The Revised and Final Case for Gordon

[dougthonus]

Please, no swearing (see rules), and let's not turn this into a personal flame war, we're not the 12 year olds on the ESPN forum here.

 

[Basghetti80]

Great post mlewinth. You are spot on in regards to Gordon being a great missing piece, 3rd or 4th option player. That is what he is. Extremely valuable. But you can't win if he is your #2. It just can't and won't happen. A Rose,Bosh,Gordon trio with Deng or Salmons, Noah,Hinrich trio absolutely can win. I would not pay him $80 million to keep him. I would pay him 6 years $54 million. It is a great deal and a great offer. Pay him that and figure out how to clear cap space to do it. I wish we could go to war next season with this:

Rose,Hinrich
Gordon
Deng,Salmons
Bosh(or Amare)
Noah,Miller

If you can get that lineup next season even if it means paying luxury tax for one year I think you have to do it. That team can compete with Cleveland to come out of the East. I firmly believe that.

 

[dougthonus]

That team would be WAY into the luxury tax, like probably 10-15 million dollars in if my quick math isn't missing anything.

It also might be enough long term salary that it's in the tax next year as well assuming Bosh/Amare sign a max extension as well.

While that team is great, we're not going to war with a 80-85 million dollar pay roll. The Bulls would need to be in the finals to justify that payroll.

 

[??? ??????]

Basghetti80 wrote:

Great post mlewinth. You are spot on in regards to Gordon being a great missing piece, 3rd or 4th option player. That is what he is. Extremely valuable. But you can't win if he is your #2. It just can't and won't happen. A Rose,Bosh,Gordon trio with Deng or Salmons, Noah,Hinrich trio absolutely can win. I would not pay him $80 million to keep him. I would pay him 6 years $54 million. It is a great deal and a great offer. Pay him that and figure out how to clear cap space to do it. I wish we could go to war next season with this:

Rose,Hinrich
Gordon
Deng,Salmons
Bosh(or Amare)
Noah,Miller

If you can get that lineup next season even if it means paying luxury tax for one year I think you have to do it. That team can compete with Cleveland to come out of the East. I firmly believe that.

This is simply not true. Gordon is a #1 option on a lot of teams, and a #2 option on pretty much the rest. There aren't many guys who score 20.7 PPG on 57.3 TS%. The other 8 guys with Gordon's volume and efficiency combination? Dwyane Wade, Lebron James, Danny Granger, Kevin Durant, Kevin Martin, Chris Paul, Brandon Roy, and Amare Stoudemire.

I don't think Ben Gordon will ever be a #1 option on a championship team. The only scenario where I could see that is on a Pistons like team...but that is unlikely to be rebuilt. The Pistons weren't really five equals. You had Ben Wallace and then four equals. Ben Wallace put up the greatest defensive season in NBA history, and followed it up with the greatest defensive post season in NBA history. If you give Gordon three other consistent starters in the 1 - 3 -4 spots, along with a center putting up the greatest defensive year ever, I think Gordon could be the #1 option on a championship team.

I think a superstar + Ben Gordon combination would be deadly. That is Lebron James, Dwight Howard, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, and maybe Chris Paul. Pop Gordon on those teams in exchange for the other starting backcourt mates, and I'm making all of those my favorites to win the championship.

I don't know in what world Ben Gordon is a 3rd or 4th option, but it's not this one. If Ben Gordon is the 3rd option on a team, the championship is probably on lockdown. If he is the fourth option, that team is going to set the record for most regular season wins while winning the championship.

 

[dougthonus]

Gordon's probably the #2 or #3 scorer on a championship team, but he's probably the 3rd best player.

 

[Diddy1122]

Mark definitely hit upon some good points, but there are definitely teams out there where BG would be the #1 or 2 option. He is a prolific scorer, when he is on. And everyone witnessed that in game 2, but like many times in his career he followed that up with an uneven, sloppy performance in the following game.

I like Gordon. Always have, since UConn. But in all those years of watching him, it's pretty apparent to me that he will never be a superstar player. He has reached his ceiling. I still think we should resign him though. This year was all about finding out who can play best around Rose, and it's plain to see that Gordon is a keeper in that regard.

 

[Hendu0520]

You would have to have a pretty good team around him to win a chip, but the Bulls cannot afford to get rid of Gordon. Not unless they get another 20 point scorer. Rose will hit a sophomore wall because they will key on him even more if Ben isn't there. There are so many times when the Bulls are struggling offensively and Ben is the only one who can get off a shot and score. That is what the NBA game is all about to consistently keep scoring even when the defense of your opponent is playing well. Without him even with Rose a bit better they will not be a better team next year. They have to keep improving not tread water. If he could play the point it would make it easier to keep him and get rid of Hinrich but he can't but we should still keep him, there is no one else out there better who is available. I'm sorry but unless a team has a great big man or 2 Gordon can't be the top scorer on a championship team. Trade Ben Gordon for Ginoboli and he is probably the top scorer on that team. Doug is right though, he wouldn't be the best player on the team. They would still have won those chips with Gordon but we don't have Tim Duncan.

 

[shortlunatic]

I still think you refuse to ignore the liability he is on defense. You make it sound like all he needs to score and he automatically deserves 10+ mil a year. Gordon is a shooter, an excellent shooter at that. But he doesnt do much more. I would love to see him drive more, make himslef a little less unpredictable and that way at times he can create space for himself more than he does now. I would like to see him be more of an aggressive player on D. He seems so passive, like its not a big deal that he loses his man. I would like to see him take smarter shots. I have no problem with him firing up shots when hes hot, but when he's not, i would really like to see him be more patient and find the open man. To may times does it seem like he just chicks it up there, regardless of wether he;s making them or not. At times it just looks like he has no regards to his teamates and will pass on the open man just so he can take the shot, or he refuses to pass it on the fast break turning what should be an easy layup to a trip to the fouline for a player none other than himself. I just think you negate all the bad and only focus on the good.

 

[Riker]

shortlunatic wrote:Gordon is a shooter, an excellent shooter at that. But he doesnt do much more. I would love to see him drive more, make himslef a little less unpredictable

That 3 pointer that he blew in Pierces face yesterday was all sorts of predictable yet it will went in and Pierce couldn't do nothing about it.

Predictable is good sometimes.

It's all the same in Gordons case. You can predict he'll shoot a three, predict putting defense on him, but as soon you predict a teammate coming for any type of screen and giving Gordon 20 inches of breathing space, you can predict he'll lay a 3 pointer up your ass and that's 3 predictable points up for the Bulls.

So far - NBA hasn't made any rules on predictable vs. unpredictable points, they all count the same.

 

[PJ Brown]

Gordon is a great scorer, and I very much hope we keep him, but I don't know how you can say he's a #1 guy (on a winning team, that is), as when he was the Bulls top option he was often overwhelmed by doubleteams and traps and less effective than he has been this year, when he's flourished with Rose taking some of the defensive attention away. He's a number 2 who is at his best with a top notch #1 to take pressure off of him. In his case, it should be a #1 willing to pass, like Lebron, Paul, etc.

There's a trend here. We (very understably) want to keep Gordon, and it gets emotional, but it seems like in response we're really reaching to make his case by overextending his worth. Gordon doesn't have to be a #1 to deserve a contract--all he has to be is a good fit next to Rose. Exhibit A: Bulls v. Celtics First Round series. Sign him up!

 

[dougthonus]

PJ Brown wrote:

Gordon is a great scorer, and I very much hope we keep him, but I don't know how you can say he's a #1 guy (on a winning team, that is), as when he was the Bulls top option he was often overwhelmed by doubleteams and traps and less effective than he has been this year, when he's flourished with Rose taking some of the defensive attention away. He's a number 2 who is at his best with a top notch #1 to take pressure off of him. In his case, it should be a #1 willing to pass, like Lebron, Paul, etc.

Gordon has been our #1 scorer for the past four seasons. We had two .500 seasons, 1 winning season, and 1 losing season. He's never had a good front court weapon on the team with him either.

I think Gordon could be a good #1a or #1b guy with another good scorer, or could be your #1 scorer if you had a good front court option as well. He's not a franchise player though, which is what I believe you're getting at. He's not a #1 like LeBron/Paul/Wade/Kobe etc..

He could be the 2nd best scorer on a championship team IMO though. He probably wouldn't be the 2nd best player, but I think a core of Rose, Gordon, and big man not on the roster could be a championship core if Rose becomes a superstar and the big man is an all star caliber big man.

 

[Ralphb07]

Here's what I think about Gordon which wasn't the case when the season started. I feel we must re sign BG.

First not team is going to pay him more than what he was offered in previous years so I would come back with that offer and not low ball him.

We have Derrick Rose which is the franchise and face of this team but you need good players around him and BG is that player. What people don't realize is Rose is a rookie and will be better so keeping BG makes the team better just based on Rose becoming a better player.

When you're going for a title you need a star which we now have in Rose but you also need clutch players around him which Gordon is.

So IMO we need to sign Gordon but also keep Deng. We need to have Rose-Gordon-Deng and land a PF somehow. I think Boozer would be nice and IMO might be able to work and sign and trade sending Kirk to Utah. Sloan had Horny at SG which IMO Kirk fits that same mold and Utah could use Kirk's toughness

I think having Boozer,Rose and Gordon with Deng you can have a title team IMO.

 

[PJ Brown]

dougthonus wrote:

I think Gordon could be a good #1a or #1b guy with another good scorer, or could be your #1 scorer if you had a good front court option as well. He's not a franchise player though, which is what I believe you're getting at. He's not a #1 like LeBron/Paul/Wade/Kobe etc..

He could be the 2nd best scorer on a championship team IMO though. He probably wouldn't be the 2nd best player, but I think a core of Rose, Gordon, and big man not on the roster could be a championship core if Rose becomes a superstar and the big man is an all star caliber big man.

Yeah, that's an important clarification. Obviously, Gordon could be the top scoring player on an NBA team, as he had done that most of his career. I would claim that Ben shouldn't be that guy, as that team has no chance of championship contention. You are correct that I'm looking to paint Ben's ideal scenario--2nd scorer next to a great player and a team that wins titles. I do agree that Ben with Rose plus an effective 3rd guy, hopefully a big with scoring, may just fit the bill. I give Ben a lot of credit for showing he can play next to Rose. Some, maybe many, doubted he could, and he's shown them wrong.

 

[st. park]

Anyone else listen to Chicago sports radio today? The amount of hate that Ben gets from this town's media is simply astounding. I was listening to the Afternoon Saloon and of course Ben gets it for his turnover during the 2nd overtime. That was undoubtedly a bad play, but to harp on Ben for it after his incredible game-tying shot is just baffling. They mention Rose's 7 turnovers, and he gets a complete pass saying something along the lines of all great ballhandlers turn the ball over. You know what? All great scorers will occasionally take bad shots. I then switch over to 670 and then it's the same old crap. I think that Matt Abatacola (sp?) actually stated that Ben doesn't help the Bulls win games.

The bias against this guy is just ridiculous.

Anyways, I thought this post would be fit in this thread, cause I could hear Fred screaming in my head as I was listening to this stuff.

 

[charity stripe]

^^ Ugh. Why do you even bother listening to their garbage? its not worth it.

 

[st. park]

You're right I should really stop. Enough with my masochistic behavior.

 

[Fred]

st. park wrote:

Anyone else listen to Chicago sports radio today? The amount of hate that Ben gets from this town's media is simply astounding. I was listening to the Afternoon Saloon and of course Ben gets it for his turnover during the 2nd overtime. That was undoubtedly a bad play, but to harp on Ben for it after his incredible game-tying shot is just baffling. They mention Rose's 7 turnovers, and he gets a complete pass saying something along the lines of all great ballhandlers turn the ball over. You know what? All great scorers will occasionally take bad shots. I then switch over to 670 and then it's the same old crap. I think that Matt Abatacola (sp?) actually stated that Ben doesn't help the Bulls win games.

The bias against this guy is just ridiculous.

Anyways, I thought this post would be fit in this thread, cause I could hear Fred screaming in my head as I was listening to this stuff.

I'll try to tone it down in the future. But I'm glad someone else is hearing this.

I made Sam's Mailbag...third question down...they rewrote it, but at least he included my "Drones" term. 40% against Gordon...that's just unbelievable.

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/asksam_090424.html

 

[??? ??????]

Jerry Reinsdorf will deserve absolutely no respect from any Bulls fan if he lets a guy who led the team in scoring 4 straight years, and finished it out with a playoff series where he averaged 25 points a game and made clutch shot after clutch shot.

What other team does that? We're the most profitable team in the NBA over the past 10 years, even though we sucked for about 6 or so of them. We're a big market team. This crap is unacceptable. I'll stand up for Gordon all summer long in terms of returning to the Bulls, because the luxury tax argument is bogus.

 

[charity stripe]

^^Exactly, its bogus. They have until June 30, 2010 to get under the tax anyway, plenty of time to make trades before then, after signing him.

 

[Shakes]

Fred wrote:

I made Sam's Mailbag...third question down...they rewrote it, but at least he included my "Drones" term. 40% against Gordon...that's just unbelievable.

http://www.nba.com/bulls/news/asksam_090424.html

He said it's 60-40 in favour of keeping Gordon, not 40% are "against" Gordon. That's a fairly important distinction, because I imagine the 40% against includes a lot of "I'd like to keep him but it doesn't look possible with the money situation so I'll rationalise that I didn't want him in the first place".

The fact you get 75% of mail against Gordon is because you write pro-Gordon stuff. You write anything and you'll get mostly negative responses. I mean it'd be pretty annoying in life if every message on a message board got a ton of "I agree" spam. People only really bother to respond to stuff they disagree with.