Carter is going to be a spur... i would put money on it!
In my mind, the only real way their pursuing this trade makes sense is if the thought in the front office has become: if we can't out defend 'em, just outscore 'em. I wonder if their interest in VC could be caused by the Lakers front court: just no viable sign/trade options out there that allow them to effectively match up with an Odom/Bynum/Gasol trio in the front-court.
whats better defensively:
parker
mason
finley
bonner
duncan
or
parker
carter
bowen
thomas
duncan
???
first of all carters defense is underrated...I dont say, he is a prime stopper...but his athletism alows him to be a decent defender if put into our system...furthermore his presense allows us to replace some of our offensive weapons with defensive minded guys like bowen and thomas!
I'd take the second lineup any given day if I need some stops!
finley would become of an insurance or an option or small-ball lineups, while manu will take some minutes as the backup-PG.
Man, you 'll have to put money, don't see Pop putting money
i can handle mason being traded but not hill!!!!
You're right, the Parker/Manu/Bowen/Duncan/KT+Oberto lineup has no defense at all and has failed the Spurs offensively and defensively in the past. And of course, Carter is going to do a bang-up job guarding bigs.
Carter as a defender in my mind does not take pressure off the Spurs front court. He may be a decent wing defender, but I fail to see how my original point does not stand: if the Spurs are seriously seeking to bring in VC this may signal their decision to outscore, not out-defend the bigger (ie Lakers) WC teams.
Edit: Put Finley in any Spurs lineup and it automatically becomes the Spurs worst defensive lineup.
SA could be trying to excel in smallball in hopes of forcing LA to play that way.
However, Gasol and Odom inside still beats up the Spurs and Bynum still will get his minutes in the rotation.
But going small now is better than doing nothing. Also, it may entice a big like Sheed to sign in FA.
Going small against the lakers pretty much guarantees a Lakers series win. Our best chances are still with TD and Thomas defending their bigs and limiting their offensive rebounding.
one of the main reasons, the defense is worse than in previous years, have been more minutes by bonner and less minutes by bowen...I dont say, we have to play carter as PF! (possible short runs with bowen at PF are understandable against teams with versatile PF's)
I think our defense will be better anyway and carter helps us keeping the rotation in check nontheless
agree...unless the lakers are playing odom at PF (and even then) smallball against the lakers isnt a good idea...having bowen to stop kobe + kurt and duncan against the bigs is the thing to do (agree, that wallace would be sweet, but I just think the carter trade is the more likely).
I don't anyone would be "pissed" if the Spurs land Carter. In fact, most think it would be an improvement. However, most also think that a big is a more important need and that although Carter is an improvement over what would essentially be Hill and Mason (because guys getting waived to come back) that he comes at a steep financial price for what is perceived to be a small improvement.
Not to mention, NJ would have to waive 4 players BEFORE a trade could be done as this (4-1). If it happens, it will be exciting of course, because it is a big name and the Spurs usually do not partake in such affairs, but it does not seem like a "good deal" long term.
problem is: I dont see us doing anything big in 2010...too many teams think they will find their savior but only 2 or 3 (wade, lebron and bosh) will finaly get him (and even then its not sure, they will have the pieces to complement them...(my bet is, that wade and lebron will stay, while bosh is an allstar but not much more)
I dont see us landing someone bigger than carter by then and thats why I would do this trade...he even could help us 1 /1/2 seasons earlier.
I think wallace is the better trade for us (coz of the thin frontcourt), but only if we could keep him to a fair contract....otherwise I'd tkae carter
well the Spurs are putting money in it too. Money Mason
I don't want Mason gone. that's all I know
What about taking a gamble this season trading for Carter then see if that puts us over the hump Then regardless of the out come, sign Wallace to the mid level exemption next year when he becomes a free agent. If Wallace want to come to SA now he would certainly want to come with VC on board
Can u imagine this line up this year...
Tony Parker
Manu Ginobili
Vince Carter
Tim Duncan
Kurt Thomas
Then this line up next year...
Tony Parker
Manu Ginobili
Vince Carter
Rasheed Wallace
Tim Duncan
We don't need Carter. I'd much rather keep Mason and Hill. Carter will not get us over the top. We need a big man. Sheed please!!!
smokescreen for Manute Bol
Man I hate all the VC talk, I do not want this guy here!
If the Spurs are looking at $60+ million tied up in just 4 players I think it's a pretty safe bet that they wouldn't use the MLE on anyone.
The only way that trading for Vince Carter would make sense is if the Spurs were trading Manu for him (just FYI - I wouldn't want this, I'm just making a point).
With Tim/Tony/Manu/VC - that's too many guys needing touches. Plus in the trade scenario as outlined, they'd lose their point guard depth in Hill and another clutch wing in Mason.
If the Spurs were trading Manu/Oberto/Bowen for Vince (with Bowen returning) instead, that would make more sense on paper.
However, I don't think at all that the Spurs would consider it.
Last edited by Kori Ellis; 02-17-2009 at 12:01 PM.
The city would riot if Manu were traded.
totally agree. Like others have already stated, We need a big and I just dont see how VC works out.
The only way that would make sense is if they included Brook Lopez as well.
wow...just wow.....take a look at the nba.com/transactions paige!!!!
can it bring us the 5th chanpionship???
...absolutely nothing is happening...sorry, couldnt resist!
sorry!
This idea of a deal makes little sense to me, but I got to wondering about what might be the softening of Tim's position. Over the weekend, he spoke as if he would be extremely reluctant to give his blessing to a multiple players-for-Carter deal; now, he's ever so slightly welcoming of that possibility.
I absolutely agree that acquiring Carter is a "we can't stop 'em, so we better try to outscore 'em" sort of decision on the Spurs' part. But I'm not sure that it would make the Spurs less likely to beat LA, as some have suggested. Frankly, I would suspect that (barring Manu's inclusion in the deal) the Spurs wouldn't play all-out small until late and that the structure of the lineup they use would basically be the same: Duncan and Bonner paired; Thomas and Bonner paired for brief stretches; Duncan and Thomas paired for some longer stretches. I think that would remain true even if Parker, Ginobili, and Carter would play together.
I think the massive difference it would make is that nobody could double Tim on the block anymore, other than with another big, and doing that would create driving lanes for three guys who can really put it on the floor and get to the rack -- and at least one guy who has the credibility to draw fouls and get to the line consistently. Mix in a big guy who can score from distance (Bonner from 3? Thomas from the elbow? Horry?) and suddenly it becomes pretty difficult to defend the Spurs.
I'd agree that you don't get much rebounding and interior defense with that lineup, but that's not much of a change from what exists now.
I don't think this deal happens, but Tim's slight change of position is interesting. And if the deal does go down, I can see that it could improve the Spurs' chances to get out of the West -- even if only slightly.
I don't like the Carter play. Giving up too much and would be a huge hit on the cap.
Think all a smokescreen towards getting a big like Sheed. At least I hope so.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
