RealGM

would you guys consider the Spurs a legit threat to us?

I don't consider them a legit threat to us now. Sorry, they're a great team, but I just don't see us losing to them in a 7 game series (even w/out Bynum).

But if they got Vince, would this change your outlook? And to amplify the point, lets assume they don't have to give up anyone of value (obviously this won't be the case).

I personally think it would make them a legit threat to us (this year, w/out Bynum). Vince doesn't impress me by himself, but with their big three he could be uplifted and certainly inspired.

Thoughts?

Why does everybody shudder once they hear a big name associated with a team ? Even if they thought about trading for Carter they would have to give up a big chunk of their team to do so. I love that these teams are pressed with their hands to the hot hood of the Laker machine. All these teams are so scared they're pondering moves that may wreck them gravely.

Do it Spurs.............do it.

whatever results in tony p and manu having the ball less and bowen playing less minutes, is good with me.

i wouldn't like it at all. Vince seems to always plays really well against Kobe. This would make them more competitive against us.

DEEP3CL wrote:Why does everybody shudder once they hear a big name associated with a team ? Even if they thought about trading for Carter they would have to give up a big chunk of their team to do so. I love that these teams are pressed with their hands to the hot hood of the Laker machine. All these teams are so scared they're pondering moves that may wreck them gravely.

Do it Spurs.............do it.

Because the Nets don't want talent in return. They want cap relieve.

^good point, DreamOn, I agree.

Deep, you ignored the part where I said nobody of value leaves the Spurs. I wanted to discuss the worst case scenario (however unlikely it may be). Just curious of everyones analysis.

dcash, I get your point but I actually think those guys could become MORE efficient with the ball in their hands less, scary if you think about it. VC would free up a lot for them b/c you still have respect his shotmaking/playmaking abilities (esp. if he plays inspired ball again).

Judging by the report I read off the wiretap, the author described this deal as "highly unlikely" considering the Spurs have nobody outside of Roger Mason that the Nets are interested in. It sounded to me as if the Spurs made a reconnaissance call and were rebuffed.

Not only do they not have people they're interested in, but financially it would be almost impossible to work unless Duncan/Parker/Ginobili or a 3rd team is involved.

Spurs fan here.

I highly doubt this (or any major deal) will happen.

We are not trading any of our Big 3, which leaves us with very little trade bait.

We're always subject to these rumours this time of year (read: Artest last year).

Won't happen. But I'd love to be proven wrong.

TyCobb wrote:Not only do they not have people they're interested in, but financially it would be almost impossible to work unless Duncan/Parker/Ginobili or a 3rd team is involved.

Yeah, that's one of those tiny details that somehow manages to get left out when rumors like this start floating around.

actually it wouldn't be hard at all to see VC in a spurs jersey provided the nets are only interested in cap relief

all it would take is oberto (3.6M, 2nd yr unguaranteed), bowen (4M, 2nd yr unguaranteed due to him being >37yo), kurt thomas (4.2M, not sure if 2nd yr is unguaranteed as he is 37 in his 2nd yr)

11.8M x 125% = 14.75M +/- 0.2M they are able to take back

vince carter earns 14.72M

add a couple of picks, 3 mil cash, bowen and oberto are instantly waived, and viola, no need to give up anyone of real worth (except kurt thomas)

sure the spurs would be incredibly short changed in the front court, but that would only be until they resign bowen and oberto back and even then they would probably sign another big free man for the min

if they can't, its not hard to have roger mason instead of kurt thomas, and add a vet. min contract and voila, instant vinsanity

Losing Oberto and Thomas and even Bonner to add Carter would not make them better. They would have no post presence. Carter is not a defender and would probably drive Pop nuts.

It sounds 'sexy' but it is not feasible IMO.

Is Duncan going to play 48 minutes at the PF and C position?

lol phil, good points.

I doubt this deal goes down now reading everyones breakdown of who they can trade along with who they would have to give up.

I honestly hope they dont pull it off. But thats just my opinion. They be better off trying to deal for another scoring big man to play next to Duncan. Ive heard Sheed's name out there. id hate to see them get him.

Akiho wrote:actually it wouldn't be hard at all to see VC in a spurs jersey provided the nets are only interested in cap relief

all it would take is oberto (3.6M, 2nd yr unguaranteed), bowen (4M, 2nd yr unguaranteed due to him being >37yo), kurt thomas (4.2M, not sure if 2nd yr is unguaranteed as he is 37 in his 2nd yr)

11.8M x 125% = 14.75M +/- 0.2M they are able to take back

vince carter earns 14.72M

add a couple of picks, 3 mil cash, bowen and oberto are instantly waived, and viola, no need to give up anyone of real worth (except kurt thomas)

sure the spurs would be incredibly short changed in the front court, but that would only be until they resign bowen and oberto back and even then they would probably sign another big free man for the min

if they can't, its not hard to have roger mason instead of kurt thomas, and add a vet. min contract and voila, instant vinsanity

Hmm, I'm far from being a salary cap expert, but I've never heard of contracts being voidable past a certain age. It has always been my understanding that NBA deals are fully guaranteed.

Can you find a link that explains this?

If that is indeed the case, then this would apparently work. If not, then they're stuck with three stiffs through 2010. Surely they could get a better deal than that.

The one I'd heard bandied about elsewhere involved Mason, Bonner, Bowen and Splitter. While that's not much better than the pupu platter we offered up to Memphis for Pau, it makes more sense than taking San Antonio's geriatric refuse.

At any rate, I tend to agree with everybody else. Their top four players would be unbelievable, but they'd have less depth than the Celtics did in the late 80s. And we all know how that went.

Contracts are guaranteed. Age does not matter. The only thing that would give the teams any chance out of contracts are Team Options. Not the same thing, but the closest thing to it.

Players that sign non-guaranteed deals are normally one year deals at the league min. that the team has until a certain date to exercise.

Thomas, Oberto and Bonner dont posses these contracts.

Guys, take a look at the Spurs' salary structure, trading for Vince Carter would mean that they would have to give up like 4-5 guys just to make the salaries match. Spurs aren't a very deep team to begin with and doing that would mean that they will have to fill out their roster with a bunch of D-Leaguers. I don't know if the deal is going to happen, but it just seems very very unlikely.

Well I tried to ensure this wouldn't become a trade thread, but it never fails. For those still interested, I'd love to hear your thoughts on how you think Vince would fit with this team as-is. For my thoughts see the OP.

Well, its nice have whatifs.. but you have to have some substance behind the deal. That means making such a deal even possible.. re: trades.

IF the Spurs trade for him that would have to give up alot either by the way of the big 3 or their depth. You cant ponder the scenario without including this.

Phil_2.0 wrote:Well, its nice have whatifs.. but you have to have some substance behind the deal. That means making such a deal even possible.. re: trades.

IF the Spurs trade for him that would have to give up alot either by the way of the big 3 or their depth. You cant ponder the scenario without including this.

Well, sure you can. You can ponder any scenario with control factors, doesn't make it any less or more a hypothetical. I realize its easier to talk about what one knows (e.g. they'd have to give up this guy or that guy). But thats pretty cut and dried, which is why I wasn't asking for input on that. Anyway, nm.

fareweatherfan wrote:

Phil_2.0 wrote:Well, its nice have whatifs.. but you have to have some substance behind the deal. That means making such a deal even possible.. re: trades.

IF the Spurs trade for him that would have to give up alot either by the way of the big 3 or their depth. You cant ponder the scenario without including this.

Well, sure you can. You can ponder any scenario with control factors, doesn't make it any less or more a hypothetical. I realize its easier to talk about what one knows (e.g. they'd have to give up this guy or that guy). But thats pretty cut and dried, which is why I wasn't asking for input on that. Anyway, nm.

Well lets make this simple.

Carter to the Spurs? How does a trade happen? From there, we can have a discussion on if the Spurs team/w Carter is a threat.

We can't assume Carter to the Spurs ---as is. Can we?

With Carters contract and value Spurs bodies have to be moved. Which spurs allows us to determine of Carter to the Spurs is a threat.