Getting a better starting lineup

[FOMW]

On the VC leadership thing, I think ghoti and Chutney are on the right track. The biggest difference between now and VC's first years in Toronto is that VC is now his team's elder statesman and feels (I believe) not only a leadership mandate by virtue of talent but a mandate by virtue of seniority and experience. I'm not sure he felt entitled to that role before. He has increasingly shown a real interest and sense of responsibility in mentoring younger players on his teams, even starting with Mo Peterson in Toronto and continuing through the considerable work he put in over the last couple of summers with Antoine Wright (alas, to not much avail in that case). As Vince's only sibling is a younger brother, I think this "big brother" kind of role is one he's had a lifetime to practice, and it suits his personality much better than coming into the midst of other heralded and/or more senior players and trying to assert that "he's the man".

I sensed very strongly, post Kidd trade, that he feels a need to make things happen for this team. Part of that, I'm sure, is fueled by the fact that Kidd's trade demand was an indirect repudiation of him as a ball player. But he also has to be thinking about his legacy to the sport at this point. He would rather walk on hot coals than acknowledge it, but he's aware of his reputation as something of an underachiever, a "heartless" player whose flash and talent has always outweighed the substance of his results in the win column. There is precious little time left for him to challenge that perception and write his own ending, but the prospect of leading a bunch of basketball infants and journeymen to a respectable record affords him a perfect chance to do just that. It's not about championships for him right now but about demonstrating once and for all that he has a competitive drive worthy of his skills and that he can lead a team with the commitment and dignity that he lacked when he was asked to lead the Raptors.

I think he's up to it. I just pray that he stays healthy for the entire season.

 

[Netted]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Answer_AI03 @ Jul 15 2008, 10:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So you think Vince Carter is going to have a positive impact on all those young players? I doubt that. I would say Andre Miller had a bigger impact than any of the players you just mentioned for the sixers.</div>
I did mention Miller too, and yes I think Vince will have a big impact.

 

[Dark Defender]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ Jul 15 2008, 11:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>On the VC leadership thing, I think ghoti and Chutney are on the right track. The biggest difference between now and VC's first years in Toronto is that VC is now his team's elder statesman and feels (I believe) not only a leadership mandate by virtue of talent but a mandate by virtue of seniority and experience. I'm not sure he felt entitled to that role before. He has increasingly shown a real interest and sense of responsibility in mentoring younger players on his teams, even starting with Mo Peterson in Toronto and continuing through the considerable work he put in over the last couple of summers with Antoine Wright (alas, to not much avail in that case). As Vince's only sibling is a younger brother, I think this "big brother" kind of role is one he's had a lifetime to practice, and it suits his personality much better than coming into the midst of other heralded and/or more senior players and trying to assert that "he's the man".

I sensed very strongly, post Kidd trade, that he feels a need to make things happen for this team. Part of that, I'm sure, is fueled by the fact that Kidd's trade demand was an indirect repudiation of him as a ball player. But he also has to be thinking about his legacy to the sport at this point. He would rather walk on hot coals than acknowledge it, but he's aware of his reputation as something of an underachiever, a "heartless" player whose flash and talent has always outweighed the substance of his results in the win column. There is precious little time left for him to challenge that perception and write his own ending, but the prospect of leading a bunch of basketball infants and journeymen to a respectable record affords him a perfect chance to do just that. It's not about championships for him right now but about demonstrating once and for all that he has a competitive drive worthy of his skills and that he can lead a team with the commitment and dignity that he lacked when he was asked to lead the Raptors.

I think he's up to it. I just pray that he stays healthy for the entire season.</div>

Once el doucho got traded, all the expectations that weighed down the team left with him. I think now, this is the perfect situation for Vince.

Low pressure, rebuilding year but with enough talent to surprise. If they make the playoffs, GREAT! but if they don't, hey we weren't supposed to make it anyway.

 

[Cmoney707]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 10:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 15 2008, 10:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 08:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 15 2008, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>
The Sixers were near the top of the hill?</div>
I think the point was that they were a young team that was competing and made the playoffs. That's what attracted Brand. They weren't a team with a bunch of children full of potential.
</div>I think the bigger factors were the money and the organization being heaps better than the Clippers. The Sixers won 40 games, big deal.
</div>
24-17 over the 2nd half of the season. Now with Brand they can do even more damage.

They are young, competitive and promising which is more attractive than a team like Memphis or Seattle. No?

Do you think this team will be more attractive to high level free agents in 2 years if it's got a few young guys with potential and is around .500 or extremely young and coming off a 20 win season like a Seattle is now?
</div>
I never made a judgment on whether they are more attractive than certain teams. Just that they weren't close to the top of the hill.
</div>

Maybe I mislead you by saying Brand could be like Shaq was with the Heat. The Sixers were close to the top of the hill(bump) in the eastern conference because of the lack of great teams. Does Brand going to the Sixers mean they are favorites to go to the finals? No. It means that the Sixers are now one of the better teams in the East. Therefore, getting over the hill. I think they win that series last year against Detroit, with Brand, and would give Cleveland and Orlando a very good series.

 

[fefe]

I'm so disappointed we lost out on Camby...

I was really rooting for a KVH+ Stro for Camby trade...
we could have sweetened it with something more than a second rounder. Maybe Marcus + Boone/Swat..

I really don't know what kind of starting C we are looking at now...
If we resign Krstic, that doesn't help our 2010 capspace, and we will really have too many players then...

If we have Krstic and Lopez at C, and Yi, Anderson and Najera at PF, we really don't have minutes left for Sean and Boone.
I'd rather have a big stiff for the minimum as our #6 big man. Kwame or Loren Woods type.

I'm not worried about backup PG, since we can easily get Dooling or Pargo for 2 years, if we are ready to pay them 3-4 mill per year.
We don't have capspace, but we have a 3,3mill TE, or we can use KVH if we want to pay them 4 mill per year.
a 2nd rd pick will be easily enough to get Orlando or New Orleans to do it, since they don't have to take on salary (well they have to take on about 250k, if we use KVH)

The SG looks nice with VC/CDR/Ager, with Dooling or Pargo stepping in occassionally.

Our bench looks deep at SF with Hayes and Simmons, but we really need a starter for that spot.

What can we get for Stro+ Sean + Boone + Marcus + Hassell?? (maybe we can use KVH here also, if the TE is enough to solve the backup PG problem)

if we keep Nenad, can we get some really good SF till 2010 for them? Maybe Melo???

if we don't keep Nenad we have to split them and get a starting C plus a starting SF for them. preferably 2010 expirers... any ideas?

 

[BrooklynBound]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 15 2008, 11:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 10:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 15 2008, 10:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 08:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 15 2008, 08:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 15 2008, 08:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>
The Sixers were near the top of the hill?</div>
I think the point was that they were a young team that was competing and made the playoffs. That's what attracted Brand. They weren't a team with a bunch of children full of potential.
</div>I think the bigger factors were the money and the organization being heaps better than the Clippers. The Sixers won 40 games, big deal.
</div>
24-17 over the 2nd half of the season. Now with Brand they can do even more damage.

They are young, competitive and promising which is more attractive than a team like Memphis or Seattle. No?

Do you think this team will be more attractive to high level free agents in 2 years if it's got a few young guys with potential and is around .500 or extremely young and coming off a 20 win season like a Seattle is now?
</div>
I never made a judgment on whether they are more attractive than certain teams. Just that they weren't close to the top of the hill.
</div>

Maybe I mislead you by saying Brand could be like Shaq was with the Heat. The Sixers were close to the top of the hill(bump) in the eastern conference because of the lack of great teams. Does Brand going to the Sixers mean they are favorites to go to the finals? No. It means that the Sixers are now one of the better teams in the East. Therefore, getting over the hill. I think they win that series last year against Detroit, with Brand, and would give Cleveland and Orlando a very good series.
</div>How are they near the top when they weren't close to beating the Pistons.. and the Pistons were outclassed by the Celtics? They had promising talent last year but were not near the top. The East was not deep but had enough teams to knock them out in the playoffs.

 

[Netted]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 16 2008, 07:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 15 2008, 11:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Maybe I mislead you by saying Brand could be like Shaq was with the Heat. The Sixers were close to the top of the hill(bump) in the eastern conference because of the lack of great teams. Does Brand going to the Sixers mean they are favorites to go to the finals? No. It means that the Sixers are now one of the better teams in the East. Therefore, getting over the hill. I think they win that series last year against Detroit, with Brand, and would give Cleveland and Orlando a very good series.</div>How are they near the top when they weren't close to beating the Pistons.. and the Pistons were outclassed by the Celtics? They had promising talent last year but were not near the top. The East was not deep but had enough teams to knock them out in the playoffs.
</div>
His definition of "top" is to be a legitimate contender like Detroit, Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando. He thinks the Brand acquisition puts them at that level.

Near the top = playoff team
Top = upper teams... not necessarily the top team.

24-17 over the last half of the season was pretty good. Add in Brand and I can see them as one of the top 3 or 4 teams in the East.

 

[Cmoney707]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 16 2008, 09:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 16 2008, 07:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 15 2008, 11:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Maybe I mislead you by saying Brand could be like Shaq was with the Heat. The Sixers were close to the top of the hill(bump) in the eastern conference because of the lack of great teams. Does Brand going to the Sixers mean they are favorites to go to the finals? No. It means that the Sixers are now one of the better teams in the East. Therefore, getting over the hill. I think they win that series last year against Detroit, with Brand, and would give Cleveland and Orlando a very good series.</div>How are they near the top when they weren't close to beating the Pistons.. and the Pistons were outclassed by the Celtics? They had promising talent last year but were not near the top. The East was not deep but had enough teams to knock them out in the playoffs.
</div>
His definition of "top" is to be a legitimate contender like Detroit, Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando. He thinks the Brand acquisition puts them at that level.

Near the top = playoff team
Top = upper teams... not necessarily the top team.

24-17 over the last half of the season was pretty good. Add in Brand and I can see them as one of the top 3 or 4 teams in the East.
</div>

thank you.

it wasn't that hard to comprehend.

 

[BrooklynBound]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 16 2008, 09:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 16 2008, 07:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 15 2008, 11:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Maybe I mislead you by saying Brand could be like Shaq was with the Heat. The Sixers were close to the top of the hill(bump) in the eastern conference because of the lack of great teams. Does Brand going to the Sixers mean they are favorites to go to the finals? No. It means that the Sixers are now one of the better teams in the East. Therefore, getting over the hill. I think they win that series last year against Detroit, with Brand, and would give Cleveland and Orlando a very good series.</div>How are they near the top when they weren't close to beating the Pistons.. and the Pistons were outclassed by the Celtics? They had promising talent last year but were not near the top. The East was not deep but had enough teams to knock them out in the playoffs.
</div>
His definition of "top" is to be a legitimate contender like Detroit, Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando. He thinks the Brand acquisition puts them at that level.

Near the top = playoff team
Top = upper teams... not necessarily the top team.

24-17 over the last half of the season was pretty good. Add in Brand and I can see them as one of the top 3 or 4 teams in the East.
</div>
Half of the teams make the playoffs. Simply making it does not mean you are near the top. Near the top means near the top and the Sixers clearly weren't last year.

 

[BrooklynBound]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 16 2008, 05:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Jul 16 2008, 09:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BrooklynBound @ Jul 16 2008, 07:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cmoney707 @ Jul 15 2008, 11:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Maybe I mislead you by saying Brand could be like Shaq was with the Heat. The Sixers were close to the top of the hill(bump) in the eastern conference because of the lack of great teams. Does Brand going to the Sixers mean they are favorites to go to the finals? No. It means that the Sixers are now one of the better teams in the East. Therefore, getting over the hill. I think they win that series last year against Detroit, with Brand, and would give Cleveland and Orlando a very good series.</div>How are they near the top when they weren't close to beating the Pistons.. and the Pistons were outclassed by the Celtics? They had promising talent last year but were not near the top. The East was not deep but had enough teams to knock them out in the playoffs.
</div>
His definition of "top" is to be a legitimate contender like Detroit, Boston, Cleveland, and Orlando. He thinks the Brand acquisition puts them at that level.

Near the top = playoff team
Top = upper teams... not necessarily the top team.

24-17 over the last half of the season was pretty good. Add in Brand and I can see them as one of the top 3 or 4 teams in the East.
</div>

thank you.

it wasn't that hard to comprehend.
</div>I am understanding what you said and am responding to it. No more, no less.