coldfish wrote:Neusch23 wrote:I have said for a long time that he doesn't fit what we are trying to do.
This isn't about favorites, or who was the best, it is about the plan for the future, and how we are going to get there.
Now, many of us wonder what that plan is, but it is a business, and while Gordon is a good basketball player I am very confident that they had major concerns on defense, especially once BG got older.
The orginal poster pointed out a few of the times he was pulled from the starting line up. This is done for a reason. If you break down the tape, you will see that while he isn't a horrible defender, having a player of that size, who isn't half as much agressive on D as he is on O, who is no where near the average for size causes a problem.
It did even before we had rose here. It is a double edged sword. He is far and away our best scorer. We needed him out there to make baskets. However, he is a nightmare for a defensive plan, because he is the weak link. However he creates a mismatch on the other side as well.
Most of us know we have generally always been more about D, than O. Which was a major factor behind trading Aldridge....Even though we KNEW we needed a post player who could score.
On BG, I have to say that I agree with the Bulls. I believe it was the right choice to let him walk. Looks crazy now, but in the long run I hope we can bring in the right mix of players, get a starting line up and bench crew that we don't have to constantly shuffle. It would be nice.
Gordon is actually fine for a SG size wise because he was stronger than almost all the SG's out there. Teams would try to post him up and back him down and fail. Then throw up a fadeaway 15 footer and miss as some fans rail "LOOK THEY ARE POSTING UP GORDON!!!" while ignoring the fact that they weren't doing it successfully. A lot of people said this regarding the defense and it was ignored. Now that the Bulls defense is no better without Gordon, this has been validated beyond rational disagreement. Point blank, Gordon didn't hurt the defense. The Bulls were #1 in defense with Gordon at times and bad with him too. Now they are bad without him.
Here is the most important thing that the anti-Gordon people just don't get. Gordon at $9M per year is a value contract. You weren't married to him at 6/54. If it turns out that you can get Wade in 2010 or something, you could immediately trade Gordon. It wouldn't be just for expiring contracts either. You could actually get players that contribute for Gordon on that contract. This fact seems to be completely lost on people.
If the Bulls continue losing the way they are, they are going to blow 2010. No elite player is going to come to a team this bad. By handling the Gordon situation the way they did, the Bulls may not have just lost Gordon for nothing, they may blow a chance at a max contract guy too.
So yeah, Gordon may not have fit in the long term, but by creating such an unbalanced roster, the management destroyed the long term anyways.
First off, I have to disagree with you on the defense. Unless he was a complete ass behind closed doors, you're not moved to the bench and shuffled in and out if there isn't an issue. Gordon was not an aggressive defender. He just wasn't. Was he a major liablity? No. But he wasn't a good fit either.
I wanted to respond to this right away, but instead pull out some old tapes. I watched parts of 3 different games that I had and he did well with the post up because we brought week side help over. Fact was, he was still posted up. He held his ground well enough, but the player still got a 10 to 15 foot jumper over him. That shot is a fairly high % for the bigger guards in the NBA.
Bigger issue that I saw was that he was that teams would consistantly set picks on him to then create mismatches else where. He was the picker, then we got the switches to generally hang Deng out to dry. I watched this in 2 of the 3 games. I wish I had labled them better to know the dates.
One game was the Milwaukee game where he went off for around 50, as did Michael Redd. We put many different on Redd, who was untouchable, but Gordon was very bad at fighting though screens. Our offense was also only Gordon. Players seemed to not want the shot. We should have put them away in regulation.
I can't think of any other team though that shuffled someone to the bench, then to the starting line up, then back to the bench as much as gordon was and then still to have him be SO important to the team any many posters here claim he was. Closest thing is Manu. I don't follow the spurs very close, but isn't he a combo guard as well? Not sure.
I agree with you on that it was a value contract. I agree that we could have easily traded him if we brought in a max. I disagree that we are going to do our work in FA. I don't think we take that chance. I believe our player will come in via trade this year. Wether it is Amare, Bosh, or Boozer. I think we trade for him and work to then sign him. Just my opinion. I don't think we take any chances on FA. But you're right, if we don't swing a trade, no FA is going to want to come here if we are crap. IT would have to be a trade, IMO. BUT, the NBA witht he right mix can turn things around in a hurry. Look at the celtics.