Trade Rumor: Gordon for Humphries

Post #1 » by **fatlever** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:04 pm

Discuss here

Liver_Pooty · Post #2 » by **Liver_Pooty** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:06 pm

Big no brainer trade for Charlotte.

MasterIchiro · Post #3 » by **MasterIchiro** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:08 pm

1) Without Gordon, I believe a shooting guard becomes more of a need in the draft (McLemore, Shabazz or Smart).

2) Humphries comliments Al Jefferson well so I hope the Bobcats plan to sign Big Al.

3) I'd want Marshon Brooks back in the deal as a cheaper long term backup and would include Henderson.

4) Does the addition of Humphries free up the POR pick where we might would have taken a big?

Post #4 » by **BigSlam** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:10 pm

Start Humphries next to Mully or Haywood or Tyrus or Warrick for that matter.

Just start Humphries and send Biz to the D for the rest of the year.

Post #5 » by **fatlever** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:11 pm

deal makes sense for both teams if you ask me. we desperately need a big man who can rebound and score a at least a little bit. nets could use some more shooters to space the floor for lopez and wallace to operate. salaries are similar in amount and years. we obviously liked humphries this summer. hump will probably have more value next year as well if we decide to move him.

ohara · Post #6 » by **ohara** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:11 pm

I like it. But my gut tells me this would be step 1 in a 2 step plan of Cho's.

Post #7 » by **BigSlam** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:12 pm

MasterIchiro wrote:1) Without Gordon, I believe a shooting guard becomes more of a need in the draft (McLemore, Shabazz or Smart).

Why? It's not like BG is in our long term plans any ways.

2) Humphries comliments Al Jefferson well so I hope the Bobcats plan to sign Big Al.

How does he?

3) I'd want Marshon Brooks back in the deal as a cheaper long term backup and would include Henderson.

Like Turtle?

4) Does the addition of Humphries free up the POR pick where we might would have taken a big

Adding a guy like Humphries doesn't impact what you should or shouldn't do with draft picks.

He'd be a stop gap at best.

Fred Williamson · Post #8 » by **Fred Williamson** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:13 pm

no brainer for us but I don't understand why Nets want to do this. They want 3point shooting, but it's not like Gordon is a spot up shooter, who's going to wait outside for an open shot. You already have a backcourt filled with ball-dominant guards and now you want Gordon? You get the same production from Johnson and Brooks.

dmutombo321 · Post #9 » by **dmutombo321** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:17 pm

Reggie Evans emergence has relegated Humph to the Bench and they still have Blatche as well.

Liver_Pooty · Post #10 » by **Liver_Pooty** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:17 pm

Fred Williamson wrote:no brainer for us but I don't understand why Nets want to do this. They want 3point shooting, but it's not like Gordon is a spot up shooter, who's going to wait outside for an open shot. You already have a backcourt filled with ball-dominant guards and now you want Gordon? You get the same production from Johnson and Brooks.

Evans can give them almost what Humphries can while also expressing a need in regards to.spacing the floor which might help Wallace snap out of his slump. Im surprised they haven't agreed to it yet.

Post #11 » by **fatlever** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:19 pm

reading that it was charlotte that proposed this trade and not the nets makes me less optimistic.

gordon needs to have a big night tonight so he can catfish the nets.

Marvel · Post #12 » by **Marvel** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:32 pm

I hate Humphries. He's just one of those guys i hate in this league. I would have preferred a low post banger like Al Jefferson at PF. Hump isn't a guy you can go to down low, none of our bigs are. He does help our rebounding though. I've never liked BG either and i didn't like him and Sessions both gunning off the bench. Maybe now, if this trade goes down, it'll mean more minutes for Viking.

Marvel · Post #13 » by **Marvel** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:33 pm

JT2006 · Post #14 » by **JT2006** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:34 pm

As I've said a few times already, really think there has to be one or two more pieces even if it's something stupid like swapping our second with their late first to get us in better draft position. Though they probably don't own any picks for like a million years, some sort of value would be nice. But I guess if we proposed it we wouldn't get it.

Fred Williamson · Post #15 » by **Fred Williamson** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:38 pm

agree with Marvel. sure he's an upgrade, but it seems like another typical bobcats trade. just another player who lacks skills but compensates with hustle and effort. meh

Liver_Pooty · Post #16 » by **Liver_Pooty** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:42 pm

Feel like Im watching the show Barter Kings. Move Maggette for a first and Gordon. Then move Gordon for Humphries. Then possibly move Humphries etc..

MasterIchiro · Post #17 » by **MasterIchiro** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:49 pm

Liver_Pooty wrote:Feel like Im watching the show Barter Kings. Move Maggette for a first and Gordon. Then move Gordon for Humphries. Then possibly move Humphries etc..

Yes and move Humphries and the POR pick to Chicago for Boozer and our Tyrus Thomas pick...

thruthefire · Post #18 » by **thruthefire** » Fri Feb 8, 2013 11:58 pm

It makes sense perfect sense for us.

Vanderbilt_Grad · Post #19 » by **Vanderbilt_Grad** » Sat Feb 9, 2013 12:14 am

This is a trade the Bobcats should do.

JT2006 · Post #20 » by **JT2006** » Sat Feb 9, 2013 12:20 am

we updated our facebook cover photo and gordon isn't in it