Bottom line: Chicago Bulls didn't think Ben Gordon worth $55 mi...

First the Tigers drop $75 million on Ordonez.

Then the Bulls waste $60 million on Ben Wallace.

Now the Pistons spend $55 million on Ben Gordon.

And the Blackhawks spend $62.8 million on Marian Hossa. Did they not see him disappear in the playoffs?

Stop the Detroit-Chicago sports incest now. There is enough money to make up the GDP of a small nation, and the only return has been about 1.5 good seasons out of Magglio.

I can see letting Ben Gordon go but it is fool's gold to chase any free agents in 2010. Just my opinion. History shows that not many marquee players leave their teams as a free agent. Shaq did it, Grant Hill did it, that was it.

"The Bulls made the determination Gordon wasn't worth that some time ago, possibly in February when they acquired Brad Miller and John Salmons from Sacramento."

So why didn't they trade Gordon then?

Now go after turkalo (s.p.), he can shoot, drive and play d. pluse he is not 5'8"

leonard hamiltgon wrote:

I can see letting Ben Gordon go but it is fool's gold to chase any free agents in 2010. Just my opinion. History shows that not many marquee players leave their teams as a free agent. Shaq did it, Grant Hill did it, that was it.

1) Not so sure about this. It looks like some of these guys ARE going to move next summer. There are ways for them to put the word out to certain GMs.
2) There were a lot of things to like about Gordon, but not at $55 million! For that you like to see game at both ends of the court.
3) A lot of the analysts like both of the Bulls' draft picks, so could be better next year even losing Gordon.
4) This is about moving pieces, finding best fits, chemistry. Got to experiment some.
5) If Wade or James come to Bulls, they have enough to win it all. If Bosh comes, may need one more piece.

Gordon is not worth that kind of money. The Bulls will be a better "team" without him.

Noooooooooooo!
I hope the Bulls don't let Ben Gordon go. I for one think that he was one of the major reasons we made it as far as we did against the Celtics and I would hate to see him go. His playing is electric, he has a great attitude, and he is our leading scorer. I'd rather lose Brad Miller than Ben Gordon. Hopefully this is just conjecture and we will see Gordon in the red and white next season*prayer heavenward*

Ben is no more than a 6th man for the Bulls, maybe 7th. That position is not worth 11 million a year. Will Detroit now trade Hamilton to the Bulls to clear more cap room? Deng will also now play better.

Didn't the Bulls offer Gordon 50 million plus a year or so ago? What is the difference now? Couldn't play defense then and he isn't any better now. When his shot is on he is an asset, when it isn't he's not better than 12th man.

Letting Ben Gordon walk will be the #1 idiotic move the Bulls made since the breakup of the Dynasty Bulls.

If Gordon was so good, why did the bulls struggle so much with him and barely get over .500? His shot was off and on and his defense was nonexistent. The bulls just need to get a cheap alternative to play the sixth man that can score. I am saying it right here. Wade will be a Chicago Bull in 2010.

Ben Gordon was a great professional. and big-time shot maker. But his liabilities i think are too costly when he frequently passes up open teammates to take a more difficult shot and on the defensive end, when 6-7 guards can easily shoot over him. Throw in the turnovers and you get about three negatives for every big shot he makes, A lot of times his big shot only negates the whole the he helped dig the bulls into. I am not sad to see Gordon go. A team guy off the court, but not on the court.

I am totally fine with this. Don't know who will fill his shoes, but this is ok by me. However, I wil miss his community service, professionalism, etc. off the court. On the court, he was occassionally brilliant, occassionally brutal!

So we put all our eggs in one basket for next summer with the "hope" towhat Wade or Bosh will come play for the Bulls.
How'd that work out for Jerry Krause in 2000 with Grant Hill, Tracy McGrady, etc??? Can't wait for another losing season again in 2009-10. Derrick Rose and a bunch of stiffs. Thanks Pax, you've done a bang up job.

Good move - I'll take Hinrich's defense over Ben's scoring. Net positive.

KC makes it easy to read between the lines and understand what this was all about.(Uncle Jerry)

What if they didn't sign Deng to that bad contract? Say both Deng and Gordon were UFAs, who would have the Bulls prioritized? Another way of thinking of it - take Deng's current 6 year $71M contract out of the equation (so hitting the luxury tax is not an issue for signing 1 player), would the Bulls give Ben the 5 year,$55M deal?

C'mon K.C. The $21-22 million thing is just really lousy spin. The Bulls have had ample opportunity to unload Hinrich and get under lux tax territory. They're going to find out very quickly that whatever they gain from having Kirk or Salmons at the 2 will be lost by:(a) not having enough shooting to open the floor for Rose; and (2) what they lose in defense from having the increasingly brittle Deng at the 3.

K.C. - with all due respect,I think you are overstating some things here. First, luxury tax is not determined today and so if the Bulls were to sign Gordon, they would have plenty of time to unload other contracts to avoid paying the luxury tax. Second, it is my understanding that the payout to the non-lux teams is going to be substantially less than the $3.5 MM paid in prior years. This is partially due to the Knicks and other teams (but largely the Knicks) gradually moving down in total salary and amount paid into the luxury fund. Also, if the Pistons don't sign Gordon, he may have not been able to find a contract paying him an average of $11 MM per season. In that case, perhaps the Bulls pull the trigger and bring him back- even if your inside info relating to a ridiculous preference for Kirk over Gordon is true. Your bottom line might statement might be correct, but I think these factors should have been included in your article.

K.C. - with all due respect,I think you are overstating some things here. First, luxury tax is not determined today and so if the Bulls were to sign Gordon, they would have plenty of time to unload other contracts to avoid paying the luxury tax. Second, it is my understanding that the payout to the non-lux teams is going to be substantially less than the $3.5 MM paid in prior years. This is partially due to the Knicks and other teams (but largely the Knicks) gradually moving down in total salary and amount paid into the luxury fund. Also, if the Pistons don't sign Gordon, he may have not been able to find a contract paying him an average of $11 MM per season. In that case, perhaps the Bulls pull the trigger and bring him back- even if your inside info relating to a ridiculous preference for Kirk over Gordon is true. Your bottom line might statement might be correct, but I think these factors should have been included in your article.

Whoever thinks that the Bulls were idiots for letting go of Ben Gordon well your the idiot this move was for the best of the team !