I hate 2 admit, but letting Gordon go was right

[mlewinth]

I hate to say this. I hate to admit it after being so adamantly against it. I hate to say it about the player who was my favorite on this team from 04-09 (and yes that includes during Rose's rookie year) and may be favorite Bull in history not named MJ. The Bulls made the right choice in sticking with Deng and letting Gordon go. I want to put the argument about us paying too much for Deng aside. It is obvious that if we had commited to both Deng and Gordon, we would not be in the financial position that we are in now, heading into the 2010 off season. It is obvious that Ben Gordon would not have made us a championship contender and if not locking up either Deng or Gordon was the only realistic way to create that flexability, it had to be done.

That issue aside, after seeing Deng play this season, it is so obvious to me all that he brings to this team that Gordon did not. I know that this is going to stir up some heat in this chat and I will be the first to admit that Deng has his flaws. You can't rely on Deng to score when you need him. He has to score within the flow of the game. He can't put the team on his back. He also is not a clutch player. His 2 flaws, happened to be Gordon's strongest assets, and those assets are VERY hard to come by. We have come by them however, in our little angel from god, Derrick Rose. Rose can put the team on his back, score when you need him too and make plays in the clutch. Rose aint so great at the trey, but I think he will improve. Also, 3 pointers are not worth your cap flexability. Whereas Rose makes up for what we lost in Gordon, who could replace what we have in Deng. Deng has been the master of consistency. He is avg. 18.2 pts a night on 46% shooting. He may not be able to put the team on his back, but he provides consistent offense every game. WHat he brings to the table defensivly is invaluable. He is a beast on the glass, he also is incredibly long and active on defense, allowing him to break up alot of potential shots. Deng plays within the flow of the offense, in fact, thats all that he really does. He just plays great D and scores within the offense. Last season at this time we were 26-32. Now, we can all agree that Deng alone is not the sole reason for our record now but we are 4 games over .500 with over a month left. Deng is going to fit in well with our cap purchase.

 

[Shakes]

I know it's the unpopular opinion around here, but I've always been of the thought that Deng at the top of his game is better than Gordon. The concern was whether injuries would let him get there again.

I've got to say I was really down on Deng last year, and wanted to dump him for an expiring even before most people were on that bandwagon. However he's really won me back over this year, he's just a reliable player you can count on every night. For all the credit Hinrich gets as a glue guy, I actually think it's Deng who does more to hold the team together. I know there's a lot of other factors, but the two seasons Deng has missed a lot of time (the previous two years) are also the years when we've struggled defensively, and I don't think that's a coincidence.

Sure I'd love it if he was more of a three point shooter, but the other ways he helps are overlooked. His rebounding allowed us to survive the loss of Tyrus early (when Taj was still finding his way as a defensive rebounder) and now the loss of Noah. Also early on Salmons and Hinrich acted like they had to bomb threes to replace Gordon, but the team is now playing Deng's way. We're only taking the wide open threes and it's working for us, the offense is way more efficient now we've decided if we're no good at threes don't force the issue.

I know we'll need three point shooting, but you can get a cheap specialist to fill that role. Since Christmas this team has played like a 50+ win team. Given that, I can't see why Rose/MLE 3 specialist/Deng/Bosh/Noah isn't a real shot to win the championship.

 

[TheStig]

I disagree with the premise of this thread. I never really viewed it as BG vs Deng. To me it was always more of a BG vs Kirk debate, especially after Rose was drafted. You knew one of those two had to go. As good as e have been, I think we would have been better with the fire power that BG gave us. Looking at this year alone, letting BG go might look good because of his injuries. But look at Deng, he had two bad years because of injuries and came back as good as he was. BG will be back next year and will show his vast superiority to kirk. I think this franchise will be kicking itself after next year ( for not taking the 6/54), seeing Kirk as a shane battier of guards, needing a third scorer to contend and watching BG put up 20+ a game. You also have to remember that the defense has improved this year but up until recently, the offense fell apart. Trading some defense in Kirk for a lot of offense in BG is a big gain toward being a serious playoff team. Mark my words this team isn't going to be putting up 120 a game in the playoffs like it has been recently. Mark, I am disappointed to see you sell so low.

 

[postdiction]

TheStig wrote:

Mark my words this team isn't going to be putting up 120 a game in the playoffs like it has been recently.

Thats not really saying anything at all.

Scoring in the playoffs is always harder than it is in the regular season. There are less fast breaks more half court offense. There are less ticky-tack fouls and defense in general becomes more valued.

Plus in the playoffs every night you are playing much better competition than in the regular season.


lol

 

[houheffna]

I disagree with the premise of this thread. I never really viewed it as BG vs Deng. To me it was always more of a BG vs Kirk debate, especially after Rose was drafted. You knew one of those two had to go. As good as e have been, I think we would have been better with the fire power that BG gave us. Looking at this year alone, letting BG go might look good because of his injuries. But look at Deng, he had two bad years because of injuries and came back as good as he was. BG will be back next year and will show his vast superiority to kirk. I think this franchise will be kicking itself after next year ( for not taking the 6/54), seeing Kirk as a shane battier of guards, needing a third scorer to contend and watching BG put up 20+ a game. You also have to remember that the defense has improved this year but up until recently, the offense fell apart. Trading some defense in Kirk for a lot of offense in BG is a big gain toward being a serious playoff team. Mark my words this team isn't going to be putting up 120 a game in the playoffs like it has been recently. Mark, I am disappointed to see you sell so low.

What teams put up 120 points in the playoffs? So what are you saying, if Gordon was here we would be in a position to score 120 a game in the playoffs? Give me a break.

Because Gordon left, the star player has been able to improve and gain confidence. I don't think that is a coincidence. All these promises about what Ben will do next year were similar to what was promised in the preseason...no dice. i don't think we would have been better or worse necessarily.

As things were, his being gone goes a long way to signing players in 2010. Playing the what if game with an average or slightly above average player is downright silly.

You will have to ask yourself, what was the real purpose of this season? Ben Gordon being here gets us nothing this season...if you have listened to Forman and Paxson, 2010 is the goal and rightfully so. You let all of the players go that you have to including Hinrich, Deng, and whoever else to get a chance to talk to Lebron James, Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh. For that reason alone, Gordon's leaving is worth it. Going back th 6/54 at this point is a waste of time...

 

[TheStig]

You guys are focusing on the number 120 instead of the point I was making. We will have trouble scoring in the post season, this recent scoring binge isn't going to continue. When teams throw everything at Rose, besides maybe deng, I don't see anyone else who has a shot of getting the ball and breaking down the defense and Deng doesn't do it consistently. We saw how Boston locked down Rose after the first game in the series. Its doable and I just think our offense can be respectable unless everyone is hitting their shots. Our team isn't hard to stop, we are just playing really bad competition.

Its not BG for 2010. BG doesn't make 55 mill a year. My argument is BG vs Kirk and I think long term, we are much better with BG than Kirk. Both occupy the same salary spot in 2010.

 

[JimmyBulls]

I always thought getting rid of BG was the logical choice. Sooner or later, Rose was going to develop into the explosive scorer of the team, and the shooting guard position would be turned into a cheap support position. A guy that makes no more than 7 million and can hit the spot up three. Gordon just didn't fit that criteria.

The Bulls are in a good position, but they can easily crap it all away by giving Joe Johnson a max deal. I like Johnson's game but Rose is the alpha male scorer on this Bulls team.

If the Bulls front office look at improving their frontcourt and filling a hole with their draft choice, this Bulls team is going to be really good. But it could go in the other direction if they opt for a shooting guard that's just better than Ben Gordon. I would be more than happy with signing David Lee, Omer Asik, and getting either James Anderson, Xavier Henry or Elliot Williams in the draft.

 

[Diddy1122]

TheStig wrote:

I disagree with the premise of this thread. I never really viewed it as BG vs Deng. To me it was always more of a BG vs Kirk debate, especially after Rose was drafted. You knew one of those two had to go. As good as e have been, I think we would have been better with the fire power that BG gave us. Looking at this year alone, letting BG go might look good because of his injuries. But look at Deng, he had two bad years because of injuries and came back as good as he was. BG will be back next year and will show his vast superiority to kirk. I think this franchise will be kicking itself after next year ( for not taking the 6/54), seeing Kirk as a shane battier of guards, needing a third scorer to contend and watching BG put up 20+ a game. You also have to remember that the defense has improved this year but up until recently, the offense fell apart. Trading some defense in Kirk for a lot of offense in BG is a big gain toward being a serious playoff team. Mark my words this team isn't going to be putting up 120 a game in the playoffs like it has been recently. Mark, I am disappointed to see you sell so low.

Ok so let's look at where the Bulls are in defense, which by the way, wins championships. The Bulls are 2nd in the league in opp. FG% at 43.8%. They lead the league in Rebounds & Blocks. Defense is the biggest reason that we are where we are right now. I understand your BG vs. Kirk argument, but the fact is, as much as I love BG, he's a specialist. Kirk does alot of the little things, the things that don't necessarily show up on stat sheets, & it's those things that make him more valuable to this team right now. It's not just idle talk when players are saying communication, ball movement, & overall game pace are better when Kirk is out there.

And you talk about a 3rd scorer, well what do you think Deng is going to do, just shrink away & stop playing? With Rose, a top FA, Deng, & a solid core around them, we are a contender in this league. At this point, It's clear that letting BG go, as painful as it was for some, was in actuality the right decision.

 

[houheffna]

You guys are focusing on the number 120 instead of the point I was making. We will have trouble scoring in the post season, this recent scoring binge isn't going to continue. When teams throw everything at Rose, besides maybe deng, I don't see anyone else who has a shot of getting the ball and breaking down the defense and Deng doesn't do it consistently. We saw how Boston locked down Rose after the first game in the series. Its doable and I just think our offense can be respectable unless everyone is hitting their shots. Our team isn't hard to stop, we are just playing really bad competition.

Its not BG for 2010. BG doesn't make 55 mill a year. My argument is BG vs Kirk and I think long term, we are much better with BG than Kirk. Both occupy the same salary spot in 2010.

BG vs. Kirk argument has been beat into the ground. There is no reason to be upset about that because its not that important at all. I have said in the past that BG and Kirk's best years here, someone else on the team was better. I hold to that so they are both expendable. Plain and simple.

 

[Kush77]

Ha ha.

Another opportunity for me and Hou to go at it about BG. Ha ha. But I'm not. I think Mark makes these threads on purpose to see how long Hou and I can go at it. And he just sits back and laughs.

It's working. Hinrich is playing better offensively. Rose is playing like the all-star he is. Deng is solid. And the trade has injected a little life into the team, especially the bench, similar to last year. When Noah gets fully healthy, hopefully soon, Miller will go back to the bench and make the bench better.

Do the Bulls miss Gordon, no. They don't. I still think they'd be better with him. But I can understand the point of view of some guys that say "if Gordon was here they wouldn't be a contender so why sign him." I don't disagree with that.

But what I always maintained was that Gordon could have been the nice 3rd option in a Rose-Bosh-BG trio. That's why I wanted him to resign. But I suppose a Rose-Bosh/Stoudemire?-Deng trio will be fine. Hopefully the Bulls can get one of those big men.

They're playing great now and I see the same thing happening as last season. A strong finish and a solid playoff showing win or lose. And while it's better than they way they played in the first half, this team needs to get someone to take the next step.

 

[Shakes]

It might not be BG vs Deng, but it certainly isn't BG vs Kirk. Kirk expires when Rose needs an extension. Unless Ben was willing to take a two year contract, he wouldn't. Kirk and Ben may play the more similar position, but contract wise, Ben and Deng were competing for the same long term money.

As far as this team goes offensively, during this stretch of good play we're about league average. People can complain it's only a good run, but it's longer than the stretch of post all-star play last year that had everyone declaring the trade made us a 50 win quality team.

 

[??? ??????]

I'd much rather have Ben Gordon than Kirk Hinrich, but not so sure about Luol Deng at the moment.

After the Bulls get their free agent acquisitions, they might need to look at dealing back for Gordon, depending on how the roster shapes up. If you could trade Hinrich for Gordon, I think you have to do that, just based on you seeing how much better BG was than Hinrich when they were both Bulls.

I think Detroit would do it too, just because there are no minutes for BG in Detroit with Stuckey and Rip there, so why turn BG into an unmoveable contract, if you can shed him for a guy like Hinrich who will have 2 more years on his contract.

Obviously you don't really look at trading back for Gordon if you sign Wade or Johnson. But if you walk away with Bosh, Boozer, or Amare, trading back for Gordon, using Hinrich, is something the Bulls should look at.

 

[Kush77]

Shakes wrote:

Kirk expires when Rose needs an extension. Unless Ben was willing to take a two year contract, he wouldn't. Kirk and Ben may play the more similar position, but contract wise, Ben and Deng were competing for the same long term money.

I don't know if I'm misreading your take on this, but when it comes to resigning Rose to an extension, luxury tax, cap or other contracts shouldn't be a factor in any way. The Bulls are gonna have to pay the tax soon, contender or not. Of course if they sign the big free agent they're hoping to, but also when they have to resign Noah and Rose. Not factoring in a potential max free agent (like Wade or Bosh) Deng, Noah and Rose's deals, along with the rest of the roster, will have the Bulls over the cap and into the tax. But it's hard to know with the CBA changes that will be coming.

 

[Shakes]

My take is exactly what you're saying. We'll be up against the tax, so Ben over Kirk at that point is at double Ben's salary. It's pretty hard to justify 24.8 million a year for Ben Gordon (double his 2012/13 salary). There's a reason why not many teams have all their starters on 10 million+ deals.

Besides, I don't think there's enough shots to go around between Rose/Gordon/Deng/Bosh. That's 65 FGA a game between just those 4 (based on Rose/Deng/Bosh's numbers this year, and Gordon's from last year when he was healthy). One of Gordon or Deng had to go to make room for a FA in terms of offensive fit.

 

[Kush77]

Shakes wrote:

One of Gordon or Deng had to go to make room for a FA in terms of offensive fit.

I can see that from an offensive standpoint. I do think it could work because Deng and Rose are guys that would be fine if they didn't get a ton of shots. Even Bosh to a certain extent. BG has to get shots, because if he isn't scoring for you then he's not justified.

But in terms of salary, resigning Rose shouldn't be an issue for Bulls management. He should be resigned 100% regardless of tax or cap space.

CBA pending, Rose can sign an extension in the summer of 2011 and Noah could sign one this summer. the Bulls are gonna be up against the tax if they had BG or not. Especially if they sign Bosh or Joe Johnson or Wade.

And when it comes to Rose signing his extension after year 3, the Bulls better not dick around with him and try to lowball him (like they did with BG and Deng) when Rose is clearly a max player for this team.

Now you might say the Bulls didn't lowball BG and Deng. But they were both coming off career years, and were young. The Bulls offers in the summer of 2007 were less than what they commanded. And they both ended up getting more, right or wrong.

I'm just saying the Bulls better not screw with Rose like that. Because in the past Paxson has said somehting to the effect of "well he's still under contract next year so it isn't as urgent to get the extension this year." They need to lock up Rose A.S.A.P.

 

[houheffna]

I'd much rather have Ben Gordon than Kirk Hinrich, but not so sure about Luol Deng at the moment.

After the Bulls get their free agent acquisitions, they might need to look at dealing back for Gordon, depending on how the roster shapes up. If you could trade Hinrich for Gordon, I think you have to do that, just based on you seeing how much better BG was than Hinrich when they were both Bulls.

I think Detroit would do it too, just because there are no minutes for BG in Detroit with Stuckey and Rip there, so why turn BG into an unmoveable contract, if you can shed him for a guy like Hinrich who will have 2 more years on his contract.

Obviously you don't really look at trading back for Gordon if you sign Wade or Johnson. But if you walk away with Bosh, Boozer, or Amare, trading back for Gordon, using Hinrich, is something the Bulls should look at.

You have lost your mind dude....Gordon is making damn near 12 mil a year...hell no! Are you a Bucks fan? Are you TRYING to destroy the Bulls? Why would Detroit want Hinrich? They need to rebuild...they don't need Hinrich. Bringing Gordon back, especially with that contract...would be a dumb ass move...

 

[Shakes]

Rose is what, 3rd in jersey sales already? I don't think there's much question he's a money maker for the Bulls no matter what he's being paid. I have no worries at all about his next contract, unless he has a stunning reversal of form it'll be a max one, the only question is how many years he wants to lock himself in for.

My point about Rose's extension wasn't about paying him, it's about paying the other guys on the team. The offensive fit I was talking about really matters with that, because if someone is getting less shots and their numbers go down, they're harder to trade. As 3rd and 4th options, Gordon and Deng would look way overpaid.

 

[Kush77]

Shakes wrote:

Rose is what, 3rd in jersey sales already? I don't think there's much question he's a money maker for the Bulls no matter what he's being paid. I have no worries at all about his next contract, unless he has a stunning reversal of form it'll be a max one, the only question is how many years he wants to lock himself in for.

My point about Rose's extension wasn't about paying him, it's about paying the other guys on the team. The offensive fit I was talking about really matters with that, because if someone is getting less shots and their numbers go down, they're harder to trade. As 3rd and 4th options, Gordon and Deng would look way overpaid.

I gotcha. If Deng was a 3rd or 4th option scoring 12ppg and making 13 million it would be hard to trade him. But my hope would be that they would be winning titles and it would be all good! B)

I'm not as confident as you are about the Bulls and Rose's contract. This is the same management that gave Phil Jackson a hard time with his deals. I can totally see the Bulls offering Rose less than he wants after year 3, and the process leaving a bad taste in Derrick mouth. I hope I'm wrong, but this is Jerry Reinsdorf.

It seems that resigning guys on this team is such a process. Gordon, Deng and Hinrich. Tyson Chandler's deal was pretty smooth if I recall though. But that was a result of Curry already being gone. The Bulls had to keep Chandler or lose both of their starting big men from a team that won 47 games. I'm sure if Curry was in the mix for the Bulls they would have played a little more hardball with Chandler.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

I'd much rather have Ben Gordon than Kirk Hinrich, but not so sure about Luol Deng at the moment.

After the Bulls get their free agent acquisitions, they might need to look at dealing back for Gordon, depending on how the roster shapes up. If you could trade Hinrich for Gordon, I think you have to do that, just based on you seeing how much better BG was than Hinrich when they were both Bulls.

I think Detroit would do it too, just because there are no minutes for BG in Detroit with Stuckey and Rip there, so why turn BG into an unmoveable contract, if you can shed him for a guy like Hinrich who will have 2 more years on his contract.

Obviously you don't really look at trading back for Gordon if you sign Wade or Johnson. But if you walk away with Bosh, Boozer, or Amare, trading back for Gordon, using Hinrich, is something the Bulls should look at.

You have lost your mind dude....Gordon is making damn near 12 mil a year...hell no! Are you a Bucks fan? Are you TRYING to destroy the Bulls? Why would Detroit want Hinrich? They need to rebuild...they don't need Hinrich. Bringing Gordon back, especially with that contract...would be a dumb ass move...

We could have easily had him for nine a year so twelve is rather irrelevant to me. Detroit might want to dump BG if they can't get rid of Rip for a big. Kirks deal declines and expires sooner. Though I think its unlikely the bulls trade for BG back but I would welcome the idea of bg for kirk.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

My point about Rose's extension wasn't about paying him, it's about paying the other guys on the team. The offensive fit I was talking about really matters with that, because if someone is getting less shots and their numbers go down, they're harder to trade. As 3rd and 4th options, Gordon and Deng would look way overpaid.

Odom posted similar numbers and was labeled as overpaid till he became a valuable piece on a championship team. His deal was similar to Deng's. If you got Deng making that much money and you are going to sing a max fa, resign rose and noah and compete, your going to pay the tax. There is no way to avoid it and keep all your pieces. Noah will get a AB or TC type salary, Rose will get the max, mystery FA will get the max and Deng's got those high paying years coming up. Those 4 alone will be close to the salary cap and thats without a bench or adding a starting sg or resigning kirk or adding a guy or two at the mle.