12:11 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

* should be was -4 something, not 4 something,

he’s a negative when he’s out there. no matter how much we might want him to be something else (M2GWCDaS).

by fundamentallysound on Aug 10, 2008 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

yup

Although 82games doesn’t endorse individual net per 100 as a valuable metric. Raw, or semi-raw per possession +/- is only useful when looking at 5 man units.

by hscs on Aug 10, 2008 12:32 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

don't tell that to Thabo supporters.

I wish people actually read about the stats they used to bolster their arguments before just firing them out there.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 10, 2008 12:36 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's funny to me that you feel these numbers

are a fluke for BG but then turn around and use them for Thabo.

But’s thats your perogative. I don’t really care.

by BAB-Bass on Aug 10, 2008 4:29 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

adjusted plus minus is different than the pure plus minus you

are referring to from 82 games. Adjusted plus minus accounts for the teammates on the court with the player and subtracts them out. Unadjusted plus minus (which you referenced) doesn’t do that.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 10, 2008 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Let's not forget

that in addition, Gordon has fun playing with the second team because he’s pigeonholed as a sixth man: and the second team is [hopefully] worse than the first team.

by Prevenge on Aug 10, 2008 11:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

As tyger has told us many times, Gordon is an all-time top ten 3 point shooter.

Let’s see how he compares with Redick.

Per 36, Gordon makes 2.3 three pointers, while Redick makes 2.2. They each take about 5.5 per 36.

Gordon shoots them at 41.6%, while Redick shoots them at 39%.

In practical terms, this means that for every 40 attempts, Gordon makes one more than Redick. At a pace of 5.5 attempts per game, every 7th or so game Gordon would make one more three pointer.

How much money is that worth?

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Aug 10, 2008 12:51 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It might be worthwhile to consider that Redick has shot

39% on 141 3PA and a 19.6 USG%, and Gordon has shot his 41.6% on 1434 3PA and a 28.0 USG%. Or that J.J. doesn’t play on a team where SG is the weakest position. Of course the real difference between Gordon and Redick is 3 point shooting, it’s that Redick makes Gordon look like a complete player. I still can’t believe Redick is the player you choose to have an irrational love affair. Must be the poetry. I almost didn’t bother to post because it would only be cruel to try to separate the two of you at this point.

by Scotter on Aug 10, 2008 4:58 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I look at Redick

primarily as an inexpensive alternative.

I don’t want Gordon doing what he used to do.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Aug 10, 2008 8:16 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

They're .400 with Gordon and .400 without Gordon.

Maybe they should take some of that Gordon money and put it somplace where it’ll help the team win a few more games.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Aug 10, 2008 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

SMALL SAMPLE SIZE

it proves nothing that they went .400 in a 10 game period without him and with him the other 72 games they also went .400. That could have happened by pure chance with a pretty good probability. It’s also best not to base anything on this year because it was pretty fluke-y / weird / deviated from everything we’ve seen from these guys in the past.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 10, 2008 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Would you say it's flukey that they scored less without Gordon?

Or that they defended better with Thabo?

My guess is that most would say that neither of those is at all a fluke…even though we’re only talking about 10 games.

One might reasonably wonder what one can call a fluke and what one cannot.

The .400 winning percentages, given the scoring differentials, seem to make perfect sense to me…and my guess is that if the games were split 41 and 41, they each would have won 16 to 18.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Aug 10, 2008 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

you're dealing in extremely small sample sizes

so much so that it’s not worthwhile to really analyze it. You can go with your “guess” that even if it were 41 games that it’d be the same, but that ignores the statistical probability that it wouldn’t be the same given that Gordon is much better than Thabo.

by fundamentallysound on Aug 10, 2008 4:36 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

They don't need 5 expensive guards

they need some help at 4 or 5. Trade Hughes!

by hhirb on Aug 10, 2008 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks to the great link provided by hscs

it seems likely that with more use Redick’s numbers should only improve.

You say Redick makes Gordon look like a complete player…EXACTLY!

We all know how incomplete a player Gordon is. In an ideal world, all you’d want Gordon to do is stand around the three point line—which is preciseley what I’d want from Redick.

As Mortimer and many other non-Gordon-smitten posters have said, Gordon is not a primary piece you’d build around for a championship team.

But he has his uses…which, if they can be filled at half the price, I’d much rather do.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Aug 10, 2008 9:11 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Go ahead and name me the last "primary piece" of a championship team...

...to make less than $13 million per year. (or… the equivalent ~ 65% of the general range of max-player salaries)

........

...........

................

...........

........

Find him yet?

........

...........

................

...........

........

Still looking?

by tyger1147 on Aug 10, 2008 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

attitude boy 1...

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Aug 10, 2008 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

and attitude boy 2.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Aug 10, 2008 6:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

better than Reddick-love

My only regret is that others still feel the need to humor your ‘arguments’, especially that I’m starting to think that you can’t possibly believe such silly points, and simply desire any type of interaction.

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

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 10, 2008 6:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

If Gordon is gone by the beginning of the season

I expect you’ll get over it pretty quickly. As clear as you’ve made it that you’re a Gordon fan, you’ve made it more clear on many more occassions that you’re a Bulls fan.

The Bulls would be better off with Gordon than without him. But there are ways to make up for his absence—this is all I’ve been attempting to point out.

As far as what you call my Redick-love…I don’t particularly care about Redick. I’m fine with any player who can come in and hit an open three. I’m only pointing out Redick because I think he could do it.

You might as well call out my Thabo-love. I think he’s already shown (yes, in small, marginally significant stretches) that he might have the components of a pretty well-rounded game.

If the Bulls can add a situational three-point shooter they’ll be better off than they would be throwing a boatload of money at Gordon.

Dum spiro spero! (While there is life, there’s hope!)--Leon Trotsky

by alec on Aug 10, 2008 7:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Ummm....

I know Alec isn’t the most popular kid in this cafeteria, but this seems to make sense…

The Bulls would be better off with Gordon than without him. But there are ways to make up for his absence—this is all I’ve been attempting to point out.

And I have gone on record with my Redick love… and not because I think he is an awesome NBA future all-star… but more because I think he could be had for cheap, would fit in a rotation with Thabo, and has a killer outside shot.

I’m not saying he’s better than Gordon, but I am saying I think that if we lose Gordon, then a player like Redick has a place on our team.

And, JJ Redick isn’t a complete offensive player, but he does more than just catch and shoot, he can shoot off the dribble, and shoot off the screen. Basically, he shoots, really well.

by kidronmusic on Aug 10, 2008 11:50 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Interestingly enough ...

looking at Redick’s splits between home/away, his away split is all red, and his home split has a bunch fo blue. might just be randomness because he never gets any time, but I’d have to feel he isn’t too comfortable in Orlando either.

by Prevenge on Aug 11, 2008 12:07 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

if thabo

can develop a damn consistent 3 point shooting, who needs ben gordon?

when are we going to add a 7th championship?

by broseleay301 on Aug 10, 2008 1:37 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

another quick point...

just because we sign ben to a qualifying offer does not mean that we will not be able to resign him next year when the bulls are working with a little more cheddar. ben has proven through the whole contract negotation process that he is all about the $$$. if the bulls offer him the most money next year he will definitely stay put.

by jocrucial on Aug 10, 2008 4:04 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

ahem...

That’s not a point. The QO is a long goodbye, and it kills trade value.

by hscs on Aug 10, 2008 4:30 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

All about the $$$?

Actually I think he’s showing he’s not all about the $$$. If he were all about the $$$, in any purely calculating sense, he’d simply take the most recent Bulls offer.

Although it’s still significantly less than what they offered him last year, it’s a lot of cash, so much so that it’s to the point where it’s not all that sensible to keep holding out. It’s pretty close to what he can expect to make by not signing.

So to me, it’s more likely that he’s not signing it because he’s sick of being the guy to take one for the team on a team that doesn’t ever seem to take one for him.

by Sports2 on Aug 10, 2008 6:53 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

This story/situation is SOOO played out

How tiring to continue reading hundreds of posts regarding BG and his contract, or lack of one.

Can’t someone just say it?

Ben Gordon is not the key to the Bulls or any other team’s success or failure. He is a role player, period, the end.

Now, the trick is to NOT overpay yet another guy, (Nocioni, Hinrich, Hughes, and arguably even Deng), but instead get some other team to take him and get an ASSET in return.

I do think simply losing him for NADA is just stupid, considering that they drafted him and invested in him.

So, how does a guy like that, and don’t forget, Ben Gordon led the team in scoring (don’t worry, Ben won’t let you forget it anyway!), get let go for nothing at all. Seems like bad business…

Rather than play the game of, “Our bad contract or situation for yours”, ala Hughes-Wallace, if they cannot find a GOOD fit with a S&T, or somehow get a piece that makes sense, then, OK, let him walk.

If Rose is what I think he is, nobody is gonna sit around crying for the loss of Ben Gordon, and when you watch him on another team being forced into a turnover with a double-team, or get toasted by taller guards, well, you get it…

Let’s see, about BG’s 19 pts a game the Bulls will lose if he departs for nothing in return: Well, how about it if the existing 5 starters improve by about 4 WHOPPING points a game?
If last years was a fluke for some of these guys who had down years, the surely having a real PG doesn’t make it sound like such a mountain to climb anymore. Lots of teams lost big scorers and scored about the same number points following the loss of a big scorer.

In Ben’s case, if he does leave, maybe whoever plays his minutes will not give up so many points and turn it over as much.

Thing is, the TEAMS IN THE LEAGUE have spoken, with their actions, or non-actions in Ben’s case. There is no better barometer of value and worth than this.

Thousands of posts arguing become moot when the teams in the NBA and Europe, for that matter have simply NOT STEPPED UP to offer BG the money he seeks.

WHY?

by rtblues on Aug 11, 2008 5:53 AM CDT reply actions   1 recs

Sometimes I think the same guy just writes the same post under a new screen name

every few days. I wouldn’t be surprised if he works in the Berto center :)

Maybe we should offer the league minimum to Andre Iguodala while we’re at it. Clearly the TEAMS IN THE LEAGUE have spoken, with their actions, or non-actions in Andre’s case. There is no better barometer of value and worth than this.

For that matter, John Paxson Gar Foreman and Jerry Reinsdorf should be fired for offering Deng such a ridiculous contract when no other TEAMS IN THE LEAGUE had spoken.

by Sports2 on Aug 11, 2008 7:06 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

now that's unfair

and something i don’t believe to be correct.

we haven’t heard of any teams pursuing any of these restricted free agents except in maybe a blurb here or there. no one has the money to offer them anything, all (except the grizz) spent their cap space early.

i think there’s been more behind the scenes than we know.

by Jaina on Aug 11, 2008 7:34 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think we can consider that to have been a sarcastic reply by Sports2

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 11, 2008 8:18 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

sorry

i read it while half asleep :)

by Jaina on Aug 11, 2008 8:36 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

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

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

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
The Time is Now to Trade Deng

Recent FanPosts

Small
What the Bulls are missing
Jayhawk_small
Game Preview # 12 - Bulls @ Nuggets
Blackstar_small
Plan B: if the Bulls fail to sign a FA superstar at the 2 or the 4 spots...
Small
How About A Whole New Plan?
Small
Game Preview #10: Chicago Bulls vs. Los Angeles Lakers
Small
Rose Problem: Trying too hard to please Vinny and "teammates"
Small
Your thought on a GS-Chi Ellis A-R for Kirk TT trade dreams
Jjohnson
What's going on in Derrick Rose's head?
Drose2_small
what i'd do as GM right now...

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Guy who does everything

Blogabull_s_small your friendly BullsBlogger