OT: Bucks sign Gooden to five year 32 million dollar deal

Fair enough. You think it's a good deal; I hope you and John Hammond are happy together, because right now you may be the only two in the country that believe it. Even Drew Gooden's agent doesn't think it's a steal for the Bucks. You don't sign this early if you think there's a better offer on the horizon.

 

Winnah, winnah chicken dinnah

 

I never said it was a good deal. I said it was a fair-to-good price in terms of production. If hyperbole didn't exist, we'd all be boring.

 

So what's your excuse?

 

So, when you spoon John Hammond, are you in front or back? You're still alone with him in even that assessment.

 

I use hyperbole a lot. So do most posters here. I didn't in this thread, though.

I already said (before you did) that the length of the deal is worthy of debate. I think $6 million/per for a 17 PER player is a good price in terms of on-court production. I don't know what is so off-the-wall about that opinion.

 

Ridiculous. 17 PER/$6 million/per is on-court value. You had to lie about what I posted, and now instead of manning up and admintting you misrepresented my position, you build another strawman.

 

Because that 17 PER is connected to Dwight Gooden.

 

Imaginary Cap Space strikes again! The market sets the price!

 

I thought Gooden was much older than 28. Still a very underwhelming signing, as if the Bucks made Drew Gooden their No. 1 priority in free agency? Yuck. And the Bucks will still go nowhere.

 

The Bucks will be pretty good if Bogut fully recovers and if Jennings continues to grow ... the rest is mostly window dressing.

 

So a 17 PER on-court has more value from another player? Production is production, IMO. Gooden has been to an NBA Finals as a starting PF, so he must not be the complete teamwrecker that you paint him to be. Plus, Drew Gooden may be a headcase, but he's no Dwight Gooden, is he?

 

I don't see the Bucks any more than a No. 5-8 seed in the East. They'll challenge to win a first-round matchup because of Jennings, but nothing more.

 

Oops. I mixed up sports. Drew. Drew. Drew.

But PER is not a complete measurement, so not all 17 PERs are created equally.

 

Is 17/11 on 48% shooting per/36 productive for a PF? I'd pay $6 million for that. The Blazers just paid $13 million for 17/7 on 49% shooting per/36 for their starting PF.

Is there risk associated with Gooden? Sure. Is he a value given his production on the court? I say yes.

 

You're entitled to your opinion. Others disagree with it. Vaya con Dios.

 

God looks down on me spooning with John Hammond, yet I continue to do it.

Thank you for letting me be entitled to my opinion. If that sort of on-court production isn't worth $6 million/per, then I'm comfortable disagreeing with you.

 

PapaG, you're a weird dude. Someone disagrees with your opinion and you try to paint yourself as a victim.

 

Unlike you, I didn't resort to strawmen and talking about me "spooning" a GM. I didn't paint myself as a victim, I pointed out that you fabricated my position, and then when caught, continued with some ad hominem attacks. This makes me a "weird dude".

Childish, if you ask me. Then again, saying 17/11 and a 17 PER on the court isn't worth $6 miillionfor a 28 year-old PF seems rather silly, so I understand why you lashed out and made up my position to suit your "argument".

 

Butthurt much? Once again, you're the innocent victim. How tragic these things keep happening to you.