So this is it. The fate of Ben Gordon, the Bulls' leading scorer the last four consecutive seasons—only Michael Jordan and Bob Love have done so in franchise history—begins to get decided this week.
Gordon, as we know, is an unrestricted free agent, having rejected deals of $50 million for five years and $54 million for six years the last two off-seasons. So it cannot be said the Bulls haven't tried to sign him. But when Gordon balked last fall, Gordon said the Bulls pulled the final offer and didn't reinstate it when Gordon changed his mind. The Bulls say they want to retain Gordon and Gordon hasn't said he doesn't want to be a former Bull.
It seems, though, with speculated interest from the Detroit Pistons and some uneasiness between the Gordon camp and the Bulls that Gordon will become a former Bull.
We all know his flaws: Defensive issues, ballhandling issues, overdribbling issues, size issues. That is a lot of issues. Perhaps half the mail I get, surprisingly, suggests the Bulls move on without him.
I'd try to keep him, which would mean dealing Kirk Hinrich. The thinking among some is Hinrich's versatility is more important because he can back up Derrick Rose and also play shooting guard and defend guards and small forwards. The Bulls hope to present a stronger defensive identity next season. So perhaps they wouldn't as much miss Gordon's 20 points per game because they'd be giving up fewer with a three guard rotation of Rose, Hinrich and John Salmons. More size, more tenacity.
It's a reasonable theory and may be the right one.
I just think Gordon is such a unique talent you'd spend more time trying to replace someone like him than, say, someone like Hinrich. I do like Hinrich and have long been a champion. I also believe he is good enough he should start in the NBA. He never will again with Rose. I believe he'd be the good soldier and accept that third guard role. But how long would his heart be in it?
bamainatlantaYou wake him up, you keep him up