# Sam Smith: Bulls trading partners?



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

This article is more targeted to Chicago fans, but it has one crazy *** idea. Taken from the Chicago board.


> Ben Gordon took going back to the bench last week with class, but it's likely to be an issue hanging over the Bulls as he becomes eligible for an extension after next season.
> 
> Gordon sees himself as a starter and is unlikely to settle for a reserve role. Players become especially concerned with minutes as their extension time nears. That's why Gordon's name often comes up in trade rumors.
> 
> ...


Chicago Tribune 

You can view some Chicago fans responses over at the Bulls forum, here.


----------



## endora60 (Jan 5, 2006)

Interesting, step--thanks for posting that!

Wow, I never thought the Bulls would bench Gordon--wasn't he supposed to be a cornerstone in Chicago's rebuilding?

I don't know who we'd give up for him, but it'd sure be nice to have him starting in Charlotte. I've always liked his play a bunch.

Opinions, anyone?

Laurie


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Wow, I never thought the Bulls would bench Gordon--wasn't he supposed to be a cornerstone in Chicago's rebuilding?


This year he was asked to pick up the scoring that is sorely missed by Curry, which put a quite amount of pressure on him to perform. I think with a decent post player things would of been different, but at this point in time in Gordon's career, he isn't able to carry the team consistently enough. He still plays starter type minutes, just he seems to respond differently by coming off the bench. 
Since moving back to the bench, he's played 31 and 32 minutes in his last 2 games, scoring 25 and 17 points respectively.



> I don't know who we'd give up for him, but it'd sure be nice to have him starting in Charlotte. I've always liked his play a bunch.


I feel he's a quality player and would be a steal with the pick alone, but being a Chicago fan aswell, I would have to ask for more.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Oh and I forgot to add, these comments pretty much sum it up that Bernie is looking at Morrison if he declares.


----------



## Carbo04 (Apr 15, 2005)

Good scorer but we really don't have alot of big men. Okafor won't ever play more than 15 games a year. May might not either.


----------



## endora60 (Jan 5, 2006)

step said:


> Oh and I forgot to add, these comments pretty much sum it up that Bernie is looking at Morrison if he declares.


Sure, that's a gimme. Morrison's good at what he does, and he's passionate as hell. I hope we get him.

Laurie


----------



## endora60 (Jan 5, 2006)

Carbo04 said:


> Good scorer but we really don't have alot of big men. Okafor won't ever play more than 15 games a year. May might not either.


Depressing but true.

Laurie


----------



## AMΣRICAN GOD™ (Jun 4, 2005)

I'm thinking maybe an Okafor/Gordon swap maybe? It would pretty much kill your (non exisitent) post game for a year, but next year's draft is stacked full of big men :::cough Greg Oden cough:::.

It would give Chicago someone to compliment Curry and give them another rebounder/blocking machine.


----------



## endora60 (Jan 5, 2006)

TAllen42 said:


> I'm thinking maybe an Okafor/Gordon swap maybe? It would pretty much kill your (non exisitent) post game for a year, but next year's draft is stacked full of big men :::cough Greg Oden cough:::.
> 
> It would give Chicago someone to compliment Curry and give them another rebounder/blocking machine.


From Charlotte's perspective, that's a deal I'd take in a second. Can't figure out why Chicago would do it, though; Okafor's never going to be 100%, I don't think. He's on our necks now, and he'll be on somebody's neck until the day he retires--surely the Bulls (and everybody else) know that. Why would they take him off our hands and offer somebody like Gordon in exchange?

Laurie


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> It would give Chicago someone to compliment Curry and give them another rebounder/blocking machine.


You missed Currygate? How I envy you.

Curry was traded to the Knicks, and we're really in need to replace his post scoring. So for that trade I'd have to say no.


----------



## endora60 (Jan 5, 2006)

step said:


> You missed Currygate? How I envy you.
> 
> Curry was traded to the Knicks, and we're really in need to replace his post scoring. So for that trade I'd have to say no.


 I knew Curry was off to New York, but what happened? Why do you call it Currygate? :laugh:

Laurie


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I knew Curry was off to New York, but what happened? Why do you call it Currygate?


I've blocked it out so much I've almost forgotten it all.

I really couldn't be bothered to go into the whole thing, but Curry had an episode of arrhythmia prior the playoffs. Bulls were worried that he could have HCM and wanted a blood test (which won't prove it either way), but Curry didn't want to (he had seen other specialists and they said he was fine, or thereabouts). The ***** fighting kept on going and since they couldn't work things out so they ended up parting ways.
Basically I see it as Paxson trying to use the arrhythmia as an excuse to drive the price of his contract down, but he failed miserably.


----------



## endora60 (Jan 5, 2006)

step said:


> I've blocked it out so much I've almost forgotten it all.
> 
> I really couldn't be bothered to go into the whole thing, but Curry had an episode of arrhythmia prior the playoffs. Bulls were worried that he could have HCM and wanted a blood test (which won't prove it either way), but Curry didn't want to (he had seen other specialists and they said he was fine, or thereabouts). The ***** fighting kept on going and since they couldn't work things out so they ended up parting ways.
> Basically I see it as Paxson trying to use the arrhythmia as an excuse to drive the price of his contract down, but he failed miserably.


Wow, I never heard any of this, thanks. 

I can see both sides of this one as you've described it. On Curry's side, if he's been told by reputable doctors not to sweat the arrythmia, then why give Paxson a chance to "find" something wrong to drive his contract down? From Paxson's viewpoint, that's all he needs is a player dead on the floor...and too often lately we're hearing about players whose previous team doctors have cleared them to play--and who turn out to have serious heart problems. (Ronny Turiaf comes to mind.)

I take it the Knicks weren't as concerned as the Bulls? :laugh:

Laurie


----------



## AMΣRICAN GOD™ (Jun 4, 2005)

Argh, I meant Chandler. I don't know what I was thinking.


----------



## endora60 (Jan 5, 2006)

TAllen42 said:


> Argh, I meant Chandler. I don't know what I was thinking.


No problem :laugh:

Same response, though: Okafor's never going to be 100%; I don't see him able to play more than, say, twenty-five games a year. Why would the Bulls give us Chandler in exchange for that?

Laurie


----------



## AMΣRICAN GOD™ (Jun 4, 2005)

endora60 said:


> No problem :laugh:
> 
> Same response, though: Okafor's never going to be 100%; I don't see him able to play more than, say, twenty-five games a year. Why would the Bulls give us Chandler in exchange for that?
> 
> Laurie


because they're good people?


----------



## endora60 (Jan 5, 2006)

TAllen42 said:


> because they're good people?


Sure, but charity begins at home :laugh: Why would they do themselves down just to help out Charlotte?

Laurie


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

endora60 said:


> No problem :laugh:
> 
> Same response, though: Okafor's never going to be 100%; I don't see him able to play more than, say, twenty-five games a year. Why would the Bulls give us Chandler in exchange for that?
> 
> Laurie


I know Okafor have been injured all year. But, I don't know much about his injury? is it really that bad? you guys seem to believe that he'll never recover. What happened to him? That would be so sad if he's really going to be injured his whole career. He's such a great player last year.


----------



## endora60 (Jan 5, 2006)

RSP83 said:


> I know Okafor have been injured all year. But, I don't know much about his injury? is it really that bad? you guys seem to believe that he'll never recover. What happened to him? That would be so sad if he's really going to be injured his whole career. He's such a great player last year.


It's not that the injury itself should've been something from which he couldn't recover--but he just hasn't. He was hurt back in college, came back, got hurt again. Came to Charlotte and got hurt and was out. Came back, got hurt again, missed all but 25 games this season.

There comes a point where you just have to assume the guy isn't going to be healthy. It's been four years, through his college and pro careers. He is what he is and will be what he's going to be--which is injured.

Laurie


----------

