# Gordon for the #3 pick 50/50



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

Wow I just saw on another forum, someone posted this news that Gordon for the #3 pick could go down. Right now its up to Atlanta to accept. This guy plus others saw it on a draft special that another insider reported. It seems credible and if your Chicago this is a MUST MAKE DEAL!

Can you say Horford at the #3 and maybe Brewer at the #9? OMG Im estatic if this deal goes down.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

T-Time said:


> Wow I just saw on another forum, someone posted this news that Gordon for the #3 pick could go down. Right now its up to Atlanta to accept. This guy plus others saw it on a draft special that another insider reported. It seems credible and if your Chicago this is a MUST MAKE DEAL!
> 
> Can you say Horford at the #3 and maybe Brewer at the #9? OMG Im estatic if this deal goes down.


A 21 ppg shooting guard for a wish and a prayer college forward who averaged 13 ppg? Gordon is one of the best pure shooters in the game. Horford is your typical dime-a-dozen power forward who are always available.

Paxson must think a lot of Sefolosha or whoever he has in mind to draft at #9.


----------



## Aesop (Jun 1, 2003)

Atlanta needs a PG and a C/PF. Gordon is neither.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

Fire Pax fan club needs to be resurrected if he does this.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

This is the Elton Brand trade all over again. And that being said, I think you would have to make the move if it is available -- which I highlydoubt.

McBulls, Horford has got skillz. Not skills but skillz. He does everything at an NBA level and his offensive game will work just as well as it did in college. It's a risk. It's always a risk. But I think a Conley/Horford (- Gordon) draft puts us in a much better situation. I'd even think Noah/Horford draft puts us in a much better situation. 

I believe in Sefolosha. I think Duhon is a good semi-starter. I'd do it.


----------



## Darius Miles Davis (Aug 2, 2002)

If we make this trade, it's going to make me that much more sad that we didn't draft Brandon Roy.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Worst possible scenario. I cant believe Pax would actually consider doing this


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

LORD ALL THESE RUMOR! HAwks already signed off on the big Amare deal, are they allowed to trade the pick, when they already agreed to trade it somewhere else.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I'd probably do it and hope that Rodney Stuckey becomes really, really good. I doubt Conley falls to nine. Brewer might fall, but I'm not sure we want another good defense/little offense player.


----------



## LuolDeng (Feb 22, 2004)

link?


----------



## ballafromthenorth (May 27, 2003)

LuolDeng said:


> link?


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117516 thats where I found it. I too think Gordon for the straight up #3 is a bit too much if your the Bulls so maybe you take a certain Marvin Williams off the Hawks?  Although word is, Atlanta is going to use Gordon as their Point Guard haha and draft a big with the 11.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Not going to happen, why the hell would the Bulls trade Gordon for another draft pick instead of trading Gordon + draft picks for a guy like Zach Randolph.


----------



## Qwerty123 (May 31, 2002)

I'd seriously consider it. Try to get Childress back in the deal. If not, maybe move #9 + filler (Duhon and Khryapa) for Jason Richardson if Yi is on the board for them.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

T-Time said:


> http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117516 thats where I found it. I too think Gordon for the straight up #3 is a bit too much if your the Bulls so maybe you take a certain Marvin Williams off the Hawks?  Although word is, Atlanta is going to use Gordon as their Point Guard haha and draft a big with the 11.



once you said marvin, I thought STFU!


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

LuolDeng said:


> link?


I don't think you'll find any satisfaction even if you found a link since its a rumour regardless.

Id be very 50/50 about the trade. Horford could turn into a Elton Brand type of player, a player who can be an all star for years, but never have the superstar credibility. 

So then what would we do with Tyrus?? Has Paxson decide to trade Deng, along with Tyrus(along with other players obviously) to aquire Kobe? I don't want use to be like the Hawks and stock up on forwards just because it seems like fun. So then who would fill in for Deng? Maybe a Green??

A line up of..

Wallace
Horford
Green
Kobe
Hinrich

Thabo etc

Would be fun to watch. But it would most definitly be taking few steps back and hoping that Horford and Green work out.

As i said, i doubt that this rumour is true. Paxson has already said in numerous interviews, that besides Oden and Durant, he doesnt see a prospect to nesscarily trade up for by giving up a good player of his own. So i take this as a false rumour.


----------



## LuolDeng (Feb 22, 2004)

I definitely did not see this on the SC draft special on ESPN


----------



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

He would be just another asset for trade bait. I never said keep Willaims, you can always find a trade partner for a player of his potential. I highly doubt Atlanta would throw him in the deal anyways..


----------



## LuolDeng (Feb 22, 2004)

There is absolutely no way this was discussed on ESPN and no one here or on RealGM posted about it.


----------



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

Also it was on some tv station like WCX discussed the rumor.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

LuolDeng said:


> There is absolutely no way this was discussed on ESPN and no one here or on RealGM posted about it.


Settle. A rumour is a rumour and will remain a rumour untill there is a press conference. And sometimes even then it might not even go through if a player fails a physical etc.

So just enjoy this crazy draft talk and take everything as probably being more false than fact.


----------



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

Yeah its hard to believe when there isn't anything about it on ESPN. I just saw it posted on another site and then another guy I talk to on AIM said he saw it on WCX so I decided to post it to see if anyone else has any more information. Sorry I didn't mean to start such a comotion..


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Everything I've read says the Hawks are trading #3 and #11 for Amare. But if this deal is available, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Horford was the brains and brawn behind Florida. He's gonna be a hell of a pro.


----------



## Chicago_Cow (Mar 5, 2003)

If this deal is available, I would do it. It's obvious that Gordon isn't in our longterm plan.

Hortford is a stud. The guy has the potential to be the next Karl Malone.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I wouldn't even hesitate to trade Gordon for the #3 (Horford). I have been thinking since late in the season that Gordon was NOT the answer at SG, and needs to be upgraded big time..literally BIG, as in someone who can actually guard a SG and get to the rim. If we could trade Gordon, and come out of the draft with Horford and Brewer or even Nick Young, that'd be ideal. Young will probably turn into a scorer like Gordon, but with better size....his D isn't great but I'm sure it'd be an upgrade over Lil Ben. Brewer, on the other hand, would be just the opposite. He'd be great to have to defense the Pistons and Cavs, but we'd be lacking in scoring. I don't see any reason why Horford and Tyrus couldn't start together in the post in the future. Horford has good size and bulk, and if Benedict can play C, he probably can as well.

But, as already stated, if the Hawks can get Amare for #3 and #11, this rumor is irrelevant. I'm sure the Hawks would rather have Amare, than Gordon and Hawes or w/e big is available at #11. I know I'd sure rather have Amare than Gordon and Hawes....and Hawes is a longshot at #11. It'll probably be mainly SFs and PGs available around 11. If they're really thinking about using Gordon as a PG, and already have 2 good SFs, #11 wouldn't hold much value for them anyway, so might as well trade it for a stud like Amare.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I think Horford = Horace Grant, not Karl Malone, but you never know. Malone went what, #17 overall? It was much later than I'd have expected anyway. Horace put up some really good #s for us back in the day, like 15 and 10, plus he was a really good passer and defender.


----------



## Chicago_Cow (Mar 5, 2003)

Al Horford has a variety of post moves in his arsenal already. In addition, he's a strong rebounder who likes to bang with the big boys. If we want a low post presence, he's will provide just that for us.

In the Pistons series, it's obvious that we won't be going anywhere with Ben Gordon at sg. It's just that Ben Gordon height is just too much a deficient for him to overcome. If you put at 6'7 guy who can matches Gordon's speed, Gordon wouldn't be able to do anything.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

I'm not all the way convinced but I'm leaning towards doing this deal. If it is true it would only happen if the Amare deal fell through. Take Horford at 3 who most people think is the third best prospect in the draft and is fairly NBA ready. Then take backcourt help at 9 or someone else if Pax thinks the Kobe deal will get done. Thabo and the pick would split time at the 2, they won't be as good as Gordon offensively but would be better defensively. On offense the loss of Gordon's production could be made up elsewhere.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

I like how people think 21 ppg is just gonna be "made up" along with the clutch scoring i'm sure. Draft fever is in full effect.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Stinks worse than the Brand trade.


----------



## BDMcGee (May 12, 2006)

Darius Miles Davis said:


> If we make this trade, it's going to make me that much more sad that we didn't draft Brandon Roy.


Totally agree. I think the team would be in a stronger position if they had drafted him.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

Chops said:


> I like how people think 21 ppg is just gonna be "made up" along with the clutch scoring i'm sure. Draft fever is in full effect.


It's not *that* hard. Thabo is a better defender than Gordon so that already helps our defense. Thabo, TT, Deng, and maybe (*maybe*) Hinrich will increase their scoring. Horford is considered by most experts to be fairly NBA ready, I think the minimum for him is 10 ppg. Not sure how much the 9 pick would contribute but it would contribute something. Also, if the Kobe deal actually happens you can count on big time points from him.


----------



## o.iatlhawksfan (Mar 3, 2006)

Steve Belkin **** us again, espn radio reports he reject the trade!

This dude better not come 500 miles near Hawks fans, or he's gonna get what coming to him!


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

No way! Gordon is a special talent. He's come in as a highly touted rookie. Did everything he had to do in his rookie year and surprised everyone (despite his already high status). On top of this, every year, he's worked hard and improved his game. I loved that he committed to going to the basket last year and pretty much stuck to it.

If you want to trade Gordon, you need to get a special player back. Kobe, OK. A rookie - even if it's Horford - no way. I highly doubt there's any truth to this rumor.


----------



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

step said:


> Stinks worse than the Brand trade.


Thank you for the enlightening statement  Care to explain why?


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

Snake said:


> It's not *that* hard. Thabo is a better defender than Gordon so that already helps our defense. Thabo, TT, Deng, and maybe (*maybe*) Hinrich will increase their scoring. Horford is considered by most experts to be fairly NBA ready, I think the minimum for him is 10 ppg. Not sure how much the 9 pick would contribute but it would contribute something. Also, if the Kobe deal actually happens you can count on big time points from him.


Yeah, but instead of going into next season with a 4th year Ben Gordon coming off a breakout season, we go back to depending on rookies to get us over the 2nd round hump. I don't like the chances.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I wonder what the response would be if the Hawks wanted Deng.


----------



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

MikeDC said:


> Everything I've read says the Hawks are trading #3 and #11 for Amare. But if this deal is available, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Horford was the brains and brawn behind Florida. He's gonna be a hell of a pro.


I think Horford to Noah is what Antawn Jamison was to Vince Carter at UNC. Horford's going to be a solid Buck Williams, Elton Brand-ish power forward, but I didn't see him as big a driving force as Jo. He was the big scorer, but it just wasn't him moving the team. This trade would probably be the definition of "lateral move." Personally, I'd file it under "backward step."


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

Chops said:


> Yeah, but instead of going into next season with a 4th year Ben Gordon coming off a breakout season, we go back to depending on rookies to get us over the 2nd round hump. I don't like the chances.


True but Horford would be a big upgrade for our frontcourt which was pretty crappy this year. No, the trade isn't obvious but I'm leaning towards doing it. (if the rumor is even true)


----------



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

rwj333 said:


> I wonder what the response would be if the Hawks wanted Deng.


It would be a resounding no. Ben Gordon is an extremely undersized shooting guard in the NBA. He's lucky if he touches 6'0. Luol Deng is a longterm answer because he isn't undersized and can hold his own on the defensive end unlike Gordon who is a defensive liability. The reality of the situation is, a 6'3 and 6'1 backcourt is not Ideal and won't work when your facing the bigger guards on teams like Detroit that are physically imposing either strength wise or heighth wise. Having Sefolosha who is 6'7 is more ideal if he can improve his offensive game which he will.

We all saw how Nocioni struggled mightily from the 3pt line but as a european player he adjusted his second year and shot a very good %. Thabo can and will do the same in my mind. He's not only going to improve offensively, but will become a better defensive player to help Kirk out. With Ben Gordon gone, Kirks numbers will go up and so will Dengs. Horford won't start but is a great asset to have coming off the bench as a center or a power forward. The loss of offense can be quickly annoited when your defense improves and you could say that with Thabo and Tyrus inserted into the starting lineup instead of Gordon and PJ. Think about it, do you really want a small backcourt for the next 5 years or so with Gordon and Kirk? Or would you rather develop something in Thabo or another player who is a bit taller and maybe the long term answer that will play both ways? I'll choose Thabo.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

rwj333 said:


> I wonder what the response would be if the Hawks wanted Deng.


Plus the Hawks would be insane to want another SF.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

After Chauncey leaves, Detroit won't even be a problem. Ben wasn't the only reason why that series was lost, I wish people would stop making blanket statements. I'm not even concerned about numbers. Who cares if Kirk or Luol average a couple more points? Too many of you are stat freaks. Ben is a scorer, a proven clutch performer and he draws a double-team. His height isn't ideal, but he's a special talent. You really wanna talk stats? 21 points on 45% FG and 42% 3pt. Trade that away and watch this team win 43 games and get bounced in the first round.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Chops said:


> Trade that away and watch this team win 43 games and get bounced in the first round.


Dont worry we will win 40 games alone on Kirk's hussle and grind and Tyrus Thomas will lead the league in "Freak-eshness".


----------



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

Chops said:


> After Chauncey leaves, Detroit won't even be a problem. Ben wasn't the only reason why that series was lost, I wish people would stop making blanket statements. I'm not even concerned about numbers. Who cares if Kirk or Luol average a couple more points? Too many of you are stat freaks. Ben is a scorer, a proven clutch performer and he draws a double-team. His height isn't ideal, but he's a special talent. You really wanna talk stats? 21 points on 45% FG and 42% 3pt. Trade that away and watch this team win 43 games and get bounced in the first round.


O so now Chauncey is leaving? I was under every impression that Detroit is the front runner to signing him. Leave that aside for now. Your right on one thing, Gordon wasn't the only problem with Detroit but he was by far the biggest. Bottom line is, you win with big men, and you can always find a shooting guard that can be a scorer, its much more difficult to find a big frontline player who can score and defend, not to mention he can get in there and bang with NBA bodies today. Can you say that for Noah? Hawes? Wright? We passed on getting Pau Gasol for obvious reasons but passing up on a big guy who "should" be good is something I don't want to do.

IMO its much easier to replace scoring in the backcourt than it is in the front court, prodominantly the 4 or 5 position. Also with a 6'1 body it makes it tough to get to the line unless your name is Allen Iverson. He wasn't getting it done, as far as getting to the line although he did better than previous years. Thabo's 6'7 frame is much more able to drive to the lane creating contact and getting a call instead of Gordon. Im not much of a Gordon fan as some of you guys are but if Horford gives us solid minutes and provides us with easy baskets Gordon can't get, I'd say were better in the long run.

20 ppg for anyone is excellent but because of the lack of size, I just think he needs to go. I'll take Thabo starting next year over Gordon.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

Chops said:


> After Chauncey leaves, Detroit won't even be a problem. Ben wasn't the only reason why that series was lost, I wish people would stop making blanket statements. I'm not even concerned about numbers. Who cares if Kirk or Luol average a couple more points? Too many of you are stat freaks. Ben is a scorer, a proven clutch performer and he draws a double-team. His height isn't ideal, but he's a special talent. You really wanna talk stats? 21 points on 45% FG and 42% 3pt. Trade that away and watch this team win 43 games and get bounced in the first round.


I've seen the term "special" attached to Ben a lot. I don't know what it means. Are Tyrus, Luol, Kirk, Thabo not special? Yeah, Ben is pretty clutch but for all the games he's come up big haven't there been games where he got burned on defense, turned the ball over after a trap at halfcourt, or dribbled into the lane only to have the ball taken away. He is a big part of this team but the team won't fall apart if he's traded.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

If Horford is NBA ready and will have a 10/10 effect or so, and Thabo can be a decent SG, we won't go backwards at all. Thabo would be so much better defensively, and Kirk won't be doing Ben's job as well, so the team might not have the firepower and shooting, but it would be compensated for in other areas.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

Snake said:


> I've seen the term "special" attached to Ben a lot. I don't know what it means. Are Tyrus, Luol, Kirk, Thabo not special? Yeah, Ben is pretty clutch but for all the games he's come up big haven't there been games where he got burned on defense, turned the ball over after a trap at halfcourt, or dribbled into the lane only to have the ball taken away. He is a big part of this team but the team won't fall apart if he's traded.


I'd say that some of those players are special, but in a different way. I wouldn't call Kirk "special" because none of his skills are rare. He plays gritty defense and runs the team Ok. Tyrus is a pretty spectacular athlete and has untapped potential. Luol has the best mid-range game in the league. However, they don't have that "it" factor that makes Gordon a go-to scorer when the game is on the line. So what Gordon turned the ball over a couple times a game. A lot of guys made metal mistakes this season. I never claimed that the team would fall apart, whatsoever. I just said it's not a step forward for next year, or probably the next couple of years. By that time, Wallace is done and we've got two 6'9" power forwards to lead us to the promised land? No thanks.


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

Snake said:


> I've seen the term "special" attached to Ben a lot. I don't know what it means. Are Tyrus, Luol, Kirk, Thabo not special? Yeah, Ben is pretty clutch but for all the games he's come up big haven't there been games where he got burned on defense, turned the ball over after a trap at halfcourt, or dribbled into the lane only to have the ball taken away. He is a big part of this team but the team won't fall apart if he's traded.


I just think people tend to forget how difficult it is to score on a regular basis in the NBA. Gordon is one of the rare players who can do it on a consistent basis and at clutch times. That's why he is special.


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

Since when can Gordon score on a regular basis? Being putridly inconsistent is one of his worst qualities. If by score on a regular basis you mean occasionally get hot and hit 5 three-pointers, then yes, he does score on a regular basis. And don't get me started on creating his own shot.....


Sadly, Hinrich is our best player at creating his own shot.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

T-Time said:


> O so now Chauncey is leaving? I was under every impression that Detroit is the front runner to signing him. Leave that aside for now. Your right on one thing, Gordon wasn't the only problem with Detroit but he was by far the biggest. Bottom line is, you win with big men, and you can always find a shooting guard that can be a scorer, its much more difficult to find a big frontline player who can score and defend, not to mention he can get in there and bang with NBA bodies today. Can you say that for Noah? Hawes? Wright? We passed on getting Pau Gasol for obvious reasons but passing up on a big guy who "should" be good is something I don't want to do.
> 
> IMO its much easier to replace scoring in the backcourt than it is in the front court, prodominantly the 4 or 5 position. Also with a 6'1 body it makes it tough to get to the line unless your name is Allen Iverson. He wasn't getting it done, as far as getting to the line although he did better than previous years. Thabo's 6'7 frame is much more able to drive to the lane creating contact and getting a call instead of Gordon. Im not much of a Gordon fan as some of you guys are but if Horford gives us solid minutes and provides us with easy baskets Gordon can't get, I'd say were better in the long run.
> 
> 20 ppg for anyone is excellent but because of the lack of size, I just think he needs to go. I'll take Thabo starting next year over Gordon.


Actually, you're right about one thing. Gordon receiving so much defensive pressure really hurt the whole team. You saw first-hand what happened when Gordon couldn't get going offensively. We stunk. The whole team played bad the first two games, the 3rd was a major collapse and after that, we hung right with Detroit. You act like the team has no hope right now. 

Paxson trades Gordon for Horford and then he can appease all of you with the "we're still young" excuse for another 4 years.


----------



## Chops (May 30, 2002)

JPTurbo said:


> Since when can Gordon score on a regular basis? Being putridly inconsistent is one of his worst qualities. If by score on a regular basis you mean occasionally get hot and hit 5 three-pointers, then yes, he does score on a regular basis. And don't get me started on creating his own shot.....
> 
> 
> Sadly, Hinrich is our best player at creating his own shot.


Hmm.. Did you just wake up out of a 2-year coma or are you just ignoring all of last season?


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Exactly JPTurbo. I've seen MANY games where Gordon's scoring and shooting % were horrible. He is the definition of streaky. A lot of it has to do with the size of the team we're playing against. If the other team has big, quality guards, he sucks. If they have poor defenders, or smaller or slower guys, then he's on. Miami is a perfect example. A bunch of slower, older, and not real big guards and he shredded them. Detroit is the perfect example of the opposite side of the spectrum. Good, big, physical guards who play D, and he sucks to be nice. He literally sucked against teams like that. 

It all comes back to what some announcer said about Gordon this year...I think in the playoffs. "When he's on, he's on." But he gives you nothing aside from that, and when he's not on, he has no redeeming qualities at all as far as basketball goes. That's why Kirk is hands down, without question, our superior guard. He's a great defender, and he's also pretty good at handling the ball and shooting. If his shot isn't there, he still has a handle and good D. Same can't be said for Gordon.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

Chops said:


> I'd say that some of those players are special, but in a different way. I wouldn't call Kirk "special" because none of his skills are rare. He plays gritty defense and runs the team Ok. Tyrus is a pretty spectacular athlete and has untapped potential. Luol has the best mid-range game in the league. However, they don't have that "it" factor that makes Gordon a go-to scorer when the game is on the line. So what Gordon turned the ball over a couple times a game. A lot of guys made metal mistakes this season. I never claimed that the team would fall apart, whatsoever. I just said it's not a step forward for next year, or probably the next couple of years. By that time, Wallace is done and we've got two 6'9" power forwards to lead us to the promised land? No thanks.


I'm not convinced that Gordon is the go-to scorer some people think he is. It's rare he takes over at the end like Kobe or Wade do. Right now at the end of games we kind of have a go-to scorer by commitee going on, with us going to Gordon somewhat more than Hinrich, Deng, TT, Nocioni. IMO the positives of this trade outweigh the negatives. We'd have a group of Hinrich, Deng, TT, Thabo, Nocioni, Horford, Young(?). We'd still have guys to go to at the end of games.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Chops said:


> After Chauncey leaves, Detroit won't even be a problem. Ben wasn't the only reason why that series was lost, I wish people would stop making blanket statements. I'm not even concerned about numbers. Who cares if Kirk or Luol average a couple more points? Too many of you are stat freaks. Ben is a scorer, a proven clutch performer and he draws a double-team. His height isn't ideal, but he's a special talent. You really wanna talk stats? 21 points on 45% FG and 42% 3pt. Trade that away and watch this team win 43 games and get bounced in the first round.


co-sign to the fullest. Close thread


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I leave for a few hours and I miss this. Catching up on all threads before I give my input.


----------



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

DaBabyBullz said:


> Exactly JPTurbo. I've seen MANY games where Gordon's scoring and shooting % were horrible. He is the definition of streaky. A lot of it has to do with the size of the team we're playing against. If the other team has big, quality guards, he sucks. If they have poor defenders, or smaller or slower guys, then he's on. Miami is a perfect example. A bunch of slower, older, and not real big guards and he shredded them. Detroit is the perfect example of the opposite side of the spectrum. Good, big, physical guards who play D, and he sucks to be nice. He literally sucked against teams like that.


Gordon scored in double figures in 74 out of 82 games played. And for a good 3rd of the season, this was off the bench.

Kirk handles the ball way too much when this happens usually. And people like you will fire back and say that Ben's not doing his job to get open.

You do realize that the game of basketball is played with one ball at a time, aiming at one basket at a time. In that last game, the basketball spent lots of time in that one player's hands. And PJ Browns. And Ben Wallaces. Neither of latter 2 are our main options.





> It all comes back to what some announcer said about Gordon this year...I think in the playoffs. "When he's on, he's on." But he gives you nothing aside from that, and when he's not on, he has no redeeming qualities at all as far as basketball goes. That's why Kirk is hands down, without question, our superior guard. He's a great defender, and he's also pretty good at handling the ball and shooting. If his shot isn't there, he still has a handle and good D. Same can't be said for Gordon.


It's nice to know that Kirk still has his handle even though his game isn't on every time.

In fact, I think Pax should give Hinrich a bonus every time he keeps his dribble and doesn't turn the ball over. 

Kirk is by definition an OK defender. If he can't handle certain other guards because of size, then by definition he's not that great. He has his own limitations, but since Kirk HAS to be THE guy, it's just much more convenient to conceal that by blaming Ben Gordon.

BTW, I always wonder where people get this myth that Kirk gets "too tired" to create on offense, because he has to compensate for Ben's lack of height and supposedly terrible defense and turnover prone basketball. Funny, I don't remember Isaiah Thomas or John Stockton being "too tired" to create for the rest of the team. If he was so tired, why doesn't he stop dribbling and let someone else handle the ball?


----------



## Hodges (Apr 28, 2007)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Funny, I don't remember Isaiah Thomas or John Stockton being "too tired" to create for the rest of the team. If he was so tired, why doesn't he stop dribbling and let someone else handle the ball?


That's why they are two of the greatest PGs ever.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

I have no idea why Atlanta would be interested in Ben Gordon.


----------



## T-Time (Mar 3, 2007)

TripleDouble said:


> I have no idea why Atlanta would be interested in Ben Gordon.


I don't know either but thats why they're Atlanta and havent been to the playoffs in 8 straight years. Why not have another bone head decision? They passed on D-Williams and Chris Paul two years ago I wouldn't be suprised if they made Gordon their point guard that they desperately need.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Exactly JPTurbo. I've seen MANY games where Gordon's scoring and shooting % were horrible. He is the definition of streaky. A lot of it has to do with the size of the team we're playing against. If the other team has big, quality guards, he sucks. If they have poor defenders, or smaller or slower guys, then he's on. Miami is a perfect example. A bunch of slower, older, and not real big guards and he shredded them. Detroit is the perfect example of the opposite side of the spectrum. Good, big, physical guards who play D, and he sucks to be nice. He literally sucked against teams like that.
> 
> It all comes back to what some announcer said about Gordon this year...I think in the playoffs. "When he's on, he's on." But he gives you nothing aside from that, and when he's not on, he has no redeeming qualities at all as far as basketball goes. That's why Kirk is hands down, without question, our superior guard. He's a great defender, and he's also pretty good at handling the ball and shooting. If his shot isn't there, he still has a handle and good D. Same can't be said for Gordon.


Gee, for all those games he shot 0%, he must have shot an equal number at 92% to come out to his 46% FG for the whole season.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Funny, I don't remember Isaiah Thomas or John Stockton being "too tired" to create for the rest of the team. If he was so tired, why doesn't he stop dribbling and let someone else handle the ball?


That is funny.
Truly funny.

As funny as "No Excuses" too :lol:


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Gordon scored in double figures in 74 out of 82 games played. And for a good 3rd of the season, this was off the bench.
> 
> Kirk handles the ball way too much when this happens usually. And people like you will fire back and say that Ben's not doing his job to get open.
> 
> You do realize that the game of basketball is played with one ball at a time, aiming at one basket at a time. In that last game, the basketball spent lots of time in that one player's hands. And PJ Browns. And Ben Wallaces. Neither of latter 2 are our main options.


I for one think that a "go-to scorer" should be held to a higher standard than just scoring 10 points. Yes, Kirk has bad games and so does Ben. Kirk had a bad stretch of the season and so did Ben. I don't think those games when our offense plays like crap can be pinpointed to one player. However when Ben isn't scoring he just isn't very productive. People always say that Gordon is the guy that draws double teams. Frankly he doesn't handle them that well and he doesn't often create for others for them.



> It's nice to know that Kirk still has his handle even though his game isn't on every time.
> 
> In fact, I think Pax should give Hinrich a bonus every time he keeps his dribble and doesn't turn the ball over.
> 
> ...


Kirk has off games, all players do. However Kirk always contributes something. Saying that he's an OK defender is a bit misleading. He's one of the best defenders at PG. The only other PG who is close to or a better defender than Kirk is Kidd. Kirk is also one of the few PG who guards the opponents bigger guards. Our defense would be better if Kirk would defend the PG and Thabo the SG.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Did sloth get banned? Why isn't he in this thread?


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

rwj333 said:


> Did sloth get banned? Why isn't he in this thread?


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Btw, I'm in for Gordon for Brand Jr


----------



## Hodges (Apr 28, 2007)

rwj333 said:


> Did sloth get banned? Why isn't he in this thread?


The pro-Gordon crowd told him Shakira was performing on MTV tonight.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

How legit is this rumor?


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

rwj333 said:


> Did sloth get banned? Why isn't he in this thread?


http://www.basketballforum.com/chicago-bulls/362865-sam-smith-marion-2.html#post4810962



Mebarak said:


> When we're talking about trading Ben Gordon, we're talking about a real star, a Lebron James, Dwyane Wade, Dwight Howard, Dirk Nowtizki, Tim Duncan, Yao Ming, Deron Williams, Greg Oden, Kevin Garnett, Carmelo Anthony, Kevin Durant, Steve Nash, Amare Stoudemire, or Kobe Bryant level player. Not some Shawn Marion level player.


:whistling:


----------



## Hodges (Apr 28, 2007)

"We're talking about Ben Gordon, we're talking about a real star. I mean listen, we're sitting here talking about Gordon. Not Shawn Marion, not Chris Paul, not Deron Williams, we're talking about Gordon. We're talking about Ben Gordon. We're talking about Gordon, man."

Am I the only one who believes that Sloth is really an anti-Gordon, double-agent saboteur?

I love that guy.


----------



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

Snake said:


> I for one think that a "go-to scorer" should be held to a higher standard than just scoring 10 points. Yes, Kirk has bad games and so does Ben. Kirk had a bad stretch of the season and so did Ben. I don't think those games when our offense plays like crap can be pinpointed to one player. However when Ben isn't scoring he just isn't very productive. People always say that Gordon is the guy that draws double teams. Frankly he doesn't handle them that well and he doesn't often create for others for them.


Productive doing what else? I see a lot of 10 point games, where he has 5 assists, 4 rebounds. I gets it's not all in the stats, right. It must be something intangibly negative about him.

I'm curious, why don't people spin this supposed "inconsistency" as him being a team player who simply doesn't care for meeting a quota of statistics? After all this is a guy who despite being the teams leading scorer came off the bench for a third of the season with relatively little trouble. His highest scoring games do all come when they are indeed needed.



> Kirk has off games, all players do. However Kirk always contributes something. Saying that he's an OK defender is a bit misleading. He's one of the best defenders at PG. The only other PG who is close to or a better defender than Kirk is Kidd. Kirk is also one of the few PG who guards the opponents bigger guards. Our defense would be better if Kirk would defend the PG and Thabo the SG.


We might hold a team to 70 points with this "ideal" defensive lineup, but we'd probably have trouble cracking 58.

It's pretty easy to say he's contributing something, when what he's good at that which is very difficult to quantify. You won't easily recall bad defensive performances as you do bad offensive performances (it's just as easy to keep remembering bad defensive performances). Saying he's always contributing something is like saying god exists because you can't disprove it. 

The irony is that clutch ability and 4th quarter offensive performance is also somewhat difficult to quantify, especially if you don't go to the trouble of watching games.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

I would love to get into the debate about Gordon vs Hinirch, but it seems like we've all danced that dance way too many times. Plus, its just not the same without having Sloth in this arguement..

But i will say that both brings something that we need to the table. I would much rather keep both with the Bulls, unless either one of them can bring in a significantly better basketball player.


----------



## Hodges (Apr 28, 2007)

kulaz3000 said:


> I would love to get into the debate about Gordon vs Hinrich, but it seems like we've all danced that dance way too many times. Plus, its just not the same without having Sloth in this arguement..



+1


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Productive doing what else? I see a lot of 10 point games, where he has 5 assists, 4 rebounds. I gets it's not all in the stats, right. It must be something intangibly negative about him.
> 
> I'm curious, why don't people spin this supposed "inconsistency" as him being a team player who simply doesn't care for meeting a quota of statistics? After all this is a guy who despite being the teams leading scorer came off the bench for a third of the season with relatively little trouble. His highest scoring games do all come when they are indeed needed.
> 
> ...


Ben turns the ball over quite a lot more than I would like and some of them are just plain silly. His defense is mediocre at best. You say that Hinrinch's defense is hard to quantify (I'm assuming that's what you were reffering to) but most of the league considers him a good defender, he was 2nd team all-defensive, and my opinion is that he is a good defender. It's hardly a reach to say he's contributing on defense even when he's not on offense.

I also don't think our offense would be as bad as you think it would. Gordon takes the most field goal attempts on the team. His percentages are good but they're not much better than Hinrich's, Deng's, and even Nocioni's. When Gordon's shots are distributed among the rest of the players, coupled with the improvement of our young player, along with the addition of the 9 pick and Horford(an actual low post presence), then I think our offense would function just fine.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

This is interesting since Horford never even worked out for us. 

Pax said the other day that outside of the top 2 picks, there was no one worth trading up for because of the asking price, yet two days later he's willing to give up Gordon?

This type of move would trigger Pax to become more active in trade talks for Kobe, IMO. Once free agency starts we'll have more flexibilty in terms of including PJ, Noce, Sweets, or Allen to match salaries. If we wait awhile longer we can even include the #9 pick as salary too.

If we could get Kobe, Brewer (#9), Bonzi Wells or Corey Maggette via trade to replace Gordon, then hell yes I'd be in favor of this move. Horford could play center in the East right now... but looking at his frame he could easily add even more weight. I think his upside is a bigger, more offensively skilled Antonio Davis.


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> If he was so tired, why doesn't he stop dribbling and let someone else handle the ball?


Like Gordon? :lol: 

I'm not saying Hinrich is a perfect player, and I think I was the first to bring up the idea of trading both Gordon and Hinrich along with Noc for Kobe while selecting Conley. Neither Ben or Kirk is an ideal player. Both have too many weaknesses and we won't win a championship with the two of them as our backcourt. So if you have to trade one of them to get another asset, it's hard to imagine trading Hinrich when the ONLY thing Gordon brings to the team is the ability to hit an open jumper. 

Horford seems like a great power forward with a smooth jumper and some nice post moves, but it's tough to envision the future of the team with Al and Tyrus together as the big men. I guess we could field something similar to the two bigs Detroit has now.

So is it the perfect trade? Not really, but considering trading Gordon makes the most sense, if Pax likes Horford, I guess I'm okay with it. It would be interesting to have a future big rotation of Thomas/Horford/Hawes or Thomas/Horford/Wright.


----------



## Snake (Jun 10, 2007)

kulaz3000 said:


> I would love to get into the debate about *Kirk* vs *Hinirch*, but it seems like we've all danced that dance way too many times. Plus, its just not the same without having Sloth in this arguement..
> 
> But i will say that both brings something that we need to the table. I would much rather keep both with the Bulls, unless either one of them can bring in a significantly better basketball player.


Yeah, you can make a good arguement for either side.:lol: :lol:


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

SALO said:


> This is interesting since Horford never even worked out for us.
> 
> Pax said the other day that outside of the top 2 picks, there was no one worth trading up for because of the asking price, yet two days later he's willing to give up Gordon?
> 
> ...


Solid post.

I'm so hoping this is true and will come out of no-where since things have been Too Quiet on the Bulls Front. I can't find any other forum/site confirming that they heard this on the ESPN Draft Show or anywhere else.

Its a grea scenario for us. Too bad it probably won't happen.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Snake said:


> Yeah, you can make a good arguement for either side.:lol: :lol:


Yeah, something read wrong in my mind but i didn't pick it up. Thanks for the heads up. That was a brain lapse, too much trade talk. Well thats my excuse anyway..

I honestly think that Hinrich will continue to be an all defensive guard. I also think he can improve as a point guard, but he needs to learn to get the ball to the players in better positions and in their respective sweet spots. He always has great intentions on passing the ball most of the time, but at times he doesn't have great timing with the pass, or he'd pass it to a place where the particular player can't do anything with it. His got to know his personel alot better and that will also make him a better player. He also needs to improve his ball handling, sometimes he dribbles way too high for a guard, and thats a bad habit to have espically when your trying to drive to the hoop. His shooting has gradually improved and i think it will continue to improve in time. But i think its fair for people to say that at times he gets gased early defending the best scorer on the other team, but at the same time that shouldn't be an excuse. 

As for Gordon, he is a good scorer, and sometimes GREAT scorer. Though he has improved on his consistentcy i would wish it were to better, is that too much to ask? I think the gripe is that Gordon is one dimensional, when he doesn't score it also effects his defense and aggressiveness in all areas of his game. But when he is ON, then he is an unstoppable force that can score, pass, and play well.. adequate defense. But i'm over the fact about him being a poor ball handler and passer, i think even he knows that he needs to improve on those areas. Like Hinrich, sometimes he just makes bad decisions and he is definitly the leader on our team atleast in jumping in the air and not being able to do anything with it. Im always flabagastered whenever he does this, because he does it many times, and don't even bring up his cross court passes on half court sets. Another thing that fustrates me is his flopping, and how he gets backed down in the post by players half his weight. He is a terrible defender. Im sorry but he is, sure he has become better since his rookie year, but back then he really didn't play defense at all, and now that atleast he attempts to play defense, but his still quite shocking. 

Conclusion is that both a good players, obviously not all stars, but you could say that are borderline all stars for sure. They both have their positives and both have their negatives, but they are still relatively young and have time to improve. But if we had a chance to get someone like Kobe or another superstar and it had to involve either Gordon or Hinrich i would do it. I also dont think neither players are untouchable in Paxsons eyes. The only player that is untouchable at the moment, its Deng.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

SALO said:


> If we could get Kobe, Brewer (#9), Bonzi Wells or Corey Maggette via trade to replace Gordon, then hell yes I'd be in favor of this move. Horford could play center in the East right now... but looking at his frame he could easily add even more weight. I think his upside is a bigger, more offensively skilled Antonio Davis.


Good idea. But i pass on both Bonzi and Maggette though. I actually love Maggette and am a really big fan of his, but if Gordon fustrates you on defense, Maggette will fustrate you on the offense. He is great because his a solid defender, and he'll also play aggressive on offensive, but his a bad ball handler, his a bad shooter, and if his left out of the offense he stops being aggressive. Not to mention that he often drives to the hoop with his head down alot(which maybe explains why he gets to the foul line so many times).Thats if you consider sliding him into the shooting guard position, but if you were to play him as a small forward he would be fine with his qualities, but we have Deng who is already alot better than he is.

As for Bonzi, his a good player but he dominates the ball. I don't think he'd fit in our system. Plus, i chringe at the thought of a ball dominating 6'5 player who becomes our low post scoring threat. 

I think BOTH Bonzi and Maggette will drive Skiles crazy.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

The Buddy avatar


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

Mr. T said:


> The Buddy avatar


Good work.

This is your best one yet.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

kulaz3000 said:


> As for Bonzi, his a good player but he dominates the ball.


Bonzi didn't dominate the ball on those tremendously deep Portland teams, nor did he during his stint in Sacramento. I never really watched him at Memphis, and he barely played in Houston. 



> I don't think he'd fit in our system.


Pax made a play for him at this year's trade deadline, so he must have thought he could.



> Plus, i chringe at the thought of a ball dominating 6'5 player who becomes our low post scoring threat.


Why? Did you not see him DESTROY Bruce Bowen AND Manu Ginobili in the low-post during the Kings/Spurs series a year ago? They also had Tim Duncan back there to help cover for them, yet Bonzi still did whatever he wanted. A healthy, in-shape Bonzi Wells is a better low-post threat than most big men.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I'm completely amazed by the ability of some to let facts get in the way of a stupid argument.

If Gordon is traded for horford, I'd personally resurrect the Fire Pax club.


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

As a Blazer fan with no direct interest in these players I got to say Gordon for the #3 is an absolute no brainer deal for Chicago.

Minnesota is willing to trade KG for the #3 and #11, Gordon isn't close to the player that KG is. Gordon is probably worth less than Kirk, Deng, or Tyrus in a trade, do you guys really think the 4th most valuable Bull is close to the value of Garnett or Amare?


And regarding Bonzi, he is a beast on the block when he is motivated and happy with his role. He scored 50 points in a playoff game for the Blazers, but he had ~10 points the next night, the guy can be streaky. He is not the best outside shooter, but he's a solid defender. I never thought of him playing for the Bulls but that would be a great fit with their outside shooting; if he was able to stay motivated and keep his head in the game. But Bonzi has some major maturity and mental issues. Maybe Skiles could get something out of him, maybe not.


----------



## Fergus (Oct 2, 2002)

Here are a couple of possible explanations for the trade.

Money - so much always comes down to money.
Gordon is going to be due a big, big raise soon. The Bulls will defintely have to pay Deng and may be thinking that they can not afford to pay Gordon, Deng, Hinrich and Wallace. This would be a lot of money to invest in a team that still has no low post scoring.

Which leads to number two!
The whole offense would improve with a decent low post threat. It would open up the perimter game and give the Bulls an option for those days the outside shots are not falling.

Three
The Bulls may have decided that Gordon's defensive limitations will always push him towards a "6th man" role.


----------



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

Snake said:


> Ben turns the ball over quite a lot more than I would like and some of them are just plain silly. His defense is mediocre at best. You say that Hinrinch's defense is hard to quantify (I'm assuming that's what you were reffering to) but most of the league considers him a good defender, he was 2nd team all-defensive, and my opinion is that he is a good defender. It's hardly a reach to say he's contributing on defense even when he's not on offense.


What makes Ben's defense so mediocre? Any specific examples? 

One game I remember people blamed Gordon for being short and being exploited was a New Jersey home game we lost. Someone said it was because he was being posted up by Vince Carter, but Vince only scored about 4 points off of him and were mid-range jumpshots.

This was also a game where Kirk recorded a double double, but pretty much lost the game by hogging the ball. 19 points, 12 assists. Passes rarely went to Gordon and Deng. If you were only to look at statistics it would look like the game of his life, but everyone watching it was probably underwhelmed, considering that the offense lost a big lead. I think Gordon had 21 first half-points. The offense then stagnated because Kirk wanted to get in on the fun and show his ability to keep his dribble and pass to Ben Wallace.


> I also don't think our offense would be as bad as you think it would. Gordon takes the most field goal attempts on the team. His percentages are good but they're not much better than Hinrich's, Deng's, and even Nocioni's. When Gordon's shots are distributed among the rest of the players, coupled with the improvement of our young player, along with the addition of the 9 pick and Horford(an actual low post presence), then I think our offense would function just fine.


This isn't a game played on paper and can be resolved by simple math and vague usage of verbiage.

You also have to realize that Gordon probably provides the most variety and threat on offense. You're taking away a deadly 3 point shooter, a budding ability to get into the paint and draw fouls, a mid-range shot, a threat late in the game if you need a quick score. 

The threat late in the game and to streak is definitely underrated, especially if you're a fan of NBA live video games, you just HAVE to keep Kirk on the team, and it becomes an eyesore to look at Ben's listed height as 6'3. 

Without the streak scoring, we don't see those double-digit 4th quarters or expect any games where everyone's playing horribly to be salvaged. How do people miss this or not think that it's an important, unique skill? It's not just 4th quarter runs, it's also the ability to close games with key shots. He didn't clutch up as much as in previous years, but his plays often acted as the stopgag before things got worse.

The irony is that he probably doesn't turn the ball over as much as any of the other players when push comes to shove. 

There would be no playoff run in 2005-2006 if it weren't for Ben's games against Indiana, New Jersey, Washington, and that was with an "incomplete" game relative to now.

Ben might take the most shots, but he also plays the least out of the core 3, so he's expected to do the most with his time out there.

If we were to add an Al Horford type player to supplant BG, the only way we'd win is by being the better team for 48 minutes. It's a more dominating way to play inside, but consider us done if we don't win the first three quarters. We wouldn't steal many games and would probably have a lot more games stolen from us. By definition as more "consistent" players, Kirk and Deng alone are not going to suddenly win us these games that we needed if they show up playing poorly. They aren't stopping any runs from happening.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

Fergus said:


> Here are a couple of possible explanations for the trade.
> 
> Money - so much always comes down to money.
> Gordon is going to be due a big, big raise soon. The Bulls will defintely have to pay Deng and may be thinking that they can not afford to pay Gordon, Deng, Hinrich and Wallace. This would be a lot of money to invest in a team that still has no low post scoring.
> ...


Four - The trade rumor is a complete fabrication. 

Practically everything Paxson has said in the past indicates that this is not something he would do. He has voiced on many occasions his lack of enthusiasm for adding more rookies to this already young team. That includes mentioning on many occasions that he would like to trade his picks for a veteran. But this rumor has him changing his mind and trading a proven veteran star for a rookie draft pick to be added to the three other picks he already has.

The Bulls as currently constructed are one of the top 3 teams in the eastern conference. This trade would immediately relegate them mediocrity for at least a year or two for a chance to draft a player that Paxson has not even worked out or interviewed. It's insane.


----------



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

Anyone else think if we traded Gordon for the third pick Paxson would be targeting Yi.


----------



## dougthonus (Jul 18, 2006)

Gordon makes offense easier for everyone else on the floor by never allowing his man to leave him alone and by fairly consistently drawing a double team on the perimeter. Just trying to replace his points is a stupid exercise. Of course we're going to replace his points somewhere, the problem is that he's extremely efficient in scoring per shot and one of the better per minute scorers in the league.

If you think Thabo is going to replace him then you have to have an opinion of Thabo that is not supported by any evidence of actually seeing him play. Thabo's going to come closer to Chris Duhonizing the offense forcing double teams on everyone else than he is to freeing people up. Thabo's also only an average athlete and suffered a ton of blow bys this year. 

Anyway, first, I'd have to say that I'd be absolutely floored if this rumor had any validity to it at all, and second if it does, the Horford will need to be an Elton Brand like player (or whomever we draft at 3) to make this deal worthwhile. That's an absolutely huge risk for an organization to take that is clearly on it's way up with such an extremely young talent base. So in short, I think this whole rumor is BS. If it's not BS, then we'd need someone to pan out in a huge way at #3, much more so than what you'd anticipate, to make it work in our favor.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 8, 2002)

Sweet. I was hoping we could make a move where we'd spin our wheels for another year. This is what the deal does, essentially. Buys us yet another year or two of spinning our wheels. We have no one on the team who is capable of creating their own offense at Gordon's level. We have no one who is capable of drawing double teams at Gordon's level.

So yeah, let's ship him out. Makes sense.

I could go on and rant some more...but there is no point. KC is right on the money with his stuff. Always good to see an old-school bbb.net'er posting back on the Bulls forum.....


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I'd be really torn on a deal like this. On the one side, Gordon is a very good player but he's fairly easily replaced. Getting a guy like Horford to pair with Thomas for the next 10 years is pretty appealing. Yet, losing Gordon would still be pretty hard to take.

The thing that makes me believe that this isn't legit is when I listened to that Paxson interview that was posted here recently. In that interview, he specifically cited Hinrich, Deng, Gordon and Thomas as being regulars at the Berto and working on their games. (Duhon and Thabo not mentioned curiously enough..) Pax knows what he has in Gordon and he's seen first-hand how Ben approaches the game and specifically the offseason. I'd find it pretty darned difficult to trade a guy _I know_ is a hard worker even if he isn't necessarily the ideal 2-guard for my team. Replacing his points and his lack of size is fairly easy to do. Replacing his desire for the game and his self-motivation is a LOT more difficult.

I know I've been open to trading Gordon. I think, of the tradeable players on the Bulls Gordon gives you the most value back and he's the easiest to replace. That being said, I still REALLY like his game and what he brings to the team. He does spread the floor because you simply can't leave him or he'll make you pay. He does work very hard and you just don't know if what you're getting back will do the same. He's a difficult guy to assess because what he does well, he does very well (score!). He'll never be 6'6" and he'll probably be an average defender at best. In the end, I think you take the good with the bad and keep it over the unknown.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Draco said:


> As a Blazer fan with no direct interest in these players I got to say Gordon for the #3 is an absolute no brainer deal for Chicago.
> 
> Minnesota is willing to trade KG for the #3 and #11, Gordon isn't close to the player that KG is. Gordon is probably worth less than Kirk, Deng, or Tyrus in a trade, do you guys really think the 4th most valuable Bull is close to the value of Garnett or Amare?
> 
> ...


So because one of the worst GMs in the league is willing to trade an unhappy star for the #3 and #11, the Bulls should trade a guy who averaged 21 ppg on a team that made it to the East Semis for a possibility. This would be Brand vs Chandler all over again and we all know how that worked out. If anything, the Spurs have showed that you need one sure thing and then just don't even concern yourself with high picks. Look at the amount of Top 10 picks who have busted over the years. Trading a good scorer for potential will bite you in the *** everytime.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

T.Shock said:


> So because one of the worst GMs in the league is willing to trade an unhappy star for the #3 and #11, the Bulls should trade a guy who averaged 21 ppg on a team that made it to the East Semis for a possibility. This would be Brand vs Chandler all over again and we all know how that worked out. If anything, the Spurs have showed that you need one sure thing and then just don't even concern yourself with high picks. Look at the amount of Top 10 picks who have busted over the years. Trading a good scorer for potential will bite you in the *** everytime.


ESPN just reported minutes ago on SC that Phoenix was not an original party to these talks but they said the Suns say its not out of the question that it could happen. They report the talks are still alive.

So why isn't Paxson trying to out bid the Hawks? Isn't this one of the possible moves we've been waiting for? Someone explain to me why we sit this one out.

I will trade Gordon, #9 and Noce or ST PJ all day long for Amare. I'm sure there must be something we can do with Gordon or Hinrich and the #9 and filler that would get McHale's interest.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

dougthonus said:


> Gordon makes offense easier for everyone else on the floor by never allowing his man to leave him alone and by fairly consistently drawing a double team on the perimeter. Just trying to replace his points is a stupid exercise. Of course we're going to replace his points somewhere, the problem is that he's extremely efficient in scoring per shot and one of the better per minute scorers in the league.
> 
> If you think Thabo is going to replace him then you have to have an opinion of Thabo that is not supported by any evidence of actually seeing him play. Thabo's going to come closer to Chris Duhonizing the offense forcing double teams on everyone else than he is to freeing people up. Thabo's also only an average athlete and suffered a ton of blow bys this year.
> 
> Anyway, first, I'd have to say that I'd be absolutely floored if this rumor had any validity to it at all, and second if it does, the Horford will need to be an Elton Brand like player (or whomever we draft at 3) to make this deal worthwhile. That's an absolutely huge risk for an organization to take that is clearly on it's way up with such an extremely young talent base. So in short, I think this whole rumor is BS. If it's not BS, then we'd need someone to pan out in a huge way at #3, much more so than what you'd anticipate, to make it work in our favor.


+1


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

Can anyone get a 3 way trade to work under tradechecker using Chicago? I can't. Amare is BYC and and KG's contract is too huge.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> So because one of the worst GMs in the league is willing to trade an unhappy star for the #3 and #11, the Bulls should trade a guy who averaged 21 ppg on a team that made it to the East Semis for a possibility. This would be Brand vs Chandler all over again and we all know how that worked out. If anything, the Spurs have showed that you need one sure thing and then just don't even concern yourself with high picks. Look at the amount of Top 10 picks who have busted over the years. Trading a good scorer for potential will bite you in the *** everytime.


+1


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> What makes Ben's defense so mediocre? Any specific examples?
> 
> One game I remember people blamed Gordon for being short and being exploited was a New Jersey home game we lost. Someone said it was because he was being posted up by Vince Carter, but Vince only scored about 4 points off of him and were mid-range jumpshots.
> 
> ...


+2


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Trading Gordon for the #3 makes no sense unless we are trying to acquire another draft pick to then make another trade. I am pretty sure this rumor will be spun into "well Paxson ALMOST traded Gordon for the #3 in '07" unless Paxson comes out and dismisses it today.

The talks probably went something like this:

Paxson to Atlanta: Would you say to taking Ben Gordon for the #3?
Knight: Very interested, why?
Paxson: Ok, one moment.

*ring ring, ring ring*

Paxson to Minnesota: I heard you were willing to trade KG for #3 and the #11. What if I could give you the #3 and #9?
McHale: I'm not trying to trade KG for draft picks.

*click*

Knight to colleagues: Pax put me on hold but wants the #3 for Gordon!!!
Paxson: Sorry about that Billy. It didn't pan out.
Knight: So you don't want the #3 for Gordon?
Paxson: No Billy.
Knight: What about #3 and Childress for Gordon.
Paxson: No Billy.
Knight: C'monnnnnnnnnnn...
Paxson: No Billy!
Knight: C'mon, C'monnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...
Paxson: NO BILLY!!!

*click*


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

I don't believe this rumor has any legs nor do I believe it will or should happen.

ACE


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I don't believe the rumor and I'd disagree with the move if it's not part of a larger, star-acquiring trade. I'm fine shipping Ben out if you're bringing in Kobe, KG, etc. But straight up for a rookie PF? I'm sorry, but we need Ben's points and we don't need to trade away guys from the core to get younger.


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

What makes the Bulls a better team?

Al Horford + Corey Brewer (If Brewer is gone, assume Julian Wright/Mike Conley)

- OR -

Ben Gordon + Spencer Hawes (I assume Yi Jianlian & Joakim Noah will be gone before # 9)

*Option # 1*
PG: Hinrich/Duhon
SG: Brewer/Sefolosha
SF: Deng/Nocioni/Griffin
PF: Thomas/Horford/Allen
C: Wallace/Horford/MLE


*Option # 2*
PG: Hinrich/Duhon
SG: Gordon/Sefolosha
SF: Deng/Nocioni/Griffin
PF: Thomas/MLE/Allen
C: Wallace/Hawes

Plusses and minuses to both scenarios.


----------

