# SIx years, 80 million for Iggy? Ben's outta here.



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3532139



> The Philadelphia 76ers and restricted free agent Andre Iguodala have agreed to a six-year, $80 million contract, league sources tell ESPN.com.


That just made it impossible for us to sign ben to a reasonable extension.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3532139
> 
> 
> 
> That just made it impossible for us to sign ben to a reasonable extension.


I've been wondering if that's with incentives or if it's the base deal. Either way, not a good sign for Gordon's return...


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

Where exactly is Ben Gordon going. I mean no one in the NBA is interested in signing him or a sign and trade at 80 or 70 or 60 million dollars. BG is not a starter in the NBA and the whole league knows it.

He is a career 6th man. What 6th makes 12 million a year. NO ONE.

Iggy is a star in the NBA. Gordon is still not a starter.

david


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Who cares about this midget, money-hungry player. It's time to move on.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Looks like the QO for Mr. Gordon. He won't be out of here this year, because no one has any money to offer him. We can offer him the QO and then he can become an UFA next year. No reason for him to take MLE money and lock himself in. So he won't be gone this year, but definitely next year.


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

bullybullz said:


> Who cares about this midget, money-hungry player. It's time to move on.


Glad you are not the Bulls GM. So who are we picking up to replace Ben's offense?


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

TheDarkPrince said:


> Glad you are not the Bulls GM. So who are we picking up to replace Ben's offense?


You kidding?? Who cares about his offense. We are replacing his awful defense. Thabo and Rose can get more minutes with Gordon gone and this team is taller and not constantly undersized when Gordon is the 2 guard. Look up Gordon's +/-. Even when he has a great scoring game, he usually is last or near last on the Bulls roster in +/- in huge scoring games from him. What I mean by that is the Bulls do worse with him on the court than when he is not. 

You know why?? It's because of his defense/or should I say lack of defense.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I calculated Gordon's worth to be $56 million relative to the other restricted free agents. I think that might be a little bit of an underestimate, given Gordon is a #1 option, while guys like Harris and Biedrins weren't even close to being a #1 option. The Boylan year, with Gordon coming off the bench with some scrubby players really hurt Gordon. In addition, Gordon got hammered on his size a ton in my system.

So the $59 million deal looks somewhat fair for Gordon.

I would think, if the Bulls give him 60% incentives (so something like $7 million, I'm not going to calculate it right now, in incentives). I think the clincher is giving Gordon the ETO, so he can opt out after the 4th season. So essentially, Gordon should be looking at it as he's on a 4 year, $36 million deal with the option for it to be a $59 million over 6 year deal. If Gordon really blows up into a superstar, he can opt out after the 4th year and cash in for the max.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

BG7 said:


> I calculated Gordon's worth to be $56 million relative to the other restricted free agents. I think that might be a little bit of an underestimate, given Gordon is a #1 option, while guys like Harris and Biedrins weren't even close to being a #1 option. The Boylan year, with Gordon coming off the bench with some scrubby players really hurt Gordon. In addition, Gordon got hammered on his size a ton in my system.
> 
> So the $59 million deal looks somewhat fair for Gordon.
> 
> I would think, if the Bulls give him 60% incentives (so something like $7 million, I'm not going to calculate it right now, in incentives). I think the clincher is giving Gordon the ETO, so he can opt out after the 4th season. So essentially, Gordon should be looking at it as he's on a 4 year, $36 million deal with the option for it to be a $59 million over 6 year deal. If Gordon really blows up into a superstar, he can opt out after the 4th year and cash in for the max.


Glad to have Ben Gordon's Agent back!! Gordon blows up into a superstar. LOL!!:dogpile:


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Hey Sloth, who is the cutie in your avatar now?


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Alicia Sacramone. She screwed the United States out of the gold, but she's still great in my eyes.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

BG7 said:


> Alicia Sacramone. She screwed the United States out of the gold, but she's still great in my eyes.


She is the most searched on Yahoo today. Damn horny people on this Earth!!


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I thought that's who it was. She's damn good looking. I missed out on all of the women's gymnastics this year (I usually watch them) so don't know how she "screwed them out of it". I'll definitely be tuning in to watch the 100 meters this year though. Go GAY!


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

bullybullz said:


> She is the most searched on Yahoo today. Damn horny people on this Earth!!


LMAO, I must admit that after seeing Sloth's avatar, I had to go look through the US Gymnasts for her, before he told me her name. There were a few cuties in there this year, but I'd have to say she's the best.


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

giusd said:


> Where exactly is Ben Gordon going. I mean no one in the NBA is interested in signing him or a sign and trade at 80 or 70 or 60 million dollars. BG is not a starter in the NBA and the whole league knows it.
> 
> He is a career 6th man. What 6th makes 12 million a year. NO ONE.
> 
> ...



Spot on


----------



## SickGame (Jan 23, 2006)

She's also 21 which makes it alot less creepier.

Felt bad for her though, absolutely lost her composure after falling on her entrance jump to start the beam exercise.
Nevertheless, quite the looker.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Merk said:


> Spot on


Not really. He's gone. Maybe not till next offseason, but he's outta here. No amount of amplifying his weaknesses and downplaying his strengths is going to make him sign that 10 year 32 million dollar contract some of you seem so hellbent on making him sign.

Looks like he'll do what I predicted last year: Play for the QO and bounce.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

Ben should get a Monta Ellis type deal 6 yrs 66 million. If he doesn't take that deal, then he should take the Q.O and bounce...


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Not really. He's gone. Maybe not till next offseason, but he's outta here. No amount of amplifying his weaknesses and downplaying his strengths is going to make him sign that 10 year 32 million dollar contract some of you seem so hellbent on making him sign.
> 
> Looks like he'll do what I predicted last year: Play for the QO and bounce.


I don't think that was his point. The main point is, the chances seem pretty slim that Gordon finds anything better out on the open market, in light of his specific strengths/weaknesses. I'm pretty sure I've seen comments in various articles that believe Gordon's value to be modest at best amongst other NBA teams. And yet, he has this illusion that he is worth Deng/Iggy money? Gordon doesn't seem to be meeting anybody halfway in the slightest. A contract in the ballpark of $10M per year isn't exactly chump change either, so I don't get his problem. His choice though, I really don't see him getting anything better if he takes the QO and walks.


----------



## Cager (Jun 13, 2002)

yodurk said:


> I don't think that was his point. The main point is, the chances seem pretty slim that Gordon finds anything better out on the open market, in light of his specific strengths/weaknesses. I'm pretty sure I've seen comments in various articles that believe Gordon's value to be modest at best amongst other NBA teams. And yet, he has this illusion that he is worth Deng/Iggy money? Gordon doesn't seem to be meeting anybody halfway in the slightest. A contract in the ballpark of $10M per year isn't exactly chump change either, so I don't get his problem. His choice though, I really don't see him getting anything better if he takes the QO and walks.


This is where his agent is screwing things up. The agent should be providing Ben a realistic view of his worth in the NBA. Ben's a special talent but $10 million is plenty for him. I agree that even as an unrestricted free agent, he isn't likely to see $10 million. The Bulls could still be high bidder next summer if Ben would be willing to come back.


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

bullybullz said:


> You kidding?? Who cares about his offense. We are replacing his awful defense. Thabo and Rose can get more minutes with Gordon gone and this team is taller and not constantly undersized when Gordon is the 2 guard. Look up Gordon's +/-. Even when he has a great scoring game, he usually is last or near last on the Bulls roster in +/- in huge scoring games from him. What I mean by that is the Bulls do worse with him on the court than when he is not.
> 
> You know why?? It's because of his defense/or should I say lack of defense.


Our problems over the past few years isn't defense. Our D until last year was solid. However, we have always struggled scoring points. And if we do let Ben walk, who would you think on this team is gonna pick up the slack? Deng? Who on most teams would be the 3rd option. Kirk? Whose shooting is hit or miss by a large margin game to game. Rose? We will be asking alot of a rookie to replace a 20ppg scorer. Hughes? 4 years ago maybe, but the dude is a basketcase these days. Thabo? Give me a break, the guy gets a lot of love here, but has seen the floor very little his first 2 years, and he can't shoot! Noc? He'd love to get more shots, but is that a good thing or bad thing?! 

If Ben is not resigned, or traded, mark my words. We are screwed next year!


----------



## GrayFan34 (Jul 7, 2008)

Deng better average 20ppg and 8rpg next season for that big contract he got or else he will be thrown and ran over by the bus.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

yodurk said:


> I don't think that was his point. The main point is, the chances seem pretty slim that Gordon finds anything better out on the open market, in light of his specific strengths/weaknesses. I'm pretty sure I've seen comments in various articles that believe Gordon's value to be modest at best amongst other NBA teams. And yet, he has this illusion that he is worth Deng/Iggy money? Gordon doesn't seem to be meeting anybody halfway in the slightest. A contract in the ballpark of $10M per year isn't exactly chump change either, so I don't get his problem. His choice though, I really don't see him getting anything better if he takes the QO and walks.



Agreed. I don't think anybody is arguing that Ben should be making an MLE-sized contract. $60M isn't exactly peanuts. He deserves less than Iggy b/c Iggy has a more complete game. Ben does one thing very well and does nothing else. Scoring is tremendously important, but there are other aspects to the game.

Here's what worries me. If no other tea is interested in paying Ben and there's no sign and trade, I assume Ben plays for the QO. Next season, he may well be jacking every shot he can get in an attempt to score 25 PPG and drive up his market value. I doubt sincerely that he's going to try to prove he's a complete player by playing lock-down defense or trying to get 8 assists per game.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

TheDarkPrince said:


> If Ben is not resigned, or traded, mark my words. We are screwed next year!


Not sure I'd go that far. Gordon was injured for a span of games last year, and I think we had one of our best spurts of the season without him. That was when guys like Sefolosha stepped up to the plate (which is partly what will happen if Gordon were to leave).

I get your point that we're lacking offense; however, Gordon should only get paid what he's worth to the NBA as a whole. You seem to be arguing that we should pay him more, since he's worth more to the Bulls than to other teams. That's not quite how market value works. I tend to think the Bulls have the leverage here, since Gordon doesn't appear to have any better offers. 

And I'd really like to see him have the balls to say "Screw you Bulls" by going out and signing somewhere else for less money, just to spite us. Not gonna happen, IMO. I honestly think we have nothing to worry about, just as long as we REMAIN the highest bidder.


----------



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

bullybullz said:


> She is the most searched on Yahoo today. Damn horny people on this Earth!!


Liekomgj4ck is one of them


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I dont see how Iggy's deal affects Gordon at all.

BG is worth at least 10 mil. a season as a player he is a relatively young efficient 20 point a game scorer capable of being the best player on a playoff team, personally i think he is a good #2 guy on a title contender like jason terry who was a similar guy on a worse team like the hawks until he became a mav.

but he is also a guy without a position and is meh as far as his all around game...so few teams are set up to take him on and get good value out him w/o a big pg to guard 2's and/or a good drive and kick game.

the bulls are one of those teams but they are notoriously cheap and dont value scorers much.

so he'll either get his agent working hard on a sign and trade or play out the season lame duck style and ruin yet another bulls season in the process.

the bulls should work on trading some spare parts get him a lil' more scratch and move on into the season with their young players relatively happy for once....this cheapness thing happens with them almost every offseason nowadays.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

God, the QO is a terrible situation for Ben and the Bulls, but it really looks like thats what its about to come down to


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I don't think the qualifying offer is as bad of a situation of Ben as people are making it out to be. People assume that the Bulls will just bench Gordon because he's on QO, which won't be the case. The Bulls would gain a horrible reputation around the league among players if they did that, and they would completely slaughter team chemistry. In addition to that, I don't think they would end up getting Gordon on the cheap as a result. I am not buying that NBA Gm's are stupid enough to think a guy like Gordon has regressed if the Bulls tried to screw him. And if they do (which I doubt), he would just go to Europe for the big money.

I think the main team interested in Ben Gordon is Miami. But why should they trade for him now? They will have cap space to sign him next summer. Miami's salary situation will allow them to sign Gordon to a nice contract, resign Marion to a nice contract, and then sign a top free agent in 2010 to a nice contract.

Miami could easily stack together:

PG-Dwyane Wade
SG-Ben Gordon
SF-Shawn Marion
PF-Michael Beasley
C- Yao Ming

Although I would take it the Heat's new coach would probably get fired for some reason, or forced to resign in this situation, at which point Riley becomes coach again.

If Boozer doesn't opt out next summer, Gordon is the top free agent on the market, with two teams, Portland/Miami that have big guards that Gordon can fit perfectly next to.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

No one is suggesting that BG should get 10 year 32 million dollar deal. Come that is bs. The bulls are offering 58 million for years. 58 fing million dollars for 6 years. For a 6th man.

Anyone who thinks the bulls are not being fair is on crack.

That is top dollar for a 6th man.

david


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

BG7 said:


> People assume that the Bulls will just bench Gordon because he's on QO, which won't be the case.


I don't think I've seen a single person suggest that Ben would be benched (i.e. not played, as he already comes off the bench) if he's on the QO. You're arguing against a shadow on that one.

As for the rest of your post, you seem to be indicating the QO isn't a bad deal for Ben. Of course. We're concerned about whether Ben playing on the QO is a bad deal for the BULLS.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I used hyperbole to illustrate a point. There are those here who think even 58 million over 6 years is too much.

In any case, he's a 6th man on THIS team. But that isn't the same thing as being a 6th man on EVERY team. Clearly ben gordon doesn't view himself as a career 6th man, despite the overtures by bulls posters to make him into one, usually for the purposes of fitting within OUR roster. He's a starter in Miami, and likely a starter in Portland too. Heck he's even maybe a starter in LA or Cleveland as well.

He knows this and wants to be payed accordingly. He's a goner not because he's not worth 65 million dollars. But because he isn't worth that to US.

Market conditions change drastically when a player becomes unrestricted. I'll stake my entire salary next year that he won't be struggling to find a contract in August of 2009.

The issue is how he views himself. He's not going to sign HERE for what the bulls are willing to pay him, only to be relegated to career backup.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> I used hyperbole to illustrate a point. There are those here who think even 58 million over 6 years is too much.
> 
> In any case, he's a 6th man on THIS team. But that isn't the same thing as being a 6th man on EVERY team. Clearly ben gordon doesn't view himself as a career 6th man, despite the overtures by bulls posters to make him into one, usually for the purposes of fitting within OUR roster. He's a starter in Miami, and likely a starter in Portland too. Heck he's even maybe a starter in LA or Cleveland as well.
> 
> ...


Yup, like looking at the Heat. They'll go after Boozer if they can get him, just based on pure talent. But once Boozer is gone, whether he doesn't opt out, or quickly resigns with the Jazz, it is Gordon's market.

Who are the Miami Heat going to want to go along, building for the future with 20 year old Michael Beasley? 31 year old Mike Bibby, 36 year old Jason Kidd, 34 year old Allen Iverson, 30 year old Lamar Odom, 33 year old Andre Miller, 30 year old looney toons Artest, or the 26 year old, Ben Gordon. Same thing with Portland and their young core.

Ben Gordon might not be the best player on the market next year (though he could be), Iverson will still be better probably, but Gordon will be the top free agent.

It also follows the idea of hurting a conference rival, which is a little bonus for Miami.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

We all understand that BG thinks he is not only a starter but an allstar. The problem is not one else thinks so. No one in the nba has shown any interest in a S and T for BG at 70 million dollars. 

BG cant play PG and at 6'1" he is a real defensive liability on defensive at SG. Could some name a team that is going to sign BG at 70 or 80 million for 6 years. Miami is doesnt have cap space for 12 million a year. Memphis has space and they haven't even contract Gordon.

Doesnt the fact that Ben hasnt been contacted by any team to work out a S and T???????? That should tell him and his agent that his demands are outside what the leagues GMs think he is worth???

david


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Miami has the capspace next summer though. Why sign and trade for him now, and give up Marion, when you can sign him outright next summer?

And you're inaccurate there. Hornets, Suns, and Heat have all talked to Ben about a sign and trade.

Miami would have to give up Marion, so why not wait until next summer for Gordon? Phoenix doesn't have the pieces to work out a sign and trade. Shaq would have to be involved, and we aren't going down that path. Hornets are trying to take the step up to championship contender, so they almost certainly just labeled Paul, West, Peja, and Chandler off limits. If you look at them, they just don't have contracts that we would be wiling to take back. 

The teams interested in Gordon just don't have the pieces to put together a trade except Miami, and they would rather just wait until next summer, rather than helping the Bulls.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

I really don't think he'll get more than the Bulls are offering as a UFA.Gordon will never be a quality starter because that would require him to guard starting SG's.Unless you've got a PG who can cross guard Gordon's offense would be entirely negated(and then some) by his inability to defend his position.The offer the bulls have made is pretty much what he'd receive as a UFA.


----------



## Merk (May 24, 2006)

BG7 said:


> Miami has the capspace next summer though. *Why sign and trade for him now, and give up Marion, when you can sign him outright next summer?
> *
> And you're inaccurate there. Hornets, Suns, and Heat have all talked to Ben about a sign and trade.
> 
> ...



Why? Because Miami has no interest in him despite what you think

He cant play the point and they dont want to put Wade there.

Plus if they are going after Boozer they need the space left over from Marions deal to do that. Then they need to keep enough space for Wades max deal the season after plus they need to keep room after him to sign Beasley to a big deal if he pans out

There is no way there giving Gordon the money he wants

The deal on the table now from the Bulls is the most he will ever be offered


----------



## TheDarkPrince (May 13, 2006)

yodurk said:


> Not sure I'd go that far. Gordon was injured for a span of games last year, and I think we had one of our best spurts of the season without him. That was when guys like Sefolosha stepped up to the plate (which is partly what will happen if Gordon were to leave).
> 
> I get your point that we're lacking offense; however, Gordon should only get paid what he's worth to the NBA as a whole. You seem to be arguing that we should pay him more, since he's worth more to the Bulls than to other teams. That's not quite how market value works. I tend to think the Bulls have the leverage here, since Gordon doesn't appear to have any better offers.
> 
> And I'd really like to see him have the balls to say "Screw you Bulls" by going out and signing somewhere else for less money, just to spite us. Not gonna happen, IMO. I honestly think we have nothing to worry about, just as long as we REMAIN the highest bidder.


I think the contract the Bulls offered Ben is fine. My point is that a lot of guys here seem to think, screw Ben we don't need him at all. With him gone we will lack a 1st option on offense.

Also a few years ago, with Deng and Curry out we made a run and made the playoffs. So we proved we could win with out Deng as well. Didn't stop the Bulls from overpaying him though.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

TheDarkPrince said:


> Our problems over the past few years isn't defense. Our D until last year was solid. However, we have always struggled scoring points. And if we do let Ben walk, who would you think on this team is gonna pick up the slack? Deng? Who on most teams would be the 3rd option. Kirk? Whose shooting is hit or miss by a large margin game to game. Rose? We will be asking alot of a rookie to replace a 20ppg scorer. Hughes? 4 years ago maybe, but the dude is a basketcase these days. Thabo? Give me a break, the guy gets a lot of love here, but has seen the floor very little his first 2 years, and he can't shoot! Noc? He'd love to get more shots, but is that a good thing or bad thing?!
> 
> If Ben is not resigned, or traded, mark my words. We are screwed next year!


Shows how much you value Ben Gordon: WAY TOO MUCH. A one-dimensional player can easily be replaced. Ben Gordon will not be missed. Derrick Rose, Thabo Sefolosha, Larry Hughes can all pick up the slack and produce more in areas Gordon does not. Who cares if the Bulls score 90 points per game but only give up 88. The Bulls still win. If Gordon was still here and the team scores 97 points but give up 103, would you be happy?


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

jnrjr79 said:


> Agreed. I don't think anybody is arguing that Ben should be making an MLE-sized contract. $60M isn't exactly peanuts. He deserves less than Iggy b/c Iggy has a more complete game. Ben does one thing very well and does nothing else. Scoring is tremendously important, but there are other aspects to the game.
> 
> Here's what worries me. If no other tea is interested in paying Ben and there's no sign and trade, I assume Ben plays for the QO. Next season, he may well be jacking every shot he can get in an attempt to score 25 PPG and drive up his market value. I doubt sincerely that he's going to try to prove he's a complete player by playing lock-down defense or trying to get 8 assists per game.


That is why if no trade partners are willing to come to the table, let Gordon walk or sign off to Europe. Adios Amigos!! Great post.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

BG7 said:


> I don't think the qualifying offer is as bad of a situation of Ben as people are making it out to be. People assume that the Bulls will just bench Gordon because he's on QO, which won't be the case. The Bulls would gain a horrible reputation around the league among players if they did that, and they would completely slaughter team chemistry. In addition to that, I don't think they would end up getting Gordon on the cheap as a result. I am not buying that NBA Gm's are stupid enough to think a guy like Gordon has regressed if the Bulls tried to screw him. And if they do (which I doubt), he would just go to Europe for the big money.
> 
> I think the main team interested in Ben Gordon is Miami. But why should they trade for him now? They will have cap space to sign him next summer. Miami's salary situation will allow them to sign Gordon to a nice contract, resign Marion to a nice contract, and then sign a top free agent in 2010 to a nice contract.
> 
> ...


If Ben Gordon takes the QO, he will be the one taking the hit in terms of reputation. He should've taken last year's offer of 5 years 50 million and if he doesn't take the 6 years 59 million as is rumored, this means he values himself way too much and is a *****. 

Even if Gordon takes the QO, his value will not go up because he will certainly get less minutes with a glut of guards. Also he will basically not come back so why bother playing him?? Just bench his *** or put him in the inactive roster, send him to the D-League or give him the Tim Thomas treatment.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Also, if people view Gordon as a legitimate #1 option, that is scary. Ben Gordon after his clutch rookie season, is not as clutch these days and slips more than a person on skates. He also is very turnover prone in the clutch and does a lot of 1-on-1 crap which I am sick of seeing. Let's see Derrick Rose or Larry Hughes drive to the rim and kick out for an open shooter or take it strong to the rack.

Give me a legitimate #1 option in the clutch and throughout the season a-la Kobe, Pierce, LeBron, Wade etc. Ben Gordon is not reliable enough to be a #1 option because of his inconsistencies game to game and well, clearly if you watch NBA basketball, he is not a #1 option anyways.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

bullybullz said:


> Also, if people view Gordon as a legitimate #1 option, that is scary. Ben Gordon after his clutch rookie season, is not as clutch these days and slips more than a person on skates. He also is very turnover prone in the clutch and does a lot of 1-on-1 crap which I am sick of seeing. Let's see Derrick Rose or Larry Hughes drive to the rim and kick out for an open shooter or take it strong to the rack.
> 
> Give me a legitimate #1 option in the clutch and throughout the season a-la Kobe, Pierce, LeBron, Wade etc. Ben Gordon is not reliable enough to be a #1 option because of his inconsistencies game to game and well, clearly if you watch NBA basketball, he is not a #1 option anyways.


Ben Gordon is supposed to just be a bandaid solution for the #1 man on the team, for 2-3 years. 

If Ben Gordon is still the #1 option on this team in 3 or 4 years, we took the wrong guy with the #1 pick.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

bullybullz said:


> Also, if people view Gordon as a legitimate #1 option, that is scary. Ben Gordon after his clutch rookie season, is not as clutch these days and slips more than a person on skates. He also is very turnover prone in the clutch and does a lot of 1-on-1 crap which I am sick of seeing. Let's see Derrick Rose or Larry Hughes drive to the rim and kick out for an open shooter or take it strong to the rack.
> 
> *Give me a legitimate #1 option in the clutch and throughout the season a-la Kobe, Pierce, LeBron, Wade etc. *Ben Gordon is not reliable enough to be a #1 option because of his inconsistencies game to game and well, clearly if you watch NBA basketball, he is not a #1 option anyways.


Oh, yeah... I never thought of that... let's just go out and get a "Kobe, Pierce, LeBron, Wade etc."... 

I've been as critical of Ben Gordon and his non-existent defense as anyone, but slow down a bit here.... all this stuff about him being "greedy", and going on like he has no value is a little silly... he's a classy guy and a world-class shooter... those things have value in the NBA. 

His value might be hard to measure... but I assure you it is somewhere in between the one-sided views that you and Sloth (though he seems to have become slightly more reasonable about it) are bringing to the table...


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> Oh, yeah... I never thought of that... let's just go out and get a "Kobe, Pierce, LeBron, Wade etc."...
> 
> I've been as critical of Ben Gordon and his non-existent defense as anyone, but slow down a bit here.... all this stuff about him being "greedy", and going on like he has no value is a little silly... he's a classy guy and a world-class shooter... those things have value in the NBA.
> 
> His value might be hard to measure... but I assure you it is somewhere in between the one-sided views that you and Sloth (though he seems to have become slightly more reasonable about it) are bringing to the table...


Post of the thread, thus far.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

TheDarkPrince said:


> I think the contract the Bulls offered Ben is fine. My point is that a lot of guys here seem to think, screw Ben we don't need him at all. With him gone we will lack a 1st option on offense.
> 
> Also a few years ago, with Deng and Curry out we made a run and made the playoffs. So we proved we could win with out Deng as well. Didn't stop the Bulls from overpaying him though.


I wouldn't call Deng overpaid. He got paid like a 2nd-class scorer who plays both ends of the basketball floor, which he is. His contract was on par with other similar players. It might seem like alot of money but in NBA value it was a fair enough contract.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> In any case, he's a 6th man on THIS team. But that isn't the same thing as being a 6th man on EVERY team. Clearly ben gordon doesn't view himself as a career 6th man, despite the overtures by bulls posters to make him into one, usually for the purposes of fitting within OUR roster. He's a starter in Miami, and likely a starter in Portland too. Heck he's even maybe a starter in LA or Cleveland as well.
> 
> He knows this and wants to be payed accordingly. He's a goner not because he's not worth 65 million dollars. But because he isn't worth that to US.


He's also apparently not worth it to any other team that could sign & trade for him. Also, your use of $65 million isn't accurate. Reports are that he wants to be the highest paid player on the team. Even if that's not supposed to mean greater than Hughes' annual salary, it at least means more than the 6 years, $70 million Deng got.



> Market conditions change drastically when a player becomes unrestricted. I'll stake my entire salary next year that he won't be struggling to find a contract in August of 2009.


Sure, but at what level of compensation?



> The issue is how he views himself. He's not going to sign HERE for what the bulls are willing to pay him, only to be relegated to career backup.


Agreed. The fact that he's likely to be doing backup duty here has to make it less appealing. He also knows that if he's a backup it'll lower his value for his _next_ contract as well.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

bullybullz said:


> Shows how much you value Ben Gordon: WAY TOO MUCH. A one-dimensional player can easily be replaced. Ben Gordon will not be missed. Derrick Rose, Thabo Sefolosha, Larry Hughes can all pick up the slack and produce more in areas Gordon does not. Who cares if the Bulls score 90 points per game but only give up 88. The Bulls still win. If Gordon was still here and the team scores 97 points but give up 103, would you be happy?



Gordon's defense is abysmal. But he is very, very talented from a scoring standpoint and there's no point pretending otherwise. Our other guards do not nearly fill that role as well. It could hurt.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

After reading Krakken's post, I feel like this bears mentioning again:

Regardless if Ben plays for the QO, *the Bulls have little to worry about so long as the Bulls remain the highest bidder*. As far as we know, the Bulls ARE the highest bidder. Benjamin seems to want his money and it would seem that he will play for the highest bidder. 

I really have no problem if the Bulls gamble that no team will offer him more than $60M next summer. It seems like a gamble with good upside. I mean, what are Ben's alternatives next summer if nobody surpasses our current offer? I highly doubt he plays somewhere else for less money...


----------



## the_shamus (Jun 14, 2006)

In reality we have no idea whats going on behind doors in negotiations. The best we know is that the Bulls offer is 6yrs 59 mil, and Ben wants more. We don't know that Ben wants 12/13/14/ or 15 mil. We don't know if we he wants to be the highest paid player. Could be just B.S. media reports or B.S. contract tactics to get the Bulls to up there offer. Ben think he's worth more than Kirk, who can blame him. But for all we know he could just settle for 10.5/11 mil a year. For those idiots saying he wants 70mil to a max, your just spitting garbage.

Hate to say it, but I think Sloth is exactly right that Miami would look really hard at Ben if they don't get Boozer. It's a guarantee they are going to pay good money for someone next year. They want to keep Wade happy and not tempted to jump to Chicago. Gordon can play next to Wade and would get a lot of nice open shots when Beasley gets doubled.


----------



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

Didn't Ben once say Miami was his favorite city other than Chicago or New York to play in?


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Dornado said:


> Oh, yeah... I never thought of that... let's just go out and get a "Kobe, Pierce, LeBron, Wade etc."...
> 
> I've been as critical of Ben Gordon and his non-existent defense as anyone, but slow down a bit here.... all this stuff about him being "greedy", and going on like he has no value is a little silly... he's a classy guy and a world-class shooter... those things have value in the NBA.
> 
> His value might be hard to measure... but I assure you it is somewhere in between the one-sided views that you and Sloth (though he seems to have become slightly more reasonable about it) are bringing to the table...


Wow, it's amazing how low fans have gotten. We used to have a player named Michael Jordan on this team. To even consider Ben Gordon as a LEGITIMATE #1 option is crazy. A good second or great third option he is but a first option he is not.

Also, I do feel that Derrick Rose in time will be a legitmate #1 player in the clutch.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

While I agree with the posters that Gordon is not a legit 1st option like a MJ, Lebron or a Kobe or Duncan...he is an excellent 2nd option for a legit #1 and a decent stopgap #1 .

But Ben has some issues , not a whole lot of teams can really use a 6'2 shooting guard who is best served guarding point guards, meaning he would need a point guard who can defend 2's and thats somewhat rare to find a starting calibur player able to do that . the only other options are teams that want a point guard who is a great shooter , but not really a playmaker like the Cavs seem to want.

there are maybe 5 teams in the whole league who can claim that and the bulls are one of them, but the talk of ben's value not being good are crazy .

There have been teams making inquiries on ben , they have been mentioned like the Cavs, spurs and hornets, he does have value but 10 mil a year plus decent talent enough to make a sign and trade salary wise is pushing it.

He's a professional athlete , not a charitable institution , he has to do whats in his best interest, and for what he is his demands aren't at all outlandish , I find more fault with the bulls for not doing more to keep him.


----------



## yodurk (Sep 4, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> He's a professional athlete , not a charitable institution , he has to do whats in his best interest, and for what he is his demands aren't at all outlandish , I find more fault with the bulls for not doing more to keep him.


To play devil's advocate, the Bulls aren't a charitable institution either; and they are under no obligation to cave into players' demands when they are asking beyond market value (market value being what the league as a whole would offer, and/or how much they value the player in question). 

To be honest I think it would be unfair to the fans if we max out our salary cap with a mediocre roster for the next 6 years. If you continually overpay guys, then at some point you're just stuck in a bad situation that takes several years and alot of trades to escape (w/ the Knicks being the extreme example). 

I hear all this stuff like Paxson looks like an idiot or whatever. I think Gordon is looking like the bigger fool in this instance. I'd like to see the look on every NBA owner's faces if Ben were to walk into their office and hand over his demands.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yodurk said:


> To play devil's advocate, the Bulls aren't a charitable institution either; and they are under no obligation to cave into players' demands when they are asking beyond market value (market value being what the league as a whole would offer, and/or how much they value the player in question).
> 
> To be honest I think it would be unfair to the fans if we max out our salary cap with a mediocre roster for the next 6 years. If you continually overpay guys, then at some point you're just stuck in a bad situation that takes several years and alot of trades to escape (w/ the Knicks being the extreme example).
> 
> I hear all this stuff like Paxson looks like an idiot or whatever. I think Gordon is looking like the bigger fool in this instance. I'd like to see the look on every NBA owner's faces if Ben were to walk into their office and hand over his demands.


i dont know that deng is such a stubstantially better player than Gordon that he gets an 13 mil. a year contract with incentives but gordon isn't worth 10.

I think its more about the bulls preferences than anything else. Market value really cant be determined by RFA's only UFA's because being restricted is a major handicap in bargaining power, which is why they rarely leave.

the knicks are different they traded for guys and continually changed over their roster and made their share of bad choices along the way , they didn't go through youth movement after youth movement and basically traded it away .

14 top 16 picks since 1999, they have resigned 3 and one of those guys (tyson chandler ) was dealt after 1 year...

this is not a team who is signing its players and those players are hamstringing them...they have exactly 2 guys deng and hinrich they have resigned ...its not killing them and dooming them to mediocrity .

drafting tyrus instead of LMA or aldridge is dooming them.

trading players for cap space and then signing ben wallace who was dealt for hughes is dooming them.

their lack of being able to turn 8 top 4 picks since 1999 into a legit #1 option (of which Gordon is one of them) is dooming them .

keeping their guys instead of becoming a team that is continually going back to the draft lottery, to me is a good thing , losing them out of cheapness to me is a bad thing , making negotiations tense so you cant get them at a good price is not smart...most good organizations dont do that.

resigning their players to above market value has done nothing to them...because they have not done that yet.


----------



## roux (Jun 20, 2006)

Da Grinch said:


> i dont know that deng is such a stubstantially better player than Gordon that he gets an 13 mil. a year contract with incentives but gordon isn't worth 10.
> 
> I think its more about the bulls preferences than anything else. Market value really cant be determined by RFA's only UFA's because being restricted is a major handicap in bargaining power, which is why they rarely leave.
> 
> ...


Good post


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

yodurk said:


> To play devil's advocate, the Bulls aren't a charitable institution either; and they are under no obligation to cave into players' demands when they are asking beyond market value (market value being what the league as a whole would offer, and/or how much they value the player in question).
> 
> To be honest I think it would be unfair to the fans if we max out our salary cap with a mediocre roster for the next 6 years. If you continually overpay guys, then at some point you're just stuck in a bad situation that takes several years and alot of trades to escape (w/ the Knicks being the extreme example).
> 
> I hear all this stuff like Paxson looks like an idiot or whatever. I think Gordon is looking like the bigger fool in this instance. I'd like to see the look on every NBA owner's faces if Ben were to walk into their office and hand over his demands.


It sounds like Ben and his agents are trying to negotiate, and the Bulls are just offering up a take it or leave it offer, which pissed Ben off so much last year. 

The only way we are maxing out our salary cap for the next 6 years with a mediocre roster is if Derrick Rose is a bust. If not, there is no reason why a team built around Derrick Rose, Ben Gordon, and Luol Deng can't be really good...and if they aren't, we can easily can Vinny Del ***** if he's the problem. And signing Gordon for a million more or whatever isn't maxing out our cap space. If we make some moves involving Hinrich and/or Nocioni, we can create cap space for 2010.

If say we sign Gordon to $66 million, we will have plenty of cap flexibility. The odds are in favor of at least one of Thabo/Tyrus not panning out by 2010, which will give us even more flexibility. There are pretty good odds, based on their first two seasons, that neither pans out.

Say Thabo doesn't pan out, since that is the most likely, and we have locked up long term at that point Gordon, Deng, Rose, Gray, Noah and Thomas (get an extension worked out or whatever). We then have enough to bring over Asik, and then sign a max free agent. 

Gordon doesn't max out our cap, unless Paxson has no ingenuity as a GM.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

BG7 said:


> It sounds like Ben and his agents are trying to negotiate, and the Bulls are just offering up a take it or leave it offer, which pissed Ben off so much last year.


We have heard very little about the details of this year's negotiations, so I'd like to hear what you're basing that opinion on.



> Gordon doesn't max out our cap, unless Paxson has no ingenuity as a GM.


Actually, he'd make the Bulls a luxury tax team this year, which Reinsdorf has said he won't pay.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

Da Grinch said:


> i dont know that deng is such a stubstantially better player than Gordon that he gets an 13 mil. a year contract with incentives but gordon isn't worth 10.


First of all, your numbers are a bit off. Deng's salary averages $11.8/yr million (plus *team*-based incentives), and Gordon's agent is asking for $12 million (not less than $10 million, as you suggest).

In addition to his offense, Deng plays D and is the right size for his position. That's the difference between starter money and bench player money.



> drafting tyrus instead of LMA or aldridge is dooming them.


"Aldridge" and "LMA" are the same person. Assuming you meant Roy, both are good players, but neither would radically alter the team. Aldridge is a jump-shooting big man; he'd have joined a team that already shot too many jumpers. And if the Bulls had drafted Roy, Gordon's role would have been further relegated to the bench (and again...bench money is not the same as starter money).



> their lack of being able to turn 8 top 4 picks since 1999 into a legit #1 option (of which Gordon is one of them) is dooming them .


Who would you have picked? In Paxson's time (prior to this summer's draft), a #1 option hasn't been there at our draft number. And Ben Gordon is NOT a #1 option. (If he is, why aren't teams flooding our phones to get him? Why hasn't any team offered him a contract?)



> keeping their guys instead of becoming a team that is continually going back to the draft lottery, to me is a good thing , losing them out of cheapness to me is a bad thing , making negotiations tense so you cant get them at a good price is not smart...most good organizations dont do that.


What's making the negotiations tense is Gordon's overestimation of his value. He wants to be paid like a superstar but doesn't play like one.


----------



## the_shamus (Jun 14, 2006)

Case said:


> First of all, your numbers are a bit off. Deng's salary averages $11.8/yr million (plus *team*-based incentives), and Gordon's agent is asking for $12 million (not less than $10 million, as you suggest).
> 
> In addition to his offense, Deng plays D and is the right size for his position. That's the difference between starter money and bench player money.
> 
> ...


Either Aldridge or Roy would make a big difference on this team, and If Pax could go back he would take either of them over Thomas. Thomas is probably gonna be good, but he probably won't be better than them. 

It's a fact that, like it or not, Gordon is our number one option. And his agent is asking for $12mil, not "superstar" money by any means. Does that mean he won't sign for less? No, it's just negotiation tactics. The Bulls are saying they won't go over $10mil, so they'll hopefully settle around $11mil.


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

the_shamus said:


> Either Aldridge or Roy would make a big difference on this team, and If Pax could go back he would take either of them over Thomas. Thomas is probably gonna be good, but he probably won't be better than them.


I'm not so sure that's true. Everyone (including Paxson) knew Thomas was more of a project than either Roy or Aldridge. So far that's proven to be the case. No one should be surprised that Aldridge and Roy have performed better than Thomas so far - that was expected. Paxson didn't draft Thomas for right now, he was (and likely still is) banking on the kid's potential. Since things have worked out exactly as predicted, I don't see Paxson making a different choice.

(For the record, I would have drafted Roy.) 



> It's a fact that, like it or not, Gordon is our number one option. And his agent is asking for $12mil, not "superstar" money by any means. Does that mean he won't sign for less? No, it's just negotiation tactics. The Bulls are saying they won't go over $10mil, so they'll hopefully settle around $11mil.


It's also a fact that Gordon is a 6th man who wants to be paid like a starter. He _shouldn't_ be the Bulls' #1 option, and just because he happens to be the leading scorer doesn't make him worth more. For example, if the the roster was filled with Eric Piatkowski and basketballforum.com posters, you don't pay Pike $12 million just because he's the leading scorer. You pay him the $2 million or whatever he used to make, because that's his worth around the league.

If the Bulls pay Gordon $11 million, in a year everyone will be talking about how hard it is to move his "bloated" contract. (People will also probably blame this on Paxson, despite Reinsdorf controlling these negotiations - but that's another story). I'm a firm believer that teams shouldn't be held hostage by a player's contract demands. If a marginal player wants big bucks, let him walk. Gordon's not exactly "marginal," but he's not a $12 million/year player. Dell Curry never made that kind of money (even considering inflation), and his role was similar to Gordon's in Chicago.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Case said:


> For example, *if the the roster was filled with Eric Piatkowski and basketballforum.com posters*, you don't pay Pike $12 million just because he's the leading scorer. You pay him the $2 million or whatever he used to make, because that's his worth around the league.


Now there's a team I'd love to see!

narek/SausageKingofChicago/Good Hope
Rhyder/The Krakken/Case
Piatkowski/King Joseus/bullybullz
Da Grinch/P to the Wee/Cager
jnrjr79/liekomgj4ck/Dornado

Wynn would coach, with thebizkit69u, DaBabyBullz, LoyalBull, and thebizkit69u playing a role in some capacity.

I'm probably forgetting some, which is a shame. I'd gladly forfeit my roster spot to someone else and GM the thing. :biggrin:


----------



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

King Joseus said:


> Now there's a team I'd love to see!
> 
> narek/SausageKingofChicago/Good Hope
> Rhyder/The Krakken/Case
> ...


Hahahah you should make a thread for this. PROPS


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

King Joseus said:


> Now there's a team I'd love to see!
> 
> narek/SausageKingofChicago/Good Hope
> Rhyder/The Krakken/Case
> ...



Heh. I wonder what position I'd play.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

King Joseus said:


> Now there's a team I'd love to see!
> 
> narek/SausageKingofChicago/Good Hope
> Rhyder/The Krakken/Case
> ...



I have bad knees! You'd trade me right away. Or cut me for medical reasons.


----------



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

narek said:


> I have bad knees! You'd trade me right away. Or cut me for medical reasons.


We have traded Narek to the Milwaukee Bucks for Adrian Griffin.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

P to the Wee said:


> We have traded Narek to the Milwaukee Bucks for Adrian Griffin.


No, never! narek will be our designated towel waver from the bench. The Pike chop will have to be mastered, as well...


----------



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

King Joseus said:


> No, never! narek will be our designated towel waver from the bench. The Pike chop will have to be mastered, as well...


TrueBlue will be the team doctor. He has told me that narek has mild tendinitis in her knees.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Case said:


> First of all, your numbers are a bit off. Deng's salary averages $11.8/yr million (plus *team*-based incentives), and Gordon's agent is asking for $12 million (not less than $10 million, as you suggest).


actually 6yrs 81 mil. with incentives comes out to 13.5 mil a year on avg.

and i was referring to the bulls offer of 6 years 58 or 59 mil as a less than 10 mil a year offer ...my arithmatic is just fine....



> In addition to his offense, Deng plays D and is the right size for his position. That's the difference between starter money and bench player money.


versatility doesn't = impact , tayshaun prince does everything deng does , but i wouldn't consider him better than a guy like nash who only plays one side of the ball effectively.

not saying either are those guys , but you should be able to get the point.




> "Aldridge" and "LMA" are the same person. Assuming you meant Roy, both are good players, but neither would radically alter the team. Aldridge is a jump-shooting big man; he'd have joined a team that already shot too many jumpers. And if the Bulls had drafted Roy, Gordon's role would have been further relegated to the bench (and again...bench money is not the same as starter money).


yes i meant Roy ...i think its really obvious that either would make the bulls much better , you can nitpick if you want , but both are budding stars in the league and tyrus is not.

You cant have enough good players , Roy cutting into Gordon minutes is much better than Hughes doing it.





> Who would you have picked? In Paxson's time (prior to this summer's draft), a #1 option hasn't been there at our draft number. And Ben Gordon is NOT a #1 option. (If he is, why aren't teams flooding our phones to get him? Why hasn't any team offered him a contract?)


truthfully Aldridge is enough to change the bulls fortunes by himself

Roy appears to be a #1 option ...Rudy Gay also appears to have that potential as well, he is just 22 as of yesterday and avg. over 20 a game.

no one is talking about giving gordon max money , 2nd fiddle money is basically what he deserves and that is what he wants ...no different than deng who to me is not a 2nd option , just a really good forward.

there is exactly 1 team in the nba right now with enough money to offer him a deal close to what the bulls have offered ...and i believe its 6 yrs 57 mil.( the offer they(the grizzlies) gave to josh smith) ...a lesser # than the bulls have offered ...if gordon turned the bulls down, why would you waste your time , he's looking for more ...the only way to make it work is a sign and trade and apparently there have been teams who have contacted the bulls about gordon, that story was released over a month ago. 




> What's making the negotiations tense is Gordon's overestimation of his value. He wants to be paid like a superstar but doesn't play like one.


i dont think so , its not superstar money being asked for , its 2nd fiddle money, supporting star money and he is that .


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> Now there's a team I'd love to see!
> 
> narek/SausageKingofChicago/Good Hope
> Rhyder/The Krakken/Case
> ...


as long as i start , I wont be a distraction.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

I recommend everyone listen to this. Doug's pretty much on the mark. http://www.bullsbeat.com/bullsbeat_58.mp3


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

Da Grinch said:


> actually 6yrs 81 mil. with incentives comes out to 13.5 mil a year on avg.
> 
> and i was referring to the bulls offer of 6 years 58 or 59 mil as a less than 10 mil a year offer ...my arithmatic is just fine....


It's not your arithmetic, it's the way you're using the numbers. You seem to have missed the "(plus team-based incentives)" in my post; otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing about it with me. You talk about the incentives (making the playoffs, winning championships) as if they're all-but guaranteed, while at the same time suggesting that $10 million/yr for Gordon would get it done.



> versatility doesn't = impact , tayshaun prince does everything deng does , but i wouldn't consider him better than a guy like nash who only plays one side of the ball effectively.
> 
> not saying either are those guys , but you should be able to get the point.


PPG doesn't = impact, either, nor does it automatically equate to a $72 million contract. Fiscally responsible teams don't pay bench players $72/6.

And Deng/Gordon are so different than Prince/Nash that the comparison is completely meaningless. Nash is not just a shooter; he orchestrates that entire offense. If Gordon did anything beyond shoot, I'd be more inclined to pay him. If he could run the offense, play D, not turn the ball over, rebound - any of those things (it doesn't even have to be ALL of them), he'd be worth more. But he doesn't, so he's not.



> yes i meant Roy ...i think its really obvious that either would make the bulls much better , you can nitpick if you want , but both are budding stars in the league and tyrus is not.


I'm not even going to get into this with you. I've already stated that I'd have drafted Roy (which means I wouldn't have drafted Tyrus). And neither Roy nor Aldridge would have been enough to overcome a team-wide slum. When Gordon, Deng, Hinrich, Wallace, etc. aren't playing up to par, one rookie isn't going to fix everything.



> if gordon turned the bulls down, why would you waste your time , he's looking for more ...the only way to make it work is a sign and trade and apparently there have been teams who have contacted the bulls about gordon, that story was released over a month ago.


And yet we haven't heard anything since. Sounds like an agent trying to create something out of nothing...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Case said:


> It's not your arithmetic, it's the way you're using the numbers. You seem to have missed the "(plus team-based incentives)" in my post; otherwise, you wouldn't be arguing about it with me. You talk about the incentives (making the playoffs, winning championships) as if they're all-but guaranteed, while at the same time suggesting that $10 million/yr for Gordon would get it done.


I think it was pretty clear i was posting the #s deng accepted and gordon was offered , what you got from that is confusing at best .






> PPG doesn't = impact, either, nor does it automatically equate to a $72 million contract. Fiscally responsible teams don't pay bench players $72/6.



he is only a bench player due to coach's decisions its really obvious he is their go to guy ...which makes him as the nba goes their best player in most cases and definitely in in their top 2 or 3 no matter what criteria you use....the only exceptions to that rule are truly exceptional players at certain aspects of the game like defense or rebounding like if a guy was a defnesive player of the year ...none exist on the bulls currently.




> And Deng/Gordon are so different than Prince/Nash that the comparison is completely meaningless. Nash is not just a shooter; he orchestrates that entire offense. If Gordon did anything beyond shoot, I'd be more inclined to pay him. If he could run the offense, play D, not turn the ball over, rebound - any of those things (it doesn't even have to be ALL of them), he'd be worth more. But he doesn't, so he's not.


thats silly , you are what your impact on the team makes you ( I personally believe a team should throw away stats when negotiating and simply pay guys on their contribution to winning like the old celtics did ...But the bulls dont do that , they like most teams use #s and gordon's are fine so they should pay him), you can do a bunch of things or just a few, some posters here , yourself included want to diminish his accomplishments but when push comes to shove they aren't looking to deng hinrich noah or whomever when its time to win the game, they have been looking to Gordon for his 4 seasons here , that means alot...and that should cost alot since he is just 25 years old and should continue to improve.





> I'm not even going to get into this with you. I've already stated that I'd have drafted Roy (which means I wouldn't have drafted Tyrus). And neither Roy nor Aldridge would have been enough to overcome a team-wide slum. When Gordon, Deng, Hinrich, Wallace, etc. aren't playing up to par, one rookie isn't going to fix everything.


To me the team lost faith in itself and didn't play as hard as they had in previous seasons, if they had better players to rely on maybe the slumps wouldn't have happened ...its not like they were losing in blowouts , a good play here , and smart play there could have changed the flow of a lot of those games...conjecture for sure but no different than you saying Roy couldn't have helped much.





> And yet we haven't heard anything since. Sounds like an agent trying to create something out of nothing...


nothing except Gordon seems rather convinced that he will be part of a sign and trade ...think he knows something you dont?


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> Now there's a team I'd love to see!
> 
> narek/SausageKingofChicago/Good Hope
> Rhyder/The Krakken/Case
> ...


I can't shoot outside of about 18 feet with any consistency, so SG would be a horrible spot for me. Distributing PG and pesky defender is much more my style.


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> I can't shoot outside of about 18 feet with any consistency, so SG would be a horrible spot for me. Distributing PG and pesky defender is much more my style.


Well, I'll have to work on the depth chart. Still, I think we've got ourselves a nice team.

Perhaps a bit too inclined to playing small ball, though...

:biggrin:


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> I can't shoot outside of about 18 feet with any consistency, so SG would be a horrible spot for me. Distributing PG and pesky defender is much more my style.


The Dornado can knock down an open J... but I'm kind of out of shape right now...

Anyway, play me at the 3... I'm like a better defending Toni Kukoc...


----------



## Case (Dec 17, 2007)

Dornado said:


> The Dornado can knock down an open J... but I'm kind of out of shape right now...
> 
> Anyway, play me at the 3... I'm like a better defending Toni Kukoc...


I'll serve the Reggie Evans role: defender/rebounder with a beard.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

King Joseus said:


> Well, I'll have to work on the depth chart. Still, I think we've got ourselves a nice team.
> 
> Perhaps a bit too inclined to playing small ball, though...
> 
> :biggrin:


Can Sham be cheerleader?


----------



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

I'm the short version of Thabo


----------



## King Joseus (May 26, 2003)

Rhyder said:


> Can Sham be cheerleader?


Assuming no outlandish contract demands...heck yeah!


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

Wow, this got off topic real fast. I don't care about Ben Gordon anymore and just want something to get done quickly. I'm sure others are on the same boat. Oh, I'm a shooter by the way.


----------

