Vince Carter to The Clips?
by cliprboy on Jun 24, 2009 11:03 AM PDT
95 comments
Supposedly they said something on sporting news radio about this but i caught the tail end...anyone else hear anything, i would be curious...I love vince carter, think it would be awesome if we could get him some how. I also talked to my ticket rep and he said they are in talks with everyone about one or 2 of their bigs, sounds like we have been quiet because we are working on a bunch of different things. I hope the clips finally make some big time moves, like portland did!
0 recs |
95 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Probably for a big man
His salary matches with Z-BO, thats a trade I definately would go for. I still think that we need a glue guy instead of a scoring 3, someone like Shane Battier.
by LJ Hann on Jun 24, 2009 11:18 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
This is tough.
Where are we going to place Vince Carter in the equation. With Zbo gone, there really isn’t any “FORSURE” dominant inside presence. Camby is a outside perimeter shooter(which Dunleavy never used), Blake Griffin isn’t a for sure thing ( sorry not to talk trash, but nothing is certain in NBA), and Kaman is sloppy. He is as inconsistent as ever.
With Carter, we get ANOTHER veteran? Do we WANT another veteran? A deal that regards Camby and somebody else for Carter would make more sense, but I don’t think a deal for zbo is worth it. Plus, Carter better not hog up Gordon’s minutes. If anything, Carter is probably going to play sf. Can Carter even dunk like he did before anymore???
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 24, 2009 11:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Camby is not a very good outside shooter
But he does shoot a lot of em. Read.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
by mikey p on Jun 24, 2009 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mikey
Get off the stats! We’re talking about a Big Center/ Powerforward. This is a rare asset in a bigguy.
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 24, 2009 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a stat
Just a fact. Can’t argue with math.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
by mikey p on Jun 24, 2009 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Problem with your theory
is that in the nba, there are many factors that are going to be evolved into it. Maybe Dunleavy’s system didn’t involve many chances for Camby to be open enough to shot outside? Even then, the players he plays with, how the team runs, the team he goes against, everything adds onto the equation. Basketball IS NOT about math, and this talk about the wp48 is getting a bit annoying. Im sure we’ve all watched Camby befoer LAC, such as Denver, or older fans in NY or what not, and Marcus can shoot. Maybe if we can give Marcus a bit of space and what not. But throw out all your random stats if you will, I base my judgement on actually WATCHING the game. Thank you very much.
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 24, 2009 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not a theory
Here are his shooting numbers in Denver. 57% of the shots he took were jumpers, of which he hit 37%. Better than last year, but still bad. He really shouldn’t be shooting so much if he makes it so little.
Contrast that with Yao, who shoots a jumper 40% of the time, but hits 45%. Or Big Z in Cleveland. Though 65% of his shots are jumpers, he also hits about 45% of them.
So, just because you have seen Camby hit a couple J’s from the top of the key doesn’t mean he is good at it. Hell, even Shaq shot 38% on his jumpers.
Camby needs to keep the ball moving rather than just jacking it up every time.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
by mikey p on Jun 24, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Basketball is about math, you kidding?
Last time I checked, the team with the higher score (numbers) wins. Thats basic arithmetic. I’ll use the Rockets as the example of a team that uses a mathematical approach and guess what? They came closer than any other team to beat the eventual champions. This after losing their 2 best players to injuries.
If it was all about what guys could do in a empty gym when it doesn’t matter than players like Tim Thomas would have been worth the 100 million he made in his career.
FA in 2010.
by ClipperChuck on Jun 24, 2009 2:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well let's address this
I should fix that statement, math isn’t all about math. Anyways, I was talking team chemistry instead of adding wins. Thanks for telling me basic math and helping me add. Anyways, your “example” isn’t really an example because where exactly was an equation regarding the Rockets? What exactly was their mathematical approach? Anyways, if a team has good chemistry together, it can translate to wins. EX? 2008-2009 Clippers. Team Chemistry? Little to none. Another example? 2008-2009 Lakers. Team Chemistry? Well, let’s just almost everybody was there from the previous years. ( I hate to bring up the Lakers in this conversation but they went far.) As for TT, I’m really not sure where that came from. But I will tell you that I will pay for a role player that actually contributes than a player who puts up just numbers.
Anyways, so Mikey, your telling me that Shaq shoots better than Camby? Really? This comes from a guy who talks about the “unproductive, black hole Thornton.” I never disagreed that Yao was a bad shooter, I actually think Yao is a good shooter for a big man. Please note that I am talking about a big man. A center to be exact. Please watch the game and stop giving me wp48 stats.
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 25, 2009 12:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shooting % is NOT a WP48 stat
it is just math. I’m not making it up. Camby is a chucker…and 75% of his long 2 pointers are bricks. It is not a complicated stat. Just reality.
Camby isn’t a good shooter.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
by mikey p on Jun 25, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
And I’m not all that sophisticated when it comes to statistical analysis in basketball (though I’d like to get better) but even just observing Camby you can tell he’s a chucker. He alwasy clanks that shot right behind the free throw line which is completely ill-advised.
by Michael White on Jun 25, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought a chucker was someone who
shot the ball alot. Does Camby fit that profile?
by Jax on Jun 25, 2009 10:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kinda
49% of his shots were “jumpers”, 83% of which were assisted on, meaning he just catches it at the top of the key and shoots it (which is true; I watched it happen).
He only hits 34% of those long 2’s. He needs to keep the ball moving.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
by mikey p on Jun 25, 2009 10:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW
that 49% = 243 jumpers. In 62 games. About 4 per game. Not terrible…except when you shoot 34%.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
by mikey p on Jun 25, 2009 10:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Still - not really a "chucker" in my mind
Not a great shooter far from the basket.
by Jax on Jun 25, 2009 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
Though I would love it if he shot a little less, especially early in the shot clock.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
by mikey p on Jun 25, 2009 10:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sorry
Can’t read the wp48. Maybe I’ve watched Camby torched my Clippers a few times, and some people who have seen Camby thinks hes a pretty good top of the key shooter. (I still think he’s not as bad as you guys give him credit for lol.) I guess Camby is more known for his shotblocking if anything. I’d still take Camby over Shaq in terms of shooting anyday.
Btw, I have no idea
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 25, 2009 10:32 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
*erase that "btw i have no idea"
part please. Tha was intended for something else.
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 25, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Shaq's good %
is only there bcause he has only ever shot like 3 shots from outside the key.
by LJ Hann on Jun 25, 2009 10:28 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
28% of his 841 FGAs were "umpers"
235 jumpers for Shaq. He hit 38%.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
by mikey p on Jun 25, 2009 10:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I base my judgement on actually WATCHING the game.
The problem with this, of course, is the many failures of human memory and human bias.
Numbers just are, and they never forget.
"So what are the odds that the Clippers can compete next season given their limited flexibility? Slim and none."
by John R on Jun 24, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Wait John
didn’t you agree that Thornton was unproductive? And if not, on the wp48, they had Gordon and Novak pretty unproductive. Was that really the case? Did the stat sheet just tell you that?
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 25, 2009 12:30 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thornton is unproductive by any measure
Observation, simple stats, advanced stats.
And as to below, my signature is a quote from Steve, though I suppose it doesn’t make sense anymore since Slim sort of happened when they won the lottery. I’ll change it to avoid conclusion.
"So what are the odds that the Clippers can compete next season given their limited flexibility? Slim and none."
by John R on Jun 25, 2009 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and Gordon + Novak?
You can either arguethat Novak can’t play enough D, (although he seems to be able to make up for it with his shots and how he can spread the D, something your stat sheet probably won’t tell you), but how about Gordon? Clearly, Gordon wasn’t a plague as your stats proclaim? Even Kevin Durant? Durant must be worth little to nothing then?
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 25, 2009 10:27 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think I, personally, ever claimed Gordon was a plague
Nor did my stats. Nor did I claim Durant was worth nothing, though I did argue that he isn’t one of the best players in the league. For next season, for example, I would probably rather have Lamar Odom than Durant, so I would quibble if anyone refers to him as one of the best.* Therefore, likewise I would strongly disagree with anyone who would trade Griffin for Durant. Durant is above average. I believe I did say that, but he isn’t one of the best in the context of any worthwhile discussion. Griffin has a good chance to be even more special.
In fact, I remember I used Gordon as the example that even using +/- alone (which isn’t one of “my stats” really, not a big fan) we can show how much more productive he was than Thornton. They both played big minutes on the same terrible team, but the team was actually much more terrible with Thornton on the floor.
Gordon is a below average shooting guard for now though. That doesn’t make him a plague. Everyone seems to like put players in those two categories lately, Great or Trash.
Novak is a novelty. He’s a fine novelty to have when you need him, but I don’t see him ever being any team’s solution at starting SF. And while he might be the best there is in his niche, there is probably someone else in that niche in the pipe who can come close to replacing his output. Don’t overpay for Novak. $3M per is stretching it badly.
*While I wouldn’t argue that all of the players in the NBA are Great and represent the Best, that isn’t really interesting.
by John R on Jun 25, 2009 12:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
KD >> BG
There’s really no need to belabor this further. Just watch their games.
That might change down the road, but for now, that’s where it is. I expect KD to be a top 5 player in the league for years. His 48 FG% last year as an SF (his second year in the L), which you misleadingly told us was 45%, is Exhibit “A”.
by Jax on Jun 25, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Apples & oranges
We don’t know about Griffin yet.
I do love Durant, though.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
by mikey p on Jun 25, 2009 12:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Apples and oranges. John R obviously thought KD was a PF like BG, which is why he misleadingly pimped the 45% FGP number. Unfortunately, this is what can happen if you rely solely on stats for your basketball arguments.
BG might turn out to be great (he’s got to learn to shoot first), but I doubt he’ll ever be as good as KD.
by Jax on Jun 25, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know why you would put words in my mouth
Except that you find it difficult to refute my actual points so you make up your own. Whatever it takes I suppose, though it is rather rude.
And your sort of exhibition style of writing about me as if I wasn’t here surely leads everyone to conclude you are quite strange.
His career FG% is 45%. There is nothing at all misleading about that. A FG% will fluctuate a few points a year, so 45% or 47% doesn’t matter. Though more data points is better. Even someone as math challenged as yourself would surely know that.
I would argue that the one intending to deceive would be the one cherry-picking the singular datapoint that best suits their claim. Which in this case would be his best performance. Which for this thread, the liar might be you.
by John R on Jun 25, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
Let’s review:
You said BG’s better and that KD isn’t really all that great. You cited to 45% FGP to support your WIN/48 argument, which is in actuality the combined total for his rookie year and last year, his second year in the league. Last year, however, his FGP was 48%, which is outstanding for an SF who shoots threes like he does.
Then you suggest that FGP will fluctuate a few points a year. Hmm. Rookie year 42%. Last year 48%. Last year was his second year in the league. Seems to me he’s starting to figure it out.
But thanks for suggesting that I’m “math challenged.”
All I did was point out that KD is an SF, not a PF and that you likely mistook KD for a PF. You don’t dispute that. But you do call me a bunch of names. Even those of us who are “match challenged” can figure out what’s going on.
by Jax on Jun 25, 2009 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
KD will be top 5?
Durant has a long way to go before he reaches the status of LeBron, Wade, Kobe, Dwight and CP. He might get there, but he needs a lot of work on D, rebounding and reducing turnovers to be elite. I don’t see that he’s separated himself from the likes of Granger, Pierce or Carmelo yet. I expect BG to have a better all around game after two years in the NBA.
by ClipCat on Jun 25, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely
Top 5 are LeBron, Wade, CP3, Dwight, and Kobe. No bout a ’dout it.
by LJ Hann on Jun 25, 2009 1:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sadly
I might have to put Dwight in bottom 5 of the list, starting a bit like this:
CP3, LBJ, Mobe (Dick), Wade, Dwight.
Of course there are gonna be different arguments, but for some reason I just like cp3 that much. (=
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 25, 2009 1:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mine was in no particular order.
Best NBA players:
1) LeBron
2)CP3
3)Dwade
4)Dwight
5)Kobe
6)Paul Peirce
7)Melo
8)Brandon Roy
9)Danny Granger
10) Kevin Durant
by LJ Hann on Jun 25, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Intresting list
Might i add did you possibyl did forget Duncan? Or do you think he aged too much to be included anymore?( Just a question with no attack intended)
(Btw I dont know if i would include Pierce in top 6…) I rather go with Kevin Garnett somewhere in there also.
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 25, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did forget about Duncan
But looking at that list he still doesn’t get in. KG is old to and I haven’t seen him plat in a while because of his injury.
by LJ Hann on Jun 25, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pierce, Granger and Melo
are fringe. Duncan and KG need to be in there.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
by mikey p on Jun 25, 2009 2:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
All depends on your criteria
I suppose DW, Roy, Dirk and Duncan are all close, and maybe KG will get back to that level this year.
by ClipCat on Jun 25, 2009 1:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which years?
And top 5 by what measure?
My suspicion is the arbitrary and meaningless stat-fearing measures you always seem to use to make your points. I am sure you find these most useful since then you can just change them once you have been demonstrated to be incorrect. Again.
by John R on Jun 25, 2009 1:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I know im supposed to be nice...
But for your own good John R, just shut up. You’re emberrassing yourself.
by LJ Hann on Jun 25, 2009 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
John R Thanks for telling me that
Kevin Durant is “above average” and Gordon is “below average.” Did your stats tell you that, or was that an opinion? I will tell you that Gordon is one of the best at his class, and his stats probably won’t tell you that.
As for Novak being a novalty, sure. I wouldnt start him either. But in a game where we’re down, I dont know 10? or down 3? or even down 2, I’d happily put it Novak to 1) try and ease the bleeding, 2) Spread the floor to increase spacing on the D and 3) Tie the game with a 3. Truth is, Novak is probably one of the best 3 point shooters on the Clippers right now.
Anyways, as for Lamar or Durant. It really depends what your team needs. If you have a pass first pg, would you really need Lamar Odom? Sure, Lamar is versitle, but you can’t overlook Durants scoring capabilities.
Point is, your stat’s are NOT as they appear sometimes. I mean stats are great to look at and can give a sense of feeling of who’s good in the NBA, but should be able to see the player in action before we make a clear judgement. (Really, NCAA would probably be good example, but it’s NCAA. I mean Nick Fazekas averaged, I dont know over 20 points in college at Nevada, or even Tyler Hans. would be a good exmaple.)
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 25, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Btw when i said at his class
I did mean 2009 draft, but is not limited to it.
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 25, 2009 2:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Starting SF
Al can come off the bench, and as for dominant inside prescence, we’ll have to put in Kaman and Griffin and cross our fingers. I really dont know if Carter can dunk explosively anymore, but he can still elevate and finish and VC is a terrific 3-Point shooter.
by LJ Hann on Jun 24, 2009 11:35 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Carter
I think he would be a great fit for the Clips. Haven’t heard anything regarding him coming to the Clippers, but I would get him in a trade for ZBo. With taking Griffin, I think Carter will fit a more uptempo style of play, as opposed to the use all 24 seconds setting up a one on one matchup for Randolph. Don’t get me wrong Zach’s 20 and 10 are nice, but with Baron, Gordon, Carter, Griffin, Camby or Kaman…then having Thornton and Camby or Kaman coming off the bench, I think it would be a lot better. I love Thornton’s play, but I think he would be great coming off the bench, possible 6th man of the year status.
by besaje on Jun 24, 2009 11:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I peed myself....
… When I saw the Headline “Vince Carter to the Clips”. Hope it happens, I would take him over Randolph any day.
by LJ Hann on Jun 24, 2009 12:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If the 2010 plan is out the window,
its a no brainer. Camby + R. Davis for Carter. Might have to sign and trade Skinner or something to get it over the matching hump, but its already close. Assuming a salary dump is what the Nets are looking for, of course. It would leave them with like only $16M in committed salary for 2010.
Hello 2011 plan.
"So what are the odds that the Clippers can compete next season given their limited flexibility? Slim and none."
by John R on Jun 24, 2009 12:33 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
If you dont know by now
I dont have time to explain it to you.
"So what are the odds that the Clippers can compete next season given their limited flexibility? Slim and none."
by John R on Jun 24, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
I don’t blame Jax on this one, Clippers haven’t exactly made that effort to make a push at the “2010” plan, which makes 2010 not as exciting as 2009, or atleast yet. I mean, they did give away a 2010 plan contract (unitentional actually, just saying) Cuttino Mobley for a longer term, bigger contract deal, Zbo. But hey, maybe we can just make a push for Boh now (:
Jax, what John R is probably referring to is potentially signing one of those big stars such as Dwayne Wade, Lebron, Bosh, or whoever is there at 2010.
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 24, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
They actually traded away
TWO 2010 contracts…Cat Mobley AND Tim Thomas…and it was intentional by all means.
Do or do not. There is no try.
by Clip Show on Jun 24, 2009 1:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course I know about "the" plan, the point of my post was that the Clippers have never
indicated that they were interested in such a plan. And the panic signing of ZBo (so that MDSr would save face for losing EB) destroyed whatever privately-expressed intentions they had in that regard.
Apparently, John R had some trouble understanding my post. You obviously did not.
Well played, sir.
by Jax on Jun 24, 2009 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is it me
Or did this strong vibe between you and John R occur when you guys were talking about Al Thornton? LOL
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 24, 2009 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I actually agree on John R.
That this isn’t a bad trade. I guess the question that it imposes is “Do we aim for another aging veteran” or do we “try to make a run at the 2010 players.” Overall, if Vince still has his legs behind him, a Baron Davis, Vince Carter team sounds great.
Anyways, who’s there at 2011 anyways? There seems to be too much commotion as it is with 2010 to focus on the year AFTER it.
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 24, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh yeah also
Do nets even want RIckyD and Marcus Camby?
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 24, 2009 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree with john R on this one and it's the exact same trade i was thinking of when i first read this post.
The clippers have no 2010 plan… they might be able to pick up a marginal player at best
VC’s contract is unguaranteed in the 2011/2012 season so havin his 17.5 mil and randolphs 17.3 million drop off the same summer sounds like a pretty good plan to me. he’s still pretty effective scorer even though he may have lost a step and he can play both the 2 and the 3. In the meantime we clear out some space in our frontcourt.
IMO the clips have a pretty good balance of youth and vets to compete and I for one would be willing to take a two year flyer on VC… if there was only some way we could get a draft pick in the trade too…
by cantthinkofagoodname on Jun 24, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I agree too with the logic
I’d rather have Carter than ZBo. I just think that we should be able to use the ZBo chip to get younger. If we can’t, I’d take VC too.
by Jax on Jun 24, 2009 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
actually I'm saying camby and rdavis (and maybe some filler) for VC
so we do get younger trading a 34 year old for a 31 year old… but we would have both VC and z-bo… at least that’s the only way i think the nets would make a trade. and we become one of the biggest players in 2011 free agency or as we saw this past summer we can acquire good players for a 2nd rounder…
by cantthinkofagoodname on Jun 24, 2009 5:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who is in the 2011 class?
I think we can get younger for Camby (notwithstanding liability issues LOL) and I’d rather dump Zbo.
by Jax on Jun 24, 2009 5:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
everyone want to get rid of z-bo myself included
but I think realistically it’s not going to happen until the trade deadline of the 2010/2011 season… or the clips will have to take on longer contracts. Besides we only have 2 more years of z-bo as blake griffins overpaid backup.
The question for the clippers is outside of zach randolph, which of the current players is the most redundant and the answer is camby. Most likely he wont be with the clips after this next season anyway (probably just changing locker rooms signing on for the vets min to play for a title)
by cantthinkofagoodname on Jun 24, 2009 6:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Who is in the 2011 class?
well all the players from the 2007 draft will be RFA’s if they didn’t sign extensions right? It’s not just about free agents though, teams can do a lot more with lots of cap space (like the way we got camby for a 2nd rounder)
by cantthinkofagoodname on Jun 24, 2009 6:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why would the Clippers
continue to pay top dollar for aging vets? IMO the team needs to get YOUNGER and stop moving the deck chairs around. I guess management is more comfortable with older guys.
by Jax on Jun 24, 2009 12:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Seems arbitrary, at best
I’m just not a fan of age-based discrimination, or discrimination against any protected class for that matter.
That’s said, the team would obviously get younger by trading away two of its oldest players for Carter.
The problem with trying to trade for younger players are the rookie contract scale and then the BYC rules. You can’t often easily trade for a 24 or 25 year old because you will need to work out a bizarro 3 team trade. Though I know you don’t like to restrict your imagination to the boundaries of reality when questioning the moves of others, so I guess that would be too much to ask for you to consider in your demands.
"So what are the odds that the Clippers can compete next season given their limited flexibility? Slim and none."
by John R on Jun 24, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
In NBA
imagination goes far. (: Gasol for Kwame Brown typically sums it up. Just kidding. No attack intended.
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 24, 2009 1:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
LOL!!!
Apparently John R thinks that deciding to sign younger rather than older players to NBA contracts under the CBA can somehow subject an NBA team to civil liability for age-based discrimination. That’s probably the funniest of all of John R’s posts this week. And many of them have been silly. This one takes the proverbial cake.
Not surprisingly, John R missed the point. Carter is not a young player and is on the downside of his career. The fact that he may be slightly younger than other older declining players on the team does not resolve the problems I’ve raised.
I understand the financial issues associated with trading for younger talent. There are many ways around those rules. The GM just needs to do his job. If they are going to trade for older players, they should do so only on short term deals.
Your self-professed “knowledge” of the CBA and related is laughable. Anyone can read the rules if they have nothing better to do. The hard part is figuring out what needs to be done and getting it done.
by Jax on Jun 24, 2009 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I dont know man
I didn’t actually mention I lawsuit. I just was suggesting that you might be a bad person for solely judging people based on their age. There is no denying you do that. That doesn’t open you up to a lawsuit in this case, it just might make you a bad person and/or a poor judge of talent. Age is just a number, baby.
You haven’t actually raised a problem. You just wish the team was younger. This is sort of silly. Young teams don’t win championships. Secondly, you like to make excuses for teams mostly comprised of young players. Is the point of getting younger just to give the Clippers an excuse to lose? This seems to be the only possible rational intent here.
You should be seeking the best players available, regardless of age.
There is little evidence that Carter is on the downside of his career. He is still an above average player and replacing Thornton with Vinsanity, alone, would be worth about 10 wins each of the next two seasons. Eventually he will hit a wall, but it will likely be right about the time his contract becomes a valuable expiring one.
If it is so easy to come up with a trade for a younger BYC player, please suggest one. As usual, you contribute nothing positive, such as suggesting a trade you do like. You only wish to criticize, then somehow actually admit you like the trade. You are a strange man, indeed.
"So what are the odds that the Clippers can compete next season given their limited flexibility? Slim and none."
by John R on Jun 24, 2009 5:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Give it a rest, my man
At least you admit you’re just trying to denigrate me – that you think I’m a bad person for wanting the Clippers to get younger beause I’m “discriminating” against older players . . . why waste your time and indeed all of our time on this board wtih such nonsense?
Obviously, I’m not “solely judging people because of their age.” I’m trying to figure out whether it’s better to invest money in proven older talent that is in the decline or whether it’s better to invest in younger talent that is less expensive but not quite as proven. Camby may be the nicest guy in the world, but I’m not going to give him $17M a year for 20 years, because of his age, and neither are you.
The fact that I wish the team were younger is "sort of silly? Not to me.
I’m looking for an “excuse to lose”? Do I need to find one given that I root for the Clippers?
I just don’t think it’s prudent to invest long term in extremely expensive vets given that our core is very young. You apparently believe otherwise, which is not surprising because MDSr also likes to sign expensive vets and you have an excuse for everything he does. I agree that it’s more comfortable to buy high priced vets as a GM because they have a proven track record. Unfortunately, however, they might age, leaving you holding, say, a $65 million bag.
MDSr’s the GM. It’s his job to evaluate talent in light of the team’s long term and short term goals. If he makes the wrong decisions, it’s on him. That’s why he’s making $5 M a year, and you’re not.
Carter is on the downside of his career. I don’t have time to wade into the stats right now, but someone above posted an email about how he’s far less explosive now and more of a jump shooter. There are alot of jumpshooters out there who are far less expensive than he is. He wasn’t making big bucks simply for shooting. If you watch VC play, you’d see it.
I don’t need to come up with a trade, MDSr does. He accepted the GM job, let him go do it. Last year he won 19 games. He’s had one winning season in six years. In my opinion, the team should get younger. If he disagrees, and the team wins, good for him and us.
by Jax on Jun 24, 2009 5:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Can I please add on to this
John R, your signature is
“So what are the odds that the Clippers can compete next season given their limited flexibility? Slim and none.”
So basically, if you think about it, if we’re not competeing we should be rebuilding. You said it yourself, VC has a good 2 years on him, and even then his contract is bound to expire. Is it possible the Clippers can make a push with VC during that time period, sure. Is it wrong for Jax to want a longer withstandin talent than VC? Not really. The point is, your trade is good, John R, but Jax is looking more into a long term deal.
Anyways, aside from that, there are actually signs of VC slowing down. He’s still good, no doubt, but he’s just not “Air Carter” no more.
Anyways, with that in mind, I might take up a VC deal. But if another opportunity comes along that involves a good younger player, I might take him.
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 25, 2009 12:17 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
whats with all the negativeness
Vince (though older) would definitely be an upgrade for the clippers at small forward. He may be old but we have a young, still developing Al Thorton coming off the bench behind him. Its always nice having a 3point threat at the 3 as well. Or (just a thought) maybe have VC come off the bench as sixth man?
by AtotheZ on Jun 24, 2009 1:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I dont know if I can exactly call
Vince Carter a 3 point threat. I consider Gordon a bigger threat than Carter. (Novak too.) Fred Jones shot typically about the same % as VC.
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 24, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
With Randolph gone, 2010 is back
Vince Carter’s contract expires before the 2010 offseason, opening up 16mil for a possible free agent signing.
by LJ Hann on Jun 24, 2009 2:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I don't know about this...
I just went to Sporting News.com, there is no story or anything about Carter. Our friend may have misheard.
by LJ Hann on Jun 24, 2009 2:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Carter expires in 2011.. with a team option for 2012
'Cause how you play, is how you'll be remembered. PLAY LOUD!
by CLiPPz WeRD 12 on Jun 24, 2009 2:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Zbo for Vince would be awesome
I doubt the Nets would do that, VC has been on good behavior the past few years while Zbo has not. Actually VC is one of those guys who went from wildly overrated to where he is now actually underrated. That said the contracts are a wash so it could happen but I don’t see why the Nets would do so. VC is at least still marketable, Zbo is not. If we can make this trade we should definitely take it.
Now the bright side is Vince is big enough to play SF, is a good play maker and has good range. He definitely can’t jump over 7 footers anymore but he’s still a effective and pretty efficient player.
FA in 2010.
by ClipperChuck on Jun 24, 2009 2:49 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Just glanced over the thread
Doubtful Nets make any kind of trade for VC with the Clippers that doesn’t involve picks. VC’s game has changed pretty dramatically in the last few years, and thought it is tailored more to jumpers and spreading the floor, he is still playing at close to an all-star level. They can get someone to give them a first rounder for him, even if its in the bottom half. They don’t need Camby, and with Lopez in the middle, I don’t think they need Kaman. Z BO makes sense to complement Lopez, but I can’t see them being excited about Ricky buckets, especially after last season’s debacle. Plus, I just don’t see where VC fits in the Clippers rotation. He’s 6’6 and not as explosive as he once was, we might get trashed if we have BD, EG, and Vince in at the same time. Just thinking out loud
by MarekTheBrave on Jun 24, 2009 3:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
VC has been on the block more than anyone the last few years
they always keep him.
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
by mikey p on Jun 24, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Uh
I always thought that was CMagg. Last i heard Warriors were looking to shop him this year also.
Mike Smith on Eric Gordon: "The Clippers may have found their go to scorer."
On a second note, I want Novak back!
by JackduhSun on Jun 25, 2009 12:18 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maggette, too
Do not worry. (Matthew 6:27)
by mikey p on Jun 25, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Say what you want...
But VC knows the game of basketball and has the size/strength to play with the best of them… He may not be at his “prime” but a change of scenery with a team playing with a chip on its shoulder might rejuvenate his career… I’d love a chance at seeing a couple of good years from him in exchange for Camby…
by bystander on Jun 24, 2009 4:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Let's do it
Our offense would flow much better with him than Thornton.
"This kid is the best new talent in the league right now, and I don't care who else you mention." -Suns Coach, Alvin Gentry, on Clippers rookie sensation, Eric Gordon.
by cliptakular on Jun 24, 2009 11:57 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Vince to the Magic
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4287197
Carter to the Magic for Alston, Lee, and Batie is supposedly getting really close to happening.
by Hooch20 on Jun 25, 2009 1:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
With VC on the magic, I believe the season may be already over.
Without injuries or MAJOR steal trades, Cleveland and LAL don’t stand a chance.
by LJ Hann on Jun 25, 2009 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
