Higher Trade Value: Eric Gordon or Derrick Williams?

[Danimals]

Which of these two has higher trade value and why?

What are some teams that would value one over the other and for what reasons?

[boogydown]

Proven vs Unproven

Eric Gordon has more value.

[VintaGe36]

I'll take the prototypical player, with a defined position, and with the measurements and skill-set to thrive at said position.

[Ian Kognitow]

That depends.
--All other things being equal?: Eric Gordon, by far.
--For a crap, and/or directionless, team with which Gordon would have no interest in signing long-term?: Derrick Williams, on 1st-year of rookie-scale.

[Triumph36]

I'll take the prototypical player, with a defined position, and with the measurements and skill-set to thrive at said position.

Defined position = undersized SG? Okay I guess...

That depends.
--All other things being equal?: Eric Gordon, by far.
--For a crap, and/or directionless, team with which Gordon would have no interest in signing long-term?: Derrick Williams, on 1st-year of rookie-scale.

Gordon wouldn't have a choice because he is going to be a restricted free agent.

Though I do think some cheaper teams would take Williams just because they don't want to inevitably overpay for someone so soon.

[Ian Kognitow]

That depends.
--All other things being equal?: Eric Gordon, by far.
--For a crap, and/or directionless, team with which Gordon would have no interest in signing long-term?: Derrick Williams, on 1st-year of rookie-scale.

Gordon wouldn't have a choice because he is going to be a restricted free agent.

He'd have the choice to only take a qualifying offer--certainly more of a possibility if the alternative were having to stay with a directionless/mismanaged team like NO indefinitely. It would ultimately amount to a mere 18-months, while accepting the risk of *catastrophic* injury (quite unlikely, and many players have proven that teams will still readily sign stars with general injury concerns). And, if he accepted the potential bad publicity and publicly admitted that unless at least a S/T as RFA were made, he would only take the qualifying and then look to his own interests, he does have considerable power to direct himself to a team that he would actually want to work for.

[shrink]

For most teams, I'd say Eric Gordon.

If you were thinking about a trade, I think NOH would swap Gordon for Derrick Williams (and so would MIN). Williams has the following advantages the hornets would appreciate:

1. Probably got more publicity last year than Eric Gordon, on a rarely watched team, upstaged by Blake Griffin. NOH has to still sell tickets, if they are ever going to find a buyer.

2. Derrick Williams just started his a rookie deal, so he's cheap for some time. Gordon is going to get a big, guaranteed deal next year .. he could sign an extension tomorrow.

3. Derrick Williams won't have leverage to force his way out for seven years. Assuming Gordon will extend for three years, he can still force his way out in two. NOH can't be happy about Gordon's expression in this picture:

http://www.nba.com/hornets/video/originals/

(Check out the press conference when Gordon arrives - he looks like he may burst into tears)


However, a trade between the two will never happen while NOH owns the MIN pick. NOH would need to deal the pick first, or MIN would need to add a quality center to devalue the pick. Until then, we don't need to think about a trade.

[Ian Kognitow]

However, a trade between the two will never happen while NOH owns the MIN pick. NOH would need to deal the pick first, or MIN would need to add a quality center to devalue the pick. Until then, we don't need to think about a trade.

I could imagine such a trade still going down around the trade deadline, as long as MIN weren't actually in a position where they were close enough to a playoff-berth that Gordon could immediately come in and swing it for them in however many games might be left.
--In fact, if MIN had actually devalued the pick enough already, such that NO might be concerned that it wouldn't even be in the lottery, might it not be possible that NO could be willing to just trade the pick back to MIN with Gordon, while receiving, say, Anthony Randolph/Nikola Pekovic along w/Williams?

And, oh yeah, as far as this possible objection over Gordon:

I'll take the prototypical player, with a defined position, and with the measurements and skill-set to thrive at said position.

Defined position = undersized SG? Okay I guess...

Especially in the context of someone good, who forces defenses to deal with *them*, 6'-3" is hardly 'undersized' for a shooting guard, as might be traditionally 'defined'. Here are just a few 6'-3" SGs who never gave an inch, so to speak: Earl Monroe, Joe Dumars, Jason Terry (6'2"), Jerry West (6'2"), Hal Greer (6'2"), Sidney Moncrief, Dennis Johnson(Sonics), Gerald Henderson Sr., Andrew Toney.

[Trader_Joe]

Give me d.will.

Gordon is about to get offered a max contract for a rookie in about 7 months. He's had an injury plagued start to his nba career, and personally I haven't gotten a good feel for his game. I think he's a good player with good numbers, but those numbers may look better than they are since there is a lack of talent at sg. I'm not going to put too much weight on his teams lack of success given they are the clippers and he's so young, but that case could be made. In fact those last two arguments could be used against say brook lopez, who I would trade for d.will.

Williams was the recent #2 pick for a reason. He was college player of the year, I like his versatility as opposed to those who criticize it, I like the fact he's year 1 of a rookie deal, and I would like his hype if I'm an owner. Williams to me seems like someone you can build around, as opposed to Gordon being someone you build with.

[old rem]

Which of these two has higher trade value and why?

What are some teams that would value one over the other and for what reasons?

Some teams may vary based on need but Gordon has an ESTABLISHED standing as an NBA star. You can project Williams as MAYBE becoming that but NOW....No. A certain % of draftees do meet or top the vision we may have,but a lot do not. A pick is for awhile a raffle ticket for a big prize but can end up as much less than a star.

Note...relative value can change a lot in just 2 months,but for now, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

[Trader_Joe]

Which of these two has higher trade value and why?

What are some teams that would value one over the other and for what reasons?

Some teams may vary based on need but Gordon has an ESTABLISHED standing as an NBA star. You can project Williams as MAYBE becoming that but NOW....No. A certain % of draftees do meet or top the vision we may have,but a lot do not. A pick is for awhile a raffle ticket for a big prize but can end up as much less than a star.

Note...relative value can change a lot in just 2 months,but for now, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Gordon is an established NBA star now?!

[Ian Kognitow]

Gordon is about to get offered a max contract for a rookie in about 7 months. He's had an injury plagued start to his nba career, and personally I haven't gotten a good feel for his game. I think he's a good player with good numbers, but those numbers may look better than they are since there is a lack of talent at sg. I'm not going to put too much weight on his teams lack of success given they are the clippers and he's so young, but that case could be made. In fact those last two arguments could be used against say brook lopez, who I would trade for d.will.

Williams was the recent #2 pick for a reason. He was college player of the year, I like his versatility as opposed to those who criticize it, I like the fact he's year 1 of a rookie deal, and I would like his hype if I'm an owner. Williams to me seems like someone you can build around, as opposed to Gordon being someone you build with.

From this analysis, which seems quite valid, and mostly sound (though I'd dispute the first part of the last line about Williams being someone to build around), I happened to be struck by how these descriptions very much fit two older players, who could perhaps offer cautionary examples: Ray Allen and Glenn Robinson.
--Allen put up big numbers in his early career, was considered among the top SGs (perhaps even the best at times, among an often weak field), but was someone who ultimately proved that he couldn't be a legitimate franchise-player, though eventually could indeed prove to be the top complementary/role player on a championship-level team. And, actually, I think most people already think of Gordon more along those lines as a superior complementary guy (which was why it was so threatening if LAC had been able to keep Gordon to play w/Griffin-Paul). And also, prospectively for MIN, I'd say Gordon's value is largely predicated on how he would potentially complement Love/Rubio.
--Meanwhile, Derrick Williams, like G. Robinson, was a Naismith award winner, and relatively unathletic 'tweener, capable of scoring from anywhere and for big numbers. Again, maybe like that one year or two MIL was good with Robinson/Allen/Cassell together, Williams could be important for a semi-contender, but has anyone really been projecting him to be a true franchise-level talent, with the overall game and charisma that would allow a team to actually 'build around' him? Thinking of other similarly-high picks, does Williams even figure to be especially better than Andrea Bargnani? I don't necessarily mean that as a bad thing, but more as a matter of recognizing the kind of player/skill-set at hand, and not being driven by the token number of a guy's draft-position into necessarily treating him as a legitimately franchise-level talent worthy to build future plans around.

[Parataxis]

Here's a simple way of looking at it - last summer, would you have traded Gordon for the #2 draft pick? Nothing has changed since then, both players are as proven/unproven as they were then.

[Mattya]

Gordon is about to get offered a max contract for a rookie in about 7 months. He's had an injury plagued start to his nba career, and personally I haven't gotten a good feel for his game. I think he's a good player with good numbers, but those numbers may look better than they are since there is a lack of talent at sg. I'm not going to put too much weight on his teams lack of success given they are the clippers and he's so young, but that case could be made. In fact those last two arguments could be used against say brook lopez, who I would trade for d.will.

Williams was the recent #2 pick for a reason. He was college player of the year, I like his versatility as opposed to those who criticize it, I like the fact he's year 1 of a rookie deal, and I would like his hype if I'm an owner. Williams to me seems like someone you can build around, as opposed to Gordon being someone you build with.

From this analysis, which seems quite valid, and mostly sound (though I'd dispute the first part of the last line about Williams being someone to build around), I happened to be struck by how these descriptions very much fit two older players, who could perhaps offer cautionary examples: Ray Allen and Glenn Robinson.
--Allen put up big numbers in his early career, was considered among the top SGs (perhaps even the best at times, among an often weak field), but was someone who ultimately proved that he couldn't be a legitimate franchise-player, though eventually could indeed prove to be the top complementary/role player on a championship-level team. And, actually, I think most people already think of Gordon more along those lines as a superior complementary guy (which was why it was so threatening if LAC had been able to keep Gordon to play w/Griffin-Paul). And also, prospectively for MIN, I'd say Gordon's value is largely predicated on how he would potentially complement Love/Rubio.
--Meanwhile, Derrick Williams, like G. Robinson, was a Naismith award winner, and relatively unathletic 'tweener, capable of scoring from anywhere and for big numbers. Again, maybe like that one year or two MIL was good with Robinson/Allen/Cassell together, Williams could be important for a semi-contender, but has anyone really been projecting him to be a true franchise-level talent, with the overall game and charisma that would allow a team to actually 'build around' him? Thinking of other similarly-high picks, does Williams even figure to be especially better than Andrea Bargnani? I don't necessarily mean that as a bad thing, but more as a matter of recognizing the kind of player/skill-set at hand, and not being driven by the token number of a guy's draft-position into necessarily treating him as a legitimately franchise-level talent worthy to build future plans around.

Williams is relatively unathletic? Never ever heard that.

[Guy986]

Right now its Eric Gordon but its pretty close.

3 months from now it won't be when Derrick William comes off the bench for about 20minute per game. I think Williams stock will only go down from here on.

Established veteran coach like JVG, Larry Brown, Adelman just kills the value of rookies.

[Cowology]

I'd say Williams has the higher trade value due to his rookie contract. He's a far better value atm.

[Ian Kognitow]

From this analysis, which seems quite valid, and mostly sound (though I'd dispute the first part of the last line about Williams being someone to build around), I happened to be struck by how these descriptions very much fit two older players, who could perhaps offer cautionary examples: Ray Allen and Glenn Robinson.
--Allen put up big numbers in his early career, was considered among the top SGs (perhaps even the best at times, among an often weak field), but was someone who ultimately proved that he couldn't be a legitimate franchise-player, though eventually could indeed prove to be the top complementary/role player on a championship-level team....
--Meanwhile, Derrick Williams, like G. Robinson, was a Naismith award winner, and relatively unathletic 'tweener, capable of scoring from anywhere and for big numbers. Again, maybe like that one year or two MIL was good with Robinson/Allen/Cassell together, Williams could be important for a semi-contender, but has anyone really been projecting him to be a true franchise-level talent, with the overall game and charisma that would allow a team to actually 'build around' him? Thinking of other similarly-high picks, does Williams even figure to be especially better than Andrea Bargnani? I don't necessarily mean that as a bad thing, but more as a matter of recognizing the kind of player/skill-set at hand, and not being driven by the token number of a guy's draft-position into necessarily treating him as a legitimately franchise-level talent worthy to build future plans around.

Williams is relatively unathletic? Never ever heard that.

OK, that was poorly stated -- emphasis I suppose was heavily on the 'relatively'. I hadn't meant to imply Williams as seeming unathletic in any way, but more that, while he was lauded for his versatility and ability to score anywhere (as was noted), he hasn't quite been regarded as the kind of athletic freak that many prospects are -- something which contributes to the general 'tweener designation.

By comparison, the kind of guys that typically get drafted #1 or #2 overall, and seem to immediately inspire teams to build future plans around, are those like Blake Griffin, Kevin Durant, or Derrick Rose, largely due to their apparent capacity to simply dominate their position based mostly on their athleticism alone. As for Williams, it's still uncertain what his primary position should be in the NBA at all. Again, that's not necessarily bad -- versatility is good. But by its nature, that typically does not offer the kind of dominating mode of talent, and center of gravity, provided by franchise-players worth building around.

[NashtyNas]

I'll take the prototypical player, with a defined position, and with the measurements and skill-set to thrive at said position.

I wouldn't say either of them is a prototypical anything. Both are tweeners, one a F, one a G. Both has mixed skill sets, with Gordon a better scorer/shooter than passer but measuring to a PG or a little higher (6'4?). Williams is more a PF with interior game and an outside shot to compliment (rather than the other way) but measures more like an SF.

Fact is, Gordon is a PROVEN commodity that JUST net the Clippers the best PG in the game (along with other pieces, but he was the most important piece clearly).

[Trader_Joe]

I'll take the prototypical player, with a defined position, and with the measurements and skill-set to thrive at said position.

I wouldn't say either of them is a prototypical anything. Both are tweeners, one a F, one a G. Both has mixed skill sets, with Gordon a better scorer/shooter than passer but measuring to a PG or a little higher (6'4?). Williams is more a PF with interior game and an outside shot to compliment (rather than the other way) but measures more like an SF.

Fact is, Gordon is a PROVEN commodity that JUST net the Clippers the best PG in the game (along with other pieces, but he was the most important piece clearly).

And if Minny was able offer derrick Williams, their 2012 #1, Wes Johnson, a Chris Kaman clone and Paul was willing to stay in Minny, Paul would be a wolf right now.

[Danimals]

However, a trade between the two will never happen while NOH owns the MIN pick. NOH would need to deal the pick first, or MIN would need to add a quality center to devalue the pick. Until then, we don't need to think about a trade.

'I could imagine such a trade still going down around the trade deadline, as long as MIN weren't actually in a position where they were close enough to a playoff-berth that Gordon could immediately come in and swing it for them in however many games might be left.
--In fact, if MIN had actually devalued the pick enough already, such that NO might be concerned that it wouldn't even be in the lottery, might it not be possible that NO could be willing to just trade the pick back to MIN with Gordon, while receiving, say, Anthony Randolph/Nikola Pekovic along w/Williams?'
-my apologies to Ian Kognitow for not knowing how to use the quote function properly

I guess this is what I was getting at:

Is there any way Nola trades Gordon and the pick back to Minny? Are Okafor, Ariza, or even Kaman contracts that NO wants to move to save money?

How far off is something like this?

Okafor + Gordon + Ariza + MN pick for

Williams, Pekovic, Randolph, Webster (un-guaranteed next year) + Miller (un-guaranteed next year) + Memphis 1st + Utah 1st + future MN 1st + what else from MN?

MN goes win now and locks in their team long term with extensions to Love and Gordon:

Rubio- Ridnour
Gordon- Barea
Ariza- Johnson
Love- Beasley
Okafor- Milicic

Nola commits even further to the rebuild with more youth and picks, while saving longterm money on complementary players:

Jack- Vasquez
Webster- Bellineli
Williams- Aminu
Landry- Randolph
Kaman- Pekovic- Randolph

+ their own first and 3 other future firsts

Ok, have at me...