The Revised and Final Case for Gordon

[AirP]

Fred wrote:

"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.

Right, because offense wins at basketball, not defense. You need offense at every position!

 

[TheStig]

Fred wrote:

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.

If Boozer and okur don't opt out and I doubt they will Milsap won't get an offer from Utah. They are already over the LT and I doubt they push their payroll way over the LT. An MLE or slightly above MLE deal will net Boozer. Lee is a different story, I have no clue what NY does with Nate and Lee, they don't want long term salary but those are their two best players.

 

[Fred]

TheStig wrote:

[If Boozer and okur don't opt out and I doubt they will Milsap won't get an offer from Utah. They are already over the LT and I doubt they push their payroll way over the LT. An MLE or slightly above MLE deal will net Boozer. Lee is a different story, I have no clue what NY does with Nate and Lee, they don't want long term salary but those are their two best players.

Why do you feel that Boozer won't opt out?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3777170

Has he changed his mind?

I work with a ton of people in Utah. They all share a rabid dislike for Boozer, and the big rumor is that his wife hates it there. Usually, what a woman wants, a woman gets. I've never heard that he wants to stay. Why do you say this?

 

[TheStig]

Fred wrote:

TheStig wrote:

[If Boozer and okur don't opt out and I doubt they will Milsap won't get an offer from Utah. They are already over the LT and I doubt they push their payroll way over the LT. An MLE or slightly above MLE deal will net Boozer. Lee is a different story, I have no clue what NY does with Nate and Lee, they don't want long term salary but those are their two best players.

Why do you feel that Boozer won't opt out?

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3777170

Has he changed his mind?

I work with a ton of people in Utah. They all share a rabid dislike for Boozer, and the big rumor is that his wife hates it there. Usually, what a woman wants, a woman gets. I've never heard that he wants to stay. Why do you say this?

Quote from the article:
"I'm opting out. No matter what, I'm going to get a raise regardless," Boozer told ESPN.com. "I am going to opt out, I don't see why I wouldn't, I think it's a very good business decision for me and my family, but I'd also like to see what happens with the Jazz and stay here.

Still think he gets a long term deal above 12.67 million? I don't see it. Not this summer at least. He has had major injury issues this year, his numbers are down and he will will be going into what many call a nuclear summer. Or he can wait till next yr, collect more money for the year, prove his health, get his numbers back up and go on the market for when everyone has cleared 2010 capspace and be someones consolation prize and still get his big new deal. He also hasn't ruled out the jazz as you claim according to your article.

 

[Fred]

TheStig wrote:

Quote from the article:
"I'm opting out. No matter what, I'm going to get a raise regardless," Boozer told ESPN.com. "I am going to opt out, I don't see why I wouldn't, I think it's a very good business decision for me and my family, but I'd also like to see what happens with the Jazz and stay here.

Still think he gets a long term deal above 12.67 million? I don't see it. Not this summer at least. He has had major injury issues this year, his numbers are down and he will will be going into what many call a nuclear summer. Or he can wait till next yr, collect more money for the year, prove his health, get his numbers back up and go on the market for when everyone has cleared 2010 capspace and be someones consolation prize and still get his big new deal. He also hasn't ruled out the jazz as you claim according to your article.

Good points. His wife will definitely like Utah better with the prospect of a 4 million pay cut.

Guess that means Gordon will be the #1 UFA out there.

 

[dougthonus]

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.

Which team would have paid him?

Most of those teams were not under the cap and could only sign their own guys. The exception was Golden State and Philly. Gordon wouldn't fit Golden State after they paid Ellis 55 million (and Ellis had a much better 2007/08 season than Gordon and is younger, so don't say they'd have taken Gordon instead of Ellis). Philly needs three point shooting, but they needed a big man more. No way they pass on Brand for Gordon.

Which team was going to make him this big offer? There were only a small handful of teams that could bid, much like this summer there are only a small handful of team that could bid. Of those teams, I don't think any of them would have broken the bank on Gordon.

We know Memphis wouldn't, because they made a big offer to Josh Smith even though he was restricted, so they weren't scared off by the RF tag. I don't think Philly or GS would have for the reasons I described. I don't think the Clippers would have taken Gordon over Baron Davis either, because if they were willing to offer him Baron Davis money the Bulls wouldn't match. Who's left that could have made the offer under the cap?

No one that I know of.

 

[TheStig]

Fred wrote:

TheStig wrote:

Quote from the article:
"I'm opting out. No matter what, I'm going to get a raise regardless," Boozer told ESPN.com. "I am going to opt out, I don't see why I wouldn't, I think it's a very good business decision for me and my family, but I'd also like to see what happens with the Jazz and stay here.

Still think he gets a long term deal above 12.67 million? I don't see it. Not this summer at least. He has had major injury issues this year, his numbers are down and he will will be going into what many call a nuclear summer. Or he can wait till next yr, collect more money for the year, prove his health, get his numbers back up and go on the market for when everyone has cleared 2010 capspace and be someones consolation prize and still get his big new deal. He also hasn't ruled out the jazz as you claim according to your article.

Good points. His wife will definitely like Utah better with the prospect of a 4 million pay cut.

Guess that means Gordon will be the #1 UFA out there.

Yeah and as much as they dislike Utah, Detroit is not much fun these days. There is still a chance but I just don't see Detroit paying up 5/63. BG won't be the top FA either way because if boozer stays or goes him or Milsap will still be more important to most teams. Lee is also in play and Nate Robinson finished the year strong. I am also sure there are teams that will be looking to trade stars and cut payroll like we saw at the deadline. I just think the bulls get him for their original offer or maybe 6/50. Ben has increased his value and once again proved his worth. Most importantly, even though he still had his off days, he still remained a contributor when he had off nights. He got to the line more and his defense improved. I have always thought BG was a good player but he really solidified himself as a long term core player. And if you can lock that up at 8-9 Mill a year its a steal. I think if there is no major deal, we pawn off Jerome James + pick for cap space to resign BG.

 

[dougthonus]

Amare may be a defacto FA as well.

A team with cap space can probably grade for Amare by offering up their cap space in the form of a trade exception and some mediocre picks just to get Phoenix under the tax.

 

[Fred]

dougthonus wrote:[Most of those teams were not under the cap and could only sign their own guys. The exception was Golden State and Philly. Gordon wouldn't fit Golden State after they paid Ellis 55 million (and Ellis had a much better 2007/08 season than Gordon and is younger, so don't say they'd have taken Gordon instead of Ellis). Philly needs three point shooting, but they needed a big man more. No way they pass on Brand for Gordon.

Which team was going to make him this big offer? There were only a small handful of teams that could bid, much like this summer there are only a small handful of team that could bid. Of those teams, I don't think any of them would have broken the bank on Gordon.

We know Memphis wouldn't, because they made a big offer to Josh Smith even though he was restricted, so they weren't scared off by the RF tag. I don't think Philly or GS would have for the reasons I described. I don't think the Clippers would have taken Gordon over Baron Davis either, because if they were willing to offer him Baron Davis money the Bulls wouldn't match. Who's left that could have made the offer under the cap?

No one that I know of.[/quote]

Actually, Ellis didn't have a much better year than Gordon. Gordon averaged 18+, with .41 percent shooting from 3-point range, in a Skiles/Boylan offense. He also had a guard next to him who put up a CBA-like performance for most of the year. Ellis had a Baron Davis next to him, in a roller coaster offense. I wonder who the defense focused on when the played the Golden State. Would they have offered Ben 5 years, 50 million if he was an unrestricted free agent, and let Ellis go on somewhere else? We'll never know, but I think it was a good possibility.

Of course you don't offer Ben Gordon Baron Davis money as an restricted free agent. That would be overpaying, since Davis is the superior player. But the argument was assuming Gordon was a UFA. Would they be interested in Gordon at 5 50 or 6 60 over what they paid Davis? I think that would have been a definitive possibility.

Memphis made a big offer to Josh Smith even though he was restricted, so they weren't scared off by the RF tag. True, They weren't "scared" off with Atlanta. But any team, Memphis included, should have been "scared" off with the Bulls. I'm certain Memphis figured the liklihood of Atlanta matching that deal for a talented but relatively unproven Smith was minimal. Why would you feel that way about the Bulls matching Gordon's contract? He was a proven commoditity. Paxson would of course be reluctant to let his #3 pick walk away. The Bulls would most likely match.

 

[dougthonus]

Actually, Ellis didn't have a much better year than Gordon. Gordon averaged 18+, with .41 percent shooting from 3-point range, in a Skiles/Boylan offense. He also had a guard next to him who put up a CBA-like performance for most of the year. Ellis had a Baron Davis next to him, in a roller coaster offense. I wonder who the defense focused on when the played the Golden State. Would they have offered Ben 5 years, 50 million if he was an unrestricted free agent, and let Ellis go on somewhere else? We'll never know, but I think it was a good possibility.

Of course you don't offer Ben Gordon Baron Davis money as an restricted free agent. That would be overpaying, since Davis is the superior player. But the argument was assuming Gordon was a UFA. Would they be interested in Gordon at 5 50 or 6 60 over what they paid Davis? I think that would have been a definitive possibility.

Memphis made a big offer to Josh Smith even though he was restricted, so they weren't scared off by the RF tag. True, They weren't "scared" off with Atlanta. But any team, Memphis included, should have been "scared" off with the Bulls. I'm certain Memphis figured the liklihood of Atlanta matching that deal for a talented but relatively unproven Smith was minimal. Why would you feel that way about the Bulls matching Gordon's contract? He was a proven commoditity. Paxson would of course be reluctant to let his #3 pick walk away. The Bulls would most likely match.

Your line of thought here has two teams passing on players viewed as better at the time to get Gordon. Come on now, is that seriously a "we'll never know" situation. Especially given the relatively small amount of cash savings that would be realized, particularly with Ellis who's already a crowd favorite? The Clippers thought that Davis was going to make them a great team with Brand there, and Brand/Davis were supposed to be good buddies. I'll throw it out there in the "anything is possible" way, but I think there is a 0% chance that either of those teams would have offered Ben Gordon 50+ million. Remember the Clippers also just drafted Eric Gordon who's awfully similar to Ben Gordon as well.

Memphis had more reason to be scared of Atlanta than the Bulls, because the Bulls were known to avoid the tax and also had to negotiate with Luol Deng. If they front loaded an offer to Gordon it would have been impossible for the Bulls to keep Gordon and Deng. They could have offered him 5/50 million in such a way that the Bulls could not match and keep Deng unless Deng agreed to a 6/48 million dollar deal or so. It was common knowledge the Bulls liked Deng more than Gordon and wouldn't pay the tax.

If the Hawks made that offer then the Bulls would not have matched it.

 

[Dpauley23]

A little off topic here, but I was wondering for anyone that used Doug tickets how good they were. Basically just wondering if you can see the game good

 

[dougthonus]

They are among the worst in the UC. You can still see the game, but you're pretty far back.

 

[TheStig]

Dpauley23 wrote:

A little off topic here, but I was wondering for anyone that used Doug tickets how good they were. Basically just wondering if you can see the game good

You can see the game pretty well and if you miss something they are good about showing a replay on the big screen. It really depends on your eyesight, I caught most everything.

 

[Dpauley23]

Do you think its worth it to make the trip. Are they basically the same thing as SRO?

 

[TheStig]

Dpauley23 wrote:

Do you think its worth it to make the trip. Are they basically the same thing as SRO?

I enjoyed it and hadn't seen a game in a couple of years. I wish I had taken sunday tickets instead because traffic was just terrible getting down there. The seats are about 7-8 rows below SRO only. Parking actually isn't hard to find, I just didn't want to walk around the neighborhood at night. It would have been nice if the bulls didn't choke but I would go if I were you.

 

[dougthonus]

Yes, they are basically the same as SRO, if you've never been to a playoff game though, it's absolutely worth the trip for the environment and atmosphere.

 

[TheStig]

dougthonus wrote:

Yes, they are basically the same as SRO, if you've never been to a playoff game though, it's absolutely worth the trip for the environment and atmosphere.

Just don't wear a green shirt up there or you may need the Tony Allen security detail.

 

[mlewinth]

Haha...I love it! Well as Fred's co-host, I would like to chime in. I gotta say, I am going against Fred on this one.

I love Gordon as much as anyone. Fred tries to paint me as a hater while I have had a framed signed Gordon jersey on my wall for the last 4 years. He has been my fav Bulls since he was drafted and has only been pushed aside this year but "El Savior" Derrick Rose.

Gordon is a good player. We can aknowledge that without knocking down other players or people. During last nights game, I was pissed and I decided to take it out on Fred. I sent him nasty Gordon texts. Instead of trying to defend Gordon, he pointed out other players flaws. Hinrich, Rose,Tyrus...whoever....He will simply not aknowledge a single flaw in Gordon.

Well let me tell you about BG7... He is not Batman, HE IS NOT ROBIN. He is a phenominal 3rd or 4th option on a team. Which could have him starting or comming of a bench depending on the teams needs. He is not an automatic starter. Bill Simmons wrote a great article on this the other day. BG could be a phenominal "missing peice". That final player on a great team that puts them over the top. Gordon can take over games. He has that ability. Throw him on San Antonio, Orlando, Cleveland...etc, he could be the final piece to a championship puzzle. However, you do not build around gordon, nor is he ROBIN as Fred so likes to say. We need another all-star to play with Rose. A young all-star (preferably big). Because of this, Gordon cant be paid more then $80 million. However, I am willing to take the chance of giving him $80 million if thats what it took to keep him. He is a peice of the puzzle...thats for sure. Now, if we pay him that much, you go balls out to trade Kirk or Deng. We cannot risk keeping Gordon at the risk of loosing out on signing a big time free agent or taking on a big salary guy. We are a piece away with this team I feel. We need the flaxability to get that piece. I feel however, Gordon is a peice.

Now with regards to Fred, don't worry about him, I will keep him in-line on the show. I can't stop him from constantly masturbating over Gordon, but I can change the topic!

 

[mlewinth]

Fred wrote:

I don't hate the fans who like him. I dislike arguing with people who defend postions that are not objectively true.

Fred, up until last January, we spent 5 days a week and 8 hrs a day together and I have never ONCE been involved in or witnessed a conversation where someone was criticizing or questioning who was better Kirk or Gordon in the last 2 years. When Gordon was drafted and after year 2 people questioned BG and thought Kirk was the better option. In the last 2 years, shits been pretty clear. However, you continue to talk about these "conversations you have" and these things you hear and things you read.

FRED WAKE UP! ITS 2009! Your like those old ******* who sit around and argue the Vietnam War when was 30 years ago. YOU MADE YOUR POINT AND ITS A NON-ISSUE. Would you like to now start arguing who we should draft in 1984, Hakeem, Sam Bowie or Michael!?!?!?

 

[Fred]

mlewinth wrote:

YOU MADE YOUR POINT AND ITS A NON-ISSUE. Would you like to now start arguing who we should draft in 1984, Hakeem, Sam Bowie or Michael!?!?!?

Sure. I'll take Michael. I'll bet you'd take Bowie or Hakeem because they are taller.