Boozer wants 5yr/$80 million, Gordon likely in Detroit...

Sid the Squid · Post #41 » by **Sid the Squid** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:18 pm

Ben Gordon? OMG..WTHeck happened to Dumars?

princeofpalace · Post #42 » by **princeofpalace** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:18 pm

charity stripe wrote:
DuckIII wrote:Everyone keeps harping on why the Pistons wouldn't want Gordon - and I get that. But did you guys not notice that the Pistons have pooped their death poop and are now dead and buried? That team is rebuilding.

Signing Gordon would be the first step in that process, followed later by additional moves to make greater sense of the roster.

I don't know, i find it interesting that the Detroit media has been ripping Dumars for thinking about Gordon. Most are saying that he needs to spend money on the frontcourt instead.

Detroit should focus on the frontcourt, they only have Maxiel and Kwame. They already have a quality backcourt in Stuck, Rip, Bynum, Afflalo. If they don't move Rip, then theres no point in Gordon. My biggest fear is that MC and Joe D want to play small ball again like they did with AI and start a Stuck/Gordon/Rip/Prince/Kwame lineup.

And, I think its an ultimate fail to trade Chauncey Billups and essentially just get Ben Gordon.

Post #43 » by **DuckIII** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:22 pm

charity stripe wrote:
I don't know, i find it interesting that the Detroit media has been ripping Dumars for thinking about Gordon. Most are saying that he needs to spend money on the frontcourt instead.

That's because those people look at this team and say: "Hey, we've still got Rip, Tay, Dice, and a young stud in Stuckey. If we add Boozer and Gortat, we're right back in this thing!"

Whereas Dumars is thinking: "This team is done. Time to start over. Gordon on a 5 year deal wraps up one position for the entirety of that players prime. Backcourt established. Now I start trading off Rip and Tay, and using the rest of my money to rebuild this wreck."

If you accept the premise that the Pistons have no illusions about contending again with the pieces they have - and Joe is smart enought to realize that this is precisely the case - then going after Gordon begins to make a lot more sense.

princeofpalace · Post #44 » by **princeofpalace** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:25 pm

DuckIII wrote:
charity stripe wrote:
I don't know, i find it interesting that the Detroit media has been ripping Dumars for thinking about Gordon. Most are saying that he needs to spend money on the frontcourt instead.

That's because those people look at this team and say: "Hey, we've still got Rip, Tay, Dice, and a young stud in Stuckey. If we add Boozer and Gortat, we're right back in this thing!"

Whereas Dumars is thinking: "This team is done. Time to start over. Gordon on a 5 year deal wraps up one position for the entirety of that players prime. Backcourt established. Now I start trading off Rip and Tay, and using the rest of my money to rebuild this wreck."

If you accept the premise that the Pistons have no illusions about contending again with the pieces they have - and Joe is smart enought to realize that this is precisely the case - then going after Gordon begins to make a lot more sense.

This argument doesnt make much sense. They can add Boozer who is only 1 year older than Gordon and have a player in his prime for 5 years at a position of need. The same goes for Gortat only 25. Even if you accept that they are done, it still doesnt make sense to add to a glut when there are a lot of holes in the frontcourt

Post #45 » by **DuckIII** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:33 pm

princeofpalace wrote:This argument doesnt make much sense.

The one you are responding to, or the one you are about ready to make?

They can add Boozer who is only 1 year older than Gordon and have a player in his prime for 5 years at a position of need.

How old do you think these guys are? Gordon just turned 26 in the last month of the season. Boozer will be 29 one month into next season. When his 5 year deal expires, he'll be 34. Gordon will be 31. And Gordon never gets injured.

Even if you accept that they are done, it still doesnt make sense to add to a glut when there are a lot of holes in the frontcourt

It does when that "glut" position contains your best trading pieces.

bulletbill · Post #46 » by **bulletbill** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:39 pm

DuckIII wrote:
How old do you think these guys are? Gordon just turned 26 in the last month of the season. Boozer will be 29 one month into next season. When his 5 year deal expires, he'll be 34. Gordon will be 31. And Gordon never gets injured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Boozer

Booz turns 28 on Nov. 20 (b. 1981)

Post #47 » by **DuckIII** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:45 pm

bulletbill wrote:
DuckIII wrote:
How old do you think these guys are? Gordon just turned 26 in the last month of the season. Boozer will be 29 one month into next season. When his 5 year deal expires, he'll be 34. Gordon will be 31. And Gordon never gets injured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Boozer

Booz turns 28 on Nov. 20 (b. 1981)

Oops. It doesn't really change my position though, considering the contract he'll demand and his injury history. Gordon will be younger, cheaper, and healthier, and will allow them to move perimeter players, who are their best trade assets.

If I'm wrong about Detroit contemplating a complete tear down, then I agree that Gordon makes no sense. But if Dumars signs Gordon, its the first swing of the wrecking ball - which allows it to make more sense.

Post #48 » by **Rerisen** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:05 pm

If Detroit is totally rebuilding with Ben as a first step signing in a process to last several years, then a factor might become whether Ben Gordon actually believes Dumars can rebuild the team into a winner fairly quickly, as BG has said he wants to go somewhere that can win.

Total rebuilds don't always work as planned.

kyrv · Post #49 » by **kyrv** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:08 pm

Rerisen wrote:If Detroit is totally rebuilding with Ben as a first step signing in a process to last several years, then a factor might become whether Ben Gordon actually believes Dumars can rebuild the team into a winner fairly quickly, as BG has said he wants to go somewhere that can win.

Total rebuilds don't always work as planned.

Ben will go to whoever offers the most money. The only exception would be if he decides he's mad at someone (like the Bulls).

Wants to win, blah blah, whatever, he's going where the money is. Like most players.

--------------------------------------

* Ahead of time disclaimer as this usually comes up - no I don't work at the company that offered me the most money.

Post #50 » by **Rerisen** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:11 pm

The Bulls might let Detroit set Ben's price and then offer to match it if its not outrageous. Then we would see what is water under the bridge or not.

kyrv · Post #51 » by **kyrv** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:13 pm

Rerisen wrote:The Bulls might let Detroit set Ben's price and then offer to match it if its not outrageous. Then we would see what is water under the bridge or not.

If his primary objective is winning he'll sign for the MLE with a contender.

Post #52 » by **Rerisen** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:28 pm

kyrv wrote:
Rerisen wrote:The Bulls might let Detroit set Ben's price and then offer to match it if its not outrageous. Then we would see what is water under the bridge or not.

If his primary objective is winning he'll sign for the MLE with a contender.

You won't find too many players doing that unless they are in the last year or two of their career. But that doesn't mean a player's priority is always only money. I'm sure Ben's number 1 is money, but being on a good team may have some amount of leverage if deals are close enough.

northbrookrich · Post #53 » by **northbrookrich** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:29 pm

kyrv wrote:
Rerisen wrote:The Bulls might let Detroit set Ben's price and then offer to match it if its not outrageous. Then we would see what is water under the bridge or not.

If his primary objective is winning he'll sign for the MLE with a contender.

I generally agree, if Gordon was not all about the $$s he would have signed the very fair offers he received from the Bulls the last two summers. If he is all about winning, he would sign the MLE. If he is truly somewhere in between where he wants to get paid, but also have a shot at winning, I don't see him taking an extra million or two a season to be on a rebuilding team. It would be interesting turnabout if the Bulls let the Pistons overpay for Gordon after they let the Bulls overpay Wallace a couple of years ago.

Susan · Post #54 » by **Susan** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 5:57 pm

kyrv wrote:
DuckIII wrote:Everyone keeps harping on why the Pistons wouldn't want Gordon - and I get that. But did you guys not notice that the Pistons have pooped their death poop and are now dead and buried? That team is rebuilding.

Signing Gordon would be the first step in that process, followed later by additional moves to make greater sense of the roster.

If Detroit really is interested in Gordon, he got very, very lucky.

Why?

Professor Frink · Post #55 » by **Professor Frink** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:01 pm

Rerisen wrote:Gordon and Stuckey are a pretty undisciplined backcourt as a combo. Stuckey takes too many shots for how poor of an offensive player he is.

Yeah, so one consolation if this comes about is Detroit gets weaker. Gordon is far from what they need.

Professor Frink · Post #56 » by **Professor Frink** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:02 pm

Susan wrote:
kyrv wrote:
DuckIII wrote:Everyone keeps harping on why the Pistons wouldn't want Gordon - and I get that. But did you guys not notice that the Pistons have pooped their death poop and are now dead and buried? That team is rebuilding.

Signing Gordon would be the first step in that process, followed later by additional moves to make greater sense of the roster.

If Detroit really is interested in Gordon, he got very, very lucky.

Why?

Because otherwise there is no market for his services. At least not at the kind of money he wanted.

Susan · Post #57 » by **Susan** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:08 pm

Professor Frink wrote:

Because otherwise there is no market for his services. At least not at the kind of money he wanted.

It takes just one team. He's said that multiple times. There's like 3 teams with decent cap space as it is and he's the sole reason why he's in this fairly good position. That's not luck.

AirP. · Post #58 » by **AirP.** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:18 pm

Susan wrote:It takes just one team. He's said that multiple times. There's like 3 teams with decent cap space as it is and he's the sole reason why he's in this fairly good position. That's not luck.

3 teams... what 3 teams with cap space have a reason to drop big bucks for Gordon at SG?
OKC just drafted a SG #3
Memphis has Mayo at SG
Altlanta has Crawford and Joe Johnson for SGs
Portland has Roy at SG

So without Detroit, really the only team with space and a possible reason to draft him might be Minnesota.

The less teams that need his services, the less reason to drive up the price since nobody is really bidding on him. I would guess a lot of teams will lowball him but once he starts getting into the 7 million or so range they'll drop off the offers. Without Detroit, it's quite possible that he'd have to take a lowball offer from Chicago.

kyrv · Post #59 » by **kyrv** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:23 pm

AirP. wrote:
Susan wrote:It takes just one team. He's said that multiple times. There's like 3 teams with decent cap space as it is and he's the sole reason why he's in this fairly good position. That's not luck.

3 teams... what 3 teams with cap space have a reason to drop big bucks for Gordon at SG?
OKC just drafted a SG #3
Memphis has Mayo at SG
Altlanta has Crawford and Joe Johnson for SGs
Portland has Roy at SG

So without Detroit, really the only team with space and a possible reason to draft him might be Minnesota.

The less teams that need his services, the less reason to drive up the price since nobody is really bidding on him. I would guess a lot of teams will lowball him but once he starts getting into the 7 million or so range they'll drop off the offers. Without Detroit, it's quite possible that he'd have to take a lowball offer from Chicago.

Ben skillfully (not luck) managed those three teams and their cap space. He unskillfully made it so that on paper, and barring other changes, those teams all have at least good SG's without Ben.

Susan · Post #60 » by **Susan** » Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:41 pm

kyrv wrote:
Ben skillfully (not luck) managed those three teams and their cap space. He unskillfully made it so that on paper, and barring other changes, those teams all have at least good SG's without Ben.

Ben was a professional for 5 seasons here. He played at a fairly high level. He was offered a contract that looks like it's going to be less that what he's going to get offered this summer and tried to accept this offer only to have it pulled by JR. Now it looks like the Bulls are going to have to pay him more this summer or lose him for nothing. I'm sorry but after the media and a good majority of the people here called him greedy and stupid for his demands, he's looking pretty damn good right now while the Bulls are in a bad spot.