The Revised and Final Case for Gordon

[dougthonus]

I doubt he would take less to go to another team, remember the two other markets (NY and LA) wont be interested and I doubt he would go to some small market team with no opportunity to make some cash through marketing. If Ben doesnt sign for something close to 50 million he needs to fire Raymond Brothers.

I think the problem is that Brothers probably recommended to Gordon that he take the deal last year and the year before, but Gordon said no.

I doubt anyone offers Gordon 50 million. For all the hype of his 42 point outing, he had a pretty poor game tonight and only an average game 1. I don't think teams will break the bank for him.

 

[Newskoolbulls]

dougthonus wrote:

I doubt he would take less to go to another team, remember the two other markets (NY and LA) wont be interested and I doubt he would go to some small market team with no opportunity to make some cash through marketing. If Ben doesnt sign for something close to 50 million he needs to fire Raymond Brothers.

I think the problem is that Brothers probably recommended to Gordon that he take the deal last year and the year before, but Gordon said no.

I doubt anyone offers Gordon 50 million. For all the hype of his 42 point outing, he had a pretty poor game tonight and only an average game 1. I don't think teams will break the bank for him.

If thats how it went down than Gordon must really overvalue himself. I agree with you that no one will break the bank for him nor any other free agent this offseason. Everyone is watching their spending and waiting for 2010 and 2011. I think teams will offer him the full MLE.

 

[??? ??????]

dougthonus wrote:

I doubt he would take less to go to another team, remember the two other markets (NY and LA) wont be interested and I doubt he would go to some small market team with no opportunity to make some cash through marketing. If Ben doesnt sign for something close to 50 million he needs to fire Raymond Brothers.

I think the problem is that Brothers probably recommended to Gordon that he take the deal last year and the year before, but Gordon said no.

I doubt anyone offers Gordon 50 million. For all the hype of his 42 point outing, he had a pretty poor game tonight and only an average game 1. I don't think teams will break the bank for him.

Ben Gordon was a key component to getting us the win in game 1. I wouldn't call that an average game, when you factor in the clutch 12 fourth quarter points he scored.

Game 2, obviously, one of the best this franchise has seen since 1998.

Game 3, ~48 TS%. Not terrible for a bad game.

One thing that should be noted is that Gordon only has 1 turnover this entire series, so it's not like Gordon is really hurting the Bulls all that much with other mistakes.

 

[Fred]

dougthonus wrote:

I think the problem is that Brothers probably recommended to Gordon that he take the deal last year and the year before, but Gordon said no.

I doubt anyone offers Gordon 50 million. For all the hype of his 42 point outing, he had a pretty poor game tonight and only an average game 1. I don't think teams will break the bank for him.

Why would Brothers recommend that? Didn't KC say that Gordon's agent was the problem, not Ben? Did he not try to sign the contract, and the Bulls pulled it off the table? Isn't that confirmed?

 

[Fred]

dougthonus wrote:

I doubt anyone offers Gordon 50 million. For all the hype of his 42 point outing, he had a pretty poor game tonight and only an average game 1. I don't think teams will break the bank for him.

Well, of course not, not today. The economy is falling apart. According to Bill Simmons, teams are running at 50% renewal rate for season tickets. It will be a financial meltdown for many NBA teams next year.

He was 5-13 tonight. Even the stars don't play great every night. Kobe was 5-24 today. The fact is, he averaged over 20 for the year. Someone will pay him.

But again, Ben was never an unrestricted free agent before. Do you really believe, if Gordon was an unrestricted free agent in an enviornment similar to the one when Hinrich signed for 5 years, 48 million...do you believe he couldn't have landed something more than 5 50?

Take the UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENT Ben Gordon of today, put him in a time machine, and send him to the summer when Kirk signed his deal. Ben would have received a contract of at least 5 years, 60 million. No one could have predicted this economic collapse.

My buddy received a job offer a year ago...it was for less money then the job he had at the time. He declined it. He was laid off last month. Did he make a mistake by not taking a poor offer a year ago? Now it looks like it, but at the time, it was the right decision.

 

[Shakes]

Fred wrote:

Take the UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENT Ben Gordon of today, put him in a time machine, and send him to the summer when Kirk signed his deal. Ben would have received a contract of at least 5 years, 60 million. No one could have predicted this economic collapse.

I'm not sure about that. He might deserve it (given his current play vs Kirk's play before his contract, 5/60 sounds fair), but for whatever reason it seems Gordon is regarded as the sort of player who is worth less than his stats.

I mean go back to just last year, when teams weren't in complete meltdown, and nobody could even get past the "agree with BG on a contract" part of a sign and trade negotiation. If BG really was willing to accept what the bulls offered, then it seems that was the most anyone put on the table for him, so him not being able to get 5/60 even in a good economy doesn't seem an unreasonable idea to me.

 

[Fred]

David Lee and Paul Milsap are restricted free agents this summer. The Bulls will not make an offer for either of them. Would you like either of these 2 on our team? I sure as hell would, but we don't have the cap space to make an offer without the Jazz matching it. Gordon was in this exact same situation last year.

For arguments sake, let's say Lee and Milsap sign 1-year tenders like Gordon did this year. Let's say they put up numbers similar to what they've done in the past. (Gordon did this year.) Will the Bulls have an interest in the summer of 2010, when these 2 guys are unrestricted free agents, and Miller's cap number comes off the books. We should.

The term "restricted free agent" is actually an abbreviation for the term "Extremely, Postively, Really, Super Restricted". There is a reason why so few restricted free agents receive offers. I know Josh Smith received one from Memphis....how did that work out for Memphis? Luol Deng never received one, but that didn't prevent the club from signing him to the Biggest Bulls contract in history.

"A restricted free agent is subject to his current team's Right of First Refusal, meaning that the player can be signed to an offer sheet by another team, but his current club reserves the right to match the offer and keep the player. An offer sheet is a contract offer of at least 2 years made to a restricted free agent. The player's current club has 15 days to match the offer or loses the player to the new team. For 1st-round draft picks, restricted free agency is only allowed after a team exercises its option for a fourth year, and the team makes a Qualifying Offer at the Rookie-scale amount after the fourth year is completed. For any other player to be a restricted free agent, he must be at most a three-year NBA veteran, and his team must have made a Qualifying Offer for either 125% of his previous season's salary or the minimum salary plus $150,000, whichever offer is higher."

There wasn't a GM in the league who believed the Bulls would let their leading scorer (for 3 years at the time) leave without matching the offer. So why bother? The Bulls used that fact to their advantage to play hardball in negotiations. That's great, but don't be mad at Gordon when he leaves for a team that has cap space available this year.

 

[Brad Miller Passmaster]

Yeah, you're right on Fred. This situation has been seriously bungled and it is highly probable that we are seeing our final Bulls games featuring Ben Gordon. If it weren't for this economy and my hope of hopes for a Hinrich trade, I would say we are definitely seeing them. But yeah, I would love to see Milsap in a Bulls uniform. Solid, solid player. Think the Jazz will let Boozer go and make Milsap their new starting man?

 

[dougthonus]

Why would Brothers recommend that? Didn't KC say that Gordon's agent was the problem, not Ben? Did he not try to sign the contract, and the Bulls pulled it off the table? Isn't that confirmed?

I've heard Brothers was trying to get Gordon to take the deal, and I've never heard anyone suggest that Brothers was the problem this summer. Gordon's agent desperately wanted him to get the deal this summer so that he could get paid.

Players switch agents like I switch shorts, at least once a year, so if Gordon switches (especially after two years of failed negotiations, he'd have a right to consider switching) then Brothers would get nothing rather than the 3 million or so he'd get if Gordon signed the deal.

 

[dougthonus]

Well, of course not, not today. The economy is falling apart. According to Bill Simmons, teams are running at 50% renewal rate for season tickets. It will be a financial meltdown for many NBA teams next year.

He was 5-13 tonight. Even the stars don't play great every night. Kobe was 5-24 today. The fact is, he averaged over 20 for the year. Someone will pay him.

But again, Ben was never an unrestricted free agent before. Do you really believe, if Gordon was an unrestricted free agent in an enviornment similar to the one when Hinrich signed for 5 years, 48 million...do you believe he couldn't have landed something more than 5 50?

Take the UNRESTRICTED FREE AGENT Ben Gordon of today, put him in a time machine, and send him to the summer when Kirk signed his deal. Ben would have received a contract of at least 5 years, 60 million. No one could have predicted this economic collapse.

My buddy received a job offer a year ago...it was for less money then the job he had at the time. He declined it. He was laid off last month. Did he make a mistake by not taking a poor offer a year ago? Now it looks like it, but at the time, it was the right decision.

If Gordon was a UFA last year, no team would have offered him more than the Bulls IMO.

 

[dougthonus]

I mean go back to just last year, when teams weren't in complete meltdown, and nobody could even get past the "agree with BG on a contract" part of a sign and trade negotiation. If BG really was willing to accept what the bulls offered, then it seems that was the most anyone put on the table for him, so him not being able to get 5/60 even in a good economy doesn't seem an unreasonable idea to me.

This is a good point, Miami and the Bulls had reportedly agreed on a deal to swap Gordon to the Heat, but Miami and Gordon couldn't reportedly agree on a contract because they didn't want to pay him either.

 

[dougthonus]

So Fred,

You're a GM of the Oklahoma City Thunder, how much do you offer Ben Gordon?

 

[AirP]

Fred wrote:

dougthonus wrote:

I doubt anyone offers Gordon 50 million. For all the hype of his 42 point outing, he had a pretty poor game tonight and only an average game 1. I don't think teams will break the bank for him.

Well, of course not, not today. The economy is falling apart. According to Bill Simmons, teams are running at 50% renewal rate for season tickets. It will be a financial meltdown for many NBA teams next year.

Got a question about season tickets and things like 10 game packages. Here in OKC the deposit for a 10 game package is 2 1/2 times the cost of the whole package, they would refund the amount over the ticket price next year year though, is this a common practice? I understand deposits for tickets but for more then the the total amount of the tickets themselves?

 

[Fred]

dougthonus wrote:

If Gordon was a UFA last year, no team would have offered him more than the Bulls IMO.

So let me get this straight. In that summer of 2008, Monta Ellis and Andris Biedrins bled the Warriors for a combined $120 million or so. Iguodala pulled in 80 million. Josh Smith took in 58 after Memphis offered it to him. Deng and Okafor, $70 million +. Gilbert Arenas climbed into the nine-figure range.

Elton Brand signed for $ 80 million with Philadelphia, a team badly in need of 3-point shooting. The Clippers gave oft-injured Baron and Ricky Davis 100+. Corey Maggette received mucho dinero from Golden State.

But you believe that no team in the league would have offered a 25-year old, UNrestricted free agent, who led his team in scoring for 3-straight years, with no history of injury or off-court problems, and a career 18 PPG scoring average....no team would've offered that guy a contract in the realm of the 9 million per year the Bulls were offering?

We'll never know, but I disagree.

 

[Fred]

dougthonus wrote:

So Fred,

You're a GM of the Oklahoma City Thunder, how much do you offer Ben Gordon?

Well, I think the economic collapse if far worse than anyone realizes, and it will continue to get worse. And this will hit the NBA hard. The NFL is probably the only sport in the world somewhat immune from the devastating effects.

Therefore, the timing couldn't have been worse for free agents this year. Ben and Boozer will probably be the top 2 free agents.

I'd sign him for 3,4, or 5 years at 8 million per year.

Here's how I see the UFA ranking out in terms of per year contract deals:
1. Boozer after he opts out. 8.5 million per year
2. Gordon 8 per year

Kidd and Bibby might be able to pull in per year Gordon numbers if they are willing to sign a 1 or 2 year deal. I'm not sure if they'll be willing to do that.

7 & less:
3. Marion
4. Odom
5. Artest
6. Bibby
7. Andre Miller
8. Wilcox
9. Jason Kidd
10. Wallace
11. Iverson

I also believe that Deng is completely untradeable. So is Hinrich, in this current economic situation. Paxson should have pulled the trigger when he had the chance.

 

[Fred]

And BTW, when Salmons takes a look at the horrible state of the market, he won't opt out of his contract. Just a prediction.

 

[AirP]

I would be VERY surprised if Presti(Thunder GM) even offered Gordon a contract.

The trade for Thabo says that Sam Presti has no interest in Gordon for atleast the contract he'll want. Let me explain...

1. If you're going after a SG in the offseason, why do you trade for one a few months earlier?

2. If you're going after an unrestricted free agent, why would you make him more valuable to his current team by trading for a young player that was set to possibly replace him?

3. If you're going to go after Ben Gordon, why in the world would you help Chicago create more luxury cap space to give them a chance to offer a higher contract to drive up Ben Gordon's contract.

I could go into other indications... Presti talking about wanting good sized players, putting some emphisis on defense, not wanting to overpay players and wanting to build around Durant, Westbrook and Green.

I really don't see any situations of OKC using up their cap space just to get another asset like the Clippers and Golden State did last year.

 

[AirP]

BTW about the Thunder, for a team pretty much built around 1st and 2nd year players(especially their key players), after their first 32 games of the season(getting rid of their coach and going to a completely different lineup) they went 20-30 which over the stretch of 82 games is winning about 33 games. With the young guys getting better, a solid rotation player being drafted in the lottery this year, OKC's primed to be a very good team for a long long time with no real problems with the cap(even with future big contracts of their current big 3).

 

[Fred]

"Oklahoma City: The rumor remains they're waiting to make a good offer to Ben Gordon."
- Sam Smith, Bulls.com, 2.16.09.

Of course, that was before the Thabo trade. Maybe they now feel that Thabo can help ease the defensive pressure on Durant. Good luck with that.

 

[PJ Brown]

Bullspodcasters: welcome to Ben Gordon gridlock.

I doubt they acquired Thabo as a long-term cog. Obviously, they have the right to change their minds.

I think Doug is right about the offers Gordon will receive because of the economy and because no team has shown interest in paying him big bucks before. It is certainly possible that this year might change teams' minds, yet it is also possible that they may not be in a financial position to do anything about it. In general, I don't think Gordon is going to get a better offer, but as I've always said it only takes one team (often a dumb team) to change a player's worth. I don't think anyone else would've paid Duhon full MLE, but the Knicks made him a ful MLE player. IF OKC or anyone else decides to break the bank on Ben, he'll be gone.