# Clippers may lose Bobby Simmons to the Bulls



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

Bobby Simmons

Los Angeles Clippers

Chicago connection: A fourth-year 6-6 small forward, Simmons was born in Chicago and starred at Simeon High School, where he averaged 27 points, 10 rebounds and five assists as a senior before playing three years at DePaul. He was drafted No. 42 in 2001 by the Seattle SuperSonics, who instantly traded him to Washington for Predrag Drobnjak.

Catching up: Averaging career highs of 16.8 points and 6.0 rebounds this season, Simmons, 24, is one of the league's best bargains at his salary of $825,000. But all that will change this summer when he becomes a free agent. "It's a good chance that I will be re-signed this summer, and that would be nice because I like it here,'' Simmons said. *"Chicago is also a possibility, and that would be nice because you can never beat home cooking and because the Bulls are now a young team turning things around as a winner again and they'll be in the playoffs. But I'll leave this in my agent's hands.''*
http://www.suntimes.com/output/banks/cst-spt-banx03.html


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

I think Simmons will be out of the Bulls' price range, and I also think he's more of a 3 than a 2 which creates some log jam. However, I definitely wouldn't mind if we signed him. He'd be a nice player no doubt.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Oh wow, thats great news...sounds like he has his eyes on Chicago and he certainly would be a nice fit.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

If Oak wants to come back for the playoffs, I'll certainly take him over Reiner any day of the week.

Do it, Pax!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I see him as a 'tweener 2/3. I think that is exactly what we need, especially if we intend to keel KH, Ben and Duhon. We need someone who can be a big 2, as needed, and fill in minutes at 3, as needed.

The kid has shown he's a solid shooter this season, with decent range. Certainly can stroke a 3. Not Steve Kerr accurate, but that is no insult.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

That would be absolutely great for us. We probably won't be able to resign Duhon for more than LLE , since Simmons will take at least all the MLE (and I agree he's on the edge of being out of our price range , unless he really wants to return home , cause I believe he can get slightly above MLE)

For some strange reason Simmons had a DNP last night and the reasoning was coaches decision. Check out the Box Score . anyone know of any beef going inside the team??? or is there a different reason he did not play???


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I think Simmons will be out of the Bulls' price range, and I also think he's more of a 3 than a 2 which creates some log jam. However, I definitely wouldn't mind if we signed him. He'd be a nice player no doubt.


He's only a "3" because Maggette is listed as the guard. While not a stellar defender, he's certainly not worse than average defensively. He has the footspeed to match up with opposing two-guards. He seems to have found his offensive rhythm this season (indicated by his FG%) and has been making open shots (which has limited his minutes in the past).

I wouldn't mind him as our third guard (ahead of Duhon), but only if we can sign him for the $3-3.5mil starting range. He definately could command more than that depending on the market/scouting.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

I could find a spot for Simmons in my lineup. Push Deng to the two -- not as natural as siging a raja bell type, but you can't argue with the influx of talent. Signing Simmons may be the best case scenario for this upcoming off-season. I'm glad to hear there is interest.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

bullet said:


> That would be absolutely great for us. We probably won't be able to resign Duhon for more than LLE , since Simmons will take at least all the MLE (and I agree he's on the edge of being out of our price range , unless he really wants to return home , cause I believe he can get slightly above MLE)
> 
> For some strange reason Simmons had a DNP last night and the reasoning was coaches decision. Check out the Box Score . anyone know of any beef going inside the team??? or is there a different reason he did not play???


I think its a leg contusion or something like that. Nothing serious, as far as I know.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Man if anyone watched simmons at washington or LA they would see that he not only can he guard SG's but he is and outstanding defended with awsome foot work. That is how he stayed in the league until he fixed his shot and offensive game. He can easlily start at SG for us and match up with both KH and gordon. He would make are starting backcourt he best defensive team in the league.

david


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> He's only a "3" because Maggette is listed as the guard. While not a stellar defender, he's certainly not worse than average defensively. He has the footspeed to match up with opposing two-guards. He seems to have found his offensive rhythm this season (indicated by his FG%) and has been making open shots (which has limited his minutes in the past).
> 
> I wouldn't mind him as our third guard (ahead of Duhon), but only if we can sign him for the $3-3.5mil starting range. He definately could command more than that depending on the market/scouting.


Well, I went to DePaul and watched Bobby Simmons all 3 years he played there. His body type is identical to Ron Artest, and I'd also go so far to say his game is fairly similar too, except for the defensive tenacity of course. And I wouldn't put Simmons as a 2-guard much for the very same reason I wouldn't place Artest there. He's not a great ballhandler, and as a 2-guard he would technically be the secondary ballhandler. When facing a press, that can cause problems. I would also worry about his ability to defend alot of opposing 2-guards, particuarly the quicker ones. I bet Deng could defend opposing 2's just as well, if not better, due to his length...Simmons doesn't have near the same length as Deng. Nonetheless, I wouldn't mind the signing...I just think Raja Bell would be better, and maybe cheaper. Devin Brown would be cheapest of all 3, and maybe just as effective if given the minutes.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

giusd said:


> Man if anyone watched simmons at washington or LA they would see that he not only can he guard SG's but he is and outstanding defended with awsome foot work. That is how he stayed in the league until he fixed his shot and offensive game. He can easlily start at SG for us and match up with both KH and gordon. He would make are starting backcourt he best defensive team in the league.
> 
> david



I agree. All this talk about him being strictly a three is inaccurate.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

how good would he be right now with deng and curry being down . . . :drool: scoring punch, permiter D, and rebounding help. sign me up.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

I agree that all things being equal, he may join the Bulls. But that isnt going to be the case, IMHO. And when it comes down to agents, money....


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

El Chapu said:


> I agree that all things being equal, he may join the Bulls. But that isnt going to be the case, IMHO. And when it comes down to agents, money....


 I think the Bulls have the edge when it comes to spending over the Clippers


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Simmons will see a lot of action from teams especially if guys like Redd and Allen resign with their respective teams.

Other teams with more cap space i.e Cavaliers are near desperate for a SG and could easily drive up the price for Bobby Simmons to where he wouldn't be in the Bulls price range.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I think Simmons will be out of the Bulls' price range, and I also think he's more of a 3 than a 2 which creates some log jam. However, I definitely wouldn't mind if we signed him. He'd be a nice player no doubt.


I know we've discussed this before and we agree with eachother. He's definitely more of a 3, but can defend 2's decently. He's really worked hard to refine his skills since coming out of Depaul. He's turning into what scouts thought he would be in college. He'd be a great player to have on any team, but he'll be out of our price range. Unless we get lucky and no other teams have the money to sign him by signing other guys first. I don't think that will happen, but I'd be ecstatic if it did.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> Simmons will see a lot of action from teams especially if guys like Redd and Allen resign with their respective teams.
> 
> Other teams with more cap space i.e Cavaliers are near desperate for a SG and could easily drive up the price for Bobby Simmons to where he wouldn't be in the Bulls price range.


Not sure Allen will stay with Sonics , He might join Bron. And apart of Redd and Ray , there are also Larry Hughes and Joe Johnson. Plus , Cavs might wanna resign Z , that won't leave them a lot to push. It also depends on where Simmons wants to play , And if he want Chicago the difference in contract has to be worthy , and if it's much over MLE Cavs have to think if it's worth it.I also think Cavs would look for a better Shooter SG to play next to Bron , since Brons only weakness is shooting , and none of their wing (or PG's) players showed they can do it.They need a shooter and thats why they went for Luke Jackson in the last draft (which didn't work out so far)
But I agree It's a possibility.

Now , abbout Simmons defense - He's no Ron Artest , but he's definitely a good active tough defensive player. And as I see it , he can gaurd the 2. He's less a sg than sf , but he can play sg , although handle ain't great. Deng can help with handle on offense , while Simmons can gaurd the 2.

I'd love for him to come , even though imo it means Du is gone. Skiles won't like it , but I doubt the LLE would be enough to keep Duhon. Still , I think we add offense , we add defense at the wing , and we lose Duhons D at PG which Kirk can definitely take , and we lose passing by Du.

Although in the case of Simmons coming Ben will still be 6th man , I think this is a better trio where they should devide the minutes in a way each of them plays more than 30 minutes. Ben proved he's worth 30+ minutes. Equally it's 32 minutes a player.

Resigning the Bigs along with Othella , and getting Simmons back home , would be another great offseason for Pax. Time will tell.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Simmons would definitely be a great fit for this team. He plays hard, understands the game, and works hard to improve each offseason. He is a Paxson type player. Anyone who has watched the Clippers this year knows he is probably their 2nd or 3rd best player. 

He has bassline jumper better than anyone in the league. It's money every time. He is also a good all around player, good passer and defender. He wasn't all that good at taking the ball to the hoop this year, but something tells me he may work on that this offseason. He is still young.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

So Gordon is still going to come off the bench? Is he going to be happy with that after working hard in the off-season to improve his game? I doubt he would gripe, but you can't continue playing this guy off the bench before he feels like saying he wants to start.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

HKF said:


> So Gordon is still going to come off the bench? Is he going to be happy with that after working hard in the off-season to improve his game? I doubt he would gripe, but you can't continue playing this guy off the bench before he feels like saying he wants to start.


Whoever comes into camp the most ready to play will get to start. If Ben has learned to expand his game, such as playing some point guard and learning to get teammates involved more often, then I think he could start most definitely. It really all depends if he remains one-dimensional or not.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

HKF said:


> So Gordon is still going to come off the bench? Is he going to be happy with that after working hard in the off-season to improve his game? I doubt he would gripe, but you can't continue playing this guy off the bench before he feels like saying he wants to start.


What if he comes of the Bench and plays 32+ minutes. It does not really matter if he starts , as I see it , hope Ben sees it the same way. I Think Ben proved to be a future star in the league , But in turms of being a defense first team , I'm not so sure a Kirk/Ben Backcourt can be regarded as a strong defensive Backcourt. They'd have size problems.
I think it's more important who closes the game , not who starts. Ben already saw throughout the season Skiles does not like to start necessary his best 5 players , He likes to keep some aces on the Bench , and so far it works. Skiles even goes too far with that like starting Reiner over Tyson when OH and Eddy are out , just to get TC's energy of the Bench.

Edit: Personally , I think the beginning of games it's very important to make opponent players uncomfortable. A lot of players level of play depends on the way they are played in the first minutes. If you intimidate them with Rough defensive play they will lose some confidence and won't play as good (of course it ain't right about all players , but many). So we start Simmons and Kirk to make them uncomfortable as we can with strength rough game , and then we let Ben come of the Bench and score , especially in the 4th. I think Ben should play most of the 4th. 

Do you think a starting Backcourt of Ben and Kirk could work longturm?

It definitely has it's benefits since Bens offense Is a headache for opponents , But Simmons has offense too (not like Ben - very few have Bens kind of offense) , and also has size and especially strength to rough up opposing Wing/SG. And having Ben coming of the Bench and give 30+ minutes (and probably around 20+ points) is a luxury no other team has.

With Simmons we'd have one of the best Trio's in Backcourt in the league , and Ben of the Bench alone would give us the Best scoring Bench in nba. I'm not sure it's that important for Ben to start , but his minutes definitely must go up. Ideally , Kirk,Simmons and Ben each get 32 minutes.


----------



## 7thwatch (Jul 18, 2002)

Does this make anyone else drool?

Guards: Hinrich, Gordon, and Simmons (and resign duhon if possible)

SF's: Deng and Chapu (+ simmons)

PF's: Chandler and resigned Othella (+chapu in a small lineup)

Center: Curry, with Chandler moving to center when Curry needs a break.

The only problem is ego's . . . who starts? Simmons or Gordon? Will it become a sticking point for them? I think Gordon would be the best 6th man in the league next year. He and Chapu would anchor a really strong bench.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i would take this as what it appears to be , free agent gamesmanship.

the clips are known as stingy , but they can pay him the most , they also need him at least for right now, and can offer him the most playing time with the possible exception of lets say denver who also is supposed to be in the market for a 2 guard.

also i doubt that pax will try and break the bank on simmons ...we are supposed to be saving $ for the great summer of 2006.


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

7thwatch said:


> Does this make anyone else drool?
> 
> Guards: Hinrich, Gordon, and Simmons (and resign duhon if possible)
> 
> ...



With another season of presonal and team development, I think this is a team that competes deep into the playoffs for years to come.

As for signing Simmons, I'd jump all over him if I were Paxson. He is everything this team needs and lacks. It would likely cost us Duhon, but I am more than willing to make that sacrifice as it returns Hinrich to a position his better than average at - PG.

As for who starts, etc..........

Ben may not like it, but he'll have to earn his starts by playing "the right way" or as guys say here "with the correct cut of Jib".... :biggrin: 

In the end, Simmons, Gordon and Hinrich still equates to 30+ minutes a game for each and that is plenty. One guy is off, the other two can pick up the slack.

If all we got was Simmons in the off-season and still lost Duhon, I'd call it a success.

Of Course, Duhon and Devin Brown would be nice as well.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

The only way Simmons will get over here is through a sign and trade. I don't think we have anything of value to dangle to the Clips nor do I want to add another 3/2 at the expense of Duhon. Simmons is a nice player but he really doesn't have a place on this team.


----------



## HookEmHorns (Jan 31, 2005)

It sounds like in that quote that theres no doubt that he'd prefer to come to Chicago than LA.


----------



## Greg Ostertag! (May 1, 2003)

4 years at the MLE would lock him up, I think. That's about 25 million over 4 years, is it not, I don't think the Clippers would give him anything higher than that (they may put forward a _similar_ offer).


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

sp00k said:


> The only way Simmons will get over here is through a sign and trade. I don't think we have anything of value to dangle to the Clips nor do I want to add another 3/2 at the expense of Duhon. Simmons is a nice player but he really doesn't have a place on this team.



Wow, you couldn't be more wrong on all accounts.....

Losing Duhon sucks, but it's worth it for a complete player (not all-star, but better than journeyman) who can play the 2/3. Duhon, Hinrich and Gordon are all guys who can't defend the tall SG's, but can excel against PG's. However, Duhon doesn't provide anything that can't be replaced by Hinrich or Gordon. Simmons does provide something that Duhon, Gordon, and Hinrich can't and that's defend and score against the bigger two's in the league. Plus, he's better at D than the afore mentioned with the exception of Hinrich on PG's.

I watch alot of Clipper games, since I live in So. Cal. and love to watch the Chicago guys. Simmons is the one guy we have a realistic chance at getting, at the expense of not resigning Duhon. It's a move that will be unpopular, but good for the team in the long run. In a bit of irony, Simmons stuck because of his hustle and commitment to D, but was cut for lack of O. He developed his O and now has a complete game. Sounds to me like Duhon.

Unfortunately, we need Simmons more than we need Duhon. I do agree it will take something like a 4 year MLE deal to get him to Chicago (and that's assuming the CBA isn't changed). Sterling isn't that committed to him and there are rumblings of the Clipps picking up Dunleavy, Jr. on the cheap.

Finally, Simmons would be our starting two with a three man rotation of Hinrich, Simmons and Gordon each having the opportunity to play 30+ minutes a night. Also, a three guard line-up featuring those three with Deng or Chapu at the 4 and Chandler or Curry at the 5 would create nightmares all over the court in short spurts.

This is the guy I want. let's just hope the Clipps pull their typical BS and that Simmons feels the love and comes home.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

I think the idea of signing of a swingman for the for MLE made a lot more sense two weeks ago than it does now. Considering Eddy's heart problem, whether we sign him or not, there is always the possibility he will miss some time. It would be terrible, but what if we resign him, and then next year he gets weak again and is forced to retire or sit out for a long period of that time? For that matter, what if Tyson's back problem flares up again? Both our young bigs have potential health trouble.

Keeping these factors in mind, we need a quality big more than we need higher priced big guard. If Oberto is there for the taking, I say we give him whatever it takes to get him. He could cover either the forward or center position in a pinch, and though he is a little older (31next season I believe), he was still an exemplary player as of the Olympics last summer.

Then we would be forced to try to keep Duhon and grab a lower priced big guard using the LLE, the league minimum, and/or whatever was left over of the MLE after signing Oberto. It's not ideal, but I think it might be the way to go at this point.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

chifaninca said:


> Wow, you couldn't be more wrong on all accounts.....
> 
> Losing Duhon sucks, but it's worth it for a complete player (not all-star, but better than journeyman) who can play the 2/3. Duhon, Hinrich and Gordon are all guys who can't defend the tall SG's, but can excel against PG's. However, Duhon doesn't provide anything that can't be replaced by Hinrich or Gordon. Simmons does provide something that Duhon, Gordon, and Hinrich can't and that's defend and score against the bigger two's in the league. Plus, he's better at D than the afore mentioned with the exception of Hinrich on PG's.
> 
> ...


Wrong on all accounts?



sp00k said:


> The only way Simmons will get over here is through a sign and trade.





sp00k said:


> I don't think we have anything of value to dangle to the Clips nor do I want to add another 3/2 at the expense of Duhon.





sp00k said:


> <b>Simmons is a nice player but he really doesn't have a place on this team.</b>


The only point I can see being argued is number 3. I like Simmons, but no, he doesn't have a place on this team. Will he be starting at the 3? Nope, we have Deng. Will he be starting at the 2? Nope, Ben will be. I admit, a 3 guard rotation of Kirk, Ben and Simmons sounds nice in theory but who's convinced that Ben can play some point every game? Because about half the time Simmons is on the floor Ben Gordon will be the PG. 

For the record, I like Simmons BUT <b>Duhon has been responsible for us winning at least 5 games this season.</b> I'm not ready to push him out in the hopes that Ben <i>might</i> be able to play some point. Sign Raja Bell and our big guard woes (and our <i>only</i> area of concern) are no more.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

You can forget about Simmons coming here and starting over Gordon, it ain't happenin and u can damn sure believe Gordon would be PISSED about that. He's expecting to start and we'd be DUMB not to start him next year.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The ROY said:


> You can forget about Simmons coming here and starting over Gordon, it ain't happenin and u can damn sure believe Gordon would be PISSED about that. He's expecting to start and we'd be DUMB not to start him next year.


My point exactly. Raja Bell (like spook suggested) and maybe an Eddie Basden, Melvin Sanders or even a free agent Greg Buckner wouldn't be bad to add to this team.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Does Gordon really care that much about starting? It would be dumb to pass on a player the calibur of Bobby Simmons because you're worried about an equal or less calibur player being unhappy. I think Gordon has the type of attitude where he'd be happy as the 6th man, as long as his minutes keep going up, like they will. 

I really like Gordon in this 6th man role, where he can finish games for us. If we can get Bobby Simmons in place of Hinrich, and Hinrich back to the point, with Gordon still in his finisher and scorer role, we'd be a much better team. Much better than if we put Gordon in the starting lineup with Raja Bell coming off the bench. I'd take the latter scenario and call it a day if I could, because I kind of doubt we'll get Simmons, but if there is a chance to get him as an addition to our backcourt, get it done. I'd be happy with Bell though.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

C'mon now. Gordon as a rookie is just as valuable as Simmons is now (if not more). Do you really think he's not going to get better?


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I just don't see Gordon as the type of player to complain about not starting, especially if he will be playing around 30 minutes a contest regardless. I'm just a fan of getting Simmons if we can, he is much better than Raja Bell. If we could get Simmons to come off the bench while Gordon starts, then great, but personally I think Simmons is a better player than Gordon right now because of his overall game and defense. If Gordon can improve his overall game and his defense to about Simmons level, then he has Simmons beat with his scoring ability. I think Skiles would start Hinrich/Simmons before he started Hinrich/Gordon though. 

Lets not forget Simmons is the most improved player in the league, he is going to keep improving too. Only 24.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Gordon is going to improve over the summer. He has the last 4 summers, I don't see why he would stop now. If that's the case, then maybe Hinrich should come off the bench. Gordon will have surpassed Hinrich by the end of next year, so if it's Gordon/Simmons with Hinrich playing the 3rd guard so be it, but sooner or later, the Bulls are going to have to start Ben because he will be the best player on the team.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Both Hinrich and Simmons are better than Gordon right now, and both can handle all the responsibilities of their positions, which makes them more likely to start in the backcourt. Until Gordon proves he can handle more responsibility, he should stay in his current role. For him to start, he would need to prove he can handle point guard responsibilities for 35 minutes per game, or surpass Simmons with his overall game and start with Hinrich. He isn't close to achieving either of those things right now. Gordon and Simmons starting in the backcourt would be a disaster, since neither can consistently bring the ball up the court and handle the duties of being point guard.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

HKF said:


> Gordon is going to improve over the summer. He has the last 4 summers, I don't see why he would stop now. If that's the case, then maybe Hinrich should come off the bench. Gordon will have surpassed Hinrich by the end of next year, so if it's Gordon/Simmons with Hinrich playing the 3rd guard so be it, but sooner or later, the Bulls are going to have to start Ben because he will be the best player on the team.


I agree with HKF. Paxson didn't take Gordon with the 3rd pick to be a player off the bench. Gordon may have one more season off the bench after his rookie year (maybe to improve his PG skills once Hinrich is sitting), but he will be a starter long term, as will Chandler. I'm actually someone who thinks once Gordon starts, Chandler will as well to provide that extra protection defensively, and Hinrich guards SG quite well.

I think Hinrich and Gordon will start next season and if it doesn't work, Paxson could have cap space in 2006 to sign a player and/or AD expiring contract to get a good player.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Benny the Bull said:


> I think Hinrich and Gordon will start next season and if it doesn't work, Paxson could have cap space in 2006 to sign a player and/or AD expiring contract to get a good player.


I think Hinrich and Gordon will be starting next year too, only because I doubt we'll get Simmons. Just looking at other possibilities to make the team better. I'd be extremely happy with Hinrich/Gordon with Raja Bell off the bench.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I just don't see Gordon as the type of player to complain about not starting, especially if he will be playing around 30 minutes a contest regardless.


gordon says he EXPECTS to start next right

u don't draft a kid at #3 to play him off the bench..


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

The ROY said:


> gordon says he EXPECTS to start next right
> 
> u don't draft a kid at #3 to play him off the bench..


 What if it's better for the team?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

HKF said:


> C'mon now. Gordon as a rookie is just as valuable as Simmons is now (if not more). Do you really think he's not going to get better?


LMAO exactly

to say gordon isn't the same calibur of a player as simmons is one of the most outlandish comments i've heard on here

go ask 30 gm's who'd they rather have on their team..and you'll see how valuable gordon really is


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

garnett said:


> What if it's better for the team?


that's not my call

but if GORDON gets pissed, you could see team chemistry starting to crumble in a hurry...remember ANYBODY can become a cancer

crawford not starting was diff...

you WANT to keep gordon happy...he's going to make the bulls ALOT of money for a long time in the NBA


----------



## chifaninca (May 28, 2002)

Well, I'm convinced. Gordon's gonna work on his turnovers, his dribbling, his defense and HE'S GONNA GROW 3 INCHES TALLER!

No problems then.

I love Ben and I love Duhon, but we went through this "Summer development will make everyone better" before. Remember? Eddy and Tyson are gonna have breakthrough years! Jamal Will improve his shot selection!

Yeah, that worked.......in getting us the # 3 pick.

Gordon loves a challenge and I hope he gets pissed. Right now, he's a one dimensional (albeit phenomenal) offensive player. 

Bottom line, Simmons is likely a pipe dream anyways. YEt, if there's a chance you gotta try. Fortunately, Paxson has shown he'll give it shot no matter how slim the chance (Remember he did meet with Kobe).


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

I think the basic assumption that Ben will be pissed if he ain't starting is wrong , as long as he gets 30+ minutes. I think he'd be more pissed if he did'nt play major minutes in the 4th.

Also the assumption that he should start cause we picked him at 3rd spot - we have a 2nd pick from 2001 playing great this season coming of the bench. It's just part of Skiles way , and as long as it works , and assuming Skiles will stay , why change it.

And personally , I agree Ben is a better player , or at least will be a better player than Kirk and Simmons.He's definitely better than Duhon. He might be our Best player since Jan and he still comes of the Bench. And what happens - we are winning!

Skiles likes to start games with a defensive lineup+Curry for paint high % scoring. He likes opponents to be banged and roughed up in the first minutes , so he can shake their confidence by making them feel uncomfortable on court. To get that , Kirk and Simmons are the better starters , not cause they are better players , but to fit Skiles game theory. The game is not decided by the 1st Q starters , but by all 4 Q's play , and Skiles has a game plan/Theory that has worked for us much better than most of us expected.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

The ROY said:


> go ask 30 gm's who'd they rather have on their team..and you'll see how valuable gordon really is


How do you know all 30 of them wouldn't say Simmons, because you personally believe Gordon is the better player? Please. Provide proof or leave those type of statements out.


----------



## atlbull (Feb 27, 2004)

bullet said:


> I think the basic assumption that Ben will be pissed if he ain't starting is wrong , as long as he gets 30+ minutes. I think he'd be more pissed if he did'nt play major minutes in the 4th.
> 
> Also the assumption that he should start cause we picked him at 3rd spot - we have a 2nd pick from 2001 playing great this season coming of the bench. It's just part of Skiles way , and as long as it works , and assuming Skiles will stay , why change it.
> 
> ...



nice post! I think you are absolutely correct in your assessment of Skiles' rotation. It looks like he like to tire out opponents so in the 4th quarter, Ben can simply do his thing score and Tyson can do his thing.


----------

