Kush's Article

[Fred]

I loved Kush's article on Gordon. It contains a lot of great ammo when it comes to arguing with drones.

I had a heated argument with a good friend who threw that familiar, "All he does is score" argument out there. He followed it up with the beauty (which I've heard several times before), "He's a shorter version of Ron Mercer."

Ron Mercer played from 1997-2005. He had a career 3-point percentage of 25%. His career shooting percentage was .429. He never averaged 20 points per game in any season he played.

No team ever worried about Ron Mercer standing alone at the 3-point line. They worry about Ben at the 3-point line.

Ben extended the D. Mercer did not. Don't let a drone insult Gordon by comparing him to Mercer. There is no comparison. Educate them.

[chicagosportsfan]

That we should do.

[dougthonus]

Fred wrote:

I loved Kush's article on Gordon. It contains a lot of great ammo when it comes to arguing with drones.

I had a heated argument with a good friend who threw that familiar, "All he does is score" argument out there. He followed it up with the beauty (which I've heard several times before), "He's a shorter version of Ron Mercer."

Ron Mercer played from 1997-2005. He had a career 3-point percentage of 25%. His career shooting percentage was .429. He never averaged 20 points per game in any season he played.

No team ever worried about Ron Mercer standing alone at the 3-point line. They worry about Ben at the 3-point line.

Ben extended the D. Mercer did not. Don't let a drone insult Gordon by comparing him to Mercer. There is no comparison. Educate them.

I don't like some of the arguing against Gordon, but you make it seem like anyone who likes Hinrich is just a moron or that anyone who dislikes Gordon is a moron.

There are a lot of reasons to like Hinrich (independent of how much you like Gordon, the two don't need to be compared, you can like Hinrich and like Gordon).

There are a lot of reasons to dislike Gordon (as there are Hinrich), and you can dislike Gordon independently to whether you like or dislike Hinrich.

[Fred]

[/b]

[b]I don't like some of the arguing against Gordon, but you make it seem like anyone who likes Hinrich is just a moron or that anyone who dislikes Gordon is a moron.

There are a lot of reasons to like Hinrich (independent of how much you like Gordon, the two don't need to be compared, you can like Hinrich and like Gordon).

There are a lot of reasons to dislike Gordon (as there are Hinrich), and you can dislike Gordon independently to whether you like or dislike Hinrich.

I have no problem with the people who like Hinrich. Heck, he's had such a good year, I'm becoming a rabid fan. I have a problem with the people who have a rabid hatred for Gordon. And unfortunately, with few exceptions, they always seem to be Hinrich-lovers.

[dougthonus]

Fred wrote:

I have no problem with the people who like Hinrich. Heck, he's had such a good year, I'm becoming a rabid fan.

So is he off your top three most hated Bulls of all time list that you gave me a week ago, when you said Hinrich, Buechler, and Hansen were your three most hated Bulls ever?

I don't know, sounds like some serious backpedaling and excuse making to me.

I have a problem with the people who have a rabid hatred for Gordon. And unfortunately, with few exceptions, they always seem to be Hinrich-lovers.

I don't know, given your stance as Hinrich is one of your three most hated Bulls of all time, I would have to say the reverse seems to be true.

[Morten Jensen]

This site should be renamed 'The Ben Gordon Project - Opening eyes since 2009'

I agree 100% with Kush, and I think it's about time people (Bulls fans in particular) gave Ben credit for his work here. He's already at 7,000 career points and 700 made three's. That's just five seasons work right there and he's turning 26 today.

For the past few years, I've said that I wanted to keep Ben unless we could get a serious upgrade at that position. Such an upgrade would mean we'd be sitting with a top 10 SG in the entire league. I'm very satisfied with Ben, and I desperately want to hang onto him this off-season.

If we get Bosh, I don't want for a second to hear/see/smell Reinsdorf refusing to pay the tax in order to keep Ben. You need to pay for good players, and despite strong financial efforts from the Bulls in regards to Nocioni, Deng & Hinrich, we're still left with our arguably best player unsigned.

Don't make Gordon the victim of prior errors. Begin to make those errors right, by signing the best one.

[dougthonus]

If we get Bosh, I don't want for a second to hear/see/smell Reinsdorf refusing to pay the tax in order to keep Ben. You need to pay for good players, and despite strong financial efforts from the Bulls in regards to Nocioni, Deng & Hinrich, we're still left with our arguably best player unsigned.

Don't make Gordon the victim of prior errors. Begin to make those errors right, by signing the best one.

I don't think you can blame an owner for avoiding the luxury tax. You just can't. These teams are businesses and this economy sucks.

I agree that some of the past signings were errors. However, Nocioni is gone, as is his contract which was turned into John Salmons which was a good deal. Hinrich's deal still isn't a bad contract IMO. It's not a great deal, but I think it's okay.

Deng's contract presently looks like a train wreck, if he doesn't get healthy AND play well, he could rank up there with Ben Wallace and that's hard to do IMO.

[Morten Jensen]

dougthonus wrote:

I don't think you can blame an owner for avoiding the luxury tax. You just can't. These teams are businesses and this economy sucks.

The economy does suck, and it's a valid point. However, JR skipped out on us plenty during the years where he brought home $50M in profits, which was by far the best in the NBA. Yes, hindsight is 20/20 due to Rose. But JR did veto a Gasol deal last season, which would have made our team much more competitive.

You're most likely right that the bad economy will prevent JR from paying the tax. But this is where I feel robbed. He had many opportunities to re-pay the fans for their loyalty, by taking on extra salary in trades, and he never did. Now that we finally have some strong core pieces, the economy issue comes up, which will once again see us stay under the tax and likely cost us Ben Gordon.

I agree that some of the past signings were errors. However, Nocioni is gone, as is his contract which was turned into John Salmons which was a good deal. Hinrich's deal still isn't a bad contract IMO. It's not a great deal, but I think it's okay.

I stand corrected on Hinrich. I did think it was a good deal at the time, and as the market was back then, I really can't call it a bad deal either. You're right. That said, I felt Deng got paid too much from day 1. I think it was too much to pay for a guy who had come off an injury and declined in play. He even got an increased offer, which I found retarded. Who was our competition? We in-directly told Gordon to prove his worth, but Deng was the golden boy all throughout. I still think that was horrible judgment from the Bulls and generally in very poor taste.

Deng's contract presently looks like a train wreck, if he doesn't get healthy AND play well, he could rank up there with Ben Wallace and that's hard to do IMO.

I see 'Ben Wallace' got through the swear filter somehow.

[Newskoolbulls]

Ben seems to have a bad reputation for no reason, what else could it be that no teams showed interest in a 20 ppg scorer this past offseason? Like I said in previous threads, how do you give Monta Ellis 66 million and he hasn't done nothing compared to BG yet this kid cant get any offers.

[chicagosportsfan]

since when do bulls fans bag on bg7?

[Morten Jensen]

chicagosportsfan wrote:

since when do bulls fans bag on bg7?

I'll admit this season has been better. But since his rookie year, people have been very quick to point out his faults. Some people, till this day, are still under the impression that Ben is one of the worst defensive guards in the NBA.

Yes, people are right when they say the majortiy of his game is scoring. But at the same time, they make it an insult and expect him to be an all-around player in the mold of a 6'7 guy who can get on the boards. Granted, Ben could have had higher assists numbers. But even pro-Gordon posters have never claimed Ben was perfect. He has faults, just like everyone else.

Another myth I love to see is the 'chucker' label. That's so wrong, for so many reasons. His efficiency is very good, and when you look at his size and position, it's even more impressive. During the past eight seasons (college and the NBA) Ben has not shot below 40% from behind the arc. This from a 6'2 shooting guard who is often matched up against players 6'6 or taller.

[chicagosportsfan]

i agree on the part of dengs contract, unless gets uninjury prone and starts playin at full caliber thats a waste of money that could of been put in gordons new contract.

[chicagosportsfan]

when the majority of your game is scoring isnt that what you want?

[Morten Jensen]

chicagosportsfan wrote:

when the majority of your game is scoring isnt that what you want?

I'm not quite following.

If the majority of your game is scoring, your role is definitely to score, yes. But my point is Gordon does more than score. The idea that people have about Gordon just scoring (and doing so inefficiently) is inaccurate.

Here's the problem.

People say this:

- Ben is a bad defender
- Ben is a chucker
- Ben only scores and nothing else

And here's the truth:

- Ben is an average defender
- Ben is an efficient scorer
- Ben is averaging 3.4 rebounds, 3.5 assists while primarily being a scorer. Those are decent overall numbers for a 6'2 SG who supposedly is a chucker.

I'll say once again that his assists numbers are not where I want them. But given how large an impact his assists have, I don't really mind. After all, we have a PG..

[chicagosportsfan]

and thats why we should have offered deng less money so we would have had enough money to offer gordon a comfortable contract.

[chicagosportsfan]

:woohoo: ben wallace is a swear word?!?! (sorry if it is)

[Kush77]

I don't have a problem with Hinrich either. I don't hate him, I like Kirk and I want him to do well.

My problem is the fans/media that give Hinrich a free pass.

Imagine what would happen if Ben Gordon had a season where he averaged 11 or 10 ppg. He would get run out of town. And he doesn't even have a contract extension. But Kirk does get a free pass.

When Gordon has some bad games, it's quickly pointed out. Usually because when Gordon plays bad - the Bulls play bad. Thus proving my point that he's valuable to this team. But, when Hinrich has 1 solid game, after a week of playing sub-par, the media trips over themselves to declare the Hinrich Renaissance. I just don't get it.

As for the contract. I understand the situation with the Bulls and the tax. But I just don't think Gordon should do the Bulls any favors.
I could totally see Gordon taking less money from another team. But I can't see Gordon taking a lesser deal (than Hinrich or Deng) just to help the Bulls' bottom line.

[JimmyBulls]

I am by no means a Gordon hater, but I would be more than happy to see him walk, and have his minutes go to Salmons. For all the positives Gordon brings to the table, the negatives makes him a replaceable player. Let's not fool ourselves, BG7 is a below average defender, who like it or not, is only good for buckets. You have to be a huge Gordon shill to think he makes anybody on this Bulls team better. The only thing you could probably pull out your rear is court spacing, but Salmons will do more than a good enough job spacing the court for Rose & others. You could also try to con people with his 3.5 assist per game average, but any true Bulls fan understands that agrument is dead on arrival. Iverson has a 6 assist career average, and he doesn't make his supporting cast any better and that's the same problem the Bulls have with Ben. At least Iverson would get you 30 points per game at his best, which made the Sixers hold on to him longer than they probably should've. Unfortunately, Gordon at his best will only give you about 20. And when you factor in his below average defense, his production is not even close to being irreplaceable. To be perfectly honest, Salmons will do more than a good enough job replacing BG7's production.

[Kush77]

JimmyBulls wrote:

I am by no means a Gordon hater, but I would be more than happy to see him walk, and have his minutes go to Salmons. For all the positives Gordon brings to the table, the negatives makes him a replaceable player. Let's not fool ourselves, BG7 is a below average defender, who like it or not, is only good for buckets. You have to be a huge Gordon shill to think he makes anybody on this Bulls team better. The only thing you could probably pull out your rear is court spacing, but Salmons will do more than a good enough job spacing the court for Rose & others. You could also try to con people with his 3.5 assist per game average, but any true Bulls fan understands that agrument is dead on arrival. Iverson has a 6 assist career average, and he doesn't make his supporting cast any better and that's the same problem the Bulls have with Ben. At least Iverson would get you 30 points per game at his best, which made the Sixers hold on to him longer than they probably should've. Unfortunately, Gordon at his best will only give you about 20. And when you factor in his below average defense, his production is not even close to being irreplaceable. To be perfectly honest, Salmons will do more than a good enough job replacing BG7's production.

you're right about Salmons, and that's why I think Gordon is going to leave. I think the Bulls should keep him (and pay him) but with the way Salmons has played, he could pick up the slack. I just worry is if this is just the career year for Salmons. When a guy breaks out at 29 you have to wonder.

As for BG, i've said it on my show before, I don't think he's the be-all end-all. But he's better than Hinrich, Sefolosha, Duhon or whoever else people said should start over him.

I would rather have Salmons replace Deng, but Deng (and his contract) aren't going anywhere.

[JimmyBulls]

Deng is this team's biggest x factor. The problem with Deng unfortunately, is he's being coached by a absolute moron. If you can't create your own offense in Vinny's so called system your game will go into the crapper. Every Bulls fan should know that's exactly what you shouldn't expect from Loul Deng. If you put Loul on a wing and expect him to get his own, this crappy season will turn into the rest of his career. The Bulls need a coach who has a true offensive system, and understands ball movement and play calling for players that need plays called for them. If Vinny some how gets a clue and become that brand of coach, then Deng's production will get back to a repspectable 17ppg, 6rpg or better level.

[dougthonus]

JimmyBulls wrote:

Deng is this team's biggest x factor. The problem with Deng unfortunately, is he's being coached by a absolute moron. If you can't create your own offense in Vinny's so called system your game will go into the crapper. Every Bulls fan should know that's exactly what you shouldn't expect for Loul Deng. If you put Loul on a wing a expect him to get his own, this crappy season will turn into the rest of his career. The Bulls need a coach who has a true offensive system, and understands ball movement and play calling for player that need plays called for them. If Vinny some how gets a clue and become that brand of coach, then Deng's production will get back to a repspectable 17ppg, 6rpg or better level.

+1 to this.

However, there was a period before Luol's leg started giving him problems where he came in and played really well in January, so hopefully Vinny/Deng figured something out.

I'm still skeptical of both Luol and Vinny's ability to use Luol in a way that's not moronic though.

[collisrost]

Honestly I think most of us agree that people underestimate Gordon's worth. He's a fine player and should have been given a contract last summer, no question. Sadly, I've resigned myself to the thought that in spite of it all, he's probably leaving this summer.

I just wonder what the Chicago bullseye is going to sound like a year from now if Ben's playing for another team. Will Fred be able to move on?

[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

[??? ??????]

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.