Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
And history says it wasn't even one of the 15 worst deals given out that year.
Chandler Parsons got $95 million and played 100 shitty games over 4 years for a total of 1.2 win shares. That had to be the worst.
I think the Lakers w/ Deng and Mozgov own 2 and 3. $130 some odd million for 2 guys who played like 120 games combined. Mozgov was so bad the Lakers had to attach Russell to him just to get him off the books.
Those were the clear top 3 in terms of raw awfulness, IMO. The rest were either shorter term, lower $$ or at least the team got SOME value out of the guys in question.
But yeah, the summer of 2016 has gone down in sports lore as teams just tripping over themselves **** up worse than their competitors.
Biyombo always comes to mind because I remember watching the Raptors in the playoffs that prior year. He wasn't great, but you could see his contribution. I remember thinking, "Some idiot is going to overpay for that insanely-small sample size and it's too bad because this Raptors team is kind of fun to watch."
With the Lakers, I knew it happened, but that's kind of what I expected, if that makes any sense. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
Biyombo always comes to mind because I remember watching the Raptors in the playoffs that prior year. He wasn't great, but you could see his contribution. I remember thinking, "Some idiot is going to overpay for that insanely-small sample size and it's too bad because this Raptors team is kind of fun to watch."
With the Lakers, I knew it happened, but that's kind of what I expected, if that makes any sense.
My memory was they made a hard play for Kawhi Leonard and maybe Paul George. And when those didn't land, they panicked.
And little Jimmy Buss was on a deadline imposed by Jeanie Buss and the rest of the Lakers ownership group to make the playoffs or get canned by, I think, 2018.
So yeah, EVERYONE knew he was about to do something stupid. And man oh man, did the Lakers ever shit the bed on that one. It was just a perfect storm that led to that disaster. [Reply]
Another player I thought would be great on the Chiefs, but I get not wanting to pay $9 million for him. Little surprised Dallas didn't try a little harder to find the cash to bring him back. I guess Cooks was more important? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
Another player I thought would be great on the Chiefs, but I get not wanting to pay $9 million for him. Little surprised Dallas didn't try a little harder to find the cash to bring him back. I guess Cooks was more important?
They should've.
This will hurt them more than Cooks helps, IMO. [Reply]
Regarding this "collusion" nonsense, it should also be noted that the value of draft picks has never (in my memory) been higher*. I think teams** are beginning to understand the value of young and cheap (healthy) labor given the QB contacts that now exist. The Chiefs did absolutely NOTHING to dispel this notion, either, winning the Super Bowl by going extremely young and rookie heavy. Remember when people thought the Chiefs*** got "fleeced" by Miami? Yeah, good times.
Originally Posted by smithandrew051:
What am I missing with Schultz? Young, productive. Only a 1-year deal?
Doesn’t look like he has much of an injury history either.
Probably shouldn’t command some monster contract, but I figured his market would be a bit stronger than that.
dinged up a lot.
Guys that are truly durable simply don't really have injuries - ever. Kelce, Tony G, folks like that.
Guys that are just healthy(ish) because they're in their 20s do have the kind of annoying sorts of nagging injuries Schultz has been having over the last couple years and those kinds of guys worry me long-term.
Football is just so self-selecting. The guys that can do this long-term are guys that are seemingly bulletproof when they're younger. And I don't think Dalton qualifies.
Now would I have been fine giving him 3 years? Yeah - but maybe he didn't want to sign for that long. He could be looking to test the market again at a relatively young age after some of the media rights deals expand the cap. [Reply]