Denver/Charlotte

[JMAC3]

Based on Jokic comments "of them not being able to win with this currrent roster or they would have won" and new coach sticking around I would expect Denver to shake up the roster bit. Of course we will get 100 MPJ and Nnaji trades, but this would be something new.

Charlotte out: Miles Bridges,33 and 34
Denver out: Aaron Gordon

Why for Charlotte? Aaron Gordon is a better veteran voice and would give Charlotte a better defender for the bigger wings. Slight downgrade in offense but assuming the #4 pick they draft will help add more scoring to pair with Melo and Miller they could focus more on a utility guy.

Why for Denver? Denver is cap strapped, Aaron Gordon is due 23, 31, 34 and 39 million over the next 4 years. Bridges is only owed 25 million this year and 23 million the following year so Denver saves a bunch of money here and starts to move towards a little financial freedom. Also picks up a few picks they can use to add depth or use in another shake up trade.

Idk if I even love this deal for Charlotte because that Gordon deal is kind of ugly but they have more cap flexibility than Denver so they should be able to better handle the contract in future.

[JMAC3]

This may not look great on the surface but I think Denver gaining flexibility back and also having Jokic and Murray as strong voices I think they are in a decent spot to take a chance on Bridges.

Clearing the future Gordon money also probably makes resigning Braun a bit easier and maybe gives them some breathing room in MPJ trade offers moving forward.

[Texas Chuck]

Gordon is worth so much more than Bridges. All the metrics tell us he is the 2nd most important Nugget. No way they move him for 2 2nd round picks and another offense only forward only who isn't particularly good at offense.

Just not even something Denver could or would consider here. I don't see Gordon as available, but you would have to make a serious offer and this doesn't feel much like one.

[ReggiesKnicks]

Many teams would crush this offer and Denver doesn't have a way forward to replace Gordon's defense or shooting in one player at the 4-spot.

[JMAC3]

Sureeeee if you ignore any type of situation that Denver is in then yes they wouldn't make this trade but they are paying 180 million for Jokic, Murray, MPJ and Gordon in 2026-2027 and that is without Braun supposedly getting a 30 million dollar extension.

Back to a bunch of terrible Michael Porter Jr trades that no team is taking all for Denver to continue to have no picks, no cap flexibility and no depth

[Texas Chuck]

Denver is in a tough spot for sure. The solution isn't to make a bad trade with your favorite team though.

[JMAC3]

What is Aaron Gordon worth making 34 and 37 million? Do we think that is without a doubt a positive value contract? I am really not sure.

[Texas Chuck]

yeah proposing a lopsided trade that favors your favorite team and then negging the player that you yourself proposed come to your team just absolutely sucks dude.

It's a miss. That's okay, but this other stuff you are using to justify it really isn't.

[JMAC3]

Many teams would crush this offer and Denver doesn't have a way forward to replace Gordon's defense or shooting in one player at the 4-spot.

What do you think Aaron Gordon is worth in a trade? He is going to be making 37 million at age 33, my guess is the longer they wait to trade him the worse his value is going to be on that new contract.

Is there a scenario where Denver keeps Jokic, Murray, Gordon, MPJ and Braun? Because if not one of them is going to be gone at least, if not 2.

[JMAC3]

yeah proposing a lopsided trade that favors your favorite team and then negging the player that you yourself proposed come to your team just absolutely sucks dude.

It's a miss. That's okay, but this other stuff you are using to justify it really isn't.

Charlotte wins the trade today, sure. Until they are paying Gordon 40 million to be a role player at age 33. I obviously agree Gordon is better than Bridges but I also don't think Bridges is worthless as a guy that can make shots, probably still be their 3rd or 4h leading scorer and gives them athleticism. I actually think Bridges would be pretty good playing off Jokic, but if the assumption is he is a worthless player then sure.

I would ask what is Aaron Gordon's value? Do we think some team is giving up multiple firsts for him at this point?

[ReggiesKnicks]

Many teams would crush this offer and Denver doesn't have a way forward to replace Gordon's defense or shooting in one player at the 4-spot.

What do you think Aaron Gordon is worth in a trade? He is going to be making 37 million at age 33, my guess is the longer they wait to trade him the worse his value is going to be on that new contract.

Is there a scenario where Denver keeps Jokic, Murray, Gordon, MPJ and Braun? Because if not one of them is going to be gone at least, if not 2.

I know for a fact Gordon is much better than Miles Bridges in 2026 and 2027. If Denver wanted to worry about and what he looks like in 4 years then they should be trading Jokic.

"We have the best player in the NBA but we need to worry about the player who is a perfect fit next to him will look like in 4 years" isn't exactly an argument I would make for trade value.

Might as well start trading for all good players on good teams.

[JMAC3]

Many teams would crush this offer and Denver doesn't have a way forward to replace Gordon's defense or shooting in one player at the 4-spot.

What do you think Aaron Gordon is worth in a trade? He is going to be making 37 million at age 33, my guess is the longer they wait to trade him the worse his value is going to be on that new contract.

Is there a scenario where Denver keeps Jokic, Murray, Gordon, MPJ and Braun? Because if not one of them is going to be gone at least, if not 2.

I know for a fact Gordon is much better than Miles Bridges in 2026 and 2027. If Denver wanted to worry about and what he looks like in 4 years then they should be trading Jokic.

"We have the best player in the NBA but we need to worry about the player who is a perfect fit next to him will look like in 4 years" isn't exactly an argument I would make for trade value.

If the only issue was Gordon sure lol... but again this is about Braun. This about trying to gain some flexibility in the future to extend the window around Jokic.

We just saw Minny make a trade to help with future flexibility, we are saying the Celtics should make a trade for flexibility.. why is such a weird premise that Denver should do the same thing.

[Texas Chuck]

Nobody is saying Denver making a trade to increase flexibility is bad. We are saying downgrading from a guy who has fit perfectly next to Jokic for a worse player in the name of I'm pretending to be scared about his contract when he is only 33 not 43 isn't something they are going to do.

Its weird to keep making all these non sequiturs when the responses have been clear its about the poor trade not that Denver isn't in a tough spot or doesn't need to try and revamp around Jokic. I think almost everyone agrees with that. It's just harder when you take a valuable player and trade him for non-valuable player for 2 2nd round picks and some future money savings.

[ReggiesKnicks]

What do you think Aaron Gordon is worth in a trade? He is going to be making 37 million at age 33, my guess is the longer they wait to trade him the worse his value is going to be on that new contract.

Is there a scenario where Denver keeps Jokic, Murray, Gordon, MPJ and Braun? Because if not one of them is going to be gone at least, if not 2.

I know for a fact Gordon is much better than Miles Bridges in 2026 and 2027. If Denver wanted to worry about and what he looks like in 4 years then they should be trading Jokic.

"We have the best player in the NBA but we need to worry about the player who is a perfect fit next to him will look like in 4 years" isn't exactly an argument I would make for trade value.

If the only issue was Gordon sure lol... but again this is about Braun. This about trying to gain some flexibility in the future to extend the window around Jokic.

We just saw Minny make a trade to help with future flexibility, we are saying the Celtics should make a trade for flexibility.. why is such a weird premise that Denver should do the same thing.

I don't think Texas Chuck is saying Denver should no nothing. He is saying this offer sucks.

Gordon is worth so much more than Bridges. All the metrics tell us he is the 2nd most important Nugget. No way they move him for 2 2nd round picks and another offense only forward only who isn't particularly good at offense.

I am saying the same thing.

Many teams would crush this offer and Denver doesn't have a way forward to replace Gordon's defense or shooting in one player at the 4-spot.

Now, if you want to compare this to the Minnesota trade, then let's have at it. Julius Randle was a two-time All-NBA player who has a unique skill-set as a 6'8 Bruiser, good passer and playmaker and unreliable shooter with incredible strength and good handling for a large wing. His fit on paper with Minnesota, a team who lacks playmaking, was good. Then, Minnesota also traded for a low-end starting in Donte DiVincenzo who made sub-MLE. Then, Minnesota also traded for a 1st round pick likely to convey unless you thought Cade was terrible.

Where are those caliber of players Denver is getting here? Are they breaking down Gordon into a similar caliber player (KAT/Randle were both somewhat similar caliber, all things considered) and then Minnesota also got a cost-controlled Donte. I am not saying Gordon = KAT, but your deal isn't remotely similar. Miles Bridges had one decent year in 2022 (contract year, shocker) and then following his missed time for being a complete P.O.S. (can't say anything negative about KAT/Randle/Gordon in how they carry themselves) he has been mediocre at best as a decent-to-good offensive player but mediocre-to-bad defender.

How is Denver going to trade their best defender for someone completely unproven in a playoff environment? A deal centered around MPJ for Bridges makes a lot more sense than OP.

[louc1970]

Bridges cannot play defense well enough to make the trade valuable.
If you can add some filler, switch it over to MPJ rather than Gordon.
Denver gets buckets from Bridges. Not sure what Charlotte gets other than a seasoned mid-career forward.

[hugepatsfan]

This isn't even legal. As things stand right now, DEN is over the 1st apron by $4.7M which means they can't take back more salary in a trade than they send out. Bridges makes $25M in 25-26 Gordon makes $22.8M. So this deal puts them over the 1st apron by about $6.9M. In order for this to be legal, EN would have to give up assets to clear that much money and actually a little more since they have to sign one more player to get to 14.

And looking at their roster, the only way they'd be able to clear that much means one of Nnaji/MPJ have to leave which likely requires attaching assets or Murray has to be dealt for savings. And if DEN attached assets or moved Murray then one of the things they'd probably want to do with those (longer term) savings is keep their 2nd best player rather than deal him for Miles Bridges.

[BlazersBroncos]

AG is one of 2 players DEN should have no interest in trading.

[JMAC3]

Nobody is saying Denver making a trade to increase flexibility is bad. We are saying downgrading from a guy who has fit perfectly next to Jokic for a worse player in the name of I'm pretending to be scared about his contract when he is only 33 not 43 isn't something they are going to do.

Its weird to keep making all these non sequiturs when the responses have been clear its about the poor trade not that Denver isn't in a tough spot or doesn't need to try and revamp around Jokic. I think almost everyone agrees with that. It's just harder when you take a valuable player and trade him for non-valuable player for 2 2nd round picks and some future money savings.

Denver has no draft picks with any value, that likely means they are downgrading the roster in any move that grants them financial flexibility. I am not sure why we are up in arms about Denver downgrading in a trade that saves them a ton of money. I mean I get you think Bridges is terrible but give me a better offer that Denver should look at?

Julius Randle for Gordon a win-win?
Is Cleveland giving up Deandre Hunter expiring for 4 years of Aaron Gordon?
Do you like Tobias Harris on an expiring for Nuggets better? Detroit could possibly want Gordon I suppose.
Is Houston giving up Dillon Brooks expiring to for 4 years of Aaron Gordon?
John Collins expiring for Gordon?
I highly Doubt Miami is dying to trade Wiggins for the right to pay Gordon 2 years longer.
Knicks aren't moving Mikal Bridges for Gordon.
Kuzma lol

Or are these all embarrassing trades for Gordon as well.
I am not even sure teams like Minny, Utah, Houston, Cleveland or Detroit would be all that excited to pay Gordon that money. If Gordon were a FA this summer we all would like the team signing him to 35 million per year for 3 yrs?

[Texas Chuck]

The solution is obvious and has been told to you now several times you but you stubbornly keep ignoring it: Do not trade Gordon.

If you want flexibility the place to go is Michael Porter Jr. You might be bored of those trades but there is a reason you have seen a number of them an no other Gordon trades. Because that's a path that actually makes sense for Denver depending on the return. Porter isn't nearly as essential to them being competitive.

But if they are going to trade Gordon they need to either get good player(s) back or they need to get value they can convert to good players. Here they get neither of those things and in fact have to figure out how to dump more money just to make this deal.

I don't understand why you just can't accept this is a bad idea. Its no big deal. All of us brave enough to post ideas have them, goodness knows I do. But this one is just DOA man.

[JMAC3]

The solution is obvious and has been told to you now several times you but you stubbornly keep ignoring it: Do not trade Gordon.

If you want flexibility the place to go is Michael Porter Jr. You might be bored of those trades but there is a reason you have seen a number of them an no other Gordon trades. Because that's a path that actually makes sense for Denver depending on the return. Porter isn't nearly as essential to them being competitive.

But if they are going to trade Gordon they need to either get good player(s) back or they need to get value they can convert to good players. Here they get neither of those things and in fact have to figure out how to dump more money just to make this deal.

I don't understand why you just can't accept this is a bad idea. Its no big deal. All of us brave enough to post ideas have them, goodness knows I do. But this one is just DOA man.

I legit don't care about the Hornets or Miles Bridges aspect of the trade lol. Is that what you think I am doing? If that is a bad idea cool, I am just asking if it is soooo bad what is the better realistic trade? Which nobody has done other than tell me how it is so easy to find a better deal that fixes Denver. I just sent 10 other players that could make sense and none of them do so the answer is don't trade Gordon, trade the worse player that nobody wants in MPJ?

The answer to the Suns getting better is trade Bradley Beal for better players?
The answer for Sixers to get better is trade Paul George for better players?

I think if we all thought that trading MPJ for better players and improving was a real option then yeah Gordon doesn't get discussed.

If you want to the lock the thread and I start a new Gordon convo thread that doesn't include Miles Bridges we can do that instead lol, I don't understand the obsession with the original offer when other aspects are getting floated in the thread at this point.