# Trade: Gordon for Maggette?



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

This was getting suggested by "Mr.T" in another thread, and I thought was diserving of it's own post:

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...63mar14,1,1499298.column?coll=cs-home-utility 



> Interesting Duke issues in Clippersland as Corey Maggette and Elton Brand have been shooting more, it was said, because each was afraid of not getting the ball back when passing to the other. A blast from coach Mike Dunleavy last week seemed to ease the tension, but the belief is one, probably Maggette, will be traded this summer as the Clippers try to land a shooting guard, like Seattle's Allen or the Suns' Joe Johnson, and move Bobby Simmons to small forward. . . .



I'm not sure where I line up on this one. What do you folks think>



> Chicago trades: SG Ben Gordon	(14.7 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 1.9 apg in 23.4 minutes)
> SG Eric Piatkowski	(4.6 ppg, 1.0 rpg, 0.7 apg in 11.3 minutes)
> Chicago receives: SG Corey Maggette	(21.4 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 3.3 apg in 36.4 minutes)
> Change in team outlook: +2.1 ppg, +2.5 rpg, and +0.7 apg.
> ...



Why Clips would do it: 

This gives the Clips a legitimate closer, a young player with star potential, and allows them the cap space to resign the cheaper Simmons. Livingston is the perfect compliment for the undersized Gordon. Piatkowski, an expiring contract at the end of next year, would be able to finish his career where he made his mark. 


Why the Bulls would do it: 

Mags is the consumate Paxson jib-cut. This once and for all eliminates our problems with physical two guards and instantly makes us the best defensive team in basketball. Mags is the cutter and slasher that the Bulls desparately miss and gets to the ft line at will. His complete game, rebounding, and tough nosed gritty attitude make him the perfect Skiles player. And he's cheap at 7 million a season.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

*I posted this in the other thread, but I'll repost it here to further the Maggette/Gordon discussion:*

Well, if we're talking about Maggette, I guess we could think about two hypotheticals.

One could imagine something like Duhon + Nocioni for Maggette. I'm not at all sure the Clips would do that, but you could at least fathom it. Two very tough guys, good defenders, and reasonably priced. Tough guys who play defense is something they never have but really need. Reasonably priced is something that's a requirement for anyone they consider.

One could also imagine something like Gordon for Maggette. Given Gordon's likely star power and the fact he might mesh well with Livingston, I could see them being all over that too.

My question is how does each deal play out for the Bulls?

With the first deal, you figure minutes really isn't the issue- you can play Maggette, Gordon, Kirk, and Lou all pretty good sized chunks of minutes. You do, however, maybe run into an ego problem in the long run. One of these guys is probably sitting in the fourth quarter in lots of games. Who is it, and can they live with that?

With the second deal, you're basically swapping out Gordon for Maggette, which eliminates your matchup problems, but probably takes away some of the overall talent level on the team. You've got some good starters and good backups, but you've given up what appears to me to be the best individual player in the whole group (Gordon- at least in the longer run).

So there's your superstar vs. team question in a nutshell. In the playoffs, who's got a better chance in the long run?

PG- Kirk, Chris
SG- Corey
SF- Lou, Noc

or

PG- Ben, Kirk
SG- Corey
SF- Lou


----------



## Bartholomew Hunt (Mar 4, 2003)

I'd do it with either team.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Mikedc said:


> *I posted this in the other thread, but I'll repost it here to further the Maggette/Gordon discussion:*
> 
> Well, if we're talking about Maggette, I guess we could think about two hypotheticals.
> 
> One could imagine something like Duhon + Nocioni for Maggette. I'm not at all sure the Clips would do that, but you could at least fathom it. Two very tough guys, good defenders, and reasonably priced. Tough guys who play defense is something they never have but really need. Reasonably priced is something that's a requirement for anyone they consider.


well,

this trade would have to wait till after the season when duhon is a free agent. so he could not be included in a deal. even so, i can't see the clips being willing to trade noc + duhon for maggs. but in your defense, stranger things have happened in the nba in the vise of cost cutting.


----------



## PC Load Letter (Jun 29, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> Why Clips would do it:
> 
> This gives the Clips a legitimate closer, a young player with star potential


That's exactly why we shouldn't do it.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

PC Load Letter said:


> That's exactly why we shouldn't do it.


 hey, i'm not advocating for it  -- just thowing it out there to see if it sticks.


----------



## BealeFarange (May 22, 2004)

I've been musing about this in another thread, too, but I'll restate what I think here: 

Ben for Maggette is really intriguing and might be a really solid move. It's all about accumulating assets and then trading them for pieces that FIT. Do Ben/Kirk/Chris FIT as a three man backcout? The answer, clearly, is no. Are they all wonderful assets? Yes, they are. And, certainly, they make a very good backcourt, albeit vertically challenged. Then again, Skiles has been using all three of them (!) on the court at once to some success, so the jury is still out as to how much their lack of height really matters. Maggette would solve that need if it is proved to be truly problematic.

If the lack of height is really exposed in the playoffs, though, or as the season winds down, then something must be done about the lack of "fit" with our assets. Duhon is far too valuable to be tossed away for nothing. We also have the problem of Noc/Deng both being worthy of big minutes...at the same position. Getting rid of Noc and Duhon would free up big minutes for Luol and get us something for Chris...but there's no way LA does that deal. I also am worried about what that does to the team makeup...we lose a lot of toughness and help defense with Noc/Duhon even though Maggette brings some with him. 

Maggette is clearly a good "fit"--with Ben/Kirk/Chris or any combination thereof. It's just so hard to figure out what to lose to get him...

I would trade Ben Gordon for Corey Maggette if I felt the Bulls absolutely HAD to get bigger in the backcourt. Unless that need is made GLARING, though, I resign Duhon and roll the dice with our little guys.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

Ooooh hail no... no way I want to trade Gordon. Why go for Maggette when we got Deng? Gordon has proved he is a clutch player and a scoring threat... you do not trade that away.


----------



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

Geez...another "trade Gordon" thread. :dead: 

Before I trade Gordon....I'll part ways with Chris Duhon who scored a puny 5 points in yesterday's game despite playing 40 minutes.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Future said:


> Why go for Maggette when we got Deng? Gordon has proved he is a clutch player and a scoring threat... you do not trade that away.


Because Maggette is really a shooting guard and Deng is really a small forward. I like Gordon, but the Clippers aren't giving Maggette away. SST actually makes a very fair trade in my opinion, one that likely improves both teams. 

I actually like the looks of:

HINRICH
MAGGETTE
DENG
CHANDLER
CURRY

I love Ben, but at least right now, I'd do the trade. I don't deny it could haunt you down the road, but I think thats only likely if Maggette doesn't buy into what we're doing.

In addition, when Skiles gets fired, we'll be better positioned to hire Coack K! :laugh:


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Its a "fair" trade... but there is no way I trade Gordon for Mags. He wins games. 

Why not try to get a big guard with point guard skills to play along side Gordon? Then we could start Gordon along side this taller point guard.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

Does anyone actually think that Paxson is sitting in his office saying to himself, "Now that we're having our best season in 7 years and beating in the brains of the world champs and battling this years favorite minus one of our key starters tooth and nail so that afterwards they yowl and ***** about it, now that we're doing all of that and heading for the playoffs I'm gonna trade our best player in 7 years who is only a rookie and could easily average 25 points a game next year for a square peg because circular pegs don't never do..."

A silly and idiotic trade-- not the suggestion of it, because I don't wanna be impolite-- but for Pax to actually go through with it would be unbelievably silly and twice as idiotic.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

madox said:


> A silly and idiotic trade-- not the suggestion of it, because I don't wanna be impolite-- but for Pax to actually go through with it would be unbelievably silly and twice as idiotic.


I agree... but not with the adjectives you use.

As tempting as it is to build the "perfect" team in every aspect, the one we have seems to be working pretty well. 

Stockton/Hornacek... Dumars/Zeke.... ... it can be done.

I really don’t want to trade Gordon.


----------



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

Mr. T said:


> Because Maggette is really a shooting guard and Deng is really a small forward. I like Gordon, but the Clippers aren't giving Maggette away. SST actually makes a very fair trade in my opinion, one that likely improves both teams.
> 
> I actually like the looks of:
> 
> ...


In the 4th quarter with the Bulls down by 6....is Maggette capable of engineering a rally to help the Bulls win ballgames? That's the equation I CANNOT overlook.


----------



## The ROY (Nov 11, 2004)

ya'll can't be DUMB enuff to suggest trading GORDON for corey magette LMAO! gordon's got more praise off the bench in his rookie season than magette's gotten in his whole career


----------



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

Just because we want to get bigger in the SG department don't necessarily make us a better ballclub.

Michael Redd, with a chance to win the game for the Bucks over the Mavs....bricked the shot...and mind you....I LIKE Michael Redd.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Wow, a couple trade Gordon threads out there. On the other board there's a hypothetical Gordon for Melo thread which I stated that I would be against. Interestingly enough I'd consider a Maggs for Gordon swap. I'm not sure if that's because I think Maggs is/will be a better player than Melo or not but oh well.

Maggs would come in immediately and allow us to field a BIG starting 5. Kirk is big for a point and would come back to his natural position, Maggs is an ideal two and first/second scoring option and of course we still have Deng and the bigs. Better yet, Maggs is locked into a bargain of a contract so there should be absolutely no concerns about affording this team for the next 5-8 years (whoa!). Clippers on the otherhand have a tall PG that will hopefully be able to defend SGs in the near future as well as a solid role player in Simmons so this plays out real well for them. So now the question on our end is whether or not Kirk, Maggs, Deng, Tyson and Eddy are a championship caliber starting 5. This is a five that can realistically average 85 ppg and solid if not brutal defense but lack that vital closer. Is Maggs the type of guy that can literally carry his team in the fourth the way that Gordon has this early in his career? Can he come up with the big buckets down the stretch and fill the role that every great team has/had? 

Last year's Pistons really made me reconsider the whole theory that you need a top flight player to win a championship. However, I still remain convinced that you need a go to guy to win. Whether that person is Reggie Miller, Jordan, Kobe, Rip, Duncan, Zeke, Hakeem, Barkley, Drexler, Stockton, Magic, etc. the role remains the same. Down the stretch everyone knows who's getting the ball and taking the big shot. If we think that Maggette fills that role then I also throw in a future first round pick.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

madox said:


> Does anyone actually think that Paxson is sitting in his office saying to himself, "Now that we're having our best season in 7 years and beating in the brains of the world champs and battling this years favorite minus one of our key starters tooth and nail so that afterwards they yowl and ***** about it, now that we're doing all of that and heading for the playoffs I'm gonna trade our best player in 7 years who is only a rookie and could easily average 25 points a game next year for a square peg because circular pegs don't never do..."
> 
> A silly and idiotic trade-- not the suggestion of it, because I don't wanna be impolite-- but for Pax to actually go through with it would be unbelievably silly and twice as idiotic.


If Ben's our best player now, why doesn't he start? I'm not knocking Ben at all, I love the guy. Maybe next year he will be our best player. Maybe next year Eddy will be our best player. Its just a bit premature at this point.

If Paxson's not considering every possibility, he's not doing his job. 

If Ben displayed better point guard skills, I'd trade Kirk for the big 2. I was a big supporter of our small backcourt at the beginning of the season. We've done okay with it, I'm just not sold that we get to another level with it.

This team doesn't need wholesale changes, but it does need a roster move to fill a glaring need. If I could land Maggette over just getting someone like Hassell who could fill some defensive minutes at the two, I think I'd go with the fulltime guy. 

I think BealeFarange made some good points that support at least considering such a move.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Krazy!!! said:


> Geez...another "trade Gordon" thread. :dead:
> 
> Before I trade Gordon....I'll part ways with Chris Duhon who scored a puny 5 points in yesterday's game despite playing 40 minutes.


I wasn't really aware we had "trade Gordon" threads. That said, I'm of the belief that nobody here is untradeable and we both know Duhon < Maggette.

You implied you would trade Gordon, so what would be your conditions for trading him and what would you consider fair value? 

I think the only premise of this thread is how do we create the best backcourt given Hinrich, Gordon and Duhon may not be the long term answer. It is not a vote Gordon off the island thread.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> well,
> 
> this trade would have to wait till after the season when duhon is a free agent. so he could not be included in a deal. even so, i can't see the clips being willing to trade noc + duhon for maggs. but in your defense, stranger things have happened in the nba in the vise of cost cutting.


Oh, I agree, I was just throwing it out as a thought experiment.

On the other hand, it seems like it might be possible with modification. Suppose it's a Duhon sign and trade, plus Noc, plus a future #1 pick trade for Maggette. That could conceivably work under the cap rules and allow the Clippers to get something for Maggs and use their FA money to try and replace his scoring capacity (say on a Joe Johnson or Ray Allen type).


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> Its a "fair" trade... but there is no way I trade Gordon for Mags. He wins games.
> 
> Why not try to get a big guard with point guard skills to play along side Gordon? Then we could start Gordon along side this taller point guard.


Who do you envision and what are you going to use to get him?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Krazy!!! said:


> In the 4th quarter with the Bulls down by 6....is Maggette capable of engineering a rally to help the Bulls win ballgames? That's the equation I CANNOT overlook.


In the fourth quarter with Maggette is it possible we're not even down by 6, but ahead?


----------



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

Mr. T said:


> I wasn't really aware we had "trade Gordon" threads. That said, I'm of the belief that nobody here is untradeable and we both know Duhon < Maggette.
> 
> You implied you would trade Gordon, so what would be your conditions for trading him and what would you consider fair value?
> 
> I think the only premise of this thread is how do we create the best backcourt given Hinrich, Gordon and Duhon may not be the long term answer. It is not a vote Gordon off the island thread.


I don't want Gordon traded for one reason: Without Gordon this year:

1.)The Bulls have no chance in HADES of making the postseason. And don't bring up Eddy Curry because the brotha has been inconsistent throughout his 4 years in the league. 

2.)The Bulls would be only marginally better than the Bobcats and Hawks and would therefore be in the race......for the #1 draft pick yet again.

Don't forget....Gordon was the reason why the Bulls snapped their winless November Western Road Trip.


----------



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

Mr. T said:


> In the fourth quarter with Maggette is it possible we're not even down by 6, but ahead?


But you don't know that for a fact....whereas we know what Gordon's capable of in those type of situations.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

sp00k said:


> Wow, a couple trade Gordon threads out there. On the other board there's a hypothetical Gordon for Melo thread which I stated that I would be against. Interestingly enough I'd consider a Maggs for Gordon swap. I'm not sure if that's because I think Maggs is/will be a better player than Melo or not but oh well.
> 
> Maggs would come in immediately and allow us to field a BIG starting 5. Kirk is big for a point and would come back to his natural position, Maggs is an ideal two and first/second scoring option and of course we still have Deng and the bigs. Better yet, Maggs is locked into a bargain of a contract so there should be absolutely no concerns about affording this team for the next 5-8 years (whoa!). Clippers on the otherhand have a tall PG that will hopefully be able to defend SGs in the near future as well as a solid role player in Simmons so this plays out real well for them. So now the question on our end is whether or not Kirk, Maggs, Deng, Tyson and Eddy are a championship caliber starting 5. This is a five that can realistically average 85 ppg and solid if not brutal defense but lack that vital closer. Is Maggs the type of guy that can literally carry his team in the fourth the way that Gordon has this early in his career? Can he come up with the big buckets down the stretch and fill the role that every great team has/had?
> 
> Last year's Pistons really made me reconsider the whole theory that you need a top flight player to win a championship. However, I still remain convinced that you need a go to guy to win. Whether that person is Reggie Miller, Jordan, Kobe, Rip, Duncan, Zeke, Hakeem, Barkley, Drexler, Stockton, Magic, etc. the role remains the same. Down the stretch everyone knows who's getting the ball and taking the big shot. If we think that Maggette fills that role then I also throw in a future first round pick.


Excellent points and I would admit to missing Ben's clutch play. However, at least for my nickel that lineup is far more imposing than what we have now with Ben inserted along side Kirk. I think we'd be a beast. I think Maggette could become our closer and I think we'd need those clutch finishes a little less often with that team. 

No question it would be tough to part with Ben, but if we get better (and I'm certainly open to debate) I'll part with anybody.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Can't we at least finish up this season and see where the chips lie before having to come down one way or the other on trades and moves?

Let's see how our size disadvantage really plays out. If we get Boston in the first round, we're going to be really put to the test with our guards. But what happens if we win anyways? Ya know.

What is going best for us right now seems to be a combination of talent and chemistry. Remember when the Clippers tried to make that one move to fix their team, trading Miles for Miller, and it didn't pan out. Not that Miles was great, but it was a chemistry thing. He was a glue guy for the Clips. And I think to some extent Ben is a glue guy. His role as closer really gives this team confidence and a bit of a swagger.

I say just have Kirk bulk up more over the summer so he can guard 2's.


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> Who do you envision and what are you going to use to get him?


That's the issue. :biggrin: Lebron or TMAC would work.

Given where we are at, and what we have to work with, I don't mind keeping Hinrich and Gordon.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Krazy!!! said:


> I don't want Gordon traded for one reason: Without Gordon this year:
> 
> 1.)The Bulls have no chance in HADES of making the postseason. And don't bring up Eddy Curry because the brotha has been inconsistent throughout his 4 years in the league.
> 
> ...


The argument lacks one important aspect. We had to get something out of the #3 pick. Certainly if Gordon had a motorcycle accident and we didn't have ANYONE we would be worse off. Remember, Wade was a #5 and look at his impact.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

Mr. T said:


> If Ben's our best player now, why doesn't he start?


If he isn't our best player, why does he keep putting the team on his back and leading it to victory?

IMO Ben is the best player on the Bulls. To me that means that he has the greatest positive impact on their record.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> I wasn't really aware we had "trade Gordon" threads. That said, I'm of the belief that nobody here is untradeable and we both know Duhon < Maggette.
> 
> You implied you would trade Gordon, so what would be your conditions for trading him and what would you consider fair value?
> 
> I think the only premise of this thread is how do we create the best backcourt given Hinrich, Gordon and Duhon may not be the long term answer. It is not a vote Gordon off the island thread.


Krazy may have been referring to the Paul Pierce for Ben Gordon thread that was on these boards about two months ago. But, two months on the board is two years in real-people time .

I like your last paragraph and how you summarize the situation. This thread could have just as easily been Hinrich for Maggs, but Hinrich is up for a new deal a year earlier, may not be as good a match with Livingston, and I think Paxson would be more reluctant to trade him. I love Ben's play just like the rest of us. I'm just still not convinced our small backcourt as constituted is a long-term working solution. So how do we fix it?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Krazy!!! said:


> But you don't know that for a fact....whereas we know what Gordon's capable of in those type of situations.


Thats true, but we don't know for a fact what we'd look like with someone else drafted instead of Ben.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

I'm not worried about Paxson trading Ben for Maggette, if for no other reason than he wouldn't enjoy being laughed at by every other GM in the league- which they would do IMO.

The *real* superstars are the ones who do it in the clutch, in close games down the stretch. Do you want to know how close Ben is to becoming a superstar? In every close game the Bulls play down the stretch, all of us posters here scream bloody murder if Ben isn't getting the ball in the final 2 minutes of the game- no matter if he's 0-12 up until then.

Jamal vs Kirk, Eddy vs Kirk, Fire Pax! vs Pax is a god, we all agree that Ben should have the ball in his hands in the final minutes.


----------



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

Mr. T said:


> The argument lacks one important aspect. We had to get something out of the #3 pick. Certainly if Gordon had a motorcycle accident and we didn't have ANYONE we would be worse off. Remember, Wade was a #5 and look at his impact.


Thus far the Bulls have survived an injury to Antonio Davis, Tyson Chandler and are currently surviving an injury to Luol Deng....

if Gordon should ever go down with an injury that will sideline him for a few weeks....I'd LOVE to see how this team do without the services of Ben Gordon.......NOT!!!!


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

kukoc4ever said:


> That's the issue. :biggrin: Lebron or TMAC would work.
> 
> Given where we are at, and what we have to work with, I don't mind keeping Hinrich and Gordon.


I think we've seen there is a certain weakness to the scheme this year. Hinrich has done an admirable job on 2's but I don't think thats our best solution. 

Without getting any camps in an uproar, its just speculation on what might be best for us long term.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

madox said:


> If he isn't our best player, why does he keep putting the team on his back and leading it to victory?
> 
> IMO Ben is the best player on the Bulls. To me that means that he has the greatest positive impact on their record.


I love it as much as the next guy when he comes in and explodes. I just think there is a lot of credit due to the guys who log the big minutes and put us in position in the first place. Where do you rate Chandler? I think he's probably right up there with Ben in terms of 4th quarter performances that directly related to victories.

I simply don't believe in the theory that says whoever can hit the game-winner is the best player or "has the heart of a champion" and therefore nobody else can be. Probably more times than not, the guy who can hit it IS the best player, but that doesn't necessarily have to be true.

Ben is easily our most gifted offensive player. Nobody can argue that. If Eddy becomes the player we all hope he'll be Gordon and Curry perform a dynamic duo on the offensive end. They would also leave us pretty thin on the defensive end. Eddy's growing in spurts and Ben is too. 

Ben is our most clutch offensive player. Chandler is our most clutch defensive player. IMO, neither are our "best" player. I think Gordon or Curry will likely become our best player. 

To be honest, we may have no "best" player at this point in time. Each player truly is a piece to the puzzle with their own set of benefits and liabilities.


----------



## Future (Jul 24, 2002)

What's best for us in a long term situation is keeping Ben Gordon on the team and letting him progress as a player. It seems like we are forgetting the guy is a rookie for God's sake. He may not have even reached his full potential yet. He's getting better defensively and Skiles praises his hard work. We know the guy can take over a 4th quarter in his rookie year.... as he progresses he may be able to take over a game consistantly in each quarter.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> Can't we at least finish up this season and see where the chips lie before having to come down one way or the other on trades and moves?


We have no choice but to wait! If anything damn that Sam Smith for stoking the fires in an off day.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

I think we become a better team with Maggs because there's absolutely no concern about mismatches, getting exploited on defense or questions about players showing up for 4 quarters. Not sure if it's much better but better nonetheless. However, I'm not sure if Maggs makes us a legit contender. Let me reiterate - much like baseball, a closer is essential. Who here has seen Maggs in these last couple years to comment on his closing ability? With Maggs we probably don't need as many 4Q heroics but those 4Q heroics will be needed from time to time. Particularly in the playoffs.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Krazy!!! said:


> Thus far the Bulls have survived an injury to Antonio Davis, Tyson Chandler and are currently surviving an injury to Luol Deng....
> 
> if Gordon should ever go down with an injury that will sideline him for a few weeks....I'd LOVE to see how this team do without the services of Ben Gordon.......NOT!!!!


Krazy, maybe your screenname is at work here, but I'm really on your side and I personally don't wish to see anyone go down to injury to prove their worth. This team needs EVERYONE. Missing Luol even proved how much he brings every night. 

If Ben is your guy thats fine. Lets restate things. Do you feel Hinrich, Gordon and Duhon are the backcourt of the future and if not, what specifically should we do about it?

BTW, Tyson hasn't missed a game due to injury this year.


----------



## TRON (Feb 29, 2004)

Ben Gordon is having a stellar rookie season, but I remember last year... Maggette was having a great season scoring above 20 a game and near the leaders in free throws per game in the league

Ben is clutch, but the clips are going after a Ray Allen, Micheal Redd or Joe Johnson. With a veteran coach (Dunleavy) and a team full of young talent, I feel the Clips will try to acquire some veteran help (see above names), that means as good as Gordon is, he probably isn't what they need right now.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

We have Deng. Why would we want Maggette?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Future said:


> What's best for us in a long term situation is keeping Ben Gordon on the team and letting him progress as a player. *It seems like we are forgetting the guy is a rookie for God's sake.* He may not have even reached his full potential yet. He's getting better defensively and Skiles praises his hard work. We know the guy can take over a 4th quarter in his rookie year.... as he progresses he may be able to take over a game consistantly in each quarter.


Your first sentence sums up your position. But then you imply we are trying to vote the guy off the island. Not so. Everyone understands he's a rookie and what he's accomplished. The question here is, are Hinrich, Gordon and Duhon the long term solution? 

You've only given a partial answer. 

You feel Gordon is a part of the puzzle long term. The question is, especially since it appears you do feel some change is in order, what change should be made?

Its too simple to say we need a big 2. What happens when Paxson doesn't get one this summer? What happens if we wind up with Pike again or someone like him? 

What if the Bulls get in the playoffs and go meekly in the first round. No heroics by Ben to speak of. Our guards perform so-so in the playoffs. The Clippers call and offer you Maggette for Gordon and filler. Somebody else calls and offers you whoever for Kirk? What are you willing to do?


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

Mr. T said:


> I love it as much as the next guy when he comes in and explodes. I just think there is a lot of credit due to the guys who log the big minutes and put us in position in the first place. Where do you rate Chandler? I think he's probably right up there with Ben in terms of 4th quarter performances that directly related to victories.
> 
> I simply don't believe in the theory that says whoever can hit the game-winner is the best player or "has the heart of a champion" and therefore nobody else can be. Probably more times than not, the guy who can hit it IS the best player, but that doesn't necessarily have to be true.
> 
> ...


 This post brought a tear to my eye. I really couldn't say it better myself and it's exactly what I'm getting at in the MVP thread that I started. Ben's and Tyson's 4Q performances get our blood flowing but it's the guys that put in the time that actually set the stage. Ben gets big props and rightfully so, but to ignore the contributions of the guys playing the other 3 quarters is selling them short. He hits the big shots now but simply being clutch and offensively doesn't make him great. Can Ben stay on a court for 30+ minutes? I love him but to be frank I think the offense stagnates with him in the game. People sit around and watch him, much like Philly, LA, and the Jordan Bulls. This works in the 4Q but you can't win a series doing that for 30+ mpg. Thus my reasoning for Maggs making us a better team.


----------



## bullsville (Jan 23, 2005)

TRON said:


> Ben Gordon is having a stellar rookie season, but I remember last year... Maggette was having a great season scoring above 20 a game and near the leaders in free throws per game in the league
> 
> Ben is clutch, but the clips are going after a Ray Allen, Micheal Redd or Joe Johnson. With a veteran coach (Dunleavy) and a team full of young talent, I feel the Clips will try to acquire some veteran help (see above names), that means as good as Gordon is, he probably isn't what they need right now.


The Clippers can go after anyone they want, the problem is nobody wants to go there. And I don't think Joe Johnson is the "veteran help" the Clips are looking for, he and Maggette are each in their 4th season and Johnson is 2 years younger. Redd is in his 5th season, but he only played 35 minutes his rookie season and he is only 3 months older than Maggette.

And Redd and Johnson will cost a lot of money, I could actually see Sterling trading for Gordon as he'd have him on the cheap for the next 3 seasons.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

superdave said:


> We have Deng. Why would we want Maggette?


See above. (so we can hire Coach K when we fire Skiles :laugh: ) 

Anyone for a Brand reunion? Hinrich-Maggette-Deng-Brand-Curry with JWill signed to come off the bench. Perhaps Laettner in free agency? When does Grant Hill's contract expire? With all this going on, how could we not fire Skiles and hire Coach K?


----------



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

sp00k said:


> This post brought a tear to my eye. I really couldn't say it better myself and it's exactly what I'm getting at in the MVP thread that I started. Ben's and Tyson's 4Q performances get our blood flowing but it's the guys that put in the time that actually set the stage. Ben gets big props and rightfully so, but to ignore the contributions of the guys playing the other 3 quarters is selling them short. He hits the big shots now but simply being clutch and offensively doesn't make him great. Can Ben stay on a court for 30+ minutes? I love him but to be frank I think the offense stagnates with him in the game. People sit around and watch him, much like Philly, LA, and the Jordan Bulls. This works in the 4Q but you can't win a series doing that for 30+ mpg. Thus my reasoning for Maggs making us a better team.


I figure that even through about half of the 6 years excluding last year, we've generally had enough tools to stay in games. The problem was that we never really finished those close games. 

Finally after six years we do. Ben and Tyson may not have the overall game that can last above 30 minutes which doesn't look pretty on the stat sheets, but it's enough to win. That's all I know.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

bullsville said:


> I'm not worried about Paxson trading Ben for Maggette, if for no other reason than he wouldn't enjoy being laughed at by every other GM in the league- which they would do IMO.
> 
> The *real* superstars are the ones who do it in the clutch, in close games down the stretch. Do you want to know how close Ben is to becoming a superstar? In every close game the Bulls play down the stretch, all of us posters here scream bloody murder if Ben isn't getting the ball in the final 2 minutes of the game- no matter if he's 0-12 up until then.
> 
> Jamal vs Kirk, Eddy vs Kirk, Fire Pax! vs Pax is a god, we all agree that Ben should have the ball in his hands in the final minutes.



Good point. The kid does have the "stuff". Whatever that is....he's got it.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

If Mags is so great, then why on earth woudl the clips be willing to part with him?

Hmmmm.......


----------



## ballafromthenorth (May 27, 2003)

I've always been a huge Maggette fan.. but parting with Gordon after only his rookie season doesn't sound too appealing to me.. I'd love to see Maggette on the bulls, although I do think Deng and Nocioni can and will do everything he does.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> This thread could have just as easily been Hinrich for Maggs, but Hinrich is up for a new deal a year earlier, may not be as good a match with Livingston, and I think Paxson would be more reluctant to trade him. I love Ben's play just like the rest of us. I'm just still not convinced our small backcourt as constituted is a long-term working solution. So how do we fix it?


I would trade Kirk instead of Ben. But I don't see why you claim Paxson would be more reluctant to trade away Kirk? I don't see it that way at all. Kirk was the 7th overall pick in the draft, but he was not the guy Paxson wanted. Pax was targeting Wade with that pick, and Pax also admitted he would not have taken Kirk if Jay Williams had never gotten himself into that motorcycle accident. 

Ben was the 3rd pick in the draft, there is no doubt he was Paxson's guy at that slot. If I could deal Hinrich for Maggette I would do it without hesitation. We'd probably have to throw in Pike as filler. But I would then re-sign Duhon, have Nocioni wine and dine Oberto to eventually replace AD and we'd be set.

Backcourt: Gordon, Duhon, Maggette
Forwards: Deng, Nocioni
Bigs: Tyson, Eddy, AD, Oberto, Othella?

That's a solid 10 man rotation already, yet figure we'd also add a solid free agent in summer 2006 too.


----------



## Sith (Oct 20, 2003)

as much as I like ben, I would do the deal. one of the main reason being Maggette is relatively "cheap" in today's NBA standard. he's no doubt a very very solid basketball player with great size. with this trade, it completes our starting 5 for the next couple of years. I really dont see maggette being any lesser player than someone like Joe johnson. he's just being stuck in the clipperland. u put maggette on that suns team, I don't see them skipping a bit. and vice versa, u put jj on that clippers team, i dont see them making playoffs either. with that comparison done, i think most of us would be willing to do ben for jj. so why not maggette.


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

Is Gordon's season this year that suprising? No. Who had the #2 pick in the draft and traded down. LAC. If they wanted Gordon, they could have had him in the draft.


----------



## madox (Jan 6, 2004)

sov82 said:


> Is Gordon's season this year that suprising? No. Who had the #2 pick in the draft and traded down. LAC. If they wanted Gordon, they could have had him in the draft.


God help us all if we're gonna start basing a player's worth on the Clippers draft-day interest in said player.


----------



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

SALO said:


> I would trade Kirk instead of Ben. But I don't see why you claim Paxson would be more reluctant to trade away Kirk? I don't see it that way at all. Kirk was the 7th overall pick in the draft, but he was not the guy Paxson wanted. Pax was targeting Wade with that pick, and Pax also admitted he would not have taken Kirk if Jay Williams had never gotten himself into that motorcycle accident.
> 
> Ben was the 3rd pick in the draft, there is no doubt he was Paxson's guy at that slot. If I could deal Hinrich for Maggette I would do it without hesitation. We'd probably have to throw in Pike as filler. But I would then re-sign Duhon, have Nocioni wine and dine Oberto to eventually replace AD and we'd be set.
> 
> ...


For the record, this is what I would like to have said as well, but I'm not in the mood to get into a 20 page argument about this.

As has been said I also want to say that Maggette is nothing but a 2nd-tier star at best. I'm not trading our ROOKIE who has LED the league in 4th quarter double digit scoring nights. He may average 14.7 ppg for life doing what he's doing now, and I'd still consider him and his 4th quarter points much more important than Maggette's 21.7 ppg.


----------



## svanacore (Nov 21, 2004)

sov82 said:


> Is Gordon's season this year that suprising? No. Who had the #2 pick in the draft and traded down. LAC. If they wanted Gordon, they could have had him in the draft.


Because the Clippers would not use the 2 pick to get Gordon with Okafor or Howard on the board when they could trade down and still get him. I think that's pretty obvious. The Clippers didn't know that Gordon would go 3rd. 

They were really high on him.

But this is a stupid trade anyway.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

In fact, with Hinrich playing as well as he did last year, there was no reason to suspect that Pax would draft him there. I was sure he would take Deng third, and Igoudala 7th


----------



## adarsh1 (May 28, 2003)

also why would the clippers want hinrich when they have shaun livingston?


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Gordon and Deng are our last chances to land a superstar type player (best or second to best in their respectful positions), after seven years of tryings.

IMO, we should wait at least one more season to see what we have, before considering any trades options. 

With regard of getting Mag , like one man said: “ We have Deng “


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Bulls96 said:


> With regard of getting Mag , like one man said: “ We have Deng “


*If Deng could play shooting guard, why would we be in need of a big 2?*

Interesting look at ratings for shooting guards.


----------



## Bulls96 (Jun 25, 2003)

Mr. T said:


> *If Deng could play shooting guard, why would we be in need of a big 2?*
> 
> 
> That’s right, not for expense of Gordon or Kirk or Deng.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> *If Deng could play shooting guard, why would we be in need of a big 2?*
> 
> Interesting look at ratings for shooting guards.


Surely you aren't comparing the potential of a veteran who is a known commodity to a rookie with the stratosphere for a ceiling. Its too early to be projecting any measurable comparisons based on this years numbers. My god he hasn't even finished his rookie season yet.

Using that chart, one could also reasonably conclude that it makes sense to trade him for Jamal Crawford, Andre Igoudala (would anyone do this trade now??), Eddie Jones, or Larry Hughes. 

:nonono:


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

It sounds like you're only open to using Duhon and our MLE. And with the MLE there are reports Paxson is looking at Nocioni's former teammate and center. That means you're essentially standing pat. 

Nothing wrong with that. Thats what the thread is about. Do we go with our current backcourt long term, or do we feel we need an adjustment?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> It sounds like you're only open to using Duhon and our MLE. And with the MLE there are reports Paxson is looking at Nocioni's former teammate and center. That means you're essentially standing pat.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that. Thats what the thread is about. Do we go with our current backcourt long term, or do we feel we need an adjustment?


No. I'm open to ANY other Idea...as long as it doesn't include Gordon/Deng/Chandler/Curry

Hinrich I'm on the fence about. I love his game, hate his shooting, and am not sure how much better he will get.

Everyone else is expendable, including Noce.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> Surely you aren't comparing the potential of a veteran who is a known commodity to a rookie with the stratosphere for a ceiling. Its too early to be projecting any measurable comparisons based on this years numbers. My god he hasn't even finished his rookie season yet.
> 
> Using that chart, one could also reasonably conclude that it makes sense to trade him for Jamal Crawford, Andre Igoudala (would anyone do this trade now??), Eddie Jones, or Larry Hughes.
> 
> :nonono:


You're reading way too far into things. I simply pointed out it was interesting. 

I feel its a fair trade, but I'm *NOT* arguing one position over another. I'm just curious what the feeling is on the board in terms of our current backcourt long term. For those who feel a trade makes us better, I'm curious what that is.

I was a supporter of our small backcourt and have been all season, but I'm not so sure it will work long term. I've probably come to this conclusion because I don't think we get value for Hinrich playing him at the two. 

It doesn't really matter who gets traded as far as I'm concerned so long as we get better. Smith mentions Maggette. Its clear Hinrich isn't a fit in LA, but it would seem Gordon would be. Hinrich and Maggette would be no weak backcourt. 

Even with my belief that its a fair deal and my initial like of that backcourt, if I'm Paxson and push comes to shove, I don't know I could pull the trigger and trade Gordon.

With our unconventional backcourt size and usage, our long term plans are grounds for a very worthy debate.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> No. I'm open to ANY other Idea...as long as it doesn't include Gordon/Deng/Chandler/Curry
> 
> Hinrich I'm on the fence about. I love his game, hate his shooting, and am not sure how much better he will get.
> 
> Everyone else is expendable, including Noce.


Fair enough. I think K4E was heading that way, but I think we need to go further than suggesting we need an unnamed 6'5" point guard who can defend 2's and play the 1 unless he was making light-hearted fun about Jamal.

I'm guessing you would keep Duhon as the true point although you don't list him. So if Gordon doesn't project as a 1 in the future (and it doesn't look that way), who do you go after to solidify the 3-guard rotation using Hinrich and filler (expiring AD?) as bait?


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

T:

We share a similar outlook on this issue. In the back of my mind is this thought that you just can't build a championship team around a defensive liability. Gordon and Hinrich will never be able to handle the larger twos. Maggs' may never be an all-star but he is a top 10 talent at his position and even more importantly, a perfect fit for our young team. Clips are not going to trade him for Hinrich. We can end that talk now. 

So would I trade Gordon for Mags? I'm still not sure. Mags is the better fit, but you can't replace Gordon's finishing ability. I wouldn't be upset if this trade happened, but I'm not advocating for it either.


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> Fair enough. I think K4E was heading that way, but I think we need to go further than suggesting we need an unnamed 6'5" point guard who can defend 2's and play the 1 unless he was making light-hearted fun about Jamal.


I went to Yahoo and compiled an extensive list of 6'5" point guards that were of starter quality. Here goes:

Shawn Livingston 6'7"
Bob Sura 6'5"
Jamal Crawford 6'5"


three fricking names . theres a reason why everyone who thinks it would just be easier to trade for a large point guard rarely forwards names. shawn livingston is not going anywhere -- once again, making the clips one of the few teams that would perfectly fit Gordon. bob sura would be a downgrade in talent. and, theres another thread where we can argue the merits of JC. trading hinrich for a player that can guard larger shooting guards is just not that easy.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

such sweet thunder said:


> T:
> 
> We share a similar outlook on this issue. In the back of my mind is this thought that you just can't build a championship team around a defensive liability. Gordon and Hinrich will never be able to handle the larger twos. Maggs' may never be an all-star but he is a top 10 talent at his position and even more importantly, a perfect fit for our young team. Clips are not going to trade him for Hinrich. We can end that talk now.
> 
> So would I trade Gordon for Mags? I'm still not sure. Mags is the better fit, but you can't replace Gordon's finishing ability. I wouldn't be upset if this trade happened, but I'm not advocating for it either.


Sometimes you have to lose a trade to win a trade. That has many meanings. We *arguably* (no need to hijack thread) saw it in the Rose trade and in the Crawford trade. Perhaps Gordon for Maggette is the same thing. Maybe we are giving up the better talent or maybe we're simply giving up the better closer. But in return, maybe we're building a better team by putting in a better rounded piece.

All myself, SST and others are suggesting is that we simply explore the options. I haven't seen anybody advocating trading Gordon. We are advocating getting better.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

such sweet thunder said:


> I went to Yahoo and compiled an extensive list of 6'5" point guards that were of starter quality. Here goes:
> 
> Shawn Livingston 6'7"
> Bob Sura 6'5"
> ...


In a word, yuch. Perhaps I'm missing it, but what I take from this is Gordon REALLY needs to improve his ball handling and court vision. He's got to play the 1 on offense. If not, we probably are looking at Gordon and Hinrich as the long term backcourt. AI plays the 2, but AI has handle and AI can see the court (although he seldom wants to!) Can anyone think of another 6' who played the 2, but wasn't capable of running the offense?


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Skiles came up with a quote last Friday that accurately depicts the dilemma we're suggesting in this thread.



> "We've got a whole new team, basically," Bulls coach Scott Skiles said after his team practiced in Seattle on Friday.
> 
> It wasn't a case of blind devotion to a master plan, Skiles said, so much as an accurate personnel evaluation.
> 
> ...


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> T:
> 
> We share a similar outlook on this issue. In the back of my mind is this thought that you just can't build a championship team around a defensive liability. Gordon and Hinrich will never be able to handle the larger twos. Maggs' may never be an all-star but he is a top 10 talent at his position and even more importantly, a perfect fit for our young team. Clips are not going to trade him for Hinrich. We can end that talk now.
> 
> So would I trade Gordon for Mags? I'm still not sure. Mags is the better fit, but you can't replace Gordon's finishing ability. I wouldn't be upset if this trade happened, but I'm not advocating for it either.


An Iverson-Snow-McKie backcourt made it to the finals and was the number 1 defensive team in the league in 2001. They were amazing defensively, even with Iverson. They just couldn't defend Shaq... and no one can.

That team: 
Eric Snow
Allen Iverson
Aaron McKie
Tyrone Hill
Jumaine Jones
Dikembe Mutombo
Todd McCullough/Matt Geiger

That was their rotation. Tyrone Hill and Jumaine Jones combined for about 70 minutes a night, amazingly. 

If you think about it, this team could be extremely similar to that one. Hell, Chandler is basically the second coming of Mutombo, and Gordon will be (or is) a scorer on a level similar to Iverson. Hinrich is Eric Snow v2 (but I have higher hopes for him than that). Then we have Deng and Curry and they didn't.  

Trading Gordon for Maggette would be a huge mistake. You don't trade a game-changer like Gordon for a better fitting piece like Corey. Horrible trade for us-- not that Maggette is a bad player but he's not great, either. Gordon can be. He just needs development. That includes passing, ball-handling, and defense, but there's no reason to think that he won't get better at all of those. I would be highly upset if this trade happened. 

I digress, but if this was any other team, he would be getting 35 minutes a night and those aspects of his game would be neglected. Think about how Houston handled Steve Francis his rookie year and look at him now. He really hasn't improved that much. Ben will, because he'll have to earn his playing time. 

We just need our Aaron McKie and we'll be set. Gordon's talent transcends the need for a traditional 6'6 SG.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

Sith said:


> as much as I like ben, I would do the deal. one of the main reason being Maggette is relatively "cheap" in today's NBA standard. he's no doubt a very very solid basketball player with great size. with this trade, it completes our starting 5 for the next couple of years. I really dont see maggette being any lesser player than someone like Joe johnson. he's just being stuck in the clipperland. u put maggette on that suns team, I don't see them skipping a bit. and vice versa, u put jj on that clippers team, i dont see them making playoffs either. with that comparison done, i think most of us would be willing to do ben for jj. so why not maggette.


JJ is a much better shooter, passer and ball handler. He can play point and has deep range on his shot. 

Maggette gets a TON of points off driving in the lane and getting fouled. It's effective, but not optimal, imo. He also gets injured a LOT. JJ>>>Corey.


----------



## SPIN DOCTOR (Oct 31, 2002)

While I love Magg's...

I REALLYwant to witness Ben Gordon in the 4th quarter of playoff games. If he can close in crunchtime in playoff ball, then we have hit the motherlode.

I also have very bad memories of the last trade we made with the Clips.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Dumars and Isiah sure were a tall backcourt....


----------



## kukoc4ever (Nov 20, 2002)

Mr. T said:


> Fair enough. I think K4E was heading that way, but I think we need to go further than suggesting we need an unnamed 6'5" point guard who can defend 2's and play the 1 unless he was making light-hearted fun about Jamal.


In a way I was. We traded away a big guard with point guard skills.

But... what we are really looking for is a Hinrich replacement.... so that would be a big guard with point guard skills and talks (but perhaps not shoots) selflessly and plays scrappy, hard-nosed D.

The players that have all of these skills are superstars. Its not Jamal. Is it Livingston? Don’t think so. If we could merge Crawford and Hinrich we'd be set. 

Given that, I think we'll be keeping Hinrich and Gordon.

I'd have a hard time trading Hinrich or Gordon unless we are getting a star in return.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

kukoc4ever said:


> In a way I was. We traded away a big guard with point guard skills.
> 
> But... what we are really looking for is a Hinrich replacement.... so that would be a big guard with point guard skills and talks (but perhaps not shoots) selflessly and plays scrappy, hard-nosed D.
> 
> ...



Yeah...looks like I'm with you.


----------



## Bulls4Life (Nov 13, 2002)

The ROY said:


> ya'll can't be DUMB enuff to suggest trading GORDON for corey magette LMAO! gordon's got more praise off the bench in his rookie season than magette's gotten in his whole career


:rofl: :laugh: :rofl:

I love Maggette, always have, but not enough to give up BG!!!

:nonono:



If the lack of size in the backcourt is a problem in the playoffs, the Bulls could use Deng, Nocioni and Griffin could be used in spots, depending on the matchups. A legitimate 2 guard can be aquired through free agency:

Kareem Rush 6'6" Charlotte - Unrestricted Free Agent
Gerald Wallace 6'7" Charlotte - Restricted Free Agent 
Ray Allen 6'4" Seattle - Unrestricted Free Agent 
Larry Hughes 6'6" Washington - Unrestricted Free Agent 
Joe Johnson 6'7" Phoenix - Restricted Free Agent 
Marko Jaric 6'6" L.A. Clippers - Restricted Free Agent 

If Pax says he needs a big guard for this team to be a contender, then Reinsdorf should give him the green light to go all out for one of the guys on this list [JJ, I hope! :gopray:]

And if not, Pax could package Pike & AD (expiring contracts) to a team looking to slash salaries at next season's trading deadline.

And to quote Pax from an ESPN1000 interview
*"We need to get a big, physical, defensive guard to play with BEN!*

:clap:


----------

