Last summer, before the Artest acquisition, I was one of the people who was hoping we could make a play for Gordon. I know all signs pointed to him not opting out but I just felt that he would fit well with Adelman. I am aware of some of the criticisms of his game, like the fact that he isn't a PG and is undersized for a SG. I've also heard is defense is suspect but I don't know enough to form a real opinion on that part of his game. I'm sure there are some other complaints. At the very minimum, he is easily one of the most deadly 6th men in the league when he's coming off the bench. How do you all feel about Gordon's game and, hypothetically, how he would fit with our team? A_3P0, I'm sure you have some good insight on this topic.
Gimmick player. Potentially great to have depending on the price. Only worth 6mil max, thats the thing.
Adding another chucker? No thanks... and one like Ben Gordon? I mean he's only as good as a role player on most night. NO THANKS!
I bet he feels like a dumbass turning down that extension from the Bulls, now the market will be bad this upcoming summer with all the teams going cheap and the luxury tax possibly going down.
I agree that he wants more than he deserves but here's my question for you: Would you like to have a guy like him as your backup 2 if he was willing to take the MLE and come off the bench? I know that he will ask for and likely receive more than that but given those parameters, would you be for it? Dude is shooting 45+/40+/86+ this season and nearly 44/42/86 for his career.
He's certainly a volume shooter but a bad shooter, he is not. The connotation of the word "chucker" typically implies a bad volume shooter, a la Tracy McGrady.
Ya. He is the prototypical spark player. The defense has to reconfigure their attack to combat him. You think JR Smith kills us, Gordan is twice as good. A championship caliber player... off the bench.
Here is a spinoff question: Let's say magically the Rockets got Gordon for the MLE next season and either Artest or Battier were gone (meaning the remaining of the two would be our starting SF). You are left with Wafer, Gordon and Barry as your options at the 2. Who would you start?
No Gorden. He's a ball stopper. If we make a play it's trade T-macs contract for a great young player and some contract filler
Gordon is a very good gun off the bench but he's sees himself as being much better. When his shot is on, Gordon is almost impossible to stop. What keeps him from being a star is he isn't the smartest player out there, has a habit of making very bad decisions late in games when defenses squeeze him and, of course, bad defense. There are times when Gordon is lights out for 45 minutes and he terrorizes the other team. Then in the last couple of minutes, a good defensive team will make an adjustment, he won't react well and will turn the ball over a couple of times and take extremely difficult shots that miss. As a 6th man sparkplug, Ben Gordon is a championship caliber player. He would be a great addition to the Rockets.
You and Ziggy seem to feel that way. I wonder how Morey and Adelman would see it. I have a feeling Adelman would like a player like him. I could be wrong. I know the shooting percentages would impress Morey, and anybody else for that matter. I don't know how he would feel about the more obscure numbers.
I'd be curious to see the so-called moneyball stats for Gordon that a guy like Morey uses. From personal observation, I see very few intangibles from him. Like almost none.
Other then outside shooting and decent handles, what else can that guy do? A short 2 guard specialist...
I just took a look at his shooting percentage around the basket. You're right in that he is average, at best, from that area over his career. He's never shot 50% or better from that spot, unlike guys like Parker, Harris, Paul, etc... who are among the best, annually shooting well over 50% from that spot. I seem to remember him being a very good finisher at the basket. I guess I was wrong. To his credit, he has improved in recent years compared to his first couple of seasons and is shooting a career best 49%+ from that area this season. He also gets to the line 4-5 times a game over his career. This season, he ranks 30th in total FTM, 35th in total FTAs and 40th in FTM per 48 minutes.
If a weapon like Gordon is WILLING to come off the bench for even 6 mill a year, why in the world would you not want him??? In my opinion as a team, w/o T-Mac, we are a poor in the jump-shooting department. Look at the opportunities Mo Williams created for Cleveland! As for the lapse in judgment argument, if we can utilize Wafer, I don't see why Gordon would be a problem. Coming into a perennial contender like the Rockets, I think he would immediately understand his role on the team. Emphatic YES from this Rocket fan!
I'm 5'11 but that has nothing to do with the kind of player I like. I was just anti-Rafer and liked what I saw out of Brooks during his first Summer League, which happened to be when I created this ID. I had been reading this site for a few years before I finally joined. I have long wanted a replacement for Rafer because I didn't think he fit with a McGrady/Yao based team and was hoping Brooks would be the answer. At this point, I'm hoping that Lowry is the answer and that Brooks will be a good scoring PG off the bench or that we trade one of these guys for a better option than both. I could care less if we end up trading Brooks if it brings us something to improve the team. And I didn't bring up Gordon because of his size. He just happens to be a guy who was rumored to be possibly available this past summer and is going to be a UFA this summer. I would kill for LeBron James who is 6'8 but I'm sticking with reality.
Have you seen McGrady's shooting percentages since he's been a Rocket? McGrady's length allowed him to make some contested jumpers that few other players in the league could make but that doesn't make him a good shooter. His shot selection was bad and his form was less than ideal, not that you can't be a good shooter with poor form (See: Martin, Kevin). There was also the problem of ballstopping and him needing the ball in his hands to be effective. His court vision may have led to some good shots for others at times but it also stagnated the offense. On top of all that, it made Rafer effectively a spot up shooter, taking away Rafer's best attributes which were ballhandling and playmaking.
Not gonna happen. As mentioned, this would only work if he would agree to come off the bench but he simply wont be willing to do that. Trying to start him creates a nightmare from a coach and GM's standpoint. One of the reasons Chicago was so high on Hinrich is because he's a 6'3"-6'4" true point that could feasibly start next to Gordon then cross-match defensively to compensate for Gordon's lack of height and inability to run the point. I don't see how that works with two 6'0" PG's like Brooks or Lowry that lack the height to offer that type of flexibility. Don't get me wrong, if you somehow convinced him to sign for MLE I would welcome the idea with open arms. I just think his services will definitely go to the highest bidder. He took a $6M qualifying offer this past summer to buy more time NOT because he feels he's a $5-7M per year level player.
I live in Chicago and watch every Bulls game and you don't really want Gordon on your team. As others have said, he has the skills to be a good role player/spark plug for a great time, but he'll never be happy with that. He thinks he is a star, he's a chucker, doesn't set up his teammates, and when he's hot he WILL force bad shots to the detriment of the team. The Bulls have had a lot of close games that he's hurt them by forcing an offbalance shot with three guys in his face because he thinks he's a superstar. Of course there are games he just goes OFF, like tonight in Miami...like I said you want him as a role playing scorer because he doesn't do anything else particularly well, but it won't work because he will always want to be the first or second option. If he's one of your top three options (like he is in Chicago), you'll never win anything.
