asking Pargo to become anything more then a 4th guard is a recipe for disaster
Hey, last time he played in the NBA (with the hornets) he did a nice job coming off the bench and hitting some shots, he was an Eddie House type of player. I know, he is one year older now, but, still, I would give him a chance
I'm sure he can score.
Great bench player. Almost shot the Hornets back into that elimination game in 2008 versus the Spurs. He's not Gordon, but he's an upgrade over Anthony Roberson and Lindsey Hunter
benji wrote:LeBron is such a choker. And people were talking about him as an all-time great. As having possibly surpassed Kobe. What a joke.
velvet bliss wrote:Andrew, you the real MVP.
Andrew wrote:He who flops and flails to the Finals and a title, flops and flails best.
getred12 wrote:Pargo can definetley be a firepower for the Bulls. You really want to get Boozer,right?
benji wrote:LeBron is such a choker. And people were talking about him as an all-time great. As having possibly surpassed Kobe. What a joke.
velvet bliss wrote:Andrew, you the real MVP.
Andrew wrote:He who flops and flails to the Finals and a title, flops and flails best.
Valor wrote:i am still pissed at them letting go Gordon, and signs Pargo to replace himbut on a bright side, there may be a chance that they are freeing up cap + the starting 2 guard position for Wade to come home in 2010
(i know, unlikely, but hey, it's better then thinking the negatives of BG leaving....)
SHAQ33 wrote:Madison Square Garden and The United Center are the best 2 courts in the world![]()
signs Pargo to replace him
Question: What do you think of Ben Gordon's signing as a free agent with the Detroit Pistons?
Answer: Actually, we made a decision a year ago not to commit long term to Ben. We tried, and he turned it down. Then, near the end, [now GM] Gar Forman and John [Paxson] decided it probably wasn't a good idea to make a long-term decision. We wanted to see what other options might develop. So we withdrew the offer [six years, $54 million] we had on the table. Ben ultimately said he would take it, but it was too late.
Now, fast forward to the end of the year, we have [John] Salmons and we have a hell of a three-guard rotation with [Kirk] Hinrich and Derrick [Rose]. Ben wasn't going to get a whole lot of playing time. [It] was going to be diminished. So Ben really no longer fit. Ben's a terrific player. But Ben needs minutes. He would not have been happy with the minutes he was going to get.
Q: What about letting Gordon go and getting nothing in return given he was the third overall pick in the 2004 draft?
A: You can't just look at a player by himself. You've got to look at what his departure enables you to do in other ways. You do have to have [salary] cap flexibility in this league. It's not like baseball where, if you have the money, you can do whatever you want. The cap really constrains you. So you're constantly looking at your roster to see maybe two or three years out.
Q: The Bulls will have some $25 million in salary-cap room projected to spend on the star-studded 2010 free-agent class. After spending $60 million on free agent Ben Wallace with little to show for it, are you leery of courting another big-money player?
A: Yes. But the only way you can avoid making a mistake is not to make a decision. Even Jerry West has made mistakes, and he's probably the best in the business. Even [Red] Auerbach made mistakes. Was Ben Wallace a mistake? Probably. Because what we didn't think about is Ben needs to play alongside somebody who can score a lot of points. But I don't think it's about Ben Wallace that makes us be careful. It's the thought that when you make a mistake, you own that mistake. So we've got to be careful.
Q: There's a perception the Bulls move slowly when it comes to big-name trades. The perception is you missed on Pau Gasol, on Kevin Garnett. What's your response?
A: I don't think we move too slowly. Gasol, we didn't move slowly, we said, 'No.' We were prepared to give [Memphis] players. What they wanted to do was to basically dump stuff on us and we'd be immobilized; we wouldn't have been able to improve our team. Gasol made sense for the Lakers because he is their third-best player, probably. He would have been, at that time, our best player. It would have been a wrong role for him. John and Gar decided they didn't want Gasol under those circumstances, where he would have been the last piece and we would have been immobilized because of the [salary] cap.
What they wanted to do was to basically dump stuff on us and we'd be immobilized
A healthy Luol is going to become an All-Star
We will be better because Luol [Deng] will be back.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests