A lot of people have been debating the relative worth of Gallo or Chandler to the team and whether or not one of them should be traded for financial considerations or to bring in pieces the Nuggets might need more. Having two young, good SFs isn't really a luxury the Nuggets can have considering the other holes in the line up and trading them now is likely to yield the best value.
I'm going to use two great sites, 82games.com and basketball-reference.com to draft this information. Another awesome resource is wagesofwins.com.
By every metric Chandler had an abysmal 2012 campaign and didn't play many meaningful minutes. I am going to be using his 2011 Nuggets stats and comparing them to 2011-2012 Gallinari. I am ignoring the time they spent for the Knicks since the D'Antoni system obviously inflates their offensive statistics (see: Felton, Raymond).
AGE: Gallo (Slight)
Gallo is younger than Chandler by about 15 months. This isn't really a huge difference, but it is important to keep in mind that a younger player generally has more room for growth. Most NBA players, excluding Centers, end up being the players they're going to be by 25 (Steve Nash exempted). Gallo gets the slight edge here.
CONTRACT: Chandler
Gallo will make approximately 42M in the next 4 years, hitting us for ~11.5 M in 2015/16 when he'll be 28.
Chandler signed a 5 yr/37M deal, and while I don't have the hard numbers, that works out to approximately 7.4 M/yr, possibly a little more since I'm not sure how pro-rated the contract was for this year, or if that is simply an extension which will start next year.
In either case, Chandler makes about a third less than Gallo, so he doesn't have to play as well to justify his contract, and if he does play well, it makes the contract more valuable.
SIZE: Gallo (very, slight).
Height is probably the most overrated metric in the NBA, but it still matters. The average NBA SF is about 6'7" and 225 lbs. This number is from 2007, but it hasn't changed appreciably at least since 1995.
Gallo clocks in at 6'10" and 225 with an estimated 7' wingspan.
Chandler is 6'8", also 225 and a wingspan that varies from 6'8" to 7'.
Gallo is a little taller, and with a similar wingspan gets a slight edge here as it will help him get his shot off. In any event, it's a very, very slight advantage.
REBOUNDING: TIE
Gallo and Chandler both average 5.2 rebounds per 36 which is about average for their position. No real edge here for either one.
OFFENSE: GALLO
Gallo had a somewhat down year this year shooting wise, almost all due to a slight dip in his 3PT shooting percentages. For his career he's actually been better than average. Chandler, meanwhile, has never shot a very good percentage from 3 and is more-or-less average for his career.
When we look at TS%, which takes into consideration 2's, 3's and FT's with a weighted formula, Gallo wins here quite handedly by about 5-6% which is quite a lot.
When we look at other ancillary stats, like assists, and turnovers, the numbers don't jump out for either one of the players except that Chandler is a little more turn-over prone.
Overall the analysis looks relatively even, minus Gallo's better percentages, but when we look at advanced offensive stats, Gallo really shines while Chandler doesn't.
Production Own/Opp
Gallo (2012): +4.9
Gallo (2011): +6.1
Chandler (2011): +0.9
Net On/Off Court:
Gallo (2012): +8.5
Gallo (2011): +0.9
Chandler (2011): +2.9
ORtg:
Gallo (2012): 114
Gallo (2011): 113
Chandler (2011): 96
OWS:
Gallo (2012): 2.9
Gallo (2011): 0.7
Chandler (2011): -0.2
Almost every advanced offensive rating gives Gallo a big lead over Chandler as far as an offensive thread. While you would expect an aberration here and there with these sorts of statistics, when they all conclude the same thing you can be pretty confident its the truth.
DEFENSE: TIE
Chandler is considered to be tenacious defender by many due to his length and Gallo has made strides in recent years. Their on/off numbers are comparable and their defensive ratings are more or less-even. While both Gallo and Chandler are decent defenders, neither are elite-top-tier defenders.
Overall: GALLO
Overall, Gallo wins this. He's a better offensive player and a near-equal defensive player to Chandler. He's taller, younger and has more potential. And, to clinch it, when one looks at his WS/48, probably the best statistic in basketball for judging the overall impact of a player, Gallo is clearly the better player (.14 in 2012 to Chandler's 0.03 in 2011). Since 0.1 represents an average player.
The real clincher is the fact that Chandler is more-or-less the player we know he is, a relatively average NBA SF who is playing relatively average basketball. There's still some potential that he can improve, since he's not really played a lot of games in Karl's system and was trapped in China most of this year, and if he does take a leap he'll be a huge bargain. But if you're going to bet on a player, Gallo has the more upside and is already a better player. The only negative to Gallo is his contract which is considerably more expensive than Chandlers. Still, Gallo doesn't have to improve *that much* from where he currently is to justify the contract and barring a complete collapse of his general improvements in his game, he probably will.
I also want to dispel the notion that Chandler should be playing SG. There's an idea that we can simply swing Chandler over to SG and play him along with Gallo. Simply put, in his time at SG, Chandler has been a disaster. Additionally, that position should be locked down by AAA who is hilariously under appreciated by the fans here at Denver Stiffs (check out his 2012 post-All-Star break stats. Those are damn good stats).
Right now the general perception of Chandler is probably higher than his actual value so trading him should bring in good value. I'm not necessarily advocating that, in fact you might argue that the most important reason for having Gallo/Chandler next year is that it means less minutes for Al Harrington who has been absolutely KILLING the Nuggets. More on that albatross later.
TL/DR: Don't trade Gallo, Chandler is decent. Both are way better than Harrington.
