Gordon, is it worth the effort?

[dougthonus]

I don't think Minnesota can take Hinrich for nothing after all their cap holds, which is why it's not all that easy.

If you can move Hinrich for nothing, then all the problems go away, and it's merely a choice of do you want Hinrich or Gordon. The real question will be whether that's a real solution or not.

Oklahoma City may value Hinrich more than Gordon given the other scorers they have on the team and that Westbrook isn't really a real PG, or they may value Gordon for his shooting and scoring. Who knows. However, they can choose between the two in some ways.

I think Gordon is more valuable to us Than Hinrich, but I'm not 100% certain. A healthy Deng makes that pretty iffy.

A healthy Deng, and you have:
Rose: 38 minutes, Hinrich 10
Salmons: 28 minutes, Hinrich 20
Deng: 38 minutes, Salmons 10

As your backcourt. That's a nice backcourt really, you've got good size at every position and a good mix of skills, at no point is anyone ever playing a position they're not really good at. You don't have a minutes crunch, but nor do you really need to run anyone into the ground (you could subtract 5 minutes from each guy for deep bench players).

If any one guy gets hurt, you have a legit backup to step in and play for him and hten just need your deep bench to play a little better in spot minutes and you still won't have anyone really playing in a spot they're uncomfortable or not fit for.

If we instead do Rose/Gordon/Salmons/Deng, you have only 1 real PG on your team in Rose, and if he gets hurt, you're in for some real questions.

 

[collisrost]

I think the problem may be that Salmons might be a better 3 than a 2. So if you keep everyone you've gotta consider letting either Deng or Salmons play off the bench. This seems like an even worse use of resources than overpaying Hinrich to be a bench player.

One solution might actually be to use Salmons as trade bait, his value has to be through the roof after he came to Chicago and he has a very reasonable short term deal. He can surely net you some nice salary savings for the short to medium term which would allow you not only to sign Gordon but maybe to pick up an asset in the process. Alternatively, he might be a good fit for Toronto along with someone like Tyrus in a Bosh trade.

 

[Morten Jensen]

dougthonus wrote:

I don't think Minnesota can take Hinrich for nothing after all their cap holds, which is why it's not all that easy.

If you can move Hinrich for nothing, then all the problems go away, and it's merely a choice of do you want Hinrich or Gordon. The real question will be whether that's a real solution or not.

Oklahoma City may value Hinrich more than Gordon given the other scorers they have on the team and that Westbrook isn't really a real PG, or they may value Gordon for his shooting and scoring. Who knows. However, they can choose between the two in some ways.

I think Gordon is more valuable to us Than Hinrich, but I'm not 100% certain. A healthy Deng makes that pretty iffy.

A healthy Deng, and you have:
Rose: 38 minutes, Hinrich 10
Salmons: 28 minutes, Hinrich 20
Deng: 38 minutes, Salmons 10

As your backcourt. That's a nice backcourt really, you've got good size at every position and a good mix of skills, at no point is anyone ever playing a position they're not really good at. You don't have a minutes crunch, but nor do you really need to run anyone into the ground (you could subtract 5 minutes from each guy for deep bench players).

If any one guy gets hurt, you have a legit backup to step in and play for him and hten just need your deep bench to play a little better in spot minutes and you still won't have anyone really playing in a spot they're uncomfortable or not fit for.

If we instead do Rose/Gordon/Salmons/Deng, you have only 1 real PG on your team in Rose, and if he gets hurt, you're in for some real questions.

If you have the balls to gamble on Deng returning to perfect health as well as Salmons playing the full time two, then sure. But do you? I have to admit I don't. Deng is worrying me to the extend where I'd rather cut our losses if the situation presents itself.

 

[SWF_Maverick]

Kush77 wrote:

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.

I 100% agree with Kush this is brewcrewfan4life onthesportsstuff.com~ Kush tell me when and where you move Running with the Bulls Rose,Gordon is a great tandem and needs to have the team built around them. Gordon is a guarantee Salmons is a promise. The Bulls will sell the promise since it is a promise and is cheaper than the Guarantee and the Bulls management are cheapskates so Gordon the guarantee will leave because he knows he can get more everything elsewhere the only question is Who will be next in "Dumb" Funk's crosshairs..hmm let's see maybe Derrick Rose since he is good.

 

[DJhitek]

You have to move Kirk to make it happen IMO, I think that can happen but the odds that Paxson will take a chance like that are slim to none considering his history.

 

[Bullsman24]

i really think we should sign gordon to a moderate money 1 year deal if we don't make any other moves. he knows that there will be much more money available next year, with the chance to go to a winner. right now, his best case scenario involves moving to OKC for about the same money he turned down.

i might need to pass it by doug to make sure i'm correct, but if we sign gordon to a pretty good sized one year deal, we have a big expiring, which is valuable to other teams. idk for sure if you can trade one year contract guys, but an expiring guy is a great asset for the nyc's and detroits of the world. he would accept it for the knowledge of more money left over. a surefire win win. once again, idk exactly what we can do, but if we can, i'm all for it. after this deal, we can resign him if we want to.

btw for detroit, how much does it suck to be killing this season's chances to get one of the players you passed in the 2003 draft makes me happy

 

[Kush77]

Or, our cheap-ass franchise can just give Ben Gordon a decent deal and not worry about luxury tax.

It just kills me that this franchise, that has made a killing during uncle Jerry's time as owner, can't dare go over the luxury tax.

 

[pdenninggolden]

I have always liked Ben's instamatic shooting. He is a treasure, imo, and I would try to keep him.:kiss:

 

[wjb1492]

Just to be clear up front, I'm a big Kirk fan - but I really do like Ben, too. If I had the say, I'd want both, luxury tax be darned. If Ben will sign for what the Bulls consider a "fair" trial, I hope JR will OK the possibility of the lux tax for the one year, but I'm not holding my breath.

I think Kirk's contributions to the team are frequently understated. He's more 6th man than back-up PG, imo - he's great as back-up PG, good as back-up SG, and plays the best defense of any current backcourt option. He's also shooting much closer to 06-07, making last year look more like the outlier. It's not that none of this is replaceable, but I don't think it's all that easy to replace the whole package. If a great, obvious Bulls-win trade offer comes along, sure they should grab it. But I'm not one who thinks he needs to be moved just to have him off the team.

Ben's contributions are more obvious (points count!), and I don't mean to downplay them at all. But, I do worry somewhat about a Ben/Derrick backcourt defensively going forward. Hopefully Derrick steps it up this summer, because I do think Ben has improved enough defensively that he holds his own - not a great defender, but not a big liability either. I've seen suggestions elsewhere that John start and Ben become the backup - my issues with this are that (1) with what I think it takes to sign Ben, he'd be as big an overpaid backup as Kirk is now, (2) I do think he has more value to the Bulls than most other teams, which makes that big contract less tradeable, and (3) I think it takes a commitment to start him to get him signed. And if we're talking backup, I actually prefer Kirk over Ben because of being a more all-around player and for the PG side of it.

I guess bottom-line, I would rather have Bosh (or should I say "a Bosh"?) than Ben, but I'm not sure I'd rather have the possibility of getting Bosh than Ben. Like Doug mentioned, the timing aspect of it pretty much sucks.

 

[collisrost]

wjb1492 wrote:

I guess bottom-line, I would rather have Bosh (or should I say "a Bosh"?) than Ben, but I'm not sure I'd rather have the possibility of getting Bosh than Ben.

Well- stated, man. That's exactly how I feel.

 

[yaffe7]

my first post!!! i hear kush and fred talk about being the top ben gordon defenders, out here in vegas i think i take on a anti gordon argument a week. i havent read anything ahead of me so i dont know if im repeating anybody, but i dont see anyway gordon stays. i think pax wants to keep him. but no way does reinsdorf care enough to keep him simple as that. moving deng/hinrich or any other scenario just seems to crazy to happen given the bulls past history on trades.

 

[scottiepippen1994]

LMAO !!!!!!!!!:admin:

 

[USCChiFan]

No point in bumping a 2 year old thread