RealGM

I wonder if we would go after Ben Gordon. He's an UFA, but we don't have enough cap room to sign him to the $70m deal he's looking for. Could we sign and trade someone to Chicago for him? Or maybe work out some kind of 3-way? Would we even want to do this?

just trying to spark some kind of convo here, this place is a ghost town lately

I'd like to see him in a Cats jersey, but I don't like the chances of it happening.

Bet the Bulls are jacked they paid Deng all that cash and chose to potentially loose Gordon for nothing.

Please guys, let's go after a SG who's over 6'3. No more undersized combo-guards.

GWallace3 wrote:Please guys, let's go after a SG who's over 6'3. No more undersized combo-guards.

I'm on this train too. I like Gordon, but taking into consideration his skill set, size and the amount of money he is looking for, I don't think he is for us.

Vonilla Wafer anyone?
Full MLE for 4-5 years

BigSlam wrote:

GWallace3 wrote:Please guys, let's go after a SG who's over 6'3. No more undersized combo-guards.

I'm on this train too. I like Gordon, but taking into consideration his skill set, size and the amount of money he is looking for, I don't think he is for us.

Gordon is listed at 6'3, but almost any Bulls fan will laugh at that figure.

Ben is closer to 6'1" at most. Hinrich - who really is 6'3" - clearly is a couple of inches taller when they stand together.

Ben is not really an NBA combo guard. he cannot play PG & run an offense. His passing is poor & his ball handling skills are atrocious for a guard. he often dribbles the ball off his own foot.

Ben never met a shot that he doesnt like. When on, he's a true assassin. When off, he's a chucker.

I think I'd rather roll the dice on Steph...

Height aside, Ben Gordon is a phenomenal talent. If we have a shot to sign him, I think we should. Ben Gordon will take and make the big shot. He'll be a fit with the Bobcats. We need a go to guy like Gordon on this team.

Who cares if he's undersized, he can actually score and handle the ball well enough to give us more options.

I care. I don't want a SG who can potentially be abused by opposing SG's. It's great that Gordon averaged 24.3ppg during the epic 1st round clash against the Celts, but lets not forget that while he did that, he allowed Allen to average 18.2 and hit some massive shots.

And his handle really isn't that great. If you don't believe me, see what Tommy Udo 6 said above - and he's a Bulls fan.

Considering the amount of money he is going to be looking for, he doesn't have all the tools I personally would want in a SG.

Rich4114 wrote:Who cares if he's undersized, he can actually score and handle the ball well enough to give us more options.

Have to agree, give a toss if he's undersized, he's proved he can handle the SG position and we all know he can put the ball in the basket.

My only worry is the financials, I think he'll price himself out of our league.

Meh...I don't mind if he has bad handles as long as it doesn't translate into a bunch of turnovers. (With Gordon it doesn't) Look at Felton, he has great handles and it only gets him into trouble. He's a very average defender in my opinion, the elite guards will beat him up, and he'll be fine against lesser competition.

In theory I wouldn't mind Ben Gordon. We need the scoring and he is certainly worth the MLE.
The problem is that we'll have trouble signing him and Felton and staying under the Luxury Tax depending on how much it falls. And, even if we could, it would mean we would be RIGHT up against the Tax which means no non-minimum signings for couple years. (This doesn't even consider the likelihood of Bob Johnson agreeing to spend that much money, which is not great IMO)

Given all the good SG's we'll have to choose from in the draft, I might prefer giving the minutes (and the smaller contract) to Terrence Williams or Gerald Henderson.

However, if we've decided to give the MLE to anyone that can help us score, he seems a safer pick than Iverson, and he's clearly better than Wafer.

He has no place on this team in my opinion. We already have a small backcourt rotation that doesn't need to get any smaller by adding a 6'1 shooting guard. We don't even have the pieces to do it anyway. Chicago is going to try and trade their pieces for a good pf which we do not have.

No on all accounts. FIrst off he is not gonna get 70 million even if they won that series. He can hope to get what he turned down last year.
2nd off it won't be by us hopefully cause we don't have the cap room.
3rd were already so small. Every position the opposition has an advantage with size except Wallace and Bell. Mek is to small, Diaw is small and DJ is small. Lets not throw in the 2nd shortest sg in the league on top of that.
Honestly I rather have Hinrick at the 2.
Ben Gorden is not even a combo guard. He is just a 6 foot sg but that doesn't give him pg skills.

^Felton is small for a PG too...

6'1/200 is small for a point guard?

Show me a player Felton's height better at guarding shooting guards than him.

Optimal size in the NBA by position:

PG: 6'3
SG: 6'6
SF: 6'8
PF: 6'10
C: 7'

Yes, Felton is small for a pg. He's statistically one of the best defensive guards in the league right now, didn't know me saying he was small had a connection to that.

6'1 is generous, he measured at 6'1/4" at the draft camp, 5'11.5" w/out shoes. Before you get a chance to, yes, that's still bigger than DJ (5'10" w/o, 5'11.5" in)

OT: Why is there even a "w/out shoes" measurement? Who's the ballsy guy that's gonna take the league on shoeless?

Walt Cronkite wrote:6'1 is generous, he measured at 6'1/4" at the draft camp, 5'11.5" w/out shoes. Before you get a chance to, yes, that's still bigger than DJ (5'10" w/o, 5'11.5" in)

OT: Why is there even a "w/out shoes" measurement? Who's the ballsy guy that's gonna take the league on shoeless?

Maybe because Felton's shoes make him 3/4 of an inch taller, while Augustin's make him 1 1/2 inches taller.

To be honest though, I never understood why height was so important among point guards.

Walt Cronkite wrote:Optimal size in the NBA by position:

PG: 6'3
SG: 6'6
SF: 6'8
PF: 6'10
C: 7'

So, we're undersized at every position?

Yes, we are undersized at every position. We're also a glorified expansion team, so I can live with it.

Good catch on the shoed growth. I now firmly believe they should only measure players barefoot.