Mike McGraw, with lots of interesting perspectives on Gordon and the other guards from media day:

"I'm going to be part of the team," Gordon said Monday at the Berto Center. "All I can do is continue to be professional. That's why I'm here today. That's why I'll be with my teammates tomorrow even if I'm not going to practice."

...

"I don't want this to be a situation where anyone thinks we don't value Ben, because we do," Paxson said. "If he's on our team, we hope he has a great year and helps us win games."

It's conceivable that Gordon will threaten to take the qualifying offer until the last possible moment, in hopes that the Bulls improve their offer. An increase doesn't seem likely, though, because the Bulls' payroll is approaching the luxury-tax threshold.

Asked if he's ruled out re-signing with the Bulls if he becomes unrestricted next summer, Gordon replied, "I don't know. Ask me in a year."

Once Gordon's contract is resolved, the Bulls will address a related problem - what to do with the crowd in the backcourt. They finished last season with Gordon, Kirk Hinrich, Larry Hughes, Thabo Sefolosha and Chris Duhon struggling to get comfortable with inconsistent playing time.

Since then, Duhon left for New York as a free agent, only to be replaced by Rose, the top pick of the NBA draft. The Bulls plan to bring Rose along slowly, but he'll be a fixture at point guard sooner rather than later.

"It's not going to be easy," first-year coach Vinny Del Negro said. "We have a lot of talented guys at the one, two and three. Maybe sometimes we'll play a little bit smaller. The guys that compete the hardest, not only in practice but in games, and prepare the best and are ready to go to battle, obviously those are the guys you want to go with."

...

"Obviously, the logical person that people were talking about moving was Kirk," Paxson said. "I certainly wouldn't want to be sitting here next year not having Kirk or Ben. That was the reason we held pat in the backcourt."

Asked his thoughts about solving the logjam at guard, Gordon said, "It's a mystery. I've been trying to figure that out the whole time. I guess the only thing you can do is wait and see."

Paxson has made it sound as though Gordon signing a long-term deal would make it more likely that one of the other guards would be moved.

"I don't know if that makes sense," Gordon said. "That doesn't make sense to me. You could have done a deal with me and then if you wanted to move somebody, move somebody. I don't think it had to go in that order."

As Paxson said, in terms of who to trade, the only person really impacted by whether Gordon takes a 1 or 6-year deal is Hinrich. There's still no reason not to deal Hughes and Nocioni to clear up minutes.

As for Gordon's comments, he seems a bit slighted, but it sounds more like fuel for motivation than for petulance. There's talk of a last-minute avoidance of the QO, but the Sun Times reports that the Bulls are at $58m and Gordon's agents 'are believed to be' asking for $75m. I doubt that the gap is that wide (it almost sounds like the Sun-Times report is still using the year-old speculation that Gordon wanted to make more than Ben Wallace), but it still sounds like any compromise is a longshot.

UPDATE(9/29): KC Johnson confirms.

I thank Ben for giving me something to keep fixated on during the dog days of the offseason. But now that it's the eve of training camp, it really was time to make a decision of the long-term deal or the one-year qualifying offer. After all indications over the weekend (including the opinion of Paxson) suggested Gordon taking the QO,  famed Bulls net rumormonger 'techn9ne' reports that he will indeed do so:

Gordon will be with the team for at least one more season as he has verbally agreed to take the 1 year qualifying offer worth 6.4 million.  Gordon turned down a 6 year 59 million dollar offer and will become an unrestricted free agent at the end of the season.  The 6 foot 3 Guard could make it official as early as Tuesday.

If true, it's a bad finish to a mostly dormant negotiation, completing two offseasons where Gordon and the Bulls couldn't come to an agreement. But a holdout or a sign/trade for contract filler would've been even worse.

Under the QO Gordon cannot be traded this season without his consent (which would eliminate his Bird rights, so very very doubtful) and he will become an unrestricted FA next offseason. 

Gordon is now a test case under the current league CBA. No player of his caliber has ever taken the qualifying offer. So while the previous examples all ended poorly both for the player and the team involved, perhaps Gordon will be the one who breaks the mold: with a fine season rewarded with a fine contract.

The big question now is how the Bulls handle the rest of the roster knowing that while they have Ben Gordon, it's with no guarantees beyond this season. Do they treat Gordon like he's gone next season and make sure they cover their bases even if it means not clearing salary and roster space? Or do they give him opportunity to earn the fat contract he wants with a bounce-back season?

The post quoted above speculates that now big man filler can be signed with Gordon's payroll figure for this season settled, but I'd prefer dealing Hughes for that filler (even if they can't play. heck, Juwan Howard can't play either) to at least signal to Gordon that they won't hold his demands against him at the expense of the team and try and pass off a triumvarate of Hughes/Hinrich/Thabo as a legitimate rotation at shooting guard.

Training camp starts Monday, and the season about a month from that. And at this current stalemate status of the negotiation, the only thing Gordon can do is wait and hope that the Bulls budge.

I'm curious to see how the Bulls will approach the issue of Gordon potentially missing camp and preseason. Will they try and get him to sign the qualifying offer or the deal before camp starts? We all remember how 'distractions' were a convenient(and possibly true) excuse for the bad start to last season. In a recent Pax interview, he stressed the importance of everyone feeling good and on the same page heading into the season.

But looking at it from Ben Gordon's position, while the Bulls' rumored 6/$59 offer is ultimately still 59 million guaranteed dollars, the first year figure of that rumored deal is only $1.4m than what he'd make on the qualifying offer. So it's not that much risk in that first season to take the QO, with the obvious caveat that he secures a significant long-term deal in the next offseason.

But is that likely? With the combination of some mid-market free agent teams as well as a relatively poor free agent class, I think it's a better possibility that others would suggest.

Recently Chad Ford looked ahead an offseason to the 2009 free-agent class, and determined the following teams with enough cap room to get Ben what he wants: Thunder, Grizzlies, Blazers, Heat, Pacers, and potentially the Bobcats and Timberwolves. Some have more room than others, but I'm keeping in mind that teams looking to get under the cap can always find ways to shave a few million here and there over the next 12 months. (note: the Bulls apparently haven't realized this re: the luxury tax)

Sam Smith recently pooped on the idea that this means there will be a market for Ben.

Admittedly, it’s not a great free agent class next summer, though Carlos Boozer and Hedo Turkoglu could be there. The teams most likely to be $10 million or more under the cap to sign someone unrestricted likely figure to be from among Memphis (not spending money), Oklahoma City (probably not with the big relocation fee due), Portland (got guards), Miami (going for Boozer, we hear), Indiana and maybe Minnesota. So if you are spending, you lock in Ben Gordon and pass on a chance for Wade or Bosh? LeBron is going to New York or New Jersey, as we know.

LeBron may be likely headed to New York or New Jersey in 2010, but that doesn't mean Wade or Bosh (or Joe Johnson or Amare Stoudamire) are going to Memphis, Oklahoma City, Indiana or Minnesota (let alone leaving their current teams in the first place). Portland is now a likely hot destination due to the roster, but they can't sit on their 2009 cap space as in the next summer the raises due to some of that young talent wipes it out. The only team I'd consider bowing out of the 2009 class for 2010 is Miami, though if I were them I'd try and get real good real quick to make sure that Wade doesn't leave. Memphis is likely out due to needing a big man with some kind of foundation in place with Conley-Mayo-Gay (and as Sam says, they're just plain cheap).

But for teams like Oklahoma City (Sam, they have to spend some money), Indiana, Minnesota, and Portland, Ben Gordon may be the prize free agent to target. He's good, but not at the level where he's going to command a max salary, he'll be 26, and he'll be both literally an unrestricted free agent as well as unrestricted in terms of not holding any loyalty towards remaining a Bull. (can't you picture a scenario where Reinsdorf tells the media he's disappointed that Ben didn't let him match an offer?).

There's literally nobody else with that unique combination of both potential desirability and attainability on the market. If Boozer jumps at all it'll be to Miami, and the rest are either old, or restricted.

Now, obviously Gordon can't feel too secure in passing on the guaranteed money now in the mere speculation that he could get it back in a year. There's risk of injury, and both the roster glut and lack of a contract working against his role on the Bulls for next season.

But, for one, the Bulls aren't going to submarine their season just to screw Gordon out of a future contract. There may be a 'glut', but he's the best of the glut. He'll get minutes, even if Vinny finds the superstition stick in Skiles' old desk that keeps Gordon on the bench to begin games.

And from a less tangible but also important standpoint, what we've learned about Ben Gordon (through leaked reports, anyway), is that he thinks very highly of himself and what his status should be in the league. Whether it winds up ultimately costing him money or not, it also could be the deciding factor that has him giving up $59m to take the qualifying offer. A lot of us think it's crazy, and I wouldn't personally take the chance at losing out on that money. But the confident and driven mentality that keeps Ben Gordon in the gym every day also may have him believing that he'll have a great season and get his money, whether it's from the Bulls or not.

All things considered, it's probably just yet another negotiating ploy by Gordon to get the Bulls to do something. Something besides Paxson throwing his hands up in the air and saying (figuratively of course...from what I've seen they're saying nothing) "what can I do? it's the tax!". Mike McGraw couldn't get a confirmation, and according to Henry Abbott's peeps the report is false.

Kelly Dwyer showed his confusion (through confusing prose) over both Gordon's value and this stalemate with the Bulls. Unlike some, he understands that Gordon's definitely valuable, his faults are overplayed, he's consistently played the good soldier while "being taken in and out of the starting lineup for arbitrary reasons by coaches who were grasping and struggling with superstition" (love that line, KD), and that the Bulls will be abhorrent on offense without him.

But that the Bulls shouldn't budge.

Even if it means Gordon going to Russia?

He could take that Russian offer, watch as the Bulls trade away Andres Nocioni or dump Kirk Hinrich after Hinrich spends one more year as Chicago's point guard with a teenaged Derrick Rose on the sidelines, and come back to a Bulls team willing to come just as close to the luxury tax as they were this summer (that is to say, just under it) while paying Gordon what he thinks he deserves. Would Chicago fans put up with that? The smart ones would. The pull-up-your-bootstraps ones? Yeah, they wouldn't go for it.

I feel offended that Kelly would group me in the loathed meatball population, because I absolutely wouldn't go for this. (and benching Derrick Rose -who will be 20 by opening night, by the way- for a season? gross)

The NBullsA blog also thinks this isn't a bad idea, but notes the obvious: "Only one problem.  No way in hell Ben would come back to the Bulls after they let/forced him to go play in Europe."

That's certainly my biggest problem with it, and why, perhaps what could be presented as a logical case, letting Gordon go to Europe is even worse than him taking the Qualifying Offer. After participaing in whatever back-slapping the team could give themselves for not giving in to Ben's demands, they'd become a joke of a franchise, and on their way to a crummy season.

The QO would certainly also be a bad option. But at least there's a chance he'd have a great year and re-sign. The chemistry problems? Gordon's certainly proven he won't rock the boat even when seeing a diminished role. But why even assume a diminished role? The guard 'glut' only exists in names. Larry Hughes doesn't deserve a minute of playing time. Thabo's development time is not high priority given his chances of actually developing. Hinrich has Derrick Rose's job, and between him and Nocioni there should be moves made to clear the long-term salary off the books regardless.

The Qualifying Offer is still a bad, bad result to these negotiations, but out of resignation I'm starting to talk myself into it. No player has had a good year (or even  re-signed) after taking the QO. But none of those players were as good as Gordon, or on a team that needed him as much.

Overall, the fact that it's at this point, and the last two Bulls observers I quoted above agree, just plain sucks.

But while I do wish Gordon would lessen his demands, I'm starting to empathize with his tactics: thrashing to get any attention while wondering why the Bulls aren't doing anything. I've said in the past that any type of money-saving and/or roster consolidating deal would likely do wonders. Others agree. Send Hughes away for corpses with contracts. Pay a team to take Cedric Simmons off the books. Make the necessary Nocioni deal now. Free up some cash, free up some playing time.

Anything could work for this organization except letting Gordon go overseas, and then telling us fans (even the dopey ones) that they sure would've have liked some notification...a chance to match the offer...if only they had the time.

As far as I can tell, nobody quite knows what J.R. Smith signed for, but the general guess is in the $5-7m range for 3 years. [3yrs $16.5m -ed.]

And as it further dwindles the list of significant unsigned 2004 draftees to pretty much Ben Gordon (with apologies to Delonte West)...the comparisons have come out.

Matt Watson at Fanhouse:

He's only 22 years old, but I doubt he'd want to agree to a longer deal, especially considering the only thing stopping him from getting Ben Gordon money (ie, $10 million plus a year, which Ben Gordon may or may not even get) is minutes. Smith averaged 23.0 points per 36 minutes last year; Gordon, just 21.0. And considering Smith is three inches taller and just as dangerous in the lane as behind the three-point line, there's no question he has loads more long-term upside.

Tom Ziller at Sporting Blog:

Ben Gordon will still be sitting at home, waiting for someone to offer him 175% what the Nuggets guard—younger, taller, more explosive, and increasingly reliable—got. If this doesn't hammer home the concept of "market value" to Gordon, really, nothing will.

J.R. Smith is certainly taller than Ben Gordon! Doesn't quite help him be a better defender, draw more fouls, or rebound more effectively than Gordon, but...taller, sure.

And they do have similar numbers. But Smith is no comparison to Ben Gordon, or pretty much anyone. The reason why a 3-season near-MLE deal isn't particularly raising eyebrows is Smith's off-court and on-court combustibility.

As much as I enjoy a good perception-shattering through better analysis (though that's a bit much to ask considering the format of Fanhouse and TSB), the issue with Smith is purely his issues. 

I wouldn't personally group Smith's attitude and maturity problems with the easily overvalued 'character' attributes that the Bulls usually fawn over, like the adulation of Nocioni's game-face. And I don't even mind a few slightly dirty off-court incidents on my basketball team. But in terms of what actually effects a player and his team on the court, such as preparation, hard work, coachability...Gordon and Smith are not just divergent, but on complete opposite sides of the spectrum.

It can be said that just looking at cost/benefit, it's worth the risk to pay less for J.R. Smith to hope he puts up similar numbers (getting more minutes to do so, naturally). Smith is 2 years younger, and that certainly matters.

But to me, there's no price that makes Smith a bargain (and though it's increasingly not turning out to be great company, at one time the Bulls agreed, dealing Smith to the Nuggets for two 2nd-round picks). It's like saying it's worth the risk to flush some cash down the toilet because some day you may find it in some sewer-alligator's insides. 

In the latest Bulls Beat podcast, Doug echoes a lot of what I've been saying the past few weeks. Namely, Gordon's better than what many may believe, and his loss will hurt the Bulls drastically. Also some interesting analysis on what a $10m/yr player really means in the league 'market'.

That all said, Doug also thinks Ben's full of crap when Ben says he won't take the QO and a sign/trade is imminent, because no teams can really offer the Bulls anything worthwhile (Doug has more faith in Paxson not taking back crap than I do).  Also supports the idea of just going temporarily into the tax to get a deal done.

Worth a listen (yes, sure, I'd consider it less worthwhile of a listen if he disagreed with my opinions).

An extension of this post. If you're tired of talking/reading about Gordon, just move along.

• Why I don't like reading 'tough guy' talk amongst us when discussing Gordon: Say Gordon truly has no options, and in the future it plays out to where Gordon gets nowhere near what he wanted from some other team? hahaha Gordon's an idiot. Or a team is willing to do a sign/trade and gives Gordon $13m a season. Hahaha way to overpay stupid team. We all have a good laugh, but how does either scenario actually help the Bulls?
• I do not feel good about the sign/trade scenario. Back when it was done with Crawford, it was easy to accept salary relief (getting JYD off the books) as a benefit. And Curry's situation was a no-win that actually produced quite the haul of draft picks. But that's just not enough at this point. Expiring deals, picks, 'assets'...Paxson's had 5 years of getting those, and goal for the last couple of those seasons should be actually getting better instead of just more.  Better as in of Gordon's caliber or higher. And that rarely happens when you're the one signing and trading.
  
• If it turns out that not only does signing Nocioni prevent the Bulls from signing Gordon, but getting rid of Nocioni's deal is an objective in a Gordon sign/trade...man, how bad was that Nocioni deal?
• As much as I want things to work out, I'm also tired of Gordon and his camp firing media salvos from the East Coast. Especially the latest one where Gordon threatens to not take the QO. What's the point of saying that?
  
• But I'd also like to know if the Bulls are actually doing anything from their end, or if it's still the reported "it's the tax, stupid" hard line stance. If Gordon's team is sticking with the unreasonable demands of getting paid more than Hughes and/or Deng, then I'm not sure there's much they can do. However, what if the Bulls show Gordon some good faith (as opposed to just treating him as an afterthought) in saying they'll up their offer (if not quite to Deng's level) and go into the tax for him... because they love him and he's special? (judging by the weird-as-hell Reinsdorf-Collins situation, Uncle Jerry can pull this off). The Bulls don't even have to pay the tax at the end of the season if some moves are made, and it'd be another bonus from Gordon's end if they let him know that the roster (and famed 'guard glut') will be shaken up.

Paxson has said that he will not make any moves without knowing the team's status with Ben Gordon.

The Bulls have also used the Luxury Tax threshold as a cap for Gordon's contract offer: that of 6 years and around $59m.

Considering that this is an offer that is less (annually) than what was offered last season, I doubt Gordon accepts it. The first year of that deal isn't much more than he can make with the qualifying offer.

So do the Bulls truly dig in at this figure for the rest of the summer? Does Paxson have the license to make deals in order to reduce this year's payroll number and therefore offer Ben more? Or, better yet, an understanding with ownership that there's always opportunity to get the team under the tax by the time it's assessed (at the end of the regular season)? Or would any increase in an offer be viewed by the team as 'losing' the negotiation?

Though even disregarding the license to do so, has Paxson ever shown to be the proactive sort to pull such a thing off? Except getting Nocioni signed before the dreaded Memphis offer sheet, of course...

And just how long do they stay at this stalemate? In the interest of eliminating 'distractions' for the upcoming season, I can see the team giving Gordon a timeline (but Paxson hates those!) to accept the deal or the QO. Now, being on the QO itself will be a huge distraction all season anyway (and don't forget Hinrich's kid!), but it'd be a nice excuse for the team to put more pressure on Gordon. And though I'm not too pleased with yet another example in an entire career of the Bulls devaluing Gordon, if it works it'll be a job well done by the team.

1. Andrew Wamboldt, going (very) deep into the Bulls luxury tax predicament following the Deng deal, and what it means for Gordon.
   
2. Kelly Dwyer, ruminating on all things Reinsdorf when it comes to this roster. Warning, it's sort of depressing.

Sorry in advance for the bullets, but I'm tired...

• Unfortunately my happiness with Deng's deal is put on hold, until this Gordon deal is sorted out.
• While one can say Gordon can't get a $10m+ deal from any other team, the Bulls can't get a player as good as Gordon, either.
• I'm not completely buying the "Gordon's agents are demanding he's the highest paid player on the team because he's the leading scorer" story. Even if Gordon's agents have said this, it's negotiation.
• Obviously my ‘pay the man’ stance has limits. But it’s a range. $15 is too much, $13 is very high (though better if it's a 3-year deal). $10-12 is fine, and I’d guess if it’s done it’ll be in that range anyway.
• I’d obviously rather see Gordon signed for $10m than $12m. I don’t really care how much he ‘wins’ in his negotiation, or how fat his wallet gets. But if it’s $12m or QO? That's a different question.
• This was brought up by wjb in the comments: it's a different story whether the Bulls don't want to pay Gordon because they don't value him, or if it's because of the luxury tax. Maybe the tax is just a nice excuse?
• Based on their perversely persistent desire to make him a bench player, do the Bulls actually value Ben Gordon in the first place? And is he now regretting sacrificing his spot without complaint all these years?
• If Gordon can't be signed because of the Nocioni contract, that deal goes from thorn in the ass to complete abomination.
• If the Bulls aren't  considering coming back up towards last year's $10m offer, that's a mistake.
  
• Never mind the QO chasing Gordon away after this year, but next year itself would have enough 'distraction' excuses to supply Paxson for the season.
  
• There may be a 'guard glut', but Hinrich/Hughes/Thabo are not substitutes. I do not want to watch a bottom-5 offense next season.