# The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread - Update" Deal with Pistons reached?



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

All the news and speculation (and face it, it's a lot of speculation) on the courting of Ben Gordon here.

Chicago Bulls and Detroit Pistons courting Ben Gordon



> The Bulls planned to contact Raymond Brothers, Gordon's agent, who has turned down offers of $50 million over five years and $54 million over six years the previous two summers.
> 
> Gordon, the Bulls' leading scorer for the last four seasons, never has backed off his publicly stated desire to remain in Chicago. He reiterated that desire to close associates on Tuesday.
> 
> ...


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*

Looks like bye to Ben, but there's still a chance Gordon will stay with Bulls



> Detroit, with about $19 million in cap space, is expected to be an ardent pursuer. Adding Gordon to a backcourt of Richard Hamilton and Rodney Stuckey doesn't seem logical, since none of the three is a true point guard.
> 
> But multiple media reports from Detroit have suggested that Gordon is the Pistons' target, along with Milwaukee forward Charlie Villanueva.
> 
> There is no telling how this will turn out. But the choices are pretty simple from the Bulls' perspective, because Gordon has made it clear he'd prefer to stay put.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*

Ranking the top 20 free agents



> 2. Ben Gordon: The Bulls are telling rival teams they’ll do anything and everything to re-sign Gordon. Typical free-agency bluster? A little. The Bulls want to keep Gordon, but everybody has a breaking point. The Pistons figure to make a hard push for Gordon and have the money to land him. If the Bulls do re-sign Gordon, opposing teams expect Chicago to finally trade Kirk Hinrich(notes).


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*

And Twitter:


> NBA source tells me that OKC is a potential landing spot for Ben Gordon
> 8:20 PM Jun 29th from web


 Chris Mannix from sports Illustrated.

http://twitter.com/ChrisMannixSI


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*



> There will be a lot of talk in the coming days about the strained relationships between Curry and key Pistons such as Richard Hamilton. But there was an even bigger concern that those same issues might be magnified with a revamped roster that should be bolstered via free agency, which begins today.
> 
> If the Pistons sign Ben Gordon and keep Richard Hamilton, would both start? If not, who comes off the bench?
> 
> Curry faced a similar dilemma last season with Hamilton and Allen Iverson, and clearly made the wrong choice when he initially benched the team captain (Hamilton) for a player (Iverson) who was not playing nearly as well and seemed to do more harm than good to the team's first unit.


http://www.mlive.com/pistons/index.ssf/2009/06/pistons_turn_into_a_junior_col.html


----------



## egang (May 24, 2006)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*

watching ESPN Sportscenter story about free agency. Reporter said Gordon was on a flight to detroit for a meeting.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*

Seriously, why would the Pistons want Gordon? They already have Hamilton on the book for the next 4 years.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*

Take him Detroit. Leave us with cap space and the remainder of our roster in tact, rather than overpay for his one-dimensional streaky butt and trade better players for "cap reasons".


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*



PD said:


> Seriously, why would the Pistons want Gordon? They already have Hamilton on the book for the next 4 years.


Beats me what Dumar's thinking.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*

Sam Smith on Gordon:



> And, if you are the Bulls, frankly, you have to look at it like you tried your best with Gordon with two years of generous offers. And it’s hardly fatal to lose him given a good three-guard rotation with Salmons and Hinrich, certainly better defensively and bigger, and with rookie James Johnson having a good chance to provide significant minutes backing up what the Bulls hope will be a healthy Deng. Of course, the Bulls would take a step back without Gordon if Deng cannot play. But that is not expected.
> 
> Meanwhile, can Gordon afford to gamble on missing out on still another long term deal?
> 
> His plan seems to be to get an offer and then see if the Bulls are still interested. But that is risky for Gordon because if a team like the Pistons or Oklahoma City Thunder, a possible suitor, believes Gordon is shopping an offer, they could back off. The rumors have been Detroit would go for Gordon and the Bucks’ Charlie Villanueva. But it would seem what they most need is front court size. So maybe they change course and go for, say, Hedo Turkoglu and Paul Millsap or David Lee. Then Gordon could be out of luck and coming back to the Bulls with no offer.


http://blogs.bulls.com/chicago_bull...still-a-free-agent-as-negotiations-begin.html


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*

I wouldn't mind getting him on the cheap, after he gets no offer elsewhere.


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*

I'm def interested in seeing what type of offers he gets because we have been trying to overpay him for two years now and he and his agent have been looking at us like we are crazy


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*

The Bulls desperately want to keep Gordon because without him they are a lottery team which means no extra revenue for the Bulls, but with him this is still the same mediocre team that will get bounced out of the first round only 10 million dollars less in cap flexibility for the next 6 years.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*

No way are we a lottery team without Gordon, assuming we stay healthy and Rose progresses as expected. I've said for years that the 5 points we lose dropping from Gordon to Hinrich/Salmons are made up for in less turnovers and better defense, and more shots for other guys instead of poor ones by Gordon. We'd be losing the clutch scorer at the end of games, and some of his 40 point performances, but getting more consistency and versatility in every game.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*



DaBabyBullz said:


> No way are we a lottery team without Gordon, assuming we stay healthy and Rose progresses as expected. I've said for years that the 5 points we lose dropping from Gordon to Hinrich/Salmons are made up for in less turnovers and better defense, and more shots for other guys instead of poor ones by Gordon. We'd be losing the clutch scorer at the end of games, and some of his 40 point performances, but getting more consistency and versatility in every game.


I hope your right but IMO its stretch to think that the team will stay completely healthy knowing Deng and I dont expect Salmons to be able to carry the scoring load for a full 82 game season but that's just me.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*



thebizkit69u said:


> I dont expect Salmons to be able to carry the scoring load for a full 82 game season but that's just me.



He did last year.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*



jnrjr79 said:


> He did last year.


Dint know he played 82 games for the bulls.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*



thebizkit69u said:


> I hope your right but IMO its stretch to think that the team will stay completely healthy knowing Deng and I dont expect Salmons to be able to carry the scoring load for a full 82 game season but that's just me.


Deng isn't even worth mentioning anymore. Till that sissy shows me that he can stay healthy and play with some balls, I'll treat him like he's most likely not going to, so I'll pencil in Salmons and Johnson at the 3, with Kirk seeing more burn at the 2 (20+ with only 10 or so at point to spell Derrick). 

My roughly estimated minutes, assuming Deng is hurt so ignoring him, and Gordon gone:

Rose 35-38/Kirk 10-13
Salmons 23-33/Kirk 15-25
Johnson 20-30/Salmons 10-15/Tyrus 10
Tyrus 20-35/Noah 10/Gibson 10
Noah 25-35/Miller 10-15

Kirk would get the majority of his minutes at the 2 instead of the 1, with Salmons getting the majority of his at the 2 instead of the 3. Johnson would have to contribute immediately, or we'd have to pick up a guy like Finley for a short term deal or Carney longer-term as a FA. The post would, unfortunately, be left alone from last year. We need depth there big time, so Gibson better be able to contribute some anyway if we don't add anyone.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*



DaBabyBullz said:


> Deng isn't even worth mentioning anymore. Till that sissy shows me that he can stay healthy and play with some balls, I'll treat him like he's most likely not going to, so I'll pencil in Salmons and Johnson at the 3, with Kirk seeing more burn at the 2 (20+ with only 10 or so at point to spell Derrick).
> 
> My roughly estimated minutes, assuming Deng is hurt so ignoring him, and Gordon gone:
> 
> ...


This James Johnson is ready to contribute right now stuff has gotten out of hand. If James Johnson is playing 20-30 min a game for us next year, we are in the lottery.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*



T.Shock said:


> This James Johnson is ready to contribute right now stuff has gotten out of hand. If James Johnson is playing 20-30 min a game for us next year, we are in the lottery.


Well, if Gordon is gone and no SG is picked up to replace him, and Deng is hurt as always, we have no choice.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*



T.Shock said:


> This James Johnson is ready to contribute right now stuff has gotten out of hand. If James Johnson is playing 20-30 min a game for us next year, we are in the lottery.


I don't see why 20 minutes per game is really that absurd. The guy has an NBA ready body, first of all, at 6'8, 250. And secondly, the fact that he can handle the ball and run will almost certainly merit some playing time.

30 minutes may be pushing it, but honestly 20-25 is what I'm expecting (and hoping!). Plenty of rookies have done that for some very very good teams.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*



> If James Johnson is playing 20-30 min a game for us next year, we are in the lottery.


I dont see how that's much different from being a borderline lottery team like last season.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*



thebizkit69u said:


> I dont see how that's much different from being a borderline lottery team like last season.


Yeah, we're still pretty much 6th-8th seeded team. If Gordon leaves, it will impact our team ability to win big time. But, it depends on how fast other players are able to fill up the hole Gordon's leaving. If we want to still consider ourselve a playoff team, these guys should step up:

1. Derrick Rose takes the next step in his development, 18 ppg, 9 apg, 4 rpg and improved defense

2. Deng returns to his old form

3. Noah in better shape this season, maintain and improve the level of play he showed in the playoff (double digit rebounder and 2 bpg)

4. Thomas makes better decision (seriously, that's it)

5. Salmons become consistent 16-18 points scorer (assuming Deng is healthy and doing the job he's being paid to do)

6. Bench squad of Hinrich, Miller, Johnson do good job as supporting players. Hinrich having sixth-man award type season (which I know he's capable), Miller provide savvy basketball knowledge, big body, veteran leadership, and at least 10/7, JJ having second-team all-rookie type season (8 ppg, 4 rpg)

I really don't mind Gordon leaving because I want the young guys we have to be given more responsibility. Putting more pressure on them to develop.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*



thebizkit69u said:


> Dint know he played 82 games for the bulls.



You didn't say "for the Bulls" in your post, nor would that be in any way relevant.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*

Let's assume Gordon signs w/ Detroit, and Villanueva as well.

Are you afraid of this Detroit team?

PG: Stuckey, Will Bynum
SG: Gordon, Hamilton
SF: Prince, Austin Daye
PF: Villanueva, Maxiell
C: Kwame Brown

Incredibly weak at PG and C. But also not quite bad enough to get a high lotto selection. 

Unless they have plans to trade Rip Hamilton for a PG or a big man, I have a hard time seeing this team in the playoffs. I also see them being just barely below average for the next 5 years, trades not withstanding.

Thoughts?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*



yodurk said:


> Let's assume Gordon signs w/ Detroit, and Villanueva as well.
> 
> Are you afraid of this Detroit team?
> 
> ...


No I'm not.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*



RSP83 said:


> Yeah, we're still pretty much 6th-8th seeded team. If Gordon leaves, it will impact our team ability to win big time. But, it depends on how fast other players are able to fill up the hole Gordon's leaving. If we want to still consider ourselve a playoff team, these guys should step up:
> 
> 1. Derrick Rose takes the next step in his development, 18 ppg, 9 apg, 4 rpg and improved defense
> 
> ...


Nice post! my take as well.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*



yodurk said:


> Let's assume Gordon signs w/ Detroit, and Villanueva as well.
> 
> Are you afraid of this Detroit team?
> 
> ...


That team can give us trouble offensively with Stuckey and Gordon (finally paired with somebody who complements his size); but nothing really serious in overall. Mostly because they're in transition (player movements and coach firing). It will take time for them to form a strong chemistry especially with trigger happy guys like Gordon, Villanueva and Stuckey. It's like Jameer Nelson, Rashard Lewis, Hedo Turkoglu with less chemistry and no Dwight Howard.

Their ability to become one of the top team in the East will depend on Hamilton and Prince's ability to lead and pass-on their experience on what it takes to win to the new guys. Because without that, this team lacks identity. And I doubt it's going to happen. I haven't seen or hear anything from Rip that says he wants to stay and become the leader of this team. Prince seems like a quiet guy who's just going to try to lead by example.

So I think that's what's going to happen if Gordon and Charlie V joins the Pistons. But who knows, maybe the UCONN connection between Gordon, CV and Rip will make the transition less painful. From the Boston series, I learned that from the Gordon and Allen post-game conversation, UCONN alumn seems pretty close and very supportive of one and another.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

*Re: The Ben Gordon Free Agency Thread*



jnrjr79 said:


> You didn't say "for the Bulls" in your post, nor would that be in any way relevant.


Yeah, Salmons completely carried the scoring load in Sacramento and did a damn fine job in Chicago. He's an established 15-18ppg scorer in the league, no question about it.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

> The Detroit Pistons have reached agreement with free-agent guard Ben Gordon(notes) on a five-year contract worth around $55 million, a source with knowledge of the talks told Yahoo! Sports Wednesday evening.


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-gordonpistons070109&prov=yhoo&type=lgns


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

narek said:


> http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=aw-gordonpistons070109&prov=yhoo&type=lgns


Well if it is true. I think the Bulls made a very smart decision to let him go. However, I will be sad to see him go, I always liked BG as a person and respected his phenomenal talent as a shotmaker. Best of luck to BG!


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

caseyrh said:


> Well if it is true. I think the Bulls made a very smart decision to let him go. However, I will be sad to see him go, I always liked BG as a person and respected his phenomenal talent as a shotmaker. Best of luck to BG!


I haven't found anything yet besides the Yahoo report. Weird thing is those are close to the numbers he turned down (and then accepted after the Bulls deadline last year).


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

narek said:


> I haven't found anything yet besides the Yahoo report. Weird thing is those are close to the numbers he turned down (and then accepted after the Bulls deadline last year).


Here is another one: From ESPN
Sources: Gordon, Villanueva to Pistons
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4301111 

The pistons look really desperate.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

If BG had signed with any other team I'd say "Good luck. Hope the new team serves you well." But the hated Pistons, not a chance especially since he turned down similar terms to stay with us last year. If he had gotten 5 yr/60 mil, then I get the difference in cash. 

From now on, Ben Gordon is now Benjamin The Betrayer.

EDIT: On a side note, it looks like Rose, Hinrich, Deng, and Bosh/Amare/Boozer/? are the four guys for the forseeable future.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

T.Shock said:


> If BG had signed with any other team I'd say "Good luck. Hope the new team serves you well." But the hated Pistons, not a chance especially since he turned down similar terms to stay with us last year. If he had gotten 5 yr/60 mil, then I get the difference in cash.
> 
> From now on, Ben Gordon is now Benjamin The Betrayer.
> 
> EDIT: On a side note, it looks like Rose, Hinrich, Deng, and Bosh/Amare/Boozer/? are the four guys for the forseeable future.


BG has always been a pro. I can't ever remember him being a baby or complaining much when he didn't get the conract he wanted. He was always a pro. I am not going to be angry with him for making the decision he felt was in his best interest. 

On a side note: I really think the pistons have made two huge mistakes and seem to have no clue what they are doing anymore. They have committed a lot of money to 2 very specialized scorers that don't play a lick of D. Do they Remember how they won it all a few years back? I think we are going to be better than them next year and we aren't even aiming for next year.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I still don't understand why the Pistons are doing this. They seem so desperate to prove that trading Chauncey wasn't a mistake, that Ben Gordon is their answer.

I suppose if they manage to trade Rip Hamilton for a starting caliber PG, then I will somewhat understand the move. But honestly I don't see that happening with Rip's fat extension kicking in, and the lack of good PGs available on the trade market. 

Crappy PG play + zero inside presence won't get you very far in the NBA. And no, Villanueva is not an inside presence.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Well, we had a Benedict Wallace, and now a Benedict Gordon. Both of em can kiss my butt....especially Gordon since he took a contract similar to the ones we offered him each of the last 2 years. Greedy little *****.

(I just hope it's true and he's really leaving. I'd much rather have Hinrich than him any day! Honestly, this just makes my day! )


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

On the bright side, be very glad that we didn't trade Kirk Hinrich yet. The backcourt situation has practically resolved itself:

3-guard rotation = Rose, Kirk, Salmons

It'd be nice to find some backup insurance though. Someone younger than Hunter.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

That's what I'm saying Yodurk. I've always figured it was one of Ben or Kirk, and if Ben leaves, we kept the one I'd have kept myself.


----------



## DNKO (Dec 23, 2008)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Well, we had a Benedict Wallace, and now a Benedict Gordon. Both of em can kiss my butt....especially Gordon since he took a contract similar to the ones we offered him each of the last 2 years. Greedy little *****.
> 
> (I just hope it's true and he's really leaving. I'd much rather have Hinrich than him any day! Honestly, this just makes my day! )


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

If this means we keep Hinrich, I agree that it is probably the better move.

I will miss Ben Gordon's flashes of brilliance, and I fully expect him to torch us in the near future. It'll be fun to watch Kirk guard him though.


----------



## 68topls (Mar 29, 2008)

The bulls lowered their offer, added an extra year and then when he said OK decided it was too late. They got what they deserved. Nothing in exchange for a good player that lead the team in scoring for four years, never cried or had an off the court problem, who played his role and proved he could score against good defense. Instead they payed 60 mil and 52mil for players who have never led them in scoring and are often hurt. Regaurless of what any body says unless we make a deal to pick some one up we will not be a playoff team and derrick will be one year closer to walking as well.......Now the only thing we need is for them to over pay tyrus and noah.......


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Sad day indeed. I am surprised he got 11 mill a year.


----------



## 68topls (Mar 29, 2008)

He was in the top 5 free agents, had a great playoff run to end the season.....What did we expect......If we weren't going to really resign him we should have traded him for somebody else or traded hinrich and gave him an offer. At least we could have done a sign and trade and take back some one in the deal. In the end we still have problems at the 4 and 5 and questions at the 3. Now we don't have a scorer.........


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I am sad to see ben go. He was fun to watch. Buttt Salmon's is going to start at SG and KH will come of the bench for what is a pretty good back court that will play sure D. BG and Rose were prehaps the worse defensive starting front court in the NBA. With luck Deng will come back and play with some heart if not he will be gone. I really like the JN and Miller and we have depth at center. But we could really use a Big man at PF who can score to team up with Thomas and a back up SF.

I am sorry ben is gone but imho he hurt the team more than helped it most of last season with his D and TO's. 

d


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

We'll torch ben Gordon as much as he torches us. He doesn't fight through screens and cant stay in front of his man. I hope he spends a lot of time being forced to guard Derrick Rose in the future.


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

I would have loved to see Gordon in the Bulls uniform after the playoffs but not for $11M, which would killed our Cap next season. Thanks Mr. Gordon for your service! Now, we can concentrate on bringing in a big name player. Rose - Salmon - Hinrich is a great combo.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

I have no bad feelings toward the Bulls organization or Ben Gordon regarding this matter. He's been a good professional during his time with the Bulls. The organization expressed how much money they think he's worth, and Gordon didn't like it, twice. I think the opinion that Gordon got disrespected by the organization during the two time contract negotiation is really subjective. I honestly think the Bulls offered him a fair amount of money. But he just didn't like it. When he decided that he wanted it, the offer is off the table. What I'm saying is Gordon had his chance. Now he got what he wants, so good for him. It is funny though that the amount is very close to what the Bulls have offered in the past. But then again, we don't have enough cap space to resign him. Finding a fair and the right trading partner is no easy task too (Hinrich).

Anyway, good luck to Ben Gordon. I think this move will renew the Bulls-Pistons rivalry. And hopefully, this also means a big boost to Rose development. He fully owns the team now. As I said before this is also good for other young players because now they're going to be pressured to increase their effort in developing their game to fill up holes. This some of the things that I think will happen next season:

1. Thomas will try to score more. So, hold on tight. This could be rough to see. I just hope as the season progresses he gets wiser.

2. Better ball distribution. Not necessarily better result, because we still have to be able to score. But, at least it's good to get our young players accustomed to this style of play. Especially since we have good passing bigs like Noah, Miller and the rookie Johnson. 

3. There's a chance that Derrick Rose is going to have a tough sophomore year. With Gordon gone and no other lethal scoring option, defenders are going to be all over him. But, this is a good test to see how well Derrick can make his teammate's better. I thought Chris Paul was going to have trouble offensively. But, he made David West better. I'm hoping Rose will find a way to increase the level of play of his teammate. He has a good amount of talent to play with in Deng, Salmons, Hinrich, Thomas, Miller all have unique offensive talent.

4. This one is just sort my personal expectation. I'm voting Hinrich to win comeback player of the year (if there is such).


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

BTW, now it's time to find the 4th guard to give our 3-guard rotation some rest. I like us to go for a veteran 2 guard with legit size. Ime Udoka is a solid backup who's available.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

68topls said:


> The bulls lowered their offer, added an extra year and then when he said OK decided it was too late. They got what they deserved.


The real problem was racking up too many just-above-average players. You can't pay all of them. Gordon wasn't leading us to any titles IMO, so I'm not crying about this. 

Bulls may be very happy with this in the long run. Detroit just locked themselves into mediocrity for the next 5 years with Gordon, Villanueva, Prince, Stuckey, and Hamilton as their core. That's good for us, since we're in the same division.

Let's face it, we're only go as far as Derrick Rose takes us. There was a big question mark as to if Gordon was the ideal fit there long term. That cap space may be better spent elsewhere.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Too much money in what was not a viable starting option alongside Rose. 

Joe Johnson?
D Wade? 

Salmons is ok for now, with Kirk backing them up.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> We'll torch ben Gordon as much as he torches us. He doesn't fight through screens and cant stay in front of his man. I hope he spends a lot of time being forced to guard Derrick Rose in the future.


That's a good point. I've probably said it 4 times in this thread now, but Detroit is just so...mediocre looking. They have no defense in that backcourt either. Stuckey, Gordon, Rip, and Will Bynum are the ones defending Rose. Looking forward to that.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

RSP83 said:


> I have no bad feelings toward the Bulls organization or Ben Gordon regarding this matter. He's been a good professional during his time with the Bulls. The organization expressed how much money they think he's worth, and Gordon didn't like it, twice. I think the opinion that Gordon got disrespected by the organization during the two time contract negotiation is really subjective. I honestly think the Bulls offered him a fair amount of money. But he just didn't like it. When he decided that he wanted it, the offer is off the table. What I'm saying is Gordon had his chance. Now he got what he wants, so good for him. It is funny though that the amount is very close to what the Bulls have offered in the past. But then again, we don't have enough cap space to resign him. Finding a fair and the right trading partner is no easy task too (Hinrich).
> 
> Anyway, good luck to Ben Gordon. I think this move will renew the Bulls-Pistons rivalry. And hopefully, this also means a big boost to Rose development. He fully owns the team now. As I said before this is also good for other young players because now they're going to be pressured to increase their effort in developing their game to fill up holes. This some of the things that I think will happen next season:
> 
> ...


Good points above. It kinda bothers me how many Bulls fans want management to just bend over and cater to the players during contract negotiations. If we followed that philosophy, we would've made some horrible mistakes by now (Curry, Crawford, to name a few). Not saying BG would be a mistake of that proportion, but overpaying just to avoid losing him isn't too smart if you ask me.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

yodurk said:


> The real problem was racking up too many just-above-average players. You can't pay all of them. Gordon wasn't leading us to any titles IMO, so I'm not crying about this.
> 
> Bulls may be very happy with this in the long run. Detroit just locked themselves into mediocrity for the next 5 years with Gordon, Villanueva, Prince, Stuckey, and Hamilton as their core. That's good for us, since we're in the same division.
> 
> Let's face it, we're only go as far as Derrick Rose takes us. There was a big question mark as to if Gordon was the ideal fit there long term. That cap space may be better spent elsewhere.



This is precisely right. Paxson talked often about acquiring assets rather than necessarily building a cohesive team. However, when you aren't able to consolidate those assets into fewer, more talented pieces, then inevitably you have to let players walk. I think it was right not to give BG a $55 million deal, and I don't think the Pistons are headed in the right direction, but it does nonetheless sting to lose Ben for nothing.

In any event, this is Rose's team, not Ben's, and the two of them wouldn't really be a good starting pair in the long-term in my mind. I do think the Salmons/Hinrich/Rose backcourt should be solid for some time. We've got the 2010 flexibility to go after Wade, Bosh, etc. If 2010 doesn't pan out (or a deadline deal in advance this year), the Bulls are quite screwed, so it's time to cross our fingers.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

RSP83 said:


> There's a chance that Derrick Rose is going to have a tough sophomore year. With Gordon gone and no other lethal scoring option, defenders are going to be all over him.


I'd say it's equally likely that Gordon struggles in Detroit for this same reason. No Rose to draw defenders and clear space for him. It was no coincidence that Gordon had a career best 45.5% FG shooting playing w/ Rose. I expect that to drop next year for certain.


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

Good Hope said:


> Too much money in what was not a viable starting option alongside Rose.
> 
> Joe Johnson?
> D Wade?
> ...


Exactly


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Sam says it's official. So does the Suntimes.



> Ben Gordon looks like he’ll get his money. But it seems unlikely he’ll see the playoffs for some time to come.
> 
> The Detroit Pistons Wednesday agreed to show Ben the money with a contract estimated at five years for $55 million, sources throughout the NBA and Detroit said. One source said it is slightly above that figure. The Pistons also got an agreement on a five year deal estimated from $35 million to $40 million from former Bucks forward Charlie Villanueva.


The gist of his argument is that we'd have lost any chance of being players of 2010 to sign him for that much money. Basically right, imo.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

How are we looking for 2010 cap space now?

Hoopshype numbers suggest we will only have around $40M committed. That's for Deng, Hinrich, Salmons, Rose, Noah, and JJ (this would assume we cut Tyrus loose, though). Estimated cap of $58-60M definitely leaves room for a max contract to someone...


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

By the way, I really like Ben as a player. I have no frustrations with him for how he played on the Bulls. Given a choice between Rose-Hinrich or Gordon-Rose at the beginning of last season, I leaned toward the second combo. But Salmons tipped things in Hinrich's favor, and ... here we are.

Good luck, Ben!


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

giusd said:


> BG and Rose were prehaps the worse defensive starting front court in the NBA.
> 
> I am sorry ben is gone but imho he hurt the team more than helped it most of last season with his D and TO's.
> 
> d


Those are the 2 points why I wanted him gone. That and the fact that he has a grossly inflated sense of his own worth and how good he actually is, as evidenced by his greed and reluctance to be the stud 6th man he's more suited for.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I'm glad to see the backlash on this board is so minimal. I perused the "other" board and there are so very upset Bulls fans over there. They really hate that we are losing Gordon for nothing.

I really do think that's the wrong way to view the situation. It's not always possible to constantly trade guys away just to net some return. I get the sense that people would've felt better if we did some meaningless trade at the deadline, like Gordon for Steve Blake and a late 1st rounder (just making that up, btw). Forget that line of thought, you can't keep everyone and getting some crappy return won't make it easier. Fortunately we have the depth to recover.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Detroit is slowly building one of the worst defensive teams in the history of basketball.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

yodurk said:


> I'm glad to see the backlash on this board is so minimal. I perused the "other" board and there are so very upset Bulls fans over there. They really hate that we are losing Gordon for nothing.
> 
> I really do think that's the wrong way to view the situation. It's not always possible to constantly trade guys away just to net some return. I get the sense that people would've felt better if we did some meaningless trade at the deadline, like Gordon for Steve Blake and a late 1st rounder (just making that up, btw). Forget that line of thought, you can't keep everyone and getting some crappy return won't make it easier. Fortunately we have the depth to recover.


Hey, there are other places that think the Bulls are doomed for mediocracy because of this. Ben and Charlie V together could drive any coach except their college one nuts. 

With Free Agency, you will always lose someone eventually for nothing, but you gain people "for nothing", too.


----------



## 68topls (Mar 29, 2008)

yodurk said:


> Good points above. It kinda bothers me how many Bulls fans want management to just bend over and cater to the players during contract negotiations. If we followed that philosophy, we would've made some horrible mistakes by now (Curry, Crawford, to name a few). Not saying BG would be a mistake of that proportion, but overpaying just to avoid losing him isn't too smart if you ask me.


I have two problems that have nothing to do with bending over during contract negotiations. If we were not going to keep BG we should have gotten rid of him while we could get something for him. How do we worst sign players (deng and hinrich) to larger contracts and also talk about not wanting to trade "assets" like tyrus thomas or Noah for proven players. I like salmons (even though his deal is up next year). I like rose. Miller is serviceable. What about the rest of the team? How do we not trade for vince carter, richard jefferson , or any other player who's name is fly around? How do we not go after some of these younger free agents that teams are renouncing rights to and trade away some of the assets we've collected which is mediocre at best. I personally like BG and am sad to see him go but unless we do some thing we're not going to look good for serveral years.....I think we had the ability to become a top three team in the east.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

narek said:


> Hey, there are other places that think the Bulls are doomed for mediocracy because of this. Ben and Charlie V together could drive any coach except their college one nuts.
> 
> With Free Agency, you will always lose someone eventually for nothing, but you gain people "for nothing", too.


Good points. Another way of looking at it: we lost him for nothing, but Detroit gets not enough for too much. That's where we would have been too. Neither is an ideal outcome, but one of them is certainly easier to recover from. Look around the NBA at teams tying themselves in knots trying to get rid of foolish contracts. 

I like Ben Gordon a lot. But basketball is not played fantasy-style. It's a team game, and it's a business. Players have to fit together, and salaries have to be justifiable. In those respects, the Pistons hurt themselves more today than the Bulls did.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

68topls said:


> I have two problems that have nothing to do with bending over during contract negotiations. If we were not going to keep BG we should have gotten rid of him while we could get something for him. How do we worst sign players (deng and hinrich) to larger contracts and also talk about not wanting to trade "assets" like tyrus thomas or Noah for proven players. I like salmons (even though his deal is up next year). I like rose. Miller is serviceable. What about the rest of the team? How do we not trade for vince carter, richard jefferson , or any other player who's name is fly around? How do we not go after some of these younger free agents that teams are renouncing rights to and trade away some of the assets we've collected which is mediocre at best. I personally like BG and am sad to see him go but unless we do some thing we're not going to look good for serveral years.....I think we had the ability to become a top three team in the east.


You simply do not understand the concept of building for the future and trying to win a title. Instead you just want quick fixes that will handicap the future of our team so that the bulls can be a little better next year. Do you understand that the bulls have Derek Mother F***in Rose?! We need to build around him not spend all our money on BG's, VC's, RJ's or any other player that is out there.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> How are we looking for 2010 cap space now?
> 
> Hoopshype numbers suggest we will only have around $40M committed. That's for Deng, Hinrich, Salmons, Rose, Noah, and JJ (this would assume we cut Tyrus loose, though). Estimated cap of $58-60M definitely leaves room for a max contract to someone...


Salmons is a FA next year.


----------



## Nater (Jul 10, 2002)

68topls said:


> I have two problems that have nothing to do with bending over during contract negotiations. If we were not going to keep BG we should have gotten rid of him while we could get something for him. How do we worst sign players (deng and hinrich) to larger contracts and also talk about not wanting to trade "assets" like tyrus thomas or Noah for proven players. I like salmons (even though his deal is up next year). I like rose. Miller is serviceable. What about the rest of the team? How do we not trade for vince carter, richard jefferson , or any other player who's name is fly around? How do we not go after some of these younger free agents that teams are renouncing rights to and trade away some of the assets we've collected which is mediocre at best. I personally like BG and am sad to see him go but unless we do some thing we're not going to look good for serveral years.....I think we had the ability to become a top three team in the east.


We will do something... next year. Be patient. The top half dozen free agents next year are each better than the best this year. Do you think Carter or Jefferson will lead their team to a title? They might contribute to such an effort, but neither will be better than the 3rd- or 4th-best player on their team. 

Why didn't the Bulls trade Gordon during the season? Maybe they hoped to resign him at a reasonable price. A player can be the right guy at one price, and the wrong guy at another price... it's important to realize that. And how do you know the Bulls got any halfway-decent offers for him. He's an unrestricted free agent, with no guarantee he would resign with whatever team he finished the season with. I have a hard time believing that teams made compelling offers for Gordon this year.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> Salmons is a FA next year.


if he opts out...


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Well...bye, Ben. You won my heart in your rookie season. I own your jersey (although I still prefer my Kukoc #7 ). I got your autograph one year at the Bulls fan scrimmage, which was awesome. You aren't a perfect player, but I've loved having you here in Chicago. It's a shame you had to go and leave for Detroit. It's just...wrong.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Sad to see him go but the Rose Gordon backcourt was never a good long term option, though he would have been great as a sixth man.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I'm pissed we didn't 

A) Draft Wayne Ellington or Toney Douglas when we had the chance , or 

B) Bought a 2nd round pick to acquire Jermaine Taylor, Jerel McNeil or Dionte Christmas

With Christmas happening in Philadelphia ...gee would it be a good idea to maybe bring local boy Jerel "Raises Hell' McNeil in for summer league ?


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

68topls said:


> If we were not going to keep BG we should have gotten rid of him while we could get something for him.


The company line was that we wanted to keep Gordon. Bulls apparently thought Detroit's "interest" was either rumor or a bluff. I doubt any other team would've gone $11M per season, in which case we may have very well kept Gordon. Bulls gambled and Gordon came out ahead. They at least played the game, rather than throwing in the cards at the trade deadline.



> How do we worst sign players (deng and hinrich) to larger contracts and also talk about not wanting to trade "assets" like tyrus thomas or Noah for proven players.


First off, Hinrich's deal was smaller, not larger.

Secondly, Deng was paid for an arguably better season that he had in 06-07. Yes, Deng was our best player that year as people forget. The signing looks dumb now, but that is mostly due to injury. 



> I like salmons (even though his deal is up next year). I like rose. Miller is serviceable. What about the rest of the team? How do we not trade for vince carter, richard jefferson , or any other player who's name is fly around? How do we not go after some of these younger free agents that teams are renouncing rights to and trade away some of the assets we've collected which is mediocre at best. I personally like BG and am sad to see him go but unless we do some thing we're not going to look good for serveral years.....I think we had the ability to become a top three team in the east.


Sounds like you're advocating for change, just for the sake of making moves. Carter? Jefferson? Sheesh, I will vomit if our management truly thinks that would get us anywhere. There is not a single player available right now on the FA market who will make us significantly better. We are better off just waiting for the next post-scoring big man to become available and try to make our move. We have a ton of expiring contracts + possibly cap room for next summer.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

narek said:


> Hey, there are other places that think the Bulls are doomed for mediocracy because of this.


Those people are nuts. Last I checked, having a young budding superstar at PG + cap space/expirings to make a run at a max FA is not exactly a formula for mediocrity. Especially when we just came off a red hot finish to the season. There are many teams who would swap places with the Bulls in a heartbeat.

Not saying we're perfect by any stretch; mainly arguing that we are anything but deadlocked into our current position. Flexibility seems to be there. The same can't be said for Detroit, who now have a crap load of money committed to Hamilton, Gordon, Villanueva, and Prince.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I just dont understand why the Pistons would sign BG for this kind of money. I assume he will be starting but at what position. He cant play PG and anyone who watched him the last 5 years could see that. But the pistons have Rip and Stucky (?spelling) and now it looks like they have three SG. Rip is already pretty pissed off at Dumars and i wonder if he will be traded?

d


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

giusd said:


> I just dont understand why the Pistons would sign BG for this kind of money. I assume he will be starting but at what position. He cant play PG and anyone who watched him the last 5 years could see that. But the pistons have Rip and Stucky (?spelling) and now it looks like they have three SG. Rip is already pretty pissed off at Dumars and i wonder if he will be traded?
> 
> d


Gordon - 26 years old
Rip -31 (soon to be 32)
Ben is younger, and is just as good a shooter. The Pistons are getting old and they need to retool. Charlie V will play the new Sheed role, and Ben will play the Rip role.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

I think both of our teams made the right move in letting Gordon and CV go. They are both nice scorers but bring very little to the table with the rest of their games. You dont pay someone 11 million dollars to score 20 and give up 25 like Gordon and CV do, the Pistons may look sexier but i dont think they have improved as a team at all especially if they have to move Rip now. Salmons when given the minutes has proven that he can be an effective 18+ ppg player and at half the cost, the Bulls were very smart here


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

roux2dope said:


> I think both of our teams made the right move in letting Gordon and CV go. They are both nice scorers but bring very little to the table with the rest of their games. You dont pay someone 11 million dollars to score 20 and give up 25 like Gordon and CV do, the Pistons may look sexier but i dont think they have improved as a team at all especially if they have to move Rip now. Salmons when given the minutes has proven that he can be an effective 18+ ppg player and at half the cost, the Bulls were very smart here


Yep, I agree. The only way I'd have kept either of them around is if they were absolutely dominant offensively, which they aren't. They're productive, but streaky and Gordon is extremely one-dimensional even on offense. Not the least bit sad to see him go, though it'd have been nice to get something in return, and have drafted a shooter with at least one of the 2 1sts this year. If we land Carney it won't be too bad though.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Yep, I agree. The only way I'd have kept either of them around is if they were absolutely dominant offensively, which they aren't. They're productive, but streaky and Gordon is extremely one-dimensional even on offense. Not the least bit sad to see him go, though it'd have been nice to get something in return, and have drafted a shooter with at least one of the 2 1sts this year. If we land Carney it won't be too bad though.


I haven't heard we were going after Carney. Dude has proven he can be a decent player in the league. He won't ever light it up like BG did on occasion, but a guard rotation of Rose, Salmons, Hinrich, and Carney is solid.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

T.Shock said:


> I haven't heard we were going after Carney. Dude has proven he can be a decent player in the league. He won't ever light it up like BG did on occasion, but a guard rotation of Rose, Salmons, Hinrich, and Carney is solid.


I haven't either. That was just a suggestion that I had myself.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

Why not sign Von Wafer?


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

8 mill a year for Charlie V isn't as bad as 11 for Ben IMO, heck hes making about the same as Andres Nocioni. The Bucks could have afforded 8.


----------



## caseyrh (Jun 10, 2003)

thebizkit69u said:


> 8 mill a year for Charlie V isn't as bad as 11 for Ben IMO, heck hes making about the same as Andres Nocioni. The Bucks could have afforded 8.


Giving up 19 mil long term for BG and CV is a horrible move for the Pistons. You could sign a legitmate star to a max deal and still have money left over.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

thebizkit69u said:


> 8 mill a year for Charlie V isn't as bad as 11 for Ben IMO, heck hes making about the same as Andres Nocioni. The Bucks could have afforded 8.


I agree, Villanueva's contract in a vacuum isn't bad. Almost right on the money for his true worth, IMO. And they needed another scorer, especially on the frontcourt. It's when paired with Gordon that this doesn't make good sense to them. 

I perused the Detroit forums and folks there don't seem too happy about this. I don't blame them. Pistons come out big losers out of this off-season, and the Bulls fail to cash in on an asset. Both sides are ultimately the losers. Only person who is giddy about all this is Ben Gordon.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I agree, Villanueva's contract in a vacuum isn't bad. Almost right on the money for his true worth, IMO. And they needed another scorer, especially on the frontcourt. It's when paired with Gordon that this doesn't make good sense to them.
> 
> I perused the Detroit forums and folks there don't seem too happy about this. I don't blame them. Pistons come out big losers out of this off-season, and the Bulls fail to cash in on an asset. Both sides are ultimately the losers. Only person who is giddy about all this is Ben Gordon.


Oh yeah I never really liked the idea of signing BOTH Ben and Charlie, If I'm a Pistons fan I can live with CV's contract, heck its kinda a good one IMO but I cant live with the Ben Gordon one.


----------



## egang (May 24, 2006)

> A day after jumping to Detroit, Ben Gordon(notes) told a Chicago radio station Thursday that the Bulls never made a contract offer even though general manager Gar Forman claimed re-signing him was their No. 1 priority.
> 
> “I mean they didn’t pursue me at all. They didn’t even make an offer so it was pretty much a one-man race,” Gordon told ESPN Radio 1000 in Chicago.


More at:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Am9yksjmzlczSDov75zAuoO8vLYF?slug=ap-gordon-bulls&prov=ap&type=lgns


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

This crap about "the Bulls didn't make an offer" is being spun in ways it shouldn't be.

Pistons made the first offer, true. Ben's agent called the Bulls to tell them the offer. Bulls decided it was too high, and didn't counter-offer.

For some reason people would be less upset if we just repeated our offer of 6 yrs, $50M (from last year). Why does it matter? He would've shot it down anyways.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

yodurk said:


> This crap about "the Bulls didn't make an offer" is being spun in ways it shouldn't be.
> 
> Pistons made the first offer, true. Ben's agent called the Bulls to tell them the offer. Bulls decided it was too high, and didn't counter-offer.
> 
> For some reason people would be less upset if we just repeated our offer of 6 yrs, $50M (from last year). Why does it matter? He would've shot it down anyways.


Yep exactly, that's whta I've been thinking all along. When he got offered that ridiculous contract by Detroit, it was over right then and there. Why offer him less than they did, when he's shown the last 2 seasons he's all about the money so no chance he takes less.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Why does it matter? He would've shot it down anyways.


I agree that it should not matter but I think it does to some fans because we kept hearing more lies from the Bulls org, Oh Ben is #1 priority blah blah blah and to not even attempt to make any kind of offer when they kept force feeding us that crap just seems like a waste of breath.

Hats off to Detroit, when they say they want someone they go and get it done. They fired their coach and EXPECT to hire a coach by next week... no doubt in my mind they get it done. Could anyone really see the Bulls being this well run? It freaking took us a whole summer to sign Vinny Retardo.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> This crap about "the Bulls didn't make an offer" is being spun in ways it shouldn't be.
> 
> Pistons made the first offer, true. Ben's agent called the Bulls to tell them the offer. Bulls decided it was too high, and didn't counter-offer.
> 
> For some reason people would be less upset if we just repeated our offer of 6 yrs, $50M (from last year). Why does it matter? He would've shot it down anyways.


maybe , but to let one of your better players go without even a real attempt to keep him is not good business...nor is it a recipe for good basketball.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

yodurk said:


> ...Both sides are ultimately the losers. Only person who is giddy about all this is Ben Gordon...


... and Pax has wasted another high draft pick. 

Who is next ?!


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Bulls96 said:


> ... and Pax has wasted another high draft pick.
> 
> Who is next ?!


I wouldn't exactly go so far to called it "wasted". Five years of good production on a cheap rookie contract isn't poor value. At some point, you end up just letting guys walk. It happens to every team and not all players are going to give you 10+ years of service. In fact, very few do. I wish more people would just accept that.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> maybe , but to let one of your better players go without even a real attempt to keep him is not good business...nor is it a recipe for good basketball.


We made 2 attempts the past 2 off-seasons. Why does that suddenly count for nothing? We were willing to try again if Detroit hadn't gone out of our price range. There's no point in dragging this thing out if you've already been outbid from the get go.

For some reason, a bunch of Bulls fans are perceiving this as "lack of hustle" on the part of Bulls management. Look, if making a lame offer that doesn't match Detroit makes us feel better, I'm sure GarPax would've done it. As it stands, it would be shallow and meaningless. Why waste the effort?

I don't write proposals at work for contracts I have no chance of winning. Same concept.


----------



## BullsBaller (Oct 6, 2002)

I definitely think the Bulls are better off with BG gone. It would of been nice to have gotten another asset from him, but things don't always work that way. Personally, I think the Bulls wanted Gordon back, but not if they had to dip into the luxury tax and destroy their chances of 2010 possibilities. Obviously, this was never going to happen b/c there was no way they would of been able to avoid the luxury tax by signing him. This became even more evident once the NBA market determined a short scoring SG with limited other skills was worth $55 million. Good for Ben! I'll keep rooting for him, but it was not feasible for the future success of this team. We have made it to the playoffs, now we have to get into the next round and beyond. This is much more likely to happen by chancing it in 2010 and being liquid, as opposed to signing BG.

Maybe Gar knew there was no way they were going to be able to sign BG and stay below the tax, so he made statements making other teams think something that was not true. GarPax bluffed and Joe D called thinking they would try to match the Detroit offer. Unfortunately for Detroit, the Bulls didn't make an offer. I think Joe D was trying to get back for Chicago signing B Wallace by either 1)making a high offer to BG in order to force the Bulls to give up some of their cap room in 2010 by counter offering or 2) actually signing BG. This signing did hurt the Bulls, but only for the short term. There is a lot of strategy in this business. More than most people think! 

The last place I wanted BG to go was an in conference rival, especially Detroit. One real big positive thing about Detroit's signings is one of the teams who many thought were going to be a big factor in 2010 free agency are no longer going to be. They now have a decent 3 guard rotation in BG, Stuckey, and RIP, but compare it to Rose, Hinrich, and Salmons and I don't think it is that much better. Detroit had to give up a lot in cap room and Chicago just gained more cap room. Chicago's 3 guards are paid about $20 mill and now the Pistons 3 guards are paid about $23-24 mill. You decide!


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

I am still confused why they went after Gordon that badly. They have Rip on the book for the next 4 years and way overpaid. Gordon is a nice player but does not deserve $55M. Literally, they just paid $11M/yr for one bench player. 

They still don't have a great PG, Center, or PF. I guess the new strategy for winning is loading up the SF and SG positions.


----------



## BullsBaller (Oct 6, 2002)

It is just one step in the big overall picture for Joe D. I think with so many teams gunning for 2010 that he thought it wasn't worth the risk with only 2 good players in RIP/Prince to wait another year. He wanted to get as many assets as possible in 2009 as opposed to 2010 to reduce his risk. The bigger story is who is next and who will he be shipping away? At least with specific assets, he can make some future deals.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

BullsBaller said:


> I definitely think the Bulls are better off with BG gone. It would of been nice to have gotten another asset from him, but things don't always work that way. Personally, I think the Bulls wanted Gordon back, but not if they had to dip into the luxury tax and destroy their chances of 2010 possibilities. Obviously, this was never going to happen b/c there was no way they would of been able to avoid the luxury tax by signing him. This became even more evident once the NBA market determined a short scoring SG with limited other skills was worth $55 million. Good for Ben! I'll keep rooting for him, but it was not feasible for the future success of this team. We have made it to the playoffs, now we have to get into the next round and beyond. This is much more likely to happen by chancing it in 2010 and being liquid, as opposed to signing BG.
> 
> Maybe Gar knew there was no way they were going to be able to sign BG and stay below the tax, so he made statements making other teams think something that was not true. GarPax bluffed and Joe D called thinking they would try to match the Detroit offer. Unfortunately for Detroit, the Bulls didn't make an offer. I think Joe D was trying to get back for Chicago signing B Wallace by either 1)making a high offer to BG in order to force the Bulls to give up some of their cap room in 2010 by counter offering or 2) actually signing BG. This signing did hurt the Bulls, but only for the short term. There is a lot of strategy in this business. More than most people think!
> 
> The last place I wanted BG to go was an in conference rival, especially Detroit. One real big positive thing about Detroit's signings is one of the teams who many thought were going to be a big factor in 2010 free agency are no longer going to be. They now have a decent 3 guard rotation in BG, Stuckey, and RIP, but compare it to Rose, Hinrich, and Salmons and I don't think it is that much better. Detroit had to give up a lot in cap room and Chicago just gained more cap room. Chicago's 3 guards are paid about $20 mill and now the Pistons 3 guards are paid about $23-24 mill. You decide!


Good post.

Yeah, please tell how their 3-guard rotation of Gordon/Stuckey/Rip is better than Rose/Hinrich/Salmons. Rose > Gordon; Hinrich > Stuckey; Salmons = Rip. 

If their goal was revenge for the Ben Wallace signing, then they may well suffer the same fate: wanting to unload a fat contract after 2 seasons when they decide their team is going nowhere.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

PD said:


> I am still confused why they went after Gordon that badly. They have Rip on the book for the next 4 years and way overpaid. Gordon is a nice player but does not deserve $55M. Literally, they just paid $11M/yr for one bench player.
> 
> They still don't have a great PG, Center, or PF. I guess the new strategy for winning is loading up the SF and SG positions.


Rip Hamilton has little trade value, IMO, with all the money owed to him; combined with his advancing age. He still puts up points, but the tight economy makes teams reluctant to acquire an older, high-priced shooting guard.

Tayshaun Prince probably has the greatest value on that squad. He has 2 years (??) left on his deal at a not-too-insane price of $10M per season. It's possible they swap Tayshaun for a PG, then let Rip and Charlie V handle SF by committee. Who really knows.


----------

