Take a chance on Vince Carter?

Filling the shooting guard hole will be an important topic until it's filled, and though it would rip out some part of a vital organ to take him, Vince Carter is worth considering if bought out.

Okay, I considered it. Nope.

In theory, Vince Carter could help with shot creation, ball handling, and shooting. I think even at this stage of his career that he's not a player a team would leave alone to double team someone else. That alone would make him somewhat useful.

However, Vince was always a suspicious effort guy and his declining physical abilities combined with questionable motivational ones leave his defense somewhere between train wreck and gauging out your eyes with a spoon to avoid watching it.

On top of some league worst caliber defense, Carter's offense disappears in the clutch. He becomes a sub 40% fade away jumpshot heaver which isn't helping anyone's offense. On top of all of that, he lost the explosiveness he used to rely on and has declined considerably with age.

Don't expect it to get any better this year as he turns 35.

Even at the minimum I'm unconvinced of Carter as a solution. He's a career quitter, career whiner, career lazy defender, and sets a terrible example for everyone else. His skills make him worth dealing with at one million a year, but he'll put in about 1/10th the effort of anyone else you sign at that price.

Quite frankly, he'll be a mental drag on the locker room possibly disrupting the energy and play of the rest of the team which easily outweighs any productivity he adds.

The idea isn't completely without appeal though. I would like his skills for the second unit, and it'd be nice to have a guy to throw into games to score some points when the offense is stalling. The team lacks all around offensive players, and Carter can drive, shoot, handle, and post up some.

Unfortunately, those skills come in a package with no other redeeming qualities. There's no way in hell he can play against the Miami Heat while LeBron and Wade are on the floor at once, the defensive liability is too great. In general, he's a horrific clutch player as well, so whatever you get from his skills is in the less important minutes.

In the end, there's simply no reason to take a chance on a guy who can hurt the entire team vibe to enhance the bench scoring some.

With Vince Carter the downside risk simply outweighs the upside potential even on the cheap.



Leave a comment
  • I agree we don't want to guy like Vince Carter, but I would have taken a chance on TMac who was begging to play with the Bulls last year to prove himself! If we do take a chance on a character risk I think it should be JR Smith or OJ Mayo. We desperately need a SG that can score some points to take pressure off of DRose!

  • In reply to smiley:

    I'd probably rather take Carter than TMac, but I wasn't a fan of either. McGrady helped lead an insurrection in his single season in Detroit and came into camp here saying he wanted to be a starter.

  • I think Vince Carter is probably a "mis-cast" player on most of his teams. He was supposed to be the #1 option on offense(even in Orlando with Howard being the defensive anchor) everywhere. That he is not.. He is not a bad guy from what I have read. He seems articulate and actually a nice guy. He is not a clutch player(proven) but he is coming here in a different role unlike Toronto, NJ, Orlando.

    He can be a complementary player who lights it up on offense in the first three quarters and an occasional fourth quarter giving rest to Rose on offense. One of the big problems was Rose being tired in the 4th quarter because he did so much in the first 3 quarters on offense. The Bulls have to take a risk like Mayo/JR Smith/Jason Richardson as the primary SG and somebody like Vince Carter as the second SG.

  • In reply to schaumburgfan:

    When did Vince Carter prove he was clutch? I must have missed that point, because I think a huge part of his legend is how spectacularly unclutch he is.

  • In reply to DougThonus:

    Doug....I didn't say he was clutch. I said he is not going to come to the Bulls as a clutch player and it has been proven that he is not a clutch player.

  • In reply to DougThonus:

    Throughout most of his career the guy has been clutch (youtube his game winners - he has many). According to 82games.com, From 2003-2009, VC was the second most efficient player when the game was on the line - defined as “24 seconds or less left in the game, team with the ball is either tied or down by 1 to 2 points.” In that scenario VC hit 16 game winner/tiers (31.4% FG). Behind Vince: Ray Allen with 15 (38.5% FG), and Kobe with 14 (25% FG). The only person who was more clutch from 2003-2009 was James with 17 makes (one more than Vince).

  • I'll tell you guys one thing, if the new labor deal is a hard cap, VC will be our best option.

    With a hard cap the Bulls have no money to spend. That immediately takes us out of the J-Rich/J-Smith sweepstakes.

    The Bulls have proven to be unwilling to part with Taj or Omer, so forget a trade for a SG.

    VC will come at the minimum, in my opinion, and as a 4th option who can still create a little, post up and hit a 3, he is our best option under those circumstances.

    Boozer and Carter on the floor together MIGHT force Thibs into early retirement. LOL

  • In reply to Dajody1:

    In a hard cap, Vince Carter or Michael Redd might be our options that's for sure.

  • Doug hit the nail on the head on this one/agree completely. Yeah come to think of it we do need a pouting shell who quits when his team falls behind as a big time front runner. Vince likes to pick on./saves his big games largely for down and out teams like the Bulls were for much of his career - easy pickings, that's Vince. He had some great years, but he is another McGrady with a little more tread on the tires, but for some time the same winning cancer. I will say if he brought the same diminished "package" with a positive presence I would sell out all my skills/performance comments/instincts if we could get him for a one or two year deal at $2-3 Mil. But he's not that presence so I'd definitely have to pass.

    Side note: somebody responded about my view that as a terrific scorer Derrick is hampered at the PG spot which avails him into instant, easy double teams. I compared Michael when he handled the ball attemtping to be a scorer from the PG spot which they didn't do much at all because it hampered him/made him too easy to defend. When he did act as point he was looking to get others involved. They always had a slew of token PG's(Sam Vincent, Rory Sparrow, even John Paxson) who could score/shoot some but yet handle the ball up court, and dish to him when he was looking to score.(try actually watching the games as I've been doing recently). In my view Derrick would be unleashed attacking from the two instead of the walking into doubles PG spot.

  • In reply to RoadWarrior:

    I don't think whether Rose brings the ball up or not is that important. We've seen the Bulls struggle to get the ball into Rose at times when they get it to someone else, so clearly we need a better perimeter threat who can help things out with the creation to help with the off the ball doubles.

  • You mean that he is the Carlos Boozer of shooting guards.

  • I'd probably prefer the Bulls take a chance on Michael Redd, it should be a fairly cheap shot to take.

Leave a comment