Supposed rumor between NO and BOS

[Lucky17]

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.

[blink]

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.

[LarBrd33]

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.

[hpantazo]

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.

[LooseCannon]

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.

[mmmmm]

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.

[syfy9]

This would only make sense if we got their pick as well.

[get_banners]

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.

[Eddie20]

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.

[indeedproceed]

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.

[rasta1]

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

[LooseCannon]

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?

[crimson_stallion]

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.