RealGM

The Houston Rockets have made Eric Gordon available leading up to the trade deadline, and they seek an ambitious return. Houston is letting rival teams know they want a first-round pick for Gordon.

The 33-year-old guard has three seasons left on his contract. Gordon's deal is for $18.2 million for this season, $19.6 million for 22-23 and $20.9 million for 23-24. That final season is fully non-guaranteed, unless Gordon's team wins the NBA Finals in 2022 or 2023.

This season Gordon has averaged 14.9 points on 50.5% shooting from the field, including 45.5% from behind the arc. He's also stayed relatively healthy, appearing in 38 of Houston's 45 games.

Via Michael Scotto/HoopsHype

Is the contract good at his age? I can't tell. He's shooting well, but maybe he's just trying his hardest to get out of Houston and onto a playoff team. He'd be a nice addition to most teams that need shooting, but I'm not sure $20m per for a one dimenstional 33-35 year old is a positive value deal, never mind worth a first rounder...

Seems like the GM's for Houston, Philly & Indiana are living in fantasy land with what they are asking for their mediocre assets.

Is Gordon even neutral value given his contract and age?

I'll never understand why certain "fans" feel compelled to chime in on situations they know little about.

Eric Gordon has been a starter the vast majority of his career and the time he wasn't he was 6th man of the year on a conference finalist. He's currently having one of the better shooting seasons of his career.

He's a two way player, a playoff performer, and a rangy three-point threat who is playable as a starter or off the bench. That makes him easily worth what would likely be a late first round pick for a potential contender.

The flexibility of the non-guaranteed final year of his deal is a bonus.

BallerTalk wrote:I'll never understand why certain "fans" feel compelled to chime in on situations they know little about.

Eric Gordon has been a starter the vast majority of his career and the time he wasn't he was 6th man of the year on a conference finalist. He's currently having one of the better shooting seasons of his career.

He's a two way player, a playoff performer, and a rangy three-point threat who is playable as a starter or off the bench. That makes him easily worth what would likely be a late first round pick for a potential contender.

The flexibility of the non-guaranteed final year of his deal is a bonus.

He's never been known for his defense. He's going to be turning 35 in that second year and his on a sizable contract for a sixth man type that projects to be declining year on year. Anyone who pays a first for him is getting someone who at this stage is not really moving the needle much on sizable contract.

The "situation" that "fans" are chiming in on seems pretty straightforward. Team A wants a champagne return for a beer asset.

luciano-davidwesley wrote:

BallerTalk wrote:I'll never understand why certain "fans" feel compelled to chime in on situations they know little about.

Eric Gordon has been a starter the vast majority of his career and the time he wasn't he was 6th man of the year on a conference finalist. He's currently having one of the better shooting seasons of his career.

He's a two way player, a playoff performer, and a rangy three-point threat who is playable as a starter or off the bench. That makes him easily worth what would likely be a late first round pick for a potential contender.

The flexibility of the non-guaranteed final year of his deal is a bonus.

He's never been known for his defense. He's going to be turning 35 in that second year and his on a sizable contract for a sixth man type that projects to be declining year on year. Anyone who pays a first for him is getting someone who at this stage is not really moving the needle much on sizable contract.

The "situation" that "fans" are chiming in on seems pretty straightforward. Team A wants a champagne return for a beer asset.

Thanks for proving my point.

no team with sense would give you a first and then pay that stupid contract

A contender would be crazy not to give a late first for him. Seems like a pretty obvious deal to make. PJ Tucker was the difference last year for the title winner.

BallerTalk wrote:I'll never understand why certain "fans" feel compelled to chime in on situations they know little about.

Eric Gordon has been a starter the vast majority of his career and the time he wasn't he was 6th man of the year on a conference finalist. He's currently having one of the better shooting seasons of his career.

He's a two way player, a playoff performer, and a rangy three-point threat who is playable as a starter or off the bench. That makes him easily worth what would likely be a late first round pick for a potential contender.

The flexibility of the non-guaranteed final year of his deal is a bonus.

Oh please, I know you're a Rockets fan but give it a rest.

First of all, dude is always injured. He has "only" missed 7 games this year and always seems to be banged up. He's also 33 and on a very expensive contract that has 3 years remaining. Nobody wants to be paying Eric Gordon over $20 million as a 36 year old.

Yes, he would be a very nice piece for a contender off the bench... but that's not worth the cost of $20 million a year basically AND a first round pick. First round picks have more value than what Gordon can bring. Your description of what he is as a player completely ignores his frequent injury history and hefty contract... things that often times are the deciding factors. If he wasn't constantly hurt and playing on a more team friendly contract, maybe you'd have a point.

ericwright1218 wrote:

BallerTalk wrote:I'll never understand why certain "fans" feel compelled to chime in on situations they know little about.

Eric Gordon has been a starter the vast majority of his career and the time he wasn't he was 6th man of the year on a conference finalist. He's currently having one of the better shooting seasons of his career.

He's a two way player, a playoff performer, and a rangy three-point threat who is playable as a starter or off the bench. That makes him easily worth what would likely be a late first round pick for a potential contender.

The flexibility of the non-guaranteed final year of his deal is a bonus.

Oh please, I know you're a Rockets fan but give it a rest.

First of all, dude is always injured. He has "only" missed 7 games this year and always seems to be banged up. He's also 33 and on a very expensive contract that has 3 years remaining. Nobody wants to be paying Eric Gordon over $20 million as a 36 year old.

Yes, he would be a very nice piece for a contender off the bench... but that's not worth the cost of $20 million a year basically AND a first round pick. First round picks have more value than what Gordon can bring. Your description of what he is as a player completely ignores his frequent injury history and hefty contract... things that often times are the deciding factors. If he wasn't constantly hurt and playing on a more team friendly contract, maybe you'd have a point.

I know talking out of your ass is pretty common around here and that point continues to be proven.
The only role my being a Rockets fan plays here is that I am consequently more familiar with the situation than some of you who are speaking from shall we say "less informed" spaces.

You would do well to actually look at the structure of Gordon's contract.
Then for further edification feel free to do a cost/production comparison for starters and sixth men around the league.
Finally I would strongly suggest you take a look at the type of players who have garnered 1st round picks from potential contenders mid-season and see if you notice a certain trend.
I'll say it again, a (likely late) first round pick from a contender is an easy choice to acquire a player like Gordon.

I know ego won't allow most to admit their ignorance but perhaps, at a minimum, this will give you pause in similar situations going forward.