Great post. I love your points about Gordon and Deng. We share similar feelings towards Gordon. He wasn't a balanced player, but my memory is chalk full of 4th quarters when he would just pop one shot after the other and keep our team afloat. These past two years have created excellent examples of how roster fit can shape a players value. Since Deng has been traded to Cleveland I've thought about what his status would have been if he didn't fall into a Thibodeau coached, defensive minded team. It's really the perfect situation for a guy with Deng's capabilities. I think he would've been a very good player no matter where he landed, but when I watch him in Cleveland I can't imagine him being held in the same regard as he was here. Watching him do what he does on a dysfunctional team just doesn't give him the same glow that he had while he was here. I thought the GarPax 30 million offer was an obvious lowball offer when I read about it, but now I actually think there's at least a 25% chance he might not see that in FA. I could be wrong though. And of course we've seen DJ Augustin go from the NBA scrap heap to season savior. I think it's clear that for a very large portion of NBA players, role and roster fit can mean a lot to success and failure in the league. I'm guessing the middle 75% of the league. I think it also might illuminate an offseason strategy if we miss out on big fish. If we don't get Melo the Bulls might get pretty far scooping up 3-4 best fit guys on 1-2 year deals to fill out the back half of our roster. This obviously doesn't take you to championship contender, but with our team and culture it could mean having the 7,8, and 9 guys being of the DJ Augustin and Marco Belinelli calibre, which at least gives Thibs a full deck to work with, and a lot of flexibility to make trades and plan for future Cap Space in fairly short intervals.
What i remember about Gordon is 20 points in quarters, or the threat to. Taking the last shot at the end of quarters. Making big shots with the game on the line. Dribbling into triple teams because that's the way the plays were drawn up. How amazingly high he got off the ground to get his shot off: His ability to drive and make those tear drop shots or get fouled (he'd average close to 6 FTA/game). And at 6'1" (stretching it) he was useless guarding anyone but opposing teams' PGs.
So, what happened to Gordon? He's been to two teams since the Bulls and has not made an impact. In fact, he's one of the worst contracts in the NBA in terms of bang for the buck. Gordon WAS a good instant offense guy off the bench, but he hasn't even been that the last, what, five years? Seems like once he got locked up long term for big $, he was very willing to say F it and coast. Also seems like he's saved his money since he's not trying to showcase for a new contract. And now he's 30 and hasn't been productive in pretty much 5 years. We're lucky that Gordon didn't accept Paxson's big $$$ offer.
Good question, but Gordon was never a star so it apparently hasn't been worth someone's while to dig into the story. Since nature abhors a vacuum, interested parties will supply their own explanations that fit their views. I'll tell you this though, I never much liked a Rose-Gordon backcourt, but with Rose being out for most of the past two seasons, the Bulls could have used the '08-'09 BG...particularly in the 4th quarters.
I've always liked BG as a 6th man, Jason Terry type. I agree he doesn't make sense with a shoot first PG in the start backcourt. It'd be better to Rose with a scrappy, off the ball type like Jimmy and let Ben provide some pizzazz off the bench. In any case, it's a moot point by now. But I agree, BG post-Bulls is a bit of a mystery.
I think the K4E's theory that Ben Gordon played for his pay day and then eased up is probably the most likely answer to why his post-Bulls career has been so lackluster. But a part of me wonders if teams just haven't fed him minutes and allowed him to play through his cold starts. One thing I remember about that guy is that he used to start every season shooting brutally and at some point a couple months in he would start hitting everything. It may just be a question of patience. Charlotte might not have the liberty to feed Gordon minutes with Kemba Walker on the roster.
One last thing about player fit: Do any of you think that Thibodeau's defensive schemes may have sidetracked Carlos Boozer's career? I've heard Lawrence Holmes say on the Score that there's no reason Boozer can't be a lock down defender because he moves his feet on the offensive end. I think that's one of those statements that just falls apart when you look at it. Thibodeau has his bigmen to track point guards all the time. Boozer isn't cut out for that. Thib's schemes play to Boozer's weaknesses.
Defensively Boozer is a very poor fit for Thibdoeau's scheme, which needs agile big men who can hedge on screens and cover lots of space. Pretty much the exact opposite of what Boozer is capable of doing. Boozer does move his feet very well on offense, but I've come to appreciate that defensive athleticism and offensive athleticism are not always the same thing, even though many people assume ability on one side of the ball ought to automatically transfer to the other. Our team provides a variety of examples to illustrate this point. I've always thought Luol Deng is a grade A NBA athlete......on defense. He moves his feet exceptionally well, has remarkable balance, and very good lateral quickness. On offense he plays like an uncoordinated giraffe (even though he's still effective). A more subtle example is Derrick Rose. Despite his offensive brilliance, I've never thought he's played with a lot of lateral quickness on defense, and don't think he has the natural defensive ability of a prime Kirk Hinrich, who was exceptional in his ability to switch directions and use a combination of speed and power in defensive activities that have unique locomotive requirements, like chasing around screens and fighting through picks.
I'm convinced that somewhere along the line a coach told Boozer, "get defensive rebounding position on your man and don't let it go for anything." Boozer has never forgotten this directive and continues to follow it to a tee. Of course the problem is that Thibodeau, and most modern NBA defensive coaches, demand that big men leave their primary assignments to "help." Boozer can't seem to shake that long ago voice in his head telling him to hold his rebounding position. Result: great defensive rebounding numbers and one of the worst bigs in terms of help defense in the NBA.
I'm interested in what other people think about Boozer's D. Watching him just stand there and not help, not challenge, its inexplicable sometimes. Its not like he can't move. Part of me thinks that he's trying to maximize his $$$. His bread and butter is on offense and he knows that scoring, passing and collecting rebounds gets him paid. Fouls don't. Getting pulled from games due to foul trouble doesn't get you paid either. He's smart that way.... the man is not an idiot, in fact, he seems very, very professional. Now, a lesser offensive player at the 4 would not get playing time, but he's good enough on offense that coaches will look the other way for usually his selfish play on D.
How's Lu doing? Cleveland tried to give him away but there were no takers. His stock seems to be going down, down, down. He's played 19 games for Cleveland, shooting .419 with 5 rebounds and 14.3 PPG. It's looking to me like guys who look average or worse elsewhere look like superstars in Thibs' schemes. This is true for Lu perhaps, but sure seems to be true for guys like DJ and Nate Robinson.
Interesting post...asks the question and gives the detailed answer. While I'm sure that none of this is funny to Deng or his agent, the Bulls $10mil/season offer to Deng which everyone characterized as "low-ball" might end up looking pretty good. Can't help wondering if it'll be there for Deng in July and whether Thibodeau will exert any influence.
How is Omer doing? This time the question isn't rhetorical. The Lakers will probably make Lu a big offer.
Omer has had a tough go this season what with the best center in the league coming to his team. I feel sorry for him more than I usually feel sorry for multi-millionaire 7-foot tall Turks. He's in his own personal NBA hell. Nice player wasted. As for Deng, maybe all his detractors were right all along. If so, he'll be lucky to get a MLE offer this offseason.
If people are rational, maybe. But there's going to be several teams with cap space to burn and he may appear to be the best of the leftovers. What is our record since the trade? Maybe his detractors are right that we can replace him as we did when he missed extended time. What was our record in his big scoring games this season? An advanced stats guy might conclude he took a lot of the worst shots in basketball: long range 2pt shots. Low percentage. He can complain about the culture in Cleveland, but you expect a veteran of his background to go there and lead by example. Omer is much better than Nazr. What kind of basketball decision is that?
Asik is currently better at basketball than Nazr Mohammed, but let's not oversimplify "basketball decision" because salary cap and luxury tax impacts often need to be considered in basketball decisions...you can't spend whatever you might like to. Interestingly, If the Bulls had been able to keep Asik, they'd probably be looking to trade him now, same as Houston is and for the same reason...their #1 center is a stud and no team wants to spend $8+mil on a 15 mpg player.
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mlm45egeki/1-chicago-bulls/ 1. Chicago Bulls 5-year Average Profit: $55 million The Bulls' average profit dwarfs other NBA teams thanks to the league's best home game attendance in three of the last five years. Chicago, however, was out-earned the last two seasons by the New York Knicks. We're #1 at something, but it ain't basketball decisions.
Over a quarter $billion in profit. If they made the basketball decision to keep Asik, the profit would have been $245M. That's assuming about $30M in tax if his 3rd year salary put us $15M over the LT. The Chairman's kids gotta eat, you know.
