Gordon vs. Salmons

[houheffna]

If the Heat or Cavs get both Lebron and Wade....

what difference would it make who we kept??????

With what we had, we couldn't beat the Celtics without Garnett. I don't believe many had this team 4-4 at this point. I am reserving any negativity for more games...specifically when we hit the soft part of the schedule.

 

[Shakes]

pinkizdead wrote:

they need to start looking for shooters in the draft, and start thinking about phone calls to make. i dont care what anyone says, hinrich is a decent player on the wrong team. he's a pg, not a shooting guard.

I'm sure they'd love to trade him, but really getting anything of value that doesn't impact cap space is the challenge.

We'd also need to figure out what to do with the guard rotation (assuming we're not getting a similar player back) unless you want to see a lot more of Pargo. As bad as Hinrich has been, nobody should want to see more of Pargo.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

Clearly we must believe managements view that loosing our leading scorer continuely will never have an adverse consequence. At some point a line in the sand needs to be drawn. BG is my line in the sand and will be fought for and remembered. Also what fa are we getting exactly? JJ, Amare or Boozer for max money? I can't see a wade or bron or bosh ending up here, they will end up staying or going to fl together like in 2000.

I just don't believe anyone went into this blind thinking that losing BG wouldn't make the team worse offensively. It's a calculated gamble. Sure you can disagree with the gamble, but what's the point? It's done. Add BG to the list of regrets if you like (trading Brand, Tyrus over Aldridge, signing Wallace, etc) but I don't see why every single thing this season has to be brought back around to BG.

I agree we'll probably get nobody elite. But I'll take a 5% chance at getting a player that would give us a 50% chance of winning a championship vs not trying and having a 1% chance of winning (to make up odds at random, you get the idea).

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

If the Heat or Cavs get both Lebron and Wade....

what difference would it make who we kept??????

With what we had, we couldn't beat the Celtics without Garnett. I don't believe many had this team 4-4 at this point. I am reserving any negativity for more games...specifically when we hit the soft part of the schedule.

Your right give up now. Its not like Wade doesn't get injured often or that they will be unbeatable the first year with no supporting cast. Clearly, fielding a competive team doesn't matter if you won't win a ring like the other 25 teams haven't done in the last 25 years.

 

[houheffna]

Seems you already gave up!


Let me get this straight, we would contend in the future including against a team that has Wade and Lebron.....................................................if we had kept BG. OK!!!

If you believe that, you are flying round trip over the cuckoo's nest...

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

Clearly we must believe managements view that loosing our leading scorer continuely will never have an adverse consequence. At some point a line in the sand needs to be drawn. BG is my line in the sand and will be fought for and remembered. Also what fa are we getting exactly? JJ, Amare or Boozer for max money? I can't see a wade or bron or bosh ending up here, they will end up staying or going to fl together like in 2000.

I just don't believe anyone went into this blind thinking that losing BG wouldn't make the team worse offensively. It's a calculated gamble. Sure you can disagree with the gamble, but what's the point? It's done. Add BG to the list of regrets if you like (trading Brand, Tyrus over Aldridge, signing Wallace, etc) but I don't see why every single thing this season has to be brought back around to BG.

I agree we'll probably get nobody elite. But I'll take a 5% chance at getting a player that would give us a 50% chance of winning a championship vs not trying and having a 1% chance of winning (to make up odds at random, you get the idea).

BG doesn't make 50 million dollars a year so I am really uncertain how it can come down to having BG or getting a free agent. Clearly, if our salaries were properly managed we could have a team that consisted of Rose, BG, Noah and two max fas depending on how much the cap goes down. The notion that it was BG or cap space is pure propaganda. We had plenty of oppurtunities to trade kirk for cap space. GS, Portland and Minny had all made that type of offer. Some of them, would have even included receiving a 20/10 allstar big in boozer. There is a reason that Miami is able to have wade, chalmers, mb and room to sign another big name fa.

 

[engies]

TheStig wrote:

houheffna wrote:

Exactly, you are right. Bernie Madoff would have been fine with clients like you.

Engies does give a common sense approach...what do you suggest we do?

I suggest we remember out mistakes instead of having them stricken from the record by the almighty oz if thats what jr calls himself these days. Perhaps, letting go of our leading scorers over and over might bite us in the ass one of these days.

I had to actually look up who that Bernie dude was. For one I think his clients have a much bigger problem than in regards to a basketball team.

I actually agree with you that this move may have set us back, and I do believe its a poor move. I immediately get sad seeing Ben (& even Noc) in other uniforms, knowing that they not only would be great fits for Derrick Rose, but are no longer here and will never play in a Bulls uniform again (esp in Gordon's case). And I hate JR for it. I loate him

However, how long are we supposed to dwell on this decision? We can only hope things get better and maybe JR does learn a lesson from it. We can keep bringing it up, but does it accomplish anything? Gordon is gone. Salmons is here, Kirk is too. We need to focus on what we do with them. We can all hope that this is just a poor start and they bounce back into the swing of things ASAP so we could at least trade them. We have to talk about current possibilities cause Ben is never coming back

 

[TheStig]

engies wrote:

TheStig wrote:

houheffna wrote:

Exactly, you are right. Bernie Madoff would have been fine with clients like you.

Engies does give a common sense approach...what do you suggest we do?

I suggest we remember out mistakes instead of having them stricken from the record by the almighty oz if thats what jr calls himself these days. Perhaps, letting go of our leading scorers over and over might bite us in the ass one of these days.

I had to actually look up who that Bernie dude was. For one I think his clients have a much bigger problem than in regards to a basketball team.

I actually agree with you that this move may have set us back, and I do believe its a poor move. I immediately get sad seeing Ben (& even Noc) in other uniforms, knowing that they not only would be great fits for Derrick Rose, but are no longer here and will never play in a Bulls uniform again (esp in Gordon's case). And I hate JR for it. I loate him

However, how long are we supposed to dwell on this decision? We can only hope things get better and maybe JR does learn a lesson from it. We can keep bringing it up, but does it accomplish anything? Gordon is gone. Salmons is here, Kirk is too. We need to focus on what we do with them. We can all hope that this is just a poor start and they bounce back into the swing of things ASAP so we could at least trade them. We have to talk about current possibilities cause Ben is never coming back

It hasn't even been 10 games, please don't tell me we have talked about it too much. I will personally stop complaining when I see a commitment to winning, not dumping players or avoiding moves based on the luxury tax. You guys must be cubs fans because it is so easy to accept the wait till next year attitude that is continuously force fed down our throat.

 

[houheffna]

It hasn't even been 10 games, please don't tell me we have talked about it too much. I will personally stop complaining when I see a commitment to winning, not dumping players or avoiding moves based on the luxury tax. You guys must be cubs fans because it is so easy to accept the wait till next year attitude that is continuously force fed down our throat.

I understand that totally, but the foundation of your argument is a player who doesn't make that great a difference...I don't think they are going after the players they seek in 2010 to be mediocre...do you?

 

[Shakes]

OK we trade away the entire team for crap, then BG decides he doesn't want to sign. What do we do then? The decision to go that path had to be made the previous off-season before BG took the QO. So basically you're still complaining about a decision that was made over a year ago.

I just don't see the point. Back then I wanted to draft Beasley, keep our guards, and run with Kirk/BG/Deng/Beasley/Noah + look for a FA. But I'm not going to bring it up over and over because it didn't happen like that. May as well move on and hope that the team got it right and I got it wrong.

I guess I just don't like the whole speculation about what would have happened if we made a deal, or drafted a player, or whatever. The problem with counter-factuals is you can claim just about anything and never be proven right or wrong, so the debates tend to just drag on with no resolution. I mean the other day we managed to get into what would have happened if we didn't let Horace freakin' Grant walk, so that debate is 15 years old and still not dead. Isn't it better to try to look to the future, which puts a time limit on how long we can be bitter?

 

[houheffna]

I just don't see the point. Back then I wanted to draft Beasley, keep our guards, and run with Kirk/BG/Deng/Beasley/Noah + look for a FA. But I'm not going to bring it up over and over because it didn't happen like that. May as well move on and hope that the team got it right and I got it wrong.

I talk about drafting Brandon Roy ALL THE TIME!!! They needed a SG (yes I felt that way back then, with BG on the team) and I saw Roy against Illinois and said that is the one! They didn't get him....SO......WHAT!!!

If you are sad over BG...I should be hysterical over them passing on the best SG available AFTER they missed out on Wade.

I am a Sox fan, not much for the Cubs...Sox fans DEMAND success...or they don't show up.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

OK we trade away the entire team for crap, then BG decides he doesn't want to sign. What do we do then? The decision to go that path had to be made the previous off-season before BG took the QO. So basically you're still complaining about a decision that was made over a year ago.

Where would BG have gone if we signed him to the deal? If he were under contract for 6/54, he is ours.

I just don't see the point. Back then I wanted to draft Beasley, keep our guards, and run with Kirk/BG/Deng/Beasley/Noah + look for a FA. But I'm not going to bring it up over and over because it didn't happen like that. May as well move on and hope that the team got it right and I got it wrong.

Thats completly different. I am not advocating for a specific player but a different approach from the top. I would have really liked to keep BG but I would understand if there was no other way or we managed to trade him for something better. If this team were committed to winning, we would have seen a whole different slew of possibilities but a team with kirk and deng making 20 mill a year and handicapped by the LT wouldn't win a ring if bron or wade came here tommorrow. Furthermore, if we were really committed to 2010 we would have done the boozer deal to clear even more cap space and as it stands, unless Salmon's opts out, we don't even have max cap space.

I guess I just don't like the whole speculation about what would have happened if we made a deal, or drafted a player, or whatever. The problem with counter-factuals is you can claim just about anything and never be proven right or wrong, so the debates tend to just drag on with no resolution. I mean the other day we managed to get into what would have happened if we didn't let Horace freakin' Grant walk, so that debate is 15 years old and still not dead. Isn't it better to try to look to the future, which puts a time limit on how long we can be bitter?

Again, its a pattern and a disturbing one. JR isn't the goodfather, just because he makes an offer nobody can refuse doesn't make it not come back to bite us in the ass. I only complain about it because of the motives behind it. It isn't to improve but to skirt under the lt and buy time. Again, the only reason I have these questions is because I don't think this team has a commitment to winning.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

I just don't see the point. Back then I wanted to draft Beasley, keep our guards, and run with Kirk/BG/Deng/Beasley/Noah + look for a FA. But I'm not going to bring it up over and over because it didn't happen like that. May as well move on and hope that the team got it right and I got it wrong.

I talk about drafting Brandon Roy ALL THE TIME!!! They needed a SG (yes I felt that way back then, with BG on the team) and I saw Roy against Illinois and said that is the one! They didn't get him....SO......WHAT!!!

If you are sad over BG...I should be hysterical over them passing on the best SG available AFTER they missed out on Wade.

I am a Sox fan, not much for the Cubs...Sox fans DEMAND success...or they don't show up.

You are advocating specific player decisions. I am advocating for a different style of management and a desire to lead the league in something other than profits.

 

[houheffna]

I am advocating that they make better decisions...otherwise spending a bunch of money doesn't work...ask the Knicks...

 

[JimmyBulls]

I think this Gordon vs. Salmons concept is more than a little misleading, because in the grand plan Salmons is supposed to have a great year so he could opt out of his deal. This would open up max salary space to add a frontline star that's needed more than Benny G.

As far as Salmons struggles are concerned, it pretty much sucks. Sure, he's not the first guy to start off the season in a funk. But what I don't like is seeing him (and Hinrich) pass up pro shots. That shows that the missed shots are getting in his head. But it's way too early for Pistons fans to dance on the game of Salmons, or Hinrich for that matter. Both guys are due for a hot streak and even with their struggles, the Bulls still have quality wins on their record.

 

[??? ??????]

This was all too predictable. Here is what I wrote at the trade deadline last year:

http://dabullz.com/2009/02/20/the-bulls-in-wake-of-the-trade-deadline/

John Salmons is the second guy from the Kings that the Bulls acquired. One thing to note, do not read too much into what Paxson said at the press conference yesterday. Salmons is not the newly annointed great shooting guard of the Bulls. Think back to the 2006 draft, and the press conference that followed it. Paxson raved on and on about Viktor Khryapa. The guy hardly played for us, and ended up being bought out.

This is not to say that John Salmons will not play. He definitely will, and will be a rotation player. He has a lot of talent, and I think starting next year, will be that elusive big guard, that backs up both Derrick Rose and Ben Gordon. The bonus with John Salmons is that he can play at the small forward position as well, without the Bulls being undersized. As long as the Bulls have four guards for these last 28 games of this year, Salmons role will probably be stunted. But next year, if the Bulls trade Kirk Hinrich, which they nearly did at the deadline, then John Salmons will find himself in a big minute sixth man role.

Salmons isn’t quite as good as Paxson advertised. Paxson was raving about his defense. Just because Salmons is tall, doesn’t mean that he is a good defender. On the season, Salmons has a D-Rtg of 116 and 0.0 defensive win shares, which makes him one of the worst defenders in the entire NBA.

You have to wonder how a guy like Salmons will hold up offensively when he joins a team like the Bulls, and is actually asked to exert some type of effort on defense. With Salmons actually having to play defense, will we see his scoring efficiency fall? Only time will tell.

Offensively, Salmons is pretty good. He is averaging 18.3 PPG on 57.3 TS%, which makes him a really good scorer this year. The one thing the Bulls needed was more efficient scorers, as they don’t have many guys that can score efficiently. Salmons brings that component to the Bulls, joining Gordon as a player who has a TS% greater than 57%. Salmons is shooting 41.8% from three point land. Shooters are always welcome.

The big question is whether Salmons is just a one year wonder or not. Prior to this season, the most Salmons has scored was 12.5 PPG in a season. Outside of this year, Salmons hasn’t been a very good three point shooter. Players as old as Salmons typically don’t make the kind of leap he has made this year. This is eerily similar to the situation with Mike James in Toronto, an older player explodes for a big year on one of the worst teams in the league.

Does this mean John Salmons is a scrub in disguise? No. But he is not starter material, given his near league worst defense, and the fact that he has a better scorer and defender ahead of him in the lineup in Ben Gordon. Salmons could make a good sixth man for the Bulls over the next few years, but anything more is just overreaching with him.

http://dabullz.com/2009/02/20/the-bulls-in-wake-of-the-trade-deadline/

 

[houheffna]

It isn't to improve but to skirt under the lt and buy time. Again, the only reason I have these questions is because I don't think this team has a commitment to winning.

I will say the same thing I used to say to Cubs fans...if I don't think the team I support wants to win...I don't support them. It is insane to root for a team, when they are not built to win. That would be maddening to me to try to cheer a team on to win eventhough the owners want them to lose. I am glad I don't think that is the case. I have been frustrated but never doubted that this team wanted to win...from top to bottom.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

Where would BG have gone if we signed him to the deal? If he were under contract for 6/54, he is ours.

He'd be able to go to Detroit still. They had more money than they offered him if they didn't sign Charlie V.

Thats completly different. I am not advocating for a specific player but a different approach from the top. I would have really liked to keep BG but I would understand if there was no other way or we managed to trade him for something better. If this team were committed to winning, we would have seen a whole different slew of possibilities but a team with kirk and deng making 20 mill a year and handicapped by the LT wouldn't win a ring if bron or wade came here tommorrow. Furthermore, if we were really committed to 2010 we would have done the boozer deal to clear even more cap space and as it stands, unless Salmon's opts out, we don't even have max cap space.

I think you have to assume then that either management are idiots or they know more than we do about how other teams view players and what is available.

Now the GM being an idiot is possible in a league where Isiah Thomas can hold a job for years, sure. But I think the Bulls generally seem to know what they're doing. So I can only assume that they opted not to flip Kirk for an expiring and sign Gordon for a reason. Maybe they felt if they signed Gordon he'd be untradable. Maybe they feel Kirk will have more value than an expiring. Maybe it's something else or a combination of those factors.

They might turn out to be right, they might turn out to be wrong. What I object to is the school of thought that treats the decision not to sign Gordon as completely insane, as though the Bulls didn't realise exactly what they were doing and have no plan. I think that gives them far too little credit.

Again, its a pattern and a disturbing one. JR isn't the goodfather, just because he makes an offer nobody can refuse doesn't make it not come back to bite us in the ass. I only complain about it because of the motives behind it. It isn't to improve but to skirt under the lt and buy time. Again, the only reason I have these questions is because I don't think this team has a commitment to winning.

So it all comes back to the JR is a tight ass argument. I think I'm even more tired of that than hearing about BG. I'll just repeat what I always say, even if it's true that JR is avoiding tax he could afford, spending rationally and only paying the tax for a championship team IS the proven formula. Teams that have spent huge before having a great team have not won titles.

 

[Shakes]

Oh and on Salmons I agree with you, regression to the mean was always highly likely. It's getting harder to hold out hope that he was one of the few guys who genuinely was a late bloomer.

 

[engies]

BTW heres a good video on why it was important to keep a shooter like BG on the outside

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tXi0ZztHRU Last years game analyzed

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0v9Qr6grAA Yesterdays game analyzed