KC: Bulls Would Have Pulled BG Offer Regardless of Deadline

[coldfish]

You neglected to mention that the Bulls had set a deadline on the offer and that Ben came back after the deadline expired, but don't let that get in the way of your rant. Carry on.

That's the line I was referring to.

That is still what happened though, isn't it? I just don't see what KC's e-mail comment about what he heard might happen if things were different adds to the discussion.

Everything everyone is saying about the Bulls' stupidity applies just as much to what did happen as it would to what didn't but theoretically could have happened.

How it went down is rather unimportant, but Magilla brought it up. Gordon isn't here anymore. The issue is that the Bulls seem to have a significant issue with player valuation and KC is affirming that the Bulls didn't want Gordon at any price, which is mind numbingly stupid. If you don't like him or don't think he fits, sign him, use him and then trade him for value. Keeping worthless Hinrich and losing Gordon for nothing harmed the Bulls.

I can't think of any other team though that shuffled someone to the bench, then to the starting line up, then back to the bench as much as gordon was and then still to have him be SO important to the team any many posters here claim he was.

I won't discussing the details of your post. As Duck once said, if you go through enough game film you can find some anecdotal evidence to support just about any conclusion. I see it differently and can't point to a lot of facts that back it up like the fact that when the Bulls had big men who could rebound, they were the best defense in the league WITH Gordon.

The only important part is the quoted line and I have to ask, have you watched the Bulls in the past few weeks? Not having him has completely destroyed the offense. The offense sucked in the preseason and has sucked all year. This is going from an offense that was outright awesome to end last year . . . without Luol Deng (who would have even made it better).

I always thought Gordon was important to the team, but quite frankly, I may have underestimated it. Gordon's loss isn't the only or even the biggest problem this year, but its a pretty big factor. Denying that at this point is illogical.

[DASMACKDOWN]

I would say that all other GM's, their current fan base, anyone that watched the playoffs last year and any casual fan that briefly watched the Bulls can see that dropping Gordon for nothing was STUPID.

You can understand Iverson
You can understand Zach Randolph.
You can even understand Crawford.

But not Gordon.

Based on character(Gordon's a good guy), position of the team(a playoff team) and importance to the team (their leading scorer)

its a stupid stupid move and everyone is jumping on that bandwagon.

[madvillian]

I am absolutely shocked how little depth this team has. Shocked. You look at a team like the Knicks, who be every single conveivable notion have "punted" this year and assembled a cast of ragtag guys. A team that has traded away most of it's first round picks the past years -- THIS TEAM, THIS KNICKS TEAM has more depth than the Bulls by a huge margin.

They have guys like Toney Douglass, Hill, Chandler, Harrington, etc etc who are capable NBA players who might actually improve.

And we are treated to guys like Gray and Hunter and Johnson. It's pathetic.

[DuckIII]

Really? It's pretty obvious that it changes the discussion some.

There was an argument (one I consider foolish and inconsequential) that "The Bulls aren't at fault because Gordon let the deadline pass". My view has been the Bulls didn't want Gordon, and that was a mistaken in talent evaluation and the deadline was meaningless and arbitrary.

There have been a great number of people who made the argument that the Bulls did the right thing because of the deadline. Now those people may have just not wanted Gordon here regardless, but the fact that Gordon let a deadline pass seemed to have meaning to some people as a rational as to why the Bulls shouldn't be judged harshly for their decision.

Well, to the extent it provides some new ammunition against an argument that was already meritless, then I guess it matters.

[Grand Champ]

There's got to be some explanation. Got to be...

Yeah its a rumor from a blogger/journalist... not fact

[kyrv]

The more I think about it, I just don't know. This would be a huge departure from JR the businessman, who for example gave Greg Walker millions knowing he couldn't play, based on a verbal agreement.

I find it plausible, as some said, that at some point the Bulls decided they preferred Ben not take the offer.

[Mapelgleaf]

wow... this thread is coming alive today.

I'm glad Neuche23 is a lot less lazier than I when it comes to posting - feel free to add "mapelgleaf +1" to all your posts!

[C3]

Does anyone remember when Gilbert Arenas came out publicly, and criticized Ben for not accepting the Bulls offer?

Then later Ben did an interview to clear things up, He said something to the affect of: One of the reasons he did not accept the offer, was the Bulls would not budge even one bit from what was offered.

What year was that? was it 2 years ago, or 3? I really don't remember the details, but remember it happening.

[dougthonus]

Does anyone remember when Gilbert Arenas came out publicly, and criticized Ben for not accepting the Bulls offer?

Then later Ben did an interview to clear things up, He said something to the affect of: One of the reasons he did not accept the offer, was the Bulls would not budge even one bit from what was offered.

What year was that? was it 2 years ago, or 3? I really don't remember the details, but remember it happening.

You remember that the same way I do.

Arenas blasted Gordon, Gordon talked to Arenas before a game and said they wouldn't even talk to him that it was a take it or leave it offer, then Arenas said he understood where Gordon was coming from.

Though personally, I think there's nothing even remotely wrong with giving Gordon a good fair offer up front and saying this is our final offer, we're not dicking around by low balling you to meet in the middle, this is what we're willing to do.

[MAQ]

No, they are this blatantly stupid. Since Paxson has taken over, every single trade has had something to do with the team's finances. It's never been simply about getting better. His smartest move came at Phoenix's incompetence.

I don't see how this can actually be blamed on Pax though. We all know why he's making cost cutting moves 75 percent of the time...

Even though Pax gushed all over Salmons in the press conference following the trade, I truly believe Pax fought for EVERY player he drafted, Gordon especially. It wouldn't shock me that the whole "Pax leaving" thing from last year that ended up being swept under the rug had something to do with a disagreement on Ben's year at that current point in time and how it effected his position on the team. I can't imagine Pax was fine with just letting Gordon walk...I truly can't.

Pax is the only one in this front office that seems to know how to evaluate talent in a given moment.

[MAQ]

Does anyone remember when Gilbert Arenas came out publicly, and criticized Ben for not accepting the Bulls offer?

Then later Ben did an interview to clear things up, He said something to the affect of: One of the reasons he did not accept the offer, was the Bulls would not budge even one bit from what was offered.

What year was that? was it 2 years ago, or 3? I really don't remember the details, but remember it happening.

You remember that the same way I do.

Arenas blasted Gordon, Gordon talked to Arenas before a game and said they wouldn't even talk to him that it was a take it or leave it offer, then Arenas said he understood where Gordon was coming from.

Though personally, I think there's nothing even remotely wrong with giving Gordon a good fair offer up front and saying this is our final offer, we're not dicking around by low balling you to meet in the middle, this is what we're willing to do.

yep...the whole contract negotiation from that summer was very muddled and mostly by Gordon. what i remember most from that contract was the "I should be the highest paid player on the team" line despite the fact that we've got Ben Wallace's shadow making 15 million...

wasn't that offer for 10 million per? seems extremely fair to me...what's the point of haggling over numbers

[DuckIII]

wasn't that offer for 10 million per?

Yes. Arenas blasted Gordon for not taking the 5/50 offer a few years ago.

[Rerisen]

Just look at it, it's not hard to see...
Tyrus(shot blocker, no real offense), Thabo(defensive player no real offense), Noah(defensive player no real offense), Ben Wallace(no offense at all but we gave him 15 mil a year), Hinrich(defensive player, no real offense), Deng(defensive player, no real offense). Now toss in the comment of JR telling D'Antoini that he'd have a problem if the team didn't play good defense and it's as clear as day what's going on.

The only hope we can currently have is that JR is seeing that you have to have a balance of offense and defense to win. All of these defensive players we've drafted and signed are getting DESTROYED because without offense, there's a huge let down on the defensive end. Why play your ass off to get stops if you don't think you can get a score on the other end of the court?

All true. Plus Coldfish in this thread as well.

The league has changed in style, methods and rules since Jordan ruled the roost and the Bulls management does not appear to appreciate these changes. They don’t appear to appreciate the effect of three point shooting, which has ramped up enormously even since the early 90’s. They don’t appreciate that the league favors offense over defense now and does everything in its power to make talented perimeter players with triple threat ability the transcendent figures in the game. Building teams entirely on defense (Pat Riley, JVG style) is out.

Jerry’s zest, or at least approval, for old school is exemplified in the Bulls pursuit of Ben Wallace and the contracts handed out to Deng, Hinrich, and Chandler, all primarily defensive players. He probably thinks Ben Gordon is pretty much BJ Armstrong. It's exemplified in starting a washed out Adrian Griffin vs the Lakers over Ben Gordon one night in 08, because we thought his defense would be more valuable than Ben's offense.

Defense and rebounding are not bad fundamentals to build a foundation on. This is what Paxson said he believed in coming in the job. But you need more than that.

I'm happy for the success Skiles had doing a miracle coaching job with limited talent. But in some ways, I'm beginning to hate it, because it seems to have warped the minds of Bulls management (and some fans apparently) about what works in the NBA. The Bulls now seem to believe that a offense based on shooting jumpers, and often the lowest percentage ones in the game (long two's) is sufficient as long as you play gritty defense and hustle real hard.

But there comes a point when you face skilled AND hard working teams that this all falls apart. Similar to what happened when we ran into the Pistons in 07 who could hurt you all over the floor. Their good defense just focused on and shut down our only couple offensive threats and the Bulls just wilted on the vine. Worse, the Bulls players seemed to have an awakening to this reality of their ceiling as constructed, and along with Ben Wallace's malaise, it seemed to crush their spirits. They stopped giving 110% every night because they knew it was futile, they didn't have enough offensive talent.

If the Bulls keep going like they are, I would prepare for the same spirit crushing to happen to Derrick Rose as he gets gangbanged by defenses night after night, and has no line of sight even to make drives into the paint. We've seen signs of it already, where he looks extremely frustrated trying to go 1v5 all game.

At this point I don't think adding a star even saves the offense, unless its LeBron or Wade. Because we will have lost Gordon's offense, Salmons offense (when it was good in 09), Tyrus's offense (better than Taj), Miller's offense (when it was good in 09), come to 2010. That cannot all be made up by Carlos Boozer or Amare just getting 20 a night. Deng and Rose are below efficiency and limited versatility 2nd and 3rd options, and the rest of the team will be makeshift scrubs and vet minimum players.

[DJhitek]

They chose Kirk Hinrich over Ben Gordon. That was obvious 2 seasons ago, Bulls management made that decision and we are paying for it now. That's how I view it.

Did management **** up? Sure...hindsight is great. 6 games into this season we thought the Bulls were better off. If 2010 is the plan, than signing Gordon would have killed that chance.

I'm no dumbass, I'm not optimistic about our chances of landing anyone, but that is probably the train of thought. That or Bulls absolutely hated Ben Gordon with a bigger passion than we could imagine.

[DJhitek]

No, they are this blatantly stupid. Since Paxson has taken over, every single trade has had something to do with the team's finances. It's never been simply about getting better. His smartest move came at Phoenix's incompetence.

I don't see how this can actually be blamed on Pax though. We all know why he's making cost cutting moves 75 percent of the time...

Even though Pax gushed all over Salmons in the press conference following the trade, I truly believe Pax fought for EVERY player he drafted, Gordon especially. It wouldn't shock me that the whole "Pax leaving" thing from last year that ended up being swept under the rug had something to do with a disagreement on Ben's year at that current point in time and how it effected his position on the team. I can't imagine Pax was fine with just letting Gordon walk...I truly can't.

Pax is the only one in this front office that seems to know how to evaluate talent in a given moment.

No real hard evidence of that but I genuinely agree maq.

[Neusch23]

The only important part is the quoted line and I have to ask, have you watched the Bulls in the past few weeks? Not having him has completely destroyed the offense. The offense sucked in the preseason and has sucked all year. This is going from an offense that was outright awesome to end last year . . . without Luol Deng (who would have even made it better).

I always thought Gordon was important to the team, but quite frankly, I may have underestimated it. Gordon's loss isn't the only or even the biggest problem this year, but its a pretty big factor. Denying that at this point is illogical.

Yes, and I have posted a lot about that. However. I don't believe you sign Gordon for just this season. You can't hope to make a trade later. He wasn't in our plan, so we let him go. I have said many, many times that I believe this season to be a wash. A build up to this summer if we don't make a trade for the player we want before the dead line.

I have always felt that we needed to have a good year to help bolster our chances for a more successful FA. I feel that is important. I will also say that a stud player coming in understands what we have, and how they would like to show how important their play is to more wins, but we are an easier sell if we were a good team already.

We have major holes, but plugging gordon in for year isn't a smart business move. Now. If we would have moved Kirk at the deadline after signing Gordon before that, different story. But trading Kirk wasn't a slam dunk either.

I believe there has to be more to it. I look at his play on D a lot different than most posters around here, and looking at this from a business view, vs. a fans perspective I think it is the right call based on what my business plan would be.

This year though, if we don't pick up our D, create more turn overs, and rebound better so that we can get more transition baskets, it is going to be a long year.

[DanTown8587]

How is John Paxson to blame in all of this? I think if he feared that Gordon's size would be a long term concern, then he wouldn't of drafted him #3. And considering his defense greatly improved, I have a hard time believing that all of the sudden Paxson didn't want him here.

Plain and simple, the biggest moves in the recent history of the Bulls (contracts to Wallace and Deng, no contract to Gordon, Hinrich's deal, Chandler trades) were all facilitated by Jerry Reinsdorf. The Bulls have a GM but they have an owner who basically runs the personnel of the team long term.

In all seriousness, I believe JR knows the Bulls will always make him money and he gives his money to guys he likes and really doesn't care about the talent on the team unless they are close to winning a title (which they are not). I mean any owner who cares about winning over money would have given Deng less money and none deferred, but because he values Luol, he not only got to sign him to a larger cap contract (thus making it seem like he spent more), he also feels like he is securing Deng for life financially.

[Rerisen]

The only important part is the quoted line and I have to ask, have you watched the Bulls in the past few weeks? Not having him has completely destroyed the offense. The offense sucked in the preseason and has sucked all year. This is going from an offense that was outright awesome to end last year . . . without Luol Deng (who would have even made it better).

I always thought Gordon was important to the team, but quite frankly, I may have underestimated it. Gordon's loss isn't the only or even the biggest problem this year, but its a pretty big factor. Denying that at this point is illogical.

Yes, and I have posted a lot about that. However. I don't believe you sign Gordon for just this season. You can't hope to make a trade later.

Why not? Isn't that what we are doing with Kirk Hinrich? Hoping for a trade? You mean to tell me Kirk Hinrich is on our plan for 2 more freaking years, on not much more than BG would have made, but Gordon couldn't have been?

Hinrich looks like a corpse already, and we have 2 more years of this crap to watch.

[MAQ]

Isn't that what we are doing with Kirk Hinrich? Hoping for a trade?

you know that's not what the front office is doing man...come on now

did the thread not have the minimum kirk post?

[coldfish]

Yes, and I have posted a lot about that. However. I don't believe you sign Gordon for just this season. You can't hope to make a trade later. He wasn't in our plan, so we let him go. I have said many, many times that I believe this season to be a wash. A build up to this summer if we don't make a trade for the player we want before the dead line.

I have always felt that we needed to have a good year to help bolster our chances for a more successful FA. I feel that is important. I will also say that a stud player coming in understands what we have, and how they would like to show how important their play is to more wins, but we are an easier sell if we were a good team already.

We have major holes, but plugging gordon in for year isn't a smart business move. Now. If we would have moved Kirk at the deadline after signing Gordon before that, different story. But trading Kirk wasn't a slam dunk either.

I believe there has to be more to it. I look at his play on D a lot different than most posters around here, and looking at this from a business view, vs. a fans perspective I think it is the right call based on what my business plan would be.

This year though, if we don't pick up our D, create more turn overs, and rebound better so that we can get more transition baskets, it is going to be a long year.

Again, if you don't see Gordon in your long term plans but you can get him for a value contract, you sign him, use him for what you can and then trade him for value. While I don't know if Hinrich could have been dumped for expirings or better, I'm pretty confident that it could have been done in the past.

Now, the Bulls lost a player that has value for nothing and have watched Hinrich's value go in the toilet.

I disagree that Gordon could have been used, but just going with your line of thinking, the Bulls still screwed up because they degraded the value of their assets. Its bad business and horrible basketball.

Purely from a financial standpoint, the Bulls aren't going to make the playoffs now, partly due to their lack of offense. That's going to cost them millions this year.