# Gordon "will not sign QO"/thinks he will be traded



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3537868

Paxson is left looking like a fool again. 

My bet is Gordon will be a Miami Heat by the end of next week.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Why do I get the feeling we are going to give him up for a crap contract?


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Good. A big man would be great but a solid role player would do just as well. Gives Rose, Thabo, Hinrich and Larry Hughes more minutes with him gone.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I am calling this right now.

I think the trade will be: Ben Gordon ($69 million/6 years) and Andres Nocioni for Morris Peterson, Mike James, and Julian Wright.

The trade makes too much sense not to happen imo. 

I'm still surprised that our team with $60 million in profit, $20 million more than the next most profitable team, couldn't find a little bit more for Gordon. 

We are going to uber suck next year. http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199904100CHI.html <--- 2008-2009 Chicago Bulls.


----------



## southeasy (Jun 11, 2003)

heh

good

Bulls would be wise to try to get a big man in return.

Gooden/Tyrus isnt good enough

more minutes to Thabo+


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

BG7 said:


> I am calling this right now.
> 
> I think the trade will be: Ben Gordon ($69 million/6 years) and Andres Nocioni for Morris Peterson, Mike James, and Julian Wright.
> 
> ...


Now more than ever, I can see that you are a Ben Gordon fan rather than a Chicago Bulls fan. You value Gordon way too much. Him leaving means better defense and one less player to worry about in terms of inconsistent offense. Will be interesting if he heads off to Europe or what we get in return for a trade.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullybullz said:


> Now more than ever, I can see that you are a Ben Gordon fan rather than a Chicago Bulls fan. You value Gordon way too much. Him leaving means better defense and one less player to worry about in terms of inconsistent offense. Will be interesting if he heads off to Europe or what we get in return for a trade.


Gordon has had more of a direct correlation than any other player on the Bulls towards winning. I like to see the Bulls winning, so of course I want to keep Gordon.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

BG7 said:


> Gordon has had more of a direct correlation than any other player on the Bulls towards winning. I like to see the Bulls winning, so of course I want to keep Gordon.


Really, reading the comments on ESPN about the article, it seems like many are happy about Gordon leaving. A season ticket holder even said so.

_dabeers5434 (15 hours ago) Report Violation The streakiest shooter ever, plays horrible D, disappears for long stretches, and he doest share the ball....as a bulls season ticket holder I speak for most bulls fans when I say good riddence._


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

I would just like to add that Ben Gordon is truly a selfish player. He was definetly one of the main reasons why the Bulls sucked last year. He may have been a locker room or a team cancer whining about his minutes, not getting enough touches, etc. 

_"It's a numbers game," he said. "Last season at the trade deadline, *they brought in more guards and I saw my minutes drop and didn't understand why.* This year, the problem's still the same. I don't see it getting better, so maybe *it'll be a better situation for me personally somewhere else."*_

Obviously Mr. Ben Gordon, if a team bring in more guards, you're minutes will more likely decline. Besides, its not like he was playing great last season. He regressed to say the least. This guy is all ME and not about sacrificing his minutes for the TEAM. I say get rid of this one-trick pony, before he actually does come to his senses and signs the 6 year 59 million or hell even the QO and become the ultimate team cancer.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

> think the trade will be: Ben Gordon ($69 million/6 years) and Andres Nocioni for Morris Peterson, Mike James, and Julian Wright.
> 
> The trade makes too much sense not to happen imo.


Maybe to you,but I don't see why the Hornets would want to make Chris Paul guard opposing SG's again next season or ever again.We all know that Gordon can't guard the two.Paul can do it a hell of a lot better than him,but why in god's name would you want to put that on him?

Posey is going to mostly play SG for the Hornets next year.He wouldn't be able to do it for a lot of teams,but those teams don't have Paul to take care of all the ballhandling.Unless Gordon has somehow become a backup point guard there's not much need of him in NOH.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullybullz said:


> I would just like to add that Ben Gordon is truly a selfish player. He was definetly one of the main reasons why the Bulls sucked last year. He may have been a locker room or a team cancer whining about his minutes, not getting enough touches, etc.
> 
> _"It's a numbers game," he said. "Last season at the trade deadline, *they brought in more guards and I saw my minutes drop and didn't understand why.* This year, the problem's still the same. I don't see it getting better, so maybe *it'll be a better situation for me personally somewhere else."*_
> 
> Obviously Mr. Ben Gordon, if a team bring in more guards, you're minutes will more likely decline. Besides, its not like he was playing great last season. He regressed to say the least. This guy is all ME and not about sacrificing his minutes for the TEAM. I say get rid of this one-trick pony, before he actually does come to his senses and signs the 6 year 59 million or hell even the QO and become the ultimate team cancer.


Well after the Hughes trade, Bulls went 11-17, which was worse than the Bulls win% after the trade, so Gordon might just be on to something.

Gordon was all about the team when he was on the team. When an NBA player is a free agent, they have to do what's best for him. Are people really going to call him selfish for trying to do what's best for him? If you take away the fact that Gordon played for the Bulls previously, say he played in Europe. Would that player want to play on a team where he has a guaranteed starting spot or go to a team (same amount of money), where he doesn't have a garaunteed starting spot, will have his role jerked around, and have his minutes drastically cut (like Boylan did to Gordon post Hughes trade).


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Diable said:


> Maybe to you,but I don't see why the Hornets would want to make Chris Paul guard opposing SG's again next season or ever again.We all know that Gordon can't guard the two.Paul can do it a hell of a lot better than him,but why in god's name would you want to put that on him?
> 
> Posey is going to mostly play SG for the Hornets next year.He wouldn't be able to do it for a lot of teams,but those teams don't have Paul to take care of all the ballhandling.Unless Gordon has somehow become a backup point guard there's not much need of him in NOH.


The Hornets probably aren't looking at defense. They've been trying to trade for Gordon for a year now, they obviously want him, and I'm pretty certain that they aren't shipping Chris Paul in the trade, so logically, one would think that the Hornets want to pair Paul/Gordon. Realistically, Gordon is the ideal guard to put next to point guards like Derrick Rose and Chris Paul on the offensive end. The Hornets probably think that Gordon can do just as good of a job guarding the Kobe's and T-Mac's as anyone not named Bruce Bowen, and that Gordon can do a good enough job on the lesser shooting guards, and then they will use Chandler to clean up any other defensive shortcomings from Gordon.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

BG7 said:


> Well after the Hughes trade, Bulls went 11-17, which was worse than the Bulls win% after the trade, so Gordon might just be on to something.
> 
> Gordon was all about the team when he was on the team. When an NBA player is a free agent, they have to do what's best for him. Are people really going to call him selfish for trying to do what's best for him? If you take away the fact that Gordon played for the Bulls previously, say he played in Europe. Would that player want to play on a team where he has a guaranteed starting spot or go to a team (same amount of money), where he doesn't have a garaunteed starting spot, will have his role jerked around, and have his minutes drastically cut (like Boylan did to Gordon post Hughes trade).


I bet you if Gordon took last years offer of 5 years 50 million which was more than fair, the Bulls would not have traded for Larry Hughes. Who knows maybe if Gordon signed last summer, Luol Deng would've followed suit and signed for the 5 year 57.5 million in which he said he regretted not taking. Maybe then the locker room would've not been so divided/bickering about playing time and touches. 

Ben Gordon has brought this upon himself. He is a one-dimensional streaky player as hell and last year's offer was fair. It's not like he will get more money from another team this summer and even if he did take the QO(he said he will not) its not like he will get more. Too many guards to allow Gordon to jack up shot after shot and pad his stats.

Also how many games did the Bulls choke following the trade. I remember at least 5. It was truly amazing.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

BG7 said:


> The Hornets probably aren't looking at defense. They've been trying to trade for Gordon for a year now, they obviously want him, and I'm pretty certain that they aren't shipping Chris Paul in the trade, so logically, one would think that the Hornets want to pair Paul/Gordon. Realistically, Gordon is the ideal guard to put next to point guards like Derrick Rose and Chris Paul on the offensive end. The Hornets probably think that Gordon can do just as good of a job guarding the Kobe's and T-Mac's as anyone not named Bruce Bowen, and that Gordon can do a good enough job on the lesser shooting guards, and then they will use Chandler to clean up any other defensive shortcomings from Gordon.


LOL. Like that happened when Chandler was in CHI.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullybullz said:


> LOL. Like that happened when Chandler was in CHI.


Well in Gordon/Chandler's two seasons together, the Bulls were respectively 2nd best defensive team in the NBA in 2004-2005, and 7th best in 2005-2006. I bet the Hornets would be giddy to do that well on defense while having a ton of offensive firepower.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

BG7 said:


> Well in Gordon/Chandler's two seasons together, the Bulls were respectively 2nd best defensive team in the NBA in 2004-2005, and 7th best in 2005-2006. I bet the Hornets would be giddy to do that well on defense while having a ton of offensive firepower.


Yeah but that season had defensive-minded players. Chandler, Antonio Davis, Othella Harrington, and some of the current players to make up for Gordon's D or lack of D.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullybullz said:


> Yeah but that season had defensive-minded players. Chandler, Antonio Davis, Othella Harrington, and some of the current players to make up for Gordon's D or lack of D.


Ben Gordon, Eddy Curry.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

BG7 said:


> Ben Gordon, Eddy Curry.


Ben Gordon has never had a defensive mind-set. Ask any true Chicago Bulls fan. Eddy Curry? Please. The only defense he plays is because his big and his fat *** takes up space on D.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullybullz said:


> Ben Gordon has never had a defensive mind-set. Ask any true Chicago Bulls fan. Eddy Curry? Please. The only defense he plays is because his big and his fat *** takes up space on D.


Yet the team was still #2 in the league in defense with those two guys logging big minutes....amazing. Gordon isn't this big defensive liability that completely kills a team that his haters make him out to be. 

He's not a great defender by any stretch, but he's a guard. A weak perimeter defender is far better to have on your team than a weak interior defender, since the perimeter man only effects his man, while the interior guy can effect the entire other team on defense.

If we could be #2 in defense with two "liabilities", then Hornets can be passable on defense with one.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

BG7 said:


> Yet the team was still #2 in the league in defense with those two guys logging big minutes....amazing. Gordon isn't this big defensive liability that completely kills a team that his haters make him out to be.
> 
> He's not a great defender by any stretch, but he's a guard. A weak perimeter defender is far better to have on your team than a weak interior defender, since the perimeter man only effects his man, while the interior guy can effect the entire other team on defense.
> 
> If we could be #2 in defense with two "liabilities", then Hornets can be passable on defense with one.


Look at Ben Gordon's +/- even when he had a big scoring game. Eddy Curry hardly plays big minutes for the Knicks now and Isiah Thomas(lol) even benched him because of how useless he is. The 2004-2005 team surprised the whole league. 0-9 start and winning 47 or 49 games I forgot. Ben Gordon also was on the bench for most of that season. He was and still is a perfect 6th man, not starting-material.

Oh, and Ben Gordon played only 24 minutes, the lowest of his career. Hmmm coincidence? Also, Eddy Curry got hurt the last month or so making the Bulls D better that year.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

:sigh:

Everybody's fairly set in their opinion, which is understandable. Gordon is a good player, and I'd love to have him back at a reasonable price. It looks that that will not be occurring, which is a shame. He will most certainly be missed.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

King Joseus said:


> :sigh:
> 
> Everybody's fairly set in their opinion, which is understandable. Gordon is a good player, and I'd love to have him back at a reasonable price. It looks that that will not be occurring, which is a shame. He will most certainly be missed.


Exactly. At 5 years for 50 million. I'd say, welcome aboard. For more than the 6 years, 71 million that Deng got. No thank you. One dimensional player. Great scorer. Doesn't play defense. Terrible ballhandler, terrible passer. Gordon is a great asset to have, but by no means is he the difference between a NBA title and no NBA title for the current squad.

Surprised he isn't taking the QO though. That seems like the most logical move. Unless he has no problem playing overseas.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

I'm hoping Paxson includes Nocioni in the Ben Gordon sign-and-trade if possible. I'd give Hinrich one year to redeem himself. If not trade him.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

bullybullz said:


> I'm hoping Paxson includes Nocioni in the Ben Gordon sign-and-trade if possible. I'd give Hinrich one year to redeem himself. If not trade him.


I have a hunch you're going to be very disappointed with Mr. Hughes' output this season with what you're expecting.

The only possible reason he's worthy of respectable minutes at all is that we're paying him too much to just rot on the bench, or to somehow conceivably raise his trade value so we can trade him for a contract ending at the same time that isn't a guard.

Seriously, I don't know what anybody sees in this guy anymore.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

King Joseus said:


> I have a hunch you're going to be very disappointed with Mr. Hughes' output this season with what you're expecting.
> 
> The only possible reason he's worthy of respectable minutes at all is that we're paying him too much to just rot on the bench, or to somehow conceivably raise his trade value so we can trade him for a contract ending at the same time that isn't a guard.
> 
> Seriously, I don't know what anybody sees in this guy anymore.


Well, many people were questioning the Joe Smith signing but I was all for it. Turns out he was the best player before the Ben Wallace trade. I have a pretty good eye when it comes to sports and talent/production.:biggrin:


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

BG7 said:


> I am calling this right now.
> 
> I think the trade will be: Ben Gordon ($69 million/6 years) and Andres Nocioni for Morris Peterson, Mike James, and Julian Wright.
> 
> ...


Y'know Sloth ... this makes sense 

The Bulls supposedly liked Julian Wright if Noah wasn't at #9

In addition to which Mike James brings a similar skill base as Ben Gordon altghough he is not as good and Mo Pete ( when he wants to ) can bring it defensively and hit the long ball ... James and Mo Pete would bring a lot of what we lack ( long range shooting ) if we lose Ben and Noce ( who when in control is a semi reliable long range threat )


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

Diable said:


> Maybe to you,but I don't see why the Hornets would want to make Chris Paul guard opposing SG's again next season or ever again.We all know that Gordon can't guard the two.Paul can do it a hell of a lot better than him,but why in god's name would you want to put that on him?
> 
> Posey is going to mostly play SG for the Hornets next year.He wouldn't be able to do it for a lot of teams,but those teams don't have Paul to take care of all the ballhandling.Unless Gordon has somehow become a backup point guard there's not much need of him in NOH.


Gordon is an upgrade over Mike James for them and they also now have DMase back in Okey to give addition wing defense 

but yeah they need a better quality back up point , preferably with some size . I reckon they should be trying to have a crack at Javaris Crittenton as a project


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

This is like Jamal redux


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

bullybullz said:


> Well, many people were questioning the Joe Smith signing but I was all for it. Turns out he was the best player before the Ben Wallace trade. I have a pretty good eye when it comes to sports and talent/production.:biggrin:


http://www.basketballforum.com/chicago-bulls/368578-joe-smith-your-newest-chicago-bull-2-years-10-million.html

Actually, almost everybody was happy with the Joe Smith signing. He proved to meet expectations and slightly exceed them, being our most consistent player. His standing out for 11 and 5, however, had much to do with the weak play of the rest of the team.

Larry Hughes is not the player he once was. If he's playing 30-35 minutes, we're in trouble.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I just dont get BG. Who does he think is going to pay him 72 million dollars for 6 years??? It is like he is saying i am not playing for the bulls unles i get 12 mill per year so i will play for someone else who will pay me 12 mill only no one has offering to pay him 12 mil?

No one has the cap space to sign him so he will have to work out a sign and trade. But for this to happen the bulls will have to talke back 12 million in contacts and WHY would we do that. 

The bulls is a business and Pax and Jerry are not taking 12 million in bad contacts for bench players back so as Gordon can leave. In terms of cap space and team resources the bulls would be best served to just not sign Gordon.

It would be like me going to my boss and asking for a million dollars a year. He says to me ok who else is willing to pay you a million a year. So my boss says why should i pay you that. And i respond "well if you wont pay me a million per year i am not showing up for work". I think 100% of employers would say "bye bye".

david


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> http://www.basketballforum.com/chicago-bulls/368578-joe-smith-your-newest-chicago-bull-2-years-10-million.html
> 
> Actually, almost everybody was happy with the Joe Smith signing. He proved to meet expectations and slightly exceed them, being our most consistent player. His standing out for 11 and 5, however, had much to do with the weak play of the rest of the team.
> 
> Larry Hughes is not the player he once was. If he's playing 30-35 minutes, we're in trouble.


You are 100% correct. Your thoughts on Hughes show you are an objective and accurate judge of talent. He can only play well in streaks and you never know when that will happen. When he is not playing well, he kills the team. He adds no value to what the Bulls already have. LH has great size but doesn't play defense consistently well since he is always looking for steals. Thabo is much better defensively and at least his equal offensively.

Everyone knew Joe Smith was a good pick up for the Bulls. He is better offensively than PJ but PJ was better defensively.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

SausageKingofChicago said:


> Gordon is an upgrade over Mike James for them and they also now have DMase back in Okey to give addition wing defense
> 
> but yeah they need a better quality back up point , preferably with some size . I reckon they should be trying to have a crack at Javaris Crittenton as a project


the hornets are in New Orleans.The sonics are in OKC...Mason doesn't play for the hornets and hasn't for two seasons.

the hornets are not going to pay gordon 10 or 12 million per season period.If they did the only thing they'd give up is bad contracts.

I don't know why Chicago would want Rasual Butler when they could have nothing instead.The bulls would absolutely be better off letting gordon walk away for nothing rather than taking back overpaid scrubs.What purpose does it serve for them to pay other guys what they will not pay Gordon?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

giusd said:


> I just dont get BG. Who does he think is going to pay him 72 million dollars for 6 years??? It is like he is saying i am not playing for the bulls unles i get 12 mill per year so i will play for someone else who will pay me 12 mill only no one has offering to pay him 12 mil?
> 
> No one has the cap space to sign him so he will have to work out a sign and trade. But for this to happen the bulls will have to talke back 12 million in contacts and WHY would we do that.
> 
> ...


I don't think it is as much of a money game as people are making it out to be. It seems to be more about minutes. Gordon knows the guys with the biggest contracts will get to play the most. If you've listened to any Gordon interview this summer where he has talked about the team going forward, he has been excluding Hinrich from the discussion and saying they have to move a guard. Put the two and two together, and Gordon wants Hinrich traded. Paxson just sat on his *** instead of trading Hinrich, and this is why we are at this standoff right now.


----------



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

If we sign and trade Gordon, I want a scorer in return. I would like to trade with Phoenix(to get Barbosa) but I don't see any possible deal that would help both teams out. It would have to be a 3 team trade IMO.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

Hanley with some interesting information about the issue.



> The only team with significant salary cap room is the Memphis Grizzlies and they reportedly tendered a $58-million offer sheet Thursday to Atlanta's Josh Smith. The Hawks matched that offer, and a team is allowed to tender just one offer to a restricted free agent, so the Grizzlies no longer are in play.
> 
> Another Gordon option is to agree to a sign-and-trade deal, but what team will offer him what he wants? And the deal also would have to make sense for the Bulls.
> 
> Gordon also could sign the team's $6.4 million qualifying offer, play out this season, and become an unrestricted free agent next summer free to sign with any team.


But he doesn't emphasize the NO QO stance.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Cager said:


> You are 100% correct. Your thoughts on Hughes show you are an objective and accurate judge of talent. He can only play well in streaks and you never know when that will happen. When he is not playing well, he kills the team. He adds no value to what the Bulls already have. LH has great size but doesn't play defense consistently well since he is always looking for steals. Thabo is much better defensively and at least his equal offensively.
> 
> Everyone knew Joe Smith was a good pick up for the Bulls. He is better offensively than PJ but PJ was better defensively.


Larry Hughes is only 29 years old. He ain't some worthless POS who has nothing left in the tank. Cleveland was a horrible fit for him. That is why everyone is down on him. This guy still has talent. Vinny Del ***** must allow that talent to help the Bulls win some games. Also the run-n-gun style VDN wants to implement fits Larry Hughes greatly. Gordon and Hinrich not so much. Thabo and Rose will benefit as well from this offense.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

It isn't as doom and gloom...typical ESPN editing.



> In a new development, Bulls guard Ben Gordon said he wouldn't sign the Bulls' one-year qualifying offer of $6.4 million, setting the stage for a possible stalemate.
> 
> "I'm definitely not taking it," Gordon said Friday night at a charity function in New York. "I've already expressed that to them. I mean, that's not an option."
> 
> ...


http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-16-bulls-ben-gordonaug16,0,5312030.story


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Great so now we go from clearing a need for a PG in the draft to now looking for a future SG in the next couple of drafts, If anyone here really thinks that Thabo is a legit NBA starting 2 your in for a LOOOONNNNGGG Season.

Other than finding a way to get a guy like Kaman in return or another solid SG, I dont see this situation being beneficial to the Bulls at all.


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

BG7 said:


> Gordon has had more of a direct correlation than any other player on the Bulls towards winning. I like to see the Bulls winning, so of course I want to keep Gordon.


I agree, and since the self-centered, one dimensional Gordon sucked last year, when he played for a contract instead of the Bulls, why should we break the bank for Gordon?

The latest article clearly shoe Gordon was out for Gordon only last year.


----------



## the_shamus (Jun 14, 2006)

No one remembers Lance Briggs here? When he said he'd "never play another down in a Bears uniform." Or his agent saying "he needs to be the highest paid player on the Bears." It's all just contract talk and negotiations. Last I looked Briggs still's plays for the Bears and not close to being the highest paid player. 

Frankly, this is good news to me. I'm glad he won't sign the QO, it's not good for the Bulls team to have him for another contract year. To me, this moves Ben closer to signing a long term deal with the Bulls. To many variables goes into a sign n trade to another team, Pax is not gonna take bad players back. He is not gonna go to Europe, and he's not gonna sit for a year.

We now know he's looking for 12 mil a year, not the MAX or 13 or 14. I think the Bulls are being smart and playing hardball, but will budge once Ben goes down to 11 mil yr. 

Ben gave nothing more than a negotiation threat to leave, kinda like me walking away from a souvenir shop in Mexico.


----------



## the_shamus (Jun 14, 2006)

bullybullz said:


> I bet you if Gordon took last years offer of 5 years 50 million which was more than fair, the Bulls would not have traded for Larry Hughes. Who knows maybe if Gordon signed last summer, Luol Deng would've followed suit and signed for the 5 year 57.5 million in which he said he regretted not taking. Maybe then the locker room would've not been so divided/bickering about playing time and touches.
> 
> Ben Gordon has brought this upon himself. He is a one-dimensional streaky player as hell and last year's offer was fair. It's not like he will get more money from another team this summer and even if he did take the QO(he said he will not) its not like he will get more. Too many guards to allow Gordon to jack up shot after shot and pad his stats.
> 
> Also how many games did the Bulls choke following the trade. I remember at least 5. It was truly amazing.



You need serious help, man. So Ben was the team cancer last year? Only in your own mind. 

You call him a one trick pony, but somehow you praise the "no trick" Hughes? 

Vinny wants to use Hughes in the offense more than Gordon & Hinrich? Whaaat? 

It's Gordon's fault that Deng didn't sign last year? wow.

It's somehow Gordon's fault for thinking he was the best guard and should play more min? Every guard in the league thinks that way.

It was all Gordon's fault the Bulls choked games last year? right.

I hope your just a little kid messing around, man. Ease up, please.


----------



## the_shamus (Jun 14, 2006)

giusd said:


> I just dont get BG. Who does he think is going to pay him 72 million dollars for 6 years??? It is like he is saying i am not playing for the bulls unles i get 12 mill per year so i will play for someone else who will pay me 12 mill only no one has offering to pay him 12 mil?
> 
> No one has the cap space to sign him so he will have to work out a sign and trade. But for this to happen the bulls will have to talke back 12 million in contacts and WHY would we do that.
> 
> ...


So you want to just let Gordon walk with no compensation at all. You are out to prove to the world that "wisdom with age" is a total myth. Your succeeding very well at it. It's highly entertaining, keep it up.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Ben is just trying to move things along. He has to sign the contract by Tuesday to play for Great Britain. 

Also, if Ben Gordon is no longer willing to take the Qualifying Offer, that means he probably has a good offer from some team in Europe.

Lets be honest here. The Bulls always drive players to the brink of insanity during contract negotiations. Gordon knows this going in, and isn't going to give up any ground to Reinsdorf, because he knows that all Reinsdorf is doing is trying to break him to try to get him to cave. 

There wasn't some emotional rupture here. This is calculated by Gordon's agents. Gordon was teaching basketball to kids, reading to kids at the library, and visiting the sick in the hospital yesterday. Gordon hasn't been doing any direct negotiating with the Bulls for quite awhile now, Ben's been in New York. It has been his agents and Reinsdork hammering things out. 

Gordon's agents aren't rookie, or as illprepared as a Hillary Clinton campaign manager. They know that the luxury tax is just an imaginary boundary.

They can just print out this: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/32/biz_07nba_NBA-Team-Valuations_Income.html

and then probe the Bulls of why they can't pay $1 million or so in luxury tax.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I dont want BG to leave for no compensation and in fact i wish the bulls could sign him and get him back. All i am saying is we cant take bad contacts and bench players back for him. If that is our only choice nothing is better than something that hurts the team in the long run.

I would rather see KH and Hughes go before ben.

david


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

BG7 said:


> Ben is just trying to move things along. He has to sign the contract by Tuesday to play for Great Britain.
> 
> Also, if Ben Gordon is no longer willing to take the Qualifying Offer, that means he probably has a good offer from some team in Europe.
> 
> ...


If Ben has an offer from Europe then we still keep his rights. The Bulls should go into luxury tax land to pay back all the fans support. They printed money after MJ retired and they are still one of the most profitable. It does cost some money because besides the dollar for dollar matching they lose the payment from the luxury tax teams which was $3 million this year. Realistically to sign Ben they probably are going to spend $2-3MM in tax and lose $3MM so it is $5-6MM. That represents about one years ticket and concession price increases.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Aggghhhaaaaaaaaaaaghaghgagagaghaaaaaghghhhhhhhhaghhhhhhhhhh!

:biggrin:


----------



## osman (Jul 29, 2003)

I don't get the luxary tax issue. Can't they pay him a smaller amount this year that keeps them under $71million, and pay him more in future years when Hughes contract comes off the books. Seems like a simple solution, unless they just don't want to pay him.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

osman said:


> I don't get the luxary tax issue. Can't they pay him a smaller amount this year that keeps them under %71million, and pay him more in future years when Hughes contract comes off the books. Seems like a simple solution, unless they just don't want to pay him.


No, but they just have to get under the luxury tax by the end of the season. So we can sign Gordon now, and then find a way to get under the luxury tax by the end of the season, whether that's sending Cedric Simmons and a first round draft pick to Memphis, or whatever.


----------



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

King Joseus said:


> Aggghhhaaaaaaaaaaaghaghgagagaghaaaaaghghhhhhhhhaghhhhhhhhhh!
> 
> :biggrin:


Go back to the 76ers boards you troll


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

Gordon's a bad guy clearly because he thinks he is worth more than a ~$7m one year deal. He is clearly self-centered...

Lets step back and think about this objectively....

When Gordon was drafted, he is the same height he is today.
When Gordon was drafted, he was poor defensively. He has worked hard on his defense and its improved but is still not great. 
When Gordon was drafted, he was a streaky scorer. Two years ago, he was consistent for the last 2/3s of the season. This past year, he was inconsistent. However, the whole team was inconsistent (including management, coaching, etc.). 

Gordon was the #3 draft pick. He won a championship in college. He is a very hard worker. He's started and he's been a 6th man. He has rarely, if ever, complained during the season. His teammate, whom more people on this board thought would be a superstar in the league, clearly regressed. He got a big time deal.

Gordon has no interest in a 1 year deal at $7m in a situation where he knows his playing time could be a risk. With the number of guards on the team, the second Gordon struggles he will be on the bench. Scorers need to play to break out of funks they get into. Its what you buy when you have a scorer on your team. The Bulls drafted a scorer and have now decided they don't want one. Point the finger at Pax, not Gordon.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

P to the Wee said:


> Go back to the 76ers boards you troll


Hey now, if and when the new Sim League gets started up (we're waiting on team slots to be filled, hint hint) I'm the Bulls this time around. So enough of that...


----------



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

King Joseus said:


> Hey now, if and when the new Sim League gets started up (we're waiting on team slots to be filled, hint hint) I'm the Bulls this time around. So enough of that...


Oh great, another FAIL will be running the Bulls :lol:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The Bulls don't have to do diddly doo right now. They can sit back and watch. The tendered the QO, which, unless the Bulls otherwise restricted it, remains open until March 1. If he doesn't sign it, Ben still remains a restricted free agent through the end of next season.

If Ben's agent can come up with a dazzling sign and trade, so be it. We don't have to take a crap S&T to accommodate him.

If he can get a good gig in Europe, its a chance we have to take, I guess. That option has been open since the moratorium lifted, though, and Ben hasn't got his passport out of the safety deposit box yet.

The dude should just sign the offer Paxson extended, if, by the good will of the Bulls management's hearts, they still have it on the table for him after all this BS.

Otherwise, if he doesn't sign the QO, he'll be home watching Oprah every day next season, eating the Sreamin' A Cheeze Doodles on his couch.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

the_shamus said:


> You need serious help, man. So Ben was the team cancer last year? Only in your own mind.
> 
> You call him a one trick pony, but somehow you praise the "no trick" Hughes?
> 
> ...


Damn, you are messed up. I never said that Ben Gordon was the lone reason or cancer to this team. I do feel that Ben Gordon because he did not sign the more then fair offer last summer of 5 years 50 million contributed to his bad shot selection/chucking/stat pading or whatever you want to call it. You may not like Hughes and that is fine, but I still see great overall talent in him and I believe the coaches will too.

It's not Gordon's fault that Deng didn't sign but what I'm saying is maybe if Gordon signed last year it would've had an indirect correlation to Deng signing. Maybe after Gordon signed Deng might be thinking "Damn I'm the only one I better get this done" or "Wow Ben got a fair deal, maybe I should take this 57.5 million and run with it." It certainly couldn't be negative to Deng had Gordon taken the contract. I'd bet you had Deng signed first last summer, Ben Gordon would feel insulted at the offer just like he is this summer. Then the bad spiral of lack of chemistry/trust/bonding/getting enough touches/stat padding would occur and in fact it did last season.

I never said Vinny wants to use Hughes in the offense moreso than Gordon or Hinrich. I did say that the run-n-gun style Vinny seems to be implementing fits Larry Hughes more than the other two because Larry is a slasher and excels at a fast-paced style of offense. Thus Larry may get more minutes this season because of the style of offense Vinny wants to run and you know the defense will be there from him.

It's fine for Gordon to believe that he is the best guard on the team, but he has to be realistic. He must realize that yes I can score the ball but I don't play on both sides of the court which is on the defensive side. You and Ben Gordon may think that he is the best guard on this team (I don't) but the next question is, is he the best player on this team?? Ben Gordon must realize he still is a streaky shooter/inconsistent player. He may score 27 in one game, the next 5.

Of course it's not all Ben Gordon's fault that they choked many games but he was a part of it. Basketball is a team game, not 1 on 5 if you have never played.

Any more jabs you want to throw at me/put words in my mouth??


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

How is Larry Hughes good in a fast paced offense? We played one of the quickest paces in the NBA under Jim Boylan. In his time with us, he shot 46.9 TS% with a 38.7 FG%. I guess Larry Hughes is better suited for a run n' guun style than a grind it out style, since he improved from a 46.7 TS% and 37.7 FG% in Cleveland to the numbers above.

Seriously, you cannot have a player as bad as Larry Hughes getting that many minutes on your team. He is dreadful. Larry Hughes has been in the NBA for 10 seasons, and has only had a TS% over 50% over 3 times. 

Larry Hughes just isn't a good player. Larry Hughes has a career D-Rtg of 105, commpared to Ben Gordon's 106. He is hardly a better defender than Gordon.

I just can't see any rationale for playing Larry Hughes any minutes, let alone big minutes.


----------



## fuzznuts (May 23, 2006)

I don't get it.

Why do we really want Gordon (besides his ability to catch and shoot)?

Give Hughes the opportunity to take as many shots, and I think he'll produce (whether it's creating his own shot, slashing in the lane, or driving to the basket).

Gordon being gone gives opportunity for Hinrich to redeem himself and to let Rose play.

Bye Bye Benjamin Gordon.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

sov82 said:


> Gordon's a bad guy clearly because he thinks he is worth more than a ~$7m one year deal. He is clearly self-centered...
> 
> Lets step back and think about this objectively....
> 
> ...


Okay, let's put the hindsight 20-20 crystal ball away for a minute here.

Draft position means jack squat at this point in time. Fact of the matter is we used a high draft pick on one of the better players to come out of that draft. That doesn't mean he's an automatic max player, or anything near it for that matter. 

I'm sure many things went into consideration when we drafted him. Like for instance, the possibility that he might prove to have some kind of PG ability at the pro level. That obviously didn't pan out, but it doesn't mean it wasn't worth a shot. I mean, if he had PG ability the guy's market value would be pushing the max, and we'd be approaching this process a whole lot differently.

So why should be point the finger at Paxson here? He put Gordon in a good position to succeed, which he did for the most part (and many teams might not have given him the same chance). But he is what he is, which is a $10M per year type of player. Why he doesn't accept that fact is beyond me.


----------



## the_shamus (Jun 14, 2006)

bullybullz said:


> Damn, you are messed up. I never said that Ben Gordon was the lone reason or cancer to this team. I do feel that Ben Gordon because he did not sign the more then fair offer last summer of 5 years 50 million contributed to his bad shot selection/chucking/stat pading or whatever you want to call it. You may not like Hughes and that is fine, but I still see great overall talent in him and I believe the coaches will too.
> 
> It's not Gordon's fault that Deng didn't sign but what I'm saying is maybe if Gordon signed last year it would've had an indirect correlation to Deng signing. Maybe after Gordon signed Deng might be thinking "Damn I'm the only one I better get this done" or "Wow Ben got a fair deal, maybe I should take this 57.5 million and run with it." It certainly couldn't be negative to Deng had Gordon taken the contract. I'd bet you had Deng signed first last summer, Ben Gordon would feel insulted at the offer just like he is this summer. Then the bad spiral of lack of chemistry/trust/bonding/getting enough touches/stat padding would occur and in fact it did last season.
> 
> ...



Oh, come on now man. Everyone read your ridiculous statements, your just back pedaling now that I called you out on them. Gordon has obvious faults, but you were way overboard. I'm surprised you didn't accuse him of being the reason we invaded Iraq or of beating up old lady's. 

And the Bulls already know what they have in Hughes, not much. We would absolutely trade if we could, but no other team in the league wants him. 99% of all NBA fans knows he blows, you fall into that 1%.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Why do people keep acting like Gordon is asking for the max? The max is about $18.5 million a year. I've never seen Gordon come close to asking for that.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

It bolster's their argument.


----------



## 68topls (Mar 29, 2008)

Didn't Ben Gordan play pg on a national championship team? I tell you what. If we would have gotten okafor this off season and shipped away deng, hinrich and nocioni we'd be in a much better situation. To me the problem is Kirk Hinrich got paid more than he should have. When that happened and then paxson came back with smaller offers for deng and gordan there was no way they were going to take them. Why in the world would you sign for less than a guy your more talented than got. Happens all of the time in the normal work world. You find out what another guy got for his salary / raise / bonus and your getting less and say screw that. Either you pay me more or I'm out of here. I would like Ben to stay (more than deng) but this is a business for him and completely agree with his stance. Still a little pissed that Deng actually commanded such a large salary. for the same salary we could have okafor or iggy or some other proven / better player....... 



yodurk said:


> Okay, let's put the hindsight 20-20 crystal ball away for a minute here.
> 
> Draft position means jack squat at this point in time. Fact of the matter is we used a high draft pick on one of the better players to come out of that draft. That doesn't mean he's an automatic max player, or anything near it for that matter.
> 
> ...


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

yodurk said:


> Okay, let's put the hindsight 20-20 crystal ball away for a minute here.
> 
> Draft position means jack squat at this point in time. Fact of the matter is we used a high draft pick on one of the better players to come out of that draft. That doesn't mean he's an automatic max player, or anything near it for that matter.
> 
> ...


Thats my point. Its NOT hindsight. He was a college junior when he was drafted. His skill set and size was what it was. The only chance he had to improve dramatically from college was to be a full time pg. The team never gave him an opportunity to be the full time point guard. If you take a player at #3 and see him as your future point guard, you play him there until he shows that he can't play the position. He never got that opportunity. Therefore, you have to believe the Bulls took him as an undersized scoring #2. If thats not the case then there was a communication gap between Skiles and Pax. 

I am not advocating that the Bulls sign Gordon. I personally think he needs to play on a team with a scoring big man. He doesn't have the ball skills to have defenders who don't fear the inside threats. The Bulls remain an unbalanced team and Deng, Rose and Co. will continue to struggle until they have a Rasheed Wallace type player.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

sov82 said:


> Thats my point. Its NOT hindsight. He was a college junior when he was drafted. His skill set and size was what it was. The only chance he had to improve dramatically from college was to be a full time pg. The team never gave him an opportunity to be the full time point guard. If you take a player at #3 and see him as your future point guard, you play him there until he shows that he can't play the position. He never got that opportunity. Therefore, you have to believe the Bulls took him as an undersized scoring #2. If thats not the case then there was a communication gap between Skiles and Pax.
> 
> I am not advocating that the Bulls sign Gordon. I personally think he needs to play on a team with a scoring big man. He doesn't have the ball skills to have defenders who don't fear the inside threats. The Bulls remain an unbalanced team and Deng, Rose and Co. will continue to struggle until they have a Rasheed Wallace type player.


Him being a college junior at draft time has little to do with anything -- players develop additional skills WELL beyond college. Gilbert Arenas was also a college junior when drafted -- people thought he was just an undersized SG, when he developed some pretty darn good PG skills. The point being that nobody knew for sure what type of player Gordon would turn into, or even how good. There have been some pretty prolific scorers, many upperclassmen, who can't do anything at the pro leve. 

And I beg to differ that he was given a chance to play PG. Skiles toyed around with this idea and ran Gordon at PG in spurts during his rookie/2nd seasons (I would speculate that they tried things in practice too). After a while the whole idea just went away; it became pretty clear that this wasn't Gordon's position in the least.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

68topls said:


> To me the problem is Kirk Hinrich got paid more than he should have. When that happened and then paxson came back with smaller offers for deng and gordan there was no way they were going to take them. Why in the world would you sign for less than a guy your more talented than got.


I think you have your facts a little screwy. Hinrich accepted a contract that averaged LESS than $10M per season -- I believe it was a 5 year, $47.5 Million extension (hard to call this "overpaid" compared to what other guards often get paid). Deng's original offer of 5 yrs/$58M was well above Hinrich, and Gordon's original offer of 5 yrs/$50M was right on par.

And you know what, those look to me like fair, market value offers. In fact, the word in the papers not too long ago was that NBA teams had more interest in HINRICH than they had in Gordon. The reason being that Hinrich is a terrific defensive player and can also run the point, and that is a hot commodity right now. When teams are expressing that kind of opinion, I don't see how Gordon can justify earning a higher paycheck than Kirk Hinrich. They seem to have pretty equal value and should get pretty equal paychecks, IMO.

The problem with Gordon is that other teams would just struggle to find where he fits on their roster. There aren't enough big PG's in this league to play with Gordon consistently, and many teams seem hesitant to play small ball for long stretches. I think alot of teams are just really afraid of small lineups and this just really hurts Gordon's value.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I don't get why we didn't run Gordon more at the top of the key though. Especially during the Pistons series during the 2007 playoffs. Gordon simply dominated the Heat in that series. We gave Gordon the ball at the top of the key, let him run a lot of pick and roll with Nocioni, and he simply dominated the Heat. He got to the line a bunch in that series. The guy is so effective from the top of the key. Then next series, we just play Gordon in the corner the entire series...big shocker that he stunk. 

Bulls have often misused Gordon. With Rose and Deng stepping up more, and a coach who hopefully doesn't misuse the guys, Gordon should be a pretty damn good player. A guy like Gordon who can score like he does, and who is clutch, will always be easy to trade, so I'm not buying that crap about the Bulls being worried about how tradeable Gordon is. They will always be able to dump him for an expiring. 

The Bulls are just using their typical negotiation tactics though. They have to win every negotiation, so none of this is really surprising.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

deleted


----------



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

Guys, go hug each other and quit going after each other.

E-LOVE


----------



## the_shamus (Jun 14, 2006)

deleted


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Well i work with the docs are Walter Reed and Navy every week and they pride themselfs on respectiveful conduct. Maybe you might consider a simlar style and you wont get responses like the one above.

david


----------



## the_shamus (Jun 14, 2006)

I was just defending what in my mind were baseless acusations on Gordon. There still is a very good chance he will resign. And I think if they do come to a deal, most Bulls fans will be glad when he's hitting open 3's left and right when from Rose's penetration. We're all Bulls fans(I hope), and we all want them to do well. If I went to far in my arguments I'm man enough to apologize.

Our best enlisted military are the most feisty, rugged and argumentative Americans we have. You don't know the military if you don't know that. How respectful were you of someone who's busted his rear end off here in Chicago for four years?


----------



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

the_shamus said:


> I was just defending what in my mind were baseless acusations on Gordon. There still is a very good chance he will resign. And I think if they do come to a deal, most Bulls fans will be glad when he's hitting open 3's left and right when from Rose's penetration. We're all Bulls fans(I hope), and we all want them to do well. If I went to far in my arguments I'm man enough to apologize.
> 
> Our best enlisted military are the most feisty, rugged and argumentative Americans we have. You don't know the military if you don't know that. How respectful were you of someone who's busted his rear end off here in Chicago for four years?


I believe arguments are always appreciated on here as it brings in some kind of discussion and more activity on here. However, insulting someone who disagrees with you tends to remove people willing to get into the discussion and somewhat kills the thread.


----------

