# NY Daily News: BG wants 70 Million



## Hustle (Dec 17, 2003)

> Ben Gordon wants a $70 million extension from the Bulls, who are looking to give Gordon no more than Kirk Hinrich money ($47.5 million) and first want to extend Luol Deng, a player they regard more highly than the Mount Vernon product. New York Daily News


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...isiah_thomas_has_no_place_to_turn_other_.html


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

*Re: NY Times: BG wants 70 Million*

Did the New York Daily news buy the New York Times?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: NY Daily News: BG wants 70 Million*



Good Hope said:


> Did the New York Daily news buy the New York Times?


Nope, and I've fixed the thread title.

And since the Daily News is known for it's accuracy.............


----------



## Brothaman33 (Feb 21, 2006)

If he wants 70 million were in trouble, d you really think that Pax will pay that? When he and everyone else knows that theyed like to sign deng 1st, That gives Deng more leverage......I don't like the looks of this...


----------



## quench23 (Mar 26, 2006)

ben gordon could be an allstar on any other team but the bulls.


----------



## O2K (Nov 19, 2002)

are there any teams next year that are in position to give him that much money?


chances are both deng and bg stay in chicago, these are just the begining of negotiations.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I don't see BG7 getting 70 million in an open market. He will get 60 max, more like KMart2 money.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

its called market value folks.

what did joe johnson get ?

larry hughes?

he avg. like 21 points last season he is going to get near max money , even more if he shows he is capable of running pg...or at least convinces the right GM he can.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

"the Bulls, who are looking to give Gordon no more than Kirk Hinrich money ($47.5 million)"

Where in the world would they come up with that idea?


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

There may be many good FA next year. Many players from the loaded 04 class haven't signed extensions: Okafor, Gordon, Deng, Iguodala, Biedrins, Josh Smith. Also, Marion, Arenas, Brand, and Iverson will be able to opt out and just might given their teams. 

All of those guys are going to demand a lot of money, but how many teams will have cap space? 

My unofficial tally is Philly (will probably to use it to resign Iguodala), Atlanta (ditto for Josh Smith and Childress), Charlotte (Okafor), Washington (Arenas), and Minnesota (Al Jefferson). 

In all likelihood... not many. 

Paxson has the leverage, and should use it.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

quench23 said:


> ben gordon could be an allstar on any other team but the bulls.



No he couldnt. Thats the stupidest thing I've heard today.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> its called market value folks.
> 
> what did joe johnson get ?
> 
> ...


Those deals were made years ago. The more recent comparisons would be Kevin Martin's extension with the Kings and the one Devin Harris signed with the Mavs. 

Gordon should get more than Devin Harris but less than Kevin Martin.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

SALO said:


> Those deals were made years ago. The more recent comparisons would be Kevin Martin's extension with the Kings and the one Devin Harris signed with the Mavs.
> 
> Gordon should get more than Devin Harris but less than Kevin Martin.


gordon is a far more significant player than both guys, gordon is also a go to guy for his entire career ...a status neither martin nor harris has achieved.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Oh my, the potential pitfalls of "win later."

If Gordon wants 70, ****e, how much for Deng?

And we locked Wallace up for 4 years - 60 million and Nocioni for a long term deal.

Yowza. I don't want to be in Pax's shoes.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Oh my, the potential pitfalls of "win later."
> 
> If Gordon wants 70, ****e, how much for Deng?
> 
> ...


[strike]You, K4E, should never use the words "win later" in this forum. Nothing good ever came after you use that phrase in any of past threads. Just same old bickering from both sides.

I for one want to punch you in the face everytime i read your "win later". :mad2: :mad2: :mad2:[/strike]
--Lets not talk about posters on the forum. Save that for PM's, ok? --GB 

Back to the thread, I think $60M for 5 years for both Deng and Gordon is more like it.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I don't want to be in Pax's shoes.


i wouldn't wish that on deng or gordon, or any of the bulls, either.


----------



## DengNabbit (Feb 23, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Oh my, the potential pitfalls of "win later."
> 
> If Gordon wants 70, ****e, how much for Deng?
> 
> ...



Again, we pretend like we're the only team going through these things. This is how the game is played, we go through the negotiations and compromise. Gordon can't get 70 mil from just anyone; they'll need the cap room. With a lack of interest from teams next offseason, he knows this could all blow up in his face. That 70 mil, by definition, will come down a ways. this is what a negotiation is.

It didn't get done with Curry because he hadn't accomplished anything, still hasn't. You'll roll out some stats he's put up, but he's in the same boat with all the NBA players that havent played in the big games Gordon/Deng/Hinrich have.


----------



## darlets (Jul 31, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> Again, we pretend like we're the only team going through these things. This is how the game is played, we go through the negotiations and compromise. Gordon can't get 70 mil from just anyone; they'll need the cap room. With a lack of interest from teams next offseason, he knows this could all blow up in his face. That 70 mil, by definition, will come down a ways. this is what a negotiation is.


It's a good point, whether Gordon understands it is another matter.

The bigger sticking point was Gordon's comment previously about paying for him to give up a year on the length of his contract. This is in stark contrasts to Paxson opinion that signing now means more security and hence a lower price.

Gordon see signing this year should get him a higher per year rate when Paxson thinks the total opposite.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

Good points. Next year's free agency is going to be one of the best of all time. That means less money for guys like Gordon. If he's really asking for this much, it might be better to wait and match.


----------



## MRedd22 (Jun 10, 2006)

Who does BG think he is? Rashard Lewis?


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

I think trying to predict the market and trying to save a few million dollars per year on a guy's contract is playing with fire. We are going to end up with the Cleveland situation and be worried about who's in camp next year instead of preparing for a championship run. $12M / year for Gordon and $13M / year for Deng should be enough. We are talking about trying to save $1M / year on each contract, which to me just isn't worth it. 

$12M / year would be the same a Richard Jefferson which is fair in my book. We are going to fine with the luxury tax so we' don't need to act like $70M contracts are ridiculously too much.


Gordon getting ready to carry around his bags of cash.


----------



## Hodges (Apr 28, 2007)

lougehrig said:


> Gordon getting ready to carry around his bags of cash.


:lol:


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Salaries for the top 20 in the league in scoring last year minus Gordon (who was 15th by the way):

1. Kobe - $19.5M (up to $24M in 2010)
2. Carmelo - $13M (up to $18.5M in 2011)
3. Arenas - $12M (free agent after this season)
4. LeBron - $13M (up to $17M in 2011)
5. Redd - $14.5M (up to $18.3M in 2010)
6. Allen - $16M (up to $18.8M in 2010)
7. Iverson - $20 M (up to $22M in 2009)
8. Carter - $13M (up to $18M in 2011)
9. Joe Johnson - $13.5M (up to $15M in 2010)
10. Nowitzki - $16.3M (up to $21.5M in 2011)
11. McGrady - $19M (up to $23M in 2010)
12. Randolph - $13M (up to $17M in 2011)
13. Bosh - $13.3M (up to $17M in 2011)
14. Garnett -$24M ($21M until 2011)
15. Gordon
16. Boozer - $11M (up to $12M in 2010)
17. Brand - $15.3M (free agent after this season)
18. Stoudemire - $13.8M (up to $17.8M)
19. Kevin Martin - $11M average after this year
20. Duncan - $19M (up to $22M in 2010)
21. Jamison - $16M (free agent after this season)
Also: Pierce - $16M (up to $21.5M in 2011)
Rashard - $15M (up to $24M in 2013)

Gordon projects to be a 23-24 ppg scorer and is 24 years old.
Deng projects to be a 20 ppg scorer and is 21 years old.

If people expect Gordon to sign for $9M or $10M a season are dreaming. He is going to be a top 10 scorer in this league for the next 5-7 seasons. Looking at these other contracts and what Arenas will get over the summer (max contract), $14M is probably a deal. Gordon is also somewhat better than Kevin Martin.

Something else to remember is that next summer alot of free agents will out there. But Gordon and Deng are still very young. Alot of free agents (Duncan, Jermaine O'Neal, Brand, Marion, Baron Davis, Magette, Artest, Jamison) are in their late 20's or early 30's. Teams would love to sign a 25 year old Gordon versus some of these older guys. Plus they are have all these contracts expiring to have money available to sign Gordon and Deng.


----------



## WhoDaBest23 (Apr 16, 2003)

Boy if Deng sees Gordon wanting $70 million, I can't imagine how much he's going to want...


----------



## mgolding (Jul 20, 2002)

1. The article is most probably complete crap.

2. It's utterly ridiculous that people are attempting to correlate PPG directly to what a guy should get paid. Gordon's a very talented 6'1" shooting guard. Unless you're iverson 5-10 years ago Im not paying over 60 million for 5 years, and I'd be pushing for something closer to 50 while he's still under contract for 1 year. Hinrich is more valuable on the open market, as you'd expect an all round 6'3" PG to be, so why would grodon get over 20 million more.


----------



## Mateo (Sep 23, 2006)

Actually, PPG is the #1 indicator of a player's salary. It's not the #1 indicator of their basketball value, but it is the reason they get paid.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Even if this article is true, it's no reason to flinch, nor is it any reason to fear being in Paxsons shoes.

Getting the team to where it is now was a bigger challenge, IMHO, and Paxsons gonna look at this as just another challenge along the way.

I do hope your top ten scorer predictions are true.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Oh my, the potential pitfalls of "win later."
> 
> If Gordon wants 70, ****e, how much for Deng?
> 
> ...


You think the Noch signing was either too much or uneccessary?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

Electric Slim said:


> You think the Noch signing was either too much or uneccessary?



It was definitely necessary---but I think it was done at a price that give us good flexibility.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

DengNabbit said:


> Again, we pretend like we're the only team going through these things. This is how the game is played, we go through the negotiations and compromise. Gordon can't get 70 mil from just anyone; they'll need the cap room. With a lack of interest from teams next offseason, he knows this could all blow up in his face. That 70 mil, by definition, will come down a ways. this is what a negotiation is.
> 
> It didn't get done with Curry because he hadn't accomplished anything, still hasn't. You'll roll out some stats he's put up, but he's in the same boat with all the NBA players that havent played in the big games Gordon/Deng/Hinrich have.


Aside from Arenas, Gordon will be the best young guard on the market. Let's say Brand opts out with LA, and then the Clippers sign Arenas. The Wizards would be desperate to sign somebody to replace Arenas and would easily pay $70M for Gordon. What about Charlotte?

Looking at salaries and the luxury cap levels, this is what I see.

The luxury cap level for next season should be around $70M. 

We have $48.6M tied up in Wallace, Hinrich, Noc, Smith, Tyrus, Thabo, Gray, JamesOn, Griffin, Noah for next season with Duhon and Viktor leaving. Signing Gordon for say $65M ($11M, 12M, 13M, 14M, 15M) and Deng for say $70M ($12M, $13M, $14M, $15M, $16M) we will be around $71.6M. Sign some scrubs and maybe trade Griffin and we will pay a little bit of luxury tax. 

Remember, if we lose either Gordon or Deng to free agency, we can't sign anybody to replace them. That would kill us. The year after, we are better off since Hinrich, Noc, Wallace contracts all decrease in value and Smith would leave. The year after Wallace contract expires when we have to resign Tyrus and Noah.

We are going to have a $70M payroll for the foreseeable future. Get used to it. Gordon, Deng, Tyrus, Noah are all going to be making alot of money in this league. Get used to it. Time to pay up. Keep the fans happy. The fans sell out the United Center for a reason. We can't short change them.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

GB said:


> It was definitely necessary---but I think it was done at a price that give us good flexibility.


"but"? Don't you mean "and"?


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

yep.


----------



## anorexorcist (Aug 3, 2005)

At RealGM they have a 10 page thread dedicated to this, a freakin' rumor. 

I bet IT had one of his buddies plant this article just to make him feel better about Anucha winning the case. Seems to be working over there, at least. Paranoia reigns in bull-land.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Welcome to negotiations.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

I guess this is what happens when you pick in the lottery for 8 years in a row. Some of your guys eventually pan out and you are stuck trying to figure out how to pay them all. Their biggest mistake was giving all that money to Ben Wallace. If that signing doesnt produce a finals appearance this year his signing will prove to be nothing but a salary cap stranglehold. Ben Gordon to me is a 10 million dollar kind of player, 5 years 50 million dollars would seem like his market value. Deng probably about 12 million a year so 6 years 72 million for him. That is a salary cap nightmare, and if Tyrus pans out this year you could be looking at giving him a healthy raise in 2 years. In order to make this happen you will either have to go way over the cap Isiah style or pawn Ben Wallace off onto some ******* with no concept of the talent to salary ratio (Isiah again). Either way Pax is gonna have some tough decisions over the next year.


----------



## Brandname (May 24, 2006)

I would tell you guys not to worry because this is the way negotiations go (start way high, meet somewhere in the middle), but what's happening with my team right now shows that it's no guarantee. 

You know what Anderson Varejao's agent is asking for right now? 13 million dollars per year. Yes, you read that right. And that's the reason he's not in camp with the team right now. I figured he'd ask for something like 9 MM per year, we'd offer like 5 MM, and we'd end up paying something like 7 MM. Right now, it sure sounds like he won't accept anything less than 10 MM. Completely ridiculous.

Depending on his agent, I guess there's always the possibility of the same thing happening with Gordon.


----------



## Simpleton (Feb 18, 2005)

roux2dope said:


> I guess this is what happens when you pick in the lottery for 8 years in a row. Some of your guys eventually pan out and you are stuck trying to figure out how to pay them all. Their biggest mistake was giving all that money to Ben Wallace. If that signing doesnt produce a finals appearance this year his signing will prove to be nothing but a salary cap stranglehold. Ben Gordon to me is a 10 million dollar kind of player, 5 years 50 million dollars would seem like his market value. Deng probably about 12 million a year so 6 years 72 million for him. That is a salary cap nightmare, and if Tyrus pans out this year you could be looking at giving him a healthy raise in 2 years. In order to make this happen you will either have to go way over the cap Isiah style or pawn Ben Wallace off onto some ******* with no concept of the talent to salary ratio (Isiah again). Either way Pax is gonna have some tough decisions over the next year.


Wallace only has 2 years on his deal after this season, it's not that big of a deal and shouldn't have much effect on what Tyrus gets.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DengNabbit said:


> It didn't get done with Curry because he hadn't accomplished anything, still hasn't. You'll roll out some stats he's put up, but he's in the same boat with all the NBA players that havent played in the big games Gordon/Deng/Hinrich have.


But the Curry situation was far from a favorable outcome for the Bulls, from the "win now" perspective.

The Bulls got lucky ("found money") on that deal, and even then, the best case scenario is a "win later" "plan" based on our TT and Noah lotto picks developing. The Bulls clearly regressed the year after Curry left and now can hopefully continue to move forward due to the maturation of Hinrich, Deng and Gordon and the influx of the "found money" picks TT and Noah.

Paxson has supposedly been avoiding / dumping contracts he didn't like to resign his core guys. If this does not happen due to Gordon / Deng being worth too much for Paxson's comfort level, then its another reboot.

If we lose Gordon, its another step back, another roll of the dice on a trade and another 3 years of waiting. And then its time to pay TT and Noah. Ugh. "Win Later."


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If we lose Gordon, its another step back, another roll of the dice on a trade and another 3 years of waiting. And then its time to pay TT and Noah. Ugh. "Win Later."


So if Gordon asks for 126mil then Pax should...


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

roux2dope said:


> I guess this is what happens when you pick in the lottery for 8 years in a row. Some of your guys eventually pan out and you are stuck trying to figure out how to pay them all. Their biggest mistake was giving all that money to Ben Wallace. If that signing doesnt produce a finals appearance this year his signing will prove to be nothing but a salary cap stranglehold. Ben Gordon to me is a 10 million dollar kind of player, 5 years 50 million dollars would seem like his market value. Deng probably about 12 million a year so 6 years 72 million for him. That is a salary cap nightmare, and if Tyrus pans out this year you could be looking at giving him a healthy raise in 2 years. In order to make this happen you will either have to go way over the cap Isiah style or pawn Ben Wallace off onto some ******* with no concept of the talent to salary ratio (Isiah again). Either way Pax is gonna have some tough decisions over the next year.


I think you are a bit overreacting. Wallace only has two years left after this season, and Kirk was signed in a way to make room for later. I bet Pax will do the same for both Deng and Gordon. Thomas is only up for extension when Wallace is gone. One thing people dont' realize is that Chicago is a very profitable team so they are probably more willing to pay/


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Salaries for the top 20 in the league in scoring last year minus Gordon (who was 15th by the way):
> 
> 1. Kobe - $19.5M (up to $24M in 2010)
> 2. Carmelo - $13M (up to $18.5M in 2011)
> ...


That's a pretty compelling analysis, but I still don't find myself wanting to pay the guy more than Kevin Martin. 

What I am concerned about, though, is the Bulls trying to get a "discount" by getting him to sign early. The discount they ought to be concerned with is avoiding paying him $70M/yr if he hits free agency next year. By making him a $47.5M offer and publically lobbying for it, instead of stepping up with something around the KMart level, they actually run quite a risk that they'll have to compete for him and pay more in the end.

Of course, it's a negotiation. There's still weeks to go and perhaps the Bulls are willing to go quite a bit higher but just playing it close to the vest. I don't recall them doing this much before, but there's a first time for everything.

Regarding the possibility Gordon leaves, *K4E*, I don't see it as a given he'd leave for nothing. There's always a sign and trade possibility (e.g. Joe Johnson, which worked out pretty well for Phoenix) and the Suns didn't miss much of a beat. The problem isn't trading Gordon, per say, he'd bring back value. The problem is that Wallace is effectively a sunk cost that would seem not to bring back any value for the future.



GB said:


> It was definitely necessary---but I think it was done at a price that give us good flexibility.


I dunno, I think now was the time to cash him in and get something back. A pick, a younger guy or two... I think we could have gotten something and we wouldn't have missed a beat with all the younger guys we've got coming online.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> But the Curry situation was far from a favorable outcome for the Bulls, from the "win now" perspective.
> 
> The Bulls got lucky ("found money") on that deal, and even then, the best case scenario is a "win later" "plan" based on our TT and Noah lotto picks developing. The Bulls clearly regressed the year after Curry left and now can hopefully continue to move forward due to the maturation of Hinrich, Deng and Gordon and the influx of the "found money" picks TT and Noah.
> 
> ...


K4E - something to consider is that the "later" in "win later" has become now. Hopefully this year or next.

These are the players we have, how Paxson's loaded up to hunt for bear. I'm not expecting any big trades or anything. If this team isn't going to win it all, about the only thing Pax can do is change coaches.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Regarding the possibility Gordon leaves, *K4E*, I don't see it as a given he'd leave for nothing. There's always a sign and trade possibility (e.g. Joe Johnson, which worked out pretty well for Phoenix) and the Suns didn't miss much of a beat. The problem isn't trading Gordon, per say, he'd bring back value.


The thing I'd be concerned about is Curry trade redux. Sure, we're getting value (Noah, TT) but its value effectively realized 2-3 years down the road. And there is still a boatload of uncertainty in these young guys. Perhaps we get a solid veteran type in return for Gordon that could be very good right away. That's a possibility as well.





> The problem is that Wallace is effectively a sunk cost that would seem not to bring back any value for the future.


Yah, that's a problem as well. No real fix for this one.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

DaBullz said:



> These are the players we have, how Paxson's loaded up to hunt for bear. I'm not expecting any big trades or anything.


Its going to be a fun season. I have no idea how its going to play out.

I don't expect any big trades either.... but then we hear that Paxson is involved in the Garnett trade (realistic offer? who knows) and Gasol. I think there still is an argument to be made for moving 2-3 younger assets for the Gasol/Garnett level player if available.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its going to be a fun season. I have no idea how its going to play out.
> 
> I don't expect any big trades either.... but then we hear that Paxson is involved in the Garnett trade (realistic offer? who knows) and Gasol. I think there still is an argument to be made for moving 2-3 younger assets for the Gasol/Garnett level player if available.


Of course there's an argument for making a consolidation trade at some point.

The Bulls did win 49 games last year, and they did pick up Smith and Noah. Neither guy is at Gasol's or Garnett's level as a player, but they're HUGE upgrades over PJ Brown and we now have some actual depth up front.

Are they enough to put us over the top? That remains to be seen, though I'm convinced this team has a much better chance to win round 2 against last year's Pistons, and we won't look as tiny next to the Cavs' players like we did last year.

Thing is, we haven't seen this team play a game with Smith and Noah (and Gray and Curry). We may well be hugely surprised if Noah gives us what Brown did numbers-wise but adds youth and athleticism and much better defense 2ft outside the lane.

The very real and interesting questions going forward are what happens if we win it all (or make ECF) and what happens if we don't.

If we do, then Pax has the dilemma of keeping the team together, especially regarding the Deng and Gordon contracts. Agreed we don't want another Curry or Crawford scenario to pan out - I'd be terribly disappointed if the fans put up with it.

If we don't, then we get to see what the strategy is or rebuilding on the fly without the benefit of several years' worth of lotto picks, but with some young and talented players plus Wallace's expiring contract as bargaining chips. Or, like I said, change coaches - the Bulls did this in the Jordan era, switching out Collins for PJax and it made all the difference in the world with basically the same players.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its going to be a fun season. I have no idea how its going to play out.
> 
> I don't expect any big trades either.... but then we hear that Paxson is involved in the Garnett trade (realistic offer? who knows) and Gasol. I think there still is an argument to be made for moving 2-3 younger assets for the Gasol/Garnett level player if available.


The report today posted in the other thread is that Paxson's offer was "superior" to Boston's. Of course, I suppose that's very subjective, considering the "superior" offer wasn't selected.


As to the topic at hand, is there any reason BG thinks he's worth $10M more than Chauncey? I just don't see it.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its going to be a fun season. I have no idea how its going to play out.
> 
> I don't expect any big trades either.... but then we hear that Paxson is involved in the Garnett trade (realistic offer? who knows) and Gasol. I think there still is an argument to be made for moving 2-3 younger assets for the Gasol/Garnett level player if available.


The disgruntled "big names" this year are of the Kirilenko/Marion variety. Less valuable and less talented players than what maybe could have been had 12 months ago.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> As to the topic at hand, is there any reason BG thinks he's worth $10M more than Chauncey? I just don't see it.


Sadly, because of their ages, I actually _do_ think Ben Gordon over the next five or six years is worth $10M more than Billups. Actually, just comparing those two players, Gordon would be the "bargain."


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

What you see is one unverified line in an out of market publication notorious for lying/embellishing whatever they choose to. 

What you don't see is anything like a quote that has Ben Gordon saying "yeah I'm easily worth $70 million". 

Remember that.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

I don't think there's any reason to pay BG 70 million right now, since it's not any sort of discount and there's a small chance that a team next year would sign him to a contract just as big. However, him signing for that kind of money isn't _that_ much of a stretch.

You can point out flaws in Lou's list all you like, but it still represents the way the league thinks about things, like it or not. Dollar for dollar, Ben on a 70 million dollar contract is probably about the same or better value as the contracts that Larry Hughes, Rashard Lewis, Michael Redd, and Ray Allen are on. Obviously none of those guys signed on the cheap, and at least a few of them are overpaid, but they should serve as a reminder of a few realities that might have to be faced at one point or another. 

I don't want to sign him for that much presently, but if this were next year, and another team signed him to that type of offer..........I would begrudgingly match it.

If the team does well this year, Paxson's biggest task is going to be keeping the team together, IMO. I think all of our players will be attractive to other teams if they get on the open market, for the very reason that Paxson targeted them in the first place. And given that this team has been known for its frugality, I think we could end up being a target for teams with capspace. 

Paxson needs to do his best to sign all of his players to the best contracts that he can, but these next few years could represent a pretty thin line, because just one of our players signing a Rashard Lewis type contract could blow up the whole team structure.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

Credit goes to Kulaz300 for the link: Daily Herald



> Asking price incorrect: Without any prompting from reporters, Ben Gordon took exception to an item in Sunday's New York Daily News suggesting that Gordon was asking for $70 million over five years from the Bulls.
> 
> Gordon and Luol Deng have until Oct. 31 to sign contract extensions, otherwise they will become restricted free agents next summer.
> 
> "All I'm going to say is there were no quotes from myself or my agent (Raymond Brothers)," Gordon said.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

step said:


> Credit goes to Kulaz300 for the link: Daily Herald


Besides, he got Noah's per diem yesterday. He doesn't need $70 mill per year. :biggrin:


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/rumors/post/Bulls-Gordon-denies-70M-request;_ylt=AgXCLwzhYuj5Gmym3HOdQtS8vLYF?urn=nba,48388



> Chicago Bulls' Ben Gordon denied a New York Daily News report that claimed he was in the market for a five-year, $70 million contract extension. He is eligible to become a restricted free agent after the season. Asked whether $55 million is closer to the truth, Gordon said, "No comment."
> 
> Source: Daily Southtown


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

$55 million seems reasonable to me.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Sounds like he wants $80M to me


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

If Gordon continues to improve, he'll be gunning hard for 70 MILLION DOLLARS That's a lotta dough for an undersized 2 guard... but we don't have anyone else who is a great scorer. Quite the bind.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> undersized 2 guard...



I think the lack of size is over-sold as a liability. Iverson, Arenas do just well. 

More important is that he's a baller, through and through.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

GB said:


> I think the lack of size is over-sold as a liability. Iverson, Arenas do just well.


Arenas is a 6-4 PG. He does not enter into the equation.

Iverson has done his time at the PG spot as well. Both he and Arenas have the game to play heavy minutes there, although it might not be best for the team in Iverson's case.





> More important is that he's a baller, through and through.


Actually, no its not. Size matters in the NBA. A shrimpy team full of "ballers" will not make it through the NBA Playoffs gauntlet. 

70 mildo is a lot of cheddar for a nightly match up problem.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

the isaiahs, joe dumars and kevin johnsons, did pretty well too. also, seems to me gordon's on par with the damon stoudamires(lol), and jason terry's of this generations "ballers".


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Arenas is a 6-4 PG. He does not enter into the equation.
> 
> Iverson has done his time at the PG spot as well. Both he and Arenas have the game to play heavy minutes there, although it might not be best for the team in Iverson's case.
> 
> ...


Would you sign him to 5-years $70 million assuming he improves this season?

I'd offer him a 5-year $52.5-55 million extension this offseason. I'd fully intend on re-signing next offseason if he does not take the extension and signs a larger offer sheet. I would not be opposed to locking Gordon up for 6-years, $72 million next offseason as well either.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

the isaiahs, joe dumars and kevin johnsons, did pretty well too. also, seems to me gordon's on par with the damon stoudamires(lol), and jason terry's of this generations "ballers".



> Arenas is a 6-4 PG. He does not enter into the equation.


he's killer scorer, as is gordon. that's where the equation begins and ends.



> Iverson has done his time at the PG spot as well. Both he and Arenas have the game to play heavy minutes there, although it might not be best for the team in Iverson's case.


gordon has hinrich for his back, so his PG minutes will be limited, not detracting at all from his overall production since the bull employ gordon differently than the 6'ers ever did iverson. iverson had license to do whatever, whenever; gordon's never had that freedom.

sorry for the double post; my bad....


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> If Gordon continues to improve, he'll be gunning hard for 70 MILLION DOLLARS That's a lotta dough for an undersized 2 guard... but we don't have anyone else who is a great scorer. Quite the bind.


Did you skip over this?



> Chicago Bulls' Ben Gordon denied a New York Daily News report that claimed he was in the market for a five-year, $70 million contract extension. He is eligible to become a restricted free agent after the season. Asked whether $55 million is closer to the truth, Gordon said, "No comment."
> 
> Source: Daily Southtown


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> Arenas is a 6-4 PG. He does not enter into the equation.
> 
> Iverson has done his time at the PG spot as well. Both he and Arenas have the game to play heavy minutes there, although it might not be best for the team in Iverson's case.


Label them however you want...they're both scorers.




> Actually, no its not. Size matters in the NBA. A shrimpy team full of "ballers" will not make it through the NBA Playoffs gauntlet.
> 
> 70 mildo is a lot of cheddar for a nightly match up problem.



Agreed. A team of ewoks is a team with a short playoff run. But a team can get by with one or two playing big minutes, provided they have decent size elsewhere...in the lineup and on the bench.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

kukoc4ever said:


> Arenas is a 6-4 PG. He does not enter into the equation.
> 
> Iverson has done his time at the PG spot as well. Both he and Arenas have the game to play heavy minutes there, although it might not be best for the team in Iverson's case.
> 
> ...


Height ONLY matters on defense. On offense if you can get your shot through quickness, skill, jumping ability, height is irrelevant. Arenas may be 6-4, but Gordon is a far better defender.

There are alot of players who are "BIG" shooting guards that can't play a lick of defense. Arenas, Michael Redd, Ray Allen, Vince Carter. Gordon is a better defender than all those players IMO.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

lougehrig said:


> Height ONLY matters on defense. On offense if you can get your shot through quickness, skill, jumping ability, height is irrelevant.


This is perplexingly wrong, IMO.

Of course height is important on offense. Remember the Bulls / Pistons series last year. Remember why extending their defense against us was so effective.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Of course height is important on offense. Remember the Bulls / Pistons series last year. Remember why extending their defense against us was so effective.


extending their defense was effective due to the lack of any offensive threat in the middle, low post or anywhere in the paint. a threat there negates the pistons ability to do that effectively. is there one now? we'll see........


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> extending their defense was effective due to the lack of any offensive threat in the middle, low post or anywhere in the paint.


That's the reason they were able to do it without paying dearly, but not the reason it was so effective against us.

To say that the height / length differential didn't matter is absurd, IMO.

There's a reason Dirk is so effective at what he does. It isn't his speed / quickness.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> This is perplexingly wrong, IMO.
> 
> Of course height is important on offense. Remember the Bulls / Pistons series last year. Remember why extending their defense against us was so effective.


Agreed. Height deficiency can be _overcome_ by some players due to their quickness or other skills, but it's certainly not _irrelevant_. What, a 6'2'' guy could be an effective center?


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

jnrjr79 said:


> Agreed. Height deficiency can be _overcome_ by some players due to their quickness or other skills, but it's certainly not _irrelevant_. What, a 6'2'' guy could be an effective center?


Sure, why not. A 6'2" would run circles around a 7' lumbering center. However, on defense he would be helpless. If height / length were crucial in scoring, then the league's top scorers would all be 7 footers. If 6' Iverson can lead the lead in scoring, and get any shot he wants, then he is a master of offense.

If 5'5" Boykins is a better scorer than 7'1" Chandler or 6'9" Wallace, then isn't offensive about something else? Like skill? Quickness? Savvy? Intelligence?

People talk about shrimps or a short lineup when guarding the opponent. Like the Bulls have a short backcourt meaning Gordon has to guard a 6'5" shooting guard which is a mismatch.

The argument I was making is that despite being 6'2" or 6'3", Gordon is a vastly superior defensive player than Gilbert Arenas or Ray Allen or Michael Redd because he has played with Skiles and this team for so long. Therefore, his value as a decent defending shooting guard who lacks size is on par with players who score but play absolutely no defense.


----------

