# NBA Insider : Ben Gordon possibly on the "block"?



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

Ben Gordon, G, Bulls
Can't quote Insider articles, not even a little bit. Please paraphrase them in the future. Sorry.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

I just dont see how trading away another very solid prospect will get us any better, it hasnt in years past. I just dont understand how people can say that the Hinrich Gordon back court wont work, when that lineup has only played small minutes all year. Gordon made some huge shots last night, and yess micheal finley had a good night, but Its freaking Micheal Finley! Micheal Finley was averaging 27 points a game in the last 4 games before comming to chicago, Its not like Finley destroyed gordon in thepost, most of his scoring where on Fadeaway jump shots, and buzzer beating 3's. Gordon is an amazing shooter and he will only get better. Keep him.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Boy, I'd be hesitant to move gordon right now. He's starting to put together more consistant games. The man has ice water running thru his veins. That three which should have won the game was a clutch shot. I also liked his response after draining the shot. He just backpeddled while looking Nowitzki down. He's got it in him to make the big shot when called upon.

He's got serious talent and while maybe he and Hinrich aren't clicking now, you make it work. I think it would be incridibly shotr-sighted of Pax to move Gordon anytime soon. When he plays well, this team stands a much better chance of winning games.


----------



## spongyfungy (Oct 22, 2003)

NOOO! 

because he's good and cheap.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

makes me wonder if chad ford has naughty polaroids of the espn honchos...seriously.

i thought the ben/kirk backcourt worked pretty well against the wolves and last night, especially on that last second play kirk to ben for the three.

i seriously doubt pax trades ben.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

I don't believe they're trade Gordon what-so-ever. I have no doubt in my MIND that Eddy Curry will be traded before the deadline though.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

As much as I like Gordon & Hinrich both it makes sense to move one of them eventually. Of course there is no rush and we can expirement with them together and find out which guy we want to hang out hat on. But, having two guys that are Hinrich & Gordon's size in the backcourt playing together just isn't something that is likely to work. Neither Gordon or Hinrich can match up well with taller guards and most of shooting guards in the league are taller. We need a 6'6"-6'8" atheletic shooting guard who can defend to be in the backcourt with either Gordon or Hinrich eventually IMO. Who that would be? I have no idea. It's not necessarily a bad trade if you move Curry & Hinrich or Gordon and get back Paul Pierce and Mark Blount. But, if you trade them both for Vince Carter and Donyell Marshall...thats not a good deal. I guess what I am saying is that it is likely that we will eventually have to move one of them..if we do....it had better be the right move.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I agree with Ace. If we trade Curry AND gordon, it better not be for Carter. someone along the line of Pierce would be ok. Nothng less. 

Gordon is going to be a hell of a player. I would hate to see him go.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Man, how could anyone who watches this team lately want to trade Gordon. This team has absolutely lived and died on him and it's starting to live more often than die.

OK, not more often, but he's obviously getting it and he looked like he could be a very good player.

At this point if they're trading someone because of fit issues, I think it needs to be Kirk. I think his long-run future is at the third guard if we could get a star SG to play next to Ben without giving up Kirk.

For example, if they snagged Pietrus, I'd imagine that in a couple of years Ben and Pietrus would be the starters. That's no offense to Kirk, but it just makes the most sense in terms of what they can do together vs. what he and one of those guys could do together.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

I don't think you have to watch Hinrich and Gordon play together to determine that neither is a strong defender against a 6-6 shooting guard like Finley let alone a 6-8 guard such as Kobe or McGrady. Gordon would have fit at the two with Crawford at the point but a Gordon and Hinrich will always create some mismatches for the Bulls. The team either has to accept that major flaw and determine that the other factors the backcourt brings to the table outweighs their diffensive difficiencies or make a move. Gordon has solid trade value so I don't understand why it'd be a huge mistake to trade a valuable young player if we can get substantial value in return. Clearly if Pax doesn't find good options for a trade he should not make a move.


----------



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

> Originally posted by <b>The ROY</b>!
> The issue with Gordon is this: He's not a great fit in the Bulls backcourt with Kirk Hinrich. * He needs to be on the floor with a big point guard* or he needs to make the transition from a 'two' to a 'one'.


Hmmm. . .

I distinctly remember us having something like that. . .seems like such a long time.

:shy:

Well, I thought I saw the horse's one eye moving.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

Chad Ford

or 

Chad Speculator



Boy would I love to have a job that earns me money and doing just one thing.....


*SPECULATE*



 :dead:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Like I said about Eddy on another thread, I'm not calling for trades of anyone...

But given the makeup of our team and our record, it would be foolish to call anyone on the roster untradeable.

I wouldn't give up Ben for just anyone, and a Ben/Eddy package had damn well better be a blockbuster, but I won't rule out any possibility until I hear the details. This is a team that can get better. It is a team that (God help me for tempting fate by saying it) really can't get much worse. Listen to any and all offers. Only bite on a good one.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

pierce is the guy ive always wanted, yes hes not as great as the likes of t-mac,kobe. hes a step below, but hes still one hell of scorer, and i believe he can be had for the right price.

maybe gordon+curry for PP mark blount, we need to sweeten the offer a little bit. i will go as far as throwing in a first round pick if we still have any.

kirk
pp
deng
chandler
blount

very solid ball club with good mix of youth and vets, of course still alot of talents, and now we have a legit all-star who could go off for 40 pts any given night and clutch too.

FORGET THAT FRENCH DUDE FROM GSW. i dont know where you guys get all the hypes from about him. but he's nothing special. no way he's worth any of our 5 core players. 

he's quite possibly the most hyped player ever on the bulls forum considering his talents and skills no where justify that kind of hypes. just because some of the "well known, respected" posters here say that hes great doesnt mean hes great. nobody is right all the time.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Everyone loves to make the BG - AI comparison but one has to remember that Gordon has 2 inches on the 6'0 waif Iverson and Gordon has a solid build. It is not a gimme backing this guy down. His height is a concern, but realistically the only people able to distract Kobe and TMacs J shots are SF's like Prince.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

double


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

FWIW,

I suggested trading Curry+Hinrich for a young star on draft night.

Nothing has changed my view that it is a good idea.

It would open the PG slot for Gordon and the C slot for Chandler.

Ideally the trade would be for Gordon's backcourt mate for years to come, plus a serviceable big to spell AD and Chandler.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

As others have said, no one on a 4-15 team is untouchable. but if Pax DOES make a move, it better be for something special. Gordon/Hinrich might not work long-term, but that doesn't mean we have to trade one of them away for the sake of it. Any trade involving one of those guys and/or Curry has to bring back a can't-miss kind of player. And considering how much this team has improved over the past couple weeks, there is absolutely no rush to make a move. There are still 2 months until the deadline, and we actually look like a real NBA team - albeit a mediocre one.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Chad Ford points out exactly who has to go in the article. He said a Hinrich and Gordon backcourt can not co-exist. I think if they are going to break up this backcourt, Hinrich will be the one to go. People think that John Paxson is in love with Hinrich, don't get me wrong, Paxson likes Hinrich, but Skiles is the one who has a 12 year old girl crush for him. Gordon is a guy that Paxson thinks will be a superstar in the league. He knows Deng will be good, but the reason we made that trade on draft night is because Paxson realized that there was 2 future stars in the draft that could be his and he went out and got both. Gordon is and always will be the more talented player then Gordon. Who do we trade Hinrich for? I would trade him for Larry Hughes. He is a tall guard, that can score, and is an underrated ball handler. One of the best defensive guards in the league. Larry Hughes is that talented veteran that the Bulls need. If the Bulls could maybe get a draft pick out of the deal it would be perfect. Hinrich will go of to have a great career I'm sure, but Ben Gordon is the road that the Bull's should take.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>unBULLievable</b>!
> Chad Ford
> 
> or
> ...


Agreed. I seriously think Ford just browses through NBA rosters and looks where there are holes and/or logjams, and then speculates trades based on this. Paxson loved Gordon enough to spend the 3rd pick on him. Why the hell would he want to trade him so soon? Besides, the Bulls are starting to resemble a real NBA team. I wouldn't be so hasty with trades.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Now that you mention it, Hinrich could be expendable. Duhon is a nice, pass first pg. Gordon I am sure can play the point as well. 

This is a hard one to call. Hinrich has has some 30 pt plus games as well.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> Now that you mention it, Hinrich could be expendable. Duhon is a nice, pass first pg. Gordon I am sure can play the point as well.
> 
> This is a hard one to call. Hinrich has has some 30 pt plus games as well.


Not to mention some 12+asst games.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Yea but Hinrich will never be more than a solid PG, a 3rd option on a championship (like Sam Cassell), Gordon is going to be a star. His clutch factor can not be overestimated, if this team develops he will end up the #1 option on offense. I'd deal Hinrich before I'd deal Gordon, and try and get Hughes back in return.


----------



## Benny the Bull (Jul 25, 2002)

I don't think there should be any rush to deal either Gordon or Hinrich at the moment. Getting a tall 3 guard who is a good defender (such as Pietrus) could be one step to see if a Hinrich-Gordon backcourt could work better. I also think Gordon needs to prove he can play the point, which I believe he can. 

The one attribute Gordon has shown in glimpses is his ability to take over games, and carry a team offensively late in games. Gordon is clutch. This skill is a rare commodity, and unless you can acquire a player in return who can do the same, we should just keep Gordon for the moment.


----------



## Ice Nine (Apr 3, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>T.Shock</b>!
> Yea but Hinrich will never be more than a solid PG, a 3rd option on a championship (like Sam Cassell), Gordon is going to be a star. His clutch factor can not be overestimated, if this team develops he will end up the #1 option on offense. I'd deal Hinrich before I'd deal Gordon, and try and get Hughes back in return.


Hinrich is currently #10 in the league in assist-to-turnover ratio. I believe he can be a top tier PG if he cuts his FG attempts in half, and instead kicks the ball into Tyson & Curry for either a high percentage shot in the paint or to pull defenders off Deng & Gordon on the perimeter. Besides, the Bulls don't have a SG to replace Gordon so I fail to see why you are so eager to move him to the point.


----------



## El Chapu (Oct 23, 2004)

Well, a good player to go after if we want to keep Ben Gordon (with all this stuff about his height, etc) at SG is Marko Jaric, listed at 6'7. He is very good distributing the ball and can score. I know Pax likes him, and the Clips were rumored to be involved in a 3 way with Chicago and Golden State. Too bad Shaun Livingston is probably going to miss the rest of the season. But if we include Hinrich and Curry, maybe we can get Jaric and Wilcox, with the Warriors getting Curry, and the Clippers Dunleavy Jr and Hinrich.

C- Chandler
PF- Wilcox
SF- Deng
SG- Gordon
PG- Jaric


----------



## Kismet (Mar 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Benny the Bull</b>!
> I don't think there should be any rush to deal either Gordon or Hinrich at the moment. Getting a tall 3 guard who is a good defender (such as Pietrus) could be one step to see if a Hinrich-Gordon backcourt could work better. I also think Gordon needs to prove he can play the point, which I believe he can.
> 
> The one attribute Gordon has shown in glimpses is his ability to take over games, and carry a team offensively late in games. Gordon is clutch. This skill is a rare commodity, and unless you can acquire a player in return who can do the same, we should just keep Gordon for the moment.


As they say in the beer commercial..._BRILLIANT!_

A three guard rotation comprised of Hinrich, Gordon and someone like Pietrus puts all these size issues to rest.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

Hinrich would start on about 18-20 NBA teams.

Shall I name the ones where he WOULD NOT start?

The Significantly Better PG's:

New Jersey (Kidd)
New Orleans (Davis)
Phoenix (Nash)
Miami (Wade)
New York (Marbury)
Washington (Arenas)
Orlando (debatable, since Franchise would make a great shift to SG)

And some borderline cases
Minnesota (Cassell is old enough to be coming off the bench)
Indiana (Tinsley is like SuperDuhon... debatable)
Denver (Dre Miller runs the team just right, most of the time, but Hinrich is more talented)
Detroit (Billups and Hinrich are actually pretty similar players)
San Antonio (Hinrich is probably a bit better than Parker, but Parker might be a better fit)


Hinrich is a stud. He's a serious talent. How many NBA teams would Gordon start on, at EITHER position? Not sure.


I'm a BG fan more than I am a Hinrich fan, but the real answer is to keep Gordon unless we can get a serious upgrade. Here's the list of SG's I'd move Gordon for:

*Yeah right, not gettable.*
Lebron
Kobe

*Long shots, but not ungettable.*
McGrady
Maggette
AI
Ray Allen
Paul Pierce

*Gettable. I'd pull this if I could.*
Hughes
Jason Richardson
D-Mase (I think he's got nuts potential, and he's 27)

Anyway, if we don't get one of those guys, we keep Gordon. That's what it has to be. I've decided. 

So it is written, so it shall be done.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

for some reason I thought this thread said, "Ben Gordon possibly on the blow". Now how interesting a story that would be. C'mon Chad Ford. If you're going to make **** up make cool **** up.


----------



## svanacore (Nov 21, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Showtyme</b>!
> Hinrich would start on about 18-20 NBA teams.
> 
> Shall I name the ones where he WOULD NOT start?
> ...


You think that Hinrich would start on Sacremento over Mike Bibby?


----------



## Krazy!!! (Jul 10, 2002)

Never in my 10 years of being a Bulls fan have I seen someone as scrutinized and criticized as Ben Gordon.

Never mind the fact that he's moving up in the rankings for Rookie Of The Year possibilities.

Never mind the fact that he's played a huge part in 3 of the 4 Bulls victories. 

Never mind the fact that the game is beginning to slow down for him.

Folks will continue to argue:

"He's too short."

"He's a shooting guard."

"He can't play defense."
:sigh:


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Krazy!!!</b>!
> Never in my 10 years of being a Bulls fan have I seen someone as scrutinized and criticized as Ben Gordon.
> 
> Never mind the fact that he's moving up in the rankings for Rookie Of The Year possibilities.
> ...


Krazy, it isn't so much that I have a problem with Gordon as I have a problem with a Gordon Hinrich backcourt. I just don't see it working long term. Honestly, I'd probably be inclined to keep Gordon and deal Hinrich at this point.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Bulls will rue the day they keep Hinrich (the franchise) over Gordon, if a trade must happen. You don't trade extraordinary to keep steady, just remember that. It happened in LA with Kobe and Eddie Jones.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Bulls will rue the day they keep Hinrich (the franchise) over Gordon, if a trade must happen. You don't trade extraordinary to keep steady, just remember that. It happened in LA with Kobe and Eddie Jones.


Eddie Jones is extraordinary and Kobe Bryant is steady? Do I have this right?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>transplant</b>!
> 
> 
> Eddie Jones is extraordinary and Kobe Bryant is steady? Do I have this right?


The Lakers obviously did the opposite. At the time more people wanted to see Kobe traded, not Jones. Credit West and Buss for not foolishly dealing the guy who would become the much better player.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> The Lakers obviously did the opposite. At the time more people wanted to see Kobe traded, not Jones. Credit West and Buss for not foolishly dealing the guy who would become the much better player.


OK, HKF, you've been a pretty sharp poster from what I've seen, so I kinda figured I misunderstood.

Now that we have that cleared up, I want to re-state what I said in another thread. IMO, the Bulls should make no trades based on potential or wishful thinking. Hinrich has shown me he can start in the NBA. Gordon has not. I don't want to see either traded, but until Gordon shows me he can be a legit starting PG, I don't trade a proven starter to keep a potential starter. At this point, the Bulls have only 1 proven starter and it's Hinrich. For me, I don't trade Hinrich unless I get a legit starting NBA PG in return. I reserve the right to change my mind at a later date.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Krazy!!!</b>!
> Never in my 10 years of being a Bulls fan have I seen someone as scrutinized and criticized as Ben Gordon.
> 
> Never mind the fact that he's moving up in the rankings for Rookie Of The Year possibilities.
> ...


Good to see ya again KRAZY!! Don't be a stranger.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

You telling me that Gordon and Hinrich and Pargo cannot run the pg spot should Hinrich be traded? I disagree. I think Duhon is doing a lot better job at the point than anyof us thought he would. I think Gordon can back him up when he is not playing SG. 

To trade Hirnich and Curry for a bonafide star would make sense,


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> You telling me that Gordon and Hinrich and Pargo cannot run the pg spot should Hinrich be traded? I disagree. I think Duhon is doing a lot better job at the point than anyof us thought he would. I think Gordon can back him up when he is not playing SG.
> 
> To trade Hirnich and Curry for a bonafide star would make sense,


You mean Gordon, Duhon, and Pargo.


----------



## Qwst25 (Apr 24, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> To trade Hirnich and Curry for a bonafide star would make sense,


This whole idea of a bonafide star is kind of overated. I'm looking around the NBA at players who are supposed to be the best of the best, and more times than anything I see a mirage. Shaq leaves LA and now "all-star" Kobe Bryant can't seem to hit a shot on a regular basis. "All-star" Allen Iverson is a horrible shooter, but is always given the green light. Tracy McGrady has taken a step backwards as a player, and Paul Pierce for the past three years hasn't come close to shooting the way he did in 2001 and 2002. 

What I'm trying to say is that we need players who fit well on the team and make those around them better. We can't just hap-hazzardly plug in any player and expect to succeed, even if they are considered a "star" by the media. A team is like a puzzel each piece needs to fit. Right now we actualy have most of the pieces in place, but the team is young, and it's going to take time. We shouldn't be reshufalling our major pieces just for the sake of making a trade. Hinrich is only in his second year and other than his three point shooting he has improved in most aspects of his game. We need to keep him at the point. At present Gordon and Curry are the question marks of the team. Curry largely because of his contract, and Gordon because of his size. 

In the past weeks Gordon has shown the potential to be an amazing scorer in this league, unfortunately he hasn't brought much else to the table. Now it has only been twenty games, and in the next twenty games a new aspect of his game may emerge. But while patience is the key, the prospect of getting a taller SG needs to be in Paxson's head.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> You mean Gordon, Duhon, and Pargo.


Yeah that is what I mean. Old age brain fart set in.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>svanacore</b>!
> 
> 
> You think that Hinrich would start on Sacremento over Mike Bibby?


Good, thanks for catching me on that.

I meant to move Bibby to the "debatable" list. 

To be honest, I see Hinrich's game evolving exactly into Mike Bibby's game. Hinrich will never capitalize his talent until he realizes that he is a dual weapon, not just a pass-first PG. He's had some big scoring nights, but it seems like he's trying too hard to create for himself (thus the low FG%), to keep the onus on him.

Bibby benefits from being on a great passing team, with smart passers like Webber and Christie and Jackson and even Brad Miller(and previously, Divac), each of them capable of 5+ apg.

I'd love to see the Bulls develop into that, and see Hinrich really become a consummate floor general that can score or create on a team that loves to move the ball. Until then, though, I think Hinrich will be like a Bibby in Vancouver (15 and 8) except a less proficient scorer (Bibby had an outrageously high FG and 3pt %).


----------



## Chicago_Cow (Mar 5, 2003)

Someone please locks this thread!

Ben Gordon is a Bulls for life, period!


----------

