Video interviews with Frank, Thorn, and "disappointed" Vince

[Petey]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Feb 20 2008, 02:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Feb 20 2008, 02:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not sure what point you were trying to make clear? That a GM can be taken? Sure it happens. That is more so a reflection on a GM's ability to negotiate, or one GM's lack of ability to, more so then the value of a player. IE Gasol.

As you noted we had this argument before. I did say I perceived Carter to be overpaid. Now with the trade rumors, how doesn't that validate my opinion?

I'm not sure how you have come to the assumption there was a deal in place. If there was one, why did the Nets try to move him before the trade deadline last year (Darko/Hedo request; Mobley/whoever offer), wasn't it in part they didn't know if they could resign him? If his intention was to remain a Net (like the one Kidd requested), why didn't he sign an extension instead of going through that whole ordeal last year?

-Petey</div>

The point was about people using the rumors of possible trade returns and determining Carter being overpaid because of them. If they are basing their judgment on Carter's contract on the returns of what he gets in a trade, then WHAT IF the Nets got a lot of assets back in a trade? Would that then change their opinion of his contract? Do you think then he was overpaid if the Nets got a good return in a trade? Ghoti already answered he would still think Carter was overpaid. So people judging Carter as being overpaid based on the trade returns say he's overpaid if he doesn't fetch much in return, and he's still over paid if he does fetch something valuable? How is that so?

Well, it's because they have already made up their mind that he was overpaid for different reasons. Like the reason you use of the Nets supposedly low balling Carter because he didn't have any other options when he did.

And the Nets could have still been in negotiations with Carter while also pursuing trade options. And the reason for opting out and getting a new contract rather than just getting an extension was because Carter took a pay cut to help the Nets manage the luxury tax situation. Instead of making 16 million this season Carter is making 13 million.
</div>

Gotta a pretty weak point there. Cause the rumors all mention pretty much crap. No? I gave an example of there other factors in the return on trades, there are others, such as direction a team wants to take in regards to build on the court, and financial structure. In financial structure, that often links with if a player is overpaid or not. Don't see the rumors that teams are leery taking on his contract?

The Nets ability to sign him to a lesser contract is not the only factor in why he is overpaid.

If you want to beleive Carter took a pay cut to play for NJ, instead of ORL to manage the luxury tax situation more power to you. To me it seems rather silly. I'm gonna go along with how he was out there, but no one wanted to sign him to such a deal.

-Petey

 

[Netted]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 20 2008, 01:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How do the Nets lose there?

If he picked up his option (which I don't agree that he would have), they would be sitting on a huge expiring contract. That would be great!</div>
If you want to be really depressed... the Nets would probably have Gasol now if they had that large of an expiriing! He would have been way more valuable than the crap the Lakers gave (i.e. - potential offseason S&T). Throw in one of the following: Marcus, Boone, Nenad, or Sean and it would have been done.

 

[Petey]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Feb 20 2008, 10:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 20 2008, 01:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How do the Nets lose there?

If he picked up his option (which I don't agree that he would have), they would be sitting on a huge expiring contract. That would be great!</div>
If you want to be really depressed... the Nets would probably have Gasol now if they had that large of an expiriing! He would have been way more valuable than the crap the Lakers gave (i.e. - potential offseason S&T). Throw in one of the following: Marcus, Boone, Nenad, or Sean and it would have been done.
</div>

I've said that a few times.

Would had come close to matching up for Shaq too.

-Petey

 

[FOMW]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 20 2008, 01:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So you are willing to chance that another opportunity will come along to ditch his deal?

The responsible thing to do if the Nets are properly rebuilding is take the opportunity while it is there.</div>

Ghoti, his value as a player is not going to be lower than it is right now. Partly due to his own play and partly due to the now accepted wisdom that he is damaged goods, thanks to ignorant speculation by a couple of guys whose names inexplicably impart their idiotic ramblings with perceived truth, he is not ever going to bring any less than he brings now. His contract still has 3 more years of fully guaranteed money. Teams will be LESS likely to give value for him now than they will in two years, when there is only a year remaining on the deal.

Between now and then, the relationship between time left on the contract and other teams' willingness to trade for him -- all other factors remaining the same -- is more of a curve than a straight line, with interest growing rapidly toward the end. In the mean time, there are other factors that could change the shape of that graph, namely how well he plays when healthy, which we may not even know this season but which we will be closer to knowing after the break than we were before it. If he puts up 25/6/5 the rest of the way while getting to the line 7 times a game and helping the Nets to a competitive showing in the first round of the playoffs, you don't think THAT will do something for his trade value this summer?

So I repeat: where is the urgency to dump him now? Who are you going to sign between now and July of 2010 with the money he saves you? I could almost guarantee that if he doesn't suffer a catastrophic injury (knock on wood), that some team in 2 years that's close to competing for a title would be willing to make a deal for him for at least expiring contracts, maybe even with a pick included. The opportunities are going to INCREASE as time passes, not the other way around.

 

[NOMAM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 20 2008, 03:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You've repeated this several times, but it makes no sense. I'm saying it is my opinion that he won't bring back any value in a trade because his contract is absurd. This hypothetical is pointless. I can't address it.</div>


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>That's like saying the sky is blue.

I don't understand what his player option has to do with anything. I don't think there was ever a chance he was picking that up.

If he did, it would have benefitted the Nets.</div>


I originally asked you:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>So your guys reasoning that Carter is overpaid and his contract was a huge mistake is determined by the level of interest he generates in trades rumors and the pieces it brings back to the Nets?</div>


You responded:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>1. Yes. Obviously. Is this question rhetorical?</div>



So, you are judging that he is overpaid based on the value of returns he gets in a trade. But if that's the case, then, WHAT IF, HYPOTHETICALLY, he netted some good value in a trade. Would you then determine his contract good?

Why do you think there was never a chance he was going to pick up his player option? If the Nets weren't going to come to the negotiation table or were making obvious low ball offers, and if he couldn't find other suitors, why would he drop 16 million he was going to make this season to say, make half that in a low ball offer?

 

[NOMAM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Feb 20 2008, 09:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Gotta a pretty weak point there. Cause the rumors all mention pretty much crap. No? I gave an example of there other factors in the return on trades, there are others, such as direction a team wants to take in regards to build on the court, and financial structure. In financial structure, that often links with if a player is overpaid or not. Don't see the rumors that teams are leery taking on his contract?

The Nets ability to sign him to a lesser contract is not the only factor in why he is overpaid.

If you want to beleive Carter took a pay cut to play for NJ, instead of ORL to manage the luxury tax situation more power to you. To me it seems rather silly. I'm gonna go along with how he was out there, but no one wanted to sign him to such a deal.

-Petey</div>


I'm not talking about the rumors. I'm talking about WHAT IF (hypothetically) they got something of value in return and if that would change your guys opinion of Carters contract.

Anyways, another point is, I think you guys are approaching and addressing this thing wrong. It's not that Carter was overpaid, it's that the Nets couldn't get him at a BARGAIN deal with a low ball offer. You guys argue he was definately cornered into taking some low ball offer and didn't/couldn't have any other options. At 13 million this season and throughout the rest of his contract, he will be making around the same range or less than other calibre swingman in the league.

And Carter did take a pay cut with the Nets. He's making 3 million less than from if he didn't opt out of his contract. And the Nets wanted him back and resigned him.

 

[ghoti]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ Feb 20 2008, 11:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 20 2008, 01:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So you are willing to chance that another opportunity will come along to ditch his deal?

The responsible thing to do if the Nets are properly rebuilding is take the opportunity while it is there.</div>

Ghoti, his value as a player is not going to be lower than it is right now. Partly due to his own play and partly due to the now accepted wisdom that he is damaged goods, thanks to ignorant speculation by a couple of guys whose names inexplicably impart their idiotic ramblings with perceived truth, he is not ever going to bring any less than he brings now. His contract still has 3 more years of fully guaranteed money. Teams will be LESS likely to give value for him now than they will in two years, when there is only a year remaining on the deal.

Between now and then, the relationship between time left on the contract and other teams' willingness to trade for him -- all other factors remaining the same -- is more of a curve than a straight line, with interest growing rapidly toward the end. In the mean time, there are other factors that could change the shape of that graph, namely how well he plays when healthy, which we may not even know this season but which we will be closer to knowing after the break than we were before it. If he puts up 25/6/5 the rest of the way while getting to the line 7 times a game and helping the Nets to a competitive showing in the first round of the playoffs, you don't think THAT will do something for his trade value this summer?

So I repeat: where is the urgency to dump him now? Who are you going to sign between now and July of 2010 with the money he saves you? I could almost guarantee that if he doesn't suffer a catastrophic injury (knock on wood), that some team in 2 years that's close to competing for a title would be willing to make a deal for him for at least expiring contracts, maybe even with a pick included. The opportunities are going to INCREASE as time passes, not the other way around.
</div>

He may increase in value as his contract decreases if he plays at a high level - something no one can be sure of. And that scenario would be good only if they trade him when his value is high - something they have never shown the willingness to do.

However, that's all lost time and money that could have gone into the rebuilding process.

The opportunity to hit the backspace button and completely wipe out the mistake they made when they obviously (idiotically) thought they were still a "win now" team is the right thing to do if they want to construct a team that can win a championship in the future. The sooner they start, the worse the record gets and the less money tied up the better. They already have improved their young core, so the process wouldn't necessarily be long and painful. Carter would have been a nice part of it if he wasn't hanging over their heads financially.

They probably can't trade him for expiring deals right now, which is good for fans in the short term because the team will remain competitive. But his contract will continue to make an already shaky front office's job a lot harder when it didn't have to be that way.

 

[Petey]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Feb 20 2008, 11:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not talking about the rumors. I'm talking about WHAT IF (hypothetically) they got something of value in return and if that would change your guys opinion of Carters contract.</div>

I addressed this, even using a example. If a player is overpaid or not, is a factor that goes into trade value. It's not the only factor. In Carter's case it's speculated his contract hurts the return. In that case it means the contract is good or bad? Pretty simple.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Feb 20 2008, 11:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Anyways, another point is, I think you guys are approaching and addressing this thing wrong. It's not that Carter was overpaid, it's that the Nets couldn't get him at a BARGAIN deal with a low ball offer. You guys argue he was definately cornered into taking some low ball offer and didn't/couldn't have any other options. At 13 million this season and throughout the rest of his contract, he will be making around the same range or less than other calibre swingman in the league.</div>

How am I approaching it the wrong way? I thought my very first point that started this back and forth a while ago was about Thorn. If Thorn offered the max, Carter would had taken it. It's not Carter's fault Thorn offered him funny money.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Feb 20 2008, 11:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And Carter did take a pay cut with the Nets. He's making 3 million less than from if he didn't opt out of his contract. And the Nets wanted him back and resigned him.</div>

I understand he took a paycut. Pretty hard to deny that. I question how you seem to come to the conclusion he did it to help the Nets to get under the luxury tax, instead of turning a 17 Million dollar contract into one for 62 Million dollars (personal gain)?

-Petey

 

[FOMW]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 20 2008, 11:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The opportunity to hit the backspace button and completely wipe out the mistake they made when they obviously (idiotically) thought they were still a "win now" team is the right thing to do if they want to construct a team that can win a championship in the future. The sooner they start, the worse the record gets and the less money tied up the better. They already have improved their young core, so the process wouldn't necessarily be long and painful. Carter would have been a nice part of it if he wasn't hanging over their heads financially.</div>

Okay, now I get that part. We're just coming at it from different angles, as I have no interest in tanking the season.

 

[NOMAM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Feb 20 2008, 11:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I addressed this, even using a example. If a player is overpaid or not, is a factor that goes into trade value. It's not the only factor. In Carter's case it's speculated his contract hurts the return. In that case it means the contract is good or bad? Pretty simple.</div>


Just one question first. What do you think of the rumored deal where the Nets get back just expiring contracts for Vince? Do you think it's a "shitty deal" like Ghoti?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Feb 20 2008, 11:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How am I approaching it the wrong way? I thought my very first point that started this back and forth a while ago was about Thorn. If Thorn offered the max, Carter would had taken it. It's not Carter's fault Thorn offered him funny money.</div>


Well, your argument is that Carter is overpaid because you think they could have low balled him into a lower offer, right? If that's your stance, then shouldn't you be saying that you are disappointed that they didn't get Carter for a bargain price rather than saying they overpaid for him?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Feb 20 2008, 11:47 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I understand he took a paycut. Pretty hard to deny that. I question how you seem to come to the conclusion he did it to help the Nets to get under the luxury tax, instead of turning a 17 Million dollar contract into one for 62 Million dollars (personal gain)?</div>

Because Carter opted out his contract making 16 million this season and instead took 13 million? He didn't get an extension which would have kicked in after this seasons 16 million if he didn't opt out.

 

[Petey]

1) Of course I think it's a shitty deal. I'd want more. But isn't that the nature of being a fan of a team? You always want more for your team, and your team to come out on top?

But it's not 1 shitty deal I would look at to assert my opinion, but the lot of them, such as the JO offer, the assumptions of why they won't want to make such a deal. The Clippers offer last year, and so forth. When there is a pool of shitty deals, you can come to a conclusion of what the guys paid to make financial decisions think on the player, potential and financial obligations.

Still wondering if these collective offers are good or bad, not just the one. And what does if any do you think it has in terms of Carter being overpaid or not?

2) At first look I thought you are using a play on words. And yes that was part of my argument before. Now that you have me thinking about it (what would be a bargain price/what would be overpaid), he might be overpaid beyond that set of circumstances I've mentioned. If he weren't why aren't there better offers or why isn't there more interest?

3) ... look at the math. Guy traded in 3 Million to add how many dollars to his contract. I think it's pretty silly to reason the guy did it to get the Nets under the luxury tax, while it was more like a concession to get the overall dollars.

-Petey

 

[Dumpy]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Feb 20 2008, 12:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But it's not 1 shitty deal I would look at to assert my opinion, but the lot of them, such as the JO offer, the assumptions of why they won't want to make such a deal. The Clippers offer last year, and so forth. When there is a pool of shitty deals, you can come to a conclusion of what the guys paid to make financial decisions think on the player, potential and financial obligations.

Still wondering if these collective offers are good or bad, not just the one. And what does if any do you think it has in terms of Carter being overpaid or not?

2) At first look I thought you are using a play on words. And yes that was part of my argument before. Now that you have me thinking about it (what would be a bargain price/what would be overpaid), he might be overpaid beyond that set of circumstances I've mentioned. If he weren't why aren't there better offers or why isn't there more interest?</div>

I kind of disagree, but I can see how it would go in circles. Just because there are few teams that want Carter doesn't necessarily mean that he is overpaid. It's just hard to find a match for a particular veteran player in the NBA. Look at Pau, for instance, and the deals that he garnered. With a veteran player that has a long-term deal, the way things work because of the salary cap and luxury tax, only competitive teams will want a player like that. Rebuilding teams aren't interested in a veteran player that won't come off the books for a while (especially since I'm assuming that the nets would want a pick back in any deal, but maybe I'm wrong). So, let's be generous and say we're down to 20 matches now. A bunch of those teams have SGs that they are perfectly happy with. Some are superstars that get paid a lot of money. Some are stars that are paid about the same as Carter that put up similar numbers. Some are young, up-and-coming players that are stars or will soon be stars. Since Carter can really only play the SG position, there's less room for imagination. All in all, you might be down to a half-dozen possible matches, if that. AMong those half-dozen teams, some of them might be unable or unwilling to match the salary in any deal because they'd be giving up some other major part of their core and creating a different hole.

So there are really just a couple possible matches. Toronto could use a better SG but I assume they are staying away. Think about it, would Boston improve by replacing Ray Allen with Carter? Probably not. Would Philly want him? Definitely not, they are rebuilding. Would Detroit prefer him to Hamilton? Doubtful. Would Milwaukee want him instead of Redd? Atlanta, instead of Joe Johnson? Houston, instead of McGrady? San Antonio, instead of Manu?

There are definitely some possible matches, but all these teams want to improve, and no one will want to give up a primary piece. It's just really hard to make a deal in the NBA involving a high-profile veteran star (which Carter is).

I know what you're thinking: If no one wants him, then why didn't the Nets lowball him? I think they paid him the market value for a player with his skills, talents, and age. You don't want a disgruntled player on your hands, and you need to pay SOMEONE to play. Really, Carter's deal doesn't bother me, other than that it might be a year too long.

 

[Petey]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 20 2008, 01:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Feb 20 2008, 12:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But it's not 1 shitty deal I would look at to assert my opinion, but the lot of them, such as the JO offer, the assumptions of why they won't want to make such a deal. The Clippers offer last year, and so forth. When there is a pool of shitty deals, you can come to a conclusion of what the guys paid to make financial decisions think on the player, potential and financial obligations.

Still wondering if these collective offers are good or bad, not just the one. And what does if any do you think it has in terms of Carter being overpaid or not?

2) At first look I thought you are using a play on words. And yes that was part of my argument before. Now that you have me thinking about it (what would be a bargain price/what would be overpaid), he might be overpaid beyond that set of circumstances I've mentioned. If he weren't why aren't there better offers or why isn't there more interest?</div>

I kind of disagree, but I can see how it would go in circles. Just because there are few teams that want Carter doesn't necessarily mean that he is overpaid. It's just hard to find a match for a particular veteran player in the NBA. Look at Pau, for instance, and the deals that he garnered. With a veteran player that has a long-term deal, the way things work because of the salary cap and luxury tax, only competitive teams will want a player like that. Rebuilding teams aren't interested in a veteran player that won't come off the books for a while (especially since I'm assuming that the nets would want a pick back in any deal, but maybe I'm wrong). So, let's be generous and say we're down to 20 matches now. A bunch of those teams have SGs that they are perfectly happy with. Some are superstars that get paid a lot of money. Some are stars that are paid about the same as Carter that put up similar numbers. Some are young, up-and-coming players that are stars or will soon be stars. Since Carter can really only play the SG position, there's less room for imagination. All in all, you might be down to a half-dozen possible matches, if that. AMong those half-dozen teams, some of them might be unable or unwilling to match the salary in any deal because they'd be giving up some other major part of their core and creating a different hole.

So there are really just a couple possible matches. Toronto could use a better SG but I assume they are staying away. Think about it, would Boston improve by replacing Ray Allen with Carter? Probably not. Would Philly want him? Definitely not, they are rebuilding. Would Detroit prefer him to Hamilton? Doubtful. Would Milwaukee want him instead of Redd? Atlanta, instead of Joe Johnson? Houston, instead of McGrady? San Antonio, instead of Manu?

There are definitely some possible matches, but all these teams want to improve, and no one will want to give up a primary piece. It's just really hard to make a deal in the NBA involving a high-profile veteran star (which Carter is).

I know what you're thinking: If no one wants him, then why didn't the Nets lowball him? I think they paid him the market value for a player with his skills, talents, and age. You don't want a disgruntled player on your hands, and you need to pay SOMEONE to play. Really, Carter's deal doesn't bother me, other than that it might be a year too long.
</div>

I think he could play as a SF, he had previously, even with the Nets (when RJ was out). Below I'm using a quote of yours from another thread:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Here's another one. Hey, Carter has been terrible this year, right? How many NBA players are averaging 20.0 points, 42.5% shooting from the field, 4.5 rebounds, and 4.0 assists?

Answer: SEVEN (Dirk, Caron, Manu, LeBron, Kobe, Pierce, and Vince). With 5.6 rebounds and 5.2 assists per game, Vince doesn't just make the cutoff, either. [Note, the shooting percentage limit just serves to eliminate Baron Davis from this group] Of those seven, Vince is roughly tied with LeBron for the best assist-to-turnover ratio.

And this is a terrible year for him! He is hurt! Playing in an offense where he is not the primary focus! Does everyone forget just how valuable he is when healthy?</div>

Of these 7 guys, which do you think would yield offers of expiring deals, or have offers of JO (who is injuried) turn down? Of these guys who many do you think are rumored to be shopped? Why? I see a name there that asked for a trade, & the GM did everything in his power to make sure it didn't happen.

Then in the response above to my post you listed a bunch of teams that won't want him to replace their SG/SF. Talking about a 20/5/5 guy on bum wheels. Are people that short sighted when a good deal can be had?

When you get back low ball offers, getting offers turned down, with that type of production, it's telling me teams are worried about the financial obligation.

-Petey

 

[NOMAM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Feb 20 2008, 12:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1) Of course I think it's a shitty deal. I'd want more. But isn't that the nature of being a fan of a team? You always want more for your team, and your team to come out on top?

But it's not 1 shitty deal I would look at to assert my opinion, but the lot of them, such as the JO offer, the assumptions of why they won't want to make such a deal. The Clippers offer last year, and so forth. When there is a pool of shitty deals, you can come to a conclusion of what the guys paid to make financial decisions think on the player, potential and financial obligations.

Still wondering if these collective offers are good or bad, not just the one. And what does if any do you think it has in terms of Carter being overpaid or not?

2) At first look I thought you are using a play on words. And yes that was part of my argument before. Now that you have me thinking about it (what would be a bargain price/what would be overpaid), he might be overpaid beyond that set of circumstances I've mentioned. If he weren't why aren't there better offers or why isn't there more interest?

3) ... look at the math. Guy traded in 3 Million to add how many dollars to his contract. I think it's pretty silly to reason the guy did it to get the Nets under the luxury tax, while it was more like a concession to get the overall dollars.

-Petey</div>

1) So you think it's a shitty deal and would want more, but at the same time you guys have been howling on and on about Carter being overpaid, what an albatross his contract is, etc etc. and all that stuff. This doesn't make any sense. If you think all that stuff about Carter and his contract and an opportunity comes to dump it for expiring's and wipe the slate clean, how are you not jumping off the walls here proclaiming what a great deal it is? Shouldn't you be thinking the Nets are coming out on top for dumping such a contract especially when you guys seem to be in favour of going into full rebuild mode?

2) I don't get what you're saying here. The whole argument about Carter being overpaid because they didn't low ball him into a smaller contract doesn't make sense to begin with. The people who use it normally say it doesn't have to do with Carter production on the court (because I'll just point out he's the same caliber as other star swingmen in the league), but rather has to do with Carter supposedly being cornered into taking a lower offer which would mean people were looking to get him at a bargain, yet they keep saying he's overpaid. Uh? Explain that to me.

3) If he didn't opt out of his contract and the Nets gave him an extension deal then he would be making about 16 million this season rather than 13 million which then would be followed by whatever the extensions amount was. Look at Paul Pierce's contract. He's making 16.3 million this season from the last year of the contract he signed back several years ago. Then his new extension kicks in next year at 18 million and ends in 10/11 at 21.5m. Carter makes 3 million less than that this season and in 10/11 he makes 17.3 million. In 11/12 there is a team option.

 

[Petey]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Feb 20 2008, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1) So you think it's a shitty deal and would want more, but at the same time you guys have been howling on and on about Carter being overpaid, what an albatross his contract is, etc etc. and all that stuff. This doesn't make any sense. If you think all that stuff about Carter and his contract and an opportunity comes to dump it for expiring's and wipe the slate clean, how are you not jumping off the walls here proclaiming what a great deal it is? Shouldn't you be thinking the Nets are coming out on top for dumping such a contract especially when you guys seem to be in favour of going into full rebuild mode?</div>

When you root for a team, who won't want to give up less to get more? It's the greedy nature of people, me included. I wanted the Nets to get more for Kidd, KMart, Kittles. I want the Nets to pay less for them all. As mentioned the financial obligation on a player is not the only thing that is reflective of their trade value.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Feb 20 2008, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>2) I don't get what you're saying here. The whole argument about Carter being overpaid because they didn't low ball him into a smaller contract doesn't make sense to begin with. The people who use it normally say it doesn't have to do with Carter production on the court (because I'll just point out he's the same caliber as other star swingmen in the league), but rather has to do with Carter supposedly being cornered into taking a lower offer which would mean people were looking to get him at a bargain, yet they keep saying he's overpaid. Uh? Explain that to me.</div>

I agreed. You made a good point. I had amended to how it appears he was overpaid regardless of how his negations played out.

I think there are differences between the 2. One of Value/Cost compared to market value. Just because you pay market value for something, that doesn't mean it has to be a good/fair deal.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Feb 20 2008, 01:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>3) If he didn't opt out of his contract and the Nets gave him an extension deal then he would be making about 16 million this season rather than 13 million which then would be followed by whatever the extensions amount was. Look at Paul Pierce's contract. He's making 16.3 million this season from the last year of the contract he signed back several years ago. Then his new extension kicks in next year at 18 million and ends in 10/11 at 21.5m. Carter makes 3 million less than that this season and in 10/11 he makes 17.3 million. In 11/12 there is a team option.</div>

I see the math. Did you see the math I used? 1 year deal turns into a multi year deal. Loop off 3 Million now to recoup how much later?

You're response doesn't answer how you came to the assumption it was to save the Nets on the luxury tax vs. that is what the Nets were foolish enough to offer or to only negotiate to.

-Petey

 

[NOMAM]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Feb 20 2008, 02:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When you root for a team, who won't want to give up less to get more? It's the greedy nature of people, me included. I wanted the Nets to get more for Kidd, KMart, Kittles. I want the Nets to pay less for them all. As mentioned the financial obligation on a player is not the only thing that is reflective of their trade value.</div>


But wouldn't getting expiring contracts for Carter be coming out on top of the deal considering all the torture some people here go through having him on the Nets pay roll? Like I said, you guys who are saying all that stuff about him being overpaid should be jumping off the walls with that rumored deal of expiring contracts.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Feb 20 2008, 02:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I see the math. Did you see the math I used? 1 year deal turns into a multi year deal. Loop off 3 Million now to recoup how much later?

You're response doesn't answer how you came to the assumption it was to save the Nets on the luxury tax vs. that is what the Nets were foolish enough to offer or to only negotiate to.

-Petey</div>

In discussing this point, it's not about the Nets deciding whether to resign Carter or not but rather how to resign him and for how much. Should they have extended his contract like Boston did with Pierce? That means Carter would be making 16 million this season and that would make the luxury situation difficult for the Nets. Instead, Carter opted out of his contract and took 3 million less this season.

 

[Petey]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Feb 20 2008, 03:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Feb 20 2008, 02:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When you root for a team, who won't want to give up less to get more? It's the greedy nature of people, me included. I wanted the Nets to get more for Kidd, KMart, Kittles. I want the Nets to pay less for them all. As mentioned the financial obligation on a player is not the only thing that is reflective of their trade value.</div>

But wouldn't getting expiring contracts for Carter be coming out on top of the deal considering all the torture some people here go through having him on the Nets pay roll? Like I said, you guys who are saying all that stuff about him being overpaid should be jumping off the walls with that rumored deal of expiring contracts.</div>

Does my previous reply not answer this? As a fan of the Nets I want them to get more, pay less in every transaction. As good as a deal Thorn made for Kidd and Carter, don't think some out there wanted to give up even less? I'm included in that group. As good as a deal is, I'd still want the Nets to come out way up.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Feb 20 2008, 03:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Feb 20 2008, 02:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I see the math. Did you see the math I used? 1 year deal turns into a multi year deal. Loop off 3 Million now to recoup how much later?

You're response doesn't answer how you came to the assumption it was to save the Nets on the luxury tax vs. that is what the Nets were foolish enough to offer or to only negotiate to.

-Petey</div>

In discussing this point, it's not about the Nets deciding whether to resign Carter or not but rather how to resign him and for how much. Should they have extended his contract like Boston did with Pierce? That means Carter would be making 16 million this season and that would make the luxury situation difficult for the Nets. Instead, Carter opted out of his contract and took 3 million less this season.
</div>

I understand that point. You seem to float around my question of you think Carter did it to save the Nets money (potential luxury taxes), or for his own personal gains of a higher payout over time (security).

-Petey

 

[pegs]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Feb 20 2008, 01:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 20 2008, 01:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Feb 20 2008, 12:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>But it's not 1 shitty deal I would look at to assert my opinion, but the lot of them, such as the JO offer, the assumptions of why they won't want to make such a deal. The Clippers offer last year, and so forth. When there is a pool of shitty deals, you can come to a conclusion of what the guys paid to make financial decisions think on the player, potential and financial obligations.

Still wondering if these collective offers are good or bad, not just the one. And what does if any do you think it has in terms of Carter being overpaid or not?

2) At first look I thought you are using a play on words. And yes that was part of my argument before. Now that you have me thinking about it (what would be a bargain price/what would be overpaid), he might be overpaid beyond that set of circumstances I've mentioned. If he weren't why aren't there better offers or why isn't there more interest?</div>

I kind of disagree, but I can see how it would go in circles. Just because there are few teams that want Carter doesn't necessarily mean that he is overpaid. It's just hard to find a match for a particular veteran player in the NBA. Look at Pau, for instance, and the deals that he garnered. With a veteran player that has a long-term deal, the way things work because of the salary cap and luxury tax, only competitive teams will want a player like that. Rebuilding teams aren't interested in a veteran player that won't come off the books for a while (especially since I'm assuming that the nets would want a pick back in any deal, but maybe I'm wrong). So, let's be generous and say we're down to 20 matches now. A bunch of those teams have SGs that they are perfectly happy with. Some are superstars that get paid a lot of money. Some are stars that are paid about the same as Carter that put up similar numbers. Some are young, up-and-coming players that are stars or will soon be stars. Since Carter can really only play the SG position, there's less room for imagination. All in all, you might be down to a half-dozen possible matches, if that. AMong those half-dozen teams, some of them might be unable or unwilling to match the salary in any deal because they'd be giving up some other major part of their core and creating a different hole.

So there are really just a couple possible matches. Toronto could use a better SG but I assume they are staying away. Think about it, would Boston improve by replacing Ray Allen with Carter? Probably not. Would Philly want him? Definitely not, they are rebuilding. Would Detroit prefer him to Hamilton? Doubtful. Would Milwaukee want him instead of Redd? Atlanta, instead of Joe Johnson? Houston, instead of McGrady? San Antonio, instead of Manu?

There are definitely some possible matches, but all these teams want to improve, and no one will want to give up a primary piece. It's just really hard to make a deal in the NBA involving a high-profile veteran star (which Carter is).

I know what you're thinking: If no one wants him, then why didn't the Nets lowball him? I think they paid him the market value for a player with his skills, talents, and age. You don't want a disgruntled player on your hands, and you need to pay SOMEONE to play. Really, Carter's deal doesn't bother me, other than that it might be a year too long.
</div>

I think he could play as a SF, he had previously, even with the Nets (when RJ was out). Below I'm using a quote of yours from another thread:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Here's another one. Hey, Carter has been terrible this year, right? How many NBA players are averaging 20.0 points, 42.5% shooting from the field, 4.5 rebounds, and 4.0 assists?

Answer: SEVEN (Dirk, Caron, Manu, LeBron, Kobe, Pierce, and Vince). With 5.6 rebounds and 5.2 assists per game, Vince doesn't just make the cutoff, either. [Note, the shooting percentage limit just serves to eliminate Baron Davis from this group] Of those seven, Vince is roughly tied with LeBron for the best assist-to-turnover ratio.

And this is a terrible year for him! He is hurt! Playing in an offense where he is not the primary focus! Does everyone forget just how valuable he is when healthy?</div>

Of these 7 guys, which do you think would yield offers of expiring deals, or have offers of JO (who is injuried) turn down? Of these guys who many do you think are rumored to be shopped? Why? I see a name there that asked for a trade, & the GM did everything in his power to make sure it didn't happen.

-Petey


</div>


Sorry to nitpick...but I see 2

 

[Dumpy]

Caron is currently rumoured to be shopped, and LeBron doesn't count as he is on a rookie contract. Dirk and Manu are on legitimate contenders, and so there's little reason for them to ask for a trade or be traded.

 

[Petey]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Dumpy @ Feb 20 2008, 04:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Caron is currently rumoured to be shopped, and LeBron doesn't count as he is on a rookie contract. Dirk and Manu are on legitimate contenders, and so there's little reason for them to ask for a trade or be traded.</div>

Caron is being shopped or the rumor is the Lakers made/are after him?

-Petey