Shaffty wrote:ShootingtheJ wrote:DrWood wrote:Really weird post.
I was making the point that the animus against the contract was due the way it went down. Some people would have quibbled about the $ if the first contract offer never happened, but a cheaper, two-year contract influenced how strong that reaction was.
The point is the people who complained about the contract in either version were wrong.
people who complained about the actual contract are idiots, but it was a legitiment mistake that we at 'RealGM' should make fun of when a REAL GM makes the mistake lol
Nope. At the time, Pat was coming off a sub 20 minute/game season where he shot 33% from 3. His 5.4 ppg was tied with Robin Lopez and was behind Ersan and Korver, but just ahead of Sterling Brown. This type of production is easily replaced with low salary 1 year deal type players, and was especially questionable in light of the assumed need to surround Giannis with shooters. Any outside objective observer would have concluded the Bucks were betting on Pat's future production, especially his shooting. And that's without taking into consideration the Bucks initially botching the deal which turned it into a 3 year deal.
The bet has paid off as Pat has outperformed his contract. Great for the Bucks and Pat. What we should really be making fun of is 'revisionist history.'