Chad Ford: Thunder Interested in Gordon

[dougthonus]

So I would argue that these are not so much flaws in his game as simply his "style of play" which has strengths and weaknesses just like every player. And if they are "flaws," then he must be extremely good at his strengths if he was the best player on the team for the past several seasons.

That's a good way of putting it.

I'm not bringing them up to bash Ben Gordon. I just don't want to go so far in the other direction that when we're looking at things people say about Gordon that they're completely dismissed.

The same things are brought up, because they're the same basic weaknesses people don't care for. Poor ball handler who always dribbles off his foot would be another one.

As a side note, I don't think Gordon has been the best player on this team for five years. In fact, I think that's a fairly ridiculous statement. His first two years in the league he was basically a horrible defender and shot a really low percentage.

His third and fourth years he was arguably best player on the team. I say arguably, because you could easily go with Luol Deng in either year, Kirk Hinrich in year three also would have been in the running. The Bulls were a pretty balanced team throughout all of Gordon's years here.

This past year, I'd say he was unequivocally the Bulls best player, but it's the only year I'd look back and say "it was definitely Gordon who was the best player".

 

[chi_hawks_23]

Regardless of whether he is our "best player", one issue still remains. Where are you going to find that 21ppg if he leaves?

Sure, Rose will pick up a bit of the slack. But who else? Tyrus...doubt it. Noah? Hah. Deng...maybe if he stays healthy. Salmons? He's coming off of a 18ppg career year. Can we expect him to jump to 20+ppg? Kirk? Sounds like he wont even be here next year.

Gordon has a niche....and its putting the ball in the hoop. Tough to replace something like that.

 

[AirP]

chi_hawks_23 wrote:

Regardless of whether he is our "best player", one issue still remains. Where are you going to find that 21ppg if he leaves?

Sure, Rose will pick up a bit of the slack. But who else? Tyrus...doubt it. Noah? Hah. Deng...maybe if he stays healthy. Salmons? He's coming off of a 18ppg career year. Can we expect him to jump to 20+ppg? Kirk? Sounds like he wont even be here next year.

Gordon has a niche....and its putting the ball in the hoop. Tough to replace something like that.

Where will those 21 points come from if we just lose Gordon?
- Derrick Rose will take some of those points
- Deng/Salmon duo will get some of those points since we never had both of them together
- Tyrus should also score better

Efficiency on offense will probably drop because of Gordon's great 3pt shooting but rebounding and defense should also go up. As Derrick Rose gets better, gets calls and starts to dominate the ball more, the less we'll miss Gordon's offense other then his great outside shooting.

 

[dougthonus]

Efficiency on offense will probably drop because of Gordon's great 3pt shooting but rebounding and defense should also go up. As Derrick Rose gets better, gets calls and starts to dominate the ball more, the less we'll miss Gordon's offense other then his great outside shooting.

I agree.

Our offensive efficiency, which is really the only offensive stat that matters, will drop without Gordon.

I also agree that it's likely our defense and rebounding will improve somewhat without Gordon, and I think it's likely that Rose will eventually help replace Gordon's production.

The lone problem in that is that after replacing Gordon's offensive production, we'll be back to where we were at the end of the year which is slightly above average a team. If we want to be a great team, we don't need to replace his production, we need to help surpass it and improve upon it.

 

[chi_hawks_23]

AirP wrote:

Where will those 21 points come from if we just lose Gordon?
- Derrick Rose will take some of those points
- Deng/Salmon duo will get some of those points since we never had both of them together
- Tyrus should also score better

Efficiency on offense will probably drop because of Gordon's great 3pt shooting but rebounding and defense should also go up. As Derrick Rose gets better, gets calls and starts to dominate the ball more, the less we'll miss Gordon's offense other then his great outside shooting.

Lets say Rose adds 4 ppg, which would put him around 21ppg. I can see Tyrus adding 3-4 ppg, which would put him at 14-15ppg next year.

You still have 14 ppg from Gordon gone. You really think Salmons/Deng are going to pick up that slack?

Lets say they each average 7ppg more than last year. That puts Salmons at 25.3ppg. Deng goes to 21ppg. <---- Both not gonna happen.

To me, the thought that "the remaining players will pick up the slack" is unrealistic. I can see Salmons at 20ppg (+2), Rose at 20ppg (+3), Deng at 16ppg (+2) and Tyrus at 12ppg (+2). That would cover 8 of the 21ppg that Gordon averaged.

The only way I see this team covering for Gordon leaving is if we land an all star in a trade. Otherwise, we are gonna need one hell of a defensive effort, every night, to be any good.

 

[AirP]

chi_hawks_23 wrote:

AirP wrote:

Where will those 21 points come from if we just lose Gordon?
- Derrick Rose will take some of those points
- Deng/Salmon duo will get some of those points since we never had both of them together
- Tyrus should also score better

Efficiency on offense will probably drop because of Gordon's great 3pt shooting but rebounding and defense should also go up. As Derrick Rose gets better, gets calls and starts to dominate the ball more, the less we'll miss Gordon's offense other then his great outside shooting.

Lets say Rose adds 4 ppg, which would put him around 21ppg. I can see Tyrus adding 3-4 ppg, which would put him at 14-15ppg next year.

You still have 14 ppg from Gordon gone. You really think Salmons/Deng are going to pick up that slack?

Lets say they each average 7ppg more than last year. That puts Salmons at 25.3ppg. Deng goes to 21ppg. <---- Both not gonna happen.

To me, the thought that "the remaining players will pick up the slack" is unrealistic. I can see Salmons at 20ppg (+2), Rose at 20ppg (+3), Deng at 16ppg (+2) and Tyrus at 12ppg (+2). That would cover 8 of the 21ppg that Gordon averaged.

The only way I see this team covering for Gordon leaving is if we land an all star in a trade. Otherwise, we are gonna need one hell of a defensive effort, every night, to be any good.

Well since Deng wasn't around while Salmons was around, I'll say yes...

You actually plug in ALL of Deng's points, not just extra, his "average" had no effect on the team when he was out.

Basically all year long we went with...
- SG Gordon, SF Deng
- SG Gordon, SF L.Hughes
- SG Gordon, SF Salmons

All that would change is...
- SG Salmons, SF Deng - And yes I believe these 2 can be close to the production of SG Gordon, SF Salmons... toss in added production from Rose and possibly Tyrus, we should be fine offensivly... just possibly not quite as efficient, but that depends a lot on Rose and Tyrus producing better.

This team will be fine without Gordon and will only go as far as Rose takes them...

The future isn't darker without Gordon, it's just different. Probably better defensivly, better rebounding but less offense efficiency.

 

[chi_hawks_23]

AirP wrote:

chi_hawks_23 wrote:

AirP wrote:

Where will those 21 points come from if we just lose Gordon?
- Derrick Rose will take some of those points
- Deng/Salmon duo will get some of those points since we never had both of them together
- Tyrus should also score better

Efficiency on offense will probably drop because of Gordon's great 3pt shooting but rebounding and defense should also go up. As Derrick Rose gets better, gets calls and starts to dominate the ball more, the less we'll miss Gordon's offense other then his great outside shooting.

Lets say Rose adds 4 ppg, which would put him around 21ppg. I can see Tyrus adding 3-4 ppg, which would put him at 14-15ppg next year.

You still have 14 ppg from Gordon gone. You really think Salmons/Deng are going to pick up that slack?

Lets say they each average 7ppg more than last year. That puts Salmons at 25.3ppg. Deng goes to 21ppg. <---- Both not gonna happen.

To me, the thought that "the remaining players will pick up the slack" is unrealistic. I can see Salmons at 20ppg (+2), Rose at 20ppg (+3), Deng at 16ppg (+2) and Tyrus at 12ppg (+2). That would cover 8 of the 21ppg that Gordon averaged.

The only way I see this team covering for Gordon leaving is if we land an all star in a trade. Otherwise, we are gonna need one hell of a defensive effort, every night, to be any good.

Well since Deng wasn't around while Salmons was around, I'll say yes...

You actually plug in ALL of Deng's points, not just extra, his "average" had no effect on the team when he was out.

Basically all year long we went with...
- SG Gordon, SF Deng
- SG Gordon, SF L.Hughes
- SG Gordon, SF Salmons

All that would change is...
- SG Salmons, SF Deng - And yes I believe these 2 can be close to the production of SG Gordon, SF Salmons... toss in added production from Rose and possibly Tyrus, we should be fine offensivly... just possibly not quite as efficient, but that depends a lot on Rose and Tyrus producing better.

This team will be fine without Gordon and will only go as far as Rose takes them...

The future isn't darker without Gordon, it's just different. Probably better defensivly, better rebounding but less offense efficiency.

Fair enough....we kinda agree to disagree B)

But for Bulls fans sake, I hope Gar and Pax are looking at it a little differently. It's almost a foregone conclusion that Kirk will be gone next year, and Deng will be injured for some time. You let Ben go, and now your talking 41+ ppg that we are missing from last year (w Ben,Kirk gone and Deng injured). And for a team that plays zero defense, that is a scary thought.

If we go into next year with Rose/Salmons/Deng as the 1-3, this team will not win 40 games. And if Deng goes out for the season with injuries, we may not win 30...regardless of whether or not Rose scores 25ppg and is an all-star.

 

[AirP]

chi_hawks_23 wrote:

AirP wrote:

chi_hawks_23 wrote:

AirP wrote:

Where will those 21 points come from if we just lose Gordon?
- Derrick Rose will take some of those points
- Deng/Salmon duo will get some of those points since we never had both of them together
- Tyrus should also score better

Efficiency on offense will probably drop because of Gordon's great 3pt shooting but rebounding and defense should also go up. As Derrick Rose gets better, gets calls and starts to dominate the ball more, the less we'll miss Gordon's offense other then his great outside shooting.

Lets say Rose adds 4 ppg, which would put him around 21ppg. I can see Tyrus adding 3-4 ppg, which would put him at 14-15ppg next year.

You still have 14 ppg from Gordon gone. You really think Salmons/Deng are going to pick up that slack?

Lets say they each average 7ppg more than last year. That puts Salmons at 25.3ppg. Deng goes to 21ppg. <---- Both not gonna happen.

To me, the thought that "the remaining players will pick up the slack" is unrealistic. I can see Salmons at 20ppg (+2), Rose at 20ppg (+3), Deng at 16ppg (+2) and Tyrus at 12ppg (+2). That would cover 8 of the 21ppg that Gordon averaged.

The only way I see this team covering for Gordon leaving is if we land an all star in a trade. Otherwise, we are gonna need one hell of a defensive effort, every night, to be any good.

Well since Deng wasn't around while Salmons was around, I'll say yes...

You actually plug in ALL of Deng's points, not just extra, his "average" had no effect on the team when he was out.

Basically all year long we went with...
- SG Gordon, SF Deng
- SG Gordon, SF L.Hughes
- SG Gordon, SF Salmons

All that would change is...
- SG Salmons, SF Deng - And yes I believe these 2 can be close to the production of SG Gordon, SF Salmons... toss in added production from Rose and possibly Tyrus, we should be fine offensivly... just possibly not quite as efficient, but that depends a lot on Rose and Tyrus producing better.

This team will be fine without Gordon and will only go as far as Rose takes them...

The future isn't darker without Gordon, it's just different. Probably better defensivly, better rebounding but less offense efficiency.

Fair enough....we kinda agree to disagree B)

But for Bulls fans sake, I hope Gar and Pax are looking at it a little differently. It's almost a foregone conclusion that Kirk will be gone next year, and Deng will be injured for some time. You let Ben go, and now your talking 41+ ppg that we are missing from last year (w Ben,Kirk gone and Deng injured). And for a team that plays zero defense, that is a scary thought.

If we go into next year with Rose/Salmons/Deng as the 1-3, this team will not win 40 games. And if Deng goes out for the season with injuries, we may not win 30...regardless of whether or not Rose scores 25ppg and is an all-star.

Won't win 40... interesting.
Offensivly... A better PG by a few points, a slight drop at SG, a few points drop at SF, an improved PF, an improved C.
Defensivly... A better PG, a better SG, at SF... about the same defensivly, better rebounding, a same or slightly better PF, a better/stronger C.

As it stands, with everyone healthy most of the season, this is an above .500 team.

In the next 2 seasons I expect a nice leap forward from Rose, Tyrus and Noah. If Deng can improve some skills(which I have serious doubts about since it really hasn't happened since joining the NBA). This team will be looking at 50 wins in the very near future.

 

[mlewinth]

Seth wrote:

Hating Ben Gordon is and has been a method of psychological preparation for his departure. And this stance is rendered all the more irrational since he did have a good season, but we must necessarily exaggerate his flaws to make ourselves feel better. And Rose gets the opposite treatment: we praise him effusively as a star and overlook his flaws, despite the fact that he would be an average scoring point guard if taken on his present performance. And I think this harsh kind of player evaluation is a result of Gordon's contract limbo, and the the scary knowledge of how much we are going to depend on a second year PG to carry our team if/when Gordon is gone.

I guess you could say that a good thing to come out of his leaving would be the end of this emotional punditry and a fresh, sobering perspective, as there is a high potential of us being a low lottery team (if we can't acquire a stud).

That was deep. I'm tearing up.

 

[JimmyBulls]

If the Bulls lose Gordon, I don't think the future is as bleak as some might think. The loss of BG would put the team in the position where everything would probably have to go almost perfectly. Deng would have to be healthy for most (if not all) of the season, and Vinny would have to understand he's not a iso type of player. You can make the case that Vinny understands his game, but Deng's success under Vinny was still really brief before his injury. If Vinny leaves Deng on the wing and expect him the get his own the team's not going to be fun to watch.

Salmons is another guy that will have to give the Bulls more production. I think Salmons is a guy that suffered from scorer's tunnel vision on the court. I think he's a more complete player than what he showed with us during the season and playoffs. I think Vinny is going to have to push him to rebound more and be more of a playmaker for the bigs. The skill level is there with John Salmons, but he tends to push them to the waste side and look for buckets. Salmons will have to challenge himself to be the 18ppg, 5rpg, 4.0 apg guy his talent says he should be.

If the above stated things happens, there is no reason the Bulls shouldn't be able to at least match or come close to matching last season's success. There will be alot of things that will have to go right, but I didn't even factor in the improvement of Rose, Noah and Thomas. So even without Gordon the Bulls should be a very good team.

 

[mlewinth]

I don't have any idea where people think Tyrus and Noah will get better offensivly. Tyrus Thomas is an idiot. He doesn't know how to play to his strenghts and obviously Vinnie doesn't know how to put him in a position to play to his streghts. He is 4 in a 3's body. Tyrus took a step up this year in his production, true. However, Tyrus has never shown any "flashes" of dominance. He just gets really lucky some games and has a few more tips, or hits a few more of his shots, so on an occasional game he will drop 20+. Tyrus avg. 10.8 ppg this year. I don't personally see him getting that much better. Noah is a defensive player, period. That was his role on our team at the end of the season and that will be his role moving forward. The man can dunk and maybe hit a layup or two, but you will never be able to throw the ball down low to him and hope he scores. I don't see Noah ever averaging that much more than 10 points a game in his career.

Even if Noah and Tyrus improve a bit, that will not replace BG. See, if BG leaves, you need to do more then just replace 21 ppg. You need someone who will also enable you to spread the floor like BG did. The only player that I can really see possibly becoming a better 3pt shooter is Rose. Deng can't hit threes and Salmons can hit them, but he certiantly isint a 3pt specialist. Having someone like Ben Gordon on the team not only goes a long way just based upon his offensive production, but it also means teams have to defend us completely differently. If we don't have Gordon next year, Rose will be double-teamed every play. That will make it tougher for him to get reliable 3 point attempts. When Rose cuts, who will he dish it too beyond the arc when the defense collapses on him? Well that answer is easy because there will be only 1 guy on the team that can possibly hit a 3, Salmons. So teams will know if you collapse on Rose, you can ease off on Deng and keep a man on Salmons. If you have Ben Gordon, defenses will be forced to stay honest and won't be able to play Rose too tight. Also, what about the nights that Rose isint hitting his shots? Who do we defer to then? I think we can all agree, Salmons had a couple domininent games, but there were many games our offense wasnt in sync and Salmons never tried to put the team on his back and carry the scoring load. BG ALWAYS tried to do that. Some times he succeeded, sometimes he failed, but that is the same as any other premier scorer in this leauge.

We will be a very different team next year if we come back with the same team minus Gordon. I say we win 35 games, even if Rose improves.

 

[AirP]

Seth wrote:

Hating Ben Gordon is and has been a method of psychological preparation for his departure. And this stance is rendered all the more irrational since he did have a good season, but we must necessarily exaggerate his flaws to make ourselves feel better. And Rose gets the opposite treatment: we praise him effusively as a star and overlook his flaws, despite the fact that he would be an average scoring point guard if taken on his present performance. And I think this harsh kind of player evaluation is a result of Gordon's contract limbo, and the the scary knowledge of how much we are going to depend on a second year PG to carry our team if/when Gordon is gone.

I guess you could say that a good thing to come out of his leaving would be the end of this emotional punditry and a fresh, sobering perspective, as there is a high potential of us being a low lottery team (if we can't acquire a stud).

Too many of you think Gordon's a bigger difference maker to this team then he really is. There's no denying he's carried this team here and there, but he's also helped dig some pretty huge holes for this team to have to work out of. Without someone like Salmons who can handle playing SG(although maybe not as well offensivly) maybe we're in some trouble, but that greatly softens the blow.

 

[chi_hawks_23]

AirP wrote:

Won't win 40... interesting.
Offensivly... A better PG by a few points, a slight drop at SG, a few points drop at SF, an improved PF, an improved C.
Defensivly... A better PG, a better SG, at SF... about the same defensivly, better rebounding, a same or slightly better PF, a better/stronger C.

As it stands, with everyone healthy most of the season, this is an above .500 team.

In the next 2 seasons I expect a nice leap forward from Rose, Tyrus and Noah. If Deng can improve some skills(which I have serious doubts about since it really hasn't happened since joining the NBA). This team will be looking at 50 wins in the very near future.

There is more to the game than just your starting lineup. All youve done is take your 18ppg 6th man, make him a starter, and then say "look, we are just as productive in our starting lineup". But your stealing from your bench to cover your starting lineup. Bottom line, your still minus 21ppg overall, as a team. If teams were only able to dress 5 players, then yes, I'd agree with you here. But our advantage last year was our bench. If we lost Gordon and Kirk, its a huge weakness. We probably end up a 7th or 8th seed again, best case scenario.

Overall, we are more than likely minus Kirk next year. You add Gordon to that list, and your short 30ppg and 2 key players from last years playoff team. And to make matters worse, your assuming production out of a guy (Deng) who hasn't been able to produce or stay healthy.

There is no way this team is better without Gordon (all things being equal) IMHO...no matter how someone swings it.

 

[AirP]

chi_hawks_23 wrote:

AirP wrote:

Won't win 40... interesting.
Offensivly... A better PG by a few points, a slight drop at SG, a few points drop at SF, an improved PF, an improved C.
Defensivly... A better PG, a better SG, at SF... about the same defensivly, better rebounding, a same or slightly better PF, a better/stronger C.

As it stands, with everyone healthy most of the season, this is an above .500 team.

In the next 2 seasons I expect a nice leap forward from Rose, Tyrus and Noah. If Deng can improve some skills(which I have serious doubts about since it really hasn't happened since joining the NBA). This team will be looking at 50 wins in the very near future.

There is more to the game than just your starting lineup. All youve done is take your 18ppg 6th man, make him a starter, and then say "look, we are just as productive in our starting lineup". But your stealing from your bench to cover your starting lineup. Bottom line, your still minus 21ppg overall, as a team. If teams were only able to dress 5 players, then yes, I'd agree with you here. But our advantage last year was our bench. If we lost Gordon and Kirk, its a huge weakness. We probably end up a 7th or 8th seed again, best case scenario.

Overall, we are more than likely minus Kirk next year. You add Gordon to that list, and your short 30ppg and 2 key players from last years playoff team. And to make matters worse, your assuming production out of a guy (Deng) who hasn't been able to produce or stay healthy.

There is no way this team is better without Gordon (all things being equal) IMHO...no matter how someone swings it.

I think you'll be very surprised. I'm pretty sure that a team that wouldn't trade Hinrich and toss Rose out to the wolves aren't just going to leave the cupboard bare on the bench.

By the way, who's our 18 ppg 6th man? I know who our 20 ppg 6th man who played starting SG for us this year was.

So what if Deng is healthy most of the year next year, does this drastically change your way of thinking about this team?

 

[chi_hawks_23]

AirP wrote:

I think you'll be very surprised. I'm pretty sure that a team that wouldn't trade Hinrich and toss Rose out to the wolves aren't just going to leave the cupboard bare on the bench.

This is why I think the Bulls must keep one of Gordon or Hinrich. If we come back without both, holy balls we are in trouble.

By the way, who's our 18 ppg 6th man? I know who our 20 ppg 6th man who played starting SG for us this year was.

John Salmons. Thats assuming Deng starts over him.

So what if Deng is healthy most of the year next year, does this drastically change your way of thinking about this team?

Sure would. That would give us another solid contributer off the bench, and possibly a starter depending no how well he plays. But, you must look at his past and understand that its a crapshoot. He may be contributing, he may not.

 

[JimmyBulls]

If Salmons comes off the bench I doubt he'll be a 20 point scorer.

 

[AirP]

chi_hawks_23 wrote:

AirP wrote:

I think you'll be very surprised. I'm pretty sure that a team that wouldn't trade Hinrich and toss Rose out to the wolves aren't just going to leave the cupboard bare on the bench.

This is why I think the Bulls must keep one of Gordon or Hinrich. If we come back without both, holy balls we are in trouble.

By the way, who's our 18 ppg 6th man? I know who our 20 ppg 6th man who played starting SG for us this year was.

John Salmons. Thats assuming Deng starts over him.

If we loose Hinrich and Gordon, why would Salmons come off the bench and not start at SG?

 

[??? ??????]

What holes exactly does Gordon dig us in? You mean like the hole he dug us in, in Game 5, when he hit the potential game winning shot...only to have John Salmons give it up on the other end to Paul Pierce?

 

[AirP]

??? ?????? wrote:

What holes exactly does Gordon dig us in? You mean like the hole he dug us in, in Game 5, when he hit the potential game winning shot...only to have John Salmons give it up on the other end to Paul Pierce?

My bad, a couple individual shots changes everything, we should just continue to move forward with him, he only has bad offensive games about 30-35% of the time. That's the best way to build a consistant winner... a top option who is very streaky. He averages out very efficiently over the whole season, but from night to night you don't know what you'll get from him and with that... it's hard to build a consistant offense with that type of player as one of your main options.

Hey, maybe in game 6 where he missed 15 FGs out of 21 win game 6? He did make 11 of 12 free throws but that's another what 5-6 FGs that he missed but got fouled on?

I understand pressure doesn't phase his game like it does for guys like Deng(who we vastly overpaid) but the guy will miss enough shots to put his team in a hole.

 

[??? ??????]

AirP wrote:

??? ?????? wrote:

What holes exactly does Gordon dig us in? You mean like the hole he dug us in, in Game 5, when he hit the potential game winning shot...only to have John Salmons give it up on the other end to Paul Pierce?

My bad, a couple individual shots changes everything, we should just continue to move forward with him, he only has bad offensive games about 30-35% of the time. That's the best way to build a consistant winner... a top option who is very streaky. He averages out very efficiently over the whole season, but from night to night you don't know what you'll get from him and with that... it's hard to build a consistant offense with that type of player as one of your main options.

Hey, maybe in game 6 where he missed 15 FGs out of 21 win game 6? He did make 11 of 12 free throws but that's another what 5-6 FGs that he missed but got fouled on?

I understand pressure doesn't phase his game like it does for guys like Deng(who we vastly overpaid) but the guy will miss enough shots to put his team in a hole.

What about the rest of the team that has bad offensive games 50-80% of the time?