# Would a Gordon trade be best?



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I posed this at the bottom of the game thread, but I felt it more apt to create a thread about it. Here is the post I did regarding it. 
----------------------------------------------------------------

If Duhon is truly the back-up PG, maybe the Bulls should look into finding a trade for Gordon. 

A place like the Lakers would be a good place for him, if they sent you Kareem Rush, Jumaine Jones and Luke Walton for Ben Gordon. 

Rush and Walton would be the kind of role players the Bulls could use too. I think the salaries match up too. 

New Bulls roster:

PG - Kirk Hinrich/Chris Duhon
SG - Kareem Rush/Luol Deng/Eric Piatkowski
SF - Andres Nocioni/Luke Walton/Jumaine Jones
PF - Tyson Chandler/Othella Harrington
C - Eddy Curry/Antonio Davis

Rush can shoot from the perimeter and Walton is a jack of all trades, Pax/Skiles kind of player. 

I think this could be a good deal for the Bulls if they wanted it. Jones only has a year on his deal and Walton can be re-signed for a nice salary and Rush is still on a cheap rookie deal. Just have to wait till Dec. 15th to make this move. 

Chicago trades: Ben Gordon ( ppg, rpg, apg in minutes)
Chicago receives: SF Jumaine Jones	(2.2 ppg, 1.6 rpg, 0.3 apg in 8.9 minutes)
SG Kareem Rush	(6.4 ppg, 1.4 rpg, 0.8 apg in 17.3 minutes)
PF Luke Walton	(2.4 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 1.6 apg in 10.1 minutes)
Change in team outlook: +11.0 ppg, +4.8 rpg, and +2.7 apg.

L.A. Lakers trades: SF Jumaine Jones	(2.2 ppg, 1.6 rpg, 0.3 apg in 8.9 minutes)
SG Kareem Rush	(6.4 ppg, 1.4 rpg, 0.8 apg in 17.3 minutes)
PF Luke Walton	(2.4 ppg, 1.8 rpg, 1.6 apg in 10.1 minutes)
L.A. Lakers receives: Ben Gordon	( ppg, rpg, apg in games)
Change in team outlook: -11.0 ppg, -4.8 rpg, and -2.7 apg.

TRADE ACCEPTED

Due to Chicago and L.A. Lakers being over the cap, the 15% trade rule is invoked. Chicago and L.A. Lakers had to be no more than 115% plus $100,000 of the salary given out for the trade to be accepted, which did happen here. This trade satisfies the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.


----------



## Johnjo (Jun 4, 2002)

Although Rush is a talent, I can't ever see him being a star. As a Bulls fan I'm sick of seeing trades for a bunch of role players. I don't know where Gordon is going to fit into this team, but I think he's got the potential to be something really special so I'd rather hold onto him.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

That would actually be quite a good trade, I think Rush just needs to start for him to be a good player. Gordon isn't really needed IMO, and my opinion has changed dramatically about him.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnjo</b>!
> Although Rush is a talent, I can't ever see him being a star. As a Bulls fan I'm sick of seeing trades for a bunch of role players. I don't know where Gordon is going to fit into this team, but I think he's got the potential to be something really special so I'd rather hold onto him.


See the thing is, Gordon will never reach his potential as a SG. He is a PG. He is not good as a back-up PG, because he will challenge Hinrich and you will have another PG controversy. At least with Duhon, he will know he is a back-up PG and accept it.

You don't draft a PG 3rd overall, to have him be a back-up to a second year PG. You have to deal one of them and Gordon is that guy.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

while i dont believe gordon is all people are touting him to be 

there is no way you can trade a guy who was the 3rd pick in the draft only months ago for a bunch of role players even good role players who will play the position he is supposed to play without gaining some serious star talent elsewhere .

if that were the case it would be an admission they drafted the wrong guy , some GM's can do that quickly and move on , like jerry west i dont see that from paxson at all.

the bulls have made their bed and now they have to sleep in it.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

If we are trading Gordon for anything less than a all-star caliber player this early, Paxson must go with him....and probably Skiles too.

As for the trade idea - Horrible. The Lakers would do that in a heart beat. Hell, they send you back Caron and Chris Mihm too.

Why? Cause they have two verified stars - Kobe and Odom. Give them gordon and they could compete (with the exception of not having a Center) for a championship.


Look, we held on to the pick instead of grabbing Bender so Gordon better turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread.

Right now, he's a shorter version of a guy most on the board clamored to give away for free last season.

Gordon better be a productive player.

Remember, we didn't just get Gordon and Deng for sucking so bad....we gave up next years 1st. So if it's any higher than a 7, Pax blew it big time.

Hell, put it down now - Pax blew it. You can't add, then immediately subtract constantly and improve.

Great to see some people are finally acknowlidging that Gordon may only be David Wesley. Wouldn't be bad if we had Baron Davis - But we don't!

Oh well, give him time to get his bearings. He's got "potential"....and we love potential!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> See the thing is, Gordon will never reach his potential as a SG. He is a PG. He is not good as a back-up PG, because he will challenge Hinrich and you will have another PG controversy. At least with Duhon, he will know he is a back-up PG and accept it.
> ...


or you could just move kirk to 2 guard .


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Grinch, what happens if a Hinrich-Gordon backcourt is a failure? What do you do then? 

Hinrich is not getting traded. Wouldn't it suggest Gordon would be the piece used? You'd need a team that has a need for a PG, but they have to have pieces that the Bulls can use. 

I think it's a mere formality before Gordon is shipped. He was drafted IMO, as a tradeable asset.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>chifaninca</b>!
> 
> Great to see some people are finally acknowlidging that Gordon may only be David Wesley. Wouldn't be bad if we had Baron Davis - But we don't!
> 
> Oh well, give him time to get his bearings. He's got "potential"....and we love potential!


He's not David Wesley though. He is a PG, who is being forced to play SG, because of his offensive potential. He's also being asked to carry a team offensively, while playing out of position (on the pro level no less) as the main offensive threat from the perimeter. 

Doesn't sound like he is being set up to succeed. The exact opposite in my opinion.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> or you could just move kirk to 2 guard .


Would Pax/Skiles do that though?


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> He's not David Wesley though. He is a PG, who is being forced to play SG, because of his offensive potential. He's also being asked to carry a team offensively, while playing out of position (on the pro level no less) as the main offensive threat from the perimeter.
> ...


That's why Pxson whould be fired for drafting Gordon!!!!!!

Gordon brought nothing to this team that makes an instant impact for a unbelievably bad team. Great player - maybe someday........probably not for the Bulls unless we move Hinrich. If Hinrich gets moved to make room for Gordon we'll have to open a suicide prevention hotline for this board's memebrs.

Paxson covers it up by getting a guy like Deng who can contribtue at a high level right away. Unfortunately, Paxson had to give the rights to our first round pick, who may be a much player than Deng if we really end up sucking. Actually, the guy may end up being better than both Deng and Gordon. If he's better than one of them, Paxson screwed up.

Paxson gets to keep his job because he worked out the Nocioni deal and took a shot on a guy many, including myself though would fail - Duhon.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Would Pax/Skiles do that though?


Hell yeah he would. We love playiong guys out of position. We are the Chicago Bears of the NBA.

Our coaching staff's inadequacies are only dwarfed by our managements stupidty and our ownerships greed!


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Trading Gordon isn't a bad idea if it improves the team. For example, if the Bulls were able to win after trading Brand and company, I doubt anyone would care that they made AS appearances. The Bulls are set at many positions right now. 

They have their C, their high active PF, their floor general, two very talented SF's and now they need to upgrade the bench and bring in better role players. 

Remember Shooting Guard is the easiest position to fill in the NBA. Next year, Antonio Davis and E-Rob's expiring deals could be used to bring in a very nice player at the SG position to maybe take the Bulls over the top. 

The tradeable assets work to Paxson's advantage if he is exploring all avenues.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Trading Gordon isn't a bad idea if it improves the team. For example, if the Bulls were able to win after trading Brand and company, I doubt anyone would care that they made AS appearances. The Bulls are set at many positions right now.
> 
> They have their C, their high active PF, their floor general, two very talented SF's and now they need to upgrade the bench and bring in better role players.
> ...



Wow HKF,

Those are some big assumptions.

We have our starting Center and PF? Wish MGMT and Ownership saw it that way too.

SG the easiest????????????? If that's the case why do the Bulls keep draft PG's and PF's to fill the SG position? We don't have a starting SG on our roster (Don't mention E-ROB). 

As for next year???? We're already giving Pax another year? We have no picks..very little money, if any....We will have sucked again and this is going to attract a quality starting SG to us?

Maybe if Jerry West were our GM. Unfortunately, we have the "Jerry Lewis" of GM's. It's all about the kids.............


----------



## Charlotte_______ (May 18, 2003)

No way you trade Gordon. The third pick in the draft for nobody players. Gordon who hasn't played a real regular season game and hes on the block? I thought he was getting praises from lots of people saying hes the real deal?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I can't tell you why they didn't take Jarvis Hayes or Mickael Pietrus last year. Probably because they had no faith in Crawford at the 1, but then they draft another PG this year, when they could have most likely traded down and still picked up Iggy and Deng or Luke Jackson or JR Smith or Kirk Snyder.

I don't know why the Bulls keep constantly drafting PG's. I really don't. Good thing they don't have a first round pick next year isn't it?


----------



## Johnjo (Jun 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> He's not David Wesley though. He is a PG, who is being forced to play SG, because of his offensive potential. He's also being asked to carry a team offensively, while playing out of position (on the pro level no less) as the main offensive threat from the perimeter.
> ...


I don't see how he is being asked to carry a team offensively. He may not even be starting to begin with. Although I assume the hopeful future starters will be Gordon and Hinrich in the backcourt, I think management and coaching is hoping that Gordon, Deng, and Curry will all eventually be big-time scorers with Tyson, Kirk, and Nocioni playing good supporting ball. 

And, I don't see the need to trade him right now for a bunch of role players. I mean Gordon did fine in the RMR. This is 3 freaking games into the preseason and we are already talking about trading him?!?! C'mon guys, chill out, and let's at least give him 2 regular season games to see what he can do.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Grinch, what happens if a Hinrich-Gordon backcourt is a failure? What do you do then?
> 
> Hinrich is not getting traded. Wouldn't it suggest Gordon would be the piece used? You'd need a team that has a need for a PG, but they have to have pieces that the Bulls can use.
> ...


1st it would depend on why its a failure , if kirk cant handle 40 minutes a game defending bigger players , there isn't much that can be done but trade one of them, if BG cant play defense well enough for the tandem to work one of them has to go .

if the problem is on offense whether its kirk or ben it will likely not be kirk and the problem would be gordon's lack of production or his lack of efficient production and he would have to be benched and traded unless the only thing that could save it would be a switch at pg putting gordon there and he is as you have stated better at pg to the point the tandem would be a success .

I have always thought it was a mistake to draft gordon , especially at #3 at that spot he basically has to produce like iverson or steve francis to make his selection worthwhile , since so much extra has to be done to make him the talent they believe him to be.

kirk will have to guard the better offensive player to save ben's energy and probably play off the ball , while setting up the offense , thats a lot to ask of a player , similar to the way eric snow played with iverson. the hawks tried for years to find a similar player to work with jason terry , they never found a player who could do it all like snow did in philly.

the mistake of drafting gordon was compounded the day they traded crawford because it instantly made him the man despite the fact he has never actually been the best player on his team past high school , its too much pressure for a rookie not named lebron and even LBJ wasn't expected to be the go to guy , he just quickly leapfrogged ricky davis and big Z in cleve. almost immediately, but if he hadn't and put his points and other #s while basically being a player who didn't make that much of a difference it would have been fine because he was after all 19 and a HSer as long as he put in a few highlights and wasn't a jerk .

gordon is not in that boat in the 4th quarter because there is no crawford he will be guy looked to to get a basket, nobody else is remotely ready , not even kirk for that burden, their best bet is probably a strong defensive effort and he isn't a good defender , he may not even play under those circumstances.

trading him would be a disaster though , too much is already invested in him, they have to make it work.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

You want to give him two games Johnjo? Damn, you are patient. What are you a Bulls fan or something? LOL


I would only trade Gordon on one condition.............we recieved Jerry West in return.

Paxson can go back to player hating on the radio broadcasts, where he was also average.


I have a signed basketball by the championship Bulls - I'm going to cross out Paxson's name..................Wait, maybe I can trade it for a Marcus Fizer signed 8 X 10 ( in current Bull's Mgmt tradition).


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I'm not advocating trading Gordon because he's not a good player. It's more under the premise that this mini-backcourt is most likely not going to work and then trying to have him share minutes with Kirk at the PG spot might create another PG controversy. 

But I can see how if Gordon is traded, a lot of people will be pissed, but if Hinrich is traded the same thing will happen.

I'm just having a hard time seeing both guys in Bulls uniforms at the start of 2005-06.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

The lakers would be robbing us bigtime.

1st I would not move him till we see some of him in season.

2nd - the original trade with Lakers is a steal , we get players who only looked good cause of the players around them taking all the attention.so if this trade goes I'd only consider it if we get 2 (not 1) 1st rounders (Miami's and the Lakers - low 1st rounders)

3rd - I think Pax picked Ben cause he thought he's the most talented in this draft (bigs will be bigs) and probably has no intention to trade him at the moment.

Bottomline - we could do so much better than that , and I prefer to wait and see how good he is.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Trading Gordon isn't a bad idea if it improves the team. For example, if the Bulls were able to win after trading Brand and company, I doubt anyone would care that they made AS appearances. The Bulls are set at many positions right now.
> 
> They have their C, their high active PF, their floor general, two very talented SF's and now they need to upgrade the bench and bring in better role players.
> ...


Gordon is a very tradeable asset, and I'm sure Paxson realized that from the getgo. But I would want a much better veteran shooting guard than Kareem Rush, who I'll admit does look good. But I want an established started quality guy who has already proven something. 

If we trade Gordon, we should try to trade up in a package for a really good player. Here are some options:

Ray Allen - If Ray is clearly moving on and he is willing to sign a 4-5 year extension with the Bulls, then I'm for it. Put a package together. Luke Ridnour may not be the answer for them out there.

Michael Redd - Sadly, these next two trades would only go down if TJ Ford's career is done, which it might be. If Michael really wants out, and he sounds pretty non-committal right now, the Bucks may look for their best value during the year. They need to fill the center position, and depending on the health of TJ, maybe pg as well.

Desmond Mason - Desmond is awfully short to play the SF position, and he can't start at SG with Michael Redd there. Desmond can really lock you up on D, rebound, and finish on the break like an acrobat. 

Joe Johnson - This one doesn't really make sense unless Nash were to either get injured or get old all of a sudden. Still they have talented Barbosa there. But the Johnson/PHX scene isn't so hot down there right now. Joe meanwhile pretty much had a breakout season last year and got Q Richardson as thanks.

Mickeal Piertrus - Surprise! He hasn't had much time to prove himself, but man, what a defender. I think if Paxson would have drafted him the first time around, he would have been happy with him. This trade makes less sense for the Warriors now that Derrick Fisher won the lottery.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> Sadly, these next two trades would only go down if TJ Ford's career is done, which it might be.


tj has said that he is questionable for this season, but is going to play next season.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rocketeer</b>!
> 
> tj has said that he is questionable for this season, but is going to play next season.


You speak this as if it is a fact, which it is not. TJ is being held out because his injury hasn't healed to the level that he will be able to play again. Like Jay Williams, that healing may or may not happen. It's a tragedy, don't get me wrong. TJ is super exciting.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

At the time I thought I'd like to throw in ERob in any deal involving our young talent.

I think it would be stupid not to keep ERobs contract till mid next season , right about the time that 7 mil expiring contracts r worth sometimes more than pick/players , teams that wanna restart or get ready for fa would give us a nice prize for him and we could say he was not a total waist (just like although I don't want Jamal on our team I thought it would be best to sign him and trade him out of byc status next year - along with ERob - trade power cards)

the point is if we don't get rid of ERob we gootta get proven talent (Desmond,JJ,Piertus,Jiri+...) that can cover 35-40 minutes at the SG position.if not proven - young lesser talented (like Rush) along with future - we don't own any pick next season so it will have to come in the form of a high protected pick (8-15) along a player of the likes of Rush or 2 lower 1st rounders (18-29) - like Lakers Pick and Miami's.

Seriously - the Lakers except of Kobe ofcourse have no player that interests me personally (I know there r many Lamar fans around like good old Arenas).Butler - Damaged goods.Lamar - I can live with that(5 years left in contract , but less than max , so I can't say he's really overpaid , which is the most important thing in longturms....Jalen anyone) but he does not play the position we need.all the rest r kinda fillers for me in turms of turning thing for the franchise.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Oh - but I'm still far from wanting to trade Gordon at all - what have we seen - alltogether 45 min+- in courts he never played in before and rules he never played by - it's too early.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> Oh - but I'm still far from wanting to trade Gordon at all - what have we seen - alltogether 45 min+- in courts he never played in before and rules he never played by - it's too early.


He's not tradeable until December 15 anyway. We'll get to see what he can do. I don't think Paxson intends to trade Gordon or Hinrich as HKF suggests, but I do think Paxson will consider it.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> He's not tradeable until December 15 anyway. We'll get to see what he can do. I don't think Paxson intends to trade Gordon or Hinrich as HKF suggests, but I do think Paxson will consider it.


U're right - so we'll see him play anyway...

kinda late for u DMD??


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> U're right - so we'll see him play anyway...
> ...


I'm in Tempe now. It's not even 2am, and it's a Saturday night.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm in Tempe now. It's not even 2am, and it's a Saturday night.


11 am here - anyway,good night DMD!


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I agree HKF. This is not a good situation for Gordon, and I've said it all along. He has a lot of talent, but he wont get to show it playing backup point guard and now shooting guard or backup shooting guard.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

stop blaming paxson for drafting gordon, ifirst of all, this is a weak draft, gordon was definitely the most NBA ready and probably the best player avaiable at no.3. so paxson took him. the fact is, paxson had no choice,he just had to work with whats left on the board. secondly, we haven't seen even a bit of gordon in regular season games, why so quick to judge it was a mistake to pick him and we absolutely must to trade him?

as for my opinion,i tihnk gordon will be a very productive NBA player down the road, maybe not a superstar, but who knows, he could be as good as mike bibby or baron davis, maybe a rich man of bobby jackson, which aint all that bad either.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

LOL

Gordon for Rush, Walton...??? You gotta be kidding me. Gordon was drafted where he should have been and he will be good and down the road better than Kirk Hinrich.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

since i like amareca, i say if we were to ship gordon or curry anywhere, let it be phoneix, about we give curry/gordon for joe johnson. MAN we get back the BIG GUARD EVERYEONE SEEMS TO BE DESPERATE OF WANTING!! THE BULLS WILL NEVER WIN MORE THAN 30 GAMES WITHOUT A BIG 2 GUARD IN THE LINE UP!! 

does thta make those of u happy now?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Amareca</b>!
> LOL
> 
> Gordon for Rush, Walton...??? You gotta be kidding me. Gordon was drafted where he should have been and he will be good and down the road better than Kirk Hinrich.


I doubt Gordon will be a top 5 point guard in his prime. He will have to show us an incredible offensive game in order to reach that level that Hinrich is heading towards.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

And Hinrich has shown that he will be a top 5 PG in his prime?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> See the thing is, Gordon will never reach his potential as a SG. He is a PG. He is not good as a back-up PG, because he will challenge Hinrich and you will have another PG controversy. At least with Duhon, he will know he is a back-up PG and accept it.
> ...


Bingo.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Sith</b>!
> stop blaming paxson for drafting gordon, ifirst of all, this is a weak draft,


If it was such a weak draft, do you think Paxson made a good decision in trading a future #1 for the 7th pick in this (weak) draft?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> He's not tradeable until December 15 anyway. We'll get to see what he can do.


Bingo! It's stupid to panic now. Both Gordon and Hinrich are going to get a lot better. No harm to play this one out for now.

It's not like Kareem Rush is the anwser.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

I think people need to be patient with Ben Gordon like they were patient with Kirk Hinrich. Some folks move quicker than others (Deng) but with other folks, u just gotta let them adjust to this game. Plus there's ALOT of pressure for Ben Gordon to be this star SG for this team. Give him time. But if he does wind up being subpar and Al Harrington breaks out this year, I'll be mad that we didn't make that trade.

C CURRY
F HARRINGTON
F NOCIONI
G DENG
G HINRICH


----------



## Cochise (Apr 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> See the thing is, Gordon will never reach his potential as a SG. He is a PG. He is not good as a back-up PG, because he will challenge Hinrich and you will have another PG controversy. At least with Duhon, he will know he is a back-up PG and accept it.
> ...




If you put Hinrich in the same backcourt as Baron Davis or Steve Francis or Allen Iverson or Gilbert Arenas, their respective teams will be better for it. 

All that matters is how good Gordon can be and ultimately how good a defensive unit the team can be.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>chifaninca</b>!
> Hell, they send you back Caron and Chris Mihm too.


Uhhh.....no.....


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Damian Necronamous</b>!
> 
> 
> Uhhh.....no.....


Are you saying the Lakers wouldn't do that?

Gordon is worth much more than Butler and Mihm. MUCH.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Well obviously the Gordon trade wouldn't happen till Dec. 15th. I thought that was common knowledge. 

However, if the Bulls do poorly on the circus trip (highly likely) and don't do well with the mini-backcourt, wouldn't a deal sometime around New Years thru to February make sense in trading one of your most tradeable assets in Gordon (for something).

Can Gordon really get Desmond Mason? I mean we know Mason is going to give you 15 ppg, excellent D and hustle like none other. As for Joe Johnson, Phoenix isn't going to deal him. They will either lose him in FA or he keep him and try to deal Marion. 

Teams that need PG's but have something the Bulls can use is important in dealing.

Rush and Walton are two guys who play the way Paxson and Skiles want. Not to mention, that out of the immense pressure of the Lakers, these two young guys would probably excel. Walton and Hinrich out there at the same time could be very good passing wise. 

It was more an idea to stir up conversation. 

Basically, in the long run would a trade of Gordon be best for all parties? I can't see him being a SG here. I've said since February of this year that he is a PG. Playing guys out of position isn't the way to go.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> I posed this at the bottom of the game thread, but I felt it more apt to create a thread about it. Here is the post I did regarding it.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


you've been extremely high on gordon for some time now. i however havent been quite so enamored. on the one hand i dont think he is a pure pt guard(weak handle and cant defend all that well) or a shooting guard(lacks the height and wont be able to defend opposing 2gs). on the other hand i think he can give you what a bobby jackson does for the kings. that type of player i dont think you draft at the 3rd pick in the draft but that doesnt really bother me. i think bottom line you're looking at a jackson,vinnie johnson type player so to even suggest moving him after a few exhibition games is pretty rediculous.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

To say Ben Gordon has weak handle is ridiculous. His handles are better than Hinrich, Duhon, whomever the Bulls has on the roster.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> You speak this as if it is a fact, which it is not. TJ is being held out because his injury hasn't healed to the level that he will be able to play again. Like Jay Williams, that healing may or may not happen. It's a tragedy, don't get me wrong. TJ is super exciting.


i state it as fact because ford did.


> Originally posted by <b>#1BucksFan</b>!
> Ok, enough of this. He's questionable for this season, and definite for next. Those were the words out of his mouth that I heard on AM 1510 "The Game." He'll be back. Meanwhile, the Bucks will have to manage without him.


this article has tj improving but not practing before training camp.
http://www.sportsline.com/nba/story/7667441

then this article a month later says tj is attending practices and working out on his own, though it says he will come back midseason at earliest.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/writers/marty_burns/10/08/ford/index.html


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rocketeer</b>!
> 
> i state it as fact because ford did.
> 
> ...


"But his recovery has taken longer than expected, leading some to wonder if he'll ever be back."

"Back injuries are notoriously dicey, and Ford already had been diagnosed with spinal stenosis (narrowing of the spinal canal) in '01 while playing at the University of Texas. The Bucks were concerned enough about Ford's future that they went out and signed free agents Michael James (Pistons) and Mo Williams (Jazz) during the offseason. Still, they remain hopeful he'll be back after the All-Star break."

These are quotes from the second article you posted. You are interpreting the reading with your heart and not with your head.

Of course TJ says he'll be back. He has to say that and believe it in order to recover. But, sorry to say, that still doesn't mean it will happen. 

Neurological problems are different from all others. As a wise man once said, "don't **** with your spine."


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Darius Miles Davis</b>!
> "But his recovery has taken longer than expected, leading some to wonder if he'll ever be back."
> 
> "Back injuries are notoriously dicey, and Ford already had been diagnosed with spinal stenosis (narrowing of the spinal canal) in '01 while playing at the University of Texas. The Bucks were concerned enough about Ford's future that they went out and signed free agents Michael James (Pistons) and Mo Williams (Jazz) during the offseason. Still, they remain hopeful he'll be back after the All-Star break."
> ...


yes those quotes are in the article. i'm not saying tj ford is going to come back tomorrow and play, but ford said that he is going to play next season definately. and i think him going from not practicing at all to practicing with the team and working out individually in a month or less is a good sign that he will be able to play.

i just don't think ford's injury is going to make the bucks trade redd or mason to get gordon. but i do agree that i don't think the bulls should trade gordon for some mediocre bench players.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> To say Ben Gordon has weak handle is ridiculous. His handles are better than Hinrich, Duhon, whomever the Bulls has on the roster.


better handle than hinrich, i dont think so.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rainman</b>!
> 
> 
> better handle than hinrich, i dont think so.


Were you saying Hinrich had a great handle when he had his 10 turnover game in the NBA?

Hinrich's handles aren't amazing. They are decent. Gordon does have better ballhandling skills then Hinrich. All you had to do was watch him the last 3 years at UConn to see that.


----------



## BigMike (Jun 12, 2002)

Why did you draft Gordon in the first place?


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Were you saying Hinrich had a great handle when he had his 10 turnover game in the NBA?
> ...



differance of opinions i guess, so i dont have to jump back to the seattle board concerning nick collison, i cant find anywhere that he had surgery in college, he played in 34,33,37 and 38 games in his 4 years at kansas. i need a link for someone to convince me he had any shoulder surgery there.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rainman</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> differance of opinions i guess, so i dont have to jump back to the seattle board concerning nick collison, i cant find anywhere that he had surgery in college, he played in 34,33,37 and 38 games in his 4 years at kansas. i need a link for someone to convince me he had any shoulder surgery there.


Collison had a series of shoulder strains and wore a shoulder brace during his sophomore and junior years. The Sonics say the injury that happened last year was different, but it's obvious he has something wrong with his shoulders. He may not have missed games for the Jayhawks, but the guy was in constant pain.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/basketball/142686_sonx06.html

Edit: In medical terms this is usually known as shoulder sublixation. Something that is not common and happens more in the spine than the shoulder.

His injuries in the past make him more prone to having a major shoulder problem down the line in his career. Not saying he will, but it makes him more likely.


----------



## Chi_Lunatic (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BigMike</b>!
> Why did you draft Gordon in the first place?


Maybe because he impressed them the most at the pre-draft workouts.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BigMike</b>!
> Why did you draft Gordon in the first place?


We need a draft pick who's an impact player. Gordon seems like he'd fit the bill.

Circumstances probably won't allow him to be that impact player for us in the short term.

Better he rots on our bench than burn us as an opposing player, I guess.


----------



## Jujuba (Apr 4, 2004)

I think that its too soon to talk about trade Gordon. He´s a danm good player, he just not find your role in the team. But, we are just ia a begin of preseason, c´mon....

But, I´do love a trade with J.HAYES, this guy is very good !


----------



## FrankTheTank (Jun 25, 2004)

Hes played in 3 preseason games. Why dont you wait until he plays a regular season game before you decide that he sucks.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

For starts I think by dec 15th Gordon will make this thread disappear , we won't be talking about trading him hopefully.

HKF - I gotta dissagree with u on Ben being a pg.I think mentally he's much closer to a sg . maybe his size will force him to play more point , but at least imho - he's a 6-2 sg!

And I seriously think we can do much much better than Rush,Walton and Jones - they should be considered only as fillers in that trade , along with 1st rounders , otherwise - we might find ourselves trading Ben for 3 journymen (yes , they r talented , but so is Frank williams ) that only looked good in the winning system in LA where all attention went to Shaq and Kobe.Would u trade Ben for 3 frank williams , 3 big maybe's . lets say that last year I thought higher of frank Williams (Illy days) than any of those guys , maybe cause I'm stupid , but mainly cause many times when u have a specific role in a championship level with the biggest stars in the game next to u , it just makes u look good.
all 3 r talented players I'd love to have in our team, but Ben ain't coming from the other side unless there r 1st round pick*s* coming back our way.The lakers actually give us nothing they need and they turnout with a 3rd pick and a backcourt of Kobe and Ben - sick imo!


In fact - the Lakers R in shortage of pg's , we can trade them Frank Williams (there r still many people that believe in this guy) for Rush(depending on what Rudy T thinks of Williams or even Duhon) or Frank Williams and Cezary for Jones and Walton (at the moment those 2 guys r close to worthless for Lakers , since they have Lamar,Caron and Devin Gerge ahead of them in roster - they will be 10-12th on the bench).

What I mean to get the guys in this trade we don't neceserally need to use one of our bigger talents. It's far from being worth it...


Ben has to be real close to terrible all the way to december 15th for me to accept the trade if I were Pax!


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

don't know if we should trade Ben or not. 
If anyone thinks they know how good he is based on the games we've seen however is dellusional.

trading Ben...i don't know, its a thought that will become rehashed over and over as long as he's here and 6'3 probably. On up until the Bulls start winning, and/or he produces. 
Pronouncing Ben as this or that at this stage is premature to put it kindly


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> don't know if we should trade Ben or not.
> If anyone thinks they know how good he is based on the games we've seen however is dellusional.
> 
> ...


One thing I will pronounce is that Ben is 6'2 and 1/4" with shoes on only. Just for reference, Dwyane Wade is 6'4 and 3'4". Wade is 2.5" taller.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> don't know if we should trade Ben or not.
> If anyone thinks they know how good he is based on the games we've seen however is dellusional.
> 
> ...


I agree its wayyy to early to talk trade w/ Gordon. He has only played 3 games. Hopefully, we will be laughing at this thread in the coming months of people overreacting.

Truth be told, if gordon does struggle throughout the year the bulls always can trade him later in the season and get something substantial for him. 

I have a feling that Gordon will have a season much like Jay Williams. Up and down. But overall, the arrow will be pointing up with Gordon. Other then a super-poor FG% gordon is doing a lot of good things out there.


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree its wayyy to early to talk trade w/ Gordon. He has only played 3 games. Hopefully, we will be laughing at this thread in the coming months of people *overreacting*.


or over-agendizing :laugh:

that may not be a word. Its my invention if not


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> For starts I think by dec 15th Gordon will make this thread disappear , we won't be talking about trading him hopefully.
> 
> HKF - I gotta dissagree with u on Ben being a pg.I think mentally he's much closer to a sg . maybe his size will force him to play more point , but at least imho - he's a 6-2 sg!


I didn't want to quote your whole post bullet, cause you typed a lot.  

Gordon is without question a PG. Jim Calhoun would tell you the same thing. People compare him to Baron Davis, but Gordon is supremely unselfish. He passes the ball very well, because he is quick enough to get in the lane at all times. He just so happens to be a very good scorer. That makes people think he is a SG, when in fact he isn't.

It's like Isaiah Thomas or Mike Bibby. Just because they can shoot and score, doesn't mean that they don't pass well or aren't good to great PG's. 

I feel and have felt that Gordon's best position is PG, not SG. He is a PG. However, if the Bulls play him at PG, you can't play Hinrich 40 minutes or near that, because Gordon would push for playing time at that spot. That's probably why they wanted the mini-backcourt in the first place.

I'm not advocating trading Ben because he sucks. I've been a Ben Gordon fan longer than 99% of you even knew who he was. He was better than Okafor in college and will be better in te pros, the problem is, he has been drafted into an awkward position. He has no chance to compete with Hinrich for the starting position, because it's already Hinrich's job. So that means Ben has to try to make it as an undersized SG. He is no where near the kind of selfish player Baron, Francis or Iverson are, so how can you turn a guy who likes getting his points in the flow into a guy who looks for his shots more often than that. 

That right there goes back to what I'm talking about when I say he is a PG. UConn (Calhoun) had to beg him to be selfish and score for them. 

You guys are probably right that something better can be worked out for Gordon trade-wise, but since reading tends to be fundamental, I asked a question and yet people seem to think that means that he sucks or something like that.

I am asking in the event this mini-backcourt doesn't work, wouldn't it be better to trade him and bring someone in who will help the Bulls. 

As DaBullz said, why have him rotting on the bench, when he can't play his natural position?


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>fleetwood macbull</b>!
> 
> or over-agendizing :laugh:
> 
> that may not be a word. Its my invention if not


For this board, over-agendizing is definitely a word.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

I agree with HKF. Gordon and Hinrich are both PGs. We're blessed to have them both. But we also have Duhon (and Wilks and Williams). We're way overloaded at PG.

I happen to like both Hinrich and Gordon. 

I'm not so sure we haven't already seen Hinrich at his best. He played an awful lot of minutes last season... To get his scoring up, he's going to have to take more shots AND somehow hit a higher FG%. I don't think we're going to see both; it's an either/or proposition. I don't think his assists are going up, either.

If we went with Gordon at PG and traded Hinrich (my preference), I think we take a gamble on a #3 pick who's known as a scorer and meant to play PG. If we stick with Hinrich, we're sticking with a #7 pick. Maybe the draft position doesn't matter, but in theory it should.

I believe Gordon would give us much more efficient a scorer at PG, and he'd give us a ton of rebounds. I believe he'll be just as good as Hinrich at handling the ball and dishing assists. The tradeoff MIGHT be on the defensive end, but I'm not so sure that Hinrich is exactly going to make the All-NBA defense team anyhow.

Given the makeup of the team, and if we handed Gordon the starting PG job, I'd expect something like 20/7/7 from him.

Either Gordon+Duhon or Hinrich+Duhon will be plenty good enough to man the point for us for years.

If we're anal about keeping Hinrich, then Gordon WILL rot on the bench. HKF is pointing out that we could trade this likely 20/7/7 guy for something we could really use. 

Though I'm not so sure I'd like Rush and Walton for Gordon.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> If we're anal about keeping Hinrich, then Gordon WILL rot on the bench. HKF is pointing out that we could trade this likely 20/7/7 guy for something we could really use.
> 
> Though I'm not so sure I'd like Rush and Walton for Gordon.


Well this is what I mean. It doesn't have to be that. Just a similiar deal to bring in more wing players who are worth a damn.

Since Hinrich seems untradeable, wouldn't that make Gordon the odd man out?


----------



## fleetwood macbull (Jan 23, 2004)

interesting comments Dabullz

i'd love to see Ben be the player you talk about, because as much as i hate to think about it, you could entertain Hinrich trade scenarios too, which could only be good for the Bulls.

Ben and Pietrus would be a nice complementary backcourt for example. But nobody is giving up Pietrus I know. The "point" is the same though........ We need a complementary backcourt. A SG that complents the PG
We'll see if Ben and Kirk complement each other.

I always agreed with the people who guessed that Ben was chozen mostly because the Bulls thought he was the BPA for them, and they wanted the BPA as far as a combination of readiness, and talent/upside. Trades are always possible in the future if necessary


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

One of them will need to go, I think, but I don't see the urgency for doing it. I mean, we've got plenty of problems, and this doesn't seem to be the biggest one.

That being said, if we could use the deal to get in couple of high quality players who would be here for the long haul, I wouldn't be adverse to it either.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I see your points HKF , but I think wer'e stuck to deep into words... names of positions as we know them from tv.

like SG's are supposed to be selfish , while pg's should not.

Would u say MJ was a selfish player - in person,sure , but on court (at least since 88+-) he always looked for the open man.

I think It is a great advantage for a sg to be able to pass as Ben can.
I don't see Ben really running a team (might be cause I'm used to see him playing sg in college) - but I can see him breaking down the defense and passing it to the open guy - is that a pg's job , a sg's job , or both.
so Yeah - he's very unselfish,a good passer,and he still looks to me more sg then pg.

but I think in some way his size will eventually dictate his position.
he's 6-2 so we'll call him pg with sg ability's , but if Ben were 6-7 we'd call sg with pg abilitys.

BTW - did he play pg in hs??? I really have no idea.as I remember In Ucon it was Taliek Brown running the point most of the time.

This discusion is the exact reason they invented the word Combo Gaurd - can Pass and score , and with Ben imo scoring wins,talentwise (even if it's not by his choice like calhoun days).

and he gets another comparison sometimes - Dumars , like here - a sg.

It's choose your weapon with this guy , at least on offense...


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> I see your points HKF , but I think wer'e stuck to deep into words... names of positions as we know them from tv.
> 
> like SG's are supposed to be selfish , while pg's should not.
> ...


As a freshman Ben was the back-up PG on UConn. However, he was better than Tony Robertson and the writing was on the wall, that Ben would move into the starting lineup. 

The only reason why Ben played the SG position for UConn, is because he can shoot and score. He is an able passer, but he can really score. Like for example, if Jason Kidd could score better than he could pass, which would he be known for in the NBA? It makes Ben a dangerous player from the PG spot, but he is not selfish at all. He has a PG mindset.

Edit: I hope it works between him and Hinrich, but if the Bulls start bad, because of circus trip, something may be done. Then again, they could excel completely. I guess all I'm doing is speculating.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Well this is what I mean. It doesn't have to be that. Just a similiar deal to bring in more wing players who are worth a damn.
> ...


I think 20/7/7 would make him untradable too.

I sure hope we endup with a bunch of untradable studs (day dreaming again)

sadly we r far from having rich mans problems at the moment.I hope by allstar break and trade deadline we'll have more proven tools to work some trades (Duhon might surprise too) to put the right pieces in the right places .


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> The only reason why Ben played the SG position for UConn, is because he can shoot and score. He is an able passer, but he can really score. Like for example, if Jason Kidd could score better than he could pass, which would he be known for in the NBA? It makes Ben a dangerous player from the PG spot, but he is not selfish at all. He has a PG mindset.



So we actually agree in a way!

in no way whatsoever am I saying Ben is selfish (Calhoun "soft Ben" invensions r well known) - he wants to pass and is good at it.

But with scoring he has like a supreme talent (he sometimes chooses not to use) and thats why he might be called a sg also in the nba , just like the reason he was moved in UCon.
A guy with his scoring ability=SG
A guy with his passing ability=pg

Ben Gordon is a SPG=shooting point gaurd


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

it should be noted that when indiana wanted to trade for the bulls pick it was so they could draft gordon , and they wanted him to play pg.

so maybe he can play pg after all for those absolutely claiming him to be a 2 guard.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> 
> 
> I think 20/7/7 would make him untradable too.


For the record, I only see Gordon putting up those kind of numbers if he's basically the starting PG on opening night and the team sticks with him like they did Hinrich last season.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

20/7/7 for gordon ?

were calhoun and okafor holding him back that much?


----------



## Salvaged Ship (Jul 10, 2002)

What a joke.

3 preseason games and many already want a trade? MJ is high on this kid. SI has him as rookie of the year. He did decent in summer league, yes?

Officials are making it very difficult for anyone to look decent with all the foul calling, especially a rookie. Give the kid a break. He is a small guy, but has a big heart. Pax didn't want to draft another high schooler. 

Some people are amazing. If Gordon scores 28 in the next game, 68 posts will go up calling him a "stud".


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 20/7/7 for gordon ?
> 
> were calhoun and okafor holding him back that much?


It's realistic. He's shown he's a studly rebounder for his size already. The Bulls don't have a goto scorer anymore, so he's it by default. And as a PG, I don't see why he wouldn't get as many assists as Kirk did last season, if not slightly more because he probably won't be dishing to Linton Johnson for the open 3 or AD for the open 17 footer as much as Kirk did.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> It's realistic. He's shown he's a studly rebounder for his size already. The Bulls don't have a goto scorer anymore, so he's it by default. And as a PG, I don't see why he wouldn't get as many assists as Kirk did last season, if not slightly more because he probably won't be dishing to Linton Johnson for the open 3 or AD for the open 17 footer as much as Kirk did.


I'm sorry, it's NOT realistic. He's not going to come in and be better than Lebron James was. He's not going to put up prime Grant Hill numbers in his rookie year. I'm a Gordan fan, but those numbers would make him a top 10 player in the league in his rookie year which is highly doubtful. 7 rebounds and 7 assists for a rookie? WTF? I guarantee you he'll never put up those numbers in his prime even. If Gordon was a 20/7/7 player waiting in the wings than Hinrich will be traded in no time.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Shanghai Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, it's NOT realistic. He's not going to come in and be better than Lebron James was. He's not going to put up prime Grant Hill numbers in his rookie year. I'm a Gordan fan, but those numbers would make him a top 10 player in the league in his rookie year which is highly doubtful. 7 rebounds and 7 assists for a rookie? WTF? I guarantee you he'll never put up those numbers in his prime even. If Gordon was a 20/7/7 player waiting in the wings than Hinrich will be traded in no time.


In 3 pre-season games, Gordon is averaging 13.2 points, 5.4 rebounds, and 4.8 assists per 36 minutes.

In the one game he got 29 minutes, he scored 13, grabbed 5 rebounds, and dished 6 assists. He shot 4-18 FG, which is far worse than I expect him to do over the long haul (of a season).

I don't believe he's begun to show us what he's capable of yet.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

gordon sticks his neck in there so he gets boards but 7 is more than i think he can do , the only guy that small who does that is francis and i think he only did it once and it wasn't as a rookie.

the 7 assists at pg is very reasonable i'll agree, skiles does run a sys. where its very possible , but the 20 points is a stretch , a big one considering he is a rook and as of now shooting 21% in preseason in my opinion it will take alot time for him to reach your lofty goals if ever.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> In 3 pre-season games, Gordon is averaging 13.2 points, 5.4 rebounds, and 4.8 assists per 36 minutes.
> ...


I don't doubt he can give you 13/6/5, but I don't see how that ever translates into the 20/7/7 prediction which I said is highly unrealistic.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> In 3 pre-season games, Gordon is averaging 13.2 points, 5.4 rebounds, and 4.8 assists per 36 minutes.
> ...


Agreed. Saying someone will never do something in their prime, which is about 7 years away, is very foolish. If you can tell the future, please give me the next 5 years worth of winning lotto numbers.

I don't think he will do 20/7/7, but I could easily see him become a 19/5/8 player during his peak years. He can score, but he is extremely unselfish.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

If Gordon shot just 40% in that game, he'd have scored 19. If he played 36 minutes, he'd have gotten those 7/7 rebounds/assists.

We have seen TWO Ben Gordons so far. One that plays 31 minutes in 2 games, and one that plays 29 minutes in 1 game. The 29 minute version is damn good, and I'd love to see what he'd do in 36+.

He's NOT going to get 20/7/7, because he's going to be riding the pine way too much.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Gordon is a lot like a rich mans Bobby Jackson at this point. His offense is high powered, but he is too much of a defensive liability at *any* position. His lateral quickness isn't good, so he gets burned by point guards. He is a good 3 inches undersized at the shooting guard position, and his lateral quickness is suspect even at that position. 

He will provide a great spark off the bench though.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> Gordon is a lot like a rich mans Bobby Jackson at this point. His offense is high powered, but he is too much of a defensive liability at *any* position. His lateral quickness isn't good, so he gets burned by point guards. He is a good 3 inches undersized at the shooting guard position, and his lateral quickness is suspect even at that position.
> 
> He will provide a great spark off the bench though.


i wouldn't mind him being a spark off the bench if we had a decent starter in front of him , he could come in be the 2nd units go-to guy until he was ready for more . But with Pike being a piece of aging crud,they are apparently buying out the only guy on the whole roster who is an actual 2 guard in his prime and fwill needing to find jenny craig , he will likely start and be overburdened and the bulls wont have jamal crawford to blame like they did when the bulls overburdened jay will .

maybe they'll find a way to blame crawford, after all, i have seen some creative attempts in the past.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> i wouldn't mind him being a spark off the bench if we had a decent starter in front of him , he could come in be the 2nd units go-to guy until he was ready for more . But with Pike being a piece of aging crud,they are apparently buying out the only guy on the whole roster who is an actual 2 guard in his prime and fwill needing to find jenny craig , he will likely start and be overburdened and the bulls wont have jamal crawford to blame like they did when the bulls overburdened jay will .
> 
> maybe they'll find a way to blame crawford, after all, i have seen some creative attempts in the past.


Well, I think Deng and Nocioni could cover the wing spots every night. Every night is a different matchup, but with Nocioni and Deng both being very capable defenders, but very different defenders, I think they could do a good job on the wings defensively, and obviously offensively too. 

PG- Hinrich
SG/SF- Deng
SG/SF- Nocioni
PF- Chandler
C- Curry

Then Gordon would be great off the bench. I mean, Deng or Nocioni may get burned at the 2 guard position at times, but I think they'd get burned less than Gordon would. 

Positions are overrated. I think with Dengs length and footwork, and Nocioni's frantic bruiser style, they could cover the wings.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> PG- Hinrich
> SG/SF- Deng
> ...


That lineup is horribly challenged, offensively.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, I think Deng and Nocioni could cover the wing spots every night. Every night is a different matchup, but with Nocioni and Deng both being very capable defenders, but very different defenders, I think they could do a good job on the wings defensively, and obviously offensively too.
> ...



Yeah, until anybody shows me anything different, I think this is the starting lineup. I think Gordon might have less pressure if he's not burdened with the "starter" role but still sees good minutes. I feel like Pike should just be in here and there to knock down shots (if he starts shooting again). I'm growing increasingly faithful in Duhon's ability to handle the backup PG role and let Gordon play most of his minutes at the 2.


----------



## Shanghai Kid (Mar 7, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Agreed. Saying someone will never do something in their prime, which is about 7 years away, is very foolish. If you can tell the future, please give me the next 5 years worth of winning lotto numbers.
> ...


I will say it and stand by it. Gordon will never be a 20/7/7 player. IMO it comes down to him never, ever averaging 7 rebounds in his career. I'm not doubting the 20 points or 7 assists, but the 7 rebounds I never see that happening for him.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

I'd rather get rid of Kirk before Ben because I have a feeling that we'll benefit more from Ben's offense more than Kirk's defense.


----------



## MagillaGorilla (Jul 8, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>sinkingship</b>!
> What a joke.
> 
> 3 preseason games and many already want a trade? MJ is high on this kid. SI has him as rookie of the year. He did decent in summer league, yes?
> ...


What he said.
:buddies:


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> Well, I think Deng and Nocioni could cover the wing spots every night. Every night is a different matchup, but with Nocioni and Deng both being very capable defenders, but very different defenders, I think they could do a good job on the wings defensively, and obviously offensively too.
> ...


nocioni is a 3/4 and deng is 19, a rookie and is a guy who has footspeed issues.

there are some people in the league at the 2 i would just give the bulls an automatic L when they come up against(expecting nocioni to keep up with rip , T-mac or kobe would be demoralizing as well as pointless) even a guy like pierce who is really a 2/3 was too much for them what happens when they have to guard guys with pg quickness like JC or wade .

the bulls had the same problem when it came to kirk at the pg against the true burners like AI , francis and marbury i think the bulls were 1-9 against these 3 players and kirk is actually of decent quickness for a pg , i think the bulls would be better off trying to let a true shooting guard play defense , the only one on the roster really if the bulls buy out robinson is griffin and he has knee issues , but at least he can play defense.


----------



## robg (Jul 19, 2002)

Trading Gordon, I think is something to keep in mind, for now & the future. Personally, I am not a fan of undersized guards. I believe Gordon is great trade bait, but I would also like to see him play well w/ the bulls first. This would give his talents more credibility and raise his trade value. For petes' sake he is a 3 overall pick and should not be traded for garbage players either. 
I hope Gordon plays well in a bulls uniform but I can't imagine him being here for years to come. He would have to be Iverson-sique, but is that what the bulls are hoping for? :whoknows:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> nocioni is a 3/4 and deng is 19, a rookie and is a guy who has footspeed issues.
> ...


happyG, the way to compensate for footspeed defensively is to (1) keep your man close and (2) play physical. These are two things Nocioni has shown in limited action this season. I don't view Artest or Bowen or even Hassell as very quick players. However, each of them has a willingness to move their feet, stay close to their man, and most of all play physical.

I don't think you should rule out Deng or Nocioni defensively. Especially since the argument made is 'footspeed issues'. JMO.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>superdave</b>!
> 
> 
> happyG, the way to compensate for footspeed defensively is to (1) keep your man close and (2) play physical. These are two things Nocioni has shown in limited action this season. I don't view Artest or Bowen or even Hassell as very quick players. However, each of them has a willingness to move their feet, stay close to their man, and most of all play physical.
> ...


if it were that easy that rookies who an actuality can guard positions they look ill equipped to defend (Forwards defending guards and vice versa) i am looking forward to an example of it ever working , i basically rule it out because its extremely unlikely , deng's major flaw turning pro outside of inexperience is footspeed defending the more athletic 3's 

now he is going to befending the more athletic players at the 2 ?

its a reach to me , if it were really possible we would see this all the time , any time a team has a flaw defensively , they would just go big and rely on the player's length to do a good job.


it doesn't happen much because its a desperate thing to do and it rarely works with veterans let alone 2 rookies , who will be called tighter because they are rookies and the league is apparently cracking down on pyhsical play.

nocioni is reputed to be a good defender , but when i saw him against team USA both RJ and marion beat him off the dribble by spinning off him into the lane on the same spot on the floor using the same move , and since these are pretty quick small forwards i expect more of the same when even quicker shooting guards are trying to penetrate on him. in our division there are players who i think this tyep of defense might be decent against (artest , LBJ whoi are more pyhsical offensive player) but there are a couple which this will be suicide against (rip and redd) natural slashers with jumpshots will give this duo a lot of trouble.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

On defense, Deng reminds me of Tayshaun Prince. Prince has never looked quick, much like Deng, but he has a great wingspan and the know-how to use it effectively. I think Deng has those same qualities about him on the defensive end. Prince can guard pretty much any shooting guard in the league effectively.


----------



## FrankTheTank (Jun 25, 2004)

Kirk's Rookie preseason stats were 5.4PPG and 1.6APG in 5 games.

Gordon is getting a lot of good shots. He's just not making them. We know he's a good shooter. He's just off right now.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> if it were that easy that rookies who an actuality can guard positions they look ill equipped to defend (Forwards defending guards and vice versa) i am looking forward to an example of it ever working , i basically rule it out because its extremely unlikely , deng's major flaw turning pro outside of inexperience is footspeed defending the more athletic 3's
> ...


happyG, I see your line of reasoning. However, Deng has the looks of being an impact player defensively. Why? Because of his huge reach (very apparent in yesterday's game), physical play, and desire to get after it. In the post game interview, they were complimenting him on the points/rebounds. How did Deng respond? By saying he needs to improve defensively as his priority.

This is a 19 year old kid with a ton of upside. Remember how Artest looked his rookie year? Atrocious and awkward offensively and yes... very average defensively. Artest played the 4 at St. Johns and had trouble playing on the wing in his first season in the L. Lots and lots of fouls.

With Deng, you just see so much skill and untapped potential at the age of 19. Also encouraging is his work ethic and knack for the game. I wouldn't count out Deng based on one factor of play, because he brings much much more to the table. What a great pick by Paxson.


----------



## FrankTheTank (Jun 25, 2004)

Hey in my fantasy league i was offered Tyson Chandler and Antonio Daniels for Ben Gordon. Should I do it?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>FrankTheTank</b>!
> Hey in my fantasy league i was offered Tyson Chandler and Antonio Daniels for Ben Gordon. Should I do it?


YES!


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

I am guessing if we trade Gordon after Dec. 15, Indiana could offer us Bender or Artest (if SJax explodes and Ron-Ron implodes) and maybe Atlanta offers 'Toine Walker. Indy and Atlanta were two teams very high on Gordon during the draft.


----------



## tiredchick (Oct 20, 2003)

I think it's silly to even think of trading Ben Gordon already. The team -- and the fans -- need to give Gordon some time to adjust to the NBA and to discover whether he and Hinrich can function together in the backcourt. 

Secondly, I think Gordon is a very talented player, but I'm in the camp that says Gordon is a shooting guard, not a point guard. He wasn't a point guard at UConn, so why should he suddenly become one in the NBA -- just because he's 6'2"? Sorry, but to me, height isn't the main reason one should be declared a PG. Gordon is a decent ballhandler and an unselfish player -- two very nice qualities to have as a basketball player -- but he lacks several natural instincts of a point guard. 

If he wasn't even the best point guard on his own college team (and he wasn't, or Taliek Brown wouldn't have been the starting PG for most of the last three seasons) it isn't fair to Gordon to suddenly make assumptions he can run a NBA offense.

If you remember, many on this board were harping on Hinrich being turnover-prone at times last year. He ended up with a decent 2.5:1 assist to turnover ratio. Well, at UConn, Gordon had a career assist to TO ratio of 1.5:1!! Now, that doesn't mean he'll be a turnover machine in the NBA or that he can't be a PG at least a few minutes per game, but to me at least it raises a red flag or two (by comparison, Hinrich's college assist to TO ratio was 1.8:1 while Duhon's was 2.3:1). 

As for Gordon some day averaging 20/7/7 as some of you think he can, that's just silly. LeBrown James averaged 20+/5/5 last year as a rookie and his assist numbers will likely drop with him being moved to SF. It would be a stretch for James to average 20/7/7, and if he can't, Gordon certainly isn't likely to! Just for kicks, I looked up Magic Johnson. He averaged 20/7/7 for a FULL season (that is, playing 70+ games) a grand total of ONE TIME in his career (in 1988-89), although he came relatively close several other times. But if Johnson couldn't do it more than once, what makes anyone think Gordon (who is no Magic Johnson, I think most would agree) can?

That's my big problem with fans. Too many people put unrealistic expectations on players -- before they've played even one regular season game in the NBA! I do this myself at times, especially if the player was one of my favorites in college. I believe Gordon will be a good (not great) NBA player and will have a decent (not great, but solid) rookie season -- as a shooting guard. Whether he and Hinrich can be the backcourt of the future is unclear -- but I think we should give them this ENTIRE season to play together before trying to push one or the other of them out of town.


----------



## Interloper (Apr 14, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>tiredchick</b>!
> I think it's silly to even think of trading Ben Gordon already. The team -- and the fans -- need to give Gordon some time to adjust to the NBA and to discover whether he and Hinrich can function together in the backcourt.
> 
> Secondly, I think Gordon is a very talented player, but I'm in the camp that says Gordon is a shooting guard, not a point guard. He wasn't a point guard at UConn, so why should he suddenly become one in the NBA -- just because he's 6'2"? Sorry, but to me, height isn't the main reason one should be declared a PG. Gordon is a decent ballhandler and an unselfish player -- two very nice qualities to have as a basketball player -- but he lacks several natural instincts of a point guard.
> ...


C'yeah. At least give gordo one year. Since we may not have a pick next year, if Pax wants to move him for a pick if things don't seem to be working out, then fine. I do hope if we don't make the playoffs, which we probably will... ....that we pick in the top 3 so we get to keep the pick. More ammo to trade with or even keep the pick.


----------

