Sheed or Carter

[Brendan]

top15 player is too hard, I'd go with top 3 at position.

I think Carter and Pierce are a lot closer than we like to give credit for. Let's play hypothetical ball - if the Garnett trade gets beat out by a PHO trade, and the C's end up running a Perk, Jefferson, Pierce, Ray Allen, Rondo team on the floor for a couple years. Pierce gets fed up and opts out at end of 2010 and tries to jump on to some other winning team (like Carter in ORL this year) - I could easily see people saying the same things around the league about Pierce not being a winner.

That being said - I'd take a melancholy Center over a soft wing any day. (That's what you cannot say about Pierce - teeth knocked out came back, stabbed nearly to death - deosn't miss a game. I'd guess Carter more of a gamer than people realize, and just not as good as a shooter (and relies more on athleticism than Pierce) so he can't/doesn't get by as well when injured.

Interestingly enough a few years back (like 2005 or so) 82 games had Pierce and Carter as two of the best defensive players by their analysis, despite bad defensive reps.

I guess I cut Carter more slack than most, but I'd still prefer the guy who is lazy in the season, but gets it one for the post season versus the guy who just might or might not show up.

[wdleehi]

top15 player is too hard, I'd go with top 3 at position.

I think Carter and Pierce are a lot closer than we like to give credit for. Let's play hypothetical ball - if the Garnett trade gets beat out by a PHO trade, and the C's end up running a Perk, Jefferson, Pierce, Ray Allen, Rondo team on the floor for a couple years. Pierce gets fed up and opts out at end of 2010 and tries to jump on to some other winning team (like Carter in ORL this year) - I could easily see people saying the same things around the league about Pierce not being a winner.

That being said - I'd take a melancholy Center over a soft wing any day. (That's what you cannot say about Pierce - teeth knocked out came back, stabbed nearly to death - deosn't miss a game. I'd guess Carter more of a gamer than people realize, and just not as good as a shooter (and relies more on athleticism than Pierce) so he can't/doesn't get by as well when injured.

Interestingly enough a few years back (like 2005 or so) 82 games had Pierce and Carter as two of the best defensive players by their analysis, despite bad defensive reps.

I guess I cut Carter more slack than most, but I'd still prefer the guy who is lazy in the season, but gets it one for the post season versus the guy who just might or might not show up.

Pierce has stepped up more then Carter.


Pierce has gone further in the playoffs before KG then Carter did before Howard. 




Pierce is a better player. 



Carter has physical tools.  He doesn't seem to play up to those levels.

[soap07]

Yet on those deep teams, it was said over and over, the team went the way Wallace went.


When NBA big men talked, they put him in the same level as KG, Duncan and Webber.

He was the guy players loved to play with. 


Remember in Portland, he wasn't the issue.  There were a ton of other players that were issues on and off the court.

A. Are we really going to claim that Rasheed wasn't part of the problem with the Jailblazers?
B. Those players that put Sheed on the same level as KG, Duncan and Webber were wrong. Since when do we base our opinions on that? Shaq once said that Iverson is a top five player all time. Would you put Sheed on the same level as those three back in Portland? Keeping in mind that KG once averaged 26, 13 and 6. Keeping in mind that Duncan and KG are former MVPs.
 

He was the guy players loved to play with. 

Who cares? What does that have to do with anything? It doesn't mean that Rasheed had anywhere close to the career as Carter.

[soap07]

I don't know what playoffs you have been watching, but Rasheed Wallace isn't riding on the backs of any of the Celtics.

Sure he sucked in the regular season, but he if plays like this in the Finals and we win a ring, he has earned every dollar of his salary for this year.

You can tell you are just biased and hateful against Sheed in this post.

Well then. He was terrible against the Heat. Terrible in the regular season. He had a couple great games against the Cavs - other games, he was just okay, but he didn't have to be much better than that because....he played how much? He had six fouls to use and used them well because he's a 7th-8th man.

Against Orlando, he played especially well about half the series. He helped cost us Game 4 with another stupid T and terrible shot selection.

If the standard we're holding him to in the playoffs is not a complete liability on the court, then Sheed has fit that to a T (while receiving Ts too).

If the C's win against the Lakers, of course Sheed deserves some credit. He was a role player that contributed. But let's be clear - that the C's win this year with or without Rasheed Wallace.

That doesn't have to do with the fact that Vince has had a much better career.

[wdleehi]

I don't know what playoffs you have been watching, but Rasheed Wallace isn't riding on the backs of any of the Celtics.

Sure he sucked in the regular season, but he if plays like this in the Finals and we win a ring, he has earned every dollar of his salary for this year.

You can tell you are just biased and hateful against Sheed in this post.

Well then. He was terrible against the Heat. Terrible in the regular season. He had a couple great games against the Cavs - other games, he was just okay, but he didn't have to be much better than that because....he played how much? He had six fouls to use and used them well because he's a 7th-8th man.

Against Orlando, he played especially well about half the series. He helped cost us Game 4 with another stupid T and terrible shot selection.

If the standard we're holding him to in the playoffs is not a complete liability on the court, then Sheed has fit that to a T (while receiving Ts too).

If the C's win against the Lakers, of course Sheed deserves some credit. He was a role player that contributed. But let's be clear - that the C's win this year with or without Rasheed Wallace.

That doesn't have to do with the fact that Vince has had a much better career.

What has Vince done that is so great? 


Score a lot of points?   A lot of guys did that.


Win a slam dunk contest?  So did Gerald Green.


Join teams that had been to the final, but never make it to the final?  (well, that's a yes)

[soap07]

What has Vince done that is so great? 


Score a lot of points?   A lot of guys did that.


Win a slam dunk contest?  So did Gerald Green.


Join teams that had been to the final, but never make it to the final?  (well, that's a yes)

Are we discussing Vince's credentials for the HOF or whether his career is better than Sheed's? Those are two separate discussions. Is Vince considered a "great" player in my eyes? No. But a better career than Rasheed? Unequivocally yes.

And score a lot of points...well actually, find me "a lot of guys' who averaged 23,5,4 over an 11 year career please. I'm interested in how many of those guys didn't have a better career than Sheed.

Apparently, it's very easy to make All-NBA teams. So easy that Rasheed Wallace has...never done it.

[snively]

Carter's skill level is on par with Kobe's, but he never had that manic overdrive mode to get the most out of himself on both ends of the court.  A very disappointing year from him in his best chance to max out his impressive body of skills. 

[Who]

Sheed ...

Vince Carter was the more talented player and had the higher peak but he wasted too away too much of his career on his lousy teams. Rasheed Wallace played a major role on playoff teams for most of his career and won a title.

[Who]

A very disappointing year from him in his best chance to max out his impressive body of skills. 

I have no issues with Carter's performance this season.

The body can't do what the body can't do ... he just got old.

[BballTim]

Both had 5-6 years of being top 15 players in the league. 

  No, they didn't.

Carter from 2000 until at 2004 and from 2005 until 2007 was.  And Wallace from 2000 until his first year or 2 with the Pistons.  Maybe I should have said "arguably".

  Arguably would have helped, so would "top 25".

[ibby]

Both had 5-6 years of being top 15 players in the league. 

  No, they didn't.

Carter from 2000 until at 2004 and from 2005 until 2007 was.  And Wallace from 2000 until his first year or 2 with the Pistons.  Maybe I should have said "arguably".

  Arguably would have helped, so would "top 25".

Fair enough