Washed.
So why didn’t GA win a chip? Contract so bad they changed the rules.
this reminds me I need to create a gilbert arenas filter
It is amusing that Curry was the 82nd highest paid player in the 2016-2017 season.
It was his 8th year in the league, and he was coming off back to back MVPs.
And he was making less than Miles Plumlee and Brandon Knight.
You’re telling me if you spend less on one thing, you can afford other things as well? 🤯🤯 Gil is so smart man, damn
Jordan also was under paid for a lot of his career, because he wanted to win.
Nobody with self-respect should listen to anything Gilbert Arenas says.
How is he wrong here? Warriors don’t sign kd without Steph signing a deal that lead to him being severely underpaid
He isn’t “wrong,” but he is misleading with his statement. Curry’s contract at the time was based on the fact he had ankle injuries multiple years, and it seemed like he might not make it in terms of a long nba career. Also, Steph wasn’t the Curry yet that we know today. From today’s perspective, with hindsight being 20/20, that contract doesn’t look good and seems undervalued greatly, but back then, it wasn’t given the circumstances. Did it lead to the Warriors signing KD? Absolutely. Did it lead to a Dynasty once Steph erupted? Absolutely. But the Warrios didn’t severely underpaid Steph back then just to create a dynasty. They did it based on valid concerns that Steph might not make another few years in the NBA at the time.
That’s why he’s the only nba talking head I listen to.
Even when he’s right, I still just get sick of hearing from him. He speaks the same if he’s right or way fucking wrong.
I don’t think it should be considered a bad deal because Steph wasn’t really Steph yet
That Steph contract was coming off of injury plagued years. You could argue Steph hadn’t become Steph yet and had an injury history. Did it turn out great for GSW across the board…obviously.
I don’t think Steph thought that contract was a bad deal. Neither did the GM.
Gil means signing a cheaper contract to give the team financial capacity to be further strengthened. He’s wording it in a strange manner and then getting frustrated lol
It wasn’t considered a bad contract at the time either - he was seen as a major injury risk and also not a star (he wouldn’t make his first all-star team until 2013-14, the second season after signing it). People were discussing it in the same breath as the contract Ty Lawson got.
It just so happened that the contract coincided with him making the leap to star and then another leap to all-time great at the exact same time the team took a big jump overall which turned a good contract into a historically great one.
He is saying it from a players perspective.
A Great contract for everyone (Fans, GMs, Owners) is a bad contract for a player( if we take out factors outside the court).
Yes Curry was okay with that considering his injuries but in a vacuum, any of us would put his money per stats/awards ratio and see it is among the lowest, that he was underpaid for these seasons and thus it was “bad” from a player’s perspective.
In a similar way, Brunson did take a paycut but but he frequently and openly jokes about where “his money” showing he did take a" bad contract" for the Good of the team.
My take too. Why is it a bad deal? A bad deal for Steph? The others are saying Steph still gets his money on the back end of it AND he gets to be part of a dynasty too. Why is that a bad deal for him?
Bad for the players agency and agents and free market contract negotiations for players as an abstract? Ok maybe in that context yes it’s a bad deal.
If there is a cap on money u can spend and one takes less money than his market value it’s obv that it’s a good contract for the org? Wtf this post about
Yep