OT: Carter to Spurs heating up

[MickZagger]

Ridiculous. Instead of just looking at names, how about taking into account things like style of play, attitude, and strengths/weaknesses? Geez.

Salmons will have MUCH more of an impact in San Antonio than Carter. He's a MUCH better defender, fits perfectly into the team's concept, and OH YEAH he's still averaging 18 a game this season while shooting over 40% from three.

Learn basketball please kthxbai.

I'm not the type to just look at names. Carter relishes in a halfcourt game where he can utilize his post-up game. Not sure what makes you think Carter doesn't fit on that Spurs team.

 

[JE]

I agree that Salmons is better on defense. But for such a good defensive team, they can afford to have a merely average defender in return for all the things Carter brings: much more efficient scoring and the ability to create shots for teammates. Salmons is a solid complementary scorer, but Carter can create offense for himself and others.

More efficient scoring? Salmons is shooting better from three, has only 16 less makes from three than Carter, while having about 60 less attempts. Salmons has a better overall FG%. Parker does pretty much all the creating the Spurs need.

I don't think Bowen is a major contributor to the Spurs anymore. In past years, he was, but his defense has dropped off and he doesn't help much on offense.

Here you may have a point, but Salmons can step right in and fill this role anyway.

Hill and Mason are solid role-players, but giving up some depth to upgrade the team's top-end talent is generally always a good trade-off especially when it comes to the playoffs and one's best players play the most.

You think the Spurs should hack up their depth, the thing that has been a constant for them and played a big role in them winning 4 titles in 9 years? That's not smart. Trading Hill and Mason for Carter makes the Spurs a much thinner team, subtracts from their team defense, and hurts their offense by having to get X amount of shots a game for the very team-oriented Carter.


It won't work.

 

[Nets2]

Carter will FUBAR that team. They're much better off trying to swing a trade for Salmons. It won't cost them either of the great defenders they'd be giving up for Carter (Hill/Bowen).

ayyo salmons is a terrible defender. once he got his shots up he stopped caring on the defensive end. I guess you dont watch many kings games, but i cant blame you

 

[JE]

I'm not the type to just look at names. Carter relishes in a halfcourt game where he can utilize his post-up game. Not sure what makes you think Carter doesn't fit on that Spurs team.

The Spurs top end talent doesn't need upgrades. Salmons is the perfect player for the team's supporting cast, because he can do what the Spurs need him to do. He's much more efficient than Carter with his defense and shooting. Salmons won't require the Spurs to trade their depth.

 

[Rip City Revelator]

*edited: No personal attacks*

And yeah, John's defense sucks. I hate hating on another John, but his defense is terrible.

I live in New Jersey, and watch tons of Nets games with my wife's family. Carter's defense has not been bad at all. It's been a plus in late game situations, unless the Nets are playing the Heat.

 

[JE]

*edited*

And yeah, John's defense sucks. I hate hating on another John, but his defense is terrible.

Fail.

*edited*

 

[Minstrel]

More efficient scoring? Salmons is shooting better from three, has only 16 less makes from three than Carter, while having about 60 less attempts. Salmons has a better overall FG%. Parker does pretty much all the creating the Spurs need.

Actually, that's true. Salmons is having a career year and I had underestimated his efficiency. That said being efficient when set up by others and efficient when creating yourself is a major difference and the second is much more valuable. Carter is efficient while creating offense. I disagree that Parker gives the Spurs all the creating they need. The Spurs sometimes struggle to get points and Carter would make them a much tougher team to defend.

You think the Spurs should hack up their depth, the thing that has been a constant for them and played a big role in them winning 4 titles in 9 years? That's not smart. Trading Hill and Mason for Carter makes the Spurs a much thinner team, subtracts from their team defense, and hurts their offense by having to get X amount of shots a game for the very team-oriented Carter.

Teams change. Swapping out two decent but far from impactful role-players for star-level player would make them a much better, more dangerous team. The subtraction from team defense is minimal and far outweighed by the addition to their team offense. And your implication by sarcasm that Carter is a selfish player isn't accurate, in my opinion. He's a willing and good passer. The shots he gets will be much appreciated by the Spurs.

 

[JE]

Teams change. Swapping out two decent but far from impactful role-players for star-level player would make them a much better, more dangerous team. The subtraction from team defense is minimal and far outweighed by the addition to their team offense. And your implication by sarcasm that Carter is a selfish player isn't accurate, in my opinion. He's a willing and good passer. The shots he gets will be much appreciated by the Spurs.

Far from impactful? Both Mason and Hill would be sorely missed if they were let go. If the Spurs are going to make a run, those two will be key players off the bench in that run.

Going from Hill and Mason to Carter is a definite defensive downgrade that they won't get away with in the playoffs. Adding offense in hopes of masking the defense blow is a no-no. Salmons has been scoring almost as well as Carter this season, so its not like they won't be able to score points with Salmons. Add in the fact that Salmons comes much cheaper and plays a lot better on the defensive end, and I don't how this isn't a no-brainer between Salmons and Carter.

 

[Minstrel]

Far from impactful? Both Mason and Hill would be sorely missed if they were let go. If the Spurs are going to make a run, those two will be key players off the bench in that run.

Going from Hill and Mason to Carter is a definite defensive downgrade that they won't get away with in the playoffs. Adding offense in hopes of masking the defense blow is a no-no. Salmons has been scoring almost as well as Carter this season, so its not like they won't be able to score points with Salmons. Add in the fact that Salmons comes much cheaper and plays a lot better on the defensive end, and I don't how this isn't a no-brainer between Salmons and Carter.

It isn't merely scoring, though scoring is still significantly in Carter's favour since he can create his own shot. It's also passing and rebounding, Carter is better than Salmons in every part of the game except defense. We definitely seem to disagree on how large the defensive difference is. I don't think Salmons is a defensive stopper. He's an above average defender while Carter is an average defender. That matters, but not as much as everything else combined.

Hill and Mason are both benefited, defensively, from playing with Duncan. Duncan has always been the centerpiece of the Spurs' team defense. Carter would also benefit on defense from playing with Duncan. Moving from Hill/Mason to Carter wouldn't be a particularly large defensive difference, as far as I'm concerned. The all-around production Carter provides would strengthen the team significantly more.

I think Salmons would be a fine addition, I just think Carter would be an even better one. When a team is on the cusp of championship-contention, money shouldn't be a factor if it brings in a better player. Salmons is cheaper, but significantly worse. If the Spurs want to maximize their chances of winning it all before Duncan declines significantly, they should take on the more expensive, better player even if the per-dollar value isn't identical.

 

[Ed O]

I think San Antonio would be looking beyond just this year in its acquisition of Carter. Vince isn't as young as either of the main pieces they'd be moving, but he's a lot better.

Certainly he could be a better defender, but I have a feeling he--like so many guys before him--would suddenly "learn" to be at least passable at it.

I don't think any team can ever not try to update their best players, especially when SA has demonstrated so much capability at finding rotation players that can fill gaps below their main players.

Ed O.

 

[JE]

It isn't merely scoring, though scoring is still significantly in Carter's favour since he can create his own shot. It's also passing and rebounding, Carter is better than Salmons in every part of the game except defense. We definitely seem to disagree on how large the defensive difference is. I don't think Salmons is a defensive stopper. He's an above average defender while Carter is an average defender. That matters, but not as much as everything else combined.

I'm also factoring in the defense San Antonio loses in the guys they'd be sending out for Carter (Hill, Mason, Bowen).

Hill and Mason are both benefited, defensively, from playing with Duncan. Duncan has always been the centerpiece of the Spurs' team defense. Carter would also benefit on defense from playing with Duncan. Moving from Hill/Mason to Carter wouldn't be a particularly large defensive difference, as far as I'm concerned. The all-around production Carter provides would strengthen the team significantly more.

Before George Hill was even drafted his defense was reported as NBA ready, and he hasn't disappointed. Not too many rookies are great defenders. He's one of them. Duncan is not the reason Hill is a good defender. He helps certainly, but he doesn't make the guy.

San Antonio already has three stars, they don't need another, and they definitely don't need to hock their bench to get one. The Spurs can win in the playoffs without being an offensive juggernaut. They've done it a few times already. They'll be able to put up enough points in the playoffs and let their defense win their games. Adding offense and subtracting defense is a pointless move that they've never had to do in the past, and they don't need to do it now.

I think Salmons would be a fine addition, I just think Carter would be an even better one. When a team is on the cusp of championship-contention, money shouldn't be a factor if it brings in a better player. Salmons is cheaper, but significantly worse. If the Spurs want to maximize their chances of winning it all before Duncan declines significantly, they should take on the more expensive, better player even if the per-dollar value isn't identical.

Money isn't the factor. Its the return package.

 

[Rip City Revelator]

Bowen is playing 20 minutes a game. Fabricio plays 12. Are you going to cry about losing them when you're getting a rejuvenated Carter back? Hell, make up for Fabricio and give them Boone, if they really want him.
Mason is a three point shooter who plays good D. Hill seems like he could be a solid role player in this league.

If that's all you're giving up for Carter, you do it.

 

[Crimson the Cat]

If this is true, it does possibly prove that Pritchard isn't interested in a star player at the end of his prime. That narrows down the list a bit.

Portland could offer a more tantalizing deal if interested.

 

[JE]

Bowen is playing 20 minutes a game. Fabricio plays 12. Are you going to cry about losing them when you're getting a rejuvenated Carter back? Hell, make up for Fabricio and give them Boone, if they really want him.

THOSE AREN'T EVEN THE GUYS I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS WHOLE TIME!!! WHAT THE FUCK DO PEOPLE READ ANYMORE?????

Mason is a three point shooter who plays good D. Hill seems like he could be a solid role player in this league.

Hill plays great D. Both are role players who perform their roles very well and both contribute to the Spurs, and in no small way either. Take either of them away from the Spurs, and they'll be missed. Take both of them away, that's a huge blow to the Spurs depth.

If that's all you're giving up for Carter, you do it.

Hopefully R.C. Buford is a lot smarter than you are. I'm optimistic.