KC: Bulls Would Have Pulled BG Offer Regardless of Deadline

[Rerisen]

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?

I meant that to read as "shouldn't" we be hoping for a trade with Kirk. Obviously many fans are, but management can't be far behind the way Kirk has played this year and figures to continue to be an albatross contract for 2 more years.

Even with Gordon being gone, if we could free up Kirk's money that gives you a shot at landing a legitimate starting SG down the line, in addition to pursuing a star FA.

[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?

I meant that to read as "shouldn't" we be hoping for a trade with Kirk. Obviously many fans are, but management can't be far behind the way Kirk has played this year and figures to continue to be an albatross contract for 2 more years.

Even with Gordon being gone, if we could free up Kirk's money that gives you a shot at landing a legitimate starting SG down the line, in addition to pursuing a star FA.

yeah, the should makes it a bit different...i agree with you, but even then, i doubt management is...

dont under estimate the fact that kirk expires the year rose is due

[bulletbill]

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 starting to think it wasn't really Hinrich vs. Gordon, but more of the remainder of Hinrich's contract vs. a new BG deal. When we put it like that, it really means neither is in the long term plans. Bulls were never going to dump both at the same time, so I feel Hinrich will be next.

Its all about who fits with D. Rose. Gordon is a decent fit, but does take the ball out of DR's hands quite a bit. so either we are looking for a pure role playing SG who can shoot the 3 (i.e. Morrow, maybe Rudy), or a superstar we simply can't turn down like Wade. We are keeping options open it seems. However, if I'm wrong in that Hinrich is on this team next year, I might explode

The most disappointing part about all this is I thought the Bulls were trying to build a championship team by 2010. Gordon at the price JR pulled after the deadline, was a great piece as a 30 mpg 3rd guard.

[DanTown8587]

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 starting to think it wasn't really Hinrich vs. Gordon, but more of the remainder of Hinrich's contract vs. a new BG deal. When we put it like that, it really means neither is in the long term plans. Bulls were never going to dump both at the same time, so I feel Hinrich will be next.

Its all about who fits with D. Rose. Gordon is a decent fit, but does take the ball out of DR's hands quite a bit. so either we are looking for a pure role playing SG who can shoot the 3 (i.e. Morrow, maybe Rudy), or a superstar we simply can't turn down like Wade. We are keeping options open it seems. However, if I'm wrong in that Hinrich is on this team next year, I might explode

The most disappointing part about all this is I thought the Bulls were trying to build a championship team by 2010. Gordon at the price JR pulled after the deadline, was a great piece as a 30 mpg 3rd guard.

2010 was NEVER going to lead us into a title contender. Maybe a team like Denver (you win 50+ games, win a playoff series or two but will eventually be outclassed) or Atlanta, but not a title contender. To win in 2010, you had to have max cap space and add LeBron AND a Bosh/Boozer, etc.

[C3]

dont under estimate the fact that kirk expires the year rose is due

I guess that means, we could let Rose walk, and resign Kirk. Thus completing the cycle.

[Rerisen]

The most disappointing part about all this is I thought the Bulls were trying to build a championship team by 2010. Gordon at the price JR pulled after the deadline, was a great piece as a 30 mpg 3rd guard.

Certainly Gordon could have been a third guard if the team acquired enough to talent to make that his best role. And he would have still frequently found himself in at the end of games for his clutch ability. He is also a great player to have if any of your big scorers go down to injury (say a Bosh or Rose down the line) because he can fill up that vacuum of lost points.

We are seeing right now how fragile this team currently is in terms of handling any injuries.

If Salmons hadn't totally sucked this year, you could have even imagined Gordon coming off the bench like he is doing in Detroit. Thought it is obvious to all now, that Salmons was mostly a fluke, having an outlier year, and has now regressed back toward the player he always was.

Or Gordon could have been moved as a tradeable asset if a you landed a player like Wade and decided too much money was in the backcourt.

[Rerisen]

2010 was NEVER going to lead us into a title contender. Maybe a team like Denver (you win 50+ games, win a playoff series or two but will eventually be outclassed) or Atlanta, but not a title contender. To win in 2010, you had to have max cap space and add LeBron AND a Bosh/Boozer, etc.

Most teams that win titles *were* one step away teams at one point. Like the Lakers before stealing Pau (it was viewed as a steal at the time), or Detroit before getting Sheed in a killer deal.

I would gladly take being the Denver Nuggets success wise for the next 3-5 years, than going back into the lottery and rebuilding plan number 4 or 5 since the dynasty.

When you are that close you never know what can happen to get you over a hump. Internal player development can exceed expectations and launch you to the next tier, a team wanting salary relief can give you your final piece. A veteran player can come on a very reasonable deal to try and win a title. Being one step away is not a bad thing. It's practically a step along the process.

[DanTown8587]

2010 was NEVER going to lead us into a title contender. Maybe a team like Denver (you win 50+ games, win a playoff series or two but will eventually be outclassed) or Atlanta, but not a title contender. To win in 2010, you had to have max cap space and add LeBron AND a Bosh/Boozer, etc.

Most teams that win titles *were* one step away teams at one point. Like the Lakers before getting Pau, or Detroit before getting Sheed in a killer deal.

I would gladly take being the Denver Nuggets success wise for the next 3-5 years, than going back into the lottery and rebuilding plan number 4 or 5 since the dynasty.

Once again, not saying to not sign Gordon, but the Bulls were not a Chris Bosh away from a title. The main difference in the Lakers example was they had Kobe Bryant, you can win a title with Kobe Bryant as your best player. I don't think Derrick Rose or any 2010 FA we could have gotten (not getting James or Wade) is good enough to win a title as the best player.

[bulletbill]

2010 was NEVER going to lead us into a title contender. Maybe a team like Denver (you win 50+ games, win a playoff series or two but will eventually be outclassed) or Atlanta, but not a title contender. To win in 2010, you had to have max cap space and add LeBron AND a Bosh/Boozer, etc.

By 2010, a healthy D Rose many fans like me anticipate would be an all star. We see Noah growing stronger and beasting, its not unreasonable for us to think he improves even more. This guy is a winner and knows his role, the passion isn't fake and his work ethic is catching up to that. With Bosh next to him, Gordon on the perimeter, Deng now with a respectable 3pt game, Rose...I think we can go into the tax with this team and get a MLE player if needed.

[dougthonus]

2010 was NEVER going to lead us into a title contender. Maybe a team like Denver (you win 50+ games, win a playoff series or two but will eventually be outclassed) or Atlanta, but not a title contender. To win in 2010, you had to have max cap space and add LeBron AND a Bosh/Boozer, etc.

Not many teams go from bad/mediocre to winning a title in a season [Boston being the exception]. If you get LeBron, you may still need a Bosh/Boozer, but you're a lot closer to a title at that point. You're one move away. That's a lot better than being two moves away when one of the moves is to get a top three player in the league.

[Rerisen]

Once again, not saying to not sign Gordon, but the Bulls were not a Chris Bosh away from a title. The main difference in the Lakers example was they had Kobe Bryant, you can win a title with Kobe Bryant as your best player. I don't think Derrick Rose or any 2010 FA we could have gotten (not getting James or Wade) is good enough to win a title as the best player.

I'm not saying Bosh is the final piece, I'm saying you become one step away once you land a Bosh, or Amare, or Boozer in 2010 (with Gordon still here solving the SG position). Then you have the next several years to try and tweak the roster, to reach the next level.

Maybe if a player like Rose or Noah explodes production wise, that is your avenue right there.

Obviously, I agree that most teams don't win titles without a megastar talent, top 3 player in the league type. But you can't just give up and go to the lottery every year if you don't have those guys. There are only a couple in the whole league, by virtue of their definition.

It's like some want the perfect scenario of Michael Jordan in place again, before we go start spending any money or committing long term to good payers or a above average team. MJ is not walking through that door ever again!

[HomoSapien]

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...

Sure, Paxson may be heavily restricted by his owner's spending habits, but so are a lot of GMs. We've overpaid every player we've signed whether it's a huge gamble contract in Ben Wallace, an unnecessary long-term commitment to Nocioni in addition to a Joe Smith signing, or something nonsensical like giving Adrian Griffin a three-year contract and resigning Lindsey Hunter.

If the rules that Reinsdorf has given Paxson are, "you can spend up to the lux. tax limit but that's all" then he simply has to do a better job of operating under those rules.

If Curry's heart condition never happened, we would have committed $126 million to those two idiots. That's the kind of management we have.

[Neusch23]

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.

Well, you can't say we are out of the playoffs. We were just as junk last year, and a couple of years ago and rallied to make the playoffs. We are just getting into our typical December stretch of several homes games. We need a shake up, though. Something needs to give. If they are not going to fire vinny, then you need to shake up the line up. Bench someone, make a statement. I still believe we can make the playoffs. The talent is there, we just don't want to play 100%.

Like I said, I believe Gordon would be here if we didn't have Kirk already signed. So basically they again choose D over O. I really don't care either way because I don't see either in our long term plans.

I see us basically right back into the situation we were in after we fired Krause. Roster clean up. Noah and Rose is all I would keep. I hate Dengs game. I believe we started winning more last season when he went down, because he wasn't out there.

This season tough is what it is. We have to play it to get to the time where we can bring in the players we want to have here, either via trade or through FA. I really don't think W & L's are a matter for this year. If they were we would have a much more ballanced roster. all PG's for guards, and basically C's and SF. This roster is a mess. It isn't made for anything but to get us to next year. Develop what we think we might keep, which explains Gibson.

[musiqsoulchild]

Personally, I think there is more to this than meets the eye....even KC's eye. Either that , or one of the 2 conclusions follows:

a) BG is an ass-wipe of a person and could not get along with anyone in management and the team
b) The front-office is dumb as rocks.

I have trouble accepting either of those 2 conclusions.

[jax98]

Personally, I think there is more to this than meets the eye....even KC's eye. Either that , or one of the 2 conclusions follows:

a) BG is an ass-wipe of a person and could not get along with anyone in management and the team
b) The front-office is dumb as rocks.

I have trouble accepting either of those 2 conclusions.

Sadly, B sounds about right these days.

[HomoSapien]

I have to ask ... why does a "deadline" change a few of your guys' opinion so drastically about the situation?

[sonny]

Besides the thing where Vinny fined him, we've heard nothing to support the theory that Ben was anything but professional and had a tremendous work ethic.

[musiqsoulchild]

Besides the thing where Vinny fined him, we've heard nothing to support the theory that Ben was anything but professional and had a tremendous work ethic.

Exactly.

Neither have we heard anything that supports the asertion that a fiscally ultra-responsible(cheap?) management like the Bulls are, would not sign BG for that less than a market value deal.

The kind that was given and "accepted".

[Mezotarkus]

The Bulls were not a great offensive team with BG and without BG the Bulls are just horrible. Further, the Bulls are not outstanding enough on the defensive end to make up for their offensive problems. Look at the Bulls points per 100 possessions, third lowest in the league. Sure, you can see this is an obvious problem. But looking at the roster there isn't anyone that is going to suddenly become an offensive dynamo. You can change the coach but any new coach won't be able to implement a vastly different system in mid-season.

The Bulls need to either bag the season and settle on signing one of the big 3 (Bosh, Wade, James) or trade now for an impact offensive player.

[C3]

I think what it really comes down too, is that management did not view Ben as Roses long-term running mate. This does not mean they believe Kirk is.

Rather than adding two high dollar guards to the roster, neither of which they believed fit with Rose. They chose to let Ben walk. Most likely Hinrich will be on his way too.

I don't believe Ben did anything wrong, or that management disliked him. When we drafted Rose, the organization priority's got re-mapped. If we would have drafted any other position, (like Beasley) Ben would then still be a Bull. Because him and Kirk seemed to be a productive pair.