McGraw: Decent chance the Bulls will re-sign Ben G

[engies]

Crowded backcourt makes it hard to predict how Bulls will play hand

There is a decent chance the Bulls will re-sign Ben Gordon this summer. He clearly wants to return and the Bulls need his scoring, so it doesn't make sense for either side to end the relationship.

There is a related question in this debate, though. If the Bulls' leading scorer stays, does it mean Kirk Hinrich has to go?

Of course, since Hinrich is under contract for three more years and Gordon becomes an unrestricted free agent on July 1, another option is letting Gordon walk away, filling his spot with Hinrich and John Salmons. This question played out on the court for much of the Bulls' season - which is more valuable, Gordon's offense or Hinrich's defense?

Gordon drains some of the NBA's most difficult shots and his value was never more obvious than in the playoff series with Boston. He scored 42 points in Game 2, saved Game 4 with a clutch 3-pointer and nearly shot the Bulls to a victory in Game 5 before a hamstring injury slowed him down.

Hinrich does everything well, but he stands out on the Bulls as the best individual defender. After coming back from two months off with thumb injury, he seemed to make a point of getting into people defensively, perhaps to show his teammates it can be done.

The Gordon-Hinrich problem isn't so much playing time, but the cost. Hinrich is set to make $9.5 million next year, a large sum for a backup player. If the Bulls begin next season with the starting lineup they used in the playoffs against Boston, Hinrich, Luol Deng and Brad Miller would give the Bulls a whopping $32 million in salaries coming off the bench, although three starters (Derrick Rose, Joakim Noah and Tyrus Thomas) are still on their rookie scale contracts.

more below at http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=292541&src=150

Does McGraw have inside contacts telling him this or just his own speculation. Whichever it is all I can hope for is that he is right!

 

[Newskoolbulls]

Its sad that one has to go when our owner clearly can pay the LT. If one has to go I choose my favorite bull Kirk. I love the guy but we need Bens scoring much much more, Salmons isnt getting any younger and Kirk is not a consistent scorer.

 

[Hendu0520]

This is an unfortunate situation that 3 years ago we would have never thought it would come to this. Hinrich or Ben. Obviously I think we all need to keep them both, but if that can't happen we do have to keep Ben Gordon.

1) My biggest arguement would be that Gordon's 20ppg is more valuable than Kirk's defense. Kirk is a terrific defender but like the article said, a lot of his time is spent guarding guys that are too tall and big for him. If Kirk were Ron Artest's size then yah keep him, but he isn't so you have to take the undersized guy who can score.

2) Versitility- Naturally people keep saying that Kirk makes the team more flexible because he can play the 1 or the 2. I beg to differ. Kirk really is not a 2 and we know Ben can't play the 1 but with Gordon in the lineup we would have a great rotation that could do a lot of different things. If you start Rose/Gordon/Deng or Rose/Salmons/Deng or Rose/Gordon/Salmons, you basically have Salmons that could fill the 2 and 3 and Deng at 3 and Gordon for the 2. If you have Kirk its gotta be Rose/Salmons/Deng and imo Kirk cannot come in too much at the SG spot, lets break down why.

Yes Kirk has a nice 3point shot and he will see a lot of those, but lets say and this is a high level that half of his shots are 3pointers next year, that leaves another half to 2pointers. He shot 43.7% last year FG% which to me is low. (Thats one of his best FG%'s also) There is no way half his shots will be threes so this is being generous to him. He can't create off the dribble and rarely takes layup attempts or close range shots. If he does penetrate he usually ends up dribbling around and bringing it back out. Therefore to me he is mainly a spot up shooter and to have similar percentage 3pointers and 2pointers and he doesn't drive means he's missing spot up mid range jump shots. Rose already hits that 18 footer better than him.
Also Kirk is a good foul shooter but so am I(64 in a row,96/100 are my pers. records, lol) , if he never gets there than it doesn't matter.

I need playmaking ability or scoring from the SG position. You need someone who can shoot a spot up jumper which I guess he could do if he can get them off, maybe he struggles with mid range because he can't get the shots off, either way he struggled mid range to me. And you need someone who can break people down off the dribble or at least have a threat to drive and hit a runner or something.
Gordon commands double teams Kirk would not, and even though Ben is undersized as well at the 2 he is more athletic and can get any shot off, even a lot better than Kirk going to the rim. Also Ben is only a poor defender when he gives up, he is stronger,faster, bigger than Hinrich and with Skiles he played great defense so there is no reason to think he couldn't again.

3)Unfortunately for Kirk the Bulls drafted Derrick Rose who is already one of the best point guards in the league so naturally I think we should move him so he can start again.

4)Lastly I said in another post that Kirk could be a borderline all star for another team, and someone said I was crazy, well think about this. If Kirk was starting for the Orlando Magic all this season he wouldn't have made the allstar team? I think he would have, the East was weak with PG's this year obviously if Jameer Nelson made it and Maurice Williams. I think Kirk is in their league and is probably better than Nelson, so yes in the right situation he is an honorable mention or he would be on the all star team.

 

[Hendu0520]

I just checked it out Maurice Williams 46.7% and Jameer Nelson 50% both shoot a much higher FG% than Kirk. Nelson rarely dips below 40% from 3's this year 45% nice. But Mo Williams had his first year this year of hitting 40% from the 3's. To me though Kirk brings more defense and passing than these two, maybe not as good a penetrator as Nelson. So Nelson is probably better than Kirk but Mo isn't that much better.

Oh and comparing Kirk's shooting numbers to other guards, he is always lower in FG%, he is 41.5% FG for his career and his best was 44.7% (43.7%this year). I said that Kirk's shot was lost in another post and it started good banter, but its not lost it was never really there. I don't know why people can't see that he just isn't a good shooter he is just solid or streaky. I was arguing that for a 2 guard Kirk does not have a good shot, but even for a PG he does not have a great shot. Nelson's lowest fg% was 43% the rest above 45% which was my cutoff % for a good shooting SG. I'll say it again Kirk is an average shooter.

It's not like Nelson is some dynamic driver or penetrator he is mostly a shooter.

 

[Hendu0520]

Just looked at Devin Harris as well, who never has shot 40% from 3point line but still blows Kirk away in FG%. In Dallas Harris shot 49 and 50% which was more of a similar role to what Kirk would be next year with the Bulls. When Harris went to the Nets where he saw double and triple teams it dropped to 43.8% still better than all of Kirk's years except 06/07.

 

[Hendu0520]

I'm glad Kirk shoots a good 3pointer and FT's unfortunately he can't just stand at the 3 point line, if half his shots were 3's it still wouldn't work. Oh and if Deng gets injured then we have to start Kirk at the 2?

 

[dougthonus]

He shot 43.7% last year FG% which to me is low.

That's Gordon's career FG%, so apparently he isn't good enough for you either than. He's only shot above that twice in his career as well.

I don't think the FG% argument moves me much. The FG% difference between Gordon and Hinrich is pretty minimal. The real difference is that Gordon generates his own shots so much better. His FG% is worth more because he has a much lower percentage of "easy" looks in it because the offense demands more of him.

Gordon draws a lot more attention than Hinrich, he spaces the floor better, etc.. That's what the real difference to me is.

 

[Hendu0520]

Exactly Doug, Gordon's 43/7 is a much tougher 43.7. Kirk's spot up 3pointer's help his percentage if he had to replace BG or do the BG off the bench roll his 3 point % would drop and his FG% would really drop.

BG drives a lot more than Kirk as well so a lot of his shots are going to the rim where he is undersized and double teamed. He also takes a lot more last second shots. If you take a look at low shot clock shots (which I'm sure BG leads the Bulls in by far) every players' percentage dropps pretty significantly. So that FG% for Gordon is deflated and Kirk's is inflated so really their fg%'s are vastly different. But Kirk is still a smart and scrappy player but I don't think that helps us as much next year without scoring.

 

[Hendu0520]

dougthonus wrote:

He shot 43.7% last year FG% which to me is low.

That's Gordon's career FG%, so apparently he isn't good enough for you either than. He's only shot above that twice in his career as well.

I don't think the FG% argument moves me much. The FG% difference between Gordon and Hinrich is pretty minimal. The real difference is that Gordon generates his own shots so much better. His FG% is worth more because he has a much lower percentage of "easy" looks in it because the offense demands more of him.

Gordon draws a lot more attention than Hinrich, he spaces the floor better, etc.. That's what the real difference to me is.

So I guess you would keep Gordon though huh?

 

[TheStig]

Newskoolbulls wrote:

Its sad that one has to go when our owner clearly can pay the LT. If one has to go I choose my favorite bull Kirk. I love the guy but we need Bens scoring much much more, Salmons isnt getting any younger and Kirk is not a consistent scorer.

Its not Sophie's choice here, we can keep everyone and stay under the LT. We can easily trade Tim Thomas or Jerome James and one of our picks for cap space to OKC or Memphis. OKC has done it in the past with Kurt Thomas and is unlikely to use their cap space this summer. Its also more unlikely that both of our picks will see playing time as we have a solid eight man rotation already.

 

[charity stripe]

McGraw is the only writer who is honest and accurate. Just compare this to Sam Smith and his readers.

You mentioned one scenario with Tyrus and picks for West... just enough to whet my appetite. Here's what I've been thinking: I don't think it's such a hard call for the backcourt. BG is the obvious odd man out, Hinrich and Salmons do so many other things that BG doesn't, and even though he's a clutch scoring machine, unguardable at times, BG's shooting percentage is low, and he plays no "D." All this without even considering the money situation. So, Rose, Hinrich, & Salmons seems like a pretty good three-guard backcourt, with Salmons/Deng at the 3.

Steve

Sam: Good analysis. That would be my definition of agreeing with me.

How is that good analysis wtf?

 

[Diddy1122]

charity stripe wrote:

McGraw is the only writer who is honest and accurate. Just compare this to Sam Smith and his readers.

You mentioned one scenario with Tyrus and picks for West... just enough to whet my appetite. Here's what I've been thinking: I don't think it's such a hard call for the backcourt. BG is the obvious odd man out, Hinrich and Salmons do so many other things that BG doesn't, and even though he's a clutch scoring machine, unguardable at times, BG's shooting percentage is low, and he plays no "D." All this without even considering the money situation. So, Rose, Hinrich, & Salmons seems like a pretty good three-guard backcourt, with Salmons/Deng at the 3.

Steve

Sam: Good analysis. That would be my definition of agreeing with me.

How is that good analysis wtf?

Honest and accurate? HAHAHAHAA! I love that you use that at the very beginning of your post, and then provide inaccurate reporting about Sam Smith right underneath. That would be my definition of irony.

You're out of your mind if you think McGraw can even hold a candle to Sam Smith, who has been one of the best in the biz for decades. And I don't mean to tear down McGraw, who I feel is one of the better Chicago sportswriters out there, but since you chose to show only a portion of the post and Sam's response, I figured I would show the enitre post so people can judge for themselves.

Post from Bulls.com continued:

"What seems to be the pressing need is inside scoring & rebounding. The Bulls need a stud at the 4. To me, this is more important even than getting Wade, and puts them right there with the top tier teams. For whatever reason (low basketbal IQ?) Tyrus played his way out of minutes in the Celtics series. So this leaves Tyrus, BG (sign & trade?), picks as potential bargaining chips, to get their big-time 4. Not to mention just signing someone with the cap room BG would free up.

I wish there was an obvious choice out there, I don't think the Bulls need a difficult locker room presence, not to mention no D from Amare, and don't know if Bosch is really the inside stud that they need. Boozer seems perfect physically, but I don't know, something is not all right between those ears. The other alternative, going through the draft, seems a lot more iffy, and really, the Bulls are ready to go right now, not in two years. Besides that, is there even anyone like we are talking about in the draft? And how about signing McDyess as a free agent for real quality depth at the power positions?"

Steve

Sam: "Good analysis. That would be my definition of agreeing with me. I think the Bulls will examine these different options with my guess being Bosh first then West then Stoudemire. If nothing can be worked out, and for now their teams say they aren't making any moves—which means nothing—then McDyess is an interesting name. He's a really good guy and tough player, like the Antonio Davis of a few years back when the Bulls had a nice run with the veteran. The Pistons will try to get him back and he obviously likes Detroit. But he has opened the door to moving on. He probably should have stayed in Denver after the Billups deal, but no one knew then they'd get it going like they did. He'd be a good addition and certainly someone I assume the Bulls will approach."

Now I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but it's fairly obvious to me Sam was agreeing with his overall analysis of the Bulls most pressing needs, which is a good low-post 4 and depth at the power positions. Next time try reading the entire post before jumping to such outrageous conclusions.

 

[houheffna]

My question is simple, is Gordon or will Gordon in anyone's listing for top 5 shooting guards in the NBA? If not, you cannot not possible justify going deeper in a luxury tax hole to retain him. Leading in scoring does not matter when he is not the best player on the team and not top 5 at the position. If someone can say he is a legitimate 2 guard then I will support bringing him back.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

My question is simple, is Gordan or will Gordan in anyone's listing for top 5 shooting guards in the NBA? If not, you cannot not possible justify going deeper in a luxury tax hole to retain him. Leading in scoring does not matter when he is not the best player on the team and not top 5 at the position. If someone can say he is a legitimate 2 guard then I will support bringing him back.

By that logic none of the players on our team would be on the roster. No one is top 5 at their position.

 

[charity stripe]

Diddy1122 wrote:

Honest and accurate? HAHAHAHAA! I love that you use that at the very beginning of your post, and then provide inaccurate reporting about Sam Smith right underneath. That would be my definition of irony.

You're out of your mind if you think McGraw can even hold a candle to Sam Smith, who has been one of the best in the biz for decades. And I don't mean to tear down McGraw, who I feel is one of the better Chicago sportswriters out there, but since you chose to show only a portion of the post and Sam's response, I figured I would show the enitre post so people can judge for themselves.

Now I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but it's fairly obvious to me Sam was agreeing with his overall analysis of the Bulls most pressing needs, which is a good low-post 4 and depth at the power positions. Next time try reading the entire post before jumping to such outrageous conclusions.

lol, it seems you are the one jumping to outrageous conclusions about me. I have been pointing out and commenting on Sam Smith's opinions such as these for a long time. Sam Smith is the same guy who agreed that Jamal Crawford and Ben Gordon are equal players. Here, he doesn't even bother to correct the guy when he said Gordon's shooting percentages are low and he plays no defense. I don't care how long Smith has been around, if he agrees with that and thinks that part is good analysis, then I think that is foolish of him.

 

[houheffna]

"By that logic none of the players on our team would be on the roster. No one is top 5 at their position."

That is exactly my point!!! Derrick Rose can potentially be a top 5 player at his position....ALL OTHER PLAYERS ARE EXPENDABLE!!! That is my logic, you don't spend 10 or 11 million dollars a year on any player who has not been to an all star game or is not top 5 in their position at this point. It makes no sense.....now if Ben will take 7 or 8 mil, that might be different...

 

[Dpauley23]

houheffna wrote:

"By that logic none of the players on our team would be on the roster. No one is top 5 at their position."

That is exactly my point!!! Derrick Rose can potentially be a top 5 player at his position....ALL OTHER PLAYERS ARE EXPENDABLE!!! That is my logic, you don't spend 10 or 11 million dollars a year on any player who has not been to an all star game or is not top 5 in their position at this point. It makes no sense.....now if Ben will take 7 or 8 mil, that might be different...

Go find 5 sg better then Gordon. I dare you. Come back to me with your list

 

[??? ??????]

houheffna wrote:

My question is simple, is Gordon or will Gordon in anyone's listing for top 5 shooting guards in the NBA? If not, you cannot not possible justify going deeper in a luxury tax hole to retain him. Leading in scoring does not matter when he is not the best player on the team and not top 5 at the position. If someone can say he is a legitimate 2 guard then I will support bringing him back.

Well he is the best player on the team for one.

And when was top 5 a qualifier?

Right now for shooting guards that are better / on Gordon's level you have: Ray Allen, Joe Johnson, Dwyane Wade, Brandon Roy, and Kobe Bryant.

Those guys made an average of $16.82 million (not including Roy who is on a rookie contract). I'd argue that Ben Gordon is better than Joe Johnson, making him the fifth best shooting guard in the league.

FWIW

1. Dwyane Wade
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Brandon Roy
4. Ray Allen
5. Ben Gordon
6. Joe Johnson
7. Kevin Martin
8. Jason Terry
9. Vince Carter
10. Richard Hamilton

Vince Carter, Richard Hamilton, Jason Terry,

 

[Manic Devourer]

Re:McGraw: Decent chance the Bulls will re-sign Be

??? ?????? wrote:
I'd argue that Ben Gordon is better than Joe Johnson, making him the fifth best shooting guard in the league.

I'm sure you could argue that fact, but you would lose that argument handedly.

 

[Manic Devourer]

Re:McGraw: Decent chance the Bulls will re-sign Be

??? ?????? wrote:

houheffna wrote:

My question is simple, is Gordon or will Gordon in anyone's listing for top 5 shooting guards in the NBA? If not, you cannot not possible justify going deeper in a luxury tax hole to retain him. Leading in scoring does not matter when he is not the best player on the team and not top 5 at the position. If someone can say he is a legitimate 2 guard then I will support bringing him back.

Well he is the best player on the team for one.

And when was top 5 a qualifier?

Right now for shooting guards that are better / on Gordon's level you have: Ray Allen, Joe Johnson, Dwyane Wade, Brandon Roy, and Kobe Bryant.

Those guys made an average of $16.82 million (not including Roy who is on a rookie contract). I'd argue that Ben Gordon is better than Joe Johnson, making him the fifth best shooting guard in the league.

FWIW

1. Dwyane Wade
2. Kobe Bryant
3. Brandon Roy
4. Ray Allen
5. Ben Gordon
6. Joe Johnson
7. Kevin Martin
8. Jason Terry
9. Vince Carter
10. Richard Hamilton

Vince Carter, Richard Hamilton, Jason Terry,

Then there is Manu.

I think Gordon is a little further down the list. I don't know how Ray Allen is above Gordon. He is as hot and cold as Gordon.

My opinion is;

1. Kobe
2. Wade
3. Roy
4. Joe Johnson
5. Kevin Martin
6. Manu
7. Gordon
8. Allen
9. Hamilton
10. Carter