Image ImageImage Image

Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll

Moderators: HomoSapien, kulaz3000, Michael Jackson, Ice Man, dougthonus, Tommy Udo 6 , DASMACKDOWN, GimmeDat, Payt10, RedBulls23, coldfish, AshyLarrysDiaper, fleet

Should the Chicago Bulls re-sign Ben Gordon for the 9-11 million he would get elsewhere?

Yes
75
65%
No
40
35%
 
Total votes: 115

User avatar
LoveDaBoo
RealGM
Posts: 17,078
And1: 1,961
Joined: Jun 12, 2009
     

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#31 » by LoveDaBoo » Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 pm

coldfish wrote:I would hope that the Bulls would sign him to the deal that they tossed around last year, which was $9M per year.

At $11M per year, I wouldn't be too happy about it. Gordon would have to improve or the money dynamics in the NBA would have to change to prevent him from immediately becoming a bad contract.

And yes, $2M per year is enough of a change to justify those differing views.

This. And let us not forget that the NBA threatens to transform into, as Bill Simmons puts it, the "No Benjamins Association." Borderline contracts may end up being albatrosses in the near future.
Step 1: instead of "ass" say "buns." Like "kiss my buns" or "you're a buns-hole."
Woj: The NBA's Dickie Dunn.
User avatar
LoveDaBoo
RealGM
Posts: 17,078
And1: 1,961
Joined: Jun 12, 2009
     

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#32 » by LoveDaBoo » Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:07 pm

Waddle & Silvy just came on, and Silvy mentioned that they were going to have Pippen on to talk free agency later. He also threw out that there's a rumor that the Bulls are planning on going after Gordon in a big way. Take that for what it's worth.
Step 1: instead of "ass" say "buns." Like "kiss my buns" or "you're a buns-hole."
Woj: The NBA's Dickie Dunn.
northbrookrich
Veteran
Posts: 2,919
And1: 54
Joined: Feb 14, 2006

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#33 » by northbrookrich » Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:10 pm

I'm not worried about albatross contracts after seeing Hughes, Gooden, Nocioni, Wallace, Jermaine O'Neal, Zach Randolph, Vince Carter, Richard Jefferson, Jerome James, Stephen Jackson and on and on getting traded over and over again. If Gordon is paid 11, 12, 13, he would still be tradeable in the right deal. You may have to trade him to a contender with an injury and an expiring deal, but it could get done absent a severe regression in his abilities or a serious injury.
User avatar
coldfish
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 59,085
And1: 35,331
Joined: Jun 11, 2004
Location: Right in the middle
   

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#34 » by coldfish » Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:15 pm

The key to gage the Bulls' interest in Gordon is JR. He personally met with some Bulls players and Kobe. Possibly Ben Wallace too. In the past, he had no stake in Gordon negotiations. If he tries to meet with Gordon on July 1, the Bulls are serious. If not, then no. Its possibly all window dressing.
AirP.
RealGM
Posts: 33,767
And1: 29,026
Joined: Nov 21, 2007

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#35 » by AirP. » Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:17 pm

LoveDaBoo wrote:Waddle & Silvy just came on, and Silvy mentioned that they were going to have Pippen on to talk free agency later. He also threw out that there's a rumor that the Bulls are planning on going after Gordon in a big way. Take that for what it's worth.


Seems odd after how they've been with Gordon in the past. Would not be surprised if this is damage control for when he leaves... Gar may have the "name", but it's still the same people making the decisions. Think of the D'Antoini debacle.
Leto
RealGM
Posts: 13,747
And1: 468
Joined: Jun 11, 2008

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#36 » by Leto » Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:55 pm

Broussard was just on First Take and said that Ben's people are saying the Pistons will offer him around 11 per. He said if the Bulls get anywhere close to that, he thinks BG will stay with the Bulls.
jax98
RealGM
Posts: 36,697
And1: 3,013
Joined: Aug 31, 2003

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#37 » by jax98 » Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:56 pm

$11 million a year is my top. So I'd do it.
User avatar
Magilla_Gorilla
RealGM
Posts: 32,050
And1: 4,451
Joined: Oct 24, 2006
Location: Sunday Morning coming down...
         

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#38 » by Magilla_Gorilla » Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:57 pm

6/60.

Get it done.
Sham - Y U NO sell me a t-shirt? Best OB/GYN Houston
User avatar
Woody Allen
General Manager
Posts: 7,799
And1: 2,840
Joined: Aug 13, 2002
Location: Toronto

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#39 » by Woody Allen » Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:21 pm

With a market/financial situation like this, anything above 6/50 is overpaying him. And 11 million per year is just ridiculous.
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 68,955
And1: 33,663
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#40 » by DuckIII » Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:32 pm

I'll say what I've been saying: It doesn't matter if they sign him or not. Given that not signing aids in going after a major free agent in 2010, while not meaningfully damaging the team in the short term, I'd pass. So I voted "no."

However, you won't read me bitching about it if they do sign him. I'd lean towards not signing him, but I'm pretty much meh about the whole damn thing.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
User avatar
LikeMike23
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,267
And1: 617
Joined: Mar 01, 2009
   

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#41 » by LikeMike23 » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:18 pm

DuckIII wrote:I'll say what I've been saying: It doesn't matter if they sign him or not. Given that not signing aids in going after a major free agent in 2010, while not meaningfully damaging the team in the short term, I'd pass. So I voted "no."

However, you won't read me bitching about it if they do sign him. I'd lean towards not signing him, but I'm pretty much meh about the whole damn thing.


Big-time free agents in 2010 are not signing with the Bulls, if they miss the playoffs next year. Therefore, resigning Ben Gordon is very important because the Bulls are not a playoff team without him.
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 68,955
And1: 33,663
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#42 » by DuckIII » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:27 pm

LikeMike23 wrote:
Big-time free agents in 2010 are not signing with the Bulls, if they miss the playoffs next year.


Maybe, maybe not.

Therefore, resigning Ben Gordon is very important


No its not.

because the Bulls are not a playoff team without him.


Yes they will be. My opinion rests on the belief that the Bulls won't miss a beat if Gordon leaves. I don't consider him to be a particularly consequential player, in either direction, when drawn out over an 82 game season. Especially post-Salmons trade.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
User avatar
coldfish
Forum Mod - Bulls
Forum Mod - Bulls
Posts: 59,085
And1: 35,331
Joined: Jun 11, 2004
Location: Right in the middle
   

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#43 » by coldfish » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:32 pm

DuckIII wrote:
Yes they will be. My opinion rests on the belief that the Bulls won't miss a beat if Gordon leaves. I don't consider him to be a particularly consequential player, in either direction, when drawn out over an 82 game season. Especially post-Salmons trade.


If the Bulls have Hinrich, Salmons and a healthy Deng, they still make the playoffs without Gordon, IMO. In that situation, Gordon's role really is minimized to an extent where you have a bunch of quality players fighting for minutes. The minutes Gordon doesn't play get filled by other quality players.

My concern is that Hinrich will be traded for scraps and Deng will have lingering health issues regardless of what happens with Gordon. If both of those are true, I think retaining Gordon is the difference between Chicago making the playoffs and missing them.
Cliff Levingston
RealGM
Posts: 22,667
And1: 1,094
Joined: May 29, 2003
Location: Cliff Levingston is omnipresent.
       

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#44 » by Cliff Levingston » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:34 pm

Cliff Levingston leans toward letting him walk even if he's only going to cost $9 mil per year on average. Cliff Levingston would hate to see us tie so much money in the 1-3 positions and lose out on a great big as a result. Gordon/Rose is far from an ideal back court so why (eventually) pay $25+ million anually for it?
User avatar
DuckIII
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 68,955
And1: 33,663
Joined: Nov 25, 2003
Location: On my high horse.
     

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#45 » by DuckIII » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:37 pm

coldfish wrote:My concern is that Hinrich will be traded for scraps and Deng will have lingering health issues regardless of what happens with Gordon. If both of those are true, I think retaining Gordon is the difference between Chicago making the playoffs and missing them.


I choose not to operate under the assumption that Deng will get injured when the question is whether to throw 50 million dollars at a player on a long term deal. Especially when that player, when the team is healthy, isn't terribly important to the record at the end of the season. Its a risk, I realize, but I wouldn't evaluate it that way.

As for Hinrich, if the Bulls were to dump Hinrich AND let Gordon walk then, yes, I'd fear they might not be a playoff team. Maybe.

But I just don't see it happening that way.
Once a pickle, never a cucumber again.
bulletbill
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,426
And1: 84
Joined: Oct 17, 2007
Location: what always precedes the Bulls
       

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#46 » by bulletbill » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:46 pm

Cliff Levingston wrote:Cliff Levingston leans toward letting him walk even if he's only going to cost $9 mil per year on average. Cliff Levingston would hate to see us tie so much money in the 1-3 positions and lose out on a great big as a result. Gordon/Rose is far from an ideal back court so why (eventually) pay $25+ million anually for it?


Lose out on a big? You know the Bulls can easily dump Hinrich (who has decent value again) if necessary, PDX is just waiting for our call. Salmons is too old to extend (same age as Rip, who DET could get rid of for BG). It really makes 0 sense to lose Gordon, especially when Wayne Ellington was sitting there @ 26 and we took Taj. I would say the Bulls are not only prioritizing but banking on BG to return.
User avatar
GM_JAMES
Senior
Posts: 540
And1: 0
Joined: Mar 04, 2009

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#47 » by GM_JAMES » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:52 pm

The Answer is no. He is too streaky and plays no defense. Plus, he scores away from the offense in ISO plays. That hurts other players stats because he isn't a play maker, It's make the three or bust with him. Plus, reinsdorf isn't paying a luxury tax on that guy. And last I checked they didn't even have 10 million to pay him, let alone 11.

LET THE GUY WALK...
User avatar
Woody Allen
General Manager
Posts: 7,799
And1: 2,840
Joined: Aug 13, 2002
Location: Toronto

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#48 » by Woody Allen » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:00 pm

bulletbill wrote:the Bulls can easily dump Hinrich if necessary


I think we can't be so sure about that one.
Cliff Levingston
RealGM
Posts: 22,667
And1: 1,094
Joined: May 29, 2003
Location: Cliff Levingston is omnipresent.
       

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#49 » by Cliff Levingston » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:19 pm

bulletbill wrote:Lose out on a big? You know the Bulls can easily dump Hinrich (who has decent value again) if necessary, PDX is just waiting for our call. Salmons is too old to extend (same age as Rip, who DET could get rid of for BG). It really makes 0 sense to lose Gordon, especially when Wayne Ellington was sitting there @ 26 and we took Taj. I would say the Bulls are not only prioritizing but banking on BG to return.

Well, almost for sure, Rose will be a max contract player. Once that kicks in, you're going to have a really hard time creating enough financial flexibility under the tax to be able to be ready to grab a great big man. Not only that but Noah is a up for extension next year and will need to be re-upped either then or the year after; that won't come cheap. On top of that, you've got Deng. If he can't shake the recent injury bug and mesh well with Rose, he could become quite the albatross. Nonetheless, without Gordon on the payroll (and perhaps even Hinrich as well) we'll still have enough room under the cap to offer a max contract.

In other words, if we have Rose and Bosh or Rose and Amare or even Rose and Millsap/Boozer/West locked in already, retaining Gordon would indeed be a no-brainer. But until then, Cliff Levingston would lean toward staying flexible and not committing too much money to a back court that's far from ideal.
User avatar
DJhitek
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 19,778
And1: 1,354
Joined: Jul 12, 2004
Location: Berto Center
       

Re: Re-sign Ben Gordon Poll 

Post#50 » by DJhitek » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:26 pm

I'd pay Gordon 11 million without blinking. That's just me though.

Return to Chicago Bulls