KC: Bulls Would Have Pulled BG Offer Regardless of Deadline

sonny · Post #21 » by **sonny** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:02 am

Evil_Headband wrote:The problem with re-signing Ben was that his cap-space would define your team for the next 5 years or so. I still think the flexibility is preferred even if that means a worse team for the next year or 2.

If we traded Kirk last year for expirings, we would still have space for 2010.

Is this point not being explained correctly? Not pointing you out, but many people have pointed this out but the "Gordon woulda messed up our flexibility" idea is still being used.

Saw the homo already pointed it out but a lineup of

Noah
Bosh or another 2010 big man
Deng
Gordon
Rose

is pretty good and very young.. That's not a team that can make some noise in the East?

Give me a solid big off the bench, a backup point and a swingman that can defend and knock down an open 3 (Raja Bell type) and I'm set. These 3 things could have easily been picked up through FA and the draft. Hell, Magilla's boy Omer may fit the first role.

jax98 · Post #22 » by **jax98** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:05 am

Agreed.

This was always a situation that essentially boiled down to Kirk Hinrich vs Ben Gordon - Management (or ownership I should say) prefered Kirk Hinrich, and it was a piss-poor decision. Especially seing as a 6 year contract totalling $54 million is one hell of a deal for Ben Gordon. Something the Bulls have not seen for a long time with their overpaying of average NBA talent.

In fact, players who are similar to Gordon in production are getting max or near max money. Obviously, they are overpaid as Ben isn't close to being worth a max contract. But the deal he signed with Detroit are definitely closer to his true value than 6/54 was.

So the Bulls chose the inferior player on a worse deal at a wrong time (close to 2010). Irrelevant? The hell it is.

Post #23 » by **Three34** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:13 am

Gordon must be some kind of arseface behind the scenes. Like, some kind of massive steaming arseface. Because if he isn't, then I'm fresh out of idea. He's not worth $11.6 mil a year, but he's TOTALLY worth $9 mil a year, and I don't see how anyone can believe otherwise. Especially anyone as close to the situation as the Bulls hierarchy.

Chi town · Post #24 » by **Chi town** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:16 am

You hit it on the head shammy my man.

From what I can piece together Ben is not missed in the locker room and he was all about business (namely him getting his and getting paid).

I still would have liked to have kept Gordon. Traded Kirk and put this team out there this year Rose/Gordon/Salmons/Deng/Noah. What type of scoring and running could that 5 have done?

Polynice4Pippen · Post #25 » by **Polynice4Pippen** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:16 am

Post #26 » by **Three34** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:20 am

From what I can piece together Ben is not missed in the locker room and he was all about business (namely him getting his and getting paid).

That's not the same as being an arseface, though. Ben is no criminal, no bad person, and seemingly no diva. He wanted to get paid, isn't overtly charitable, doesn't smile much and might not have been the most liked guy in the locker room, but he also wasn't disliked, disruptive or divisive. And he certainly didn't hinder the on-court product.

If Gordon had something bad, or not done something important, then we'll have heard about it. Yet in 5 years, we didn't.

sonny · Post #27 » by **sonny** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:21 am

Chi town wrote:From what I can piece together Ben is not missed in the locker room and he was all about business (namely him getting his and getting paid).

Is this based on the fluff pieces at the beginning of the year?

I mean if being all about business means being the team's best player for the past 3-4 years then....

Mapelgleaf · Post #28 » by **Mapelgleaf** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:22 am

Simply: He's a tweener that's not a good fit on a lot of teams. You guys refuse to hear this fact. Drafting the 6'3 Rose all but nailed the coffin shut. Had we had a Joe Johnson or T-Mac type player, he'd fit us great... but we didn't.

It's not personal - BG is professional about it, The Bulls are professional about it- but you guys are all taking it as such.

Post #29 » by **Rerisen** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:22 am

Rose, Noah, Deng and Salmons have all talked highly of Gordon. He may not have been Vince Lombardi in the locker room, but neither was that his job.

He was highly valued on the court and that is what matters most.

Post #30 » by **Rerisen** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:25 am

Mapelgleaf wrote:Had we had a Joe Johnson or T-Mac type player, he'd fit us great... but we didn't.

We're not going to get one of those guys either. If we do, its going to take a max contract like in the case of Joe Johnson, which then means our frontcourt will continue to 'not be a good fit' which is a far worse liability.

Sometimes you don't get the ideal guy at every position, and its best if you can take/keep one that at least offers several of the strengths you need, if not all of them.

kyrv · Post #31 » by **kyrv** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:30 am

If KC heard it, it is 100% fact. Let's keep that in mind.

Bulls could have pulled the offer at any time.

Why is KC breaking this news, and it would be big news, in a casual email to a fan?

Again, we should treat this as 100% fact (although KC doesn't seem to be), that's a given.

kyrv · Post #32 » by **kyrv** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:30 am

No edit button - does this go for the previous year also?

Post #33 » by **HomoSapien** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:33 am

Mapelgleaf wrote:Simply: He's a tweener that's not a good fit on a lot of teams. You guys refuse to hear this fact. Drafting the 6'3 Rose all but nailed the coffin shut.

I agree, and that's why I get so uneasy when people suggest trading for Monta Ellis or Bayless. In most cases, it's not a good idea to have an undersized team. That being said, it's not easy finding talent, and Gordon was a serious talent that had a huge impact on winning. No team is perfect, yet it seems like a lot of Bulls fans ultimately dismiss a player's value if he isn't a great defender or rebounder. Every starting lineup has a weakness, every roster has undersized players. I'm positive that Gordon was never a weakness to the Bulls, and I know for a fact that he was the starting shooting guard on a top defensive team and that we were on pace for 50 wins after the Salmons trade.

So while it's not ideal to go small, it's also not ideal to suck.

Post #34 » by **HomoSapien** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:35 am

kyrv wrote:If KC heard it, it is 100% fact. Let's keep that in mind.

Bulls could have pulled the offer at any time.

Why is KC breaking this news, and it would be big news, in a casual email to a fan?

Again, we should treat this as 100% fact (although KC doesn't seem to be), that's a given.

I'm not sure why you're being sarcastic. K.C. has no reason to make it up to me in an email, and I also hope you're not suggesting that I made it up. It's big news to this board because we're obsessed with this issue. To everyone else, Gordon is boring.

Edit: Also, I don't see why there'd be any reason to doubt this. It's been obvious that Reinsdorf isn't a Gordon fan, and most of us (not including yourself though) always felt like the deadline was arbitrary. Not only was it arbitrary, it was also fake.

Post #35 » by **Rerisen** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:38 am

I don't get where the faith comes from in being able to easily replace good players. How many players has the team had since 98 that were as good or better than Gordon? Brand? Deng in 2007? 2 guys in 11 years?

And sure we have money in 2010, but we already have a hole in our frontcourt to fill. We just made another big hole, thinking we can find someone better than BG. We aren't going to have money to pay out another BG like contract at SG.

jax98 · Post #36 » by **jax98** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:41 am

I can vouch for homo (heh..)

In his 8 years here, he's never been one to make up stuff.

Though, I don't know if that was your angle Kyrv.

kyrv · Post #37 » by **kyrv** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:44 am

HomoSapien wrote:
kyrv wrote:If KC heard it, it is 100% fact. Let's keep that in mind.

Bulls could have pulled the offer at any time.

Why is KC breaking this news, and it would be big news, in a casual email to a fan?

Again, we should treat this as 100% fact (although KC doesn't seem to be), that's a given.

I'm not sure why you're being sarcastic. K.C. has no reason to make it up to me in an email, and I also hope you're not suggesting that I made it up. It's big news to this board because we're obsessed with this issue. To everyone else, Gordon is boring.

Edit: Also, I don't see why there'd be any reason to doubt this. It's been obvious that Reinsdorf isn't a Gordon fan, and most of us (not including yourself though) always felt like the deadline was arbitrary. Not only was it arbitrary, it was also fake.

What I meant was, he said he heard it. He didn't say Pax told him.

I think it's a very big story, if true.

We hear lots of things every day. A reporter hears lots of things. Some things they can believe, some they aren't sure. Could it be he's not confident enough in it not to break it as an official story?

Now that KC said something anti-management, suddenly he's a fool proof source for info? Even though he hasn't made it official himself?

Come on now.

And Gordon is not boring to everyone else.

boogydown · Post #38 » by **boogydown** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:44 am

I completely understand why Ben did not get that money. Is he worth 6/54, definitely. Is he worth 6/66, maybe.

People act like management made the decision to keep Hinrich over Gordon. I see it as they never planned to keep Gordon regardless if Hinrich was here or not. People need to stop comparing these two. It has nothing to do with Hinrich.

Now back to what I was saying. The Bulls clearly need defense while a shooter at that 2 guard spot. Does anyone have any idea outside the draft who a good option that would be?

jax98 · Post #39 » by **jax98** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:44 am

Sham wrote:Gordon must be some kind of arseface behind the scenes. Like, some kind of massive steaming arseface. Because if he isn't, then I'm fresh out of idea. He's not worth $11.6 mil a year, but he's TOTALLY worth $9 mil a year, and I don't see how anyone can believe otherwise. Especially anyone as close to the situation as the Bulls hierarchy.

Christmas party at JR's place + hard liquor + niece back home from college + giant bedroom.

Seriously. There has to be a sex scandal in there somewhere.

kyrv · Post #40 » by **kyrv** » Fri Dec 11, 2009 7:47 am

Maybe you could ask KC of his confidence level, and basically, that to us it's a huge deal and is it okay to bandy this about and attribute it to him (via his source of course)?

He gets paid to provide information and this is a bombshell he's giving away in an email.

I would be curious if this was a Pax/Gar/JR thing, whose idea? I do think Pax and below probably need to start tidying their offices and boxing up the goodies. They haven't gotten it done overall. And don't hire a brand new coach please and act indignant when he acts like he's never coached before. But I digress.