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

[wjb1492]

charity stripe wrote:

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.

I won't question your intentions or anything, but the way you posted the quote was confusing. I hadn't read Sam's mailbag yet, and from your post I totally got the impression that what you quoted was the full extent of the question and answer. You're right that Sam didn't do anything to show he disagreed with the part about Ben, and you have every right to disagree with him, but the whole thing makes a lot more sense quoted in its entirety.

 

[??? ??????]

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

Manic Devourer wrote:

??? ?????? 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.

Ben Gordon: 20.7 PPG on 57.3 TS%
Joe Johnson: 21.4 PPG on 53.4 TS%

Ben Gordon is clearly a much better scorer. Gordon scores just 0.7 PPG less (more per 36 though), on a much higher efficiency. What's the most important aspect of a shooting guard again?

BG: 3.5 RPG (3.4 per 36)
JJ: 4.4 RPG (4.0 per 36)

Joe Johnson is a better rebounder than Gordon. But the difference isn't all that great, and rebounding from the shooting guard spot isn't the most important thing...and it's not like Johnson is a great rebounding guard either.

BG: 3.4 APG (3.3 per 36)
JJ: 5.8 APG (5.2 per 36)

Joe Johnson is quite a bit better at passing the ball than Gordon. A factor in this is Johnson playing with better finishers (Josh Smith and Al Horford) and Johnson having a higher usage.

Both are average defenders at best.

In the playoffs:

Gordon: 24.3 PPG on 53.6 TS%
Johnson: 16.2 PPG on 48.3 TS%

Johnson has been a complete train wreck in the playoffs, which are a bigger stage than the regular season. Gordon's scoring efficiency is a little down (still better than Johnson's regular season scoring efficiency though), but he was above his season scoring efficiency before tearing his hamstring.

In the clutch (per 48)

Gordon: 36.3 PTS on 62.4 TS%
Johnson: 35.8 PTS on 49.5 TS%

So one player shrinks in the clutch to a sub 50 TS%, while the other raises his game, scoring at an elite efficiency.

You can have Joe Johnson all you want, but I'm taking Gordon on my team over Johnson anyday.

 

[charity stripe]

Joe Johnson's playoff numbers (11 games)

16.4/4.5/3.5 on 42%fg, 35% 3pt%, 62% ft%

 

[clonetrooper264]

Gordon is frankly a better player down the stretch than Johnson. Johnson has been absolutely abysmal in the playoffs. Therefore, I would rather take the more efficient, consistent, and clutch Gordon over the better passing Johnson.

 

[TheStig]

Joe Johnson is older and more expensive than BG. Two big negatives for us and his real advantages are handling and creating, two things that Derrick Rose does for us. given the situation and cost, I'll keep BG.

 

[Hendu0520]

I don't think Ben Gordon has to be top 5 for 10 million, especially when our team needs his scoring more than some other teams would. You could make a top 5 arguement but he probably is more 5-10. Here's my breakdown.

Michael Redd, I don't know if he is definately better than BG but he should be on the list definately. The only guards that you can't make an argument about are: Wade, Kobay, and Roy. Allen and Redd are probably better but a compelling argument can be made for Ben against either of those players. Gilbert Arenas as well should be on the list, but you could easily argue Ben is a better player. The next 5 guys you could argue either way, Joe Johnson, Kevin Martin etc..

The problem Ben has is his size. All of these guys except Ginobili are bigger than him. So if you are arguing and 2 guys are similar you would always go with the taller player. There is a reason that Ginoboli comes off the bench. Popovich can make up all the bullshit he wants, but the fact is that if Manu was 6'6" he is a starter. Size does matter especially in the playoffs. Orlando is not a great defensive guard team but the size of Peitrus and Lee cause problems for Boston's shooters. Allen and Pierce shot over us all game. (even though Salmons is tall and he got lit up 2, those were harder shots for Pierce)

To close I would just like to say that until Rose is a dominant player consistantly we cannot afford to lose Gordon, even if he isn't in your top 5 (he is arguably top 5). And especially when we payed Deng all that money.

 

[Dpauley23]

I think you have too look at age too. Allen got 2 or 3 years left. Redd has about 4. Ginobilli is lucky if he could muster one healthy season ever again. By the way Salmons is 6"5 which is pretty small for sf

 

[Hendu0520]

Dpauley23 wrote:

I think you have too look at age too. Allen got 2 or 3 years left. Redd has about 4. Ginobilli is lucky if he could muster one healthy season ever again. By the way Salmons is 6"5 which is pretty small for sf

True good points, Redd is never healthy either, I wasn't even thinking about that, Gordon is easily top 5 out of guys going forward 1 or 2 yrs and is never injured, knock on wood.

Are you sure Salmons is only 6'5? I don't know but I was down low for a game in New Jersey and went down to the tunnel and he looked as tall as Tyrus standing next to him and I remember my boy saying "wow how tall is Salmons?"

 

[houheffna]

The stats are nice but the point remains, he is not top 5 at present time. Nor do I believe he will get any better. He is one dimensional period. We need size in the back court. BG struggled against both Hamilton and Billups in the playoffs and too many teams take advantage of their height over him. Delonte West posted up against the backcourt very successfully in the game that he would later get injured in.

Joe Johnson is a better 2 guard bottom line. Manu is better...Roy is 2x better then Gordon. I enjoy Gordon but how many times do you have to watch him NOT pass the ball on the fast break? The play Paul Pierce made Sunday night, Gordon WILL NOT DO THAT! He is a good scorer, an old school shooter, not a great scorer and not top 5 at his position.

To the person who called him the best player on the team....I beg to differ. Rose was a better player than Gordan when he was in Memphis....period. Plus the Bulls are a mediocre at best team. Calling him the best player on the team is like being the tallest midget. He has contributed to bad basketball over the last few years. We need size and a dedication to defense in the back court. Right now Hinrich is the best defensive player in the backcourt, but he should go too eventually. He is a player making almost twice his worth.

I would take Joe Johnson in a heartbeat over Gordon, Johnson is an all-star who can play defense, play point (better than Gordon) and can post up against guys Gordon's size. Plus, you cannot have Gordon and Salmons on the floor too much at the same time. Too stagnant on offense. I am enjoying the conversation...

 

[dougthonus]

To the person who called him the best player on the team....I beg to differ. Rose was a better player than Gordan when he was in Memphis....period.

Based on what? Rose was far less efficient on offense, he wasn't as big in big moments during the course of the season where he missed his first 7 attempts to win a game in the final play and missed several passes to wide open players and missed several shots at the rim. He's a far worse defender than Gordon as he seemed absolutely lost on defense much of the year.

Plus the Bulls are a mediocre at best team. Calling him the best player on the team is like being the tallest midget. He has contributed to bad basketball over the last few years.

Actually, they're a mediocre team at worst. They've had a record over .500 while Gordon has been here. If he's capable of leading a team that is better than .500 on average, then you'd think he'd be a nice #2 or #3 guy on a team that's really good. You get better on a team by adding more good players, not by getting 5 guys who could all be the #1 on a 50 win team.

We need size and a dedication to defense in the back court. Right now Hinrich is the best defensive player in the backcourt, but he should go too eventually. He is a player making almost twice his worth.

Well Gordon, by reputation, is one of the most dedicated basketball players to ever play for the Bulls. If Hinrich is making twice what he's worth please list for me all the non-rookie-contract guys who make 4.5-5 million who are as good as Hinrich. This is a ridiculous statement as well.

People have ridiculous expectations for what guys making 9-10 million in the NBA do. Go look at the typical guy making that much money. Go look at the typical guy making MLE money.

 

[Shakes]

dougthonus wrote:

People have ridiculous expectations for what guys making 9-10 million in the NBA do. Go look at the typical guy making that much money. Go look at the typical guy making MLE money.

Agreed and quoted for emphasis. The way the NBA salary cap is set up the rookies (due to the rookie salary scale) and the superstars (due to the max salary) are underpaid. This means practically everyone else in the league is overpaid, if you're looking at it from an objective standpoint. Although comparing to MLE guys is kind of a double whammy ... the nature of the MLE tends to make those guys particularly overpaid, since it's often the only way teams have of improving they'll hand out very stupid MLE contracts (see James, Jerome).

I've still maintained though that it doesn't matter what Gordon is "worth". If there are multiple teams out there that are willing to pay him 9-10 million, we should want to give that to him. Interest at that price shows he'd be a tradeable contract if we signed him. If there's not that demand then we're idiots for paying him more than what others would (see Deng, Luol).

So ultimately I think it doesn't matter where Gordon ranks compared to other players, it's how in demand he is from other teams. Even if we never trade him, if we pay more than we need to we'd still be locking up salary that could be going to someone else, so it'd still be a stupid move. Sometimes you're better off just accepting the loss of a player than paying a silly contract (see Nocioni, Andres).

 

[dougthonus]

Agreed and quoted for emphasis. The way the NBA salary cap is set up the rookies (due to the rookie salary scale) and the superstars (due to the max salary) are underpaid. This means practically everyone else in the league is overpaid, if you're looking at it from an objective standpoint.

I agree completely.

I've still maintained though that it doesn't matter what Gordon is "worth". If there are multiple teams out there that are willing to pay him 9-10 million, we should want to give that to him. Interest at that price shows he'd be a tradeable contract if we signed him. If there's not that demand then we're idiots for paying him more than what others would (see Deng, Luol).

What is interesting about free agent negotiations is that basically every player signed to a non max deal is highly likely to be overpaid simply because he was signed to the max bidder. When you sign a guy, you are the one who was willing to pay the most. That means no one else is likely to outbid you or want the guy at that price in trade. That's an over simplification because RFA status and the salary cap prevent all teams from bidding, but there is definitely a strong element in it.

I wouldn't give Gordon "what he's worth" if he can't get more on the open market. I'd sign him to the least amount I could that would keep him, and if that amount went over 10 million I'd let him go.

 

[houheffna]

What is ridiculous is the fact that people love to spend other people's money. If Reinsdorf was hesitant to go over the cap for Gasol, why would he do that so quickly for Gordon? Look at the big picture, mediocre at worst? It doesn't matter, mediocre is a bad place to be. The first round against the Celtics was exciting, BAD basketball. Period. It is ridiculous to be fooled by what we saw. Gordon is as good as he is going to be. Lets see who throws 10 mil at him this summer. Why do you think Agent Zero called him out for not signing that contract? If he is the superstar some of you think he is, he should make more than that! Hinrich is a good player but you don't pay 9 mil to a backup combo guard. He is not worth his money on this team. I am surprised that Mr. Thonus whom opinions I respectfully disagree with but don't necessarily call ridiculous, has such a jaded view of Chicago talent. Furthermore, you name me a team that won a championship (which I would think is the ultimate goal of the average Bull's fan) with two starting guards at 6'3" or smaller.

Ridiculous is the fact that you didn't learn from what happened to this team a couple of years ago, when everyone fell in love with the players and they had all peaked and reached their potential. What did we have then? A team that the Detroit Pistons toyed with on their way to the Conference Finals. You should have one goal, beat Lebron. We have a better chance if we try to get Gordon coming off the bench and not starting. That is just the way it is.

 

[Basghetti80]

Certainly if someone is willing to pay Gordon over 10 million you have to let him go. In fact for me anything above the rumored 6 yr/$54 million deal from last year and I let him go.

 

[dougthonus]

What is ridiculous is the fact that people love to spend other people's money. If Reinsdorf was hesitant to go over the cap for Gasol, why would he do that so quickly for Gordon? Look at the big picture, mediocre at worst? It doesn't matter, mediocre is a bad place to be. The first round against the Celtics was exciting, BAD basketball. Period. It is ridiculous to be fooled by what we saw. Gordon is as good as he is going to be. Lets see who throws 10 mil at him this summer. Why do you think Agent Zero called him out for not signing that contract? If he is the superstar some of you think he is, he should make more than that! Hinrich is a good player but you don't pay 9 mil to a backup combo guard. He is not worth his money on this team. I am surprised that Mr. Thonus whom opinions I respectfully disagree with but don't necessarily call ridiculous, has such a jaded view of Chicago talent. Furthermore, you name me a team that won a championship (which I would think is the ultimate goal of the average Bull's fan) with two starting guards at 6'3" or smaller.

Ridiculous is the fact that you didn't learn from what happened to this team a couple of years ago, when everyone fell in love with the players and they had all peaked and reached their potential. What did we have then? A team that the Detroit Pistons toyed with on their way to the Conference Finals. You should have one goal, beat Lebron. We have a better chance if we try to get Gordon coming off the bench and not starting. That is just the way it is.

The problem is one that was pointed out above, basically max players and rookie players are underpaid, everyone else is overpaid. Say you let Hinrich go for salary cap relief and you let Gordon walk.

Then what? Your team is far worse, and you have salary room, but you basically aren't going to be able to find someone better without grossly overpaying them or without drafting a max player or getting lucky with one agreeing to sign with you (which is less likely after you just jettisoned your talent).

That's one of the core problems of the NBA, is that basically you have to keep your best guys at prices where they're overpaid relative to max players, or you have to let them go in which case you just lose talent and have no way to replace it. FA money rarely can be used to improve your team without overpaying guys.

I agree that keeping your best guys isn't likely to have you win a title, but is letting them go more likely to win you a title when you have no method to replace them with better players at better prices? The end thing is that it's just really, really hard to win a title and it takes a lot of luck. It's unlikely no matter what you do. Not only is it extremely difficult to win a title, it's extremely difficult just to elevate to legit contender.

The NBA is about acquiring stars / superstars. The teams who are legit contenders typically have a top 10 player surrounded by at least one more all star. We don't have the top 10 player, and without one no matter what else we do we're unlikely to elevate ourselves too much. If Rose became a top 10 player, one who was really efficient on offense, had good court vision, and played above average defense, then our team would be a legit contender right now with the rest of our cast. If Rose was that player this past year (not to say that was a reasonable hope or expectation or that I'm disappointed he wasn't, because none of those things are true) then the Bulls would have won at least 50 games and would have steamrolled their first round opponent.

As for short backcourts: Isiah Dumars won 2 titles. Wade (6'4) and Jason Williams won a title. I don't think it's the size of the backcourt really, but the talent of the players.

 

[houheffna]

Mr. Thonus

Well thought out response. I believe that Rose will soon be comparable to Thomas. Gordon will NEVER EVER be Dumars. To pull off what that team did you have to GUARD people. Dumars was a much better 2 guard and a HOFer. Gordon cannot seem to make the all-star team. Believe me, I have felt this way for a while. I was screaming Brandon Roy at the television when Paxson drafted Tyrus Thomas. Why? Roy has the length and defensive prowess to give the opposing team's wing players problems. Artest gave Roy high compliments for a reason. Finally bottom line, Bulls vs. Cavs....Cavs in 4! 'Nuff said!

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

What is ridiculous is the fact that people love to spend other people's money. If Reinsdorf was hesitant to go over the cap for Gasol, why would he do that so quickly for Gordon? Look at the big picture, mediocre at worst? It doesn't matter, mediocre is a bad place to be. The first round against the Celtics was exciting, BAD basketball. Period. It is ridiculous to be fooled by what we saw. Gordon is as good as he is going to be. Lets see who throws 10 mil at him this summer. Why do you think Agent Zero called him out for not signing that contract? If he is the superstar some of you think he is, he should make more than that! Hinrich is a good player but you don't pay 9 mil to a backup combo guard. He is not worth his money on this team. I am surprised that Mr. Thonus whom opinions I respectfully disagree with but don't necessarily call ridiculous, has such a jaded view of Chicago talent. Furthermore, you name me a team that won a championship (which I would think is the ultimate goal of the average Bull's fan) with two starting guards at 6'3" or smaller.

Ridiculous is the fact that you didn't learn from what happened to this team a couple of years ago, when everyone fell in love with the players and they had all peaked and reached their potential. What did we have then? A team that the Detroit Pistons toyed with on their way to the Conference Finals. You should have one goal, beat Lebron. We have a better chance if we try to get Gordon coming off the bench and not starting. That is just the way it is.

Where do you suppose JR's money comes from? It comes from Bulls fans who buy tickets, shirts, jerseys and build up the brand image that allows the bulls to sell advertisements for their product. So while it is his product to manage, websites and people who "spend his money" builds his brand and generates his league leading profits. So I think its the fans right to expect the best possible product for their time and money. You wouldn't buy a $50,000 Toyota would you? Well why would you accept paying among the highest ticket costs and generate the highest income for the owner to get back an average product? We don't expect JR to lose money (not that I think any amount he could spend now would generate a loss) but we do expect him not to make business decisions to keep him at the highest income while generating an average product. There is a happy median point and as the celtics have recently discovered, you actually are making more money at that point.

 

[houheffna]

I think that is the difference, I don't want him to generate an average product, I want a championship.

 

[TheStig]

houheffna wrote:

I think that is the difference, I don't want him to generate an average product, I want a championship.

Isn't that what we have been given the past few years? So, why wouldn't we want to spend JR's money, he is the one generating a average product due to self imposed salary limitations that lead to the league leading profit? I don't think anyone will argue that retaining BG will make us a worse team then loosing him for nothing and saving money. We aren't a small market team, we generate the highest income and only spend like a small market team.

 

[houheffna]

Just because you have money does not mean you spend it on anything. The Bulls are more than willing to pay Garnett, Amare, the top players in the game and that is what they are waiting for. Reinsdorf is a business man and a very successful one, why? Because when given a surplus, he decides whether to spend it or put it in the bank. That is capitalism at its finest. He knows what he is doing, he has 7 world championships he has financed. He is pretty good at knowing championship product. Now as for hiring coaches, that is another thing entirely....