Would the Blazers and Bulls pull off a re-signed Ben Gordon for Steve Blake deal? The rumor has been that the Bulls don't want to pay him, but maybe they'd be happy to trade him for a solid PG with a modest salary. An advantage for Portland, in acquiring him that way, is that it ensures Ben is contractually obligated to the Blazers before letting go of Blake. If we were to cut Blake and hope to sign Andre Miller, we'd probably be successful, but we could also end up with Bayless as the starting PG on opening night. Ben has been knocked for his defense, but from what Bulls fans say, that's mainly because he's too small to guard bigger SGs. In Portland, he'd be able to guard opposing PGs, and I doubt his defense would be worse than Blake's.
No way the Bulls would do that. Maybe if Fernandez or Bayless were included (I think they'd definitely swing the trade with Fernandez involved, but probably still a no for Bayless). If the Bulls aren't getting a legitimate prospect back or a pick that has a chance to be good, or just a sign and trade to a team with cap room to give Ben a 6 year deal, while getting a trade exception back, and maybe a draft pick, otherwise I can't see them doing a sign and trade with Ben. They don't really have too many bad contracts to dump (Hinrich and Deng), and I can't see them trading both Gordon and either Hinrich or Deng in the same trade, unless they're getting a star level player back. What will probably end up happening is the Bulls will let Gordon walk for nothing, and become one of the worst teams in the NBA next season.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtdIfPtD*** Sorry, this site has the dumbest fucking swear censor and asterickes the fucking url. http://www.mouthpiecesports.com/media/ben-gordon-on-contract-free-agent-chicago-bulls-july-21663/
But Portland has a good chance of signing him as a FA if they really wanted to. Are you saying you just have no interest in Steve Blake? He'd be a good backup PG for you guys. Also, are you saying Deng is a bad contract that you want to "dump"? If that is the case, perhaps Portland would be willing to take Deng. Say Blake, Outlaw(both expiring contracts), Webster(young prospect with decent salary), the rights to Joel Freeland and some picks for Ben Gordon and Deng. Blake and Outlaw are decent players with expiring contracts, Webster can play either SF or SG for you guys, and Freeland is a rising Euro-star that may come to the NBA in a few years. That's definitely lopsided talent wise, but you're trying to dump a guy's salary, and you could lose the other for nothing anyway, so you can't expect much in return. Gordon/Bayless Roy/Fernandez Pryzbilla/Oden Deng/Batum Aldridge/Michael "The mother fucking icing on the muffin" Ruffin
I think they'd rather just let Gordon walk than take on Blake's salary for a year, given the caliber of talent he is. The trade you proposed really wouldn't work out money wise, because it owuld force Gordon to sign a contract he would want no part of....MLE like. But if you add Bayless to the trade, it begins to work out money wise. Then you would be able to give Gordon up $67 million over 6 years. (The Pistons rumor is $11 million a year for $55 million, so this would be right what he's looking for). The Bulls could even send Anthony Roberson Portland's way on the minimum player salary exception. That would work for Gordon. He gets the money he wants, while getting to play for a contender. It would be a frigging talent coup for Portland, and they'd still have Rudy Fernandez as a sixth man. I'd hope the Bulls wouldn't be doing that. The Bulls should be re-signing Gordon and keeping Deng and Hinrich, while trading their expiring contracts for star and near-star players...given they're the most profitable team in basketball for the last 10...15...20....history of the NBA....but alas, their ownership always plays the cheap card.
I think it might work out..Webster/Blake/Outlaw/draft picks/Freeland = ~15 million. And remember that Portland is about 6 million under the cap right now, and has a trade exception. We might gain an additional 2 mil by trading Sergio.
Almost never happens. Fans and media love to speculate on how valuable big expiring contracts are, but they are almost never turned into star or near-star players.
Why all this talk about a deal that would make Ben Gordon our starting point guard? Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't he clearly demonstrated throughout his career (so far) that he's a scorer, not a playmaker? He's never averaged 4 assists/game, his career high assist % is 20.1 (which, by comparison, is lower than Kobe's been in 10 years). Why would we want to put him in our starting lineup?
In Gordon's defense, the Bulls have been one of the worst offensive teams in the league since he got there. He is a great talent (now two 20+ PPG 57+ TS% seasons) on offense, but his teammate stink. The Bulls' bigs are too weak to finish through contact, and his teammates aren't that good of shooters. If Gordon had the luxury to passing to Gordon, like everyone else on the team, he would probably be averaging around 5-6 APG. Portland would be a good situation for Gordon too, as a point guard, because Brandon Roy handles the ball quite a bit. And on teh defensive end, Gordon gets to defend smaller players, which he is quite good at. Offensively, in the rare opportunities when Gordon ended up with a smaller player on him defensively, he would just attack them offensively, and would for the most part, completely destroy these smaller players. He can shoot over them so easily because of the great elevation on his jumpshot. Gordon would be a great fit in Portland (and Miami) because they have shooting guards who can handle the rock quite a bit. Of course neither team can sign Gordon outright, and I'd hope the Bulls would do them no favors by agreeing to a sign and trade.
He may have gotten as many assists as Blake if he played PG. He did play a wee-bit of PG last year according to 82games.com (about 90 minutes worth), but his numbers were MUCH better when playing that spot, and he averaged over 6 assists. The Bulls fan here says he's pretty good at defending smaller guards, which is MUCH better than we can say about Blake. If that's the case, he's an upgrade on BOTH ends of the floor. And I think going after Gordon would be a much better idea than going after the ancient PGs we've been throwing around over the last few months.
I hate being wrong. So, I went to 82games, pulled all Gordon's "as PG" stats for every year he's been in the league, then compiled a weighted average. Extrapolating them to 32 mpg, it comes to about 21 pts, 3 reb, 5 ast, and 2.8 TO. This past year, only three players had more points, rebounds, and assists, and fewer turnovers--Tony Parker, Joe Johnson, and Brandon Roy. Maybe Gordon wouldn't be such a terrible backcourt-mate for Roy after all. Dammit...
Gordon fits in much better with this team age wise, than any other FA guard we've mentioned. I'd even prefer him over Conley, because he's already proven himself to be one of the premier scorers in the league, while Conley has just shown glimpes that he might be good. Gordon may really surprise the league at how well he plays along side a bigger SG. Last year, we were I believe 3rd in the NBA in average margin of victory at +5, imagine infusing a player like Gordon would do. It's not like we are giving up anything in any other area by exchanging Blake for Gordon. Gordon is just twice the offensive player Blake is.
Gordon does not fit our team at all. Nate would grill him on D, and he jacks up shots like nobody's business on offense. If he hasn't touched it for 3-4 possessions he makes sure to shoot a 3 as soon as he gets it next time to make sure he has his touches. Roy and LMA would not like it, and I would hate watching it. Watching the Bulls with Gordon and Salmons hurts because it looked like such a selfish team, and they rarely gave it to their best playmaker in Rose.
But as Platypus has said, he has actually played better at the PG position, historically. If Portland is looking for a guy to take some of the pressure off Roy offensively, Gordon certainly fits that bill. Gordon does indeed put up a lot of shots..about the same number per minute as Travis Outlaw. I suppose you could argue that Gordon is a sort of PG version of Travis....but as the Bulls fan in this thread said, he's a better defender going against smaller guards, and he may in fact create serious mismatches with smaller guards on him.
Ben Gordon was the star player on the best defensive team in the league in 06-07. He is not a problem on defense. That season he got to guard point guards, and the Bulls were never really torched by opposing point guards. Kirk Hinrich picked up the shooting guards. This past year, Ben Gordon guarded the shooting guards. The Bulls didn't give up more than the opposing shooting guard's scoring averages all that often. The Bulls front court problems laid entirely in the front court. As for Ben Gordon chucking up shots just to get his, that is just complete crap. Gordon is a very efficient scorer. He took about 1 more shot a game than Derrick Rose.
He also does Pilates! [video=youtube;pJNitWGuC_M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJNitWGuC_M&feature=PlayList&p=2E2BEA4773D9E455&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=18[/video]
Ben Gordon is the best player that noone knows anything about. I think people are beginning to take notice after the Celtics series finally. But the guy put up 25.5 and 5.5, leading the Bulls over the Heat in 06-07, and got absolutely no credit for it. He's been part of some of the best shootouts in recent NBA history. Ben Gordon vs. Dwyane Wade [video=youtube;2okxHW6cGfQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2okxHW6cGfQ[/video] Ben Gordon vs. Michael Redd [video=youtube;yB77A0zaIj4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB77A0zaIj4[/video]
