What if the Bulls could take back Hinrich or Gordon? You in?

What if the Bulls could take back Hinrich or Gordon?  You in?

Let's say for the sake of argument the Bulls had the opportunity to bring back either Hinrich or Gordon on their existing deals by using their cap space.   If you bring back Hinrich the pick still does not come with him.  Sure there's a million reasons why neither thing could happen, but for the sake of argument, and because it helps frame the Bulls off-season success, let's ask what if it could?

You now have your choice between three scenarios...

1: Bulls absorb Ben Gordon's contract back from Detroit.

His salary is 10.8 million this year, out of the signings we did make, I sacrifice Korver (5 million) and Watson (3.6 million) and take the remaining 2 million out of cap room we still have available.  

That leaves us with roughly the vet minimum (maybe slightly more) to fill out the rest of the roster.   Though the guard/wing rotation looks something like this:

Rose, Gordon, Brewer, Deng, Johnson, minimum salaried backup PG.

Best thing about this line up, is Gordon is the best floor spacer of all possible players, because he's far more deadly than Korver as a scorer, he's harder to leave alone even for a second IMO.  

Downside is that Gordon is coming off a terrible year (though it's largely related to injuries), and you're kind of just assuming he plays well again which may not be the case.    The team also lacks depth with it's wings and will actually count on Johnson to play meaningful minutes which doesn't look like a great idea so far.

2: Bulls get Kirk Hinrich back from the Wizards

With Hinrich, instead of signing Brewer, I sign Korver still, I still leave Watson off the roster as we don't need a backup PG with Hinrich on board.   Cost of Hinrich is Watson/Korver, and about 400k of our remaining cap room which still leaves us with a need at a backup 2/3 and enough money to sign Matt Barnes to fill it.

New guard/wing rotation:

Rose, Hinrich, Deng, Korver, Barnes, Johnson

This rotation is deeper than the Gordon rotation with the inclusion of Barnes, and can sustain an injury to any one player on it without losing too much of it's power (exception is Derrick Rose, but the drop off from Rose to Hinrich is about as small as any roster is going to have dropping off from it's superstar to his backup, the Bulls would still have a legit starting caliber guy at every position).

3: Finally, let's keep what we have

Current guard/wing rotation:

Rose, Brewer, Deng, Watson, Korver, Johnson

It's more difficult for me to judge this group, because i haven't seen enough of Korver, Watson, and Brewer to really have as much feel for them as Gordon/Hinrich.   We also have a pretty good idea how Gordon/Hinrich could work with Rose having seen it while still waiting to look and see how the new players will.

It's worth noting though that Hinrich/Gordon may have worked even better with Rose had they had a real coach calling plays.

I'm not sure what to make of this rotation vs the other two, it definitely has depth, and there is enough money left that another quality player could still be added to it, and in fact I expect another quality player will be added to it.  James Johnson likely moving out of it all together in favor of Roger Mason, Keith Bogans, or Rudy Fernandez.

So I was thinking, how would I rank these potential perimeter player groups?

They rank fairly similarly to me, the Gordon group has the highest upside and the lowest floor to me.  It lacks depth, and if Gordon doesn't return to form, the lineup is pretty lousy.   If Gordon does return to form, it's by far the most potent offensively, and it still has the possibility of throwing out a strong defensive side.

The Hinrich lineup and our existing lineup seem similar in overall talent to me.  I think the Hinrich lineup has slightly more defined roles for the players (especially when we add another guard), while having slightly less depth.  I think it's better offensively overall with Hinrich's shooting helping more than Brewer's slashing, and slightly worse defensively.

I'll call it a push. 

All in all, when looking at the "should we have kept Hinrich or Gordon" debate, even if you could get either back, I'm not sure you do it.  The Bulls did a nice job of filling out the pieces and providing depth and versatility for the guard/wing positions.  

That ignores the fact that it would have been ridiculous to not go for James/Bosh/Wade when you thought you had the chance to get one.  They were moves that had to be done, but even in hindsight, I think the lineup we came up with is similar in quality.

Follow me on Twitter


Leave a comment
  • I'd love to have either of those guys back.

  • In reply to thegreatlie:

    You really want these two undersized, over dribbling players back? Gordon dominated the ball and this would hurt Roses development. I would take either on the roster as the 12th player, instead of House for example, but i'm happy the team shook things up. Now I can have new players that frustrate me lol.

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    YES! I would love to have Gordon back on the bulls as a back-up/starting shooting guard. Gordon spaces the floor, and he would fit perfectly into Tib's inside out offense.. Gordon is an underrated passer, has a great floater, and great vision. The reason people remember Gordon as a guy that "over dribbled" and took bad shots is because the bulls played him incorrectly for years at point running their offense thru Gordon. He had to step up on the Bulls, who else was going to.. Duhon? Crawford?

    Think back to the end of the season in 08 when Rose started to mature... When it was offically "Rose's Team," him and Gordon were deadly together... hence the epic Boston Series. U play Gordon as a specialist like Ray Alan plays in Boston and u have something amazing.

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    Gordon is NOT an underrated passer. Korver is a better passer and shooter...AND he is taller. Height always wins. Also, in many games Gordon's scoring was negated by his TO's and lack of defense. Even if he tries harder to play D he is undersized. Our current guard/wing rotation, if healthy, is vastly improved b/c there is a nice combo of D and offense.

  • In reply to mdot1986:

    Well said.

  • In reply to mdot1986:

    Interesting article. I still think I take the current lineup over either, and here's why:

    Gordon lineup: I liked Gordon (although maybe not as much as many Bulls fans), no doubt he's an amazing shooter/scorer, but the reality is that (a) he's not a good enough defender and all around player to be a starter on a title-caliber team and (b) he's never going to accept a full-time bench roll without causing issues. Couple that with the fact that his contract is much more crippling (11M is way too much for a 1 dimensional player like Gordon) than a couple shorter $3-5M contracts, and I take what we currently have. There was also a part of me that always thought Gordon was stunting Rose's growth as the "go to guy," which we need him to be in order to have any chance at becoming a title contender.

    Hinrich Lineup: This one is more interesting b/c you basically replace Brewer w/ Hinrich and you replace Watson w/ maybe Barnes (assuming we could take him from the Lakers). Right now, Brewer for Hinrich is probably a wash defensively and Hinrich is a better shooter and playmaker. But Hinrich is obvs older and was only under contract for one more year anyway, thus Brewer gives us a lot more upside for much less money. Plus I feel confident that Watson can replace Hinrich's shooting and playmaking on the offensive side of the ball (I have no idea about his D). In the short term, I'd prob take Hinrich/Barnes, but I really like the Brewer/Watson combo's upside and value and thus prefer that in the long term.

  • In reply to rorypshea:

    I hope Brewers extra length and athleticism provides better defense than what Hinrich could. If not I will be disappointed.

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    It's certainly possible. I was always pretty impressed w/ Hinrich's D though.

  • In reply to rorypshea:

    He tried hard, I will give him that, but that isn't enough sometimes. His size, strength, athleticism held him back.

  • In reply to rorypshea:

    1. In the one playoff game the Bulls won against the CAVS, Hinrich was shooting so well. Was it a case of the Cleveland guys not being in the game so much because his shot disappeared at the end when the CAVS amped it up a little bit.
    2. The only thing in hindsight I feel about GAR/PAX is that they didn't try the S & T for Gordon. Could they have got TPE and a 2nd round pick at the least for Gordon?
    3. Maybe in a strange way Hinrich/Gordon come back after their contracts expire and contribute to the Bulls winning championships when Rose will be at his prime.
    4. Gordon was not going to be effective along with Rose or he didn't want to give up his role to Rose because of his ego or contract coming up....He had to go.

  • In reply to mdot1986:

    Gordon is a pure shooting guard, its as simple as that.. He would fit as COMPLIMENTARY player playing off of Derrick Rose. Gordon would not have an excessive amount of turnovers if you played him in this way.. He does need to work on his defense, but his efficency as a shooting guard ranked in the top 10 in the league when he played with the bulls. Not to mention he is more clutch than anyone on the bulls right now... that counts for something. I think having one of the best defensive minds in the game could have helped Ben improve on his defense.. Tib vastly helped Ray Allen improve his D.

    Anyways, if you compare Gordon's overall efficiency rating for his career compared to Korver's (overall effect on the game), he beats him by a large margin.

    That being said Korver is going to work very well in this system.. but for the sake of argument, I'd rather have ben gordon.

  • In reply to mdot1986:

    yes sir you're right. height always wins. johan petro is absolutely a better player than charles barkley. no doubt.

  • In reply to bullsman24:

    Bad analogy...there is a clear drop off of skill between the two. Between Korver and Gordon what is the drop off? Gordon has been healthier that's about it. He makes up for it with his higher IQ for the game.

  • In reply to bullsman24:

    I will leave you to cry now disloyal Bulls fans.

    WAWAWAWAWAWAWAWA, get Neon banned from this site, he is so mean to us!


    Bye. Thoughts?

  • In reply to bullsman24:

    Eric Snow averaged 7 pts a game in his career. D Rose averages nearly 20 and will be the starting PG on the Olympic team.

    I'd take Lisa Leslie on this team. She scored 100 points in one game once!

    and boozer does rhyme with loser. Im shocked you were able to put that together.

  • In reply to mdot1986:

    @Bullsfan: height always wins? Tell that to Manute Bol

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    Yes I remember when we LOST to Boston. Gordon played huge at the 2 and we still lost. He is not a starting 2 for a championship team,getting paid what he was.

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    We LOST to Boston in what some people call THE BEST Post Season Playoff series EVER! We were the 7th seed taking the 2nd seed 7 games. That's far from being a disappointment. Gordon did deserve to start, and when he did he scored 17 points in the first half. Try replacing Ben Gordon with Kyle Korver in that series, it wouldn't have came close.. im just sayin.

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    ok here's the thing. gordon is not good enough to be a starting 2 on a championship team. that's just not the case. what about a team where the best player is a big? like how about orlando. if he joins, obviously he deserves the starting 2 spot and you slide VC to the 3. and that team can contend and probably win the title.

    then look at kobe. kobe was the starting SG on many teams that had no chance of winning the championship. it was only when he got some help that he could win anything. does that mean that kobe's not a starting SG on a championship team?

  • In reply to bullsman24:

    bullsman24 perfectly said

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    paying Gordon over 10mill/yr would hinder a team to have enough around him to be a successful 2 guard on a championship team. Is it possible BG could be on a team that could win a championship with him at the two, i guess, but highly unlikely. Especially not this Bulls team.

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    It would hinder THIS team right now because there is no reason for the bulls to go into luxury tax when their not top contenders in the east... But if they get deep into the playoffs and loose I guarantee they'll try to "upgrade" some of the talent on the roster and they'll go into luxury tax to do it..

    Check out Orlando last year.. Orlando had Vince at SG making 16mil, Rashard at 18mil, and Dwight at 15 mil.. and they still managed to have a solid supporting cast with jameer n them. They needed a knock down shooter, and matched our offer to reddick going into luxury tax to do it..

    I think we'll have to play this season out to see what holes there r.. But the bulls have to get ready to pay Rose and Noah big money

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    Great point Gordon on his contract going forward would be too expensive with Boozer, Rose and Noah, he would be the fourth 8 digit guys. Not even the Lakers can afford that.

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    Yeah, meet douchebag No. 101 Neon. It's really boring when trolls who have no life come on to be childishly anti-social predictable d-bags. Why don't you just get on the phone, call people, and say, "You're a doo-doo head."

    Just ingore this troll. Responding to him just makes anyone else waste their time in a similar loserish/pathetic manner. It's too bad these kind of mindless cowards/pussies who try to vandalize sports blogs/sites can't get banned/blocked.

  • In reply to bullsman24:

    bullsman24 I couldn't agree with you more.

  • In reply to bullsman24:

    I don't care how you want to phrase it ...
    Ben Gordon would NEVER be the starting anything on a championship team.

  • In reply to Silverwulf:

    Absolutely, Gordon will never play for a team that does squat in the playoffs, that is why Detroit was the perfect home for him.

    He cares about one thing only, getting "his" points and money, or more correctly money and points.

    And he is one of the 5 worst defenders in the history of the NBA.

  • In reply to Silverwulf:

    I don't think so. We won at least one championship with Luc Longley at starting center. Championship teams have room for average players at one or two starting positions. I would say Derick Fisher these past two years is average at best, as well as Kendrick Perkins.

  • In reply to ironsam:

    There's are some common points with the three guys you mentioned ...

    1. They are all the fifth best starter on their team.
    2. They are all the lowest scoring starter on their team.
    3. They all provide something on the defensive end of the floor. (There's only one ball on the offensive end of the floor, but everyone has to play on the defensive end.)

    Now, let's combine those three things together ...
    How would an undersized shooting guard, who can't play a lick of defense and can't do anything but score, manage to make it as the starter when, as the fifth best starter, he's likely going to be scoring around 8-10ppg. Do you really think they'll be satisfied with that?

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    That depends on your definition of Huge.

    He shot well under 40% for the series, averaged 30 ppg in losses and 18 ppg in wins.

    Was destroyed by Ray Allen all series long and especially in his higest scoring games.

    And we lost the series.

    Yea, that is huge.

  • In reply to BigWay:

    Thank you. The more Gordon shot the ball the Bulls team winning % went down drastically. He was a flow stopper and a chucker and has been exposed in Detroit for the garbage he is.

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    absolutely! Losing BG was the worst thing they could have done! The jurys still out on Brewer for me as far as replacing Kirk, we'll see.

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    Being a huge Bulls fan even through the last 12 years nothing would have made me happier than to have Gordon and Hinrich be part of a Bulls team that becomes more of a contender. Those two guys played big roles in making the Bulls worth watching again. However, I still believe Gordon wanted way too much money and is not worth what he makes. Last year I really hoped Kirk could shoot consistenly enough to fill the 2 spot. Obviously that's not really fair to Kirk because he's not a lights out shooting 2 guard. In fantasy land if we could have kept both Gordon and Hinrich...maybe a guard rotation of Rose - Hinrich, Brewer - Gordon....that sounds nice. In reality those guys got priced out of their worth on the team. I'm pretty excited to see this new line up.

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    Based on the scenarios presented I prefer the team we have now. BG and Hinrich (with salaries commensurate with reserves) would've been ideal coming off the bench behind Brewer and Rose. We wouldn't have size coming in off the bench in the back court, but we don't have that now, anyway. Not unless we get Mason, Bogans or Fernandez.

    During the Skiles years I hoped Pax would gey a good, big guard (PG or SG) so that either BG could go back to the 6th man sharpshooter role he flourished in as a rookie or so Hinrich could be the quality backup PG for which he seems best suited. I thought Brandon Roy would be that guy but Pax rolled the dice on Tyrus Thomas.

    Of course, had they selected Roy we may never have been in a position to draft Rose so I've gotten over that. But again, at their current salaries, there's no way I'd take Hinrich or BG back.

  • In reply to thegreatlie:

    Good read and thoughts but the ship has sailed Doug, let it go. Yes Gordon could really put up big #s off the bench and we should have prob kept him but this could have hampered Rose into not being an elite PG which he is now. Also Gordon is a very small SG. I miss Kirk because he played PG & SG and was a good defender so he made up for Rose's lack of defense and helped him develop his great offensive game. Kirk was also a great locker room guy, and I read helped on designing plays with managment so it really is hard to see him go.
    I like Brewer's size, athletism, he's young and hungry. Korver is one of the best shooters in the NBA. Watson is a young quick backup combo guard, but small for a SG.
    We have had a good offseason, obviously not as good as Miami, but we also don't have the weather and scenery as Miami either...or the hot Miami women from what I hear. LOL

  • Give me the new line up. My memory of Gordon is him dribbling into a double team late in the shot clock creating either a turn over, or a horrible look, which he often made, but for 11 million a year? Hinrich is a nice player, if he was earning Brewer type of money. We were lucky to find a taker for his contract. The current roster is our best of the decade.

  • In reply to GarJR:

    On paper, yes. But we've yet to see them take the floor. So it's kind of hard to evaluate.

  • In reply to jt563905:

    Oh, and it's the first year of the decade. So of course it's our best roster of the decade. Haha, just being a prick.

  • In reply to jt563905:

    1. Hinrich is definitely not for starting. I remember a lot of Gordon's good things. But unfortunately when I think of Hinrich, only those shots hitting the rim or not shooting at the right time come to mind(maybe because it is newer)...Hinrich as a 3rd guard would be great instead of Watson. That's why I am not too excited about Brewer. He looks like a taller version of Hinrich and that's not good for a SG. Hinrich is like the best 3rd Guard in the game but the worst 2nd guard you can start.
    2. Gordon is a little interesting. He can supply immediate offense when needed but we also don't remember him making any clutch shots. He often missed them. He was not a starter before his injuries and not definitely now. He would have been the ideal 2nd SG. He would have been a lot valuable if he could handle the ball.
    I would say a line up of wing/guard like this:
    Rose, Brewer, Hinrich, Korver,Deng, Morrow would have been ideal...
    with enough defense, 3 point shooting and ball handling. Offcourse, not sure of the money though....

  • In reply to schaumburgfan:

    I remember Gordon making a ton of clutch shots, that said, I'm glad he is gone.

  • In reply to schaumburgfan:

    Why do you mention Barnes, he signed with the Lakers! Yes I would have loved for him to be on the Bulls! I liked him when I lived in Sacramento and he played for his home team and I like how much he has matured and become a good lock down defender with the Magic.

  • In reply to schaumburgfan:

    not totally sure what you're talking about in 2...if one thing stood out to me about gordon, it was his ability to MAKE clutch shots.

  • In reply to bullsman24:

    Yea, if you only watch sportcenter, as opposed to those of us who bought the NBA package and watched every minute of his sorry ass play.

  • In reply to jt563905:


    Hinrich and Gordon aren't coming back....LET'S MOVE FORWARD, NOT BACKWARDS!!!

  • In reply to MrHappy:

    Dude, its a hypothetical, really?

  • In reply to MrHappy:

    I would love to have Gordon back, but his deal is so bad, we would have to go all out from that point. But I would probably want Gordon over Brewer for fit purposes.

  • In reply to 1096ballenf:

    Gordon over Brewer for fit purposes. Except for outside shooting he doesn't measure up, see what I did there?, in any other area, plus he likes to dominate the ball and I prefer Rose has it.

  • In reply to 1096ballenf:

    DVS Jackson, I agree and have thought the same thing. Why do people, jump on the "Mr. Happy" train and hate JJ "Dickey" so much? The guy was a rookie last year for crying out loud! He has good size and athletism, lost 25 lbs this offseason, and is hungry to prove himself! We aren't getting much, if any, trade value for him and he is cheap on a freshman salary give the guy a break! He could be a decent backup SF, even spot PF with his size and strength! GO JJ!!!

  • In reply to smiley:

    It is fairly obvious already that JJ is another wizard of Oz player, he has no heart or brain.

  • In reply to MrHappy:

    PS....James Johnson has only had 1 year in the league....let's not give that guy the Dennis Hopson treatment just yet.

  • In reply to MrHappy:

    What makes Bulls fans different than other fans?
    When a player leaves the team either via trade or free agency, the Bulls fan typically cries for their return. They obsess about the player, track him constantly & imagines how great things would be if he only were still a Bull.
    I dont notice this trait in other fans. Players leaves the team - they forget him & move on. Yet Bulls fans are so different. They cant let the players go - even if they hated him when he was on the Bulls. Hinrich, for example, was extremely unpopular during his last 2 seasons.
    Let it go. They are gone - good luck to them. Let's move on.

  • In reply to bulls6:


  • In reply to bulls6:

    I don't think anyone here didn't like Hinrich for the last two years. He was just overpaid which crippled what the Bulls could do. He is an above average defender, a good shooter, and a good leader. Of course we all would've loved to keep him, but not if stands in the way of improving other parts of the team. He was forced to play out of position at the 2 (where he wasn't very good) and back up the 1 (where he's great). You just don't pay a guy that much to be a backup or play out of position.

  • In reply to bulls6:





  • In reply to Neon3:

    You obviously have respect for this Bulls team and is not a fan of the Bulls. You should go back to your own teams site and stop watching and worrying about the Bulls moves. Probably a Heat or even worst a Buck fan. Buck fans seem to think they are relevant now that they made some moves. Fear the deer...LOL LOL...

  • In reply to bulls6:

    Based on the Bulls are the 2nd best team just behind Miami! I love this placement, but do you think it's deserved?

  • In reply to smiley:

    Are you talking about the article that's dealing with who had the best summer?
    They had the Bulls #2 as far as summer success goes, but I've yet to see them rank the teams overall for the coming season.

  • In reply to bulls6:

    ..I think its because a lot of Bull players have achieved a great deal of success AFTER they left. ex - Ron Artest, Tyson Chandler, Elton Brand, Jamal Crawford, John Salmons..

    I dunno? Maybe Chicago fans are more sentimental than most.. can it the Jordan syndrome

  • In reply to bulls6:

    I think the Bulls should rename themselves the "Harlem Globetrotters" since the Bulls are now the new laughing stock of the league.


  • In reply to Neon3:

    Neon, you really shouldn't deprive the ESPN boards of your presence. You know how much all the Bulls fans over there love you.

  • In reply to Neon3:

    This site is not loyal

  • In reply to Neon3:

    Your mom's not loyal....

  • In reply to evilhoban:

    His daddy probably isn't loyal to his man either

  • In reply to Reese1:

    Neon is a butt baby? He must be a Knicks fan...

  • In reply to Neon3:

    come on leon, keep entertaining us with your jokes since you are worried about the Bulls.

  • In reply to Neon3:

    Just one, You are immediately indentifiable as a world class duche, making even Mr. Happy or Alex appear usefull.

  • In reply to bulls6:

    A question I have in hindsight is that GAR/PAX didn't try the S & T for Gordon. Could they have got TPE and a 2nd round pick at the least for Gordon? Could they have kept some other pieces if that was the case? Or it wouldn't have made a difference??

  • In reply to bulls6:

    Two words, Elton Brand.

    p.s. I would not agree with you regarding Hinrich being unpopular.

  • In reply to MrHappy:

    How about this lineup?
    Nick Young -SG, Sam Young -SF, Thaddeus Young -PF, Tim Young -Center(He was a 7 footer from Stanford) and just another "Young" at PG....That is both speculation and hypothetical...

  • In reply to schaumburgfan:

    Hmm....know someone who likes it.

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:


  • In reply to MrHappy:

    Mr. Happy,

    You've got a friend today.

    I'm not a big fan of these hypothetical threads. Save it for Dr. Who.

    I liked Ben. I liked Kirk. I'm fine with what the Bulls have now.

  • In reply to MrHappy:

    For once I have to agrre with you.

    However, if we were to do hypotheticals, the one we should be looking at is if we had let Deng walk instead of signing him ot that bloated contract.

    Had we done so, we would have been able to create enough cap space to sign Lebron, Wade and Bosh to the exact contracts that they signed with Miami and we would still have Rose and Noah and probably Gibson.

    Would they have come to chicago istead.

    Did Deng cost us the super team of all time.

    Now that is a hypothetical worth pondering, much moreso than wasting our time on guys that will be forgotten the second they walk of the NBA court for the last time(Gordon and HInrich).

  • In reply to jt563905:

    I take the new lineup, with the option of still adding another scorer to the bench like Rudy. In my opinion, Rudy can be better than Hinrich if given the opportunity. I think we've seen the peak out of both Hinrich and Gordon while they were here. Plus with Brewer we finally have real length guarding the 2, for the first time since trading away Sefalosha (one of my favorites).

    I don't know how the Kyle Korver experiment will work, but I'm excited about the rest of the young guards we have added / will add (I didn't even mention Watson, who looks like he could have a lot of potential in the backup role)

  • In reply to johnbegone:

    Rudy has the same problems as McGrady, high volume, low efficiency shooters that need the ball in their hands to do anything. Both will have attitude problems with the Bulls playing limited minutes. Why cripple the new coaching staff with that problem?

  • In reply to jt563905:

    All three of those lineups still need improving. I'll take the current lineup because it has the best ratio of talent to contract obligations. If BG doesn't return to form, or everybody just wakes up and realizes that BG wasn't that good to begin with and should only be on the floor for 20-25 minutes a night and that isn't worth $11 mil/year for another 4 years, the bulls are stuck. They will constantly be trying to find Brewer/Hinrich types who can play the other 20-25 next to Rose. With Hinrich, the bulls will constantly be looking for somebody to knock down an open shot. With the current lineup, nobody is going to miss Brewer/Korver/Watson when they get traded, and no team is going to expect a lottery pick and $3 million just to answer the phone about a trade.

  • In reply to jt563905:

    As much as I love Kirk and liked Ben....I'm glad both are gone. Maybe more Ben than Kirk....but both of them had to go.

    Kirk's contract is killing the Bulls...and while he is a gritty player who plays excellent team defense and has pulled us through some tough times...he's a 2nd tier player, a streaky shooter and doesn't space the floor as much as he allows Rose to roam since Kirk can man the point. Also...he's CONSTANTLY getting burned by larger 2-Guards.

    Ben? Instant offense but with him on the court...Rose is guarding two guards or we are trapped in a "ZONE" defense while those two are on the court....i just don't like the look.

    Brewer is big and is an excellent garbage point guy.
    Korver can fill it up from deep with the best of them...even if he doesn't have Gordon's ability to create his own shop.

    I like the team we have.


  • In reply to jt563905:

    You are right we don't really know what we are getting, but we definately know what we got rid of.

    NO way I want Gordon anywhere near this team. This team will fight for everything and each other and be a Chicago kind of team.

    Besides, we basically get Korver, Brewer and Watson for the price of Gordon.

    Korver is likely to turn out to be a better 3 point shooter with this team than Gordon is.

    Brewer is supposed to be a lockdown defender(better than Hinrich?) with size, which is exactly what you need next to Rose, likely a better version of what Ron Harper was for Michael.

    Watson could easily turn out to be a Gordon like scorer off the bench who can also handle the ball without dribbling it off his leg or tripping over his own feet and play real NBA defense to boot.

    Give me today's team over any team with Ben Gordon on it.

    And, as much as I appreciated what Hinrich did for the team as a glue guy, I will take any 2 of Brewer, Watson and Korver over HInrich. In fact by the end of the season, I bet we would take any one of them over Hinrich, especially Watson(the sleeper of our offseason) and Brewer.

  • In reply to GarJR:

    Exactly! Gordon isn't a starter in the NBA, yet he's being paid like one. He's too small to play the 2, weak in almost every area other than shooting, which is handy capped somewhat by his decision making. Hinrich is a solid back up point guard, but like Gordon, is being paid starter salary. I like Watson better as a back up over Hinrich at the same price anyway. I wouldn't want Gordon back at all. I would have like Morrow better than Korver, particularly for the lower price that the Nets got him.

  • In reply to efaily:

    Boy I wish we got Morrow...

  • In reply to mdot1986:

    Yea, I would have loved MOrrow and Barnes over Korver.

    Hopefully, KOrver will shoot the lights out and surprise us with his grit and become a fan favorite like Steve Kerr.

  • In reply to efaily:

    is gordon a top 30 SG in the nba? obviously. so he's a starter in the nba.

  • In reply to bullsman24:

    He does not even start for his own team, and he started what about 50% of his games with the Bulls.

    So, I guess that he has proved that he is a borderline starter on teams that are .500 or under.

  • In reply to BigWay:


  • I want to give the group we have a chance as I see Brewer improving upon what Hinrich gave us with better defense, ability to finish, etc...

    If I could take either back, I would take Gordon as he can create and be a much bigger threat than Hinrich.

  • In reply to evilhoban:

    Think about it, would last season Bulls have been better with Gordon but without Hinrich, I doubt it.

    Gordon was only sufferable because Hinrich was there to cover his lazy ass.

  • In reply to evilhoban:

    BETTER "What if..."

    What if the Chicago Bulls acquired Carmelo Anthony at the trade-deadline?


  • In reply to MrHappy:

    That's hypothetical, is it not?

  • In reply to evilhoban:

    Mr. HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • What if the Bulls still had Curry and Chandler? Or Tyrus and Thaebo?

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    Tommorow's topic should be what if we had the 1996 team back. How would they do against the three amigHOES?and would Gordon or Hinrich help that team?

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    They would decimate them. And I'm not just saying that as a Bulls fan. They would literally decimate them.

    All that needs to be said is Bosh vs. Rodman.

  • In reply to Silverwulf:

    Exactly, Rodman would literally make Bosh go home and cry. and he would probably drive James out of his mind also.

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    Well, at a minimum we wouldn't have NOah or Gibson, or Boozer, and probably Rose.

  • just sign Nick Young

    respect from a portuguese fan :)

  • I am not comparing him to Rose. Rose off-course has too many other responsibilities like creating and is a younger player. But Gordon would dribble, dribble and miss the shot so many times. I remember him the Bulls being down...and he would come and shoot 3's big time and get us back in the game or win the game.
    What I meant is the last shot of the game when the Bulls could tie or win...I am not sure he converted a lot. He probably did quite a few but not a lot at the last minute. That's what I remember.....

  • Sorry Doug, I was kidding about those hypotheticals. Frankly, this whole topic today seems strange to me.

  • There are hyptotheticals are that fruitful . . .like would you trade a 1st for Rudy . . .and hypotheticals that aren't grounded in reality, involve re-writing history, etc. I'll admit it, the further I read this one has gone better than I might have expected, but in general I think Bulls fans would serve themselves well to focus on the present and future.

  • IMO we were going nowhere with Hinrich and Gordon, they had to be moved/let go. Both were way overpaid for what they could provide. Now only Deng is thought to be overpaid, and probably not even he is. No I am quite pleased with the changes the Bulls have made. Not the dream possibility, but fuck LBJ, Wade, Bosh, I will love watching us upset them.

  • I take the current roster.

    1. I don't understand Chicago fans obsession with Gordon. He really was not very good. And more than anything, he needed to go for the development of our team ... in particular, Rose. Was winning one game out of three that great for everyone?

    Let me ask you something ... which would you prefer?
    In three games, Player A makes 5/10, 5/10, and 5/10. Averages 50%, scores 10ppg and the team goes 2-1.
    In three games, Player B makes 3/10, 3/10, and 9/10. Averages 50%, scores 10ppg and the team goes 1-2.

    Do you take A or B?

    When Gordon was on, that's what we got ... a great night that left everyone saying what a great player he was ... and apparently willing to forget the other two nights each week. Sometimes consistency matters.

    If Gordon were an option to bring in as a backup for Brewer (for a vastly reduced contract ... say a couple million), I'd say sure ... we can put him out there and see if it's one of his good nights and if not, put him back on the bench and figure something else out.

    But I'd like to see what Watson can do as our backup PG. Gordon didn't really fit that role at all. And I'd prefer to have the kind of scoring we may get from a sharpshooter like Korver over the erratic scoring of a Gordon.

    2. I like Hinrich a lot ... hard worker, good guy, played tough defensively. But his shooting woes make it hard for me to want him much more than Brewer at this point. I've seen Brewer play many times and there's a reason many Jazz fans would have loved to see him come back to Utah. He works hard, plays hard, wants to win, is good defensively and knows how to get points without having to have the ball in his hands all the time. Obviously he's not a great outside shooter either, and we could use a backup at this point who is ... but I'll take Brewer scoring 10-12ppg at 50% over someone else scoring 16-18 on 42% right now.

    And again, I'd prefer to see what Watson can do as a true backup PG. I didn't mind having Hinrich as a backup PG, but having a guy have to switch back and forth throughout the game isn't always best for them.

    Assuming Barnes would have come here is also a bit of a stretch.
    If he wanted more money, he likely could have found it somewhere else and if he wanted to win, the LA option would have still been there.

    3. I'd like to see another scoring wing SG/SF type on the team. But I like having a specialist in Korver available. He's horrible on Defense, but may have the best pure shot in all of basketball. I like having a true backup PG. And I like having a SG in Brewer, who I think can play well next to Rose.

    4. It can't be overlooked that had we kept either or both of those guys, we would have been in a far worse position to fill one of our most pressing needs ... Low post scoring PF. Considering that Boozer may be a top 3 PF (taking into consideration his PER, Eff rating, rebounding and shooting percentages, assists, and the fact that while his defense is a little suspect, so is the defense of just about every other top PF in the game ... Bosh, Amare, and Nowitzki)
    I'm much more satisfied to get a guy like Boozer to put along side Rose, Noah, and even Deng ... and then try to find the complimentary role pieces to fill in after.

    This roster is going to need a couple more moves to have a chance at a championship ... but we're a lot closer to being able to make those moves now, in my opinion.
    So while I might take either of those two guys back to fill a specific role at a much reduced contract, I wouldn't want either of them in the situations they were in with us originally.

  • In reply to Silverwulf:

    I agree with SW. Gordon gets you one night on and two nights off. That hurts your chances of winning more then it helps. Also the focus on FG% and winning I completely agree with. Winning rosters are usually loaded with guys with efficient/high field goal percentages 45% and up.

    Look at Ronnie Brewer and C.J. Watson. Yes not excellent perimeter shooters, but 10-15 ppg on 48-50% FG's is winning gold. I think these two are going to help the Bulls imeasurably. Especially if Brewer keeps up those high steals numbers. I'm just waiting to see how good his one on one defense really is on top flight SG's guys like Wade and Roy.

  • In reply to Silverwulf:

    The Bulls are not loyal. And they are known to be cheap too


  • In reply to Silverwulf:

    Gordon and Hinrich ... ?

    Absolutely, NO!

  • In reply to Silverwulf:

    Wisdom and perspective come with age, something none of us realizes until after we turn 40.

  • For the longest time it was necessary for Gordon to be a high usage player on the bulls. If Gordon was on the bulls now he would play a different roll. I could see Gordon being a Derek Fisher/Ray Allen type of player.. Clutch, great floater, spot up shooter.. and what if Tib taught him to play better D, that's money

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    Can he teach him to grow? He couldn't guard anyone.

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    No, but u can teach him defense.. by the way his height wasn't the reason he was a bad defender, he just needed to work on his defensive skills. Heinrich was what an inch taller, I'm sure that made all the difference. What you can't teach is how to score in the clutch

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    or defend someone posting you up when you are undersized. gordon had no interest in guarding anyone, why do you assume any coach could change that. skiles couldn't even change that. gordon only focused/saved energy for offense

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    people had said the same thing about ray allen, he improved after he was 30. Even with Gordon's poor one on one defense he was such a great offensive presence he still had a positive efficency... hence why he was signed for a huge contract with detroit. Besides that.. skiles and vinny were rookie coaches that weren't known for their defensive mentality. I don't think you would put gordon on Kobe for example.. its all about adjusting defense to match who your playing. Allen Iverson was a short guy that was a bad on the ball defender, but he learned to play the passing lanes..

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    Problem was with Hinrich, Rose and Pargo we had such a small group of guards we had no one to make up for it. Would think Detroit is regretting that signing.

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    Neon...'s goal in life is to give AIDs back to the monkeys.


  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    I will love to have hinrick back for hes defence but we already have 2 good point guards. And we did get good players with hes salary now we just need 1 shooting guard im crossing my fingers on fernandez

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    Yea, Detroit is the resident genious of the NBA.

    They effectively traded Billups for Gordon.

    Would the Bulls have made that deal?, what is less than a heartbeat(even with Rose already onboard)

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    Riley is going to be having Flashbacks of the nineties with new york.

    Good team, cant beat the best. (LA)

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    NO, what you cannot teach, is heart desire, passion, effort and brains. Gordon had none of those, and never cared to work on acquiring any of those qualities.

    Gordon doesn't care about any of this, he got what he wanted, he got paid.

    Anyone want to bet that we have already scene the best of Gordon, as suspect as it was.

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    I doubt that Fisher and Allen see themselves as the same type of player.

  • True, hes going to have a smaller window than most guys to prove himself... but they'll be able to tell in training camp and practice if he is making progress. He was looking pretty good in some of the summer league games. JJ dropped aroud 20 pounds this summer

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    Looking good for a male model perhaps, I'm interested if he has improved as a ball player and the summer league did no look good.

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    You must have watched highlights and read the stat sheet because if you watched the games his performance was encouraging. He made some good passes in some of the games, ran the floor better.. scored big in a couple of games but you could tell he was trying to play team ball. He is still a work in progress, but I'm feelin a bit better about JJ, you can tell he's working at it.

  • I thought the same thing about Tyrus Thomas but for different reasons. Thomas was never a good fit but at least he got minutes. He just wouldn't consistently do (or not do) what his coaches wanted. JJ doesn't seem to be as much of a head case but there are simply no minutes for him at the 3 on this team. And I don't think he can play any other position in the pros.

  • Ok, then. With Kirk and Ben, who I both appreciate, this team is probably maxed out as as second round team. Moving forward as we did, we might only be a second round team, but our ceiling is much higher.

  • I see. Sometimes we read into how we want ;-) made valid points actually.

    Yea I like our current team and I think b/c we haven't seen them play together its hard to judge it as opposed to what we HAVE seen from past teams. Can't wait till the season starts b/c I think we will all be pleasantly surprised!

  • But Cavs offered him more than the Lakers...

  • In reply to mdot1986:

    I think the Bulls with a better offer could have attracted him. Obviously, without LBJ...Cavs are not that attractive unless they overpay. I think if they had given a decent contract to Barnes, he would have come. After all, he was ready to go to Toronto before the deal got into trouble..

  • You're only remembering the tough shots he made, not all the one's he missed. Even worse, all the turnovers he committed, or shots that were blocked, when he tried to do something off the dribble. I don't miss Gordon at all, too predictable and one dimensional.

  • In reply to efaily:

    I think its the other way around... Your only remembering the turnovers and etc... Look at the stats if u care to.. percentages don't lie. FYI D Rose had on average 3 turnovers per game last season, right on par with Gordon when he played major minutes. Gordon's failure in certain ways with the bulls was a result of the coaching staff playing him incorrectly. Gordon wasn't a pg/sg Tony Parker type of guard, he does one thing extremely well and that is score. There will always be a place in the league for "one dimensional" scorers

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    Nobody is saying Gordon doesn't have a place in the NBA. He is definitely talented in scoring. But he played under many regimes and didn't become great. Rose primarily handles the ball...that's why he has turnovers. Gordon was never the main ball handler...he had Hinrich. That's not a fair comparison.

    As everybody said, BG as a 2nd SG being used when he is hot and sitting on the bench when cold(3/4 times) would be the ideal thing. But the NBA world works differently and he got a big pay hike..good for him.

  • In reply to schaumburgfan:

    Very well put..

  • In reply to schaumburgfan:

    ps. I'd take Booz over Christina Bosh any day.

  • In reply to schaumburgfan:

    Question, which player looks more like a woman:

    Christina Bosh (with dreads, also plays defense as if he was female)

    or Rajon Rondo.


  • In reply to schaumburgfan:

    I'm not comparing rose to gordon.. I was trying to make the point that the number of turnovers you have per game doesn't define how good that player is. Gordon did VERY well with the Bulls overall with a sub par team surrounding him. He established himself as being a great scorer, enough so that he landed a 55mil contract. If it wasn't for Gordon the bulls wouldn't have made the playoffs, no doubt...

    All I'm saying is that in a different system he would have thrived being a true spot up shooting guard... with the bulls he had to handle the ball more than he should have bc of a lack of offensive options, the ball was in his hands a lot ..and the bulls did play him at point, quite often.

    As a role player or 6th man on a DEEP team he would be an elite player..

    ..but look at the big picture, Gordon shot the 3pt at over 42% with the Bulls, and fg at over 45%.. The bulls couldn't have found anyone better at the price they were paying him being drafted out college.

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    Remember he was the 3rd pick...He is supposed to be great or good for that high of a pick. Off-course, there have been a lot of busts too.
    I agree that he might have thrived more with a different system. But that's the point. He has had multiple systems and has not been great/super good yet. This year is a make or break year for Gordon in Detroit. If he struggles(because of injury, system, team or whatever), he will end up getting shopped around and will labeled as a failure.

  • In reply to schaumburgfan:

    As a 3rd overall pick who never made and allstar team(never came close), never made first second or third team all NBA, or needless to say any all defensive team he has to be closer to a bust than he is a success, except of course in his pocketbook, which is of course all that matters to him.

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    All you Gordon apoligists keep saying that under a different system Gordon would be great or this or that.

    The problem is that Gordon was brickheaded and uncoachable.

    I said from day one that the only thing that Gordon should have done(instead of working on his beach muscles) was to watch tapes of Reggie Miller and Ray Allen running their asses off working around screens to get open looks.

    Gordon didn't want to work that hard, didn't want to be that guy, he wanted to be the star with the ball in his hands dribbling out the shot clock.

    Yea, Gordon could have been Eddie House.

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    You're right about his 3 pt shooting %, but wrong about his overall shooting %. It was below 45%, which isn't great for a starting SG that can't defend and turns the ball over too much.

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    Are you kidding me. Getting rid of Ben "the black-hole" Gordon was the best move the Paxson era ever made. Even suggesting he would help the Bulls is ridiculous. Gordon would NEVER allow Rose to work the floor as a true point guard must. He would grab the ball and it would disappear (much the same as everything does with a black hole). Gordon is and always will be a hucker with luck.

  • In reply to schaumburgfan:

    can u name any scorer in the league that does not average three turnovers

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    Quick, how many games do you remember that Gordon won in the clutch in his Bulls career.

    Exactly, you don't even need the fingers on one hand. So what the fuck are you Gordon loving fools reminicing about.

    and that place for these one dimensional players is on the bench playing spot duty.

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    You might want to double check those stats yourself. Gordon has career averages of 3.0 assists, 2.4 turnovers, and .8 steals as a SHOOTING GUARD who doesn't have primary responsibility for handling the ball. Rose's stats; 6.2 assists, 2.6 assists, and .8 steals as the PG. I never said there wasn't a place for Gordon in the league, just that he's overpaid for being "one dimensional", and I wouldn't want him back on the Bulls. He was entertaining to watch when he was making shots and not turning the ball over. Unfortunately, as a Bulls fan, that was often enough for me.

  • Doug, it probably would have helped if we knew we had no shot at LeBron/Wade/Bosh.

    Would I rather see Hinrich kept then? No. If Kirk would have A) not committed silly/obvious fouls, and then looked like an idiot complaining to referees, B) had not committed silly fouls on faked three point dekes at the end of ballgames I don't know how many times, and c) if he would have hit more late game big shots. I always thought for the prominence of his role that unlike other so-so shooting guards who at least sometimes shoot well to get their team back in the game, when the Bulls were losing/playing poorly I never saw him turn the tide/get hot. Same with Gordon and Deng though Gordon sometimes did. I just really didn't think of any of them as real clutch/winners.

    I don't blame Gordon so much for that. He was a last shot guy that could obviously make his fair share, but the Bulls horribly drawn up lays would always leave him fighting a double team way past the three, falling out of bounds, or shooting from half court.

    The Deng signing and pulling the contract off the table sealed Ben's fate, and I believe changed him as a person/regarding the Bulls. Hinrich's shooting relative to his good, but not all defensive team or near the top of the league in steals etc. was not worth it.

    To me the more interesting scenario is what to do knowing the three Am(egos) were under Wade's/Riley's thumb? I like most of the moves we made, but I wish could have used that No.17(moved up to 16 if possible) pick on Luke Babbitt(or Dominique Jones).

    Getting Boozer and Brewer fit well with Derrick and Thibs. And the C.J Watson pick up to me is excellent. But Korver, it's been years since he shot a high volume(330 to 400) threes. That bothers me. Watching him in the playoffs against L.A. he looked very ineffective standing on the perimeter struggling to get through screens while Luke Walton or whoever else just followed his slow butt around like an escort.

    I definitely do not want Gordon back now though I think his best days are behind him. And Hinrich would have been good as a bench/roatation player as No.27 pick for $4 Mil a year not as a No.7 pick for $10 Mil a year. But despite all his hard work and class I still think he shows some immaturity, and is not that intelligent a ball player. I'm definitely glad both of them are gone. But loyal to their efforts and respectful if they were ever introduced before a game or came back to the franchise in some other capacity. Ben before the B.S. with his agent/Deng signing was definitely a fun guy to have around.

  • In reply to MarkNorman:

    Don't forget that while Hinrich had a overall good FT % he would seem to always miss them at the end of games.

  • Exactly, Rudy has had success coming off the bench in the roll of a spot up shooter. He is unhappy with that because he knows he can be more valuable, but that does not make him Tracy McGrady. Plus, he's 25.

    Also, in Portland, Rudy has to play behind one of the better SG's in the league. In Chicago he could split minutes with Brewer playing matchup basketball. He would do well here.

  • Very true, which is why I said in my first post today that it will be nice to have new players to frustrate me. : ) None of them are all-stars and they all have their faults.

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    Great thought, and a reason for optimism.

  • In the east or the NBA? I'll be happy is they end up the best team in their division!

  • Mitchell I feel exactly the same way.. On paper I'm happy we traded him, bc overall i love the depth the bulls have now. I think if we could have afforded to keep him, he would have fit in very well as a role player. I actually think he would have been happier as a role player having less pressure on himself. Gordon is more of a specialist, but at a point in time the bulls tried to play him in the way that Atlanta plays Joe Johnson... but Gordon isn't that versatile

  • Doug ... Neon is a notorious Bulls hater on the ESPN forums.
    It's lovely that he's made his way here.
    But don't expect to find much in the way of intelligent conversation from him.

    He's not here to find legitimate debate on the issue.

  • I like the topic.. I think a lot of Bull's Fans have an emotional attachment to Gordon and Hinrich, they were both very well liked by fans on and off the court. I had the pleasure of meeting both Ben and Kurt, very approachable guys.

    Here's a question for you... if all the "big free agents" signed with their teams before we got rid of heinrich, would you still have wanted heinrich gone?

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    At about 10million/yr ....yes.

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    yeah I would have wanted him gone too.. but I don't think people would have been as happy to see him go if they knew we weren't getting lebron wade or bosh

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    Actually it is $9 million this year and $8 million next. but nevertheless, I'll take Brewer and Watson over Hinrich or Gordon.

    Though I like Korver less, I will still take Korver and Watson or Korver and Brewer over either HInrich or Gordon individually.

  • In reply to BigWay:


  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    "The answer to the question everybody wants to know: LeBron, what's your decision?"

    "In this fall, I'm going to take my talents to South Beach and join the Miami Heat."

    I know is painful but thoughts?

  • In reply to Neon3:

    Lebron just proved to everyone he don't have the balls to get the job done with a good team so what makes you think he will with your heat. He's just riding your teams saviors coat tail. trust me on this... Miami can have him cause he fits right in with the rest of the trash on South Beach. You have a good day sir.

  • In reply to Neon3:

    The only thing painful about anything you write is the lack of proper English you use.

    "I know IS painful"


  • In reply to Neon3:

    Eric Snow >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Derrick Rose

    Joakim Noah = Poor man's Lisa Leslie

    Boozer = Looser


  • In reply to Neon3:

    Neon>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Leon.........Bulls= Heat and the rest of the eastern conference... WORRIED......

  • In reply to Neon3:

    Lisa Leslie is awesome

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    You mean "loser" not "looser"? You do math about as well as you write...

    Go back to grade school...

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    Think he means that Boozer has been doing alot of stretching

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    After all the hype and love from espn towards the Bulls they got no Lebron, no Wade and no Bosh, not even Amare or Dirk or JJohnson. Instead, they got carlos LOOZER!!



  • In reply to Neon3:

    After Neon realized he had no friends and no prospects he decided to stay home all day and troll in between whacking off.

  • In reply to Neon3:

    This guy is obviously remedial, he has been on this site talking trash about the Bulls for 3 hours. Hey, good luck with your team dude.

  • In reply to Neon3:

    mmmmmmmmmmm, Mr Happy has been suspiciously absent from this post.

  • In reply to UnstopaBull:

    Kyle Weaver just got waived. 6'6", 35% career 3FG%...


  • In reply to Neon3:

    It must be tough going through life knowing that when you were born the hospital threw out the baby and your mother had not choice but to raise the afterbirth.

  • In reply to AirPrentice23:

    You must have met an imposter then, unless you are speaking of new Bulls signee, Kurt Thomas.

    Gordon and Hinrich are both polarizing players, people either love them or hate them, and likely thier camps are diametrically opposed(and I refuse to believe that race place a factor)even though each player does fit his racial stereotype.

  • No doubt. If it's in him to do it, that would be an excellent way to get minutes. He could then slowly bring up other parts of game to earn more minutes. I think more players should use Bruce Bowen as a model of how to maximize their value by focusing on D.

  • Doug -

    In Gordon's last season with the Bulls he was more down than up.
    By a few very subjective and debatable measures ... he had roughly 48 games where he was at or below his average play ... and 34 where he was above it. The longest string of games he was at or above was 4 games (1 time). His numbers go up and down on an alarming level.

    Unfortunately, his play in that tremendous series against Boston epitomized the situation ... 35%, 58%, 39%, 46%, 29%, 29%, 30%.
    And more disturbing was that his three best games in that series were losses. A prevalent theme with Gordon.
    I understand that on those great nights he had "it", he was fun to watch and showed tremendous offensive potency. I just wish he'd have had any kind of consistency for us.

  • Mostly because they play clearly defined and specific roles (unlike Hinrich at this point) and we aren't tied down to them for five more years at too much money (like Gordon would've been). It's a team built around Rose, not just a team we've added Rose onto, and we've only made temporary commitments to these players.

    The main reason these revisionist hypotheticals make me a bit uncomfortable is that they ultimately aren't fair questions. Having either Ben or Kirk back on the team is something I wouldn't be opposed to, but it forces us to ignore tons of factors that contributed to their departures above and beyond how they would fit on this current squad. The question was never Ben and/or Kirk v. the guys we added this year. That question only exists in hindsight.

  • That's funny. It's something I said to a buddy about Rudy, who I'd happily acquire. I wonder how many of the folks now clamoring for him with zeal above and beyond his status in the league would be also posting about how he shoots too much, doesn't know his role, etc, come January. That's not to pick to Rudy in particular, as you're correct that it could just as easily be applied to all those other guys we've already added.

    I like both Ben Gordon and Kirk Hinrich. They are not/were not perfect players or superstars, but they are both quality NBA talents.

  • In reply to muhammond:

    the were both quality people and solid players their biggest fault was that they were paid too much compared to their value so getting rid of them was the correct move. If they could be had for the correct $/value then I would gladly take either of them. Well at least Kirk.

  • That's true but I hate trash talking idiots on the internet.

  • Hope it does Doug, good luck with that cause this guy is a true idiot.

  • Doug, I know a lot of fans don't appreciate what they have, but I think some of the comments on Gordon and Hinrich are accurate, and certainly respectful. We all can agree Ben and Kirk deserved respect.

    I'll be interested to see C.J watson's decision making because at Tennessee his A/TO ratio was off the charts 2.4 and 2.5 I believe. I don't know what he was doing at G.S., but with those kind of numbers I will at be curious to see if he can improve under Thib's/what he can do in a Bulls uniform.

    If Brewer and C.J. Watson have the same pitfalls/limitations, and don't bring more to the table then Ben and Kirk then you're right we are overestimating the next big thing. We'll see.

    One thing that's not fair is that having offensive talent around you brings up your own game as well. Had Kirk and Ben had Boozer and a buregoning superstar in Rose to play with I'm sure they would have played better also.

    I think fans do go overboard denigrating what they've had, and overestimating the next shiny car on the block(Brewer/Watson). But I also think some people over value either from personal ties/engagement or from a resentment from the crude mob/public who tend to heartlessly and sloppily over denigrate payers they've rested their hopes and dreams on of winning. Nobodies perfect. Not the fans, and not writers/the media either.

  • In reply to MarkNorman:

    The point is we probably could not have had BG/Hinrich at their current salaries along with Boozer and Deng and fill the roster.
    But one good thing about Hinrich/Deng/BG is that they brought some respectability/excitement back to the Bulls even if is was not championship talk. The years of 1999-2003/4 were probably the worst and BG atleast gave us that hope of winning regular season games.
    You are right...we are always looking for the next best shiny car. Fans are always clamoring for the next potential draft pick rather than a proven limited veteran.
    One thing is true...Unless the best 3/4 players are in the age group of 24-29, the teams are not winning much. So, even though Rose looks great...I think his best is at a minimum 2 years away and hopefully the Bulls compete and learn well this year.
    Also, I am not completely confident of Thibs as a head coach. We need to see how he handles the head coaching gig. He looks good and is probably much better than Vinny but we need to see if he is elite or just a good coach such as Avery Johnson, Rick Carlisle type..

  • Thanks...if you can do that. Otherwise, good points will get lost with this kind of spam...

  • Derrick Byars and John Lucas

  • Thats sad that your banning Pee-on.

    Clearly, he has no one else to talk to in life.


  • Thanks Doug. Not only providing a great site, but policing it as well. Most excellent.

  • The sad Bulls and other teams wanted at least one of them, JUST ONE of them and Pat Riley GOT THEM ALL!! AND DISCOUNTED!!!!

    Riley is a PIMP!! GANSTA!! DON!! GODFATHER!!


  • Yes, Brewer has "less shooting, but with basically the amount of money we were spending on Kirk we got Korver and Brewer.

  • Wow wata looser.

  • Interesting article...may getting Rudy be just as distracting as getting Tmac. How many minutes would Rudy really play if he doesn't win the starting spot.

  • In reply to mdot1986:

    Rudy got 24.5 min/game and he is still not happy. Wow!! He is not getting that many minutes with Brewer, Korver around. At the most he might get the same or probably 18-20 mins.
    I guess if he is worried about the mins, then he is not coming to the Bulls unless the Bulls promise he can compete for a starting job against Brewer..

  • In reply to mdot1986:

    i think alot of people undervalue Ben Gordon...scoring 20ppg in the nba is not easy and doing it every night going against bigger players...somebody here said Ben Gordon isnt clutch but all his best games are in the playoffs i can live wit a few silly turnovers all scorers average alot of turnovers not a big deal because for years ben Gordon was the only guy on the bulls that teams had to try to stop

  • In reply to mdot1986:

    fernandez is much better than brewer and he can use minutes with brewer and deng. have you see this guy play? he can score 20 on a blink of an eye!

  • Above Doug suggested that THE thing holding back JJ was a lack of a chance to fill a defined role. I would argue that the main thing holding JJ back is his bad decision making n lack of court awareness...He like Tyrus n Tyson before him handcuffs teammates with his odd choices n poor spacing. It will be great if Coach T can train him to understand spacing. that will require heavy game film watching (which all the guys should do while weight training BTW)...learning to play this game can come slowly or not at all to some guys

  • The FG% numbers that I threw in there were just to illustrate the up and down nature ... the evaluation scores were based on his complete game performance.

  • Hey, he fits a need. He won't bitch about lack of minutes. I say give him the minimum.

    Wheel of Fish? Enlighten me Doug.

  • Yeah, you know they were limited minutes/bench guys teams were willing to let go for a reason. But I think honestly each has the potential to be somewhat of a steal. But potential and proven are too different things.

    If Brewer is a very good one on one defender, and can do a solid job on Wade/Roy/the elites then his offense if he can give 11-13 ppg on 47% or up is major gravy. Did I just say that? And Watson we'll just have to see. When you put up 40 points in an NBA game, and score in double figures on 50% that certainly sounds intriguing.

    Doug, I had been out of the game/following for a while, but got serious about it when Skiles, Ben, and Luol had that good year with Ben Wallace(his one good year with the Bulls), and swept albeit a crippled Heat team.

    And then came Derrick. I wasn't up on PER and FTA's and three pointers as significant/efficiency staples as you vehemently have pointed too. Though I used to know with M.J. that having free throws at your beck and call late in games made him almost invincible, and took a lot of the pressure off his late game shots.

    And I agree those are important staples of efficient/winning offense. That's why Rose, if he wants the Bulls to be contenders, is going to have to embrace his gift as a scorer, and make the transition from necessity to hunger to score, and be an alpha dog in the league 25ppg or more. And that means drawing contact in the lane, and creating contact.

    It was funny watching the USA scrimmage. I don't know Rudy Gay's FTA's regular season, but he certainly has a knack for creating contact. He plunges into the lane from the top of the key. Stops/collects, fakes the shot, and as the defender lunges toward him he leaps sideways away from the defenders, and keeps a strong just out of reach grip on the ball. Wherrrrrrrr(?) whistle sounds.

    If Derrick wants the Bulls to be a winner he is going to have to improve, and be aggressive/committed to this area of his game. Plus guys who know how to draw contact are braced, and not caught off balance like Derrick is when he gets slammed by guys like Howard(the coward).

    This rambling was really supposed to be about the fact/opinion that anything can be oversimplified/overstressed. PER: threes and FTA's matter a lot. But so do quality scorers and shooters with high field goal percentages. Look at most top three or four teams in each conference who are there repeatedly, and you'll see four or more legit minutes guys who are at 45% or higher.

    That's what used to crack me up about the Vinny Johnson to Ben Gordon comparison. While Vinny ran hot and cold, his overall percentages for five years or more were above 45%. The dude could shoot. Period. While Ben's are nowhere near that at 42% or so for his career.

  • Gordon coming off the bench would be a great look for this team.

  • I disagree about Ben's value because while he did shoot threes, he also shot a lot of two's, and when you shoot a lot of shots, and shoot in the 30's(%) that hurts your team unless you get to the line a lot/Iverson.

    I wonder if people would really debate about Ben so much if he played nightly on an excellent team with multiple stars backing up a true all-star SG, and then with injury we had to watch him shoot 41-42% for a month or two? Answer? No. Like Hinrich he should have been a very good backup, not a starter.

    And Ben also was a great guy, and a lot of fun before his stupid f-ing agent filled his head with delusions of grandeur, and the Bulls completely mishandled the Deng situation.

    Ben Gordon: great guy before turned sour, and sub-par bricklayer and fumbler some nights, on fire/scintillating(?) ballplayer on others. Too bad because of his pedigree he didn't fall into a back-up limited minutes roll similar to Hinrich's dilemma they could have both been superb sixth/seventh men on winning/loaded teams.

    Which is what Brewer and C.J. Watson could be now if they play proper minutes 25-28 a game, and not 35-38. If they don't get a competent defensive back-up for Brewer with SG size(playoffs Wade etc.) like Roger Mason then I think that's asking too much of Ronnie and will dilute his value i.e a mistake.


    I can't believe you guys debating this topic to almost 200 hits.


    Let's not deal in HYPOTHETICALS. The PAST IS THE PAST. It's time to MOVE FORWARD.

  • In reply to MrHappy:

    Hypothetically ... if MrHappy were actually MrSad, would more or less people agree with him?


  • In reply to Silverwulf:


    What if you actually had something constructive to add to this blog?

  • In reply to MrHappy:

    It would probably get lost in all the hypothetical trade comments you post.

  • In reply to MrHappy:

    An video review of Omer Asik ...

    I see a bit of potential there.

  • In reply to MrHappy:

    We were talking about Ex-Bulls and trying to understand how it might impact the current team. We have discussed enough about all the "Youngs" and "Wade coming to Chicago" and it was refreshing to look back on how the Bulls have been
    reconstituted. We had a more analytical discussion rather than trades which aren't going to happen.......

  • In reply to schaumburgfan:


    How is it refreshing? It's stupid. You can't change the past.

  • In reply to MrHappy:


    I don't talk about WADE anymore. I only talk about S. Young, because he's available and the Bulls need to add another SG/SF to their roster, while at the same time DUMP Dickey Johnson.

  • In reply to MrHappy:

    Probably everyone is available at the right price. But, has the GM of the Grizzlies told you that S. Young is available? Off-course, everyone knows we need to add a 2nd SG and not SF..FYI. Haven't we discussed that enough and we will be discussing that more when something happens.
    You act as if you have some kind of unique knowledge about basketball which nobody else has....Lighten up and get a little humble..

  • In reply to MrHappy:

    At least we are talking about actual NBA players and not spending 300+ posts hurling childish insults back and forth.

  • In reply to MrHappy:

    If we don't get Rudy and get Mason and he ends up being a flop...Would Anthony Parker make a cheap fill-in for that 2nd SG position? He is old and Cavs probably want to get rid of him. He plays decent defense and shoots well and he is on a one-year contract for about 3 mil.
    It would be nice to get a young player but the other team is not stupid to trade them cheaply. We can have consistent pressure on Wade from Brewer/Parker. If we have to beat Miami..we probably want to use the MJ plan that most teams had but couldn't execute. Stop Wade, Bosh and let LBJ score in the clutch...we know what happens then..

  • Ben Gordan shot over 40% every season and thats not a bad percentage when u factor in that he shoots alot of 3 point shots also cj watson and ronnie brewer dont compare to ben gordon in terms of production and kirk hinrich was an excellent starter at pg not sg

  • I fully expect Rose to surpass Gordon as a go to clutch scorer this year. and with team he won't have to be nearly as often, maybe not at all.

    ON an offense/defense possesion we could have Rose, Watson, Korver, Deng and Boozer on the floor at the same time, going back to the defensive(starting)lineup of Rose, Brewer, Deng, Boozer, and Noah.

    That small ball lineup would certainly be better than the midget lineups of the past, Rose, Gordon, HInrich Deng and whomever.

  • Doug, it is the middle of the summer(the dog days as baseball players say) we have nothing else to do but talk about hyotheticalls.

    Nothing wrong with this post, I was sort of expecting it at some point.

    Why not do the one that I suggested above. What if we had passed on signing Deng last summer, would we now have Lebron, Wade, and Bosh to go along with Rose and Noah.

  • Exactly, and judging by the number of posts, you seem to have hit a spot(sore or otherwise), and at least this time the volumn has nothing to do with inane name calling between you know who and his "friends".

  • Unless I am totally wrong about what I think about the new players joining the Bulls(Korver is my biggest question mark), we will all be thrilled with this team this year. By Thanksgiving this won't even be a debate. 50 wins will be a disappointment for this team.

    I was never(and I mean never) a fan or our suppose core or Hinrich, Gordon and Deng(add Curry and Chandler if you want).

    Now if we can pull off one final miracle and somehow make Deng turn into Carmelo, my work will be done.

  • Ok about a new topic???

    What pieces can we add to compete in the playoffs and possibly stop Miami from coming out of the east?

    How do we do it? When do we do it? Let's forget about the ex Bulls, forget about trading JJ, cuz I don't think it's happening.

    Thoughts? (lol i saw everybody else adding this to the end so I thought why not) :)

  • Agree with you on Brewer, you can't get a much better recommendation that both Deron Williams and Coach Sloan being pissed about him being traded.

  • While I agree that in conclusion this is what you stated, I have to say that as I was reading the post it sounded like your were attempting to argue that we would have been better off with Gordon, but not Hinrich.

    I think that we are going to be an exponentially better team this upcoming season than we have been at any time since the Jordan years. Boozer will more than make up for any scoring that Gordon would have given us without any of the headaches.

    In any event, given the passions of the past few offseasons, I think this was a worthwhile debate.

  • Barners was one of my favorite offseason targets. The Bulls never appeared interested. Do you have any idea why, any inside info.

    Barnes and Blake make the Lakers overwhelming favorites for next season, even if the Miami's break the Bulls record for regular season wins.

    I can't believe that I will be forced to root for Kobe to get #6.

  • heck, we gave everybody else 3 years, Barnes isn't that old we could have gone 3/9 or 10 for Barnes and been just fine.

  • luckily for this years Bulls team, the game isn't played from a purely offensive standpoint, and at the championship level is far more about defense and team play than it is about individual offense.

    Again, the Bulls were a .500 team during Gordons five seasons, and I find it hard to remember even a dozen games that you could definatively say that we won because of Gordon. Gordon was nothing more than a Sportscenter mirage.

    Personally, I can't wait to see Watson, he may turn out to be a better version of what we all wanted Gordon to be, the supersub, instant offense off the bench, who isn't always outscored by the man that he is supposed to be guarding.

  • HOw about 30ppg in losses and 18 ppg in wins, does that have any relevance for you.

    IF not ask Herm Edwards.

  • Excellent differentiation of the 2.

    I think that Deng is less functional than HInrich, by a mile.

    What about Noah and Taj.

    Taj is more functional, NOah more disruptivve.

    I agree on the need for both, but I like the disruptive guys, kind of what the Dobermans were all about, although I guess you could make the argument that those guys were all both.

  • But quite likely more efficient scoring and maybe even more actual scoring, and all we ever did was complain about Hinrich's lack of shooting ability.

  • There is a reason that "they" say, "familiarity breeds comtempt"

  • Yeah. I think he is a good player to fit our need. He can shoot 3. He got size. He can defense well. And he could also give us a veteran presence on the bench. Although he is 35, but hey man we only looking for a 12th spot roster so i think he could give us a couple of good minutes off bench. Also, Anthony will not complain like rudy for lack of minutes playing. I wonder what we should do to sign him.

Leave a comment