Russ Bengston: Honestly, I'd rather have Jannero Pargo at $2m than Ben Gordon at $10m.
Printable View
Russ Bengston: Honestly, I'd rather have Jannero Pargo at $2m than Ben Gordon at $10m.
I'd rather have a pre-paid phone card than Pargo.
Why are you so down on Pargo?
As a backup PG option, he seems perfectly reasonable.
It's just a dig at Glan. Pargo is fine. I'm ambivalent towards him. I wouldn't, however, rather have him than Ben Gordon.
It's like saying i'd rather have Will Bynum at $1 million than kobe Bryant at $30 million. When one player is clearly better than the other, bringing up salary is a losing argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kstat
Nice.
Tom (River North)
John, am I the only one that thinks it is crazy to pay someone $10 million that is coming off the bench (Ben Gordon)? As you've mentioned before, Rip's extension basically makes it tough to trade him. Also, it kind of sounded like the Pistons were Gordon's primary suitor. Did they overpay?
John Hollinger
Yes, they overpaid, and I'm not sure why they went up to $58 million (even more than the originally reported $55 million) when I doubt anyone else would have even given $50M. Also, it's a little awkward to announce that Rip is the starter when at this point in their careers Gordon's clearly better.
----
who knew we would pay 11.6 mil per year to a backup?
Interesting.....
Maybe they overpaid him because he didn't want to be a backup? Doubtful but you never know.
Clearly? Oh puhleeze.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Asberry
Gordon might be better in the future based off age and injury trends, but I don't buy that shit based solely off of their performance to date.
For whatever degree Gordon is better offensively, Hamilton is much better defensively, and can actually defend at the position he plays.
There's a theory that Gordon might complement Stuckey better, but perhaps a better idea for improving our offense to get our PG shooting 3P shots better:
http://basketball-statistics.com/how...toffenses.html
Remember, we had 15 mpg of a SG shooting 3P shots to the tune of 40%. Did that help Stuckey, or did Stuckey blow layups and misread defenses? Or was Stuckey executing crap plays by Curry? My sense is that our coaching was worse than the offensive tools we had before our FA signings.
Oh well...
I'm with Mxy on that one. I don't think Gordon is clearly better than Rip. I'd say they're about equal, talent-wise. Gordon has a better offensive game because he can handle the ball and shoot the 3 a bit better, but Rip's defense is leaps and bounds better than Gordon's. Rip has a better mid-range game. I'd bet Rip has better endurance. It really comes down to who fits the offense better, and Gordon may fit better with Stuckey, were Rip would fit better with distributing PGs. We'll have to wait and see.
I'd say, in the Eastern Conference, if you put Rip on a team with a pass-happy PG he's back to All-Star form (too many good SGs in the west).
Rip would be (even more) awesome with a playmaking PG, IMO.
But where would Rip play?
SF?
You have Stuckey at SG, right GD?
Or did you bench him again?
You trying to create some fireworks?
I love it
There's my opinion and then there is reality. And the two rarely meet, as I'm sure that many here will agree.
In my world, Stuckey is a very good 6th man (at least until he's better than Rip).
But I know that ain't gonna happen, Joe can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.
That's true on all counts, including Stuckey being the 3rd guard/6th Man.
And especially true of toothpaste.
You ever attempt that?
Stuckey should have never been anointed the starter role. He was perfect as the 6th man and would have been best left playing that role while he developed.
if Dumars really wants to keep RIP, he traded the wrong player for capspace... Chauncey/Gordon/Stuckey >> RIP/Gordon/Stuckey
So very true, but we couldn't really trade Rip 3 days after his extension was signed, plus Billups was the one wearing down in the playoffs and taking the laid-back attitude too far. We weren't getting AI's giant expiring contract for Rip either. They needed a PG. We wanted a rebuild. I don't know if any other deals were available.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Asberry
Not only is Rip a better player than billups he has a much longer shelf life physically given both of their contracts. Chauncey Billups is very much over-rated and I'm ecstatic this team turned him into ben gordon.
I believe Joe was just saying that a 3 guard rotation of Chauncey, Stuckey, Gordon is far better than that of Rip, Stuckey, Gordon.
What if Gordon has a turnaround like Chauncey did? Chauncey was a scorer when he was younger, correct? He was on bad teams and he dominated the ball. Eventually, he found that middle ground where he could take over when needed and distribute when needed. If Gordon learns a similar skill, he'll be a fantastic signing. I'm not saying he can become an everyday PG. I'm just saying if he develops his distribution skills a little bit, he can play some PG if needed. He can handle the ball, he can shoot the lights out, he just needs to learn to share. Hopefully that's something that he can develop and he's not already too far down the chucker path.
"DraftExpress research that means nothing" time.
Ben Gordon has a bigger wingspan than Stuckey and a higher standing reach despite being 3" shorter.
Report was last offseason, but I don't know how much he's changed since then:
Our biggest dig on him is his defense, correct? Stuckey has the size to guard SGs if needed. Gordon has the ability to defend PGs if he puts his mind to it. So you just put Stuckey on the SG and Gordon on the PG in most situations. It doesn't eliminate the problem, but it helps.Quote:
Lacks ideal height for an NBA wing, but has tremendous quickness and leaping ability
...
Work ethic is reportedly incredible, but doesn’t have great leadership skills
...
One of the most dangerous bench players the League has to offer
...
Has shown an ability to find open teammates when running the break. Doesn’t have great point guard skills, but is serviceable in spurts.
...
Pretty good defender when he wants to be
...
Has the tools to be a good defensive point guard, but doesn’t have the offensive game to make that transition work.
The biggest thing in there, to me anyway, is that he has an incredible work ethic. If that's true, you get him to bust his butt to develop his D and work on his passing. The rest of his game is already at an all-star level.
I already miss having Rip coming off screens with a PG that new how to get him the ball....
A lot of command for the ballQuote:
Originally Posted by Joe Asberry
FWIW NBA.com has Gordon's deal as 5-year $55 mil
We overpaid, but I read somewhere on here it was $58 mil.
I doubt the official website of the league would have it wrong.
Hollinger had Ben Gordon ranked at #11 for SGs and Rip Hamilton ranked at #12 based on PER.
Gordon Projected: 16.63 Actual:17.01
Rip Projected: 16.31 Actual: 16.93
Not that it means anything.
Hollinger SG Rankings
Also, he had CV at 11th for PFs with 18.64, projected 15.09. Boozer was 17.28.
so do we really need two top 12 PER-SG on the roster?
We need more than 2. Right Gla?
Your argument is stale it doesn't make me laugh. We potentially needed a SG before Rip signed his extension, but now we don't.
Be more funny and make me laugh again, pookie.
Charley Rosen of Fox Sports:
First, I thought he was listed at 6'3" but actually 6'2". Barley 6'0"?Quote:
Ben Gordon to the Pistons
PROS: Gordon is an explosive scorer who can unilaterally carry a team in clutch moments. Possessed with an extraordinarily quick shot release, Gordon can finish, drain treys and score every which-way in between these extremes.
CONS: Although listed at 6-foot-3, Gordon is barely a 6-footer. As such, he's routinely overwhelmed on defense at the shooting guard slot. Trouble is, he's incapable of effectively running an offense at the point. So his only "defense" is to outscore whomever he's guarding.
PROGNOSIS: If he's serious about accepting a sixth-man role, then Gordon will be one of the most productive bench scorers in the league. In truth, replacing Allen Iverson with Gordon is virtually a lateral move
Second, that running an offense aspect is what I was hoping was unknown about him. Apparently it's not something I should be hoping for.
Ben Gordon was 6"1 no shoes in pre-draft measurements, if I believe:
http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-pre-draft-measurements/
As long as he can guard PGs ok, we're fine defensively.
*kstat's head explodes*Quote:
Q&A with Jerry Reinsdorf: Departed Ben Gordon didn't fit in with Bulls
CEO: Gordon didn't fit, Wallace a mistake, Rose a called shot
July 21, 2009
BY BRIAN HANLEY bhanley@suntimes.com
From Ben Gordon's exit, to Ben Wallace's short and costly stay, to Pau Gasol's bypass of the Bulls on the way to L.A., Bulls chairman Jerry Reinsdorf weighed in on numerous subjects Monday.
Reinsdorf, also the White Sox owner who allowed he might have bought the Cubs had the timing been different in 1981, sat down with Bulls beat reporters from the Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, and Daily Herald for an hour of free-wheeling conversation at the United Center.
Quote:
Question: What do you think of Ben Gordon's signing as a free agent with the Detroit Pistons?
Answer: Actually, we made a decision a year ago not to commit long term to Ben. We tried, and he turned it down. Then, near the end, [now GM] Gar Forman and John [Paxson] decided it probably wasn't a good idea to make a long-term decision. We wanted to see what other options might develop. So we withdrew the offer [six years, $54 million] we had on the table. Ben ultimately said he would take it, but it was too late.
Now, fast forward to the end of the year, we have [John] Salmons and we have a hell of a three-guard rotation with [Kirk] Hinrich and Derrick [Rose]. Ben wasn't going to get a whole lot of playing time. [It] was going to be diminished. So Ben really no longer fit. Ben's a terrific player. But Ben needs minutes. He would not have been happy with the minutes he was going to get.
Quote:
Q: What about letting Gordon go and getting nothing in return given he was the third overall pick in the 2004 draft?
A: You can't just look at a player by himself. You've got to look at what his departure enables you to do in other ways. You do have to have [salary] cap flexibility in this league. It's not like baseball where, if you have the money, you can do whatever you want. The cap really constrains you. So you're constantly looking at your roster to see maybe two or three years out.
Quote:
Q: The Bulls will have some $25 million in salary-cap room projected to spend on the star-studded 2010 free-agent class. After spending $60 million on free agent Ben Wallace with little to show for it, are you leery of courting another big-money player?
A: Yes. But the only way you can avoid making a mistake is not to make a decision. Even Jerry West has made mistakes, and he's probably the best in the business. Even [Red] Auerbach made mistakes. Was Ben Wallace a mistake? Probably. Because what we didn't think about is Ben needs to play alongside somebody who can score a lot of points. But I don't think it's about Ben Wallace that makes us be careful. It's the thought that when you make a mistake, you own that mistake. So we've got to be careful.
Quote:
Q: Does it take three All-Stars to contend for a championship? MJ was the last Bulls All-Star in 1998.
A: We have Derrick [Rose]. He clearly shows the potential to be an All-Star. A healthy Luol is going to become an All-Star. Boston showed three stars helps you a great deal. The Bulls championships, we really had two stars. Maybe we had three stars in Michael Jordan himself. But it's still a team game. If you have the right role players and play the game properly, you can win. But with three All-Stars, it makes it a lot easier.
Quote:
Q: Without beating the lottery odds of less than 2 percent and landing Rose, would your three-year building plans have been set back greatly after the 33-win season (2007-08)?
A: Yeah. But I knew right along we were going to get Derrick. John [Paxson] can tell you. John said several months before the draft, 'We really need a point guard.' I said: 'We'll win the lottery and take Derrick Rose.' Honest to God, I said that. I was acting silly, and it worked out.
People say, 'You should go to Las Vegas.' I say no because I've already used up all my luck. I walked into Michael Jordan. He had already been drafted, nobody knew what he was. You don't succeed in this world without a certain amount of luck. If you're successful and you think you're successful because you're so frickin' smart, then you're heading for a fall. You have to have luck, and you have to have other people helping you out.
That's pretty much his default position. Boom!Quote:
John [Paxson] decided it probably wasn't a good idea to make a long-term decision.
So we were competing against whom for Gordon? The Bulls weren't going to give him a long term deal. Who else could have offered him even $9m starting? OKC and Memphis? OKC said they're not going to be big spenders this summer and have proven as much. Memphis wasn't going after him. I fully feel we overpaid after those comments.
^:KING:
first
Thanks for totally ruining my day.
Yes, I believe Jerry Reinsdorf when he says they didn't want Gordon. I also believe him when he says Phil Jackson and MJ broke up the Bull's dynasty not him and when he said he could just go and build another one anyway using Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler.
OVER.....PAID
Also, it's easy to say they didn't want him after he leaves. Might be true, might not be.
Yeah that contradicts the comment from Paxson that said "he did not even let us match the offer"... sounds like a GM trying to sound smart after getting burned... someone oughta show him his own quote... calling BS
I love the rush by some to treat the word of the consummate fuckups that are Chicago management as gospel, while using their shitty judgment to condemn Joe Dumars.