The Ben Gordon update/tracking thread

[defmut]

Honestly, I think Ben is going to be somebody else is problem.

[jax98]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there still a possibility to sign two max free agents?

No.

Only if we move Kirk and/or Luol for expirings.

[coldfish]

BUT

Some of us think the franchise was right
Many are waiting to find out
Many are Bulls fans and that's just the way it is

A tiny minority are so infuriated by this or that that their very fan-dom is at risk. What makes it different for you?

- not really a fan
- just smarter than the rest of us
- holding grudges is just something you are good at
- your boss reminds you too much of JR

I just cannot envision a scenario where my fandom would be in play. And as an older fan, I've seen LOTS of teams and management moves that deserve scorn.

I have been saying here that no real fan could root against "his" team, but I admit my fandom is in play. I see this season as yet another in a series of ones "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". Even if the team does well, most of the players will be gone. The team is currently building towards capspace. While that may be a smart idea, on a game to game basis its a sobering reality.

I also have a significant issue with how money is such a factor in all the organization's moves, yet they are so stupid with it. The organization, IMHO, aren't bad individual talent evaluators, but really bad team builders. IMO, refusing to give Gordon $9M per year but giving Deng $12M per year was idiotic and that's just the latest in a series of cap crushing foolish moves (Wallace, Nocioni, J Rose).

[Tommy Udo 6]

I also have a significant issue with how money is such a factor in all the organization's moves, yet they are so stupid with it. The organization, IMHO, aren't bad individual talent evaluators, but really bad team builders. IMO, refusing to give Gordon $9M per year but giving Deng $12M per year was idiotic and that's just the latest in a series of cap crushing foolish moves (Wallace, Nocioni, J Rose).

I really believe that the major reason why Deng got so much is that JR really really likes him. Really. It is JR's money & he reportedly got personally involved in the negotiations.

Certainly the Bulls could have played hardball with him like they did with Gordon - and got him for a lot less.

Of course, after winning with gordon they showed their true colors and didnt sign him

[DuckIII]

I've definitely rooted for the Bulls to lose. During the 07-08 season. When we were eliminated for the playoffs, I wanted the extra pingpong balls.

That make me not a Bulls fan? Ok.

That season was decided. At that point, of course we root for ping pong balls. This season hasn't even begun. Are you entering the season rooting for losses? Of course not.

[DuckIII]

+1 to you too

It's nice to know I'm not alone in my thoughts. Things aren't as black and white as some people want to try and make them out to be.

No, its clearly black and white. Several of you have unambiguously expressed the opinion that you want Gordon and Pistons to mop the floor with the Bulls to validate your opinion that you are right and the organization is wrong, rather than hoping that you are wrong and the organization was in fact right.

And that's **** up in my book. But you're naturally entitled to root against the success of the team you follow, if you wish. Enjoy yourself with that. I'll instead be rooting for Bulls wins.

[transplant]

IMO, refusing to give Gordon $9M per year but giving Deng $12M per year was idiotic

Did that really happen? Deng signed for a contract starting at something like $9.4MM. I thought the contract they offered Gordon (and later pulled) started at something like $8.3. Or is the Gordon $9MM above the starting contract salary and Deng's $12MM the average contract salary. I'm confused.

Anyway, it always seemed clear to me that the Bulls viewed Deng and Gordon differently. They valued Deng more highly because they saw him as well above average at both ends of the court and believed that by signing him, they could cross starting SF off their list of needs for the length of the contract. I don't think they ever viewed Gordon as the long-term answer at starting SG, but rather as a very talented 6th man. Special as he is, signing him to big money still left a (presumably somewhat costly) need at a starting position. The issue was how to value Gordon's specialness. Time will tell, but they may have gotten this one wrong (but, of course, I hope they're right).

[Sinistar6]

We are getting Wade.

[dougthonus]

+1 to you too

It's nice to know I'm not alone in my thoughts. Things aren't as black and white as some people want to try and make them out to be.

No, its clearly black and white. Several of you have unambiguously expressed the opinion that you want Gordon and Pistons to mop the floor with the Bulls to validate your opinion that you are right and the organization is wrong, rather than hoping that you are wrong and the organization was in fact right.

And that's **** up in my book. But you're naturally entitled to root against the success of the team you follow, if you wish. Enjoy yourself with that. I'll instead be rooting for Bulls wins.

Some people are bitter about how they feel management has mismanaged the team and lied to the fans. Whether you believe that's true or not doesn't effect whether other people believe it. Those that do, are bitter about it which is a natural reaction for anyone who is emotionally invested in something as most fans are emotionally invested in the team.

When you feel stung because that emotional investment didn't work out, to lash out is a natural reaction. To act like this is all crazy and **** up just seems strange to me. I mean I get your point, and I agree with it. It's better to hope you were wrong and the organization was right, but to act like a pretty common, easily understandable emotional experience that we've all felt at some point in our lives (whether it be in a disagreement with parents, spouses, sports teams, etc.. ) is just out of left field seems unnecessarily condescending.

It's an emotional response, not a logical one. Fans are emotional by nature. That's why they're fanatics not level headeds. The whole concept of fandom is an emotional response. I would bet that anyone here who's hoping Gordon sticks it to the Bulls would change their mind if the Bulls won 58 games and got to the ECF this year. The emotional response is based on a belief that they're right (which they very well may be). However, I guarantee that they'll enjoy the team if the team is good and forget all about this decision if it turns out to be the right one. It's just that a surface emotional response driven out of anger isn't going to reflect that.

[stillalive]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't there still a possibility to sign two max free agents?

No.

Only if we move Kirk and/or Luol for expirings.

Then that means it's still a possibility lol. Not saying it will happen, but the option is there.

[coldfish]

I also have a significant issue with how money is such a factor in all the organization's moves, yet they are so stupid with it. The organization, IMHO, aren't bad individual talent evaluators, but really bad team builders. IMO, refusing to give Gordon $9M per year but giving Deng $12M per year was idiotic and that's just the latest in a series of cap crushing foolish moves (Wallace, Nocioni, J Rose).

I really believe that the major reason why Deng got so much is that JR really really likes him. Really. It is JR's money & he reportedly got personally involved in the negotiations.

Certainly the Bulls could have played hardball with him like they did with Gordon - and got him for a lot less.

Of course, after winning with gordon they showed their true colors and didnt sign him

I agree. My biggest concern with the Bulls is that management is stuck in 1985 and evaluates players based on the priorities of that NBA. I think that JR has a significantly larger say in personnel matters than is let on and I'm pretty concerned that he has no idea what he is doing. I'm not 100% on that, because he wanted Kobe pretty badly, but rumors are that he also wanted Wallace and obviously liked Deng.

Did that really happen? Deng signed for a contract starting at something like $9.4MM. I thought the contract they offered Gordon (and later pulled) started at something like $8.3. Or is the Gordon $9MM above the starting contract salary and Deng's $12MM the average contract salary. I'm confused.

Gordon was offered 6/54 or $9M per year, he turned it down, then accepted it after the deadline, but was not allowed to. Deng accepted 6/71 or roughly $12M per year.

Anyway, it always seemed clear to me that the Bulls viewed Deng and Gordon differently. They valued Deng more highly because they saw him as well above average at both ends of the court and believed that by signing him, they could cross starting SF off their list of needs for the length of the contract. I don't think they ever viewed Gordon as the long-term answer at starting SG, but rather as a very talented 6th man. Special as he is, signing him to big money still left a (presumably somewhat costly) need at a starting position. The issue was how to value Gordon's specialness. Time will tell, but they may have gotten this one wrong (but, of course, I hope they're right).

Well, this conversation is kind of dated and I'm rehashing things from the past. I'll suffice it to say that my brain tells me that Deng is a below average offensive SF and a really bad fit next to Rose in today's NBA while Gordon is a good, but not perfect fit. He is also overpaid (even if healthy and playing well), which is a big problem for a team on a limited budget. If it was 1985, that situation would be the opposite. I, like you, hope the Bulls are right.

.......

Doug - Good post. I see most of the negative comments, as I said before, as venting and to some extent, and people are kicking them when they are down. *If* the people who think that spacing is critical to NBA success are right and the Bulls struggle, I hope that they don't fill the board with "ha ha, I was right, the Bulls suck!!!" threads.

[Rerisen]

To single out the Detroit games as a teaching tool to the Front Office doesn't make a lot of sense. It's only 4 games. If the Bulls lose every single game to Detroit, and Gordon goes off averaging 30+ that still isn't going to make them feel chastised, not if team goes on to still have a good season despite that. However many wins it is that management considers a good season anyway.

For the Bulls to learn a lesson from mishandling Gordon, if it turns out they did, would require them to have a bad season from end to end, not just vs Detroit and Ben. So it would require this vengeful attitude to apply to rooting against the Bulls all year. Which doesn't sound too fun. It would also require the FO to strike out in 2010. Because even though its true that there were ways to keep Ben and still sign a big name FA, perhaps the best outcome as figured by many of us, if the Bulls nevertheless manage to land one even without Ben, it is going to be sold as a successful and satisfactory outcome. I.e. "Letting Ben go allowed us to get X". And if the wins start piling up after that in the 2010-11 season, say 50 or more wins, then it will be hard to go back and complain that if we had just kept BG we could be winning a few more games even on top of that. That would be sounding like sour grapes.

I can understand the frustration of some because all these conditional outcomes are so far off in the future that being proved right about the impact of losing BG is going to take so much time that its eventually going to prove harder and harder to draw a line back to this point and conclude with certainty that they screwed up with Ben. Therefore even if they did (mess up) there's a good chance that no lessons will be learned from it and the issue will have been swept under the rug by too many variables.

Even so, like I said, rooting against the Bulls *only* against Detroit doesn't seem to accomplish much. Maybe it will make Ben feel personally vindicated to have good games, just like when Steve Francis stuck it to the Bulls for drafting Brand over him or something, but ultimately its not going to decide our season. At this point its time to hope for the best it seems.

[transplant]

To single out the Detroit games as a teaching tool to the Front Office doesn't make a lot of sense. It's only 4 games. If the Bulls lose every single game to Detroit, and Gordon goes off averaging 30+ that still isn't going to make them feel chastised, not if team goes on to still have a good season despite that. However many wins it is that management considers a good season anyway.

For the Bulls to learn a lesson from mishandling Gordon, if it turns out they did, would require them to have a bad season from end to end, not just vs Detroit and Ben. So it would require this vengeful attitude to apply to rooting against the Bulls all year. Which doesn't sound too fun. It would also require the FO to strike out in 2010. Because even though its true that there were ways to keep Ben and still sign a big name FA, perhaps the best outcome as figured by many of us, if the Bulls nevertheless manage to land one even without Ben, it is going to be sold as a successful and satisfactory outcome. I.e. "Letting Ben go allowed us to get X". And if the wins start piling up after that in the 2010-11 season, say 50 or more wins, then it will be hard to go back and complain that if we had just kept BG we could be winning a few more games even on top of that. That would be sounding like sour grapes.

I can understand the frustration of some because all these conditional outcomes are so far off in the future that being proved right about the impact of losing BG is going to take so much time that its eventually going to prove harder and harder to draw a line back to this point and conclude with certainty that they screwed up with Ben. Therefore even if they did (mess up) there's a good chance that no lessons will be learned from it and the issue will have been swept under the rug by too many variables.

Even so, like I said, rooting against the Bulls *only* against Detroit doesn't seem to accomplish much. Maybe it will make Ben feel personally vindicated to have good games, just like when Steve Francis stuck it to the Bulls for drafting Brand over him or something, but ultimately its not going to decide our season. At this point its time to hope for the best it seems.

Great post.

[stillalive]

For the first time I agree with everything u said rerisen.Do u think piston fans want Chauncey to light up their team every time he plays them? No. Were they upset about the trade? Yes, but for he most part they got over it and moved on just like bulls fans should and will do. If people want to cheer on ben or root for him when he plays the bulls then there's the pistons forum for that foolishness. Management made a decision and you complaining about it won't change anything. If you're so upset then why r u still posting? Sorry but I don't want to come to a bulls forum where people are actively rooting against them for the benefit of their own personal fandom.

[Rerisen]

I can't get that fired up about the whole situation now, because I don't have super high hopes for this season to begin with. I see it as a tread water season till 2010, when I want to see the decisions of this offseason pay off with a LeBron, Wade, Bosh, Amare, etc. I think that is the gamble they took when they otherwise could have brought BG back and went for ~50 wins this year and pushed to really build on where we ended against Boston last year. But since we haven't chosen to do that, its time to just wait and see, and hope the team is good enough this year to actually attract such a Free Agent. If they accomplish above and beyond that it will come as a pleasant surprise.

[anorexorcism]

+1 to you too

It's nice to know I'm not alone in my thoughts. Things aren't as black and white as some people want to try and make them out to be.

No, its clearly black and white. Several of you have unambiguously expressed the opinion that you want Gordon and Pistons to mop the floor with the Bulls to validate your opinion that you are right and the organization is wrong, rather than hoping that you are wrong and the organization was in fact right.

And that's **** up in my book. But you're naturally entitled to root against the success of the team you follow, if you wish. Enjoy yourself with that. I'll instead be rooting for Bulls wins.

Some people are bitter about how they feel management has mismanaged the team and lied to the fans. Whether you believe that's true or not doesn't effect whether other people believe it. Those that do, are bitter about it which is a natural reaction for anyone who is emotionally invested in something as most fans are emotionally invested in the team.

When you feel stung because that emotional investment didn't work out, to lash out is a natural reaction. To act like this is all crazy and **** up just seems strange to me. I mean I get your point, and I agree with it. It's better to hope you were wrong and the organization was right, but to act like a pretty common, easily understandable emotional experience that we've all felt at some point in our lives (whether it be in a disagreement with parents, spouses, sports teams, etc.. ) is just out of left field seems unnecessarily condescending.

It's an emotional response, not a logical one. Fans are emotional by nature. That's why they're fanatics not level headeds. The whole concept of fandom is an emotional response. I would bet that anyone here who's hoping Gordon sticks it to the Bulls would change their mind if the Bulls won 58 games and got to the ECF this year. The emotional response is based on a belief that they're right (which they very well may be). However, I guarantee that they'll enjoy the team if the team is good and forget all about this decision if it turns out to be the right one. It's just that a surface emotional response driven out of anger isn't going to reflect that.

This.

[DJhitek]

Some people are bitter about how they feel management has mismanaged the team and lied to the fans. Whether you believe that's true or not doesn't effect whether other people believe it. Those that do, are bitter about it which is a natural reaction for anyone who is emotionally invested in something as most fans are emotionally invested in the team.

When you feel stung because that emotional investment didn't work out, to lash out is a natural reaction. To act like this is all crazy and **** up just seems strange to me. I mean I get your point, and I agree with it. It's better to hope you were wrong and the organization was right, but to act like a pretty common, easily understandable emotional experience that we've all felt at some point in our lives (whether it be in a disagreement with parents, spouses, sports teams, etc.. ) is just out of left field seems unnecessarily condescending.

It's an emotional response, not a logical one. Fans are emotional by nature. That's why they're fanatics not level headeds. The whole concept of fandom is an emotional response. I would bet that anyone here who's hoping Gordon sticks it to the Bulls would change their mind if the Bulls won 58 games and got to the ECF this year. The emotional response is based on a belief that they're right (which they very well may be). However, I guarantee that they'll enjoy the team if the team is good and forget all about this decision if it turns out to be the right one. It's just that a surface emotional response driven out of anger isn't going to reflect that.

I don't care who signs with who, I will never root for a former player to smash the Bulls to somehow prove a philosophical point.

So the people that have decided to move on from the offseason are considered uneducated and blind? Talk about condescending....

(P.S. Doug, I'm not implying you meant any of that, and really it's not attacking your post at all...just venting a bit)

[DuckIII]

Some people are bitter about how they feel management has mismanaged the team and lied to the fans. Whether you believe that's true or not doesn't effect whether other people believe it. Those that do, are bitter about it which is a natural reaction for anyone who is emotionally invested in something as most fans are emotionally invested in the team.

When you feel stung because that emotional investment didn't work out, to lash out is a natural reaction. To act like this is all crazy and **** up just seems strange to me. I mean I get your point, and I agree with it. It's better to hope you were wrong and the organization was right, but to act like a pretty common, easily understandable emotional experience that we've all felt at some point in our lives (whether it be in a disagreement with parents, spouses, sports teams, etc.. ) is just out of left field seems unnecessarily condescending.

It's an emotional response, not a logical one. Fans are emotional by nature. That's why they're fanatics not level headeds. The whole concept of fandom is an emotional response. I would bet that anyone here who's hoping Gordon sticks it to the Bulls would change their mind if the Bulls won 58 games and got to the ECF this year. The emotional response is based on a belief that they're right (which they very well may be). However, I guarantee that they'll enjoy the team if the team is good and forget all about this decision if it turns out to be the right one. It's just that a surface emotional response driven out of anger isn't going to reflect that.

I've been severely pissed and disappointed with decisions this team, and other teams I follow, have made. And yet somehow I've never once, ever, rooted - or even said I would root - against team success in order to validate my bitterness.

Am I being condescending? Yes, I am.

Maybe I'm just a robot. Any of you who want to root against the team before the season even starts, feel free. I won't condemn that practice any further.

[dougthonus]

I don't care who signs with who, I will never root for a former player to smash the Bulls to somehow prove a philosophical point.

So the people that have decided to move on from the offseason are considered uneducated and blind? Talk about condescending....

(P.S. Doug, I'm not implying you meant any of that, and really it's not attacking your post at all...just venting a bit)

I never said you were uneducated or blind or anything remotely like that. I'm not sure how you got that out of anything I wrote. I think fans should root for the move to work out even if they disagree with it, and should move on either way.

I just said anger and bitterness is a natural response to a team not retaining one of your favorite players. Gordon was clearly a favorite for many fans.

[dougthonus]

I've been severely pissed and disappointed with decisions this team, and other teams I follow, have made. And yet somehow I've never once, ever, rooted - or even said I would root - against team success in order to validate my bitterness.

Am I being condescending? Yes, I am.

Maybe I'm just a robot. Any of you who want to root against the team before the season even starts, feel free. I won't condemn that practice any further.

I wouldn't root against the team either.

My point has little to do with that response, it's the part where you don't seem to understand that someone's anger and bitterness could take different forms.