Aaron Gordon

#1
Because there are threads about Jabari Parker and Julius Randle already, I figured I could add a thread about the other RFA the Kings might go after: Aaron Gordon. Gordon, listed at 6'9" and 220 lb is coming off a much improved season where he managed to increase his scoring to 17.6 points per game. He shot 34% on three pointers, the first season in his career being over 30%, on a career-high 5.9 attempts per game while finally being freed to play at Power Forward. On the first glance, one wonders why would there be a chance that the Magic let this guy walk after this improvement? Well, to start, his numbers, especially the shooting, mostly came from a hot start to begin the year. He shot 59% in October, 40% in November, 36% in December, 21% in January, 33% in February and March and 28% in April. Just as inconsistent was his scoring per game. Meanwhile, Gordon is also not the defender everyone projected him out of college. While he is good, he is not a lock-down defender yet.

If you add all that up, one can see why it isn't a no-brainer for the Magic to match even max-offers, especially because they have so many other big contracts on the book. Their new FO didnt draft him but drafted Isaac, who projects to be similar to Gordon, last year. They already gauged the market value for him at the deadline and if you follow their local media, it seems like both parties might be going different ways in the future. Aaron openly communicates he is worthy of the Max, while the FO seems more hesistant about commiting.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/spor...blog/os-sp-magic-aaron-gordon-0413-story.html

In my opinion, Gordon would be a terrific fit for this Kings team, more-so than Jabari Parker or Julius Randle. If he continues to improve his shooting which I think he will, he would fill two needs at once, namely stretching the floor from the 4-spot and being a big wing to throw at the Lebrons, KDs and Kawhis of the NBA. He would bring a lot of excitement back to California where he is born. The questions is more what would the Kings have to pay so that the Magic don't match? Projected as of today, the Kings don't have the 25 million it would take for a max offer if everyone opts in. However they could create the necessary room if one player opts out, or is stretched, or if they offer Orlando a sign-and-trade where Orlando takes back between 4-5 million at least (WCS would fit the bill though that seems a bit much to give up). Is he worth that, however? It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
 
#4
He probably gets matched, but I’ll play along. He’d definitely require the max...for us at least. I do not think that WCS is too much for a S&T. Gordon and WCS are fairly duplicative, and Gordon seems more versatile and reliable. Of the three RFAs, Gordon is the one where a big time All-Star could be unearthed in a stable environment and a different role. A Gordon reclamation project is the kind of thing we specialized in during the prime Petrie era.

He’d be extemely intriguing if we somehow draft Luka. He could play the 4 on offense, and guard 3s on defense, allowing us to hide Luka on 4s. Then, in crunch time, we slide him to 5 and play Bogi at the 3 and Buddy at 2. It would be a lot of fun, that’s for sure.
 
#6
No thanks to Aaron Gordon, if we even offer a max contract to him it's a recipe for a disaster and on our way to few more years in the situation we are right now...

The guy was out of his mind at the start last year, but then showed what I thought he was even tho he is 22 years old still and will be 23 years old at the start of the season, I still think it would be a mistake to max out Gordon.

Every time I saw the Magic play, Gordon just chucked threes and in the last 12 games of the season it really proved my point, he shot 20/75 from three in those last 12 games it's 26% and the worst thing is he shot 48 % of his shots in that stretch from the three point line, that's awful for a athletic big and ''so called'' stretch 4.

I would rather give that money to Julius Randle if you ask me.
 
#8
He's overrated due to his athleticism. Beyond that he's pretty meh. I can see the Maloof's going nuts over this guy and Petrie having to bust their bubble with a reality check.
 
#10
I love my wildcats but maxing anyone based solely on flashes of potential right now could spell utter disaster for this club. I think we take our chances with the draft and a signing we think can be a complimentary piece to help us make the next step (which for me is the 35-40 win territory, not necessarily an 8 seed). The 2019 pick is gone so we have to show improvement but we still need to maintain flexibility to insure that if next year is a total disaster we aren't frozen for 3-4 more years after that.
 
#11
The only way Orlando doesn't match any offer for Gordon is if they decide to draft Michael Porter or Marvin Bagley. That way they could pair their new draftee with Jonathan Isaac at the other forward position and let them develop together.

At that point a sign and trade could become a possibility but what could we send them in exchange for Gordon?

I could see them fancying De'Aaron Fox, which would only be on the cards if we draft Trae Young. Alternatively I could possibly see them buying Frank Mason to help them at PG and perhaps Willie Cauley-Stein as an "upgrade" over Vucevic. Throw in a future pick somewhere down the line (heavily protected if it is a first round pick) and maybe a deal can be done.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#12
Because there are threads about Jabari Parker and Julius Randle already, I figured I could add a thread about the other RFA the Kings might go after: Aaron Gordon. Gordon, listed at 6'9" and 220 lb is coming off a much improved season where he managed to increase his scoring to 17.6 points per game. He shot 34% on three pointers, the first season in his career being over 30%, on a career-high 5.9 attempts per game while finally being freed to play at Power Forward. On the first glance, one wonders why would there be a chance that the Magic let this guy walk after this improvement? Well, to start, his numbers, especially the shooting, mostly came from a hot start to begin the year. He shot 59% in October, 40% in November, 36% in December, 21% in January, 33% in February and March and 28% in April. Just as inconsistent was his scoring per game. Meanwhile, Gordon is also not the defender everyone projected him out of college. While he is good, he is not a lock-down defender yet.

If you add all that up, one can see why it isn't a no-brainer for the Magic to match even max-offers, especially because they have so many other big contracts on the book. Their new FO didnt draft him but drafted Isaac, who projects to be similar to Gordon, last year. They already gauged the market value for him at the deadline and if you follow their local media, it seems like both parties might be going different ways in the future. Aaron openly communicates he is worthy of the Max, while the FO seems more hesistant about commiting.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/spor...blog/os-sp-magic-aaron-gordon-0413-story.html

In my opinion, Gordon would be a terrific fit for this Kings team, more-so than Jabari Parker or Julius Randle. If he continues to improve his shooting which I think he will, he would fill two needs at once, namely stretching the floor from the 4-spot and being a big wing to throw at the Lebrons, KDs and Kawhis of the NBA. He would bring a lot of excitement back to California where he is born. The questions is more what would the Kings have to pay so that the Magic don't match? Projected as of today, the Kings don't have the 25 million it would take for a max offer if everyone opts in. However they could create the necessary room if one player opts out, or is stretched, or if they offer Orlando a sign-and-trade where Orlando takes back between 4-5 million at least (WCS would fit the bill though that seems a bit much to give up). Is he worth that, however? It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

As you probably know, I'm not an Aaron Gordon fan. First, if Giles turns out to be what everyone hopes he'll be, then how do you distribute the minutes? We don't really have a burning need for another big man, unless he looks like a possible impact player. I personally don't see Gordon as that kind of player. He scored more points this year, but his efficiency wasn't that good. His overall FGP was around 44%. Willie's was around 50%. He grabbed 8/10ths of one rebound a game better than Willie. Willie blocked more shots than Gordon. The only thing he did better than Willie was he scored more points, and he did it by taking more shots.

And to be exact, he shot 33.7% from the three. In his last 10 games he shot 29% from the three, and in his last 20 games he shot 27% from the three. The only reason he ended up over 30% is because at the beginning of the year he shot close to 40% for a couple of months, and then it was all downhill after that. He is a freak athlete, but so is Willie. So I'm confused as to what people are seeing that makes them want to spend 30 mil a year on a player that can't shoot the damm ball from the Three and stat wise, isn't any better than Willie in his third year.
 
#13
If we are able to land Doncic, then Gordon would be ideal as they could flip flop at 3/4 on the defensive and offensive ends. Luka could play “3” on offense, and guard 4s on defense, and vice versa for Gordon. Gordon could then slide to 5 in crunch time against most lineups, with Buddy coming in for extra shooting. If we’re playing the Sixers or something then we probably need to stick with Giles at the 5 and no Buddy in crunch time. Of course, that would also depend on who had the hot hand or matchup between Bogi/Buddy/Fox.

It will definitely take an S&T, and WCS would definitely be the centerpiece of that—plus Mason, ZBo, etc. There are various options after WCS. Anyway, the idea is that WCS won’t be cheap either, after next year, and Gordon offers a more natural lineup fit who seems to mostly embrace his natural role. As opposed to WCS who is so inconsistent and does not embrace his best current fit on this team. It also sets down a marker heading into next summer, indicating that we will be serious players on the FA market. And look at what Gordon has had to deal with—how much would he love playing with three playmakers like Fox, Bogi, and Luka? Lots of hypoheticals, sure, but there is a defined path where Gordon would be a tremndous fit on the team and allocation of draft capital. He’s just a Shawn Marion waiting to emerge.
 
#14
As you probably know, I'm not an Aaron Gordon fan. First, if Giles turns out to be what everyone hopes he'll be, then how do you distribute the minutes? We don't really have a burning need for another big man, unless he looks like a possible impact player. I personally don't see Gordon as that kind of player. He scored more points this year, but his efficiency wasn't that good. His overall FGP was around 44%. Willie's was around 50%. He grabbed 8/10ths of one rebound a game better than Willie. Willie blocked more shots than Gordon. The only thing he did better than Willie was he scored more points, and he did it by taking more shots.

And to be exact, he shot 33.7% from the three. In his last 10 games he shot 29% from the three, and in his last 20 games he shot 27% from the three. The only reason he ended up over 30% is because at the beginning of the year he shot close to 40% for a couple of months, and then it was all downhill after that. He is a freak athlete, but so is Willie. So I'm confused as to what people are seeing that makes them want to spend 30 mil a year on a player that can't shoot the damm ball from the Three and stat wise, isn't any better than Willie in his third year.
I know your stance but still, I have a few things that I would like to adress. First, I wouldnt classify Gordon as a big and hence he would have nothing to do with Willie or Giles. He is a 6'9" wing that you want to play the 4 in a system with only one big at the 5. I want him next to Willie or Giles, not replacing them.
Now, if the plan of the Vlade/Joerger is to keep playing two bigs 90% of the time and put Gordon at the three that signing would be a disaster. But I hope that is not the case.
Second, the FO has not seen anything from Giles in games yet and making decisions like not signing a 22 years-old high profile player that might be available because of that would be a huge mistake. And even if Giles pans out, you still got 96 minutes to distribute between them so everyone can play 30+. I would actually be very excited about that scenario!
Third, Gordon would not make 30 million, but start at 25 and go up from there with raises. It would probably be a 3+1 so by the time Fox/Giles hit their second contract, Gordon's deal is already over or nearly over. (Not to mention that cap space is overrated for this team anyway).

Regarding the shooting, you have a good point here. Gordon might not ever be a high accuracy shooter. I know nothing drives you more crazy than a high volume shooter with low % (aka Marcus Smart). But I think this team is so starving for spacing that Gordon would be a plus. Compare him to ZBo who may shoots a higher percentage but stands inside most of the time, completely messing up the spacing for Fox and everyone else. Gordon at leasts has his defender out of the paint. To put it in other words, the Kings offensive rating this year was 103.4 according to basketball-reference. If Gordon can just manage to shoot 35% from three, it would still be an improvement over what the Kings did this year. And I think it is reasonable to project that Gordon will shoot 35% next year.
 
Last edited:
#15
I know your stance but still, I have a few things that I would like to adress. First, I wouldnt classify Gordon as a big and hence he would have nothing to do with Willie or Giles. He is a 6'9" wing that you want to play the 4 in a system with only one big at the 5. I want him next to Willie or Giles, not replacing them.
Now, if the plan of the Vlade/Joerger is to keep playing two bigs 90% of the time and put Gordon at the three that signing would be a disaster. But I hope that is not the case.
Second, the FO has not seen anything from Giles in games yet and making decisions like not signing a 22 years-old high profile player that might be available because of that would be a huge mistake. And even if Giles pans out, you still got 96 minutes to distribute between them so everyone can play 30+. I would actually be very excited about that scenario!
Third, Gordon would not make 30 million, but start at 25 and go up from there with raises. It would probably be a 3+1 so by the time Fox/Giles hit their second contract, Gordon's deal is already over or nearly over. (Not to mention that cap space is overrated for this team anyway).

Regarding the shooting, you have a good point here. Gordon might not ever be a high accuracy shooter. I know nothing drives you more crazy than a high volume shooter with low % (aka Marcus Smart). But I think this team is so starving for spacing that Gordon would be a plus. Compa re him to ZBo who may shoots a higher percentage but stands inside most of the time, completely messing up the spacing for Fox and everyone else. Gordon at leasts has his defender out of the paint. To put it in other words, the Kings offensive rating this year was 103.4 according to basketball-reference. If Gordon can just manage to shoot 35% from three, it would still be an improvement over what the Kings did this year. And I think it is reasonable to project that Gordon will shoot 35% next year.
Gordon would be the ideal fit next to any C. He would not be taking away minutes from WCS or Giles. WCS or Giles would battle for minutes since they play the same position.

I think some fans are just too low on Gordon in general. I've already made my case for him. He's shown improvements in every year, and he's only 22. 25mpy isn't chump change, but we had no problem giving George Hill a 20mpy contract..or Randolph a 12mpy contract. I would take 1 Gordon>>>>Hill+Randolph. At least spend our cap on young potential
 
#16
Gordon will be matched regardless this talk is pointless. Orlando was matching him long before now Oladipo busted out you think they’d let another young player go
 
#17
Gordon will be matched regardless this talk is pointless. Orlando was matching him long before now Oladipo busted out you think they’d let another young player go
Gave away Tobais Harris for free... traded Oladipo for a 1year rental of Ibaka... just a string of bad decisions.

This is a brand new FO who may or may not see Gordon as part of their future. It's clear that the last FO saw Gordon as their franchise player, but I'm not sure about this one. They drafted Isaac who's extremely raw and does play the same positions as Gordon. I could see them going towards a full-rebuild and passing up on a maxed Gordon. On the other hand, they might keep him and try to throw away the horrible Vucevic and Biyombo contracts.
 
#18
Gave away Tobais Harris for free... traded Oladipo for a 1year rental of Ibaka... just a string of bad decisions.

This is a brand new FO who may or may not see Gordon as part of their future. It's clear that the last FO saw Gordon as their franchise player, but I'm not sure about this one. They drafted Isaac who's extremely raw and does play the same positions as Gordon. I could see them going towards a full-rebuild and passing up on a maxed Gordon. On the other hand, they might keep him and try to throw away the horrible Vucevic and Biyombo contracts.
You can’t name 2 young players on there team that alone means they match Gordon
 
#19
You can’t name 2 young players on there team that alone means they match Gordon
I'm really not sure they will match everything despite you're insistence on it. I read a lot of articles and reporting about this coming out Orlando and if you read betwen the lines, they want to keep him but they really want to get clean books going forward. If they are in love with him and matching him anyway, why would they have explored his trade market at the deadline? Why never say publicly that you are matching anything? Their GM said this to the media: "He’s a hard worker. And we will have substantive talks with his agent. Whether we can get something done, we’ll see. But I know that he wants to be here and we’d like to keep him.”
As I said, they would like to keep him. But they will see whether they can get something done? Again, he's a RFA, if you want him, you can match anything. I think there is a chance that he can be had if you are willing to pay the right price in a Sign-and-trade. I think it will also depend on what they do in the draft. Say they go with MPJ, another 3/4.

Of course they might match him. But there is enough smoke to discuss the possibility of a fire somewhere. We will see.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#20
I know your stance but still, I have a few things that I would like to adress. First, I wouldnt classify Gordon as a big and hence he would have nothing to do with Willie or Giles. He is a 6'9" wing that you want to play the 4 in a system with only one big at the 5. I want him next to Willie or Giles, not replacing them.
Now, if the plan of the Vlade/Joerger is to keep playing two bigs 90% of the time and put Gordon at the three that signing would be a disaster. But I hope that is not the case.
Second, the FO has not seen anything from Giles in games yet and making decisions like not signing a 22 years-old high profile player that might be available because of that would be a huge mistake. And even if Giles pans out, you still got 96 minutes to distribute between them so everyone can play 30+. I would actually be very excited about that scenario!
Third, Gordon would not make 30 million, but start at 25 and go up from there with raises. It would probably be a 3+1 so by the time Fox/Giles hit their second contract, Gordon's deal is already over or nearly over. (Not to mention that cap space is overrated for this team anyway).

Regarding the shooting, you have a good point here. Gordon might not ever be a high accuracy shooter. I know nothing drives you more crazy than a high volume shooter with low % (aka Marcus Smart). But I think this team is so starving for spacing that Gordon would be a plus. Compare him to ZBo who may shoots a higher percentage but stands inside most of the time, completely messing up the spacing for Fox and everyone else. Gordon at leasts has his defender out of the paint. To put it in other words, the Kings offensive rating this year was 103.4 according to basketball-reference. If Gordon can just manage to shoot 35% from three, it would still be an improvement over what the Kings did this year. And I think it is reasonable to project that Gordon will shoot 35% next year.
OK, I'll be clear. If Gordon could shoot at least 35% from the three, I would be all over it. But he doesn't pass the eye test with me. Percentages aside, he doesn't appear to have the feel for shooting the ball. Not only from the three, but from mid-range as well. Some players never have it. You mentioned Smart. The first time I saw him play I turned to a friend and said that dude will never be a good shooter. He has no feel for it. Gordon has just finished his fourth season and he has yet to display that he even comes close to being a good three point shooter.

Now, that said, if we could acquire him for 10 or 11 mil a year, then why the hell not take the gamble. But to pay that dude 30 plus mil a year? Sorry, no freaking way. How long before people would be calling for his head, and Vlade's head, if he continues to chuck up 6 three's a game while shooting 29%. Just what is it that Gordon is outstanding at? He's an average rebounder, and average defender, a below average 3 pt shooter, he's not a shotblocker, and his overall shooting percentage is below average for a big man at 44%. I'm totally befuddled as to what makes him 30 mil a year special.
 
#21
Gordon will be matched regardless this talk is pointless. Orlando was matching him long before now Oladipo busted out you think they’d let another young player go
I would expect them to match offers for Gordon if they draft a PG (Trae Young), SG (Luka Doncic) or C (DeAndre Ayton, Jaren Jackson, Mohamed Bamba). However, if they draft a forward like Michael Porter or Marvin Bagley, then that leaves them with a decision to make because they would have three young forwards, none of whom are fits at center other than in small ball line ups.

The other thing to consider here is that Orlando have a new front office. They drafted Jonathan Isaac so it stands to reason they would view him as a long term piece even though he's had a fairly lackluster rookie season. With that in mind they might see paying Gordon a max contract as not in their best interest because he's not a franchise changing talent. Now that might come back to slap them in the face like the Oladipo trade did to their former general manager, but let's be honest here no one expected Oladipo to breakout and become an all star when he left Orlando. By the end of his Orlando spell he was a streaky, high energy player. I'd even argue that OKC didn't expect him to breakout and become an all star with Indiana, even though he had made some progress.

Essentially if their new front office deem Gordon to be a good, not great player (perhaps another Tobias Harris), and they get the opportunity to draft Porter or Bagley, then they might think that is a better route to go down. First, they can start their rebuild with Isaac and Porter/Bagley as the foundation. Second, letting Gordon go would likely be as a result of a sign and trade which could see them grab another young player and potentially a pick. After this they could trade away veterans like Fournier and Vucevic to try and acquire young talent and/or picks. Blow it up and start again around the culture and style of play they want to move forwards with under their new front office and head coach.

Gave away Tobais Harris for free... traded Oladipo for a 1year rental of Ibaka... just a string of bad decisions.

This is a brand new FO who may or may not see Gordon as part of their future. It's clear that the last FO saw Gordon as their franchise player, but I'm not sure about this one. They drafted Isaac who's extremely raw and does play the same positions as Gordon. I could see them going towards a full-rebuild and passing up on a maxed Gordon. On the other hand, they might keep him and try to throw away the horrible Vucevic and Biyombo contracts.
I think what it will come down to is who falls to Orlando in this year's draft. If they stay at five then currently NBAdraft.net has Michael Porter going to them, with Wendell Carter going to the Bulls, Trae Young to the Kings, Mohamed Bamba to the Cavaliers, and Mikal Bridges to the Knicks. If that scenario plays out they could see Gordon as expendable if they want to start their next rebuild with a Isaac and Porter foundation. However, if they decided to draft Trae Young to give them a scoring and play making point guard, or perhaps draft a high upside center like Mohamed Bamba, or the potentially safe solid all round player in Wendell Carter, that could see them decide to match any offer for Gordon and build around that young trio.

OK, I'll be clear. If Gordon could shoot at least 35% from the three, I would be all over it. But he doesn't pass the eye test with me. Percentages aside, he doesn't appear to have the feel for shooting the ball. Not only from the three, but from mid-range as well. Some players never have it. You mentioned Smart. The first time I saw him play I turned to a friend and said that dude will never be a good shooter. He has no feel for it. Gordon has just finished his fourth season and he has yet to display that he even comes close to being a good three point shooter.

Now, that said, if we could acquire him for 10 or 11 mil a year, then why the hell not take the gamble. But to pay that dude 30 plus mil a year? Sorry, no freaking way. How long before people would be calling for his head, and Vlade's head, if he continues to chuck up 6 three's a game while shooting 29%. Just what is it that Gordon is outstanding at? He's an average rebounder, and average defender, a below average 3 pt shooter, he's not a shotblocker, and his overall shooting percentage is below average for a big man at 44%. I'm totally befuddled as to what makes him 30 mil a year special.
Aaron Gordon averaged 18.8 points on 49.8 percent shooting and shot 41.2 from 3-point range in his first twenty eight games of this season.

From January onward he struggled with two concussions, a hip injury, and ankle injuries. This saw his numbers in the 30 games from January dip to 16.5 points on 38.4 percent shooting and his three point percentage to fall to 27.2 percent.

So which is the real Aaron Gordon?

If it is the healthy version from the first twenty eight games then that shows the guy can shoot the ball and impact the game in a positive manner. However, Gordon has struggled with injuries through the first four seasons of his career and if he can't learn to deal with them and remain productive, then that might mean we can expect inconsistency and if that's the case then passing on him could be the smart move. Then again, if he can stay healthy and overcome these injuries, and in turn remain productive, then trying to acquire him could be the smart move. To be honest there is no clear right or wrong move because this is the sort of deal that either goes really well or comes back to haunt you.

I think you hit the nail on the head when it comes to paying the guy $30 million a year. Even in today's market you would want to be signing a franchise changing talent at that price and Gordon doesn't strike me like he's going to be such a player.
 
Last edited:

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#22
I would expect them to match offers for Gordon if they draft a PG (Trae Young), SG (Luka Doncic) or C (DeAndre Ayton, Jaren Jackson, Mohamed Bamba). However, if they draft a forward like Michael Porter or Marvin Bagley, then that leaves them with a decision to make because they would have three young forwards, none of whom are fits at center other than in small ball line ups.

The other thing to consider here is that Orlando have a new front office. They drafted Jonathan Isaac so it stands to reason they would view him as a long term piece even though he's had a fairly lackluster rookie season. With that in mind they might see paying Gordon a max contract as not in their best interest because he's not a franchise changing talent. Now that might come back to slap them in the face like the Oladipo trade did to their former general manager, but let's be honest here no one expected Oladipo to breakout and become an all star when he left Orlando. By the end of his Orlando spell he was a streaky, high energy player. I'd even argue that OKC didn't expect him to breakout and become an all star with Indiana, even though he had made some progress.

Essentially if their new front office deem Gordon to be a good, not great player (perhaps another Tobias Harris), and they get the opportunity to draft Porter or Bagley, then they might think that is a better route to go down. First, they can start their rebuild with Isaac and Porter/Bagley as the foundation. Second, letting Gordon go would likely be as a result of a sign and trade which could see them grab another young player and potentially a pick. After this they could trade away veterans like Fournier and Vucevic to try and acquire young talent and/or picks. Blow it up and start again around the culture and style of play they want to move forwards with under their new front office and head coach.



I think what it will come down to is who falls to Orlando in this year's draft. If they stay at five then currently NBAdraft.net has Michael Porter going to them, with Wendell Carter going to the Bulls, Trae Young to the Kings, Mohamed Bamba to the Cavaliers, and Mikal Bridges to the Knicks. If that scenario plays out they could see Gordon as expendable if they want to start their next rebuild with a Isaac and Porter foundation. However, if they decided to draft Trae Young to give them a scoring and play making point guard, or perhaps draft a high upside center like Mohamed Bamba, or the potentially safe solid all round player in Wendell Carter, that could see them decide to match any offer for Gordon and build around that young trio.



Aaron Gordon averaged 18.8 points on 49.8 percent shooting and shot 41.2 from 3-point range in his first twenty eight games of this season.

From January onward he struggled with two concussions, a hip injury, and ankle injuries. This saw his numbers in the 30 games from January dip to 16.5 points on 38.4 percent shooting and his three point percentage to fall to 27.2 percent.

So which is the real Aaron Gordon?

If it is the healthy version from the first twenty eight games then that shows the guy can shoot the ball and impact the game in a positive manner. However, Gordon has struggled with injuries through the first four seasons of his career and if he can't learn to deal with them and remain productive, then that might mean we can expect inconsistency and if that's the case then passing on him could be the smart move. Then again, if he can stay healthy and overcome these injuries, and in turn remain productive, then trying to acquire him could be the smart move. To be honest there is no clear right or wrong move because this is the sort of deal that either goes really well or comes back to haunt you.

I think you hit the nail on the head when it comes to paying the guy $30 million a year. Even in today's market you would want to be signing a franchise changing talent at that price and Gordon doesn't strike me like he's going to be such a player.

If someone is willing to bet on 28 games against the other 3 and a half years, have at it. I'm more willing to believe that he got lucky for 28 games, than he suddenly, after 3 years of not being able to shoot consistently, became a good three point shooter. If he had shot the ball at a 35% or 36% pace all year, I'd be more willing to buy in. So I think you can tell who I think the real Gordon is. Look, if this was a player with the same history, and I could sign him for 8 mil, or even 12 mil, that would be different. But to tie up that kind of money on a five yr contract would be just plain nuts. Too big a gamble for me.

And if I might add, if Gordon is injured to the extent that it's affecting his shot, then why preytell was he chucking up 6 three's a game? If that's the case, then I question his intelligence.
 
#23
These situations are completely separate.
Show me where Vivek has ponied up the money long term ? Thats my point Its profitable for him to put a sub optimal product out there for a fan base who will remain engaged regardless of the product on the floor. A youth movement is light on payroll and maintains profitability and growth.
 
#24
Show me where Vivek has ponied up the money long term ? Thats my point Its profitable for him to put a sub optimal product out there for a fan base who will remain engaged regardless of the product on the floor. A youth movement is light on payroll and maintains profitability and growth.
Literally the first thing he did was give DMC the biggest contract allowed to him. He also bought the Kings and build a first class arena so there's that.
 
#25
If someone is willing to bet on 28 games against the other 3 and a half years, have at it. I'm more willing to believe that he got lucky for 28 games, than he suddenly, after 3 years of not being able to shoot consistently, became a good three point shooter. If he had shot the ball at a 35% or 36% pace all year, I'd be more willing to buy in. So I think you can tell who I think the real Gordon is. Look, if this was a player with the same history, and I could sign him for 8 mil, or even 12 mil, that would be different. But to tie up that kind of money on a five yr contract would be just plain nuts. Too big a gamble for me.

And if I might add, if Gordon is injured to the extent that it's affecting his shot, then why preytell was he chucking up 6 three's a game? If that's the case, then I question his intelligence.
Aaron Gordon has got better each season he has been in the league. When he got drafted he was raw and needed time to develop, much like their pick last year in Isaac. So judging Gordon on his first couple of seasons is not smart because he was not NBA ready. Judge him on year three to four when he started to put it together consistently.

Now I'd tend to agree if injuries bothered him why was he chucking up 3s at the rate he did. I don't know the answer to that, but the stats do show that when healthy he was more accurate and productive.

It is worth noting he was playing on a bad team. Fournier played less than sixty games. They traded away Payton and stuck Augustin in as their starter. In effective when he started he was their main guy on offense when Fournier and to a lesser extent Vucevic didn't play. As such he was the guy they got the ball to and asked to shoot. It's like the Lakers in Kobe's latter years. He was high volume and low percentage because they asked too much of him, or he wanted more than he should have been allowed to take. In Gordon's case he was their go to guy. I've always said he's more of a second option kinda guy and when he is in that role and healthy he's usually more efficient.

With that said, I'm not fussed if we sign him or not.
 
#26
Literally the first thing he did was give DMC the biggest contract allowed to him. He also bought the Kings and build a first class arena so there's that.
The arena was part of buying the Kings. And he got controlling interest with only 20% ownership.

That said, I don't agree with the notion that he would be satisfied with a sub-par product.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#27
Aaron Gordon has got better each season he has been in the league. When he got drafted he was raw and needed time to develop, much like their pick last year in Isaac. So judging Gordon on his first couple of seasons is not smart because he was not NBA ready. Judge him on year three to four when he started to put it together consistently.

Now I'd tend to agree if injuries bothered him why was he chucking up 3s at the rate he did. I don't know the answer to that, but the stats do show that when healthy he was more accurate and productive.

It is worth noting he was playing on a bad team. Fournier played less than sixty games. They traded away Payton and stuck Augustin in as their starter. In effective when he started he was their main guy on offense when Fournier and to a lesser extent Vucevic didn't play. As such he was the guy they got the ball to and asked to shoot. It's like the Lakers in Kobe's latter years. He was high volume and low percentage because they asked too much of him, or he wanted more than he should have been allowed to take. In Gordon's case he was their go to guy. I've always said he's more of a second option kinda guy and when he is in that role and healthy he's usually more efficient.

With that said, I'm not fussed if we sign him or not.
Have you not been paying attention to what I've been posting. Go look up his stats, and the only difference between year one and year four, is that he scored more points. His efficiency is the same. He still shoots around 44% overall, and he shoots around 29% from the three. The only difference is that he's taking more shots, and therefore scoring more points. I see very little improvement when you look at the results. He had a 28 game stretch where he shot the three well, out of four years. If you folks want to delude yourselves have at it. But when he's playing on the Kings and chucking up 6 three's a game, while shooting 29%, I suspect that you and everyone else will be calling for his head.
 
#28
Have you not been paying attention to what I've been posting. Go look up his stats, and the only difference between year one and year four, is that he scored more points. His efficiency is the same. He still shoots around 44% overall, and he shoots around 29% from the three. The only difference is that he's taking more shots, and therefore scoring more points. I see very little improvement when you look at the results. He had a 28 game stretch where he shot the three well, out of four years. If you folks want to delude yourselves have at it. But when he's playing on the Kings and chucking up 6 three's a game, while shooting 29%, I suspect that you and everyone else will be calling for his head.
1. I don't just look at stats with Gordon. I've watched the majority of his games as a Magic player, so I can tell you from what I've watched that he has improved from year one to year four.

2. Had he and his supporting cast stayed healthy I don't think his shooting percentages would have dipped as much as they did because they wouldn't have been relying on him as a first option.

3. Poor and ineffective coaching was evident in Orlando. As the season went on they had Gordon shoot more threes. In his first 28 games he attempted 155 there's which equals 5.5 per game. In the following 30 games he attempted 220 there's which equals 7.3 per game.

4. His supporting cast in Orlando was pretty lacklustre, thus more pressure to be a go to option especially when other options missed time (ie Fournier and Vucevic), and even when they were healthy Orlando didn't always run a consistent offense.

5. His 3pt percentage has improved: .271 (rookie), .296 (year two), .288 (year three), .336 (year four). If he hits a third of his attempts that is acceptable

6. A slight dip in FG% or static FG% is not uncommon. Gordon was never projected to be the next Kevin Durant or LeBron James, or sharpshooting forward. Asking him to be a number one option is flawed, he's a second option at best. Likewise asking him to shoot lots of threes is again flawed.

Whatever team has him needs to play him to his strengths because if you want someone to shoot high volume, Gordon isn't your guy; and if you want a number one option, Gordon isn't your guy. He is a talented, athletic, high energy player that can contribute on defense and has shown flashes of being effective on offense when used sensibly. If he came here we wouldn't need or want him to chuck up lots of threes, we'd want him to be smarter in his shot selection and utilise the mismatches he can create at the offensive end.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#29
1. I don't just look at stats with Gordon. I've watched the majority of his games as a Magic player, so I can tell you from what I've watched that he has improved from year one to year four.

2. Had he and his supporting cast stayed healthy I don't think his shooting percentages would have dipped as much as they did because they wouldn't have been relying on him as a first option.

3. Poor and ineffective coaching was evident in Orlando. As the season went on they had Gordon shoot more threes. In his first 28 games he attempted 155 there's which equals 5.5 per game. In the following 30 games he attempted 220 there's which equals 7.3 per game.

4. His supporting cast in Orlando was pretty lacklustre, thus more pressure to be a go to option especially when other options missed time (ie Fournier and Vucevic), and even when they were healthy Orlando didn't always run a consistent offense.

5. His 3pt percentage has improved: .271 (rookie), .296 (year two), .288 (year three), .336 (year four). If he hits a third of his attempts that is acceptable

6. A slight dip in FG% or static FG% is not uncommon. Gordon was never projected to be the next Kevin Durant or LeBron James, or sharpshooting forward. Asking him to be a number one option is flawed, he's a second option at best. Likewise asking him to shoot lots of threes is again flawed.

Whatever team has him needs to play him to his strengths because if you want someone to shoot high volume, Gordon isn't your guy; and if you want a number one option, Gordon isn't your guy. He is a talented, athletic, high energy player that can contribute on defense and has shown flashes of being effective on offense when used sensibly. If he came here we wouldn't need or want him to chuck up lots of threes, we'd want him to be smarter in his shot selection and utilise the mismatches he can create at the offensive end.
Look, I'm not trying to be a pain about this, and I don't hate Gordon. But people are wanting the Kings to make an offer to get him, and that will require a max contract in all likelyhood. We're talking close to 30 mil a year, for a player that your telling me isn't a number one option, and that his 33% 3pt shooting, is acceptable. First, I'm not convinced that he is a 33% 3 pt shooter, and 2nd, it's not acceptable to me. Not at that price! I'm more inclined to believe that his shooting percentages for his first three years is more likely what you'll get. We'll just have to agree to disagree...:)