Case for Captain Clutch

[Morten Jensen]

dougthonus wrote:

I think Rose will average around 20 points. Maybe low 20s. As you said, you just give him 2-3 calls that he doesn't get right now, and he's averaging 20 points right now without taking more shots.

He also needs to average a lot of points unless he radically increases his court vision. He certainly doesn't seem like a 10+ assist guy right now.

Neither did Deron Williams. But he may be the exception and not the rule. Rose, with a Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire n board, could definitely be up there. Even if he doesn't crack the 10+ a game, he'll be up there in the rankings, IMO. Even if we went forward with this current roster, I think it's a lock he would average 7+ from next season.

Never underestimate the power of experience. When he comes back and has that rookie year under his belt, he might actually surprise us all. Also, you have to admit his passing instincts have looked better since the All-Star break. They haven't always resulted in assists, but he's found people at the rim and has made some nice passes to trailing shooters.

He's not a flashy passer by any means, and likely won't ever be. But he's effective. The more attention he gets offensively from here on out, the more he'll learn to find open players. He won't have any other choice.

 

[Hoover]

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure BG didn't hit a game winning shot until this year, that's excluding his rookie year. That's not to say he hasn't been great in 4th quarters, he has. He just hasn't been hitting game winners. I guess it also depends on ones definition of game winner. I'm speaking of last second game winners.

 

[Fred]

Hoover wrote:

That's not to say he hasn't been great in 4th quarters, he has. He just hasn't been hitting game winners. I guess it also depends on ones definition of game winner. I'm speaking of last second game winners.

How many games a year come down to a "last second shot"? How many times this year has he been given the ball in that situation? I can recall one against Indiana, where he failed. The game before, he was given that chance, and he hit a fallaway 2 over Bosh that sent the game into overtime against the Raptors. I would argue his 4 point plays against the Clippers and Detroit in the final minute were incredibly clutch, but would they qualify under your definition of "last second game winners". Technically not, but does it matter? With few exceptions, Rose has taken every other last second shot...Minnesota, 76ers, Miami, Utah (Hughes last second shot) come to mind immediately. Salmons was given a chance against Miami and he failed.

Now, you've admitted he's been great this year, and he was great in his rookie year. There is no arguing the fact about his rookie year...he was second only to Kobe.
(http://www.82games.com/clutchplayers.htm) Who was taking those last second shots in 06-07 when he averaged 21 points. I don't ever recall Deng making a last second shot. Kush can expound on the time he failed miserably. I don't recall Hinrich making one. Does anyone remember?

 

[??? ??????]

Hoover wrote:

I've seen much discussion of late about Gordons "cluchness", I think it's important to remember that until this year Gordon has been terrible at last second shots. That's exluding his rookie year when he was money. I remember game after game where he would stand at the top key and either miss a jump shot or dribble off his foot. That said he's been great this year and I think it's much impart to Rose and now Salmons. Rose may not have hit any shots at theend, but his driving threat leaves BG open for better shots.

Not true. He made more game winners in 06-07 then he did in his rookie season.

 

[cool007]

Morten Jensen wrote:

dougthonus wrote:

I think Rose will average around 20 points. Maybe low 20s. As you said, you just give him 2-3 calls that he doesn't get right now, and he's averaging 20 points right now without taking more shots.

He also needs to average a lot of points unless he radically increases his court vision. He certainly doesn't seem like a 10+ assist guy right now.

Neither did Deron Williams. But he may be the exception and not the rule. Rose, with a Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire n board, could definitely be up there. Even if he doesn't crack the 10+ a game, he'll be up there in the rankings, IMO. Even if we went forward with this current roster, I think it's a lock he would average 7+ from next season.

Never underestimate the power of experience. When he comes back and has that rookie year under his belt, he might actually surprise us all. Also, you have to admit his passing instincts have looked better since the All-Star break. They haven't always resulted in assists, but he's found people at the rim and has made some nice passes to trailing shooters.

He's not a flashy passer by any means, and likely won't ever be. But he's effective. The more attention he gets offensively from here on out, the more he'll learn to find open players. He won't have any other choice.

Agree.

IMO, Rose needs atleast 1 or 2 more years of seasoning and experience and he will be right there around 8-9 assists a game IMO. Closer to 9+ if we can bring in Bosh/Amare who can shoot from outside AND can finish inside. Paul has/had CHandler/West. Deron has/had Okur/Boozer/Millsap. Our big guys are NOWHERE near theirs (not 1 and they have BOTH frontcourt players) and you give Rose those type of guys and he would be averaging 7.5 to 8 assists a game right now.

IMO, Rose's game is more like Wade/LeBron than Paul/Magic etc. Rose doesn't have that creative passing in him like Paul/Magic but he will find the open guys and put them in the shooting/layup/dunking range where they can finish just like how LeBron/Wade/Pippen/Grant Hill did or been doing.

I would be pretty darn happy with that.

 

[Fred]

Let me also make something clear. Rose is great, and he'll be fine with or without Gordon. But when your 3 can't hit the 3, a la Luol Deng, and Rose's best quality is his ability to penetrate, you better have someone on the team that can hit consistently at a 40% rate from 3-point range to extend the defense.

Salmons can do it. I love the guy. But he's almost 30. When Rose is just hitting his prime in 3 years, how good will Salmons be? Do you see a ton of great 33-year olds playing the 2 and 3 in this league? Gordon just turned 26 on Saturday.

Salmons has definitely erased the nuclear winter scenario for next year, provided that Deng figures out a way to overcome his funk, physically and mentally. But it will still be cold outside, until we bring in a special 4 or 5 (Hopefully Bosh). If we don't get him, and we'll face 2010, 2011, 2012, with an aging Salmons, a brittle Deng, a superstar in Rose, and a 30-year old Hinrich...God help us.

 

[cool007]

Fred wrote:

Let me also make something clear. Rose is great, and he'll be fine with or without Gordon. But when your 3 can't hit the 3, a la Luol Deng, and Rose's best quality is his ability to penetrate, you better have someone on the team that can hit consistently at a 40% rate from 3-point range to extend the defense.

Salmons can do it. I love the guy. But he's almost 30. When Rose is just hitting his prime in 3 years, how good will Salmons be? Do you see a ton of great 33-year olds playing the 2 and 3 in this league? Gordon just turned 26 on Saturday.

Salmons has definitely erased the nuclear winter scenario for next year, provided that Deng figures out a way to overcome his funk, physically and mentally. But it will still be cold outside, until we bring in a special 4 or 5 (Hopefully Bosh). If we don't get him, and we'll face 2010, 2011, 2012, with an aging Salmons, a brittle Deng, a superstar in Rose, and a 30-year old Hinrich...God help us.

Totally agree.

This is why - why let the sure thing in Gordon go? He has been doing this since his rookie year and has gotten better (defense/going to free throw line/efficiency etc) yet, we paid the wrong guy who hasn't improved much and actually regressed. While we are questioning about keeping our best player (last 4 years IMO) because we paid the wrong guys???

The way Rose/Gordon are clicking together, I don't want that to change - I want Pax to add to it - bring in Bosh/Amare and see how it goes. I have no doubt we would be contenders and even win the whole thing in 2-3 years if Rose blossoms like we all think he would.

 

[??? ??????]

cool007 wrote:

Fred wrote:

Let me also make something clear. Rose is great, and he'll be fine with or without Gordon. But when your 3 can't hit the 3, a la Luol Deng, and Rose's best quality is his ability to penetrate, you better have someone on the team that can hit consistently at a 40% rate from 3-point range to extend the defense.

Salmons can do it. I love the guy. But he's almost 30. When Rose is just hitting his prime in 3 years, how good will Salmons be? Do you see a ton of great 33-year olds playing the 2 and 3 in this league? Gordon just turned 26 on Saturday.

Salmons has definitely erased the nuclear winter scenario for next year, provided that Deng figures out a way to overcome his funk, physically and mentally. But it will still be cold outside, until we bring in a special 4 or 5 (Hopefully Bosh). If we don't get him, and we'll face 2010, 2011, 2012, with an aging Salmons, a brittle Deng, a superstar in Rose, and a 30-year old Hinrich...God help us.

Totally agree.

This is why - why let the sure thing in Gordon go? He has been doing this since his rookie year and has gotten better (defense/going to free throw line/efficiency etc) yet, we paid the wrong guy who hasn't improved much and actually regressed. While we are questioning about keeping our best player (last 4 years IMO) because we paid the wrong guys???

The way Rose/Gordon are clicking together, I don't want that to change - I want Pax to add to it - bring in Bosh/Amare and see how it goes. I have no doubt we would be contenders and even win the whole thing in 2-3 years if Rose blossoms like we all think he would.

Agreed. I don't care whether Gordon says a word to Rose outside of practices or in the games, because it doesn't matter. What they have on the court together is a pretty special thing. And this is with Rose not even being that good yet. When Rose begins to hit his stride, the duo will be even more deadly.

 

[Kush77]

Oh man Fred. That was classic.

The support of suburban white kids is an underrated aspect of the game :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Is basketball ever spoken of as a game of inches? Or is that football? If it''s basketball than Kirk's extra inch is the key to title #7.

 

[mlewinth]

I bet we win more games next year than this year even if Gordon leaves and we make no significant additions to the team outside of our draft picks.

Doug, I sorry, but the degenerate gambler in me needs to speak!! I would like to take that bet! Assuming we have no major additions to our team, I say if we loose Gordon, we will less games next year.

 

[Fred]

mlewinth wrote:

Doug, I sorry, but the degenerate gambler in me needs to speak!! I would like to take that bet! Assuming we have no major additions to our team, I say if we loose Gordon, we will less games next year.

Now that Mark has taken the under, I feel better about our chances next year. His parlays have been ice cold. We'll probably win 70 now.

 

[riv]

Hinrich makes a little too much to be a third guard. If you can trade Hiny and re-sign Gordon at about $7 mil/year, I would consider it, but anything more for a guard who isn't going to start is too much. And I'm guessing Gordon wouldn't start next year, with Salmons at the 2 and Deng at the 3.

If you want to be a player in the summer of 2010, and if that falls through have the ability to eventually re-sign Tyrus, paying a backup guard $10 mil/year is not a good idea. Because after all the teams who are clearing cap room for 2010 miss out on Lebron, Wade, Bosh, and Stoudemire, Tyrus is going to start to look pretty good. He'll be a restricted free agent in 2010, and some team will likely make him a ridiculous offer, in the hopes of salvaging something.

My guess is that Gordon, after not getting any satisfactory contract offers this summer, will sign a one-year deal with the Knicks, average about 25 next season, and then hope to pick up a good deal in 2010 from one of the teams with cap space who misses out on the Big 4.

Also, my fear with keeping Hinrich is that Rose will never be able to fully take the leadership role on this team. His natural inclination is to defer to Hinrich. Regardless, Rose should be named the sole captain next year.

Salmons is a little older, but he's not that much older than Hinrich.

 

[dougthonus]

Doug, I sorry, but the degenerate gambler in me needs to speak!! I would like to take that bet! Assuming we have no major additions to our team, I say if we loose Gordon, we will less games next year.

The usual amount?

I'm in.

(okay, so we've never made a bet before, but the usual amount for me is dinner)

As soon as I get some breathing room with consulting work, I'm going to set up a nice portion of the site for you degenerate gamblers.

 

[st. park]

dougthonus wrote:

I think a big thing is that Salmons is going to take over Gordon's role. Thus far for the Bulls, Salmons has been a megastud in the clutch as well. Basically just as good as Gordon from an efficiency stand point and 38 points per 48 minutes.

Salmons/Rose will take over that clutch scoring role. Hinrich will become the supersub on a reasonable contract and give you defense.

I'm not sure if this will be the case. I think that one of the main reasons that the Bulls have improved so much since the trade is having a viable 3rd scoring option. Without Gordon, you're back to where you started this year. Lacking an elite defense, 2 scoring options won't cut it. I agree with you that Rose will score more next season (he should score 20 pgg), but I'm just not confident that Salmons will maintain his high level of performance. He just hasn't put up the numbers for a long enough time period for me to have that full confidence in him for a prolonged period of time.

 

[cool007]

dougthonus wrote:

Doug, I sorry, but the degenerate gambler in me needs to speak!! I would like to take that bet! Assuming we have no major additions to our team, I say if we loose Gordon, we will less games next year.

The usual amount?

I'm in.

(okay, so we've never made a bet before, but the usual amount for me is dinner)

As soon as I get some breathing room with consulting work, I'm going to set up a nice portion of the site for you degenerate gamblers.

I would like to be in too. (I also agree that if BG leaves and we don't bring in a big time player like Bosh/Amare then we will be a worse team).

Hey but what if BG does re-sign??? Bets off then???

 

[Fred]

riv wrote:

My guess is that Gordon, after not getting any satisfactory contract offers this summer, will sign a one-year deal with the Knicks, average about 25 next season, and then hope to pick up a good deal in 2010 from one of the teams with cap space who misses out on the Big 4.

I think this is highly, highly unlikely for 2 reasons:

1. I think he'll get a "satisfactory" offer from someone.
2. I think he wants some security. Let's not forget, he tried to take the Bulls offer...it was the Bulls who took it off the table. To sign another 1-year deal is really playing with fire.

 

[mlewinth]

[/quote]

I think this is highly, highly unlikely for 2 reasons:

1. I think he'll get a "satisfactory" offer from someone.
2. I think he wants some security. Let's not forget, he tried to take the Bulls offer...it was the Bulls who took it off the table. To sign another 1-year deal is really playing with fire.[/quote]

Fred,

You are ridiculously pesimistic and angry when it comes to the topic of BG7. I still bet that Gordon will be a Bull next year. We can offer him the year, the money and we have a established need for him, whereas other teams have to convince themeselves that a 6'2 guard is the key to winning.

A part of me kinda hopes Ben walks for one reason. I just want to see how Fred will react! Will you cry? Will you leave the public eye and hide in obsurity for the rest of your life? Nervous breakdown? WHO KNOWS!? That is what is so exciting!I personally see a scene similar to when Sarah Connor was in the mental institution in T2, only you have Fred at one end of the table talking about this fantasey of how BG will destory every team in the leauge in the next 5 yrs and when the psychologist tells him he's nuts, he jumps over a table and trys to give him a shot of anti-freeze in the neck screaming "ILL PUMP HIM FULL OF THIS SHIT, I SWEAR!" One thing is for sure though, that there will be an empty space on your nightstand where that Ben Gordon profile pic sat!

 

[cool007]

Fred wrote:

riv wrote:

My guess is that Gordon, after not getting any satisfactory contract offers this summer, will sign a one-year deal with the Knicks, average about 25 next season, and then hope to pick up a good deal in 2010 from one of the teams with cap space who misses out on the Big 4.

I think this is highly, highly unlikely for 2 reasons:

1. I think he'll get a "satisfactory" offer from someone.
2. I think he wants some security. Let's not forget, he tried to take the Bulls offer...it was the Bulls who took it off the table. To sign another 1-year deal is really playing with fire.

To add: He will also be worried about getting hurt and then it will really minimize his chances even further. He wouldn't even get MLE if he got seriously hurt.

I think Gordon will take whatever the best offer he can get this summer and just move on. Hopefully it is Bulls who make a descent offer and BG accepts it.

 

[J-Mart]

I just don't think our team will have a better record next year if Gordon leaves assuming that we don't add anything significant and also assuming Deng keeps playing like crap. If we do it will be because of the additions of Miller and Salmons that we didn't have the first half of this year. There is no question in my mind that we would have a better record with Gordon than without Gordon. I am not confident with only Rose/Salmons being able to perform in the clutch, Rose obviously has had trouble in the past and without BG that makes it incredibly easy for the defense to know who is taking the shot. I am also skeptical of how long Salmons can continue this high level of play.


Gordon has shown that he is a work horse and IMO has improved almost every season. There is no question that his height/defense deficiencies are overblown and usually made by fans who don't consistently watch this team. I think strength is more important for good defense than height, and there is no question Gordon has the strength to be a little above average defender. As right now I would argue he is an average defender, which is a huge improvement from where he used to be. The fact of the matter is that Gordon is not hurting us on defense, it is our post defense that hurts us more. If we can address that I would be more than comfortable with Gordon on defense.

Gordon is extremely important to this team and the only way I wouldn't miss him is if we somehow traded for Amare or Bosh.

 

[TheStig]

dougthonus wrote:

Doug, I sorry, but the degenerate gambler in me needs to speak!! I would like to take that bet! Assuming we have no major additions to our team, I say if we loose Gordon, we will less games next year.

The usual amount?

I'm in.

(okay, so we've never made a bet before, but the usual amount for me is dinner)

As soon as I get some breathing room with consulting work, I'm going to set up a nice portion of the site for you degenerate gamblers.

Lol didn't the US ban online gambling?