Good for Ben. Good for the bulls. That will give Detroit 3 guys who can't guard Rose. But it probably means Hamilton will be moved as well. We'll know in two weeks what kind of rumor this is.
Just like on Waddle and Silvie when they talked about this, Dumars may be losing his touch. Theyre no point of having gordon when you have stuckey and hamilton, specially wit stuckey not being a true pg. But I still want the bulls to trade that 16th pick. But I guess if theyre going to draft replacement for BG, dont draft someone small again. At least get someone who's 6'4 or 6'5
Turns out Detroit sees Gordon as a better player than Rip is these days. He outperformed him in just about every statistical measure.
Stuckey stinks, and Hamilton is old, and not as good as Gordon. It'll be sad if the Bulls don't match this. Can you say "Cheap" and "Don't care about winning"? If the money is equal, Gordon's staying in Chicago. Better chance of winning, and Detroit's a dump. If Carlos Boozer could stay healthy Detroit might havve something with Gordon/Prince/Boozer if they can get good role players around them...in particular, a great defensive big. Just imagine if they had drafted Carmelo though and were creating capspace to add Gordon and Boozer now.
Gordon > Rip in every possible way. Just because Rip is 6'7 doesn't mean he can guard shit. He is one of the most one dimensional players i have ever seen.
Hamilton's also 31 years old. There is no future to build with Rip now. And maybe Dumars wants to convert Gordon into a point guard. Ben's always said he wanted to play point guard. He absolutely abuses smaller guards scoring wise, when they try to guard him. Ben still should be a Bull. It just comes down to whether ownership cares about winning or not.
Stuckey isnt bad but he isnt as good as people are making him either. And it doesnt mean we dont care about winning if we dont try to resign him, its not like we're going to turn into the Thunder if we lose him Turning ben into a pg is horrible, because he has terrible decision making skills even for a scoring pg and AI03 I never said Rip could guard shit, and he might be one of the most one dimensional players, but what else can gordon do besides shoot?
When it comes to Gordon, I mostly side with Denny Crane. I hate the idea of losing him for the following reasons: 1). He's a top 50-60 player in the league, and not an Eddie House that gets more minutes. 2). Losing his offense would be a big net loss to the team. I don't buy the argument that marginal improvements from others would make up the difference for the following reasons: a). I think it's overly optimistic to assume that everyone is going to make marginal improvement. b). No one else on the team comes close to replicating Bens most useful offensive talents (shooting, scoring in large bunches at an efficient clip, drawing double teams), so even if everyone got better it wouldn't have the same effect in summation as just having Ben Gordon. 3). It seems like the team is trying to make a big play for an all-star big, and it makes a lot of sense to have Ben Gordon playing next to a guy like that. 4). John Salmons is not an adequate replacement for Ben Gordon. A Rose-Salmons-Deng trio has a lot of problems with it, especially paired next to Thomas/Noah in the frontcourt. 5). While not a good defender, Ben can be adequate playing in a well designed defensive scheme, so his defense isn't a fatal flaw.
Yup, the defensive thing has to be seen as bunk, when Ben Gordon started on the best defensive team in the league in 06-07. The problem with the defense is primarily, that the bigs are terrible. Good interior defense is the key to a good defense. Interior defense is ten times more important that perimeter defense. Secondly, Derrick Rose just might be the worst defender in the league. The guy can't even stop that chair that Yi Jianlian used to play 1 on 1 against.
Even if you're right about all of the above, which you're not, BG is still a guy with a career PER of about 16. There's just no getting around that. He's barely above average. His production can be replaced simply because he's not that productive. Sure he scores in bunches, but he has just as many droughts. For every clutch moment he had, he had many more failures. There's just no getting around that and no evidence to indicate he's going to get better. So worrying about whether the bulls will miss him or not is silly because they weren't all that good with him and spending a lot of money to keep him is stupid. Letting him walk with nothing to show for it is another issue, but there are so many reasons that he shouldn't be starting next to Rose that in the end it is still addition by subtraction given the bulls have an adequate replacement in Salmons. And I seem to remember Rose making a clutch defensive block on Rondo that saved a playoff game. Was BG even in on that possession? BG doesn't look as bad simply because he isn't on the court. The coaching staff takes him out preemptively. If he were better than Rose, he'd be in the game.
How many times have we seen Ben Gordon hit a clutch shot, and then the "defensive lineup" give up a score to the other team. That's part of why Gordon seemed so clutch in his first three seasons in the league. We were a great defensive team. When Gordon hit a big shot, we'd get the stop winning the game, or turning it into a Ben Gordon free throw fest. Or when we were down or tied, we would get the stop, allowing Gordon to be the hero. For example, Game 5 should be being remembered for Ben Gordon hitting the game winning shot. Instead it's remembered for Rondo chopping Miller's head off with a chainsaw. [video=youtube;gNpg7PF5oPs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNpg7PF5oPs[/video] Should we really be applauding Rose for being part of that defensive lineup that routinely gives up key scores to the other team? The reason Rose is left in, is because there is a mandate from management to have Rose on the court in the clutch for the most part. In reality, the best strategy would be to have Gordon in instead of Rose, as you'd still have Kirk Hinrich to play point guard in the clutch on the court. Derrick Rose had one big block on Rondo, but he also has given up key baskets, and is something like 0-12 on potential game winners. You can't deny Gordon's clutchness. Yes, he's failed more than he's succeeded, but so has everyone else, even Michael Jordan was only 25 for 51 on game winners in his career, and he was the best. Just this past year, you had Ben Gordon hitting the game tying four point shot against the Clippers, the game winning four point shot against the Pistons, the game winning layup against the Pistons, and the game tying series saving game four three against the Celtics. You also have other instances, such as the potential game winner in Game 5, and the game tying shot over Chris Bosh, that all went for naught. The guy hits as many clutch shots as anyone in the league.
I'm not saying Ben is not an asset, but I'm going with Bullshooter. Денг Гордон you have made a point for yourself and the people against Gordon. He did look more clutch on the defensive team, keyword is looked. When the defense sub par to minimal, he just looks like another shooter taking bad shots. Now I'm not saying that he isnt clutch, he can be but my whole problem with him even before his streaky ass shooting is his decision making. Now if its Wade, Lebron, or dare I say Kobe then I know its going to be a good decision when it comes down to a game winning or tying shot, and even they have their bone head moments (like Kobe goin 1 on 4 in one of the finals games instead of passing it to open teammates). And having rose on the floor is just as important as Gordon because at least Rose drives the ball, making team cut off lanes or even double him so he cant be a problem. All gordon does (or at least now) is shoot jumpers, most of them bad. I remember his rookie year when he at least used to drive... Now one thing I'm waiting for the Bulls to do is trade for a big man that can score and bring defensive presence inside, or at least teach the young guys something. But I still dont want to give Gordon up for nothing simply because he is valued around the league.
Game winning shot field goal percentages. Ben Gordon - 35.3% Lebron James - 34.0% Dwyane Wade - 27.5% Kobe Bryant - 25.0% How is James, Wade, or Bryant a better decision than Gordon for the game winning shot? Arguably, Gordon would be the best decision for game winning shots, as most game winners are on jumpshots, and Gordon is a superior shooter than all three of those guys.
Hahaha where are those stats coming from? And I'd still pick any one of those three (ok maybe not kobe) than gordon since you did say arguably. But we're all friends and bulls fans arent we? Lets continue this heated debate as long as it doesnt turn into a flame war or anything...This conversation could be barbershop talk. I can hear people yelling to get their points across now
He got those clutch stats from 82games, where they count 03-04 until now. I think they are much less relevant, because they include two of Kobe's poor seasons but ok whatever, Bryant destroys him in clutch time and against good teams/playoffs. Playoffs: Kobe: 4/8 50% shooting 28% total, including those poor seasons. He's done much better than that recently though, because his Jumper was uglier back in 04-05. Against good teams http://www.82games.com/0809/COM1S11.HTM If I want a good opponent, I'm taking Kobe, Wade, Chris Paul, somebody like that obviously.
http://www.82games.com/random12.htm This was the original list, it includes 03-04, 04-05, and most of 05-06. Kobe has since gone on to shoot 7-24 , 4-8 in the playoffs I believe? 11/32 total, "34.375" %, not counting three pointers. Pretty good crunch time shooting. Much more relevant.
Stats for game winners and game tying shots. http://82games.com/gamewinningshots.htm Actually, scrolling further down, and looking at the playoff numbers, Kobe, Lebron, and Wade are among the best in that regards. They've hit some of the big shots on the biggest stage, while not being all that great in the regular season when hitting those things. Ben Gordon hasn't really had all that many opportunities. In his rookie season, there was the 112 to 110 loss to the Wizards, where Arenas hit the game winner over Kirk Hinrich. In that game, Gordon didn't take the shots in the final minutes...Jannero Pargo did, making three threes in the final 40 seconds of the game. Then in Game 6, Gordon only took 1 shot, and hardly played. (Bulls might of won that series if Skiles played Gordon more than 16 minutes. Yeah, he turned over the ball like crazy, but Skiles should have given him another chance). Then in 2006, a 5 point Heat win was the closest game. Then in 2007, the Bulls game 1 victory over the Heat was the closest game. Gordon hit some free throws to ice it, but no game winner opportunity. But this year, Gordon shot a ton of shots that fit that criteria. Game 2: -Tied game at 115 with 12 seconds left. Game 4: -Makes a three with 4 seconds left to tie the game at 110 in overtime. Game 5: -Ben Gordon puts the Bulls up 2 with 17 seconds with left in the fourth quarter. -Ben Gordon misses potential game winner as time expires. Game 6: -Ben Gordon misses potential game winner with 1 second left in fourth. So using the criteria, Gordon went 3-5 for 60%, so he's right up there with all those guys in playoff numbers. As far as regular season, since then, Gordon has hit that shot over Bosh, the four point game winner over the Pistons, and the game winning layup against the Pistons. So whenever they update this stuff, Gordon's stats will look even prettier.
All those came this year, which is good, but the bulls only missed the playoffs like once since gordons rookie year i believe. So he's had plenty of opportunites. And skiles not playing gordon because of turnovers is a just decision. Theres no point of having someone on the court whos gonna make some shots for you, but give the ball right back to them.
