VC for Bogut

Post #21 » by **Ruzious** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:48 pm

legacyinthemakin89c wrote:Still terrible for the Nets. Bogut has been a bust so far and Vince Carter is Vince Carter and could possibly land Jermaine O'Neal, why would they settle for Bogut?

You can call him a bust, but he's still one of the top few players of that draft, and he's still improving. I'd call VC 31 years old on Saturday and ready to start on the downside of his career. If they were both free agents this offseason, I think there'd be more interest in Bogut.

legacyinthemakin89c · Post #22 » by **legacyinthemakin89c** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 8:49 pm

skones wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Yes, because Jermaine O'neal is an absolute STUD. He was putting up 15 and 7 this season on 44% shooting and he turns 30 next October. On top of that, he hasn't played 70 games since the 2003-2004 season. Right now Bogut is a flat out more valuable player than O'neal.

Take a look at Bogut's numbers since the start of this month. It's the first time during Bogut's tenure as a Buck he's getting relatively consistent post up opportunities. That AND our guards ignore him when they shouldn't more than anyone would like. 18 points 11 rebounds 3 assists 1.3 blocks on 58% shooting? That's pretty impressive in my book.

As far as I'm concerned, with the way Bogut is playing right now, I'm not even going to consider proposals with him involved unless of course there is some young STUD involved. Sean Williams does not equal a young stud in my eyes.

O'Neal is a half court player and has been left behind in the Pacers new offense, that is why he has looked so bad this year and last year when they attempted to run. O'Neal is more valuable then Bogut other then O'Neal's contract. He is a better defender, a better shooter and has a wider range of post moves. Oh and he knows how to win, in 05' he single handedly carried his team to the playoffs. Bogut hasn't proven anything.

Baddy Chuck · Post #23 » by **Baddy Chuck** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:00 pm

legacyinthemakin89c wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

O'Neal is a half court player and has been left behind in the Pacers new offense, that is why he has looked so bad this year and last year when they attempted to run. O'Neal is more valuable then Bogut other then O'Neal's contract. He is a better defender, a better shooter and has a wider range of post moves. Oh and he knows how to win, in 05' he single handedly carried his team to the playoffs. Bogut hasn't proven anything.

Jermaine Oneal at this point in his career was terrible. Many 3rd year players cant carry a team into the playoffs by themselves.

skones · Post #24 » by **skones** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:03 pm

legacyinthemakin89c wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

O'Neal is a half court player and has been left behind in the Pacers new offense, that is why he has looked so bad this year and last year when they attempted to run. O'Neal is more valuable then Bogut other then O'Neal's contract. He is a better defender, a better shooter and has a wider range of post moves. Oh and he knows how to win, in 05' he single handedly carried his team to the playoffs. Bogut hasn't proven anything.

Quit living in the past. Jermaine O'neal put up 19 and 9 last year, but on 43.7% shooting. That's absolutely awful. Oh, and that was WITH Carlisle so the "new offense" comment doesn't exactly fly as far as your argument goes. In '05? Which do you mean, 04-05 or 05-06? Either way it doesn't matter. I have a pretty hard time believing that considering he played 51 and 44 games respectively during those two seasons. I mean, it's not like he had the help of Peja Stojakovic/Ron Artest and Stephen Jackson either.

Jermaine O'neal isn't going to lead a team to the promised land any time soon. Factor in the fact that Bogut is 7 years younger and your argument becomes null with how Bogut is currently playing. I mean, honestly which do you prefer?

15 points 7 rebounds 2.2 blocks on 44% shooting
or
14 points 9 rebounds 1.7 blocks on 53% shooting

Cammo101 · Post #25 » by **Cammo101** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:05 pm

Terrible for the Nets.

skones · Post #26 » by **skones** » Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:13 pm

Yes, that new proposal is bad for the Nets. Even so, as it stands, I'm not dealing Bogut. I'm blowing up house and keeping Bogut/Yi.

Chapter29 · Post #27 » by **Chapter29** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:18 pm

Bogut is a bust?

Get real people.

Since our coaching staff has decided to actually call his number consistently he is averaging near 20-10-3 with 2 blocks and plays good defense.

He is slowly becoming our leader. He will not be traded and though VC is an all-star and was a superstar I have no interest in him.

Social Lubrication · Post #28 » by **Social Lubrication** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 1:12 pm

Awful trade for the Bucks because this move doesn't improve them enough to contend before VC goes downhill permanently. You don't trade a promising young center for a guy like Carter unless you're sure it's going to put you over the top. Moving Simmons' contract is a nice bonus, but there are other ways to get rid of it without giving up Bogut.

Simulack · Post #29 » by **Simulack** » Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:25 pm

Social Lubrication wrote:Awful trade for the Bucks because this move doesn't improve them enough to contend before VC goes downhill permanently. You don't trade a promising young center for a guy like Carter unless you're sure it's going to put you over the top. Moving Simmons' contract is a nice bonus, but there are other ways to get rid of it without giving up Bogut.

Exactly. It may be bad for the Nets but its also horrible for the Bucks. There is no way I am doing any trade where VC and Bogut are the primary pieces.