Losing players for nothing
The bulls just loss Ben Gordon and got nothing back in return. He was the best player for them verse the C's in the playoffs. He matched Ray Allen basket for basket all series long. He is a clutch player who is not scared to take the big shot. He will hit it consistently too. Orlando lost Shaq the same way, and Clevland could lose Lebron this way at the end of next year. How important is it to have a GM willing to pull the trigger on a deal for that player rather than have this happen? Orlando got nothing for Shaq and started over. This could happen to Clevland. What do you think?
no way cavs trade James unless they are 100% certain he is leaving. And the Bulls prepared for losing Gordon when they made the trade to bring in Salmons. With Gordon's contract off the books soon to be joined by Brad MIllers, they should be able to spend some money through free agency. Besides, I would'nt put Gordon in the same discussion with losing Shaq or James.
I don't know....sometimes it is a blessing sometimes it is a curse. As for Gordon leaving the Bulls I actually think it was a good thing for Chicago. He was a potent scorer but didn't do much else. Chicago was never going to win it all with him starting. Now the Bulls have bankrolls to spend next year in free agency when the true ballers are up for grabs.
i agree with the comment above about cleveland not trading lebron. i dont think any franchise wants 2 be the franchise who trades away a top player in his prime. my thing is if the cavs truly want 2 keep james they will do watever they possibly can. whether thats money or endorsements or bringing more players
The free angence next year will hurt a lot of teams and some might get better, lebron will go and play for the nets if they move to brooklyn seriously that's why they traded vince carter for....
I think this is a tricky thing. Obviously you want to get something instead of losing a guy for nothing, but by the same token you don't want to give the guy away or upset the guy and then end up not being able to get a trade done. I think it is really hard to trade a guy in the last year of his deal, because other teams only want to offer you junk because the guy can walk away and they end up with nothing.
As for Gordon, the Bulls couldn't trade him last year because of the deal that was signed. I do agree that they made a smart move by bringing in Salmons, so now they won't be left with nothing. I also think that the Bulls are fortunate because now they have a better idea of what they need to do to move forward.
The Cavs will never trade Lebron, even if they know he is going to leave. In theory it would be smart, because I am sure you could get a lot for him even in his last year. If they traded Lebron they would have the whole city turn on them. It might sound crazy, but I could seriously see that team folding if that ever happened. If he leaves the team needs to say how much they love and appreciated his work and move on. Unfortunately for them, I don't think they have much of a backup plan if he goes.
Is it important for a GM to be willing to pull the trigger on a deal and get something for his star? Not is Gordon as good as Shaq or Lebron. That is the question. Yes I agree Lebron will go play for the Nets if him and Shaq can't get it done. Watch and see. They will lose him for nothing and start over. Jay Z is his man and Lebron loves the spotlight and profile he is out.
i think the nba should do something where if a team loses a key player to free agency, they should get something in return. i think that maybe a team that signs a player should pay the players original team something. like if lbj signed wioth the knicks, then the knicks should forefit either cash, a 2nd rounder or a player. i believe they do this in baesball.
I think one of the biggest mistakes GM's make is over spending on players. If Gordon was leavig, then they could just use that money on other players. Why take back players and salaries that you might not really want just so you could say you got something in return. If a Shaq or Lebron leaves, that means you have millions to spend on another superstar free agent to come in and rebuild around.
One of the differences between baseball and basketball is that the NBA has a pretty level playing field where almost every team spends the same money and has equal opportunities to sign players. In baseball, there are teams that have money and those that don't, so it is not even close to a fair playing field. That's why they have to give something up instead of just being able to take all the players they want off the broke teams. It helps keep things a little more competitive.
I think it's good for the Bulls. Someone else can finally step up and be the offensive focus. And like Gator said he only scores, he doesn't do anything else. Stat stuffers > Scorers, IMO.
I think Bulls made the smart move too many GMs are paying all that money for one dimensional players. Also they have Salmons and a healthy Deng. They should be good. They also add a nice forward from the draft. They learned the hard way when they signed Ben Wallace a older one dimensional player to all that money and had to try to trade him when they need a low post prescence. If you are gonna spend that much money get a star or a much needed position. They smart Gm's have a surplus of talent and have cap space. Sometimes you have to risk hurting someone's feelings and be like this is all we are willing to pay and not many people can pay you as much.