# Gordon's Hot



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

*The muscular 6-foot-2, 195-pound Gordon has particularly impressed Chicago and Philadelphia. The Bulls have the third pick in the draft, the 76ers pick ninth.

"I keep getting calls from GMs saying what an incredible athlete he is," Calhoun said. "And Chicago is a team that seems to have the most interest."*

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=12022408&BRD=1652&PAG=461&dept_id=464186&rfi=6

There seems to be more to this story than meets the eye. Gordon doesn't satisfy the Bulls most pressing need at SF like Deng, Childress and Iguodala would. So why are the Bulls giving off vibes that they're so interested in him? I just can't see them trading Hinrich so they can live through yet another season of breaking in a rookie point guard. Williams, Hinrich, and now Gordon??? Ain't gonna happen. Unless Paxson has taken the art of smokescreening to a new level by enlisting Calhoun as his propagandist, the Bulls must believe that Kirk and Ben can function as an effective backcourt duo. 

With Crawford waiting in the wings you'd have to believe that Chicago's top priority this summer is to lock down the SF slot one way or another. Do they have the inside track with a soon-to-be free agent? Is there a trade in place that might include Chandler or Curry that would send the Bulls a top tier SF?

Drafting Gordon will make sense _if_ the Bulls have a solution in place to resolve their problem at SF first. Don't you just love the intrigue?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> I just can't see them trading Hinrich so they can live through yet another season of breaking in a rookie point guard. Williams, Hinrich, and now Gordon??? Ain't gonna happen.


How do you know?

If Gordon, who is a serious ROY candidate, has Dwayne Wade like impact on a club, you take him and you ship Hinrich to fill another need.

It's about improving your club, there shouldn't be any locks or untouchables on a 23 win team.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Gordon is a man's man. I was saying it in February and March and soon all non-believers will learn what's up when October rolls around.

Gordon is special. (Calhoun called him the most talented player he has ever coached and that is really saying something considering he coached Hamilton, Allen, Butler, Marshall and Burrell).


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> *The muscular 6-foot-2, 195-pound Gordon has particularly impressed Chicago and Philadelphia. The Bulls have the third pick in the draft, the 76ers pick ninth.
> 
> "I keep getting calls from GMs saying what an incredible athlete he is," Calhoun said. "And Chicago is a team that seems to have the most interest."*
> ...


The answers will come by Thursday to some of your questions.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

The NBA is a man's game and Gordan is a man and a stud. If he is the best player we should draft him, period.

That would give us two tough young men on our team.

david


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

*What separates Ben from everyone else is there’s nothing he can’t do," Ceisler said. "He has Reggie Miller range, Vince Carter’s jumping ability, the strength of Baron Davis, the playmaking skills of a Stephon Marbury, and the determination of a Kobe Bryant. He’s a guy that is prepared to play right away."*


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> *What separates Ben from everyone else is there’s nothing he can’t do," Ceisler said. "He has Reggie Miller range, Vince Carter’s jumping ability, the strength of Baron Davis, the playmaking skills of a Stephon Marbury, and the determination of a Kobe Bryant. He’s a guy that is prepared to play right away."*


Nice quote you have there truebluefan.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> The NBA is a man's game and Gordan is a man and a stud. If he is the best player we should draft him, period.
> 
> That would give us two tough young men on our team.
> ...


If we in fact lose JC, I don't care how tough we are...

A 6'2-6'2 backcourt won't get it done...

Macas isn't the solution, and Tony Allen/Donta Smith isn't the solution either...

We'd have a huge hole at 2, and still no 3....


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Ben does do everything well - and he is a tough guy.

btw - Jazz backcourt used to be Stockton (6-1) and Hornacek (6-3/4) so it ain't far from Kirk and Ben...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> Ben does do everything well - and he is a tough guy.
> 
> btw - Jazz backcourt used to be Stockton (6-1) and Hornacek (6-3/4) so it ain't far from Kirk and Ben...


This isn't Stockton-Hornacek playing days anymore...

The other teams backcourts would outsize us every night.

And please let's not even get to the "the size of our guys hearts are bigger" hogwash.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>bullet</b>!
> Ben does do everything well - and he is a tough guy.
> 
> btw - Jazz backcourt used to be Stockton (6-1) and Hornacek (6-3/4) so it ain't far from Kirk and Ben...


Do we have KG to help D? Cassell is lazy but KG makes up for it. If Tyson can be a defensive force, I think we can live with Gordon and Hinrich but he's not.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> This isn't Stockton-Hornacek playing days anymore...
> ...


height is overrated in backcourts if you can play good sound defense ...that being said , if Gordan is drafted there is little doubt JC will leave and kirk will play 2 guard next year ....where he should have been last year.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> height is overrated in backcourts if you can play good sound defense ...that being said , if Gordan is drafted there is little doubt JC will leave and kirk will play 2 guard next year ....where he should have been last year.


That's a disaster...

As hard as Hinrich plays D, he got lit up by more than a few PGs....

Now you're suggesting we sic him on Vince, T-Mac, Pierce, hell you can go a level lower, Bonzi Wells, Posey?

Bad idea.


----------



## life_after_23 (Jul 24, 2002)

New Orleans backcourt considered one of the better ones in the East -

Wesley - 6'1"
Davis - 6'3"

Denver that did well last season had:
Lenard - 6'4"
Miller - 6'2"

Houston has had:
Francis - 6'3"
Mobley - 6'4"

Philly has had:
Iverson - 6'0"
Snow - 6'3"

Just mainstream examples of teams that are doing well/have done well with a back court that is not too tall. I think it is more of how the team is constituted than actually how tall they are that is important...

Does Gordon/Hinrich backcourt create great opportunities for the Bulls to score while the team defense is able to deal with mismatches created by a short backcourt. 
Teams with big guards will post the Bulls backcourt...
1) will the help defense thwart such attempts?
2) will the guards play passing lanes or disrupt the offensive rhythm by making the entry difficult?
3) Is the Bulls front line long enough to make it difficult for the entry pass from the big men into the guards?
4) Will the interior defense of Bulls better than it has been in the past...

These questions will have to be answered before the Bulls actually have to worry about the height of the 2 guards.

I say they draft the best </b>MAN</B> for the job and then develop schemes around the strengths of the </B>team</B>. 
It's time for the Bulls to get basketball players and not worry so much about the P word or the true atheletes in the draft.


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

Eric Snow: 6'3", 204 lbs.
Allen Iverson: 6'0", 165 lbs.

Baron Davis: 6'3", 223 lbs.
David Wesley: 6'1", 203 lbs.

Kirk Hinrich: 6'3", 190 lbs.
Ben Gordon: 6'2", 192 lbs.

There's precedence...current, active and successful precedence, as everyone can see. Is it an ideal situation? No. Can it work in today's NBA? It sure can. Will Paxson pair the two together without having an effective solution to fill the void at the SF position? Highly unlikely.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>life_after_23</b>!
> New Orleans backcourt considered one of the better ones in the East -
> 
> Wesley - 6'1"
> ...


Ok, Philly sucked...

And who were the big men on Houston, Denver, and New Orleans?

Houston - Yao

Denver - Nene and Camby

New Orleans - Magloire and PJ Brown


----------



## life_after_23 (Jul 24, 2002)

Philly...the eastern conference champions a couple of years ago with backcourt sucked...OK you must have a different vantage point.

The point about the big men...exactly! 
You need a team to be put together...not worry about the heights of the individuals. And if each of the players know how to play basketball, then the coaches can worry about schemes and making the team success...


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>life_after_23</b>!
> Philly...the eastern conference champions a couple of years ago with backcourt sucked...OK you must have a different vantage point.
> 
> The point about the big men...exactly!
> You need a team to be put together...not worry about the heights of the individuals. And if each of the players know how to play basketball, then the coaches can worry about schemes and making the team success...


Who did Philly have in the middle then?

Mutombo.


Your point is invalid because you mention short backcourts but fail to recognize who was patrolling the paint in case those guys men beat them or tried to post them up.

We have Curry who strikes fear in the heart of no one defensively, and Tyson who jumps at the thought of a pump fake.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Who did Philly have in the middle then?
> ...


so if a 19 reincarnate of allen iverson was in this draft ...you would pass because you dont like the defensive intensity or effort of chandler or curry .

that would be a disaster.

is there a team in the nba that reguarly wins by posting up their guards ?

no there isn't so it doesn't really matter how tall or bulky you guards are as long as they can play sound defense

the hornets have sound defensive players behind davis and magliore but neither of them is some great shot blocker just sound defensive players... there is a flaw in your logic that the bulls cant go small because of who is backing them up.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok, Philly sucked...
> ...


Magloire 1 block a game and brown 1.5 

That backcourt has been together and successfull in NBA terms for years despite their size. Before Magloire and brown it was Campbell and Coleman. Another fear inspiring front court? No. 

Curry and chandler average about the same amount of blocks together as does Magloire and Brown. 

As for size, it is overrated. Barkley was 6-4 and so was Dantley. Both of them made a living playing down low. I know you don't want to hear "hogwash" but a players heart and skills does have something to do with his success. Unseld was 6-6 and played center. Actually more like 6-5.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> the hornets have sound defensive players behind davis and magliore but neither of them is some great shot blocker just sound defensive players... there is a flaw in your logic that the bulls cant go small because of who is backing them up.


However, you must consider who you have on your team and draft accordingly. Drafting the best guys 1.2.3.4.5.etc blindly is dumb. You plug in pieces of the puzzle, not just jam them in with your fists and make them fit. It takes a tremendous player for a person to be drated even though it's not the most glaring need.


----------



## jollyoscars (Jul 5, 2003)

gordon is a man and a hell of a player


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kismet</b>!
> Eric Snow: 6'3", 204 lbs.
> Allen Iverson: 6'0", 165 lbs.
> 
> ...


Those precedences suck. In each of those examples or other teams you give, there's a guy who's got a good 15-20 pounds on our guys.

Not to mention, as pure athletes who can defend a wide range of guys, I'd take Snow and Davis (and Mobley, who's listed at 6'4 and 215) before I'd take Kirk.

No, this isn't an ideal situation. We This is an absolutely silly road to go down, especially when Kirk should have pretty good trade value and Jamal is plenty capable of running the show to start things. Jamal at least starts to have the bulk and length to match up SGs. When he put his mind to it last year, he defended some pretty good players pretty well.

If the Bulls do this, it pretty much guarantees Jamal isn't back, and in effect we've effectively lost another asset for absolutely nothing. I'm trying to avoid conspiracy theories here, but you almost get the sense that Paxson has some zest for for _creating_ just such a situation. In doing so, he softens the blow of Jamal leaving by saying "look, we had to take Gordon, he was the best guy there, and now we've got too many short guards".

I don't know that Gordon is all that, and I don't see how Gordon is better than Jamal + Iggy or Deng, which is effectively what we'd be doing if we draft Gordon. 

Here's the bottom line:
1. I'd rather have a Gordon-Crawford backcourt than a Gordon-Hinrich backcourt. I don't buy the argument that Kirk can defend 2s. Crawford is at least marginally capable and with room to improve.

2. Hinrich can command something back in return. Crawford can't.

3. Creating a situation that you know is flawed from the get-go is just dumb. If you're gonna pull the trigger on this, then you need to do the sensible, not the sentimental thing and not create an untenable situation down the road.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Regarding having guys in the post that can intimidate, I'd point out that the visionary thing for Paxson to do would be to push hard Okafor. If we had Okafor and Chandler at the 4 and 5, and then a good defender at the 3, we could work with a Crawford-Gordon backcourt.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> Those precedences suck. In each of those examples or other teams you give, there's a guy who's got a good 15-20 pounds on our guys.
> ...


Agree 100%


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> Regarding having guys in the post that can intimidate, I'd point out that the visionary thing for Paxson to do would be to push hard Okafor. If we had Okafor and Chandler at the 4 and 5, and then a good defender at the 3, we could work with a Crawford-Gordon backcourt.


How would you get Okafor and Gordon?

We only have 1 pick. (right now)


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> How would you get Okafor and Gordon?
> ...


There are plenty of other threads I've put up that oughta make that clear


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> There are plenty of other threads I've put up that oughta make that clear


Oh ya...

Trade Curry for #1.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> Oh ya...
> ...


I think there was a Hinrich+Chandler for Okafor + Howard deal floating around too. I wouldn't touch Howard with a 10 foot pole, but otherwise I'd have to consider it.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> 
> 
> I think there was a Hinrich+Chandler for Okafor + Howard deal floating around too. I wouldn't touch Howard with a 10 foot pole, but otherwise I'd have to consider it.


Give me Gooden instead and I'd do it.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

If we(as in the Bulls organization) are so enamored with Gordon, there must be a trade in the works for Hinrich.

Maybe, just maybe, there is some truth to our speculation of a deal involving GS.

Pietrus for Hinrich as the basis of the deal.

Now, in essence, we'd be swapping Hinrich and our pick for Gordan and Pietrus.

Would you do that?

I think I would have to seriously consider it. Pietrus would add the wing player we are looking for who can defend, and Gordon's offense would be an immediate plus.

It would be something to consider.....

The question then becomes, is a Hinrich/Jackson,Iggy, or Deng combo better than a Gordon/Pietrus combo?

And to really throw a wrench into the situation, we could make this trade a little different.

Hinrich for Pietrus and 11 as the basis

Then take the #3 pick, select Howard, trade him to Atlanta who offered the 6 and 17 for the #2 pick, and do that deal.

With the 6th pick, take Gordon, with the 11th take Jackson(or Smith, Synder)

And with the 17th, gamble on Humphries if he's there....or someone else.,


We'd have shooting in Gordon and Jackson in the lineup, perimeter defense in Pietrus.....

Now, can Gordon defend? More questions.


Doubt this happens, as it seems predicated on a bunch of "what if's," but interestingly enough, something huge like this could be in the works on Thursday.


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

Didn't someone post earlier that Hinrich was actually like 6'3.5" or something like that?
Not that it matters a whole lot, but that's better then 6'2".

Anyways, it doesnt fill the need at SF, but I wouldn't mind drafting Gordon at all, and holding on to Hinrich.
Perhaps we'll fill our SF needs with Donta Smith and some free agents, or something like that.


----------



## comptons (May 30, 2002)

I am pretty sure Hinrich is 6'2 3/4 w/o shoes. . .


----------



## JRose5 (May 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>comptons</b>!
> I am pretty sure Hinrich is 6'2 3/4 w/o shoes. . .


Ok thats right, I was thinking 6'3.5 rather then 6'2.5


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Hinrich's offical height is 6'4" in shoes which is how players are listed. Jordan was listed at 6'6" but we all know he was more like just under 6'5".

david


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Damn,


I was hoping this was a bad hoax, but Paxson may just be mad enough to do this. Interesting.............

I love Gordon, just not for the Bulls. In fact, It's about as dumb as drafting another PF.....oh wait, we've talked about doing that as well.

Bottom line is we suck, we suck really bad. Does the addition Gordon make us suck less....no. Does the addition of Deng or Iggy make us suck less - Yes.


If we were to take Gordon, then we have to trade Hinrich the wonderful. Hinrich can not be effective at the SG position for the Bulls, cause the harder he has to work on defense, the crappier his outside shot gets. He's as consistent as Crawford. His effort is what make's Hinrich the best player on the Bulls.

Effort won't overcome the mismatches. I wouldn't mind a Gordon/Crawford backcourt...in fact, it would be as exciting as hell. I don't believe he's worth the #3.


Also, the examples of small backcourts that are/were respected always resulted in easy playoff losses. Why, cause in the playoffs, you focus on exploiting the mismatches. Night after night you will see the other team exploiting the height mismatch. Also, Hinrich already is a fouling machine. He is likely to foul out even more if he had to Guard bigger SG's all game.

Donta Smith is not likely to come in a start from day one and lead us anywhere. He is a solid prospect in round two that should contribute, but not be a starter every night.


Gordon - Great, the Bulls media people will be selling us commercials like - "Flash - He saves everyone of us".....come see Flash Gordon and the other pathetic Bulls lose in a Flash...........

Can we punt?


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> Jordan was listed at 6'6" but we all know he was more like just under 6'5".
> 
> david


You've never been anywhere near Jordan if you believe that....


----------



## realbullsfaninLA (Jan 8, 2003)

If Gordon is the best player left on the board when we pick,then we should take him.Name one player the Bulls have that can take his man off of the dribble,is an outside threat,can man up defensively,and isn't afraid to take it to the rim.If Gordon does those things better than anyone else in the draft,TAKE HIM!

I'm confident that Paxson will have something in the works in the way of a free agent acquisition should he decide to draft Gordon.Also,don't discount the possibility of a sign and trade of Jamal Crawford.....possibly to Seattle for Lewis.

My position is that Rome wasn't built in a day.Let Pax do his thing.I remember when Kiki Vandewe made some bold draft day moves a couple of years ago getting Nene, and trading for Camby.I was wondering what the hell he was doing.Kiki went with his gut and what he truly believed in.He had a basketball philosophy and stuck with it.Now he's looking pretty good.Jerry West did some "unconventional" moves last year with his draft and trades.They look pretty good right now.

And last but not least........when Skiles had his success in Phoenix,he created "small ball".On paper,it looked like his team was overmatched in size.But what ended up happening is that he created mismatches that other teams had difficulty defending.He made teams play HIS style of ball.I have a feeling that some sort of small ball,at least in the backcourt,is on the horizon.IF and it's a big IF Curry and Chandler become what they are capable of,then I see it working for us.

Don't forget that the emphasis has been on Curry's endurance ever since Skiles took over.It's obvious to me that Skiles wants to run.That's the way he played,and that's the way he coached in Phoenix.

My bottom line is that whatever Pax does Thursday is not the end of the story.


----------



## ChiGuy_82 (May 31, 2004)

I think if we draft Gordon, its Hinrich that would be gone, and we would definetly have to resign Crawford. 

Who do you guys think are the potential teams that would be in the market for a Hinrich type, i could see Indiana maybe or Golden State. 

Another thing is if we get Gordon then our team become crazy athletic, man we would be able to run teams into the ground!


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

i was thinking the same thing Chifanica. Cant we just let the 5 minute clock run out without picking anyone?

Ok I am kidding

Lots of conversations on both boards talking about some of the great small backcourts of our time. Dumars-Thomas-Johnson
Hornacek-Stockton
Iverson-Snow

Well I just have a comment on it. Detroits backcourt played in a different time and clearly Hinrich or Gordon are not in Isiah or Dumars class as a player, and most likely will never be. Again, that was a different time. 

As for Hornacek and Stockton, they were abused by the Bulls backcourt in both series. They felt they needed to take away Jordans post game so rotated Russell on him, leaving Hornacek to guard Pippen, who abused him inside. Sure, its a better backcour then we have now, but if this is winning a title, its something to consider

Snow and Iverson are sort of a different beast. They too were taken to the cleaners by the big Laker backcourt of Harper and Bryant. Also, let me point that Iverson and Snow are perenial all defensive team members or in Snows case, always gets a couple of votes. It didnt hurt them also to have 250X (atleast it seemed like it) DPY in Mutombo behind them, even more masking their deficit. 

Another small backcourt that has done well is Davis-Wesley. But it hasnt made much noise in the playoffs because of its lack of size.

Now to make it work, either the Bulls will have to A) trade one of them or B) pray to God they get a big, or 2 defensive presences in the paint. Chandler and Curry dont cut it. 

I like Gordon. He is going to be a tremendous player at this level. His ability to create his own shot would be the best on the Bulls and would be a tremendouse help against the shot clock. And though I believe he is going to be a better player then Hinrich, I say we should pass on him. believe it or not, we cant keep drafting 4s and 1s every year. Hinrich is ok, overrated by bulls fans, but still ok. might get a little better. his position shouldnt be in question. But if Gordon is the man then Hinrich needs to go. But I dont think Gordon is the man. Iggy, Deng, Childress, and JOSH SMITH (who i havent heard as a visitor to the Berto Center yet) are plenty of talent to choose from. we could have taken Pietrus or Hayes last year and picked Gordon this year. And probably would be better off. but its not meant to be, and we need to wrap up the wings, LONG TERM, in this draft. All 3 picks need to be 2s or 3s


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Alot of talk here

Hinrich and maybe our 2 second rounders for Pietrus and 11

We should do that if its available. And then we ought to front load our MLE for Marquis Daniels. at 11 take Josh Smith, if he is there. And then we dont ever have to worry about the wings again. And that is after letting Jamal walk

Gordon and Pargo
Then the wings are
Daniels, Pietrus and Smith

What does this bring us

Size and athletic ability on the wing. Plus all 3 can D up. Gordon can score, and seems like he has the mindset to score, which is as important. 

Thats how I would attack it. But its a long shot that GS would trade both Pietrus and 11 for Hinrich. But maybe we can sweeten it somehow for them


----------



## BeanTheYellaPimp (Jun 20, 2004)

i would take gordon


----------



## realbullsfaninLA (Jan 8, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> Alot of talk here
> 
> Hinrich and maybe our 2 second rounders for Pietrus and 11
> ...


There is no way we end up without Hinrich OR Crawford.I can't see that happening.


----------



## ChiGuy_82 (May 31, 2004)

Hey is that seven still available for next years first round pick from Phoenix??? if it is i say we jump on it and get Childress at that spot. Then we could be Uber athletic and really run teams into the ground.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Three guard rotation of Gordon, Crawford, and Hinrich is plenty fine to me.

Team up Gordon and Crawford in Q4 if we need scoring (typically), or Gordon and Hinrich if we want to hold a lead (hopefully often).

Three guard rotation at times is also useful. We did it a lot last season, though we just didn't have the talent to make it work (i.e. Gill is OK, but not good enough).

Bulls are massive in the paint. Between Curry, Chandler, AD, and JYD, there's some beef. AD and Chandler should be a pretty tough pair of bigs for at least a season.

We still wouldn't solve our need for a SF, though.

I could care less who we actually draft, as long as he brings something to the Bulls they haven't had in a long time - IMPACT.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I think Pax is playing everyone in hopes of getting everything he hopes from the draft which is 

A. a veteran sf 
B. a young sf/sg to groom behind the veteran 
C. cap relief 


we have heard about the Bulls receiving 2 of the 3 in some form or another but never all 3 .I think he really pushing certain players to get a team 6-11 range to give that lil something extra to move up .

For Pax to take Gordon he would have to have tested better than Hinrich in every way imaginable.I mean he would have to really blow him away because he wouldnt be coming to play sg .

I see Bigdog as a Bull and us taking Luke Jackson .


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> I think Pax is playing everyone in hopes of getting everything he hopes from the draft which is
> 
> A. a veteran sf
> ...


With all this "power" we have, we end up with Luke Jackson and Big Dog?


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> With all this "power" we have, we end up with Luke Jackson and Big Dog?


2 guys with no concept of D. Id pass


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> 
> 
> With all this "power" we have, we end up with Luke Jackson and Big Dog?


I think jackson is Pax's guy .

Grob allows us to dump erob AND Jyd and at the end of the year the only albatross deal we have on the books is AD who would then become a very valuable expring deal next year and all the hating aside Grob can shoot, teams know it, and he would spread the floor .

I guess it would all depend on how much confidence you would have in the core of Curry,Chandler,Crawford,Hinrich to turn it around next season .

This type of deal also opens our Mle and vet exception up to target defenders on the wings . We could add depth and pick up shooters and cap relief .


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

to the best of my knowledge, jackson has only worked out for the Bulls once. Iggy must have done something right to get 2 invites


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> to the best of my knowledge, jackson has only worked out for the Bulls once. Iggy must have done something right to get 2 invites


Or could Pax just have doubts :yes:


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> Or could Pax just have doubts :yes:


Id certainly hope that he would work a guy out that he likes more then once, and more then just the absolute first workout. jackson was in the first group. If Pax loved him so much, id imagine he would invite him back for a second look. Now, could he have done that without us knowing? yes. But its tough. I mean Krause tried that with Diop and Curry and couldnt do it. And Krause was sneakiest ******* around


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>rlucas4257</b>!
> 
> 
> Id certainly hope that he would work a guy out that he likes more then once, and more then just the absolute first workout. jackson was in the first group. If Pax loved him so much, id imagine he would invite him back for a second look. Now, could he have done that without us knowing? yes. But its tough. I mean Krause tried that with Diop and Curry and couldnt do it. And Krause was sneakiest ******* around


I guess it would depend on how mnay times youve seen him during the course of the season .If youve maybe seen Jackson 5-6 times in actual games situations and he has a great workout and then has a great showing at predraft camp where his athleticism is matched up against other players I think you would be just as comfortable.I think very comfortable at #9 .

At #3 you would want more than one workout .


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>TRUTHHURTS</b>!
> 
> 
> I guess it would depend on how mnay times youve seen him during the course of the season .If youve maybe seen Jackson 5-6 times in actual games situations and he has a great workout and then has a great showing at predraft camp where his athleticism is matched up against other players I think you would be just as comfortable.I think very comfortable at #9 .
> ...


again, I have got to believe that with all the time he has had, he would have Jackson in again if he was really the target. Its just good due diligence

Jackson will not be picked in the top 10.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>giusd</b>!
> The NBA is a man's game and Gordan is a man and a stud. If he is the best player we should draft him, period.
> 
> That would give us two tough young men on our team.
> ...


and yet, half the guys here would trade Hinrich so fast necks would snap and heads would spin. yuk. 

IMHO, if the Bulls trade Hinrich, we would _ rue the day _

I think this is a sorta-brilliant smokescreen by Pax and we will get Iggy or Deng... i hope it works...

and if we do end up drafting Gordon and moving Kirk to the 2 spot, well, i would be intrigued by that concept and not so quick to dismiss it - the height thing doesn't concern me cause i think they are BOTH tenacious. i think their personalities would mesh better. again, just my opinion. 

and are we _just handing the starting point guard job to Gordon based on some quotes in the paper?_ seriously haven't we learned our lesson there?


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I think our board probably looks something like this right now...

1)Non Draft Pick(Wally Szcerbiak/Desmond Mason/Al Harrington)
2)Andre Iguodala
3)Ben Gordon

My best is Pax is looking to trade down to #5 or #6, hoping Howard falls would be my guess and take either Iguodala or Gordon and pick up another wing in the process. If I'm him I start talking to Houston cause JVG would love Hinrich and if they deal Francis and Mobley for T-Mac, T-Mac can play the 3 and we could trade for Jimmy Jackson who has always done a superb job (vastly underrated)...

That being said the main point I believe is that we must re-sign Crawford if we draft Gordon...


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>T.Shock</b>!
> I think our board probably looks something like this right now...
> 
> 1)Non Draft Pick(Wally Szcerbiak/Desmond Mason/Al Harrington)
> ...



Please T. Shock you are not suggesting trading Hinrich for Jim Jackson straight up. Talk about a major step backwords.

To be honest - If we are trading Hinrich, I want a Harrington (Young rising and immediately able to contribute player) in return.

Idon't want to trade Hinrich. I like him for all the same reasons most on this board do. However, if you decide that Gordon is the best player available and draft him, you have not addressed anything with a #3 pick!!!

The #3 pick should get you a more answers than questions. I'm sorry, if you take Gordon, you'd best have addressed the SF spot with something else first.

Again, Would you rather have Deng/Iggy and Crawford or Macas or would you rather have Gordon.

My choice is Deng/Iggy + Crawford and Macas. Gordon would've been great, but we didn't draft pietrus or Wade last year.

When the organization learn to use their picks. We wasted 1st rd. picks on Fizer, Bagaric, Williams and possibly Crawford.

Now we are talking about moving the first solid and most developed pick we've made in years. Sad stuff......

It's never dull being a Bulls fan....... 

Hey, Bulls marketing dept. you can use that as your tag line for a small fee:heart:


----------



## Machinehead (Jun 12, 2002)

Miami were a 2nd round team this year with Dwayne Wade and Rafer Alston playing big minutes in the back court together - both of them around the 6'3 mark

And they had Odom, Brian Grant , Udonis Haslem and Mailk Allen at the back


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

gordon + hinrich would be fine on most nights when we play up and down style, but when we are facing good SGs like Kobe then we are gonna get abused so bad at the 2.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98630&highlight=hinrich

I think a trade of Kirk Hinrich + ERob + #3 in exchange for #6, Jason Terry, and Diaw is now in order.

Gordon
Terry
Diaw
Chandler
Curry

is the lineup by the end of 2004-05 season.

For right now,

Crawford
Terry
JYD
AD
Curry

Undersized? Sure. Not so great at defense? Maybe. Three explosive young guards with sick athleticism, incredible speed, and ALL with the ability to push, push, push and run, run, run? The quickest three-guard combo in the league, I say.

Also, it may make JC more expendable or open to trade.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Stop the madness.

I would rather draft Kirk Snider at #3 than take another pint-sized combo guard.

p.s. Drafting a pint-sized guard and then trading for Terry is truely madness.

p.p.s. What does Gordon do better than pre-injury Jay Williams?


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

If the Bulls somehow draft Gordon and ignore the need for a legit starting SF for the 3rd or 4th straight year, he'll be brought in to play SG, not PG.

Hinrich might guard the opposing 2, but he'll certainly run the team from the point and leave Gordon to be the primary scorer. That means JC will be traded or let go.

Gordon may be a good player, but I'm hoping he won't be on the team next year.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>JAF311</b>!
> If the Bulls somehow draft Gordon and ignore the need for a legit starting SF for the 3rd or 4th straight year, he'll be brought in to play SG, not PG.
> 
> Hinrich might guard the opposing 2, but he'll certainly run the team from the point and leave Gordon to be the primary scorer. That means JC will be traded or let go.
> ...


Jamal's as good as gone....:uhoh:


----------



## jimmy (Aug 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal's as good as gone....:uhoh:


That may be. But he better be replaced with someone who can do as much as JC could do on offense and even more on defense. After all, Crawford's defense was his biggest trouble area. He better not be replaced with someone who's 4 inches shorter.

Drafting Deng or Iggy with the 3 or trading the pick for a veteran and a lower pick makes sense. Drafting Gordon, i don't care how well he tested in workouts, doesn't make sense.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>spongyfungy</b>!
> 
> 
> Jamal's as good as gone....:uhoh:


Yep.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> Stop the madness.
> 
> I would rather draft Kirk Snider at #3 than take another pint-sized combo guard.
> ...


Amen, 

It's time for this team to draft wing players. This is my third or forth year following the draft closely and which makes me decidedly a novice. As the drafts have passed, I have become increasingly less confident in my ability to pick the diamonds and the busts. While this is obviously partially the fact that I'm not a scout, I have began to realize that no-one can be sure. It's a crap shoot. 

No one knew Amare was going to be a monster rookie year No one knew Carlos Boozer was going to develop a turn around jump shot. No one knew Michael Redd, an average shooter, would develop into the leagues most proficient sniper. This isn't even factoring in external factors such as injuries, motorcycle accidents, and valient escapes from the Russia.

Part of this is a numbers of game. Kirk Snyder, Iggy, Deng, and Josh Smith all have the chance to be stellar NBA wings. Gambeling on another point guard is a sign of over confidence in drafting abilities. How can you be that certain that Gordon is going to be the bomb? What if he can't make the adjustment? What if he gets injured? All the gamble for a payoff that won't address the teams weaknesses.

The equation looks something like this:

(benefit possible from a star point guard) * (% Gordon will be a star) = (benefit possible from a star wing) * (% chance Deng/Iggy/Snyder/Smith will be a star)

How can Paxson be that sure that Gordon will be a star?


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

What happens if the bulls end up doing the wash trade of Hayes and 5 for the bulls 3rd and jefferies?

@5 the bulls take Gordon and also get the wing player they are looking for in Hayes. 

Would you guys b e more comfortable w/ that scenario?


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>remlover</b>!
> What happens if the bulls end up doing the wash trade of Hayes and 5 for the bulls 3rd and jefferies?
> 
> @5 the bulls take Gordon and also get the wing player they are looking for in Hayes.
> ...


Only if they resign Crawford and bring in Macas. If they draft Gordon int he first, they'd better grabd Donta Smith or Kevin Martin (unlikely to be there) with their first second.

See, we can easily fix the SG slot with Crawford and Macas and give Gordon/Hinrich some run their too I guess.

However, if you bank on Gordon or Hinrich to hold down the slot and bring back someone like Gill to shore it up....forget it. Not worth the risk.

I would still prefer to go with Iggy/Deng. I think between Hinrich, Pargo and a resigned Crawford you have an above average PG situation.


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>chifaninca</b>!
> 
> 
> Only if they resign Crawford and bring in Macas. If they draft Gordon int he first, they'd better grabd Donta Smith or Kevin Martin (unlikely to be there) with their first second.
> ...


I agree if they draft Gordon they must get Donta Smith in the 2nd round. 

How about this scenario w/ no trades.

Draft Gordon @ 3 ( i dont advocate the pick, just lookingn at scenarios)
Donta smith or Kevin martin @ 32.
Resign Jamal Crawford
Sign Hedo w/ the MLE

Have Jamal/Gordon/Hinrich in a 3 guard rotation. 

the problem w/ the whole Gordon logic is we need somehow get a competent SF come training camp. Pax has been saying since early this year that they need a SF. 

Maybe we are just reading more into the the bulls affection towards Gordon. Bulls obviously like him but know they dont need him.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

I'm not a huge Hedo fan, but if it goes down like you say, it might be a better move than Macas. I would somehow to get Macas and maybe Eric Williams (to play some minutes at SF) (splitting the MLE. Not sure if that's realistic, but that would work as well.

A three guard rotation of Hinrich/Gordon and Crawford would be very good to watch. I still think grabbing Gordon at three is very high.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Gordon makes the most sense if we trade Hinrich. I think Jason Terry makes the most sense in return. Undersized, sure, but more of a true 2 guard? Heck yeah.

It's not just a revolving door we're talking about here. It's improving our talents.

Okay, fine. What about trading Hinrich to Indiana for Artest?

How about Hinrich + JYD + 32 + 39 for Artest + 29?

They're getting a REAL POINT GUARD, a SF/PF type, and getting Harrington full-time SF minutes. We're getting a stud SF defender.

Gordon
Crawford
Artest
Chandler 
Curry

Indy becomes:

Hinrich/Tinsley
Miller/Bender/Jones (whoever wins the job)
Harrington/JYD
O'Neal/Harrington/JYD
Foster/Pollard

Instead of trading the pick, we use the pick to draft a replacement, and take the player we're replacing to get a REAL SF.

We're also tossing in two second rounders for Indy.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> 
> What about trading Hinrich to Indiana for Artest?


:rofl:


----------



## remlover (Jan 22, 2004)

If the Bulls do draft Gordon, which i dont think they will, i doubt Pax would sign Maces..especially since he is only 6'4. 

the perfect situation is for the bulls to draft a player that can play both the 2 and the 3. Seems like Iggy is the only player that fits the bill (of the top draft prospects).


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

I think we can read a lot into the fact that Iggy was brough in a 2nd time to workout. If I was in Vegas and I had to put a grand down on somebody...it'd be Iggy right now.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

While we're at it, maybe someone could distinguish the games of Jason Terry and Ben Gordon?

Does it concern anyone else that Gordon was the slowest "PG" down the floor in the lane agility drills? That he got beat by guys like Iggy for one and freaking 6'10 240lb Dwight Howard for another?

That he wasn't noted as a particularly good defender in college?

That on an NBA team playing next to Kirk Hinrich or Jamal Crawford he'll most likely be guarded by the opposing team's SG; a guy who's got 5 inches of height, 6+ inches of reach and 20lbs of muscle on him?

That he showed little in the way of true PG skills and had a hard enough time breaking a good college press?

Just some things to consider.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I'd be surprised if the Bulls drafted Gordon. It would mean that Paxson was very impressed with him which I wouldn't be surprised at. But I don't see how he could be effective in a backcourt with Hinrich. Sure, we might win more games right away but we certainly couldn't get far in a playoff series with that backcourt unless Gordon is the next MJ or something. And I don't see Paxson dealing his wonderboy Hinrich...although we could probably get a lot back for him. I wouldn't mind drafting Gordon if the Bulls brought Crawford back and spent the MLE on a true SF like Hedo or Stephen Jackson. Still, I see Pax as drafting Deng, Iggy, or Childress. The only thing I am waiting to see is what happens trade wise. I mean, Atlanta, Charlotte, LA, Orlando...there are a LOT of good deals out there for the #1 & #2 pick and I can almnost guarantee that at least ONE of the #1 or #2 picks gets traded which will obviously have an impact on the draft.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I think paxson has some trades i mind and we all will be very surprised on draft night. Last year hinrich was a real surprise pick and there was a lot of negitive comments about his pick. But hinrich turned out to be a most consistent player last year and clearly better than anyone traded lower.

My guess is many teams are trying to trade up to draft Livinston who is the one player moving up big time. I think he will trade down to get a couple of picks to fill both SG and SF.

david


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I wouldnt be opposed to Hinrich for Pietrus if there was a point guard in this draft that was a no brainer pick at #3. There isnt though, our weakness is the SF and the small forwards in this draft are better than the point guards. So to trade a future elite point guard for a future elite small forward and limit our draft options is dumb. 

Nobody on this team is untradable, but if we do trade him or Curry, it should be for established players, not more projects. Thats what it should mean when we say nobody is untradeable. If someone offers Ron Artest for Hinrich, you take it in a heartbeat. If someone offers Shaun Livingston for Hinrich, you do not take it. We should *not* be looking to trade him or Curry for _potentially_ good players. Thats how we lost Elton Brand for Tyson Chandler.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Mikedc</b>!
> While we're at it, maybe someone could distinguish the games of Jason Terry and Ben Gordon?


Gordon is a little bigger, but not as quick.

Compared to Jay Williams, Gordon is clearly not as quick, only slightly bigger, and doesn't have the handle. Could he be worse defensively? I really don't forsee any ROY for him.


----------



## TRUTHHURTS (Mar 1, 2003)

I wouldnt be trading Hinirch to take Gordon !!

If we are giving up Kirk I would be trying to get Phoenix to do a swap involving Kirk,#3, AD for Matrix and the #7 .If we are gonna gamble at least gamble big .


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*bump*

Some interesting stuff in this thread IMO


----------

