As usually, you're missing the argument. We're talking about Miami, not Chicago. And that team had Steve Kerr whose TS% would make Andrew's head spin (.663). Did they start him over Harper next to Jordan because he could shoot? Nope. And BG wouldn't start next to Wade. Wade doesn't need any help offensively, the only thing that stops him is fatigue. What he needs help with is stopping the other team. So no, BG wouldn't start next to Wade, although if Riley wants to blow significant cap space on BG, I'd be all for that.
You don't need Kerr out there 40 minutes because you had a 35 PPG scorer and a 20 PPG scorer out there already. Take Gordon off the court and you have no 20 PPG scorers. Rose should become one in the next year or two. Not today.
Miami doesn't have a Pip to Wade's MJ, either. Maybe Beasley will turn out to be that guy, but he's basically been a disappointment for them.
Wade still needs more help defensively than offensively. You don't put a guy next to him who take shots from him and forces him to work harder defensively.
He wouldn't have to work as hard offensively, as you pointed out. He's still going to get his points, but he'll also have a guy to dish to when he gets quadruple teamed. AND, Miami has no real 3pt threat who's out on the court for 30+ minutes.
I guess you are thinking about Mario Chalmers. But that would be wrong, but even if that were true, that's not even getting into how pathetic their backups are. Gordon would play starter minutes easy. Those guys are rocking PERs of 13.0, 12.8 & 11.1. Watch out! Yea, ancient Payton and White Chocolate were great defensive stalwarts the championship year.
Some people will just never get that Ben Gordon is a legitimate NBA starter, and not only that, but a guy who could be a #2 or #3 guy on a championship team. For example, Sam Smith recently called Ben Gordon the equivalent to Jamal Crawford. That's not even close to being reality, not only does Gordon score in more volume, at a much greater efficiency, but he's also a better defender! Another problem I think is that the vast majority of journalists don't know much about how the CBA and salary cap works, and that's why some of the anti-Ben bias occurs. For example, Sam Smith in his mailbag today, said that the Bulls should offer Ben Gordon $40 million. I pointed out to him, that a five year max MLE offer is greater than the first 5 years of that $40 million offer. I'm sure that $40 million offer would just sit great with Ben. If the Bulls don't plan to at least offer what they did last year ($54 million over 6 years), they are so losing Gordon. I think people need to understand, Ben Gordon might come at a discount this summer, but it won't be to the Bulls. Bulls will have to pay the full cost of admission if they wish to retain Gordon.
Either Sam changed it or you're reading into it, but Sam doesn't mention the number of years and he said BG is slightly better. Neither of those guys is going to beat Average 7 times out of 10.
Stating that that Crawford and the Heat guards other than Wade are roughly equivalent to BG says more about you than BG IMHO.
I think the Bulls are just beginning to realize how much they are (possibly) going to miss BG next season. He's been the best player on the team for the last three-four years and no one has recognized that. I don't think he's of the caliber of player that you build a championship team around him, but without him, the Bulls probably have ten less wins this season.
That's the thing I think a lot of people are missing. I think most people have moved beyond that kind of thinking, and I don't think anyone ever thought Gordon was a guy you could build a winner around. But there's no reason why he shouldn't be one of the cornerstones of a successful team. Derrick Rose is supposed to be our superstar. Gordon is about as good of a complementary player as you could ask for. He's one of the best three point shooters ever and he is one of the best fast break players in the NBA today. People need to stop scapegoating the guys doing things right. That would be, in particular, Ben Gordon and John Salmons. To a lesser extent, Kirk Hinrich, Joakim Noah, and Brad Miller. I see three rotation players who have been big in holding the Bulls back. Derrick Rose, Luol Deng, and Tyrus Thomas. Tyrus Thomas goes into stupid play too often. He is a good shotblocker, but not really a good defender. He is a good dunker, but can't dunk in traffic. His jumpshot is whack. Luol Deng has been a cruddy offensive player every year except for 06-07. There isn't much reason to expect him to be good going forward offensively. He is solid defensively. He takes a ton of selfish shots on offense because he has to get his shots up. Sam Smith says he's jealous of Derrick Rose. Then you have Derrick Rose. He has been a crappy offensive player, scoring at a lowly 50.6 TS%. He hasn't really done much in terms of creating for teammates, and his defense is probably the worst in the NBA. So what do the Bulls have to do going forward? Trade Thomas and Deng for something more useful. And fire Del Negro, and hire a coach like say, Avery Johnson, who will hold Rose accountable, and actually start developing Rose. Rose will not be a superstar if he doesn't become an efficient scorer at the very least, and setting up teammates would be important as well. The development of Rose is too important to be entrusted in Del Negro's hands. You can't give up hope on Rose. Durant and Lebron couldn't score with any sort of efficiency their rookie years either, but you don't want to let this problem fester into next year and beyond. If Rose is still an inconsistent scorer in year 3, year 4....there's a good chance he'll never get it then, which means he won't be a superstar, which mean's our entire building plan has gone to hell.
Or they could have five or six more. How many games has BG won with his scoring? How many times has he had a big scoring night and the bulls have lost? More often than you might realize. And there have been plenty of nights where BG scored in the teens and they won. The idea that the Bulls need his scoring is a myth, his scoring is pretty easily replaced for two reasons. First, because he gets a lot of his scoring outside the context of the offense and he's only scoring ~20 pts per game. You could easily replace BG with a player who scores 15. A lineup of Rose, Salmons and Deng (healthy of course) looks just as potent to me as a lineup of Rose, BG and Deng, but the former has the added bonus of being able to stop people. Second, a significant portion of BG's scoring, probably on the order of a quarter to a third, comes when the game is already out of reach. And to top it off BG's scoring is inconsistent; he's just come off of a week of 43 in a close lose, 4 in a blowout loss, 9 in a close loss and 25 in a blowout win. If you replace him with somebody who plays better defense and scores a more consistent 15-18 the bulls are at least 2-2 and maybe 3-1 instead of 1-3. And you still can't get past the defense thing. Look at last night. A big part of NO's game plan was to post up BG with Rasual Butler of all people. If Butler had been any good at all, that game would have at least been close. This is his 5th year in the league and teams actively and continually target BG on defense with their normal third and fourth options suddenly taking a prominent role. When I say that the bulls won't miss BG you have to remember we are talking about the nba. All the numbers point to BG being an average to slightly above average player. Sure BG is a great three point shooter, but given all of his other deficiencies, there are a lot of guys who can put up the overall impact that BG does. It's the nba, you should expect a certain level of ball handling, passing and defense and BG doesn't bring enough of any of that to go along with his stellar deep shooting. And all of that doesn't mean I don't think the bulls should sign BG, just that I don't think they should make him a cornerstone of their franchise going forward with a large multiyear contract. If nothing else, it should be clear that the Rose/BG backcourt isn't helping either BG score or Rose develop. BG is an excellent to great 6th man, he's just not a starter on a team with championship aspirations. If BG embraces that role on the team, then I'd be excited to have him on the bulls. But if he pouts because he's not getting enough 'props', then let him go.
Are we talking about PER's or three point shooting, because if I didn't know any better, I'd say we were talking about two different things....
The problem with the Rose/Gordon backcourt is Derrick Rose. It has nothing to do with Ben Gordon. Rose is the one who is 1. Scoring inefficiently. 2. Playing the worst defense in the NBA. 3. Doesn't know how to kick out to the perimeter when he drives. I think Rose has a lot of talent, and it needs to be properly developed. But Rose went from a pretty good player the first month plus a little of December of the season, and has been a really crappy player in the New Year. If Rose didn't regress as the season went on, and stayed where he was at in November, the Bulls would probably have a winning record. I don't see how you can blame Gordon for Rose's lack of development. Gordon provides ample kick out possibilities for Rose that can be converted into a three point shot. As the season has worn on, Gordon has been primarily playing off the ball. The problem with Rose's development is himself, and the idiot coach.
It's not 2 different things. You can't play a guy with good 3pt shot that can't contribute in other ways. Did you not state that BG wouldn't be a backcourt upgrade for the Heat? Did you not state that Crawford and BG were roughly comparable. If not, why don't you lay it out in simple terms so we can all evaluate your scouting prowess in the future?
