Gordon re-signs with the nuggets !

[The Rebel]

And they let Jerami Grant walk for 60m/3 yr.

Grant was an unrestricted free agent and did not leave due to money. He openly spoke about why he left Denver multiple times and it had nothing to do with money.

[hauntedcomputer]

while im big fan of the core, they werent even close to championships and this is their peak considering murray, jokic is already in their prime.

Murray is 23, Jokic is 25 and both players should age very well. This is the kind of core worth keeping for a few runs.

[Sgt Major]

Jokic is 26

[PhilBlackson]

Jokic is 26

Time to hang his jersey.

[FNQ]

It's an overpay, but Denver can't risk losing him for nothing like they did with Grant.

I would have risked it.. he was a large expiring that could have been salary filler (with MPJ/Hyland) if a star became available... and with Joker/Murray as a solid big 2, Denver might look like an attractive destination to a star who's bailing on their current team.

I'm not sure Gordon would get this on the open market and he'd still have signed this in the offseason, barring an excellent season. Wouldn't have played it safe personally but its not like this hurts DEN now, still looking like a top 3 team

[Richard Miller]

It's an overpay, but Denver can't risk losing him for nothing like they did with Grant.

I would have risked it.. he was a large expiring that could have been salary filler (with MPJ/Hyland) if a star became available... and with Joker/Murray as a solid big 2, Denver might look like an attractive destination to a star who's bailing on their current team.

16 mil. expiring is not exactly large, and a borderline star is not worth Gordon + MPJ or Hyland either

[BelgradeNugget]

It's an overpay, but Denver can't risk losing him for nothing like they did with Grant.

I would have risked it.. he was a large expiring that could have been salary filler (with MPJ/Hyland) if a star became available... and with Joker/Murray as a solid big 2, Denver might look like an attractive destination to a star who's bailing on their current team.

I'm not sure Gordon would get this on the open market and he'd still have signed this in the offseason, barring an excellent season. Wouldn't have played it safe personally but its not like this hurts DEN now, still looking like a top 3 team

Which star - Curry, KD, Kawhi, Luka? I hope people don't expect us to trade MPJ for Simmons/Beal type of players because his shooting efficiency is on the level of Curry/KD and with increase in volume his efficiency is better. MPJ is in his 3rd year getting better from month to month. One of the reason AG is so valuable to Denver is his ability to guard SFs and PFs to protect MPJ defensively. Similar to what Klay is doing for GS and Steph. You can say that Beal is similar player to Klay, he is even better ball handler and creator, but when you look at Klay's value to GS, I'm pretty sure GS wouldn't trade healthy Klay for Beal.

[FNQ]

It's an overpay, but Denver can't risk losing him for nothing like they did with Grant.

I would have risked it.. he was a large expiring that could have been salary filler (with MPJ/Hyland) if a star became available... and with Joker/Murray as a solid big 2, Denver might look like an attractive destination to a star who's bailing on their current team.

I'm not sure Gordon would get this on the open market and he'd still have signed this in the offseason, barring an excellent season. Wouldn't have played it safe personally but its not like this hurts DEN now, still looking like a top 3 team

Which star - Curry, KD, Kawhi, Luka? I hope people don't expect us to trade MPJ for Simmons/Beal type of players because his shooting efficiency is on the level of Curry/KD and with increase in volume his efficiency is better. MPJ is in his 3rd year getting better from month to month. One of the reason AG is so valuable to Denver is his ability to guard SFs and PFs to protect MPJ defensively. Similar to what Klay is doing for GS and Steph. You can say that Beal is similar player to Klay, he is even better ball handler and creator, but when you look at Klay's value to GS, I'm pretty sure GS wouldn't trade healthy Klay for Beal.

Do you even need me to respond? Seems like you're having the whole conversation by yourself.. I'm not suggesting either Simmons or Beal and wouldn't.

Much like I argued with the Warriors, you don't *force* a trade. You simply make yourself ready if one becomes available. The idea that keeping assets around solely for targets you already have.. it makes no sense. Especially as a justification for overpaying a guy who may not have commanded that on the open market next offseason, when there was no real urgency to do so. AG didn't even play very well for the Nuggets. So like I said - big risk with a very slim hope for it being the right move to make.

What was the risk from your side? How well would AG have to play to get 92M on the open market? And even in the unlikely event he's worth that coin, is it worth basically closing the door on a potential high-end acquisition to save whatever the difference would be?

Nah, this all seems very short sighted. Denver's already in a great position so it shouldn't affect them, but this isnt a saavy move by any means

[FNQ]

It's an overpay, but Denver can't risk losing him for nothing like they did with Grant.

I would have risked it.. he was a large expiring that could have been salary filler (with MPJ/Hyland) if a star became available... and with Joker/Murray as a solid big 2, Denver might look like an attractive destination to a star who's bailing on their current team.

16 mil. expiring is not exactly large, and a borderline star is not worth Gordon + MPJ or Hyland either

Uh yeah it is. Especially when MPJ+Hyland would push it into the 30+m range of salaries they could bring back.

Also I guess I assumed people would understand that the whole deal wasn't laid out, because I didnt want to list every potential trade asset the Nuggets had, deciding to go with the main pieces - the big expiring salary, the young established player with star potential, the newest draft pick. We can talk about the pick swaps and protected picks they can offer as well.. other filler like the Greens, Campazzo, Bol, maybe even Monte.

But then again I remember the return for Kawhi so who really knows.. and thats why you keep your flexibility up until you cant anymore. Denver chose not to, I think that's not a wise call for a team that got swept in the semis

[BelgradeNugget]

I would have risked it.. he was a large expiring that could have been salary filler (with MPJ/Hyland) if a star became available... and with Joker/Murray as a solid big 2, Denver might look like an attractive destination to a star who's bailing on their current team.

I'm not sure Gordon would get this on the open market and he'd still have signed this in the offseason, barring an excellent season. Wouldn't have played it safe personally but its not like this hurts DEN now, still looking like a top 3 team

Which star - Curry, KD, Kawhi, Luka? I hope people don't expect us to trade MPJ for Simmons/Beal type of players because his shooting efficiency is on the level of Curry/KD and with increase in volume his efficiency is better. MPJ is in his 3rd year getting better from month to month. One of the reason AG is so valuable to Denver is his ability to guard SFs and PFs to protect MPJ defensively. Similar to what Klay is doing for GS and Steph. You can say that Beal is similar player to Klay, he is even better ball handler and creator, but when you look at Klay's value to GS, I'm pretty sure GS wouldn't trade healthy Klay for Beal.

Do you even need me to respond? Seems like you're having the whole conversation by yourself.. I'm not suggesting either Simmons or Beal and wouldn't.

Much like I argued with the Warriors, you don't *force* a trade. You simply make yourself ready if one becomes available. The idea that keeping assets around solely for targets you already have.. it makes no sense. Especially as a justification for overpaying a guy who may not have commanded that on the open market next offseason, when there was no real urgency to do so. AG didn't even play very well for the Nuggets. So like I said - big risk with a very slim hope for it being the right move to make.

What was the risk from your side? How well would AG have to play to get 92M on the open market? And even in the unlikely event he's worth that coin, is it worth basically closing the door on a potential high-end acquisition to save whatever the difference would be?

Nah, this all seems very short sighted. Denver's already in a great position so it shouldn't affect them, but this isnt a saavy move by any means

I wasn't responding to observation about AG or his deal. No, he couldn't get this kind of a deal on open market, you are right. His value? Not big for 29 teams, much bigger for Denver because of his fit with our players.
I was responding to the idea that you combine him with MPJ to trade for a star. The fact is simple - stars that have more value for Denver than MPJ are 30+ y/o on max deals, superstars. If they force a trade they will go where they want (see Harden, AD, KD) and it is not Denver.

[FNQ]

Which star - Curry, KD, Kawhi, Luka? I hope people don't expect us to trade MPJ for Simmons/Beal type of players because his shooting efficiency is on the level of Curry/KD and with increase in volume his efficiency is better. MPJ is in his 3rd year getting better from month to month. One of the reason AG is so valuable to Denver is his ability to guard SFs and PFs to protect MPJ defensively. Similar to what Klay is doing for GS and Steph. You can say that Beal is similar player to Klay, he is even better ball handler and creator, but when you look at Klay's value to GS, I'm pretty sure GS wouldn't trade healthy Klay for Beal.

Do you even need me to respond? Seems like you're having the whole conversation by yourself.. I'm not suggesting either Simmons or Beal and wouldn't.

Much like I argued with the Warriors, you don't *force* a trade. You simply make yourself ready if one becomes available. The idea that keeping assets around solely for targets you already have.. it makes no sense. Especially as a justification for overpaying a guy who may not have commanded that on the open market next offseason, when there was no real urgency to do so. AG didn't even play very well for the Nuggets. So like I said - big risk with a very slim hope for it being the right move to make.

What was the risk from your side? How well would AG have to play to get 92M on the open market? And even in the unlikely event he's worth that coin, is it worth basically closing the door on a potential high-end acquisition to save whatever the difference would be?

Nah, this all seems very short sighted. Denver's already in a great position so it shouldn't affect them, but this isnt a saavy move by any means

I wasn't responding to observation about AG or his deal. No, he couldn't get this kind of a deal on open market, you are right. His value? Not big for 29 teams, much bigger for Denver because of his fit with our players.
I was responding to the idea that you combine him with MPJ to trade for a star. The fact is simple - stars that have more value for Denver than MPJ are 30+ y/o on max deals, superstars. If they force a trade they will go where they want (see Harden, AD, KD) and it is not Denver.

So you just basically said the same thing as the other guy, assuming that there'd be no other assets in the deal. coolcoolcool
GB, I forgot.

[madmaxmedia]

How are they going to afford Murray,'s max Jokic's max, Gordon's 24M and the likely huge extension for MPJ?

Read on Twitter

?s=20

hmm it's definitely a lot of money but i think that starting five, when healthy, is among the best in the league. The west is pretty wide open right now. The lakers are good but there's no boogeyman like the Durant warriors, i could easily see the Nuggets making the finals at some point during this contract.

4th most in the league is reasonable for their level of team IMO, this core is going to cost them money to keep around. They don't have any older vets who will be cap drags in the final years of their contracts, which is a big plus.

They are shootin their shot with a reasonable hand, they might not ever be title favorites but can certainly can be strong contenders for awhile (as Nets, Lakers, Clippers get older...)

[Jadoogar]

Read on Twitter

?s=20

hmm it's definitely a lot of money but i think that starting five, when healthy, is among the best in the league. The west is pretty wide open right now. The lakers are good but there's no boogeyman like the Durant warriors, i could easily see the Nuggets making the finals at some point during this contract.

4th most in the league is reasonable for their level of team IMO, this core is going to cost them money to keep around. They don't have any older vets who will be cap drags in the final years of their contracts, which is a big plus.

They are shootin their shot with a reasonable hand, they might not ever be title favorites but can certainly can be strong contenders for awhile (as Nets, Lakers, Clippers get older...)

agree and i'm happy they are going for it. However they are a small market, i wonder how much tax the owners are willing to bear, especially if they don't get the title.

[Poetry-In-Motion]

I would have risked it.. he was a large expiring that could have been salary filler (with MPJ/Hyland) if a star became available... and with Joker/Murray as a solid big 2, Denver might look like an attractive destination to a star who's bailing on their current team.

16 mil. expiring is not exactly large, and a borderline star is not worth Gordon + MPJ or Hyland either

Uh yeah it is. Especially when MPJ+Hyland would push it into the 30+m range of salaries they could bring back.

Also I guess I assumed people would understand that the whole deal wasn't laid out, because I didnt want to list every potential trade asset the Nuggets had, deciding to go with the main pieces - the big expiring salary, the young established player with star potential, the newest draft pick. We can talk about the pick swaps and protected picks they can offer as well.. other filler like the Greens, Campazzo, Bol, maybe even Monte.

But then again I remember the return for Kawhi so who really knows.. and thats why you keep your flexibility up until you cant anymore. Denver chose not to, I think that's not a wise call for a team that got swept in the semis

1) I think Gordon is a great fit on the Nuggets considering how many playmakers and shot makers are on the Nuggets now, but Gordon can still be tradeable and despite getting a big contract would be considered even a greater asset to another team trading for him than he would be on an expiring deal. The new team would have to give the same contract or risk of him losing for nothing anyways.

Your thinking of expiring contracts being valuable is only true when a team would want to be trading for the contract and not the player. If the player is valuable, just like in this case where Gordon is, you would want that player locked up thus increasing the value of the asset that the Nuggets have.

2) To wait for a hypothetical star to become available isn't the best managing when your team is already a contender. You're talking about a team that was the top 3 seed in the West and yes even though they got swept in the 2nd round, you conveniently left out it was without Jamal Murray.

3) Advanced stats have proven how dynamic a lineup consisting of Joker/Murray/MPJ/Gordon has been, and this is without a full training camp together. It was the right move to lock up a player that they traded assets for and has already shown results before Murray going down.

[FNQ]

Your thinking of expiring contracts being valuable is only true when a team would want to be trading for the contract and not the player. If the player is valuable, just like in this case where Gordon is, you would want that player locked up thus increasing the value of the asset that the Nuggets have.

Incorrect. I'm thinking that an expiring Gordon is worth more than a Gordon on a 5/108 contract, which he currently is.

1) I think Gordon is a great fit on the Nuggets considering how many playmakers and shot makers are on the Nuggets now, but Gordon can still be tradeable and despite getting a big contract would be considered even a greater asset to another team trading for him than he would be on an expiring deal. The new team would have to give the same contract or risk of him losing for nothing anyways.

2) To wait for a hypothetical star to become available isn't the best managing when your team is already a contender. You're talking about a team that was the top seed in the West and yes even though they got swept in the 2nd round, you conveniently left out it was without Jamal Murray.

3) Advanced stats have proven how dynamic a lineup consisting of Joker/Murray/MPJ/Gordon has been, and this is without a full training camp together. It was the right move to lock up a player that they traded assets for and has already shown results before Murray going down.

1) he wasn't worth much on a 2 year deal that was more favorable. You think hes a better asset after this contract?

2) yes, it is, when you have no impetus to act. The Nuggets didnt need to extend Gordon. This isnt a free agent situation. This is a guy who had mediocre results upon being dealt to a team that was swept in the semifinals. Sure, without Jamal Murray. Dont think it would have mattered much to the Suns, the series wasnt close

3) the problem is that he isn't the one moving the needle there, at all. That trio's impact was almost 90% of the positive outcome. But its not nothing that AG adds a +2 net to them... its just not likely worth a 92m additional commitment over 4 years after slightly over 2 full games worth of court time together.

As I said, despite the denial in #1, the Nuggets kneecapped their only flexibility for large-scale improvement during the season. They are banking on this roster over the next few seasons, and they didn't have to do it yet. That is short-sighted

[Poetry-In-Motion]

Your thinking of expiring contracts being valuable is only true when a team would want to be trading for the contract and not the player. If the player is valuable, just like in this case where Gordon is, you would want that player locked up thus increasing the value of the asset that the Nuggets have.

Incorrect. I'm thinking that an expiring Gordon is worth more than a Gordon on a 5/108 contract, which he currently is.

1) I think Gordon is a great fit on the Nuggets considering how many playmakers and shot makers are on the Nuggets now, but Gordon can still be tradeable and despite getting a big contract would be considered even a greater asset to another team trading for him than he would be on an expiring deal. The new team would have to give the same contract or risk of him losing for nothing anyways.

2) To wait for a hypothetical star to become available isn't the best managing when your team is already a contender. You're talking about a team that was the top seed in the West and yes even though they got swept in the 2nd round, you conveniently left out it was without Jamal Murray.

3) Advanced stats have proven how dynamic a lineup consisting of Joker/Murray/MPJ/Gordon has been, and this is without a full training camp together. It was the right move to lock up a player that they traded assets for and has already shown results before Murray going down.

1) he wasn't worth much on a 2 year deal that was more favorable. You think hes a better asset after this contract?

2) yes, it is, when you have no impetus to act. The Nuggets didnt need to extend Gordon. This isnt a free agent situation. This is a guy who had mediocre results upon being dealt to a team that was swept in the semifinals. Sure, without Jamal Murray. Dont think it would have mattered much to the Suns, the series wasnt close

3) the problem is that he isn't the one moving the needle there, at all. That trio's impact was almost 90% of the positive outcome. But its not nothing that AG adds a +2 net to them... its just not likely worth a 92m additional commitment over 4 years after slightly over 2 full games worth of court time together.

As I said, despite the denial in #1, the Nuggets kneecapped their only flexibility for large-scale improvement during the season. They are banking on this roster over the next few seasons, and they didn't have to do it yet. That is short-sighted

Yes... That's what I thought you were saying. And I am telling you that is wrong. Aaron Gordon isn't George Hill on an expiring deal where the player and contract's objective is to be flexible in trades. Aaron Gordon is a good player. He's also 26. So hypothetically in any scenario where a team is interested in Aaron Gordon, it would not be for his contract flexibility... They would want him locked up. Even at 5 yrs $100M+.

As for the rest... We just disagree on Gordon's value to the Nuggets. I think he is a great long term fit for the Nuggets.

[madmaxmedia]

hmm it's definitely a lot of money but i think that starting five, when healthy, is among the best in the league. The west is pretty wide open right now. The lakers are good but there's no boogeyman like the Durant warriors, i could easily see the Nuggets making the finals at some point during this contract.

4th most in the league is reasonable for their level of team IMO, this core is going to cost them money to keep around. They don't have any older vets who will be cap drags in the final years of their contracts, which is a big plus.

They are shootin their shot with a reasonable hand, they might not ever be title favorites but can certainly can be strong contenders for awhile (as Nets, Lakers, Clippers get older...)

agree and i'm happy they are going for it. However they are a small market, i wonder how much tax the owners are willing to bear, especially if they don't get the title.

Right. I think small market teams would mostly be willing to pay (up to a certain point!) for a strong contender as that should guarantee strong attendance and fan support. Anything beyond that requires serendipity, good fortune, etc.

[FNQ]

Your thinking of expiring contracts being valuable is only true when a team would want to be trading for the contract and not the player. If the player is valuable, just like in this case where Gordon is, you would want that player locked up thus increasing the value of the asset that the Nuggets have.

Incorrect. I'm thinking that an expiring Gordon is worth more than a Gordon on a 5/108 contract, which he currently is.

1) I think Gordon is a great fit on the Nuggets considering how many playmakers and shot makers are on the Nuggets now, but Gordon can still be tradeable and despite getting a big contract would be considered even a greater asset to another team trading for him than he would be on an expiring deal. The new team would have to give the same contract or risk of him losing for nothing anyways.

2) To wait for a hypothetical star to become available isn't the best managing when your team is already a contender. You're talking about a team that was the top seed in the West and yes even though they got swept in the 2nd round, you conveniently left out it was without Jamal Murray.

3) Advanced stats have proven how dynamic a lineup consisting of Joker/Murray/MPJ/Gordon has been, and this is without a full training camp together. It was the right move to lock up a player that they traded assets for and has already shown results before Murray going down.

1) he wasn't worth much on a 2 year deal that was more favorable. You think hes a better asset after this contract?

2) yes, it is, when you have no impetus to act. The Nuggets didnt need to extend Gordon. This isnt a free agent situation. This is a guy who had mediocre results upon being dealt to a team that was swept in the semifinals. Sure, without Jamal Murray. Dont think it would have mattered much to the Suns, the series wasnt close

3) the problem is that he isn't the one moving the needle there, at all. That trio's impact was almost 90% of the positive outcome. But its not nothing that AG adds a +2 net to them... its just not likely worth a 92m additional commitment over 4 years after slightly over 2 full games worth of court time together.

As I said, despite the denial in #1, the Nuggets kneecapped their only flexibility for large-scale improvement during the season. They are banking on this roster over the next few seasons, and they didn't have to do it yet. That is short-sighted

Yes... That's what I thought you were saying. And I am telling you that is wrong. Aaron Gordon isn't George Hill on an expiring deal where the player and contract's objective is to be flexible in trades. Aaron Gordon is a good player. He's also 26. So hypothetically in any scenario where a team is interested in Aaron Gordon, it would not be for his contract flexibility... They would want him locked up. Even at 5 yrs $100M+.

As for the rest... We just disagree on Gordon's value to the Nuggets. I think he is a great long term fit for the Nuggets.

I think if you put that up in a poll you'd be very surprised.

I'd say, just like the Nuggets, a team that acquires Gordon, who's a capable enough, mid-level, net-netural starter.. they'd want to evaluate him on their team before inking him to a massive contract. The Nuggets did so with very little data to work with, and now cannot pivot nearly as well as before.

And my basis of Gordon's value to the Nuggets is just numbers so far. All we can really go on.. of course there's potential based on his archetype but so far, but the argument that he's a good 4some with Jokic/Murray/MPJ ignores that they did all of the lifting there. I'm not saying AG will be a poor player in Denver, I'm saying there's nothing in the data that reasonably suggests they should have made this move at this time, and based on salary projections, he would have to have an amazing season to earn a FA contract like the one he just got. Would put the odds of that well below 50/50, making this a bad signing. Which is an opinion I actually have, not one on AG's value to the Nuggets, which is tentative at best no matter where you land currently

[Richard Miller]

This is a guy who had mediocre results upon being dealt to a team that was swept in the semifinals. Sure, without Jamal Murray. Dont think it would have mattered much to the Suns, the series wasnt close

So just another box score watcher... figured

[Poetry-In-Motion]

Incorrect. I'm thinking that an expiring Gordon is worth more than a Gordon on a 5/108 contract, which he currently is.



1) he wasn't worth much on a 2 year deal that was more favorable. You think hes a better asset after this contract?

2) yes, it is, when you have no impetus to act. The Nuggets didnt need to extend Gordon. This isnt a free agent situation. This is a guy who had mediocre results upon being dealt to a team that was swept in the semifinals. Sure, without Jamal Murray. Dont think it would have mattered much to the Suns, the series wasnt close

3) the problem is that he isn't the one moving the needle there, at all. That trio's impact was almost 90% of the positive outcome. But its not nothing that AG adds a +2 net to them... its just not likely worth a 92m additional commitment over 4 years after slightly over 2 full games worth of court time together.

As I said, despite the denial in #1, the Nuggets kneecapped their only flexibility for large-scale improvement during the season. They are banking on this roster over the next few seasons, and they didn't have to do it yet. That is short-sighted

Yes... That's what I thought you were saying. And I am telling you that is wrong. Aaron Gordon isn't George Hill on an expiring deal where the player and contract's objective is to be flexible in trades. Aaron Gordon is a good player. He's also 26. So hypothetically in any scenario where a team is interested in Aaron Gordon, it would not be for his contract flexibility... They would want him locked up. Even at 5 yrs $100M+.

As for the rest... We just disagree on Gordon's value to the Nuggets. I think he is a great long term fit for the Nuggets.

I think if you put that up in a poll you'd be very surprised.

I'd say, just like the Nuggets, a team that acquires Gordon, who's a capable enough, mid-level, net-netural starter.. they'd want to evaluate him on their team before inking him to a massive contract. The Nuggets did so with very little data to work with, and now cannot pivot nearly as well as before.

And my basis of Gordon's value to the Nuggets is just numbers so far. All we can really go on.. of course there's potential based on his archetype but so far, but the argument that he's a good 4some with Jokic/Murray/MPJ ignores that they did all of the lifting there. I'm not saying AG will be a poor player in Denver, I'm saying there's nothing in the data that reasonably suggests they should have made this move at this time, and based on salary projections, he would have to have an amazing season to earn a FA contract like the one he just got. Would put the odds of that well below 50/50, making this a bad signing. Which is an opinion I actually have, not one on AG's value to the Nuggets, which is tentative at best no matter where you land currently

Don't judge your opinion what is most popular. And with that being said I disagree on what the poll results might be. I am confident that people on RealGM forum don't classify Aaron Gordon as a net neutral starter. His main value is what he does on the defensive end on the floor. He guards the best big wing or forward on the opposing team. You may not see it on the box score, but you will definitely see it on any advanced metrics report. This is a squad that has been criticized and rightfully so for how weak they were defensively prior to getting Gordon. There's a reason why last summer Portland offered 2 first round picks for Gordon, and Orlando rejected it. It took a full rebuild where other players such as Fournier and Vucevic were dealt in which that Gordon was dealt as well for a pretty good package. He's a valued player.