So would he consider signing with the Knicks? "Who wouldn't be interested in playing here full...

So would he consider signing with the Knicks?

"Who wouldn't be interested in playing here full time?" he said. "I think the changes they've made have been really good. (New president of basketball operations) Donnie Walsh has been good for them. It's good for the city, too, and the league. New York is one of those teams that should be in the playoffs every year."

Gordon also praised new coach Mike D'Antoni, who runs a wide-open offensive style that appeals to him. "He's a great coach," Gordon said, "and he has a unique way of pushing that style. Some guys might be afraid of it but he does it and he makes it work."

Comments

Thats what BG has wanted all along.

To play for the Knicks. Take Noah with you then.

by ImmanuelKant on Jan 24, 2009 10:01 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Yay!

I would get to watch the Knicks then! Wooo. :D

"You remember the first time you picked up a basketball video game and you had no idea how to run plays, so you just gave the ball to your shooter and you ran around the court aimlessly until a defender was far enough away and then you jacked up a shot? THAT IS LARRY HUGHES!"
-Anonymous fan letter, heylarryhughespleasestoptakingsomanybadshots.com

by Prevenge on Jan 24, 2009 11:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Man, if that happens it's gonna be fun listening to the same people

who bitched for two years about Gordon being all about the money bitch for the next couple years about what a dick and a moron he is for signing for less money to play for some other team.

BullsTwo

by Sports2 on Jan 24, 2009 10:50 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe.

Take a 3-year MLE (D2.0 is right), score thousands upon thousands of points while they bring in James and Bosh, play with them in his contract year as they make a deep run in the playoffs, then get rewarded with a huge pay raise as they want to keep the under-28 “core” together.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Jan 24, 2009 1:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Bye, Ben.

The numbers he’ll put up with D’Antoni with be sick, and it goes without saying he’ll absolutely murder us four times a year. Which is the second reason i want to see a sign and trade…

If Pax gets nothing for BG, which looks likely, he needs to go. Immediately.

The poster formerly known as Freethefro.

by MPG on Jan 24, 2009 11:41 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Why?

It’s pretty clear to me that Ben Gordon is one of John Paxson’s favorite players on this team. If Paxson had full power, Gordon would likely be re-signed. Jerry Reinsdorf is the reason for all of this. Reinsdorf is the one who set that ridiculous luxury tax artificial barrier.

But if Gordon were to go sign somehwhere, I think New York is perfect. He’d sign a three year deal for the MLE. He would get to showcase himself as a legitimate #1 option with Mike D’Antoni for a year. Then in 2010, they will showcase to other players as the Knicks being Chris Duhon, who will get you the ball, and Ben Gordon, the most deadly second option in the game (or third if they go after two of the big 2010 free agents), and Mike D’Antoni, the genius who is making this all work. Then in 2011, Ben Gordon signs for a massive contract with the Knicks.

I think New York is definitely a real good situation for Gordon, but I think if he is signing for the MLE, it should just be in a place like Cleveland or Los Angeles, who will be pouring money into their teams (because they will be competing for every years), where Gordon will walk in right away knowing he’s part of a title contender.

http://www.dabullz.com

Chicago Bulls Blog anf Forums. NBA Power Rankings.

by Andrew7 on Jan 24, 2009 11:54 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll tell you why:

Ben leaves because we’re a wreck. We’ve got a jack-ass of a coach, we’ve frustrated BG numerous times in negotiations, we’ve jerked him around with playing-time and coming off the bench. And because New York is, as you rightly say, “perfect” for him – not only in terms of play, but in terms of market, and going home, and the coach. If I were Ben I wouldn’t want to play for the Bulls either.

Pax has had numerous chances to do something, whether it was signing or trading Ben. Now we get nothing for the best player on our team, who just happens to be young. It’s an inexcusable gaffe in a long line of them, another example of Paxson’s trademark passivity. Or paxivity. Or whatever.

And for that, Pax should join BG on his way out.

The poster formerly known as Freethefro.

by MPG on Jan 24, 2009 1:13 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I wouldn't blame Paxson

He loves Gordon and wanted to re-sign him. Reinsdorf was the problem.

http://www.dabullz.com

Chicago Bulls Blog anf Forums. NBA Power Rankings.

by Andrew7 on Jan 24, 2009 3:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

hehe...

I concur.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Jan 24, 2009 1:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

BG seems like the kinda player you'd wanna see go West.

Could you imagine him being a Bulls killer? Where is Gordon? Stacey would be saying know your shooters all night. Know your personnel.

by ImmanuelKant on Jan 24, 2009 3:18 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

honestly, i don't mind

the tax as a barrier. would you want to go into the tax for this current team? hell no.

"They should. They better. I'm Vinny Del Negro!"

by Jaina on Jan 24, 2009 4:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

For Ben Gordon Yes

While moving other pieces to get out of the tax. (See the Camby trade).

http://www.dabullz.com

Chicago Bulls Blog anf Forums. NBA Power Rankings.

by Andrew7 on Jan 24, 2009 5:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Not me.

There is no guarantee those deals can be made…not to mention giving away talent for nothing as the Nuggets did with Camby.

Reinsdorf has been consistent, he does not want to pay the tax unless he is paying it for a contender…and frankly, that makes sense. Like it or not, the Bulls are a business and its foolish for a business to turn away free money (the rebate paid to teams below the tax by teams over it), especially in this economy.

" I've looked at these numbers and decided the #1 problem

is that Ben Gordon is selfish..." -your friendly bulls blogger

by Dionysus2.0 on Jan 24, 2009 7:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

As has been said....

….they’re closer to the tax than need-be because they signed Wallace and traded away Chandler and gave Nocioni a ridiculous deal. It’s one thing to say “Gordon just isn’t worth it” and not want to pay him, but it’s another to say “We’d love to pay Gordon, but that pesky tax…”

I mean, if they think Gordon is a part of the future of the team and can agree on an amount he’s worth, regardless of the team payroll, they need to pay him regardless. Think about the Blazers, they wouldn’t have bought draft picks like Fernandez or Batum if they had this same edict. And don’t say, “They’re better”, because they won 32 games when they drafted Fernandez. they could have been content w/ their rookie of the year and their no. 1 pick and sat on it. Instead, they spent money.

So no, a flat “no tax because we’re not good right now” is pretty baloney in my opinion.

Viva la nuance! Reading comprehension rules!!!

by tyger1147 on Jan 25, 2009 11:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Gordon's 2009 dilemma

Sign and trade: If Pax does a sign/trade he will have to take back as much salary he sends away with BG. If it’s $10M Pax won’t do it because no one will send him contracts that expire in 2010, which means that he would have to take back contracts that extend past 2010. If it’s less than $10M supposedly BG won’t sign. Either way a sign/trade is doubtful.

Good teams don’t have the cap space to sign BG outright. Scratch that option

Bad teams with cap space don’t need BG. Sratch another option

The Knicks would never sign BG to a contract that would go past 2009. If they did extend the MLE it would only be for a year. After the Knicks sort out 2010, they MAY be in a position to offer him a contract. But at what price?

by hlac on Jan 24, 2009 2:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs