gordon over wade.

[Dpauley23]

The only argument you can make is you can have Gordon, Rose, and Amare/Bosh or Rose, Wade, and Tyrus

 

[TheStig]

Dpauley23 wrote:

The only argument you can make is you can have Gordon, Rose, and Amare/Bosh or Rose, Wade, and Tyrus

Thats not really a fair statement. First off the post assumes a straight BG over wade and second you can still trade for Amare/Bosh.

 

[Dpauley23]

No way as Jerry would have to pay 100 million in cap

 

[TheStig]

Dpauley23 wrote:

No way as Jerry would have to pay 100 million in cap

Why not? Look at Boston's payroll. They have a big 3 making more than Rose, Wade and Bosh would make. Also, keep in mind Rose will still be on a rookie deal for awhile.

 

[Dpauley23]

He has 2 years left after this season ends. Thats 60 million for 3 people and let me remind you Reinsdorf wants to make money and wouldnt fork over 100 million. He could barely pay Jordon

 

[TheStig]

Boston has 3 people for 60 million and only a payroll of 80 million total. We could easily do the same. Plus Bosh and Wade only make 15.8 mill each next year and rose makes 5.2. So between the 3 you would only have 36.8 committed next year. Plenty of room under the LT.

 

[pinkizdead]

Hendu0520 wrote:

We are talking hypothetically, so bringing up contracts should not be a part of it. I thought the question was who is a better backcourt Ben/Rose or Wade/Rose. And yah maybe Wade wouldn't be the perfect fit for Rose like a Lebron or Kobe I guess would be better, but why would you not want someone who will prob finish 2nd or 3rd in the MVP vote? You are worried about 2 max contracts? Why can't the Bulls have 2 of the best players? Only the Lakers or Knicks can afford to pay 2 top tier guys? If Wade came to the Bulls I would clear whatever I could to get him in there or just pay the luxury tax.

w/o contracts or injuries wade and rose. but...contracts and injuries is the issue. he's 28 now. In 2010 he's going to be 29. i dont think wade will be a super star at 33. I wouldn't give him a max contract for alot of years.

 

[Riker]

First of all, I don't know if you noticed but many times in the NBA it isn't just "pick up the All Star and we're set" situation.

Let's say that Pippen got traded for Kemp in the 90's, do you think Kemp would bring as much as Pippen did? Or any other player for that matter, Barkley, whoever you may think of.

It may look good on paper, and it's awesome in video games, but on court...it's a whole different story. Chemistry is something you can't buy. Look at Cleveland, James is playing great but if you just look how much important points Mo Williams scores there...it's a chemistry thing.

Maybe Wade would be a good fit for Chicago, but before they would mix, Bulls would need to get rid of players like Gordon, Salmons...

Basically, Wade plays for 40 minutes, and he plays a game of mixed PG/SG, and he has 20+ shots per game and probably every possession in the transition.

Because if he doesn't get all those possessions, he can't possibly get his share of assists and if he doesn't get his assists he's just a scorer. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Bulls already have an undersized scorer.

And I don't see how would Rose fit in there also. Rose / Wade as some killer combo..I've said earlier, it could work in a video game...

 

[Hendu0520]

Well there are no longer long term deals I think you will see 3-4 year deals for everyone. Oh and Wade is 1 year older than Gordon, so age is not a factor. Did everyone see the terrible defense that Ben was playing? He was just giving up on the plays, even Marc Jackson called him out on national television, he should be embarrassed just stopping like that. And no you don't have to talk contracts because how are you getting D Wade, we aren't so why would we talk about the money. However if you do want to talk money I agree with the Stig, other teams find ways to pay players, if Reinsdorf can't then run him out of town.

 

[Hendu0520]

Ok c'mon, let's do this trade Wade straight up for Gordon before this year. The Bulls probably finish ahead of Orlando and Miami is the 2nd to worst team in the NBA. Just like if you trade Kobe for Lebron straight up the Lakers go 78-4 and win the championship for the next 10 years and the Cavs finish 2nd or 3rd and struggle to maybe get to the finals to get wiped out by Lebron, Gasol and company. Yes you don't know if Wade would work but you also can't be sure that he wouldn't. Again I ask why wouldn't you pick up one of the 3 best players in the league!! Chemistry, Chemistry, Chemistry, that's what all the people were saying would be the Celtics downfall for getting the big free agents. "They can't gel the first year", so all you guys wouldn't have traded for Allen and Garnett cause it might not work, and you would have been fired.

 

[Riker]

You think Gordon wouldn't put up Wade's numbers if he had the permission? Wade gets 22 shots a game, Gordon 16. Wade scores 30 per game, Gordon 20.

That's 6 shots differential. And that's at least 12 points. 20+12 = 32. Just because Gordon isn't taking every time he gets the ball, doesn't make him worse than Wade in scoring department. Wade is way more athletic, gets to the hoop quicker, but Gordon is definitely a better shooter.

Also, Gordon can't risk going to the hoop as much as Wade does. You know, and I know, as soon anyone touches Wade - it's a foul.

Same doesn't apply to Gordon. He can get heckled and still get no call. So why bother.

The only thing we lack is interior presence, I don't see how Wade could fix that for us.


What would be Rose's role in Wade Bulls?

 

[dougthonus]

That's 6 shots differential. And that's at least 12 points. 20+12 = 32. Just because Gordon isn't taking every time he gets the ball, doesn't make him worse than Wade in scoring department. Wade is way more athletic, gets to the hoop quicker, but Gordon is definitely a better shooter.

If Gordon could average 12 points per 6 shots, then he'd already be averaging 32 off his 16 shots, so let's make sure we do the math right when making these comparisons.

Second, there's a huge difference in creation ability of their shot between Wade/Gordon. Gordon can be shut down easier than Wade because he doesn't have the same ability to get to the hoop and draw fouls.

 

[dunkside.com]

pinkizdead wrote:

i was havinga conversation with my friend yesterday over who the bulls should choose in 2010.

he was suprised to learn that i would rather have ben gordon then dwayne wade. i know it sounds crazy...but i would. here my reasons.

BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAA !!!!

now that we got this out of the way, let's move forward.

pinkizdead wrote:

ben gordon is a great clutch player. he can hit HUGE! shots. like wierdly crazy insanely difficult shots.

unlike wade who can't
oh, wait ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnDTHB_pDXM



pinkizdead wrote:

i love him.

Then send him flowers. But don't tell me you'd pick him before Wade as a basketball player.

pinkizdead wrote:

Wade is very very good as well.(better than gordon)

something we can agree on. but then again, why would you pick gordon instead of him ?


pinkizdead wrote:

heres the thing. gordon is plus 200 pounds. he's a small guy, but he's a strong small guy. Wade is about 6'4. Neither are really your typical shooting gaurd. they're undersized.

yeah, but wade plays so much bigger than he is.
wade was 25th in blocks per game this season, better than nene, rasheed, Z, tyson chandler, garnett and amare.
needless to say he led all G in blk/game. he also had 3 times more blk/game than the taller kobe, who's supposed to be an elite defender.

pinkizdead wrote:

Wade is a pretty consistent player. he can get to the basket at will, he gets alot of foul calls, and he can carry a team.

you're still arguing for wade here.
when his shot isn't falling, gordon is pretty much useless on the floor. he can't penetrate, he dribbles off his own foot way too much, he can't create for others and he doesn't have the defensive impact wade has.


pinkizdead wrote:

Gordon isn't a super star. i grant that. i dont think he ever will be a superstar, but he is a good player. He has problems dribbling, and he isn't awesome at defense. However gordon does have heart. i'll give him that.

still arguing for wade (i doubt you want to say wade doesn't have heart)

pinkizdead wrote:

Here are the issues that conscerned me the most. Gordon is a great shooter. he can spread the floor and he compliments rose well. Both rose and wade like to drive and kick. Wade is a decent outside shooter, but he can't hit them consitently. Gordon has a better ability to play with derek rose.

derrick. his name is DERRICK rose.
and trust me that wade helps spread the floor much better than gordon ever will.
just ask haslem, mario chalmers, daequan cook and the rest of the heat players who get open shots because of him

and wade might not be the shooter gordon is, but had you watched the atlanta series you'd have seen him being scorching hot from the 3p line. if you leave him open he will hit it. you can see he's been working on it.

pinkizdead wrote:

Gordon is a young player.

unlike wade who's just ONE YEAR OLDER.

pinkizdead wrote:

he's never really had too many health issues. Wade's style of play might not be suited for his body. He get's injured alot(not this year...) But do i really want to pay a guy that might not be able to stay health all year long? is that my star? my go to guy? Furthermore isn't wade getting up there in the years? 28? next year he'll be 29? Do you want a 30 year old star that might be prone to injury?

first of all he's 27. and is not that hard to check it out instead of just throwing some random numbers. google is your friend - can save you some embarrassment.

i wouldn't say wade is injury prone. he had some injuries, that's true, and missed about 1 season. but he seems healthy now. would you trade michael jordan for kevin johnson or even clyde drexler after jordan missed his 2nd season because of injury ?

pinkizdead wrote:

Wade likes to be the primary ball handler in tough sitatuions. Will a wade rose duo work? Who would be the primary ballhandler? can Rose effectivly play off the ball?

i don't know. but wade can. as long as one can create space for the other, i guess it can work just fine.
as wade slows down with age rose could take over the "creating off the dribble" responsibilities leaving wade to play more off the ball and benefit from the space he creates.

pinkizdead wrote:

Rose hasn't proven to be an effective shooter from beyond the arc. Neither has Wade. Who's going to spread the floor/open up the lane?

your 3 (if he isn't deng)
maybe even your 5 if is someone like Z.

as i said above wade has been working on his 3 and rose is still young, he can work on it and in 2-3 years be pretty good at it.

pinkizdead wrote:

Gordon might be willing to take 8-12 million dollars over the next couple years. Wade wont... he'll probally want a max offer. I think he probally will get it too.

and for good reason.
he's top3 in the league no matter in which order you rank him, lebron and kobe. in my book he's better than kobe (has been for 2-3 years already - not counting when he was injured) and pretty much on par with lebron. the only reasons i'd take lebron over him would be age and size/athleticism.

pinkizdead wrote:

If we saved some cash by signing Gordon, i think we'd be a better team.

having money in the bank doesn't put the ball in the basket.

pinkizdead wrote:

AFter kirk leaves this year(hopefully it shall be him instead of gordon), i'd be more than willing to sign a defensive two guard who could drive it to the lane. It would be nice to have Rose and gordon starting. If the shots aren't falling, rest gordon and let some guy play defense as well as try to get some easy shots.

so the money you'd pay wade you divide for 2 players one of which must stay on the bench. i'd rather have all of my money on the floor, working and producing for me. as a backup you can have a rookie or a veteran being paid the min.

pinkizdead wrote:

Any thoughts?

other than BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA ?
no, not really.




charity stripe wrote:

You see how Beasley's development is negatively effected playing next to Wade.

no, you don't
when he came into the league all beasley could do was shoot long 2s and occasionally go for a lefty layup.
if you saw the last games of the heat (which i doubt) you'd see he has improved A LOT. he is more aggressive on offense, he is a much better rebounder and his defense has improved considerably.

the reason they moved him to the bench is because he's the only one on the heat that can create his own shot and doesn't need wade. thus their 2nd unit can benefit from his scoring, otherwise they'd be killed by the opponents bench.


Riker wrote:

You think Gordon wouldn't put up Wade's numbers if he had the permission? Wade gets 22 shots a game, Gordon 16. Wade scores 30 per game, Gordon 20.

That's 6 shots differential. And that's at least 12 points. 20+12 = 32. Just because Gordon isn't taking every time he gets the ball, doesn't make him worse than Wade in scoring department. Wade is way more athletic, gets to the hoop quicker, but Gordon is definitely a better shooter.

Also, Gordon can't risk going to the hoop as much as Wade does. You know, and I know, as soon anyone touches Wade - it's a foul.

Same doesn't apply to Gordon. He can get heckled and still get no call. So why bother.

The only thing we lack is interior presence, I don't see how Wade could fix that for us.


What would be Rose's role in Wade Bulls?

wade started getting calls AFTER establishing a reputation as a great slasher and finisher. he didn't get the calls in his first 2 seasons. it's not like he came into the league with the hype lebron and melo came. i could understand you saying lebron got the calls from the get go, cause he was so hyped even before playing one single game, but wade !? he worked for it. he built his reputation first and then started getting the calls.

 

[dougthonus]

wade started getting calls AFTER establishing a reputation as a great slasher and finisher. he didn't get the calls in his first 2 seasons. it's not like he came into the league with the hype lebron and melo came. i could understand you saying lebron got the calls from the get go, cause he was so hyped even before playing one single game, but wade !? he worked for it. he built his reputation first and then started getting the calls.

If you look at Wade's free throw attempts per field goal attempted, he was basically at his career rate in year 2. Only his first year did he not get tons upon tons of calls, and even that year he shot 5.3 FTA per 13.5 FGA which is still a very good foul rate, just not a super elite one like he has now.

 

[Bullsman24]

if you look at this PURELY as which players will work better together, it's bg7 with any of these guys. dwyane wade and derrick rose are similar, but the talent combined is just insane. it's like david robinson and tim duncan back in the day: they both pretty much were supposed to do the same thing, but there was so much talent on the court, the job happened every time.

the contract is a fair point, although i wouldn't go past about 10 mil a season for gordon, and he has the clutch of wade, which teams value a lot.

dunkside.com, wade has proved over his career that he's injury prone because of the carelessness with which he throws his body around. jordan just had one freak injury that cost him a bunch of time, and when he came back, he dropped 63 on boston, so we all knew we shouldn't let him go.

this said, if i get either i'm happy. i'd love to see gordon back and use the max deal for a big man, any big man.

 

[RC_Skinny22]

Although Dwayne Wade is one of the best NBA players I would prefer Gordon to Wade.
First of all it would be better for the development of Derrick Rose. Dwayne Wade would take too much control of the game I think.

The combination of Rose and Gordon works good so far. I would like to see a good team more than a single Superstar like Wade is. I think about the LA Lakers. Kobe is one of the best players, but how many rings did he win since O´Neal left LA? Not much hah? The Lakers right now are a championship team because of Kobe who now has Gasol, Bynum, and Odom on his side.

We should look for a good big man instead of looking for a new guard. On guard positions we are really good with Gordon, Hinrich, Rose and Salmons.

What do you think?

Greetz Bullseye

 

[Bullsman24]

definitely in a great position in terms of how rose's development would go, so maybe...

the thing is with the kobe comparison, he'll have derrick rose to be his sidekick, with solid players like noah, kirk, and possibly deng. that will contend, but idk about winning titles.

now if we bring gordon back, and trade deng and tyrus for bosh, we're in a great position with our inside game complementing derrick rose, and creating all the space derrick could ever want.

 

[PJ Brown]

This is really silly premise. Admittedly, some of you are working pretty hard and presenting very reasonable arguments, but I just wish you didn't have to go so far. You can make a can't miss case for Gordon being indespinsible without resorting to outrageousness.

Sure, Gordon may be a better pairing of skills with Rose than Wade, but that doesn't mean we'd be better off with him over Wade. And that's no knock on Ben. Would we be better off with Rose than Lebron? No, but that doesn't mean we don't desperately need Rose. Why do we have to go this far to support Gordon? It doesn't make us look good.

 

[dougthonus]

PJ Brown wrote:

This is really silly premise. Admittedly, some of you are working pretty hard and presenting very reasonable arguments, but I just wish you didn't have to go so far. You can make a can't miss case for Gordon being indespinsible without resorting to outrageousness.

Sure, Gordon may be a better pairing of skills with Rose than Wade, but that doesn't mean we'd be better off with him over Wade. And that's no knock on Ben. Would we be better off with Rose than Lebron? No, but that doesn't mean we don't desperately need Rose. Why do we have to go this far to support Gordon? It doesn't make us look good.

No doubt.

I think it's funny when we get to the "Rose would develop better with Gordon". Rose would develop better with me on the court than LeBron James because LeBron would take a lot of the big moments. Maybe the Bulls should sign me instead of LeBron given the choice?

Developing Rose isn't the goal of the organization. Winning championships is. Getting a legit superstar is the way you win championships the vast, vast majority of the time. Typically you need 2 legit superstars or you need 1 legit superstar and 2 legit all stars around him.

Maybe Rose could develop into a superstar.
Maybe Gordon could be an all star by him.

However, Wade is a superstar, and Rose developing into an all star is almost a lock. That pairing gets you awfully close really fast. You only need to get a good front court piece and you're a top 3 team in the league for as long as your guys stay healthy.

It's a moot point, we're not getting Wade, have no way to get Wade, so it's not like it's a choice, but if it was, then Wade would be the correct way to choose, and it's not close.

 

[RC_Skinny22]

dougthonus wrote:
Developing Rose isn't the goal of the organization. Winning championships is. Getting a legit superstar is the way you win championships the vast, vast majority of the time. Typically you need 2 legit superstars or you need 1 legit superstar and 2 legit all stars around him.

Yeah in this point I totally agree with you. The best example for that are the Celtics. But I think the Celtics are so a good team, because they have a big men star with Garnett, a shooting star with Allen and a star like Pierce who can drive very strong and shoot, too. And don´t forget Rondo on PG.
So they have stars on almost every position.

I don´t know if the Bulls would be able to win a championship only with strong guards. We really need a very good big man.

But that´s all uninteresting because Wade is unavailable in my eyes.