# Rumorpress:Bulls and Heat have agreed to several deals



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

> The Chicago Bulls and Miami Heat have had on and off talks about different trade ideas involving multiple players. The key parts of these talks involve Ben Gordon and Shawn Marion. Marion last season in 63 games with the Suns and Heat averaged 15.4 points and 10.2 rebounds per game. Yahoo! Sports and other articles coming out of Miami have reported the possibility of a trade and there is a lot of truth to these rumors. On 7.31.08 Rumor Press reported that Miami was trying to work out a sign-and-trade for Gordon, and since that time the Heat have been working very hard to get a deal done. The Bulls and Heat have actually agreed on a few trade scenarios, however there is only one thing that is holding up a deal, Ben Gordon. The Heat do not want to pay Gordon what he is asking for and are hoping he will change his stance and accept what many would call a “fair” deal. Until Gordon agrees on a lesser deal the Bulls/Gordon stalemate will continue.


I wasn't sure if it needed it's own thread so mods please merge if I shouldn't have made this as it's own thread.

http://www.rumorpress.net/?p=41


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

So...Miami wants Gordon, but doesn't want to pay him what he wants....like every other team in the league


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Ben Gordon is an idiot.


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

Blue Magic said:


> Ben Gordon is an idiot.


Yep.


----------



## Wade2Bosh (Mar 31, 2004)

If true, I wonder what they consider a fair deal for Ben.

How much is he looking for?


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

Wade2Matrix said:


> If true, I wonder what they consider a fair deal for Ben.
> 
> How much is he looking for?


I remember him saying he deserved to be the highest paid on the team, so I'm guessing a bit more than what Larry Hughes makes.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

I don't see how Ben Gordon is an idiot. 

He's probably going to end up making some decent bank either way...


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

Just my prediction, a trade goes down tomorrow afternoon.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Wade2Matrix said:


> If true, I wonder what they consider a fair deal for Ben.
> 
> How much is he looking for?


He's looking 4 more than 12+ mil per........ He is a ****ing undersized 2-gaurd, who doesnt pass or rebound, and those come a dime a dozen in the NBA. He really needs to STFU if he thinks he's worth that much. He should be making no more than a guy like Mike Miller, who makes like 9 mil per, and actually rebounds and plays defense.... A fair deal 4 a guy like BG and his chucking ways, is like 6-8 mil per MAX.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Blue Magic said:


> He's looking 4 more than 12+ mil per........ He is a ****ing undersized 2-gaurd, who doesnt pass or rebound, and those come a dime a dozen in the NBA. He really needs to STFU if he thinks he's worth that much. He should be making no more than a guy like Mike Miller, who makes like 9 mil per, and actually rebounds and plays defense.... A fair deal 4 a guy like BG and his chucking ways, is like 6-8 mil per MAX.


I guess we'll see what the market says... my guess is closer to what Ben wants than what you think he's worth.

edit to add: Also, why should he "STFU"? Its not like he signed a contract and is complaining about it afterwards... the guy is a restricted free agent, he's allowed to try to get the best deal he can.


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

So if this trade goes down and we get Marion, is that it for Tyrus Thomas? Since we just paid Deng he's a lock at SF. So Marion will play mostly the 4 spot.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

If its the same dung I have seen posted I hope you are wrong. What I have heard are Miami fleece the Bulls deals. IMHO Gordon doesnt sign any deal untill he is given a deadline.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

Also heard in dung deals is Noah going to Miami. If so Gray by default is your starting center. In that scenario I cant see the Bulls winning 10 games this season.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

TheDarkPrince said:


> So if this trade goes down and we get Marion, is that it for Tyrus Thomas? Since we just paid Deng he's a lock at SF. So Marion will play mostly the 4 spot.


If we move Nocioni, we can give Marion some backup SF minutes. If not we could role with this lineup provided Deng can play some SG.

PG-Rose(31)/Hinrich(17)
SG-Sefolosha(23)/Hinrich(13)/Deng(12)
SF-Deng(22)/Nocioni(18)/Marion(8)
PF-Marion(24)/Thomas(24)
C-Gooden(28)/Noah(20)


Our front court will be very thin though.


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

Dornado said:


> I guess we'll see what the market says... my guess is closer to what Ben wants than what you think he's worth.
> 
> edit to add: Also, why should he "STFU"? Its not like he signed a contract and is complaining about it afterwards... the guy is a restricted free agent, he's allowed to try to get the best deal he can.


He see's Iggy, Monta, Deng, & J Smith getting big deals and he thinks he's worth that much too. Only thing he fails to realize is that those guys aren't undersized, one dimensional, and they dont play poor D. BG does all of the above and should be more on JR Smith's pay level than those other guys. He can take his greedy *** to Europe for all i care.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

WshflThinking said:


> Also heard in dung deals is Noah going to Miami. If so Gray by default is your starting center. In that scenario I cant see the Bulls winning 10 games this season.


I believe Gooden will see a lot of center minutes and that Nocioni then gets traded for a center(Brad Miller?).


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

So I take it you guys are OK with the Miami deal and Gray being our only center?


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

WshflThinking said:


> So I take it you guys are OK with the Miami deal and Gray being our only center?


Like I've said, I would hate to give up Noah in this trade, but if he is included, Nocioni will be traded for a center.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

^ Agreed on Gooden probably seeing center minutes and trade talks for Brad Miller starting up again.

I kinda hope this trade goes down (including Noah), not necessarily cause its great, but it would finally 'fix' (to some extent) our PG and C problems..

I can see Gordon holding out and preventing anything from going down though.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Blue Magic said:


> He's looking 4 more than 12+ mil per........ He is a ****ing undersized 2-gaurd, who doesnt pass or rebound, and those come a dime a dozen in the NBA. He really needs to STFU if he thinks he's worth that much. He should be making no more than a guy like Mike Miller, who makes like 9 mil per, and actually rebounds and plays defense.... A fair deal 4 a guy like BG and his chucking ways, is like 6-8 mil per MAX.


I hate to nitpick, but Mike Miller can't play defense at all. He _tries_. But he can't.

But I agree that $9M per is more realistic for a player of Ben Gordon's abilities. He's a Top 10 shooter to be sure, but realistically, is he even a guy you want starting?


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

If Brad Miller is our center we will still hurt. Also according to the dung deals we lose our Cap space in 2010 and any chance at Wade. Is that OK with you guys? It isnt with me


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

WshflThinking said:


> If Brad Miller is our center we will still hurt. Also according to the dung deals we lose our Cap space in 2010 and any chance at Wade. Is that OK with you guys? It isnt with me


If we re-sign Marion, we lose our cap space in 2010.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

No Marion expires in 2009, Hughes expires in 2010. We dont need the cap space in 2009we need it in 2010 to sign the FA crop. LeBron, Bosh and Wade expire in 2010. We arent going to be able to carry that Marion cap until 2010.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

WshflThinking said:


> No Marion expires in 2009, Hughes expires in 2010. We dont need the cap space in 2009we need it in 2010 to sign the FA crop. LeBron, Bosh and Wade expire in 2010. We arent going to be able to carry that Marion cap until 2010.


By not re-signing him, or anybody else, the cap space will stay. Cap space doesn't stay for one year and then disappear.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

Brad Miller isnt the same center he was when he was in Chicago before. He is on his last leg. I doubt he has one more year left. I dont want to trade Hughes. I want to let his contract expire in 2010 so we have cap for Wade or Bron or even Bosh. And Asik wont be available till 2010 at the earliest.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

WshflThinking said:


> Brad Miller isnt the same center he was when he was in Chicago before. He is on his last leg. I doubt he has one more year left. I dont want to trade Hughes. I want to let his contract expire in 2010 so we have cap for Wade or Bron or even Bosh. And Asik wont be available till 2010 at the earliest.


He wasn't horrible. 13ppg on 46% shooting along with 9.5 rebounds a game with 35 minutes a game doesn't show me that he's on his last legs. He's nothing spectacular, but he's decent and would expire in 2010.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

And what will Gooden want when his contract expires in 2009? Wont he want all that Marion cap space? IMHO that sure opens a big can of worms. And like Noah's drug use, Miller gets suspended the first few games of the season for drug violation.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

WshflThinking said:


> And what will Gooden want when his contract expires in 2009? Wont he want all that Marion cap space? IMHO that sure opens a big can of worms. And like Noah's drug use, Miller gets suspended the first few games of the season for drug violation.


I know, Miller is out for the first 3 games, but Noah isn't expected to be suspended. So if we keep Noah, we are still decent at center. Gooden will probably look for something along the lines of 7-8 million a year if he keeps up what he did in Chicago. If he's looking for more, I say let him walk and sign somebody to a 1 year deal and full MLE.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

I have always thought Wade and Gordon would work a treat . Wade, Beasley and Gordon would be absolutely formidable

I have said all along that Gordon , by market value , should have a $6 year $63M to $65M deal 

If we get Marion back - Gordon, Nocioni and Cedric Simmons would be the deal to do for Marion and a 1st round draft pick

Noah , Gooden and Gray are your Center rotation 

Marion and Deng are for your forwards backed by Tyrus and Thabo who backs up his minutes at this spot and at guard 

Guards are Rose, Hinrich and Hughes with Thabo filling in

Marion is actually the perfect piece for the type of defense ( and offense ) that VDN wants to run

Ben can't return . Its an unfortunate and untenable situation . On face value I don't think its an equal swap and its a consolidation / wash the dirty laundry type trade for us , but one that I think we will do quite well out of to run a Shawn Marion experiment for a season and determine once and for all as to whether we can rely on Tyrus to be that guy - which will determine what we do with Marion next offseason


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

I would love to do Gordon/Nocioni/Simmons for Marion/1st rounder but I'm pretty sure Miami isn't down with that.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

I just say no to Miami all together. BG will just have to take his 8.2 and be happy. Screw him and the horse he rode in on. I still try to get BG to sign for 2 years and be done with him in 2010.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

Blue Magic said:


> He see's Iggy, Monta, Deng, & J Smith getting big deals and he thinks he's worth that much too. Only thing he fails to realize is that those guys aren't undersized, one dimensional, and they dont play poor D. BG does all of the above and should be more on JR Smith's pay level than those other guys. He can take his greedy *** to Europe for all i care.


i feeling exactly. but if everyone is offering him the same amount, and he wants to continue playing, hes gonna have to settle. gordon must realize that hes a sixth man in this league. 

but i wonder, if the bulls do get marion, what about playing him at sg? hes 6'7 210lbs.


----------



## NewAgeBaller (Jan 8, 2007)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Marion is actually the perfect piece for the type of defense ( and offense ) that VDN wants to run


Agreed, and the great thing about having a do-it-all guy like Marion is that it'd help VDN and the new team's transition next year by filling in all the little gaps. Thats the main reason I want to keep him around in Miami anyway - he's make a rookie coach's job so much easier.



P to the Wee said:


> I would love to do Gordon/Nocioni/Simmons for Marion/1st rounder but I'm pretty sure Miami isn't down with that.


I think Minnesota has our 1st rounder next season, from the Ricky Davis trade.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Gordon is a 6th man... but he's 3rd on the team in minutes played and 1st in points scored, so he's kind of in a unique situation.

In-season I complained about Gordon as much as anyone... I just haven't seen a deal that makes me excited yet.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

Dornado said:


> Gordon is a 6th man... but he's 3rd on the team in minutes played and 1st in points scored, so he's kind of in a unique situation.
> 
> In-season I complained about Gordon as much as anyone... I just haven't seen a deal that makes me excited yet.


yeah, but he the bulls leading scorer by default.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

Dornado said:


> Gordon is a 6th man... but he's 3rd on the team in minutes played and 1st in points scored, so he's kind of in a unique situation.
> 
> In-season I complained about Gordon as much as anyone... I just haven't seen a deal that makes me excited yet.


Youre not going to get great deals for a guy who's disgruntled, greedy, and who's team is trying to rid themselves of.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Jace said:


> Youre not going to get great deals for a guy who's disgruntled, greedy, and who's team is trying to rid themselves of.


I haven't seen any evidence that Gordon is disgruntled. Gordon wants more money than the team can afford to pay him at this point, so they are shopping him. Greedy, sure, but it does not mean that the Bulls do not want him anymore.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Jace said:


> Youre not going to get great deals for a guy who's disgruntled, greedy, and who's team is trying to rid themselves of.


I don't think he's any of those... he's a guy that has willingly accepted a 6th man role when most players of his offensive capability would have been pouting... he's trying to get the best deal that he can, but it is a big jump to label him greedy.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

Rhyder said:


> I haven't seen any evidence that Gordon is disgruntled. Gordon wants more money than the team can afford to pay him at this point, so they are shopping him. Greedy, sure, but it does not mean that the Bulls do not want him anymore.


He's said he's played his last game with your team. How much worse can it get? I'd say he's disgruntled.



Dornado said:


> I don't think he's any of those... he's a guy that has willingly accepted a 6th man role when most players of his offensive capability would have been pouting... he's trying to get the best deal that he can, but it is a big jump to label him greedy.


I could obviously be wrong about this, but wasn't most of the time he spent as a sixth man during his rookie season? You can't complain about coming off the bench as a rookie. Not to mention, he's a tweener in the worst possible way, making it hard to put him in a starting line-up. I'm sure he realizes this.

He's already been offered the best deal he can get. Heck, I still believe its too much for him. He wants Deng/Iguodala money, which he does not deserve. He wants to be the highest paid Bull, which he does not deserve. The guy is scoffing at amounts of money that the majority of NBA players would love to have. I'd say that's pretty greedy. I guess its all subjective, though.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Noah and Ben for Marion and a future 1st would work for me. I WANT to get rid of both of them, and Marion is better than nothing (though I've never liked him either).


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Noah and Ben for Marion and a future 1st would work for me. I WANT to get rid of both of them, and Marion is better than nothing (though I've never liked him either).


Wowie...no, no, no.

God I hope none of these trades go down.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Noah and Ben for Marion and a future 1st would work for me. I WANT to get rid of both of them, and Marion is better than nothing (though I've never liked him either).


Wouldn't work salary wise. Larry Hughes, Andres Nocioni, Drew Gooden,or Kirk Hinrich have to be added to the deal. Larry Hughes will be most likely added to the trade.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Jace said:


> He's said he's played his last game with your team. How much worse can it get? *I'd say he's disgruntled.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1st bolded part: You have to understand that quote in context... it was that he thought he'd played his last game there because the sides were at an impasse, not because he refused to play... he was merely speculating that the Bulls would probably try to orchestrate a sign and trade, not making a demand. 

2nd bolded part... Yeah, you are wrong on that one... Gordon only started 27 of 72 games he played in last year.

3rd bolded part: I don't know where you come up with "scoffing"... isn't it just called negotiating?


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

So I was wrong about my prediction of it happening today 

I just hope Ben accepts the contract from Miami soon so that we can go ahead and complete the other stuff. We're what, 2 weeks away from training camp?


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

Dornado said:


> 1st bolded part: You have to understand that quote in context... it was that he thought he'd played his last game there because the sides were at an impasse, not because he refused to play... he was merely speculating that the Bulls would probably try to orchestrate a sign and trade, not making a demand.
> 
> 2nd bolded part... Yeah, you are wrong on that one... Gordon only started 27 of 72 games he played in last year.
> 
> 3rd bolded part: I don't know where you come up with "scoffing"... isn't it just called negotiating?


Fair enough. I'm obviously a bit out of my element with this one. My point is, everyone in the league knows he is asking for way more money than he's worth, and foolishly believing he can hold out and pout and get it. What I was trying to say is nobody is going to give you what you feel is an equal value deal in a sign-and-trade when they know you are the one in a tough situation.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

Jace said:


> Fair enough. I'm obviously a bit out of my element with this one. My point is, everyone in the league knows he is asking for way more money than he's worth, and foolishly believing he can hold out and pout and get it. What I was trying to say is nobody is going to give you what you feel is an equal value deal in a sign-and-trade when they know you are the one in a tough situation.


I gotta agree, teams don't get equal value in a sign and trade.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Noah and Ben for Marion and a future 1st would work for me. I WANT to get rid of both of them, and Marion is better than nothing (though I've never liked him either).


If we are getting Marion, I'd be much more willing to give up Tyrus than Noah (assuming the plan is to resign Marion). I don't see many developmental minutes for Tyrus if Marion is around, and we'd still have a project on our hands when it comes time for his contract negotiations.

Maybe something like Hughes, Tyrus, and S&T Gordon for Marion, Banks, and S&T Wright might be workable.

Rose/Banks
Hinrich/Wright/Thabo
Deng/Thabo
Marion/Noc
Gooden/Noah/Gray

If Banks remains flaky, then he moves to a 3rd string PG role and more minutes for Thabo.


----------



## Flash is the Future (May 12, 2006)

Rhyder said:


> If we are getting Marion, I'd be much more willing to give up Tyrus than Noah (assuming the plan is to resign Marion). I don't see many developmental minutes for Tyrus if Marion is around, and we'd still have a project on our hands when it comes time for his contract negotiations.
> 
> Maybe something like Hughes, Tyrus, and S&T Gordon for Marion, Banks, and S&T Wright might be workable.
> 
> ...


Problem is, Tyrus would be one of our x-zillion forwards. The other problem with Tyrus is that he has a major caphold in 2010, and Riley has always seemed to care about our 2010 capspace more than anything else. Dorell Wright has already been re-signed and can't be traded until December. I would assume that for us to take Gordon's salary on, we'd have to be sending Banks out, which I guess you're OK with. I would also imagine that we'd absolutely try to force Noah into the deal as the incentive, as right now Marion is a much better player than Gordon, all things considered, and his expiring contract is probably better than any deal Gordon gets. Nocioni, we'd also understandably balk at. But, instead of Dorell Wright, you guys could have Cook assuming Noah was coming back. But I could see why Bulls fans might not be OK with a deal along these lines:

Marion+Banks+Cook for Gordon+Noah+Hughes. 

And just for reference, Miami doesn't really have any more 1sts to trade until 2011 at the very earliest.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Flash is the Future said:


> Problem is, Tyrus would be one of our x-zillion forwards. The other problem with Tyrus is that he has a major caphold in 2010, and Riley has always seemed to care about our 2010 capspace more than anything else. Dorell Wright has already been re-signed and can't be traded until December. I would assume that for us to take Gordon's salary on, we'd have to be sending Banks out, which I guess you're OK with. I would also imagine that we'd absolutely try to force Noah into the deal as the incentive, as right now Marion is a much better player than Gordon, all things considered, and his expiring contract is probably better than any deal Gordon gets. Nocioni, we'd also understandably balk at. But, instead of Dorell Wright, you guys could have Cook assuming Noah was coming back. But I could see why Bulls fans might not be OK with a deal along these lines:
> 
> Marion+Banks+Cook for Gordon+Noah+Hughes.
> 
> And just for reference, Miami doesn't really have any more 1sts to trade until 2011 at the very earliest.


I must have missed the Wright signing. What did you end up locking him up for?

You obviously want an upgrade in C. We just can't afford to give up a big without getting one in return. Any interest in Gooden?

Gordon, Hughes, and Gooden for Marion, Blount, and Banks could work.

Rose/Banks
Hinrich/Thabo
Deng/Noc
Marion/Tyrus
Noah/Blount/Gray

Noc or Tyrus might still be the odd man out, depending on what we end up doing with Marion in the offseason.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

"So I was wrong about my prediction of it happening today."

For that I am thankful. I hope it never happens.


----------



## Jace (Sep 26, 2005)

Flash is the Future said:


> And just for reference, Miami doesn't really have any more 1sts to trade until 2011 at the very earliest.


What happened to our 2010?


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

Jace said:


> What happened to our 2010?


I'm pretty sure you can't trade first rounders in consecutive years.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

JPTurbo said:


> I'm pretty sure you can't trade first rounders in consecutive years.


You can, you just have to wait until after the 2009 draft to do so.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

This fantasy trade idea that includes Noah is dead. There are no legs to this fantasy trade. Its Ova.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

P to the Wee said:


> Wouldn't work salary wise. Larry Hughes, Andres Nocioni, Drew Gooden,or Kirk Hinrich have to be added to the deal. Larry Hughes will be most likely added to the trade.


I was just using them as the main principles in the deal. I know that you'd have to add salary filler to make it match. If we're getting back Marion, I'd give up Nocioni, so we don't have quite so many SFs. 

Hinrich/Rose
Sefolosha/Hinrich/Hughes
Deng/Marion/Sefolosha
Marion/Tyrus
Gooden/Gray

Getting rid of Nocioni's longer contract and keeping Hughes' shorter/bigger one, so we get cap room again sooner. All I know is I want this crap resolved and that little pr!ck Gordon gone.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Rhyder said:


> If we are getting Marion, I'd be much more willing to give up Tyrus than Noah (assuming the plan is to resign Marion). I don't see many developmental minutes for Tyrus if Marion is around, and we'd still have a project on our hands when it comes time for his contract negotiations.
> 
> Maybe something like Hughes, Tyrus, and S&T Gordon for Marion, Banks, and S&T Wright might be workable.
> 
> ...


Well, there in lies the difference lol. I hate Noah, I think he sucks, and I think he's a worthless POS that doesn't belong on the team. Tyrus, on the other hand, I think has great potential and if used properly, especially in a Suns-like system, could explode into a great impact-player. 

Another thing to consider here, is how cheap is Reinsdorff going to be come time to resign Marion? Maybe Tyrus can develop this year, and when Jerry gets cheap again and lets Marion walk, we'll have Tyrus there ready to replace him. That is something that MUST be considered IMO, as we all knw the Bulls' MO lately in regards to letting players walk rather than pay them.

Another thing is maybe Marion will be a cancer as he was in Phoenix, and need to be shipped out.

Just my 2 cents there. Tyrus is also less expendable from a depth standpoint if Wright can't be traded. (I'd also include Noc before Hughes in a trade, as I think he's a liability, and has a longer contract)


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Well, there in lies the difference lol. I hate Noah, I think he sucks, and I think he's a worthless POS that doesn't belong on the team. Tyrus, on the other hand, I think has great potential and if used properly, especially in a Suns-like system, could explode into a great impact-player.


Right, and that's why I said if the plan in acquiring Marion is to re-sign him. If not, then it does makes sense to have Tyrus around.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

WshflThinking said:


> This fantasy trade idea that includes Noah is dead. There are no legs to this fantasy trade. Its Ova.


According to hoopsworld, unless there was another story that I have missed...

At this point, I think TechNine has a better reputation.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Well, there in lies the difference lol. I hate Noah, I think he sucks, and I think he's a worthless POS that doesn't belong on the team. Tyrus, on the other hand, I think has great potential and if used properly, especially in a Suns-like system, could explode into a great impact-player.


Is there anything that could change your mind about Noah... or is this the kind of thing where you hate a guy going into his career, and just continue to hate him from there on out...

Like, if he averages 10 and 10... is he still going to be a POS to you? He already handles, passes and rebounds better than Thomas (and I love me some T-Time) so the vast differences in your opinion of the two seems strange.

Anyway, is there anyway Noah can redeem himself in your eyes?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> He already handles, passes and rebounds better than Thomas (and I love me some T-Time) so the vast differences in your opinion of the two seems strange.


most of those rants come from non-basketball related, emotional responses. his reponses during the kobe rumors were another example of how far outside reality some fans vitriol can cloud their thinking. fans will believe and shape their opinions whether facts are there for everyone's consumption or not.

gordon won't sign for what the team wants, even though gordon's done *everything* and more that the team has asked, now he's a little *****? sounds like some kind of jilted lover, womanly response.

as you stated, noah's game isn't remotely close to the POS label, only by virtue of him taking a toke during the offseason does he earn this label from certain fans; it has 0 to do with his playing. the statistics and visual evaluation seriously call into question what he's looking at during the games; or even if he has a set tuned into cable. how does the scripture go? "let him without sin cast the first stone".....

maybe he's the one who should take a toke and cool the **** out; noah's going nowhere, but on the floor as a starter or a early reserve for as many minutes as he can handle.


*Please don't avoid the filter if that was your intent ~Rhyder


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Dornado said:


> Is there anything that could change your mind about Noah... or is this the kind of thing where you hate a guy going into his career, and just continue to hate him from there on out...
> 
> Like, if he averages 10 and 10... is he still going to be a POS to you? He already handles, passes and rebounds better than Thomas (and I love me some T-Time) so the vast differences in your opinion of the two seems strange.
> 
> Anyway, is there anyway Noah can redeem himself in your eyes?


Nope, not a chance lol. I don't like his game at all, and I really can't stand him as a person. He's a pothead, a distraction and a loudmouth, etc.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> I really can't stand him as a person.


good thing you don't actually know him; course you hate kobe too, and you don't know him either.......and i'd bet they'd would hate your butt too......



> He's a pothead,


:lol: i doubt you even know what a "pothead" is.......did you know charles oakley said, what, 70-80% of the league's guys smoke? guess you shouldn't be a fan of the game, since there's so many 'potheads'.




> a distraction


who'd he distract this offseason? who'd he distract last season? outside of calling ben wallace a lazy ***, what distraction are you referring to?




> and a loudmouth, etc.


sort of like you.......what's the etc. for? couldn't think of anything more to make up?

damn, you're going to hate for a long time; noah will probably be captain in a year or two.......hope you don't break out in hives holding in all that hate.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

How much is Gordon really worth?


----------



## Blue (Jun 21, 2007)

DaBabyBullz said:


> Nope, not a chance lol. I don't like his game at all, and I really can't stand him as a person. He's a pothead, a distraction and a loudmouth, etc.


What a EDIT.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Let's not have this devolve into another mindless slam of certain players, followed by subseqeuent slamming over the posters. Let's keep it to trade talk, thanks.

I definitely like a Ben for Marion swap, but it really seems to me that Gordon is going to blow up any possible move this offseason with his inflated contract demands. 

More and more, it seems like it's going ot be Ben playing for the QO, having a me-first year, and then perhaps being overpaid by someone next offseason and leaving for nothing. Yuck.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

"At this point, I think TechNine has a better reputation."

Maybe with you he does, but not with me. He has been wrong too. 

The bottom line is the Bulls deny it and the Heat deny its true. What part of that cant you understand? I think they are going after Boozer with that Marion cap space. I dont believe Marion comes to the Bulls. As Linderman says it doesnt make sense for the Heat do do that trade. IMHO TechNine has been spending too much time visiting Tatoo.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

WshflThinking said:


> "At this point, I think TechNine has a better reputation."
> 
> Maybe with you he does, but not with me. *He has been wrong too.
> *
> The bottom line is the Bulls deny it and the Heat deny its true. What part of that cant you understand? I think they are going after Boozer with that Marion cap space. I dont believe Marion comes to the Bulls. As Linderman says it doesnt make sense for the Heat do do that trade. IMHO TechNine has been spending too much time visiting Tatoo.


And he's been right too. Hoopsworld has never been correct about something.

Why would the Heat or Bulls say they are talking about a trade? Are the Heat gonna say,"Yeah, we are talking about acquring Ben Gordon and trading away Shawn Marion!"

I don't think Yahoo has ever reported the Larry Hughes/Drew Gooden for Ben Wallace/Joe Smith being talked about. Tech gave it to us about 2 months before it went down.


----------



## WshflThinking (Sep 14, 2002)

Well Missouri is called the "Show Me" state. I am much the same way. I am not buying it till it happens. Its a fantasy traders delight. If there was one shred of evidence of this maybe I could buy a chance of this happening. Right now I see nada, zippo, zero. You'd think something would be on a Chicago newspaper or TV station. Except for the lied Moscow contract BG hasnt even been mentioned.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> More and more, it seems like it's going ot be Ben playing for the QO, having a me-first year, and then perhaps being overpaid by someone next offseason and leaving for nothing. Yuck.


It's possible, but I honestly don't see teams offering Ben Gordon any more money next summer than they are now. I tend to see his situation resulting from his inflated salary demands, rather than his restricted FA status. I don't think being unrestricted will change much, since the Bulls could still be the highest bidder next year. I could be wrong!


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

yodurk said:


> It's possible, but I honestly don't see teams offering Ben Gordon any more money next summer than they are now. I tend to see his situation resulting from his inflated salary demands, rather than his restricted FA status. I don't think being unrestricted will change much, since the Bulls could still be the highest bidder next year. I could be wrong!



If he has another year like last year, I agree he won't likely see an improved market value. If he puts up 25PPG because he's on a mission to earn a contract, though, things could be different.

What I don't know is who is expected to be under the cap next year. It only takes one team to get a little desperate.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> If he has another year like last year, I agree he won't likely see an improved market value. If he puts up 25PPG because he's on a mission to earn a contract, though, things could be different.
> 
> What I don't know is who is expected to be under the cap next year. It only takes one team to get a little desperate.


I could be drinking too much Kool-aid, but I would be thrilled if Gordon put up those kind of numbers. More than likely, a 25 ppg version of Ben Gordon would lead us to very good things. I doubt he gets away with those numbers in a selfish way in a losing situation. And if that were the case, perhaps we would change our stance and raise the offer to what he wants? Alot can happen in one season.

However, if I'm a betting man, I would put money toward Gordon essentially repeating what he's done the past few years. Averaging around 18-20 ppg, 42-45% FG, 85% FT, still difficult to get into the starting lineup because of his size / not being a PG. 

Wish the season would just start already so I can find out!


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Ballscientist said:


> How much is Gordon really worth?


6 years - 70 million


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Marcus13 said:


> 6 years - 70 million


For a one-dimensional, undersized 2 guard who needs a lot of shots to score his points. If that is what Gordon is worth, count me out. Contracts like that get a GM fired.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> Contracts like that get a GM fired.


like who? owners have to sign off on contracts, do they not? if such is the case, and the gm can make a case for gordon (or any player for that matter) getting the coin, what about the contract would get them fired?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> like who? owners have to sign off on contracts, do they not? if such is the case, and the gm can make a case for gordon (or any player for that matter) getting the coin, what about the contract would get them fired?


That contract would be prohibitive to future team success, unless Gordon were to suddenly be a starting two-guard without defensive deficiencies.

As for the question about Gordon's value, is it for us or in general? For us, I see the 6 yr/$59 M working alright. For the league, probably less - $8 M/year?


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> That contract would be prohibitive to future team success, unless Gordon were to suddenly be a starting two-guard without defensive deficiencies.


how silly of me.....i forgot gordon's defense was a primary reason the bulls were 33-49 last year......and gordon's defense was a primary reason the bulls won only 49 games instead of 53, and gordon's defense was the reason the bulls were a top 5 defense in the entire nba instead of #1......remind me again, what games (if you can recall any) was gordon's defense primarily, centrally, or even peripherally the reason the bulls lost?


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> how silly of me.....i forgot gordon's defense was a primary reason the bulls were 33-49 last year......and gordon's defense was a primary reason the bulls won only 49 games instead of 53, and gordon's defense was the reason the bulls were a top 5 defense in the entire nba instead of #1......remind me again, what games (if you can recall any) was gordon's defense primarily, centrally, or even peripherally the reason the bulls lost?


You're centering on the wrong part of my statement. Do you believe that Ben Gordon is a starter or a sixth man? Do you believe our team with Ben Gordon being THE GUY at SG would be able to progress towards being a championship contender?

Ben Gordon's defense is not godawful. I'm not saying that. His overall game needs work, and having a guy getting paid that much money - he needs to play a lot of minutes. If we're looking at Rose/Gordon - would those two work in the long term? I have my doubts about Gordon's ability to justify a $11.6 M/year deal is what I'm saying.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> You're centering on the wrong part of my statement. Do you believe that Ben Gordon is a starter or a sixth man? Do you believe our team with Ben Gordon being THE GUY at SG would be able to progress towards being a championship contender?
> 
> Ben Gordon's defense is not godawful. I'm not saying that. His overall game needs work, and having a guy getting paid that much money - he needs to play a lot of minutes. If we're looking at Rose/Gordon - would those two work in the long term? I have my doubts about Gordon's ability to justify a $11.6 M/year deal is what I'm saying.


i realize i was being facetious; it's just that some fans want to paint gordon as a singular reason the bulls weren't better. that BS; i believe gordon is one of the better, if not the best player(s) on the team. he is worth keeping. at 11 mil? maybe; but only if they let the more average players go. obviously the team can't invest 12 in hughes, 9 in hinrich, and 11 in gordon. i'd rather see the better players stay and the average ones go. imo, there's a better chance of gordon being of greater impact on the team moving forward than kirk, but that's just me. and he should play a lot of minutes; he's a primary scorer; until the bulls get someone who can complement him, he has no equal. i'm not discounting rose, but rose will make gordon et al better than he can make hinrich et al better, again imo. the defense thing is far, far overstated. rose/gordon will be a backcourt that will outdo most matchups on most nights. defensively, if sefolosha is afforded minutes, he'll pick up the slack when the matchups are unfavorable. hughes might even has a role in that scheme (god forbid).


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

BULLHITTER said:


> i realize i was being facetious; it's just that some fans want to paint gordon as a singular reason the bulls weren't better. that BS; i believe gordon is one of the better, if not the best player(s) on the team. he is worth keeping. at 11 mil? maybe; but only if they let the more average players go. obviously the team can't invest 12 in hughes, 9 in hinrich, and 11 in gordon. i'd rather see the better players stay and the average ones go. imo, there's a better chance of gordon being of greater impact on the team moving forward than kirk, but that's just me. and he should play a lot of minutes; he's a primary scorer; until the bulls get someone who can complement him, he has no equal. i'm not discounting rose, but rose will make gordon et al better than he can make hinrich et al better, again imo. the defense thing is far, far overstated. rose/gordon will be a backcourt that will outdo most matchups on most nights. defensively, if sefolosha is afforded minutes, he'll pick up the slack when the matchups are unfavorable. hughes might even has a role in that scheme (god forbid).


but its not just his defense, even though hes a horrible (yes horrible) defender. hes undersized for a SG, he too slow and not a playmaker so that excludes pg, hes one dimensional. and the one thing he known for shooting, he not very efficient. our concern is that if you really want to build a champion you cant tie up 12 mill on gordon just because hes the leading scorer by default.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> i realize i was being facetious; it's just that some fans want to paint gordon as a singular reason the bulls weren't better. that BS; i believe gordon is one of the better, if not the best player(s) on the team. he is worth keeping. at 11 mil? maybe; but only if they let the more average players go. obviously the team can't invest 12 in hughes, 9 in hinrich, and 11 in gordon. i'd rather see the better players stay and the average ones go. imo, there's a better chance of gordon being of greater impact on the team moving forward than kirk, but that's just me. and he should play a lot of minutes; he's a primary scorer; until the bulls get someone who can complement him, he has no equal. i'm not discounting rose, but rose will make gordon et al better than he can make hinrich et al better, again imo. the defense thing is far, far overstated. rose/gordon will be a backcourt that will outdo most matchups on most nights. defensively, if sefolosha is afforded minutes, he'll pick up the slack when the matchups are unfavorable. hughes might even has a role in that scheme (god forbid).


I don't think we're actually that far apart on our views of Gordon, actually. I put him and Kirk about even (each with their own plusses and minuses).

It's a tricky situation. Hopefully we can turn Hughes into something good at some point, even if it's just letting his deal expire...


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

> but its not just his defense, even though hes a horrible (yes horrible) defender.


really? what hyperbole..... what aspects can you evidence that makes him "horrible". was he lit up by someone last season, or in any season? is he a detriment to team defense because of his horribleness? have the bulls had to play 4 on 5 defensively because of ben? if you can support any of this with ANY kind of evidence, i'll continue to engage this and refute where necessary.



> hes undersized for a SG,


the bulls are aware of his height, what does that have to do with his "effectiveness".


> he too slow and not a playmaker


yet the bulls almost exclusively gave him the ball in crucial situations. i'd surmise your issue is that he wasn't as successful as some fans would like to see; my question is, he should have had team mates to help, so where, might i ask were they?



> so that excludes pg, hes one dimensional.





> and the one thing he known for shooting, he not very efficient.


in the one time i'd like to see ol' sloth around these parts, there's many a stat that shows ben's effieciency right there with the top 2's in the league. i'd even say for a player who EVERYBODY knows is going to get the ball and have to make sugar out of ****, it's gordon.




> our concern is that if you really want to build a champion you cant tie up 12 mill on gordon just because hes the leading scorer by default.


by default? then get some better players for him to play with, not keep the average ones and hope that a superstar falls from the heavens. which player do you feel will be more effective alongside a "superstar" gordon or hinrich? gordon or noc?

"our concern"? the bulls haven't expressed any such foolishness, nor will they. is gordon worth more or as much as larry hughes? somebody's going to be moved, it's not that complicated. the bulls don't need to insure gordon of anything, and i think they've handled the gordon situation well; he'll face reality when the time comes and he'll be diplomatic about it, as will the bulls. the fans are the only ones who harbor unrealistic opinions about a player's mindset come contract time.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

its funny how much perceptions change in a year.

if a poll was taken on this forum 12 months ago if Gordon as either a starter or a 6th man was good enough to be the guy at SG , the answer would have been an overwhelming yes.

it would have been a positive response to that question if given to most people who followed basketball.

but now with the addition of rose and a down year from just about every1 on the roster , nobody is worth anything especially Gordon.

I disagreed last year as far as the team's hopes were as far as being a title contender (i thought if they got a good seeding/matchup they would get past the 1st round but ultimately their lack of firepower doomed them to also ran status like the 90's Heat teams...really good defense and hustle but when they matched up against a legit good team with a superstar in the playoffs they usually lost) and i disagree this year on how poor a player gordon is , I feel the same way as i did last year , he is a good #2 star , he's not Kobe or Duncan , he's more like a billups , he can beat any team by almost by himself on a given night , but if a team wants to be a true contender they are going to need a bonafide star player to play alongside him and take the mantle as a true superstar.

If that guy is Rose , then they should pay gordon his money and build towards a true contender, if they aren't going to have one , maybe its best they just start over instead of just treading water and being mediocre for the next decade.

its wierd because the guy whose contract I question is Deng's, he's a really good player and he is good at pretty much everything, except creating his own shot off the dribble which is a rare talent that almost all star small forwards have, its very hard to be a star 3 without that.

Is deng going to win games in the 4th quarter?

in 3-4 years will the league view Deng like it does shawn marion , an extremely good but overpaid complimentary player.

time always answers these things eventually, but in my opinion i'd take a chance give in to Gordon's demands(maybe even swing a deal to let loose some dead weight at the end of the roster to make a deal happen) and see where him and rose can take the team.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> its funny how much perceptions change in a year.
> 
> if a poll was taken on this forum 12 months ago if Gordon as either a starter or a 6th man was good enough to be the guy at SG , the answer would have been an overwhelming yes.
> 
> ...


wow, are you serious? where do i begin. first no one is calling gordon a scrub or anything like that. however the money hes asking for is just to much for his abilities. lebron james and dwade make 13.5 mil. are those two players really only 2 or 3 mill better than gordon?

then, why would you tie up the rest of your money in gordon thus making your team stuck on neutral for the next 5 years.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

BULLHITTER said:


> *really? what hyperbole..... what aspects can you evidence that makes him "horrible". was he lit up by someone last season, or in any season? is he a detriment to team defense because of his horribleness? have the bulls had to play 4 on 5 defensively because of ben? if you can support any of this with ANY kind of evidence, i'll continue to engage this and refute where necessary.
> *


I'm sorry, but I watch 82 Bulls games every year, and Ben Gordon's defense is horrible. That is not hyperbole.

What aspects can we point to as evidence?

- He can get posted up by anybody over 6'3"
- He struggles to defend off the ball
- He NEVER closes out on three point shots

Add that to sub-par on ball defense, and you've got a problem on your hands. Sometimes it isn't a superstar putting up 50... sometimes its a guy like Travis Diener putting up 22... but you can't objectively watch the Bulls from last season without walking away with the impression that the Bulls would be a significantly better defensive team without Gordon on the court.

Gordon is a talented offensive player, and I don't have a problem with him being on the team... but he is not a starting caliber SG unless you can compensate for his defensive weaknesses. If we plan on starting anyone other than Thabo Sefolosha or Michael Jordan, his defense will continue to be a problem. I don't think Gordon is greedy, or a shot chucker, or any of the other nonsense that gets thrown around here... but he is a piss-poor defender.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Dornado said:


> I'm sorry, but I watch 82 Bulls games every year, and Ben Gordon's defense is horrible. That is not hyperbole.
> 
> What aspects can we point to as evidence?
> 
> ...



To play mediator here, I have a hard time seeing how Gordon has been a detriment to our TEAM defense given the success we've had over the past 4 seasons defensively. We can play him for long stretches and be an excellent defensive team. That has been proven.

However, Dornado -- I think your point is quite valid about the little guys going off on us. I felt like it happened quite a bit. And perhaps more importantly, I just don't have confidence in Gordon's ability to make *the big defensive stop* in the closing minutes/seconds of a game. Let's face it, the Bulls play in alot of very close games. It's going to be a big problem if we constantly have to make the decision of who to play in those situations. Do you play Gordon to get the long distance shooting, or do you play Thabo who will do the best job challenging the other team's best wing player? Playing Gordon could really get you burned on those big plays...


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

team defense is what matters; and gordon post-ups weren't a reason (not primary anyway) the bulls were 33-49. hinrich got posted up nearly as often, though fwiw, he was guarding the tougher matchup. off the ball wise, team defense is much more an issue because off the ball team mates have to constantly communicate on defense otherwise its very easy to get beat baseline or off of p&r. wallace had his own designs on how to guard p&r, so the best big defender was an issue as well.

i'm not pimping gordon as a defensive stopper, but i stand by the overkill on how "horrible" his defense is when offset by his offensive skills. he's not a well rounded player, but defense is mostly about effort, and even skiles never complained about his effort. short guards will always be prone to getting posted; chris paul get posted, the flaw in this "posted up" complaint is that it's not a strategy that happens for 48 minutes, it's something teams go to if there's a quick way to exploit it; teams counter quickly and it's taken away. within a team framework i don't think gordon's d has ever hurt the bulls as much as fans like to proclaim. now as far as his defense/versatility affecting his value contract wise, that's a horse of a different color.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

BULLHITTER said:


> team defense is what matters; and gordon post-ups weren't a reason (not primary anyway) the bulls were 33-49. hinrich got posted up nearly as often, though fwiw, he was guarding the tougher matchup. off the ball wise, team defense is much more an issue because off the ball team mates have to constantly communicate on defense otherwise its very easy to get beat baseline or off of p&r. wallace had his own designs on how to guard p&r, so the best big defender was an issue as well.
> 
> i'm not pimping gordon as a defensive stopper, but i stand by the overkill on how "horrible" his defense is when offset by his offensive skills. he's not a well rounded player, but defense is mostly about effort, and even skiles never complained about his effort. short guards will always be prone to getting posted; chris paul get posted, the flaw in this "posted up" complaint is that it's not a strategy that happens for 48 minutes, it's something teams go to if there's a quick way to exploit it; teams counter quickly and it's taken away. within a team framework i don't think gordon's d has ever hurt the bulls as much as fans like to proclaim. now as far as his defense/versatility affecting his value contract wise, that's a horse of a different color.


Excellent post. Right on the money.

However, I do stand by my above comment that in crucial moments down the stretch, Gordon can easily get exploited with a bad matchup. Oftentimes it's 1 play that makes the difference and it sucks to be extra vulnerable to getting burned on that 1 play. That's the thing about NBA basketball - teams approach late game situations totally different from how the first 40 minutes or so are played.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

yodurk said:


> However, I do stand by my above comment that in crucial moments down the stretch, Gordon can easily get exploited with a bad matchup. Oftentimes it's 1 play that makes the difference and it sucks to be extra vulnerable to getting burned on that 1 play. That's the thing about NBA basketball - teams approach late game situations totally different from how the first 40 minutes or so are played.


Right, which is why Ben is a "pick your poison" kind of guy who is never going to be considered as the best player on a successful team, even if he IS extremely valuable in doing what he does so well. 

I want him back, and *I hope* it's going to happen in way that makes sense for everyone. 

I wonder, if he does sign, if the Bulls do try to move some pieces once that is set.

C'mon, Ben. We'll take care [of] you. You'll love playing with Rose!


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Good Hope said:


> Right, which is why Ben is a "pick your poison" kind of guy who is never going to be considered as the best player on a successful team, even if he IS extremely valuable in doing what he does so well.
> 
> I want him back, and *I hope* it's going to happen in way that makes sense for everyone.
> 
> ...


And if Gordon had came into the league ten years earlier (1993), and been drafted as a #3 pick, he would've found his niche as one of the best 6th men in the league, a guy who could play major minutes when your guards were struggling, and put up 20 pts a game. But with the constant flux of most NBA teams, Gordon was drafted into a place where its either be a "star" or be "gone". I still think there is a place for Ben Gordon on this team. If I'm John Paxson I'm telling Del ***** to implement an uptempo, Suns-style offense built around Derrick Rose. I'm trying to trade Kirk Hinrich and another piece for a off-guard who can hit the three and play really good defense. Ideally, my team would look like this...

PG-Derrick Rose(distributor, captain of the offense, 20 ppg scorer)
SG-Trade Acquisition(3-pt shooter, defends the other team's primary scorer)
SF-Luol Deng(jack-of-all-trades, scores inside and out)
PF-Tyrus Thomas(see Kirilenko, Andre or Smith, Josh)
C-Drew Gooden(runs the court, hits some open jump shots, plays solid post defense)

BENCH: Ben Gordon(Guard)(spark, potential to score 20 on any given night), Andres Nocioni(Wing)(crazy wing defender who can hit the 3 and may end up breaking the nose of an opposing player), Joakim Noah(Post)(can play the 4 or 5, gives you 20 solid minutes off the bench a game, rebounds and plays D)

And really that's the end of it. Let those guys grow together. Build around Rose, Deng, and Thomas. I'd love to be able to package Hinrich and Gooden(plus that expiring) for a solid 2-guard, but we may be a year away and having to package Hinrich and Larry Hughes mammoth expiring deal. And that's fine. Let this team grow. 

You pay Deng 12 mil a year because that's the going rate for a #2 or #3 scorer on a championship team and 20 and 7 from the 3 spot should get you 12 mil. But you can't pay your 6th man 12 mil as well. 8 mil, sure. That's a good deal. 

The thing is, I see a lot of Suns-potential from the current incarnation of this Bulls team. Rose as Nash, Deng as Marion, Tyrus as Stoudamire, Gordon as Barbosa, our trade acquisition as Raja Bell, Gooden as Kurt Thomas(if Gooden could ever learn to play god damn defense). We just need to get the mess sorted out and also stay in a reasonable salary range.


----------



## garnett (May 13, 2003)

Nice post. This team needs a fast-paced offense or it's not going anywhere. Ben Gordon would be the perfect sixth man for a team like this.


----------



## Flash is the Future (May 12, 2006)

Rhyder said:


> I must have missed the Wright signing. What did you end up locking him up for?
> 
> You obviously want an upgrade in C. We just can't afford to give up a big without getting one in return. Any interest in Gooden?
> 
> ...


Dorell was signed for 2 years, $2,612,835 in the first and $2,887,175 in the second, so 5.5 million overall. 

As for Gooden, he's certainly not the ideal defender at C. But, he's big and can rebound. I think we might take that deal, even if we'd have like 3 PFs (Haslem+Gooden+Beasley) on the roster. I've got a question for you, though. Who would you prefer to trade, Hinrich or Gordon? Because I think it could probably work with either of them in the deal, as I'm not entirely sure how much we want to pair Wade+Gordon in the backcourt. If we really want to, then I guess it would need to be Gordon. Good trade idea.


----------



## mvP to the Wee (Jul 14, 2007)

Flash is the Future said:


> Dorell was signed for 2 years, $2,612,835 in the first and $2,887,175 in the second, so 5.5 million overall.
> 
> As for Gooden, he's certainly not the ideal defender at C. But, he's big and can rebound. I think we might take that deal, even if we'd have like 3 PFs (Haslem+Gooden+Beasley) on the roster. I've got a question for you, though. Who would you prefer to trade, Hinrich or Gordon? Because I think it could probably work with either of them in the deal, as I'm not entirely sure how much we want to pair Wade+Gordon in the backcourt. If we really want to, then I guess it would need to be Gordon. Good trade idea.


It really depends who you ask, but I would rather deal Gordon due to defensive reasons.


----------



## da bully (Oct 17, 2006)

i think that you guys are missing the point. he not worth what hes asking period end of discussion. the bulls want to sign gordon but not for 12 mill. 

and even if hes the best player on the team, the team is mediocre at best. look at the big picture geez.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

da bully said:


> wow, are you serious? where do i begin. first no one is calling gordon a scrub or anything like that. however the money hes asking for is just to much for his abilities. lebron james and dwade make 13.5 mil. are those two players really only 2 or 3 mill better than gordon?
> 
> then, why would you tie up the rest of your money in gordon thus making your team stuck on neutral for the next 5 years.


are they only 2 mil. worth more than deng?

heck pax gave big ben 60 mil over 4 years. 15 mil. a season ...but 12 mil. is too much for gordon?

people pick wierd times to become frugal.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

Flash is the Future said:


> Dorell was signed for 2 years, $2,612,835 in the first and $2,887,175 in the second, so 5.5 million overall.
> 
> As for Gooden, he's certainly not the ideal defender at C. But, he's big and can rebound. I think we might take that deal, even if we'd have like 3 PFs (Haslem+Gooden+Beasley) on the roster. I've got a question for you, though. Who would you prefer to trade, Hinrich or Gordon? Because I think it could probably work with either of them in the deal, as I'm not entirely sure how much we want to pair Wade+Gordon in the backcourt. If we really want to, then I guess it would need to be Gordon. Good trade idea.


I think Hinrich is the better pairing next to Rose, so I'd be more inclined to trade Gordon. I'm not sure how many Bulls fans agree. I think it might be close to a 50/50 split.


----------

