Inconsistent Gordon not worth big money

Back-to-back game summaries last week said something about Ben Gordon.

In fact, they screamed out why the Bulls would be foolish to re-sign a 6-foot shooting guard to an expensive long-term contract.

At Miami, Gordon scored 43 points on 23 shots in 50 minutes of an overtime loss. At Orlando two nights later he scored 4 points on 10 shots in 30 minutes of a regulation loss.

The points weren't what mattered. The shots were. Gordon took one nearly every two minutes versus the Heat and one every three minutes versus the Magic.

That's significant to me only because of something Bulls general manager John Paxson said when he was Michael Jordan's teammate.

His Airness wasn't particularly impressive during his first game back from his first retirement in 1995.

However, Paxson pointed out afterward that while Jordan missed many shots, more important was that he was able to take a lot of good ones.

As long as scorers create a lot of good shots, eventually enough will go in.

The Bulls list Gordon at 6-feet-3. But Jim Calhoun, his college coach, blurted on the radio last year, to paraphrase, "He's 6-1 - I give him an extra inch because I love him."

At 6-feet, Gordon can't always create good shots, and the Bulls can't always create good shots for him. That's why he often takes wild ones at the end of games with the outcome on the line.

So we're talking about a dramatically undersized player for his position who has the ability to imbalance the court. The question posed is in which direction?

The answer is sometimes it's in his team's favor and sometimes it's in the other team's favor.

Some nights Gordon's offense will spell victory. Other nights his size, defense and ballhandling deficiencies will spell defeat.

That isn't good enough for a player asking for as much money as Gordon wants.

The Bulls should divorce him because they can't play Bulls basketball - ball movement on offense and harassing defense - if Gordon is their primary off-guard.

So, I say, let Gordon leave at the end of this season even if it means getting nothing in return.

Gordon is the Bulls' leading scorer and they feel compelled to find a way to keep him at a reasonable salary.

"Reasonable salary" is the hang-up. Reasonable salary to them is disrespect to him.

If Gordon were chained to a bench for 10 years he'd still view himself as an all-world NBA starter. Consequently he expects to be paid all-world NBA starter money.

In reality, Gordon is a sixth man on a title contender. He would come in to energize his teammates with a burst of energy and points.

If Gordon would only settle for being that player.

Instead, the Bulls can't close the gap between their contract offers and Gordon's contract demands because he won't close the gap between their perception of him and his perception of himself.

In a salary-cap league, the worst thing a team can do is give a good player great money but maybe another team will.

It'll see Gordon the way he sees himself and imbalance their budget by paying him to imbalance the court.

He'll do that in one direction or the other - sometimes in both within minutes - depending a lot on how many good shots he can get.

mimrem@dailyherald.com