Here's the thing, last season not counting penalties we scored 37 goals.
Gordon was directly involved (goal/assist) in 7 of them. We are starved for goals in the team and people slate the lad who was directly involved in 19% of our goals during the season...
That's a very fair point in this, and a big counter to people who say best of a bad bunch. People probably look at that, as a positive not negative. They will look at a lad who came into a team that got less than a point a game (so showed relegation form) and got 4 goals and 2 assists in the league, and as you say 37 goals (as a proportion it would have been lower post him getting in the team as we fell away through no fault of his). Chelsea could cautiously say they get double the goals, so probably double the chances etc. So for Gordon that is already 8 goals and 4 assists. That is already what Havertz got last season.
Gordon is also 2 years younger. He also contributes a lot defensively and can clearly play a pressing game. Hes also on a huge upward trajectory. His goals really came in the 2nd half of last season. So again, extrapolate out, if he gets 4 and 2 over half a season, over a full season it's 8 and 4, and in a side that (cautiously) gets double the goals thats 16 goals and 8 assists. That's without factoring in any further improvement.
I'm going downa bit of a rabbit hole, and on those numbers, he may only play 80% of the games, but they also have European games as well. I can completely see why Chelsea and others would go big on it. Imagine having a 22 year old who was getting 12-15 goals 6-8 assist in a season in the PL. That's a very expensive player.