CelticsStrong
Around the League => Transaction Ideas and Rumors => Topic started by: WeMadeIt17 on May 21, 2013, 11:19:26 AM
-
Just something i caught on realgm someone else posted this. This is this guys twitter. He said Pierce would never play a game for NO. Would either be part of another trade or bought out so the pelicans would have more cap this summer.
@McNamara247: Just heard strange rumor from EC source: Celtics talking about possibility of Pierce and Bradley for Eric Gordon.
@McNamara247: Pierce's contract is only partially guaranteed. Best case scenario: Pelicans can move Pierce for something. Worst case: Buy him out for
@McNamara247: Five million and have even more cap space this summer plus the young perimeter defender they crave in Bradley. Interesting
-
I don't know how much I like it but I could see Danny making a move like this.
-
I personally don't like that trade. A healthy Eric Gordon, sure but not one that has missed 20 and 26 games respectively each of the last 2 years. When you add in his contract way too much risk...
-
I personally don't like that trade. A healthy Eric Gordon, sure but not one that has missed 20 and 26 games respectively each of the last 2 years. When you add in his contract way too much risk...
The 26 games and 20 games missed are what he sat out three and fours years ago. The past two years have been even worse, missing 40 games last season, and 57 (out of a total off 66) games the season before that.
Gordon's talent is undeniable, but paying a guy with that injury history roughly $15 million per season seems foolish.
-
I think I might be willing to take a gamble like this
PG: Rondo
SG: Gordon
SF: Green
PF: Sully
C: Jordan
We can still trade KG if he wants to keep playing for jordan, his deal is only 2 more years so it isn't a killer.
Not a bad young core, but would have to hit on a couple picks in the draft to become contenders.
-
Stay away from this one big time. I would hate this deal. Gordon cant even stay on the floor. At least Pierce gives a healthy chance at 19,6 and 5 while being a veteran closer.
I dont want an undersized 6 3 shooting guard who is injured and making 15 mil on this team by any means.
-
I personally don't like that trade. A healthy Eric Gordon, sure but not one that has missed 20 and 26 games respectively each of the last 2 years. When you add in his contract way too much risk...
The 26 games and 20 games missed are what he sat out three and fours years ago. The past two years have been even worse, missing 40 games last season, and 57 (out of a total off 66) games the season before that.
Gordon's talent is undeniable, but paying a guy with that injury history roughly $15 million per season seems foolish.
Bradley's injury history isn't much better, but you're right that is a lot of money to take on.
-
If Gordon can stay healthy and get a bit of an attitude adjustment, I'd be ok with the trade. However, that's asking quite a bit.
-
Yeah interesting to say the least. But i just texted my buddy who is a New Orleans fan and said this guy McNamara is no reliable. So we'll see what comes of this. Figured it was a B.S. rumor but i love me some rumors.
-
I'm stealing a point made by Zack Lowe, but it'd be interesting to see how Rondo would adapt/develop playing next to another capable creator and facilitator like Gordon.
Rondo's always had a lot of pressure to create, and I'm wondering how he'd adapt if some of that load was taken off his shoulders. Could he adapt, and play a role similar to Tony Parker on the Spurs or does he just always need the ball in his hands to be an effective offensive contributor? A healthy Eric Gordon would certainly let you see that.
-
I like the idea of Pierce for E.Gordon but I worry about including Bradley also.
There is a lot of risk with Eric Gordon's health / contract.
-
I think, at the end of the day I say 'no' because of Gordon's health and I still strongly believe that Avery is going to rebound offensively when he returns to the 2 guard next season.
The downside there is that if he does, you're going to have to pay him.
-
I'm stealing a point made by Zack Lowe, but it'd be interesting to see how Rondo would adapt/develop playing next to another capable creator and facilitator like Gordon.
Rondo's always had a lot of pressure to create, and I'm wondering how he'd adapt if some of that load was taken off his shoulders. Could he adapt, and play a role similar to Tony Parker on the Spurs or does he just always need the ball in his hands to be an effective offensive contributor? A healthy Eric Gordon would certainly let you see that.
He did fine with Pierce/KG as the creators years 2007-2010.
Now its not a certainty he can adjust his game back, but he has in the past.
-
I like the idea of Pierce for E.Gordon but I worry about including Bradley also.
There is a lot of risk with Eric Gordon's health / contract.
Yeah but I doubt NO dumps Gordon without getting an asset back. A straight salary dump isn't something I think they'd want.
-
I like the idea of Pierce for E.Gordon but I worry about including Bradley also.
There is a lot of risk with Eric Gordon's health / contract.
I think if you can use Bradley to get a player who has shown the ability to be a star, and who is 24 years old...you have to do it. Bradley is a nice player to have on your team, but I just think his cieling is limited...and let's not forget, he has his own injury concerns, even if they are not on the same level as Gordon's.
-
Any chance the Suns and Gordon still covet each other and the C's could land Gortat?
-
I like the idea of Pierce for E.Gordon but I worry about including Bradley also.
There is a lot of risk with Eric Gordon's health / contract.
I think if you can use Bradley to get a player who has shown the ability to be a star, and who is 24 years old...you have to do it. Bradley is a nice player to have on your team, but I just think his cieling is limited...and let's not forget, he has his own injury concerns, even if they are not on the same level as Gordon's.
Yeah man, pas-des-brainer.
-
Obviously this is a dream scenario so lets say the starting 5 stays relatively healthy, yes I know it is quite a stretch , but just for fun ...
say we trade PP and Bradley for Gordon
Trade KG for Bledsoe and Jordan
Draft Glen Rice JR
PG: Rondo / Bledsoe
SG: Gordon / Lee
SF: Green / Rice Jr
PF: Sully / Bass
C: Jordan / Melo
I wouldn't mind a roster like that at all
-
Eric Gordon is terrible. Can't stay healthy and overrated when he's actually on the court. No thanks.
Sounds like a false rumor to me...
-
If this rumor is true, it causes me to shake my head at Boston's seeming fascination with injury-prone players. I realize that injuries can happen to anyone at any time, but after all the snake biting this team's been through in the last five years, I'd think they'd want to go after only those players who have no history of major injuries.
-
Disgusting. Wouldn't even want to give up Bradley alone for Gordon
-
I'm not sure how I feel about this deal, which means it is probably fair
Pros:
A healthy Gordon gives us a dynamic scoring back court, that could help make our offensive woes a thing of the past.
Cons:
I love Bradley, and think he is still going to get a ton better.
Gordon is a huge health risk
Hopefully NO leaked this to try and increase Eric Gordon's value (which means a package of AB and Pierce is considered good around the league). If we leaked it then we are hoping to get a player like Gordon for those two.
-
This could also lead to a 3 team deal involving the Clippers where the Pelicans land Pierce and Bradley.
The Clippers land Gordon and maybe someone else (Robin Lopez, Ryan Anderson?)
The Celts land Bledsoe and Jordan.
-
If this trade goes down and the captain gets buyed out from NO. Could he return to celtics?
-
If this trade goes down and the captain gets buyed out from NO. Could he return to celtics?
Yep
-
When discussing Pierce trades these are ones that I can hop on board with.
Its a risky move but I like it a hell of a lot better than some crappy deandre jordan and bledsoe deal or crap like that.
-
If this trade goes down and the captain gets buyed out from NO. Could he return to celtics?
Yep
Are you sure? I thought they put a rule specifically to prevent this in place?
-
If this trade goes down and the captain gets buyed out from NO. Could he return to celtics?
Yep
Are you sure? I thought they put a rule specifically to prevent this in place?
There may be a difference between being bought out and being waived. For instance, we couldn't resign E'Twaun when Houston waived him.
Maybe we could resign a bought-out player? I'm no CBA expert.
-
From Larry Coon's FAQ:
•A team cannot reacquire a player they traded away during that season (a season being July 1 - June 30). If he is waived by his new team, then he cannot re-sign with his original team until the one-year anniversary of the trade, or until the July 1 following the end of his contract, whichever comes first. However, if a team trades a player's draft rights, they can reacquire the player during the same season.
-
From Larry Coon's FAQ:
•A team cannot reacquire a player they traded away during that season (a season being July 1 - June 30). If he is waived by his new team, then he cannot re-sign with his original team until the one-year anniversary of the trade, or until the July 1 following the end of his contract, whichever comes first. However, if a team trades a player's draft rights, they can reacquire the player during the same season.
Faf dropping knowledge bombs
-
From Larry Coon's FAQ:
•A team cannot reacquire a player they traded away during that season (a season being July 1 - June 30). If he is waived by his new team, then he cannot re-sign with his original team until the one-year anniversary of the trade, or until the July 1 following the end of his contract, whichever comes first. However, if a team trades a player's draft rights, they can reacquire the player during the same season.
that makes it sound like we could trade Pierce before June 30, someone could waive him, and we could re-sign him as a free agent after July 1st
am I reading that wrong?
-
From Larry Coon's FAQ:
•A team cannot reacquire a player they traded away during that season (a season being July 1 - June 30). If he is waived by his new team, then he cannot re-sign with his original team until the one-year anniversary of the trade, or until the July 1 following the end of his contract, whichever comes first. However, if a team trades a player's draft rights, they can reacquire the player during the same season.
that makes it sound like we could trade Pierce before June 30, someone could waive him, and we could re-sign him as a free agent after July 1st
am I reading that wrong?
I think the highlighted parts say no.
-
"whichever comes first"
-> "July 1st following end of contract" sounds like the first time July 1st comes up after he's waived
am I wrong on this?
-
Can Eric Gordon stay healthy though? The guy has shown that he can be a bright star in the NBA. He plays really good defense too so he's not a big setback for Bradley defensively.
But boy did this kid is owed 13 million dollars. If he can't be on the floor, that's a lot of money to eat the cap.
I'd love him here if he stays healthy.
-
"whichever comes first"
-> "July 1st following end of contract" sounds like the first time July 1st comes up after he's waived
am I wrong on this?
It depends on whether or not his contract is considered ended June 30th 2013 if he's waived or its original end date, June 30th 2014.
He's still paid 5 million dollars for 2013-2014 even if waived. But that doesn't mean the contract hasn't "ended". Hmm I wonder if he defines end of a contract in his FAQ.
-
If we're going to trade Pierce, the first place I hope Ainge looks is to teams in tonight's lottery that wind up outside the top 3. If Cleveland gets the 4th or 5th pick or Sacramento gets the 7th or 8th, I think it would make a lot more sense to pick up a leader like Pierce than yet another young, untested draft pick.
Mike
-
If we're going to trade Pierce, the first place I hope Ainge looks is to teams in tonight's lottery that wind up outside the top 3. If Cleveland gets the 4th or 5th pick or Sacramento gets the 7th or 8th, I think it would make a lot more sense to pick up a leader like Pierce than yet another young, untested draft pick.
Mike
I doubt Ainge does that to Pierce, and if he did I think Pierce would heavily consider retiring or at least holding out.
-
From Larry Coon's FAQ:
•A team cannot reacquire a player they traded away during that season (a season being July 1 - June 30). If he is waived by his new team, then he cannot re-sign with his original team until the one-year anniversary of the trade, or until the July 1 following the end of his contract, whichever comes first. However, if a team trades a player's draft rights, they can reacquire the player during the same season.
My understanding is that this is actually not applicable, because Pierce will never hit waivers. He won't be waived.
-
Pierce absolutely will hit waivers, waiving him is how you don't pay him his full salary.
-
If we're going to trade Pierce, the first place I hope Ainge looks is to teams in tonight's lottery that wind up outside the top 3. If Cleveland gets the 4th or 5th pick or Sacramento gets the 7th or 8th, I think it would make a lot more sense to pick up a leader like Pierce than yet another young, untested draft pick.
Mike
I doubt Ainge does that to Pierce, and if he did I think Pierce would heavily consider retiring or at least holding out.
if a lottery team took on pp , it would be to unload a big contract and get Bradley still on his rookie deal. Then they waive PP , saving 10 mil in salary.
c's get a pick in the 5-10 range this year.
something like
Bos: sends PP and Bradley, Fab Melo
Sac sends: Salmons, Hayes and lottery pick
-
Not like Bradley's injury history is great.
-
Gordon just had another surgery:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/9261505/pelicans-eric-gordon-arthroscopic-ankle-surgery
http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2013-05-15/eric-gordon-injury-update-bone-spurs-ankle-surgery-new-orleans-pelicans
Here are some discussions of his medical issues from this last year:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8584181/eric-gordon-new-orleans-hornets-picks-rehab-not-surgery-report-says
http://www.bourbonstreetshots.com/2013/02/18/an-outline-of-eric-gordons-injury-history/
-
Pierce absolutely will hit waivers, waiving him is how you don't pay him his full salary.
You're right and I'm wrong. I don't know where i got that thought in my little head.
If the Celtics waive Pierce before june 30th, they can resign him. If they trade him and he is waived before june 30th, they cannot.
-
Gordon just had another surgery:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/9261505/pelicans-eric-gordon-arthroscopic-ankle-surgery
http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2013-05-15/eric-gordon-injury-update-bone-spurs-ankle-surgery-new-orleans-pelicans
Here are some discussions of his medical issues from this last year:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8584181/eric-gordon-new-orleans-hornets-picks-rehab-not-surgery-report-says
http://www.bourbonstreetshots.com/2013/02/18/an-outline-of-eric-gordons-injury-history/
Nice finds. TP.
That last link is particularly informative, I think.
I wonder to what degree Gordon's missed games during the past two seasons correspond to NO's strategic decision to tank.
-
Pierce absolutely will hit waivers, waiving him is how you don't pay him his full salary.
You're right and I'm wrong. I don't know where i got that thought in my little head.
If the Celtics waive Pierce before june 30th, they can resign him. If they trade him and he is waived before june 30th, they cannot.
You sure about the second part? Link?
-
If this trade goes down and the captain gets buyed out from NO. Could he return to celtics?
Yep
Not necessarily.
Even if, through careful timing it skirted through the loopholes that would allow this, the NBA reserves their right to enforce against circumvention. And the 'normal' rules don't allow a traded player to be cut and then re-signed by the original team within a year.
I would not count on that being allowed. It might. But it might not.
-
I'm stealing a point made by Zack Lowe, but it'd be interesting to see how Rondo would adapt/develop playing next to another capable creator and facilitator like Gordon.
Rondo's always had a lot of pressure to create, and I'm wondering how he'd adapt if some of that load was taken off his shoulders. Could he adapt, and play a role similar to Tony Parker on the Spurs or does he just always need the ball in his hands to be an effective offensive contributor? A healthy Eric Gordon would certainly let you see that.
He did fine with Pierce/KG as the creators years 2007-2010.
Now its not a certainty he can adjust his game back, but he has in the past.
He did "fine" back then but wasn't the dominant player he is now. I think Lowe and StartOrien are wondering if he'd still be effective on a dominant level that he is now.
-
If this trade goes down and the captain gets buyed out from NO. Could he return to celtics?
Yep
Not necessarily.
Even if, through careful timing it skirted through the loopholes that would allow this, the NBA reserves their right to enforce against circumvention. And the 'normal' rules don't allow a traded player to be cut and then re-signed by the original team within a year.
I would not count on that being allowed. It might. But it might not.
Interesting. Do you have a link? It makes sense.
-
"whichever comes first"
-> "July 1st following end of contract" sounds like the first time July 1st comes up after he's waived
am I wrong on this?
It depends on whether or not his contract is considered ended June 30th 2013 if he's waived or its original end date, June 30th 2014.
He's still paid 5 million dollars for 2013-2014 even if waived. But that doesn't mean the contract hasn't "ended". Hmm I wonder if he defines end of a contract in his FAQ.
I think this kind of 'vagueness' is also addressed in the Coon's faq:
http://www.cbafaq.com/salarycap.htm#Q103
"The CBA also has a general prohibition on circumvention which states that the rules exist to preserve the benefit derived by the teams and players, and that nobody shall do anything to defeat or circumvent the intent of the agreement. The league can use this prohibition to disallow a trade that they feel circumvents the CBA, even though that trade is not specifically prohibited by the agreement."
In other words - the CBA doesn't pretend to have every possible scenario locked down in detail and they reserve the right to enforce the spirit of the constraints.
This tells me that it (trading Pierce to a team that cuts him and then resigning him back to the Celtics) probably would not be allowed.
-
Yeah, I wouldn't really be a fan of this deal either.
Like others have said, Gordon has been injured way too much and doesn't really make the Celtics better, I don't think.
-
"whichever comes first"
-> "July 1st following end of contract" sounds like the first time July 1st comes up after he's waived
am I wrong on this?
It depends on whether or not his contract is considered ended June 30th 2013 if he's waived or its original end date, June 30th 2014.
He's still paid 5 million dollars for 2013-2014 even if waived. But that doesn't mean the contract hasn't "ended". Hmm I wonder if he defines end of a contract in his FAQ.
My understanding is that because Pierce's deal is partially guaranteed for 2014, that that year is the completion of his contract.
-
I'm stealing a point made by Zack Lowe, but it'd be interesting to see how Rondo would adapt/develop playing next to another capable creator and facilitator like Gordon.
Rondo's always had a lot of pressure to create, and I'm wondering how he'd adapt if some of that load was taken off his shoulders. Could he adapt, and play a role similar to Tony Parker on the Spurs or does he just always need the ball in his hands to be an effective offensive contributor? A healthy Eric Gordon would certainly let you see that.
He did fine with Pierce/KG as the creators years 2007-2010.
Now its not a certainty he can adjust his game back, but he has in the past.
He did "fine" back then but wasn't the dominant player he is now. I think Lowe and StartOrien are wondering if he'd still be effective on a dominant level that he is now.
He was an all-star in 2009-2010 and had numbers comparable to his past 3 years, basically 2 assists less.
He's done it before. Should be able to do it again, hopefully physically he can and will do so.
-
Gordon just had another surgery:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/9261505/pelicans-eric-gordon-arthroscopic-ankle-surgery
http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2013-05-15/eric-gordon-injury-update-bone-spurs-ankle-surgery-new-orleans-pelicans
Here are some discussions of his medical issues from this last year:
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8584181/eric-gordon-new-orleans-hornets-picks-rehab-not-surgery-report-says
http://www.bourbonstreetshots.com/2013/02/18/an-outline-of-eric-gordons-injury-history/
Nice finds. TP.
That last link is particularly informative, I think.
I wonder to what degree Gordon's missed games during the past two seasons correspond to NO's strategic decision to tank.
Yes. The other question to me is whether his recurring problems are a signal that he's not diligent about rehab. That would be bad.
-
"whichever comes first"
-> "July 1st following end of contract" sounds like the first time July 1st comes up after he's waived
am I wrong on this?
It depends on whether or not his contract is considered ended June 30th 2013 if he's waived or its original end date, June 30th 2014.
He's still paid 5 million dollars for 2013-2014 even if waived. But that doesn't mean the contract hasn't "ended". Hmm I wonder if he defines end of a contract in his FAQ.
My understanding is that because Pierce's deal is partially guaranteed for 2014, that that year is the completion of his contract.
That'd make the most sense to me.
-
This would be a tough trade to swallow. I have come to grips with the fact that Paul is likely done in Boston. The thing that hurts is losing Avery, I love what he brings defensively. But the truth is that Gordon has the talent to be a top 5 SG in the league and is only 24. The injury history and contract scare me but to get back to the top quickly chances will have to be taken.
Assuming that this deal would be followed by KG being traded the post PP + KG celtics would have a foundation built on.
Rondo, Gordon, and Green
Rondo when healthy is a top 5 PG
Gordon when healthy is a top 5 SG
Green should be a top 15 SF
The key would then become Sullys development and finding a defensive anchor.
-
Wouldn't this be ideal?
http://espn.go.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=khcxnz6
Lee to Memphis for part of the Rudy gay trade exception.
Terry and Bradley to NO. Terry still only costs five mill like pierce.
Gordon to Boston.
Maybe we throw in a future pick for taking back terry over pierce.
-
Of all the Pierce rumors and ideas I have heard, this is the one the bothers me the least.
In this trade, there is at least a piece that could become one of the stars the Celtics need to rebuild.
-
This would be a tough trade to swallow. I have come to grips with the fact that Paul is likely done in Boston. The thing that hurts is losing Avery, I love what he brings defensively. But the truth is that Gordon has the talent to be a top 5 SG in the league and is only 24. The injury history and contract scare me but to get back to the top quickly chances will have to be taken.
Assuming that this deal would be followed by KG being traded the post PP + KG celtics would have a foundation built on.
Rondo, Gordon, and Green
Rondo when healthy is a top 5 PG
Gordon when healthy is a top 5 SG
Green should be a top 15 SF
The key would then become Sullys development and finding a defensive anchor.
Kg, assuming he doesn't retire, would likely go to the clippers. If you still get Jordan and Bledsoe then you have options with Bledsoe or rondo to get another asset(s).
-
Of all the Pierce rumors and ideas I have heard, this is the one the bothers me the least.
In this trade, there is at least a piece that could become one of the stars the Celtics need to rebuild.
Agreed. Gordon's skill set and ability to play off ball would compliment rondo well similar to how ray Allen did.
-
Of all the Pierce rumors and ideas I have heard, this is the one the bothers me the least.
In this trade, there is at least a piece that could become one of the stars the Celtics need to rebuild.
I agree. It's incredibly risky given Gordon's injury history, but it is at least a legit try to reload on the fly.
-
Can Eric Gordon stay healthy though? The guy has shown that he can be a bright star in the NBA. He plays really good defense too so he's not a big setback for Bradley defensively.
But boy did this kid is owed 13 million dollars. If he can't be on the floor, that's a lot of money to eat the cap.
I'd love him here if he stays healthy.
The answer to your first question is the only reason that he may be available. Obviously New Orleans doesn't think he can stay healthy or they wouldn't even consider trading him. BTW according to this link they really aren't...
https://twitter.com/JimmySmith504/statuses/336876506297012225
-
Not loving it.
Gordon, to me, is a wash in value with Bradley as is. And Gordon's health and contract scare me.
Yes, Gordon has more history as a successful scorer. But his shooting has declined the last few years. And his defense is nothing remotely close to Bradley's.
And Bradley still has a lot of upside potential.
I just don't see this as a particularly compelling deal.
If you are doing this to retool for the present, Gordon doesn't represent enough 'bang' worth giving up Pierce & Bradley for.
If you are doing this to rebuild for the future, I don't see Gordon's upside as much more compelling than Bradley's - especially given the giant contract.
It just doesn't seem to me like the type of deal Danny would do.
-
No thanks. Eric Gordon can't stay healthy. Too risky.
-
I think it's a very good trade for the celtics. Those who think it's not are totally overvaluing Pierce and Bradley. Pierce is an expiring contract right now, that's his only value. Bradley is an undersized SG with major flaws, which got exposed this year. Gordon, with all his overblown injury history, is a very talented scorer and distributor, and the celtics have had major struggles in that department. He would be a huge upgrade at the SG position and is very young. I think you have to make this trade if available.
-
Can Eric Gordon stay healthy though? The guy has shown that he can be a bright star in the NBA. He plays really good defense too so he's not a big setback for Bradley defensively.
But boy did this kid is owed 13 million dollars. If he can't be on the floor, that's a lot of money to eat the cap.
I'd love him here if he stays healthy.
The answer to your first question is the only reason that he may be available. Obviously New Orleans doesn't think he can stay healthy or they wouldn't even consider trading him. BTW according to this link they really aren't...
https://twitter.com/JimmySmith504/statuses/336876506297012225
The reason there have been rumors for a year now that they are trying to trade him is because he has indicated that he doesn't want to stay on their team. He's kept quite about it lately because it hurt his trade value but he has clearly expressed previously that he wants no part of being a hornet/pelican
-
If this rumor is true, it causes me to shake my head at Boston's seeming fascination with injury-prone players. I realize that injuries can happen to anyone at any time, but after all the snake biting this team's been through in the last five years, I'd think they'd want to go after only those players who have no history of major injuries.
Idk if its a fascination with injury prone players or just maxing out what we have with less than great assets. As much as I would love to net a big name guy who's already an established all-star, the truth is thayt we just don't have the pieces to pull it off. I mean we have #16 in a weak draft, AB (a defensive stud but still a gigantic question mark on the offensive end), Paul's partially guaranteed deal, an injured Rondo, and a ton of overpaid role players who didn't exactly light it up last year.
Getting a young guy who, yes - been injured often, but has shown he can play in this league might just be the best deal we can do.
-
I think it's a very good trade for the celtics. Those who think it's not are totally overvaluing Pierce and Bradley. Pierce is an expiring contract right now, that's his only value. Bradley is an undersized SG with major flaws, which got exposed this year. Gordon, with all his overblown injury history, is a very talented scorer and distributor, and the celtics have had major struggles in that department. He would be a huge upgrade at the SG position and is very young. I think you have to make this trade if available.
Wait - Avery Bradley (6' 2") is an undersized SG?
But Eric Gordon (6' 2") is not?
Avery Bradley has 'major flaws' that were exposed? Sure, if you think inconsistent shooting coming off double shoulder surgery and a long lay-off and then playing out of position represents a fundamental 'major flaw'? Odds are just as good that his shooting woes will mediate out as he gets further from the surgery. Looking at his longer term numbers (NBA, D-League, NCAA & H.S.), Bradley likely figures to settle somewhere around a 35-38% 3PT shooter and an 75-80% FT shooter. If that happens, what are his 'major flaws'?
Eric Gordon, meanwhile, has also been an inconsistent, streaky shooter - with no shoulder surgery excuse, though he certainly has had his share of injuries. His shooting percentages have slumped the last couple of years and indeed, this last year he shot about the same as Bradley did!
Gordon: 45% eFG%, 32% 3P%
Bradley: 44% eFG% 32% 3P%
Gordon shot better in his first couple of years. But more recently he is supporting his scoring with volume shooting, not efficiency.
And defensively there is simply no comparison - Bradley blows him out of the water on defense.
Ultimately, if you want to some how give Gordon some marginal edge in value (for what reason I can't figure out) - is it worth paying 13-15M each year over the next few years?
That seems nuts.
-
lol what's a supposed rumor? Aren't all rumors supposed? :P
-
Wait - Avery Bradley (6' 2") is an undersized SG?
But Eric Gordon (6' 2") is not?
6'3", 215 pounds vs 6'2", 180 pounds.
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/3431/eric-gordon
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/4240/avery-bradley
I can understand the reluctance to invest in Gordon. But, he has averaged 20 points for two seasons.
-
Wait - Avery Bradley (6' 2") is an undersized SG?
But Eric Gordon (6' 2") is not?
6'3", 215 pounds vs 6'2", 180 pounds.
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/3431/eric-gordon
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/4240/avery-bradley
At the combine they measured the same 6' 2" w/o shoes and 6' 3.25" with shoes.
Gordon is definitely a stronger player, just more heft.
-
Wait - Avery Bradley (6' 2") is an undersized SG?
But Eric Gordon (6' 2") is not?
6'3", 215 pounds vs 6'2", 180 pounds.
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/3431/eric-gordon
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/4240/avery-bradley
At the combine they measured the same 6' 2" w/o shoes and 6' 3.25" with shoes.
Aha.
-
I think it's a very good trade for the celtics. Those who think it's not are totally overvaluing Pierce and Bradley. Pierce is an expiring contract right now, that's his only value. Bradley is an undersized SG with major flaws, which got exposed this year. Gordon, with all his overblown injury history, is a very talented scorer and distributor, and the celtics have had major struggles in that department. He would be a huge upgrade at the SG position and is very young. I think you have to make this trade if available.
Wait - Avery Bradley (6' 2") is an undersized SG?
But Eric Gordon (6' 2") is not?
Avery Bradley has 'major flaws' that were exposed? Sure, if you think inconsistent shooting coming off double shoulder surgery and a long lay-off and then playing out of position represents a fundamental 'major flaw'? Odds are just as good that his shooting woes will mediate out as he gets further from the surgery. Looking at his longer term numbers (NBA, D-League, NCAA & H.S.), Bradley likely figures to settle somewhere around a 35-38% 3PT shooter and an 75-80% FT shooter. If that happens, what are his 'major flaws'?
Eric Gordon, meanwhile, has also been an inconsistent, streaky shooter - with no shoulder surgery excuse, though he certainly has had his share of injuries. His shooting percentages have slumped the last couple of years and indeed, this last year he shot about the same as Bradley did!
Gordon: 45% eFG%, 32% 3P%
Bradley: 44% eFG% 32% 3P%
Gordon shot better in his first couple of years. But more recently he is supporting his scoring with volume shooting, not efficiency.
And defensively there is simply no comparison - Bradley blows him out of the water on defense.
Ultimately, if you want to some how give Gordon some marginal edge in value (for what reason I can't figure out) - is it worth paying 13-15M each year over the next few years?
That seems nuts.
Gordon has about 25-30 lbs on Avery. That does make a difference.
And that stretch last year where Gordon played so-so offensively is about the same amount of time Avery played well for us offensively during the end of the 11/12 season. The biggest difference is that Eric has played at a near all-star level and has been able to sustain it. Avery? Well, I'm starting to wonder if that break out was just a Jeremy Lin-like hot streak. There's no questioning his defensive ability, but on the other end there's still tons of questions and concerns.
-
I think it's a very good trade for the celtics. Those who think it's not are totally overvaluing Pierce and Bradley. Pierce is an expiring contract right now, that's his only value. Bradley is an undersized SG with major flaws, which got exposed this year. Gordon, with all his overblown injury history, is a very talented scorer and distributor, and the celtics have had major struggles in that department. He would be a huge upgrade at the SG position and is very young. I think you have to make this trade if available.
You're wrong. That's not why I don't like it at all. You have a young kid making alot of money who can't seem to stay healthy. That's why I don't like it. If he continues with his injuries he kills your cap space for several years. There's a reason why New Orleans is possibly willing to move him. It's dumb risk to take......
-
Gordon has about 25-30 lbs on Avery. That does make a difference.
It does help him finish through contact and get to the line. But I don't think it helps him defensively, biggers SGs can still post Gordon up and/or shoot over him.
-
this trade smells like huge pile of fresh dung. DA mut have slamed the phone so hard your could hear it a mile away.
I wouldn't trade either PP or AB for Gordon, the most famous player to have never done anything ,to prove how great he is other than just be "ERIC GORDON" , Mr INJURY with worse attitude than DWill.
-
Gordon has about 25-30 lbs on Avery. That does make a difference.
It does help him finish through contact and get to the line. But I don't think it helps him defensively, biggers SGs can still post Gordon up and/or shoot over him.
Not to sidetrack things but this raises an interesting question. At some point, is Avery going to have to decide whether he wants to bulk up and guard SGs primarily, or stay smaller and guard mostly PGs?
-
Gordon has about 25-30 lbs on Avery. That does make a difference.
It does help him finish through contact and get to the line. But I don't think it helps him defensively, biggers SGs can still post Gordon up and/or shoot over him.
Not to sidetrack things but this raises an interesting question. At some point, is Avery going to have to decide whether he wants to bulk up and guard SGs primarily, or stay smaller and guard mostly PGs?
I think it's a legit question.
-
Gordon has about 25-30 lbs on Avery. That does make a difference.
It does help him finish through contact and get to the line. But I don't think it helps him defensively, biggers SGs can still post Gordon up and/or shoot over him.
Not to sidetrack things but this raises an interesting question. At some point, is Avery going to have to decide whether he wants to bulk up and guard SGs primarily, or stay smaller and guard mostly PGs?
All signs point to the latter
-
Wait - Avery Bradley (6' 2") is an undersized SG?
But Eric Gordon (6' 2") is not?
6'3", 215 pounds vs 6'2", 180 pounds.
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/3431/eric-gordon
http://espn.go.com/nba/player/_/id/4240/avery-bradley
I can understand the reluctance to invest in Gordon. But, he has averaged 20 points for two seasons.
They both measured 6' 2" without shoes at the combine. They both measured 6' 3.25" with shoes.
Yes, Gordon is heavier - and has longer arms.
But Avery is still a much, MUCH better defender with a very real impact on the defensive efficiency of his team that shows up on the scoreboard in a big way. And while Avery has not been a highly efficient scorer this last year, he didn't generally hurt his team by taking a ton of low-efficiency shots.
Gordon is a good defender, but nothing special. And he's gone from being a somewhat decent scorer his first couple of seasons to a consistently low-efficiency volume scorer the last 4 years --- and that hurts your team.
And, again, the difference in salary cap hit over the next couple of years - that's huge. That money could be used in MUCH better ways.
-
As others have said, Gordon has performed at a near all-star level for two seasons. Bradley has done it for about a month total, which indicates more of a fluke than anything. When we had to rely more on Bradley this season, he disappointed us big time.
He significantly hurt us on offense with his poor ball handling, terrible passing, mediocre shooting, and innability to finish at the rim.
As for his defense, Felton absolutely destroyed him in the Knicks series. Enough said.
Gordon is a proven scorer and ball handler with decent defense. The celtics are in desperate need of offensive help. He would be money well spent. Ainge always looks down the road. I believe he already knows he doesn't want to give Bradley a long term deal when his current contract is up.
-
Also as Rondo's offensive role has increased his defense has steadily declined. Bringing in a playmaker like Gordon to help share the offensive of load should help rondo's defense. While rondos defense isn't like Bradleys it can still be elite as we have seen in the past.
-
To me it simple as:
Can Rondo and Gordon get along?
-
To me it simple as:
Can Rondo and Gordon get along?
I think its even simpler: can Gordon stay healthy? The track record suggests a resounding no. As such, I wouldn't touch this trade with a 50 foot pole.
-
There must be more to it, or more coming back to Boston then just Gordon.
I mean we'd be doing NO a favor by freeing up cap space and taking Gordon off there hands. Plus Gordon 13 mill to PP and AB at 18 seems like an other play could be involved. Maybe Lopez, we could even give them Melo to be nice. Or Austin?
I wouldn't do this unless we got NO's pick a long with Gordon. If he'd been healthy this last couple years I'd say its a steal, but I'd rather deal with PP's turn overs then a guy who plays half a season.
-
To me it simple as:
Can Rondo and Gordon get along?
I think its even simpler: can Gordon stay healthy? The track record suggests a resounding no. As such, I wouldn't touch this trade with a 50 foot pole.
Can Bradley stay "healthy"?
2010-11: 31/82 games (rookie year, so a number of these are DNP-CD)
2011-12: 64/66 games
2012-13: 50/82 games
145 games played out of a possible 230, or 63% available
Gordon:
2008-09: 78/82 games
2009-10: 62/82 games
2010-11: 56/82 games
2011-12: 9/66 games
2012-13: 42/82 games
247 games played out of a possible 394, or 62.7% available
-
Gordon has about 25-30 lbs on Avery. That does make a difference.
It does help him finish through contact and get to the line. But I don't think it helps him defensively, biggers SGs can still post Gordon up and/or shoot over him.
Not to sidetrack things but this raises an interesting question. At some point, is Avery going to have to decide whether he wants to bulk up and guard SGs primarily, or stay smaller and guard mostly PGs?
Ainge in an interview did say that Bradley was playing at about less pounds than he was last year due to his inability to workout following double shoulder surgery.
Very interested to see how Bradley looks coming into training camp, which will be the first training camp of his career.
-
To me it simple as:
Can Rondo and Gordon get along?
I think its even simpler: can Gordon stay healthy? The track record suggests a resounding no. As such, I wouldn't touch this trade with a 50 foot pole.
Can Bradley stay "healthy"?
2010-11: 31/82 games (rookie year, so a number of these are DNP-CD)
2011-12: 64/66 games
2012-13: 50/82 games
145 games played out of a possible 230, or 63% available
Gordon:
2008-09: 78/82 games
2009-10: 62/82 games
2010-11: 56/82 games
2011-12: 9/66 games
2012-13: 42/82 games
247 games played out of a possible 394, or 62.7% available
This is why stats are bad.
-
Gordon has about 25-30 lbs on Avery. That does make a difference.
It does help him finish through contact and get to the line. But I don't think it helps him defensively, biggers SGs can still post Gordon up and/or shoot over him.
Not to sidetrack things but this raises an interesting question. At some point, is Avery going to have to decide whether he wants to bulk up and guard SGs primarily, or stay smaller and guard mostly PGs?
Ainge in an interview did say that Bradley was playing at about less pounds than he was last year due to his inability to workout following double shoulder surgery.
Very interested to see how Bradley looks coming into training camp, which will be the first training camp of his career.
If he can get stronger without getting too much heavier or slower, that would at least help him against the Feltons and Westbrooks of the world.
-
Gordon has about 25-30 lbs on Avery. That does make a difference.
It does help him finish through contact and get to the line. But I don't think it helps him defensively, biggers SGs can still post Gordon up and/or shoot over him.
Not to sidetrack things but this raises an interesting question. At some point, is Avery going to have to decide whether he wants to bulk up and guard SGs primarily, or stay smaller and guard mostly PGs?
Ainge in an interview did say that Bradley was playing at about less pounds than he was last year due to his inability to workout following double shoulder surgery.
Very interested to see how Bradley looks coming into training camp, which will be the first training camp of his career.
If he can get stronger without getting too much heavier or slower, that would at least help him against the Feltons and Westbrooks of the world.
He's played Westbrook pretty well in the past.
But the big thing is if Bradley is a health risk, he's a health risk who hasn't been given a massive contract like Gordon.
-
As others have said, Gordon has performed at a near all-star level for two seasons. Bradley has done it for about a month total, which indicates more of a fluke than anything. When we had to rely more on Bradley this season, he disappointed us big time.
He significantly hurt us on offense with his poor ball handling, terrible passing, mediocre shooting, and innability to finish at the rim.
As for his defense, Felton absolutely destroyed him in the Knicks series. Enough said.
Gordon is a proven scorer and ball handler with decent defense. The celtics are in desperate need of offensive help. He would be money well spent. Ainge always looks down the road. I believe he already knows he doesn't want to give Bradley a long term deal when his current contract is up.
Gordon performed at a 'near' all star level ... when?
He had a good rookie season. Good enough to deserve being in the ROY conversation. That's not necessarily 'near all star'.
His sophmore season was almost as good as his first season.
But EVERY SINGLE YEAR he has _declined_ in shooting efficiency. Yes, he has managed do score a decent volume of points. He broke 20ppg in each of 2011 & 2012. But he only did so by launching a ton of shots.
The fact that his efficiency has declined steadily, every year after his first season is an indicator that NBA defenses have figured out how to defend him - and that he hasn't adjusted or is not able to adjust.
Let me repeat: Gordon's shooting efficiency has declined _steadily_ each year, every year he's been in the NBA. And this last year it was NO BETTER THAN BRADLEY'S!!!
You want to toss almost $45M over the next three years at this guy?
That's insane.
It's entirely possible that Bradley, too, has been 'figured out' defensively by opposing teams. Or that his offense will not recover from this year's troubles. But the sample sizes on him (and the larger context and his youth) are such that there is plenty of reason for optimism that his offense will be at least better than it was this last year.
And Bradley is cheap and still under rookie contract control.
Looking at Felton's bursty scoring output as some sort of sign that Bradley's defense was somehow getting ripped in the NYK series is just wrong. Defense isn't measured by how many points one player scored. It's measured by how many that player's team scores.
The fact is, we lost that series because out team as a whole couldn't shoot. Not because of our defense. Overall, the Knicks' high scoring offense was held in check.
And of our regular rotation players, Bradley's defensive rating in the series was second only to KG's on our team.
As I've said elsewhere, I'm not opposed to trading either Pierce or Bradley or both for the right deal(s).
But this proposed deal is just plain awful and makes no sense. Eric Gordon is not the answer.
-
To me it simple as:
Can Rondo and Gordon get along?
I think its even simpler: can Gordon stay healthy? The track record suggests a resounding no. As such, I wouldn't touch this trade with a 50 foot pole.
Can Bradley stay "healthy"?
2010-11: 31/82 games (rookie year, so a number of these are DNP-CD)
2011-12: 64/66 games
2012-13: 50/82 games
145 games played out of a possible 230, or 63% available
Gordon:
2008-09: 78/82 games
2009-10: 62/82 games
2010-11: 56/82 games
2011-12: 9/66 games
2012-13: 42/82 games
247 games played out of a possible 394, or 62.7% available
This is why stats are bad.
Just trying to inject some nuance into the whole "Gordon=injury prone/Bradley=teh awesome!" reductionist dichotomy that people seem content to serve up.
-
Gordon has about 25-30 lbs on Avery. That does make a difference.
It does help him finish through contact and get to the line. But I don't think it helps him defensively, biggers SGs can still post Gordon up and/or shoot over him.
Not to sidetrack things but this raises an interesting question. At some point, is Avery going to have to decide whether he wants to bulk up and guard SGs primarily, or stay smaller and guard mostly PGs?
Ainge in an interview did say that Bradley was playing at about less pounds than he was last year due to his inability to workout following double shoulder surgery.
Very interested to see how Bradley looks coming into training camp, which will be the first training camp of his career.
If he can get stronger without getting too much heavier or slower, that would at least help him against the Feltons and Westbrooks of the world.
He's played Westbrook pretty well in the past.
But the big thing is if Bradley is a health risk, he's a health risk who hasn't been given a massive contract like Gordon.
To me this is the biggest concern. Right now we have an undersized shooting guard who plays lights out defense on a rookie contract - cheap! We would be giving up him, and a future hall of famer PP for an also undersized and potentially overpaid shooting guard - not cheap.
All in all I think this is an iffy trade that could turn out really badly for the C's. I am not convinced about Gordon's size, health, and fit with the celtics.
-
So is that like a salary dump for the HOrnets? Trading Gordon for a backup PG role player like Bradley and then just releasing Pierce since he's an elderly player?
Hornets could win the lotto... what do we need to do in order to land their top pick?
Pierce + Bradley + Sully + Melo + #16
for Eric Gordon and their top pick (used for Nerlens Noel)
... not enough? Let's face it... Pierce + Bradley probably isn't enough for Eric Gordon by himself.
-
To me it simple as:
Can Rondo and Gordon get along?
I think its even simpler: can Gordon stay healthy? The track record suggests a resounding no. As such, I wouldn't touch this trade with a 50 foot pole.
Can Bradley stay "healthy"?
2010-11: 31/82 games (rookie year, so a number of these are DNP-CD)
2011-12: 64/66 games
2012-13: 50/82 games
145 games played out of a possible 230, or 63% available
Gordon:
2008-09: 78/82 games
2009-10: 62/82 games
2010-11: 56/82 games
2011-12: 9/66 games
2012-13: 42/82 games
247 games played out of a possible 394, or 62.7% available
This is why stats are bad.
how so? there is nothing misleading about these stats, Bradley has yet to have a healthy season in the NBA. WIth the way he plays, and his injury history, he's unlikely to last very long either.
Gordon has a much stronger record of being healthy than Bradley does.
As for some people's argument that Bradley is on a rookie contract, pretty soon Ainge will have to decide to extend Bradley or let him walk, and I think he's already seen enough to make up his mind, as he had done with Perkins. And he was right about Perkins.
-
Bradley has a skill set that tends to be undervalued. Gordon has a skill set that tends to be overvalued. If there is a New Orleans-Boston trade involving those two that those with conventional wisdom perceive is a fair deal, my suspicion would be that the Celtics are getting the short end when it comes to actual value.
-
As for some people's argument that Bradley is on a rookie contract, pretty soon Ainge will have to decide to extend Bradley or let him walk, and I think he's already seen enough to make up his mind, as he had done with Perkins. And he was right about Perkins.
Okay, so your logic now is:
Because in two years Danny MIGHT be presented with the possibility of having to overpay to keep Bradley or trade him .... he should DEFINITELY and VASTLY overpay for Gordon instead over the next 3 years?
I'm sorry, I can accept that we can have a difference in opinion on whether Gordon is 'better' than Bradley or by how much. But I don't see how on earth you can think he will be worth more than 10M more in value over the next two years (and possibly 3).
That's 10M that could be much better spent elsewhere.
-
This would only make sense if we got their pick as well.
-
To me it simple as:
Can Rondo and Gordon get along?
I think its even simpler: can Gordon stay healthy? The track record suggests a resounding no. As such, I wouldn't touch this trade with a 50 foot pole.
Can Bradley stay "healthy"?
2010-11: 31/82 games (rookie year, so a number of these are DNP-CD)
2011-12: 64/66 games
2012-13: 50/82 games
145 games played out of a possible 230, or 63% available
Gordon:
2008-09: 78/82 games
2009-10: 62/82 games
2010-11: 56/82 games
2011-12: 9/66 games
2012-13: 42/82 games
247 games played out of a possible 394, or 62.7% available
This is why stats are bad.
how so? there is nothing misleading about these stats, Bradley has yet to have a healthy season in the NBA. WIth the way he plays, and his injury history, he's unlikely to last very long either.
Gordon has a much stronger record of being healthy than Bradley does.
As for some people's argument that Bradley is on a rookie contract, pretty soon Ainge will have to decide to extend Bradley or let him walk, and I think he's already seen enough to make up his mind, as he had done with Perkins. And he was right about Perkins.
i would not say gordon has a better track record than avery in staying healthy. avery had 2 issues - the ankle pre-draft, and the shoulders last year. the ankle injury cost him training camp, but didn't hurt him per se his rookie year. his shoulders cost him the end of last year and some of this year. he was fine the rest of last year and the rest of this year. he's not not-injury prone, but he's missed games basically for one issue that seems to be taken care. gordon seems to miss 20+ games every year. also, avery doesn't make what gordon does. that's also something to keep in mind. want to pay someone >$10m/season who seems to miss 20+ games regularly? oh, and also throw in the captain, who will provide them serious cap relief? no thanks.
-
Gordon has about 25-30 lbs on Avery. That does make a difference.
It does help him finish through contact and get to the line. But I don't think it helps him defensively, biggers SGs can still post Gordon up and/or shoot over him.
Not to sidetrack things but this raises an interesting question. At some point, is Avery going to have to decide whether he wants to bulk up and guard SGs primarily, or stay smaller and guard mostly PGs?
Ainge in an interview did say that Bradley was playing at about less pounds than he was last year due to his inability to workout following double shoulder surgery.
Very interested to see how Bradley looks coming into training camp, which will be the first training camp of his career.
If he can get stronger without getting too much heavier or slower, that would at least help him against the Feltons and Westbrooks of the world.
Sorry, forgot to say "Bradley was playing at about 15 less pounds". And I didn't see Bradly any slower last year than he was the previous one, so I don't think that's something we'll have to worry about.
-
To me it simple as:
Can Rondo and Gordon get along?
I think its even simpler: can Gordon stay healthy? The track record suggests a resounding no. As such, I wouldn't touch this trade with a 50 foot pole.
Can Bradley stay "healthy"?
2010-11: 31/82 games (rookie year, so a number of these are DNP-CD)
2011-12: 64/66 games
2012-13: 50/82 games
145 games played out of a possible 230, or 63% available
Gordon:
2008-09: 78/82 games
2009-10: 62/82 games
2010-11: 56/82 games
2011-12: 9/66 games
2012-13: 42/82 games
247 games played out of a possible 394, or 62.7% available
This is why stats are bad.
Just trying to inject some nuance into the whole "Gordon=injury prone/Bradley=teh awesome!" reductionist dichotomy that people seem content to serve up.
Thought you did a great job there. I wouldn't have predicted they'd be so similar.
-
I'd do this trade...honestly Eric Gordon is who we hope bradley becomes, but we don't know if he ever will.
One part of me however thinks that Austin Rivers is involved somehow in this deal if it was discussed
I think a 3 team deal with Phoenix works (especially with the New GM hiring)
Maybe they can send Eric Gordon the way of the Suns
Bos Out: Pierce, Bradley, Melo
Bos In: Lopez, Beasley, Rivers
Boston: Rondo/Rivers/Green/Beasley/Lopez [rebuilt time so tank]
Nola Out: Gordon, Anderson, Lopez, Rivers
Nola In: Pierce, Gortat, Bradley
Nola: Vasquez/Bradley/whoever they have/Davis/Gortat
Phoenix Out: Beasley, Gortat
Phoenix In: Gordon, Anderson, Melo
Phoenix: Dragic/Gordon/wheover/Anderson/---
Picks would have to be involved
-
I'd do this trade...honestly Eric Gordon is who we hope bradley becomes, but we don't know if he ever will.
Eric Gordon is DPOY?
-
I personally don't like that trade. A healthy Eric Gordon, sure but not one that has missed 20 and 26 games respectively each of the last 2 years. When you add in his contract way too much risk...
The 26 games and 20 games missed are what he sat out three and fours years ago. The past two years have been even worse, missing 40 games last season, and 57 (out of a total off 66) games the season before that.
Gordon's talent is undeniable, but paying a guy with that injury history roughly $15 million per season seems foolish.
Bradley's injury history isn't much better, but you're right that is a lot of money to take on.
I don't think Bradley has shown any signs of injury worries since he returned from the shoulder surgeries. For the rest of the season he was pretty durable, and he gets bonus points for being a warrior type who will play through pain.
Gordon has been in the league almost twice as long as Bradley - 6 years now I think. In that time I don't think he's ever played 70 games in a season. Bradley has had a few back luck injuries, but he's not been in the league long enough yet to be labelled injury prone IMO. Gordon certainly has.
I am like Gordon. I'm certain we need a capable scorer, and preferably a young one. Gordon is exactly that, but I see a few issues with his fit.
Cons
1. He's injury prone. I don't know if it's poor trainers, poor preparation or plain bad luck, but Boston the Celtics are top two or three in the league when it comes to teams that get constantly hit with major injuries. Even when we bring in guys with a good history of health (like Green) we still get unfortunate health occurances. Bringing in a guy with a known history is...risky to say the least.
2. He's a career 18 PPG scorer, but we're giving up an 18 PPG scorer (Pierce) in order to get him. To ADD Gordon's scoring would be great, but to replace Pierce's scoring with Gordon's doesn't really gain anything in the short term. Pierce didn't have his most efficient offensive season this season, but Gordon has never really been a super efficient scorer either. Pierce contributes in other parts of the game (assists, rebounds) that Gordon doesn't contribute in at the same level. This trade on it's own we are probably at a net loss, but the youth of Gordon of course plays a factor too.
3. Gordon is not known for being an exceptional defender, yet we are giving up one of the top 5 defensive guards in the league to get him. One who happens to also be younger and on a much more attractive contract.
4. Gordon is another undersized (6'3") shooting guard. We have been smothered with those over the years and it's not done us any favours. Bradley is a rare undersized SG that we can get away with only because he has elite defensive talent that allows him to pressure and slow down guards who are larger than he is. Gordon doesn't necessarilly have that same gift.
I really like Gordon, but I'm just not sure he's the right fit for this team. He gives us no more than Pierce for the present, and his injury history (and big contract) leave question marks for the future. Only benefit I see here is that his youth would make him a strong trade chip IF he can remain healthy for a full season. We would need to get more than just Gordon back to make this worthwhile...maybe Austin Rivers is on the Celtic's radar too?
Pros
1. Right now Jeff Green is clearly the best and most efficient scorer on our team, but giving him the ~35 MPG he needs means pushing Pierce to SG (which I don't like) or pushing Green to PF (which is ok, but not optimal). Keeping Pierce in the starting lineup probably is hurting Green's development, and he's likely to proud to accept a bench role. Trading Pierce out may be the best move for this team's future development.
2. Gordon, in his 5 or 6 seasons as a pro, has never averaged under 16 PPG. He only averaged 17 PPG last season, but averaged > 20PPG the two seasons prior to that. As long as he's healthy he's a proven scorer, and to my knowledge he isn't a headcase (i.e. Jordan Crawford). You can all but guarantee that as long as he is healthy and on the court he's going to give us at least 16 - 20 points on a nightly basis.
3. Gordon is only 25 so the potential for improvement is there. On a team with a PG as great as Rondo and such a lack of offensive firepower, Gordon could very possible become a consistent > 20 PPG player immediately and an even higher volume scorer in the future.
4. Right now we don't really have a clear starting calibre SG. We have Terry, Crawford, Williams, Bradley, Lee. All are role-player types who can be borderline starters. Gordon gives us a clear starting calibre SG which allows our roster to establish a clearer roles - something that I thought we lacked last year, where nobody ever seemed to know what their role was.
5. A starting unit of Rondo, Gordon, Green, Bass, Garnett could be a very solid (if not spectacular) unit. Both Green and Gordon have the potential to be 20 PPG guys, Rondo and KG will give a solid 14 - 15 PPG a night, and the return of Rondo would hopefully see Bass's production rise again.
I don't hate this move, but I certainly don't love it. I think we are getting back less than we're giving up. I'd much rather give up some combination of AB, Bass, Crawford, Lee for Gordon and then try to revisit the Pierce -> Josh Smith trade.
R Rondo
E Gordon
J Green
J Smith
K Garnett
That lineup would certainly make us competitive with Indiana, Brooklyn and New York...possibly even Miami.