Were the Ben Gordon haters right all along?

Reading this blog, you know I'm a Ben Gordon fan.    I've thought the Bulls made a huge mistake in not signing him to the 6 year 54 million dollar extension two seasons ago which would have locked him in to a 9 million dollar a year contract.   A contract I considered a value.   At the same time, I thought it was fine to let him walk when the pricetag was going to go up to 12 million this summer.   Not that the Bulls would have seriously considered that due to the luxury tax.

While I've defended Gordon for most of the year, and I was still disappointed the Bulls didn't make things work for him, my own words after we declined to pick him up for 6/54 came back to me.

At that point I said, Gordon has just as much chance of becoming an MLE player as he does of earning more than the 6/54 that he originally declined (and then took at the last minute to have the Bulls decline).   Fred Pfeiffer and I had debated that point, but this season has proven it.  Swap Gordon's 08/09 and 09/10 seasons and he would have made the MLE (of course, then after a great 09/10 season he'd look like an incredible value at the MLE).

In six years in the NBA,  Gordon's had a PER below 15 three times and above 15 three times.   Overall, his career mark of 16 puts him slightly above average.   He's become a volume three point shooting specialist, and this year he struggled to even do that.

More interesting to me is how it all fell apart in Detroit.   Was it simply the injuries?   If so, we should see a much better season from Gordon next year.   However, it also seems like Gordon struggled to fit in with the players Detroit had.    His greatest success in the season came while they had other injuries and there were no chemistry issues on the court.

That's partially Detroits fault.   They didn't have a real PG, but a pure shooting guard in Hamilton and a SG forced to play PG in Stuckey.   They added in another PG-sized SG in Gordon.   The fit there is simply terrible.   Hamilton and Gordon are performing well under career norms, while Stuckey, for whatever reason, seems to be played as if he's a stud guard when he's a straight chucker (career TS% of 49.2% is simply awful).

However, the larger point is that Gordon struggled to fit in with other perimeter players who required a lot of touches.   He excelled when he was the focal point of the offense, but struggled to become a cohesive part of a talented backcourt.  

It brings back my point from long ago, that Hinrich was the perfect guard to play with Gordon.   Didn't require lots of shots, defended the two on defense, played PG on offense.   It's going to be tough for Gordon to find such an ideal teammate to complement his abilities elsewhere.

I've criticized the Bulls for keeping Hinrich over Gordon.   No more.   At this point, it's hard make that case.   His performance hasn't been good this season, and his experience in Detroit makes it look more likely he would have held Rose back, at least somewhat, from becoming the player he is.

With his poor play, would you really want Gordon with four more seasons left after this one or would you rather have Hinrich for two more seasons, coming off  the books when Rose requires an extension?  Would you rather have Rose forced into the role of dominant player or still having the ability to defer to Gordon?

Not only is it time to let Gordon go as fans, if you're one of the few who haven't, it's time to stop viewing letting him go as a mistake.  Derrick Rose needed this season to take it to the next level.   He needed a season where everything was on him, and he was forced to be the man.   He's a much better player for having it, and he'll keep that with him when the Bulls upgrade in talent again.

I still think Gordon is a better player than his detractors credit him as, but it seems equally clear that letting him go was the right thing for our franchise to do.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I thought the best scenario was to 1)sign Ben at 6/54 and give him the role that he does best- 6th man off the bench who crushes the opposition with threes against the second team of the opposition and at crunch time; and 2)dumping Kirk for expirings. That would have necessitated a strategic decision by Bulls management that Kirk was a highly overrated player. If Ben did not want to be a sixth man they should have done a sign and trade. Somebody would have taken him at 6/54 during that time when money was more available.

  • I don't know why you are using this season with Detroit and projecting that over the next 4 years if he would be a Bull. You can't expect he would have played like this if he was playing for the Bulls. I still think they would have been much better off trading Hinrich, keeping Gordon, and then signing a big man this offseason. The trio of Rose, Gordon, and Bosh/Stoudemire/Boozer/other was what many Gordon supporters were clamoring for all along. Having just Rose and another FA is going to turn the Bulls into the Hornets - 2 really good players, but not enough to be a real contender.

  • Gordon started out this year just like last year, averaging over 20 PPG in the first 10 games. Shortly thereafter, he suffered 2 leg injuries and missed 19 games. He hasn't been the same since. So, his poor performance this year is due to one of the following things:

    a. The Neil Funk Drone theory, that somehow he's magically lost all of his offensive ability, and this loss just happened to coincide with ankle and groin injuries that caused him to miss more games than he had in the previous 5 seasons combined.
    b. The ankle and groin injuries robbed him of his quickness and lift. (This lift is essential for a jump shooter with range like Gordon). Leg injuries are much more serious for a shooter then, let's say, a left thumb injury, which has no impact on the shot). Once he has an offseason to completely heal, we'll see a similar player to what we saw before.

    Before this year, he had 5 consecutive seasons of 40+% shooting from the 3-point line. If you want to think he's never going to reach that number again, and the previous 5 seasons were the aberration, I'd gladly take that bet.

  • never forget. never let go.

  • In reply to bullsblogger:

    Are we discussing 9/11?

  • yeah, it's almost as if we draft bad contracts.

  • Coming off his worst season, you're right that his price would have come down.

    Guys are often paid more than they're worth. And who knew Kirk Hinrich is not only making Derrick Rose's career but did so for Ben Gordon as well? For one of the worst starting 2-guards in the league he is truly amazing.

    C'mon Doug. Gordon's having a bad season. Rose is having a good season. Kurt is what he is (not really good and out of position).

    The 'haters' can't be proven right, and neither can Gordon fans, based on how everyone is doing in this situation, since we'll never know what would've happened if they picked Gordon over Hinrich, or even paid the tax for a season and used Rose's selection as good fortune instead of a payroll problem.

    In conclusion, I would've paid Gordon before he became a UFA, and then when he became a UFA, overpaid him to keep him here since that's what happens when you guys hit UFA.

    But that's old news, why can't you let Gordon go? :)

  • In reply to bullsblogger:

    Your sarcasm is actually an astute and interesting observation. Playing in the backcourt with Kirk is good for your career (I'm being sincere). Is it because Kirk always defends the opposing team's best guard? Kirk is also good for spacing on the offensive side and like Doug said, not requiring the touches. On the same note, Kirk seems like an overall low maintenance kind of guy which I would think makes him a wonderful teammate.
    Interesting...

  • In reply to KenyattaWright:

    Kurt's also a low-performance type of guy, so the other team's best defender guards you, and they can send another guy while they're at it.

  • In reply to KenyattaWright:

    Every Championship team in every sport has it's glue guy. Is Hinrich that guy in the NBA, who knows for sure, but Gordon certainly is not.

  • Not a crazy thought, but I don't think his current situation is an accurate sampling of that theory.

  • In reply to bullsblogger:

    plus it's just guessing to say that Gordon was holding Rose back and Rose couldn't break out. I never liked the 'intentionally give the guy worse teammates' theory of team-building, but it does keep you under the luxury tax.

  • well it's $1.8m less in 2010 cap space, but let's say we do this after whatever happens in the offseason.

    But yeah, sure. If you think Gordon isn't this bad (and I don't) then who cares if you overpay for him? I don't need to have the smartest-built team, just the best possible one.

    I'd say if they didn't get Bosh and instead more of a defensively-liable PF then perhaps Gordon isn't the best fit, but then I'd trade Hinrich for a bag of rocks, though we'd miss out on him making Amare Stoudemire's career like he did for Gordon and Rose :)

  • In reply to bullsblogger:

    I'm kidding about the Kurt thing, he'll be better as a guy you don't need to count on.

    I don't even like Gordon this much, I just hate 'Gordon haters' to the Xtreme. Oh, and Bulls management.

  • In reply to bullsblogger:

    Must be a raging Liberal, since you guys are genetically programmed to hate anyone and everyone who disagrees with your point of view on any subject.

    I don't hate you, I just know that you are wrong.

  • Doug, I don't think there's any argument that the Bulls should've kept Gordon if he all of a sudden became much worse at basketball. So please stop using his work this year as some kind of indicator of what 'Gordon haters' were talking about last season. If they're right now it doesn't mean they were right then.

    I understand your theory on Rose, but the Bulls could've used real coaching as a way to help that too. Making the team worse wouldn't have been my preferred option, and honestly if he has the instinct it will come out. The degrees that the Bulls take in the name of nurturing this instinct, including moving Gordon, having Hinrich as a mentor, having Hunter as a mentor, having Randy Brown as a mentor...seems a bit of overkill.

    But it probably wasn't as much about that as Reinsdorf just not liking Gordon, sadly. I think us twisting ourselves into basketball reasons is just retroactive reasoning. Probably just the money.

  • Doug, if they never go into the luxury tax we're not winning anyway, since they're not smart enough to do so. So then just give me the shooter instead of the scrapper so at least I can enjoy the games at a base level.

  • In reply to bullsblogger:

    That would be enjoying games at the Sportcenter highlight clip level, certainly not the base level.

    Base implies some sort of fundamentals, of which Gordon displays virtually none.

    Joakim Noah allows one to enjoy the game at a base level. The Bulls even with Rose are unwatchable without a healthy Noah.

  • In reply to BigWay:

    Gordon's shooting fundamentals are quite horrible. Quite true. Definitely worse than Noah's shooting fundamentals. Wow. This guy is a genius.

  • Kirk would be the ideal 6th/7th man if he could shoot a little better. It is tough to watch him struggle so much with his shooting.
    They did the right thing with Gordon because of he would stopped Rose's development. Drafting Rose spelled the end for Gordon/Hinrich in a way. Both of them are not great at a lot of things and it just doesn't work in the long term.
    That said, the Bulls Management should have had the vision after they got the first pick in 2008 draft to trade Gordon/Hinrich for either expiring contracts/future draft picks etc..

  • I was agreeing with you, if the Bulls never can go into the tax they have to be perfect with their contracts, and Gordon is a bad one.

    They'd have to deal Deng too. Heck, their best option would be to tank and hope for another lottery miracle, as the best contracts are rookie contracts.

    But if they had the stomach to have some bad contracts if they're good players* (like the contending teams do) it's a different plan.

    *Though Gordon hasn't even been a good player this year, that's a 'bad year', not bad player.

  • Doug,
    BG needs to be a starter. I am sure with your per analysis there is a clear divide between his starter years and his bench years. Its also clearly a injury thing this year, he was killing it to start the year. I think you are overvaluing a injury plgued year. Even with the injuries and issues, I'd still take BG over Kirk this year. Even in his by far worst, injury filled and bench role, he is still putting up a better per then Kirk. Kirk who has been pretty healthy, getting wide open 3's from Rose and starting still is a significantly worse. I can also tell you that BG will bounce back next year, espically if he starts and that Kirk will never be worth his declining contract.

  • "I do think in retrospect, things may have worked out for the best though which is what I was mainly trying to say."

    That I can see, though maybe only if they actually get a top FA. I don't think that having nobody over an overpaid Gordon is a better result, as that only effects the bottom line.

  • In reply to bullsblogger:

    Having an overpaid Gordon, in addition to an overpaid Deng, in addition to an overpaid Hinrich would have had a much greater impact on the team than just the bottom line. It would have essentially locked in mediocrity and deprived us of the chance to build a winner around Rose and Noah.

    Gordon simply did not positively affect winning with his one skill(apparently now that he got paid, greatly diminished), and negatively affected sinning with every other aspect of his game as well as his personality or lack there of.

    If being a mediocre team, at best is your goal as a fan, then by all means continue to advocate overpaying one dimensional, non impact players.

    As I've said from the day he got here, I will watch a team full of Joakim Noah's over a team of Ben Gordons any day, all day.

  • In reply to bullsblogger:

    Doug, I commend you for having the intellectual integrity to put up this post. While we still disagree on our overall assesment of Ben Gordon as a basketball player, you are being far more reasonable(as usual) than the vast majority of the Ben Gordon fan club, particularly the NerfBoy and his psychophants at DBagaBull.

    Particular kudos on the Title of the post, although, I am not certain that it reflects the actual tenor of your analysis.

    As a charter member of the Ben Gordon's detractor's(haters) club I certainly feel vindication in his attrocious performance this season, and quite a bit of relief. If he had even just matched his Bulls performance and the Pistons were a playoff team, I(we) would never have heard the end of it.

    So while the vindication is great, the silence from the other side is just so sweet.

    Finally, the unbelievable drop in Gordon's numbers make me wonder if he is just another NBA bum who cashes it in after he cashes in.

    Given that I have always regarded him as a selfish, self centered narsicist(although not a 3 faced one) I would not be surprised at all if this is the Ben Gordon we see for the rest of his career. Fat and happy, just cashing paychecks, Larry Hughes without the mouth.

  • Gordon had, "get the money and suck" written all over him.

    To me, this is not even a debate. It all comes down to, are the bulls better off in the long run without Gordon.

    No question.

  • In reply to Dmband:

    See Doug? This is the type of people you're praising :-D

  • I dunno. They said he was shy at first at Memphis, too, but that he gradually opened up as the season went on. I don't see why that wouldn't be different for the Bulls. Memphis had plenty of Alpha Dog personalities.

  • Offense wins games, but defense wins championships.

  • In reply to KenyattaWright:

    Championship teams are split roughly 50/50 on whether they have a better offense or defense. But generally if you add the two ranks together you get a number no higher than about 12, ie you need to be pretty damn good at both.

    The real problem is Hinrich is a good defender, but that doesn't help the team a great deal. Good defenders on the wing aren't worth that much. Look at how pure defensive players get paid, to pick a couple of ex Bulls Thabo makes 3 million and Chandler makes 10. Teams know that wing defense doesn't matter much, defense comes from your bigs.

  • In reply to KenyattaWright:

    I heard that winning games leads to winning championships, but that's just me.

  • In reply to KenyattaWright:

    I think a team has to win games to get to the championship, no?

  • In reply to KenyattaWright:

    Im not saying Pargo is good at all....I actually really liked Ben Gordon...and i wanted to hang onto him and not Hinrich. But the Bulls act like getting rid of Gordon was what was best for the team. Ya Right...so then they go and get Pargo and tell him do the same things as Gordon use to do. Which is stupid because either way, your supposedly hurting Derrick Roses growth. Pargo is a lot worst then Gordon was....Gordon at least made his shots. Pargo keeps shooting and no one tells him not too.

    There was a possible deal for Brook Lopez a couple years back involving Hinrich i believe. Or since he went 9th!!!!...the Bulls should of traded for a pick to get him! A center that solid to far that far doesnt happen much. He was considered a top3-5 pick.

    Gordon really didnt turn the ball over much. In 10 more minutes then what Hinrich played, Hinrich was only like .08 less in turnovers. So that arguement is stupid. Hinrich should of been gone a couple years ago.

  • Great Post sir

  • If Kirk could shoot a little better, he would be a great choice over Gordon. He just kills us in shooting and from what I have seen, he kills all the momentum Bulls have during a run with his bad shooting. That's why they kind of clicked well together because they complemented each other's skills.
    I still feel that we lost BG for nothing because Kirk is not that ideal 6th Man. I might be wrong but the ideal 6th Man in the NBA is more of an offensive guy who can give instant points(Jamal Crawford, BG, Lamar Odom, Delonte West)than a defensive guy.

  • In reply to schaumburgfan:

    Kirk starts.

  • Thats great that you guys like the concept of working hard

    I on the other hand, prefer to look at numbers.

    So, see my previous post about getting the money:

    AUBURN HILLS, Mich.

  • In reply to Dmband:

    You don't prefer to look at numbers ... you prefer to make random guesses about how people are based on cherrypicked stats.
    They're two different things.

  • In reply to Dmband:

    I don't think the BG haters were right - this was a horrible, injury-plagued year for BG, and it doesn't come at a great time for the contract.
    BG is overpaid now, though. He's kind of like ... a slightly worse Jason Terry [this year, he's kind of like ... a much better Jannero Pargo. But he's in the ballpark. Which is SCARY]. The Pistons are also built like an upside-down triangle, which ... doesn't help them. What with the falling over, and Charlie Villenueva being on the team.
    The Bulls shouldn't have matched the Pistons' offer, but they should've signed him for that 54 million 6-year deal when they had the chance. It was a fair price.
    Hopefully we get a good SG from ... somewhere. Somebody else. We'll see. The SG position's been a pretty big weakness.

  • I was one that thought the Bulls would really miss Gordon's scoring, especially at the end of games. I was wrong. I don't think the guy is as bad as he has played this year (well, he is on D). He was injured on a bad Pistons squad that has lost its identity. That team has to start over.

  • Of course the team is better off without Gordon. However they are much worse off with the perennially injured one Deng, an owner stating that the guard rotation of Rose, Hinrich, Salmons and Pargo would more than make up for that easy to come by offense that Gordon provided. Can't believe the way Doug is overstating an injured season for Gordon. Like it was already said, when healthy Gordon enjoyed and excellent start to the season.

  • A little sarcastic, don't you think.

    Speaking of Dynasty, The Bulls had one, twice. How do you think that they won those 6 championships, with defense, not with offense, even though they had the greatest offensive player this side of a young Wilt Chamberlain.

    All six titles were won on the defensive side of the ball. Jordan's Bulls were not the showtime Lakers, and even they had to play defense in "winning time"

  • I guess it depends on what you work on. If you only work on your one single strength and your beach muscles, while ignoring the rest of you suckass game then the hard work is pretty much equivalent to self flagelation and worthless to your team.

  • But Bigway his friends thinks he works hard? The Pistons are going to get 20 additional wins credited to their total once the seasons over for the add'l practice time spent trying to split a double team and taking off balance forced shots.

    Im not trying to be an a$$hat, but I cant even believe this is still up for debate.

  • Exactly, I always said that he was at max a mid level rotation player/specialist for any team good enough to contend for a title.

    Fortunately for all the bums in the NBA it only takes one stupid team/GM at any given time to get paid twice what you are worth.

    As a player you just have to be willing to sell you soul to go there.

  • Well, at least that sounds like a little more Christian philosophy, hate the sin, not the sinner.

  • He wasn't worth that risk coming off any of his seasons.

  • This is the essence of why signing Gordon was no longer an option. We could not continue on our current path of signing our so called core players to contracts that were immediately and universally hailed as bad contracts and made the player untradable. Hinrich, Nocioni, Deng, (Gordon?) the insanity has to stop sometime, or you become the Isaiah Thomas Knicks.

  • In reply to BigWay:

    Nocioni and Hinrich were untradeable? News to me!

  • I know I was thinking dynasty.

  • BG is not a well rounded player even at his best and given DRose's still learning defensive skills I am glad he is gone.
    I have been impressed with Flip Murray's with the ball play and wish that had been recognized earily as an option for offensive flow...
    Ben seems to be a nice enough guy but he is not a starter quality player on a very good team.

  • So Ben's offense is better than Kirk's defense?
    You consider Ben to be a dominant offensive player capable of winning a title? If Ben is your best offensive player, you're not winning anything.

  • I think the issue is bigger than Ben Gordon. I posted on this at Bulls Podcasters: look at all of the "Pax guys", Deng, Hinrich, Gordon and Noc all fell off a cliff once they got their big contract extensions. It could just be a coincidence, but come on, all 4 of them?

    I'm not saying they've deliberately taken the money and run, but I do think they're guys who were drafted for being hard workers. Hard workers who perhaps played above themselves due to it. Once you feel you've made it, you don't work as hard. It's not intentional, it's just that subconscious relaxation now you no longer have a point to prove. What signals you've made it in the NBA more than the big contract?

    I expect Gordon to bounce back a bit next year due to recovering from his injury, but just like Deng, I don't expect to see him back to matching his best years.

  • It's 2 more years vs 4, not 5. But I agree, both Gordon and Hinrich are overpaid by about 6 million a year right now, so you have to take the guy with 2 left.

  • Everybody knows Hinrich was the 1 that should of been gone. You should of traded Hinrich for some expirings or a better draft pick....BROOK LOPEZ deal should of went down if it wasnt for our dumb front office. Ben Gordon was WAY WAY WAY better then Kirk Hinrich is and ever will be lol He was the only guy on our team that could make shots, draw fouls and put pressure on the defense...unlike Kirk, who Paxson is in LOVE with. For Jerry Reinsdorf to say they wasnt any minutes for Ben Gordon is a ridiculous statement and he also is a idiot.

  • By the way....Pargo is our new Ben Gordon just much much worst. When Pargo gets the ball he is shooting it. But he is missing them compared to what Gordon use to do. Either way the Bulls are hurting Rose because once Pargo gets it, he isnt giving it back.

  • In reply to Csharp:

    Oh come on, Pargo and Ben Gordon are not even in the same time zone. Pargo doesn't even belong in the league. He takes more shots than Gordon, shoots far worse, and for all the crap Gordon got about his defense, he's better than Pargo at that too.

  • I meant more the years where he started. Like last year, the year before that where he split time as a starter and the year before where he started most games. Obviously we can't do game by game analysis but as a whole the numbers support that.

  • So his rookie season, while winning the 6th man of the year award, was only "decent"? And his defense was so "terrible" that year that the Bulls held to the lowest FG% in the league. I have to disagree with that assessment.

  • Well, as usual this is where your statistics fail you and you should learn to trust your eyeballs.

    I watched every single minute of every single game during those years including the playoffs. And I guarantee you that they seldom if ever won a playoff game, especially after the throw away first round by out offensing a team. Just look at the end of every championship series(usually game 6). We were practically choking the series away on offense, but put a strangle hold on the other team, so that we were always a Michael Jordan play away from winning.

    Nobody could ever get away from those Bulls teams, because no matter how bad the offense got the other team couldn't score either.

    I guess that you are obviously chosing a metric other than PPG, because I don't recall the Bulls ever being the highest scoring team in the league, and if they did it once I guarantee that they didn't do it 4 times. But I do recall them having the highest scoring differential or close to it in league history. While this takes being good at both, it is likely a product of defense over offense.

    Secondly regular season stats and playoff victories are 2 different things. And pretty much everyone in the history of the game knows that defensive intensity is ratcheted up in the playoffs(i.e winning time)to an entirely different level, ask Pat Riley, Phil Jackson or even Red Aurebach.

    Finally, the only offensive advantage the Bulls ever had was Jordan(obviously one of the greatest ever in the history of the game), yet he is one of the greatest one on one and team defenders in the history of the game. Pippen is going to the hall because of his overal court game, and especially his defense, described as a one man full court press. Rodman defense and rebounding (which is defense). Grant, hardly an offensive wizard.

    Really other than Jordan name a single Bull that was an offensive superstar. Pippens stats barely look better than Luol Dung's are you going to tell me that Dung is even in the same universe as Pippen as a player.

    The Bulls won championships with defense and Jordan, I watched it with my own eyes.

    Funny you mention 95/96 as if it was a real season, the one the Jordan sat out, and instead of Grant playing for us, he was helping beat us. If Jordan had played the whole season, and we had gotten Rodman that season to replace Grant we would have won the championship that year also.

    I guess this is why you like Ben Gordon as a good basketball player, and I know that he is absolutely useless, if you want to win championships. Offense is about statistics, defense is all about intangibles like heart and effort and intelligence.
    We all know that in just about every walk of life you can find statistics to say just about whatever you want them to.

    You seem like an astute observer of the game, yet you are wedded to statistics as if they are destiny. If statistics were so infallible then we wouldn't need to play the games we could just skip the playoffs and hand the championship to the statisical winners, and you could join me in Vegas and become a rich man.

  • Just as I suspected you finagled some bogus adjusted stats to skew the numbers to suit your point of view. How liberal of you.

    the Bulls ranked #7, #5, #14 in PPG scored during the first three peat

    they ranked #4, #3, #2 in PPG allowed during the first three peat.

    The defense out performed the offense relative to the rest of the league all three seasons.

    Just to demonstrate the obsurdity of whatever manipulated stat you used. You rank their offense in 1993 as #2, when in fact they were the 14th highest scoring offense.

    During the second three peat, their offensive PPG ranks were #1, #1, #9, while their defensive PPG ranks were #1, #5, #3.

    So the offense only outperformed the defense in 1 of the 3 years in the second threepeat and only once during the 6 championship years overall.

    The defense was always top 5, the offense was only top 5 in one half of the years.

    In 94 and 95 the offense dropped to 27 and 16, the loss of Jordan, obviously. The defense remained constant atr #3 and #5.

    As I stated the Bulls won with defense and Jordan's unique brilliance, or Jordan's unique brilliance and defense.

    There is an old saying about Lies, Damn Lies and statistics being used to support a weak argument.

    PPG scored vs PPG allowed is not only the relavent statistic, it is by definition the only statistic that directly correlates to winning, which is I believe the point of playing the game, right Coach Edwards.

    Doug, I love the effort you put into the site, and respect your insights as an astute observer of the game, however, you need to open your eyes and free your mind from the clutter of all these new fangled blogger stats. Basketball is a very simple game, that is why those of us who played it love to watch it, and hate those who don't play it the right way, his initials might start with BG.

  • Speaking of former Chicago Bulls' #7's.

    A #7 the Bulls should have hung onto is DERRICK BYARS.

    http://www.eurocupbasketball.com/ulebcup/home/on-court/players/showplayer?gamecode=149&pcode=000685

    He shot 50% from the arc in the pre-season, as he out-played Hunter, Pargo and Johnson. Currently, he is shooting 41% from the arc for AlbaBerlin and doing quite well in Eurocup play.

    COMPARISON:

    Jannero Pargo - 34% from the field and only 27% from the arc...AWFUL!!!

    The Bulls management should have kept this kid the first time around, so I hope they mend their mistake and give him another look in the summer.

  • Fit in great here? Not last year. Not when it was Rose and Gordon. Both Rose and BG played better next to Hinrich last year. Both Rose and BG need the ball to be most of effective. But Rose is so much better with the ball in his hands than BG that it's not even a question anymore. Look what happened to BG when he wasn't the focal point of the offense anymore....

  • Wow, BG still is good for ratings, isn't he. Congrats on revisting the issue and taking a balanced look at things. The simple fact is BG needs to be the focal point to be worth the money. When he isn't the focal point, he's not bringing much else to the table. And no he's in a situation where unless they trade two or three guys, BG isn't going to be the focal point.

    Could somebody remind me why Dumars is considered such a great GM? Darko, trading Billups instead of Hamilton, signing BG. If Dumars trades Hamilton, or just lets him leave instead of extending him and then signs BG, they have a decent rotation where BG is still overpaid some, but at least he fits as the sixth man. Now BG is the third SG on that squad...

  • I thought individual play led to your impact.

Leave a comment