From the Star
- Thread starter ice_dog
- Start date
Y
yychobbyist
Do you maybe need to get laid? And Coach, so what if the Star has no credibility? Don't the stats kinda speak for themselves? Or are you questioning the stats?n_v said:
No I don't. But the poster and the article need to move on and quit crying over spilt milk. Carter DID NOT WANT TO PLAY IN TORONTO. Any comparison of his play to now is of no consequence. And if I was the editor I would have my reporter reprimanded for writing that.
You don't judge a trade solely on the basis of a few weeks or months. Everyone expected Carter to do very well, at least in the short term, with New Jersey. As for the stats, make sure you have all the facts before making assertions. In this case it was addition by subtraction. In the short term the Raptors' record has been much better without Wince Carter than with him, so one can make the argument that in the short term they are far better off since the trade. He was a cancer on the team, by removing the cancer and getting rid of some salary, in the long run, they will be much better off. Of course, they must use the draft picks wisely.
Since when are sports players not judged on stats? That's what the industry is all about. I think its a very relevant article. I saw it the other day. Everyone knows that the Raptors got fleeced in the deal. Yes, they needed to get rid of a cancer, but they could have got a lot better. If I'm correct, the draft picks aren't even lottery picks. We had to pay Zo $10 million just to say go away, even though he wouldn't report! How can losing $10 million be good for a franchise? I sure hope its covered by insurance. So we gave up an allstar for a disabled person, two never will be's and two draft picks (in what's not looking like a stellar draft year) who may or may not be credible NBA players. But no - the article's not relevant.
Also - how is the Star not credible? Are the stats wrong or made up? I don't understand this post. The article listed only stats, so how can you say that the Star isn't credible? This post made no sense.
Also - how is the Star not credible? Are the stats wrong or made up? I don't understand this post. The article listed only stats, so how can you say that the Star isn't credible? This post made no sense.
