Magic sign Channing Frye

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

The Magic are in a no lose situation with Ben Gordon and his contract. If they didn't pay him 4.5 million they'd have to pay somebody anyway, if he steps out of line he can be waived, if he has a poor year we don't pick up his second year, if he plays well he's a trade asset and if he plays really well we can keep him for the second year. How people can just be like "they overpaid- terrible deal" is beyond me.

 

BECAUSE THEY OVERPAID!!!!!!

 

DUH

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

The Magic are in a no lose situation with Ben Gordon and his contract. If they didn't pay him 4.5 million they'd have to pay somebody anyway, if he steps out of line he can be waived, if he has a poor year we don't pick up his second year, if he plays well he's a trade asset and if he plays really well we can keep him for the second year. How people can just be like "they overpaid- terrible deal" is beyond me.

 

Right. Salary only matters if it has scarcity and impacts our moves going forward. On that point it doesn't matter if we gave him 1 year for 12 million.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Part of the argument in favor of signing Frye is that his leadership could go a long way towards preparing our young guys for the future. Well, with Gordon, for him to justify the signing it means he takes playing time away from the young guys. Is that not a negative? It's only fair to look at it from this perspective.

 

Fair to whom?

[jmmagicfan 302]

You're not making very much sense. You're really trying to force an argument here, even more so than usual.

 

You claimed the author of the article purposely left out information in order to be able to "rant". I asked you what information was left out, why did you ignore that question? The article makes valid points. Even if Gordon does play well, it's going to be at the expense of our younger players. The argument for Frye is that he makes players around him better. I don't agree with the signing, but I agree that's part of his game, as well as the leadership angle. But moving on to Gordon, how does HIS game make anyone better? He's not known as a locker room guy, (he actually has the opposite reputation..fair or not), so we can't focus on that. Does Ben Gordon make the players around him better? If not, what benefit does it serve if he plays "better"? A few more made three's, at best a trade for a second round pick? Is that worth more than valuable playing time for our young guys? I don't believe that it is.

 

Now what if he plays just as horribly for us as he did last season? I think he was around 25% from three, what if that wasn't an anomaly? What if the guy is just done? Clearly, most people believe this is a very real possibility. The fact that it's even part of the discussion means it's foolish to give the guy the contract we did. The general consensus is he's worth the vet minimum, and that's what he should have been paid. The "benefit" of a slight resurgence isn't enough to justify taking playing time away from our young guys.

 

People call it a "no lose" situation, it can also be viewed as a no win situation.

 

There is a big difference between "no lose", and "low risk". I agree with some of your points, there is definitely some risk; but I think that the mental part of the game is somewhat undervalued. The "overpay" may be nothing more than a psychological ploy to help turn B. Gordon back into the player he was - ie, everyone says you're only worth the vet minimum, but we have confidence in you. The very idea that management has put that value on acquiring you can have an effect on the players confidence and game. I tend to agree we have overpaid, but I bet that Rob has information about B Gordon we don't. He has two guys that hopefully have some insight from their history with the guy.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Anyone interested in credibility. You can't point to one aspect of what one player brings, and then completely ignore when that same aspect is a negative with another player. Preparing our young guys for the future is important to those supporting the Frye signing, preparing our young guys for the future should also be important when looking at the Gordon signing.

 

Was someone arguing that signing Frye would mean more MINUTES for Oladipo and Payton?

 

Because unless someone was making that argument, what you're saying right now makes no sense.

[CTMagicUK 1,482]

What I'm saying makes perfect sense. Whether it's through minutes or leadership, it's still development.

 

So Frye can develop guys off the court but Gordon can't?

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

You're not making very much sense. You're really trying to force an argument here, even more so than usual.

 

You claimed the author of the article purposely left out information in order to be able to "rant". I asked you what information was left out, why did you ignore that question? The article makes valid points. Even if Gordon does play well, it's going to be at the expense of our younger players. The argument for Frye is that he makes players around him better. I don't agree with the signing, but I agree that's part of his game, as well as the leadership angle. But moving on to Gordon, how does HIS game make anyone better? He's not known as a locker room guy, (he actually has the opposite reputation..fair or not), so we can't focus on that. Does Ben Gordon make the players around him better? If not, what benefit does it serve if he plays "better"? A few more made three's, at best a trade for a second round pick? Is that worth more than valuable playing time for our young guys? I don't believe that it is.

 

Now what if he plays just as horribly for us as he did last season? I think he was around 25% from three, what if that wasn't an anomaly? What if the guy is just done? Clearly, most people believe this is a very real possibility. The fact that it's even part of the discussion means it's foolish to give the guy the contract we did. The general consensus is he's worth the vet minimum, and that's what he should have been paid. The "benefit" of a slight resurgence isn't enough to justify taking playing time away from our young guys.

 

People call it a "no lose" situation, it can also be viewed as a no win situation.

 

I wasn't responding to the article, I was having a conversation with Mr. Acres which you decided you participate, and I was commenting on your stance, particularly your attempt to separate the amount of Gordon's contract with the length as two individual issues, and in general to anyone who posts or writes an article with a negative slant without acknowledging the fact that it's a low risk move that doesn't impact the team in any significant negative manner. Worst case, he's horrible in and off the court and we cut him. His deal doesn't impact the team financially. At all. Given how far below the salary floor we were, the fact that we overpaid is a minor gripe. Best case, he actually becomes a valuable asset to the team either as a player or a trade piece.

 

I claimed nothing about the article. I didn't read the article. I don't care about the article. Again, I was responding to your asinine comment and decided mid thought to lump it in with other preposterous posts and articles that have been written. Having said that, I think you can conclude why I didn't "answer the question. My comments are aimed at you, not at the article. The article has no bearing on my position, though you can try to confuse the issue if you want.

 

He's overpaid. So what. Yes, that's a negative aspect to the deal, but in the big picture, it's a very minor negative aspect given our current payroll and the long term implications of his deal, it's completely inconsequential.

[Catman 380]

The Gordon signing is fine. Its just progressive and NBA writers can't think that way.

 

1. - It's zero risk because of our financial structure. $4.5mm is not overpaying when you have 27million to spend. Furthermore, in this free agent market it is not overpaying simply because another team very likely could have offered Ben Gordon (yes ben gordon ) enough to get him to play for a better team. So the Magic had to spend a little more but it does not affect them in any way.

 

2. Ben Gordon is only 31. He easily has the potential to be a very good player off the bench for us. He will make Payton's life a lot easier if he is knocking down shots and keeping defenders honest. Why? - tough to double when you have a guy like Gordon who is on fire from the arc.

 

3. Here is the gamble - will ben gordon retain his old form? If so, who would argue the $4.5mm then, especially in this market? No one. you will read articles about how people questioned the move but it is paying off big time for Orlanod.

 

4. There is no downside here. The Magic are so far under the cap and so flexible that the Gordon signing has almost zero risk. If you are a gambling man and look at the risk/reward in this situation, it is simply a no brainer. Especially when you see teams massively overpaying for younger, unproven players. I would argue that the Parsons and Hayward contracts are FAR bigger gambles than anything the Magic have done.

[CTMagicUK 1,482]

When has Gordon been considered a locker room guy?

 

Does it matter if he's been considered it before? I posted a pic in the summer league thread of he, Harkless, O Quinn and Tobias together after a workout. I'm sure he has words of advise for guys, he's played in the playoffs, he's been a good scorer in this league. The FO have 2 execs who worked with Gordon previously, I trust their opinion of him over the preconceived notion that he's a cancer.

[jmmagicfan 302]

Anyone interested in credibility. You can't point to one aspect of what one player brings, and then completely ignore when that same aspect is a negative with another player. Preparing our young guys for the future is important to those supporting the Frye signing, preparing our young guys for the future should also be important when looking at the Gordon signing.

You do have a point, but you also have to look at it from this perspective - last year Nelson, Moore and Afflalo combined for approximately 86 minutes per game. I don't include Price and Lamb, as they didn't play the majority of games. If you split those 86 minutes evenly between Payton, Fournier and B Gordon, then each would get 28-29 minutes per game. Even if you include A Gordon, that is still 20-21 minutes a game each. I am not including Marble, as he isn't signed to a guaranteed contract yet, and I expect he will be used more like Lamb was, on an as-needed basis, end of the rotation. I expect the rotation will still fluctuate a lot depending on how any one player is playing on any given night, but I don't really see a big issue for minutes yet. If the Magic pick up another veteran PG, it may become an issue.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

Anyone interested in credibility. You can't point to one aspect of what one player brings, and then completely ignore when that same aspect is a negative with another player. Preparing our young guys for the future is important to those supporting the Frye signing, preparing our young guys for the future should also be important when looking at the Gordon signing.

 

Sure you can, it's called expectations and roles. If Frye is the guy you want to lead your team and mentor your young guys, his leadership is an ability that you want to focus on. If Gordon is not a guy the team wants to put into that role, his leadership is less important.

 

You wouldn't focus predominantly on Vuc's ball handling skills in his role as a center, and you wouldn't focus on Payton's rebounding, and when talking about those two on this team.

 

But let me save you the trouble. That's not really what you meant, and I'm twisting your words.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Oh, I get it.

 

Eskobar thinks we shouldn't have bothered signing anyone to replace Moore, Lamb or Price.

 

Payton replaces Nelson, Fournier replaces Afflalo, and then we spend the entire season with 4 guards on our roster instead of 6.