They didn't go to him at the end of games. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g61ODJ5qLY744UGVBwIcSzyLTiLAD99AQJH00 Gordon said the Pistons can put him and Richard Hamilton — both shooting guards — on the court together. "I have no problem handling the basketball and creating plays for my teammates," Gordon said. "I think that's a part of my game people haven't seen yet."
Everybody in Chicago has seen it. His best move is the blind pass falling backward after dribbling into a high double team off of the pick and roll. It usually got somebody a layup, just usually not one of his teammates.
The more I think about it, the more I hope the Pistons do that. You've got one guy who needs two picks and a good pass to get a good look waiting for another guy who has a career ast/TO ratio probably below 1.5 to get him the ball, a guy known to want the last shot, but who also can't get to the rim. Doesn't sound like a hard team to defense. Maybe even VDN can figure out how coach 'em up for that one.
I didnt say they went to him at the end of games, I know they didnt. And having gordon and hamilton on the court at the same time wont get them far, unless gordon figures out how to dribble and make good passes then that wont work out well for them.
I think we got a glimpse of what Gordon is capable of during the playoffs. He made a nonchalant looking pass to Thomas for a dazzling dunk that did not count as an assist because they called a foul before the dunk, sending Thomas to the FT line. Here's another [video=youtube;h4MCWJEFr8o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4MCWJEFr8o[/video]
I think you're nuts. BG had two plus seasons to show he could do that as the undisputed man on the bulls and he couldn't dribble out of a double team to save his life. Stop trying to blame the four guys around BG for not being good enough to make BG an allstar. He isn't one. It's no coincidence that the bulls got better last season as they took responsibility away from BG and forced him to be just a shooter, which is the one thing he excels at.
The Bulls rarely played him at PG, and the plays called for him to dribble in to triple teams. Maybe he'll get the chance to play a lot more PG in Detroit; if he works out there, they are set at the G spots for several years. You stop trying to make it like losing our best player helps in some way, because it doesn't.
The bulls lost their best player in the same way Olive Garden might lose it's best cook. Nobody's going to notice. He was their best player if you only looked at one stat. In totality, he wasn't their best player, which is why the let BG walk for nothing in the end. I read that BG's deal is actually more than $55 million, closer to $60. There's no way he's worth that.
By definition, he's worth exactly what he got. In Gordon, we actually had a guy who was near best in the league at some aspect of the game. Just for fun, I found that Hinrich has scored 30+ points in a game 9 times in his career, twice in 2008 and once in 2009. Salmons has done it 6 times. Both are years older than Gordon, who's done it 44 times (25 wins), 25+ points 87 times. Deng's scored 30+ 9 times. The object of the game is to score at least one more point than the other team. There's a clear gaping wound in losing him. For nothing.
Blogabull article pretty much on the mark: http://www.blogabull.com/2009/7/12/946816/the-2009-10-season-operation-dont?ref=yahoo The 2009-10 season: operation "don't be bad" It takes a lot of logical leaps when trying to figure out what the Bulls are doing. Because it's possible, and even likely, that the Bulls themselves don't even know what they're doing. They claim to be players in 2010 free agency now that they didn't pay money to Ben Gordon, but we can't know that was the actual driving force. I doubt it's the reasoning shared by some fringe followers in that they figured they'll be better without him. It's possible that the basketball people would've kept him but the owner simply didn't like him. But let's say that even if they weren't letting Gordon go to better position themselves for 2010, they'll retroactively claim that as a reason and that's the new plan. A further logical step in that plan would've been the proposed 3-way trade with Utah and Portland, basically removing Hinrich's 2010 money (and the cap hold Tyrus Thomas would have as a restricted free agent) for the expiring contract of Carlos Boozer. And I liked that deal because it wasn't just a salary dump, but an upgrade (though I don't think that much considering who they'd give up) on the court, even if just for a rental player. Just trying to dump 2010 salary at dramatic expense of the on-court product won't ultimately work, because to give themselves a chance at a max free agent in 2010, the Bulls not only have to be financially able to outright sign (or acquire in a sign/trade) a max free agent, but they have to keep their current reputation of 'a team on the rise'. Now, I don't think they're a team on the rise now. They have Rose, obviously, but nearly this entire team will be turned over before the next great Bulls team is built (including this mythical free agent), and they have a coach that won't last much longer. But that label seems to be the consensus around the league, fueled by lots of time on national TV in a thrilling playoff series. Would they truly be that much of a different team if they were swept by the Magic instead of losing in 7 games against the Celtics? No, but I really do believe that it helped the perception of the Bulls to have the end of their season turn out the way it did. And I also think that matters to free agents, in a scenario where a lot of teams will have cap room (some just claiming to be in the race for the top talent but likely just saving money) including the teams trying to keep their own stars. So the Bulls need some kind of hook to get talent interested, and what they can offer is being 'a team on the rise', with an unselfish star in Rose, and making that free agent believe he's the missing piece, or at least moving to a better situation. If the next season turns disastrous and they miss the playoffs, I don't think anybody's coming, whether they have the cap room or not. And then they're in very deep trouble. But it may not be so easy as to simply stay the course on the way to another average season (if still 'a team on the rise'), as with the cap possibly decreasing several million dollars in 2010 the Bulls may have to clear more room to both get a max free agent and adequately fill out the roster to where that free agent thinks he's upgrading his situation. Even if they renounce the rights to Tyrus Thomas (more on that situation in the future...) it's still nearly $38m in committed salaries, so the most likely ways to trim from there is hoping Salmons opts out or deal Hinrich. So it'll be a balance for the rest of this current offseason (and through the trade deadline) to both position themselves as best they can in 2010 free agency while still remaining relevant as a desireable destination for free agents. It's not easy, but it's something they should be looking to do. Or the idea of a 2010 free agent bonanza was a lie in the first place?
Still missing the point. Who was the last top flight star to get a max deal in free agency? Rashard Lewis did, but I wouldn't consider him a top flight star, and I don't think that was a very good contract. He was the third guy behind Hedo and Howard. The point is top flight guys don't just leave. They are sign and trade deals, both because they are worth the money and they don't want to give up the extra cash. The bulls will need solid guys with decently sized contracts to make it happen. Deng, Hinrich, Tyrus, Salmons are all serviceable guys who can fill in the salary spots. And if the bulls don't make the playoffs, it will be because of injuries, not because they weren't good enough. The bulls would have been battling for the 4th and 5th spot if Deng and Hinrich hadn't gone down this year. They'll be at least the seventh seed this year barring injury. And with Rose, they will be a considerably more attractive destination than New York. Plus, Wade is a hometown guy. I see Dallas being a major competitor for Bosh, and maybe for Wade, but I like the bulls chances. It doesn't surprise me that the blogabullers aren't seeing the sign and trade angle. They are probably still trying to pick up the pieces from BG leaving.
In order to have an S&T work, the player has to be interested in playing in Chicago and agree to it. I think they nailed it. They probably nailed it that someone like Dirk is the best we might attract, and he's already on the downside of his career. NY Knicks are a filthy rich team, and the city is where Madison Avenue is, where the ad agencies are. No matter how you spin it, Chicago is more attractive a destination with Gordon and Rose than it is with Salmons and Rose. And the resulting team would be better.
No it isn't. BG is a guy who takes up shots. Stars want take shots, and there will be a lot more of them with BG gone. Playing next to topfight, pass first point guards is what excites players. If the bulls got Wade with BG still here, BG wouldn't be on the floor more than about 20 minutes a night. BG wouldn't want to be in Chicago.
Yes it is. Wade is already playing on a team full of 13 PER guys, why is it attractive to trade venues but still play with a bunch of 13 PER guys?
You're right. If I'm Wade, I'd rather play in South Beach next to a bunch of guys with 13 PERs who know their only job is to get me the ball and get out of the way, than to play in Chicago next to a guy with a 16 PER who can't be trusted to dribble it up and pass it to me and thinks he should be shooting as much as I am, and on top of that who is going to force me to take the tougher defensive matchup every night. But if I'm playing next to a pass first point guard who can get to the rim as easily as I can and who isn't going to battle me for shots and can get me the ball where I want it, and who might be a star in his own right, that's a different story. And that guy is still in Chicago.
I think you are wrong on this or at least your post is misleading. It seems to me that most of the S&Ts for max deals are to teams that had the max available under the cap. This was the case for t-Mac and G. Hill to Orlando, Johnson to Atlanta. Add in Wallace to Chicago, Baron to LA, Brand to 76ers and it's clear that cap is king.
How many shots does Wade need? There's about 80-85 per game, and it's pretty ridiculous for one guy to take 25. Heck, Wade only took 22. I'm pretty sure he'd like the guys taking the other 60 shots to make them, and I'm pretty sure he'd love to have a teammate who can step up when he's having an off night or who can make clutch shots too. Kobe Bryant never won a championship with 13 PER teammates. He had to have guys like Gasol (22 PER) and Bynum (20 PER), and Odom (17 PER).
I have no idea what you're getting at now. Let me just say that I hope you are right and BG magically develops a handle and starts looking to get double-doubles. Then we will know that it was everybody else and not BG.
That really good players want to play with really good players. 17 PER might get a top FA's interest if you have 3 or 4 such players. We should have one guy with 17 PER in Rose. But we'll have a lot of ping pong balls.
Well then, let me add that I don't think the bulls will make the playoffs this year thereby proving BG's undeniable strength in carrying such a sad collection of talent last year. Let me also hope that the other 5 notable contributors besides BG who had PER's over 15.9 (not quite 17, but pretty darn close) get worse further demonstrating BG's tremendous positive influence on their individual games. And I will continue to hope that Deng and Hinrich don't return to their historical average.
