Reply With Quote
Nobody can stand behind you when you're in a corner.
Talking about homers, who is the poster that has 95% of their post count in this thread and this thread alone?
Which does not mean he is a better fit.
That's the concept that needs to sink into that thick skull of yours.
Nobody can stand behind you when you're in a corner.
Talking about homers, who is the poster that has 95% of their post count in this thread and this thread alone?
how in the do you know that the Spurs didnt make an offer to Toronto? Are you privy to all the phone calls RC makes? You and sequ are just speculating out of your ass about that.
I am not a specialist of salary cap, but I know that Carter is paid the max and the only reason why the trade was so good for the nets is that they had Zo in their team who was a payed max too. In Spurs case, they would have to trade Vince for Parker and Manu to not have to pay the luxury tax.
Toronto wouldn't have accepted a trade with Malik or Rasho since they wanted cap space or a good trade.
Well, I think that even you Rascal wouldn't give up Parker+Manu for Vince.
Never underestimate rascal's level of senselessness . . .
NJN is only 2 games out of 8th seed, 35 games.
I agree, with RJ in there, they'd be as tough as anybody in the EC.
You never learn, do you? Instead of actually responding to the arguments, you simply restate your case over and over again.
For the third time: most here would agree with you that Carter is more talented than Manu. If you look at Carter's career, he has shot the ball well and carried his teams when he has gotten lots of touches. He hasn't been a difference maker when he's been forced to take less shots. He wouldn't be the first option in San Antonio. He is a franchise player. He isn't a support player.
For the second time: you have no idea what the Spurs may have offered for Carter. Perhaps they offered Duncan and Manu and Parker combined. We simply don't know.
You talk like the Spurs could have gotten Carter if they would have wanted to. But nobody knows if Toronto would have been (or actually was) interested in anything the Spurs were offering. You can make up trades in your head all day. But until you are in the position to actually pull the trigger on an NBA trade, you're scenerios are nothing but fantasy. It's possible that the Spurs did have some interest in Carter, and if the Spurs didn't have any interest, which is likely, it's possible that Toronto simply wouldn't have been interested in anything the Spurs could have offered anyway.
If you understood NBA basketball at least a little bit, you would know that throwing stars together is not the most successful way to build a franchise. Finding a star or two and surrounding him with players that fill needs is what good personnel people do.
Carter is a definite risk and he doesn't fill any specific need on the team. Your method of building a team doesn't work. There are other stars that the Spurs should show interest in if they become available. But Carter simply wouldn't be a good fit.
.
man who gives a damn the spurs would never have traded for vince carter.
Manu for Carter? Would you trade for Bonds? A-Rod? Sosa? All non-winners! Or would you trade for someone who has championships under his belt? Someone who brings out the best in every other team member? Someone who, when he makes one of his unpredictable "patented" moves, all his team members jump up in amazement? Someone who excites not only fans, but his team members as well?
Good thing no one in the Spurs organization has your mentality.
I'll give this to VC, he turned real aggro in the paint against the Celts once his team was down by 20.
Wake me when Pierce is available.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 02-02-2005 at 09:08 PM.
you're stupid.
Pierce > Carter
Brodels: I responded to all the arguments. Go back a page or two and read.
All your doing is restating. Carter won't be a good fit because he would take fewer shots. That doesn't make any sense. He would take enough shots to be a difference maker. He would be the 2nd scoring option.
And when has he been forced to take fewer shots? Of course Carter has never gone far in the playoffs. Carter has been on weak Toronto teams and has never played with a dominant interior player like Duncan.
Pop isn't stupid to not have his best perimeter threat and offensive finisher get enough shots. Is that your only reason? Come on bring something more than that.
I don't know if the spurs could have gotten Carter but did they even try? I doubt it.
With their lousy recent trade history i doubt they even had any interest. We have heard in the past when they did have some interest and considerd trades for Sprewell for example but backed out but I didn't hear anything about Carter.
Really, what would our record be right now with Carter?
Undefeated?
Depends on whether he wants to play or is injured or decides not to drive like tonight?
And another thing Brodels.
The lakers threw together a bunch of stars (really ex stars in Payton and Malone) and beat the spurs last year.
You surround Duncan with more talented players and they will win.
You upgrade some of your role players with better players and your better.
Because they suck on ice right now.You surround Duncan with more talented players and they will win.
Really, if this is the best you can come up with the entire first half of the season, the Spurs are in good shape indeed.
The spurs have had good regular season records before but didn't have enough in the playoffs.
Put Duncan on any team in the league and there a playoff team. Surround Duncan with some talent(Present day spurs) and their contenders. Suround him with a couple of all stars and its a dynasty.
So if Manu is an all-star this year?
of course.
Make a trade, cause the team is struggling and has no hope of getting better.
What nonsense.
Duncan had David Robinson and got his ass swept out of the playoffs by the Lakers in 2001. What is your point? Some years he could not even win 60 with David Robinson (who was still excellent in the late 90s and early 00s).
A couple of All Stars? Did Jordan ever even have a couple of all stars? Did Shaq ever have a couple of all stars? Did Detroit have any all stars?
What the makes you think that the Spurs automatically SHOULD win a le cause they have Duncan? How come Shaq and Kobe could not beat the Pistons? They were two elite players and they could not outduel Billups and a bunch of defensive role players? Think Karl Malone's absense might have had something to do with that?
Oh yeah, and it was really obvious the Spurs were going to lose by a miracle against Fisher. I am sure you were smiling then, saying "I knew it all along".
If you think the managament of the Spurs ed up so badly, and cannot take it anymore, go root for another team. Perhaps the team you feel will SURELY beat the Spurs?
No team is gurunteed a le.
He's taken fewer shots when other teams have taken him out of the game. He took fewer shots at times when he became passive. And he's taken fewer shots when his team didn't get him involved early. And if you watch Carter play when he isn't getting a ton of shots, you'll notice that he really isn't much of a difference maker. He hasn't done much to help his team win when he hasn't had the ball in his hands a lot. He's done well only when he's been the focal point of the offense.
Sometimes that isn't up to Pop to decide. If Duncan is priority #1 on offense, it's not too difficult for the opposing defense to choose who gets open shots. He wouldn't get the shots that he got in Toronto. And when he got less shots in Toronto, he was pretty useless. He needs shots to be effective.Pop isn't stupid to not have his best perimeter threat and offensive finisher get enough shots. Is that your only reason? Come on bring something more than that.
At least Manu and Parker do other things to help the team win when they aren't scorer. That isn't to say that those two players are better than Carter, because they aren't, but they do fill a role. The Spurs have a go-to player. You can argue that they still need help on the offensive end, but they need support scorers, not a franchise player.
Again, your system simply doesn't work. You can shout down everyone as much as you want, but what you advocate is a system of failure. What many others are advocating has worked time and time again.
So you're criticizing Spurs management without even knowing what went on? You're criticizing Spurs management because you think they might not have thought about trying for Vince? That's your weakest take yet. At least criticize them for what they have or haven't done. Don't criticize them for something you think they may have or haven't done.I don't know if the spurs could have gotten Carter but did they even try? I doubt it.
Again, you simply 'doubt that they had any interest.' In reality, it's clear that you really have no idea what management's interest level was. Just because Mark Stein didn't report something on ESPN doesn't mean that Carter wasn't talked about. You simply have no idea, and criticizing management when you really have no factual information about what went on is pretty weak.With their lousy recent trade history i doubt they even had any interest. We have heard in the past when they did have some interest and considerd trades for Sprewell for example but backed out but I didn't hear anything about Carter.
Payton and Malone weren't stars any more. They were role players, and they filled a role nicely. The Lakers had two stars, and even two primary options couldn't coexist there.The lakers threw together a bunch of stars (really ex stars in Payton and Malone) and beat the spurs last year.
Well, then, give some examples. Identify the last team to add a superstar in the middle of the season and win a championship. Explain why teams like the Kings and Blazers of the the early 90s failed. It's hard to argue that they didn't have the most talent in the NBA. Why didn't they win? If more talent = more winning, those two teams should have multiple les. They didn't win because the pieces didn't fit together well. The Kings didn't have role players willing to do the dirty work. The Blazers had too much talent.You surround Duncan with more talented players and they will win.
You upgrade some of your role players with better players and your better.
The Pistons won the le last season, but it's certainly arguable that the Pacers, Spurs, Lakers, Timberwolves, Mavs, Kings, and even Grizzlies were more talented. How did that happen?
Exactfukinly.......
Spurs are a great season team but only have 2 championships in 10+ great years.
Pathetic.
And Carter has?
His ass handed to him by Pierce tonight.
Sonics had some monstorous regular seasons and in about 2 or 3 of them never got past the second round. Actually lost in the first one year when they won 63 games. Had all the talent a team needed. And lost to Denver. Wow.
Spurs are not the only team in the 90s not to win les while having great regular seasons.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions