I did. And it's not because I hate CJ. The shortcomings of having a midget backcourt hasn't disappeared just because they had a nice little road trip. If this team is serious about competing in a conference championship then odds are that duo is going to have to be broken up sooner or later. If there was a way to get a player like Gordon (or Gordon himself) without giving up CJ, then fuck yeah I'd keep him, but within the narrow parameters of this hypothetical, it's something I'd strongly consider because of Gordon's age, the leap he's taken this year and his overall skill set.
I voted yes too. This post sums it up perfectly. CJ is very good, but the fit is not great since they are too small together.
Yeah I'm surprised it got such a strong negative reaction, he's not that bad. I still wouldn't do it because I'm a homer and love CJ, but it's not the dumbest proposal I've ever seen on here...
The biggest issue is that we are loaded in the front court already and are not deep in the backcourt. This would create a very poorly built and awkward team. Aaron Gordon is becoming a really good player. But if I'm actually trading CJ, I want someone better and someone who could help balance the team's construction.
Gordon wouldn't be trading offense for defense. He's a solid defender and he can score and that is the present, with a look toward the future.
"loaded in the frontcourt?" How so? If you by loaded you mean, "we have a lot of guys" then yes, that's true, but aside from Nurkic who has the 5 spot locked down, who are these 3s and 4s that we can barely keep off of the floor? Gordon seems like a guy who could play the 3 or a 4 in smaller lineups, so you'd still need a shooting guard at some point, but I guess you could live with Patty Buckets there for the near term and try to figure out something else in the long term.
For what it's worth, I'm not exactly dying to get rid of CJ either; he's a lot of fun to watch when his shot is going in. I just thought the proposal was actually fairly balanced in terms of talent/upside. Both teams would be giving up something they wouldn't want to, which is a sign it's probably close to fair and reasonable.
Wow - this is garnering actual discussion? I always thought of Gordon as a PF, not a SF. If he can play SF successfully that makes the idea less asinine. But PFs are the least important position in the NBA. And with the talent pool at SG (and SF) being so damn shallow and weak, trading a top-talent SG for a PF that isn't Duncanesque would be idiotic. And while we're talking about PFs, yes it would be nice if Vonleh scored a few more points. But perhaps he just needs a few more shots? Aside from FGA he compares very favorably to Gordon. I know Terry would mash his potaters having a PF shoot FIVE 3-pointers per game, but I really hated the last high-usage jump-shooting PF we had.
Yeah, Gordon isn't a SF. They tried that. It didn't work so well. He's a PF. And I'd agree that that's a position that seems to be being slightly phased out. Not totally irrelevant by any means, it just seems like a lot of teams are going 1 big rotations more often during games. I don't agree, however, with just saying if Vonleh had more shots then... The reason Gordon takes more shots is he is a much better scorer than Vonleh. And isn't completely inept with the ball. Vonleh has half the usage, and a much higher TOV%. The ball should generally not be in his hands for too long. But still, there's no chance I consider this deal. You can complain about CJ's D, but Gordon isn't a good defender either. SO what do you gain? points at a different position? Less points at that.
No way. CJ is an elite scorer in this league. You need multiple elite scorers on your team in today’s NBA.
Dame Turner PG13 Gordon Nurkic CJ is nasty, but that team is better imo. I wanted to trade him for Jimmy Butler... Imagine if we could’ve gotten jimmy butler and lauri....
