Author Topic: We might get Ben Gordon instead of Humphries  (Read 6360 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: We might get Ben Gordon instead of Humphries
« Reply #15 on: June 28, 2013, 10:05:05 AM »

Offline action781

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5217
  • Tommy Points: 609
He will be shipped in a one-on-one deal probably for Ben Gordon since the Bobcats are rumored to be interested in Humphries.
I'd love to hear these conversations inside the Bobcats intelligence over their interest in Humphries.  As if they have some kind of master plan that involves Kris Humphries being part of it.

2020 CelticsStrong All-2000s Draft -- Utah Jazz
 
Finals Starters:  Jason Kidd - Reggie Miller - PJ Tucker - Al Horford - Shaq
Bench:  Rajon Rondo - Trae Young - Marcus Smart - Jaylen Brown -  Peja Stojakovic - Jamal Mashburn - Carlos Boozer - Tristan Thompson - Mehmet Okur

Re: We might get Ben Gordon instead of Humphries
« Reply #16 on: June 28, 2013, 10:05:42 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
What's the point?
Roster balance (we do need an extra guard, and are pretty well stocked with bigs at this point). And perhaps they'll send a pick with it.

Also, I don't think there are immediate plans for big free agency splash next year, so taking on the extra year of BG's salary is likely not that critical.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: We might get Ben Gordon instead of Humphries
« Reply #17 on: June 28, 2013, 10:09:56 AM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
What's the point?

Well, I think the point is, this team could still win games.  And I think there is a decent chance Danny is working under a directive from ownership to not tank unless absolutely necessary.

Humphries doesn't really help the C's, but if you swap him for Gordon, that is actually interesting.

They would be a center away from having the chance to be a scrappy team that could actually be a hard out in the East, if their chemistry can come together (and Wallace can get hooked up with Pierce and KG's HGH dealer).

Everyone seems convinced that this team is tanking, but the reality is, if Rondo is still on the team, they are way too talented to have much of a chance at a good pick.  But, they are only another player or two away from fighting for maybe the 4th or 5th seed in the East.

Let's say they swap Humphries for Gordon, and then maybe Lee and a future #1 for Gortat.

Suddenly you have this roster:

PG: Rondo
SG: Bradley, Gordon (who could be great with Rondo)
SF: Green, Wallace
PF: Wallace, Sully
C: Gortat, Olynyk

That isn't a championship roster by any means.  But in the East, they could be a very solid playoff team, and perhaps even more importantly, kind of entertaining.

Meh, if Danny wanted to put out a mediocre middle-seed quality team next season he could have held onto Pierce and Garnett and not taken on additional long term salary in the form of Gerald Wallace.

As the team is currently constructed I just don't see how they're going to win very many games.  They could be a decent team if they exhange some of their assets to get players like Gortat to shore up the rotation, but what's the point?

I think ownership is okay with a tank job as long as it only lasts for a season or two.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain

Re: We might get Ben Gordon instead of Humphries
« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2013, 10:13:23 AM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
What's the point?

Well, I think the point is, this team could still win games.  And I think there is a decent chance Danny is working under a directive from ownership to not tank unless absolutely necessary.

Humphries doesn't really help the C's, but if you swap him for Gordon, that is actually interesting.

They would be a center away from having the chance to be a scrappy team that could actually be a hard out in the East, if their chemistry can come together (and Wallace can get hooked up with Pierce and KG's HGH dealer).

Everyone seems convinced that this team is tanking, but the reality is, if Rondo is still on the team, they are way too talented to have much of a chance at a good pick.  But, they are only another player or two away from fighting for maybe the 4th or 5th seed in the East.

Let's say they swap Humphries for Gordon, and then maybe Lee and a future #1 for Gortat.

Suddenly you have this roster:

PG: Rondo
SG: Bradley, Gordon (who could be great with Rondo)
SF: Green, Wallace
PF: Wallace, Sully
C: Gortat, Olynyk

That isn't a championship roster by any means.  But in the East, they could be a very solid playoff team, and perhaps even more importantly, kind of entertaining.

Meh, if Danny wanted to put out a mediocre middle-seed quality team next season he could have held onto Pierce and Garnett and not taken on additional long term salary in the form of Gerald Wallace.

As the team is currently constructed I just don't see how they're going to win very many games.  They could be a decent team if they exhange some of their assets to get players like Gortat to shore up the rotation, but what's the point?

I think ownership is okay with a tank job as long as it only lasts for a season or two.

If he held onto KG and Pierce, he wouldn't have gotten 3 future first rounders that could be very valuable going forward.

While I am not positive, I think there is a good chance that Danny is trying to collect assets, and still put a quality product on the floor at the same time.  I think that is what he has been charged with by ownership.

I really do not think Wyc wants them to tank, unless there is no other choice. 

And the other key is that if you are going to tank, it is for Wiggins.  And you are about as far behind in the tanking race, as you are in the race to be a true contender right now.  The C's would have a LOT more work to do to even be in the discussion for a bottom 7 pick next year. 

I really think people underestimate how bad some of these other teams are.  And don't get it twisted, they will all be trying just as hard as the C's would to tank...but they will have a huge head start at having a truly terrible roster, rather than the mediocre one the C's have.

And when it comes down to getting playoff revenue, or getting the 11th pick...I think Wyc prefers going for the revenue.

Re: We might get Ben Gordon instead of Humphries
« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2013, 10:14:56 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
What's the point?
Roster balance (we do need an extra guard, and are pretty well stocked with bigs at this point). And perhaps they'll send a pick with it.

Also, I don't think there are immediate plans for big free agency splash next year, so taking on the extra year of BG's salary is likely not that critical.
Gordon is expiring just like Humphries.

Re: We might get Ben Gordon instead of Humphries
« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2013, 10:17:00 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
What's the point?
Roster balance (we do need an extra guard, and are pretty well stocked with bigs at this point). And perhaps they'll send a pick with it.

Also, I don't think there are immediate plans for big free agency splash next year, so taking on the extra year of BG's salary is likely not that critical.
Gordon is expiring just like Humphries.
Is he? I thought I saw a PO for the year after this one, but maybe I'm just crazy. So yeah, then "roster balance" is the easy answer.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: We might get Ben Gordon instead of Humphries
« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2013, 10:19:13 AM »

Offline Fafnir

  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30859
  • Tommy Points: 1327
What's the point?
Roster balance (we do need an extra guard, and are pretty well stocked with bigs at this point). And perhaps they'll send a pick with it.

Also, I don't think there are immediate plans for big free agency splash next year, so taking on the extra year of BG's salary is likely not that critical.
Gordon is expiring just like Humphries.
Is he? I thought I saw a PO for the year after this one, but maybe I'm just crazy. So yeah, then "roster balance" is the easy answer.
Technically we're not in the next season yet till july 1st. Messes me up at shamsports too just because mentally I'm already onto next season.

Re: We might get Ben Gordon instead of Humphries
« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2013, 10:34:37 AM »

Offline pearljammer10

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13129
  • Tommy Points: 885
Couldn't we see if Jordan and Charlotte are dumb enough to take Wallace and first for Gordon first. I hate humphries, also dislike Gordon. But at least try to get two hefty expirings before dealing humphries.

Re: We might get Ben Gordon instead of Humphries
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2013, 10:37:17 AM »

Offline tyrone biggums

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1457
  • Tommy Points: 91
I'd trade the Clippers first and Crash for Gordon just to get that horrendous contract the hell out of town. I doubt the LOLcats are that dumb...or are they?

Re: We might get Ben Gordon instead of Humphries
« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2013, 10:37:49 AM »

Offline Cman

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13068
  • Tommy Points: 120
What's the point?
Roster balance (we do need an extra guard, and are pretty well stocked with bigs at this point). And perhaps they'll send a pick with it.

Also, I don't think there are immediate plans for big free agency splash next year, so taking on the extra year of BG's salary is likely not that critical.
Gordon is expiring just like Humphries.
Is he? I thought I saw a PO for the year after this one, but maybe I'm just crazy. So yeah, then "roster balance" is the easy answer.

If the rumor is true, I think it is more than roster balance. I think Gordon could be more of a trade commodity than Humphries, and hence a more valuable asset for Danny to build with. So long as the Cs don't have to give up any picks in a Humphries for Gordon swap, it is a no-brainer.
Celtics fan for life.

Re: We might get Ben Gordon instead of Humphries
« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2013, 10:39:25 AM »

Offline kozlodoev

  • NCE
  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17914
  • Tommy Points: 1294
What's the point?
Roster balance (we do need an extra guard, and are pretty well stocked with bigs at this point). And perhaps they'll send a pick with it.

Also, I don't think there are immediate plans for big free agency splash next year, so taking on the extra year of BG's salary is likely not that critical.
Gordon is expiring just like Humphries.
Is he? I thought I saw a PO for the year after this one, but maybe I'm just crazy. So yeah, then "roster balance" is the easy answer.
Technically we're not in the next season yet till july 1st. Messes me up at shamsports too just because mentally I'm already onto next season.
No, I realize that -- I thought I was keeping an eye open for it, but must have "mislooked".

I also get the notion that Gordon may be a better trading chip at the deadline, he's decidedly the more established player between the two, and perhaps the better reclamation project. Although both of them fell off a cliff last season.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."

Re: We might get Ben Gordon instead of Humphries
« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2013, 10:39:48 AM »

Offline AB_Celtic

  • DKC Commish
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3234
  • Tommy Points: 460
IMO, a big portion of this would be that Gordon is just more likable than Humphries, and could help (slightly) fill seats during next season.

Re: We might get Ben Gordon instead of Humphries
« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2013, 11:00:44 AM »

Offline Smitty77

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3063
  • Tommy Points: 269
Ben Gordon at TOP SHOOTER??:-)))))  He shot LESS THAN 41% from the floor "this" (last) year.

http://www.nba.com/playerfile/ben_gordon/

Smitty77

Re: We might get Ben Gordon instead of Humphries
« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2013, 11:03:57 AM »

Offline D.o.s.

  • NCE
  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14061
  • Tommy Points: 1239
What's the point?

Never having to root for Kris Humphries is fine with me.
At least a goldfish with a Lincoln Log on its back goin' across your floor to your sock drawer has a miraculous connotation to it.

Re: We might get Ben Gordon instead of Humphries
« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2013, 11:05:36 AM »

Offline PhoSita

  • NCE
  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21835
  • Tommy Points: 2182
What's the point?

Well, I think the point is, this team could still win games.  And I think there is a decent chance Danny is working under a directive from ownership to not tank unless absolutely necessary.

Humphries doesn't really help the C's, but if you swap him for Gordon, that is actually interesting.

They would be a center away from having the chance to be a scrappy team that could actually be a hard out in the East, if their chemistry can come together (and Wallace can get hooked up with Pierce and KG's HGH dealer).

Everyone seems convinced that this team is tanking, but the reality is, if Rondo is still on the team, they are way too talented to have much of a chance at a good pick.  But, they are only another player or two away from fighting for maybe the 4th or 5th seed in the East.

Let's say they swap Humphries for Gordon, and then maybe Lee and a future #1 for Gortat.

Suddenly you have this roster:

PG: Rondo
SG: Bradley, Gordon (who could be great with Rondo)
SF: Green, Wallace
PF: Wallace, Sully
C: Gortat, Olynyk

That isn't a championship roster by any means.  But in the East, they could be a very solid playoff team, and perhaps even more importantly, kind of entertaining.

Meh, if Danny wanted to put out a mediocre middle-seed quality team next season he could have held onto Pierce and Garnett and not taken on additional long term salary in the form of Gerald Wallace.

As the team is currently constructed I just don't see how they're going to win very many games.  They could be a decent team if they exhange some of their assets to get players like Gortat to shore up the rotation, but what's the point?

I think ownership is okay with a tank job as long as it only lasts for a season or two.

If he held onto KG and Pierce, he wouldn't have gotten 3 future first rounders that could be very valuable going forward.

While I am not positive, I think there is a good chance that Danny is trying to collect assets, and still put a quality product on the floor at the same time.  I think that is what he has been charged with by ownership.

I really do not think Wyc wants them to tank, unless there is no other choice. 

And the other key is that if you are going to tank, it is for Wiggins.  And you are about as far behind in the tanking race, as you are in the race to be a true contender right now.  The C's would have a LOT more work to do to even be in the discussion for a bottom 7 pick next year. 

I really think people underestimate how bad some of these other teams are.  And don't get it twisted, they will all be trying just as hard as the C's would to tank...but they will have a huge head start at having a truly terrible roster, rather than the mediocre one the C's have.

And when it comes down to getting playoff revenue, or getting the 11th pick...I think Wyc prefers going for the revenue.


I don't think I have any illusions.

This team right now is set up to win 25-30 games, which would be good enough for a pick in the 5-10 range but not worse / better than that.

I think they'll probably trade Rondo and perhaps another asset or two around the trade deadline though (and Lee is probably still on the block), so though Danny has the pieces to make the team respectable without too much trouble, it also wouldn't be that hard to blast a few more holes in the hull of this ship.
You’ll have to excuse my lengthiness—the reason I dread writing letters is because I am so apt to get to slinging wisdom & forget to let up. Thus much precious time is lost.
- Mark Twain