# NBA Fastbreak: Ben Gordon wants to ditch us? (merged)



## HAWK23 (Jul 1, 2002)

*Anyone see that BS on NBA TONIGHT?*

NBA Tonight went over a list of players that wanted to be traded... Jalen Rose was one...

another was Ben Gordon... the reasoning was he wants to start so he wouldn't mind changing teams... what kind of BS is that... I have never heard Ben complain about this?

Did anyone else see the segment?


----------



## jollyoscars (Jul 5, 2003)

*ben gordon wants to ditch us?*

i heard on nba fastbreak tonight on espn 2 that ben gordon wants to start, and doesn't understand why he isn't, because he views himself as an all-star. 

it was also mentioned that people close to him have sent out feelers around the league to see of the possibility of him moving on to a new club.

i really really hope this isn't true, but it's what this new dude on the show said, and he is in the know when it comes to what is going on in nba clubhouses.


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*

I think he should start, he had a great rookie year, worked his *** off in the offseason, and the problem of us in the earlier games of falling behind and having to play catchup is because the starting 5 can't score.

Though, I doubt the Skiles will change anything soon with the team winning the last couple of games and beatable opponents coming up


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

*Re: Anyone see that BS on NBA TONIGHT?*

Horrible to hear but we knew it was coming. Unless your name is McHale, no one is ever content coming off the bench. Sixth man of the year is small potatoes when you can be a legitimate All Star candidate. Hopefully Ben doesn't start griping and turn this into a season long saga 'cuz Duhon and Kirk really should be the starters at this point.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

*Re: Anyone see that BS on NBA TONIGHT?*



HAWK23 said:


> NBA Tonight went over a list of players that wanted to be traded... Jalen Rose was one...
> 
> another was Ben Gordon... the reasoning was he wants to start so he wouldn't mind changing teams... what kind of BS is that... I have never heard Ben complain about this?
> 
> Did anyone else see the segment?


So the reasoning was based on speculation that Gordon might like to start? Please. Sounds a little weird to me. Gordon has a big role on a playoff team, my mind would be somewhat blown if he's not happy with that.

If it is true, color me concerned. Ben has stunk it up every time we've tried to start him (and Skiles did give it a legitimate shot in the pre-season). I'll chalk this one up to unsubstantiated NBA rumor mill BS, and hope that it's not true. If it is true Ben ought to get a grip, he's in a good situation and he's getting better.


----------



## p1mpstaR (Jan 17, 2005)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*

funny thing...he played well for 2 games and suddenly he is an all star. this guy is a chucker. undersized. trade him.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*

Ben Gordon will play for the Bulls for 4 years and then go to the Knicks as an unrestricted FA. Just a hunch. That seems to be the pattern.

Gordon is a good player, I love his scoring and shooting. But he just hasnt gotten it done as a starter. He struggles in that role. But coming off the bench he is brilliant. But having said that, he doesnt mesh well with Kirk. The Bulls would have to adjust what looks to be a pretty good backcourt to accomodate Gordons wish to start. Is it worth it? I dont know. But I dont think he will be a Bull beyond his 4th year in the league under the status quo


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*

Ben RECENTLY said in the paper that he didn't care about starting and as long as his minutes increased and he's in the game when it matters, he's fine with his role.

The NBA Fastbreak folks just stirring up a bunch of nothing.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



The ROY said:


> Ben RECENTLY said in the paper that he didn't care about starting and as long as his minutes increased and he's in the game when it matters, he's fine with his role.
> 
> The NBA Fastbreak folks just stirring up a bunch of nothing.


Thats right. But now Duhon is leading the team in minutes per game and Gordon's, I believe, have decreased from the minutes he was playing the last few months of last season. Its hard to make an argument that Ben should be out there as much or more than Duhon and Hinrich right now. 

The better Duhon plays, the more obvious a problem this is going to become.


----------



## grace (Mar 22, 2005)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*

Well, if Ben is really serious about wanting to be traded because he wants to start he should take a long hard look at Al Harrington. He wanted out of Indiana because he wanted to start. He got his wish and now he's less than thrilled to be on a team that has a losing tradition. Then again Atlanta did start off 0-9 and have now won 2 games in a row so maybe they're the 2005-2006 version of the Bulls.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



Ron Cey said:


> Thats right. But now Duhon is leading the team in minutes per game and Gordon's, I believe, have decreased from the minutes he was playing the last few months of last season. Its hard to make an argument that Ben should be out there as much or more than Duhon and Hinrich right now.
> 
> The better Duhon plays, the more obvious a problem this is going to become.


Why is Kirk the obvious starter in the Bulls backcourt? By acclamation? You say it's hard to make an argument that Ben should be out there as much as him, so make the argument.

Gordon is playing 28 minutes per game, Kirk 34.5.

Gordon leads the team in scoring at 14.0, Kirk is second at 13.7.

Gordon's FG% is rising - it's now at 37.5%, Kirk's is falling, it's down to 39.9%

Gordon shoots 40.8% 3pt, Kirk 40.5%

Both average 2.8 RPG

Hinrich is getting 6.7 APG to Gordon's 2.3 - the only statistic that Hinrich beats Gordon at, but understandable given the roles the two play.

Gordon turns the ball over less - 1.9/game to Kirk's 2.4/game

Gordon even gets more steals - 1.1/game to Kirk's 0.6/game

Based on last season you might argue that Kirk's defense makes him a better all-round player. But the stats on 82games.com don't show it. And this season, particularly the past two games, Kirk's defense doesn't look good to me at all. In fact, he was lit up like a christmas tree in the past two games by Van Exel and Moochie Norris.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



rlucas4257 said:


> Ben Gordon will play for the Bulls for 4 years and then go to the Knicks as an unrestricted FA. Just a hunch. That seems to be the pattern.
> 
> Gordon is a good player, I love his scoring and shooting. But he just hasnt gotten it done as a starter. He struggles in that role. But coming off the bench he is brilliant. But having said that, he doesnt mesh well with Kirk. The Bulls would have to adjust what looks to be a pretty good backcourt to accomodate Gordons wish to start. Is it worth it? I dont know. But I dont think he will be a Bull beyond his 4th year in the league under the status quo


The pattern would be Ben leads the team in scoring, and then gets traded. We've traded away our leading scorer the past 3 times.

Cheers


----------



## david123 (Mar 11, 2005)

*Re: Anyone see that BS on NBA TONIGHT?*



jbulls said:


> If it is true, color me concerned. Ben has stunk it up every time we've tried to start him (and Skiles did give it a legitimate shot in the pre-season).


5 preseason games. yea, a legitimate shot. 

anyways, ben probably has a right to complain.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

huh.

chris broussard seems pretty plugged in. he may be new on the tv scene for espn, but he's been writing for the magazine and on the website for a while.

so, ben through his agents, his people, and his mom (ok kidding) says he thinks he should start and wants to go to a team where he will cause he thinks he's an all-star? way to grasp that team concept man. he's been less than stellar, and that's being really kind, as a starter so far in his short nba career. and i think skiles has a better feel for this than all the nba "experts" in the world could ever possibly have. it's one thing to have a healthy ego, but another to come off as a me-first player, which this certainly points to. so it's distressing if it is indeed true. 

in the press ben has been gracious and diplomatic. but who knows what goes on behind the scenes. i one of the recent games - can't remember which one - ben expressed "surprise" when the final play was drawn up for sweetney. (the interview was posted on the comcast site). i thought one of the best moves skiles made late in the spurs game was putting ben BACK IN THE GAME at the end after his bonehead pass. and ben goes on to lead in scoring.

if ben wants to start he needs to be a better defender of two's than kirk. and a better PG than duhon. right now he is neither. 

i want the media (beat writers) to pick up this story and ask him point blank about it.

_ben, are you a me-first player or a team player?_


----------



## david123 (Mar 11, 2005)

ben isn't a me-first player for wanting to start. 

this is all speculation at this point.. but even if he said straight from his mouth to the papers, well.. so what? he's got a point. 

and why wouldn't someone like ben be surprised for not getting the final play? has last season completely slipped from your mind? what's wrong with showing displeasure for a situation that's obviously been unjust to ben?

_"me first player or team player?" _

oh give me a frick'n break. i'm sick of this purist ball bs. you don't win with a team full of duhons. 
last night, when kirk was sticking it up with missed shot after missed shot, ben obviously should have been in the game for longer than 24 minutes. skiles is clearly biased towards certain types of players (which isn't entirely based on hard work or winning potential).

i'm not sure why the bulls are content on running every special player out of town. first, brand; second, artest; and now, ben. sure, ben has flaws; but you don't improve on those flaws by benching a player and yanking him every time he makes a mistake. you encourage, and let these players play through their mistakes. i'd be heartbroken if ben leaves, but honestly, i'd put all blame on the bulls.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

david123 said:


> ben isn't a me-first player for wanting to start.
> 
> this is all speculation at this point.. but even if he said straight from his mouth to the papers, well.. so what? he's got a point.
> 
> and why wouldn't someone like ben be surprised for not getting the final play? has last season completely slipped from your mind? what's wrong with showing displeasure for a situation that's obviously been unjust to ben?


ok, my point is obviously an extreme magnification.

unjust to ben? you mean like ben > the rest of the team? that's where i have the disconnect. why is ben any more special than sweetney or duhon or kirk in a late game situation, where all three have stepped up for the team in the past? 

last season has not slipped my mind. this team is not constructed around one guy. he is not greater than the rest of the team. heck, he's still working on being an all-court player. ben is special, yes, but he's not an all-star YET. and neither are kirk or duhon. but they are the better starting backcourt at this point for the reasons i stated above. IMO, of course.


----------



## Silverdale (Dec 25, 2004)

I knew this was comming from the beggining. I think he is too undersized to be a consistent starter but at the same time he is too talented to be comfortable comming off the bench all the time. Too bad but it was inevitable. I for one would not mind trading him at all, as long as we got a legitimate scoring 2 gaurd in return. Duhon is one of my favorites but I just would like to see him get min off the bench backing up Kirk at the 1. Possible players who would fit on our team?


I wanted Ray Allen before the season but Thats not gonna happen now.

I would like to see Paul Pierce here,


I think D Mason or Demarr Johnson might be good fits here too.


----------



## david123 (Mar 11, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> last season has not slipped my mind. this team is not constructed around one guy. he is not greater than the rest of the team. heck, he's still working on being an all-court player. ben is special, yes, but he's not an all-star YET. and neither are kirk or duhon. but they are the better starting backcourt at this point for the reasons i stated above. IMO, of course.


oh completely agreed.. none of those guys are all-stars at this point.
but i do think that 2 of those players are given special treatment over the third one. i don't think that there should be a glaring disparity in playing time either. like it or not, starting in the nba does matter. even if ben says that it doesn't, i'm pretty certain that he desires it in the inside. skiles operates in an ideal world where egos dont come into play.. one of the major functions of a coach (especially the coach of a young team) should be to encourage, and develop players. he's doing a fine job of that with some players, but with gordon, that seems to go out the window.


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

ok i don't believe a single word of this unless it's coming STRAIGHT from Gordon's mouth


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

david123 said:


> oh completely agreed.. none of those guys are all-stars at this point.
> but i do think that 2 of those players are given special treatment over the third one. i don't think that there should be a glaring disparity in playing time either. like it or not, starting in the nba does matter. even if ben says that it doesn't, i'm pretty certain that he desires it in the inside. skiles operates in an ideal world where egos dont come into play.. one of the major functions of a coach (especially the coach of a young team) should be to encourage, and develop players. he's doing a fine job of that with some players, but with gordon, that seems to go out the window.



i agree that ben most likely desires this "on the inside". what i am saying is tsk tsk, bad form to have your agents talking up a point like this so early in your second season in the nba especially when you play on a team that is (now) winning, and has won in the past, with you playing a special and such a decisive role on the team by coming off the bench.

skiles wants him to earn it. i don't have a problem with that. 

damn me for being such a fan of that purist bball BS.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> i agree that ben most likely desires this "on the inside". what i am saying is tsk tsk, bad form to have your agents talking up a point like this so early in your second season in the nba especially when you play on a team that is (now) winning, and has won in the past, with you playing a special and such a decisive role on the team by coming off the bench.
> 
> skiles wants him to earn it. i don't have a problem with that.
> 
> damn me for being such a fan of that purist bball BS.


Some people seem to think that because the Bulls are a "winning" team that the players should take one for the team when it comes to contracts. It's a business to the team when they count the dollars they take in and spend. And this Bulls management team has done nothing but put the players through the grinder when it came time to re-sign them after rookie contracts.

Gordon is a #3 pick in the draft, won 6th man of the year as a rookie (never been done before?), is our leading scorer, came from a winning college team, and before he joined the bulls, they won 23 games.

Pegged as a 6th man and one-dimensional scorer (only) is effectively harming is market value when the time comes. "Heck, he's even been beatn out for the starting job by a 2nd round pick and a #7 in the draft!" - so they'll use it against him. We're talking about money, to the tune of $20M or more.

Of course Ben should be asking to be traded NOW. The rest of this season and two more of this only make him older, make the "P" word less meaningful in his situation, and harm his negotiating position down the road.

I'm sure he'd love to go to Atlanta and start and put up the 25PPG he's capable of for the next 2-plus seasons and then go UFA.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

DaBullz said:


> Some people seem to think that because the Bulls are a "winning" team that the players should take one for the team when it comes to contracts. It's a business to the team when they count the dollars they take in and spend. And this Bulls management team has done nothing but put the players through the grinder when it came time to re-sign them after rookie contracts.
> 
> Gordon is a #3 pick in the draft, won 6th man of the year as a rookie (never been done before?), is our leading scorer, came from a winning college team, and before he joined the bulls, they won 23 games.
> 
> ...



so you think ben should be *more concerned* at this point in his young career with his personal future earnings than his team actually winning games? 

color me not surprised. let's just say it's a difference of opinion.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> so you think ben should be *more concerned* at this point in his young career with his personal future earnings than his team actually winning games?
> 
> color me not surprised. let's just say it's a difference of opinion.


Most definately he should be more concerned about his personal future earnings. 

Would you work for wherever it is you work for free? For 1/10th what you make now? Just because you want to be part of the "team" there?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> so you think ben should be *more concerned* at this point in his young career with his personal future earnings than his team actually winning games?
> 
> color me not surprised. let's just say it's a difference of opinion.


Someone has to look out for Ben, why shouldn't it be Ben?

The real problem here is not Ben looking out for #1. The problem is that there should be no difference between Ben trying to maximize wins and maximize future earnings.

Is there a difference? If so, why?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> so you think ben should be *more concerned* at this point in his young career with his personal future earnings than his team actually winning games?
> 
> color me not surprised. let's just say it's a difference of opinion.



he's young , and most players when they are younger put their future earning abilities ahead of winning.

why ? because its logical, by the time you are in your prime the kind of player you are is established for the mos part as well as your value.

didn't he grumble abit about PT last season at some point and skiles was forced to talk about his stamina(for a 22 yr. sounded stupid to me) and his defense?

its not the 1st time benny had an issue with the way he is used.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

:smilewink


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Da Grinch said:


> he's young , and most players when they are younger put their future earning abilities ahead of winning.
> 
> why ? because its logical, by the time you are in your prime the kind of player you are is established for the mos part as well as your value.
> 
> ...


He is playing his second season in the NBA. He wont get a new contract after this season, or the following, for that matter. And he wont get a fat contract based on what he did last year or what he is doing now, if not for what he could produce after he pens a new deal. So I dont know why he should be concerned about money or a new contract at this point.

Now, if you tell me he wants the starter tag or to log 40 minutes per night, thats a different story. I dont think he will achieve that here or in any competitive team. Hopefully its just a bruised ego.

If anything I think he isnt a Skiles fan. Maybe.


----------



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

mizenkay said:


> ok, my point is obviously an extreme magnification.
> 
> unjust to ben? you mean like ben > the rest of the team? that's where i have the disconnect. why is ben any more special than sweetney or duhon or kirk in a late game situation, where all three have stepped up for the team in the past?


The way Skiles uses Duhon and Kirk on this team in relation to Ben reminds me of the days when I used to play EA Sports NHL '95 and '96 for the Sega Genesis and how I used to use my favorite players. A few big things back then were player ratings and the ability to make trades. So, I would trade (or force trade) all the great players of the day from Gretzky to Lemieux with ratings of 89 (out of 100) and above to the Blackhawks. But out of Blackhawk pride I kept all of the then-current players on the roster like Chris Chelios and Tony Amonte. Tony Amonte was my favorite player and while he wasn't among the league leaders, he was one of the more solid players in the East. I wanted him to have the best stats out of all the players, so of course I played him a lot more than the higher-rated all-stars players, and eventually I did get the best stats out of Tony Amonte.

So, the way Skiles uses Duhon and Kirk reminds me of how I used Tony Amonte. I would focus on using him as much as possible to get better stats because I liked numbers at the time. When he did score a goal or make some kind of assist, it was just one more subtle reminder of how this team composed of all-time scoring leaders Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, all-world goalies like Patrick Roy, dependent the team was on Tony Amonte. Skiles focuses on using Duhon and Kirk as much as possible maybe to prove a point that we are a team first and that team basketball can win. Whenever Duhon and/or Kirk do score or make some great pass in the 4th quarter, it's just one more subtle reminder of how this team containing an awesome 4th quarter specialist is more dependent on Duhon and Kirk for its wins.

So you ask, why is Ben any more special than Sweetney, Duhon, or Kirk ?

Cause Ben has done more CONSISTENTLY in the late game situation than those 3 guys COMBINED. Ironic, that a guy who is called inconsistent is the most consistent force in the quarter that most matters. Was an award judged and handed out by the league recognizing the impact of your contribution not enough ? Was 20+ double digit 4th quarters not enough ? Is him leading the team in scoring despite coming off the bench not enough ?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> So you ask, why is Ben any more special than Sweetney, Duhon, or Kirk ?
> 
> Cause Ben has done more CONSISTENTLY in the late game situation than those 3 guys COMBINED. Ironic, that a guy who is called inconsistent is the most consistent force in the quarter that most matters. Was an award judged and handed out by the league recognizing the impact of your contribution not enough ? Was 20+ double digit 4th quarters not enough ? Is him leading the team in scoring despite coming off the bench not enough ?



GM fantasyland approach to the game aside, am i really the only one who thinks that winning trumps individual glory? wow, i feel really old. 

my dispute with this "story" is that, while still very much a rumor, it _appears_ that mr. gordon is more concerned with his own than with the results of the team he plays for.

that's it. 



> The real problem here is not Ben looking out for #1. The problem is that there should be no difference between Ben trying to maximize wins and maximize future earnings.
> 
> Is there a difference? If so, why?


i don't think there is a difference really. that said, he should shut up and tell his agents to shut up too. that's all i meant. if you help your team win you will be paid. if he wants to start, he should earn it. he may never be able to with skiles as his coach. that is what is at issue here for most i think. rlucas was saying this earlier in the season. and now it's tiny little ugly head is starting to rear itself. i just hope it doesn't become an unmanageable situation. 

oh and LOL dabullz, i work here for free and get no respect in return. but that's a whole 'nother story.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Of course Ben should be concerned with not starting! He leads the team in scoring and does some other things well. What's hurting him now is the fact that Duhon is doing Ben's 'other things' better than Ben is! And Duhon is scoring in double figures as well 

How about this for an idea, Hinrich is in a slump shooting. Why not start Ben in his place and see what happens. Let Kirk go to the bench and be the first man in. Would Kirk complain? Would Ben seaze the moment and not look back? 

Keep in mind we play Kirk for his defense and not just his offense. How much of a dropoff would there be if they switched roles?

You know I talked about Kirk being in a slump in shooting, yet Ben is shooting only 38%. Kirk is @ 40%.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Scott Skiles is actually Tony Amonte's brother.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I like Gordon, but he isn't better than Duhon right now. Hinrich and Gordon hasn't been as good as Hinrich and Duhon, point blank. Duhon and Gordon would be considerably worse than either of those lineups. 

So as much as Gordon supposedly wants to start, who is he going to start over? He views himself as an all-star? Well if the league sees it the same way, then trade him for an all-star and be done with it. Ben Gordon is not anything near an all-star right now. He is playing the role that he should be playing based on his current abilities.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> GM fantasyland approach to the game aside, am i really the only one who thinks that winning trumps individual glory?


No, but you're one of the few who actually believes they know less than the head coach.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

truebluefan said:


> You know I talked about Kirk being in a slump in shooting, yet Ben is shooting only 38%. Kirk is @ 40%.


Both Hinrich and Duhon's eFG% and PER are higher than Gordon's as well (though recently, KH's has dropped and BG's has risen).


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

I'm glad this is happening, I think Ben should be packaged with a few other guys before the deadline for a superstar (as I was harping on all day yesterday). Again, he's our most tradeable asset, he doesn't fit in our team setup, and not that we don't need him, but we need someone much better in our lineup and using him as trade bait is the best way to go.

-Z-


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Both Hinrich and Duhon's eFG% and PER are higher than Gordon's as well (though recently, KH's has dropped and BG's has risen).


Yeah, thats true. Ben got off to a very rocky start shooting wise.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Then again, we all crucified Hinrich last year for shooting just under 40% from the field, and praised Gordon for shooting 41% and scoring less points per game than Hinrich. Food for thought.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> He is playing his second season in the NBA. He wont get a new contract after this season, or the following, for that matter. And he wont get a fat contract based on what he did last year or what he is doing now, if not for what he could produce after he pens a new deal. So I dont know why he should be concerned about money or a new contract at this point.
> 
> Now, if you tell me he wants the starter tag or to log 40 minutes per night, thats a different story. I dont think he will achieve that here or in any competitive team. Hopefully its just a bruised ego.
> 
> If anything I think he isnt a Skiles fan. Maybe.


so he is supposed to wait 2 years, to be the player he thinks he is now?

also there is the fact tha he isn't any more experienced than he guy keeping him on the bench in duhon, so its not a wait your turn situaion.

its simple. all star> starter....starter>sub and in the nba you are paid accordingly.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

Here's some food for thought:

So far this season, 4 of our 6 wins came when Ben took 10 shots or less.

-Z-


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Gordon also still leads the team in field goal attempts per game.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

Also, every game we've lost, Ben has taken over 10 attempts.

-Z-


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



DaBullz said:


> Why is Kirk the obvious starter in the Bulls backcourt? By acclamation? You say it's hard to make an argument that Ben should be out there as much as him, so make the argument.
> 
> Gordon is playing 28 minutes per game, Kirk 34.5.
> 
> ...


So Hinrich shoots better, scores the same, rebounds the same, dishes the ball about 300% better, turns the ball over slightly more (yet maintains a far superior assist/turnover ratio) and is so much more effective defensively that its not even close, and Gordon should start? 

Look, I know that you think Hinrich shouldn't start and think that virtually every guard the Bulls have had at the same time as Hinrich was better than Hinrich (Crawford, Duhon, Gordon). But I don't agree. Not at all. 

Hinrich is still the best player on the Bulls. Not just among guards. Among every single player on the team. I do expect that to change and Gordon could be the guy that changes that, but it hasn't changed yet. 

I'm not saying that Gordon can't take the starting spot from Hinrich or Duhon. I'm saying that based on the first 11 games of this season, he doesn't deserve to start or to play more minutes than either of them. Yet. 

Skiles has tried to get him in as a starter two years in a row, and Gordon dropped the ball. If he comes on, I have no doubt that he'll start getting more of Du's minutes and Hinrich's minutes.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Da Grinch said:


> so he is supposed to wait 2 years, to be the player he thinks he is now?
> 
> also there is the fact tha he isn't any more experienced than he guy keeping him on the bench in duhon, so its not a wait your turn situaion.
> 
> its simple. all star> starter....starter>sub and in the nba you are paid accordingly.


The player _he thinks_ he is now.

And Bobby Simmons says hi.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> The player _he thinks_ is now.
> 
> And Bobby Simmons says hi.


isn't benny's thinking the point ?, he thinks he should start and thats the root of it all

bobby started 74 of 75 games last season , and just signed a 5 year 47 million $ deal....what did he make before when he was a reserve?

players want to be taking care of financially more than anything, is a business 1st.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



DaBullz said:


> Why is Kirk the obvious starter in the Bulls backcourt? By acclamation? You say it's hard to make an argument that Ben should be out there as much as him, so make the argument.
> 
> Gordon is playing 28 minutes per game, Kirk 34.5.
> 
> ...


Lit up like a Christmas tree by Moochie Norris? Moochie Norris played 11 minutes and scored 0 points yesterday.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*

If Duhon continues to improve his shot, like he has been, he'll be the best of our three guards.

So far this season, he already is the best of our three guards. 

Duhon's eFG is much, much higher than either Hinrich's or Gordon's this season.

Go Duhon! What an underdog story. How is Mike Wilks doing?

He's becoming one of the best pure PGs in the NBA.

Right now, the top 5 players in assist ratio that log heavy minutes in the NBA are Eric Snow, Jose Calderon, Brevin Knight, Chris Duhon and Steve Nash.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



kukoc4ever said:


> If Duhon continues to improve his shot, like he has been, he'll be the best of our three guards.
> 
> So far this season, he already is the best of our three guards.
> 
> ...


Yeah, Duhon has been amazing. What a great move by Paxson.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



Sir Patchwork said:


> Yeah, Duhon has been amazing. What a great move by Paxson.


I'm glad he fought off his initial urge to cut him for Mike Wilks. Way to not go with your gut Pax.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



kukoc4ever said:


> I'm glad he fought off his initial urge to cut him for Mike Wilks. Way to not go with your gut Pax.


Just another great move in the long line of Paxson's moves in his short time here. Amazing how quick he has turned it around. Now if he can get this team to the next level, let's cross our fingers. The upcoming offseason will be huge.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



Sir Patchwork said:


> Just another great move in the long line of Paxson's moves in his short time here. Amazing how quick he has turned it around. Now if he can get this team to the next level, let's cross our fingers. The upcoming offseason will be huge.


I hope we can get more value with Cap Space than we did with the #3 overall pick in the draft.

That being said, we could always fall into a Deng or Duhon situation as well.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



kukoc4ever said:


> I hope we can get more value with Cap Space than we did with the #3 overall pick in the draft.
> 
> That being said, we could always fall into a Deng or Duhon situation as well.


Yeah, too bad there are no superstars who are free agents. We'd be in a really good position. We would be able to *add* a Kobe or McGrady type player without having to give up half our roster to get them in a trade.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

On the bright side, at least we can address our lack of size this summer through free agency.

-Z-


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

IMO, it is extremely clear what is going on with Ben vs. Skiles/Pax’s regime. And unfortunately we will loose Ben at the end of that process ( I hope, I am wrong)

Coming from the bench does harm Ben’s future contract and… endorsements (I hardly believe that no one did mention that yet). 

Skiles used Ben not only as a game saver, but also as a perfect motivation tool for Du 
and the rest of young players on that team. We have a ton of potentials and all of them 
are thinking about their future contracts and endorsements. On other hand, everybody loves to see Gordon’s magic , IMO he is a very special and unique player. I like to see that team with:

Ben, Du
Kirk, a solid back up, like Harper was for Lakers
Deng, Nocioni
Tyson, Sweetney, SD
C vacant ( cap room, two picks and possible Tyson)


In conclusion…I do prefer to see Ben, as a starter regardless, if Bulls will ended up on the standing table a couple steps bellow, by not playing Du. … we are not ready yet to be a champion team. Plus we will have a better drafting chance. And at least, we will be watching the best of Ben Gordon, all season long.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

anorexorcist said:


> On the bright side, at least we can address our lack of size this summer through free agency.
> 
> -Z-


This is true. Although, just like with the Basden acquisition, size does not matter much if there are no minutes to be had.

Duhon and Hinrich are going to be the starting guards here for the foreseeable future, barring injury or Duhon losing his shooting ability.... or if Paxson can pull off a monster trade (i hope!)


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Da Grinch said:


> isn't benny's thinking the point ?, he thinks he should start and thats the root of it all
> 
> bobby started 74 of 75 games last season , and just signed a 5 year 47 million $ deal....what did he make before when he was a reserve?
> 
> players want to be taking care of financially more than anything, is a business 1st.


So he didnt start all of them? And was his contract year? Well, Gordon is not hitting free agency for a long time.

And Milwaukee gave him that big contract for that one season or for his future contribution?

Bottomline: Its not about money. With mediocre talents getting so many millons, Ben last worry should be his financial situation. As long as he stays healthy, he will command 8M+ per season on a multi-year deal. Or he also has to feed his family as Spree and that isnt enough?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> So he didnt start all of them? And was his contract year? Well, Gordon is not hitting free agency for a long time.
> 
> And Milwaukee gave him that big contract for that one season or for his future contribution?



That's a strawman argument that borders on the absurd.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> That's a strawman argument that borders on the absurd.


Explain. As I posted before (Edited message), he will get paid. Its not about money.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Have we forgotten that Ben got a chance to seize the starting job in the preseason and couldn't get it done in that capacity? We're only 10+ games into the season, so it's not like that was ancient history. Plus, Duhon has played very well and the team is performing pretty well too.

I don't buy the "let's keep Gordon's value down" conspiracy theory...Skiles gave Gordon a great chance to earn the starting job, but Duhon's the one who did earn it and he hasn't looked back (and Kirk hasn't played poorly either aside from a few horrible fg% games). It's not like Gordon's performance to this point leaps off the page. If he really, truly shows that he's the best guard we have, and Skiles leaves him on the bench and limits his minutes, then he can and should start talking about it. That hasn't happened yet.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Have we forgotten that Ben got a chance to seize the starting job in the preseason and couldn't get it done in that capacity? We're only 10+ games into the season, so it's not like that was ancient history. Plus, Duhon has played very well and the team is performing pretty well too.
> 
> I don't buy the "let's keep Gordon's value down" conspiracy theory...Skiles gave Gordon a great chance to earn the starting job, but Duhon's the one who did earn it and he hasn't looked back (and Kirk hasn't played poorly either aside from a few horrible fg% games). It's not like Gordon's performance to this point leaps off the page. If he really, truly shows that he's the best guard we have, and Skiles leaves him on the bench and limits his minutes, then he can and should start talking about it. That hasn't happened yet.


I agree with all of this. Gordan can think he is a starter but, really, how many teams could he start on around the NBA? Any good ones? I am far from sold this is a big deal with Gordon, but if it is, he should just concentrate on getting his game together.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

Bulls96 said:


> In conclusion…I do prefer to see Ben, as a starter regardless, if Bulls will ended up on the standing table a couple steps bellow, by not playing Du. … we are not ready yet to be a champion team. Plus we will have a better drafting chance. And at least, we will be watching the best of Ben Gordon, all season long.


Lemme get this straight...

You'd rather we start Ben, even though you know we'll be worse, just so we can get a higher draft pick? Come on man, I dunno about you but I'm tired of hearing about the draft in relation to the Bulls, lol.

We're already a young enough team as it is. We've been rebuilding for years. The time to make moves to become a "champion team" as you put it is NOW. We've already gotten whatever we can out of the draft (aka our drafted players from the last 2-3 years have begun to achieve their full potential), and we've finally pulled ourselves out of the cellar of being a last-place team into somewhere in the middle of the pack. The next step is to move up to the upper echelons, at the least being a guaranteed playoff team every year.

No offense, but with your plan we'd revert back to being a cellar dwellar, just to keep our most exciting player. I don't know about you but I'd rather we get championships, even if it's not in the most exciting fashion. Talk to the Pistons and Spurs fans about that.

-Z-


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

johnston797 said:


> I agree with all of this. Gordan can think he is a starter but, really, how many teams could he start on around the NBA? Any good ones? I am far from sold this is a big deal with Gordon, but if it is, he should just concentrate on getting his game together.


Absolutely right. No one is holding him back. If he gets it done, he'll get the minutes and the starting spot. Skiles WANTS Gordon to start and play more. He's given him the starting spot entering both seasons of his NBA career, but couldn't hold it down.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

BTW, I think Deng could make a better case than Gordon for starting and minutes (at least before this season and before this road trip) and for all I know he didnt say a word or isnt bit*hing about it. 

Note: It was reported on ESPN, we dont know how accurate the report is or if it holds any truth whatsoever.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



Ron Cey said:


> So Hinrich shoots better, scores the same, rebounds the same, dishes the ball about 300% better, turns the ball over slightly more (yet maintains a far superior assist/turnover ratio) and is so much more effective defensively that its not even close, and Gordon should start?


Hinrich shoots worse, scores the same but in more minutes, rebounds the same, but in more minutes, plays some PG so he gets assists, turns the ball over more, and I question that he's better defensively. 

Defense? What does 82games.com have to say about defense:
Hinrich on court 105.4 pts per 100 posessions, off court 101.8 points per 100 posessions
Gordon on court 104.2 pts per 100 posessions, off court 104.6 points per 100 posessions

Defense is better with hinrich off the court, and better with Gordon on the court. 



> Look, I know that you think Hinrich shouldn't start and think that virtually every guard the Bulls have had at the same time as Hinrich was better than Hinrich (Crawford, Duhon, Gordon). But I don't agree. Not at all.


You don't know _what_ I think, so I'll tell you. I think the players should earn their starting jobs and minutes, not be annointed golden boy and just given the minutes. Don't count me in the Crawford fan club, as I merely believe we should have more to show for him than Pike and Othella.

My angle on this whole question is why certain people, YOU included, seem to think there's a binary choice of Hinrich+Duhon or Hinrich+Gordon. There's other possibilities, including Duhon+Gordon, Gordon+Pike, Gordon+Deng, Gordon+Badsen, &c.

In fact, it may make way more sense to have Hinrich as the first guy off the bench, as he complements both Gordon and Duhon pretty equally.



> Hinrich is still the best player on the Bulls. Not just among guards. Among every single player on the team. I do expect that to change and Gordon could be the guy that changes that, but it hasn't changed yet.


Says you? It's now Kirk's 3rd season and he's showing a decline in performance, not getting better as I think he should.



> I'm not saying that Gordon can't take the starting spot from Hinrich or Duhon. I'm saying that based on the first 11 games of this season, he doesn't deserve to start or to play more minutes than either of them. Yet.


Based upon the past 5 games, Kirk wouldn't earn a starting job on many teams.



> Skiles has tried to get him in as a starter two years in a row, and Gordon dropped the ball. If he comes on, I have no doubt that he'll start getting more of Du's minutes and Hinrich's minutes.


Skiles hasn't given Gordon half the chance he gave Hinrich. Hinrich, as a rookie, was moved to PG from his natural SG position (where he played in college), and Skiles stuck with him no matter how badly he played, including a game with TEN turnovers.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playbyplay?gameId=251126010&period=0

Q3:
5:26 Ben Gordon enters the game for Kirk Hinrich. 54-51 Bulls
Q4:
10:19 Kirk Hinrich enters the game for Ben Gordon 75-65 Bulls (Bulls have increased their lead by 7)
5:52 Ben Gordon enters the game for Luol Deng 80-76 (Bulls have decreased their lead by 6)

Bulls led by as many as 15 with Kirk off the court and Gordon on the court.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



jbulls said:


> Lit up like a Christmas tree by Moochie Norris? Moochie Norris played 11 minutes and scored 0 points yesterday.


4 rebounds, 3 assists, and blocked a hinrich shot, too. Lit him up, yes.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

It doesn't really make sense for Ben to say this(IF he did say it). Duhon's actually been our best guard, so Ben can't possibly think he should be starting ahead of him. Kirk hasn't been great(in fact, quite poor lately), but his size and D alone gives him the instant edge over Ben to start.

It would've been a bit more understandable had he complained abt his uneven playing time and the shorter leash he gets compared to some other players on this team.

Either way, I don't see Ben going anywhere. Pax isn't stupid. Bulls aren't sniffing playoffs w/o what he brings to this team.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

anorexorcist said:


> ...You'd rather we start Ben, even though you know we'll be worse, just so we can get a higher draft pick? ... -Z-


Thanks for your comments. But my remarks were not about draft or unconditional usage of Ben, as a starter. They were about a proper risk management and reasons why Ben is not a starter or how Skiles uses him.

Yes, I do prefer to take chances, to watch Ben as a starter for the rest of the season and a higher draft pick, in case he fails. Plus, we need fully evaluate the Ben Gordon’s phenomenon…not during the next or his contractual year, but this season and finally make our mind what to do next.

Another option is to aggravate and loose him for nothing… to NY for example, after a couple more years.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



DaBullz said:


> Defense is better with hinrich off the court, and better with Gordon on the court.


Bulls should start Pike then, he is our best player, according to the almighty plus/minus. 



DaBullz said:


> My angle on this whole question is why certain people, YOU included, seem to think there's a binary choice of Hinrich+Duhon or Hinrich+Gordon. There's other possibilities, including Duhon+Gordon, Gordon+Pike, Gordon+Deng, Gordon+Badsen, &c.


Because Hinrich is not only our best player (and that showed in the playoffs), but he is the only good player on our team that can play shooting guard on both ends. Starting Duhon and Gordon would mean one of them would have to match up with a shooting guard, which wouldn't work consistently, it would only work in spurts. Starting Gordon and Hinrich would mean one of them has to run the team and get them into the offense. Gordon is terrible at that, and Hinrich dribbles too much and takes too much time to get into it. So the logical choice is Duhon and Hinrich. Duhon can get into the offense, and defend opposing point guards well. Hinrich is a good scorer and offensive player, plus he is a better defender than Gordon, and not only that, he can defend the shooting guard position, which is important when talking about playing the shooting guard. Gordon is also perfect for the 6th man role. A one dimensional scorer who can provide a spark off the bench and give you 15 points per contest but not much else.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



Sir Patchwork said:


> Bulls should start Pike then, he is our best player, according to the almighty plus/minus.


I wasn't using the "almighty plus/minus" but points per 100 posessions, a different thing altogether.

If Pike played about 30 minutes per game (or more) and the numbers showed him our best player, then why shouldn't he start?



> Because Hinrich is not only our best player (and that showed in the playoffs), but he is the only good player on our team that can play shooting guard on both ends. Starting Duhon and Gordon would mean one of them would have to match up with a shooting guard, which wouldn't work consistently, it would only work in spurts. Starting Gordon and Hinrich would mean one of them has to run the team and get them into the offense. Gordon is terrible at that, and Hinrich dribbles too much and takes too much time to get into it. So the logical choice is Duhon and Hinrich. Duhon can get into the offense, and defend opposing point guards well. Hinrich is a good scorer and offensive player, plus he is a better defender than Gordon, and not only that, he can defend the shooting guard position, which is important when talking about playing the shooting guard. Gordon is also perfect for the 6th man role. A one dimensional scorer who can provide a spark off the bench and give you 15 points per contest but not much else.


All you offer is opinion. The numbers say otherwise (except for his playoff performance, which was good).


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



DaBullz said:


> All you offer is opinion. The numbers say otherwise (except for his playoff performance, which was good).


http://www.82games.com/0506/0506CHI2.HTM

3 Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Nocioni-Sweetney +12
4 Duhon-Hinrich-Deng-Nocioni-Chandler +8
5 Duhon-Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Chandler +7 

Our three best lineups all have Hinrich in them. The only two lineups with Gordon and without Hinrich are these ones. 

7 Duhon-Gordon-Deng-Sweetney-Chandler -9 
8 Duhon-Gordon-Deng-Nocioni-Harrington -11

How will you justify why that stat doesn't mean anything?


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



Sir Patchwork said:


> http://www.82games.com/0506/0506CHI2.HTM
> 
> 3 Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Nocioni-Sweetney +12
> 4 Duhon-Hinrich-Deng-Nocioni-Chandler +8
> ...


#7 = 15 minutes all season 
#8 = 14 minutes all season

In fact, the rankings are simply by number of minutes together, and not by performance of any kind.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



DaBullz said:


> In fact, the rankings are simply by number of minutes together, and not by performance of any kind.


I know, I posted their performance beside it. All lineups with Gordon and without Hinrich are heavy negatives.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



Sir Patchwork said:


> I know, I posted their performance beside it. All lineups with Gordon and without Hinrich are heavy negatives.


Funny. Gordon is in two of your top 3. Seems he's carrying Kirk.

EDIT:

I also note that our worst 5 (-16) includes Hinrich and not Gordon, and gets the 2nd most minutes. Smart!


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



DaBullz said:


> Funny. Gordon is in two of your top 3. Seems he's carrying Kirk.


Hinrich is 3 of the top 3.

Infact we don't have a lineup that has a positive ranking that doesn't include Hinrich. 

3 Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Nocioni-Sweetney +12
4 Duhon-Hinrich-Deng-Nocioni-Chandler +8
5 Duhon-Hinrich-Gordon-Deng-Chandler +7 

Those are the only lineups with positive results this season. Hinrich in all of them. And with that, your argument goes down the drain.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



DaBullz said:


> Hinrich shoots worse,


No he doesn't.

*eFG%*
Hinrich: 45.5%
Gordon: 44.1%



> scores the same but in more minutes,


*PER*
Hinrich: 15.0
Gordon: 13.9



> Defense? What does 82games.com have to say about defense:
> Hinrich on court 105.4 pts per 100 posessions, off court 101.8 points per 100 posessions
> Gordon on court 104.2 pts per 100 posessions, off court 104.6 points per 100 posessions
> 
> Defense is better with hinrich off the court, and better with Gordon on the court.


Amazing how you can come to such a conclusion so readily using only a static number -- a static number which tries to delineate a dynamic sujbect. It simply doesn't hold water. The same is true for +/-.



> Says you? It's now Kirk's 3rd season and he's showing a decline in performance, not getting better as I think he should.


KH's shooting is up (FG%, 3PT%, FT%, eFG%), his assists are up, his FTA are up, he's getting to the hole and finishing better (one of his main weaknesses in the past), he's bulked up and is using this added strength on the court and he's still playing two positions on the court at 6'3". Sure, he's had a bad stretch of games the last week and a half. But on the whole, he's a better player than he was last year.



> Based upon the past 5 games, Kirk wouldn't earn a starting job on many teams.


Based upon the first 6 games, he'd probably earn a starting job on many teams.



> Skiles hasn't given Gordon half the chance he gave Hinrich.


Gordon started game one of his rookie season. Hinrich didn't start until game 3 of his rookie season.



> Hinrich, as a rookie, was moved to PG from his natural SG position (where he played in college), and Skiles stuck with him no matter how badly he played, including a game with TEN turnovers.


1. Hinrich's natural position in college was as a distributing/fast-breaking PG and opportunistic (3rd option or so) scorer. Only when Aaron Miles came to Kansas did KH shift over to the 2G/SF. This is because Miles, like Duhon, can only play one position. Hinrich could play three positions in college. Hinrich's most efficient year in college was his sophomore season in which he put up 12 pts, 4 rebs, 7 ast (6th in the nation) on 50% FG and 51% 3PT (KU and Big XII record). He played every minute that season at PG.

2. Hinrich has never had 10 turnovers in a game before.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

i love how a thread about ben being supposedly unhappy in his current role on the team can be magically transformed into a let's tear down kirk some more. i marvel at it frankly.

anyway. back to the subject of ben. it's a bit like "wag the dog" in that we all believe that, since it was said on television, it must be true. i'd like to hear it from ben and yet, somehow i doubt i ever will. making waves thru ones agent is perhaps the way it's done these days, but it's not terribly professional.

he wants money cause he thinks that he's an all-star? he should put it where his mouth is. and this issue has absolutely nothing to do with hinrich as far as i can tell. ben's looking out for ben, and what does that have to do with kirk again?

if ben just wants to hear his name called in the starting lineup, maybe he can hire benny and the luvabulls to come over to the house with a tape of the starting lineup music and recreate it for him. 

oooh chills.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



DaBullz said:


> *My angle on this whole question is why certain people, YOU included, seem to think there's a binary choice of Hinrich+Duhon or Hinrich+Gordon.* There's other possibilities, including Duhon+Gordon, Gordon+Pike, Gordon+Deng, Gordon+Badsen, &c.


That isn't what I think at all anymore. I thought that last year. But now with Duhon's outstanding play, that isn't my opinion at all. I specifically believe that Gordon could come on and take Hinrich's spot. And I don't consider it the "given" that I once did that Hinrich is a better point guard than Duhon.

I could absolutely see a scenario (this season even) where Duhon/Gordon is the starting and most effective back court. What I'm saying is that we aren't there yet. 

I do, however, think any big minute rotation that has Gordon as a the point guard is a huge mistake. And I don't even consider Pike, Basden or Deng as a substantial part of the equation at the 2 guard spot. Point of fact, I'd be happy to never see Deng at the 2 except in limited circumstances and spot minutes. 

As for 82games.com and Hinrich's defense, I universally ignore those statistics. They are meaningless to me. I don't use them to support any argument, ever, nor do I recognize them as a reliable foundation for an argument against my opinion. Especially when used to support that one defender is better than another since the stat completely discounts who is doing the scoring, not to mention the play of the other four players on the court. Its superficial analysis at its worst. 

I know Hinrich is a better defender because I can see that he is by far and away the better defender. I know some people don't really care for that because it isn't quantifiable, but its the best way I've ever found of evaluating basketball performance. I watch. 

Just like by watching I can say that Gordon has improved significantly on the defensive end since last season. But he is a good measure behind Duhon and Hinrich in that department as of right now.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



Ron Cey said:


> I know Hinrich is a better defender because I can see that he is by far and away the better defender. I know some people don't really care for that because it isn't quantifiable, but its the best way I've ever found of evaluating basketball performance. I watch.
> 
> Just like by watching I can say that Gordon has improved significantly on the defensive end since last season. But he is a good measure behind Duhon and Hinrich in that department as of right now.


What did you see when Hinrich guarded Moochie Norris and Nick Van Exel?

Van Exel's performance on offense is quantifiable:

6-10 FG, 4 rebounds, 3 assists, 15 points, in 20 minutes.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

DaBullz,

Hinrich guarded Ginobili, Finley, Parker, and a little bit of Barry and Van Exel. He didn't guard Van Exel (or Moochie Norris) exclusively. He shared that role with other guards throughout the night.

If you think numbers are the be-all end-all of a player's performance or value, would you please tell me where Bruce Bowen is ranked in regards to steals and blocks?


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



DaBullz said:


> What did you see when Hinrich guarded Moochie Norris and Nick Van Exel?
> 
> Van Exel's performance on offense is quantifiable:
> 
> 6-10 FG, 4 rebounds, 3 assists, 15 points, in 20 minutes.


Despite the fact that NVE is capable of going off against anyone at any given time, you dont measure ability based on one play, one game or even one road trip. And stats show part of reality, not the entire truth.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



DaBullz said:


> What did you see when Hinrich guarded Moochie Norris and Nick Van Exel?
> 
> Van Exel's performance on offense is quantifiable:
> 
> 6-10 FG, 4 rebounds, 3 assists, 15 points, in 20 minutes.


Moochie Norris didn't score. Van Exel was smoking hot. It happens. Every defender gets scorched from time to time. Every defender. Not to mention that Hinrich wasn't the only guy guarding him during that game.

Edit: Let me just add that Hinrich has been scorched in the past by other players and not just Nick the Quick, and he will be scorched again periodically throughout the course of his career by even more players. So will Duhon. So will Gordon. So will Dwayne Wade. So will everyone. About the only guy that I can think of right now that I haven't seen get abused at one point or another is Ron Artest. I'm sure its happened, I've just never personally seen it.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*

Rockets guards shot 11-33 (33%) and the Spurs guards shot 20-46 (43%). Both below the season average.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



DaBullz said:


> What did you see when Hinrich guarded Moochie Norris and Nick Van Exel?
> 
> Van Exel's performance on offense is quantifiable:
> 
> 6-10 FG, 4 rebounds, 3 assists, 15 points, in 20 minutes.


Hinrich wasn't the only guy guarding Van Exel (who was completely in the zone against whoever was d-ing him up).

Also, as I pointed out previously in this thread, Moochie Norris scored ZERO points in 11 minutes the other night. He was a non-factor.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Much ado about nothing 

We have Gordon for another 2 seasons after this 

Worried about the Quong , Ben ?

I hear ya 

Its a business and your looking out for yours ?

I hear ya 

The only way your going to max your market is by what you do on the floor and that means you have to be significant for the hole game and be hands down the better all round player than Kirk or Chris

I think you are 

So prove it and up your leverage and make squillions 

Easy.

But the Bulls won't be trading you anywhere anytime soon unless Pax wakes up with a horse's head in his bed


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> i love how a thread about ben being supposedly unhappy in his current role on the team can be magically transformed into a let's tear down kirk some more. i marvel at it frankly.
> 
> anyway. back to the subject of ben. it's a bit like "wag the dog" in that we all believe that, since it was said on television, it must be true. i'd like to hear it from ben and yet, somehow i doubt i ever will. making waves thru ones agent is perhaps the way it's done these days, but it's not terribly professional.
> 
> ...


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to mizenkay again.

This isn't about Ben vs. Kirk, and turning it into that obscures the fact that Hinrich is still perhaps our best all around guard and Gordon has made great strides with regard to foul trouble and defense this year.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> GM fantasyland approach to the game aside, am i really the only one who thinks that winning trumps individual glory? wow, i feel really old.
> 
> my dispute with this "story" is that, while still very much a rumor, it _appears_ that mr. gordon is more concerned with his own than with the results of the team he plays for.
> 
> ...


Miz, if this is popping into your head, then it seems like maybe you think there is a difference. At least there could be one. If he'll never be able to earn it, not based on his ability but because of who Skiles is, then that's something a player has every right to be pissed off about.

As far as the larger question of the team winning vs. individual glory, apply that to your concern about Skiles.

If Skiles, and I'm not saying he does, has some concern aside from who gives him the best chance to win, then it's him, and not Ben, who's all about individual glory, because he's putting his own ethos ahead of both the team and the team's other individuals. 

------------------------

Personally, this seems like it was mostly just guys talking. Last year it was rumored at one point Chandler was saying similar things and Curry sort of talked him down from getting really upset over it. Maybe someone this year will step up and play that roll. Or maybe it was just the TNT guys making **** up.

I agree with Ron Cey though, that so far, Kirk has been the better player. Saying its time for a switch after two or three good games by Ben and bad games by Kirk is a pretty quick hook, especially when Kirk hasn't been playing too bad. Like I said about Duhon the other day, you've got to give the current guy a fair chance to keep the job they've got. Nobody likes getting jerked around based on a small sample of games, so unless they're really, really bad, then the starter should get the benefit of doubt.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> So he didnt start all of them? And was his contract year? Well, Gordon is not hitting free agency for a long time.
> 
> And Milwaukee gave him that big contract for that one season or for his future contribution?
> 
> Bottomline: Its not about money. With mediocre talents getting so many millons, Ben last worry should be his financial situation. As long as he stays healthy, he will command 8M+ per season on a multi-year deal. Or he also has to feed his family as Spree and that isnt enough?



for every mediocre talent making millions there is a star underpaid. ben wants what most players want , he wants to score, he wants to play and he most importantly wants to get paid as much as humanly possible for it.

coming off the bench actually affects all 3 because he plays less min. , so he puts up less stats and ultimately will be paid less for his contributions...in your mind is he supposed to wait behind 2 guys , just because he has 2 years left before he gets FA money....well duhon just signed a deal he technically now has longer now before his next deal than gordon , if he were benched right now should he just be happy about it because of his contract length?

and he can actually be a free agent if the bulls wanted after next season,


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I'll point out that Kirk has become a lot better at making big plays when they count too

Last night for instance when he went at Yao and drew the foul that had him fouled out + the And 1 

Hinrich is definately stronger this year and already , early in the season, even though the stats don't back it up ( largely blown out by statistcally by this west coast swing ) he has become noticeably better at finishing at the hoop after taking the contact 

That's just strength work paying off


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Explain. As I posted before (Edited message), he will get paid. Its not about money.


My explanation is simply this. That he didn't start 1 game in 75 does not in any way shape or form, make bobby simmons situation comparable to what ben is or will be facing. Construing it in that way is a strawman....and a bad one.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Absolutely right. No one is holding him back. If he gets it done, he'll get the minutes and the starting spot. Skiles WANTS Gordon to start and play more. He's given him the starting spot entering both seasons of his NBA career, but couldn't hold it down.


That explains why he gets yanked for even one mistake in the 4th quarter while duhon and hinrich are allowed to be burned and make stupid mistakes repeatedly.

Its amazing how quickly we forget things. Just last week, I watched as Ben Gordon watched from the bench as SEBASTIAN TELFAIR of all people lit Chris Duhon up like he was working for GE. And BG sat the ENTIRE 4th quarter.

Yeah.....there's no double standard with skiles. Pretending like it doesn't exist and repeating it ad nauseum in a message board isn't going to make it any less true. It reminds me of the old "tony soprano" school of logic. "It isn't a lie if you believe it". :laugh:


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Da Grinch said:


> for every mediocre talent making millions there is a star underpaid. ben wants what most players want , he wants to score, he wants to play and he most importantly wants to get paid as much as humanly possible for it.
> 
> coming off the bench actually affects all 3 because he plays less min. , so he puts up less stats and ultimately will be paid less for his contributions...in your mind is he supposed to wait behind 2 guys , just because he has 2 years left before he gets FA money....well duhon just signed a deal he technically now has longer now before his next deal than gordon , if he were benched right now should he just be happy about it because of his contract length?
> 
> and he can actually be a free agent if the bulls wanted after next season,


In my mind he isnt supposed to wait behind 2 guys....Skiles is the coach and he believes the Bulls are better off having Gordon coming off the bench instead of starting alongside Kirk or Duhon. Its not that hard to understand. Theres no reason for crying or whining, especially if it is because of monetary issues (which again, I believe, has nothing to do with it). If the Bulls were 1-9 at this point, you could understand Ben's frustration. Heck, even with this record you could understand Ben's demand for more minutes if he were producing as a top notch player. But thats not the case. Theres no reason for Skiles or Bulls fans to demand changes when the team is playing good ball at times and coming off a 3-3 Circus Trip. 

Here is a list of some mediocre players and what they got during the past offseason (lets talk guards):
Raja Bell 5 years, 24M
Antonio Daniels 5 years, 30M
Keyon Dooling 3 years, 10M
Saraunas Jasikevicius 3 years, 12M
Jeff McInnins 2 years, 7M
Cuttino Mobley 5 years, 42M
Marko Jaric 6 years, 38M
Damien Wilkins 5 years, 14.5M

Just for kicks...


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: ben gordon wants to ditch us?*



Sir Patchwork said:


> Rockets guards shot 11-33 (33%) and the Spurs guards shot 20-46 (43%). Both below the season average.


And I'm sure all 11 of those FG's came when Gordon was in the game, since Hinrich and Duhon are such defensive geniuses.......


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> Miz, if this is popping into your head, then it seems like maybe you think there is a difference. At least there could be one. If he'll never be able to earn it, not based on his ability but because of who Skiles is, then that's something a player has every right to be pissed off about.
> 
> As far as the larger question of the team winning vs. individual glory, apply that to your concern about Skiles.
> 
> ...



I DO agree with this. :clap:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> In my mind he isnt supposed to wait behind 2 guys....Skiles is the coach and he believes the Bulls are better off having Gordon coming off the bench instead of starting alongside Kirk or Duhon. Its not that hard to understand. Theres no reason for crying or whining, especially if it is because of monetary issues (which again, I believe, has nothing to do with it). If the Bulls were 1-9 at this point, you could understand Ben's frustration. Heck, even with this record you could understand Ben's demand for more minutes if he were producing as a top notch player. But thats not the case. Theres no reason for Skiles or Bulls fans to demand changes when the team is playing good ball at times and coming off a 3-3 Circus Trip.
> 
> Here is a list of some mediocre players and what they got during the past offseason (lets talk guards):
> Raja Bell 5 years, 24M
> ...


What does ANY of that have to do with Ben Gordon? Maybe he wants MORE than that, and believes he can earn it if given the opportunity.....which he won't get getting the quick hook every time he makes a mistake.

Should he be happy to be a millionaire?

This attitude that Ben Gordon should just be happy to be a bull is ridiculous, and it wreaks of Jerry Krause-esque "Organizations win championships" mantra. This organization hasn't even SNIFFED a championship because we keep farming out our talent.

By the logic I've seen in this thread, and from the usual suspects I might add, a person working for Microsoft should "just be happy to be a part of the team"......even if they know that they will make more money and have more creative control, and possibly shine more working for apple.

Its absurd.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> What does ANY of that have to do with Ben Gordon? Maybe he wants MORE than that, and believes he can earn it if given the opportunity.....which he won't get getting the quick hook every time he makes a mistake.
> 
> Should he be happy to be a millionaire?
> 
> ...


Well, if he isnt happy with what the Bulls can offer him, he should try playing Golf or Tennis. 

The day will come when he will be able to excercise his rights as a free agent and decide where he wants to play. Im sorry he wont be able to sign a contract that guarantees him 40 minutes per game or 20 shots.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> What does ANY of that have to do with Ben Gordon? Maybe he wants MORE than that, and believes he can earn it if given the opportunity.....which he won't get getting the quick hook every time he makes a mistake.
> 
> Should he be happy to be a millionaire?
> 
> This attitude that Ben Gordon should just be happy to be a bull is ridiculous, and it wreaks of Jerry Krause-esque "Organizations win championships" mantra. This organization hasn't even SNIFFED a championship because we keep farming out our talent.


I disagree. Paxson's "The Right Way" is all about placing the needs of the individual on the back burner compared to the needs of the team. We traded away all the players who had even a whiff of wanting to "get theirs."

Gordon, if he's a "right way" type player, should happily remain on the bench, eagerly waiting for the call from Skiles when its time to play. Gee, thanks coach! should be the first sentence from his lips.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> I disagree. Paxson's "The Right Way" is all about placing the needs of the individual on the back burner compared to the needs of the team. We traded away all the players who had even a whiff of wanting to "get theirs."
> 
> Gordon, if he's a "right way" type player, should happily remain on the bench, eagerly waiting for the call from Skiles when its time to play. Gee, thanks coach! should be the first sentence from his lips.


Oh, does that include brand miller and artest? Cause this bulls farm system mentality is nothing new.

Attitudes like that, are the reason why "right to work" states exist.  Not so coincidentally every single one of them voted the same way in the last election.


*Okay that was kind of a cheap shot.*


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Well, if he isnt happy with what the Bulls can offer him, he should try playing Golf or Tennis.
> 
> The day will come when he will be able to excercise his rights as a free agent and decide where he wants to play. Im sorry he wont be able to sign a contract that guarantees him 40 minutes per game or 20 shots.


Oh but he just might be able to do exactly that.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

El Chapu said:


> Well, if he isnt happy with what the Bulls can offer him, he should try playing Golf or Tennis.
> 
> The day will come when he will be able to excercise his rights as a free agent and decide where he wants to play. Im sorry he wont be able to sign a contract that guarantees him 40 minutes per game or 20 shots.


If he isn't happy with the situation, he can say so. Nothing seems to stop Pax or Skiles from saying whatever they want, either.

Your list of guards' salaries... Most of those guys are making about what Gordon makes now on his rookie contract. It doesn't paint a bright future for guys who aren't starters.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

ben has talent we can put to use. however, i think we are not looking to explore the limits of that potential. everything we're doing is putting him along this path of one-dimensional scorer.

in the short term it means we're sitting on a 6-5 record and a good finish to the typically evil circus road trip.

in the long run we have the potential to limit our team. if duhon can keep shooting like this and if kh doesn't wear himself out from doing everything - then we'll be in great shape  with the long nba season they're going to need some help. but by locking ben into such a specific role we're making his game predictable and therefor easier to defend. i wouldn't mind seeing more minutes for ben and try to see if he can consistently defend and create for others. if a couple wins in nov/dec is what it costs i can live with that i think.

also since other teams are focusing on him i don't think it's bad for the team concept if the bulls go out of their way to find ways to get him the ball in better position, or to give him a clear out now and then. i think trying to work that out will make ben a more effective threat out there and in the end make life easier for the others on the team.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> What does ANY of that have to do with Ben Gordon? Maybe he wants MORE than that, and believes he can earn it if given the opportunity.....which he won't get getting the quick hook every time he makes a mistake.
> 
> Should he be happy to be a millionaire?
> 
> ...


100% agree with you, its crazy that people think players just because they are bulls have to thank their lucky stars and shut up.

its a lack of realistic expectations.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I disagree. Paxson's "The Right Way" is all about placing the needs of the individual on the back burner compared to the needs of the team. We traded away all the players who had even a whiff of wanting to "get theirs."
> 
> Gordon, if he's a "right way" type player, should happily remain on the bench, eagerly waiting for the call from Skiles when its time to play. Gee, thanks coach! should be the first sentence from his lips.


File under inflammatory.

I don't think anyone's expecting that.

Gordon's a good player and he's only going to get better. I'm glad he's got high expectations for himself. I could do without (if it's true) him having his people send trade feelers around the league because he feels his value is being hurt by coming off the bench for the Bulls.

Folks, Ben Gordon's Q rating/next contract/whatever is not being hurt by coming off the bench. As far as I know Chris Duhon has never appeared in a commercial. We all just saw Kirk Hinrich's hilariously lo-fi spot for a regional Iowa bank. Ben Gordon is part of Nike's "Invincible" campaign along w/ Serena Williams and Michael Vick. I consider the "looking out for number one" argument a little bizzare for a guy two and a half years removed from free agency, and from where I'm sitting "number one" in this case appears to be doing pretty well for himself already.

That said, this is all speculation. I'm not going to bash Gordon for rumors that are just that: rumors. But it's strange to me that people would take this as an oppurtunity to take shots at Paxson, Skiles and Kirk Hinrich. Do you think Gordon is getting the short end of the stick here k4e? How would you utilize him differently? I think Skiles has a bit of a quick hook w/ Ben, but other than that, what's the problem here?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jbulls said:


> Do you think Gordon is getting the short end of the stick here k4e? How would you utilize him differently? I think Skiles has a bit of a quick hook w/ Ben, but other than that, what's the problem here?


I think Skiles is using Gordon appropriately for the most part. I certainly think that Duhon and Hinrich should be our starting guards. 

I'd like a little more out of the #3 pick in the draft though. I'd like to see those picks converted into all-stars.

Apparently, Ben / his peeps are the ones who feel there is a problem, not me. Although, if a young player wants to be a “star,” he’s not usually going to like coming off the bench for long. If it persists, he’ll eventually want a change of scenery I would suspect. Those big-time advertisements will start to disappear if he can’t get off the bench.

One of the main reasons our team won 47 games in the often lethargic NBA regular season was our team play and selfless behavior. I'm curious if that selflessness is sustainable long-term in the NBA. Eventually, our young players may want more respect around the league as individuals and start jockeying for new contracts, which are often justified by statistical production, which requires heavy minutes and "being-the-man" responsibilities.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> If he isn't happy with the situation, he can say so. Nothing seems to stop Pax or Skiles from saying whatever they want, either.
> 
> Your list of guards' salaries... Most of those guys are making about what Gordon makes now on his rookie contract. It doesn't paint a bright future for guys who aren't starters.



Hahaha, dont worry. If Gordon were to be hitting free agency soon, he would command much more than those guys. Add the fact that he will continue to improve, and he got himself at least 8M per season.

Lets not kid ourselves.

And as Moria would say "Si queres llorar, llora!!". :banana:


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

The simple fact is w/ Duhon and Hinrich on the floor the team has played better. I don't care what statistic you can find on 82games. The only faucet of the game Gordon is probably better is shooting. And right now Gordon is not shooting very well (not as well as Hinrich). Skiles has started Gordon both of the last 2 seasons, and he hasn't produced yet. He will get more chances and I beleive will start once he earns it.

Anyways aren't we talking about the show that Legler is on. I will take any randum insight I can find on the internet before I listen to one word out of that guys mouth.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Hustle said:


> The simple fact is w/ Duhon and Hinrich on the floor the team has played better. I don't care what statistic you can find on 82games. The only faucet of the game Gordon is probably better is shooting. And right now Gordon is not shooting very well (not as well as Hinrich). Skiles has started Gordon both of the last 2 seasons, and he hasn't produced yet. He will get more chances and I beleive will start once he earns it.
> 
> Anyways aren't we talking about the show that Legler is on. I will take any randum insight I can find on the internet before I listen to one word out of that guys mouth.


couldn't resist.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

jbulls said:


> Gordon's a good player and he's only going to get better. I'm glad he's got high expectations for himself. I could do without (if it's true) him having his people send trade feelers around the league because he feels his value is being hurt by coming off the bench for the Bulls.
> 
> Folks, Ben Gordon's Q rating/next contract/whatever is not being hurt by coming off the bench. As far as I know Chris Duhon has never appeared in a commercial. We all just saw Kirk Hinrich's hilariously lo-fi spot for a regional Iowa bank. Ben Gordon is part of Nike's "Invincible" campaign along w/ Serena Williams and Michael Vick. I consider the "looking out for number one" argument a little bizzare for a guy two and a half years removed from free agency, and from where I'm sitting "number one" in this case appears to be doing pretty well for himself already.
> 
> That said, this is all speculation. I'm not going to bash Gordon for rumors that are just that: rumors. But it's strange to me that people would take this as an oppurtunity to take shots at Paxson, Skiles and Kirk Hinrich.



_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jbulls again._


my "problem" isn't with ben so much as with his agent/chris broussard on this rumor. look out for number one, ok that's cool and i get it, but just don't do it on national television. it'll only come back to bite them in the ***. 

there is something to be said for being discreet on matters such as this.

going about it this way isn't exactly a chemistry friendly thing if it ends up getting more play than just a thread on a few message boards (they're all talking about it). 

i still think he should hire the luvabulls.......oh wait.







:angel:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jbulls again._
> 
> 
> my "problem" isn't with ben so much as with his agent/chris broussard on this rumor. look out for number one, ok that's cool and i get it, but just don't do it on national television. it'll only come back to bite them in the ***.
> ...


I'm forwarding this memo to Scott Skiles and John Paxson!


----------



## BULLS23 (Apr 13, 2003)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Much ado about nothing
> 
> We have Gordon for another 2 seasons after this
> 
> ...



I agree with this . . . The only way that Ben can prove himself is to make a bigger all around impact on games. I also think that he is capable, but he hasn't been able to do it yet. I really hope someone gets in his ear and lets him know to kill this noise though. I think he is on his way to being a great player AND an All-Star, but it won't happen this year without significant injury to a starting guard.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> I think Skiles is using Gordon appropriately for the most part. I certainly think that Duhon and Hinrich should be our starting guards.
> 
> I'd like a little more out of the #3 pick in the draft though. I'd like to see those picks converted into all-stars.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. I agree that he's getting used more or less correctly, and I don't think he needs to kiss Paxsons' ring to get starts. I think he showed signs of expanding his game this year, and if he continues to do so he'll eventually find himself playing near 35 MPG, and eventually he'll start.

As for getting value for the number three pick, it makes little sense to start Gordon just because we drafted him third. If we picked Rafael Araujo third I wouldn't be clamoring for him to get any run. When I look back on last year's draft the only guy I would consider taking over Ben at the three spot is Iguodala, and even then I'm not sure I'd do that. I would say what Ben's given us so far (a ton of game winning shots, 6th man of the year, second in the ROY voting, continued development in his game this year) has been pretty encouraging.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

jbulls said:


> As for getting value for the number three pick, it makes little sense to start Gordon just because we drafted him third. If we picked Rafael Araujo third I wouldn't be clamoring for him to get any run. When I look back on last year's draft the only guy I would consider taking over Ben at the three spot is Iguodala, and even then I'm not sure I'd do that. I would say what Ben's given us so far (a ton of game winning shots, 6th man of the year, second in the ROY voting, continued development in his game this year) has been pretty encouraging.


Agreed. I'm not sure where this "we (might have) wasted the #3 pick" idea is coming from. I'm with you - the only rookies I'd take over Gordon as of today are Okafor, Howard, and maybe Iggy and Deng (who we have!). So he's the 3rd-to-5th best rookie in the class right now. There's other guys, most notably Livingston, who could easily end up being spectacular players as well. But, even in his current bench role, I don't see why Gordon was such a bad choice at #3. Despite his shortcomings last year, he basically elevated the team from borderline-playoffs to the 3rd-best record with his late-game performances. This season he's struggling to adjust to the fact that other teams key on him more, but his defense and ball control have improved. I like where he's headed. Having 3 guards who deserve to start isn't the worst headache we could have, in all honesty.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Iam not trying to pay much attention to this whole situation because Ben himself said that this is just a rumor and that hes happy in Chicago and that he wants to spend the rest of his career here, but again this is how it all starts. 

If iam the Bulls i do whatever it takes to keep him in Chicago. Iam tired of seeing our players being traded in less then 4 years, Brand, Artest, Miller, Crawford, Curry. Now i can live without Crawford but man the Bulls need to devlop and stop giving up on these guys so soon. 

Ben Gordon IMO has been much better in the last two games and looks to have goten his stroke back and his ball handling and passing have been much better this season then last. I like Duhon but hes slighty above average at best, to think that Ben Gordon cant put up Duhon numbers in the time that Duhon plays is just silly. Duhon is getting 35 mpg! Granted Duhon is having a Career month shooting wise, but man this guy is far far far far from the defensive stopper that Skiles thinks Duhon is. 

Ben Gordon has allstar potential and i dont blame him if he wants to leave, no extreamly talented player wants to spend 3-4 years on the bench where as he could be starting anywhere else.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

according to shinky over on realgm, david schuster on the Score asked ben directly about this rumor and ben vehemently denied it. said he just bought a house here and is happy in chicago. and that he was going to call his agent after the interview to ask where the rumor started!

i'm listening to the Score to hear it for myself.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

just heard it.


"ben gordon is pooh-poohing an internet rumor that he is unhappy and wants out because he wants to start"

ok. internet rumor, begat from tv rumor, begat from the so-called "experts" at espn. 

and yes, they said "pooh-poohing".


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> just heard it.
> 
> 
> "ben gordon is pooh-poohing an internet rumor that he is unhappy and wants out because he wants to start"
> ...


Pooh - poohing takes on an extra degree of significance in the strength of it when it is indeed a pooh-pooh instead of poo-poo.

I am at ease


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Did anyone think that Ben Gordon would publicly voice his concerns? 

His representatives delivered the message. The rumblings are out in the public domain. The seed is planted.

Mission accomplished.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Did anyone think that Ben Gordon would publicly voice his concerns?
> 
> His representatives delivered the message. The rumblings are out in the public domain. The seed is planted.
> 
> Mission accomplished.


Forgive me if I'm not up-to-date on this thread, but how do we know that wasn't just rampant speculation? We hear rumors like this all the time, but only about 1 out of 5 (by my rough estimate) actually goes through and/or becomes a big deal.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

yodurk said:


> Forgive me if I'm not up-to-date on this thread, but how do we know that wasn't just rampant speculation? We hear rumors like this all the time, but only about 1 out of 5 (by my rough estimate) actually goes through and/or becomes a big deal.


Depends on the quality of the source.

Chris Broussard seems to be well respected. Maybe he invented it, but I doubt it. Most #3 picks in the draft, all-star wannabees want to start. They don't happily accept the Bobby Jackson role until its apparent that's the best they are going to be.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Did anyone think that Ben Gordon would publicly voice his concerns?
> 
> His representatives delivered the message. The rumblings are out in the public domain. The seed is planted.
> 
> Mission accomplished.


Yes i did. I expected some local reporter to leak it, not someone's opinion on ESPN. 

Ben say's it's not true, then it's not true. Good enough for me.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Ben comments (CBS 2 Chicago)


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Skiles says Gordon not unhappy 



> Reports that last season's NBA Sixth Man of the Year is unhappy coming off the bench are, well … exaggerated.
> 
> At least that is what Bulls coach Scott Skiles said in response to an Internet report regarding second-year guard Ben Gordon.
> 
> ...


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

Mike Imrem in the Daily Herald:Gordon Still Defining his NBA Role 



> This is a fascinating combination, Skiles the taskmaster and Gordon the task. The impression is the Bulls’ coach is going to either make or break his young shooting guard.
> 
> How their relationship evolves might determine whether Gordon remains a valuable bench player, becomes a more valuable starter or winds up neither of the above.
> 
> ...


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

southtown paul has the quotes...and why this is being reported as an internet rumor when it started on television is a bit amusing/confounding...oh well.

*According to the report, members of the Gordon camp indicated the guard is unhappy with his role.

"It didn't come from me," said Gordon, whose three career NBA starts came last season.

Gordon denied that he was "miserable," as had been reported.

"I'm not miserable," Gordon said. "I don't want people to think that Ben is miserable when I haven't said anything in the papers to put that out there. I mean, this (talk) is not appropriate."*


awesome. he refers to himself in the third person. 



http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/301sd6.htm


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> awesome. he refers to himself in the third person.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/301sd6.htm


Right attitude for someone who's going to be a big star someday. Maybe. But if you and ScottMay get a chance to talk to him at the game, refer to yourselves in the third person. :biggrin:


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

anorexorcist said:


> Here's some food for thought:
> 
> So far this season, 4 of our 6 wins came when Ben took 10 shots or less.
> 
> -Z-


Update:

5 of our 7 wins came when Ben took 10 shots or less.

-Z-


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

anorexorcist said:


> Also, every game we've lost, Ben has taken over 10 attempts.
> 
> -Z-


And this streak continues as well.

-Z-


----------

