<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ Apr 15 2008, 03:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (The Joker @ Apr 15 2008, 02:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>He was NEVER as good as you think he was</div> Are you on crack? Stick to your love for Vince Carter. Go on and pretend that he actually did something significant in his career, or that he's the same great player he never was. </div> No, but sobriety has a wonderful way of exposing those who have been inebriated on the Kidd coolaid around these parts. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the Nets' failures these last 5 years are any less an indictment of his limitations as a player and leader than they are an indicment of Carter's for the last 3.5. </div> They are an indictment of the front office for building such a poorly structured team.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ Apr 15 2008, 03:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Apr 15 2008, 02:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>pretty stats <> wins Sublimating one's self for the good of the team = wins</div> Yes, and the Nets would have been SOOOOO much better off if Vince drove less, got to the foul line less, and sacrificed his offense for the sake of . . . of . . . of Josh Boone or Nenad Krstic or Richard Jefferson, or, better yet, Jason Kidd and Boki Nachbar! Think how much more scintillating their offense would have been if Vince had just "sublimated himself" so Jason and Boki could jack more 3s! </div> Sublimating one's self for the team is not simply limited to reducing one's role in the offense. Besides, in Vince's case, driving more would be an example of sublimating himself, not driving less. The perimeter defense has sucked the last few seasons because both Kidd and Vince didn't give their all.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Apr 15 2008, 01:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Apr 15 2008, 01:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Apr 15 2008, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You want to go back in time and have your GM sign Vince Carter for 13M instead? This is the exact point. Wasting time dicking around looking for bargains when you have a superstar player ready to win is stupid. If you identify a player who makes your team significantly better you don't hesitate. You pay what it takes. And I find it hilarious that a bunch of Nets fans feel comfortable criticizing that move when it so clearly worked and their GM failed them so miserably by being a pussy and never showing that kind of urgency. And you are right that Otis isn't done. Orlando is a hot spot for free agents and I'm sure veterans who receive buyouts would be very interested in going there (with the sun and no income tax) as long as they have a shot at winning.</div> Let's be somewhat realistic here Ghoti. Thorn never had the dominant bigman like Howard to build around and he didn't have the cap space to play the free agent market the same way. </div> He had Jason Kidd, who wasted away here because Thorn showed no urgency to win. The Nets should have been a title contender every season. Kidd held up until he was 34. That's longer than anyone had a right to expect. You can't play it cautious like Thorn did when the clock is running. Smith understands that. He's doing it right. </div> Smith had the luxury of his best player Howard being on a rookie contract and cap space. Kidd made a ton of money and the Nets never had the cap space to play the free agent market. Totally different situations. Not saying he couldn't have done better, but you can noway compare the two scenarios.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Balla 15 @ Apr 15 2008, 03:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not one to bring stats into an argument for the sake of bringing them in because I know there's many players around the league that put up good numbers on bad teams. While at the same time their are players who sacrifice personal accolades to have success. But can you honestly expect me to take someone's opinion seriously when he's calling Vince soft and the player he's defending is way softer? Am I to believe that if Rashard was on a losing team that he would be attempting less threes and getting to the line more? Possibly more FT's but probably even more 3's because he would get the ball more. Lets be honest though, if someone is going to call Vince soft while defending Rashard Lewis he needs to be called out.</div> For comparison sake, Lewis is averaging 0.4 more 3 attempts per game this season on 2.7 less FGA (so he is taking a much higher % of 3's) and Lewis is averaging 2.1 less FTA per game than last season. Those are pretty significant changes to a player's game, especially one that had tons of pressure on their shoulders after being the big, expensive, free agent acquisition. As for the soft label, lets face it, Vince has an image/perception problem among people that aren't fans of his.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Netted @ Apr 15 2008, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Smith had the luxury of his best player Howard being on a rookie contract and cap space. Kidd made a ton of money and the Nets never had the cap space to play the free agent market. Totally different situations. Not saying he couldn't have done better, but you can noway compare the two scenarios.</div> Well, you have to give credit for creating the cap space. Steve Francis could still be on the Magic books as a cap killer.
Look at the individual talent on the Magic. Are there even five teams with less impressive rosters on paper? They win because they are superbly constructed.
Part of that construction is that they have three 6'10" players who can hit contested threes consistantly. Saying that is bad somehow just makes one look clueless, especially since the team had such a good season.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Apr 15 2008, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sublimating one's self for the team is not simply limited to reducing one's role in the offense. Besides, in Vince's case, driving more would be an example of sublimating himself, not driving less.</div> Easy for you to say when you're not the guy having to confront 3 defenders every time you put the ball on the floor because neither your point guard nor your center have to be guarded. Vince has driven plenty enough these last few years. The problem was there weren't shooters or mobile, savvy big men that could create passing angles to capitalize on the defensive collapses.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Apr 15 2008, 04:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Look at the individual talent on the Magic. Are there even five teams with less impressive rosters on paper? They win because they are superbly constructed.</div> Calling them superbly constructed is too much. They have major pieces that fit together and a damn good head coach that allows them to play to their strengths. I'd like to see what Frank could do with pieces that fit together.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (FOMW @ Apr 15 2008, 04:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Apr 15 2008, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Sublimating one's self for the team is not simply limited to reducing one's role in the offense. Besides, in Vince's case, driving more would be an example of sublimating himself, not driving less.</div> Easy for you to say when you're not the guy having to confront 3 defenders every time you put the ball on the floor because neither your point guard nor your center have to be guarded. Vince has driven plenty enough these last few years. The problem was there weren't shooters or mobile, savvy big men that could create passing angles to capitalize on the defensive collapses. </div> I'm not one that complains about Vince's driving. Vince is Vince, you get what you get. I was simply pointing out the more/less sublimating/not situation.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Apr 15 2008, 04:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Part of that construction is that they have three 6'10" players who can hit contested threes consistantly. Saying that is bad somehow just makes one look clueless, especially since the team had such a good season.</div> Cook isn't 6'10"
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Apr 15 2008, 04:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think they are superbly constructed considering they are not nearly finished with the roster.</div> That is like saying I think that is a superb circle considering it is an oval
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Apr 15 2008, 04:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Apr 15 2008, 04:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Look at the individual talent on the Magic. Are there even five teams with less impressive rosters on paper? They win because they are superbly constructed.</div> Calling them superbly constructed is too much. They have major pieces that fit together and a damn good head coach that allows them to play to their strengths. I'd like to see what Frank could do with pieces that fit together. </div> No offense to Frank, and not trying to bring him down, but Van Gundy >> Frank. Much better coach.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Apr 15 2008, 04:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Part of that construction is that they have three 6'10" players who can hit contested threes consistantly. Saying that is bad somehow just makes one look clueless, especially since the team had such a good season.</div> First off the system won't work without Dwight. Dwight gives them a presence on both ends, and they wouldn't get nearly as many open looks without him. Having Rashard Lewis isn't a bad thing, however his contract is bad. He is not a superstar, and doesn't deserve a superstar contract.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (pegs @ Apr 15 2008, 04:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Apr 15 2008, 04:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Apr 15 2008, 04:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Look at the individual talent on the Magic. Are there even five teams with less impressive rosters on paper? They win because they are superbly constructed.</div> Calling them superbly constructed is too much. They have major pieces that fit together and a damn good head coach that allows them to play to their strengths. I'd like to see what Frank could do with pieces that fit together. </div> No offense to Frank, and not trying to bring him down, but Van Gundy >> Frank. Much better coach. </div> Stan has an advantage in that he develops a system that adapts to his players, but Frank did some damn fine coaching when he took over the Nets and was stuck with a one leg Jason Kidd.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Lavalamp @ Apr 15 2008, 04:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Apr 15 2008, 04:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Part of that construction is that they have three 6'10" players who can hit contested threes consistantly. Saying that is bad somehow just makes one look clueless, especially since the team had such a good season.</div> First off the system won't work without Dwight. Dwight gives them a presence on both ends, and they wouldn't get nearly as many open looks without him. Having Rashard Lewis isn't a bad thing, however his contract is bad. He is not a superstar, and doesn't deserve a superstar contract. </div> The system was designed to work with the pieces on the roster. Then Smith improved the roster by trading a piece that didn't fit for pieces that didn't fit the Lakers.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ghoti @ Apr 15 2008, 04:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I think they are superbly constructed considering they are not nearly finished with the roster.</div> I think you take Howard off that team and it's very mediocre. They have no backcourt. I'm not a Nelson fan. They got lucky and drafted one of the most dominant big men in the game today. It's much easier to build a team around a dominant low post big that you draft than any other way. Unfortunately you probably only see 1 or 2 players like that every 3 years. Now the Lakers, Spurs, Celtics, Pistons, Jazz, and Hornets are all well constructed. Orlando has potential to be as good as them, but those complimentary players that round out the roster are going to be the hard part. Will they run into the same issues that crippled the Nets in about 2 or 3 years (overpaid players, outdated arena with low revenue, key injuries)? You never know.
Yea, I agree Netted. I think you take off Dwight Howard and you have a team that doesn't make the playoffs. Similar to Seattle with Rashard + Ray Allen, except Turkoglu isn't as good as Ray Allen.
