Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring???

[Shakes]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

Rose1 wrote:

Name me one team that has a point guard scoring most of the points that's successful in winning championships in this era?

I don't think it's impossible for a team with a point guard carrying a heavy scoring load to be successful.

Tony Parker wasn't far behind Duncan in points in their last championship and averaged over 20 PPG during the playoffs. Wade although nominally a shooting guard had the ball and dished out more assists than Williams or Payton on the Heat. Billups was only marginally behind Hamilton in points on their championship team.

I'd say of the last five champions, only the Celtics didn't rely heavily on their primary ball handling guard's scoring ability (which I think is a more sensible distinction than point/shooting guard ... Rose resembles Wade more than he does Williams).

 

[Hendu0520]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

Rose1 wrote:


Name me one team that has a point guard scoring most of the points that's successful in winning championships in this era?[/quote]

Chauncey Billups in Detroit

Tony Parker one year in SA. And was close other years. Other than those 2 teams the other teams didn't even have good point guards period. LAL-DFisher, Harper isn't really a PG
Chi-Harper isn't really a PG. Pippen I guess but he was the SF.
There is no reason a PG can't be your leading scorer.

In the playoffs, Billups was the main scorer, maybe not the reg. season even though they were about even. And Parker was the leading scorer in SA last chip run in the playoffs as well.

 

[Hendu0520]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

lol as shakes just said.

 

[clonetrooper264]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

Absolutely no reason at all why a PG can't lead a team in scoring and win a championship. It depends on the people around him. If you just have Rose scoring all the points and that's it, you won't have much success, but if you have Rose leading the team in scoring and have someone like Gordon or Salmons right behind him in scoring, that would be a better formula for success.

 

[Bullsman24]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

i also probably don't want my SF to be my leading rebounder, but cleveland's not hurting is it.

or my PG with rondo.

 

[houheffna]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

A point guard's job is to run the offense, not pass it to the shooting guard exclusively. The point guard runs the offense and minimizes turnovers. A good point guard can get the ball to all of his players in the most effective manner.

 

[J-Mart]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

If Deng doesn't come back to old Deng form and if Tyrus and Noah don't significantly improve, I would be surprised if we got the 8th seed if Gordon leaves.

I think we can mask the fact that Gordon left IF everyone else stepped up. But I don't see us being a better team next year with out Gordon. We may have a higher record only because of how dreadful we were at the beginning of this past season.

 

[Shakes]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

J-Mart wrote:

If Deng doesn't come back to old Deng form and if Tyrus and Noah don't significantly improve, I would be surprised if we got the 8th seed if Gordon leaves.

I think we can mask the fact that Gordon left IF everyone else stepped up. But I don't see us being a better team next year with out Gordon. We may have a higher record only because of how dreadful we were at the beginning of this past season.

We were playing at around 50 win standard after the trade deadline.

You take a 50 win team, add to it improvement from Derrick Rose, and put Deng back on it (since you surely can't assume he'll be injured all year). I find it very, very hard to imagine taking Ben Gordon away from that team takes it under .500. Gordon is good, but the difference between a Rose-Gordon-Salmons-Hinrich 1-2-3 rotation and a Rose-Deng-Salmons-Hinrich one is not 10 wins.

We'll win more games next year unless we get hit awfully badly with injuries, Gordon or no Gordon.

 

[Hendu0520]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

Shakes wrote:

J-Mart wrote:

If Deng doesn't come back to old Deng form and if Tyrus and Noah don't significantly improve, I would be surprised if we got the 8th seed if Gordon leaves.

I think we can mask the fact that Gordon left IF everyone else stepped up. But I don't see us being a better team next year with out Gordon. We may have a higher record only because of how dreadful we were at the beginning of this past season.

We were playing at around 50 win standard after the trade deadline.

You take a 50 win team, add to it improvement from Derrick Rose, and put Deng back on it (since you surely can't assume he'll be injured all year). I find it very, very hard to imagine taking Ben Gordon away from that team takes it under .500. Gordon is good, but the difference between a Rose-Gordon-Salmons-Hinrich 1-2-3 rotation and a Rose-Deng-Salmons-Hinrich one is not 10 wins.

We'll win more games next year unless we get hit awfully badly with injuries, Gordon or no Gordon.

I agree if there are no injuries it's probably 45 wins but not 50 without Gordon. You can almost count on some injuries to the 1,2,or 3 positions (especially Deng). But 45 with periodic misses is not out of a possibility. If there are any long periods of time missed they probably miss the playoffs though and finish just under 500, which Deng would be my biggest worry here.

 

[Shakes]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

I think Salmons is the biggest variable in the equation, not Deng. Firstly he basically played SF full time for us, so we have no idea how he'll do at SG. Secondly he played way better than he has before this past year, so whether he'll be able to keep it up is anybody's guess.

Even given Deng's poor play this year, he still managed better numbers than Salmons has put up in any other year of his career. Of course you do have the injury worries with Deng, but again he's had 2 healthy years out of 5. Salmons has had 1 good year out of 7.

 

[J-Mart]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

Shakes wrote:

J-Mart wrote:

If Deng doesn't come back to old Deng form and if Tyrus and Noah don't significantly improve, I would be surprised if we got the 8th seed if Gordon leaves.

I think we can mask the fact that Gordon left IF everyone else stepped up. But I don't see us being a better team next year with out Gordon. We may have a higher record only because of how dreadful we were at the beginning of this past season.

We were playing at around 50 win standard after the trade deadline.

You take a 50 win team, add to it improvement from Derrick Rose, and put Deng back on it (since you surely can't assume he'll be injured all year). I find it very, very hard to imagine taking Ben Gordon away from that team takes it under .500. Gordon is good, but the difference between a Rose-Gordon-Salmons-Hinrich 1-2-3 rotation and a Rose-Deng-Salmons-Hinrich one is not 10 wins.

We'll win more games next year unless we get hit awfully badly with injuries, Gordon or no Gordon.

If Gordon is not back next season, mark my words, our team will be easy to defend which will result in .500 basketball. Unless Salmons makes another huge jump, everyone will know who is taking the last shot (Rose). When Gordon is here they at least have to guess between the two. If Salmons really steps up then it won't be as big of an issue, but even then, how long will Salmons be able to keep his play up? If Salmons was four years younger I would be a lot less worried about Ben leaving.

When it comes to resigning Gordon, I am looking at the bigger picture, not just next season. Salmons is not a long term solution.

I also am not banking on staying healthy. Injuries happen. And if any of Rose/Hinrich/Salmons are injured, we are screwed. Unless you like mid-1st round picks in a weak draft playing 30 minutes. Or if you like a lineup of Deng at the two and Tyrus at the 3.

 

[Shakes]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

There's a good chance none of our players are long term solutions. Building a team is going to take trades, so we have to treat them as trade assets.

So really I only look ahead to next year when considering who we put on court, I assume beyond that the team will be shaken up again. We'll have cap space in 2010, even if the big names don't come you've got to think the 2010/11 Bulls will be a different team to what we see next year.

 

[houheffna]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

I look at the bigger picture too. Right now, that is Rose, period. You can find a Gordon before you will find another Rose. He is already a unique point guard on the rise who might be the most athletic PG in the history of the league. A great PG does not necessarily need a great SG beside him, but there is no great SG on the roster anyway.

 

[J-Mart]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

houheffna wrote:

I look at the bigger picture too. Right now, that is Rose, period. You can find a Gordon before you will find another Rose. He is already a unique point guard on the rise who might be the most athletic PG in the history of the league. A great PG does not necessarily need a great SG beside him, but there is no great SG on the roster anyway.

Obviously you can find another Gordon before another Rose. What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't justify letting your leading scorer walk for nothing. I don't think Gordon is the be all end all but you can't just let assets walk for nothing unless you want to be stuck at mediocre. As of right now we are not in the running at getting a SG better than Gordon. So why get rid of him? If we can get something better I am all for moving him but its not happening anytime soon.

 

[houheffna]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

If BG buys in to the fact that he is not the man and will NEVER be the man and that his job is to go "over there" and wait to get the ball, he should stay, he more than likely he will not buy in. That is what I have been saying. But if he does, let him stay and come off the bench. But he must accept the fact that he is not the man.

And who cares who the best scorer is on a team that plays bad basketball? Especially if the leading scorer is expendable. Again, look at game 6 of the playoffs. The guy that should be the starting 2 guard did a bulk of OT scoring. They can improve and have some parts but people who don't buy in have to go...period.

 

[Shakes]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

And you're basing the idea that Ben Gordon doesn't/won't buy into the system on what? I think the fact he came off the bench without complaint while Chris Duhon started strongly suggests that Gordon is the type of guy who will accept his role.

 

[J-Mart]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

Shakes wrote:

And you're basing the idea that Ben Gordon doesn't/won't buy into the system on what? I think the fact he came off the bench without complaint while Chris Duhon started strongly suggests that Gordon is the type of guy who will accept his role.

Exactly, I don't know where this whole Gordon doesn't buy in stuff came from. He has been the most professional guy on this team and never complained about his role.

Funny heffna that you say BG should be coming off the bench. Didn't you just say a day or two ago that you thought Gordon was the 11th best SG in the league? Things are not adding up, typically you don't put a guy on the bench who you would nearly consider top 10 at his position.

 

[houheffna]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

Funny heffna that you say BG should be coming off the bench. Didn't you just say a day or two ago that you thought Gordon was the 11th best SG in the league? Things are not adding up, typically you don't put a guy on the bench who you would nearly consider top 10 at his position.

Ever heard of Kevin McHale? 2x 6th man of the year, maybe the best post player in NBA history? Definitely was in top 10 at his position?

It is a mentality that Gordon has that I am talking about. He wants the ball? Fine, when the franchise sits down, he can have the ball...and let Aaron Gray rebound his shots.

I am basing my opinion of him not buying in on how he plays. Like its Ben and the Gordonaires...

 

[dougthonus]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

houheffna wrote:

I look at the bigger picture too. Right now, that is Rose, period. You can find a Gordon before you will find another Rose. He is already a unique point guard on the rise who might be the most athletic PG in the history of the league. A great PG does not necessarily need a great SG beside him, but there is no great SG on the roster anyway.

Hou, let me ask you this:

How much would you pay Ben Gordon per year if you signed him to a five year deal?

Now take that number, and name all the players in the NBA who are on a long term extension at that price average who you feel are better than Gordon.

Part of my opinion on wanting to keep Gordon (actually the majority of it) is that we can't find a player better than Gordon (likely ever) for the price he was willing to sign for last summer at the end of the day ($9 million per year). If you have no hope of replacing him at the price he's willing to sign for then it makes good sense to sign him.

If Gordon wants 12 million per year and won't sign for less, then I'll be happy to help him pack his bags (okay, I won't actually pack his bags, but I'll wish him good luck on his new team).

When creating a basketball team, you need to get as much value out of a player for as little money as possible. You do this largely by getting guys who are worth more than their paycheck. If you can't name a group of players better than Ben Gordon at the same pricetag he'd sign him for, then you are basically saying that you don't want to add a guy who's worth more than his contract to the team despite the fact that it's the best way to fit more total talent under a finite salary cap space.

 

[dougthonus]

Re:Assuming Gordon is gone, Rose with more scoring

houheffna wrote:

It is a mentality that Gordon has that I am talking about. He wants the ball? Fine, when the franchise sits down, he can have the ball...and let Aaron Gray rebound his shots.

I am basing my opinion of him not buying in on how he plays. Like its Ben and the Gordonaires...

Amare Stoudemire was the only player in the NBA with over 20 points per game and a lower usage rate than Ben Gordon. (24.2% vs 25%) Again, you don't find someone who has the ball less than Gordon who puts up 20 points per game.

Your argument is basically that you do not want another 20 point scorer on this team, because if there is one then that guy will be defined as a ball hog by default. Every guy who puts up Gordon's points uses as many or more shots.