Like tallying praise to find out the favorite son
It may not get as much press as Luol Deng's globe-trotting ways, but Ben Gordon was doing his own similar deal over the weekend in his hometown, cheering up the community while dressed for apparently some super-cool funeral.
Got me thinking (this is what happens during the down days of the NBA offseason, sorry) about how Ben and Luol are so interlinked. Both became Bulls on the same night and thus started their all-important contract clocks simultaneously. They're the most productive players on the team, individually and in tandem.
But whenever their future is discussed by fans, Deng's position is always assumed secured while Gordon is on less stable ground. And some of that, as was discussed on the bullsbeat podcast last week, is from the idea that Deng's more likely to take some sort of 'hometown discount' to stay with the team. It makes sense due to his famously charitable ways, but Deng's still an NBA player with no reason to not get every penny of his true worth. And heck, maybe charity is a reason for Deng to demand more money, not less.
Deng's also always lauded for being the hardest worker on the team, although by all indications Gordon shares that trait in abundance. In one of the several vignettes on Deng shown on national TV over the season, there was a quote from John Paxson regarding Deng's work ethic (and I'm paraphrasing off of memory) saying that when he sees a car at the Berto Center when he's there in the morning, he first thinks it's Ben Gordon, and if not Gordon then Luol Deng.
I don't care to question who does more charity or who spends more time in the gym, I'm trying to get at why Deng and Gordon can be so similar yet their perceived futures so different. My reasoning for this discrepancy is while they may get equitable in praise from management, only Gordon gets those bad knocks as well.
Some of it is explicit, as in Paxson's quoted desire to get more size in the backcourt over the offseason (speaking of which, that didn't exactly happen did it). But the biggest reason to perceive Gordon's future as more tenuous is how he's been jerked to and from the starting lineup by Skiles. No matter what merits you may see in a firestarting 6th man, it's never a glowing endorsement to be replaced in a lineup by Chris Duhon (police lineup, maybe). It probably eats at Gordon as well, knowing his value has likely been hurt around the league as they see a supposedly limited gunner when he believes (and rightfully so in my opinion) that he can be an elite scorer. He's more Gilbert Arenas than Juan Dixon.
In the near future it's possible both Deng and Gordon can continue their parallel careers with fat Pax-signed long-term contracts in hand. But the feeling I've gotten over the years is that while Deng is certain to get his paper, they're still not sure on Gordon. And it's not the headlines from being the NBA's finest citizen that gives Deng this edge, it's that Pax and Skiles still don't seem to know what they have with Gordon. It's been a while since the last time he was coming off the bench, so for all I know he is now as loved by the organization as Luol. But if there's even a whisper of 'Ben seems to give us a better lift off the bench' I'll know they won't be paying him to stay.
0 recs |
103 comments
Comments
gordon extension
by Sambossanova on Aug 27, 2007 12:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Rumor has it...
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/19312
by Diabolo on Aug 27, 2007 4:08 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
The Mini-two dilemma?
Given that he's been so sound in his team-building (and that he drafted Ben before Luol), I would be very surprised if Paxson let Ben get away. very surprised. The truth of the matter is that the likelihood of getting a 6'6'' guard that can do what Gordon does is minimal.. ...and that's being generous. Who are the candidates? Outside of Kobe, I see Micheal Redd's and Kevin Martin's and no way in hell that those types of guards get dealt for anything resembling equal value.
by CookDing on Aug 27, 2007 7:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I thought Pax
It would not surprise me at all if Ben wants more than Pax is willing to give. Pax did indicate after the season was over that he would work with Ben but if they couldn't reach an agreement there would be no hard feelings. We shall see.
by sue369 on Aug 27, 2007 8:45 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
even weirder than Deng's charity work
Gordon isn't a non-profit slouch either. He's just not a globetrotter, and Big Brothers Big Sisters doesn't make headlines.
by hscs on Aug 27, 2007 9:23 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Are you short on hits this month
I don't want to bash the guy and so I'd point out that even with his 1-8 this year, he's still hitting over 40% in those situations over his career (according to a hollinger piece that I don't have a link to right now).
Gordon's propensity for TO's is what's killing him. I'd even go so far as to say that if Duhon hadn't forgotten how to shoot this year, Gordon would still be coming off of the bench, and that Gordon's starting has more to do with Duhon's lousy play than Gordon's emergence.
by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 9:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I am short on hits. It's August.
I know Gordon has flaws, and I think you're right that they get less upset when someone like Luol doesn't bother to dribble as opposed to Gordon who has to create shots for himself and the team but gets the TOs. Skiles seems especially intolerant of TOs, but that is likely for all ballcoaches.
And he's not 'just' a shooter, he's a scorer. There's a difference. And the Bulls should pay a premium since they can't freaking score.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 9:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
no, right now he's a shooter
by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 9:43 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
what are these 'per-game' stat you speak of?
And this just in: Gordon is not as good as Kobe or Wade.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
There was a really good analysis
That's not the point though. If you admit that BG isn't as good as Kobe or Wade, then why suggest that he should get that kind of money. Wade's deal averages a little more than $14 mil over it's three years. If Gordon isn't that good, why tie up the money?
by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
he isn't going to get that much
Gordon does have a high career USG-r, and he was 9th in FGA last season, but who else is aggressively trying to score? Nocioni?
by hscs on Aug 27, 2007 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if the question is
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that said
And there's always sign/trade possibilities as a restricted FA.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Get it right
Second, if by "usage" you mean the Hollinger stat, you dont understand it. Points versus shots taken to get points is True Shooting % not Usage. Gordon leads the team in TS%, as he did last year as well, and he took a strong step up in it last year, as did Deng and Kirk.
by californiachicagoan on Aug 28, 2007 12:18 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bullshooter was talking about usage rate, not
by Scotter on Aug 28, 2007 12:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not TS%
TS% is not points vs shots taken to get points - as points would count free throws and free throws is not part of TS%. TS% only balances a FG% with 3ptFG% so you get a true number. As 40% from 3 is better then 40% from field and therefore if you shot 40% from both inside and outside of arch your TS% would be higher (of course depends on # of shots taken from each region)
by NY Chicago Fan on Aug 28, 2007 6:53 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
TS% also includes
by Scotter on Aug 28, 2007 12:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hamilton
Look at Rip and Gordon at age 23.
http://basketball-reference.com/fc/pcm.cgi?req=1&cum=1&p1=gordobe01&y1=2007&p2=hamil ri01&y2=2002
Gordon outperformed him, but not as much as I would've liked. I wonder how much simply cutting out the unforced turnovers would make him.
This is a high-end comparison I admit, but I see Ben's game to be more like Ray Allen. So still not as good as Wade or Kobe, but pretty good ;-)
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 11:04 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
wish deng could shoot free throws good like rip
by hscs on Aug 27, 2007 11:10 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Ray Allen comparison is good one
by Scotter on Aug 27, 2007 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here's a link to a comparison of their combined
by Scotter on Aug 27, 2007 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Duhon forgot how to shoot?
by hscs on Aug 27, 2007 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe the point is
by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Deng plays within his limitations
by hscs on Aug 27, 2007 10:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's how I feel about Deng too
But there's a value in a player who does try those things. If the team was all Luol Dengs, they'd have the coach Norman Dale offense of 4 passes and a set shot.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, there's value in players
by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 11:50 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
he'll hit them
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gordon's got enough events
by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 1:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not really
by hscs on Aug 27, 2007 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
C'mon
This diary is about why Gordon should get big bucks. He thinks it's about respect. You say it comes down to mostly luck. I say it's about making baskets and winning.
by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 3:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you want to compare Jordan and Gordon that
by Scotter on Aug 27, 2007 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought winning was the only thing.
by hscs on Aug 27, 2007 3:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
and it's about the fire and the passion
hscs didn't say gordon's contract should be based his luck, just that the game-winning shots come down to luck. That 'stat' is a non-issue, unless you really believe Gordon clams up to end games. And even if he did there's not enough evidence to support it.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 3:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
rats
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
wow, you guys were waiting for that one
by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 9:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jordan/Gordon comparison
Gordon simply does not have the ability to score in the ways the Jordan did. For example Jordan could take a defender down on the block and bury a much higher % shot with the clock winding down.
So in clutch situations Jordan could be expected to score more often because he had more to work with.
Getting back to the point: Even though there were defenses draw up to defend Jordan and everyone knew where the ball was going there was a reason Jordan was more successful. Simply put Jordan was a better player. As noted, not just taking the last shot but in nearly aspect of a 48 minute game.
Another factor in the situation is the Bulls often paired Jordan in the back court with guards who were good spot up shooters. Namely John Paxson and Steve Kerr. If teams focused on Jordan he would make them pay with a timely pass. All this is well documented in finals history. One of the knocks on Kirk has been his shooting percentage.
by Rankdog on Aug 28, 2007 6:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Deng - Ben
Anyways, Gordon is a more efficient scorer than Deng. He had a 57.2 TS% to Deng's 56%. So you are wrong there.
Meanwhile, a players value is not his lack of flaws. 5 average players do not win championships. Basketball is a team game. You want guys who are exceptional at things, and you cover for their weaknesses as a team. No matter, how you game plan you can't make a good all around player into a great rebounder/passser/shooter etc.
By the way, if Gordon isn't a "scorer" with his 7.8 FT/48min then what is Deng who shoots 30% fewer? Deng is as much or arguably more of a jump shooter than Gordon. Just because he takes the shorter ones doesn't make it better. Not unless he hits 50% more of them to cover the 2 vs 3 points difference, so until Luol shoots 60+% from the field, I'll take Gordon's bombs.
by californiachicagoan on Aug 28, 2007 12:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like the general point your making,
by Scotter on Aug 28, 2007 12:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gordon's emergence
He went from shooting 41.1, and 42.2 to 45.5 FG%. That definitely says "emergence" to me. Meanwhile even his assists went up to 3.6 from 3.0, with only a 0.1 increase in his turnovers. His true shooting percentage (hollinger) went from 52.6 and 53.1 to 57.2 His PER went from 14.92 to 14.59 to 18.31
His emergence is undeniable. Well, if you believe in stats that is.
by californiachicagoan on Aug 27, 2007 11:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe in stats
In fact, the more I compare him to guys like Richard Hamilton and Jason Terry, the less I think he's worth $10 mil/year.
by bullshooter on Aug 28, 2007 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
market value (if there's such a thing in the NBA)
I mean, even if Ben is only at that level of player (he may be as soon as next season, and a few years younger) it'll cost ya. by ya I mean the Bulls.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 28, 2007 10:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
by bullshooter on Aug 28, 2007 10:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
he's improved
by hscs on Aug 28, 2007 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where are you looking?
by bullshooter on Aug 28, 2007 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
better is better
by hscs on Aug 28, 2007 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
but his TO's went up by .8
by bullshooter on Aug 28, 2007 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
assist to turnover ratio
by hscs on Aug 28, 2007 11:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
From you response
by bullshooter on Aug 28, 2007 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Gordon's future is more tenuous
While Luol is far from perfect, he doesn't suffer from that particular, synergistic constellation of defects.
All that being said, Gordon is a gorgeous player to watch when he is on his game. And let's be honest, if he improved his scoring average to 25/26 points a game, the other flaws would be tolerable.
by 1958ChiTown on Aug 27, 2007 10:05 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
BTW, Gordon apparently
"Ben Gordon hopes to be able to work out a contract extension with the Bulls before the team's Oct. 31 season opener against the Nets. Gordon already has changed agents as he seeks his new contract. He left Billy Ceisler and is now represented by Raymond Brothers, who's based out of Los Angeles. Without going into specific dollar amounts and revealing how much he thinks he's worth, he simply said he wants to be compensated fairly."
by 1958ChiTown on Aug 27, 2007 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yo
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think he can get to that level
The fouling is an issue, and like TOs they rankle Skiles.
The undersized bit means less every year. They're a top-5 defense, being short seems to just make us feel sad more than affecting the results. Gordon won't ever post up guys like Paul Pierce but if he scores he scores.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 10:17 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Averaging 25/26 ppg is kind of irrelevant, unless
by Scotter on Aug 27, 2007 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Long time dream
Frankly, all you brickbats get off Gordon. It's about time people realise that he's the spark we need coming off the bench. He's more effective in stretches than he is leading the frontline. The sooner everyone gets that, especially Gordon, the happier we'd be. Getting Thabo to be the long guard that holds the fort for Gordon to come in is the way to go. He's a more effective version of Duhon, especially when he gets a few more years under his belt.
Keep the core. We've always been seen as a jump shooting team with a great backcourt. Let's keep it that way. If it ain't broke, don't fix it till it is.
by blackmage71 on Aug 27, 2007 10:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
a team that can't score
by hscs on Aug 27, 2007 10:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
heh
And out of several reasons why Gordon being benched is a bad idea, Thabo looks miles away from being a good offensive player.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tough tell about Thabo
by Colossus on Aug 29, 2007 10:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
link
He just wants respect.
by Option27 on Aug 27, 2007 12:53 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Gordon's Improvement and Deng's
Sure he has turnover issues but if you look at all the guards who score 20 plus points a game and do a little bit of dribbling, almost all of them have turnover issues. I hope gordon gets a 10-11 million a year contract right now and proves everyone wrong next year. Maybe that will end all the insane talk of thabo starting instead of ben BS. Unless kobe becomes available and the bulls are willing to pay then I would like gordon to be the bulls starting guard for some years to come.
by Sambossanova on Aug 27, 2007 12:55 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I guess I have
by sue369 on Aug 27, 2007 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
in his defense
by Sambossanova on Aug 27, 2007 3:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a liability
by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
the rest of the team has to play well too
by hscs on Aug 27, 2007 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BG
Imo, Gordon's value to the Bulls (perhaps not his value as a player, but his value to his team) has been sorely underrated this off-season, while Deng has somehow leaped from underrated to overrated in the span of a year.
by nas on Aug 27, 2007 7:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
right. pay kobe first.
Granted, Gordon turns it over more than a lot, but between that and his fouling I'm confident both can be straightened out, considering he was only 23 last season.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 27, 2007 3:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gordon is a 4th Quarter Warrior
by Bay Area Bulls Fan on Aug 27, 2007 6:23 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
yep
Gordon for President.
by Sambossanova on Aug 27, 2007 10:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
For shame for shame
So by extrapolation, the ability to, say, take over the 4th quarter of a game is not indicative of a propensity to succeed under pressure but is rather merely a predictable variance that reflects, not -- heaven forfend -- inner fortitude or "grit," but merely the same statistical efficacy that said player has demonstrated in prior quarters and in prior games.
Or, to paraprase Yoda, "Score. Or do not score. There is no hot."
by preverbal on Aug 27, 2007 10:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
That's got to be
by bullshooter on Aug 27, 2007 11:02 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have to say that I find the
So a shooter's overall FG% is only a part of the equation. A shooter who typically hits shots at a 50% clip might only hit them at a 35% clip under extreme stress if he isn't equipped to handle pressure. Conversely, a shooter who has a 44% FG% may hit 42% of his shots under pressure if he is better equipped to tolerate stress. This is no different than a student who suffers from test taking anxiety. Outside the confines of the test taking environment, he or she may be able to flawlessly execute. Within the confines of the test taking environment, daunted by the gravity and consequences of the situation, he or she may founder. Pressure and stress affect performance. Game winning shots entail more pressure than normal shots. Game winning shots in playoff games entail more stress than those in regular season games. Etc.
Assuming that there is no such thing as being "clutch" embodies the worst reductionist tendencies of the statistical analysis movement currently afoot in the NBA.
by 1958ChiTown on Aug 28, 2007 5:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think you clearly over-romanticize it
There are exceptions. For the most part you take the better player. Only when amongst equal players would clutchness come in to the equation, and even then it's very hard to quantify.
Doesn't make for good Bob Costas yarns, but ah well.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 28, 2007 6:05 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fun times
I grasp the Matt/Ryan point that statistical analysis is a better way to evaluate players than so-called anecdotal evidence (for example, the game or couple of games where some player excels in game-deciding situations), but the stat camp goes too far when they equate end-of-game situations with all other situations. A jumper in the first is not the same as a jumper in overtime, as any player can tell you. But its also fair to question whether, even granting that difference, performance in those situations by a player really deviates meaningfully from that player's performance in less legacy-defining moments. For those players, like Horry, who are hailed as clutch, even several big-time shots can be seen as a statistical variance that has nothing to do with a player's true ability.
At the end of the day, however, we judge historically. We can argue over whether hitting a clutch shot makes a player more valuable going forward than his statistics would otherwise suggest, but it is those shots that ultimately define a player's greatness. And often a team's fortunes as well.
I say, let's give homage to the defining moments, the clutch shots and critical stanzas, whether or not they define a player's estimated future worth. Let's acknowedge that the live-or-die shot is its own unique entity that deserves respect. The ability to persevere when the fear wells up, when the body is beaten and tired, is worthy of respect even if it is more accurately predictable by looking at a player's regular season efforts.
Maybe someone should post a diary so people can link to YouTube clips of NBA (or NCAA or Olympic) clutch moments so we can all appreciate their grandeur during these dull months. In October we can resume forecasts using Hollinger's latest data crunch.
by preverbal on Aug 28, 2007 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now would be a good time
by bullshooter on Aug 29, 2007 1:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It always makes me curious
By my count, the Bulls were in 24 games decided by 5 points or less, with a record of 11-13 in those games. In the final 30 seconds of those games, BG shot 8/25 (.320) from the field and 16/17 (.941) from the free throw line. During those games in their entirety, he hit 207/441 (.469) from the field and 128/147 (.871), and his overall season stats were .455 and .864 respectively.
Make of it what you will - my curiosity is satisfied. :)
by wjb1492 on Aug 28, 2007 9:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Gordon had a bad year in those situations,
by Scotter on Aug 28, 2007 9:31 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I suppose most piles of crap balance out over time
by wjb1492 on Aug 28, 2007 10:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
5 minutes is way too long
by bullshooter on Aug 29, 2007 1:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Big 3
What's more, Gordon is the one of the three I think I would most hate to lose. He brings something extraordinary to the table, his shooting under pressure. I am not just talking about his 44 3pt% and 92 FT% during the playoffs last year, his game winners, or even just his ridiculous 57 TS% last year. I mean how he shoots with a hand in his face. When a guy takes a shot with a hand in his face, we are all taught that they will shoot worse. I believe it. I see it when I play games. I see it when I watch games. But Gordon is one of those rare talents where that does not seem to apply. When he takes a shot with a hand in his face, I feel no less confident it will go in. I would love to see actual stats on this, but I am guessing you may have to pay a professional stats group to get it. I think it is why people feel he is "clutch". At the end of close games, when the D is as tight as the opponent can muster, when no one can get an open look, and the shot clock winds down ... it is Gordon that still hits his shot. No offense to Kirk, Luol, or even Du and Noch, but when they are covered and they let loose a long jumper/3 ... I expect them to miss. Players, even good ones, miss when covered and shooting long jumpers. It is understandable.
Gordon brings something special to the table. He will never be an all around super star, as he has notable deficiencies mentioned often here. He should not be given max money, but none of our Big 3 will command max money. I'll take Kirk, Gordon, and Luol growing and improving together with a bunch of role players, and like our chances.
by californiachicagoan on Aug 27, 2007 11:34 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
crystal ball says
I think Hinrich is the weakest of the big 3. I like the comparison of Ben to Ray Allen. The better the team gets the less he will try to force plays and turn the ball over. If he can limit the tos than I like Ben at point (ala Arenas). Possibly trade Hinrich, Noah, Noc and Du for ? (Kobe, Arenas)?
If the draft were redone right now would pax draft gordon before deng? I think not. BG has mad talent and his coach was a pretty good guard.
Deng is slick around the hoop, but only became a bleep on the national radar when he was draining long shots against MIA in the playoffs. Letting talented young productive gym rats go has blunder potential. The future is bright for the (no longer baby) bulls.
by Zac23 on Aug 28, 2007 1:33 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Ben is not
by sue369 on Aug 28, 2007 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sue
by bullshooter on Aug 28, 2007 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
martin contract
Either way, I don;t think theyll give gordon more than $55 for 5 years. If they give him that, it be slightly better than the nocioni contract in terms of value.
I think the steal of the summer was signing gerald wallace for hinrich money. When Wallace is healthy he is one of the best all around players. The kind of guy that can put up 25 pts, 8 rbs, 3 stls, 2 blocks reagularly.
by Sambossanova on Aug 28, 2007 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
if Gerald Wallace averages 25 points a game
Martin is arguably better than Gordon, but he's also likely less of a 'name', so maybe that works against him in terms of money.
Not to rehash the Nocioni thing (but I will), but there's a difference between overpaying for Nocioni and overpaying for Gordon, even if the perceived value of the contract is the same.
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 28, 2007 1:59 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pop quiz hot shots
by Zac23 on Aug 28, 2007 11:24 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
For president?
by sue369 on Aug 28, 2007 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
why choose
by NY Chicago Fan on Aug 28, 2007 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dramatic movie preview voice guy says..
Gordon, he's more fun to watch.
by cubbybear on Aug 28, 2007 10:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well said, Matt.
by Colossus on Aug 29, 2007 10:55 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Here's an article
by sue369 on Aug 29, 2007 12:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
give a warning next time Sue
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 29, 2007 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I am excited about Noah's prospects.
I am less excited by the fact that he practices sans shirt.
by 1958ChiTown on Aug 29, 2007 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with Sue on this...
Personally, I'm hoping it catches on with some of the other guys.
by wjb1492 on Aug 29, 2007 2:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes!
Just as long as it's not the coaches or the trainers (except maybe Marc Boff) or the scouts or GMs.
by KT on Aug 29, 2007 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought you two
by sue369 on Aug 29, 2007 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I meant to deride Noah in particular
by your friendly BullsBlogger on Aug 29, 2007 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Noah's body...
by tyger1147 on Aug 30, 2007 9:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Im Curious...
High percentage shooting is nice, but im hoping to see hinrich playing the way he did in game 5 against the pistons last (this?) year. Someone here posted that hinrich is the weakest of the core...I am hoping he comes into his own so that he becomes just as invaluable to the bulls as deng and gordon are.
by piccolomair on Aug 29, 2007 8:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 












