Reply With Quote
LJ trolls.
DPG bites.
Thank god DPG isn't the GM of the Spurs. Bustnani is worth his $50 million contract even though DPG admits that all he can do is put up empty scoring stats? Wow, tbh.
There are 100+ players in the world who can be a 20 ppg scorer when that player is allowed to play absolutely no defense, play big minutes, shoot as much as he wants without regard to percentages, never pass, never rebound ... basically never do anything other than try to score. Thinking a player is worth $50 million simply due to his ability to attempt shots is pretty damn delusional, tbh.
If Colangelo ever gets fired, the first order of business by the next GM will be to amnesty Bustnani.
LJ trolls.
DPG bites.
holy
matt bonner did all this game, had no business being on the court to close out quarters or do anything with the spurs, yet one play where he put his body on the line to take a charge call...ends up with a +6 for the game, wtf..
Misconstrued my point - the point is in this NBA landscape, a big man that is top 20 in scoring making 10M a year is not egregious. Do I think he's worth that or would I give him that? No. I'm saying that in the context of the league, his contract is not outrageous (that does not mean it's a good contract). It's the same argument I use about his draft spot. He's not a true top pick, but in the context of that draft he is easily a top 7 player of that draft. It was just a weak draft.
That's just simply not true. There is a reason why there are only a small percentage of guys who can score 20PPG. There are a lot of guys that get plenty of looks, don't play defense and can't score 20PPG. Again, you act like his entire career is marred by terrible percentages - again, that's simply not true. His career FT is elite, especially when compared to other big men. His 3 point percentage is very respectable as well (almost 37% and top 150 of all time). You can argue bigs shouldn't shoot so many 3's, but when you look at eFG and TS% he's not nearly as bad of a chucker as you make him out to be. He is still a chucker, but he's not some super innefficient offensive scrub. They guy has a unique set of offensive skills even if he sucks at everything else.There are 100+ players in the world who can be a 20 ppg scorer when that player is allowed to play absolutely no defense, play big minutes, shoot as much as he wants without regard to percentages, never pass, never rebound ... basically never do anything other than try to score.
Context as explained above. Again, this is the hyperbole you use when arguing this with me. You try and come up with clever names like Fabbs, twist arguments about things I have never said about this and ignore what was really being argued. I never said Bargs is a great player or argued because I was a huge fan. I simply thought/think he has offensive talent especially for his size and that in the context of the league and the contracts handed out (see Spurs paying RJ money more than Bargs) it's not so terrible even if we all know those contracts are dumb. There's more to it.Thinking a player is worth $50 million simply due to his ability to attempt shots is pretty damn delusional, tbh.
If Colangelo ever gets fired, the first order of business by the next GM will be to amnesty Bustnani.
Guy, you get baited about as much as anyone on this site. I'm not above being trolled but you're acting as if I am running around getting trolled all the time and that is funny to me.
You get trolled regularly by LJ.
This is not hyperbole.
You will also argue this point for the next day or two if I choose to keep it going.
Not hyperbole.
Guy.
DPG just doesnt go down without a fight
He makes Gerald Wallace, Tyrus Thomas money. , Nene and Emeka Okafor make 3 mil a year more than he does. It's not exactly Chris Dudley money.
Look guy, you seem to be confused - you are the one that will keep things going, I can quite easily stop, you however will reply to this and keep it going because I said so.
I feel this debate has merit and make my points - what are your thoughts on Bargnani's contract, draft spot and skills?
I just find it funny that the "I am glad DPG was not the Spurs GM" line was used, when the Spurs actual GM paid Richard Jefferson more money per year than Bargnani
contract = beurk
draft spot = meh
skills = beurk
He's not above trying to make it look like he can control his replies.
Tbh I didn't watch the game, tbh, but has Pop been using Diaw at 3? Tbh that seems like a good idea, since it sort of forces him to shoot more, tbh, but I;m not sure he has the quickness and tbh the tbh tbh tbh tbh tbh tbh tbh tbh tbh tbh tbh tbh tbh tbh tbh, to be honest
So you say that Bustnani isn't worth his contract, you wouldn't have paid him that, that it's not a good contract, don't disagree with me that he'd get amnestied if Colangelo ever left, etc. ...... but you have a problem when I point out that he has negative value. Newsflash: A player who isn't worth his contract (like you've admitted to in numerous ways) has negative value.
Tbh, it's difficult to argue against you because we both know you agree with me, you just don't want to come out and say it. You beat around the bush and admit each of my points is correct but you don't want to connect the dots. Bottomline: The only thing Bustnani can do is score and it's very likely he gives back all those points via bad defense and non-existent playmaking.
Name names. Who else gets the eternal green light to shoot without doing anything else on the court yet can't match Bustnani's scoring?
Newsflash II: The NBA is a league of opportunity. Most everyone in the league is really damn good at basketball. If a team hitches their wagon to a random player, chances are good that the player will put up pretty stats. The key is to put up those stats in a non-empty manner, like you've admitted Bustnani does.
I mean seriously if a team built their offense around Gary Neal he'd average 20+ ppg. That wouldn't make him worth $50M, though.
I agree, he has a unique offensive skillset. I agree, he sucks at everything else. Thus, Emptystatnani is a below average basketball player signed to a huge deal.
How is it hyperbole when we agree on everything? The only difference on what we're saying is you add the asterisk:
*"there are other bad contracts in the league
That's it. A one-dimensional gunner who can only gun isn't worth $50M. We both know this. Yes, I know the RJ contract was stupid and there are other stupid contracts out there. But that doesn't change Bustnani is overpaid and is only regarded highly by those who mistakenly think PPG is the end-all, be-all of NBA stats.
timvp going HAM on DPG
I don't agree he would be amnestied if Colangelo ever left, but that argument is silly since it's purely hypothetical at this point. I don't think it's a completely awful contract either. It's not a good one, but not terrible in the context of the league and his skills. This is a league with very limited players getting big contracts. Offensive talent usually gets paid and he has it. I don't have a problem with you saying he has negative value - I just think it's funny you jab at me (I know you are half taking shots/trolling & half serious about Bargnani) thinking I love Bargnani. I just think you use hyperbole when you talk about how inefficient he is and how any random NBA player can score 20 PPG.
I only somewhat agree with you hence the numerous debates on the matter. I disagree that he is wildly overpaid based on his skills and the state of the league. I disagree he is a bust in the context of the draft in which he was taken. I disagree that he is some terrible chucker that is super inefficient and that anyone in the NBA can score 20 PPG. I don't disagree that a lot of guys are overpaid including guys by the Spurs FO so it shows you there is some reason why guys keep getting these contracts.Tbh, it's difficult to argue against you because we both know you agree with me, you just don't want to come out and say it. You beat around the bush and admit each of my points is correct but you don't want to connect the dots. Bottomline: The only thing Bustnani can do is score and it's very likely he gives back all those points via bad defense and non-existent playmaking.
Bargnani had also shown a lot more high of a ceiling when playing well than a lot of guys in his pay range. His issue like most other guys in these types of convos is consistency. But he did improve as a low post defender (although he's regressed). The issue is he can't be your main guy and his GM/Team sucks. The key point is he's paid like a third option on a good team and I do believe with the right guys around him he could be worth that.
This is where we disagree. There are lots of guys on bad teams that have nothing else to do but put up shots and get stats and don't sniff 20 PPG. Yes, there are a lot of talented guys in the NBA, but if scoring 20 PPG was so easy (not saying there aren't more guys that can do it) then there would be a lot more guys doing it vs just a fraction of the league able to do so. , look at the Bulls sans Rose - no 20 PPG scorers yet lot's of talented guys.Name names. Who else gets the eternal green light to shoot without doing anything else on the court yet can't match Bustnani's scoring?
Newsflash II: The NBA is a league of opportunity. Most everyone in the league is really damn good at basketball. If a team hitches their wagon to a random player, chances are good that the player will put up pretty stats. The key is to put up those stats in a non-empty manner, like you've admitted Bustnani does.
I mean seriously if a team built their offense around Gary Neal he'd average 20+ ppg. That wouldn't make him worth $50M, though.
I've admitted Bargs puts up empty stats but that is in part due to his horrific teams. Again, for a 3rd option (which he's paid like a third option on a good team) he puts up solid numbers and is not as inefficient as you make him out to be. It's not about him being empty, it's about his skills and his team and what they are asking him to do vs what he might be able to do if in a proper role.
My entire argument is that he's not a bust in the context of his draft class and that he's shown some pretty damn good flashes (albeit inconsistently) and he's in the top 20 in the NBA in scoring. There's a lot of empty guys who do way less than Bargs and don't even give you the top 20 in the NBA PPG that he does.
It's hyperbole because you call him the worst player in the NBA. He's not. It's hyperbole because you act like he is the most inefficient chucker ever and I have proven he's not (look at his elite FT%, look at his more than respectable career 3 point %, look at his eFG & TS%'s). It's hyperbole to act as if he is the most overpaid player in the league when there are plenty of guys currently and throughout recent history who make more money and don't even do what he does (even by the Spurs FO). Also, when you look at the draft class, it's hyperbole to call him a bust IMO because he puts up the stats (even if empty) and you can argue he was a top 7 player (probably top 5) in that draft class (doesn't make him great, but it was a terrible draft class).I agree, he has a unique offensive skillset. I agree, he sucks at everything else. Thus, Emptystatnani is a below average basketball player signed to a huge deal.
How is it hyperbole when we agree on everything? The only difference on what we're saying is you add the asterisk:
*"
That's it. A one-dimensional gunner who can only gun isn't worth $50M. We both know this. Yes, I know the RJ contract was stupid and there are other stupid contracts out there. But that doesn't change Bustnani is overpaid and is only regarded highly by those who mistakenly think PPG is the end-all, be-all of NBA stats.
You keep saying it's a "huge" deal - we just disagree. Being paid 10M a year is not some outrageous number in the context of this league and who else makes that money. Is it a large contract? Sure, it's not some mega deal that is completely crippling and in reality he's paid like a 3rd option (which he probably is decent enough to be that if the other two are a good fit and make up for his deficiencies).
I don't think Bargs is highly regarded either. At least not by me. That is the other part of the hyperbole. Saying someone is not a complete bust, that there not as bad of a chucker as it seems and that they are a top 20 NBA scorer isn't highly regarding someone especially when you explicitly say they don't do anything else well.
He is a bust in the context of the draft class. I'll give them Roy, who everyone knew beforehand had bad knees and Rondo, Lowry and Millsap because obviously none of them were candidates to go anywhere near that high. But Aldridge and Gay were very much in the mix and made more sense even then.
SMH at arguing for Gay in an argument about Bargnani which includes accusations of chucking and empty stats and big contracts. No one with the exception of LA/Rondo(even that is still arguable) is a franchise caliber player (and even LA hasn't proven he can be the main man on a winning team). Drafts are a crap shoot and if you have a top 5 pick, even if it's the number one or two, you just want to be sure you get a top 5-7 player in that class (of course you would like the number one player, but again, it's hard to tell). No one in that draft class outside of LA and maybe Rondo makes you completely kick yourself for not taking over Bargnani.
The Raptors franchise would have been better off drafting nobody rather than draft Bustnani.
You know this even if you won't admit it.
My friend - the real question is, that even with hindsight, would Bustnani go in the top 7, yes or no?
The next question is, if Canadian Greece would not have paid MultiBargs 10M per year, are you saying other teams would not have either?
The issue was not drafting MultiBargs nor paying him 10M per year - the issue is the constant terrible inability to build a solid team that he fits well into.
I don't get how anyone thinks Bargnani is good.
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...bargnan01.html
He's a big who's career high in Total rebound % is 10.4. That's Terrible for a big, and one of the reasons he's so bad. People complain about Bonners rebounding being bad, but in their career, Bonner is far superior.
He's been above average in terms of win shares once in his career(A brilliant .104), compared to Bonner, who has a career win score minimum of .110. They're similar players as floor spacing bigs, but Bonner dominates him.
If Win Shares isn't your thing, look at Wins produced.
http://www.thenbageek.com/players/co...r=1&player_ids[]=314&player_ids[]=301&utf8=%E2%9C%93
Hey look, Bonner is better, and Bargnani is worse than a replacement level player.
OK, how about plus minus data.
By RAPM(http://stats-for-the-nba.appspot.com/)
Bonner has been better every year since Bargnani's Rookie year, where Bargnani was slightly better. Bargnani has been negative every year.
He's not worth his contract, and is barely worth it if you took a 0 off the end of it. ( I would say he isn't). He has (somewhat) unique skills, but they don't help win games on a consistent basis.
Fair enough, but Gay is still a better player and plays a position that was of need then (unlike Bargnani) and now.
Who cares whether any of them are franchise caliber players or not? That's not the point. The point is, they're better than Bargnani. They had the 1st pick and walked away with none of the top six players in the draft. That's not only inexplicable/incomprehensible, but it's set the franchise back years.
That Bargnani dude is pretty wack.
They did get a top 6 player in the draft.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
