Monday, June 6, 2011

Playing GM

Many believed coming into this season that the Bulls needed another scorer. Yes, Boozer and Deng do give you scoring, but what you still need is another player who can actually create his own shot - something you won't see from Boozer or Deng.

Where some of these people were a little off their rockers was in their willingness to blow up the team - and the team concept - to get Carmelo Anthony. But the basic premise of needing to fill that need is a valid concern.

So let me throw this one at you:

Carlos Boozer to the Pistons for Ben Gordon.

Gordon wanted more money than he was worth when he reached free agency. The Bulls were smartly not willing to pay it, but the Pistons, regrettably for them, were. His contract, which has 3 years and $36 million remaining - is now a toxic asset. Gordon joins the likes of Gilbert Arenas and Rashard Lewis in the pantheon of bench players with eight figure salaries.

But if nothing else (and there really is nothing else), Ben Gordon can score points in bunches. He can get into the lane for an assortment of one-hand leaners and tear-drops. He can work free for jumpers. And he is an excellent three point shooter. Yes, he is a liability defensively, a rare case of someone who does try on defense but still sucks at it. And while he's point guard sized, he can't play the point for even a few minutes. He is grossly overpaid for what he brings to the table.

Now, the Bulls have a toxic asset of their own in Boozer. But he's a toxic asset the Pistons might have more use for than they have for Gordon. For all his defensive failings, a healthy Boozer still can give you 20 & 10 every night - especially on a lesser team where he'll get fed. He'll do a lot more for the Pistons than Gordon will, while Gordon is much more what the Bulls need than Boozer is.

If I'm going to live with a defensive liability, I'd rather have it 20-25 feet from the basket where a good defensive frontcourt can still rotate to help, as opposed to someone who just refuses to guard the rim as the last line of defense. Even with Gordon's defensive shortcomings, the Bulls still had an excellent defensive team under Scott Skiles, so while Ben is bad at that end of the floor, he alone doesn't keep a team from being strong defensively.

Don't fixate on Gordon's bad contract. That money is spent already - it got spent the moment Boozer signed on the dotted line. It's a sunk cost. No one will relieve you of that toxic asset, much like the Cubs will find no help in relieving them of the Alfonso Soriano albatross.

Just ask yourself who gives you something you need, that you can't get elsewhere.

Gordon can do some things that no one else on the Bulls can do, and can play a role that needs to be played, especially in endgame situations. In the meantime, Boozer is eminently replaceable. You can plug Taj Gibson in at power forward and reasonably expect 13 points and 8-9 rebounds a game, and superior defense to what you were getting before.

Gibson and Gordon will be at least as productive, probably better defensively by being stronger close to the basket, and better suited to endgame situations than Boozer and Bogans.

Now, one sticking point is that while Gordon's contract averages $12 million per year and Boozer's $15 million, overall Boozer has an extra year and $24 million total left his deal than Gordon has on his. Even for a team that would still have ample cap space and has trouble attracting free agents anyway, this is troublesome. The Bulls may need to part with that future Charlotte pick as a sweetener.

I'd do it, and then the deal works for everyone. Detroit gets a nightly 20 & 10 as an anchor during rebuilding, while the Bulls get their one-dimensional scorer they lack in endgame situations, or for stretches when the offense grows stagnant and no one is making shots.

2 comments:

  1. I like your outside-the-box thinking, but when I got to the line with your trade proposal idea, I had to stop for a second to make sure I read that right. Ben Gordon? Forget that he's grossly overpaid for a second. The Ben Gordon I remember was a black hole. The offense stopped when he got the ball. He was streaky, and if his long range shot wasn't falling the Bulls couldn't score. I think his need to be the primary scorer stifled Derrick's rookie year development too much. If he's not shooting, Gordon isn't worth having on the court, and if Gordon's shooting as much as he needs, Rose isn't effective enough for this team to win.

    And, while you're right that Boozer is a defensive liability up front, I really think having a backcourt of Rose and Gordon would be ten times worse. Maybe I'm a basketball dope, but it seems to me that Thibs's defense facilitates good enough help defense up front to reduce the impact of Boozer's indifference on that end. On the other hand, two 6-3 guards would get trashed on the perimeter by the teams that matter.

    Again, nice thought (and good blog, by the way), but let's please keep Ben Gordon as far away from a Bulls roster as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The problem with Boozer's indifference is: he's a big man. He plays close to the basket. Very often, he's the last line of defense, and all to frequently just allows an easy, uncontested basket. At least when someone blows by Ben Gordon, he's 20 feet from the basket, and there's time for Deng or Gibson or Noah to rotate over.

    I don't forsee Gordon starting with Rose. If a Boozer/Gordon trade happened, I would imagine Ben coming off the bench and being the scoring anchor for the second team - which would have the added benefit of easing the minutes load on Luol Deng. The new "Bench Mob" would be Watson, Gordon, Butler, Asik and whoever. You probably end up getting back a serviceable power forward body with Gordon to make the salary work in that deal anyway.

    The other important use for Gordon would be as the Bulls' "Jason Terry" in endgame situations. We've now seen how the league as adjusted to the Derrick Rose Bulls. LeBron and maybe a couple of other players in the league (Westbrook, Paul George perhaps) can keep Rose in front of them. But everyone else will run a double team at Derrick 35-40 feet from the basket and force him to give up the ball.

    While Deng does give you his 17 points a game, he's not the guy who can get the ball and create a shot for himself - he gets his points out of the flow of the offense. It's why he's the idea #3 guy on a Championship team but can't be the #2 guy. He's a very good basketball player who is worth his money, but there is one thing he doesn't give you... and that's the one thing Ben Gordon DOES give you.

    Ben can get his own shot, and make it. He is capable of scoring points in bunches, and when used properly, he's one of the better distance shooters in the league.

    In fact, he's no more of a defensive liability than Korver is, but he can beat you in more ways on offense. At the end of a game with Miami, I'd rather have Gordon guarding Chalmers than Korver trying to stick D-Wade. And when LeBron forces Rose to give the ball up when the Bulls badly need a bucket, I'd like knowing that Gordon can create a shot when he gets the ball.

    And let's not forget that Ben Gordon was Mr. Fourth Quarter when he was with the Bulls. He was a closer.

    He's a severely flawed basketball player. If you rely on him to lead you to wins every night, he'll drive you crazy because he's good enough to make you think you should win more than you inevitably will with him. But for a team like the Bulls have right now, Gordon is exactly what they need. If the midlevel exception were still around, it could be used on Jamal Crawford and you'd get it that way. But without a midlevel, you have to get creative.

    And I would generally be happier if Boozer weren't here anyway...

    ReplyDelete