Yes, Sacramento values scoring, which is not surprising considering they are a lottery team that hasn't been to the playoffs in years and need to make money for their owners who don't have a lot.
While I'm obviously no fan of THornton (and believe that Sacramento is going to regret offering that contract), doesn't it worry you that a player who is 6 inches shorter than Bargnani was able to get eerily similar stats, including nearly matching him in the rebounding department? And that player is not even close to considered an All-Star. Imagine if Thornton just averaged a rebound or 2 more? Hey, if Bargnani can conceivably do it, why not Thornton?
This is my whole point about people bringing up these meaningless, surface stats and pretending they mean more than they do. Averaging 21 ppg in the NBA is definitely an accomplishment, but too many people seem to overvalue it, especially when it's done on a bad team. Someone I've brought up as an example before is
Tony Campbell. Another guy who could score on a bad team.
See, what people who overvalue scoring seem to forget is that the players who score on good teams, are actually able to do other things to help their team, as well. It's an INCREDIBLY important aspect that never seems to get mentioned. That's why they get the minutes and shots they do. Stick Marcus Thornton on Mavericks and he gets 10 mpg. If that. Why? Because good teams already have scorers. And those scorers do other things other than score. So a guy like Thornton or Bargnani are simply not nearly as valuable as they are on a bad team, who just needs someone to fill up the score sheet.
There's a reason why a guy like Al Harrington scores and plays less the better the team he is on. Why an excellent scorer, like Corey Maggette, can score nearly 20 ppg for Golden State, yet be given away for cap space and why, despite his ability to score on a team that desperately needed scoring (Milwaukee), he averaged the fewest mpg in 10 years and barely lasted a year before being shipped off to another lottery team.