# Buy or Sell Ben Gordon?



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

This is coming off the Hollinger thread, but I've been mulling it over myself and trying to figure out how I feel about the Bulls future with Ben.

On one hand, I worry that Ben was somewhat exposed, especially in the playoffs last year. He didn't show much in the way of PG skills and showed even less in the way of defense. As a long-run proposition, I worry about his confidence after the rough playoff series and I'm concerned that in the long-run we won't win with a committment to him, Kirk, and Duhon as our main three guards.

Add to that, I'm concerned there are very few teams out there who Ben is a good fit for, and I wonder what our chances are for getting good value for him if we decide we can't make things work. Would he fetch the #3 pick (or higher?) in this year's draft? Would we want it if he would?

On the other hand, he's very good at scoring and was that's a necessary role on this team. And while the size issues are a concern, I don't think his deficiencies (in size or defense) where what held us back this past year. So maybe that's much ado about nothing.

Opinions?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

you'd be a ****** fool to trade ben gordon right now..


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Mikedc said:


> This is coming off the Hollinger thread, but I've been mulling it over myself and trying to figure out how I feel about the Bulls future with Ben.
> 
> On one hand, I worry that Ben was somewhat exposed, especially in the playoffs last year. He didn't show much in the way of PG skills and showed even less in the way of defense. As a long-run proposition, I worry about his confidence after the rough playoff series and I'm concerned that in the long-run we won't win with a committment to him, Kirk, and Duhon as our main three guards.
> 
> ...


I share a lot of your concerns about Gordon. Other than scoring, lets face it, his skill level is not very impressive. However, his one skill is so very, very impressive and of such vital importance to this particular team that he must be given time to show improvement in the other areas.

Of course, the Bulls run the risk that he doesn't show that improvement and, as a result, his trade stock sinks. But based on some of his ridiculous 4th quarter heroics this season, I think the Bulls would be making a huge mistake by not taking that risk.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I share a lot of your concerns about Gordon. Other than scoring, lets face it, his skill level is not very impressive. However, his one skill is so very, very impressive and of such vital importance to this particular team that he must be given time to show improvement in the other areas.
> 
> Of course, the Bulls run the risk that he doesn't show that improvement and, as a result, his trade stock sinks. But based on some of his ridiculous 4th quarter heroics this season, I think the Bulls would be making a huge mistake by not taking that risk.


I agree. And I'll take that one step further...let's say Ben Gordon doesn't improve the holes in his game and becomes nothing more than a one-dimensional player not capable of big minutes nor of starting. We certainly wouldn't be coerced into paying him a $10M+ contract, would we? A mid-level type contract for one of the league's premier bench scorers might be better than having to pay over $10M to 6 different guys.

Edit: Not that this is what I'm hoping for...quite the opposite actually. I'm only saying that IF he doesn't show much room for improvement, he still could have a very valuable role on the Bulls. Albeit below expectations.


----------



## InPaxWeTrust (Sep 16, 2002)

Agreed. Finding the right situation for Gordon would be tough. Clippers are the #1 option for him I think. Question is do we want Maggs? Or would Wilcox+12 pick do it? Other than Clipps coming up with teams for him is tough. Boston? Only if they see him as a PG though. Indiana has shown interest before but you do not move him to a division rival. Seattle as a Daniels replacement? What about Gordon for a resigned Wilkins/Collison? That is about it though.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

The thing Ben Gordon isn't a PG. He is a two-guard in that Iverson mold which few players can claim. However, very few guards are outstanding defensive players their rookie seasons especially when they are guarding guys 3 inches taller than them. Gordon will be an All-Star and the one guy I would build this team around. He's a team leader and a go-to-guy the one thing I always thought the Bulls sorely lacked during our dark ages. I wouldn't trade him for anything less than a proven Top 20 player. Sorry just the way I feel.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Too soon to tell. Give Ben a chance to play a complete game.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

Keep the dude. 

The guy has three things you need in a player, talent, athleticism and work ethic. You don't give that away.

If we can get the core working hard over the off season for each other then we really have something, especially if Curry buys into it.

People are just kidding themselves if they think a player can't improve their game through out their career. Alot of the Detriot team are people that got traded for and found a situation they believed in and have excelled and grown in.

We just need to create that for our players.

Can people please bear in mind it's a combination of work ethic and potential. Players can struggle to develop for either of those factors, but if you have both you can go places.

I think we have five with both in Gordon, Hinrich, Deng, Nocino and Chandler.

I'm not writing off Curry either. This heart saga could really be a life changing experience for him. The guys 22. People mature alot in their early 20's.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> This is coming off the Hollinger thread, but I've been mulling it over myself and trying to figure out how I feel about the Bulls future with Ben.
> 
> On one hand, I worry that Ben was somewhat exposed, especially in the playoffs last year. He didn't show much in the way of PG skills and showed even less in the way of defense. As a long-run proposition, I worry about his confidence after the rough playoff series and I'm concerned that in the long-run we won't win with a committment to him, Kirk, and Duhon as our main three guards.
> 
> ...


I have so many thoughts on this that I have no idea if I can make a cogent post. But I'll try.

I can’t seem to separate Ben Gordon’s skill set and size from his situation. If the two other guards that share most of the minutes weren’t so small, his limitations might not be so much of a problem. 

It would seem that our three guard lineup is just too short to work in the long term. Yet last year, our team won 47 games with these three shorties playing the lion's share of the guard minutes. Two of them were rookies and one was a second year player, so why couldn't they be even more effective this year?

Well, one reason is that our division, and the East in general, seems to be getting taller and larger at the swingman positions. Let’s look at a bunch of the teams we will have to contend with going forwards. Problem #1 is Indiana. With the return of Artest, Stephen Jackson (6’8”) and Ron Ron (6’7” Mack Truck) will always be a matchup nightmare with whichever one of our little guards is guarding the 2 spot. Even with Hinrich’s defensive aplomb, I think it’s too much for him to ask for him to lock down one of those big boys. 

Detroit remains tough to guard at the swingman spots. Rip is listed at 6’7”, while Prince is 6’9”. Hell, even Billups is a tough guy to guard, as strong as he is. That’s not new, but it remains a difficult challenge for our current roster.

Depending on free agency, Cleveland may be a real problem at the swingman spots. We know about Bron Bron, and I thank god that he seems to be settled in now at the 3 position. I have no idea how we would handle him if he was Cleveland’s shooting guard. However, if they are able to lure Joe Johnson from Phoenix, we’ve got real problems. Michael Redd, should he bolt for Cleveland, is at the maximum size of what is fair to stick Kirk on. Milwaukee, meanwhile, may be the best size matchup at swingmen, especially if they still play the extremely undersized Desmond Mason at the 3. 

We saw Boston rip us up on O several times this year, notably Ricky Davis. They’re still large at the 2 and 3. New Jersey will be unguardable for us with Jefferson, Carter, and Kidd. Philly has become a larger team by finally moving AI to the point guard position full time, making room for Korver and Iguodala at swingmen for now. Toronto thankfully has very little at swingman right now to scare me, but we’ll see after the draft and free agency. I’m not too worried about the Knicks, as Crawford still hasn’t bulked up. I think Kirk can handle him. 

Atlanta has 6’7” Childress at the 2, and despite his slow start, he was playing well enough to warrant defensive attention at the end of the year. Josh Smith is a big one at 6’9”. Atlanta is less of a worry than some, because at this point in his career, you can “let Josh Childress beat you.” Miami plays small, but small is good when Wade is your 2. We had no answer for him this year. Washington’s guards aren’t too much bigger than ours, but we learned in our series that they are better than ours this year. Charlotte has nothing to scare me yet at swingman, and Orlando only has Hill if he’s healthy, but nothing else of concern at the 2 spot yet. 

Looking at this, we appear to have easily the smallest guard rotation in the East now that Philly has gone larger. I think it’s a real problem going forward, and I didn’t like how easily teams like Boston scored with ease from one of their swingman spots this year when they had a mismatch. 

Keeping our three guard lineup in play this year is VERY dangerous. I know Paxson has said that we might not be able to address the big guard situation this year, but not having some upgrade of a larger, defensive minded guard could prove disasterous with the growing East. It is possible that adding this large fourth guard to the roster could work. I still don’t really see where there are enough minutes to go around for four good guards, but I’d much rather have one on the roster and worry about minutes later.

So perhaps a Devon Brown, Raja Bell, or maybe a rookie such as Jackie Manual or Alan Anderson would allow the Ben Gordon experiment to continue. Yet even this is somewhat of a flawed solution in my mind. Based on the potential we’ve seen from Gordon, I would be disappointed if he was a career bench player for the Bulls. That’s just not what you want from a #3 pick. Ultimately, if Ben Gordon is going to be a long term fit on our team, he should be one of two short guards on the team. One of the three of them should go, and should be replaced by a high level large guard with solid defensive skills, but hopefully some offense as well. If we pare down to a three guard rotation, I would hope the big guard had some serious offensive game too. 

Based on all the options I see this offseason, my new dream scenario is to sign Michael Finley with the whole MLE for three years (assuming he is in fact let go by Dallas, which is no given). If we are able to resign Duhon with our LLE, great, but I think Finley has more to offer our team in the place of Duhon, and thus if he was actually an option, I think he would get priority. As of next year, Finley could start at the 2 for us, and any of the three guards could play together depending on the situation. Gordon would have to solidify his skills at the point, but I think he could do this for 10 minutes or so a game, even if it was rough in the beginning. 

As an aside, I don’t know if the Bulls are still planning to play in summer league, and I had read that their intention was not to send any of last year’s exceptional crop there anyway. I think it would be a mistake not to let Gordon run some point in otherwise meaningless games this summer. Why not let him work on his weaknesses this summer in a perfect situation?

I don’t really want to trade Gordon for a draft pick. I don’t see any sure bet a shooting guard that has star power on the same level that Ben does. If we could parlay Gordon in a trade that netted us a resigned Michael Redd, I think we’d have to consider it. I can’t see obtaining Ray Allen in a package with Gordon, and I’m leery of him with his age. Maggette would be a reasonable option for a trade, and yet I’d still rather hold on to Ben right now. Something about Corey doesn’t strike me the right way despite all of his great attributes. 

Anyhow, my Finley idea is pretty much a pipe dream. I do not expect that to go down, but I see something like this as one of the only situations for Gordon and Hinrich to be a long(er) term solution for the Bulls. Realistically, I expect the Duhon, Gordon, and Hinrich to be back in uniform together this season, and I fear they will have a very weak upgrade at big guard to play next to. In this case, we should carefully monitor Gordon’s progress this next year. If he starts filling his holes and progressing greatly in other areas of his game, than we should keep him no matter what, and we should look to build a team around him. If he continues to look like nothing more than an extremely short shooting guard with only great scoring ability, we may want to eventually consider looking for a trade that will parlay him into a larger shooting guard, before he is truly exposed as a positionless tweener (if it gets near that point, and I hope it doesn't).

I love Ben, but I love the Bulls more than Ben.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

I think we're going to see a LOT of growth from Gordon next season, similar to Hinrich's growth this season. If you put him in a point guard mentality, I think he'd demonstrate "PG skills". My hunch is that Skiles put him on the floor and did one of two things:

1. Ran a few plays for him
2. Told him to just get out there and score, one way or another

We didn't really have the jump shooters to make him a very effective penetrate-and-kick, and when a guard gets a mandate to score, that's the only kind of assist he's going to get. Otherwise, he'd be disobeying by having a pass-first mentality.

You put Gordon on a team like San Antonio, Phoenix, Dallas, or Miami, and you'd see him score like a nutcase. Our team is NOT that.

We'll see an expansion in his skill set to make him more adequate than David Wesley, who teams have been starting at SG for most of his career. For several years, Wesley was able to nab 2+ steals per game and was actually considered one of the toughest defenders around.

I think Gordon will be good for 17 ppg, 4 apg, 1.4 spg, and 3 rpg. I think he'll probably be around 43% shooting from the field and 39% from the arc.

I think he'll have more than a few more 4th quarter heroics yet to come. That's not something you can teach, or even really acquire.

Make him a smart defender, and I say we can crown him our SG for the long-term future.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Here is my logic: 

1.Philadelphia made it all the way to the Finals with Eric Snow(6'3'') and Allen Iverson(5'11'')

2.In order to play two short guards you need to buy into the concept of team defense and have an eraser at C(Check and Tyson Chandler fits that concept)

3.Trading away Gordon for anything less than a similar player but taller is unacceptable. How many games do we lose if Gordon isn't on the floor? 

4.Will anybody give us Joe Johnson, Michael Redd, Ray Allen for Gordon and none of other core 8? Unlikely. 

5.Could we deal Hinrich for a taller PG? Maybe, but who?

The only real candidates in my mind would be:

Shaun Livingston(No way they are trading him)
Marko Jaric(a FA I believe, the MLE might best be used here and letting Duhon go)
Larry Hughes(Can run some point but will likely be way out of the Bulls price range and a S&T will cost us more than Hinrich. Probably Hinrich and Deng)

I'd like to hear some better options.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I'm of the mindset to say sell.

ben was great in his role this past season , but generally a player shows growth in what his improvements will be during his rookie season .

i didn't see enough areas showing growth, and in some of the most important ones he showed none.

he showed nothing as a playmaker ...at 6'2 its a desperate need.

defense, he got better as the year went along , there is no denying that, but as he gets more experience i think he'll get even better ...but i dont think he'll ever be a defender of 2 guards, meaning kirk has to...or duhon 

court awareness after the 1st month he basically was what he was, no improvement ...and he could have used it to cut down on the turnovers.

i still think the bulls can get a guy like livingston for him or an asset close to his drafted position because he played so well as a rookie ...i dont think that will be the case a year from now...as teams notice what his ceiling is.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Only if we were getting Bogut or Gerald Green from him. But Green probaly wouldn't happen because he's a highschooler, and I don't think Pax will take him, and Bucks might not take that trade.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

His defense in the playoffs was a lot better than people like to pretend. His ball handling skills are also not as bad as people make it out to be.

Nothing that 10 straight games starting and playing 36 minutes at PG won't fix.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

It depends on your expectations. I don't think he is going to be a star, but his shooting is valuable and that makes him a keeper as a rotation player. He is a guy that can easily be shut down if a defense is paying him a lot of attention, but also a guy who can burn you badly if you're not paying attention to him. From your star, you want a guy who can beat defenses even when they are focused on him. 

I don't think Gordon can be a star in this league, he is too one dimensional. He isn't as talented as our other guards either, so I think he should filling the 6th man role for another year or two until he shows drastic improvement and gives management reason to give him more responsibility.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> His defense in the playoffs was a lot better than people like to pretend. His ball handling skills are also not as bad as people make it out to be.
> 
> Nothing that 10 straight games starting and playing 36 minutes at PG won't fix.


I hope you mean in summer league.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> It depends on your expectations. I don't think he is going to be a star, but his shooting is valuable and that makes him a keeper as a rotation player. He is a guy that can easily be shut down if a defense is paying him a lot of attention, but also a guy who can burn you badly if you're not paying attention to him. From your star, you want a guy who can beat defenses even when they are focused on him.
> 
> I don't think Gordon can be a star in this league, he is too one dimensional. He isn't as talented as our other guards either, so I think he should filling the 6th man role for another year or two until he shows drastic improvement and gives management reason to give him more responsibility.


I disagree. Gordon seems like a star to me. See his 4th quarter performances as proof and that's the beauty behind teams like the Pistons, Spurs, and Bulls. Teams can't focus exclusively on Gordon because we got people capable of filling in. His backcourt partner is no slouch and neither is our big fella down low.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> His defense in the playoffs was a lot better than people like to pretend. His ball handling skills are also not as bad as people make it out to be.
> 
> Nothing that 10 straight games starting and playing 36 minutes at PG won't fix.


he could play pg in summer league....but chances are he wont just like last season . the guy hasn't played pg since high school...i suspect there is a good reason why.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

It's a question of whether he can guard point guards not play point guard.

I don't think you can look at him in isolation.

I think what we are going to see is alot of these line up
Curry, Chandler, Nocino, Deng, Hinrich (big ball)
Chandler, Nocino, Deng, Hinrich, Gordon. (small ball)

Dare I suggest it but if Deng can play point forward in a year or two I think alot of this Gordon debate disappears. You don't want your main offensive threat bringing the ball up, you want him to recieve the first or second pass in the offense.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

darlets said:


> It's a question of whether he can guard point guards not play point guard.
> 
> I don't think you can look at him in isolation.
> 
> ...


i disagree gordon should be able to play pg at least in spots , if not that means someone has to play pg and defend a 2 guard while they are on the floor at all times...thats quite a big strain if that player isn't big enough to really play the 2 which really neither kirk or duhon are. neither of them are at their best in that situation.

deng may be able to play pg ...but he also may not, he doesn't garner assists at a rate any faster than gordon, and he also has never been in that role before expecting him to learn a job that most converted playmakers fail at anyway is not something to bet the farm on.

and there is nothing wrong with your best scorer bringing the ball up ....the pistons do just fine with billups being their go to guy...if he can play the position he knows to pass the ball around and how to get it back when he needs it.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

I'll remind everyone that Larry Bird wanted to trade for our 3rd pick last year and he was specifically targeting Ben Gordon. He offered up Al Harrington and change, Pax said that wasn't enough...

A trade I would be in favor of now would be Ben Gordon for Ron Artest.

Compared to last year at this time, Gordon's trade value has gone up, while Artest's value has gone down... if the Bulls had made this offer last year at this time the Pacers would have demanded a lot more...but now, taking into consideration Gordon winning 6th Man of the Year, Artest coming off of a year suspension...

Gordon + Pike for Artest? 

Gordon + Nocioni for Artest + Fred Jones?

Imagine Artest and Nocioni on the same team... :laugh:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

darlets said:


> It's a question of whether he can guard point guards not play point guard.
> 
> I don't think you can look at him in isolation.
> 
> ...


*That is a terrific point that I had forgotten all about. Excellent. I'm really glad you brought that back to the forefront and that people keep that in mind while considering the future of this team.* 

Within a few seasons, Deng is going to be a key facilitator for the Bulls offense. He will be a point-forward of sorts. I'm not comparing Deng to Duncan, but I see him playing a similar role as a decision-maker who the offense runs through nearly every time down the floor. 

If this happens, it essentially eliminates any perception that Gordon needs to develop point-guard skills. Something I don't agree with anyway, since he's not now, and will never be, a point guard.


----------



## Krazy!!! (Jul 10, 2002)

I can't believe that this topic is still ongoing regarding Ben Gordon. 

The guy almost singlehandedly put the Bulls in position to get into the playoffs (after all...WHO on the Bulls was capable of holding off opposing teams rallies as consistently and as fearlessly as Gordon) and there are still fans who doubt his potential.

It's posts like this that makes me think that Gordon, no matter what he does, will never fully be appreciated in Chicago. 

Let me end this reply by posting: Give the man a chance to get better.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Krazy!!! said:


> I can't believe that this topic is still ongoing regarding Ben Gordon.
> 
> The guy almost singlehandedly put the Bulls in position to get into the playoffs (after all...WHO on the Bulls was capable of holding off opposing teams rallies as consistently and as fearlessly as Gordon) and there are still fans who doubt his potential.
> 
> ...


Pretty soon he'll be a "cancer."


----------



## mr.ankle20 (Mar 7, 2004)

the object of the game is to score baskets. Thats what gordon is good at. There alot players in the league are poor defenders in the league. Lebron and vc are poor defenders. gordon has the potential to become a top 10 scorer . It would be a mistake if we trade gordon if we don't get equal value


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

if gordon is willing to come off the bench, then keep him, if not i say we trade him. i dont trust a 6'1 SGs who have no PG skills. as good as gordon was last yaer, I still dotn buy into that he will be a future all star. his career is doomed to become a 6th man. an instant offense punch of the bench.

besides, now it's the bset time to trade, hisvalue will never be higher. give up gordon+AD for PP, do it paxson!! or gordon to L.A for maggette.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Nope I think I'll buy. I'm ashamed at all the people who are so convinced that he won't improve (he's only been in the league 1 freaking year!!!), that they are already willing to give up on him. :angel:


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Gee, how about actually giving him a shot to improve? One year, and he's already JC II 

I don't see any reason Y Ben can't improve. He's been in the league for 1 freaking season. And even if he doesn't, he's still pretty damn valuable coming off the bench. Have people so quickly forgotten what he did for us last season? He was the biggest reason Y we even made the postseason! I'm sure Pax realizes that more so than anybody...and I'm glad he's the one running this team.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> and there is nothing wrong with your best scorer bringing the ball up ....the pistons do just fine with billups being their go to guy...if he can play the position he knows to pass the ball around and how to get it back when he needs it.


I know I'm nitpicking here, but I would most certainly call Richard Hamilton the go-to scorer for the Pistons. He plays off the ball about 95% of the time. This is just my opinion, but I think it's *usually* a bad idea for the best scorer to be consistently playing point guard. There are exceptions, but I honestly can't think of many high scoring point guards who've had much team success. I guess you would disagree being a Knicks fan and all (i.e. Marbury).


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Sith said:


> if gordon is willing to come off the bench, then keep him, if not i say we trade him. i dont trust a 6'1 SGs who have no PG skills. as good as gordon was last yaer, I still dotn buy into that he will be a future all star. his career is doomed to become a 6th man. an instant offense punch of the bench.


This is the bottom line. The only reason anyone suggests trading him is because Gordon fans keep labeling him a future superstar, which kills any chance of realistic talk about the future. He did win 6th man of the year though, and his scoring off the bench is very valuable. He isn't going to be a star, but we're not talking about Dejuan Wagner (or Jamal Crawford ) either. Bulls need to get in the habit of keeping valuable roleplayers, as long as they're willing to admit that they are roleplayers and not stars. Bulls need to keep Hinrich, Deng, Chandler, Curry, Gordon and Nocioni. There is a lot of variety in there. All these guys do a lot of different things.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Gordon has the game to be a superstar, but unfortunately, he won't reach that potential in Chicago.


----------



## Anima (Jun 3, 2003)

HKF said:


> Gordon has the game to be a superstar, but unfortunately, he won't reach that potential in Chicago.


 Why?


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

HKF said:


> Gordon has the game to be a superstar, but unfortunately, he won't reach that potential in Chicago.


Yeah, he's still not in the ideal situation to reach his full potential with all the other small guards. Will Gordon get any time at point guard if Duhon and Hinrich are still on the team next year?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Anima said:


> Why?


Because the Bulls still haven't figured out what they're going to do with Hinrich long term. It's obvious that both are going to have to settle into the PG role full time to have any kind of career longevity.

I also don't know how long Gordon's agent will like a man who is capable of putting up Gilbert Arenas type numbers coming off the bench. If the Bulls don't keep winning, a problem will arise because you don't draft players No. 3 to ride the pine.


----------



## thegza (Feb 18, 2003)

Sell. 

At best, I see him as a two guard who's 6 foot nothing and can just shoot the lights out when he's feeling it. He is not the complete article, and would have to work on both his defense and handles to become a decent overall player. As of right now, I see to many flaws in him to believe that he'll have any amazing upside and will probably just match his rookie season. A team can easily shut him down when they crack down and focus on him, as proven in the playoffs by the Washington Wizards (sad, but yeah). Not to add his lack of size is a dagger when he can't handle the ball well enough to run the point, he's 6 foot nothing.

Before I get bashed for making my own opinion.. I'm one that would LOVE to be wrong on my assesment on Ben Gordon.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

To move along my line of thought into completely unfounded speculation, was there anything stranger than the Raptors drafting Villanueva when they've got Chris Bosh?

Would they contemplate a Ben Gordon for Bosh swap?

Would we? (ok, but we'd have a logjam up front, then, right?)

Would the Hawks do a sign and trade of Curry for Harrington and either Josh Childress or Josh Smith (I like em both).

1- Hinrich, Duhon
2- Childress
3- Deng, Nocioni
4- Bosh, Harrington
5- Chandler, Davis


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

TheLegend said:


> Sell.
> 
> At best, I see him as a two guard who's 6 foot nothing and can just shoot the lights out when he's feeling it. He is not the complete article, and would have to work on both his defense and handles to become a decent overall player. As of right now, I see to many flaws in him to believe that he'll have any amazing upside and will probably just match his rookie season. A team can easily shut him down when they crack down and focus on him, as proven in the playoffs by the Washington Wizards (sad, but yeah). Not to add his lack of size is a dagger when he can't handle the ball well enough to run the point, he's 6 foot nothing.


I couldn't have said it better myself.

Sell, assuming the price is right of course.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I know I'm nitpicking here, but I would most certainly call Richard Hamilton the go-to scorer for the Pistons. He plays off the ball about 95% of the time. This is just my opinion, but I think it's *usually* a bad idea for the best scorer to be consistently playing point guard. There are exceptions, but I honestly can't think of many high scoring point guards who've had much team success. I guess you would disagree being a Knicks fan and all (i.e. Marbury).


well who their go to scorer could be a difference of opinion...i say billups because when they need a basket they go more often to billups , no matter what the season avg. say...i watched the finals and it was clear to me who they went to in the 4th more ...and whom the spurs focused on more.

but there have been successful teams with point guards as their leading scorer.

the wizards whom the bulls played in the playoffs , had arenas .

payton with the sonics had his teams as consistent title contenders.

Isiah thomas and magic won titles as pg's and their leading scorers.

I dont believe its a problem as long as the team around that player does their job and that leading scorer comes through when the team needs it.

it comes down to a simple question of talent most teams who have point guards as their leading scorers dont have a franchise player and most point guards who lead their team in scorers aren't franchise players so their not going to be all that much success to be had.

in the nba there probably is only 1 point guard who can be considered among the league's top 10 players(allen iverson) and he is as much a 2 as a 1.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Hold

Ben Gordon is exactly what we saw last year. A high % shooter, albeit undersized, that is currently the best on our team at creating his own shot and has the ability to break down a defense. Barring injuries, he will be what we saw his rookie season at the very worst in his career.

The argument to sell Gordon is size, subpar defense, and subpar NBA decision making.

The argument to buy Gordon is last season was his rookie year, he accepted his role off the bench as a highly touted high lottery pick, and has a great work ethic.

I say he is a hold, because I think he is appropriately valued. There are a lot of question marks, which is why I don't think we could get fair value in trade (Selling). However, I see no reason to raise expectations even further (Buy) because I think he has a high bar of expectations already at this point.

I see absolutely no reason to trade Gordon at this point. Sure, his value could decline over time, but you need to keep what could be a potential All-Star on a team without All-Stars on your roster. I have no doubt that he will continue to improve as he feels more comfortable in his NBA game.

I think people are overlooking the fact that we have a tall frontcourt compared to most teams. Deng and Chandler still could be growing, and we already have two 7+-footers and a 6'8" SF. Even though we ideally want a couple of extra inches in our backcourt, I don't think our team is so lacking in size where we must make a trade to gain those couple of inches.

I do think we need to add some size to our bench, but only to improve #8-15 on the roster.


----------



## Chicago_Cow (Mar 5, 2003)

If Gordon develops his pg skills and defense, I would personally pack Hinrich bag for a tall sg or a lottery pick.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Its funny, I suppose...

We started 0-9 and somehow managed to make the playoffs as a 4 seed, losing in 6 games despite not having Curry and Deng.


While we are at it, let's get rid of Hinrich too...He can't seem to shoot
Curry can't defend/rebound, let's can him....
Chandler is injury prone and doesn't have a great offensive game....let's can him too...
Nocioni made some stupid mistakes in his 'all-out' mentality...we should dump him too...
Davis? He's getting old...get rid of him...
Duhon isn't a great shooter...we shouldn't sign him back

Let's see...where does that leave us...

Oh, I know. Back in the lottery where we belong.

I shall look forward to our ping pong ball madness once again.

Yeah!


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Vintage said:


> Its funny, I suppose...
> 
> We started 0-9 and somehow managed to make the playoffs as a 4 seed, losing in 6 games despite not having Curry and Deng.
> 
> ...


 :clap:


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

Mikedc said:


> Would they contemplate a Ben Gordon for Bosh swap?
> 
> Would we? (ok, but we'd have a logjam up front, then, right?)
> 
> ...


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

TheLegend said:


> Sell.
> 
> At best, I see him as a two guard who's 6 foot nothing and can just shoot the lights out when he's feeling it. He is not the complete article, and would have to work on both his defense and handles to become a decent overall player. As of right now, I see to many flaws in him to believe that he'll have any amazing upside and will probably just match his rookie season. A team can easily shut him down when they crack down and focus on him, as proven in the playoffs by the Washington Wizards (sad, but yeah). Not to add his lack of size is a dagger when he can't handle the ball well enough to run the point, he's 6 foot nothing.
> 
> Before I get bashed for making my own opinion.. I'm one that would LOVE to be wrong on my assesment on Ben Gordon.


this is exacly how i feel. i just want to add in some comments. 
ben gordon will likely demand 8mil+ annual salary wehn his rookie contract expires, do we give him that? KIrk is an excellent PG, certainly better than gordon at this point, and still very young, much better defender. Gordon has no role on that bulls team except being an instant offense spark off the bench, but how long will he be able to settle for a 6th man role. His trading value will never be higher. the player we bring back from Gordon will be a very good one too, he can easily replace gordon. lets face it, can we really expect us to play forever with the 3 small guards rotation in duhon, kirk,ben? skiles lucked out that it actually worked out well. but sooner or later, we need to bring a legit 6'6 big SG if we want to do well inthe playoffs.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

It seems odd to me that everyone saying sell on Gordon is labeling him a PG (or trade Hinrich to keep Gordon, etc).


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

I don't see Paxson trading Gordon this offseason.

I think Paxson will try package Curry and Gordon down the road in an attempt to acquire a superstar talent, and fill the other gaps through free agency in 2006. Just a hunch I have. However, how the team performs next season will dictate many of Paxson's decisions, as well as individual player improvement. Gordon may because a Gilbert Arenas type PG and be able to handle the position. Curry may improve his rebounding.


----------



## Krazy!!! (Jul 10, 2002)

HKF said:


> Gordon has the game to be a superstar, but unfortunately, he won't reach that potential in Chicago.


I agree. I almost WISH that the Bulls trade Gordon so that he can shine elsewhere while the Gordon doubters/bashers throw blame at Bulls management for letting him go in the first place.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Krazy!!! said:


> I agree. I almost WISH that the Bulls trade Gordon so that he can shine elsewhere while the Gordon doubters/bashers throw blame at Bulls management for letting him go in the first place.


That's definately not "right way" attitude. :banana:


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

i want to trade gordon is NOT because he can't play, or he's not a good player. it's simply because he has no role on this bulls team, we are already commited to kirk, there's no way kirk gets traded. and Gordon will not settle for the 6th man forever. Kirk/Gordon starting backcourt will not work for an elite team. plus, he will be too expensive to keep around as a reserve.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Sith said:


> Kirk/Gordon starting backcourt will not work for an elite team.


I disagree...only 3 or 4 years ago, the Charlotte Hornets almost made it to the NBA Finals. Their downfall, ultimately, was their lack of solid bench play. But their starting 5 was among the best in the league. That included Baron Davis (6'3) and David Wesley (6'2) in the backcourt. Baron normally defended the 2, just like Kirk can normally defend the 2. For the most part, it worked for them because they had good size and defense in the frontcourt, just like this Bulls team. Jamal Mashburn, PJ Brown, and Elden Campbell isn't a whole lot better than Luol Deng, Tyson Chandler, and Eddy Curry, IMO. Plus this Bulls team is so much deeper than that Hornets team was.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I disagree...only 3 or 4 years ago, the Charlotte Hornets almost made it to the NBA Finals. Their downfall, ultimately, was their lack of solid bench play. But their starting 5 was among the best in the league. That included Baron Davis (6'3) and David Wesley (6'2) in the backcourt. Baron normally defended the 2, just like Kirk can normally defend the 2. For the most part, it worked for them because they had good size and defense in the frontcourt, just like this Bulls team. Jamal Mashburn, PJ Brown, and Elden Campbell isn't a whole lot better than Luol Deng, Tyson Chandler, and Eddy Curry, IMO. Plus this Bulls team is so much deeper than that Hornets team was.



THANK YOU!

A-FREAKEN-MEN.


----------



## Illstate2 (Nov 11, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I disagree...only 3 or 4 years ago, the Charlotte Hornets almost made it to the NBA Finals. Their downfall, ultimately, was their lack of solid bench play. But their starting 5 was among the best in the league. That included Baron Davis (6'3) and David Wesley (6'2) in the backcourt. Baron normally defended the 2, just like Kirk can normally defend the 2. For the most part, it worked for them because they had good size and defense in the frontcourt, just like this Bulls team. Jamal Mashburn, PJ Brown, and Elden Campbell isn't a whole lot better than Luol Deng, Tyson Chandler, and Eddy Curry, IMO. Plus this Bulls team is so much deeper than that Hornets team was.


Another thing that held back those Hornets teams was their inability to stay healthy.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Sith said:


> i want to trade gordon is NOT because he can't play, or he's not a good player. it's simply because he has no role on this bulls team, we are already commited to kirk, there's no way kirk gets traded. and Gordon will not settle for the 6th man forever. Kirk/Gordon starting backcourt will not work for an elite team. plus, he will be too expensive to keep around as a reserve.


When did we commit to Kirk?? This is news to me??


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

I love how it's Kirk vs. Gordon.

Why can't we see what Kirk AND Gordon can do. It's not like we have to even make a decision until after two more full seasons.

Barring injury, Kirk and Gordon aren't going to get worse. Their value might be less if we only see slight or lateral improvement, sure, but both kids have the work ethic and attitude that anyone would want to have out of their starting backcourt.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> I love how it's Kirk vs. Gordon.
> 
> Why can't we see what Kirk AND Gordon can do. It's not like we have to even make a decision until after two more full seasons.
> 
> Barring injury, Kirk and Gordon aren't going to get worse. Their value might be less if we only see slight or lateral improvement, sure, but both kids have the work ethic and attitude that anyone would want to have out of their starting backcourt.


I stated as much just a month and a half ago. It was met with a lukewarm reception. Go figure. I've resigned myself to the idea that according to the experts here on this board, there just isn't enough "shine" for both of them. And since that's what its all about...one of them must go. I'll just operate off that idea when forming my arguments from now on.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> I stated as much just a month and a half ago. It was met with a lukewarm reception. Go figure. I've resigned myself to the idea that according to the experts here on this board, there just isn't enough "shine" for both of them. And since that's what its all about...one of them must go. I'll just operate off that idea when forming my arguments from now on.


God forbid if Kirk and Ben are actually compatible. What I find funny about it is that if Kirk were a measly 2 inches taller, we wouldn't even be thinking about this. But instead, people are actually thinking Roko Ukic might be a better backcourt mate for Ben than Kirk Hinrich is, simply because he's got those coveted 2 inches.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

It's funny how if you think that Gordon isn't going to be a superstar, you're a Gordon basher/doubter/hater. I guess I'm a Hinrich hater too then. Once more, I'm all for keeping Gordon. As long as he is payed like the roleplayer that he is. He, as well as everyone else on the team (the top 5-6 atleast), should be making about the same money when it's contract time. Hinrich, Deng, Chandler, Curry, Gordon and Nocioni. There shouldn't be much difference in how much they're payed, except maybe in the big guys, since they generally get paid more. They're the same calibur players, they are good players, but none of them will ever be superstars, in my opinion. I guess that means I hate everyone on the Bulls, which is akward coming from a Bulls fan. Go figure.


----------



## cima (Nov 6, 2003)

Why the heck does everyone want to trade Ben Gordon?! My goodness, he was THE reason why we won so many close games because he gives us a scoring option in the 4th quarter, something we otherwise wouldn't have. It makes NO sense to trade him.

First people wanted to trade him after we drafted him, then when he proves those people wrong and we make the playoffs, people STILL want to trade him. WHY?!


----------



## Krazy!!! (Jul 10, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> That's definately not "right way" attitude. :banana:


Why not? It seems that every other occasion I come across these "Let's trade Ben Gordon" type posts.

Without Gordon....the Bulls very well might NOT have gotten into the playoffs.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Krazy!!! said:


> Why not? It seems that every other occasion I come across these "Let's trade Ben Gordon" type posts.
> 
> Without Gordon....the Bulls very well might NOT have gotten into the playoffs.


You said:



> I agree. I almost WISH that the Bulls trade Gordon so that he can shine elsewhere while the Gordon doubters/bashers throw blame at Bulls management for letting him go in the first place.


Taken literally, i.e. you want to see Gordon traded just to prove to others how valuable he is to the team, isn't very "right way."

You and I have been on the same page regarding all this "trade Gordon" talk, so I thought my comment would be taken as humorous.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

some thoughts .

isn't it odd how no matter what people will pit a guard vs. another guard in the bulls backcourt.

the hornets did not *almost* make it to the finals they have never made it past the 2nd round in their history or in the in baron-wesley era or won more than 49 games(avg 45 over 5 full seasons) ...not exactly the test sheet you wanna copy off of.

obviously a team can win with a small backcourt ...just like a team can win with a small frontcourt , an anorexic center, a fat shooting guard or whatever out of the norm but possibly effective setup...but none of it is a ideal and can make the job of being good harder...that weakness generally has to be a strength in some way ...something no one can say for sure yet with the bulls.

the hornet's backcourt had an all-star in it and a decent player who fulfilled a role ...but it also had allstar's or at least all star caliber play in other spots on the floor(mashburn & magliore) for most of that time .

i say trade ben gordon...because the problems i had with him being drafted in the 1st place have not been resolved...he cant guard the position he plays on offense and he cant play the position every player his size to at least play in spots (pg). he is a good player and whats wrong with him wont be fixed on the bulls , scott skiles' job is to win ballgames not to increase ben gordon's trade value or long range potential.

in skiles' offense either guard can play pg ...we saw it the year before with crawford and every other guard excluding pike and gordon has run the offense at some point in this past season, letting ben run pg is just not something skiles wants gordon doing.

gordon is not in my mind a superstar , so he isn't untouchable and if kirk gets so much as a hangnail the whole organization knows ben is instantly less effective for 2 reasons 1. he has to play more min. and he clearly is less effective when that happens and 2. he causes match up problems for his own team.

it cant be ben vs. kirk because ben wouldn't be as good without kirk, but kirk would probably be better off without ben...its not a situation ben can possibly win, they can coesxist but probably not as comfortably as any of us would like.

kirk will always struggle against the big 2 guards because he is too small to defend them well and in those games he also tends to play bad on offense. and despite what people think some undrafted guy wont make much of a difference because that guy can't play instead of kirk when ben is on the floor because someone has to play pg. duhon will always get his time as will kirk and ben so the minutes that guy will play will basically belong to griffin and pike.

the playoffs that ben played poorly in were nothing...and should have been expected , ben really had not played well in the last 2 months of the season , he wore down/league caught up a bit, it should be resolved this season, with experience and coaching.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> the hornets did not *almost* make it to the finals they have never made it past the 2nd round in their history or in the in baron-wesley era or won more than 49 games(avg 45 over 5 full seasons) ...not exactly the test sheet you wanna copy off of.





> the hornet's backcourt had an all-star in it and a decent player who fulfilled a role ...but it also had allstar's or at least all star caliber play in other spots on the floor(mashburn & magliore) for most of that time .


I'm primarily referring to the Hornets' 2000-2001 season, when they were pretty clearly a top 3 team in the East. They lost in 7 to the Bucks that year, and since the Bucks lost in 7 to the Sixers, I'd say they weren't too far from the Finals. And there was no "all-star" in the backcourt at the time...Baron Davis was in his 2nd season where he averaged a whopping 13 ppg and 7 assists...hmm, sounds like another 6'3 guard I know.

But you seem to have missed my point...it was NOT their small backcourt that held that team back. The Davis-Wesley pairing was very successful, which IMO is very similar to a Hinrich-Gordon backcourt. That Hornets team was held back by lack of depth more than anything IMO (and to a lesser extent, injuries as someone else mentioned). Take a look at the roster beyond their starting 5:

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=CHA&lg=n&yr=2000

Let Kirk and Ben play together for another season or two...there's alot of potential there, and not the kind of potential that we need to wait 3-4 years for.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I'm primarily referring to the Hornets' 2000-2001 season, when they were pretty clearly a top 3 team in the East. They lost in 7 to the Bucks that year, and since the Bucks lost in 7 to the Sixers, I'd say they weren't too far from the Finals. And there was no "all-star" in the backcourt at the time...Baron Davis was in his 2nd season where he averaged a whopping 13 ppg and 7 assists...hmm, sounds like another 6'3 guard I know.
> 
> But you seem to have missed my point...it was NOT their small backcourt that held that team back. The Davis-Wesley pairing was very successful, which IMO is very similar to a Hinrich-Gordon backcourt. That Hornets team was held back by lack of depth more than anything IMO (and to a lesser extent, injuries as someone else mentioned). Take a look at the roster beyond their starting 5:
> 
> ...


depth i'll give you was a problem, they only went about 8 deep ...injuries ???their starting line up missed 12 games total, but the guys who played , played well enough and long enough 4 of their 5 starters played more minutes than the bulls leading min. guy (kirk). and 1 of their bench players played so well in those playoffs he got a 5 year 31.2 million dollar deal from the bulls during the offseason...so depth with eddie robinson and a young magliore might not have been all that bad especially in the playoffs when the rotations are shortened anyway.

their small backcourt didn't hold them back that year . and it wasn't _very successful_ they won less games that year than the bulls did this past year.

they didn't lose because of their backcourt's size but they didn't win because of it either,the strength of that team was in its frontcourt both in scoring and defense .

the fact remains ben only plays the 2 and neeeds someone to guard 2's for him. thats the problem in having him. he will always need someone to offset him playing the 1 on offense and the 2 on defense...

wesley and baron could actually play both positions and baron could guard both positions fulltime without wearing down like kirk, because he usually plays at 220+ while kirk plays at under 200lbs. wesley's ability to play pg allowed baron some rest while they were on the court together from some of the burdens kirk gets with ben. Duhon allows kirk to play a more traditional 2 guard role.

you are posting as if you expect gordon and kirk to be better than baron and wesley to offset the problems that ben brings with his skillset...there are no guarentees and baron also got alot better ...but his team didn't with that guard setup. its hard to break into being true contenders when there are matchups the bulls just may not be able to win because of backcourt size ...much like those hornets.

all i see is that the almost all of the good teams in the east seem to have 2 guards that kirk has alot of trouble with, mostly because of their size and power. if kirk were 6'6 225 it wouldn't be an issue ...or if he didn't show the wear and tear of guarding bigger players it wouldn't matter.

but thats not the case.

how does ben play more when he needs kirk on the court with him most of the time? especially if the other team has a good 2 guard on the floor . We'd all like kirk to be the energizer bunny and be able to play 39-40 minutes a game and never wear down similar to baron in the year you mention , but thats not the case either.

duhon cant guard good 2 guards, he's too small...ditto for pargo...and that big defensive 2 posters are clamoring for doesn't play with gordon unless he can play point guard which is unlikely seeing who pax has been looking at(jackie manuel. eddie basden).

so the question is how much can gordon play ? if he cant play much more than his 24 min. his value is limited , its best to trade him now before the league figures it out.

the thread is called buy or sell ben gordon ...it really does look like this is the most he is ever going to be worth .

sell.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

disgruntledKNICKfan said:


> it cant be ben vs. kirk because ben wouldn't be as good without kirk, but kirk would probably be better off without ben...
> 
> ...kirk will always struggle against the big 2 guards because he is too small to defend them well and in those games he also tends to play bad on offense.



Well, Kirk wouldn't be better off in one sense in that he hasn't hit a game winning shot in two years (that I remember), whereas Ben hit about five of them by rough recount. Kirk is better off if he cares about winning, not ease of play and/or his own glory. 

And that's the funny thing about Ben Gordon. It shouldn't have worked as well as it did his rookie year, but he pulled so many rabbits out of his hat that it did work, to the tune of 47 wins.

I still don't know if three small guards will work long term. It's not even two small guards, but all of them are so short. Ugh. Honestly I wish Ben would get good enough at pg and defense that Chris, bless his hardworking heart, would be expendable, and then we could add a big guard a la Michael Finley and have a real three man guard rotation, where Skiles could find a suitable combination for any situation.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> Well, Kirk wouldn't be better off in one sense in that he hasn't hit a game winning shot in two years (that I remember), whereas Ben hit about five of them by rough recount. Kirk is better off if he cares about winning, not ease of play and/or his own glory.
> 
> And that's the funny thing about Ben Gordon. It shouldn't have worked as well as it did his rookie year, but he pulled so many rabbits out of his hat that it did work, to the tune of 47 wins.
> 
> I still don't know if three small guards will work long term. It's not even two small guards, but all of them are so short. Ugh. Honestly I wish Ben would get good enough at pg and defense that Chris, bless his hardworking heart, would be expendable, and then we could add a big guard a la Michael Finley and have a real three man guard rotation, where Skiles could find a suitable combination for any situation.



you know what DMD you are right its always better to win and the duo of ben and kirk would be better if chris were bigger ...if he were bigger it would be a non issue if he could defend 2 guards, it would have allowed ben to play more and for kirk to rest more and defend point guards more often which at this point of his career he is still a point guard physically.

about finley ...you cant really have that effective of a 3 guard rotation with him because he cant be teamed with gordon at guard because he's no point guard either...you would need a 4th guard ..which is not a problem there is no rule that says only 3 guard rotations are the way to go.

i worry about kirk in the sense that i believe he wears down with the burdens he carries and generally if you let a guy wear down too much he breaks down, also it stunts his development as a player. 

kirk has it in him to be clutch , he doesn't really get the opportunity much , in his rookie year he didn't deserve it(according to 82games.com in the last 5 min. of close games he avg. something along the lines of 9 points per 48 min. on anemic shooting) , he was that bad as the games came to a close , last year it wasn't the case .

last season he took more shots as the game was on the line and he kept the bulls in alot of games when ben faultered or was hemmed up for a play or 2.

and even in your post you put in the need for additional players to augment the bulls , because you see what i see , this is not a long term situation, they are too small...but chris has no real trade value and truthfully i value kirk more for the bulls long term success, without him defending 2's and playing point guard, ben wouldn't have been out there most of the time to even attempt game winners.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

I'm in the "Keep Ben Gordon" camp. I see no need at all to trade the guy.


----------

