Ben Gordon Wants $70M

Shapecity · Oct 7, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Ben Gordon wants a $70 million extension from the Bulls, who are looking to give Gordon no more than Kirk Hinrich money ($47.5 million) and first want to extend Luol Deng, a player they regard more highly than the Mount Vernon product.</div>

Source: NY Daily News

The two sides are way off on the contract figures, eventhough I agree with the Bulls and paying him no more than what Hinrich signed. Will Ben Gordon pull a Joe Johnson next summer?

o.iatlhawksfan · Oct 7, 2007

Ben Gordan isn't nearly as good as Joe Johnson. i bet they'll get rid of some contract, to resign him. They really need him for their future.

Денг Гордон · Oct 7, 2007

And, someone finally posted this complete piece of New York media garbage.....nothing there is true.

Shapecity · Oct 7, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne)</div><div class='quotemain'>

And, someone finally posted this complete piece of New York media garbage.....nothing there is true.

</div>

What does he really want then?

Денг Гордон · Oct 7, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shapecity)</div><div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BG7 Lavigne)</div><div class='quotemain'>

And, someone finally posted this complete piece of New York media garbage.....nothing there is true.

</div>

What does he really want then?



</div>

Mike McGraw told me that the Bulls would likely offer no more than 55 million for both Gordon and Deng. Thats a conservative guess imo, since he was conservative on Hinrich's last year (45 million), so Bulls will likely go up to around 60 million.

Ben said earlier in the summer he just wanted Kirk money. He's said later in the summer he just wants to be paid what he's worth, compared to what players similar to him, and have accomplished what he has (Kevin Martin 55 million, Chauncey Billups 50 million over the first 5 years...) come to mind from this past summer. Joe Johnson got 67 million, I doubt Gordon is asking for more than that. (And Johnson wasn't even as good as Gordon at that point...bad contract by Atlanta, especially considering they gave away draft picks to get him). Everything from Chicago papers have said 50-60 million.

I think he is asking for no more than 50-60 million. I have a hard time believing Paxson is foolish enough to be offering only up to 45 million to Gordon. (and both Paxson and Gordon have acknowledged that no offer has been made...so that 45 million is BS).

Master Shake · Oct 7, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Ben Gordan isn't nearly as good as Joe Johnson. i bet they'll get rid of some contract, to resign him. They really need him for their future.

</div>

Well, Ben Gordon is better from long distance, but overall, yes, Johnson is better. He is a better passer, scorer and has a better basketball IQ. However, I think Ben Gordon is more clutch down the stretch as fas as I've seen.

Денг Гордон · Oct 7, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Master Shake)</div><div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (o.iatlhawksfan)</div><div class='quotemain'>

Ben Gordan isn't nearly as good as Joe Johnson. i bet they'll get rid of some contract, to resign him. They really need him for their future.

</div>

Well, Ben Gordon is better from long distance, but overall, yes, Johnson is better. He is a better passer, scorer and has a better basketball IQ. However, I think Ben Gordon is more cluch down the stretch as fas as I've seen.



</div>

Gordon has a higher bball iq than Johnson imo. Gordon's one of the best minds in basketball.

I don't think people will be talking about Gordon being less of a scorer than Johnson. Gordon is farther along than Johnson was at this point in Johnson's career. The only thing Johnson has on Gordon, is height, which helps on the defensive end. But that isn't necessarily in the Buls though, since Hinrich struggles with point guards, but excels at guarding shooting guards. Gordon is good at guarding point guards, but not at shooting guards. So it all works out in that (for most teams it wouldn't work out though).



Gordon should be viewed as an elite player in the league after this year, especialy after how much offseason work he put in.

M Two One · Oct 7, 2007

Gordon is not one of the best mindsin basketball. He loses control of the ball far too much and often has his "I'm entirely useless on the court right now" moments. He tries too hard sometimes and ends up falling over his own two feet. Sometimes his shots are random and he actually does not have total control over his shot like Luol Deng, a healthy Nocionior a vet like P.J. Brown. This is why Deng is so much more valuable then Gordon. When he attempts a shot it isn't a prayer to make it each time.

With Deng, we don't have to worry he'll lose control randomly or try something that isn't going to obviously work in heavy traffic. Deng is quickly becomming one of the most intelligent players in the league and last season shown his true talent. When he gets the ball, he'll work for a jumpshot that he can make every time or dish it to an open man, not carry it around until he believes he can take a rainbow three or an ugly jumpshot.

No offense to Ben Gordon anyway, I'd still like to keep him around, but he's only worth as much as Hinrich at the moment. LastseasonGordon shown a bit of improvement in consistency, but still suffers. If he shows true a vast improvement this season then perhaps he'll be worth a bit more, but he'll neverreach the samepedestalwhere Luol Deng is currently standing.

Денг Гордон · Oct 7, 2007

So Ben Gordon is a weak basketball mind because he cannot defy the laws of physics? Interesting stance.

Your view on Deng vs. Gordon is entirely fallible. Ben Gordon hit shots at a 57.2 TS%. Luol Deng only 56.0 TS%....apparently the Bulls are better off with Gordon's prayers than Deng's total control shots. PJ Brown had that nice 46.2 TS%....apprarently the Bulls are better off with Gordon's prayers than PJ Brown's controlled shots as well.

You mention Luol Deng being one of the most intelligent players because he passes the ball, or takes an open jumpshot, while Gordon dribbles around looking for a shot. What your describing is not the intelligence of the players, but that Luol Deng is a 2nd option, and Ben Gordon is a first option, go to player, thus making the point that Gordon is more valuable to the Bulls than Deng.

M Two One · Oct 7, 2007

[quote name='BG7 Lavigne']

So Ben Gordon is a weak basketball mind because he cannot defy the laws of physics? Interesting stance.[/QUOTE]

You brought this statement up, I did not. Apparently commenting on ugly shots brings defying the laws of physics to your thoughts.

[quote name='M Two One']

Gordon is not one of the best mindsin basketball.[/QUOTE]

You may want to refrain from using the word "weak" as I did not use this word. I replied stating that Gordon does not have one of the best minds in basketball. No where didI write he has a weak basketball IQ. It would be best to go back and re-read the reply thoroughly to perhaps gain a better perspective of the opinion I stated.

[quote name='BG7 Lavigne']

Your view on Deng vs. Gordon is entirely fallible. Ben Gordon hit shots at a 57.2 TS%. Luol Deng only 56.0 TS%....apparently the Bulls are better off with Gordon's prayers than Deng's total control shots. PJ Brown had that nice 46.2 TS%....apprarently the Bulls are better off with Gordon's prayers than PJ Brown's controlled shots as well.[/QUOTE]

Where did the reply state Deng vs. Gordon in these terms? I replied with what I see going on the court and the differences between their technique and approach. This isn't who is better then the other, but if you care to discuss this, I'm open to suggestion.

Ben Gordon takes control of the ball more as a guard, that should've been an easy understanding. Ben Gordon shoots at a 45% FG (most important shooting avg) average, while Deng shoots at 51% and mind you as a small forward. Quite a difference considering their standard positions. You cannot compare Gordon's three point percentage to Deng's as Lu was asked not to take threes anymore by Skiles. He is not a good three-point shooter to begin with and isn't needed for that thanks to Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioniand Duhon among others. Deng has far better intangibles as he disrupts defense far more causing offensive opportunities. Let us take a peak at this small special stat comparison below as well.

Gordon - 3.1 rpg; 3.6apg; .78 spg; .21 bpg; 3 tpg; 3.1 fpg

Deng - 7.1 rpg; 2.5 apg; 1.2 spg; .59 bpg; 1.9 tpg; 2 fpg

Note thataveraging those rebound stats as a usual small forward is quite amazing considering the other players around him on that roster.

[quote name='BG7 Lavigne']

You mention Luol Deng being one of the most intelligent players because he passes the ball, or takes an open jumpshot, while Gordon dribbles around looking for a shot. What your describing is not the intelligence of the players, but that Luol Deng is a 2nd option, and Ben Gordon is a first option, go to player, thus making the point that Gordon is more valuable to the Bulls than Deng.[/QUOTE]



Again, Gordon is a guard and sometimes is tagged to play the point. What does a guard naturally do? Have more control over the ball. Gordon is indeed a first shooting option, but why? He's a shooting guard with that has shown he can score, but needs to gain consistency. The actual "point" here is that you're making your argument as a fanboy and I am not.I could honestly care less for one player over the other as I always just want what's best for my team to win as I shown below.

[quote name='M Two One']

No offense to Ben Gordon anyway, I'd still like to keep him around, but he's only worth as much as Hinrich at the moment. LastseasonGordon shown a bit of improvement in consistency, but still suffers. If he shows true a vast improvement this season then perhaps he'll be worth a bit more, but he'll neverreach the samepedestalwhere Luol Deng is currently standing.[/QUOTE]

Note reference quotes below:

Deng was the only Bull to start all 82 regular season games.
Click to expand...



All of his numbers continued to improve, and he led the team in minutes played (37.5) and field goal percentage (.517), all while only playinga strong second scoring option to Ben Gordon
Click to expand...



Deng also notably rarely committed fouls on defense (2.00 per game), despite the minutes he played and frequently being outsized in matchups.
Click to expand...



Luol Deng is the best and most coveted piece ..
Click to expand...





Note that I respect your opinion, but when you use words to express my opinion as being "entirely fallible" it shows you do not respectit and that it will be useless to debate with you as the strongest debates require people to respect one another's opinions even if they do not agree. I want both players, but if I could only have one of those two I'd prefer Deng at the moment. When a young, above average and improving shooting guard is more valuable then a young, already great improving small forward and the most coveted player on your team by other franchises, get back to me ASAP.

Denny Crane · Oct 7, 2007

Check out Gordon's PER at PG. And PER against him at both PG and SG.

http://www.82games.com/0607/06CHI4C.HTM

Player Floor Time Stats by Position
<table width="540" cellspacing="1" border="0" bgcolor="#cccccc">
<tbody>
<tr bgcolor="#33cc33">
<td width="80"><center>Position</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>Min</center></td>
<td width="70"><center>Net Pts</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>Off</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>Def</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>Net48</center></td>
<td width="40"><center>W</center></td>
<td width="40"><center>L</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>Win%</center></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>PG</center></td>
<td align="center"> 5%</td>
<td align="center">+26</td>
<td align="center"> 102.9</td>
<td align="center"> 96.9</td>
<td align="center"> 6.0</td>
<td align="center"> 15 </td>
<td align="center"> 14 </td>
<td><center> 51%</center></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>SG</center></td>
<td align="center"> 57%</td>
<td align="center">+259</td>
<td align="center"> 98.6</td>
<td align="center"> 93.1</td>
<td align="center"> 5.5</td>
<td align="center"> 48 </td>
<td align="center"> 33 </td>
<td><center> 59%</center></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>SF</center></td>
<td align="center"> 5%</td>
<td align="center">+68</td>
<td align="center"> 122.1</td>
<td align="center"> 106.9</td>
<td align="center"> 15.2</td>
<td align="center"> 23 </td>
<td align="center"> 20 </td>
<td><center> 53%</center></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>PF</center></td>
<td align="center"> 0%</td>
<td align="center">0</td>
<td align="center"> 162.3</td>
<td align="center"> 162.3</td>
<td align="center"> 0.0</td>
<td align="center"> 1 </td>
<td align="center"> 1 </td>
<td><center> 50%</center></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>C</center></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


Min represents the percentage of the team's total minutes the player was at that position. W and L are not adjusted in this instance by quality of opponent while at that position in a game. Player 48-Minute Production by Position
<table width="720" cellspacing="1" border="0" bgcolor="#cccccc">
<tbody>
<tr bgcolor="#33cc33">
<td width="80"><center>Position</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>FGA</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>eFG%</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>FTA</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>iFG</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>Reb</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>Ast</center></td>
<td width="50"><center>T/O</center></td>
<td width="50"><center>Blk</center></td>
<td width="50"><center>PF</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>Pts</center></td>
<td width="50"><center>PER*</center></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>PG</center></td>
<td align="right"> 25.9 </td>
<td align="right">0.608 </td>
<td align="right"> 9.6 </td>
<td align="right"> 13%</td>
<td align="right"> 4.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 10.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 5.1 </td>
<td align="right"> 0.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 3.3 </td>
<td align="right"> 39.7 </td>
<td bgcolor="#99ff00" align="right">31.8 </td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>SG</center></td>
<td align="right"> 23.4 </td>
<td align="right">0.511 </td>
<td align="right"> 6.6 </td>
<td align="right"> 14%</td>
<td align="right"> 4.6 </td>
<td align="right"> 5.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 4.4 </td>
<td align="right"> 0.3 </td>
<td align="right"> 4.7 </td>
<td align="right"> 29.6 </td>
<td bgcolor="#99ff00" align="right">18.4 </td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>SF</center></td>
<td align="right"> 24.6 </td>
<td align="right">0.424 </td>
<td align="right"> 18.3 </td>
<td align="right"> 16%</td>
<td align="right"> 5.1 </td>
<td align="right"> 3.5 </td>
<td align="right"> 4.2 </td>
<td align="right"> 0.4 </td>
<td align="right"> 2.9 </td>
<td align="right"> 37.2 </td>
<td bgcolor="#99ff00" align="right">22.9 </td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>PF</center></td>
<td align="right"> 81.1 </td>
<td align="right">1.000 </td>
<td align="right"> 0.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 50%</td>
<td align="right"> 0.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 0.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 0.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 0.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 40.6 </td>
<td align="right">162.3 </td>
<td bgcolor="#99ff00" align="right">50.0 </td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>C</center></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


Opponent Counterpart 48-Minute Production
<table width="720" cellspacing="1" border="0" bgcolor="#cccccc">
<tbody>
<tr bgcolor="#33cc33">
<td width="80"><center>Position</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>FGA</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>eFG%</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>FTA</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>iFG</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>Reb</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>Ast</center></td>
<td width="50"><center>T/O</center></td>
<td width="50"><center>Blk</center></td>
<td width="50"><center>PF</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>Pts</center></td>
<td width="50"><center>PER*</center></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>PG</center></td>
<td align="right"> 12.7 </td>
<td align="right">0.395 </td>
<td align="right"> 4.2 </td>
<td align="right"> 21%</td>
<td align="right"> 3.6 </td>
<td align="right"> 8.7 </td>
<td align="right"> 6.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 0.4 </td>
<td align="right"> 4.9 </td>
<td align="right"> 13.4 </td>
<td bgcolor="#99ff00" align="right"> 6.6 </td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>SG</center></td>
<td align="right"> 16.7 </td>
<td align="right">0.466 </td>
<td align="right"> 4.9 </td>
<td align="right"> 27%</td>
<td align="right"> 4.8 </td>
<td align="right"> 4.2 </td>
<td align="right"> 2.7 </td>
<td align="right"> 0.5 </td>
<td align="right"> 4.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 19.4 </td>
<td bgcolor="#99ff00" align="right">13.0 </td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>SF</center></td>
<td align="right"> 16.1 </td>
<td align="right">0.349 </td>
<td align="right"> 9.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 36%</td>
<td align="right"> 7.5 </td>
<td align="right"> 3.5 </td>
<td align="right"> 1.5 </td>
<td align="right"> 1.1 </td>
<td align="right"> 7.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 17.2 </td>
<td bgcolor="#99ff00" align="right"> 9.7 </td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>PF</center></td>
<td align="right"> 40.6 </td>
<td align="right">1.000 </td>
<td align="right"> 0.0 </td>
<td align="right">100%</td>
<td align="right"> 0.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 0.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 0.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 0.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 0.0 </td>
<td align="right"> 81.1 </td>
<td bgcolor="#99ff00" align="right">50.0 </td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>C</center></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>


Net 48-Minute Production by Position
<table width="720" cellspacing="1" border="0" bgcolor="#cccccc">
<tbody>
<tr bgcolor="#99ccff">
<td width="80"><center>Position</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>FGA</center></td>
<td width="50"><center>eFG%</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>FTA</center></td>
<td width="50"><center>iFG</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>Reb</center></td>
<td width="60"><center>Ast</center></td>
<td width="50"><center>T/O</center></td>
<td width="50"><center>Blk</center></td>
<td width="50"><center>PF</center></td>
<td width="50"><center>Pts</center></td>
<td width="50"><center>PER*</center></td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>PG</center></td>
<td align="right"> +13.2</td>
<td align="right">+0.213</td>
<td align="right"> +5.4</td>
<td align="right"> -8%</td>
<td align="right"> +0.4</td>
<td align="right"> +1.3</td>
<td align="right"> +0.9</td>
<td align="right"> -0.4</td>
<td align="right"> +1.6</td>
<td align="right"> +26.3</td>
<td bgcolor="#99ff00" align="right">+25.2 </td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>SG</center></td>
<td align="right"> +6.7</td>
<td align="right">+0.045</td>
<td align="right"> +1.7</td>
<td align="right"> -13%</td>
<td align="right"> -0.3</td>
<td align="right"> +0.8</td>
<td align="right"> -1.7</td>
<td align="right"> -0.1</td>
<td align="right"> -0.8</td>
<td align="right"> +10.2</td>
<td bgcolor="#99ff00" align="right"> +5.4 </td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>SF</center></td>
<td align="right"> +8.6</td>
<td align="right">+0.075</td>
<td align="right"> +9.2</td>
<td align="right"> -20%</td>
<td align="right"> -2.4</td>
<td align="right"> +0.0</td>
<td align="right"> -2.6</td>
<td align="right"> -0.7</td>
<td align="right"> +4.2</td>
<td align="right"> +20.0</td>
<td bgcolor="#99ff00" align="right">+13.3 </td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>PF</center></td>
<td align="right"> +40.6</td>
<td align="right">+0.000</td>
<td align="right"> +0.0</td>
<td align="right"> -50%</td>
<td align="right"> +0.0</td>
<td align="right"> +0.0</td>
<td align="right"> +0.0</td>
<td align="right"> +0.0</td>
<td align="right"> -40.6</td>
<td align="right"> +81.1</td>
<td bgcolor="#99ff00" align="right"> +0.0 </td>
</tr>
<tr bgcolor="#ffffff">
<td><center>C</center></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

M Two One · Oct 7, 2007

Interesting stats there Denny, good find.

Anyway, sadly I'm off to bed as I need to get up early to have my broken toe checked up again at the doctor.

Денг Гордон · Oct 7, 2007

I have to question you majorly, when your saying that FG% is the most important thing to look at as far as shooting....and when you say you cannot compare Gordon being a three point shooting/Luol Deng, since Deng doesn't take them. You are just blocking three point shooting, because its not favorable to your argument. Fact of the matter is, that the three point shot in basketball counts for more points than a two point shot. TS% takes into account that difference in point reward for the shot, while FG% does not.

Like if Ben Gordon had 15 points on 5-12 shooting.

and Luol Deng had 12 points on 6-12 shooting.

Gordon has a 41.6% shooting percentage, while Deng has a 50% shooting percentage....but Gordon has a true shooting percentage of 62.5 TS%, while Deng has a TS% of 50%.

Now using your measure, FG%, Deng is the better scorer....while Gordon is atrocious....now using my method, TS%, Gordon is showed as the better scorer, and quite a special scorer at that. Not sure why one would think of FG% as the most important shooting percentage. But thats just me.

Gordon is considered to have one of the best pure strokes in basketball. Not sure what your complaint on his shot is.

Hunter · Oct 9, 2007

Here is some updated news to consider:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>
<div>

Oct 9 - Ben Gordon denied a New York Daily News report that claimed he was in the market for a five-year, $70 million contract extension. He is eligible to become a restricted free agent after the season.



Asked whether $55 million is closer to the truth, Gordon said, "No comment." -- Daily Southtown</div></div>

MikeDC · Oct 13, 2007

I dunno how 82Games is looking at Ben as a PG, he only had about 230 minutes, about the same amount Viktor Khyrapa played last year. I wouldn't say his limited minutes were a definitive sign of what VK can or can't do on the court, so I wouldn't really say Ben was PG enough to show anything.

Log in or Sign up

Ben Gordon Wants $70M

Shapecity S2/JBB Teamster Staff Member Administrator

o.iatlhawksfan ROFLMFAO!!!!

Денг Гордон Member

Shapecity S2/JBB Teamster Staff Member Administrator

Денг Гордон Member

Master Shake young phoenix

Денг Гордон Member

M Two One Halló Veröld!

Денг Гордон Member

M Two One Halló Veröld!

Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

M Two One Halló Veröld!

Денг Гордон Member

Hunter Administrator Staff Member Administrator

MikeDC Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Ben Gordon Wants $70M

Moderators

Shapecity S2/JBB Teamster Staff Member Administrator

o.iatlhawksfan ROFLMFAO!!!!

Денг Гордон Member

Shapecity S2/JBB Teamster Staff Member Administrator

Денг Гордон Member

Master Shake young phoenix

Денг Гордон Member

M Two One Halló Veröld!

Денг Гордон Member

M Two One Halló Veröld!

Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

M Two One Halló Veröld!

Денг Гордон Member

Hunter Administrator Staff Member Administrator

MikeDC Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches