Why would Boston want Eric Gordon?
Because he’s shooting 44.5% from 3 on 5 attempts a game, and is a capable passer, two things that the Celtics have need for in the rotation.
He makes a lot of money, is old, and doesn't elevate Boston's title chances. Good way to hamstring future flexibility on a player that adds very little especially since he plays no defense. There also aren't a ton of minutes available for him to play. I just don't see the point.
Yeah, I don't think anyone is suggesting to give up real assets for Gordon, but in this deal it's basically Horford for Gordon. Gordon is less old, less expensive, and arguably more productive than Horford at this stage of their careers. If you're getting Theis back too (who gives you probably 90% of what Horford does at this point), you can make the argument it's worth giving up one of our middling young guys.
I didn't realize the last year on Gordon at 21 million is non-guaranteed. That isn't as bad then. So just 18.3 rest of this year and 19.5 next year. That makes it more palatable, but that is still a pretty big number for a role player/back up on a team that isn't contending and who isn't exactly playing a position of need.
I guess I disagree on this a lot. We clearly need a bench scoring option who's a threat as a shooter. Richardson is a fine player, arguably better than Gordon, but he's not someone who you can look to for scoring when your team needs those points. Gordon can be that guy. He also is capable of being a secondary shot creator for others, again, not something Richardson has shown he's terribly good at. Thirdly, we simply need one more player on the bench that Ime can reliably put in without wondering how things are going to go a given evening. Gordon could make it so that Tatum doesn't have to play 38-40 minutes every time a game is close, thus giving him the energy to finish stronger in the 4th quarter. We're 9-16 in close games and 3-6 in one score games. But our net rating is 7th in the NBA, which is a lot closer to contending than being a lottery team. A guy like Gordon could help a lot on the margins with this team.
Also, next season we have three choices with Al: 1) Stretch him, having about a $5 million unmovable cap hit on the books for three years, 2) Waive him, thus having a $14.5 million hit next year, also unmovable, or 3) keep him for $26.5 million. It seems to me #3 is highly unlikely. I think that having Gordon on the roster next year at $19.5 million is better than having a dead cap hit of $14.5 million, so he's superior to #2. And if we really want the most room under the tax or apron, Gordon at $19.5 million with the following year unguaranteed will be easier to move than Horford, or if we were desperate, as a last resort he'd actually have a smaller hit if stretched, because he can be stretched over 5 years.
It's not a home run trade, but I don't think there's a home run trade out there. I think it would make the team better over the next two years without closing off any of our longer-term options should a home run present itself.
