Getting Back on Board with Gordon
For awhile now I've been resigned to Gordon leaving because resigning him looked like it would create more long term problems than it solved from my perspective. Especially because I wanted the Bulls to have the best possible chance of at least making a run at Wade in 2010. Today, I changed my mind on Gordon because of discussion on this site.
The salary cap was 58.7 million dollars this season, and to be safe let's assume it remains the same. I'm not the salary cap expert that other posters are, but the cream of the 2010 free agent crop would make a little over 17 million in 2010-11 if they didn't exercise their opt out clauses. The Bulls getting Wade would likely ultimately be a result of a sign and trade so that Wade can get his full salary, but the Bulls still have to be a threat to sign Wade out right in order to force Miami's hand. Bosh might be willing to come out right, but he'd probably prefer getting his max contract through a sign and trade as well. So I'll assume the Bulls need to be close to 18 million under the cap to offer a max contract to free agent. Which means they can't be much higher than 40 million dollars in committed salary.
The Bulls right now have four players in Rose, Deng, Hinrich, and Noah under contract for 2010-11 at just over 29 million combined. That's four solid pieces to add a star player to. If the Bulls use 2 of their next 3 1st round picks that will add something around 3 million in salary. So that puts the Bulls at roughly 32 million dollars in committed salary. Leaving around 9 million dollars of room to play with.
So that leaves the Bulls will three players to make decisions on: Tyrus Thomas, Ben Gordon, and John Salmons. I still believe in Tyrus, and in an ideal world I'd rather have Thomas than Gordon long term. But, I know there's almost no way that the Bulls get a long term contract done with Thomas this summer after the way the playoffs went and that agreeing to a contract with him quickly in the summer of 2010 is just as unlikely. If Tyrus doesn't sign this summer as expected, the Bulls should probably keep him until the summer of 2010 because the ability to renounce his rights creates flexibility.
So that leaves 9 million that can potentially be spent on Ben Gordon. If the Bulls can get Gordon to sign a contract that pays out 9 million or less in 2010-11. They can sign Gordon without it negatively impacting the opportunity to sign a max free agent in 2010 because the Bulls could renounce the rights to Tyrus. And it would increase the options for the Bulls. Because the threat exists for Wade to go to Chicago out right, the Bulls can likely force a sign and trade with Miami. Ben Gordon could be used in a sign and trade for Wade, which gets Wade to Chicago while still giving him his max contract. Thomas could be signed and shipped to Miami or traded somewhere else. The Bulls could just relinquish their rights to Thomas. Or potentially depending on the numbers they might not have to give up the rights to Thomas in order to complete a sign and trade for a player like Wade. Allowing the Bulls time to work out a contract with Thomas. If the Bulls go after Bosh instead then the Bulls have the flexibility to keep Gordon and maybe send other players in a sign and trade. The key is having the cap space to sign a Bosh or Wade out right in order to force sign and trades from either Miami or Toronto.
Salmons was aquired as Ben Gordon insurance. Salmons can play the 2010-11 season for 5.8 million or he can opt out in the summer of 2010. Opinion seems to be split about which option he takes, but it probably doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. If Gordon doesn't resign then Salmons is good insurance and his contract in 2010-11 isn't big enough to impact free agency even if he doesn't opt out. If Gordon does resign then Salmons should be able to be moved during the 09-10 season for players with contracts that will definitely be expiring. San Antonio, for example, was reportedly interested in Salmons last season, and they'll have plenty of expiring deals next season.
The elephant in the room with all of this is of course the luxury tax. Signing Gordon from my perspective only makes sense if the Bulls don't have to dump Hinrich or Deng for essentially nothing in order to get under the luxury tax. While signing Gordon pushes the Bulls over the tax, perhaps they can minimize the tax by buying out Tim Thomas and/or moving Jerome James to a team with salary cap space. Thomas already mentioned a buyout to the press. I forget how the insurance issue ultimately works out if James is traded. But, there's some potential to minimize the tax costs.
This is the way I can get fully behind a Gordon resigning. If his contract doesn't cost more than 9 million or so in the 1st couple of years, and it doesn't require dumping Hinrich or Deng to do it. Of course it also requires Bulls management having a plan. And it would sure help if Vinny isn't the coach by the summer of 2010 if the Bulls aren't willing to fire him this summer. Now go ahead and point out the flaws in my logic and/or math. Start another Hinrich/Gordon war. Show off how tough you are by calling Deng soft. And if you get bored call LaMarcus Aldridge a ninny.
FanPosts are user-created posts from the BlogABull community, and are to be treated as the opinions and views of that particular user, not that of the blogger or blog community as a whole.
5 recs |
82 comments
Comments
I'm not sure the math works
Isn’t there a hold (veteran min) placed until you have the minimum number of players on the roster? So they would have 7 players (Rose, Deng, Hinrich, Noah, Gordon, 2 rookies) under contract for $41 million. Then you would have 5 holds at ~$900k (or whatever the min is), which puts them at about $45-46 million.
by JeffD on May 5, 2009 6:03 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Seriously? I've never heard that, but I wouldn't be surprised. What's CBAFAQ say?
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on May 5, 2009 6:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here it is
A roster charge if the team has fewer than 12 players (players under contract, free agents included in team salary, players given offer sheets, and first round draft picks). The roster charge is equal to the rookie minimum salary for each player below 12. The roster charge only applies during the offseason.
I guess it the rookie minimum… not sure what that is.
by JeffD on May 5, 2009 6:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Looks like about $480k for 2010-11
So that would make it about $43-44 million.
by JeffD on May 5, 2009 6:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Nice catch.
So a little under 2.5 million in cap holds. That makes it harder, but not a complete impossibility. The key is having enough space for a it to be a real possibility for Wade or Bosh to sign out right. Like I said this is why I thought signing Gordon brings with it negative long term consequences. I’m was a little encouraged today.
Anyone know what’s the max another team can offer Wade, Bosh, James, etc?
by Scotter on May 5, 2009 6:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I odn't think the Bulls should go more than five years for Gordon.
5 years 50 million puts him $9.132 million for 2010-2011. Obviously, if they can get him for less, all the better.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on May 5, 2009 6:09 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
he's not signing for 50
anything less than 60-70 would hurt his lil man pride..esp since he’s shown more dependability than Deng
"I want the pressure...I want it and I feed off of it. Whenever I get the ball in my hand, I calm down." Air Force One
by Belize on May 5, 2009 7:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and he said no
"I want the pressure...I want it and I feed off of it. Whenever I get the ball in my hand, I calm down." Air Force One
by Belize on May 5, 2009 9:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No he said yes, but
he said yes too late, as the story goes
by Jamaicanpi on May 5, 2009 9:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that was a while back
if BG comes back for the same amount, he is the worst negotiator in the world.
"Talent wins games, but team work and intelligence wins championships." 23
by Belize on May 5, 2009 9:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Deng is the best.
Too bad that has nothing to do with stuff like “good for the team” or “basketball”.
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 May 5, 2009 9:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
exactly
I HOPE Gordon is a terrible negotiator
by it'sokay573 on May 5, 2009 9:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was a while back?
It was the most recent possible time to try to accept it. And it was less than he turned down the year before.
by JeffD on May 5, 2009 10:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BG lost some negotiating power with the market
Not many teams can offer him more than the Bulls at 50 million for 5 years. Plus they can play the economy card on him. The salary cap and lux tax will be going down for the next two years. In negotiations it’s all about leverage. Ben thought he would have more leverage as a restricted FA but turns out he didn’t, then he thought he’d have more leverage as an unrestricted Free Agent. And it’s going to turn out that it was a bad move as well. Whoever Ben Gordon is listening to, he needs to stop and get some better advice. Hope he resigns with the Bulls
by paxdorf on May 6, 2009 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is why it wouldn't surprise me to see Gordon...
…sign a short term deal of some sort (2 or 3 yrs) until after the 2010 free agency class and when things turn around financially for teams. Gordon will only be about 27 or so when he can negotiate again for another deal. I’m fairly certain Gordon will AT WORST be the same player he was this year but he’ll likely improve so he’ll still be a highly desirable player. In another post I brought up how Jason Terry is 31 and makes $10M/yr and isn’t as valuable as Gordon but has better teammates. Gordon will be angling for AT LEAST this much in a longer term deal, but likely more.
by lexdiamonds0730 on May 7, 2009 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I wonder if signing Gordon
may end up not being as big of an issue as one might think. I keep hearing that OKC, Detroit, and Memphis are the only teams that could offer him a considerable contract, none of which is necessarily interested, and none of which would necessarily be interesting to play for, with the possible exception of OKC.
It seems highly possible that Gordon’s best option will end up being a contract offer from the Bulls that isn’t even as much as what they offered last year.
by it'sokay573 on May 5, 2009 9:06 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If OKC had traded for Chandler, I would have thought they'd be a real possibility.
Westbrook, Gordon, Durant, Green, Chandler plus Griffin, that’s a threat for the playoffs in just a couple of years.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on May 6, 2009 8:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We've gotten to the 2nd round once with him at shooting guard
At what point do you try something new?
"Gordon is a pretty good defender when he wants to be." - Andrew7
by gobulls1124 on May 5, 2009 9:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
well he didn't have much support back in the days
now we got a star in Rose
by LoveForTheGame on May 5, 2009 10:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and letting him go
will get them past the 2nd round??
http://awsomepeoplesearch.com/
by NormVanBeer on May 5, 2009 10:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
let him go and we can put money else where
"Gordon is a pretty good defender when he wants to be." - Andrew7
by gobulls1124 on May 6, 2009 12:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that would just spread stuff around...
…not really fix the problem of Ben being gone.
http://awsomepeoplesearch.com/
by NormVanBeer on May 6, 2009 9:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That doesn't even make sense.
Let’s just conveniently forget that the entire team looks different from that playoff team with the exception of Kirk and Gordon (and Tyrus who was a ghost in both of them anyway and Deng who didn’t even play this time around).
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 May 5, 2009 10:48 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Peej and Ben Wallace were the Bulls’ starting 4 and 5 in ‘06-’07.
Ugh
by NittanyCub on May 5, 2009 11:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We haven't even gotten to the second round with Rose
Let’s trade him
"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
by Prevenge on May 5, 2009 10:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
you guys scare me
I wouldn’t doubt it if some of you would actually trade Derrick before Ben
"Gordon is a pretty good defender when he wants to be." - Andrew7
by gobulls1124 on May 5, 2009 11:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sarcasm. A common treatment for foot in mouth disease.
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 May 6, 2009 12:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sarcasm. Honest concern for blind love.
"Gordon is a pretty good defender when he wants to be." - Andrew7
by gobulls1124 on May 6, 2009 1:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think you get it.
Prevenge is being sarcastic. You are being. There should be a program for the sarcasm handicapped people of the internet. I have no idea how you survive on here without that skill.
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 May 6, 2009 6:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
*You aren't.
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 May 6, 2009 6:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks toots
Without your witty reply, I wouldn’t have recognized his sarcasm.
"Gordon is a pretty good defender when he wants to be." - Andrew7
by gobulls1124 on May 6, 2009 6:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this comment speaks for itself.
"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
by Prevenge on May 7, 2009 11:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure?
"Gordon is a pretty good defender when he wants to be." - Andrew7
by gobulls1124 on May 8, 2009 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I see what you're trying to say
but your argument for “trying something new” is kind of silly. Trying to blame Gordon for the Bulls playoff woes is almost completely unsubstantiated. By your line of thinking, I could also say that Ben Gordon single-handedly carried the Bulls to the 2nd round one year with no help.
by NittanyCub on May 6, 2009 12:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
PJ, Wallace, Duhon, Sweets, ...who else did we have?
I’d say Deng, BG, and Kirk were the main driving force of what got us that far. Not a hindrance. And we still have all of those guys for the moment. Deng had that crazy, never repeated, jump shooting bonanza that helped us finally knock off Miami. Ah, the olden days.
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 May 6, 2009 12:21 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This old guy with leg problems
He might retire soon.
"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
by Prevenge on May 6, 2009 12:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
they got there once w/ kirk hinrich
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on May 6, 2009 8:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We've gotten to the second round once with Hinrich at PG...
… and with Deng at SF. So at what point to you get a new SF and backup PG that makes $9M/yr?
Unbelievable how it is Gordon’s fault that we’ve only gotten to the second round when he’s the least heralded in many circles around here and definitely the lowest paid of the 3 mainstays.
by lexdiamonds0730 on May 7, 2009 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't say it was only his fault.
But if it doesn’t work, why pay it more money? We’ve already made the mistake twice, overpaying players. Why overpay again? And I’m all for the trading of Kirk and Luol if it betters the team.
"Gordon is a pretty good defender when he wants to be." - Andrew7
by gobulls1124 on May 7, 2009 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Because we're not overpaying.
Obviously overpaying is bad, but we won’t be.
"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
by Prevenge on May 7, 2009 10:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't he turn down 10 mil a year?
Anything more than that is overpaying.
"Gordon is a pretty good defender when he wants to be." - Andrew7
by gobulls1124 on May 8, 2009 10:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He tried to take it,
but we didn’t let him. And the economy has gotten worse – people want to spend less.
"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
by Prevenge on May 8, 2009 8:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's what scares me
We know how good Gordon is going to be because we’re seeing that now. He is the type of player that has hit the ceiling early in his career. He is a scorer and that only. Yes if he leaves we will have big issues next year with scoring in bunches so we will have to have big seasons from Salmons and a healthy Deng. If I’m not wrong Salmons is playing for a contract next year and I think Deng will be playing for his name and Honor. So if they both stay healthy they should be able to match the production points wise we got this year and I think our defense will improve. I think our team has more important issues to resolve then signing BG. We need a legit low post scoring threat and we need to explore every option possible in getting that. Sorry BG in my opinion that makes you the odd man out.
by Bullsfanla on May 6, 2009 10:45 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
If we lose Gordon then
we will be missing a low post scorer, and an outside shooting threat
by LoveForTheGame on May 6, 2009 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Outside threat
Luol eng might not shoot threes but he is an 18-20 outside threat and Brad Miller supposedly is too.
I am not sure if Salmons recent 3 point shooting is a fluke but he seems to almost always shoot them when someone is in his face and giving him a little space. not really catch and type shooter. the we have hinrich who is streaky. If anyone thinks that BG is a streaky outside shooter than have fun watching kirk catch and shoot threes.
by Sambossanova on May 9, 2009 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Miller can shoot threes.
I don’t count a jumpshooter that can’t shoot threes as an outside threat – shooting a three is strictly better than shooting a 2 in that situation.
"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
by Prevenge on May 10, 2009 5:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
true
outside threats are people that can shoot the three ball, I wouldn’t consider Miller an outside threat, even though he can shoot threes because he doesn’t shoot them often
by LoveForTheGame on May 10, 2009 9:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's just usage though
he shoots 40% on threes consistently. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt there – he needs to be guarded at that line.
"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
by Prevenge on May 12, 2009 12:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just throwing this out there
Everyone is talking about Lebrons’, D-wades and Boshs of 2010. What about a Kobe of 2009? If he gets bounced before the Finals then he might chose to opt out of his current contract. Phil might retire after this year. Lamar Odom is a free agent who the Lakers don’t have the cap room to resign. Kobe loves MJ. I really think he wants to be a Bull. He has delusions that he can win seven championships here and get a statue built to next to Michaels. Or maybe right underneath Michaels performing……wait that’s for a different blog room.
Granted we could only get Kobe for the minimum. But if he opts out and tells LA there is no way he is coming back then we can trade the Lakers Deng and some firsts for Kobe.
He’ll be 31. Probably has about four more dominate (not as the best player but as one of the best) years left in him. With our supporting cast. Four matchups a year with Lebron.
This might sound outrageous, but keep in mind that this is a blog. And the point is to create conversations. Say outrageous things. Get people thinking.
by paxdorf on May 6, 2009 11:38 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Deng + draft for Kobe sounds pretty outrageous.
Maybe Deng a couple of years ago + Ben Gordon, Tyrus….
Lakers are never one to blow up a team, they always must content (never rebuild), so they need someone big in return. Bulls only have D Rose to offer now when getting into Kobe talks, and I’d say fat chance at that.
"Remember, I'm Italian".
by BCs71 on May 6, 2009 12:44 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yup
We have to remember other teams will be making attractive offers to the Lakers if Kobe indeed does want to leave. They wanted Deng a while ago. That was a different Deng though. I am sure they will get better options than Deng + draft picks. Much better.
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 May 6, 2009 6:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There is no reason for any of that to happen in LA
The way their team is constructed, Kobe still has a 2-3 year window to win a title as “The Man.”
Also, he’d likely be the highest paid player in the league. LA is never going to trade him, and the Bulls can’t afford him.
That Steve Nash is exactly the same as Kirk Hinrich, but worse.
by NBA Observer on Apr 8, 2009 12:23 PM CDT
by Ozzie Montana on May 6, 2009 1:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
what are "dominate...years"?
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on May 6, 2009 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That has got to be one of the most frequent errors people make around here.
What is so hard about the word “dominant?”
Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!
by wjb1492 on May 6, 2009 10:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Gordan"
“Heinrich”
I haven’t seen the dominate thing so much.
"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
by Prevenge on May 6, 2009 11:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the spelling errors with the names
But I think the “dominate” thing is a grammatical error – people aren’t misspelling it, they really think saying “Ben Gordon is dominate” or “that was a dominate performance” is the correct usage of the word.
Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!
by wjb1492 on May 7, 2009 12:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well.
For the sake of english I hope not.
"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
by Prevenge on May 7, 2009 10:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
[Pardon the momentary comma ban, please.]
"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
by Prevenge on May 7, 2009 10:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ben Gordon was a Restricted Free Agent last year and did not get one decent offer
That is why Gordon signed the qualifying offer. The economy makes it even less likely for a GM to spurge and overpay him. There is a good possibility he again will not receive an offer and the Bulls will be in the driver’s seat. The Bulls could get him for as low as $7 mil per year for 5 years or $35 mil verses the $54 mil the Bulls offered last year.
by chgobr on May 9, 2009 8:34 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Gordon is the type of the player no one wants to overpay for.
To get a Restricted Free Agent from a team where the team wants to keep him, that’s what you have to do. (See Josh Smith of last year)
If you don’t overpay for an RFA, you don’t get him. If it was public knowledge that Gordon was being offered $10 million / year, it’s going to typically take $12 or $13 to get him.
I could see at least a few teams discussing $9 or $10 / year contracts w/ Gordon, but not officially putting anything on the table, either because they would know it’s pointless because Chicago would match it or because Gordon wanted more because he thought, “I can get that from Chicago, anyway,” and then accepting Chicago’s contract offer past the deadline.
In fact, the latter scenario is exactly the situation I could see occurring.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on May 9, 2009 11:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What will be interesting is what team, if any, would be willing to make an offer.
Is there a team beside Detroit, OK or Memphis that can sign him without a sign and trade? Detroit is desperate for a big man. OK has Durant and Westbrook and Memphis is loaded at the guard position. Every one seems intent on getting under the cap. I really think it is possible that Gordon will not receive any reasonable offers, putting the Bulls in a great position to negotiate. From Gordon’s comments about not caring if he starts (Implying he will come off the bench with a Rose, TT, Noah, Deng, Salmons lineup) Gordon wants to be a Bull and the Bulls want him at a reasonable price.
by chgobr on May 9, 2009 12:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
OKC
I think they see Durant as their future small forward…which they should cause plays better at SF then SG and westbrook as their future PG. Westbrook and Gordon might make a good backcourt if it werent for the 10 turnovers a game that they would commit.
by Sambossanova on May 9, 2009 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If OKC is our main competition we will have some non-financial advantages.
I’d rather you shoot me than live there.
by chgobr on May 9, 2009 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We Oklahomans thank you for staying away then
It’s a nice place – not that the smaller city suits everyone, but there’s no reason to act like it’s hell to live in OKC. I’d rather live here (technically, outside of Tulsa) than a whole lot of other, bigger NBA cities.
Especially if I could make a million or two more each year while living here.
Man-slave, bring me my PB&J!
by wjb1492 on May 9, 2009 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
cost of living is lower out there too
Ben could have 6 mansions in OKC for the price of one here… but he would have to worry about them getting wrecked by a tornado.
by 72-10 on May 11, 2009 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Or about hiring enough man-slaves to clean them all.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on May 11, 2009 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would be interesting to see Gordon playing against the Bulls next year
He would probably be Hinrick’s worst nightmare. Remember, Hinrick can’t guard small quick guards. Gordon would light the Bulls up. Perhaps, then we may discovered why VDN started a one-legged Gordon in front of Hinrick. It may happen, because I can’t see Gordon signing 4 less money than his overpaid backup.
by sadafan on May 11, 2009 7:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ben Gordon
If they can teach him to pass more maybe keep him. Use like very harsh training measures similiar to the movie “A Clockwork Orange.”
I’m hoping that maybe they can also do that leg extension surgery to give him more height. Like the movie “Gattaca.”
Imagine…Gordon @ 6’5! He would definitely be better! They should also do a forearm extension surgery for him too for the hell of it!
by 420man! on May 10, 2009 2:52 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
My sister read A Clockwork Orange for her English class!
And he is not selfish! The stats don’t lie!
Things could be worse. We could have kept Boylan.
by stupidgenius on May 10, 2009 9:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quick, what music does Gordon like?
He’s the rainmaker!!!!!
If nobody liked hearing that song, maybe the world would be a better place.
"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
by Prevenge on May 12, 2009 12:32 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Holy crap
I’m as much of a Gordon fan as anyone, but wth? Please tell me that wasn’t Gordon and was just some impersonator.
Things could be worse. We could have kept Boylan.
by stupidgenius on May 12, 2009 9:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ben Gordon's an animal.
Pretty light work out, actually.
People should remember that while they have the right to their opinion, they are not entitled to be taken seriously. --Bruce Bartlett
by tyger1147 on May 13, 2009 8:49 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
He got paaaaaaaid
I’m hoping.
"Ben Gordon is a bundle of muscle and clutch. That's all he's made of. Drink BG7 energy drink, you'll grow a pair of balls on your balls."
by Prevenge on May 13, 2009 8:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 











