Page 1 of 3
Should the Nets go for it? (Merged Threads)
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:27 pm
by ChampionRed
Netsdaily.com and the realgm wiretap both report that the Nets recent proposal for JO would be Vince Carter, Marcus Williams, and Magloire.
Should the Nets make this trade??
I personally think JO is not worth Carter alone. Adding Marcus Williams in the mix? I really don't think it's worth it. Especially now that JO is out for 2 weeks.
Merged two threads about the JO/Carter deal.
-miller
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:32 pm
by j-ragg
The Nets need to do something.
I'd probably pull the trigger because of the need for a big man. No reason for Marcus Williams to be in there though.
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:38 pm
by NetsForce
They need to do something, but most likely won't. Unless they could obtain say Pau Gasol or Elton Brand (who probably won't be able to do anything this year anyway) I really can't see the Nets making any moves involving Kidd, Carter, or Jefferson. In all likelihood they'll just toil in the depths of mediocrity until the team moves to Brooklyn upon which time a full clean slate rebuild will probably begin...
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:41 pm
by kandiking
no they should just go for the extra point
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:51 pm
by Phobo_Phile
NetsForce wrote:They need to do something, but most likely won't. Unless they could obtain say Pau Gasol or Elton Brand (who probably won't be able to do anything this year anyway) I really can't see the Nets making any moves involving Kidd, Carter, or Jefferson. In all likelihood they'll just toil in the depths of mediocrity until the team moves to Brooklyn upon which time a full clean slate rebuild will probably begin...
^Agreed.
If relocation wasn't a factor and they just truly wanted to compete with this core then I definitely think they should do it.
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:53 pm
by jeremy1215
Pacers do this even without Marcus Williams.
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:58 pm
by celticfan42487
Depends if IND remebers what Vince Carter does on teams that are lottery bound if this should even be considered as a proposal.
Wince out and trade for nothing.
That said without VC in NJ there's no reason to trade for J'Oneal.
VC taken over in the playoffs, helping the other two with playmaking for them... and with J'Oneal and Kidd's defense is the only way their going to be great.
I don't see Richard Jefferson with that type of capability.
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:02 pm
by a-rod
jeremy1215 wrote:Pacers do this even without Marcus Williams.
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:05 pm
by risktaker91
That's a great trade for the Pacers.
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:05 pm
by jzmagik
Hell no for NJ
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:07 pm
by Silk Wilkes
It won't help them win the division. At least Vince is better than most of the shooting guards in the division. JO can't match up with either one of Bosh or Garnett anymore, not even Zach Randolph. It's all about match-ups. However, I'll take JO over VC if he's gonna be with J-Kidd as a big-3 for the Eastern Conference in general. Indiana is gonna be pissed with what they get in the long term though, trust me.
EDIT: Indiana is basically gonna be doing a JO for Marcus Williams deal.
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:08 pm
by galeon110
JO is definitely worth VC straight up.This trade's a rip off for the Nets.
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:47 pm
by HumbleBumbleBee
galeon110 wrote:JO is definitely worth VC straight up.This trade's a rip off for the Nets.
In that cause...I'm for it!
are their contracts similar? i know VC's is pretty back loaded
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:09 pm
by Mad Balla 15
celticfan42487 wrote:Depends if IND remebers what Vince Carter does on teams that are lottery bound if this should even be considered as a proposal.
Wince out and trade for nothing.
That said without VC in NJ there's no reason to trade for J'Oneal.
VC taken over in the playoffs, helping the other two with playmaking for them... and with J'Oneal and Kidd's defense is the only way their going to be great.
I don't see Richard Jefferson with that type of capability.
Oh really? Is that why he almost single-handedly, with some help from Kidd, led the 7-15 lottery bound Nets to the playoffs once he got traded there? Oh not to mention that he played 8 games with RJ that year before RJ went out for the year and returned for the playoffs. Their starting lineup and bench consisted of players such as: Jacque Vaughn, Jason Collins, Cliff Robinson, Ron Mercer, Travis Best, Rodney Buford, Jabari Smith, Zoran Planinic etc. From those players that played in their rotation that year only 2 of them are still in the NBA.
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:17 pm
by Kobay
What will the cap for nets when JO expires after next year if the trade happened?
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:30 pm
by NetsForce
Vince Carter:
2007-2008: $13,350,000
2008-2009: $14,750,000
2009-2010: $16,150,000
2010-2011: $17,500,000
2011-2012: $18,000,000 (Team Option)
Jermaine O'Neal:
2007-2008: $19,710,000
2008-2009: $21,352,500
2009-2010: $22,995,000
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:52 pm
by jeremy1215
O'Neal has an opt out option at the end of the year I believe, but he won't because he won't get that much money off free agency.
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:29 pm
by kidd0701
If Jermaine was healthy, then I'd consider it as the Nets. However, He is not even close to healthy. VC, people may not like him but he still is a very good player who puts up 20+ a night and creates shots for Boone and S.Williams.
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:04 pm
by telele
Oneal has not proven anything the last 2 years while VC still has been a 25,5,5 player almost is whole career even though he's playing catch up this year from a weak start but he's playing in the system so VC's values is much better then Oneal's. **** I would do a Kristic and boone + for Oneal but not for any of our Big 3 he has not done crap the last few years. I would rather take the chances on Shaq from the so what rumors I've seen on the board he would be a better risk only if we keep VC and Kidd.
Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:19 pm
by yunggunz
If I am the Nets I trade VC for a big man that expires next year.