More on Vinny, Tyrus, and Noah at the link http://dabullz.com/2008/12/17/ben-gordon-has-one-foot-out-the-door/
This sucks for a few reasons. Gordon is our best player, and our 2nd best player going forward, but also, Derrick Rose is a good catch to bring in 2010 free agents, but who is going to want to come here if Gordon's not here also? We will be the Oklahoma City Thunder next season with Derrick Rose starring as Kevin Durant.
There will be a hell of a lot more shots available if BG is not here, which is a bonus for any top tier player looking to come here. And any big man like Bosh or Amare won't have to worry as much about porous perimeter defense and constantly having to step up if BG is gone. So I think don't think losing BG will be a detriment to attracting free agents at all. That's assuming we can sign one, though. However, just losing BG for nothing would be a bad loss, even given all of his inadequecies. I still think a sign and trade is the most likely avenue. BG doesn't want to go to some crappy franchise just to spite the bulls, at least I hope he has more pride and integrity and value than that. To get to any halfway decent team, BG will have to work something out with the Bulls.
Thunder? How crappy will they be longterm. They have Kevin Durant, who has come around, and has started to score more efficiently. They will have a top draft pick this year, which could be Blake Griffin. And then in addition to signing Gordon if they do, they will still be able to get a max guy in 2010. Miami can't offer Gordon the max, or close to it, but they can make him a respectable offer, more than $12 million a year. He would get to play with Dwyane Wade and Michael Beasley, and play with a big name 2010 free agent, perhaps Lebron James or Chris Bosh. We have 0% chance of getting Chris Bosh if we lose Gordon. Bosh wants a winner. A <30 win team isn't that. Amare Stoudemire, maybe, because he apparently wants to be the man, but wouldn't Derrick Rose be scaring him away then? No chance at Lebron or Wade if we suck. I think Gordon will end up in Miami. Perhaps in a sign and trade, but we won't be getting anything particularly great out of he sign and trade.
What are the possible destinations? Here are the teams I could at least conceive of being under the cap by enough to re-sign Gordon. In some cases it'd mean we'd have to take back particular players. I don't see a lot to like there, except perhaps the Clippers and TWolves. Atlanta Charlotte LA Clippers Memphis Minnesota Portland Sacramento OKC A properly contructed deal for Chris Kaman could leave the Clippers far enough under the cap to re-sign Gordon. But all things considered, I'd rather have both of Gordon's feet back in the door.
I want the Bulls to try to get a Joe Johnson type player...he's a complete type player who gets better every year. Hell, go for Joe Johnson; It's not impossible to score him.
Charlotte has BG-lite in Felton, the Clippers have BG-lite in Eric Gordon and few shots left after Baron Davis takes his. Memphis has OJ Mayo and two young talented PG's and Portland has at least three guys in Roy, Fernandez, and Rodriguez who are cheaper and similarly productive, Sacramento has Kevin Martin. BG isn't going to run the point in Atl and Joe Johnson has two years left. The knicks might be interested, but I doubt they want to blow a significant portion of their cap space. I just don't see a lot of takers for BG after this season, or places where he'd want to go. Maybe he wants to go to Olympiakos, although Childress isn't doing that well over there from what I hear.
In any case, the following applies for me 1. I think it's pretty foolish to be convinced that player A can work with Rose and player B can't when A is busy being hurt and B is busy actually, you know, playing pretty well with Rose. If Pax really prefers A, maybe he finds it as difficult to watch games as I do. 2. Even if B walked for nothing at the end of the year, I still wouldn't be happy with Hinrich and/or Hughes as our SGs next to Rose. Not good fits, irrespective of what happens with Gordon. Thus, the smart thing to do is to move them if at all possible, and create an opportunity for things to work with Ben. But if they don't work, we still haven't lost much by dealing guys we shouldn't want anyway.
There was a point when Hinrich was a studly defender at the G position, but that seemed to change about the time he got his big contract and got married. If it wasn't one of those things, it may have been adding bulk in the weight room. In any case, he's sure seemed a lot slower and less able to be that studly defender. There's your theory, DC, that it helps the wings to have bigs who scare offenses as well. I actually don't think the bigs have to be great defenders, just big and willing to stand near the basket and foul hard. And enough depth that foul trouble won't change that. I mean, the Bulls were a top defensive team with Eddie Curry at C - but put him next to another big sized player and wings thought twice about attacking the rim. Back to Hinrich... I've seen that "the organization" thinks he's a better fit next to Rose. He could be, but I don't see it yet. He'd have to become the defender he was, and he'd have to start making more of the open shots he gets that just don't go in. His form seems fine and his shots seem on line. Maybe if he gets a little greedier and looks to take more shots within the offense, we'll see them go in. It's something of a gamble, tho. I mean, Hughes' shot also looks quite good and all roads for him lead to .400 or so they say. Could be true about Hinrich, too. We're not an entirely sucky team. We're hovering around .500, we won games on the circus trip without Hinrich and Hughes, we have two guards scoring near 20 PPG, Gooden is a solid double-double guy, and we're not getting blown out when we do lose. 13 points the biggest loss, I think, and that against a team that's one of the dominant 3 this season. Is Gordon the ideal guy next to Rose? Probably not. Paul Pierce or Kobe would sure be a real upgrade and nobody'd complain. Those guys aren't in the cards, and I don't see anyone trading us someone of that caliber for Kirk + Noc. Not sure it'd make sense for us to look for a Gordon replacement when it's pretty clear we need 2 more 36 MPG type players at the PF and C positions who contribute at the offensive end.
Rose is in a slump right now, so obviously my thoughts aren't based on the last two games. However, if you've got a dynamic guy like Rose, who I think could legitimately be an all-star this year, you need a defender next to him, similar to how Phoenix started Raja Bell next to Nash for all those years. And as far as that goes, my first choice currently would be Thabo, like they were doing at the beginning of the year. Bring BG off the bench for 30 minutes. I think by now we can all agree it isn't going to hurt his numbers, just concentrate them into fewer minutes. BG doesn't play defense well enough to be on the court 40 minutes a night, and his offense suffers too, I think. In fact BG's numbers are pretty much the same as they were next to Duhon and Hinrich, so I wouldn't say he's done anything differently or adjusted to Rose much at all. I also think Hinrich would probably be the better sixth man because he can effectively play both the 1 and the 2, especially coming off of the bench. And move Hughes. BTW, for those of you still clinging to the BG can play defense thing based on 82games PER estimates: So no, given how much time BG spends not guarding the other teams SG, he isn't performing at a high level defensively; those numbers reflect a healthy helping of Deng's and Hughes' and even some Hinrich contributions.
Deng's opponent's PER is 15.5. Hughes' opponent's PER is 12.8 at SG, and 15.3 at SF. Somehow, you can't hide Gordon at any of those positions and find a really big PER difference in opponents at any position he guards. The worst inference you can make about Gordon's D from these numbers is that it's 15.3-15.5 if he were guarding the SF 100% of the time. When you factor in Gordon's 26.9 PER at PG on offense or especially the 18.9 PER at SG, the difference is quite significant. More than significant enough to justify playing him 40 MPG or more.
It's not that simple because for a couple of reasons. First Deng and Hughes' number are deflated because they are working on both ends, so the comparisons are skewed. Second, BG's PER numbers are inflated by the garbage time he played in earlier in the season. If you dig a little deeper, the data is there. Consider the top 2 man unit on the bulls in +/- is Noc and BG, at ~+70. Seems surprising given how poor they are on D, especially individual man on man D. But Noc by himself is +52. Astonishing! He must be a much better defender or scorer than BG, right? (That's rhetorical...) BG is -2 overall, he was +~25 coming off of the bench, so as a starter he is even more -, but together they are +72. Why? Because when the bulls start getting blown out, Vinnie puts in Noc and BG and they get space and start draining shots. It doesn't contribute to winning, but it inflates their numbers. So no, he doesn't deserve to be playing 40 minutes a night and no, his play hasn't been as good as his numbers would indicate.
Yeah, I've made that point several times myself... the counterpart PER thing is just an assumption. On the other hand, I've also pointed out that the things you seem to be hammering Gordon for and holding out as evidence that he's some kind of drain on the team defensively are the same things that pretty much every team routinely does. Suppose the Bulls had some really awesome 2 guard like Joe Johnson. Well, he's still a much better offensive player than Deng, and not noted as a great defender. So the Bulls more likely than not would still be "resting" him defensively by trying to have him cover Bobby Simmons and have Deng cover Carter. Simply put, the criticism you're making in particular to Gordon is pretty much valid for every really good offensive SG. In what situations would you not have Deng covering Carter? Well, I guess if you want to ensure Deng is getting his numbers on offense and resting on defense, then you have to replace Gordon or Johnson with a worse player. Thabo or Raja Bell would fit that bill. So what do you get then? You get Deng somewhat more "energetic" on offense, or so the theory goes, but your absolute offense is going to be significantly worse. Because Deng at his best on offense isn't as good as Gordon at his best on offense. And because Bell or Thabo bring quite a bit less than "tired" Deng. Defensively, I suppose you get slightly better, but even the best perimeter players pretty routinely get beat. Bell's been a good defender, but the league's better scorers are rarely affected by him more than the marginal defender. The bigger difference, as we agreed yesterday, would be putting a strong interior defensive presence in there to provide a line of defense when the perimeter guys, even good ones, inevitably get beat. Which gets us back to the conclusion that sensible basketball is starting and playing your best five guys. Gordon (who has been significantly more efficient than in past seasons, by the way) included. That creates the best opportunities for your team, and playing match up theatrics with lesser players (how is starting Thabo and playing him 10 minutes any different or better than starting Gray and playing him 10 minutes... which is awful) ends up being a non-entity because for every "advantage" it creates for you, it creates a similar advantage for your opponent (If Thabo's in, then Vince doesn't have to work on defense and his numbers will be inflated... so the thinking goes). Finally, it's worth noting that the Suns looked as close as they were gonna get with Joe Johnson, not Raja Bell, and a team full of guys who were extremely talented on offense.
Gordon works both ends, too. The three players combine to hold all possible players Gordon guards to only a slightly worse than average PER. If he wasn't working or effective, then one of the three would have a bad PER against. Gordon played garbage time for 6 games, if you can call it "garbage" time at all. I use 6 because that's the number of games that Hinrich played. Your use of the +/- for Nocioni is a misuse of the statistic. Noc benefits from playing against the 2nd units almost exclusively and from playing alongside our 1st unit guys who play 40/game. We haven't been getting blown out. A couple of games we lost by ~13, the rest have all been within reach until the end. So much for that theory. Do you have a single statistic that shows Gordon actually isn't as good as his numbers show? ast/48 minutes is a pathetic case to make - either he gets the assists or doesn't and there are few other guys at his position in the league who get as many no matter how many minutes. In fact, playing lots of minutes is a pretty good indication there's nobody else to play. I suppose we'd all love to see Thabo and his maybe 10 PPG playing instead of Gordon. That's rhetorical.
I just really don't understand the Gordon hate. Fans of other teams would be cheering the hell out of a guy scoring 21 points a game on elite efficiency, while playing good defense, and being a good team player. The one thing that bothers me regarding Gordon, and this has more to do with Del Negro, is how Del Negro will lull Gordon by just sticking him in the corner. We have to be running Gordon off screens. Reggie Miller didn't score by standing in the corner. Gordon has been terrific running off screens so far this year. As I complained like 5-6 games ago, Gordon wasn't quite as deadly because he wasn't hitting his threes. Since then, he found his three pont stroke, which has made him absolutely deadly. Since Gordon caught on fire from three, he has been averaging 25.5 PPG on 65.2 TS%. It's amazing, that it's been since Gordon has started playing great ball, and actually playing off of Rose instead of dominating the ball, that he is going under fire. People look for anything to slam Gordon for, it's ridiculous.
I can't comment on every other team because I haven't seen enough of all the other teams, but I don't think Marvin Williams matches up against Vince when they play. And Vince was guarding Ben when you'd think Simmons or Devin Harris would be a better matchup. There may times in games when matchups are changed as in game adjustments, but I doubt that most teams come out hiding players like the bulls do with BG. If I am wrong, point me to feed and I'll watch it. The best perimeter defenders don't routinely get beaten, and not to the extent that BG does. Plus, I don't think you decrease BG's output by bringing him off of the bench. So how is playing tougher defense and getting the same offense from BG not a win? I'm not saying dump BG. The interior defense would be better if the perimeter defense was better. The bigs could concentrate on getting position as opposed to defending the rim. By and large they do a good job of that when Noc isn't the pf. But repeatedly having to deal with penetration is a problem, and the Memphis game was a perfect example. Average guys start to look like all-stars. If Thabo gets consistent minutes his offense is decent, like it was last year. I don't understand why BG is the only one who people are willing to wait around for to hit shots. The only thing he has is a consistently high usuage, he's going to get 15-20 shots every game. He's just as likely to go 5-15 as he is 10-17. And his Ast/TO ratio is one of the poorest for guards with a usage level that high. That's not efficient. I felt like they were pretty close two years ago when some questionable suspensions effectively took them out of the Spurs series. And they went to the conference finals twice, once with Joe Johnson 04-05 and the next year 05-06 without him. And Joe Johnson is probably better both offensively and defensively than BG, so replacing him with a defensive player didn't hinder them, did it? It's pretty clear that the bulls are struggling to beat even the mediocre teams in the league by relying on BG as a starting SG. While he's a talented offensive player, he also a defensively liability. And unfortunately he's not a good enough offensive player to overcome his shortcomings on defense. So why not put him in a role where he doesn't lose anything offensively, but the team gets better defensively? If Hughes didn't have such a terrible track record, given how he's played in the last few weeks, I'd say start him. They subbed him in for BG last night and he made the defensive play of the game. But I wouldn't want to give time to a 30 year old with a history of being a malcontent and not in the teams long-term plans when there are youthful options on the team.
Ben Gordon is not the problem. The other players are. Ben Gordon - 57.9 TS% Larry Hughes - 54.5 TS% Andres Nocioni - 53.0 TS% Joakim Noah - 52.8 TS% Derrick Rose - 52.2 TS% Drew Gooden - 50.6 TS% Thabo Sefolosha - 50.5 TS% Aaron Gray - 50.5 TS% Luol Deng - 50.4 TS% Lindsey Hunter - 47.4 TS% Tyrus Thomas - 46.2 TS% Cedric Simmons - 44.4 TS% Demetris Nichols - 25 TS% The problem is that the Bulls are not scoring at very efficient level. I'm not going to complain about the one guy scoring at an elite efficiency. The other Bulls have to step up their offensive games, including Rose.
You missed the part about massive limitations, huh? Deng does have a bad PER against. [QUTOE] Your use of the +/- for Nocioni is a misuse of the statistic. Noc benefits from playing against the 2nd units almost exclusively and from playing alongside our 1st unit guys who play 40/game. We haven't been getting blown out. A couple of games we lost by ~13, the rest have all been within reach until the end. So much for that theory.[/QUOTE] Again missing the point. This team doesn't quit. When the bulls get down they don't give up like they did last year. BG puts on one of his runs. He did it in the orlando game, which was almost a 20 point lead at the time, he did it against Milwaukee, cleveland twice. I don't think you're remembering it quite right, go back and look at the game flows. For the first 15-20 games, the bulls fell into a double digit hole in the first quarter. Both with BG starting and coming off of the bench. The Portland game was the only one that got out of hand. Go look in the comments. BG wasn't doing much until the second team came in. It's only the last couple of weeks where BG has gotten off to hot starts like Memphis. How about ast/TO. Given his usage and 40+ min/game, if he didn't get that many assists, I don't think anybody would want to play with him, and when he tries to pass it, he's almost as likely to turn it over. So his poor ast/to ratio means you'd really rather he shoot it. And it's only in the last two weeks when that ratio got above 1.5...
