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

[chi_hawks_23]

Again.....

Ben Gordon
3pt% = 41%
FG% = 46%

That's with him being forced to take horrendous shots because we have no scoring options AND VDN doesn't have much of an offensive playbook.

I dont know many guards that could put up 20+ppg and keep those numbers on this Bulls team. The ones that do come to mind will run you 15mil+ per season.

 

[houheffna]

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

I am not talking about money....Iguodala has played the 2 he is versatile just like Salmons, (who is also a better all-around ball player). Iguodala is a franchise player for the 76ers whom they gave a big contract. Gordon is not a franchise player, he plays 47 feet of the floor only. I know about microfracture surgery, I guess that discounts getting Amare. The question is would you take Gordon over a healthy McGrady, I would think not. The moment McGrady steps back on the court, Gordon moves down a notch. Redd is BG except taller, and he plays defense, and he has been an all-star and a member of the Olympic team, and a franchise player with a big contract because he is worth it. Melt him down three inches and make him streakier with a disdain for defense, you got Ben Gordon. Again, Redd is a better, more consistent scorer. BG doesn't even believe he is worth Michael Redd money. Nor, I would wager, do you. He is on the second or third tier when it comes to shooting guards, a couple of years ago, a lot of people considered Deng a better player, including Kobe according to rumors.

I didn't even put Iverson on the list, who is just as good when he is dominating the ball at this stage in his career.

And what does efficient scorer mean? You like stats, look at Redd's numbers, you can see who is better, plus he is better at basketball.

Also, look at McGrady's stats, lower FG%, lower 3P%, and scoring about the same in the last 4 or 5 years as BG, you want to tell me that BG now is a better ballplayer than TMac over that time? Seriously? Would love to hear that argument.

Allen handles the ball less than Gordon, he is supposed to get open and the team set picks for him, then he gets his shot off, that is his job primarily. His role is different now from his Seattle days, when he would handle the ball more. And he has shown this postseason to be just as clutch a player as Gordon. He just hit a big clutch shot last night, after having a bad night.

 

[houheffna]

That's with him being forced to take horrendous shots because we have no scoring options AND VDN doesn't have much of an offensive playbook.

VDN has an offensive playbook, he does not have a defensive playbook. Why do you think he sat Tyrus' butt down so often? Tyrus spent half of his time on the floor positioned wrong. How many times did VDN talk about moving the ball? When BG is in the game, the ball does not move. BG puts up horrendous shots because he wants to score.

What happened in Game 6, who carried the team in OT? Not BG, he was on the bench, fouled out after getting his butt kicked by Allen. Salmons consistently scored the basketball and the Celtics had no one to stop him when he got hot. Without him, there is no Game 7 for BG to hoist up those "forced horrendous shots".

 

[dougthonus]

Well Hou, we're going to just disagree on Gordon. I don't want to repeat the same things over and over. I think fundamentally I think Gordon is better than you do.

I would take him (at the same salary) over Ray Allen, Michael Redd, Tracy McGrady, and Allen Iverson if it was a three year commitment or longer.

Of that group only Ray Allen would be on the list that would give me any pause whatsoever, but his age would make me take Gordon and my belief that Gordon in the Celtics system would probably perform the Ray Allen role as well as Allen does.

I am not sure if there is a single SG in the league that complement's Rose's skills better in the NBA than Ben Gordon right now on the offensive end of the court. The problem is he's a very poor complement on the defensive side of the court. That's not to say Rose/Gordon would be the best backcourt. Rose/Wade or Rose/Kobe or Rose/Roy are better because those players are just so much better than Gordon that the fact they are worst skill complements is irrelevant because the total skill is so much higher.

Still, you will, IMO, not find a guard for $9 million a year in the NBA who would fit better next to Rose than Gordon.

 

[chi_hawks_23]

houheffna wrote:

That's with him being forced to take horrendous shots because we have no scoring options AND VDN doesn't have much of an offensive playbook.

VDN has an offensive playbook, he does not have a defensive playbook. Why do you think he sat Tyrus' butt down so often? Tyrus spent half of his time on the floor positioned wrong. How many times did VDN talk about moving the ball? When BG is in the game, the ball does not move. BG puts up horrendous shots because he wants to score.

What happened in Game 6, who carried the team in OT? Not BG, he was on the bench, fouled out after getting his butt kicked by Allen. Salmons consistently scored the basketball and the Celtics had no one to stop him when he got hot. Without him, there is no Game 7 for BG to hoist up those "forced horrendous shots".

Im not saying that Salmons isnt a good player. But who better to receive a kick out pass from a Salmons drive then Ben Gordon?

You point out one game. Rose had a great game 1, and game 6 Gordon didnt play well (hamstring injury too). The other games, he was a beast. If you can get 25ppg performances, in the playoffs, from a guy making 8-9mil per year, you take it.

 

[Ralphb07]

Wow I can't believe this thread is that long... I refuse to have heated debates about a player that in a month and a half may not even be a Bull.

IMO people need to think of Gordon as what he is, which is a Unrestricted Free Agent and focus more on what the current roster is... If Gordon signs with us he's a extra bonus for the season but as of right now he is not a member of the Bulls

 

[dougthonus]

Ralphb07 wrote:

Wow I can't believe this thread is that long... I refuse to have heated debates about a player that in a month and a half may not even be a Bull.

IMO people need to think of Gordon as what he is, which is a Unrestricted Free Agent and focus more on what the current roster is... If Gordon signs with us he's a extra bonus for the season but as of right now he is not a member of the Bulls

I think it makes more sense to have a heated debate about a guy who may or may not come back than a guy who is definitely coming back.

There is an immediate decision to make on Gordon which makes you have to debate the pros and cons to see if you like/dislike the decision that is made.

That seems like a more likely topic of debate than debating about whether we trade a player, because that debate can't be completed without knowing what trade offers exist which is information we don't have. The Gordon debate can be had with full facts in front of you (more or less as we don't know the exact salary demands).

 

[??? ??????]

Tracy McGrady is nowhere near as good as Ben Gordon scoring wise, and the only season where McGrady was as good as Gordon is now was in 2002-2003. Guys like Tracy McGrady are fools gold. Yes, they have the gaudy statlines, but that's only because they jack up shot after shot. McGrady has been horrible most of his career. He has 3 sub 50 TS% seasons (all in Houston), then 4 more sub 51 TS% seasons. He only has one season where his scoring efficiency was above what you would consider mediocre.

Guys like McGrady hurt your team. That is, high usage players who don't score with any type of efficiency.

 

[houheffna]

Tracy McGrady is nowhere near as good as Ben Gordon scoring wise, and the only season where McGrady was as good as Gordon is now was in 2002-2003. Guys like Tracy McGrady are fools gold. Yes, they have the gaudy statlines, but that's only because they jack up shot after shot. McGrady has been horrible most of his career. He has 3 sub 50 TS% seasons (all in Houston), then 4 more sub 51 TS% seasons. He only has one season where his scoring efficiency was above what you would consider mediocre.

Guys like McGrady hurt your team. That is, high usage players who don't score with any type of efficiency.

Okay, that is just too much. McGrady on one leg is a better player than Gordon. Again, see the Vin Scully quote about stats. No one can watch McGrady play and watch Gordon play and walk away and say "Gordon is much better than McGrady". Horrible most of his career? Seriously? You cannot be serious, Gordon has never and will never be that good. McGrady at one time played on an MVP level. Gordon CANNOT MAKE AN ALLSTAR GAME!!!!!!! McGrady at one time was firmly top 10 maybe top 5, Gordon is not in the top 20, hell, he is not in the top 5 in his own position! Some of you guys should get NBA League Pass and watch the league...

McGrady was just 3rd team NBA in 07-08, his seventh season all-nba. Gordon was all-nba when???????


Again guys, you have Adrian Dantley disease. I and my words of reality are the cure, glad to be of service to you.

Gordon is not a GREAT anything...that word is misused, kinda like the word "friend".

 

[Ralphb07]

dougthonus wrote:

Ralphb07 wrote:

Wow I can't believe this thread is that long... I refuse to have heated debates about a player that in a month and a half may not even be a Bull.

IMO people need to think of Gordon as what he is, which is a Unrestricted Free Agent and focus more on what the current roster is... If Gordon signs with us he's a extra bonus for the season but as of right now he is not a member of the Bulls

I think it makes more sense to have a heated debate about a guy who may or may not come back than a guy who is definitely coming back.

There is an immediate decision to make on Gordon which makes you have to debate the pros and cons to see if you like/dislike the decision that is made.

That seems like a more likely topic of debate than debating about whether we trade a player, because that debate can't be completed without knowing what trade offers exist which is information we don't have. The Gordon debate can be had with full facts in front of you (more or less as we don't know the exact salary demands).

To be honest with you his chances aren't that good of returning unless we make a trade...... The Luxury Tax isn't going to be paid and we don't have enough money to sign him right now so unless a trade to free up money happens the chances are slim right now. I'm just being a realist Doug

 

[chi_hawks_23]

houheffna wrote:

Again guys, you have Adrian Dantley disease. I and my words of reality are the cure, glad to be of service to you.

Idk why people say things like this. Your opinion is nothing we haven't already heard, so nothing profound here.

Gordon is not a GREAT anything...

All depends upon your interpretation of the word GREAT. Ben is one of the better scorers in the league (ppg, ppg/fgapg). To me, that makes him a great scorer.

 

[houheffna]

I say those type of things because they are funny number 1. And how people can watch Jordan for 15 years and then call Gordon a great scorer is beyond me...Lebron, Kobe, Dwade, Dirk, Gordon? Don't think so...Peja Stojakovic is as good a shooter as Gordon if not better and scored more ppg, but I wouldn't say he was a great scorer, would you?

 

[chi_hawks_23]

houheffna wrote:

I say those type of things because they are funny number 1. And how people can watch Jordan for 15 years and then call Gordon a great scorer is beyond me...Lebron, Kobe, Dwade, Dirk, Gordon? Don't think so...Peja Stojakovic is as good a shooter as Gordon if not better and scored more ppg, but I wouldn't say he was a great scorer, would you?

If Peja could create off a the dribble like Gordon, then yeah, Id call him a great scorer.

Thats not to say Gordon is a great 1 vs 1 player....but he is a more capable, all around scorer, then Peja.

 

[AirP]

dougthonus wrote:

I am not sure if there is a single SG in the league that complement's Rose's skills better in the NBA than Ben Gordon right now on the offensive end of the court. The problem is he's a very poor complement on the defensive side of the court. That's not to say Rose/Gordon would be the best backcourt. Rose/Wade or Rose/Kobe or Rose/Roy are better because those players are just so much better than Gordon that the fact they are worst skill complements is irrelevant because the total skill is so much higher.

Still, you will, IMO, not find a guard for $9 million a year in the NBA who would fit better next to Rose than Gordon.

Really? Ray Allen would complement Rose's skills better then Ben Gordon RIGHT NOW on the offensive end of the court... to complement Rose you have to be a great shooter and not take the ball out of Rose's hands much... Gordon does one of those things well, not so much on the secondary one.

If Gordon could just hold back on going one on one till near the end of the shot clock... I'd probably be on board with keeping a Rose/Gordon backcourt for a long long time. But if he's going to go one on one as much as he has this year and all his career so early in the shot clock I'd rather find a different option to team up with Rose in the backcourt.

 

[Medianotzu]

AirP wrote:

dougthonus wrote:

I am not sure if there is a single SG in the league that complement's Rose's skills better in the NBA than Ben Gordon right now on the offensive end of the court. The problem is he's a very poor complement on the defensive side of the court. That's not to say Rose/Gordon would be the best backcourt. Rose/Wade or Rose/Kobe or Rose/Roy are better because those players are just so much better than Gordon that the fact they are worst skill complements is irrelevant because the total skill is so much higher.

Still, you will, IMO, not find a guard for $9 million a year in the NBA who would fit better next to Rose than Gordon.

Really? Ray Allen would complement Rose's skills better then Ben Gordon RIGHT NOW on the offensive end of the court... to complement Rose you have to be a great shooter and not take the ball out of Rose's hands much... Gordon does one of those things well, not so much on the secondary one.

If Gordon could just hold back on going one on one till near the end of the shot clock... I'd probably be on board with keeping a Rose/Gordon backcourt for a long long time. But if he's going to go one on one as much as he has this year and all his career so early in the shot clock I'd rather find a different option to team up with Rose in the backcourt.

Read Doug's post again.

Ray Allen makes about 19 million dollars a year.

 

[AirP]

Medianotzu wrote:

AirP wrote:

dougthonus wrote:

I am not sure if there is a single SG in the league that complement's Rose's skills better in the NBA than Ben Gordon right now on the offensive end of the court. The problem is he's a very poor complement on the defensive side of the court. That's not to say Rose/Gordon would be the best backcourt. Rose/Wade or Rose/Kobe or Rose/Roy are better because those players are just so much better than Gordon that the fact they are worst skill complements is irrelevant because the total skill is so much higher.

Still, you will, IMO, not find a guard for $9 million a year in the NBA who would fit better next to Rose than Gordon.

Really? Ray Allen would complement Rose's skills better then Ben Gordon RIGHT NOW on the offensive end of the court... to complement Rose you have to be a great shooter and not take the ball out of Rose's hands much... Gordon does one of those things well, not so much on the secondary one.

If Gordon could just hold back on going one on one till near the end of the shot clock... I'd probably be on board with keeping a Rose/Gordon backcourt for a long long time. But if he's going to go one on one as much as he has this year and all his career so early in the shot clock I'd rather find a different option to team up with Rose in the backcourt.

Read Doug's post again.

Ray Allen makes about 19 million dollars a year.

Sorry, missed or forgot about the salaries that were sitting in front of my face(at work dual screening).

Since I don't see Gordon slowing up much on his one on one and quick trigger shots... I think Hinrich is a better fit next to Rose long term. Get Gordon to quit going one on one early in the shot clock and I'll think differently.

 

[houheffna]

If Peja could create off a the dribble like Gordon, then yeah, Id call him a great scorer.

Thats not to say Gordon is a great 1 vs 1 player....but he is a more capable, all around scorer, then Peja.

create what off the dribble? A crazy shot? I don't think so. Ask yourself, what would be best for DRose? That is what matters in the long run.

 

[badboy]

AirP wrote:

If Gordon could just hold back on going one on one till near the end of the shot clock... I'd probably be on board with keeping a Rose/Gordon backcourt for a long long time. But if he's going to go one on one as much as he has this year and all his career so early in the shot clock I'd rather find a different option to team up with Rose in the backcourt.

I don't think there is a harder Ben Gordon critic than me and slowly I come around more and more as he seems to mature and come closer to his prime. What you and a lot of ppl bring up there in the bold part is the responsibility of the PG and coach. It is Roses job to create the best shots for Gordon and reign him in, he is a scorer with the scorer's mentality that I would not want to take away as it is his best asset. So reigning him in is Roses job.

If you want to criticize Gordon I suggest sticking to the defensive side of the ball and to game film and keep the argument away from stats. You will lose every time if offensive stats and BG are fighting against you.

On to my dislikes: He is a bad defender not due to lack of effort but simply lack of size. He tried the entire series to stay with Ray Allen and usual tries with anyone he is guarding but he does not strike fear into anyone's heart and Guys believe they can shoot over him and do it constantly.

Next and this is a problem with not just him but our coach; As much of a momentum starter BG can be he is great a stopping our momentum. VDN has done it several times this year with ill-advised timeouts. BG has a nack for starving players when on the fast break allowing the other teams to stop the game by putting him on the free throw line. I saw it happen a lot this season when I new he was not going to pass the ball even though someone was running with him down the court in a good position for a pass and easy layup or dunk on a 2 or 3 on 1 fast break. In the celtics series this lead to him being put on the free throw line every time and our momentum stopped. I always prefer the other team calling a timeout to stop our momentum than we doing it to ourselves.

Aside from these issues which can be fixed with coaching and some more length at the wing positions on the bench, BG is definitely a good starting SG to have in this league. Top ten because his scoring is really just that great and including injuries. I say we shouldn't have to live with his bad shots and we wont if Rose has the talent we all believe he does.

 

[2ndcitydiehard]

AirP wrote:

Since I don't see Gordon slowing up much on his one on one and quick trigger shots... I think Hinrich is a better fit next to Rose long term. Get Gordon to quit going one on one early in the shot clock and I'll think differently.

You've got that backwards. Gordon is a much better long term fit because he can lift the scoring burden off of Rose. He is one of the best shooters in the NBA and an efficient scorer and that does out-weigh his offensive tunnel vision. While the guy is really a lot closer to 6' and 6'3" he does at least compete on defense most nights and Rose's potential to turn into a shutdown defender (at some point down the line) could take some of that pressure off BG like the pairing with Kirk did.

In the short-term however Rose's best asset is his ability to get to the rim and score. Kirk takes some of the ball handling duties and pressure away from him and can make Rose more of a D-Wade type guard than a traditional PG. Kirk also helps make up for Rose's issues on D because he can guard the best backcourt player.

For Rose you want Kirk now and Ben in the long-term. That, along with Krause's cheapness will probably send BG packing (although I pray for a sign-n-trade or one year deal) and keep Kirk in town through next season. About the only guys who have long-term futures with the Bulls right now are Rose, Deng (b/c of contract), and maybe Noah.

 

[J-Mart]

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

badboy wrote:

AirP wrote:

If Gordon could just hold back on going one on one till near the end of the shot clock... I'd probably be on board with keeping a Rose/Gordon backcourt for a long long time. But if he's going to go one on one as much as he has this year and all his career so early in the shot clock I'd rather find a different option to team up with Rose in the backcourt.

I don't think there is a harder Ben Gordon critic than me and slowly I come around more and more as he seems to mature and come closer to his prime. What you and a lot of ppl bring up there in the bold part is the responsibility of the PG and coach. It is Roses job to create the best shots for Gordon and reign him in, he is a scorer with the scorer's mentality that I would not want to take away as it is his best asset. So reigning him in is Roses job.

If you want to criticize Gordon I suggest sticking to the defensive side of the ball and to game film and keep the argument away from stats. You will lose every time if offensive stats and BG are fighting against you.

On to my dislikes: He is a bad defender not due to lack of effort but simply lack of size. He tried the entire series to stay with Ray Allen and usual tries with anyone he is guarding but he does not strike fear into anyone's heart and Guys believe they can shoot over him and do it constantly.

Next and this is a problem with not just him but our coach; As much of a momentum starter BG can be he is great a stopping our momentum. VDN has done it several times this year with ill-advised timeouts. BG has a nack for starving players when on the fast break allowing the other teams to stop the game by putting him on the free throw line. I saw it happen a lot this season when I new he was not going to pass the ball even though someone was running with him down the court in a good position for a pass and easy layup or dunk on a 2 or 3 on 1 fast break. In the celtics series this lead to him being put on the free throw line every time and our momentum stopped. I always prefer the other team calling a timeout to stop our momentum than we doing it to ourselves.

Aside from these issues which can be fixed with coaching and some more length at the wing positions on the bench, BG is definitely a good starting SG to have in this league. Top ten because his scoring is really just that great and including injuries. I say we shouldn't have to live with his bad shots and we wont if Rose has the talent we all believe he does.

See this is actually a fairly well laid out argument against Gordon. Not the typical stuff people just repeat from the radio. I just disagree with you about him getting to the line and stopping momentum. If our team can't keep momentum going when Gordon is getting to the line, that is a team problem, not a Gordon problem. There is nothing bad about having Gordon on the line when he is a 86% free throw shooter.

I also agree that once Rose becomes a better defender that BG's lack of size won't be as big of a problem. Although Gordon is not a good defender, I would argue he isn't bad. I would say he is average. Since Rose is a horrible defender right now, it is hard for us have a back court that is not a good defensive unit. I expect Rose to get better with time though and I don't think it will be an issue. Especially with Salmons (Assuming Deng starts) and Kirk who are good defenders on the bench helps this problem a lot.

I do have one question for you badboy, do you think the Bulls should let Gordon walk?