RealGM

i have one question, is Ben Gordon is gonna be here next year? or is he gonna sign with another team or get traded?

I remember reading something about Gordon signing the one year dear in order to be a UR Free agent the following summer. If he's moved, my guess is he'll be packaged for a Big Man I.E Gasol or for a scorer like T-mac. Time will tell

Bulls intend to match any offer.

ESPN & SI columnists have agreed that the Bulls offer of 5 years/$50 mil was above market value.

Ben reportedly was looking for $65 million. I seriously doubt if another team will offer Ben $50 million for 5 years. Ben will be in for a shock

So Ben may take the Qualifying Offer.

If he signs the qualifying offer then he cant be traded without his approval killing any idea of getting value for him.

If he signs the qualifying offer then he cant be traded without his approval killing any idea of getting value for him.

Ben won't agree to any trade if he takes the QO.

If he takes the QO that means he loses bird rights if he's traded, so if we traded him after that fact he could only sign with a team using that teams cap space.

This would vastly limit the market of teams able to bid on him at over the MLE price.

Just to clarify: If Ben takes QO, the Bulls keep his Bird Rights. If he takes the QO & approves a trade, the receiving team does not get Bird Rights.

doug is correct in his analysis - but i want to clarify that the Bulls do not lose ben's Bird Rights if he takes QO & stays put.

Its going to depend entirely on how things go the rest of this season for him and how much $$ he's offered.

People seem to be thinking that this move to the bench is going to drive him away. If so, I find that very perplexing. The only result so far from the move is that his market value has increased significantly.

I edited my post for clarity, but yes, that's what I meant.

DuckIII wrote:Its going to depend entirely on how things go the rest of this season for him and how much $$ he's offered.

People seem to be thinking that this move to the bench is going to drive him away. If so, I find that very perplexing. The only result so far from the move is that his market value has increased significantly.

In his last interview, Gordon said he would do whatever is best for the team, but he wasn't happy about being benched. I think its safe to assume that an unhappy player is less likely to return than a happy one.

So "seem to be thinking that this move to the bench is going to drive him away" is based on public comments. Its not just a wild ass guess.

I know its not a wild guess. What I find strange is the notion that Gordon would continue to hold said grudge when the move has led to one undisputable thing: A MAJOR increase in what his market value had become.

"Oooh, I'm sooo made at you guys for benching me despite the fact that my minutes, scoring, efficiency, impact, and notoriety have all increased dramatically as a result. I'm totally bailing because of it."

The presumption is that this is the core of his thought process: that the role means more than the production. If in fact that is Ben Gordon's attitude given how he's responded - and it remains his attitude this summer - I'll find that to be very strange indeed.

I'm not commenting on the posters drawing this conclusion. I'm commenting on how strange it would be if this ends up being true: that he leaves because of this despite the fact that its the only good thing thats happened to him all season. Before 3 games ago, I doubt his play would have warranted even a penny over the MLE. Now people are reminded what he can provide.

I don't think BG's value is dropping just because he's on the bench. He's proving himself to be more of a better scorer (so far BG has lead the Bulls in scoring 14 out of 29 games). That ability to score increases his value. However, I think the only thing that going to the bench has hurt BG is possibly "deflating" his stats in other categories, making him less appealing as an overall player. So its a TIE in the pros versus cons, imo. Don't get it twisted, BG has shown improvement year-after-year in the other categories, like passing and dribbling. I've seen him fall to the floor less this year as well. Hence, I think he'll stay with the Bulls, & the offer will be fair, as other teams will see they don't want to overpay for a small guard (who is seen as one-dimensional, when in fact he's not).

One question I've been meaning to ask is, have we asked for different things when Gordon was starting to now that he comes off the bench?

The difference in the way he approaches the game is light and day coming off the bench than starting, makes me wonder if it all falls on Gordon.

+1 For Duck when it comes to increasing Gordon's value. This move was the best thing that could happen to his value and future contract if he continues to score the way he's doing now.

But I also understand what fisk is saying. Gordon has a lot of pride and think of himself as a starter. So it's going to come down to what he thinks is most important. Dollars or a starting spot.

step wrote:One question I've been meaning to ask is, have we asked for different things when Gordon was starting to now that he comes off the bench?

The difference in the way he approaches the game is light and day coming off the bench than starting, makes me wonder if it all falls on Gordon.

I can't see how you can say the first thing and then come to the conclusion that you did. Gordon was being asked to do something when he was starting then he was asked to do something else when not starting so wouldn't it be natural for him to play differently?

Boylan is obviously just letting Gordon loose coming off the bench. His best attribute is to score, so when he comes off the bench he's given the green light to pretty much do what he wants out there.

Being on the bench doesn't affect Ben Gordon's free agency money. He still going to get paid. Like Kendall Gill said it's about the minutes he's playing he said Gordon is second on the team in minutes. He's playing starters minutes and is producing in crunch time(4th qtr). Everyone around the leauge knows what type of player Gordon is. In the postgame interview from yesterday's game Ben Gordon is happy here he's said he's having fun playing as team together. Everyone wants to be a starter but Gordon's accepting his role and taking sacrifice for the team cause the bench is weak and it needed help. Gordon is in a rhythm of late comeing off the bench and he knows that it has helped him and the team.

DuckIII wrote:I know its not a wild guess. What I find strange is the notion that Gordon would continue to hold said grudge when the move has led to one undisputable thing: A MAJOR increase in what his market value had become.

"Oooh, I'm sooo made at you guys for benching me despite the fact that my minutes, scoring, efficiency, impact, and notoriety have all increased dramatically as a result. I'm totally bailing because of it."

The presumption is that this is the core of his thought process: that the role means more than the production. If in fact that is Ben Gordon's attitude given how he's responded - and it remains his attitude this summer - I'll find that to be very strange indeed.

I'm not commenting on the posters drawing this conclusion. I'm commenting on how strange it would be if this ends up being true: that he leaves because of this despite the fact that its the only good thing thats happened to him all season. Before 3 games ago, I doubt his play would have warranted even a penny over the MLE. Now people are reminded what he can provide.

Several weeks ago, I made the comment that Gordon had become Duhon. I believe that more strongly now than before. I think that, for whatever reason, Gordon thought he was playing the way Skiles wanted him to before as far as letting the game come to him and playing within the system.

I think Gordon's transformation since Skiles left (he was 8-16 against SA with Bowen on him) is directly related to Gordon's perceived role. Gordon had a comment about Boylan in that he "defined roles" better than Skiles. This is just speculation, but I think Boylan told him to score, and score a lot.

How is this relevant? This is just more speculation, but Gordon may be thinking that if he played for another coach that gave him the green light, he could be just as effective as a starter.

Would this be winning basketball? I don't know, probably not.

I think Gordon stays if he's willing to take a fair deal. If he's hunting a big paycheck and he knows he can get it from another team he'll leave. I know that sounds simple, but i think its correct.

I'd also like to add that firing Skiles may be the first move in ensuring we retain Gordon (and Deng). Aside from his remarks about going to the bench, I've seen Gordon really enjoying himself out on the court. Maybe Skiles' constant brow beating had gotten to him and Boylans new approach will be refreshing enough for Gordon to want to stay in Chicago.

Just a thought.