I hate 2 admit, but letting Gordon go was right

[Shakes]

I have a problem with any plan where to solution to having overpaid players is "just win a championship and people wont think they're overpaid/we wont want to trade them".

 

[TheStig]

Diddy1122 wrote:

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.

Really? So explain how the 05-06 bulls barely got to .500 and couldn't get out of the first round. They had similar stats to what your quoting. Or how the #1 rated magic defense lost to the #6 rated laker defense. You need defense but you need a high powered offense too. Defense wins championships is an outdated phrase from back when the nba allowed people to play real defense. Perimeter defenders like Kirk Hinrich aren't a valuable commodity like they used to be and will get in foul trobule 4 out of 5 times before they shut someone down. Good rebounding, team concept and help defense is the defense that matters now. BG fit into our good defensive teams of the past that had similar rankings to todays bulls, so don't tell me he can't fit in a team concept.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

I have a problem with any plan where to solution to having overpaid players is "just win a championship and people wont think they're overpaid/we wont want to trade them".

I have a problem with people shrieking at the luxury tax so that our "poor" billionaire owner can continue to rake in the top profits that are about 10x league averages, while our product suffers. But thats just me, every few years we rebuild and clear cap space. But we never buy picks like cash rich franchises rebuilding.

 

[TheStig]

Kush, Chandler's negotiations went so smothly because we had just lost our two other rotation big men, Dalemburt just signed a near identical deal setting market value and we were desperate. It would have been really hard to argue TC's value given Dalemburts deal.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

Shakes wrote:

I have a problem with any plan where to solution to having overpaid players is "just win a championship and people wont think they're overpaid/we wont want to trade them".

I have a problem with people shrieking at the luxury tax so that our "poor" billionaire owner can continue to rake in the top profits that are about 10x league averages, while our product suffers. But thats just me, every few years we rebuild and clear cap space. But we never buy picks like cash rich franchises rebuilding.

I don't care about saving JR from the luxury tax. I said we'd have to pay it. I do care about flexibility. Even if we get a FA, there's a good chance it wont work straight away, the supporting cast around the FA & Rose will need to be tweaked. If we're locked into a team we can't trade, we'll end up like Dallas: really good but really expensive and so it's impossible to find a trade to put you over the top.

 

[houheffna]

Really? So explain how the 05-06 bulls barely got to .500 and couldn't get out of the first round. They had similar stats to what your quoting. Or how the #1 rated magic defense lost to the #6 rated laker defense. You need defense but you need a high powered offense too. Defense wins championships is an outdated phrase from back when the nba allowed people to play real defense. Perimeter defenders like Kirk Hinrich aren't a valuable commodity like they used to be and will get in foul trobule 4 out of 5 times before they shut someone down. Good rebounding, team concept and help defense is the defense that matters now. BG fit into our good defensive teams of the past that had similar rankings to todays bulls, so don't tell me he can't fit in a team concept.

What do you mean by team concept?

BG fit into the team because he was the best jumpshooter on a jumpshooting team. But he is gone now...and bringing him back at almost 12mil a year is asinine...

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

Kush, Chandler's negotiations went so smothly because we had just lost our two other rotation big men, Dalemburt just signed a near identical deal setting market value and we were desperate. It would have been really hard to argue TC's value given Dalemburts deal.

If Chandler had played like he did the year before he'd have been well worth that deal too. The Bulls really have been cursed with players playing much worse after signing contracts. And it's not even like they're guys who decided to slack when they got the money.

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

TheStig wrote:

Shakes wrote:

I have a problem with any plan where to solution to having overpaid players is "just win a championship and people wont think they're overpaid/we wont want to trade them".

I have a problem with people shrieking at the luxury tax so that our "poor" billionaire owner can continue to rake in the top profits that are about 10x league averages, while our product suffers. But thats just me, every few years we rebuild and clear cap space. But we never buy picks like cash rich franchises rebuilding.

I don't care about saving JR from the luxury tax. I said we'd have to pay it. I do care about flexibility. Even if we get a FA, there's a good chance it wont work straight away, the supporting cast around the FA & Rose will need to be tweaked. If we're locked into a team we can't trade, we'll end up like Dallas: really good but really expensive and so it's impossible to find a trade to put you over the top.

Contenders usaully don't have flexibility like that from year to year. We would be way ahead of dallas as we would have two superstars and a cast that fit each other well. As a contender, you usally only gain flexility when a salary is going to expire, the difference is everyone on our team is younger and would need to be resigned. Contenders only really have the mle and grab good pieces with it since they get the top choices.

 

[mlewinth]

Kush77 wrote:

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.

:laugh: :laugh:

 

[mlewinth]

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. Mark, I am disappointed to see you sell so low.

I totally disagree. Alot of people here are making some assumption that we could of traded Kirk. We don't know this. Also, when we resigned Kirk, he was just comming off a season where he was what, 16 and 5? He was worth every penny to us at that time. Hindsight is 20/20 my friends. Would I rather have BG than Kirk? Yes. But we signed Kirk because at the time he was a good starting pg. We ended up striking gold and getting a better starting PG, but Kirk was already signed. You can only manage the cap you have, you can't manage the cap you "should had, had you forseen getting Rose and Kirk's decline." Not knowing if we coulda traded kirk for 100% expiring contracts and kept Ben and knowing what the real situation was last offseason, we needed to shed a player and it was easy to shed Gordon (and what would of been $12 mill per) because his contract was up. We had to let Ben go and looking back no on if I could only take a BG or a Deng, I go Deng, since we have Rose.

 

[Kush77]

TheStig wrote:

Kush, Chandler's negotiations went so smothly because we had just lost our two other rotation big men, Dalemburt just signed a near identical deal setting market value and we were desperate. It would have been really hard to argue TC's value given Dalemburts deal.

Yep, I forgot about Antonio Davis going to Ny in that deal with Curry. so that's why it went smoothly. Like I said, if Curry, and Davis, were there, they would have played more hardball with Chandler.

It just seems that the Bulls try to get the best out of every negotiation. Now I'm sure someone will say "that's good business." And I don't disagree. But don't be shocked when players leave because that "good business" leaves a sour taste in their mouth.

I don't think Rose's contract negotiations should be a problem. But I'm not ruling it out as long as Jerry Reinsdorf owns this team.

 

[TheStig]

mlewinth wrote:

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. Mark, I am disappointed to see you sell so low.

I totally disagree. Alot of people here are making some assumption that we could of traded Kirk. We don't know this. Also, when we resigned Kirk, he was just comming off a season where he was what, 16 and 5? He was worth every penny to us at that time. Hindsight is 20/20 my friends. Would I rather have BG than Kirk? Yes. But we signed Kirk because at the time he was a good starting pg. We ended up striking gold and getting a better starting PG, but Kirk was already signed. You can only manage the cap you have, you can't manage the cap you "should had, had you forseen getting Rose and Kirk's decline." Not knowing if we coulda traded kirk for 100% expiring contracts and kept Ben and knowing what the real situation was last offseason, we needed to shed a player and it was easy to shed Gordon (and what would of been $12 mill per) because his contract was up. We had to let Ben go and looking back no on if I could only take a BG or a Deng, I go Deng, since we have Rose.

Mark, I would have looked to trade Kirk last deadline or in the offseason, when we did have oppurtunities. He wouldn't have been on our roster to start the year. I have also lobbied to sign BG for $9 mill per, so its not really hindsight.

Everyone is looking at Deng in the present day. Today Deng might barely be worth his deal but lets not forget that he has been injured to end the season every other year. Deng is a seriously liability going forward. He has developed into a nice defender, rebounder and is starting to slash again but his injury risks are huge for a guy that plays that physical.

 

[Shakes]

I don't know about the whole sour taste thing. Sure the negotiations haven't always been quick, but the players have usually ended up with a good outcome. I'd say Deng and Noc got deals that at the time already seemed high. Chandler and Kirk got deals that looked pretty fair to me. Gordon's the only player we couldn't come to terms with. Duhon we probably played hard ball with and won, because we were able to match a very cheap contract for him.

Seems like players and management get the upper hand in roughly equal measure. We're not the "Troy Murphy for 10 million? Sounds like a bargain, give Mike Dunleavy 9 million while you're at it!" Warriors, but we're not the Clippers either.

 

[Shakes]

TheStig wrote:

Everyone is looking at Deng in the present day. Today Deng might barely be worth his deal but lets not forget that he has been injured to end the season every other year. Deng is a seriously liability going forward. He has developed into a nice defender, rebounder and is starting to slash again but his injury risks are huge for a guy that plays that physical.

I'm not sure that Deng is that big a risk. He's averaging around 69 games a year, which isn't terrible. He's had a few injuries, but it's not like they've been a chronic issue where he keeps getting the same injury. You say we're looking at this year, but recent history is the most important for injuries, and right now Deng has played the 8th most minutes in the league this year with nothing more than the usual wear and tear all players get by this stage of the season.

Call me optimistic but I wouldn't rate Deng as a bigger injury worry than the average player right now.

 

[??? ??????]

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...

Money is irrelevant. At that point, it's just about trying to put the best pieces together, and I think Gordon is a better piece to have if we are trying to be a championship team with Kirk.

We will be capped out for the duration of Gordon's contract, regardless if we have Gordon here or not. We would presumably be competing for championships, so we wouldn't be looking for flexibility to try to re-work the team at that point. So after you sign your max free agent this summer, if Kirk for BG is doable, then you do it, if your main concern is winning basketball games.

 

[Shakes]

I'd get greedy and ask the Pistons to throw in a pick. Lets face it, the way Ben is struggling right now, nobody else is going to take him off their hands.

BTW on the subject of Detroit, how dumb do you have to be to leave Wallace in the game when you're down 3 with 24 to go? One hack-a-Wallace and two airballs later and the game is lost.

 

[mlewinth]

[/quote]

Mark, I would have looked to trade Kirk last deadline or in the offseason, when we did have oppurtunities. He wouldn't have been on our roster to start the year. I have also lobbied to sign BG for $9 mill per, so its not really hindsight.

Everyone is looking at Deng in the present day. Today Deng might barely be worth his deal but lets not forget that he has been injured to end the season every other year. Deng is a seriously liability going forward. He has developed into a nice defender, rebounder and is starting to slash again but his injury risks are huge for a guy that plays that physical.[/quote]

Stig, apparently I missed the invite to those inside meetings you sat in on with Gar and Pax. Be it that I am not an insider like yourself, from over here, it looked like we couldn't trade Hinrich this year, when we tried our asses off and he had only 2 years after this left on his contract. Apparently, he was far more wanted last year and the year before, when he still sucked and had 3-4 years left on his contract. Stig, you have no idea what opportunities we had and didnt have. I don't care what Pax said about Kirk and being able to trade him for expiring contracts. Did it ever occur to you that maybe he was doing a little "media speak" so as not to destroy the value even more of a player he had who he knew had no value?

Also, I totally forgot, you had been lobbying forever to sign BG for 9 million per. I one upped you though, I had been lobbying to sign BG for $3 million per, so really in hindsight my deal would of made the most sense!!! As nice as your $9 million per year fantasyland sounds, we offered Ben Gordon $10 million per year AND HE TURNED IT DOWN! We had for 2 seasons in a row offered BG roughly $10 mill per and for 2 straight years he turned it down. Maybe if you delivered him your $9 million offer personally, though, he may of accepted it, since it sounds as if you had signed the check he would of taken it.

I am sick of people pretending that sports teams are a video game, or a fantasy basketball team. There is a reason that there is so little movement in the NBA overall, its because this is real money Stig, not Mononpoly money. Trades are hard to make and it takes 2 willing parties, not 1 willing party and a couple desperate fans. We can throw out fake trade scenarios, fake opportunities to trade guys, or fake contracts all day and have loads of fun doing it. Me personally, I like to focus on fact. Fact is, we signed Kirk to a contract when he was playing well and he looked like a good PG and we had no one else. Ben was up for a second time for an extention, the year after turning down our first offer (of over $9 mill) and we had already acquired Rose. Looking at FACT, with Rose being our future and us needing another star to pair with him, we had 1 choice to make, Deng or Ben and we made the right choice.

 

[pinkizdead]

i like luol better as a player, but i'm still always on the edge of my seat. if deng goes down in a play, my heart sinks a little bit. w/o deng this year, this team is dead. there is no one who can replace him on our team in the lineup. last year we had salmons/thomas. this year we have murray and johnson.

 

[Fred]

Let's assume the Bulls did the right thing in October of 2008, and signed Ben to the 6 year, 54 million offer that he wanted to sign, and our moron management team pulled the offer off the table.

He would have been in a Bulls uniform this year. He would have been in a Pistons uniform, and he would not have hurt his ankle playing for them. He could have hurt his ankle playing for us, but his track record showed he was remarkably durable.

We could have then traded Hinrich for expirings in Feb of 09.

Therefore, we would have a better team this year. We would have basically swapped out Kirk being overpaid for Ben being underpaid, relative to what Deng received. People who argue that Rose would not have progressed baffle me. We spent the first 40 games last year letting Rose take the last shot. He took far more last second shots last year then Gordon. He just wasn't as successful at it. Gordon showed he was willing to let Rose lead.

Does Rose say, "There's no room to drive" after a loss to the Raptors if Gordon is here? Do we lose a 35 point lead to Sacramento at home? Do we lose to the Nets at home? We'll be a .500 team next month, despite the improvements of Rose and Noah and Deng.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, what will we have to offer to Toronto when Bosh asks for his sign and trade? How attractive is the Deng contract? Wouldn't a proven 20 PPG scorer, with 4 years left at 36 million (Gordon's 2010 contract value to the Raptors IF the Bulls didn't pull that offer off the table) look better than Deng and the large amount he has left?

 

[TheStig]

mlewinth wrote:

Stig, apparently I missed the invite to those inside meetings you sat in on with Gar and Pax. Be it that I am not an insider like yourself, from over here, it looked like we couldn't trade Hinrich this year, when we tried our asses off and he had only 2 years after this left on his contract. Apparently, he was far more wanted last year and the year before, when he still sucked and had 3-4 years left on his contract. Stig, you have no idea what opportunities we had and didnt have. I don't care what Pax said about Kirk and being able to trade him for expiring contracts. Did it ever occur to you that maybe he was doing a little "media speak" so as not to destroy the value even more of a player he had who he knew had no value?

Also, I totally forgot, you had been lobbying forever to sign BG for 9 million per. I one upped you though, I had been lobbying to sign BG for $3 million per, so really in hindsight my deal would of made the most sense!!! As nice as your $9 million per year fantasyland sounds, we offered Ben Gordon $10 million per year AND HE TURNED IT DOWN! We had for 2 seasons in a row offered BG roughly $10 mill per and for 2 straight years he turned it down. Maybe if you delivered him your $9 million offer personally, though, he may of accepted it, since it sounds as if you had signed the check he would of taken it.

I am sick of people pretending that sports teams are a video game, or a fantasy basketball team. There is a reason that there is so little movement in the NBA overall, its because this is real money Stig, not Mononpoly money. Trades are hard to make and it takes 2 willing parties, not 1 willing party and a couple desperate fans. We can throw out fake trade scenarios, fake opportunities to trade guys, or fake contracts all day and have loads of fun doing it. Me personally, I like to focus on fact. Fact is, we signed Kirk to a contract when he was playing well and he looked like a good PG and we had no one else. Ben was up for a second time for an extention, the year after turning down our first offer (of over $9 mill) and we had already acquired Rose. Looking at FACT, with Rose being our future and us needing another star to pair with him, we had 1 choice to make, Deng or Ben and we made the right choice.

Mark, you are just so wrong. There have been documented opportunities from both sides that have confirmed what I have said. I'm not talking about just random rumors or things pax said. Which Pax has been fairly honest with the media. The blazers have come out and confirmed the three way deal for kirk with us getting boozer back.

Again Mark, the bulls offered 6/54, BG accepted after their deadline and JR pulled the deal. This is well documented too. Not fantasy land. Ask your fellow podcaster, he can tell you all about it. I don't know why you are thinking these things are made up. You need to read more articles and post less in caps when your are just flat out wrong. I think you are the only poster who believes that that BG didn't try and accept the 6/54 offer.

I don't agree, I think BG and Deng are better than Kirk and Deng going forward. You can say what you like but after drafting a pg #1, your old PG became expendable. He wasn't always as untradeable as he is today. Up until this recent stretch against bad teams this team has been struggling to score, something our leading scorer could have helped with. Championship teams have 3-4 reliable scorers, giving one away isn't a good thing.