Ben would be a second option on good to great teams. Incorrect. Why not? He averages 20 points and is usually the go-to guy on a terrible team. How many players who score 20 a game are not the second scoring option? Citing PPG by itself is getting dangerously close to citing RBIs Correct. Ben Gordon on a very good team does not score 20 and even if he does it's irrelevant without taking team defense, shot selection, team offense and per minute efficiency into account. Which is what I was getting at without really explaining it very well or at all. Second scoring option implies he plays major minutes and gets the second most looks on a good to great team. I don't think that would be possible or wise unless you had an unrealistically good front court. Ben Gordon would be devastating on a team like the Lakers, Celtics or Spurs. On a team where he is the second or third best player, he's good and valuable, but the team isn't very good. I think he'd be great if we land Amare/Bosh and Rose matures. If Gordon in his prime is your 3rd option, I think you're going to have a pretty good team. And I think Salmons can handle guarding 3's. Obviously we'll get more of a look at that the rest of this season, but he does make up for his lack of size at the 3 with his quickness and long arms. I'm all for the 2010 plan too, but I still believe you have to keep Gordon to keep the backcourt where it's at. For all the criticism that Gordon had coming into this season with all those people saying he couldn't work together with Rose, I think they're doing a solid job. They've really been the only two guys that have came to play from start to finish this year.