http://www.blogabull.com/2009/5/7/867765/already-tired-of-the-offseason?ref=yahoo Already tired of the offseason, because it hasn't started yet What was gleaned was that Tyrus may be back on the block, Gordon wants to stay, Kirk wants to stay, Deng may not play for the UK after all, Rose is working hard, everyone thinks this is building towards something...what, I'm not sure. But it's already started here as the Ben Gordon free agency approaches: that letting him go is somehow 'necessary'. I'm a mostly simple man when it comes to team building: Get good players. Keep good players. Trade for better players if you can. Letting Gordon go would go against that philosophy since he's one of the top players on the team. This idea that the Bulls will take one step back by letting Gordon walk to make a step forward later is misguided. Their negotiation with Gordon has nothing to do with basketball. It's partially about staying under the tax, partially about satisfying a weird vendetta against him, and mostly about staying under the tax. And while Gordon's proved he's worth the $10m he was not offered last year, it's possible that he'll still twist in the wind with no team under the cap being willing to offer anybody such money, let alone him. And then the Bulls and him will find eachother necessary, the Bulls 'win' their negotiation, Gordon gets mega-rich but not super-mega-rich, and everyone's happy. Except those who think Hinrich is a better two-guard than Gordon, I guess. And with lots of expiring deals (including one that's insured in Jerome James), 2 first round picks, and several damned productive players, Pax should agressively be trying to acquire a frontcourt star to pair with Rose. And that's all he should do. If it can't be done this summer, keep what you have and hope they play their way into being attractive enough, and try again at the deadline. Bosh, Amare, and the like could possibly be made available, as nearly the entire NBA goes into cost-cutting mode. But this team isn't going to get better by getting worse. They can't (and won't) get bad enough to get back into the lottery or under the cap for free agency. If the Bulls do make a mega-deal they'll need some players to do so (and some players left over), and letting Gordon walk hurts that effort. And If they don't get a deal done and start the season with the same team minus Gordon, they won't be any better, and likely worse. And they weren't that good this year with him, so I have little interest in seeing what without him looks like. But it's not in absolutes, it all has to do with what Gordon wants, what the Bulls offer (not just money but stability and playing time and showing they want to win...but mostly money), and what other teams are willing to offer. It's certainly possible that Gordon turned down his best offer last season, proved he was worth more, but will actually get less because of how teams are spending nowadays. And that would make me happy since they'd get Gordon at a relative discount. But all it takes is one 'stupid' team, and that's the risk they put on themselves by playing hardball last summer. But there's many weeks before such things come to a head. And heck, even if the Bulls were proactive enough to think about making slight cost-saving moves to keep Gordon, it'd have to go through the decision tree process of Gar Paxdorf and the final sign-off wouldn't be completed for 7 weeks.
How "good" BG is matter of intense debate. Yes, he is an excellent shooter. That's all your going to get consensus on. There are just as many viable, plausible arguments for letting him go as there are for keeping him. That's why 90% of the threads here and everywhere revolve around that question. I think everybody knows that I disagree with most of the arguments presented so we don't have to go into it again, do we? But if I get bored this afternoon, I'd be happy to spell them out again for everybody, just in case you've forgotten.
Player A: one-time 2nd team all nba defense 51 games, 26 MPG, 9.9 PPG, 2.4 RPG, 3.9 APG, 1.3 SPG, .437 FG%, .408 3pt% Player B: one-time 1st team all nba defense 55 games, 26 MPG, 11.6 PPG, 2.9 RPG, 2.2 APG, 1.3 SPG, .402 FG%, .389 3pt%
Pretty compelling that By the Horns thought Hinrich had more positives but didn't even include "[that Hinrich] assisted with recording PSAs for Bulls events and special initiatives and concluded the CharitaBulls’ UnBULLievable Dream Car Raffle fundraiser by personally delivering a brand new luxury car to the winner’s home in the summer of 2004 …"
Look pretty equal to me, and Hughes is taller and can play 3 positions. Seems like that's the argument By the Horns makes.
Hinrich's and Hughes approach to the game and how they play it couldn't be more different. It's like you don't even watch the games Denny...
I watch the games. I watch you argue that guys like Gordon can be easily replaced, yet you don't seem to like it when your own argument is used against you. Hinrich can easily be replaced, clearly. Frankly, far easier. How about this guy, who's a UFA, and would be a better player for our team than Hinrich. I think it would be awesome if we could trade Hinrich for him (S&T) and have room under the LT. He can also be signed for the MLE (the max anyone can offer him): http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/s/sessira01.html Imagine more production in the same minutes for half the price.
I completely understand why everyone wants to keep Gordon, but I also completely see why people want to keep Kirk over him. Gordon is a better scorer, yes but he' also streaky as hell. He doesn't play defense as good as some people think. And one big thing with me is that he is a horrible decision maker. He's taken some horrible shots, and yes made some but hes such a "Noo Noo N-Yes!!" player. Kirk can play 2 positions and guard 3. He might not be a good of a scorer than Ben, but I like him more because of what he brings to the table. Yes Kirk's had some struggles but at least he's fought through them (including struggling before he got injured and coming back playing extremely well). Now dont get me wrong, I dont want to give up Ben for nothing, but I hope we get a much needed low post scorer for him in return.
Your case for Kirk and the one in By the Horns is that he's ideally suited as a backup. You want a backup who can play more than one position and bring a little offense against a 2nd unit or be a defensive specialist to match up against a team's best player at some points in the game. If you're going to play Noah and Thomas, you're effectively playing 3 on 5 on offense as it is. If you play a Hinrich next to Rose, they'll double Rose and take their chances with Hinrich taking the big shots. Hinrich is 29 next season, Gordon 26. It may also be a false premise that we have to choose one over the other. I'm actually quite happy with Hinrich as a bench player for us. The guy who's really given us very little the past 2 seasons and who has a big contract is Deng.
I wouldn't be against that, but you have to have somebody who can play defense. If Sessions can guard three spots well and add a little offense, then by all means replace Hinrich and save the money. But BG's offense is just as easy to replace. Especially so since he's a big minus when it comes to things like APM. Somebody who scores 15, but can actually guard people and pass the ball without turning it over would be every bit if not more than BG. Somebody like Salmons if he passed a little more. How about Randy Foye. And Noah and Tyrus have shown they can contribute on the offensive end. It just requires more ball movement, which is something that BG stifles more often than not.
I keep asking you "who?" and what you expect to give up to get him. I gave you Sessions and the MLE or possibly a deal involving giving Kirk back to Skiles.
The bulls could probably sign and trade BG for Foye. But other than injuries, I don't see any need to replace BG. Everybody just slides over and you draft a couple of young wings. Rose/Salmons/Hinrich get 30ish minutes at the 1-2. Deng gets 35 and a rookie get 10-15 backing him up. Rose's scoring is going to go up, and Miller, Tyrus and Noah will score more too. That replaces all of BG's scoring, and now the bulls don't have any gaping defensive holes that force them to do stupid shit like switch every pick.
I think Kirk would actually produce well in a starting role, but then we wouldnt really have much coming off the bench (he and brad miller did so well coming off the bench for us this year after the trade). But you cant blame Deng for much because of injuries, until he plays like half a season without injury then I'll judge whether or not we need to trade him.
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/basketball/bulls/1556722,CST-SPT-jax04.article# Bulls, Ben shouldn't break up If team wants to be a force in the East, it must keep Gordon May 4, 2009 BY JOHN JACKSON jjackson@suntimes.com The biggest decision for Bulls management this offseason is what to do with Gordon, an unrestricted free agent after playing under a one-year qualifying offer for $6.4 million this season. Do they aggressively try to re-sign him? And if the answer is yes, how much should they be willing to pay the sharpshooting guard? Of course, the Bulls have tried to sign Gordon to a long-term deal the last two offseasons without success. They've made generous offers both times -- five-year deals worth at least $50 million -- only to be rebuffed. Tough stance Gordon and agent Raymond Brothers believed he should've been the Bulls' highest-paid player because he was their leading scorer and wanted a deal at least equal to the six-year, $71 million contract Luol Deng signed in August. Eventually, the Bulls pulled their long-term offer late last summer after they became frustrated with Brothers' approach. It remains to be seen if the relationship between Bulls management and Brothers will play a role in whether Gordon is re-signed. ''At the end of the day, it's a business,'' Gordon said. ''I'm able to put my feelings aside. If there's animosity, the organization needs to be able to do the same thing. ''We're not kids in the playground arguing over basketball. This is a business, and they need to sit down and figure something out, if there's something to be figured out. If not, move on and do something else.'' Gordon isn't worth the kind of money he has asked for the last two years because he's a one-dimensional scorer. You don't give star money to one-dimensional players. Sure, you can argue that Deng isn't a star-quality player, either, but that doesn't mean the Bulls should compound that mistake by signing Gordon to a similar deal. Still, if the Bulls want to make a major step up the Eastern Conference ladder next season, they'd be wise to keep Gordon in the fold. There's no way they would've extended the Celtics to seven games if not for the 24.3 points Gordon averaged in the series -- despite playing the final 3½ games with a strained left hamstring. ''I've always been that kind of player,'' he said, ''but this series, I'm definitely happy with the way things went -- with the way I played, the way my team played. We were facing a lot of adversity the entire time, so there's a lot to be proud of.'' Gordon is a hard worker, and you won't find a player who represents the team in a classier fashion off the court. And remember, 20-point scorers -- even ones who sometimes have defensive liabilities and ballhandling issues -- are far from plentiful in the NBA. Strong backcourt trio The Bulls would be smart to re-sign Gordon and put him in a backcourt rotation with Derrick Rose and John Salmons. Even though Gordon started this season, I would start Rose and Salmons and bring Gordon off the bench. All three players would play starter's minutes -- Salmons also can split minutes at small forward with Deng -- so being a starter mostly would be about ego. ''It doesn't matter,'' Gordon said of starting. ''I know what kind of player I am and what kind of impact I can have on the game. ''I just want to be somewhere the organization is trying to win a championship because that's what I'm all about.'' The biggest downside of re-signing Gordon is it undoubtedly would mean that Kirk Hinrich would have to be dealt in the offseason because of luxury-tax issues. It would be virtually impossible for the Bulls to have both on the roster without surpassing the tax threshold. Then again, leaving town might be the best thing to happen to Hinrich at this point of his career, especially because Rose figures to assume an even larger role next season. Trading Hinrich could bring back much-needed help up front. But before the Bulls get to that point, they must reach a deal with Gordon. We've learned the last two years that's far from an easy task. BIG BEN'S NUMBERSSEASON PLAYOFFS 45.5 FG% 38.8 41.0 3PT% 37.0 86.4 FT% 87.5 36.6 MIN. 43.4 3.5 REBOUNDS 2.9 3.4 ASSISTS 3.0 16.0 SHOTS 19.1 20.7 POINTS 24.3
I'm ok with keeping BG as long as he is the sixth man and signs a reasonable deal, ie one a couple million less than Hinrich's deal. Then you can trade Hinrich for the salary cap space and the extra players you need to fill holes left behind at PG and defensive wing. But if BG wants to start and still get $10+ mil, you have to let him walk, he isn't worth it. I haven't seen a single article yet that says the bulls should sign BG to start him and pay him big money.
Let's see. So far Mike McGraw at Daily Herald and John Jackson@suntimes.com have said Bulls must bring him back. Jackson said he should play starters minutes and McGraw didn't state anything. Bottom line, both say get it done. On the other side is you and some third tier bloggers. Whoop-de-doo.
It might help if you read the article, too. He's not going to average 24.3 PPG in 30 MPG as a bench player. He seems to disagree with one of your major premises.
