RealGM

Posted: **Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:22 pm**

This is a post from the Trades Board, it was from a random offer for VC that someone had proposed, this was Ecuhus' response, which I do have to agree with somewhat and acknowledge for sure, and this was my response to him, but truly just to all the VC trade talk in general..........

vincecarter4pres wrote:
ecuhus1981 wrote:Haha, very funny.

Whether you like it or not, vc4p, I think we would still entertain offers for Carter.

As I have always maintained, a Carter trade should net in return AT LEAST a mid-lotto (5-9) talent plus either useless '09 expirings, or useful '10 expirings. The type of talent should be a two-way (off. and def.), full-sized semi-elite SG ideally.

I have maintained, personally I do not want to trade VC.
My opinion and reality may differ, but maybe not by so much.

Unless we can get a true stud prospect on a rookie contract and expirings what is the point and even then, where does that leave us?

The Memphis Grizzlies of the East?
The Clippers of the East, again?

A place that gets high picks, grooms them and watches them grow and then watches them bolt to another team, making the playoffs 2 out of 8 years and getting swept 1st round in the process?
A place where premium FA's do not want to sign?

Cause let's face it, we ain't going to Brooklyn.

I mean we have a lot of very talented youth already, but without VC doing what he has we are no better then a current Wizards team or the Kings, literally.

What is the point of more caproom if we can't use it effectively?
More disappointment when we don't get the guy we want and we overpay for generic B level player and remain mediocre and trapped in bad contracts, like a healthy Wizards team or Denver?
Caproom is overrated. It guarentees nothing.

I would not trade VC unless we can get literally Rudy Gay or Rudy Fernandez or maybe Danny Granger, which just is not happening.

With VC signed we can still get a max FA in 2010 or 2011 and in 2011 it is literally possible to buy him out and sign 2 or buy him out sign one and another close to max and resign VC himself to a decent deal for an over the hill but effective star a la a Grant Hill type signed to a Stackhouse contract.

By this time our team will have a chance to get truly good, for the youth to gain valuable experience and grow mentally and physically, so that a big time FA like Melo would really want to come here, figuring he might literally be the final piece to the puzzle.(Not that I want Melo in particular, unless he does some serious maturation mentally, then after Lebron he would literally be my #1 target).
Isn't this the point?

Posted: **Mon Dec 1, 2008 11:29 pm**

264 views, no replies.....bump....

Posted: **Tue Dec 2, 2008 6:37 am**

alright I'll bump

First thing, I don't get how you can say this team is a Rasheed Wallace away from being a dangerous playoff team yet at the same time saying they're a Carter trade away from being Clippers/Grizzlies East? Definitely too much hyperbole here, expecially when by the time free agency hits, you could potentially be looking at 3 more lottery picks (DAL pick is unprotected) plus any possible return on a Carter trade.

I know that cap room doesn't necessarily guarantee anything (though most examples of mismanaged cap are from incompetent front offices which we certainly don't have). Realistically, how far is a 2010/11 Nets team going with Carter? How good is that version of Carter going to be? I like Vince, but expecting on him to be an all-star caliber player at that point is probably unfair.

As to the cap in 2011 part. I think it is pretty unrealistic for 2 reasons:
1. Carter has a $4 mil buyout on that option that counts against the cap.
2. Yi is a RFA with a cap hold of over $12 million.

With those two factors in play, the idea of a big FA in 2010 and 2011 seems quite unlikely, as is the idea of Vince + 2 big FAs in 2011.

Posted: **Tue Dec 2, 2008 7:25 am**

I did not realise the buyout counts towards the cap.
A 10/11 Carter would not be the #1 or #2 option anymore, so even at a declined level he is still an effective player and he is quite close to a very effective expiring contract in a trade that season.
I'll be honest, I completely overlooked Yi's FA.
But I stand by most of what I said.
And what is the hyberbole angle?
Last year the Lakers, with Kobe, the supposed best player in the league, an emerging Andrew Bynum, an underperforming Odom and a bunch of role players and scrubs looked like they might only win 40-45 games, so if you traded Kobe they became one of the worst in the league and when they traded for Gasol they became absolute contenders, what makes that situation much different from what I describe with the Nets?
Kobe's obviously better than Vince, but Devin is better than anyone else on that team.
Is Brook that much different than Bynum?
Is Sheed a lower level talent than Gasol by that much?
Are our role player that much worse than their's?
Now our coach, well different story.
Kobe is no spring chicken either and has a lot of heavy workload seasons on his frame.
He is also literally more injury prone than Vince, check it out.
Again, I am not saying VC is better or anything, I am just stating important facts that others like to ignore.

Posted: **Tue Dec 2, 2008 8:16 am**

vincecarter4pres wrote:I did not realise the buyout counts towards the cap.
A 10/11 Carter would not be the #1 or #2 option anymore, so even at a declined level he is still an effective player and he is quite close to a very effective expiring contract in a trade that season.
I'll be honest, I completely overlooked Yi's FA.
But I stand by most of what I said.
And what is the hyberbole angle?
Last year the Lakers, with Kobe, the supposed best player in the league, an emerging Andrew Bynum, an underperforming Odom and a bunch of role players and scrubs looked like they might only win 40-45 games, so if you traded Kobe they became one of the worst in the league and when they traded for Gasol they became absolute contenders, what makes that situation much different from what I describe with the Nets?
Kobe's obviously better than Vince, but Devin is better than anyone else on that team.
Is Brook that much different than Bynum?
Is Sheed a lower level talent than Gasol by that much?
Are our role player that much worse than their's?
Now our coach, well different story.
Kobe is no spring chicken either and has a lot of heavy workload seasons on his frame.
He is also literally more injury prone than Vince, check it out.
Again, I am not saying VC is better or anything, I am just stating important facts that others like to ignore.

There's a couple of things you're forgetting when it comes to the Lakers comparison. The Lakers were 28-16 when they made the Gasol trade on Feb. 1. The reason(s) people were talking about the Lakers as a team that might not make the playoffs was because Bynum had suffered what turned out to be a serious knee injury. They were 3-5 after the Bynum injury and before the Gasol trade. The other reason for the missing the playoffs talk was because of how stacked the West was. Golden State won 48 games, yet missed the playoffs.

Based on how that team had performed up until that point, the Lakers were likely a 50-55 win team without Gasol, before Bynum got hurt. Once they lost Bynum, it looked like they might not be more than a 40-45 win team, but that's also a roster that had Kwame Brown as your best "pure" big man.

This Nets team, even with Sheed (who is a shell of his prime and no where close to Gasol) isn't better than the pre-Gasol Lakers.

As to Carter in 2010/11, would he be a useful player at that point? Probably. Are there better uses of $17 million (particularly at that point of Vince's career), there's no doubt about it. Especially when getting Vince off the books allows the possibility of 2-max type of deals. That's a large part of the appeal that the Knicks have right now.

Also, if you are that concerned about competing with all of the teams in 2010, if you traded him and got expirings (ie: Vince for Raef/Webster), you have the room to go after a top FA this summer (when there's less competition), while still having that type of financial flexibility in 2010.

If the getting a big FA in 2010 and 2011 was possible, I'd be a lot more inclined to keeping Vince through the 2010/11 season. But with the $4 million buyout and situation with Yi, I don't think it's financially feasible.

RealGM

My Thoughts on all the VC Trade Talk

My Thoughts on all the VC Trade Talk

Re: My Thoughts on all the VC Trade Talk

Re: My Thoughts on all the VC Trade Talk

Re: My Thoughts on all the VC Trade Talk

Re: My Thoughts on all the VC Trade Talk