Name all the shooting guards better than Gordon

[dougthonus]

Okay, we've now had some spirited debate about who is or isn't better than Gordon.

Look at everyone on that list, their salaries (if they signed an extension), and tell me, how much is Ben Gordon worth? The average salary of the maybes is probably 12 million a year.

Most recent extension for each guy:
Ray Allen: 16 million per year
Vince Carter: 15.25 million per year
Michael Redd: 15.1 million per year
Andre Iguodala: 13.3 million per year
Richard Hamilton: 11.3 million per year
Kevin Martin: 11 million a year
Monta Ellis: 11 million a year
Jason Terry: 9.5 million per year
Stephen Jackson: 9.3 million per year
Manu Ginobili: 8.7 million per year (go look at his averages the year he signed it though)
Barbosa: 6.4 million per year

 

[Hendu0520]

Ya I guess he is 6'7 but couldve fooled me, he can't post up and its just as hard for him to get a shot off as BG it seems so he doesn't utilize that height. BG is stonger and shot 45%fg while Martin shot 42% and I think this is the first year Martin was over 40% from 3, usually in 30's.
Martin does get to the line more but that might have been because of Rose driving BG was spotting up more. In Ben's best year 2 yrs ago he shot 440 ft's to his 380 this year. Martin shot 500 ft's this year, the only option on that team.

Oh and the 6'7 Martin avg. 3.6 rebounds to Gordon's 3.0, that is not a great difference for the height disparity.

 

[Hendu0520]

And what about clutch, is Martin clutch, imo NOPE.

 

[Hendu0520]

Yup Doug, please Bulls, sign BG give him 10-12 and move Hinrich if you have to, we can pick up a solid backup. Shoot maybe Blake and a scrub straight up for Hinrich to clear that space. I think Hinrich makes more than Blake.

 

[dunkside.com]

dougthonus wrote:

i think gordon is overrated right now because of his clutch shooting in this series.
however you have to remember he wasn't even the leader of a team that finished 7th in the weak east.

is not like he was leading his team like some of these guys did (iguodala this season, ray allen in years past, redd in years past) or like he was a major part of a very successful team (ray allen, rip hamilton in years past, josh howard in years past)

Gordon's never played with a superstar, so you can't say how he'd fair in a role as a #2.

No one on that list you named has done better than Gordon as a first option except Ray Allen about four years ago for one year in his career.

IMO he never was a clear cut first option. With Skiles I know people constantly complained about him being sent into a corner to wait for a pass. That's not a first option. The team had more of a balanced attack with Hinrich, Gordon, Deng sharing the shots. That team overachieved and only got to the 2nd round because it got lucky and met a quickly declining Heat team - you know, the one that only won 15 games the next season.

This season Gordon wasn't the first option either. It was more balanced at first but I think towards the end of the season Rose became the 1st option.

dougthonus wrote:

Stephen Jackson

Where has he ever led a team or even as a 2nd best guy on a team? Career numbers aren't near Gordon's nor is any year near Gordon's and he's older and likely to slow down.

In 2007 with the Warriors ?! And even before with Atlanta and Indiana I think he was #2.
It might not be obvious, but his contributions to a team are big. He brings scoring, defense (sometimes), ball handling, play making, rebounding and a lot of passion. Even this season, when he played well, the Warriors played well and were a decent team. I think he's underrated.

dougthonus wrote:

Josh Howard (if you consider him a SG)

Never led a team anywhere either. Has probably been considered the Mavs 3rd best player in their better years.

Wasn't he #2 in 2006 when they made the finals ?
He was their #2 for sure in 2007 when they won 67 games. They got eliminated by the Warriors but you can't blame that on him anymore than you can blame it on Avery and Dirk.

dougthonus wrote:

Andre Iguodala (there's no maybe - he has more size, more athleticism, better D)

#1 guy on his team and has done quite a bit less with it than Gordon has done. He has more of the things you name but less scoring talent. I put him in the debatable category, he's right there, but by your criteria he hasn't done more than Gordon as a #1 guy.

Again, IMO, Gordon never was a clear cut #1 the way Iguodala is now. I also think that considering how well the Sixers played the Magic, they could have won a series against the Celtics.

dougthonus wrote:

Kevin Martin (yes, really better - gordon is just a scorer, and kevin martin is a better scorer)

A better scorer on a team that never wins more than 30 games.

The question is: if you put Kevin Martin on the Bulls instead of Gordon, will the Bulls win at least as many games ? I'd say "probably". And don't forget that the Kings are in the West.

dougthonus wrote:

Manu Ginobili (even if he's slowed down by injury, he can still shoot and he's a much better play maker)

Definitely better in the pat and when healthy, but at his age, I don't think I'd say he's better for the next 3 years.

Maybe AFTER 3 years Gordon will be as good or slightly better than Manu. Maybe.
But in 7 years Noah will probably be better than Yao. I'd still take Yao though.

dougthonus wrote:

Richard Hamilton (considering his defense, I'd say he's still better)

Has not been better for a long time, more of a 3rd option on his team for most of his career has also slowed down. Also older and not likely to be better in the next 3 years.

In 3 years Gordon himself will be 31 and slowing down. It's not like he'll be just entering his prime. His prime is NOW. Considering his size the loss of athleticism will hit him harder than it would a taller guard. He'll have a harder time creating shots for himself, which would make him a really bad #2 option. And since his only really big quality is shooting, if you take that away from him, there's nothing left.

I'm not saying that in 3 years he won't be an excellent role player, the guy who waits in the corner and as soon as he's left open he drains a 3, but he won't be as valuable as a #2 option any more. In fact he could fill out the House/Posey/Horry role too well, but that means he'd be paid accordingly - which is around the MLE.

 

[dougthonus]

In 3 years Gordon himself will be 31 and slowing down. It's not like he'll be just entering his prime. His prime is NOW. Considering his size the loss of athleticism will hit him harder than it would a taller guard. He'll have a harder time creating shots for himself, which would make him a really bad #2 option. And since his only really big quality is shooting, if you take that away from him, there's nothing left.

Gordon just turned 26. In 3 years he will just have turned 29. If he signs a 6 year deal he will be 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 for those years. He will turn 32 in April of his last year of the deal. He shouldn't be slowing down at all until after that deal is over.

I won't argue our difference in opinion on Gordon further as clearly we won't agree to change our minds, but I did want to correct this.

 

[AirP]

dougthonus wrote:

Okay, we've now had some spirited debate about who is or isn't better than Gordon.

Look at everyone on that list, their salaries (if they signed an extension), and tell me, how much is Ben Gordon worth? The average salary of the maybes is probably 12 million a year.

How many players are we going to overpay? Hinrich, Deng and now Gordon?

If only Gordon had better handles to play some solid minutes at PG... or played defense tougher I could understand giving him the money... but he doesn't... but one thing he is over the other guys... a clutch player(although he needs to quit taking horrible shots even though he'll make some, that kind of thing is contagous).

Gordon is in a bind... let him go out and get the best offer he can then match it for more years if possible, let the CURRENT market dictate his price, there's really no reason to be proactive on Ben Gordon unless he signs for what he was offered last year.

To me... these playoffs didn't prove or disprove anything about Ben Gordon... we've always known he can come up big late in the game... we've always known he'll miss a bunch of shots for long periods of time, then he'll hit a bunch in a short amount of time... nothing is really different about him... he's a merc of an offensive player... he's a guy who will get his no matter who he plays next to because that's his game.

 

[J-Mart]

dunkside.com wrote:

In 3 years Gordon himself will be 31 and slowing down..

He will be 29 actually. Huge difference.

 

[AirP]

dougthonus wrote:

In 3 years Gordon himself will be 31 and slowing down. It's not like he'll be just entering his prime. His prime is NOW. Considering his size the loss of athleticism will hit him harder than it would a taller guard. He'll have a harder time creating shots for himself, which would make him a really bad #2 option. And since his only really big quality is shooting, if you take that away from him, there's nothing left.

Gordon just turned 26. In 3 years he will just have turned 29. If he signs a 6 year deal he will be 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 for those years. He will turn 32 in April of his last year of the deal. He shouldn't be slowing down at all until after that deal is over.

I won't argue our difference in opinion on Gordon further as clearly we won't agree to change our minds, but I did want to correct this.

Gordon's game isn't built on athletic ability, he's a great shot and a guy who can create space to get his shot off... Gordon can be a very good player in the NBA deep into his 30s, at the very least he'll be a great role player who can hit 3pts at a great pace. I don't want to build around Gordon... but I won't put a cap on his career because of age because his style of basketball doesn't won't diminish with age like most players who rely on a good dose of their athletic ability.

 

[dunkside.com]

Fred wrote:

Since Kevin Martin's been the go-to guy in the last 3 years, they've won 33, 38, and 17 games. Have the guys around him been absolutely terrible in that time? This year, after the Salmons & Miller trade, the answer would be yes. Before that, I believe he had Artest for a few years. Is Deng a far superior player to Artest? Artest is much better defensively. Before the arrival of Rose, can you make the argument that Gordon was surrounded by vastly superior talent than Martin was? I'm not sure you can. BG's had one losing season since he's been in this league.

Actually before this season he had Artest and Bibby who were ahead of him. From what I read they weren't getting along either, each trying to assert himself as the #1. This wasn't helping Kevin Martin at all. This season you could argue that he didn't do much when handed the keys to the team, but I'd say his supporting cast was pretty bad. As Doug said he's pretty close to Gordon. As some others said, I think he's a better scorer, and between 2 one-trick poneys, I'd pick the one who does his trick slightly better.

When making my decision I take his height advantage into account.

 

[dougthonus]

How many players are we going to overpay? Hinrich, Deng and now Gordon?

There are only 2 players on the "similar to Gordon" list who make less than 9 million per year, Barbosa, whom most people thought was a joke to include, and Ginobili who signed his extension after his second season when he averaged 14 points a game on 42% from the field.

Everyone else makes somewhere between more and WAY WAY more than what Gordon was willing to accept to stay with the team.

IT seems like we would not have been overpaying Gordon, but that we would have gotten him at a significantly reduced salary relative to his on court ability. At about 3-4 million per year LESS than the typical SG of his ability level.

His contract would be one that MAKES UP for overpaying other guys, not adds to the list of overpaid guys.

 

[J-Mart]

AirP wrote:

Gordon is in a bind... let him go out and get the best offer he can then match it for more years if possible, let the CURRENT market dictate his price, there's really no reason to be proactive on Ben Gordon unless he signs for what he was offered last year.

If we tell Ben to do this, don't expect him to come back and give us a chance to match.

 

[dougthonus]

J-Mart wrote:

AirP wrote:

Gordon is in a bind... let him go out and get the best offer he can then match it for more years if possible, let the CURRENT market dictate his price, there's really no reason to be proactive on Ben Gordon unless he signs for what he was offered last year.

If we tell Ben to do this, don't expect him to come back and give us a chance to match.

He may not, but he might.

We can offer bigger raises and an extra year, why wouldn't he want to see if he can get the same deal from us with an extra year? I think this year ended on a positive note with him.

 

[AirP]

Why not? This is what he wanted when he didn't accept the deal last year, it was a calculated risk by Gordon, he had the chance for months to accept a deal from Chicago and didn't and it cost him 1-3 million last year because he took the qualifing offer instead of a new deal of 8-10 million a year(whatever it was). If he's willing to leave for the same money... then just expect that it would have taken a good amount more to keep him here.

 

[dunkside.com]

dougthonus wrote:

Gordon just turned 26. In 3 years he will just have turned 29. If he signs a 6 year deal he will be 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 for those years. He will turn 32 in April of his last year of the deal. He shouldn't be slowing down at all until after that deal is over.

I won't argue our difference in opinion on Gordon further as clearly we won't agree to change our minds, but I did want to correct this.

Oops !!!
My bad.

In that case your argument clearly has more traction. I'd still take Manu for 3 years than Gordon for 6. I'm averse to long term deals. All the time people say: we'll have him for 6 years and so and so, but in reality in 3-4 years most players stop performing as well or they demand a trade. I can't think right now of a 6 years deal for at least 10 mil/season that ran its course without one of these events occurring. Can you ?!

Ok, maybe Garnett and Duncan. But that's it. And don't say "Lebron" or "Wade" - they didn't sign a 6 years deal.

 

[JimmyBulls]

On a team with little waste, 9 million is fair value for Ben Gordon.

 

[dougthonus]

In that case your argument clearly has more traction. I'd still take Manu for 3 years than Gordon for 6. I'm averse to long term deals. All the time people say: we'll have him for 6 years and so and so, but in reality in 3-4 years most players stop performing as well or they demand a trade. I can't think right now of a 6 years deal for at least 10 mil/season that ran its course without one of these events occurring. Can you ?!

There are many players who signed big long term deals that it worked out very well for the team. It's pretty frequent that those guys change teams in the deal somewhere, but that doesn't mean the original team is screwed, they often get good value back for the players in trade, or at the very least aren't hurt for it.

I agree that tehre aren't many guys who stay in the same place for the full 6 years of a big deal, but just want to point out that many of those teams are still way better off for signing those guys to the big deal.

Also worth noting that many players never sign 6 year deals, because the cap on early extensions is 5 years, and a pretty big percentage of the good players sign the 5 year deal before they can even be offered the 6.

 

[dunkside.com]

Can you give me some examples ?

I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, but I really can't think of such players where they signed a 6 years extension and the team was just fine. In fact I think the team that gets those players in year 3 or 4 is better off.

I think examples of 5 year deals that worked out are easier to find, but right now I don't have the time.

If you can enumerate some 6 and 5 year deals for at least 10-12 mil/season that worked fine for the team that offered them, please do. (and I don't consider that they worked fine if the team traded them for a late pick that just happened to be great)

 

[dougthonus]

Look at basically any guy in the top 30 players, and there are your examples. How about Pau Gasol, helped the Grizzlies to the playoffs a few years, they sucked, and traded him, but they still got the equivalent of 3-4 first round picks back for him.

Tracy McGrady signed big money with the magic, they eventually had to trade him but were able to get back Steve Francis, who the ended up sucking anyway, but at the time it seemed okay before Francis went into the tank though they unloaded him for an expiring deal later. They certainly weren't hurt by signing McGrady

Elton Brand signed for long term with the Clippers and helped them throughout his contract.

Lamar Odom signed long term with the Miami Heat, and played okay then helped them get Shaq and a title in a trade.

Moreover, look at basically any player in the top 30.

 

[dunkside.com]

dougthonus wrote:

Look at basically any guy in the top 30 players, and there are your examples. How about Pau Gasol, helped the Grizzlies to the playoffs a few years, they sucked, and traded him, but they still got the equivalent of 3-4 first round picks back for him.

Tracy McGrady signed big money with the magic, they eventually had to trade him but were able to get back Steve Francis, who the ended up sucking anyway, but at the time it seemed okay before Francis went into the tank though they unloaded him for an expiring deal later. They certainly weren't hurt by signing McGrady

Elton Brand signed for long term with the Clippers and helped them throughout his contract.

Lamar Odom signed long term with the Miami Heat, and played okay then helped them get Shaq and a title in a trade.

Moreover, look at basically any player in the top 30.

Ok, I'll give you that.
But Gordon is NOT in the top 30.

He's not even close to being in the top 30.
I don't have ESPN insider, so I can't see the entire PER rankings, but the last one in the top 50 is JJ with a PER of 18.26, and in the SG top you can see Gordon had 17.02. That would mean he's ranked somewhere around 60 or 70. So he doesn't fit in the group you mentioned.