Gordon could be gone in a flash

[??? ??????]

Now what?

After 42 points in a playoff game. Dagger after dagger after dagger into the hearts of the Celtics. In the Garden (or at least the new Garden)! Against the guy he idolized, whose legacy he tried to reach in college. One of the most beautiful performances we've seen by anyone not named Jordan in a Chicago Bulls uniform.

And yet the performance could not be truly enjoyed because all folks in the Windy City could think about was this: Will he be back in a Bulls uniform next season?

Ben Gordon is playing for a contract. Let's get that straight and on the table up front. He's ballin' for dollars. But if his Game 2 performance doesn't wake up the minds and open up the hedge fund controlled by John Paxson and Jerry Reinsdorf, respectively (and respectfully), then we might as well just embrace this first-round revelation for what it is: an anomaly.

Gordon's future has become the argument overtaking the city: Should he stay or should he go? The clash between his being what the Bulls need and what they can do without is reaching "Good Rex/Bad Rex" proportions. On radio shows, in bars and barbershops on the North Side, South Side and West Side, doormen at the W on Lake Shore, at O'Hare, in Boston, the debate has swelled about what the Bulls need to do with BG once the season ends. Which is why we need to pay very, very close attention to everything he does during this series, because this could be the last time we see Ben Gordon doing amazing things for the Bulls.

The Gordon enigma -- from a basketball standpoint -- has been thoroughly documented and understood. He's the classic version of heaven and hell, faults and virtues. He's a non-prima donna version of Alfonso Soriano. He can kill the opponent ... or kill his own team.

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/columns/story?columnist=jackson_scoop&id=4089100

 

[??? ??????]

It's going to be sad if the Bulls let the best player since Michael Jordan walk. That's our options pretty much, re-sign Gordon or walk.

The Bulls have no one to blame but themselves. Gordon accepted a bargain deal, and they wouldn't let him sign it. Now they've put themselves in a position where they will be forced to overpay Gordon to retain him, because one of their division rivals has cap space, and are sending under currents to Gordon's people already.

It'll be extremely sad if we only get to see one year of the great Rose/Gordon backcourt.

 

[dougthonus]

I agree that we will get nothing back for Gordon if he leaves, and that there's a high chance that he walks.

I hope we are able to sign him, but I am not holding my breath. The idea that this is a good Rex / bad Rex scenario is laughable. Gordon is just good. He doesn't kill the team in any way, there is no "down side" to Gordon like people portray.

 

[dougthonus]

The only chance Gordon stays IMO is if he has a monster playoffs and the Bulls make it to the second round or farther, and JR decides to pay the tax. I see no way that the Bulls can figure out a way to sign Gordon and stay below the tax, so we have to pay the tax.

In order to do that the team will need to advance and Gordon will need to be a big part of it, of course the bigger part of it he is the higher the chance another team steps up and makes him a big offer lowering our odds of keeping him in some ways too.

Basically, regardless of what happens form here on out, it seems unlikely that Gordon will remain a Bull.

The Bulls have no one to blame for that, but themselves, however, Gordon has no one to blame for it (if he wanted to stay) but himself either. This is a scenario where either side could have fixed things at any point and neither side did.

From the Bulls organization perspective that was a big mistake from them. From Gordon's future financial standing it may also be a huge mistake for him. It could easily turn into a situation where both sides screwed themselves.

 

[fola]

dougthonus wrote:

I agree that we will get nothing back for Gordon if he leaves, and that there's a high chance that he walks.

I hope we are able to sign him, but I am not holding my breath. The idea that this is a good Rex / bad Rex scenario is laughable. Gordon is just good. He doesn't kill the team in any way, there is no "down side" to Gordon like people portray.

I was thinking the same thing. I mean come on! Granted he can have his poor shooting nights, but still... stuff like this drives me crazy. I'm trying to hold out hope that we'll be able to sign him but it's getting really difficult. Maybe we should start a collection at the game. Just enough to keep them under the cap. or at least some kind of petition.

 

[chi_hawks_23]

fola wrote:

dougthonus wrote:

I agree that we will get nothing back for Gordon if he leaves, and that there's a high chance that he walks.

I hope we are able to sign him, but I am not holding my breath. The idea that this is a good Rex / bad Rex scenario is laughable. Gordon is just good. He doesn't kill the team in any way, there is no "down side" to Gordon like people portray.

I was thinking the same thing. I mean come on! Granted he can have his poor shooting nights, but still... stuff like this drives me crazy. I'm trying to hold out hope that we'll be able to sign him but it's getting really difficult. Maybe we should start a collection at the game. Just enough to keep them under the cap. or at least some kind of petition.

I wonder what happens if Rose says "Id really prefer it if you re-signed Ben. It would make me MUCH more likely to stay here when my contract come up if Ben is here".

What does JR do then?

Bottom line is I hope to christ JR resigns Ben. That solidifies our 1,2,and 5 positions for the next 5-7 years. Adding that dominant SF or PF is the last piece.

 

[TheStig]

I really hope not. BG is really starting to round out into a nice scorer and all around player. He isn't an amazing instinctive defender but he is turning into a good team defender that can play within a scheme. And he is really getting consistent from game to game. I really hope we can keep him and I think if he gets 8 per will be underpaid in a yr or two.

 

[cool007]

I will be SUPER MAD and SUPER SAD if BG is not back with Bulls next year. I don't care if we had to pay the tax - PAY THE MAN damnit.

I thought JR said he doesn't mind paying tax for a Winner and aren't we a winner??? I think with BG and Rose, we would be set for the next 5 years in the backcourt and if we get a player like Bosh, then WATCHOUT.

You have a penetrator in Rose, you have a pretty damn good shooter/scorer in Gordon and then you have a one of the top Big man in the game today - who is also really young.

I say resign BG and pay the tax for 1 freaking year and then build the team around BG/Rose and either Tyrus/Noah or bring in a Bosh/Amare and go from there.

 

[PJ Brown]

Doug's is really the only post that looks at the whole issue. Obviously, the Bulls are to blame for the reasons mentioned throughout the thread, and taking the deal off the table when Gordon came back for it after the artificial deadline will, in particular, look awful in retrospect. But, just in the interest of fairness, it has to be pointed out that Gordon turned down above market value offers in back to back seasons--and I think it fair to say the deals were above market given that he had, by any account I'm aware of, no other offers even remotely close to what the Bulls had on the table. This situation has been created by both parties. Both have gambled greatly to get to where they are, and both stand to crap out. Gordon's great play may just get him the big deal, either from the Bulls or from another party. The Bulls might still be able to keep him, but almost certainly paying him more than previously offered or while sacrificing other players or plans (i.e. dumping Kirk and/or Deng or scrapping plans to score big with Bosh). When you let it ride, you stand to lose; unfortunatlely, it's Bulls fans who are most likely to lose out.

 

[dougthonus]

I thought JR said he doesn't mind paying tax for a Winner and aren't we a winner???

No. No, we are not a winner. 41 games and possibly upsetting a team in the first round because they're missing their best player and one of his backups doesn't make us a winner.

If we're a team that has a legit title chance then I think JR may pay the tax, but we're no where near that team.

 

[cool007]

dougthonus wrote:

I thought JR said he doesn't mind paying tax for a Winner and aren't we a winner???

No. No, we are not a winner. 41 games and possibly upsetting a team in the first round because they're missing their best player and one of his backups doesn't make us a winner.

If we're a team that has a legit title chance then I think JR may pay the tax, but we're no where near that team.

Maybe not this year but if you think about it for a minute.

We keep BG and have a chance at going after Amare/Bosh this summer - then we could be a 2nd best team in the East next year.

OR, even if we don't bring in Amare/Bosh, we re-sign BG, and let Rose/BG grow together - this Bulls team already have a great chemistry. Rose/Tyrus/Noah/Vinny all grow into their roles and progress even further, I think we can STILL be 2nd/3rd best team in the East next year.

If that is not a winner/or going in the right direction then what is???

 

[PJ Brown]

While I think most fans would agree that the Bulls are headed in the right direction, Jerry's definition of winner is much higher than that. I mean, we are talking about the owner of the Bulls during the Jordan years. Jerry almost certainly means he'll pay the tax for the player who puts the team in a position to win it all--as in, he'd of paid it for Kobe. Maybe he'll pay it for Bosh and Amar'e, but that remains to be seen. There is nothing he has done or said that indicates he'd do it for Gordon, especially when we know that JR is the main reason we haven't signed Gordon already. Now, I'm not saying he's right--as clearly the makings of greatness is here now with Rose--I'm just saying that's how the stubborn old guy wants it. It wasn't like he was dying to go over the tax a few years back, when the Bulls were flirting with fifty and many national prognosticators thought the team was going to be a player, at least, in the conference finals.

 

[dougthonus]

Maybe not this year but if you think about it for a minute.

We keep BG and have a chance at going after Amare/Bosh this summer - then we could be a 2nd best team in the East next year.

OR, even if we don't bring in Amare/Bosh, we re-sign BG, and let Rose/BG grow together - this Bulls team already have a great chemistry. Rose/Tyrus/Noah/Vinny all grow into their roles and progress even further, I think we can STILL be 2nd/3rd best team in the East next year.

If that is not a winner/or going in the right direction then what is???

JR didn't say he'd pay the tax if we're going in the direction of being a winner.

Also, if we get Amare/Bosh this summer then we may be a winner regardless of whether we can keep BG, so that's not an argument that supports getting him.

Right now, we're a mediocre team with a strong end of the season as constituted. That's not a team that's screaming "make us one of the highest salaries teams in the league for the next year in the middle of this god awful economy where you'll probably lose 20 million off last year's net profit even if you didn't pay the tax, but we want you to add an additional 12 million to salary".

I wish we would pay the tax. I wish JR would feel he owed it to us for all the money he made off of Jordan and the post Jordan era. I wish he would say "Okay, this is a horrible financial decision given the economy, but I'm going to make it because I owe the fans one". Maybe he will, but I'm not betting on it.

 

[rtblues]

Guys with pure shots like B.G.'s don't come around very often.
Gotta keep him!

Same like the adage, you can't coach 7 feet;
You can't coach a jump shot!

This is a weapon a LOT of teams would love to have.
And he proved he is still very effective not starting.

If they do lose Ben G, watch him lay 40 on us first time back
at the U.C.!
:woohoo:

 

[??? ??????]

PJ Brown wrote:

Doug's is really the only post that looks at the whole issue. Obviously, the Bulls are to blame for the reasons mentioned throughout the thread, and taking the deal off the table when Gordon came back for it after the artificial deadline will, in particular, look awful in retrospect. But, just in the interest of fairness, it has to be pointed out that Gordon turned down above market value offers in back to back seasons--and I think it fair to say the deals were above market given that he had, by any account I'm aware of, no other offers even remotely close to what the Bulls had on the table. This situation has been created by both parties. Both have gambled greatly to get to where they are, and both stand to crap out. Gordon's great play may just get him the big deal, either from the Bulls or from another party. The Bulls might still be able to keep him, but almost certainly paying him more than previously offered or while sacrificing other players or plans (i.e. dumping Kirk and/or Deng or scrapping plans to score big with Bosh). When you let it ride, you stand to lose; unfortunatlely, it's Bulls fans who are most likely to lose out.

Above market value? John Paxson admitted in 2007 that Ben Gordon's offer was below market value, because it was an extension, and for that security, the players need to give up some money.

I don't think last year's was above market value either. Just because Sam Smith and the drones of the media say so, doesn't make it the case. The Miami Heat definitely were willing to meet Ben Gordon's salary demands, as were the Knicks. I heard somewhere that the figure that the Bulls used for Deng's contract was the amount that the Utah Jazz were offering him in a sign and trade scenario. Why wasn't Gordon allotted the same treatment?

And even with that, Ben Gordon wasn't turning down an above market value deal anyhow, as he agreed to sign the $54 million over 6 year deal.

If Ben Gordon was drafted by the Knicks, Heat, Raptors, Clippers, Warriors, etc. and did what he did, he would be signed to a longterm deal right now.

The Bulls front office is by far the least player friendly front office in the NBA. This is all on the Bulls' front office, not Gordon.

 

[??? ??????]

dougthonus wrote:

I thought JR said he doesn't mind paying tax for a Winner and aren't we a winner???

No. No, we are not a winner. 41 games and possibly upsetting a team in the first round because they're missing their best player and one of his backups doesn't make us a winner.

If we're a team that has a legit title chance then I think JR may pay the tax, but we're no where near that team.

And we won't get there either, when we are letting out best player walk for nothing. But that's probably what JR wants. A mediocre team that will make it into the playoffs as a 4-8 seed every year, so he can get that extra playoff revenue, while never having to commit to paying the tax.

 

[Dpauley23]

Where did you this crap about Paxson admitted he gave Gorden under market value contract? From what I've heard Paxson felt he was overpaying Gordon and was betrayed by him declining the offer

 

[??? ??????]

Dpauley23 wrote:

Where did you this crap about Paxson admitted he gave Gorden under market value contract? From what I've heard Paxson felt he was overpaying Gordon and was betrayed by him declining the offer

Paxson has long stated that with extensions, the guys have to give up some money in exchange for longterm security.

I doubt that Ben Gordon, who was only being offered $500k a year more than Hinrich, was the exception to that, and being paid fairly or above market value.

 

[Dpauley23]

Paxson has said that he overpaid Hinrich, but just wanted to thank him for turning the franchise around

 

[Fred]

Dpauley23 wrote:

Paxson has said that he overpaid Hinrich, but just wanted to thank him for turning the franchise around

Where and when did he say that? They won 30 games before his rookie year. They won 23 games during his rookie year. Are you saying that he is more responsible than Deng, Gordon, & Noce for the real turnaround when they arrived?