Quote:
Originally Posted by darkobetterthanmelo
It has been proven? Uh, They were both only 20 years old at the time, and expected to hold down the paint with a combined 1 year experience.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkobetterthanmelo
It has been proven? Uh, They were both only 20 years old at the time, and expected to hold down the paint with a combined 1 year experience.
And they are both now considered defensive studs...
Bosh has improved greatly. V obviously needs to work on his D, but so did Rip when he came here.
Their games are so similar, it would be foolish to have two perimiter big men. We would have no offensive rebounding and become even more of a jumpshooting team.
You can't trade consecutive firsts anyway, which means it would take them like 5-6 years to cash in on them anyway.
Yahoo says Gordo is 5 years/58 million
I actually disagree on this. In the 2nd round, they took the BPA with Summers. They're looking at Daye as a guy that's going to need time to develop and put on muscle, then play both forward positions. And I was surprised when I read a report today saying that the Pistons thought Jarebko would be best suited as a PF that could play some SF. I guess they're looking at him differently than we all thought. Summers isn't going to be our starter and Daye is going to need time to develop, so I'd say Tay is fairly safe unless we get another SF in a trade. The person we're looking to deal at this point has to be Rip.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
Bosh is not a perimiter big man. He likes his mid-range game, but perimiter implies 3pt line and just inside it. McDyess isn't a perimiter big man, and he's got a similar shot selection to Bosh. I do agree that we wouldn't have a man in the post, but Bosh is willing to go down there when they need him to. He doesn't float outside like Sheed always did. He'll bang bodies if needed and face the guy up and hit a 15 footer if needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by darkobetterthanmelo
kstats old board (that he doesn't post at anymore) says Gordon was on ESPN radio and said Dumars told him he wanted Gordon as the 3rd guy in a three guard lineup.
Quote:
Gordon: Bulls never made me an offer
ESPNChicago.com
Updated: July 2, 2009, 1:58 PM ET
Ben Gordon said the Chicago Bulls did not make him an offer, despite general manager Gar Forman saying recently that re-signing Gordon was the team's goal.
Gordon visited the Detroit Pistons on Wednesday -- the first full day of NBA free agency -- and committed to a five-year deal for between $55 million and $60 million, sources told ESPN.com. Contracts can't be signed until July 8.
During an interview on ESPN 1000's "Waddle & Silvy" show, Gordon was asked how aggressively the Bulls pursued him.
"I mean, they didn't pursue me at all," Gordon said. "They didn't even make an offer, so it was pretty much a one-man race."
Gordon was reminded that the Bulls said re-signing him was a priority.
"It is what it is," he said. "Like I just told you, there was no offer made. So you guys can put it together. I'm happy about my new situation now. I'm looking forward to it."
When he was introduced as the team's GM on May 21, Forman spoke about Gordon.
"We like Ben," Forman said at the time. "He's our kind of guy. He's got great makeup and character, a great work ethic. Our goal is to re-sign Ben Gordon. In the conversations we've had, I think Ben wants to stay here in Chicago."
Gordon said he felt love from Bulls fans, but he wasn't sure how he was viewed by the organization.
"The fans that follow the game, I always felt I got a lot of love and respect," he said. "When I was walking down the street, people always showed me love. I really enjoyed that. If you were messing up, they told you. And if you were doing a good job, they told you. Coming from New York, I could really appreciate that.
"As far as the organization giving me my respect, I really don't know what they thought of me. When you go through the negotiations I've gone through, the writing is kind of on the wall."
Gordon reportedly rejected $50 million offers from the Bulls the last two summers. Bulls chairman Jerry Reinsdorf said Gordon's agent Raymond Brothers wanted to accept the five-year, $50 million offer last summer after initially rejecting it, but the Bulls decided it was too late and took the offer off the table.
Fool, could be that JD told him to say that to keep things right. Maybe for leverage purposes or just to not look like a dick. In any case, the dearth up front almost guarantees a move IMO and since 4 mill just isn't going to get it done, likely its Rip.
KStat, you are right, players can definitely learn to become better defenders as long as they are motivated and not dumbasses. We taught Dantley and Aguire, who were hardly average defenders.
Could still happen. Supposing we move Max or Kwame for another big (it would have to be someone making 9-10 mil, or you could add in AA and or Bynum too and get a player making almost 13 mil).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fool
There's a big difference in saying Gordon is the "3rd guy" in a 3 guard rotation (implies Rip, Stuckey, Gordon) and saying that he's "part of" a 3 guard rotation (Gordon, Stuckey, Bynum). I wonder what he actually said?
we'll find out when a trade is made or training camp starts I guess. could be either.
Quote:
Joe Dumars and Maligned Guards
By Henry Abbott
July 2, 2009 12:42 PM
Remember when the Pistons were the toast of the town? In 2003-2004, they added Larry Brown and Rasheed Wallace and won the title. But the seeds of that team were really planted when the Pistons acquired some players with shaky reputations around the league.
By signing Ben Gordon to big dollars, Joe Dumars has run the same play again.
But there's a difference this time around.
In 2000, the team got Ben Wallace as a throw-in, after Grant Hill agreed to sign with the Magic, and the Pistons participated in one of those lop-sided "you got us" trades instead of losing the player for nothing.
The summer of 2002 is when GM Joe Dumars really earned his money. That's when he drafted Tayshaun Prince 23rd overall, and acquired Richard Hamilton and Chauncey Billups -- neither of whom, then was seen as likely to contribute to a title team.
Of course, the pieces fit together tremendously well.
Later, working on a story for a magazine, I asked Dumars why he had decided those were the two guards who would make the most sense for his team.
Dumars' answer was very clear, and represented a real philosophy: Those were two guards who could help the team without needing possession of the ball.
The Pistons were going to be a team of ball movement and they were not ball-stoppers.
Hamilton could run around a thousand screens and force the defense to chase, hedge, and help all over the place. Such movement has the potential to get easy buckets for any and all Pistons, from the guy setting the pick to the guy spotting up behind the 3-point line.
Billups, meanwhile, is a good enough shooter to keep a defender near. The team could run its offense with Billups at the top of of the circle. Now and again the ball would be kicked out to him, and he had the skill and mentality to drain the shot if it was open, or swing the ball to the opposite side if he wasn't.
It worked.
Ben Gordon represents a different approach.
I have never seen good statistics determining which players are the most opposite of what Dumars described. As in, players who can't do jack for you unless they have the ball.
But by reputation, Ben Gordon would be on that list.
So, does this mean Joe Dumars has changed his tune? That he is desperate?
Maybe none of the above. Perhaps it just means that the Pistons have a different roster now, with different needs.
And more likely, it could be a story about hand-checking. The rule changed in 2001, but the following strategic shift is still unfolding. The ball-stopper, time-consuming thing Gordon does, -- creating scoring opportunities for himself off the dribble -- may well be more valuable than it was. That's because such play now comes with frequent trips to the free-throw line, which is the home of the easiest and most efficient points in the NBA.
yeah it's a reflection of what the team needs and how the game is being officiated for sure.
Anyone know how much of a work ethic this guy has? Is he the super-motivated type or does he just not care?Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG BEN'S FRO
To put it a way Pistons fans will understand, is he Rip or Sheed?
FUCK YOU GO BACK TO CLEVELAND AND SUCK LEBRON OFF!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zekyl
Translation: We're idiots for overpaying him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Gordon
<groan>
translation: the Bulls didn't want to pay the luxury tax and knew they couldn't match our offer, so they didn't make a lesser one.
None of the reported totals are that much different from what they offered him in previous years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
6 years for $50 million isn't the same as 5 years for $58 million.
:we: could've spent $5-10 million less and had him.
5 years $50 million and six years $54 million were what they are saying he turned down.
So the problem is that we overpaid for Ben Gordon?
Is that why people aren't happy with the signings?
And these are the same people who wanted to sign Carlos Boozer for 5 years or Hedo Turkoglu for 5 years?
I'm laughing my ass off that some are complaining about a few extra million that we just gave a guy that is 26 years old!
And don't look now but OMFG, we gave more millions to a 24 year old!
We're Doomed!
P you'd make a great GM... for the Knicks. 1-2 million dollars means a ridiculous amount to us in this offseason. If you can get that space somehow (especially considering BG didn't get an offer from Chicago as he himself reported), and have even 100K over the MLE, then you are talking about adding a starter rather than a bench player in this offseason. MLE players will probably include Artest, Gortat, maybe even Lamar Odom and Turkoglu and others. Just a couple million would be a huge advantage right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharaoh
That all said, I think the MAX we could have saved on the BG deal was 1 mill per, but at least understand why people feel like overpaying is a bad idea when you are under the cap and bidding against yourself.
I'd make a great GM... for the Knicks? Gee, thanks - and let me say for the record that many of you make Larry Brown seem patient by comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG BEN'S FRO
Ben Gordon's contract is not yet finalised so before anyone jumps up and down about who paid what to whom y'all need to chill out and take a minute to look at a calendar.
Yeah, I have read 3 or 4 different takes on the "Gordon only got a Pistons offer" story. I don't know which one to believe but I like the one where "The" Raymond Brothers told the Bulls to make an offer and they refused, because Brothers refused to tell the Bulls what Joe offered.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG BEN'S FRO
And yes, I am well aware that $100,000 over the MLE will get you a "quality" free agent. I don't know if you get another starter - that depends on who you already have more than who you sign.
Artest signing with the Lakers was/is completely unexpected and he likely wouldn't have gone anywhere else for that price. I'm interested in reading more about why he bolted out of Houston, though I have an idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG BEN'S FRO
A ton of teams are chasing Gortat (according to reports) and while he seems like a great signing at that price (he's a big with potential!) you also have to remember that Orlando can wait 7 days to match.
Odom? Yeah - let's get him! Great idea! Brilliant! Am I the only one who read what Joe said after the season? He wanted guys to compliment Stuckey for the next 3 to 5 years. What's Odom's plan - Don't Retire? (lame but easy)
Same goes for Turkoglu. The guy is 30! Already!
I honestly don't know what you guys expected. We probably got ourselves all worked up with these fantasy line-ups of Bosh/Boozer/Prince/Gordon and Stuckey. All we had to do was get Boozer and Gordon for $9 mil each and then send Rip to Toronto with spare parts and we'd get Bosh.
And how likely was it to happen? But now reality is here and it seems everyone is fuming on July 2nd!!!!
We signed a guy that is 26 years old, All-Star calibre at his position, seems like he could be a reasonable go-to-guy and can go off for big nights offensively. And before we mention money maybe he comes via a sign and trade with someone, too...
Plus we signed a 24 year old combo forward that is also pretty good offensively, can play inside or outside and has improved every season despite playing for Franchises I wouldn't wish on my fellow Aussies (shout out to Bogut and kinda local boy Jawaii)
Maybe I'm optimistic?
Hey I am not fuming. In fact, I am fine with the players we got. I just think people are entitled to criticize and its fun to talk about. And its okay for them to be impatient. Even Joe D is impatient and he blew his wad on the first day. Nothing wrong with that.... or maybe there is, and that's the fun.
So, he's the second coming of Wade, Vince, or Joe Johnson?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharaoh
AFAICT, Ben Gordon is one dimensional. He's very good at that one dimension, but I think we overpaid nonetheless. We've seen his kind of talent in Detroit before, seen them get overpaid by others and ultimately not be worth the mad money. We're seeing a team whose most expensive player not on the block is similar to Ben Gordon, and their playoff success has been limited. And yes, I'm talking Allan Houston and Michael Redd, respectively.
The thing that gets me is the whole "blew his wad on the first day" thing.
As armchair GM's we sit and post all these different ideas (and I posted more of them than anyone) and very few people were willing to poke holes through those "plans".
Yet the reality of the situation is that you can't allow other teams to court the guys you wanna sign (let's debate why they went after Gordon and Villanueva in the first place?) AND it's highly unlikely you're gonna get a dream line-up that not only looks good on paper but can play as a unit.
Imagine we meet with Gordon and Villanueva on the first day. We preach about our history, our intentions in free agency, our committment to winning and so on.
We then on July 2nd meet with Millsap and Gortat, because it's painfully obvious we need big men. Those 2 guys agree to sign our offer sheets. Sweet! Lucky us! We got some bigs.
Then imagine their current teams taking 6 days to match. That's 6 six days from when the deals get signed - not when they were verbally agreed to.
So from July 2nd until July 13th (or 14th, I forget) Gordon and Villanueva visit with other teams and/or agree to sign and trade deals. Utah and Orlando match our offers for the big men.
Now what? Having lost out on Millsap, Gordon, Villanueva and Gortat who is left on July 14th for us to chase?
And Bubbles might think I'm nuts but I guarantee you that this place would be a complete zoo if Joe did nothing with the cap space. If Joe landed Tyson Chandler for a second round pick and we brought back McDyess on 1 year $6 mil deal this place would have gone big time crazy.
Everyone would have wondered why we didn't sign Gordon, why he was signed and traded for crap when we could have signed him outright for the same price and how come we were stupid enough to chase RFA's in the first place. People would be calling for Joe's head and asking "How stupid is he to think Bosh or Amare are gonna want to come here in 2010".
I guess that's the very nature of message boards - picking things to pieces.
I just wish some people could take a longer view and be a little bit positive about the 2 signings we made.
There was a discussion not long ago and I said I wanted a younger team that worked hard, even if they were not as successful on the floor. It was all about effort - earning their stripes or representing the city of Detroit with pride. And I'm an Aussie!
Many seemed to share the same belief. I guess all that went out the window the moment Gordon and Powder were "signed". Some of you don't really want youth, athleticism or offense. You want what I want: A hard nosed, down and dirty basketball team.
News Flash: That NBA is dead. Deal with it. I have to and I love that kind of basketball more than most. But it's not 1989, it's 2009 and it's about damn time Joe changed things up.
You can't see Maxiell smash Lebron on a breakaway dunk. Max would get 10 games on the suspended list for that. But in 1989 that happened all the time!
Those were the days, but they're gone now. Lost to the pages of history. Like tears in the rain...
Are we gonna debate the statement "All-Star calibre"? I went through this the other day. And you're very intelligent, so you know what I meant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
While I agree we overpaid I also don't think the deal is "official" yet as there have been rumours of a sign and trade. Until the deal is official (rumoured new deal is 6 years and $58 mil!) I'm not gonna blast Joe for it.
I'd rather focus on us having 2 more weapons offensively - and that's something we've needed for a long time. While other teams like the Bucks suck because they have too few options to score the ball we (right now) don't seem to have that problem.
I'm reserving final judgement until all this stuff cools down and we see what we do have, what we don't have and what Joe is doing about it.
He must have known he was gonna leave himself short of bigs and must have some things lined up, otherwise we wouldn't have signed who we signed...
Right?
P, That's many of the posters point. We were the ones setting the market, and it is highly unlikely that many of the players we expressed even remote interest in would have made deals until we used up our room. It would have been almost IMPOSSIBLE for us to get shut out on free agents this season. I don't have a problem with what Joe D did, but I can certainly understand why others may feel that we could have waited on BG and got him for less. We'll see whether S&Ts come out of Chicago and know whether they truly are willing to add more salary.
I agree with the wait and see approach to lower the players value, but you don't want to do that. Sure you might save a couple hundred thousand dollars, but Ben Gordon isn't taking a 5-10 mil pay cut. You don't want your new free agent already disgruntled about the franchise.
A couple years back when Ben Gordon was rejecting big money by Chicago, my thought was "gee, that sounds like a pretty fair price for a Ben Gordon -- anyone who offers him anything more is overpaying".
Nothing has changed. Maybe the deal will become more interesting with the AI S+T or whatnot, but as of right now, I'm not loving it. We'll need a tall ball handler paired up with him to do PG duties, because Stuckey ain't always gonna be there. I have this vision of Ben Gordon and Will Bynum (or other backup PG sort) on the court that just isn't pretty defensively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Mxy
Some people forgot about him until that 1st round series he lost.
BBF - I disagree that we were setting the market. Posters here (generally everywhere) are under the illusion that the team with the most cap space sets the tone.
I disagree because free agents are generally "owned" by teams, even if they're not restricted. Take Gordon for example. By sticking with the Bulls or doing a sign and trade he can get higher raises and an extra year than if he just "walks".
Many guys do walk, but it's not like we can wait for weeks before we act. Look how fast all these guys are signing for the MLE. We would have still had the money to spend but there was no way of knowing who was gonna be left.
Like I said elsewhere: Let's discuss why Joe "settled" on Gorodn and Powder in the first place. Obviously there are reasons for both of them.
And re: Overpaying Gordon.
I'm reserving my final opinion on that until I see what the numbers are, if we do a sign and trade and who else we may get or ship out.
And Hermy - you don't seem outraged. Let's here it
http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/2238Quote:
Iverson to the Bulls a ridiculous thought
Posted by mikemcgraw on Fri, 07/03/2009 - 15:29
If anyone was alarmed by the Internet rumor posted Friday that the Bulls and Pistons are talking about turning the Ben Gordon free-agent signing into a sign-and-trade that would send Allen Iverson to the Bulls, don’t worry.
There is no chance of that happening. In fact, a team source confirmed that the Pistons have not even asked about doing a sign-and-trade for Gordon.
One reason teams might talk about such a thing is Gordon could get a sixth year on his contract if he re-signs with the Bulls and is traded to Detroit. Most people believe the approximately five-year, $55 million deal for Gordon is already above market value, so a sixth year hardly seems necessary.
The Bulls have no interest in Iverson because their backcourt is already full with Derrick Rose, Kirk Hinrich and John Salmons. They’re also close to the luxury-tax threshold and probably have less than $2 million to add another player. The salary cap and tax threshold for next season won’t be announced until July 8.
The Bulls aren’t likely to pursue another shooting guard. If they do, it would be a low-priced free agent such as Rodney Carney or ex-Bull Thomas Gardner.
GD - how "plugged in" is that guy and his "team source"?
Many sites are reporting the rumour of sign and trade.
Due to the Bulls desire to get into the 2010 free agency situation and their tax issues isn't it possible that Kwame and Iverson (signed to a 1 year deal) could be heading to Chicago for Gordon and some other big?
That could free up big bucks for the 2010 free agent class and they'd have Rose, Deng and Noah on board. Throw in the fact they're in a large media market and it's pretty attractive for free agents.
Oh well, I guess we'll have to wait and see. Stupid week with no signings/trades and shit. Just let 'em get to it already.
yeah the trades can't officially kick into gear until the 8th either. so hopefully things will heat up then.
because after watching shaq, jefferson, and vinsanity traded within a couple of days, things are awfully boring right now.
Geez, I forgot Shaq was traded. I can't believe that he's reached a point where that wouldn't be primary in my memory.
Somewhere between LA, Miami, Phoenix and Cleveland I stopped caring about Shaq