H1AND1 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:H1AND1 wrote:NardDogNation wrote:mreinman wrote:NardDogNation wrote:mreinman wrote:NardDogNation wrote:mreinman wrote:NardDogNation wrote:mreinman wrote:NardDogNation wrote:mreinman wrote:NardDogNation wrote:mreinman wrote:be honest ... were you one of the guys who was for the bargs trade?there were many of them on this site though they are hiding.
....weren't you one of those guys lauding Bargs?
were you for the bargs trade?
I had nothing against Bargs but I hated the fact that we gave up picks to get it done though. At the time though, I was routinely criticized for not seeing the light, which involved us dumping Novak's 2015 salary and getting a guy who could be the new Rasheed Wallace. Flash-forward a year and Bargnani is even more injury prone than Rasheed was and Steve Novak was dumped on the Jazz using our own 2nd round pick as a sweetner. And I was criticized again for pointing the latter fact out.
This was the problem with many knick fans. They had no clue how bad he was because they did not check or understand his numbers.
They should have given us 2 first rounders to take him.
I knew the inherent risks beforehand. If we went by your numbers, guys like Monta Ellis and Zach Randolph would've been out of the league.
The numbers were not the problem is Bargs. The problem with Bargs was that he came with so much risk involved. And in this NBA, you don't give up picks on risks. Had the deal been kept to Novak and expirers that would've been reasonable.
The numbers were not the problem?
Did you ever check the numbers?
Yeah, I did. And he was injury-prone to boot.
ah ... so the numbers were not the problem?
I think this is why you keep suggesting we trade for idiots who's numbers are awful. You just look at compiled numbers instead of the important ones.
And this is why you've tried to hype guys like Kyle Korver into things they are not. This game isn't exclusively based off of numbers that measure very limited elements of the sport. The reality is that nothing operates in a vacuum.
Yet, people like you would have given up Zach Randolph for an expirer, only to watch him become a centerpiece of a legitimate contender. Then the narrative magically gets re-written as though a change in coaching, culture and an upgrade in talent had nothing to do with his ensuing success.
Vacuum??
People who ignore obvious numbers have their heads stuck in a vacuum.
Bargs - OBVIOUS STINKER
Korver - OBVIOUS POSITIVE SUM PLAYER (now figure out what he is worth)
Kyle Korver career PER is 13.2, career high is 14.2. Bargnani's career PER is 14.4, career high is 16.4-17.4.
I'm not even an Andrea fan but if Bargnani is healthy, are we even having this conversation? Figure that out.
Korver is certainly a specialist so you have to value him in that light however Imo injuries aside and everything equal Korver is a much better player than Bargs. Sure they average about the same
Number of points but Korver gets his points in a very small number of shots and hits the shots he does take a ridiculously high percentage.
Bargs is a chucker of the worst ilk and relies on volume and takes way too many shots to get his points (comparable as they are to Korver).
I would take Korver over a healthy Bargs any day of the week. Sure he's a specialist but he's so freaking good at what he does do that its pretty valuable. Certainly more valuable than Bargs.
I wasn't talking about today's Andrea. Was talking about him historically.
Bargs in his heyday was still garbage IMO. He was a chucker who took too many threes at a bad %, and too many bad shots in general (relied on volume to get his points). He also didn't rebound, especially pathetic for a 7 footer or play D, and was generally overrated and minus sum overall. Sure, Korver was simply a specialist years back before he became super efficient but Bargs has always sucked. Even when he averaged 20 a game he did it on too many shots.
You know what? I'll cede the point. I don't even like Bargnani so there is no point in trying to defend his legacy. But in the context of our situation entering the 2013-2014 season, would it have been a bad trade if we didn't give up picks?
