I Miss Ben Gordon

[ramblingrose33]

houheffna wrote:

This is a great example of over-emphasizing Gordon. You act as if he always was the player we all saw in the Playoffs last year. He wasn't. I don't think Houheffna and I are saying he wasn't a threat. He definitely was. Did the last shot go to him, generally yes. Deferring to a player with a three point shot doesn't make him your go-to guy or star. It's a role. Was he always the guy that you knew would win the game for us when we were down 10 in the fourth? Absolutely no! He's not a leader. How many times did he dribble the ball off his foot during either the Bulls/Pistons or Bulls/Heat series'? How long did our offense run on a simple pick and roll screen? He's a good player but you're making him better than he is.

This is my point exactly! Nobody remembers the times that Gordon got the ball at the end of games and turned the ball over and didnt even get off a shot? Why, because he is inept at ballhandling at times. My general point is he didn't lead anybody anywhere. Even if he was the best offensive player (which does not make him the best player necessarily) most of the time. What it comes down to is people on this forum at times act as if he was something he was not. There were/are other offensive SGs who were more effective as scorers than he was, and they are legitimate franchise players, or are playing that role. My point is I cannot name 15 players better than him in the clutch, I have said many times that he was a good clutch player, but I recognize the times he messed up...badly, taking shots that were not good shots and not within the offense (like in game 7, scored well, one dumb shot he took though in the clutch gave the game away), but I can name 25 or more players better than him, which means he doesn't deserve so much hype. He will be missed, but the Bulls can and should move on and continue to develop as much as they can. Saying he was a borderline allstar...there were other players on the team who were borderline allstars over the last 5 years too.

Houheffna, great point.

I think people view Gordon's contract year as an example of his overall talent. In fact, he wasn't that player the previous years. A good player but not our George Washington. I'm not saying he's anything like Eddie Robinson or Kenyon Martin BUT...when too much emphasis is placed on a contract year, you sometimes live to regret the decision. I find myself at peace with Gar and Reinsdorf on this one.

 

[jsain360]

Teams knew the book on BG, especially at the end of games, they would double team him becaused he refused to pass the ball and force a shot, or he would turn the ball over.

 

[??? ??????]

ramblingrose33 wrote:

houheffna wrote:

This is a great example of over-emphasizing Gordon. You act as if he always was the player we all saw in the Playoffs last year. He wasn't. I don't think Houheffna and I are saying he wasn't a threat. He definitely was. Did the last shot go to him, generally yes. Deferring to a player with a three point shot doesn't make him your go-to guy or star. It's a role. Was he always the guy that you knew would win the game for us when we were down 10 in the fourth? Absolutely no! He's not a leader. How many times did he dribble the ball off his foot during either the Bulls/Pistons or Bulls/Heat series'? How long did our offense run on a simple pick and roll screen? He's a good player but you're making him better than he is.

This is my point exactly! Nobody remembers the times that Gordon got the ball at the end of games and turned the ball over and didnt even get off a shot? Why, because he is inept at ballhandling at times. My general point is he didn't lead anybody anywhere. Even if he was the best offensive player (which does not make him the best player necessarily) most of the time. What it comes down to is people on this forum at times act as if he was something he was not. There were/are other offensive SGs who were more effective as scorers than he was, and they are legitimate franchise players, or are playing that role. My point is I cannot name 15 players better than him in the clutch, I have said many times that he was a good clutch player, but I recognize the times he messed up...badly, taking shots that were not good shots and not within the offense (like in game 7, scored well, one dumb shot he took though in the clutch gave the game away), but I can name 25 or more players better than him, which means he doesn't deserve so much hype. He will be missed, but the Bulls can and should move on and continue to develop as much as they can. Saying he was a borderline allstar...there were other players on the team who were borderline allstars over the last 5 years too.

Houheffna, great point.

I think people view Gordon's contract year as an example of his overall talent. In fact, he wasn't that player the previous years. A good player but not our George Washington. I'm not saying he's anything like Eddie Robinson or Kenyon Martin BUT...when too much emphasis is placed on a contract year, you sometimes live to regret the decision. I find myself at peace with Gar and Reinsdorf on this one.

Ben Gordon was even better in 2006-2007 than he was last year.

He wasn't bad in 2007-2008. His horrible 07-08 is about par with Luol Deng's best scoring season.

And who cares if Ben Gordon's not a top 25 NBA player? He's definitely top 40. Maybe top 35, maybe top 30, maybe even top 25. I'm not going to be ranking these guys.

The point was never that the Bulls were dumb for letting Gordon walk because he is a franchise player. The point has always been that the Bulls were dumb for letting Gordon walk because he's a top 40 (or better) NBA player. You don't just let those guys leave for nothing.

 

[pinkizdead]

houheffna wrote:

You didn't have to double team Gordon all the time, and he didn't get doubled a lot in the clutch either. Gordon could be depended on to mess up and lose a game just as much as he could be depended on to win games.

did you watch the celtics games?
I'd rather have gordon on my team for 10 million than rashard lewis for 20.

 

[ramblingrose33]

??? ?????? wrote:

ramblingrose33 wrote:

houheffna wrote:

This is a great example of over-emphasizing Gordon. You act as if he always was the player we all saw in the Playoffs last year. He wasn't. I don't think Houheffna and I are saying he wasn't a threat. He definitely was. Did the last shot go to him, generally yes. Deferring to a player with a three point shot doesn't make him your go-to guy or star. It's a role. Was he always the guy that you knew would win the game for us when we were down 10 in the fourth? Absolutely no! He's not a leader. How many times did he dribble the ball off his foot during either the Bulls/Pistons or Bulls/Heat series'? How long did our offense run on a simple pick and roll screen? He's a good player but you're making him better than he is.

This is my point exactly! Nobody remembers the times that Gordon got the ball at the end of games and turned the ball over and didnt even get off a shot? Why, because he is inept at ballhandling at times. My general point is he didn't lead anybody anywhere. Even if he was the best offensive player (which does not make him the best player necessarily) most of the time. What it comes down to is people on this forum at times act as if he was something he was not. There were/are other offensive SGs who were more effective as scorers than he was, and they are legitimate franchise players, or are playing that role. My point is I cannot name 15 players better than him in the clutch, I have said many times that he was a good clutch player, but I recognize the times he messed up...badly, taking shots that were not good shots and not within the offense (like in game 7, scored well, one dumb shot he took though in the clutch gave the game away), but I can name 25 or more players better than him, which means he doesn't deserve so much hype. He will be missed, but the Bulls can and should move on and continue to develop as much as they can. Saying he was a borderline allstar...there were other players on the team who were borderline allstars over the last 5 years too.

Houheffna, great point.

I think people view Gordon's contract year as an example of his overall talent. In fact, he wasn't that player the previous years. A good player but not our George Washington. I'm not saying he's anything like Eddie Robinson or Kenyon Martin BUT...when too much emphasis is placed on a contract year, you sometimes live to regret the decision. I find myself at peace with Gar and Reinsdorf on this one.

Ben Gordon was even better in 2006-2007 than he was last year.

He wasn't bad in 2007-2008. His horrible 07-08 is about par with Luol Deng's best scoring season.

And who cares if Ben Gordon's not a top 25 NBA player? He's definitely top 40. Maybe top 35, maybe top 30, maybe even top 25. I'm not going to be ranking these guys.

The point was never that the Bulls were dumb for letting Gordon walk because he is a franchise player. The point has always been that the Bulls were dumb for letting Gordon walk because he's a top 40 (or better) NBA player. You don't just let those guys leave for nothing.

I don't think anybody wanted him gone for nothing. The Bulls should have traded Gordon but at the same time, then you don't give Rose and Noah the experience in the Playoffs that was absolutely beneficial to them developing as leaders on the team. Think of Ben Gordon as Rose's Doug Collins. Haha.

Also, I think there is a group people tired of the continued focus on Gordon. This makes it seem like we let, for instance, Ray Allen go for nothing. I'm sorry, Ben Gordon IS NOT Ray Allen. Also, this focus creates the Hinrich vs Gordon issue. Who really cares anymore? Hinrich is a Bull, Gordon is a Piston. Need I say more? Ben Gordon is a PISTON!!! A PISTON!! He chose that.

Doug had the most balanced view of the Gordon situation. Why pay him that much money especially in light of our current cap situation, 2010 and all. Hinrich doesn't have a future here. The Bulls need to move fast to develop a team around Rose. The "core" was scrapped on May 22, 2008. Rose is the new plan. Why spend a bunch of money when you don't know what you need/have in the new economy.

 

[jsain360]

??? ?????? wrote:

ramblingrose33 wrote:

houheffna wrote:

This is a great example of over-emphasizing Gordon. You act as if he always was the player we all saw in the Playoffs last year. He wasn't. I don't think Houheffna and I are saying he wasn't a threat. He definitely was. Did the last shot go to him, generally yes. Deferring to a player with a three point shot doesn't make him your go-to guy or star. It's a role. Was he always the guy that you knew would win the game for us when we were down 10 in the fourth? Absolutely no! He's not a leader. How many times did he dribble the ball off his foot during either the Bulls/Pistons or Bulls/Heat series'? How long did our offense run on a simple pick and roll screen? He's a good player but you're making him better than he is.

This is my point exactly! Nobody remembers the times that Gordon got the ball at the end of games and turned the ball over and didnt even get off a shot? Why, because he is inept at ballhandling at times. My general point is he didn't lead anybody anywhere. Even if he was the best offensive player (which does not make him the best player necessarily) most of the time. What it comes down to is people on this forum at times act as if he was something he was not. There were/are other offensive SGs who were more effective as scorers than he was, and they are legitimate franchise players, or are playing that role. My point is I cannot name 15 players better than him in the clutch, I have said many times that he was a good clutch player, but I recognize the times he messed up...badly, taking shots that were not good shots and not within the offense (like in game 7, scored well, one dumb shot he took though in the clutch gave the game away), but I can name 25 or more players better than him, which means he doesn't deserve so much hype. He will be missed, but the Bulls can and should move on and continue to develop as much as they can. Saying he was a borderline allstar...there were other players on the team who were borderline allstars over the last 5 years too.

Houheffna, great point.

I think people view Gordon's contract year as an example of his overall talent. In fact, he wasn't that player the previous years. A good player but not our George Washington. I'm not saying he's anything like Eddie Robinson or Kenyon Martin BUT...when too much emphasis is placed on a contract year, you sometimes live to regret the decision. I find myself at peace with Gar and Reinsdorf on this one.

Ben Gordon was even better in 2006-2007 than he was last year.

He wasn't bad in 2007-2008. His horrible 07-08 is about par with Luol Deng's best scoring season.

And who cares if Ben Gordon's not a top 25 NBA player? He's definitely top 40. Maybe top 35, maybe top 30, maybe even top 25. I'm not going to be ranking these guys.

The point was never that the Bulls were dumb for letting Gordon walk because he is a franchise player. The point has always been that the Bulls were dumb for letting Gordon walk because he's a top 40 (or better) NBA player. You don't just let those guys leave for nothing.

Ron Mercer was top 40 as Bull, a good scorer as well during his time as a Bull.

 

[jsain360]

pinkizdead wrote:

houheffna wrote:

You didn't have to double team Gordon all the time, and he didn't get doubled a lot in the clutch either. Gordon could be depended on to mess up and lose a game just as much as he could be depended on to win games.

did you watch the celtics games?
I'd rather have gordon on my team for 10 million than rashard lewis for 20.

Did you see how Rashard put down on the Celtics, and this guy is a multiple time all-star, but the Magic overpaid for him, like the Pistons did with Ben

 

[houheffna]

did you watch the celtics games?
I'd rather have gordon on my team for 10 million than rashard lewis for 20.

Bulls offered him 10 mil per...he turned it down...later.

Rashard Lewis is a better basketball player than Gordon. I would rather have Lewis but not at that price...

 

[TheStig]

jsain360 wrote:

??? ?????? wrote:

ramblingrose33 wrote:

houheffna wrote:

This is a great example of over-emphasizing Gordon. You act as if he always was the player we all saw in the Playoffs last year. He wasn't. I don't think Houheffna and I are saying he wasn't a threat. He definitely was. Did the last shot go to him, generally yes. Deferring to a player with a three point shot doesn't make him your go-to guy or star. It's a role. Was he always the guy that you knew would win the game for us when we were down 10 in the fourth? Absolutely no! He's not a leader. How many times did he dribble the ball off his foot during either the Bulls/Pistons or Bulls/Heat series'? How long did our offense run on a simple pick and roll screen? He's a good player but you're making him better than he is.

This is my point exactly! Nobody remembers the times that Gordon got the ball at the end of games and turned the ball over and didnt even get off a shot? Why, because he is inept at ballhandling at times. My general point is he didn't lead anybody anywhere. Even if he was the best offensive player (which does not make him the best player necessarily) most of the time. What it comes down to is people on this forum at times act as if he was something he was not. There were/are other offensive SGs who were more effective as scorers than he was, and they are legitimate franchise players, or are playing that role. My point is I cannot name 15 players better than him in the clutch, I have said many times that he was a good clutch player, but I recognize the times he messed up...badly, taking shots that were not good shots and not within the offense (like in game 7, scored well, one dumb shot he took though in the clutch gave the game away), but I can name 25 or more players better than him, which means he doesn't deserve so much hype. He will be missed, but the Bulls can and should move on and continue to develop as much as they can. Saying he was a borderline allstar...there were other players on the team who were borderline allstars over the last 5 years too.

Houheffna, great point.

I think people view Gordon's contract year as an example of his overall talent. In fact, he wasn't that player the previous years. A good player but not our George Washington. I'm not saying he's anything like Eddie Robinson or Kenyon Martin BUT...when too much emphasis is placed on a contract year, you sometimes live to regret the decision. I find myself at peace with Gar and Reinsdorf on this one.

Ben Gordon was even better in 2006-2007 than he was last year.

He wasn't bad in 2007-2008. His horrible 07-08 is about par with Luol Deng's best scoring season.

And who cares if Ben Gordon's not a top 25 NBA player? He's definitely top 40. Maybe top 35, maybe top 30, maybe even top 25. I'm not going to be ranking these guys.

The point was never that the Bulls were dumb for letting Gordon walk because he is a franchise player. The point has always been that the Bulls were dumb for letting Gordon walk because he's a top 40 (or better) NBA player. You don't just let those guys leave for nothing.

Ron Mercer was top 40 as Bull, a good scorer as well during his time as a Bull.

Ron Mercer was never top 40. He never even cracked 20ppg on a miserable team. His true shooting percentage was never over .500 and he had to take 18.4 shots here to get to 19.7ppg. Thats almost 1:1 points per possession. BG last year, had more points on less shots and actually got to the line. Not to mention, BG was nowhere near as bad of a defender as Mercer. Ron Mercer, may have cracked top 100 in his best year, if he was lucky. Trying to compare the two is just ridiculous.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

did you watch the celtics games?
I'd rather have gordon on my team for 10 million than rashard lewis for 20.

Bulls offered him 10 mil per...he turned it down...later.

Rashard Lewis is a better basketball player than Gordon. I would rather have Lewis but not at that price...

Then the bulls offered him 9 per year and he accepted. Whats your point. You can't blame a player for testing his market value when the team tell him too and jerks him around.

 

[ramblingrose33]

Come on seriously? This ignores what really happened. You act like the Bulls offered 9 million and then he said yes and The Bulls said no!! It didn't play out so cleanly.

 

[J-Mart]

Gordon was the perfect third best player to have on your team IMO. Unfortunatly he was our best player for many years here and I think thats why he gets ragged on as much as he does. Obviously your not going to win very much with Gordon as your best player but that doesn't mean we should have let him go. We got Rose here and with some luck in 2010 we would have had Gordon as our third option.

With the circumstances going into the offseason we did have to let him go because of 2010. If anyone remembers what Doug was saying near the beginning of last season, I believe he was always saying in order for us to keep Gordon we needed to get rid of Noc and Hinrich. We had our opportunities to dump Hinrich but passed and I think that is what is pissing a lot of people off. If we do get someone in 2010 it is going to look really stupid that we decided to keep Hinrich instead considering how Gordon would be perfect for that third role.

 

[houheffna]

I think the Bulls brass looked at it like this...they never saw Gordon as the best player on the team, as having the most upside, or being a top tier player. That was there analysis, which I happen to agree with. In the postseason, a few players showed that they could be very productive. And now that it is a FACT that Gordon is not the best player on the team, he is not one of the better defenders on the team, and that Hinrich has the skills to compliment both Salmons and Rose coming off the bench, Gordon was expendable. Because they would rather pay Hinrich, who is a multifaceted player 9 mil than pay Gordon what Detroit offered him. Plus, Hinrich's contract is depreciating. I think that was a wise choice.

The problem is that they might have gotten something for him. But his leaving will not have a lasting impact on the team...

 

[J-Mart]

ramblingrose33 wrote:

Come on seriously? This ignores what really happened. You act like the Bulls offered 9 million and then he said yes and The Bulls said no!! It didn't play out so cleanly.

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure thats exactly what happened. Gordon decided to accept their offer after their "deadline" and then the Bulls refused to put it back on the table.

 

[ramblingrose33]

J-Mart wrote:

ramblingrose33 wrote:

Come on seriously? This ignores what really happened. You act like the Bulls offered 9 million and then he said yes and The Bulls said no!! It didn't play out so cleanly.

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure thats exactly what happened. Gordon decided to accept their offer after their "deadline" and then the Bulls refused to put it back on the table.

As stupid as it may have been to create an internal deadline for him to sign, the fact remains that the Bulls offered it and he sat on it. Then after the deadline passed, he wanted to sign it. I think the Bulls should have signed him on that contract. Their mistake.

 

[J-Mart]

True but why offer it originally then? It just seems petty and out of spite to not let him sign it.

 

[houheffna]

If we do get someone in 2010 it is going to look really stupid that we decided to keep Hinrich instead considering how Gordon would be perfect for that third role.

That totally depends on who you get.

If you get Lebron, Wade, or even Joe Johnson, you don't need 3 players in the backcourt being the top scoring options. Hinrich would work better in those scenarios.

 

[J-Mart]

You don't need it but it sure would be hard to stop in late game situations. There is not one player in 2010 that would make me want Hinrich over Gordon.

 

[houheffna]

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure thats exactly what happened. Gordon decided to accept their offer after their "deadline" and then the Bulls refused to put it back on the table.

Exactly, so Gordon should have accepted before the deadline. He is a grown ass man! We all have deadlines in life and so did he. He should have accepted it or turned it down. His not responding while the deadline passed showed rejection.

 

[TheStig]

ramblingrose33 wrote:

J-Mart wrote:

ramblingrose33 wrote:

Come on seriously? This ignores what really happened. You act like the Bulls offered 9 million and then he said yes and The Bulls said no!! It didn't play out so cleanly.

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure thats exactly what happened. Gordon decided to accept their offer after their "deadline" and then the Bulls refused to put it back on the table.

As stupid as it may have been to create an internal deadline for him to sign, the fact remains that the Bulls offered it and he sat on it. Then after the deadline passed, he wanted to sign it. I think the Bulls should have signed him on that contract. Their mistake.

Exactly, arbitrary deadlines aside, the bulls clearly didn't make an offer in good faith. What changed in the day or two past the deadline? Its not like the additionally first year salary would have pushed them over the LT. The fact that they didn't sign him points to the fact they never really wanted him. This isn't the first or last time the bulls have had negotiations go sour.