Kush's Article

[Bullsman24]

JimmyBulls wrote:

Unfortunately, Gordon at his best will only give you about 20. .

do you have a problem with "only" 20 ppg??? gordon's 24th in the league in scoring, and you can't be disappointed with that.

and i'm fine with the assist numbers. most of the bull's assists come off of the extra pass to a three point shooter, due to our frontcourt's lack of reliability. i don't know about you, but i really don't want gordon passing up a 3 pointer to make the extra pass, simply because he's better than anyone on our team. i'd rather have him shoot a three at the top of the key than kirk or deng shooting a corner three. maybe salmons, but he prefers slashing most of the time.

[Fred]

In the 40+ years that this organization has existed, we've had 5 guys average 20 for winning Bulls team:

1. Chet Walker
2. Bob Love
3. Michael Jordan
4. Scottie Pippen
5. Ben Gordon

I believe we've had 10 total. You don't find guys who average 20 growing on trees. Be careful what you wish for.

Ben turned 26 on Saturday. Before Saturday, these are the only players in the NBA, 25 & under, with a higher scoring average than Ben Gordon's career 18 PPG:

Brandon Roy: 18.1
Chris Paul: 18.2
Chris Bosh: 18.9
Kevin Durant: 20.3
Amare Stoudamire: 21.0
Carmelo Anthony: 24.4
LeBron James: 27.3

[Fred]

dougthonus wrote:
[quote]:

I think many people under estimate Gordon, however, the Bulls made him a 10 million per year 2 years ago and a 9 million per year offer last summer. Let's see if he gets more this summer.

If not, then can you fault the Bulls for not having ante'd up more than he ends up making? I think it's fair to say Gordon overestimated his own worth as well.

Actually, it's completely unfair to say that since he wasn't an unrestricted free agent in any of those years. He didn't overestimate his value when those contracts were on the table. If Ben Gordon was an unrestricted free agent at the end of the 06-07 season, when he averaged 21 points, are you honestly going to try and argue that he wouldn't have been offered a contract for more than 5 years, 50 million from some team? In the summer of 2007, the Orlando Magic committed $233.2 million to just three players. The Charlotte Bobcats dished out $84 million to two players, the Detroit Pistons $85.5 million to three players, and the Milwaukee Bucks $81 million to three players. Do you really think a young 20 PPG scorer like Gordon, who led his team to 49 wins, couldn't have demanded more than what the Bulls were offering?

Paxson even admitted he would have gotten more on the open market...he was offered less money for security. Due to contract restrictions, he couldn't test the open market.

Gordon was a RESTRICTED free agent last year. If he was an UNRESTRICTED free agent, he would have signed something in the Monta Ellis range.

No one could have predicted the economic collapse. Just because he won't sign for more than 8 in this offseason DOES NOT mean that he overestimated his own worth in the summers of 07 and 08.

[??? ??????]

I don't understand why people knock Gordon for his ability to score. Scoring is the most important part of basketball. Whoever ends up with the most points at the end of the game wins.

I got the opportunity to talk with Norm Stewart, and he was talking about how when he would go scout players and personnel from other schools would be there, they would be talking about the guys. He would ask the other coaches what they think about certain players. He said, he would often hear the other coaches and scouts say something like, "He's a nice kid. But all he can do is shoot. He can't dribble, he can't pass." Which Stewart said he would turn to his staff, "Get on this kid." He explained that it was because whoever has the most points on the scoreboard at the end of the game wins. You can never have enough guys that can shoot the basketball. Norm Stewart finished with a 731-375 record. He is in the Collegiate Hall of Fame.

The point being, if you can score, you have a place on the basketball team. I don't think anyone who looks critically at this, will think Ben is the problem with our defense. It's silly to blame him as it. The problem is the front court. They don't know how to lock up the paint and they give up too many second chance opportunities. If anyone here thinks that Ben is such an insurmountable defensive liability, then they will have to explain why we were the #1 defensive team in the NBA with Ben Gordon as a starter.

To me, I find it is scary to think of Ben Gordon not being on the Bulls. He's there best player right now. Most likely, he's not your best player going forward. If Rose becomes a superstar, Ben Gordon is just as much needed then as he is now. Same if the Bulls add Bosh or Stoudemire.

Yes, there are 20 some people ahead of Ben Gordon in PPG. But how many score like Gordon? Making a lot of three point shots leading to a high scoring efficiency? How many score in bunches to rally their team back into the ball game on a consistent basis? How many hit game tying and game winning shots? Not very many.

Two numbers jump out at me, as making it self evident as to why the Bulls would be crazy to not retain Gordon. The first number is 753 and the second number is 13.

The first number, 753, is the number of career three point field goals Ben Gordon has made. That makes him the greatest young three point shooter ever, as he recently broke the record for most three point shots made in the first five years of a players career. Did he just get it by chucking? Nope. Look at the guys in the top 100 on that list, and only two players, Hubert Davis and Mark Price had a higher three point percentage, and Gordon made more three pointers than both of those guys combined!

You don't get rid of this guy. Players generally become better three point shooters as they get older, so we can probably expect the same for Gordon.

The second number, 13, is the number of game winning shots that Gordon had made. What's that number good for? Third most amount of game winners made since he has entered the league. He is already half way there to breaking Jordan's mark of 25. If Gordon signed and played out a six year contract, he would be on pace to break that Bulls record by the end of his contract.

Ben Gordon is not a perfect player, but because of the skills he does bring, and the way he impacts the game with the timing of his scoring, he is a super valuable player. You don't let these guys go, you suck it up and take the luxury tax hit for one year if it is needed. It is imperative for the Bulls to re-sign Gordon, or get major value back in a trade for him.

[Seth]

The reasons the fans are indifferent to Gordon this year has to do with trying to detach themselves from someone who's not in the cards, I don't think it's a rejection of his style of play. I don't think anyone, even casual fans, are nostalgic for Andres Nocioni, for example. Everyone was horrible last year and everyone looked expendable, and it's not the fans fault that JR botched the deal. Now that we have rose and we look decent, everyone wants Ben Gordon. The reason Kirk was the face of the franchise in 06 was because we were a "hustle" team and god a rep as good defenders and Kirk epitomized that sentiment. The personality of the new chicago bulls. Personality gets you endorsements. Gordon was not known for his defense, and he couldn't create off the dribble, and then there was the 6th man stigma. I love Gordon because I am a bulls fan, but lets be honest, he might be one of the least exciting 20+ PPG guards in the NBA. As much as I like to see a guy score time after time in rhythm, from mostly the elbow and the three, it doesn't sell jerseys. Don't blame the casual fan for Gordon being on the QO. They weren't the ones who decided Kirk was worth that money. And that Gordon wasn't worth a similar amount and that Deng was was worth a bit more. This is all on JR, and his irrational sacrificial logic after the disaster of 07-- which had to do with BG's overwhelming identity as a jumpshooter which was also the teams identity, who lived by it one year and dyed by it the next.

[dougthonus]

Actually, it's completely unfair to say that since he wasn't an unrestricted free agent in any of those years. He didn't overestimate his value when those contracts were on the table. If Ben Gordon was an unrestricted free agent at the end of the 06-07 season, when he averaged 21 points, are you honestly going to try and argue that he wouldn't have been offered a contract for more than 5 years, 50 million from some team?

We'll never know, but national media reported that the Bulls were crazy for offering him 5/50. Chad Ford said in an article that Gordon was crazy for turning it down and would never get as good an offer.

Gilbert Arenas posted in his blog that Gordon was nuts.

Who knows what would have happened, but I don't remember a single national media person going "Wow Gordon's going to make way more than that later".

In the summer of 2007, the Orlando Magic committed $233.2 million to just three players. The Charlotte Bobcats dished out $84 million to two players, the Detroit Pistons $85.5 million to three players, and the Milwaukee Bucks $81 million to three players. Do you really think a young 20 PPG scorer like Gordon, who led his team to 49 wins, couldn't have demanded more than what the Bulls were offering?

Gordon was a RESTRICTED free agent last year. If he was an UNRESTRICTED free agent, he would have signed something in the Monta Ellis range.

I don't think so. Ellis's PER was 4-5 points higher than Gordon's, Gordon was believed to becoming off of a bad year by virtually everyone. His first two seasons in the league were very mediocre and highly overrated, his third season was outstanding, his fourth season was good, but not great.

No one could have predicted the economic collapse. Just because he won't sign for more than 8 in this offseason DOES NOT mean that he overestimated his own worth in the summers of 07 and 08.

I disagree. I think he vastly overrated his value. It's possible that the Bulls underrated his value, but it was widely believed he wanted a max deal as an extension after his 3rd season. He even went on to claim that the Bulls needed to pay him more per year to get him to sign the early extension because he was giving up a year by taking a 5 year deal rather than a 6 year deal.

Whether that 50 million was too much or too little is up for debate, but you can't make a statement about Gordon's view of his own value, because you don't know it. You know it was more than 10 million per year, but you don't know how much more.

Coming off of 1 really above average season in his career, I think he overestimated his value. I thought he was nuts for not taking the Bulls offer this summer, and at the time said there was a greater than 50% chance that he would never see that much again, and that his floor was going to be 10+ million less while his ceiling by rejecting the deal was at most a couple million more.

So don't tell me that this was unforeseeable or only due to economic collapse, because it's not true.

The number of teams who could bid on him was set prior to him rejecting this deal. The fact that no one was going to go appreciably above 10 million per year was something I believed prior to the economic collapse and believe in more now. Gordon overextended his hand.

Gordon even realized it himself when he tried to call the Bulls back and take the deal after the deadline they set had passed, so even Ben Gordon realized, eventually, taking the deal was in his best interest.

Apparently ONLY YOU disagree.

[wjb1492]

??? ?????? wrote:

I don't understand why people knock Gordon for his ability to score. Scoring is the most important part of basketball. Whoever ends up with the most points at the end of the game wins.

I don't think people knock Ben for scoring at all, it's always the other parts of the game. The knee-jerk "bad defense" "turnover-prone" "too small" stuff is way overstated, but I do think it's fair to say Ben is elite at scoring and roughly average, maybe slightly above average at everything else. I just don't see that as a knock - he's an exceptionally good, extremely efficient scorer, and while that may compensate for many of his flaws as a player it doesn't erase them.

I think saying scoring is the most important part of basketball - with the implication that the guy who scores is thus most important - oversimplifies it. How many points a guy puts up (and on how many shots) is the most easily quantifiable part of the final score, sure, but how many points the other side scores is equally important and infinitely more difficult to judge. We've seen that debate a million times this season, with people wanting to determine whether Derrick or Kirk played better defense by merely looking at how many points the counterpart scored while they were in the game. It's much easier to say that the Bulls would have lost without Ben's "x" points than to determine how many points another player's defense prevented.

The point being, if you can score, you have a place on the basketball team. I don't think anyone who looks critically at this, will think Ben is the problem with our defense. It's silly to blame him as it. The problem is the front court. They don't know how to lock up the paint and they give up too many second chance opportunities. If anyone here thinks that Ben is such an insurmountable defensive liability, then they will have to explain why we were the #1 defensive team in the NBA with Ben Gordon as a starter.

I agree that people spend an awful lot of time debating and critiquing over the backcourt, when it's been the solid part of the team for a while now. I never quite understood in previous years why there had to be such a Kirk vs. Ben issue when they were both on the team and both important to its success. But, it makes sense this year because of the money aspect of it. I would love to keep the backcourt as is while still upgrading the front court.

And while I agree that Ben's defensive issues are hardly insurmountable, and think he has been much improved this year, I'd hardly give him credit for the stellar defense of years past. IMO, he was a definite weak link in those years, but the rest of the team was able to compensate - and Ben benefited from being "the" scorer on those teams. The team as it stands currently obviously sucks at defense and is much better at offense, which changes the equation. Maybe the new equation is build around offense and outgun the other team, but maybe the equation is get points from other positions and look for more defense at SG. That's not intended as a slam on Ben, but an acknowledgment that he is the guy not signed and we don't know for sure what trades are available. We can gripe about past mistakes, but that's not going to change the immediate fact that it will take something proactive to keep Ben, and it just might not be possible.

Ben Gordon is not a perfect player, but because of the skills he does bring, and the way he impacts the game with the timing of his scoring, he is a super valuable player. You don't let these guys go, you suck it up and take the luxury tax hit for one year if it is needed. It is imperative for the Bulls to re-sign Gordon, or get major value back in a trade for him.

Value in this league always comes back to cost. Ben has been uber-valuable because he hasn't been paid yet. I would love it if JR would break open the bank to keep him, but I'm not getting my hopes up. I hope the Bulls can at a minimum get something valuable to the team back if he doesn't sign with the team, but I don't see the doom and gloom scenario if they don't. There are always multiple paths to success and multiple paths to failure.

Depending on how the rest of the team is constituted next season, I can see arguments for keeping either Ben or Kirk. And I think that's what ticks off the Ben fan club - in my experiences with big Ben fans, it's not enough to acknowledge that he's a great player and is a big part of the team.

[Fred]

dougthonus wrote:
[quote][quote]

So don't tell me that this was unforeseeable or only due to economic collapse, because it's not true.

The number of teams who could bid on him was set prior to him rejecting this deal. The fact that no one was going to go appreciably above 10 million per year was something I believed prior to the economic collapse and believe in more now. Gordon overextended his hand.

Apparently ONLY YOU disagree.

Let's pretend for a minute that the country is experiencing the sunny economic of times of October, 2006, when Hinrich signed his 5 year, 47 million contract. Hinrich felt that he could have received more as an unrestricted free agent, but he signed for the security.
"For awhile in the negotiations, I struggled with pride. I felt like, `Maybe I'm worth more." - Kirk Hinrich

Based on Hinrich's career up to that point (Keep in mind his best season by far occurred in the 06-07 season, after the signed the contract on October 31st), ask yourself how much the unrestricted Ben Gordon of today would have received in that environment. How can you possibly argue that he would not have received more...a lot more?

[collisrost]

I think the "How much could Gordon have made in a good economy?" argument is an interesting one, but a little flawed. Every offseason there's different teams with room under the cap, sometimes lots of teams, sometimes only a couple. If all depends on which teams and what needs they have. It also depends on whether they're under the cap with the intention of signing a big free agent or whether it's simply because the franchise is cheap.

In the case of Gordon he's a valuable player but he's not the kind of plahyer you'd trade assets to get under the cap to sign. He's a borderline star, not a superstar. So the kind of team that will sign him might be one who loses out on a premier free agent.

Even if the economy were good this year, there's still just a couple of teams under the cap since most are waiting for 2010. Ben would have a shot at a decent payday this year with a good economy, but by no means would it be a sure thing. As things turned out, it's clear he'd have been better off taking the Bulls offer last year than rolling the dice this year.

[Dpauley23]

I really don't know how valuable Ben Gordon is around the league. I belive one assiassant gm said that he is defianetely more valuable to Bulls than any other team. I don't think Gordon is borderline star rather he's probably 2 to 3 year allstar guy if he had respect around the league. He doesn't get tons of respect from refs which cost him from being a star in the league

[??? ??????]

collisrost wrote:

I think the "How much could Gordon have made in a good economy?" argument is an interesting one, but a little flawed. Every offseason there's different teams with room under the cap, sometimes lots of teams, sometimes only a couple. If all depends on which teams and what needs they have. It also depends on whether they're under the cap with the intention of signing a big free agent or whether it's simply because the franchise is cheap.

In the case of Gordon he's a valuable player but he's not the kind of plahyer you'd trade assets to get under the cap to sign. He's a borderline star, not a superstar. So the kind of team that will sign him might be one who loses out on a premier free agent.

Even if the economy were good this year, there's still just a couple of teams under the cap since most are waiting for 2010. Ben would have a shot at a decent payday this year with a good economy, but by no means would it be a sure thing. As things turned out, it's clear he'd have been better off taking the Bulls offer last year than rolling the dice this year.

I think that Miami was prepping themselves to sign Ben this summer. Unfortunately for them, instead of the cap growing, it became clear that the cap was going to shrink, eliminating their potential capspace that they would use to sign Ben. Once it became clear they wouldn't have capspace, the Heat decided to take on some extra salary commitments for next year in the form of Jermaine O'neal.

Ben picked a bad year to be the first major free agent to take the qualifying offer. Hopefully the Bulls make a good faith move, and offer Gordon at least what they offered last year, but I have a hunch they won't do that.

[Hendu0520]

Well I don't live in Chicago but in New York everyone knows Ben Gordon is the best player on the team, hits big shots and has a great all round game. Unfortunately for us that is not a good thing that our best player is small for hs position. Allen Iverson was able to bring his team to the finals but Ben is no MVP of the league. He turned down a fair offer, he is not worth more bottom line. Oh by the way 20 ppg? Salmons is averaging 20 for us, I didn't see his name on that 20ppg list. And next year Rose should creap up to 20 as well if BG is not there. Ben gets a bad rap because he scores 37 one night and 12 the next. Name one inconsistent player in the history of the league who is the team's best player that didn't get hammered. Patrick Ewing got killed for being inconsistent and he was way better than Gordon, its just comes with the territory. He is a great player but Kush makes it like he is a 6 time allstar, he hasn't ever made the all star team (although the year Caron Butler made it over him was crazy) I just want a superstar on this team to pair with our future PG superstar and if keeping Gordon prevents that then he will have to go. The only problem I have with keeping Hinrich, who yes is not as good as BG, is that he plays the same position as our best player next year(DR) and he makes a lot of money. Probably too much to play 20 min a game

[pinkizdead]

i like kush's opinions and ideas, but he can get a bit too emotional. either way he's sold me on "dump funk".

[??? ??????]

Hendu0520 wrote:

Well I don't live in Chicago but in New York everyone knows Ben Gordon is the best player on the team, hits big shots and has a great all round game. Unfortunately for us that is not a good thing that our best player is small for hs position. Allen Iverson was able to bring his team to the finals but Ben is no MVP of the league. He turned down a fair offer, he is not worth more bottom line. Oh by the way 20 ppg? Salmons is averaging 20 for us, I didn't see his name on that 20ppg list. And next year Rose should creap up to 20 as well if BG is not there. Ben gets a bad rap because he scores 37 one night and 12 the next. Name one inconsistent player in the history of the league who is the team's best player that didn't get hammered. Patrick Ewing got killed for being inconsistent and he was way better than Gordon, its just comes with the territory. He is a great player but Kush makes it like he is a 6 time allstar, he hasn't ever made the all star team (although the year Caron Butler made it over him was crazy) I just want a superstar on this team to pair with our future PG superstar and if keeping Gordon prevents that then he will have to go. The only problem I have with keeping Hinrich, who yes is not as good as BG, is that he plays the same position as our best player next year(DR) and he makes a lot of money. Probably too much to play 20 min a game

Ben isn't really all that inconsistent. He is average consistency wise.

Look at Ben and the 4 guys above/below him in PPG.

1. Tim Duncan - 5.57797551
2. Yao Ming - 6.03951516
3. David West - 7.03583569
4. Joe Johnson - 7.05448551
5. Dwight Howard - 7.26470983
6. Ben Gordon - 7.57699147
7. Al Harrington - 7.81913607
8. Paul Pierce - 8.24548593
9. Vince Carter - 8.98300698

Those are the players in Gordon's scoring bracket's standard deviations.

Ben Gordon's doesn't stick out. Two things you can notice, big men generally have higher consistency than perimeter players, but also, that Ben Gordon compares favorably with the guards on there consistency wise.

[Hendu0520]

That is interesting, nice stat. Out of the guards on the list Vince has always been critisized, I gues Joe hasn't but he is so underrated no one realizes how good he is. Paul was going to be run out of Boston until KG came. I like Gordon but I don't think he gets overcritisized more than any of those guys. Also there is no one else under 6'7" on that list, so if they are off they make up for it in other areas more than Ben can because of his size.
Kush's point on Luol Deng being the biggest problem was right on. If he does come back will he ever get any better? And Salmons has definately taken his spot if we do keep BG, so then he would be a 10 mil dollar backup. I wouldn't mind seeing Deng go out of the three.

[??? ??????]

Hendu0520 wrote:

That is interesting, nice stat. Out of the guards on the list Vince has always been critisized, I gues Joe hasn't but he is so underrated no one realizes how good he is. Paul was going to be run out of Boston until KG came. I like Gordon but I don't think he gets overcritisized more than any of those guys. Also there is no one else under 6'7" on that list, so if they are off they make up for it in other areas more than Ben can because of his size.
Kush's point on Luol Deng being the biggest problem was right on. If he does come back will he ever get any better? And Salmons has definately taken his spot if we do keep BG, so then he would be a 10 mil dollar backup. I wouldn't mind seeing Deng go out of the three.

Interesting note on Pierce. It was highly rumored that the Celtics were trying to trade Pierce to the Bulls for Ben Gordon on draft day 2004.

[collisrost]

I think it's not so much about Gordon's consistency or the fact that he's "just a scorer" or any of that stuff. It's the fact that Gordon isn't your typical 2-guard, which means you need a tall point guard or some other adjustment to try to hide him on the defensive end. I'm not saying he's a bad defender, I'm saying he's fine but coaches and teams prefer your typical sized player for the position just because it doesn't require other lineup re-arrangements. How long were the Bulls looking for a good tall backup two guard who could play the point in spot minutes because of the Kirk and Ben backcourt? Other teams would find themselves in this position if they signed Gordon as their main backcourt guy.

I guess I'm saying Gordon's stats don't tell the whole picture of how teams view him.