RealGM

Bobcats out: Ben Gordon
Bobcats in: B Roy, P Milsap

Wolves out: D Williams, B Roy, Barea
Wolves in: Ben Gordon

Jazz out: P Milsap
Jazz in: D Williams, Barea

Why for the Wolves: They fill a need at sg

Why for the Bobcats: They hope MKG and Bismack will pick up some things from Milsap and hope to resign him after the season. They also clear cap room next year.

Why for the Jazz: They get a cheaper replacement for Milsap at PF win Williams, giving them plenty of space to sign Jefferson. They also eliminate the risk of losing Milsap for nothing in the summer.

No for Minnesota. No interest in Ben Gordon for me, at all.

WAY too good for the Bobcats.

I must have missed where the Bobcats actually give up something to turn Ben Gordon's huge deal into 2 expiring contracts, one of which is productive.

Mattya wrote:No for Minnesota. No interest in Ben Gordon for me, at all.

WAY too good for the Bobcats.

Agreed.

Yeah, sorry, there's no way the Bobcats pull this off. Gordon simply doesn't have this kind of value.

Esohny wrote:

Mattya wrote:No for Minnesota. No interest in Ben Gordon for me, at all.

WAY too good for the Bobcats.

Agreed.

Seconded.

Did you forget to include Charlotte's 2013 unprotected 1st going to the Wolves?

Switch Gordon with Biyombo and it's at least worth talking about. Right now it's just bad.

Pretty shocked to see some of these comments. CHA has done a great job in rehabbing Gordon and keeping him in situations where he can feature what he can do and hiding what he can't - something DET failed miserably at. If MIN isn't interested in getting one of the top shooters in the NBA, then someone would be.

If I was in CHA's shoes, I'd keep Gordon and see if I could get a fringe lotto for Gordon at the deadline. With 13 teams within 2.5 games of being in - or out - of the playoffs, you'd think someone would be willing to pull the trigger. That would be a better return than what MIN is giving here (UTH is an easy no, so I'm ignoring their part).

theatlfan wrote:Pretty shocked to see some of these comments. CHA has done a great job in rehabbing Gordon and keeping him in situations where he can feature what he can do and hiding what he can't - something DET failed miserably at. If MIN isn't interested in getting one of the top shooters in the NBA, then someone would be.

If I was in CHA's shoes, I'd keep Gordon and see if I could get a fringe lotto for Gordon at the deadline. With 13 teams within 2.5 games of being in - or out - of the playoffs, you'd think someone would be willing to pull the trigger. That would be a better return than what MIN is giving here (UTH is an easy no, so I'm ignoring their part).

Gordon is getting paid what, 25m for the next 2 years? Im on my phone so I can't look but, yeah...no way anyone is giving up value for him, let alone a fringe lottery first.

moss_is_1 wrote:Gordon is getting paid what, 25m for the next 2 years? Im on my phone so I can't look but, yeah...no way anyone is giving up value for him, let alone a fringe lottery first.

You're right for production of 13.5 PPG, 2.0 APG, 2.5 RPG, CHA is paying $25.6 mil for two years. Detroit had to give up a pretty good pick (lottery-protected in 2013, top-8 protected in 2014, top-1 protected in 2015 and unprotected in 2016), just to get out of Gordon's last year!

No way he suddenly has even neutral trade value, let alone enough positive trade value to be bringing back 1sts.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ben_gordon/

Gordons value is still negative, his contracted compared to production is way to high. His play in CHA is clearly better, but giving up any capspace next year for 13m of gordon is way to much when you could sign a similarly producing FA for the MLE.

CHA might be able to dangle that DET pick + gordon to a team and get out of his 13m next season which is still a huge swing in value from his previous trade value imo.

the_bruce wrote:Gordons value is still negative, his contracted compared to production is way to high. His play in CHA is clearly better, but giving up any capspace next year for 13m of gordon is way to much when you could sign a similarly producing FA for the MLE.

CHA might be able to dangle that DET pick + gordon to a team and get out of his 13m next season which is still a huge swing in value from his previous trade value imo.

I think you have the buisness of the nba backwards cousin. Detroit gave us Gordon + pick for Maggettie's expiring 7 mill contract. Next year if Gordon is still here we will be taking bids for Ben's 12 million dollar expiring deal not paying someone to take it from us. Expiring deals are like candy to a eight year old to luxury tax threatened owners. An owner doesn't care about productivity if he can get his hands on a 10 million dollar expiring. They care about productivity when they have to pay for that contract for years.

I think Minnesota would fire everyone in the FO and start over if they agreed to this.

MountBiyombo wrote:I think you have the buisness of the nba backwards cousin. Detroit gave us Gordon + pick for Maggettie's expiring 7 mill contract. Next year if Gordon is still here we will be taking bids for Ben's 12 million dollar expiring deal not paying someone to take it from us. Expiring deals are like candy to a eight year old to luxury tax threatened owners. An owner doesn't care about productivity if he can get his hands on a 10 million dollar expiring. They care about productivity when they have to pay for that contract for years.

It's frustrating to see this myth repeated, after so many people have made posts to try to set people straight.

Expirings do not have any special value. Zero. Some owner will write a check, and the player will try to produce enough value to be worth it. I assume we have no argument that Ben Gordon will not be producing $13.2 mil worth of production?

All expirings are is a MECHANISM for a different team to take on a contract without positive value to the sender. The quality that has value is the team's willingness to take on extra years of a bad contract. CHA (or other teams) may provide that by other mechanisms (cap space, TPE's, 25-50% difference in trade matching, etc).

Ben Gordon doesn't become positive value because he's an expiring.

shrink wrote:You're right for production of 13.5 PPG, 2.0 APG, 2.5 RPG, CHA is paying $25.6 mil for two years. Detroit had to give up a pretty good pick (lottery-protected in 2013, top-8 protected in 2014, top-1 protected in 2015 and unprotected in 2016), just to get out of Gordon's last year!

No way he suddenly has even neutral trade value, let alone enough positive trade value to be bringing back 1sts.

the_bruce wrote:Gordons value is still negative, his contracted compared to production is way to high. His play in CHA is clearly better, but giving up any capspace next year for 13m of gordon is way to much when you could sign a similarly producing FA for the MLE.

CHA might be able to dangle that DET pick + gordon to a team and get out of his 13m next season which is still a huge swing in value from his previous trade value imo.

1st, this is how rehab projects work. You take someone playing poorly from one team for value, prove he's not damaged and reestablish what he can do, and then trade him for more value. Comparisons to what DET paid to lose him mean nothing. The entire point for CHA in taking Gordon was as a rehab project and CHA has done an excellent job here.

The 2nd point here is that I never said that a trading team would take on all Gordon's $$ - they could give CHA another rehab project along with the value (although CHA would definitely prefer the expiring, that would eat into the value of the trade). I know that this won't work for a variety of reasons from both sides, but an example would be to trade Gordon for Biedrins + a pick. GSW doesn't take on $13M in salary, in economic terms they're paying $4M for an elite shooter. CHA would (have to) consider Biedrins a viable rehab project and the pick is the value for taking it on. As noted, I don't see that particular deal having any legs, but the concept is there to work with.

Apples and Oranges! The point is when he becomes an expiring his contract becomes more desirable than it is now. By your logic a bad contract is a bad contract. No one will want it unless the player is productive. That is not true. Some of the worst contracts in league history got moved once they were close to expiration. Heck players who were no longer in the league have had their contracts moved, because they were expiring.

CHA_77_Bobcats wrote:I think Minnesota would fire everyone in the FO and start over if they agreed to this.

Hmmm, you got yourself a deal, then.

MountBiyombo wrote:Apples and Oranges! The point is when he becomes an expiring his contract becomes more desirable than it is now. By your logic a bad contract is a bad contract. No one will want it unless the player is productive. That is not true. Some of the worst contracts in league history got moved once they were close to expiration. Heck players who were no longer in the league have had their contracts moved, because they were expiring.

... because the team with the bad contract was willing to trade their willingness to take on other bad contracts.

That's the incentive. It's just like including a 1st, or giving cash, or adding some other benefit. Nobody wants to pay $13 mil for $6 mil in production unless they are getting something else out of the deal.