Should Ben Gordon Have Stayed in Chicago?

Anyone who watched Chicago's cardiac performances, in what has been called one of the best NBA playoff series of all-time, understands the importance of Ben Gordon to the Bulls rebuilding program.

Gordon was a factor and often the key factor in each of the Bulls' three wins in that series, as well as in six of the seven games overall.

I understand Detroit offered Gordon a lot of money and the Bulls have salary cap issues. That being said, I fault both the Bulls and Gordon for Gordon's departure to the Pistons.

If you have read my body of work at Bleacher Report, you are aware I hold players and franchises responsible for maintaining loyalty. When I say loyalty I mean the loyalty of franchise to city, of fans to franchise, and of players to city and team.

If sports fans truly believed it is only about money in professional sports, there would be no fans and ultimately no money.

Yes, there are circumstances when marquis players need to make a move to raise their game as well as their income. There are circumstances when teams need to shed marquis players to adjust chemistry and/or make room for someone who is a better fit.

But none of those circumstances are at play in this situation.

Chicago does not benefit from Gordon's departure. Gordon does not advance his career in Detroit in ways he could not do in Chicago.

The only issue here is money.

And that just shouldn't be.

First of all, shame on you Chicago Bulls. There are ways to get around the salary cap. You could promise Gordon a front office job after retirement by which he could recoup any funds he would be unable to make in his active player paycheck. You could do what you have to do with the payroll to match Detroit's offer.  

Gordon is a key link to a Bulls return to glory.

Without him, it is another setback. It could be another year or two of delay.

It could be much longer.

I think of one other player who was wrongly and unnecessarily jettisoned by the Bulls. Think how different team fortunes might have been over the past few years if Elton Brand still wore the red and black.

Second, shame on you Ben Gordon.

Sure the money is great at Detroit, but you're not exactly collecting welfare in Chicago. If you had indicated to the Bulls front office that you were open to some creative solutions, a win-win arrangement of some kind, you could have stayed. You were part of something that was beginning to take shape at the United Center. You were a key piece of the puzzle. The fans put their trust in you. Your teammates did as well. So what gives? Is it all just about money?

If it is, it shouldn't be. And if it is, it won't last forever.

Perhaps it's time to create a new constellation of professional sports leagues (unfortunately not including the UFL) designed to foster loyalty and team cohesiveness. This would be my design of an organization that would include professional sports leagues in basketball, football, and baseball for starters. These new leagues would compete directly with and ultimately prevail against the existing leagues.

The new design would be simple.

Ownership of each franchise would be shared between fans, players, and local corporations and investors with a commitment to stay local. Players would be able to compete for salaries at initial signing with a team, but after that, players base salaries would be augmented by a percentage of the surplus revenue of the team. Players would still be traded or released for strategic purposes but never for financial purposes. And franchises would by charter, not be portable. They would live or die in the city in which they were originally located.

I have intentionally strayed rather far afield from the Gordon story in one sense, but not in another. His departure is all part of a system in major league sports that rewards disloyalty more than loyalty, whether it is by players, or by owners. A system that would enhance team cohesiveness and franchise stability would benefit everyone, in the long run.