I hate 2 admit, but letting Gordon go was right

[houheffna]

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.

Okay...you use hindsight to say Gordon and Deng were right to turn the deals down, however when I point out that both Deng and Hinrich are overpaid (using hindsight), you also point out that AT THE TIME, those were good deals because they had "potential". Which philosophy are you going to use to prove your point? Are you going to use the outlook then or 20/20 hindsight? The outlook then was that they were both fools to not take that deal and that they had both gotten bad advice.

The both of them were criticized for not taking the deal because some people knew that Gordon and Deng were not superstars and Hinrich was not going to get much better than he was. Gordon talked about the negotiations in the press which had to upset Reinsdorf who doesn't like that type of thing. Deng got a big contract because of 2006-07 season. It was a gamble that didn't pay off...and most teams have difficult negotiations with non-max players...and when they didn't have any hassle (Ben Wallace) it was one of the worst FA acquisitions in franchise history. So why wouldn't he actually negotiate? Eddie Robinson's deal went fairly smooth also if I remember...he sucked. You think they would have negotiated with Garnett? Kobe? A hassle with those guys? No...I don't think so. Those are open and shut cases.

I think you resent intense negotiations between owner/gm and agents more than the players do...and I don't get it...

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

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.

Okay...you use hindsight to say Gordon and Deng were right to turn the deals down, however when I point out that both Deng and Hinrich are overpaid (using hindsight), you also point out that AT THE TIME, those were good deals because they had "potential". Which philosophy are you going to use to prove your point? Are you going to use the outlook then or 20/20 hindsight? The outlook then was that they were both fools to not take that deal and that they had both gotten bad advice.

The both of them were criticized for not taking the deal because some people knew that Gordon and Deng were not superstars and Hinrich was not going to get much better than he was. Gordon talked about the negotiations in the press which had to upset Reinsdorf who doesn't like that type of thing. Deng got a big contract because of 2006-07 season. It was a gamble that didn't pay off...and most teams have difficult negotiations with non-max players...and when they didn't have any hassle (Ben Wallace) it was one of the worst FA acquisitions in franchise history. So why wouldn't he actually negotiate? Eddie Robinson's deal went fairly smooth also if I remember...he sucked. You think they would have negotiated with Garnett? Kobe? A hassle with those guys? No...I don't think so. Those are open and shut cases.

I think you resent intense negotiations between owner/gm and agents more than the players do...and I don't get it...

Well how are you supposed to look at if they made a good choice or not if you can't look at the actual deals they got. I'm curious how else you can evaluate it? I also don't think that its even close, both got better deals in a bad economy. If they would have hit unrestricted fa instead of restricted fa, they probably would have gotten more. Furthermore, I never said Deng was a good deal. I felt he was overpaid from the begining, he also didn't get his deal because of 06-07, he got paid after 07-08. Kirk was a very good deal at the time, if he were still a starting pg, it would be fair but with his regression and bench role (last year and to start this year) and playing out of postion, it turned overpayed. I don't blame management for signing him to that type of deal, just not moving him after we realized rose was the furture.

Kirk would have done a hell of a lot better if he didn't sign that extension. Kirk had his best year after not signing that extension and would have gotten paid significantly more if he held out. furthermore, you are looking at what guys like arenas said, your favorite guy. I disagree that both were fools for not taking and believed that both could have gotten more than their offers.

Fa negotiations and resigning your own players are completely different due to rfa situations. Of course, Robinson and Wallace's deals were both inherently easier to haggle.

I don't, have a problem with negotiations in general. I just don't like the games that JR plays. I also don't think he negotiated in good faith with BG. There is no way to prove it but the whole situation stinks. And I don't like my team taking a step back because of it.

 

[houheffna]

I don't, have a problem with negotiations in general. I just don't like the games that JR plays. I also don't think he negotiated in good faith with BG. There is no way to prove it but the whole situation stinks. And I don't like my team taking a step back because of it.

There is no way to prove it, and if otherwise was proven you probably wouldn't believe it...how did your team (I assume you are talking about the Bulls) take a step back? How did they regress? I really don't get it...

Before the season I said on this forum that initially they would miss him, then as the season progresses, the loss would not be nearly as bad. I think that is accurate. He is not missed, and he is not needed. What this team needs is to get rid of as many of those players as possible with the exception of Rose and Noah and build hopefully through free agency in 2010. If there was a step back taken it was to take a big step forward in the summer. But I think the Bulls have played reasonably well.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

I don't, have a problem with negotiations in general. I just don't like the games that JR plays. I also don't think he negotiated in good faith with BG. There is no way to prove it but the whole situation stinks. And I don't like my team taking a step back because of it.

There is no way to prove it, and if otherwise was proven you probably wouldn't believe it...how did your team (I assume you are talking about the Bulls) take a step back? How did they regress? I really don't get it...

Before the season I said on this forum that initially they would miss him, then as the season progresses, the loss would not be nearly as bad. I think that is accurate. He is not missed, and he is not needed. What this team needs is to get rid of as many of those players as possible with the exception of Rose and Noah and build hopefully through free agency in 2010. If there was a step back taken it was to take a big step forward in the summer. But I think the Bulls have played reasonably well.

If you can't tell how they did better by the numbers I can't help you and am not going to go around in circles about this. I'll rephrase it again:

BG
5/58>6/54 or 5/50

Deng
6/71 + incentives that could push it to 80 mill>5/58

Personally, I like BG more than Kirk. I would have rather had BG in that salary slot and starting next to rose. I don't think rose is booming because BG is gone, I think he is blowing up because he is a star. Rose was getting crunch time shots with BG here. I feel a younger, better shooting and better offenseive option is a better long term fit at sg than kirk. But time will tell if we miss him. I think we have missed what bg gave us most of the year except the recent stretch against bad teams. We certainly will need someone like him against better opponents and in the playoffs. To think that a stretch against bad teams is proof is a small sample size, we still have a bottom 5 offense.

 

[houheffna]

If you can't tell how they did better by the numbers I can't help you and am not going to go around in circles about this. I'll rephrase it again:

BG
5/58>6/54 or 5/50

Deng
6/71 + incentives that could push it to 80 mill>5/58

Personally, I like BG more than Kirk. I would have rather had BG in that salary slot and starting next to rose. I don't think rose is booming because BG is gone, I think he is blowing up because he is a star. Rose was getting crunch time shots with BG here. I feel a younger, better shooting and better offenseive option is a better long term fit at sg than kirk. But time will tell if we miss him. I think we have missed what bg gave us most of the year except the recent stretch against bad teams. We certainly will need someone like him against better opponents and in the playoffs. To think that a stretch against bad teams is proof is a small sample size, we still have a bottom 5 offense.

Well to put this contract crap to bed, which you constantly resurrect....Deng aint worth what he got, Gordon aint worth what he gettin' now. Rather have one of those bad contracts than both...

I don't want Gordon or Hinrich starting next to Rose. Unless you get Lebron, I don't like that backcourt of Gordon with Rose, especially defensively. Big backcourts will eat them alive. I want a good guard with Rose with size and the overall abilities needed to thrive as a shooting guard in today's NBA. It is your lack of understanding of the big picture that puzzles me. No one is going to miss Ben in the playoffs...because it doesn't matter. None of this matters until the summer. Rose is better, and I disagree with you about Gordon possibly stunting Rose's growth, and Noah is better. Mission accomplished, they would much rather worry about free agency and getting a top tier player than miss Gordon, who wouldn't help them get any farther than they will get with what they have...

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

If you can't tell how they did better by the numbers I can't help you and am not going to go around in circles about this. I'll rephrase it again:

BG
5/58>6/54 or 5/50

Deng
6/71 + incentives that could push it to 80 mill>5/58

Personally, I like BG more than Kirk. I would have rather had BG in that salary slot and starting next to rose. I don't think rose is booming because BG is gone, I think he is blowing up because he is a star. Rose was getting crunch time shots with BG here. I feel a younger, better shooting and better offenseive option is a better long term fit at sg than kirk. But time will tell if we miss him. I think we have missed what bg gave us most of the year except the recent stretch against bad teams. We certainly will need someone like him against better opponents and in the playoffs. To think that a stretch against bad teams is proof is a small sample size, we still have a bottom 5 offense.

Well to put this contract crap to bed, which you constantly resurrect....Deng aint worth what he got, Gordon aint worth what he gettin' now. Rather have one of those bad contracts than both...

I don't want Gordon or Hinrich starting next to Rose. Unless you get Lebron, I don't like that backcourt of Gordon with Rose, especially defensively. Big backcourts will eat them alive. I want a good guard with Rose with size and the overall abilities needed to thrive as a shooting guard in today's NBA. It is your lack of understanding of the big picture that puzzles me. No one is going to miss Ben in the playoffs...because it doesn't matter. None of this matters until the summer. Rose is better, and I disagree with you about Gordon possibly stunting Rose's growth, and Noah is better. Mission accomplished, they would much rather worry about free agency and getting a top tier player than miss Gordon, who wouldn't help them get any farther than they will get with what they have...

BS thats just a cop out. Both Deng and BG did better and clearly weren't "foolish" for doing what they did.

I disagree, I didn't see big backcourts eating us alive last year. I also though Rose and BG was a top 5 backcourt last year. They carried us last year. That was the reason we had a top offense. Long term I think it works great, especially if you grab bosh. I would love to put Deng in the opposite corner with Bosh and Rose running a pick and roll with BG standing in the close corner. That is an unstoppable situation for teams to cover, if you double rose, bosh goes to the basket and either dunks or draws help leaving noah or BG open or if they switch it creats a mismatch or if both cover bosh, rose hits his mid range shot. I think in a year or two thats the best back court.

 

[houheffna]

BS thats just a cop out. Both Deng and BG did better and clearly weren't "foolish" for doing what they did.

I disagree, I didn't see big backcourts eating us alive last year. I also though Rose and BG was a top 5 backcourt last year. They carried us last year. That was the reason we had a top offense. Long term I think it works great, especially if you grab bosh. I would love to put Deng in the opposite corner with Bosh and Rose running a pick and roll with BG standing in the close corner. That is an unstoppable situation for teams to cover, if you double rose, bosh goes to the basket and either dunks or draws help leaving noah or BG open or if they switch it creats a mismatch or if both cover bosh, rose hits his mid range shot. I think in a year or two thats the best back court.

I have said this before, name the last small backcourt that won a championship...and let me know who is going to be Dumars in that backcourt...holla at me when you find that guy because Gordon aint it...

 

[Dpauley23]

TheStig wrote:

houheffna wrote:

I don't, have a problem with negotiations in general. I just don't like the games that JR plays. I also don't think he negotiated in good faith with BG. There is no way to prove it but the whole situation stinks. And I don't like my team taking a step back because of it.

There is no way to prove it, and if otherwise was proven you probably wouldn't believe it...how did your team (I assume you are talking about the Bulls) take a step back? How did they regress? I really don't get it...

Before the season I said on this forum that initially they would miss him, then as the season progresses, the loss would not be nearly as bad. I think that is accurate. He is not missed, and he is not needed. What this team needs is to get rid of as many of those players as possible with the exception of Rose and Noah and build hopefully through free agency in 2010. If there was a step back taken it was to take a big step forward in the summer. But I think the Bulls have played reasonably well.

If you can't tell how they did better by the numbers I can't help you and am not going to go around in circles about this. I'll rephrase it again:

BG
5/58>6/54 or 5/50

Deng
6/71 + incentives that could push it to 80 mill>5/58

Personally, I like BG more than Kirk. I would have rather had BG in that salary slot and starting next to rose. I don't think rose is booming because BG is gone, I think he is blowing up because he is a star. Rose was getting crunch time shots with BG here. I feel a younger, better shooting and better offenseive option is a better long term fit at sg than kirk. But time will tell if we miss him. I think we have missed what bg gave us most of the year except the recent stretch against bad teams. We certainly will need someone like him against better opponents and in the playoffs. To think that a stretch against bad teams is proof is a small sample size, we still have a bottom 5 offense.

Actually Dengs contract is more like 6/50 since it's 30 percent deferred. So it's bigger cap hit, but it's useful for cheapo Jerry

 

[TheStig]

Dpauley23 wrote:

TheStig wrote:

houheffna wrote:

I don't, have a problem with negotiations in general. I just don't like the games that JR plays. I also don't think he negotiated in good faith with BG. There is no way to prove it but the whole situation stinks. And I don't like my team taking a step back because of it.

There is no way to prove it, and if otherwise was proven you probably wouldn't believe it...how did your team (I assume you are talking about the Bulls) take a step back? How did they regress? I really don't get it...

Before the season I said on this forum that initially they would miss him, then as the season progresses, the loss would not be nearly as bad. I think that is accurate. He is not missed, and he is not needed. What this team needs is to get rid of as many of those players as possible with the exception of Rose and Noah and build hopefully through free agency in 2010. If there was a step back taken it was to take a big step forward in the summer. But I think the Bulls have played reasonably well.

If you can't tell how they did better by the numbers I can't help you and am not going to go around in circles about this. I'll rephrase it again:

BG
5/58>6/54 or 5/50

Deng
6/71 + incentives that could push it to 80 mill>5/58

Personally, I like BG more than Kirk. I would have rather had BG in that salary slot and starting next to rose. I don't think rose is booming because BG is gone, I think he is blowing up because he is a star. Rose was getting crunch time shots with BG here. I feel a younger, better shooting and better offenseive option is a better long term fit at sg than kirk. But time will tell if we miss him. I think we have missed what bg gave us most of the year except the recent stretch against bad teams. We certainly will need someone like him against better opponents and in the playoffs. To think that a stretch against bad teams is proof is a small sample size, we still have a bottom 5 offense.

Actually Dengs contract is more like 6/50 since it's 30 percent deferred. So it's bigger cap hit, but it's useful for cheapo Jerry

having 30% deferred doesn't make it free, it still costs JR money. Sooner or later he will have to pay.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

BS thats just a cop out. Both Deng and BG did better and clearly weren't "foolish" for doing what they did.

I disagree, I didn't see big backcourts eating us alive last year. I also though Rose and BG was a top 5 backcourt last year. They carried us last year. That was the reason we had a top offense. Long term I think it works great, especially if you grab bosh. I would love to put Deng in the opposite corner with Bosh and Rose running a pick and roll with BG standing in the close corner. That is an unstoppable situation for teams to cover, if you double rose, bosh goes to the basket and either dunks or draws help leaving noah or BG open or if they switch it creats a mismatch or if both cover bosh, rose hits his mid range shot. I think in a year or two thats the best back court.

I have said this before, name the last small backcourt that won a championship...and let me know who is going to be Dumars in that backcourt...holla at me when you find that guy because Gordon aint it...

Backcourt defense isn't as important as it used to be. Orlando starts Nelson and Carter, neither of which is significantly better or worse defenders than Rose or BG and they have the 4th best defensive rating. Plus, bigger SG's can be guarded by Deng. Furthermore, its ironic to argue height when kirk hinrich is like an inch or two bigger. I value frontcourt defense more than backcourt. Howard is surrounded by bad defenders and still is consistently part of a top defensive team.

 

[houheffna]

Backcourt defense isn't as important as it used to be. Orlando starts Nelson and Carter, neither of which is significantly better or worse defenders than Rose or BG and they have the 4th best defensive rating. Plus, bigger SG's can be guarded by Deng. Furthermore, its ironic to argue height when kirk hinrich is like an inch or two bigger. I value frontcourt defense more than backcourt. Howard is surrounded by bad defenders and still is consistently part of a top defensive team.

Howard also has to park his ass on the bench to because he picks up a lot of fouls, a few of them he receives for covering the butts of players on his team he can't play defense.

Backcourt defense is not as important, but it is important...unless we are getting Dwight Howard, I think my point is proven. Getting a Wade or Joe Johnson would be so much of an improvement over Gordon or Hinrich because of size, strength, athleticsm, scoring and defense.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Backcourt defense isn't as important as it used to be. Orlando starts Nelson and Carter, neither of which is significantly better or worse defenders than Rose or BG and they have the 4th best defensive rating. Plus, bigger SG's can be guarded by Deng. Furthermore, its ironic to argue height when kirk hinrich is like an inch or two bigger. I value frontcourt defense more than backcourt. Howard is surrounded by bad defenders and still is consistently part of a top defensive team.

Howard also has to park his ass on the bench to because he picks up a lot of fouls, a few of them he receives for covering the butts of players on his team he can't play defense.

Backcourt defense is not as important, but it is important...unless we are getting Dwight Howard, I think my point is proven. Getting a Wade or Joe Johnson would be so much of an improvement over Gordon or Hinrich because of size, strength, athleticsm, scoring and defense.

Well duh. Wade is a top 5 player, who wouldn't want him over BG. JJ is also a upgrade, I just don't want him here, he is too old, not very efficent, will take the ball out of Rose's hands and will want max money. I'd rather have BG for half the money and spend my money on a pf. I think Bosh, Amare and Boozer are all a better fit on this team. I would rank JJ behind those guys.

 

[houheffna]

Well duh. Wade is a top 5 player, who wouldn't want him over BG. JJ is also a upgrade, I just don't want him here, he is too old, not very efficent, will take the ball out of Rose's hands and will want max money. I'd rather have BG for half the money and spend my money on a pf. I think Bosh, Amare and Boozer are all a better fit on this team. I would rank JJ behind those guys.

Okay...you say "well duh" as if its obvious what I am suggesting and then you give a jacked up synopsis of Johnson's game. If you don't want JJ you shouldn't want Wade...for the same reasons. The only exception is Lebron...

I would rather talk to Johnson and try to get him at a cheaper rate. Of course he wants to max, your choice, BG wanted over 15mil! you make your best offer and leave it at that...

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

Well duh. Wade is a top 5 player, who wouldn't want him over BG. JJ is also a upgrade, I just don't want him here, he is too old, not very efficent, will take the ball out of Rose's hands and will want max money. I'd rather have BG for half the money and spend my money on a pf. I think Bosh, Amare and Boozer are all a better fit on this team. I would rank JJ behind those guys.

Okay...you say "well duh" as if its obvious what I am suggesting and then you give a jacked up synopsis of Johnson's game. If you don't want JJ you shouldn't want Wade...for the same reasons. The only exception is Lebron...

I would rather talk to Johnson and try to get him at a cheaper rate. Of course he wants to max, your choice, BG wanted over 15mil! you make your best offer and leave it at that...

Wade is top 5. Thats why I want him. He is the second best player available and is much better than JJ. Your under this illusion that JJ will take less than the max, he won't and he will get his max deal. If he would have taken less, he would have taken the 15 per atlanta offered. BG accepted 6/54 so i don't think it matters what he was asking for. JJ turned down almost twice as much.

 

[Shakes]

JJ is simply the worst value free agent out there. It's not a matter of people disliking him as a player, it's a matter of the production he brings not being in line with his asking price.

Signing JJ would be the move that would make me least happy with the off-season. I'd rather we signed nobody. It's just a move that will kill us for the duration of his contract.

 

[houheffna]

It still stands that Wade is a year younger than Johnson so how will you feel giving him a max deal given his age? As far as your top 5 goes, after your statements about Kobe, I am scared of your top 5 man....that said, no doubt Wade is a better player...is he compatible with Rose? It will take some time and some really good coaching while Johnson comes in as arguably the most compatible player to Rose of any backcourt player in the league. If you rave about Gordon, how much better would Johnson be, being that he is a far superior player? My thing is that Johnson alone is a bad idea, if he were playing at this level and was 25 years old it would be a no-brainer...but Bosh and Johnson is a pretty damn good one

 

[pinkizdead]

wade is the 3rd best player in the nba. do you really care if he's compatible? good players adjust.

 

[houheffna]

You should care if the players are compatible...this isn't baseball where everybody gets a turn...this is basketball...one ball...and 2 guards who dominate the ball and are below average from behind the arc...the spacing will be awkward for quite a while until those guys figure it out. I am not saying that Wade doesn't improve the team, I am saying that there are players more compatible with Rose than he is. Stacking up players without taking that into account causes talented but underachieving teams to develop...that would be disastrous...a constant tease year in and year out. That is why I say players like Johnson and Bosh are more compatible than Wade which is why Bosh is my first choice if Lebron isn't available...

 

[pinkizdead]

bosh is my first choice. wade is my second choice. johnson is my choice if you put a gun to my head.

i guess that lebron guy, i'd take him too. he's good right?

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

You should care if the players are compatible...this isn't baseball where everybody gets a turn...this is basketball...one ball...and 2 guards who dominate the ball and are below average from behind the arc...the spacing will be awkward for quite a while until those guys figure it out. I am not saying that Wade doesn't improve the team, I am saying that there are players more compatible with Rose than he is. Stacking up players without taking that into account causes talented but underachieving teams to develop...that would be disastrous...a constant tease year in and year out. That is why I say players like Johnson and Bosh are more compatible than Wade which is why Bosh is my first choice if Lebron isn't available...

On a team with frontcourt players that don't get the ball unless its garbage points or wide open jumpers or pick and rolls, having two ball dominating guards isn't a bad thing. Besides, JJ is a ball dominating guard. It'd be kinda similar to denver where most of the offense comes from the wing players.