Jason Richardon wants to come to Chicago?

by Option27 on Mar 26, 2007 12:49 PM CDT Comment 30 comments

[From the Diaries. I'm more than happy with turning this into a 'remember when we didn't realize Ben Gordon was awesome' thread. But the point remains that Richardson could be available this summer. -Matt]

Read here

What I'm wondering is, who does he think the Bulls will trade for him? At the beginning of this season, I was one of guys actually rooting for a Ben Gordon for Jason Richardson trade. But that was when Ben was extremely inconsistent and I was desperately seeking SG height.

I think it's safe to say now that Ben has much more value than Richardson. Ben has become somewhat reliable more now than before and Richardson has fallen off a bit and coming off a serious injury.

I would take the risk but only risking a trade of a couple bench players for the man. But Richardson's contract is pretty hefty so I doubt it would work

He wouldn't be getting more minutes than Gordon or Hinrich either so he would be switching over from a similar situation. My favorite part of this article is just the thought of players actually wanting to come to Chicago now. God, them old days seem so far away now.

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.

0 recs | Comment 30 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

agreed

I don't see the point. It would be different if he could play the 3. In that case, he could spell either Gordon OR Deng (or fill in if either of those 2 were injured), and bring a little more "attack the basket" to the SF position (Deng is great, but he's more jump shooting and herky-jerk post moves).

As it is, Richardson basically be a step up over Duhon as Gordon's backup. Not worth it. And definitely wouldn't want to trade BG for Richardson.

Incidentally, did you see his current salary is $9,999,999? How the hell did that happen? Is that some quirk in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, or do you think the Warriors' GM promised the owner he'd never pay anyone over $10 mil a year?

by Bayern Munich on Mar 26, 2007 1:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

agreed

I was on board as late as early this season in a Gordon-for-Richardson (more involved than that, of course) swap. But you're right, Ben's become more valuable both with this play and Richardson's bad knees.

The only solution I'd see is moving Richardson to the 3, and then hope Deng 'fills out' as a 4. Or sell him in the idea of being a 6th man, like Jerry Stackhouse. Although you'd think Richardson is far too young to accept a diminished role like that.

The salary is a bit of an issue, but at least he's not making the max. I'd start with Nocioni and Thabo...I do agree with the premise of this article that they may want to move Richardson just for the sake of clearing room (both cap and PT) for Ellis.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Mar 26, 2007 1:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Why not just get

the significantly cheaper soon to be free agent Jerry Stackhouse, instead the more expensive, and more risky Jason Richardson?

by Paxson Jackson on Mar 26, 2007 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

How much do you expect Stack to get?

by tyger1147 on Mar 26, 2007 3:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm no capologist,

but he's not going to be getting $14,000,000 in 2010-11.

by Paxson Jackson on Mar 26, 2007 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe Stackhouse said

he wanted to stay in Dallas.

Just looked for the article but couldn't find it (from around the trade deadline, so I'm sure it's buried somewhere).

Obama 2008 Obama 2012

by Colossus on Mar 26, 2007 6:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

heh

I think we were pretty much writing the same thing at the same time.

Yeah, BG for Richardson (with other ballast) would have been worth considering before this season, but Gordon has filled out very nicely and become a more reliable weapon. Also, has a far less serious injury history.

Would the Bulls want Richardson as a back-up? I dunno. I guess. But they already have a lot of B/B+ players who have some strong points but also some weaknesses. I don't think he'd bring that much to the table.

by Bayern Munich on Mar 26, 2007 1:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Is a backup worth that much though?

Can't see Paxson falling for it

AIM screen name : Option27

by Option27 on Mar 26, 2007 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

This makes me realise

how good Ben has really become. I never would have thought this earlier in the season, but he's pretty much as untouchable as Deng is now.

Did you ever read the Hollinger similarity a couple years back where he wrote that Ben was comparable to Arenas at his age? That comparison seemed insane at the time but now I'm really starting to buy it.

AIM screen name : Option27

by Option27 on Mar 26, 2007 1:43 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Ben Gordon is still inconsistent

Look at his stats over the last month here. But I wouldn't trade him for Jason Richardson. I might trade Sefo for Richardson, if salary cap wasn't a concern and we already had filled our PF needs.

by bullshooter on Mar 26, 2007 3:25 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

yeah

I wouldn't say he's totally there but much better than earlier this season. You can tell that he's getting there though.

AIM screen name : Option27

by Option27 on Mar 26, 2007 3:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

he is getting there

I agree. He's already one of the best jump-shooters in the league, and he's getting better at driving to the hoop and limiting turn-overs.

He's never going to be Jordan or Kobe Bryant. But that's OK - they don't need him to be. They need him to be like Rip Hamilton - great shooter, good at coming off screens, opens up the defense by making it impossible to leave him unguarded, and can score 12 or 35 points, depending upon what the defense is giving us.

Now, we just need our 'Sheed.

by Bayern Munich on Mar 27, 2007 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Gordon is already better than Hamilton

by Paxson Jackson on Mar 27, 2007 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

meh

I think they're pretty close, and similar players.

If I had to choose one, I think I'd take Hamilton. I think he'd do very well in the Bulls system. But no complaints, BG is playing very well.

by Bayern Munich on Mar 27, 2007 3:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

hamilton

much better defender

by Sambossanova on Mar 27, 2007 9:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

my dad and i were having a debate

who is the better defender...hinrich or hamilton

granted they dont both play the same position, but often Kirk defends the other team's 2

by milesgmsu on Mar 28, 2007 5:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

ya cuz skiles really wants a headcase on the team

by milesgmsu on Mar 28, 2007 6:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Is there a consistency stat?

Like is Ben Gordon any more consistent than the other top 20 in PTS/40? I have no idea, that's why I'm asking. In the interest of curiosity, is he significantly less productive in his less productive games? There's a lot more to it than a bad month. He's been kind of dinged up too.

by Paxson Jackson on Mar 26, 2007 3:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

per-minute doesn't quite capture it

The inconsistency with Gordon (in my eyes) is less to to with bad shooting night as it is with him staying on the floor. Part of his maturation is committing fewer fouls and turnovers.

Doing a standard deviation on pts/game among all top pts/40 in the league would be interesting though.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Mar 26, 2007 3:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I did that in a previous point somewhere

around the trade deadline. His scoring standard deviation was almost 50% percent of his average. So he was as likely to score 11 pts in a game as he was to score 31. That's a big difference. Deng was the most consistent at only 33%. That was a month ago, but it doesn't look like the trend was changing. He had an 8 and a 48 pt game this month.

by bullshooter on Mar 26, 2007 3:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

BG's output doesn't translate to wins/losses

Bulls are 4-3 in the last two months when BG scores 12 or less, which seems to indicate that his teammates pick it up when Ben is either having a bad night or the focal point of the other teams defense game plan. So I don't think his scoring output fluctuations are that critical to the Bulls success. Probably more important is his performance in the last two minutes since he gets shots in close games, but I don't have that data in front of me so it's easy to say,"Probably more important is his performance in the last two minutes..."

by bullshooter on Mar 26, 2007 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

::cough:: sample size

I wouldn't get too worried over his 'crunch time' stats. If he just plays better overall they'll win more games, either by 2 or by 20.

And besides I don't consider it a zero-sum equation where if Ben scores less points that means Deng and Hinrich will score more points. Between those 3 there's plenty of shots to go around.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Mar 26, 2007 3:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

oh, and...

getting to the line 'consistently' as well.

I think it's progress, anyway. I'm looking for Gordon to become a load (as in not just scoring well per-40, scoring 25 points a game) scorer next year, and I think he can do it. Before the season I was nowhere near as confident of that.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Mar 26, 2007 3:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess

That the standard deviation, scaled to his point output, would be like a consistency. I don't have time, but someone might have found that already somewhere.

Deng, he's good!!!!!!!!!

by cubbybear on Mar 29, 2007 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Matt

beat me too the stat mumbo-jumbo

Deng, he's good!!!!!!!!!

by cubbybear on Mar 29, 2007 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Richardson hilarity

http://www.goldenstateofmind.com/story/2007/3/27/124353/572

Some of the comments at the linked GSOM Richardson trade post are pretty funny.

I think Sam Smith from the Chicago Times
really wants a Jason Richardson to Chicago deal, just the same as the talks were when he was injured and these sportswriters thought they could get Jason "on the cheap" through a trade for some roleplayers/journeymen.

Sam Smith is dumb
Where could he get that kind of info? The Bay Area produces smart people, therefore J-Rich's friends, the majority of which are probably in the Yay, are not dumb enough to tell stupid trade rumors to a journalist.

Someone ought to let the Golden State fans know Jason Richardson embodies everything about a journeyman player (except the 'journey' part). I can't picture Sam snooping around San Francisco asking people if they know Richardson either.

by Paxson Jackson on Mar 27, 2007 2:10 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

that's not entirely fair

he's had two straight seasons with a 19 PER.

If this turns out to be a chronic injury, then yes I can see him going the (aforementioned) Jerry Stackhouse route.

That said, those comments did encourage me to move to 'the Yay' in order to get smarter.

by your friendly BullsBlogger on Mar 27, 2007 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I suppose I shouldn't

write him off as a journeyman level talent, but if the Bulls are looking to upgrade bench scoring next season (and jump the gun on Sefolosha), Maggette and Stackhouse are cheaper and will probably be better.

by Paxson Jackson on Mar 27, 2007 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

richardson if healthy

is a cut below all-star. He's got a serivcable outside gmae; good jump shot; killer driving game; decent passer decent defender and decent FT shooter. what else od you need sans the injury

And no this isn't MSU blindness talking...

by milesgmsu on Mar 28, 2007 6:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs