New Sam Smith column on BG

[From the FanShots (you guys are fast). I don't agree with all of his points, but it's good to see Sam talking Bulls. -ed.]

Sam is back on HoopsHype with a little 'insight' on Ben Gordon-gate. Pretty entertaining, as usual.

about 1 year ago kig 50 comments 1 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Great read

Hope he’s right with BG signing again.

“…just about every city the Bulls land in Gordon gets off the plane and heads directly to a gym to shoot.”

It would really suck to lose him >_<

by Wake on Sep 19, 2008 9:00 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Supports the view Benny has two choices, the Bulls or nothing

Hmm which way is he going? Ben insisted he didn’t want the QO that leaves the Bulls offer, which I continue to feel is too high, of 6/$59. The good news from the column is that Sam seems to respect Gordon and his work ethic. Sam also acknowledges that Ben Wallace’s presence negatively impacted BG.

I’ve traveled with the Chicago Bulls on and off the last few years and just about every city the Bulls land in Gordon gets off the plane and heads directly to a gym to shoot. There are few guys in the NBA who practice as much, certainly not on their shooting. Every summer, Bulls coaches rave about all the work Gordon has put in.

And then it turns out he’s still six feet tall.

No one on that Bulls team gets as much defensive attention, so it didn’t go so well with Ben Wallace averaging $15 million. Geez, and the guy can’t make a layup.

by chgobr on Sep 19, 2008 10:03 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Couldn't agree with him Sam more

Maybe instead of asking the Bulls why they can’t shell out a few more million, we can ask Ben why he can’t “settle” for a few million less than he (and he alone) thinks he’s worth.

by CJ Bulls on Sep 19, 2008 10:05 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

man, i miss sammy!

the only thing that articled crazy trade scenarios…

by jocrucial on Sep 19, 2008 10:11 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Amen!

That was my overriding thought as I read this: Man, I really miss reading this guy’s articles. They aren’t always substantive, and they often aren’t based on anything but his own musings, but they are always a good read.

This one happened to be right on point.

Every summer, Bulls coaches rave about all the work Gordon has put in.

And then it turns out he’s still six feet tall.

Well said, my man.

"It’d be ridiculous to hate someone for simply what they say in a sports blog. But I greatly dislike every syllable of your angst-filled, smarmy, nondescript, half-assed, elitist-garbage responses." –Rogerspark Kris

by bullhockey on Sep 19, 2008 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

And just to clarify,

I don’t necessary think he’s worth less because he’s short.

I think this is more a case where perception becomes reality—according to Sam, the GMs of the league might think his lack of height takes him out of the $10mil per year club, meaning the Bulls won’t feel they have to pay him that, either.

by bullhockey on Sep 19, 2008 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

found that annoying, actually

he was 6’2.25" in shoes at the draft camp, and as was discussed here eariler in the summer, measured out with a better standing reach and wingspan than Hinrich.

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 19, 2008 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

NBA players

play barefoot, don’tchano. They defend with their neck height, not their wingspan and standing reach.

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 Sep 19, 2008 11:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh, and

if you are tall you are automatically a better than average defender. That is the other common knowledge thing.

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 Sep 19, 2008 11:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, annoying, I hear ya.

My comment was more to Sam’s writing skill.

That the skill includes hyperbole adds to the enjoyment rather than detracting from it (unlike with Mariotti).

by bullhockey on Sep 19, 2008 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think

he was using hyperbole, but judging by those commenting to his article not every one caught on and parroted it back like fact. That’s why it was annoying. Hyperbole with a bunch of thick headed, average sports fans trying to read it turns into fact. People do believe he is only 6’ tall and can’t defend because of it and that is what annoys me.

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 Sep 19, 2008 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ben

Can’t defend the perimeter because he is in poor position most of the time, and gives players the jumper even though he is (seemingly) quicker. I was hoping and praying when he came out of college he would turn into a good defender, he has the arms and the quickness to do so, at least on the perimeter, but he has not developed into one.

He can’t defend the post because he is smaller and does lets the opposing 2 guard gain position on the block. Once he gives up the block to someone 5 or 6 inches taller he is screwed.

Lets quit with the whining about the average fan. Name me a great defender at the 2 who is considered short? The opinion is prevalent because it is true.

by ridindirty on Sep 19, 2008 6:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I forgot

how weak he is at help d.

by ridindirty on Sep 19, 2008 6:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hinrich

He’s been called a great defender even though he is short and has a similar wingspan as Gordon. In fact, Hinrich is going to be our two guard. So you better hope short two guards are good. That is what we are rolling out open day, with Gordon or without. I guess we’ll find out what a shooting guard who can’t shoot will be like.

And can we stop talking about guards defending the post. It happens maybe once a game. It just isn’t a very good offensive strategy. Even the Pistons who’d be the prime example of this actually don’t do it more than once or twice.

Have you seen the average fan? They love players like Duhon and think Noc is a great defender. So yeah, I have a very low opinion of the average fan.

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 Sep 19, 2008 7:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Kirk

Had a bad year last yr (probably an understatement), but he is twice the defender Gordon is.

Guards get posted up when there is a mismatch. When you have a short guy who does not know how to defend the block and gives away the block at will to the opposing player who is also taller… well every coach in the world is going to exploit that. While I will concur it does not happen as much as it did in the 90’s, BG is posted late in every close game. The guy does not know how to keep his man off the block. It makes it much harder to use BG late in games. It is a big problem, and makes it very hard on the coach. I haven’t ran the numbers, but I would surmise there are A LOT less short 2 guards than there were in the 90’s. Its not like when MJ went to the post and used his physical advantage to bully people around. I think you are really ignoring this issue.

by ridindirty on Sep 22, 2008 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that

a few months ago we discussed this very topic. I believe California Al was involved somehow.

I named Joe Dumars as the last really good 6’3 defender. Chauncy Billups is good also, and he’s also listed at 6’3, I believe.

by bullhockey on Sep 19, 2008 10:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry, BH

Don’t remember the thread. Trying to stay out of the fray a little on BG. Emotions are running pretty high. The market is the only thing that sets a value, and right or wrong, it’s not working for Ben this year. If he rolls the dice, I hope he doesn’t seven out. $60m is a lot of money. Even Arenas second guessed him last year.

by California Al on Sep 20, 2008 2:30 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn't around for that discussion...

But your post strengthens my argument.

by ridindirty on Sep 22, 2008 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very good read

No one will pay him what he wants considering 2010 is around the corner.

Might as well take what the Bulls are offering cause I doubt anyone else will offer more.

Pretty much summed up the whole article right there in 2 sentences

by Option27 on Sep 19, 2008 1:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Not every team is gunning for 2010

For one, teams that are under in ‘09 possibly won’t in 2010 because of their own players getting raises (like Portland). And not every team can realistically think they even have a chance at Wade or Bosh. Some (like me) would say that the Bulls don’t have much of a shot, and at the very least they’re a big market.

Isn’t Gordon actually one of the prizes then in ‘09 (which is a comparatively crappy class)? Most FAs are either so good that their teams won’t let them go, or at least will only do sign/trades, or they’re restricted FAs. Gordon will be a pretty good unrestricted FA who won’t give a second thought to leaving the Bulls.

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 19, 2008 2:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought this part summed it all up

Admittedly, it’s not a great free agent class next summer, though Carlos Boozer and Hedo Turkoglu could be there. The teams most likely to be $10 million or more under the cap to sign someone unrestricted likely figure to be from among Memphis (not spending money), Oklahoma City (probably not with the big relocation fee due), Portland (got guards), Miami (going for Boozer, we hear), Indiana and maybe Minnesota.

by Option27 on Sep 19, 2008 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll do a full post on this (er...sometime)

because Sam doesn’t sum it up at all.

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 19, 2008 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If BG takes the QO he may be in worse shape as an UR free-agent 2009

If the Bulls do not believe they will be able to sign him I cannot see him getting more minutes this year. This means less points per game which means less money. I still think(hope) he takes the 5/59 for his sake.

by chgobr on Sep 19, 2008 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

maybe

but maybe not. Like Sam says, what’s Ben going to do that’ll sabotage the team? And why would VDN do the same by limiting his minutes?

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 19, 2008 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Because why play a guy that's leaving?

The Bulls will

by Sports2 on Sep 19, 2008 6:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you think he'd make more as an unrestricted FA?

And the clumsiness of the restricted process is why he isn’t getting any offers?

by hhirb on Sep 19, 2008 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thinks he thinks he can make more

or at least, something comparable. With the added bonus of not having to deal with the Bulls.

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 19, 2008 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

and I don't think that's unreasonable

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 19, 2008 3:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would think it's unreasonable

Once he noticed the limited sign and trade offers

by Option27 on Sep 19, 2008 6:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Err

What I meant to say was that I would think that once he saw how small the sign and trade market was for him, he should have realized how hard it would be for him to get the money he truly wants even next year

by Option27 on Sep 19, 2008 6:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Would you mind...

Summing up you view of Gordon’s strengths. I see after 3 months of this debate, your opinion has not wavered.

I am being serious. I would like to understand what you see him bringing to the table that is so valuable. I am not asking for why Ben is good for the Bulls, but purely as a 2 guard in the nba. A strengths versus weaknesses post would be great.

I am not patronizing you. I would like to see if you can sway my thinking. Or at least I can have a better understanding of where you are coming from.

by ridindirty on Sep 19, 2008 6:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also on this point, there were a few posts where

people really dissected BG’s game. (Sorry, hope you don’t mind me jumping in even tho you’re asking for Matt’s opinion.)

From what I remember, the pluses were:
- That people showed how he was not only a good shooter but the case could be made that he’s a historically good shooter. Someone showed how he compared favorably to Ray Allen in the one or two years before Ray became a perennial All-Star.
- His offensive talents include an effective tear-drop runner and step back jumper that can be unstoppable, negating any height issues.
- He has a resume of clutch performance both in the regular season and in the playoffs.
- He’s a really hard worker and a good attitude guy
- Also, he has his weaknesses, but you pretty much know what you have with him. With anyone else new coming in, you don’t.

His weaknesses:
- He’s not a point, and according to Sam Smith and some others, he’ll never be one. At least not a good one.
- His defense is really not that good, despite the work ethic mentioned above.
- He’s considered too short, whether we all agree with that “perception” or not.
- He wants to start, despite his defense not being that good, and despite him being too short to be a starter next to a 6’3 guy like Rose or Hinrich.
- He falls in love with his jumper rather than taking it to the hole
- When he’s not hitting a clutch 3 for the win, he rather famously dribbles the ball off of his foot while falling down in crunchtime. This was esecially true under the coaching of some homeless bum the Bulls picked up off of Lower Wacker named Jim Boylan.
- He’s not a vocal leader type.

I’ll let someone else step in with the stat analysis…

by bullhockey on Sep 19, 2008 11:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude

>This was esecially true under the coaching of some homeless bum the Bulls picked up off of Lower Wacker named Jim Boylan.

You gave me flashbacks to that HORRIBLE pick and roll with Wallace. LOL. Thank goodness that can’t happen this season. No one fell for it. It was so horrible, but the coaches used it all the time. Instant suck. Not surprising that it never worked and Hinrich or Gordon would look stupid afterward. The only other two things that rivaled it was passing to to Wallace with three left on the shot clock and him six feet out or your only end of period play being to give Gordon the ball while everyone stands around and acts like they don’t want to lose at hot potato. I will be very happy to never have to see any of those thing ever again.

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 Sep 20, 2008 12:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is the one area I agree that Gordon has looked worse than he is.

Ben Wallace aka “the Corpse” was such a non-factor offensively teams would triple team Gordon without having to pay the price. Sure BG dribbled it off his foot. Others teams swarmed him as the only option at the end of games. There was no floor space left to dribble. The pick and roll with Wallace was pathetic.

Do you remember the first game last year against NJ? The scored was tied with about 3 seconds to go and the Corpse had a wide open lay-up to win the game. He banked it off the backboard and barely hit the rim.

by chgobr on Sep 20, 2008 7:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

What about

last season when he got blocked by 5’9" Nate Robinson on a game-winning (-tying?) three. That was awesome. I guess it may have been somewhere in between a strip and a block, but still.

I may regret saying this, but even if we’re bad this year I hope it’ll at least be a new kind of bad. Watching Gordon over-dribble and fall down (literally fall down) dozens of times at crucial moments in games last year really did a number on me. I know it wasn’t all his fault, as there really was no one else there to step up, but those sinking-feeling associations are just so strong…

I agree with what Sam said regarding BG as the classic sixth man. In fact, I agree with it so much that I said it myself about a month ago in a post about how BG should embrace the Vinnie Johnson role on this new Bulls team.

by DLRoth on Sep 20, 2008 2:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rose will be handling the ball.

Not Gordon. If Gordon doesn’t have to handle the ball like that then those problems won’t manifest. Gordon’s bad side won’t be an issue and his good points will be an asset.

Gordon will be out on the perimeter getting ready for a pass. Rose will drive to the basket (and as he actually has finishing skills that the rest of our guards don’t he will be a threat down there), draw in the defenders, and either finish at the basket or kick it out to Gordon. And when he kicks it out to Gordon he would have already drawn the defense to him and Gordon could get a high percentage shot. Having a guy like Rose who can finish at the basket and a guy like Gordon who can shoot from outside will be great for us with the drive and kick. It never worked with Hinrich/Gordon because Hinrich can’t finish at the basket consistently and the defense didn’t have to close in on him since they knew he wasn’t seriously a threat down there.

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 Sep 20, 2008 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So that makes him worth

what?

by hlac on Sep 20, 2008 10:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

If Rose has no one to pass to

and we end up sucking then he would have been worth more to us than they are offering now. What is the point of having a stud PG when our good outside shooters consist of…Deng? I don’t see any problem with offering him a little more to get the deal done (obviously not more than Deng, but at least up to the per-year level of last years offer) and then making moves down the road before tax time to avoid penalties. They need to either lock Gordon in or they need to hunt for someone else who can shoot from outside. We don’t have a guard like that on the team otherwise.

If Gordon signs for what is on the table now then the Bulls will look like geniuses and most people be happy and all “I told you so”. Whatever. If he doesn’t and we end up sucking because of their inflexibility then we’d have let go a shooter we already had in our camp and it isn’t easy getting another of that caliber. Sure, we could get a three point specialist who likely guards worse than Gordon, doesn’t have the shot selection of Gordon, and who’s breakout game is 12pts, not 30. Woo-freak’n-hoo. Gordon is a known factor and I feel he is worth finding a way of keeping for the next five years. If they had found someone better over the summer or even in the horizon then I might feel differently, but they are putting all their eggs in Gordon returning and that isn’t a guaranteed thing.

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 Sep 20, 2008 10:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

At first thought

in composing a response I was tempted to be quite sarcastic. You know, like making a comparison to Piatkowski or Barry. But then where are you and I? Well, angry.

So reading what you said a second time, I think your last sentence holds the key to the Bulls’ thinking—the Bulls DON’T think they are putting all their eggs in Gordon’s basket. The Bulls think they have quite a team without BG. After all is said and done, that’s what matters—not what you , I, or BG think.

Back to you.

by hlac on Sep 20, 2008 10:58 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yup

Though I would like to know what makes our guard lineup as it stands (Kirk, Hughes, Thabo, Rose) look so darn good to them. I just don’t see 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 Sep 21, 2008 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed--bottom line: who'll hit the open 3's?

And even if your answer is Hinrich and Noc (not to mention Hughes and Thabo), why would you want to downgrade by losing one of the better shooters in the league? Plus, having four mediocre 3-point shooters is no substitute for having one of the best 3-point shooters getting major minutes.

Of course, the Bulls don’t think they are losing Gordon. They think he’s just stalling. And I think they’re right.

by bullhockey on Sep 21, 2008 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree with most of what you have said.

The Bulls would be better off with Ben. You’re right, who are we going to get, Jason Kapono, James Jones, J.J. Reddick? But the fact of the matter is, no one else will give him 10 mil. NO ONE. Therefore, he is not worth 10 mil. Just like Sam says about the market, my house was worth 160k six months ago. I still think of it as worth $160,000, but I can’t even get an offer right now and it is listed at $144,900. Should I demand that someone buy it for “what it is worth” (i.e. what I think it is worth, which is 160K)? Of course not. The difference with my house and Ben is, if I could rent it for a year, the market might go back to normal after the election and I might be able to get 150-155K. But if Ben takes the QO, there is still no one willing to pay him more than 10 mil.

But because we overpaid Noce & Hinrich and Ben Wallace (which we turned into another bad contract in Hughes) we have to do the same for BG. Why are they all of a sudden deciding that they want to play hardball on Ben when they rushed to overpay everyone else.

by Unrealcity on Sep 21, 2008 2:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No problem...

I would debate this plus:

- His offensive talents include an effective tear-drop runner and step back jumper that can be unstoppable, negating any height issues.

I also find this to be a tough sell:

- Also, he has his weaknesses, but you pretty much know what you have with him. With anyone else new coming in, you don’t.

As in, I do not find that to be a particularly smart way to analyze an investment in this realm.

by ridindirty on Sep 22, 2008 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

What is so awful about the Bulls?

Paxson is one of the nicest GMs in the league – sometimes to a fault. The Bulls have made Gordon a great financial offer. It is better than anyone else in the world has made him. It provides financial security for the rest of his life. Throughout this negotiation the Bulls have been courteous. They haven’t criticized Gordon. The Bulls organization is arguably considered one of the best in the league. The fan base is one of the best in the league. What is so bad about dealing with the Bulls?

by chgobr on Sep 19, 2008 6:12 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

They didnt...

over pay Gordon. Every player in the league will remember this for years to come.

And I think people forget hindsight is 20/20 on this blog.

by ridindirty on Sep 19, 2008 6:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This Cracked me up

So he’ll come in and disrupt the team by, what, shooting all the time?

Duh.

It’s what he does.

Gordon’s not going to hurt the team, and the Bulls know it.

First, he’s not a bad guy, and he would become unrestricted if he signs the one year offer. Not a great time to lay down.

Plus, he always comes in shooting anyway. What’s he going to do to undermine the team? Pass?

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 Sep 19, 2008 2:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Hate to change the subject but...

CBS Sportsline has rankings on players. So far, centers and forwards.
What’s sad is that the players we used to have are a lot better than the players we now have!

by hhirb on Sep 20, 2008 8:28 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

And Ziller thinks Deron Williams is the 20th best player in the league....and Al Jefferson is 19th

Rankings are wildly subjective, no matter what logic or what statistics you use to back them up with. Who cares if none of our players are in the top 10 of their position, you already know there are no superstars on this team.

"I’m gonna rise up, gonna kick a little ass. Gonna kick some ass in the USA. Gonna climb a mountain, gonna sew a flag, gonna fly on an eagle. I’m gonna kick some butt, gonna drive a big truck. I’m gonna rule this world. I’m gonna kick some ass. I’m gonna rise up, gonna kick a little ass. Rock, flag, and eagle!"

by Ozzie Montana on Sep 20, 2008 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

not to mention

Rose will be a top-10 (you’d hope 5) pg.

management sez: recommend fanposts/fanshots/comments! Click 'reply' when replying to a comment! Flag jerkfaces! Be a 'Nazi' when it comes to thread duplication!

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Sep 20, 2008 2:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs