# Ben to the Knicks?



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

Now this is starting to get old. 

http://realgm.com/

A couple of weeks ago I said I would bet on Isiah, if still GM of the Knicks, to make Ben an offer he couldnt refuse as an RFA in a year, but I didnt see this coming, though I am not surprised. They want to just give us next years #1, which we already can swap into, and one of their "elite guards". This deal doesnt make an ounce of sense for the Bulls, since they can already swap with the Knicks and none of the "elite guards" are they type of guys the Bulls would want. However, I would do the deal for Channing Frye in a heartbeat. In fact, Paxson should try to parlay Gordon into Frye if he is so desperate to deal BG7 or if the Knicks are so interested. The source for this story didnt come from the Knicks, came from a "source close to Ben Gordon" and it also says that the Bulls have already started to "send out feelers for Gordon".


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

LMAO at this story....

I guess Robbins reads to much Barry Rozner.


----------



## Rodman (Feb 5, 2004)

hmmm and so it starts again.... hopefully this offseason Pax won't deal with IT. 
Or could it be that Pax has his eyes set on Brandon Roy???


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

This makes no sense and if the Bulls even considered trading BG for one of the Knicks "elite guards" Paxson is an idiot. The Knicks have no elite guards and the only benefit Chicago would get from this trade is another 1st round pick from NY (a lottery pick).


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> http://realgm.com/


I stopped reading after that. :tongue:



> Or could it be that Pax has his eyes said on Brandon Roy???


I think he does, but I bet he has feelers out for everyone, not just Gordon. 



> However, I would do the deal for Channing Frye in a heartbeat.


I wouldn't, I know we lack size but that's just not enough for Gordon.

It must be a slow news day.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

It's being reported in the Post as well.

http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=269180

I don't know if that makes the rumor more or less credible.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> It's being reported in the Post as well.


Well what's on RealGM is the article from the post.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

I have no doubt Zeke is making offers to every team in the NBA to try and get rid of Marbury and Francis, and this was just a part of that.


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

I didnt know the knicks had any "elite guards" . Who are they. I would think an elite guard would be an all star or close to being an all star. Maybe they can trade for an elite guard to trade too us. But imho there is not a player on the knicks that i think could start on the bulls except for CF and with our two picks this summer we will surely draft a starting PF that i think will be better than Frye.

IT is out of luck. He thinks he can trade his bad boys for yound soon to be starts. My guess is he is stuck. 

:banana: :banana: :clap: :clap: 

:raised_ey :raised_ey 

david


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> According to a source, Thomas feels he cannot satisfy Brown's demands of making major trades, despite a serious inquiry into Chicago's Ben Gordon.


So all that has really been reported is that Zeke made a call asking about Ben.

Big whoop.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> So all that has really been reported is that Zeke made a call asking about Ben.
> 
> Big whoop.



2 Years ago it started with a call. We said they had nothing to offer. Last year it started with a call, they had nothing to offer. It is a big whoop. History has shown that Isiah has raided our team before when we thought he had nothing to give. And whats scary here is that its Ben Gordon who seems to be instigating it to a degree. 

And giusd, dont you think Eddy Curry would start for the Bulls?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

We do need one of their "elite guards"

I have no doubt the IT wants Gordon. He better want some players other than what he has. 

We already have their first round pick so to speak so why do this? 

I agree rlucas if Frye is the bait then I can live with that. We can draft a guard to replace Gordon. 

IT is truly trying to be the NY Bulls. 

Personally I can't see Paxson doing the trade the way it's worded in the NY Post. I think most of the talk is from New York. It has to be, unless I am missing something.


----------



## truth (Jul 16, 2002)

giusd said:


> *I didnt know the knicks had any "elite guards*" . Who are they. I would think an elite guard would be an all star or close to being an all star. Maybe they can trade for an elite guard to trade too us. But imho there is not a player on the knicks that i think could start on the bulls except for CF and with our two picks this summer we will surely draft a starting PF that i think will be better than Frye.
> 
> IT is out of luck. He thinks he can trade his bad boys for yound soon to be starts. My guess is he is stuck.
> 
> ...


Rumor has it Zeke has asked Walt Frazier to leave the broadcasting booth and suit up....That may be the elite guard the article is referring to,though he may have lost a step


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> We do need one of their "elite guards"
> 
> I have no doubt the IT wants Gordon. He better want some players other than what he has.
> 
> ...


ahh I see now. They have some picks that are later first round. That must be what he is talking about. 

Elite guard and more picks for Gordon. We can do better. Talk to us about Frye and we will do it!


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

The Bulls getting an Elite Guard in return for Gordon? Yippee the return of Jalen Rose! :banana: 

The sad thing is with Rose's contract expiring next season and the length and cost of Marbury's and Franchises deals, he has to be the most attractive guard on the roster other than Jamal. Since when did grossly over paid and the term "elite guard" become interchangable?


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

If Paxson was looking to trade Gordon, he should wait and see what Washington do with Eddie Jordan. Noone knows if they will extend him or fire him as rumours have it that Grunfeld isn't so fond of his current coach. The interesting part is Arenas has gone on record and said if he's not extended, he would want out. When you add Sacramento in the situation, this is definitely something to keep an eye on.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I trust that article. Why wouldn't the Knicks make such an inquiry?


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

I wouldn't do a Gordon for Frye deal with the Knicks, and I don't want any part of their "elite guards" either, Isiah is stuck with their ridiculous contracts.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

This is the first time, really, in the three years that there are players we might actually want.

None of them, though, are these "elite guards" of which they speak. Whoever the hell that is referring to.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

rlucas4257 said:


> 2 Years ago it started with a call. We said they had nothing to offer. Last year it started with a call, they had nothing to offer. It is a big whoop. History has shown that Isiah has raided our team before when we thought he had nothing to give. And whats scary here is that its Ben Gordon who seems to be instigating it to a degree.
> 
> And giusd, dont you think Eddy Curry would start for the Bulls?



I think raiding is a pretty subjective term. Raiding give a connotation of stealing. Getting something for nothing. If Zeke is "raiding" the Bulls, I say let him come again. The guy is the worst GM in the business. I'm sure any talks involving Gordon begin and end with Channing Frye. Pax doesn't have to deal Gordon this off-season and he's more than able to listen to any and all offers. I'm sure there are teams out there who can offer better than the "elite" guard the Knicks are supposedly offering (which overpaid, underperforming stiff that is I don't know, but the last thing this team needs is Marbury or Francis) and what would amount to our own pick back. I'm pretty confident regardless of what both Pax and Zeke do this offseason, the Bulls will end up the better team next year and so it sounds like we'd be dealing Gordon for either Marbury or Francis and our pick which will probably be in the 19-24 range next year. Not a very good deal if ya ask me!

I don't even know if this deal could be consumated, at least until after this years' draft as the Knicks would be dealing two consecutive firsts as I understand it. As an aside, do the Knicks have any firsts comming from other teams in 2007 or 2008? My understanding of the rules is that so long as they have _a_ pick in every other year, they're OK to deal their own pick. IE, they could deal their 2006 and 2007 picks so long as they have a first round pick from another team that they can use on themselves in one of those two years. I also wonder about the NY first that is due to Utah. If no deal is done and the Knicks do finish worse than the Bulls and the teams swap pick spots, and the Bulls pick happens to fall outside of the protections of the Utah deal - does the Bulls pick then automatically covey to Utah and the Knicks are basically left without any first round picks next year? That sure would suck for them! One of the potentially best drafts in the last few years and the Knicks to be left out in the cold? Isiah Thomas is the worst GM, by far, in the league!


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

If Paxson trades BG, he's an idiot. PERIOD


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

The ROY said:


> If Paxson trades BG, he's an idiot. PERIOD


What makes you say that? Hell, for all you know Pax could trade BG for Kobe, THEN would he be an idiot? Frye for all intents and purposes looks like a young Tim Duncan to me. He is great at hitting that 12-15 foot pick and pop shot that our offense seems to flourish with. He would be a really nice fit and if we could get him AND NY's pick for BG we would be foolish not to at least mull it over IMO.


----------



## dsouljah9 (Jul 9, 2002)

The only way I trade BG to the Knicks is if Frye is part of the deal.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The ROY said:


> If Paxson trades BG, he's an idiot. PERIOD


I wouldn't go that far. In this rumored deal? Absolutely.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ace20004u said:


> What makes you say that? Hell, for all you know Pax could trade BG for Kobe, THEN would he be an idiot? Frye for all intents and purposes looks like a young Tim Duncan to me. He is great at hitting that 12-15 foot pick and pop shot that our offense seems to flourish with. He would be a really nice fit and if we could get him AND NY's pick for BG we would be foolish not to at least mull it over IMO.


I'd consider a Gordon trade to New York including Frye. "Consider" being the operative word. Frye has a very nice shooting stroke and can even put the ball on the floor, but he doesn't have much of a low post game and his rebounding is sketchy. 

I like him and I think he'd be a great fit in Skike's system. But he lacks quite a few critical skills that Tim Duncan possessed from Day One.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> if we could get him AND NY's pick for BG we would be foolish not to at least mull it over IMO.


Why would we want their 07 pick when we have the pick swap?


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

I'm starting to come around on the idea a little bit:

Chandler, O'bryant
Frye, Noc
Noc, Deng
Roy
Hinrich

is probably a better matched team than:

LA, O'bryant, Chandler
Deng, Noc
Gordon 
Hinrich

I'm not sure which lineup is closer to a championship though. . . does that make sense? Toss in a couple picks mid level picks and it may be a step in the right direction.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Gordon for Frye?

People have to think twice about this from the Bulls end?

NBAdraft.net does compare Roy to JALEN ROSE though. That may give some people pause, although if Roy could be the best player on a NBA Finals team someday we'll take him.


----------



## rosenthall (Aug 1, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'd consider a Gordon trade to New York including Frye. "Consider" being the operative word. Frye has a very nice shooting stroke and can even put the ball on the floor, but he doesn't have much of a low post game and his rebounding is sketchy.
> 
> I like him and I think he'd be a great fit in Skike's system. But he lacks quite a few critical skills that Tim Duncan possessed from Day One.


I'd consider a Gordon for Frye deal, but I think I'd wait until after the draft to make a decision. If we get LaMarcus Aldridge, I don't think I'd do it, since they seem to duplicate each other quite a bit. A lot, actually. 

But if we got bumped down in the lottery, and ended up taking Brandon Roy, making the trade would give our roster a lot of balance and versatility, and might help us overall.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

We need to bear in mind how shabbily written this article was. The facts were incorrect, there were no specifics mentioned (probably because he didn't have any), and Mr Robbins could spell neither Michael's surname or his own first name.

So give me something more concrete before we see if this is truly feasible.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> We need to bear in mind how shabbily written this article was. The facts were incorrect, there were no specifics mentioned (probably because he didn't have any), and Mr Robbins could spell neither Michael's surname or his own first name.
> 
> So give me something more concrete before we see if this is truly feasible.


We also need to bear in mind the source. The NY post is not really known for it strict adherence to truth (see Peter Vescey articles).


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Gordon for Frye?
> 
> People have to think twice about this from the Bulls end?


I'm a little concerned that once teams started figuring him out, Frye's productivity seemed to take a pretty significant dip last season. 

And I don't know enough about Roy to have the strong positive opinion of him that some have. Personally, I'm still liking Gay if we don't daft big. 

Like I said, I'd consider it. But I just don't have a strong enough feeling, or knowledge base, about such a trade to put it in the "do it" column. 

I know that I like Gordon, though I've repeatedly said that he will be, and probably should be, traded. Its just that I always thought of that as a larger consolidation trade for a veteran "star". Not as a swap for Channing Frye.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm a little concerned that once teams started figuring him out, Frye's productivity seemed to take a pretty significant dip last season.
> 
> And I don't know enough about Roy to have the strong positive opinion of him that some have. Personally, I'm still liking Gay if we don't daft big.
> 
> ...



i dont think teams figured him out as much as he lost some confidence i his jumpshot, and then he hit the rookie wall, personally i think frye is going to get alot better, he has 3 point range and has a show and go move , plus he can post up when his jumpshot isn't falling . he is almost a lock to be a 20 point a game scorer soon.


----------



## bullet (Jul 1, 2003)

My opinion is that Zeke cannot even approach the table without the name Frye on the table.

It's become clear Pax will not pick players like Stephon or Francis...

and he won't take back what he sent

in fact - the only 3 players that might interest Pax are the 3 he does not want to give!

they have the 20th and 29th 1st rounders too.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

rosenthall said:


> I'd consider a Gordon for Frye deal, but I think I'd wait until after the draft to make a decision. If we get LaMarcus Aldridge, I don't think I'd do it, since they seem to duplicate each other quite a bit. A lot, actually.
> 
> But if we got bumped down in the lottery, and ended up taking Brandon Roy, making the trade would give our roster a lot of balance and versatility, and might help us overall.


 Good post. You've probably nailed the scenario where Gordon gets shipped. If the lottery gods are not our side and we have no chance at Thomas, Aldridge, and Bargnani (which is very possible) Paxson may have to look into geting size some other way. Selecting Roy and trading Gordon for size may be a better option than drafting Morrison or Gay and trying to play them out of position.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

If a #1 pick is included (what pick? our Bulls pick we're going to swap?), I'd make a Ben Gordon for player X trade in a second with the Knicks if Player X is anyone of the following.

Channing Frye
Eddy Curry
Jamal Crawford

Other than Crawford, I'd be stunned if anyone could disagree. Perhaps some think that Eddy Curry is going to drop dead sometime soon from heart issues.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> If a #1 pick is included (what pick? our Bulls pick we're going to swap?), I'd make a Ben Gordon for player X trade in a second with the Knicks if Player X is anyone of the following.
> 
> Channing Frye
> Eddy Curry
> ...


Prepare to be stunned. I don't want Curry back in Chicago (it has nothing to do with the health of his heart). Not one bit. And I definitely wouldn't give up Gordon to get him. 

I suppose it depends on what kind of #1 pick we are talking about, though. If its simply firming up the "swap" option, then no. If the Knicks are better than the Bulls next season (thereby nullifying the swap which would be the only reason to firm it up), it will likely be because both are playoff teams. Curry and, say, the #20 pick in the draft for Gordon/filler is not something I'd be willing to do - and that is basically what it would be.

Frye, on the other hand, has possibilities.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*According to published reports the Bulls have out feelers to gauge interest in Gordon.*


what published reports are these? a bunch of barry rozner columns?

and the knicks might be interested in getting rid of marbury or francis, but pax would never want them, unless he were to turn around and immediately trade them.

but i wonder why ben gave the "exclusive" about his new drink to the Post and not to the Chicago press.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Prepare to be stunned. I don't want Curry back in Chicago. Not one bit. And I definitely wouldn't give up Gordon to get him.


True, but you also don't seem very bent out of shape about winning fewer games than we did the season before. 

I know, I know, a grand tomorrow is right around the corner. The future is bright! 

Even if we land Aldridge or Thomas, we still are in desperate need of an actual NBA center. Curry and a number one pick for Ben Gordon, with all the draft picks and Cap Space we have? Done deal. Back to above .500 for the Bullies. Center is the hardest position to fill. Curry would be a godsend. 

It would be incredible to have all these picks and Cap Space and to be shopping for a productive guard, not a productive center. 

Heck, maybe Curry returning brings about the reemergence of Chandler, reforming the Twin Towers we had when we compiled a winning record. 

Then, as Bulls fans, we would not have to give a rats tomato about Nazr Mohammed.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> If a #1 pick is included (what pick? our Bulls pick we're going to swap?), I'd make a Ben Gordon for player X trade in a second with the Knicks if Player X is anyone of the following.


We have no use for any of their picks this year or next year.



> Prepare to be stunned. I don't want Curry back in Chicago. Not one bit. And I definitely wouldn't give up Gordon to get him.


Agreed.

The only thing that would interest me is something like Frye and Crawford for Gordon, but that's not really even. Something needs to be added ontop of Frye to make it happen, otherwise its a pipe dream.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> True, but you also don't seem very bent out of shape about winning fewer games than we did the season before.


It seems that way because its true.



> I know, I know, a grand tomorrow is right around the corner. The future is bright!


Thats right. 



> Even if we land Aldridge or Thomas, we still are in desperate need of an actual NBA center. Curry and a number one pick for Ben Gordon, with all the draft picks and Cap Space we have? Done deal. Back to above .500 for the Bullies. Center is the hardest position to fill. Curry would be a godsend.


First, if we were to trade Gordon for Curry, we'd have less cap space (though we'd still have a decent chunk of change). Second, I don't believe in the "center" myth. Being a "top 6" (not quoting you) center doesn't impress me if there are 20 power forwards that are better. I do, however, believe we need better players and more size at the 4 and 5. No doubt about that. 

I just don't want Curry to be one of them - not at the cost of Gordon anyway. But this thread isn't about Eddy Curry, and I fear I'm turning it into one. I'll stop now.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> *According to published reports the Bulls have out feelers to gauge interest in Gordon.*
> 
> 
> what published reports are these? a bunch of barry rozner columns?
> ...



I think Ben would like to go back to NY. It seems that he is the source, or as they say someone close to him, of all of this hullabaloo. Mize, you live in NYC, you know how people from here absolutely want to stay. I think Ben is happy in Chicago, but clearly thinks of playing in the Big Apple one day. And it wouldnt surprise me if him, or his agent, is just starting all of this stuff to try and force something.


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> If a #1 pick is included (what pick? our Bulls pick we're going to swap?), I'd make a Ben Gordon for player X trade in a second with the Knicks if Player X is anyone of the following.
> 
> Channing Frye
> Eddy Curry
> ...


Actually Crawford did come to my mind. Really. He is a taller SG that we would need. We would need a pick back as well in this trade. I mean why do it unless it makes us better. 

Frye and or Curry is a no brainer!


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

rlucas4257 said:


> I think Ben would like to go back to NY. It seems that he is the source, or as they say someone close to him, of all of this hullabaloo. Mize, you live in NYC, you know how people from here absolutely want to stay. I think Ben is happy in Chicago, but clearly thinks of playing in the Big Apple one day. And it wouldnt surprise me if him, or his agent, is just starting all of this stuff to try and force something.



wouldn't surprise me one bit either! and i agree, ben is the source. ben was also the source at the beginning of the season with all the "start me or trade me" crap. 


i guess this is what ben meant when he said he would take the exit interview comments "in stride".


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> but i wonder why ben gave the "exclusive" about his new drink to the Post and not to the Chicago press.


People in New York drink energy drinks. People in Chicago drink Budweiser. Gross overgeneralization. . . but theres some truth there. Also, plays up the Ben Gordon NY connection. Seems like the savy move to me.


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> True, but you also don't seem very bent out of shape about winning fewer games than we did the season before.
> 
> I know, I know, a grand tomorrow is right around the corner. The future is bright!
> 
> ...


Does Chandler come back off the bench, because the two of them didn't play very many minutes together when we had a winning record.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Rhyder said:


> Does Chandler come back off the bench, because the two of them didn't play very many minutes together when we had a winning record.


LOL. That is true. 

Even if mega-millions Chandler, the one C Paxson opted to keep and pay the big money to, remains a stiff we would be better off with an actual productive center like Curry.


----------



## smARTmouf (Jul 16, 2002)

Channing Frye and next years 1st rd. pick for Ben Gordon.

2 1st. round draft picks next year would be KILLER!.

i'd do this all day...


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

truebluefan said:


> Actually Crawford did come to my mind. Really. He is a taller SG that we would need. We would need a pick back as well in this trade. I mean why do it unless it makes us better.
> 
> Frye and or Curry is a no brainer!


Yah, I agree, although I do think Crawford is better than Gordon, but not enough to make much of an issue of it.

One of the benefits, IMO, of resigning Crawford was to give us more flexibility in making trades, such as trading Gordon for a productive center and getting us out of this undersized SG trap we're in.

That, and Crawford is the proper height for a SG and does not have to spend the off-season working on his ball-handling, or staying upright for an entire game.

Whatever... whats done is done. let the search for a productive big man and a normal sized 2 guard continue.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

such sweet thunder said:


> People in New York drink energy drinks. People in Chicago drink Budweiser. Gross overgeneralization. . . but theres some truth there. Also, plays up the Ben Gordon NY connection. Seems like the savy move to me.



lol. and talk about a way to create mucho media buzz around your drink launch!



(i like vodka, personally. i wonder what BG7 tastes like with a little splash of grey goose? hmmmm. :smilewink )


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

Ben Gordon playing 41 home games at MSG? :eek8: 

25 ppg, 50% FG, 45% 3PT.  


I'm sort of half-joking with those numbers, but the guy plays out of his mind at MSG. Giving him away to the Knicks (even for Frye) would hurt our 2007 pick swap for sure.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Channing Frye and next years 1st rd. pick for Ben Gordon.
> 
> 2 1st. round draft picks next year would be KILLER!.
> 
> i'd do this all day...


One would be lottery, the other shouldn't. It's nothing really to cheer about considering that we'd make the Knicks better doing this trade. So nullifying the pick swap is just silly.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

There are tons of players from NY. Most don't end up playing for the Knicks.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> There are tons of players from NY. Most don't end up playing for the Knicks.


But all of them want to.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

rlucas4257 said:


> But all of them want to.


That may be true, but I wonder if Ben wouldn't want to wait until the Knicks prove to be something other than a colossal trainwreck before trying to get himself there. Might as well make the playoffs a few times while the Knicks try to get their stuff together. Chicago's a fun place to spend your early 20s too, anyway.


----------



## UMfan83 (Jan 15, 2003)

Anyone want to IM Ben to confirm? He's online right now


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

i think there is more than a fair chance benny is a primadonna that pax has decided not keep long term .

we keep hearing reports whenever gordon is on the bench that he wants to start ...and apparently he thinks himself a pg (although i crinnge at the thought of him creating for others) we have heard that the nuggets were interested because they believed there was disharmony between bg and the bulls.

where there is smoke there usually fire,

pax/skiles appartently sees gordon as a 6th man who they start to appease him more than any real desire to see him start.

if a deal goes down i expect it to happen later in the summer not anytime soon. after pax gets to see what he can get via free agency.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Da Grinch said:


> i think there is more than a fair chance benny is a primadonna that pax has decided not keep long term .
> 
> we keep hearing reports whenever gordon is on the bench that he wants to start ...and apparently he thinks himself a pg (although i crinnge at the thought of him creating for others) we have heard that the nuggets were interested because they believed there was disharmony between bg and the bulls.
> 
> ...


 Although I don't totally agree with the appeasement comment I can see it somewhat. I think Ben starting wasn't completely because Paxson/Skiles wanted to appease Ben, but it certainly played a role. And that's very odd considering the hardliner stance that management has taken ever since Skiles became coach. Mostly I think Ben made the move to the starting lineup due to a lack of better options. If we find an option that fits better this summer then I can't see Ben keeping his starter status.

But you're right, where there's smoke there's fire. And I see this turning into a big one that will end up with Gordon in another uniform next season. Let's just hope Pax can _finally_ get fair value.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

> i think there is more than a fair chance benny is a primadonna that pax has decided not keep long term .


It seems like everyone in the world says Ben Gordon is unhappy except for Ben Gordon. I don't know if its the prevailing perception of the 'young, black athlete' or what... but it seems like we want to turn Ben Gordon into whining, brooding, greedy and selfish player unwilling to accept his role on a basketball team without him even hinting at any of those tendencies. Just because people like Sam Smith speculate that Ben Gordon wouldn't be happy coming off of the bench does not mean that he is some kind of problem child. The only thing I can tell about Gordon from actually watching and listening to him is that he cares about winning... and that his teams usually do a decent job accomplishing that goal.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

sp00k said:


> Although I don't totally agree with the appeasement comment I can see it somewhat. I think Ben starting wasn't completely because Paxson/Skiles wanted to appease Ben, but it certainly played a role. And that's very odd considering the hardliner stance that management has taken ever since Skiles became coach. Mostly I think Ben made the move to the starting lineup due to a lack of better options. If we find an option that fits better this summer then I can't see Ben keeping his starter status.
> 
> But you're right, where there's smoke there's fire. And I see this turning into a big one that will end up with Gordon in another uniform next season. Let's just hope Pax can _finally_ get fair value.


now would be the time to get the most value possible.

no one really knows if ben can play pg because of duhon and kirk , but he can score , shoot and handle the ball. i suspect he cant though. he never did it in college summer league or during the season and i think that he hasn't really played pg in 5 years says plenty considering he seems to think he is one but his coaches always find someone else to do it.

the guy was 3rd in the draft so in theory he should have the most trade value on the team sans tyson ...but i doubt it , I think luol and kirk are worth more, next year possibly nocioni too. if they want to deal him he has the most value the further he is from free agency.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Dornado said:


> It seems like everyone in the world says Ben Gordon is unhappy except for Ben Gordon. I don't know if its the prevailing perception of the 'young, black athlete' or what... but it seems like we want to turn Ben Gordon into whining, brooding, greedy and selfish player unwilling to accept his role on a basketball team without him even hinting at any of those tendencies. Just because people like Sam Smith speculate that Ben Gordon wouldn't be happy coming off of the bench does not mean that he is some kind of problem child. The only thing I can tell about Gordon from actually watching and listening to him is that he cares about winning... and that his teams usually do a decent job accomplishing that goal.


well ben wouldn't say it...but whenever there are rumors he wanted to start soon enough he was starting ...just seems a lil' coincidental to me.


----------



## mw2889 (Dec 15, 2005)

I'm not going to be a Knicks Fan if we trade Ben, they'll have like all my favorite players.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Unless this trade is for Channing Frye and David Lee then Iam not even Interested. With the loss of Ben Gordon I cant even imagine where the Bulls will get their scoring from. Sure Channing is nice player but Frye talied off during the last 3 months of the season and was a non factor. He had a knee injury that can be risky to take a chance on, Overall the Bulls are Much Much better off trying to package Ben and the draft picks for Either KG, Bosh or even Charlie Villanueva who is much better then Frye.


----------



## theanimal23 (Mar 2, 2005)

I'd consider it if we got Fyre and a 1st rounder or two. No way we would get Eddy back, even if we wanted due to the heart issue.


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

NY is in disarray. Brown's future is hazy. Zeke's brilliant moves have backfired. The Post has always been trying to create this Skiles-Gordon feud for the past two years. The Bulls own NY's pick and have the option on next years. The Bulls made the playoffs this year, whereas NY finished far from it. The Bulls have a significant amount of cap space.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

H.O.V.A. said:


> NY is in disarray. Brown's future is hazy. Zeke's brilliant moves have backfired. The Post has always been trying to create this Skiles-Gordon feud for the past two years. The Bulls own NY's pick and have the option on next years. The Bulls made the playoffs this year, whereas NY finished far from it. The Bulls have a significant amount of cap space.


NY is home.

I think its likely Ben is putting this out there, angling for something. I hope it doesnt happen, but Isiah has targeted a Bull every summer and always seems to get him. If its Ben this summer, then its something we have to seriously consider a possibility


----------



## H.O.V.A. (Jul 13, 2005)

rlucas4257 said:


> NY is home.
> 
> I think its likely Ben is putting this out there, angling for something. I hope it doesnt happen, but Isiah has targeted a Bull every summer and always seems to get him. If its Ben this summer, then its something we have to seriously consider a possibility


I guess D.Wade, Corey Maggette, QRich, Toine, & Tony Allen must all be clamoring to come back home and play for their Bulls. And just because the Bulls have traded with the Knicks the past two summers doesnt mean that its going to become an annual tradition.


----------



## thebizkit69u (Feb 12, 2003)

Ben Gordon has more value then Channing Frye and pretty much everyone on the knicks (contract wise). I dont see this trade happening because we pretty much dont need anything from NY.


----------



## rlucas4257 (Jun 1, 2002)

H.O.V.A. said:


> I guess D.Wade, Corey Maggette, QRich, Toine, & Tony Allen must all be clamoring to come back home and play for their Bulls. And just because the Bulls have traded with the Knicks the past two summers doesnt mean that its going to become an annual tradition.



Isiah has targeted a Bull each of the last 2 summers with very little to give and got his guy each time, why not this time? Also, this seems to be coming from Gordon, which makes it even more worrisome. Look Chicago is a great town, I grew up there. But there is something about NY kids and wanting to play in the big apple. Its a huge deal for them. I am sure the guys you mentioned above would all love to come back. But what we have here is a guy who sounds like he would like to play elsewhere with NY as his #1 choice and a GM who certainly likes him. Pax holds the cards. Nothing might happen for a year or 2, but this is far from the end of this story.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

The stakes are different this time around considering the swap option. 

Paxson won't do any trade with the Knicks if he thinks there's even a 10% chance it improves them by a single win. 

The Knicks are a sinking ship and the Bulls have their pick. Why mess with that?


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

rlucas4257 said:


> Isiah has targeted a Bull each of the last 2 summers with very little to give and got his guy each time, why not this time?


Isiah was the only GM that actually wanted Curry and Crawford. It's pretty easy to get your guy when you've got a wad of cash, but even easier when your guy also happens to be a gimp. 

Gordon is better than both and on a rookie contract, not a $45-60 million contract, which is what those guys got as restricted free agents. The situation is not really comparable because Ben's trade value is very high whereas those two guys was very low. 

It's also different because of what I just posted re: the pick swap. The Bulls have a vested interest in the Knicks being a miserable team next year, which they are currently on a collision course for. Paxson won't make them a better team when a guy like Oden could be at stake.


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

This is a very stupid idea.Ya lets ruin our chances at getting Oden buy loosing our leading scorer to the KNICKS ,who could catipult them out of the worst five teams in the league!!! That way he can torch us all season.This is like trading Jordan to the Pistons.Ya we all hate N.Y. so we should send our best player thier way? Not only that but we get some over rated bumb and a lofty contract to go along with him.How would we sign the rest of our guys???!!!!!! Pretty soon we will all be rooting for two teams the Chicago Bulls and the N.Y. Bulls!!! What is Isaiah's problem.I know he was born in Chicago but does he really love the city to the point that he needs to steal away our players? Zeke get a life you freak!!!!!


----------



## Philomath (Jan 3, 2003)

This trade could put the Knicks over the top. I've been thinking, really the only missing piece for them is a shoot-first, shoot second point guard.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

The Trib has a followup posted: Paxson dismisses Gordon story 



> Paxson said he has not spoken to anyone in the Knicks organization since October, when he traded Eddy Curry and Antonio Davis to New York.
> 
> "There's no interest on the Chicago Bulls' part," Paxson said. "It's a complete fabrication."


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I am not surprised. 

NY media wishful thinking. As if they need yet another SG.


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

narek said:


> The Trib has a followup posted: Paxson dismisses Gordon story


Good stuff, Gordon isn't going anywhere, at least not to the Knicks.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

paxson more than once dismissed the notion of eddy playing 2005-06 in any uniform other than a bulls uni.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> paxson more than once dismissed the notion of eddy playing 2005-06 in any uniform other than a bulls uni.


True. Throughout the 2004-5 season Pax did say that he intended to bring back all those needing new contracts -- Chris Duhon, Scott Skiles, Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry.

I believe he was sincere about future plans when the statements were made.

He stopped talking about Eddy in terms of absolute certainty only when Heartgate became an issue. He did follow through and re-sign everyone else.

If Pax says he has not had discussions with the Knicks since October, and that the current rumor is just that, a rumor, I tend to believe him.

Now, having said that, it doesn't mean that Ben won't get traded or even that he won't get traded to the Knicks sometime in the future.

I just believe Pax when he says he hasn't been in serious talks with Zeke, as reported in the Post.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> paxson more than once dismissed the notion of eddy playing 2005-06 in any uniform other than a bulls uni.


 Yeah. . . but, obviously, there were bizarre unforseen circumstances surrounding Eddy's departure. 

I take pax at his word. There were no discussions. But that also doesn't imply that there won't be any in the future.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

^^^Opinions in post seem oddly familiar^^^


----------



## giusd (Apr 17, 2003)

rlucus,

dude yes you are right i forgot about curry who would be starting if he was on the bulls. But either Curry or CF could surely start but i guess i didnt think of curry since i didnt think IT would think about trading him back.

And , when you are going to post some draft rumors?

david


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> ^^^Opinions in post seem oddly familiar^^^


 It's nice to know I'm capable of the type of creative thought that isn't easily replicated.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> True. Throughout the 2004-5 season Pax did say that he intended to bring back all those needing new contracts -- Chris Duhon, Scott Skiles, Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry.
> 
> I believe he was sincere about future plans when the statements were made.
> 
> ...


actually pax did say eddy will play for the bulls or not at all after "Heartgate" had started it was during the time he was hardlining curry with the QO if he wasn't going to accept a deal.

when eddy basically made it a standoff by refusing to talk to pax, at that point pax worked out a deal with the knicks.

I dont know if i could take any GM's word for it when it comes to trade rumors , it serves no purpose for any of them to to acknowledge a trade rumor, it can only hurt their bargaining position and get them bad press unless the player is for sure going to be dealt and the player was not liked by the fans. in eddy's case i am quite sure the knicks came up quite a bit earlier than pax would lead anyone to believe....and eddy's refusing to talk to pax was probably a tactic to make it happen ...it appears in hindsight the moment pax said he wanted curry to take the test the real negotiations ended and that was pretty early into it.

i go by what i see and whats a logical progression than to believe a man who has no real reason to be truthful.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

well glad to read none of these crazy rumors are true from the bulls side.

but it's still a bit of a worry that "the sources close to gordon" are feeding this kind of stuff to the NY press. of course that's where all this came from, we can't be that naive.


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jan 6, 2006)

Where there's smoke...Ben is always crying to the media. "I didn't get enough touches" (after going 3-16, taking more shots than anyone on the team), "I guess I have to take it in stride" (after meeting with Pax and Skiles on what he needs to work on). I'm all for trading Ben. If Pax rapes IT again in the process, so be it.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Jello Biafra said:


> I'm all for trading Ben. If Pax rapes IT again in the process, so be it.


I'm not all for trading Ben *to the Knicks*. I don't see a package that makes sense. Of course, I said that about Curry to the Knicks as well, and now I'm convinced we will come out ahead in that one.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I'm not all for trading Ben *to the Knicks*. I don't see a package that makes sense. Of course, I said that about Curry to the Knicks as well, and now I'm convinced we will come out ahead in that one.



Convinced?

Which players in this upcoming draft are you CONVINCED will help us more than having Curry?

What player in this upcoming FA season are you CONVINCED will come here and help us more that having Curry and could not have been aquired if Curry was resigned?


Will come out ahead? Perhaps someday. But so far the trade is a net negative for the Bulls.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Oh Christ, here we go again......


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Convinced?
> 
> Which players in this upcoming draft are you CONVINCED will help us more than having Curry?
> 
> What player in this upcoming FA season are you CONVINCED will come here and help us more that having Curry?


My logic doesn't track yours for the simple fact that I don't now, and never did, consider Eddy Curry to be important to the long term success of the Bulls. So you have to consider my subjective take on it in that context. 

As for your questions, you are asking for an isolated player. But that isn't the inquiry. The inquiry is the total return. Does Sweetney (as player or asset), the top 5 pick this season (as player or asset), a free agent acquired due to increased capspace from the Curry trade, two second round picks (as players or assets), and the first round pick obtained from the Knicks next season (I'd bet my car there is a swap) = more value than Curry to the Bulls long term succes. 

To me, Sweetney plus this top 5 pick alone will likely = more than Curry. Not even counting the rest of it. I don't think Eddy Curry - considering the totality of his game - is helpful to winning basketball games in any meaningful way that cannot be easily replaced by the assets we have. 

If I considered Curry to be valuable, then I would agree with you. But I don't. To understand why I'm "convinced" you have to understand that. 

Some of you guys think he's a filet or maybe a NY Strip, and thats fine. I think he's ground chuck and I always have. But here we are talking about Curry in a Gordon thread again.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Da Grinch said:


> i go by what i see and whats a logical progression than to believe a man who has no real reason to be truthful.


What reason does the Post writer have to be truthful?


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> My logic doesn't track yours for the simple fact that I don't now, and never did, consider Eddy Curry to be important to the long term success of the Bulls. So you have to consider my subjective take on it in that context.


But what about last season? 

We went from 47 wins and the 3rd best team in the East to .500 and the 7 seed. Clear, unarguable regression.

And, its clear to everyone, including Paxson, that our lack of size, size that we clearly lost in the Curry trade, is what set the team back last season.

Why did we regress last season, in your opinion, if it wasn’t the Curry trade?

The Curry trade set this team back short term. Perhaps, long term, this value can be recovered. But, since it happens in the future, it needs to be appropriately discounted if we're making a comparison today.

And, since you don't seem to have, or are unwilling to provide, any idea of what players will help recover this value and get us back to at least 47 wins/3rd seed in the East, I'm just curious as to why you are CONVINCED. There is so much uncertainty in valuing that trade now (pick position, quality of draft picks, time frame for these draft picks to pan out) that I’m surprised you are so sure. I wish I knew what players you were looking at in making this determination, since I’d like to know, it seems murky to me.

I know you keep saying that the Bulls came out ahead in the Curry trade, but so far, it’s a net negative for Bulls fans, if you are into wins and losses and having a higher playoff seeding.






> To me, Sweetney plus this top 5 pick alone will likely = more than Curry. Not even counting the rest of it. I don't think Eddy Curry - considering the totality of his game - is helpful to winning basketball games in any meaningful way that cannot be easily replaced by the assets we have.


Yet you have no idea what players will help us or which ones we should avoid? Would any of the players projected in the top of the draft be enough, in your opinion?




> If I considered Curry to be valuable, then I would agree with you. But I don't. To understand why I'm "convinced" you have to understand that.


Why did we regress last season?


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jan 6, 2006)

kukoc4ever said:


> Why did we regress last season?


Did we. Sure, we lost five more games, but won exactly the same amount of games in the playoffs against a vastly superior opponent.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I'm going to answer this, and then I'm done. I don't want to sidetrack this thread. I will try to be thorough with my response. I'm not expecting you to agree with me. I'm just hoping to answer your questions so there be no further need for discussion.



> But what about last season?
> 
> We went from 47 wins and the 3rd best team in the East to .500 and the 7 seed. Clear, unarguable regression.


Yes. But you should note that the entirety of my post is talking about the long term success of the team. Long term = more than one year. 



> And, its clear to everyone, including Paxson, that our lack of size, size that we clearly lost in the Curry trade, is what set the team back last season.


I absolutely agree. In point of fact, I've acknowledged more than once that I underestimated the importance of sheer size at the 4/5 spots. 



> Why did we regress last season, in your opinion, if it wasn’t the Curry trade?


The Curry trade was the main reason. In the short term, we traded our starting 4/5 for basically *a* backup 4/5 who played about 20 minutes a game. 

Reason #2: For much of the season, we fell apart at the end of about 10-12 games close games. We couldn't close them out like we did the year before. That appeared to become less of a problem as the regular season progressed, however. Some games in the Miami series notwithstanding. 



> The Curry trade set this team back short term.


Right.



> Perhaps, long term, this value can be recovered. But, since it happens in the future, it needs to be appropriately discounted if we're making a comparison today.


If you are making a "today" comparison, then yes. I'm not. The fact that I am "convinced" today is conviction that looks forward. 



> And, since you don't seem to have, or are unwilling to provide, any idea of what players will help recover this value and get us back to at least 47 wins/3rd seed in the East, I'm just curious as to why you are CONVINCED.


In large part, I am convinced because I believe that virtually any combination of the players identified for discussion surpass Curry. I am convinced because I don't think Curry is important and his net impact on a game can be easily replaced and surpassed by a multitude of options available to us now. The list of variations of available player combinations that I consider superior would be very long.



> There is so much uncertainty in valuing that trade now (pick position, quality of draft picks, time frame for these draft picks to pan out) that I’m surprised you are so sure. I wish I knew what players you were looking at in making this determination, since I’d like to know, it seems murky to me.


Curry's net inconsequence. If you want it at its basest element. But that typically spawns unpleasant discussion.



> I know you keep saying that the Bulls came out ahead in the Curry trade, but so far, it’s a net negative for Bulls fans, if you are into wins and losses and having a higher playoff seeding.


I didn't say the Bulls came out ahead. I'm convinced they will come out ahead. 



> Yet you have no idea what players will help us or which ones we should avoid? Would any of the players projected in the top of the draft be enough, in your opinion?


Well, thats different. I think Aldridge, Thomas, Gay and even Morrison can all help us in varying degrees. I hold no opinion of Roy or Bargnani because I don't have a basis for one. Avoid? I don't see any player projected in the top 5 that we should "avoid" though I clearly prefer some over others. I would rank it Aldridge, Thomas, Gay, Morrison. I can't rank Roy or Bargnani, though others are clearly excited about them as good options for the Bulls and I would take Paxson's drafting of either on faith and judge later when I can observe them play. 

Alone will they be enough to surpass Curry's net value? Hard to say. They may be impotent just like him. Doubtful they'd be worse, though. And again, one player isn't the inquiry. Its a net gain analysis.



> Why did we regress last season?


Mostly because of the Curry trade.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Jello Biafra said:


> Did we. Sure, we lost five more games, but won exactly the same amount of games in the playoffs against a vastly superior opponent.


I've thought about this. The problem is that the Bulls didn't have Curry or Deng in the playoffs last year. This year's team, sans Songaila, was basically healthy. That makes it hard to compare. 

But I agree that the "6 less wins" analysis is overly simplistic given the 14-6 finish (which includes the 2-4 run against the Heat in the playoffs) and the startling emergence of Nocioni.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> But I agree that the "6 less wins" analysis is overly simplistic given the 14-6 finish (which includes the 2-4 run against the Heat in the playoffs) and the startling emergence of Nocioni.


Focusing on the last 1/4 of the season is flawed.... as we saw this past off-season when many chose to focus on the last 1/4 of the 2004-2005 season as a indicator of the Bulls being able to be a winning team without adequately replacing you know who.

And, as i recall, people on this board have repeatedly called the success of the last 1/4 of the 2002-2003 season "fool's gold.”

Noc is good.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

um, petty bickering about eddy (ugh) aside, i think people are missing the *big picture* on this story.

dagrinch, jello, rlucas and myself have all commented about it; the fact that all these rumors, apparent disastifaction over his role, start me or trade me, i don't get enough touches, blah, blah, blah...have originated from the ben gordon camp. 

oh, he can deny it all he wants, but i believe it's true. and obviously pax (and skiles) read the papers. 

this is the bigger issue to be concerned with, imho.


but if you really do want to tie it back to eddy - then i guess he and ben both have that in common.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> dagrinch, jello, rlucas and myself have all commented about it; the fact that all these rumors, apparent disastifaction over his role, start me or trade me, i don't get enough touches, blah, blah, blah...have originated from the ben gordon camp.
> 
> oh, he can deny it all he wants, but i believe it's true. and obviously pax (and skiles) read the papers.


Yah, that seems like the most likely source of the rumors.

But, since there is no PROOF one would have to irrationally infer.

One can only wait and see.

I think Paxson should be working the phones to get good value on a trade for Ben Gordon right now.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

If we can get Magette from the clips for our #16 & Toronto's still looking to trade their Lotto pick for a vet, send em Gordon.

We'd have two top 10 picks, Corey Magette & 15 Million in capspace.

G Hinrich / Duhon
G Magette
F Deng / Nocioni
F (Toronto Pick) / Chandler / Sweetney
C (NY Pick) / (FA Big)

We'd be GREATLY improved next season, with or without Ben Gordon.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Focusing on the last 1/4 of the season is flawed.... as we saw this past off-season when many chose to focus on the last 1/4 of the 2004-2005 season as a indicator of the Bulls being able to be a winning team without adequately replacing you know who.
> 
> And, as i recall, people on this board have repeatedly called the success of the last 1/4 of the 2002-2003 season "fool's gold.”
> 
> Noc is good.


I agree. Isolation of the 1/4 would be flawed as well. My point is that simply looking at win total doesn't tell the whole story. There are multiple facets and trends to be considered. 

Don't worry, K4E, I agree that the Bulls regressed. :biggrin: To what degree remains open for debate.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Just wanted to chime in on the Eddy talk.

Perhaps the "Eddy trade" should here on be known as the "AD trade"? IIRC, our win percentage was rather impressive once Eddy went down with his ailment. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was better than our percentage when Eddy was healthy and playing. This was a large reason why so many of us were hopeful of this year without Eddy. Perhaps future discussions can revolve around whether or not AD could have helped us reach 47 wins rather than Eddy. Personally I think AD would have added a couple more wins to our column this year but we all know he isn't the longterm solution.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I wonder if we'll ever have a Bulls' off-season that doesn't include a witch-hunt/scapegoat fest involving our leading scorer. Ben Gordon controlling and manipulating the NY media! Using a product launch as a cover for a plea to get traded to another team! 

I just hope folks remember who drafted this seething, conniving malcontent.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

mizenkay said:


> dagrinch, jello, rlucas and myself have all commented about it; the fact that all these rumors, apparent disastifaction over his role, start me or trade me, i don't get enough touches, blah, blah, blah...have originated from the ben gordon camp.
> 
> oh, he can deny it all he wants, but i believe it's true. and obviously pax (and skiles) read the papers.
> 
> this is the bigger issue to be concerned with, imho.



The Ben Gordon 'camp'? Who exactly is in this camp... and what did they say?

Give me a break. Its amazing how you guys speculate on a guys character based on phony articles from the New York Post and the fact that arm-chair GMs across the country have a hard time handling a guy scoring well off of the bench. Wake me up when Ben Gordon says something about being unhappy that doesn't directly follow a leading question like "so.. you might get traded...."


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> There are multiple facets and trends to be considered.


Like this one: over the Bulls' last 20 regular season games, they faced a grand total of 3 Sagarin top-10 and only 5 Sagarin top-16 teams. The stretch of good play came mainly at the expense of the dregs of the East.

Looking at the Bulls' year-long performance vs. the vastly superior Western Conference and their performance vs. Sagarin top-10 and top-16 teams, it becomes pretty clear that they owed their berth in the postseason to an incredibly weak Eastern Conference. To put it in perspective, last year's 47-win team had the third-best record in a conference that saw a 42-40 team miss the playoffs. This year, a 42-40 team was a 5 seed in the east.

I guess if John Paxson keeps saying "We know the East is going to be tougher this year," it'll eventually turn out to be true, but boy was he ever off on that one this season.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Dornado said:


> The Ben Gordon 'camp'? Who exactly is in this camp... and what did they say?



I think it's this:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I wonder if we'll ever have a Bulls' off-season that doesn't include a witch-hunt/scapegoat fest involving our leading scorer. Ben Gordon controlling and manipulating the NY media! Using a product launch as a cover for a plea to get traded to another team!
> 
> I just hope folks remember who drafted this seething, conniving malcontent.


For this offseason, I agree with you Scott. "A close source to Gordon"? So says the source that he's "close" or so says Gordon? Athletes have varying degrees of leeches who claim to be "close".

If I recall correctly, this so called "close" source also said that Gordon wants to stay in Chicago in the very same article. 

I have seen nothing from Gordon, with the exception of one poorly considered and timed comment about touches in the playoffs, to suggest he is any kind of a problem for the team.

On the contrary, for a #3 pick in the draft who has created significant hype he seems to have always taken movement in and out of the starting rotation in stride and without the whining that we've seen from other players in the past. 

I still think he'll be traded before the 2007-08 season begins, but not for any of the reasons being floated here.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

TripleDouble said:


> What reason does the Post writer have to be truthful?


plenty its called a rumor...not fiction .

something may come of it or not, but any sportswriter who makes it a habit to just make up stories probably wont be employed very long.

but a GM has every reason in the world to deny it for reasons i have already put forth. I mean really how often has a GM ever confirmed a rumor , most trades are rumored beforehand but rarely will a GM when pressed ever say, "Yea we are gonna get rid of this one soon". almost never until the deal is done will a GM talk about it.

I think Ben is a good player and probably a good person but I dont believe he is some unassuming saint , which some must assume to strike down every supposed chirping from his camp or whoever who supposedly knows something about him.

I know we joke about jib here and there, but really these are young millionaires who play basketball for a living they aren't always going to be Mom's apple pie or whatever . Even Kirk wont go the olympics because it would take too much of his time ...yet somehow its unrealistic that gordon on his rookie deal wants more touches to start or to play in his home state , 3 things that will greatly impact his next deal in 2 years. as if these guys aren't businessmen too and their game is their product.

they are often young but none of them are children.

and to me those assumptions are the unlikely ones.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> I wonder if we'll ever have a Bulls' off-season that doesn't include a witch-hunt/scapegoat fest involving our leading scorer. Ben Gordon controlling and manipulating the NY media! Using a product launch as a cover for a plea to get traded to another team!
> 
> I just hope folks remember who drafted this seething, conniving malcontent.


Sarcasm duly noted.

I don't know what to make of this whole thing. My first thought is that it is a rehash of old stuff, that it may be stuff put out by Ben's "camp" which more than likely includes people who have no idea what's in Ben's interest. I recall David Shuster's (from the Score) very confident assertion that Ben and Skiles don't have a feud, and that they respect each other...

Still, as Scott May points out, we've seen this thing before. Who knows? But I don't think this is a witch hunt. At the most, it's jockeying for maneuvering room, who knows by which party. Not much is likely to come of it, this year, anyway. 

My own gut feeling is that the Bulls are NOT looking to trade Gordon, and that Gordon is not looking to go to New York. He sees the mess that team is in. He's really got it pretty good here. That's not to say that he is married to Chicago till death. Nor is the team married to him. But I think they get along pretty well, and the relationship is serious (to carry the analogy as far as it will go). I look for Ben to be here next year, and that, with another year of committed work toward developing the relationship that has begun to blossom between him and Hinrich, I think we'll see a much better player, more consistent, more able to contribute in multiple ways to the team's success.

And that's a good thing. It'll lead to more touches, more involvement in initiating the offense, etc. And if that leads to wins....maybe even DaBullz will be happy :angel:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> To what degree remains open for debate.


6 regular season wins/losses.
4 spots in regular season conference positioning.
3 spots in playoff seeding.

After this, the slicing, dicing, partitioning, reframing and spinning can begin.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

I think it's all an attempt by Zeke to stir up trouble because he wants Ben. And the "chicago Source" quoted by the post was Barry Rozner. Or Jay Mariotti. Or Sam Smith.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> Like this one: over the Bulls' last 20 regular season games, they faced a grand total of 3 Sagarin top-10 and only 5 Sagarin top-16 teams. The stretch of good play came mainly at the expense of the dregs of the East.


Well, the 20 game stretch (14-6) I was referring to included 7 games against the Miami Heat (6 playoff games and 1 regular season game). I suspect that would throw the rest of what you wrote out of whack a little bit. 

As for the rest of it, Sagarin can be interepreted a variety of different ways. For example, last season when the Bulls won 47 games, Sagarin ranked them 27th for strength of schedule. 4 softest in the entire league.

This year it was 18th. 9 spots higher. That would suggest that the Bulls actually had a tougher row to hoe this season - which is directly contrary to the inference you draw from a different segment of Sagarin's rankings. 

Like I said, lots of trends to consider. While I agree that the Bulls regressed, I don't think its as simple as citing 47 wins vs. 41 wins.


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

Pax speaks about the gordon rumors, the summer ahead and the omnipresent KG rumors.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> 6 regular season wins/losses.
> 4 spots in regular season conference positioning.
> 3 spots in playoff seeding.
> 
> After this, the slicing, dicing, partitioning, reframing and spinning can begin.


It's not spin to mention that we also lost AD. Limited though he is, he clogged the lane, cleared the glass, and provided steady help defense for us - he even occasionally scored some points. I won't claim to know how much of our regression to attribute to losing each player individually, but it wasn't all due to the loss of Curry.

Anyway...this will be my only contribution to the tangent.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

The argument seems to be that the loss of Eddy Curry alone was responsible for the decline from 47 wins to 41 wins. So, if we infer that the cause of this decline was the absence of Curry, it follows that Curry's presence on another team should have resulted in more wins. Problem is, it didn't. If the basketball skills of Eddy Curry had such a drastic impact on a team, then why didn't the Knicks improve? 

Billy Donovan said something undeniably brilliant after Florida won the NCAA Championship, "if they played this thing over, four other teams would be in the Final Four". Well the same applies to any situation. A lot more than Eddy Curry contributed to the 41-41 record, so the premise that re-acquiring him or having him this season would have improved our win total is pure speculation and has no discernible factual foundation other than "I like Eddy Curry, I wish he was on our team."


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> It's not spin to mention that we also lost AD. Limited though he is, he clogged the lane, cleared the glass, and provided steady help defense for us - he even occasionally scored some points. I won't claim to know how much of our regression to attribute to losing each player individually, but it wasn't all due to the loss of Curry.
> 
> Anyway...this will be my only contribution to the tangent.



Which is why were talking about the "Curry trade"... not the loss of Eddy Curry.

AD was a valuable cog to our success as well, no doubt. All the more reason why that was a bad trade for the Bulls last season. 

In the spirit of not being able to agree about anything around here, even if its "the bulls had a 13% reduction in regular season wins last season," someone did suggest renaming the trade to the "AD trade."


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

T.Shock said:


> The argument seems to be that the loss of Eddy Curry alone was responsible for the decline from 47 wins to 41 wins.


No, it is that Paxson's Eddy Curry trade (Curry/AD for Sweets, TT (our highest paid player this season who just so happens to be contributing in the playoffs for the Phoenix Suns, with the Bulls having nothing of value to show for it) and dreams of the future) was the main reason for our regression this season.

If you don’t agree with this, then what do you think the main reason for the regression was?


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

mizenkay said:


> Pax speaks about the gordon rumors, the summer ahead and the omnipresent KG rumors.


There he goes, blaming the internet. :biggrin:


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Which is why were talking about the "Curry trade"... not the loss of Eddy Curry.


My bad. I thought the part you quoted and replied to was referring specifically to Eddy, but reading it again, it wasn't.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

T. Shock, I love the quote in your sig:



> Mr. Burns: For those of you whose names aren't on the list. I'm very disappointed in you. Something was lacking...let's call it heart.
> Darryl Strawberry: No hustle either skip.
> Mr. Burns: That's right Darryl.


Truly one of the all time great episodes, and definitely my favorite exchange from it. Darryl Strawberry as the brown-nosing apple polisher never gets old.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> No, it is that Paxson's Eddy Curry trade (Curry/AD for Sweets, TT (our highest paid player this season who just so happens to be contributing in the playoffs for the Phoenix Suns, with the Bulls having nothing of value to show for it) and dreams of the future) was the main reason for our regression this season.
> 
> If you don’t agree with this, then what do you think the main reason for the regression was?


Thing is, I think we all *do* agree. Maybe we can go back to talking about Gordon now.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> Pax speaks about the gordon rumors, the summer ahead and the omnipresent KG rumors.



That were a pretty comprehensive denial here.

Paxson's a pretty good looking man.

Those two statements were not connected.


----------



## Babble-On (Sep 28, 2005)

I like Ben, and I'd like to see him on the team for 06-07. However, if there's a good deal to be made for him, make it. I'd say any deal for him has to involve getting back either a legit, consistent 20 point scorer on the wing or a good well rounded big man. I don't see that happening, though if Frye were offered up, he might fit the bill, though I have some doubts about his overall game. 

Also, why must certain individuals always insist on hijacking everything into an Eddy thread? And why do such of topic diversions not get moved into the Eddy thread? :krazy:


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Well, can the pro-Paxson and anti-Paxson groups both agree that the greatest negative impact of the "AD trade" was the loss of AD and not Eddy? Afterall, last year's win percentage without Eddy was at least comparable to, if not superior to our win percentage when Eddy was playing. The most logical explanation is losing our captain and most consistent big man, Antonio Davis.

Now if we can accept that losing AD was the primary reason for this season's troubles wouldn't it make sense to assume that we were due to take a step back eventually? Afterall, AD played a considerable role on this team last year and he's only getting older. Losing AD was bound to happen, whether it was this year or next year. Keeping that in mind isn't it better to have taken a small step backwards this year as opposed to taking a step back next year? Because without this Knicks lotto pick and a much less effective AD I feel pretty strongly that we would have been much worse.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> Pax speaks about the gordon rumors, the summer ahead and the omnipresent KG rumors.


One thing about those interviews... Pax talks too much! In one of them he said they have the 16th and a top five pick, hopefully 1 or 2. I kind of infer that he's got two guys that he has his eyes on and it ain't Brandon Roy (doubtful he'd go top-2). That or he's got a pretty solid offer from some team that wants a guy in the top two and is willing to offer something of interest to Pax. I'm probably reading too much into a comment like that, it just seemed a little out of place.

thanks for posting the links to them Miz!


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

ShamBulls said:


> That were a pretty comprehensive denial here.
> 
> Paxson's a pretty good looking man.
> 
> Those two statements were not connected.


Sham, Sham, why would we think anyone's denying Pax is a good looking man?


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> One thing about those interviews... Pax talks too much! In one of them he said they have the 16th and a top five pick, hopefully 1 or 2. I kind of infer that he's got two guys that he has his eyes on and it ain't Brandon Roy (doubtful he'd go top-2). That or he's got a pretty solid offer from some team that wants a guy in the top two and is willing to offer something of interest to Pax. I'm probably reading too much into a comment like that, it just seemed a little out of place.
> 
> thanks for posting the links to them Miz!


I don't know who his second choice is, but I'm pretty sure at this point he's focused on Aldridge.

Everyone rub their rabbits' feet, lucky pennies, or favorite bald person's scalp -- we need to catch a break to end up in the top 2.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

sp00k said:


> Well, can the pro-Paxson and anti-Paxson groups both agree that the greatest negative impact of the "AD trade" was the loss of AD and not Eddy?


No.



> Because without this Knicks lotto pick and a much less effective AD I feel pretty strongly that we would have been much worse.


Perhaps. If you subscribe to this though, the 47 win season, the lone winning season, also looks like "fool's gold" if so much of it hinged on crafty 'ol AD.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

narek said:


> Sham, Sham, why would we think anyone's denying Pax is a good looking man?



No no, I didn't want people to think that I thought Paxson was sexy purely because he denied the whole New York shebang. My opinion on his or anyones looks isn't affected by the way they talk or what they say. Well, except maybe Anastasia.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> I kind of infer that he's got two guys that he has his eyes on and it ain't Brandon Roy (doubtful he'd go top-2).


Well, he obviously has his eyes set on someone, so for instance if it was Brandon Roy, why would he hope his pick is lower and leave it to chance that noone else selects him?


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> 6 regular season wins/losses.
> 4 spots in regular season conference positioning.
> 3 spots in playoff seeding.
> 
> After this, the slicing, dicing, partitioning, reframing and spinning can begin.



And 0 games in playoff performance against a much stronger team than last year's competition.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

T.Shock said:


> The argument seems to be that the loss of Eddy Curry alone was responsible for the decline from 47 wins to 41 wins. So, if we infer that the cause of this decline was the absence of Curry, it follows that Curry's presence on another team should have resulted in more wins. Problem is, it didn't. If the basketball skills of Eddy Curry had such a drastic impact on a team, then why didn't the Knicks improve?
> 
> Billy Donovan said something undeniably brilliant after Florida won the NCAA Championship, "if they played this thing over, four other teams would be in the Final Four". Well the same applies to any situation. A lot more than Eddy Curry contributed to the 41-41 record, so the premise that re-acquiring him or having him this season would have improved our win total is pure speculation and has no discernible factual foundation other than "I like Eddy Curry, I wish he was on our team."



Excellent, excellent post.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

fl_flash said:


> I'm probably reading too much into a comment like that


Probably. 

A higher pick is always preferable even if you're not in love with the guys at the very top. If Paxson wants Roy, he can trade down a slot or two and pick up another asset if a deal is there to be made, or just pick him at our slot. But I think ScottMay is right that Pax probably has his sights set on LaMarcus, and maybe Thomas. Roy is a nice fallback option if we get a bad break in the lottery.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> And 0 games in playoff performance against a much stronger team than last year's competition.


2004-2005 team was not @ full strength in the playoffs.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> No.


Fair enough.



> Perhaps. If you subscribe to this though, the 47 win season, the lone winning season, also looks like "fool's gold."


And I've alluded to such, as have others on this board. Before we made the "AD trade" I thought we'd miss the playoffs, or at the very least finish with a lower seeding. Last year I felt we snuck up on teams and benefitted from an easy schedule. How else could one explain a team led by a sophmore PG, 3 rookies, and a washed up, undersized PF/C ending up with the 3rd best record in the East? :whoknows:


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> 2004-2005 team was not @ full strength in the playoffs.



Nor was this year's, but I won't equate Songo to Deng + Eddy. You seemed to want to break things down to simple, quantifiable standards.

2 wins last year against Wizards.
2 wins this year against Heat.

Heat > Wizards


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Heat > Wizards


And we were competitive in Games 5-6 vs. the Wizards, but got our asses whupped in games 5-6 vs. Miami.


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

kukoc4ever.....


----------



## unBULLievable (Dec 13, 2002)

never mind....


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

jnrjr79 said:


> Nor was this year's, but I won't equate Songo to Deng + Eddy. You seemed to want to break things down to simple, quantifiable standards.
> 
> 2 wins last year against Wizards.
> 2 wins this year against Heat.
> ...


Songo?

LOL.

Come on, man.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

kukoc4ever said:


> Songo?
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Come on, man.



Uhh, I just said Songo's loss is completely _not_ comparable to what we had lost last year. What's your deal?


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> T. Shock, I love the quote in your sig:
> 
> 
> 
> Truly one of the all time great episodes, and definitely my favorite exchange from it. Darryl Strawberry as the brown-nosing apple polisher never gets old.


That episode is fantastic, but Strawberry's "character" definitely stole the show.

Homer: You're Darryl Strawberry
Strawberry: Yea
Homer: You play right field.
Strawberry: So.
Homer: I play right field too.
Strawbery: So.
Homer: Well, are you better than me?
Strawberry: Well, I've never met you, but...yes.

Also, the part where Homer says "I got it, I got it" and then Strawberry cuts in front and seemingly jumps 100 feet in the air is hilarious.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

T.Shock said:


> That episode is fantastic, but Strawberry's "character" definitely stole the show.
> 
> Homer: You're Darryl Strawberry
> Strawberry: Yea
> ...


Steve Sax is probably #2. 

Sax talks about how nice Springfield is, then gets pulled over.
Lou: "Get your license...(cocks his gun)..slowly"
other cop: "Well how about that, Steve Sax...from New York City"
Lou: "I heard someone was shot in New York and they never solved the case."
other cop: "but you wouldn't know anything about that...would you."
Sax: "But there's hundreds of unsolved murders in New York!"
Lou: "You just don't know when to keep your mouth shut, DO YOU SAXY BOY?"

later Smithers reveals that Sax is in prison serving 50 consecutive life sentences.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> Paxson's a pretty good looking man.


:cowboy:

:yes:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Steve Sax is probably #2.
> 
> Sax talks about how nice Springfield is, then gets pulled over.
> Lou: "Get your license...(cocks his gun)..slowly"
> ...


That whole episode rocks. Mike Scioscia losing interest in baseball in favor of the joys of manual labor at the power plant, only to be stricken by life threatening radiation poisoning was classic. 

As was Ken Griffey, Jr.'s contraction of acute gigantism from Burns' "brain and nerve tonic". 

And who could forget: "I told you to shave those sideburns, you hippie."

Anyway, this thread is getting off track with all this Simpsons discussion. Lets get back to talking about who likes pie.


----------



## ViciousFlogging (Sep 3, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Anyway, this thread is getting off track with all this Simpsons discussion. Lets get back to talking about who likes pie.


Oh, I thought this thread was about how Paxson is a handsome man...or something.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ViciousFlogging said:


> Oh, I thought this thread was about how Paxson is a handsome man...or something.



mmmmmm...Pax-pie.

:cowboy:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> mmmmmm...Pax-pie.
> 
> :cowboy:


----------



## LIBlue (Aug 17, 2002)

I have a somewhat strange theory regarding the NY Post article.

After the Bulls traded Curry last year, there was a Peter Vescey article detailing the Knicks "activities" with Eddy Curry, and how the Knick went out of their way to poison the situation between Eddy and the Bulls. The Knicks bordered on tampering with Curry, and manipulated the situation to force a trade.

I would not be surprised if Isiah is trying to poison the Gordon situation through media "leaks". If you keep leaking that the Bulls are researching a trade, it will get back to the Gordon camp, hopefully fueling bad blood. Bad blood can lead to a fire sale, and the Knicks can try to get Gordon for nothing.

That is my conspiracy theory. By the way, I agree that if Curry was so damned great, why did the Knicks absolutely tube with him on the roster?


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> I don't know who his second choice is, but I'm pretty sure at this point he's focused on Aldridge.
> .


I honestly don't believe that's who he's referring to

He spoke on Upside, and We all know Bargnani & Thomas have the most upside of any bigs in this draft....


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The ROY said:


> He spoke on Upside, and *We all know Bargnani & Thomas have the most upside of any bigs in this draft*....


I don't know that. I know that Thomas is a more gifted athlete (run/jump) than Aldridge. 

But my days of equating athleticism and upside are over. I bought into that fallacy for far too long. 

(I know nothing of Bargnani's upside or athleticism.)


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> :cowboy:
> 
> :yes:



:wordyo: 

New lease of life for the cowboy smiley.


----------



## SausageKingofChicago (Feb 14, 2005)

The ROY said:


> I honestly don't believe that's who he's referring to
> 
> He spoke on Upside, and We all know Bargnani & Thomas have the most upside of any bigs in this draft....


Upside needs to be viewed in the context of the base from which improvement starts 

Reconcile that to Pax's stance that whomever he selects has to be a contributor straight away 

Answer = Aldridge ( as much as I disagree with the selection )

At this point I would draft Roy and sign Drew Gooden and Lorenzen Wright to team with Chandler, Sweetney and Allen ..and let Songaila and Schenscher go


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> That whole episode rocks. Mike Scioscia losing interest in baseball in favor of the joys of manual labor at the power plant, only to be stricken by life threatening radiation poisoning was classic.
> 
> As was Ken Griffey, Jr.'s contraction of acute gigantism from Burns' "brain and nerve tonic".
> 
> ...


Regarding Mattingly, his best line by far is after Burns just goes completely nuts on him for shaving his sideburns, he walks away and says,

"I still like him better than Steinbrenner"

You know, I think this board would be a lot happier, if I found some way to mix in Simpsons quotes with every topic.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Why is it that threads that deal with basketball - strategy or scouting - are worlds less popular than these conjecture-based and tired repetitions of well established and known poster perspectives?


----------

