Reportedly, Bulls discussing several Ben Gordon trades...
Moderators: dVs33, Cowology, theBigLip, Snakebites
Reportedly, Bulls discussing several Ben Gordon trades...
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 32,705
- And1: 9,541
- Joined: Jun 22, 2001
Reportedly, Bulls discussing several Ben Gordon trades...
Reportedly Chicago has had a lot of conversations with teams involving trades with Ben Gordon.
Who here would trade Stuckey for Gordon?
Reportedly, Ben was wanting a 5 year $60 million contract but I guess much of that could be speculation.
I guess Chicago doesn't want to pay him.
One report was him going to New Orleans for Rasul Butler (plus I'd assume picks).
It's going to be interesting to see where he might go. He could be that "instant offense" so many contenders are looking for.
Who here would trade Stuckey for Gordon?
Reportedly, Ben was wanting a 5 year $60 million contract but I guess much of that could be speculation.
I guess Chicago doesn't want to pay him.
One report was him going to New Orleans for Rasul Butler (plus I'd assume picks).
It's going to be interesting to see where he might go. He could be that "instant offense" so many contenders are looking for.
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 976
- And1: 0
- Joined: Apr 14, 2007
- Rodya
- Starter
- Posts: 2,203
- And1: 16
- Joined: Oct 23, 2005
- Location: AKA: Russian Lightning
Looks like my Eddy Curry proposal started a domino effect of trades.
I wouldn't do the trade. I prefer a slasher with a willingness to pass, not to mention 3 more years of a rookie contract. Ben Gordon is without a doubt an impressive shooter, one of the best in the league. Just not a need of the Pistons, especially at the price.
I wouldn't do the trade. I prefer a slasher with a willingness to pass, not to mention 3 more years of a rookie contract. Ben Gordon is without a doubt an impressive shooter, one of the best in the league. Just not a need of the Pistons, especially at the price.
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 9,627
- And1: 3
- Joined: Mar 30, 2004
- Location: Ann Arbor
I can't imagine Ben Gordon replacing Chauncey Billups as the starter, can you?
He's a superior talent to Stuckey, but not a better fit for the Pistons in the long-term.
Obviously we could just him NOW as a sparkplug off the bench (billionaire's Flip Murray), but this is simply a trade that neither team would do, even if the contracts allowed.
He's a superior talent to Stuckey, but not a better fit for the Pistons in the long-term.
Obviously we could just him NOW as a sparkplug off the bench (billionaire's Flip Murray), but this is simply a trade that neither team would do, even if the contracts allowed.
- nasty daddy
- RealGM
- Posts: 121,442
- And1: 7
- Joined: Oct 16, 2005
- Location: Sydney
- Snakebites
- Forum Mod - Pistons
- Posts: 50,826
- And1: 17,967
- Joined: Jul 14, 2002
- Location: Looking not-so-happily deranged
-
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,010
- And1: 1
- Joined: Jan 20, 2008
- Location: Dearborn, Michigan
I could care less, first I don't see Chicago anyway trading to in-division already great team Detroit, he has a pretty hefty contract, I believe Joe ain't a person who puts tons of money to get one player. Example: Chicago; Ben Wallace; what it is? $40 million dollars and the guy has not helped them a bit, either is Ben Gordan obviously.
Follow @mouzaihem
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,321
- And1: 3
- Joined: Jul 25, 2004
- Location: Detroit: Where only the strong survive cause the weak are eaten alive!
- Dirtgrain
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,785
- And1: 61
- Joined: Jul 08, 2007
RUSSIAN LIGHTNING wrote:Looks like my Eddy Curry proposal started a domino effect of trades.
Well, we've been having trade proposals flowing all season. This trade doesn't make sense for the Pistons. Also, in some of those previous trade threads, people have pointed out that Paxson is stubborn about holding onto players he drafts.
It's weird that in this thread some have said Gordon is a superior talent to Stuckey, but others have said he is not starter material (or were they just saying he would be a backup as long as Billups is here?). But people have be envisioning Stuckey as our point guard of the future all season long. Maybe Dumars will pick up Gordon several years down the road, when it looks like his career is going nowhere (if that's how it turns out). Right now, the Bulls will still be wanting big returns for trading Gordon, I think (how high was he drafted?).
"Have you ever noticed how anyone driving faster than you is an [jerk] and anyone driving slower than you is a moron?" - George Carlin
Hyperbole is not a virtue.
Hyperbole is not a virtue.
-
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,970
- And1: 3
- Joined: Jan 06, 2008
^Gordon isn't a PG. He's an undersized SG.
Stuckey is a combo-guard. He's not the shooter that Gordon is, but he has better handles and more natural play making instincts (despite being a scorer himself). He's probably also better defensively. Whether Stuckey is eventually able to start at the point for us (or anybody else) is still to early to tell, but one thing I do know is that Gordon certainly will not be.
Stuckey is a combo-guard. He's not the shooter that Gordon is, but he has better handles and more natural play making instincts (despite being a scorer himself). He's probably also better defensively. Whether Stuckey is eventually able to start at the point for us (or anybody else) is still to early to tell, but one thing I do know is that Gordon certainly will not be.
JES12 wrote:Bass just barley turned 23 and is a starting PF on any team without a 8 time all-NBA PF in front of him!
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 9,627
- And1: 3
- Joined: Mar 30, 2004
- Location: Ann Arbor
Dirtgrain wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
Well, we've been having trade proposals flowing all season. This trade doesn't make sense for the Pistons. Also, in some of those previous trade threads, people have pointed out that Paxson is stubborn about holding onto players he drafts.
It's weird that in this thread some have said Gordon is a superior talent to Stuckey, but others have said he is not starter material (or were they just saying he would be a backup as long as Billups is here?). But people have be envisioning Stuckey as our point guard of the future all season long. Maybe Dumars will pick up Gordon several years down the road, when it looks like his career is going nowhere (if that's how it turns out). Right now, the Bulls will still be wanting big returns for trading Gordon, I think (how high was he drafted?).
He was drafted 3rd overall in 2004, a surprisingly solid draft.
InMyOrder: D Howard, A Jefferson, J Smith, K Martin, A Iguodala, L Deng, B Gordon, E Okafor, D Harris, A Biedrins.
A three-guard rotation of Stuckey/Afflalo/Gordon would be damn-near ideal in the future. Gordon will never be the full-time starting PG on *this* team, though. He wouldn't start over either of our current G's, and we wouldn't want him to someday take the reigns from Chauncey or Rip, either.
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 9,627
- And1: 3
- Joined: Mar 30, 2004
- Location: Ann Arbor
^ But Gordon couldn't start alongside Chauncey. Our starting lineup would be far too small (two PGs, a SF, and two PFs). Afflalo would have to be our starting SG despite being worse than both Rodney Stuckey and Ben Gordon.
Billups 6'3"/Stuckey 6'5"
Afflalo 6'5"/Gordon 6'3"
Prince 6'9"/?
McDyess 6'9"/Johnson 6'11"
Wallace 6'11"/Maxiell 6'7"
I would prefer our 10th man, the backup SF, to be rather tall for the position. Ideally that would be Amir, with Maxiell playing PF and some 7'0" draftee at C.
I just wasted my time, though. We're not going to get Ben Gordon.
Billups 6'3"/Stuckey 6'5"
Afflalo 6'5"/Gordon 6'3"
Prince 6'9"/?
McDyess 6'9"/Johnson 6'11"
Wallace 6'11"/Maxiell 6'7"
I would prefer our 10th man, the backup SF, to be rather tall for the position. Ideally that would be Amir, with Maxiell playing PF and some 7'0" draftee at C.
I just wasted my time, though. We're not going to get Ben Gordon.