Gordon

[JAX]

I was just wondering since Walsh/D'Antoni both seem to have a lust for a Gordon, Ben or Eric, which one the fans prefer and which one is more attainable, as one is a rookies and the other a RFA.

I was going to ask who do you think is better, but that is unfair b/c we have no idea what EG will do in the league.

But if you noticed to the 2 most recent alleged ZBo rumors apparently stalled once DW asked for a Gordon.

On a side note, how do you that reflects on our current backcourt, specifically Nate and JC. I think a trade for either would have to either include Nate OR be followed up w/ a subsequent JC move.

[knicksNOTslick]

Of course I'd rather have Eric Gordon. We already know what we have in Ben Gordon but the problem is that he'll cost alot more money. Right now, EG would be under a rookie contract which is perfect. Plus EG has the potential to be significantly better than Ben.

[roy10]

I would take either Ben or Eric Gordon if we can dispose of Crawford. Both are players who can be great 2nd or 3rd options.

[JAX]

do you see him asking for BG or EG as a sign that the brain trust wants JC out or just a need for more backcourt fire power?

[-Phenom-]

Id take Eric Gordon because he come cheaper. Ben would cost too much for his services.

I dont think we would have to move Nate or JC because Marbs is most likely not starting the season on the Knicks.

[Lionel Messi]

ben gordon is similar to crawford, when he's on fire u think he can carry ur team to the playoffs, but when he cools down u think "damn, lets get rid of this chucker", and gordon plays no defense, which is not something ur already porous defense needs.