Maybe the Chicago Bulls should have signed Ben Gordon instead

Question: Why do Chicago sports franchises tend to overpay for their own average players and let the one viable asset go to another team?

Take Ben Gordon. He is having a career year, averaging 21 points a game, while shooting 48 percent from the field. He's billed as a sixth man in a starting role, is woefully short for his position and is a sub-par defender.

He over-dribbles and gets himself into trouble often. But Gordon is the second best player on the Bulls, and is now making a case to become a viable option for an extension in the off-season as he helped lead the Bulls with 24 points in a 104-87 victory over the New Jersey Nets Monday night.

Meanwhile the Bulls already committed to Luol Deng at $72 million, a player with good height and length but nearly no marketable skill. He's not especially good at anything--rebounding, shooting, dribbling, defending, posting-up, getting to the free-throw line, creating his own shot or playing in the fourth quarter.

I know these are bad times for the fourth-year player out of Duke, but it's looking like John Paxson has made a mistake on a cornerstone...again.

We've been wanting to see Ben Gordon paired up with a scoring big man for years, but never had that request fulfilled. Instead, he got a playmaking point, who draws in defenses and creates space for Gordon.

To digress for a moment, the Chicago Bears ponied up for their vaunted defense and paid out to players like Brian Urlacher, Tommie Harris and Devin Hester, while Bernard Berrian signed big with the Vikings.

Because like Gordon, Berrian gives you something.

Sorry for mixing the football and basketball metaphors together.

Point is: We've seen numerous players regress or not improve in the past two seasons with the Chicago Bulls. We're still learning about Tyrus Thomas and Joakim Noah, but we're clueless about Thabo Sefolosha.

Which brings us back to Ben Gordon. He is playing his best basketball right now in his career because he is not being asked to carry the team. It's Derrick Rose's back that is soar.

But special players like Rose bring out the best in other players. But that hasn't been the case for Deng, who has cried about not getting the ball or being left out the plays.

Gordon, who still hogs the ball too often and makes dicey decisions, is flourishing.

But can the Bulls afford to let a player of his value just walk? How do you gauge his value as a player, when he wants to be paid like a star but would do best as a sixth man?

How do you package a trade with Gordon when he can say "no" to any proposal without a big contract?

Will the Bulls take themselves out of the 2010 free agent sweepstakes if they do decide to resign Gordon to a big extension? That's a strong possibility.

That would mean that the Bulls would be married to Rose, Gordon and Deng. A nice combo, but is it enough to win a championship if they somehow landed Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire?

My guess, is no.

Teams usually need three stars to win a NBA championship, with one of those stars being an elite superstar--a la Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Shaq, Michael Jordan etc.

Paxson made his decision to commit to the "core" two years ago, and has put the franchise in the muck ever since. But with every Gordon 25-point performance, it is getting ever more difficult seeing a guy like that walk away.