Alright, let's get this whole addition by substraction thing settled once and for all, shall we? First, a personal disclosure: I feel that getting rid of Bargs is addition by subtraction, in that I feel the Raps play a better all-around game with him not playing. This has been the case for the past several years, in fact, if one discounts as an abberation those brief halcyon days last year when he seemed to "get" it.
What are the arguments for Bargs? It is said that he gives other Raps more space to operate because the opposition four or five has to come out to the three-point line to cover him. If that were the case, it stands to reason that the team's shooting percentage would be better with him on the floor, since the other four players would be having better looks thanks to the space afforded them. Similarly, the fact that Bargs draws his PF counterpart out to the three-point line should result in the Raps getting AT LEAST as good a percentage of all available rebounds as when he's off the court. Last (and least, IMHO, is the team's win-loss record both with him and without him (too many variables entere into it for this to be the be-all and end-all criterion). Also, points scored while he's on the court versus points scored when he's not; and same thing with points allowed. I think once all this is added up, we can determine with a bit more clairty whether he's a plus or a minus. Now, it goes without saying that any player is an asset to some degree, as a trade chip. So of course you don't want to just dump the guy. Statophile, get right on this, will ya?