I hate 2 admit, but letting Gordon go was right

[mlewinth]

TheStig wrote:

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.

If these documented opportunities are so documented, why don't you show them to me!?!?!Gordon and deng were offered identical contracts during their extension year and both turned it down (for roughly $10 mill per. The following season we offered Gordon $9+ mill a year and he rejected it. True, 3 months later he decided that was the best he was going to get that off season and tried to change his mind, but we had already made the decision at that point that we would let him go.

There is no reason to believe that we could of gotten rid of Kirk, ever, after we signed him. This is not an argument about Kirk vs. BG, because we had ALREADY SIGNED KIRK!! eWith all due respect to my co-host, he is not an insider either. He is a forum member who is as full of shit about rumors as you. He just loves Ben Gordon and would of made up any hypotetical scenerio to keep him. You need to seperate what you read in the news, from what you hear on these forums, from what you hear on talk radio, from what actually happens in real life and use your brain to decipher what is bullshit and not. Don't believe everything you hear, believe what you see! Rumors are thrown out CONSTANTLY and about 3% of them or less are real! If you think "i'm so wrong", throw up some fact my man? Show me these "so documented things from both sides"...because so far your argument (which I believe is "your so wrong, im telling my mom" and "I have so much documentation from both sides") is not very convincing.

 

[mlewinth]

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.

I'm sorry this is just the dumbest thing I have ever read. The Blazers came out and confirmed what exactly!!??!?!?!? When!?!!?? Who!?!?! Huh!?!?! If this statement is true (which it's not, it complete and utter garbage), find the articles!

 

[Diddy1122]

Fred wrote:

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?

I've got to agree with Mark, even though he was crying about this same thing earlier in the year & he did a 180 triple lutz sow-cow on the subject now. Who's to say BG wouldn't have gotten injured here? Are looking in your crystal ball, Merlin? Did you seek foresight from the Oracle? His history of durability doesn't just disappear when he puts on another uniform. What's the point of even bringing that up? People play the what if game way too much & put too much stock into rumors & loose talk from talking heads.

And the issue is not BG vs. Kirk!! I'm so sick of these two being connected at the hip like siamese twins. Deng & BG were up at the same time. It was management's choice between those 2, not Kirk & BG. I just don't understand what people don't get about that. Kirk got his money & it was a justified contract at the time it was signed. Trading a player is really hard in this league, much harder than making a choice who to offer a contract to & who not to. Management made it clear they valued Deng more than BG & honestly at the time, I didn't blame them. Ask Mark, I had arguments with him all the time about why Deng was offered more & why he was more important to team success.

So management pulled the offer, even though I think the whole idea of deadlines & ultimatums is a stupid way of doing business with a FA, that's what they did & BG waited too long. It may have been dumb but BG doesn't go without blame either. Both sides have to make a deal work & they didn't. There's no point in playing shoulda-woulda-coulda over & over again on this subject. BG is gone, Deng is here. I can't wait until after the FA period this summer so we can maybe, MAAAAYBE, put this entire BG vs. Kirk vs. Deng vs. GarPax vs. Benny the Bull arguments to rest.

 

[TheStig]

mlewinth wrote:

If these documented opportunities are so documented, why don't you show them to me!?!?!Gordon and deng were offered identical contracts during their extension year and both turned it down (for roughly $10 mill per. The following season we offered Gordon $9+ mill a year and he rejected it. True, 3 months later he decided that was the best he was going to get that off season and tried to change his mind, but we had already made the decision at that point that we would let him go.

So he agreed, wasn't that the issue in the past. It was clearly below his value as he went out and got another deal for more the following offseason. So clearly we could have had him signed to $9 Million per year, which was the point.

There is no reason to believe that we could of gotten rid of Kirk, ever, after we signed him. This is not an argument about Kirk vs. BG, because we had ALREADY SIGNED KIRK!! eWith all due respect to my co-host, he is not an insider either. He is a forum member who is as full of shit about rumors as you. He just loves Ben Gordon and would of made up any hypotetical scenerio to keep him. You need to seperate what you read in the news, from what you hear on these forums, from what you hear on talk radio, from what actually happens in real life and use your brain to decipher what is bullshit and not. Don't believe everything you hear, believe what you see! Rumors are thrown out CONSTANTLY and about 3% of them or less are real! If you think "i'm so wrong", throw up some fact my man? Show me these "so documented things from both sides"...because so far your argument (which I believe is "your so wrong, im telling my mom" and "I have so much documentation from both sides") is not very convincing.

We didn't sign the deal in stone or give him a no trade clause. Kirk is a movable person last time I saw him. Here is where the talks broke down because we wanted bayless.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4319607
There was a better article that came out that I can't find now that said Kirk was Pritchards first choice in pgs this offseason ahead of Miller. It also makes sense since he has a similar remaining part of the deal to Miller. Its common knowledge Kirk was available and Portland was buying. We had already lost BG and didn't want an empty backcourt.

 

[postdiction]

Fred wrote:

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?

I can't remember who was saying this (Might have been Doug Thonus) but, the team that loses the star player typically doesn't receive a very high quality player in return.

The Suns got Boris Diaw and 2 lottery protected 1sts nothing too amazing.
I am sure the Bulls could offer any combination of Deng, Gibson, JJ or Hinirch plus we also have the Bobcat's 1st

We aren't going to lose a core piece in a S&T. So I don't think this a big deal at all.

 

[Shakes]

If Bosh decides he want to come to Chicago then Toronto take the trade exception and a couple of picks we throw in. They don't have a lot of choice, if he's determined to leave the alternative is to get nothing. But if they lsoe Bosh they need to rebuild, so thgey wouldn't want a long term contract, whether that contract is Deng or Gordon, so this has nothing to do with the issue at hand really.

 

[TheStig]

I don't think assests are really necessary to land one fa. I think they are more necessary to land a second guy.

 

[Shakes]

We can't sign a second guy outright, so we have no leverage. What incentive do they have to help us get their star?

 

[TheStig]

Shakes wrote:

We can't sign a second guy outright, so we have no leverage. What incentive do they have to help us get their star?

The guys we are trading. If Bosh says he isn't resigning and wants to come here, a deal will be worked out. If two stars want to come here, chances are one of the teams will be willing to work out a trade.

 

[Shakes]

If I'm Toronto I say "OK, how you going to get there? Sign for the 2 million or so cap space they have left over?" If the choice is Gordon (or Deng) vs Bosh, you have to take Bosh and hope you can make him happy later.

 

[cool007]

Well Gordon is gone so I don't think about him anymore but I really wished that we had kept Gordon and traded Hinrich instead.

Also, Gordon was ready to accept that 6 years/$54mil extension but Bulls pulled the offer. IMO, Gordon at $9mil per year would be a very good bargain while Hinrich is nothing but overpaid. Hinrich is not bad at MLE type money or even at $7mil a year but he is overpaid and he is what he is.

Had Bulls traded Hinrich last feb. trade deadline (Pax did say that there was a deal available to clear up space but he didn't do it and wanted to wait). If we did, we still should have had money for 2010 max free agent.

I prefer Gordon over Hinrich any day of the week. But what's done is done and I hope we trade Hinrich this summer in a sign and trade deal where we land Joe Johnson or something. If Bosh agrees to sign here.

OR

I would love to trade Hinrich to Grizzlies for (sign and trade) ***.
I also like to trade Deng to Jazz or Suns for (sign and trade) Boozer or Amare.

Sign D-Wade outright - that is if Bosh and LeBron either stay with their teams or want no part of Bulls.

 

[houheffna]

I don't understand why the Bulls are so often vilified for pulling the offer off the table after the deadline passed, but not give Gordon the blame for actually letting the deadline pass before making a decision to accept the deal...it was just as much his decision. This isn't like the Cubs and Greg Maddux 20 years ago...

 

[Diddy1122]

houheffna wrote:

I don't understand why the Bulls are so often vilified for pulling the offer off the table after the deadline passed, but not give Gordon the blame for actually letting the deadline pass before making a decision to accept the deal...it was just as much his decision. This isn't like the Cubs and Greg Maddux 20 years ago...

Even though I think management was stupid in the way they went about the whole BG contract process, I gotta agree here. Takes two sides to get a deal done & there's equal culpability on each side. And this is the absolute last time I speak of BG in terms of contract or wrong-doing by the Bulls organization or BG vs. Kirk or anything else. It's time to move on people. So everyone get out all the pent up frustration & anger over this so we can all move on together to hopefully greener pastures next season.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

I don't understand why the Bulls are so often vilified for pulling the offer off the table after the deadline passed, but not give Gordon the blame for actually letting the deadline pass before making a decision to accept the deal...it was just as much his decision. This isn't like the Cubs and Greg Maddux 20 years ago...

Its vilified because it was a lower offer and he was being cranked by all the bulls leverage to take it. The least they could do was honor the offer, it just looked like they never had any intention to sign him and were just giving him a low offer they knew he wouldn't take. If it were the only time, you could paint BG into the corner but it seems like there is bad blood on every other deal.

 

[houheffna]

Its vilified because it was a lower offer and he was being cranked by all the bulls leverage to take it. The least they could do was honor the offer, it just looked like they never had any intention to sign him and were just giving him a low offer they knew he wouldn't take. If it were the only time, you could paint BG into the corner but it seems like there is bad blood on every other deal.

What do you mean the least they can do? The least they can do is honor the deadline they set, they did...case closed...they owed him nothing else. Now if he didn't get his paycheck every pay period, that's another story. That is what they owed him, what they contractually obligated themselves to pay him. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Its vilified because it was a lower offer and he was being cranked by all the bulls leverage to take it. The least they could do was honor the offer, it just looked like they never had any intention to sign him and were just giving him a low offer they knew he wouldn't take. If it were the only time, you could paint BG into the corner but it seems like there is bad blood on every other deal.

What do you mean the least they can do? The least they can do is honor the deadline they set, they did...case closed...they owed him nothing else. Now if he didn't get his paycheck every pay period, that's another story. That is what they owed him, what they contractually obligated themselves to pay him. Nothing more, nothing less.

I just think they do a horrible job of negotiating contracts. The only recent deal that went smoothly was out of desperation. I personally believe they were negotiating in bad faith, if they pulled the deal then, it was likely they were going to pull it earlier. Regardless of BG, they just aren't very good at haggling deals. Seems like JR treats it like a business deal where there are no restrictions on pursuing other opportunities. There is also very little give and take, just a take it or leave it approach.

 

[houheffna]

I just think they do a horrible job of negotiating contracts. The only recent deal that went smoothly was out of desperation. I personally believe they were negotiating in bad faith, if they pulled the deal then, it was likely they were going to pull it earlier. Regardless of BG, they just aren't very good at haggling deals. Seems like JR treats it like a business deal where there are no restrictions on pursuing other opportunities. There is also very little give and take, just a take it or leave it approach.

I don't know why you would feel that way when he has 2 players he voluntarily overpaid on the roster. The idea was to lock down these young players and he was trying to do that with Hinrich, Deng and Gordon.

Deng, Hinrich and others are examples of Reinsdorf overspending at times if anything. As I have said before, you can accuse him more of not spending on the right players.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

I just think they do a horrible job of negotiating contracts. The only recent deal that went smoothly was out of desperation. I personally believe they were negotiating in bad faith, if they pulled the deal then, it was likely they were going to pull it earlier. Regardless of BG, they just aren't very good at haggling deals. Seems like JR treats it like a business deal where there are no restrictions on pursuing other opportunities. There is also very little give and take, just a take it or leave it approach.

I don't know why you would feel that way when he has 2 players he voluntarily overpaid on the roster. The idea was to lock down these young players and he was trying to do that with Hinrich, Deng and Gordon.

Deng, Hinrich and others are examples of Reinsdorf overspending at times if anything. As I have said before, you can accuse him more of not spending on the right players.

Kirk took less when he got his extenstion. He wasn't overpaid then, he was a starting PG with potential. He only became underpaid in 07-08. Deng was clearly overpaid but those negotiations didn't go very smoothly. He declined a deal similar to bgs the year before and threatened to take the qo if he didn't get his contract before he joined the gb team.

 

[houheffna]

Kirk took less when he got his extenstion. He wasn't overpaid then, he was a starting PG with potential. He only became underpaid in 07-08. Deng was clearly overpaid but those negotiations didn't go very smoothly. He declined a deal similar to bgs the year before and threatened to take the qo if he didn't get his contract before he joined the gb team.

Okay, you are making no sense. What the heck do you expect from contract negotiations? Everything you are talking about happens routinely in sports...Deng and BG were foolish to not take those offers, how is that Reinsdorf's fault. But if he wasn't a tough negotiator, he wouldn't be a good businessman...that is just part of the business. He is not different from other owners in the NBA and other sports...

If he operated the way you want him to, the team would be in a deeper hole salary cap wise than they are now. I have no problem with him using discretion with his money...because its HIS MONEY! I just think you are beating a dead horse here. And I hope this is not about one decent at best player leaving town, because that is just over the top...

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Kirk took less when he got his extenstion. He wasn't overpaid then, he was a starting PG with potential. He only became underpaid in 07-08. Deng was clearly overpaid but those negotiations didn't go very smoothly. He declined a deal similar to bgs the year before and threatened to take the qo if he didn't get his contract before he joined the gb team.

Okay, you are making no sense. What the heck do you expect from contract negotiations? Everything you are talking about happens routinely in sports...Deng and BG were foolish to not take those offers, how is that Reinsdorf's fault. But if he wasn't a tough negotiator, he wouldn't be a good businessman...that is just part of the business. He is not different from other owners in the NBA and other sports...

If he operated the way you want him to, the team would be in a deeper hole salary cap wise than they are now. I have no problem with him using discretion with his money...because its HIS MONEY! I just think you are beating a dead horse here. And I hope this is not about one decent at best player leaving town, because that is just over the top...

It doesn't routinely happen. Most teams don't have these types of issues negotiating. At least not on a consistent basis. And how are Deng and BG fools for not taking the deals? They both did better. No your making no sense, last time I checked 5/58>5/50 and 6/71 + incentives>5/58.

I'm not saying they need to sign everyone but why does every negotiation have to turn into a long drawn out hassel. The only painless negotiations they have had were with Ben Wallace. Why do you turn everything into BG and then ***** and moan about it? There are a lot more bad negotiations that happened than bg. He won't be the first or last.