Gordon, is it worth the effort?

[dougthonus]

Ben Gordon has possibly been the Bulls best player this season depending on whether you count John Salmons and what you think of Derrick Rose.

We clearly, financially and possibly roster wise, need to lose one of Deng, Gordon, Hinrich, Salmons, or Rose. It's definitely not going to be Rose, and given Salmon's contract vs his production it seems unlikely to be him as well.

However, to get rid of Hinrich/Deng it may take positive assets to convince someone else to take on the salary to make room for Gordon. The problem is that you can't simply dump them for expiring deals, but instead you need to dump them to a team under the cap or for non guaranteed deals which will be much harder as there are so few teams who can do that and those teams can bid on a lot of good players, so we may need to send 1st round picks or other positive assets to convince them.

Is it worth giving up positive assets to keep Gordon? Assets that could be used on Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire instead?

 

[Kush77]

I'm a biggest Gordon supporter this side of Fred Pfieffer, but I think he's gone. Especially with the way Salmons has played.

There's no way they move Deng. Not with that contract and his injury proneness. Hinrich's deal goes down every year, so that suit Bulls' management just fine. So why would they re-sign Gordon when Salmons pretty much fills the scoring void that would be left?

My only concern (besides Deng's injuries and Hinrich's inconsistent offense) is, is Salmons for real? Can he do this again next year, 20 ppg? I don't know, he will be 30 next year so he isn't young.

But I think Gordon is gone, which is too bad.

 

[Newskoolbulls]

I have come to like Ben and I really think we could sign him for 35 mil over 5 years. I think this deal and trying to move Kirks deal for short deals will not hinder us in the pursuit for a big come 2010.

 

[collisrost]

Newskoolbulls wrote:

I really think we could sign him for 35 mil over 5 years.

I'm all over that deal. I doubt Gordon is, though.

 

[dougthonus]

5/35 is going to be too cheap because that's sub-MLE. Gordon will get the full MLE from someone, so we'd be have to pay at least a little more than that even in the best case scenario. I think 5/40 is probably about the floor we could get Gordon for.

 

[HeavyC]

I think you have to keep your most talented players. He's clearly better and more valuable to the franchise then either Deng or Hinrich. If the Bulls have any chance to move one of those two in order to keep Gordon, then you have to do it. Especially if the current financial climate is going to allow the Bulls to sign him for around the MLE.

If Hinrich / Deng can be turned into Amare / Bosh and they bring Gordon back, the team is finally headed in the right direction.

Rose / Gordon / Salmons / Amare|Bosh / Noah (assuming Tyrus has to go in any deal to bring back a PF)

 

[dougthonus]

HeavyC wrote:

I think you have to keep your most talented players. He's clearly better and more valuable to the franchise then either Deng or Hinrich. If the Bulls have any chance to move one of those two in order to keep Gordon, then you have to do it. Especially if the current financial climate is going to allow the Bulls to sign him for around the MLE.

If Hinrich / Deng can be turned into Amare / Bosh and they bring Gordon back, the team is finally headed in the right direction.

Rose / Gordon / Salmons / Amare|Bosh / Noah (assuming Tyrus has to go in any deal to bring back a PF)

I certainly can't disagree with the stance that if you could turn Hinrich/Deng into Bosh/Amare, but my theory is that you can't. To farther not only can you not turn Hinrich/Deng into something good, but you will have to give up something good in order to move one of them and make room for Gordon.

My question is:

Would you rather have Deng + 2 1st rounders or Gordon, or maybe Hinrich + 1 of our 1st rounders or Gordon. I think we'll have to give up picks in order to move them for immediate salary relief, and even then that might not be good enough.

 

[HeavyC]

Personally, I'd still want Gordon. The Bulls aren't going to be a team that can afford to coddle any more draft picks. It's time to put solid players next to Rose. Gordon has that killer instinct that I just don't see in Deng. I like Hinrich fine I guess, but as a backup it's just overkill.

I'd clear Deng out for just about anything and roll with Salmons next year. Even if he walks in the future, it's not too difficult to find a decent 3. Especially a 3 that you are looking to come in and be the 3rd or maybe 4th option.

I think the better question is, can the Bulls afford to just let their 2nd most valuable player walk away for nothing?

 

[Kush77]

There's no way Gordon signs for that cheap. He would be better off taking another 1-year deal and going for bigger money in 2010 when teams will have money to spend.

 

[ryguy24]

I think you've got to try and do everything to keep him. At the beginning of the year, I thought that the Bulls would evaluate him this year and assess whether or not he could fit next to Rose, and while it may not be perfect, I think the answer to that question is yes (assuming you have some big 2 guard that can guard others when needed).

 

[collisrost]

Gordon is damn good. Really good. He's a great complement to Rose, especially in Vinny's guard oriented offense. And he's an underrated defender. And Salmons is fabulous in this offense too, and he's a good defender. Both Kirk and Luol are just as expendable as Nocioni was once we got Tyrus playing decently well.

 

[tyrus thomas]

i have a feeling gordon will re sign with chicago on the cheaper for one year and hope to clean up on left over 2010 money

 

[dougthonus]

I really don't think Gordon will sign a 1 year with us and hope to clean up in 2010. The problem is that we'd need to do a lot of work to make salary room available to sign him to a deal, so why would we bother doing that work just to get him for 1 year.

If he does sign for 1 year with us it'd be for around the MLE which is all we'd have available to sign him. In which case, why sign with us? Why not go sign with the Lakers or Cavaliers for 1 year and the MLE? I guess if he signs with us, he'd still have bird rights here whereas he wouldn't with anyone else, but I think he'd go title chance instead.

 

[dougthonus]

collisrost wrote:

Gordon is damn good. Really good. He's a great complement to Rose, especially in Vinny's guard oriented offense. And he's an underrated defender. And Salmons is fabulous in this offense too, and he's a good defender. Both Kirk and Luol are just as expendable as Nocioni was once we got Tyrus playing decently well.

I didn't spell this out earlier, but my big part of the problem is that if we give up assets to keep Gordon, those are the same assets you'd need to trade for Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire.

I don't think it will be a straight choice between Hinrich / Deng / Gordon, we'll need to create room in a very bad economy for Gordon and that will prove difficult. One thing is Hinrich has played really well the 2nd half of this season, and his deal which I believe averages just under 9 million per year for the next 3 years probably won't be seen as that much of an albatross due to it's short term nature and Hinrich's steady play.

I think we could move Hinrich for an expiring with ease, but I don't think we can move him for pure cap space, that will be really tough.

The best solution would be if Uncle Jerry would buck up and pay the tax for just this one season, but that seems unlikely.

 

[collisrost]

I sort of agree, Doug. To get rid of Deng I agree it's probably necessary to give up some other good assets. But I don't see Hinrich as a liability at all, his salary is just about right for what he can give a team, even in this economy. It might be possible to trade him for some kind of cap relief without giving up our picks.

I also think Kirk and/or Deng might be moved at the same time as a Bosh (or possibly Amare) trade this season. They could either be part of the package or just a simultaneous cap-relief trade.

Or possibly the Bulls could still sign Ben if they think they are getting good value for money in the deal, and plan to either make a salary dump trade or a trade for a superstar at the deadline. In this case the Bulls could give up their 2009 rookies or their future 2010 pick to dump salary. Alternatively we could trade for a star like Bosh. This might mean we pay one year's worth of luxury tax, but if we're getting a great PF at the same time and setting ourselves up for deep playoff runs for years to come JR might be willing to pay the tax for a year.

 

[dougthonus]

collisrost wrote:

I sort of agree, Doug. To get rid of Deng I agree it's probably necessary to give up some other good assets. But I don't see Hinrich as a liability at all, his salary is just about right for what he can give a team, even in this economy. It might be possible to trade him for some kind of cap relief without giving up our picks.

I don't see Hinrich as a liability, but if you're trading him for pure cap space there are only maybe 6-7 teams in the league that you can even talk to. Hinrich isn't going to fit in on all of them, so you might be left with a mere 1-2 teams you can even seriously negotiate with.

I also think Kirk and/or Deng might be moved at the same time as a Bosh (or possibly Amare) trade this season. They could either be part of the package or just a simultaneous cap-relief trade.

I think if we could move Deng as part of the Bosh trade that it'd be great. Toronto has been rumored to like Deng in the past, but I don't know that anyone likes him now.

Or possibly the Bulls could still sign Ben if they think they are getting good value for money in the deal, and plan to either make a salary dump trade or a trade for a superstar at the deadline.

This salary dump will be really hard. By the time the trade deadline hits there might only be a couple teams in the league who have cap space available and a ton of teams who will be dying to get salary relief. Think this year x10 next year. I think if you aren't under the tax at the deadline, then you will have very low odds of getting under it afterwards without paying an astronomical fee in terms of value. Something which we probably wouldn't want to do.

I do think there's a chance we'll trade for a superstar at the deadline if we don't get one in the summer. This is a time where it makes sense to be aggressive as a buyer because everyone else will be aggressively selling.

 

[collisrost]

Ouch. I guess you're saying all my hopes are just wishful thinking. You're probably right, you know the numbers better than I do.

The one saving grace is that we just need ONE team to be willing to make the kind of trade we want to make. So for example if there are only a few teams under the cap we just need one to be willing to take on Kirk without demanding our picks as well. The one thing I will say in this regard is that Kirk is clearly a starter in this league, and he's clearly valuable being a PG. There's always teams looking for a good starting PG.

Or just maybe ther's a team out there with a large trade exception who can take on a smaller salary for nothing. That was a large reason for the Larry Hughes trade.

 

[dougthonus]

I think it's definitely possible. Just not overly likely.

Minnesota seems like the team that might consider it. We don't need to get rid of all of Kirk's contract to stay under the cap, just about half of it. So Minnesota could maybe absorb part of it and then send us Telfair or Madsen instead.

This would kill the 2010 plan because those guys extend an extra year, but if we make a trade for Bosh this summer, then do this move, we wouldn't need the 2010 plan. That's the kind of move you only make after you agree to terms with Gordon.

Timing is an additional factor that will make things difficult, because of the lack of opportunities to make this type of move, we'll need to basically agree to both at the same time, and if Gordon is holding out in negotiations hoping to work a big deal with another team then we may lose our window to pull off a Kirk deal as maybe a team willing to take him moves on if we don't take it right away.

At the same time, we probably don't want to take it right away and then hope we can bring back Gordon without having a deal in place already. It's going to be tough to figure out a way that gordon stays. I hope one is figured out, but I think as long as Salmons continues at his pace that we'll be okay without Gordon if Deng can come back and play reasonably well.

Of course, Deng is a whole other problem, who knows what you can count on from him right now. There are guys in his situation who never come back and guys who come back and play great. I don't think you can really know with him right now, only guess.

 

[collisrost]

dougthonus wrote:

Timing is an additional factor that will make things difficult, because of the lack of opportunities to make this type of move, we'll need to basically agree to both at the same time, and if Gordon is holding out in negotiations hoping to work a big deal with another team then we may lose our window to pull off a Kirk deal as maybe a team willing to take him moves on if we don't take it right away.

At the same time, we probably don't want to take it right away and then hope we can bring back Gordon without having a deal in place already. It's going to be tough to figure out a way that gordon stays. I hope one is figured out, but I think as long as Salmons continues at his pace that we'll be okay without Gordon if Deng can come back and play reasonably well.

I think we go ahead and make a Kirk salary dump trade if we can whether we have an agreement with Gordon or not. He's clearly surplus on this team. And we're not in the situation where we can really use him as leverage in the Gordon negotiations, we're likely to just make Gordon a decent offer and then wait for the other teams to make offers and see if Gordon finds out that the money's dried up. So we just don't need Kirk on the roster.

The only way I'd decide not to trade Kirk for salary relief is if we get an offer where we get an offer which includes Kirk in the trade for a star big.

 

[Morten Jensen]

It depends on which assets Toronto or Phoenix would want. The way Phoenix are bleeding financially right now, a package centered around Brad Miller, Jerome James and our picks might look enticing.

What matters here is timing and planning. If Minnesota is ready to use some of their cap space on Kirk Hinrich, we aggresively try to find common ground with Gordon, knowing that Kirk is on his way out in a salary dump. Gordon taking Hinrich's 'salary spot' is, quite frankly, much better value for us.

In essence. It might not be all that necessary to move assets around to free up money for Gordon. We simply have to find a way for Ben to take over Hinrich's earnings on the cap. With Kirk playing well as of late, and proving he is back healhty, I no longer think it's that impossible to move him in an immediate salary dumping trade.

Step 1; Find common ground with Gordon (6/$60M)

Step 2; Move Hinrich to Minnesota for nothing

Step 3; Sign Gordon

Step 4; Use Jerome James, Brad Miller, John Salmons, Luol Deng, Tyrus Thomas and our picks as assets in a Bosh/Stoudemire deal - Preferably only one of Deng/Salmons.

It won't be easy, but it also won't be completely unrealistic.

Every chance we have of ending up with this;

C Joakim Noah
F Chris Bosh/Amare Stoudemire
F John Salmons (sorry Lu)
G Ben Gordon
G Derrick Rose

.. we have to take it.