Gordon Interview with Waddle and Silvy

Gives his feelings on VDN.

4 months ago J Theory 47 comments 0 recs |

Comments

what the hell is with Waddle trying to get Gordon to bash Vinny?

God, Waddle sucks.

Why would anyone care about Vinny. He’s not going to be a coach when they’re any good, whether it’s a few months or a couple years.

USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 2, 2009 1:20 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Because Waddle is a basketball(and baseball) idiot.

by dakoose on Jul 2, 2009 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

No, he's just an idiot

Nice job by Silverman to actually ask Gordon if he hated Vinny.

The Chicago Bulls.....the more profitable Los Angeles Clippers.

by Ozzie Montana on Jul 2, 2009 1:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Waddle is a pompous ass!

by SoulEater7 on Jul 2, 2009 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

it's because Waddle's an idiot and knows absolutely nothing about basketball.

Other than the object is to get the ball in the hoop. I think he might have that down. MIGHT.

by Rose Colored Goggles on Jul 2, 2009 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

transcript?

I was watching the 1995 Playoffs VS the Magic's and remembered how much I hated Horace Grant. Horace Grant - i hope you burn in bball hell

by Belize on Jul 2, 2009 1:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

the relevant parts are in the link.

USE THE SOFTWARE. Actions-> Rec/Flag. Reply to comments with the reply button. Rec good fanposts/fanshots so the crud gets pushed down.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Jul 2, 2009 1:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

ahhh

clickin is fundemantal

I was watching the 1995 Playoffs VS the Magic's and remembered how much I hated Horace Grant. Horace Grant - i hope you burn in bball hell

by Belize on Jul 2, 2009 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't see where Ben talks about VDN in the linked article...

just how he felt love from the fans, but was always unsure of his standing within the organization

by kozzer on Jul 2, 2009 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

You have to click on the audio link,

which is to the right of the article, to hear him talk about Vinny. Ben basically says he knew that Vinny would be learning on the job so he didn’t have much of a problem with the growing pains.

by dakoose on Jul 2, 2009 2:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can't listen to audio

but thanks for summing it up. BG seems like he has more patience with VDN than we do… heh

by kozzer on Jul 2, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah

And they asked him leading questions that would make you respond more negatively than a general question, so I think Ben liked Vinny fine….it’s the org he didn’t like cuz they didn’t want him.

THE BULLS ARE GOING TO WIN IN 2010....maybe by stating this the positive vibes can make it happen.

by majoyenrac on Jul 2, 2009 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Honestly, he's shown a pretty amazing amount of restraint

BullsTwo

by Sports2 on Jul 2, 2009 3:32 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

BG's always been a pro

by Rose Colored Goggles on Jul 2, 2009 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

If there’s one thing you can’t criticize about BG, it’s his professionalism. Well, ok, you can’t criticize two things: his scoring ability, and his professionalism.

by kozzer on Jul 2, 2009 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I need a "Spartan"/"Any given sunday" speech

why are we bulls fans again?

I was watching the 1995 Playoffs VS the Magic's and remembered how much I hated Horace Grant. Horace Grant - i hope you burn in bball hell

by Belize on Jul 2, 2009 1:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Geography?

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 Jul 2, 2009 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions 6 recs

that's gotta be it

the only other two reasons: MJ and D-Rose

by Rose Colored Goggles on Jul 2, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ha

So true, so f-ing true.

THE BULLS ARE GOING TO WIN IN 2010....maybe by stating this the positive vibes can make it happen.

by majoyenrac on Jul 2, 2009 3:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Vinny Del Negro Offensive Gameplan, Part 1
-When there's less than 30 seconds left in the game, that's me with my hands cupped around my mouth yelling.
"BEN! SHOOT! SHOOOOTTTT!!! WHY AREN'T YOU LISTENING TO ME?!?"
-This segues nicely into my Timeout Management classes - order now!

by Prevenge on Jul 2, 2009 11:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

geography is the answer, but asking why you're a bulls fan rates pretty high on the WTF scale in terms of the nba.

Cashing checks and having sex.

by MarketMaker on Jul 3, 2009 12:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

So he's basically 6th man in Detroit?

He’s laughing at the city of Detroit! That is awesome!

by SoulEater7 on Jul 2, 2009 1:45 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

"Joe talking about a 3 guard lineup"

You know, smart thinking and such with rule and officiating trends.

12/31: Fire Vinny Del Negro.

by NBA Observer on Jul 2, 2009 2:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

He doesn't care if he's a 6th man....if the guy in front of him warrants playing in front of him.

That was his gripe about backing up Duhon and Hinrich. Gordon is MUCH better than both of those guys. Plus, you can be relatively sure that Gordon will put up a load of points in his role. 48 minutes a piece for the 2 guard spots. 96 minutes total breaks down to about 32 minutes per guard. I get the feeling you may see a lot of Stuckey/Gordon/Hamilton down the stretch so they may all play a bit more than that though.

But Gordon will remain dangerous and will likely be even more dangerous with another perimeter scorer out there with him that doesn’t really create his own offense and is not ball dominant. We’ll see though.

In other news, Rasheed Wallace just met with Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Doc Rivers and Danny Ainge.

by lexdiamonds0730 on Jul 2, 2009 4:34 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

The Celtics

will nasty-ass teeth and The Chin. I don’t know if I could watch that.

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 Jul 2, 2009 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dude.. what rock were you carved out of? Spot on accuracy!

man up!

by exult463 on Jul 2, 2009 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

"As far as the organization giving me my respect, I really don't know what they thought of me."

So the Bulls are like a bad boyfriend who doesn’t communicate? First D’Antoni and now Gordon: seems like each one just wanted to be wanted.

by arjoseph on Jul 2, 2009 2:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

When was your last girlfriend?

You can keep them around too if the price is right.

12/31: Fire Vinny Del Negro.

by NBA Observer on Jul 2, 2009 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure that's still called a "girlfriend."

And there are laws about that sort of thing, too.

by arjoseph on Jul 2, 2009 2:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Can anybody tell me what teams paid the luxury tax last year?

and who will pay it this year?

by Rose Colored Goggles on Jul 2, 2009 5:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

$71.15 is the luxury tax threshold

New York Knicks ~ 100
Cleveland Cavaliers ~ 90.1
Dallas Mavericks ~ 86
Portland Trailblazers ~ 81.6
Boston Celtics ~ 80.3
Los Angeles Lakers ~ 78.9
Phoenix Suns ~ 74.5
Houston Rockets ~ 73.5
Chicago Bulls ~ 72
Detroit Pistons ~ 71
Indiana Pacers ~ 70
Sacramento Kings ~ 69.4
Milwaukee Bucks ~ 69
Miami Heat ~ 68.6
Toronto Raptors ~ 67.4
Philadelphia 76ers ~ 67.2
Denver Nuggets ~ 66.4
New Orleans Hornets ~ 65.7

by JockstrapNoah on Jul 2, 2009 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

link

by JockstrapNoah on Jul 2, 2009 6:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

The above is for 2008-2009 I think the luxury tax gets determined for next season in about a week.

by JockstrapNoah on Jul 2, 2009 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks bro, I really appreciate it

by Rose Colored Goggles on Jul 2, 2009 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I was asking

because I’ve been debating w/ Sam Smith about whether the fans deserve to see at least one luxury tax team per decade (assuming it’s a well-put-together team). He was making the point that the Bulls were no more frugal/cheap than any other team and I wanted to counter by pointing out how many teams paid the tax last year.

What you have shown me is that quite a few teams paid it, and those teams all have one thing in common: better win-loss records than the Bulls.

by Rose Colored Goggles on Jul 2, 2009 6:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This past year was an abberation.

I saw a graph earlier today detailing the payroll year by year and can’t find it anymore. The year previous they were around 20th and before that all their players were on the rookie year contracts, so their payroll was around 40 mil. They are definitely cheap. Way cheap.

by JockstrapNoah on Jul 2, 2009 6:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Here's the breakdown for prior years

http://members.cox.net/lmcoon/salarycap.htm#Q16

Season Tax Level Taxpaying Teams (amount paid in $millions)
2005-06 $61.7 million* Knicks ($37.2), Mavs ($17.3), Magic ($7.8), Pacers ($4.7), Grizzlies ($3.7), Spurs ($0.9)
2006-07 $65.42 million Knicks ($45.1), Mavs ($7.2), Nuggets ($2.0), T-Wolves ($1.0), Spurs ($0.2)
2007-08 $67.865 million Knicks ($19.7), Mavs ($19.6), Cavs ($14.0), Nuggets ($13.6), Heat ($8.3), Celtics ($8.2), Lakers ($5.1), Suns ($3.9)

For this past year (08-09), I believe it’s all the same teams, minus the Heat and plus the Blazers.

For this coming year Boston, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, LA Lakers, Heat, Hornets, Magic, Suns, Spurs, and Jazz and Wiz look likely to pay it.

So, over 30% of the league this coming year, and 25-30% over the last two years.

In short, that’s not an aberation and Sam is full of shit.

BullsTwo

by Sports2 on Jul 2, 2009 7:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, this time he is

Sam is good for certain insight into what’s going on with the Bulls from a day-to-day type perspective; however, I really feel like he writes for the Bulls now (I know he literally does and is paid by them), but whether they tell him to or not, he writes with their best interests in mind.

The guy who wrote The Jordan Rules would have ripped this team apart for what they did in the past week. Unfortunately, Sam has changed (and he was a big reason I became a Bulls fan even though I was raised in Atlanta — I’m all Chicago now).

by Rose Colored Goggles on Jul 3, 2009 12:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

well, i'd leave the knicks out of that aspect, but point towards attendance and ticket prices and you've got a point.

Cashing checks and having sex.

by MarketMaker on Jul 3, 2009 12:02 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes, minus the Knicks

I wasn’t counting them because their payroll is ridiculously full of old contracts and expirings since they’re planning for the FA bonanza of 2010.

The saddest part about that list is that the Bulls are MUCH more profitable than every team on there with the exception of the Knicks and Lakers (who we’re only marginally more profitable than).

by Rose Colored Goggles on Jul 3, 2009 12:13 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

the nba is a franchise-player dominated league. the pistons are the only team in the last 30 years to not have a clear transcendent talent.

if the bulls think that rose can be one, then they don’t need to spend $11M per for a scoring sg. they can pay 1/3 of that for a shooter that rose can create for. they do need 1 major player to pick up when rose is off and that’s gonna have to be a big man. if those 2 pieces were in place, then i could entertain paying for gordon because you seem to be on the cusp, but until that tandem is put together the bulls don’t need to make anymore major investments.

Cashing checks and having sex.

by MarketMaker on Jul 3, 2009 12:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

when bg is feeling it, he's a special player. i just hope that people realize that he's also about as one dimensional as it gets...and that one dimension wasn't all that rare.

$11M per is a lot of money to give a non-franchise player that is a scorer only, especially since he isn’t suited for a 2-man game with rose. now, i’m banking on the bulls making a full-court press for bosh, but i don’t see this move as damning as matt does. they can redeem themselves in several ways.

Cashing checks and having sex.

by MarketMaker on Jul 3, 2009 12:14 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

His one dimension was more valuable than the many dimensions I guess Hinrich and Deng brought to the Bulls.

Gordon was nowhere near as terrible a defender as everyone made him out to be. How many truly great defenders are out there at the 2 spot? Maybe a handful and that’s it. Everybody else is in the range of pretty average…and Gordon falls right into the category defensively. Offensively, he was one of only SIX guards in the NBA this past season to average 20+ppg and shoot 45% from the field. Pretty telling regarding what he brought to the table if you ask me. Now if only another Bull had been half as good at their position as Gordon was at his then the Bulls would be something serious.

This is why I hate to see the Rose/Gordon combo broken up. I think they had the potential to be one of the top 5 or so backcourts in the league. Rose/Gordon was the Bulls ace in the hole this year. Their strong suit. They did not lose on the count of those two guys. They lost because they refuse to shore up that frontcourt and continued to get subpar play from the SF spot…at least until Salmons got to town. Gordon did all that was asked of him.

by lexdiamonds0730 on Jul 3, 2009 2:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

In the long run...

the Bulls will be better off without Gordon. And if they had a competent coach, they’d be better in the first season.

The notion that BG was a crucial offensive player is nonsense. Salmons and KH can comfortably replace his production, and there are plenty of obtainable shooting guards who would be dangerous off the ball.

Furthermore, a point that is almost always overlooked in these discussions is that it will HELP the team not to be so dependent on a one scorer. Having BG go one-on-one (or two) will never be a recipe for a Championship, but good team basketball and balanced scoring could be.

BG is, and will always be a role player, and role players can ALWAYS be replaced. In this case, I’d be quite happy – and the Bulls will be a better team – if he is replaced by a better all-around player, and the scoring distribution becomes more even.

by badnewsintennisshoes on Jul 3, 2009 8:00 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is it Gordon's fault that he was the best scorer on the team?

I don’t think so. It seems to me like you are falling into the same trap as others. The thinking that the end game was having Gordon be the best scorer/player on the team. Not at all. The key is when you get a guy like that you keep him. BUT you continue to get better players. For at least 4 of the last 5 years, Gordon has been UNDENIABLY the best and most consistent performer on the Bulls despite having his chain yanked the most. This organization has catered to Hinrich and Deng to an unreal extent yet neither has produced as often or been as durable or dependable as Gordon through the years…and he got the short end of the stick from the Bulls.

If the Bulls had another guy who would score CONSISTENTLY then that would eliminate the need for him to try to be superman so often. It was evident in the games where Rose played like a God. Gordon would gladly defer to him at those times.

As for Salmons and Hinrich replacing production, that’s not entirely true. They may score, but NEVER will the combination of Hinrich/Salmons be more helpful to Derrick Rose than Gordon was. What I mean is those two won’t draw near the defensive attention that Gordon did. We’ll see how it works out though.

by lexdiamonds0730 on Jul 6, 2009 11:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs