AirP wrote:
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.
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.
Do you realize the thing you don't like about Gordon, Hinrich does? Have you seen Hinrich on fast breaks before, he takes pull up jumpers just like Gordon, and he usually misses them. Or he goes in for a missed layup. Hinrich overdribbles and pounds the ball quite a bit when he was on the floor with Rose. Hinrich being a better fit next to Rose for those reasons doesn't make sense to me.
houheffna wrote:
I am not talking about money
If you are talking about the direction of the team, you have to take into consideration player salaries, otherwise the discussion is not a realistic one.
houheffna wrote:
....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.
Iguodala is not a franchise player, or if he is then he is not a very good one. He is best suited to be a number 2 or number 3 option on a title team. He does not score enough to be a true franchise player like Kobe or Lebron or Wade.
houheffna wrote:
Gordon is not a franchise player, he plays 47 feet of the floor only.
Gordon is not a franchise player, but he does play solid defense. The man he was guarding did not torch Gordon the defender this season. Don't point to gamae 6 where Allen had 51 because Gordon was playing on a torn hamstring, plus Allen was torching Hinrich just as much. During the season the Wade was the only player who torched Gordon when he had 48 in the double OT game. That only happend one time. So he is not a defensive liablity. I don't blame you for thinking that though, as you get your information for Boers and Bernstein and Neil Funk.
houheffna wrote:
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.
McGrady this season averaged 16 points on 39% shooting. Gordon's numbers were much better than that. McGrady hasn't had a single healthy season his entire career spanning 12 years. In contrast, Gordon has had only 1 season where he missed time, and 4 healthy seasons.
houheffna wrote:
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.
Redd does not play defense, you would know this if you watch him. All star selection is often about reputation, not reality. You could argue that Michael Redd of a few years ago was better than this year's Gordon. But we are talking about right now, and right now injured players like mcgrady and Redd are not better players than Gordon who produces on the court.
Olymptic team selection is not an argument for why a player is better.
houheffna wrote:
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.
At this stage in his career, Iverson is a cancer to his team. He refused to come off the bench for the betterment of the team, creating a bad sitation for the organization. Gordon is a professional who does what the coaches and management asks of him. Gordon is a team player. Gordon is also a much more efficient scorer than Iverson, a better shooter, a more clutch player, and I would argue a better defender.
houheffna wrote:
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.
Efficieny takes into account 2 point field goal attempts & makes, 3 point field goal attempts & makes, and free throw attempts & makes. High efficiency is valuable because you get more point production is fewer shots and possessions.
Michael Redd only played 33 games this year, shot worse from 3, worse from free throw, didn't pass the ball as much, and rebounding the ball worse than Ben Gordon.
Ralphb07 wrote:
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
The Bulls can sign Gordon to any contract figure, then worry about trading someone to get under the tax at February's deadline. They only have to pay the tax if they are over the threshold at 6/30/2010.