Rockets turned down first-round pick offers for Eric Gordon

ok so thats in about a week of opening

 

There are teams ahead of our #17 pick trying to win that might view Ego + 17 and taking back some salary better than 17 + 30.

Also, since late first/early second is supposedly eye of the beholder for this draft, if you can’t pull off a trade to flip the first for reasonable value then you would be betting whoever you pick at 30 will have more value than Ego. Ego on an expiring with a team option probably holds more value around the league in a trade next year than whoever you pick at 30 unless you really nail it.

 

When has this happened? Serious question. When has a team used two lower picks in the same draft to move up significantly? I only remember trades involving (1) a player or (2) future FRPs. Using multiple picks in the same draft to move up seems more of an NFL thing.

 

Seriously? Not a fan.

Give those minutes to the young guys.

 

In some recent drafts. not that common with just picks but it does happen whether a team wants to move down or up

2019
Celtics Get: No. 20
Sixers Get: No. 24, No. 33

2020
Knicks Get: No 23
Utah Get: No 27, No. 38

2021
Thunder Get: No. 32
Knicks Get: No. 34 and No. 36

 

4 spots, 3 spots, and 2 spots. Considering the value difference between the 17th and a late FRP is typically significantly greater than those listed, we are talking maybe 1 spot.

 

regardless the topic is moving up. So it does happen. 1,2,3 spots can be the difference for a team that is targeting someone

 

I want some defense too but defense that matters. Gordon isn’t a versatile perimeter defender and doesn’t defend the post like Harden used to. He’s not a difference maker on defense for the current makeup of this team.

 

I concede it is possible to move up with picks in the same draft. I do not concede that for the picks being discussed in this thread that trading up is a worthwhile endeavor.

 

without knowing how much someone is asking to move up from 17, nobody knows if its a realistic scenario or not

@Williamson only mentioned talks of moving up, not specifically how many spots

 

Last year we used two of our picks to get Alperen Sengun. Going back to the Eddie Griffin draft, we used three picks in that draft to move up and draft Eddie. That's just a couple that come to mind from our draft history.

 

Damn! You had me covered!

 

If Chicago offered the No. 18 pick and the No. 27 pick for the No. 17, would you think it would be a good deal for the Rockets?

 

If the rockets intention is to move down and add another 1st round pick then yeah that's a good deal when that's their objective. Like i said it's relative to what a team wants to do when moving up or down

 

So since we know the Rockets intention was to keep EG, that's a good deal by this rational.

Even in a normal draft, I would not do 17 for 18 and 27 unless you are talking twins available at 17 in every way possible and the team really needs that extra body.

 

Again the idea that any one thing that you can get with the 20-whatever pick is dispositive here is misleading - the point of having the 20 whatever pick is that it's fungible. You can use it to move up in this draft, or you can send it for future drafts if somebody sees somebody they like fall down, or you can trade it down for 2 seconds, or include it with something else, or whatever.

The one-year rental of Eric Gordon is not that fungible, only in the 'team that needs Gordon now" sense or the "$20 million to get a star in 2023" sense, which is as low a probability event as the "move up in the draft" scenario, if not lower. The other thing is that if you take back salaries for Gordon that expire a year later - guess what - you can trade that guy for a star a year later too!.

The one benefit that holding Eric Gordon has is that if trading Eric Gordon for a star fails, which it likely will, the Rockets can cut him in 2023 before he plays 500 minutes and save $20 million into Tillman's Till. Hmm..

 

not really when the rockets actual intention is to get a better deal, which is stupid in this situation. It isn't about keeping EG at all. Keeping him makes no sense whatsoever when his value literally declines as each season goes by and he ages and continues to suffer injuries

 

Annnnd when they cut him and are left with nothing to show besides turning all these deal down that they could have gotten, CF's is gonna make up some nonsense about well holding out for a better deal was the right move blah blah blah

 

I was looking aroudn the web for known crappy contracts that would match Gordon but were longer, and I found Evan Fournier. Now that's known to be a shitty deal.

With his team option, he's all of .... one year longer than Gordon! The downside of course, while irrelevant to the team, is that Tillman would have to pay him his final year unlike Gordon who's nonguaranteed. But otherwise that's it. I'd really love to know who was offered. My guess is that it wasn't that much worse than Gordon, hence the lack of details.

 

The Sengun trade doesn’t fit what we are saying, though. We used two future firsts to get him. That was actually supposedly the sticking point from Stone. He wanted future draft assets and no one really wanted to give that up. Doing something like 17 and 30 in the same draft to move up to like 12 isn’t something I recall happening much in recent years.

I actually was thinking of the Eddie Griffin trade too but that was a loooong time ago in terms of how NBA FOs work.

Yeah I mean if we want someone at 14 and Cleveland knows their player they want will be there at 17 it’s possible something like 30 gets it done, but that’s spur of the moment stuff. No one is going to be out hunting a trade down to pick up the 27th-30th pick.