*edited* Salmons is shooting better than Carter from three this season. Salmons SMOKES Carter on defense, something that's kind of important in San Antonio. And, yup, Salmons is only averaging two less points than Carter this year. He fits with the Spurs ten times better than Vincey does. You are clearly not equipped to get into a basketball argument with me, at least not until you drop the affection for Vincey and watch something other than NeTs games, because I'll destroy you every single time.
Carter doesn't seem to particularly fit or not fit the Spurs. I just think he'll benefit them by adding another very good player. His mix of excellent scoring and solid passing, rebounding and defense will just make the Spurs that much better. A Duncan/Parker/Carter attack with Ginobili off the bench would be pretty potent on offense and Carter wouldn't hurt them on defense. If the Spurs pulled off this deal, they might actually become the favourites in the Western playoffs, especially if Bynum can't recover in time.
Carter 'doesn't hurt' (in your words) on defense. Salmons HELPS on defense, a lot. Not to mention, Salmons won't cost Mason, Hill, and Bowen, all three of which are critical parts of the Spurs' supporting cast.
Vince is great, but he and Manu can not play the 2 or 3, they are ONLY 2's. I would be very hesitant to deal away the pg of the future in Hill and their freaking clutch man in Roger Mason..it MAY work this year, but say bye bye to any sustainability.
Salmons is only shooting 2% better from 3 than Carter first of all and second Vince is the better overall player Vince:20.8 PPG 5.1 RPG 4.9 AST 1.0 SPG .4 BPG 2.02 TO Salmons:18.3 PPG 4.2 RPG 3.7 APG 1.1 SPG .2 BPG 2.30 TO and watching every Nets game this season his defense is way better than it has been in previous years.
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. If Carter were a terrible defender, I'd be a lot less positive on the deal for the Spurs. 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. 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.
Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself like this??? HEES TEH BETTR OVRAL PLAYR!! That doesn't mean shit, buddy. The Spurs don't need 'the better player', they need someone who can excel at the things that their team and their system emphasize - defense, shooting, toughness. Salmons has Carter beat in all three. Oh, so he's upgraded from shitty to average. Terrific. How about watching some other teams in the NBA, and actually get a feel for another team in the league, other than the NETS (and whether you have a real grip on them or not is pretty debatable).
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.
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. Here you may have a point, but Salmons can step right in and fill this role anyway. 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.
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
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.
*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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
