RealGM

Select the player you'd rather have on your roster....


Player A --- Makes $23.8 million per season

Last year's numbers: 13.7 ppg, 4.7 rpg, 2.8 apg, .492 FG pct, .414 3pt pct, .684 FT pct.


Player B --- Makes $17.0 million per season

Last year's numbers: 15.4 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 2.7 apg, .462 FG pct, .400 3pt pct, .832 FT pct.

Player B gets to the line more often, and attempts more 3s per game, while still shooting a great percentage.

Discuss.

Yea I'd rather have Fournier than Parsons. Thanks for playing.

I don't see the point... they play different positions, and technically we could have had both. You'd have to factor in Parson's injury anyway for multiple reasons.... expectation of higher scoring stats next season, but also concern of re-injury.

This is like the Pepsi Challenge when you have no idea which is which and get totally surprised when you pick Pepsi.

If this is to be a true blind study, then shouldn't the moderator avoid hyping up one of the options?

The OP is so smart. He really showed us something deep here.

OrlandO wrote:I don't see the point... they play different positions, and technically we could have had both. You'd have to factor in Parson's injury anyway for multiple reasons.... expectation of higher scoring stats next season, but also concern of re-injury.

They do the same things on the court. Except Fournier is 23 and might actually get better. Parsons is at his ceiling already.

This board was ready to cut a max check for Parsons. That was my point.

Thanks god that we didn't sign Parsons, too expensive for a role player.

Can we rename this thread the "Thank goodness we didn't sign Parsons like most of this board wanted" thread?

Skin wrote:Can we rename this thread the "Thank goodness we didn't sign Parsons like most of this board wanted" thread?

Gordon is now free to shine.


..