Reply With Quote
I love Duncan but it was so obvious that KG was the better of the 2 especially in the playoffs. Duncan should get slightly less then KG.
What? What does that have to do with anything? You said he is underpaid. I said he's not. I said the Spurs should pay him because they owe him, but the reason they owe him is not because he is under paid because that is silly.So because of ranking the ~$90 million more Garnett made (not counting this contract) when he could negotiate for market value goes up in smoke? LOL, you're like arguing with a member of congress.
You said he is underpaid because KG is a worse player, yet made more money. I said Tim is top 5 all time, and made more money than plenty of players better than him. You used an excuse as to why he was paid more than guys better, while using the same excuse as to why KG made more.
I love Duncan but it was so obvious that KG was the better of the 2 especially in the playoffs. Duncan should get slightly less then KG.
Duncan couldn't negotiate for market value. Now go troll someone else.
Saying its trolling. Cool.
So in your opinion, Duncan, who was paid as much as he could be paid with the exception of leaving some money on the table, and that is top 5 all time is underpaid.
Cool, I just disagree. It's not trolling.
Yeah and you'd be wrong.
Let's see: Duncan was the most important all-around player on a team that won 50 games, went on a historic run and posted PERs of 22.5 in the regular season and 22.9 in the playoffs.Who has been better last year, Duncan or Garnett?
To me, it's Garnett.
Garnett, on the other hand, was the second best player on a team that won 39 games playing against weaker compe ion while posting PERs of 20.5 in the regular season and 20.4 in the playoffs.
Other than those brainwashed by the ESPN hype machine, it should be clear that Duncan was at the very least as good as Garnett. I'd say he was better. Duncan's advantage on the offense end is greater than Garnett's advantage on defense.
Put Duncan on the Celtics and Garnett on the Spurs and the Celtics are as good or better while the Spurs probably win at least ten fewer games if not more.
If you compare Duncan since March to Garnett since March, there's no way to argue against Duncan, tbh.
1. One player doesn't set a market.
2. Garnett very likely took less. Considering he's made $90+ million more than Duncan and has never taken less (like Duncan already has), it's not a shock that he gave the Celtics a little bit of a discount.
No soy creyente
KG is about to sign a 3 year deal at 34 mil
KG was not better than Tim in the playoffs? Quit being a blind homer & Im not takingg anything away from Duncan cuz he had a great season but last year KG>TD.
Duncan's PER was higher in the playoffs. Just sayin'...
The NBA media loves ALL things Celtic and Laker. Since the Lakers were out early, the story turned to Boston.
IMHO Garnett had a better PO run. In O he has carried a lot of the scoring load with Allen, Pierce struggling to score the basketball tbh fwiw imho
KG contract is an indication for Tim and Spurs FO IMHO but it's not critical
Spurs should give him whatever he wants I'm saying that because I'm pretty sure Tim is going to be reasonable.
Again, this was never about market value for Tim. IMO KG is irrelavant because that is trying to argue market value. If we are talking about market value I don't see an argument that Tim isn't worth 15M a year for two years.
The argument is what is the goal of the team and Tim. Has nothing to do with market value.
My bad. I had read that, but it's not quite true according to the NBA measures. KG was at 22.60 and Tim was at 22.21. That difference is less than a rounding error.
Arguments flying all over the place, hard to keep up. Talking about market value, then camby, then KG, then PER, then who had better support...
Per minute in the playoffs, Duncan averaged more points, more rebounds, more blocks and more assists while turning the ball over much less often. He also had a substantially higher PER. The only reason KG played more minutes is they had so much trouble beating the scrubbish Hawks and Sixers.
There's really no case in saying Duncan was worse than Garnett other than the ESPN hype machine, tbh.
But but, they were so amazed that he did pushups on his knuckles....
Why are we arguing about who was better in the playoffs?
From my understanding, unless Tim takes something silly like 6M per year, this year is shot anyways from a cap perspective. The important year is the year after next, no?
I'm not engaging, bro. I'm here to talk basketball; not help someone troll.
I am not trolling. I am not bragging. 2 of the 3 post I quoted in the thread you bumped were going back to comments about Tim's contract that you lauded me for and now you scoff me for.
I've said two things: Tim deserves to be paid whatever he wants but that it is not a market value argument. If it was about market value, it's 15M a season end of discussion.
I also said he's not underpaid.
That's it. I don't see how that is trolling unless you are trolling me like you are everyone else with the multi-argument.
If your best argument is the per argument then I'm afraid you've already lost.
My argument is that by every stat Duncan was better. What's your argument?
The timing on the announcement of Tim's new deal is interesting to me. If they announce it after the Spurs have used their MLE/BAE and made their decisions on Green and Mills, it would indicate to me that Tim has become part of the decision-making process with Pop and ownership.
My argument is that KG was better in the post season & his play suggested that, those per stats are basically hypothetical & really mean nothing. It seems to me like your argument is more of a theory then an actual argument.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions