<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Feb 20 2008, 01:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Feb 20 2008, 01:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Kinda using a extreme example there with James. Of course that is a terrible deal. But to be fair no one is offering that type of package for Carter. And don't only look at what is rumored here in 2 expiring contracts, but how the Pacers are rumored to be put off for swapping him for JO, someone who is hurt. Even before the rumors I argued he was overpaid. Should had forced his hand when the teams with space burned up their $ after what he had did the season before in stalling to sign an extension. -Petey</div> First of all, I said a hypothetical trade with Carter. And, yeah, I know it was an extreme example. I used it just to make the point more clear. And the point is right in your response. That even despite trade rumors, some people have already determined he was overpaid and his contract being a mistake. I believe I've already been through this with you about Carters contract. You say he's overpaid because you keep saying the Nets had him cornered and could have low balled him. But I've already said a thousand times that wasn't the case. He had a player option. He had a player options. He had a player option. He wouldn't have opted out of the player option if he didn't have some deal in place. He wouldn't have opted out of the player option if he didn't have some deal in place. He wouldn't have opted out of the player option if he didn't have some deal in place. </div> 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!
I kind of agree with FOMW on this one. Maybe I'm discounting future teams too much, but I don't think you're going to get much out of the money you save by trading Vince for expirings right now. Maybe his contract is disproportionate to his value, but he still does have value as a player.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lukewarmplay @ Feb 20 2008, 01:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I kind of agree with FOMW on this one. Maybe I'm discounting future teams too much, but I don't think you're going to get much out of the money you save by trading Vince for expirings right now. Maybe his contract is disproportionate to his value, but he still does have value as a player.</div> 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. I want to see him play with the team, too. Maybe something not too punitive will come along in the future. Who knows? But if the chance to get out of that commitment arrives tomorrow, ithe Nets have put themselves in the horrible position of having to strongly consider doing that. It sucks for the fans, and it was completely avoidable. That's why I started a thread last week that Thorn should be fired for this contract - and that was before any Kidd deal was ever reported. Look at the damage it's already caused just six months in. It doesn't get better from here.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 20 2008, 01:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1. Yes. Obviously. Is this question rhetorical? 2. I would still think his contract is a huge blundering sinkhole of a mistake and that some fool GM has lost his mind and call for an NBA investigation. 3. I would still think James' contract is one of the funniest signings I've ever heard of and I would e-mail David Stern and Ratner every day until Thorn is brought before congress Roger Clemens-style.</div> If you base your opinion that Carter is overpaid on the returns of a trade he brings in, then how can you hold the positions you do in number 1., 2, and 3.? You say the trade rumors of expiring contracts for Carter are indicative of his bad contract. But then how can you also say he has a bad contract if, in a hypothetical trade, he brings in a big haul of assets? If you're basing the worthiness of his contract and his value on what he brings in a trade, then how can you continue to hold the position that he is overpaid in a hypothetical trade where the Nets get a lot of assets in return? I hope that makes sense because I'm starting to feel sleepy.
<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> How about they would have risked losing Carter for nothing? If they refused to come to the negotiating table, Carters side would have started more pro actively looking elsewhere, and if they found someone he would have opted out and signed with the other team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Feb 20 2008, 01:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Petey @ Feb 20 2008, 01:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Kinda using a extreme example there with James. Of course that is a terrible deal. But to be fair no one is offering that type of package for Carter. And don't only look at what is rumored here in 2 expiring contracts, but how the Pacers are rumored to be put off for swapping him for JO, someone who is hurt. Even before the rumors I argued he was overpaid. Should had forced his hand when the teams with space burned up their $$ after what he had did the season before in stalling to sign an extension. -Petey</div> First of all, I said a hypothetical trade with Carter. And, yeah, I know it was an extreme example. I used it just to make the point more clear. And the point is right in your response. That even despite trade rumors, some people have already determined he was overpaid and his contract being a mistake. I believe I've already been through this with you about Carters contract. You say he's overpaid because you keep saying the Nets had him cornered and could have low balled him. But I've already said a thousand times that wasn't the case. He had a player option. He had a player options. He had a player option. He wouldn't have opted out of the player option if he didn't have some deal in place. He wouldn't have opted out of the player option if he didn't have some deal in place. He wouldn't have opted out of the player option if he didn't have some deal in place. </div> 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, why didn't he sign an extension (like the one Kidd requested) instead of going through that whole ordeal last year? -Petey
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Feb 20 2008, 02:05 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> How about they would have risked losing Carter for nothing? If they refused to come to the negotiating table, Carters side would have started more pro actively looking elsewhere, and if they found someone he would have opted out and signed with the other team. </div> Who said anything about refusing to negotiate? And how did picking up his player option become signing with another team? And do you actually believe they only spoke to the Nets and had no idea which other teams had interest in him, if any?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Feb 20 2008, 01:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 20 2008, 01:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>1. Yes. Obviously. Is this question rhetorical? 2. I would still think his contract is a huge blundering sinkhole of a mistake and that some fool GM has lost his mind and call for an NBA investigation. 3. I would still think James' contract is one of the funniest signings I've ever heard of and I would e-mail David Stern and Ratner every day until Thorn is brought before congress Roger Clemens-style.</div> If you base your opinion that Carter is overpaid on the returns of a trade he brings in, then how can you hold the positions you do in number 1., 2, and 3.? You say the trade rumors of expiring contracts for Carter are indicative of his bad contract. But then how can you also say he has a bad contract if, in a hypothetical trade, he brings in a big haul of assets? If you're basing the worthiness of his contract and his value on what he brings in a trade, then how can you continue to hold the position that he is overpaid in a hypothetical trade where the Nets get a lot of assets in return? I hope that makes sense because I'm starting to feel sleepy. </div> What the hell are you talking about“ His contract is OK because he is worth a lot in a hypothetical trade you made up? In reality, not NOMAM-land or wherever you live, the Nets torpedoed his value. That's my position. ( I feel like this needs a smiley face or something. Eh, just pretend there's one there.)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 20 2008, 02:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>( I feel like this needs a smiley face or something. Eh, just pretend there's one there.)</div> on so many levels
<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 class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bigkallday @ Feb 19 2008, 11:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Uh u know wats funny? the nets r starting to rebuild and next yr raps will be a contender funny how the league works, and its funny how even with VC, NJ got nothing, the "big 3" lmao</div> As much as I agree with that statement, try getting outta the first round my friend then we'll talk. Remember KG and McGrady found it hard... REAL hard!
<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> Wow, they wouldn't have been able to sign Jamaal Magloire. Big loss. 1. List the teams that were interested in Carter and you believe wanted to sign him to a $62M guaranteed contract. 2. Tell me why this hypothetical trade where the Nets get this great haul for Carter is relevant. It still makes no sense to me, since it has no basis in any kind of reality.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 20 2008, 02:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Who said anything about refusing to negotiate? And how did picking up his player option become signing with another team? And do you actually believe they only spoke to the Nets and had no idea which other teams had interest in him, if any?</div> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Who said anything about refusing to negotiate?</div> The people who make the low ball argument? They argue that Carter didn't have any other options and wasn't in a position to really negotiate. How he had no leverage etc. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And how did picking up his player option become signing with another team?</div> I didn't say anything like that. I said if he found another team willing to sign him he would have opted out of his contract ans signed with the other team. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>And do you actually believe they only spoke to the Nets and had no idea which other teams had interest in him, if any?</div> I said if the Nets side didn't come to the negotiation table or were just making obvious low ball offers, Carters side would have MORE pro actively talked to other teams. But the Nets and Carter always seemed keen on getting something done together.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 20 2008, 02:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What the hell are you talking about“ His contract is OK because he is worth a lot in a hypothetical trade you made up? In reality, not NOMAM-land or wherever you live, the Nets torpedoed his value. That's my position. ( I feel like this needs a smiley face or something. Eh, just pretend there's one there.)</div> I said if you are judging that Carter is overpaid based on the returns of a trade he brings in, then WHAT IF he brought a bunch of valuable assets. Would that then make his contract overpaid?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Feb 20 2008, 02:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 20 2008, 02:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What the hell are you talking about“ His contract is OK because he is worth a lot in a hypothetical trade you made up? In reality, not NOMAM-land or wherever you live, the Nets torpedoed his value. That's my position. ( I feel like this needs a smiley face or something. Eh, just pretend there's one there.)</div> I said if you are judging that Carter is overpaid based on the returns of a trade he brings in, then WHAT IF he brought a bunch of valuable assets. Would that then make his contract overpaid? </div> 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.
Carter being overpaid has NOTHING to do with what he would return in a trade...there's absolutely no relevance of any sort.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NOMAM @ Feb 20 2008, 02:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti)</div><div class='quotemain'>And how did picking up his player option become signing with another team?</div> I didn't say anything like that. I said if he found another team willing to sign him he would have opted out of his contract ans signed with the other team. </div> 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 class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 20 2008, 01:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lukewarmplay @ Feb 20 2008, 01:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I kind of agree with FOMW on this one. Maybe I'm discounting future teams too much, but I don't think you're going to get much out of the money you save by trading Vince for expirings right now. Maybe his contract is disproportionate to his value, but he still does have value as a player.</div> 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. I want to see him play with the team, too. Maybe something not too punitive will come along in the future. Who knows? But if the chance to get out of that commitment arrives tomorrow, ithe Nets have put themselves in the horrible position of having to strongly consider doing that. It sucks for the fans, and it was completely avoidable. That's why I started a thread last week that Thorn should be fired for this contract - and that was before any Kidd deal was ever reported. Look at the damage it's already caused just six months in. It doesn't get better from here. </div> What I'm saying is it might be worth it to keep him for the whole deal, as a player who's worth, say 60% of his contract, instead of trading him for 40 cents on the dollar. I think that mixed math metaphor just broke my brain.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lukewarmplay @ Feb 20 2008, 03:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Feb 20 2008, 01:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lukewarmplay @ Feb 20 2008, 01:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I kind of agree with FOMW on this one. Maybe I'm discounting future teams too much, but I don't think you're going to get much out of the money you save by trading Vince for expirings right now. Maybe his contract is disproportionate to his value, but he still does have value as a player.</div> 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. I want to see him play with the team, too. Maybe something not too punitive will come along in the future. Who knows? But if the chance to get out of that commitment arrives tomorrow, ithe Nets have put themselves in the horrible position of having to strongly consider doing that. It sucks for the fans, and it was completely avoidable. That's why I started a thread last week that Thorn should be fired for this contract - and that was before any Kidd deal was ever reported. Look at the damage it's already caused just six months in. It doesn't get better from here. </div> What I'm saying is it might be worth it to keep him for the whole deal, as a player who's worth, say 60% of his contract, instead of trading him for 40 cents on the dollar. I think that mixed math metaphor just broke my brain. </div> Keeping players who take up huge chunks of your payroll for five years who are worth 60% of their salaries is a great way to never win anything. I realize it's possible to get lucky and still compete that way, but it would be easier to rebuild the roster correctly without that major impediment in the way. It's hard for fans to stomach that, since it means the team will really suck, which is why I have been so cranky since they screwed up with Carter. They could have rebuilt and still been competitive, which is a smart thing to do in the East. What they wound up doing wasn't smart and now we all have to suffer. It was completely forseeable.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (downunderwonder @ Feb 20 2008, 02:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bigkallday @ Feb 19 2008, 11:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Uh u know wats funny? the nets r starting to rebuild and next yr raps will be a contender funny how the league works, and its funny how even with VC, NJ got nothing, the "big 3" lmao</div> As much as I agree with that statement, try getting outta the first round my friend then we'll talk. Remember KG and McGrady found it hard... REAL hard! </div> Um...DOW...we're in the Eastern Conference now, where only 5 teams are above .500 ... Now, as much as I'd love to argue with silly Toronto fans , I'd have to say it probably won't be that easy for the Raps to get into the 2nd round (barring injury, no-knock-on-wood ). Oh, and to add to the discussion, Vince's contract sucks. Right now, I doubt we'll get anything even closely relevant to good, unless we get 1st rounders from the Knicks/Heat. And with that said, I'd rather let the season play out, and see what we could get for Vince in the offseason. I'm all for trading RJ at this point, though. I mean, if we could pull off a Portland trade in which we get Outlaw, Rodriquez/or/Jack, and some Europeans, then I'd be an extremely happy Nets fan.
